Post by: Toady One on July 01, 2010, 03:08:11 am
Bug fixes are still the priority, but it's also time to start an infusion of new stuff. Adventure mode has never really been a game so much, and we've now prepared an outline of how we think that can be changed. For dwarf mode, we've incorporated many of the eternal suggestion voting items as well as the military changes we've been (very slowly) trying to get to over the last few years. The bulk of the new page is under adventure mode headings, but there's a considerable amount of material applicable to both modes in those sections. I wouldn't say the development page is a full picture of the new additions we plan to do as we continue, but they give a pretty good picture. The core items, reqs, bloats and power goals of the previous pages still represent out plans for the game, and anything not on the new page is still fair game -- it's just the system itself that has been updated, because the previous system wasn't working well (not a single power goal was checked off, for example, and items often became outdated).
Regarding the two of the top ten ESV items not specifically addressed on the new page, sped-up pathfinding and graphics support, the idea with the first is an upcoming date with the linux profiler now that we've got DF running over there to address the low-hanging fruit on the main grievance behind the suggestion (large, slow forts). In the case of supporting tiles for each game object, I need to figure out the deal with all the new SDL code before I can lay anything out in stark terms. The textures are stored differently (in a single atlas if it still works that way), and I'm not sure if it'll be feasible to move to full item/map texture support without altering the way that works.
In any case, the purpose of the thread is much like the list of remaining items from before, except that there won't be a long release delay hanging over it. Specific bugs should be reported on the bug tracker (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/), and specific suggestions belong for the most part in the suggestion forum (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?board=5.0), although the discussion here regarding the dev pages can certainly involve suggestions. Questions and comments about the new development page or DF development somewhat more broadly work here, though any contentious topics that lead to derails are discouraged -- there are threads for those too.
If you have specific questions, I'll try to answer them all. In the past, we've all found the practice of making questions green works pretty well. You do that like this:
Code: [Select]
[color=limegreen]making questions green[/color]
Post by: RCIX on July 01, 2010, 03:46:55 am
Post by: Dohon on July 01, 2010, 04:03:59 am
Post by: Sorcerer on July 01, 2010, 04:06:19 am
Post by: Tehran on July 01, 2010, 04:08:42 am
Quote from: New dev page
· Moving fortress sections (lifts, crushing traps, etc.)I cannot wait to see the insane things that people will build with this one.
Post by: ILikePie on July 01, 2010, 04:13:08 am
also, this: Vein Auto-mining
Are you planning on making certain 'wilderness' areas a bit more defined? Currently there is hardly any difference between a hill and a forest. Having, for example, denser bushes that, maybe, obscure vision, or multi-tile trees would make the denser forests much more foresty.
Post by: Haspen on July 01, 2010, 05:03:15 am
So much good stuff there.
Post by: jfs on July 01, 2010, 05:12:52 am
I'm just hoping things can be implemented in smaller releases that can then receive a bit of polish, before the next couple of features are dumped on top. I don't think anyone want to experience another dev cycle similar to what led to 0.31.
Post by: nuker w on July 01, 2010, 05:28:25 am
With the digging part, does that involve digging up through the ground and popping up in the storage room? That's what i'm guessing. Also, is their a possibility that the digging could also be used to take out defensive walls?
Post by: Arihim on July 01, 2010, 05:31:36 am
The new adventurer mode stuff is very exciting though. I especially like the adventurer mode roles. It's like Toady is combining everything I've ever liked in role playing and builder games into one. I cannot wait until they are realized. Thief, slayer of night creatures, and hero remind me so much of the elder scrolls! Given Toady can pull of generating complex environments for these roles to be fully explored I predict adventurer mode might become more popular than fortress mode!
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 01, 2010, 06:09:11 am
By the way... minecarts sure sound fun but I can't imagine what would they be good for ::) It sounds that the shear amount of workforce required to make tracks and minecarts would be larger than having dwarves haul all the rocks from a vein individually. I guess minecarts would work for large quarries or situations where there's a huge concentration of ore in one place (which would require changing the way how veins spawn now - in almost regular distances).
Post by: Hummingbird on July 01, 2010, 06:10:35 am
Will adventurers be able to dig as freely as miners can in Fort mode? If so, how much easier would that ability make cave exploration?
Post by: SmileyMan on July 01, 2010, 06:22:22 am
Vein Auto-miningOoh, yes, as a dedicated coal-based industry fan, when I find some lignite or bituminous I'd love to be able to say "Just dig that out" rather than the constant dig-designation that you have to do at the moment.
I'd like it to be configurable though - at the moment I like to dig out veins with a 1-tile buffer around them, because a) it creates nicer looking exhausted mines, and b) it means a slightly increased chance of finding something else exciting!
PS - are we using orange for suggestions?
Post by: Nintenlord on July 01, 2010, 06:48:44 am
Quote
# Extend adv mode starvation/dehydration times to appropriate number of days
Does this mean that travelling will no longer cure hunger, thirst and sleepiness? And in what sense appropriate, real world or fortress mode appropriate?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 01, 2010, 07:10:40 am
Post by: jokermatt999 on July 01, 2010, 07:20:27 am
And yes, this semi-useless post is mostly so I can see replies to it in "new replies to your posts", sorry.
Post by: Hammurabi on July 01, 2010, 07:39:44 am
Are there any plans to clean up and reorganize the current user interface?
Post by: ggeezz on July 01, 2010, 07:45:33 am
Post by: Jimmy on July 01, 2010, 07:49:21 am
Regarding the two of the top ten ESV items not specifically addressed on the new page, sped-up pathfinding and graphics support, the idea with the first is an upcoming date with the linux profiler now that we've got DF running over there to address the low-hanging fruit on the main grievance behind the suggestion (large, slow forts).This one line is the feature I'm most interested about. Significant increases in FPS over time mean community forts wouldn't need to be abandoned after a few years, and megaprojects would be much more fun to create. Hopefully improved pathfinding will provide these increases. Very exciting announcement.
Post by: Athmos on July 01, 2010, 07:51:27 am
Specially for things like liquids (stored in barrels), coins and bolts, it would be great if dwarves were able to re-stack some items.
So, in short, Does taking a look at restacking is still in the scope of the "Hauling Improvements" nano-arc ?
Post by: Toaster on July 01, 2010, 07:53:07 am
Keep up the good work!
Post by: Heavenfall on July 01, 2010, 08:07:24 am
Is it ok to ask about a release schedule? Screw it, I'm going for it.
What I am curious about is if the plan is to release a big update with adventure upgrades, or a smaller one before that with some of the bug fixes for fortress mode?
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 01, 2010, 08:36:37 am
You mention digging out soil tiles in adventure mode, but don't say anything about digging into rock. Is that a deliberate omission?
I'm not fussed either way, just curious, and mostly needed an excuse to post so I could track this thread.
Post by: jfs on July 01, 2010, 08:42:12 am
I assume that the healing magic done by Travelling has been a stand-in for being able to hunt for food yourself, so it'll probably go away. (I can't imagine it's not intentional.)Quote# Extend adv mode starvation/dehydration times to appropriate number of days
Does this mean that travelling will no longer cure hunger, thirst and sleepiness? And in what sense appropriate, real world or fortress mode appropriate?
Hopefully doing basic healthcare on yourself is also planned, even just applying bandages to a wound.
Does taking a look at restacking is still in the scope of the "Hauling Improvements" nano-arc ?Since hauling multiple separate items at once is in, perhaps stacks are going away entirely? To me, the entire "stack" concept seems like a bit of a hack to be able to treat multiple items as a single.
Post by: jokermatt999 on July 01, 2010, 08:43:34 am
Also, moving fortress sections! Hurray! \o/
Post by: Psieye on July 01, 2010, 08:45:20 am
Stacks will still be important for cutting down FPS. Sure you could haul many items at once but the game still needs to check each item for degradation over time. I suppose there could be virtual stacks in the future where that's hidden behind the scenes but it's still a pain compared to just grouping everything together.Does taking a look at restacking is still in the scope of the "Hauling Improvements" nano-arc ?Since hauling multiple separate items at once is in, perhaps stacks are going away entirely? To me, the entire "stack" concept seems like a bit of a hack to be able to treat multiple items as a single.
Post by: darkrider2 on July 01, 2010, 09:00:51 am
Me neither. Finally I can build a transforming fortress.Quote from: New dev page· Moving fortress sections (lifts, crushing traps, etc.)I cannot wait to see the insane things that people will build with this one.
Quote from: New dev page
Ability to use grappling hooks/ladders/climbgrappling hooks caught me by surprise, and are also awesome.
And I must know whether I can use a grappling-hook-loaded-crossbow in adventure mode.
Post by: Rube on July 01, 2010, 09:01:10 am
For anyone wondering about interface updates - the graphics support in the eternal suggestions doesn't mention anything about interface changes, it's to do with separating all the game entities into their own tiles mostly. Maybe the two are closely related code-wise though, so updating the tiles will give us some interface improvements too (beside having full-stops that don't look like dirt, I mean).
Post by: VWSpeedRacer on July 01, 2010, 09:04:01 am
Quote
Improved sieges : Ability to dig (optionally, default on)
Would it be possible for humanoid attackers to be carrying picks for this - i.e. a single Goblin Miner, which presents a strategy of trying to target the miner first? For other creatures, perhaps a [DIG] tag in the attributes?
Bonus: new source of picks!
Edit: Now with sexy green text!
Post by: Knight Otu on July 01, 2010, 09:05:11 am
Magmawiki has the old dev page archived HERE (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Consolidated_Development:_Arcs,_core-items,_bloats,_Reqs_and_Powergoals) if anyone wants to see it.Ah, that's the old old dev pages. I was hoping for the previous dev page for comparison, but it seems that about everything is on the new ones as well. That said, I'm curious what the official status of reqs, bloats, and power goals is. Are they "gone" for good and only exist as guidelines now, or just did only their tracking in the version number stop? I mean, power goals seem to be too far off for the most part to be useful, after all.
Quote
Lands and beastiaryDo you envision the initial bestiary implementation to be adventurer mode only, or also a feature of legends/fortress mode? As more randomized objects come into play, a first look at what exists becomes more and more important, after all.
Randomized critters in other categories (vermin, roaming creatures, soil critters, plants, etc.), naming them
Being able to look at a list of all known creatures you've seen and where
Quote
Valuables and mansionsAre there any short-term plans to export sites and site structures into the raws?
...
Adventure sites
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 01, 2010, 09:06:01 am
And I must know whether I can use a grappling-hook-loaded-crossbow in adventure mode.
Seconded.
Post by: VWSpeedRacer on July 01, 2010, 09:24:47 am
What will be the purpose of the crushed rock?
Ooo, perhaps making your own soil as part of the expanding farming principles? Gravel paths? More complex paving principles? Mortar walls?!
Post by: tfaal on July 01, 2010, 09:47:49 am
Post by: Toady One on July 01, 2010, 09:53:24 am
Quote from: RCIX
Will i be able to define my guilds? Because i'd honestly like those to match up with my generalized dwarf labor plans, and not have infighting among, for instance, Crafters because they share different guilds and happened to get into a brawl.
One of the ideas was to give dwarves some freedom to associate as they like and to make more use of their friends, families and grudges so there is some push and pull. Turning off infighting would be a possibility, although hopefully it won't need to come to that. I'm not quite sure what your situation is (things like lots of miner-craftsdwarf dwarves? or just different craft combinations?), but it'll be good to go into some specific examples and see what sorts of situations will arise. We're sure the guild/religion/etc subgroup mechanism will add a lot to the game, but we haven't charted the exact path yet, and we'll be proceeding cautiously when we get there. The idea certainly isn't to add a strictly annoying burden (like a new shell mandate), but to provide emerging challenges, more atmosphere and more things to do.
Quote from: New dev pageMoving fortress sections (lifts, crushing traps, etc.)I cannot wait to see the insane things that people will build with this one.
This is definitely one where you guys are going to provide me with more entertainment than I get from either playing with them or programming them, he he he.
Quote from: ILikePie
Are you planning on making certain 'wilderness' areas a bit more defined? Currently there is hardly any difference between a hill and a forest. Having, for example, denser bushes that, maybe, obscure vision, or multi-tile trees would make the denser forests much more foresty.
Yeah, we've got three things up there that should help a bit with that:
Skills:Wood Use:Ground debris/sticks/underbrush
For some basic variety -- there's nothing like the woods around here where you can hardly walk and end up getting all scratched up. Now it's more like the older growth forests with the cleaner floors, but with really small trees and inexplicably no underbrush. Not sure about vision there -- thick underbrush should definitely obscure it, but we might wait for the lighting part to get that all under one umbrella.
Explorer:Land and bestiary:More overland map features and local variations
This is the big one, where there should be more local bumpiness depending on the nature of the region, some larger bodies of water, features analogous to the underground like canyons, etc. Enough so that the explorer feels like an explorer and so that starting in the mountains by a conifer forest in dwarf mode can mean different things.
Treasure Hunter:Adventure sites:Existing town-style sites should be updated as possible (dwarf fortresses, etc.)
This may or may not be relevant, but when we get to updating elven sites, if we don't have multi-tile trees by then, there will be a strong, strong pull for it. I don't think the major obstacles for multi-tile trees are too rough, at least to get them to a basic acceptable level. Then we'd have giant trees! Which would be awesome.
Quote from: jfs
I'm just hoping things can be implemented in smaller releases that can then receive a bit of polish, before the next couple of features are dumped on top. I don't think anyone want to experience another dev cycle similar to what led to 0.31.
We've set up the lists with that basically in the forefront of our minds the whole time. Everything up there should be bite-size chunkable, without a lot of dependencies or giant system alterations like the material rewrite being required. There are a few exceptions we're going to have to plan around. The site storage rewrite for entity population sprawl has potential to get a little bumpy, and it's required pretty early on to get to the rest of the meat. The dwarven AI rewrite for job priorities is also pretty sweeping. This is mainly because they require the changing of pervasive ancient code that isn't going to like being looked at much less altered. At the same time, it shouldn't propagate nearly as nastily as the material rewrite or the entity position rewrite did, so there shouldn't be serious creeping problems or even any month-long delays.
Quote from: nuker w
With the digging part, does that involve digging up through the ground and popping up in the storage room? That's what i'm guessing. Also, is their a possibility that the digging could also be used to take out defensive walls?
The first is probably easier than the second to put in, even if the second is more realistic. The first priority will probably just be dealing with walled-off hallways and stuff like that though -- things that are really easy to do that kill off entire sieges. I guess it's entirely possible that they wouldn't be able to find you if you hid behind 10 meter thick walls hidden off in random places, but then it should be possible for them to live in your upper levels for years while you work away tradeless on mushrooms down below (although there are major obstacles to that that make it non-practical for the dev page). They'd probably just leave after looting all your exposed items and slaughtering anybody left outside (including any entity pop infrastructure you've got out there). Although once they can get through a single wall, they can just dig ambitious tunnels for you at random I suppose. As long as walling yourself in has reasonable results, I'll be happy with however they handle it. Right now it's too much of an exploit (of course, the whole "digging invaders" is enough of a touchy subject that it's explictly stated as optional on the dev page, and how you handle exploits is up to you at that point).
Quote from: Jiri Petru
By the way... minecarts sure sound fun but I can't imagine what would they be good for ::) It sounds that the shear amount of workforce required to make tracks and minecarts would be larger than having dwarves haul all the rocks from a vein individually. I guess minecarts would work for large quarries or situations where there's a huge concentration of ore in one place (which would require changing the way how veins spawn now - in almost regular distances).
We were thinking the same thing, really, but I think we managed to redeem the idea enough for ourselves when we considered using carts for things other than stone. If you had a cart attaching your crafts shops to your trade depot, the infrastruture investing might be well worth it, especially if tracks can be placed faster than one tile at a time and with fewer resources than a bar per square and carts can hold as many items as a pack animal or more and can move about as fast (faster? it would be funny to shoot a cart full of glass goblets downhill toward a depot and hope for the best). If conveyors become possible, carts might also be fun with some kind of inversion/dumping system, although I'm not quite sure how that would look or work. Then there are passenger systems on rails... a dwarf flying around on a cart or a handcar would be amusing.
The "real world" thing for minecarts with actual mines would probably be making some larger mined rocks almost impossible to haul without using something like a cart or wheelbarrow or work animal, or making some mined debris that you wouldn't be able to haul out by hand without holding it in your shirt or a bag or something, but that would depend on how nice cart systems end up being and the general fun of playing the game. In any case, we ended up happy enough with the idea of carts on tracks that they made the list.
Quote
Quote from: HummingbirdWill adventurers be able to dig as freely as miners can in Fort mode? If so, how much easier would that ability make cave exploration?Quote from: Osmosis JonesYou mention digging out soil tiles in adventure mode, but don't say anything about digging into rock. Is that a deliberate omission?
We're starting with soil digging. I'm not sure where we'll go with rock... ideally, you'd be able to mine with a pick, but my first impression is that it would be best for adventure mode if doing that took a more realistic amount of time. It would probably involve some of the time passage stuff we're going to use to scrap the annoying sleep mechanic and facilitate farming, and your tunnels would be hard-won achievements. If there are some people that are all about being able to dig stuff out really fast in adv mode for whatever reason, the speeds for these things could always just be options. My current thoughts for defaults are on really slow digging in rock though. Digging out a whole soil tile should be fairly slow too, though it's not as much of a stretch for it to happen quickly before we have better time abstraction.
Quote from: SmileyMan
I'd like it to be configurable though - at the moment I like to dig out veins with a 1-tile buffer around them, because a) it creates nicer looking exhausted mines, and b) it means a slightly increased chance of finding something else exciting!
When it comes closer, I'm going to take the notes I've got laying around, the forum threads, and whatever else, and add some configuration options for the initial implementation. We just haven't made any decisions yet, so there's just a skeletal mention of it on the dev page now.
Quote from: Nintenlord
Does this mean that travelling will no longer cure hunger, thirst and sleepiness? And in what sense appropriate, real world or fortress mode appropriate?
Appropriate in the real world sense. It should end up best for the overall game if dying of hunger takes weeks instead of a day or whatever it takes now, but stretching it out longer than a season would make things like winter less scary. If you have been starving for weeks, one meal shouldn't get you back to shape the way it does now.
Travel is going to evolve as the hunt and explorer stuff is worked on. There ultimately won't be any automatic refills, but if something like drinking ends up fairly abstracted on long journeys, I wouldn't be shocked. It'll come down to how annoying it is to hunt for things manually as you travel from square to square. Having to kill each prey animal shouldn't be too bad. Filling up your waterskin or whatever might even be fine, but it could be borderline if you have to go to the local mode too much. The mid-level maps are always an option here. As night creatures and things like that go in, the notion of night time and stopping for the night and camping are going to become more important, and however that works with sleep will determine how that goes.
In the end, the answers are going to come down to testing as we put in each of the new mechanisms. At first, there won't be any changes. Butchery and better hunting will be needed before we mess with food.
Quote from: Hammurabi
Are there any plans to clean up and reorganize the current user interface?
We haven't decided on a course of action. On the one hand, it feels like the elephant in the room, and on the other, it rated closest as #12 perhaps or #15 (maybe a side of #3) in suggestion voting. A massive overhaul seems almost too risky a project to undertake, especially if you are talking about moving over to a more graphical system, but there are some easier consistency issues that could ultimately be handled like bugs separately. It depends on what you mean, but I don't want this thread to spiral out of control in that direction.
Quote from: ggeezz
Maybe this is a stupid question, but how do you see the stickied bugs in the bug tracker?
When I click View Issues, the top two or more browser scroll pages are set apart by a line. There are many stickied issues.
Quote from: Jimmy
This one line is the feature I'm most interested about. Significant increases in FPS over time mean community forts wouldn't need to be abandoned after a few years, and megaprojects would be much more fun to create. Hopefully improved pathfinding will provide these increases. Very exciting announcement.
I'm going to start by knocking out the worst offenders I can find that are more in the mistakes and easy to deal with category. Then we should be down to the major projects, and pathfinding is one of those. We should have a better idea of what the picture is once I get a chance over on Linux. I'm treating the pathfinding ESV entry more or less as a strong push to speed up the game, and whatever the worst parts are will be the things getting attention.
Quote from: Athmos
Does taking a look at restacking is still in the scope of the "Hauling Improvements" nano-arc ?
Restacking is still the messiest thing among the ones listed there, and we decided to put it off until we see how multi-item hauling works out. If dwarves can more responsibly handle a lot of what stacking would handle just by not being idiots and having a few more tools available, then stacking can just be an interface tweak to clean up lists (collapsing like items into "stacks" when you look at them). That would be the easiest way to go.
Actual stacking is a nightmare of conflicts and lost information, but it does have framerate benefits once the item numbers start to get high.
Quote
Quote from: HeavenfallWhat I am curious about is if the plan is to release a big update with adventure upgrades, or a smaller one before that with some of the bug fixes for fortress mode?Quote from: RubeAll that adventurer stuff looks amazing, but I have to wonder how long it'll be till we see all of that? Hopefully only a year or two, it'll certainly be worth it regardless.
Aside from the few exceptions I mentioned above, which are slightly hairy, everything on the list is meant to be handled pretty much like bug fixes. If you can butcher bodies within the next release or two, then it gets greened out. I'm planning to continue releasing at about the same rate I was releasing last month. There are always complications, but I'm trying to avoid them, and the new dev page is a part of that. As for all of it, like *all* of it, well, I have no idea. Could it take a few years? Sure. But you'll be getting it on a slow drip this time instead of as one big gusher, which should be cleaner and still satisfying.
Quote from: jokermatt999
I noticed "branding" says it will be dependent on tracking art objects in the wounds system. Does this mean tattooing or body painting could be in?
Tracking body painting with a wound seems odd... perhaps adding art image ids to contaminants. Then you could draw a smiley face on yourself in mud or something. Tattooing... a contaminant or a wound? Hard to say! In any case, I don't know that branding would lead directly to any of this going in at the same time, but yeah, similar systems, and certainly the others are way lower hanging fruit after one is in.
Quote from: darkrider2
And I must know whether I can use a grappling-hook-loaded-crossbow in adventure mode.
He he he, well, having grappling hooks would get you one step closer to your ultimate goal anyway.
Quote from: Knight Otu
I'm curious what the official status of reqs, bloats, and power goals is. Are they "gone" for good and only exist as guidelines now, or just did only their tracking in the version number stop? I mean, power goals seem to be too far off for the most part to be useful, after all.
They are official categorized, loose dev notes that I couldn't keep updated and presentable, so they'll act as guidelines for features. Power goals were particularly useless as check-offable dev items, because of the way they mixed and matched features, but I think they were valuable in an illustrative sense and we haven't stepped back from aiming for them. I imagine some of them will actually be done when this dev list starts getting greener. The version number is still being tracked by core items, since those haven't really changed. I think the new lists convey some of the core items better, but many of them are there relatively unchanged. Some cores like love/romance, heirs, more raw support, translation support and tutorials, etc. aren't there, but they should all get their homes once we get our sea legs on the new page.
Quote from: Knight Otu
Do you envision the initial bestiary implementation to be adventurer mode only, or also a feature of legends/fortress mode? As more randomized objects come into play, a first look at what exists becomes more and more important, after all.
You'll still be able to embark in random places out there, at least if nothing changes, so you'd need a way to at least interact with the random critters. On the other hand, there's the idea of not being to embark in unexplored areas without having to Oregon Trail your way there first, which has probably got matter of personal preference written all over it. Having the adv mode bestiary work in fortress mode probably wouldn't be any work. There's the general question of introducing the player to random critters with some care, which is a little easier to do with the explorer, I think, than a slapped down fort where you might be inundated with unnamed weird stuff.
Quote from: Knight Otu
Are there any short-term plans to export sites and site structures into the raws?
I've been avoiding that because the maps are so crappy right now. I need to have a better idea of what sort of information should be out in the raws before I can do much with it. As the entity pop sites work themselves out and the more ritsy homes start to look nicer, we can start figuring that sort of thing out. It's kind of similar to the random beasts that way. They are ill-formed, so putting them in the raws is harder. It partially intersects scripting languages, probably.
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris
I noticed you mentioned rock crushers. What will be the purpose of the crushed rock?
He he he, I mentioned it and fans with a question mark if I remember. They were two of the machines listed in the improved mechanics threads. It's really more a placeholder for whatever machines seem like they'd fit better with all of whatever else will be going on at that time. The picture will change as we start to get some actual implementations, along with player preference I presume. I'm guessing people would want a rock crusher because they hate rocks and would prefer the powder either never exist or just gets dispersed as with the dust in a cave-in, but I'm not sure.
Post by: tfaal on July 01, 2010, 10:24:03 am
There are a lot of ideas in the new list about adventurers doing things, but very few about them getting compensated for their efforts, or requiring money in any way. Can we expect this to come into play as the bounty system is implemented? Will the typical heroic option of turning down a reward for a reputation bonus be available?
Y'know, with the the features of the "thief" adventurer role, the petty warlords presented under the "villians", and the (presumably poor) farming settlements under these warlords, a Robin-Hood type adventurer sounds quite doable. Are there any plans for giving money to impoverished peasants?
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on July 01, 2010, 10:41:06 am
...
*Kogan Loloklam cancels construct floor: Not made of wood!*
*Kogan Loloklam withdraws from society*
Deathfloor, the Blaze of Sieges!
I can't help it. Reading through any devnotes gets me all squiggly for weaponizing.
Are there plans to get constructed (wooden, Bituminous coal, Platinum) balls for rolling traps?
;D
"Wanna circumvent my capture-hallway do you? Fine. ACTIVATE DEATHFLOOR!"
*Indiana Ulspa cancels steal artifact, THEY DIDN'T SAY THERE'D BE FIRE!!*
Edit: Bah. Stupid limes.
Post by: Rube on July 01, 2010, 10:51:21 am
Post by: Greiger on July 01, 2010, 10:52:10 am
I love adventure mode, and was always a bit dissapointed on how it was easy to run out of stuff to do.
Now we will be able to do things even when we are omni-legendary demigods of destruction! Like become Omni-legendary demigods of creation! I haz a house! And I didn't have to retire and go into dwarf mode for a season to make it!
Though I do have one question. In an adventurer made structure (or site or whathaveyou) will items inside still be scattered around to the hills? Or will that be removed for adventure made sites? Removed entirely? Removed only in locations where it doesn't make sense?(Fully sealed underground rooms, etc)
Post by: Untelligent on July 01, 2010, 11:17:20 am
Watch out Toady, Bethesda might start sending hitmen when they get wind of this.
Post by: smjjames on July 01, 2010, 11:31:10 am
Watch out Toady, Bethesda might start sending hitmen when they get wind of this.
Huh?
Anyways, as for the quickly passing time thing, would it be possible to set the number of hours (between 1 and 12 sounds reasonable) you want to have pass by rather than the always 8 hours for sleep? Until something interrupts you anyway.
Quote
# Stones should be able to roll (perhaps if they are started from or land on a ramp tile)
Indiana Jones style! :)
Quote
Waterproof axles through some mechanism
Could you explain this? Do you mean a way where you could have a rubber gasket or something around an axle someplace or at the attachment point to power compartmentalized mechanisms? Or maybe have a mechanism which is compartmentalized, but has am extension through a waterproof barrier which the axle is attatched to? Those ideas may be beyond the era that you want DF to be in, but hey. I certainly wouldn't doubt Dwarven ingenuity and if they can create a water based computer, then I'm sure they can create waterproof axles/mechanisms.
Post by: Knight Otu on July 01, 2010, 11:33:47 am
Quote from: New dev pageMoving fortress sections (lifts, crushing traps, etc.)I cannot wait to see the insane things that people will build with this one.
This is definitely one where you guys are going to provide me with more entertainment than I get from either playing with them or programming them, he he he.
I can already see it... Groundhammer, the Siege Fortress. A central pillar housing a staircase rises up from a levelled surface, and a large platform houses the dwarves. Maybe a drawbridge connects to another pillar that allows entry to the mines and farms. One day, a goblin army approaches.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
The dwarves, warned, retreat into the platform, and large mechanisms come to life... and the platform sinks down onto the leveled landscape, crushing the goblin army.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Okay, it's rather unlikely to work.
Post by: Org on July 01, 2010, 11:39:12 am
Quote from: Dev Page
Adventurer Role: Slayer of Night CreaturesWhat exactly is a Night Creature? At first, I believed it to be any Undead/Skeleton, but then you say:
Quote
Night creatures and the undeadwhich makes it seem like it isn't Undead. Also:
Quote
The slaves of night creatures could have extreme effects from proximity that also affect you if you make a business of hunting themWhich also confuses me on what they are, as it says "slaves of the night creatures", unless the first of the undead are considered the night creature while any who they convert to their cursed form are considered their slaves. So, are they a new creature, or:
Post by: tfaal on July 01, 2010, 11:47:52 am
Post by: Haspen on July 01, 2010, 11:49:29 am
[words]
Let's think literally, the Night Creatures. What mystical creatures are associated iwth night? That gives us:
Vampires, Banshee, Werewolves, Ghosts... and a lot more.
Post by: Org on July 01, 2010, 11:52:04 am
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 01, 2010, 12:03:36 pm
Post by: tfaal on July 01, 2010, 12:08:42 pm
EDIT: Wow, that came of way more pretentiously than I thought it would.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 01, 2010, 12:19:30 pm
EDIT:
FEEP *disembowels adventurer*
Post by: Rube on July 01, 2010, 12:27:55 pm
Vampires are interesting for Dwarf Fortress because they're so random in myth. Some can turn into various animals, some melt in daylight, some drink blood whereas others steal souls, random weaknesses to stuff like vegetables and water, etc. They're perfect fodder for random generation scripts.
Post by: Willfor on July 01, 2010, 12:30:54 pm
I immediately thought of Vampires when he said night creatures, because they're the only creature I could think of that would work predominantly at night, keep slaves, and generally be individually powerful enough to warrant special attention. Also, they aren't in the game yet.
Vampires are interesting for Dwarf Fortress because they're so random in myth. Some can turn into various animals, some melt in daylight, some drink blood whereas others steal souls, random weaknesses to stuff like vegetables and water, etc. They're perfect fodder for random generation scripts.
Some also sparkle and attract millions of fangirls. I think this possibility should be included as well.
Post by: Haspen on July 01, 2010, 12:37:54 pm
I immediately thought of Vampires when he said night creatures, because they're the only creature I could think of that would work predominantly at night, keep slaves, and generally be individually powerful enough to warrant special attention. Also, they aren't in the game yet.
Vampires are interesting for Dwarf Fortress because they're so random in myth. Some can turn into various animals, some melt in daylight, some drink blood whereas others steal souls, random weaknesses to stuff like vegetables and water, etc. They're perfect fodder for random generation scripts.
Some also sparkle and attract millions of fangirls. I think this possibility should be included as well.
*thinks about...*
ARGH. Damn you! :P
Post by: tfaal on July 01, 2010, 12:40:04 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on July 01, 2010, 12:53:43 pm
Post by: kilakan on July 01, 2010, 12:59:19 pm
Post by: G-Flex on July 01, 2010, 01:08:20 pm
Post by: Psieye on July 01, 2010, 01:11:33 pm
The first priority will probably just be dealing with walled-off hallways and stuff like that though -- things that are really easy to do that kill off entire sieges. I guess it's entirely possible that they wouldn't be able to find you if you hid behind 10 meter thick walls hidden off in random places, but then it should be possible for them to live in your upper levels for years while you work away tradeless on mushrooms down below (although there are major obstacles to that that make it non-practical for the dev page). They'd probably just leave after looting all your exposed items and slaughtering anybody left outside (including any entity pop infrastructure you've got out there). Although once they can get through a single wall, they can just dig ambitious tunnels for you at random I suppose. As long as walling yourself in has reasonable results, I'll be happy with however they handle it. Right now it's too much of an exploit (of course, the whole "digging invaders" is enough of a touchy subject that it's explictly stated as optional on the dev page, and how you handle exploits is up to you at that point).I would propose 2 systems to distinguish normal invaders from game ending HFS. It's realistic that if you hole up behind really really thick walls and never trade, then normal invaders don't have a way to realise there's dwarves hiding so they should leave you alone. At the same time, HFS shouldn't be stopped by walling it off no matter how thick the walls are.
Actually the HFS can have an alternative to digging to get around the current "wall off" exploit: what if they could pass through walls and floors? That is, they swim through rock just like they swim through magma? Then HFS would truly be the game enders and the existing infinite spawning of them would ensure forts die no matter what.
Regarding Night Creatures, assuming we're sticking with humanoids (as otherwise mythologies from around the world will have so many possible examples we'd be flooded - e.g. the one-eyed hopping umbrella) there's plenty room for a restricted random generator to work with: do they eat corpses, merely suck blood, steal souls, mutilate the deceased, infect others? How far have they rotted away and is it homogeneous or not (e.g. skeletal arms with zombie torso)? What do the locals call them? How aggressive and territorial are they? Do they have symbiotes? Side effects of being around them or getting some action done by them? DF is destined to be a fantasy world generator and Forgotten Beasts are the first sign of the RNG being used to invent new fantasy creatures. Somebody in our human history came up with the fantasy of vampires, zombies and such. DF will generate new fantasies in each world and we'll remember them if we interact with them in a memorable adventure (or fortress).
anyone else notice the last item on the list was boats and moving FORTRESSES!!! Bloody want my fortress to be able to stand up and walk away now...I just know someone somewhere will design a fortress that can transform into a giant robot once some of these dev list items are implemented...
Post by: Diablous on July 01, 2010, 01:35:53 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on July 01, 2010, 01:39:25 pm
Quote from: ggeezzMaybe this is a stupid question, but how do you see the stickied bugs in the bug tracker?
When I click View Issues, the top two or more browser scroll pages are set apart by a line. There are many stickied issues.
Yeah, from View Issues, (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view_all_bug_page.php) click the filter option for "Show Sticky Issues," then insure that the checkbox is checked, and click "Apply Filter". The stickied issues are the ones that show up above the gray divider.
And yeah, there are a lot of them, mostly because the bug severity is kind of a pyramid -- we started off at the tip of the pyramid, with a small number of the absolute worst bugs, and now we're moving into the second or third tier, where there's a larger number of less severe bugs.
Post by: Little on July 01, 2010, 01:52:33 pm
Just read the new dev page. Oh god, yes! I really like Capturing people alive and interrogations. That part really interested me.
That, plus the new tissue system that was implemented! >: D
Post by: Diablous on July 01, 2010, 01:54:22 pm
Just read the new dev page. Oh god, yes! I really like Capturing people alive and interrogations. That part really interested me.
That, plus the new tissue system that was implemented! >: D
You're right. I'm going to love it when that is implemented.
Post by: Retro on July 01, 2010, 02:06:05 pm
This looks amazing, Toady! And I haven't donated in a few months, so this seems an appropriate reminder to support my local toad.
Post by: tfaal on July 01, 2010, 02:15:41 pm
Post by: Mechanoid on July 01, 2010, 02:20:09 pm
Quote from: Vox Nihili
On another note, I was a little disappointed with the new dev notes... Hopefully he starts at the bottom of the huge list he made. I love adventure mode for looking through old community forts, but I think improved sieges for fortress mode should be of slightly higher priority than enabling your adventurer mode guy to make a fucking quern.What!? It's like he didn't even read the list, or take time to comprehend it, because the very last thing on that list is:
Quote
Siege engine improvements depend on state of boats, lifts/moving fortress sections, since these should all use the same framework
Yes, lets start at the END of the list, the last item of which references something that's halfway through the list and is required for that last item to function properly. ::) Keep going with the progress as YOU have planned, Toady, and ignore the people who try to re-order things from their own personal feelings and not the reality of the situation at hand.
[Edit - Just a small, perfect example of why you should stick to your plan that i felt needed to be posted.]
Post by: jfs on July 01, 2010, 02:21:42 pm
In fact, could it be made such that any object falling would be subject to physical forces like gravity and air friction, and cause an impact when it hits something? I want to drop anvils!
Post by: cephalo on July 01, 2010, 02:26:58 pm
Seeing evidence of a digging invasion or two is fine, that just adds to the story of the fort, but I don't want to completely lose control of how the fort looks. If digging invasions are needed, it might be good to wait until we can prevent such invasions by sending armies to meet such forces in the field or in the underworld. Either that or give us the ability to repair lost natural stone. The black fog of war that exists in unmined areas really contrasts well with forts. I would hate to lose that.
Also, I wanna say that I don't want every fort to have to meet it's demise, as some people seem to favor. Ideally I would like to leave my fort in an automated state and go build new forts. I wanna revive dying civilizations and change the balance of power in the world. Then I wanna join other civilizations and tear down the one I rescued from destruction. And in between forts I wanna watch them take part in history and visit them in adventure mode. And stuff.
Post by: Retro on July 01, 2010, 02:33:10 pm
As someone who really cares about the aesthetics of my forts, I really do have my concerns for digging invaders. I don't mind the challenge of it, but my enthusiasm for fort building will diminish if every fort is destined to look a mountain of swiss cheese within 10 game years.
Seeing evidence of a digging invasion or two is fine, that just adds to the story of the fort, but I don't want to completely lose control of how the fort looks. If digging invasions are needed, it might be good to wait until we can prevent such invasions by sending armies to meet such forces in the field or in the underworld. Either that or give us the ability to repair lost natural stone. The black fog of war that exists in unmined areas really contrasts well with forts. I would hate to lose that.
Agreed - I will be happy if 'digging creatures' becomes an option in d_init rather than a like-it-or-not change, though.
Post by: Diablous on July 01, 2010, 02:34:51 pm
As someone who really cares about the aesthetics of my forts, I really do have my concerns for digging invaders. I don't mind the challenge of it, but my enthusiasm for fort building will diminish if every fort is destined to look a mountain of swiss cheese within 10 game years.
Seeing evidence of a digging invasion or two is fine, that just adds to the story of the fort, but I don't want to completely lose control of how the fort looks. If digging invasions are needed, it might be good to wait until we can prevent such invasions by sending armies to meet such forces in the field or in the underworld. Either that or give us the ability to repair lost natural stone. The black fog of war that exists in unmined areas really contrasts well with forts. I would hate to lose that.
Agreed - I will be happy if 'digging creatures' becomes an option in d_init rather than a like-it-or-not change, though.
Didn't the dev page say it will be a init option?
Post by: Mechanoid on July 01, 2010, 02:39:02 pm
[Sappers and swiss cheese, restoring natural stone]Being able to make a perfect, natural stone wall WITHOUT magma casting obsidian would be a glorious addition however unrealistic it may be. Even when you can have several mechanical solutions to stop sappers from undermining your efforts, being able to fix something important when they DO tunnel in would be wonderful... Hmm.
Will enemies with picks and mining skill intentionally deface engravings (they dislike/hate) to try to depress/anger the dwarves?
Post by: Totaku on July 01, 2010, 02:47:18 pm
Since we are talking about making stone be able to roll when come off of a ramp,could it be possible to say make a really long path ramp that the stone can roll down into a long hallway and then roll down that hallway crushing whatever is in it's way? Ala Indiana Jones style?
Post by: Armok on July 01, 2010, 03:04:39 pm
WILL it be theoretically possible to make a for that actually inches it's entire bulk acro0s the map?
Post by: tfaal on July 01, 2010, 03:06:36 pm
The list is quite impressive to me and I'm looking forward to how things develop. I do have a fun question based on another forum where I brought this up so hopfully you can answer this:I would think the answer is yes, since the idea of a rolling boulder trap was basically invented by the Indiana Jones movies.
Since we are talking about making stone be able to roll when come off of a ramp,could it be possible to say make a really long path ramp that the stone can roll down into a long hallway and then roll down that hallway crushing whatever is in it's way? Ala Indiana Jones style?
Post by: cephalo on July 01, 2010, 03:16:21 pm
[Sappers and swiss cheese, restoring natural stone]Being able to make a perfect, natural stone wall WITHOUT magma casting obsidian would be a glorious addition however unrealistic it may be. Even when you can have several mechanical solutions to stop sappers from undermining your efforts, being able to fix something important when they DO tunnel in would be wonderful... Hmm.
Will enemies with picks and mining skill intentionally deface engravings (they dislike/hate) to try to depress/anger the dwarves?
I'd hate to see magma casting become obsolete. Rather than creating natural stone, maybe it would be better to allow it to be repaired somehow..
Perhaps such tunnels could be inherently unstable such that they collapse in a couple of years, basically erasing themselves. With a type of collapse that doesn't affect whats above. That way, you have the challenge of diggers but without leaving ugly scars on your fort.
Post by: Knight Otu on July 01, 2010, 03:18:22 pm
Didn't the dev page say it will be a init option?Not explicitely, but since Toady stresses that digging invaders (and digging animals once implemented?) will be optional, it's pretty much implied to be an init option. Might become a world gen option, though, as well.
Ohh! A new thread! I can start following this again!Thinking of it, the wandering fortress ideas could lead to some ... fun.
WILL it be theoretically possible to make a for that actually inches it's entire bulk acro0s the map?
Urist McHauler cancels Store Item in Stockpile: Stockpile wandered off.
Urist McDoctor cancels Surgery: Fortress abducted patient.
Urist McWarrior cancels Individual Combat Training: Got lost off-map.
(Yeah, I know, such a mobile fortress would be restricted to on-map movement. :P )
Post by: Neonivek on July 01, 2010, 03:31:04 pm
There will be human-like (or at least enough to sneak around) ones.
Also finally a Future of the fortress back up!
I am trying to think of good benefits of guilds that don't involve non-sense benefits. For the most part I thought of providing equipment for dwarves and giving choice selection of individuals for your fort (Plus extra soldiers).
Post by: Tehran on July 01, 2010, 03:57:50 pm
(Yeah, I know, such a mobile fortress would be restricted to on-map movement. :P )
That wouldn't be a problem... if you could change the map.
I think it might be pretty easy to add a system where you can add and subtract entire world tiles from your map during fortress mode. You know, change a 3x3 map into a 3x4 - then back to a 3x3, moving forward like an inchworm.
Why should this option only be limited to the initial embark? (To answer my own question, there might be issues with sealing off any subtracted world tiles so that your dwarves don't go there anymore)
There have been a number of times where I wish I had added just one more row of tiles during embark, so that I could, for example, dig further into the mountains in search of adamantine.
Maybe I should go suggest this on the suggestions forum.
Post by: tfaal on July 01, 2010, 04:06:18 pm
Post by: Cruxador on July 01, 2010, 04:06:39 pm
Quote
It should be possible to optionally hide sections of the map during world generationSeems to me that the easiest way to do this would be to just hide all terrain not claimed as part of a nation. This would also be the most extreme possibility within logical reason, which I consider to be positive, as long as it's a worldgen option.
Quote
Various benefits to having a well developed guild or sect are under considerationSeems to me that the simplest and most logical benefits would be a small happiness bonus for members of a well-treated group, and, more importantly, an increase in migrants with skills appropriate to established guilds or worshipping a deity with an established sect.
Regarding Night creatures, seems like they're not explicitly vampires, but are more generic fairies and bogeymen that can take on all manner of abhorrent aspects. I doubt that they'll ever become more explicit, and I approve of this.
Post by: Shrike on July 01, 2010, 04:10:46 pm
A shame it'll take so long to get running.
Post by: tfaal on July 01, 2010, 04:11:39 pm
What's the deal with "entity populations"? How much will this be abstracted?Entity populations are set to be very abstracted from a distance, but gain detail when the player interacts with them. As soon as you start talking with a member of an entity population, they will gain a name and a history, though not one connected with any important figures. Hopefully, the implementation of entity populations will allow worlds to be more populous, and historical figures to be more interesting, now that they don't have to fill mundane roles. Entity populations will also provide a source for the armies that siege your fortress, and will populate the outlying settlements around your it.
Post by: nenjin on July 01, 2010, 04:50:25 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 01, 2010, 05:10:35 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on July 01, 2010, 05:17:21 pm
What's the deal with "entity populations"? How much will this be abstracted?
This got a lot of discussion in the old FotF. Unfortunately, SMF doesn't allow direct quoting from locked threads, so these quotes lack context (I don't have the patience to copy all the nested quotes).
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg596140#msg596140
Quote from: Toady One
Fortress mode and anything that touches fortress mode (armies) are the main problems, because fortress mode can't accommodate large numbers and so will continue to make less and less sense. There won't ever be 1000+ dwarves wandering around your fort, at least with processors the way they are. So it'll be dealt with through various cheats and nonsense, such as your fortress only eventually containing elite/important/lucky people and only being attacked directly by the best squads of the larger enemy armies or at least by small numbers at a time. Outside the fortress, you can have larger armies and fight larger forces, which kind of ties in with the notion of a broad spectrum of settlements arising around your fort itself (so the fort becomes more keep-like in a way, though not to the point of providing shelter to everybody in surrounding areas, though you could use external walls on the mid-level map near your fort for that purpose). As long as you aren't zoomed in on it in fortress mode, it can be handled. Army battles can occur in either the mid/world-level maps with the full forces, or zoomed in for specific interesting aspects of the conflict, with the number of troops loaded locally being metered, in frozen world time. I think it can work, but your fortress will always be sort of an anomaly in time and space, in terms of how fast time passes (or how it stops passing suddenly) and how only a certain amount of critters can be stuffed in there. The alternative is sort of a small-scale tribal warfare, which isn't satisfying for a general fantasy setting and doesn't give the world much longevity, or abstraction in the fort itself with units representing larger numbers of units, which I think kills a lot of what I've been attempting to do with unit differentiation, but mileage will vary there.
Adventure mode can make more sense since you have only a local picture that passes time in a more reasonable way (ie walking across the local map doesn't take 3 days or whatever).
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg601337;topicseen#msg601337
Quote from: Toady One
Yeah, the genesis of this conversation in the previous posts was part of the last interview I did, in which I talked quite a bit about how abstract populations might be used to convey a proper sense of scale for a typical fantasy world while at the same time maintaining much of the historical data and individuality of the people you meet, so it's not so much a processor issue, and these critters don't all get saved or stored individually, though obviously it comes up a little bit since there's stuff to be handled.
[...]
This is all the central problem with fort mode really. It's similar to the difficulty with retiring a fort and expecting it to be going on as you want it to continue on. Jumping back and forth between levels of abstraction is a hard problem when there are things like the state of fluids and so on to consider, and so without a solution present I've been leaning toward having one main active area, at least for any reasonable period of time, with sub-areas available for relatively simple acts like army fights.
There's a bloat somewhere about "deep sites" which relates to the question of fortress sprawl. I think at least having a main section that you are looking at in detail and other sections that you aren't looking at in detail (at worst, ever) is a tractable problem, where you could think of your fortress as the keep in the center of a giant capital, and you could have your dwarves off doing all sorts of projects all over while still maintaining a "realistic" sense of scope, without your dwarves being important enough in the workings of things so as not to become drowned in mediocrity. You'd still have complete access top to bottom in one map column, so bad things could still happen locally, which is good, and it could give you all sorts of reports and various control over non-visible sections, and they could be realized for you in either (a) adventure mode, (b) in a non-controllable fortress mode based on the adventure mode representation. This is easier since fluids don't come into play (since they can be controlled in general when you don't go all nuts with them). I don't mean to harp on fluids though -- there are all sorts of problems.
[...]
Regarding China, which I had been reading about for some months intermittently due to my ROTK/Water Margin read, from the Battle of Red Cliffs (~200 AD) to the battle at the end of the Song dynasty (~1300 AD), it looks like the larger armies in the area were always around 200,000 troops (which is why I used this figure in a previous post), but there were lots of battles in the intervening time, so it could have been even higher. That said, I'm not sure a large-sized DF map could be considered China-sized (especially in the sense of arable land, since we'd prefer a huge amount of biome diversity), though we don't actually have a scale, and abstracted populations would change the potential of it.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg1088744;topicseen#msg1088744
Quote from: Toady One
I think it's important to be able to have something like a riot in a city without necessarily having an important historical figure instigate the event, and in that way groups and whatever segments of populations it is keeping track of should be able to react based on entity ethics/history/whatever -- the main thing they'd be missing is the personality variables. At the same time, I think it's important to use historical figures when we've got them, because those kinds of legends are generally more compelling.
Post by: tfaal on July 01, 2010, 05:41:09 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 01, 2010, 05:51:28 pm
Goodness Imagine a time when the Large maps are considered the pocket worlds.
I mean even on a slow computer it is the History Generation that takes the longest time.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 01, 2010, 06:13:29 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 01, 2010, 06:15:42 pm
Imagine when we get citys in the size of a pocketworld. Including 3d-ness from mixed cultures ala Giant trees above and dungeon below. I can see loading and unloading of people as well as structures happen as a adventurer walks through a place.
I don't picture that happening. That would be extremely massive. I am not even sure Rome was that large.
It would certainly be a huge city.
Post by: Dante on July 01, 2010, 06:16:40 pm
Post by: Acanthus117 on July 01, 2010, 06:21:21 pm
When we do butchering and stuff, will it still not require a tool, like in fortress mode? Or will we need a knife to butcher prey?
Post by: Snap on July 01, 2010, 06:38:16 pm
Post by: Toybasher on July 01, 2010, 06:39:07 pm
Post by: carebear on July 01, 2010, 06:39:59 pm
Post by: Untelligent on July 01, 2010, 06:46:41 pm
Will plant-gathering from wild shrubs go in fairly early? I can't find it specifically mentioned on the list, but it seems like something that's fairly simple, both survival-wise and programming-wise.
Post by: RCIX on July 01, 2010, 07:00:27 pm
Quote from: RCIXWill i be able to define my guilds? Because i'd honestly like those to match up with my generalized dwarf labor plans, and not have infighting among, for instance, Crafters because they share different guilds and happened to get into a brawl.
One of the ideas was to give dwarves some freedom to associate as they like and to make more use of their friends, families and grudges so there is some push and pull. Turning off infighting would be a possibility, although hopefully it won't need to come to that. I'm not quite sure what your situation is (things like lots of miner-craftsdwarf dwarves? or just different craft combinations?), but it'll be good to go into some specific examples and see what sorts of situations will arise. We're sure the guild/religion/etc subgroup mechanism will add a lot to the game, but we haven't charted the exact path yet, and we'll be proceeding cautiously when we get there. The idea certainly isn't to add a strictly annoying burden (like a new shell mandate), but to provide emerging challenges, more atmosphere and more things to do.er because they hate rocks and would prefer the powder either never exist or just gets dispersed as with the dust in a cave-in, but I'm not sure.
I just meant that i would kinda like to see all my Crafters (which do all crafting, plus construction tasks) worship the same Crafing god or whatever, and have one guild i can satisfy at once. That's all :)
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 01, 2010, 07:11:32 pm
Quote from: from the devlog
Ability to till tile (faster with tool)will other jobs in fortress mode requires or benefit from tools? like smithing require a hammer, carpenting require a saw, farming requiring...the farming thingie, etc?
Post by: Diablous on July 01, 2010, 07:13:31 pm
farming requiring...the farming thingie, etc?
A hoe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoe_(tool))?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 01, 2010, 07:19:31 pm
also this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plough)
Post by: Neonivek on July 01, 2010, 07:29:15 pm
That Fortress mode will still be extrapolated when it comes to tools, while Adventurer mode will still require them.
Post by: Strangething on July 01, 2010, 07:34:24 pm
Post by: Willfor on July 01, 2010, 07:40:12 pm
Does this entity population center thing mean that our fortresses will have suburbs? Because I am cool with that.The word is that you'll be able to have outlaying settlements to pull soldiers and resources from for your armies, and have your fortress serve as a central government and, well, fortress. It will allow bigger armies without dealing with FPS death.
Post by: tfaal on July 01, 2010, 08:12:50 pm
yeah, thatPlows I could see. They're large enough and you'll need relatively few of them. Could probably fall into the siege engine system.
also this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plough)
Post by: Org on July 01, 2010, 08:20:49 pm
Post by: Skeggox on July 01, 2010, 09:11:14 pm
With soil and rocks having different hardness, you could require invaders to be armed with hard-enough tools to be able to actually dig through it. So, kobolds with copper tools might only be able to dig through soil, but bronze-armed goblins can take on softer stone (like sandstone). Humans with their iron picks can manage hard rock, like granite. Elves will have to stand there and and look pansy, unless they descend below the kobold level and dig away with wooden training picks :P Creatures will have similar abilities, based on the material hardness of their claws. Groundhogs could maybe manage soil, but you'd need a forgotten beast at least to tackle obsidian.
Constructions could either add or take away from the strength of a natural stone, I'm still undecided on that. Smoothing might also make a difference, potentially.
Post by: Footkerchief on July 01, 2010, 09:19:12 pm
I think with digging invaders we should use the material system to keep things in check.
With soil and rocks having different hardness, you could require invaders to be armed with hard-enough tools to be able to actually dig through it. So, kobolds with copper tools might only be able to dig through soil, but bronze-armed goblins can take on softer stone (like sandstone). Humans with their iron picks can manage hard rock, like granite. Elves will have to stand there and and look pansy, unless they descend below the kobold level and dig away with wooden training picks :P Creatures will have similar abilities, based on the material hardness of their claws. Groundhogs could maybe manage soil, but you'd need a forgotten beast at least to tackle obsidian.
Constructions could either add or take away from the strength of a natural stone, I'm still undecided on that. Smoothing might also make a difference, potentially.
That was all covered in the big Suggestions thread on tunneling enemies (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=28846.msg399519;topicseen#msg399519) (plus another thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=57239.0)). This discussion should probably move there, since it's repeatedly shown its potential to utterly derail a thread.
Also, this item
Quote
is super hardcore.
- Ability to offer quick deaths to mortally wounded people to get them to talk
Post by: Randall Octagonapus on July 01, 2010, 09:26:02 pm
I think with digging invaders we should use the material system to keep things in check.
With soil and rocks having different hardness, you could require invaders to be armed with hard-enough tools to be able to actually dig through it. So, kobolds with copper tools might only be able to dig through soil, but bronze-armed goblins can take on softer stone (like sandstone). Humans with their iron picks can manage hard rock, like granite. Elves will have to stand there and and look pansy, unless they descend below the kobold level and dig away with wooden training picks :P Creatures will have similar abilities, based on the material hardness of their claws. Groundhogs could maybe manage soil, but you'd need a forgotten beast at least to tackle obsidian.
Constructions could either add or take away from the strength of a natural stone, I'm still undecided on that. Smoothing might also make a difference, potentially.
I dont think this makes much sense since our dwarves can dig through fun metal with copper picks
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 01, 2010, 10:02:52 pm
Let's start guessing what bugs will show up with each new feature!
Post by: tfaal on July 01, 2010, 10:54:03 pm
Quote from: Development Lists
Ability to perform decisive attacks on unsuspecting or heavily injured opponent (a cow being slaughtered, for instance)While that's designed for livestock, if it's handled right it should make finishing up fights less like tenderizing meat with a sword.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 01, 2010, 11:22:18 pm
Post by: G-Flex on July 02, 2010, 12:21:43 am
I think with digging invaders we should use the material system to keep things in check.
With soil and rocks having different hardness, you could require invaders to be armed with hard-enough tools to be able to actually dig through it. So, kobolds with copper tools might only be able to dig through soil, but bronze-armed goblins can take on softer stone (like sandstone). Humans with their iron picks can manage hard rock, like granite. Elves will have to stand there and and look pansy, unless they descend below the kobold level and dig away with wooden training picks :P Creatures will have similar abilities, based on the material hardness of their claws. Groundhogs could maybe manage soil, but you'd need a forgotten beast at least to tackle obsidian.
Constructions could either add or take away from the strength of a natural stone, I'm still undecided on that. Smoothing might also make a difference, potentially.
I dont think this makes much sense since our dwarves can dig through fun metal with copper picks
There's a bit of a catch-22 in what you're saying.
You're effectively saying "Your complete revamp of mining wouldn't work, because it contradicts the current implementation of mining"; that's kind of the point, really. There's no reason why similar rules couldn't apply to dwarves.
I personally find it a little presumptuous that humans wouldn't have at least some method of eventually tearing through, say, metallic walls, or that elves wouldn't have any methods of digging through stone at all, though. After all, there's more to mining/sapping/sieging than just picks.
Post by: James.Denholm on July 02, 2010, 01:41:06 am
Also, this itemQuoteis super hardcore.
- Ability to offer quick deaths to mortally wounded people to get them to talk
Especially when you don't give it to them.
"Oh, did I say a quick, painless death? Sorry, I meant a slow, carving-my-name-in-your-chest-with-bits-of-your-broken-teeth-painful death. Sorry, I get the two mixed up all the time."
Also, posting to follow.
Post by: Vattic on July 02, 2010, 04:10:56 am
Quote
Responding properly to personal fire issues
Perhaps dwarves will notice the fire now and even maybe try and put themselves out.
edit to add: there is so much good stuff on this list!
Post by: zwei on July 02, 2010, 05:32:47 am
- Yay for soil to being more interesting. So, what about more stuff like this? Fossils, burried bones, very rare occurences like very old coin, tool, armor piece or weapon?
Fulgurites? Meteoric pieces?
Holes made by digging animals?
Some of this is easily possible with modding already but items from item raws, but not everything
# Ability to pull up surface boulders
Now, This I like! finally way to get few stones before you even strike the earth! Pick-less embark just got s bit more interesting! Weeeeee!
Post by: DG on July 02, 2010, 05:37:21 am
Specifically your ideas on balancing early game and end game challenge with tangible character progression and any thoughts regarding the current methods of training skills. Will any of it be involved more than coincidentally in your upcoming work?
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 02, 2010, 06:01:58 am
Imagine when we get citys in the size of a pocketworld. Including 3d-ness from mixed cultures ala Giant trees above and dungeon below. I can see loading and unloading of people as well as structures happen as a adventurer walks through a place.
I don't picture that happening. That would be extremely massive. I am not even sure Rome was that large.
It would certainly be a huge city.
A minor friendly nitpick because this is a topic of mine interest.
Up to the 19th century, cities were tiny. Ancient Rome during its height had what... 5 kilometres in diameter? 16th century London packed perhaps 100K people into the same space, if not smaller. Both Rome and London would take only a small fraction of the smallest DF pocket world (as far as I can judge the non-defined scale). I can't imagine city the size of a pocket world.
To have sprawled cities, you need cars. Without cars, the population would be packed incredibly dense, and for a large city you'd need population in millions ("large" still being just a couple of kilometres - see 19th century London). Population in millions is unimaginable without industrial revolution because you have to feed the people somehow. All in all, I guess Dwarf Fortress has no other option that to remain reasonably small (the extreme largest city having what... tens of thousands people?). Not because it's historical, but because if you simulate things like farming and economy, there's no other way.
That was an European perspective, anyway. I have no idea how they fared in 14th century China.
Post by: Rube on July 02, 2010, 06:43:38 am
Not because it's historical, but because if you simulate things like farming and economy, there's no other way.
That's really dependant on how accurately the game simulates farming. With the current model a single skilled farmer can produce enough crops to feed a hundred, and his produce will never spoil if placed in a barrel. From there it doesn't matter how long it takes to deliver the food. It could take a year to deliver, but the unspoiled food from the previous year will be arriving in the meanwhile.
That model will change at some point, I guess, but I imagine it'll always be using a somewhat simplified and forgiving model because the game's focus isn't farming.
Post by: Athmos on July 02, 2010, 07:03:42 am
Any kind of above village settlement requires food from the outside anyway. Just ask yourself about realistically sized farms and, more to the point, realistically sized fields and food source. It gives a nice indication of how much space a settlement of any sized actually depends on.
Post by: Jimmy on July 02, 2010, 07:09:28 am
Yeah, or there's the fact that most dwarves only eat six times a year.Not because it's historical, but because if you simulate things like farming and economy, there's no other way.
That's really dependant on how accurately the game simulates farming. With the current model a single skilled farmer can produce enough crops to feed a hundred, and his produce will never spoil if placed in a barrel. From there it doesn't matter how long it takes to deliver the food. It could take a year to deliver, but the unspoiled food from the previous year will be arriving in the meanwhile.
That model will change at some point, I guess, but I imagine it'll always be using a somewhat simplified and forgiving model because the game's focus isn't farming.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 02, 2010, 07:14:57 am
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 02, 2010, 07:29:15 am
Fortunately, fortress mode can have different rules than the adventure mode and world-gen.
Quote from: Athmos
Dunno about the actual metric *size*, but ancient rome actually got up to about one million people. Historically, the only economy that could enable town population that large (apart from industrial revolution of course) was large tributes coming from outside and slave labor.Thanks for elaborating, I forgot about this history lesson ;) Then when the Roman Empire collapsed, Rome and most cities quickly depopulated, as the people were running to the countryside for food, leaving all the former great population centres eerily empty with only a handful of people remaining (most notably the nobility fled to their country villas), all the buildings unmaintained and slowly crumbling. IIRC, Rome remained heavily underpopulated up to the early modern age.
It would be awesome to see something like this in the worldgen.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 02, 2010, 07:31:34 am
bronze-armed goblins can take on softer stone (like sandstone). Humans with their iron picks can manage hard rock, like granite.
you guys still don't get it? bronze is harder than iron.
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 02, 2010, 07:33:18 am
you guys still don't get it? bronze is harder than iron.
Harder then elemental iron (= DF iron) maybe. But softer than "proper iron", ie. iron with impurities, work-hardened and whatnot.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 02, 2010, 07:35:36 am
Post by: Haspen on July 02, 2010, 08:29:29 am
According to DF Wiki, and of course, it's more real-life like now :3
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 02, 2010, 08:39:18 am
Post by: Athmos on July 02, 2010, 08:55:58 am
Post by: tfaal on July 02, 2010, 09:00:57 am
Post by: Untelligent on July 02, 2010, 09:18:31 am
bronze-armed goblins can take on softer stone (like sandstone). Humans with their iron picks can manage hard rock, like granite.
I don't think humans can even use iron.
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on July 02, 2010, 09:21:05 am
Yeah, steel is usually defined by a small amount of carbon in the mixture. No one uses pure iron, because it's extremely soft. Adding bits of glass called slag to the mixture creates a metal called wrought iron, which is stronger, has a noticeable grain to it, and is what people usually mean when they say "iron". However, bronze is still a stronger metal than wrought iron. The iron age came after the bronze age, because improvements in metallurgy made the production of iron and steel -- which is stronger than bronze -- more cost effective, and because of a rather sizable tin shortage which drove the price of bronze up to an unmanageable height.
More of #2 than #1. Copper and tin aren't found together, and with civilization collapsing and all, Iron became the only material a lot of people had access to.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 02, 2010, 09:32:59 am
Post by: Footkerchief on July 02, 2010, 09:37:52 am
civilization colapsing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_collapse
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 02, 2010, 09:54:28 am
Post by: tfaal on July 02, 2010, 10:25:42 am
Post by: kilakan on July 02, 2010, 10:31:43 am
Post by: Dakkan on July 02, 2010, 10:38:45 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 02, 2010, 10:44:29 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 02, 2010, 10:47:32 am
I'm thinking Archaeologist myself; going to ancient, half buried ruins, and excavating them, reading their engravings, and slaying the ancient horrors that slumber beneath them. Then taking the choicest trinkets back to a museum built on the outskirts of a friendly town, to display them for the rest of the world to see.after moding in fedora hats, ofcourse
Post by: tfaal on July 02, 2010, 10:51:08 am
I think I'd like to play AS a villian/night creature. You know, roaming from town to town, converting the population into horrific creatures at my command? Eventually I'd have a "Children Golem" division for extended psychological sieges.That could be doable, given these bits:
Quote from: Adventurer Role: Slayer of Night Creatures
- Curses and exposure
- Can be cursed by night creatures when you put them down
- The slaves of night creatures could have extreme effects from proximity that also affect you if you make a business of hunting them
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 02, 2010, 10:58:27 am
I'm thinking Archaeologist myself; going to ancient, half buried ruins, and excavating them, reading their engravings, and slaying the ancient horrors that slumber beneath them. Then taking the choicest trinkets back to a museum built on the outskirts of a friendly town, to display them for the rest of the world to see.after moding in fedora hats, ofcourse
Of course. Naturally, I'll also need a whip, and I'll get a knife-user with a leather jacket and 'neatly combed' hair along as a bodyguard.
Post by: Knight Otu on July 02, 2010, 10:59:15 am
How much will personality and/or personal capability play into a historical figure's desire to obtain or keep power, whether legitimately or as a Villain-type character? Might other factors come into play as well? Currently, even a powerful creature with maximum ambition will not necessarily obtain entity positions if they are open, possibly even taking up farming. I guess this might tie into leaders abdicating without fail if a POWER rolls into town and claims divinity.
Post by: Untelligent on July 02, 2010, 11:29:34 am
I'm curious to see how mine carts will be implemented. I hope there will be some entertaining bugs with them, like atomsmashing whatever's pulling it whenever it moves or something.
Let's start guessing what bugs will show up with each new feature!
Ooh, I like that game!
Movement speeds, turning and inertia
Mounts can only turn right.
Reputation with entity (see below) allowing for easier followers
Reputation can only go down, never up. Alternatively, too much genocide causes your reputation to go so low it hits the end of the binary integer and loops around, making you the most-liked adventurer in the world.
People offering free goods to heroes
The game forgets to uncheck the ownership flag and you become wanted for theft.
Being able to haul multiple small objects
Quantum stockpile, meet the quantum hauler.
Ability to jump in adv mode
What goes up fails to come back down.
Post by: Mephansteras on July 02, 2010, 11:34:36 am
Post by: Dakkan on July 02, 2010, 11:50:01 am
I think I'd like to play AS a villian/night creature. You know, roaming from town to town, converting the population into horrific creatures at my command? Eventually I'd have a "Children Golem" division for extended psychological sieges.That could be doable, given these bits:Quote from: Adventurer Role: Slayer of Night Creatures
- Curses and exposure
- Can be cursed by night creatures when you put them down
- The slaves of night creatures could have extreme effects from proximity that also affect you if you make a business of hunting them
I hope there's a curse effect that turns you undead, yet retains free will. Then I'll end up playing Lich Tower instead of Dwarf Fortress, in adventure mode. Zombies and skeletons would make excellent manual labor workers!
Post by: Cruxador on July 02, 2010, 12:53:22 pm
So, what kind of roles would you guys like to play as an adventurer? Obviously, we'll play all of them as they get implemented, but what features are you looking forward to most? I'm quite excited about the stuff under "Villians" and "Adventurer Role: Treasure Hunter". Actual challenges are going to be a blast.Adventurer Roles: Hero sounds delightfully Homeric. That, plus the some of the stuff from Adventurer Skills, will allow creation of a fortress stocked with brave lackeys, and wars and other such endeavors wherein we lead an army as the greatest hero-king to ever walk the earth.
Post by: Mr. Penguin on July 02, 2010, 01:45:32 pm
Post by: Blind Wolf on July 02, 2010, 01:47:07 pm
Post by: Mr. Penguin on July 02, 2010, 01:48:01 pm
I'm liking the sound of most of it, but there are a few things that look bad. For one, I've never been a big fan of having guilds, it seems like they take some of the control away from the player. And even MORE demands to put up with? I'm not fond of digging enemies either, but thankfully it will be optional.A little bit of editing the raws and BAM!
They are gone... :P
Post by: Knight Otu on July 02, 2010, 02:12:57 pm
A little bit of editing the raws and BAM!Assuming that guilds enter the raws, that is. The dev page doesn't exactly say whether we should except new things in the raws.
They are gone... :P
Hmm, I've been considering posting a raws suggestion thread vaguely in the vein of the Diversity threads. Maybe I should consider polishing what I have...
Post by: mendonca on July 02, 2010, 02:18:10 pm
I'm liking the sound of most of it, but there are a few things that look bad. For one, I've never been a big fan of having guilds, it seems like they take some of the control away from the player. And even MORE demands to put up with? I'm not fond of digging enemies either, but thankfully it will be optional.
The guilds (and families / groups etc.) are one of the things I am most looking forward to, I can see it as enriching the cultures of the civs quite a bit.
I suspect that some real lessons will be learned from the current entity demand processes, and this might even be a good opportunity to revisit the current implementation a little bit?
Plus we need more dwarven infighting, thats for sure.
Post by: chaturga on July 02, 2010, 02:33:56 pm
Post by: Cespinarve on July 02, 2010, 03:29:57 pm
Regarding the two of the top ten ESV items not specifically addressed on the new page, sped-up pathfinding and graphics support, the idea with the first is an upcoming date with the linux profiler now that we've got DF running over there to address the low-hanging fruit on the main grievance behind the suggestion (large, slow forts).This one line is the feature I'm most interested about. Significant increases in FPS over time mean community forts wouldn't need to be abandoned after a few years, and megaprojects would be much more fun to create. Hopefully improved pathfinding will provide these increases. Very exciting announcement.
This is the feature I understand the least- I'm not a programmer at all. How will Linux help pathfinding to be better? Does it apply to other platforms as well?
Post by: jfs on July 02, 2010, 03:45:13 pm
This is the feature I understand the least- I'm not a programmer at all. How will Linux help pathfinding to be better? Does it apply to other platforms as well?
Linux in itself won't help, but the Linux version of DF can be analysed by software called a profiler, that automatically inserts measurement-points in the program code and then collects data about what parts of the code take up the most time. So if Toady loads a really big and slow fortress into a profiling-enabled build of DF, he can get graphs etc. over which parts of the code needs the most immediate improvement to make that fortress, and probably other similar ones, run faster.
Profiling software exists for all platforms, though, it's not something specific to Linux either.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 02, 2010, 04:32:18 pm
Post by: G-Flex on July 02, 2010, 04:33:08 pm
The profiler is most likely a very competent programmer who knows how good pathing has to work. That (s)he does help with the Linux version seems to me just like a additional plus.
That's not what "profiler" means.
A profiler is more or less what jfs described: It would be used to monitor the performance of the program.
Post by: Yaddy1 on July 02, 2010, 04:38:27 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 02, 2010, 04:45:26 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on July 02, 2010, 05:45:00 pm
G-flex i know that difference very well. The term "Date" toady uses just indicates (to me) that he could mean a Person instead of a profiling program. The word "profiler" is a bit Ambiguous (again to me) since it could mean a basic profiling software or a person that is a specialist for optimisation.
Haha, Toady was just using "date" whimsically. He meant profiling software (most likely Valgrind -- that's what Baughn was encouraging him to use). I don't think "profiler" can refer to a person in English, at least in the context of computing.
Post by: John Keel on July 02, 2010, 08:00:34 pm
The first would be way more awesome, but incredibly hard to model in a way that makes sense without large-scale concepts like friction and disconnected but touching constructs. The second seems like it would be relatively easy to model in some ways, but again would be confusing without seperate sections of constructions. It would also be much more Fun, what with the possibilities of a building destroyer getting to a connecting piston.
Post by: wyldmage on July 02, 2010, 08:54:49 pm
From what I've played, I have to agree that traps are too good (and look forward to them being more intensive), and after getting a strong defense in places, sieges are almost trivial.
So looking forward to these changes, though it would be nice if early goblin waves took a bit longer before sending archer squads, as I've noticed that these are nearly impossible to fight properly if they send decent skill levels for the 2nd year (got hit by 2 ambushes virtually at once, both had 4 archers plus 2-4 wrestlers, and my 48 dwarves lost over 20 in an attempt to mass-recruit my entire fort and wrestle them to the ground [my military of 6 were wiped out by the archers and only killed a single goblin]).
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 03, 2010, 01:29:41 am
I want to be able to order a slave gang to excavate those ruins, while I lounge about with a platter of fresh, slave-picked, strawberries, and if anyone thinks about shirking off or running away, having my well paid slave drivers chase them down.
Post by: Jamal on July 03, 2010, 01:39:35 am
Please show us more of your sweet guitar skills.
Post by: nuker w on July 03, 2010, 03:24:09 am
Toady, what degree of finesse are you planning on giving orders to followers? I.e. would it be possible to order a group of followers to dig *this* location or collect fruit from *that* specific tree? Also, any plans on being able to force loyalty beyond acting as a guide? Oooh, and can we get other people to enforce said loyalty for us?
I want to be able to order a slave gang to excavate those ruins, while I lounge about with a platter of fresh, slave-picked, strawberries, and if anyone thinks about shirking off or running away, having my well paid slave drivers chase them down.
I would also like to know this. Imagine being a trader and sitting on your butt all day as your slave drivers force your slaves to pull and drive your caravans all around the world...
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 03, 2010, 11:17:02 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 03, 2010, 12:09:17 pm
Quote
07/03/2010: The pristine dev pages were bugging me, so I did sharpening stones, the hunger/thirst extension, butchery, and a prepared elf brain in my backpack so that I could color a few of them the "in next release" color. You can make a sharpened version of any stone right now -- we'll restrict the candidate minerals a bit once surface rocks are a little less homogenous in most places. During the course of adding basic knapping, I put in support for custom (buildingless) adventure mode "reactions", so some modding should be possible there for people that want to add their own production chains. The syntax for reagents/products is the same as dwarf mode, with the same capabilities and restrictions. Now I'll be back to combat/archery bugs for a bit, then we'll do a release.
so much in a day :P, and it'll be out in a few weeks max, possibly a couple of days
Post by: Dakkan on July 03, 2010, 12:14:20 pm
Post by: Diablous on July 03, 2010, 12:15:47 pm
Post by: zwei on July 03, 2010, 12:22:55 pm
It's light blue. Kinda reminds me of microline.
So, are we gonna get spammed by them?
Post by: UmbrageOfSnow on July 03, 2010, 12:43:32 pm
Does the power/machine infrastructure even support something like that?
Post by: DeKaFu on July 03, 2010, 01:33:39 pm
I don't think it should be like a zombie-outbreak scenario, but having some way of catching monstrosity could be a lot of fun in both modes. I'm especially thinking of getting a werewolf curse in adventure mode and trying to keep it secret from the townsfolk while hunting for a cure. Or just eating everybody and attracting the attention of monster hunters. :P
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 03, 2010, 01:46:29 pm
I thinking on that problem from now and then but i didnt find a good solution yet since you have to transfer wounds etc. I mean its fairly easy to turn one humanoid into a another but a dragon into a Human and back is rather tricky - heck even turning 2 part legs into 3 part legs (Human <-> lycantroph) has some tricky-ness . Like how do you communicate the damage on the wings onto the Human?
Post by: Footkerchief on July 03, 2010, 02:01:56 pm
On the night creatures topic...what are the plans for infectious lycanthropy/vampirism/etc?
I don't think it should be like a zombie-outbreak scenario, but having some way of catching monstrosity could be a lot of fun in both modes. I'm especially thinking of getting a werewolf curse in adventure mode and trying to keep it secret from the townsfolk while hunting for a cure. Or just eating everybody and attracting the attention of monster hunters. :P
There were some powergoals about werewolves. They aren't real dev items anymore, but they're still illuminating:
Quote
# PowerGoal60, HUNGRY LIKE THE WOLF, (Future): You put on a talisman, turn into a werewolf, and your buddy screams, "take it off!", but you can't understand him with your beast mind and soon fill with rage and kill him.
# PowerGoal78, WEREWOLF HUNTER, (Future): Dolnar the hunter teaches you how to track the werewolf by its sign and by its call. She recommends a special breed of hunting dog, known for its ability to track down and contest the elusive beasts.
Post by: kaypy on July 03, 2010, 11:09:17 pm
I thinking on that problem from now and then but i didnt find a good solution yet since you have to transfer wounds etc. I mean its fairly easy to turn one humanoid into a another but a dragon into a Human and back is rather tricky - heck even turning 2 part legs into 3 part legs (Human <-> lycantroph) has some tricky-ness . Like how do you communicate the damage on the wings onto the Human?You could do a lot with some simple serial identifiers. A wound on one part would transfer to the part on the new form with the same identifier. If no identifier match is found, either discard the wounds (no equivalent location) or transfer some degree of injury [1] to the next part up the chain till you find a match.
You need identifiers rather than just taking an exact match, so that you can match eg a wing on a bird to an arm on a biped or a foreleg on a quadruped
--
[1] You would not transfer the full injury- for example, if a creature with a missing tail is transformed into a form with no tail then this would not result in the transformee having a missing lower body...
Post by: Jackrabbit on July 04, 2010, 01:22:25 am
Post by: G-Flex on July 04, 2010, 01:27:26 am
You could do a lot with some simple serial identifiers. A wound on one part would transfer to the part on the new form with the same identifier. If no identifier match is found, either discard the wounds (no equivalent location) or transfer some degree of injury [1] to the next part up the chain till you find a match.
One problem here: What if it's ambiguous? For instance, a creature with two wings transforming into a creature with four arms. I suppose you could spread the wound over each equivalent arm, or... something.
Post by: Dwarfu on July 04, 2010, 02:02:31 am
Quote
# Ability to set fires and select supplies to haul back when sacking a site
Will this include slaves or prisoners to ransom?
entity_default
[ETHIC:SLAVERY:PUNISH_CAPITAL]
How will ethics be further fleshed out to cover these situations?
Post by: Nivim on July 04, 2010, 06:39:33 am
I should be able to make a Full Metal Alchemist mod with those changes. Add buildingless reactions that consume one "alchemy circle"(made from another reaction with a piece of chalk, which can be bought en mass) and create stone/weapons/etc. Too bad there's no way to make it produce things made from the material of the floor...Possibly creating reactions using nearby rocks, if possible right now.
Will the adventurer reactions be able to include reagents not normally seen in fortress mode, such as those random pebbles and loam?
Post by: SirPenguin on July 04, 2010, 10:58:39 am
Post by: Footkerchief on July 04, 2010, 12:23:01 pm
I'm not sure what kickstarted Toady back into a regular schedule, but I am extremely excited and hopeful to see new features and bug fixes happening on a very regular basis. Feels like the old Toady again.
What do you mean? June was full of bug fixes -- about 100 of them, by the bug tracker's count. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/changelog_page.php)
Post by: SirPenguin on July 04, 2010, 12:58:22 pm
This release single handedly killed any community it once had among many gaming forums I frequent. Poor Toady has been attacked pretty much non-stop as people bitch about his programming and jump ship to other games like Minecraft and Goblin Camp. No one is actually playing the game anymore.
I made this post on SA around mid-May, though it's not accurate anymore, it certainly describes why so many people gave up on the project.
Quote
Regardless of your opinion on Toady, his business model, his public life, his private life, his cat or even his cat's business model...he's slowing down, and it's been to the detriment of the game and its players.
~2 weeks separated 40a from 40d, with 40b (coming out 3 days later) having more bugs fixed than 31.02 and 31.03 combined.
~3 weeks separated 39a from 39f, with 39a being the infamous "sleep forever" bugged released. In that time he (obviously) released 39b, c, d, e, and f, all of which not only contained bug fixes, but actually added even more content to the game. The site finder, being able to increase grid size, and a huge list of bugs. All fixed in 3 weeks.
It's been ~6 weeks since 31 was released. In that time we've had 2 releases whose crowning accomplishment has been the fixing of half a dozen crashes.
But yeah, I'll concede June has been a very good month, and .09 appears to be the first version that will actually be presentable, which is exciting.
Post by: Footkerchief on July 04, 2010, 01:03:51 pm
Many of those are duplicates, though, or extremely minor issues.
[...]QuoteRegardless of your opinion on Toady, his business model, his public life, his private life, his cat or even his cat's business model...he's slowing down, and it's been to the detriment of the game and its players.
~2 weeks separated 40a from 40d, with 40b (coming out 3 days later) having more bugs fixed than 31.02 and 31.03 combined.
~3 weeks separated 39a from 39f, with 39a being the infamous "sleep forever" bugged released. In that time he (obviously) released 39b, c, d, e, and f, all of which not only contained bug fixes, but actually added even more content to the game. The site finder, being able to increase grid size, and a huge list of bugs. All fixed in 3 weeks.
It's been ~6 weeks since 31 was released. In that time we've had 2 releases whose crowning accomplishment has been the fixing of half a dozen crashes.
You're playing extremely fast and loose with the numbers here, to the extent that it looks like you're trying to generate numerical rationalizations for your emotions.
This release single handedly killed any community it once had among many gaming forums I frequent. Poor Toady has been attacked pretty much non-stop as people bitch about his programming and jump ship to other games like Minecraft and Goblin Camp. No one is actually playing the game anymore.
This is pure sensationalism -- a sweeping assessment based on a very small number of highly vocal people.
I saw your post about the "pendulum" on SA, (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3293395&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=101#post379177546) and honestly I think that's more projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) than observation. You're jumping at devlog shadows (no offense).
Post by: rex mortis on July 04, 2010, 01:16:48 pm
Quote
Ability to set fires and select supplies to haul back when sacking a siteWill this include creatures as well? I really want to rescue my kidnapped children and enslave any goblins not fortunate enough to die in battle.
Post by: Untelligent on July 04, 2010, 01:34:10 pm
I should be able to make a Full Metal Alchemist mod with those changes. Add buildingless reactions that consume one "alchemy circle"(made from another reaction with a piece of chalk, which can be bought en mass) and create stone/weapons/etc. Too bad there's no way to make it produce things made from the material of the floor...Possibly creating reactions using nearby rocks, if possible right now.
Will the adventurer reactions be able to include reagents not normally seen in fortress mode, such as those random pebbles and loam?
Those little pebbles, probably. Their item type (ROCK) has been around for awhile, but nobody's ever been able to use it. Now it might see some use. Hmm...
Post by: SirPenguin on July 04, 2010, 02:20:03 pm
I saw your post about the "pendulum" on SA, (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3293395&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=101#post379177546) and honestly I think that's more projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) than observation. You're jumping at devlog shadows (no offense).
Seems like you're trying to reason my arguments away with some rather silly conclusions - I mean honestly, projection? I'm glad you didn't take anything past General Psychology, else I'd really be in trouble! I can assure you I'm not nearly as invested in this game as to have to rationalize anything I feel about it. I hate to use what clearly feels like a "GameFAQs" argument, but it's fact that Toady has been slower than ever in fixing this release. Here we are, 3 months later, and I can make a very long list of problems that prevent me from playing the game. Compare that to how quickly he was able to fix up prior releases, especially in the last 3 years, and I'm sure you'll understand what I mean.
Anyways, all I'm saying is that I'm excited that the game seemingly will be playable soon. I realize now I came across as inflammatory, and I apologize for that. It's frustrating to watch entire communities die out because of a badly supported release, and this isn't made any easier after reading the droves of Toady apologists on this forum (even when Toady himself is super reasonable about everything). I guess that's why I put an edge to my post.
Post by: Footkerchief on July 04, 2010, 02:31:33 pm
Seems like you're trying to reason my arguments away with some rather silly conclusions - I mean honestly, projection? I'm glad you didn't take anything past General Psychology, else I'd really be in trouble! I can assure you I'm not nearly as invested in this game as to have to rationalize anything I feel about it.
Rationalizing may not have been the right term, but sensationalism definitely was. You're putting way too much stock in indicators that are ultimately superficial, e.g. trying to extrapolate Toady's productivity from numbers games, or claiming that communities have dropped dead because a couple people threw tantrums.
I hate to use what clearly feels like a "GameFAQs" argument, but it's fact that Toady has been slower than ever in fixing this release. Here we are, 3 months later, and I can make a very long list of problems that prevent me from playing the game. Compare that to how quickly he was able to fix up prior releases, especially in the last 3 years, and I'm sure you'll understand what I mean.
It was an 18-month release cycle that revamped many of the game's fundamental systems, so it shouldn't be surprising that it's taking longer than ever to fix all the problems. That doesn't mean he's working more slowly. I'm not saying I'm totally happy with the course of development, but given the state of the game on April 1st, I'm very happy with the progress that's been made in the last three months.
Anyways, all I'm saying is that I'm excited that the game seemingly will be playable soon.
I can agree with that.
Post by: smjjames on July 04, 2010, 02:36:37 pm
I hate to use what clearly feels like a "GameFAQs" argument, but it's fact that Toady has been slower than ever in fixing this release. Here we are, 3 months later, and I can make a very long list of problems that prevent me from playing the game. Compare that to how quickly he was able to fix up prior releases, especially in the last 3 years, and I'm sure you'll understand what I mean.
It was an 18-month release cycle that revamped many of the game's fundamental systems. Of course it's taking longer than ever to fix all the problems. That doesn't mean he's working more slowly.Anyways, all I'm saying is that I'm excited that the game seemingly will be playable soon.
I can agree with that.
Speaking of dropping the ball, it was either release it in a mostly playable state or make people wait even more. Toady also got caught up with the SDL merge since that took a while.
Still, the community has found bugs faster and more thoroughly than a smaller testing team would since players do all kinds of things and have more time on hand than a paid tester. People even did testing around and found solutions to some of the stuff.
As for list of problems keeping you from playing the game, why don't you list them?..... I'm sure military is high on the list, but Toady is working on it piece by piece.
Post by: Urist McOverlord on July 04, 2010, 03:47:22 pm
Will we be able to put workshops/stockpiles/etc. on them?
Will this effect how constructions are currently supported and what happens to them?
Example: can I link bridges together to form a path that extends slowly in the shape of a spiral towards the inner sanctum.
Can we control the time it takes to do these?
What kinds of transformations will be possible? Piston-dropping platforms? Winched systems? Gear-rotations?
Will there be new methods to get power? Or will we still be limited to the previous?
Can power be acquired by moving constructions?
Example: Can I create a dwarf-powered generator powered by my main hallways rocking back and forth as dwarves walk through it?
Post by: Quatch on July 04, 2010, 04:02:52 pm
[..Offtopic ranting..]
Maybe you could take your offtopic thoughts somewhere where else. Getting a new post notification is much sadder when I find it is your material.
With the faster release cycle, is it possible to notify us if we can re-use our init files?
Post by: Footkerchief on July 04, 2010, 04:09:07 pm
Maybe you could take your offtopic thoughts somewhere where else. Getting a new post notification is much sadder when I find it is your material.
It wasn't off-topic, or even ranting, really.
With the faster release cycle, is it possible to notify us if we can re-use our init files?
DF already includes file_changes.txt, which tells you whether changes have been made to the init format.
Post by: Syff on July 04, 2010, 05:41:28 pm
The long development cycle of 0.31.x seems to have left a number of people jaded and skeptical of the project's direction and potential, and I'd really love if Toady could re-establish some of that lost confidence. Then again, nay-sayers will be nay-sayers, and it's probably foolish to hope that they'll "come around".
Post by: Capntastic on July 04, 2010, 06:25:18 pm
Can love blossom on the battlefield?
EDIT: Hopefully I'll be able to mod in Tactical Espionage Action
Post by: FuzzyDoom on July 04, 2010, 08:06:29 pm
...
I've got nothing. Good job so far Toady! Don't listen to what SirPenguin is saying. Take all the time in the world. It's YOUR game, and you're spending YOUR time developing it so that people like us can enjoy it. If he (or anybody else) doesn't like how long it's taking then too bad, they just need to chill out and wait.
Post by: Dakk on July 04, 2010, 08:13:42 pm
Sorry if I'm sorta late, but here goes: On moving fortress parts, would things like walls like the ones in indiana movies be possible? Such as rotating and moving walls that you can build, select and link to some mechanism and asign a function to them, as to create crushing wall traps, rotating secret doors, and whatnot, or the moving parts will all be predefined like the contructions on the uild mode?
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 04, 2010, 08:14:07 pm
What will happen in a world where one man rises up to realize he can enjoy Dwarf Fortress and Goblin Camp simultaneously for different, or even similar reasons.
Can love blossom on the battlefield?
EDIT: Hopefully I'll be able to mod in Tactical Espionage Action
Please tell me this is what the next DF Talk is about.
Post by: Eduren on July 05, 2010, 01:35:11 am
Post by: Neonivek on July 05, 2010, 03:03:44 am
Heck the one I am looking forward to the most was in the development page before this one.
I am looking forward to a few of them. Though I see people are taking the "roles" to litterally/seriously when to me they seem to just be titles to represent areas where the Adventurer mode can be expanded upon rather then strict Adventurer roles.
Post by: isitanos on July 05, 2010, 03:27:20 am
-----------------------
Quote
Basic Adventure Mode SkillsThis would be a really novel feature in an adventure game, I'm looking forward to it.
- Hunting/tracking animals
- Everybody leaving trails of information that can be tracked with the appropriate skill
Quote
They're not exactly livestock, but I'd love to raise dragons or giant eagles from their eggs :) . I suppose raiding the nest and facing the angry female would be a nice challenge. Or just buy the eggs from the elves or some smugglers.
- Raising livestock
- Eggs, chickens and associated objects
Quote
Adventurer Role: HeroAll the combat stuff is good, but this is excellent, especially the fact it can happen to you. I can imagine a small gnome jumping around on your shoulders and head and stabbing you all over with a tiny dagger while you flail your arms around helplessly.
- Combat flow
- Ability to jump up on and ride opponents if they are large enough (can happen to you too of course)
Quote
Adventurer Role: ThiefThis is the thieving/crime system I've always dreamed of, I don't know of any game that even came close. Pushing this just a step further, setting up evidence so that someone else gets accused in your place (dropping the bloody dagger in his garbage, money under his bed, or whatever), then fearing as the legendary investigator tracks one by one the clues that lead to you, would just be an amazing experience.
- Bounties and being hunted
- No automatic recognition that you have stolen an item
- People should notice when items are missing and raise an alert
- Strangers found around town when crime is suspected should be stopped and searched
- Your identity/appearance should be remembered for a time if you are seen in an area
- If your identity/appearance is associated to an alert over a crime, somebody responsible in the entity should put a bounty on you if appropriate for the entity
- You should leave tracking information and it should keep track of the last many people you have talked to
- Entity warriors and other adventurers should following your tracking information
Quote
Having to observe and copy people's behavior so the disguise works would be interesting. For instance, if you infiltrate a temple but don't notice that people never walk on the engraved sacred floor in front of a particular statue, and walk there while being seen, you should immediately look suspicious.
- Concealing your identity
- Being able to assume a different name
- Changing your clothes should affect the appearance tracking
- Covering your face/hair with hoods, masks, etc. should affect appearance tracking
- Skills for changing voice and mannerisms convincingly
- If you screw up, you can be regarded as a suspicious stranger, which is worse than being a regular stranger
Quote
Any plans in the close future for randomly granting rare special effects to some artifacts ? Since the eventual magic framework is not even in sight, it would be nice to have some effects that tie to the current game mechanics : attracting undead, spawning a demon, horrifying the elves for some reason or scaring some types of enemies, and so on.
- Artifacts
They could also be associated with diseases/plagues or curses from the night creatures theme. Or with spheres and gods. Associating with gods would be something you could something you could probably code up in a half-day, if it's just an initial implementation for flavor : from time to time a dwarf makes an artifact « to the glory of XYZ ».
Quote
Adventurer Role: ExplorerWill you keep improving the underground in the short term, and add incentives to dig down and face the dangers to find useful stuff? I'd love if you could bring back cave rivers, and get them to repopulate (and have creatures not get stuck or suicide in waterfalls), together with surface rivers. Some rivers could disappear underground and resurface elsewhere, as happens in real life.
- Lands and beastiary
- More overland map features and local variations
A sea monster swimming up the river and attacking you from either underground or the surface would be a Fun surprise.
Quote
And associate them with artifacts from time to time (i.e. The artifact is a mobile influence sphere) for amusing effects ;) .
- Scrap good/evil lands for lands with more variety
Quote
Hauling ImprovementsBeing able to make slopes of various grades would be interesting, both to build rails on them (so that in one direction, the cart doesn't need to be pulled), and to get objects or creatures to slide down them at various speeds depending on the grade and the amount of soap you put on it. A trap that sends goblins on a slippery spiral all the way down to the magma would definitely be fun, but the same mechanism would make for a nice garbage dump, etc.
- Minecarts
- Wooden, stone-carved and metal tracks
- Can be filled like stockpiles and moved between destinations
Quote
Workshop Material Use and Specific Object ConstructionOn this topic, it would be nice if the current lists for object/material selection allowed for sorting by quality and remembered those settings, so we can easily build 20 beds without wasting the masterwork ones on peasants. Filtering by typing as on the job manager screen would also be welcome...
- Ability to order the construction of a specific item or decoration of item in complete detail
Quote
Improved MechanicsLooking forward to this.
- Better traps
Quote
Job PrioritiesThe day this is implemented is gonna be a great day. This should also extend to designations, maybe with a similar interface as that for delimiting trafic zones : i.e. « this zone should be mined out asap !!! ».
- Rework dwarf AI to support job priorities
- Rework job assignment process to support priorities set on dwarves or for specific important jobs
Small related request that shouldn't require changing the whole pathfinding : can digging dwarves (and similar jobs) look 3 or 4 tiles away from them for the next batch of tiles to mine out, instead of immediately running a fortress-wide search ?
Quote
MilitaryVery much looking forward to all this. If your fortress is famous, the invaders might be well informed by travelers' tales of the fortress' general layout. Another way for a fortress to fall (very common in history) would be a traitor inside : either in disguise (nice tie-in with the thieving theme), or a beggar that you welcomed at the fortress, or a dwarf that cooperate with the enemy because of money, hate/misery/madness, ideology, or because they hold a loved one hostage. The traitor could do anything from giving info about the fortress layout and location of artifacts and secret documents, opening the door(s), pulling various levers, starting a fight for dubious pretexts to start a tantrum spiral, poisoning the water supply, digging at the wrong place, and so forth and so on.
- Improved sieges
- Coming up with a plan to overcome pathing obstacles to reach fortress innards
- Ability to dig (optionally, default on)
- Ability to build bridges/ramps
- Ability to use grappling hooks/ladders/climb
- Learning from mistakes if first attempted assault plan fails badly
- For instance, if many siegers are killed, caged, etc. in a given hallway, they shouldn't generally go that way again, even if that means building/climbing/digging
Might I suggest allowing fortress mode dwarves to build small 1-tile boats that they can move by rowing or with poles, and that they use for fishing and crossing dangerous water. Villains could make them too, to cross or bridge moats and rivers, but in heavy current it would be dangerous.
Post by: Cruxador on July 05, 2010, 03:54:06 am
The new dev page is indeed an awesome read. Here's my spontaneous and rather long review of it (rather of some parts of it), with the suggestions that come to mind.Don't green things that aren't questions. That just causes a hitch in the system for Toady.
[omitted due to fuckhuge post]
Post by: isitanos on July 05, 2010, 04:11:48 am
Post by: Toady One on July 05, 2010, 06:37:02 am
Post by: Fedor on July 05, 2010, 08:25:37 am
That said, I am running into two problems, only the first of which is clearly being addressed:
1) The military system is extremely cumbersome. Sure, you can do great things with it, but what I mostly want to do is simple stuff - get dwarves to train reliably, see them usually picking suitable weapons and armor for training and war without having their hands held or taking so long that enemies rampage through the fort while they re-equip, make them return to civilian work, or rally troops and particular civilians as needed to combat a threat. The 40d system accomplished three out of four of these things. However, at present, doing these things is very tedious, highly confusing, and doesn't always work. Too many things have to cooperate perfectly for something good to happen. A couple of examples: While the demonstrations and drills used in training are way cool, my dwarves spend inordinate amounts of time waiting for something to happen (which it may not, even if I let them waste months of game time) meanwhile gaining no skills. Also, when ordered to attack something, a group of dwarves tends in my experience to mostly stand near the target, watching one dwarf fight it. In short, it's hard to know when something isn't working because the player skipped one of the many required steps, or because the game doesn't have that feature polished yet.
2) More generally, I'm seeing a worrying increase in the sort of complexity that, instead of making the game cooler and more fun, makes it more confusing and unfriendly. Item properties are a particular beef of mine. I have no clue how to do anything with the following numbers, understand what they affect in game, or determine what values will accomplish which result.
Code: [Select]
[MOLAR_MASS:64000]
[IMPACT_YIELD:1080000]
[IMPACT_FRACTURE:1080000]
[IMPACT_ELASTICITY:600]
[COMPRESSIVE_YIELD:1080000]
[COMPRESSIVE_FRACTURE:1080000]
[COMPRESSIVE_ELASTICITY:600]
[TENSILE_YIELD:200000]
[TENSILE_FRACTURE:550000]
[TENSILE_ELASTICITY:124] 110
[TORSION_YIELD:200000]
[TORSION_FRACTURE:550000]
[TORSION_ELASTICITY:200]
[SHEAR_YIELD:200000]
[SHEAR_FRACTURE:550000]
[SHEAR_ELASTICITY:200]
[BENDING_YIELD:200000]
[BENDING_FRACTURE:550000]
[BENDING_ELASTICITY:124]
[MAX_EDGE:10000]
Post by: nuker w on July 05, 2010, 09:30:39 am
Post by: Psieye on July 05, 2010, 09:36:43 am
As for materials system complexity, it's DF's nature to get ridiculously complicated and detailed. But I assume you didn't complain of the huge variety of rocks and gems you can dig up? Just like how you'd need to dig out some (high school level) geology lore to understand the many kinds of rock (and if you're at university level, get disappointed with it), you need to dig out some materials science lore to understand the material properties. Those numbers are the exact variables materials scientists use to classify materials. As far as practical knowledge of "change this number to get this effect", people have been researching that over in the modding subforum so ask for a summary there if the wiki doesn't already have it.
Post by: mendonca on July 05, 2010, 09:48:44 am
people have been researching that over in the modding subforum so ask for a summary there if the wiki doesn't already have it.
Or change the values yourself, plot a graph of combat effectiveness vs. value based on weapon type / armor type etc., and publish the results yourself!
Really, with the Arena, there is no excuse. ;)
Post by: Neonivek on July 05, 2010, 12:24:07 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 05, 2010, 12:32:24 pm
Post by: G-Flex on July 05, 2010, 02:06:17 pm
2) More generally, I'm seeing a worrying increase in the sort of complexity that, instead of making the game cooler and more fun, makes it more confusing and unfriendly. Item properties are a particular beef of mine. I have no clue how to do anything with the following numbers, understand what they affect in game, or determine what values will accomplish which result.
Honestly, that's only really a problem for modders. As a player, all you need to know is stuff like "X is tough and pliable" or "Y can be really, really sharp". A little bit more explanation regarding the internals would be neat for modders to have, but ideally, you shouldn't really need to know any of that; you should just be able to give a material values that make sense, and the results should make sense (please note the "ideally" here; I don't think we're to that point yet).
Post by: Quatch on July 05, 2010, 03:13:35 pm
The game knows the critera for good armor, ranged, slicing and bashing equipment, and could probably do something like:
Bronze is a hard metal with little flex (I'm making this up), frequently used for armor and edged weapons. It's low density (Again making up for sake of point) makes it less useful in bashing weaponry. Bronze equipment has been seen on $list_of_civs. Bronze is made from tin and copper, which can be found in the following rocks (list rocks you've seen that have had it, include civ knowledge?).
Post by: Intelligent Shade of Blue on July 05, 2010, 03:33:03 pm
Toady, re: the development page, inferring from one of your blog entries, it seems light blue is the "to be in the next update" color. Will there be other colors to tell us what you're working on, and possibly a key of some sort to say what the colors mean? You know, something that looks somewhat similar to the old dev page...
Post by: Mandaril on July 05, 2010, 03:49:10 pm
Okay this is pretty non-important, but I'm curious...
Toady, re: the development page, inferring from one of your blog entries, it seems light blue is the "to be in the next update" color. Will there be other colors to tell us what you're working on, and possibly a key of some sort to say what the colors mean? You know, something that looks somewhat similar to the old dev page...
In last development thread (for development of 31.x) it was something like this:
-Doing
-Doing
And between those two are several shades of blue, deepening as thing gets completed.
-Done
-Maybe not doing in this release
-Definately not doing in this release
Post by: Neonivek on July 05, 2010, 05:36:44 pm
Nor does different shades of blue really seem all that needed.
Post by: Dakkan on July 05, 2010, 06:21:51 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 05, 2010, 06:33:57 pm
I would definitely prefer a darker color for finished.
I meant more in what the colors meant.
Post by: Psieye on July 05, 2010, 07:18:15 pm
It's called "limited time availability". Researchers would never get any new results out if they didn't refer to each others published results so they don't have to do that work themselves. Having said that, I see far too many people who don't have a basic experimentalist's mindset asking simple questions they could have found out within the time it took to ask the question but materials parameter plotting is a long experiment.people have been researching that over in the modding subforum so ask for a summary there if the wiki doesn't already have it.
Or change the values yourself, plot a graph of combat effectiveness vs. value based on weapon type / armor type etc., and publish the results yourself!
Really, with the Arena, there is no excuse. ;)
Post by: Dakkan on July 05, 2010, 07:20:42 pm
I would definitely prefer a darker color for finished.
I meant more in what the colors meant.
And I meant that I would like a darker color for finished features, since I'm colorblind and the light colors appear the same as the white.
Post by: The Architect on July 05, 2010, 08:29:21 pm
Post by: Intelligent Shade of Blue on July 05, 2010, 08:31:42 pm
Post by: The Architect on July 05, 2010, 08:40:59 pm
By that guess, light blue indicates something currently being worked on. We can expect items to turn green as goals are completed, and anything deemed infeasible without a major rewrite and breaking of saves will probably turn red or purple.
Post by: Untelligent on July 05, 2010, 08:55:19 pm
but nowhere on the dev page does it actually say light blue denotes stuff that will be in the next release...
Quote
The pristine dev pages were bugging me, so I did sharpening stones, the hunger/thirst extension, butchery, and a prepared elf brain in my backpack so that I could color a few of them the "in next release" color.
Given the state of the devlist and this quote from the devlog, I'm quite certain that the blue color denotes stuff that will be in the next release, which, judging from the 7/05 devlog post, will be in a few days, certainly no later than Friday or so.
Additionally, it seems to me that the colors on the devlist are a little darker now. Since Toady's already made a rock and butchered something (i.e. the prepared elf brain), one can conclude that this was in response to sporadic complaints that the colors were too pale to see easily, rather than working on the butchery and whatnot a bit more.
EDIT: I just noticed he put a handy color key on the devlist, which should clear up some confusion. Damn, if I was a bit more observant it could have saved me ten minutes of dredging up all that logic.
Post by: Dakkan on July 05, 2010, 09:05:44 pm
Post by: Intelligent Shade of Blue on July 05, 2010, 09:26:08 pm
Post by: Acanthus117 on July 05, 2010, 10:30:31 pm
Post by: xrogaan on July 05, 2010, 10:51:55 pm
This can be done with the bugs/issues tracker.Okay this is pretty non-important, but I'm curious...
Toady, re: the development page, inferring from one of your blog entries, it seems light blue is the "to be in the next update" color. Will there be other colors to tell us what you're working on, and possibly a key of some sort to say what the colors mean? You know, something that looks somewhat similar to the old dev page...
In last development thread (for development of 31.x) it was something like this:
-Doing
-Doing
And between those two are several shades of blue, deepening as thing gets completed.
-Done
-Maybe not doing in this release
-Definately not doing in this release
Post by: isitanos on July 05, 2010, 11:23:03 pm
I read all of the posts in this thread, but if you want a reply to a specific point, then I guess that's what should be green. I worked through more than half of the new questions this morning, and I just went with one of your actual question mark questions, but if you've got a few things you want me to focus on, you can highlight those. It'll be difficult to get to everything. I should be able to post my next giant reply tomorrow or the next day, depending on how everything else is going.
Ok, I've put back to green my four favorite suggestions/questions in the post. If they're not phrased as a question, the implicit question is "do you like this idea and would you consider implementing it in the near future".
Post by: Toady One on July 06, 2010, 02:16:45 am
Quote from: tfaal
There are a lot of ideas in the new list about adventurers doing things, but very few about them getting compensated for their efforts, or requiring money in any way. Can we expect this to come into play as the bounty system is implemented? Will the typical heroic option of turning down a reward for a reputation bonus be available?
For money requirements, part of the idea of the trader role is to give you things to do when you are really rich, and we're still kicking things around there. In general, DF's adv mode is going to be able to rely far less on equipment power boosting as a form of metered progression, so the role of markets/shops isn't quite the same as in a normal RPG, though money might be one practical way to get at certain artifacts or masterwork equipment that you'd otherwise really need to work for (more so than just picking it up in some random shop in the woods -- which is how it currently is). There are things on the list like being able to buy a horse, pack mules or hiring bodyguards. The principle problem is basically that luxuries aren't nearly as satisfying in the game as they are in real life. People still tend to enjoy things (as players, not characters) like collecting stuff or gambling in a computer game, since it doesn't deviate too far from the real world equivalents, but a lot of luxuries would be meaningless (consider eating "fine foods", say, though if you are really into the roleplaying it works I suppose), and we don't have the multiplayer component that would allow you to enjoy just hanging out with people for any period of time.
Ultimately though, some of the satisfaction of playing is probably going to need to be shifted to things like world effects, like saving villages and so on, since things can be permanently changed in the game for the worse if you don't try to help. Reputation should be a significant form of compensation, not just for the free offers of food and stuff, but in the sense that after a point you'd be able to call on all of a town's warriors to come with you on any misadventure you like if they respect you enough, and that'll extend your ability to do things significantly.
I haven't thought about it, but I suppose the effect of turning down a reward should be entity ethics-dependent as much as anything. You could get a significant reputation boost from some of the humans, say, but you might just be considered rude, impractical or a chump by other cultures for refusing a reward.
Quote from: tfaal
Y'know, with the the features of the "thief" adventurer role, the petty warlords presented under the "villians", and the (presumably poor) farming settlements under these warlords, a Robin-Hood type adventurer sounds quite doable. Are there any plans for giving money to impoverished peasants?
A Robin Hood was one of the archetypes we were considering as we were working out these roles, and we tried to get some of the necessary pieces together. There needs to be some more well-defined tyranny and probably some playing around with the fortress mode subgroups, maybe, to get the right dynamic set up, then it should be possible to do things like peasant rebellions and so on. When we get site resources in and start differentiating sections of the town (which are on the dev page), there will be a notion of relative wealth, but we still need to get at poverty. I think the night creature famines might actually end up being a launching point for some of how that works, though I'm not sure how much you'll be able to help people at first. So yeah, it's a kind of scenario knitting together some of the fringes of the posted notes, but we aren't sure how things are going to work out.
Quote from: Kogan Loloklam
Are there plans to get constructed (wooden, Bituminous coal, Platinum) balls for rolling traps?
We didn't have specific plans, but since we have trap components, including a spiked ball, it would certainly be a reasonable and pretty easy thing to do. It would just need to know that it can roll (which is simple if it's just a tag or something). If that extended to... like rolling cylinders or something, as flavor it would be fine, but I haven't thought about how to implement a more complicated rolling profile.
Quote from: Greiger
Though I do have one question. In an adventurer made structure (or site or whathaveyou) will items inside still be scattered around to the hills? Or will that be removed for adventure made sites? Removed entirely? Removed only in locations where it doesn't make sense?(Fully sealed underground rooms, etc)
It'll probably start with the removal of the scattering mechanic for the adv sites. We have to be a little careful with your things. After that though, there should be some reemergence of theft/scattering depending on the qualities of the site. There's a balance to be struck, because it would be fun in a sense to use the villain hunting process to have a chance to track down the guy that took your stuff, but it would be incredibly annoying to have to do that very often (or even a few times).
Quote from: smjjames
Anyways, as for the quickly passing time thing, would it be possible to set the number of hours (between 1 and 12 sounds reasonable) you want to have pass by rather than the always 8 hours for sleep? Until something interrupts you anyway.
We were going to let you blast through an entire season if you wanted to. It has to know how you're going to handle food and water, and there's the matter of what's going on in the world, but the latter is already a current problem since the game advances to the next spring when you start a new dwarf game. Once villains are active, it could interrupt you if something comes up, but the dirtiest and most simple way would just be to have them frozen in place. Hopefully it won't come to that. The short-term idea was just to be able to advance abstractly through some steps of farming if you want (which is why it is in the farming section) and to fix up the silly sleep countdown.
Quote from: smjjames
(waterproof axles)
Could you explain this? Do you mean a way where you could have a rubber gasket or something around an axle someplace or at the attachment point to power compartmentalized mechanisms? Or maybe have a mechanism which is compartmentalized, but has am extension through a waterproof barrier which the axle is attatched to? Those ideas may be beyond the era that you want DF to be in, but hey. I certainly wouldn't doubt Dwarven ingenuity and if they can create a water based computer, then I'm sure they can create waterproof axles/mechanisms.
If I understand the problem, it's that the current axles are prone to flooding because water can flow through them, and people want to have a tile that has both an axle and through which fluid cannot pass. Like many of the mechnical things, I don't really have solid specific implementation ideas right now, but it seemed like a reasonably easy and good target, especially because it has been requested in the past. If the basic scenario just isn't feasible, I won't do it, probably, but it seems like a problem that should have a solution that isn't too modern, at least at some rough level of efficiency and in water shallow enough for high pressure not to be an issue.
Quote
Quote from: OrgWhat exactly is a Night Creature?Quote from: DeKaFuwhat are the plans for infectious lycanthropy/vampirism/etc?
I don't think it should be like a zombie-outbreak scenario, but having some way of catching monstrosity could be a lot of fun in both modes. I'm especially thinking of getting a werewolf curse in adventure mode and trying to keep it secret from the townsfolk while hunting for a cure. Or just eating everybody and attracting the attention of monster hunters.
The first few paragraphs here are a good example of what we were thinking they'd be like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Annis
Quote from: Wikipedia
Black Annis, also known as Black Agnes, is a bogeyman figure in English folklore. She is imagined as a blue-faced crone or witch with iron claws and a taste for human (especially child) flesh. She is said to haunt the countryside of Leicestershire, living in a cave in the Dane Hills, with an oak tree at its entrance.
She supposedly goes out onto the glens at night looking for unsuspecting children and lambs to eat, then tanning their skins by hanging them on a tree, before wearing them around her waist. She would reach inside houses to snatch people. Legend has it that she used her iron claws to dig into the side of a sandstone cliff, making herself a home there which is known as Black Annis's Bower. The legend led to parents warning their children that Black Annis would catch them if they did not behave.
Ideally we'd like our night creatures to end up like that. We wanted them to be randomly generated and mostly unique, though there could be classes of them that would let the groups that help you have legitimate strategies (since they'd have a chance to know what they are talking about). The examples Haspen mentioned (vampires, banshees, werewolves, ghosts, etc.) are all fair ones. "Trolls" sometimes have this role as well, though our current trolls are DND/Tolkienized and might not work, but fairy tale/night creature style trolls that kidnap people or kill them in the woods should be generated. Current trolls that get out of the underground might be able to play their part, though maybe they are more like semimegabeasts and not specifically night creatures, and might already being on the rampage with the villains before night creatures are even made. Grendel is kind of like that too. There are probably more similarities than differences, but night creatures were supposed to be a little more mysterious and insidious.
It is our hope that the thief role suspicion mechanics can be co-opted to allow for paranoia (that made the dev page, anyway), and anything night creatures can do to people should be able to happen to you. I guess it would have to be the werewolf-style ones and not the "drained slave" style ones. It would be funny if you have to face your failed night creature slayer as a subsequent adventurer.
Quote from: jfs
When stone fall traps are going to actually be stones falling from a level above, will catapults at the same time also be changed to they actually fire stones in arches and can hit multiple Z-levels? Also on the topic of siege weapons, are there plans for aimed/diagonal shots?
We want to have them fire in arcs, yeah, though I'm not sure what is going to fall out of the siege engine changes. It would of course be cool to siege a site with a bunch of crazy dwarf-built siege weapons you build up that can blow out designated sections of wall and do all kinds of horrible things to structures and soldiers alike. It relates back to how the lifts and other stuff works out. It's weird in a way to build siege engines tile by tile, and a little fussy if you just want to do something normal, but there's going to be a good system living in there somewhere.
Quote from: Mechanoid
Will enemies with picks and mining skill intentionally deface engravings (they dislike/hate) to try to depress/anger the dwarves?
He he he, it's funny that that would be a valid strategy.
Quote from: Totaku
Since we are talking about making stone be able to roll when come off of a ramp,could it be possible to say make a really long path ramp that the stone can roll down into a long hallway and then roll down that hallway crushing whatever is in it's way? Ala Indiana Jones style?
He he, yeah, that's the idea, anyway. For each downward ramp the boulder should probably get several extra tiles in straight rolling distance (via its overall velocity which is diminishing as it rolls on level ground). If you gave the boulder a giant 5 level ramp, I guess it should be able to shoot out of the side of your fortress and you could make a kind of catapult that way. Hopefully whatever velocity mechanic that goes in will allow better transitions between those kinds of movement, and it would also be able to support having you kick somebody's sword along the ground and off a cliff and have it all work out.
Quote
Quote from: ArmokWILL it be theoretically possible to make a for that actually inches it's entire bulk acro0s the map?Quote from: chaturgaNear the end of the log, you make a reference to "Moving Fortress Sections" do you have any brief ideas what this will entail for a player and to what extent they will be able to use it? i.e will we be able to have multi-level lifts and other such things available to aid with hauling large amounts of goods?Quote from: John KeelWill moving fortress parts require anchors? (Essentially, will walking fortresses be possible, or will they require long piston chains and a single support to work?)Quote from: Urist McOverlordOn the subject of moving fortress parts:
Will we be able to put workshops/stockpiles/etc. on them?
Will this effect how constructions are currently supported and what happens to them?
Example: can I link bridges together to form a path that extends slowly in the shape of a spiral towards the inner sanctum.
Can we control the time it takes to do these?
What kinds of transformations will be possible? Piston-dropping platforms? Winched systems? Gear-rotations?
Will there be new methods to get power? Or will we still be limited to the previous?
Can power be acquired by moving constructions?
Example: Can I create a dwarf-powered generator powered by my main hallways rocking back and forth as dwarves walk through it?Quote from: DakkOn moving fortress parts, would things like walls like the ones in indiana movies be possible? Such as rotating and moving walls that you can build, select and link to some mechanism and asign a function to them, as to create crushing wall traps, rotating secret doors, and whatnot, or the moving parts will all be predefined like the contructions on the uild mode?
We don't have a lot of specifics here yet. The idea has simply been judged feasible and fun and something we want to do, especially since it relates to boats and siege engines as well. It'll certainly involve the ability to move a section of fortress complete with items, units, buildings, stockpiles etc., because a boat or siege tower would also want to do that. The work in adventure mode has mostly prepared the game for those kinds of coordinate shifts, though there are probably some weird exceptions. If there are rolling siege towers, there will probably be absurd wind-powered self-contained fortresses with levers that can be set to change the wheels and get them going in any of the four directions. For walking ones, I'm not sure. If you have a dual lift that can alternately anchor on each leg, and there were something set up to get the lifted leg sliding forward, and a way to get the slider slid forward contained in both or one of the legs, it might work, but I'm not mechanically-minded and really have no idea what exactly is going to pop out of this stuff.
Rotating etc. walls should be possible, and we'd like to move beyond specific predefined constructions to allow you a bit of creative freedom (so that you'd be building your wall crushing traps from a few pieces and somewhere in that process you define the direction, etc). Having the dwarves understand how triggers open their way for them is still beyond what I can do, but things that act like the current lever-operated doors are fine.
Quote from: Cruxador
What's the deal with "entity populations"? How much will this be abstracted?
The posts that Footkerchief quoted are still the deal.
Quote from: Neonivek
Will the Trade Menu, in Adventurer mode, be fixed in the not too distant future? At least to the extent that you no longer need to do guess work on the prices of objects? (or a lot of calculations if you happen to have the price list on hand).
I probably won't mess with the trade menu until the new markets go in, but I don't think that'll be too distant. The lack of entity populations is going to hold up a lot of things, and once those are in, the markets (and farms and little houses) scattered around become near-term items. Annoyances with trading will then be fair to consider and trade should be more commonplace, so something will probably be done. The situation could change again when supply/demand goes in and that information is considered as acquirable knowledge, but at that point there could be something like a "chat with merchant" option or something that immediately illuminates all the rough pricing information, or that could just be automatic or something. In the end, it's not supposed to be annoying and hopefully it'll stop being so as we work through it.
Quote from: Acanthus117
When we do butchering and stuff, will it still not require a tool, like in fortress mode? Or will we need a knife to butcher prey?
Right now it requires any object with an edge. You can use any edged weapon (you start with a dagger as part of your equipment now), and if you get to the point where you don't have one, you can sharpen a stone if you can find one (they are almost everywhere). Later using a stone will take longer and perhaps mess with the quality/yield of the products, but that won't happen until we're abstracting time better.
Quote from: Snap
Can we get the ability to fill in/build a natural un-mined wall if we're going to have invaders digging up our fortress? I would not want half my fort blinking as a construction everytime I'm in the designation menu because of invaders. It's about the only way I can see giving them the ability to dig wiout annoying us too much.
If it's the blinking, that could be init option'd away or given a hide mechanic. In general, it might not be unreasonable for *dwarves* to make a construction that replicates the appearance of a natural wall, although it's a little weird, especially if you can put two tiles together as if you are filling in the entire space again. Maybe it should require two stones to do that, or something.
Quote from: Toybasher
What about using medical skills in adventure mode?
He he he, I'm not sure why we didn't consider that when talking through the roles, especially since it came up a lot before. Maybe we're too inclined to fatalism with our adventurers. We'll try to find a home for it.
Quote from: Untelligent
Will plant-gathering from wild shrubs go in fairly early? I can't find it specifically mentioned on the list, but it seems like something that's fairly simple, both survival-wise and programming-wise.
I remember mentioning it when we were writing up basic skills, but I couldn't remember if it was already in the game and forgot to check. Like medical skills, it should definitely be in the lists. We'll work it in somewhere.
Quote from: Neonivek
Quote from: Askot Bokbondelerwill other jobs in fortress mode requires or benefit from tools? like smithing require a hammer, carpenting require a saw, farming requiring...the farming thingie, etc?I think, if I remember correctly.
That Fortress mode will still be extrapolated when it comes to tools, while Adventurer mode will still require them.
Yeah, the idea now is just to leave it the same, and explore various things in adventure mode where book-keeping and general catastropic meltdown won't be as much of a problem. If reasonable unannoying alterations can be made to dwarf mode, that'll be cool, but it's not crucial.
Quote from: MrWiggles
I notice that form the Dev pages, that Squad Formations weren't listed. Has that been pushed backed even further?
Yeah, within the larger military goals, we weren't sure what the best spot is, so we're just letting them float. It's something we want to do, but they don't have a home yet.
Quote from: zwei
Yay for soil to being more interesting. So, what about more stuff like this? Fossils, burried bones, very rare occurences like very old coin, tool, armor piece or weapon?
There was something about burying entire ruins in soil in the treasure hunter section I think. Throwing crap all over around then and in old battlefields might be appropriate, but we'll have to see what comes out of it. When I stick boulders down there, it's specifically at first to give the adventurer some more easy rock without having to mine for it, so that'll probably be all that comes out of that specific list item.
Quote from: DG
Toady, I'd be very interested to hear your musings on fighting skill progression in adventure mode.
Specifically your ideas on balancing early game and end game challenge with tangible character progression and any thoughts regarding the current methods of training skills. Will any of it be involved more than coincidentally in your upcoming work?
The combat styles/moves will probably be the most significant dev stuff for this, and we're planning on having you be able to do things like learn new ways of fighting from people with whom you have a high reputation, so that if you help a town fight off some villain's henchmen etc. you'll be able to get better at being a hero. Balancing challenges will still be your job -- there just aren't a lot of easy challenges now in adventure mode, so we haven't really gotten a chance to see how well that's going to work. Once there are "bands" of three bandits or marauding goblins being naughty, then you should be able to get your foot in the door without doing an insane assault on a dragon or 50 goblin tower, and once your foot is in the door, you can continue to learn and help people out in reasonable ways and become a better fighter. For the flip-side, being a thief or villain, you might not have the same support network there for you at first, but you'll still be able to pick your targets -- when there's entity pop sprawl, there will be lots and lots of easy targets.
Once the combat flow changes are in, we're hoping to have some of the instant deaths and coin-flipping stuff mitigated slightly, so that it will be a bit easier to withdraw from a challenging situation, if you don't get yourself completely surrounded.
For training, especially with people throwing rocks for 5000 turns and so on, that kind of thing might as well be part of the pass-a-season mechanic, so that if you want to meditate on your left hook under a waterfall for 20 days, you can go ahead and do that. The tradeoffs would be your character's age, possible reputation fade, leaving whatever sites you've raised going fallow if you aren't working out from them, etc., so it shouldn't be an utterly unreasonable/spoily mechanic.
Ultimately, part of character progression might be more leveraging reputation you've been working on to accomplish larger goals than becoming an unstoppable one person army, but there will probably be an element of that if the combat/moves styles can drift into the insane. It's probably a good thing for a world gen option, so that you can have people that are people or people that are like Fist of the North Star or that glow with hero light and go all Cuchulain on people and stuff, just by controlling the upper reaches of the combat skill system.
Quote from: Knight Otu
How much will personality and/or personal capability play into a historical figure's desire to obtain or keep power, whether legitimately or as a Villain-type character? Might other factors come into play as well? Currently, even a powerful creature with maximum ambition will not necessarily obtain entity positions if they are open, possibly even taking up farming. I guess this might tie into leaders abdicating without fail if a POWER rolls into town and claims divinity.
Personalities come up in world gen, but they are kind of lacking, because the modern system is so non-judgmental, he he he. There isn't much of any intra-entity strife, so they aren't used for that anyway. So we're going to end up augmenting it with additional goals and "virtue/vice"-type stuff, and that should let us have people work out their ambitions in a consistent way, and then we should have more meat for the succession/schism stuff. I'm not sure about the future of the current personality facets. They are useful for things, but not so much for this. Freeing up some of the boring professions for entity pop people should also give us more room for personal ambition among the realized people (or appropriate people can be elevated from entity pops if they don't arise -- it's somewhat disappointing not to trace everybody back all the way to the beginning, but it's the only reasonable way at this point).
Quote from: Osmosis Jones
Toady, what degree of finesse are you planning on giving orders to followers? I.e. would it be possible to order a group of followers to dig *this* location or collect fruit from *that* specific tree? Also, any plans on being able to force loyalty beyond acting as a guide? Oooh, and can we get other people to enforce said loyalty for us?
I want to be able to order a slave gang to excavate those ruins, while I lounge about with a platter of fresh, slave-picked, strawberries, and if anyone thinks about shirking off or running away, having my well paid slave drivers chase them down.
I wanted to stay away from getting into having the adv mode stuff be just like dwarf mode, and ease more slowly into the group/job abilities there, to keep things varied for myself as much as anything. I don't understand the forcing loyalty part -- for the people you've interrogated? Ideally, though, you'd be able to give more and more orders, so that they'd be able to guard or work or build up your place for you, even if they end up being kind of dumb about it. It would be cool to have one of your followers be able to run their own villain-style network somewhere, so that you can be a kind of criminal overlord. Once the villains are in and working, that should actually be well within range.
Quote from: Jamal
I know sound/music is a low priority, but is there any chance for new music to be added to the game in the near future? I mean, I absolutely love THE dwarf fortress music, but I can only listen to it for so long. In my opinion, I believe music adds alot to the atmosphere of games. Everybody knows the great feelings of nostalgia when they hear video game music of days past.
I've had trouble finding time to record anything for a while now, so I wouldn't expect much here. It's one of those things I really want to do, but yeah, it's low priority overall.
Quote
(looting sites)Quote from: DwarfuWill this include slaves or prisoners to ransom?
entity_default
[ETHIC:SLAVERY:PUNISH_CAPITAL]
How will ethics be further fleshed out to cover these situations?Quote from: rex mortisWill this include creatures as well? I really want to rescue my kidnapped children and enslave any goblins not fortunate enough to die in battle.
The non-dead people will be non-dead and they'll just become refugee-migrants or remain site dwellers if you don't do anything with them. Hopefully we'll remember the kidnap victims so they can be rescued. Important prisoners are legitimate and there'd need to be new ethics for that, but I'm not a dwarven slaver fan... I guess it might be an issue that needs to be handled with humans, anyway, and if it's not too complicated we can support modded stuff for fort mode. We'll have to wait and see how army movement etc. works, and how fortress immigrant groups end up on the map, and how your entity pop dwarves end up working... there are a few things to think about.
Quote from: Nivm
Will the adventurer reactions be able to include reagents not normally seen in fortress mode, such as those random pebbles and loam?
Yeah, the only reaction I've got in there now is the reaction that makes a rock with an edge on it, and it uses the rocks you can pick up from the ground (which don't occur in dwarf mode). As long as you can isolate it as an item in adventure mode, you should have a shot at using it, though there are probably weird exceptions that just need a new token.
Quote from: isitanos
Pushing this just a step further, setting up evidence so that someone else gets accused in your place (dropping the bloody dagger in his garbage, money under his bed, or whatever), then fearing as the legendary investigator tracks one by one the clues that lead to you, would just be an amazing experience.
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how the tracking/suspicion/paranoia stuff plays out. Framing people might end up being the norm rather than the exception early on. That would lead to alibis and so on, and we'd just have to take care not to get carried away with information tracking, but it might be able to wing it respectably (it knows the random peasant didn't kill the guy, after all, so whatever possibly-generated alibi he's got is fine). The computer has the advantage of knowing you are the guilty party in advance, so getting that to work out fairly is just a matter of balancing things out, and then adding in the details that make it fun.
Quote from: isitanos
Having to observe and copy people's behavior so the disguise works would be interesting.
Yeah, it would be a good angle on adding temple rituals etc. in a non-boring way, as well, since they'd be there for your infiltration. Of course, then there'd need to be some kind of button to let you kneel in front of the sacred rock or whatever. It's the kind of thing that would be farther out, but we've written up a lot of dev stuff in the past on ceremony and ritual so it's not out in outer space.
Quote from: isitanos
Will you keep improving the underground in the short term, and add incentives to dig down and face the dangers to find useful stuff? I'd love if you could bring back cave rivers
The previous problems with cave rivers make me wary of them, but it would be cool to get the place looking nicer. The underground is pretty dreary right now. The treasure hunter role is the best bet there, probably, though that might focus on areas of concentrated local interest at first. I guess enough of those makes for an exciting underground, but we'll probably need to find some middle ground stuff to avoid over-saturation. Dwarf mode wants interesting stuff all over underground but it makes adventure mode cave exploration goofy.
Quote from: isitanos
Another way for a fortress to fall (very common in history) would be a traitor inside
Getting a dwarf to betray the fortress from the inside would require them to have contact -- which would make your broker or mayor/leader the best candidates among the important dwarves (any migrant or entity pop dwarf would do once you are established though). I imagine that would be fairly traumatic for players though, if you've got no way to handle the situation.
Quote from: Quatch
Along with the in-game encyclopedia for new creatures, would it be possible (and useful vs above comments) to procedurally generate descriptions of what the various metals are good at?
Well, documentation is documentation, and we've obviously been lacking there. Having random metals would allow for a natural improvement of the descriptions for the stock stuff, so maybe that would be a good ticket. We got the reaction lists up for stone sometime in the past, and I guess it would be something like that, where it would be able to compare the value of metals. I don't want it to display kPA values and stuff, but I guess it could display a list of the common metals and show where your dwarves think the metal/material in question fits in to the picture.
Quote from: Intelligent Shade of Blue
Toady, re: the development page, inferring from one of your blog entries, it seems light blue is the "to be in the next update" color. Will there be other colors to tell us what you're working on, and possibly a key of some sort to say what the colors mean? You know, something that looks somewhat similar to the old dev page...
I've got the key up now, but I'm not quite sure how much the "partially done" color is going to come up or if there are going to need to be any refinements of that. I don't have a long term schedule of things I'm going to do, and I'd like to keep working that way so that I can maintain some flexibility and avoid any release delay horror.
Quote from: Acanthus117
Hey, Toady, will adventurers ever be able to use workshops, or will we be restricted to the 'buildingless' reactions?
We haven't decided what the future of workshops is in adventure mode. If the use of tools keeps up, it might be that we just keep simulating things, or that we'll throw in the workshops for things we don't get to simulating promptly. There are lots of discussions around generalizing/extending the workshop concept in dwarf mode, instead, so that it would be somewhat more like adv mode is shaping up, but we're really not sure what's going to happen there. So for now, the things that you do in adv mode will be tool-based actions. That should get us quite a way, until we start getting toward metal-working and furniture making, at which point we'll have to see if we slip back to workshops or try something more ambitious.
Post by: Acanthus117 on July 06, 2010, 02:22:36 am
Thanks, Toady!
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 06, 2010, 02:45:06 am
Quote from: Osmosis JonesToady, what degree of finesse are you planning on giving orders to followers? I.e. would it be possible to order a group of followers to dig *this* location or collect fruit from *that* specific tree? Also, any plans on being able to force loyalty beyond acting as a guide? Oooh, and can we get other people to enforce said loyalty for us?
I want to be able to order a slave gang to excavate those ruins, while I lounge about with a platter of fresh, slave-picked, strawberries, and if anyone thinks about shirking off or running away, having my well paid slave drivers chase them down.
I wanted to stay away from getting into having the adv mode stuff be just like dwarf mode, and ease more slowly into the group/job abilities there, to keep things varied for myself as much as anything. I don't understand the forcing loyalty part -- for the people you've interrogated? Ideally, though, you'd be able to give more and more orders, so that they'd be able to guard or work or build up your place for you, even if they end up being kind of dumb about it. It would be cool to have one of your followers be able to run their own villain-style network somewhere, so that you can be a kind of criminal overlord. Once the villains are in and working, that should actually be well within range.
EDIT: Ack, accidentally hit post.
Cheers for the reply.
Just to clarify on the forcing loyalty, I meant for situations like slavery; following your orders goes against the characters ethics or desires, but they are compelled to do so via fear etc, as opposed to just having subordinates follow you due to gold or reputation. You suggested one example in the dev list, of forcing someone you've captured to act as a guide, I was just asking about a more general system, with say forced labour, forced military service etc. Building on that, would it be possible to have that forced loyalty thing work with other characters? Say you intimidate 5 people into following you, and get them to intimidate 5 more each into following them; the end result is you command 30 people, 5 of which act as slave drivers in a way.
I suppose this could also lead to interesting things like starting with a slave who, (while initally compelled by fear) if you treat them well enough, starts to follow your orders out of respect etc, or a slave driver developing a romantic relationship with a slave (Stockholm syndrome?).
Post by: kaypy on July 06, 2010, 06:00:10 am
You could do a lot with some simple serial identifiers. A wound on one part would transfer to the part on the new form with the same identifier. If no identifier match is found, either discard the wounds (no equivalent location) or transfer some degree of injury [1] to the next part up the chain till you find a match.
One problem here: What if it's ambiguous? For instance, a creature with two wings transforming into a creature with four arms. I suppose you could spread the wound over each equivalent arm, or... something.
The idea here is that by giving each part a serial identifier tag rather than just relying on base part types, you can rig things up to behave in a sensible fashion. So in your example, you probably have something like:
Creature A, basic bird shape:
"limb1r" = wing
"limb1l" = wing
"limbnr" = leg
"limbnl" = leg
Creature B, 4 armed biped:
"limb1r" = arm
"limb1l" = arm
"limb2r" = arm
"limb2l" = arm
"limbnr" = leg
"limbnl" = leg
So damage to one set of arms would translate to/from wing damage, while damage to the other arms would probably spread to the upper body
The trick, of course, would be working out a set of tags that would give best behaviour under most circumstances.
Post by: Baughn on July 06, 2010, 06:50:21 am
Post by: Psieye on July 06, 2010, 07:20:00 am
That sounds like it could be balanced by a "crime rate" variable for the region/locale you built your site in. If a player builds his site within walking distance of a thieves den, that's just asking to be robbed just so the player can track them down. Though I suppose there's also the question of non-sentient thieves, like Rhesus Macaques.Quote from: GreigerThough I do have one question. In an adventurer made structure (or site or whathaveyou) will items inside still be scattered around to the hills? Or will that be removed for adventure made sites? Removed entirely? Removed only in locations where it doesn't make sense?(Fully sealed underground rooms, etc)
It'll probably start with the removal of the scattering mechanic for the adv sites. We have to be a little careful with your things. After that though, there should be some reemergence of theft/scattering depending on the qualities of the site. There's a balance to be struck, because it would be fun in a sense to use the villain hunting process to have a chance to track down the guy that took your stuff, but it would be incredibly annoying to have to do that very often (or even a few times).
Post by: Ratbert_CP on July 06, 2010, 08:39:48 am
We don't have a lot of specifics here yet. The idea has simply been judged feasible and fun and something we want to do, especially since it relates to boats and siege engines as well. It'll certainly involve the ability to move a section of fortress complete with items, units, buildings, stockpiles etc., because a boat or siege tower would also want to do that. The work in adventure mode has mostly prepared the game for those kinds of coordinate shifts, though there are probably some weird exceptions. If there are rolling siege towers, there will probably be absurd wind-powered self-contained fortresses with levers that can be set to change the wheels and get them going in any of the four directions. For walking ones, I'm not sure. If you have a dual lift that can alternately anchor on each leg, and there were something set up to get the lifted leg sliding forward, and a way to get the slider slid forward contained in both or one of the legs, it might work, but I'm not mechanically-minded and really have no idea what exactly is going to pop out of this stuff.
Rotating etc. walls should be possible, and we'd like to move beyond specific predefined constructions to allow you a bit of creative freedom (so that you'd be building your wall crushing traps from a few pieces and somewhere in that process you define the direction, etc). Having the dwarves understand how triggers open their way for them is still beyond what I can do, but things that act like the current lever-operated doors are fine.
Hexapods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexapod_%28robotics%29) would work better, especially if you start factoring in weight, balance and support characteristics.
Personally, I think that's overthinking things. Can we have a goblin fry-basket made of magma safe wall and floor grates that we can place and/or trap creatures in, that we can then lower into a convenient pool of magma? (Also handy for elves, nobles and insane dwarfs)
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 06, 2010, 08:50:45 am
Post by: Footkerchief on July 06, 2010, 09:23:08 am
Post by: Ratbert_CP on July 06, 2010, 09:24:03 am
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 06, 2010, 09:41:27 am
Improved disembowelment brought to you by the phrase "repeated thrusts can kind of forge a gut-path to freedom". (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=721#c9679)
I shall be sigging this momentarily.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 06, 2010, 09:55:27 am
Post by: Psieye on July 06, 2010, 11:49:18 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 06, 2010, 12:13:21 pm
Post by: smjjames on July 06, 2010, 12:47:33 pm
Quote
QuoteQuote from: smjjames
(waterproof axles)
Could you explain this? Do you mean a way where you could have a rubber gasket or something around an axle someplace or at the attachment point to power compartmentalized mechanisms? Or maybe have a mechanism which is compartmentalized, but has am extension through a waterproof barrier which the axle is attatched to? Those ideas may be beyond the era that you want DF to be in, but hey. I certainly wouldn't doubt Dwarven ingenuity and if they can create a water based computer, then I'm sure they can create waterproof axles/mechanisms.
If I understand the problem, it's that the current axles are prone to flooding because water can flow through them, and people want to have a tile that has both an axle and through which fluid cannot pass. Like many of the mechnical things, I don't really have solid specific implementation ideas right now, but it seemed like a reasonably easy and good target, especially because it has been requested in the past. If the basic scenario just isn't feasible, I won't do it, probably, but it seems like a problem that should have a solution that isn't too modern, at least at some rough level of efficiency and in water shallow enough for high pressure not to be an issue.
While rubber didn't make its way into the West until much more recently (especially after vulcanization was developed), it was used for centuries by Mesoamerican and probably some South American tribes, so an argument might be made that using rubber wouldn't be too modern.
Only problem though, is that rubber trees (which do exist in DF) are tropical and most of the time, depending on the map, it might not even be available, and we lack a way of harvesting stuff besides wood from trees for now. An alternative could be to make some UG plant (which the dwarves and goblins would only have access to however) which is used in some sort of reaction to make rubber.
As far as seals go, I'm sure there are people around the forums who have a good knowledge of mechanics or a good research session could help out here. Maybe some sort of 'building' that acts like a door (with a hatchway to allow pathing) and a gearbox at the same time where you attatch axles to any of the 6 sides.
Rubber wouldn't work with magma though, and neither would the current wooden axles.
Post by: Mephansteras on July 06, 2010, 01:07:12 pm
Post by: Cruxador on July 06, 2010, 01:15:56 pm
Surely a catchall "other" category would be superior to leaving stuff off the list?Quote from: MrWigglesI notice that form the Dev pages, that Squad Formations weren't listed. Has that been pushed backed even further?
Yeah, within the larger military goals, we weren't sure what the best spot is, so we're just letting them float. It's something we want to do, but they don't have a home yet.
Quote
For training, especially with people throwing rocks for 5000 turns and so on, that kind of thing might as well be part of the pass-a-season mechanic, so that if you want to meditate on your left hook under a waterfall for 20 days, you can go ahead and do that. The tradeoffs would be your character's age, possible reputation fade, leaving whatever sites you've raised going fallow if you aren't working out from them, etc., so it shouldn't be an utterly unreasonable/spoily mechanic.I reckon it would be best to make the gain from this significantly affected by your current skill. It would be kind of wonky if somebody could just play with a sword, starting from no knowledge, and get up to a professional level just like that. But we'd want the amount of gain to still be at least somewhat noticeable even at higher levels. And this reduces the possibility of someone, for example, starting out as an elf and just meditating for a thousand years.
Quote
There would then need to be some manner of assuring that the framed party lacks an alibi. If he can't supply one (was all alone) or possibly wouldn't (say, was alone except for his friend's wife. And the situation was... untoward.) Seems to me that the easiest way to figure it out would be to check who's alone at the time of the crime, and hang onto that information until such time as somebody gets punished. But I don't know how big a deal that would be on the technical end.Quote from: isitanosPushing this just a step further, setting up evidence so that someone else gets accused in your place (dropping the bloody dagger in his garbage, money under his bed, or whatever), then fearing as the legendary investigator tracks one by one the clues that lead to you, would just be an amazing experience.
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how the tracking/suspicion/paranoia stuff plays out. Framing people might end up being the norm rather than the exception early on. That would lead to alibis and so on, and we'd just have to take care not to get carried away with information tracking, but it might be able to wing it respectably (it knows the random peasant didn't kill the guy, after all, so whatever possibly-generated alibi he's got is fine). The computer has the advantage of knowing you are the guilty party in advance, so getting that to work out fairly is just a matter of balancing things out, and then adding in the details that make it fun.
Quote
You could just make the traitor a valid target for kill orders. If you do that, and provide that his friends would want to protect him, there's a possibility for a lot of fun there, working of a fairly simple base mechanic.Quote from: isitanosAnother way for a fortress to fall (very common in history) would be a traitor inside
Getting a dwarf to betray the fortress from the inside would require them to have contact -- which would make your broker or mayor/leader the best candidates among the important dwarves (any migrant or entity pop dwarf would do once you are established though). I imagine that would be fairly traumatic for players though, if you've got no way to handle the situation.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 06, 2010, 02:02:54 pm
Granted, this won't stop a first act, but it makes sense ingame to not jail someone for treason unless they've actually committed treason.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 06, 2010, 02:04:46 pm
Post by: zwei on July 06, 2010, 02:44:25 pm
QuoteFor training, especially with people throwing rocks for 5000 turns and so on, that kind of thing might as well be part of the pass-a-season mechanic, so that if you want to meditate on your left hook under a waterfall for 20 days, you can go ahead and do that. The tradeoffs would be your character's age, possible reputation fade, leaving whatever sites you've raised going fallow if you aren't working out from them, etc., so it shouldn't be an utterly unreasonable/spoily mechanic.I reckon it would be best to make the gain from this significantly affected by your current skill. It would be kind of wonky if somebody could just play with a sword, starting from no knowledge, and get up to a professional level just like that. But we'd want the amount of gain to still be at least somewhat noticeable even at higher levels. And this reduces the possibility of someone, for example, starting out as an elf and just meditating for a thousand years.
You basically want to model three situations:
Complete newbie pickig weapon and getting familiar with it, trying swings, steps and whatnot. This should work up to certain level. Aka, individual combat drilles we know from dwarf mode.
Moderatelly experienced character reflecting on his combat experience against real oponents, pondering what-ifs of different strokes and such. Aka sparring. Very slow exeprience gain unless you fought (or sparred) recently which should give you boost.
Legend which has enough experience to perfect his style by meditating about mysteries of whatever.
For combat skills at least, having sparring partner should be required (and realistic). You do have party members which tag along with you; why not procure few wooden swords and go spend few weeks training near your cabin while other group members hunt/farm/steal for food. (and letting them train there while you supply em.).
I'd imagine running swordmaster academy, spending time taking peasants and turning them to swordmasters for gold or few years of service. Writing book on subject and such included. (Or enroling in one as a adventurer and then spending few years being employed by its shady properitor and being hired off as skilled bodyguard or as assassin).
Which brings me to ...
One of popular mods are custom workshops designed to train skills. How far in pipeline are things that would make it obsolete: like books, master/apprentice relationships, training straw dummies for soldiers, toys providing experience for children and geting experience by observing others to do something or by talking to then about subject.
Post by: Topace3k on July 06, 2010, 05:25:11 pm
Post by: VoidPointer on July 06, 2010, 05:43:23 pm
Is there any possibility that bruising damage can be made to cause a small amount of blood loss?
Extending on this, broken bones and the like should cause significant amounts of bleeding for similar reasons. As far as I can tell, they currently do not.
Post by: Purple Mage on July 06, 2010, 07:08:52 pm
Post by: Little on July 06, 2010, 08:00:32 pm
With the ability to create and buy sites now in the works, will an adventurer be able to become a landlord and rent out land to the local peasants.
And with the new suspicion system and building system, would it possible to discreetly murder your tenants, hide their bodies in a hidden room and then blame an adventurer wandering into town?
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 06, 2010, 08:17:45 pm
With the ability to create and buy sites now in the works, will an adventurer be able to become a landlord and rent out land to the local peasants.
And with the new suspicion system and building system, would it possible to discreetly murder your tenants, hide their bodies in a hidden room and then blame an adventurer wandering into town?
This is a thing that I must know.
Post by: VWSpeedRacer on July 06, 2010, 08:47:41 pm
He he, yeah, that's the idea, anyway. For each downward ramp the boulder should probably get several extra tiles in straight rolling distance (via its overall velocity which is diminishing as it rolls on level ground). If you gave the boulder a giant 5 level ramp, I guess it should be able to shoot out of the side of your fortress and you could make a kind of catapult that way. Hopefully whatever velocity mechanic that goes in will allow better transitions between those kinds of movement, and it would also be able to support having you kick somebody's sword along the ground and off a cliff and have it all work out.
There isn't a fixed tile scale, but wouldn't it be fair to call a boulder as 1/3 a tile width, and give accelleration as something like (3 horizontal tiles per ramp tile) ^ 2 ?
Edit: Meant to green it.
Post by: Aquillion on July 06, 2010, 08:52:09 pm
The principle problem is basically that luxuries aren't nearly as satisfying in the game as they are in real life. People still tend to enjoy things (as players, not characters) like collecting stuff or gambling in a computer game, since it doesn't deviate too far from the real world equivalents, but a lot of luxuries would be meaningless (consider eating "fine foods", say, though if you are really into the roleplaying it works I suppose)One thing that Gearhead (another roguelike whose themes tended to hit into this) used was tracking the player character's "mood" in terms of a vague mixture of happiness and exhaustion, and displaying it with a series of green + marks or red - marks on the screen. When your mood is high, you get a benefit to your social / mental / manual dexterity stats and a bonus to any actions that require concentration; when it's low, you get penalties to those things.
Things like tracking through a sewer, failing at tasks, eating charred monster corpses and so on would lower your mood, while success, good food, soaking in hot springs and so forth would raise it. It felt fairly realistic -- we've all had days where a bad mood makes it hard to do something, which makes you angrier which in turn makes you do even worse until you break whatever you're trying to fix or whatever.
The ability to accumulate bonuses by having a very high mood (at least until your mood slips back towards normal) also rewarded players for luxuries and such. For instance, I'd always buy chocolate bars and carry them with me on long sewer missions.
Will adventure mode in DF ever track the player character's mood? It's such a big part of Dwarf Mode that it seems like it'd be a logical thing to extend to adventure mode although, of course, I wouldn't expect players to go insane without something Lovecraft-style causing them to. But there's various other things that could be done with it, like the bonuses / penalties I mentioned above.
Post by: cameron on July 06, 2010, 08:52:37 pm
Post by: Baughn on July 06, 2010, 09:04:31 pm
On that note, racism could provide an interesting mechanic, given slave populations. Having second-class goblins working for dwarves sounds quite reasonable; of course, if the goblins later become king (..military coup, perhaps), that situation would reverse itself.
Playing a fort as the despised minority could be.. curious.
Post by: Cruxador on July 07, 2010, 12:30:44 am
Toady has said in the past that he doesn't want to dictate to players how they feel, in any way that could contradict their own roleplaying idea of their character's state of mind. This was in relation to named weapons, but I'd imagine the sentiment applies here too.The principle problem is basically that luxuries aren't nearly as satisfying in the game as they are in real life. People still tend to enjoy things (as players, not characters) like collecting stuff or gambling in a computer game, since it doesn't deviate too far from the real world equivalents, but a lot of luxuries would be meaningless (consider eating "fine foods", say, though if you are really into the roleplaying it works I suppose)One thing that Gearhead (another roguelike whose themes tended to hit into this) used was tracking the player character's "mood" in terms of a vague mixture of happiness and exhaustion, and displaying it with a series of green + marks or red - marks on the screen. When your mood is high, you get a benefit to your social / mental / manual dexterity stats and a bonus to any actions that require concentration; when it's low, you get penalties to those things.
Things like tracking through a sewer, failing at tasks, eating charred monster corpses and so on would lower your mood, while success, good food, soaking in hot springs and so forth would raise it. It felt fairly realistic -- we've all had days where a bad mood makes it hard to do something, which makes you angrier which in turn makes you do even worse until you break whatever you're trying to fix or whatever.
The ability to accumulate bonuses by having a very high mood (at least until your mood slips back towards normal) also rewarded players for luxuries and such. For instance, I'd always buy chocolate bars and carry them with me on long sewer missions.
Will adventure mode in DF ever track the player character's mood? It's such a big part of Dwarf Mode that it seems like it'd be a logical thing to extend to adventure mode although, of course, I wouldn't expect players to go insane without something Lovecraft-style causing them to. But there's various other things that could be done with it, like the bonuses / penalties I mentioned above.
There must be lebensraum!Racism as we know it is not really period-appropriate. The oft-cited 1400 level it might arguably be, though that was more of a religious thing than a racial one, and only happened to coincidentally align with race. (and even then was Europe only). However DF tends to use the social paradigms of pre-roman times. That would mean that while attitudes might now be considered racist, they were more rooted in community and national identities than in race - ie "The next civ over murder casually and steal babies." or "the folks in that forest eat humans". Myths about the outsider, in other words. Except in DF those myths are true.
On that note, racism could provide an interesting mechanic, given slave populations. Having second-class goblins working for dwarves sounds quite reasonable; of course, if the goblins later become king (..military coup, perhaps), that situation would reverse itself.
Playing a fort as the despised minority could be.. curious.
As far as slavery is related, it thus probably ought to manifest itself as it did historically: not very much. People captured in battle or purchased would be slaves, but race had little bearing on anything. People might watch their kids carefully around goblins, and they wouldn't appreciate seeing an elf in the graveyard, but other than that, I see no real need to add pointless racism.
Post by: cameron on July 07, 2010, 01:14:52 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Middle_Ages_and_Renaissance
also i personally would order large expensive meals if i could in adventure mode without bonuses though i wouldn't see myself grinding for money to get them even if they gave bonuses
Post by: James.Denholm on July 07, 2010, 01:27:35 am
If anyone can remember this far back:You could do a lot with some simple serial identifiers. A wound on one part would transfer to the part on the new form with the same identifier. If no identifier match is found, either discard the wounds (no equivalent location) or transfer some degree of injury [1] to the next part up the chain till you find a match.
One problem here: What if it's ambiguous? For instance, a creature with two wings transforming into a creature with four arms. I suppose you could spread the wound over each equivalent arm, or... something.
The idea here is that by giving each part a serial identifier tag rather than just relying on base part types, you can rig things up to behave in a sensible fashion. So in your example, you probably have something like:
Creature A, basic bird shape:
"limb1r" = wing
"limb1l" = wing
"limbnr" = leg
"limbnl" = leg
Creature B, 4 armed biped:
"limb1r" = arm
"limb1l" = arm
"limb2r" = arm
"limb2l" = arm
"limbnr" = leg
"limbnl" = leg
So damage to one set of arms would translate to/from wing damage, while damage to the other arms would probably spread to the upper body
The trick, of course, would be working out a set of tags that would give best behaviour under most circumstances.
Furthermore, having the game use a standard set of these tags, and remembering wounds in relation to these tags regardless if the current "form" had appropriate limbs or not might work.
Example: Let's say we've got Fred, a shape-shifting creature of awesomesauce. He starts off with the 4-armed biped as above, and gets a massive gash on his left lower arm - "limb2l". He shifts to a human form, which doesn't have any limbs with the "limb2l" (you can confirm this yourself - do you have four arms? If so, see a doctor!), and hence has no wound. Perhaps he has phantom pain, but that's a decision for another time. Anyway, he then decides to go to an armed-winged-biped, where the wings have the "limb2l" and "limb2r" tags appropriately. To his dismay, his left wing is suddenly bleedin'.
Post by: Neonivek on July 07, 2010, 04:57:37 am
Quote
also i personally would order large expensive meals if i could in adventure mode without bonuses though i wouldn't see myself grinding for money to get them even if they gave bonuses
The only bonuses I could see from that would be some sort of marker where people would associate you with luxuries.
Though to me a great reason to order fine food whenever possible, assuming it won't cripple your budget, would be for your party or other associates.
Post by: kilakan on July 07, 2010, 09:41:49 am
With the mention of merchant abilities in adventure mode, I could see it more as, buy the great meal from the poor chef down the road, then sell it to the king for a huge profit.Quotealso i personally would order large expensive meals if i could in adventure mode without bonuses though i wouldn't see myself grinding for money to get them even if they gave bonuses
The only bonuses I could see from that would be some sort of marker where people would associate you with luxuries.
Though to me a great reason to order fine food whenever possible, assuming it won't cripple your budget, would be for your party or other associates.
Post by: smjjames on July 07, 2010, 10:15:27 am
Since the Arsenal dwarf is being removed in .9 and is on a vacation of indeterminate length:
For forts that currently have an arsenal dwarf, will those saves be compatible with .9? I'm wondering because my fort is at the point where I need to use an arsenal dwarf in order to do much of the military stuff, and so when the arsenal dwarf position goes missing (it's in the entity_civ file, right? Which requires a regen) what happens to those in worldgen an in your fort that currently have the arsenal dwarf position?
Post by: Toady One on July 07, 2010, 10:21:14 am
Post by: smjjames on July 07, 2010, 10:22:56 am
In old saves, the position will be there, but you won't have to use it. Save compat is fine -- I left the responsibilities in but they aren't used in the code except to load them and not throw an error message. You can just fire your current arsenal dwarf.
Okay cool. :)
Post by: cephalo on July 07, 2010, 10:26:31 am
Post by: Intelligent Shade of Blue on July 07, 2010, 10:28:42 am
Will Armok ever make an appearance in DF? Like as a deity that all dwarves worship (in addition to their other, lesser gods)?
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 07, 2010, 12:55:51 pm
This could be blasphemy, but...
Will Armok ever make an appearance in DF? Like as a deity that all dwarves worship (in addition to their other, lesser gods)?
Armok is the player.
Post by: Cruxador on July 07, 2010, 12:57:16 pm
This could be blasphemy, but...The answer to this is almost certainly "no", though of course only Toady can give you an absolute answer there. The popular thought on Armok now is that he is the player.
Will Armok ever make an appearance in DF? Like as a deity that all dwarves worship (in addition to their other, lesser gods)?
Post by: Intelligent Shade of Blue on July 07, 2010, 01:13:43 pm
This could be blasphemy, but...The answer to this is almost certainly "no", though of course only Toady can give you an absolute answer there. The popular thought on Armok now is that he is the player.
Will Armok ever make an appearance in DF? Like as a deity that all dwarves worship (in addition to their other, lesser gods)?
While I'm familiar with the notion that Armok is the player, with the possibility of temples in fortresses on the horizon, I think it would be nice if there was a cult of Armok... What's better than having your dwarves building statues and temples in your honor?
Post by: G-Flex on July 07, 2010, 01:23:43 pm
Post by: Toybasher on July 07, 2010, 01:34:02 pm
Post by: Tehran on July 07, 2010, 02:47:51 pm
Quote from: the toad
In the case of supporting tiles for each game object, I need to figure out the deal with all the new SDL code before I can lay anything out in stark terms.
For when you implement full graphics support... are you going to release the game with its own tilesets already installed? And who would draw those tilesets? (As opposed to releasing it with just the capability to have tilesets installed.) I know that some of the traditionalists love their ascii, but we all know that the lack of graphics is what turns many people off about the game.
Post by: smjjames on July 07, 2010, 03:16:54 pm
Will the heart and throat ever get any other use? I mean you fixed major arteries for the next update, but a blue heart (function completely lost) should be fatal, at the same time throat wounds should cause death from not being able to breathe like the old 40d days.
We'll have to see with the new fixes in .9 and from what Toady said in the bug reports and the devlog, that stuff should be fixed.
Post by: isitanos on July 07, 2010, 03:18:36 pm
The principle problem is basically that luxuries aren't nearly as satisfying in the game as they are in real life. People still tend to enjoy things (as players, not characters) like collecting stuff or gambling in a computer game, since it doesn't deviate too far from the real world equivalents, but a lot of luxuries would be meaningless (consider eating "fine foods", say, though if you are really into the roleplaying it works I suppose)One thing that Gearhead (another roguelike whose themes tended to hit into this) used was tracking the player character's "mood" in terms of a vague mixture of happiness and exhaustion, and displaying it with a series of green + marks or red - marks on the screen. When your mood is high, you get a benefit to your social / mental / manual dexterity stats and a bonus to any actions that require concentration; when it's low, you get penalties to those things.
Things like tracking through a sewer, failing at tasks, eating charred monster corpses and so on would lower your mood, while success, good food, soaking in hot springs and so forth would raise it. It felt fairly realistic -- we've all had days where a bad mood makes it hard to do something, which makes you angrier which in turn makes you do even worse until you break whatever you're trying to fix or whatever.
The ability to accumulate bonuses by having a very high mood (at least until your mood slips back towards normal) also rewarded players for luxuries and such. For instance, I'd always buy chocolate bars and carry them with me on long sewer missions.
Will adventure mode in DF ever track the player character's mood? It's such a big part of Dwarf Mode that it seems like it'd be a logical thing to extend to adventure mode although, of course, I wouldn't expect players to go insane without something Lovecraft-style causing them to. But there's various other things that could be done with it, like the bonuses / penalties I mentioned above.
This is a great idea, that would give a subtle but real gameplay role to luxuries. A good reason for people who are not too much in roleplaying to buy masterwork beds. For players that actually want to be a sewer dweller and not be depressed all the time (even though a kind of gloomy, self-destructive character would fit with that theme), what makes the player happy/comfortable could change over time. This is more or less the same idea as cave adaptation: spend a lot of time in the great outdoors, and caves/cities make you claustrophobic or dizzy. Live in a goblin society for a while, and you should be clueless and miserable at first when you try to integrate a human/dwarven society. And so on...
Some stuff should be just too much to handle though (i.e. you can't get used to it, or rather you can, but the only way is to become insane enough), such as the sight of demons, and other horrors.
Speaking of mood, could we have fey/fell moods for the player, where he feels compelled to realize a feat, with a potentially great benefit but also a great penalty if he fails? To avoid a sudden unexpected possession to ruin a game, it should probably be rather easy to foresee, for example if they only have a chance of happening if you push the above mood mechanic to extremes, or you make a visit to an out-of-the-ordinary place such as a god's altar, or engage dialog with a powerful demon.
Post by: Toybasher on July 07, 2010, 03:48:08 pm
Will the heart and throat ever get any other use? I mean you fixed major arteries for the next update, but a blue heart (function completely lost) should be fatal, at the same time throat wounds should cause death from not being able to breathe like the old 40d days.
We'll have to see with the new fixes in .9 and from what Toady said in the bug reports and the devlog, that stuff should be fixed.
No no no, I mean the heart counts as a organ so bruising can make it blue (blue means organ has stopped function entirely) Now two bruised lungs are enough to kill you, but a blue heart will not do ANYTHING dispite your heart has pretty much more or less stopped beating. (unless of course all creatures are zombies or somthing)
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 07, 2010, 03:50:31 pm
The situation could change again when supply/demand goes in and that information is considered as acquirable knowledge, but at that point there could be something like a "chat with merchant" option or something that immediately illuminates all the rough pricing information, or that could just be automatic or something.Isn't this what the Appraising skill is supposed to simulate? I mean, why have separate systems when we already have skills? The "chat with merchant" option could probably train the skill or add temporary bonuses.
Quote
Yeah, it would be a good angle on adding temple rituals etc. in a non-boring way, as well, since they'd be there for your infiltration. Of course, then there'd need to be some kind of button to let you kneel in front of the sacred rock or whatever.Have you considered how things like "kneeling in front of the statue" will be controlled in terms of interface, etc? I'm a bid afraid that as you keep adding more and more moves/things to do in Adventure mode, the list of commands will become so enormously long it would be unusable. I'm thinking rare things like these might be triggered through some item in environment - like the statue here. Rather than having the next-to-useless "kneel" command available at all times, the player would click "interact" or something on the statue, and the game would list all possible things to do there, including kneeling. Or something... The other issue is that the player might not know he can kneel in front of the statue and that the game would react (and kneeling everywhere just to try if it does something is a bit over the top), so a menu like this would definitely help. The question here is if you have thought about how to handle controls in adventure mode in a way that would both allow the miriad of functions and still stay user friendly at the same time?
Quote
The previous problems with cave rivers make me wary of them, but it would be cool to get the place looking nicer. The underground is pretty dreary right now. The treasure hunter role is the best bet there, probably, though that might focus on areas of concentrated local interest at first. I guess enough of those makes for an exciting underground, but we'll probably need to find some middle ground stuff to avoid over-saturation. Dwarf mode wants interesting stuff all over underground but it makes adventure mode cave exploration goofy.How about if some features were added at embark? You could generate the word with the feature frequency optimalised for adventure mode, and then throw in some extra features when the player embarks in fortress mode. Or alternatively scan the neighbouring map squares and move the features from there to the embark idea or something. Or something... The question is whether retrospecting "cheating" like this (that could probably help even in other ideas) is something you might consider, or a thing that doesn't fit into your idea of simulating the world.
Another example might be ore veins and gems. Generate the world with realistic (low) amount of these, then throw in some extra ones to the embark area. Presumably hardcore players could turn off these extras in init, playing a realistic fortress in an area with a single metal vein, not veins of every metal possible. (Site finder would be needed to avoid completely empty areas, though)
-----
And a brand new question that popped in my mind when you were talking about ordering companions, having your own farm, and moving the time forward.
How about switching from adventure mode to something like fortress mode when ordering minions? You could control you farm like in dwarf mode, then switch back to your adventurer at any time and continue adventuring. Is switching game modes (or more precisely, levels of control) something you would like to explore, or again something you don't like?
The reason why I ask is that I'm almost terrified when I imagine having to command a farm from the "first person view". Imagine a farm with a couple of fields, some cows and pigs, and 7 servants. Still quite a small establishment I think. But the horror of having to find each servant, then order him using tal(k) interface, then some horribly complicated console thing for typing commands and locating them on the map... :-\ How much easier would it be to switch to fortress mode, issue professions using the same system (v-p-l), quering a couple of jobs in workshops, drafting one guy to a military and setting him to guard the "farm burrow", then switching back to adventure mode. Now I can go kill an ettin and be sure the farm won't explode.
The game mode wouldn't have to be an exact copy of dwarf mode, nor do we want it to, I suppose. It could be heavily simplified, and could run in adventure-time instead of the faster fortress-time. I just think it would be much easier to control a farm/castle/hideout/cave/manor/etc. this way. We already have working code for stuff like this, so why not use it?
EDIT: It would be useful even for digging or building houses along with more people.
I think the issue here might be that it's too "god-like" and gives you more control than you would have if you stayed in "first person". But I disagree. Thinking about how dwarf mode works now, not only you can't control dwarves directly, but also all orders you can issue to your dwarves you could easily issue in "first person" too. For example issuing labours in v-p-l is like saying "You are responsible for handling animals and you two for fields". Quering a farmer's workshop to "make milk" and setting it to repeat is like saying "Brian, could you please milk Betty each morning?" And designated some trees to be cut is like "Guys, let's grab axes and get us some timber!" Perhaps it isn't so roleplayingish, but would be much, much more user-friendly.
EDIT: Also, this "farm mode" (for a lack of terms) could double as a way to fast forward time (if it used fortress-time) while staying in direct control.
Post by: einstein9073 on July 07, 2010, 04:32:17 pm
Spoiler: HFS rock swimming (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Power-consuming trap-resetting (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Indiana Jones and the Fortress of Doom (click to show/hide)
OOOH Even better - This is a Lignite rolling stone pillar. All craftsdwarfship is of the highest quality. It is encircled with bands of chalk and adorned with hanging rings of tower-cap. The object menaces with spikes of microcline and awesome. On the object is an image of a Birch axle and goblins. The axle is rolling. The goblins are running. The axle is killing the goblins.
The only thing better than an automated goblin mangling trap is an automated goblin mangling trap THAT IS ON FIRE. You know, a +!!trap!!+
Spoiler: Shapeshifting woundshifting (click to show/hide)
Post by: Psieye on July 07, 2010, 04:50:08 pm
Easily handwaved. Call it a cold-sleep seal which is broken when HFS first spawn as it is right now. Call it ignorance of the surface because most demons prefer being deeeeeeeeep down in the pits and have no reason to be around the lowest layers of our DF maps before they realise something can dig 'up there'. Maybe they had no reason to 'invent' the rockpass magic until they found incentive when a dwarf showed up. Reasons why they don't kill everything before we discover them can be thought of later if the rock swimming is implemented at all.What would prevent the clowns from coming straight from the H.F.S. Clown Car to your wagon at embark? If they really want to Entertain (i.e., bring FunTM to) the world's children, and they can swim through rock...Spoiler: HFS rock swimming (click to show/hide)
Post by: JimiD on July 07, 2010, 04:54:04 pm
Now if those rock balls trigger pressure plates we could have some fun.
But if they had mass and integrated with the moving bits of the fortress then we could have Mouse Trap type fun.
Post by: Toybasher on July 07, 2010, 05:42:20 pm
How about in the health menu in the treatment section all wounds would show up there. you could then select the wound and what to do with it, Like for a broken arm
Right upper arm, (blah blah broken bone heavy bruising needs splint blah blah)
Treat? then, you get some options
Apply splint
apply bandage
set bone
suture
(etc)
this would make it very simple for new players for treating wounds, without it being too complex when selecting things like bandages you get a view of your backpack and then select what items to use for bandaging. And perhaps low skill when doing complex things can end up wasting supplies and making wounds only worse or taking even longer or heal and more infection prone, You could also just make a doctor join you and him him treat you (surgery would only be possible by other doctors, you can also do surgery on other people but creatures should never be able to serf-operate)
Post by: Topace3k on July 07, 2010, 06:04:58 pm
Will the heart and throat ever get any other use? I mean you fixed major arteries for the next update, but a blue heart (function completely lost) should be fatal, at the same time throat wounds should cause death from not being able to breathe like the old 40d days.
Yes, this is very important. I was messing around in the arena and noticed that adamantine axe slashes to the throat never did more than "tearing the skin" or whatever- its as if the throat has no arteries or other functions assigned to it! This is especially bad for animals, who used to be able to occasionally take down a dwarf by tearing out their throat- the natural hunting behavior of an animal and a desired possible outcome from such an encounter. As it is now, even latching on and shaking an opponent by their throat repeatedly does very, very, very little- less damage than attacking pretty much any other body part. Another thing, biting attacks seem to rarely cause bleeding, even against unclothed opponents, when in fact the teeth should be generally tearing flesh open.
Post by: VWSpeedRacer on July 07, 2010, 06:17:32 pm
Post by: James.Denholm on July 07, 2010, 06:25:33 pm
If you shift from (a six-limbed creature with a wound to the middle left limb) to a human, I'd expect you actually shift to (a human with a significant wound on the of your lower abdomen/back). Bleeding is bleeding - you can't shift to a human and mosey off to the dang hospital.Spoiler: Shapeshifting woundshifting (click to show/hide)
Fah-fah-fah-phantom pain?
Post by: Footkerchief on July 07, 2010, 06:34:13 pm
Will the heart and throat ever get any other use? I mean you fixed major arteries for the next update, but a blue heart (function completely lost) should be fatal, at the same time throat wounds should cause death from not being able to breathe like the old 40d days.
Yes, this is very important. I was messing around in the arena and noticed that adamantine axe slashes to the throat never did more than "tearing the skin" or whatever- its as if the throat has no arteries or other functions assigned to it!
This is the "major arteries" problem that Toybasher mentioned. It's fixed for the upcoming release. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=721)
Post by: Urist McDepravity on July 07, 2010, 06:35:44 pm
The first is probably easier than the second to put in, even if the second is more realistic. The first priority will probably just be dealing with walled-off hallways and stuff like that though -- things that are really easy to do that kill off entire sieges. I guess it's entirely possible that they wouldn't be able to find you if you hid behind 10 meter thick walls hidden off in random places, but then it should be possible for them to live in your upper levels for years while you work away tradeless on mushrooms down below (although there are major obstacles to that that make it non-practical for the dev page). They'd probably just leave after looting all your exposed items and slaughtering anybody left outside (including any entity pop infrastructure you've got out there). Although once they can get through a single wall, they can just dig ambitious tunnels for you at random I suppose. As long as walling yourself in has reasonable results, I'll be happy with however they handle it. Right now it's too much of an exploit (of course, the whole "digging invaders" is enough of a touchy subject that it's explictly stated as optional on the dev page, and how you handle exploits is up to you at that point).Will type of material matter in terms of how long it will take to be crushed or whether it can be crushed at all? Theres a big difference between wooden fence and block of solid steel/adamantine.
Post by: BigFatDwarf on July 07, 2010, 07:17:45 pm
Post by: cameron on July 07, 2010, 07:38:23 pm
Seeing as how the whole world would be living, with caravans, thieves' dens, towns and all the schemes and politics, sites growing, thieves stealing, creatures murdering, how will this effect DF, performance wise? For all the calculations, it seems like a black hole of FPS, really. (from a non-expert's viewing position)tying in with this, how much of what goes on in world gen will be continuing in play (aging and wars and buildings and stuff) in the next few releases
Post by: Acanthus117 on July 07, 2010, 08:53:37 pm
Post by: Psieye on July 07, 2010, 09:02:45 pm
About adventure mode reactions, will we be able to assign them the skills that are used for said reaction? Will they be like Fort Mode reactions, in where one gets skill EXP from doing said reaction?Wouldn't we get this answer when .09 gets released? We already have basic adventure mode reactions coming in so we can tinker about in the raws.
Post by: Acanthus117 on July 07, 2010, 09:06:28 pm
I'm just soooo excited, and planning a mod for this...
Post by: ManaUser on July 07, 2010, 10:39:56 pm
Post by: IronValley on July 08, 2010, 02:28:58 am
Regarding the Arsenal Dwarf, I was just thinking how a more useful incarnation of that position might work. What if they gathered up complete uniforms ahead of time so they would be there as soon as someone needed them? It should be configurable how many of each uniform to keep on hand, and of course if there was no uniform waiting in the arsenal, military dwarves should hunt the pieces down on their own as normal.
This! He could also keep the barracks clean, and arrange non-used sets on armor stands! Each armor stand holds a full set of armor (one uniform), and keeps the best weapons mentioned in uniforms available in weapon stands. Perhaps with some position setting to decide what sort of uniforms you want on stock.
Will it be possible for squads to automatically swap to training weapons when sparring?
Post by: Cruxador on July 08, 2010, 03:54:49 am
Regarding the Arsenal Dwarf, I was just thinking how a more useful incarnation of that position might work. What if they gathered up complete uniforms ahead of time so they would be there as soon as someone needed them? It should be configurable how many of each uniform to keep on hand, and of course if there was no uniform waiting in the arsenal, military dwarves should hunt the pieces down on their own as normal.That sounds as though it would be incompatible with the way uniforms currently work.
Post by: zwei on July 08, 2010, 05:39:45 am
Regarding the Arsenal Dwarf, I was just thinking how a more useful incarnation of that position might work. What if they gathered up complete uniforms ahead of time so they would be there as soon as someone needed them? It should be configurable how many of each uniform to keep on hand, and of course if there was no uniform waiting in the arsenal, military dwarves should hunt the pieces down on their own as normal.That sounds as though it would be incompatible with the way uniforms currently work.
I would imagine him having chat with manager dwarf and adding necesary items for full uniform to queue so that they get made.
Post by: Greiger on July 08, 2010, 10:09:20 am
I would imagine him having chat with manager dwarf and adding necesary items for full uniform to queue so that they get made.
I'm not opposed to that idea, but it might need some other prep first. What if the uniform is set to use something like any metal for some pieces? What metal will be used in the manager order? And what if you don't have enough of a particular materiel? The announcement log will be spammed with armorers cancelling jobs due to lack of metal like what already happens when there's a manager order that cannot be fulfilled. Except this one would recreate the order after deletion.
I also like the idea of the arsenal dwarf being more active. Moving clothing laying around owned by military dwarves into cabinets located in the barracks. And moving full uniforms onto armor stands and weapon racks when they aren't being used. Stocking the barracks with proper training weapons, or training ammunition in a similar fashion to the hospital when he's not doing anything better. Of course actually managing the equipment manifests would outprioritize all this, so you don't have him running around doing all that when he should be upgrading the squads to adamantine. But having him actually run around doing something instead of just hanging out in the meeting hall sounds like a way to make him more useful and more interesting at the same time.
Post by: zwei on July 08, 2010, 12:39:06 pm
I would imagine him having chat with manager dwarf and adding necesary items for full uniform to queue so that they get made.
I'm not opposed to that idea, but it might need some other prep first. What if the uniform is set to use something like any metal for some pieces? What metal will be used in the manager order? And what if you don't have enough of a particular materiel? The announcement log will be spammed with armorers cancelling jobs due to lack of metal like what already happens when there's a manager order that cannot be fulfilled. Except this one would recreate the order after deletion.
Alternativelly, he could be making mandates for armor/weapon that is in short supply.
Post by: jimi12 on July 08, 2010, 12:48:40 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on July 08, 2010, 04:12:15 pm
If he could issue jobs for such things for other dorfs to do, that would make more sense to me.
Post by: Mephansteras on July 08, 2010, 04:18:50 pm
That would make him quite useful, in my opinion.
Post by: darkrider2 on July 08, 2010, 04:29:55 pm
Post by: Dakkan on July 08, 2010, 06:03:59 pm
Post by: Armok on July 08, 2010, 06:53:33 pm
will moving fortress parts displace water, thus enabling an actual oversized piston pump to be created?
Post by: Syff on July 08, 2010, 08:20:40 pm
A completely accurate model would probably be a lot of effort/information with little to gain from it, though enough detail to properly encourage crop rotation seems like something that should make it in eventually.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 08, 2010, 08:29:23 pm
Post by: Psieye on July 09, 2010, 05:44:00 am
Post by: yarr on July 09, 2010, 06:14:32 am
Release nao plx :D
Post by: zwei on July 09, 2010, 06:17:48 am
That's entirely dependent on how Toady will resolve undead health. Right now, he's had to fudge in an HP system for undead when everything else doesn't use HP anymore. So the question is what, if any, common thread of 'durability'/'health' will the general Creatures of the Night have. Whether they're dependent on the intactness of the physical body or not.
It might not be as hard if he adds some kind of ectoplasm-like substance acting like blood so that skeletal creature with crushed bone would leak it, make skull site for "soul" which would release it when broken resulting in instakill and rib-cage site for "ectoplasm source" which would result in massive mystical bleeding out.
It really depends on how becoming and being undead skeleton is modelled and if that is done sensibly, health could be working quite naturaly.
Post by: Shogger on July 09, 2010, 08:36:47 am
That's entirely dependent on how Toady will resolve undead health. Right now, he's had to fudge in an HP system for undead when everything else doesn't use HP anymore. So the question is what, if any, common thread of 'durability'/'health' will the general Creatures of the Night have. Whether they're dependent on the intactness of the physical body or not.
It might not be as hard if he adds some kind of ectoplasm-like substance acting like blood so that skeletal creature with crushed bone would leak it, make skull site for "soul" which would release it when broken resulting in instakill and rib-cage site for "ectoplasm source" which would result in massive mystical bleeding out.
It really depends on how becoming and being undead skeleton is modelled and if that is done sensibly, health could be working quite naturaly.
By doing that, however, you'd make skeletal creatures no different from living ones in that you simply need to bleed them out to kill them.
Post by: Psieye on July 09, 2010, 09:26:59 am
Much too inflexible for Toady's vision of randomly generated Creatures of the Night, which will exhibit all range of undead traits. That means some skeletons won't stay down no matter how much you pulverize their bones because they're actually wraiths that happen to conveniently have a medium to easily manipulate in the physical realm. Some undead will be nigh unkillable except for some special metal like silver. Some will regenerate no matter what unless some specific location is targetted for no apparent logical reason (but you'll get hints where to attack based on villager tales). And some will be modellable with ectoplasm-like blood.That's entirely dependent on how Toady will resolve undead health. Right now, he's had to fudge in an HP system for undead when everything else doesn't use HP anymore. So the question is what, if any, common thread of 'durability'/'health' will the general Creatures of the Night have. Whether they're dependent on the intactness of the physical body or not.
It might not be as hard if he adds some kind of ectoplasm-like substance acting like blood so that skeletal creature with crushed bone would leak it, make skull site for "soul" which would release it when broken resulting in instakill and rib-cage site for "ectoplasm source" which would result in massive mystical bleeding out.
It really depends on how becoming and being undead skeleton is modelled and if that is done sensibly, health could be working quite naturaly.
Post by: Mephansteras on July 09, 2010, 12:57:51 pm
Post by: Kattaroten on July 09, 2010, 03:42:06 pm
Kattaroten screams: I need moving fortress parts!
Post by: UmbrageOfSnow on July 09, 2010, 09:42:15 pm
Umbrageofsnow sketches pictures of Howl's Moving Castle.
Post by: Dante on July 09, 2010, 11:30:49 pm
Kattaroten has entered a fell mood
Kattaroten screams: I need moving fortress parts!
Your fortress has crumbled to its end.
Post by: shibdib on July 10, 2010, 02:01:26 am
Post by: Urist McDepravity on July 10, 2010, 02:03:05 am
so rumor is the new release is today. but according to the dev page theirs only 3 minor adventure mode improvements complete, and alot of planned ideas.. or am i missing somethingYou are missing http://bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/changelog_page.php?version_id=10
Post by: shibdib on July 10, 2010, 02:24:56 am
so rumor is the new release is today. but according to the dev page theirs only 3 minor adventure mode improvements complete, and alot of planned ideas.. or am i missing somethingYou are missing http://bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/changelog_page.php?version_id=10
i See now.. bugfixes r nice :) was hoping for info on new additions tho..
Although
- 0000361: [Dwarf Mode -- Combat] Cannot get dwarves to use crossbows properly (Toady One) - resolved.
- 0000076: [Dwarf Mode -- Jobs, Hunting] Hunters not hunting (Toady One) - resolved.
are awesomeeeeeeeeeee
Post by: Neonivek on July 10, 2010, 04:07:07 am
Post by: Footkerchief on July 10, 2010, 04:28:17 am
Oddly enough I can't even see the bug tracker... and I don't want to make an entirely new account just to see it either.
The bug tracker is actually a fantastically cool place where awesome people hang out, so you may want to reconsider! (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/signup_page.php)
Post by: Cespinarve on July 10, 2010, 04:18:09 pm
Oddly enough I can't even see the bug tracker... and I don't want to make an entirely new account just to see it either.
The bug tracker is actually a fantastically cool place where awesome people to hang out, so you may want to reconsider! (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/signup_page.php)
It's also where we bicker over the minutiae of wether or not an arsenal dwarf is an important enough position to be spoken using a definite or non-definite Personal Noun ("I am arsenal dwarf" or "I am the arsenal dwarf").
Which is synonymous with awesome, in my books.
Post by: FuzzyDoom on July 10, 2010, 05:01:11 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 10, 2010, 05:59:45 pm
Oddly enough I can't even see the bug tracker... and I don't want to make an entirely new account just to see it either.
The bug tracker is actually a fantastically cool place where awesome people hang out, so you may want to reconsider! (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/signup_page.php)
Well I signed up and was hit with a giant wave of disapointment... None of that stuff is there.
Post by: Psieye on July 10, 2010, 07:24:12 pm
Oh it's all there, you just gotta look for the more controversial bugs. Of course, your definition of "cool place of hanging out" may differ from Footkerchief's.Oddly enough I can't even see the bug tracker... and I don't want to make an entirely new account just to see it either.
The bug tracker is actually a fantastically cool place where awesome people hang out, so you may want to reconsider! (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/signup_page.php)
Well I signed up and was hit with a giant wave of disapointment... None of that stuff is there.
Post by: Neonivek on July 10, 2010, 07:31:12 pm
At least to me.
Post by: goffrie on July 10, 2010, 07:42:25 pm
Hang out implies other people...xkcd disagrees. http://xkcd.com/324/
At least to me.
Post by: Untelligent on July 10, 2010, 09:29:58 pm
I seem to recall a bunch of metals got their yield properties rebalanced. Time to rewrite all the extra metals in my mod...
I'd ask what's coming up next, but I'm sure we'll find out in a bit next time Toady updates the devlog or posts here.
Post by: Neonivek on July 10, 2010, 11:38:51 pm
So far from what I can understand about Toady's actions is that on one hand he can be technical and want to put in those important technical fixes, he tends to bore of this after a while and ends up going on tangents.
Though sometimes when he goes on Tangents he can find that he becomes burried by them and bows out.
So likely we will see a few bug fixes for a bit and then Toady will get bored and he will do something else. Likely something that isn't an Adventurer update.
Post by: Psieye on July 11, 2010, 05:09:27 am
Hang out implies other people...I see about 20 people there, how are you counting people?
At least to me.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 11, 2010, 11:07:59 am
Post by: Festin on July 11, 2010, 11:25:21 am
Quote
# Moving fortress sections (lifts, crushing traps, etc.)
WILL it be theoretically possible to make a for that actually inches it's entire bulk acro0s the map?
I fail to understand how people can possibly discuss anything but this. After reading the dev page and this post, I spent the next hour in a trance, imaging crazy and awesome things.
Also, I completely support the following suggestion:
That wouldn't be a problem... if you could change the map.
I think it might be pretty easy to add a system where you can add and subtract entire world tiles from your map during fortress mode. You know, change a 3x3 map into a 3x4 - then back to a 3x3, moving forward like an inchworm.
Why should this option only be limited to the initial embark? (To answer my own question, there might be issues with sealing off any subtracted world tiles so that your dwarves don't go there anymore)
There have been a number of times where I wish I had added just one more row of tiles during embark, so that I could, for example, dig further into the mountains in search of adamantine.
If these two are ever actually implemented, then my life will be complete, and I will have no regrets about anything. Is resizing the playing field as described above even theoretically possible?
Post by: Necronopticous on July 11, 2010, 11:40:06 am
THIS:Quote# Moving fortress sections (lifts, crushing traps, etc.)WILL it be theoretically possible to make a for that actually inches it's entire bulk acro0s the map?
You'd obviously have to capture a fire demon to power it, first.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 11, 2010, 12:02:36 pm
According to wikipedia:
Quote
Spring-driven clocks appeared during the 1400s, although they are often erroneously credited to Nürnberg watchmaker Peter Henlein (or Henle, or Hele) around 1511. The earliest existing spring driven clock is the chamber clock given to Peter the Good, Duke of Burgundy, around 1430, now in the "Germanisches Nationalmuseum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanisches_Nationalmuseum)".
So its pretty close to dfs timeframe. It also would make "Multishot" traps feaseable.
Post by: TheDJ17 on July 11, 2010, 01:58:24 pm
Also, I completely support the following suggestion:I'd like to add to this: Whould the above mentioned feature eventually be replaced with some sort of Fog of War?That wouldn't be a problem... if you could change the map.
I think it might be pretty easy to add a system where you can add and subtract entire world tiles from your map during fortress mode. You know, change a 3x3 map into a 3x4 - then back to a 3x3, moving forward like an inchworm.
Why should this option only be limited to the initial embark? (To answer my own question, there might be issues with sealing off any subtracted world tiles so that your dwarves don't go there anymore)
There have been a number of times where I wish I had added just one more row of tiles during embark, so that I could, for example, dig further into the mountains in search of adamantine.
If these two are ever actually implemented, then my life will be complete, and I will have no regrets about anything. Is resizing the playing field as described above even theoretically possible?
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 11, 2010, 10:50:12 pm
more underground diversity
-- up on dev_next in part, though there are some issues with some of the desired ones, especially with digging down, since it can't load all that many layers, and solutions for slowing downward digging all seem sort of gamey or sketchy
Post by: RCIX on July 12, 2010, 04:47:20 am
Post by: Mephansteras on July 12, 2010, 12:03:31 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on July 12, 2010, 12:38:25 pm
Post by: Dwarfu on July 13, 2010, 08:41:07 am
If a dwarf has the personality trait 'likes maces' and he arrives (spawns) with some military skills, will he be a macedwarf or have skill in maces? Or will he spawn as 'likes maces,' arrive as a pikedwarf, and when assigned 'individual choice, melee,' he'll go and pick up a sword?
Post by: Quatch on July 13, 2010, 11:30:10 am
Regarding the "farming improvements" goals, how much detail is currently planned for tracking soil quality?
A completely accurate model would probably be a lot of effort/information with little to gain from it, though enough detail to properly encourage crop rotation seems like something that should make it in eventually.
I suggest a simple 3 number system: sand/clay/organics, your basic soil classification. Sandy soils could be good for glass, clay soils could prevent/slow water from evaporating and be used in any future ceramics, and organics could provide nutrition for crops (and be what is gained from applying fertilizer).
A balance, leaning to organics would be good for farming, and would easily allow for things like nutrient depletion, desertification, etc. Since extremely fine details aren't necessary, you could stuff it all in a byte, for those that are space conscious.
Crop rotation could be used with one of two mechanisms: either a crop reduces organics, or adds to organics (you'd want to alternate, esp if each had a range of preference (if it reduces, it likes lots, if it adds, it likes little). Or the second, where a crop could convert organics to clay thus slowly ruining the soil.
Post by: G-Flex on July 13, 2010, 11:32:36 am
I suggest a simple 3 number system: sand/clay/organics, your basic soil classification. Sandy soils could be good for glass, clay soils could prevent/slow water from evaporating and be used in any future ceramics, and organics could provide nutrition for crops (and be what is gained from applying fertilizer).
We've already got these soil types, if you weren't already aware. The soil types in DF are pretty much pulled straight from a chart of such classifications.
Post by: Quatch on July 13, 2010, 12:56:45 pm
We've already got these soil types, if you weren't already aware. The soil types in DF are pretty much pulled straight from a chart of such classifications.
As distinct, non-interactive units. I propose one "soil", with a flexible scheme to classify it, and to interact with other game components such as farming.
Post by: Syff on July 13, 2010, 01:43:13 pm
Classifying the texture of the soil sounds to me like it'd probably be better off left in the raws for each soil type, at least for now, as it seems less likely to change significantly than the content of the soil.
Post by: darkrider2 on July 13, 2010, 02:50:35 pm
Quote
-snip- Since extremely fine details aren't necessary -snip-
excuse me but I believe there is nothing wrong with going overboard with any aspect.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 13, 2010, 05:21:21 pm
Post by: Untelligent on July 13, 2010, 09:04:03 pm
Spatial sense and kinesthetic sense seem like they could potentially affect certain combat rolls, for instance.
Post by: Urist McDepravity on July 14, 2010, 08:59:21 am
Its a bit weird that game has no reference to the system's star, or even sky at all. In Earth cultures Sun always had central place, often being associated with 'higher' gods.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 14, 2010, 09:02:57 am
Post by: Urist McDepravity on July 14, 2010, 09:06:55 am
well, dwarves vomit when they see the sunThats a good definition of evil god, I believe.
Post by: BigFatDwarf on July 14, 2010, 10:38:07 am
Dwarves don't really hit me as the kind of guys that think something as a god just because it helps or hurts them.well, dwarves vomit when they see the sunThats a good definition of evil god, I believe.
Post by: tfaal on July 14, 2010, 11:49:04 am
Post by: Quatch on July 14, 2010, 01:17:49 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 14, 2010, 02:00:13 pm
Post by: cameron on July 14, 2010, 03:00:01 pm
Post by: Untelligent on July 14, 2010, 04:52:33 pm
Post by: Shadowfury333 on July 14, 2010, 09:26:47 pm
Post by: James.Denholm on July 15, 2010, 02:09:22 am
Will the addition of a crime tracking and investigation system be integrated into fortress mode? In other words, will random dwarves stop getting hammered (in a bad way) because of production mandate issues?Yeah, they'll be gettin' smashed instead.
Citation needed.
Post by: darkrider2 on July 15, 2010, 02:26:38 am
Will the addition of a crime tracking and investigation system be integrated into fortress mode? In other words, will random dwarves stop getting hammered (in a bad way) because of production mandate issues?
Why do I see a situation where when a nobles mandate for platinum figurines or whatever isn't fulfilled he/she begins a massive fort wide investigation, detectives barge into peoples rooms while they're asleep, parties are brought to abrupt halts, the everyday working of the fort are slowed to a crawl in the face of this ever pressing matter. Evidence is brought before the court; platinum bars still not turned into figurines, anvils unused, and forging tools still neatly sorted. In the end, the detective can find no-one at fault for the non-production of this item, but he must appease the noble, so he accuses some poor sap with the metalcrafting labor enabled. Hammer-Time.
Post by: zwei on July 15, 2010, 02:41:04 am
Will the addition of a crime tracking and investigation system be integrated into fortress mode? In other words, will random dwarves stop getting hammered (in a bad way) because of production mandate issues?
Why do I see a situation where when a nobles mandate for platinum figurines or whatever isn't fulfilled he/she begins a massive fort wide investigation, detectives barge into peoples rooms while they're asleep, parties are brought to abrupt halts, the everyday working of the fort are slowed to a crawl in the face of this ever pressing matter. Evidence is brought before the court; platinum bars still not turned into figurines, anvils unused, and forging tools still neatly sorted. In the end, the detective can find no-one at fault for the non-production of this item, but he must appease the noble, so he accuses some poor sap with the metalcrafting labor enabled. Hammer-Time.
Well, it would be nice if there was actually more than "hammer time" punishment.
Noble banning all parties or other activities he deemed deterrent to production (i.e. no breaks for offender).
Forced draft to army.
Stocks and Prangers.
Conficating criminals property.
Forbiding him consumption of alcohol or such.
Exile (dwarf is escorted to edge of map and then returns in X months or years, if he does not settle elsewhere or die in wilderness).
Forbiding him from having his currently most trained labor enabled for some time.
Basically, making justice interesting.
Post by: Orkel on July 15, 2010, 10:33:38 am
Will the addition of a crime tracking and investigation system be integrated into fortress mode? In other words, will random dwarves stop getting hammered (in a bad way) because of production mandate issues?
Why do I see a situation where when a nobles mandate for platinum figurines or whatever isn't fulfilled he/she begins a massive fort wide investigation, detectives barge into peoples rooms while they're asleep, parties are brought to abrupt halts, the everyday working of the fort are slowed to a crawl in the face of this ever pressing matter. Evidence is brought before the court; platinum bars still not turned into figurines, anvils unused, and forging tools still neatly sorted. In the end, the detective can find no-one at fault for the non-production of this item, but he must appease the noble, so he accuses some poor sap with the metalcrafting labor enabled. Hammer-Time.
Well, it would be nice if there was actually more than "hammer time" punishment.
Noble banning all parties or other activities he deemed deterrent to production (i.e. no breaks for offender).
Forced draft to army.
Stocks and Prangers.
Conficating criminals property.
Forbiding him consumption of alcohol or such.
Exile (dwarf is escorted to edge of map and then returns in X months or years, if he does not settle elsewhere or die in wilderness).
Forbiding him from having his currently most trained labor enabled for some time.
Basically, making justice interesting.
Exile would be amusing.
Post by: kiffer.geo on July 15, 2010, 11:04:08 am
Will the addition of a crime tracking and investigation system be integrated into fortress mode? In other words, will random dwarves stop getting hammered (in a bad way) because of production mandate issues?
Why do I see a situation where when a nobles mandate for platinum figurines or whatever isn't fulfilled he/she begins a massive fort wide investigation, detectives barge into peoples rooms while they're asleep, parties are brought to abrupt halts, the everyday working of the fort are slowed to a crawl in the face of this ever pressing matter. Evidence is brought before the court; platinum bars still not turned into figurines, anvils unused, and forging tools still neatly sorted. In the end, the detective can find no-one at fault for the non-production of this item, but he must appease the noble, so he accuses some poor sap with the metalcrafting labor enabled. Hammer-Time.
Well, it would be nice if there was actually more than "hammer time" punishment.
Noble banning all parties or other activities he deemed deterrent to production (i.e. no breaks for offender).
Forced draft to army.
Stocks and Prangers.
Conficating criminals property.
Forbiding him consumption of alcohol or such.
Exile (dwarf is escorted to edge of map and then returns in X months or years, if he does not settle elsewhere or die in wilderness).
Forbiding him from having his currently most trained labor enabled for some time.
Basically, making justice interesting.
Exile would be amusing.
Exciled to the surface...
Urist McEverysmith, for the crime of mandate unfullfillment you are sentenced to a year and a day above ground... You may not return to the sweet embrace of the rocks untill either that time has passed... or you have. You will be given one knife and one wine skin and so that no dwarf will allow you refuge before your time is up the date shall be tattooed on your cheek and your beard shorn...
...b-but this fortress is under a scorching desert...
You should have though of that before you failed to make those platinum figures...
Post by: tfaal on July 15, 2010, 11:05:00 am
Quote from: Devlog
07/15/2010: I cleaned up a number of training issues today. There was various lingering information that would gum up barracks selection over time, and individual training could interfere with squad barracks selection as well. Some out-of-whack personality effects had far too many soldiers skipping out on their individual practice. Demonstration/training organization has been sped up a great deal, and I fixed another problem with class timers. Civilian jobs should respect attribute growth/maintenance properly now, though we'll have to balance that a bit no doubt. Shell moods are restricted to dwarves with shell fetishes. Goblet/flask construction shouldn't shuffle the metal types anymore.This is absolutely fantastic news. I can't wait to start working on a proper military.
Post by: smjjames on July 15, 2010, 11:08:10 am
Quote from: Devlog07/15/2010: I cleaned up a number of training issues today. There was various lingering information that would gum up barracks selection over time, and individual training could interfere with squad barracks selection as well. Some out-of-whack personality effects had far too many soldiers skipping out on their individual practice. Demonstration/training organization has been sped up a great deal, and I fixed another problem with class timers. Civilian jobs should respect attribute growth/maintenance properly now, though we'll have to balance that a bit no doubt. Shell moods are restricted to dwarves with shell fetishes. Goblet/flask construction shouldn't shuffle the metal types anymore.This is absolutely fantastic news. I can't wait to start working on a proper military.
He also fixed the issue with dead dwarves not getting removed from the military. He said that in the announcement page (after I mentioned it, heh) and he simply forgot to mention it in the devlog.
Post by: Shadowfury333 on July 15, 2010, 01:50:11 pm
Exciled to the surface...
Urist McEverysmith, for the crime of mandate unfullfillment you are sentenced to a year and a day above ground...
Okay, but maybe there should be something more, especially in a fort like my current one which is almost all above ground. That wouldn't be much punishment.
Post by: Cruxador on July 15, 2010, 02:39:02 pm
You could just banish them to one of the underground layers instead.Exciled to the surface...
Urist McEverysmith, for the crime of mandate unfullfillment you are sentenced to a year and a day above ground...
Okay, but maybe there should be something more, especially in a fort like my current one which is almost all above ground. That wouldn't be much punishment.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 15, 2010, 03:25:08 pm
Post by: FuzzyDoom on July 15, 2010, 04:37:13 pm
Toady, if you haven't seen this (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61507.0), I must bring it to your attention and ask that you find the cause and/or replicate it.
Post by: derekiv on July 15, 2010, 05:18:17 pm
Toady, if you haven't seen this (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61507.0), I must bring it to your attention and ask that you find the cause and/or replicate it.
Post by: Diablous on July 15, 2010, 05:19:02 pm
Toady, if you haven't seen this (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61507.0), I must bring it to your attention and ask that you find the cause and/or replicate it.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 15, 2010, 05:22:58 pm
EDIT: No "a" in "posting."
Post by: TheDJ17 on July 15, 2010, 11:27:21 pm
:PToady, if you haven't seen this (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61507.0), I must bring it to your attention and ask that you find the cause and/or replicate it.
Post by: Knight Otu on July 16, 2010, 05:13:23 am
Toady, if you haven't seen this (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61507.0), I must bring it to your attention and ask that you find the cause and/or replicate it.
I guess that answers this (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=50046.msg1052553#msg1052553) question.
Quote
I guess it doesn't quite melt the computer. Though the moon became the elevator it seems. :PQuoteProbably enough to melt your computer. :PQuote...a HFS metal moon, ...HFS metal moon = impetus for the first Dwarven space elevator. How many Z-levels do think it would take to reach a geosynchronous orbit? ;D
Post by: smjjames on July 16, 2010, 08:39:45 am
Post by: Areyar on July 16, 2010, 09:04:04 am
Great job Toady! :)
The time may be ripe for another donatathon. ;)
Post by: scriver on July 16, 2010, 03:01:41 pm
Exile (dwarf is escorted to edge of map and then returns in X months or years, if he does not settle elsewhere or die in wilderness).It would be interesting if the exile in question would then, depending on his attributes of course, be forced to (or have the option to) turn to banditry to survive, i.e. preying on the caravans travelling to and from your site.
Post by: Quatch on July 16, 2010, 03:10:07 pm
Post by: Untelligent on July 16, 2010, 08:48:07 pm
A constant, 24/7 flow of history may out of the question, especially for Fortress mode. For that, at least, I can see a monthly, seasonal, or yearly (or any of the above, as determined by an init option) history check being reasonable, where it runs all the history of the last period of time (or the next?) at once, but Adventure mode seems a bit trickier to find spots to sneak wads of history in, and it'll be even more important what with all that villain and night creature and trading stuff going on.
Post by: G-Flex on July 16, 2010, 09:49:37 pm
Of course, making this work well with fortress mode/adventurer entities being played in the same areas as the NPC entities (say, a fortress or an adventurer in/near a town or some other site) would be its own challenge, but there could be ways to fix that up a bit, I'm sure, even if they aren't perfect.
Again, I know that's just a silly hypothetical, but it's definitely food for thought, and a good case for parallelization.
Post by: Untelligent on July 16, 2010, 10:37:32 pm
Still, just making history run on a single, seperate core from the rest (like the graphics thing) would probably be easier than full-blown multithreading it.
Post by: madjoe5 on July 17, 2010, 12:24:52 am
Post by: G-Flex on July 17, 2010, 01:34:30 am
Still, just making history run on a single, seperate core from the rest (like the graphics thing) would probably be easier than full-blown multithreading it.
How are those not the exact same thing?
Post by: Cruxador on July 17, 2010, 03:40:54 am
Full-blown multithreading is made of lots of little processes that can get shuffled around as necessary. With this idea, all the processes for one broad purpose would be separate, but the main body of the game would still work the same. Like how the current graphics work.Still, just making history run on a single, seperate core from the rest (like the graphics thing) would probably be easier than full-blown multithreading it.
How are those not the exact same thing?
Post by: Untelligent on July 17, 2010, 11:35:46 am
Post by: PermanentInk on July 17, 2010, 12:41:55 pm
Full-blown multithreading is made of lots of little processes that can get shuffled around as necessary. With this idea, all the processes for one broad purpose would be separate, but the main body of the game would still work the same. Like how the current graphics work.
Worker thread pools are one multithreading idiom; by no means are they requisite for a program to be considered "properly" multithreaded.
Naturally, DF does seem in many ways to lend itself to a multithreaded approach. As with many simulations, there are a lot of pieces moving parallel and mostly independently, which is what you need. It seems very possible that DF will have to migrate towards such an approach in the long term, for performance reasons.
However, it's naive to trivialize the difficulty of getting multithreading right. Race conditions, memory barriers, shared state, semaphors and locks, deadlocks, live locks, and on and on and on -- there's a whole bestiary of problems that can hit you once you go multithreaded. Toady's a really smart guy and he's clearly picked up plenty along the way, but his training as a programmer is also far from traditional, and while I don't consider that a bad thing by any means, it means there are bound to be gaps. I don't know to what extent he's picked up knowledge about dealing with concurrency up to now, but if he hasn't and he tries it naively, it could become a *big* rathole and/or source of bugs. If there's one possibility I can think of for how this project might get sunk on a purely technical basis, this would probably be it.
Not to be pessimistic; just pointing out that this would be a major architectural change and a difficult one for anyone to accomplish safely.
Post by: tfaal on July 17, 2010, 02:13:53 pm
Quote from: Devlog
Yesterday I messed around a lot with sparring and skill demonstrations and made sure they were moving between them properly, and I balanced out some of the timers and skill increases there. The combat rebalancing had had an effect on sparring injuries, which had already been a bit of a problem (and have historically been a major problem), so I put in some more safeguards there. I also found that anybody that was bleeding modestly would take a dive and decide they needed to be carried off to the hospital, even if the bleeding subsequently stopped. That's fixed now.Yet more good news on the military front. Entity populations aught to be nice as well. This raises a question: once entity pops are in, can we expect the current (ridiculously tiny) towns to get scrapped in short order? On a related note, does this mean we won't be seeing mundane people appearing in the legends screen anymore?
Today I took some time to think about the site/population rewrite that's the foundation of a lot of the future developments, mainly having your own sites in adventure mode, having sprawl/rural areas, villain groups, and having more dwarves live around you off-map in dwarf mode. Since I'm aiming for the 22nd or 23rd for the next release, I'm not sure if that rewrite is going to fit or not. I'd like to take some small steps on the dev page each time I release, but this one is larger and it still needs to be done early. If we wind up with some more days of bug fixing and then the site/pop rewrite first thing for the release after the next one, I wouldn't be surprised.
Post by: Master on July 17, 2010, 02:17:37 pm
Quote
Today I took some time to think about the site/population rewrite that's the foundation of a lot of the future developments, mainly having your own sites in adventure mode, having sprawl/rural areas, villain groups, and having more dwarves live around you off-map in dwarf mode. Since I'm aiming for the 22nd or 23rd for the next release, I'm not sure if that rewrite is going to fit or not. I'd like to take some small steps on the dev page each time I release, but this one is larger and it still needs to be done early. If we wind up with some more days of bug fixing and then the site/pop rewrite first thing for the release after the next one, I wouldn't be surprised.
So does that mean we will finally be able to abandon (not abandon but set the fort to AI) a fortress, send the file to a friend and have them assault the fort?
Post by: tfaal on July 17, 2010, 03:30:57 pm
One more question, now that I think of it: will the entity population update break save compat? I can't think of a way it wouldn't, but you never know.
Post by: Untelligent on July 18, 2010, 02:04:11 pm
Post by: Cespinarve on July 18, 2010, 03:04:25 pm
Post by: thvaz on July 18, 2010, 07:56:17 pm
Will we be able to play a fortress, abandon it, then advance the world a set number of years?
Post by: Neonivek on July 18, 2010, 08:55:27 pm
Toady I see the Darkones, whos name leaves me, have slaves. In what ways do you plan for these slaves to come to pass? Will it be anywhere from transformed children, to the controlled, all the way to just people hired with cash?
Post by: tfaal on July 19, 2010, 12:33:28 am
Will we be able to let the computer run a player created fortress? For instance, to play five years and then let it run itself while we play as adventurer or running other fortresses.New ideas that aren't related to the current development page should probably go in the suggestions forum.
Will we be able to play a fortress, abandon it, then advance the world a set number of years?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 19, 2010, 12:37:03 am
Post by: tfaal on July 19, 2010, 12:46:07 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 19, 2010, 03:37:18 am
Post by: Toady One on July 19, 2010, 06:24:53 am
Quote from: Osmosis Jones
Just to clarify on the forcing loyalty, I meant for situations like slavery; following your orders goes against the characters ethics or desires, but they are compelled to do so via fear etc, as opposed to just having subordinates follow you due to gold or reputation. You suggested one example in the dev list, of forcing someone you've captured to act as a guide, I was just asking about a more general system, with say forced labour, forced military service etc. Building on that, would it be possible to have that forced loyalty thing work with other characters? Say you intimidate 5 people into following you, and get them to intimidate 5 more each into following them; the end result is you command 30 people, 5 of which act as slave drivers in a way.
However ordering people around works with the guide situation, it would most likely be done as part of whatever system there is for your subordinates, so you'd have whatever range of commands is available as long as you're around to scare the guy. A longer lasting effect that can be transferred down a hierarchy would be a different problem, but I imagine the bandit leaders and night creatures will need parts of that. So we'll get pieces, and it'll probably keep on going that way.
Quote from: Baughn
Once there is a notion of relative wealth, will that include dwarf-mode economics, so we don't have to build buckets for our dwarves to sleep in?
Do you mean like people having good beds because they can afford them? Or that you wouldn't even have to build the wooden beds because most of the dwarves are destitute and sleeping on the rock (or soil!) floor?
Quote from: Ratbert_CP
Can we have a goblin fry-basket made of magma safe wall and floor grates that we can place and/or trap creatures in, that we can then lower into a convenient pool of magma?
The only special provision the game would need to understand is that when the fortress part moves down, fluid should be pushed up through fluid-passable floors instead of treating it like an unpassable floor/wall. It'll be something I have to remember to do as a one-liner, but that's really all it comes down to, and I've written it down now to remind me. So yeah.
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris
Also, will grates eventually be able to support other grates as if they were all one giant grate?
I suppose it's not a bad thing. I imagine you'd need something stronger supporting them after a distance, but that might as well remain imaginary. I can't really say when it would be allowed. I'd need to fiddle with the bridge stuff or whatever is currently in there.
Quote
Quote from: Ratbert_CPAre there any roadmap/plans to move more game interactions out to the RAW files? Specifically, the ability to require certain/custom nobles to enable certain/custom workshops? Or better, the ability to require a (specific?) third-party to cause a reaction?Quote from: RCISWhen will the rest of the workshops/reactions be moved out into raw files? i feel kind of constrained as a modder trying to operate with only limited access to how Toady set up the workshops.Quote from: MephansterasWhen will custom workshops be able to display the color of the building materials the way regular workshops do?
For reactions, there are a zillion things people have requested, and at some point, I'd just do a batch of them. It's the kind of thing I think I'll find more time for when the bugs are under control, since it is fun to expand those powers out, but for now I've just been collecting a list.
Quote from: Heph
Toady you spoke of "Boulders" Buried in the soil. Does that include Multi-tile boulders like "Glacial boulders"?
I didn't think about multi-tile boulders. It could be like two rock wall tiles sitting in the soil (or on top of the soil, looking at these pictures) instead of anything treated as a special object. At that point, it's probably more for whenever we get canyons and mesas and interesting above ground stuff, rather than for this "adventurers and soil-bound dwarves get more access to large stones" change.
Quote
Quote from: PsieyeWill the new crushing traps with moving sections have the same 'atomsmashing' effect as raised bridges do now? Or will you get to uh... loot pancakes of whatever you killed?Quote from: HephIn addition to Psieye's question: Wouldt it be possible to remove atom-smashing for bridges and replace it by actual crushing?
The problem there is adding some kind of flag to have an item in a square, above the ground but below the buildings. It would need to be respected everywhere. It's not impossible, because there are already the buried and imbedded flags that are respected everywhere, and it would be nearly identical (except for the few places where it is actually added/removed). There's a further complication with the material spatter, but it's already a problem, which is whether the spatter is on the bridge or beneath the bridge, since I imagine some squashed items would just become spatter, instead of a crushed item.
Quote from: Mephansteras
Will you be adding in some code to handle worn materials protecting the wearer from various dangerous elements? Things like dragon scale armor protecting from firebreath or an artifact mask that protects against poisonous vapor would be fun.
If it's not magic, there are some still missing properties that should help, like thermal conductivity. Right now, a dragon item would become hot and not be damaged, but it would still convey heat to you. Even if it has a high specific heat, it would still store the energy and transfer some of it to you (though slower). So it really needs to reject the heat in the first place, which requires the conductivity. Or there's magic. Which I imagine would cover this kind of thing in most systems, at least in special cases.
Quote from: Cruxador
Surely a catchall "other" category would be superior to leaving stuff off the list?
That was the old system, and it didn't work -- it just takes too much time to keep the list up to date. Now I'm going to stick with things that are "shorter term" in some sense and where there's a semblance of a roadmap (though that isn't quite the case for the ESV stuff at this point, unplanned as some of it is).
Quote from: zwei
One of popular mods are custom workshops designed to train skills. How far in pipeline are things that would make it obsolete: like books, master/apprentice relationships, training straw dummies for soldiers, toys providing experience for children and geting experience by observing others to do something or by talking to then about subject.
Right now the idea is to put in books in the treasure hunter section, and master/apprentice stuff is the province of guilds (though I don't imagine that's as relevant here, since the trades already have workshops, although children can't learn at them). That enables the things you are talking about in part, but it's difficult to talk about with getting down into specific skills. I imagine the mods are wide-ranging.
Quote from: Topace3k
Is there any possibility that bruising damage can be made to cause a small amount of blood loss? Essentially, bruising is internal bleeding and a great deal of bruising means you are losing a great deal of blood from your circulatory system. Currently, dwarves can punch eachother forever with little effect because these bruising wounds have little relevance in the game other than in causing pain. If some internal bleeding was taken into account whenever bruising occurs, fights between unarmed living creatures would be much more fun and realistic.
It should, though internal bleeding from ruptured organs and adding concussions and brain bleeds is probably the most important for making unarmed striking fights realistic, compared to making muscle bruising the cause of death. Things like ruptured spleens are probably just going to have to be something like an organ/body part tag/property, since spleens usually "rupture" and lungs usually "collapse".
Quote from: Purple Mage
With the ability to create and buy sites now in the works, will an adventurer be able to become a landlord and rent out land to the local peasants.
Entity populations are going to be coming soon, and as the sprawl is added, we're planning on messing with this stuff, whether that's with isolated villages or more developed manors. Once those relationships are established, we can start considering getting the adventurer involved, though the focus will probably start with the combat-related partnerships with the people around you. That said, if you can ask one of your guys to do your farming while you are away, rent is just around the corner, at least in crops or required labor days. The use of markets/peddlers by your guys would be farther off, so rent in coinage/valuables/whatever might be farther away.
Quote from: Little
And with the new suspicion system and building system, would it possible to discreetly murder your tenants, hide their bodies in a hidden room and then blame an adventurer wandering into town?
I think the part where you actually cast the blame on somebody else through your words is the missing piece. And the part about the hidden room I guess, depending on what you mean. The idea is that blame would naturally fall on strangers, so assuming you aren't also a recent arrival at the town, you'd probably be able to get away with things for a while (or forever, since it'll probably be easy until more mechanics are put in).
Quote from: VWSpeedRacer
There isn't a fixed tile scale, but wouldn't it be fair to call a boulder as 1/3 a tile width, and give accelleration as something like (3 horizontal tiles per ramp tile) ^ 2 ?
Yeah, however it would work. There are equations for acceleration on an inclined plane. I probably used to know the basic ones, but I'm way out of practice, he he he. We'll try to do things properly, although, yeah, we'd just be fudging the scales. I don't think it'll be hard, although when we get to things arcing through the sky, targeting can be a tad annoying, especially when you have to account for the grid locations on top of the equations.
Quote
Quote from: AquillionWill adventure mode in DF ever track the player character's mood? It's such a big part of Dwarf Mode that it seems like it'd be a logical thing to extend to adventure mode although, of course, I wouldn't expect players to go insane without something Lovecraft-style causing them to. But there's various other things that could be done with it, like the bonuses / penalties I mentioned above.Quote from: isitanosThis is a great idea, that would give a subtle but real gameplay role to luxuries. A good reason for people who are not too much in roleplaying to buy masterwork beds. For players that actually want to be a sewer dweller and not be depressed all the time (even though a kind of gloomy, self-destructive character would fit with that theme), what makes the player happy/comfortable could change over time.
Yeah, to me, as somebody mentioned, it was a roleplaying thing. The example about preferences changing over time just points to the overall problems -- the system would have to be complicated, and when it screws up, you are being penalized when it makes no sense and I imagine it might pull you out of where you want to be mentally. There are probably some limited cases like dwarven alcohol dependency or Lovecraftian insanity that we wouldn't mind doing, but I worry about the ramifications of a complete accounting of the player's emotional state. Overall, doing it might end up being a quirky thing, rather than something bad, I guess, as it sounds with the candy bar example, but I'm not sure I want it to be that way. Maybe if it is tied in to dwarf-style preferences you pick in the beginning it wouldn't be so jarring. You'd at least know what to expect and it wouldn't push or irritate you as much as seeing something like "Angry" at the bottom of the screen when that's the opposite of how you think your character would react. The mood accounting at that point becomes something of a positive, perhaps, since it provides a richer experience within the confines of your expectations. I want to be careful though.
Quote from: Intelligent Shade of Blue
Will Armok ever make an appearance in DF? Like as a deity that all dwarves worship (in addition to their other, lesser gods)?
Right now, you can't for instance add a stock pantheon for a modded race (like one from real-world mythology). I think when you are able to do that in the raws or an editor or whatever, Armok would probably be a top candidate for stock universe example raws. Armok has kind of enjoyed the history of being in the original Dragslay, functioned as a joke about the player, served as an explanation for each save game, etc., and for the future, the stock entry is where I'd see it happening.
Quote from: Toybasher
Will the heart and throat ever get any other use? I mean you fixed major arteries for the next update, but a blue heart (function completely lost) should be fatal, at the same time throat wounds should cause death from not being able to breathe like the old 40d days.
Proper death conditions were redded out on the last release list as a delayed item, and now they are in the same limbo as some of those other items. The heart ceasing to function should lead to brain death via deoxygenation/toxin buildup, where brain death would ultimately be the cause of all death, but we aren't there yet. I'm not sure when it will next come up.
Quote from: Tehran
For when you implement full graphics support... are you going to release the game with its own tilesets already installed? And who would draw those tilesets? (As opposed to releasing it with just the capability to have tilesets installed.)
Dunno. You'd want people to have graphics easily, as it is a major stumbling block to getting into the game, but I'm not sure I'd ever feel safe bundling a release with a tileset that wasn't produced internally.
Quote from: isitanos
Speaking of mood, could we have fey/fell moods for the player, where he feels compelled to realize a feat, with a potentially great benefit but also a great penalty if he fails? To avoid a sudden unexpected possession to ruin a game, it should probably be rather easy to foresee, for example if they only have a chance of happening if you push the above mood mechanic to extremes, or you make a visit to an out-of-the-ordinary place such as a god's altar, or engage dialog with a powerful demon.
I wouldn't want to randomly saddle people with too much of a burden, particularly on a single character in adventure mode, but I don't have a problem with a magical obligation at times when it makes sense, since those are fairly common and should be fun. No idea when that sort of thing would happen, since it's all so far away.
Quote from: Jiri Petru
Isn't this what the Appraising skill is supposed to simulate? I mean, why have separate systems when we already have skills? The "chat with merchant" option could probably train the skill or add temporary bonuses.
Adventure mode should refine fort mode mechanics in general, and I think instant local knowledge from an appraisal skill would diminish the fun of being a trader. I don't think it is a bad thing if adventure mode ends up with separate systems. It is more work, and if you think of the entire game as a single simulator, it seems like the wrong way to do things, but dwarf mode and adventure mode are different and they will end up hurting each other if they try to use the same mechanics for everything. Moving between modes you've got to deal with things like fort mode not having tools or having historical figures with skills that might not be used, but I think it's a manageable problem and ultimately a smaller problem than making adventure mode vague because fort mode can't support the specifity that comes out of the slower timescale and moving location of adv mode.
The situation with the two modes is one of the central problems of future development though, and I imagine there will be plenty of compromises and tradeoffs and whatever else going on as we work through the dev page.
Quote from: Jiri Petru
Have you considered how things like "kneeling in front of the statue" will be controlled in terms of interface, etc? I'm a bid afraid that as you keep adding more and more moves/things to do in Adventure mode, the list of commands will become so enormously long it would be unusable. I'm thinking rare things like these might be triggered through some item in environment - like the statue here. Rather than having the next-to-useless "kneel" command available at all times, the player would click "interact" or something on the statue, and the game would list all possible things to do there, including kneeling. Or something... The other issue is that the player might not know he can kneel in front of the statue and that the game would react (and kneeling everywhere just to try if it does something is a bit over the top), so a menu like this would definitely help. The question here is if you have thought about how to handle controls in adventure mode in a way that would both allow the miriad of functions and still stay user friendly at the same time?
There's already some menu nesting with context-sensitive information, as with ground interactions or building interactions. Having gestures or movements as an 'x' category or wherever wouldn't send it way over the top, and the current plan was to add new categories of uncommon actions there. It would take a long time before that became unusable, in the sense of scrolling or getting to the option that you want. In terms of knowing what you can/should do, that's going to depend on the specific example. If it comes to doing goofy things in some specific ritual, and it is a ritual that can be initiated by the player, then it's easy to guide one through the steps.
The example we've been talking about of impersonating people is more difficult, because in a sense it should be up to the player to pull off some of it without being guided. If the player knows they want to kneel in front of the statue after seeing somebody else do it and can't figure out the keys to do it, that would definitely be a problem. There might not always be an item/building as a context object though, so it needs to be addressed more with searchable commands/usable manual/etc. In this specific case, any observed ritual could also be examined from a knowledge base, and rituals could have their commands listed explicitly. Whether or not that's worth it would depend on how tricky it actual is though. First, we'll see how it goes with farming, more combat commands, etc.
Quote from: Jiri Petru
How about if some features were added at embark? You could generate the word with the feature frequency optimalised for adventure mode, and then throw in some extra features when the player embarks in fortress mode. Or alternatively scan the neighbouring map squares and move the features from there to the embark idea or something. Or something... The question is whether retrospecting "cheating" like this (that could probably help even in other ideas) is something you might consider, or a thing that doesn't fit into your idea of simulating the world.
I think it is more likely that you'd just get to interact with features in a wider area by being able to send out squads/armies through the underground layers to off-screen sites that have been harassing you, and then you'd get to seem them in their full glory (even if it is in frozen time or whatever).
Taken strictly as an isolated single-fort worldless game, it would make sense to add a special feature on every level, and perhaps that kind of thing would work as an init option, but when it comes to villains/etc. I prefer having a historical villain attack from offscreen over a generated villain base being guaranteed, for example. We'll have to see how it plays out as you have more off-screen interactions. If it takes care of itself at that point, with the occasional point of interest actual being under the fort, perhaps with site-finding options, then that would be good. The deepest underground can more afford to be glutted with features in adv mode as well, so that should also help a bit.
Quote from: Jiri Petru
How about switching from adventure mode to something like fortress mode when ordering minions? You could control you farm like in dwarf mode, then switch back to your adventurer at any time and continue adventuring. Is switching game modes (or more precisely, levels of control) something you would like to explore, or again something you don't like?
I think the issue here might be that it's too "god-like" and gives you more control than you would have if you stayed in "first person". But I disagree. Thinking about how dwarf mode works now, not only you can't control dwarves directly, but also all orders you can issue to your dwarves you could easily issue in "first person" too.
Nah, we don't want to do it that way, at least not in a way that involves instant information transfer or clairvoyance. You shouldn't be able to change somebody's behavior from 200 tiles away or locate them without looking or having them told to come to you. If something seems like it would be really annoying, like talking to each of the 7 peasants in your example, I think the proper angle would be to find one person, ask them to gather everybody and then use the fast-wait, or having that one person convey your orders. Once you've got them within earshot or are sending orders through one guy, I wouldn't have problems with something like a paused dwarf-style management to lay out your orders for them. If it is somebody else's job to convey the plan you make before you take off, then that may or may not happen, and that's where incompetence, betrayal and rebellion can lurk, so we really want to do things this way. I'd object to a button that lets you find somebody automatically, or one that lets you convey an order when nobody else is present. Leaving a note on a door would be fine.
There's the more general question of adv mode/fort mode transfer, as with the Oregon Trail style dwark embark ideas or certain reclaim scenarios or becoming one of your fortress dwarves in certain or any circumstances, and we're not necessarily against any of those, but in the particular case of a standard adventurer, frequent mode flipping is something we'd like to avoid.
Quote from: Urist McDepravity
Will type of material matter in terms of how long it will take to be crushed or whether it can be crushed at all? Theres a big difference between wooden fence and block of solid steel/adamantine.
In terms of digging invaders, doors already have these outmoded hitpoints, and it's quite likely that when constructions or natural walls can be destroyed, that it will take things like that into consideration.
Quote from: BigFatDwarf
Seeing as how the whole world would be living, with caravans, thieves' dens, towns and all the schemes and politics, sites growing, thieves stealing, creatures murdering, how will this effect DF, performance wise? For all the calculations, it seems like a black hole of FPS, really.
In dwarf mode, time is accelerated 72x, so things will happen in broad sweeps, most likely, and in adv mode, it is a slow enough time scale, that they don't happen often, so I think it'll be fine. It's definitely arbitrarily bad, FPS-wise, and we'll just have to do our best.
Quote from: IronValley
Will it be possible for squads to automatically swap to training weapons when sparring?
They are supposed to do that already, so their screwups in that regard are just things that need to be fixed.
Quote from: jimi12
Are we going to be able to have statues and figurines of deities soon? This would be a good filler until religion is focused on.
It probably won't be any sooner than whatever makes it come up. When we get to specification of items to be built, they'd be there. That is on the dev page, but I'm not sure when it is coming vs. religious group interactions.
Quote from: darkrider2
will moving fortress parts displace water, thus enabling an actual oversized piston pump to be created?
It's doable using a slight modification of the current fluid code, but there are going to be a ton of edge and not-so-edge cases where it doesn't really work right, so we'll have to see how it turns out.
Quote from: Syff
Regarding the "farming improvements" goals, how much detail is currently planned for tracking soil quality?
A completely accurate model would probably be a lot of effort/information with little to gain from it, though enough detail to properly encourage crop rotation seems like something that should make it in eventually.
We haven't made any final decisions. I think a NPK+pH model does give you something back, because you'd get some really great varied local landscapes and it would take care of crop rotation, composting, naturally poor soil, or whatever else, but it introduces a farming interface problem to dwarf mode in terms of conveying the information in wholesome terms and allowing you to solve problems that come up.
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris
Will blunt weapons be useful against skeletal enemies? One would think that skeletons wouldbe somewhat fragile, and a strong impact would be enough to take off a head or something. Will this be the case?
Skeletons are weird now because they are not explained, and they are glued together with muscle tatters which prevents them from behaving properly until they are explained. It could be handled with night creatures.
Quote from: Mephansteras
Question on marksdwarves: If you give them the order to kill a target and they are up in a tower, but on the wrong side, will they go try to find a place near them where they can shoot or will they run out of the tower to go find the enemy on the ground and then start shooting?
They aren't smart or anything. It is seek and destroy like anything else they do in battle. It obviously needs to be improved, but it's somewhat tricky/slow on the 3D grid without extra information on the map, which is hard to maintain. Player hints would be the easier way to handle it, but it would be good if they could think it out themselves.
Quote
Quote from: FestinIs resizing the playing field as described above even theoretically possible?Quote from: TheDJ17Whould the above mentioned feature eventually be replaced with some sort of Fog of War?
The resizing is mostly already handled by the adv mode moving code, but there are complications with changing your site location and overlaps with other sites and all that. I don't understand the fog of war question. Is that automatic moving of the fortress map?
Quote from: Knight Otu
With entity populations, I'm assuming that the first step would be taken for overworld nomadic civilizations, but is it likely that they'll be included?
We had roaming nomadic groups in adv mode before, and then they were removed. It's true this would give them a new lease on life, but we're not really sure about any of the details. It might start out with refugees from attacked cities or something, but I'm not sure. Once we have pro-active villains, there'll also be more backing in for roving horde AI.
Quote from: Dwarfu
If a dwarf has the personality trait 'likes maces' and he arrives (spawns) with some military skills, will he be a macedwarf or have skill in maces? Or will he spawn as 'likes maces,' arrive as a pikedwarf, and when assigned 'individual choice, melee,' he'll go and pick up a sword?
Preference won't influence what weapon they arrive with. I think their individual choice would be a pike, not a sword, though. They consider skill, at least. If there come to be concrete bonuses to preferences, they should probably consider it. At the time, I was preoccupied with getting them to pick up usable and useful things, although I failed in that regard. At least the melee choice guys won't pick up ranged weapons now...
Quote from: Untelligent
Do any of the mental skills do anything yet, or are they all flavory placeholders for now?
Spatial sense and kinesthetic sense seem like they could potentially affect certain combat rolls, for instance.
The mental atts, as of the fixes for 0.31.11 (some of these are weird in part because only 3 mental atts can influence a roll, so there are holes, and there are probably dumb choices): A lot of these will only effect duration, when that is the only available skill effect to begin with, but they are factored into outcomes when it applies.
analytical ability skills: animal care, trapping, cheesemaker, cook, smelter, extract strand, cut gem, siege craft, siege operate, mechanics, architecture, diagnose, appraisal, organization, record keeping, knowledge acquisition, knapping
focus skills: fishing, ranged combat, siege operate, sneak, surgery, bone setting, suturing, record keeping, knowledge acquisition, concentration, observer
willpower skills: mining, woodcutting, melee combat, crutch walking, pump operating, swimming, concentration
willpower directly resists exertion/pain effects
creativity skills: all crafts, trapping, cheesemaking, cook, architecture, organization, lying, comedy
intuition skills: animal training, judging intent, appraisal, observer, diagnose
patience skills: animal training, fishing, concentration, some non-skill tasks
memory skills: animal care, herbalism, diagnose, appraisal, record keeping, knowledge acquisition
linguistic ability skills: persuasion, negotiation, lying, intimidation, conversation, comedy, flattery, console, pacify, leadership, teaching
spatial sense skills: mining, wood cutting, crafts, trapping, combat skills, siege operate, sneak, architecture, wound dresssing, surgery, bone setting, suturing, crutch walking, swimming, observer, knapping
musicality skills: nothing yet
kinesthetic sense skills: most skills involving any movement at all (lots of them), non-skilled tasks as well
empathy skills: animal training, animal care, dress wounds, persuasion, negotiation, judging intent, conversation, flattery, console, pacify, leadership, teaching
social awareness skills: persuasion, negotiation, judging intent, organization, lying, conversation, flattery, console, pacify, leadership, teaching
Quote from: Shadowfury333
Will the addition of a crime tracking and investigation system be integrated into fortress mode? In other words, will random dwarves stop getting hammered (in a bad way) because of production mandate issues?
There'll have to be criminal dwarves first, which is a tricky issue because there are so few dwarves. Once you've got dwarves outside the fortress to draw from, it is easier to consider. It already picks non-random dwarves for the hammer, generally related to the craft in question if it can find them, but maybe it should hammer the manager, he he he.
Quote from: Untelligent
When we get to the point where history continues after worldgen ends and even as you control a Fortress or Adventurer, how will you handle this?
That's the game, pretty much. Attacks on your fortress or the things you do in adventure mode should all be related to what happened before, and the villains/etc. that are harassing villages and so on are the ones from the histories. There are already groups that move on the map during adventure mode, and there'd just have to be occasional decisions being made, and they'd need to be taken off their yearly generate-this timers in dwarf mode as we get more of the mechanics in.
Quote from: tfaal
once entity pops are in, can we expect the current (ridiculously tiny) towns to get scrapped in short order? On a related note, does this mean we won't be seeing mundane people appearing in the legends screen anymore?
Yeah, we'll be changing how the civilizations are spread out, and they'll be improved over time as more adv mode mechanics go in (especially related to your own adv mode site). There will be fewer mundane people in the legends screen, though they will still occur, and there will be many more people that do not have legends entries, but instead draw their histories from the history of their surroundings. It's kind of unfortunate that histories may have to be retroactively generated and mostly unrelated to the world at large, but we decided it was necessary to get the proper scope.
Quote from: tfaal
will the entity population update break save compat?
Old saves will be playable, but they likely won't have the additional sprawl that the update will provide on new maps. Since this sprawl won't be used outside of adv mode for a while, it shouldn't be a big deal that it isn't there for dwarf mode games. I imagine loading in a save from now into DF way down the line might be a little weird, especially when we get to the point that attacking armies aren't generated. We'll either make provisions at that point or just let it float. I'm not sure. If village generation at the region level is simple enough, old saves could just get padded out with entity pop settlements on appropriate non-player site squares.
Quote from: Cespinarve
Given how much confusion and problems people have had, would you be willing to produce the exact, precise steps to get a Baron, and to get the economy to turn on? There's so many different and contradictory statements.
If there is a lot of confusion, perhaps it is bugged. My understanding and what worked last time I tested was that you need to have a caravan leave when your pop is 20, you've traded 10000*, and you've produced 100000*, and then when the liaison comes the next year, you'll have an option to elevate a dwarf to baron. If that isn't working, there is some problem.
Quote from: thvaz
Will we be able to let the computer run a player created fortress? For instance, to play five years and then let it run itself while we play as adventurer or running other fortresses.
Will we be able to play a fortress, abandon it, then advance the world a set number of years?
Transferring an active fortress to an off-screen computer controlled state has some difficult problems, mostly involving fluids upon return and the other tricky things the player can do. When you return, it is difficult for the computer to know how the fortress might have changed and make that a safe process. As long as the player doesn't have unreasonable expectations, it isn't so bad, but we might have different standards there, he he he.
Once adv mode waiting is in, being able to advance the world a number of years should be a settled matter, and it shouldn't be an issue at that point to "continue world gen" for a fixed period, although it might have a different flavor/arc from the original world gen, since more data would be established, and for that reason and storage space sanity, less might change, but I'm not sure.
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady I see the Darkones, whos name leaves me, have slaves. In what ways do you plan for these slaves to come to pass? Will it be anywhere from transformed children, to the controlled, all the way to just people hired with cash?
Night creatures? Yeah, all those. Hired people should already be in by that time (unless night creatures go in first), and night creatures will get extra ways to get help. I guess Dracula, who had rough analogs to each kind of help you mentioned, is a good example for this kind of night creature. Hopefully it will be scary and creepy.
Post by: Baughn on July 19, 2010, 07:07:23 am
Quote from: BaughnOnce there is a notion of relative wealth, will that include dwarf-mode economics, so we don't have to build buckets for our dwarves to sleep in?
Do you mean like people having good beds because they can afford them? Or that you wouldn't even have to build the wooden beds because most of the dwarves are destitute and sleeping on the rock (or soil!) floor?
I mean market economics. Supply and demand.
As an example, currently if you build only luxurious bedrooms, the poor dwarves don't get to use them at all yet most bedrooms will stay empty. That's of course not realistic; the price will be what the market can bear, and no more - basically, the dwarves should bid on bedrooms.
(As an aside, "and no more" only applies where there are no ongoing maintenance costs, but since such things aren't in the game yet.. well, if the market couldn't bear the maintenance they'd go derelict, not just stay empty.)
Of course, bedrooms are just the most obvious example. This applies to everything that enters the economy, including money itself; minting more (without a corresponding increase in economic size) should cause inflation, minting too little deflation - and as real life shows, both can be very bad things (though especially deflation). Insufficient money would cause the economy to not work properly, too much.. well, that depends on how, exactly, the new money is distributed.
I can think of plausible exceptions to the economy, like nobles not wanting the rabble to have rooms as good as they do, but they should be exceptions - not the rule. Which is to say, first make the market economy work, then consider noble/personality-driven exceptions.
Does that explain my thoughts sufficiently?
Post by: li on July 19, 2010, 07:25:21 am
Post by: Baughn on July 19, 2010, 07:31:34 am
Like, "In this city live Urist McDwarf, Poison McElf, Trader McHuman, and fifteen dwarves." The three named characters have legends, and are tracked from birth to death; the other fifteen are more sparingly simulated, possibly even to the point of generating a history the moment you ask for one.
Of course, your own actions could quite possibly promote them to tracked status. Like, if you bring one to kill a dragon.. and he doesn't get eaten.
It's a cheap way to generate a larger-seeming world. I don't know if that's exactly how Toady is doing it, though. :P
Post by: Syff on July 19, 2010, 08:09:44 am
Post by: Quatch on July 19, 2010, 10:09:46 am
Quote from: BaughnOnce there is a notion of relative wealth, will that include dwarf-mode economics, so we don't have to build buckets for our dwarves to sleep in?
A related question, Will dwarves, other than nobles*, get mood-thoughts from encountering dwarves at different relative wealth. Such as a poor dwarf seeing a rich dwarf. Would that depress or inspire? Instill envy? Can dwarves sense the magnitude of wealth difference?
*And their bedroom envy.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 19, 2010, 10:12:22 am
Post by: Footkerchief on July 19, 2010, 11:23:09 am
Sorry if it's not the right place to ask, but would someone explain me what means entity populations?
As I understand it, entity populations are basically just.. non-named entities.
Like, "In this city live Urist McDwarf, Poison McElf, Trader McHuman, and fifteen dwarves." The three named characters have legends, and are tracked from birth to death; the other fifteen are more sparingly simulated, possibly even to the point of generating a history the moment you ask for one.
Of course, your own actions could quite possibly promote them to tracked status. Like, if you bring one to kill a dragon.. and he doesn't get eaten.
It's a cheap way to generate a larger-seeming world. I don't know if that's exactly how Toady is doing it, though. :P
Baughn's explanation is pretty much correct, with the caveat that, in Toady-speak, "entity" refers to any recognized group of intelligent creatures, ranging in size from an adventurer's party to an entire civilization. The entities themselves generally have names (one current exception is the primitive cave-dwellers). The entity members, though, may be nameless or otherwise not fully realized, as Baughn explained. The upshot is that big, abstract populations let you do big worlds, big battles, etc. without generating huge amounts of data (that are 99% useless anyway).
I posted some more quotes on the subject a few pages back. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1368238#msg1368238)
Post by: Cespinarve on July 19, 2010, 11:40:20 am
Quote from: Cespinarve
Given how much confusion and problems people have had, would you be willing to produce the exact, precise steps to get a Baron, and to get the economy to turn on? There's so many different and contradictory statements.
Well, given as there are plenty of mature forts with lots of economic output, I'm going to pop this in the bug tracker if it is not there already.
EDIT Already exists: http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=519
Post by: Mason11987 on July 19, 2010, 11:51:01 am
The mental atts, as of the fixes for 0.31.11 (some of these are weird in part because only 3 mental atts can influence a roll, so there are holes, and there are probably dumb choices): A lot of these will only effect duration, when that is the only available skill effect to begin with, but they are factored into outcomes when it applies.
analytical ability skills: animal care, trapping, cheesemaker, cook, smelter, extract strand, cut gem, siege craft, siege operate, mechanics, architecture, diagnose, appraisal, organization, record keeping, knowledge acquisition, knapping
*snip*
Is this the only impact these attributes currently have? Some had guessed that there were other impacts:
Memory: skill gain/rust rates
Focus: how long a dwarf stays at a task
Willpower: possible this relates to tantrums, happiness, insanity, or possibly other effects
Are these: currently in place and working, currently in place and not working, planned, or not planned.
With relation to 40d, you had said that various jobs were required to get a Baron: " 4 of the following: 25 crafting jobs, 25 metal-related jobs, 25 wood-related jobs, 10 gem jobs, 25 stone jobs, 25 food jobs. " Also, some have mentioned constructed roads as being required to get a baron. Are these requirements now obsolete?
Thanks!
Post by: Maxxeh on July 19, 2010, 11:58:33 am
Kind of seperate from adventure mode goals and the like, but will viruses be able to transfer through blood and vomit interaction anytime?
If a dwarf has a vomiting disease, I can see it spreading through a fortress pretty quick unless hospitalised (maybe buckets could be useful here!! hehe)
or a dwarf with a blood disease could be fighting, get a limb chopped off, and any goblins that come into contact with the blood would also be infected.
(as well as these realistic uses. I want zombies with infectious bites! :D I'm finding them hard to mod right now!)
Post by: Footkerchief on July 19, 2010, 12:44:34 pm
Kind of seperate from adventure mode goals and the like, but will viruses be able to transfer through blood and vomit interaction anytime?
If a dwarf has a vomiting disease, I can see it spreading through a fortress pretty quick unless hospitalised (maybe buckets could be useful here!! hehe)
or a dwarf with a blood disease could be fighting, get a limb chopped off, and any goblins that come into contact with the blood would also be infected.
(as well as these realistic uses. I want zombies with infectious bites! :D I'm finding them hard to mod right now!)
Contagious/communicable diseases were planned for the big April release, but were postponed. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg398829#msg398829) That would include all kinds of disease vectors. Toady also talked about infectious diseases in DF Talk #2. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=41287.msg749581#msg749581)
Post by: Mephansteras on July 19, 2010, 12:48:27 pm
Quote from: MephansterasWill you be adding in some code to handle worn materials protecting the wearer from various dangerous elements? Things like dragon scale armor protecting from firebreath or an artifact mask that protects against poisonous vapor would be fun.
If it's not magic, there are some still missing properties that should help, like thermal conductivity. Right now, a dragon item would become hot and not be damaged, but it would still convey heat to you. Even if it has a high specific heat, it would still store the energy and transfer some of it to you (though slower). So it really needs to reject the heat in the first place, which requires the conductivity. Or there's magic. Which I imagine would cover this kind of thing in most systems, at least in special cases.
In a somewhat related vein, what are your plans on having equipment created from multiple materials? Spears, for example, are almost never made out of solid metal in real life. And most swords have wood and leather handles, or at least leather wrapped around the metal hilt.
Post by: Maxxeh on July 19, 2010, 12:55:56 pm
Post by: zwei on July 19, 2010, 12:58:28 pm
Quote from: Ratbert_CPCan we have a goblin fry-basket made of magma safe wall and floor grates that we can place and/or trap creatures in, that we can then lower into a convenient pool of magma?
The only special provision the game would need to understand is that when the fortress part moves down, fluid should be pushed up through fluid-passable floors instead of treating it like an unpassable floor/wall. It'll be something I have to remember to do as a one-liner, but that's really all it comes down to, and I've written it down now to remind me. So yeah.
I have this vision of DF implemented Tokyo-3 style fortress where buildings raise to surface or sink deep underground to huge carven where they hang from ceiling. (While Shinji McDwarf battles Bronze Collosus in his HFS made armor).
Post by: Vicomt on July 19, 2010, 01:04:58 pm
Have you thought of embedding a save file version number in the save file itself? it's (relatively) trivial to then maintain/upgrade older versions with (again relatively) simple logic.
just a thought. I's vewwy sowwy if it's been mentioned before.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 19, 2010, 01:18:27 pm
Quote from: HephToady you spoke of "Boulders" Buried in the soil. Does that include Multi-tile boulders like "Glacial boulders"?
I didn't think about multi-tile boulders. It could be like two rock wall tiles sitting in the soil (or on top of the soil, looking at these pictures) instead of anything treated as a special object. At that point, it's probably more for whenever we get canyons and mesas and interesting above ground stuff, rather than for this "adventurers and soil-bound dwarves get more access to large stones" change.
I fine with that. I am just used to this stuff because we have plenty of it around so i would like to see actual inland-glaciers and what they leave in the game. 2 tiles might by the way a bit small. Some of these "boulders" are bigger then a house. Some of them were used for cultic rituals by the way . Since i am already at WG stuff: Any plans for flows in the ocean that cool or heat up the land (and have impact on the weather sim)?
Quote from: Toady One
QuoteQuote from: PsieyeWill the new crushing traps with moving sections have the same 'atomsmashing' effect as raised bridges do now? Or will you get to uh... loot pancakes of whatever you killed?Quote from: HephIn addition to Psieye's question: Wouldt it be possible to remove atom-smashing for bridges and replace it by actual crushing?
The problem there is adding some kind of flag to have an item in a square, above the ground but below the buildings. It would need to be respected everywhere. It's not impossible, because there are already the buried and imbedded flags that are respected everywhere, and it would be nearly identical (except for the few places where it is actually added/removed). There's a further complication with the material spatter, but it's already a problem, which is whether the spatter is on the bridge or beneath the bridge, since I imagine some squashed items would just become spatter, instead of a crushed item.
I would guess everything that is squishy would be a spatter on the floor under the bridge and on the bridge. This would include anything made from meat and similiar.
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: MephansterasWill you be adding in some code to handle worn materials protecting the wearer from various dangerous elements? Things like dragon scale armor protecting from firebreath or an artifact mask that protects against poisonous vapor would be fun.
If it's not magic, there are some still missing properties that should help, like thermal conductivity. Right now, a dragon item would become hot and not be damaged, but it would still convey heat to you. Even if it has a high specific heat, it would still store the energy and transfer some of it to you (though slower). So it really needs to reject the heat in the first place, which requires the conductivity. Or there's magic. Which I imagine would cover this kind of thing in most systems, at least in special cases.
I like thermal conductivity - it could be pretty usefull too like cooling or heating rooms, traps, boilers etc. A "Thermal computing" device would be a challenge thought hehehe. Back to serious now: Thermal conductivity would be rather nice too for stuff like fires in rooms etc. and with a bit modding of aquifers/fluids and porousness for stones you could create stuff like Thermal springs and Geysers. Rivers and lakes transport and store also thermal energy and create by this micro-biomes. What might be needed is thought some kind of "volume" for tiles.
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: darkrider2will moving fortress parts displace water, thus enabling an actual oversized piston pump to be created?
It's doable using a slight modification of the current fluid code, but there are going to be a ton of edge and not-so-edge cases where it doesn't really work right, so we'll have to see how it turns out.
I would be for it thought a rewrite for the fluids to make them faster would be neat and needed before you engage such a features.
Post by: Footkerchief on July 19, 2010, 01:30:47 pm
In a somewhat related vein, what are your plans on having equipment created from multiple materials? Spears, for example, are almost never made out of solid metal in real life. And most swords have wood and leather handles, or at least leather wrapped around the metal hilt.
Toady's thoughts as of ~6 months ago: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg1012311#msg1012311)
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: FootkerchiefQuote from: diefortheswarmQuestion about adamantine weapons.
If you wanted to make an adamantine hammer, you could make a hollow adamantine shell and fill it with molten lead. This would be a very effective weapon! Will we be able to do anything like this in the foreseeable future?
I could have sworn this exact idea came up before, but I couldn't find much. Anyway, it basically depends on whether/when Toady implements a system for multi-component or multi-material items. The quote below is about armor made of both leather and metal, but the challenges are mostly the same, so it's relevant:There's some trickiness with items that are actually made from multiple materials. Things like studding aren't as much of a problem, since the "improvements" on leather items can handle this. But a lot of the in-game items should actually have several materials just for their basic structure, and it becomes harder to account for them. Armok I played with making items up from components, but that was sort of a mess. On the other hand, I'd want to avoid going through all the hassles of fully respecting a half-leather/half-metal item (with respect to things like weight and temperature effects) if I'm just going to flesh it out more later. So, I dunno. I have to think more about what items will be like if I change it. Something like how it keeps track of threads and dyes might work for quite a long time (I think you can change the material of a bucket handle right now for instance), but certain items really don't have one main material, which is the problem.
Yeah, I remember it coming up before as well, at least as somebody's offhand remark, and yeah, we need some more backing in the code but it's definitely something that dwarves would want to do, assuming they don't have some weird ethics regarding mixing adamantine with stuff. I think at some point there was a rule against improving adamantine items or improving with adamantine, but that might be long gone.
Toady, having just noticed your thoughts on save-compatibility and the breaking thereof....
Have you thought of embedding a save file version number in the save file itself? it's (relatively) trivial to then maintain/upgrade older versions with (again relatively) simple logic.
just a thought. I's vewwy sowwy if it's been mentioned before.
I think the game already does this. Toady has mentioned several (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=70#c2923) times (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=536#c8480) that some bug fixes also include code to "patch" bugged saves upon loading.
Post by: Dae on July 19, 2010, 02:32:44 pm
Quote from: BaughnOnce there is a notion of relative wealth, will that include dwarf-mode economics, so we don't have to build buckets for our dwarves to sleep in?
A related question, Will dwarves, other than nobles*, get mood-thoughts from encountering dwarves at different relative wealth. Such as a poor dwarf seeing a rich dwarf. Would that depress or inspire? Instill envy? Can dwarves sense the magnitude of wealth difference?
*And their bedroom envy.
Currently, dwarves can be "upset at someone else's arrangements" if I remember. I don't know the exacts conditions, I suppose they must have some standards that are not respected while someone of "lesser rank" (who has lesser standards) has possessions the quality they want. Basically, if they have a shitty room while someone has one they would go with and does not need it.
When will dwarves (and people in general in adv mode) have more needs, economically speaking ?
For more fleshed out interactions, you need people to have motives, which are mostly needs.
I don't know if I got it right, but everytime I got the economy running, markets seemed useless. At times, people would come to take an item or two, but I didn't see anyone buying gifts to their relatives, nor people buying things they like (although legendary dwarves and nobles don't hesitate) and more rarely things they needed. I don't know if they are supposed to buy clothes if theirs are worn off either, but I think personnal property should be more precise before you have theft, crimes, beggars and the likes.
And it's definitely something I've been waiting for for a looong time :D
Also, speaking about markets, how does the owner of a market decide what item he can take from the fortress property ? It didn't seem like he was buying them, just taking what interested him from the stockpiles.
Post by: cephalo on July 19, 2010, 04:00:13 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 19, 2010, 04:52:18 pm
Civs could also choose to move through such areas if its the shortest or the only way for expansion.
Post by: FuzzyDoom on July 19, 2010, 04:54:44 pm
And, as a more serious question, will it ever be possible to add spikes to armor and shields? I'd think that Wrestlers would be a whole bunch more effective if they had spikes on their gauntlets. But IIRC, in the Eragon series, Dwarves have the spikes EMBEDDED INTO THEIR KNUCKLES! You could also put some spikes on the shield to make bashing more effective. Etc, etc, you get the point.
Post by: Footkerchief on July 19, 2010, 05:49:34 pm
And, as a more serious question, will it ever be possible to add spikes to armor and shields? I'd think that Wrestlers would be a whole bunch more effective if they had spikes on their gauntlets. But IIRC, in the Eragon series, Dwarves have the spikes EMBEDDED INTO THEIR KNUCKLES! You could also put some spikes on the shield to make bashing more effective. Etc, etc, you get the point.
You can add spikes to armor right now, as a decorative improvement... strange that they don't actually come up in fighting... maybe I should jot that down somewhere...
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=21498.msg412297;topicseen#msg412297
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: DoomduckieSince embedded weapons now cause bleeding to remove, does that mean we can have barbed arrows, spears, and javelins that cause more bleeding to pull out in some later version?
Yeah. That one in particular would be pretty straightforward, assuming barbs don't run afoul of the general item improvement system (with all the spikes and stuff) and get messy. But the pulling-out effects themselves are nicely set aside and can be easily enhanced.
Post by: Dante on July 19, 2010, 06:29:32 pm
Quote from: CespinarveGiven how much confusion and problems people have had, would you be willing to produce the exact, precise steps to get a Baron, and to get the economy to turn on? There's so many different and contradictory statements.
Well, given as there are plenty of mature forts with lots of economic output, I'm going to pop this in the bug tracker if it is not there already.
EDIT Already exists: http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=519
I've got the baron no problem, fairly early on. I haven't got the economy, but nor have I played any forts longer than three years or so in this version.
Post by: Shadowfury333 on July 19, 2010, 06:58:00 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 19, 2010, 07:18:09 pm
Toady for luxeries in Adventurer mode, have you thought of using them as sort of a reputation/rumor variable? It is one thing to have a lot of money and it is another to flaunt it.
Ugh who am I kidding that isn't even pretending to be a question... Each question I am comming up with now doesn't seem to need an answer. For example I wanted to ask Toady if in the future he would have Megabeasts do more then one thing during a Rampage (such as create a path of destruction) but it seems so obvious that the answer would be yes...
I need a good question... uhh... hmm here is one
Toady in terms of martial arts where weapons are concerned using your body to attack instead of a weapon in most games gives you an oddly powerful attack. In this game weapons are clearly supperior excluding the infamos "Eye gouge". Are you going to balance the non-weapon techniques of weapon fighting and if so how are you going to do it? I assume it is going to be by "Opportunity" so a character in a weapon lock would find it a great time to get those powerful kicks out.
Are we going to see some Hermit/Monk Sifu? Though admittingly there is a LOT less of this in Europian culture
Post by: Urist McDepravity on July 19, 2010, 07:57:23 pm
I have this vision of DF implemented Tokyo-3 style fortress where buildings raise to surface or sink deep underground to huge carven where they hang from ceiling. (While Shinji McDwarf battles Bronze Collosus in his HFS made armor).Thats awesome idea, actually.
Could we get also notion on liquid density and according floating for buildings? I guess it would be required for things like ships anyway.
So Tokyo-3 style buildings could be built on, say, 5-level deep water, with large air tank in their basements, and their lowering/raising would be as easy as draining water tank or refilling it again.
Post by: isitanos on July 19, 2010, 08:11:10 pm
For the record, I don't get what's the excitement about having every single underground feature in every single fortress. Which means that once you've seen one fortress' underground, you've seen them all. Rather than regularly having, say, all 20 interesting features, I'd rather have 4-5 picked at random, and hopefully some variation on the contents of each of these. For obsessive compulsive or very casual players that must absolutely have them all, or for the time where you absolutely need a specific feature for a community game, some option that adds these features to the underground after embark would be perfect.Quote from: Jiri PetruHow about if some features were added at embark? You could generate the word with the feature frequency optimalised for adventure mode, and then throw in some extra features when the player embarks in fortress mode. Or alternatively scan the neighbouring map squares and move the features from there to the embark idea or something. Or something... The question is whether retrospecting "cheating" like this (that could probably help even in other ideas) is something you might consider, or a thing that doesn't fit into your idea of simulating the world.
I think it is more likely that you'd just get to interact with features in a wider area by being able to send out squads/armies through the underground layers to off-screen sites that have been harassing you, and then you'd get to seem them in their full glory (even if it is in frozen time or whatever).
Taken strictly as an isolated single-fort worldless game, it would make sense to add a special feature on every level, and perhaps that kind of thing would work as an init option, but when it comes to villains/etc. I prefer having a historical villain attack from offscreen over a generated villain base being guaranteed, for example. We'll have to see how it plays out as you have more off-screen interactions. If it takes care of itself at that point, with the occasional point of interest actual being under the fort, perhaps with site-finding options, then that would be good. The deepest underground can more afford to be glutted with features in adv mode as well, so that should also help a bit.
Post by: G-Flex on July 19, 2010, 09:22:21 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 19, 2010, 10:34:43 pm
I guess G-flex it makes a lot of sense... A land of death could have a layer of bonemeal instead of soil that could even be eaten if you were desperate enough.
To my knowledge though Bonemeal can only be added to a dish to round it out... it cannot be made into a sufficiant meal itself unless your really desperate.
Post by: Mason11987 on July 19, 2010, 11:13:56 pm
In legends: export xml, historical events, each has a type. I've discovered 33 different event types:
add hf entity link ∙ add hf hf link ∙ add hf site link ∙ attacked site ∙ body abused ∙ change hf job ∙ change hf state ∙ create entity position ∙ created site ∙ created structure ∙ created world construction ∙ creature devoured ∙ destroyed site ∙ entity created ∙ field battle ∙ hf abducted ∙ hf died ∙ hf new pet ∙ hf razed structure ∙ hf reunion ∙ hf simple battle event ∙ hf travel ∙ hf wounded ∙ impersonate hf ∙ item stolen ∙ new site leader ∙ peace accepted ∙ peace rejected ∙ razed structure ∙ reclaim site ∙ remove hf entity link ∙ remove hf site link ∙ replaced structure. If you could tell me how many there are, and/or what they are, that'd be fantastic. Thanks!
Post by: uioped1 on July 20, 2010, 12:16:39 am
For the record, I don't get what's the excitement about having every single underground feature in every single fortress. Which means that once you've seen one fortress' underground, you've seen them all. Rather than regularly having, say, all 20 interesting features, I'd rather have 4-5 picked at random, and hopefully some variation on the contents of each of these. For obsessive compulsive or very casual players that must absolutely have them all, or for the time where you absolutely need a specific feature for a community game, some option that adds these features to the underground after embark would be perfect.Seconded!
Post by: Neonivek on July 20, 2010, 12:43:59 am
Mind you I agree that not all sites should have all the features... but well... it isn't that hard to find topics about it.
Post by: Psieye on July 20, 2010, 05:43:16 am
But you know? The bit you quoted of Toady didn't say "every fort will have every feature". He said "you can venture out to see every feature from every fort" which is very different - you need to go off-screen for them and you won't be able to integrate them into your fortress.
Post by: Quatch on July 20, 2010, 09:40:11 am
Post by: tps12 on July 20, 2010, 10:59:57 am
And once you have figured out how to make the market economy work, it would be great if you could share some of your code with the folks in Washington DC, Brussels, &c.
Which is to say, first make the market economy work, then consider noble/personality-driven exceptions.
Post by: Syff on July 20, 2010, 11:30:50 am
(Which is one of the reasons why I support the farming improvements being one of the earlier additions on the dev list; Makes more sense to add the farming changes before entity-run farms, else the entity-run farms will have to be fixed once the farming improvements go in.)
It won't be perfect, but it'd be a good source of a few numbers to look at/play with, and tracking the cost of living sounds like an important first step.
Post by: Little on July 20, 2010, 01:15:39 pm
And once you have figured out how to make the market economy work, it would be great if you could share some of your code with the folks in Washington DC, Brussels, &c.
Which is to say, first make the market economy work, then consider noble/personality-driven exceptions.
I laughed.
Post by: Andreus on July 20, 2010, 03:49:00 pm
Two main questions, with a few sort of sub-questions attached to them.
First one is regarding sites - are there plans to move the way sites are generated into the raws, and if so, are there any plans on when it will happen?
Second one is regarding ethics, in particular the KILL_PLANT ethic which prevents deforestation around an entity's sites. This one is awkward for me because I'm trying to mod an entity that lives in forests and doesn't cause that sort of deforestation, but will still accept and trade wooden goods. In a larger sense, could such "terraforming" be moved away from ethics and into some other raw flag?
Post by: uioped1 on July 20, 2010, 04:16:09 pm
The problem was that while that was the case for a bit you get a lot of people also who complain that they can't find a site with ALL the features and the number of people who want ALL the features is quite immense.Granted, however some of those complaints would have gone away once the improvements to the site finder are implemented as long as there are some sites with all the features, and relative frequency is controllable from the worldgen parameters.
Mind you I agree that not all sites should have all the features... but well... it isn't that hard to find topics about it.
Beyond just making sites feel unique, hopefully at some point it will make a difference when you can interact with those other sites during fortress-mode play.
Post by: alfie275 on July 20, 2010, 05:23:35 pm
Have you thought about ones which move vertically? Ala Journey To The Center Of The Earth, or perhaps going down a volcano in a submagma sealed fortress.
Post by: atomicthumbs on July 20, 2010, 05:51:00 pm
Edit:
Also, a suggestion for digging sieges: sappers, an unarmed or lightly armed class of enemy, could have the ability to dig. They could come mixed with other squads or in squads of their own.
Post by: Mephansteras on July 20, 2010, 08:16:05 pm
Second one is regarding ethics, in particular the KILL_PLANT ethic which prevents deforestation around an entity's sites. This one is awkward for me because I'm trying to mod an entity that lives in forests and doesn't cause that sort of deforestation, but will still accept and trade wooden goods. In a larger sense, could such "terraforming" be moved away from ethics and into some other raw flag?
From what I've seen with my modding of 31.x, entities that can START in forests do not deforest them regardless of their ethics. My Bugbears are good with pretty much everything, but they don't deforest their homes.
Toady, can you describe how the weapon sizes work in relation to the creature sizes? For example, I've seen dwarves happily pick up and use a modded in weapon one handed even though it has [TWO_HANDED:62500]
Post by: Footkerchief on July 20, 2010, 08:24:50 pm
Toady, can you describe how the weapon sizes work in relation to the creature sizes? For example, I've seen dwarves happily pick up and use a modded in weapon one handed even though it has [TWO_HANDED:62500]
Dwarves aren't all the same size. The average is 60000, which means that many of them are bigger.
Post by: Mephansteras on July 20, 2010, 08:27:13 pm
Post by: Toady One on July 21, 2010, 12:24:31 am
From what I've seen with my modding of 31.x, entities that can START in forests do not deforest them regardless of their ethics. My Bugbears are good with pretty much everything, but they don't deforest their homes.
In preparation for the entity pop stuff, I added [START_BIOME:ANY_FOREST] to the humans in addition to their other biomes, and they still deforested. Does that work for you?
Post by: Neonivek on July 21, 2010, 02:18:00 am
But in general it depends if the society is industrious and expansive. Though without either of those two the societies tend not to get too large.
It would be nice to see non-city dwelling civilisations once the game is finally capable of handling even larger worlds.
Post by: BigFatDwarf on July 21, 2010, 03:33:17 am
Post by: albatross on July 21, 2010, 10:14:13 am
Post by: cephalo on July 21, 2010, 10:19:21 am
Quote from: tfaalwill the entity population update break save compat?Old saves will be playable, but they likely won't have the additional sprawl that the update will provide on new maps. Since this sprawl won't be used outside of adv mode for a while, it shouldn't be a big deal that it isn't there for dwarf mode games. I imagine loading in a save from now into DF way down the line might be a little weird, especially when we get to the point that attacking armies aren't generated. We'll either make provisions at that point or just let it float. I'm not sure. If village generation at the region level is simple enough, old saves could just get padded out with entity pop settlements on appropriate non-player site squares.
I would sure love to have my current fort as a community hub. I hope a way can be found for sprawl to accelerate in the case of an already developed fort. My civilization has been struggling through worldgen and I do imagine this fort as kindof a revival. Pleasopleaseoplease...
Post by: BigFatDwarf on July 21, 2010, 10:29:16 am
~snip~
Yes. All this will be in, and even better and more detailed. With off-site outposts and such, can't remember all. Perhaps someone knows a quote where all this is said?
Post by: Footkerchief on July 21, 2010, 10:34:12 am
In similar vein, will we ever be able to send our own dwarven military units to distant offmap sites, for example, to raid a nearby goblin stronghold? Or perhaps even some REALLY distant targets? I was hoping the game could remove the selected military units for a certain period of time (depending how far the target site is) and make the dwarves return with various injuries and possibly equipment losses, but not without loot, battle experience and other spoils of war! Perhaps do some creative coding magic and print an after-action report explaining how Urist McUnlucky was attacked by a diseased bear on the way back home?
This is basically the Army Arc that Toady has been talking about for years. Here are the old dev items: (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html)
Quote
# ARMY ARC: You should be able to control patrols and then armies in dwarf mode. The adventurer should be able to both go with and command armies. In dwarf mode, you should have the option to control your individual patrol members as you would in adventure mode. Entities should war with each other from bandit and monster raids to full fledged wars. Upset entities could patrol near their sites, leading to new wilderness encounters etc. Related to Core26, Core27, Core35, Core45, Core46, [...]
# Core26, OVERLAND ARMIES ATTACKS, (Future): The invasions by various creatures should no longer generate soldiers, but should use overland armies instead. There should be some AI limits in place to stop early dwarven outposts from being overwhelmed (at least as a default). Requires Core25 and Core45.
# Core27, ARMIES OF DWARVES, (Future): You should be able to send patrols (and, as you get more dwarves, armies) out over the world map. They could attack smaller nearby threats, such as a kobold cave, or let you know about incoming invasions. Requires Core26.
# Core35, DWARF RAIDS, (Future): If you send one of your patrols to attack a site, and it is small enough, you should be able to control the units individually, as in adventure mode. If your group is large, then you could either control one squad as a party, and have the others on AI, or you could let the whole thing run real-time as in dwarf mode. Requires Core27.
# Core45, CIVILIZATIONS AT WAR, (Future): Civilizations (for example, goblins or expansionist humans) should be able to declare war on each other and raise armies. They can send messengers to outlying towns or gather soldiers as they march from town to town toward their destinations. Requires Core44.
# Core46, ARMY BATTLES, (Future): Hostile armies that meet each other should be able to fight and take losses. Armies should be able to attack towns, take captive historical figures, and switch towns to new allegiances over time. Does not include protracted sieges, tactics or strategy -- just the basics. An adventurer at the site of an army battle can observe it. Requires Core45.
Post by: Tormy on July 21, 2010, 10:58:05 am
In similar vein, will we ever be able to send our own dwarven military units to distant offmap sites, for example, to raid a nearby goblin stronghold? Or perhaps even some REALLY distant targets? I was hoping the game could remove the selected military units for a certain period of time (depending how far the target site is) and make the dwarves return with various injuries and possibly equipment losses, but not without loot, battle experience and other spoils of war! Perhaps do some creative coding magic and print an after-action report explaining how Urist McUnlucky was attacked by a diseased bear on the way back home?
This is basically the Army Arc that Toady has been talking about for years. Here are the old dev items: (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html)Quote# ARMY ARC: You should be able to control patrols and then armies in dwarf mode. The adventurer should be able to both go with and command armies. In dwarf mode, you should have the option to control your individual patrol members as you would in adventure mode. Entities should war with each other from bandit and monster raids to full fledged wars. Upset entities could patrol near their sites, leading to new wilderness encounters etc. Related to Core26, Core27, Core35, Core45, Core46, [...]
# Core26, OVERLAND ARMIES ATTACKS, (Future): The invasions by various creatures should no longer generate soldiers, but should use overland armies instead. There should be some AI limits in place to stop early dwarven outposts from being overwhelmed (at least as a default). Requires Core25 and Core45.
# Core27, ARMIES OF DWARVES, (Future): You should be able to send patrols (and, as you get more dwarves, armies) out over the world map. They could attack smaller nearby threats, such as a kobold cave, or let you know about incoming invasions. Requires Core26.
# Core35, DWARF RAIDS, (Future): If you send one of your patrols to attack a site, and it is small enough, you should be able to control the units individually, as in adventure mode. If your group is large, then you could either control one squad as a party, and have the others on AI, or you could let the whole thing run real-time as in dwarf mode. Requires Core27.
# Core45, CIVILIZATIONS AT WAR, (Future): Civilizations (for example, goblins or expansionist humans) should be able to declare war on each other and raise armies. They can send messengers to outlying towns or gather soldiers as they march from town to town toward their destinations. Requires Core44.
# Core46, ARMY BATTLES, (Future): Hostile armies that meet each other should be able to fight and take losses. Armies should be able to attack towns, take captive historical figures, and switch towns to new allegiances over time. Does not include protracted sieges, tactics or strategy -- just the basics. An adventurer at the site of an army battle can observe it. Requires Core45.
I can't wait for these to get implemented. Either way, I am happy that these items can be found on the new dev. page [I don't really care about adventure mode to be honest..]->
Dwarven armies
Ability to send out fortress dwarves to lead larger groups of surrounding dwarves out around mid-level maps (or just go alone)
Ability to send equipment and fortress dwarves out to train surrounding dwarves
Ability to attack sites and entity populations with your dwarven armies
Ability to set fires and select supplies to haul back when sacking a site
Post by: Footkerchief on July 21, 2010, 11:18:14 am
Post by: nenjin on July 21, 2010, 02:52:41 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on July 21, 2010, 03:10:50 pm
I'm really stoked for this update. More than anything, the training, equipment issues, and bugs related to the military have been the biggest stumbling block for me getting back into DF since the big update. Spending two months micro managing soldiers trying to get them to train, only to get wiped out in the first ambush because nothing has actually been working, has killed my desire to play DF. So I'm hoping this next update cures all that, and I can get back to enjoy the full game.
Not to be a downer, but this update won't fix all the training (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=428)/equipment (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=535) issues. As usual, it's a continuing mission.
Post by: Baughn on July 21, 2010, 03:30:38 pm
Ah, but the next version (..or the one after it, likely) will support proportional fonts. Meaning, text will not be limited to one letter per cell (unless you turn this off); it'll use a truetype font instead. How's that? :D
Post by: Footkerchief on July 21, 2010, 03:44:55 pm
Ah, but the next version (..or the one after it, likely) will support proportional fonts. Meaning, text will not be limited to one letter per cell (unless you turn this off); it'll use a truetype font instead. How's that? :D
Whoa. Will the borders/positioning of text areas have to be based on the tile grid, or will they basically be free-floating? Are they just rendered on top of the tile grid?
Post by: Mephansteras on July 21, 2010, 03:48:30 pm
From what I've seen with my modding of 31.x, entities that can START in forests do not deforest them regardless of their ethics. My Bugbears are good with pretty much everything, but they don't deforest their homes.
In preparation for the entity pop stuff, I added [START_BIOME:ANY_FOREST] to the humans in addition to their other biomes, and they still deforested. Does that work for you?
Hmm, that's interesting. I get the same result when I add that tag to Humans. But my other new forest races, like Wolfmen and Jackalmen, don't deforest either.
All of them have axes, woodcutters, carpenters, and ethics that allow plant killing. But none of them have PLANTER allowed as a job. Looks like the deforestation is caused by clearing forests for farms, as opposed to anything else.
I'll try adding the farming jobs to the bugbears, see if that does anything.
EDIT: Ok, giving them the entire set of jobs allowed by the Humans didn't do anything. They still don't deforest anything, and the humans do.
Hmm...most of my non-deforesting races do seem to have the Forest START_BIOME token first. I'll try that on the humans next. Hobgoblins don't have it first, though, and they don't deforest either (nor do they have any farming tags).
Post by: Baughn on July 21, 2010, 03:56:45 pm
Based on the tile grid. I'm altering the interface the absolute minimum amount (adding an option to justify left, right, center or not use truetype at all - defaulting to left), which means it'll be justified inside a box based on the amount of space it'd take if not being rendered using truetype. It's not ideal, but it should be fine.Ah, but the next version (..or the one after it, likely) will support proportional fonts. Meaning, text will not be limited to one letter per cell (unless you turn this off); it'll use a truetype font instead. How's that? :D
Whoa. Will the borders/positioning of text areas have to be based on the tile grid, or will they basically be free-floating? Are they just rendered on top of the tile grid?
Improving this is the fact that there are (accessible) functions used to decide what text is used in the first place based on how much space is available, which I can modify to take the proportional font into account.
I've yet to complete the project, but it's looking good. I'll see if I can get some screenshots up next I have internet.. er, which will be a week from now. (I have web access via my cellphone, so I might post here, but uploading images is a bit harder.)
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 21, 2010, 04:09:12 pm
From what I've seen with my modding of 31.x, entities that can START in forests do not deforest them regardless of their ethics. My Bugbears are good with pretty much everything, but they don't deforest their homes.
In preparation for the entity pop stuff, I added [START_BIOME:ANY_FOREST] to the humans in addition to their other biomes, and they still deforested. Does that work for you?
Hmm, that's interesting. I get the same result when I add that tag to Humans. But my other new forest races, like Wolfmen and Jackalmen, don't deforest either.
[...]
Try to change the site type to town. Its only a guess but the Wooden Buildings of Human towns could draw theyr material from the forrests.
Post by: Footkerchief on July 21, 2010, 04:11:58 pm
Based on the tile grid. I'm altering the interface the absolute minimum amount (adding an option to justify left, right, center or not use truetype at all - defaulting to left), which means it'll be justified inside a box based on the amount of space it'd take if not being rendered using truetype. It's not ideal, but it should be fine.
Improving this is the fact that there are (accessible) functions used to decide what text is used in the first place based on how much space is available, which I can modify to take the proportional font into account.
That sounds radtacular. You should make it only accessible via a widget-oriented API, so that Toady can only have nice fonts if he stops coding menus entirely from scratch (I have no proof that he does this, but it's the only explanation I can imagine for the types of crashes that used to happen on the military menu).
Post by: Mephansteras on July 21, 2010, 04:14:19 pm
From what I've seen with my modding of 31.x, entities that can START in forests do not deforest them regardless of their ethics. My Bugbears are good with pretty much everything, but they don't deforest their homes.
In preparation for the entity pop stuff, I added [START_BIOME:ANY_FOREST] to the humans in addition to their other biomes, and they still deforested. Does that work for you?
Hmm, that's interesting. I get the same result when I add that tag to Humans. But my other new forest races, like Wolfmen and Jackalmen, don't deforest either.
[...]
Try to change the site type to town. Its only a guess but the Wooden Buildings of Human towns could draw theyr material from the forrests.
Hmm, ok, I'll try that too. Although the Wolfman civ uses cities as well, so it might not be that. I wonder if world constructions have something to do with it?
Post by: cephalo on July 21, 2010, 04:18:18 pm
Based on the tile grid. I'm altering the interface the absolute minimum amount (adding an option to justify left, right, center or not use truetype at all - defaulting to left), which means it'll be justified inside a box based on the amount of space it'd take if not being rendered using truetype. It's not ideal, but it should be fine.Ah, but the next version (..or the one after it, likely) will support proportional fonts. Meaning, text will not be limited to one letter per cell (unless you turn this off); it'll use a truetype font instead. How's that? :D
Whoa. Will the borders/positioning of text areas have to be based on the tile grid, or will they basically be free-floating? Are they just rendered on top of the tile grid?
Improving this is the fact that there are (accessible) functions used to decide what text is used in the first place based on how much space is available, which I can modify to take the proportional font into account.
I've yet to complete the project, but it's looking good. I'll see if I can get some screenshots up next I have internet.. er, which will be a week from now. (I have web access via my cellphone, so I might post here, but uploading images is a bit harder.)
Wow, this could be the start of something big. I've always loved the text based graphics for the graphics, but for the purposes of text it fails miserably. That doesn't even make sense... but you all know what I mean.
Post by: Baughn on July 21, 2010, 04:24:02 pm
That sounds radtacular. You should make it only accessible via a widget-oriented API, so that Toady can only have nice fonts if he stops coding menus entirely from scratch (I have no proof that he does this, but it's the only explanation I can imagine for the types of crashes that used to happen on the military menu).Heh. I'd do that, but then it wouldn't automatically work with all the old code. :P
Instead, I'm trying to write a widget library/UI builder in scheme, instead. Which under the covers does much smarter updating. We'll see what happens. ^_^
Post by: Mephansteras on July 21, 2010, 04:41:15 pm
All this messing with the Entity files does bring up a question, though:
Toady, how are you going to handle food production for the various entity sites? For example, will a farming civilization like humans produce more food and therefore have larger populations than a non-farming civ like Elves or Goblins?
EDIT: FOUND IT! Deforestation is determined by the [OUTDOOR_WOOD] tag!
Post by: G-Flex on July 21, 2010, 08:09:59 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on July 21, 2010, 08:47:52 pm
I wasn't aware that Baughn had capability/authority to do that much with the interface code. Is that a recent development, or no?
Regarding capability, remember that the entirety of Battle Champs (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=23442.msg261144#msg261144) is open-source (and Baughn may have access to some closed-source code as well, I'm not sure). I wouldn't be surprised if that included a simple "display this string as tiles" function, which Baughn is now modifying.
As far as authority, yeah, it's contingent on Toady's approval as usual.
Post by: G-Flex on July 21, 2010, 08:52:05 pm
I also don't understand the use of Scheme. It seems fairly ill-supported and obscure to me, not to mention extraordinarily counter-intuitive (functional languages seem to have this latter problem often). I've heard Javascript would be a decent choice, especially considering JSON (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON) (or even XML) for object definition, given the amount of support they have.
Post by: Urist McDepravity on July 21, 2010, 09:00:18 pm
Yeah, but I still can't help but feel like Baughn's talking as if he can speak on behalf of Dwarf Fortress's development himself. This has happened a few times now, to the point where I'm wondering if it's just a fluke.Lets just not turn this into another flamewar like you did with in-game scripting. Baughn's part is open-sourced, http://github.com/Baughn/Dwarf-Fortress--libgraphics- and he can do w/e he want with it (and, you could too, its open-source), and talk w/e he want about what he does with that part. Its always up to Toady to accept his changes into his tree, and its obvious for everyone.
As any other open-source, if you dont like what Baughn does, you can fork it and do it yourself.
Post by: Cruxador on July 21, 2010, 09:39:20 pm
I think what he was saying was that it may seem somewhat presumptuous of Baughn to speak as though he's the decider on this matter, when it's still Toady's DF. Except that Baughn's doing a good thing which is a huge step forward as far as interface goes, and I really doubt Toady wouldn't include it in the vanilla game. And even if, for some reason, he were to not do so, Baughn could have his own DF download available, like he did with the 40d# series.Yeah, but I still can't help but feel like Baughn's talking as if he can speak on behalf of Dwarf Fortress's development himself. This has happened a few times now, to the point where I'm wondering if it's just a fluke.Lets just not turn this into another flamewar like you did with in-game scripting. Baughn's part is open-sourced, http://github.com/Baughn/Dwarf-Fortress--libgraphics- and he can do w/e he want with it (and, you could too, its open-source), and talk w/e he want about what he does with that part. Its always up to Toady to accept his changes into his tree, and its obvious for everyone.
As any other open-source, if you dont like what Baughn does, you can fork it and do it yourself.
And of course, there's the possibility that he's already discussed it with Toady.
Post by: G-Flex on July 21, 2010, 09:40:16 pm
Also: "If you don't like it, do better yourself" isn't a very good argument. People should be willing to accept and consider whatever valid criticism or input may exist regardless of the source. Baughn would probably agree with me here, since he's presumably a sane person.
And even if, for some reason, he were to not do so, Baughn could have his own DF download available, like he did with the 40d# series.
Baughn didn't build the 40d# releases himself; he still relies on Toady for that, as far as I know. I could be wrong, if something has changed.
Post by: Qmarx on July 21, 2010, 11:34:29 pm
Isn't that basically how Moh's hardness scale works already?Quote from: QuatchAlong with the in-game encyclopedia for new creatures, would it be possible (and useful vs above comments) to procedurally generate descriptions of what the various metals are good at?
Well, documentation is documentation, and we've obviously been lacking there. Having random metals would allow for a natural improvement of the descriptions for the stock stuff, so maybe that would be a good ticket. We got the reaction lists up for stone sometime in the past, and I guess it would be something like that, where it would be able to compare the value of metals. I don't want it to display kPA values and stuff, but I guess it could display a list of the common metals and show where your dwarves think the metal/material in question fits in to the picture.
Post by: Baughn on July 22, 2010, 12:14:25 am
- The proportional fonts. I've already talked that over with Toady, and he's fine with the proposed interface - as you guessed, there was already an "add this string to the output" function, which I'm just modifying. I'm fine with speaking authoritatively on that, as it's near-guaranteed to go in.
- Scheme UI builder. Not even discussed it with toady. Did I strike the wrong tone there, then? It's just an attempt to show him another way to do things, not something I expect would affect DF as such..
Post by: Urist McDepravity on July 22, 2010, 12:53:36 am
Baughn didn't build the 40d# releases himself; he still relies on Toady for that, as far as I know. I could be wrong, if something has changed.Not exactly. There is pre-compiled binary ./libs/Dwarf_Fortress which is dynamically linked against libgraphics.so.
As long as you dont break API, you can re-compile libgraphics.so and it will work w/out Toady's input at all, with old binary.
Thats how 40d# versions were developed, git always had version ahead of what Toady released, I did compile some my own versions of it trying to fix some bugs. So its possible to introduce new interface features w/out breaking API and therefore, w/out need of recompiling DF itself.
Post by: Baughn on July 22, 2010, 12:59:49 am
API is, in this case at least, source compatibility - if I don't break that, Toady can compile a new version without issue; if I do, he has to change something in his own code.
The ABI is something else again, and maintaining that takes a lot of (often counter-productive) work. I usually end up maintaining two branches. One with just ABI-compatible fixes, one with breaking changes. Then I merge them before sending toady the final tarball.
Post by: Tormy on July 22, 2010, 05:08:06 am
Two different things:
- The proportional fonts. I've already talked that over with Toady, and he's fine with the proposed interface - as you guessed, there was already an "add this string to the output" function, which I'm just modifying. I'm fine with speaking authoritatively on that, as it's near-guaranteed to go in.
- Scheme UI builder. Not even discussed it with toady. Did I strike the wrong tone there, then? It's just an attempt to show him another way to do things, not something I expect would affect DF as such..
Good luck with this and thanks for your contribution in the DF development.
Post by: Quatch on July 22, 2010, 06:51:45 am
I haven't actually played DF since the 40d version.. don't intend to, anytime soon. Frankly, at the moment it's more amusing to improve it than play it. I'll play later, once all the bugs are out. :P
Is this what happened to Toady, back in the dark ages before I found DF, when he stopped playing the game he wrote?
Moh's hardness is sorta like that, a ranking of hardness (turns out if you use a Ratio level of measurement (ie. rockwell), its non-linear, esp near the top.). And yeah, I suppose it would start to address the issue I suggested, being that hardness is pretty important in the battle calculations (as it stood), but what I was looking for wasn't an additional kind of number (albeit a compressed to 1-10 scale would simplify it for most people), but an in-world recommendation engine for the "dwarf-preferred" material for this endevour (well, dwarf-third-preferred, after Ad. and gold).Isn't that basically how Moh's hardness scale works already?Quote from: QuatchAlong with the in-game encyclopedia for new creatures, would it be possible (and useful vs above comments) to procedurally generate descriptions of what the various metals are good at?
Well, documentation is documentation, and we've obviously been lacking there. Having random metals would allow for a natural improvement of the descriptions for the stock stuff, so maybe that would be a good ticket. We got the reaction lists up for stone sometime in the past, and I guess it would be something like that, where it would be able to compare the value of metals. I don't want it to display kPA values and stuff, but I guess it could display a list of the common metals and show where your dwarves think the metal/material in question fits in to the picture.
Post by: Gorobay on July 22, 2010, 07:01:08 am
Post by: SmileyMan on July 22, 2010, 07:30:51 am
Post by: G-Flex on July 22, 2010, 08:19:31 am
Two different things:
- The proportional fonts. I've already talked that over with Toady, and he's fine with the proposed interface - as you guessed, there was already an "add this string to the output" function, which I'm just modifying. I'm fine with speaking authoritatively on that, as it's near-guaranteed to go in.
- Scheme UI builder. Not even discussed it with toady. Did I strike the wrong tone there, then? It's just an attempt to show him another way to do things, not something I expect would affect DF as such..
I apologize for being a little presumptuous/confrontational there. It wasn't called for.
Isn't that basically how Moh's hardness scale works already?Quote from: QuatchAlong with the in-game encyclopedia for new creatures, would it be possible (and useful vs above comments) to procedurally generate descriptions of what the various metals are good at?
Well, documentation is documentation, and we've obviously been lacking there. Having random metals would allow for a natural improvement of the descriptions for the stock stuff, so maybe that would be a good ticket. We got the reaction lists up for stone sometime in the past, and I guess it would be something like that, where it would be able to compare the value of metals. I don't want it to display kPA values and stuff, but I guess it could display a list of the common metals and show where your dwarves think the metal/material in question fits in to the picture.
If you're implying that the Mohs hardness scale would be good for judging material effectiveness, that isn't really the case. There's correlation there, but it's very far from absolute. In fact, often the hardest things are the most fragile (and for good reason).
If work on displaying strings is going on, any chance on taking the one-time hit to change to unicode? Nice for us non-stateside peoples! Plus, you know, more accents than you could shake a stick at, for those who want to mod in new languages...
This would be amazing. It has pretty neat implications for the future of the text display mode (if that sticks around) and graphics support, as well.
Post by: Baughn on July 22, 2010, 08:55:59 am
One potential problem is that I'm not removing the *old* string display code, so it wouldn't be possible to display uncode in all modes. Hm, but I suppose we could look at replacing the tileset as such with a fixed font, once the "full graphics support" goesin and it's reduced to just text.
I'll have to think about that some more later. It'd be a lot more work for Toady, too.
Post by: Tormy on July 22, 2010, 09:54:12 am
No Unicode at the moment, sorry, but I suppose having truetype support in would make adding that a little easier in the future.
One potential problem is that I'm not removing the *old* string display code, so it wouldn't be possible to display uncode in all modes. Hm, but I suppose we could look at replacing the tileset as such with a fixed font, once the "full graphics support" goesin and it's reduced to just text.
I'll have to think about that some more later. It'd be a lot more work for Toady, too.
Eheh yeah, but it wasn't important for Toady ever. Hopefully he will end up separating txt/gfx eventually...'til than I play in ASCII mode, because I don't like the half-assed tilesets. [I am talking about the engine limitations, some of the tilesets are looking good. :)]
Post by: Mephansteras on July 22, 2010, 10:41:45 am
Toady, can you describe how the weapon sizes work in relation to the creature sizes? For example, I've seen dwarves happily pick up and use a modded in weapon one handed even though it has [TWO_HANDED:62500]
On a related note, it seems like all of the two-handed weapons are from the Dwarf/Elf/Goblin point of view. That two-handed sword could be wielded one-handed by even a smallish human. Same with Pikes, Great Axes, and Mauls. This seems a bit odd. Shouldn't the humans have some weapons that are two-handed for them?
Post by: Tormy on July 22, 2010, 10:54:03 am
Toady, can you describe how the weapon sizes work in relation to the creature sizes? For example, I've seen dwarves happily pick up and use a modded in weapon one handed even though it has [TWO_HANDED:62500]
On a related note, it seems like all of the two-handed weapons are from the Dwarf/Elf/Goblin point of view. That two-handed sword could be wielded one-handed by even a smallish human. Same with Pikes, Great Axes, and Mauls. This seems a bit odd. Shouldn't the humans have some weapons that are two-handed for them?
Heh, as long as our dwarves can pick up and carry a wooden cage full of elephants, I am not complaining. :D..but yeah I agree with you lads of course.
Post by: SmileyMan on July 22, 2010, 11:03:01 am
One potential problem is that I'm not removing the *old* string display code, so it wouldn't be possible to display uncode in all modes. Hm, but I suppose we could look at replacing the tileset as such with a fixed font, once the "full graphics support" goesin and it's reduced to just text.While it's not a "beautiful" solution, if you stored strings internally as UTF-8, and had the string display function check for a byte-order mark (U+FEFF, 0xEF,0xBB,0xBF in UTF-8) and if it doesn't find it, default to DF's modified CP437. That way, the functions that call the string display could be upgraded piecemeal, rather than requiring a big bang approach.
Re-writing the language files etc. as UTF-8 encoded is easy, since I've already got a program that does it for the log files.
Post by: Baughn on July 22, 2010, 11:36:45 am
I'll have to think about it some more. Come to think of it, is a BOM even allowed in utf-8?
Post by: SmileyMan on July 22, 2010, 11:51:47 am
I'll have to think about it some more. Come to think of it, is a BOM even allowed in utf-8?Ah, that depends on who you ask. If you ask the Unicode Consortium, they say it's not necessary, since a stream is either valid UTF-8 or it isn't. However, it's not illegal. In DF, you could probably use some never-printed-as-text character as a marker instead, but you might as well use one that makes sense in a unicode context.
Effectively it's just a way of passing an additional parameter to the function (a Unicode/non-Unicode flag) without changing the function signature.
Post by: Tabithda on July 22, 2010, 04:49:29 pm
Post by: jfs on July 23, 2010, 08:25:48 am
While it's not a "beautiful" solution, if you stored strings internally as UTF-8, and had the string display function check for a byte-order mark (U+FEFF, 0xEF,0xBB,0xBF in UTF-8) and if it doesn't find it, default to DF's modified CP437. That way, the functions that call the string display could be upgraded piecemeal, rather than requiring a big bang approach.How about converting all text to UTF-8 everywhere and using UTF-8 strings everywhere, and simply have a function that translates UTF-8 to CP437 for the cases that need it?
Re-writing the language files etc. as UTF-8 encoded is easy, since I've already got a program that does it for the log files.
You could also implement a data file (init, raw or otherwise) that contains a translation table from Unicode to tile indexes. So you could map U+0041 to tile 204 if you really wanted to. This also creates a neater solution to the issue of advanced tilesets modifying the language files to remove accented characters: Instead just make accented character codepoints translate to the unaccented tile images.
Post by: SmileyMan on July 23, 2010, 09:49:04 am
Well, I don't want to speak on his behalf, but I think Baughn's overriding principle is "make no extra work for Toady," which is why the idea for a function that works exactly the same for all the existing call points in Toady's code, but if at some point in the future he wants to try out a Unicode string or two, it's in there ready to go.While it's not a "beautiful" solution, if you stored strings internally as UTF-8, and had the string display function check for a byte-order mark (U+FEFF, 0xEF,0xBB,0xBF in UTF-8) and if it doesn't find it, default to DF's modified CP437. That way, the functions that call the string display could be upgraded piecemeal, rather than requiring a big bang approach.How about converting all text to UTF-8 everywhere and using UTF-8 strings everywhere, and simply have a function that translates UTF-8 to CP437 for the cases that need it?
Re-writing the language files etc. as UTF-8 encoded is easy, since I've already got a program that does it for the log files.
You could also implement a data file (init, raw or otherwise) that contains a translation table from Unicode to tile indexes. So you could map U+0041 to tile 204 if you really wanted to. This also creates a neater solution to the issue of advanced tilesets modifying the language files to remove accented characters: Instead just make accented character codepoints translate to the unaccented tile images.
Post by: Yobgod on July 23, 2010, 11:16:53 am
Quote
There are equations for acceleration on an inclined plane.They aren't really needed for the discrete timescales you're dealing with.
All you really need is conservation of energy, lessened by friction.
So... set a value for kinetic energy lost to friction per tile rolled over and a value for kinetic energy gained per tile dropped. This is also nice since it would let you drop a boulder several z-levels to build up speed before it hits your ramp. Velocity is technically then related to the square root of the boulder's current kinetic energy, which indicates how many squares you move each step.
If you wanted to get slightly more fancy (and tone down speeds), count friction for a ramp as 1.5x that for a flat (approximating the square root of two for the longer surface).
If you wanted to get even more fancy, you could define the rolling/sliding friction for all the various floor surfaces (or all materials), so that the boulder would roll very quickly down your ironclad hallway, then quickly come to a stop when it hits that patch of sand.
The interesting (and harder to program) question is what happens when a fast rolling boulder hits a ramp up, or a sideways ramp. The easy solution would just ignore them and roll onwards, shedding energy when forced to go up, but it potentially sets things up for crazy Dwarven Marble Madness. :D
Post by: colinmarc on July 23, 2010, 02:02:39 pm
How will sending out armies/raiding parties relate to embarking? Could you conceivably embark somewhere in the foothills of a mountain range and build a road going up into the mountains (by sending out teams of masons/miners), and then build your mountainhome in the peaks? What about the other way around - embarking in the mountains and building a road to make it accessible by caravan?
and... (alright, this is a bunch of questions)
Since it seems like trading/travel/marching will be more specific in the coming releases, will geography matter to a fortress? That is, if the only/best way through a big mountain range is this one pass, could building your fortress straddling the pass be strategically valuable as a way of intercepting caravans/armies? If trade happens overseas eventually, could being a major port matter? What about controlling a specific resource? Finally, what are your thoughts on territorial behavior - goblins being more likely to attack a fortress that embarks in 'their' mountains, for instance?
Thanks! :D
Post by: James.Denholm on July 23, 2010, 06:47:10 pm
...but it potentially sets things up for crazy Dwarven Marble Madness. :D
Sigg'd.
Post by: Hummingbird on July 23, 2010, 07:51:30 pm
If you wanted to get even more fancy…
And with DF, of course, the fanciest way is the best way.
Post by: kaypy on July 23, 2010, 10:22:51 pm
The interesting (and harder to program) question is what happens when a fast rolling boulder hits a ramp up, or a sideways ramp. The easy solution would just ignore them and roll onwards, shedding energy when forced to go up, but it potentially sets things up for crazy Dwarven Marble Madness. :DOf course, when we get really insane we will also want to use ramps to change the boulders directions... Or launch them into empty space (although I think Toady is already ahead of us there- "things arcing through the sky")
Determining the direction of ramps will be 'fun'... What happens when a boulder drops on top of a 'free-standing' ramp? (Here's hoping for a result involving 'dwarven roulette' for any bystanders...)
Post by: KillHour on July 24, 2010, 12:10:52 am
Two different things:
- The proportional fonts. I've already talked that over with Toady, and he's fine with the proposed interface - as you guessed, there was already an "add this string to the output" function, which I'm just modifying. I'm fine with speaking authoritatively on that, as it's near-guaranteed to go in.
- Scheme UI builder. Not even discussed it with toady. Did I strike the wrong tone there, then? It's just an attempt to show him another way to do things, not something I expect would affect DF as such..
There's just one thing I want to know about this:
Does this mean that we can replace the parts in the tileset reserved for letters with symbols and still have letters show up when required? No more "x" up/down staircases, for example.
Post by: Cruxador on July 24, 2010, 02:35:00 am
X is still problematic, because besides stairs, it's used for bins and floodgates and the cursor and probably some other things I'm not remembering at the moment.Two different things:
- The proportional fonts. I've already talked that over with Toady, and he's fine with the proposed interface - as you guessed, there was already an "add this string to the output" function, which I'm just modifying. I'm fine with speaking authoritatively on that, as it's near-guaranteed to go in.
- Scheme UI builder. Not even discussed it with toady. Did I strike the wrong tone there, then? It's just an attempt to show him another way to do things, not something I expect would affect DF as such..
There's just one thing I want to know about this:
Does this mean that we can replace the parts in the tileset reserved for letters with symbols and still have letters show up when required? No more "x" up/down staircases, for example.
Post by: Thief^ on July 24, 2010, 04:39:15 am
I loaded up my save in the new version, spent a minute trying to find my archery range before figuring it was the room with Xs down both sides: bins of ammo and archery targets.
Post by: James.Denholm on July 24, 2010, 08:41:14 am
Archery targets.
I loaded up my save in the new version, spent a minute trying to find my archery range before figuring it was the room with Xs down both sides: bins of ammo and archery targets.
Urist McCrossbower cancells practice crossbowery: Unsure of which end of the room to shoot at.
Post by: Untelligent on July 24, 2010, 11:18:08 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 24, 2010, 12:23:39 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 24, 2010, 01:22:00 pm
(For example, + is both a smooth/engraved floor and part of the font used for talking about +quality+ or what button to press to scroll through menus... but if the latter parts of that are made part of a font, then + in the tileset only has to represent smoothed floors, so you can make those smoothed floors look like whatever you want without having to worry about +quality+ looking strange.
Likewise, O is both a pillar and the letter, but now you can make O into something that looks like a pillar without it messing with your O in the fonts... although this was already modifiable, anyway.)
Post by: G-Flex on July 24, 2010, 01:30:52 pm
Post by: Untelligent on July 24, 2010, 01:48:21 pm
Post by: Baughn on July 24, 2010, 02:23:00 pm
You will still be able to turn that off, to get the old look, but yes - if you don't, tilesets that alter the alphabetic letters should no longer affect text.
Post by: KillHour on July 24, 2010, 02:28:53 pm
I'm using an actual outright truetype font file, data/art/font.ttf, so font rendering should be basically the same as in every other application.
You will still be able to turn that off, to get the old look, but yes - if you don't, tilesets that alter the alphabetic letters should no longer affect text.
Sweet, this means that we get tons of extra space for whatever custom icons people want to make. You rock, Baugn.
Post by: Tormy on July 24, 2010, 02:32:06 pm
You will still be able to turn that off, to get the old look, but yes - if you don't, tilesets that alter the alphabetic letters should no longer affect text.
Nice! :)
Post by: BigFatDwarf on July 25, 2010, 02:14:08 am
Archery targets.
I loaded up my save in the new version, spent a minute trying to find my archery range before figuring it was the room with Xs down both sides: bins of ammo and archery targets.
Urist McCrossbower cancells practice crossbowery: Unsure of which end of the room to shoot at.
Yay, new sig for me!
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 25, 2010, 09:52:09 am
The first relates to the Improved Farming thread, which I have been fairly active in, especially after some renewed debate was kicked up by this post:
We haven't made any final decisions. I think a NPK+pH model does give you something back, because you'd get some really great varied local landscapes and it would take care of crop rotation, composting, naturally poor soil, or whatever else, but it introduces a farming interface problem to dwarf mode in terms of conveying the information in wholesome terms and allowing you to solve problems that come up.
Because of that, I went and made a series of posts on crop rotation and fertilizers but my questions regarding this are the following:
Will all crops use NPK+pH (+water) as a model, or will mushrooms and other underground crops need to have alternative sources of energy? Even simply making it be NPK+pH+water+carbohydrates (which require the occasional dumping of some form of "dead stuff" as a source of carbohydrates for a non-photosynthesizing lifeform, even a highly efficient one like fungi) would break out of the notion that all crops are photosynthetic.
Will it be possible to use Chemosynthesis in some form of underwater farming based on igneous stones, such as depleting obsidians to create things like tube worm farms, which can also be killed and tossed into underground farms for carbohydrates and nutrients to farm mushrooms?
Also, even if we are talking about mainly using crop rotation as a means of creating sustainable nutrient levels in the soil, there will still, presumably, be the at least seasonal need to irrigate the farmland. A bit of debate occured in the Improved Farming thread over how to do this, but I have been a proponent of using a smaller variation of the new piping that we are going to see in the Improved Mechanics, where they are smaller pipes that you just punch holes in, and dwarves can man a cutoff valve to allow water into those pipes on their own, without immediate player orders (and the pipes are closed as soon as they leave for any reason to prevent flooding), so that it forms an irrigation/sprikler system that dwarves can be either given scheduled orders to water, or can automatically start watering crops whenever they notice the soil is too dry, without giving dwarves the ability to actually open floodgates that might spread liquid Fun all over the lower levels of your fortress until you figure out what's going on. While this may be an overly long buildup, my question is will we be capable of having dwarves that, given the resources to do so, will be able to properly care for the fields themselves, or will we have to micromanage everything, and only those who build water clocks for seasonsal flooding schedules will have actually automated farms?
I'd also like to change gears and talk about something else that popped up in one of my own suggestion threads, Class Warfare (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61620.0), which is about trying to make dwarves demand better quality of life and social services as your fortress becomes more wealthy and advanced, but it spun off into a conversation about how much autonomy dwarves could potentially have, especially if we rework the economic model:
As for the zoning for commerce part, that was simply an example of "loosening the leash", something else we could do, for example, is simply not assign labors to dwarves, and just have job requests which dwarves fill based upon what job they want to perform that day. If dwarves own their own workshops, that would be significantly changed by what they own.
It could even be a model where dwarves own the resources they harvest or create, and you have to "buy" it from them with fortress funds, and they can simply start setting up their own industries based on their own preferences, and you just post "contracts" to buy certain amounts of products or materials, and let the dwarves do the rest as they see fit, while paying them in money that presumably must be taxed of them.
That would be SIGNIFICANTLY slipping their leash, to the point where dwarves are total free spirits that you have very little direct control over. I'm asking for a matter of degree players would want their dwarves to become autonomous.
So, then, my question is:
Would you even consider changing the relationship that the player has with the dwarves right now (as unquestioned overlord and direct allower and denier of all things dwarves can and cannot do), so that dwarves can become more autonomous and individual, and possibly create a better simulation, while on the other hand, potentially dramatically upping the potential for Fun because dwarves are stupid and very likely to hurt themselves unless continually babysat, or perhaps more importantly, if it meant that the player had less direct control over his fortress, and had to rely more on coaxing the ants in his/her antfarm to do his/her bidding?
(There, that post was only slightly huge...)
Post by: cephalo on July 25, 2010, 04:18:04 pm
When there's not even enough screen room for the new truetype fonts, we'll have scrollable panels! Right right?
So if you wanted, you could make a big spreadsheet like thingy that can grow as needed. Not that anyone would ever need such a thing for DF...
Post by: Baughn on July 25, 2010, 04:48:04 pm
Post by: Areyar on July 26, 2010, 06:18:28 am
autonomous dwarf behaviour.
In dev* it states that dwarves are planned to follow veins when mining.
That is a small step forward in autonomy.
(*just below the improved mechanics section).
Post by: thijser on July 26, 2010, 07:26:33 am
Post by: G-Flex on July 26, 2010, 08:30:26 am
@kohaku:
autonomous dwarf behaviour.
In dev* it states that dwarves are planned to follow veins when mining.
That is a small step forward in autonomy.
(*just below the improved mechanics section).
Who said that was autonomous? I always figured that was something you would designate yourself.
Post by: Untelligent on July 26, 2010, 09:14:30 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 26, 2010, 11:28:24 am
@kohaku:
autonomous dwarf behaviour.
In dev* it states that dwarves are planned to follow veins when mining.
That is a small step forward in autonomy.
(*just below the improved mechanics section).
While you could consider that a step in the direction of "autonomy", automaticly mining out a vein of metal only when you specifically enable them to mine out that vein of metal is not exactly what I mean. (Or rather, if it's a step, it's a hardly even a baby step.)
What I am talking about in that thread I referenced is, at its most extreme, starting to remove the whole need to assign labors to dwarves, because they start deciding what jobs they want to take up on their own, based on financial incintives from the player and the personality and likes of the dwarf.
What I'm talking about is taking some of the control out of the hands of the player, as opposed to simply automating a process that a player would normally simply have to micromanage. Reducing micronmanagement is a relatively simple argument to make, but I think people would have very conflicted views on whether or not to start giving the player less God-like control over the thoughts of his/her dwarves.
Post by: tfaal on July 26, 2010, 01:07:04 pm
Post by: James.Denholm on July 26, 2010, 07:47:28 pm
that is, the player -- would have to be the driving force of labor.
Literally. DF will now be distributed with whips, and manuals explaining how to apply Machiavellian principles to a slave population.
Post by: Neonivek on July 27, 2010, 08:30:50 am
Post by: Footkerchief on July 27, 2010, 08:32:26 am
I wonder... The old Dev items are gone but is there anywhere they have been preserved? I liked looking at them in the same way I like looking at the Armok 1 devs.
dev_single was put back up. (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html)
Post by: Areyar on July 27, 2010, 08:53:17 am
I like the principle, but I fear a game has to be designed from such principles from the start, otherwise gameplay will suffer.
I'm in a pessimist mood though. :P
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 27, 2010, 12:16:34 pm
@kohaku: The Majesty (r) paradigm.
I like the principle, but I fear a game has to be designed from such principles from the start, otherwise gameplay will suffer.
I'm in a pessimist mood though. :P
I'm not sure what you mean by "The Majesty Paradigm" (and Google didn't help much) but...
To his credit, Toady has been willing in the past to make total game overhauls when he has seen the need for it, such as the jump to 3d.
With enough care, it is possible to rebuild the interface around such a change... although I'm currently more interested in whether it would be a worthwhile idea, and how far to go than how to do it.
Post by: zwei on July 27, 2010, 02:11:14 pm
What I am talking about in that thread I referenced is, at its most extreme, starting to remove the whole need to assign labors to dwarves, because they start deciding what jobs they want to take up on their own, based on financial incintives from the player and the personality and likes of the dwarf.
Frankly, ability to have "5 mason volunteers" is something i would love.
Consideirng how awesome us manager dialog with removes huge part of micromanaging workshops (how great it is to be able to queue 20 barrels, forget about it and be sure that you get those 250 barrels eventually.)
Post by: Shadowfury333 on July 27, 2010, 02:50:39 pm
I'm not sure what you mean by "The Majesty Paradigm" (and Google didn't help much) but...
Majesty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majesty_%28video_game%29) is another sim game based on a fantasy world. It is also very autonomous.
For the record, I like the ability to add/remove labours, but I wouldn't mind a secondary interface for managing non-workshop jobs, if that was possible. I do find the manager very convenient for goods I don't need produced constantly, like metal goods
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 27, 2010, 02:53:45 pm
When we start adding in crop rotation as an integral part of farming, crop rotations typically took place over 2 or 3 (or occasionally even 4) year cycles. This implies that we will need to have the ability to schedule farm activity over serval years in a repeating cycle, and increased complexity, and presumable necessity, of fertilization would imply that players would want to see some sort of ability to schedule fertilization, as well.
How much automation do you forsee allowing players to set up with regards to their farms? Will this be something similar to the new Military screen, where we can set cycles of an arbitrary length in years for planting and harvesting, as well as amounts of fertilizers to be used, and will we have some means of linking a water source to a farm, so that dwarves can have an automated watering system (such as the "sprinkler" system I suggested in my last post) that does not require player input?
Will we also be able to have an inport/export to text file feature, similar to Worldgen data or Embark Profiles, so that when we set up a working system we enjoy, we can reuse those systems in future fortresses (or even share them with other players)?
On the vein of import/export capabilities, I also wonder if we will get abilities to import/export other reusable data that is often annoying to input, such as uniforms in the military screen, or the upcoming job priorities and standing work orders. (So that we could simply upload a script of standing orders for every fort we embark upon, such as adding jobs to create more alcohol whenever stored alcohol becomes less than FORTRESS_POPULATION * 2.)
In further automation, could we ever see something like a burrow that auto-designates any tree within it to be cut down, so that repeatedly designating the same areas that you have built as tree farms are no longer another seasonal player micromanagement task?
(Yes, sorry, sorry, it was long, I know...)
Post by: Mephansteras on July 27, 2010, 03:00:12 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 27, 2010, 04:35:21 pm
Random question: When are Adventurers and Fortress Mode dwarves going to get Mounts? What are the current hurdles involved in allowing those, since invaders seem to use mounts just fine?
As addition: Will it be possible to use the natural attacks (firebreath etc.) of a mount while being mounted? How about using wagons and similar constructions like the later siege Engines?
Post by: Dakkan on July 27, 2010, 08:53:49 pm
Ooh, or whales. Fear me, mighty Krill Empire.
Post by: IronValley on July 28, 2010, 02:58:44 am
Is it possible with the current code to have other civs ride war trained animals? Because normal (tame) mounts act on their own, and tend to flee.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 28, 2010, 09:58:01 am
Anyway, yes, another question I had on Improved Farming:
Pests and weeds are planned for inclusion in the upcoming farming changes. One of the advantages of crop rotation, however, was that most such pests and weeds would actually target specific species or families of plants, and that crop rotations would prevent diseases that target certain crops or weeds that specially choke certain crops or insects that prefer to feed on certain crops from becoming too prevalent to combat. (For example, Boll Weevils being cotton-specific pests, or Corn Borer moths whose larvae target corn.) As such, will pests and weeds be differentiated by specific target crops they go after, which can be combatted with more elaborate crop rotation? (With, say, diseases that grow in the area being tracked off-screen?) Or will there just be generic pests that always attack?
(When farming becomes a profession for Adventurers, I just might actually start playing Adventurer mode...)
Post by: Areyar on July 28, 2010, 10:45:23 am
Emergent behaviour should take care of most processes from a small set of basic rules.
for instance:
-all plants drop(variable dispersion) seeds if they are not harvested.
-Seeds are food to some small animals.
-seeds will germinate into seedlings if their favoured conditions are met. (min_floortype/req soil/mud etc, moisturelevel/near water, etc) else, seeds can lie dormant for years, waiting. attrition applies though.
-lifespan: most small plants live for a season or for a year, while trees require years to grow from saplings, but generate much more fruit individually and annually. each growth stage can have a timer. seed, sapling, mature plant, fruit ripening.
-dead plant matter: dead shrubs, saplings and unharvested crops currently do nothing, but could be food for bugs, creating natural fertilizer. like seeds, bugs can be food for small animals.
Tracking of several variables (such as richness) for each soil tile may be a bit much though.
tracking seeds and plant development would probably create a bit of lag at seasonal turnovers, but otherwise they require no pathing etc.
</rant>
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 28, 2010, 10:53:56 am
-seeds will germinate into seedlings if their favoured conditions are met. (min_floortype/req soil/mud etc, moisturelevel/near water, etc) else, seeds can lie dormant for years, waiting. attrition applies though.
The problem with that is that we are trying to make soil conditions only be recorded for tiles that are farm tiles, rather than having it be tracked for every tile on the map, where the costs of recording nutrient data would be massive when you multiply by the hundreds of thousands of tiles that can be on a given map.
Post by: Syff on July 28, 2010, 11:21:40 am
The problem with that is that we are trying to make soil conditions only be recorded for tiles that are farm tiles, rather than having it be tracked for every tile on the map, where the costs of recording nutrient data would be massive when you multiply by the hundreds of thousands of tiles that can be on a given map.
Note the "you'd get some really great varied local landscapes" part of Toady's comment, so he's clearly thinking beyond just farms. How about just the muddy/soil tiles, then? (Unless we're looking for really weird floating spore trees or something. Which do sound pretty cool, actually)
Could add even more FPS limitations on massive fluid projects, though some of the stuff with having actual pipes (instead of muddy hallways to fill with roads) might help some of that.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 28, 2010, 11:50:37 am
Note the "you'd get some really great varied local landscapes" part of Toady's comment, so he's clearly thinking beyond just farms. How about just the muddy/soil tiles, then? (Unless we're looking for really weird floating spore trees or something. Which do sound pretty cool, actually)
Well, I would only see that mattering underground, with all the muddy tiles over random stones. Aboveground, all the soil is very likely to be the same kind of soil, which should mean the same nutrients (unless we are talking about having a model for having certain patches of soil be depleted or especially fertile randomly before dwarves show up, or have models for water runoff that leech nutrients in certain areas more than others... which seems extreme even for Toady).
Could add even more FPS limitations on massive fluid projects, though some of the stuff with having actual pipes (instead of muddy hallways to fill with roads) might help some of that.
I think what we need is a reworking of the fluid system, honestly. The current iterate-by-tile random water motion is simply not the most processor-efficient model, and when it starts killing fortresses, it means that Toady's going to have to streamline it eventually. I believe the best solution is a "by fluid body" rather than "by tile" solution, but it requires a major shift in the way that water flows are calculated.
Post by: Syff on July 28, 2010, 12:26:07 pm
Well, I would only see that mattering underground, with all the muddy tiles over random stones. Aboveground, all the soil is very likely to be the same kind of soil, which should mean the same nutrients (unless we are talking about having a model for having certain patches of soil be depleted or especially fertile randomly before dwarves show up, or have models for water runoff that leech nutrients in certain areas more than others... which seems extreme even for Toady).
I read it more as different biomes/etc having different soil properties, so a forest on a higher pH soil might play host to different plants than a forest on a lower pH soil, or something like that. Variation on what the local level is like, rather than variation within the local level.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 28, 2010, 12:37:54 pm
I read it more as different biomes/etc having different soil properties, so a forest on a higher pH soil might play host to different plants than a forest on a lower pH soil, or something like that. Variation on what the local level is like, rather than variation within the local level.
If that's all, then it's a much simpler solution than that - you don't need to track starting soil levels, you just need to associate certain mineral levels with certain types of rock or soil, which was already part of the recent Improved Farming discussion...
(For example, limestone, chalk, or rocksalt (or anything high in calcium, sodium, or magnesium) would be naturally alkaline, while igneous rocks like granite are moderately acidic, while shale and coal are strongly acidic with sulfuric acid)
These might best be written in as interinsic parts of the inorganic raws.
Post by: Quatch on July 28, 2010, 01:18:05 pm
I don't actually recall hearing about glaciers and their effects on soil forming, or how soils are chosen in game.
Post by: Neonivek on July 28, 2010, 04:50:47 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 28, 2010, 05:08:41 pm
I only know a few plants we use, or used, for food that actually use acidic soil.
A huge number of plants actually prefer slightly to moderately acidic soil, it's all a matter of calibration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_acidity#Examples_of_plant_preferences
edit:
Here's another list, which includes some alkaline crops, as well:
http://www.plantea.com/pH.htm
Post by: Eduren on July 28, 2010, 05:30:51 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 28, 2010, 05:46:36 pm
While underlying rock is important in generating soils, recent glaciology is critical and often mixes things up substantially. Only in tropical soils and very thin soils are you likely to always have a strong relationship between underlying rock and soil.
I don't actually recall hearing about glaciers and their effects on soil forming, or how soils are chosen in game.
I actually meant that the soils should have their own stats for mineral and pH levels in the raws, as well as stones, where stone layer stats are only read and used in cases where you are growing plants directly on muddied rock.
So, then, loamy soil would tend to have some fairly good soil quality initially, while sandy soil might be more difficult, but any decent soil would probably be better than the initial conditions of growing something straight on top of stone, where you might need to raise some plants specifically to break minerals out of the stone, and split the stone.
As for soils, being as they are in the raws (and hence, totally interchangeable with any soil that has similar tags), I would expect the only differences between most soils that the computer can read are in whether soils have the [SOIL], [SOIL_OCEAN], [SOIL_SAND], and [AQUIFER] tokens, so all soils with the same tokens would be indistinguishable, and hence, just totally chosen at random when generating biomes. (So Peat, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand Loam, and Sandy Clay Loam are all functionally identical in the computer's eyes, as are all forms of sand.)
Post by: Neonivek on July 28, 2010, 06:38:38 pm
Post by: snooptodd on July 29, 2010, 01:39:13 am
I want.
What I am talking about in that thread I referenced is, at its most extreme, starting to remove the whole need to assign labors to dwarves, because they start deciding what jobs they want to take up on their own, based on financial incintives from the player and the personality and likes of the dwarf.
What I'm talking about is taking some of the control out of the hands of the player, as opposed to simply automating a process that a player would normally simply have to micromanage. Reducing micronmanagement is a relatively simple argument to make, but I think people would have very conflicted views on whether or not to start giving the player less God-like control over the thoughts of his/her dwarves.
no more managing dwarfs labors.
Even a simple implimentation where the highest skilled free dwarf would be picked for a job would be good enough for me.
Post by: Hammurabi on July 29, 2010, 10:22:03 am
Post by: G-Flex on July 29, 2010, 10:29:53 am
Quote
Under what circumstances would you ever consider releasing the game under creative commons or some other open source license? Would you do it if you were terminally ill and had 3 months to live?
Wow. An overasked question and stated completely tactlessly. Toady's response was great, though.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 29, 2010, 12:02:31 pm
That implies that if waste collection could be made less obtrusive, or that if dwarves were simply required to do less of other things (like, say, eating only 6 times a year, drinking only 12 times a year, and going to eliminate waste only 6 times a year, so that it would balance out), we could have our fertilizers and sewers. (And simply make Adventurers be supermen who simply do not go, or possibly just wear diapers that only get changed during fast travel.)
In fact...
Is making dwarves spend more of their time on their assigned jobs the only thing keeping you from dwarves that can do more creative and varied things with their lives, as well as making sure that "Nobody Poops"? If we work out ways to make dwarves take less breaks in other areas like eating and drinking (and commensurately making food and drink more difficult to get in the Improved Farming section), then can we make "
Post by: Eduren on July 29, 2010, 01:01:19 pm
Post by: MaDeR Levap on July 29, 2010, 03:19:15 pm
- implementing a little of new things,
- fixing old or new bugs.
In that way, new features would seep in, be tested by players ASAP and any bugs with them fixed in next release along with some older bugs (from beginnings of .31 and 40d).
Of course, purely bugfixing releases would be welcome and needed, too.
Post by: Untelligent on July 29, 2010, 05:16:06 pm
Post by: monk12 on July 29, 2010, 07:36:53 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2010, 08:19:26 pm
Hey Toady, What's your favorite DF drink? Are you a Dwarven Rum man, or a Strawberry Wine guy? Or some MYSTERY THIRD OPTION!?!
Purring Maggot Milk?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 29, 2010, 08:34:27 pm
Purring Maggot Milk?
That won't happen until Dwarven Blaand (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=56499.msg1422150#msg1422150) gets implimented.
Post by: NRN_R_Sumo1 on July 29, 2010, 08:50:13 pm
NOT A DRINKHey Toady, What's your favorite DF drink? Are you a Dwarven Rum man, or a Strawberry Wine guy? Or some MYSTERY THIRD OPTION!?!
Purring Maggot Milk?
Post by: IronValley on July 30, 2010, 07:04:09 am
But I'm pretty sure it would be a one time thing.... I never really get along with Whiskey... Dwarven Beer would be great though ;)
Post by: Hammurabi on July 30, 2010, 07:49:26 am
Hey Toady, What's your favorite DF drink? Are you a Dwarven Rum man, or a Strawberry Wine guy? Or some MYSTERY THIRD OPTION!?!
7/30/2010 Dev Note: Add Zima as brewable drink
Post by: Haspen on July 30, 2010, 08:00:32 am
Hey Toady, What's your favorite DF drink? Are you a Dwarven Rum man, or a Strawberry Wine guy? Or some MYSTERY THIRD OPTION!?!
7/30/2010 Dev Note: Add Zima as brewable drink
*in Toady's voice*
When coding, I prefer Longland.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 30, 2010, 08:10:11 am
Post by: Ratbert_CP on July 30, 2010, 08:53:53 am
He doesn't often drink beer, but when he does, he prefers DosEquisElfos.
Stay dwarfy, my friend...
[edit: fixed it for you...]
Post by: Sizik on July 30, 2010, 06:23:28 pm
He doesn't often drink beer, but when he does, he prefers Dos Equis.
Now the big question is: Are they floodgates, bins, or up/down stairs?
Post by: Cruxador on August 01, 2010, 03:58:08 pm
Post by: Untelligent on August 01, 2010, 10:33:22 pm
Post by: darkflagrance on August 02, 2010, 01:09:52 am
Post by: zwei on August 02, 2010, 01:39:33 am
Will we have goblin bones re-enabled for use in decoration? I recall I used them for that purpose in 40d.
That is a bug. Skeletons require butchering to produce bone stack as they will not decay on their own (this is result of fix that added unrotable links to keep skeletons intact for pruprse of enabling skeletal undead.) and since dwarves do not butcher intelliget beings...
If you manage to sever limb that decays to single bone, you will get goblin bone that can be used for decoration and crafts.
Post by: Knight Otu on August 02, 2010, 04:14:13 am
Anyway, With the entity populations and according site rewrite, what are the chances that more religions spring up, even if only as small shrines? Currently, it seems that it's almost always the same divinity in a given civilization that gets a religion dedicated to it, so that when you see a Cult of Gold, you know that it is likely dedicated to, say, the dragon Sloron Gemheat the Flames of Taxes.
Post by: zwei on August 02, 2010, 05:55:48 am
I don't quite see how it's a bug that dwarves don't butcher goblins or use their remains to decorate stuff or create crafts when their ethics say that this isn't a proper thing to do. Sure, I guess you could tell them to ignore their ethics and have them suffer bad thoughts, but that's more of a feature request, isn't it? Well, and the possibility to make use of sentient creature corpses for more practical things like bolts.
No no no, the bug is that skeletons do not decay further into separate bones.
Only way to reduce skeleton to bones is to have dwarf butcher it instead of just waiting. Hence bug.
Dwarves not butchering corpses and skeletons of sentient beings is working as intended, but you should not need to butcher skeleton to get bones at all.
Post by: Knight Otu on August 02, 2010, 06:39:20 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 02, 2010, 09:32:13 am
Ah, well, that sorta is a bug, though as you say, it's needed for undead skeletons. The original post was about goblin bone decorations, though, so it didn't quite register what you meant.
Actually, it would be kind of nice if there was code that could keep skeletons together for the purposes of making undead, but could recognize when it's just normal-dead, and things could just plain rot so our stockpiles don't fill up with various unrotting body parts either for all eternity or until we use some kind of exploit like an atom smasher to get rid of them.
It's not like this HAS to be either-or.
Post by: SmileyMan on August 02, 2010, 09:58:35 am
For added fun, try dropping a bone item in magma for a permanent source of smoke.
Post by: G-Flex on August 02, 2010, 10:18:26 am
Post by: Baughn on August 02, 2010, 11:40:52 am
Here's an example of the looks:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: TheDJ17 on August 02, 2010, 11:42:44 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 02, 2010, 11:54:18 am
Post by: Baughn on August 02, 2010, 12:19:57 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 02, 2010, 01:28:18 pm
Post by: Cruxador on August 02, 2010, 02:21:29 pm
Post by: Baughn on August 02, 2010, 02:31:25 pm
Post by: Cruxador on August 02, 2010, 03:29:57 pm
Don't worry, the font getting too large isn't a problem. :-XHmm. Since it looks like you've got the capacity to post images at the moment, could we maybe get some sort of collage type deal illustrating how it works out in different situation? The single example is perhaps not super revealing.
Post by: Shadowfury333 on August 02, 2010, 03:36:03 pm
Post by: Cruxador on August 02, 2010, 03:39:33 pm
What about square tilesets, how will TTF work with that?Baughn explained a few pages back, an area is defined according to where the text would be if it were still tile-based, and the TrueType text is just printed in there, with no regard for tiles. Thus the shape of the tileset doesn't matter.
EDIT: oh hey! So you know how when a DF window is bigger than a certain size, it's common for many menus to only use the top several lines? Will this implementation make use of the otherwise empty space, if necessary, or will it confine itself to the space that was previously occupied? It sounds like it'd be the latter to me, but I figured it would be nice to have confirmation.
Post by: darkflagrance on August 02, 2010, 03:47:34 pm
Don't worry, the font getting too large isn't a problem. :-XHmm. Since it looks like you've got the capacity to post images at the moment, could we maybe get some sort of collage type deal illustrating how it works out in different situation? The single example is perhaps not super revealing.
If an example like this is posted, it should be one where the allotted space is too small for the text to fit, if such a situation arises.
Post by: MaDeR Levap on August 02, 2010, 04:33:04 pm
Post by: Baughn on August 02, 2010, 04:38:26 pm
The code should be in there, just off by default. I can look at tuning it then.
Post by: Veroule on August 02, 2010, 06:33:57 pm
Post by: monk12 on August 02, 2010, 06:38:49 pm
During worldgen the dwarven civilisations are occasionally wiped out by war, with many dwarves fleeing to the hills. At what point do you see it being possible for the player to launch a reclaim mission on the original Mountain Halls? Do you see this as more of an adventurer mission that would be ordered by the king?
Reclaims of Worldgen sites would be fantastic.
In fact, as sieges get expanded, could you attempt to reclaim a fortress that had been conquered and settled by an enemy of some sort? This would be way cool to do to fortresses lost in world gen, but even cooler if a fortress you built was lost in a siege and settled by an enemy, allowing you to reclaim with your own siege force to take it back.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 02, 2010, 07:08:41 pm
I need to make that suggestion, already...
Post by: Neonivek on August 02, 2010, 07:13:10 pm
Before you can reclaim a worldgen site, there needs to be code to generate dwarven fortresses procedurally...
I need to make that suggestion, already...
Toady already commented on it and he wants to make them like Player fortresses (which I don't think is really all that needed) and frankly I don't see what is soo difficult about making a Dwarf City proceedurally when Toady already created limitations within known as "Noise".
Dwarf Fortresses are easy enough.
It is the Dwarf towns and cities that are the more questionable aspect. Are they above ground or huge sprawling underground cities?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 02, 2010, 08:21:07 pm
Before you can reclaim a worldgen site, there needs to be code to generate dwarven fortresses procedurally...
I need to make that suggestion, already...
Toady already commented on it and he wants to make them like Player fortresses (which I don't think is really all that needed) and frankly I don't see what is soo difficult about making a Dwarf City proceedurally when Toady already created limitations within known as "Noise".
Dwarf Fortresses are easy enough.
It is the Dwarf towns and cities that are the more questionable aspect. Are they above ground or huge sprawling underground cities?
Mashed one out: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63054.0
Post by: Eduren on August 02, 2010, 08:28:34 pm
They would be underground but still have a noticeable affect on landscape.
Post by: Halconnen on August 02, 2010, 10:14:32 pm
Actually, it would be kind of nice if there was code that could keep skeletons together for the purposes of making undead, but could recognize when it's just normal-dead, and things could just plain rot so our stockpiles don't fill up with various unrotting body parts either for all eternity or until we use some kind of exploit like an atom smasher to get rid of them.
It's not like this HAS to be either-or.
Yeah, this could also lead to skeletons just plain falling apart after you 'kill' them, when the magical flag keeping them together vanishes. I'd like that.
Post by: Acanthus117 on August 02, 2010, 10:15:51 pm
Imagine monsters made of metal and stuff simply falling apart when they're 'killed'.
That would be fun.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 02, 2010, 10:38:48 pm
That could also be useful for modders.
Imagine monsters made of metal and stuff simply falling apart when they're 'killed'.
That would be fun.
Actually, I remember someone asked in a thread a few weeks back about how much bronze they would theoretically be able to get out of "melting down" a Bronze Collosus. The answer was about 2300 bars of bronze.
That's basically bronze to then subsequently build an 80z-level tall statue of a bronze collossus.
This is largely thanks to having all bars of metal be only 2 liters of metal (I.E. your average soda bottle), yet still be capble of making a full tile cubic wall...
Post by: Greiger on August 02, 2010, 11:09:01 pm
Post by: SmileyMan on August 03, 2010, 04:44:34 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 03, 2010, 08:34:30 am
Or they have the technology to make metal foam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_foam).
Unfortunately, not even that works, as it's only about 5% as dense or 20 times as voluminous as regular metal.
If we go by the 3-meter-cube assumption for tiles, we are turning a 2-liter bar of metal into a 27m3 or 27,000 liter wall, a change of 13,500 times the volume.
Post by: tfaal on August 03, 2010, 02:40:03 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 03, 2010, 02:54:05 pm
Anyway keep working like that toady! Never since Daggerfall (TES 2 by Bastheda) someone programmed something like this for a game - atleast i am not aware of any game that does something like this - and your code seems better as theyrs already!
So lets see Daggerfall had 5000 villages and 750K NPCs. Lets say we have 50 civs on a middle-sized map with a average of 100 villages. 50 * 100 = 5000. Ok that record is broken! Now with 5000 villages a 50 village-people makes 250000 - not so much :( . But we have still 50 Mayor citys with say 3000 people each we get another 150000 NPCs. So 400K NPCs! And yours are even 10 more detailed :D . So the game with the biggest game world ever? The prize goes over to DF and its one man
edit: Will we get the villages be included into the xml output? How many historical persons are there per Village? Are there new Buildings (Barns, shrines, artificial ponds for fishing and fire-fighting)? Road-signs?
Post by: Cruxador on August 03, 2010, 02:55:40 pm
I would assume it's only about one meter or five feet cubed, based on the sizes of the intities which construct buildings and whatnot. Bigger creatures will likely be multitile, once that functionality goes in.Or they have the technology to make metal foam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_foam).
Unfortunately, not even that works, as it's only about 5% as dense or 20 times as voluminous as regular metal.
If we go by the 3-meter-cube assumption for tiles, we are turning a 2-liter bar of metal into a 27m3 or 27,000 liter wall, a change of 13,500 times the volume.
Post by: tfaal on August 03, 2010, 03:03:22 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on August 03, 2010, 03:07:18 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 03, 2010, 03:24:54 pm
I would assume it's only about one meter or five feet cubed, based on the sizes of the intities which construct buildings and whatnot. Bigger creatures will likely be multitile, once that functionality goes in.
First, 1 meter does not equal 5 feet. 1 meter is about 3.28 feet. Yes, they are "dwarves", but they aren't lawn gnomes. They are only 6/7ths of human size.
Second, yes dwarves are short, but even if we say they were about 4'6" on average, with 5' being as rare as 6'6" is to humans, then you still wouldn't build floors 5 feet apart. For one thing, you need about two feet of actual floor between floors, and for another, you don't build houses for humans with only 6' of headroom even if it is rare for humans to be 6' tall. You build them with 8' of headroom, where most people would have to jump to touch the ceiling.
That means we're talking 2.5 meters, minimum, although 3 meters is more likely, and frankly, makes an easier number to calculate with.
Finally, even if we were talking about a 1 cubic meter tile, that's still 1,000 liters of wall being constructed from 2 liters of metal, when even metal foam would only stretch that to 40 liters.
Post by: Mephansteras on August 03, 2010, 03:51:39 pm
Post by: Haspen on August 03, 2010, 03:59:17 pm
It looks like humans have gotten the most of the recent village development. How are the other races going to handle things? Are we going to see goblin villages and the like? And how are they going to be different from what you're doing with the humans?
A obsidian castle with magma moat or people-burning-inside pit with towers occupied by poison-breathing FB's would do nice :D
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 03, 2010, 04:02:26 pm
It looks like humans have gotten the most of the recent village development. How are the other races going to handle things? Are we going to see goblin villages and the like? And how are they going to be different from what you're doing with the humans?
A obsidian castle with magma moat or people-burning-inside pit with towers occupied by poison-breathing FB's would do nice :D
And dwarfs use the first layer of the UG where they carve rooms into the walls of the caves which they use as farms.
Post by: tfaal on August 03, 2010, 04:07:10 pm
Hey Toady, you use the term "townsperson" in the latest dev post, and contrast these people with "farmers". I'm not really sure what the distinction here is. Would you clarify what you mean for me?"
Post by: Footkerchief on August 03, 2010, 04:19:22 pm
Hey Toady, you use the term "townsperson" in the latest dev post, and contrast these people with "farmers". I'm not really sure what the distinction here is. Would you clarify what you mean for me?"
Townspeople live in towns and probably have the normal variety of trades -- blacksmith, clothier, leatherworker, etc. Farmers live in villages and do farmer stuff.
Post by: Cruxador on August 03, 2010, 04:21:22 pm
Problem is that the first underground layer is a good 20 z-levels below the surface. Bit deep for a farmer to dig.Dwarves already dig underground roads. I see no reason a settlement couldn't exist in the underground.
Quote
Hey Toady, you use the term "townsperson" in the latest dev post, and contrast these people with "farmers". I'm not really sure what the distinction here is. Would you clarify what you mean for me?"Presumably farmers farm, and live out in the countryside, whereas townspeople live in towns, and run the local inn and general store and whatever else
EDIT: or possibly what Footkerchief said.
Post by: Ratbert_CP on August 03, 2010, 04:24:22 pm
Hey Toady, you use the term "townsperson" in the latest dev post, and contrast these people with "farmers". I'm not really sure what the distinction here is. Would you clarify what you mean for me?"
Townspeople live in towns and probably have the normal variety of trades -- blacksmith, clothier, leatherworker, etc. Farmers live in villages and do farmer stuff.
Townspeople play La Havre, Farmers play Agricola. ;)
Post by: Sizik on August 03, 2010, 04:26:53 pm
I would assume it's only about one meter or five feet cubed, based on the sizes of the intities which construct buildings and whatnot. Bigger creatures will likely be multitile, once that functionality goes in.
First, 1 meter does not equal 5 feet. 1 meter is about 3.28 feet. Yes, they are "dwarves", but they aren't lawn gnomes. They are only 6/7ths of human size.
Second, yes dwarves are short, but even if we say they were about 4'6" on average, with 5' being as rare as 6'6" is to humans, then you still wouldn't build floors 5 feet apart. For one thing, you need about two feet of actual floor between floors, and for another, you don't build houses for humans with only 6' of headroom even if it is rare for humans to be 6' tall. You build them with 8' of headroom, where most people would have to jump to touch the ceiling.
That means we're talking 2.5 meters, minimum, although 3 meters is more likely, and frankly, makes an easier number to calculate with.
Finally, even if we were talking about a 1 cubic meter tile, that's still 1,000 liters of wall being constructed from 2 liters of metal, when even metal foam would only stretch that to 40 liters.
I think they're 5 feet square, and 10 feet tall.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 03, 2010, 04:29:06 pm
It looks like humans have gotten the most of the recent village development. How are the other races going to handle things? Are we going to see goblin villages and the like? And how are they going to be different from what you're doing with the humans?
A obsidian castle with magma moat or people-burning-inside pit with towers occupied by poison-breathing FB's would do nice :D
And dwarfs use the first layer of the UG where they carve rooms into the walls of the caves which they use as farms.
I would expect only the larger dwarven cities to actually go to the caverns. I put that in the suggestion thread about making moddable procedural dwarven forts (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63054.0), since only the Mountainhome where the dwarven civilization starts would need to have access to the caverns to collect the first plump helmet spawn that could then be transplanted in soil layers a mere 1-z level deep.
(Of course, if the dwarven roads are dug down around cavern level, then they might just be living along the dwarven roads, even with the increased danger of the underground creatures...)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 03, 2010, 04:30:34 pm
I think they're 5 feet square, and 10 feet tall.
The game strongly suggests tiles are cubic. Z-distances are calculated the same as X and Y distances are.
Post by: Man In Zero G on August 03, 2010, 05:03:25 pm
Or they have the technology to make metal foam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_foam).
Unfortunately, not even that works, as it's only about 5% as dense or 20 times as voluminous as regular metal.
If we go by the 3-meter-cube assumption for tiles, we are turning a 2-liter bar of metal into a 27m3 or 27,000 liter wall, a change of 13,500 times the volume.
What if the wall-cube is hollow?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 03, 2010, 05:13:47 pm
Unfortunately, not even that works, as it's only about 5% as dense or 20 times as voluminous as regular metal.
If we go by the 3-meter-cube assumption for tiles, we are turning a 2-liter bar of metal into a 27m3 or 27,000 liter wall, a change of 13,500 times the volume.
What if the wall-cube is hollow?
Interesting, let's consider that, then... OK, let's pull out my calculator, here...
Going again with the assumption of a 3-meter cube... The surface area would be 9 square meters per side times 6 sides, so we have 54 m2 total surface area. A little would have to be bevelled off in the corners, but we'll ignore that tiny detail as essentially a rounding error.
Turning 2 liters (.002 m3) into a surface of 54 m2 would leave us with a thickness of... 3.7037073 *10-5 meters, or roughly .04 mm thick.
For comparison, paper is roughly .1 mm thick.
Post by: Rafal99 on August 03, 2010, 05:55:20 pm
Turning 2 liters (.002 m3) into a surface of 54 m2 would leave us with a thickness of... 3.7037073 *10-5 meters, or roughly .04 mm thick.
For comparison, paper is roughly .1 mm thick.
So it is about the thickness of Aluminium foil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_foil)
The one in the photo is 0.013 mm thick.
So now we can have a consensus that dwarven walls are hollow cubes with sides made of metal foil...
Btw why assumption that metal bars are 2 litres? I have always assumed thay are much more metal amount, about the volume of a dwarf. Notice that it says "Iron bars" not "Iron bar" ingame, so there can as well be a huge pile of them.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 03, 2010, 06:10:19 pm
Turning 2 liters (.002 m3) into a surface of 54 m2 would leave us with a thickness of... 3.7037073 *10-5 meters, or roughly .04 mm thick.
For comparison, paper is roughly .1 mm thick.
So it is about the thickness of Aluminium foil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_foil)
The one in the photo is 0.013 mm thick.
So now we can have a consensus that dwarven walls are hollow cubes with sides made of metal foil...
Btw why assumption that metal bars are 2 litres? I have always assumed thay are much more metal amount, about the volume of a dwarf. Notice that it says "Iron bars" not "Iron bar" ingame, so there can as well be a huge pile of them.
This is derived from the mass of the metal bars in-game and the density values they have from the raws.
All units in the game are now in metric with the sole exception of temperature. All materials in the game currently have a density value associated with them, and all objects have a volume associated with them, from which every individual object can derive a mass, which is the only displayed trait of all objects in-game.
Densities are expressed in a unitless format that aligns with kg/m3, so to transform displayed mass into volume (in liters), you simply multiply the mass of an object by 1000 (1 m3 = 1,000 liters), and then divide by the material's density value in the raws.
Compare every metal's raw solid_density value to its bar values, and you will find that they are always equivalent to 2 liter bars, with the game truncating/flooring the values instead of rounding (so 8.9 kg becomes 8 kg). For example, Copper's listed solid_density is 8930, and it's displayed in-game mass is 17 (actual value of 17.86 kg).
This is from the Volume and Mass suggestion thread I have been referencing for a few pages, now:
More fun with numbers:
Every bar appears to be 2 liters.
Logs are 50 liters.
Most layer stones have some form of default density, but they all have 186 kg mass.
Judging by minerals, which I presume produce the same volume of ore as a non-economic stone does, all stones have 70 liters of volume.
(Note that you reduce an ore from 70 liters down to 2 liters, which may explain why it takes three metal units to make one furniture unit... although, of course, that's nowhere near enough.)
Bins are 15 liters.
Barrels appear to be about 20 liters.
Chairs are 30 liters.
Tables are 30 liters.
etc.
I subsequently learned that the non-economic stones were taking their densities from a template, whose values corroborated the 70 liter volume of stones.
Post by: tfaal on August 03, 2010, 07:46:24 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 03, 2010, 07:55:53 pm
Isn't it better to assume that the mass figures for metal bars are broken, and should be fixed?
Not particularly. We do need multiple bars of metal to make different types of armor or furniture, after all.
http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Weight
Most armor is much less than 2 whole liters of metal, while most furniture is much more than 6 liters of metal. (And incidentally, most furniture is a fraction of the 70 liters of stone that make up a single stone from mining, and 70 liter stones are nowhere near large enough to fill even a 1 meter cube (which is 1,000 liters), much less a cube larger than 1 meter / 3.28 feet.
Unless of course you mean you consider the entire inprecision of the game's use of whole-units like always using a 50-liter log to make a less-than-one-liter finished product or 30 liter chair all the same, in which case, you are describing the entire point of the Volume and Mass (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61215.0) thread, which argues for precision to at least the liter or kilogram level.
Post by: Veroule on August 03, 2010, 11:45:06 pm
Quote
you are describing the entire point of the Volume and Mass thread, which argues for precision to at least the liter or kilogram level.Oh, good you have a whole topic for this already. Please continue the discussion over there and let this topic focus on current development stuff.
Post by: tfaal on August 03, 2010, 11:56:17 pm
I'm quite curious as to how the new towns will look. Entity sprawl locations are cool and all, but they can afford to be small and disorganized. Proper cities, not so much. Let's hope we see some kind of a market square location, were most of the shops are located. That way the houses can be spread out a bit without turning shopping into a nightmare.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 04, 2010, 12:40:34 am
Oh, good you have a whole topic for this already. Please continue the discussion over there and let this topic focus on current development stuff.
"Discussion" requires more than one person. Being as it seems few people read that thread no matter how much I link it, it requires I repost what was in that thread in relevant conversation in order to actually have a discussion, or at the very least, answer questions related to the topic that arise.
If you have a problem with this model, then perhaps you would be willing to address the dearth of feedback, yourself with a few constructive comments on the matter?
After all, it's just as relevant as, say, tfaal talking about how cities could be procedurally created, which, amusingly enough, just so happens to ALSO have its own thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63054.0).
Post by: G-Flex on August 04, 2010, 12:44:36 am
Post by: Cruxador on August 04, 2010, 02:19:25 am
If people do not discuss in the thread, chances are people just don't care that much.Oh, good you have a whole topic for this already. Please continue the discussion over there and let this topic focus on current development stuff.
"Discussion" requires more than one person. Being as it seems few people read that thread no matter how much I link it, it requires I repost what was in that thread in relevant conversation in order to actually have a discussion, or at the very least, answer questions related to the topic that arise.
If you have a problem with this model, then perhaps you would be willing to address the dearth of feedback, yourself with a few constructive comments on the matter?
Post by: SmileyMan on August 04, 2010, 03:42:34 am
If people do not discuss in the thread, chances are people just don't care that much.Or it's self evident. e.g.: Q) "Would it be nice if the game had consistent physical units and quantities?" A) "Yes"
Post by: James.Denholm on August 04, 2010, 03:46:48 am
Post by: G-Flex on August 04, 2010, 04:24:03 am
Post by: derekiv on August 04, 2010, 07:35:35 am
Yeah, I don't see the purpose of essentially hijacking the development thread just because an idea isn't getting discussed much in its own. Hell, I've made threads that have gone defunct, even without much talk in them, but I'm not about to start cross-posting the stuff in here just to make extra sure I can drum up discussion about it.Agreed. I saw that this a 5 new pages after the dev log update, I was expecting 5 pages of discussion on the new feature. Instead I get one page on the new dev log and a couple pages of the discussion of what size stuff is. Come on guys.
Post by: mendonca on August 04, 2010, 07:58:25 am
Looking especially forward to just seeing how the smaller towns / settlements turn out in adventure mode
thinking about modded civs, (not all settlement models / hierarchies should be the same) a step forward might be to bring some of the site characteristics out of the code and in to the Raws, but I don't know if this is practical. Unless the cities can be procedurally generated based on the Civ characteristics / ethics, perhaps have certain 'shops' or buildings linked to elements of the civ.
I'm sure this was talked about in a recent DF Talk but I can't remember the content. Interesting problem nevertheless.
Post by: Toady One on August 04, 2010, 08:00:04 am
Quote
Quote from: BaughnI mean market economics. Supply and demand.
As an example, currently if you build only luxurious bedrooms, the poor dwarves don't get to use them at all yet most bedrooms will stay empty. That's of course not realistic; the price will be what the market can bear, and no more - basically, the dwarves should bid on bedrooms.
(As an aside, "and no more" only applies where there are no ongoing maintenance costs, but since such things aren't in the game yet.. well, if the market couldn't bear the maintenance they'd go derelict, not just stay empty.)
Of course, bedrooms are just the most obvious example. This applies to everything that enters the economy, including money itself; minting more (without a corresponding increase in economic size) should cause inflation, minting too little deflation - and as real life shows, both can be very bad things (though especially deflation). Insufficient money would cause the economy to not work properly, too much.. well, that depends on how, exactly, the new money is distributed.
I can think of plausible exceptions to the economy, like nobles not wanting the rabble to have rooms as good as they do, but they should be exceptions - not the rule. Which is to say, first make the market economy work, then consider noble/personality-driven exceptions.Quote from: QuatchWill dwarves, other than nobles*, get mood-thoughts from encountering dwarves at different relative wealth. Such as a poor dwarf seeing a rich dwarf. Would that depress or inspire? Instill envy? Can dwarves sense the magnitude of wealth difference?
Yeah, supply and demand are up for the trader role, and they'll start once we have the amount of things counted up on sites and the availability established through trade connections. Demand is a bit trickier, but it'll be more clear once the resources are in use. That will propogate over to your fortress vs. the caravans. The specific elements of the dwarven economy that exist more in isolation could be handled once that's up, but I'm not sure which of them will survive. The introduction of sprawl around the fort could change the rental situation drastically, but the overall price setting would apply there, assuming rooms in your fortress aren't so rare and the outside population so vast that they aren't all the exceptions you mentioned. It's hard to say how it'll turn out.
As for the reactions of one dwarf to another, part of the problem has been that the personality system we are using doesn't really lend itself to questions like this. It is a very non-judgmental system. We're working out some changes to it that'll work for villains and also apply in situations like this, where a dwarf might be given to envious thoughts, for instance, though it's a special case and there are going to be a lot of avenues that open up once we have the new information. I'll have to be careful with the distributions here to stop all of your dwarves from being deeply, deeply flawed, beyond what you might expect from dwarves.
Quote from: Mason11987
Is this the only impact these attributes currently have? Some had guessed that there were other impacts:
Memory: skill gain/rust rates
Focus: how long a dwarf stays at a task
Willpower: possible this relates to tantrums, happiness, insanity, or possibly other effects
Are these: currently in place and working, currently in place and not working, planned, or not planned.
Those were the ones I found, and I think that's it. The guessed uses are not in place and not planned in particular. I don't think memory should work that way, anyway, at least not for many skills.
Quote from: Mason11987
With relation to 40d, you had said that various jobs were required to get a Baron: " 4 of the following: 25 crafting jobs, 25 metal-related jobs, 25 wood-related jobs, 10 gem jobs, 25 stone jobs, 25 food jobs. " Also, some have mentioned constructed roads as being required to get a baron. Are these requirements now obsolete?
The baron never needed a road, and yeah, the old craft diversity requirement is gone now. Just trade and production now, with 20 dwarves. Upgrades to count and duke should just require further trade and production. The population requirement was kept at 20 in consideration of smaller fort people, and you can make it even smaller in the raws if you want.
Quote from: Heph
Any plans for flows in the ocean that cool or heat up the land (and have impact on the weather sim)?
Defining the overall fixed ocean currents would be an interesting way to create more biome variability without a CPU hit, and doing cyclical things like El Nin~o or something might be fun, though I don't understand it all that well. More information about the oceans will make boats more interesting off in the future as well. On the other hand, any ocean behavior that has more of a dynamic component is more dangerous, unless it's strictly seasonal or happens in some other cycle that doesn't gobble the processor. Dynamic stuff that's dependent on the existing overall weather situation is fine too (like how rough the seas are).
Quote from: Dae
When will dwarves (and people in general in adv mode) have more needs, economically speaking ?
Also, speaking about markets, how does the owner of a market decide what item he can take from the fortress property ? It didn't seem like he was buying them, just taking what interested him from the stockpiles.
It's not going to happen until after we get to the basic rewrite for the items in the larger economy. After that, it's still hard to say. Adding needs might track with villians most closely in the end.
I don't remember if fortress store owners have to pay for their wares, but even if I knew, it would be just as likely to be bugged the other way.
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady in terms of martial arts where weapons are concerned using your body to attack instead of a weapon in most games gives you an oddly powerful attack. In this game weapons are clearly supperior excluding the infamos "Eye gouge". Are you going to balance the non-weapon techniques of weapon fighting and if so how are you going to do it? I assume it is going to be by "Opportunity" so a character in a weapon lock would find it a great time to get those powerful kicks out.
Are we going to see some Hermit/Monk Sifu? Though admittingly there is a LOT less of this in Europian culture
An item made of superior materials than the body materials would generally be better in a non-magical setting, given equal training time. In a magical setting, which would include martial arts that behave like magic, anything goes, as powerful as magic can get, and we'd want to try to respect that fact all around, so that if it is easy to learn, people wouldn't bother with weapons so much in general, if they had access to the knowledge. In thinking about the generation of magic systems, we're trying to remain mindful of easy learning/industrialization of magic. It's not a bad thing if you want it, but it is extra work to support that kind of setting.
Quote from: Urist McDepravity
Could we get also notion on liquid density and according floating for buildings? I guess it would be required for things like ships anyway.
So Tokyo-3 style buildings could be built on, say, 5-level deep water, with large air tank in their basements, and their lowering/raising would be as easy as draining water tank or refilling it again.
Yeah, we were going to handle that with boats, but whatever comes first comes first. We have the masses/densities/volumes for items, but we'd have to fudge entire map tiles somehow. Once you've got a size for a tile, and it understands that a given collection of map tiles is a single object, it can calculate the water displaced by each Z level of a structure easily enough, I think, so you'd be able to come up with the depth to sink the mass to, up to a Z level, and a sufficiently loaded/flooded ship would drop down a level or more.
Quote from: isitanos
For the record, I don't get what's the excitement about having every single underground feature in every single fortress. Which means that once you've seen one fortress' underground, you've seen them all. Rather than regularly having, say, all 20 interesting features, I'd rather have 4-5 picked at random, and hopefully some variation on the contents of each of these. For obsessive compulsive or very casual players that must absolutely have them all, or for the time where you absolutely need a specific feature for a community game, some option that adds these features to the underground after embark would be perfect.
The all-feature thing is requested, especially back in 40d, but it's not what we were talking about here. Your 4-5 suggestion is along the lines of the situation I was staying would still cause trouble, because even if you only have 4-5 features, or one per layer per 4x4, say, you'd still have a glut of them as you walked over the adv mode map. It would be like increasing the density of the new village map I posted by sixteen times and making them all really neat. It's good for fortress mode, but very weird in adv mode. Like a carnival or something.
Quote from: Mason11987
In legends: export xml, historical events, each has a type. I've discovered 33 different event types:
add hf entity link ? add hf hf link ? add hf site link ? attacked site ? body abused ? change hf job ? change hf state ? create entity position ? created site ? created structure ? created world construction ? creature devoured ? destroyed site ? entity created ? field battle ? hf abducted ? hf died ? hf new pet ? hf razed structure ? hf reunion ? hf simple battle event ? hf travel ? hf wounded ? impersonate hf ? item stolen ? new site leader ? peace accepted ? peace rejected ? razed structure ? reclaim site ? remove hf entity link ? remove hf site link ? replaced structure. If you could tell me how many there are, and/or what they are, that'd be fantastic. Thanks!
Some of them aren't in use:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote from: Andreus
First one is regarding sites - are there plans to move the way sites are generated into the raws, and if so, are there any plans on when it will happen?
Second one is regarding ethics, in particular the KILL_PLANT ethic which prevents deforestation around an entity's sites. This one is awkward for me because I'm trying to mod an entity that lives in forests and doesn't cause that sort of deforestation, but will still accept and trade wooden goods. In a larger sense, could such "terraforming" be moved away from ethics and into some other raw flag?
I don't have any specific plans or timelines at this point. Things are obviously still in flux, and I don't know what I need to or can put out there.
Mephansteras mentioned OUTDOOR_WOOD -- taking off that tag wouldn't mess up the ethical situation would it? They might not export wood then, but they should accept it (assuming you have the ethics set for it).
Quote from: alfie275
Judging from your answer dumps you have thought about fortress that move around the world map.
Have you thought about ones which move vertically? Ala Journey To The Center Of The Earth, or perhaps going down a volcano in a submagma sealed fortress.
Aside from lifts moving up and down, I haven't thought about it. The bottom of the map is well-defined and not very far away in general, so I'm not really sure what else it would involve.
Quote from: atomicthumbs
Will there ever be a change to the flow system that makes it so my flooding traps work without me closing off the water source first? When fluid's 7/7 it teleports to the end of the flow, but that keeps things in between (such as goblins) from being pushed (into a fifteen-story drain, for instance).
I'm not sure. It'll depend on how practical it is. I remember there were some flow direction calculations that I had trouble tracking or at least getting to look good.
Quote from: Mephansteras
Toady, how are you going to handle food production for the various entity sites? For example, will a farming civilization like humans produce more food and therefore have larger populations than a non-farming civ like Elves or Goblins?
Yeah, it'll be necessary to track the food stores and production numbers, but that isn't going to determine the populations entirely, since we're probably going to have different nutrition requirements and breeding rates for the immortal races and whatever else going on. Some of that will be going in this time most likely, if we want to keep goblins competitive, since I don't expect them to be farming at all, and if they live on hunting and raiding, they'll probably need to eat less to maintain proper numbers, but we'll have to see how that turns out. They'll have more layers to hunt in, but crops yield a lot of food.
Quote from: Mephansteras
On a related note, it seems like all of the two-handed weapons are from the Dwarf/Elf/Goblin point of view. That two-handed sword could be wielded one-handed by even a smallish human. Same with Pikes, Great Axes, and Mauls. This seems a bit odd. Shouldn't the humans have some weapons that are two-handed for them?
Yeah, the two-handed values for things like the maul shouldn't be 67500. I'm not sure why I set them that way.
Quote from: NLegari
How will the new population rewrite affect cave dwellers like the kobolds? Will they get things like small hunting groups scattered around their caves and small raiding parties wandering around attacking unwary travelers, or are they just going to remain as they are right now?
It's more the villain stuff which will get us there, since you'll have some groups moving around. The kobolds are probably going to be the ones least affected by the population rewrite, since they aren't going to get new living space, though they might be more apt to spread to empty caves.
Quote from: colinmarc
How will sending out armies/raiding parties relate to embarking? Could you conceivably embark somewhere in the foothills of a mountain range and build a road going up into the mountains (by sending out teams of masons/miners), and then build your mountainhome in the peaks? What about the other way around - embarking in the mountains and building a road to make it accessible by caravan?
Since it seems like trading/travel/marching will be more specific in the coming releases, will geography matter to a fortress? That is, if the only/best way through a big mountain range is this one pass, could building your fortress straddling the pass be strategically valuable as a way of intercepting caravans/armies? If trade happens overseas eventually, could being a major port matter? What about controlling a specific resource? Finally, what are your thoughts on territorial behavior - goblins being more likely to attack a fortress that embarks in 'their' mountains, for instance?
Running two sites at a time where you have access to both of the maps is a messy matter. Limited things like road building projects are possible, or even site sprawl to sort of Moria-ize your main fortress, but actually playing the two maps is tricky, for the same reasons as fortress retirement, but worse.
Yeah, the geography should matter eventually. It should be like other strategy games with a map in that way, with all sorts of things going on, and hopefully the details of our map will allow it to thrive as we add more things to do out there. Once we have site resource stockpiles and then have the goods moved around by trade relationships etc., control of resource locations will become important.
Territorial integrity has to be maintained to some extent to keep the maps looking sane, and it tracks the territories in world gen for this purpose, and wars over claimed territory without a clear economic/etc. goal attached seem like a reasonable enough thing to have, though the game would need to quantify that.
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
Will all crops use NPK+pH (+water) as a model, or will mushrooms and other underground crops need to have alternative sources of energy? Even simply making it be NPK+pH+water+carbohydrates (which require the occasional dumping of some form of "dead stuff" as a source of carbohydrates for a non-photosynthesizing lifeform, even a highly efficient one like fungi) would break out of the notion that all crops are photosynthetic.
It would be preferable for them to need organic matter in their soils, but I'm not sure what'll end up happening. If the system ends up being specific enough to tell nitrogen-fixing plants from the others, it'll probably be worth doing mushrooms correctly.
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
Would you even consider changing the relationship that the player has with the dwarves right now (as unquestioned overlord and direct allower and denier of all things dwarves can and cannot do), so that dwarves can become more autonomous and individual, and possibly create a better simulation, while on the other hand, potentially dramatically upping the potential for Fun because dwarves are stupid and very likely to hurt themselves unless continually babysat, or perhaps more importantly, if it meant that the player had less direct control over his fortress, and had to rely more on coaxing the ants in his/her antfarm to do his/her bidding?
Our eventual goal is to have the player's role be the embodiment of positions of power within the fortress, performing actions in their official capacity, to the point that in an ideal world each command you give would be linked to some noble, official or commander. I don't think coaxing is the way I'm thinking of it though, as with a game like Majesty which somebody brought up, because your orders would also carry the weight of being assumed to be for survival for the most part, not as bounties or a similar system. Once your fortress is larger, you might have to work a little harder to keep people around, but your dwarves in the first year would be more like crew taking orders from the captain of a ship out to sea or something, where you'd have difficulty getting them to do what you want only if you've totally flopped and they are ready to defy the expedition leader.
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
How much automation do you forsee allowing players to set up with regards to their farms? Will this be something similar to the new Military screen, where we can set cycles of an arbitrary length in years for planting and harvesting, as well as amounts of fertilizers to be used, and will we have some means of linking a water source to a farm, so that dwarves can have an automated watering system (such as the "sprinkler" system I suggested in my last post) that does not require player input?
That sounds reasonable enough, though I'm not sure how water is going to end up working.
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
In further automation, could we ever see something like a burrow that auto-designates any tree within it to be cut down, so that repeatedly designating the same areas that you have built as tree farms are no longer another seasonal player micromanagement task?
It's a reasonable suggestion -- we'll have to see how things like harvesting fruit are handled, once we have things that can grow like that. It'll probably all fit under the same umbrella. Overall, it might just be zone/burrow environment management options or something, although there are parallels with farming that complicate it a bit. Removing the farm as a building might work best. (I cut yours to four questions, since preparing the post has already taken hours, feel free to re-ask in moderation)
Quote from: Mephansteras
When are Adventurers and Fortress Mode dwarves going to get Mounts? What are the current hurdles involved in allowing those, since invaders seem to use mounts just fine?
I don't know if fortress mode dwarves are ever going to get mounts, though modders will probably want them in any case. Adv mode mounts are in the hero section on the new dev page, and the hurdles there are just the livestock purchase/tracking that'll go in with adv mode sites as they progress, and the minor pathing changes to get them to move with velocity, which will probably want the attack/move speed split from the combat rewrite first.
Quote from: Heph
Will it be possible to use the natural attacks (firebreath etc.) of a mount while being mounted? How about using wagons and similar constructions like the later siege Engines?
There are annoyances with moving wagons around that I might avoid for a long while. They are under the trader role on the dev page, in any case. I don't know about mount attacks. I suppose it depends on how trainable a mount is. It would probably be more fun to let you be able to tell your mount when to attack, and safer in town, but it feels a little weird to allow total control.
Quote from: IronValley
Is it possible with the current code to have other civs ride war trained animals? Because normal (tame) mounts act on their own, and tend to flee.
Strange. I haven't had that problem, and the mounts should be subject to the regular invader/marauder code. If the mounted humans etc. are always running off, it's a bug. I'm not sure what training was involved for horses used in war in real-life. The current attack bonuses are a little weird and would be even stranger applied to mounts.
Quote from: Cruxador
Currently, creatures pass on physical characteristics to their children. At least theoretically, this is respected in worldgen and over generations of breeding yields nations of dwarves who appear ethnically similar to one and other, but ethnically distinct from those of other nations. How will the entity sprawl interact with this genetic data-transfer?
I haven't decided quite how to do it yet, mainly because I was hoping to mingle things a bit at the overlaps. At the most simple, it would just take the full range of the initial historical pairs and realize villagers from that range when they are generated (that would make citizens a bit more diverse than they are now, since there wouldn't be any selection, but it would still be a subset). It could use the surviving hist figs instead if it wanted to have less variety. Ideally, it might track a bit more information. We'll see when I start generating villagers as units on the local map.
Quote from: Untelligent
How far out will this entity sprawl, er, sprawl? Will cottages and hamlets start to pop up somewhat far from the city centers? Will we get an indication of sprawl on the embark screen -- perhaps an additional local map screen, similar to the relative elevation and steepness screens? Will we even be able to embark on the sprawl, or will the majority population and their homes be too abstract to actually create for now?
It depends. Many of the villages I've been reading about have their buildings centralized, but there are examples of villages with homesteads spread out as well. Fields and pastures will spread out in any case, and I haven't settled on a display there. I'm not really satisfied with the picture I put up, since it is quite monotonous, especially if a village only ends up eating a 1/4th of its square with tilled land. On the other hand, the embark screen's local squares could show the tilled land more reliably, and those pictures could just replace the terrain tile, which would no longer be accurate itself. Once the adv mode maps are in, it won't be too abstract to realize, and I'm hoping to get to the basics this time around, but embarking on dwarf mode would need to be restricted then, especially in towns, as you'd just have too many people. The focus of the viewpoint on the adventurer gives me more ways to deal with lots of people in that mode, and embarking on towns has always been sorta silly anyway, since they don't react to your presence.
Quote from: Knight Otu
With the entity populations and according site rewrite, what are the chances that more religions spring up, even if only as small shrines? Currently, it seems that it's almost always the same divinity in a given civilization that gets a religion dedicated to it, so that when you see a Cult of Gold, you know that it is likely dedicated to, say, the dragon Sloron Gemheat the Flames of Taxes.
I'm not going to focus on religions at first, but they have their spot with night creatures and fortress subgroups on the dev page.
Quote
Quote from: VerouleDuring worldgen the dwarven civilisations are occasionally wiped out by war, with many dwarves fleeing to the hills. At what point do you see it being possible for the player to launch a reclaim mission on the original Mountain Halls? Do you see this as more of an adventurer mission that would be ordered by the king?Quote from: monk12In fact, as sieges get expanded, could you attempt to reclaim a fortress that had been conquered and settled by an enemy of some sort? This would be way cool to do to fortresses lost in world gen, but even cooler if a fortress you built was lost in a siege and settled by an enemy, allowing you to reclaim with your own siege force to take it back.
The main obstacle is the crappy maps for non-player forts. After that I don't have a problem with allowing that, although we might want to get to start scenarios from the dev page first so that you could come in force again, when necessary.
Quote from: tfaal
Plus, if the farming settlements are anything like current towns, they'll get savaged by ravenous woodland creatures every time you come out of retirement. What's up with that bug, anyway?
Dunno. There was a problem with doubling wilderness population I thought I had fixed, but maybe all the problems are still there.
Quote from: Heph
So lets see Daggerfall had 5000 villages and 750K NPCs. Lets say we have 50 civs on a middle-sized map with a average of 100 villages. 50 * 100 = 5000. Ok that record is broken! Now with 5000 villages a 50 village-people makes 250000 - not so much :( . But we have still 50 Mayor citys with say 3000 people each we get another 150000 NPCs. So 400K NPCs!
The villages currently have 100 people and support 150 people (the 50 from the dev log was the addition people living in towns), so 5000 villages and the accompanying towns would get you to your 750K goal. The 5000 villages part might be iffy though, especially on a medium map, since a medium map only has 16641 tiles, so you'd have farmed out almost a third of the world.
Quote from: Heph
Will we get the villages be included into the xml output? How many historical persons are there per Village? Are there new Buildings (Barns, shrines, artificial ponds for fishing and fire-fighting)? Road-signs?
I'm still sorting out the adv mode maps, so I don't have any buildings yet. Villages are sites for the xml, though I haven't added the additional population information. I haven't thought much about the xml, since I wasn't aware of it being used by anybody and nobody ever mentioned it to me again aside from some dismissive remarks (and the other question above). If it is useful to anybody I can try to keep it up to date and fill in some of the missing fields. Was it being used by a legends viewer now? I don't recall if it was being used or if it was just mentioned in the thread.
Quote from: Knight Otu
That's a bit more sprawl than I expected, though I guess part of that is because presumably the farming villages occupy the same portion of region squares as towns. Maybe if villages could be larger than that? Anyway, it should be interesting to see how this works out for other races. Maybe the sprawl could be controlled in the entity raws as well?
I mentioned in the log that the little 3x3 gray squares are just the area for the village buildings. Crops and pastures etc. will be spread out from that, forming possibly an 8x8 or a bit larger, I think. The village buildings aren't precisely for the 3x3 either, although it might start that way. If cottages end up spread down a single road a little farther than 3 pixels, but in a narrow strip, that would be fine too. Large towns will also outgrow their 3x3s.
Quote from: Mephansteras
It looks like humans have gotten the most of the recent village development. How are the other races going to handle things? Are we going to see goblin villages and the like? And how are they going to be different from what you're doing with the humans?
The humans have received the attention at this point, but before the next release I'd like to get the dwarf and goblin models up. I don't want to commit yet, until something is in, but it should be in a log soon. They will be quite different from each other. Kobolds will remain mostly unchanged and elves can't receive proper attention until they have their proper trees.
Post by: Footkerchief on August 04, 2010, 09:07:59 am
I haven't thought much about the xml, since I wasn't aware of it being used by anybody and nobody ever mentioned it to me again aside from some dismissive remarks (and the other question above). If it is useful to anybody I can try to keep it up to date and fill in some of the missing fields. Was it being used by a legends viewer now? I don't recall if it was being used or if it was just mentioned in the thread.
Mason11987's World Viewer. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60913.0)
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 04, 2010, 09:34:24 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 04, 2010, 10:17:04 am
Quote from: NW_KohakuHow much automation do you forsee allowing players to set up with regards to their farms? Will this be something similar to the new Military screen, where we can set cycles of an arbitrary length in years for planting and harvesting, as well as amounts of fertilizers to be used, and will we have some means of linking a water source to a farm, so that dwarves can have an automated watering system (such as the "sprinkler" system I suggested in my last post) that does not require player input?
That sounds reasonable enough, though I'm not sure how water is going to end up working.Quote from: NW_KohakuIn further automation, could we ever see something like a burrow that auto-designates any tree within it to be cut down, so that repeatedly designating the same areas that you have built as tree farms are no longer another seasonal player micromanagement task?
It's a reasonable suggestion -- we'll have to see how things like harvesting fruit are handled, once we have things that can grow like that. It'll probably all fit under the same umbrella. Overall, it might just be zone/burrow environment management options or something, although there are parallels with farming that complicate it a bit. Removing the farm as a building might work best. (I cut yours to four questions, since preparing the post has already taken hours, feel free to re-ask in moderation)
I suppose that this one would be the one I would want to re-ask most:
(With regards to setting up automated schedules for crop rotations, even if only for individual plots)
Will we also be able to have an inport/export to text file feature, similar to Worldgen data or Embark Profiles, so that when we set up a working system we enjoy, we can reuse those systems in future fortresses (or even share them with other players)? (Not that I wouldn't like to see more of this in general, such as with uniforms
I'd also like to follow up on the way that water works:
Will rain (or at least climate) play a larger role in the new farming/wild shrub system? We will start needing water for our crops, but since rain is so infrequent currently in most climates (although I've certainly found one fort that seemed to be in permanent monsoon season), will we see a change in the way rain is handled to be able to more frequently naturally water crops to allow for rainfall farming of crops specialized for that climate? Will there potentially be (psuedo-invisible) "light showers" that do not really show up on the fortress mode radar that can slightly water crops between serious rainstorms?
It could be possible to have natural rainfall generally take care of all your watering needs if you happen to live in the right kind of climate for such a thing, especially since most of the seeds dwarven farmers will get for aboveground farming have to grow as wild crops, unless you buy seeds off of elves and humans, and this could be a potential way of really differentiating fortresses, based upon having a large enough crop library that every different biome you embark upon will give you a different set of crops that you can naturally grow (at least, aboveground), provided that the wild shrubs grow based upon what weather patterns (and soil types) are appropriate for them, and we have a broad enough library of new, differentiated crops. This, in turn, brings up questions about, now that crops can actually be differentiated significantly, how many crops you'd start allowing? Instead of having a dozen plants everywhere (and one for each of Good, Evil, and Savage), can we get tropical-jungle-on-silty-loam-specific fruits where it's possible for one fort to see an entirely different set of crops for its whole existence than another fort? More specifically, as this is starting to get buried in the pages of Improved Farming, how do you react to http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=22015.msg1445642#msg1445642 and the subsequent few posts?
Finally, furthering the subject of having more different types of crops, I'm wondering about expanding the uses of crops, (such as the fungus that grows a small gem while it leeches minerals from the rock and helps develop the soil), but will we ever get to see things like elves being capable of growing plant monsters to unleash upon their foes from seeds in their farms?
Post by: Footkerchief on August 04, 2010, 10:43:36 am
I suppose that this one would be the one I would want to re-ask most:
Will we also be able to have an inport/export to text file feature, similar to Worldgen data or Embark Profiles, so that when we set up a working system we enjoy, we can reuse those systems in future fortresses (or even share them with other players)?
What kind of "systems" are you talking about? That could mean anything from production chains to militaries to physical systems like pump stacks. None of those lend themselves to importing, since they'll generally conflict in hard-to-resolve ways with the existing systems in your fortress.
I'd also like to follow up on the way that water works, as I've
Will rain (or at least climate) play a larger role in the new farming/wild shrub system? We will start needing water for our crops, but since rain is so infrequent currently in most climates (although I've certainly found one fort that seemed to be in permanent monsoon season), will we see a change in the way rain is handled to be able to more frequently naturally water crops to allow for rainfall farming of crops specialized for that climate? Will there potentially be (psuedo-invisible) "light showers" that do not really show up on the fortress mode radar that can slightly water crops between serious rainstorms?
It could be possible to have natural rainfall generally take care of all your watering needs if you happen to live in the right kind of climate for such a thing, especially since most of the seeds dwarven farmers will get for aboveground farming have to grow as wild crops, unless you buy seeds off of elves and humans, and this could be a potential way of really differentiating fortresses, based upon having a large enough crop library that every different biome you embark upon will give you a different set of crops that you can naturally grow (at least, aboveground), provided that the wild shrubs grow based upon what weather patterns (and soil types) are appropriate for them, and we have a broad enough library of new, differentiated crops. (This, in turn, brings up questions about, now that crops can actually be differentiated significantly, how many crops you'd start allowing?)
Finally, furthering the subject of having more different types of crops, I'm wondering about expanding the uses of crops, (such as the fungus that grows a small gem while it leeches minerals from the rock and helps develop the soil), but will we ever get to see things like elves being capable of growing plant monsters to unleash upon their foes from seeds in their farms?
Just a reminder:
I read all of the posts in this thread, but if you want a reply to a specific point, then I guess that's what should be green. I worked through more than half of the new questions this morning, and I just went with one of your actual question mark questions, but if you've got a few things you want me to focus on, you can highlight those. It'll be difficult to get to everything. I should be able to post my next giant reply tomorrow or the next day, depending on how everything else is going.
Post by: G-Flex on August 04, 2010, 10:50:14 am
I know that was a while ago, but it might be worth mentioning that those things aren't a source of energy to begin with, just essential nutrients and such. Energy is another matter entirely.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 04, 2010, 11:08:08 am
Just a reminder:I read all of the posts in this thread, but if you want a reply to a specific point, then I guess that's what should be green. I worked through more than half of the new questions this morning, and I just went with one of your actual question mark questions, but if you've got a few things you want me to focus on, you can highlight those. It'll be difficult to get to everything. I should be able to post my next giant reply tomorrow or the next day, depending on how everything else is going.
Mmm... I'll edit, then. And for the other one, I cropped a little too much...
Oh, NW_Kohaku mentioned NPK/pH a while back, and asked whether or not fungus would get energy from a different source.
I know that was a while ago, but it might be worth mentioning that those things aren't a source of energy to begin with, just essential nutrients and such. Energy is another matter entirely.
I realize that, I've been going off of what I call "Biomass" in the Improved Farming thread, which is just various not-yet-decomposed carbohydrates and other decayable matter.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 04, 2010, 11:13:09 am
Quote from: HephSo lets see Daggerfall had 5000 villages and 750K NPCs. Lets say we have 50 civs on a middle-sized map with a average of 100 villages. 50 * 100 = 5000. Ok that record is broken! Now with 5000 villages a 50 village-people makes 250000 - not so much :( . But we have still 50 Mayor citys with say 3000 people each we get another 150000 NPCs. So 400K NPCs!
The villages currently have 100 people and support 150 people (the 50 from the dev log was the addition people living in towns), so 5000 villages and the accompanying towns would get you to your 750K goal. The 5000 villages part might be iffy though, especially on a medium map, since a medium map only has 16641 tiles, so you'd have farmed out almost a third of the world.
Ah thanks for the answer! I would say we need the Extra large worlds for even more people ;D . You mentioned that the villages till the soil to get food. Will there be herding/fishing based civs too? In some places - as in the mountains - The soil is not good enough for longer periods of farming but work rather well for cattle, sheep, goats etc.
Post by: Neonivek on August 04, 2010, 11:15:03 am
Post by: Mephansteras on August 04, 2010, 12:06:52 pm
Quote from: MephansterasToady, how are you going to handle food production for the various entity sites? For example, will a farming civilization like humans produce more food and therefore have larger populations than a non-farming civ like Elves or Goblins?
Yeah, it'll be necessary to track the food stores and production numbers, but that isn't going to determine the populations entirely, since we're probably going to have different nutrition requirements and breeding rates for the immortal races and whatever else going on. Some of that will be going in this time most likely, if we want to keep goblins competitive, since I don't expect them to be farming at all, and if they live on hunting and raiding, they'll probably need to eat less to maintain proper numbers, but we'll have to see how that turns out. They'll have more layers to hunt in, but crops yield a lot of food.
Considering that the goblins snatch a lot of non-carnivorous folk, have you considered adding in slave-run farming villages for the goblins? Even if the goblins only gain from it through increased fodder for animals it might make an interesting element. Dwarven farmers down in the caverns, humans and elves farming on whatever soil borders the goblin's mountain range.
Quote
Quote from: MephansterasOn a related note, it seems like all of the two-handed weapons are from the Dwarf/Elf/Goblin point of view. That two-handed sword could be wielded one-handed by even a smallish human. Same with Pikes, Great Axes, and Mauls. This seems a bit odd. Shouldn't the humans have some weapons that are two-handed for them?
Yeah, the two-handed values for things like the maul shouldn't be 67500. I'm not sure why I set them that way.
I think something is bugged with this anyway. I modded in a new weapon with [TWO_HANDED:75000] [MINIMUM_SIZE:57500], and one of my dwarves is happily running around using it in one hand and a shield in the other. So either I've got a gigantic dwarf (he's not stated as gigantic in his description) or the item size restrictions aren't working right.
Quote
Quote from: HephWill we get the villages be included into the xml output? How many historical persons are there per Village? Are there new Buildings (Barns, shrines, artificial ponds for fishing and fire-fighting)? Road-signs?
I'm still sorting out the adv mode maps, so I don't have any buildings yet. Villages are sites for the xml, though I haven't added the additional population information. I haven't thought much about the xml, since I wasn't aware of it being used by anybody and nobody ever mentioned it to me again aside from some dismissive remarks (and the other question above). If it is useful to anybody I can try to keep it up to date and fill in some of the missing fields. Was it being used by a legends viewer now? I don't recall if it was being used or if it was just mentioned in the thread.
I've also been working a little bit with the XML, although right now it doesn't have all the info I'd like. I'd really like to be able to tell from the XML dump what happened to a given site. It'd be a lot easier to tell what happened throughout history if I could see all of the battles between the civs as well as every event that destroyed a site (like a megabeast attack or monster rampage). It's a little odd right now to see a civ wiped out in the entity list and not be able to easily see what happened to it.
But for the record I *really* like the XML dump and the potential it gives us to really get a good look at what happened during world gen.
New question:
I know the current 'babysnatchers are always your enemy' thing is just a placeholder to keep fortress mode interesting until the diplomacy and war stuff gets properly implemented. When you do implement that, how is that going to change fortress mode? Is there going to be an option during world gen to stop when a controllable civ is at war? I know we'll be able to start wars ourselves, but will diplomatic events be happening in the background as we play, so we'll get notifications of peace treaties and new conflicts and whatnot during the course of the game? In that vein, if we start a war with the humans will that effect the entire Dwarven Civ or just our Fortress?
Post by: monk12 on August 04, 2010, 12:08:24 pm
Well the landscape has never been a HUGE absorbing part of world generation except when a lot of rejection comes involved.
Which reminds me,
When do you foresee worldgen allowing the player a cursory inspection of history and surviving civs? I hate genning a world, accepting, offloading all those units, going to embark and finding out that the goblins didn't make it past year 7. It seems like the ability to see civilization sprawl and surviving races should be a couple lines after the list of the dead.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 04, 2010, 12:13:16 pm
Post by: Mephansteras on August 04, 2010, 12:15:17 pm
Well the landscape has never been a HUGE absorbing part of world generation except when a lot of rejection comes involved.
Which reminds me,
When do you foresee worldgen allowing the player a cursory inspection of history and surviving civs? I hate genning a world, accepting, offloading all those units, going to embark and finding out that the goblins didn't make it past year 7. It seems like the ability to see civilization sprawl and surviving races should be a couple lines after the list of the dead.
This info is actually in the files that get created if you hit 'p' after world-gen finishes. I've got a program in my sig that summarizes it all into a single log file for easy reading which tells you which civs survived and which fell. Here (http://dffd.wimbli.com/file.php?id=311) is a version which doesn't require you to have perl to use.
Post by: jeffb on August 04, 2010, 12:33:49 pm
Quote from: Mason11987With relation to 40d, you had said that various jobs were required to get a Baron: " 4 of the following: 25 crafting jobs, 25 metal-related jobs, 25 wood-related jobs, 10 gem jobs, 25 stone jobs, 25 food jobs. " Also, some have mentioned constructed roads as being required to get a baron. Are these requirements now obsolete?
The baron never needed a road, and yeah, the old craft diversity requirement is gone now. Just trade and production now, with 20 dwarves. Upgrades to count and duke should just require further trade and production. The population requirement was kept at 20 in consideration of smaller fort people, and you can make it even smaller in the raws if you want.
So I have over 3 million created, 80k exported wealth, 200+ dwarves and zero nobles. Can you please add a periodic check or something, maybe it could also make sure doctors aren't completely ignoring to diagnoses patient that have been resting in hospital for years.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 04, 2010, 12:37:49 pm
edit: And a dead civ does not spawn nobles.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 04, 2010, 12:45:24 pm
Yeah, it'll be necessary to track the food stores and production numbers, but that isn't going to determine the populations entirely, since we're probably going to have different nutrition requirements and breeding rates for the immortal races and whatever else going on. Some of that will be going in this time most likely, if we want to keep goblins competitive, since I don't expect them to be farming at all, and if they live on hunting and raiding, they'll probably need to eat less to maintain proper numbers, but we'll have to see how that turns out. They'll have more layers to hunt in, but crops yield a lot of food.Considering that the goblins snatch a lot of non-carnivorous folk, have you considered adding in slave-run farming villages for the goblins? Even if the goblins only gain from it through increased fodder for animals it might make an interesting element. Dwarven farmers down in the caverns, humans and elves farming on whatever soil borders the goblin's mountain range.
As far as I have pictured it, though, when someone is a part of a civ, they become indoctrinated in their ways - elves raised in dwarven lands become badass immortals who hit legendary in multiple skills and use steel armor and weapons, and completely throw their inferior culture behind, while still enjoying all the perks of their race.
Likewise, there's no reason to segregate goblinized dwarves to be put in underground farms from elves and humans on aboveground farms - they have no former culture, and so have no cultural norms to adhere to.
Of course, if you want to have a large population concentrated in a single area, it's almost impossible to do so without farming or at least a seriously coordinated herding effort (like a cattle drive to keep from overgrazing). If anything, I'd expect farmers in some kind of underground "muck farm" made of decomposing parts and mud where slaves cultivate a sort of very base, low-quality fungus version of animal fodder that is mass-produced to feed livestock for slaughter if you have a meat-heavy goblin civ menu. Sounds appropriately goblin-y, no?
Post by: Footkerchief on August 04, 2010, 12:50:05 pm
So I have over 3 million created, 80k exported wealth, 200+ dwarves and zero nobles. Can you please add a periodic check or something, maybe it could also make sure doctors aren't completely ignoring to diagnoses patient that have been resting in hospital for years.
Here's the bug report for not getting a baron. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=519) It would be helpful to upload your save to DFFD (http://dffd.wimbli.com/) and post the link on that report.
Is your non-diagnosed patient actually resting, or just lying there with "No Job"? Either way, you should go ahead and upload a save to DFFD (http://dffd.wimbli.com/) (unless the save for the baron problem also demonstrates this one).
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 04, 2010, 12:53:57 pm
Of course, if you want to have a large population concentrated in a single area, it's almost impossible to do so without farming or at least a seriously coordinated herding effort (like a cattle drive to keep from overgrazing). If anything, I'd expect farmers in some kind of underground "muck farm" made of decomposing parts and mud where slaves cultivate a sort of very base, low-quality fungus version of animal fodder that is mass-produced to feed livestock for slaughter if you have a meat-heavy goblin civ menu. Sounds appropriately goblin-y, no?
Hmmmm and maybe a demon brings some stuff into the goblin culture like errr a noninteligent brute as cow stand-in or a demonic plant .... . How the demons and FBs as "influences from the outside" (and naturally different leaders like kings and priests) influence the overall behaviour of a civ on the worldmap would be interresting to know. Could they change how and where sites are created/expanded/abandoned and alike?
Post by: Armok on August 04, 2010, 01:04:52 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 04, 2010, 01:26:09 pm
Quote from: AndreusFirst one is regarding sites - are there plans to move the way sites are generated into the raws, and if so, are there any plans on when it will happen?
I don't have any specific plans or timelines at this point. Things are obviously still in flux, and I don't know what I need to or can put out there.Quote from: Knight OtuThat's a bit more sprawl than I expected, though I guess part of that is because presumably the farming villages occupy the same portion of region squares as towns. Maybe if villages could be larger than that? Anyway, it should be interesting to see how this works out for other races. Maybe the sprawl could be controlled in the entity raws as well?
I mentioned in the log that the little 3x3 gray squares are just the area for the village buildings. Crops and pastures etc. will be spread out from that, forming possibly an 8x8 or a bit larger, I think. The village buildings aren't precisely for the 3x3 either, although it might start that way. If cottages end up spread down a single road a little farther than 3 pixels, but in a narrow strip, that would be fine too. Large towns will also outgrow their 3x3s.Quote from: MephansterasIt looks like humans have gotten the most of the recent village development. How are the other races going to handle things? Are we going to see goblin villages and the like? And how are they going to be different from what you're doing with the humans?
The humans have received the attention at this point, but before the next release I'd like to get the dwarf and goblin models up. I don't want to commit yet, until something is in, but it should be in a log soon. They will be quite different from each other. Kobolds will remain mostly unchanged and elves can't receive proper attention until they have their proper trees.
I guess my question in response to this would be, what is your reaction to this thread's suggestion (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63054.0) about how we could have raw-modifiable "town pieces" that get procedurally sewn into a "hallway" whose shape and layout have variable guidelines?
If we have a flexible enough code for what constitutes "hallways", and code for recognizing what needs towns have, and tokens for telling the system what rooms should be built to sate those needs, we could be able to raw-define cities for virtually any mod-created civilization we want, as well as create dwarven fortresses that would match fairly well with what players could create.
Post by: Beardless on August 04, 2010, 02:22:56 pm
The introduction of sprawl around the fort could change the rental situation drastically, but the overall price setting would apply there, assuming rooms in your fortress aren't so rare and the outside population so vast that they aren't all the exceptions you mentioned. It's hard to say how it'll turn out.
I may be reading too much into this, but are you saying that dwarfs may emigrate to the sprawl if fortress housing prices are too high? More broadly, what are your plans for emigration during fortress mode in general? Currently, dwarfs that migrate to your fortress in search of whatever it is that makes them migrate stay forever, regardless of how horrific conditions may become. I look forward to having to work at keeping that population. Migrant labor is an intriguing concept as well. (I imagine this could easily appear as emergent behavior once the motivations for migration are programmed in.)
Post by: Cruxador on August 04, 2010, 05:04:40 pm
I would think that the optimal solution here would be to generate a set of frequencies for the traits for each nation, at the end of worldgen, and then draw directly on those to generate sprawl people.Quote from: CruxadorCurrently, creatures pass on physical characteristics to their children. At least theoretically, this is respected in worldgen and over generations of breeding yields nations of dwarves who appear ethnically similar to one and other, but ethnically distinct from those of other nations. How will the entity sprawl interact with this genetic data-transfer?
I haven't decided quite how to do it yet, mainly because I was hoping to mingle things a bit at the overlaps. At the most simple, it would just take the full range of the initial historical pairs and realize villagers from that range when they are generated (that would make citizens a bit more diverse than they are now, since there wouldn't be any selection, but it would still be a subset). It could use the surviving hist figs instead if it wanted to have less variety. Ideally, it might track a bit more information. We'll see when I start generating villagers as units on the local map.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 04, 2010, 05:31:34 pm
I would think that the optimal solution here would be to generate a set of frequencies for the traits for each nation, at the end of worldgen, and then draw directly on those to generate sprawl people.Quote from: CruxadorCurrently, creatures pass on physical characteristics to their children. At least theoretically, this is respected in worldgen and over generations of breeding yields nations of dwarves who appear ethnically similar to one and other, but ethnically distinct from those of other nations. How will the entity sprawl interact with this genetic data-transfer?
I haven't decided quite how to do it yet, mainly because I was hoping to mingle things a bit at the overlaps. At the most simple, it would just take the full range of the initial historical pairs and realize villagers from that range when they are generated (that would make citizens a bit more diverse than they are now, since there wouldn't be any selection, but it would still be a subset). It could use the surviving hist figs instead if it wanted to have less variety. Ideally, it might track a bit more information. We'll see when I start generating villagers as units on the local map.
Or the sprawl could be created out of Mountainhome emmigrants, meaning they have distant relatives back in the Mountainhome, although if they emmigrated at the first generation, they may have unique traits to that nation, so that one particular village is the only place you find "flax-colored" hair because it was where the only two flax-colored haired dwarves in the whole Mountainhome went at the start of worldgen, and they interbred only with that one particular isolated village's population without really ever immigrating back to the Mountainhome, and only slightly with some of the other villages. A small hamlet set up by some of those decendents, however, might also be one of the strongholds of flaxen-hair-dom.
Post by: Cruxador on August 04, 2010, 06:01:59 pm
The reason this requires special consideration is because members of entity sprawl do not explicitly exist until encountered. Thus your suggestion is essentially impossible. It would, I suppose, be possible for historical figures to be removed from the general population with the explanation that they emigrated, and then their traits could be given to the members of a certain village. But this would be a lot of extra work and infrastructure, and the benefit would be small at best, while at worst it could end up with villages of near clones, and no similarity between members of different villages, even if they're members of the same national group and should be members of the same ethnic group.I would think that the optimal solution here would be to generate a set of frequencies for the traits for each nation, at the end of worldgen, and then draw directly on those to generate sprawl people.Quote from: CruxadorCurrently, creatures pass on physical characteristics to their children. At least theoretically, this is respected in worldgen and over generations of breeding yields nations of dwarves who appear ethnically similar to one and other, but ethnically distinct from those of other nations. How will the entity sprawl interact with this genetic data-transfer?
I haven't decided quite how to do it yet, mainly because I was hoping to mingle things a bit at the overlaps. At the most simple, it would just take the full range of the initial historical pairs and realize villagers from that range when they are generated (that would make citizens a bit more diverse than they are now, since there wouldn't be any selection, but it would still be a subset). It could use the surviving hist figs instead if it wanted to have less variety. Ideally, it might track a bit more information. We'll see when I start generating villagers as units on the local map.
Or the sprawl could be created out of Mountainhome emmigrants, meaning they have distant relatives back in the Mountainhome, although if they emmigrated at the first generation, they may have unique traits to that nation, so that one particular village is the only place you find "flax-colored" hair because it was where the only two flax-colored haired dwarves in the whole Mountainhome went at the start of worldgen, and they interbred only with that one particular isolated village's population without really ever immigrating back to the Mountainhome, and only slightly with some of the other villages. A small hamlet set up by some of those decendents, however, might also be one of the strongholds of flaxen-hair-dom.
So yeah, I don't believe that's a viable solution, nor would I consider it to be a good idea were it viable.
Post by: Neonivek on August 04, 2010, 06:23:31 pm
Edit addition: Ohh, It seems I do have unanswered questions... though seeing as I don't remember them very well I guess I don't mind.
Quote
An item made of superior materials than the body materials would generally be better in a non-magical setting, given equal training time. In a magical setting, which would include martial arts that behave like magic, anything goes, as powerful as magic can get, and we'd want to try to respect that fact all around, so that if it is easy to learn, people wouldn't bother with weapons so much in general, if they had access to the knowledge. In thinking about the generation of magic systems, we're trying to remain mindful of easy learning/industrialization of magic. It's not a bad thing if you want it, but it is extra work to support that kind of setting
Ohh no that wasn't what I was trying to say at all... Ill try again.
Toady how are you going to balance out techniques with weapon wielders that use a person's physical body (and other less then full strength attacks)? In real life a body attack doesn't deal anywhere close to as much damage as a weapon strike but there are often opportunities where it is advantageous.
-My comment on other games is that when you use a bodily attack while weilding a weapon they tend to be oddly powerful. For example in Soul Calibur your kicks scale to your weapon
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 04, 2010, 06:24:41 pm
Or the sprawl could be created out of Mountainhome emmigrants, meaning they have distant relatives back in the Mountainhome, although if they emmigrated at the first generation, they may have unique traits to that nation, so that one particular village is the only place you find "flax-colored" hair because it was where the only two flax-colored haired dwarves in the whole Mountainhome went at the start of worldgen, and they interbred only with that one particular isolated village's population without really ever immigrating back to the Mountainhome, and only slightly with some of the other villages. A small hamlet set up by some of those decendents, however, might also be one of the strongholds of flaxen-hair-dom.
The reason this requires special consideration is because members of entity sprawl do not explicitly exist until encountered. Thus your suggestion is essentially impossible. It would, I suppose, be possible for historical figures to be removed from the general population with the explanation that they emigrated, and then their traits could be given to the members of a certain village. But this would be a lot of extra work and infrastructure, and the benefit would be small at best, while at worst it could end up with villages of near clones, and no similarity between members of different villages, even if they're members of the same national group and should be members of the same ethnic group.
So yeah, I don't believe that's a viable solution, nor would I consider it to be a good idea were it viable.
Actually, having isolated areas have very similar genetic traits with one another due to interbreeding of the same 2-3 families is a very realistic mechanic, and is simply the extreme end of the very "genetic similarity" effect this entire mechanic is supposed to create, so I have trouble seeing why you'd suddenly be opposed to it.
(And the less isolated a group is, the less it will have problems of a lack of genetic diversity.)
As for implimentation, this could be achieved without creating a huge backlog of individual historical figures by having a much less detailed "Historic immigration/emmigration flow" record. Rather than tracking individual dwarves (and their genes), you could have what amount to average rates of integrating populations, which create an abstract range of possible bloodlines for all the citizens of one particular area. The actual data on the bloodline only becomes hard data when a member of that bloodline is encountered. Until that point, villages are essentially just Shrodenger's Cat's Descendents, composed of proportionate amounts of possible bloodlines until you actually look at them. (At which point, the game rolls dice to see who, exactly, they belong to.)
If, for example, four families immigrated at Year 1 to set up an isolated mountain village, then there are only two families to draw genetic information from, and they will almost certainly interbreed repeatedly. If a citizen of another group immigrates in halfway through worldgen, and intermarries with that isolated village, and he was from a group that had 12 families largely stuck together, then, as long as none of those 12 families have yet been forced to be defined, he can have theoretical properties of any of those other twelve families as well (only some of which would have to be defined if you met this person, as there is only one exemplar of this entire bloodline unless you meet that original village), then, depending on how much further down worldgen you go, you could have this one thread of a bloodline also be added into the original four families, or you could have this bloodline only partially mixed in with the bloodlines of the original four if this occured soon before the cutoff date on worldgen.
Post by: Cruxador on August 04, 2010, 07:05:56 pm
An array of brad ethnicities is not the same as making the members of each village ethnically unique. Some geographic variation within national entities might not be a bad thing, but it should certainly not happen in this fashion. And it also shouldn't happen immediately.Or the sprawl could be created out of Mountainhome emmigrants, meaning they have distant relatives back in the Mountainhome, although if they emmigrated at the first generation, they may have unique traits to that nation, so that one particular village is the only place you find "flax-colored" hair because it was where the only two flax-colored haired dwarves in the whole Mountainhome went at the start of worldgen, and they interbred only with that one particular isolated village's population without really ever immigrating back to the Mountainhome, and only slightly with some of the other villages. A small hamlet set up by some of those decendents, however, might also be one of the strongholds of flaxen-hair-dom.
The reason this requires special consideration is because members of entity sprawl do not explicitly exist until encountered. Thus your suggestion is essentially impossible. It would, I suppose, be possible for historical figures to be removed from the general population with the explanation that they emigrated, and then their traits could be given to the members of a certain village. But this would be a lot of extra work and infrastructure, and the benefit would be small at best, while at worst it could end up with villages of near clones, and no similarity between members of different villages, even if they're members of the same national group and should be members of the same ethnic group.
So yeah, I don't believe that's a viable solution, nor would I consider it to be a good idea were it viable.
Actually, having isolated areas have very similar genetic traits with one another due to interbreeding of the same 2-3 families is a very realistic mechanic, and is simply the extreme end of the very "genetic similarity" effect this entire mechanic is supposed to create, so I have trouble seeing why you'd suddenly be opposed to it.
Quote
As for implimentation, this could be achieved without creating a huge backlog of individual historical figures by having a much less detailed "Historic immigration/emmigration flow" record. Rather than tracking individual dwarves (and their genes), you could have what amount to average rates of integrating populations, which create an abstract range of possible bloodlines for all the citizens of one particular area. The actual data on the bloodline only becomes hard data when a member of that bloodline is encountered. Until that point, villages are essentially just Shrodenger's Cat's Descendents, composed of proportionate amounts of possible bloodlines until you actually look at them. (At which point, the game rolls dice to see who, exactly, they belong to.)The main problem with this implementation, at least for the immediate future, is that it is now a big new system that needs to be worked out and have all its own problems and bugs worked out. The other problem that I immediately see is that the game will have to essentially piece together bloodlines on the fly, and with this it's going from both ends of the family tree. That will either result in all sorts of weirdness, or it will necessitate so much data storage that the purpose of entity sprawls in the first place is negated.
If, for example, four families immigrated at Year 1 to set up an isolated mountain village, then there are only two families to draw genetic information from, and they will almost certainly interbreed repeatedly. If a citizen of another group immigrates in halfway through worldgen, and intermarries with that isolated village, and he was from a group that had 12 families largely stuck together, then, as long as none of those 12 families have yet been forced to be defined, he can have theoretical properties of any of those other twelve families as well (only some of which would have to be defined if you met this person, as there is only one exemplar of this entire bloodline unless you meet that original village), then, depending on how much further down worldgen you go, you could have this one thread of a bloodline also be added into the original four families, or you could have this bloodline only partially mixed in with the bloodlines of the original four if this occured soon before the cutoff date on worldgen.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 04, 2010, 07:11:59 pm
First I would like to thank Toady for answering my questions (or question, I havn't finished it) anyhow.
Edit addition: Ohh, It seems I do have unanswered questions... though seeing as I don't remember them very well I guess I don't mind.QuoteAn item made of superior materials than the body materials would generally be better in a non-magical setting, given equal training time. In a magical setting, which would include martial arts that behave like magic, anything goes, as powerful as magic can get, and we'd want to try to respect that fact all around, so that if it is easy to learn, people wouldn't bother with weapons so much in general, if they had access to the knowledge. In thinking about the generation of magic systems, we're trying to remain mindful of easy learning/industrialization of magic. It's not a bad thing if you want it, but it is extra work to support that kind of setting
Ohh no that wasn't what I was trying to say at all... Ill try again.
Toady how are you going to balance out techniques with weapon wielders that use a person's physical body (and other less then full strength attacks)? In real life a body attack doesn't deal anywhere close to as much damage as a weapon strike but there are often opportunities where it is advantageous.
-My comment on other games is that when you use a bodily attack while weilding a weapon they tend to be oddly powerful. For example in Soul Calibur your kicks scale to your weapon
If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, you might want to describe your various kung-fu fighting styles, or at least link to the Dual Wielding thread. Currently, all attacks with a weapon are assumed to actually be with the weapon.
(Of course, I see no reason why carrying a steel sword would actually make you kick harder, since DF actually keeps track of individual armor parts and body parts. If anything, a steel BOOT would make you kick harder.)
Post by: Neonivek on August 04, 2010, 07:23:07 pm
Quote
If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, you might want to describe your various kung-fu fighting styles, or at least link to the Dual Wielding thread. Currently, all attacks with a weapon are assumed to actually be with the weapon
I am not. I think you entirely missed what I was trying to say/ask.
This isn't even Kung-Fu, you could see it being done with almost any weapon under the sun and was done so in every location on earth.
Quote
Of course, I see no reason why carrying a steel sword would actually make you kick harder
It doesn't. It is done in videogames not for realism but for gameplay. Well... Ok. There are SOME ways to get stronger kicks using weapons in your hand but those arn't what I am refering to.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 04, 2010, 07:26:56 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 04, 2010, 07:34:27 pm
i guess he's talking about something like feinting an attack with your sword, and while the enemy is busy parrying it you kick it's knee, unbalancing him and getting an opportunity for a coup de grace
Yeah that whole collection. There is nothing in the game that would make the kick in anyway advisable as it is currently. So I am wondering if there ever will be.
Post by: Mason11987 on August 04, 2010, 08:49:50 pm
I haven't thought much about the xml, since I wasn't aware of it being used by anybody and nobody ever mentioned it to me again aside from some dismissive remarks (and the other question above). If it is useful to anybody I can try to keep it up to date and fill in some of the missing fields. Was it being used by a legends viewer now? I don't recall if it was being used or if it was just mentioned in the thread.
Mason11987's World Viewer. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60913.0)
:)
I'll just ask it then Could you complete the xml items (specifically the events) that aren't completed, and add additional ones?. For example, something like a "birth" event for Hist figs could be really useful. No pressure obviously, but if you need a break from adding awesome real features to the game, I can promise that if you expand the xml I'll do more really cool things with it.
Post by: Veroule on August 04, 2010, 11:18:24 pm
Post by: Nintenlord on August 05, 2010, 02:10:17 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML#Well-formedness_and_error-handling
Also, any chance you release a XML Schema or equivalent specification of legends XML output? It can be used for auto-generating code for programs that read the XML data, so it can make reading utilities easier.
Post by: Quatch on August 05, 2010, 09:07:57 am
Quote from: UntelligentHow far out will this entity sprawl, er, sprawl? Will cottages and hamlets start to pop up somewhat far from the city centers? Will we get an indication of sprawl on the embark screen -- perhaps an additional local map screen, similar to the relative elevation and steepness screens? Will we even be able to embark on the sprawl, or will the majority population and their homes be too abstract to actually create for now?
It depends. Many of the villages I've been reading about have their buildings centralized, but there are examples of villages with homesteads spread out as well. Fields and pastures will spread out in any case, and I haven't settled on a display there. I'm not really satisfied with the picture I put up, since it is quite monotonous, especially if a village only ends up eating a 1/4th of its square with tilled land. On the other hand, the embark screen's local squares could show the tilled land more reliably, and those pictures could just replace the terrain tile, which would no longer be accurate itself. Once the adv mode maps are in, it won't be too abstract to realize, and I'm hoping to get to the basics this time around, but embarking on dwarf mode would need to be restricted then, especially in towns, as you'd just have too many people. The focus of the viewpoint on the adventurer gives me more ways to deal with lots of people in that mode, and embarking on towns has always been sorta silly anyway, since they don't react to your presence.
Here are a few ways to think about placing sprawl, including diversifying the sprawl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_place_theory http://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/centralplace.htm
Summary: How close and how many of each size of community, in what general distribution (assuming no terrain factors). Each size of community up is 1/3 as frequent. An equivalent principal for area of communities (1/4) and administration (1/7).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_village
Summary: Sprawl shouldn't be uniform, but instead follow and concentrate on pre-existing roads (or transport features like rivers and shorelines-- I note your example does this, but that may be due to the plains being placed there.) (see also, induced demand)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentric_zone_model
Summary: The travel time to the central market determines what it is profitable to do. Milk needs to be produced very close to consumption because it spoils in travel. Therefore dairys will be in the first ring of sprawl, must charge more for milk per volume than grain(or other transportables), and can afford to pay more for land). You could work out a terrain-based time to market using something like a least-cost path.
Post by: zwei on August 05, 2010, 09:20:46 am
Is is basically resolution of ~10x10 pixels for whole embark, not nearly enough to get any information.
Post by: Quatch on August 05, 2010, 09:58:58 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 05, 2010, 10:37:18 am
Post by: G-Flex on August 05, 2010, 10:39:26 am
Since text is finally getting separated from map tiles
Wait, what.
Post by: nbonaparte on August 05, 2010, 10:51:07 am
Few pages back. Baughn even put up a screenshot.Since text is finally getting separated from map tiles
Wait, what.
Post by: Baughn on August 05, 2010, 11:01:58 am
The apparent solution to good TTF will require something like that anyway - no, it will not work very well in the next release, just hopefully well enough for modders to test tilesets - so I might as well make it a little more general.
No promises, it'd be extra work for toady, but it should be possible to have a mini-map that has a tile-per-pixel (or multiple-tiles-per-pixel) resolution instead of the way-too-many-tiles-per-tile we get now. I can at least try to make that possible.
Post by: Greiger on August 05, 2010, 12:49:00 pm
Plains civs have farms now from what I gather. I assume goblins will have hunting sheds or livestock pens or something like that for meat gathering, elves will have...elf stuff. Will modders be able to pick and choose which kind of structures are available to a civ? For example replacing the majority of a [CARNIVORE] race's farms with hunting lodges or animal pens or something? Like reducing farms to 5%, hunting lodges up to 35%, livestock pens to 35%, woodcutting outposts to 15%... and so on and so fourth?
Post by: Untelligent on August 05, 2010, 01:21:06 pm
Post by: Quatch on August 05, 2010, 02:02:37 pm
Like Kohaku, I use the minimap for letting me know when a dangerous creature's close to my fort. Even if the minimap got a resolution upgrade, I can't really imagine using it for anything else.
Well, imagine it as a separate view pane with independent scale. The basic idea of knowing where you are in a horizontally sprawling fort is useful, but if you could add overlays independently (such as the depot access overlay, or the suggested structural overlays, room value, outside/inside, temperature, etc.)
Could be very fancy!
Post by: Arkose on August 05, 2010, 05:35:51 pm
Quote from: BaughnI mean market economics. Supply and demand.
As an example, currently if you build only luxurious bedrooms, the poor dwarves don't get to use them at all yet most bedrooms will stay empty. That's of course not realistic; the price will be what the market can bear, and no more - basically, the dwarves should bid on bedrooms.
(As an aside, "and no more" only applies where there are no ongoing maintenance costs, but since such things aren't in the game yet.. well, if the market couldn't bear the maintenance they'd go derelict, not just stay empty.)
Of course, bedrooms are just the most obvious example. This applies to everything that enters the economy, including money itself; minting more (without a corresponding increase in economic size) should cause inflation, minting too little deflation - and as real life shows, both can be very bad things (though especially deflation). Insufficient money would cause the economy to not work properly, too much.. well, that depends on how, exactly, the new money is distributed.
I can think of plausible exceptions to the economy, like nobles not wanting the rabble to have rooms as good as they do, but they should be exceptions - not the rule. Which is to say, first make the market economy work, then consider noble/personality-driven exceptions.
Yeah, supply and demand are up for the trader role, and they'll start once we have the amount of things counted up on sites and the availability established through trade connections. Demand is a bit trickier, but it'll be more clear once the resources are in use. That will propogate over to your fortress vs. the caravans. The specific elements of the dwarven economy that exist more in isolation could be handled once that's up, but I'm not sure which of them will survive. The introduction of sprawl around the fort could change the rental situation drastically, but the overall price setting would apply there, assuming rooms in your fortress aren't so rare and the outside population so vast that they aren't all the exceptions you mentioned. It's hard to say how it'll turn out.
Does this mean that members of the fortress could rent housing off-site, sleep in their country cottages and commute to the fortress to work?
What about in the other direction; could we optionally rent out rooms to dwarves and other civilized creatures that don't belong to the fortress's labor pool?
What about being able to designate certain other buildings as available for use by visitors, possibly for a fee? (Allowing off-site farmers to visit and use your infrastructure to mill their own grains, for example.)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 05, 2010, 05:45:02 pm
I actually like the idea of having dwarves capable of simply choosing not to stay. If you don't treat your valuable, highly-skilled dwarves right, they'll take their highly valuable skills and go find a new home.
Post by: Veroule on August 05, 2010, 07:14:07 pm
Quote from: Grieiger
something like that for meat gathering, elves will have...elf stuff.Soilient Green, gets its color from the many layers of splatter and covering that are on the dwarves before they are ground up and pressed into neat wafers. An excellent example of how elves use the cave adapted dwarves. Remember that Soilient Green tastes better then Orange.
Post by: paladin_of_light on August 05, 2010, 09:27:49 pm
Quote
Our eventual goal is to have the player's role be the embodiment of positions of power within the fortress, performing actions in their official capacity, to the point that in an ideal world each command you give would be linked to some noble, official or commander.
And then, we will become what we hate...
Post by: Beardless on August 05, 2010, 10:39:24 pm
Quote
"No! I must kill the nobles" he shouted.
But Armok said "No Urist. You are the nobles"
And then Urist was a Baroness.
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 06, 2010, 07:57:21 am
I remember when it was limited, I would usually look for either a underground river end, or a chasm. I looked for these because I liked having fancy waterfalls in my fortress. I didn't need 4 or 5 features. And as I played, I stopped looking for those features too. And a short time later we got our undergrounds in their current state.
Right now I use the underground for it's different raids. I make my fortress connect to the surface first, then connect it to the underground. I do this to increase the chance of a game-ending raid without triggering the deepest HFS.
Ultimately, I don't need a ton of features. Connection to a cavern layer that allows the HFS is more then enough, and that only so we have the option to be besieged in a few more directions. For adventure mode, a fortress alone is a point of interest. More people go to see Mesa Verde(561,163 in 2006) each year in Colorado's 4 corners than go to see New Mexico's Carlsbad Caverns(407,367 in 2006).
I'll put my current fortress up as a candidate for exploration over anything I've found in the underground currently any day. If it doesn't add anything to the design of my fortress, it's presence underground isn't needed. If it does add, it's presence explains partially why my fortress is there anyway. So make them rare for adventure mode. As long as we can see them, we can place our fortresses where we want to take advantage of what we need to. That way adventuring will remain more fun. But on that route, I am unhappy with the current interface between adventure mode and lost fortresses...
Will there be a difference in loot left on site between abandoning and the fortress failing in different ways?
(Loot taken with the conquerors or the departing dwarves, Dragon taking the loot to it's cave. Loot being left to rot amongst the "cursed bones" of the tantrum spiral, exc.) This could be a reason players abandon fortresses when they can carry on otherwise afterward. You don't want the goblins that have been the thorn in your side for 80 years to get Othilcugshil Tharnas Dusak.
Will abandoning/being defeated in the fortress result in the instant defeat of the hamlets and other sprawl?
If not, combined with this..
Can the method of your fortress's destruction influence it's next incarnation?
if you fell to the dragon Smaug Saràmlimul, you'd just have to search in the caverns for a troglodyte with a ring. Of course then the greedy elves would come by demanding a share of the reclaimed treasure, and expect you to save them when the goblins show up...
Post by: Tormy on August 06, 2010, 08:53:50 am
I'm curious about how important having every underground feature is to people.
Honestly? I don't care about underground features anymore. I want a fully functional Army Arc. I would like to send out my dwarven armies to conquer other settlements and empires. I want to enslave the Elves. I want to create my own Empire, I want a much more advanced diplomacy system...and the list goes on. :)
Post by: Psieye on August 06, 2010, 09:19:26 am
I'm curious about how important having every underground feature is to people.Magma and to a lesser extent, HFS are two features I consider essential. And really, on Earth the magma is guaranteed as you WILL eventually dig past the crust. That the Earth's crust is a lot thicker than what DF's z-levels imply is a minor detail in fantasy generated worlds. Underground plants and underground water sources I also consider very important. Add in underground life forms and I count 5 'features', maybe 6 with forgotten beasts. How many features do you count that you approximate it to ~20?
Quote from: Toady One
Running two sites at a time where you have access to both of the maps is a messy matter. Limited things like road building projects are possible, or even site sprawl to sort of Moria-ize your main fortress, but actually playing the two maps is tricky, for the same reasons as fortress retirement, but worse.Is Digging or even Deforestation included in "Limited things"? It could be made more abstract than an actual fortress map: you send off some miners with food/drink, equipment (might include furniture) and some means of transport (pack animals or mine cart rails) and after a period of time (for travel both ways and the work itself), they come back with stuff they've gathered with options for ignoring common stone. It would suddenly get complicated if the player wanted to watch it in real time, but 'snapshots' during Paused Time of how the off-site map is changing might be feasible.
Quote from: Toady One
Strange. I haven't had that problem, and the mounts should be subject to the regular invader/marauder code. If the mounted humans etc. are always running off, it's a bug. I'm not sure what training was involved for horses used in war in real-life. The current attack bonuses are a little weird and would be even stranger applied to mounts.Amphibious mounts may decide to swim, drowning their riders while continuing their invasion path. Considering you don't want mounts to be unthinking 'motorbikes with legs', will this be perfectly acceptable behaviour if the mount is badly trained?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 06, 2010, 09:20:53 am
you can see how i enjoy the new underground
Post by: Armok on August 06, 2010, 10:28:26 am
Some of my horse questions from before got answered, however: Will sapient mounts (say, a classic dragon rider) be handled any special way, or just like an ordinary mounts except they can talk, or just like ordinary followers except you cling to them?
How much personality will, say, your random horse have on average, and how much will it affect the game? Realistic, probably lots of personality and unless it's some kind of elite warhorse in a lot or ways, but that may be distracting...
How well will animals personalities and behaviour be modelled after the species behaviour in the real world, as opposed to just generic herbivore/carnivore AIs?
Some things you've said indicate there will be some more general spectrum of trainability for species rather than just boolean tamable or tamable_exotic tags, is this correct?
Will the zones mentioned for combat also be used for other things? For example, random creture generation of stuff along the lines of shimeras and mermaids could have more use of swapping zones between species than bodyparts maybe.
Will all kinds of creatures have the same zones, or will that be something defined in the RAWs?
You mentioned a dilemma of giving adventurers emotion or not, couldn't you just make that an init/worldgen/per adventurer option?
I found the hallucination discussion fascinating. Will random hallucinations ideally be interesting enough that you'd want to just fire up the arena and do shrooms, kind of like ideally fights between equal opponents were said to have that goal?
Will dreams eventually use the same or similar mechanics to the hallucinations described? Perhaps it could grab a random location where you have been and then simply run the exact same thing it would if you were hallucinating badly, and then it grabs whatever actor the hallucination brings up naturally to deliver it's prophecy or something like that?
About the sight cones and sneaking up on the adventurer, could it work to have it a toggle able "paranoia" mode similar to how sneaking is now? So that most of the time you'd walk and be vulnerable, because keeping a 360 degree sight is tiring/distracting/slows you down.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 06, 2010, 10:55:24 am
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 06, 2010, 10:59:13 am
eh, i used to capture chasm creatures in 40d and dig out enormous chambers several z levels high to flood with water, then dry them all and leave a stream running, then i'd release the ratmen, giant moles and cave crocodiles, all this with dwarves with [speed:0], [no_eat], etc. then i'd remove the cheat tags from the dwarves and start to dig my fortress with it's entrance on the underground it was terrible on my fps, tough.Do those classify as features?
you can see how i enjoy the new underground
Are we talking about having ubiquitous caverns as the "features" and plants in them?
I thought we were talking about things that aren't in the game anymore like underground rivers
Spoiler: and things that are like this (click to show/hide)
I'm perfectly content with what we have. I don't think eliminating the "wet caverns" all over the place would be bad. I think setting it up like water on the surface would be perfectly adequate, and I think having interesting underground features scattered around for adventurers would be good. Likewise I don't think forcing multiple underground "features" of this sort in a fortress doesn't seem to be beneficial to me.
I think focusing on new stuff to make the underground fun for adventurers without doing anything special for those features for fortresses will be just fine. Some people can get a new feature in their fortress if they want, but I don't see anything addable to adventure mode that would be absolutely required for every fortress.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 06, 2010, 12:35:26 pm
I'm curious about how important having every underground feature is to people.
I'm not sure about "underground features", but as we are moving towards having satellite villages and more trading in a hopefully eventual implimentation of the Trader/Caravan Arc, I'd like to see different sites that are actually capable of having specialty products that are at least unlikely to appear in other regions.
I mean, is there even a POINT in having caravans when everyone has everything they need right below their feet? (Excepting that traders can bring in infinite gold and platinum, although the trader arc may actually end that. Of course, when that happens, DF will seriously start to need a more serious effort at Conversation Of Matter, because the fact that most materials have infinite off-map sources is the only thing that keeps matter annhilation from mattering so much.)
Having a greater diversity of crops that are much more biome-specific is a pet project of mine right now, and I'd like to see a greater expansion on the uses of farmable materials in general. If different areas are more suitable for different crops, then we could have caravans trading distilled liquors from the far corners of the world as high-priced commodities that are prized for their rarity in other parts of the world. Likewise with certain dyes or even products like lacquerware.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 06, 2010, 12:57:17 pm
On Fort scale you could trade these Variants and with some skill cross-breed them like Mendel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel) did with his peas.
Heck toady could start with a smaller number of plants and Mushrooms in the raws and get - if geographical separation, Pollen-flight, Seed transport by birds etc. could be tracked - by genetics and some actual mutation a fullblown Plant-world. Could you do that toady? It would be a nice extension to random generating plants. Naturally the same thing applies to animals.
Oh one question since i am at breeding stuff: If a female and a male demon of the same kind meet each other can they have offspring (In the games current stage i mean not in general)? I have seen in the legends-mode a pair of demons that were the same kind with different genders so i wondered if "Demon"-lineages ruling something.
Post by: Cruxador on August 06, 2010, 01:06:53 pm
And if we get "traits" for plant types we could see - over a longer time - different crops arising from one species. Like potatos before the industrialisation of farming and Seed-creation. There were thousands of different potato variants (White and red one, sweeter and Muddyer tasting ones, Big ones small ones - you name it) sadly the number declined - [sarcasm] thank you Monsanto and Consorts [/sarcasm]!.Megabeasts do not breed.
On Fort scale you could trade these Variants and with some skill cross-breed them like Mendel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel) did with his peas.
Heck toady could start with a smaller number of plants and Mushrooms in the raws and get - if geographical separation, Pollen-flight, Seed transport by birds etc. could be tracked - by genetics and some actual mutation a fullblown Plant-world. Could you do that toady? It would be a nice extension to random generating plants. Naturally the same thing applies to animals.
Oh one question since i am at breeding stuff: If a female and a male demon of the same kind meet each other can they have offspring (In the games current stage i mean not in general)? I have seen in the legends-mode a pair of demons that were the same kind with different genders so i wondered if "Demon"-lineages ruling something.
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 06, 2010, 01:45:27 pm
The convo broken down in spoilers:
Spoiler: isitanos (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Toady One (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Jiri Petru (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Toady One (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: isitanos (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Toady One (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Me (click to show/hide)
I don't think when we talk about underground features in this train of thought we are talking about Plump helmets or the Bottom of the world HFS. I think we are talking about cave rivers and cave lakes, and chasms and natural ramps up/down, as well as
Spoiler: the HFS associated with the HFS (click to show/hide)
Many times I wished I could follow a underground river with some logic to where it was going rather than forge ahead through the stale water underground in my quest to find previously mentioned HFS. It'd also have been easier to remember landmarks if there was a flowing landmark. I remember passing one particularly interesting bit of terrain that I could never find again because there was no point of reference to measure it off of. Too much was the same underground.
Anyone who has done some serious cave crawling in the newest versions of DF probably knows exactly what I mean.
I'd like to see underground features like rivers, and springs where underground rivers flow into the surface. Huge underground oceans and massive underground rivers. Not every place can have them, but they'd enhance the feeling of underground exploration. When you add in old tombs from lost underground dweller civilizations that sprang up and disintegrated before the beginning of time, you've got some real fun underground activities to do. Dwarf Mode doesn't benefit, but they can certainly be embarked on for flavor. That's what I've thought we were talking about when it came to underground features.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 06, 2010, 03:17:11 pm
I'd like to see underground features like rivers, and springs where underground rivers flow into the surface. Huge underground oceans and massive underground rivers. Not every place can have them, but they'd enhance the feeling of underground exploration. When you add in old tombs from lost underground dweller civilizations that sprang up and disintegrated before the beginning of time, you've got some real fun underground activities to do. Dwarf Mode doesn't benefit, but they can certainly be embarked on for flavor. That's what I've thought we were talking about when it came to underground features.
Hmm... that does sound like a good idea...
It would actually be spectacular if we could combine having Raw-editable worldgen city construction (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63054.msg1463974#msg1463974) with things like ruins - we could have some randomly placed, rare "landmarks", like the ruins of long-lost forgotten beast civilizations that we could custom create, or have rules for their generation (so that ruins, for example, might be built like a cave town, but have mud and overgrowth plus walls knocked down). Or things like Stonehenge or burial mounds on the surface.
With enough player modding thrown together, we could potentially create a large enough library of special landmarks that you would literally never see the same landmark twice.
Post by: G-Flex on August 06, 2010, 04:04:04 pm
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 06, 2010, 07:04:40 pm
I feel that special geographical features, landmarks, and so forth should arise as naturally as possible from the simulation as opposed to being predefined, although obviously the latter is going to be the case much of the time for quite a while, if not always.
Why would that be the case?
Simple rules with different seeds can create quite different terrain. You can see this now, just play adventure mode and never use fast travel. Even temples can be varied if the rules are made for them in such a manner. Goblin temples are all the same because the rules that are there for them require it. This is because it's not complete, but if it were to get up there in suggestions, I am sure it'd be a priority for Toady to make village diversity.
Who knows, maybe hamlets will cause that without any further feedback.
Either way, if you want it, vote for it. "Building Diversity" (#236 when I looked last) fits it (because I just made it). This (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/eternal_voting.php#vote43) may or may not directly link to it.
Post by: monkeyfetus on August 07, 2010, 03:26:02 am
Does the weight of a weapon affect the velocity of the strike or recovery time/frequency of attacks? Will a weak dwarf swing an artifact platinum mace with the same velocity as one of adamantine?
How is the mass of obsidian swords handled for combat, what with them being composed of two significantly different materials?
Post by: Footkerchief on August 07, 2010, 03:31:54 am
How is the mass of obsidian swords handled for combat, what with them being composed of two significantly different materials?
Right now the obsidian swords (or macuahuitls or whatever you want to call them) don't work at all. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=256)
Post by: Cruxador on August 07, 2010, 03:35:55 am
Toady has not, to the best of my knowledge (which knowledge I beleive to be complete save for the contents of the most recent podcast) publicly mentioned any other use of length, and therefore I'd say it's safe to assume that there as of yet is none.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 07, 2010, 09:53:48 am
Is weapon length taken into account in combat, and if not, will it ever be? It is my understanding that the spear is by far the most popular weapon in the history of warfare. Now, the spear has a lot of things going for it. It's cheaper, easier to make, and easier to use when compared to something like a sword, but I think a HUGE part of the spear, and pole-arms in general, is the ability to stab the other person with your pointy bit of metal while keeping your soft and squishy body as far away from their pointy bits as possible. But in my experience, when I move into a tile adjacent to a goblin thief, he will be able to take off my ear with his nine inch dagger before I get a chance to stab him with my twelve-foot pike.
The problem is that spears are typically one-handed spears in this game. Those would really be used more for stabbing around a large shield from the same sort of range you'd be using a sword, anyway. (Which is, incidentally, exactly how they are used in this game.) Spears were incredibly common throughout history, but spears and lances and polearms are all different weapons that don't have interchangable lengths.
The sort of polearms, like pikes, that really were for holding enemies off at a range of 12 feet or more were often so heavy and bulky that they would be essentially impossible to use in non-formation combat, where the enemy could just sidestep your pole and attack from the side faster than you could turn. In fact, most soldiers who carried polearms of the sort that keep enemies at bay beyond normal sword reach actually carried shortswords at their sides and simply dropped their pikes as useless when it came to actual melee.
Beyond that, there's also the whole fact that the game still does not have hard definitions on the size of its tiles (although I do believe 10 feet is a reasonable guess), and 20-ton whales fill the same space in this game as do butterflies. Technically, even reaching into the next tile, though, should take a nearly 10-foot reach, even assuming 10 foot tiles, since you have to reach out of your own tile and into theirs.
My understanding regarding length is that it is figured in when determining how deeply a blow my go - you may not stab a weapon deeper into a fellow than the length of its blade. To my knowledge, it is not possible to exceed this by additionally plunging one's arm into the target's body, but if it is, this nonetheless happens after the entirety of the weapon has been dealt with.
I actually see this as a bit of a weakness of the system Toady has set up, as it appears as though the game only calculates the weight and length of the weapon when dealing damage. This causes problems like, if I was punching someone, and dealing serious damage to them, but then stop and pick up a tooth, and then punch someone with a tooth in my hand, then my punch suddenly becomes based upon the stats of the tooth, and becomes completely harmless as an attack. The weight of the rest of the arm behind that attack is completely meaningless.
Being able to put the momentum of your body into a thrust, as well as being able to just plain punch through tissue if you really are that strong, should be incorporated into the way that combat mechanics works. (Although granted, this was from experimentation back in 31.01 and 31.03, so it may have changed by now, even though I don't recall seeing anything to that effect.)
Post by: Greiger on August 07, 2010, 11:17:10 am
I would figure if there wasn't some kind of additional force behind the strike it would only be about as strong as an adamantine bolt.
Post by: Neonivek on August 07, 2010, 12:55:58 pm
Post by: dree12 on August 07, 2010, 01:30:22 pm
Does the weight of a weapon affect the velocity of the strike or recovery time/frequency of attacks? Will a weak dwarf swing an artifact platinum mace with the same velocity as one of adamantine?The reason so many people think this is bugged is the bugged strength formulae. It's evident that you can't swing a mace quicker than your hands can move, and right now preety much all creatures can swing a platinum mace that quickly. Think of how often you have been encumbered in adventurer mode, you can preety much swing a dragon corpse around without much speed penalty. So a truly weak dwarf wouldn't, but a "very weak" dwarf (who can carry "platinum table" without [much] encumberence) would.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 07, 2010, 02:25:42 pm
The reason so many people think this is bugged is the bugged strength formulae. It's evident that you can't swing a mace quicker than your hands can move, and right now preety much all creatures can swing a platinum mace that quickly. Think of how often you have been encumbered in adventurer mode, you can preety much swing a dragon corpse around without much speed penalty. So a truly weak dwarf wouldn't, but a "very weak" dwarf (who can carry "platinum table" without [much] encumberence) would.
That's only one problem with strength...
Does it at all make sense that a bulked-up muscledwarf that weighs 500 lbs is going to be able to sprint like a scrawny 150lb one? No, he's always going to move slower. We've moved out of the 40d system, there are tradeoffs for things like strength. It's just another example of DF (accidentally?) imitating real life.
Not at the rate it is implimented, it doesn't.
Consider a football player like a Halfback or Running Back. Yes, some players are less strong but faster, and some are stronger and slower, but the way that DF is currently set up strength all but completely counteracts every point of agility you gain. That would make someone with a balanced ratio of strength and agility who was super-fit essentially the same as a couch potato whose strength and agility had dwindled to almost nothing. Even if they are large, burly men, Halfbacks can easily outrun most untrained humans. It is, after all, exactly what they are paid to do.
(Specifically, 1Str, 1Agi will actually wind up having displayed speed 900. 1000Str, 1000Agi will have displayed speed 1000. 5000 Str, 5000 Agi will have displayed speed 1150. 1 Str, 5000 Agi will have displayed speed 2200. 5000 Str, 1 Agi or even 1000 Agi for some odd reason actually bugs out, and produces a displayed speed of 1290. I think this may be because the unbalanced strength will actually plunge your speed below a minimum threshold value, and a sanity check default value gets used instead.)
5000 Strength, 5000 Agility is just the most extreme example, it literally goes down the line - a 1 Strength, 1 Agility character who probably has trouble standing up under their own power is almost as fast as a 2000 Strength, 2000 Agility character or a 1000 Strength, 1000 Agility character.
The problem is that strength nearly nullifies agility.
That is not to say that a large degree of muscle mass should not have some effect on agility, but that it shouldn't have such an effect that it actually means that agility gains are almost entirely nullified by your strength.
If someone trains in track and only trains to be able to move faster, not to be stronger, that's fine if they are faster than someone who trains to do both equally, but someone who trains to do both equally should not be tied in a footrace with someone who can hardly carry the weight of their own body. Even walking, a physically fit person with well-rounded training should have a better pace than a person who can hardly walk.
Post by: dree12 on August 07, 2010, 02:38:54 pm
Are there plans to destroy the physical attributes Strength, Toughness, and Endurence completely? The first two of those have body equivilants (muscle=strength, fat=toughness), and the other is a combination of the calorie system and Willpower. Agility, DR, and Recupration do not have equivalents that are easily programmable without the body shape rewrite, so I'm not worried by those.
If that change were made, the only negative effect strength would have is added weight. Granted, you wouldn't be able to see Supieor Strength that easily anymore, but it would allow different strength in different parts.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 07, 2010, 03:07:49 pm
Reminding me of many talks about D&D and why attack rolls and swimming were determined by strength, even though those were "speed" related.
After all, the "speed" of a human is derived from his leg (and rump) muscles. The speed with which a human can swing his arm (or a weapon in it) is determined by his arm (and chest/shoulder/back, depending on the motion) muscles. Force, after all, is mass times acceleration, and if the mass doesn't go up, then more force means more acceleration.
Although it might mean making things more complex, it might actually be nice to have a "Dexterity" score for how long it takes to do things requiring nimble handwork, like most craftswork, and then make movement a matter of lower body strength or fitness.
edit: Oh, and speaking of adding weight... It turns out that weight slowing down creatures is not at all relative to their own size and strength - playing around with oversized (by two factors of magnitude) dwarves has shown me that they start wearing 4 ton pigtail dresses that slow them down to glacial paces, even though it is the exact same equipment, just scaled up to fit the giant dwarf.
Post by: Beardless on August 08, 2010, 03:27:03 am
Oh, and speaking of adding weight... It turns out that weight slowing down creatures is not at all relative to their own size and strength - playing around with oversized (by two factors of magnitude) dwarves has shown me that they start wearing 4 ton pigtail dresses that slow them down to glacial paces, even though it is the exact same equipment, just scaled up to fit the giant dwarf.
I suspect the Square-Cube Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law) might be coming into play here. If I'm reading this right, it works against your giant dwarf in two ways: Your dwarf's strength should actually decrease proportionately while the mass of the dress increases. (Unless the raws just allow you to type in the values for strength and mass yourself, in which case I guess it's just luck that it suggests a real-life phenomenon. Like when a bathtub swirls in the "proper" direction while draining.)
Post by: MrWiggles on August 08, 2010, 03:56:26 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 08, 2010, 09:37:06 am
I suspect the Square-Cube Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law) might be coming into play here. If I'm reading this right, it works against your giant dwarf in two ways: Your dwarf's strength should actually decrease proportionately while the mass of the dress increases. (Unless the raws just allow you to type in the values for strength and mass yourself, in which case I guess it's just luck that it suggests a real-life phenomenon. Like when a bathtub swirls in the "proper" direction while draining.)
If it's Square-Cube Law, it should be having an effect even when characters are naked... which would mean any creature beyond a certain size would be collapsing under their own weight. The giants (and the massive HFS creatures and dragons and the like) aren't weighed down by their own mass nearly as much as they are weighed down by just wearing clothes.
Their bodies weigh something like 200 metric tons, the dress is just 4 tons. The difference between wearing it and not wearing it is essentially ten to twenty times speed. Carrying just one piece of steel armor, weighing around 5-20 tons, is enough to drop speed to some kind of minimum possible value, which I assume correlates to something like SPEED:1,000,000 or 10,000 or something.
edit: amusing sidenote: Making huge dwarves means their weapons have VASTLY inflated prices, even if the amount of metal used to make them has not increased. 7-ton steel axes (100 times normal size) are worth almost 4 million dbs. The 17-ton steel breastplates, however, took the same number of metal bars and is worth the same amount, as are all the giant clothing items. Apparently, a single 15 kg steel bar will make a 4-ton steel helm.
Post by: Untelligent on August 08, 2010, 11:37:58 am
In the thief section of the devlist, there's a few bits about tracking your appearance for bounties and being wanted for your crime(s) and whatnot. If you find someone with a similar enough appearance, would it be possible for the crime(s) to be blamed on that person?
There could be like a similarity score based on each of your appearance factors relative to the other guy, and the higher it is the greater the chance of him being recognized as you, or frameable by you, or similar circumstances.
Ooh, or maybe the adventurer could be blamed for a crime an NPC committed! Hehehe...
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 08, 2010, 02:03:15 pm
Ooh, or maybe the adventurer could be blamed for a crime an NPC committed! Hehehe...Tarem the crossbowman adventurer enters the dwarfen fortress.
Urist shouts to Olon: "It was a Human I asure you he did shot me!"
Olon to urist: "Humans that far from theyr land? With a crossbow?"
Olon and urist take a look to Tarem.
Tarem backs up sowly throught the door.
Post by: Psieye on August 08, 2010, 02:18:15 pm
I'd like to see underground features like rivers, and springs where underground rivers flow into the surface. Huge underground oceans and massive underground rivers. Not every place can have them, but they'd enhance the feeling of underground exploration. When you add in old tombs from lost underground dweller civilizations that sprang up and disintegrated before the beginning of time, you've got some real fun underground activities to do. Dwarf Mode doesn't benefit, but they can certainly be embarked on for flavor. That's what I've thought we were talking about when it came to underground features.Ah, so you meant features interesting for adventure mode but only flavour in Fortress mode. So long as I get some natural water underground so plants grow down there, I don't care whether it's a river, pool or ocean in the caverns. Likewise, I care little in Fortress mode for interesting ruins and mysterious constructions.
Quote
Now we can drive the Humans mad by stealing theyr crops!Steal? You mean BURN WITH MAGMA.
Post by: Eduren on August 08, 2010, 02:45:39 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 08, 2010, 02:48:01 pm
Devblog update people! And this (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/outskirts.png) looks sexy! Thought a little bit to modern but im am not proficient in the history of farming. Anyway Nice job toady! Now we can drive the Humans mad by stealing theyr crops!
Rows like that imply plow furrows. Certainly not beyond ancient technology, much less middle-ages. They look fairly widely spaced, though.
Real middle aged farms, though, had hedgerows. (They were not as thick as they are now, though, farmers kept them trimmed so that they had a little extra farming room.) Although they did have a function stopping soil degredation through wind erosion, they were mainly there to mark off whose land was whose, and prevent roaming grazing animals from walking onto another man's farm, where he could claim it was then his - this was the single largest source of conflict among the farming/ranching classes. Having your crops grazed upon by another man's animals could ruin you financially, and claiming their animal in compensation could ruin them financially. This was, primarily, the purpose of the courts in those days, to settle such disputes.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 08, 2010, 03:06:54 pm
Wikipedia says that the oldest (in Germany) found plow was around 4000 years old. It was a hook-plow. That the rows look wide spaced might be a optical illusion due to the downsizing of the picture. Either that or our longland grass grows pretty huge if its longland grass at all - could be potatoes or something that needs some space. The wheat of the middle-age could reach iirc - depending on variant - heights up to tow meters.
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 08, 2010, 04:08:53 pm
Will the new villages result in greater amounts of farmland required to feed individuals? If so, will there be "farmers caravans" that come to the fortress with food you can buy?
Will we have country bumpkins coming in from offmap needing health care or to buy items at the fortress stores?
Will the villagers sometimes detect raiding parties and warn of them coming?
Which reminds me...I don't think Toughness = fat. Just because fatness can play a role in toughness in how the game is put together doesn't mean it should be tied together.
Are there plans to destroy the physical attributes Strength, Toughness, and Endurence completely? The first two of those have body equivilants (muscle=strength, fat=toughness), and the other is a combination of the calorie system and Willpower. Agility, DR, and Recupration do not have equivalents that are easily programmable without the body shape rewrite, so I'm not worried by those.
If that change were made, the only negative effect strength would have is added weight. Granted, you wouldn't be able to see Supieor Strength that easily anymore, but it would allow different strength in different parts.
My understanding on how toughness works is it reduces how severe an injury is. If that is true, I don't see toughness being tied to fat at all good.
It's like people who can fall down a flight of stairs and have nothing broken versus people who fall down a flight of stairs and end up breaking every bone in their body twice.
Ah, so you meant features interesting for adventure mode but only flavour in Fortress mode. So long as I get some natural water underground so plants grow down there, I don't care whether it's a river, pool or ocean in the caverns. Likewise, I care little in Fortress mode for interesting ruins and mysterious constructions.I'm thinking that if there is rivers, there is a way that water accumulates and flows. Which means there is a equivalent of rain, which to me makes sense.
I view it as the vast majority of the caverns is like the current "dry" caverns, which are still filled with trees and stuff blocking your path. It'd be neat (a dwarf fortress kind of neat) if there were biomes underground so you'd have desert undergrounds you could embark on, with underground but desert creatures, but we'd need some way of telling underground biomes on embark mode.
Bottom line though is as long as things make sense and there is a way to tell the major things that affect everything on embark, I think people will be happy. You don't see many people complaining about not being able to embark on a tropical swamp and a glacier at once, even though it means that people can't fight skeletal tigers reinforcing Skeletal polar bears.
Post by: Untelligent on August 08, 2010, 04:36:23 pm
Starting with 31.01, phantom spiders are no longer venomous. Is this due to an oversight, or because paralysis is almost certain death with the new venom system and you nerfed the spiders until the next significant venom update because you didn't want vermin to be lethal?
Post by: Footkerchief on August 08, 2010, 04:45:03 pm
Something that's been bugging me for a little bit and just popped into my head.
Starting with 31.01, phantom spiders are no longer venomous. Is this due to an oversight, or because paralysis is almost certain death with the new venom system and you nerfed the spiders until the next significant venom update because you didn't want vermin to be lethal?
This has been reported as a bug. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=654) Most likely it's just an oversight in the creature raws, like many of these bugs. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/search.php?tag_string=Probable+Quick+Fix)
Post by: sneakey pete on August 08, 2010, 05:32:21 pm
Will the new villages result in greater amounts of farmland required to feed individuals? If so, will there be "farmers caravans" that come to the fortress with food you can buy?
You'd hope so. As it is, a 10*10 plot can sustain a 200 dwarf fort with ease, the farms in that screenshot alone could probably sustain 2000 people with ease. I wouldn't mind fams for fort mode becoming bigger than what they are now too.
Post by: dree12 on August 08, 2010, 07:07:18 pm
It's still easy to implement. With the replacement, Strength can be different in different parts, and so can toughness. Toughness for breaks can be represented by bone elasticity and density, which we probably already track. Toughness for slashes is the fat.Which reminds me...I don't think Toughness = fat. Just because fatness can play a role in toughness in how the game is put together doesn't mean it should be tied together.
Are there plans to destroy the physical attributes Strength, Toughness, and Endurence completely? The first two of those have body equivilants (muscle=strength, fat=toughness), and the other is a combination of the calorie system and Willpower. Agility, DR, and Recupration do not have equivalents that are easily programmable without the body shape rewrite, so I'm not worried by those.
If that change were made, the only negative effect strength would have is added weight. Granted, you wouldn't be able to see Supieor Strength that easily anymore, but it would allow different strength in different parts.
My understanding on how toughness works is it reduces how severe an injury is. If that is true, I don't see toughness being tied to fat at all good.
It's like people who can fall down a flight of stairs and have nothing broken versus people who fall down a flight of stairs and end up breaking every bone in their body twice.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 08, 2010, 08:33:25 pm
Will the new villages result in greater amounts of farmland required to feed individuals? If so, will there be "farmers caravans" that come to the fortress with food you can buy?
You'd hope so. As it is, a 10*10 plot can sustain a 200 dwarf fort with ease, the farms in that screenshot alone could probably sustain 2000 people with ease. I wouldn't mind fams for fort mode becoming bigger than what they are now too.
Well, it's possible. After all, the initial argument in Improved Farming was not so much the "make it more involved and interesting" but just "make it take more land".
It's been suggested in the Improved Farming thread that we may move to a system where the fortress will have to import much of its food from satellite villages, and therefore protect them in the "Army Mode", although it would also be an "out" so that you wouldn't have to care about farming, even if you could farm for all your food if you really tried, although it would take at least a decent amount of your land and population and plenty of engineering to do so.
Actually, this gets me thinking about how the whole Army Arc 2 will play out - when we are doing things like building sprawl around ourselves, laying down roads, conquering foreign cities, pushing around armies on the map and stuff, I wonder how this will be handled...
All these things happen off-screen, after all. Worldgen events also tend to take place "by the year" rather than by the day, the way that fortress events occur.
Our eventual goal is to have the player's role be the embodiment of positions of power within the fortress, performing actions in their official capacity, to the point that in an ideal world each command you give would be linked to some noble, official or commander.
When I try to picture it, I think of a few of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms games (8, I believe, was one that did this), where you would normally be in control of just your selected historical character, but every few months, there would be a "Council Meeting" where the actions of all the other officers would be determined by the ruler/governor, and you could assign tasks like conscripting or training soldiers or sending them to war to generals, while more beurocratic officials were given jobs improving the farms or the economics of the region. If you were not a ruler, but an officer yourself, you could try to make suggestions that could curry you favor that could translate to promotions, and would wind up with you being assigned a task that would similarly give you favor if you managed to complete it by the time of the next council.
I wonder if something like this would be in DF? Will we have something like a "New Year's Council Meeting" where we can see a review of the previous year's events, including the outside world's happenings in reports from agents that report to the mayor or baron or king (expedition leaders will probably be too low-level to have spies in the field) before we then dispatch captains or ministers or liasons or other agents to enact our bidding (if we are high-rank enough)? Will the dwarves whose actions we are presumably deciding have a system for gaining favor and rising through the ranks, so that advancement from baron on up becomes a matter of some sort of political wrangling? I imagine people will be slower to have their Baron get an Unfortunate Accident when "we are the Baron", and getting the Baron to climb the ranks would give them greater power and authority over the world map. It would also give some of these nobles something to do - meeting with agents and compilating data for the next year's council so that it is more detailed and informative in the same way that we have bookkeepers now, whether it is the baron himself or some agent like a spymaster if you have risen enough to afford one.
Like that, it would be like we suddenly get to sit in the war room, controlling the outside world in broad strokes before going back to the micromanagement of your power base. (Potentially including training up dwarves you can later promote to agents that can be sent into the world map to see your will done.) The contrast appeals to me.
Post by: dree12 on August 08, 2010, 08:39:39 pm
And, I doubt that farming would be changed. The main interaction with those humans is in adventurer mode, 72 times as slow as fort mode and forcing you to eat every day (which humans do). Fort mode farming needs to be "fixed" somehow else (like eating 72 things every eat break, to balence stuff out), so I think that's what Toady's going for eventually.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 08, 2010, 09:10:51 pm
Doesn't worldgen go 64 "ticks" a year? I'm preety sure fortress mode could round to the nearest tick...
And, I doubt that farming would be changed. The main interaction with those humans is in adventurer mode, 72 times as slow as fort mode and forcing you to eat every day (which humans do). Fort mode farming needs to be "fixed" somehow else (like eating 72 things every eat break, to balence stuff out), so I think that's what Toady's going for eventually.
Worldgen can do however many ticks per year it wants, but you don't need to actually calculate everything until the player can see it. After all, no need to suddenly give the game a performance hiccup as the game loads the world data it generally doesn't need for just the fortress and starts running simulations on it at random points throughout the year, just roll it into that already long batch of calculations that get processed at the new year, or at least, at the season change. (You'd have to make the annual save that occurs if you turn it on in the init files take place after the calculations, though, or it could be really weird, where you'd get different results for battles if you have a crash and had to reload on those automatic saves.)
As for the second part, yes, I do hope things go that way... It's been part of several arguments I've had in the Suggestions forum, like Volume and Mass (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61215.0) or Down With Prepared Meals (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60681.msg1371687#msg1371687)...
Basically, if an average, 70kg human can be expected to eat 200 kg of food in a year, and dwarves eat 8 times a year (and Toady has said he doesn't want dwarves taking more breaks than they already do), then a 70 kg dwarf should just eat 25 kg of food per sitting. You just scale it with the size of the creature in question, or basically just downing a little less than 1/3rd their mass in food per sitting. (Especially notable when animals have to be fed - currently, small animals are useless, while huge animals are prized because they give plenty of meat and are stronger combatants. When you feed them 1/3 of their weight per sitting, and elephants weigh 5 metric tons...)
Of course, a system like that works better when you are not using arbitrary unit stacks, but measuring food by its mass.
Post by: monkeyfetus on August 09, 2010, 05:27:54 am
Worldgen can do however many ticks per year it wants, but you don't need to actually calculate everything until the player can see it.That sort of thing could matter as far as when your parent civ declares war, when an enemy army arrives to siege your fort, when you get refugees fleeing to your fortress... If you have events from the world simulation affecting your fortress while you're playing, it may matter when the simulation occurs.
Post by: Psieye on August 09, 2010, 05:41:19 am
I see, yeah you're seeing it entirely from adventurer view yes. To my knowledge, underground plants cannot exist at all in fortress mode unless there's some underground water on your map. Doesn't matter where, but it must exist for caverns to have plants. That doesn't apply in adventurer mode of course. That knowledge may be out of date, I've never deliberately generated caverns iwht 0% and 1% water content to try it out.Ah, so you meant features interesting for adventure mode but only flavour in Fortress mode. So long as I get some natural water underground so plants grow down there, I don't care whether it's a river, pool or ocean in the caverns. Likewise, I care little in Fortress mode for interesting ruins and mysterious constructions.I view it as the vast majority of the caverns is like the current "dry" caverns, which are still filled with trees and stuff blocking your path. It'd be neat (a dwarf fortress kind of neat) if there were biomes underground so you'd have desert undergrounds you could embark on, with underground but desert creatures, but we'd need some way of telling underground biomes on embark mode.
Post by: Spoonfeed on August 09, 2010, 07:56:47 am
I see, yeah you're seeing it entirely from adventurer view yes. To my knowledge, underground plants cannot exist at all in fortress mode unless there's some underground water on your map. Doesn't matter where, but it must exist for caverns to have plants. That doesn't apply in adventurer mode of course. That knowledge may be out of date, I've never deliberately generated caverns iwht 0% and 1% water content to try it out.
I have(on accident), and there is still plenty of foliage down there, no water.
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 09, 2010, 08:34:08 am
It's still easy to implement. With the replacement, Strength can be different in different parts, and so can toughness. Toughness for breaks can be represented by bone elasticity and density, which we probably already track. Toughness for slashes is the fat.Again, I disagree. Some people get cuts easier than others. if anything, large amounts of fat seem to have the opposite effect on skin thickness, and cutting into parts that bleed is easier.
By this thought, we could replace slashing toughness with dirtiness, since the dirt would reinforce the skin.
It also goes into bruising. Someone with high toughness isn't quick to bruise. It seems to me that fatness makes people quicker to bruise than normal.
How do you propose to track this? Arterial wall elasticity and density? I know, we can go ahead and do that, but give it a different name!
Let's see, it'd be "tough" to bruise them, so let's call it "Toughness".
Since we have that attribute, we can tie it to bone density and elasticity as well. And since we got that, let's make skin resistance part of it. That makes it nice and easy.
Post by: Funk on August 09, 2010, 10:26:25 am
on Muscle mass vs agility just rember that muscle cells can increase number or size
Post by: monk12 on August 09, 2010, 12:18:01 pm
Toady with contextual end games or end career I suppose (EG, if you travel from town to town, you're a trader because of your actions.), will be be seeing this with Fortress End goals? As in if we produce a lot of arms and armor, we get to be known for this or produce a lot of brew we become a known brewery? Something other then the generally forced New Capital thing that currently happens.
This would make me so happy, especially if it impacts what caravans request from you. Yeah guys, I've only sold you green glass goblets the first three years, of course I can fill your order for silk socks!
Post by: dree12 on August 09, 2010, 12:25:14 pm
And I disagree. Why have all that tied to a single Toughness when we can have skin thickness? Take your average human, ie.It's still easy to implement. With the replacement, Strength can be different in different parts, and so can toughness. Toughness for breaks can be represented by bone elasticity and density, which we probably already track. Toughness for slashes is the fat.Again, I disagree. Some people get cuts easier than others. if anything, large amounts of fat seem to have the opposite effect on skin thickness, and cutting into parts that bleed is easier.
By this thought, we could replace slashing toughness with dirtiness, since the dirt would reinforce the skin.
It also goes into bruising. Someone with high toughness isn't quick to bruise. It seems to me that fatness makes people quicker to bruise than normal.
How do you propose to track this? Arterial wall elasticity and density? I know, we can go ahead and do that, but give it a different name!
Let's see, it'd be "tough" to bruise them, so let's call it "Toughness".
Since we have that attribute, we can tie it to bone density and elasticity as well. And since we got that, let's make skin resistance part of it. That makes it nice and easy.
Code: [Select]
Head
⇕(Neck)
Left Arm ⇔ UB ⇔ Right Arm
⇕
Left Leg ⇔ LB ⇔ Right Leg
lop off everything but the Head, UB, LB, and left limbs, and give him a toughness of 1200. (s)He is a tough human in the current system. But, since we already track bones in bodyparts (you can see this by butchering), we can expand the notion:Code: [Select]
Head (Skull, density: 900, elasticity: 900)
⇕(Neck)
Left Arm ⇔ UB
(humerous, D:1300, E:1300)
Left Leg ⇔ LB
(femur, D:1200, E:1400)
This might work out to a Toughness of 1200. But, as you can see, our human is much more vulernable near the head areas, and his leg is much more resiliant to blunt hits than slashing hits.That same reasoning can be applied to strength. Endurence is more of Willpower plus calorie system, so that can be replaced too.
Post by: The Architect on August 09, 2010, 12:36:57 pm
Let's say that a dwarven civilization fond of using heavy war axes and broadswords and wearing heavy plate armor is at war with an elven society using light armor and rapiers with bucklers. This would be an interesting feature if it varied from civilization to civilization, and moreover the elves would slaughter the big, strong dwarves if they managed to ambush them in close combat.
Will differences in diet and the wealth/comfort of a society eventually affect the strengths and weaknesses of its occupants?
A few examples:
A hypothetical society went through a period of famine lasting nearly a decade 40 years ago. Many of the current adults were children at the time, and their bodies would have been permanently weakened by nutritional diseases as a result. They could have decreased mobility, would certainly have lesser bone density, etc. Personality traits would also reflect this experience, such as the famed inability to let go of the 1930's Depression mentality many of us have encountered in older members of our own American society.
Some goblin tribes have been engaged in tribal warfare for hundreds of years (think Germanic tribes or Mongols), and have experienced an accelerated period of natural selection. The genes of those who were strong, intelligent, and early to develop and act sexually would have prevailed. Should they unite, they'd be a force to be reckoned.
A militaristic society conquers a sizable empire, and settles down to enjoy itself. After 3 generations or more, the values and strengths of the older generations have been lost. They may still have great technological military strengths (consider the stirrup), but their mental attitudes and behaviors would have deteriorated. They would lack developed physical strength and discipline, mental fortitude developed through important decision making and so on. Should a trying time come along, their luxurious lifestyle would surely make its effects apparent.
Can you give us some way of comparing beasts in our menagerie?
I know you want to avoid immersion-breaking features like "strength of 21, weight 220 stones, fat% 20, agility 15" and so on. But surely dwarves can look at one cow and another, put them through their paces, and get some idea of their comparative physical and mental attributes. The breeding system (which is pretty incredibly cool at first glance when considering its potential and all of the nice features you have built in like generational tracking) is rather useless without this basic ability.
I am sure when you get back around to agriculture you'll eventually address diseases and things like birth defects or genetic defects (hereditary blindness), so I'll forbear to add a fourth question today.
Post by: Cruxador on August 09, 2010, 01:50:10 pm
Will you eventually differentiate cultures' and species' combat styles? Some styles and armaments are especially effective against some other styles and armaments.In the latest DF Talk, he referred to martial arts as things that would be largely entity dependent, so there will certainly be some variation there. How much that effects actual military remains to be seen, of course.
Let's say that a dwarven civilization fond of using heavy war axes and broadswords and wearing heavy plate armor is at war with an elven society using light armor and rapiers with bucklers. This would be an interesting feature if it varied from civilization to civilization, and moreover the elves would slaughter the big, strong dwarves if they managed to ambush them in close combat.
Quote
Can you give us some way of comparing beasts in our menagerie?We already have such descriptive text relating to relative size, fat, and muscle. I don't know what more you need.
I know you want to avoid immersion-breaking features like "strength of 21, weight 220 stones, fat% 20, agility 15" and so on. But surely dwarves can look at one cow and another, put them through their paces, and get some idea of their comparative physical and mental attributes. The breeding system (which is pretty incredibly cool at first glance when considering its potential and all of the nice features you have built in like generational tracking) is rather useless without this basic ability.
Post by: Footkerchief on August 09, 2010, 02:09:54 pm
We already have such descriptive text relating to relative size, fat, and muscle. I don't know what more you need.
They're tucked away inside a large paragraph, which is part of a giant wall of text, which is at least one keypress away from any list of animals. Efficient presentation of data can make or break a game mechanic.
Post by: cephalo on August 09, 2010, 02:41:02 pm
Post by: tps12 on August 09, 2010, 02:46:50 pm
Some goblin tribes have been engaged in tribal warfare for hundreds of years (think Germanic tribes or Mongols), and have experienced an accelerated period of natural selection.Uh...
Post by: Maxxeh on August 09, 2010, 03:26:35 pm
I live in a part of England were it's all countryside, with hills everywhere, and we have very windy roads! The roads are built around fields because they came first! The large bodies of water are always driven around, and any hills are either bypassed, or travelled over.
Especially in such an early age that the DF lore takes place, the amount of bridges would not be normal. People would almost certainly walk around pools and obstacles, unless it was a main city trade road, or the pools were very large. You have to keep in mind, roads started as areas travelled by foot to get to different towns or fields. bridges and roads that cut through/across obstacles would only be used if really needed. (like a bridge over a long canyon, illogical to walk around.)
The way a dwarf creates a path when an area is busy, is the kind of effect that would be more realistic. Bendy roads would add alot of character to the world. The problem is, hills don't have a negative effect on the player, or NPCs. so there is no NEED to have roads that avoid them! perhaps trade carts should have a limit to the amount of rough ground they can traverse, or an increase in thirst and hunger when travelling uphil alot? lol.
Just my 2c, whether relevent, logical, possible, or not! I'm no expert ;)
Post by: Jiri Petru on August 09, 2010, 04:28:31 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
And yeah, the lakes/ponds are weird. Any chance you'll get rid of them, Toady? (except in marshlands, I guess). I suppose they could now easily be replaced by man-made fishponds, under the same system that builds fields, pastures or orchards...
Post by: Untelligent on August 09, 2010, 04:43:35 pm
Post by: MaDeR Levap on August 09, 2010, 05:30:09 pm
And anyway, I noted that he used a few embarks to screenshot it. Well... not anytime soon, but I feel someone should expand arena mode. Hint hint.
Post by: Sizik on August 09, 2010, 06:19:59 pm
Wait, do you mean actually removing the ponds from the game in non-marshlands? That's just silly, then we wouldn't have aboveground water sources in places without rivers.
Who needs water when you have booze?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 09, 2010, 06:29:06 pm
Wait, do you mean actually removing the ponds from the game in non-marshlands? That's just silly, then we wouldn't have aboveground water sources in places without rivers.
Well toady could make that ponds a bit larger but therefore more sparse. The ponds might also be good for keeping birds like ducks and goose's. Ponds that are smaller then a average room are silly in my opinion. They wouldnt have enough depth nor would they withstand a hot summerday. And yes i would also like to see if the roads circumvent the most ponds. Smallish forests etc. too.
Also what about citys near bigger lakes and rivers? Will they get channels and screw-pumps for watering the fields or for drainage of swamps and marshes for farmland? Little one-tile boats for fishing? Aqueducts for dwarves?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 09, 2010, 06:44:20 pm
Wait, do you mean actually removing the ponds from the game in non-marshlands? That's just silly, then we wouldn't have aboveground water sources in places without rivers.
Who needs water when you have booze?
Well, when you need crops to make booze, and Toady eventually puts in Improved Farming, so crops need to be watered...
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 09, 2010, 06:52:46 pm
Post by: cakeonslaught on August 10, 2010, 12:24:46 am
Post by: LASD on August 10, 2010, 03:44:32 am
Big permanent change is always fun.
Post by: Neonivek on August 10, 2010, 05:04:56 am
I have to say, the number of ponds is quite nonsensical. They should be larger and far less frequent. In my opinion, it wouldn't be problematic in terms of lack of water - because nobody would choose to embark in an area without water unless they wanted to see how long it takes for dwarves to die of thirst.
Dwarf Fortress is a world where every puddle has the birthright to become a pond.
So as you can imagine there is a lot of taken up space.
Post by: Jiri Petru on August 10, 2010, 05:23:17 am
Wait, do you mean actually removing the ponds from the game in non-marshlands? That's just silly, then we wouldn't have aboveground water sources in places without rivers.
Well... last time I hiked the landscape, there really weren't ponds every fifty or so meters. And in the rare occasion where there was a pond, it was man-made ::)
If you are concerned about water, I guess making brooks more frequent (and perhaps creating even smaller brooks than we have now) would be much better. The ponds simply look ridiculous.
Post by: Arihim on August 10, 2010, 05:47:17 am
Also I really like the asymmetry in how farm plots are layed out, very pleasing to the eyes.
Anyone know the details about what kind of structure toady will put in? Will there be barn houses,mills, and stables and such?
Also, will villagers actually harvest the crops, store them, then eat them ? In general, will villagers have needs (like food and drink) and a schedule by which they live? I think this would enable you to put in mills and barns and wheat silos and stuff while giving them real purpose. We could cause all kinds of mischief then, like sabotaging their food production lines. This would then have real consequences.
Edit: more ideas.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 10, 2010, 06:24:52 am
also, bread?(please :()
Post by: li on August 10, 2010, 07:24:00 am
Many of the villages I've been reading about have their buildings centralized, but there are examples of villages with homesteads spread out as well.
I live in an area between Bresse plain, the soil being roughly speaking clay, and Jura mountain, the soil being limestone. I learned in school that the villages of Bresse and Jura have very different shapes, because of the capacity of the soil to retain water. Limestone being unable to retain water, the Jura villages are very tight and dense around the scarce watering places, while the Bresse villages have homesteads scattered in a very large area because you can find ponds anywhere.
Did you consider using that kind of rule for the villages morphology? That could be simple, by just relying on the soil type, or even be based on the actual water layout, with this layout depending on the soil type, although that would probably be more complex to implement.
That's also kind of related with all the previous posts about the ponds, many ponds anywhere make sense on a clay soil but not on limestone.
It's another topic, but I think that the biggest problem of ponds is their inability to refill from rain water, as far as I know... (I mean in game, not IRL)
Post by: Krash on August 10, 2010, 08:47:54 am
snip
This might work out to a Toughness of 1200. But, as you can see, our human is much more vulernable near the head areas, and his leg is much more resiliant to blunt hits than slashing hits.
That same reasoning can be applied to strength. Endurence is more of Willpower plus calorie system, so that can be replaced too.
Seriously? I'm all for complexity in DF, but I don't think I've ever seen such an unnecessarily complicated system. RPG stats aren't there to recreate reality, just to simulate it
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 10, 2010, 08:50:14 am
About the ponds: probably just a marshy area. If this is the normal then that's not very realistic I think.
I get murky pools in scortching deserts, that can't contain water for more than a couple minutes before going dry, and they're STILL about 4 of them on a 4x4 desert embark. How do those things even exist before your dwarves get there? They evaporate faster than rain can fill them.
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 10, 2010, 08:56:06 am
And I disagree. Why have all that tied to a single Toughness when we can have skin thickness? Take your average human, ie.And yet Toughness ≠ fatness, nor is it an arbitrary number that is the same for any human.Code: [Select]Headlop off everything but the Head, UB, LB, and left limbs, and give him a toughness of 1200. (s)He is a tough human in the current system. But, since we already track bones in bodyparts (you can see this by butchering), we can expand the notion:
⇕(Neck)
Left Arm ⇔ UB ⇔ Right Arm
⇕
Left Leg ⇔ LB ⇔ Right LegCode: [Select]Head (Skull, density: 900, elasticity: 900)This might work out to a Toughness of 1200. But, as you can see, our human is much more vulernable near the head areas, and his leg is much more resiliant to blunt hits than slashing hits.
⇕(Neck)
Left Arm ⇔ UB
(humerous, D:1300, E:1300)
Left Leg ⇔ LB
(femur, D:1200, E:1400)
That same reasoning can be applied to strength. Endurence is more of Willpower plus calorie system, so that can be replaced too.
Also, Endurance is more than willpower plus calories. Calories are an expression of energy available to the body, not energy usable by the body. Endurance is more of efficiency of energy used and availability of that energy. Two people with the same amount of willpower and the same amount of calorie intake can have quite different endurance amounts. This is easily seen when you compare Olympic sprinters versus Olympic marathon runners. One trains up speed, the other endurance. Do you wish to claim sprinters have less willpower than marathon runners? Or that sprinters don't eat enough?
You argue for "simplifying" the system while making it more complex. Remove aspects because you feel that something tied to appearance can represent something that you cannot even tell in human appearance. I don't understand why, except because it can be. Is there really any great benefit to removing the arbitrary numbers that can be assigned to creatures in dwarf fortress that represent abstract concepts like toughness, willpower, stamina, and strength?
(Muscle mass is not directly equal to usable strength in humans as well, but at least there it is close enough that I could let it slide.)
Bottom line, justify why it is needed. Just to "reduce the variables" isn't a good reason, because we don't have a true to life simulator that can simulate the pressure in the veins so only the exact amount of blood comes out. We also don't simulate the lungs oxygenating the blood which is then pumped via the heart to pass oxygen to all the important body parts. There are MILLIONS of variables for every bit of tissue in your own body, so why reduce the variables that represent this to create a sum whole with tissue interactions that are based on appearance modifiers, when the appearance of a body changes due to those hidden variables in the first place?
It seems odd to me, and I don't understand why it should be done your way rather than how Toady is currently progressing with it. Again but with less math and more justification.
So you have a society that has been naturally selected to be stronger and more fit than normal. Then because they conquered everyone they become decadent and more easily overcome. I guess the genes weren't that strong and/or there was too much crossbreeding with their conquered civilizations.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Something to note... Rome didn't collapse because it's people lost the warrior way. Quite the opposite, actually. They became more factionalized and aggressive, and lost the non-warrior ways that allowed their empire to stay together. This mostly occurred because someone gave them a new idea for rulership that gave advantages to those who spent more effort on fighting ability rather than engineering and consolidation. It was this factionalization that caused the decline in technology, since you didn't have as many people learning it. No need to train someone to use something that would only be of use if there was cooperation.
i also believe that brooks having 7/7 water is a bit absurdYes. Brooks should have 3/7 water. You can swim in them, but not drown. Maybe some smaller like 2/7.
There should be runoff seasonal gullies too. Basically brooks that are dry for parts of the year. And a smaller version of a brook: There are a few always-flowing bits of water near where I live, things that could be stepped over and don't even cover your shoe in water, but are flowing year-round.
Post by: Chthonic on August 10, 2010, 09:18:46 am
Wait, do you mean actually removing the ponds from the game in non-marshlands? That's just silly, then we wouldn't have aboveground water sources in places without rivers.
Could be solved easily enough if we could build cisterns that collect rainwater the way that murky pools do.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 10, 2010, 09:31:33 am
Wait, do you mean actually removing the ponds from the game in non-marshlands? That's just silly, then we wouldn't have aboveground water sources in places without rivers.
Could be solved easily enough if we could build cisterns that collect rainwater the way that murky pools do.
Or that rainbarrels idea that's been around for a while...
Post by: Quatch on August 10, 2010, 10:34:47 am
About the ponds: probably just a marshy area. If this is the normal then that's not very realistic I think.
I get murky pools in scortching deserts, that can't contain water for more than a couple minutes before going dry, and they're STILL about 4 of them on a 4x4 desert embark. How do those things even exist before your dwarves get there? They evaporate faster than rain can fill them.
Well, dried ponds and riverbeds shouldn't be nonexistant in deserts, actually pretty common. We could re-name them appropriately though, with murky pools [dry lakes] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_lake) becoming playa, sabkha, alkali flats (what would _you_ do with an easy source of nitrates and lithium?); dry rivers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi) being wadi, etc.
Ephemeral rains, flash floods, canyons, there is lots of room for water features in the desert.
Although I do agree: in non-marshy lands pools should be larger and less frequent. DF soils are basically all infinite drainage on the surface and aquitards below the surface.
Seeps and artesian wells moving through permeable strata for the win.
[note: this post added about 4 new words to the autocorrect dictionary. Another use for DF found.]
Could be solved easily enough if we could build cisterns that collect rainwater the way that murky pools do.All constructed flooring should be impermeable and collect water. Then we'd have to consider drainage in above ground forts, and a working surface storm sewer would be the logical outcome. If you had permeable and tracked soil water flows, subsurface storm sewers for de-watering would also be useful.
Post by: dree12 on August 10, 2010, 01:11:25 pm
I think I have justified it enough. DF keeps track (or will keep track) of enough information to "simulate" Strength (mainly mustle), Toughness (a combination of many thing like skin material, blood pressure, blood thickness, bone density+elasticity), and Endurence (efficiency, Willpower, metabolism, calories), because put simply, those do not depend on knowing the shape of the body. We could add 50 different other factors to those, but produce an argument that any of those need knowing body shape. You could say that Toughness also includes blood salinity, but soon, we'd be tracking that.That same reasoning can be applied to strength. Endurence is more of Willpower plus calorie system, so that can be replaced too.And yet Toughness ≠ fatness, nor is it an arbitrary number that is the same for any human.
Also, Endurance is more than willpower plus calories. Calories are an expression of energy available to the body, not energy usable by the body. Endurance is more of efficiency of energy used and availability of that energy. Two people with the same amount of willpower and the same amount of calorie intake can have quite different endurance amounts. This is easily seen when you compare Olympic sprinters versus Olympic marathon runners. One trains up speed, the other endurance. Do you wish to claim sprinters have less willpower than marathon runners? Or that sprinters don't eat enough?
You argue for "simplifying" the system while making it more complex. Remove aspects because you feel that something tied to appearance can represent something that you cannot even tell in human appearance. I don't understand why, except because it can be. Is there really any great benefit to removing the arbitrary numbers that can be assigned to creatures in dwarf fortress that represent abstract concepts like toughness, willpower, stamina, and strength?
(Muscle mass is not directly equal to usable strength in humans as well, but at least there it is close enough that I could let it slide.)
Bottom line, justify why it is needed. Just to "reduce the variables" isn't a good reason, because we don't have a true to life simulator that can simulate the pressure in the veins so only the exact amount of blood comes out. We also don't simulate the lungs oxygenating the blood which is then pumped via the heart to pass oxygen to all the important body parts. There are MILLIONS of variables for every bit of tissue in your own body, so why reduce the variables that represent this to create a sum whole with tissue interactions that are based on appearance modifiers, when the appearance of a body changes due to those hidden variables in the first place?
It seems odd to me, and I don't understand why it should be done your way rather than how Toady is currently progressing with it. Again but with less math and more justification.
Post by: Jiri Petru on August 10, 2010, 01:51:40 pm
Yes. Brooks should have 3/7 water. You can swim in them, but not drown. Maybe some smaller like 2/7.Such an amazing and simple idea! This would also mean you wouldn't need to have the counterintuitive "floor on top of 7/7 water" system. People would simply cross the water. The only new thing required would be sloped river/brook banks.
Quote from: Arihim
Also, will villagers actually harvest the crops, store them, then eat them ? In general, will villagers have needs (like food and drink) and a schedule by which they live? I think this would enable you to put in mills and barns and wheat silos and stuff while giving them real purpose. We could cause all kinds of mischief then, like sabotaging their food production lines. This would then have real consequences.
I imagine Toady wants to put the functional minimum in now and perfect it later. Which leads me to speculate all the fields and crops will be automated, won't require any labour (ie. if you embark on top of them you won't see people hauling clops the same way your dwarves do) and won't actually feed anyone. (except in world-gen). I expect nothing about the game except the visuals (and population numbers, obviously) will change for now.
---
As for the villages and landscapes: it seems Toady is implementing the medieval English manor system, judging by the looks of the villages. I guess this will have to do for now, and can be expanded someday in the future. There are of course dozens of different medieval village types and landscapes... mostly tied to the "biome". There's a huge potential in it, and unlike many other DF subsystems, this part of the fame would actually be visible and would immediately improve the feel and looks of the game. Oh boy... I'm dribbling again...
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 10, 2010, 02:10:55 pm
I think I have justified it enough. DF keeps track (or will keep track) of enough information to "simulate" Strength (mainly mustle), Toughness (a combination of many thing like skin material, blood pressure, blood thickness, bone density+elasticity), and Endurence (efficiency, Willpower, metabolism, calories), because put simply, those do not depend on knowing the shape of the body. We could add 50 different other factors to those, but produce an argument that any of those need knowing body shape. You could say that Toughness also includes blood salinity, but soon, we'd be tracking that.I disagree still. You are advocating the removal of the abstracted "strength" value (among others) on the basis that you can bring it from hundreds of other variables that are tracked.(for who knows what purpose, since it increases calculation time, but for the purposes of this argument, we are ignoring that, since we cannot be sure exactly how much)
Human strength, since that is what we have chosen to focus on primarilly, is a very complex little pickle. First you have to agree how you are to measure strength, since there are many different ways it could be measured. We'll measure strength with two swordsguys. We have one real bulky swordsguy with muscles on muscles. Next to him we have a fit guy who just has muscles. Let's take a look at their structure and see who is stronger...
First, a little class on how arms move...
A human arm is constructed in billions of variations. They all have some pretty solid basic principles behind them, but these aren't manufactured objects created in a plant with very tiny tolerances. Tendons are attached at different points in these arms and arranged in different ways. Like I said, Millions of variations.
Paying attention? School isn't out yet.
A muscle is basically a cell that can lengthen, shorten, or remain the same size. This is how all locomotion in a human body is done. Your brain fires chemical signals to these organs to make them grow or shrink. This shrinking and growing of the length of the cells causes your bones to move, since the bones are connected to the tendons which are connected to the muscles. Now when the muscles tighten, they are attempting to bring their tendons closer together with tension. This might cause an arm to flex, or straiten out. It might move weight into the air, or open the hand to let go of something. Usually several different muscle groups are working together to do each action.
Ready? Here it comes...
When a tendon is connected to the bone half a micron higher than in another person, you are changing the physics required for the muscle to operate. Some operations will require more work for one individual than another. With half a micron, you are talking about a very tiny amount of effect. Something that could be lost in rounding errors, though if you were precise enough you'd see a difference. Let's toss a monkey wrench into things though, and let's say that one muscle is now on a object that is two entire inches longer than another.
You are now not talking about an amount that is infinitesimal, but about something that is a great deal different. Now let's put one tendon twisted about 1/32nd of an inch along the arm. Now you have a situation where you cannot even compare muscle mass in a scientific way, because you have two entirely different systems of doing something.
This is what human strength is, and why you cannot really "measure" it. Give one guy 2 inch longer arms and twist the connection points of one set of tendons, and now they have two different capabilities in using their arms. One is much stronger than the other one in certain actions than the other.
One might have the perfect body build to be a swordsman, while the other has massive inefficiencies for it. for the same result, one would have to spend a lot more effort, but that one that isn't built for swordsmanship might be perfectly built for axeplay, and they'd reverse their build if they were both axemen.
So, in our above example, they have equal strength, even though one is much bulkier than the other.
Tracking muscle may give an IDEA of strength, but it should remain a derivative of the strength attribute, and not the cause of the strength attribute, because we cannot track the connective location and efficiency of every tendon in the body.
If I'm wrong please correct me, but I don't think I am.
Something like this exists for every single attribute you think should be replaced with something else. RPGs abstract a lot, because there really isn't any other way of doing it.
Post by: Xenxe on August 10, 2010, 03:06:52 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 10, 2010, 05:03:01 pm
Judging by the shear amount of farmland for those villages posted in the screenshots does this imply any farming changes like making things take longer to grow?
pertinent point, lime green that
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 10, 2010, 05:27:15 pm
Compared to, say, 5x5 is all that's necessary for a whole fort, where we get roughly 1 tile is necessary for every 4 dwarves, or even 8 dwarves if you really stretch it. (Although this is based largely on abusing quarry bush leaves and/or boozecooking.)
So we're comparing 25 tiles to let's say, rough guess here, 6,000 tiles in one village of about 50 people. Of course, some of that food goes off to the cities, but historically, this was largely subsistance agriculture, even if that was mostly because of being forced to work only semi-arable land.
Growing times that may, at their worst, be 5 times longer don't cover a gap of 240 times the size...
Even if half that field was fallow, there's still a gap of 60 times as much land per person fed.
I'm guessing either fields are going to produce less, or dwarves are going to eat more. And by "more", I mean "more at a time", because Toady doesn't want more eating breaks. And that meadow might mean that animals will soon start needing to eat, too, so you can't rely on livestock to be an easy meal ticket, either.
Post by: Neonivek on August 10, 2010, 05:31:34 pm
Not only do areas outside the fortress have to deal with real time but they also have to deal with much larger populations then a fortress ever dreamed of.
A Fortress has 100-200 dwarves max in most cases.
Cities in Dwarf Fortress once the changes have been made are dealing with thousands.
I highly doubt there is going to be as dramatic of a change over the output of farms inside a fortress... At least to the extent that I do not believe we will need extensive farming plots that cover over half our fortress space. (Though that would make sieges deadly if Fortresses relied on the surrounding towns for food)
Post by: Jiri Petru on August 10, 2010, 05:43:00 pm
...wait...
...farming improvements ARE a part of the new development list, right? So perhaps some will indeed slip in the upcoming release.
Anyway... we know a village from that screenshot has 100 people while its production can feed 150 people. If you want to calculate something, use these numbers ;)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 10, 2010, 06:38:21 pm
I think you may be reading a bit too far into this.
Not only do areas outside the fortress have to deal with real time but they also have to deal with much larger populations then a fortress ever dreamed of.
A Fortress has 100-200 dwarves max in most cases.
Cities in Dwarf Fortress once the changes have been made are dealing with thousands.
I highly doubt there is going to be as dramatic of a change over the output of farms inside a fortress... At least to the extent that I do not believe we will need extensive farming plots that cover over half our fortress space. (Though that would make sieges deadly if Fortresses relied on the surrounding towns for food)
I think that forcing players to either put up a very large amount of space and effort for their food or forcing them to rely upon their sattelite villages is pretty much what is going to come... I mean, why else would we care about having to protect villages of dwarves in the surrounding land if we didn't need any of the crops they produce?
Don't forget the farms might not even be functional, ie. I doubt they'll actually produce food as a resource to be consumed. And even if they did, Fortress Mode has its own rules. I'm not saying I wouldn't like farming changes (I would) but these are probably coming in later...
...wait...
...farming improvements ARE a part of the new development list, right? So perhaps some will indeed slip in the upcoming release.
Anyway... we know a village from that screenshot has 100 people while its production can feed 150 people. If you want to calculate something, use these numbers ;)
Yes, Farming Improvements has been my pet suggestion thread much of the time lately, I've basically put in an additional 6 pages onto the topic, and have been trying to work out the best way to use the NPK+pH system Toady seems to be leaning towards.
Anyway, if we do go by 6,000 tiles for 150 people, we're still talking about 40 tiles per one person in the village. Of course, if they are exporting food to support a city population, we have to know if the city does not produce any of its own food, how many people are in the city, and how many villages it takes to support a city to get a hard number.
I think that real-life medieval peasants wound up eating about 90% of the food they grew on their own farms, thanks in large part to the fact that they were really stretching their land to its limits.
Still, let's be a little generous, and say that it feeds 200 people, or 50 people more than the town itself holds because it exports a quarter of its food (and none get stolen or lost). Then we're still talking about 30 tiles of farmland per person, as opposed to the current 1 tiles per every 4 dwarves. That's still a huge leap in productivity, unless proper farm management makes a really huge different in terms of outputs (nameless farmers who spend their entire lives farming are always novices, and only get stacks of 1 crop?). So even with crops taking 2 to 5 times as long to grow, and having to let fields fallow every other year, we're still talking a pretty huge leap in land designated for agriculture.
Post by: Skid on August 10, 2010, 07:36:46 pm
Post by: dree12 on August 10, 2010, 08:21:57 pm
Disagreeing again. Your argument states that the human arm can be constructed in millions of ways, which is correct. However, unless an arm is defected, it can be assumed that any arm with higher mustle mass is going to be "stronger" than the other compared arm. In this case, a tendon slightly off isn't going to affect the arm so much it gets a ±10 to the strength measured in attribute units. A tendon off enough will produce a "functionality slightly impared" with the appropriate strength penalties. The same argument applies to toughness as well, just more complex. Endurence, is, as I said, trivial to implement with what we already have (efficiancy, metabolism, the calorie system, Willpower).I think I have justified it enough. DF keeps track (or will keep track) of enough information to "simulate" Strength (mainly mustle), Toughness (a combination of many thing like skin material, blood pressure, blood thickness, bone density+elasticity), and Endurence (efficiency, Willpower, metabolism, calories), because put simply, those do not depend on knowing the shape of the body. We could add 50 different other factors to those, but produce an argument that any of those need knowing body shape. You could say that Toughness also includes blood salinity, but soon, we'd be tracking that.I disagree still. You are advocating the removal of the abstracted "strength" value (among others) on the basis that you can bring it from hundreds of other variables that are tracked.(for who knows what purpose, since it increases calculation time, but for the purposes of this argument, we are ignoring that, since we cannot be sure exactly how much)
Something like this exists for every single attribute you think should be replaced with something else. RPGs abstract a lot, because there really isn't any other way of doing it.
The arm shape does not really matter much when it comes to lifting stuff. DF abstracts bodies to be a bunch of interconnected circles, but a circlular arm with the same mustle is going to lift the same weight, apply the same force, etc, as a rectangular arm. With Toughness, the situation is complicated slightly, but with a better idea of tissues introduced in this version, the body shape is again negliable.
And, conclusively, yes, RPGs do abstract a lot. But that doesn't mean you can't use what's already tracked to unabstract things.
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 10, 2010, 09:33:37 pm
---While I can argue with you all day, it won't be very productive until you get a much broader base of knowledge than you have. I suggest you begin with some basic physics knowledge, then maybe a little anatomy.
As for the farming debate,
I don't know, I mean a 10x10 plot (100 squares) feeds 200 with decent growers. If you got the seeds, 20x20 (400 squares) easily feeds 200 without much skilled workers at all, and 48x48 (2304 squares) all farmed might provide more food than a fortress with 200 dwarves could use in 5 years. (I'd go so far as to say 10)
So, in theory, 1 little regional map square could feed 2000 dwarves.
These are going to have to be some VERY big cities to take into account this food surplus, or else farming is going to have to change significantly. I think what would be best would be if farms are worked like workshops, and it shows planted area based on seeds planted taking up the space it would theoretically take to plant enough for every day of food for 1 unit of food harvest. (I think dwarves eat 4 times a year, so some 80 tiles per planted seed (basically a 8x10 plot)
This makes the massive farms make sense.
Maybe not 80 tiles extreme, maybe half that, but you get the idea.
Post by: tfaal on August 10, 2010, 11:48:22 pm
Will historical events be able to affect a subset of a population? For instance, a megabeast attack that kills one tenth of a village's residents. Would this affect the individual histories of population members we meet?
Will portions of a population be able to emigrate to another site? Ideally this would towns with immigrants, whose history could be traced back to another location via an immigration wave event.
Finally, will the family members of people we meet have histories themselves, including the possibility of their death?
I'll be honest with you here, I'm mostly just hoping to find a farmboy orphaned and displaced by a dragon attack and bring him along on my quest to kill the foul creature.
EDIT: Oh, and about the villages, are they really supposed to be as close together as they are here (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/villages.png)? It seems rather... claustrophobic.
Post by: Cruxador on August 11, 2010, 12:42:15 am
EDIT: Oh, and about the villages, are they really supposed to be as close together as they are here (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/villages.png)? It seems rather... claustrophobic.The area that most folks would consider a village occupies only those small areas like the one labeled "structures" and parallel such zones. If you keep that scale in mind, they're not really overly close.
Post by: Neonivek on August 11, 2010, 12:55:23 am
Quote
I think that forcing players to either put up a very large amount of space and effort for their food or forcing them to rely upon their sattelite villages is pretty much what is going to come... I mean, why else would we care about having to protect villages of dwarves in the surrounding land if we didn't need any of the crops they produce?
I agree, I just don't think that is happening or at least I don't think that is a conclusion we can come up on with what little info we got so far.
Also another reason to protect surrouding land could be numberous outside of just food production. I look for the days of pre-emptive strikes.
Post by: Kilo24 on August 11, 2010, 01:43:06 am
I think that forcing players to either put up a very large amount of space and effort for their food or forcing them to rely upon their sattelite villages is pretty much what is going to come... I mean, why else would we care about having to protect villages of dwarves in the surrounding land if we didn't need any of the crops they produce?There's drafting villagers for armies to send abroad, defending them to keep the reputation of the fortress intact, and also not letting your civilization be nearly wiped out.
I still am worried about making an elaborate farming system a necessity for new players to learn (and for more experienced players to set up for every fort.) Systems like that make it so I can't help but imagine that most of the failed fortresses littering the ideal world Toady has in his slogan of "Losing is fun" won't be from goblin invasions or dwarven revolutions, but rather because "Mayor Urist couldn't figure out how to farm, so everyone starved" or "a single troll killed everyone because the leader couldn't figure out how to build a military." I know most such systems can be disabled in the .ini or raws, but new players shouldn't be expected to do that.
I guess that leads to a few questions for Toady:
How important will farming be, both for a NPC settlement and for a fortress? Will it be a flat-out necessity for large cities/fortresses, or can hunting and/or fishing in a reasonably wildlife-heavy place be sufficient?
Will trading be able to wholly replace a dwarven fortress food industry at home?
How difficult do you want farming (and feeding a fortress in general) to be, both for an experienced player trying to get everything working and for a new player learning the ropes?
Post by: Athmos on August 11, 2010, 04:03:06 am
Post by: Tormy on August 11, 2010, 05:48:19 am
Actually, way back in 2D time, getting enough food to pass your first winter and start your fortress proper was the first challenge a newcomer had to overcome. I think it would actually be cool to have to work and think a bit about basic subsistence again.
I absolutely agree. Farming & getting food is way too easy now. :-\
[[Note: While we are at it [I am talking about the 2D version]....Am I the only one who liked the old cave-in system? :P]]
So 2 quick questions:
Any plans to make farming more difficult?
Any plans to bring back the old cave-in system? It wasn't perfect [2D version], but it was somewhat realistic at least.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 11, 2010, 06:39:53 am
Post by: Tormy on August 11, 2010, 08:05:35 am
it was simple when there were only one level, but with several z leves it no longer makes sense and couldn't be implemented as simply
Well yeah, that is true....but something should be done about it later on, because the current "system" [errr...actually we don't have any] is absolutely unrealistic.
Post by: tps12 on August 11, 2010, 09:00:35 am
Post by: Quatch on August 11, 2010, 09:17:13 am
More discussion is welcome!
Post by: tfaal on August 11, 2010, 12:59:50 pm
I think my main issue was that I was missing the scale of the whole location; I was assuming the bridges and roads to be around three tiles wide, when in fact they are considerably larger. I'm still not sure I completely understand the size of it. It would be nice to have a high resolution version of that image, so we could see the individual tiles.EDIT: Oh, and about the villages, are they really supposed to be as close together as they are here (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/villages.png)? It seems rather... claustrophobic.The area that most folks would consider a village occupies only those small areas like the one labeled "structures" and parallel such zones. If you keep that scale in mind, they're not really overly close.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 11, 2010, 05:02:27 pm
I still am worried about making an elaborate farming system a necessity for new players to learn (and for more experienced players to set up for every fort.) Systems like that make it so I can't help but imagine that most of the failed fortresses littering the ideal world Toady has in his slogan of "Losing is fun" won't be from goblin invasions or dwarven revolutions, but rather because "Mayor Urist couldn't figure out how to farm, so everyone starved" or "a single troll killed everyone because the leader couldn't figure out how to build a military." I know most such systems can be disabled in the .ini or raws, but new players shouldn't be expected to do that.
People keep saying this as if it's a bad thing. Here, I keep hearing people say how much they enjoy playing this game because it's "hard", but when one of the most absurdly easy things in the game finally looks like it might be updated, everyone's going all Helen Lovejoy, and yelling "Oh! Won't SOMEBODY think of the newbies?!" Why can't the people who enjoy having to design a complex infrastructure have it? This game isn't even nearly as hard as the Sierra Citybuilder games right now, it's just that it's less forgiving of mistakes when you DO screw up, anyway. And frankly, whenever people are asked about why they enjoy DF, it's because of its realism and complexity... so why do people keep getting so gunshy whenever the complexity might actually be improved?
Honestly, I'd like to see the game force you to scramble to feed your people, but if we get a system where it's possible for dwarves who honestly wouldn't know silt from sand, then you can just bring fisherdwarves and herbalists and plenty of food stocks and hope you can just trade your way to all your food needs, then that's perfectly fine, and it ensures that there's no real reason other than utter negligence for a player to starve.
And if this means that many players lose a fortress before they can figure out how to adequately prepare to feed their people, so be it. They'll learn from their mistakes, and be better players for it. It's the ability to overcome a challenge that defines a game, after all.
Post by: DalGren on August 11, 2010, 06:14:06 pm
If it's balanced towards how complex you want it, then I welcome it with open arms. If it's more complex, I want to be able to obtain big "rewards" for taking care of it, or just be allowed to sort of half-ass if I want (at the risk of happiness drops or non-optimal food yields, but enough to keep Urist from starving).
A proper interface should be proposed as well as the mechanics change. If we all think about it beforehand, it might get implemented in the optimal way (and using less of Toady's valuable neurons), making the complexity easy to use (note "to use", as in interfacing with it) so it doesn't feel like homework, would make it welcomed by many possible detractors.
I am personally looking forward for fruit trees and stuff like that. I find the problem with farming is to have almost cloned crops that do mostly the same things saving for name. Give me a system that allows great things and I'll be farming to the point of obsession. Fruits, berries, legumes, with varying market values, functions, and possibilities...something worth the potential effort (as in more than "the required effort") will make farming a solid metagame. 100 identical I-can-use-any-of-them-in-the-same-context crops are a no-no. And I damn love that idea of the gem-bearing crops.
Suddenly thinking of crop functions...it can be interesting to allow certain vegetal lifeforms to be grown as a crop. From small vegetal-based creatures to "tree people"... Weaponized farming? Maybe some sort of crop that can be used as actual weapon or in the weapon industry...or poisonous crops that can be used to mass-coat weapons in poison. Giving farming more roles than food and textile industry can make it a really useful thing to spend time into.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 11, 2010, 06:37:43 pm
I think there should exist a relatively hassle-free way to set a farm, even if less yield/worse crops/etc, and allow the complex stuff for good crops or special ones. That way you get the best of both worlds, from say...potatoes (random example, it might not be appropriate) being almost as easy to set as the current farming (emphasis on "almost"), and more nutritious/better yield ones requiring to put some work, and awesome special ones (like those gem yielding crops you mentioned in this or other thread) requiring even more care and preparation.
Problem with that is... what's "Better", exactly?
Look at what we have right now... You have two crops, sweet pods and quarry bushes, that produce five times as much food as any other crop. Yes, maybe there's something out there like sun berries that have more value in booze form, but if most people are just going to grow food to make their fortress not starve, then you want sweet pods and quarry bushes plus some plump helmets during the winter that you can brew for booze. Maybe you'll dabble a little with other crops - why not, it's basically just as easy to farm 10x10 tiles as it is to farm 5x10 tiles. Get a little diversity in the booze. But you don't need aboveground crops at all, most of which are utterly inferior in every way to other crops, including almost every underground crop. (Why grow prickle berries when strawberries are exactly the same, except where it's better, and why grow strawberries when you could be growing sweet pods, which are significantly more valuable and produce 5 times the food?)
So, then, if we make some crop that is so easy to grow that you can grow it continuously without having to care about upkeep... why would you ever bother learning the system?
It's not an advantage to spend all this time making a system just to shove it in the background and never let anyone enjoy it. It needs to be as much a part of the game as the fluid system or the military system is.
Post by: MaDeR Levap on August 11, 2010, 06:43:35 pm
In other words, these gigantic farms will be for show only and currently nothing will change for dwarves in fortress mode farm-wise.
Post by: Jiri Petru on August 11, 2010, 07:09:30 pm
- First, there is a difficulty where the player understands the game, knows what he is supposed to do, yet it's hard to accomplish the goals. This is the difficulty we want.
- Second, there is a difficulty where the player loses because he can't bloody understand the game and doesn't know what the hell is he supposed to do. This is the difficulty we don't want. Yet, this is the difficulty Dwarf Fortress now seems to be leaning towards. The game is actually ridiculously easy once you figure out the System. Figuring the system is the hard part. Exactly the opposite of what it should be!
The same goes for farming. Farming should be extremely easy to figure out! The difficulty should stem from extraordinary circumstances such as sieges, floods or grasshoppers. The player should always know what to do in terms of controls! Choosing the proper response, that's the challenge. Not knowing about the possibility of response isn't a challenge, it's bad design!!!
EDIT: Oh, and about the villages, are they really supposed to be as close together as they are here (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/villages.png)? It seems rather... claustrophobic.
You are an American, right?
No offense meant. It's just here in Europe we have villages every two kilometers or so. In medieval, there used to be much more of them! Heck, when I biked through the whole of Poland last year, I've noticed there was a farm every 100 meters or so! We biked through ~600 kilometers of land and each night it was very, very difficult to find a spot that could not be seen from a nearby house.
Medieval landscape was extreme. The inhabited parts had a very high population density – no forests, only houses and farms. The wilderness was very virgin and untamed. Much unlike today.
Post by: Hammurabi on August 11, 2010, 07:10:58 pm
So, then, if we make some crop that is so easy to grow that you can grow it continuously without having to care about upkeep... why would you ever bother learning the system?
There would be in-game incentives for growing the harder crops. Dwarfs would grow unhappy only eating potatoes and drinking vodka(?) all the time. Higher quality crops would produce better food/alcohol, making dwarfs have more happy thoughts. Maybe Nobles could request meals with high-quality food. Brainstorm some more ideas....
Post by: tfaal on August 11, 2010, 07:40:45 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 11, 2010, 07:47:09 pm
So, then, if we make some crop that is so easy to grow that you can grow it continuously without having to care about upkeep... why would you ever bother learning the system?
There would be in-game incentives for growing the harder crops. Dwarfs would grow unhappy only eating potatoes and drinking vodka(?) all the time. Higher quality crops would produce better food/alcohol, making dwarfs have more happy thoughts. Maybe Nobles could request meals with high-quality food. Brainstorm some more ideas....
Players right now don't grow some of the few non-food crops, like pig tails, and just let dwarves go naked because there's no penalty for doing so. Those who do often don't grow the dye-giving plants, because there's no particular benefit for doing so.
I would honestly like multiple forms of dyes, and clothing that can be dyed in more than one way, so I could have a blue and green military uniform, for example, but if I put that in, nobody but me cares because all most players care about with farming is bare minimal sustainance.
Now, if you could force them to care by making changes to dwarven society and make the happiness system less of a joke (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61620.0), you could go with more than that, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.
Kohaku: there are two kinds of difficulty.
The same goes for farming. Farming should be extremely easy to figure out! The difficulty should stem from extraordinary circumstances such as sieges, floods or grasshoppers. The player should always know what to do in terms of controls! Choosing the proper response, that's the challenge. Not knowing about the possibility of response isn't a challenge, it's bad design!!!
Well, for all your exclamation marks, maybe you'd be enthused enough to actually contribute to the discussion (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=22015.495) some way of improving the system beyond what has currently been laid out.
I've done what I can to make the suggested system complex even to those who know what they are doing, and to hopefully make the system dynamic enough that you have to adapt to each climate differently, and requires an eye towards keeping the system sustained. If you have a real suggestion to make, then I'm all ears, but I'm sort of tired of people arguing against the farming upgrade simply on abstracts and game design idealogy that doesn't really mean anything.
Post by: DalGren on August 11, 2010, 07:52:44 pm
So your only point is to make it complex/difficult without actual gameplay or variety benefits? If we have to work hard on it, better be rewarding or provide different things.
If a new system implies having the same bland farm products for X times more work, it's absolutely not worth it.
Please explain what are the benefits of that proposal aside from being more complex/harder.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 11, 2010, 08:28:33 pm
I do farm everything i can get my hands on. Heck i do even herding (thought no cows since they produce to much methane) to some extend so i can have a good diet on my dwarves. Strawberries etc. could be gathered but i like to farm the even thought in medieval times they weremore the garden/gathering crop. For trade i go normyl by dyed clothes/cloth so i have the pigtails too.
Later we might get herbs etc. for the Hospital.
As for being rewarding: Dwarves just like different food right now so my farm all i can farm approach keeps them more happy.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 11, 2010, 08:34:48 pm
That's exactly what the Improved Farming thread was all about - a complaint that farming was rediculously simple, boring, and unrealistic.
Improved Farming will make you actually have to work for your food so that it can't simply be taken for granted.
In actually working for your food, it requires you design systems to manage that farm and its workers and the resources going in and out of the farm, but if you want to boil it all down, yes, it's really all about "farms are no longer infinite wells of free resources".
Once again, I find it quite amusing that everyone likes to brag (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63562.0) about how "hard" and "complex" and "realistic" DF is, but any time something actually changes to be made harder or more complex or more realistic, people run around like the sky is falling. The current farming system is, quite simply, way, way too easy, and effectively just hands you all the food you could ever want on a silver platter. (Same with livestock until they are actually made to start eating, and require feed or grazing, especially eating based upon their size and mass...)
The more elegant the system can be made, certainly the better it will be, but above all, a system of ANY kind needs to exist. Currently, the game just makes agriculture, one of the primary focuses of society in the Medieval world, a quick 4-minute distraction to get the only farm you will ever need to feed your entire fortress running. And that's an IMPROVEMENT over the "just designate any soil" of last version.
I am hardly the only person with this view. The Improved Farming thread has always been about making farms less productive, more labor-intensive, and more realistic, and it is on the devpage now because it's one of the 10 most popular suggestions in the forum.
Post by: DalGren on August 11, 2010, 09:01:33 pm
I am all for extremely complex systems if you can do great things with them (like general architecture in DF, you can do 1x3 rooms or 5x6 rooms with ornate walls and furniture). But an extremely complex system just to obtain "game time"? (what food essentially comes down to). That's homework.
Make it complex if you can make it rewarding, if not, there is a limit on how complex you can get. Make it so you can have the reddest, biggest, tastiest tomatoes of the vicinity if you spend time, but don't over-complicate a simple timer/happiness mechanism such as food.
Still, what available crops are into the IF thread? There HAS to be some advantage to make up for the added complexity. Wood sources? Chemistry? Healing herbs? (realistic or fantastic style). Have you planned about modding so those advantages can be added at least? Plus, IF only seems to be "difficulty once" as in once you solve it, it's the same as now. Let me know, this is interesting.
Post by: isitanos on August 11, 2010, 10:01:09 pm
Oops, I started to form this while it was a huge oddball quote pyramid. It's been edited since. Well that changes things, but since I went through the effort of creating this, here it is. This is how I came to asking this question:
The convo broken down in spoilers:Spoiler: isitanos (click to show/hide)Spoiler: Toady One (click to show/hide)Spoiler: Jiri Petru (click to show/hide)Spoiler: isitanos (click to show/hide)Spoiler: Toady One (click to show/hide)Spoiler: Kogan Loloklam (click to show/hide)
I don't think when we talk about underground features in this train of thought we are talking about Plump helmets or the Bottom of the world HFS. I think we are talking about cave rivers and cave lakes, and chasms and natural ramps up/down, as well asSo, how important is it that the site you are on has features that you cannot currently go to any random point in the underground and have a 100% chance of finding it? I'm pretty certain it's near zero on the importance scale, since the big things, Magma and HFS, are now accessable on every site. I might change my mind if off the map animalmen can't raid once stuff is added, since that used to be a major drawing point of cave rivers and chasms. Some people might want it all, but that is what world gen seeds are ultimately for, so those people can find those sites and share them. It seemed a pretty thriving setup in the past. There are problems if they couldn't be seen in the embark map, but as long as they can be I don't see too much of an issue. Ultimately spawned "features" aren't that important in fortress mode, but will make a great deal of difference for adventure mode. Cavern water is as good (or bad, your choice) as pond water currently (last I checked, anyway) so even the loss of the "great pond" doesn't affect much, since it's the plump helmets that are desired for the wine.Spoiler: the HFS associated with the HFS (click to show/hide)
To recapitulate a bit, before the 2010 versions quite a few people wanted to have either all interesting features or a combination of their favorite ones (magma, chasm, cave river, flux stone, terryfing biome, for instance). Toady responded with the site finder, which I used several times myself, only to realize you often had to generate several worlds for your ideal combination even to exist. So yeah, having every feature on every site was kind of an implicit feature request. That, and people missed the old 2D DF progression where you'd always encounter the cave river, magma and HFS in the same order. Toady brought this back in DF 2010.
The problem with the new underground is that it's pretty much always the same. You can't start a new fortress and wonder, "what am I digging into? what wonders and dangers lie down there?" For Dwarf Mode, I'm not interested in underground features only if they allow "activities" such as invasions, but also for the surprise and fun of exploration.
My proposed solution, that should reconcile and improve both Fortress and Adventure mode undergrounds:
- The underground needs to go back to being random, so you can embark somewhere and be surprised by what you find down there. Personally I'd extend that even to magma and the bottom layer (which could sometimes be a bottomless chasm instead of HFS, for instance).
- Instead of "cheating" on every possible embark site and putting all features down there, worldgen should have a list of stuff desired by Dwarf Mode players, such as biomes, alignments, underground features, neighbours, etc. Then, it should cheat just enough to ensure that there exists ONE site in the entire world for every combination of those features. For instance if we pick 10 desirable features, there'd be 100 full-featured sites, and the rest would be random. 100 squares is not much in a Large DF world...
- Since those full-featured sites were manually placed, the program should remember them so that instead of having to scan the whole map, the site finder can instantly propose them. Or you could even directly pick from a list of those sites with their respective features for a quick embark.
- Ideally how much worldgen cheats to set up full-featured sites for you should be an option, as well as the list of guaranteed features.
Quote
Many times I wished I could follow a underground river with some logic to where it was going rather than forge ahead through the stale water underground in my quest to find previously mentioned HFS. It'd also have been easier to remember landmarks if there was a flowing landmark. I remember passing one particularly interesting bit of terrain that I could never find again because there was no point of reference to measure it off of. Too much was the same underground.
Anyone who has done some serious cave crawling in the newest versions of DF probably knows exactly what I mean.
I'd like to see underground features like rivers, and springs where underground rivers flow into the surface. Huge underground oceans and massive underground rivers. Not every place can have them, but they'd enhance the feeling of underground exploration. When you add in old tombs from lost underground dweller civilizations that sprang up and disintegrated before the beginning of time, you've got some real fun underground activities to do. Dwarf Mode doesn't benefit, but they can certainly be embarked on for flavor. That's what I've thought we were talking about when it came to underground features.
Those are very good ideas, more along the line of what I actually expected from the new underground. Even in dwarf mode, digging into one of the features you described would be much more interesting than into the current generic one. One of the reasons I'm looking forward so much for the return of cave rivers is that caves are often dry underground riverbeds, so the same algorithm could be used to generate both. See for instance the plan of this cave (http://www.speleogenesis.info/img/spotlight/Iljukhina_big.jpg) whose explored part goes more than 1000m deep under the surface (more on this site (http://www.speleogenesis.info/spotlights/index.php)).
Actually this brings to mind a suggestion for Toady: why not make a kind of hybrid Fortress/Adventure mode? Let's say your miner discovers a natural underground tunnel you'd like to explore beyond the confines of your fortress: "possess" the dwarf, and go exploring in an instant adventure mode where the dwarf keeps his current equipment and characteristics. The fortress can continue running during that time, but since the time scale is so different, fortress-mode dwarves will probably take one step for every hundred ones your adventurers take (which is actually great, CPU-wise).Then you can have two systems:
- Option A) your fortress runs (in slow motion) on its current orders unless your instant adventurer enters the site again, is killed, or retires somewhere.
- Option B) your adventurer can rest somewhere safe, allowing you to switch back to control your fortress for a moment, issue new orders, and then switch to adventuring again.The instant adventurer wouldn't be able to explore the fortress itself: as soon as he enters the fortress site from any side, you'd resume your fortress overlord role, and the dwarf would resume its normal life, maybe with some weird dreams and extra experience/equipment from its possessed adventures.
Post by: nbonaparte on August 11, 2010, 10:44:25 pm
Post by: G-Flex on August 11, 2010, 10:49:29 pm
Compare the suggestions for farming to the military changes from 40d to .31. Unwieldy at first, but rewarding because of the level of control you get. We adapted to that.
You might want to choose a less quirky/controversial example in order to make your point. The military interface definitely has some outstanding issues and annoyances, although it has great potential and advantages.
Post by: Quatch on August 11, 2010, 11:05:37 pm
Compare the suggestions for farming to the military changes from 40d to .31. Unwieldy at first, but rewarding because of the level of control you get. We adapted to that. More complex farming can work as long as there is enough automation to make it possible to set it up and forget it, but to have more control if you so desire. (and by that, I mean automatic production of fertilizer, crop rotation, planting schedules, etc. Everything. Unless something out of the ordinary happens, it should be able to run itself.)
I'm glad you bring this up. I like the new military's flexibility, power, and control, and really the interface for it is no harder than the rest of DF.
Farming is too simple, and it does need to be harder. Building a fortress is partly about feeding a fortress, and it should require thought, planning, and skill to set up. This is the basic challenge of DF.
Hopefully for the non farmers, it will eventually be possible to use your military to feed your fortress: pillage and demand tribute. Then they'll never need to farm.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 11, 2010, 11:23:16 pm
Wait what? So it's harder for the sake of being harder with no other gains?
perhaps you would enjoy df more if you added the tags [no_eat] [no_drink] to your dwarves... harder for the sake of being harder is good, as long as it is the right type of difficulty. having your dwarves survive the winter is much more rewarding if you actually have trouble surviving the winter. in good df tradition, survival should be your reward, right now, after you figure everything out, df ends up being too easy.
having bigger farms just means that we'll have to defend them better, and have an alternative food source before we can dig and flood a big enough room or secure enough cavern. the absurd amount of food we get from farms plus the fact that stuff never spoils once it's stockpiled is terribly annoying, i often reach a point where i cease producing food at all, after a couple of years, all the fish, brains, flour and tallow roasts i've stockpiled can sustain me for decades. i have a similar problem with the current abundance of veins, i don't care it's ruining my fort's aesthetic, but with all that iron lying around, i feel bad for giving my militia wooden shields and bone scale armour
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 11, 2010, 11:35:01 pm
Wait what? So it's harder for the sake of being harder with no other gains?
I am all for extremely complex systems if you can do great things with them (like general architecture in DF, you can do 1x3 rooms or 5x6 rooms with ornate walls and furniture). But an extremely complex system just to obtain "game time"? (what food essentially comes down to). That's homework.
Make it complex if you can make it rewarding, if not, there is a limit on how complex you can get. Make it so you can have the reddest, biggest, tastiest tomatoes of the vicinity if you spend time, but don't over-complicate a simple timer/happiness mechanism such as food.
Still, what available crops are into the IF thread? There HAS to be some advantage to make up for the added complexity. Wood sources? Chemistry? Healing herbs? (realistic or fantastic style). Have you planned about modding so those advantages can be added at least? Plus, IF only seems to be "difficulty once" as in once you solve it, it's the same as now. Let me know, this is interesting.
Toady's little bullet point includes planting trees - both orchard trees for fruit (implicitly annoying to set up, and not as productive, but low maintainance after the first year or two and a reliable, low-labor source of food, if possibly taking high acreage relative to other crops to feed the same numbers), and for wood.
"Healing Herbs" can only exist when Toady makes them available by expanding the current symptoms mechanics, which is beyond the scope of Improved Farming, but something I would like to see, and farming is the obvious place to get them, especially as Improved Farming can make it possible for there to be growable herbs that are, thanks to high soil requirements and
Chemistry can only be as good as the number of products we can really make from chemistry. You can make plastics and paint and shoe polish from peanuts, but those things don't really have a place in DF right now. Maybe someday we'll get an Improved Materials Science thread, but the game's number of materials are rather rudimentary right now - pretty much everything is made of food, wood, stone, or metal. (Yeah, sure, there's a few extras, like gems and glass, but they're basically not terribly important.)
But for all that, the primary benefit still IS the complexity. The fact that it's a real system you do have to grapple with, and a real challenge to the survival of your fort, so that there actually is a challenge to your fort that doesn't come in the form of hostile creatures.
And yes, I've been doing my best to come up with ways to automate it so that it is a solved problem specifically because I don't like tedium, and I doubt too many others do, either. The challenge is supposed to come with the scaling of the complexity of the farms - that you can't simply set up a single farm system that will produce all your food needs forever, you need to build more elaborate systems as your fortress expands, especially in response to problems like water consumption (and aquaduct engineering to supply it), the rate of fertilizer use (especially underground, where mushrooms need some sort of biomass to feed growth, as they aren't photosynthetic, which means either cutting down increasing numbers of trees as fuel for farms, or finding some substitute biomass to add to those farms), and especially pests, which are increasingly attracted to your fields the more crops they hold, and which multiply rapidly when they gain access to a food source.
Post by: DalGren on August 12, 2010, 12:12:07 am
I'll make the bestest apple pies in all of The Real of Enchantments or whatever. Yeeeeeah.
Syndromes will surely make more farming activity logical and necessary too, so I am all about it too. Specially if procedural crops make it in...if I can grow and produce my own unique brand of poison with plants, then it sure will be rewarding!
Post by: Kilo24 on August 12, 2010, 12:31:34 am
I still am worried about making an elaborate farming system a necessity for new players to learn (and for more experienced players to set up for every fort.) Systems like that make it so I can't help but imagine that most of the failed fortresses littering the ideal world Toady has in his slogan of "Losing is fun" won't be from goblin invasions or dwarven revolutions, but rather because "Mayor Urist couldn't figure out how to farm, so everyone starved" or "a single troll killed everyone because the leader couldn't figure out how to build a military." I know most such systems can be disabled in the .ini or raws, but new players shouldn't be expected to do that.
People keep saying this as if it's a bad thing. Here, I keep hearing people say how much they enjoy playing this game because it's "hard", but when one of the most absurdly easy things in the game finally looks like it might be updated, everyone's going all Helen Lovejoy, and yelling "Oh! Won't SOMEBODY think of the newbies?!" Why can't the people who enjoy having to design a complex infrastructure have it? This game isn't even nearly as hard as the Sierra Citybuilder games right now, it's just that it's less forgiving of mistakes when you DO screw up, anyway. And frankly, whenever people are asked about why they enjoy DF, it's because of its realism and complexity... so why do people keep getting so gunshy whenever the complexity might actually be improved?
Honestly, I'd like to see the game force you to scramble to feed your people, but if we get a system where it's possible for dwarves who honestly wouldn't know silt from sand, then you can just bring fisherdwarves and herbalists and plenty of food stocks and hope you can just trade your way to all your food needs, then that's perfectly fine, and it ensures that there's no real reason other than utter negligence for a player to starve.
And if this means that many players lose a fortress before they can figure out how to adequately prepare to feed their people, so be it. They'll learn from their mistakes, and be better players for it. It's the ability to overcome a challenge that defines a game, after all.
As Jiri said, failing is currently more due to not knowing what the game wants you to do, not in using the tools you have to come up with a solution. Trial and error to figure out what the game wants is a hallmark of old text adventure games, and it's something that should die out in the vast majority of games. That's not negligence on the part of the player, nor a fun challenge - it's keeping the player in the dark and is pretty frustrating.
Most of the challenges in Dwarf Fortress are either capable of utterly destroying a fortress (or of doing enough damage that tantrum spirals finish you off) or are irrelevant, based on how/if you handle them. Not having farming will murder a fortress if you don't do it (or more likely, don't figure it out), having it means feeding dwarves is a piece of cake. A couple of good military dwarves will eviscerate almost all opponents (that's getting much better with the HFS and the forgotten beasts - but still nothing can defeat the mighty constructed wall.) Once you "handle" those things they don't have much effect on the game any more.
With the farming revamp, what I'm worried will happen is not that the game will be more challenging to experienced players, but that farming becomes automatic and irrelevant after a lot more work - and all that work will be necessary to get any food out of farming. I don't want it to just mandate a long wiki cross-referencing session where you compare the alkalinity and moisture of soil to plant the best crops, then you forget about farming entirely (because that only raises the thin line between annihilation and irrelevancy). Nor do I want to constantly micromanage seasonal crop rotation, because it's boring, easy to forget and screw up your whole food industry, and almost certainly not what the player wants to do in a fantasy world.
Can you still make farming more complex and yet not either a constant micromanagement nightmare or just another roadblock to a new person and another wiki-dive for an experienced one? Yes. Suppose that a race of snail-men invade, and their acidic trails screw with the soil composition which kills off the crops that they walked over; but that also lets you import acid-loving plants and grow them too. Suppose that the sea gods get annoyed with you and send a tidal wave that, in addition to the obvious effects, leaves a lot of salt on the ground that screws with the plants you can grow. Or have the invading goblins who can't find a way into your fortress get frustrated and start salting the ground and the water supply you use to water your plants. These things are unlikely to happen to a new player yet bring new challenges to an experienced one - that's the best kind of challenge I can think of. Forcing you to do the same thing the same way for each fort isn't fun.
Once again, I find it quite amusing that everyone likes to brag (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63562.0) about how "hard" and "complex" and "realistic" DF is, but any time something actually changes to be made harder or more complex or more realistic, people run around like the sky is falling. The current farming system is, quite simply, way, way too easy, and effectively just hands you all the food you could ever want on a silver platter. (Same with livestock until they are actually made to start eating, and require feed or grazing, especially eating based upon their size and mass...)Had I my preferences, I'd make enough food very easy to get for up to, say, 30-40 dwarves, but institute gradual mechanics that made it more and more of a challenge for larger fortresses. Food really should be a big potential problem in DF, since it's a realistic problem from medieval history. But learning elaborate farming mechanics are not a good thing to flat-out require for a game. I'd love to see elaborate schemes being able to minimize the effects of the system of diminishing returns that would stop a fortress from getting too big (and see these farming megaprojects posted on the board), but players need to be able to make that transition from newbie to experienced player to innovative designer as smoothly as possible.
Speaking for myself, I don't boast about how "hard" DF is. I do so with Demon's Souls, with Devil May Cry 3, with Spelunky - but DF's difficulty is not in someone that knows what to do becoming better at the game, but in learning how to play the game in the first place. The fact that that latter part takes so long really is only good for fostering a sense of elitism among DF players and makes for a worse game.
Post by: zwei on August 12, 2010, 01:53:41 am
I've done what I can to make the suggested system complex even to those who know what they are doing, and to hopefully make the system dynamic enough that you have to adapt to each climate differently, and requires an eye towards keeping the system sustained. If you have a real suggestion to make, then I'm all ears, but I'm sort of tired of people arguing against the farming upgrade simply on abstracts and game design idealogy that doesn't really mean anything.
He has extremely valid point:
If farming difficulty and challenge is result of system being too complicated to understand without wiki and with that functionality hidde in terrible ui, it is worthless. And that is real possiblity from looks of it.
No, it is worse than worthless, it is game killer.
If you want proper example, take military changes and monstrous user interface that was linked to them. It degraded game to having one major feature unusable. Farming is not really something you want to kill by reworking.
You can, of course add some neat ui to automate stuff and to handle many issues automatically (say, manager/military-like ui where you have overview of all plots and can assign plants to them easily, or where you can just say "plant 10 plump helmets each season"). You can have "ph" and "water" map overlays to help understand soil condition. You could define "conditions" alike standing oders where you say "plant 10 plump helments on tile with ph > 5, ground water = 1 and low nitrogen, 10 plants maximum".
But each of this adds possible point of failure. Any suggestion to refine this adds to 'ui from hell" factor.
Medieval landscape was extreme. The inhabited parts had a very high population density – no forests, only houses and farms. The wilderness was very virgin and untamed. Much unlike today.
Indeed, you can just look at satelite photos on google maps and see it for yourself, it really looks kinda like what was on screenshots.
Post by: Fedor on August 12, 2010, 03:35:41 am
This savefile (http://dffd.wimbli.com/file.php?id=2936) shows my fortress under attack by a Cyclops. I have a reasonably strong, well-equipped military on which I've lavished considerable time and effort, but the interface is fighting tooth and nail to prevent me using it now, when I need it.
Keeping track of the cyclops is micromanagement hell because it goes invisible every time it changes elevation and re-centering on it is a PITA.
Organizing and equipping soldiers is a terribly tedious task, and the game interfaces make it extremely time-consuming to get the information I most need to determine how to mobilize in a crisis: where the dwarves are, what their critical skills are, what they've got equipped, and what they plan to do.
While the fully prepared enemy moves in directly for the kill (and, the smaller the map I am obliged to choose because of CPU limitations, the quicker they arrive), my dwarves scramble to shuck the gear that won't kill fellow trainees and grab the stuff that will kill enemies. Yes, I should have walled in the fort better, but I shouldn't have to to just be given a chance to grab gear! Nothing in DF is more nightmarish than fighting the interface under extreme and unreasonabe time pressure.
I can't order about individual dwarves except by jumping around multiple layers of interface. My legendary miners who I had formed into a special pick squad? A couple of them decided to pick up equipment straight towards the cyclops! Restation them?: no effect, and every moment the cyclops comes nearer. Delete the equipment choice in the military window that they might be seeking (a shield)? Doesn't work; more time lost. Desperate move: disband the squad so that at least they become civilians and flee. Everything would be so much simpler if I could just tell dwaves what to do instead of TRYING TO WRITE A BLOODY AI ALGORITHM!
And, finally, the killer: Having given my men time enough to re-equip and assemble, and issued a couple of mass move orders to further concentrate the fighting force, I order all squads to kill the cyclops. They immediate go and start TRAINING at the same instant one of my favorite dwarves is being hunted down and slaughtered far from any burrow he's allowed to be in.
Yeah, I'm done here.
The old military system was a micromanagement fanatic's cludge. But you know what? At least then when I selected a dwarf, I could directly order him to soldier up, move about, and kinda-sorta do as ordered. Now, I have to fight my way through multiple layers of interface, multiple buttons that will only yield the required result when used in combination and exactly as mandated. This would be a formidable task even with both effective, relevant information on the dwarves I'm doing stuff with and some help text, but the first requires endless keypressing to get info out of several completely separate interfaces, and the second doesn't exist.
And that's when things work at all. My archers never did learn how to reliably carry ammo about. They train every so often, but it beats me what I have to do with ammo preferences, quivers, bucklers, and Armok KNOWS what else to get them to go into battle with the bronze ammo I made for them.
I don't want to be kindly told the fine details of the military system that, used correctly, would have solved my problems. I've spent HOURS ON HOURS pressing buttons to try and get dwarves to act like an organized fighting force (or even just a mob acting in unison), and my patience is exhausted.
Toady, you've delivered the finest game of its type ever made. But the military interface is broken to hell and gone. Until you cobble up something that works without a doctorate in anal-retentiveness, I'm turning off invaders and playing this game as a sandbox.
I love this dang game. I just wish I could love all of it.
Post by: Eduren on August 12, 2010, 04:11:05 am
-snip-Take deep breath and calm down.
Yes it sucks that the cyclops got loose. Yes the Military system can be a pain. But its not the end of the world.
This game is in very early alpha by any reasonable development measure. There are going to be hiccups. While you have many valid points, you could have done this without the hate.
Post by: OmnipotentGrue on August 12, 2010, 04:15:39 am
Post by: Koji on August 12, 2010, 04:26:10 am
I have had it with the new military system! >:(
...
I love this dang game. I just wish I could love all of it.
The first time I played I starved to death because I couldn't figure out how to dig.
The second time I played I got into the mountain but couldn't figure out how to irrigate.
The third time I played my fortress drowned in a flood.
The fourth time I played my dwarves were slaughtered by snakemen.
The fifth time I played I managed to repel the first goblin invasion.
After more than a hundred games, it's fun to lose again. Take the opportunity to learn the interface. It's clunky, but this is Dwarf Fortress.
Post by: Jiri Petru on August 12, 2010, 05:06:04 am
Eduren: The "this is just an alpha" argument got old several years ago. Moreover, it's no excuse for making a part of a game worse than before! (the part I'm talking about is military controls)
---
Ad Farming:
My idea of farming in Dwarf Fortress is:
- I designate an area of land as a farmplot
- I choose farmers and tell them: "Farm!"
- It works!
The AI would select appropriate crops for the soil type, would handle crop rotation, the dwarves would water the soil using buckets as needed, would plant and harvest automatically. It should be difficult, meaning it would be ineffective and require lots space, dwarfpower and time. Making it more effective would the the fun part - ie. creating an elaborate irrigation system to save dwarfpower, ordering better crops from a caravan that would have better yields on my soil, etc. But the interface should be extremely simple and intuitive (basically my three points above).
I would love more varied crops, I would love realistic soil types, I would love acidic crops that require acidic soil or crops that require lots of mud (rice) - all of it adds variety to the game, which is good. I want to drastically reduce crop yields because right now food is too abundant. But unless the AI is intelligent enough to handle most of the system automatically and unless the interface is good enough to make it easy to control, there's no point in implementing the farming "improvements". They would only make the game worse.
Examples:
- The player should never, ever be required to look up the most appropriate crop for his soil in a table on the wiki. The game should simply choose the best crop itself... or at least highlight it, saying "we recommend planting this!".
- I have a field and decide to change to a different crop. The new crop requires much more water than the old one. The game should automatically order bucket-squads to water the plants, I should not be required to look up the plant in a manual to find out the required water intake. The challenge should not be "your crops died 'cause you forgot to water them, sucker!", the challenge should be "half of my fortress is suddenly hauling buckets, I should make it more effective!"
I'm deliberately writing this here, not in the Farming Improvement thread because it's much more an issue of general design approach than an issue of farming. And yes, I'm very alarmed of the direction Dwarf Fortress is heading - all of the ideas are great but the implementation is often lacking. The current military system is a great example.
[/list]
Post by: isitanos on August 12, 2010, 05:42:46 am
My idea of farming in Dwarf Fortress is:Sorry, but that sounds like no fun at all. You want to dumb it down even compared to the current system. A little micromanagement is good, and I like to choose my plants and set up crop rotation myself. You haven't described a simple and intuitive interface, BTW, you have described automation, i.e. AI doing things for you, which is a completely different thing.Anything more complicated is just bad design.
- I designate an area of land as a farmplot
- I choose farmers and tell them: "Farm!"
- It works!
The AI would select appropriate crops for the soil type, would handle crop rotation, the dwarves would water the soil using buckets as needed, would plant and harvest automatically. It should be difficult, meaning it would be ineffective and require lots space, dwarfpower and time. Making it more effective would the the fun part - ie. creating an elaborate irrigation system to save dwarfpower, ordering better crops from a caravan that would have better yields on my soil, etc. But the interface should be extremely simple and intuitive (basically my three points above).
Quote
I would love more varied crops, I would love realistic soil types, I would love acidic crops that require acidic soil or crops that require lots of mud (rice) - all of it adds variety to the game, which is good. I want to drastically reduce crop yields because right now food is too abundant. But unless the AI is intelligent enough to handle most of the system automatically and unless the interface is good enough to make it easy to control, there's no point in implementing the farming "improvements". They would only make the game worse.Toady likes to let us discover how the world works, and we'll eventually have randomly-generated plants and mushrooms that you can't even look up in the wiki. Experimenting with plants in the game to learn about their needs, or obtaining this knowledge in-game through skills or by buying the info sounds fun to me. The game should remember what you've discovered, though, and automation should pick up from then on, once you're supposed to know how much water, nutrients, etc that plant needs.
Examples:(...)
- The player should never, ever be required to look up the most appropriate crop for his soil in a table on the wiki. The game should simply choose the best crop itself... or at least highlight it, saying "we recommend planting this!".
Post by: zwei on August 12, 2010, 07:57:19 am
Toady likes to let us discover how the world works, and we'll eventually have randomly-generated plants and mushrooms that you can't even look up in the wiki. Experimenting with plants in the game to learn about their needs, or obtaining this knowledge in-game through skills or by buying the info sounds fun to me. The game should remember what you've discovered, though, and automation should pick up from then on, once you're supposed to know how much water, nutrients, etc that plant needs.
Entity populations would definitelly need to understand how something works and adjust to it (I would be awesome to read in history log "year 123: Humans adopted use of sweetberry as major food source after importing it from Elves. year 124: Humans started to spread to nearby low ph and swampy areas thanks to ability to grow enough food to sustain larger population.").
Discovery of such facts is awesome scenari, but when you are scrambling to get settlement running, you really want to let dwarf with "agriculture" skill handle it well enough that you survive. It does not necesarily have to be so good and once you get past ~50 dwarves, you need to take look at what he is going and -for example- place plots in better area, start decent irrigation system, trade for new plants, etc ..
Complexity can wait a bit. Researching plants sounds like year 3 or 4 project. It is good for game pacing to have simple way to do something (build plot, tell dwarf to farm, done.) that is trivial to set-up but which you eventually redesign later on (irrigation, carefull choice of plants, whatever).
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 12, 2010, 09:23:17 am
Not having farming will murder a fortress if you don't do it (or more likely, don't figure it out), having it means feeding dwarves is a piece of cake. A couple of good military dwarves will eviscerate almost all opponents (that's getting much better with the HFS and the forgotten beasts - but still nothing can defeat the mighty constructed wall.)
...
With the farming revamp, what I'm worried will happen is not that the game will be more challenging to experienced players, but that farming becomes automatic and irrelevant after a lot more work - and all that work will be necessary to get any food out of farming. I don't want it to just mandate a long wiki cross-referencing session where you compare the alkalinity and moisture of soil to plant the best crops, then you forget about farming entirely (because that only raises the thin line between annihilation and irrelevancy). Nor do I want to constantly micromanage seasonal crop rotation, because it's boring, easy to forget and screw up your whole food industry, and almost certainly not what the player wants to do in a fantasy world.
Well, being as you're setting up everything I could possibly say as either being "more micromangament" or "more automation", and BOTH are always bad, and we're only talking about this in the most utter abstract, tell me, Kilo, how, exactly, am I supposed to satisfy these mutually exclusive goals, especially when we're not even talking about the nuance or details, but just pure Gaming Philosophy?
Can you still make farming more complex and yet not either a constant micromanagement nightmare or just another roadblock to a new person and another wiki-dive for an experienced one? Yes. Suppose that a race of snail-men invade, and their acidic trails screw with the soil composition which kills off the crops that they walked over; but that also lets you import acid-loving plants and grow them too. Suppose that the sea gods get annoyed with you and send a tidal wave that, in addition to the obvious effects, leaves a lot of salt on the ground that screws with the plants you can grow. Or have the invading goblins who can't find a way into your fortress get frustrated and start salting the ground and the water supply you use to water your plants. These things are unlikely to happen to a new player yet bring new challenges to an experienced one - that's the best kind of challenge I can think of. Forcing you to do the same thing the same way for each fort isn't fun.
And here we go, the rare actual suggestion, which happens to be something already in the suggestion, but since people only talk about it in the abstract, they don't realize it.
I have done my best to try to create situations like this - mainly through the use of pests. Although perhaps a little unrealistic, pests are the best means of introducing some dynamic threat to your crops, and as such, the more I've gone over the system, the more I've elevated their place as a threat to farming. Pests are more attracted to your fields the larger they become, and specific crop-targeting pests are attracted by having the same crops planted continuously. The more you attract, the more overwhelmingly numerous they become. Insect pests can be killed directly, if not nearly fast enough when they become numerous, but pests that are diseases or fungal parasites are far more difficult to combat once they take hold, except by simply cycling out of those crops for a few years (keeping the seeds in storage) to wait until those specialized diseases effectively starve out after not having their prey available to them. Potentially, we could have cultured fungi that act as special fungicide. We could also have plants that act as natural repellants of certain pests.
This is all in the actual Improved Farming thread. (I actually did another post on pests just yesterday.) This has already been discussed by people who were interested in the subject and talking on the thread, as has most of the other fears people keep bringing up in this thread or others when farming comes up. It's not like I just pulled this completely out of my rear to hoist upon people, there have been discussions of what the system should use to be neither micromanagement nor routine and fully automated.
I know that you, kilo24, are certainly capable of thoughtful discussion, and I would really welcome it if you would join the actual discussion, but when Improved Farming keeps getting dragged out into these arguments about abstract concepts about what Improved Farming will entail, it always involves arguments against things Improved Farming isn't, and people wishing Improved Farming were changed more towards becoming what it already is.
The current round pretty much starts here: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=22015.450;start=%1$d
Ad Farming:
My idea of farming in Dwarf Fortress is:Anything more complicated is just bad design.
- I designate an area of land as a farmplot
- I choose farmers and tell them: "Farm!"
- It works!
Actually, no, THIS is bad design.
What's the point in even having dwarves eat or drink at all if you want all your food handed to you without effort? As Askot said, wouldn't this mean that it would be better still to just put [no_eat] and [no_drink], since in that way, you don't need the "bad design" of making people make a farm in the first place? Why even bother with the "bad design" of having to look for metals or chop down trees, either, when you can just set up reactions that give you adamantine versions of everything you could ever want generated from nothing?
I've spent the past week or so with people coming up with every way they possibly could to mischaracterize the Farming system, and any time you ask someone to come up with something they WOULD like, it always comes up as either exactly what the suggestion already is (Oh, and hey, for that whole "let the game tell you when it's good to plant what?" is the Farm Overseer position), or it's some variation "Don't do anything, change is bad! I hate having anything new, because then I'd have to learn something! Don't improve anything in the game!"
I'm getting just a little annoyed with it, to say the least. For the past month, I've more or less wound up hijacking the whole Improved Farming thread because nobody but Draco18s, a small number of people who made one to three posts with useful suggestions, and myself were really willing to put in some input. Now, everything we've done to try to make the system realistic, automated, and as flexible and exciting as we could is being hit with random potshots from the peanut gallery by people who don't even bother to understand the concept, attacks based on "not being Civilization" or based on it actually being realistic or based upon the notion that - God forbid - it won't be a total mockery of the notion that it actually takes some measure of skill to play this game. Nobody who has made these complaints has come up with any serious way of improving the suggestion, and only one of them has even bothered to post ON the suggestion thread itself.
Post by: Jiri Petru on August 12, 2010, 11:58:01 am
Also, the discussion fluently developed up to this point. No need to be angry we're not taking it to a different thread.
Quote from: Kohaku
What's the point in even having dwarves eat or drink at all if you want all your food handed to you without effort? As Askot said, wouldn't this mean that it would be better still to just put [no_eat] and [no_drink], since in that way, you don't need the "bad design" of making people make a farm in the first place? Why even bother with the "bad design" of having to look for metals or chop down trees, either, when you can just set up reactions that give you adamantine versions of everything you could ever want generated from nothing?
I didn't say food should be free and abundant. I said farming should be easy to learn and control (because it's a critical feature that each player needs to learn as easily and quickly as possible). These are very, very different things.
It has been said many times: having an obscure system/controls that take ages to learn, but once you learn them the game is as easy as before, is not a "challenge". Well... it is but a bad one. Good challenges don't rely on difficult controls and hard-to-learn solutions.
And the other way around - making the interface and controls easy to use isn't "handing the food without effort". Seriously, one shouldn't even consider increasing the challenge by making controls harder. That's evil! >:( Having a two-click way to set up a farm isn't necessarily "handing the food over" too. As I've said before, it could be very inefficient, and making production more efficient (via more detailed options and micromanagement) would be the challenge. My point is, I guess: when implementing features, first make sure they are user-friendly, only then proceed to make them more complex.
(EDIT: Also, if you make the system too complex and difficult, people will just say Screw it and import all their food. Don't forget we'll have outlying village sprawl now so getting food from outside will presumably be easy. You can't make farming more difficult than trading and then hope people will use it.)
BUT! A peace attempt! Toady said the farming improvements depend heavily on what he'd be able to communicate to the player meaningfully. He seemed reluctant to implement a system that couldn't be easily understood and handled in the interface. Which is an optimistic good sign, I guess.
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 12, 2010, 12:26:44 pm
Will historical events be able to affect a subset of a population? For instance, a megabeast attack that kills one tenth of a village's residents. Would this affect the individual histories of population members we meet?Yes. If you go into adventure mode right now and ask villagers about their families, you constantly hear about how bronze colossus x has slaughtered their great grandpappy and now they want vengeance.
Will portions of a population be able to emigrate to another site? Ideally this would towns with immigrants, whose history could be traced back to another location via an immigration wave event.I believe immigrants are already pulled from the entity population of the civilization you are embarking from.
Finally, will the family members of people we meet have histories themselves, including the possibility of their death?See answer number 1
I'll be honest with you here, I'm mostly just hoping to find a farmboy orphaned and displaced by a dragon attack and bring him along on my quest to kill the foul creature.This can already happen.
...No wonder you hate the thing, you don't seem to have a understanding of it at all.
A few tips:
1) Setup your uniforms and use "Assign Uniform". Uniforms is the best way to ensure you can set a "type" to each position. This is a supremely powerful tool, use it.
2) USE YOUR SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT SCREEN
3) Setup patrol routes and set your squads to half train, 1/4 patrol along them instead of a constant train or a constant patrol. They won't gain skill as quickly, but they will be always responding. This will ensure you always have an active force in action and your dwarves as a general rule won't be unhappy with long patrol routes (if you set it by position favored seasonally, you can make a rotating schedule that makes it even more sure.)
4) Setup station points, use them in lieu of patrol points for key locations.
5) Don't hesitate to copy and paste in your schedule management screen.
6) Never, never, never have your dwarves who use weapons in their work assigned to squads. This is heavily bugged and it'll result in weaponless dwarves fighting like idiots, or any number of other odd issues. If you -must- have a squad like this, remove their "mining" tag before you activate them. It'll prevent a drop the pick dance.
With uniforms, proper alerts, and scheduling you will not have many of the issues you are complaining about.
Some of the issues are due to how your barracks are setup as well. I suggest you have a weapon rack and armor stand for each soldier in the squad in their barracks. For archers, ensure that the weapon rack and armor stand is there inside the designated archery range. Also ensure every archer has access to a quiver. If they aren't shooting, check to see if their quivers have any arrows in them. Keep your ammo designations very simple if at all possible.
Furthermore, Ensure you "dry-fire" your military a few times, to be sure you have worked out all the kinks BEFORE an invasion occurs. Any time you see "cannot follow orders", something is seriously wrong with how you configured things. As long as they are in uniform though, they should respond to direct orders given with the s menu. This is especially important since squads default with a "10 minimum" for their scheduled orders. This in my experience causes problems, and I sometimes miss it after I setup a new alert status or new squads in my custom alert statuses. Activating them and ensuring they do what they are supposed to do in the numbers they are supposed to do it in ensures that when the next disaster comes in, the military is ready for it.
Spoiler: random info (click to show/hide)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 12, 2010, 12:28:36 pm
People just want to express their opinions and fears about the game without having to study dozens of pages in a different thread. You're saying all our concerns are already adressed in your suggestion topic? Great to hear that! I won't go read that because it has 40 pages and I can't really be bothered. I wasn't interested in specific suggestions, I just wanted to express my fears about future development. This is what this thread is about. You are taking it too seriously.
Toady said the farming improvements depend heavily on what he'd be able to communicate to the player meaningfully. He seemed reluctant to implement a system that couldn't be easily understood and handled in the interface. Which is an optimistic good sign, I guess.
Only the past five pages have been involved in the current discussion over how, exactly, Toady could be able to impliment exactly what Toady said about being able to communicate it meaningfully. (Most of the thread is, in fact, from over a year ago, and the whole thread is over two years old.)
I'd also say in reference to nobody wanting to read the Improved Farming thread while they still want to comment on it that this very thread is already over 50 pages long, and I seem to remember your "Complete Interface Overhaul (Now with Sparkles)" thread being far, far more intimidatingly lengthy, and even referencing multiple other threads for further reading in its first post.
Post by: Cruxador on August 12, 2010, 01:46:54 pm
On that note, we've got some rather delicious looking rivers now.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 12, 2010, 02:03:07 pm
Actually, at the risk of throwing some more gas on this fire, I've been operating on some assumption that we would be able to use waste/manure as ferilizer. (Something Toady recently said in a Q&A session that he supports such things for fertilizer and for the building of sewers, but is simply opposed to "potty breaks", which was why I asked this (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1441530#msg1441530) back in the last round.) This would mean that, in addition to having to build an aquaduct, we would also have to build sewers to push waste into the compost heaps, or to move it to where it can be spread directly over farms. Waste management, then, would become part of farm management.
Post by: Mephansteras on August 12, 2010, 02:06:27 pm
Post by: tfaal on August 12, 2010, 02:50:42 pm
I believe immigrants are already pulled from the entity population of the civilization you are embarking from.To my knowledge, migrants are currently spawned ex nihilo. So long one member of your home civilization is alive, the number of migrants is unlimited.
Post by: Jiri Petru on August 12, 2010, 04:31:15 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 12, 2010, 04:38:48 pm
I would like to suggest "barns" for the food storage of the villages and atleast a small village square (with a village tree - a oak or a Lime tree). A smallish graveyard might also be nice.
Medieval landscape was extreme. The inhabited parts had a very high population density – no forests, only houses and farms. The wilderness was very virgin and untamed. Much unlike today.
Indeed, you can just look at satelite photos on google maps and see it for yourself, it really looks kinda like what was on screen-shots.
Well in the medieval times there was deforestation for 2 mayor things:
- making charcoal
- Building ships
The Roman Empire did use the wood mostly for charcoal thus for metalwork which ended in the fact that they had to import wood from the Kelts for high prices. Later the big countrys like Spain or great Britain etc. drained there forrests for these gigantic fleets.
A Village will only deforest the area it needs for being self-sufficient everything else would be to Labor intensive.
Post by: Dakk on August 12, 2010, 05:03:29 pm
Post by: dree12 on August 12, 2010, 05:30:36 pm
Spawning extra brooks and rivers is - in my opinion - a bad way. Normally Rain and aquifer-water should be enough for farming and if not herding sheep might be a good solution. I would say that the villages could have one mayor up to one well per field. Dry regions also developed often enough crops that could coop with the dryness. Hehe an droughts were and are a problem you have to deal with.Actually, the improved river density is probably more realistic. Assuming a scale of 1 town DF=1 village now-real-life, there are streams every village, even those now that don't need any. What we do need is larger and fewer ponds, even the smallest ponds (in my area, at least) are many now-houses (bigger than then-houses) large, and they don't occur every 8 houses. The murky pools can really only fit 4 houses.
I see that the new farms look like shrubs. Will we be able to gather[p] those shrubs? Because that seems a little overkill, because it can feed 200 dwarves each year if they regrow.
Mindless speculation: Maybe our dwarves need to eat more per sitting now?
Post by: cephalo on August 12, 2010, 05:55:38 pm
As for displaying the river, I think the first example shows too few rivers and the next one shows too many. You might tune the amount of water needed for this or that size river so that it looks best. You might even consider a relative scale so that, for example, a fourth of all river lengths are major rivers etc. People love major rivers and tend to be dissapointed when they don't get any.
Post by: Kilo24 on August 12, 2010, 06:39:55 pm
Well, being as you're setting up everything I could possibly say as either being "more micromangament" or "more automation", and BOTH are always bad, and we're only talking about this in the most utter abstract, tell me, Kilo, how, exactly, am I supposed to satisfy these mutually exclusive goals, especially when we're not even talking about the nuance or details, but just pure Gaming Philosophy?The best rule of thumb that I can think of is if that a system does not encourage creative solutions to problems, then it should be either redesigned, scrapped, rendered invisible to the player (unless he specifically wants to see it), or automated as best as the game engine can handle. The "encourage creative solutions to problems" is vague, and should be weighed against the strain that the system places on the player.
In other words, if an increase in farming complexity only gives us the crop diversity we have now but with extra work for the player (through, say, queueing watering or fertilization jobs), I'd oppose it strongly. The more effects that encouraged creative solutions that it could have would lower my resistance (like letting other things affect quality of the soil such as fortress location and my aforementioned suggestions for events affecting salinity/acidity). But I'd never want to force the player to waste any significant amount of time doing things that have no creativity involved. That applies to all of Dwarf Fortress, and is at the core of at least my complaints about the UI.
Adding a system with little application happened rather frequently in DF's development. Without keeping such suggestions that have an effect on gameplay at the forefront, then a system can't be accurately valued.
Can you still make farming more complex and yet not either a constant micromanagement nightmare or just another roadblock to a new person and another wiki-dive for an experienced one? Yes. Suppose that a race of snail-men invade, and their acidic trails screw with the soil composition which kills off the crops that they walked over; but that also lets you import acid-loving plants and grow them too. Suppose that the sea gods get annoyed with you and send a tidal wave that, in addition to the obvious effects, leaves a lot of salt on the ground that screws with the plants you can grow. Or have the invading goblins who can't find a way into your fortress get frustrated and start salting the ground and the water supply you use to water your plants. These things are unlikely to happen to a new player yet bring new challenges to an experienced one - that's the best kind of challenge I can think of. Forcing you to do the same thing the same way for each fort isn't fun.
And here we go, the rare actual suggestion, which happens to be something already in the suggestion, but since people only talk about it in the abstract, they don't realize it.
For adding systems in general, maybe it would be better to hard-code a few specific exceptions, then if those mesh with the game well, a separate powerful system can be designed that turns those exceptions into features of the system? Just a bit of game-design musing. *shrug*
I know that you, kilo24, are certainly capable of thoughtful discussion, and I would really welcome it if you would join the actual discussion, but when Improved Farming keeps getting dragged out into these arguments about abstract concepts about what Improved Farming will entail, it always involves arguments against things Improved Farming isn't, and people wishing Improved Farming were changed more towards becoming what it already is.I've posted in there before, and I might do so again. It still seemed to be mainly a discussion of how to make farming more complicated, realistic and time-consuming, without much focus on interesting and unique farming challenges.
The current round pretty much starts here: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=22015.450;start=%1$d
Ad Farming:This could be a good UI - if it doesn't preclude the ability to specify more. What farmers will automatically do with the simple "Farm!" command should be good crops, but not guaranteed to be the best for your given fortress. Not because the game intentionally screws it up, but because the depth of the system is such that the game can't predict it accurately.
My idea of farming in Dwarf Fortress is:Anything more complicated is just bad design.
- I designate an area of land as a farmplot
- I choose farmers and tell them: "Farm!"
- It works!
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 12, 2010, 06:49:22 pm
The new river network looks fantastic! I've made a few river networks myself, and there's one thing I learned that might be of use while you're playing with it. I learned that when making a river network, there is no right answer for which way a river might flow, as long as it goes downhill. If you choose a random flow direction that is downhill the whole river network will still make sense with itself. So one thing you can do to make a really nice looking river network on a square grid is to never let a river run straight unless it's the only downhill option. So if a flow enters a square from the west, try to avoid letting it also leave to the west. This eliminates almost all the scenarios that might create a river that's too straight for too long, and does a good job of hiding the fact that were on a square grid.
As for displaying the river, I think the first example shows too few rivers and the next one shows too many. You might tune the amount of water needed for this or that size river so that it looks best. You might even consider a relative scale so that, for example, a fourth of all river lengths are major rivers etc. People love major rivers and tend to be dissapointed when they don't get any.
Well toady can take the geology into account too. So stuff that erodes faster is more likely to become the riverbed and rivers will flow around things like Granit deposits at some point. There are a number of things that can be done in a very natural way.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 12, 2010, 10:39:18 pm
Spawning extra brooks and rivers is - in my opinion - a bad way. Normally Rain and aquifer-water should be enough for farming and if not herding sheep might be a good solution. I would say that the villages could have one mayor up to one well per field. Dry regions also developed often enough crops that could coop with the dryness. Hehe an droughts were and are a problem you have to deal with.
Desert farmers, which basically means the likes of the Middle East or North Africa, farmed their land either through irrigation by rivers (especially by digging canals, which were giant state projects to help feed their populations) or through the use of springs and wells tapping aquifers. In a DF unlimited aquifer landscape, a desert aquifer, of course, carries none of the risk of depletion (and doesn't have that pesky iron oxide dissolved in the water, either).
I honestly think that a better way to handle keeping enough water around for farmers (other than limitless aquifers, which aren't nearly the hassle when you don't need to dig beneath them, anyway) would be to have farms that are open to air simply take rain water as effective irrigation. That way, you can have farms that grow crops appropriate for the rainfall of the region that grow there (if, perhaps, not the most regular crop yields because there isn't absolute control over the water supply).
Well in the medieval times there was deforestation for 2 mayor things:
- making charcoal
- Building ships
The Roman Empire did use the wood mostly for charcoal thus for metalwork which ended in the fact that they had to import wood from the Kelts for high prices. Later the big countrys like Spain or great Britain etc. drained there forrests for these gigantic fleets.
A Village will only deforest the area it needs for being self-sufficient everything else would be to Labor intensive.
Actually, there's plenty of examples of nations that completely devestated themselves through deforestation. It's actually believed that the Greek city states fell (and gave Rome the chance to rise) because they cut down so many of their trees that they largely stripped their nation bare, and let the soil get swept out to sea, which impared their ability to feed their people (and destroyed their ability to make the navies that made them so powerful in the Mediterranean), and so they fell into decline. The entire "Mediterranean Climate" is actually a man-made climate generated of a deforested forest climate.
The city state of Teotihuacan (http://www.ericrosenfield.com/teotihuacan.html), as well, in ancient Native American Mexico, often has its fall traced to its deforestation - especially for the high-temperature (high-fuel) fires it used to constantly re-apply its propoganda murals, and also, as that website I like says, "the massive deforestation of the surrounding area to produce limestone caused the drying up of streams and erosions of fields, ruining the surrounding farmland."
In fact, the start of the Industrial Revolution can be traced to the time when England managed to almost totally devastate its hardwood forests, at which point it turned to mining coal, which it had abundant supplies of, for fuel, which required a machine that could pump water out of the coal mines, which gave birth to the coal-fired steam engine that revolutionized the world.
Frankly, just look at how we players strip the land bare in ever-widening circles as our fortress needs more and more wood for beds, barrels, and fuel for industry. If something can be made of stone or something you can grow on a farm, or glass if you have sand and a magma , you use those first. If not, and something can be made of wood, you make it of wood. If not, then you make it out of metal.
The best rule of thumb that I can think of is if that a system does not encourage creative solutions to problems, then it should be either redesigned, scrapped, rendered invisible to the player (unless he specifically wants to see it), or automated as best as the game engine can handle. The "encourage creative solutions to problems" is vague, and should be weighed against the strain that the system places on the player.
In other words, if an increase in farming complexity only gives us the crop diversity we have now but with extra work for the player (through, say, queueing watering or fertilization jobs), I'd oppose it strongly. The more effects that encouraged creative solutions that it could have would lower my resistance (like letting other things affect quality of the soil such as fortress location and my aforementioned suggestions for events affecting salinity/acidity). But I'd never want to force the player to waste any significant amount of time doing things that have no creativity involved. That applies to all of Dwarf Fortress, and is at the core of at least my complaints about the UI.
First off, be careful about the difference between slashes and backslashes. :P Also, leaving a break of a couple lines between [/quote] and the response really helps people who might quote you in the future, even if you don't make that mistake.
Anyway, as I've been repeatedly trying to say, this is exactly the sort of thing I have been doing my best to include - whether through aquaducts, sewage and waste treatment, pests that offer dynamic problems, and expanded types of crops, including biome-specific forms of crops and massive increases in crop diversity. I honestly have trouble thinking of anything more to put into it, and if you can, by all means, do add to it. (Although I would prefer a swarm of locusts attacking your farm and maybe at the most the acidic slugs over "Poseidon crashes a tidal wave on you"... when you're in a cave.)
Post by: Kilo24 on August 13, 2010, 12:40:02 am
I honestly think that a better way to handle keeping enough water around for farmers (other than limitless aquifers, which aren't nearly the hassle when you don't need to dig beneath them, anyway) would be to have farms that are open to air simply take rain water as effective irrigation. That way, you can have farms that grow crops appropriate for the rainfall of the region that grow there (if, perhaps, not the most regular crop yields because there isn't absolute control over the water supply).
That's something I quite like, actually. It'd make the crops easier to maintain at the cost of limiting the growing season and exposing the crops to a less defensible area.
The best rule of thumb that I can think of is if that a system does not encourage creative solutions to problems, then it should be either redesigned, scrapped, rendered invisible to the player (unless he specifically wants to see it), or automated as best as the game engine can handle. The "encourage creative solutions to problems" is vague, and should be weighed against the strain that the system places on the player.
In other words, if an increase in farming complexity only gives us the crop diversity we have now but with extra work for the player (through, say, queueing watering or fertilization jobs), I'd oppose it strongly. The more effects that encouraged creative solutions that it could have would lower my resistance (like letting other things affect quality of the soil such as fortress location and my aforementioned suggestions for events affecting salinity/acidity). But I'd never want to force the player to waste any significant amount of time doing things that have no creativity involved. That applies to all of Dwarf Fortress, and is at the core of at least my complaints about the UI.
First off, be careful about the difference between slashes and backslashes. :P Also, leaving a break of a couple lines between [ /quote ] and the response really helps people who might quote you in the future, even if you don't make that mistake.
Anyway, as I've been repeatedly trying to say, this is exactly the sort of thing I have been doing my best to include - whether through aquaducts, sewage and waste treatment, pests that offer dynamic problems, and expanded types of crops, including biome-specific forms of crops and massive increases in crop diversity. I honestly have trouble thinking of anything more to put into it, and if you can, by all means, do add to it. (Although I would prefer a swarm of locusts attacking your farm and maybe at the most the acidic slugs over "Poseidon crashes a tidal wave on you"... when you're in a cave.)
Yeah, I was under a time crunch then and didn't look at the preview.
I guess that the main point we differ on is that I'd like the system to be either trivialized or the default settings to be good enough that, outside of those dynamic problems, it takes a minimum of effort to maintain and establish. You're not as worried about keeping the effort to maintain and establish it low. Is that a fair assessment?
About the tidal wave, there are a few things to potentially justify it; maybe it's really the only way the god can influence your fortress, or he doesn't know you've only started pissing him off after you made your fortress watertight. It's still a bit contrived, but not *that* bad. In any case, this specific issue's not that important.
As for more stuff to add to farming (and this applies to pretty much every system), remember that Dwarf Fortress is a fantasy setting. The vast majority of modern-day attention to fantastic elements within fantasy has gone into making combat more dramatic, but there's still a lot more to old tales and the potential of the fantasy setting than that. Dwarf Fortress has the rare opportunity of having systems with fantasy elements that impact much more than hit point totals. IMO, Toady should not be shy to include fantasy elements that are unique among modern fantasy (even if they're completely made up on the spot and have no mythological basis) *especially* if they are responsible for integrating systems into gameplay that would otherwise be not relevant enough to justify their complexity. That makes for both a more tightly designed game and a more interesting setting (and really shouldn't wait until the Magic arc, because these elements need to be tested in order to be integrated well.)
As an example for improved farming we could have very hard-to-grow plants that became as hard as steel when they were pulled from the ground (providing an alternative to the metalsmithing industry if you managed to get the rare seeds and had the skills of a legendary grower), or forgotten beasts could breathe a mist that would spread across the crops and turn them into nigh-unkillable poisonous-spider-spawning weeds that would start to grow everywhere and could only be purged with fire. Or a plant with poisonous paralytic thorns could be cultivated then transplanted to the sides of your entry hall, and a creative trap could make a floor that would tilt and slide anyone in the hall into the plants to serve as further fertilizer. Maybe a plant could create gold or adamantine flowers that could be melted down and reused, but require large piles of corpses of a specific race to grow in.
I'd be perfectly fine with making these plants be hard to grow because they, unlike food, are not a basic necessity for a fortress. In my mind, exploiting possibilities like these would justify the added hassle of Improved Farming as discussed in that thread.
And in general, I'd really love to see each new system in DF be added with a few dramatic but non-essential ways to exploit them, even if it's based in a fantasy world and not reality. That provides motivation to learn the new system, a clear indication to the players that the game is getting deeper and not just more complex, and most importantly a example for all the creative stuff that the game eventually will fully handle that Toady can experiment with to figure out what are and aren't fun mechanics. At worst, they can be set up so they can be disabled in the raws, but I think it'd dramatically improve the game for pretty much everyone.
He's definitely already done a good few things which I'd lump into that category: the new HFS, the underground with its forests, the magma sea, forgotten beasts. If the arsenal dwarf had a significant positive effect instead of a negative one I'd lump it there too, but it was essential for a military - I really appreciate Toady putting the position in, learning from that experiment and removing the position. I'd love to see dramatic experiments with each new system, however.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 13, 2010, 08:16:59 am
I guess that the main point we differ on is that I'd like the system to be either trivialized or the default settings to be good enough that, outside of those dynamic problems, it takes a minimum of effort to maintain and establish. You're not as worried about keeping the effort to maintain and establish it low. Is that a fair assessment?
Not really, I love conceptualizing systems, and I love poking around and understanding all their interrelations with all the surrounding systems, but I'm not a fan of micromanagement at all. I actually prefer the idea that it's hard to make the farms, but that once the system is established, it is totally automatable if you are careful enough at finding a way to balance them.
I only put in more dynamic problems that take player intervention, like "disasters" because people kept asking for it - I rather prefer playing Dwarf Fortress by leaving it unpaused and walking away while it chugs along at 6 FPS in a 200-dwarf fort that produces rediculous oversupplies of every product, and having designated some 300 tiles of a megaproject at a time for the game to complete actually doing while I'm away.
Having to occassionally check and make sure my lumber industry is keeping pace with my demand for charcoal is actually a bit annoying for me, so I want as much automatable as I can, excepting the most interesting aspect of the game - the ability to design the system in the first place. (Which is, again, why I enjoy the front-load of the work.)
Post by: Cespinarve on August 13, 2010, 10:16:54 am
Post by: Untelligent on August 13, 2010, 01:54:56 pm
Will there be an adjustment on the way rust works in regards to skills? As is, in forts where there aren't a lot of injuries, it's frustrating that the moment you really need your legendary surgeon, he's so rusty as to be almost useless.
I think Toady said that rust only reduces skill by half and it goes away after a single job.
Post by: cephalo on August 13, 2010, 02:57:27 pm
I think Toady said that rust only reduces skill by half and it goes away after a single job.
If the rust has accumulated a great deal, it can take as many as 20 jobs. I've seen it myself. I too was bothered by the fact that all doctors eventually become peasants. However, I can't say that my dabbling doctors are doing a bad job with the healthcare. In fact I see no difference from a highly skilled immigrant doctor to my original peasant doctor who has lost all his skills.
Post by: Untelligent on August 13, 2010, 04:01:01 pm
Post by: James.Denholm on August 13, 2010, 05:00:51 pm
Well, maybe your doctors progressed beyond rust and actually started to lose their skills. I guess you could set up a device where any dwarf attempting to enter your dining room had a small chance to fall through a hatch and break a leg on the ground a couple stories below, giving your doctors plenty of jobs to keep busy.You could say that he'd be taking a fall for the team...
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 13, 2010, 06:00:27 pm
Post by: Untelligent on August 13, 2010, 08:43:38 pm
You could just train your soldiers and your medics at the same time.
And your engineers if you replace the spears periodically.
Post by: cephalo on August 13, 2010, 09:09:16 pm
Well, maybe your doctors progressed beyond rust and actually started to lose their skills. I guess you could set up a device where any dwarf attempting to enter your dining room had a small chance to fall through a hatch and break a leg on the ground a couple stories below, giving your doctors plenty of jobs to keep busy.
In this case it was a bone carver not a doctor, but it seems there is alot of randomness as to whether the rust comes off. Four or five injuries per year leads to skill loss even for a single doctor, and fatalities don't help obviously, you need survivable wounds.
Someone set up a "training camp" for armor use by setting up spike traps with wood training spears (not menacing spikes) inside of a barracks, and repeatedly throwing the lever to give his dwarves the ability to repeatedly defend against a fairly weak attack. It still resulted in plenty of yellow wounds to patch up. You could just tain your soldiers and your medics at the same time.
You have to admit that is utterly ridiculous. "Here, let me break your arm so I can practice my bone setting.."
Post by: OmnipotentGrue on August 13, 2010, 09:15:47 pm
You have to admit that is utterly ridiculous. "Here, let me break your arm so I can practice my bone setting.."
Play more Dwarf Fortress, you aren't insane enough.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 13, 2010, 09:59:21 pm
Post by: tfaal on August 13, 2010, 11:41:38 pm
Someone set up a "training camp" for armor use by setting up spike traps with wood training spears (not menacing spikes) inside of a barracks, and repeatedly throwing the lever to give his dwarves the ability to repeatedly defend against a fairly weak attack. It still resulted in plenty of yellow wounds to patch up. You could just tain your soldiers and your medics at the same time.
You have to admit that is utterly ridiculous. "Here, let me break your arm so I can practice my bone setting.."
Not all too crazy. It is a particularly brutal way to train soldiers, but most injuries should be bruises, and what breaks do occur can be made safe with good doctors and plenty of soap. You should be able to run a fortress this way for a good long while without fatalities, and it trains an important combat skill. I'd say it's a boon to the fortress, even putting aside the medical training.
Post by: Greiger on August 13, 2010, 11:59:10 pm
However I'm not sure I have ever had really good doctors. I've never seen traction benches or tables even used yet. It's all just clean suture bandage splint.
[probably more suggestion materiel]
Would be nice if very good diagnosers would do a quick ninja diagnosis now and then to check for infection. Maybe just create another cleaning job or do some emergency surgery or something if a skilled diagnoser spots signs of infection when performing some other task on the patient. That way a dwarf that suddenly starts oozing pus is not immediately written off by the player as dead. Would be nice if the doc could maybe amputate an arm or something to save the patient.
[/probably more suggestion materiel]
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 14, 2010, 09:36:06 am
You have to admit that is utterly ridiculous. "Here, let me break your arm so I can practice my bone setting.."
Hey, here in real life, we have literal Human Crash Test Dummies - they test how much damage a human body can take in different ways so that they can calibrate the Crash Test Dummies to be appropriate stand-ins for humans.
Did you know that the human skull can withstand up to 300 lbs of force in short intervals before it cracks? Apparently, that's what Human Crash Test Dummies are there to find out.
FOR SCIENCE!
Post by: LordShotGun on August 14, 2010, 12:11:00 pm
Post by: zwei on August 14, 2010, 12:17:09 pm
Doctor skills are prime candidate as they tend to de-level because player is doing too good job at preventing dwarves to get harmed.
There are several other skills that are very expensive to train and rarely, if ever, used.
---
This can more of future thing when you could buy books from caravan and let your dwarves study them for either rust prevention or even straight skillups.
Another similar idea is to let literate dwarves keep journal which would help against rust (imagine it as your medical dwarf taking notes after handling patient and them refering to them later.)
Oh, there could also be accidents - craftsdwarf cutting himself or mason accidentally hammering his finger ... Something so small that it has rarely chance to kill or cripple dwarf permamently, but which would give doctor something to do.
Post by: Footkerchief on August 14, 2010, 12:19:01 pm
Havent been here for awhile so this probably was covered already but whats up with the non decaying blood on the ground? After just 2-3 years I got all sorts of pus, blood and other fluid pretty much swimming around the place. While its not game effecting I dont think, its rather disconcerting to have everything covered in red "paint" and my dwarfs wasting time cleaning themselves.
There's a bug that causes contaminants/spatters to multiply themselves (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=296) (described in greater detail here (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=296#c1868)). It's broken, basically.
Post by: Rose on August 14, 2010, 12:46:36 pm
Spoiler: graphic detail (click to show/hide)
Post by: Greiger on August 14, 2010, 01:43:31 pm
Dwarf Fortress has badass "Doesn't care about anything anymore." Souless killing machine Blood Dwarves.
The Blood Dwarves use real blood. Blood Elves just wear red. I think I picked my side. It is the bearded side.
P.S. I wish my forts looked that awesome.
Post by: Nivim on August 14, 2010, 02:24:56 pm
Post by: Syff on August 14, 2010, 02:33:16 pm
Ideally, it should be trivially simple to set up a couple patches of plump helmets or whatever and sustain your fortress with them without much maintenance, at least for a couple years or so.
But then all at once half the harvest has succumbed to disease, you've got more migrant mouths than you expected to feed, you've ruined the soil for future planting, the dwarves are sick of eating the equivalent of gruel all the time, and winter is only just setting in.
Your only hope is to butcher your herds for meat, increase your hunting (though game is scarce this time of year), and hope you last until the elven caravan comes in spring. Or maybe, if you delved deeper into the earth, you might find something to eat...
You should be able to play a small fort simply and get by. You should be able to buy some more time with occasional simple adjustments, like relocating your farms and changing crops, and live long enough for something else to kill you long before it's a major concern. But managing a fully mature fortress (which currently tend to die because they get too stable and the player gets bored) should require more care and planning.
Post by: Neonivek on August 15, 2010, 01:33:04 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 15, 2010, 01:39:25 pm
Quote
It's hard to say since I'm pretty much just fixing issues and following ripples from the world gen changes and so on.
So toady is experiencing some kind of butterfly-effect? Serriously what does 'ripples' mean in this context?
Post by: Neonivek on August 15, 2010, 01:42:11 pm
QuoteIt's hard to say since I'm pretty much just fixing issues and following ripples from the world gen changes and so on.
So toady is experiencing some kind of butterfly-effect? Serriously what does 'ripples' mean in this context?
Probably a ripple as in a ripple in the water.
Post by: Organum on August 15, 2010, 01:50:56 pm
QuoteIt's hard to say since I'm pretty much just fixing issues and following ripples from the world gen changes and so on.
So toady is experiencing some kind of butterfly-effect? Serriously what does 'ripples' mean in this context?
Probably a ripple as in a ripple in the water.
I'm gonna guess he means it like "I made this happen, which affects this, which affects this, this and this. Oops, that broke. Now I have to monitor the rest so I can find what else is broken because of either the original problem or the changes I made to fix it."
Post by: Neonivek on August 15, 2010, 03:12:06 pm
Post by: Eduren on August 15, 2010, 03:20:34 pm
Post by: Organum on August 15, 2010, 03:21:40 pm
Post by: FuzzyDoom on August 15, 2010, 04:32:41 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 15, 2010, 04:37:24 pm
I dare someone to take an Adventurer into that cottage and try and win...also, what's wrong with that? It could be a big family!
It wouldn't be that tough... Counter Attacks arn't exhausting to my knowledge (though if they are)
Post by: Eduren on August 15, 2010, 04:38:03 pm
"My family has been living in that square foot for generations! My father was born and conceived there!"
"Yeah, but that was after you stole it from my family!"
Post by: Ma88hew on August 15, 2010, 08:40:04 pm
Post by: Acanthus117 on August 15, 2010, 08:41:33 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 15, 2010, 08:49:30 pm
Post by: Arihim on August 15, 2010, 09:58:32 pm
I remember toady saying that he would implement multi tile trees? Then I faintly remember him talking about how he would use them to build cities in the trees for elves.
I tired searching to no avail. It may not be true..sleep deprived hallucinations may be the culprit here..
Anyone remember such a think or care to link me to something ?
Post by: Krash on August 15, 2010, 10:12:30 pm
I can confirm he did, but I'm not sure where. Possibly he mentioned it in a DF talk
I remember toady saying that he would implement multi tile trees? Then I faintly remember him talking about how he would use them to build cities in the trees for elves.
Post by: o_O[WTFace] on August 15, 2010, 10:21:44 pm
Post by: Shadowfury333 on August 15, 2010, 11:33:06 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 16, 2010, 12:42:54 am
Also, he said there would be investigations, so no more telepathic villagers coming to kill you for stealing.
Instead they will telepathically investigate just like the guards in Oblivion!
Post by: Asmageddon on August 16, 2010, 04:11:24 am
Post by: Arihim on August 16, 2010, 04:23:33 am
Does anyone realise how easy it might become to kill elves ? Just make a few nicks in the tree trunks and watch the city collapse muhaha.
Post by: Asmageddon on August 16, 2010, 04:42:29 am
Post by: Tormy on August 16, 2010, 05:21:29 am
I can confirm he did, but I'm not sure where. Possibly he mentioned it in a DF talk
I remember toady saying that he would implement multi tile trees? Then I faintly remember him talking about how he would use them to build cities in the trees for elves.
Indeed he did....years ago in fact. :)
Post by: Asmageddon on August 16, 2010, 06:49:20 am
1) I don't like generating new world, especially if I spent few hours for an especially nice, gigantic one, and I guess many people have simmiliar opinion on that matter, so what about trying to first make map generation become final(as in: you do ALL of the world generation stuff, even if it's gonna have no use for a long time), so we don't have to regen the world each time something new is introduced.
2) What do you think about having some sort of 'tech trees', in which each item/building/material depends on others (like: steel depends on discovery of iron and pig iron(and accesibility to flux stone), iron relies on technology of smelting, which humans&dwarves should know right from the start, but for example elves have to discover it(but they probably won't, since they love their super-duper wooden items)
So each tech(these would be as said: buildings, processes, items and misc(like invention of religion, war, etc)) would have 0/100 points. When people(a civ) invent(or have already invented) one of prerequisites it would add 50/n points(where n is number of prerequisites), and then each a civ creates artifact in category of one of prerequisites it would give +10 points, exceptional would give 2 and all other would have slight chance to give 1. Everybody with skill*2+points > 100 would be able to produce it, and depending on uncomonnes of this tech would gain fame(this could be hard, so it could perhaps be implemented later)
And maybe some high-end techs for very old worlds(>2k years old), that COULD be invented, like:
-muskets (and early, black powder based weapons in general)
-Automatic crossbows
-Different bows
-Invention of plastic for incredibly old worlds
-etc, etc, etc.
Well, you understand, so a year 50 world would be vastly different from year 5050 one, in which there could possibly even laser weapons be invented(oh, well, that's a joke, but some relatively-high-tech, steampunk items could be nice)
And perhaps magic, which starts to fade away as technology progresses....
3) Relationship between words and learning languages:
Words should have relationship with other words, so for example:
children(100%)
=singular: child(95%)
=related, other forms: baby(80%)
=related, above: parents(50%), sex(50%)
=related, below: toy(60%), growing(60%), childhood(60%)
=related, loosely: small(30%)
=2nd gen related:
-=To parents, above: marriage(25% - 50% of parents relationship), love(25%)
-=To childhood, below: fun(30%)
=3rd gen related:
-=To love:
--=opposite: hatred, hate(-18,75% - 75% of love)
=opposite: oldman(-75% relationship)
-=related, loosely: death (-22,5%)
-=2nd gen related, below: grandma,grandpa,grandmother,grandfather (-45%)
--=3rd gen related, to death, closely: bone(65% of -22,5% ~= -14,62%)
--=3rd gen related, to death, above: weapon(50% of -22,5% = -11,25%)
Also, materials would have perhaps ~70% relationship, so in a religion based around children there would be religious value for example for:
-[name], dwarven(related to small, loosely - 30% of 30%=+9%) child(+95%) bone(-14,62%) toy(+60%) axe(95% * -11,25%, since it is below a weapon ~= -10,68)
The value summed up would be 9+95-14,62+60-10,68=138,7%
So for everybody in this religion such item would be worth 238,7% as much as to anybody else.
Simplified overview:
Other form of this word: 95% related
related, closely: 65%(oh well, maybe better 75% ?)
related, loosely: 30%
related, below: 60%
related, above: 50%
opposite: -75%
special: related to a variable/stat/skill/relationship with other entities. Used in dialogues
related, misc: related in misc way. Relationship rate is 40%. Used in dialogues, examples: generated(by), lurk(there, example: caverns, related, lurk: monsters), tech prequisite, etc.
Depending on situation it could be only calculated for example up to 5th generation.
And well, you know, temples could be decorated with items/creatures that have positive religious value, so you would know not to join a religion with temple decorated with children skulls and little dorfs chained to ceiling....
And that could add a lot of dialog possibilities, like:
Urist McPlayer: Tell me about... (here player types a word, for example miasma)
McAnswerer: Miasma is a substance.
(game searches variables, finds that corpses spawn miasma and that it in general detests all sentients with single exception of kobolds for example)
McAnswerer: Nobody likes miasma, except kobolds. Corpses generate miasma.
(game searches words: kobolds, nobody, miasma and corpses(since other words are not nouns) and chooses random one or two of them)
McAnswerer: Kobolds is A small, squat humanoid with large pointy ears and yellow glowing eyes. In 476 a kobold named Kobo McKobold ravaged village of SunKeeps. (sentence reached standard length limit, so kobold is the only topic now)
(since last sentence was loosely related to miasma, game goes back to the topic)
McAnswerer: I dislike miasma and everything related, except for substances. (To make dialogues not too long)
Also, player could sometimes choose subject in between sentences, like:
McAnswerer: Nobody likes miasma, except kobolds. Corpses generate miasma. Would you like to listen about kobolds? (randomly chosen one of nouns)
Options could be:
Yes(talks about it)
No(Back to the topic, miasma in this case)
Rather tell my about nobody
or:
McAnswerer: Kobolds is A small, squat humanoid with large pointy ears and yellow glowing eyes. In 476 a kobold named Kobo McKobold ravaged village of SunKeeps. Ok, now back to the topic, right?
Yes
Continue(picks random subject)
Tell me more about year 476
Tell me more about Kobo McKobold
etc...
And to force opinions(based on preferences, searched up to 3rd gen, religions, up to 4th gen, and history: - to creatures that ravaged, stolen, etc, + to famous heroes and members of own civs/organisations):
What do you think about... (player types a word)
And answers would be generic sentences, different for item types, named beings, artifacts, creatures and normal words, like:
Nobody likes [xxx] (if all races dislike it)
Nobody here likes [xxx] (if everybody in town/nearby dislikes it)
Nobody likes [xxx], except for [yyy] (if only one race likes it)
Nobody likes [xxx], except for [yyy] and [zzz] (in case of two races, assuming it is disliked by at least three)
Nobody likes [xxx], but [animal] seems to love it
Everybody likes [xxx]
Everybody likes [xxx], just not [yyy]
My religion is about [xxx]
[God] occasionally takes form of [xxx]
There is religion based around [xxx]
In [civ] they praise [xxx]
[xxx] was invented by [yyy] in [year]
[xxx] reminds me of [yyy].
[xxx] is [item/creature/building description, if such object was found]
My [xxx, if it is a stat] is [stat, for example: superhuman]
I refuse to speak about [xxx], because of [reason, for example: "sorrow", if [xxx] is a creature that killed his wife, or "hatred that would enrage me"]
In [year] [xxx], [action] (opt: in) [place], ie.: in 911 McElephant ravaged BoatsMurdered.
And more, of course some sentences would be related, like current "blah blah blah ravaged blah" and "and killed
- in his lust"
Sometimes there would be "Would you like to listen about [xxx]?", "about [xxx] or rather [yyy] ?", "Do you like [xxx]?", etc. these could factor relationship with the one player speaks to when player says he likes what other person likes. Repeating sentences(maybe last 25/50/100 get remembered?) would annoy speaker
And also there would be hardcoded actions for words of type "special", like:
trade [something, can be null, then only traders trade, because some people may react to "would you like to trade [religious object]"]
buy [like trade, but player would like to buy something from someone, only this item is traded, and most of people could agree for most objects]
sell [when player wants to sell something to someone, would be accepted if subject owns money/unused non-worthless items and religious/preference based relationship is above certain level]
service
join [religion/me/I'd like to join religion]
These, in addition to hardcoded responses for "Tell me about [xxx]" or "What do you think about [xxx]?" would have their own sentences, like:
I'd like to join your cult (hardcoded answers: "We welcome you", "Seek [yyy]", etc. In addition to generic ones)
or:
I'd like to sell you [xxx]
And last thing about this, I promise:
There would be whole-civ/cult/group-based relationship applied only inside that group based on worldgen actions, ie.:
Lots of elves were killed, so "elf" gets associated with "dying" and "death"
They were killed by bronze collosi, so "bronze collosus" gets associated with "killing" and "death"
Also, on slower pace, and loosely elves would get associated with bronze collosi
And as for language, that's simple: all sentients can know a language on following levels:
Not know( <2%)
A bit ( <15% )
Can speak ( >40%)
Good (>70%)
Very good (> 80%)
Fluent(>95%)
Native(100%)
Percentage is amount of words known(to not burden game with remembering every single one)
Except a player, who can either know a word, or not. Words are learned by asking somebody with higher percentage of known words(and when both player and teacher have a common language at >=Good) to teach player (may sometimes cost money/items or require doing a quest, for example killing a monster, or bringing an item). Game determines what words does that person know by checking his/her relationship(words used in common sentences, with relationship to them, with relationship to own race, civ, religion, etc, while probably does not know uncommon ones)
Player can also learn words by himself when he knows language at >35% and when he hears a sentence with >70% of words he does understand.
Player should be able to ask someone "May we speak in... [language] ?".
Also if an unknown word is in between two known words and is related to a word player knows there is a chance to learn it. Language learning skills(amount of words taught by teacher, amount of words possibly gained when hearing mostly understood sentence and chance to learn a word surrounded by two known words) should be based on Linguistic ability and/or Patience.
Words not known are translated from english (like Dagger->Urist)
While implementing these things MIGHT be easy(depends on engine architecture) it will be just about nearly impossible with human-like patience to create files describing relationship between words, their special meanings and links to hardcoded topics/variables. For that, an army of people would be needed. I suggest hiring community.
Ok, thanks for reading, sorry for such a huge wall of text and eventual poor english, since I'm not a native english speaking person and I've got spell checking set to another language.
Just imagine overhearing a conversation:
Urist McDad: What do you think about sex(randomly chosen subject)
McDaughter: I like sex. Everybody likes sex except elves. Would you like to hear about elves?
Urist McDad: No, continue.
McDaughter: Sex makes children. In 528 Urist McMom born a children with Urist McDad.
Urist McDad: Tell me about Urist McMom.
McDaughter: In 512 McMom married Urist McDad. I detest Urist McDad for his false ribs and being old(remember? old is opposite of young, which is related to child, which McDaughter is)
Urist McDad: Thank you for conversation. See you soon.( they're family, so there are more informal greetings)
So yeah, I hope toady implements this and asks community to create such relationship-describing files....
PS.: I've got more ideas, but this is already long enough, so I'll wait on Toady One's comments about this....
Post by: Neonivek on August 16, 2010, 12:38:14 pm
Post by: Asmageddon on August 16, 2010, 12:59:39 pm
Post by: tfaal on August 16, 2010, 01:22:13 pm
***wall of text***Suggestions should probably go in the suggestions forum, especially for things this long, since making the mass-reply posts already takes Toady hours.
Post by: Fieari on August 16, 2010, 01:40:29 pm
Ahh there we go. Proof that Toady isn't Paranoid when he cares about Save capatability.
Did I miss an update? I don't see one for today, even refreshing...
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 16, 2010, 02:17:25 pm
***wall of text***Suggestions should probably go in the suggestions forum, especially for things this long, since making the mass-reply posts already takes Toady hours.
Of course, if you want to actually get Toady to respond to a suggestion (and that post was basically asking Toady questions), the suggestion forum is pretty much the one place where you are guaranteed that Toady will not respond unless he is brought in as a moderator to stop an argument.
I'm not even sure if he even looks at the suggestions threads anymore (something that obviously takes more than the several hours this one thread takes), as the last time I remember seeing a comment about it, he had said he was several months behind on reading the suggestions, and that was before DF 2010 came out and made the forums explode.
Post by: Neonivek on August 16, 2010, 02:41:43 pm
Ahh there we go. Proof that Toady isn't Paranoid when he cares about Save capatability.
Did I miss an update? I don't see one for today, even refreshing...
I was refering to the ladder of text.
Post by: Untelligent on August 16, 2010, 02:45:50 pm
iron relies on technology of smelting, which humans&dwarves should know right from the start
Starting with 31.01, humans actually don't know how to smelt iron anymore. They're back in the bronze age now.
Post by: Footkerchief on August 16, 2010, 02:50:28 pm
Of course, if you want to actually get Toady to respond to a suggestion (and that post was basically asking Toady questions), the suggestion forum is pretty much the one place where you are guaranteed that Toady will not respond unless he is brought in as a moderator to stop an argument.
I'm not even sure if he even looks at the suggestions threads anymore (something that obviously takes more than the several hours this one thread takes), as the last time I remember seeing a comment about it, he had said he was several months behind on reading the suggestions, and that was before DF 2010 came out and made the forums explode.
The reality of the situation is that, regardless of where it's posted, Toady doesn't have time to read in detail all the ideas put forth by fans.
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 16, 2010, 04:53:02 pm
A comment was made by Asmageddon regarding keeping worlds that have been generated across save compatibility broken borders by setting it so that history generation could be done with pre-generated worlds.Ahh there we go. Proof that Toady isn't Paranoid when he cares about Save capatability.
Did I miss an update? I don't see one for today, even refreshing...
So saying that Toady caring about save compatibility has reason, because of people like Asmageddon.
As for the rest of what he said, there are just too many things to focus on that is wrong to even figure out where to start. I'll just start with the fact that "Baby" and "Child" may be 80% related in Asmageddon's world view, but that means that in his world view, they are also 20% different. So 1 out 5 times, it will be inappropriately used, assuming his portions are correct. Speaking to any chatbot for any length of time will show you the frustration in that. Also, there are flaws in his understanding of the development of technology, but since Toady can be quoted on tech trees and the fact that everything Asmageddon he had to say about that was covered in the suggestions forum, I can leave that alone.
Post by: tps12 on August 16, 2010, 05:46:26 pm
McDaughter: In 512 McMom married Urist McDad. I detest Urist McDad for his false ribs and being old(remember? old is opposite of young, which is related to child, which McDaughter is)
I like that your suggestion for how whatever this is (some sort of AI conversation generator?) should work is that children should hate their parents because they're old.
(Although it might actually make sense for the daughter to detest her creep of a father for initiating a conversation with "what do you think about sex?")
Post by: G-Flex on August 16, 2010, 07:20:40 pm
iron relies on technology of smelting, which humans&dwarves should know right from the start
Starting with 31.01, humans actually don't know how to smelt iron anymore. They're back in the bronze age now.
Are you sure they don't know how, or do they just not use it? After all, bronze is better to begin with.
Post by: Footkerchief on August 16, 2010, 08:41:39 pm
iron relies on technology of smelting, which humans&dwarves should know right from the start
Starting with 31.01, humans actually don't know how to smelt iron anymore. They're back in the bronze age now.
Are you sure they don't know how, or do they just not use it? After all, bronze is better to begin with.
See this bug report (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=812) (especially Knight Otu's note (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=812#c9521)).
It's reasonable to think they're using bronze because it's better, but dwarves have access to even better metals (e.g. steel), and you'll still find tons of dwarves with copper weapons etc.
Post by: Dakk on August 16, 2010, 08:53:21 pm
Post by: Shade-o on August 17, 2010, 05:04:49 am
The question is: while plain Iron is obviously unalloyed and soft, what is Steel? Is it a product that the Romans were familiar with, or is it more something that an Italian swordsmith would use at the height of the Renaissance?
Basically, since Humans are quite civilised, they should know how to make Iron into a more useful form, even if it isn't the top-quality work that the Dwarves have. Historically, it ranged from better to worse than Bronze, but the important thing is that iron was made much more useful.
Post by: Thief^ on August 17, 2010, 07:49:11 am
I know this is from a few pages back, but it wasn't greened and it should be.Yes. Brooks should have 3/7 water. You can swim in them, but not drown. Maybe some smaller like 2/7.Such an amazing and simple idea! This would also mean you wouldn't need to have the counterintuitive "floor on top of 7/7 water" system. People would simply cross the water. The only new thing required would be sloped river/brook banks.
Are there any plans to remove the "brook tile" hack and replace it with sloped banks and less than 7/7 water? Hell, could we get sloped banks on the normal rivers and ponds?
How about the "edge of map waterfall" effect? Water runs off the downstream end of a river as if the next square was empty, causing the last few squares of river to be noticeably lower water levels than the rest of it. Perhaps treating the downstream end of the river as always being 1 less water depth than the last on-map river square next to it would work better? That would allow the river to fill to the same depth all the way along.
Post by: Asmageddon on August 17, 2010, 08:18:21 am
I like that your suggestion for how whatever this is (some sort of AI conversation generator?)Nope. The generator would remain almost unchanged. Just topics instead of always going through a set up chain, ie.: [info about village] [who lives here] [what he does] would be picked at random and assembled by chosing related words and topics, this would also help to determine religious/private value for an item, so villager of "WoodAncient" would like wood, as such also trees, and thus be a bit more friendly toward elves.
Or priest of religion based around Stone would buy stone items for a better price, etc.
As for conversation - there should just be more preset sentences as I mentioned, which describe a term(a word)/object/creature based on it's type and relation with other words, so a unicorn-liking person would also like horses as unicorns are based on them, and asked about horses would possibly say that he likes them for being related with unicorns, or shift topic to related words like hoofs, stables, etc.
I know I explained it badly, but it's actualy relatively simple, I wanted to implement something like that, but I lacked a game/program in which there would be a large, persistent world with talkable creatures, many items and objects, which would be manipulable by player.
Post by: Toady One on August 17, 2010, 08:50:10 am
Quote from: Armok
In many games mounts are basically motorbikes with legs, will mounts in DF, especially badly trained or with a low riding skill, be treated more realistically as separate agents that you just give commands? This is especially important with intelligent ones, which should probably be handled more like your companions than like a warhorse.
Yeah, I think all commands will be transferred by whatever means, with the ability to break down at any stage. So if your mount is trained to respond to physical or verbal commands, and the horse can't receive the command or you can't send it, then you'd be in bad shape. Now, if everything is in good shape, I doubt this will be any different from regular movement though, to keep things straightforward (aside from the velocity changes and whatever else comes from just being in a mount relationship). Even a mount with intelligence on par with the adventurer should just respond to movement key presses in a normal situation, but they should probably be able to resist unreasonable commands more effectively unless there's some special condition in play ensuring loyalty. Practically, this will likely mean that all mounts will just behave as extensions of the player for a while, until the first caveats are added later on.
Quote from: Veroule
Will the addition of different travel rates like walk, jog, canter, run, etc. be available to all entities or will it only be applied to mounts? If it is available to all entities do you have plans to make dwarves in fortress mode choose to move at different paces during work or only in response to threats?
I doubt the travel rates would be restricted to mounts, but I'm not sure how they'd relate to DF jobs. Perhaps that's a good personality/etc. effect.
Quote from: Psieye
Amphibious mounts may decide to swim, drowning their riders while continuing their invasion path. Considering you don't want mounts to be unthinking 'motorbikes with legs', will this be perfectly acceptable behaviour if the mount is badly trained?
I think the rider drowning part is probably a little extreme the way it works now. The riders should try to preserve themselves both before and after the trouble happens, and the presumably well-trained mounts they currently use should avoid the water if that's called for. The current behavior is an oversight.
Quote from: Armok
Will the zones mentioned for combat also be used for other things? For example, random creture generation of stuff along the lines of shimeras and mermaids could have more use of swapping zones between species than bodyparts maybe.
Will all kinds of creatures have the same zones, or will that be something defined in the RAWs?
I'm not sure if the combat zones will be appropriate for centaurs etc. or not. A centaur-making procedure might require additional information. The combat zones might end up being very loose, because I don't want to have very many of them and I want them to be presentable in a more or less uniform way when you have to make combat decisions.
I think it is likely the zones will start in the raws, perhaps like the humanoid body positions etc.
Quote from: Mephansteras
Considering that the goblins snatch a lot of non-carnivorous folk, have you considered adding in slave-run farming villages for the goblins?
They don't snatch any strict herbivores, so the most simple option is just to force their captives to eat hunted meat as the goblins will themselves. This wouldn't be practical if the captive numbers got way out of control as they do now, but I don't expect that to last in the new system.
Quote from: Mephansteras
When you do implement [diplomacy/war], how is that going to change fortress mode? Is there going to be an option during world gen to stop when a controllable civ is at war? I know we'll be able to start wars ourselves, but will diplomatic events be happening in the background as we play, so we'll get notifications of peace treaties and new conflicts and whatnot during the course of the game? In that vein, if we start a war with the humans will that effect the entire Dwarven Civ or just our Fortress?
I'm open to more world-gen stop conditions, once it matters. The impact of your decisions should be widespread, and when wars start independent of your actions, you'll still have to deal with it. I'm not sure how the information will be conveyed to you (if it's not still instant like it is now on the civ screen). Now that there are extra people kicking around in the world, if anybody cares about you I'd imagine they'd send somebody specifically, or you'd pick it up from the next caravan, diplomat or immigrant that knows.
Quote from: Beardless
are you saying that dwarfs may emigrate to the sprawl if fortress housing prices are too high? More broadly, what are your plans for emigration during fortress mode in general?
If fortress housing prices are too high for everybody, they should be lowered. If they are too high just for few dwarves, then yeah, if an affected dwarf has some way/place to survive out in the world and nothing keeping them in the fort then they should leave. In general, a dwarf seeing better opportunity or lack of death elsewhere should go when practical -- some of your initial dwarves especially might feel more bound by loyalty, depending on the start scenario. A start scenario oriented around a temple or something might see many of the dwarves refusing to leave under any circumstances. Overall, the emigration mechanics shouldn't have them squirting out of your fort at the drop of a hat, since it would often be a hard journey with an uncertain future, but you should have to work a bit to keep them.
Quote from: Arihim
Anyone know the details about what kind of structure toady will put in? Will there be barn houses,mills, and stables and such? Also, will villagers actually harvest the crops, store them, then eat them ? In general, will villagers have needs (like food and drink) and a schedule by which they live? I think this would enable you to put in mills and barns and wheat silos and stuff while giving them real purpose. We could cause all kinds of mischief then, like sabotaging their food production lines. This would then have real consequences.
As the dev page develops, we'll get more and more of these things. Right now, there's really nothing going on. The main point is the get entity pops and site structures together, and the rest is meant to be sorted as we give the adventurer new things to do with their own sites and so on. Once the site resource stuff from Trader is in, then yeah, we'd have groups far more vulnerable to trouble. There are lots of different food sources, so you'd have to work to screw them up, but I imagine total destruction of food stores in the winter should be pretty bad. If you actually sit in the village and mess with people all year... then I dunno. If it's not something the super-rudimentary AI can spot, I guess you'd watch them starve or abandon the site or turn to a life of crime and stuff as those things are added. At first they'd probably just starve on the spot while still trying to work.
Quote from: Heph
Also what about citys near bigger lakes and rivers? Will they get channels and screw-pumps for watering the fields or for drainage of swamps and marshes for farmland? Little one-tile boats for fishing? Aqueducts for dwarves?
I haven't even done basic town maps yet, so I'm not really sure how any of this is going to manifest.
Quote from: Heph
Will there be herding/fishing based civs too?
Yeah. The herding civs will be more practical when I get to the livestock stuff for the adventurer (and it will be required to some extent). Not sure about how adv mode fishing will work, so I'm not sure how the civs will work there either. There are lots of options.
Quote from: Heph
Could [demons] change how and where sites are created/expanded/abandoned and alike?
They should -- right now they just add their position structure and start extra wars. I think we might not see much here until more things are happening with wars like fortifications and so on, where demons would likely have larger aspirations and more knowledge than goblins. There should be lots of little things though. As the personality of a bandit leader, say, will eventually be reflected more and more in the overall lifestyle/appearance/tactics/etc. of the bandits, a demon overlord could have a drastic effect on goblin society through the same mechanics with little to no extra work.
Quote from: monkeyfetus
Is weapon length taken into account in combat, and if not, will it ever be?
Does the weight of a weapon affect the velocity of the strike or recovery time/frequency of attacks? Will a weak dwarf swing an artifact platinum mace with the same velocity as one of adamantine?
I'm not sure if we'll ever get multi-tile effects from things like pikes, but the attack moves and opportunities and so on will likely consider length, as should the combat zones (for getting head attacks on things like giants, etc).
The weight of the weapon influences the velocity a lot, yeah, though I'd defer to whatever bug reports as to the overall effect there. The velocity itself was working as of my latest combat revision.
Quote from: Untelligent
In the thief section of the devlist, there's a few bits about tracking your appearance for bounties and being wanted for your crime(s) and whatnot. If you find someone with a similar enough appearance, would it be possible for the crime(s) to be blamed on that person?
Yeah, though an innocent person that lives in the location is likely to be able to avoid that kind of suspicion most of the time. Another stranger would be subject to the same torment as you, but you'd have to get them there without becoming involved yourself. That would be a pretty straightforward way to implement it. Beyond that, doing something like looking at the more distinct features/hair/clothing in the site might allow you to frame locals, but there are things to consider there, and it's a bit difficult without having every person completely specified at all times.
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady how are you going to balance out techniques with weapon wielders that use a person's physical body (and other less then full strength attacks)? In real life a body attack doesn't deal anywhere close to as much damage as a weapon strike but there are often opportunities where it is advantageous.
This is a purpose of the opportunity numbers. Randomly, and perhaps augmented by your skills/choices or however, you'd have turns where a kick becomes a highly favored move with massive bonuses. This wouldn't make the move effective beyond its maximum natural power, but a hard, accurate shot in DF is generally formidable. In cases where the opponent is impervious to the move, you'd probably want to pass on it and wait for good opportunities with your other moves if you have better ones, unless it had a good side effect that could give you an opportunity to escape.
Quote
Quote from: TormyAny plans to make farming more difficult?Quote from: Kilo24How difficult do you want farming (and feeding a fortress in general) to be, both for an experienced player trying to get everything working and for a new player learning the ropes? Will trading be able to wholly replace a dwarven fortress food industry at home?Quote from: Kogan LoloklamWill the new villages result in greater amounts of farmland required to feed individuals? If so, will there be "farmers caravans" that come to the fortress with food you can buy?
Nothing specific beyond the new dev page has been settled. I think having dwarves outside the fortress yet associated to the fortress might end up being the focus of food production for established forts, so it might often come down to surviving the first years, and you shouldn't just be able to blast out the necessary food with a random plot you plunk down somewhere. In a more isolated fort (settled on a glacier in the middle of nowhere, say), with no outside dwarves, it should be more work to support 100 dwarves. The new balance in adventure mode would require, say, 60 or so of them to be fairly dedicated underground food-workers, though the ratio hasn't been established for underground agriculture yet. A large dwarven fortress-city with expansive aboveground and underground offscreen settlements probably won't have a lot of food production onscreen, and you'd be engaged with near-constant trade/taxes/etc. with your offscreen buddies. There would need to be conversions between edible offscreen/onscreen resources, because in adventure mode you'd got people eating hundreds of items a year and in dwarf mode it is 8 or whoever. I don't like the feel of dwarf taking a barrel full of plump helmets to eat per sitting, or even referring to the food in those terms, but there's weirdness any way you do it, I think.
Quote from: Kilo24
How important will farming be, both for a NPC settlement and for a fortress? Will it be a flat-out necessity for large cities/fortresses, or can hunting and/or fishing in a reasonably wildlife-heavy place be sufficient?
I think it'll be necessary for large cities that are inhabited by people that need to eat a normal amount or else starve in some weeks. Goblins might not fall in that category. A human capital would likely only be supportable with farming, though I'd consider any real world counter-examples from the right period. What were the biggest fishing/hunting-fed settlements back then (that didn't also get a lot food from crops and livestock -- theirs or otherwise)? Does the answer change much if livestock is included but not crops?
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
[when] crops can actually be differentiated significantly, how many crops would you start allowing? Instead of having a dozen plants everywhere (and one for each of Good, Evil, and Savage), can we get tropical-jungle-on-silty-loam-specific fruits where it's possible for one fort to see an entirely different set of crops for its whole existence than another fort?
Sure, I'd prefer to have more. I'm not sure what the underground distinctions are going to be though.
Quote from: Kogan Loloklam
Will we have country bumpkins coming in from offmap needing health care or to buy items at the fortress stores?
Will the villagers sometimes detect raiding parties and warn of them coming?
The more interactions the better really, though we'll likely start with food. The timescale issue is going to be a little strange when dealing with armies on the world map moving around -- by the time they get to your outskirts, I'm not sure how much warning you'd have, so I can't commit to anything there, but it's certainly a reasonable thing.
Quote
Quote from: EdurenSo will there be a way to harvest crops from these new fields? Will taking from them make the owners hostile if you are caught?Quote from: dree12I see that the new farms look like shrubs. Will we be able to gather[p] those shrubs? Because that seems a little overkill, because it can feed 200 dwarves each year if they regrow.
You likely won't be able to found a dwarf fortress in the human villages, but yeah, they are just plants. Once you can grab plants in adv mode, they will be available, although whatever farming changes go in will likely make them not as useful a lot of the time.
Quote from: Xenxe
Judging by the shear amount of farmland for those villages posted in the screenshots does this imply any farming changes like making things take longer to grow?
I'll most likely be matching plants up roughly with whatever real-world analogs there are for the humans when I get to the actual farming updates. I'm not sure about dwarven crops.
Quote from: tfaal
Will historical events be able to affect a subset of a population? For instance, a megabeast attack that kills one tenth of a village's residents. Would this affect the individual histories of population members we meet?
Will portions of a population be able to emigrate to another site? Ideally this would towns with immigrants, whose history could be traced back to another location via an immigration wave event.
Finally, will the family members of people we meet have histories themselves, including the possibility of their death? I'll be honest with you here, I'm mostly just hoping to find a farmboy orphaned and displaced by a dragon attack and bring him along on my quest to kill the foul creature.
Not yet, but that's the idea. Any historical event affecting a population should be reflected in how it creates the population's individual members, but it'll have to be a gradual process.
Quote from: li
I live in an area between Bresse plain, the soil being roughly speaking clay, and Jura mountain, the soil being limestone. I learned in school that the villages of Bresse and Jura have very different shapes, because of the capacity of the soil to retain water. Limestone being unable to retain water, the Jura villages are very tight and dense around the scarce watering places, while the Bresse villages have homesteads scattered in a very large area because you can find ponds anywhere. Did you consider using that kind of rule for the villages morphology? That could be simple, by just relying on the soil type, or even be based on the actual water layout, with this layout depending on the soil type, although that would probably be more complex to implement.
Yeah, I've thought about it, and it'll probably end up happening, but I haven't done anything yet. It should probably wait for whatever soil information related to farming that there's going to be, but I guess I could just use aquifers and streams earlier. They don't even have wells yet though. Regions that are higher up will have less stream water in general, and the stream flows will reflect that (not that that matters much yet), though I don't have anything with karst features or whatever else with limestone that can get away from surface water entirely.
Quote from: Greiger
Plains civs have farms now from what I gather. I assume goblins will have hunting sheds or livestock pens or something like that for meat gathering, elves will have...elf stuff. Will modders be able to pick and choose which kind of structures are available to a civ? For example replacing the majority of a [CARNIVORE] race's farms with hunting lodges or animal pens or something? Like reducing farms to 5%, hunting lodges up to 35%, livestock pens to 35%, woodcutting outposts to 15%... and so on and so fourth?
Right now you can just set the permitted jobs. I'm not sure how percentages would work -- there's going to be a lot of influence from the available resources, so allocations that specific might not end up being workable, although I guess in an ideal location it might be able to rely on them.
Quote
Quote from: Jiri PetruAnd yeah, the lakes/ponds are weird. Any chance you'll get rid of them, Toady?Quote from: Thief^Are there any plans to remove the "brook tile" hack and replace it with sloped banks and less than 7/7 water?
They have been around from the beginning, and I never got around to the local variations in the landscape that I'd need to get a better distribution of differently-sized small features. We might see something on this with underbrush (which is up in the first category on the dev page with the other things I've been working on), since I wanted to mix tree/brush density up within a given world map square, though soil information might have to come first for that to be satisfying. Another obstacle is having new moist tiles or tiles with some water without having them having floors on a different Z level. Brooks are currently handled that way. I don't like the idea of having 3/7 water a Z level down, although a lot of the streams should probably connect up with the aquifer. This would make fewer places inhabitable by digging creatures unless the stream were smoothly lowered a bit, but I'm not for turning them into rivers with less water in them since that introduces problems with connecting rivers (would all 3/7 rivers connect to 7/7 rivers in waterfalls? Otherwise you'd have reverse waterfalls, or you'd have to introduce a 4/7 ground square, which feels like a can of worms) and people walking across a brook should not be in a separate Z level with respect to projectiles/LOS, etc. People swimming on the surface of a river should probably also be vulnerable to archers, but having an ankle-high brook hide you is worse.
Post by: cephalo on August 17, 2010, 10:17:01 am
I don't like the idea of having 3/7 water a Z level down, although a lot of the streams should probably connect up with the aquifer. This would make fewer places inhabitable by digging creatures unless the stream were smoothly lowered a bit, but I'm not for turning them into rivers with less water in them since that introduces problems with connecting rivers (would all 3/7 rivers connect to 7/7 rivers in waterfalls? Otherwise you'd have reverse waterfalls, or you'd have to introduce a 4/7 ground square, which feels like a can of worms) and people walking across a brook should not be in a separate Z level with respect to projectiles/LOS, etc. People swimming on the surface of a river should probably also be vulnerable to archers, but having an ankle-high brook hide you is worse.
I'm not sure if there's an advantage to handling partial depth rivers, but if you ever want to do this, I think it would easier than you might expect. Because you need a low res integer to describe altitude (no altitude change can be less than 1 z), you have the complication of having to deal with wide areas that have the same altitude, but I think that using erosion to ensure that shallow rivers always dump into deeper ones via a waterfall is a natural solution. I don't think it would have far reaching consequnces.
As for a stream bed always being 1 z level below, I think that's ok. In the real world, the vast majority of small streams are greatly variable in how much water is in them, and this nearly always digs out a recess that can easily be imagined as '1 z down'. I don't think I've ever stood in a stream bed, even one that is dry most of the year, where I had a clear view of the surrounding area. For a permanent stream, I would say that they almost always have a raised bank that could shelter someone from direct fire. The flatter the terrain, the more this is true.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 17, 2010, 11:52:39 am
Quote from: Kilo24How important will farming be, both for a NPC settlement and for a fortress? Will it be a flat-out necessity for large cities/fortresses, or can hunting and/or fishing in a reasonably wildlife-heavy place be sufficient?
I think it'll be necessary for large cities that are inhabited by people that need to eat a normal amount or else starve in some weeks. Goblins might not fall in that category. A human capital would likely only be supportable with farming, though I'd consider any real world counter-examples from the right period. What were the biggest fishing/hunting-fed settlements back then (that didn't also get a lot food from crops and livestock -- theirs or otherwise)? Does the answer change much if livestock is included but not crops?
I'll put this in cyan since it's not really a question, but an answer.
There is, pretty simply, no way to have a large hunting-fed permanent settlement. (No more than a "hunting lodge" of a few dozen.) If you are talking about hunters of wild game, you are talking about Mongolians or Soiux Native Americans who were nomads that chased after the large herds. If you are talking about livestock that aren't fed by farming, you are talking about herding nomads who send their herds out on year-long treks so that no one area becomes overgrazed, the way that Cowboys did in the old west. Whatever permanent settlements they might come back to would be ones that could stay there for more than a year because they farmed.
Fishing is a different matter, if and only if they are ocean fishers with boats capable of surviving voyages out into deep water, and/or they have located themselves in a place with an irregularly large fish population (like cod were in the New World before they were overfished), and the fishers are actually careful to avoid overfishing... (which doesn't seem like a very gobliny trait to me...) It's difficult to say how large such places might get, as even most fishing-heavy cultures tended to garden. I would say the norse colonists of Greenland and their Inuit neighbors are a good example of people who survived entirely off fishing or occasional grazing livestock, mostly because it's just too cold to farm. (Note: This did not go well for the Norse, whose entire colony starved to death.) It would depend largely on being able to claim a large enough body of water that they never overfish, and can prevent other nearby villages from popping up to fish the same waters. (Best estimate, though, would be from English fishing villages or the like where they are carved into a little valley, and you could get a few hundred, MAAAAYBE a thousand people in a "city" based entirely on fishing.)
Stocked fishing, such as specifically breeding oysters for fishing can expand your ability to fish (as less adults need to survive to adulthood to spawn if you protect the eggs from predators for them), but only if you have dedicated fish breeding programs.
Being as goblins are found in mountains, however, requiring being near an ocean may make goblins nearly impossible to place.
Essentially, the only example of a "hunting" people that ever managed to get enough numbers to ever be a real threat to anyone were the Mongols, which only managed to BECOME a threat in rare circumstances where they both had enough food for a long enough period of time to support a large population, AND someone managed to unite all the tribes together... something that occured a grand total of three times in all of history, and even THE Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan only lasted as long as his own life, being hardly kept together by Kublai Khan, and disintegrating immediately after Kublai's death... Plus it relied upon conquered people for their armies as it went on. (And, again, the Mongols were nomads.)
If you want Dark Towers that are permanent features and continuous military threats, you pretty much HAVE to farm - farming is, in ecological terms, changing the biome of a region of the planet into an ecosystem that exists purely to provide enough food for human(oid) civilization. Nature simply can't compete with the ability of a farm to produce food - that's the whole point of making a farm to begin with, after all! If you really want meat on the menu, you pretty much need to have those "muck farms" that can feed huge amounts of livestock in cramped conditions, the way that modern pig or poultry farms work. (Especially the American kind, where there's basically no regulation over animal cruelty.)
Post by: li on August 17, 2010, 12:23:10 pm
Essentially, the only example of a "hunting" people that ever managed to get enough numbers to ever be a real threat to anyone were the Mongols
I won't pretend I'm a specialist on the topic, but my understanding is that these invading waves from central Europe people, including Mongols, were pillaging food from farming settlements as their main mean of subsistance, which was also their strength, because they could devote themselves entirely to war rather than hunting/gathering or farming. Then they 'disappeared' because they took power over farming people and were absorbed by their civilization... just like their culture was weaker than the culture of the people they conquered.
That would be quite a proper behavior for goblins, no?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 17, 2010, 12:52:41 pm
- the number of competioners like bears, wolfs, cougars to name some from your region.
- you can provide and enlarge habitat for your pray species thus you can cut down trees etc. to enlarge the plains (which have iirc the highest Meat/plantmass ratio.)
Quote
to quote Wikipedia (Article "Hunter-Gatherer")
Many hunter-gatherers consciously manipulate the landscape through cutting or burning undesirable plants while encouraging desirable ones, some even going to the extent of slash-and-burn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash_and_burn) to create habitat for game animals. These activities are on an entirely different scale than those associated with agriculture, but they are nevertheless domestication on some level.
For Forrests Nut-trees oaks work quite well for boars for example.
- the selection of the right animal to kill. Killing older and weakened animals is better because they are easyer to kill and you leave a healthy and fertile group.
A good place to settle are migration-routes of herd animals like caribus - especially if you have a pass or gorge or something they use you can take a good amount of food in a short time. Said meat has to preserved in some way (dried, salted, jerked). Taking in and nursing abandoned Animal-babys happens also sometimes (without going into full scale herding).
Bunnys and rabbits (etc. etc.) are also explosive breeders so in this context they can deliver some additional meat that does not wander off.
There are also types of hunter gatherer civs (IIRC not taking any hat here) that had centralized citys with pops up to some hundred people which were supported by a number of Hunting groups that delivered food.
The Mongolians used btw. their horses as meat source so they are more herders in my opinion which needed to move around the herds often enough.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 17, 2010, 01:03:39 pm
I won't pretend I'm a specialist on the topic, but my understanding is that these invading waves from central Europe people, including Mongols, were pillaging food from farming settlements as their main mean of subsistance, which was also their strength, because they could devote themselves entirely to war rather than hunting/gathering or farming. Then they 'disappeared' because they took power over farming people and were absorbed by their civilization... just like their culture was weaker than the culture of the people they conquered.
That would be quite a proper behavior for goblins, no?
That's a very fair assessment, especially of the Huns.
The thing is, that DOESN'T describe how goblins behave at all, where this seems to be even more a matter of cultural warfare than it does racial warfare. (In fact, goblins seem to be the most egalitarian of all races - survival of the fittest, regardless of race.)
The Huns and the Mongols assimilated into other cultures because, once they had pillaged the "civilized empires", they rather liked the lifestyle, and abandoned their nomadic ways. Goblins, however, attack because they are trying to prove the superiority of their violent kill-or-be-killed way of life. They babysnatch to bring in fresh blood. They seige to gain new resources and new land and spread their culture. When and if they conquer, they change the way of life of their conquered to match their image, they don't change their way of life to match that of the conquered.
edit: The real problem is that, in order to be a THREAT to other civs, you need population to spare. That means food for your soldiers-to-be. The great conquering empires of history arose from places where there were overabundances of food. Egypt and China and Babylon had the great fertile rivers. Greece rose to prominance when it had grain, and died down when it overtaxed its soil through chopping down so many of its trees for its navies.
Rome had very fertile plains along the coast of Italy, and the entire reason Hannibal Barca could not defeat Rome, in spite of Rome's every attempt to lose to him, was that he simply couldn't out-kill Roman birth rates or destroy enough Roman farms to matter. Rome literally just ignored him, and sent its troops out to sack Carthage while letting him pillage as many farms or villages as he could visit.
The Huns invaded because they had such a large amount of people after a glut of food production that when famine came, they were forced to invade neighboring lands just to eat. The Mongols were fairly similar (and most historians believe that the Huns were basically just cousins of the Mongols, anyway). The Vikings set out because their lowlands started sinking into the sea, and forced them to seek new places to find food or money.
These conquering barbarian hordes, however, all have a common theme: their numbers swelled when they had excess food, and then they invaded when they could no longer sustain their numbers. While it's possible we can have goblin waves come out as a means of "population control" - either they conquer new lands and eat their food, or they die trying, and don't need to eat, anyway, this doesn't really reflect how goblins behave...
Goblins, are a constant threat, the sort which takes the real organized farming to feed constant numbers that you can send out into the fray. This means you need the infrastructure to be able to GENERATE 80 new expedable recruits a year that you can send to get slaughtered meaninglessly at the gates of a dwarven fortress every single year. And those 80 goblins a year need to be fed for 12 years before they're "adults" and can fight. That means there's 960 goblin child mouths to feed in one location, to keep up a constant stream. Oh yeah, and that's just the children to replace the soldiers... you still need hunters and snatchers and possibly some metalsmiths and miners to get that metal.
That's, of course, not even assuming the number 1 cause of goblin deaths are other goblins...
Basically, either this game is going to need to make individual goblins far more powerful, so that they aren't a fecund zerg rush race, or they need to have a serious infrastructure to be able to pool enough food to train these massive militaries that they can constantly field.
(Of course, if we are talking about WORLDGEN strategies, the number one killer of Goblin civilizations is the fact that goblin civilians have a birth cap of 10 children, and the goblins that get civilian jobs tend to keep them and survive, while their children tend to die in wars before they can have children - meaning that all the goblins who survive wars are sterile thanks to an arbitrary birth cap, which tends to lock goblins and elves, who never die of old age, into a situation where they have no children ever again... although goblins can mitigate this problem somewhat with snatching more children who aren't arbitrarily sterile. Elves tend to become arbitaririly sterilized if they have too many wars because of this, and it really does seem to be almost a bug that parents keep killing their entire race by sending out all their children to die while they stay safe on the farm, even though they can't have any more children.)
Post by: Mephansteras on August 17, 2010, 01:16:52 pm
Toady, what is your plan for the goblins from a world-politics view? Given a goblin-led civ, how do you see them acting as opposed to a Demon-lead civ?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 17, 2010, 01:35:28 pm
Do they? We don't have that much to go on about goblin expansionistic policies that aren't directed by a Demon.
Well, we have what happens in the game: whenever a civ conquers, they force all the subjugated peoples into adopting the policies and ethics of their own civ.
Elves conquered by dwarves live like dwarves. Humans conquered (or snatched) by goblins live like goblins.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 17, 2010, 01:38:43 pm
Wild Buffalos can reach around 1 ton of weight from which subtracting the non eat-able stuff (skin, hoofs, bones, some organs) you get around 750 Kilograms of meat.
One Kilogram bovine meat (middle fat) nets around 2300 Kcal. For Humans its recommended to eat around 2000 if you are female to 2500 Kcal a day. For the average Goblin a 1/2 Buffalo per year should be sufficient i guess (which are 375 kilograms or around 862500 Kcal ). Thus you need to hunt down 500 buffalos a year for a pop of 1000 people.
If someone knows more about buffalos especially on the numbers which existed in the Northamerika prior to the colonisation and theyr lifecycle we could get a reasonable pop-number for a goblin civ based on the available game and its reproduction rate + needed area.
Post by: Mephansteras on August 17, 2010, 01:39:22 pm
Post by: Wolftrak on August 17, 2010, 01:45:08 pm
The thing is, that DOESN'T describe how goblins behave at all, where this seems to be even more a matter of cultural warfare than it does racial warfare. (In fact, goblins seem to be the most egalitarian of all races - survival of the fittest, regardless of race.)This is probably the most informative post i've ever read.Anyway,you forgot to add the Slavics,who pretty much fall in the same category as the Huns.
The Huns and the Mongols assimilated into other cultures because, once they had pillaged the "civilized empires", they rather liked the lifestyle, and abandoned their nomadic ways....
Yes, but that's what happens right now. I'm not sure what Toady's future goals for that sort of thing include. Although I'm sure that cultures will persist somewhat in the future even after a site is occupied. Plus, it would be neat to see how the different races handle living in various cultures. A dwarf should not magically become identical to a goblin just because he grew up with them. Some dwarven traits should still influence how they act, even if the basic ethics might be based on the parent civ.Do I sense occupation in these words? As in,a dwarf fortress would continue to live,thrive and work,but would still have to give some taxes to the occupator? Maybe sacrifice childrens to the goblins?
Post by: G-Flex on August 17, 2010, 02:06:56 pm
Do they? We don't have that much to go on about goblin expansionistic policies that aren't directed by a Demon.
Well, we have what happens in the game: whenever a civ conquers, they force all the subjugated peoples into adopting the policies and ethics of their own civ.
Elves conquered by dwarves live like dwarves. Humans conquered (or snatched) by goblins live like goblins.
Complete and total assimilation/subjugation in all cases is not really what Toady intends for the future, from what he's said in the past.
Post by: Armok on August 17, 2010, 02:48:49 pm
Right now, NPC buildings and farms look very sterile blocky and mass produced. And with some very reasonable assumptions on tile size the buildings are VERY large for a mideval civ. Toady, are you planing on at some point make things look more organic, dramatic, and homely?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 17, 2010, 02:57:06 pm
When we get specialized "grazing" crops, it's entirely possible to do something like pig farm or chicken farm (or perhaps some fantasy livestock type) for extra meat in a fairly small area, and still keep goblins carnivores who would never consider eating the raw muck fungus that they feed the pigs, when the muck is constantly fed by the bodies and bones of those who failed to survive (and the raw sewage of goblin and swine alike). It also makes for a wonderfully horrible place to send snatched slaves to till the muck. You could possibly make the muck fungus gradually overwhelm the farmers with disease or poison, so that other races wouldn't consider trying the same muck farming techniques, and it would be a goblin-exclusive ranching/farming method.
Alternately, the only thing that really makes sense is having goblin "cowboys" that roam nomadically sending herds of grazing beasts around large, open grasslands, which occasionally stop by a single major city to have some of the cattle slaughtered. (That is, as opposed to having farming villages.) This, however, takes dozens of times more land to feed the same number of individuals as just plain farming does, and has historically only been useful/successful in areas that simply can't be farmed.
Either way, sudden crop disease blights or droughts would still give you the sudden upsurge of Mongol hordes who rush out to fight because they have no food back home, so it's kill or be killed.
Organized, continual wars of attrition, however, require said 960 children back home to sustain 80 goblins per year in a seige. Plus adults to feed them, and multiply that number of children by the number of goblins that don't survive to adulthood. We might be talking about making serious goblin threats being 3000 goblins (2000 children), if we assume about half of the children survive to adulthood, plus about 1000 who are just civilians. You'd probably want a standing army for defense, rather than sending them all out on seiges all the time, though. Survive a seige or ambush with at least one kill, and congrats, you're in the standing defensive army with most of the "veterans". That should probably add ballpark another 300 goblins to the number for soldiers plus farmers and support.
Post by: Neonivek on August 17, 2010, 02:57:34 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 17, 2010, 03:11:04 pm
Hmm, another thing I noticed:
Right now, NPC buildings and farms look very sterile blocky and mass produced. And with some very reasonable assumptions on tile size the buildings are VERY large for a mideval civ. Toady, are you planing on at some point make things look more organic, dramatic, and homely?
Actually, I think the real question is:
Will you code in the ability to create our own raw-defined building types for worldgen? Using the Arena Mode and Custom Workshops as a model, we already have most of the pieces to create both custom buildings and define functions for them. It's largely a matter of being able to string those buildings that players generate (and there's a great thread AngleWyrm is doing (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63801.0) that shows how people are interested in such things) along a "road" or "highway" or access route, whose mechanics should not be terribly more complex than that of caverns, and could add immensely to the verisimilartude of the game, especially in Adventure Mode.
(With thread on this suggestion, even if nobody reads it, here: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63054.msg1453010#msg1453010)
Post by: Cruxador on August 17, 2010, 06:01:01 pm
... Of course, even this thread has poor odds of having your questions answered...If you read the post, that's not an inherent flaw of the thread, but is in fact due to people (primarily yourself, by my perception) throwing in massive amounts of discussion that does not belong here. The remedy to this should be fairly apparent.
Hmm, another thing I noticed:
Right now, NPC buildings and farms look very sterile blocky and mass produced. And with some very reasonable assumptions on tile size the buildings are VERY large for a mideval civ. Toady, are you planing on at some point make things look more organic, dramatic, and homely?
The short answer to that is yes, it's been talked about before. In one of the talks, I believe. Randomly defined aspect ratios by civilization were mentioned.
Toady may have some more specific thoughts on that, though.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 17, 2010, 07:24:16 pm
If you read the post, that's not an inherent flaw of the thread, but is in fact due to people (primarily yourself, by my perception) throwing in massive amounts of discussion that does not belong here. The remedy to this should be fairly apparent.
A new strategy, hmm? I don't know, contributing nothing but a few random insults doesn't seem to be doing you too much good, either.
Post by: monk12 on August 17, 2010, 08:41:36 pm
When we get specialized "grazing" crops, it's entirely possible to do something like pig farm or chicken farm (or perhaps some fantasy livestock type) for extra meat in a fairly small area, and still keep goblins carnivores who would never consider eating the raw muck fungus that they feed the pigs, when the muck is constantly fed by the bodies and bones of those who failed to survive
"When we die, our bodies become the muck, and the muck feeds the pigs. And so we are all connected in the great Circle of Life. Look, Gobbo McSimba; everything the light touches will one day be ours"
"And what about that dark area over there, Gobbo McFassa?"
"Don't ever go there, Gobbo McSimba; that is Boatmurdered..."
Post by: Cruxador on August 17, 2010, 10:08:16 pm
I have no strategy, I was merely pointing out the flaw in your deduction. I was not intending to be insulting, merely to let you know something you appeared to miss. You are right that this discussion contributes nothing. It does have the benefit of being brief, and thus hindering little, but nonetheless I agree that it should be ended.If you read the post, that's not an inherent flaw of the thread, but is in fact due to people (primarily yourself, by my perception) throwing in massive amounts of discussion that does not belong here. The remedy to this should be fairly apparent.
A new strategy, hmm? I don't know, contributing nothing but a few random insults doesn't seem to be doing you too much good, either.
Post by: G-Flex on August 18, 2010, 03:56:35 am
If you read the post, that's not an inherent flaw of the thread, but is in fact due to people (primarily yourself, by my perception) throwing in massive amounts of discussion that does not belong here. The remedy to this should be fairly apparent.
A new strategy, hmm? I don't know, contributing nothing but a few random insults doesn't seem to be doing you too much good, either.
No, he has a point. You're complaining about the fact that it's hard to get things answered here, yet one reason that's hard to begin with is that the thread gets cluttered up with very off-topic discussion, which you do yourself. You've admitted to bringing up off-topic things for the explicit purpose of trying to drum up discussion because of a thread of your own failed to do so.
Post by: Thief^ on August 18, 2010, 04:51:41 am
I hadn't thought of joining brooks to rivers, that's a tough one.Quote from: Thief^Are there any plans to remove the "brook tile" hack and replace it with sloped banks and less than 7/7 water?[...] Another obstacle is having new moist tiles or tiles with some water without having them having floors on a different Z level. Brooks are currently handled that way. I don't like the idea of having 3/7 water a Z level down, although a lot of the streams should probably connect up with the aquifer. This would make fewer places inhabitable by digging creatures unless the stream were smoothly lowered a bit, but I'm not for turning them into rivers with less water in them since that introduces problems with connecting rivers (would all 3/7 rivers connect to 7/7 rivers in waterfalls? Otherwise you'd have reverse waterfalls, or you'd have to introduce a 4/7 ground square, which feels like a can of worms) and people walking across a brook should not be in a separate Z level with respect to projectiles/LOS, etc. People swimming on the surface of a river should probably also be vulnerable to archers, but having an ankle-high brook hide you is worse.
This is obviously why you develop DF and not me :P
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 18, 2010, 01:02:51 pm
There is, pretty simply, no way to have a large hunting-fed permanent settlement. (No more than a "hunting lodge" of a few dozen.) If you are talking about hunters of wild game, you are talking about Mongolians or Soiux Native Americans who were nomads that chased after the large herds. If you are talking about livestock that aren't fed by farming, you are talking about herding nomads who send their herds out on year-long treks so that no one area becomes overgrazed, the way that Cowboys did in the old west. Whatever permanent settlements they might come back to would be ones that could stay there for more than a year because they farmed.I just want to state that this is not entirely true. Populations of hunters could be pushed into the thousands.
Fishing is a different matter, if and only if they are ocean fishers with boats capable of surviving voyages out into deep water, and/or they have located themselves in a place with an irregularly large fish population (like cod were in the New World before they were overfished), and the fishers are actually careful to avoid overfishing... (which doesn't seem like a very gobliny trait to me...) It's difficult to say how large such places might get, as even most fishing-heavy cultures tended to garden. I would say the norse colonists of Greenland and their Inuit neighbors are a good example of people who survived entirely off fishing or occasional grazing livestock, mostly because it's just too cold to farm. (Note: This did not go well for the Norse, whose entire colony starved to death.) It would depend largely on being able to claim a large enough body of water that they never overfish, and can prevent other nearby villages from popping up to fish the same waters. (Best estimate, though, would be from English fishing villages or the like where they are carved into a little valley, and you could get a few hundred, MAAAAYBE a thousand people in a "city" based entirely on fishing.)
Stocked fishing, such as specifically breeding oysters for fishing can expand your ability to fish (as less adults need to survive to adulthood to spawn if you protect the eggs from predators for them), but only if you have dedicated fish breeding programs.
It takes the ability to support large amounts of wildlife to support large hunting villages. It would take a larger amount of prime wildlife than a farming culture needs of prime farmland. The land these large hunting villages would occupy would be perfect for farming, since it means rich soil to support lots of wildlife. As such, those that didn't adopt farming were replaced by farming groups who could support more people on smaller plots of land. There aren't great examples in historical record because there aren't great examples of good land being available to a non-farming culture in recorded history. A population of a few hundred is easily believable though. You put animal management into the equation and you have much larger populations, as you can discover by looking into herdsmen cultures. You certainly won't get no Tenochtitlan, but a Machu Picchu sized city is easily possible.
The thing is, NW_Kohaku is 100% correct in the real world applications of being a hunting culture. You don't have the population to spare in wars, and if you do it is because your people are starving. This is exactly why the farmers displaced the hunters in good locations. Goblins couldn't possibly generate the populations required to zerg like they currently do, not from single site locations.
Post by: Jiri Petru on August 18, 2010, 05:05:44 pm
Goblins couldn't possibly generate the populations required to zerg like they currently do, not from single site locations.
Well, they could... if they require less food than humans. In a fantasy game, different metabolisms may be a way of achieving results that wouldn't be plausible in the reality.
(This is not a nitpick, it's more like a suggestion ;))
Post by: Greiger on August 18, 2010, 05:20:28 pm
I would think a culture that spends all it's time hunting would make better warriors than farmer cultures anyway. Probably every member of the civilization would be passable with some kind of implement of death. Spears, javelins, and bows in particular.
Post by: Neonivek on August 18, 2010, 05:21:19 pm
In fact I believe they never did.
Post by: Mysteriousbluepuppet on August 18, 2010, 05:23:59 pm
Post by: Greiger on August 18, 2010, 05:26:26 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 18, 2010, 05:59:08 pm
THey tend to live in caves also, if theres fungal growth and undeground game i could see them thrive with farming
The salient point is that they are carnivores, though.
That's why I suggested essentially raising chickens or cows or pigs for meat or some such fantasy equivalent by farming muck that only herbivorus or heavily omnivorous creatures can eat. That way, they're still eating meat, but have a reason for a permanent settlement.
Well, they could... if they require less food than humans. In a fantasy game, different metabolisms may be a way of achieving results that wouldn't be plausible in the reality.
(This is not a nitpick, it's more like a suggestion ;))
Toady did say something to that effect... although that doesn't really help the non-goblins raised from the snatched children who so often wind up taking over goblin civs, given enough time.
Could always have the goblins drop the current zerg approach and go with a more protoss approach instead. Smaller numbers of highly trained soldiers instead of massive quantities of cannon fodder that barely know which end of the sword to hold.
I would think a culture that spends all it's time hunting would make better warriors than farmer cultures anyway. Probably every member of the civilization would be passable with some kind of implement of death. Spears, javelins, and bows in particular.
This is, of course, possible, as it should only take a little hardcoded variable changing (or heck, put it in the raws, so we can make "challenge" forts where every gobbo's a hero-level soldier) to give them SOME skill. Still, I think a certain sub-set of the players rather enjoys the ability to have a lone champion play goblin golf, flinging gobbos 20 tiles into a tree while the champion single-handedly turns back a full invasion where almost the entire screen is covered in goblins.
Post by: tj333 on August 19, 2010, 11:46:18 am
Post by: Makbeth on August 19, 2010, 11:55:07 am
They have been around from the beginning, and I never got around to the local variations in the landscape that I'd need to get a better distribution of differently-sized small features. We might see something on this with underbrush (which is up in the first category on the dev page with the other things I've been working on), since I wanted to mix tree/brush density up within a given world map square, though soil information might have to come first for that to be satisfying. Another obstacle is having new moist tiles or tiles with some water without having them having floors on a different Z level. Brooks are currently handled that way. I don't like the idea of having 3/7 water a Z level down, although a lot of the streams should probably connect up with the aquifer. This would make fewer places inhabitable by digging creatures unless the stream were smoothly lowered a bit, but I'm not for turning them into rivers with less water in them since that introduces problems with connecting rivers (would all 3/7 rivers connect to 7/7 rivers in waterfalls? Otherwise you'd have reverse waterfalls, or you'd have to introduce a 4/7 ground square, which feels like a can of worms) and people walking across a brook should not be in a separate Z level with respect to projectiles/LOS, etc. People swimming on the surface of a river should probably also be vulnerable to archers, but having an ankle-high brook hide you is worse.
Hey Toady, wouldn't it be physically accurate to keep the brook surface tile and make the "body" of the brook a localized aquifer rather than 7/7 water? Units can still walk on it, it's still a source of water, nothing can swim or live in it, and the best part is that there'd be no flow calculations so brook sites would be great for FPS.
Post by: Neonivek on August 19, 2010, 12:26:48 pm
Quote
I stopped historical figures from bouncing around between cottages each visit
Thank goodness... The constant moving in the history section drove me nuts! it was also highly unrealistic
Post by: Chthonic on August 19, 2010, 01:04:21 pm
In a histry class I took the professor mentioned that basic agriculture can support 100 times the population of a hunter/gather society in the same area.
I think that's a simplification. It depends on the methods and the crops and the year--year because if conditions are bad, hunter/gatherers up and move, while agrarians starve to death.
And (I was surprised to learn this) hunter/gatherers tend to have better nutrition than agrarians because of a more varied and ample diet.
Post by: Neonivek on August 19, 2010, 01:05:35 pm
In a histry class I took the professor mentioned that basic agriculture can support 100 times the population of a hunter/gather society in the same area.
I think that's a simplification. It depends on the methods and the crops and the year--year because if conditions are bad, hunter/gatherers up and move, while agrarians starve to death.
And (I was surprised to learn this) hunter/gatherers tend to have better nutrition than agrarians because of a more varied and ample diet.
Well your forgetting that in a agricultural society not everyone is a farmer
But in a hunter gatherer society... everyone is a hunter or gatherer (well just about)
Post by: Cardinal on August 19, 2010, 01:17:15 pm
I think it'll be necessary for large cities that are inhabited by people that need to eat a normal amount or else starve in some weeks. Goblins might not fall in that category. A human capital would likely only be supportable with farming, though I'd consider any real world counter-examples from the right period. What were the biggest fishing/hunting-fed settlements back then (that didn't also get a lot food from crops and livestock -- theirs or otherwise)? Does the answer change much if livestock is included but not crops?
Fishing can provide a lot, as long as it's done on a large-scale or in a particularly fertile region. Hunting, on the other hand, crashes available stocks very quickly. The Anasazi, for instance, completely predated the deer populations around them in twenty years. There are no settled communities with built structures that relied on hunting to fulfill a real food security need (as opposed to a customary or luxury one). Only through pastoralism can a large group maintain enough food security without crops, and even then they supplement their food security by harvesting the crops of nearby agricultural communities (through tribute or warfare, either eating the grain themselves or foddering their animals with it). Also, much of our agricultural ouput, today and in the past, was for feeding livestock, so a strictly carnivorous people could still raise wheat to fatten their cattle (or, if they had some kind of cultural desire to eat "wild" animals, to increase the local population). Livestock are also a mixed bag when it comes to diet, with ruminants more resilient than single-stomached herbivores like horses.
Granted, a fantasy world can provide more options, and if you had an annual Wyvern Flight when the Wyverns do the equivalent of migrating to Capistrano (or overland zombie whale migrations--with some method to reasonably cure zombie meat, of course) then you could foresee a system where a larger population could survive off of hunting because hunting has become more like fishing (very large stocks with comprehensible patterns that replenish regularly). Maybe goblins spend more of their time hunting underground, but even if that were the case, the DF underground would have to be thousands of times more teeming with life than the average hardwood forest.
Post by: Eugenitor on August 19, 2010, 01:19:53 pm
Goblins should be able to eat anything- vermin, other races, animals, cave blobs, FBs made of organics... you name it. Everything loose in the caverns is goblin chow. Everything we farm in the caverns, they do (and it's not so much 'farm' for them as 'spread the seeds everywhere in the mud'). Think of them like we think of our own forts, only with much weaker forges, much less mining, and no MULTIPLE_LITTER_RARE tag. And if they run out of food they just start eating each other until the problem is solved. And they expand. Constantly.
The only chance other civs have against this tide of meat is either lots of ingenuity or heroes in steel.
Protoss Goblins? I can't believe anyone suggested that.
Post by: Chthonic on August 19, 2010, 01:23:09 pm
In a histry class I took the professor mentioned that basic agriculture can support 100 times the population of a hunter/gather society in the same area.
I think that's a simplification. It depends on the methods and the crops and the year--year because if conditions are bad, hunter/gatherers up and move, while agrarians starve to death.
And (I was surprised to learn this) hunter/gatherers tend to have better nutrition than agrarians because of a more varied and ample diet.
Well your forgetting that in a agricultural society not everyone is a farmer
But in a hunter gatherer society... everyone is a hunter or gatherer (well just about)
Not forgetting--just observing some additional complexity.
Post by: Silverionmox on August 19, 2010, 01:26:15 pm
Don't worry about the z-level differences for brooks; everywhere except in swamps streams do erode quite a bit, and in most seasons there's not much water in it. Depending on the seasonal rains, there might be more water, almost filling everything the brook eroded.
Consider to let the ramp tile contain only 4/7 or 3/7 water.
Post by: jei on August 19, 2010, 02:46:14 pm
There is, pretty simply, no way to have a large hunting-fed permanent settlement. (No more than a "hunting lodge" of a few dozen.)I don't think Toady should really give too much weight to reality, as DF is after all, a fantasy game. As Stephen King said, "as far as I'm concerned, reality can go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut." And as long as the end-result is a playable and fun game, do we really care? I think Toady's policy should be the same.
Maybe goblins have a better metabolism that gets more out of less food and can thus survive well on hunting alone? After all, many carnivorous animals live only on what they catch. Your argument against goblins that wouldn't survive on what they can catch should apply as well to all the lions and wolves out there too, if you apply your human-centric logic and thinking to them equally. And goblins have some levels of technology to aid them too.
Even humans have different kinds of metabolisms, with different efficiencies, depending on the bacteria they carry, etc.
Post by: tfaal on August 19, 2010, 03:25:08 pm
Post by: Flaede on August 19, 2010, 03:28:43 pm
Maybe goblins have a better metabolism that gets more out of less food and can thus survive well on hunting alone? After all, many carnivorous animals live only on what they catch. Your argument against goblins that wouldn't survive on what they can catch should apply as well to all the lions and wolves out there too, if you apply your human-centric logic and thinking to them equally. And goblins have some levels of technology to aid them too.
The trouble isn't with a goblin being able to feed themself. The trouble is about the area's ability to support thousands of goblins all feeding themselves (ie. provide enough game for all xthousand to catch).
Post by: de5me7 on August 19, 2010, 03:30:11 pm
Fishing is a different matter, if and only if they are ocean fishers with boats capable of surviving voyages out into deep water, and/or they have located themselves in a place with an irregularly large fish population (like cod were in the New World before they were overfished), and the fishers are actually careful to avoid overfishing... (which doesn't seem like a very gobliny trait to me...) It's difficult to say how large such places might get, as even most fishing-heavy cultures tended to garden. I would say the norse colonists of Greenland and their Inuit neighbors are a good example of people who survived entirely off fishing or occasional grazing livestock, mostly because it's just too cold to farm. (Note: This did not go well for the Norse, whose entire colony starved to death.) It would depend largely on being able to claim a large enough body of water that they never overfish, and can prevent other nearby villages from popping up to fish the same waters. (Best estimate, though, would be from English fishing villages or the like where they are carved into a little valley, and you could get a few hundred, MAAAAYBE a thousand people in a "city" based entirely on fishing.)
Stocked fishing, such as specifically breeding oysters for fishing can expand your ability to fish (as less adults need to survive to adulthood to spawn if you protect the eggs from predators for them), but only if you have dedicated fish breeding programs.
Being as goblins are found in mountains, however, requiring being near an ocean may make goblins nearly impossible to place.
i could be completely wrong but i was under the impression that over fishing (certainly of sea and ocean stock) was a modern phenomenon simply because the sea is so productive compared with historical population densities. The north sea is only in plight today because we scoup out tonnes of fish in huge nets.
although generally i agree woith your point. Few civs prospered with out a strong farming basis historically. The crucibles of civilisation were all based around intensive agriculture. THis is partly due to food availability and partly due to time. Does anyone on this forum hunt? (i dont) but im lead to believe that it takes time. Hunters can spend days stalking pray (not in df usually) and it can be physically exherting (burning up precious callories). Hunting and gathering is very time and energy inefficient compared with farming. This ment that hunter gather civs were often academically and technologically behind those based on farming.
if nomadic civs or groups are introduced will Yurts and teppes and all manner of tent be introduced? I hope so, id like a yurt for my adventurer. IT would be a roundish structure comprised of wood and cloth that could be constructed and desembled with the carpenter skill and loaded onto an animal. (or given that adventurers in df currently have pockets that lead to another dimension the adventurers pockets.)
as far as realism go's. If the game creates magic food for civs rahter than simulating huntiung i suppose it doesnt matter. Although i dont see any reason why goblins couldnt raise cattle. Or another option would be to have goblin civs less concentrated than other civs - more small settlements and a central tower rahter than beng concentrated round a fortress or city with some outliying settlements. This would make them more suceptable to attack tho. But having farms may also make you seceptable toa attack. A legitimate strategy could be to burn another civs crops.
Post by: Mephansteras on August 19, 2010, 04:04:27 pm
One interesting approach would be to have a very large underground critter that the goblins rely on. It could even be somewhat toxic to most animals, leaving the goblins as the primary predator of them. Which would give the goblins a nice large food source that was unique to them.
Post by: Sizik on August 19, 2010, 04:56:36 pm
Quote from: devlog
and it doesn't show anybody's name until you learn it (you know everybody in your starting town).
The same should be done with professions, i.e. NPCs are colored based on their clothing, not their job.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 19, 2010, 05:04:43 pm
i could be completely wrong but i was under the impression that over fishing (certainly of sea and ocean stock) was a modern phenomenon simply because the sea is so productive compared with historical population densities. The north sea is only in plight today because we scoup out tonnes of fish in huge nets.
That's just plain not right. Overfishing and overhunting have been problems throughout all of history. Not just human history, but all of for animals, as well - populations rise, overgraze or overhunt, kill off their food supply, and start to starve, until their numbers drop low, and the plants or prey numbers start to recover from having less grazers/predators.
Whalers killed off the vast majority of whales without huge nets.
The people of Easter Island are believed to have dissapeared in part because they overtaxed the land, which led to them having to rely on fishing exclusively for their food, and eventually exhausted the fish populations, inflicting famine upon the island, whose remaining population afterwards was not enough to sustain human life on the island.
As long as you are killing more fish than can respawn, you're going to overfish... and if the only limit on population is food, then if you can feed your population now, it will rise, and when it rises, you have to get more food.
Post by: Cardinal on August 19, 2010, 05:11:43 pm
Post by: tfaal on August 19, 2010, 06:50:09 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 19, 2010, 07:07:13 pm
I do think it's entirely possible to have dark towers with muck farms for feeding livestock and the livestock themselves for slaughter in the basement of a dark tower as a permanent food source, while there are goblin "cowboys" and "drovers" who herd large numbers of animals around the high mountains as the larger food source.
I remember the chapter in "Outliers" on the differences about social norms between cultures of herders and cultures of farmers, as well... Herders are socially more agressive and ready to pick up a fight at slights of honor because they have to protect their herd from ranglers who pick off their cattle. The slightest sign of weakness invites ranglers looking for an easy mark, so all slights must be answered. (We of the American South are largely descended from such peoples, such as the Scottish sheepherders or even the outright cowboys of Texas. This is where you see the psychological experiments on Northerners and Southerners where Southerners are usually more polite, but hyperagressive once slighted compared to Northerners.) Sounds quite fitting to goblins...
Post by: Interus on August 19, 2010, 09:07:33 pm
Sorry, I wanted to participate but I'm not sure that added much.
Post by: Yaddy1 on August 19, 2010, 09:22:05 pm
Will there be any interactions between wanderers and your fort? The ability to set up an inn for them to stay in would be cool. Maybe expand thieves to pretend to be travelers at first?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 19, 2010, 09:34:26 pm
Well time to disregard the current conversion and blurt out a random question.
Will there be any interactions between wanderers and your fort? The ability to set up an inn for them to stay in would be cool. Maybe expand thieves to pretend to be travelers at first?
That sounds slightly amusing... but what will wanderers do at your inns? Do they purchase food and drink? If they "purchase" it, how do they pay, because players may not want coins...
If players decide to just bump off the travellers (and trust me, that's exactly what a great many players are going to do just by default, especially if they don't do anything seriously positive, and may contain thieves) will there be any negative consequence for doing so?
This could be useful if fleshed out, but... it needs said fleshing.
Post by: Eduren on August 19, 2010, 10:07:28 pm
Also, once a more complicated culture model is introduced, it could be the best way to stay connected to the outside world.
Post by: Greiger on August 19, 2010, 10:42:24 pm
If the adventurer enjoyed his stay and was well taken care of, when off site expeditions get implemented, the traveler could tell you of some ore he came across in his travels. At which point you could send a miner or two off map with a wagon for a season or two and he'll come back with a wagonful of ore. Allowing more workable amounts of offsite ore or large amounts of sand or rare gems to be obtained. Which can help with impossible mandates.
It could even be expanded further, for example allowing you to pay high skill mercenaries and adventurers to help defend your fortress or train soldiers for a year or two, in trade for some excess gear and board for the duration. An adventurer would probably kill for even your spare crappy low quality adamantine gear. Let them hasten your soldier training or shore up your defenses for it. It's just taking up space in the stockpile anyway.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 19, 2010, 11:03:45 pm
But how do you trade with a traveller? Do you set up a store and post what you'll accept as payment? Or do you have to go into an individual caravan trade screen for each and every random hobo who walks into your tavern?
Of course, this is going the route of just being an entirely new suggestion... Someone else want to make the thread, or should I?
EDIT: Ok, just starting it: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=64267.0
Post by: Yaddy1 on August 19, 2010, 11:08:21 pm
Heh, suddenly, I'm reminded of that talk about contracting out work and "Majesty"... Travellers are now miniature-caravans and also mercenaries you can hire to loot dungeons or slay dragons, if you post a high enough reward for the behavior?
I was actually thinking of majesty...and no. Trading with randoms could be done by the fort but it would be nice if dwarves would take initiative and trade themselves.
Post by: Flaede on August 19, 2010, 11:56:35 pm
But how do you trade with a traveller? Do you set up a store and post what you'll accept as payment? Or do you have to go into an individual caravan trade screen for each and every random hobo who walks into your tavern?
Of course, this is going the route of just being an entirely new suggestion... Someone else want to make the thread, or should I?
I'd say you have more Whuffie, you you start it. I'm interested to see where that idea goes.
Post by: Hammurabi on August 20, 2010, 08:57:53 am
Well time to disregard the current conversion and blurt out a random question.
Will there be any interactions between wanderers and your fort? The ability to set up an inn for them to stay in would be cool. Maybe expand thieves to pretend to be travelers at first?
That sounds slightly amusing... but what will wanderers do at your inns? Do they purchase food and drink? If they "purchase" it, how do they pay, because players may not want coins...
Isn't the purpose of an inn to sell food and drink and a place to sleep, all for coins?
Post by: Threlicus on August 20, 2010, 09:50:28 am
1) To buy stuff off of caravans. That's good, but it implies that the player actually need something that he can't produce (or can't produce cheaply) locally. That ties us back to resource scarcity issues.
2) To pay taxes/tribute to more powerful entities. So the player needs to be able to pay the Mountainhome, or tribute to a powerful goblin army that he's actually scared of.
There may be more, but for currency to be useful to the player it requires the fort not be self-sufficient, because currency is a way to interact with outside economies more efficiently than barter. (Buy from caravan A, sell to caravan B) and a self-sufficient fort has no incentive to interact.
Post by: Chthonic on August 20, 2010, 10:10:06 am
- pay off bandits to leave your trade routes alone
- pay tribute to foreign lands
- hire a quick mercenary army
- purchase goods that can't be made domestically (books, whenever libraries get in)
- pay a bounty to hunters for the ears of some pesty animal
- offer a bonus for immigrants of a certain type
- bribe the human kingdom to cut down the elven forest
- pay for information from travelers
. . . especially once a supply/demand economy is in working order, and not everyone considers gabbro mugs legal tender.
Post by: de5me7 on August 20, 2010, 01:15:24 pm
i could be completely wrong but i was under the impression that over fishing (certainly of sea and ocean stock) was a modern phenomenon simply because the sea is so productive compared with historical population densities. The north sea is only in plight today because we scoup out tonnes of fish in huge nets.
That's just plain not right. Overfishing and overhunting have been problems throughout all of history. Not just human history, but all of for animals, as well - populations rise, overgraze or overhunt, kill off their food supply, and start to starve, until their numbers drop low, and the plants or prey numbers start to recover from having less grazers/predators.
Whalers killed off the vast majority of whales without huge nets.
The people of Easter Island are believed to have dissapeared in part because they overtaxed the land, which led to them having to rely on fishing exclusively for their food, and eventually exhausted the fish populations, inflicting famine upon the island, whose remaining population afterwards was not enough to sustain human life on the island.
As long as you are killing more fish than can respawn, you're going to overfish... and if the only limit on population is food, then if you can feed your population now, it will rise, and when it rises, you have to get more food.
I thought the people on easter island dissapeared because the deforested their entire island and destroyed its ecosystems. Im not implying that over hunting isnt possible, just over fishing in open ocean withoout modern intensive technology. Whales are not fish. I dont view predator prey relationships as being the same as over exploitation of a reource. I can see land beased animals being more easily over hunted (partly because i know of examples) and partly because land based ecosystems arent as productive as ocean based.
i recon that other factors would limit the population of a fishing based civ prior to fish stock decline. Unless of course that fishing was limited to rivers or coastal reaches. Overfishing local populations wouldnt be too difficult.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 20, 2010, 01:32:43 pm
I thought the people on easter island dissapeared because the deforested their entire island and destroyed its ecosystems.
Yes, and when they deforested the island, the soil eroded, and crops failed, so they were forced to rely upon the sea to get all their food - but the ocean did not have the sealife populations to support that, so they overfished the area quickly, and eventually destroyed the marine ecosystem the same as they destroyed the land ecosystem. That's the entire point - It's entirely possible to overfish, it only takes you being able to catch fish at rates greater than their replacement rate. (Plus that ignores the Greenland example.)
This is especially possible with shellfish or fish hunted at their spawning points (such as salmon) or schooling fish such as cod, even without "modern" nets.
Maybe it's more difficult to completely wipe out a population with just old-fashioned nets, but overfishing is easy with even stoneage technology. After all, if your nets come up more and more empty, and your life depends on catching enough nets, that just means you have to go out longer, in deeper water, and keep your nets trawling a larger area until you catch the last few stragglers. It's not like shrugging your shoulders and going home with no food is much of an option.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 20, 2010, 04:12:52 pm
They have been around from the beginning, and I never got around to the local variations in the landscape that I'd need to get a better distribution of differently-sized small features. We might see something on this with underbrush (which is up in the first category on the dev page with the other things I've been working on), since I wanted to mix tree/brush density up within a given world map square, though soil information might have to come first for that to be satisfying. Another obstacle is having new moist tiles or tiles with some water without having them having floors on a different Z level. Brooks are currently handled that way. I don't like the idea of having 3/7 water a Z level down, although a lot of the streams should probably connect up with the aquifer. This would make fewer places inhabitable by digging creatures unless the stream were smoothly lowered a bit, but I'm not for turning them into rivers with less water in them since that introduces problems with connecting rivers (would all 3/7 rivers connect to 7/7 rivers in waterfalls? Otherwise you'd have reverse waterfalls, or you'd have to introduce a 4/7 ground square, which feels like a can of worms) and people walking across a brook should not be in a separate Z level with respect to projectiles/LOS, etc. People swimming on the surface of a river should probably also be vulnerable to archers, but having an ankle-high brook hide you is worse.
Hey Toady, wouldn't it be physically accurate to keep the brook surface tile and make the "body" of the brook a localized aquifer rather than 7/7 water? Units can still walk on it, it's still a source of water, nothing can swim or live in it, and the best part is that there'd be no flow calculations so brook sites would be great for FPS.
Random revisiting, perhaps, but upon reflection, I really like this solution.
Digging into a "local aquifer" would produce a tile that constantly fills up with water (that can be diverted and fed into cisterns), but perhaps not at a terrifically fast rate. Digging through a brook tile that is "only enough tile to get your boot wet" should still create a pit that EVENTUALLY will fill up with water.
It might need some tweaking of the aquifer code, however, so that there is only so much water that the entire "aquifer" can produce per unit time even if you dig into it, and that it still has an "upriver" section that has priority for filling with water before the "downriver" sections fill up with water.
Silverionmox's comment about ramps only allowing 4/7 or 3/7 water also makes perfect sense, of course.
Perhaps having coding with brooks (and rivers) that make areas have Spring and Summer floods when brooks are based off of mountains, when the snowpack melts annually would also make for some lovely verisimilartude.
Post by: Funk on August 20, 2010, 10:55:33 pm
1 civ capitol with most of the leaders
2 main fort and army center
3 crafting metal goods.
4 temples?
Post by: nil on August 20, 2010, 11:01:38 pm
Never heard of this part before; Diamond and a few other sources I've read emphasize the ways the on-land ecosystem's collapse made it difficult to fish--no more big trees for their dugout canoes nor plant fiber for their nets. It's sort of a moot point, though, I don't think anyone wants to see goblins have to rely entirely on deep sea fishing to be a threat.I thought the people on easter island dissapeared because the deforested their entire island and destroyed its ecosystems.Yes, and when they deforested the island, the soil eroded, and crops failed, so they were forced to rely upon the sea to get all their food - but the ocean did not have the sealife populations to support that, so they overfished the area quickly, and eventually destroyed the marine ecosystem the same as they destroyed the land ecosystem. That's the entire point - It's entirely possible to overfish, it only takes you being able to catch fish at rates greater than their replacement rate. (Plus that ignores the Greenland example.)
The only food sources I personally like for goblins is either forcing tribute/slaves from other cultures (starting with underground animal men, then expanding to above ground civilizations), or farming some sort of ugly omnivore (as Kohaku said). In either case they should be their main food source with hunting, raiding, and possibly some sort of racial-metabolic effect (minor or otherwise). Maybe goblins can go into a sort of stasis--what exactly happens when an immortal creature doesn't get enough food, anyway?
Post by: BigFatDwarf on August 21, 2010, 12:21:48 am
Currency could be used in the future to deal with all sorts of non-material needs . . .
. . .
. . . especially once a supply/demand economy is in working order, and not everyone considers gabbro mugs legal tender.
Except that each civilization has its own currency. So either you could trade within your own civ only, if you could exchange it somehow, or if you could force them to convert to your currency.
This might be useful though.
Post by: Flaede on August 21, 2010, 12:53:32 am
Currency could be used in the future to deal with all sorts of non-material needs . . .
- pay off bandits to leave your trade routes alone
- pay tribute to foreign lands
- hire a quick mercenary army
- purchase goods that can't be made domestically (books, whenever libraries get in)
- pay a bounty to hunters for the ears of some pesty animal
- offer a bonus for immigrants of a certain type
- bribe the human kingdom to cut down the elven forest
- pay for information from travelers
. . . especially once a supply/demand economy is in working order, and not everyone considers gabbro mugs legal tender.
I like pretty much all of these ideas.
But as for that last one, I hope someday we can use currencies that aren't metal coins.
Bone coins is a favorite of mine. Glass beads? Tulips, maybe?
Post by: Veroule on August 21, 2010, 05:41:00 am
Coins and currency are quite silly, using them does not eliminate a barter system. Barter transactions are the exchange of goods/services with values agreed upon by the parties involved. Understanding that currency is another 'good' with a value that has to be agreed upon only takes hearing the words inflation, deflation, or exchange rate.
Coins were originally invented because people had trust issues. The idea behind coins is that a government entity certyifies the weight and purity of metal in the coin. The reasons for using particular metals are lost in antiquity, but I mostly think it is because people like shiny things.
Post by: Funk on August 21, 2010, 09:26:27 am
B)wear resistance and anti-corrosion properties, the main reason for makeing coins is there long life, Bank notes only last a few years.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 21, 2010, 09:31:46 am
The phrase "born with a silver spoon in their mouth" comes from the fact that children from wealthier families who could afford silverware were less likely to die young - silver has anti-bacterial properties, while wooden spoons can carry diseases from one user to the next. Not understanding bacteria, it was thought this was a magical property of silver that protected people from disease.
Post by: Josephus on August 21, 2010, 09:38:53 am
I think everyone is missing what should be the Goblins primary food source...Elves. Goblin snatchers should be a form of hunter, and the Goblins shouldn't be converting other species to thier point of view, they should be using them as live stock.
Why? Just because your mental image of Goblins is as ignoble, dirty cannibal savages, doesn't mean that everyone else's is as well. The fact that Goblins have slaves implies they see value in other beings. Specifically, as cannon fodder. Why eat them when they can use them to soak up crossbow fire?
Post by: Willfor on August 21, 2010, 09:46:04 am
Post by: Rose on August 21, 2010, 09:59:19 am
Or they could have other reasons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViftZTfRSt8) for taking the children of other civilizations.
You really should give a warning that whoever watches that is no longer a virgin.
Post by: Chthonic on August 21, 2010, 11:08:50 am
Currency could be used in the future to deal with all sorts of non-material needs . . .
. . .
. . . especially once a supply/demand economy is in working order, and not everyone considers gabbro mugs legal tender.
Except that each civilization has its own currency. So either you could trade within your own civ only, if you could exchange it somehow, or if you could force them to convert to your currency.
This might be useful though.
Maybe civilizations could accept the currency of other civilizations . . . but some civilizations' coins are more desirable than others. This could be to the point where, say, Civ A's coins are highly valued so that what in Civ C costs 15 B silver pennies costs only 12 A silver pennies.
Values like this could be the results of treaties or trade agreements between friendly civilizations, and one aspect of warfare might be attempts to devalue enemy nation's currency.
Assuming, of course, that coins have some value beyond just their metal content.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 21, 2010, 11:31:01 am
Or they could have other reasons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViftZTfRSt8) for taking the children of other civilizations.
That movie was iirc one of toadys inspirations for the snatching thing.
IT would be cool thought if the gobins would have a preverence for catchyMusic and musicals as only form of art they know.
Post by: Armok on August 21, 2010, 12:05:26 pm
Gold also had ceremonial and percieved magical properties - because of its uncorroding nature gold and silver were believed to have spiritual properties.fixed.
The phrase "born with a silver spoon in their mouth" comes from the fact that children from wealthier families who could afford silverware were less likely to die young - silver protects people from disease. Not understanding the reason silver protects people from disease, it was thought this was a property of silver that protected people from disease.
Post by: Flaede on August 21, 2010, 01:36:11 pm
Or they could have other reasons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViftZTfRSt8) for taking the children of other civilizations.
That movie was iirc one of toadys inspirations for the snatching thing.
IT would be cool thought if the gobins would have a preverence for catchyMusic and musicals as only form of art they know.
I've always wondered - does that made Jareth/Bowie a demon? Forgotten Beast?
Post by: vlademir1 on August 21, 2010, 02:27:09 pm
The Barron, Count, Duke and King should realistically receive representatives from outlying communities in their domain delivering them information, local requests and offered goods and dispatching them back with instructions and agreements. As well they'd periodically be traveling around their own domain and going to the court of the local noble next up the chain of command and similarly receiving those from the next level down the chain.
Of course to really handle this properly, once your fortress has a Mayor (ie you're big enough for someone higher up to care you exist at all) you should occasionally have mandates and demands delivered from these nonlocal officials as well as appropriate means to make requests from them. Aside from this you should have appropriate rooms for the next level individual because they'll occasionally come visit. Giving them unhappy thoughts should make them less likely to comply with your requests as well. Once the higher nobles come to live in your fortress they should need extra bedrooms, etc. of appropriate quality and enough room in their office/throne room for their visiting lesser noble guests as well.
Aside from this you really shouldn't see large migrant waves beyond this size without requesting additional manpower (a few small ones here and there is a different matter though) and the caravans probably shouldn't bring much unless you request it at this point.
I'm bringing all this up though because it's unclear to me from either the former or current dev pages whether Toady has given as much consideration to realistic civilian bureaucracy as he has on the military side. The closest I can remember seeing are having your local militia called up as part of a larger army and improved diplomacy.
I of course realize this is all really dependent on stuff that is still unimplemented like dwarves being able to leave the local map.
Of course the snatching thing is part of the traditional mythos of the Fae, of which Elves, Dwarves, Goblins and other standard fantasy races were all part (changlings being the most common).Or they could have other reasons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViftZTfRSt8) for taking the children of other civilizations.
That movie was iirc one of toadys inspirations for the snatching thing.
IT would be cool thought if the gobins would have a preverence for catchyMusic and musicals as only form of art they know.
Post by: tfaal on August 21, 2010, 02:38:18 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 21, 2010, 03:11:05 pm
One thing that personally comes naturally to mind with the recent discussion of outlying community sprawl here is the idea of court life. etc.
You might be interested in the recent Dwarven Imperialism (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=64249.0) thread, or this post (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=24453.msg274851#msg274851) from the Kingdom Mode thread that groups all the relevant old devlist stuff.
Still, yes, Toady seems more interested in military than civil matters, just looking at those old devpage items. I do hope that civil matters are given a great deal of depth, as I see this as one of those things that could potentially be of benefit to people of multiple playstyles - if you have a court with various agents and officials and nobles, you can delegate the matters that don't interest you, and handle the matters that do interest you personally.
Post by: Josephus on August 22, 2010, 04:39:53 am
One thing that personally comes naturally to mind with the recent discussion of outlying community sprawl here is the idea of court life. etc.Still, yes, Toady seems more interested in military than civil matters, just looking at those old devpage items. I do hope that civil matters are given a great deal of depth, as I see this as one of those things that could potentially be of benefit to people of multiple playstyles - if you have a court with various agents and officials and nobles, you can delegate the matters that don't interest you, and handle the matters that do interest you personally.
The part of this intrigues me is not the increased level of bureaucracy, but what this could mean for court intrigues. After all, how can you manage your kingdom when your ministers and officials are all plotting to stab each other (and the king) in the back? This would relate, of course, to in-fort factions, cults, and whatever.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 22, 2010, 10:13:31 am
The part of this intrigues me is not the increased level of bureaucracy, but what this could mean for court intrigues. After all, how can you manage your kingdom when your ministers and officials are all plotting to stab each other (and the king) in the back? This would relate, of course, to in-fort factions, cults, and whatever.
By and large, yes, that's what I like about it, too.
Nothing like having more personal spies in the king's court than there are spies working for the king. In Total War, I liked having absurd numbers of spies and assassins everywhere. I'd go out an order assassinations not for any particular gain, but just to train my assassins to be better. In Medieval: Total War, I got my war-mongering cardinal to be pope by simply assassinating everyone who was high enough rank to challenge his ascendance, and then having him excommunicate all the nations that got pissed at me for killing their cardinals.
*ahem* BWAAHAHAHAHAHA!
Post by: rex mortis on August 22, 2010, 03:22:12 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on August 22, 2010, 03:25:21 pm
Will there eventually be automatically generated embark profiles relative to the current world situation? Refugees from a border town that got sacked by goblins, royally funded military expansion, pilgrims on a missing to construct a shrine at a perceived holy site etc. Dwarves with appropriate skills assigned, preset goods. Just so when I find a nice location I don't have to spend another half an hour fiddling with my embark. As an added benefit one's initial dwarves would not be taken out of thin air but have an established place in the world. One might even receive highly skilled individuals same as current immigrants.
This is covered on the dev page: (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html)
Quote
Fortress Starting Scenarios
* Starting scenarios giving a back story for your fortress, often related to current world situation
o Reclaim mechanics should be folded into this
* Ability to bring extra dwarves along depending on scenario
* Entity populations surrounding your fortress in appropriate environments, both above and below ground
* Ability to move dwarves in and out of surroundings
* Relationship with surrounding dwarves
* Ability to trade/demand food in depot or similar place with surrounding dwarves
* Changes to caravans/diplomatic relationships based on starting scenario
Post by: Rose on August 22, 2010, 10:53:56 pm
I like playing as humans, but they're really just tall dwarves, at the moment.
Post by: Rockphed on August 22, 2010, 11:16:36 pm
Post by: tfaal on August 23, 2010, 12:31:45 am
Toady, are there any plans on making the other races playable, and different, anytime soon?I can't seem to find the quote, but Toady has said there are no such plans at the moment. With a few exceptions like adventurer medical skills and plant gathering, the Dev page encompasses "anytime soon".
I like playing as humans, but they're really just tall dwarves, at the moment.
Post by: James.Denholm on August 23, 2010, 04:29:33 am
He's a freakin' demon!
Post by: Josephus on August 23, 2010, 05:07:03 am
Post by: Tormy on August 23, 2010, 06:45:30 am
I don't get it. 7000 kills for one demon leader sounds perfectly reasonable.
He's a freakin' demon!
Agreed. :P
Post by: tfaal on August 23, 2010, 10:10:03 am
Post by: Cruxador on August 23, 2010, 05:10:33 pm
He's not just any demon either, he's a leader of a civilization and allegedly the God of Misery. It makes sense that he would indulge in some glorious slaughter from time to time.I don't get it. 7000 kills for one demon leader sounds perfectly reasonable.
He's a freakin' demon!
Agreed. :P
Post by: Untelligent on August 23, 2010, 05:20:14 pm
Toady, are there any plans on making the other races playable, and different, anytime soon?
I like playing as humans, but they're really just tall dwarves, at the moment.
Playable, yes. Soon, no.
Post by: telkoth on August 24, 2010, 12:40:47 am
^ reading over the last few pages of this thread, this article (and those following it) I read a while ago came to my mind. they talk in detail about why fantasy worlds with fantasy-sized kingdoms and battles don't work so well in reality, but also how things can be stretched to try and get there (P.S. magic helps). it doesn't address all the concerns here directly, but I think may at least inspire some interesting/useful discussion. they also talk about some cool things, like why europe had knights and asia didn't so much... all kinds of cool stuff.
[edit] ah, and here was the bit specifically about how goblin societies might function as they do in fantasy worlds (randomly attacking people, being available in large numbers for adventurers to kill, etc): http://mu.ranter.net/design-theory/food-basis/monsters-and-food
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 24, 2010, 02:22:31 am
Except for hunter-gatherers not having as much free time as farming cultures - the reverse is actually true, as hunter-gatherers actually spent less than half as much time obtaining food as farming cultures did. Hunter-gatherers actually spent most of their time on leisure, since they largely just relied upon simply using whatever was at hand to solve their problems rather than having to organize or work... it's just that they faced the problem that drought or famine would occasionally come and kill off all the young, weak, and elderly because not enough food would be on hand.
The reason that hunter-gatherers really lose to farmers, however, is that farmers are simply more populous than hunter-gatherers. It's thankless, back-breaking labor, but even wooden-plow-using farmers who could hardly harvest enough to feed their own families, much less export grain could cram orders of magnitude more people into a society than hunter-gatherers, who necessarily kept to groups of a few dozen when stationary, or a clan of a couple hundred when chasing some herd animal, and living nomadically. (The guy Telkoth links to basically says 180 farmers fit in 3 square miles, while no more than 2 hunter gatherers can fit in a square mile... that's a ratio of 30 to 1 in favor of farmers, even if only 3 of those 30 farmers can be in the standing army, or even anything but a farmer.) And that larger concentration meant standing armies. Hunter-gatherers could be a serious threat... but again, like the Mongols, that only happened when those hunter-gatherers were forced out of their lands by starvation, or they were forced to defend their lands for their own survival. Things like raising standing armies that could conquer neighboring lands just didn't happen without a serious food supply.
edit: As a total aside, the last bit actually made me think about something with regards to my previous statements about goblin chicken/pig ranching... farming something cold-blooded, especially insects, (although lizards or amphibians would also help,) would make for a far more efficient source of food per acre than chickens or pigs would, as they don't spend nearly as much energy just keeping themselves warm, and as such stretch the grazable land out to be able to support a greater population.
... Of course, a long-range "cattle herd" of insects might be an extremely odd thing to go herding. I'd imagine it be like "herding" a swarm of locusts across the land, and that's IF they can fly. (Flying increases caloric needs, but drastically significantly mobility, as well, especially for such small creatures.)
It might be possible to have some sort of mixed method of ranching, however - having long-range cattle drives over grazing land, and having the muck farms feeding an insect population for long-term food storage purposes. Plus, if those insects are purring maggots, they can be farmed for some lovely Dwarven Cheese!
Post by: Aravin on August 24, 2010, 04:09:15 am
Post by: Rose on August 24, 2010, 04:12:21 am
Post by: Knight Otu on August 24, 2010, 05:20:27 am
Post by: Footkerchief on August 24, 2010, 07:47:13 am
Well, all the near-future stuff that would be save-breaking. Certainly not all of the cores require breaking save compatibility (I think there was a core added during the "40d era" where it went from 0.27 to 0.28, but that might not be necessarily the case).
Yeah, saves from 0.27.169.32a were compatible all the way up to 0.28.181.40d. (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/older_versions.html)
Post by: scriver on August 24, 2010, 09:17:14 am
(The guy Telkoth links to basically says 180 farmers fit in 3 square miles, while no more than 2 hunter gatherers can fit in a square mile... that's a ratio of 30 to 1 in favor of farmers, even if only 3 of those 30 farmers can be in the standing army, or even anything but a farmer.) And that larger concentration meant standing armies.Not to mention that all of the other 27 farmers could be combat trained and act as a form of (what we would call today) militia. That's what "Vikings" were, after all - farmers with a warfare tradition. They were not nearly as disciplined, or as well trained as a standing, "professional" army would have been, but every able man were still expected to arm himself and fight whenever battle commenced. After all, the term "huscarl", (which is nearly synonymous with "viking raider/warrior" in popular culture these days), means nothing else than "house man", and less directly translated would mean something akin to "farmhand".
Got into a bit of a ranting mood here, I notice. Anyway, point being: I agree with you about the farmer's advantage, plus that the farmers themselves might be warriors/militia, which gives them an even greater number of recruitable (in need) men.
Post by: MaDeR Levap on August 24, 2010, 10:12:49 am
AFAIK when the new core(s) is(are) implemented, the older saves won't be compatible anymore. Is it true? The bugs should end someday (so the bugfixes won't be needed), and then new cores will be added. Is there no way to add new cores and make saves compatible?I do not understand why some people are THAT hung up on save compatibility. This preference was actually detrimental to developing DF - one of reasons of so long period between 40d and .31.x was mythical "save compatibility" (done as merely not releasing anything... some compatibility, indeed!). Results are known very well. Good grief, this is ALPHA version, for Armok sake. Toady could release each version totally incompatibile and everyone would suck it up. It is not like old version would stop working one second after next release.
TL;DR; : "save compatibility" is totally unnecessary and harmful crap.
Post by: zwei on August 24, 2010, 11:27:18 am
Well, all the near-future stuff that would be save-breaking. Certainly not all of the cores require breaking save compatibility (I think there was a core added during the "40d era" where it went from 0.27 to 0.28, but that might not be necessarily the case).
Yeah, saves from 0.27.169.32a were compatible all the way up to 0.28.181.40d. (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/older_versions.html)
That sounds ... bad. I can only imagine how save-load code looked with all the extra "if loading save from version blahblah which has been victim of bug #123, do this and that to make it compatible".
Regarding save compatibility, how much effort goes to maintain it? How much does it effect code overall?
Post by: monk12 on August 24, 2010, 12:48:35 pm
Except for hunter-gatherers not having as much free time as farming cultures - the reverse is actually true, as hunter-gatherers actually spent less than half as much time obtaining food as farming cultures did. Hunter-gatherers actually spent most of their time on leisure, since they largely just relied upon simply using whatever was at hand to solve their problems rather than having to organize or work... it's just that they faced the problem that drought or famine would occasionally come and kill off all the young, weak, and elderly because not enough food would be on hand.
The reason that farmers end up with more free time than hunter gatherers is due to the fact that the hunter gatherers need to keep moving and hunting during the winter, whereas the hard working farmer just sits on his duff and invents wheels and scrimshaw and metallurgy and the like during the winter because he has a large stockpile of food to sustain him.
Post by: Cardinal on August 24, 2010, 02:39:10 pm
Hunter-gatherers could be a serious threat... but again, like the Mongols, that only happened when those hunter-gatherers were forced out of their lands by starvation, or they were forced to defend their lands for their own survival. Things like raising standing armies that could conquer neighboring lands just didn't happen without a serious food supply.
Mongols weren't hunter-gatherers, they were pastoralists. Pastoralists could defeat much larger agricultural populations because the pastoralists never fought the entire agricultural society, but rather the political elites and their armies, which were of equal size to the wholly mobilized pastoralist society. As long as cavalry was an important military asset, and as long as there were enough food resources for pastoralists to maintain their herds, they were always a significant factor. Hunter-gatherers, on the other hand, won only a handful of isolated and lopsided military victories over agricultural societies throughout the entire course of human history.
Post by: Cardinal on August 24, 2010, 02:42:58 pm
The reason that farmers end up with more free time than hunter gatherers is due to the fact that the hunter gatherers need to keep moving and hunting during the winter, whereas the hard working farmer just sits on his duff and invents wheels and scrimshaw and metallurgy and the like during the winter because he has a large stockpile of food to sustain him.
Wheels and scrimshaw and metallurgy aren't necessarily the end-all, be-all. The Mongols defeated everyone with bone-tipped arrows and wheel-less horses.
Also, another drawback for agricultural societies and their armies is that when your army is fed the majority of its calories as carbohydrates, they have worse performance than an army running on a primarily protein diet. Not in the sense that the protein-eaters are more muscular, but that they deal with privation better. Toady should definitely model diet, that seems to fit right in with the sorts of things he's been modeling.
Post by: DalGren on August 24, 2010, 05:13:47 pm
Considering a regular PC game takes several gigabytes of space, the effort of adding 15 mb to your precious -and probably with a reason- save is not demanding too much.
Sure, I understand that it sucks to have your megaproject bound to a inferior set of features (aka earlier versions), and the desire to get the new features on it, but after all, by the time the save-breaking release is out you'll probably have more things to make a new megaproject with.
Forcing save compatibility too much slows development by a lot, needs rather gross hacks, and requires much more extra thought (as opposed to simply remake the save mechanism with a newer version, trust me, it's much easier and cleaner than keeping a Frankenstein's monster of a save-load mechanism). Because ensuring retrocompatibility requires a lot of time saving and loading stuff, and imagine how nerve-breaking it has to be to do it several, several, several times in a row until it works. And that time could be used relaxing or fixing [YOUR_FAVORITE_BUG_HERE] or doing new features.
Unfortunately since this is not a question, there's technically no reason for Toady to read it, but I'd like to encourage him to break it when a break is called for.
Post by: monk12 on August 24, 2010, 10:58:25 pm
The reason that farmers end up with more free time than hunter gatherers is due to the fact that the hunter gatherers need to keep moving and hunting during the winter, whereas the hard working farmer just sits on his duff and invents wheels and scrimshaw and metallurgy and the like during the winter because he has a large stockpile of food to sustain him.
Wheels and scrimshaw and metallurgy aren't necessarily the end-all, be-all. The Mongols defeated everyone with bone-tipped arrows and wheel-less horses.
Also, another drawback for agricultural societies and their armies is that when your army is fed the majority of its calories as carbohydrates, they have worse performance than an army running on a primarily protein diet. Not in the sense that the protein-eaters are more muscular, but that they deal with privation better. Toady should definitely model diet, that seems to fit right in with the sorts of things he's been modeling.
Wasn't saying that agrarian societies are always more militarily capable than nomadic ones, merely that agrarian societies have the leisure time to do things other than hunt/gather/war. Although it is worth noting that the many nations that fell before the Mongols did so by, as you noted, having surplus population to form professional armies, which were roughly equal to the numbers of the entire mobilized Mongol people. If the Mongols had suffered a few serious defeats, then entire tribes would be decimated and would take generations to recover from, whereas the agrarians could have immediately drawn more soldiers from the citizenry. History is full of instances where entire nomadic peoples were eradicated because they lost one too many battles in their campaigns; the Mongols are special because they are an exception to the rule.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 24, 2010, 11:59:11 pm
The reason that farmers end up with more free time than hunter gatherers is due to the fact that the hunter gatherers need to keep moving and hunting during the winter, whereas the hard working farmer just sits on his duff and invents wheels and scrimshaw and metallurgy and the like during the winter because he has a large stockpile of food to sustain him.
Actually, not so much...
During the Winter, the normally hard-working, burly farmers almost went into hibernation, and lost much of their mass and stopped eating nearly as much, or working nearly as much because if they lost weight and skimped on eating, it made it far more likely to survive the Winter and early Spring, before the first Spring vegetables could come in.
Besides, your typical farmer probably had as much to do with teaching himself metallurgy in his free time as a typical modern school-going person does during the Summer when school is in recess. You don't just pick up blacksmithing as a hobby. It's a profession you train for through apprenticeship and which essentially defines your lot in life after completing said apprenticeship.
That also brings up a problem with a misperception of how Medieval people would view technology, which I've had recently (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=62629.0) - even when there were known means of improving crop yield, or when there were known superior crops to the crops that farmers were planting, farmers were often so stubbornly resistant to change that they would absolutely refuse to make changes to their way of life even when it could be clearly demonstrated to them that they could improve their means of production and chances for survival.
That blog post that was linked mentioned how wheat farmers had draft horses that rice farmers did not... but that was not something that farmers invented, they simply bred the biggest, strongest horses they could, and unnatural selection took care of the rest over time.
Ultimately, the thing to keep in mind when talking about having "time for technological advancement" is that the life of the average farmer from the dawn of civilization up until about the 19th century was almost entirely unchanging. For most of the Medieval period, you actually see farmers using wooden plows, because steel is just too rare/expensive/difficult to make until the Bessemer Process to be used by your typical farmer, pig iron was too brittle, and wrought iron or bronze were too soft to be used for that. So it was an ox and a wooden plow straight through even the Rennaisance period. Until the modern ability to mine for or artificially produce fertilizers, it pretty much was crop rotations and letting the family cows drop manure on the fields to keep the land fertile. And large family sizes meant that any gains in land arability made by any change in technique or irrigation thanks to a large government effort to expand farming would simply lead to farms being further divided among the inheritors of the farm until the farm became just barely large enough to support the farmers themselves. (Artificial population control would actually massively help the overall productivity of a culture - if you redistributed the land so that the semi-arable land was not being worked at all, or only used for pasture, and let larger fields be worked by fewer people, you would actually greatly reduce the ratio of farmers to everyone else in a society. Although it means supporting a lower overall population, there would be more people available for all the other jobs in a society if you redesigned your society for surplus farming rather than everyone subsistance farming. This is, in fact, exactly what happened by accident with the Black Death - when about half the population was forcably culled, the land was redistributed, and everyone ate much, much better, and could afford to diversify their crops more, and could put more people into different jobs, and directly led to the invention of the Printing Press, and to the technological innovation (or rediscovery) that marked the jump into the Rennaisance for Europe, while the Arab and Asian world remained locked in Medieval Stasis because they weren't fortunate enough to have the right percentage of their population wiped out.)
Mongols weren't hunter-gatherers, they were pastoralists. ...
Mmm... This is largely an argument of definition, as I was essentially lumping the two together, but I can see your point and that the distinction is worth making.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 24, 2010, 11:59:31 pm
Basically, do elves farm?
Farming (as defined by fields of crops) pretty much requires deforestation if you are trying to do it in a wooded area - even if we don't want to prevent the tree from sitting in the middle of the field, spreading its roots where we want crops to spread their roots like the ultimate weed, there's the whole nature of forests having a canopy that tends to block out sunlight for all the plants below.
Crops could grow in the small patches where old trees had fallen, and no new one had yet taken its place, but these would be scattered, and probably not terribly ideal. Elves might "farm" by encouraging growth of desired food crops in the small patches of land that are sunny and not already thick with vegetation, but that might not even be notably more efficient than just searching for wild crops.
Essentially, elves may wind up being largely vegetarian, but still wind up being even more of a hunter-gatherer society than even the goblins are (who may be better as "pastoralists") if they are simply surviving off of the herbalist skill alone. (Of course, they also happen to get absurd amounts of wood that supposedly just dies "naturally", so maybe they just have completely unrealisticly accellerated plant growth and death rates?)
Post by: Cardinal on August 25, 2010, 12:01:57 am
Wasn't saying that agrarian societies are always more militarily capable than nomadic ones, merely that agrarian societies have the leisure time to do things other than hunt/gather/war. Although it is worth noting that the many nations that fell before the Mongols did so by, as you noted, having surplus population to form professional armies, which were roughly equal to the numbers of the entire mobilized Mongol people. If the Mongols had suffered a few serious defeats, then entire tribes would be decimated and would take generations to recover from, whereas the agrarians could have immediately drawn more soldiers from the citizenry. History is full of instances where entire nomadic peoples were eradicated because they lost one too many battles in their campaigns; the Mongols are special because they are an exception to the rule.
You're right on all counts except that the Mongols weren't exceptional. Pastoralists in Central Asia had a solid 1300-year run of jockeying with neighboring agrarian societies for power, often coming out on top and treating the settled peoples as just one more herd. The Chinese, especially, had a long and complex relationship with the various Turkic, Uighar and Jurchen tribes that surrounded them, oftentimes happily engaging in trade through tributary form to acquire steppe ponies for Chinese silk. But the Yuan, Qing and Tang dynasties were all founded by pastoralists (the Tang loved playing polo until the eunuchs decided they should no longer take part in such a dangerous activity) and the Turks, Huns, Bedouin, Mongols, Berbers and less famous editions troubled the Mediterranean societies quite regularly.
Post by: Toady One on August 25, 2010, 01:14:15 am
Quote from: Mephansteras
Toady, what is your plan for the goblins from a world-politics view? Given a goblin-led civ, how do you see them acting as opposed to a Demon-lead civ?
Currently they are basically the same. The demon generally has a more extreme personality, and the demon reckons its own strength in the army calculations (which can be significant), so they end up more aggressive under demonic leadership, but it's not a different overall system. The eventual idea, though, will require more of the goal-oriented stuff we're hoping for out of the villains section. Demons will probably tend to have broader goals and they'll be smarter about them to the extent we can pull that off. There could still be a goblin with dreams of world domination, but attaining and holding a leadership position over a bunch of goblins without the advantage of demonic might is more difficult, and likely there wouldn't be much of a civilization beyond their isolated sites at that point. They might bother their neighbors, but it wouldn't be as organized.
Quote from: Armok
Right now, NPC buildings and farms look very sterile blocky and mass produced. And with some very reasonable assumptions on tile size the buildings are VERY large for a mideval civ. Toady, are you planing on at some point make things look more organic, dramatic, and homely?
I think they are fine given what I've read (that the floor space for a cottage for a family would be between, say, 25 and 125 square meters, depending on affluence and local customs and whatever else). Throwing out 2m arbitrarily as a tile edge, we'd be at 100m^2 for the floor space and 1536 m between villages, which I'm more or less comfortable with (I read an aerial survey for medieval sites in England which put average nearest village distance at 0.89mi or something, and we talked about how this might be varied earlier). Since we are on a grid, even with a single room the outer walls take up 24 tiles and the interior is 25, even though the outer walls shouldn't take up a lot of space. If they are divided into a living and storage area, which might involve an internal partition, then the floor area would be cut down an additional 5 tiles, putting us down to 80m^2. I don't know how different the cottage shapes are going to be, but within their plot there will end up being variations in terms of overall size, gardens, other structures, furniture, items, etc.
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
Will you code in the ability to create our own raw-defined building types for worldgen? Using the Arena Mode and Custom Workshops as a model, we already have most of the pieces to create both custom buildings and define functions for them.
I'm not eager to get into this right now, since I'm not sure what the overall specs need to be and I don't want to tie myself to a raw format early. One of the main things is that I'm not sure I'd be satisfied with static maps of buildings, rather than buildings that are a bit more adaptable. For instance, I'm not sure what raws would look like for the existing temples, which adapt portions of their architecture to the spheres associated to their deities. The raw format would inevitable restrict my ability to do things like that, unless it were really complicated. At the same time, I can see how a modder would want to be able to deviate wildly from what is currently available. It might be most simple to allow static building maps to be used by custom races, but since I won't be using that in vanilla it's difficult to prioritize.
Quote from: Yaddy1
Will there be any interactions between wanderers and your fort? The ability to set up an inn for them to stay in would be cool. Maybe expand thieves to pretend to be travelers at first?
Once the caravans are up and running and you are having interactions with your own off-map dwarves, I think this would end up fitting in a natural progression. I don't specifically have any plans for it, but I know there are threads about having inn-fortresses and I think it would be fun.
Quote from: Japa
Toady, are there any plans on making the other races playable, and different, anytime soon?
You mean in fortress mode? It'd be a lot of work to get something satisfying going there, and in the dev-page timeframe we're more going to be coming from the angle of letting a human adventurer have a site than running a fortress mode with different races. After that, I'm not sure.
Quote from: tfaal
how are the larger towns going to be handled this release? Will they just be a bunch of scrambled together cottages and shops, or can we expect a bit more structure?
I don't have time to handle them since I want to get something released and I feel like it has been taking too long, so there won't be large towns at all this time, but I'm hoping to stick with the information I've found about towns when I get to them. I'll be organizing that around the time I start in on the towns though, so I don't have a lot to say. I don't recall if it was market squares with the possibility of specialty shops somewhat further afield. That seems reasonable for a game anyway. The things that travelers typically want should be easy to buy, mostly in the same place, I imagine. Beyond the economic structures/locations, it'll depend on what's in the game when I get there.
Quote from: zwei
Regarding save compatibility, how much effort goes to maintain it? How much does it effect code overall?
New variables need to be initialized, which is often automatic, and old version saves need to skip loading them, which is a conditional per collection of variables. Occasionally it'll wipe and rebuild some information, but that's rarely more than 20 lines every 5 versions, and it just happens at the end of the load routine without affecting other code. I also load up a few old saves prior to releases. It isn't very much work at all. After several months without a compatibility break, it gets to be a bit of code, but it's a minute part of the overall additions. There were some things I changed during the long wait that I put in to prevent save compatibility breaks later (since there was definitely going to be a break), but it wasn't a large contribution to the delay. Given the interest people have expressed in maintaining mega projects while incorporating new bug fixes, I think breaking compatibility every release would be unnecessary and harmful. It really isn't a big deal.
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
Basically, do elves farm?
Whatever they end up doing, there won't be fields of crops. They've had a supernatural relationship with plants in the stories, and the "orchard" from one of Zach's stories had an unclear nature. We haven't decided yet. It'll come to a head when we start tracking site supplies most likely.
Post by: Josephus on August 25, 2010, 01:44:54 am
Post by: Acanthus117 on August 25, 2010, 01:47:36 am
Post by: Kamudo on August 25, 2010, 05:16:55 am
Another thing that I thought of was temporary bridges in Adv. Mode. Such as wooden planks that can be harvested from trees/carpentry. It would be useful for spanning tiny gaps in old ruins or caves or something, such as a one tile hole is in front of you, you toss down a plank or two, and cross it. Along with a breaking percentage for the wood, or, it could be rigged to break for a certain amount of weight? I just love exploring crap, soo uh.. Yeah. >.>
Post by: rex mortis on August 25, 2010, 08:25:40 am
Clearly, goblins are way superior to drow.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 25, 2010, 11:00:29 am
Quote from: NW_KohakuWill you code in the ability to create our own raw-defined building types for worldgen? Using the Arena Mode and Custom Workshops as a model, we already have most of the pieces to create both custom buildings and define functions for them.
I'm not eager to get into this right now, since I'm not sure what the overall specs need to be and I don't want to tie myself to a raw format early. One of the main things is that I'm not sure I'd be satisfied with static maps of buildings, rather than buildings that are a bit more adaptable. For instance, I'm not sure what raws would look like for the existing temples, which adapt portions of their architecture to the spheres associated to their deities. The raw format would inevitable restrict my ability to do things like that, unless it were really complicated. At the same time, I can see how a modder would want to be able to deviate wildly from what is currently available. It might be most simple to allow static building maps to be used by custom races, but since I won't be using that in vanilla it's difficult to prioritize.
What if raw-definable buildings were definable in a simpler way? I see two major ways of handling this, the simple but crude and raw-folder-bloating way, and the elegant but complex way:
I already think the simplest way to do this is to simply let the raws define functions for each building we create, (so that we have multiple entries that fill the role of "peasant house") and generate probability weights the way that we already can do for castes, so that we can make random-looking buildings by just making 50 different buildings, and giving them varying weights to occur, so that, unweighted, each individual building would only occur 2% of the time. You could largely copy-paste the same overall building shape, and just re-arrange the furniture if you saw fit to make something that would seem different to the player who walked into town. Temples to different spheres, then, would just be a copy-paste of other temples with certain parts changed to fit whatever idiom that sphere had. (For the "purpose" of the temple, it might be [PURPOSE:TEMPLE_OF_SPHERE_NAME] as opposed to just [PURPOSE:TEMPLE] (where each "purpose" is a string where the entity city-building list of commands can be instructed to build so many of each) so that different spheres would cause different sets of buildings to be called up, with some/most buildings just being of "ANY" sphere.)
This wouldn't really be very procedural, of course, but it would be functionally similar to a more comlex and possibly more buggy solution, at the cost of probably forcing a new raws subfolder just to deal with having to organize the potentially huge number of variations on basic themes to make the idea work properly. (This may be a stopgap for a more complex solution, although I know you're not much for stopgaps.)
The alternative (although not really an "alternative", there's no reason not to do this in conjunction with the previous) would be to make raw-editable procedural parts. This would mean that you define a base of building, and then, on certain parts, you designate a special zone that actually calls on a procedural function that will look for sub-building pieces. Sub-pieces may call for further sub-pieces, so that you could define a noble's estate by having a grand hallway with additoinal pieces being rooms that are branches off the hallways.
For example, you could have a set of "ground floor" plans for a farmer's house, and a seperate set of "second story" plans for a farmer's house. Not all ground floors would have a second story, but ones that did would make a call to add onto a certain anchor point (specifically, in this case, the stairs) upon potential sub-sections of the house. The function that calls for the additional sub-section of the house could be a weighted list of potential building floorplans, rather than simply something defined to fill a particular function, so that you could know the exact dimensions of the building pieces you are calling in beforehand.
As a sanity check, this would probably require some kind of arbitrary limit on recursions (say, no building segment tree with more than 100 nodes), so that some player who wants to test the limits doesn't blow up the world by making a building that is infinitely recursive by, for example, making a tower (Tower of Babel?) where each floor calls upon making another version of itself on the floor above, or some set pattern of floors so that it could extend infinitely high into the sky... not that such a thing wouldn't be cool, but infinite recursions tend to be bad.
For the purposes of fulfilling the needs of a sphere-based temple, these areas, then, you could either do the same copy-pasting solution I talked about, above, where each temple has a slightly different floorplan, but the bulk of it is repeated each time. Alternately, it might be possible to build it "tricky", and make a set of TEMPLE_OF_SPHERE_NAME, with only the changing parts that filled in, which calls a default temple set of pews or the like, possibly including the door to enter the temple proper. (Making "buildings from the top down" may require some special sets of sanity checks be added to make sure that all buildings have at least one door to the outside, and that it can link to the "main throughway" at some point.)
Similarly, the building could have the same floor plan, but have areas that are designated "furniture zones", where the game is simply given a list of furniture that needs to be in the house, and the game will just mix-and-match ways of placing that furniture... although this would need to be somewhat complex if you wanted to make sure tables always had chairs next to them, (calling up mini-floor plans that only deploy furniture in some pre-set raw-defined arrangements for particular floor spaces) and outright randomized furniture placement may likely be best for "abandoned" houses or outright ruins, where the stuff is supposed to be randomly strewn about.
Post by: Quatch on August 25, 2010, 11:01:45 am
Basically, do elves farm? /color]
My take on this would be the pruning of the forest to allow enough light through for undergrowth. Make all the trees fruit or nut bearing (where pruning can increase harvest as well), and you might have something workable.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 25, 2010, 12:00:13 pm
Quote from: NW_KohakuBasically, do elves farm?
Whatever they end up doing, there won't be fields of crops. They've had a supernatural relationship with plants in the stories, and the "orchard" from one of Zach's stories had an unclear nature. We haven't decided yet. It'll come to a head when we start tracking site supplies most likely.
My take on this would be the pruning of the forest to allow enough light through for undergrowth. Make all the trees fruit or nut bearing (where pruning can increase harvest as well), and you might have something workable.
Actually, this was exactly where my mind went after reading Toady's comment. (I just went off on custom-building stuff first...)
If we had, say, fig trees in the forest, which monkeys in rain forests often fight over to get a ready supply of food, then we could feed elves by simply making elves into monkeys!
Having multi-tile trees is already a part of what will pretty much have to happen for elves if you are going to be building tree houses inside/on top of/around the trees for the elves to live in. Giving elves some kind of ability to walk on small branches to get to fruit as a racial ability might make a lot of sense.
It might also make for amusing ways to "seige" fortresses - crossing moats by planting quick-growing magic trees or beansprouts whose branches they can climb to get over a moat or wall, then drop more seeds over the other side to grow a "ladder" back down. Having roots grow that can break through floors or stone walls below, and opening up pathways may be the elven "digging" method. Attacking dwarves by aggressively growing trees at them sounds quite elfy.
Anyway, if you build your house in a fruit or nut-bearing tree capable of growing large enough, then food problems might be much lesser... although you have to fight off everyone else who wants some figs, which includes
Regardless, elves would probably have to spread out and decentralize their populations - if you just get your food from the forest directly, and wild animals aren't hostile, there's little reason to band together much, and you need to spread out so that your footprint on the enviornment is not as severe, and you don't strip the forest bare with concentrated population centers.
This would functionally replicate the situation talked about in the blog a page or so ago - forest dwellers with plenty of fruit on hand all year have no reason to organize or advance their technology. They use wood tools for everything, since that's what's on hand, and have absurd amounts of free time, since all they need to do is make sure their trees survive to the ages it takes to start fruiting. Other than that, they probably relax all the time, and spend time with wooden puzzle boxes they share with one another... This actually goes pretty far in explaining elven culture, now that I think about it.
Or hey, if we don't want to make every elven city a collection of fig trees or oaks with acorns, maybe elves can just eat leaves? It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility, as some primates are capable of doing so. It does, however, require adapted digestive tracts, and LOTS of leaves, as it takes almost as much chemical energy to eat a leaf as you get out of the leaf itself. Even this, however, causes problems in Winter, where broadleaf forests in non-tropical areas will shed their leaves. Without preservable foods or eating meat, elves are in a problem during the Winter...
Do elves hibernate in Winter?
Post by: Mephansteras on August 25, 2010, 12:19:31 pm
Demons and Devils are probably safe to assume are evil powermongers. What about the other forgotten beasts that end up taking important positions in Human Civs? Are they necessarily an evil influence on the civ? Are we going to see benign Lizard monsters and the like? How do you see these creatures ultimately influencing how the human civs act?
Post by: Quatch on August 25, 2010, 12:38:58 pm
This would functionally replicate the situation talked about in the blog a page or so ago - forest dwellers with plenty of fruit on hand all year have no reason to organize or advance their technology.
That smacks of geographic determinism, the whole idea that jungle cultures failed because it was too hot to think. We've moved past that now. A correlation not causation issue.
The real problem with the tropics (off the top of my head) is really resource scarcity for more advanced technology. There isn't the available surface metals that there were farther north, which I think Jared diamond in guns germs and steel did cover.
Your notes about elvish modes of tree-attack indicate that you can see many avenues for the advancement of technology. Agro-tech to prune, splice, cross-breed, clone; otherwise increase yield, reduce spoilage (refrigeration, even passive evaporation based) can go hand-in-hand with militaristic applications.
If, as you posit, the fruit would cause territoriality (I think we're familiar with the elves possessiveness of the forest), the force behind military technology is certainly present.
On the subject of powerful beings:
Demons and Devils are probably safe to assume are evil powermongers. What about the other forgotten beasts that end up taking important positions in Human Civs? Are they necessarily an evil influence on the civ? Are we going to see benign Lizard monsters and the like? How do you see these creatures ultimately influencing how the human civs act?
How about Are there non-violent/evil ways for an entity to assume/use control? I could see anything with spheres eventually having desires that are best implemented at the nation level, so I'm sure we'll get there later.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 25, 2010, 01:44:19 pm
Oh and sometimes the Humans themself should start to worship a FB/demon/titan because some wonky religion tells them to do so or something.
Well the elves and the trees.
I can see a totally semi "industrialized" way of tree farming here that mimicks a Forrest to some extend like a permaculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture). Said permaculture can by nuts roots etc. produce enough stockpile able stuff. Even if the tree tops alone dont produce enough food you still have multiple forrest layers that can net you some stuff. Like mushrooms on the ground etc. With actual tree growing ala Bonsai the elves could even introduce new layers and minibiomes by forming platforms on which leaves and wood rot to soil for more traditional farming or creating basins from roots etc. in which you could grow algae. Heck you find this stuff in natural forms in old Redwoods.
The long live of an elv makes that more likely since elves can and have to plan for very long distances timewise. Waiting for a tree to bear fruit in maybe 10 or 20 years would for them something to consider in theyr future plans.
Post by: Syff on August 25, 2010, 07:49:14 pm
ThreeToe's stories have mentioned Elves' roles as keepers of the laws of the forest; Obey or be eaten by elves.
Or maybe all the creatures of the forest pay them tribute. The deer give them grasses and fruit, the wolves give them venison,... The entirety of their territory acting as farmland in a sense, with all the forest's creatures acting as "citizens" in terms of productivity.
If they consider trees to have rights, then it might not be far off to just call them entity members, in terms of having deforestation equate to razing villages in their eyes.
Though at that point it becomes less of a civilization of Elves and more of a civilization of The Forest, of which Elves are simply the most notable of potentially many different species and social castes, led by powerful natural forces/spirits/deities that the Elves act as representatives of.
Something of this nature (har) would line up pretty well with some of ThreeToe's stories, actually.
(Though at that point, the original thought of paying the Elves tribute ceases to make sense, and they'd most likely just eat whatever is allotted to them or provided for them by said spirit's guiding hand of sustainable eco-diversity...)
With the entity pop rewrite, Humans (and presumably Dwarves) are getting massive increases in the size of their civilizations; Given Elven lifespans, a lower population (of actual Elves) would make sense, though how they'd survive worldgen and other wars is always of some question when discussing their finer details.
Post by: Josephus on August 25, 2010, 09:02:42 pm
If they consider trees to have rights, then it might not be far off to just call them entity members, in terms of having deforestation equate to razing villages in their eyes.
Though at that point it becomes less of a civilization of Elves and more of a civilization of The Forest, of which Elves are simply the most notable of potentially many different species and social castes, led by powerful natural forces/spirits/deities that the Elves act as representatives of.
Something of this nature (har) would line up pretty well with some of ThreeToe's stories, actually.
(Though at that point, the original thought of paying the Elves tribute ceases to make sense, and they'd most likely just eat whatever is allotted to them or provided for them by said spirit's guiding hand of sustainable eco-diversity...)
I like this one, although it increases the elves' cultural sophistication from aboriginal natives being pushed out of their native lands by encroaching colonists (Humans, Dwarves, Goblins) to being quasi-mystical beings in a larger gestalt entity (your proposed FOREST entity).
I've always been sympathetic to the elves in that respect, and this proposal will make it just fine for me to wipe them out. After all, the forest is the enemy of civilization.
Post by: ZCM on August 25, 2010, 09:45:44 pm
The guy Telkoth links to basically says 180 farmers fit in 3 square miles, while no more than 2 hunter gatherers can fit in a square mile...
In most places, maybe that's true, but there are certainly areas that have had permanent hunter-gatherer settlements with much higher population densities. Yupik (eskimo) and Coast Salish indians could support permanent villages of a couple hundred people with no farming.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 25, 2010, 10:43:28 pm
With the entity pop rewrite, Humans (and presumably Dwarves) are getting massive increases in the size of their civilizations; Given Elven lifespans, a lower population (of actual Elves) would make sense, though how they'd survive worldgen and other wars is always of some question when discussing their finer details.
Bluntly, I think that they're going to have to be given equipment that isn't completely useless in a real fight.
Some kind of nature-blessed or magical version of wooden weapons that dwarves can't use, or maybe just outright "magic" implimented via breath attacks could give them some kind of prayer in combat when they aren't relying on sheer numbers... and still losing horribly. (I remember a goblin civ near my old 40d fort that relied upon snatched children for its military... a snatched elf girl who was 12 years old essentially single-handedly (in the first one, she had two allies who died straight off) held off three whole seiges on her dark tower against at least a hundred humans or elves apiece, only to die the next year when a lucky human bowman got a shot to the head. She was 13 years old, and had something like 50 kills. All this just because of the difference between an elf with iron or bronze weapons instead of wood... and that's in 40d, when wood wasn't nearly as useless as now!)
Well the elves and the trees.
I can see a totally semi "industrialized" way of tree farming here that mimicks a Forrest to some extend like a permaculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture). Said permaculture can by nuts roots etc. produce enough stockpile able stuff. Even if the tree tops alone dont produce enough food you still have multiple forrest layers that can net you some stuff. Like mushrooms on the ground etc. With actual tree growing ala Bonsai the elves could even introduce new layers and minibiomes by forming platforms on which leaves and wood rot to soil for more traditional farming or creating basins from roots etc. in which you could grow algae. Heck you find this stuff in natural forms in old Redwoods.
Oh, I actually meant to make comments about having plataeus in the trees for growing a little rope reed or other useful crops in pockets. However, permaculture sounds wonderful, especially next to something like the stuff in this post (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63054.msg1454925#msg1454925) about how elven homes could be built by shaping a tree around a pre-fabricated housing pod... frankly, even if they're dirty elven hippies and whatnot, things like engineered maintainance-free ecosystems and making houses by growing a tree in the shape you want just light up my nerd center with joy.
Post by: Funk on August 26, 2010, 08:19:58 am
With the entity pop rewrite, Humans (and presumably Dwarves) are getting massive increases in the size of their civilizations; Given Elven lifespans, a lower population (of actual Elves) would make sense, though how they'd survive worldgen and other wars is always of some question when discussing their finer details.i view elves as highy mobile and master jungle/woodland and all over Guerrilla warfare masters,think Predator but with an elf.
let them use there powers i.e.
1 exotic animals,just think how hard a dozen elves of giant eagles will be to fight.
2 time,the elves have forever to fight this war.
Post by: G-Flex on August 26, 2010, 11:57:34 am
You know how, in bad action movies, when twelve mooks fight the good guy, they do it one at a time? That's what elves (and really everyone) ends up doing. Strength in numbers doesn't really exist.
Post by: Areyar on August 26, 2010, 12:23:00 pm
Having 10:1 numerical advantage will give 10x the chance of 'rolling a natural 20'. . . ofcourse, this won't really help if your average dude will not even get a chance to strike at the big demon of death, cookies and hentai. :-X
edit, @ kohaku:
About player defined buildings, I suggest looking at Aegidian's Oolite and how it allows players to create expansionpacks.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 26, 2010, 12:50:18 pm
People forget that one of the most major issues elves don't win battles is because the game, to my knowledge, treats a battle like a series of duels.
You know how, in bad action movies, when twelve mooks fight the good guy, they do it one at a time? That's what elves (and really everyone) ends up doing. Strength in numbers doesn't really exist.
Mook Chivalry (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MookChivalry). (You're welcome.)
They actually face a far greater threat to their survival as a species, however, and that is planned infertility - all marriages are for life, and all marriages can only have 10 children. Once a wedded pair have had this pre-set limit of children, they will never again reproduce, and for that matter, probably won't change their jobs if they have a cushy, safe job, while letting all their children get drafted into the risky jobs, like the military, as soon as they hit the age of majority because in a society of immortals, all the safe jobs were taken by the first generation.
Hence, any elven civ that gets in a war early tends to kill off all the fertile pairs of elves, while the infertile older pairs do nothing with their lives for all eternity, ensuring that their entire race becomes infertile, and they just sit around the forest waiting for someone to bother to finish them off, burn down their forest, and replace and forget the elves.
There needs to be some sort of sanity check on this planned infertility system so that the elves don't kill themselves by treating their fertile civ members as more expendable than their infertile members when they are participating in a genocidal war.
(This is also related to why goblin civs tend to be filled with non-goblin races - all the goblins go infertile, but unlike elves, they can at least replace some of their numbers through stealing new babies to send up against their enemies. Ironically, this is most effective when snatching from fairly successful elven cultures that haven't been at war too much, so they have babies to snatch - elves in goblin equipment tend to be very formidable.)
In fact, considering what thread I'm in, I should probably ask...
Are there any plans to fix/plant a sanity check on the elven society-wide infertility problem?
Post by: Mephansteras on August 26, 2010, 01:04:03 pm
Post by: Huesoo on August 26, 2010, 03:23:49 pm
Post by: Mephansteras on August 26, 2010, 04:32:40 pm
For evil civs is there going to be a tag that allows them to commit cannabalism?
There are already tags to handle that in the ETHICS section of the raws. Goblins currently have it set as a PERSONAL_MATTER, so I imagine they do eat people occasionally.
Post by: lagging savant on August 26, 2010, 04:52:56 pm
I read on the front page that story about how that demon took over and committed elfacide of 7,000. The whole tone of what you were writing about seemed like that is a bad thing.
That is cool. Please don't change that. Our history is pretty much riddled with this kind of story and is even happening now.
That leads into so many story lines with your dwarves. You might not like the genocide and will try to stop it... you could maybe have your dwarves try to team up with the demons and further the carnage or prey on both sides after a battle, or come in and claim what was left behind. Perhaps enslaving those that got away and have come back to rebuild.
Post by: MaDeR Levap on August 26, 2010, 05:14:17 pm
I read on the front page that story about how that demon took over and committed elfacide of 7,000. The whole tone of what you were writing about seemed like that is a bad thing.Well, it is supposed to be demon (thus 7k kills). but to get kills, demon must deserve it. Player should think on sight of 7k kill demon "oh
Post by: Areyar on August 26, 2010, 06:43:59 pm
I think you wanted to say infertiles are expendable, not the fertile elves.
Either that or your sanity check needs to check for LIVING_offspring<10 && hasMate for is fertile.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 26, 2010, 07:01:06 pm
I'll do a quick edit, then...
Post by: DalGren on August 26, 2010, 08:16:08 pm
I am not asking for realistic property laws and stuff, but more if the world population has or will have a sense of housing and territory property? Will it be forbidden to build around temples, graveyards (will they actually exist) if they have a living owner?
Such a system would allow stuff like a game entity recognizing and acting against trespassers or someone building a gateway to HFS on their lawn...which can come in handy for thievery and stuff. (and bring in farmer/villager disputes about territory? now that'd be realism)
Also related to this.Would it be possible to find isolated huts or cabins of some world entity living on its own? Perhaps outcasts, hermits, or sociopaths who refuse living in populated areas?
The reasoning about this is that such characters are actually very common in fantasy lore, who live isolated for whatever social or spiritual reason.
This can also lead to possible differing town mechanics. Instead of getting inside any home at random to find no resistance, find people more intolerant to trespassers, perhaps to the point of getting aggressive if they return and find you there (which would require thievery to very more organized, observing the patters of the person to ensure they are not at home when you want to steal some goods). Also that same mechanic can allow guards to perform their duty on their master's territory. The policies and behaviors involved can be the very same used to determinate the entity's personality: less social types would be more lenient to a "no trespassers (or we release the hounds)" policy, while the more open ones would not care much and differ little from the current mechanics.
Also with that we can find more locked doors and stuff to make adventuring as a thief more interesting.
The isolated entities might have importance as having better knowledge to share about the area, what kind of entities roam the area...and might be referenced by a person from the same group such as "the old man living in the mountains might have some information on that", or be extraordinary blacksmiths, teachers... perhaps the lonely old widow living in the forest might be referenced as a witch...that kind of stuff.
Post by: monk12 on August 26, 2010, 10:28:13 pm
How do you plan to change how world gen battles are fought? Will terrain and/or tactics play a role? Will civs, or even just races that are faced with a war of extinction that they cannot win attempt to flee and establish new cities elsewhere?
Post by: Areyar on August 27, 2010, 09:13:26 am
It would be cool to find burnt villages and city ruins.
Currently IIRC abandoned sites are just empty, not ruined or anything. With your focus on adventure-mode and sites, will actual ruins be viable sites for adventures soon?
Cycles of decay similar to erosion could degrade abandoned sites over the years.
How far down the pipeline are worldgen battles with actual AI tactics that can be viewed afterwards in histories like a movie of a classical board and chips wargame?
Participating in (or precipitating) a war in adventure mode would also be awesome.
Post by: Huesoo on August 27, 2010, 02:52:36 pm
For evil civs is there going to be a tag that allows them to commit cannabalism?
There are already tags to handle that in the ETHICS section of the raws. Goblins currently have it set as a PERSONAL_MATTER, so I imagine they do eat people occasionally.
I was talking about being able to take that tag then add it to your dwarves so they can eat eachother if things are desperate.
Post by: nil on August 27, 2010, 04:06:22 pm
Currently IIRC abandoned sites are just empty, not ruined or anything. With your focus on adventure-mode and sites, will actual ruins be viable sites for adventures soon?Also, sites abandoned in worldgen will already have furniture at least mostly removed and random walls destroyed.
Cycles of decay similar to erosion could degrade abandoned sites over the years.
Post by: Neonivek on August 27, 2010, 04:34:41 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 27, 2010, 06:17:11 pm
I think that worlds might need a new map exportoption were you can only see the settlements without the fields and stuff.
Post by: Areyar on August 27, 2010, 07:25:14 pm
edit
....ah four pages back. sry, toady, can't see the posts through the walls of text that tend to git posted 'roud 'ere parts.
We really do appreciate all you share...what is that called feedforward? :p
also: yeah, the roads etcetera really mess up the landscape. (as did the extreme riverviews uploaded in recent dev, cool as they are.)
edit sunday 29th:
Toady. I read on the devpage you have a problem with conquests taking forever because farms are considered equally as a site and only a single site can be conquered per year by a nation.
Assuming sites have subcategories, why not interpolate invasion routes from "garrisoned-site A" to "main site-B" and declare all villages trampled over razed?
(e.g. only consider main population sites, those with a significant military as valid targets, not subsidiary sites, like farms. Alternatively, farms are subsidiary to a city-site and could change ownership with that site.)
Another goal would be to intercept any invasions, before they reach their target.
Looking forward to how you will actually solve this issue. :)
Post by: cephalo on August 29, 2010, 11:05:49 am
Otherwise, the DF site background would be forever out of date and not replacable because a whole map filled with # is kinda ugly and not suitable for use as decoration.
Post by: Sizik on August 29, 2010, 11:10:10 am
The world map in DF is a thing of beauty. Toady even uses it as the background for the website. I'm concerned that covering it all up with villages is a bad change. Would it be possible to only display villages over a certain importance threshold? I think atmosphere is a really important thing in DF. It's the map that draws you in and makes you want to explore the world.
Otherwise, the DF site background would be forever out of date and not replacable because a whole map filled with # is kinda ugly and not suitable for use as decoration.
In a previous devlog, he mentioned them as being highlighted, so I think you'll be able to turn them off.
Post by: Cruxador on August 29, 2010, 01:09:07 pm
I interpreted that as that he'd let the game display them in order specifically to highlight the situation to us, without the implication that we'd have access to that sort of display in the release version.The world map in DF is a thing of beauty. Toady even uses it as the background for the website. I'm concerned that covering it all up with villages is a bad change. Would it be possible to only display villages over a certain importance threshold? I think atmosphere is a really important thing in DF. It's the map that draws you in and makes you want to explore the world.
Otherwise, the DF site background would be forever out of date and not replacable because a whole map filled with # is kinda ugly and not suitable for use as decoration.
In a previous devlog, he mentioned them as being highlighted, so I think you'll be able to turn them off.
Post by: Footkerchief on August 29, 2010, 01:10:25 pm
I interpreted that as that he'd let the game display them in order specifically to highlight the situation to us, without the implication that we'd have access to that sort of display in the release version.The world map in DF is a thing of beauty. Toady even uses it as the background for the website. I'm concerned that covering it all up with villages is a bad change. Would it be possible to only display villages over a certain importance threshold? I think atmosphere is a really important thing in DF. It's the map that draws you in and makes you want to explore the world.
Otherwise, the DF site background would be forever out of date and not replacable because a whole map filled with # is kinda ugly and not suitable for use as decoration.
In a previous devlog, he mentioned them as being highlighted, so I think you'll be able to turn them off.
That was what I got out of it too. I kinda doubt we'll have access to it.
Post by: Quatch on August 30, 2010, 07:40:52 pm
Post by: tfaal on August 30, 2010, 08:31:55 pm
Post by: monk12 on August 30, 2010, 09:13:36 pm
there's not much to discuss here.
Unless we go wildly off topic, of course.
Post by: Neonivek on August 31, 2010, 12:25:08 am
Toady when armies, adventurer groups, and other such organisations finally can attack single units in unison (Megabeasts for example) do you forsee Megabeasts getting stronger, weaker, the same, or will they have the ability to out manuver them so to speak?
Toady in the future will we see Armies taking other towns without the total destruction of the opposition? Right now as long as one person is barely defending the town an army no matter how large cannot take it.
Also as a POSSIBLE suggestion for your Overkill problem you could have a Timespan bar that is adjusted for destructive power (How easy it is to do the action), Stamina (How much you can do the action), and speed (How long it takes to do something else). A limiter to how many things one creature can do within a timespan.
Post by: Knight Otu on September 01, 2010, 06:54:28 am
The world map in DF is a thing of beauty. Toady even uses it as the background for the website. I'm concerned that covering it all up with villages is a bad change. Would it be possible to only display villages over a certain importance threshold? I think atmosphere is a really important thing in DF. It's the map that draws you in and makes you want to explore the world.The new symbols of today's dev log are certainly much better. They blend in nicely and still make sense.
Otherwise, the DF site background would be forever out of date and not replacable because a whole map filled with # is kinda ugly and not suitable for use as decoration.
I do wonder what impact weekly events will have on world-gen, though.
Post by: Quatch on September 01, 2010, 07:59:57 am
Post by: Skid on September 01, 2010, 09:52:20 am
That would let you know that there was water there while still allowing you to see that it was developed.
Post by: tfaal on September 01, 2010, 09:56:02 am
Post by: Footkerchief on September 01, 2010, 10:39:46 am
Hey Toady, do you think we'll have some proper towns to visit in the release after this upcoming one?
That depends entirely on your definition of a "proper town." That release definitely won't have all the dev items (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html) relating to towns.
Post by: Knight Otu on September 01, 2010, 10:50:34 am
Post by: Mephansteras on September 01, 2010, 01:29:24 pm
Post by: Areyar on September 01, 2010, 01:55:01 pm
Post by: Sowelu on September 01, 2010, 02:40:22 pm
I guess that most roads don't need to be printed, like streams, certainly when most of it will be overlain with farms.Yeah, came in here to post about the roads. They look really jarring.
Post by: Untelligent on September 01, 2010, 02:55:07 pm
On the maps you just posed it looks like the goblins have expanded out to swamps and rivers.
I think those are conquered human sites.
Post by: Knight Otu on September 01, 2010, 04:37:22 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on September 01, 2010, 05:16:45 pm
On the maps you just posed it looks like the goblins have expanded out to swamps and rivers.
I think those are conquered human sites.
On the linked medium map you have Goblins in the nothern wastelands! Hmmmm i bet thats because of one of toadys test-raws.
Post by: cephalo on September 02, 2010, 07:43:25 am
Toady, for the rivers issue, would it be possible to simply turn the field markers blue in the areas where they cover up rivers?
That would let you know that there was water there while still allowing you to see that it was developed.
I think that could work, but I think the river is slightly more important than the field, and the town slightly more important than the river. As far as having a field dissapear under the river, I think that in most cases you should be able to guess from the context that there may be a human presence there. The only possibility I can guess is if a civ spawns near a river and is destroyed early in world gen.
Post by: Vicomt on September 02, 2010, 01:01:42 pm
Post by: Toady One on September 02, 2010, 03:14:36 pm
is the RSS feed broken for anyone else? opera says it can't parse the XML and thunderbird says it's an invalid RSS feed......
It didn't like the unicode, so I changed it to plain text. It should be fine now.
Post by: Vicomt on September 02, 2010, 03:18:15 pm
Post by: Eduren on September 02, 2010, 03:25:02 pm
Post by: Baughn on September 02, 2010, 03:50:29 pm
- You can change the font.
- This is still glitchy. The real thing might look better in many ways.
- If you don't like it at all, you can turn it off and get the old behaviour.
That said, a sneak peek:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Eduren on September 02, 2010, 03:53:38 pm
You are awesome Baughn.
Post by: Sizik on September 02, 2010, 05:14:54 pm
Post by: Armok on September 02, 2010, 05:18:42 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on September 02, 2010, 05:37:41 pm
correct me if i am wrong.
Post by: Baughn on September 02, 2010, 05:56:12 pm
I suppose you're going to fix the accented characters?Naturally. That's just a matter of finding a font that has them.
Heph: And various other bits. The opened code is basically public; you can see it at github, but it also includes the keyboard handling code and.. other stuff that defies easy description.
Post by: DalGren on September 02, 2010, 08:52:55 pm
Post by: Capntastic on September 02, 2010, 10:25:38 pm
Post by: Thief^ on September 03, 2010, 05:03:15 am
Before you look at this, allow me to emphasize that
- You can change the font.
- This is still glitchy. The real thing might look better in many ways.
- If you don't like it at all, you can turn it off and get the old behaviour.
That said, a sneak peek:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Wow
You may not be able to tell, but for once I'm not being sarcastic.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on September 03, 2010, 05:12:58 am
Post by: Knight Otu on September 03, 2010, 05:24:02 am
The interresting thing is that baugn lists dwarven children (you forgot btw. the e in children) in this Picture explicitly.But that part's not different from the current screen, missing e and all. I did think that part of the advantage with true-type fonts would be that such contractions wouldn't need to happen, but that may be work in progress - or the childrn thing is because that screen works differently.
Post by: James.Denholm on September 03, 2010, 07:35:22 am
Or maybe Dwarves just like dropping the "e".
I wonder what it looks like, with Microsoft's Clear-type smoothy thingy turned off?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on September 03, 2010, 12:33:28 pm
Post by: Untelligent on September 03, 2010, 02:40:20 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on September 03, 2010, 05:28:15 pm
Quote
Capntastic: So what about herbs and plants being turned into potions?
Toady: I guess hopefully it would all fall under the same umbrella; it's not chemistry per se, you're not trying to give names to the things, but stuff turning into other stuff that has effects ... We've got the poisons now which are the only example of a material having an effect, and the effects are all over the place even know; they can make you cough blood, give you blisters, cause your body parts to swell up and get compartment syndrome, give you fevers, make you dizzy, and that's a material effect that effects a creature through contract, injection or inhaling the object and so if you start to give beneficial effects or more neutral effects, maybe give it a few more ways that cause the syndrome to trigger - it could just be something that's nearby rather than something that's inhaled or injected - and then all of a sudden what was a really practical grounded real world poison system becomes a system for doing all kinds of fantastic things. So if your herbs, if you say one plump helmet and one newt eyeball is a reaction that you can do in a workshop with an empty flask, and then you use the to container thing that we've got now for reactions to say all that stuff goes into a new liquid in that container called plump helmet newt eyeball juice or something. Then you can define a new material and that material could have whatever properties you want. So the pieces are in place now to make poisons, but you wouldn't be able to do anything with them unless you somehow found a way to get the poison out of the container ... which you could do, if you find a way to heat the thing up, like dropping it in magma and then it turns into a gas you could have creatures nearby inhale. So you could actually set up some kind of poison gas traps, even in the new version. But just in general things like a potion that makes you happy ... there are two obstacles there now in the current system. One of them is that you'd need to have the effect, you'd need to give the modder or vanilla modding control to change the happiness of a dwarf, so it's not just giving blisters or whatever but there's a new effect, and that list is just going to increase over time and hopefully cover the basis. The other problem is to get a dwarf to actually use the thing; to recognise that there's now this flask filled with this juice that when you drink it it makes your happiness one hundred and fifty percent for a week, and having the dwarf know that that's something that needs to be used is a large problem, especially for a modding situation where you make happiness juice that gives you blisters and makes you fly ... when do you drink it? I don't know, it sounds like an adventure mode thing; the adventurer would take that journey, but not necessarily a dwarf craftsman that's feeling a little bummed out. So that's another issue with modding, but it's not that far away now, you can mod in your own poisons and create them and boil them to make them work now and we just need to expand the effects and give things a few more uses.
Now, since there's two issues, there's two major topics to talk about. The first issue is something I trust you are gradually adding whenever you have time, because, thanks to the way that bodies work in DF, pretty much everything that can happen to a body has to be some sort of odd "status effect" on a body part or entire creature. (By the way, I hope to soon see burns, instead of just bleeding and fat melting, so that there aren't stupid exploits like melting all the fat off of your body to make yourself virtually fireproof (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=54174.0), and that exposure to extreme hot and cold temperatures have realistic effects, as well as just for the ability to drop cryo-bombs or Greek Fire.)
What I really am interested in talking about, however, is the second problem mentioned. We already have the Job Priorities and Standing Orders concepts from the ESV slated for development on the devpage, and these will allow for control over specific dwarves' decision-making processes and for at least some basic form of boolean operation and ability to check given variables, respectively. Although I've talked about this before, I think it's worth brining up again that with some expansion on these concepts, we can create a method for players to give more direct instruction to dwarves on how they will act.
First, I'll start with what I've argued for most recently: that we should have the ability to set when dwarves will eat, preferably as a part of an alert status, since that is an already existant and potentially potent tool. (See: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=64515.0 and http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63984.0) The basic idea is that we marry job priorities to alert status, which could be potentially useful for many reasons (although it would require some expansion of the way in which alert status can be toggled, so that you have control over civilians the way that you do over military dwarves), so that we can have a "prepare for battle" alert status that may include putting on armor if they were previously civilian, but which also says "if you have hunger at more than 40%, then eat now so you don't have to eat later". Obviously, similar things can be put in for drinking and sleeping. Doing this, when we put soldier dwarves onto full alert, they're already rested, fed, and liquored up for a day's fighting, rather than going to take naps when the FB breaches the floodgates.
This would obviously also marry the boolean operators and searches on a variable to a priority in the dwarf's script, as well as become tied to an alert status.
Going further, pushing this into the realm of using potions, we could go back to the guy we want to take happy juice (apparently, prozac has struck DF), so we could create some sort of check within the system that has a relatively high priority in his job priorities screen for either whether he has the happy juice effect currently active (so that he constantly pops happy juice to stay permanently under its effect), or to take it whenever his happiness value reaches some threshold value (down some happy juice whenever he gets to 50 happiness or below).
This would require the additional ability to recognize more than just "drink something" or "drink alcohol" as an input, but the ability to declare that you want a dwarf to drink (or consume or otherwise "use") some specific type of object. In THIS sort of manual-override of a dwarf's AI script behavior, all that needs to happen for modders is that it be put into some kind of class of objects that is drinkable (but not alcohol), has specific effects, and how it gets stored.
Putting the two together, let's say that you develop an "Elixir of the Maddened Boar" that will give a bonus to strength, endurance, and up the chances of becoming enraged or entering a martial trance, and whenever you think a fight is coming up, you want all your military dwarves to raid the stockpile (or possibly carry it with them in a flask), and down this stuff so that they get the combat bonuses for doing so.
Alternately, you could develop poisons that you want your dwarves to coat their weapons or ammo in, but not while already in combat under most circumstances. So you would want some sort of alert status (probably the same ones that involve eating first if they are slightly hungry, then applying poison, then drinking any combat effectiveness drugs you've made) so that you can command dwarves to start applying the specific poison you want to whatever ammo or weapons they have. (It might also be helpful here to have a "get more ammo" priority or a "make sure you are wearing the right armor" priority you could slide up or down the list of priorities.)
And once again, I'd obviously ask for some sort of import/export to .txt file capability for many of these priority scripts or uniforms or alerts or the like, since building them will likely become fairly complex, and the ability to save them and load them between fortresses would be of great help to many players.
What would be even more problematic, however, would be the ability to have raw-created or procedurally-generated supplies be used in an automatic fashion, or in a process. For example, when talking about alchemy (and farming) recently, I was talking about how we could hypothetically have a healing poultice made out of, let's say, aloe vera resin, feather tree leaves, and argent cave lichen. This poultice would then have to be rubbed into the wound, and would mitigate bleeding, and speed healing, and would be best used by a doctor (probably with a relevant doctor skill check to see how effective it is) as part of the process of bandaging and treating an open wound. Unless we make the entire process of how a doctor treats a patient somehow a list of priorities, this likely shouldn't be something we ask a player to manually control. We'd need to have a flag for individual raw-defined (or procedurally defined) substances to become part of certian processes, and to have those become rolled into standard dwarven AI. (This will, however, mean that the game will likely be less moddable because of this, as every function will likely need some kind of hard-coded token.)
Likewise, this could expand towards having "dwarven free will" more similar to what I had asked about a month ago, where dwarves might just grow to LIKE taking Happy Juice, and will want to be constantly under its effects, even if they aren't unhappy, and even if they aren't ordered to take it, and maybe even if you've forbidden it (they're jonesing for it real bad, man), so that they can feed what is essentially an addiction. (Of course, this would require addiction mechanics, and possibly mechanics for gaining resistances to certain chemicals, which can cause changes in what the exact effects of some given item is.)
Although I know this is a pretty massive lead-up, my question would be the following: Toady, where do you see the ability of players to affect AI behavior? Will we see something that goes more towards having the ability to directly script dwarven AI to use certain items or take certain actions using some logic operations or a rudimentary scripting ability? Or do you see this as being more a matter of dwarves having to somehow learn how and when to properly perform actions or use items from the properties they have in the raws alone? While I'm obviously interested in the effects this can have, I'm also interested in what sort of game design philosophy you have about what level of control you want players to be exerting over their dwarves.
Since I'm already putting together ideas for a procedural set of alchemy formulas suggestion thread, I'll probably roll all this into another one of my broad-concept tl;dr threads, but I'd like to have some idea on what concepts for dwarven control you're open to before I start building some heavier ideas around assumptions on how these things can play out.
EDIT: Oh, and appropos of nothing, but since I'm already posting here, and remembered this time, I'd like to say I am quite excited about what you're doing, here, Baughn.
Post by: Areyar on September 03, 2010, 07:12:03 pm
Not advocating a strict binary poisons and anti-potions system, but rather a syndrome/statuseffect decision mechanic.
e.g. dwarf is thirsty: looks for potion that reduces thirst (eg water, booze, milk, potions of slackening)
dwarf is tired: search for coffee if he is very driven, dwarf is in pain: search morphine or tincture of willow etc. that reduces pain.
Character traits should obviously have some effect on decision making: Urist does not trust alchemy.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on September 03, 2010, 07:46:42 pm
Also, if we are going to have alchemical concoctions that are difficult to make, and not just candy dwarves can pop whenever the way that they currently go through alcohol, we need to have ways of restricting when they use an item. Maybe some alchemical drugs are just coffee, but many should be fairly costly to create.
Further, if dwarves "just know how to use them", that means that the burden of when a dwarf uses an item needs to have a specific set of lines for it hardcoded, with raws that declare what set of lines to use - this can dramatically reduce how much ability modders have with the raws if alchemy can only be used in a specific set of pre-defined conditions for a specific set of pre-defined effects.
Post by: G-Flex on September 03, 2010, 08:44:03 pm
Before you look at this, allow me to emphasize that
- You can change the font.
- This is still glitchy. The real thing might look better in many ways.
- If you don't like it at all, you can turn it off and get the old behaviour.
That said, a sneak peek:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Wow
You may not be able to tell, but for once I'm not being sarcastic.
The dwarf icon (and animal "A") are presumably being pulled from the creature/tileset font and not the TTF, right? I noticed that the "A" looks kind of funny and that there's antialiasing applied to them both, which makes them look rather weird to me; will that be optional? The anti-aliasing, I mean, of whatever sort is being applied there. The tileset font(s) tend to be sort of pixel-arty, so (in my opinion) they're better off just being sharp.
Post by: tfaal on September 03, 2010, 09:01:00 pm
Well, if we are going to have, say, poisons we apply to weapons, we need to have a way to tell our soldiers when it's appropriate to use them or not. Same with drinking a strength potion, what enemies are worth using it on? Having an alert status you can trigger fairly easily that says "big enemy coming, use all your expendables" would be a relatively quick, painless way to make all your soldiers start poisoning their blades and downing elixers of maddened boars.
Also, if we are going to have alchemical concoctions that are difficult to make, and not just candy dwarves can pop whenever the way that they currently go through alcohol, we need to have ways of restricting when they use an item. Maybe some alchemical drugs are just coffee, but many should be fairly costly to create.
Further, if dwarves "just know how to use them", that means that the burden of when a dwarf uses an item needs to have a specific set of lines for it hardcoded, with raws that declare what set of lines to use - this can dramatically reduce how much ability modders have with the raws if alchemy can only be used in a specific set of pre-defined conditions for a specific set of pre-defined effects.
Wouldn't it be simpler to have the ability to just say "use this specific item/an item from this stockpile" to an individual or squad? I don't see how the alert status is much of a time saver here, since it's a concern that varies a lot from one encounter to the next. In general, I prefer to have the ability to give specific commands to my dwarves. I'm all for setting up schedules -- especially in the case of workshops -- but making them the only way of managing your dwarves is rather cumbersome, especially for infrequent or one-time requests.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on September 03, 2010, 10:42:51 pm
As for AI and potions, having a dwarf magically know what effect it has and what he needs should shortcut it a bit. Save for impractical superspecific adventurer type magics, which are hard to make AI use in any context, simple status effects and their cures should be possible to enable.
Not advocating a strict binary poisons and anti-potions system, but rather a syndrome/statuseffect decision mechanic.
e.g. dwarf is thirsty: looks for potion that reduces thirst (eg water, booze, milk, potions of slackening)
dwarf is tired: search for coffee if he is very driven, dwarf is in pain: search morphine or tincture of willow etc. that reduces pain.
Character traits should obviously have some effect on decision making: Urist does not trust alchemy.
Well for thirst and hunger you could use values on the drinks which one satisfies the thirst the best. Mix that a bit with likes and dislikes and you get a good drinking system.
For Potions - especially the more complicated ones - you need to go a bit further. I would assign "values" to each effect so you can make a pro/contra table. Lets take the happiness juice that gives you blisters and makes you fly. You could say happyness is a pro of 15 flying a pro of 10 and itching blisters a contra of 15. So you get a pro of 25 to a contra 15. Now you can introduce Situation modifiers say being in a tunnel where flying is useless or being in a fight where the itching would lower your concentration etc (not to mention that the act of drinking takes time). In such a case you change the pro/contra ratio by saying that say the contra gets doubled thus you would get something like 25 to 30 which would indicate that the dwarf does not use the potion.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on September 03, 2010, 10:48:27 pm
Wouldn't it be simpler to have the ability to just say "use this specific item/an item from this stockpile" to an individual or squad? I don't see how the alert status is much of a time saver here, since it's a concern that varies a lot from one encounter to the next. In general, I prefer to have the ability to give specific commands to my dwarves. I'm all for setting up schedules -- especially in the case of workshops -- but making them the only way of managing your dwarves is rather cumbersome, especially for infrequent or one-time requests.
Well, I'm under the impression that it's part of Toady's game design philosophy that we can't specifically give a "Hey, you! Do ____ right now!" order. The fact that we have to manually disable every other labor, and functionally wrestle with a dwarf's bodily needs to get them to start trading or meeting with the liason is part of why we have Job Priorities so high on the ESV in the first place. (Besides, direct orders to find and use certain objects in certain ways would require an entire new interface/menu on top of the ones that would be required already...)
The best way to prevent this would be to either make and use a general priority script that would not involve "single use" items, which would probably be fairly unusual, anyway. DF is the sort of game that generally relies upon mass production, (even if DF in particular likes to be specific and have named legedary weapons,) so something like poisons that we want our dwarves to put on their blades shouldn't be something so uncommon that putting it in an alert, which doesn't take very long to toggle, should be perfectly suitable.
Alternately, if we have that inport/export to a .txt file function, we could just make a new list of priorities where the only priority is to use that one item once, save your old priority list, load the single-use priority list, let it run once, then reload the previous priority list. The latter may not be terribly graceful, but it's not much worse a workaround than most of the others we've grown used to. (Such as the "disable all other labors" thing...) Especially if it's something that you would almost never do, something a little awkward like this shouldn't be too terrible.
For something like making an unhappy dwarf take some Happy Juice, you might just make it a part of the general or default priorities that you give your dwarves. I mean, if it stops a tantrum, and you have enough to drug up a handful of problematic dwarves, then why not apply it to everyone, and just let it run as a passive check?
Post by: Areyar on September 04, 2010, 02:16:35 am
Especially that the inbibing system be dwarfdriven, not manual. That would be very jarring.
That potions have a mixture of effects and those a value was a given, as Toady himself used it as an example.
Except for assignments to squads, which can be as specific or general as one likes.
Like the equipment settings for squads (and a potion taken before battle or whenever, by a squad would be equipment.), equipment can be specified on general properties like material or as a specific item.
Though potions would probably be more applicable in the supplies page... also their use/application settings/conditions. (which would require a list of situations a dwarf can recognise.) Seen enemy+attacking, severely wounded, ordered to move, etc
...
Also, I got the feeling potions are going to be one use items, but created in batches like bolts. Not like a barrel full that dorfs can take a flask full of. (Like Asterix's magic powerpotion)
Post by: DalGren on September 04, 2010, 07:40:56 am
Like Asterix's magic powerpotion
That small dwarf and his obese companion are sending all Roma....err, goblin soldiers flying seven z-levels high!
Post by: NW_Kohaku on September 04, 2010, 08:53:36 am
Aside from rolling it in with the priorities list and expanding alert status (possibly, just making alert status some sort of easy-toggle set of job priorities list), which I think should be fairly decent, as it means that, while it may be a little trouble to give a "just this once" order, it would have the benefit of streamlining the interface. Being as a glut of overlapping interfaces is one of those problems DF has, trying to keep the interface streamlined when adding new things should help.
The other option, if you really must add in a new menu, would be, perhaps, a "Pharmacy" menu, where Dr McDoctor could perscribe potions and pills and tinctures, along with an order for when to use them. (This would potentially make the dwarf put in charge of the pharmacy the equivalent of an arsenal dwarf, as well.) That way, "when depressed, take two Happy Juice, and call me in the morning" could be a standing order. Something like "poison your blades" or "drink a Maddened Boar" would still require alert status, though.
This latter, however, would have the negative effect of not streamlining how you see what standing orders are in effect over your individual dwarves - you would need to look through multiple menus (Standing Orders, Job Priorities, Burrows, Military Screen, and Pharmacy Menu) to see every order/list of orders you've given to a dwarf. There's an advantage to making just one screen, even if it's a clunky screen to navigate because of it, have all the information on a dwarf that you need.
It's why Dwarf Therapist is of such benefit - it reformats the data you need to play the game to be easier to read.
Post by: zwei on September 04, 2010, 09:30:44 am
Beyond assigning items for tactical use (along with food/water in military screen), I percieve little need for overall control scheme: Military dwarves can very well decide whether to drink strength potion on their own, maybe a bit influenced by squad leader. Doctor will prescrible substances just like he schedulles surgical stuff and individual dwarves can just make their own decidions that are influenced by their personality if they want to get high or creativity boost.
Player input should be 'fun' one: set up production and produce stuff that is at dwarven disposal.
Assigning your engraver some muschroom extract so that you get better engravings sounds ... sinister. And wrong. Hell, there propalby should not be any "non-combat, non-medical" substances anyway.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on September 04, 2010, 11:57:10 am
What about just leaving this to dwarves?
Beyond assigning items for tactical use (along with food/water in military screen), I percieve little need for overall control scheme: Military dwarves can very well decide whether to drink strength potion on their own, maybe a bit influenced by squad leader.
Well, consider what happens with, for example, bauxite in 40d, where players made elaborate airlock systems because that was the only way to ensure that ONLY the workshops you wanted to have access to bauxite would have access to bauxite.
Again, I think we should have some kind of sane ability to determine who does or doesn't get some kinds of medication, rather than just leaving them out there like candy for anyone to start downing willy-nilly.
ESPECIALLY if we have some crazy set of positive and negative effects, where you can't trust a dwarf won't chug a gallon of fromaldahyde because it has enough minor positive effects to make dwarves think it's a good idea to drink something potentially lethal, if we're using a system similar to what Heph's talking about.
Post by: zwei on September 04, 2010, 01:49:47 pm
What about just leaving this to dwarves?
Beyond assigning items for tactical use (along with food/water in military screen), I percieve little need for overall control scheme: Military dwarves can very well decide whether to drink strength potion on their own, maybe a bit influenced by squad leader.
Well, consider what happens with, for example, bauxite in 40d, where players made elaborate airlock systems because that was the only way to ensure that ONLY the workshops you wanted to have access to bauxite would have access to bauxite.
Again, I think we should have some kind of sane ability to determine who does or doesn't get some kinds of medication, rather than just leaving them out there like candy for anyone to start downing willy-nilly.
ESPECIALLY if we have some crazy set of positive and negative effects, where you can't trust a dwarf won't chug a gallon of fromaldahyde because it has enough minor positive effects to make dwarves think it's a good idea to drink something potentially lethal, if we're using a system similar to what Heph's talking about.
That assumes effects are very important (like bauxite being irreplaceable magma safe material in d40) and designed so that they need player oversight.
That does not necesarily have to be the case and they can as well be more of background tidbit with which you interact only when queuing them to be produced and setting up prodution chain and that is under control-freak radar.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on September 04, 2010, 03:23:13 pm
You could have a toggle that makes a "coffee" drug open to whoever wants some, and having powerful drugs that have potentially lethal side-effects under strict control over when they are used.
You only need to restrict access to the stuff that you, personally, feel are important enough to reglate. If you just don't care, you can mass-forbid or leave totally unregulated whatever you want, while letting the control freaks micromanage to the n-th degree.
(To do otherwise is actually to make the assumption - the assumption that NO potion will be important or costly or valuable to a player that they would want to control under what conditions they get used. That's a rather limiting assumption to force upon people who want to mess with alchemical effects.)
Post by: Shadowfury333 on September 04, 2010, 05:46:09 pm
(To do otherwise is actually to make the assumption - the assumption that NO potion will be important or costly or valuable to a player that they would want to control under what conditions they get used. That's a rather limiting assumption to force upon people who want to mess with alchemical effects.)
Agreed. That would be a rather un-DF-like state of affairs, to not be able to experiment with alchemy. I mean, if I find a way to make a potion that gives a dwarf super speed, with the side effect that they violently explode killing everything nearby after 2 days, I want that to be well-controlled.
Post by: James.Denholm on September 04, 2010, 11:54:09 pm
That said, being able to have strict control would be handy for those who want to weed out specific types of dwarves, especially if the dwarves being weeded out aren't aware of dangerous side-effects until obvious correlations start to emerge, like various real-life undertested medicines. Don't like your booky-type nobles? Give them study-drug things, sit back, and wait for their eyeballs to melt in a year's time. Worried about un-dwarfy dwarves? Create a product that is known to remove beards. Wait for dwarves who don't want beards to use the product. Watch them go mad and rip apart their faces with their bare hands. The trick is just in distributing the medicines or what-not before the dwarves start asking questions.
Of course, the question is if we'll be able to spike our own water supplies with potions and things. I can definitely see myself spending years in a fort perfecting a potion that renders dwarves infertile, and then tossing barrels and barrels into the poorer community's water reservoir.
Absolute control through alchemy, people. This is the end goal here.
Post by: Dae on September 05, 2010, 04:20:41 am
I mean, if I find a way to make a potion that gives a dwarf super speed, with the side effect that they violently explode killing everything nearby after 2 days, I want that to be well-controlled.
Agreed. We have to make sure every dwarf gets some. I would order it poured down the water tank.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on September 05, 2010, 09:10:20 am
I mean, if I find a way to make a potion that gives a dwarf super speed, with the side effect that they violently explode killing everything nearby after 2 days, I want that to be well-controlled.
Agreed. We have to make sure every dwarf gets some. I would order it poured down the water tank.
Or dumped out into the open countryside if we could aerosolize the stuff. Having exploding hoary marmots and rhesus macaques would be a fun advertising quirk for the fortress.
Post by: Flaede on September 05, 2010, 09:43:17 am
I mean, if I find a way to make a potion that gives a dwarf super speed, with the side effect that they violently explode killing everything nearby after 2 days, I want that to be well-controlled.
Agreed. We have to make sure every dwarf gets some. I would order it poured down the water tank.
Or dumped out into the open countryside if we could aerosolize the stuff. Having exploding hoary marmots and rhesus macaques would be a fun advertising quirk for the fortress.
I was thinking murder holes.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on September 05, 2010, 05:37:14 pm
Quote
: The parents ended up having some vacation time, so we all went for a little hike along the Hoh River. We also ended up staying a night in a nearby hotel in Forks. I didn't know until the trip that Forks had gained some notoriety in recent years. Apparently we missed the official annual Twilight Day by about a week, but there were still plenty of things to be seen, including many shirtless dolls for sale.
OK i have to admit i am too adicted to your work. MY first impressions were:
- Cool River sites!
- Wow we get functioning inns?
- what procedural Holydays?
- Dolls? Like idols from cloth?
But hey nice to hear you had some time off toady.
Post by: G-Flex on September 05, 2010, 06:18:19 pm
Quote: The parents ended up having some vacation time, so we all went for a little hike along the Hoh River. We also ended up staying a night in a nearby hotel in Forks. I didn't know until the trip that Forks had gained some notoriety in recent years. Apparently we missed the official annual Twilight Day by about a week, but there were still plenty of things to be seen, including many shirtless dolls for sale.
OK i have to admit i am too adicted to your work. MY first impressions were:
- Cool River sites!
- Wow we get functioning inns?
- what procedural Holydays?
- Dolls? Like idols from cloth?
But hey nice to hear you had some time off toady.
Wait, what? He's talking about Forks. The town. He's not talking about anything DF-related there.
Post by: monk12 on September 05, 2010, 06:23:18 pm
Quote: The parents ended up having some vacation time, so we all went for a little hike along the Hoh River. We also ended up staying a night in a nearby hotel in Forks. I didn't know until the trip that Forks had gained some notoriety in recent years. Apparently we missed the official annual Twilight Day by about a week, but there were still plenty of things to be seen, including many shirtless dolls for sale.
OK i have to admit i am too adicted to your work. MY first impressions were:
- Cool River sites!
- Wow we get functioning inns?
- what procedural Holydays?
- Dolls? Like idols from cloth?
But hey nice to hear you had some time off toady.
Wait, what? He's talking about Forks. The town. He's not talking about anything DF-related there.
I do believe he was joking. "You know you've played too much DF when..."
Post by: G-Flex on September 05, 2010, 07:14:55 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on September 06, 2010, 03:38:17 am
Post by: kuketski on September 06, 2010, 04:41:26 am
Checking if one of your 100+ dwarves have (siege operator)/(weaponsmith)/(armorer) skill at (any level above dabbling)/(high level) to start (training him up)/(producing high-quality equipment) is very time consuming...
Or choosing, which one of your dwarves is (useless enough)/(male, so he wont bring child to battlefield)/(strong, tough, agile) to list him in a squad...
Post by: Shadowfury333 on September 06, 2010, 01:06:12 pm
Checking if one of your 100+ dwarves have (siege operator)/(weaponsmith)/(armorer) skill at (any level above dabbling)/(high level) to start (training him up)/(producing high-quality equipment) is very time consuming...
With a manager, you can do this from a workshop. There is a menu option called Workshop (P)rofile, used for setting minimum and maximum skill levels and allowed dwarves for any given workshop. From there, you can just set jobs for training or for producing masterworks, depending on what skill levels and dwarves you allowed.
Or choosing, which one of your dwarves is (useless enough)/(male, so he wont bring child to battlefield)/(strong, tough, agile) to list him in a squad...
This is just a matter of making the military page have an option to show more info about a dwarf than their highest combat skill.
Post by: Baughn on September 06, 2010, 01:27:37 pm
Post by: G-Flex on September 06, 2010, 02:54:30 pm
Just make sure you don't open the space menu. :-[
That's space inventory, pal.
Post by: Organum on September 06, 2010, 07:57:26 pm
This coming update fills me with sweet sugary goodness.
Post by: atomfullerene on September 06, 2010, 08:59:22 pm
Well, what's wrong with both?
You could have a toggle that makes a "coffee" drug open to whoever wants some, and having powerful drugs that have potentially lethal side-effects under strict control over when they are used.
You only need to restrict access to the stuff that you, personally, feel are important enough to reglate. If you just don't care, you can mass-forbid or leave totally unregulated whatever you want, while letting the control freaks micromanage to the n-th degree.
This. You should have a Pharmacy building which lets you toggle substances between "general use" and "prescription only" with maybe a "medical use" option as well--kind of like the Economic Stones Mod allows prohibition of certain building materials. If you want your dwarves to have free reign to dope up on whatever, just don't build the pharmacy. Bonus points if the pharmacy is a zone like the hospital, needing a chests, tables, and chairs. More bonus points if "medical use" parameters are defined in the drug raws.
Post by: G-Flex on September 06, 2010, 09:01:20 pm
Post by: Eric Blank on September 06, 2010, 09:18:59 pm
Post by: Josephus on September 06, 2010, 09:21:45 pm
Yeah, opium has been in use for many centuries recreationally.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on September 06, 2010, 09:35:08 pm
Post by: G-Flex on September 06, 2010, 09:42:49 pm
Opium and tobacco (and alcohol if you'd prefer to call it a recreational drug rather than a beverage) have been used for millenia. I think marijuana has also been used for a very long time, but that could just be a memory hiccup.
Right, but keep in mind that opium isn't quite the same as, say, modern-day morphine and heroin.
Not to mention drugs such as Salvia, Ibogaine, and Mescaline (mostly in South and Central Americas), as well as DMT (in the form of ayahuasca; Americas and parts of Africa), though admittedly these were more of a ritualised rather than recreational use. Things like Shamanistic vision quests, communing with dead ancestors, and adulthood trials.
This too. Psychoactive drugs were commonly used for these practices rather than privately, as far as I know.
At any rate, the basic thing I'm trying to get at here is that you can't really think about new features from a modern perspective too much. The appropriate thing to do is attempt to research how these things were done in a similar time in real-world history as a baseline, and then speculate based on how the DF world in particular is different.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on September 06, 2010, 09:55:28 pm
Not to mention drugs such as Salvia, Ibogaine, and Mescaline (mostly in South and Central Americas), as well as DMT (in the form of ayahuasca; Americas and parts of Africa), though admittedly these were more of a ritualised rather than recreational use. Things like Shamanistic vision quests, communing with dead ancestors, and adulthood trials.
IIRc All three points the vision quest, the speaking with the dead and adulthood trials are part ofthe concept "Shamanism". Since you have a godawfull number of diffrent Shamanistic tradions (in existence and extinct) you get that and many more aspects or ideas in varying degrees. The 'vision quest' isnt something that is limited Shamanism but popular media promoted that one pretty much.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on September 06, 2010, 10:00:05 pm
Probably the closest I've seen to regular psychoactive use in larger civilisations would be the aforementioned opium, as well as use of chewed coca leaves by Aztecs as a general stimulant, much as we'd use caffiene, with possibly some anaesthetic properties too.
That said, some people think viking beserkers were eating either psilocybe (magic) mushrooms or ergot (wheat fungus, makes an LSD precursor), so, who knows?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on September 06, 2010, 10:05:56 pm
edit: Also people tend to forget that the big Monotheistic and Polytheistic religions have strong "No drugs" rules. Christianity has even multiple and drugs were associated with the devil etc.. These rules might be the cause for the modern society being reduced to Tabac and Alcohol.
Christianity has also a rule against "witches" and "sorcerers" that lead in the end to the witch trials - said persons now where on the other hand the people that did know moore or less about drugs and pharmaceuticals in general and without control by the church so exterminating them exterminated also the people with the right knowledge.
Another aspect is that regathering that knowledge is actually pretty hazardous since monkshood/wolfsbane can produce halus etc. but will kill you very easily if the mix of chemicals was in the wrong relations because the ground was to acid or the phase of the moon was wrong.
Btw. The base chemical for Lsd or "Acid" - Lyserg-acid is something the ergot fungus does produce. The chemical just needs to be crystallized and altered though iirc. The fungus does have other chemicals like "Ergotamin" and over 30 Ergot specific alkaloids that can introduce visions. This mix makes the stuff also so dangerous if not deadly.
Post by: G-Flex on September 06, 2010, 10:26:01 pm
Well Paleogenetics and archaeology indicate that Canabis and Hop/humulus (very close related Humulus makes only sleepy thought) are among the oldest cultivated plants and drugs in the world in mayn places even older then actual aggriculture for food.
Eh, I don't see marijuana as the kind of thing that a society centuries-past would even bother controlling much, especially back then, when it was likely much weaker than it is today.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on September 06, 2010, 10:37:23 pm
Well for one thing alcohol is the best drug for a pre-industrialised civilisation since its not to strong, is not to addictive and can be easily mass produced and stored. Natural Drugs you tend to get in late spring over the summer and if you are lucky in fall and even then many drugs cant be stored because the substances degrade. Alcohol on the other hand is stable and can be made from just a handfull grass-seeds (or anything that sports sugar/starch) and water.
edit: Also people tend to forget that the big Monotheistic and Polytheistic religions have strong "No drugs" rules. Christianity has even multiple and drugs were associated with the devil etc.. These rules might be the cause for the modern society being reduced to Tabac and Alcohol.
Yeah I was originally thinking it was more the strength issue;
e.g. it is quite possible to go very, very crazy on hallucinogens, and while in a smaller tribe you're surrounded by friends and family who can stop you flipping out when tripping, larger cultures mean exposure to people who may not be aware of your state, or even deliberately antagonize it. Further, considering these things tend to have an adverse effect on the individual's concept of property and ownership, civilisations with strict property laws would tend to disapprove.
That said, the moderating effect of the main religions is also an extremely good point, and one that I had missed entirely.
NINJA'D
Post by: Syff on September 06, 2010, 10:41:02 pm
Jokes aside, implementing drugs seems like the kind of thing that's probably a long ways off, although putting them in as placeholders and filling in their functionality later might be fine. (like kobold bulbs/gnomeblight, valley herbs/golden salve, liquid fire, etc.) Even if the dwarves won't use them yet, being able to run a fortress of drug dealers sounds like it might be fun.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on September 06, 2010, 10:41:20 pm
Eh, I don't see marijuana as the kind of thing that a society centuries-past would even bother controlling much, especially back then, when it was likely much weaker than it is today.
[/edit]
Heh i wouldnt say it was "much weaker" sure we have today high yield crops thanks to modern tech but our ancestors werent idiots either. Actually if you look onto ancient crops you notice that every region sometimes even every village had its own variety of a crop fine tuned for the ground climate and weather. Thus said crops could yield compareable to modern crops just only on a specific geographic locations.
You need also to notice that most homegrown canabis is actually derived from wild (its even doubtable if there is any truely wild canabis left in the world) or semi-wild forms of canabis. The high-yield stuff isnt so easy to get (or expensiv) since it gets used and controled either by the Goverment or the bigger Marketing-systems. I dont say that you cant get the powerfull stuff its just less likely then getting some of the more tame variants.
@syff: Drugs can run under the umbrella of syndroms. Along with positiv effects for syndroms they are actually pretty easy and fast to implement i think. Causing 'Visions' can work the same way as introducing dizziness or nausea.
Toady what is your opinion on this issue and how long would it take to get drugs and ethics for them? It would be nice for fleshing out thetribals and theyr more animistic religions and worldviews. Oh and unrelated to that: Can we get Overground tribes?
Post by: atomfullerene on September 06, 2010, 10:53:54 pm
Anyway, from a game perspective instead of "Pharmacy" you might want "Alchemist" or "Medicine Dwarf" or "Herbologist" or what have you (I think alchemist sounds the most dwarfy). Royal physician is also a distinct possiblity. It's definitely the case that in the early middle ages there were people who dealt in all sorts of strange and possibly medicinal concoctions.
Come to think of it, you could add in the "medical" raws instructions to use potions that don't actually help the disease...for added historical realism, although I am not sure how fun it would be to have your doctors send off for hemlock steeped in mercury to treat goiter (or what have you).
Another worthwhile thing would be societal or religious ethics prohibiting the use of potions with certain status effects.
Post by: Josephus on September 06, 2010, 10:57:07 pm
Come to think of it, you could add in the "medical" raws instructions to use potions that don't actually help the disease...for added historical realism, although I am not sure how fun it would be to have your doctors send off for hemlock steeped in mercury to treat goiter (or what have you).
Pilsu had a similar idea regarding werewolf vulnerability to silver. Specifically, they aren't. Dwarves just think they are because some time in their world's history, a legendary werewolf was killed by a man with a silver sword and that image was entrenched in their myths.
It would be cool if that kind of thing made it into the game - things that your dwarves believe, but aren't actually true.
Post by: Quatch on September 06, 2010, 10:58:25 pm
Checking if one of your 100+ dwarves have (siege operator)/(weaponsmith)/(armorer) skill at (any level above dabbling)/(high level) to start (training him up)/(producing high-quality equipment) is very time consuming...
With a manager, you can do this from a workshop. There is a menu option called Workshop (P)rofile, used for setting minimum and maximum skill levels and allowed dwarves for any given workshop. From there, you can just set jobs for training or for producing masterworks, depending on what skill levels and dwarves you allowed
This works as long as you don't also use the job manager to queue your jobs. If you do, and the workshops with restricted profiles are not full of jobs, then your new jobs will be (basically) randomly assigned to them. The potential workarounds are very kludgey and outweigh the use of anything other than masonry block making on eternal repeat.
Post by: Eduren on September 06, 2010, 11:53:10 pm
Ideally, would we want these things to be emergent behaviors? It would be nice if these sort of beliefs could be traced back in the civilizations history.Come to think of it, you could add in the "medical" raws instructions to use potions that don't actually help the disease...for added historical realism, although I am not sure how fun it would be to have your doctors send off for hemlock steeped in mercury to treat goiter (or what have you).
Pilsu had a similar idea regarding werewolf vulnerability to silver. Specifically, they aren't. Dwarves just think they are because some time in their world's history, a legendary werewolf was killed by a man with a silver sword and that image was entrenched in their myths.
It would be cool if that kind of thing made it into the game - things that your dwarves believe, but aren't actually true.
Post by: Josephus on September 07, 2010, 12:02:08 am
Ideally, would we want these things to be emergent behaviors? It would be nice if these sort of beliefs could be traced back in the civilizations history.Come to think of it, you could add in the "medical" raws instructions to use potions that don't actually help the disease...for added historical realism, although I am not sure how fun it would be to have your doctors send off for hemlock steeped in mercury to treat goiter (or what have you).
Pilsu had a similar idea regarding werewolf vulnerability to silver. Specifically, they aren't. Dwarves just think they are because some time in their world's history, a legendary werewolf was killed by a man with a silver sword and that image was entrenched in their myths.
It would be cool if that kind of thing made it into the game - things that your dwarves believe, but aren't actually true.
Yes, that's the idea. History and in-game myth take on a more natural and realistic feel with this sort of system.
Post by: kuketski on September 07, 2010, 12:32:18 am
Thanks! =) it`ll help!
With a manager, you can do this from a workshop. There is a menu option called Workshop (P)rofile, used for setting minimum and maximum skill levels and allowed dwarves for any given workshop. From there, you can just set jobs for training or for producing masterworks, depending on what skill levels and dwarves you allowed.
This is just a matter of making the military page have an option to show more info about a dwarf than their highest combat skill.
but
Checking if one of your 100+ dwarves have (siege operator)/(weaponsmith)/(armorer) skill at (any level above dabbling)/(high level) to start (training him up)/(producing high-quality equipment) is very time consuming...
With a manager, you can do this from a workshop. There is a menu option called Workshop (P)rofile, used for setting minimum and maximum skill levels and allowed dwarves for any given workshop. From there, you can just set jobs for training or for producing masterworks, depending on what skill levels and dwarves you allowed
This works as long as you don't also use the job manager to queue your jobs. If you do, and the workshops with restricted profiles are not full of jobs, then your new jobs will be (basically) randomly assigned to them. The potential workarounds are very kludgey and outweigh the use of anything other than masonry block making on eternal repeat.
And,
it`ll be much more convinient to have a centralized control for all of the workshops, giving ability to set predefined groups of dwarves to work on a predefined group of workshops, not just "dwarf #112 will work oin workshop #27"(and you still need to find and remember what this workshop #27 was intended to do (train or produce)).
and
i want menu that shows:
a) what skills dwarves have (grouped by skills/labours(togglable)) coupled with dwarfs info
and
b) what labours that dwarves have enabled (grouped by labours/skills(togglable))coupled with dwarfs info
imagine wave of migrants(lets say...15 of them!), that have multiple skills, that you would consider high (for example, professional siege engeneer, when all your siege engeneers died from infection after invasion of Forgotten beast), but game mechanics considering, that there is higher skill (Legendary Fisherdwarf) simply turn off siege engeneering skill and make him fisherdwarf.
to check, if any of them is the one, you need to
a) find them in the list of dwarves or on the map
b) check their skills
c) assign them to the workshop
or imagine an other situation - all your furnace operators have different profession name - for example farmer, jeveler and wood cutter - because they all was idling and you dont have skilled furnace operator.
and on different reason they all was killed (farmer was unhappy and killed jeveler, and woodcutter was injured in the heart trying to calm him down). so you have some 3 dead dwarves(you dont know what THAT dwarves was doing). when having fort of 150+ dwarves, checking if THAT woodcutter/farmer/jeveler was the one that was furnace operating or not...
Yeah, a ton of micromanagement will fix it, but it`ll be time consuming...
or when you mass producing equipment for your army(LOTS of HOSTILES around - 1/3 of militia is in hospital, 1/3 - is noobs and the last 1/3 really needs good eqipment). you order 30 sttel shields, 30 steel breast plates, etc
but one of your armorers is training and will only produce low quality equipment.
i think that DF needs:
1) grouping workshops
2) grouping dwarves (by skill, gender, skill level)
2.1) defining a rules of auto-grouping dwarves(minimal skill level, maximum skill level, gender(putting female professional`s workshops in a safer place, so birth-giving mother can raise their childs and repopulate the fortress, yep), toughness, agility etc)
3) assigning groups of dwarfs to a groups of workshops
4) assigning job queue to a group of dwarves OR group of workshops.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on September 07, 2010, 02:33:52 am
Not to mention drugs such as Salvia, Ibogaine, and Mescaline (mostly in South and Central Americas), as well as DMT (in the form of ayahuasca; Americas and parts of Africa), though admittedly these were more of a ritualised rather than recreational use. Things like Shamanistic vision quests, communing with dead ancestors, and adulthood trials.
This too. Psychoactive drugs were commonly used for these practices rather than privately, as far as I know.
Actually, many psychoactive drugs, like peyote or the like, that were part of some kind of shamanistic/ritualistic purposes were attended specifically because of the potential dangers of the drugs they were using - when letting a young person go on a vision quest, the shaman would often stay with them to make sure they don't overdose on the stuff, or dehydrate, since generations of working with the stuff let them know exactly how dangerous any substance they were taking actually was.
(Peyote, from what I've heard of the drug, is very nasty to take. It causes you to frequently vomit unless you have developed quite a resistance to it, and you are in serious danger of dehydrating because you simply vomit out all your fluids. Because of this, any use of peyote is done with a large number of others, including those who don't take the peyote, because they need to watch over the partakers, and ensure they don't vomit themselves to death.)
It is believed that psychoactive drugs were used by many "prophets" back around the time of the Greeks or Persians or the like. The Oracle at Delphi, for example, was believed to have gotten the powers of foresight from a hallucination-inducing gas in the cave the oracle stayed in at Delphi.
OPIATES on the other hand, were basically sold like any other product on the market. Although there was no Heroine or Morphine, opium was often taken directly - you just plain drank it, often in alcohol, as a painkiller, or just a way of relaxing. Basically, it was completely unregulated, and would even be supplied to soldiers for free by their generals if they wanted to gain some popularity, as a painkiller that could really get one's mind off of things would be of obvious use to soldiers in a foreign and hostile land. (It even gained a reputation as a "gift of the gods", and a drug of mercy.)
Opium was an absolute bane of China, especially during the time of the British colonization of the nation, where as much as a third of the country was addicted to the drug, (specifically, smoking opium-laced pipes) to the massive profit of their British drug pushers. This basically paralyzed China, as so much of its population was in a permanent drug haze that it was impossible to throw off their British oppressors or rebuild their nation with so much of their population almost total deadweights on society who could hardly even stagger out of their opium dens.
America, before the FDA, was plagued by "Patent Medicines", which were over-the-counter drugs sold in any general store, most of which used alcohol and opium as essentially their only ingredients. As the History Channel documentary I saw on it explained, "It really would seem like a cure-anything wonder drug. No matter what ache or pain you had, if you drank something that was 60% opium, you'd feel better for a while." This was particularly harmful, as children were often spoon-fed opium as a way of just shutting them up by their mothers, who were often downing plenty of the stuff, themselves, to make the bitterness of being stuck in domestic "bliss" all her life a little easier.
Those last two examples are obviously more modern, but private drug use is fairly hard to track in earlier times, since it was seen as totally normal and somebody else's business. Basically, opium was a totally unregulated drug for all of human civilization up until the start of the 20th century, when chemistry gave us drugs that were actually powerful enough to really force governments to restrict them.
Fantastic alchemically refined drugs, however, would rationally force a change to such a thing. It's obvious that, while recreational drugs existed for the consumption of anyone who could buy them, poisons were obviously regulated substances, and it's probably more likely that an alchemist will accidentally create something generally bad for you rather than something good (or at least, good without devastating side-effects). If you're brewing something toxic, it makes all the sense in the world to restrict access to it.
At any rate, the basic thing I'm trying to get at here is that you can't really think about new features from a modern perspective too much. The appropriate thing to do is attempt to research how these things were done in a similar time in real-world history as a baseline, and then speculate based on how the DF world in particular is different.
While realism is always a good goal to stretch for, as it makes the game more relatable, sometimes, interface just needs to be designed to make a good game first, and then you can work in what would be as realistic a way of producing that as possible.
What we need is a way of telling dwarves when it is OK and when it is not OK for them to consume potions or drugs or otherwise use single-use items, so that it can be implimented into the game in as sane and useful a way as possible. If this involves a "pharmacy", that's just window dressing what it's called or how it is supposed to operate, exactly.
I'd also caution you not to get too hung up on a word.
I've been using "drugs" and "potions" interchangably because all these things are is a consumable item with a syndrome attached to them. "Drugs" are just one way of expressing something that can just as easily be "magic potions", since there's no telling what syndromes we might get down the road. We might get a "drug" that lets dwarves breathe fire. Or run around very fast before exploding, as previously mentioned.
This is, obviously, one reason why I was talking about ways to control when and how they get consumed (or shoved down murder holes to force "consumption" by enemies, as the case may be).
If we are talking about potions with potential negative consequences for a fortress that dwarves may want to just take for funsies, it makes perfect sense to keep those drugs behind lock and key with some sort of trusted "keeper of potions", whether we call them a "pharmacist" or not. If this gets rolled in with the interface for how and when consumables are consumed, then it makes perfect sense. (Of course, I still prefer it to be a part of an expanded Priorities List, so that we can view all our fiddling with dwarven AI from one single screen for the purpose of streamlining the interface.)
Post by: Untelligent on September 07, 2010, 11:50:29 am
Post by: Caldfir on September 07, 2010, 01:30:25 pm
Is the current insane abundance of minerals a feature, testing tool, or bug? Are there any plans on moving back to those in 40d / make them somehow changeable by the player?
(forgive me if this has been answered somewhere else already, but I've done all I can with the search tool)
While its nice to have smelters running full-steam for years, I would prefer the abundances of 40d. It was a LOT more exciting to find ore and gems back then. Exploratory mining is completely gone (unless you count the single shaft necessary to hit cavern), which is a shame because it was one of the most fun (and dorfy) parts of the game. I realize that many players are enjoying all the ore... but when I play dwarf fortress, it is NOT because I want anything to come easy.
Furthermore, while the abundance of fuel is nice, it also precludes the need for burning trees, so cutting trees is no longer a high priority, and thus my dwarves are GETTING ALONG WITH ELVES. Which is dumb.
Post by: Mike Mayday on September 07, 2010, 02:05:53 pm
Quote from: Toady One
Baughn's TrueType code is coming along nicely in the SDL version, so the next DF will have an experimental version of that. This frees up the glyphs in tilesets from most of their text display duties, so that, for example, the number zero won't generally be displayed as a coffin in custom tilesets now, and it supports variable width fonts. There are places where the TrueType fonts need to be used where they aren't currently and there are some justification issues etc. that need to be worked out, but it appears to be mostly working, so you'll be able to play with that.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Lt4bIXyrY
Post by: Baughn on September 07, 2010, 02:17:53 pm
I mentioned I was working on this quite a while ago, you can't genuinely claim to be surprised *now*.
Post by: G-Flex on September 07, 2010, 02:33:16 pm
Completely ignoring the current drug debate, I have a question:
Is the current insane abundance of minerals a feature, testing tool, or bug? Are there any plans on moving back to those in 40d / make them somehow changeable by the player?
(forgive me if this has been answered somewhere else already, but I've done all I can with the search tool)
While its nice to have smelters running full-steam for years, I would prefer the abundances of 40d. It was a LOT more exciting to find ore and gems back then. Exploratory mining is completely gone (unless you count the single shaft necessary to hit cavern), which is a shame because it was one of the most fun (and dorfy) parts of the game. I realize that many players are enjoying all the ore... but when I play dwarf fortress, it is NOT because I want anything to come easy.
Furthermore, while the abundance of fuel is nice, it also precludes the need for burning trees, so cutting trees is no longer a high priority, and thus my dwarves are GETTING ALONG WITH ELVES. Which is dumb.
I know all this is bordering on suggestion (and directly involves it), but I'd like to know the answer to that question too. I mean, especially with the much higher z-level count, the absurd abundance really isn't necessary, and honestly gets kind of boring/weird after a while, since you're constantly running into things that should be rare/valuable (along with everything else).
Post by: Neonivek on September 07, 2010, 05:29:52 pm
What?
I mentioned I was working on this quite a while ago, you can't genuinely claim to be surprised *now*.
On the bright side Baughn this is probably as close to a complaint that you personally are going to get dirrected at you.
Post by: Acanthus117 on September 07, 2010, 05:38:31 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on September 07, 2010, 05:54:13 pm
What?
I mentioned I was working on this quite a while ago, you can't genuinely claim to be surprised *now*.
Sorry man, I was out of the forums for quite some time. Very glad to hear you're working on it though!
Post by: G-Flex on September 07, 2010, 05:55:38 pm
Is the reversion to the whole needing-mud-for-underground-farms thing permanent, or will that be changed in a later release?
From what Toady told me shortly after release, the INTENT is that you can farm underground as long as EITHER of the following conditions is true:
- The soil is muddy.
- Underneath the soil is another layer of soil.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on September 07, 2010, 06:15:50 pm
Quote from: The Dev Page
Adventurer Role: Hero
•Villains
•Historical figures that come out of world gen and come to control segments of entity populations (bandits, etc.)
•Hideouts with some basic fortifications
•Hostile civ leaders and the new hist figs being able to harass others by sending out groups
•Need to handle seeing them depart, seeing them raid, seeing them arrive back, and running into them during travel (with or without spoils)
•Tracking information from hunting needs to apply to following these groups
•Generally, "villians" are just leaders of groups you oppose at the time, and in this way can include squabbling petty warlords in nearby towns as well, so the groups can be large armies or assassins, though the former will probably come through the dwarf mode expansions below
•Succession and succession struggles
•People that have been raided need to tell you what happened
•Megabeasts <-- Should this be subcategory color?
•Variety and randomization within constraints (e.g. various dragons)
•Reproduction
•Share any intelligent/diplomacy behavior that other hist figs have when appropriate
That's just been bugging me.
Post by: snooptodd on September 07, 2010, 08:13:43 pm
Yep, above ground farming doesn't need irrigation, tho it only works in soil. I havent been able to get muddied stone to grow above ground crops.Is the reversion to the whole needing-mud-for-underground-farms thing permanent, or will that be changed in a later release?
From what Toady told me shortly after release, the INTENT is that you can farm underground as long as EITHER of the following conditions is true:I'm not sure if the latter case is working. Does aboveground farming work without mud? I forget.
- The soil is muddy.
- Underneath the soil is another layer of soil.
Underground farming must be muded, my current fort has 3 z-levels of soil/sand. With a farm plot on z=2 it needed irrigation to start.
Post by: KrunkSplein on September 07, 2010, 08:32:59 pm
No, not because of the homonym, but because Hoh == H-O-H == H2O == water. Never before was there a more precisely-named river.
Post by: Sunday on September 07, 2010, 09:46:18 pm
Post by: Acanthus117 on September 07, 2010, 09:48:45 pm
Yep, above ground farming doesn't need irrigation, tho it only works in soil. I havent been able to get muddied stone to grow above ground crops.Is the reversion to the whole needing-mud-for-underground-farms thing permanent, or will that be changed in a later release?
From what Toady told me shortly after release, the INTENT is that you can farm underground as long as EITHER of the following conditions is true:I'm not sure if the latter case is working. Does aboveground farming work without mud? I forget.
- The soil is muddy.
- Underneath the soil is another layer of soil.
Underground farming must be muded, my current fort has 3 z-levels of soil/sand. With a farm plot on z=2 it needed irrigation to start.
Oh well.
Thanks, guys! :D
Post by: Sowelu on September 08, 2010, 03:35:48 pm
Honestly, once TrueType comes in, your interface can no longer be purely utilitarian, and it requires serious, involved design work. Much like high-color graphics, the more tools you have available, the worse they can be abused. Fixed-width, 16-bit extended ASCII has some pretty hard lower limits on how ugly it can get...but moving up to TrueType, or 32-bit color, makes it possible to really screw things up. Tread lightly, this is the opposite of trivial.
(All the same--excellent work!)
Post by: MaDeR Levap on September 08, 2010, 04:11:50 pm
but graphically, to me, it recalls the days of mid-90's games. "Colonization" in specific, for some reason, and I guess Civ 2 as well.Well, DF itself is graphically old school. Ascii, at most tileset game.
Honestly, once TrueType comes in, your interface can no longer be purely utilitarianToady will try. ;)
Post by: Eduren on September 08, 2010, 04:26:01 pm
Post by: Caldfir on September 08, 2010, 07:02:50 pm
TrueType is going to take a LOT of UI work to look good.
I understand what you mean here, but so far all that's being done is adding support for variable-width fonts for text, NOT actually moving any of that text around, or needing to come up with crazy UI formatting rules or anything. I'm not sure the current iteration is meant to "look good" so much as make text more readable.
What this will do is allow the community a bit more freedom with tile sizes, since until now anything larger than 32x32 made text so cumbersome as to be unplayable. It really is a change that is going to give the community a lot to work with, not to mention makes the game substantially more newbie-friendly, all without sacrificing any core elements of the game itself.
It is the sort of thing that I had often wondered if it were possible to do with DF without some sort of painful rewrite, and am glad to see it was (questions about the specific amount of pain involved should be redirected to Baughn).
Personally I think that "the look" of the sample screenshot is done disservice by the fact that Times New Roman is a very ugly font when displayed on a computer screen (remember back in the '90s when all websites used TNR? tacky; very tacky). Arial or a derivative would be much less jarring (though naturally this is a personal preference).
In any case, I can't see anyone bothering to do any serious graphical interface work on DF until the game is tooling up for 1.0 (and I try not to worry about things that far into the future).
Post by: KrunkSplein on September 08, 2010, 07:40:23 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on September 08, 2010, 08:24:00 pm
But yes stick to something like arial or courier.
Post by: Sizik on September 08, 2010, 09:28:39 pm
Post by: Untelligent on September 08, 2010, 09:45:39 pm
Post by: FuzzyDoom on September 08, 2010, 10:15:03 pm
Well i bet that we can exchange the font-type (also size etc.) over the initfiles so if the standart font isnt t your liking you can change it.
But yes stick to something like arial or courier.
I like the idea of changing it based on the init file. Maybe only have a view it can change to though. You know, the basics: Arial, Times New Roman...Papyrus... ;)
Post by: Rockphed on September 08, 2010, 10:21:41 pm
I like the idea of changing it based on the init file. Maybe only have a view it can change to though. You know, the basics: Arial, Times New Roman...Papyrus... ;)
...Comic Sans...Please don't kill me. It was a joke!
Post by: Untelligent on September 08, 2010, 11:23:29 pm
Post by: zwei on September 09, 2010, 01:17:47 am
(http://origin.myfonts.net/118/fs/u/b2/50c6b7db747cbbb29e96209d323173.gif)
Post by: James.Denholm on September 09, 2010, 01:46:04 am
Which, of course, would mean that the letters could work with symbols and look nice, and that things like zeros could be replaced and text would still be text.
Post by: Baughn on September 09, 2010, 04:30:14 am
The font is, indeed, specified in init.txt. Oh, but you can't use just any font installed on your system; I don't have any code to look those up yet. You have to put the actual font file in data/art.
Post by: Sizik on September 09, 2010, 01:14:35 pm
I, personally, would appreciate a font that was just like curses, but still a fonty font.
Which, of course, would mean that the letters could work with symbols and look nice, and that things like zeros could be replaced and text would still be text.
There do exist fonts like that.
Post by: G-Flex on September 09, 2010, 01:39:09 pm
Post by: zwei on September 10, 2010, 01:17:14 am
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the default DF font were just based on the standard Windows console font. In fact, I believe it is.
It is actually standart vga rendering of codepage 437:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_page_437
Windows console font might or might not be related.
Post by: kuketski on September 10, 2010, 03:31:45 am
What do you think about return of the Guild Masters combined with Dwarf Foreman/Dwarf Therapist functionality?
With more control like autogrouping dwarves (training group, production group) by skill or number of skilled dwarves(balancing groups sizes) level inside guild , assigning jobs to guild, which will automatically assign to more skilled group OR train group depending on set quality level and - to a certain dwarf, who have preference to such job/item/material, unless this settings was changed, autoassigning workshops to guild/group.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=23965.0
It can be used later as part of AI controlled fortess!
Post by: Rose on September 10, 2010, 09:07:17 am
Post by: G-Flex on September 10, 2010, 09:49:01 am
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the default DF font were just based on the standard Windows console font. In fact, I believe it is.
It is actually standart vga rendering of codepage 437:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_page_437
Windows console font might or might not be related.
Nah, the Windows console (and DF) uses Terminal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_%28font%29). Note that the parentheses are more pointy, the "0" has a slash instead of a dot, and things generally look a bit different.
Post by: Eduren on September 10, 2010, 09:56:36 am
Post by: Footkerchief on September 10, 2010, 10:37:01 am
Does this mean that demon diplomats won't come, or that they won't destroy your fort?
Toady often posts more details about bug fixes on the tracker. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=596#c12467) And yeah, it sounds like you'll still get demon diplomats.
Post by: Untelligent on September 10, 2010, 02:28:08 pm
Nah, the Windows console (and DF) uses Terminal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_%28font%29). Note that the parentheses are more pointy, the "0" has a slash instead of a dot, and things generally look a bit different.
DF doesn't use Terminal. I'm looking at the 640x300 default DF font image and the image at the wikipedia page and they look a fair bit different. DF has more serifs, for one.
Post by: Lemunde on September 10, 2010, 06:02:06 pm
Post by: PermanentInk on September 10, 2010, 07:56:51 pm
So after this release can we expect any more updates to the adventurer stuff in the next release? Like more crafting/construction stuff?
From the September Bay 12 Games Report (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=65129.0):
Quote from: ToadyOne
the idea is to start adding dev page items to adventure mode, probably aiming at the heroic side of things (Threetoe: "the first step toward true heroism is defending country folk from dread monsters and fiendish low lives"), coupled with continued work on dwarf mode bugs.
So I'd say the answer is clearly yes, he intends to work on Adventurer Mode features for the next release. Sounds like it may be more focused on questing than crafting, if you heed the comment from Threetoe. I'd guess he's likely to choose something that builds on the site sprawl work from this release, since that's a big piece of infrastructure that many of his plans rely on. The "fiendish low lives" quote could be taken as a hint about the "villains" dev section; other decent possibilities I can see are adventure sites and maybe tracking. Guess we'll see soon enough, though.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on September 10, 2010, 08:08:58 pm
Post by: Josephus on September 10, 2010, 08:11:21 pm
So I'd say the answer is clearly yes, he intends to work on Adventurer Mode features for the next release. Sounds like it may be more focused on questing than crafting, if you heed the comment from Threetoe. I'd guess he's likely to choose something that builds on the site sprawl work from this release, since that's a big piece of infrastructure that many of his plans rely on. The "fiendish low lives" quote could be taken as a hint about the "villains" dev section; other decent possibilities I can see are adventure sites and maybe tracking. Guess we'll see soon enough, though.
Hurrah! Now we can get ambushed on the road by something other than wolves!
Post by: Syff on September 10, 2010, 08:16:19 pm
Possibly (basic) night creatures too, it looks like.
I'd put my money on getting bandits before night creatures.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on September 11, 2010, 06:14:51 am
On the other hand night creatures arent that hard either. You take just a human or whatever and randomise some Bodyparts stick some new ethics and behaviors to it and presto you have night creatures.
Bandits are cool too. Thy are a good source for some gear and may lead to other stuff.
Post by: Rose on September 11, 2010, 06:23:52 am
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on September 11, 2010, 08:22:54 am
Post by: Neonivek on September 11, 2010, 08:36:02 am
Bug: Bandits all have slade armor. As a result, they are impossible to kill, yet cannot give chase.
Bug! Bandits composed entirely of captives and tamed animals
Post by: darkflagrance on September 11, 2010, 08:59:34 am
Post by: Josephus on September 11, 2010, 09:00:44 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on September 11, 2010, 11:02:28 am
Post by: Rockphed on September 11, 2010, 01:57:54 pm
You could mod bandits as tribe like the UG animal people. Thus they will have weapons an stuff and form a real gang.
But will they ambush you?
Post by: Knight Otu on September 11, 2010, 02:06:13 pm
If they work (last time I tried I couldn't put them on the surface), they'll probably even be friendly towards you and can hire them to go on adventures.You could mod bandits as tribe like the UG animal people. Thus they will have weapons an stuff and form a real gang.
But will they ambush you?
Post by: James.Denholm on September 11, 2010, 07:52:59 pm
I'm not sure if that would be a bad thing for DF or not.
Post by: KrunkSplein on September 12, 2010, 10:23:31 am
I just had an odd mental image of an adventurer and a bunch of bandits, arms linked together, skipping over a field of daises, merrily laughing and smiling.
And in MY head, they were accompanied by The Turtles "Happy Together". Quite epic.
Post by: Flaede on September 12, 2010, 01:37:56 pm
I just had an odd mental image of an adventurer and a bunch of bandits, arms linked together, skipping over a field of daises, merrily laughing and smiling.
And in MY head, they were accompanied by The Turtles "Happy Together". Quite epic.
considering just a few posts back folks were talking about how they might be created naked...
Post by: KrunkSplein on September 12, 2010, 07:50:45 pm
I just had an odd mental image of an adventurer and a bunch of bandits, arms linked together, skipping over a field of daises, merrily laughing and smiling.
And in MY head, they were accompanied by The Turtles "Happy Together". Quite epic.
considering just a few posts back folks were talking about how they might be created naked...
Gentlemen, we've created Hippies.
Post by: Acanthus117 on September 12, 2010, 07:53:01 pm
Post by: Neonivek on September 13, 2010, 08:19:45 pm
I so want bandits. That would be really fun.
I wonder if you look poor enough if Bandits should generally ignore you.
I mean... they arn't killing machines.
Post by: Acanthus117 on September 13, 2010, 08:21:30 pm
Ooh, what about slavers?
That'd be cool.
Post by: Organum on September 13, 2010, 08:47:28 pm
I so want bandits. That would be really fun.
I wonder if you look poor enough if Bandits should generally ignore you.
I mean... they arn't killing machines.
If Toady One were a truly irresponsible person, he would make it possible to mod in rapists. You think you've got nothing to steal...And then you remember how unpopular you were in high school.
DUN DUNN!
Post by: Acanthus117 on September 13, 2010, 10:06:40 pm
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on September 14, 2010, 03:41:54 pm
It would be better than kobolds, especially if bandits don't get [TRAPAVOID].
Post by: Rockphed on September 14, 2010, 07:31:08 pm
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on September 14, 2010, 07:43:49 pm
Post by: darkflagrance on September 14, 2010, 11:22:52 pm
So, they would come in with bags, path to a stockpile full of finished goods, and then take whatever they can shove in the bag? That would be awesome! Especially if goblins started doing a similar thing in addition to their myriad other ways to bother players.
It would be like current thief invasions, except instead of a single robber, there'd be an entire ambush squad pathing to the rarest item in your fort.
Post by: Areyar on September 15, 2010, 05:19:52 am
Were the pathing problems with (locked) doors, climbing and digging solved? (for invaders)
Priorities can have a value linked to pathing cost, as well as high pathingcost near any dwarf/tame critter and especially doors.
e.g. a gang is spawned on the side of your map. it decides it's priorities are {artifacts>food>finished goods>prisoners}, all artifacts are deep within the fort, behind many doors and past a multitude of dwarves, so it decides to raid the nearest food stockpile(sp), the nearer finished goods SP has a lower priority causing a higher overall pathing cost to make it appear further away.
Post by: Toady One on September 15, 2010, 09:05:06 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on September 15, 2010, 09:16:06 am
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on September 15, 2010, 10:30:45 am
EDIT: Toady, adamantine's impact/compression/shear/torsion/bending/tensile yield/fracture values have been changed to 5000000 from their original 4000000. This makes adamantine impossible to mine. Was this intended and if so, was there going to be another tag to make slade unminable?
Post by: DalGren on September 15, 2010, 02:27:31 pm
I shouldn't be asking more questions specially when there's some long line, but...
Will it be possible to have, with truetype fonts enabled, support to avoid fonts resizing when zooming? I'd like the map to get smaller/bigger, but the text to remain static.
Post by: Neonivek on September 15, 2010, 03:16:05 pm
Hopefully I'll be jumping back in to catch up on all the questions now that I'm out of my pre-release bubble. Though if it is an explodey release, it might be a few days yet, he he he.
Yeah Toady's releases tend to be a bit unstable.
Post by: Patchy on September 15, 2010, 04:07:40 pm
I guess I just don't like worlds genned in .13. So here comes a question since I know that this is a major change and dunno if prior versions would be fine in this one. Could I gen worlds in .12 and use them in .13 without any ill-effects and sprawl magically appearing?
Post by: Totaku on September 15, 2010, 04:35:28 pm
Post by: Neonivek on September 15, 2010, 05:45:56 pm
Post by: Quatch on September 16, 2010, 08:32:38 am
If you have too much civilization, perhaps you can turn down the number of starting civs? would that make the area covered by civ smaller? Otherwise, a shorter history might actually help you here too, by giving less time for expansion.
Post by: Dr. Hieronymous Alloy on September 16, 2010, 09:52:07 am
And thats worldgen time. You only do that very infrequently, so it taking even an hour or two isn't a big deal. Remember, the end goal is that you don't gen new worlds every game, but keep re-using the same one.
That'd be great if we were at that end goal already, but in the actual world, you need to generate multiple worlds to find good sites, especially if you're picky and want something rare, like a site with easy-accessible magma and flux. The lack of a functioning site finder makes this particularly annoying.
Post by: Baughn on September 16, 2010, 10:06:21 am
Post by: Rose on September 16, 2010, 10:13:18 am
Post by: James.Denholm on September 17, 2010, 02:19:56 am
Post by: Vercingetorix on September 17, 2010, 03:12:51 am
In general, if civilizations have been expanding over the world for 1,050 years or more I figure most of the good sites have already been settled leaving only the most untamable wildernesses for future expansion...you'll have to make do with what's still left, or, later once we've got a macro-level military take it over from another civilization with ensuing consequences.
Post by: zwei on September 17, 2010, 03:36:17 am
Post by: sockless on September 17, 2010, 04:16:07 am
Post by: Cruxador on September 17, 2010, 04:31:16 am
I doubt the current level of sprawl is intentional. Given a bit of tuning of the algorithms, we'll probably be back to something more reasonable.What's unreasonable about the current level of sprawl?
Post by: Tormy on September 17, 2010, 06:18:41 am
I doubt the current level of sprawl is intentional. Given a bit of tuning of the algorithms, we'll probably be back to something more reasonable.
+1
Post by: Chromasphere on September 17, 2010, 08:51:21 am
And thats worldgen time. You only do that very infrequently, so it taking even an hour or two isn't a big deal. Remember, the end goal is that you don't gen new worlds every game, but keep re-using the same one.
That'd be great if we were at that end goal already, but in the actual world, you need to generate multiple worlds to find good sites, especially if you're picky and want something rare, like a site with easy-accessible magma and flux. The lack of a functioning site finder makes this particularly annoying.
Yes, but we are in the middle of a construction project. I agree with sasQuatch. At some point, we'll have to have some 'inconveniences'. I don't think it's realistic to expect Toady to work toward implementing end goals AND make it perfectly fun all the way through the process as well. So, if one of the end goals is having a longer worldgen, which is not unreasonable, then we should expect worldgens to take longer and longer as Toady 'constructs' DF. Of course, I could just be flapping my dwarven-grog-numbed limps.
Post by: Untelligent on September 17, 2010, 09:54:34 am
And thats worldgen time. You only do that very infrequently, so it taking even an hour or two isn't a big deal. Remember, the end goal is that you don't gen new worlds every game, but keep re-using the same one.
Maybe I WANT a new world infrequently, but it generally takes me a couple dozen tries to get a fort I want. And I like large worlds.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on September 17, 2010, 12:24:02 pm
Post by: MaDeR Levap on September 17, 2010, 01:58:03 pm
I would propose this to fix it:
- Near term: just much, much slower sprawl.
- Far term - implementing diseases and plagues that will sometime kill off half of nearby civs. Of course, for DF player, it will be hilarious. Plagues erupt more often within proper spheres (deformity, diseases, death etc). Nice reason to war between entities that normally does not fight between themselves BTW!
- Embarking on sprawl: allowable, but in not your civ, then you have permament war with civ that controls this territory. Of course, before embark program will warn about it. Another nice way to adjust difficulty level! Bored with DF? Embark next to human village, kill off these pesky peasants and be ready to ambushes from beginning and sieges as soon as you hit 80.
Post by: jei on September 17, 2010, 02:08:57 pm
It seems that humans can immigrate to your fort in 31.13. Whoa.
How do I get them to do that!?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on September 17, 2010, 02:20:40 pm
It seems that humans can immigrate to your fort in 31.13. Whoa.
How do I get them to do that!?
Happens when a Dwarf takesover a human town i think. This is far more likely now with the exploding population.
To be fair, sprawl = claimed teritory for given civilization. This is probably why embark option is turned off. Of course, if even your own civilization have unembarkable sprawl, cause of this bug must be more complicated.
[...]
IIrc i did read a bugreport on the release thread that says that you cant embark on fields etc. that belong to ruins/abandoned villages. Wild sprawl wasnt and claiming of land wasnt that uncommon thought back then. The people hadnt a so big nationality thinkage then we today and the orders between to countrys werent that well defined in reality then on paper.
I say you should be able to embark on forreign land with some consequences like paying taxes or whatever. Depending on the distance to strategic or economical stuff the consequences could differ.
Post by: tfaal on September 17, 2010, 02:58:19 pm
Post by: Untelligent on September 17, 2010, 03:04:02 pm
While I can understand the concept of creating a new settlement on foreign land in exchange for taxes, the idea of creating a settlement on top of an existing foreign one is and has always been ridiculous. I'm glad the ability has been removed.
Just because something's rediculous and doesn't make any sense doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to do it if we want to. Did you forget what game we're playing?
Post by: A Dwarven Smokeologist on September 17, 2010, 03:10:58 pm
While I can understand the concept of creating a new settlement on foreign land in exchange for taxes, the idea of creating a settlement on top of an existing foreign one is and has always been ridiculous. I'm glad the ability has been removed.
I hope embarking almost anywhere comes back because there is plenty of land that is generated I'd like to be able to build on, regardless of which entity in game owns it.
If they don't like me setting up fort on their land maybe they should send an army to come take it back instead of having the magical can't embark here faeries deal with it.
Post by: tfaal on September 17, 2010, 03:28:15 pm
Post by: monk12 on September 17, 2010, 03:35:58 pm
Why does it make sense that a dwarven civ would even consider sending out an undefended 7-dwarf embark party deep into foreign territory, to have them mine out the local people's farm plots? Isn't that the kind of thing that would be met with prompt, forceful response, even before the wagon arrives at it's destination?
I would not be at all surprised if this type of situation gets folded into the starting scenarios arc. Once entities are more defined and embarks are more flexible, then choosing to embark on foreign soil will likely precipitate wars, with appropriate warnings and supplies.
I don't feel like I communicated that well, hopefully somebody gets the direction of my meaning.
Post by: Eugenitor on September 17, 2010, 04:57:04 pm
Why does it make sense that a dwarven civ would even consider sending out an undefended 7-dwarf embark party deep into foreign territory, to have them mine out the local people's farm plots? Isn't that the kind of thing that would be met with prompt, forceful response, even before the wagon arrives at it's destination?
Not if they don't know the dwarves are coming. 7 seems like a good number for a covert team.
Word of the day: Sabotage.
Post by: Untelligent on September 17, 2010, 06:15:49 pm
Why does it make sense that a dwarven civ would even consider sending out an undefended 7-dwarf embark party deep into foreign territory, to have them mine out the local people's farm plots? Isn't that the kind of thing that would be met with prompt, forceful response, even before the wagon arrives at it's destination?
Why does it need to makes sense?
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on September 17, 2010, 06:56:45 pm
Post by: Quatch on September 17, 2010, 07:02:45 pm
... I agree with sasQuatch.Guilty as charged.
I think that the reasons to embark on farms (controlled or otherwise) are valid. Of course, all of the consequences aren't implemented yet, and we've seen what happens when details are added in later after people get used to having their way with things.
At this point though, it should be either/or: there is less sprawl (so we have options on where to play), or sprawl shouldn't prevent embark (concerns aside).
Post by: Patchy on September 17, 2010, 10:24:17 pm
Post by: Urist McDepravity on September 18, 2010, 02:51:08 am
Sure, once landlord finds out, he should send some military to wipe you out, but that means just more FUN.
Post by: zwei on September 18, 2010, 03:31:57 am
Why must the dwarves embark above ground in the foreign nation? Maybe they traveled through the caverns to setup below them undetected. I've always thought it'd be cool to start in the caverns and dig to the surface. Even through an aquifer, now that'd be a new challenge, safely breaching an aquifer from below and building a stairway up through it hehe.
THAT sounds like really interesting scenario.
Thou I am not sure that aquifer would be breachable from below unless you luck out on hitting ore cluster. But fun hitting river from bottom ... hmm :)
Post by: Quatch on September 18, 2010, 11:22:40 am
Post by: Hummingbird on September 18, 2010, 03:16:44 pm
From what I recall, yes, you can actually do that. But only with fortress mode. Adventure mode supposedly doesn't work very well this way. The spawls do indeed cause a massive lag to world genning as well as waiting for things to load up. But I think I'll put my vote in as well as request for a lighter sprawl load. To allow more areas to access and quicker loading. (Not that I mind it now, it would just make things easier.)
What's causing the slowdown in the worldgen isn't the sprawl; it's the large increase in battles. If you go to legends mode and look at the history of your world during the last few years of worldgen, you'll notice that there are literally hundreds of battles being fought per year. In this version, worldgen battles happen every week instead of every year; naturally, every powerful civ now rounds up about 1000-2000 guys every week to go pillage some defenseless site somewhere. By the end of my 400-year worldgen, most sites were up to their 1000th pillagings. That's a lot of battles being fought! Battles have always been the most time-consuming element of worldgen, and now that they have increased by a couple of orders of magnitude, it's no wonder that worldgen is a lot slower.
Post by: The Architect on September 18, 2010, 10:15:57 pm
Post by: Neonivek on September 19, 2010, 02:22:42 am
The World generation is going great and consistantly... Sure it isn't instantly done but at least it doesn't suffer super slowdown.
What is going right?
Also I still dislike that Evil and Good lands still tend to orient themselves to the top and bottom of the map... likely because poles tend to have a unified terrain so the generator puts them there because there is no where else for them to go.
(Also whoa... One human group attacked elves... honestly I thought they were attacking the forest for the majority of the report. It is the first time I've seen Elves win without overwhelming numbers)
Post by: Toady One on September 19, 2010, 09:44:15 am
Quote
Quote from: LemundeSo after this release can we expect any more updates to the adventurer stuff in the next release? Like more crafting/construction stuff?QuoteHey Toady, do you think we'll have some proper towns to visit in the release after this upcoming one?
Next up, in October, we want to focus on bringing something fun to adventure mode. Exactly what gets released there is just going to depend on repeated additions and playthroughs until we're satisfied that there's something to it, even if it's just a little bit. We think heroism is going to be involved there as a starting point, but continuations of the crafting baby steps we took before and adding more to the towns are possible to the extent that they buoy that up. I don't want to tie myself to any given feature though, since I feel like after the entity population/sprawl sloggy release delay, the flexibility to avoid getting bogged down by a specific feature goal is important to my well-being for this release. That's not to say I'm deviating from the dev page goals this time.
Quote
Quote from: CaldfirIs the current insane abundance of minerals a feature, testing tool, or bug? Are there any plans on moving back to those in 40d / make them somehow changeable by the player?Quote from: G-FlexI know all this is bordering on suggestion (and directly involves it), but I'd like to know the answer to that question too. I mean, especially with the much higher z-level count, the absurd abundance really isn't necessary, and honestly gets kind of boring/weird after a while, since you're constantly running into things that should be rare/valuable (along with everything else).
Zach and I actually ended up with a different impression during testing at the beginning of the year, not from the higher z-level count but from the open layers which split them apart. When the top stone levels above the first underground cavern were empty, it was really frustrating. Still, there are lots of things that should probably be addressed that might clean it all up, like veins moving between z-levels, making the "rare" inclusions more interesting or at least rarer (there definitely seems to be a problem there), vein quality, etc. If it's easy to throw something together to make minerals moddably scarce, then I'll do that, but I didn't like it that way in vanilla without something else.
Rarity with depth rather than with location on the world map seems a little strange and gamey so I doubt I'll end up going that way outside of non-real minerals or minerals where it makes sense. It added a fun progression to 2D, but ultimately I don't want to rely on that. In the end, starting your fortress on a valuable surface deposit should be perfectly reasonable and lead to an interesting game both militarily and economically -- in the game's current state, there are no military repercussions from having a valuable resource from the start (except maybe the attacks coming a little earlier due to higher trade/wealth numbers), and economically it's just worth more as a simple absolute number and so seems like cheating. It shouldn't turn out that way though. Even in a more highly developed DF, a valuable surface find does lead to a little less excitement in the mining discovery department. Throwing more exotic stuff down there, even outside the strict mineral department, should help with that.
Quote
Quote from: MephansterasDemons and Devils are probably safe to assume are evil powermongers. What about the other forgotten beasts that end up taking important positions in Human Civs? Are they necessarily an evil influence on the civ? Are we going to see benign Lizard monsters and the like? How do you see these creatures ultimately influencing how the human civs act?Quote from: QuatchAre there non-violent/evil ways for an entity to assume/use control?
As far as I know, it is only the evil creatures from the underworld that take over civilizations at this point. It might make sense at some point for a non-evil critter to take up an important position in a human civ, but there aren't any candidates right now, between regional titans and megabeasts. That's vanilla anyway. I don't remember the modding situation with megabeasts and human civ takeovers, and there are non-violent means that the humans use when they create the civ-wide positions such as "force of argument" and so on. Of course, it's not like there's much going on now, so it's just flavor text or whatever.
Quote
Quote from: NW_KohakuAre there any plans to fix/plant a sanity check on the elven society-wide infertility problem?Quote from: MephansterasWhen are we going to see difference marriage customs come into play? I don't really see goblins as the marriage sort, and human civs could easily include polygamy and the like. Kings with a harem of a thousand, perhaps? There are certainly some interesting Adventurer quests to be had with that kind of set-up. Elves seem like the sort to bond with one person for a while and eventually move on to someone else. You know, after a few centuries and the relationship has run its course.
As of this last version, historical figures are no longer limited to ten children. If I'm understanding the infertility problem, that should sort out part of it. Remarriage (or whatever fits) would still be necessary to finish it off I guess.
The main barrier to expansion is just the typical thing with the original code supporting one specific id number/relationship for the spouse. The current system is a convenient starting point for fort mode drama and reproduction generally, but I imagine every entity will end up different and it's the proper outcome. I have no idea on a timeline though.
Quote from: DalGren
will world entities have the capability to claim ownership over a structure or territory, and use that information to identify trespassers or have a sense of "home" which they can defend or use as a trading good?
Would it be possible to find isolated huts or cabins of some world entity living on its own? Perhaps outcasts, hermits, or sociopaths who refuse living in populated areas?
There are already zones defined that they nominally claim, at least for building interiors, and those were used for theft detection in the shops, but we haven't used them much. They also have an idea of what each space is for in the new villages, like the fields and homes etc. They just need to come up more as we do things.
Bandit/marauding critters are probably going to be the first entity-associated guys living off on their own, but we definitely don't want them all to be hostiles. Before we get to hermits and things, I imagine we might do things like resource-based settlements (lumber/stone etc), and perhaps the combat/religion/night creature etc. related structures (things like monasteries etc.), depending on the order we do the dev page, but we're definitely going to branch out from villages and towns.
Quote
Quote from: monk12How do you plan to change how world gen battles are fought? Will terrain and/or tactics play a role? Will civs, or even just races that are faced with a war of extinction that they cannot win attempt to flee and establish new cities elsewhere?Quote from: AreyarHow far down the pipeline are worldgen battles with actual AI tactics that can be viewed afterwards in histories like a movie of a classical board and chips wargame?Quote from: NeonivekToady in the future will we see Armies taking other towns without the total destruction of the opposition? Right now as long as one person is barely defending the town an army no matter how large cannot take it.
There's a token terrain/site bonus for defenders now. Having more tactical information in the legends readout is something I've neglected to add three major releases in a row now -- something always comes up, but I definitely want more variety. We usually imagine those bars and so on from shows like that American Civil War and other documentaries and so on, but we'll have to see how it turns out. Hopefully it'll be something that carries over in part to the post-world-gen fighting on the world map.
There's a tactics/leadership/organization roll as of this last version, and it's what causes the outcomes to vary at times from the center of the bell curve on the combat duel outcomes. Refugees go into the wilds now and resettle, but it's on a site by site basis. Continuing on in that way, and allowing refugees to merge with or displace a third group should be pretty important for the overall shape of world gen later on, since it needs to be less static. Disease and famine will help a lot too, but I need to handle the resource tracking first for famine at least.
Some of the current battles are definitely goofy.
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady when armies, adventurer groups, and other such organisations finally can attack single units in unison (Megabeasts for example) do you forsee Megabeasts getting stronger, weaker, the same, or will they have the ability to out manuver them so to speak?
I can't say specifically which way it'll go until we see how much it affects the kill rate. If a bunch of peasants bounce off of a dragon the same as a single peasant, then it won't require as much of an adjustment. We'd generally like to emphasize heroic or specialized/weakness-based kills rather than random overwhelming of a beast. This might require megabeasts to be more manueverable or at least not get caught sleeping out in the open by large groups of regular soldiers -- beasts that are neither intelligent nor powerful enough to defend themselves from that kind of thing don't generally deserve to be megabeasts. Having a megabeast-killing hero/heroes emerging from obscurity during a regular town defense is fine, but having it be the norm from the combat mechanics would lead to larger problems, I think, so that sort of thing might end up being a kind of specifically chosen outcome in world gen or something. It's sort of unavoidable in the information-scarce time-crunched environment of world gen -- sometimes things happen all at once instead of step by step.
Quote from: Mephansteras
On the maps you just posed it looks like the goblins have expanded out to swamps and rivers. Are they moving out from the mountains now? Or did you just add more start biomes for them?
We decided to soften biomes up greatly for goblins, so that there'd be a broader range of areas under threat.
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
Toady, where do you see the ability of players to affect AI behavior? Will we see something that goes more towards having the ability to directly script dwarven AI to use certain items or take certain actions using some logic operations or a rudimentary scripting ability? Or do you see this as being more a matter of dwarves having to somehow learn how and when to properly perform actions or use items from the properties they have in the raws alone? While I'm obviously interested in the effects this can have, I'm also interested in what sort of game design philosophy you have about what level of control you want players to be exerting over their dwarves.
At the extreme end of the potion/material discussion, out beyond what maybe anybody was asking for, I'm absolutely against having to master some sort of scripting language just to get dwarves to poison their weapons. At the same time, it'll be difficult to get dwarves to use certain exotic syndrome-causing materials in a reasonable way that satisfies a player, especially one using potion mods. Maybe it'll end up being usage hints in the raws and classifications in-play for use in the military etc. with some sensible defaults. Ideally they'd be able to handle it like food, water and alcohol (to the extent those aren't broken), and perhaps those would be brought into the same system. For more exotic actions and random weirdness, maybe there are cases in the mods where you'd really want to write some kind of script down, especially for a non-dwarven mod race that does something or other, but that level of support is pretty hard to prioritize when I don't really need or want it for dwarves.
On the other hand, writing from the perspective that every command the player gives will be credited to fortress position holders, if an appropriate official were to order that a liquid, with usage hints/whatever in the raws, will now be used for something entirely outside those bounds (like coating a weapon with syrup), that action might be anything from brilliant to quirky to wasteful to tyrannical to suicidal, depending on the situation. The dwarves aren't currently capable of judging their officials and it's a very difficult problem most of the time. If a randomly-generated creature has a weakness to syrup, maybe coating the weapons with syrup is simply a practical strategy, and in that case syrup wouldn't have the "weapon coating" usage hint in the raws. That coating action is entirely up to player ingenuity, much like ordering the creation of a complicated machine, and it's a reasonable thing to allow.
Manually ordering a dwarf to perform a specific series of actions that can't be presaged in the raws/code might be the only way to save your fort and might be a reasonably orderable action made by some official, but that kind of power can degrade the atmosphere we want to build. It's going to depend on the specific cases, but for the sake of guiding discussion on a wide range of future topics, I think it's best that the player feels that a dwarf's autonomy is being respected. The thing that makes dwarf mode not strictly a hands-off simulation is that you are allowed to compromise dwarves' autonomy if they hold fortress positions, to the extent that you are selecting actions that fall within their position's purview. If an order typically makes it feel like the dwarves are being controlled like marionettes, forced to do things against their will, etc., the order should probably be altered or removed. Presently, there are a ton of things that dwarves don't care about that they should care about, but this is the overall idea.
Quote from: Heph
Toady what is your opinion on this issue and how long would it take to get drugs and ethics for them? It would be nice for fleshing out thetribals and theyr more animistic religions and worldviews.
Like a lot of non-crucial suggestions that expand the game in interesting ways, I'm all for it and don't have a timeline, he he he. Alcohol will probably get more work done on it in terms of drunkenness and cultural conventions first, and that might force a framework for the larger picture.
Quote from: Heph
Can we get Overground tribes?
We used to have nomadic groups, and now we've got the underground entity pops that don't really do anything outside of making camps and staging attacks. I'd like to diversify what's going on with humans and others up there, and it might start more with the bandit/roving baddies more than anything.
Quote from: Areyar
Were the pathing problems with (locked) doors, climbing and digging solved? (for invaders)
Nothing has changed there.
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris
Toady, adamantine's impact/compression/shear/torsion/bending/tensile yield/fracture values have been changed to 5000000 from their original 4000000. This makes adamantine impossible to mine. Was this intended and if so, was there going to be another tag to make slade unminable?
It was an oversight, and I'll take care of it one way or another for next time.
Post by: Miko19 on September 19, 2010, 01:08:37 pm
Post by: James on September 19, 2010, 02:14:28 pm
Two words...and sentences: Aimed. Attacks. Come on, Great Toad, I finally want to chew on somebody's face while slashing an other person in half with an axe WHILE roundhouse kicking some biatches
It's on the development page which means it's already brought to his attention and he'll get to it sooner or later. It sounds like there's a whole lot of other things he's got to do first though, so be patient.
For the record, it's also the feature I am most looking forward to myself, so I know how you feel.
Post by: Lemunde on September 19, 2010, 02:28:50 pm
Post by: kuketski on September 19, 2010, 03:58:14 pm
AND
"Ability to make rough stone constructions" is on dev list. Do you plan to merge Fortess mode and Adventurer mode?
Like building your stronghold with your followers and/or descendants in Adventurer mode?
With ability to "zoom out" and switch to Fortess mode to build complicated constructions, manage joblist, set labours and so on.
And if your adventurer have died, you could continue playing as adventurer`s heir.
And if all heirs have died, you cannot switch back to adventurer mode and can only watch over your fortress as "guardian ancestors spirit".
Post by: Knight Otu on September 19, 2010, 04:22:07 pm
Do you plan on enabling wedding in adventurer mode?Adventure mode marriage came up a few times on the old consolidated dev page, mostly in power goals, as part of the Relationships and Affiliation arcs. As such, it's probably not on the short list, but Toady sees it as relevant.
"Ability to make rough stone constructions" is on dev list. Do you plan on merging Fortess mode and Adventurer mode?Toady has described the intended function earlier in this thread, I believe. It's not meant to be a merger of the two modes in that way.
Like building your stronghold with your followers in Adventurer mode?
With ability to "zoom out" and switch to Fortess mode to build complicated constructions, manage joblist, set labours and so on.
And if your adventurer have died, you could continue playing as adventurer`s heir.
And if all heirs have died, you cannot switch back to adventurer mode and can only watch over your fortress as "guardian ancestors spirit".
Ah, here is one quote:
Quote from: Osmosis JonesToady, what degree of finesse are you planning on giving orders to followers? I.e. would it be possible to order a group of followers to dig *this* location or collect fruit from *that* specific tree? Also, any plans on being able to force loyalty beyond acting as a guide? Oooh, and can we get other people to enforce said loyalty for us?
I want to be able to order a slave gang to excavate those ruins, while I lounge about with a platter of fresh, slave-picked, strawberries, and if anyone thinks about shirking off or running away, having my well paid slave drivers chase them down.
I wanted to stay away from getting into having the adv mode stuff be just like dwarf mode, and ease more slowly into the group/job abilities there, to keep things varied for myself as much as anything. I don't understand the forcing loyalty part -- for the people you've interrogated? Ideally, though, you'd be able to give more and more orders, so that they'd be able to guard or work or build up your place for you, even if they end up being kind of dumb about it. It would be cool to have one of your followers be able to run their own villain-style network somewhere, so that you can be a kind of criminal overlord. Once the villains are in and working, that should actually be well within range.
Post by: Hunterdew on September 19, 2010, 08:06:55 pm
Quote
will now be used for something entirely outside those bounds (like coating a weapon with syrup), that action might be anything from brilliant to quirky to wasteful to tyrannical to suicidal, depending on the situation.
The forgotten beast rÜsh onlçl has come!
A great troglodyte with skin made of waffle. Beware it's enrapturing fumes!
Post by: Cruxador on September 20, 2010, 12:29:24 am
"Ability to make rough stone constructions" is on dev list. Do you plan to merge Fortess mode and Adventurer mode?He does not.
Quote
Like building your stronghold with your followers and/or descendants in Adventurer mode?This will be possible.
Quote
With ability to "zoom out" and switch to Fortess mode to build complicated constructions, manage joblist, set labours and so on.Nope.
Quote
And if your adventurer have died, you could continue playing as adventurer`s heir.No word on this, so far as I know. I'd like it for sure, I'm a sucker for dynastic stuff.
Quote
And if all heirs have died, you cannot switch back to adventurer mode and can only watch over your fortress as "guardian ancestors spirit".Nothing like that's going in.
Post by: Doombell on September 20, 2010, 10:04:21 am
Now, I've mainly been thinking of Pryan, the world entirely covered in gigantic trees. One of the main things that got me thinking was probably that they used wooden weapons (and possibly the somewhat communist/hivemind dwarves).
Well, on to the actual question:
As I believe one of the goals you have mentioned was multi-tile/z-level trees, what is the chance that such trees could be major geographical features, such as (elven?) sites, or even entire biomes, if you go with Pryan's mountain-high trees?
Post by: turgidtoupee on September 20, 2010, 04:03:57 pm
Post by: Neonivek on September 20, 2010, 04:36:57 pm
Toady right now the game doesn't handle variety well. Both in variety in Civilisations and especially in variety in animals (Probably one of the major contributors to the collapse of the Arc project). Is there any plans/ideas to rectify this problem so Dwarf Fortress can handle expansive lists of creatures, races, and civilisation types in a way that is pleasing and functional?
Ok I SWEAR I asked these questions before... but I have no idea if I did.
Post by: Untelligent on September 20, 2010, 06:15:23 pm
I'd really like to see a feature where one can choose what race one plays as in fortress mode, similar to adventurer mode. Playing as other races is really interesting, and as long as dwarves are the default (like humans are in adventurer mode) I think it'd stay true to being dwarf fortress. Plus, you could even have a quick start function like in adventurer, where the player's given a site and a team and can just get on with it.
Technically you can already do this; the other races aren't fundamentally different from dwarves, though, even if you mod the hell out of them.
However, not only are other races in fort mode planned to be in the vanilla game at some point, but at that point they should be more different than dwarves and possibly even have unique game mechanics along with them. Excerpts from the old dev page:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Among other things.
Post by: wallish on September 20, 2010, 06:31:08 pm
Quote
Manually ordering a dwarf to perform a specific series of actions that can't be presaged in the raws/code might be the only way to save your fort and might be a reasonably orderable action made by some official, but that kind of power can degrade the atmosphere we want to build. It's going to depend on the specific cases, but for the sake of guiding discussion on a wide range of future topics, I think it's best that the player feels that a dwarf's autonomy is being respected. The thing that makes dwarf mode not strictly a hands-off simulation is that you are allowed to compromise dwarves' autonomy if they hold fortress positions, to the extent that you are selecting actions that fall within their position's purview. If an order typically makes it feel like the dwarves are being controlled like marionettes, forced to do things against their will, etc., the order should probably be altered or removed. Presently, there are a ton of things that dwarves don't care about that they should care about, but this is the overall idea.
The first thing that pops into my mind that can both solve the issue and not involve the "direct command" idea is to look at the problem from a "realistic" perspective. Just as the question: How would the dwarves figure that out?
So for the syrup/megabeast example, have something in the raws/AI that allow a dwarf to see the poisonous effect of syrup on said waffle-beast. The raws would define types of mixtures (caustic, salve, cleansing agent, etc) with the dwarves figuring out what ingredients to use for that potion. If Urist McAlchemist sees that syrup is caustic to the waffle-beast then he'll make a caustic solution using syrup.
So the player/raws would define the types of mixtures but let the dwarves figure out what to use in them. If it needs to be more advanced than that, you could define certain attributes for the mixture, such as "disinfectant = x % alcohol" or "[creature] acid must be > x caustic to [creature:skin]"
Post by: Untelligent on September 20, 2010, 06:42:45 pm
Mind you I wasn't following the discussion awhile back because I hit my head on a wall of text so this may or may not have already come up.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on September 20, 2010, 08:12:11 pm
Yes, elves for the elf people
<Standard response re. Blood Gods, Skull Thrones>
Post by: kuketski on September 21, 2010, 12:19:33 am
Or you could just assign weapons to be coated in whatever via the military menu.
Then to preven poisoning sparring partners, you should be able to set another weapon for training.
Unless you want whole army to:
run all the way to a weapons stockpile,
drop training weapons,
take combat weapons,
if weapon is not coated,
go to mixtures stockpile,
take mixture,
do coating
and only after that they are ready to battle.
Post by: Mr.Person on September 21, 2010, 12:30:54 am
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a strong framework and foundation for the game before trying to flesh out Adventure and Fortress modes? The easiest way would be having a lot of enemies and a whole slew of foundational bare-bones systems to add features on to instead of slowly iterating the framework and adding features immediately once the framework for that one feature is done? There's no reason to gut code or anything, I just think Adventure mode would benefit more from having quests than from having an unwieldy ability menu to do everything in Fortress mode... when if you wanted to do that, you could just play in Fortress mode with a hermit in the first place. And we all know Fortress Mode is already unwieldy enough as it is, no reason to make an already complicated system even more confusing.
Besides, the game generating quests from events taking place is the one feature of the entire game that excites me the most. Nevermind random critters or complex fight scenarios or whatever else, just the game looking at the state of the world and generating something fun for the player to do from the existing structure is really interesting.
So I guess if you want to skip to the really short version, my advice is to make the quest system and all necessary framework for it ASAP. Are you adding the necessary conflict generators for the quest system in the near future? If I remember properly, you're planning on doing villains soon, which is good, but to really work, the quest system's going to need more than JUST bandits to catch and thieve's guilds to break up.
Post by: kuketski on September 21, 2010, 12:57:55 am
If I remember properly, you're planning on doing villains soon, which is good, but to really work, the quest system's going to need more than JUST bandits to catch and thieve's guilds to break up.
Well, villains IS the major threat and therefore main source of quests.
No creature(except megabests) could create such a threat as squad of well-trained master thieves or rouges or just bandits. They could slay, kidnap, steal, rape, burn villages+kill the male+take the females with them and so on. Or you could be that villain(criminal lord, razing towns and stealing virgins to add them to your harem and sex them to build army of your offsprings) and NPCs will take quests to kill/catch you.
They could implement different tactics, use ranged weapons and armor.
They are avare, that some day someone WILL come to get them and therefore they`ll be either hiding or constantly changing their location.
Or fortifying like hell.
i cant imagine same amount of threat(and fun) caused by, say... a huge pack of wolves!
one ambusher with a bow and they are dead.
Just like it was in Middle Ages (and, alas, sometimes happens even now) the sapien beings is your main enemy.
Post by: turgidtoupee on September 21, 2010, 04:39:02 am
I'd really like to see a feature where one can choose what race one plays as in fortress mode, similar to adventurer mode. Playing as other races is really interesting, and as long as dwarves are the default (like humans are in adventurer mode) I think it'd stay true to being dwarf fortress. Plus, you could even have a quick start function like in adventurer, where the player's given a site and a team and can just get on with it.
Technically you can already do this; the other races aren't fundamentally different from dwarves, though, even if you mod the hell out of them.
However, not only are other races in fort mode planned to be in the vanilla game at some point, but at that point they should be more different than dwarves and possibly even have unique game mechanics along with them. Excerpts from the old dev page:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Among other things.
I know you can already do this, but it requires changing the entity file. I meant I'd really like some explicit support and a way to do it in-game, cause playing as a different race can add to the experience and make it far more interesting
Post by: kuketski on September 21, 2010, 05:49:15 am
Toady, you`ve fixed bug issue with migration in 0.31.14, but will it still be possible to get other races with immigrants? Like conquering other civ`s towns and citizens in world gen assimilates them? I think, that full-Human squad will be a nice addition to fortress`s military force!
Will you include sexual selection as eugenics and civilizations evolution mechanism(like some dwarves prefer stronger, but shorter mates with red hair and, therefore, their childs will be radhaired, stronger and shorter and they`ll conquer their grace-loving elven friends)?
Post by: Untelligent on September 21, 2010, 05:40:43 pm
Or you could just assign weapons to be coated in whatever via the military menu.
Then to preven poisoning sparring partners, you should be able to set another weapon for training.
We can already tell the dwarves to use different weapons for combat and training.
Post by: James.Denholm on September 21, 2010, 06:09:05 pm
Or you could just assign weapons to be coated in whatever via the military menu.
Then to preven poisoning sparring partners, you should be able to set another weapon for training.
We can already tell the dwarves to use different weapons for combat and training.
Wait, what?
Post by: Untelligent on September 21, 2010, 10:03:16 pm
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on September 23, 2010, 12:11:04 pm
e- yay for [UNDIGGABLE] tag.
Post by: Untelligent on September 23, 2010, 05:48:24 pm
Interesting.
Too bad diggable Hidden Hard Stuff still probably doesn't play nice with the rest of the game.
Post by: zwei on September 24, 2010, 01:31:45 am
Undiggable tag is nice. Doesn't really do anything new though unless you want a really hard rock that you can dig. Or a not-hard rock that you... can't.
On contrary!
Undiggable veins/clusters in normal layers!
Something that can harm your digging operations but also something to foil digging enemies.
I can imagine elaborate scheme where you cave-in several apropriatelly shaped veins to create trully inpenetrable room.
Post by: kuketski on September 24, 2010, 01:56:01 am
hehe...Undiggable tag is nice. Doesn't really do anything new though unless you want a really hard rock that you can dig. Or a not-hard rock that you... can't.
On contrary!
Undiggable veins/clusters in normal layers!
Something that can harm your digging operations but also something to foil digging enemies.
I can imagine elaborate scheme where you cave-in several apropriatelly shaped veins to create trully inpenetrable room.
such perfectly shaped veins requires hellish luck.
Building iron/steel wall will be quicker and more realistic.
Can you imagine building missile silo by cave ins?
steel underground walls is the best way to prevent digging in by the invaders.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on September 24, 2010, 08:19:43 am
I could imagine three variants:
- Overcode all grammatic expressions to be translatable (REALLY hard, REALLY messy)
- Modify a version directly to change the language of all displayed text (then either upgrade all separate language versions or directly abandon the language-modified game)
- Make a "Language" object to insert appropriate names into expressions of the chosen language (best solution, one distribution can support multiple languages)
I would really appreciate any translations, I've got a lot of german friends who would play the heck out of DF if it wasn't English.
Post by: Knight Otu on September 24, 2010, 09:31:16 am
Quote
Core54 TRANSLATION SUPPORT (Future) though current font implementations restrict this process at the moment if non-ASCII characters are to be involved.
Now that true-type support is in, if buggy, the mentioned hurdle could be smaller, actually.
Since most announcements are already identified by a token for the announcement init file, those tokens could be also used for translation files, though many, many other texts would need tokens as well.
So it might look like
[REACHED_PEAK:"Du hast den Gipfel des %PEAK_NAME% erklommen.]
[CREATURE_BLIZZARD_MAN_PREFSTRING_2:eiszapfenartigen Zähne]
The latter does mean that such strings would have to be definable in the raws (so rather than [PREFSTRING:terrifying features], we might have [PREFSTRING:COMMON_PREFSTRING_TERRIFYING]), and that mods would have to be able to provide additional translation files.
Post by: Untelligent on September 24, 2010, 02:23:02 pm
Undiggable tag is nice. Doesn't really do anything new though unless you want a really hard rock that you can dig. Or a not-hard rock that you... can't.
On contrary!
Undiggable veins/clusters in normal layers!
I was trying to imply that I realized this partway through typing my post.
Except partway through typing THIS post I realized that the hardness of an undiggable rock wouldn't matter anyway, so you could put impenetrable rock veins in previous versions too.
Post by: Cruxador on September 24, 2010, 05:08:29 pm
Support for translations was on the old dev pages as well, as part of the presentation arc. Specifically Core 54:The only way I can think that the TrueType implementation would make a difference would be if there was some sort of code that intercepted the text and output a translated version. Causing that to be viable would be a not insignificant amount of work for Baughn, and would have fairly poor results.QuoteCore54 TRANSLATION SUPPORT (Future) though current font implementations restrict this process at the moment if non-ASCII characters are to be involved.
Now that true-type support is in, if buggy, the mentioned hurdle could be smaller, actually.
Since most announcements are already identified by a token for the announcement init file, those tokens could be also used for translation files, though many, many other texts would need tokens as well.
So it might look like
[REACHED_PEAK:"Du hast den Gipfel des %PEAK_NAME% erklommen.]
[CREATURE_BLIZZARD_MAN_PREFSTRING_2:eiszapfenartigen Zähne]
The latter does mean that such strings would have to be definable in the raws (so rather than [PREFSTRING:terrifying features], we might have [PREFSTRING:COMMON_PREFSTRING_TERRIFYING]), and that mods would have to be able to provide additional translation files.
Post by: Sizik on September 24, 2010, 05:41:35 pm
The only way I can think that the TrueType implementation would make a difference would be if there was some sort of code that intercepted the text and output a translated version. Causing that to be viable would be a not insignificant amount of work for Baughn, and would have fairly poor results.
TrueType helps because it allows Unicode characters instead of just being limited to Code Page 437 characters.
Post by: Jacob/Lee on September 24, 2010, 06:34:03 pm
Post by: G-Flex on September 24, 2010, 06:42:18 pm
The only way I can think that the TrueType implementation would make a difference would be if there was some sort of code that intercepted the text and output a translated version. Causing that to be viable would be a not insignificant amount of work for Baughn, and would have fairly poor results.
TrueType helps because it allows Unicode characters instead of just being limited to Code Page 437 characters.
Using real fonts also allows them to be rendered sanely at arbitrary resolutions (to a reasonable degree), as well as not having to rely on fixed-width bitmaps.
Post by: Eduren on September 25, 2010, 01:08:18 am
Post by: Caldfir on September 27, 2010, 12:28:43 pm
Speaking of which, is anybody running the TrueType fonts normally, and if so, which fonts do you suggest?
I've been running with Arial - downside is that I'm missing many special characters. Upside is that text is easy to read and my wall-ends are no longer 'O's. Haven't really run into anything buggy with it - it isn't fully implemented for everything, but that's incompleteness of the project, not an issue with implementation.
Post by: Accelerator on September 28, 2010, 09:44:44 am
Speaking of which, is anybody running the TrueType fonts normally, and if so, which fonts do you suggest?
I've been running with Arial - downside is that I'm missing many special characters. Upside is that text is easy to read and my wall-ends are no longer 'O's. Haven't really run into anything buggy with it - it isn't fully implemented for everything, but that's incompleteness of the project, not an issue with implementation.
I've been using Liberation Sans - it's designed with the same metrics as Arial, is free to distribute, and supposedly includes all codepage 437 characters. In practice there are still a few symbols missing, most notably the upper case Gamma / weight symbol.
Post by: Eduren on September 28, 2010, 01:11:54 pm
Post by: Vox Nihili on September 29, 2010, 02:50:48 pm
Edit: Both have been addressed.
Post by: rex mortis on September 30, 2010, 10:18:03 am
Post by: helf on September 30, 2010, 10:25:38 am
Speaking of which, is anybody running the TrueType fonts normally, and if so, which fonts do you suggest?
People are posting fonts they have tried here - http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=67112.0
Post by: Eduren on September 30, 2010, 01:05:09 pm
Thanks.Speaking of which, is anybody running the TrueType fonts normally, and if so, which fonts do you suggest?
People are posting fonts they have tried here - http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=67112.0
Post by: Medicine Man on October 01, 2010, 08:22:53 am
Post by: The Architect on October 01, 2010, 10:17:34 am
It's one of those words which is defined only by what it is not.
Post by: Orkel on October 01, 2010, 10:45:26 am
Post by: Jacob/Lee on October 01, 2010, 07:34:46 pm
Toady please, before you start fully on adventure mode, throw in a quick fix to the soldiers equipping only 1 boot or 1 glove and leaving the other limb unprotected, usually happens when they upgrade their shit. It's gotten so many dwarves killed in combat it's not even funny, and I bet it could be fixed pretty easily.I got this earlier today, my adamantine
Post by: Dame de la Licorne on October 01, 2010, 08:30:36 pm
Toady please, before you start fully on adventure mode, throw in a quick fix to the soldiers equipping only 1 boot or 1 glove and leaving the other limb unprotected, usually happens when they upgrade their shit. It's gotten so many dwarves killed in combat it's not even funny, and I bet it could be fixed pretty easily.
While you're at it, would it be possible to make dwarves wear their claimed clothes again? Having civilians who aren't wearing any shoes in spite of owning them (and soldiers lacking footwear on one foot) step in forgotten beast *something-or-other* and get poisoned has killed far too many of my forts. And since it isn't something that can currently be avoided (especially with the current infinitely-expanding blood bug) except by keeping titans completely away from the fort... I'd really appreciate that fix. Please?
Post by: Untelligent on October 01, 2010, 10:16:12 pm
Post by: Dame de la Licorne on October 02, 2010, 09:38:14 am
Regarding posting bug reports in this thread: if they're on the bug tracker and well-tagged, Toady will get to it when he gets to it. You don't see me complaining about liquid glob breath attacks coming out solid.
Point taken. My apologies.
Post by: Orkel on October 02, 2010, 10:17:05 am
Toady please, before you start fully on adventure mode, throw in a quick fix to the soldiers equipping only 1 boot or 1 glove and leaving the other limb unprotected, usually happens when they upgrade their shit. It's gotten so many dwarves killed in combat it's not even funny, and I bet it could be fixed pretty easily.I got this earlier today, my adamantinecansdwarves were wearing one gauntlet only. One sorrycandwarf got his shield hand cut off by goblins, then got stabbed in the throat because he couldn't block the spear, because he lost his shield. He died shortly after.
Yes, that is exactly what I mean, it's not a "fun" bug, it's a military-crippling bug that should go in .15 (new devlog says toady started on some bugfixes) so PLEASE let this fix be one of them!
Regarding posting bug reports in this thread: if they're on the bug tracker and well-tagged, Toady will get to it when he gets to it. You don't see me complaining about liquid glob breath attacks coming out solid.
but I was under the impression that this thread was for talking of anything related to future versions :<
Post by: tfaal on October 02, 2010, 10:48:40 am
Post by: lastofthelight on October 02, 2010, 11:11:42 am
Toady, your awesome, and you've created a wonderful game. Someday, when I have money and am not borderline homeless because my physics and astrophysics degrees were as useless as an English degree, I will give you lots.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 02, 2010, 11:13:24 am
Post by: Gentle Manne on October 03, 2010, 12:23:30 pm
Toady, your awesome, and you've created a wonderful game. Someday, when I have money and am not borderline homeless because my physics and astrophysics degrees were as useless as an English degree, I will give you lots.
I can relate to that. Toady deserves my money, but I don't have any. ;_;
Post by: tfaal on October 03, 2010, 05:31:11 pm
Post by: Untelligent on October 04, 2010, 10:37:39 am
Quote
Finally there are some new refuse pile options (skulls, bones, shells, horns/hooves, teeth).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs
Post by: Haspen on October 04, 2010, 01:23:15 pm
QuoteFinally there are some new refuse pile options (skulls, bones, shells, horns/hooves, teeth).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs
There's a 'YES' backwards in the video url and it's another reason to laugh at this.
Post by: Flaede on October 04, 2010, 02:31:35 pm
Quote
Finally there are some new refuse pile options (skulls, bones, shells, horns/hooves, teeth).
WOOHOO! such a little thing. Such a big difference in gameplay.
Post by: Quatch on October 05, 2010, 11:45:24 am
I ask, because 2010 is coming to an end, and the wiki still refers to DF2010 as the current version as a placeholder until such time as Toady decides on a name for the current version.
(Personally, I prefer and use DF31, and prepending DF to the older 28a and 40d, but I can understand the confusion that would come from random numbers. Not that one more bit of uncommon confusion would kill the average DF player.)
Post by: freeformschooler on October 05, 2010, 12:00:40 pm
Now that 31.x has been out awhile, what should we call this new version level?
I ask, because 2010 is coming to an end, and the wiki still refers to DF2010 as the current version as a placeholder until such time as Toady decides on a name for the current version.
(Personally, I prefer and use DF31, and prepending DF to the older 28a and 40d, but I can understand the confusion that would come from random numbers. Not that one more bit of uncommon confusion would kill the average DF player.)
It may be a minor thing but I share your query. Maybe just 31.x like most people call it?
Post by: monk12 on October 05, 2010, 07:11:47 pm
Now that 31.x has been out awhile, what should we call this new version level?
I ask, because 2010 is coming to an end, and the wiki still refers to DF2010 as the current version as a placeholder until such time as Toady decides on a name for the current version.
(Personally, I prefer and use DF31, and prepending DF to the older 28a and 40d, but I can understand the confusion that would come from random numbers. Not that one more bit of uncommon confusion would kill the average DF player.)
It may be a minor thing but I share your query. Maybe just 31.x like most people call it?
The Age of Healthcare
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on October 05, 2010, 07:12:22 pm
EDIT: Beast, not Beats.
Post by: tfaal on October 05, 2010, 07:58:13 pm
Post by: Flaede on October 05, 2010, 09:01:24 pm
Why not call it DF2010? That was the date of the first 31 release, after all.
or 201X?
Post by: Eduren on October 05, 2010, 09:50:16 pm
Post by: Urist McMick on October 06, 2010, 04:06:47 am
Post by: Nivim on October 06, 2010, 10:46:12 am
Post by: tfaal on October 06, 2010, 01:56:13 pm
Post by: Medicine Man on October 06, 2010, 08:45:18 pm
Post by: Sizik on October 06, 2010, 11:32:49 pm
Post by: Toady One on October 07, 2010, 03:08:09 am
I just noticed that curses_800x600.png is back to regular size, with 10x12 tiles instead of 10x24. Yay.
Of course, this appears to be causing trouble in the release thread. Not sure what's up yet, or if I can fix it myself.
Post by: Sphalerite on October 07, 2010, 08:06:30 am
I've also noticed when I gen worlds now that I see a lot of thousand year long wars, that start early in world history and then never end. This is probably a result of the way entity populations are handled now.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on October 07, 2010, 08:36:42 am
People should be able to responsibly dump and undump items, even above ground, which is currently not working.
Edit: Problem solved.
Post by: Sphalerite on October 07, 2010, 08:44:23 am
Can you remove the below ground condition on items designated to dump?Go to your (o)rders screen and enable outdoor refuse collection.
People should be able to responsibly dump and undump items, even above ground, which is currently not working.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on October 07, 2010, 09:25:59 am
Edit: Wait, that was not what I meant. I need dwarves to dump (not refuse-stockpile) outdoor stuff.
Please?
Post by: scriver on October 07, 2010, 10:31:54 am
Many thanks.You need to have outdoors refuse collecting enabled in order to be able to dump outdoors stuff.
Edit: Wait, that was not what I meant. I need dwarves to dump (not refuse-stockpile) outdoor stuff.
Please?
Post by: MagmaMcFry on October 07, 2010, 10:35:30 am
Post by: Quatch on October 07, 2010, 10:37:54 am
Post by: tfaal on October 07, 2010, 11:45:13 am
EDIT: Hey Toady, are you planning on removing the superhuman attributes for adventurers any time soon? Since we're going to have some less fearsome opponents in the near future, it would be cool if they were still a challenge.
Post by: scriver on October 08, 2010, 06:50:33 am
Quote from: Toady
There will also be some night creature additions for dwarf mode which might work better as surprises, he he he
However, Toady, you need to work at that evil laugh of yours. ;)
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 08, 2010, 06:58:07 am
Will randomisation tags make it into the Raws with next version? Half-random nasties would actually be neat.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on October 08, 2010, 07:15:49 am
Because dwarves seeing imaginary fiends of crystal glass is so much fun in the middle of an HFS invasion.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 08, 2010, 07:29:00 am
Post by: Knight Otu on October 08, 2010, 07:36:03 am
Yep work on it get a bit more manic with a teaspoon of madness and then add this to the next df-talk :PThat's unlikely, unfortunately. Toady mentioned the possibility of random dragons in the raws (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=59642.msg1387951#msg1387951), but it would be more scripts than tags.
Will randomisation tags make it into the Raws with next version? Half-random nasties would actually be neat.
Post by: zwei on October 08, 2010, 07:40:48 am
Yep work on it get a bit more manic with a teaspoon of madness and then add this to the next df-talk :P
Will randomisation tags make it into the Raws with next version? Half-random nasties would actually be neat.
World where dragonds do not have fire breath!
World where elves come to snatch children!
World where fungiwood is as hard as rock and can be used to make mechanisms and thrones!
Post by: MagmaMcFry on October 08, 2010, 07:42:21 am
Because dwarves seeing imaginary fiends of crystal glass is so much fun in the middle of an HFS invasion.Wait a moment, I just got a fantastic idea regarding hallucinations:
Pointy McSword slashes Gruesome McBeast in the neck!
Royal McMajesty has bled to death.
Hallucinations could involve seeing enemies in arbitrary creatures.
Post by: monk12 on October 08, 2010, 11:35:41 am
Post by: tfaal on October 08, 2010, 11:42:31 am
Post by: Eduren on October 08, 2010, 12:00:48 pm
Post by: G-Flex on October 08, 2010, 12:50:48 pm
I understand the difficulty of transferring wounds after transformation, but transferring equipment seems like it should be a simple matter of "Does the new creature have the part this was equipped on? If not, drop the item, if so, equip it." Is there some intricacy I'm missing here?
What if the part is bigger/smaller, or has different parts coming off of it, or isn't shaped the same?
Post by: thvaz on October 08, 2010, 01:21:33 pm
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on October 08, 2010, 01:24:20 pm
I understand the difficulty of transferring wounds after transformation, but transferring equipment seems like it should be a simple matter of "Does the new creature have the part this was equipped on? If not, drop the item, if so, equip it." Is there some intricacy I'm missing here?
What if the part is bigger/smaller, or has different parts coming off of it, or isn't shaped the same?
Body Horror, or change the armor to fit, or break the armor.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 08, 2010, 02:27:10 pm
The Transformation stuff sounds awesome. Oh try to remember this one story of Threetoe with the Satyrs turning to "foul Blendecs". With the transformation code it could actually work ;) .
Also could we get non-monstrous stuff to create Monsters like this? It would be fitting around spherical lands where people can get "lost".
Post by: vogonpoet on October 08, 2010, 03:07:03 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on October 08, 2010, 04:19:32 pm
Also could we get non-monstrous stuff to create Monsters like this? It would be fitting around spherical lands where people can get "lost".Toady did mention that we'd get tags for night creature behaviors. I kind of wonder if, and if so, how, they might work for entity creatures.
Post by: tfaal on October 08, 2010, 04:46:10 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on October 08, 2010, 05:10:57 pm
Post by: Sowelu on October 08, 2010, 07:40:38 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 08, 2010, 08:10:47 pm
Post by: Areyar on October 08, 2010, 08:24:01 pm
Obviously it would be much cooler if transformations (like werewolves in moonlight or Jekyll/Hyde) would take place without swapping (in)to a new entity and having clothes be torn to shreds etc as the body morphes. :D
edit: oh, Tfaal beat me to it. ;) I'd think the transformation process is violent enough to make any minor injuries an afterthought. In fact, in many horror stories/RPGs a transformation heals all wounds. Changing to a bat and back would be a viable healing option for vampires, if not for the short period of disorientation. (also turning into vapour is a more certain escape option...unless they brought fire). :p
*TURNS INTO a BATMAN* "Jabbering jinkies!"
Post by: Dante on October 08, 2010, 08:57:40 pm
Quote from: devlog
This has also lead to our first remarriages as the partner left behind in the village can move on, and the trolls themselves dump their transformed spouse once their troll child reaches adulthood.I am excited for the prospects of more complex dwarf mode relationships being built on this.
Also excited for when transformed-creatures-able-to-transform-creatures goes in, and worldgen turns absolutely everyone into monsters due to exponential growth.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 08, 2010, 09:01:27 pm
Well not all transformations heal and there where examples of body horror where the transforming person felt its bones breaking for new joints and its heart stopping to beat for a time. For insects like butterflies its not that important if they are injured since they reabsorb theyr flesh anyway so a small group of stemcells within the caterpillars body can grow into the butterfly. By modding that works too irc. you can set a certain bodypart to size 0 until it gets a growthspurt.
Also who else thought on "The beauty and the beast" as you were reading the dev-blog?
Also could we get non-monstrous stuff to create Monsters like this? It would be fitting around spherical lands where people can get "lost".Toady did mention that we'd get tags for night creature behaviors. I kind of wonder if, and if so, how, they might work for entity creatures.
I was thinking more along the lines of curses onto a specific spot (say from a witch which was burned out of superstition) that turns a entire village in Nightcreaturish things or certain certain circumstances in a spherical land turning you into one - say Rorec McHuman tuning into a Bear after eating the wrong fruit/animal.
Bug prediction: FBs and or titans will by glitch use the same reproducing rules as the Nighters which ends with a family of *big spiders made of fire with steel feathers which mutter the names of theyr victims. Beware of its webs.* things inviting themselves to your fort.
Btw can FB and demonwebs be harvested for silk? If yes how much are they worth?
Post by: Toastergargletop on October 08, 2010, 09:19:34 pm
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on October 08, 2010, 09:19:58 pm
Quote
Btw can FB and demonwebs be harvested for silk? If yes how much are they worth?Yes, value 1.
Post by: monk12 on October 08, 2010, 10:03:02 pm
Toady; please don't have Trolls as one of the names of the new night creatures, these creatures don't fit the modern definition of trolls, and instead seem more like changelings. Or will it be possibke to modify the name myself?
Allow me to entertain and educate you! Edutainment!
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AllTrollsAreDifferent
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on October 08, 2010, 10:07:44 pm
Post by: Skid on October 08, 2010, 10:40:12 pm
Allow me to entertain and educate you! Edutainment!I'd call you a monster for posting that, but I've already read that one, so, meh.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AllTrollsAreDifferent
In other news, this news of random trolls sounds like loads of fun.
Post by: veok on October 08, 2010, 10:43:02 pm
QuoteBtw can FB and demonwebs be harvested for silk? If yes how much are they worth?Yes, value 1.
Which is the same value as cave spider / phantom spider silk, I think (since they have no value multiplier)
Post by: Untelligent on October 09, 2010, 12:00:02 am
"Back, foul spawn of the abyss! I have microcline!"
Post by: Fieari on October 09, 2010, 12:21:09 am
I'm thinking it would also be fantastic if people had different ways of mourning the loss of a loved one to transformation, and how that would effect the quests you'd be given. Some would want their transformed spouse killed (That's not my husband, that's the thing that killed my husband. Kill it for me!") while some might be unable to let go and long to be reunited, probably to the point of getting killed, while others might insist on setting you on a quest to find some cure (that probably won't actually work)...
Post by: Bryan Derksen on October 09, 2010, 01:54:45 am
Also who else thought on "The beauty and the beast" as you were reading the dev-blog?
IMO the Nightcreature transformation is even more interesting and tragic if the victim does remember his old life, at least to some degree. Perhaps an adventurer might find one who remembers enough to give an adventurer information or even a quest. Perhaps a Nightcreature might take it upon itself to defend its old home, even if the inhabitants would flee in terror from it or shoot it on sight. Or it might decide to destroy its old home to expunge the painful memories.
Toady, is it planned for it to be possible for Nightcreatures to sometimes retain a connection to their original lives beyond just history trivia? Perhaps enough to allow conversation, perhaps just enough to bias its actions regarding people or civilizations it used to know?
Post by: Deon on October 09, 2010, 02:29:06 am
Post by: Cruxador on October 09, 2010, 03:30:36 am
Toady; please don't have Trolls as one of the names of the new night creatures, these creatures don't fit the modern definition of trolls, and instead seem more like changelings. Or will it be possibke to modify the name myself?The modern definition of a troll is a person who posts things on the internet to cause trouble. Either that, or just some sort of roughly humanoid critter that's mostly solitary and doesn't look like normal folks. Often they eat people or kidnap children or both. Often they're evil or mischievous. Often they have some form of magic.
Those are the only real constants.
The night creatures thus far added are entirely unlike changelings. I would be very pleased to see the fair folk and their kin in Dwarf Fortress, but the Night Creature system, as it has thus far been developed, is not suited to that purpose. Of course, it's only just been started, it's quite possible that it'll be suitable before too long.
Post by: Deon on October 09, 2010, 04:36:57 am
The modern definition of a trollThanks for the laugh :).
Post by: cephalo on October 09, 2010, 11:31:29 am
Post by: FuzzyDoom on October 09, 2010, 12:05:38 pm
Hah, the new "night creature transformation", if there's an ability to make more than one "mate" through modding, will bring us a long-wanted ability to make real zombie mods! :D
...
...
...
I love you. Will we see "Deon's Zombie Madness Mod" in the future?
*Goes off to think about zombies in DF*
Post by: Untelligent on October 09, 2010, 12:24:45 pm
I suppose that in order to have night creatures, you have to first have night. Is it yet possible to determine when 'night' is in DF?
Yep, you can tell the weather and rough time of day in Adventurer mode.
Post by: Shadowfury333 on October 09, 2010, 01:20:54 pm
I would be very pleased to see the fair folk and their kin in Dwarf Fortress
How are the elves not this? Admittedly, they don't do any babysnatching nor try to mind control dwarves with their charm, but they are still thin, prissy, wood-using cannibals (who try to mind control players with their charm).
Post by: MagmaMcFry on October 09, 2010, 01:39:39 pm
I would be very pleased to see the fair folk and their kin in Dwarf FortressWith "fair folk", you surely mean
Post by: Fieari on October 09, 2010, 02:36:58 pm
is it planned for it to be possible for Nightcreatures to sometimes retain a connection to their original lives beyond just history trivia? Perhaps enough to allow conversation, perhaps just enough to bias its actions regarding people or civilizations it used to know?
I think it's okay for hags to completely forget about their past. On the other hand, werewolves are particularly nasty in some readings because they DO remember relationships, and will hunt and eat those that it had a strong connection to (either love or hate). More tragic are those who are only partially transformed... for they remember, still love, but fear being remembered in their hideous appearance.
As long as all three types of memory are supported, I'll be happy. Let hags/trolls forget entirely, werewolves remember and devour, and something else remember and regret.
In all three cases, of course, the human family should remember the one changed. Perhaps they don't know exactly what happened, but they'll know he/she is gone missing (or suspect something is going wrong for a werewolf).
Post by: Cruxador on October 09, 2010, 04:44:22 pm
Elves may be cannibalistic forest-dwellers, but when it comes right down to it, they're just an odd sort of folks. Fairies would have their rules and pacts and stories, and would have all sorts of forms based on thought and they'd go into folks' dreams and all that. They'd also have their palaces and lodges and kingdoms, which you can only enter by going through a certain door at a certain time, and all that other fun stuff.I would be very pleased to see the fair folk and their kin in Dwarf Fortress
How are the elves not this? Admittedly, they don't do any babysnatching nor try to mind control dwarves with their charm, but they are still thin, prissy, wood-using cannibals (who try to mind control players with their charm).
I suppose a full implementation of them would be a considerable amount of work with little other yield, but considering the weirdness that Toady can get in other areas, often without even meaning to, it would probably be quite rewarding.
Post by: Bryan Derksen on October 09, 2010, 07:00:13 pm
As long as all three types of memory are supported, I'll be happy. Let hags/trolls forget entirely, werewolves remember and devour, and something else remember and regret.
As will I. Indeed, having all three of them supported makes for better stories than any one by itself, since you won't necessarily know which one is operative when you set out to deal with the half-human beast that's been seen skulking around the outskirts of town. :)
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 09, 2010, 07:48:24 pm
Post by: Shadowfury333 on October 09, 2010, 08:18:25 pm
Elves may be cannibalistic forest-dwellers, but when it comes right down to it, they're just an odd sort of folks. Fairies would have their rules and pacts and stories, and would have all sorts of forms based on thought and they'd go into folks' dreams and all that. They'd also have their palaces and lodges and kingdoms, which you can only enter by going through a certain door at a certain time, and all that other fun stuff.
Okay, fair enough. I typically associate the term fair folk with elves, and not so much fairies, but I see your point.
Post by: Rockphed on October 09, 2010, 09:56:45 pm
Some people might even choose to become night creatures for one reason or another.
Depending on what the transformation does, I expect some players out to genocide the world will seek it out. Though with my luck, if I tried, I would end up in a relationship with a creature that feeds its mate to its child. Wouldn't that be !!FUN!!
Post by: Cruxador on October 10, 2010, 12:10:01 am
The distinction between fairies and elves is pretty vague in the first place. Elves, when they're not the skinny woodsy folks we hear about these days, are basically just fae things of a certain physical shape and a tendency to value beauty. "Fairies" is just a etymological variant of "Fair folk", when it's not used to mean those little flower people with butterfly wings. I think we should eventually have all sorts of fae beings, regardless of their physical build. Of course, physical build is pretty significant in DF, but fairies can be generated randomly. Actually, come to think of it, most of their behaviors should be pretty easy to model; they could be in the game in a very limited fashion pretty soon. But hidden places and dream stuff might be incompatible with the way the worlds are modeled for the foreseeable future.Elves may be cannibalistic forest-dwellers, but when it comes right down to it, they're just an odd sort of folks. Fairies would have their rules and pacts and stories, and would have all sorts of forms based on thought and they'd go into folks' dreams and all that. They'd also have their palaces and lodges and kingdoms, which you can only enter by going through a certain door at a certain time, and all that other fun stuff.
Okay, fair enough. I typically associate the term fair folk with elves, and not so much fairies, but I see your point.
Post by: Bryan Derksen on October 10, 2010, 12:12:24 am
Some people might even choose to become night creatures for one reason or another.
Depending on what the transformation does, I expect some players out to genocide the world will seek it out. Though with my luck, if I tried, I would end up in a relationship with a creature that feeds its mate to its child. Wouldn't that be !!FUN!!
Or one that has unexpected sexual dimorphism. With Nightcreature properties we could mod in the full life cycle of Dragon Age's Darkspawn. :)
First day, they come and catch everyone...
Post by: Rexfelum on October 10, 2010, 12:14:55 am
Hah, the new "night creature transformation", if there's an ability to make more than one "mate" through modding, will bring us a long-wanted ability to make real zombie mods!
I love you. Will we see "Deon's Zombie Madness Mod" in the future?
*Goes off to think about zombies in DF*
My fiancée has suggested "Resident Evil: The Short Version."
Get it? Get it?
--Rexfelum
Post by: Neonivek on October 10, 2010, 12:50:14 am
I better ask Toady about that later, but for now I am not going to add to his workload :P (Self-imposed limitation on how many questions I can ask Toady in betwee answer sessions)
Post by: Untelligent on October 10, 2010, 01:05:50 am
Post by: Neonivek on October 10, 2010, 01:08:45 am
Yeah, I suspected that the night creatures arc might even see some of the first few forays into the good/evil region expansion.
Hopefully with the potential where entire cities and civilisations can be converted to monsterism.
Post by: Cruxador on October 10, 2010, 01:21:52 am
It seems unlikely to me, at least at first. That's not what Night Creatures are for, thematically. Though the possible link between night creatures and goblins (just based on the old stories) might indicate some sort of potential there.Yeah, I suspected that the night creatures arc might even see some of the first few forays into the good/evil region expansion.
Hopefully with the potential where entire cities and civilisations can be converted to monsterism.
Post by: Neonivek on October 10, 2010, 01:22:52 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 10, 2010, 01:56:12 am
Post by: Neonivek on October 10, 2010, 02:08:12 am
sadly that happen atm only in wg.
wg... wg...
Wicked Games!?!
Dang I knew I should have delt with them earlier and their wicked game creating abilities.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 10, 2010, 03:48:34 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 10, 2010, 05:56:44 am
I don't have a problem with seeing trolls and dwarves coexisting as different creatures, but their existence in mythology is not contemporary to each other. maybe trolls could be called ogres, instead, the word ogre simply designates a man-eating, virgin-devouring, or child-eating monster in fairy tales and carries no other etymological, religious or mythological connotations.
Post by: Untelligent on October 10, 2010, 12:48:28 pm
'course, I doubt it'll be the only name for them. Kinda like how the current HFS names can be a whole bunch of different things.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Neonivek on October 10, 2010, 06:28:04 pm
Heck get Greek mythology alone and the inconsistancies will be so great you might go insane.
Post by: Urist McDepravity on October 10, 2010, 11:37:43 pm
Post by: Cruxador on October 11, 2010, 12:31:20 am
Trying to have a mythologically correct setting in just about ANY setting is practically impossible.Not really. You underestimate the resilience of sanity, and the degree to which people care about inconsistency. Also, with Toady's randomness, everything can be consistent with any of the stories, though each set of general themes requires its own work.
Heck get Greek mythology alone and the inconsistancies will be so great you might go insane.
Hmm, didn't DF have trolls already as goblin's minions tho? I'm sure I saw these during sieges and wild ones in underground.Yep. Perhaps they will be replaced by night creatures. I'd not be sad to see it happen.
Post by: Neonivek on October 11, 2010, 02:09:43 am
Quote
Not really. You underestimate the resilience of sanity, and the degree to which people care about inconsistency
What not really? Your not making any sense given the scenario not only requires someone to care about the inconsistancies but attempt to do something accurately.
So in what way isn't attempting to accurately put something together that in it of its very nature cannot be put together accurately not a sign of insanity?
Sheesh man :P
Don't go messin with my statements Cruxador :P
(which of course is possibly the most polite way for me to respond to someone who basically just up and went "No one cares")
Post by: Cruxador on October 11, 2010, 03:21:38 am
Conveying something accurately would maintain inconsistencies. Accuracy is not inherently mutually inclusive with consistency. In this particular instance (that is, with regards to mythology) people who are heavily interested in the base subject are clearly okay with some amount of inconsistency.QuoteNot really. You underestimate the resilience of sanity, and the degree to which people care about inconsistency
What not really? Your not making any sense given the scenario not only requires someone to care about the inconsistancies but attempt to do something accurately.
So in what way isn't attempting to accurately put something together that in it of its very nature cannot be put together accurately not a sign of insanity?
Sheesh man :P
Don't go messin with my statements Cruxador :P
(which of course is possibly the most polite way for me to respond to someone who basically just up and went "No one cares")
However, in this case there is a broad window for any given thing wherein an implementation could be considered accurate. Because of the possibility of random elements, the implementation can be broadened such that it fills a greater portion of that window. However, the most important part is themes. That's what mythology is about. The themes that convey ideas or attitudes or whatever it happens to be. Again, there's a bit of a window, but there's not much by way of inconsistency there, and if the implementation is accurate to the themes, everything tends to work out well.
My apologies if my statement seemed offensive to you.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 11, 2010, 05:12:11 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 11, 2010, 10:35:00 am
edit: outgrowing bones might need another mode "Non-existent" apart from size because even on size 0 stuff isdisplayed and target-able right? Also make eggs somehow dropable like items for itemcorpse. Hmmm such an egg code would work for living births too just grow the uterus by some degree andthen plant an embryo hat lowly develops bones etc.
edit3: Are Night-creatures influenced by spherical places? Like a dusk-ogres that happens to be in a fertility sphere being more lusty and fertile?
Post by: KillerClowns on October 11, 2010, 01:10:04 pm
Quote from: Dev Log
dwarf mode has received its first night creature blessing as well. Proper burial is now somewhat more encouraged.Now that's just plain ominous.
Post by: Knight Otu on October 11, 2010, 01:30:42 pm
I actually thought on eggs (Df talk 10 - go listen to it guys and maids) a bit. Make them a "living" creature but unmoving creature. You start with yolk, white and shell. Reduce the the white and yolk and substitute that by outgrowing bones etc. over time. After all squishi stuff is gone detach the shell and let the Creature break free like big creatures from a cage. The detach mechanism might also be usefull for antlers etc. A egg shouldnt though turn into egg corpse if its not fertilized, cooked or whatever.That would be a good groundwork for life cycles in general, for proper insects and all, but I feel it might be better if eggs were items. Otherwise we're kind of creating exceptions to certain rules that probably don't need to exist. For example, an egg item would be immediately cookable and eatable, no need to butcher. If we're treating eggs as vermin, then the vermin eating code might get in the way again.
On the other hand, some life cycle states like cocoons are kind of like eggs too - would that involve creatures turning into items, and then back into creatures?
Post by: Orkel on October 11, 2010, 01:32:48 pm
Quote from: Dev Logdwarf mode has received its first night creature blessing as well. Proper burial is now somewhat more encouraged.Now that's just plain ominous.
Zombies? In MY dwarf fortress?
Post by: Armok on October 11, 2010, 02:13:58 pm
On the other hand, some life cycle states like cocoons are kind of like eggs too - would that involve creatures turning into items, and then back into creatures?With separate "souls" existing and being tieable to items, it's not as bad as it sounds.
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 11, 2010, 02:58:01 pm
Do you guys suppose night creature bones will be worth more than regular goblin bones?
Post by: Dante on October 11, 2010, 03:23:31 pm
It's more likely than you'd thAAAAAARGH MY SKULL OH GOD ITS GOT MY EYEBALLS . . .Quote from: Dev Logdwarf mode has received its first night creature blessing as well. Proper burial is now somewhat more encouraged.Now that's just plain ominous.
Zombies? In MY dwarf fortress?
Post by: Neonivek on October 11, 2010, 03:38:46 pm
Quote
My apologies if my statement seemed offensive to you
Apology accepted.
----------------------
Hmmmm I am thinking of working on my next suggestion. The suggestion is that Fake Gods should be created as World Gen goes on rather then entirely immediately at the start. Gods could be modeled after cities (similar to the Greek Gods), Heros, Kings, or virtues that civilisation holds dear.
Also each little village has a warlord? Goodness DF is secretly the world of Xena
Post by: Untelligent on October 11, 2010, 05:23:42 pm
Also each little village has a warlord? Goodness DF is secretly the world of Xena
Makes sense to me. If a village doesn't have a warlord, it's just going to get steamrolled by a neighbor that does.
Post by: scriver on October 11, 2010, 05:57:44 pm
Pffft, a village shouldn't be able to support more than a squabble-chief at most :PAlso each little village has a warlord? Goodness DF is secretly the world of Xena
Makes sense to me. If a village doesn't have a warlord, it's just going to get steamrolled by a neighbor that does.
Post by: Neonivek on October 11, 2010, 08:24:05 pm
Pffft, a village shouldn't be able to support more than a squabble-chief at most :PAlso each little village has a warlord? Goodness DF is secretly the world of Xena
Makes sense to me. If a village doesn't have a warlord, it's just going to get steamrolled by a neighbor that does.
Yeah that is the whole point of Nobles. The entire countryside pay to support the Lord who in turn supplies the Country side with Soldiers.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 11, 2010, 08:45:45 pm
Post by: Toady One on October 12, 2010, 01:26:37 am
Quote from: kuketski
Do you plan on enabling wedding in adventurer mode?
It's not a short term goal, but we'd like to add that sort of thing, yeah. I believe I threatened a random poetry generator at some point.
Quote from: Doombell
As I believe one of the goals you have mentioned was multi-tile/z-level trees, what is the chance that such trees could be major geographical features, such as (elven?) sites, or even entire biomes, if you go with Pryan's mountain-high trees?
I doubt they'd be super super big at first -- probably limited to 48x48 tiles in their total expanse including the crown just because of how the map loader works. I'm all for getting into exotic biomes at some point though, and it would be cool to have giant trees or backs of world beasts and stuff.
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady right now the game doesn't handle variety well. Both in variety in Civilisations and especially in variety in animals (Probably one of the major contributors to the collapse of the Arc project). Is there any plans/ideas to rectify this problem so Dwarf Fortress can handle expansive lists of creatures, races, and civilisation types in a way that is pleasing and functional?
I haven't tried to add a zillion stock creatures yet, though even with the stock creatures the stockpile lists are clunky, and I don't know what issues come up with having lots of civ types, so I'm not really sure what needs to be done.
Quote from: rex mortis
When can we expect to get wilderness populations to regenerate? I want to attempt to a fortress heavily based on hunting but one eventually runs out of game.
It's part of the hunting section up on the dev page. I imagine we'll get to that before too long, but we didn't want to sink time into tracking for this release.
Quote from: Medicine Man
When a justice system is put into the game, will the town's religion have impact on the justice? I could imagine a religion of love letting you off with a warning but a religion of chaos burying you waste deep in a murky pool so the rain would drown you.
It probably won't matter at first, but I imagine it'll come up, or that the religions will influence the civ ethics at least.
Quote from: tfaal
Are invasion forces now drawn from the invading nation's entity populations, or are they still spawned ex nihilo? Assuming the later, how soon is this expected to be rectified?
The villages don't maintain their populations yet once world generation is over, so I haven't been drawing from them yet. I don't have a timeline for it. A quick breeding algorithm can be tossed in and computed yearly or something, but I might wait for site resources.
Quote from: Quatch
Now that 31.x has been out awhile, what should we call this new version level?
I've just been calling it 0.31.x in text or "31 x"/"the 31 x series of releases" when speaking. I know that's confusing with references to 40d, but the random animals and stuff are just as confusing to me (Tiger before Leopard but after Panther, Vista before 7 but after XP, and so on). The 40d thing is unfortunate, but we'll just have to work toward getting the main version number up to 41, he he he.
Quote from: Medicine Man
Will there be a reputation system put in?
Yeah, the next release will have something like this. There has been one for years, but it is clunky.
Quote from: tfaal
Hey Toady, are you planning on removing the superhuman attributes for adventurers any time soon? Since we're going to have some less fearsome opponents in the near future, it would be cool if they were still a challenge.
The attributes depend on the skills you pick, and we want people to be able to play heroes if they want, especially while there is little opportunity to become more talented over long periods of time. It'll probably stay the same until there's more to do, but yeah, we're working toward making that feasible. You might still want your attributes when you get caught outside for the time being, he he he.
Quote from: Heph
Will randomisation tags make it into the Raws with next version? Half-random nasties would actually be neat.
The forgotten beast-style stuff is still hard-coded. It's a large project to get them out, and I still don't know how I'm going to do it.
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris
There have been suggestions for a CE_HALLUCINATIONS syndrome effect that sporadically causes dwarves to be interrupted by nonexistant creatures. Is this going to happen at some point, and if so, will this be used by phantom spiders, which currently lack venom?
I mentioned hallucinations before and talked about them a bit (don't remember where), but I don't have particular plans. Dunno what's going to happen to phantom spiders either. It'll probably be something new, anyway.
Quote from: Heph
Also could we get non-monstrous stuff to create Monsters like this? It would be fitting around spherical lands where people can get "lost".
...
I was thinking more along the lines of curses onto a specific spot (say from a witch which was burned out of superstition) that turns a entire village in Nightcreaturish things or certain certain circumstances in a spherical land turning you into one - say Rorec McHuman tuning into a Bear after eating the wrong fruit/animal.
The doors are opening for this kind of thing now. Once I get syndromes or however the particular critters work to effect transformations, then more will be possible, and things like syndromey food and drink will take it further once that's possible. Depending on the night creatures I do, we'll have the effects for this release or not -- the current transformations didn't use them, though they set part of the framework for them.
Quote
Quote from: FieariToady, this is important to know: You said that the transformed creature no longer cares about their former lives, and ignore previous familiar relationships. Does the still human spouse care? They better...
I'm thinking it would also be fantastic if people had different ways of mourning the loss of a loved one to transformation, and how that would effect the quests you'd be given. Some would want their transformed spouse killed (That's not my husband, that's the thing that killed my husband. Kill it for me!") while some might be unable to let go and long to be reunited, probably to the point of getting killed, while others might insist on setting you on a quest to find some cure (that probably won't actually work)...Quote from: Bryan DerksenToady, is it planned for it to be possible for Nightcreatures to sometimes retain a connection to their original lives beyond just history trivia? Perhaps enough to allow conversation, perhaps just enough to bias its actions regarding people or civilizations it used to know?
They care as much as people that have lost a child to a kidnapper... not at all, really. I still have to do the conversations, and there aren't really many independent actors now and they still don't think about much. I haven't gotten to villains yet. I'm all for different kinds of memory retention etc., but it'll still be a bit before we get there. Like site resources, having independent actors is one of those things that we've been waiting for for a long time, but I feel like we are closer to both of those now, anyway.
Quote from: Heph
Are Night-creatures influenced by spherical places? Like a dusk-ogres that happens to be in a fertility sphere being more lusty and fertile?
Places like that still don't exist. Part of the creature randomization idea is to base them on the character of the land though, if they are associated to it, but it's still just good/evil at this point.
Post by: Vox Nihili on October 12, 2010, 03:16:10 am
Post by: Acanthus117 on October 12, 2010, 04:15:35 am
I mean, I'd love a bit of randomness and a bit of danger when I delve back into the horrid mess of my fortress.
Post by: darkflagrance on October 12, 2010, 08:50:12 am
Since you're adding night creatures and other adventure mode-focused stuff, do you think it would be possible to throw a bone to the adventurers exploring abandoned fortresses? It would be cool if some various night creatures automatically took up residence in abandoned fortresses and accosted any adventurers who dared to enter. Bands of kobolds or animal people living in the old dining room, etc. would also be really cool. The sky is the limit, really, but even something simple and hacky could be great!
I remember this used to be a feature waaay back in 2d...(based on Boatmurdered)
I never played 2d, but I wish that the current version still had these features.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 12, 2010, 09:18:29 am
Toady, are there any plans to have long term (as in, more than just seasonal) variations in temperature/climate? So you might have a year where the temperatures are on average 5 dorf units cooler (with thusly differing melting/freezing times), or a decade where rainfall is half what it normally is?
Post by: Sunday on October 12, 2010, 11:02:41 am
As for the dev log:
So, the reference about 'cauldrons of blood.' Is that just a poetic way of saying that this release will involve great violence and terror? Or are there actual, real cauldrons now, that are filled/can be filled with blood?
Post by: Sowelu on October 12, 2010, 04:36:55 pm
Also who else thought on "The beauty and the beast" as you were reading the dev-blog?
Some people might even choose to become night creatures for one reason or another.Personally, I was imagining catgirl night-creatures, and situations where their existing relationships wouldn't even change at all (at least, not in ways that we're privy to).
Post by: Cruxador on October 12, 2010, 04:58:41 pm
That opens up a whole new sociological can of worms, with transhumanism and stuff like that. I'd not recommend delving into it for thematic reasons.Also who else thought on "The beauty and the beast" as you were reading the dev-blog?Some people might even choose to become night creatures for one reason or another.Personally, I was imagining catgirl night-creatures, and situations where their existing relationships wouldn't even change at all (at least, not in ways that we're privy to).
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 12, 2010, 05:11:59 pm
edit: Also today just a thought: You could use a modiefied nightcreature code to turn animals into animal people during worldgen - like in the "Root"-story of your brother.
that brings another question: Will be nigh creatures be tied in into religions stuff. I mean stuff like the old european "Hexenhammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexenhammer)" or that the people start to ascribe certain forms of nightcreatures to certain Entitys like (staying at sowelus example) Catgirls being seen gifted by the "forrest-spirit" etc. ?
Post by: thvaz on October 13, 2010, 09:36:55 am
When will at least some of the world gen events happen after proper world gen is finished?
Right now, after world gen the world is ecstatic apart from the player actions. This is being a major game killer for me. I always come back to playing but there is little incentive to play more than one fortress per world. When the world becomes really dynamic I think I will never stop playing.
About the burials, will dwarves visit the tombs of their loved ones?
Post by: tfaal on October 13, 2010, 10:30:57 am
Post by: monk12 on October 13, 2010, 12:18:25 pm
Quote from: ToadyOne
Diversified the dwarf mode troubles a bit, he he he.
Well now that's just downright sinister.
Post by: Untelligent on October 13, 2010, 12:30:30 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 13, 2010, 02:19:58 pm
Post by: Dae on October 13, 2010, 04:10:17 pm
Post by: Dante on October 13, 2010, 04:48:02 pm
after world gen the world is ecstatic apart from the player actions:P
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 13, 2010, 05:24:19 pm
Wait, we don't have zombie giant eagles anymore ?
nope. They either are rocket now or hover now by methane. ;) Just kidding naturally we still have flying nastys. I just wonder if the projectile code changed thus turning flying Megabeasts and Mat-breathers in mobile killsats.
Post by: thvaz on October 14, 2010, 06:18:20 am
after world gen the world is ecstatic apart from the player actions:P
I mean static! Damned false cognates.
Post by: nbonaparte on October 14, 2010, 08:28:37 am
It does make sense... you, the player coming in to screw up everything. no wonder goblins attack you.after world gen the world is ecstatic apart from the player actions:P
I mean static! Damned false cognates.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 14, 2010, 08:44:22 am
Oh god, now we'll haveflyingdigging zombies.
Post by: Quatch on October 14, 2010, 12:47:29 pm
Oh god, now we'll haveflyingdigging zombies.
Oh noes! This is terrible news! The
Now, would these be tunneling zombies, or ones that just lurk in self made shallow graves?
Post by: cephalo on October 14, 2010, 06:03:41 pm
Post by: Quatch on October 14, 2010, 08:16:09 pm
Maybe some legendary ancestor could pop in and start making an artifact..
This is any possession that nets you something useful.
Limestone rings are the devils work.
Post by: Urist McDepravity on October 15, 2010, 03:14:35 am
In regards to 'proper burial', I was thinking that if you do a particularly good job with a dwarfs burial, it would be fun if something good might actually happen ever so rarely. Maybe some legendary ancestor could pop in and start making an artifact, or some ancient warrior could warp in and save some fisherman who's been ambushed.I don't think we need any more bonuses in DF mode, game is too easy as is.
Post by: Sowelu on October 15, 2010, 02:30:37 pm
Which had darn well better have their own dangers, too, of course.
Post by: cephalo on October 15, 2010, 02:54:29 pm
In regards to 'proper burial', I was thinking that if you do a particularly good job with a dwarfs burial, it would be fun if something good might actually happen ever so rarely. Maybe some legendary ancestor could pop in and start making an artifact, or some ancient warrior could warp in and save some fisherman who's been ambushed.I don't think we need any more bonuses in DF mode, game is too easy as is.
I mean something rare, just for flavor. Nothing you could count on.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 15, 2010, 05:04:54 pm
Post by: Untelligent on October 15, 2010, 05:25:48 pm
Toady you promised something more "postable" :-[ i some how cant find it.
Apparently he meant he was going to WORK on more postable stuff, meaning stuff that doesn't involve spoilerificness. He might not necessarily have anything interesting to post for a little bit.
Post by: Neonivek on October 16, 2010, 04:28:57 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 16, 2010, 07:09:26 am
Post by: Areyar on October 16, 2010, 07:31:25 pm
ghosts would be pretty groovy too. One reason for them haunting your fort could be a lack of mourning and/or gravegoodies.
(in killed forts all recent corpses would lack for both...or at least never get to lie in their assigned tombs leading to abandoned forts being full of ghosts. Or just a few, if the downfall was more gradual. :grin: )
We'll see in due time. :)
Post by: Dagoth Urist on October 16, 2010, 08:09:01 pm
... Oh, wait.
Post by: G-Flex on October 16, 2010, 08:10:49 pm
Post by: nbonaparte on October 16, 2010, 08:24:39 pm
Post by: Untelligent on October 16, 2010, 08:48:50 pm
Post by: James.Denholm on October 16, 2010, 08:55:56 pm
Post by: Untelligent on October 16, 2010, 09:01:21 pm
Post by: Beardless on October 16, 2010, 11:43:38 pm
Post by: James.Denholm on October 17, 2010, 02:40:03 am
But then it doesn't show up in the "Show new replies to your posts" function of the forum, does it?
Post by: darkflagrance on October 17, 2010, 04:14:47 am
Post by: Dagoth Urist on October 17, 2010, 04:27:43 am
I just realized that Rutherers are actually "r u there? rs"And now I will never look at them quite the same way again... Thanks! :D
I just looked up their article in the wiki. The description isn't very specific, is it? Four-legged and thick-furred animal with a tail? For all I know, that could be a subterranean Yakut pony...
Are there any plans for more detailed descriptions of beasts? Fur colour, size in proportion to oneself's character, etcetera.?
Post by: Knight Otu on October 17, 2010, 09:58:45 am
Do night creatures use the items in their lair - that is, if one got a hold on armor from a victim, would the creature wear it if it's the right size? Or will they act like dragons and only scatter it about?
If they use the things, are night creatures something of micro-entities, or could other creatures with a den (if the den creation is one of the new behaviors that'll be available as tags) get equipment this way?
Post by: Rexfelum on October 17, 2010, 02:14:52 pm
--Rexfelum
Post by: thvaz on October 17, 2010, 03:26:54 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 17, 2010, 03:53:36 pm
:-[ hopefully modders can solve part of the problemQuote from: NeonivekQuote from: Askot Bokbondelerwill other jobs in fortress mode requires or benefit from tools? like smithing require a hammer, carpenting require a saw, farming requiring...the farming thingie, etc?I think, if I remember correctly.
That Fortress mode will still be extrapolated when it comes to tools, while Adventurer mode will still require them.
Yeah, the idea now is just to leave it the same, and explore various things in adventure mode where book-keeping and general catastropic meltdown won't be as much of a problem. If reasonable unannoying alterations can be made to dwarf mode, that'll be cool, but it's not crucial.
Post by: Untelligent on October 17, 2010, 05:37:49 pm
TOPIC SHIFT
Now that we'll be getting quests from villagers to go save the town from chaos trolls and werehippos and whatnot, are quest rewards going to be implemented? Or are we still on the "Screw you, you're a hero, you don't need to be paid" business model?. 'course, I suppose that if these guys have useful loot in their little caves knowing where to find the night creatures might in itself be a decent reward.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 17, 2010, 07:40:48 pm
Post by: thvaz on October 17, 2010, 08:13:08 pm
How do you know that they do all that stuff with their bare hands? I just assume that the tools are part of the workshop, and masons and engravers and the like hide their tools in their not-pants when I look at them. Besides, I like not having to make sure I have a decent supply of engraving scalpels or whatever they use. 'course if that sort of thing DOES go in, like a lot of other contraversial things that we discuss (diggers, for instance) there'd likely be an init option for it.Congratulations for you being able to abstract. :p
But seriously, the matter about tools is not of abstraction, but of consistency. Why there is picks and axes but not fishing rods for fishing or knives for butchering?
Post by: Untelligent on October 17, 2010, 08:32:31 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on October 17, 2010, 08:35:48 pm
How do you know that they do all that stuff with their bare hands? I just assume that the tools are part of the workshop, and masons and engravers and the like hide their tools in their not-pants when I look at them. Besides, I like not having to make sure I have a decent supply of engraving scalpels or whatever they use. 'course if that sort of thing DOES go in, like a lot of other contraversial things that we discuss (diggers, for instance) there'd likely be an init option for it.Congratulations for you being able to abstract. :p
But seriously, the matter about tools is not of abstraction, but of consistency. Why there is picks and axes but not fishing rods for fishing or knives for butchering?
For butchering I'd imagine that dwarves are so hardcore that they can rip the heads off of beasties with their bare hands, given a disadvantage of the latter party.
But yeah fishing rods would be nice. Especially for adventure mode! I have a feeling adventure mode fishing will be implemented eventually.
Post by: Beardless on October 17, 2010, 08:55:20 pm
IIrc toady mentioned a better repuatation system where you can get stuff like a place to sleep free food and so on.
Yes, in the October 7 devlog entry. And the one he just put up as well. Also: "It is now more dangerous to travel alone after sunset," so a place to sleep should be a good thing, as opposed to just an excuse to make your computer crunch numbers while you're off eating dinner.
Post by: Genoraven on October 17, 2010, 11:28:37 pm
Post by: Toady One on October 17, 2010, 11:40:44 pm
Quote from: thvaz
When will at least some of the world gen events happen after proper world gen is finished?
This is the main thing we are aiming for, pretty much, of all the features in the game. It has just been tricky to start without entity populations, and to a lesser extent site resources. We've got entity populations now as of the September releases. This time we wanted to get an adventure mode game to play, so that something is happening there, especially since it degenerated even more with the villages. Tentatively, we are thinking about November for site resources, caravan and town stuff, and December for other groups moving around, which'll finally mean something is happening. If we can get the economy up in November, then that should impact dwarf mode quite a bit as well, and it would be at that point perhaps that armies can also start coming from places, though we still have some depopulation concerns until things are ironed out.
Quote from: Vox Nihili
Since you're adding night creatures and other adventure mode-focused stuff, do you think it would be possible to throw a bone to the adventurers exploring abandoned fortresses? It would be cool if some various night creatures automatically took up residence in abandoned fortresses and accosted any adventurers who dared to enter. Bands of kobolds or animal people living in the old dining room, etc. would also be really cool. The sky is the limit, really, but even something simple and hacky could be great!
There is one bone, but it might not be the kind you were looking for. There's always been a problem with finalizing the state of the fortress, especially with invasions, but more generally because the world gen stuff doesn't continue, so creatures rarely move in properly. In December we'll have a very good chance for it, since we should also have ruined castles by then and these kinds of places will be sought out.
Quote from: Osmosis Jones
Toady, are there any plans to have long term (as in, more than just seasonal) variations in temperature/climate? So you might have a year where the temperatures are on average 5 dorf units cooler (with thusly differing melting/freezing times), or a decade where rainfall is half what it normally is?
I don't have any explicit plans. Once there are world gen famines and better farming, I imagine that would be a good place to start, since variations are an important factor there.
Quote from: Sunday
So, the reference about 'cauldrons of blood.' Is that just a poetic way of saying that this release will involve great violence and terror? Or are there actual, real cauldrons now, that are filled/can be filled with blood?
Ah, yeah, I guess that's ambiguous, isn't it? I hadn't thought about that.
Quote from: Heph
Will be nigh creatures be tied in into religions stuff. I mean stuff like the old european "Hexenhammer" or that the people start to ascribe certain forms of nightcreatures to certain Entitys like (staying at sowelus example) Catgirls being seen gifted by the "forrest-spirit" etc. ?
The dev page has a bit about religion vs. night creatures and also paranoia among the populace, but we didn't do any of that for this time. I think it'll be easier to consider adding friendlier creatures once we have a game established in adventure mode... which will unfortunately still be centered around violence and unfriendly creatures. The same thing has always been true of the megabeasts as well. The good region titans aren't really good despite their descriptions. We'll see what happens when the stuff from the first questions goes in. I expect it'll be a while yet.
Quote from: thvaz
About the burials, will dwarves visit the tombs of their loved ones?
There's nothing like that at this point. We were trying to get to a little bit a few days back when I finished off the dwarf stuff I had been working on, but I ran out of the time I had set aside for myself, so it's still a very simple system with the burial and the new memorials, without requiring any other dwarf input.
Quote from: Knight Otu
Do night creatures use the items in their lair - that is, if one got a hold on armor from a victim, would the creature wear it if it's the right size? Or will they act like dragons and only scatter it about?
If they use the things, are night creatures something of micro-entities, or could other creatures with a den (if the den creation is one of the new behaviors that'll be available as tags) get equipment this way?
There is a little bit of item use, but we didn't have armor in mind for the night creatures we have so far and they don't want to use new items. We're considering going back and revamping all the megabeast living arrangements, but it's a question of time as usual. In general, critters including people are still quite ignorant about items sitting around and so on.
Quote from: Untelligent
Now that we'll be getting quests from villagers to go save the town from chaos trolls and werehippos and whatnot, are quest rewards going to be implemented?
We don't have bounties at this point. I haven't done bandits and other bad people like that yet but am hoping to for this time, so I'm not entirely ruling that out, but probably not. There is the reputation increase, which is beneficial, though not as much as it will be when there's more to do for your chosen affiliations. The questing spots do have good items to use sometimes, as well as other objects that can be brought back to the soon-to-be-readded-this-time stores to trade up.
Post by: Genoraven on October 17, 2010, 11:53:24 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 18, 2010, 12:51:20 am
Post by: Rockphed on October 18, 2010, 01:19:41 am
Quote from: SundaySo, the reference about 'cauldrons of blood.' Is that just a poetic way of saying that this release will involve great violence and terror? Or are there actual, real cauldrons now, that are filled/can be filled with blood?
Ah, yeah, I guess that's ambiguous, isn't it? I hadn't thought about that.
And you didn't actually clarify. Or rather you didn't make on or the other uniquely obvious. I would green this, but all I really expect at this point is a "He he he."
Post by: Toady One on October 18, 2010, 04:00:28 am
Will the new night creatures be accessible through arena mode?
Like the forgotten beasts, they aren't generated until a world is made, and they are never in the raw folders so they aren't accessible to the arena itself. I think it might be a bit of a spoiler to allow them to be created too soon through the arena, but as the generated content gets more stale or more rawified, they might find their way over there.
Post by: Nivim on October 18, 2010, 04:10:15 am
Post by: Knight Otu on October 18, 2010, 06:45:18 am
Post by: cephalo on October 18, 2010, 08:44:35 am
Post by: Sunday on October 18, 2010, 09:43:46 am
He he he.
Toady, you are so mischievous. :)
Post by: thvaz on October 18, 2010, 11:52:40 am
Because picks and axes are too big to hide in their not-pants, obviously.
Aren't you the funny guy? Thanks for really contributing to the discussion.
Post by: Untelligent on October 18, 2010, 12:47:10 pm
In any case, I'd prefer that actual, physical tools (aside from picks and axes, because seriously those things are HUGE) not be required in either fortress or adventure mode. If it were an init option (I think this has also been the proposed solution to the digging enemies controversy), that'd be fine.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 18, 2010, 12:53:21 pm
EDIT:perhaps i should also give my opinion. hoes and pitchforks are huge too, and many tools of the trades, like smith hammers and butcher knives are usable as weapons, making them very useful, why are picks more pertinent than any of these? one could state that they are dwarvenly, but so are blacksmith hammers.
Post by: Mephansteras on October 18, 2010, 12:54:06 pm
Quote from: thvazWhen will at least some of the world gen events happen after proper world gen is finished?
This is the main thing we are aiming for, pretty much, of all the features in the game. It has just been tricky to start without entity populations, and to a lesser extent site resources. We've got entity populations now as of the September releases. This time we wanted to get an adventure mode game to play, so that something is happening there, especially since it degenerated even more with the villages. Tentatively, we are thinking about November for site resources, caravan and town stuff, and December for other groups moving around, which'll finally mean something is happening. If we can get the economy up in November, then that should impact dwarf mode quite a bit as well, and it would be at that point perhaps that armies can also start coming from places, though we still have some depopulation concerns until things are ironed out.
Really looking forward to all of this!
When the economy/site resources go in, are we going to see more logical equipment for guards, invaders, and the like? Also, how well is the game going to handle in modded-in materials and the like?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 18, 2010, 01:01:54 pm
Tools in Adv. are a good substitute for a full fledged Workshop (say if your pants tear in the middle of the uncharted wilds) but a workshop should give you a higher bonus to crafting. Axes and Picks are another thing because they double as full weapons on theyr own, where bone-knives etc. would be daggers or something.
Will Nightcreature dens have theyr own crude (weapon)-traps at some point?
Post by: thvaz on October 18, 2010, 01:06:19 pm
Because attempting to be funny is not allowed in any shape or form in this thread.
In any case, I'd prefer that actual, physical tools (aside from picks and axes, because seriously those things are HUGE) not be required in either fortress or adventure mode. If it were an init option (I think this has also been the proposed solution to the digging enemies controversy), that'd be fine.
It's fine to be funny, as long as you are adding on the subject, as you did now.
And isn't a plow or fishing rod bigger than axes and picks? They too are tools.
that's awfully hostile of you, thvaz. the guy is just explaining the means by wich he "willingly suspends disbelief", he added to the discussion, he stated his opinion, and addressed the problem you posed to his opinion with a simple but sensible explanation and a humorous wink at a bug, it's customary on these forums, get used to it.
I'm used with these fora, as I am reading them since 2006. It wasn't my intention to be hostile, jut mildly sarcastic, but my grasp of English is far from good.
Edit:
EDIT:perhaps i should also give my opinion. hoes and pitchforks are huge too, and many tools of the trades, like smith hammers and butcher knives are usable as weapons, making them very useful, why are picks more pertinent than any of these? one could state that they are dwarvenly, but so are blacksmith hammers.
That´s what I'm asking, just a little consistency. It can be made without clutter - we don't need every little surgeon tool - and it would really add to the game.
Post by: Cruxador on October 18, 2010, 05:58:18 pm
that's awfully hostile of you, thvaz. the guy is just explaining the means by wich he "willingly suspends disbelief", he added to the discussion, he stated his opinion, and addressed the problem you posed to his opinion with a simple but sensible explanation and a humorous wink at a bug, it's customary on these forums, get used to it.The distinction is that mining and chopping don't require anything but the tool. Farming requires a farm plot, smithing requires a forge and anvil and tongs. Butchery doesn't require any single thing, but it's a complicated process, and a workshop is not unmerited even if it is possible to clean carcasses and chop them up and all that in the field.
EDIT:perhaps i should also give my opinion. hoes and pitchforks are huge too, and many tools of the trades, like smith hammers and butcher knives are usable as weapons, making them very useful, why are picks more pertinent than any of these? one could state that they are dwarvenly, but so are blacksmith hammers.
Post by: Greiger on October 18, 2010, 07:09:58 pm
A small object like a chisel could easily be carried on a dwarf's person as well, so one could assume migrants with skill in masonry or stonecrafting would bring one with them. Same with things like carpenter's hammers, nails, and various other brick-a-brac. Objects too small to be meaningful or mindlessly simple to make with almost no resource consumption. If it did end up being necessary for some reason or another, a blacksmith could probably forge a functional chisel out of leftover iron from a smithing job or something. So why bother putting a lot of trouble into tracking exactly how many you have and where they are? That's how I see the small tools in a fortress in my mind.
Although I'm usually pro-complexity, requiring you to bring along such small insignificant tools (that honestly any self respecting member of their craft wouldn't leave home without) seems too much trouble for too little gain. But I suppose I can see the appeal.
Perhaps a happy medium could be a system where the tool is essentially attached to the workshop and made automatically with the workshop with no extra resource consumption. It isn't tracked as an item until the player chooses to detach the object at which point it can be used as a weapon or any other item. While the item is away from it's parent workshop, the workshop functions at reduced speed and cannot produce higher quality items, if it can produce at all. The item is made of the same materiel as the workshop. A stone carpenter's workshop gets a stone carpenter's hammer for example. If the item is not feasible to be made out of the materiel the tool is just made of iron or whatever material makes sense, and it is assumed that the tool was in the wagon, or a professional had one on hand. Such generated tools are ineligible for melting, in the same fashion that artifacts cannot be dumped.
P.S. Note: For artifact tracking purposes, a work tool that gets historical significance (like scoring a kill) is automagically upgraded to full item status perhaps with some kind of indication in the description or something. The workshop attached to the item simply generates a new tool for itself. Perhaps the dwarves could see the significance of the tool as a historical object and just choose to replace it then risk damaging an item with historical significance with daily wear and tear. From the way I understand the current item destruction and generation issues that could be an coding problem without something like that in place.
I believe that would keep the most folks happy while keeping unnecessary clutter down and keeping the game from having to keep track of a dozen of every tool all the time. There are still a few things that seem tricky (where is a fisherman's fishing gear held? The fishery? But a full time fisherman never goes there. What about a farm? Tools kept with the farm plot or the farmer's workshop?) but I feel that it would be a good solution.
Of course Toady is free to make his own decision. Just a suggestion I feel is relevant to the conversation.
Post by: Jiri Petru on October 18, 2010, 07:18:44 pm
But yeah, any more complexity would only add micromanagement to no benefit at all.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 18, 2010, 07:35:40 pm
Ok that was some trivia for you back to the topic:
I think generic tools could go in if they add to the quality or speed of the production. Say a plow allowing faster planting. This way the player can produce tools if wants them but does not need to use them. The generic tool[10] might work for stuff like needles and other small things. Using a cage as "fish trap" might work for fishers but a fisher can also catch fish by his bare hands.
Post by: Footkerchief on October 18, 2010, 09:01:59 pm
The distinction is that mining and chopping don't require anything but the tool. Farming requires a farm plot, smithing requires a forge and anvil and tongs. Butchery doesn't require any single thing, but it's a complicated process, and a workshop is not unmerited even if it is possible to clean carcasses and chop them up and all that in the field.
Way I've been thinking of it is that the tools are made with the workshop. And that in general the dwarves bring with them a small supply of the simple tools that wouldn't be easily made out of ambient stone.
Or just have generic tools item. One piece of iron would create many, like "Tools [10]".
But yeah, any more complexity would only add micromanagement to no benefit at all.
I think generic tools could go in if they add to the quality or speed of the production. Say a plow allowing faster planting. This way the player can produce tools if wants them but does not need to use them. The generic tool[10] might work for stuff like needles and other small things. Using a cage as "fish trap" might work for fishers but a fisher can also catch fish by his bare hands.
The tools / expandable workshops thing has been covered in so many threads I can't even find them all. I think it's safe to say that Toady already has plenty of player input to draw on.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=5950.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=48869.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=22288.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=37012.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=55143.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=49802.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=19657.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=49635.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=29469.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=66917.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=24946.0 <= this one is currently active, so it would be a good place to move the discussion
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=28123.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=47601.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=5950.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=27214.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=28276.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=4533.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=5926.0
Spoiler: tags (click to show/hide)
Post by: Greiger on October 18, 2010, 09:55:13 pm
Wow, we must have really broke him with this one. Maybe an overflow error? Guess somebody needs to go reboot Footkerchief.
(Yes I mean that in the most respectful way possible. You are like a king among us, oh master of the bug tracker.)
Post by: Quatch on October 18, 2010, 10:36:00 pm
Post by: Genoraven on October 19, 2010, 01:14:25 am
Post by: Toady One on October 19, 2010, 01:44:21 am
Quote from: Nivm
If you had a choice, what kinds of things would you want the long and common magic discussions to figure out? There are so many of them, and so many people thinking and speculating over the same things again and again. It seems like during the time it takes to reach the magic arc, many near-perfect theories about it's possible structure could be laid out for you cleanly and clearly. But do you want that?
We're not going to use any one system, so I think the most useful things are probably general and possibly unusual ideas about how a given magic system might work in a world, where the discussion is aware that the system isn't exclusively used by all worlds, or discussions about differences that could exist between worlds. Specifics can be useful if they stay above the numerics/algorithms for the most part. I'm sure there are useful exceptions, so I don't want to exclude anything in particular. Questions of overall atmosphere are somewhat settled (as in the DF talk quotes from before), though I still like to hear opinions on all sides there. In general we're not as receptive to explicitly leveled firebolts or steampunk as we are to something more nebulous and less technological, but we don't want to shut down potential useful avenues of discussion.
Ideas where different manifestations of magic have underlying structural connections with the world are good. We're probably going to be adding different metaphysical systems along the lines of how a creation story using a pantheon might generate pre-world-gen events, and it'd answer all the big questions like "what happens when you die?", "what happens when you dream?", "why do we exist?", "is there a purpose to existence?", "what are emotions?" etc. etc., and gods, planes of existence, magical systems and whatever else can provide answers to these questions that further manifest themselves as part of a magic system (or the world could be utterly mundane as desired). When we do this, we'll be in a position where we are using our own ideas and continuing to look through suggestions and just using the best and easiest stuff at first, and that'll be how magic manifests itself.
Quote from: Mephansteras
When the economy/site resources go in, are we going to see more logical equipment for guards, invaders, and the like? Also, how well is the game going to handle in modded-in materials and the like?
You mean stuff they could reasonably afford or some other bug? Or you mean equipment based on more AI and siege planning? I'm not sure what angle you meant by more logical. For materials, it depends on how they are modded in. The current materials are all in the raws, and presumably anything people put in will be used in the same way. It has trouble following arbitrary reactions now if there are materials hidden down a production chain, but stuff in the ground and smelted metals should be handled whether it is stock or modded.
Quote from: Heph
Will Nightcreature dens have theyr own crude (weapon)-traps at some point?
Probably still waiting on kobold and goblin (and dwarf) traps for things like that. And the larger human burial structures. I'm not sure if I'm going to add any adv mode traps before the mechanics rewrite, and there has to be some sort of mitigation, since the traps as they stand would tend to be fairly deadly instant game-enders for the poor explorers, although I'm not sure how that'll change.
Post by: James.Denholm on October 19, 2010, 01:54:04 am
It's only a matter of time, now.
FAUXEDIT: Holy smokes, ninja'd by Toady One Himself.
Re. Adventure Mode Traps: Perhaps some sort of quick skill in trap avoidance or trap disarming, or have avoidance defined by the agility of a character? It's probably been suggested before.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 19, 2010, 02:36:18 am
Thanks toady (praised be your name) for the continuing stream of answers.
Post by: Mephansteras on October 19, 2010, 12:15:02 pm
Quote from: MephansterasWhen the economy/site resources go in, are we going to see more logical equipment for guards, invaders, and the like? Also, how well is the game going to handle in modded-in materials and the like?
You mean stuff they could reasonably afford or some other bug? Or you mean equipment based on more AI and siege planning? I'm not sure what angle you meant by more logical. For materials, it depends on how they are modded in. The current materials are all in the raws, and presumably anything people put in will be used in the same way. It has trouble following arbitrary reactions now if there are materials hidden down a production chain, but stuff in the ground and smelted metals should be handled whether it is stock or modded.
Sorry for not being specific. I'll elaborate a bit.
For equipment: Currently the game is pretty random about what people get. You'll see dwarven guards with copper gauntlets and steel helms. Or, worse, Axelords showing up with copper axes and the like. It'd be nice if guards/soldiers were more consistent about it. Going with what they could afford or would be standard for a guard of that type would be nice. Maybe having dwarven caravan guards in mostly bronze with a few steel items, but royal guards being decked out in all fine quality steel. Elite soldiers should have good materials as well as high quality. A copper axe isn't that great no matter how awesomely it's decorated.
This gets even worse when you have modded in materials, as the game ends up doing some pretty inappropriate stuff. Super light materials as hammers, for example, or caravan guards showing up with equipment that's far more expensive then they should reasonably have. Plus, the more materials available to the civ the more random their equipment gets. Which might be fine for mercenaries and bandits, but soldiers should probably have more consistent equipment.
Thieves should also be a bit more logical with what they show up with. I understand that the kobolds steal pretty much everything they use, but they really should show up with whatever is most common for the civilizations near them. A silver dagger, for instance, isn't as practical as a bronze dagger and is more expensive. There really should be less of those floating around then seem to show up. On the flip side, Dwarves aren't going to bother making copper daggers very often, even if they do have plenty of copper sitting around. Bronze, Iron, or Steel work better and should be pretty readily available.
In general for modded items I guess it'd be nice if there was a way to get stuff that's far down a production chain (like some end-product items from Alchemy), but as long as there is some way to get traders to bring the various components that's probably sufficient.
Post by: Neonivek on October 19, 2010, 11:48:58 pm
Though I'd think that the answer to that should determine how the mechanics for it function.
Post by: Ethicalfive on October 20, 2010, 10:00:32 am
Post by: zwei on October 20, 2010, 10:21:24 am
Can natural skills be trained further or are they static?
Post by: tfaal on October 20, 2010, 10:31:44 am
Post by: Footkerchief on October 20, 2010, 10:34:33 am
Can natural skills be trained further or are they static?
Most likely depends on whether the creature has CAN_LEARN, just like the current skills.
Post by: tfaal on October 20, 2010, 10:40:03 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 20, 2010, 10:46:37 am
Post by: TomiTapio on October 20, 2010, 10:46:49 am
>> They don't bathe yet apparently, although I have no idea if minotaurs should ever clean themselves or not.
Hooray! Can make birds and vorpal rabbits with a high dodging skill! Also, the quickling, a 4x-speed humanoid, could use a dodging boost.
How about CLEANS_SELF and CLEANS_EQUIPMENT tag in the raws, near the can_wear_clothes (was it EQUIPS) tag?
Hmm, natural skills could be very interesting if paired with castes. You could create a caste of dwarves with a natural aptitude for combat or craftsmanship, for instance.Already have high strength and high recuperation castes in Genesis mod. Craftmanship caste in Genesis... the high-learning-speed one.
Deon also had a firebreath caste, a web-spitting caste, and a paralysis-spitting caste. Which I didn't like.
Post by: thvaz on October 20, 2010, 11:31:10 am
Post by: tfaal on October 20, 2010, 11:34:17 am
RELEASE NOWI'd prefer if adventurer mode got a bit more flushed out before the release. Some bandits would certainly be nice to have.
Post by: thvaz on October 20, 2010, 11:43:59 am
RELEASE NOWI'd prefer if adventurer mode got a bit more flushed out before the release. Some bandits would certainly be nice to have.
Hehehe, me too. Just a little anxious. :)
Could you elaborate a bit on what a labyrinth is? Is it a natural element of a cavern that minotaurs gravitate toward, something created by the minotaur, or an abandoned structure created by a civilization?
Maybe they could be a punishement from the gods? A bit like they were in the greek mithology.
Post by: Dae on October 20, 2010, 11:54:00 am
So would be the fact that crafted armor is always too large for you. I would LOVE to craft a helmet out of a minotaur skull.RELEASE NOWI'd prefer if adventurer mode got a bit more flushed out before the release. Some bandits would certainly be nice to have.
Post by: Knight Otu on October 20, 2010, 12:54:32 pm
So would be the fact that crafted armor is always too large for you. I would LOVE to craft a helmet out of a minotaur skull.The reverse seems more likely from the devlog, however.
I'm glad that dens seem to be a raw-behavior, and apparently with different options. The skill thing is cool as well, though for entity creatures, I'd like to see a tag that allows certain skills to increase faster or slower (rather than just all skills). Being able to start with certain skill levels might be odd in adventure mode.
Post by: Cruxador on October 20, 2010, 01:05:09 pm
God behavior is supposed to eventually be procedurally generated. Having them always punish an entire race of beings sort of detracts pretty significantly from that. Also, in Greek myth, the Minotaur was put in the labyrinth by Minos and Daedalus. Though Minos was a demigod, his measure of divinity was not related to the imprisonment, he was merely Daedalus' patron.Could you elaborate a bit on what a labyrinth is? Is it a natural element of a cavern that minotaurs gravitate toward, something created by the minotaur, or an abandoned structure created by a civilization?
Maybe they could be a punishement from the gods? A bit like they were in the greek mithology.
Post by: Fieari on October 20, 2010, 01:55:54 pm
What type of labyrinth generator are you using? Will it be a true labyrinth (just a single path, typically boring), or actually a maze? There are circular maze types that look like labyrinths at first, after all...
How will labyrinths interact with rural sprawl? Will there be farms directly surrounding the labyrinth walls, or will there be a "protected" area around it where humans just won't go near willingly? How large? Night Creature lairs in general might be a good way of keeping sprawl down, especially if they keep normal civs away, but don't prevent embarking in DF mode... maybe using the underground fog of war system to cover their territory up.
Post by: Untelligent on October 20, 2010, 02:33:15 pm
Quote
you can assign natural starting skills by type and level in the raws now
Niiiiice.
Post by: JoRo on October 20, 2010, 03:39:33 pm
Can't wait to mod about with the new creature skills and stuff.
Post by: InsanityPrelude on October 20, 2010, 07:26:53 pm
Post by: Sowelu on October 20, 2010, 08:04:50 pm
Post by: Toady One on October 21, 2010, 12:00:36 am
Quote from: Mephansteras
Quote from: Toady OneQuote from: MephansterasWhen the economy/site resources go in, are we going to see more logical equipment for guards, invaders, and the like? Also, how well is the game going to handle in modded-in materials and the like?
You mean stuff they could reasonably afford or some other bug? Or you mean equipment based on more AI and siege planning? I'm not sure what angle you meant by more logical. [...]
Sorry for not being specific. I'll elaborate a bit. [...]
I think once the caravans are moving around, the guards'll start to be equipped more consistently. If site resources are in before the invaders move around, that'll likely be the case for them as well, including the thieves. So perhaps November/December, depending on how much production and supply/demand is working. Ideally if I work on caravans and site resources for a few weeks in November, there will be enough information sitting around, but it's hard to know exactly how much that's going to blow up until I try it.
Quote from: Footkerchief
Quote from: zweiCan natural skills be trained further or are they static?Most likely depends on whether the creature has CAN_LEARN, just like the current skills.
Yeah, that's how it works. I imagine adventurers and starting dwarves might end up shafted by their overriding profiles, but I'm not sure, since I haven't tried natural skills on any civ critters.
Quote
Quote from: tfaalCould you elaborate a bit on what a labyrinth is? Is it a natural element of a cavern that minotaurs gravitate toward, something created by the minotaur, or an abandoned structure created by a civilization?Quote from: CruxadorGod behavior is supposed to eventually be procedurally generated. Having them always punish an entire race of beings sort of detracts pretty significantly from that. Also, in Greek myth, the Minotaur was put in the labyrinth by Minos and Daedalus. Though Minos was a demigod, his measure of divinity was not related to the imprisonment, he was merely Daedalus' patron.Quote from: FieariWhat type of labyrinth generator are you using? Will it be a true labyrinth (just a single path, typically boring), or actually a maze? There are circular maze types that look like labyrinths at first, after all...
How will labyrinths interact with rural sprawl? Will there be farms directly surrounding the labyrinth walls, or will there be a "protected" area around it where humans just won't go near willingly? How large? Night Creature lairs in general might be a good way of keeping sprawl down, especially if they keep normal civs away, but don't prevent embarking in DF mode... maybe using the underground fog of war system to cover their territory up.
Right now, a labyrinth is something created by the minotaur. Ideally, the mythological method would be possible, but that requires lots of things we don't have yet, so we just hand-waved them in.
It is modeled on the Labyrinth, which is a maze, rather than a labyrinth, as far as I understand how the terms have been tortured over time, he he he. So yeah, you can get lost, though in the case of ones that span Z levels we have stayed well away from the horror possible. A 40x40x4 maze unconstrained was too much, maybe more like it should be from the myth where you have trouble escaping even when you aren't being devoured, so we are a little soft on the z level changes. I let the 2 level ones float freely in some percentage of the maps, since that isn't so bad to figure out in practice.
The labyrinths are all underground and moreover outside of the village limits to avoid the irritation. They can be close, but not within the fields themselves.
Quote from: JoRo
Will the reimplementation of shops mean races in sites other than cities will build them, or is it only a return to the previous behavior? Will humanoid (semi-)megabeasts like giants and cyclopes have equipment naturally, or only if they steal it?
We're still stuck with the previous behavior overall with some tweaks. Setting up the other civs will be involved enough that there might have to be entire releases devoted to it, as with the human villages. Right now all equipment is taken in some way or another, so they don't actually build anything (although the tools are a bit hacky that way). We were going to do a bit more with giants and cyclopes but, I doubt we'll get there before it's time to put it up.
Post by: Acanthus117 on October 21, 2010, 02:27:36 am
Post by: Ethicalfive on October 21, 2010, 05:33:48 am
When you say based on the labrynth, does that mean there are moving walls and and critters around the place or is it just going to be the minotaurs lair, like a giants cave?
Post by: Toady One on October 21, 2010, 05:41:31 am
Unlike the goblin snatchers, I meant it was based on the Greek Labyrinth rather than Labyrinth the movie, so nobody will be moving floor tiles after you mark them with lipstick and there won't be weird creatures that throw their heads and stuff.
Post by: scriver on October 21, 2010, 07:15:14 am
Post by: tfaal on October 21, 2010, 08:39:20 am
Post by: zwei on October 21, 2010, 08:42:52 am
You could mod David Bowie to exist in the game, if you wanted. Nothing stopping you.
Beware Its Deadly Hair?
Post by: thvaz on October 21, 2010, 08:48:20 am
Post by: Dae on October 21, 2010, 10:36:40 am
You could mod David Bowie to exist in the game, if you wanted. Nothing stopping you.Beware Its Deadly Hair?
Beware his Package. (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thedudette/nostalgia-chick/5570-labyrinth)
Post by: Neonivek on October 21, 2010, 02:06:35 pm
Toady with the possible Mythology generator is there a chance that your long list if questions (why are we here, what are dreams) could also be fed into it so the answer could differ world to world with possible real game implications? (for example how Gods revere human beings). Will we ever see such world spanning randomisation?
Post by: Sowelu on October 21, 2010, 04:01:48 pm
Post by: Neonivek on October 21, 2010, 04:56:37 pm
The starting skill values are awesome! Is there any chance that in this version or an upcoming one, skills-per-race could be expanded further in the raws, like, goblin 'high master dodger' is better than dwarf 'high master dodger', or goblins learn dodge faster than dwarves, or some other way to represent that humans are better than dwarves at farming while dwarves are better at mining?
But to what extent is this skill or simple attributes? I could imagine some skills being easier to learn for some races then others but to have a skill be more potent for one race then another without some sort of physical or magical variable is something else.
Post by: Untelligent on October 21, 2010, 05:50:21 pm
Post by: tfaal on October 21, 2010, 06:29:04 pm
Post by: Sowelu on October 21, 2010, 07:03:05 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 21, 2010, 07:25:16 pm
But yes i am also for fleshed out were-creatures.
Post by: tfaal on October 21, 2010, 07:40:05 pm
Post by: Untelligent on October 21, 2010, 07:40:09 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 21, 2010, 07:47:46 pm
It would be cool if some werewolves retain there humanity (not restricted to humans but by the lack of a better word i work with that) and build little cells, tie themselves down or go all hermit.
Aunt Edith: heph stop repeating yourself.
Post by: Julius Clonkus on October 21, 2010, 08:05:54 pm
Reminds me to the game "Golden Sun" with the werewolf village :P . Anyway it would be awesome if we at some point get this "Creppy village with common dark secret" plot at some point since its one of the basic horror plots.I'm secretly hoping that there will be cults built around a certain group of night creatures. I'll be sure to watch out for human towns worshipping amphibic night creatures if something like this will be implemented someday.
Shadow over Stetnindum, anyone?
Post by: monk12 on October 21, 2010, 08:36:38 pm
Its beginning to look a lot like fishmen
[/song]
Post by: Rexfelum on October 21, 2010, 10:06:47 pm
[song]
Its beginning to look a lot like fishmen
[/song]
Oh tidings of madness and woe, madness and woe (http://www.cthulhulives.org/store/store.lasso?1=product&2=4)?
--Rexfelum
Post by: Nivim on October 22, 2010, 01:27:38 am
A smart minotaur would bathe occasionally to reduce its smell and make it harder to notice. Most predator monsters do this in one way or another. . .Indecision aid ↑. Very much like cats always lick themselves in reaction to liquid, since that liquid would naturally be blood splatter. Although I didn't think anyone had a sense of smell in DF yet, so the blood and gore will be fine.
Post by: Rose on October 22, 2010, 02:08:02 am
Post by: Cruxador on October 22, 2010, 02:29:17 am
the solution, of course, is to give creatures a sense of smell in DF.That's discussed somewhere or other, I think in a DFtalk. The problem is that each individual smell would have to be modeled the same as miasma, which would get very processor intensive very fast.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 22, 2010, 02:37:40 am
the solution, of course, is to give creatures a sense of smell in DF.
That solution stinks (ba-dum-tish ;) ). Seriously though, would be cool.
That's discussed somewhere or other, I think in a DFtalk. The problem is that each individual smell would have to be modeled the same as miasma, which would get very processor intensive very fast.
Toady said miasma was extremely cheap processor-wise though, so that probably wouldn't really be much of an issue unless you were facing lots of monsters (in which case I'd worry more about pathfinding). That said, wouldn't smell make more sense as basically a trail laid by a creature when it walks? You could even make the trail being wider (i.e. detectable from further away) as a function of both how recently the creature passed, and how offensive it's odour was (fresh washed elf versus booze, blood and vomit soaked dwarf).
Post by: Rose on October 22, 2010, 03:25:38 am
(fresh washed elf versus booze, blood and vomit soaked dwarf).
Yeah, seriously, those damned elves stink!
Post by: Knight Otu on October 22, 2010, 06:57:33 am
Hey, aren't those Sun/Moon Position indicators new?
Post by: Greiger on October 22, 2010, 07:09:53 am
I like it. I'll miss the cool effects that were in the old one (like the unexplored fog sometimes dissapearing from mountaintops and such when you can see them clearly, even if your vision is blocked from seeing the lower altitudes.) But it seems to me that it would be an improvement overall.
I'm guessing the yellow gem up top is a time indicator? Will that give weather info as well or just time? What about rivers? With the lower level map will we have to go around them now if we don't have swimming skill or are able to fly, or will the adventurer still be able to teleport over an otherwise uncross-able torrent of water?
Post by: freeformschooler on October 22, 2010, 07:47:47 am
Will there be any sort of time abstraction in this release? It's not a necessity, given all the other cool stuff, but since being able to have a place to sleep at night was brought to the forefront, I was curious :D
Post by: Rip0k on October 22, 2010, 09:33:20 am
Will adventurer still heal during fast travel?
Post by: thvaz on October 22, 2010, 10:46:00 am
It's gonna be sooooooo cool!!! I can't wait for this release!
Will adventurer still heal during fast travel?
If not, I hope we can get medical treatment somewhere.
Post by: Knight Otu on October 22, 2010, 12:44:17 pm
What about rivers? With the lower level map will we have to go around them now if we don't have swimming skill or are able to fly, or will the adventurer still be able to teleport over an otherwise uncross-able torrent of water?From the screenshots, it looks like rivers remain passable, and since impassable rivers were mentioned on the dev page, I figure Toady would mention if that was implemented. Similarly, I would assume that mountain tiles remain impassable in travel mode?
Also, as a forward look when rivers are impassable and we can create adventurer sites - would we be able to create bridges that work in travel mode as well?
Post by: Untelligent on October 22, 2010, 02:19:14 pm
Post by: tfaal on October 22, 2010, 03:51:53 pm
Post by: wilsonns on October 22, 2010, 05:44:47 pm
Post by: Sowelu on October 22, 2010, 06:09:38 pm
Post by: thvaz on October 22, 2010, 06:11:19 pm
What exactly changed on the travel map, other than the day/night meter?
The scale. It is in a closer scale.
Post by: Untelligent on October 22, 2010, 07:03:13 pm
To get a sense of scale, each tile on the region map (old travel map) has 16x16 local tiles (new travel map) in it. Each tile on the local map has 48x48 regular tiles in it.
Post by: wilsonns on October 22, 2010, 07:14:01 pm
Post by: G-Flex on October 22, 2010, 07:26:55 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 22, 2010, 07:27:15 pm
Post by: James.Denholm on October 22, 2010, 10:55:32 pm
Do you intend to show elevation on tile maps at any stage? Such as through subtle use of slight background colour deviation?
Post by: tfaal on October 22, 2010, 11:57:25 pm
Post by: G-Flex on October 23, 2010, 01:40:18 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 23, 2010, 06:18:17 am
Post by: Rose on October 23, 2010, 07:56:54 am
Post by: Untelligent on October 23, 2010, 05:55:26 pm
With the new travel maps, do ambushes by predatory critters still work fine?
Post by: Toady One on October 24, 2010, 11:31:35 pm
Quote from: thvaz
So minotaurs will use the weapons of their victims. Can they use shields and armors, provided they are of the right size? Other creatures will have this ability? Is it in the raws?
We only needed weapons for minotaurs, so that's all that there is. It wouldn't be much trouble, but it's not currently in. We want to handle other creatures, especially civilized creatures, differently than the beasts, so that'll have to wait for more of the combat arc stuff for impromptu item snatching or for the Decemberish stuff for longer term equipment considerations.
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady with the possible Mythology generator is there a chance that your long list if questions (why are we here, what are dreams) could also be fed into it so the answer could differ world to world with possible real game implications? (for example how Gods revere human beings). Will we ever see such world spanning randomisation?
Yeah, that's one of the main points of the mythology generator, and the answers are intended to be different each time. It'll take a lot of work and underlying mechanics to make that meaningful, but that's the idea. We are looking forward to people being at the places they go when they die and being able to visit and so on, like those myths where people try to rescue their loved ones from the land of the dead, and all of whatever else.
Quote from: Sowelu
The starting skill values are awesome! Is there any chance that in this version or an upcoming one, skills-per-race could be expanded further in the raws, like, goblin 'high master dodger' is better than dwarf 'high master dodger', or goblins learn dodge faster than dwarves, or some other way to represent that humans are better than dwarves at farming while dwarves are better at mining?
Yeah, I have no idea how that should actually work in the examples. Attributes have a lot to do with apparent skill differences. Then there's the matter of cultural influence leading to higher skill levels overall. But I suppose there are some skills where we can say that the mind of a creature is suited to that specific skill independent of everything else, and it wouldn't be a big issue to separate out all the skill rates -- there are currently numeric skill rates independent of the skill which would just need to be separated by skill.
Quote from: Untelligent
If minotaurs are getting revamped and giants and cyclops will too at some point, what about ettins?
Yeah, dragons and the hydra and the bronze colossus as well. We have preliminary plans for them, but I won't have time this time around. We had set out October for it before we wanted to move on.
Quote from: tfaal
Werewolves are of interest to me. Can we expect them to get some love from the new night creature features? Will they be transforming and living among humans any time soon?
Getting the night creature bases covered was the plan, and we wrote out notes for the main offenders, but there's no time left. I'm not sure if we're continuing on with them in November, or if we'll have to wait until later. From disappointment to disappointment, I know... but we'll get some stuff done sometime.
Quote from: Greiger
I like it. I'll miss the cool effects that were in the old one (like the unexplored fog sometimes dissapearing from mountaintops and such when you can see them clearly, even if your vision is blocked from seeing the lower altitudes.) But it seems to me that it would be an improvement overall.
I'm guessing the yellow gem up top is a time indicator? Will that give weather info as well or just time? What about rivers? With the lower level map will we have to go around them now if we don't have swimming skill or are able to fly, or will the adventurer still be able to teleport over an otherwise uncross-able torrent of water?
You still get those effects on the world map, which I might add as a split screen option as you move around. The top thingy is the sun and moon position indicator, yeah. It also fogs out, but it doesn't do clouds. We wanted to get to a star view but didn't get a chance. Rivers are still teleportable until there are more options for crossing.
Quote from: freeformschooler
Will there be any sort of time abstraction in this release? It's not a necessity, given all the other cool stuff, but since being able to have a place to sleep at night was brought to the forefront, I was curious
Yeah, there'll be something. It's one of the last things that definitely has to go in for this release, since night can be troubling.
Quote from: Rip0k
Will adventurer still heal during fast travel?
It's the same as it has been, until there are more options. Depending on how the sleep stuff works out, you might have to sleep instead of having that go away automatically.
Quote from: Knight Otu
Similarly, I would assume that mountain tiles remain impassable in travel mode?
Also, as a forward look when rivers are impassable and we can create adventurer sites - would we be able to create bridges that work in travel mode as well?
The mountains are impassible as before, yeah. The bridge issue is kind of a difficult one. I guess it could err on the side of allowing passage if the site connects the two sides in any way, but it would have to detect that at the time it saves or something. At the same time, it might be more fair to force people to traverse player-made sites locally, so that you have to deal with whatever ends up living there and so on, and that would let it respect the local map.
Quote from: James.Denholm
Do you intend to show elevation on tile maps at any stage? Such as through subtle use of slight background colour deviation?
No plans for now. I don't have a lot of colors available, though I could do maybe a Sentinel Worlds style blocks-within-blocks in ASCII and get sufficient resolution (with all colors and 4 inner shapes it would be 420 levels, though the ordering would look kind of arbitrary) without worrying about redoing the engine, but you'd need a separate view for that, which might not be satisfying.
Quote from: Untelligent
On starting skills: if we mod, say, dwarves to have starting skills, can migrants still come with a higher skill than the starting skill? Also, if a migrant comes and his skill is at that starting level but he doesn't use it, can it rust below the starting level?
With the new travel maps, do ambushes by predatory critters still work fine?
I think the migrants will just have increased skills instead of blanking the skills and then adding, but I haven't tried altering dwarves. Right now it's just an initial addition, so they'd rust as usual. Since I added it as a hack for initial knowledge of intelligent megabeasts, it makes sense either way, more or less. It makes less sense as you go more instinctual, though I have no idea on animals that learn skills from their parents. I could add an option if there's time.
Yeah, we're happy with the ambush rates. It hasn't needed too much tweaking because even in the currently released version, you were moving in the mid-level maps, it was just invisible.
Post by: Eduren on October 24, 2010, 11:46:43 pm
Post by: James.Denholm on October 25, 2010, 12:08:01 am
Quote from: James.DenholmDo you intend to show elevation on tile maps at any stage? Such as through subtle use of slight background colour deviation?
No plans for now. I don't have a lot of colors available, though I could do maybe a Sentinel Worlds style blocks-within-blocks in ASCII and get sufficient resolution (with all colors and 4 inner shapes it would be 420 levels, though the ordering would look kind of arbitrary) without worrying about redoing the engine, but you'd need a separate view for that, which might not be satisfying.
Specific reply comment: I suppose that's a fair point. Perhaps required colours/indicators could be lessened by using values as relative to the player's current elevation, and/or using a lower accuracy (only having a different indicator every however many values, whatever the technical term is for that), but I'm sure you've probably considered this previously.
Post by: Toady One on October 25, 2010, 12:29:29 am
Post by: FuzzyDoom on October 25, 2010, 12:34:06 am
If you got to choose 1 thing to add in, and it would would perfectly the way you wanted it, what would it be?
Post by: Neonivek on October 25, 2010, 02:33:46 am
Toady what are your views on lineage in terms of Great (or perhaps terrible) family lines? In as so far as having great people give birth to great people and vise versa
Post by: Flaede on October 25, 2010, 03:29:29 am
Thanks for answering our questions Toady! The mythology generator sounds even more exciting, though it seems so very very far away.
Toady what are your views on lineage in terms of Great (or perhaps terrible) family lines? In as so far as having great people give birth to great people and vise versa
Or great (but incestuous) royal lines that start great... but end with everyone being everyone's cousin, and all speaking with sssibilance.
Post by: Neonivek on October 25, 2010, 03:32:23 am
Great/Terrible Lines as almost forces in it of itself
Post by: darkflagrance on October 25, 2010, 04:43:33 am
Yeah
Great/Terrible Lines as almost forces in it of itself
One can probably code the mechanics better by better simulation of genetic traits, such as boosts to leadership, or strength, or military strategy, as well as dormant genetic disabilities like insanity that become exposed as families in general become in-bred.
Really, a lot of the drama of powerful families is the same drama as normal families that no one hears about because people like to keep it secret and it doesn't affect as many people, magnified by the tendency of royal families to be elite and exclusive.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 25, 2010, 06:22:06 am
Post by: Neonivek on October 25, 2010, 06:32:33 am
Crazy randomness with no plot cohesion.
Frankly I think "Leaders" such as kings should have more of a sex drive an actually stride to get a genetic heir before jumping infront of arrows.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 25, 2010, 06:57:13 am
Anyway the Leaders and theyr families have normally good amounts of Money and food. For that you can supply a good number of children and woman (a number of wifes, curtisans and whatever) which will most likely never starve and are thanks to a overall good health more resistant to illness of any kind.
Because these people normally dont "work" in a traditional sense they have also much spare-time in which they can learn stuff like arts, tactics, organisation, writing and reading, math, fencing etc. and they have the money to buy teachers (and doctors for that matter).
If you have the money and the education you can also get a better job in the society like being a judge, general or whatever because you can just buy this position or you are the only one who fits the requirements.
That these people are more likely to survive and be remarkable comes with the money. Naturally there has to be some kind of inheritance code that regulates how stuff like money is managed after the death of the family head. A strict but flexible code would work for humans for example like that 3/4 of the wealth goes to the first-born son and everything else to the rest of the family if the head of the family didnt have some favourite like his 2 nephew on the Mothers side because that one is a great warrior and liked among the population.
Post by: Neonivek on October 25, 2010, 07:03:53 am
I just like the dramatic reasons...
Post by: thvaz on October 25, 2010, 07:58:18 am
Thanks for the answers, Toady.
Post by: Rose on October 25, 2010, 08:05:28 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: therahedwig on October 25, 2010, 09:06:13 am
Though in his case it was mostly him being absolutely awesome and his kids just riding on his succes.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 25, 2010, 10:04:50 am
Also his description in earths legends mode goes like this:
Quote
Description of Barbarossa asin the "Friderici I imperatoris"
His character is such that not even those envious of his power can belittle its praise. His person is well-proportioned. He is shorter than very tall men, but taller and more noble than men of medium height. His hair is golden, curling a little above his forehead... His eyes are sharp and piercing, his beard reddish, his lips delicate... His whole face is bright and cheerful. His teeth are even and snow-white in color... Modesty rather than anger causes him to blush frequently. His shoulders are rather broad, and he is strongly built...
Thus it reveals that this world is just another iterarion of DF.
Post by: therahedwig on October 25, 2010, 10:19:58 am
Ok if we throw ancient German Emperors into the Object-Testing-Arena (your link is brocken btw.) i choose Frederick the first "Barbarossa" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_I,_Holy_Roman_Emperor) because he has an awesome legend and a beard worth to be called Dwarven.
Also his description in earths legends mode goes like this:QuoteDescription of Barbarossa asin the "Friderici I imperatoris"
His character is such that not even those envious of his power can belittle its praise. His person is well-proportioned. He is shorter than very tall men, but taller and more noble than men of medium height. His hair is golden, curling a little above his forehead... His eyes are sharp and piercing, his beard reddish, his lips delicate... His whole face is bright and cheerful. His teeth are even and snow-white in color... Modesty rather than anger causes him to blush frequently. His shoulders are rather broad, and he is strongly built...
Thus it reveals that this world is just another iterarion of DF.
fixed.
And suddenly the current description system seems a whole lot more awesome.
Post by: KillerClowns on October 25, 2010, 10:34:42 am
Yeah, that's one of the main points of the mythology generator, and the answers are intended to be different each time. It'll take a lot of work and underlying mechanics to make that meaningful, but that's the idea. We are looking forward to people being at the places they go when they die and being able to visit and so on, like those myths where people try to rescue their loved ones from the land of the dead, and all of whatever else.
Or stubbornly march into the land of the dead with seven dwarves and a caravan. :D
Post by: thvaz on October 26, 2010, 08:11:39 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 26, 2010, 09:19:53 am
Post by: thvaz on October 26, 2010, 10:36:43 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 26, 2010, 11:21:35 am
Post by: Scarpa on October 26, 2010, 09:20:54 pm
These latest updates are making me want to try out adventure mode again. The last time I spent a half hour training throwing and then got killed by the first pack of wolves about 2 minutes after decided to explore.
Post by: darkflagrance on October 26, 2010, 09:39:34 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on October 26, 2010, 11:46:33 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 27, 2010, 12:03:58 am
Post by: JoRo on October 27, 2010, 12:45:40 am
Hoping some get sacked in worldgen or become otherwise discounted as 'owned' sites so I can embark on one. Megaprojects for the incredibly lazy!
Post by: Mechanoid on October 27, 2010, 01:19:22 am
Post by: thvaz on October 27, 2010, 05:05:51 am
Looking forward to expore these castles in stonesense.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 27, 2010, 05:13:19 am
4 tiles wide walls and 2 tiles wide walkways on top of those walls are definitely the right choice. Thick enough to be reasonable for a wall, a wide enough path to not have to lay down to pass someone by, and to get attacked by multiple unimpeded defenders (the way it should be) Though maybe the keep's walls could be 2 tiles thick instead of 1 and not have what looks like a natural stone roof; of course if the last image was never posted we'd have never known. :P
I think that the walls should only be fortified on the outer edge tough, that's how we see castles on the real life.
Post by: Greiger on October 27, 2010, 07:21:02 am
Unfortunately those make mine look dinky. My walls are at most 2 tiles thick. And while the lowest level of my towers usually include a balissta they are only a dinky 5x6 square.
I'll need to redesign heh.
Post by: Emily Murkpaddled on October 27, 2010, 08:05:11 am
I was wowed first with the farms and huts being more terrain-smart, but now I'm just officially blown away. That greystone keep on the red and grey terrain is just ... wow. Can't wait to have fun defeating my enemies by building a massive aqueduct that pours water into the main courtyard until all the human rats are dead! :D
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 27, 2010, 08:15:46 am
Serioulsy i like the new castles. I wish we could get the wooden variant like the rebuild castle/stronghold in Raddusch (Germany ). The castle, made by the sorbs, is entirely constructed out of wood-logs as seen here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Slavenburg_raddusch.jpg). Its mostly a Ringwall as seen here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Slawenburg_Raddusch_5.JPG) and here (http://www.ferienhaus-kaiser.de/images/slavenburg.jpg) including a moat. It also would really piss any elves in 100 Kilometers range. :o
Post by: Areyar on October 27, 2010, 08:17:39 am
Sometimes, when prosperous, I'm able to fortify to every direction (Outward, inwards, up, down).
Paranoia is a dwarven survival trait. :)
But, yeah. My forts now look dinky too. :(
Although the gatehouse(s) tends to be bigger and more defendable, than in these designs.
No access for wagons either here, which is almost a prerequisite for a dwarven Fort. (yeah ok, it is only a castle outside a village, no commercial function.)
Quite cool and flexible design.
In-game architecture should inspire dorfmode players to ever greater projects.
Also loving the way the terrain is not altered as the earlier towers did in such dramatic manner.
Though I worry about the disconnect between instantaneously instantiated worldgen building and the playerfort that takes centuries to complete.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 27, 2010, 08:26:36 am
Though I worry about the disconnect between instantaneously instantiated worldgen building and the playerfort that takes centuries to complete.
Oh well if this thing is room based governed by "rules"* you could do various stages of completeness with an added shitton of masons and haulers.
Will this castles serve also a strategical important during worldgen in the next release? Like blocking an important pass over a mountain-range for an invading army?
* like: every tower need an adjacent wall
Post by: freeformschooler on October 27, 2010, 08:45:58 am
I seriously was not expecting castles. Even if they are not really used for anything, the "keep" is gorgeous for some reason. Plus, terrain-sensitivity is an added bonus that makes it more realistic.
Man there are just so many new things in this release, plus since Toady's said he's almost out of time... I guess it'll be soon :O
Post by: Yakefa on October 27, 2010, 10:43:24 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 27, 2010, 10:50:19 am
Post by: Mephansteras on October 27, 2010, 12:00:23 pm
Are castles just a human-only thing right now? Will other races be getting interesting places soon?
Post by: Quatch on October 27, 2010, 12:07:28 pm
Really liking the new castles! Much more interesting than the old giant rectangles.
Are castles just a human-only thing right now? Will other races be getting interesting places soon?
It's probably on the same track as the human villages and sprawl: Humans first, then others later.
Post by: Neonivek on October 27, 2010, 12:32:36 pm
Which while yes much more interesting... it is still sort of blank.
Post by: Rose on October 27, 2010, 12:33:35 pm
seems authentic to me.
Post by: tfaal on October 27, 2010, 01:11:23 pm
Post by: skaltum on October 27, 2010, 01:35:17 pm
Now that the human civilisation have improved and larger castles
When will you begin to implement more seige engines, or perhaps a mini mode such as the arena where the player is in command of the defenders or attackers and has catapults, seige towers battering rams etc at there disposal?, will it also be possible to implement a feature where destroyed towers or sections of walls would cause a cave in?
Post by: Sowelu on October 27, 2010, 02:14:40 pm
Post by: Cruxador on October 27, 2010, 02:36:18 pm
castle walls and a keepThere should also be stables at the very least, and probably some decent amount of living space outside the keep, since most castles expanded a bit in population after the construction was completed.
seems authentic to me.
Otherwise, they'd be much less big, because all that empty space in the middle isn't good for anything, (a field would be a good bit smaller than that) and walls aren't cheap to build.
Post by: darkflagrance on October 27, 2010, 02:46:43 pm
castle walls and a keepThere should also be stables at the very least, and probably some decent amount of living space outside the keep, since most castles expanded a bit in population after the construction was completed.
seems authentic to me.
Otherwise, they'd be much less big, because all that empty space in the middle isn't good for anything, (a field would be a good bit smaller than that) and walls aren't cheap to build.
Wall-building might be energy-expensive and time-consuming for npcs (and players) but for a Toady One it only takes a simple script to give every lord his own megaproject residence!
...Kinda hope we eventually get the raws or a means to edit the building scripts for world-genned buildings.
Post by: Footkerchief on October 27, 2010, 02:59:41 pm
When will you begin to implement more seige engines, or perhaps a mini mode such as the arena where the player is in command of the defenders or attackers and has catapults, seige towers battering rams etc at there disposal?, will it also be possible to implement a feature where destroyed towers or sections of walls would cause a cave in?
Toady has talked about siege engines a couple times:
With the improved sieges (sometime soon after this release, likely) will come a different and more properly supported notion of a moving vehicle (say, a siege tower), likely as a set of tiles handled something like constructions, but with the ability to move as a unit (along with any creatures or items in their tiles).
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1377634#msg1377634
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: jfsWhen stone fall traps are going to actually be stones falling from a level above, will catapults at the same time also be changed to they actually fire stones in arches and can hit multiple Z-levels? Also on the topic of siege weapons, are there plans for aimed/diagonal shots?
We want to have them fire in arcs, yeah, though I'm not sure what is going to fall out of the siege engine changes. It would of course be cool to siege a site with a bunch of crazy dwarf-built siege weapons you build up that can blow out designated sections of wall and do all kinds of horrible things to structures and soldiers alike. It relates back to how the lifts and other stuff works out. It's weird in a way to build siege engines tile by tile, and a little fussy if you just want to do something normal, but there's going to be a good system living in there somewhere.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=21498.msg322713#msg322713
Quote from: Toady One
Once sieges are up for improvement in the army arc, I'm probably going to tackle things like siege towers, which are multi-tile, multi-level constructions that can move across the map while containing critters and items (much like boats would be)
Post by: scriver on October 27, 2010, 07:02:35 pm
There should also be stables at the very least, and probably some decent amount of living space outside the keep, since most castles expanded a bit in population after the construction was completed.I was gonna post something similar earlier yesterday, but I restrained myself seeming as this is only the first iteration. It seems to me that such thing are most likely going in at a later state.
Otherwise, they'd be much less big, because all that empty space in the middle isn't good for anything, (a field would be a good bit smaller than that) and walls aren't cheap to build.
Post by: Cruxador on October 28, 2010, 12:26:51 am
Indeed. I had a similar thought process, but mentioned it in response to Japa as he seemed to indicate that this would be a good finished state, while I feel otherwise. I of course do not mean to imply that it should have all these things from the instant that the first vestiges of a properly walled castle is implemented.There should also be stables at the very least, and probably some decent amount of living space outside the keep, since most castles expanded a bit in population after the construction was completed.I was gonna post something similar earlier yesterday, but I restrained myself seeming as this is only the first iteration. It seems to me that such thing are most likely going in at a later state.
Otherwise, they'd be much less big, because all that empty space in the middle isn't good for anything, (a field would be a good bit smaller than that) and walls aren't cheap to build.
Post by: Eric Blank on October 28, 2010, 02:12:55 am
Really liking the new castles! Much more interesting than the old giant rectangles.
Are castles just a human-only thing right now? Will other races be getting interesting places soon?
This somehow brings to mind the idea of player-moddable sites and structures (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=55021.msg1183570#msg1183570)
Is this even a consideration at the moment?) There is already the ability to design quite a bit of the objects in the game. (Even new spoilers (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=55949.0), actually. That is a spoiler)
I suppose it's rude to mention it considering I made that particular thread and all, but I still think it'd be unbelievably awesome for people like me who like to mod in their own civs and creatures to be able to provide them with unique housing and whatnot. Clearly it's not happening any time soon.
Post by: Dae on October 28, 2010, 12:20:28 pm
Post by: Untelligent on October 28, 2010, 12:34:07 pm
I just noticed something : while the keep is higher than all the towers... there's only ground level. No stairs. Then why bother making it higher ? Is that a bug ?
No, the ceiling is just really high.
Post by: thvaz on October 28, 2010, 12:40:30 pm
How much time it takes for a civ to build one of these castles? If they are not instantly built, can the process be interrupted? Are they built with materials available to the civilizations? Is wood one of these materials?Can they become ruins?
Post by: Jiri Petru on October 28, 2010, 03:48:20 pm
(And speaking of it, all the other adventurer mode buildings.)
Post by: Footkerchief on October 28, 2010, 03:50:55 pm
Why do the towers use ramps instead of stairs?
(And speaking of it, all the other adventurer mode buildings.)
Probably because DF ramps are much more stairlike than DF stairs, which are more akin to antigravity tubes or something.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on October 28, 2010, 04:02:56 pm
Post by: G-Flex on October 28, 2010, 04:03:59 pm
I just think of DF stairs as being spiral staircases, or something similar.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on October 28, 2010, 04:09:04 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on October 28, 2010, 04:11:27 pm
Not really, I've always seen DF stairs as being like spiral staircases. Rather than 12 sets, or whatever distance corresponds to a z level
Sure but spiral staircases are much more interesting when they actually go in a spiral. For instance, if you stack DF stairs 10 high, you can still shoot a projectile from top to bottom because there aren't any floors to stop it.
Ramps are pretty messed up too, when you think about it. They're omnidirectional (a ramp can go up to the left and right at the same time, and change on demand — neat!), they don't particularly exist at the top level, and so forth.
Stairs have the equivalent weirdness of letting you move between them in any direction. Imagine what a 3x3x10 stack of spiral stairs would look like.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on October 28, 2010, 04:15:32 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 28, 2010, 04:17:04 pm
Post by: G-Flex on October 28, 2010, 05:03:07 pm
Sure but spiral staircases are much more interesting when they actually go in a spiral. For instance, if you stack DF stairs 10 high, you can still shoot a projectile from top to bottom because there aren't any floors to stop it.
To be fair, plenty of spiral staircases still have a line of sight from top to bottom, although not completely unobstructed.
Quote
Stairs have the equivalent weirdness of letting you move between them in any direction. Imagine what a 3x3x10 stack of spiral stairs would look like.
I like to think of a large block of stairs as just one very large staircase. Of course, it's still a little weird that you can move between any of their tiles.
Post by: monk12 on October 28, 2010, 09:54:27 pm
Post by: Cruxador on October 29, 2010, 01:45:33 am
I'm now imagining my dwarves shooting around my fortress in pneumatic tubes. The image is not unpleasant; it seems efficient.Why do the towers use ramps instead of stairs?
(And speaking of it, all the other adventurer mode buildings.)
Probably because DF ramps are much more stairlike than DF stairs, which are more akin to antigravity tubes or something.
You can do that in a normal spiral staircase, by leaning over one of the sides. It's possible for people to take cover, sure, but a shot is still pretty feasible.Not really, I've always seen DF stairs as being like spiral staircases. Rather than 12 sets, or whatever distance corresponds to a z level
Sure but spiral staircases are much more interesting when they actually go in a spiral. For instance, if you stack DF stairs 10 high, you can still shoot a projectile from top to bottom because there aren't any floors to stop it.
Quote
Designing that would be an interesting feat of engineering for a human. For a dwarf, it is presumably something that is dealt with in the earlier classes at architecture school.Ramps are pretty messed up too, when you think about it. They're omnidirectional (a ramp can go up to the left and right at the same time, and change on demand — neat!), they don't particularly exist at the top level, and so forth.
Stairs have the equivalent weirdness of letting you move between them in any direction. Imagine what a 3x3x10 stack of spiral stairs would look like.
I would also suggest that many ramps are actually single direction staircases, such as you would find in front of your local library, or perhaps in a government building. Of course, I suggest this because I do not want to deprive my dwarves of stairs entirely, given my dislike for the aforementioned Antigravity Tubes.So you'd rather that parts of your fortress be ADA non-compliant for no reason?
Post by: Mechanoid on October 29, 2010, 02:34:48 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 29, 2010, 03:36:59 am
Post by: Cruxador on October 29, 2010, 04:23:06 am
All ramps are also 45 degrees. Pushing a seige engine (let alone a tower) up that would be... terribly difficult.I think this is where the line is between complaining that an abstraction is inadequate and complaining that it is an abstraction.
that's why siege engines are static1. I highly doubt that that is the reason.
2. They are not intended to remain immobile.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 29, 2010, 04:45:12 am
Post by: magmaholic on October 29, 2010, 07:02:52 am
Post by: tfaal on October 29, 2010, 12:16:15 pm
can we have dungeons under castles?secret escape routes:D?Or crypts?Royal furneal chambers,of some sort?So the Urist McDeadKingDwarf can slaughter the ones that interrupt his eternal sleep?All of the above are planned, but there is no definite timetable in place.
Post by: monk12 on October 29, 2010, 12:27:41 pm
I would also suggest that many ramps are actually single direction staircases, such as you would find in front of your local library, or perhaps in a government building. Of course, I suggest this because I do not want to deprive my dwarves of stairs entirely, given my dislike for the aforementioned Antigravity Tubes.So you'd rather that parts of your fortress be ADA non-compliant for no reason?
Hey, I have a reason! I hate cripples!
Post by: tfaal on October 29, 2010, 01:54:29 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 29, 2010, 02:02:12 pm
Post by: monk12 on October 29, 2010, 02:27:24 pm
FAKEEDIT: Apparently I dont have to work November First. BRING IT ON!
Post by: thvaz on October 29, 2010, 02:37:11 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 29, 2010, 02:43:15 pm
Post by: Untelligent on October 29, 2010, 03:14:25 pm
Post by: Rockphed on October 29, 2010, 08:57:34 pm
Post by: darkflagrance on October 29, 2010, 10:50:07 pm
Post by: nordak on October 30, 2010, 02:53:22 pm
Post by: Wolf Tengu on October 30, 2010, 10:05:02 pm
I wonder if the castly places will have loot. Like weapons n'stuff.
Post by: Untelligent on October 31, 2010, 12:18:37 am
Post by: ManaUser on October 31, 2010, 01:56:51 am
All ramps are also 45 degrees. Pushing a seige engine (let alone a tower) up that would be... terribly difficult.Only if we assume tiles are cubes. That isn't necessarily true. Although I suspect any attempt to deduce the actual dimensions would only lead to weirdness. As far as I know, the official size is still "large enough 100 dragons, as long as 99 are lying down".
Post by: Rockphed on October 31, 2010, 04:15:05 am
I seem to recall Toady actually giving a size estimate for a historical building that also appears in the game. I don't remember if he actually said how big tiles generally are, but I think he mentioned it. At any rate, it isn't "large enough for 100 dragons...", it is "large enough for nigh infinite dragons, as long as all but 1 are lying down."All ramps are also 45 degrees. Pushing a seige engine (let alone a tower) up that would be... terribly difficult.Only if we assume tiles are cubes. That isn't necessarily true. Although I suspect any attempt to deduce the actual dimensions would only lead to weirdness. As far as I know, the official size is still "large enough 100 dragons, as long as 99 are lying down".
Post by: thvaz on October 31, 2010, 07:08:38 am
Will bandits attack in fortress mode? There will be multiracial bands?
It is a pity we wont have a release though. I was really expecting it today.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 31, 2010, 08:35:05 am
edit: Accoring to wikipedia name and purpose of the holyday are controversal.
Post by: Ethicalfive on October 31, 2010, 09:49:04 am
Your persistance and hard work is a real inspiration Toady, may your enthusiasm never wane.
Post by: Footkerchief on October 31, 2010, 11:34:43 am
Quote from: devlog
After that, I cleaned up the wrestling interface a bit
That whole devlog entry looks great, but this is the real gem.
Post by: Rip0k on October 31, 2010, 11:36:56 am
Post by: Austinthecat on October 31, 2010, 11:40:39 am
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on October 31, 2010, 11:42:31 am
Post by: Dakk on October 31, 2010, 12:10:32 pm
Post by: Deon on October 31, 2010, 12:55:30 pm
@Rip0k, I think shops have been back in for a while now.Not for a single version though :). So I hope they make it back.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on October 31, 2010, 12:58:09 pm
Post by: tfaal on October 31, 2010, 01:14:45 pm
I notice the dev page hasn't been updated to reflect the upcoming changes of the next release. Isn't that what "Done, Next Release" is for?
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on October 31, 2010, 01:21:12 pm
Post by: Dakk on October 31, 2010, 02:22:54 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on October 31, 2010, 03:02:24 pm
Post by: Miko19 on October 31, 2010, 04:55:36 pm
Now, finally adventure mode is less for masochists, more for crazy people! (Whom are all DF players, obviously)
Post by: Rip0k on October 31, 2010, 05:55:22 pm
It may simply be that the additions since then weren't complete enough to mark as resolved on the dev page. 13 was the entity populations, which are marked, 14 was the sprawl options, 15 and 16 were strongly bugfix releases. 17 will provide basic night creatures with a bit of the Torment the Living section, but not that much; Castles that were mentioned as one of the non-town sites, but more work remains there as well; and now bandits as mentioned in the first portion of the Villains section. The bandits do seem to be complete enough to green that portion, but otherwise, I don't think there's much call to update the page.
yet still it's gonna be epic.
Post by: Toady One on November 01, 2010, 12:55:00 am
Quote from: FuzzyDoom
If you got to choose 1 thing to add in, and it would would perfectly the way you wanted it, what would it be?
I usually say time travel for this, because it'd be more or less impossible, but if it were perfect, then that would mean the computers are awesome. I have trouble thinking in terms of favorites in general though. There are lots of things to do and they all work with each other.
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady what are your views on lineage in terms of Great (or perhaps terrible) family lines? In as so far as having great people give birth to great people and vise versa
...
I understand the "Money" and "Genetic" aspect but usually in myth and legend there is actual power in being the son or daughter of someone who is also great.
Yeah, there's definitely a place for that. The demigod thing, the descendents of a more mighty ancient people, magic running in bloodlines, fate smiling on a family tree, a tie with the land being ruled, etc. There are a lot of angles. There will probably be people that don't want that sort of separation between people, and I imagine restricting or removing it would be the same as removing a type of magic from the world.
Quote from: Heph
Will this castles serve also a strategical important during worldgen in the next release? Like blocking an important pass over a mountain-range for an invading army?
Not in the next release. The move to a weekly world gen for army considerations is a prelude to doing more tracking of positions and so on, but it doesn't march them around or think about terrain beyond static bonuses. There might be armies moving around during play before world gen gifts them with properly placed fortifications. Then we'd need to get them thinking more about how they want to place things.
Quote from: Mephansteras
Are castles just a human-only thing right now? Will other races be getting interesting places soon?
I'm not sure exactly when the other races will get their stuffs. The obstacle for the elves is making giant trees and the obstacle for dwarves is making it generate a dwarf fortress. We'll just have to start it some time, but it might coincide with the fortress starting scenario stuff about entity pops associated to your fort since that will further specify how dwarf sprawl is going to relate to its surroundings.
Quote from: tfaal
Will the unwinnable quests to kill friendly demon civ-leaders be no-more with this release?
Yeah. You can also take quests from the demon should you locate it.
Quote from: skaltum
When will you begin to implement more seige engines, or perhaps a mini mode such as the arena where the player is in command of the defenders or attackers and has catapults, seige towers battering rams etc at there disposal?, will it also be possible to implement a feature where destroyed towers or sections of walls would cause a cave in?
I imagine once the armies are moving around and you yourself are tasked to or otherwise want to overcome a castle's defenses, you'll start getting your prizes. There's also the boat angle which I doubt will be the cause of vehicles (or moving siege engines) but could be. Then there are the dwarf siege improvements, which requires pretty much the same preconditions as the adventure mode sieges. So imagine as we are working through the Nov/Dec site resource/caravan/army stuff, we might not get to siege engines, but we'll be ready for it. Any disconnected wall section would collapse, but having siege engines breaking pieces of walls might making improving the cave-in code a higher priority.
Quote from: Eric Blank
This somehow brings to mind the idea of player-moddable sites and structures
Is this even a consideration at the moment?
I'm not sure what I need for the vanilla game yet, so it would be difficult to tie myself to a raw format for moddable structures at this early point. There's quite a bit of random variation, so it's the same trouble as rawifying the random beasts.
Quote from: thvaz
How much time it takes for a civ to build one of these castles? If they are not instantly built, can the process be interrupted? Are they built with materials available to the civilizations? Is wood one of these materials?Can they become ruins?
Right now it is an instant process, which means it takes one year at most. We wanted to do wooden fortifications, but if you have to do one quickly, then the big stone ones are more fun. On the other hand, humans don't currently have stone as civ materials, so it's all very strange. The upcoming site resource stuff should change all of this. Castles are subject to the new site code, which doesn't respect the old ruination stuff yet, but we'll get to it.
Quote from: Jiri Petru
Why do the towers use ramps instead of stairs?
(And speaking of it, all the other adventurer mode buildings.)
I think of the X stairs as more rickety spiral staircases, but aside from the tower, the only one I can think of is the new labyrinth, which uses stairs. I also didn't like the thought of a battle being fought up a tower with the defenders always being directly above in a row, especially if arrows work down through multiple stair tiles.
Quote from: thvaz
Will bandits attack in fortress mode? There will be multiracial bands?
They don't attack in fortress mode at this point. In part because they don't yet make new groups and in part because they don't attack yet sites, just travelers. There are multiracial bands. In general you'll have goblins, or humans, or humans and goblins, but if humans take over elf/dwarf sites in world gen then you can get those as well.
Quote
Quote from: tfaalI notice the dev page hasn't been updated to reflect the upcoming changes of the next release. Isn't that what "Done, Next Release" is for?Quote from: Knight OtuIt may simply be that the additions since then weren't complete enough to mark as resolved on the dev page.
Yeah, it has been rough there. Even the bandit mention at the top of villians is probably only fit for a "partial" once the release is up, since the leaders don't really feel like villains specifically, but it is technically done. I can mark off "Reputation with entity (see below) allowing for easier followers", and I think there's another partial in the reputation section now. "Clean up the wrestling interface" just happened.
Post by: Neonivek on November 01, 2010, 06:46:05 am
It surprises me everytime
Toady what are views on gods and forces manifesting or rather having physical bodies whether it being their true body, Avatar, or even a avatar tied into their being? Will they ever appear? How powerful will they be?
Second Toady question in spoiler
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I wonder if I should be asking questions like these
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on November 01, 2010, 08:28:38 am
Post by: Neonivek on November 01, 2010, 08:30:02 am
that's a quote, not a spoiler
Whoops fixed.
Post by: freeformschooler on November 01, 2010, 10:55:31 am
Quote
I know I just said I was done with features, but I was on a roll and did aimed attacks and random combat opportunities.
I am vomiting rainbows.
I'll think of a question later.
Post by: Greiger on November 01, 2010, 10:56:52 am
Quote
devlog
I...I...I don't know what to say...
I think I'm crying with joy...
...ninjad. But still crying with joy.
Post by: Dakk on November 01, 2010, 11:08:44 am
Post by: Untelligent on November 01, 2010, 11:09:38 am
Unfortunately, smarter enemies probably means my weird swarm of bees that stings enemies until they fall unconscious and then strangles them to death will probably stop doing that, but it's a small price to pay.
Post by: thvaz on November 01, 2010, 11:12:51 am
Tomorrow is holiday here and I can't play this jewel ...
Do these changes in combat occur in fortress mode too? I mean, dwarves and his enemies will choose strikes based on these new rules?
Post by: KillerClowns on November 01, 2010, 11:26:27 am
Post by: Greiger on November 01, 2010, 11:32:25 am
Post by: thvaz on November 01, 2010, 12:01:22 pm
- Random-generated night creatures like hags and trolls, the scope of which we yet don't fully know!
- Revamped minotaurs which steal weapons from their fallen enemies and builds labirinths!
- Bandits!
- Reputation system!
- Shops are back!
- New Travel Map!
- Randomized Castles!
- Aimed attacks and random-combat opportunities!
Now I need only fleshed out announcements in adventure mode(the cluttering in large battles is overbearing) and I think I wll never need to play another roguelike again.
Post by: nordak on November 01, 2010, 12:35:11 pm
Post by: Untelligent on November 01, 2010, 12:43:00 pm
Next weekend or earlier, methinks.
To add to that list:
-quests are much easier to get
-inns (I think)
-gatherings of
-natural starting skills for modders
-probably a few fixes to existing bugs
Post by: Organum on November 01, 2010, 01:06:37 pm
Post by: Mephansteras on November 01, 2010, 01:17:05 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on November 01, 2010, 02:09:44 pm
Aimed attacks are the best thing since...since...Well, something really good.since castles!!
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 01, 2010, 02:22:31 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 01, 2010, 02:28:10 pm
Apart from that some questions:
How do the kicker, dodger and related skills influence the fighting opportunities?
Are Kicking, punching considered as valid attacks if you have for example one hand free so you could punch the other guy to knock him out?
Do these aimed attacks work for Ranged weapons too? Will spitting cobras aim for your eyes?
Is Armor taken into account thus will the Ai attack an un-armored part of someones body if the rest is to hard to get through?
edit: Also thanks again for the WoT made from Answers.
Post by: Untelligent on November 01, 2010, 02:38:28 pm
Well with Aimed attacks in place do you think you could go on into basic "Martial arts" next?
The next thing to be worked on is the long-heralded Caravan Arc, a particularily significant bit of development because many, many other features need framework from the Caravan Arc before they can go in.
Mostly it has to do with economic stuff; two of the most important things I can think of are site resource tracking, and merchants moving around on the map (which will eventually replace the ones in fortress mode that are generated and ungenerated on the spot), from which we get the name "Caravan Arc."
Exactly how much Toady will accomplish this month, I can't say, but so many other arcs rely on resource tracking and things moving across the world in post-worldgen that even by the end of November, a great deal of other arcs (or at least the early phases of them; seems like we're always only in early phases) will become feasible for development.
Post by: JoRo on November 01, 2010, 02:44:17 pm
Man, this release just keeps getting better. I can't wait to see how more intelligent target selection plays out.
Post by: monk12 on November 01, 2010, 02:45:01 pm
Because the combat logs make for some good reading, and I expect that enemies could become more deadly as well.
Post by: Dakk on November 01, 2010, 02:48:32 pm
Post by: thvaz on November 01, 2010, 02:49:30 pm
Post by: Sagabal on November 01, 2010, 02:55:30 pm
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 01, 2010, 02:56:23 pm
Post by: magmaholic on November 01, 2010, 02:57:27 pm
like an object with moneytary value,or a bag `o gold?
people would like to have a MOTIVE to finish quests.
:)
well,how the hell are you gonna buy something,when you got no money?
Post by: Vattic on November 01, 2010, 02:57:38 pm
Post by: Huw_Dawson on November 01, 2010, 02:58:23 pm
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 01, 2010, 03:00:16 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on November 01, 2010, 03:03:16 pm
EDIT: It just occurred to me, will aimed shots be in for ranged attacks as well? It'd be sweet if my legendary marksdwarf can start rattling off headshots like they're going out of style, and my hunters stop throwing three quivers of bolts into particularly stubborn deer.
Heph just asked this above. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1683399#msg1683399)
Since creatures are now able to identify an opportunity to deal a decisive blow into whatever they're fighting, how will they behave when there's no special oportunities to say, hack someone's head off? Will they just fight normaly as they did, or they will try certain things, like disarming you or trying to put you off balance to achieve that opportunity for lethal damage?
Making the AI plan multi-stage maneuvers, like disarmament or putting you off balance in preparation for a strike, is probably not the kind of feature that would be implemented in a day, and it's not closely related to any of the features he did implement. He'd have mentioned it.
how soon are there gonna be rewards,alfter finishing a mission?
like an object with moneytary value,or a bag `o gold?
people would like to have a MOTIVE to finish quests.
:)
well,how the hell are you gonna buy something,when you got no money?
This point was addressed in the devlog, and is one of the goals for the release: (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2010-10-07)
Quote
Everybody in town will have something for you to do or be able to direct you somewhere definite, and you'll be remembered for what you do, which should allow you to move on to better things with more buddies, or give you a place to sleep safely at night.
Post by: Untelligent on November 01, 2010, 03:07:37 pm
Will aimed attacks and wrestling attacks be organized with submenus? Scrolling through 8 pages of possible wrestling moves (only 2 of which I ever use) becomes tiring.
Seems to me that first you select what you want to attack, then you select what you want to do to it. It's not perfect, but it's much better than, say, the current wrestling system.
Also I just noticed that with weapons with multiple attacks (such as slashing with a sword vs. stabbing or slapping), you can choose which action to use now. It makes a bunch of my mod weapons that exploited the randomness of that (along with blunt attacks being much less common) unfeasible now, but I can live with that.
EDIT: just thought of something:
Will all this aimed attack stuff be optional (i.e. toggled via a menu in-game)? It's great for tough battles, but when I'm fighting a horde of crundles it might be more efficient to turn off tactical combat for a few minutes.
Post by: ManaUser on November 01, 2010, 03:23:29 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on November 01, 2010, 03:31:02 pm
Toady what are views on gods and forces manifesting or rather having physical bodies whether it being their true body, Avatar, or even a avatar tied into their being? Will they ever appear? How powerful will they be?
This has come up before:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg852293;topicseen#msg852293
Quote from: Footkerchief
Some tidbits on the divine manifestation thing:The elves aren't exactly monotheistic -- they believe in a force, not a deity, so it's a bit more like the animism you want, though not precisely (it's the spirit of the forest), or Star Wars before the bacteria worship. They don't try to talk to the force, anyway, unlike the deity-worshippers in adv mode, and they'd mock anybody that tried (not that it takes much to set them off), though "feeling it" would certainly be fair game. The force concept is specifically meant to allow supernatural activity without personification, although the random names are sometimes suggestive of a personification. If the force were to manifest itself in the forest as a giant stag or something, it would be more like a deity, though when I get there, there is bound to be some fuzziness.Now, the reason gods are treated like historical figures is so that eventually they can manifest and run around in worlds where they actually exist, but that won't be done until it's done. There's nothing really preventing it from being the next thing to go in, but that's true of many, many things.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg853384;topicseen#msg853384
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: AqizzarAnd while it's probably slated for much later, what kind of interaction is there between these physical demons and the gods civilizations come up with? Presumably, those gods will eventually stop being so imaginary all the time.
I have no idea when the gods will become more real, but theoretically yeah, they'd have something to do with something. That might be a good time to start randomizing the metaphysics and doing creation myths, instead of using the fixed model we've got now with titans + demons etc., so that the interactions can be more varied.
Post by: Untelligent on November 01, 2010, 03:47:56 pm
So... will I be able to bite people now?
There's options in the screenshots for biting and scratching, so that's a definite yes. Unless Toady was a sword-wielding groundhog hero or something.
Post by: isitanos on November 01, 2010, 05:10:37 pm
Post by: VPellen on November 01, 2010, 05:15:38 pm
in this screenshot (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/aim3.png) all bodyparts say "Simple strike, direct hit".
I think that alligator is meant to be unconscious.
Post by: Rockphed on November 01, 2010, 05:22:19 pm
Hmm, with a long creature such as an alligator you'd expect some bodyparts to be harder to reach due to your relative position. However in this screenshot (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/aim3.png) all bodyparts say "Simple strike, direct hit".
That was supposed to show how things work against an incapacitated creature. I think. Thus, since they are just lying there, you can lop any parts you want. If you decide not to lop off their head, they could theoretically wake up minus body parts.
Post by: Neonivek on November 01, 2010, 05:47:21 pm
Quote
This has come up before
But not in a way that sufficiantly answers my question which is more about how gods will manifest in full and how powerful Toady really expects them to be since they can be anywhere from Megabeast strength, which makes sense given that some megabeasts actually were birthed from gods in myth and legends, to even so beyond that to the point where Toady would either make them unstoppable or simply not capable of existing in a real form. Then there is what risks a god actually takes when fighting in their physical form, for example if a god manifests are they even harmed by being defeated? and since Footkerchief commented Toady is very likely to skip over it.
Meaning that I may have to ask the same question... again...
*sigh*
Though maybe I should take it as a sign that I should elaborate or at least not be afraid of posting huge questions.
Post by: thvaz on November 01, 2010, 06:45:25 pm
-SNIP-
Meaning that I may have to ask the same question... again...
*sigh*
Though maybe I should take it as a sign that I should elaborate or at least not be afraid of posting huge questions.
Or maybe as Toady isn't doing nothing even nearly related to gods at the moment, he doesn't know yet what exactly he will implement when the time comes... and this is the reason most of us makes questions related to current developments.
Not that you shouldn't, just that Toady is more likely to given precise answers for questions about what he is doing.
Post by: James.Denholm on November 01, 2010, 07:01:07 pm
Hmm, with a long creature such as an alligator you'd expect some bodyparts to be harder to reach due to your relative position. However in this screenshot (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/aim3.png) all bodyparts say "Simple strike, direct hit".
That was supposed to show how things work against an incapacitated creature. I think. Thus, since they are just lying there, you can lop any parts you want. If you decide not to lop off their head, they could theoretically wake up minus body parts.
This causes me to recall the discussion earlier about the deliberate amputations...
Urist McDoctor: "Now, Urist McSuperSoldier, declare me your enemy and allow me to knock you out. This will allow me to preform precision com- I mean, precision amputations. With my sword."
Post by: isitanos on November 01, 2010, 07:14:14 pm
Hmm, with a long creature such as an alligator you'd expect some bodyparts to be harder to reach due to your relative position. However in this screenshot (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/aim3.png) all bodyparts say "Simple strike, direct hit".
That was supposed to show how things work against an incapacitated creature. I think. Thus, since they are just lying there, you can lop any parts you want. If you decide not to lop off their head, they could theoretically wake up minus body parts.
Makes sense.
Post by: Neonivek on November 01, 2010, 07:21:24 pm
-SNIP-
Meaning that I may have to ask the same question... again...
*sigh*
Though maybe I should take it as a sign that I should elaborate or at least not be afraid of posting huge questions.
Or maybe as Toady isn't doing nothing even nearly related to gods at the moment, he doesn't know yet what exactly he will implement when the time comes... and this is the reason most of us makes questions related to current developments.
Not that you shouldn't, just that Toady is more likely to given precise answers for questions about what he is doing.
Then I would only be asking him about his current development.
Post by: Knigel on November 01, 2010, 07:56:59 pm
I'm asking this because, as awesome as aimed attacks are going to be, I'm afraid they might make most defenses ineffective and lead to even a moderately armored units being instantly killed when even a weak unit gets a lucky neck shot. Which would make progress in Adventure Mode incredibly difficult.
Granted, this may not be too big an issue depending on what decides difficulty in attacking certain body parts.
Post by: dennislp3 on November 01, 2010, 08:11:20 pm
Judging by that pic I think its balanced to work with positioning (some say cant land squarely/cant connect) and the more vital areas seem difficult enough (head is difficult strike, most are normal, and arms are easy relative to position)...but then again this is one pic with minimal details....
Post by: Narmio on November 01, 2010, 09:38:08 pm
I know I can just add pauldrons to breastplates with the [UBSTEP:1] tag, or add vambraces/couter/rerebraces to gauntlets with [UPSTEP:MAX], but I'd prefer some official solution existed. There were too many arena combatants losing arms at the shoulder before I realised that a full suit of plate had a gap!
Post by: Captain Mayday on November 01, 2010, 09:44:40 pm
My interest here is in how exactly the enemies pick the 'best' targets.
My assumption is that the attacks have a tendency to strike at [HEAD], [UPPERBODY] and [LOWERBODY] tagged body parts, and possibly throats as well (though this might fall under [HEAD] with the vanilla body constructs).
I presume in this case that the tendency to strike these tags will flow on into your non-aimed attacks in adventurer mode.
Since everything already has a relative size, I further assume that this also impacts the likelihood of attacks hitting.
How accurate is this?
Re-asked from http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=69582.0 (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=69582.0)
I'll also ask, are you planning to use creature variations to help with the stock night creature type creatures?
To clarify, let me give an example - the werewolf.
Werewolves may possess a syndrome that allows them to infect on a bite.
This syndrome would trigger a creature variation (possibly even delayed by time), which would add, remove or change tags on the base creature.
This would of course cause them to gain the syndrome causing bite as well.
Post by: tfaal on November 01, 2010, 09:49:16 pm
Post by: Knigel on November 01, 2010, 10:45:10 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on November 01, 2010, 10:48:37 pm
^^I certainly hope you can't target the neck specifically, or that it's at least really hard to hit on a conscious foe (at least one with arms), because you can't really cover that. The same goes for your mouth, nose, and ears.
Not that it negates your point, but that may be a bug. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=1060)
Post by: Captain Mayday on November 01, 2010, 10:56:57 pm
^^I certainly hope you can't target the neck specifically, or that it's at least really hard to hit on a conscious foe (at least one with arms), because you can't really cover that. The same goes for your mouth, nose, and ears.
Relsize for upper torso is 2000, same goes for lower torso. Head is 300.
Throat is quite a bit smaller.
Given the relsizes, it should be extremely difficult to strike the throat.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 01, 2010, 11:33:48 pm
Post by: Knigel on November 01, 2010, 11:58:53 pm
Relsize for upper torso is 2000, same goes for lower torso. Head is 300.
Throat is quite a bit smaller.
Given the relsizes, it should be extremely difficult to strike the throat.
It should be assuming difficulty in attacking a body part is based directly and dynamically on size. Which is probably the best choice for now (until a probably reach system can be incoporated), but we really won't know that until Toady says so.
Well it isnt that indeep but calling a shot say for the brainstem trough the throat slightly angled upward (can even be done with a pen) as awesome as it is instant death. What i want to say: if somebody has the right anatomical (or martial arts) knowledge s/he could aim for inner organs especially - this would be truly awesome. This way we could learn Anatomics of different beings!
That's sort of overly specific, but I do find the idea of attacks on certain body-parts getting easier with experience interesting.
EDIT: Actually, I just thought of something else:
Do aimed attacks simply hit the target or miss entirely, or if they fail to hit the target might they still hit somewhere close by?
Post by: Footkerchief on November 02, 2010, 12:38:25 am
Do aimed attacks simply hit the target or miss entirely, or if they fail to hit the target might they still hit somewhere close by?
This was asked on the previous page:
And if you do miss a strike is there a chance of it hitting a nearby bodypart instead before it misses completely?
Post by: Deon on November 02, 2010, 02:41:08 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Acanthus117 on November 02, 2010, 03:22:22 am
NERDGASM
Post by: OmnipotentGrue on November 02, 2010, 06:01:47 am
Okay, now I can't wait for this.
NERDGASM
Ditto.
Post by: DG on November 02, 2010, 07:08:09 am
The next thing to be worked on is the long-heralded Caravan Arc, a particularily significant bit of development because many, many other features need framework from the Caravan Arc before they can go in.
Castles and smacking a guy in the head when you want to are cool but any additions only excite me in so much as they lead to the caravan arc being closer.
Post by: Psieye on November 02, 2010, 09:14:50 am
smacking a guy in the head when you want to are cool but any additions only excite me in so much as they lead to the caravan arc being closer.The big implication is that this will also apply to fortress mode - beating up an unconscious creature for months only to starve to death first will be a thing of the past.
Post by: Neonivek on November 02, 2010, 09:20:30 am
Post by: shadow_archmagi on November 02, 2010, 09:25:56 am
The days of "And thus the demon did lift his warhammer, and the elf Lorenotomo Thistleberries was cruelly mauled; his third toe left foot was obliterated!" engravings are OVER!?
Post by: Neonivek on November 02, 2010, 09:27:13 am
Oh no
The days of "And thus the demon did lift his warhammer, and the elf Lorenotomo Thistleberries was cruelly mauled; his third toe left foot was obliterated!" engravings are OVER!?
Naw who says it still doesn't do that in World Gen?
Also who says you cannot miss a location and strike a different spot instead? Miss a foot and hit a toe for example.
Post by: TKTom on November 02, 2010, 12:16:32 pm
Post by: nordak on November 02, 2010, 03:00:01 pm
Have lashers been nerfed? I read everything Toady posted and didn't see it mentioned. Just wanted to know.
Post by: tfaal on November 02, 2010, 03:40:23 pm
Post by: PermanentInk on November 02, 2010, 03:55:37 pm
Post by: Dakk on November 02, 2010, 05:56:43 pm
Post by: OneTwentySix on November 02, 2010, 06:15:22 pm
There's a number problems with caravans as the game stands right now. With the improvements to sites and caravans coming up, will any of these things change?
One of my big issues with caravans is that there really isn't a lot that a caravan can bring that you can't produce yourself, and better (exceptions being elven animals and rare gems, and if I understand right, rare gems will be a limited resource now). A fort younger than a year or two might need help with food, booze, or weapons/armor, but once you get your forges and workshops set up and have people manning them, you can produce anything you need, and at higher quality than the caravans. Will this change with any of the future improvements?
Item values are also pretty crazy; are you planning on rebalancing any of this? You can buy out whole caravans with a few roasts, or a bin or two of rejected steel armor (keeping the best quality stuff for your dwarves). Aside from the first year, I never need to produce trade goods, just trading second tier armor or dead invader gear. On top of that, some of the treasures from the real world are extremely underwhelming. Copper is common and more or less junk, silver is just as common and only slightly better junk, gold is common and while not junk, is only worth anything to the player because of the association with real world gold (where even an ounce of gold is worth a small fortune, never mind a solid gold statue). Platinum is rare but not significantly more valuable. Gems, on the other hand, are rarer, but not worth doing anything with because the trouble outweighs the value. Overall, metals and their alloys, unless used for weapons or armor, simply aren’t worth using because they’re barely more valuable than rock (or food.)
Finally, will you ever switch over to a more currency-based trade system? Bartering works to a point, but it's kind of silly to imagine a caravan working entirely on bartering in a world with currency. It'd be nice to trade a bunch of things and get a chest full of gold, silver, and copper in exchange. It'd be especially nice in adventure mode, being able to buy and sell things off of the barter system, or even to raid a caravan and take their gold.
Post by: darkflagrance on November 02, 2010, 06:19:25 pm
I don't know if any of you have noticed, but the interface in toady's screenshot seems alot more straightforward then the wrestling one, given each part corresponds to a letter, I doubt it has more then 2 pages of choices.
Unless you're fighting centipedes.
Finally, will you ever switch over to a more currency-based trade system? Bartering works to a point, but it's kind of silly to imagine a caravan working entirely on bartering in a world with currency. It'd be nice to trade a bunch of things and get a chest full of gold, silver, and copper in exchange. It'd be especially nice in adventure mode, being able to buy and sell things off of the barter system, or even to raid a caravan and take their gold.
Since you're often trading your goods/resources for caravan goods/resources, and there is no real economy within the fort nor any way to determine which dwarf receives coins, barter is more efficient. However, I will allow that if you have an excess of goods to buy or sell, coins would be useful to make up the difference.
Post by: ManaUser on November 02, 2010, 06:37:50 pm
I don't know if any of you have noticed, but the interface in toady's screenshot seems alot more straightforward then the wrestling one, given each part corresponds to a letter, I doubt it has more then 2 pages of choices.Yes, we noticed. Also Toady reported cleaning up the wrestling interface in the previous update, so presumably it uses about the same system now. Big improvement.
Post by: Miuramir on November 02, 2010, 06:52:54 pm
Quote from: Jiri PetruWhy do the towers use ramps instead of stairs?
(And speaking of it, all the other adventurer mode buildings.)
I think of the X stairs as more rickety spiral staircases, but aside from the tower, the only one I can think of is the new labyrinth, which uses stairs. I also didn't like the thought of a battle being fought up a tower with the defenders always being directly above in a row, especially if arrows work down through multiple stair tiles.
I'm not sure where the "rickety" comes from, as most castle spiral staircases are extremely solid. Aside from the space-saving properties, the defensive design was significant; the usual spiral was arranged so that right-handed defenders above could brace their shield against the central column, and swing their sword in an arc that worked with the arc of the stairs, in addition to the advantage conveyed by height. In contrast, attackers from below were at a height/angle disadvantage to start with, but additionally had a much more restricted arc to operate their sword due to the central column, and no easy way to brace themselves against a shove from above. The design also prevented more than one rank of attackers being brought to bear, as the spiral broke line of sight for ranged weapons and rendered polearms too unwieldy to be practical (if they would even fit at all). In short, they were ubiquitous precisely because they were a major architectural element that allowed one well armed man to quite literally hold off a small army, as they were forced to come at him one at a time under seriously disadvantageous conditions.
An excellent ancient example of a spiral staircase for reasons of space rather than defense is Trajan's Column (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan%27s_Column); while they were used occasionally beforehand, its construction in 113 AD vastly popularized the form, and it remains sturdy today nearly two millennia later. Even when constructed of wood rather than carved or constructed of stone, they can be quite strong; see this example from Salisbury Cathedral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Salisbury_Cathedral,_tower_interior,_uppermost_spiral_staircase.jpg) for example.
Of course, as castles evolved into chateau and thence into stately homes / mansions, the staircases evolved as well. Being able to put in something like the Chateau de Chambord double helix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Escalier_double_helice_Chambord.jpg) stairs in would not only provide potentially better pathing, but an attractive and interesting architectural feature to set an elaborate building or delving above the ordinary.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 02, 2010, 07:04:39 pm
Post by: Untelligent on November 02, 2010, 07:22:13 pm
I don't know if any of you have noticed, but the interface in toady's screenshot seems alot more straightforward then the wrestling one, given each part corresponds to a letter, I doubt it has more then 2 pages of choices.
Each page has it's own letters, i.e. if the first page is a through o, the second page is also a through o. Most of the menus in Adventure mode work like this.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 02, 2010, 09:00:30 pm
Quote from: Jiri PetruWhy do the towers use ramps instead of stairs?
(And speaking of it, all the other adventurer mode buildings.)
I think of the X stairs as more rickety spiral staircases, but aside from the tower, the only one I can think of is the new labyrinth, which uses stairs. I also didn't like the thought of a battle being fought up a tower with the defenders always being directly above in a row, especially if arrows work down through multiple stair tiles.
I'm not sure where the "rickety" comes from, as most castle spiral staircases are extremely solid.
He meant that those particular stairs (the 'X' up/down stairs) are rickety because they're physically insubstantial (projectiles and falling creatures pass right through).
Post by: rex mortis on November 03, 2010, 02:55:19 am
Post by: Greiger on November 03, 2010, 07:29:30 am
All the visualizers I'm aware of never really made stairs look good anyway which seems to indicate that they are hard to explain. Stonesense gives them a generic snes era stair sprite, which isn't contiguous. DF to minecraft makes them into a sorta spiral stair, but it's awkward to travel, and you certainly couldn't fall down them or shoot through them. And the DF to Saurbraten converter makes them look more like ladders. And again you can't see, fall or shoot through them like you can in DF.
The comparison of stairs to antigrav tubes seems really apt and I'm probably going to see them like that for now on.
...reminds me of X-Com Apocalypse...
Post by: KillHour on November 03, 2010, 09:27:21 am
Maybe I'm weird but I always saw constructed ramps as stairs (with the handrails designed in such a way that a wagon can line their wheels up with them and go up them unobstructed) while I saw stairs more like ladders.
All the visualizers I'm aware of never really made stairs look good anyway which seems to indicate that they are hard to explain. Stonesense gives them a generic snes era stair sprite, which isn't contiguous. DF to minecraft makes them into a sorta spiral stair, but it's awkward to travel, and you certainly couldn't fall down them or shoot through them. And the DF to Saurbraten converter makes them look more like ladders. And again you can't see, fall or shoot through them like you can in DF.
The comparison of stairs to antigrav tubes seems really apt and I'm probably going to see them like that for now on.
...reminds me of X-Com Apocalypse...
There's a DF - Sauerbraten converter? ???
Post by: PTTG?? on November 03, 2010, 02:33:55 pm
Will they be able to loose feathers in combat?
Post by: Footkerchief on November 03, 2010, 02:41:36 pm
Hold on, Sheep, pigs, AND chickens? That's so crazy!
Will they be able to loose feathers in combat?
Not unless the feather tissue gets fleshed out a little, so to speak. We already have feathery creatures and the feathers are basically ignored during combat, AFAIK.
Post by: Jiri Petru on November 03, 2010, 03:04:08 pm
Hold on, Sheep, pigs, AND chickens?That means sheep- pig- and chickensploison!!! ::)
Post by: Neonivek on November 03, 2010, 03:08:37 pm
Hold on, Sheep, pigs, AND chickens?That means sheep- pig- and chickensploison!!! ::)
Psh maybe in your wimpy forts but in mine we will have a rotary saw built at the edges of the fences
Post by: Untelligent on November 03, 2010, 03:27:52 pm
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 03, 2010, 03:30:08 pm
Well with Aimed attacks in place do you think you could go on into basic "Martial arts" next? It would be nice to do some Akido-like counter attacks or Karate-blows.
Apart from that some questions:
How do the kicker, dodger and related skills influence the fighting opportunities?
Are Kicking, punching considered as valid attacks if you have for example one hand free so you could punch the other guy to knock him out?
Do these aimed attacks work for Ranged weapons too? Will spitting cobras aim for your eyes?
Is Armor taken into account thus will the Ai attack an un-armored part of someones body if the rest is to hard to get through?
edit: Also thanks again for the WoT made from Answers.
here it was the question about ranged 'stuff'
Post by: Untelligent on November 03, 2010, 03:32:34 pm
Post by: tfaal on November 03, 2010, 04:10:46 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on November 03, 2010, 05:21:52 pm
How have fistfights been affected by this change, now that we can box people in the head?
What aspect of fistfights are you asking about? Punches aren't that different from strikes with a weapon in DF.
Post by: tfaal on November 03, 2010, 05:37:17 pm
Post by: Jiri Petru on November 03, 2010, 06:12:07 pm
I'm just wondering how the general pace of unarmed combat has been affected. If I remember correctly a solid blow to the head can cause unconsciousness, and we can aim for a headshot specifically now.
I think you've just answered yourself. :P :)
Post by: Quatch on November 03, 2010, 06:38:48 pm
Post by: Sowelu on November 03, 2010, 06:39:19 pm
Yes, you can keep aiming for the head, but you might never *hit*. Is it better to keep trying for the unlikely headshot, or should you take an easy cheap shot at kneecapping the guy instead?
Post by: tfaal on November 03, 2010, 07:42:38 pm
Post by: G-Flex on November 03, 2010, 08:08:56 pm
How have fistfights been affected by this change, now that we can box people in the head?
The problem with this right now is that there's no issue of minor brain damage, the type you see in an actual fistfight. In other words, punching a guy in the head in DF doesn't make them stagger around or get disoriented like it does in real life; the only damage you can do to a brain is very severe damage. In fact, I've never seen non-fatal brain damage in DF except for possibly syndromes, and also that one time I managed to get a dwarf's brain to burn slightly.
Post by: TKTom on November 03, 2010, 09:34:55 pm
How have fistfights been affected by this change, now that we can box people in the head?
The problem with this right now is that there's no issue of minor brain damage, the type you see in an actual fistfight. In other words, punching a guy in the head in DF doesn't make them stagger around or get disoriented like it does in real life; the only damage you can do to a brain is very severe damage. In fact, I've never seen non-fatal brain damage in DF except for possibly syndromes, and also that one time I managed to get a dwarf's brain to burn slightly.
Really? I'm pretty sure I've seen a lot of blunt hits to the head cause stun effect.
Post by: Greiger on November 03, 2010, 09:55:17 pm
All the knockouts however all included brain damage and killed in my experience though. The only time I've ever seen anything come up with unconscious is when they are asleep or when their brain has just been turned into a thin paste all over the surroundings.
Post by: tfaal on November 04, 2010, 12:02:57 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 04, 2010, 12:10:06 am
Post by: Cruxador on November 04, 2010, 01:48:48 am
Theres also no swelling or torn skin from blunt trauma iirc thus you opponent cant be blinded byhis own blood or his eye swollen shut.Man, this post reminded me of one of those reasons why I love DF.
Post by: Arihim on November 04, 2010, 05:10:55 am
smacking a guy in the head when you want to are cool but any additions only excite me in so much as they lead to the caravan arc being closer.The big implication is that this will also apply to fortress mode - beating up an unconscious creature for months only to starve to death first will be a thing of the past.
Woah. So can we give our military instructions like "attack head first if possible" ?
Now that there is a rudimentary AI for aimed attacking: Will it be long before we can order dwarves to capture enemies rather than kill them? i.e have dwarves attempt blunt strikes to the head and then cart off the unconcious foe to an empty cage?
I want this.
Post by: shadow_archmagi on November 04, 2010, 05:49:16 am
Dwarf Picard!
Post by: Earthquake Damage on November 04, 2010, 06:17:49 am
"EVERYONE! THE HYDRA'S THIRD LEFT RIB IS THE WEAK POINT! CONCENTRATE FIRE ON MY MARK!"
Dwarf Picard!
Jeanluc the Pick of Cards, Expedition Leader
Mr. Dwarf, Militia Captain
That's all I've got.
Post by: nbonaparte on November 04, 2010, 06:30:24 am
Post by: DG on November 04, 2010, 08:47:37 am
Post by: tfaal on November 04, 2010, 08:55:04 am
The Guard loses hold of the -bronze halberd-.
The Guard has become unconscious.
The Guard has been struck down.
edit: Now that we have true type support, is there any chance we could get the default tileset swapped out for a square one?
Post by: Knigel on November 04, 2010, 01:22:54 pm
Not that it matters with the current civilizations all being a hive mind which will immediately all start killing you the second you steal a sock.
Post by: thvaz on November 04, 2010, 01:25:37 pm
Yes, those kinds of attacks are much more likely to be fatal than you might think.
Not that it matters with the current civilizations all being a hive mind which will immediately all start killing you the second you steal a sock.
[sarcasm]Yes, it is a pity DF is no longer in development and things never change.[/sarcasm]
Post by: Sowelu on November 04, 2010, 02:34:00 pm
Post by: tfaal on November 04, 2010, 03:16:29 pm
Post by: Untelligent on November 04, 2010, 05:48:35 pm
I am imagining that weapon skill increases the number and quality of good opportunities you get, while striker is what handles damage etc. and dodge helps reduce opportunities.
Pretty sure "Striker" is the weapon skill for punching.
Post by: Cruxador on November 04, 2010, 05:55:19 pm
More like, they'll attack the head if they get a good shot at it. Directly ordering combat is not something slated for Dwarf Mode, at least in the near future.smacking a guy in the head when you want to are cool but any additions only excite me in so much as they lead to the caravan arc being closer.The big implication is that this will also apply to fortress mode - beating up an unconscious creature for months only to starve to death first will be a thing of the past.
Woah. So can we give our military instructions like "attack head first if possible" ?
Post by: monk12 on November 04, 2010, 07:23:28 pm
"EVERYONE! THE HYDRA'S THIRD LEFT RIB IS THE WEAK POINT! CONCENTRATE FIRE ON MY MARK!"
Dwarf Picard!
HIT ITS WEAK POINT FOR MASSIVE DAMAGE!
Post by: Quatch on November 04, 2010, 07:58:50 pm
Possibly. I would imagine that weapon skill just makes you straight up more likely to hit, regardless of opportunities, though, since that sounds simplest to implement. Am I correct in this assumption?
From the details we've heard, and the raw files; I doubt that simplicity is a safe assumption.
Post by: Knigel on November 05, 2010, 12:38:37 am
Yes, those kinds of attacks are much more likely to be fatal than you might think.
Not that it matters with the current civilizations all being a hive mind which will immediately all start killing you the second you steal a sock.
[sarcasm]Yes, it is a pity DF is no longer in development and things never change.[/sarcasm]
I know you'll be able to do it eventually (non-fatal attacks are mentioned in the dev blog), just not "soon".
Post by: nordak on November 05, 2010, 11:17:22 am
So when is this legendary update coming out?
Post by: piecewise on November 05, 2010, 11:18:46 am
Toady_One has withdrawn from society...Today, tomorrow, sometime soon. He said he was done with new stuff and was just cleaning it up for release.
So when is this legendary update coming out?
Post by: nordak on November 05, 2010, 11:23:29 am
Post by: Neonivek on November 05, 2010, 02:40:56 pm
Which frankly I agree. He is in no rush.
Post by: piecewise on November 05, 2010, 02:46:45 pm
Post by: thvaz on November 05, 2010, 02:58:54 pm
Post by: piecewise on November 05, 2010, 03:02:23 pm
Toady is more likely sleeping right now, and won't be up for at least four hours. I wouldn't bet on a release today.Yeah, he said (in one of the earlier df talks) that he gets up some time after noon, like 2-4 or something. Oh well, I guess I'll have to actually go do the work I should be doing.
Post by: Knight Otu on November 05, 2010, 03:18:50 pm
Post by: Neonivek on November 05, 2010, 05:11:51 pm
Well, he did do a few bugfixes quite recently, which does point to a more imminent release, so I imagine a weekend release is in the cards.
Or perhaps he was abducted by aliens from an alien planet using an alien tractor beam from an alien space craft.
ALIENS!
Post by: nbonaparte on November 05, 2010, 06:37:34 pm
Post by: Greiger on November 05, 2010, 06:43:04 pm
Quick! We must rescue him! Somebody rig up the adamantine space elevator to be a airship refueling station and make the Fist of Armok airtight! We have a programmer to rescue!
(insert epic space battle here)
Post by: Dae on November 05, 2010, 07:19:54 pm
Post by: Untelligent on November 05, 2010, 07:40:45 pm
Post by: Quatch on November 05, 2010, 07:49:20 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on November 05, 2010, 08:04:24 pm
All the space?
All of it.
Even the black holes and supernovae.
this is incredibly silly
Post by: Sowelu on November 05, 2010, 08:28:00 pm
Post by: piecewise on November 05, 2010, 08:42:55 pm
Can we have some info about Minotaurs? Do they build their labyrinths or are they just locked away in them by some other civ (more in line with classical mythology). Where are these Labyrinths, just in the middle of nowhere, in caves or on the edge of town? Do the minotaurs ever come out and kill the helpless peasants? Will there ever be civ relationships between them and neighboring villages (ie, offer up a child every year or something to stop the minotaur from rampaging though town.) Etc.
Post by: freeformschooler on November 05, 2010, 08:44:54 pm
Bluh.
FAKE FAKE
Also to keep this sticky from derailing, in the case that Toady has not been kidnapped by aliens and at one point will actually read something from here, at what point is the trader arc planned to come in? As in something non-violent to do for the town -- buying low and selling high on site resources, leading a trader caravan, etc
Post by: Footkerchief on November 05, 2010, 08:56:00 pm
Ok, don't think I've seen this so I'll ask.
Can we have some info about Minotaurs? Do they build their labyrinths or are they just locked away in them by some other civ (more in line with classical mythology). Where are these Labyrinths, just in the middle of nowhere, in caves or on the edge of town? Do the minotaurs ever come out and kill the helpless peasants? Will there ever be civ relationships between them and neighboring villages (ie, offer up a child every year or something to stop the minotaur from rampaging though town.) Etc.
A lot of this was answered here:
QuoteQuote from: tfaalCould you elaborate a bit on what a labyrinth is? Is it a natural element of a cavern that minotaurs gravitate toward, something created by the minotaur, or an abandoned structure created by a civilization?Quote from: CruxadorGod behavior is supposed to eventually be procedurally generated. Having them always punish an entire race of beings sort of detracts pretty significantly from that. Also, in Greek myth, the Minotaur was put in the labyrinth by Minos and Daedalus. Though Minos was a demigod, his measure of divinity was not related to the imprisonment, he was merely Daedalus' patron.Quote from: FieariWhat type of labyrinth generator are you using? Will it be a true labyrinth (just a single path, typically boring), or actually a maze? There are circular maze types that look like labyrinths at first, after all...
How will labyrinths interact with rural sprawl? Will there be farms directly surrounding the labyrinth walls, or will there be a "protected" area around it where humans just won't go near willingly? How large? Night Creature lairs in general might be a good way of keeping sprawl down, especially if they keep normal civs away, but don't prevent embarking in DF mode... maybe using the underground fog of war system to cover their territory up.
Right now, a labyrinth is something created by the minotaur. Ideally, the mythological method would be possible, but that requires lots of things we don't have yet, so we just hand-waved them in.
It is modeled on the Labyrinth, which is a maze, rather than a labyrinth, as far as I understand how the terms have been tortured over time, he he he. So yeah, you can get lost, though in the case of ones that span Z levels we have stayed well away from the horror possible. A 40x40x4 maze unconstrained was too much, maybe more like it should be from the myth where you have trouble escaping even when you aren't being devoured, so we are a little soft on the z level changes. I let the 2 level ones float freely in some percentage of the maps, since that isn't so bad to figure out in practice.
The labyrinths are all underground and moreover outside of the village limits to avoid the irritation. They can be close, but not within the fields themselves.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 05, 2010, 09:07:51 pm
Quote
11/05/2010: I'm still working, fixing up bugs and other issues. I'm about halfway through my list of things I'd like to clean up, with the worst ones (castles occasionally being placed halfway underground, etc.) being handled. I'm just going to keep at it until it is ready. : I'm still working, fixing up bugs and other issues. I'm about halfway through my list of things I'd like to clean up, with the worst ones (castles occasionally being placed halfway underground, etc.) being handled. I'm just going to keep at it until it is ready.
Well for another round of bug-guessing i say that castles and/or Labyrinths start now midair. Also The inhabitants of said castle will fight each other as soon yo enter it.
Post by: rhinelander on November 05, 2010, 09:22:47 pm
Post by: piecewise on November 05, 2010, 09:49:31 pm
toady hasleft a sign of his alife-nessWhere was this posted?Quote11/05/2010: I'm still working, fixing up bugs and other issues. I'm about halfway through my list of things I'd like to clean up, with the worst ones (castles occasionally being placed halfway underground, etc.) being handled. I'm just going to keep at it until it is ready. : I'm still working, fixing up bugs and other issues. I'm about halfway through my list of things I'd like to clean up, with the worst ones (castles occasionally being placed halfway underground, etc.) being handled. I'm just going to keep at it until it is ready.
Well for another round of bug-guessing i say that castles and/or Labyrinths start now midair. Also The inhabitants of said castle will fight each other as soon yo enter it.
Post by: Sowelu on November 05, 2010, 09:50:34 pm
...No wait, that happened already.
Post by: Quatch on November 05, 2010, 10:13:22 pm
Post by: Dante on November 05, 2010, 10:25:05 pm
Underground castles pretty much solves the "how to make dwarf fortresses" bit. Also, with dwarves around, putting your castle partly underground for better down-facing defense may not be a bad idea.I was going to say exactly this. Of course, if they go deep enough to interact with caverns, there could be some trickiness. It used to be that visiting human towns near the ocean (or embarking on them) often had them collapse into the sea. There could easily be something similar here, except with disjointed bits of cavern dropping into the fortress, or underground water features insta-drowning them.
Are dwarf civ fortresses going to connect up to both underground roads and overground roads? Will they access the cave systems, maybe with guards posted, or even farm in them?
Post by: Untelligent on November 05, 2010, 10:35:54 pm
Where was this posted?
The dev log (vlog?) on the download page. If you checked it earlier today, you might have to F5 to refresh your cache to see the update.
Post by: James.Denholm on November 05, 2010, 11:55:23 pm
Post by: thvaz on November 06, 2010, 05:55:37 am
Post by: Rip0k on November 06, 2010, 12:03:46 pm
There it goes my weekend of playing the new version.
But at least we know what is going on and...
The longer we wait the better it gets ;)
Post by: tfaal on November 06, 2010, 12:11:03 pm
Post by: piecewise on November 06, 2010, 03:43:25 pm
Post by: Quote on November 06, 2010, 08:34:11 pm
Post by: Dakk on November 06, 2010, 10:49:49 pm
After reading about the next update, I'm pretty sure I'll like it more than the DF2010 update.
Same here. While I do play fortress mode more often then adventurer, it is finally getting some love.
Post by: Dae on November 07, 2010, 07:52:25 am
But this adventurer was only in the wild for 4 or 5 days if I count well, and had his hand lopped off and both his legs gored in a very bad way. It is obvious adventurers won't live a long life as it is. Toady, have you managed to throw in some sort of medical support or is it for a next time ?
Post by: Greiger on November 07, 2010, 07:55:54 am
I'll just have to remember to kill any large reptiles that manage to get a name near castles. I could just imagine you showing up a little later with the gator lounging on the throne with the crown on it's head surrounded by corpses.
Post by: freeformschooler on November 07, 2010, 08:45:01 am
Will there be a raw tag to make a civ able to be wandering raiders, as the goblins are now?
Post by: Knight Otu on November 07, 2010, 09:24:04 am
I'll just have to remember to kill any large reptiles that manage to get a name near castles. I could just imagine you showing up a little later with the gator lounging on the throne with the crown on it's head surrounded by corpses."My Lord, what big teeth you have!"
Will there be a raw tag to make a civ able to be wandering raiders, as the goblins are now?From the earlier quote that bandits will come from human and goblin civilizations, with dwarves and elves only if conquered by humans, I imagine that bandit risings for now depend on site type of the original civilization. A tag would be nice, though.
Goblin patrols of the actual civilization, though, that's new info, isn't it? Good that the goblin civs can be met again at least in some capacity.
Sleeping in groups - it would seem that no watch is set up yet, then. Makes sense if this would only come in when other commands can be issued.
Post by: Aqizzar on November 07, 2010, 12:31:07 pm
It's probably been asked a million times before: Now that individual groups can give up their entity associations, and elven prisoners can hang around castles, it sounds like those connections are a lot more malleable. How close does that bring the program to multi-species player forts?
Post by: Footkerchief on November 07, 2010, 12:49:03 pm
After reading that story, I'm really curious what elements were "problems" that deserved being "fixed".
Things we didn't hear about, probably.
It's probably been asked a million times before: Now that individual groups can give up their entity associations, and elven prisoners can hang around castles, it sounds like those connections are a lot more malleable. How close does that bring the program to multi-species player forts?
My guess is that there's little connection. The game has long had affiliation changes and multi-species populations (e.g. goblin abductees), so that wasn't a barrier. I think the obstacle for multiracial player fortresses has more to do with Fort Mode itself (UI, job system, etc) assuming that it only has to deal with one creature type. Many of these problems can probably be easily addressed as long as the fort still has a "primary" species (e.g., which creature's tile/sprite do we display as an icon in the Z menu?), but if the fort gets seriously multiracial (like if humans start to outnumber dwarves) then it'll need further consideration. Just one of those annoyingly broad overhauls.
Post by: Arkose on November 07, 2010, 12:50:35 pm
Toady, have you managed to throw in some sort of medical support or is it for a next time ?
It would be cool if you could at least go to a village doctor's house and recieve treatment, at least until adventure mode hospitals and self-administered healing and medic companions are in.
Post by: Mephansteras on November 07, 2010, 12:51:40 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on November 07, 2010, 12:54:50 pm
But this adventurer was only in the wild for 4 or 5 days if I count well, and had his hand lopped off and both his legs gored in a very bad way. It is obvious adventurers won't live a long life as it is. Toady, have you managed to throw in some sort of medical support or is it for a next time ?
Adventure mode healing works the same as before:
Quote from: Rip0kWill adventurer still heal during fast travel?
It's the same as it has been, until there are more options. Depending on how the sleep stuff works out, you might have to sleep instead of having that go away automatically.
Post by: Dakk on November 07, 2010, 01:01:22 pm
Minor question now: Do bands of bandits and patrols actualy travel the world map, are they like the encounters in the current version, o do they settle in certain places? Since site leaders are sending you after some, I would assume the first or the latter.
Post by: Jiharo on November 07, 2010, 01:58:00 pm
Does every civilisation get them? Is it possible to encounter one that is not hostile?
Post by: tfaal on November 07, 2010, 02:01:17 pm
Epic wall of text is Epic.
But this adventurer was only in the wild for 4 or 5 days if I count well, and had his hand lopped off and both his legs gored in a very bad way. It is obvious adventurers won't live a long life as it is. Toady, have you managed to throw in some sort of medical support or is it for a next time ?
It's possible the adventurer was really unlucky, or simply made mistakes; if he'd have run from the night creature after killing her mate, he would'd have lost the use of his arm, or his axe. Having anoter useful arm and a breastplate might have made his encounter with Strodno go a bit smoother. Not rushing in front of his meatshields would have helped too, and not leaving them to fend for themselves might have helped some of them survive. And his final fight with the minotaur might have been less catastrophic for his legs if he'd blown past the archer, leaving him for dead, and returned with his melee troops; the halberdier killed the bull without much help; imagine what the whole gang could do.
Post by: fivex on November 07, 2010, 02:48:03 pm
Bronze slicing knife...
There are new weapon types n this release?
Post by: Footkerchief on November 07, 2010, 02:55:54 pm
Wait.
Bronze slicing knife...
There are new weapon types n this release?
"10/16/2010: Today was the last day with night creature dens for this release. You can actually find some useful objects that are scattered around from their victims, and a few they took to better perform their business, like meat cleavers and boning knives. And other stuff." (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2010-10-16)
Post by: piecewise on November 07, 2010, 03:39:17 pm
BTW
Will there ever be a time when world gen NPC's and/or adventurers start naming their weapons? I think it would be really neat to pull up legends mode and look through it, find some sword that's been passed down through a family of kings and has a few hundred kills and then go on a quest to find this semi-artifact. It would be even more awesome for this to exist whenever magic is incorporated so that ancient weapons that have spilled a lot of blood can become both semi-artifact and magical.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 07, 2010, 04:04:44 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on November 07, 2010, 04:11:18 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on November 07, 2010, 04:16:33 pm
(Another thing in a vaguely similar way would be seeing item corpses being kept around where it makes sense, such as a statue of a bronze colossus in the town square that had been terrorizing the town before a great hero managed to kill it. Or living weapons that leave behind normal weapons used by the killer and then passed through the different hands as death claims the current wielder. But that seems farther off.)
Post by: Nihilist on November 07, 2010, 04:52:28 pm
Post by: piecewise on November 07, 2010, 05:03:07 pm
I'm pretty sure Footkerchief is right. Legends mode doesn't even show (perhaps not even record) what a world-gen historical figure makes its kills with. Attachment and naming only seems to happen in Dwarf mode currently. Depending on how the code works, your adventuring companions might be able to do it, but I believe Toady has said that he doesn't want to dictate how your adventurer feels in most situations, and thus the adventurer shouldn't become attached to weapons or name them. Historical figures naming their weapons seems to be an easy way to introduce world-gen artifacts, though.It would be nice to have the option to name our weapon in adventure mode after x number of kills. Not force us to, but just give us that opportunity. It would be pretty easy to do I think, just give us the naming screen and we can either press the random button till we find one we like or pick the parts from all the possibilities.
(Another thing in a vaguely similar way would be seeing item corpses being kept around where it makes sense, such as a statue of a bronze colossus in the town square that had been terrorizing the town before a great hero managed to kill it. Or living weapons that leave behind normal weapons used by the killer and then passed through the different hands as death claims the current wielder. But that seems farther off.)
Post by: darkflagrance on November 07, 2010, 05:05:03 pm
(I suspect that the attack of Skinnyrends was caused by the animal attack code that takes wild animals and makes them attack settlements.)
Post by: JoRo on November 07, 2010, 05:29:07 pm
Post by: Greiger on November 07, 2010, 05:33:11 pm
Post by: piecewise on November 07, 2010, 05:55:57 pm
Just remember that odd numbered releases are Extra FUN.Fixed
Post by: Knight Otu on November 07, 2010, 06:07:40 pm
All hail Skinnyrends the conqueror! May his kin make it into the next release!Actually, that reminds me that I haven't seen any (non-mega) monster rampages in legends mode for a while, nor world-gen animals with names. I should check whether those were my fault or if these currently don't happen.
(I suspect that the attack of Skinnyrends was caused by the animal attack code that takes wild animals and makes them attack settlements.)
----
Regarding the quests - does the quest giver only take into account if the target is a (semi)megabeast to determine if you're ready to face it, or also, say, the difficulty tag?
Post by: thvaz on November 07, 2010, 06:34:59 pm
Post by: piecewise on November 07, 2010, 07:17:48 pm
Dont take me wrong, I love these stories from the devlog... but they are making the waiting completely unbearable.
Reread
tap foot
bite nails
f-5
reread
etc
Post by: Grimshot on November 07, 2010, 08:00:58 pm
I'd be happy to play the next release even with a few minor bugs here and there.
Post by: kilakan on November 07, 2010, 08:10:08 pm
Post by: Toady One on November 08, 2010, 02:45:44 am
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady what are views on gods and forces manifesting or rather having physical bodies whether it being their true body, Avatar, or even a avatar tied into their being? Will they ever appear? How powerful will they be?
my question which is more about how gods will manifest in full and how powerful Toady really expects them to be since they can be anywhere from Megabeast strength, which makes sense given that some megabeasts actually were birthed from gods in myth and legends, to even so beyond that to the point where Toady would either make them unstoppable or simply not capable of existing in a real form. Then there is what risks a god actually takes when fighting in their physical form, for example if a god manifests are they even harmed by being defeated?
All that sounds fine. Threetoe says "Gods will be in there and they'll be messing with your life". So, no timeline as usual, but it's the plan. The dwarf mode additions this time around has set up a bit of the framework for historical figures with unusual unit links, though we were hoping to do a bit more than we got to of course.
Quote
Quote from: thvazDo these changes in combat occur in fortress mode too? I mean, dwarves and his enemies will choose strikes based on these new rules?Quote from: monk12Will the new combat mechanics make it into Fortress mode as well?
Yeah, everybody everywhere uses them.
Quote from: Greiger
In regards to the new AI targeting, will dwarves (or creatures in general) that like to take risks try the harder to hit attacks more often when the payout is good enough? And if you do miss a strike is there a chance of it hitting a nearby bodypart instead before it misses completely?
It doesn't take personality into account at this point. I think I've gotten timid with personality effect additions awaiting the big rewrite there on the dev page. Aimed attacks can miss their intended target and hit parent or nearby parts instead. This is more likely with the smaller target parts.
Quote
Quote from: HephWell with Aimed attacks in place do you think you could go on into basic "Martial arts" next? It would be nice to do some Akido-like counter attacks or Karate-blows.
Apart from that some questions:
How do the kicker, dodger and related skills influence the fighting opportunities?
Are Kicking, punching considered as valid attacks if you have for example one hand free so you could punch the other guy to knock him out?
Do these aimed attacks work for Ranged weapons too? Will spitting cobras aim for your eyes?
Is Armor taken into account thus will the Ai attack an un-armored part of someones body if the rest is to hard to get through?Quote from: SoweluI am imagining that weapon skill increases the number and quality of good opportunities you get, while striker is what handles damage etc. and dodge helps reduce opportunities.Quote from: tfaalPossibly. I would imagine that weapon skill just makes you straight up more likely to hit, regardless of opportunities, though, since that sounds simplest to implement. Am I correct in this assumption?
I want to add the combat styles of course, but I think caravan site resource stuff needs to come in, and we're still planning on starting that later this month.
Right now, fighting opportunities depend on the melee fighter skill and relevant attack skill vs. melee fighter and dodge. That shafts parry (weapon)/block skills -- you still get your skill role bonus, but dodge is emphasized. Not sure if that'll change.
You can't currently aim ranged attacks, though it might get in before the release. In that case the skills used will have to change again, of course, though it might be that there aren't skill influences the same way there, since opportunities and changing chances are supposed to come in part from the positioning from the ongoing fight, which can't be influenced in the same way by a distant shooter.
Punching, kicking, biting and scratching are all available in addition to weapon attacks. As is typical, whether or not hands are full etc. is probably not all that respected. I didn't do anything with the broken two-handed weapons etc.
They consider armor when aiming, but they can't run all of the numbers quickly so they just wing it.
Quote from: JoRo
Seeing as the example screenshots showed kicking as an attack of opportunity, does this mean that you could wield multiple weapons and make occasional attacks with your off hand?
Yeah, you can use whichever weapon you like whenever you like, and opportunities come up with either one. If you just press toward the enemy, the wielded weapon will be preferred, but it'll use your offhand item if a good opportunity comes up.
Quote
Quote from: DakkSince creatures are now able to identify an opportunity to deal a decisive blow into whatever they're fighting, how will they behave when there's no special oportunities to say, hack someone's head off? Will they just fight normaly as they did, or they will try certain things, like disarming you or trying to put you off balance to achieve that opportunity for lethal damage?Quote from: FootkerchiefMaking the AI plan multi-stage maneuvers, like disarmament or putting you off balance in preparation for a strike, is probably not the kind of feature that would be implemented in a day, and it's not closely related to any of the features he did implement. He'd have mentioned it.
Yeah, there aren't any special disarm/balance manuevers.
Quote from: Sagabal
Will aimed attacks and wrestling attacks be organized with submenus? Scrolling through 8 pages of possible wrestling moves (only 2 of which I ever use) becomes tiring.
Yeah, you go through two screens for each one to break things up.
Quote from: Untelligent
Will all this aimed attack stuff be optional (i.e. toggled via a menu in-game)? It's great for tough battles, but when I'm fighting a horde of crundles it might be more efficient to turn off tactical combat for a few minutes.
You can still just press toward an enemy. It uses the process the enemies and your companions use in that case.
Quote from: Knigel
With the implementation of aimed attacks, will the previously mentioned aimed defending be far behind?
I'm not sure when the next opportunity to work on combat will be. I imagine the guard/defense stuff will be one of the next combat things, along with the combat/move split, but I dunno when it'll happen.
Quote from: Captain Mayday
My assumption is that the attacks have a tendency to strike at [HEAD], [UPPERBODY] and [LOWERBODY] tagged body parts, and possibly throats as well (though this might fall under [HEAD] with the vanilla body constructs).
I presume in this case that the tendency to strike these tags will flow on into your non-aimed attacks in adventurer mode.
Since everything already has a relative size, I further assume that this also impacts the likelihood of attacks hitting.
How accurate is this?
Yeah, that's right. The head and body tags add some weight to the strike, which is balanced with the chance to strike, the chance to strike squarely and armor.
Quote from: Captain Mayday
I'll also ask, are you planning to use creature variations to help with the stock night creature type creatures?
To clarify, let me give an example - the werewolf.
Werewolves may possess a syndrome that allows them to infect on a bite.
This syndrome would trigger a creature variation (possibly even delayed by time), which would add, remove or change tags on the base creature.
This would of course cause them to gain the syndrome causing bite as well.
I'm not sure if I'll be able to use something as broad as a creature variation, at least for things beyond the body. The ability to have a custom body has been partially supported and unused for a long time, but allowing any tag to be replaced is difficult without creating a new creature definition.
Quote from: tfaal
Is the difficulty of hitting the head hardcoded, defined in the raws, or the result of something else entirely?
What it does now is to take head and body parts and making them hard to hit but it doesn't alter the squareness of the strike. For other parts, it doesn't alter the hit chance but it makes them harder to hit squarely. Then it is all jiggled for each attack.
Quote from: TKTom
Now that there is a rudimentary AI for aimed attacking: Will it be long before we can order dwarves to capture enemies rather than kill them? i.e have dwarves attempt blunt strikes to the head and then cart off the unconcious foe to an empty cage?
I have no idea on the timetable. There are several angles on this, between dwarf mode, adv mode justice and adv mode villain interrogations, but I'll probably be doing more simple things first.
Quote from: PermanentInk
If I'm understanding correctly, it seems like unless you specifically choose an aimed shot against an unconscious opponent, it will take just as long to kill them as before. It would be a useful option to let us use the same automatic target selection for vulnerable opponents that the AI does; if I want to do the same headshot every time, why should I have to go digging through menus to do it
You always use the AI selection whenever you attack the enemy without aiming, so vulnerable opponents are generally dispatched quickly. If for whatever reason you find it making a poor decision or it's just taking a long time with a fully armored opponent, you can use grappling tricks to remove their armor.
Quote from: OneTwentySix
One of my big issues with caravans is that there really isn't a lot that a caravan can bring that you can't produce yourself, and better.
...
Item values are also pretty crazy; are you planning on rebalancing any of this?
The forts are set up to be pretty self-sufficient now. I think they sometimes bring more impressive food and diverse animals, but I think as the trade stuff takes off starting this month, the situation might change a bit. I'm not sure how it'll play out though.
Fixed item values will probably disappear entirely this month or soon after.
Quote from: tfaal
How have fistfights been affected by this change, now that we can box people in the head?
It's a bit more violent and quick, I think. They need to be tweaked a bit, but I doubt I'll get to it.
Quote from: tfaal
Now that we have true type support, is there any chance we could get the default tileset swapped out for a square one?
The true type support isn't complete, so it's not the default setting at this point. You can always use whatever set you want.
Quote from: piecewise
Do the minotaurs ever come out and kill the helpless peasants? Will there ever be civ relationships between them and neighboring villages (ie, offer up a child every year or something to stop the minotaur from rampaging though town.) Etc.
Just during world gen. No armies move around yet. We want to do weird megabeast relationships with communities, but I'm not sure when it'll come up.
Quote from: freeformschooler
at what point is the trader arc planned to come in? As in something non-violent to do for the town -- buying low and selling high on site resources, leading a trader caravan, etc
I don't have a timeline for anything other than what has been announced. We're doing the backing for the trading arc this month, so we're starting that stuff, but I'm not sure how much impact it'll have on your adventurer. Certainly the trading values will change based on what's around and what's desired, but you wouldn't likely be doing anything on behalf of anybody.
Quote from: Dante
Are dwarf civ fortresses going to connect up to both underground roads and overground roads? Will they access the cave systems, maybe with guards posted, or even farm in them?
I'm hoping I can handle that when it comes up, yeah. There used to be crappy tunnel connections and there are still crappy roads, and those will be revisited at some point.
Quote
Quote from: freeformschoolerWill there be a raw tag to make a civ able to be wandering raiders, as the goblins are now?Quote from: DakkDo bands of bandits and patrols actualy travel the world map, are they like the encounters in the current version, o do they settle in certain places? Since site leaders are sending you after some, I would assume the first or the latter.Quote from: JiharoDoes every civilisation get them? Is it possible to encounter one that is not hostile?Quote from: kilakanWith the new travel map, how long until we should expect migrating goblin bandits and such, not just direct ambushers but potentially people just passing through like the residual HFS?
Yeah, you have a raw tag to say how many people proportionally get dumped out into bandit groups, and you have a tag to say if local sites will have bandit style patrols. When we have site resources it might end up a little more based on the situation, but we don't have that information yet. There are no armies traveling the map yet (except for your abandoned fortress people and a few other weird cases). These will start with the merchants traveling around this month hopefully, and then continue into December with more army stuff. The attacks during travel all come from proximity to sites -- it'll pull out some of the regular populations and historical figures (in the case of bandit leaders or night creatures), and then they magically get put back in their sites if they survive.
Quote from: Aqizzar
After reading that story, I'm really curious what elements were "problems" that deserved being "fixed". It wasn't Skinnyrends the Alligator of Ambition was it?
There's the being able to use the great axe with one hand (not fixed), a problem with the display of the labyrinth symbol (fixed), the alligator thinking that it should start in the keep because it was a site resident (not fixed)... probably something with the wounds healing that weren't fixed, like my hips, which were really really messed up. Taking away the guy's knife was clunky, since you still have to grab it and then step away instead of getting an explicit option to fight over it, and that hasn't changed. I think I fixed a few other minor text things.
Quote from: Aqizzar
It's probably been asked a million times before: Now that individual groups can give up their entity associations, and elven prisoners can hang around castles, it sounds like those connections are a lot more malleable. How close does that bring the program to multi-species player forts?
Yeah, it's more an interface and random issues thing. I remember with that elven dwarf queen, it was something like they were treated like a pet part of the time and several other problems. There are portions of the code that look for speaking people, places that look for learning people, places that look for learning and speaking people, which are all probably sort of reasonable, but then there are the parts that look for your site civ's race, which are where we get into trouble.
Quote from: piecewise
Will there ever be a time when world gen NPC's and/or adventurers start naming their weapons?
It'll probably start in world gen with the treasure hunter section, though there really isn't a reason why you shouldn't be able to name any of your items at any time.
Quote from: Knight Otu
Regarding the quests - does the quest giver only take into account if the target is a (semi)megabeast to determine if you're ready to face it, or also, say, the difficulty tag?
The mega/titan/semi/night creature tags are used for those creatures to sort them into tiers, but it also uses the difficulty tags. A difficulty greater than 10 means it won't be used for quests, 10 is the top tier, then there is the 5-9 semi megabeast tier, the 2-4 tier for your first castle quest, and the lowest for peasants. Mega/semi beasts in the raws always go into their proper tier, but it respects the >10 part. These come up for wilderness predators and underground predators, which come up for burrow quests currently (the burrow thing can be improved later). The difficulty is also used to determine the hero reputation increase for all creatures. The mega/semi tags should probably be split into a bunch of things, but I'm not sure when I'll get a good chance.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Captain Mayday on November 08, 2010, 03:34:39 am
Quote from: Captain MaydayI'll also ask, are you planning to use creature variations to help with the stock night creature type creatures?
To clarify, let me give an example - the werewolf.
Werewolves may possess a syndrome that allows them to infect on a bite.
This syndrome would trigger a creature variation (possibly even delayed by time), which would add, remove or change tags on the base creature.
This would of course cause them to gain the syndrome causing bite as well.
I'm not sure if I'll be able to use something as broad as a creature variation, at least for things beyond the body. The ability to have a custom body has been partially supported and unused for a long time, but allowing any tag to be replaced is difficult without creating a new creature definition.
I see. So is adding tags fine, but removing them not currently possible?
I would have thought it would be something like a meta-caste.
Post by: Aquillion on November 08, 2010, 03:48:05 am
Another option would be to just refluff adventurer-mode item-naming as something that society does and not you -- "Bards now sing legends of your sword, calling it 'glosseramdung!'" Maybe only a message that you get when completing a quest or something like that. It could even be a reward.I'm pretty sure Footkerchief is right. Legends mode doesn't even show (perhaps not even record) what a world-gen historical figure makes its kills with. Attachment and naming only seems to happen in Dwarf mode currently. Depending on how the code works, your adventuring companions might be able to do it, but I believe Toady has said that he doesn't want to dictate how your adventurer feels in most situations, and thus the adventurer shouldn't become attached to weapons or name them. Historical figures naming their weapons seems to be an easy way to introduce world-gen artifacts, though.It would be nice to have the option to name our weapon in adventure mode after x number of kills. Not force us to, but just give us that opportunity. It would be pretty easy to do I think, just give us the naming screen and we can either press the random button till we find one we like or pick the parts from all the possibilities.
Post by: Toady One on November 08, 2010, 04:25:12 am
Quote from: Captain Mayday
I see. So is adding tags fine, but removing them not currently possible?
I would have thought it would be something like a meta-caste.
We'd probably end up doing werewolves via something like a variation. It's just sort of annoying to do overall that way, since the tags can be very diverse and you can't always get at their effects reliably. A subset, hopefully broad, of tags would be available through something like a creature variation, or through a creature variation with some restrictions.
Quote from: Aquillion
Another option would be to just refluff adventurer-mode item-naming as something that society does and not you -- "Bards now sing legends of your sword, calling it 'glosseramdung!'" Maybe only a message that you get when completing a quest or something like that. It could even be a reward.
I guess having your enemies do it would also work in that way. Then you'd have your nickname from the enemies, the name for your weapon, and the name for your distinctive armor, and your ferocious goblin-hunting dog.
Post by: Knight Otu on November 08, 2010, 08:23:26 am
It would be nice to have the option to name our weapon in adventure mode after x number of kills. Not force us to, but just give us that opportunity. It would be pretty easy to do I think, just give us the naming screen and we can either press the random button till we find one we like or pick the parts from all the possibilities.Naming your items, certainly, but perhaps not while the named items automatically become pseudo-artifacts.
Yeah, you have a raw tag to say how many people proportionally get dumped out into bandit groups, and you have a tag to say if local sites will have bandit style patrols. ... The attacks during travel all come from proximity to sites -- it'll pull out some of the regular populations and historical figures (in the case of bandit leaders or night creatures), and then they magically get put back in their sites if they survive.Oooh, those are just about perfect. :D
...
The mega/titan/semi/night creature tags are used for those creatures to sort them into tiers, but it also uses the difficulty tags. A difficulty greater than 10 means it won't be used for quests, 10 is the top tier, then there is the 5-9 semi megabeast tier, the 2-4 tier for your first castle quest, and the lowest for peasants. Mega/semi beasts in the raws always go into their proper tier, but it respects the >10 part. These come up for wilderness predators and underground predators, which come up for burrow quests currently (the burrow thing can be improved later).
From the look of it, patrols also would make the "As you know, we are at war. Kill that or that enemy for us." quests solvable again, but I'm assuming they're out anyway.
Post by: cephalo on November 08, 2010, 10:31:43 am
I think DF represents an important lesson to anyone who wants to make games, that the game with the most bugs and broken mechanics can also be the best game ever.
Post by: Lemunde on November 08, 2010, 10:55:24 am
Post by: piecewise on November 08, 2010, 11:01:24 am
On an unrelated note
Is the eventual, long term plan to make it so most things are represented in tag form in the raws and that very little is expressly hard coded?
also
Is it possible that we'll ever get the ability to spawn the randomly gen'd fun stuff, forgotten beasts and titans in arena mode? I don't know how difficult it would be to make that work, since I don't know how the generation process for that functions or if it's possible to have it gen the creatures on the fly like that. It would be a really neat thing to have though, just to play with in the arena.
Post by: Misterstone on November 08, 2010, 11:03:58 am
The cool thing about DF is that while in other games they hard-code it so stabbing weapons are best for back stabbing, in this game the damage system already models this!
*edited to add highlights since apparently this is a new question(?)*
Post by: thvaz on November 08, 2010, 11:11:46 am
Hello everyone... sorry if this question has been asked, I did go back several pages and try to find an answer to my question, but it seems like a pretty obvious one so I won't be surprised if someone has already asked it. Anyway, my question is this: Will sneaking adv. mode characters who ambush targets that are oblivious to their presence get aimed shots? In other words, if I sneak up on an enemy goblin, it does not see me, can I get a free aimed shot with a high bonus (maybe not quite the same as if he were helpless), in essence a "back stab"?
The cool thing about DF is that while in other games they hard-code it so stabbing weapons are best for back stabbing, but in this game the damage system already models this!
The other games are like D&D, DF is like GURPS in this regard. :)
But this is a good question, I'm not sure anyone knows it apart from Toady.
If you want to make questions to Toady, mark them with the lime green color so he can see it in the multitude of posts and derailings.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 08, 2010, 11:16:09 am
There's been some discussion about studded weapons since the big update earlier this year. Specifically I'm wondering if, for example, a silver mace studded with lead would do more damage than a normal silver mace due to the added weight?
Have you confirmed that there's an actual weight difference? As far as I know, there isn't. Decorations like studs are immaterial, or more precisely, they're nothing but a material.
Is the eventual, long term plan to make it so most things are represented in tag form in the raws and that very little is expressly hard coded?
That's the ideal, but there is no overarching plan to un-hardcode everything. In general, "data" lends itself to raw files and tags, while "logic" doesn't -- eventually you need a scripting language. Toady has indicated it's possible that things might go in that direction, (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=59642.msg1387951#msg1387951) but again, no concrete plans that I know of. Here are some quotes that discuss the motivation for leaving specific aspects hardcoded:
Quote from: Toady One
Like many things, I'm starting off hard-coded [with hair/beard styles] because I don't know what I need and it would be a waste to raw it before I know. The annoyances here are mainly how much I might end up allowing descriptions to be placed before or after other words and wherever in sentences -- I might not do much of it now, but the more that's mutable, the less I'm eager to raw it until I'm really happy with what I've got.
Quote from: Toady One
The fortress ratings are still hard coded, and the land holder levels tie to those like they used to (for example, trade, production and fortress (pop+job variety) ratings have to hit 3 to get the first land holder level. That kind of thing can be brought out over time. My main focus here was just to salvage as much of the existing system as possible without having to extend the overhaul, while getting the positions themselves all out into the raws.
Quote from: Toady One
Yeah, the current workshops have stayed where they have always been, in the exe. For the most part, they don't interact with the reactions at all. The main stumbling block here is the interface for the jobs, which often occurs in two steps, etc., which is something that's not supported by the custom workshops setup.
Is it possible that we'll ever get the ability to spawn the randomly gen'd fun stuff, forgotten beasts and titans in arena mode? I don't know how difficult it would be to make that work, since I don't know how the generation process for that functions or if it's possible to have it gen the creatures on the fly like that. It would be a really neat thing to have though, just to play with in the arena.
I'm pretty sure there's no technical reason it can't be done -- it would just be kinda crappy since the creature list would have fifty types of anonymous forgotten beast, and so on.
Post by: Lemunde on November 08, 2010, 11:38:19 am
There's been some discussion about studded weapons since the big update earlier this year. Specifically I'm wondering if, for example, a silver mace studded with lead would do more damage than a normal silver mace due to the added weight?
Have you confirmed that there's an actual weight difference? As far as I know, there isn't. Decorations like studs are immaterial, or more precisely, they're nothing but a material.
I'm not sure if there's a way to confirm it or not but based on some of the discussions I've heard it's a common belief that there may be a difference in weight. It may be too small of a unit to be represented in game which would also suggest the damage difference would be very slight. Honestly I haven't done much testing in this area. I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.
Post by: Neonivek on November 08, 2010, 12:32:35 pm
Thanks Threetoe for answering one of my questions :o
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 08, 2010, 12:51:16 pm
Post by: Neonivek on November 08, 2010, 01:05:24 pm
Like Australia? Would be nice actually. :D
Hmm maybe I should restore my question...
Which was about Bandits eventually becoming Civs onto themselves.
Post by: Orkel on November 08, 2010, 01:11:08 pm
Post by: Mephansteras on November 08, 2010, 01:14:34 pm
Post by: thvaz on November 08, 2010, 01:46:42 pm
Can you add some randomness to armor penetration? Now that you're cleaning up the stuff, it would be nice to slightly randomize the current "material X always beats material Y" system. How hard would that be to add in? Maybe add a certain percentage of randomness to material strength in the hit calculation?
Toady wanted to add material damage when he was working on them, just had no time. The system will be alright when he comes to it.
Post by: Cruxador on November 08, 2010, 05:22:05 pm
Fixed item values will probably disappear entirely this month or soon after.Best news in a while.
Post by: PermanentInk on November 08, 2010, 05:31:00 pm
Quote from: AquillionAnother option would be to just refluff adventurer-mode item-naming as something that society does and not you -- "Bards now sing legends of your sword, calling it 'glosseramdung!'" Maybe only a message that you get when completing a quest or something like that. It could even be a reward.
I guess having your enemies do it would also work in that way. Then you'd have your nickname from the enemies, the name for your weapon, and the name for your distinctive armor, and your ferocious goblin-hunting dog.
Oh, I love this. Better yet, a weapon could be known by different names to different entities; imagine long heraldic introductions with the rattling-off of numerous fancy titles for the weapon, its wielder, etc. Awesome!
Post by: monk12 on November 08, 2010, 10:28:47 pm
Fixed item values will probably disappear entirely this month or soon after.Best news in a while.
hee hee! Next update might get me into adventure mode, but the update after is gonna pull me right back out!
Post by: nordak on November 09, 2010, 12:40:50 am
Also, I'm sure this has been asked before... Are all civ's affected by the new castles or just humans?
Post by: Untelligent on November 09, 2010, 01:49:46 am
And the sprawl is still in. It just has more stuff in it now.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 09, 2010, 02:16:17 am
Also, I'm sure this has been asked before... Are all civ's affected by the new castles or just humans?
Just humans. The other civs will be worked on later.
Yep, here's the quote on it:
Quote from: MephansterasAre castles just a human-only thing right now? Will other races be getting interesting places soon?
I'm not sure exactly when the other races will get their stuffs. The obstacle for the elves is making giant trees and the obstacle for dwarves is making it generate a dwarf fortress. We'll just have to start it some time, but it might coincide with the fortress starting scenario stuff about entity pops associated to your fort since that will further specify how dwarf sprawl is going to relate to its surroundings.
In general, if you think a question may have been answered recently, Ctrl+F'ing the first page of Toady's recent posts (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=2) is a good place to start.
Post by: DG on November 09, 2010, 07:10:16 am
Quote from: Toady devlog
The word spread around, and even the Tick of Constructs respected us for our heroic acts.
This was a very interesting comment, Toady, please expand on it. Can your heroic reputation affect how hostile civilizations treat you?
Post by: piecewise on November 09, 2010, 12:53:28 pm
Post by: Hummingbird on November 09, 2010, 02:15:32 pm
Post by: Rip0k on November 09, 2010, 04:06:13 pm
Darn, I was hoping the new version would release before I had to go off to school and sit around for hours on end. Oh well.
Don't fool yourself... there's always time for ADVENTURE :D
Post by: Orkel on November 09, 2010, 04:56:07 pm
1) Soldiers only equipping 1 boot or glove and getting their other unarmored limb injured/severed in battle, screwing up even the strongest soldiers (Toady said he wanted to fix it but couldn't reproduce, it happens to me really often ESPECIALLY when auto-upgrading equipment to ones of better quality)
2) Healthcare borking up and causing dwarves to never get their injuries healed, then dying of infection
3) Armor needs more randomness
it's not farfetched to say that the two first have prevented me from playing a serious fort in months. They're not THAT big bugs, but when it does happen, it is annoying as hell. And they will happen in long term forts.
Post by: Rockphed on November 09, 2010, 05:50:46 pm
Just to sum myself up, the most crippling things that I really want fixed in dwarf mode:
1) Soldiers only equipping 1 boot or glove and getting their other unarmored limb injured/severed in battle, screwing up even the strongest soldiers (Toady said he wanted to fix it but couldn't reproduce, it happens to me really often ESPECIALLY when auto-upgrading equipment to ones of better quality)
2) Healthcare borking up and causing dwarves to never get their injuries healed, then dying of infection
I encountered both of these in my current fort. I think I fixed the first one by ordering them to wear two of each duplicate item.
The second one has led to my expedition leader running around with bones sticking out of one of his arms for about 5 years. He was infected, but he lived through it and it went away.
Post by: Orkel on November 09, 2010, 06:32:22 pm
Just to sum myself up, the most crippling things that I really want fixed in dwarf mode:
1) Soldiers only equipping 1 boot or glove and getting their other unarmored limb injured/severed in battle, screwing up even the strongest soldiers (Toady said he wanted to fix it but couldn't reproduce, it happens to me really often ESPECIALLY when auto-upgrading equipment to ones of better quality)
2) Healthcare borking up and causing dwarves to never get their injuries healed, then dying of infection
I encountered both of these in my current fort. I think I fixed the first one by ordering them to wear two of each duplicate item.
The second one has led to my expedition leader running around with bones sticking out of one of his arms for about 5 years. He was infected, but he lived through it and it went away.
Putting duplicates sometimes helped for me but most of the time not. You got lucky with that :P To me it's usually like
"I'm Urist, a legendary champion axedwarf with adamantine armor and a record of unbeatability."
"I will now fight that goblin."
"I got my leg nerve slashed? How is this possible? Oh, I forgot to put on my boot. Let's spend the rest of my life in bed because of this bug and waste a perfect soldier."
*fort dies to invaders a month later due to best soldiers in bedrest from unarmored limb injuries*
Post by: Untelligent on November 09, 2010, 06:48:54 pm
Post by: Rex_Nex on November 09, 2010, 07:22:59 pm
Post by: dennislp3 on November 09, 2010, 08:11:06 pm
Between the new health care system and the new health care system, I still think fewer dwarves are dying from battle-related injuries per battle than in 40d.
any worthwhile combat injury in 40d meant death no matter what...even if you have an extremely small chance of survival with hospitals....the chance is still there...I also personally like the idea of being able to send my legendary fighters into retirement when they get an untimely injury...spose that means I care WAY too much about my lil peoples
Post by: Mechanoid on November 09, 2010, 09:22:59 pm
Will the numerous rock types eventually each have some sort of use, or do you plan on keeping them as they are now, with most of them being fairly identical.The raws alude to this with some of the notes that are found next to them for their direct influence on gameplay. Saltpeter (potassium nitrate) for fertilizer, presumably the peat soil layer being used as a fuel, etc.
What would really influence how useful actual layer rocks (not mineral rocks) are is the implementation of damagable items; because then you could for instance have a reaction that creates a shield made of stone, and then the actual physical traits of that stone would influence when it would break under what force or impact... Or those damn obsidian short swords would actually break when it hits metal armor (or bones... made of metal)
Post by: darkflagrance on November 10, 2010, 02:52:09 am
Just to sum myself up, the most crippling things that I really want fixed in dwarf mode:
1) Soldiers only equipping 1 boot or glove and getting their other unarmored limb injured/severed in battle, screwing up even the strongest soldiers (Toady said he wanted to fix it but couldn't reproduce, it happens to me really often ESPECIALLY when auto-upgrading equipment to ones of better quality)
2) Healthcare borking up and causing dwarves to never get their injuries healed, then dying of infection
I encountered both of these in my current fort. I think I fixed the first one by ordering them to wear two of each duplicate item.
The second one has led to my expedition leader running around with bones sticking out of one of his arms for about 5 years. He was infected, but he lived through it and it went away.
I believe that this bug has been found to be caused by the fact that dwarves always try to wear the two highest quality gloves, whether or not one is right and the other left. They will therefore claim both but only put on one. The current solution for this bug is to make sure that each quality level has gauntlets such that every right gauntlet in that level has a corresponding left one.
Post by: Ethicalfive on November 10, 2010, 06:53:59 am
Post by: dennislp3 on November 10, 2010, 11:43:25 am
The easiest way to do this is to assign each dwarf one set at a time...let them grab it then assign the next dwarf there set etc....extra micromanagement but it works for me...
Post by: piecewise on November 10, 2010, 11:59:35 am
Of course that might lead to us being stuck at 99% for a week and causing massive anticipation based hemorrhaging.
Post by: Dakk on November 10, 2010, 12:03:23 pm
I'm overall pretty happy with how things are going, just checking the page everyday as usual :P
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 10, 2010, 12:04:11 pm
Sometimes I wish there was a progress bar toward the next release. Not a release time or anything, just some visual representation of about how far along the release is.
Of course that might lead to us being stuck at 99% for a week and causing massive anticipation based hemorrhaging.
I have that, even without the progress bar.
Post by: piecewise on November 10, 2010, 12:20:37 pm
Also keeping something like that constantly updated would actualy mean toady would spend less time coding and thus making the main thing take longer :PI don't think stopping for 30 seconds to adjust a slider or enter in a number would cause considerable slowdown, especially if done once a day.
I'm overall pretty happy with how things are going, just checking the page everyday as usual :P
Post by: Footkerchief on November 10, 2010, 01:15:16 pm
I don't think stopping for 30 seconds to adjust a slider or enter in a number would cause considerable slowdown, especially if done once a day.
He probably doesn't know with that much precision how close we are to a release. I'm not sure why people took the last devlog to mean we were mere days from a release. This kind of thing:
Quote
I'd still like to do some aiming fixes, a basic companion display (since that can get really confusing), some dwarf mode testing/fixes, and more, but it is coming together nicely.
can easily take a week or three.
Post by: Quatch on November 10, 2010, 01:24:22 pm
To those calling for an early release, prior to debugging, do you think the forum response for 31.01 was encouraging?
Post by: Sowelu on November 10, 2010, 05:09:45 pm
Post by: piecewise on November 10, 2010, 05:32:05 pm
Quote
Now I'll get to the pre-release cleaning, he he he.
and then, five days later he said
Quote
I'm still working, fixing up bugs and other issues. I'm about halfway through my list of things I'd like to clean up, with the worst ones (castles occasionally being placed halfway underground, etc.) being handled.
He said that he was half way through and that the worst stuff was done, so I figured he only had a few days of work left, as long as things didn't take some unexpected turn.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 10, 2010, 05:40:26 pm
Post by: SalmonGod on November 10, 2010, 05:48:54 pm
Reading this makes me think that, should he wish, Toady could raise an army with rediculous ease. I'm half expecting a post along the lines of "I have completed version 31.17, It's release shall be withheld until such a time as the coalition government has been disbanded" And we'd heed the call.
And we would succeed. It would probably involve artificial volcanos which spew flaming cats into the atmosphere, along with complete deforestation of the continent... but we would make it work somehow.
Post by: monk12 on November 10, 2010, 05:50:57 pm
I seem to recall the "turning items green to indicate how far from release" thing was, while cool to watch, also frustrating.
True, and he ended up not continuing it because, given the nature of DF and development in general, it can be very difficult and annoying to make an accurate assessment as to how far off you are. He could start work on some niggling bug that seems like it would only take an hour or two and find out its roots are deep in the guts of the program and require significant rewrites of how many other peripherally related things work.
All things considered, I prefer the "When Its Done" approach to game development as opposed to "When Its Due"
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 10, 2010, 05:53:58 pm
Post by: Sowelu on November 10, 2010, 06:14:34 pm
Post by: thvaz on November 10, 2010, 06:16:36 pm
And then he posts nothing for days, and people start to get upset because they are waiting for a release any day now.
I miss the days when the devlog were updated daily.
Post by: piecewise on November 10, 2010, 06:51:23 pm
It's not like I'm saying toady should update the devlog everyday or have a progress bar (I don't think it would work, I was just saying I'd be cool) or set release dates because we all know that shit happens and stuff is unpredictable. Just saying that if you post stuff saying it's near release (especially a release that adds in tons of new and rabidly requested stuff) and then tempt us all with awesome logs (this actually helps satiate people to a point as well though) don't be surprised if some of us get antsy. If anything, that just shows how much we love this dang thing.
I NEED MAH FIX MAN
Post by: TKTom on November 10, 2010, 06:53:41 pm
I'm the first to praise Toady's many qualities, but the recent forum anxiety is his fault, like piecewise pointed.
Only in that he used the words "half way done" giving people an idea of a release date.
The way that people get all hyped up when a date hasn't even been given is just adding support for giving no info whatsoever about actual timeframes, only doing the funny stories and talking about new features.
Post by: Dakk on November 10, 2010, 06:55:40 pm
Toady is the indie game developer that most interacts with his community I've seen, by far. All others go missing for weeks on end only to post a small progress report, and go missing again. Toady actualy takes the time to answer the shitton questions we make, plus the awesome dev entries. Seriously, the last dev entry was what, a week ago?
I say actualy blaming Toady for our impatience is quite the whiny obsessed fan thing to do.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 10, 2010, 07:00:28 pm
Post by: Dakk on November 10, 2010, 07:02:47 pm
He should be flattered by all the rabid fans. Seriously I'd turn for that man ;)
A developer hits a milestone when the male fanbase starts turning gay for him :o
Really though, we all got lives to live and things to do. A few more weeks won't cause our brains to implode.
Post by: Jehdin on November 10, 2010, 07:03:28 pm
Seriously, the last dev entry was what, a week ago?
3 days ago, actually. Yet people are still freaking out.
Yeah, waiting sucks, but getting an unplayable/buggy release would be far worse.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 10, 2010, 07:04:07 pm
Post by: DG on November 10, 2010, 07:05:50 pm
Post by: thvaz on November 10, 2010, 07:11:15 pm
However, a simple phrase could keep people less anxious.
"No update ins less than a week, guys". And people would stop refreshing the Downloads page.
Edit: I do not believe in ETAs in programming. I do believe, however, that when you promise a update in few days (though it was Threetoe) people will expect it in a few days.
Post by: shadow_archmagi on November 10, 2010, 07:12:48 pm
Toady works like no one.
Honestly, the speed of his progress and overall awesomeness of his work put me in mind of Valve...
Post by: Sowelu on November 10, 2010, 07:12:54 pm
I'm the first to praise Toady's many qualities, but the recent forum anxiety is his fault, like piecewise pointed.I'd say that no, it's the fans' fault for taking it a little too far.
And then he posts nothing for days, and people start to get upset because they are waiting for a release any day now.
-_-, I'm a girl...Don't worry about it. No matter your orientation, you can always be straight for Toady.
Post by: Rex_Nex on November 10, 2010, 08:53:34 pm
Quote from: Sowelu
I know what you mean. Just a sheer glance at this picture nearly makes me reach orgasm.-_-, I'm a girl...Don't worry about it. No matter your orientation, you can always be straight for Toady.
(http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200809/r290722_1243249.jpg)
Post by: Toady One on November 10, 2010, 09:07:50 pm
Always remember: The first 90% of the release takes 90% of the time. The last 10% takes the other 90%. yes that's 180%
Yeah, I've been having the worst little 90-90 microcosm here... it was always going to be tomorrow, so I was like "the next dev log will be the release post", but some crash or irritating problem arises. I have one rare unreproducible crash that I'll probably have to release with, and a giant wish-list which grows instead of shrinks as usual, and the current idea was to put it up 13 hours from now, but I can't promise it. If I put it off much longer, it'll just be self-indulgent, I think. The last thing I slipped in was people rolling away from strikes if they are on the ground.
Post by: Rockphed on November 10, 2010, 09:29:21 pm
Always remember: The first 90% of the release takes 90% of the time. The last 10% takes the other 90%. yes that's 180%
Yeah, I've been having the worst little 90-90 microcosm here... it was always going to be tomorrow, so I was like "the next dev log will be the release post", but some crash or irritating problem arises. I have one rare unreproducible crash that I'll probably have to release with, and a giant wish-list which grows instead of shrinks as usual, and the current idea was to put it up 13 hours from now, but I can't promise it. If I put it off much longer, it'll just be self-indulgent, I think. The last thing I slipped in was people rolling away from strikes if they are on the ground.
This is why me and my other programmer friend tend to get slightly annoyed with our friend who doesn't program but has lots of ideas: His wish-lists tend to grow and explaining that we figured out how to implement a single, normally minuscule, part of his grand idea just makes it grow faster. I'm sure it is even worse when you are both the instigator and implementor of ideas.
Post by: piecewise on November 10, 2010, 10:04:41 pm
Always remember: The first 90% of the release takes 90% of the time. The last 10% takes the other 90%. yes that's 180%
Yeah, I've been having the worst little 90-90 microcosm here... it was always going to be tomorrow, so I was like "the next dev log will be the release post", but some crash or irritating problem arises.
It's posts like this which I think will do the most to placate the rabid fans. I don't think any of us want to rush toady, we just like hearing how it's going. At least thats how I feel.
Post by: Neonivek on November 11, 2010, 12:06:20 am
90% of the work is the easy "I could do it with my eyes closed work"
While 10% of it is the "backbreaking Oh my goodness I will never get it done" sort of stuff
So what happens is while doing the 90% you start to get into the swing of things, you occasionally graze the 10% but your fine. This is the equivilant of driving out of your driveway and finding that for the most part there is almost no traffic on the street and possibly the highway near your house (mind you I live in a Suburb so this example doesn't work in... lets say a city)
So your driving along and almost at work when suddenly BAMN! you hit the main streets and the traffic is so dense you think you could walk to work faster.
So you jump through the windshield of your car and call your audiance and tell them you will be there in half and hour, because of course it must be a half an hour it would take five minutes by car. However your bleeding out from jumping through the window and all of a sudden the cops are on your tail because they think you just stole a car. Of course they start shooting at you because you can't stop because if you stopped you wouldn't get to work ontime so not only do you have cuts all around your body but you have a few bullet holes too. So you start to weave a bit to hopefully dodge a few bullets and maybe deal with a few cuts here and there. Then you get lucky and you finally make it to work and everyone cheers and goes "Great, hope to see you tommorow" and you arn't even sure how you will get home yet alone do it all over again, but the real mystery is why you day in and day out always fall for that freeken stupor that is believing this drive will be any different then last time causing you to question your intelligence thus putting you into a procrastinative state where you only go by the easy roads causing you to get into even WORSE traffic congestion later down the roads with even worse cops gunning you down... but you still can't stop because ohh no if you ever stopped you would lose all respect for yourself and your worth as a human being as your one primary goal has been torn assunder not by the barriers infront of you but by the effort that you very well put into it...
Uhhh... what was I talking about?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 11, 2010, 12:08:21 am
Always remember: The first 90% of the release takes 90% of the time. The last 10% takes the other 90%. yes that's 180%
Yeah, I've been having the worst little 90-90 microcosm here... it was always going to be tomorrow, so I was like "the next dev log will be the release post", but some crash or irritating problem arises. I have one rare unreproducible crash that I'll probably have to release with, and a giant wish-list which grows instead of shrinks as usual, and the current idea was to put it up 13 hours from now, but I can't promise it. If I put it off much longer, it'll just be self-indulgent, I think. The last thing I slipped in was people rolling away from strikes if they are on the ground.
So Monday huh? Well as long you root out your bugs and fulfil some wishes its fine with me. Just remember to sleep regularity your 8 hours and to eat a good meal 3 times a day. Oh and some exercise might be nice to. Errrrr ... what i want to say is: try to keep your sanity. 48 hour coding marathons arent good for anyone.
regarding evergrowing wish lists: on my wish-list is actually a good chat-boty like talking interface towards NPCs. Facade had an interesting try on that and some nice research (http://www.interactivestory.net/#publications) on interactive storytelling.
@Merchant and Dakk: I am quit sure that Bay12games has a "Dont flirt with customers"-policy so i would think neither of has a chance.
Post by: eidoloclast on November 11, 2010, 12:14:03 am
Always remember: The first 90% of the release takes 90% of the time. The last 10% takes the other 90%. yes that's 180%
Yeah, I've been having the worst little 90-90 microcosm here... it was always going to be tomorrow, so I was like "the next dev log will be the release post", but some crash or irritating problem arises. I have one rare unreproducible crash that I'll probably have to release with, and a giant wish-list which grows instead of shrinks as usual, and the current idea was to put it up 13 hours from now, but I can't promise it. If I put it off much longer, it'll just be self-indulgent, I think. The last thing I slipped in was people rolling away from strikes if they are on the ground.
Registered to say that, while I am frothing at the mouth in anticipation for the new version, if this is the only time commitment adventurer mode is going to see for a while then you should feel free to indulge yourself for as long as you want. Adventurer mode has been waiting a long time to be updated, and if there are still things you are adding in and enjoying adding in, then I'm willing to wait longer because more features actually coded are always great.
Post by: DG on November 11, 2010, 12:19:50 am
Quote from: Toady One
Yeah, I've been having the worst little 90-90 microcosm here... it was always going to be tomorrow, so I was like "the next dev log will be the release post", but some crash or irritating problem arises. I have one rare unreproducible crash that I'll probably have to release with, and a giant wish-list which grows instead of shrinks as usual, and the current idea was to put it up 13 hours from now, but I can't promise it. If I put it off much longer, it'll just be self-indulgent, I think. The last thing I slipped in was people rolling away from strikes if they are on the ground.
No, no! Take the time and indulge yourself, please. It will just make the update all the better.
Quote from: piecewise
It's posts like this which I think will do the most to placate the rabid fans. I don't think any of us want to rush toady, we just like hearing how it's going. At least thats how I feel.
But dude, you're being too needy. If Toady was your girlfirend you'd be dumped by now.
Post by: nbonaparte on November 11, 2010, 12:33:56 am
Post by: piecewise on November 11, 2010, 01:08:00 am
I don't really see how saying that it would be nice if toady spent 30 seconds every day or two telling us how it's going is being too needy, it's what he used to do. I'm not telling him to do it or anything, just saying I like reading the devlog and being kept up to date on things, and that doing this might satiate other people as well.Quote from: Toady OneYeah, I've been having the worst little 90-90 microcosm here... it was always going to be tomorrow, so I was like "the next dev log will be the release post", but some crash or irritating problem arises. I have one rare unreproducible crash that I'll probably have to release with, and a giant wish-list which grows instead of shrinks as usual, and the current idea was to put it up 13 hours from now, but I can't promise it. If I put it off much longer, it'll just be self-indulgent, I think. The last thing I slipped in was people rolling away from strikes if they are on the ground.
No, no! Take the time and indulge yourself, please. It will just make the update all the better.Quote from: piecewiseIt's posts like this which I think will do the most to placate the rabid fans. I don't think any of us want to rush toady, we just like hearing how it's going. At least thats how I feel.
But dude, you're being too needy. If Toady was your girlfirend you'd be dumped by now.
Note that I'm also not telling toady to hurry up or release an unfinished thing he's not happy with, thats the last thing I want. I'm just stating my opinion about why people got so suddenly anxious and that better, more frequent communication could help that. Whether toady wants to follow that suggestion or not is his decision.
Also, I don't think I'd want a "girlfirend", whatever that is.
How does 13 hours from Wednesday night translate into Monday? Not trying to be snide or something, just curious if I missed something.Always remember: The first 90% of the release takes 90% of the time. The last 10% takes the other 90%. yes that's 180%the current idea was to put it up 13 hours from now, but I can't promise it. If I put it off much longer, it'll just be self-indulgent, I think. quote]
So Monday huh?
Post by: calrogman on November 11, 2010, 02:22:13 am
How does 13 hours from Wednesday night translate into Monday? Not trying to be snide or something, just curious if I missed something.Toady is using Valve Time.
Post by: yarr on November 11, 2010, 02:43:26 am
Don't worry if it's a little buggy, it's .17 not .18 after all 8)
Post by: Organum on November 11, 2010, 02:45:03 am
I think we all know why.
Post by: Cruxador on November 11, 2010, 02:54:23 am
You are clearly unfamiliar with how deadlines work.How does 13 hours from Wednesday night translate into Monday? Not trying to be snide or something, just curious if I missed something.Always remember: The first 90% of the release takes 90% of the time. The last 10% takes the other 90%. yes that's 180%the current idea was to put it up 13 hours from now, but I can't promise it. If I put it off much longer, it'll just be self-indulgent, I think. quote]
So Monday huh?
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 11, 2010, 02:58:35 am
Each passing day fills me with hope and, at a certain point, that hope turns to wistfulness.
I think we all know why.
Quote
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
Post by: Organum on November 11, 2010, 03:21:51 am
@_@ but if I wasn't filled with hope that is dashed each day, it wouldn't feel like Christmas when it actually gets released.
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 11, 2010, 03:37:18 am
btw, that was from warhammer 40k.
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 11, 2010, 05:11:34 am
Uhh, release in ~7 hours, right? ^^
Don't worry if it's a little buggy, it's .17 not .18 after all 8)
*thump*
you can feel the forum heart beating, slowly synchronizing on days, on hours, on minutes...
*thump*
about four hours
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Toady One on November 11, 2010, 08:06:04 am
Post by: freeformschooler on November 11, 2010, 08:13:27 am
Going to be a few hours late, but we fixed that crash bug I mentioned.
HOORAY
I can't wait.
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 11, 2010, 08:16:57 am
back on topic: is there any plan to introduce bashing damage for attacks blocked by armor?
Post by: NSQuote on November 11, 2010, 08:21:24 am
Going to be a few hours late, but we fixed that crash bug I mentioned.
PRAISE BE THE MINERS
Post by: Greiger on November 11, 2010, 08:26:14 am
Post by: Stormrage on November 11, 2010, 08:51:21 am
Mass Decapitation of Elves!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: yarr on November 11, 2010, 09:03:05 am
Quote
Going to be a few hours late, but we fixed that crash bug I mentioned.
Quote
but we fixed that crash bug I mentioned.
Quote
but we fixed
Quote
we
new coworker Toady? :)
Anyway, great news!
Post by: tfaal on November 11, 2010, 09:24:31 am
Post by: Footkerchief on November 11, 2010, 09:27:48 am
back on topic: is there any plan to introduce bashing damage for attacks blocked by armor?
This already happens. It's what causes the messages like "bruising the muscle through the rope reed tunic".
Threetoe is a member of the development team. He generally has no involvement with the programming side of things, so he probably didn't have any interaction with the crash bug, but Toady still refers to Bay12 as "we," for reasons of inclusiveness.
Also TT does help with playtesting.
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 11, 2010, 09:31:41 am
back on topic: is there any plan to introduce bashing damage for attacks blocked by armor?
This already happens. It's what causes the messages like "bruising the muscle through the rope reed tunic".Threetoe is a member of the development team. He generally has no involvement with the programming side of things, so he probably didn't have any interaction with the crash bug, but Toady still refers to Bay12 as "we," for reasons of inclusiveness.
Also TT does help with playtesting.
but I've newer seen that with a lower grade weapon striking a higher grade armor
edit:
lower grade cutting weapon, anyway.
Post by: ThreeToe on November 11, 2010, 09:34:42 am
Post by: freeformschooler on November 11, 2010, 09:38:49 am
It took me 3 hours to track down that stupid crash bug. Please!
This is entirely understandable :D When programming and playtesting, you can never be sure unless someone has seen it first-hand.
But at least it saved everyone from another bugfix release like 2 hours after the first one... hopefully.
Post by: piecewise on November 11, 2010, 09:42:07 am
More like we finally have proof of what I have suspected all along: Toady is actually a combined entity created from the amalgamated souls and skill of a thousand programmers.QuoteGoing to be a few hours late, but we fixed that crash bug I mentioned.Quotebut we fixed that crash bug I mentioned.Quotebut we fixedQuotewe
new coworker Toady? :)
Anyway, great news!
Post by: shadow_archmagi on November 11, 2010, 09:47:29 am
Quote from: toady
whoops, I just got distracted fixing bugs and slipping in more features
this is why I will never complain about late releases.
Post by: ThreeToe on November 11, 2010, 09:56:57 am
Post by: tfaal on November 11, 2010, 10:10:08 am
Post by: hermes on November 11, 2010, 10:13:42 am
I'm so excited, as everyone else seems to be, for the imminent release. I think Toady's last dev log post has single-handedly (hehe, quite literally, just noticed that) gotten everyone excited for Adventure mode once again. The closer adventure mode gets to Threetoe's stories, the more I'm gonna play it. More generally, I'm happy for Toady that all the work spent on the Long Release seems to be paying off with some rapid and very cool development now.
Keep up the inspirational work Bay12!
Post by: Mephansteras on November 11, 2010, 11:25:24 am
Post by: Quatch on November 11, 2010, 11:32:51 am
It took me 3 hours to track down that stupid crash bug. Please!
Sing a song for the unsung hero!
Tell me, do you guys use the
Post by: Flaede on November 11, 2010, 11:37:40 am
Indeed! Mayhaps through such valiant efforts the odd-numbered releases shall be restored to their former glory!It took me 3 hours to track down that stupid crash bug. Please!Sing a song for the unsung hero!
Post by: Dakk on November 11, 2010, 11:38:06 am
Post by: Halconnen on November 11, 2010, 11:42:02 am
FFFFFFFFFFF okay I'm not studying today, thanks. Psh, I have an extra day off next week anyway, cometh the awesome release!
Study until release, then. :p
Post by: Miko19 on November 11, 2010, 11:42:11 am
FFFFFFFFFFF okay I'm not studying today, thanks. Psh, I have an extra day off next week anyway, cometh the awesome release!Ehehehe, I got a 4 day weekend starting today, so I am fucking extra happy :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Post by: Dakk on November 11, 2010, 11:44:09 am
FFFFFFFFFFF okay I'm not studying today, thanks. Psh, I have an extra day off next week anyway, cometh the awesome release!Ehehehe, I got a 4 day weekend starting today, so I am fucking extra happy :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
I got one aswell :P, but it starts on saturday >:C
FFFFFFFFFFF okay I'm not studying today, thanks. Psh, I have an extra day off next week anyway, cometh the awesome release!
Study until release, then. :p
You can't stop me, my excuse > your face >:C
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 11, 2010, 11:45:29 am
Post by: piecewise on November 11, 2010, 11:53:21 am
Right now artifacts are worth an amount of dwarfbux that is simply so large it's practically worthless. You can trade it for an entire wagon of supplies if you feel like getting .01% of it's value or you can just let it sit around gathering dust and making dwarfs sully their pants with joy. In the future, as the caravan and army arcs pick up, will artifacts see some some sort of expanded use, such as buying armies of soldiers from neighboring civs, causing armies to invade for the express purpose of stealing the artifact etc.?
Post by: Rex_Nex on November 11, 2010, 12:43:04 pm
Have a reallllyy deep craving to play DF, but I am resisting until the version comes out.
DONT DENY ME OF FUN, TOADY!
Post by: calrogman on November 11, 2010, 12:45:10 pm
Right now artifacts are worth an amount of dwarfbux that is simply so large it's practically worthless. You can trade it for an entire wagon of supplies if you feel like getting .01% of it's value or you can just let it sit around gathering dust and making dwarfs sully their pants with joy.Actually, you can't trade artifacts.
Post by: Miko19 on November 11, 2010, 12:46:48 pm
Really?Right now artifacts are worth an amount of dwarfbux that is simply so large it's practically worthless. You can trade it for an entire wagon of supplies if you feel like getting .01% of it's value or you can just let it sit around gathering dust and making dwarfs sully their pants with joy.Actually, you can't trade artifacts.
Last time I checked, I could sell my super-duper artefact rope to the elf traders
Post by: Untelligent on November 11, 2010, 12:51:07 pm
It's like my birthday came twice this week.
Post by: Miko19 on November 11, 2010, 12:51:45 pm
Post by: piecewise on November 11, 2010, 12:52:44 pm
I've actually never tired trading them because It would be a massive waste of money.Right now artifacts are worth an amount of dwarfbux that is simply so large it's practically worthless. You can trade it for an entire wagon of supplies if you feel like getting .01% of it's value or you can just let it sit around gathering dust and making dwarfs sully their pants with joy.Actually, you can't trade artifacts.
Post by: Rex_Nex on November 11, 2010, 12:57:16 pm
Post by: Stormrage on November 11, 2010, 01:03:05 pm
Post by: qbert911 on November 11, 2010, 01:08:03 pm
Post by: Untelligent on November 11, 2010, 01:08:16 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on November 11, 2010, 01:08:28 pm
Right now artifacts are worth an amount of dwarfbux that is simply so large it's practically worthless. You can trade it for an entire wagon of supplies if you feel like getting .01% of it's value or you can just let it sit around gathering dust and making dwarfs sully their pants with joy. In the future, as the caravan and army arcs pick up, will artifacts see some some sort of expanded use, such as buying armies of soldiers from neighboring civs, causing armies to invade for the express purpose of stealing the artifact etc.?
There was a lot about this in the old dev items: (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html)
Quote
# ARTIFACT ARC: Special items made by the dwarves aren't very interesting right now, and there's not much for an adventurer to do with them. These objects should have magical powers and they should have a huge influence on the actions of entities that come into contact with them. Even if your adventurer can't make use of a particular artifact, you could arrange for buyers in the nobility, and use those opportunitites to get a home or good entity standing, for instance. Related to Core79, Core80, Req395, Bloat49, Bloat173, PowerGoal13, PowerGoal60, PowerGoal68 and PowerGoal134.
# Core79, COLLECTORS AND FINDING BUYERS, (Future): As an extension of the dwarf mode system of likes and dislikes, you should be able to find people that are collecting objects, starting with simple objects like coins and bugs. It should also be an adventure unto itself to find a buyer for many valuable objects, if you want to get more than a local merchant would be able to provide, and news of your acquisition should keep your life interesting.
# Bloat173, FINDING BUYERS, (Future): Arranging for buyers for artifacts. It could be harder to access nobles, and this might be a challenge.
# PowerGoal13, ARTIFACT QUEST, (Future): You pledge to the human king that you will recover a lost artifact that is in the willful possession of a monster.
# PowerGoal134, AND WHEN YOU FIND IT, WHAT WILL YOU DO WITH IT?, (Future): The scribe Arcania writes down the last known location of the sacred skull of Aa on a map which is torn in two pieces and hidden in widely-separated regions of the world.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg602725;topicseen#msg602725
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: DakkIs there any other uses for artifacts planned that doesn't involve the magic arc? Such as making whoever has the benefit of using an artifact weapon or owning any artifact of any kind very happy, a commander carrying a important artifact in battle increasing his/her's soldiers morale, possibly increasing their ability to go into battle trance, and more negative results of losing an artifact?
There used to be a system by which artifacts became "possessed" (as in ownership), "hidden" (as in some loser hiding it) or "dropped". The dwarves would pass along the artifact as long as it was dropped, and any dwarf that picked up the artifact and decided to get a possessed marker on it would seek to get it back, until it was hidden (at which point your adventurer could go to find it). That's obviously a little to strange to come back, but that's kind of what we are thinking in a vague way -- they don't have to be magical at all to be coveted and influence decisions overall. Dwarves aren't really autonomous enough at this point to have higher goals like this with any kind of precision, but that should come with job priorities the way we're thinking about them at this point. There was also a notion for any valuable object of having your adventurer be able to arrange for them to come into the ownership of important people, which is one way you might move up in the world, but that's also unformed.
The Artifact Arc should see the legends expanded -- artifacts were originally going to be the main focus of the game, but they faded back a bit. In the future, the power of artifacts will bring them back to the forefront. This was part of the point of Threetoe's story Heroes of the Coast (http://"http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_story.html"). In these stories, Threetoe often focused on some set of planned features. In Heroes, the idea is that dwarven artifacts which have become scattered throughout the world in many games can be quested for and then used for some purpose. Currently, it keeps track of every time an artifact changes hands, though it might be hard (impossible?) to reveal these events right now, don't remember. It also tracks the maker, and whether the artifact was destroyed, but not much more.
Post by: piecewise on November 11, 2010, 01:10:27 pm
2 more hours to go whhheee!Yeah, don't count hours, it's pointless. Just assume that there is a good chance that the game will come out today. Check back every so often and if it doesn't come out then be patient because it's obviously close.
Post by: Glanzor on November 11, 2010, 01:10:37 pm
Has anyone noticed that you cant trade goblets? I had a few hundred of them, but the only ones I could trade were the ones that shared a bin with a sellable craft.What are you talking about? I sold countless of goblets. They just have no category in the "bring to depot"-screen so you have to search them by letter.
Post by: slMagnvox on November 11, 2010, 01:11:34 pm
Lets get this back on topic shall we?
Right now artifacts are worth an amount of dwarfbux that is simply so large it's practically worthless. You can trade it for an entire wagon of supplies if you feel like getting .01% of it's value or you can just let it sit around gathering dust and making dwarfs sully their pants with joy. In the future, as the caravan and army arcs pick up, will artifacts see some some sort of expanded use, such as buying armies of soldiers from neighboring civs, causing armies to invade for the express purpose of stealing the artifact etc.?
I think part of the goal of the Caravan Arc will be to balance out those kinds of trade imbalances. If you want to trade away a pile of artifacts, you should be able to make arrangements with the liaisons. And should their civ be willing, and capable of affording your Planepacked, they will load their caravans with the appropriate quantity and value of goods. I imagine the Liaison interface getting a little more in depth, and specific trades could be made ahead of time. 20 full sets of exceptional steel arms and equipments from the neighboring mountainhome for an artifact flute and two bins of dyed and decorated giant spider silk socks.
Big ticket purchases always involve some middle men and even today can involve years of planning and negotiation.
Though fix prices are reportedly on the way out, <speculation> so I guess one civilizations valuation of your socks might be quite different from another's. And hopefully they'll both value them as socks primarily, and might have no current need for a large import of luxury hosiery. The same could apply to artifacts, with one civ willing to pay anything for that flute, but another perhaps less musically inclined civ would have no interest in a flute, be it a gemstone artifact or schist. </speculation>
Some more broad applications of wealth would be awesome too, the buying of peace or of war. Hiring a company of elite Troll hammerers. Shopping for the perfect artifact battle axe for your favorite champion, once the rest of the world starts getting in on the artifact game that is. I love the idea of carpentering up a caravan, loading it full of gem encrusted platinum jewelry and chests of coins, assigning some trustworthy guardsmen and dispatching it in exchange for some world altering purchase. How would you spend your 10 million dwarfmids?
Post by: Rex_Nex on November 11, 2010, 01:15:01 pm
ThanksHas anyone noticed that you cant trade goblets? I had a few hundred of them, but the only ones I could trade were the ones that shared a bin with a sellable craft.What are you talking about? I sold countless of goblets. They just have no category in the "bring to depot"-screen so you have to search them by letter.
Post by: tfaal on November 11, 2010, 01:18:54 pm
There ain't no way to fight it. The ETA is 3:00 PMish, and by golly, I'll be checking my watch, illogical or not. Anticipation is a strange beast.2 more hours to go whhheee!Yeah, don't count hours, it's pointless. Just assume that there is a good chance that the game will come out today. Check back every so often and if it doesn't come out then be patient because it's obviously close.
Post by: Cthulhu on November 11, 2010, 01:24:42 pm
Post by: Willfor on November 11, 2010, 01:29:38 pm
:')
Post by: piecewise on November 11, 2010, 01:45:31 pm
ITT: People are at once joyous and annoyed at an ETA they've been asking for for several days.I don't think annoyed is the proper term
:')
Post by: calrogman on November 11, 2010, 02:00:29 pm
I don't think annoyed is the proper termAntsy is more apt, I think.
Post by: iceball3 on November 11, 2010, 02:02:34 pm
Post by: Miko19 on November 11, 2010, 02:03:55 pm
What time EST is .17 supposed to come out???I got no idea, but it should be out by the next hour.
Post by: Toady One on November 11, 2010, 02:08:04 pm
Post by: Miko19 on November 11, 2010, 02:09:40 pm
About 10 seconds ago........
what does that mean?
Post by: piecewise on November 11, 2010, 02:10:15 pm
What time EST is .17 supposed to come out???I got no idea, but it should be out by the next hour.
mean's it just came outAbout 10 seconds ago........
what does that mean?
Post by: Flaede on November 11, 2010, 02:13:32 pm
Post by: magmaholic on November 11, 2010, 02:21:00 pm
i cant download the game.
he says "DONT DOWNLOAD THE DARN FREAKY ASCII PORN!!"
i guess i dont,then. :(
Post by: piecewise on November 11, 2010, 02:22:23 pm
Post by: Ullallulloo on November 11, 2010, 02:37:57 pm
Says there is an update to the "your first adventurer" manual. Where is this?On the help screen when you push "?".
Busy downloading the new version now. :) I'm hoping the dungeon master will get fixed soon, though.
Post by: PermanentInk on November 11, 2010, 02:40:21 pm
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 11, 2010, 02:42:09 pm
Post by: Dakk on November 11, 2010, 02:53:38 pm
Post by: Fayrik on November 11, 2010, 02:56:43 pm
Post by: jdf318 on November 11, 2010, 03:05:51 pm
Cept dwarf have extremely large mouths it seems
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Rockphed on November 11, 2010, 03:06:33 pm
Okay, so, a quick suggestion. The frontpage says that the world doesn't continue ledgends only history while playing, and it phrases "yet". I assume this means it's in future planning, however, if it's feasable.. What if there was a quick fix for this - once you drag your world into the age of emptiness as is enevitible from a world that doesn't regrow, you can go back to the menu screen of that region folder, and choose to gen a few extra years through an extended worldgen. This may however be more work than it's worth, since it'd only get replaced.. But if it's quick enough to add, it would partially solve the problem.
Things that are "Quick and Easy to implement" are seldom quick and almost never easy.
Post by: Stormrage on November 11, 2010, 03:16:05 pm
Started as human peasant in a village. Talked to a fellow farmer, he mocked me, "An adventurer? YOU?!! Don't be silly, and where did you get that old sword, anyway? There is no way you could afford one with our meager pay!" , and I said to him "I'll show you what I can do! Give me something to do!". He looked at me mockingly and said "Well, remember that troublesome brigand that attacks our village all the time? It would be a lot easier, if someone could get rid of him. You know where he lives. If you want to prove your worth go kill him."
I set out of the village without thinking twice. Amazing! The day pasts so fast while you're traveling. I've been told horrible stories about a bogeyman traveling the wilds at night and killing every human he sees, so I decided to stop near a small village with a clear overpopulation problem and asked the Siege Engineer who strangely lived there to stay the night at his house (which he shared with 23 other villagers). He welcomed me with great pleasure and I think I got along with other residents. I slept till dawn and set off, as I didn't want to wake them up. About 8 hours into my travels, a goblin patrol ambushed me. It was an axeman and a crossbowman. I disabled the Axeman's Axe holding hand and stabbed him in the lower body several time and left him to drown in his blow while deflecting silver bolts from the troublesome goblin, quite a distance away. He managed to hit me in my left lower leg and I didn't hesitate, I pulled out the bolt and charged into the goblin before he got a chance to reload. I quickly severed both of his hands, before noticing the Axeman was dragging himself away. I started returning to the Axeman and the Crossbowman started running away. Barely caught him. The Axeman moved only by a little when I returned and I tried to chop his head off, but he died from blood loss far too soon.
I have a leg cut open and I'm nearly at my destination. I don't know if the wound will heal itself and what to expect in the end of my trek. Glory to Armok.
EDIT: Well. Losing is fun. ;)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Organum on November 11, 2010, 03:58:21 pm
Post by: iceball3 on November 11, 2010, 04:27:11 pm
Post by: JoRo on November 11, 2010, 04:28:40 pm
I was playing .17 and i noticed a couple of new items, the mortar and pestle, after killing a night creature. Any idea what it does?
How else would they grind your bones to make their bread?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 11, 2010, 04:47:46 pm
Post by: Ma88hew on November 11, 2010, 04:56:35 pm
Also, when playing around in the arena, it seems that elves are now represented by "e". (as apposed to "E") Is there a reason for this? Not that I dislike the change.
Post by: iceball3 on November 11, 2010, 05:14:37 pm
Boogymen and night creatures are very difficult. I love this. It makes you actually want to have followers who are not just meat-shields.As stated in the update post, It's because they are small.
Also, when playing around in the arena, it seems that elves are now represented by "e". (as apposed to "E") Is there a reason for this? Not that I dislike the change.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 11, 2010, 05:20:05 pm
Post by: B0013 on November 11, 2010, 05:26:52 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
HELL YES
-time to sleep!
Post by: Rockphed on November 11, 2010, 05:33:26 pm
The biggest change I note is that getting armor is much more difficult. Looks like running a fort just to create some armor for a dwarf is again a very good idea.
Post by: Aqizzar on November 11, 2010, 05:50:16 pm
But holy crap, I am slaughtering outlaws and picking up entourages like nobody's business. The third guy advised me to "praise nightmares" and begged me to lead him to a warrior's death. Hell yeah dude.
Post by: Orkel on November 11, 2010, 05:58:29 pm
What happens?
Post by: Cthulhu on November 11, 2010, 06:01:39 pm
Also, I'm kind of annoyed. The newest version likes to move twice for every button press, which leads to a lot of really annoying issues like trying to pick up items or go in small rooms. Also, sometimes I'll stab someone and and when I go to pull it out I'll pull it out and immediately attack again, which disorients me a bit because I can't tell I pulled the sword out.
Post by: piecewise on November 11, 2010, 06:09:50 pm
These minotaurs seem a bit silly though, they can be laying in a hallway with 12 people standing on or around them and still dodge every hit.
Clouds are a nice touch too.
So has anyone found out what "Burial is now more encouraged in dwarf mode" meant?
What happens?
Sounds like the corpses might come back to life as zombies like they used to.
Are boogeymen and the like always going to be this prominent? It's cool that they're spotlighted now but I can see it getting kind of annoying once the game is more complete.I think thats just your pc being slow and lagging. I've been playing since it released and that hasn't happened once. And I like boogy men and the danger at night, makes things more FUN
Also, I'm kind of annoyed. The newest version likes to move twice for every button press, which leads to a lot of really annoying issues like trying to pick up items or go in small rooms. Also, sometimes I'll stab someone and and when I go to pull it out I'll pull it out and immediately attack again, which disorients me a bit because I can't tell I pulled the sword out.
Post by: PTTG?? on November 11, 2010, 06:38:51 pm
About 10 seconds ago........
what does that mean?
It means nothing. Nothing at all. Disregard it. Whatever you do, don't refresh the main page.
Post by: Orkel on November 11, 2010, 06:43:32 pm
So has anyone found out what "Burial is now more encouraged in dwarf mode" meant?
What happens?
Sounds like the corpses might come back to life as zombies like they used to.
Sounds yes, but I'd like to know for sure. Has anyone here had experience yet?
Post by: JoRo on November 11, 2010, 06:50:46 pm
Also, I'm kind of annoyed. The newest version likes to move twice for every button press, which leads to a lot of really annoying issues like trying to pick up items or go in small rooms. Also, sometimes I'll stab someone and and when I go to pull it out I'll pull it out and immediately attack again, which disorients me a bit because I can't tell I pulled the sword out.
I had this problem once, try increasing [KEY_REPEAT_MS:150] in init.txt.
Post by: Sizik on November 11, 2010, 06:53:36 pm
Boogymen and night creatures are very difficult. I love this. It makes you actually want to have followers who are not just meat-shields.As stated in the update post, It's because they are small.
Also, when playing around in the arena, it seems that elves are now represented by "e". (as apposed to "E") Is there a reason for this? Not that I dislike the change.
Does that mean small as compared to humans (like Santa's elves), or small compared to dragons, colossi, and the like?
Post by: iceball3 on November 11, 2010, 06:55:24 pm
I think it's more compared to elephants really.Boogymen and night creatures are very difficult. I love this. It makes you actually want to have followers who are not just meat-shields.As stated in the update post, It's because they are small.
Also, when playing around in the arena, it seems that elves are now represented by "e". (as apposed to "E") Is there a reason for this? Not that I dislike the change.
Does that mean small as compared to humans (like Santa's elves), or small compared to dragons, colossi, and the like?
Post by: James.Denholm on November 11, 2010, 07:03:00 pm
Post by: Dae on November 11, 2010, 07:17:13 pm
I like how the minotaurs yell taunts in their maze. I've been able to get by pretty easily thanks to a massive army of followers. We just totally gank anything that gets in our way. The aimed shots and new wrestling interface work great as well.
I was less lucky. I just turned around a corner, quickly followed by my 13 companions. Then the minotaur charged me, and before I could do anything, I had both my hands and my lower legs cut off.
I then proceeded to bleed to death in one round, quickly followed by my 13 companions.
Post by: piecewise on November 11, 2010, 07:36:05 pm
I like how the minotaurs yell taunts in their maze. I've been able to get by pretty easily thanks to a massive army of followers. We just totally gank anything that gets in our way. The aimed shots and new wrestling interface work great as well.
I was less lucky. I just turned around a corner, quickly followed by my 13 companions. Then the minotaur charged me, and before I could do anything, I had both my hands and my lower legs cut off.
I then proceeded to bleed to death in one round, quickly followed by my 13 companions.
Yeah, minotaur seems a bit overpowered right now. I survived him thanks to my companions (I caught a good halberd blow to the chest and dragged myself off while they finally forced him to collapse in exhaustion, though not before he amputated a few people.) The dragon was pretty pathetic, but died so slowly that it managed to bite the hands of one of my swordsmen before said swordsman somehow killed it with a bite.
Also, has anyone been fast traveling and gotten the message "You Feel Uneasy", been tossed down to the normal screen and then just been able to leave? Seems weird.
Post by: Greiger on November 11, 2010, 07:43:22 pm
Boogymen and night creatures are very difficult. I love this. It makes you actually want to have followers who are not just meat-shields.As stated in the update post, It's because they are small.
Also, when playing around in the arena, it seems that elves are now represented by "e". (as apposed to "E") Is there a reason for this? Not that I dislike the change.
It's the elves new tile to indicate a soldier. Humans also have an accented U to indicate their soldiers. Goblins don't appear to have a special tile.
Post by: Dakk on November 11, 2010, 07:46:40 pm
Post by: piecewise on November 11, 2010, 07:52:54 pm
Post by: Greiger on November 11, 2010, 07:54:40 pm
EDIT: I mean, I usually modify the default dragon entry myself anyway, but... I haven't done anything with it yet...
Post by: Dakk on November 11, 2010, 08:02:01 pm
Post by: iceball3 on November 11, 2010, 08:24:05 pm
Quote from: piecewise
It's a warning that your about to be ambushed if you hang around for a few moments. I think the chances of getting that instead of a normal attack depend on the overall strength of the ambush (Quality*Quantity) and a couple of rarely attributes. So you either somehow powerleveled observer, or you need to get the hell out of there and don't look back.
Yeah, minotaur seems a bit overpowered right now. I survived him thanks to my companions (I caught a good halberd blow to the chest and dragged myself off while they finally forced him to collapse in exhaustion, though not before he amputated a few people.) The dragon was pretty pathetic, but died so slowly that it managed to bite the hands of one of my swordsmen before said swordsman somehow killed it with a bite.
Also, has anyone been fast traveling and gotten the message "You Feel Uneasy", been tossed down to the normal screen and then just been able to leave? Seems weird.
Post by: tfaal on November 11, 2010, 08:37:43 pm
Post by: iceball3 on November 11, 2010, 08:45:22 pm
Post by: piecewise on November 11, 2010, 09:24:00 pm
My adventurer is doing pretty well I think. He was injured early on and lost the ability to grasp with one hand (though he can still use a sword and shield oddly) but has so far killed minotaurs, dragons, hydras, titans, night beasts and their consorts etc. Right now I just keep getting ambushed by kobolds all the time, but I am considered a legendary hero by most human civs.
Post by: Misterstone on November 11, 2010, 09:48:54 pm
Post by: Sowelu on November 11, 2010, 09:54:07 pm
...But yeah, in normal/good calm areas, it's a little much.
Post by: Dae on November 11, 2010, 09:57:58 pm
Post by: piecewise on November 11, 2010, 10:17:03 pm
I don't know what you're talking about. I've played weeks without seeing one, sleeping a few times in the forest and travelling by night without meeting any boogiemen.
Same here. I've never ran into one even when I sleep in the forest and travel at night. I always have a huge band of people with me though, so maybe thats why.
Post by: tfaal on November 11, 2010, 10:39:32 pm
Post by: James.Denholm on November 11, 2010, 11:14:32 pm
And I would have been fine, had I not dropped my axe.
Post by: Misterstone on November 11, 2010, 11:18:41 pm
Post by: piecewise on November 12, 2010, 12:21:57 am
Post by: darkflagrance on November 12, 2010, 12:32:29 am
Man, after a while those goblins practically send armies after you. I'd say over half of my companions have titles and a good dozen or more kills. Everyone is all awe struck whenever I show up and I tote around something like 20 people. Right now I'm down to 10 thanks to 3 heavily armed goblin patrols and a hydra.
The adventurer is basically like a Joan of Arc, a hero who rises out of nowhere and begins leading armies against the enemy.
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 12, 2010, 05:15:04 am
because I had some opportunity strikes missing, some very squarely attack dealing no damage and such.
also, that would explain why a 'normal' hit chance is normal for every attack from slashing to bashing with shield to kicking
Post by: Captain Mayday on November 12, 2010, 05:21:57 am
HABIT:<habit token>:<percentage> - Obviously there are GRIND_BONE_MEAL, EAT_BONE_PORRIDGE, and USE_ANY_MELEE_WEAPON, and I assume the percentage is the likelihood of this being the case. Are there any other habit tokens I haven't listed?
HABIT_NUM:<TEST_ALL or a number> - At a guess I'd say TEST_ALL allows for all habits listed to have a chance at being added, while a number would limit it to a specific number of them being applied to a given creature.
NIGHT_CREATURE_BOGEYMAN & NIGHT_CREATURE_HUNTER - what are the effects of these, please?
Post by: iceball3 on November 12, 2010, 09:13:28 am
Seriously, how the heck is their evasion so high?
Post by: Moddan on November 12, 2010, 09:15:07 am
Post by: KillerClowns on November 12, 2010, 10:27:11 am
Goddammit, the bogeymen are god damned untouchable, the freaking asses.
Seriously, how the heck is their evasion so high?
Their [NATURAL_SKILL:DODGING:9] token helps.
Post by: piecewise on November 12, 2010, 11:01:32 am
I got a question regarding the combination of wrestling and aimed attacks in the new release. Does anyone know if it is planned or already implemented that successfully grabbing a body part increases the chance to hit the same part while it is held? So for example I could grap the head of my opponent with my free hand and then have it easier to stab the head or adjacent body parts (throat) with my short sword in the following round.I asked that exact same thing a few pages back. I'd put it in green if you want it answered.
Post by: Cthulhu on November 12, 2010, 11:34:05 am
Post by: piecewise on November 12, 2010, 01:59:15 pm
I tried it yesterday, I don't think it does.Not now, but eventually is that the plan?
Post by: Knight Otu on November 12, 2010, 02:10:33 pm
Post by: dennislp3 on November 12, 2010, 02:26:52 pm
I got a question regarding the combination of wrestling and aimed attacks in the new release. Does anyone know if it is planned or already implemented that successfully grabbing a body part increases the chance to hit the same part while it is held? So for example I could grap the head of my opponent with my free hand and then have it easier to stab the head or adjacent body parts (throat) with my short sword in the following round.I asked that exact same thing a few pages back. I'd put it in green if you want it answered.
Ive noticed it seems to up overall hit chances and ability to land shots squarely but not anything specific that I have seen...and not by much
Post by: Rip0k on November 12, 2010, 03:18:59 pm
Is it just me or do none of the NPC's have families? I've talked to like 10 people and none of them have any family to speak of. Weird. I've only tried people in castles though.
I think they just don't have any historical figures in their families. One Lady in my world told me about her son's death.
Post by: Shadowfury333 on November 12, 2010, 04:01:10 pm
Is it just me or do none of the NPC's have families? I've talked to like 10 people and none of them have any family to speak of. Weird. I've only tried people in castles though.
I think they just don't have any historical figures in their families. One Lady in my world told me about her son's death.
Yeah, That was mentioned regarding entity populations. All the information about them is pretty much genned when you talk to them. You can make them historical by trying to kill them, though, or by getting them into a party with you..
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 12, 2010, 04:11:39 pm
Post by: Mechanoid on November 12, 2010, 05:45:24 pm
It seems all settlements apart from human ones are now gone, probably due to the site sprawl not being ready for them. I can't find any fortresses or towers, and no elven settlements at all.Replace the tag DARK_FORTRESS or TREE_CITY or CAVE_DETAILED for the other races with CITY. That will give them human-like structures and site sprawl. (but don't do this for kobolds, you want those bastards to live in their stone-age caves)
Of course, this will require you to regenerate the world.
Dwarven cities are properly populated with structures made from underground wood types and their shops stock appropriately sized and civ-related materials on the equipment. It's fucking awsome. 8)
The only problem is that you're likely to spawn ON THE MOUNTAIN as a dwarf civ adventurer, which means you'll have to walk to a non-mountain biome to travel AND that there will be no structures because there's no wood types for mountain biomes AND no farms because stone isn't farmable. (so basically, there's nothing if you start on the mountain) Thankfully you can look at the "Q"uest map to determine the shortest escape route from the mountain.
Post by: Shadowfury333 on November 12, 2010, 09:29:06 pm
The only problem is that you're likely to spawn ON THE MOUNTAIN as a dwarf civ adventurer, which means you'll have to walk to a non-mountain biome to travel AND that there will be no structures because there's no wood types for mountain biomes AND no farms because stone isn't farmable. (so basically, there's nothing if you start on the mountain) Thankfully you can look at the "Q"uest map to determine the shortest escape route from the mountain.
Really? For me, I've been starting in human villages as a dwarf adventurer. And it isn't just a display bug. If I start attacking them, they become enemies of my home civ, and I become enemies of their civ. Normally you'd just become an enemy of your own home civ.
And yes, as my last two posts suggest, I do often make adventurers just to slaughter my own starting town right when I spawn, or at least see how far I go in the attempt. 31.17 citizens are really tough, especially peasants with their bronze carving knives. My best is 5 citizens, which I only got on demigod by standing outside of a doorway to keep them from swarming me.
Also, these human villages tend to be in very mountainous areas, with maybe one bedless dormitory per plateau area, and a good 10 to 20 z-level difference from top to bottom.
Post by: Jehdin on November 12, 2010, 09:50:37 pm
Really? For me, I've been starting in human villages as a dwarf adventurer. And it isn't just a display bug. If I start attacking them, they become enemies of my home civ, and I become enemies of their civ. Normally you'd just become an enemy of your own home civ.
He meant if you modded it as he previously stated.
Post by: Shadowfury333 on November 12, 2010, 10:02:46 pm
He meant if you modded it as he previously stated.
Oh, right. Sorry, I missed that. Long day, I guess.
Post by: Misterstone on November 12, 2010, 10:47:30 pm
The only problem is that you're likely to spawn ON THE MOUNTAIN as a dwarf civ adventurer, which means you'll have to walk to a non-mountain biome to travel AND that there will be no structures because there's no wood types for mountain biomes AND no farms because stone isn't farmable. (so basically, there's nothing if you start on the mountain) Thankfully you can look at the "Q"uest map to determine the shortest escape route from the mountain.
Really? For me, I've been starting in human villages as a dwarf adventurer. And it isn't just a display bug. If I start attacking them, they become enemies of my home civ, and I become enemies of their civ. Normally you'd just become an enemy of your own home civ.
Eh, what happens if you use an adventurer to make your dwarf civ the enemy of a human civ, then quit and start a fortress that is part of that dwarf civ? IIRC to get a human siege the two civs have to be at war with each other, but would this make that possible? Does this kind of political status change after worldgen history?
Post by: monk12 on November 12, 2010, 11:47:57 pm
Generally speaking, this release has piqued my interest into the workings of the Hydra.
Post by: FuzzyDoom on November 13, 2010, 12:40:45 am
Will there be a way to give items to our companions? And perhaps an easier way to equip weapons? (Just had to wiki it.)
Have Lashers been fixed in this release? I seem to remember people talking about Lashers demolishing things, but the Lashers I pick up just chip the bone...over...and over...and over again.
Simple questions, nothing groundbreaking.
Post by: Dae on November 13, 2010, 03:54:33 am
Playing as a hammerer, I bashed the hydra in the guts. The Hydra Vomited. Do Hydra's vomit from all of their heads at once, or is it just one head and the other heads continue to do their thing?
I shall sig this, if you don't mind. It perfectly reflects what's happening around this forum.
Post by: calrogman on November 13, 2010, 04:46:41 am
Playing as a hammerer, I bashed the hydra in the guts. The Hydra Vomited. Do Hydra's vomit from all of their heads at once, or is it just one head and the other heads continue to do their thing?I'd have thought the easiest way to find out would be to 'l'ook at the Hydra just after the expulsion and see which heads are covered in vomit.
Post by: Dae on November 13, 2010, 05:00:30 am
Playing as a hammerer, I bashed the hydra in the guts. The Hydra Vomited. Do Hydra's vomit from all of their heads at once, or is it just one head and the other heads continue to do their thing?I'd have thought the easiest way to find out would be to 'l'ook at the Hydra just after the expulsion and see which heads are covered in vomit.
You wouldn't cover the case where one head vomits all over other heads. I'm pretty sure DF lacks a decent vomit physics engine.
Post by: Akjosch on November 13, 2010, 05:13:24 am
Post by: Captain Mayday on November 13, 2010, 06:34:14 am
For example, utilising my modded in avari race, the following battle occurred:
A: 1243 Avari, 7 losses
D: 714 Elves, 228 Grizzly Bears, 879 losses.
Defender was victorious.
The battle didn't take place in a defended structure, so I'm not certain why they'd be judged as victors.
Post by: tfaal on November 13, 2010, 09:12:36 am
[EDIT]: In regards to Mayday's post, the defender was victorious because they held their position, and the attacker retreated. Not sure if you're objecting to that, or to the fact that the elves didn't retreat, but I don't see anything necessarily wrong with a Pyrrhic victory like that.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 13, 2010, 09:20:25 am
edit: Can we get wabbits and bunnys too? These little buggers arent as nasty as boars and stuff and deliver a small amount of pelts.
Post by: Captain Mayday on November 13, 2010, 09:28:16 am
Glad to see some input on the blog from Threetoe; Toady's posts are entertaining to read, but his prose can be a bit clinical. Plus, it's cool to see some posts by the other half of the dev team.
[EDIT]: In regards to Mayday's post, the defender was victorious because they held their position, and the attacker retreated. Not sure if you're objecting to that, or to the fact that the elves didn't retreat, but I don't see anything necessarily wrong with a Pyrrhic victory like that.
Are you suggesting that a mixture of 63 bears and elves would deter an army of over 1200 enemies who have already all but won? Or that the Elves constructed an unassailable wall from the corpses of their compatriots? Possibly the Avari merely grew bored with killing bears and Elves and went home?
As I already noted, the Elves didn't have any defenses present, it was mainly a battle in an open field. I can see the Elves fleeing, hiding away amongst the bodies, or being completely wiped out, but I think 'victory' is a bit of a stretch there.
Post by: Moddan on November 13, 2010, 09:57:21 am
Will there be quests to retrieve at least one body part of a member of a community who was abducted and killed by a night creature to allow a proper burial?
Would be cool if you could do this for previous adventurer too.
Post by: iceball3 on November 13, 2010, 10:09:02 am
Also, the bogeymen's dodging skill is a bit absurd. Are you considering to lower it a little bit in the next few releases?
Post by: freeformschooler on November 13, 2010, 10:11:41 am
HYPE HYPE HYPE
In other news, are stables planned to be implemented in the next release? Going in adventure mode and saving up enough to buy/rent a horse would be pretty cool.
Post by: iceball3 on November 13, 2010, 10:27:05 am
When are you planning to turn hunger and thirst back on?
Post by: tfaal on November 13, 2010, 10:52:04 am
Post by: Mephansteras on November 13, 2010, 10:57:12 am
Post by: Moddan on November 13, 2010, 11:00:34 am
Post by: tfaal on November 13, 2010, 11:13:09 am
Post by: thvaz on November 13, 2010, 11:25:50 am
Couldn't you just assume you're hunting and drinking while travelling?
Well, let's assume we are travelling then while we are instantly teleported across the map.
Seriously, follow this line of thought and we will end with a ASCII Oblivion.
Post by: KillerClowns on November 13, 2010, 11:31:28 am
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 13, 2010, 11:33:19 am
Post by: Knight Otu on November 13, 2010, 11:39:54 am
Post by: SirPenguin on November 13, 2010, 11:43:07 am
Post by: thvaz on November 13, 2010, 11:53:40 am
I myself would like some randomness in the likeness of bogeyman attacks. Wandering at night should be dangerous for various other reasons.
Post by: madjoe5 on November 13, 2010, 02:46:42 pm
Post by: Rexfelum on November 13, 2010, 03:04:27 pm
Is it just me, or are goblins having a real problem snatching children in history right now (they do it just fine in fort mode, as some newly-migrated couple with child had to find the hard way before they even entered my fort proper)? Looking through the sites of a few generated worlds, most non-empty dark fortresses - even those "owned" by non-goblin civilisations through conquest - have only goblin inhabitants, with the occasional boss demon here and there. In five worlds, I had one dark fortress with one human in it. That's it. Might be just me being a bit unlucky though ...
Yes, thank you for putting it into words. I enjoy "mixed-race" civilizations (especially when I get to fight them), but recent world gen experimentation has resulted in little mixing, whether by babysnatching or warfare.
It looked like it had to do with crowding: with 40 civilizations in a medium map, humans captured a bunch of elf slaves, and goblins captured (I presume babysnatched) some humans. With 30-35, I saw two human-captured dark fortresses with goblins and humans, and that was all. With 20, nothing. Zilch.
I prefer a smaller number of civilizations for aesthetic and sprawl-control reasons. Is there something I'm missing? A feature I can tweak in world generation to increase racial mixing and conquest? Or did something change in this release that reduced interactions like babysnatching in history?
--Rexfelum
Post by: Rip0k on November 13, 2010, 04:21:04 pm
Strange thing just happened to me. I was buying a bronze buckler, paid for it but forgot to pick it up and proceeded to another shop. When I realized my mistake I got back and the item just wasn't there. All of the sudden people didn't wanna talk to me like I did something wrong.
Post by: Fieari on November 13, 2010, 04:43:12 pm
In the old dev notes, you mentioned wanting dragon attacks to be righteous, with dragons flying around torching villages from above, picking people up and dropping them from great heights, and generally being really dangerous-- because of their wings. Yet default dragons in DF have been lacking wings for quite a while. Why? I know mythology has plenty of wingless dragons too... but now we have cave dragons, which I'd imagine to be the wingless kind. So why no wings on the regular dragons?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 13, 2010, 04:55:38 pm
Toady, I have a question... I had thought it was an oversight, but it's been going on so long...
In the old dev notes, you mentioned wanting dragon attacks to be righteous, with dragons flying around torching villages from above, picking people up and dropping them from great heights, and generally being really dangerous-- because of their wings. Yet default dragons in DF have been lacking wings for quite a while. Why? I know mythology has plenty of wingless dragons too... but now we have cave dragons, which I'd imagine to be the wingless kind. So why no wings on the regular dragons?
IanFC but toady saidn one of the talks iirc that they lack the flying atm because the Ai and pathing for such an behavior is relativley hard.
Also buildings cant !!Burn!! down yet so i think even the ability would be awesome it would be rather useless.
Post by: Orkel on November 13, 2010, 05:19:12 pm
http://bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=2796
"Soldiers cannot follow orders"
http://bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=309
"Injured dwarves work normally and don't always get healed"
Post by: Quatch on November 13, 2010, 05:46:14 pm
Post by: Aqizzar on November 13, 2010, 05:55:20 pm
Is it just me, or do humans really really love building forts? It's only a hundred and fifty years guys, I think you'd be better served by a few more towns and cities.
Post by: Fieari on November 13, 2010, 05:56:07 pm
IanFC but toady saidn one of the talks iirc that they lack the flying atm because the Ai and pathing for such an behavior is relativley hard.
Also buildings cant !!Burn!! down yet so i think even the ability would be awesome it would be rather useless.
Yet we still have giant eagles with wings... not perfect, nor with all the grand AI to use it, but still there...
Post by: Knight Otu on November 13, 2010, 06:34:50 pm
Is it just me, or do humans really really love building forts? It's only a hundred and fifty years guys, I think you'd be better served by a few more towns and cities.There's definitely some over-the-top fortress spam, I'd say. Two fortresses next to each other may be overkill, and it isn't all that rare.
Post by: Aqizzar on November 13, 2010, 06:54:14 pm
Is it just me, or do humans really really love building forts? It's only a hundred and fifty years guys, I think you'd be better served by a few more towns and cities.There's definitely some over-the-top fortress spam, I'd say. Two fortresses next to each other may be overkill, and it isn't all that rare.
Actually, the issue turned out to be that particular patch of ocean shore is home to six different human civilizations on top of each other.
Which raises a question: Toady, how close are the entities to respecting borders, and war between civilizations of the same entity definition? Human on human wars would be a nice touch here.
Post by: Mechanoid on November 13, 2010, 08:46:10 pm
Considering the caravan arc will be getting worked on, it might be good to know where a cavern chasm is so you can get purring maggots and purring maggot cheese, or where underground magma pipes are for some fire snake trapping and selling of the semi-useless liquid fire extract, or hell, even where the underground civs have setup their camp so you can capture and sell them off. Surely those underground things would fetch a handsome price on the surface world market! Surely... :-\
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
)Post by: Untelligent on November 13, 2010, 09:18:15 pm
Post by: monk12 on November 13, 2010, 09:43:08 pm
Playing as a hammerer, I bashed the hydra in the guts. The Hydra Vomited. Do Hydra's vomit from all of their heads at once, or is it just one head and the other heads continue to do their thing?I'd have thought the easiest way to find out would be to 'l'ook at the Hydra just after the expulsion and see which heads are covered in vomit.
You wouldn't cover the case where one head vomits all over other heads. I'm pretty sure DF lacks a decent vomit physics engine.
But we don't know that yet, now do we? I love the smell of !!SCIENCE!! in the morning...
Playing as a hammerer, I bashed the hydra in the guts. The Hydra Vomited. Do Hydra's vomit from all of their heads at once, or is it just one head and the other heads continue to do their thing?
I shall sig this, if you don't mind. It perfectly reflects what's happening around this forum.
By all means, sig away.
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 14, 2010, 08:14:56 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on November 14, 2010, 08:55:31 am
Post by: Fieari on November 14, 2010, 09:04:11 am
i wouldn't expect that any time soon. it probably wont track individual items, more like count the number of steel swords you inject in the market, or something. then again, masterworks could be a special case, but still, invaders would probably be generated with random equipment, even if they are themselves historical figures.
Actually, the entire POINT of the caravan arc is to track individual items, or at least it was under the old dev list. That's the reason many of us have been eagerly awaiting it for some time, because tracking individual items is the basic framework needed for a lot of OTHER cool features we want.
Post by: nbonaparte on November 14, 2010, 10:13:56 am
So lemme get this straight. Once the Caravan Arc is complete, we won't be able to simply dump physically absurd amounts of glass goblets onto the market indefinitely?I think threetoe's saying that the rest of the world will actually have to deal with that.
Post by: shadow_archmagi on November 14, 2010, 11:53:40 am
So lemme get this straight. Once the Caravan Arc is complete, we won't be able to simply dump physically absurd amounts of glass goblets onto the market indefinitely?I think threetoe's saying that the rest of the world will actually have to deal with that.
Maybe it'll be possible. Maybe you'll just flood the market and everyone will use glass goblets and then because everyone uses them everyone will want them and you'll accumulate 90% of the world's wealth, causing an economic collapse and mass starvation until....
The dwarf caravans full of food roll out of your fortress. Then? World domination.
Post by: Xgamer4 on November 14, 2010, 12:34:17 pm
Post by: tfaal on November 14, 2010, 12:36:51 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 14, 2010, 03:02:20 pm
Hmmm adding a adventure-tire to the UG-tribes does not work :( .
Post by: iceball3 on November 14, 2010, 03:57:03 pm
I hope we get some basic diplomatics too with the caravan and army arc. I would like to have some titan/demon/fb-governed Humans as my backup before i raise taxes for silk that goes through my lands.Regen the world?
Hmmm adding a adventure-tire to the UG-tribes does not work :( .
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 14, 2010, 03:59:09 pm
Post by: Glanzor on November 14, 2010, 06:29:44 pm
Post by: monk12 on November 14, 2010, 07:06:15 pm
Just how in-depth will the caravan arc be? For example, if I flood the food market for years straight, will the populations of cities I trade with skyrocket to reflect the increased availability of food? And, if I were to suddenly cut off that access, will there be mass starvation? Also, will this, and, say, poisoning the food exports be viable ways to weaken others before trying to attack, when that comes up?
I bet this will happen once worldgen keeps happening even while playing fortress mode. Which really, is not at all far behind the Caravan Arc.
Glee!
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 14, 2010, 08:00:27 pm
Just how in-depth will the caravan arc be? For example, if I flood the food market for years straight, will the populations of cities I trade with skyrocket to reflect the increased availability of food? And, if I were to suddenly cut off that access, will there be mass starvation? Also, will this, and, say, poisoning the food exports be viable ways to weaken others before trying to attack, when that comes up?
You can only flood a local food market though since food spoils and the transport-costs (Taxes, Time, water, gear, etc.) do not justify long range transports for something that can be grown or substituted locally.
On a local level this idea can work thus for the next town but not for the something on the far end of the world.
Cutting the food-suply has some drawbacks depending on the way you do it. A graduall cut will increase the poverty and with which crime at first. After a time you get plagues because the citicen are under nourished. At this point migration sets in away from the city which may or may not stabilize the situation a bit. The possibility for accidents increases because here are less people to maintain cruical Structures and public projects like law-inforcement.
The Potential for violence (like a tantrum spiral) raises too. You may now think thats good but our dwarves dont have the group dynamic real people have. Thus you may get an mayor uproar in the crowd. Its like a floodgate being opened - 1 guy tantrums and everyone joins in if they desperate enough and have likewise views on the situation. A good leader might use that to turn the crowd against you - after all violence can be focused against other religions, skin colours, poltical views etc. There are enought examples rangeing from the KKK over the Nazis to that "Anti-communist" fear-mongering. So if there is someone who goes all "The dorfs have enough food, lets take theyrs / they have to share!" you may get a nice little siege.
Hmmm i did go bit Ot here anyway i hope we get this kind of groupdynamics, economical side-effects done with some of the caravan arc stuff. Its also onlyone possible way of things can happen.
Post by: Misterstone on November 14, 2010, 09:39:03 pm
So lemme get this straight. Once the Caravan Arc is complete, we won't be able to simply dump physically absurd amounts of glass goblets onto the market indefinitely?I think threetoe's saying that the rest of the world will actually have to deal with that.
Maybe it'll be possible. Maybe you'll just flood the market and everyone will use glass goblets and then because everyone uses them everyone will want them and you'll accumulate 90% of the world's wealth, causing an economic collapse and mass starvation until....
The dwarf caravans full of food roll out of your fortress. Then? World domination.
I think the idea is that the economy behaves realistically, so if you make green glass items very cheaply, glass becomes cheap. For a real-life analogy note that glass items in our real world economy are cheap now that factories in China roll them out at a cost of a few pennies.
Post by: Toady One on November 15, 2010, 12:01:45 am
Quote from: Lemunde
There's been some discussion about studded weapons since the big update earlier this year. Specifically I'm wondering if, for example, a silver mace studded with lead would do more damage than a normal silver mace due to the added weight?
Improvements to items don't do anything weight/damage-wise yet, but we'd hope to have it matter at some point.
Quote
Quote from: piecewiseIs it possible that we'll ever get the ability to spawn the randomly gen'd fun stuff, forgotten beasts and titans in arena mode?Quote from: FootkerchiefI'm pretty sure there's no technical reason it can't be done -- it would just be kinda crappy since the creature list would have fifty types of anonymous forgotten beast, and so on.
If you used the ones from the world, they'd appear in a large list, but it could also create new definitions on the fly, which would then just be Beast 1, Beast 2, etc., and you'd know which was which because you made them right then. On the other hand, I'm not sure how I feel about spoiling all that stuff by making it so commonplace. I guess legends mode already does that partially.
Quote from: Misterstone
Will sneaking adv. mode characters who ambush targets that are oblivious to their presence get aimed shots? In other words, if I sneak up on an enemy goblin, it does not see me, can I get a free aimed shot with a high bonus (maybe not quite the same as if he were helpless), in essence a "back stab"?
Not right now. Sneaking is a weird over-powered thing, and until I do the proper section for it I'm probably not going to mess with the aim chances for it. Once sneaking is more fair, then actually getting up next to somebody should have bonuses.
Quote from: Orkel
Can you add some randomness to armor penetration? Now that you're cleaning up the stuff, it would be nice to slightly randomize the current "material X always beats material Y" system. How hard would that be to add in? Maybe add a certain percentage of randomness to material strength in the hit calculation?
You can change the coverage variable if you like. Armor can be overpowered, but I don't want to change it the wrong way.
Quote
Quote from: MephansterasIn the dev log story you got attacked by goblins who were part of their civ and not just bandits. Were you at war with them? If you'd been a goblin of that civ, would you have encountered them? I'm just curious how it handles actual civ patrols with regards to your adventurer and your reputation.Quote from: DFCan your heroic reputation affect how hostile civilizations treat you?
The local bandits that say "halt" should not attack members of the same civ, though there was a bug report of some kind related to that. Since the report involved historical figures, which local bandits generally won't bring, I'm not sure what's going on there. The local bandits look at your heroic status with their civilization. So if you have done some quests local to their area or killed one of the megabeasts, you'll have a hero status even with the goblins/etc. In that case, they feel they need to send a larger group at you. If they can't field the larger group, they don't send anybody. This multiplier is larger the fewer people you have. So if you've got 10 people with you, they might send, say 30 gobs instead of 20, but if you are by yourself, they might send 6 or so instead of 2.
Quote from: Hummingbird
Cheesemakers around the world want to know: will the companion display include a way to dismiss companions?
As you might have seen, you still can't do this. It's definitely going to come up when you are leading a group from a site, where you might want to just bring some of your people on a given task, but I don't know if that's going to happen during the caravan stuff.
Quote from: Rex_Nex
Will the numerous rock types eventually each have some sort of use, or do you plan on keeping them as they are now, with most of them being fairly identical.
There was an idea to do a bit with chemistry, and the ideal for us would be having as much chemistry as you could reasonably do with them (which is of course not going to practical). I don't have a time line on this. If it leads toward giant semi-realistic acid bath traps and stuff, that might be a motivator.
Quote
Quote from: CthulhuAre boogeymen and the like always going to be this prominent? It's cool that they're spotlighted now but I can see it getting kind of annoying once the game is more complete.Quote from: thvazThe release of 31.17 was a sucess amongst the playerbase, with few bugs and complains about the new mechanics. One of the complains is about the onipresence of bogeymen when alone at night. There will be some fine tuning about them in the future?
Nah, traveling alone in the night is too interesting a situation to always have every non-savage forest/plain/swamp bogeyman infested, but we wanted to try out this kind of atmosphere. Once there's more of a reason to reclaim a piece of the night, we'll do that.
Quote from: Sizik
Does that mean [elves are] small as compared to humans (like Santa's elves), or small compared to dragons, colossi, and the like?
Yeah, they are a little smaller. Humans are 70000, elves, gobs and dwarves are all 60000. The standard I want to stick with is that humans and greater are capital letters.
Quote from: LoSboccacc
is the combat screen showing the attack modifier before the actual skill roll, or is it showing the actual shoot difficulty/damage?
It is before the attack skill roll. I didn't want to give away the skill level of your opponent, though you can pick up the fighter/dodge skill to some extent by the amount of opportunities coming up. We were going to have a "judge the skill of the opponent over time" thing that made the text change to accommodate your level of knowledge, but it didn't make it in.
Quote from: Captain Mayday
Toady, can you please elaborate on the following?
HABIT:<habit token>:<percentage> - Obviously there are GRIND_BONE_MEAL, EAT_BONE_PORRIDGE, and USE_ANY_MELEE_WEAPON, and I assume the percentage is the likelihood of this being the case. Are there any other habit tokens I haven't listed?
HABIT_NUM:<TEST_ALL or a number> - At a guess I'd say TEST_ALL allows for all habits listed to have a chance at being added, while a number would limit it to a specific number of them being applied to a given creature.
NIGHT_CREATURE_BOGEYMAN & NIGHT_CREATURE_HUNTER - what are the effects of these, please?
Yeah, there are several other habit tokens, currently used by night creatures. http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=70239
If you set HABIT_NUM to a number, it should give you that exact number of habits according to the weights.
BOGEYMAN puts them in the list of available BOGEYMAN defs.
HUNTER will place them as a world gen beast. You probably also need SPOUSE_CONVERTER on a caste for it to use it, and you'd want CONVERTED_SPOUSE on a caste as well. Somebody mentioned this not working or causing world gen crashes, but I haven't reproduced it yet.
Quote from: Knight Otu
Regarding castles, what tags or responsibilities would cause a historical figure to become the lord of a castle if we don't want to use VARIABLE_POSITIONS (whether ALL or CUSTOM_CASTLE_HOLDER)? It seems military responsibilities may be a good bet, as the law givers appear there as well, but that's just a quick assumption.
RULES_FROM_LOCATION should do it for any position, though they probably build extra castles even if you don't have positions for them.
Quote from: monk12
Playing as a hammerer, I bashed the hydra in the guts. The Hydra Vomited. Do Hydra's vomit from all of their heads at once, or is it just one head and the other heads continue to do their thing?
It is magical vomit that does not require a mouth or head or anything. I guess I could say that's going to change once we think a bit more about nutrition and digestion and swallowing diamonds and keys and stuff, but I'm not sure I want to think about it until it is time to.
Quote from: FuzzyDoom
Will there be a way to give items to our companions? And perhaps an easier way to equip weapons? (Just had to wiki it.)
Have Lashers been fixed in this release? I seem to remember people talking about Lashers demolishing things, but the Lashers I pick up just chip the bone...over...and over...and over again.
We have to get to companion equipment sooner than later, since it can be very frustrating to either lose a weapon or just have lots of excess armor that shouldn't be excess. It isn't in for 0.31.17 though.
I haven't changed lashers. It should be done, but I'm not in a rush, at least until we get to the serious combat rewrites.
Quote from: Captain Mayday
Toady, bit of a tangent here but do you have any plans to look at worldgen battles again any time soon? Seems to me there's a weird skew towards the defender winning.
For example, utilising my modded in avari race, the following battle occurred:
A: 1243 Avari, 7 losses
D: 714 Elves, 228 Grizzly Bears, 879 losses.
Defender was victorious.
The battle didn't take place in a defended structure, so I'm not certain why they'd be judged as victors.
...
Are you suggesting that a mixture of 63 bears and elves would deter an army of over 1200 enemies who have already all but won? Or that the Elves constructed an unassailable wall from the corpses of their compatriots? Possibly the Avari merely grew bored with killing bears and Elves and went home?
As I already noted, the Elves didn't have any defenses present, it was mainly a battle in an open field. I can see the Elves fleeing, hiding away amongst the bodies, or being completely wiped out, but I think 'victory' is a bit of a stretch there.
Attackers have a certain amount of time to achieve their objective, and the defenders are defending some position whether it is their town or not. Whether we consider it sundown or a supply problem etc., the attackers left without wiping the elves and bears out entirely, which is the only goal they have right now. Certainly not good for the elves, and it probably wouldn't be called a victory if the world gen wars had more positional/sequential information, but as it stood it was a failure to meet an objective that contributed to the chances for the cancellation of attacks from the Avari side overall in the war. Like the last bears and elves rose up from the body piles and found the spent Avari marching/flying/whatever away, and cheered, until they looked around.
Quote from: Heph
Eggs we get eggs! Heck eggs! How are you planning to do them? I mean just outline how they work internally?
I figure I'll probably go all in with multiple materials, item type, and laying of objects. Not as sure about nesting. I'm not sure about cooking or having the nature of materials change when cooked.
Quote from: Moddan
Will there be quests to retrieve at least one body part of a member of a community who was abducted and killed by a night creature to allow a proper burial?
We were planning to allow you to rescue the captives that are still alive after world gen, but it didn't happen. I wonder if people would want the prepare chopped liver of their relative, if you can somehow recognize it. It seems like getting the body back from a predator/cook creature might be beyond what somebody would ask for, but I dunno.
Quote from: iceball3
I noticed something with the targeting system. There seem to be these things like 'opportunity shots' that are marked with a blue '!'. How are these decided over turns? Is it random, or do you send a certain algorithm depending on the situation?
Also, the bogeymen's dodging skill is a bit absurd. Are you considering to lower it a little bit in the next few releases?
It is based on the fighter/dodge skills for the defender and the fighter skill for the attacker (it was also attack/weapon skill, but I had to drop that for the time being), but there is a strong random element to it as well. In general, if you find yourself not finding a lot of + of ! against an opponent, they are probably a better fighter than you (in terms of the fighter skill), but you might have sufficient specific weapon skill to overcome that.
Nope. You aren't supposed to mess around alone at night and fighting against the bogeymen isn't supposed to be easy. Aside from the overall drift away from bogeyman ubiquity mentioned above, we were considering some other countermeasures that lone travelers might use. Simple things like camp fires, torches or iron. That sort of thing.
Quote from: freeformschooler
In other news, are stables planned to be implemented in the next release? Going in adventure mode and saving up enough to buy/rent a horse would be pretty cool.
Yeah, this should happen in the next non-bug-fix release.
Quote
Quote from: iceball3When are you planning to turn hunger and thirst back on?Quote from: tfaalCouldn't you just assume you're hunting and drinking while travelling?Quote from: thvazWell, let's assume we are travelling then while we are instantly teleported across the map.
Seriously, follow this line of thought and we will end with a ASCII Oblivion.
We do have a travel map already that abstracts walking through 48 tiles, and I think it's a good thing, so there's room for some abstraction. We want to put hunger and thirst back in, and we don't think we want to abstract hunting. On the other hand, if you have a stack of food set up as your travel food then it should just consume it instead of forcing you to go to the local view. It's going to depend a lot on the overall pacing of travel in the end, so we won't be able to say for sure until we try some things out.
Quote from: Knight Otu
With ThreeToe's mention of pigs and chickens in the devlog and the November report... does that mean that the domestic animals, and any other tamed animals for that matter, will actually appear in adventure mode hamlets/towns again?
Yeah. We hope for a rather large collection of farm beasts wandering around villages. And perhaps pigs and chickens in the town yards as well. Everybody likes to keep pigs and chickens.
Quote from: SirPenguin
Toady, I've noticed you have used the term "we" a lot more lately when referring to the development of the game, and ThreeToe now appears to be posting on the dev log page. Given the page has also received an overhaul to show which one of you is posting the update, does this mean that ThreeToe will have a larger (or, better said, a more public) role in the development of DF?
It was kind of annoying to see the state of the Threetoe article on the wiki, so we thought we'd try to reflect the work he's been doing a bit more evenly on the log.
Quote from: Rexfelum
Or did something change in this release that reduced interactions like babysnatching in history?
Is it different from 0.31.16? I can see the introduction of entity pops totally destroying the previous proportions, but I can't think of anything for 0.31.17 itself.
Quote from: Fieari
In the old dev notes, you mentioned wanting dragon attacks to be righteous, with dragons flying around torching villages from above, picking people up and dropping them from great heights, and generally being really dangerous-- because of their wings. Yet default dragons in DF have been lacking wings for quite a while. Why? I know mythology has plenty of wingless dragons too... but now we have cave dragons, which I'd imagine to be the wingless kind. So why no wings on the regular dragons?
...
Yet we still have giant eagles with wings... not perfect, nor with all the grand AI to use it, but still there...
I changed the flying AI fairly recently, so it hasn't been all that long since it was time to revisit it, though maybe that was for people riding eagles, I don't recall. But more recently the thing with dragons has been the idea of doing a semi-specified random creature generator, using dragons as the prototype, and getting it all out into the raws etc. That is, I want a generator that'll take information from the raws and produce various dragons that are all somewhat recognizable as dragons, but still different from each other. I guess that's not too far off what has been with night creatures already now, but that doesn't have a raw format. We'll assuredly have flying dragons and intelligent speaking dragons once that happens, but it's sort of a damper on dragons until it does.
Quote from: Aqizzar
Toady, how close are the entities to respecting borders, and war between civilizations of the same entity definition? Human on human wars would be a nice touch here.
The upcoming association of hamlets/villages to the town markets is going to force me to come to terms with loose boundaries a bit, as will the desire to set up some kind of difference in available trade goods. The way it is now civs are more like the checkerboard alliances you might expect from later game town trade wars or something. Human on human wars were going to be the main element of the release after the caravan one, with the site resources there being part of the basis for it. By the time we are adding that sort of thing in, I imagine that even if the checkerboard situation isn't altered, it'll still be a matter of different cultures being under the control of different warlords in different blobs not strictly related to the civ/culture. I'm still not sure exactly how that's going to be -- right now positions are registered with civilizations, but that might have to be loosened a bit to allow people more autonomy. Entity pop mixtures within a town might be more common by that time. Bandits are sort of the pioneers there, but even for this last release we were planning to have the occasional dwarf or goblin living in a human town, it just didn't quite happen, at least not the way we wanted it to (I think it can come up sometimes).
Quote from: Mechanoid
Is there a possibility that sooner rather then later, the fortress embark local map would be improved to show underground features and have the display alternate between displaying different features that are on the same map tile?
I imagine it would be popular as an option, but I can't promise a timeline for it. There is going to be a related issue arising with setting up supply/demand in that the variety of minerals would probably be better off being more restricted. In that case, there might be plenty of places without great minerals, and it would be annoying to plant a fort on one of those. In addition, it could be problematic to limit start sites further than sprawl has already limited them. So there are some things to deal with there.
Quote from: Lord Shonus
With the trade upgrades, will items you trade away ever return? For example, could you sell a masterwork steel sword to a human caravan, have that civ get angry with you, and have a soldier using that sword attack you?
This is the eventual idea, however, it might not happen until they are pulling armies from the entity populations. So if not the next major release, then the one after that. It could be that armies are still generated but draw items from the stockpiles for the next release in a sort of hybrid approach, but I'm not sure how it is going to end up.
Quote from: Xgamer4
Just how in-depth will the caravan arc be? For example, if I flood the food market for years straight, will the populations of cities I trade with skyrocket to reflect the increased availability of food? And, if I were to suddenly cut off that access, will there be mass starvation? Also, will this, and, say, poisoning the food exports be viable ways to weaken others before trying to attack, when that comes up?
I'm not sure if you're going to be able to have much of an effect on the food market, since that isn't going to be your specialty as a dwarf fortress vs. the thousands living in human villages. Steel weapons, on the other hand, could cause trouble eventually. We'll be tracking every item to some extent -- depending on the amount traded out, it might have to abstract down to type and material, but we'll try to keep as much as we can.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 15, 2010, 01:08:35 am
Post by: Tiler on November 15, 2010, 01:20:00 am
Quote
We were planning to allow you to rescue the captives that are still alive after world gen, but it didn't happen. I wonder if people would want the prepare chopped liver of their relative, if you can somehow recognize it. It seems like getting the body back from a predator/cook creature might be beyond what somebody would ask for, but I dunno.
Well, at some point I assume that this should be covered by entity level ethics regarding somehow to their religious views of death and the importance of the body in their death rituals.
I do know that in Uganda during the reign of Idi Amin, government thugs would abduct and murder people, dump their body in a forest, and since Ugandans placed a great importance in retrieval of the dead, they'd pay government guides to "help" them "discover" the body of a loved one; it was actually one of Amin's major sources of funds for his regime. More locally, it's a well known custom in several US military branches to never leave a body of a comrade behind, even if it risks more people dying to retrieve it.
So I'd say someone sending a adventurer to recover a body would be something that even a common peasant might pay through the nose for, depending on their values.
Post by: monk12 on November 15, 2010, 01:39:56 am
QuoteWe were planning to allow you to rescue the captives that are still alive after world gen, but it didn't happen. I wonder if people would want the prepare chopped liver of their relative, if you can somehow recognize it. It seems like getting the body back from a predator/cook creature might be beyond what somebody would ask for, but I dunno.
Well, at some point I assume that this should be covered by entity level ethics regarding somehow to their religious views of death and the importance of the body in their death rituals.
I do know that in Uganda during the reign of Idi Amin, government thugs would abduct and murder people, dump their body in a forest, and since Ugandans placed a great importance in retrieval of the dead, they'd pay government guides to "help" them "discover" the body of a loved one; it was actually one of Amin's major sources of funds for his regime. More locally, it's a well known custom in several US military branches to never leave a body of a comrade behind, even if it risks more people dying to retrieve it.
So I'd say someone sending a adventurer to recover a body would be something that even a common peasant might pay through the nose for, depending on their values.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: nenjin on November 15, 2010, 02:07:22 am
Post by: bowdown2q on November 15, 2010, 02:16:08 am
Post by: nenjin on November 15, 2010, 02:32:22 am
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 15, 2010, 03:36:58 am
Post by: vogonpoet on November 15, 2010, 03:55:40 am
*checks magma wiki*
Wow, that is indeed an unnecessarily rude sounding entry for ThreeToe. Why would someone troll the brothers Adams on the wiki? It seems fairly clear from reading all the devlogs, dwarf talks and such like, that working together with ThreeToe on the creative side of things is part of what makes programming DF so much fun for Toady, and dismissing ThreeToe's contribution just seems pointless... and indeed weird. Anything that recently helped guide DF development is clearly awesome, as DF continues to move in an awesome direction.
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 15, 2010, 04:15:36 am
Post by: Knight Otu on November 15, 2010, 05:59:53 am
HUNTER will place them as a world gen beast. You probably also need SPOUSE_CONVERTER on a caste for it to use it, and you'd want CONVERTED_SPOUSE on a caste as well. Somebody mentioned this not working or causing world gen crashes, but I haven't reproduced it yet.Yeah, I've mentioned that, but at least my crashes I've traced to a caste-heavy civ race, with the other testing apparently being random chance. Removing any two of the castes did resolve the crashes, though (it wasn't a problem with a specific caste as far as I can see), so maybe it was the bug mentioned on the dev page?
RULES_FROM_LOCATION should do it for any position, though they probably build extra castles even if you don't have positions for them.Actually, it seems that lords and ladies are elevated even without the random position tag.
It was kind of annoying to see the state of the Threetoe article on the wiki, so we thought we'd try to reflect the work he's been doing a bit more evenly on the log.*checks the wiki* Ugh, that horrible fan fiction accusation again? I've seen it in a comment on an interview before, but that it made it to the wiki? It's just silly. "Yeah, I like the gameplay of the recent Zelda games, and the fan fiction they put into the games is nice as well."
Regarding tools, they are currently not native to Dwarf mode, probably only appearing there with custom reactions. Do you think that the pick and similar things (shovels, felling axes, two-man saws...) will move over to the tool format with a tag to make them applicable for dwarf mode to allow some tool use there without it becoming overwhelming?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 15, 2010, 06:37:52 am
Did i get that right (since the question came up on the forum) That creature lairs behave as "Player created side" and stuff in there does in fact not scatter around?
That the dragons get more diversified is nice in my opinion i hope they get bonded to spheres a bit with some correlating ability's. Hehe this might be a nice central point of another threetoe story mayhaps?
edit: ::) Damn tags.
Post by: Moddan on November 15, 2010, 07:20:00 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Yeah, thats what I had in mind. It would also be a nice change from the "kill this - kill that" quests. Players could be send to caves of very powerful creatures, which would be much too difficult to kill yet. They just have to sneak in, get the skull and run like hell if they are discovered. Maybe leave a peasant behind as a distraction. Next quest: retrieve peasant parts.
Post by: Rose on November 15, 2010, 07:24:19 am
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 15, 2010, 08:04:49 am
Will trading a material to a civ give them limited access to that material in the same manner that it currently does for the player? For example, Vanilla Elves don't use metal. If I traded away large amounts of coke and steel bars to the elves, would they later show up with low quality steel equipment made from those bars? Similarly, will resource deposits become more important in worldgen, for example humans fighting elves to gain a tin deposit (once tin is properly rare again)?
Post by: Orkel on November 15, 2010, 08:09:38 am
Post by: Petr Ga on November 15, 2010, 08:35:15 am
Hhnng I keep refreshing the devlog page every 15 minutes hoping for a .18 release
What are you expecting in .18?
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 15, 2010, 08:38:27 am
Post by: Petr Ga on November 15, 2010, 09:27:58 am
Probably the trap bug fix.
ah, ok
Post by: Mandaril on November 15, 2010, 10:53:03 am
Post by: PTTG?? on November 15, 2010, 11:03:23 am
Post by: Orkel on November 15, 2010, 12:37:11 pm
Quote from: Chatlog
A Zombie Goast: But really
A Zombie Goast: If the Dwarf grows attached to a weapon
A Zombie Goast: Or piece of armor
A Zombie Goast: And the Dwarf dies
A Zombie Goast: That thing should become haunted
A Zombie Goast: Or whatever they call it when an object has a ghost
Post by: Neonivek on November 15, 2010, 12:54:02 pm
Thanks again Toady for answering our questions!
Post by: Areyar on November 15, 2010, 01:32:23 pm
namely:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Knight Otu on November 15, 2010, 02:00:25 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on November 15, 2010, 02:24:39 pm
Post by: bowdown2q on November 15, 2010, 02:38:17 pm
Post by: Cruxador on November 15, 2010, 02:42:09 pm
Quote
Warning - while you were reading 21 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.Wow.
The wiki doesn't really focus on design process too much. Really, if wiki article quality is assumed to accurately reflect the community's perception of a team member's importance, then Scamps is arguably the most important one out of everyone.Quote from: SirPenguinToady, I've noticed you have used the term "we" a lot more lately when referring to the development of the game, and ThreeToe now appears to be posting on the dev log page. Given the page has also received an overhaul to show which one of you is posting the update, does this mean that ThreeToe will have a larger (or, better said, a more public) role in the development of DF?
It was kind of annoying to see the state of the Threetoe article on the wiki, so we thought we'd try to reflect the work he's been doing a bit more evenly on the log.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I've been confused about 'worn' equipment in Adventure mode. Last time, I was running around with a Bronze Shield, Bronze Spear, Bronze Brestplate, and no less than 7 loincloths. And I had 8 more in my inv, along with a +Steel Breastplate+ that the game didn't seem to want me to wear. Is there some kind of... slot affinity chart, as pr Diablo/WoW/etc planned?You can wear as many loincloths as you want, up to some crazy level. This is true in real life, too.
Wearing more than one breastplate at once is not likely to be possible. This is true in real life, too. But you can wear mail under plate.
Post by: calrogman on November 15, 2010, 03:19:01 pm
I really want to give my companions some sort of standardised uniform, if only because spending the money on it'd give me something to do with all the loot at bandit camps these days.
Post by: FuzzyDoom on November 15, 2010, 05:21:57 pm
Do you ever see allowing Dual-Wielding of weapons, and being able to effectively use them at the same time (as to just choosing to slash/stab/bash with Sword 1 or slash/stab/bash with Sword 2.) The bigger the creature the larger the items it could dual-wield, you could strike with both at once, etc.
Post by: monk12 on November 15, 2010, 05:59:57 pm
Post by: de5me7 on November 15, 2010, 06:09:51 pm
Thanks for answering my questions Toady! I was going to sneak another one in, but I'll just ask it here:
Do you ever see allowing Dual-Wielding of weapons, and being able to effectively use them at the same time (as to just choosing to slash/stab/bash with Sword 1 or slash/stab/bash with Sword 2.) The bigger the creature the larger the items it could dual-wield, you could strike with both at once, etc.
i believe this is currently possible in adventure mode. When doing aimed attacks, you can select which weapon to attack with, and in certain situations one may be preferable to the other and the interface will let you know this. Dont know about striking with both at once, or bigger creatures and bigger weapons. Currently i think there are no bigger weapons. A dwarf (its bugged) wield a greatsword with one hand in the same way a human or a night creature could.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 15, 2010, 06:19:42 pm
Thanks for answering my questions Toady! I was going to sneak another one in, but I'll just ask it here:
Do you ever see allowing Dual-Wielding of weapons, and being able to effectively use them at the same time (as to just choosing to slash/stab/bash with Sword 1 or slash/stab/bash with Sword 2.) The bigger the creature the larger the items it could dual-wield, you could strike with both at once, etc.
i believe this is currently possible in adventure mode. When doing aimed attacks, you can select which weapon to attack with, and in certain situations one may be preferable to the other and the interface will let you know this. Dont know about striking with both at once, or bigger creatures and bigger weapons. Currently i think there are no bigger weapons. A dwarf (its bugged) wield a greatsword with one hand in the same way a human or a night creature could.
Yeah, Toady addressed this himself last week:
Quote from: JoRoSeeing as the example screenshots showed kicking as an attack of opportunity, does this mean that you could wield multiple weapons and make occasional attacks with your off hand?
Yeah, you can use whichever weapon you like whenever you like, and opportunities come up with either one. If you just press toward the enemy, the wielded weapon will be preferred, but it'll use your offhand item if a good opportunity comes up.
Post by: Naros on November 15, 2010, 06:25:27 pm
We all love new features, but the sheer level of bugs has me liking the bug fixes a great deal more.
Is there a Month of Bugfixes planned?
It'll be drudgery, for sure, but the the current amount of bugs keeping a lot of players from playing.
Post by: Dante on November 15, 2010, 06:39:20 pm
Quote from: Toady
laying of objectsSweeeet. Can't wait to start making my explosive flaming eggs and minelayer monsters.
Post by: ManaUser on November 15, 2010, 06:51:45 pm
As another user mentioned (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=66142.msg1710380#msg1710380) (albeit in the wrong thread), the game now fails to launch on XP-SP1 with the following message:
Quote
---------------------------
Dwarf Fortress.exe - Entry Point Not Found
---------------------------
The procedure entry point DecodePointer could not be located in the dynamic link library KERNEL32.dll.
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 15, 2010, 06:55:41 pm
You eat some egg and suddenly a angry Female Snake/Lizard-men runs up to you and shouts "You killed my baby" wile ripping out your throat.
Eggs are indeed nice since they may make taming dragonish and lizardisch things rather easy. Steal one or two (dozen) and begin a breeding program. Spiders did lay eggs too but more the gelatinous kind. Lizard and Snake-men may not be as strong as dwarves but they have other advantages like having poison so they may be a viable option for multiracial forts.
Hey there are some "all female" species of lizards in the real world (they do it by cloning) hehe i wonder how that would work with dragons. I hope toady makes it so that from one egg multiple nastys can spring up.
Explosive eggs can be down if you make the material inside areal hot gas. I hope the eggshells detach form the infant (of whatever species) as container which the infant has to destroy.
edit: Guys bugs into the Bugtracker please. Toady has installed it exactly for that purpose.
Post by: Areyar on November 15, 2010, 07:18:52 pm
Thanks T1.
Post by: Dante on November 15, 2010, 07:29:11 pm
I don't think there's a way to strike with both at once. I did, however, sneak into a moon man mate's cave, picked up his ladle and carving fork, and alternated using them to tear him to pieces. On a related note,Thanks for answering my questions Toady! I was going to sneak another one in, but I'll just ask it here:
Do you ever see allowing Dual-Wielding of weapons, and being able to effectively use them at the same time (as to just choosing to slash/stab/bash with Sword 1 or slash/stab/bash with Sword 2.) The bigger the creature the larger the items it could dual-wield, you could strike with both at once, etc.
i believe this is currently possible in adventure mode. When doing aimed attacks, you can select which weapon to attack with, and in certain situations one may be preferable to the other and the interface will let you know this. Dont know about striking with both at once, or bigger creatures and bigger weapons.
When will there be a raws tag for bodyparts that should be able to be levered or popped out, e.g. eyeballs?
Post by: nil on November 15, 2010, 07:47:46 pm
Post by: shadow_archmagi on November 15, 2010, 07:52:42 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on November 15, 2010, 08:02:04 pm
Is three any chance of restoring compatibility with older Windows versions?
As another user mentioned (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=66142.msg1710380#msg1710380) (albeit in the wrong thread), the game now fails to launch on XP-SP1 with the following message:
edit: Guys bugs into the Bugtracker please. Toady has installed it exactly for that purpose.
Yeah, this one was already reported. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=3601)
When will there be a raws tag for bodyparts that should be able to be levered or popped out, e.g. eyeballs?
There's already a tag for body parts that can be popped out, UNDER_PRESSURE (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Body_token). It probably wouldn't be suitable for eyes, though. There's an extant bug report about not being able to gouge out eyes. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=1292)
Post by: 1freeman on November 15, 2010, 08:02:27 pm
are you planning on adding aimed shots for ranged weapon's anytime soon/at all?
the lack of aiming make's it hard to actually get a good shot at something with my peasant hunter, I keep shooting my prey in the foot and it gets kind of annoying after a while.
EDIT: also, are the delay's between shot's supposed to simulate reloading, and if so will there be a option to not reload automatically afer each shot, like a combat preference?
Post by: Flaede on November 15, 2010, 08:07:21 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Yeah, thats what I had in mind. It would also be a nice change from the "kill this - kill that" quests. Players could be send to caves of very powerful creatures, which would be much too difficult to kill yet. They just have to sneak in, get the skull and run like hell if they are discovered. Maybe leave a peasant behind as a distraction. Next quest: retrieve peasant parts.
Naw. You leave a peasant behind as a distraction, they're going to haunt YOU.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 15, 2010, 08:09:10 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on November 15, 2010, 08:10:51 pm
I am loving the new addition's to adventure mode but..
are you planning on adding aimed shots for ranged weapon's anytime soon/at all?
the lack of aiming make's it hard to actually get a good shot at something with my peasant hunter, I keep shooting my prey in the foot and it gets kind of annoying after a while.
This was addressed earlier:
Quote from: HephDo these aimed attacks work for Ranged weapons too? Will spitting cobras aim for your eyes?
Is Armor taken into account thus will the Ai attack an un-armored part of someones body if the rest is to hard to get through?
You can't currently aim ranged attacks, though it might get in before the release. In that case the skills used will have to change again, of course, though it might be that there aren't skill influences the same way there, since opportunities and changing chances are supposed to come in part from the positioning from the ongoing fight, which can't be influenced in the same way by a distant shooter.
Post by: Armok on November 15, 2010, 08:11:54 pm
Post by: Arkose on November 15, 2010, 08:43:05 pm
Quote
vomiting only occurs once before the creature starts retching instead
It seem strange that every creature is now going to vomit out everything all at once. In my experience, it takes at least two or three cycles to empty out the stomach and start having dry heaves. To better emulate vomiting from a finite stomach, how about if vomiting increased the creature's hunger meter; the creature will retch instead of vomiting if the hunger meter is above some value.
(Vomit verisimilitude is important to me.)
:o
|
|
|
~~~
Post by: Footkerchief on November 15, 2010, 08:46:08 pm
Quotevomiting only occurs once before the creature starts retching instead
It seem strange that every creature is now going to vomit out everything all at once. In my experience, it takes at least two or three cycles to empty out the stomach and start having dry heaves. To better emulate vomiting from a finite stomach, how about if vomiting increased the creature's hunger meter; the creature will retch instead of vomiting if the hunger meter is above some value.
I made a suggestion a long time ago about improving vomit. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=28202.0) Feel free to bump it with additional ideas!
Post by: 1freeman on November 15, 2010, 10:27:51 pm
When livestock are incorporated, will we be able to train war and hunting animal's. also will there only be farm animals or will we be able to purchase dog's and cat's?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 15, 2010, 10:44:43 pm
Quotevomiting only occurs once before the creature starts retching instead
It seem strange that every creature is now going to vomit out everything all at once. In my experience, it takes at least two or three cycles to empty out the stomach and start having dry heaves. To better emulate vomiting from a finite stomach, how about if vomiting increased the creature's hunger meter; the creature will retch instead of vomiting if the hunger meter is above some value.
To bad that vomit does not yet contain acids or syndroms. XD some animals might do then a pre-emptive vomiting onto you.
Post by: Sizik on November 15, 2010, 10:51:54 pm
Another question for the Toady One.
When livestock are incorporated, will we be able to train war and hunting animal's. also will there only be farm animals or will we be able to purchase dog's and cat's?
I don't see why he would remove features we already have, especially since most of the changes besides the new animals will only be in adventure mode towns.
Post by: Dante on November 15, 2010, 10:53:45 pm
Oh yes, guts popping out. They are still attached, and trail behind the creature, right? Should that be the case for eyeballs? I'd imagine that an action violent enough to extract an eyeball would generally be enough to automatically sever the optic nerve as well.When will there be a raws tag for bodyparts that should be able to be levered or popped out, e.g. eyeballs?
There's already a tag for body parts that can be popped out, UNDER_PRESSURE (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Body_token). It probably wouldn't be suitable for eyes, though. There's an extant bug report about not being able to gouge out eyes. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=1292)
I think he meant in adventure mode anyway.Another question for the Toady One.
When livestock are incorporated, will we be able to train war and hunting animal's. also will there only be farm animals or will we be able to purchase dog's and cat's?
I don't see why he would remove features we already have, especially since most of the changes besides the new animals will only be in adventure mode towns.
Post by: ManaUser on November 15, 2010, 11:49:04 pm
It's not necessarily a bug though, is it? Toady could have decided not to support old OSs anymore. I hope that isn't the case, but it's possible so I thought it made sense to ask.Is three any chance of restoring compatibility with older Windows versions?
As another user mentioned (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=66142.msg1710380#msg1710380) (albeit in the wrong thread), the game now fails to launch on XP-SP1 with the following message:edit: Guys bugs into the Bugtracker please. Toady has installed it exactly for that purpose.
Yeah, this one was already reported. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=3601)
Post by: darkflagrance on November 16, 2010, 12:02:26 am
It's not necessarily a bug though, is it? Toady could have decided not to support old OSs anymore. I hope that isn't the case, but it's possible so I thought it made sense to ask.Is three any chance of restoring compatibility with older Windows versions?
As another user mentioned (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=66142.msg1710380#msg1710380) (albeit in the wrong thread), the game now fails to launch on XP-SP1 with the following message:edit: Guys bugs into the Bugtracker please. Toady has installed it exactly for that purpose.
Yeah, this one was already reported. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=3601)
But XP is superior to 7 in many ways...and I won't get able to acquire an upgrade for my OS for quite a while...
Edit: I'm using sp3.
Post by: Shadowfury333 on November 16, 2010, 02:16:44 am
Oh yes, guts popping out. They are still attached, and trail behind the creature, right? Should that be the case for eyeballs? I'd imagine that an action violent enough to extract an eyeball would generally be enough to automatically sever the optic nerve as well.
No, not necessary. A blunt trauma to the orbit (bone around the eye) could expand it enough to tear the muscles, thus releasing the eye, but wouldn't damage the optic nerve. A baseball took out my great-uncle's eye that way.
Also, a spoon.
Post by: Janus on November 16, 2010, 03:46:41 am
But XP is superior to 7 in many ways...and I won't get able to acquire an upgrade for my OS for quite a while...So at least keep your copy of XP remotely up to date. If you're still on SP1 or older, you should know that SP3 has been released quite some time ago and it is of course a free update. If you also consider the many security fixes included in SP2 and SP3...
EDIT: for further reference, SP2 came out August 25, 2004, and SP3 came out May 6, 2008.
Post by: Rose on November 16, 2010, 04:07:04 am
things like location?
Post by: James.Denholm on November 16, 2010, 04:27:33 am
Quote from: ChatlogA Zombie Goast: But really
A Zombie Goast: If the Dwarf grows attached to a weapon
A Zombie Goast: Or piece of armor
A Zombie Goast: And the Dwarf dies
A Zombie Goast: That thing should become haunted
A Zombie Goast: Or whatever they call it when an object has a ghost
Given that bodies and souls are now separate, I'd say that this kind of thing is an eventual goal.
Post by: Dae on November 16, 2010, 04:50:45 am
Post by: 1freeman on November 16, 2010, 06:18:13 am
I think he meant in adventure mode anyway.Another question for the Toady One.
When livestock are incorporated, will we be able to train war and hunting animal's. also will there only be farm animals or will we be able to purchase dog's and cat's?
I don't see why he would remove features we already have, especially since most of the changes besides the new animals will only be in adventure mode towns.
Yeah, I was talking about adventure mode, It would make hunting/killing a lot easier if i had a fast animal to slow them down while I go in for the kill. it would be nice if they could follow simple instructions like stay, attack. that kind of thing.
Post by: Orkel on November 16, 2010, 06:22:34 am
But XP is superior to 7 in many ways..
nope
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 16, 2010, 06:41:05 am
But XP is superior to 7 in many ways..
nope
judging from the fact that he's at sp1, it's superior in being free or in working with less that 1024MB memory. but I agree that removed that constraints 7 is superior in every possible way.
Post by: G-Flex on November 16, 2010, 07:19:48 am
... Hell, a few days ago I saw the strangest thing: Someone running Windows XP SP1 on a circa-2000 laptop with a 5.5GB hard disk, 128MB of not-even-DDR SDRAM, and a PIII @ 600MHz. I looked it up later, and that model cost $2500 in 2000.
At any rate, if you're on SP1, you're missing out on a lot. Like, say, lacking security updates that came out eight years ago. There's really no good reason to support it, although it would be interesting to see why that crash is happening in the first place.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on November 16, 2010, 08:48:51 am
Post by: darkflagrance on November 16, 2010, 09:29:24 am
Post by: calrogman on November 16, 2010, 10:31:20 am
I have Ubuntu. Ha!Debian Sid. Bow before my superiority, peasant!
Also, yay new version, thanks Toady!
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 16, 2010, 10:46:44 am
Post by: Moddan on November 16, 2010, 11:06:31 am
Post by: Neonivek on November 16, 2010, 12:50:39 pm
Toady eventually will the NPCs start to notice that anyone who rides with you essentially meets and untimely end and thus refuse your recruitment on the basis that you are probably more deadly then all the Megabeasts, Demons, and Goblins combined and actually tell you that is the reason? At that point how would you recover your reputation if possible?
Post by: Scarpa on November 16, 2010, 01:47:45 pm
Hmm let me see
Toady eventually will the NPCs start to notice that anyone who rides with you essentially meets and untimely end and thus refuse your recruitment on the basis that you are probably more deadly then all the Megabeasts, Demons, and Goblins combined and actually tell you that is the reason? At that point how would you recover your reputation if possible?
Well the meatshields *DO* ask you to lead them to death and glory.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on November 16, 2010, 04:01:54 pm
Post by: Misterstone on November 16, 2010, 05:13:44 pm
When the economic/caravan arc is in place, will you consider again the possibility of a non-catastrophic game ending for a fortress? IE, would be be able to quit a fortress game without abandoning the fortress, so that our adventurers can enjoy some of the things we have released on the market, and perhaps go to the fortress and buy them?
Post by: shadow_archmagi on November 16, 2010, 05:25:17 pm
I was wondering, and forgive me for reduplicating a question if that is the case here...
When the economic/caravan arc is in place, will you consider again the possibility of a non-catastrophic game ending for a fortress? IE, would be be able to quit a fortress game without abandoning the fortress, so that our adventurers can enjoy some of the things we have released on the market, and perhaps go to the fortress and buy them?
That would indeed be nice. I'm pretty sure it's planned.
I can't wait to build a massive farming fortress to flood the markets with cheap food.
Or imagine being hit with a particularly hard forgotten beast, and calling for heroes, and one of your old champions arrives at your door. Dwarfowolf!
Post by: Footkerchief on November 16, 2010, 05:48:58 pm
I was wondering, and forgive me for reduplicating a question if that is the case here...
When the economic/caravan arc is in place, will you consider again the possibility of a non-catastrophic game ending for a fortress? IE, would be be able to quit a fortress game without abandoning the fortress, so that our adventurers can enjoy some of the things we have released on the market, and perhaps go to the fortress and buy them?
Toady has touched on this before (albeit a long time ago):
I know there's a lot of problems with visiting a "real" fortress with an adventurer [...]
I'd rather handle this properly when I get to it instead of spending time on a half measure that won't necessarily be related to the completed feature. The adventure mode dwarf fortresses aren't completed and retired player fortresses should work with the same mechanics as these, so I have to do adv mode dwarf fortresses first. Since I'm going to do those using the mechanics in place from dwarf mode, it might be easier to see the path forward to reversing these procedures when that's done.
Post by: Sowelu on November 16, 2010, 05:52:38 pm
Post by: Dakk on November 16, 2010, 07:35:36 pm
Post by: madjoe5 on November 16, 2010, 10:41:20 pm
Although I know nothing about game coding, I assume it can't be too hard to throw in a new type of quest like this.
Post by: veok on November 17, 2010, 08:27:15 am
What about dwarves currently refusing to wear clothes? (Hard to get a clothing market going on when no one ever needs new clothes)
Post by: Footkerchief on November 17, 2010, 10:07:46 am
Quote from: devlog
Next will be the consumption of the resources, meaning lots of starving peasants. Eventually you'll be able to save the day with your caravan of needed prickle berries.
And by "save the day," I hope he means "extort massive sums of money and eventually get lynched by the townspeople."
Post by: ThreeToe on November 17, 2010, 11:19:39 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 17, 2010, 11:50:20 am
Post by: Quatch on November 17, 2010, 12:21:20 pm
It is time to repay the favour.
Post by: dorf on November 17, 2010, 12:48:06 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on November 17, 2010, 01:30:51 pm
You've never had a fort on the brink of starvation, with absolutely no food in store, only to be saved by a passing caravan?
It is time to repay the favour.
Yeah, I can't wait to send a 100-man-strong caravan to an elf civilization on the brink of starvation, pull up in the depot, and say "Behold! CLOTH!"
Post by: boatie on November 17, 2010, 01:50:33 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on November 17, 2010, 02:04:27 pm
Anybody have details on what the Caravan Arc is? Also, if there is any place or post which shows all the arcs that are planned? It'd be cool just to check it out
The development page (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html) has all that stuff:
Quote from: dev.html
Adventurer Role: Trader
* Site resources
o Track resources in quantity instead of just by type
o Should depend on trade/tribute relationships as well as available professions and sprawl sites
* World economy
o Supply/demand based on current available entity resources etc.
o Expand on trade/tribute relationships formed in world generation
o Realize trade/tribute relationships with actual caravans moving on the map
o Ability to get some supply/demand information about nearby locations from travelers and others
o Ability to get that information yourself and trade it to merchants, especially as explorer
o Replace dwarf mode generated caravans with actual caravans
o Improved dwarf mode trade agreements
* Ability to lead a trade caravan
o Ability to load stuff onto pack mules
o Ability to hire bodyguards
o Wagon/wagon teams (might do some teleportation travel with them to avoid annoyances for now)
o Being able to trade from wagons, large markets might have people to move objects more quickly
* Mansions for sale
o Might have to get information about struggling nobles
* Court
o Attaining a certain level of wealth and property should help with access to powerful people, though we have yet to decide what if anything this will grant you in the short term
The old dev notes (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html) are where the term "Caravan Arc" comes from, and they still provide some interesting context:
Quote from: dev_single
# CARAVAN ARC: As a prelude to armies, we'll have caravans actually move around the world map rather than just appear at your outpost. They'll move between each city on the map, though we'll try to stay away from supporting a real economy for the time being. You should be able to find items you traded in your fortress in adventure mode, and a caravan could come to your fortress with an adventure mode item. Related to Core3, Core38, Core81, Req21, Req132, Req133, Req175, Req204, Req218, Req220, Req260, Req279, Req364, Req463, Req516, Req555, Bloat155, Bloat263, Bloat267, PowerGoal24, PowerGoal33, PowerGoal56 and PowerGoal148.
# Core3, CARAVANS, (Future): Use resource tracking and the adventurer travel infrastructure to set up groups of traders that go between sites. Make sure to respect the current flow of the dwarf game, though caravans will no longer be 'generated' when needed. Related to entity knowledge transfer if we are there by this time. The trading done by caravans would interface with the resource tracking system and thus be immediately available to adventurers. This includes items traded away by your dwarf fortress, although it's possible they could be abstracted a bit if they are too numerous. Requires Core38.
# Core38, SITE RESOURCES, (Future): The objects at a site need to be tracked in an abstract form so that the world can use them without loading up the site files. The different profession holders working at a town in world-gen and then during play should be able to produce and use resources based on these stockpiles and local map propertioes. Any changes could be applied to existing site files retroactively when they are loaded. Stores should restock their inventories. The objects need to be separated based on the entity that owns them, since several entities can potentially operate at one site.
# Core81, TRIBUTE, (Future): The tribute relationships established during world generation should be fleshed out there and then brought into regular play with tribute being transported across the map. These could also occur as part of dwarf mode diplomacy and dwarf mode world map play.
Post by: jimi12 on November 17, 2010, 02:23:28 pm
This has all of the info off of the old dev page.
Post by: Untelligent on November 17, 2010, 06:03:16 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 17, 2010, 07:20:33 pm
Post by: Untelligent on November 17, 2010, 07:43:11 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 17, 2010, 08:00:38 pm
Post by: nbonaparte on November 17, 2010, 08:13:27 pm
Post by: dennislp3 on November 18, 2010, 12:46:42 am
Post by: Cruxador on November 18, 2010, 01:29:04 am
Although now that I think of it, I haven't seen Baughn around or heard of him doing anything lately. Since ttf was first implemented, which was a bit ago now.
Post by: dennislp3 on November 18, 2010, 02:54:49 am
Post by: Cruxador on November 18, 2010, 03:04:04 am
He got a job working for google recently and that has had him tied up a bitWell that makes sense, then. Good for him!
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 18, 2010, 03:17:18 am
Speaking of the old devs, did Toady ever elaborate on the "And more, and worse" stuff? Regardless of how bad it was, it can't be any worse than the random poetry generator he threatened us with.
that would be perfect for the philosopher return
Post by: ribosom on November 18, 2010, 06:05:41 am
Speaking of the old devs, did Toady ever elaborate on the "And more, and worse" stuff? Regardless of how bad it was, it can't be any worse than the random poetry generator he threatened us with.
that would be perfect for the philosopher return
That reminds me of something...
http://www.tandj.net/~jpoirier/little_hacks/kant/ (http://www.tandj.net/~jpoirier/little_hacks/kant/)
Post by: mendonca on November 18, 2010, 07:40:49 am
20 GOTO 10
Are we to expect such depth of gameplay early in the Caravan Arc? I reckon I spent weeks all in carrying out the above, just to get myself a bigger and badder ship.
On a related note (re. Elite 2 bulletin boards) a mechanism to offload goods to private individuals might be fun on occasion - perhaps you could sell all your food to a noble at raised prices in a starving community -> he pays a premium to keep his family healthy.
(I'm really excited to see how the game is developing at the moment, the last couple of years are really starting to pay off)
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 18, 2010, 07:48:57 am
10 Barnards Star -> sell luxury goods -> Buy Robots -> travel to Sol -> check bulletin board - > sell robots -> buy luxury goods -> travel to Barnards Star
20 GOTO 10
You got more money shipping between Gateway and Soholia.
Post by: Psieye on November 18, 2010, 08:51:21 am
10 Barnards Star -> sell luxury goods -> Buy Robots -> travel to Sol -> check bulletin board - > sell robots -> buy luxury goods -> travel to Barnards StarIf I'm reading the dev notes correctly, it may get more complex:
20 GOTO 10
Are we to expect such depth of gameplay early in the Caravan Arc? I reckon I spent weeks all in carrying out the above, just to get myself a bigger and badder ship.
- Get information that X town needs Y goods really badly
- Mass up on Y goods
- Travel to X town
- Realise 12 other caravans got there before you and now Y goods is no longer in high demand
- Worry how you'll ever turn a profit now with your current load
If real caravans are travelling between sites then supply and demand will be changing during gameplay. If worldgen continues during play as well, expect even more drastic changes as say a sudden war in some location will suddenly bring certain goods into demand (military gear, food supplies). After enough development, I'd imagine you could even be a total bastard and massacre some town which causes a change in supply & demand which you then cater to after disguising yourself as someone else. Even better if the local government mobilises their army in response but that's clearly Army Arc and beyond.
Shuttling 2 types of goods between 2 locations where the demand is stable and unchanging is comparatively simple. I wouldn't be surprised if early releases of the caravan arc already catered to that style of gameplay. Of course, you'd have to figure out that stable trade route for each worldgen as it'll be randomised.
Post by: Toady One on November 18, 2010, 08:54:28 am
Quote from: Knight Otu
Regarding tools, they are currently not native to Dwarf mode, probably only appearing there with custom reactions. Do you think that the pick and similar things (shovels, felling axes, two-man saws...) will move over to the tool format with a tag to make them applicable for dwarf mode to allow some tool use there without it becoming overwhelming?
Yeah, it's quite possible the picks will move over to the tool format, though I'm also considering the item format in general. It should respect more dual-use stuff, and the strict item types of weapon and tool and a few others might re-disappear over time with a more versatile format (for instance, expanding the "use" idea to break weapons into several groups that would interface nicely with formations etc., and then give some weapons tool style uses as well).
Quote from: Heph
Did i get that right (since the question came up on the forum) That creature lairs behave as "Player created side" and stuff in there does in fact not scatter around?
They are even stronger than player forts in that respect -- in order to maintain a bit of gore for the time being, items are not moved or rotted inside the lairs, and there's a special flag for it. In that sense, they are good places to store things and sleep (up to interference by whatever bugs).
Quote from: Lord Shonus
Will trading a material to a civ give them limited access to that material in the same manner that it currently does for the player? For example, Vanilla Elves don't use metal. If I traded away large amounts of coke and steel bars to the elves, would they later show up with low quality steel equipment made from those bars? Similarly, will resource deposits become more important in worldgen, for example humans fighting elves to gain a tin deposit (once tin is properly rare again)?
What they do with traded materials or whether they trade for them in the first place in world gen will likely depending on the professions given to them in their entity defs. Resource deposits and redistribution to localized areas are going to be key, and struggles over resources are one of the main reasons the caravan stuff is going in before the next push on army stuff. So it's quite possible that elves simply won't trade for steel, unless they can think ahead far enough to trade it to the humans or other dwarves, which may or may not be in the cards depending on how well things go -- once they see that they should accept steel in some circumstances, the rest would happen naturally, but the bump to get over is their valuation of steel during the initial trade, since it'll have to account for transport cost/storage/likelihood/value of the future trade. That's probably easier during dwarf mode rather than world gen, just because there is more time to crunch fewer numbers. Since humans don't have a restriction on making things from steel if they've got the bars at this point, that is more straightforward -- if you trade steel bars to humans, as things are currently planned, they will return with steel weapons in the event of an attack (provided the armies draw equipment from stockpiles next time, which I addressed around the last post I think).
Quote
Quote from: OrkelWill this be possible in future versions?
Quote from: Chatlog
A Zombie Goast: But really
A Zombie Goast: If the Dwarf grows attached to a weapon
A Zombie Goast: Or piece of armor
A Zombie Goast: And the Dwarf dies
A Zombie Goast: That thing should become haunted
A Zombie Goast: Or whatever they call it when an object has a ghostQuote from: James.DenholmGiven that bodies and souls are now separate, I'd say that this kind of thing is an eventual goal.
Yeah, the idea of the soul separation was to prepare for this sort of thing. Of course there's no timeline.
Quote from: calrogman
Any plans for adventurers being able to contract specific armour/weapons with specific improvements in the next development arc?
Not for the next release. It's more likely when we add the ability to do it in dwarf mode, which is on the dev page, or when we do adventurer entities and disguise/identity, which are also up there. Either one might lead to this natural progression.
Quote from: Naros
Is there a Month of Bugfixes planned?
The current idea is caravan release, patch release(s), series of general bug fix releases, army stuff. The plans are subject to change, but I think that applies more to the last part than the others (looking forward to armies, but you never know). So, yeah. If not a month, then a significant chunk of time beyond what happened between 0.31.17 and 0.31.18 or within 0.31.17 in terms of bug fixing.
Quote from: ManaUser
Is three any chance of restoring compatibility with older Windows versions?
My recollection of the situation back when it arose is that compatibility with versions before XP SP3 was removed by MS with MSVC 2010, through the tweaking of some funtion name or another in a DLL. I can't find mention of a workaround now, though something might exist. I vaguely remember a similar situation where a workaround came up but it didn't work out as simply as advertised... I don't remember if it was this one though. In any case, I'm currently unaware of how to fix it. It's not feasible to go back to the old compiler at this point.
Quote from: Dante
When will there be a raws tag for bodyparts that should be able to be levered or popped out, e.g. eyeballs?
I don't have a timeline. It's a reasonable thing though. The current popping out methods are too linked to disembowelment and death to be used.
Quote from: nil
What are your plans for integrating retired adventurers into Fortress mode, e.g. by having them lead founding parties?
This was up on the old dev pages if I remember and might come up during the fortress start scenarios. It's quite possible you'll be attacked by old adventurers before you can use them to found fortresses.
Quote from: shadow_archmagi
Will Companion Acquiring be streamlined anytime soon? With the new version, it seems much easier to haul around 20 companions but it's kind of a nuisance to go door to door looking for soldiers and having to repeat the same conversation 20 times whenever you need to stock up again
There are some possibilities for getting large amounts of "companions" all at once when we get to the army stuff (or when you can rabblerouse a bunch of drunks in a tavern or something), but as for real buddy style companions, I'm not sure I ever want to speed it up. I'd rather increase their survivability in general or stop them from foolishly traveling with you if they die all the time.
Quote from: 1freeman
also, are the delay's between shot's supposed to simulate reloading, and if so will there be a option to not reload automatically afer each shot, like a combat preference?
Yeah, that's what the delay is for, and I'd prefer to have it actually track the loading/ready state of the weapon and let you decide where you want to be there, yeah. The reaction moment/combat-move speed split stuff points in that direction, but I'm not sure when it'll happen.
Quote from: Arkose
To better emulate vomiting from a finite stomach, how about if vomiting increased the creature's hunger meter; the creature will retch instead of vomiting if the hunger meter is above some value.
Right now it uses your fullness counter, which is related to when you last ate, as well as an auxiliary counter that is supposed to simulate fluids or something. Ideally this will take care of itself when we have things like swallowing items and nutritional stuff leading to partially eaten food contents and so on, but I have no idea.
Quote from: 1freeman
When livestock are incorporated, will we be able to train war and hunting animal's. also will there only be farm animals or will we be able to purchase dog's and cat's?
Currently, horses and mules are more likely than cats and dogs are more likely than random war beasts are more likely than being able to train animals. Being able to train animals almost certainly won't be in the next release. The element of uncertainty comes in with simulating all those random war animals the generals constantly train in world gen, etc. -- those are going to be simulated by the numbers now and presumably they'll exist on sites now. Whether that means they'll be on the market or just part of armies or a lord's personal menagerie is up for grabs.
Quote from: Japa
Toady, do you have plans to give more information in the sites and populations export?
things like location?
Those files are in limbo now that the (partial) XML dump exists. I don't know if they should be continued at all or what. The restriction is that they need to have the most important information in a more human-friendly format, where the XML is giant and can be used by utilities.
Quote from: Moddan
Will attributes like social awareness, empathy or linguistic sense have any influence on how successful meat shield hiring attemps or quest requests are? Will we see social skills for adventure mode soon?
I think there's a reference to social awareness and the leadership skill when calculating the maximum number of followers, but I wasn't going to mess with the details of the conversation engine until we get to the personality/emotions rewrite, which was a precursor to job priorities and more NPC AI. So "soon", probably not, but it could end up as part of the army stuff, where I'll need some more decision making.
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady eventually will the NPCs start to notice that anyone who rides with you essentially meets and untimely end and thus refuse your recruitment on the basis that you are probably more deadly then all the Megabeasts, Demons, and Goblins combined and actually tell you that is the reason? At that point how would you recover your reputation if possible?
He he he, yeah, I guess I alluded to that above. I think it is reasonable for people to judge you to be certain death based on your track record, and it seems like a difficult place to come back from. You might have to invest more equipment and money in the matter until you show that you are capable of success at a lesser cost of life, or you might have to move. There's certainly going to be a more multi-faceted approach to reputation beyond "hero/criminal/member" as we move forward. It should be that you can still get desperate or foolish people to travel with you even if you have a fairly bad reputation for companion survivability, assuming they have some other reason to come along than dying.
Quote from: madjoe5
Will it ever be possible for nobles to give your adventurer quests that involve raiding/sieging goblins/warring entities? Would that ever affect the world (ie they appear in Legends as sieges, winning results in the target location to be owned by your parent civilization, etc)? If so, how long do you think this would take to implement.
Yeah, all of that will come up in the first army release. Probably on the time scale of the 0.31.17 release to get a lot of interesting stuff going on, but we know how good I am with release date estimation. Whether it ends up satisfying is another matter, since strategy game AI has high standards among discerning players, but I can guarantee adventurer involvement and world changes, if not good decision making, he he he. Fort mode involvement is going to rely on the surrounding populations getting you up to usable numbers as well as some pains with shifting focus from the fort to the battlefield and back, so that might be a further release down the line or in the first release with a bit more of a release delay, depending on how everything is going then. We're really looking forward to get everything out there and moving around, first with the caravans and then with the armies, beasts and bandits.
Quote from: dennislp3
So whats the deal with the military tactics skill...you have plans for that? is it already a working skill that affects things or just something thats there for late?
It has influence on world gen, but that's it. I'm not sure if the existence of the skill is a permanent state of affairs, and it'll be hard to say until we have the formations and the multi-tile armies moving around on the travel map and so on. The better the AI gets, the worse I can screw it up due to lack of skill, so there's hope, anyway.
Quote from: Cruxador
So now that the Dev Log is a more general thing and not a single-contributor thingy, might others (Baughn, for example) also end up with the ability to post there?
I dunno. It's a new change. I expect anyone might be possible, but I haven't spoken with anybody.
Quote from: mendonca
10 Barnards Star -> sell luxury goods -> Buy Robots -> travel to Sol -> check bulletin board - > sell robots -> buy luxury goods -> travel to Barnards Star
20 GOTO 10
Are we to expect such depth of gameplay early in the Caravan Arc?
I don't know what the bulletin board does. There's that dev page thing about inquiring regarding supply/demand situations, which is probably going to have some partial implementation in this release. Other than that, you'll be able to move stuff around and make ends meet, first release, though there still aren't a lot of ends. And yeah, the situation might end up complicated and a bit untidy for you.
Post by: shadow_archmagi on November 18, 2010, 09:08:10 am
Yeah, I can't wait to send a 100-man-strong caravan to an elf civilization on the brink of starvation, pull up in the depot, and say "Behold! CLOTH!"
This is why I shouldn't read forums during class. I just burst out laughing and everyone glared at me.
At least I didn't do a spit-take.
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 18, 2010, 09:12:11 am
a couple of 15 dwarves caravan active, a 75 dwarves army for defence, a 100 dwarves for attacking and you'll need a lot of other dwarves to produce weapons, food, booze and generally maintain all of that stuff.
Post by: Karlito on November 18, 2010, 09:51:54 am
if caravans are going to show up in fortress mode, and then the armies, and then the !!wars!!, can we expect some enhancement in the number of dwarves a fortress could maintain before fps death?Toady's said in the past that when your fortress becomes a barony, it should start to have some control over dwarves outside your fortress, like drafting them for an invasion force or having them pay you taxes.
a couple of 15 dwarves caravan active, a 75 dwarves army for defence, a 100 dwarves for attacking and you'll need a lot of other dwarves to produce weapons, food, booze and generally maintain all of that stuff.
Post by: Psieye on November 18, 2010, 10:16:51 am
To expand on that point, the lands surrounding your embark point will build dwarf settlements. So your fortress will end up surrounded by villages and outposts that you cannot directly interact with, but you can order them to send some dwarves for some project beyond the borders of your embark site. After you return from that trade/invasion/whatever, they'll go back to their homes so you cannot bring them back with you to your fortress directly. Think of the many civilians and soldiers in adventure mode now who have no name until you speak with them - you'd have these 'faceless mooks' to fill in the roles you require. Afterall in a battle, do you realllllly care what kind of personality Urist McGoon#213 has and whether Urist McGoon#148 slept in a good bed recently?if caravans are going to show up in fortress mode, and then the armies, and then the !!wars!!, can we expect some enhancement in the number of dwarves a fortress could maintain before fps death?Toady's said in the past that when your fortress becomes a barony, it should start to have some control over dwarves outside your fortress, like drafting them for an invasion force or having them pay you taxes.
a couple of 15 dwarves caravan active, a 75 dwarves army for defence, a 100 dwarves for attacking and you'll need a lot of other dwarves to produce weapons, food, booze and generally maintain all of that stuff.
I guess this implies you'd be fighting goblins out on the field while they're travelling to you and only if you fail to win do they siege you (with the opportunity to use weapon traps and all on them). If they're sieging you, they've already done damage to your surrounding settlements.
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 18, 2010, 10:24:23 am
To expand on that point, the lands surrounding your embark point will build dwarf settlements. So your fortress will end up surrounded by villages and outposts that you cannot directly interact with, but you can order them to send some dwarves for some project beyond the borders of your embark site. After you return from that trade/invasion/whatever, they'll go back to their homes so you cannot bring them back with you to your fortress directly. Think of the many civilians and soldiers in adventure mode now who have no name until you speak with them - you'd have these 'faceless mooks' to fill in the roles you require. Afterall in a battle, do you realllllly care what kind of personality Urist McGoon#213 has and whether Urist McGoon#148 slept in a good bed recently?if caravans are going to show up in fortress mode, and then the armies, and then the !!wars!!, can we expect some enhancement in the number of dwarves a fortress could maintain before fps death?Toady's said in the past that when your fortress becomes a barony, it should start to have some control over dwarves outside your fortress, like drafting them for an invasion force or having them pay you taxes.
a couple of 15 dwarves caravan active, a 75 dwarves army for defence, a 100 dwarves for attacking and you'll need a lot of other dwarves to produce weapons, food, booze and generally maintain all of that stuff.
I guess this implies you'd be fighting goblins out on the field while they're travelling to you and only if you fail to win do they siege you (with the opportunity to use weapon traps and all on them). If they're sieging you, they've already done damage to your surrounding settlements.
you still need to churn out equipment for them, but that may work.
however, what would happen then when the siege comes? even if the defender are abstracted away, if the goblin attackers win and come to your fortress they will make an huge impact on frame rate.
Post by: Knight Otu on November 18, 2010, 10:59:06 am
Yeah, it's quite possible the picks will move over to the tool format, though I'm also considering the item format in general. It should respect more dual-use stuff, and the strict item types of weapon and tool and a few others might re-disappear over time with a more versatile format (for instance, expanding the "use" idea to break weapons into several groups that would interface nicely with formations etc., and then give some weapons tool style uses as well).That's definitely something I'd love to see, along with other raw types getting similar treatmeant (materials especially).
I'd rather have both the quick export that gives an overview of the world and the slow but detailed xml export. Sometimes you just want to know whether your modded creatures actually roam the world or how successful your entities are.Quote from: JapaToady, do you have plans to give more information in the sites and populations export?
things like location?
Those files are in limbo now that the (partial) XML dump exists. I don't know if they should be continued at all or what. The restriction is that they need to have the most important information in a more human-friendly format, where the XML is giant and can be used by utilities.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 18, 2010, 11:23:22 am
That's definitely something I'd love to see, along with other raw types getting similar treatmeant (materials especially).
What do you mean about materials? Less strict material types, e.g. more robust alloying or something?
if caravans are going to show up in fortress mode, and then the armies, and then the !!wars!!, can we expect some enhancement in the number of dwarves a fortress could maintain before fps death?
a couple of 15 dwarves caravan active, a 75 dwarves army for defence, a 100 dwarves for attacking and you'll need a lot of other dwarves to produce weapons, food, booze and generally maintain all of that stuff.
Other people already mentioned a lot of the concepts here, but here are some quotes:
Spoiler: wall o' text (click to show/hide)
Post by: Quatch on November 18, 2010, 12:53:56 pm
Yeah, I can't wait to send a 100-man-strong caravan to an elf civilization on the brink of starvation, pull up in the depot, and say "Behold! CLOTH!"
Any plans for food of desperation to be available? Boiled shoes for dinner tonight, but it beats starving.
Also, I know it is a crazy question, but when you calculate distance for things like caravan travel, will you use spherical-world distance, or straight line distance? Will dragons prefer raiding along great-circle routes?
footnote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great-circle_distance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great-circle_distance) Illustration http://www.distancefromto.net/ (http://www.distancefromto.net/).
Post by: Knight Otu on November 18, 2010, 01:19:32 pm
Well, not quite - several material tokens are restricted to certain types of material, such as MILL, DRINK and the like being restricted to plant materials, similar to how several "item" tokens are restricted to weapons, armor, and so on. The latter might see a revision according to Toady's post to allow for more dual purpose items, something I'd like to see in other raw files as well if at all possible.That's definitely something I'd love to see, along with other raw types getting similar treatmeant (materials especially).
What do you mean about materials? Less strict material types, e.g. more robust alloying or something?
Post by: Psieye on November 18, 2010, 01:43:17 pm
Well yes, you'd have to solve the logistics problem of "how do I equip all my soldiers" as well as "how do I get all the food they'll need to eat while travelling and fighting". But it's very easy to produce a ridiculous overabundance of items in fortress mode anyway. Maybe if we have some kind of "the Abstractor Chest" thing where you put items in and they get abstracted into generic items - these abstracted items then no longer eat away at your FPS/memory and only items put in here are then available to your army when you go waging war out there. Like, here's my vision of it (which means it's speculation and I've no idea what Toady's actual vision is):To expand on that point, the lands surrounding your embark point will build dwarf settlements. So your fortress will end up surrounded by villages and outposts that you cannot directly interact with, but you can order them to send some dwarves for some project beyond the borders of your embark site. After you return from that trade/invasion/whatever, they'll go back to their homes so you cannot bring them back with you to your fortress directly. Think of the many civilians and soldiers in adventure mode now who have no name until you speak with them - you'd have these 'faceless mooks' to fill in the roles you require. Afterall in a battle, do you realllllly care what kind of personality Urist McGoon#213 has and whether Urist McGoon#148 slept in a good bed recently?if caravans are going to show up in fortress mode, and then the armies, and then the !!wars!!, can we expect some enhancement in the number of dwarves a fortress could maintain before fps death?Toady's said in the past that when your fortress becomes a barony, it should start to have some control over dwarves outside your fortress, like drafting them for an invasion force or having them pay you taxes.
a couple of 15 dwarves caravan active, a 75 dwarves army for defence, a 100 dwarves for attacking and you'll need a lot of other dwarves to produce weapons, food, booze and generally maintain all of that stuff.
I guess this implies you'd be fighting goblins out on the field while they're travelling to you and only if you fail to win do they siege you (with the opportunity to use weapon traps and all on them). If they're sieging you, they've already done damage to your surrounding settlements.
you still need to churn out equipment for them, but that may work.
however, what would happen then when the siege comes? even if the defender are abstracted away, if the goblin attackers win and come to your fortress they will make an huge impact on frame rate.
--- Start Speculation ---
Spoiler: "Uh, this became a wall of text" (click to show/hide)
Post by: MrWiggles on November 18, 2010, 02:15:04 pm
Will you be able to finance various things in adventure mode?
Post by: Footkerchief on November 18, 2010, 02:19:11 pm
Will we be able to get roads made on the world map, in both dwarf and adventure mode?
Toady touched on roads and tunnels recently:
Quote from: DanteAre dwarf civ fortresses going to connect up to both underground roads and overground roads? Will they access the cave systems, maybe with guards posted, or even farm in them?
I'm hoping I can handle that when it comes up, yeah. There used to be crappy tunnel connections and there are still crappy roads, and those will be revisited at some point.
Post by: Mephansteras on November 18, 2010, 02:27:54 pm
Quote from: Lord ShonusWill trading a material to a civ give them limited access to that material in the same manner that it currently does for the player? For example, Vanilla Elves don't use metal. If I traded away large amounts of coke and steel bars to the elves, would they later show up with low quality steel equipment made from those bars? Similarly, will resource deposits become more important in worldgen, for example humans fighting elves to gain a tin deposit (once tin is properly rare again)?
What they do with traded materials or whether they trade for them in the first place in world gen will likely depending on the professions given to them in their entity defs. Resource deposits and redistribution to localized areas are going to be key, and struggles over resources are one of the main reasons the caravan stuff is going in before the next push on army stuff. So it's quite possible that elves simply won't trade for steel, unless they can think ahead far enough to trade it to the humans or other dwarves, which may or may not be in the cards depending on how well things go -- once they see that they should accept steel in some circumstances, the rest would happen naturally, but the bump to get over is their valuation of steel during the initial trade, since it'll have to account for transport cost/storage/likelihood/value of the future trade. That's probably easier during dwarf mode rather than world gen, just because there is more time to crunch fewer numbers. Since humans don't have a restriction on making things from steel if they've got the bars at this point, that is more straightforward -- if you trade steel bars to humans, as things are currently planned, they will return with steel weapons in the event of an attack (provided the armies draw equipment from stockpiles next time, which I addressed around the last post I think).
Are Elves going to have any preference/dislike for trading for metal? They can't really tell if it was made using charcoal or coke, and it's generally superior to what they can do natively, so could that be something effected by the ruler's preferences?
Also, will we eventually see other civs trying to trade for your metalworking secrets? A human king offering an alliance in exchange for you teaching some human smiths how to make steel, for example?
Post by: Areyar on November 18, 2010, 02:54:13 pm
I love this community. :) Right on commanders!10 Barnards Star -> sell luxury goods -> Buy Robots -> travel to Sol -> check bulletin board - > sell robots -> buy luxury goods -> travel to Barnards Star
20 GOTO 10
You got more money shipping between Gateway and Soholia.
Post by: MrWiggles on November 18, 2010, 03:07:21 pm
Will we be able to get roads made on the world map, in both dwarf and adventure mode?
Toady touched on roads and tunnels recently:Quote from: DanteAre dwarf civ fortresses going to connect up to both underground roads and overground roads? Will they access the cave systems, maybe with guards posted, or even farm in them?
I'm hoping I can handle that when it comes up, yeah. There used to be crappy tunnel connections and there are still crappy roads, and those will be revisited at some point.
Though related, they are different issues.
Post by: Sowelu on November 18, 2010, 04:31:56 pm
Also, I know it is a crazy question, but when you calculate distance for things like caravan travel, will you use spherical-world distance, or straight line distance? Will dragons prefer raiding along great-circle routes?
Considering that a region is not an entire planet, and may in fact be a very SMALL chunk of a planet (I like to think of medium-sized islands as being the UK), I can't imagine that this would be an issue yet.
Post by: Neonivek on November 18, 2010, 04:34:51 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on November 18, 2010, 05:21:42 pm
Road network pathing will be interesting to see.
Post by: G-Flex on November 18, 2010, 05:26:59 pm
Assuming that a tile is 2.5 feet on edge
2.5 feet? That's an extremely low estimate, especially since it's generally assumed in the game that they're cubic, and 2.5 feet isn't a hell of a lot of room for standing, or to place furniture with walking room around it. I think they've got to be a couple meters across or so.
Post by: Quatch on November 18, 2010, 05:35:23 pm
Assuming that a tile is 2.5 feet on edge, then a large world is approxamately 100 miles in each direction. At that scale, map projection issues are not significant.
Road network pathing will be interesting to see.
We've heard estimates of up to 3m, and Toady mentioned 2m in a DF talk, as I recall. Using that, it'd be 240 miles; converted to degrees (at 45N) would be 3.5 degrees, which is less than the 6 degrees wide UTM map sheets (which don't line up because of distortion). So I suppose you're still right here :)
However, 390km is still a pretty small place. I can imagine DF getting a little bit larger in scope in the future.
But hey, Toady's a bit of a math geek, so he might have done something like this already. I'm curious :)
On the subject of maps and exploration, When we get to explore a region revealing the map as we go, will there ever be a chance of mapping error leading to strange maps? Like the original maps of north america had the shape of the continent far too wide at the top because it hadn't been circumnavigated or surveyed straight across. Small errors propagate.
Post by: Jiri Petru on November 18, 2010, 07:16:59 pm
On the subject of maps and exploration, When we get to explore a region revealing the map as we go, will there ever be a chance of mapping error leading to strange maps? Like the original maps of north america had the shape of the continent far too wide at the top because it hadn't been circumnavigated or surveyed straight across. Small errors propagate.
I'm afraid this would be simply too confusing. The original mappers of North America still had the real landscape in front of their eyes and could refer to it, perhaps even notice the map doesn't fit. The player, on the other hand, has no such point of reference. The map is their eyes.
Post by: 1freeman on November 18, 2010, 07:29:48 pm
When adventurer's are able to purchase livestock/pet's, will the animals be inherently loyal to you or will they be able to wander off if you don't fence them in and/or keep an eye on them, and if they aren't instantly loyal will there be a skill/attribute that determines how well your character can handle animal's. also will they follow like companions do or will we have to hold/lead them around?
Post by: Sowelu on November 18, 2010, 07:40:53 pm
On the subject of maps and exploration, When we get to explore a region revealing the map as we go, will there ever be a chance of mapping error leading to strange maps? Like the original maps of north america had the shape of the continent far too wide at the top because it hadn't been circumnavigated or surveyed straight across. Small errors propagate.
I'm afraid this would be simply too confusing. The original mappers of North America still had the real landscape in front of their eyes and could refer to it, perhaps even notice the map doesn't fit. The player, on the other hand, has no such point of reference. The map is their eyes.
The old Microprose game "Machiavelli the Prince" started you out with an inaccurate map, which you then filled in correctly as you explored. So some of the islands were a little bit off, some of the terrain was wrong, landmasses tilted a slightly different direction, maybe a city a little further away--or maybe a city that wasn't on the original map at all!
I think it would be neat to buy maps in this, which may be inaccurate.
Post by: Karlito on November 18, 2010, 09:30:19 pm
...Just wanted to say I really like your ideas and hope the game ends up looking something like that, but is this kind of abstraction necessary? I thought one of the goals of the caravan arc was to track individual items after they exit your fortress. (Or is that still the case? I haven't been paying attention as much in recent months. Footkerchief?)
Your equipment is complete, you shove all your military items into the Abstractor Logistics Chest where they get remembered as "300 Exceptional Steel Axes", "300 Superior Steel Chainmails", "300 Finely-crafted Bronze High Boots" and so on. Again, decorations are forgotten or maybe they'll be kept in some abstracted way like 'they are all decorated with goblin bone' and the game will decide whether that means spikes, hanging rings or an image when the player asks to look closely at the item again.
...
Post by: JohnieRWilkins on November 18, 2010, 10:12:32 pm
---
Are you planning on adding any cool economics screens for legends mode that show the basic GDP of each civ, in commodities produced, (I guess GDP is an inaccurate term since the value of services would be too hard to track) or maybe even the value of all goods produced in relation to the value of their coin? (I'll have like 50 nerdgasms in a row if you answer yes, so don't disappoint me. :P)
---
Will this game ever have any banks?
--- end questions ---
The trading arc has so much more potential than just being a silly excuse to fly spacetrucks around, buying low and selling high. I think that this would be something that's nearly impossible to model right, but who the crud wouldn't want to play the speculation game based around political instability, dwarven ore mining, and harvest weather predictions inside of DF? Maybe an honest merchant won't pay the goblins off to ambush the elven food caravans this year, flooding the market with cheap food?
Post by: MrWiggles on November 18, 2010, 11:01:44 pm
Since the various civs use different coins, how will the exchange rate work? Won't mining out a gold vein and turning it to coin completely ruin world trade? If the value of a precious metal or any otherwise stable, in-demand commodity suddenly drops on the market, that would cause a crash across the board in the real world. How do you envision this working in DF? Will the civs invent fiat currency to overcome this crippling instability?
This was a major concern when the world was on the Gold Standard, and there is also the hoarding goods to create artificial market demand and raise the value of the good. From my understanding, this was favorable when mercantilism was the active economic model. It still is a major hurtle with proponents wanting to go back the gold standard, and it doesnt have, in my opinion, solutions which make more favorable then the fait system.
Though DF populations numbers will probably never be near contemporary population counters, so some of the issues with mercantilism and the gold standard won't be as expressed.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 18, 2010, 11:08:41 pm
...Just wanted to say I really like your ideas and hope the game ends up looking something like that, but is this kind of abstraction necessary? I thought one of the goals of the caravan arc was to track individual items after they exit your fortress. (Or is that still the case? I haven't been paying attention as much in recent months. Footkerchief?)
Your equipment is complete, you shove all your military items into the Abstractor Logistics Chest where they get remembered as "300 Exceptional Steel Axes", "300 Superior Steel Chainmails", "300 Finely-crafted Bronze High Boots" and so on. Again, decorations are forgotten or maybe they'll be kept in some abstracted way like 'they are all decorated with goblin bone' and the game will decide whether that means spikes, hanging rings or an image when the player asks to look closely at the item again.
...
The caravan arc is still slated to track individual items, yes:
Quote from: Lord ShonusWith the trade upgrades, will items you trade away ever return? For example, could you sell a masterwork steel sword to a human caravan, have that civ get angry with you, and have a soldier using that sword attack you?
This is the eventual idea, however, it might not happen until they are pulling armies from the entity populations. So if not the next major release, then the one after that. It could be that armies are still generated but draw items from the stockpiles for the next release in a sort of hybrid approach, but I'm not sure how it is going to end up.
Post by: monk12 on November 19, 2010, 12:21:26 am
AWESOME
Post by: dennislp3 on November 19, 2010, 02:24:49 am
Post by: Rexfelum on November 19, 2010, 04:30:55 am
. . .
Right now it uses your fullness counter, which is related to when you last ate, as well as an auxiliary counter that is supposed to simulate fluids or something. Ideally this will take care of itself when we have things like . . .
Wait.
. . . an auxiliary counter that is supposed to simulate fluids or something. . . .
He doesn't know what it is. He just knows it makes you vomit.
--Rexfelum
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 19, 2010, 04:33:05 am
Wait.. . .
Right now it uses your fullness counter, which is related to when you last ate, as well as an auxiliary counter that is supposed to simulate fluids or something. Ideally this will take care of itself when we have things like . . .
Wait.. . . an auxiliary counter that is supposed to simulate fluids or something. . . .
He doesn't know what it is. He just knows it makes you vomit.
--Rexfelum
The magic of Dwarf Fortress. It's so complex, even the Daddy/Developer/Programmer doesn't know what half of the stuff does.
Post by: Cruxador on November 19, 2010, 05:19:03 am
The problem with that statement is that it doesn't necesarily imply any huge complexity, just inadequate commenting.Wait.. . .
Right now it uses your fullness counter, which is related to when you last ate, as well as an auxiliary counter that is supposed to simulate fluids or something. Ideally this will take care of itself when we have things like . . .
Wait.. . . an auxiliary counter that is supposed to simulate fluids or something. . . .
He doesn't know what it is. He just knows it makes you vomit.
--Rexfelum
The magic of Dwarf Fortress. It's so complex, even the Daddy/Developer/Programmer doesn't know what half of the stuff does.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 19, 2010, 05:21:23 am
Post by: mendonca on November 19, 2010, 06:31:09 am
I don't know what the bulletin board does. There's that dev page thing about inquiring regarding supply/demand situations, which is probably going to have some partial implementation in this release. Other than that, you'll be able to move stuff around and make ends meet, first release, though there still aren't a lot of ends. And yeah, the situation might end up complicated and a bit untidy for you.
Thanks for dignifying my pseudo-question with an answer! Complicated and untidy works for me.
The bulletin board in Elite 2 was one of the options you got at any space station / starport. This listed postings from randomly generated people / charities / organisations who wanted things. Options included:
- I will buy robots / nerve gas etc. at a premium price.
- Anybody want to go and kill someone for me?
- Work for the military! Earn money and Glory!
- Give money to charity!
It was a viable option at some systems for offloading high demand goods to individuals at a premium price, rather than just offloading them at the stockmarket.
I don't know if it's viable to include something like this, perhaps a noteboard adjacent to the town trading depot, or even if it would add to gameplay. Wanted posters stuck to the town noteboard would be cool, though. Especially when you see your own description there.
Post by: Psieye on November 19, 2010, 07:33:54 am
Toady did say that tracking individual items after they exit the fortress is the ideal but whether he'll need to abstract a bit to comprompise with reality is uncertain at this point. I guess with a few thousand items in the Logistics Chest this is still feasible but what of a fort that has shipped out 100,000 prepared meals over the course of several years?...Just wanted to say I really like your ideas and hope the game ends up looking something like that, but is this kind of abstraction necessary? I thought one of the goals of the caravan arc was to track individual items after they exit your fortress. (Or is that still the case? I haven't been paying attention as much in recent months. Footkerchief?)
Your equipment is complete, you shove all your military items into the Abstractor Logistics Chest where they get remembered as "300 Exceptional Steel Axes", "300 Superior Steel Chainmails", "300 Finely-crafted Bronze High Boots" and so on. Again, decorations are forgotten or maybe they'll be kept in some abstracted way like 'they are all decorated with goblin bone' and the game will decide whether that means spikes, hanging rings or an image when the player asks to look closely at the item again.
...
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 19, 2010, 09:09:16 am
In Elite 3, the BB also gave special missions that didn't fit the standard model.I don't know what the bulletin board does. There's that dev page thing about inquiring regarding supply/demand situations, which is probably going to have some partial implementation in this release. Other than that, you'll be able to move stuff around and make ends meet, first release, though there still aren't a lot of ends. And yeah, the situation might end up complicated and a bit untidy for you.
Thanks for dignifying my pseudo-question with an answer! Complicated and untidy works for me.
The bulletin board in Elite 2 was one of the options you got at any space station / starport. This listed postings from randomly generated people / charities / organisations who wanted things. Options included:
- I will buy robots / nerve gas etc. at a premium price.
- Anybody want to go and kill someone for me?
- Work for the military! Earn money and Glory!
- Give money to charity!
It was a viable option at some systems for offloading high demand goods to individuals at a premium price, rather than just offloading them at the stockmarket.
I don't know if it's viable to include something like this, perhaps a noteboard adjacent to the town trading depot, or even if it would add to gameplay. Wanted posters stuck to the town noteboard would be cool, though. Especially when you see your own description there.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 19, 2010, 09:42:53 am
Toady did say that tracking individual items after they exit the fortress is the ideal but whether he'll need to abstract a bit to comprompise with reality is uncertain at this point. I guess with a few thousand items in the Logistics Chest this is still feasible but what of a fort that has shipped out 100,000 prepared meals over the course of several years?
Those items are all tracked already, or at least they used to be. Back in 40d it was possible to find caravans hanging out in human towns, full of fortress-made glassware etc., although they usually got slaughtered as soon as you saw them, due to civ allegiance bugs.
The bigger hazard for item tracking is probably the even larger numbers of world gen items. That will get abstracted, no doubt.
Post by: Areyar on November 19, 2010, 09:48:24 am
So the easy way to make money is to
-goto the Depot of a site which has a deficit on the type of stuff you got.
but to make more money:
-talk to people and hope someone offers more.
-talk to people at location X, get a contract to deliver A goods of type B, material C and minimal quality D to location Y in Z days time.
(A compass marker for special locations/persons while on-site, would be appreciated by the way.)
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 19, 2010, 10:09:34 am
Instead of a bullitin board, I'd rather the player has to search out these persons who would pay extra in person.
So the easy way to make money is to
-goto the Depot of a site which has a deficit on the type of stuff you got.
but to make more money:
-talk to people and hope someone offers more.
-talk to people at location X, get a contract to deliver A goods of type B, material C and minimal quality D to location Y in Z days time.
(A compass marker for special locations/persons while on-site, would be appreciated by the way.)
or, shady dealers could approach players before they reach the city.
it could also be another class of night creature feeding on people suffer, that propose you to sell all your food to it at a premium price so that the city would remain in dire despair. or another competing civ. or a lawyer.
they could use the same intercept code that ambushes uses.
Post by: Quatch on November 19, 2010, 12:35:31 pm
||"You feel uneasy"||
=============
...
Lawyer: Howdy!
Post by: Psieye on November 19, 2010, 04:10:07 pm
Or conmen who give you fake currency or shoddy goods in exchange, which you'd need some suitable merchant skill (be it Observer or Negotiation) to spot beforehand.Instead of a bullitin board, I'd rather the player has to search out these persons who would pay extra in person.
So the easy way to make money is to
-goto the Depot of a site which has a deficit on the type of stuff you got.
but to make more money:
-talk to people and hope someone offers more.
-talk to people at location X, get a contract to deliver A goods of type B, material C and minimal quality D to location Y in Z days time.
(A compass marker for special locations/persons while on-site, would be appreciated by the way.)
or, shady dealers could approach players before they reach the city.
it could also be another class of night creature feeding on people suffer, that propose you to sell all your food to it at a premium price so that the city would remain in dire despair. or another competing civ. or a lawyer.
they could use the same intercept code that ambushes uses.
Then imagine coming across foreign mandates too - "No Importing of bronze items!" Which then invites a black market. Yeah - lotttttttttttttts can be done with the caravan arc depending on what Toady wants to do and to what depth.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on November 19, 2010, 04:32:14 pm
which you'd need some suitable merchant skill (be it Observer or Negotiation) to spot beforehand.
try judge of intent
Post by: Psieye on November 19, 2010, 07:29:02 pm
Excellent choice, but that's for picking up clues based on looking at the trader. There might be a scenario where the trader doesn't know a conman set him up beforehand so that the goods/currency he's giving is fake. Then you'd need a separate skill to recognise that you'd be ripped off if you go through with the deal.which you'd need some suitable merchant skill (be it Observer or Negotiation) to spot beforehand.
try judge of intent
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on November 19, 2010, 07:32:39 pm
Post by: Vox Nihili on November 19, 2010, 07:38:18 pm
Post by: Moddan on November 19, 2010, 08:43:51 pm
Post by: Psieye on November 19, 2010, 10:26:08 pm
appraiser then?Oh yeah I forgot that skill exists because it levelled up too easily in fortress mode. Yes, that will do fine together with judge of intent to see whether you get ripped off or not.
Post by: iceball3 on November 20, 2010, 12:14:58 pm
Toady, If the number of skills used for adventure mode go higher, will you add a scrollbar to the skill menu or will skills be sorted out between eachother in different menu's?
Post by: Organum on November 20, 2010, 12:21:42 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Neonivek on November 20, 2010, 01:25:23 pm
I'll be upfront and ask this...
Is there a limit to how many ghosts can exist at a time?
But there arn't any ghosts as it is anyway.
At least I don't think there is, because if they are I REALLY need to read the logs.
Post by: Rockphed on November 20, 2010, 01:26:58 pm
But there arn't anyas it is anyway.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
At least I don't think there is, because if they are I REALLY need to read the logs.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Neonivek on November 20, 2010, 01:28:03 pm
But there arn't any ghosts as it is anyway.
At least I don't think there is, because if they are I REALLY need to read the logs.
Try leaving a dwarf to rot for a while in the latest version. ;)
Goodness, I feel almost like something really cool has just been spoiled and should have had a spoiler tag.
Post by: Cruxador on November 20, 2010, 01:36:04 pm
Toady doesn't put things in the logs if he doesn't want to spoil them.I'll be upfront and ask this...Spoiler (click to show/hide)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
At least I don't think there is, because if they are I REALLY need to read the logs.
To be fair, you were basically asking.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
At least I don't think there is, because if they are I REALLY need to read the logs.
Try leaving a dwarf to rot for a while in the latest version. ;)
Goodness, I feel almost like something really cool has just been spoiled and should have had a spoiler tag.
Post by: Organum on November 20, 2010, 02:02:45 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
...Actually, the rest of you should as well. Otherwise it'll be quite obvious what we're discussing.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Scarpa on November 20, 2010, 02:13:35 pm
Post by: Organum on November 20, 2010, 02:14:52 pm
Post by: atomicoctobot on November 20, 2010, 02:33:20 pm
=============
||"You feel uneasy"||
=============
...
Lawyer: Howdy!
Oh, lordy, I actually laughed aloud at that one.
Post by: tfaal on November 21, 2010, 12:48:12 pm
Post by: Dae on November 21, 2010, 01:50:52 pm
What would happen to the local meat economy if you sold the townspeople a dragon corpse?They would all die like the rest of the village before realizing that dragon meat is highly poisonous.
Post by: Dante on November 21, 2010, 05:30:29 pm
Quote from: devlog
it became clear that the first transfer of goods we'll need is some food for the newly founded villages while they wait for their initial planting to grow"It became clear", huh. Sounds like there were some early disasters here.
Urist McHuman: "Here we are, lads. This will be our new home, Pigletcloistered. Strike the earth!"
Urist McOtherHuman: "Yee-haw. I can't wait to harvest the first sweet sweet handful of prickle berries, especially since we didn't bring any supplies at all with us."
Urist McHuman: "..."
Two months later
Urist McSkeleton: "..."
If prices are generated entirely dynamically based on production and consumption, we could easily get absurd situations, maybe involving worthless diamond goblets and the highly-sought-after mule skin. Will there still be the equivalent of e.g. baseline material/item values in the raws?
Post by: madjoe5 on November 21, 2010, 05:47:13 pm
If prices are generated entirely dynamically based on production and consumption, we could easily get absurd situations, maybe involving worthless diamond goblets and the highly-sought-after mule skin. Will there still be the equivalent of e.g. baseline material/item values in the raws?
Well if there is tons of diamond goblets, I would imagine that they do become worthless. Although I don't think things like leather and general stone will be treated that way. I assume that with sufficient amounts of, say Horse and cat, leather; the prices for rare animal leathers won't skyrocket.
Post by: Areyar on November 21, 2010, 07:24:05 pm
They might have properties like volatility that govern how their price fluctuate under influence of supply and demand.
A base material that has many substitutes, like the aforementioned leather, probably has quite low volatility as demand can be met by the alternatives.
Still mandates or mandatelike economic events could artificially raise the price of specific types of stuff.
The price of a manufactured objects probably is more subject to the quality than the base materials used in its construction. . . I expect little or no changes to the current system that calculates their value.
Post by: NO-GO on November 21, 2010, 10:05:40 pm
Quote
... it became clear that the first transfer of goods we'll need is some food for the newly founded villages while they wait for their initial planting to grow
For anyone else, did this observation remind you of pre-Agricultural Revolution hunter-gatherer societies? Correct me if I am wrong but I imagine that the solution to preventing civs from starving and collapsing at the beginning of time would be to somehow have the settlements start out with initial stores of food to get them through to their very first harvest time, but I think it would be interesting to eventually see the various civilizations, as they settle after the creation of the world and wait to reap the products of their first harvest, attempt to make ends meet by having a high number of hunters/gatherers among the populace who travel into the wilderness either solo or in groups. Then, as time passes and the settlement becomes sustainable through farming, we see a number of these hunters switch from hunting to form the civilization's first military groups, and and some gatherers becoming farmers, and the rest branching off into various other occupations.
Post by: monk12 on November 21, 2010, 10:07:46 pm
Quote... it became clear that the first transfer of goods we'll need is some food for the newly founded villages while they wait for their initial planting to grow
For anyone else, did this observation remind you of pre-Agricultural Revolution hunter-gatherer societies? Correct me if I am wrong but I imagine that the solution to preventing civs from starving and collapsing at the beginning of time would be to somehow have the settlements start out with initial stores of food to get them through to their very first harvest time, but I think it would be interesting to eventually see the various civilizations, as they settle after the creation of the world and wait to reap the products of their first harvest, attempt to make ends meet by having a high number of hunters/gatherers among the populace who travel into the wilderness either solo or in groups. Then, as time passes and the settlement becomes sustainable through farming, we see a number of these hunters switch from hunting to form the civilization's first military groups, and and some gatherers becoming farmers, and the rest branching off into various other occupations.
Or better yet, mimic the movement of frontiersmen in American History. They move to the fringes and start up far away from society, and provide a base for society to build on in terms of food and security. They (or likeminded fellows in the next generation) then move away from the urban sprawl they dislike, and the process starts anew.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 21, 2010, 11:52:16 pm
If prices are generated entirely dynamically based on production and consumption, we could easily get absurd situations, maybe involving worthless diamond goblets and the highly-sought-after mule skin. Will there still be the equivalent of e.g. baseline material/item values in the raws?
This was answered a long time ago, although Toady probably has a clearer idea now (emphasis mine):
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=21498.msg356607;topicseen#msg356607
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: FootkerchiefQuote from: Sean MirrsenSpeaking of which. Toady, PLEEESE add value tags for ALL materials and items! If you can't bother to do all items, do it for the weapons at least! Making new weapons balanced is such a PITA without the ability to alter their prices...
I'd prefer entity-specific value modifiers for materials and items. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=26505)
There will be value tags for all of the materials this time around. I'm probably not going to change the item raws, as the future of the value system is up in the Caravan Arc, which is finally (partially) on dev-next though that doesn't put it exactly close. In general, the value will depending on all sorts of things like availability and usefulness and civ aesthetics (it's already been doing this last one for a while during trade, though it's still hard-coded based on some of the civ flags), and I doubt a [VALUE:#] will survive the process. It'll probably be more like the army strength calculations for creatures (without the megabeast death part), where all of the little numbers come together to define the usefulness, and they are filtered through entity ethics-style stuff to attain aesthetic value, and then availability comes up during the world gen and in-play trade sim, though I haven't really thought too much about the specifics as it's quite a way off.
Post by: Sowelu on November 22, 2010, 09:10:47 am
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 22, 2010, 09:15:36 am
Post by: G-Flex on November 22, 2010, 09:21:24 am
What about value that comes from factors that aren't yet implemented, either in entity definitions or material definitions? For instance, one particular reason people have cared much for gold traditionally is the fact that it's a noble metal, never really corroding, but that sort of thing isn't implemented yet. I guess the fact that it's interesting looking counts, but would be secondary. Simply analyzing entity and material definitions as they are now, wouldn't gold actually wind up being fairly valueless, as an example of the limitation of this sort of thing? It would still be rare, I guess, if it weren't for the abundance of minerals we have now.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 22, 2010, 09:26:28 am
Regarding material value's subjectivity:
What about value that comes from factors that aren't yet implemented, either in entity definitions or material definitions? For instance, one particular reason people have cared much for gold traditionally is the fact that it's a noble metal, never really corroding, but that sort of thing isn't implemented yet. I guess the fact that it's interesting looking counts, but would be secondary. Simply analyzing entity and material definitions as they are now, wouldn't gold actually wind up being fairly valueless, as an example of the limitation of this sort of thing? It would still be rare, I guess, if it weren't for the abundance of minerals we have now.
I'm guessing the case will be that, if you saturate the market with gold it'll become valueless. But at the beginning other civs wouldn't have all that much access to gold.
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 22, 2010, 09:27:09 am
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 22, 2010, 09:33:10 am
Post by: Sowelu on November 22, 2010, 09:48:06 am
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 22, 2010, 09:55:11 am
at the current ore/coin smelting exchange rate, coins will drive up demand to the seven highs.
Post by: Jiri Petru on November 22, 2010, 11:11:48 am
The layers could be several, like CLOTHING, relative to that SILK, CLOTH, LEATHER, relative to those their subtypes such as giant spider silk/normal spider silk; rope reed cloth/pig tail cloth, etc.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 22, 2010, 11:22:14 am
If things were tracked separately, it could lead to oddities like warthog leather having the value of platinum, just because there's no civilisation yet that has an access to warthogs.
Scarcity isn't the sole determinant of value. If warthog leather were not only rare but extremely beautiful or tough or whatever, it might make sense for it to have the value of platinum. It could be valued for its leatheriness as well, but I don't see a reason for that to be an overriding factor.
Also, there's definitely a market for outlandishly expensive leather. (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/11/dartz/)
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 22, 2010, 11:29:33 am
Post by: BackgroundGuy on November 22, 2010, 03:26:55 pm
Post by: Untelligent on November 22, 2010, 03:58:57 pm
Post by: BackgroundGuy on November 22, 2010, 04:04:19 pm
Post by: madjoe5 on November 22, 2010, 04:41:32 pm
Will we ever be able to choose between Region and Island in the simplified "Create New World Now!" parameters?Currently, if you wanted to gen a region; one must go into the "Advanced Parameters." This is kind of a pain, since you also have to manually change the otherwise simplified parameters. Changing even simple things like history lenght is really confusing for players unaccustomed to world gen stuff (not to mention natural savagery, civ and site numbers).
It seems pretty basic to me at least.
Post by: Dante on November 22, 2010, 06:25:12 pm
On the other hand, giving that wagons are borked at the moment, maybe it will indeed get some attention for the caravan stuff.
Post by: Quatch on November 22, 2010, 06:41:54 pm
Post by: G-Flex on November 22, 2010, 06:42:52 pm
Toady, as 31.19 will be the Caravan Arc, does that mean we'll get boats too?
It's not going to be the entire thing (or anything close), just preliminary steps.
Post by: madjoe5 on November 22, 2010, 06:48:39 pm
If you cared enough about that world with the island, you'd bridge it in fortress mode. Even if it meant pumping lava across in adv. mode.
Not sure if your joking, but thats pretty much impossible. Some islands are several regional squares away (ie ridiculously large local distances in fortmode).
Hmm, I wonder:
1) Start with a 16x16 coastal embark
2) floor over the water/ocean part
3) abandon
4) use like a "embark anywhere" tool and go right next to the floored area, and extend it
5) Repeat until there is a suitable floor-bridge to an island
Will that island be considered part of the mainland now, as in you'd get migrants/invasions there? Might try that sometime...
Post by: Quatch on November 22, 2010, 07:32:58 pm
Yes, after you bridge it, it is considered connected.
bridge: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=35977.msg563508#msg563508
magma pump: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=24413.msg274143#msg274143
There may be older examples of those two concepts.
Post by: Misterstone on November 22, 2010, 09:02:15 pm
Post by: Dakk on November 22, 2010, 09:14:54 pm
Post by: Sowelu on November 22, 2010, 09:21:38 pm
My reasoning? Wagons can act like a creature and be fine. Siege towers have to contain creatures, protect them, and have complicated AI and path weirdly (granting access to upper levels etc). Once dwarves can make their own custom stuff though, enemies need to be able to destroy them...preferably piece-by-piece. And I figure that's on the same level as letting enemies chip away at constructed walls.
Post by: Nivim on November 22, 2010, 11:08:46 pm
Do you think Toady's going to go the whole way and make sure to differentiate between value and price like in reality? And, how will you define value? Using the extended labor definition?If things were tracked separately, it could lead to oddities like warthog leather having the value of platinum, just because there's no civilisation yet that has an access to warthogs.Scarcity isn't the sole determinant of value. If warthog leather were not only rare but extremely beautiful or tough or whatever, it might make sense for it to have the value of platinum. It could be valued for its leatheriness as well, but I don't see a reason for that to be an overriding factor.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 23, 2010, 02:30:19 am
Post by: JimiD on November 23, 2010, 01:46:30 pm
Quote
Proper burial is now somewhat more encouraged. An alternative form of memorial has been made available for those whose bodies you have misplaced.
Will we encouter the 'encouragements' for burial in old 31.xx forts moved to 31.18, or do we need to regen a new world?
Thanks
Post by: Footkerchief on November 23, 2010, 02:09:51 pm
QuoteProper burial is now somewhat more encouraged. An alternative form of memorial has been made available for those whose bodies you have misplaced.
Will we encouter the 'encouragements' for burial in old 31.xx forts moved to 31.18, or do we need to regen a new world?
Thanks
Generally the release threads (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=70779.0) in the DF Announcements forum are a better place for questions that are release-specific and can be answered by players.
Post by: Javarock on November 23, 2010, 05:47:35 pm
Post by: kilakan on November 23, 2010, 06:28:38 pm
Post by: 1freeman on November 23, 2010, 07:26:23 pm
will there be adventurer made sites anytime soon?, and if so will purchased livestock respect the borders of your land,as in not wandering away while you go off to kill some bandits?
If/while we don't have adventurer made sites how will livestock management work?, will there be stables in towns that you pay to take care of and/or store any owned animals?
Post by: NSQuote on November 23, 2010, 09:36:41 pm
Man, that would be absolutely amazing if true.
Post by: Rockphed on November 23, 2010, 10:22:18 pm
I'm curious about whether Toady has any plans for full-world embarks for fortress mode, similar to adventure mode. This makes sense, with the Caravan and Army Arcs coming up, but I want to be sure before jumping to any conclusions.
Man, that would be absolutely amazing if true.
What do you mean by "full world embark"?
Post by: Crifmer on November 23, 2010, 11:19:21 pm
I'm curious about whether Toady has any plans for full-world embarks for fortress mode, similar to adventure mode. This makes sense, with the Caravan and Army Arcs coming up, but I want to be sure before jumping to any conclusions.
Man, that would be absolutely amazing if true.
What do you mean by "full world embark"?
Instant 0 FPS.
Post by: NSQuote on November 23, 2010, 11:39:42 pm
Post by: Ranzear on November 24, 2010, 12:13:00 am
I'm thinking something along the lines of maybe an adventure mode map for Fortress mode. Not loading everything at once, but still allowing your Dwarves to pillage elven civilizations from accross the continent.Actually I sorta like his question. It sorta goes with being able to zoom in on other sites to direct your raids, so I'm sure much of the same system would be involved.
Its more or less "Can Fortress Mode be given the same capability as Adventurer mode to zoom out of the map to see other locations and plausibly expand beyond the original embark."
I suppose it would be simply the ability to acquire/release adjacent tiles, expanding your embark from 2x2 to 2x3 to 3x3 and so forth, perhaps even offloading parts of the fortress. This may result in some map-edge abuse but would greatly expand Fortress mode's capability for expansion.
Post by: Sowelu on November 24, 2010, 12:23:32 am
;D
Post by: MrWiggles on November 24, 2010, 01:53:07 am
The goal, is for you to have offsite resources for your fort, be able to send your army off screen, and for a new screen to be used when the fort army encounters anything FUN.
So, something like that is on the eternal to-do list, and on the current dev page I believe.
Post by: TomiTapio on November 24, 2010, 02:40:47 am
Toady has yet to figure out a way to make non-creature stuff able to move, and a way to make multi tile creatures.And when dragons and colossi take 4-8 squares, they can't path through narrow corridors and Finally they'll escape Cage Traps!
Post by: Nivim on November 24, 2010, 02:49:59 am
Toady has yet to figure out a way to make non-creature stuff able to move, and a way to make multi tile creatures.A reminder; Toady did learn things from creating the monstrosities know as wagons, and the reason he has not completely figured out such things is because he hasn't had the time. That stuff is still at least a month or two from now.
Post by: Dante on November 24, 2010, 04:36:24 am
Yeah, as has been pointed out many times before, multi-tile creatures open up a family-sized can of worms in general, with pathing, corners, determining scale, item location, limb location, etc etc.Toady has yet to figure out a way to make non-creature stuff able to move, and a way to make multi tile creatures.A reminder; Toady did learn things from creating the monstrosities know as wagons, and the reason he has not completely figured out such things is because he hasn't had the time. That stuff is still at least a month or two from now.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Nivim on November 24, 2010, 04:43:32 am
Post by: Areyar on November 24, 2010, 09:44:23 am
will there be inertia?
eg.
Code: [Select]
ww
ww ww
/ \ ww ww
H H | \ ww ww
H H \ \ ww_H ww /H H
H H \H ww_H ww/ ww/H ww/H
ww_H ww\H ww\H
I think I'd try a combined vector approach and a formation-like approach where it comes to AI.
i.e. Draft animal direction dependent on will of animal caretaker/driver. when driver lacking preferably remain stationary... unless spooked.
Wagon movement as function of averaged vector of number of draft animals. wagon could have a residual vector according to movement in previous tick and possibly also a gravity vector when partially on ramps.
Will you try something like that or will wagon-and-horses be a single formation that moves like a single entity?
Post by: NSQuote on November 24, 2010, 10:19:06 am
As far as brainstorming for ideas, prehaps the Dwarves in the army could act as "scouts". After they leave the familiar embarked upon land visibility starts to drop: you can only look so far off into the distance (or behind you, of course). Your fortress itself could also be able to expand (by building outposts or claiming new land), allowing for larger projects like collosal bridges or continent reformation via miners.
I could see something like this helping balance the army (no seeing a Goblin army from halfway accross the world) and allowing larger fortress expansions. And eing able to give Elves the gift of magma from across the continent is !FUN! too, of course.
Post by: KillerClowns on November 24, 2010, 01:17:10 pm
Post by: MagmaMcFry on November 24, 2010, 01:20:37 pm
hmm... wagons.
will there be inertia?
eg.Code: [Select]ww
ww ww
/ \ ww ww
H H | \ ww ww
H H \ \ ww_H ww /H H
H H \H ww_H ww/ ww/H ww/H
ww_H ww\H ww\H
I think I'd try a combined vector approach and a formation-like approach where it comes to AI.
i.e. Draft animal direction dependent on will of animal caretaker/driver. when driver lacking preferably remain stationary... unless spooked.
Wagon movement as function of averaged vector of number of draft animals. wagon could have a residual vector according to movement in previous tick and possibly also a gravity vector when partially on ramps.
Will you try something like that or will wagon-and-horses be a single formation that moves like a single entity?
I think this would be perfectly uncombinable with the pathing functionality.
Post by: thvaz on November 24, 2010, 01:53:53 pm
If mining is in for worldgen, will worldgen mines potentially awaken Forgotten Beasts... or worse? And will we be able to eventually enter and explore these mines?
Good idea! Mines should be explorable locations generated in world gen, as it is common place in the genre.
Post by: Sowelu on November 24, 2010, 02:42:41 pm
So you can go really fast (move the X a long distance from you) but it'll take several rounds to bring the X back to center to stop. Same with turning, easy when you're going slow, but takes more space when going fast.
Post by: vogonpoet on November 24, 2010, 03:06:20 pm
How does Toady manage to make every dev log so bloody tantalising?
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 24, 2010, 04:34:58 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on November 24, 2010, 05:20:54 pm
hmm... wagons.At the very least, it's on the dev page regarding mounts. I think one of the DF talks did talk about the problems with combining inertia and pathfinding also.
will there be inertia?
Quote
# Mounts
* Can buy them as with livestock, handled as with livestock
* Movement speeds, turning and inertia
* Combat effects (velocity addition, body part selection, trampling)
Post by: Blind Wolf on November 24, 2010, 06:57:58 pm
Post by: SalmonGod on November 24, 2010, 07:16:21 pm
Rarer metals, huh? I hope they're not TOO rare. I honestly couldn't handle a military wearing nothing but bone and leather.
You're not truly metal unless you're decked out in bone and leather!!
Post by: MrWiggles on November 24, 2010, 07:39:31 pm
Maybe we're down the middle now. We're going to need reasons to trade, and that means having fort sites having lack of hopefully critical resources.
A fort shouldn't be able to do every industry from the fort site.
Post by: Styledatol on November 24, 2010, 07:42:48 pm
Post by: Blind Wolf on November 24, 2010, 07:47:24 pm
Rarer metals, huh? I hope they're not TOO rare. I honestly couldn't handle a military wearing nothing but bone and leather.
You're not truly metal unless you're decked out in bone and leather!!
They may be more metal, but they'll also be extremely vulnerable. I'd prefer not to lose my axelords to a goblin ambush because they weren't wearing good armor.
That does give me a good idea, though. Raw recruit suicide squads decked in cheap bone armor. Don't have enough time to pull the levers to your retractable bridge and magma trap before the goblins get in? Send in the suicide squad to keep them distracted while the gears whir into life (I bet a hundred dwarfbucks everyone else has already thought of this.)
Well, 40d was to rare but .31 I think is over saturated.
Maybe we're down the middle now. We're going to need reasons to trade, and that means having fort sites having lack of hopefully critical resources.
A fort shouldn't be able to do every industry from the fort site.
The caravans better start bringing more metal than they do currently, then. Even if you ask the liason to bring some iron, the traders never bring nearly enough to support an industry. It would take years to outfit your squads. I do agree that there's an over-saturation of precious metals in the current version, though.
Post by: Sowelu on November 24, 2010, 07:55:44 pm
But I also want them to bring more metal to trade, too. Yes, I very much look forwards to improved trading...especially when I can say "I'll pay you 500% normal rate. BRING A WHOLE LOT." Then again, they should charge a lot more for everything anyway...
Affording enough steel to deck out your squad in armor should be a major challenge! It shouldn't, however, take ten years for the traders to show up with that much.
Post by: Blind Wolf on November 24, 2010, 08:03:04 pm
Yay! I heartily approve of less metal.
But I also want them to bring more metal to trade, too. Yes, I very much look forwards to improved trading...especially when I can say "I'll pay you 500% normal rate. BRING A WHOLE LOT." Then again, they should charge a lot more for everything anyway...
Affording enough steel to deck out your squad in armor should be a major challenge! It shouldn't, however, take ten years for the traders to show up with that much.
I think I can agree on this point. I don't think steel should be incredibly easy to produce (though I'm sure there would be contention over the degree of difficulty). My main concern is getting enough metal, any metal, to fully equip your squads without (great) diffculty.
Post by: MrWiggles on November 24, 2010, 08:14:34 pm
Yay! I heartily approve of less metal.
But I also want them to bring more metal to trade, too. Yes, I very much look forwards to improved trading...especially when I can say "I'll pay you 500% normal rate. BRING A WHOLE LOT." Then again, they should charge a lot more for everything anyway...
Affording enough steel to deck out your squad in armor should be a major challenge! It shouldn't, however, take ten years for the traders to show up with that much.
I think I can agree on this point. I don't think steel should be incredibly easy to produce (though I'm sure there would be contention over the degree of difficulty). My main concern is getting enough metal, any metal, to fully equip your squads without (great) diffculty.
I dont want Caravans to bring in any more metal then what their origin sites say they can trade.
The difficulties of the various industriues should vary depending on where your fort is.
Post by: Blind Wolf on November 24, 2010, 08:38:53 pm
I dont want Caravans to bring in any more metal then what their origin sites say they can trade.
The difficulties of the various industriues should vary depending on where your fort is.
I'm not sure how I feel about your first point. It sounds good in theory, but I'd have to see some numbers before I can form an opinion.
Sure, difficulty should be a lot higher on glaciers or in the middle of a desert, but a complete lack weapons-grade metal is beyond what I'd call "reasonably difficult" and into the realm of "absurd". I suppose it wouldn't be a problem if you found native gold or something, but that's probably a lot rarer, too.
Post by: Jiri Petru on November 24, 2010, 08:45:08 pm
They may be more metal, but they'll also be extremely vulnerable. I'd prefer not to lose my axelords to a goblin ambush because they weren't wearing good armor.
You're forgetting the goblin ambush will be subject to the same rarity rules as you. If metals are rare, the ambushing goblins will probably be using leather and bone. At that point, even finding a copper vein would be a joy.
It's all relative, really. A lot of players now need to have steel because they feel they're too vulnerable otherwise. But if your enemies start using less quality equipment, even you can be more lenient about materials. At least I believe this is where the game is heading.
Post by: Sowelu on November 24, 2010, 08:59:12 pm
Sure, difficulty should be a lot higher on glaciers or in the middle of a desert, but a complete lack weapons-grade metal is beyond what I'd call "reasonably difficult" and into the realm of "absurd".Which is why metals now show up on the site finder. If you want to do it anyway, that's a choice you make.
Post by: thvaz on November 24, 2010, 09:03:53 pm
Post by: Blind Wolf on November 24, 2010, 09:11:49 pm
You're probably right about leather. But if goblins, humans and dwarves are supposed to be iron age civilizations, I doubt bone would occur very often. I'm not that picky, really. Even copper works for me.They may be more metal, but they'll also be extremely vulnerable. I'd prefer not to lose my axelords to a goblin ambush because they weren't wearing good armor.
You're forgetting the goblin ambush will be subject to the same rarity rules as you. If metals are rare, the ambushing goblins will probably be using leather and bone. At that point, even finding a copper vein would be a joy.
It's all relative, really. A lot of players now need to have steel because they feel they're too vulnerable otherwise. But if your enemies start using less quality equipment, even you can be more lenient about materials. At least I believe this is where the game is heading.
Yeah, I know. I'm just talking about general game balance here. Besides, if I read it right, it doesn't really tell you how much iron there will be so it could still be very limited on your map.Sure, difficulty should be a lot higher on glaciers or in the middle of a desert, but a complete lack weapons-grade metal is beyond what I'd call "reasonably difficult" and into the realm of "absurd".Which is why metals now show up on the site finder. If you want to do it anyway, that's a choice you make.
I just need a reason to blab about DF some. I often bemoan the fact that I don't have discussions with you guys more often. ;D
Post by: madjoe5 on November 24, 2010, 09:34:33 pm
"Oh, crap, a player controlled fortress was made. Alright, all metal forging has to stop so that we can ship our metal to them instead."
Now that doesn't make much sense now does it.
Post by: Sowelu on November 24, 2010, 09:38:53 pm
"Oh, crap, a player controlled fortress was made. Alright, all metal forging has to stop so that we can ship our metal to them instead."Depends on how much you're willing to spend.
Now that doesn't make much sense now does it.
Also, I would imagine that civilizations would build a lot of *mines* that are smaller than fortresses, focused exclusively on digging out minerals and exporting them for the greater glory of whoever sent out the expedition group.
Post by: Scarpa on November 24, 2010, 09:48:08 pm
Relying on traders for metal shouldn't be the basis of the game. Although making ores less abundant is good, I don't think that traders should bring more metal; or any if at all. They should ship finished sets of armor, at vary levels of quality. I think its more absurd that all the civilizations in the world just export raw metal to you just because you ask.
"Oh, crap, a player controlled fortress was made. Alright, all metal forging has to stop so that we can ship our metal to them instead."
Now that doesn't make much sense now does it.
It depends on the skill level of the civ trading with you. They may not be able to forge effectively and prefer to ship their raw metal to you in return for higher quality finished goods.
Or they may just be able to produce raw material at a far faster rate than finished goods and therefore have a surplus.
I also like that it's going to be global so you won't have endless armies of goblins encased in iron anymore. Presumably a fortress with ample metal supply will be truly wealthy and powerful.
Post by: Sowelu on November 24, 2010, 10:03:22 pm
Which I guess makes things interesting if one civ attacks another to loot, instead of conquer. You end up with a lot of wealth concentrated in one place. Then if a site gets attacked by some power and destroyed, or taken over by some nasties that hold onto it for a while but aren't part of a proper civ (so the loot stays at that one site for a while)... That makes adventuring a lot more interesting.
Still, I can imagine the world slowly advancing into an age of wealth, where people all eventually have solid gold chalices and silver doors. Or alternately, the world very slowly becoming less wealthy as all the good ore deposits are mined out while the spoils are slowly lost beneath the sands of long-dead civilizations. Suddenly, a single gold sarcophagus holds immeasurable value.
Post by: NSQuote on November 24, 2010, 10:26:55 pm
And there is a big variety of quests that could be undertaken. A mine could breach the caverns and be invaded by a forgotten beast, or hit an underground river and need help recovering from the flood and fighting off giant sharks. Prehaps they might need a hand mining (leading to a fun takeover from inside), or someone brave enough to dig deeper. And of course, you could always opt to help an ally seize a rival mine, or take control of a mine for your own profit.
This could work for other trades as well (small specialized villages, a little outpost near a volcano selling obsidian), and once the army arc begins you could have little outposts for armies.
Post by: Mechanoid on November 25, 2010, 12:54:36 am
Being able to setup the finder to find ALL* of the desired site features so you could just find the most-perfect-for-you fortress site would be wonderful, and really get the player to build a long and fun history filled with tragedy and laughter. Currently when you embark on a map you have no idea of how interesting and fun the map will be; it could be the most fun map in the entire world, or it could just be the most boring possible. Of course nothing should stop the player from choosing a (or the) boring map, it's just that currently there's no way to find the level of fun you want exactly (and i do like to have all the fun i can) so you're stuck meddling with generic things.
* i do mean everything; good, bad, ugly, and very ugly
Post by: vogonpoet on November 25, 2010, 03:07:33 am
If I lived in a dangerous goblin-filled world, and set off with 7 picks and some stupid peasants to make a mining camp, I would not expect to have to keep a 3 tile wide path to my fortress almost permanently open just in case some trade caravans arrive. They should at least knock dammit. Or come running towards my mighty gate screaming about the goblins hot on their heels, begging for entry.
Thus, upon arrival of the caravan on the fortress map, you get a message pop up ("A vile force of greed and corruption has arrived" perhaps :) ), the traders ask for entrance, and if you agree, you have an ingame day-long period to open your gates before they get pissed off and leave. The current "oh we saw your gates were shut from the other side of the valley yonder, so we didn't bother coming" situation does not make much sense IMO. Of course my gates were shut, that is what gates are for. Shutting.
With the new more important caravans, will we be able to keep our doors closed most of the year, and get a grace period for opening up when the caravans arrive on the edge of the map? This would allow more security whilst minimising lost trade opportunities.
Post by: Psieye on November 25, 2010, 05:13:32 am
Post by: Akjosch on November 25, 2010, 05:43:52 am
"Oh, crap, a player controlled fortress was made. Alright, all metal forging has to stop so that we can ship our metal to them instead."
Now that doesn't make much sense now does it.
With better trade deals (which I hope will be coming with one of the new updates), it kinda does make sense. For example, I can easily imagine a human civilisation willing to sell you 120 iron bars ... for three full sets (helmet, breastplate, gaiters, two matching gauntlets and two boots) of superior-quality or better steel armour.
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 25, 2010, 06:11:46 am
Will size ever matter for trading, and will you ever get the ability to make things sized for creatures larger/smaller than yourself? For example, would a human caravan refuse (or pay less for) dwarf-sized armor because it will be harder to sell? Will you be able to make human-sized armor for trade instead?
Post by: Desdichado on November 25, 2010, 08:04:28 am
Still, I can imagine the world slowly advancing into an age of wealth, where people all eventually have solid gold chalices and silver doors.
Regarding this, when will item decay and item damage make it in? Will decay hit even mundane objects like chalices and doors? And will decay exist in worldgen, too, in some abstract form?
Post by: JimiD on November 25, 2010, 08:57:15 am
I would love to see a general reduction in metals and resources generally. A criticism at the moment is that within a year or two most forts can produce most items. The only things I find myself ever needing from the caravans are flux stone and the odd metal like Bismuth to satisfy Noble demands, and as others have noted when you do ask for them, the traders never really bring that much of what you ask for. Although it must also be said, I don’t pay a great deal of attention to what the liaison asks for either! Hopefully after the next couple of versions they will get bored of my endless offerings of rock crafts and only pay peanuts for them. And similarly hopefully I can stimulate enough demand to get them to bring wagon loads of flux. Assuming there are places to buy that from.
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 25, 2010, 09:03:44 am
the traders never really bring that much of what you ask for
in that regards, I hope a finer control over requests quantity will be added in (influencing prices, of course).
Post by: Areyar on November 25, 2010, 09:06:04 am
...with the demand/supply algorithms required for worldgen/adventurer-trader trade/prices, probably prices demanded by traders will be set by local/average region demand/supply in Fortressmode as well?
It might be handy, by the way, to be able to set up a draft agreement outside of the actual trade-talks, that will be imported as a default setting when talks actually begin. (I often completely forget what I wanted imported when agreeing on goods) having the previous trade agreement as default option would be nice too.
Post by: Greiger on November 25, 2010, 12:22:28 pm
Abandon one day and play an adventurer and all the civilizations in the world are starving. There's little to no food anywhere and a single slice of mule meat is more valuable than it's weight in gold. Then cue my adventurer going to the abandoned fortress and finding salvageable food. Coming back with a backpack full and becoming a millionaire instantly.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 25, 2010, 12:43:58 pm
Post by: Psieye on November 25, 2010, 01:11:43 pm
Alternatively, the ability to have this sort of conversation:the traders never really bring that much of what you ask for
in that regards, I hope a finer control over requests quantity will be added in (influencing prices, of course).
Urist McTrader: "We want unbelievable amounts of flux stone."
Kogan McMerchant: "We'll pack as much as we can onto our next visit with 5 pack animals."
Urist McTrader: "Can you make that 50 pack animals?"
Kogan McMerchant: "Let's discuss advance payment for the risk we'll be undertaking to move with such a huge load."
Urist McTrader: "We have 30 tonnes of stone mechanisms to pay you with."
Kogan McMerchant: "Are you kidding? We can't carry that much weight!"
Urist McTrader: "Ok then how about this steel serrated disc with every gem known to dwarfkind encrusted on it and further decorated with goblin bones, bands of gold and rings of electrum?"
Kogan McMerchant: "I'm not sure we can find a buyer for that back at Mountainhomes. The nobles are having a hard time financially at present."
Urist McTrader: "Alright, suggest something then."
Kogan McMerchant: "I happen to know the mining guild at Mountainhomes is short on picks. Can you arrange for 100 iron picks of fine quality or better to be made before we leave?"
Urist McTrader: "Why yes, our legendary weaponsmith can whip those up and our 20 smelters have already prepared the 100 iron bars this'll need."
Kogan McMerchant: "You got 13 days before we leave."
Post by: Footkerchief on November 25, 2010, 01:40:23 pm
Will the deep metal still be as common as it currently is? Will stuff like cave features along the lines of water, plants/trees, pits, magma pipes, cave creature civ sites, & other things homes (surface access or not) appear on the feature finder list?
Generally, if your question is "Did you implement feature X without mentioning it or hinting at it in the devlog," the answer is probably "no."
Post by: diefortheswarm on November 25, 2010, 03:28:06 pm
1. The old 40.d version had a parameter for magma pipes. Is it possible this parameter could be brought back in the current version of the game? I know that access to magma is guaranteed at any site by the magma sea. Sometimes I still find myself wanting a magma pipe for easy access to magma at the surface levels without building a 100z level pump stack.
2. Would it be possible to have site finder parameter for different categories of stone (Sedimentary, Igneous intrusive, Igneous extrusive, Metamorphic). Having a parameter for every single type of stone would be better but these broad categories would be nice.
Post by: MrWiggles on November 25, 2010, 05:19:19 pm
Post by: Mechanoid on November 25, 2010, 05:43:01 pm
Generally, if your question is "Did you implement feature X without mentioning it or hinting at it in the devlog," the answer is probably "no."In which case the first word of my sentence will be "When" :P If metals are going to be like the 40d map features and only present on specific local map squares, there needs to be feature finder setting to pick out specifically what the player wants to have on their map, wether it's just flux, or everything possible.
I dont think Magma pipes exist any more.Underground magma pipes do exist, and can be found at any cave level. They pass through the lower levels with vertically uniform obsidian walls until they reach the level they're set to stop at. If you've never encountered a magma pipe or deep pit between cave levels, this is exactly why the feature finder needs to be improved as much as possible; some people just never find cool stuff. [Which is why the site finder needs to be improved eventually]
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 25, 2010, 06:03:33 pm
Toady will people in places with scarce vegetation turn to herding of say sheep* instead of farming? Will some regions begin to specialise theyr products like growing Mulberry for silkworms instead of delivering a certain food surplus for Cities?
*Btw small herds can help a society to survive the initial years. Also jerky and salted stuff.
Post by: MrWiggles on November 25, 2010, 09:36:23 pm
I think its because its one of the alchemical symbol for gold, but who knows. That might be weird happenstance.
Post by: iceball3 on November 25, 2010, 09:58:08 pm
Post by: diefortheswarm on November 25, 2010, 10:16:22 pm
I dont think Magma pipes exist any more.
Volcanoes are magma pipes that reach the surface and go all the way down to the magma sea. The are a lot rarer then in 40.d and therefore a site finder parameter for them would be a great help.
Post by: Untelligent on November 26, 2010, 12:11:41 am
Post by: vogonpoet on November 26, 2010, 02:47:59 am
I don't think volcanos or magma pipes are rarer than in 40d.
Agreed. Rather, the existence of the magma sea means that we no longer *have to* spend hours looking specifically for pipes in order to embark, meaning more people are happily playing all the sites without pipes which were ignored in 40d due to a desire for the hot stuff. So now it just feels like there are less pipes, cos we haven't already gone out of our way to ensure we have them on embark.
Post by: Glanzor on November 26, 2010, 08:43:47 am
If yes, how will they get their food seeing that they don't do farming?
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 26, 2010, 08:44:43 am
Post by: Glanzor on November 26, 2010, 12:28:40 pm
Elves farm. Kobolds steal. Goblins don't eat plants.Exactly. But they do need to eat, don't they? Where do they get their food then? How can they support several thousand people just by hunting wildlife or stealing food from their neighbours?
Post by: Greiger on November 26, 2010, 12:33:01 pm
I mean butcher a couple of those and a fortress of 200 is set for the whole year. Imagine a full fledged breeding program.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on November 26, 2010, 12:46:33 pm
i never thought of elves as farmers, tough, i imagine them, as nomadic hunter gatherers, patrolling the forests in small groups of elite warriors that had centuries to train their marksmanship to defend the forest against goblins, night creatures and lumberjacks.
kobolds probably hunt for vermin and are outside the economy, they don't trade at all, they don't even steal because it's valuable, they steal because it's shiny.
Post by: 1freeman on November 26, 2010, 12:47:01 pm
Will adventurers ever be able to become a leader of a civ or group?, like becoming a bandit leader and recruiting people into the ranks of your bandit army and have them do raids and give you the goods that they looted. or become a ranking general for a civ and lead raids against enemy forces.
Post by: jellsprout on November 26, 2010, 01:19:52 pm
And I don't really think the Goblins live in cities of thousands. They are more likely to have a smallish fortress that contains a few dozen gobbos, and everyone else is out raiding the neighbors or hunting down the wildlife.
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 26, 2010, 01:22:27 pm
Post by: nbonaparte on November 26, 2010, 01:29:34 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on November 26, 2010, 01:45:34 pm
I've got another question for you toady.
Will adventurers ever be able to become a leader of a civ or group?, like becoming a bandit leader and recruiting people into the ranks of your bandit army and have them do raids and give you the goods that they looted. or become a ranking general for a civ and lead raids against enemy forces.
Yes, this is planned: (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html)
Quote
# AFFILIATION ARC: You should be able to rise to the top of an entity (civilization, town, etc.) in adventure mode. While the full set of responsibilities that would entail will have to wait, it should at least be possible to attain this status for the first version. You should be able to do things for individuals. This could earn you favors from sleeping in their home and food gifts all the way to a marriage offer. There can be smaller entities like bandits and cults which could offer more unsavory tasks for similar privileges (steal, kill, kidnap, etc.). Can earn right to sleep in the large hall in town if you've become affiliated with them, but vagrancy needs to be punished and the camping must be harsher before this is meaningful. Related to Core64, Core65, Core71, Req586, Req587, Bloat163, PowerGoal12, PowerGoal19, PowerGoal27, PowerGoal37, PowerGoal41, PowerGoal42, PowerGoal44, PowerGoal48 and PowerGoal54.
# Core65, ADVENTURER SITE AFFILIATIONS, (Future): When you perform a task for an entity, you currently can an affiliation with it, but that's all. This needs to be expanded greatly. Not only should you be given various positions of responsibility, but you should also become accepted by the group in question and given some way of obtaining living space, equipment, pay, etc. as appropriate. It would also be good for tasks to be appropriate for the goals of the entity, and where possible, to soften the notion of a task -- if you do something that benefits a group, even if the group didn't explicitly ask for it, this should raise your standing with them in general (to the extent that the action/benefit is detectable from a technical standpoint), and a person at an appropriate position within a group should in some circumstances be able to act under their own power with entity subordinates. The primary target entities/positions here for version 1 are soldiers (either proper ones or loosely defined mead hall groups), caravan guards, bandits and religious groups.
# Core71, BANDITS AND CULTS, (Future): It's important to have groups acting on their own or generally causing trouble without necessarily belonging to an entirely different civilization. Bandits and cults are good choices to start. Bandits could harass or make demands of an early fortress, cults could spring up in a later one, and the adventurer could end up a member or an adversary.
Post by: monk12 on November 26, 2010, 05:46:34 pm
Well Metalmines in Worldgen could imply actual veins over multiple Z levels and lengths, maybe strip-mines. I mean more like real life veins and seams. With them i could be easier for a Ai to break into the caverns take the animal-people hostage and use them as slaves.
I like how Metal Mines leads directly to wholesale slavery. These forums rock.
Post by: slMagnvox on November 26, 2010, 08:28:05 pm
One thing that concerns me with trading becoming a more integral part of a stable fortress is my front gate.
<..>
the traders ask for entrance, and if you agree, you have an ingame day-long period to open your gates before they get pissed off and leave. The current "oh we saw your gates were shut from the other side of the valley yonder, so we didn't bother coming" situation does not make much sense IMO. Of course my gates were shut, that is what gates are for. Shutting.
With the new more important caravans, will we be able to keep our doors closed most of the year, and get a grace period for opening up when the caravans arrive on the edge of the map? This would allow more security whilst minimising lost trade opportunities.
+1
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 26, 2010, 09:11:03 pm
Quite historically accurate.Well Metalmines in Worldgen could imply actual veins over multiple Z levels and lengths, maybe strip-mines. I mean more like real life veins and seams. With them i could be easier for a Ai to break into the caverns take the animal-people hostage and use them as slaves.
I like how Metal Mines leads directly to wholesale slavery. These forums rock.
Post by: MrWiggles on November 27, 2010, 02:26:00 am
Quite historically accurate.Well Metalmines in Worldgen could imply actual veins over multiple Z levels and lengths, maybe strip-mines. I mean more like real life veins and seams. With them i could be easier for a Ai to break into the caverns take the animal-people hostage and use them as slaves.
I like how Metal Mines leads directly to wholesale slavery. These forums rock.
Ah quite so...
I remember when Debris cracked into the first cave system, for their diamonds, and forced the animal men locals to continue on with the mining.
Post by: monk12 on November 27, 2010, 06:46:18 pm
Quite historically accurate.Well Metalmines in Worldgen could imply actual veins over multiple Z levels and lengths, maybe strip-mines. I mean more like real life veins and seams. With them i could be easier for a Ai to break into the caverns take the animal-people hostage and use them as slaves.
I like how Metal Mines leads directly to wholesale slavery. These forums rock.
Ah quite so...
I remember when Debris cracked into the first cave system, for their diamonds, and forced the animal men locals to continue on with the mining.
I see, its a bit like Jane Goodall and the chimpanzee diamond mine then? Jolly good!
Post by: 1freeman on November 27, 2010, 07:39:34 pm
When mounts are implemented, will we be able to purchase mounts for our companion's? or will they have to slog it out on foot while the hero rides upon his valiant steed.
Thank you for putting up with all of my question's.
Post by: Quatch on November 27, 2010, 08:17:42 pm
One stop bandit shop! The currency of trade is pain and death though.
Post by: LoSboccacc on November 28, 2010, 12:59:44 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 28, 2010, 02:02:05 pm
I think stealing from bandits is more likely.
One stop bandit shop! The currency of trade is pain and death though.
It's like an auction! The person who's willing to give the most pain and death gets the loot.
Post by: Rip0k on November 30, 2010, 10:28:48 am
Looks like DF world will finally be alive after generation. Yeah!!!! ^^
Now Im very curious about next release.
1. Will town structure change? Including bigger/higher buildings and concentrated shop-area (Marketplace?)
2. Will peoples have beds again? Or/and maybe food containers?
Post by: MagmaMcFry on November 30, 2010, 02:48:00 pm
*sigh*
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 30, 2010, 02:49:51 pm
Post by: tfaal on November 30, 2010, 05:51:44 pm
Post by: rex mortis on November 30, 2010, 05:54:06 pm
The prospects of the next update are making me salivate slightly.Only?
Have you planned further limiting the availability of plate armour? As far as I know, it is not 'one size fits all' equipment. So if we wanted to commission a set to our measurements, it'd cost a lot and take (a lot) of time make. Adventure mode in particular would benefit, fortress mode perhaps less so.
How about proper shield damage to make them less reusable? This is possibly coming with item damage though.
Post by: Aklyon on November 30, 2010, 05:55:07 pm
seconded.One thing that concerns me with trading becoming a more integral part of a stable fortress is my front gate.
<..>
the traders ask for entrance, and if you agree, you have an ingame day-long period to open your gates before they get pissed off and leave. The current "oh we saw your gates were shut from the other side of the valley yonder, so we didn't bother coming" situation does not make much sense IMO. Of course my gates were shut, that is what gates are for. Shutting.
With the new more important caravans, will we be able to keep our doors closed most of the year, and get a grace period for opening up when the caravans arrive on the edge of the map? This would allow more security whilst minimising lost trade opportunities.
+1
Post by: Untelligent on November 30, 2010, 05:58:01 pm
Post by: Dae on November 30, 2010, 06:01:32 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on November 30, 2010, 07:18:06 pm
The prospects of the next update are making me salivate slightly.Only?
How about proper shield damage to make them less reusable? This is possibly coming with item damage though.
Item degradation has been spoken by the almighty Toad, for things likes weapons and armor. We see item wear for clothing, but not for tools in Fort mode. So something along those lines is planned.
The prospects of the next update are making me salivate slightly.
Have you planned further limiting the availability of plate armour? As far as I know, it is not 'one size fits all' equipment. So if we wanted to commission a set to our measurements, it'd cost a lot and take (a lot) of time make. Adventure mode in particular would benefit, fortress mode perhaps less so.
I bet that would be weird to do so. Even though every creature has a unique volume and mass, but displaying that information in either mode would be awkward and for fort & adventure mode make would make it harder to get arms and equipment for your character. There is a fair bit of micro'ing in Fort mode for equipping the military. Then we have to worry about the volume of the individual dorf. @,@ I hope this is where gameplay overrides realism.
(I know in 40d, that size difference between elfs, human and dorf were psedo respected, but that system is gone.)
Post by: Footkerchief on November 30, 2010, 07:36:57 pm
Have you planned further limiting the availability of plate armour? As far as I know, it is not 'one size fits all' equipment. So if we wanted to commission a set to our measurements, it'd cost a lot and take (a lot) of time make. Adventure mode in particular would benefit, fortress mode perhaps less so.
Making clothing size requirements more stringent is iffy:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg994813;topicseen#msg994813
Quote from: Toady One
having to size clothing for different dwarves [...] is a nightmare
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg698450;topicseen#msg698450
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: ArkDelgatoWill there ever be size differentiation for clothes?
There might be size differentiation for clothes later, but only when we can handle it without it being a total nightmare for the player.
Post by: PsyberianHusky on November 30, 2010, 07:45:30 pm
There is a middle ground, There are dwarfs who are "large for a dwarf" and maybe they could wear armor for a small human.The prospects of the next update are making me salivate slightly.Only?
How about proper shield damage to make them less reusable? This is possibly coming with item damage though.
Item degradation has been spoken by the almighty Toad, for things likes weapons and armor. We see item wear for clothing, but not for tools in Fort mode. So something along those lines is planned.The prospects of the next update are making me salivate slightly.
Have you planned further limiting the availability of plate armour? As far as I know, it is not 'one size fits all' equipment. So if we wanted to commission a set to our measurements, it'd cost a lot and take (a lot) of time make. Adventure mode in particular would benefit, fortress mode perhaps less so.
I bet that would be weird to do so. Even though every creature has a unique volume and mass, but displaying that information in either mode would be awkward and for fort & adventure mode make would make it harder to get arms and equipment for your character. There is a fair bit of micro'ing in Fort mode for equipping the military. Then we have to worry about the volume of the individual dorf. @,@ I hope this is where gameplay overrides realism.
(I know in 40d, that size difference between elfs, human and dorf were psedo respected, but that system is gone.)
I would like to see the char flavor text translate to more things in game
Post by: G-Flex on November 30, 2010, 07:53:28 pm
Post by: Knigel on November 30, 2010, 08:14:25 pm
It does translate into more things. I've heard of some dwarves being large enough to handle weapons with one hand that most dwarves need two for, and that sort of thing.
Or only some of them being big enough to handle it at all (usually halberds).
Post by: Cruxador on November 30, 2010, 11:34:38 pm
Have you planned further limiting the availability of plate armour? As far as I know, it is not 'one size fits all' equipment. So if we wanted to commission a set to our measurements, it'd cost a lot and take (a lot) of time make. Adventure mode in particular would benefit, fortress mode perhaps less so.To get this effect without making an insane nightmare of clothes not fitting anyone, there could be "custom-fitted" gear. This would provide some benefit, or gear that is not custom-fitted could provide some penalty - perhaps interacting with speed reduction.
Post by: Knigel on December 01, 2010, 02:07:48 am
Have you planned further limiting the availability of plate armour? As far as I know, it is not 'one size fits all' equipment. So if we wanted to commission a set to our measurements, it'd cost a lot and take (a lot) of time make. Adventure mode in particular would benefit, fortress mode perhaps less so.To get this effect without making an insane nightmare of clothes not fitting anyone, there could be "custom-fitted" gear. This would provide some benefit, or gear that is not custom-fitted could provide some penalty - perhaps interacting with speed reduction.
Another one: it being harder to remove via wrestling.
Post by: Areyar on December 01, 2010, 04:23:16 am
Species or bodytype specific armour might be a tasty expansion on the sizes as they are currently.
(centaur heavy armour, spiderman armour etc)
Post by: PsyberianHusky on December 01, 2010, 09:59:58 am
Individual fitted armour may be cool as a quality or special property modifier, not so much as a basic requirement of worn items.
Species or bodytype specific armour might be a tasty expansion on the sizes as they are currently.
(centaur heavy armour, spiderman armour etc)
Well wearing non fitted armor could just reduce mobility when wearing off-sized armor.
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 01, 2010, 10:07:42 am
It would get extremely frustrating in fortress mode, though. I can't even imagine the scope of annoying micromanagement that keeping track of all the armour you have available or that you need would require. No, thank you.
Post by: LoSboccacc on December 01, 2010, 10:11:54 am
Post by: Chthonic on December 01, 2010, 11:25:03 am
It would get extremely frustrating in fortress mode, though. I can't even imagine the scope of annoying micromanagement that keeping track of all the armour you have available or that you need would require. No, thank you.
Ideally, I guess, you'd have the option to issue an edict on the order of, say, "Okay, Dorfsmiths, listen up! Forge for my elite squad, the Rivers of Biting, complete sets of fitted armor!"
And then they'd just do it, and the squad members would pick up their stuff. And maybe it would be labeled with their names, and on their deaths would be either buried with them or go into a communal pile for the non-elite dwarves to pick through as they scrounge for the best a la carte armor sets available.
Post by: monk12 on December 01, 2010, 12:39:42 pm
I only ask because it seems that the FotF thread gets has less speculation and more suggestion as time goes on, as it feels like this is the only place you regularly and reliably frequent.
And yes, I am aware of the irony of making a suggestion to revamp the suggestion format.
Post by: Quatch on December 01, 2010, 01:07:13 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on December 01, 2010, 01:33:51 pm
I have read in the past that between the interviews, DF Talks, bug fixes, active development, and little things like sleep, you have less time to go through the Suggestions forum. Is there a plan to revitalize or refocus that aspect of the forums?
This came up recently:
I'm already unable to reply to posts in the suggestion forum (I am still reading them, though I'm behind as usual) [...] Ideally I'd get to everything, but it's impossible now.
Post by: monk12 on December 01, 2010, 01:40:15 pm
I have read in the past that between the interviews, DF Talks, bug fixes, active development, and little things like sleep, you have less time to go through the Suggestions forum. Is there a plan to revitalize or refocus that aspect of the forums?
This came up recently:I'm already unable to reply to posts in the suggestion forum (I am still reading them, though I'm behind as usual) [...] Ideally I'd get to everything, but it's impossible now.
That is actually the quote I was looking for and couldn't find earlier. Assuming this has been an ongoing issue, I was wondering if he had had any thoughts on ways the community could do things to make it easier for him. Ways to group suggestions under arc, etc.
Post by: Captain Mayday on December 01, 2010, 02:16:40 pm
Today, my query relates to BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIERs whose values don't obviously relate to altering sizes.
For example, let's use [BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HIGH_CHEEKBONES:0:70:90:100:110:130:200]
Now, there are seven slots there, equating, basically, to Extremely Low:Very Low:Low:Average:High:Very High:Extremely High.
My first question is, roughly what are the chances of each item occurring? I've populated a lot of test subjects to check, and unsurprisingly Average seems to be pretty common, if I'm doing it right.
My second question is, what bearing on the results does the number associated with it have? Is it some likelihood of the result?
It's probable that the second question will answer this, but I'll ask anyway.
From testing, I've determined that I can do the following:
[BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HIGH_CHEEKBONES:70:70:90:100:110:130:130]
which causes Very Low:Very Low:Low:Average:High:Very High:Very High
and
[BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HIGH_CHEEKBONES:0:70:70:100:100:110:200]
which causes Extremely Low:Low:Low:Average:Average:Very High:Extremely High.
It also seems as though I can use NONE in some instances, but I haven't been able to figure out whether this is just a general thing, or whether it's just reading it as text. I've tried with alphabetical values as a test, and that didn't really work at all, but did not return an error in the errorlog.
While it's obvious that replicating the values of adjacent slots will cause the one closest to the Average to be the only one used, I'm not exactly sure on how it's doing that.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 01, 2010, 02:23:22 pm
Hi Toady,
Today, my query relates to BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIERs whose values don't obviously relate to altering sizes.
For example, let's use [BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HIGH_CHEEKBONES:0:70:90:100:110:130:200]
Now, there are seven slots there, equating, basically, to Extremely Low:Very Low:Low:Average:High:Very High:Extremely High.
My first question is, roughly what are the chances of each item occurring? I've populated a lot of test subjects to check, and unsurprisingly Average seems to be pretty common, if I'm doing it right.
My second question is, what bearing on the results does the number associated with it have? Is it some likelihood of the result?
It's probable that the second question will answer this, but I'll ask anyway.
From testing, I've determined that I can do the following:
[BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HIGH_CHEEKBONES:70:70:90:100:110:130:130]
which causes Very Low:Very Low:Low:Average:High:Very High:Very High
and
[BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HIGH_CHEEKBONES:0:70:70:100:100:110:200]
which causes Extremely Low:Low:Low:Average:Average:Very High:Extremely High.
It also seems as though I can use NONE in some instances, but I haven't been able to figure out whether this is just a general thing, or whether it's just reading it as text. I've tried with alphabetical values as a test, and that didn't really work at all, but did not return an error in the errorlog.
While it's obvious that replicating the values of adjacent slots will cause the one closest to the Average to be the only one used, I'm not exactly sure on how it's doing that.
Did you see this comment in the dwarf raws?
Quote
The seven numbers afterward give a distribution of ranges. Each interval has an equal chance of occurring.
The wiki page on probability distributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution) may be illuminating.
In your example, [BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HIGH_CHEEKBONES:0:70:90:100:110:130:200], this means that the following intervals are equally likely "buckets" for the modifier to fall into: 0-70, 70-90, 90-100, etc. Since the intervals near the average (100) are smaller (only spanning 10 rather than 20 or 70) but still equally likely, most of the creatures will be closer to the average than to the extremes.
Post by: 3 on December 01, 2010, 02:36:08 pm
The only significance of this is that it's difficult to make castes that are obviously shorter or taller than each other - they'll still be different sizes, just described in the same way.
Post by: Untelligent on December 01, 2010, 05:07:53 pm
Quote
New underground plants will be pressed for oil used for cooking and soap.
That's cool, I don't think we've had any new plants in a long time. Unless you count the underground fungitrees, I guess.
Post by: Nistenf on December 01, 2010, 05:10:06 pm
I wouldn't get my hopes up too high if I were you; the next release involves a major change to the architecture of the game, so it's probably gonna have the bare minimum of features required to lay the groundwork for future development, while allowing the community to help iron out the (likely numerous) bugs.
What is this architecture change you are talking about?
Post by: MrWiggles on December 01, 2010, 05:12:51 pm
Like Olive Oil.
Actually...
Since we're getting some new plant extracts, will the jobs these extra be used for extend to just beyond cooking with these release, or ever?
Olive oil comes to mine, as a plant product that has multiple uses from cooking to cleaning.
Well we see other minable things, like salt anytime soon?
Post by: Neonivek on December 01, 2010, 05:13:29 pm
Post by: Quatch on December 01, 2010, 05:19:07 pm
Post by: Scarpa on December 01, 2010, 05:19:49 pm
I wouldn't get my hopes up too high if I were you; the next release involves a major change to the architecture of the game, so it's probably gonna have the bare minimum of features required to lay the groundwork for future development, while allowing the community to help iron out the (likely numerous) bugs.
What is this architecture change you are talking about?
Caravan stuff. Instead of villagers and their villages being placeholders that are frozen in time after world gen ends they will be producing their own stuff, consuming their own stuff, running active trade and industry. Also caravans will now bring actual things from the world at large and not from some magic bucket of 'stuff'. Additionally items will have elastic value related to scarcity, etc.
Read this: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=72115.0
Post by: MrWiggles on December 01, 2010, 05:22:10 pm
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 01, 2010, 05:25:49 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on December 01, 2010, 05:26:16 pm
What is this architecture change you are talking about?
He means the game's code structure, not literal architecture. Specifically, caravan/trading stuff is getting revamped, as described here. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=72115.0)
I wonder if plant extracts like these will also get other uses beside cooking?
Like Olive Oil.
Actually...
Since we're getting some new plant extracts, will the jobs these extra be used for extend to just beyond cooking with these release, or ever?
Olive oil comes to mine, as a plant product that has multiple uses from cooking to cleaning.
As it said in the Bay 12 report:
Quote from: ThreeToe
New underground plants will be pressed for oil used for cooking and soap.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 01, 2010, 07:11:09 pm
Does "Pottery" include bricks and other uses as Building material (like filling for timber-frames)? What about Pipes? Also how many pottery items per wood-log, if they get fired in the kiln, can we expect? Are fruit trees in for this release?
I think if we ever get a decent pipe-based plumbing, say for irrigation, it would be a bit pointless if we get one ceramic-pipe for one wood-log. The romans(?) had these nice Mass-killns to burn 100 Amphoras in one firing. How about ceramic tiles as (wall-) decoration?
Sheep etc. are nice too. Finally the humans have a independent source for non-leather cloth. Chicken and turkeys are great too. Finally we have meat that tastes like alligator.
Post by: MrWiggles on December 01, 2010, 07:17:50 pm
Post by: Dante on December 01, 2010, 07:31:49 pm
Just happened to start browsing the forums and noticed the December Report went up a few minutes ago.QuoteNew underground plants will be pressed for oil used for cooking and soap.
That's cool, I don't think we've had any new plants in a long time. Unless you count the underground fungitrees, I guess.
If the oil stuff makes it out into the reaction raws like soap did, I will be delighted, because it means we'll finally be able to use liquids as reagents.
Post by: Captain Mayday on December 01, 2010, 09:39:32 pm
Did you see this comment in the dwarf raws?QuoteThe seven numbers afterward give a distribution of ranges. Each interval has an equal chance of occurring.
The wiki page on probability distributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution) may be illuminating.
In your example, [BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HIGH_CHEEKBONES:0:70:90:100:110:130:200], this means that the following intervals are equally likely "buckets" for the modifier to fall into: 0-70, 70-90, 90-100, etc. Since the intervals near the average (100) are smaller (only spanning 10 rather than 20 or 70) but still equally likely, most of the creatures will be closer to the average than to the extremes.
I saw that note, yeah. And I'm familiar with standard deviations for a normal distribution on a bell curve. But on a bell curve, the steps are not equally likely to occur. If it were just a modified bell curve, I'd not be so perplexed. I suppose what I'm trying to do here is to achieve a better understanding of the effects of the values, and how the game deals with them, so I can use that more effectively.
Post by: Quatch on December 01, 2010, 10:34:53 pm
Is that refresh of sand gathering also coming now as a result?
How far into pottery did you go? Glazes, bisque firing vs glaze firing, high fire ware being water tight, porcelain vs stoneware vs terracotta?
Post by: Sizik on December 02, 2010, 12:20:25 am
Did you see this comment in the dwarf raws?QuoteThe seven numbers afterward give a distribution of ranges. Each interval has an equal chance of occurring.
The wiki page on probability distributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution) may be illuminating.
In your example, [BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HIGH_CHEEKBONES:0:70:90:100:110:130:200], this means that the following intervals are equally likely "buckets" for the modifier to fall into: 0-70, 70-90, 90-100, etc. Since the intervals near the average (100) are smaller (only spanning 10 rather than 20 or 70) but still equally likely, most of the creatures will be closer to the average than to the extremes.
I saw that note, yeah. And I'm familiar with standard deviations for a normal distribution on a bell curve. But on a bell curve, the steps are not equally likely to occur. If it were just a modified bell curve, I'd not be so perplexed. I suppose what I'm trying to do here is to achieve a better understanding of the effects of the values, and how the game deals with them, so I can use that more effectively.
Here's an example:
(http://i53.tinypic.com/33w1smo.png)
Each of the intervals has a equally likely chance to be picked, since they all have the same area. Assuming all values withing an interval also have the same probability of being chosen, the values in the middle intervals have a higher probability of happening, since they have less competition.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 02, 2010, 01:08:50 am
I saw that note, yeah. And I'm familiar with standard deviations for a normal distribution on a bell curve. But on a bell curve, the steps are not equally likely to occur. If it were just a modified bell curve, I'd not be so perplexed. I suppose what I'm trying to do here is to achieve a better understanding of the effects of the values, and how the game deals with them, so I can use that more effectively.
Well yeah, it's not a normal distribution, since it's not (necessarily) symmetric and in general isn't the right shape. It's probably a uniform distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_distribution_%28discrete%29) although there may be a more precise classification.
e: uh nevermind, it's obviously not uniform. Um... it's kind of like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_distribution#Univariate_frequency_tables) except if you jigger the ranges so that all the numbers of students are equal. Honestly I don't think you'll get a clearer explanation than the pretty picture that Sizik made.
Post by: Vattic on December 02, 2010, 02:45:48 am
edit:
The same question again but with seeds/crops instead of animals in mind?
Post by: PsyberianHusky on December 02, 2010, 02:49:31 am
Post by: B0013 on December 02, 2010, 07:18:32 am
Will vermin have eggs? So we can like have fluffy fluffy wambler eggs and toad eggs.
(I love eggs)
Post by: Neonivek on December 02, 2010, 07:22:19 am
Will there be Hydra eggs? And dragon eggs? And giant eagle eggs? And giant desert scorpion eggs? And alligator eggs? And giant cave spider eggs?
Will vermin have eggs? So we can like have fluffy fluffy wambler eggs and toad eggs.
(I love eggs)
Currently the Megabeasts don't even breed and likely won't until Toady has some sort of idea of how they will survive. Though generally speaking I think they should.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 02, 2010, 08:49:36 am
edit: Wait a sec what would happen if we get a giant toad to hetch a chicken egg?
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 02, 2010, 09:13:46 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on December 02, 2010, 09:19:35 am
Quote from: ThreeToe
Perhaps more exciting is the soon to be added raws for domestic animals and other raw materials. This means your dwarves will be able to collect eggs, shear sheep, and make clay pots. New underground plants will be pressed for oil used for cooking and soap.
To build on Quatch's earlier question, does this mean that we will be able to collect clay like sand? If so, how raw-definable is this collectability? E.g. would I be able to add the ability to collect an entirely new resource (say, peat, or sea salt), or is it just clay mining being added?
The best part is iirc. every bird egg is eat-able for humans. Well atleast i enjoy some Duck-eggs once in a while because they have more of the yellow stuff.Since we don't have petrification effects yet, it wouldn't be much of a cockatrice even if it did hatch.
edit: Wait a sec what would happen if we get a giant toad to hetch a chicken egg?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 02, 2010, 09:41:42 am
Turning one material into another exists for NCs atm so a basilisk could employ a instant version of that that kills the dwarf at the same time. Bonuspoints if it leaves a statue.
Post by: Lancensis on December 02, 2010, 02:23:33 pm
Chicken and turkeys are great too. Finally we have meat that tastes like alligator.At first I thought this was a weird way of phrasing it, but then I realised crocodillians have been around a lot longer than poultry, and therefore were first to taste like that. So good on Heph for knowing paleontology.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 02, 2010, 03:42:52 pm
Well we see other minable things, like salt anytime soon?
Toady has expressed support for it in the past, in a Suggestions thread about salt mines:
Halite mines in mountain sides seem reasonably common. The stuff has had a long time to be moved around. Still, it doesn't have to be in every mountain. Most rocks/gems/metals shouldn't be in most mountains in any case.
Will civs Have mining operations that present themselves as physical locations?
This was asked a few pages back:
If mining is in for worldgen, will worldgen mines potentially awaken Forgotten Beasts... or worse? And will we be able to eventually enter and explore these mines?
Post by: MrWiggles on December 02, 2010, 06:15:49 pm
Has things calm down at the bug tracker? It seems like there was a noticeable gap when you stopped being the human search function. Or are the two things unrelated?
Post by: Footkerchief on December 02, 2010, 09:09:54 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on December 02, 2010, 09:12:41 pm
Things have been gradually calming down at the tracker since April, but I was absent mostly because of IRL stuff.Its nice to have ya active on the forum again. *nods* Search function or not.
Post by: nordak on December 03, 2010, 12:53:16 am
Have you planned further limiting the availability of plate armour? As far as I know, it is not 'one size fits all' equipment. So if we wanted to commission a set to our measurements, it'd cost a lot and take (a lot) of time make. Adventure mode in particular would benefit, fortress mode perhaps less so.To get this effect without making an insane nightmare of clothes not fitting anyone, there could be "custom-fitted" gear. This would provide some benefit, or gear that is not custom-fitted could provide some penalty - perhaps interacting with speed reduction.
Custom armor would be nice, I wouldn't penalize regular armor, Just buff personal armor. Say a coverage bonus, and ease of use(+speed/higher agility rolls). And the armor should be restricted to the person it is made for, and should be buried with the individual if possible. Looters should be able to equip but have penalties, say Coverage penalty and speed/agility penalty.
Post by: Knigel on December 03, 2010, 02:23:57 am
Not scarcity, but supply and demand.
Yes, there's always been scarcity, it just never had any effect on prices.
Post by: Areyar on December 03, 2010, 03:03:19 am
(having whatever benefits)
Having this applied to worn armour as a 'spell' or alchemical reaction by the quartermaster would give this person a role besides the artificial inability to equip in bigger fortresses.
clothiers could perform a similar function for clothing.
Post by: Sizik on December 03, 2010, 04:29:47 am
Post by: Rose on December 03, 2010, 04:40:22 am
Post by: calrogman on December 03, 2010, 04:54:40 am
I notice some of the trade routes go over water. Will there be some kind of sea travel anytime soon?
This is pretty much a given. It'd probably be easy enough to fudge some numbers in world gen to get world gen "trade boats", what we don't know is how boats would work in Dwarf/Adventure mode.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 03, 2010, 05:20:40 am
I hope all the data makes it into the XML and gets some filters. I mean its nice to see all that traderoutes but i would like to see the flow of certain goods, say diamonds or metals.
These Maps are pure gold. The help with war, economics heck one could use them to remote-controll other civs and start wars between them just by influencing the right values. The so called "Butterfly"-effect comes to mind you would need just the right time an place - oh that would be some wonderfull shemes for demons.
Any Plans to make the civ-leaders aware of this network (in parts)? Will civs or entitys try to actively search for new resources and tradepartners?
I also noticed that a number of the dwarfen civs (on the middle-sized island) didnt trade at all not even between theyr own settlements. Bug/Feature?
edit:
I notice some of the trade routes go over water. Will there be some kind of sea travel anytime soon?
This is pretty much a given. It'd probably be easy enough to fudge some numbers in world gen to get world gen "trade boats", what we don't know is how boats would work in Dwarf/Adventure mode.
Well these traderoutes could also be realized via the caverns. The entire world sits on a giant interconnecting cave system so i would guess you could use certain shortcuts to get around oceans rivers and Mountain-ranges - kinda like the way through Moria in LOTR.
Post by: LoSboccacc on December 03, 2010, 05:26:35 am
Post by: MrWiggles on December 03, 2010, 05:29:32 am
I assume roads will be effected by trade routs, right?
Nevermind, noticed the ninja update by ThreeToe.
Post by: Brisk on December 03, 2010, 05:44:06 am
Post by: Glanzor on December 03, 2010, 06:12:38 am
Are the purple cities dark fortresses? Does that mean the goblins actually trade this time?
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 03, 2010, 06:36:16 am
With that in mind, how does the game determine the connections? Is it simple distance combined with relations? Is there something more complex going on?
Post by: VDOgamez on December 03, 2010, 08:12:18 am
What kind of algorithms are being used for determination of the trading patterns of cities, civilizations, and species?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 03, 2010, 08:35:03 am
You have never written any world economy simulation. There wasnt a group of short bearded agents at your Computer to copy any of your nonexisting data. The sudden feeling of deja vu stems from the fact that you wear pants.
Post by: nenjin on December 03, 2010, 09:06:49 am
Post by: Footkerchief on December 03, 2010, 10:58:32 am
I notice some of the trade routes go over water. Will there be some kind of sea travel anytime soon?
Already asked recently:
Toady, as 31.19 will be the Caravan Arc, does that mean we'll get boats too?
so, if there are path over water and if there are no actual ship travelling and ports and such, can we assume caravans are abstracted away from the world map? if that's the case, isn't there no caravan raiding in adventure mode? (apart from abstracted away caravan raiding, that is)
It hasn't been implemented yet, but it's planned: (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html)
Quote
Adventurer Role: Trader
[...]
* World economy
[...]
o Replace dwarf mode generated caravans with actual caravans
o Improved dwarf mode trade agreements
* Ability to lead a trade caravan
o Ability to load stuff onto pack mules
o Ability to hire bodyguards
o Wagon/wagon teams (might do some teleportation travel with them to avoid annoyances for now)
o Being able to trade from wagons, large markets might have people to move objects more quickly
[...]
Post by: Psieye on December 03, 2010, 12:13:37 pm
Those maps are pretty interesting. The different colours seem to depict different types of civilizations.Seems to me goblins are also using sprawl of sorts to keep their fortresses fed. Also, I do hear that even back in 40d it was possible for goblins to trade. These lines represent POTENTIAL trade routes so it's more likely that most of the time they won't actually trade.
Are the purple cities dark fortresses? Does that mean the goblins actually trade this time?
Toady, will player built fortresses need to pay attention to the trade network to get caravans? As in, will the embark screen point out stuff like "no human town is close enough to you to send caravans"?
Post by: TurnpikeLad on December 03, 2010, 12:50:14 pm
It seems like there's a maximum distance between "hubs" beyond which there will be no trade... look at the isolated little group of cultures in the far right of medium region 1. I understand the typical hamlet/town trade, where raw materials come in to the city and then finished goods go back out, but when it comes to trade between city hubs I wonder what criteria the game uses to decide where to set one up and what those cities are going to be trading. For example, if that little country on the other side of the world has some rare kind of plant or metal, will cultures eventually set up a much longer trade route? Will cultures that trade directly to faraway lands, cutting out the middleman, get a better deal on the merchandise than cultures that rely on an extended trade network where distant goods must change hands many times?
Also, I wonder how trade routes are set up in world gen, how static they are over time. Are they recalculated every year, or every century? If a town expands its hamlets and gains access to a kind of resource, will it cease its trade with a distant town which previously was providing them that resource? Is there a concept of discovery, where a culture might have too little information about another culture and so would not be able to trade with them, or are all cultures assumed to be aware of the relative availability and value of goods all over the world?
This stuff is just really interesting to me.
Post by: TurnpikeLad on December 03, 2010, 12:55:50 pm
Post by: Mephansteras on December 03, 2010, 01:29:53 pm
Post by: monk12 on December 03, 2010, 01:34:23 pm
It's one thing to go over the mountain and across the sea for the same leather and metals you could get at home- its quite another to do so for an extremely rare material, like Silk and Spices in the Far East for a real world example. Similarly, rampant piracy can shut down even the most lucrative of trade routes, while simultaneously driving up prices due to the reduced supply. Sometimes the increased risk even makes the prices go up so much that the route is more valuable than before, and so continues to be used- look up the Greek Pirates in the Roman Empire before the Romans got sick of their shit.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 03, 2010, 01:40:32 pm
Oh yeah, I also can't wait to see what the NPC dwarven hamlets and fortresses will look like now.
I'd settle for them existing at all in the game world. Mountain halls (or dwarf pits or whatever the term is) show up on the map in the current version, but there's nothing at the site.
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 03, 2010, 01:47:25 pm
More specifically, I'm asking if the caravans will follow the 'routes' as paths or are the 'routes' a simple representation of the fact the two locations are trading.
I see all the trade routes are straight lines. Some of these lines go over water, but even though the water route represents the shortest path there is a perfectly fine 'land-based route' for land-based caravans to take. Granted, this only matters if it is possible to bump into the caravans in transit.
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 03, 2010, 03:00:10 pm
Some of these lines go over water, but even though the water route represents the shortest path there is a perfectly fine 'land-based route' for land-based caravans to take.
Just a side note...
...in history, sea and river trade was preferred to land trade, not the other way around. Ships have many advantages over wagons, the two main ones being: 1) It's much safer that way, pirates tend to be less frequent and easier to run from than bandits, 2) you can ship heavy, bulk loads, something not possible with wagons (caravans bringing huge amounts of wood like in current DF are absurdly unreal). Then, to a lesser degree, 3) by going over the sea, you skip many taxation opportunities (normally taxes would be paid on "country" borders, but also bridges, ferries, city gates...). In your example, noone would bother to take the land route.
If you look at real history, coastal areas were always the richest, and the biggest cities formed next to the seas. It is no accident that the major civilisations developed in areas that have easy access to sea trade (the Mediterranean, the Sea of Japan) and that the land-locked areas (Russia...) or areas dependent on ocean waters, which are difficult to travel (Africa), staid underdeveloped.
I'm wondering if Toady intends to put some emphasis on ports and coastal cities.
EDIT: Looking over the screenshots again, it seems like humans indeed are attracted to the sea.
Post by: tfaal on December 03, 2010, 04:09:42 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 03, 2010, 05:17:21 pm
Post by: NSQuote on December 03, 2010, 05:18:19 pm
Yeah and they are perfect sources for diseases as soon we get them.Fleas on rats on boats?
Post by: MrWiggles on December 03, 2010, 05:18:35 pm
Oh yeah, I also can't wait to see what the NPC dwarven hamlets and fortresses will look like now.
I'd settle for them existing at all in the game world. Mountain halls (or dwarf pits or whatever the term is) show up on the map in the current version, but there's nothing at the site.
I dont expect any changes made towards Gobbo, elves or dorfs.
Post by: TurnpikeLad on December 03, 2010, 05:58:21 pm
Just a side note...
...in history, sea and river trade was preferred to land trade, not the other way around. Ships have many advantages over wagons, the two main ones being: 1) It's much safer that way, pirates tend to be less frequent and easier to run from than bandits, 2) you can ship heavy, bulk loads, something not possible with wagons (caravans bringing huge amounts of wood like in current DF are absurdly unreal). Then, to a lesser degree, 3) by going over the sea, you skip many taxation opportunities (normally taxes would be paid on "country" borders, but also bridges, ferries, city gates...). In your example, noone would bother to take the land route.
If you look at real history, coastal areas were always the richest, and the biggest cities formed next to the seas. It is no accident that the major civilisations developed in areas that have easy access to sea trade (the Mediterranean, the Sea of Japan) and that the land-locked areas (Russia...) or areas dependent on ocean waters, which are difficult to travel (Africa), staid underdeveloped.
This is true but land-based trade was also always a big factor, for example, look at the Silk Road which went overland all the way from Turkey to China. Land-based trade is viable over great distances when you're transporting small amounts of highly valuable stuff, especially if sea travel is inconvenient.
Post by: Quatch on December 03, 2010, 06:29:21 pm
Quote from: Jiri Petru
EDIT: Looking over the screenshots again, it seems like humans indeed are attracted to the sea.
[/quote
EDIT: Looking over the screenshots again, it seems like humans indeed are attracted to the sea.
[/quote
Probably a result of the coastal correlation with elevation and the elev. correlation with plains
Post by: Mephansteras on December 03, 2010, 06:38:44 pm
Quote from: Jiri Petru
EDIT: Looking over the screenshots again, it seems like humans indeed are attracted to the sea.
[/quote
Probably a result of the coastal correlation with elevation and the elev. correlation with plains
Nah. If you look at the raws humans are now much more likely to expand out to ocean and river tiles than they were before. Especially the Ocean (12 vs 2 or 3 for plains)Code: [Select][START_BIOME:ANY_GRASSLAND]
[START_BIOME:ANY_SAVANNA]
[START_BIOME:ANY_SHRUBLAND]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_WETLAND:1]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_DESERT:1]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_FOREST:2]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_OCEAN:12]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_LAKE:3]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_GRASSLAND:3]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_SAVANNA:2]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_SHRUBLAND:2]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_RIVER:4]
Post by: Untelligent on December 03, 2010, 06:40:49 pm
EDIT: ninja'd. Ah well.
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 03, 2010, 07:32:47 pm
Some of these lines go over water, but even though the water route represents the shortest path there is a perfectly fine 'land-based route' for land-based caravans to take.
Just a side note...
...in history, sea and river trade was preferred to land trade, not the other way around. Ships have many advantages over wagons, the two main ones being: 1) It's much safer that way, pirates tend to be less frequent and easier to run from than bandits, 2) you can ship heavy, bulk loads, something not possible with wagons (caravans bringing huge amounts of wood like in current DF are absurdly unreal). Then, to a lesser degree, 3) by going over the sea, you skip many taxation opportunities (normally taxes would be paid on "country" borders, but also bridges, ferries, city gates...). In your example, noone would bother to take the land route.
If you look at real history, coastal areas were always the richest, and the biggest cities formed next to the seas. It is no accident that the major civilisations developed in areas that have easy access to sea trade (the Mediterranean, the Sea of Japan) and that the land-locked areas (Russia...) or areas dependent on ocean waters, which are difficult to travel (Africa), staid underdeveloped.
I'm wondering if Toady intends to put some emphasis on ports and coastal cities.
EDIT: Looking over the screenshots again, it seems like humans indeed are attracted to the sea.
I was merely pointing out a couple land-based routes looked more convenient than a straight shoot across the sea. Take a look at the small island map in Threetoe's update. There's right most white square about a quarter of the map from the bottom. The green line goes across the sea in a rather inconvenient spot and land-based travel would save the time and energy needed to load the ships and unload the ships, but the same square's yellow connections are much more sea worthy routes. But also here the yellow route heading south-west is going through land when it would be best pathing through the sea altogether. I'm not saying to prefer one type of travel over the other, but sometimes traveling completely by land or completely by sea is better than following the straight lines. Also notice how close two of the end points of the green routes on that square are. If using a land-based route the caravan can in theory make a round trip to all three points and then return to their home, as opposed to taking three separate trips for each node.
Post by: iceball3 on December 03, 2010, 07:45:10 pm
Post by: Knigel on December 03, 2010, 07:59:50 pm
I assume roads will be effected by trade routs, right?
The dev blog mentions implementing boats, even if they just serve as jumps from one point to another.
If in adventure mode we kill all the farms that feed into a town will the town suffer?
Before you get your hopes up, you should keep in mind that the enormous abstract entity populations means killing all the farms will be nigh-impossible
Post by: Shadowfury333 on December 03, 2010, 08:08:59 pm
Are there plans to be able to have multiple embarks at once, and to be able to zoom from fort view to world view and back on any of these embarks? An example of this would be in the old Accolade game Deadlock, though that was provinces instead of embarks, but a similar idea.
Post by: Psieye on December 03, 2010, 08:10:29 pm
Killing all the farmers is nigh impossible yeah, but there's a finite amount of land so maybe if he meant razing all the farmland, then that's a more relevant question.If in adventure mode we kill all the farms that feed into a town will the town suffer?
Before you get your hopes up, you should keep in mind that the enormous abstract entity populations means killing all the farms will be nigh-impossible
Post by: Sowelu on December 03, 2010, 08:37:24 pm
I'm not sure if I missed something but:I'm pretty certain that that's out of the question for a long time to come.
Are there plans to be able to have multiple embarks at once, and to be able to zoom from fort view to world view and back on any of these embarks? An example of this would be in the old Accolade game Deadlock, though that was provinces instead of embarks, but a similar idea.
Post by: 1freeman on December 03, 2010, 08:45:29 pm
It would be cool because I don't think that I would always want to micro-manage the people and animals and goods all the time. I figure it would be like sending the caravan off with instructions and paying for the initial good's.Then the caravan would go on it's route and when/If it returns they would give you your share of the profit's.
Post by: Cruxador on December 03, 2010, 10:49:40 pm
I'm not sure if I missed something but:The problem is that when you move between levels of abstraction, information is lost. So things can get pretty messed up.
Are there plans to be able to have multiple embarks at once, and to be able to zoom from fort view to world view and back on any of these embarks? An example of this would be in the old Accolade game Deadlock, though that was provinces instead of embarks, but a similar idea.
Post by: Areyar on December 04, 2010, 06:18:13 am
Please give a legend for those kewl maps. :)
n.b. Not the hero epic story type legend, though that'd be cool too, but the legend commonly associated with maps and other graphic representations indicating the meaning of colours and symbols.
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 04, 2010, 07:14:27 am
Will we ever be able to access the legends mode information directly from fortress or adventurer mode? Like in: you click at the leader of the enemy siege, open his details (z) screen and click something like (h)istory? I know you are planning to do books and some other "in-game" applications of legends, but these are hardly as useful as the legends mode. And I am able to copy my safe to a different folder, abandon the fortress, and open the Legends. Why prevent me from doing it the easy way?
Post by: OmnipotentGrue on December 04, 2010, 07:29:41 am
Post by: Glanzor on December 04, 2010, 08:05:33 am
This has been bugging me for a long time:That would be a lot less fun than having to find out about the people ingame through books, engravings and word-of-mouth. Maybe there could be some kind of log where you could check everything you learned about a historical figure yet?
Will we ever be able to access the legends mode information directly from fortress or adventurer mode? Like in: you click at the leader of the enemy siege, open his details (z) screen and click something like (h)istory? I know you are planning to do books and some other "in-game" applications of legends, but these are hardly as useful as the legends mode. And I am able to copy my safe to a different folder, abandon the fortress, and open the Legends. Why prevent me from doing it the easy way?
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on December 04, 2010, 08:08:09 am
Post by: cakeonslaught on December 04, 2010, 02:55:08 pm
Post by: tfaal on December 04, 2010, 03:01:52 pm
You can just open up another DF.exe, you know... I agree though, Legends in-game would be nice.I'm afraid that's not the case; a single save can support a fortress, an adventurer, or an active legends view, but not two or more at once. Viewing the legends of a world that has an existing adventurer or player fortress requires copying the save.
Post by: Areyar on December 04, 2010, 03:40:52 pm
ahem. ?You can just open up another DF.exe, you know... I agree though, Legends in-game would be nice.I'm afraid that's not the case; a single save can support a fortress, an adventurer, or an active legends view, but not two or more at once. Viewing the legends of a world that has an existing adventurer or player fortress requires copying the save.
<select DFfolder>
<CTRL+C>
<CTRL+V>
<create new shortcut to exe in copied folder>
...or just copy your regionfolder and rename it.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 04, 2010, 05:58:27 pm
ahem. ?You can just open up another DF.exe, you know... I agree though, Legends in-game would be nice.I'm afraid that's not the case; a single save can support a fortress, an adventurer, or an active legends view, but not two or more at once. Viewing the legends of a world that has an existing adventurer or player fortress requires copying the save.
<select DFfolder>
<CTRL+C>
<CTRL+V>
<create new shortcut to exe in copied folder>
...or just copy your regionfolder and rename it.
ahem. ?
A single save can support a fortress, an adventurer, or an active legends view, but not two or more at once. Viewing the legends of a world that has an existing adventurer or player fortress requires copying the save.
two or more at once
requires copying the save.
Post by: Untelligent on December 04, 2010, 07:26:39 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on December 04, 2010, 07:50:33 pm
Post by: veok on December 04, 2010, 11:17:43 pm
Toady, with the advent of goods/caravans we will likely end up with alot of loot. I know you probably have no idea when you plan to do it, but how far down the list are the adventurer sites? Some of us can't carry all the dragon hides and diamonds that we would like to...
This is sorta already in; find a night creature lair, kill the resident, and move in. Your stuff won't move.
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 05, 2010, 03:35:57 am
Post by: Toady One on December 05, 2010, 04:33:02 am
Quote from: LoSboccacc
Any plans for food of desperation to be available? Boiled shoes for dinner tonight, but it beats starving.
We haven't specifically thought about it for this time. Getting to the point of acts of cannibalism is probably inevitable in the long run though.
Quote from: MrWiggles
Will we be able to get roads made on the world map, in both dwarf and adventure mode?
We had talked long ago about having world construction projects you could engage in with dwarves that have left your map. It still seems like a reasonable thing. During adventure mode play I guess it would be a continuation of whatever is going on in world gen.
Quote
Quote from: MrWigglesWill you be able to finance various things in adventure mode?Quote from: JavarockWill it be possbile to hire a band of mercinaries to go over and attack our rivals caravan therefor we get more profits due to less items being in the market? In other words "Eliminating the competition"Quote from: 1freemanToady, when adventure mode caravan's are implemented, will we be able to hire someone to run our caravan for us?
You won't be able to have people acting independently of you this time around, but it should happen with one of the major release soon after. Having groups of subordinates running around causing trouble is important, whether it is carrier working for you, or army people, or bandits, or some sort of crime family. Should be fun as we pick up more of that. Right now you'll have to eliminate the competition directly, but that should be effective insofar as you can find them.
Quote from: Mephansteras
Are Elves going to have any preference/dislike for trading for metal? They can't really tell if it was made using charcoal or coke, and it's generally superior to what they can do natively, so could that be something effected by the ruler's preferences?
Also, will we eventually see other civs trying to trade for your metalworking secrets? A human king offering an alliance in exchange for you teaching some human smiths how to make steel, for example?
In the same way that they might no longer trade for clothing that doesn't fit, elves might reject metal weapons as a matter of entity definitions, but not as a matter of tree-cutting ethics. I guess if there's a ruler that can override the entity defs, then they'd buy metal. It probably won't happen now.
I haven't really thought about technology issues that much, but it would be reasonable to go into what the permitted jobs and reactions mean in the entity defs (whether it is a matter of knowledge or cultural preferences for example). At that point it would definitely be fair to pass the information around as a game mechanic, even if your dwarves don't look kindly upon it happening (I imagine that would be the norm).
Quote
Quote from: QuatchWhen we get to explore a region revealing the map as we go, will there ever be a chance of mapping error leading to strange maps?Quote from: SoweluThe old Microprose game "Machiavelli the Prince" started you out with an inaccurate map, which you then filled in correctly as you explored. So some of the islands were a little bit off, some of the terrain was wrong, landmasses tilted a slightly different direction, maybe a city a little further away--or maybe a city that wasn't on the original map at all!
I think it would be neat to buy maps in this, which may be inaccurate.
We were going to do inaccurate or downright deceptive maps that you can obtain, but if the player maps inaccurate maps, that could be very frustrating. Although it might align with the character's lack of skill, forcing the player to bust out the graph paper might be unbearable... at least for people that aren't used to busting out the graph paper.
Quote from: Vox Nihili
I'm wondering whether the testing arena will ever be expanded upon to include skill levels beyond grand master, quality modifiers for weapons/armor/shields, quivers, etc.? The testing arena has already been a great boon for players learning the game mechanics, hunting down bugs, and just generally having fun.
I didn't want to spoil legendary skills in the arena, but that'll probably be even less important once we have combat styles and so on (in which case those probably won't be available at the highest levels instead). Doing quality modifiers would be a good addition.
Quote from: iceball3
Toady, If the number of skills used for adventure mode go higher, will you add a scrollbar to the skill menu or will skills be sorted out between eachother in different menu's?
Having categories seems like the best way to do it, though if I remember that screen doesn't have enough room for it... and the text runs over the other text.
Quote from: tfaal
What would happen to the local meat economy if you sold the townspeople a dragon corpse?
I haven't done anything about the economy within a single site, since world gen doesn't resolve down to that level. When I get there during play, it'll probably glut the market stalls with cheapish dragon meat for a bit for everybody to eat. I'm not sure how merchants from neighboring towns will see it though, or when they'll have opportunities to pick it up. It would probably be a very attractive item for a short distance haul to a nearby town that doesn't have any dragon meat. Depending on who gets their hands on it first in the routines, the locals might not actually end up with lots of cheap meat. I'm not sure how the local economy is going to work in play yet either -- if you sell the dragon corpse to a butcher, the butcher could process it, and it might be natural/easiest for them to just put all the meat on the market, but later if they can preserve it maybe it doesn't make sense to sell it all immediately and locally.
Quote
Quote from: DanteIf prices are generated entirely dynamically based on production and consumption, we could easily get absurd situations, maybe involving worthless diamond goblets and the highly-sought-after mule skin. Will there still be the equivalent of e.g. baseline material/item values in the raws?Quote from: SoweluI'm guessing that material values will take a few hundred years to really settle out. If you only gen fifty years, people won't know their platinum from their copper value-wise.Quote from: G-FlexWhat about value that comes from factors that aren't yet implemented, either in entity definitions or material definitions? For instance, one particular reason people have cared much for gold traditionally is the fact that it's a noble metal, never really corroding, but that sort of thing isn't implemented yet. I guess the fact that it's interesting looking counts, but would be secondary. Simply analyzing entity and material definitions as they are now, wouldn't gold actually wind up being fairly valueless, as an example of the limitation of this sort of thing? It would still be rare, I guess, if it weren't for the abundance of minerals we have now.Quote from: penguinofhonorSo I saw the trade routes and all, and I was wondering. Do you think you'll ever invent value based off how exotic an item is? Say you've got a trinket made from the opposite corner of a large world, or from a civilization that isn't even connected with yours through trade routes. It should be rare and unique. Adventurers could get items from distant civilizations for eccentric collectors.
We do need more properties for metals to work out correctly, and I don't think I'm going to put in any placeholders for that in terms of value numbers or whatever, so if I don't get at the right properties yet, it might just be based on rarity in the world and otherwise be worth as much as other soft metals. Worthless diamond goblets and valuable mule skin is fine if that's how availability and demand work out. If everybody has a few diamond goblets, they are worthless in trade, pretty much, unless there are so many of them that they become valuable as currency or something weird (which won't be in, with possible exceptions for goblins we haven't thought out yet). On the other hand, rare materials/objects will generally command higher prices, yeah. That's going to be tempered by how useful they are or how much the civ needs more of that sort of object in general -- because individuals aren't involved at this point, it's just sort of a nod to the luxury market and that even not so well-to-do people might pay just a bit more for something unusual. As we get more groups/people involved, the rarity-based pricing might gain some more resolution.
That's in terms of world gen trade -- individuals can be involved once you are in play, and we might do a bit there. We'll probably have to for it to make any sense.
Quote
Quote from: BackgroundGuyToady, as 31.19 will be the Caravan Arc, does that mean we'll get boats too?Quote from: SizikI notice some of the trade routes go over water. Will there be some kind of sea travel anytime soon?Quote from: LoSboccaccso, if there are path over water and if there are no actual ship travelling and ports and such, can we assume caravans are abstracted away from the world map? if that's the case, isn't there no caravan raiding in adventure mode? (apart from abstracted away caravan raiding, that is)
Yeah, it's not the whole caravan arc, unless you want to wait many months. I'm just going to try to pull together something coherent and get it up, but even that is going to take time. There aren't going to be any moving boats this time. It's quite possible there won't be any other boats. The potential routes over water might not be used. Once play starts, it is very likely only going to use actual (land) merchants moving things around, and you'll always be able to raid those. There could be special boats, but it seems like the kind of thing that it is easy not to have time for.
Quote from: madjoe5
Will we ever be able to choose between Region and Island in the simplified "Create New World Now!" parameters?Currently, if you wanted to gen a region; one must go into the "Advanced Parameters." This is kind of a pain, since you also have to manually change the otherwise simplified parameters. Changing even simple things like history lenght is really confusing for players unaccustomed to world gen stuff (not to mention natural savagery, civ and site numbers).
That seems like a reasonable enough candidate for an option for the simple screen. I suppose it might be extended to other options once we've got more robust boats (many small islands, two continents, etc.).
Quote from: Nivm
Do you think Toady's going to go the whole way and make sure to differentiate between value and price like in reality? And, how will you define value? Using the extended labor definition?
A theory is useful to me only if it leads to building blocks and simple rules that I can use in the simulation. In world gen, there isn't a lot of political or individual information about ownership at this point. The sites consider what they need for consumption/building/trading and try to get it, and whether or not they can get it depends on what the other sites with stuff are willing to part with cheaply enough. It's fairly simple, but I don't need more yet.
Quote from: JimiD
Will we encouter the 'encouragements' for burial in old 31.xx forts moved to 31.18, or do we need to regen a new world?
Yeah, old forts should get them, but only on new dead I think.
Quote from: kilikan
Shall the repercussions of not burying dead, ever expand beyond ghosts? For instance prolonged time above ground, being desecrated, or large numbers of un buried dead becoming ghouls or zombies hostile to your fort?
We had wanted to do more things but ran out of time. So yeah, we're all for it.
Quote
Quote from: 1freemanWhen adventurer's are able to purchase livestock/pet's, will the animals be inherently loyal to you or will they be able to wander off if you don't fence them in and/or keep an eye on them, and if they aren't instantly loyal will there be a skill/attribute that determines how well your character can handle animal's. also will they follow like companions do or will we have to hold/lead them around?Quote from: 1freemanwill there be adventurer made sites anytime soon?, and if so will purchased livestock respect the borders of your land,as in not wandering away while you go off to kill some bandits?
If/while we don't have adventurer made sites how will livestock management work?, will there be stables in towns that you pay to take care of and/or store any owned animals?Quote from: cakeonslaughtToady, with the advent of goods/caravans we will likely end up with alot of loot. I know you probably have no idea when you plan to do it, but how far down the list are the adventurer sites? Some of us can't carry all the dragon hides and diamonds that we would like to...
It's fluid right now, but if I remember, we were considering adv sites for the non-bug-fix release after this one, where you'd be able to run a group from a site more along the lines of bandits in addition to whatever army stuff is available. Your unmounted horses and pets will probably just hang out with you like companions, running around in houses and being a nuisance until we get to something better. I'm not sure about livestock purchases, or how they'll be different if at all right now. Once sites go in, you'll probably need fences or other boundary structures, and we'll also need the hunter tracking system to deal with the locations of animals that run off. Before that, if you decide to run off and kill some bandits, you should probably sell whatever animals you were going to sell to the butcher first.
Quote from: Nivm
Well, dragons, titans, and such are not what the systems base will be made to handle. It's the fixed wagons that will be sometime during this arc, then siege engines next arc. Hm, will the multi-tile work you do during these two arcs lay the foundation for giant creatures expanding into more tiles?
I'm not sure if that would end up being related. I suppose it could be related, but those creatures would end up having very different minds compared to regular creatures, especially when it comes to pathing. It might make them too dumb to live.
Quote
Quote from: KillerClownsIf mining is in for worldgen, will worldgen mines potentially awaken Forgotten Beasts... or worse? And will we be able to eventually enter and explore these mines?Quote from: PsyberianHuskyWill civs Have mining operations that present themselves as physical locations?
They mine in world gen, and we're planning on having the mines be physically present, yeah. I don't know if we'll have them breaching the cave layers yet though. It seems like they should be able to go through the whole end game in world gen, as long as it doesn't ruin it for regular play.
Quote
Quote from: MechanoidWill the deep metal still be as common as it currently is? Will stuff like cave features along the lines of water, plants/trees, pits, magma pipes, cave creature civ sites, & other things homes (surface access or not) appear on the feature finder list?Quote from: diefortheswarm1. The old 40.d version had a parameter for magma pipes. Is it possible this parameter could be brought back in the current version of the game? I know that access to magma is guaranteed at any site by the magma sea. Sometimes I still find myself wanting a magma pipe for easy access to magma at the surface levels without building a 100z level pump stack.
2. Would it be possible to have site finder parameter for different categories of stone (Sedimentary, Igneous intrusive, Igneous extrusive, Metamorphic). Having a parameter for every single type of stone would be better but these broad categories would be nice.
I haven't changed anything else yet, but there could still be some additions for this release, since the site finder has become more important again. I don't know if I want to get to the level of showing every type of stone. That seems to be something that should be default off in the world params or something, since it's kind of a spoiler/TMI, although it might be good to share types of metal available.
Quote from: vogonpoet
With the new more important caravans, will we be able to keep our doors closed most of the year, and get a grace period for opening up when the caravans arrive on the edge of the map? This would allow more security whilst minimising lost trade opportunities.
If this is in reference to wagons (vaguely remember that from the thread), then it might be moot, since I'm not sure we'll have wagons/carts until we get around to the big vehicle rewrites now, or maybe even the road stuff as well. This doesn't mean that there can't be large important caravans. It'll be different all around.
Quote from: Lord Shonus
Will size ever matter for trading, and will you ever get the ability to make things sized for creatures larger/smaller than yourself? For example, would a human caravan refuse (or pay less for) dwarf-sized armor because it will be harder to sell? Will you be able to make human-sized armor for trade instead?
Yeah, size will matter in world gen, and it's very likely that non-fitting clothes won't command very much from traders now, if they even want to take up space with them. I'm not sure about producing clothes for other races. I guess it makes sense that you should be able to go into that export trade if you want to take a stab at it, but it's not something that's a high priority.
Quote from: Desdichado
when will item decay and item damage make it in? Will decay hit even mundane objects like chalices and doors? And will decay exist in worldgen, too, in some abstract form?
Decay already occurs for things like doors, although it is hard to see in practice most of the time. I'm not sure when we'll get item damage. When there's a big combat push, I imagine it'll be up there now. I don't have it yet, but I'm pretty sure we'll see some objects in stockpiles passing to debris/disappear just to make things make sense. We might not get to larger scale ruins until we get to that part officially, dev-wise.
Quote from: Heph
Toady will people in places with scarce vegetation turn to herding of say sheep* instead of farming? Will some regions begin to specialise theyr products like growing Mulberry for silkworms instead of delivering a certain food surplus for Cities?
We might wait for the overall farming overhauls before we can really distinguish between appropriate areas for pasture/crops. It could use rainfall now, I suppose. Right now the sites always have to grow food in at least half of their fields, but if the area were somehow to secure a surplus from abroad once trade is fully underway, we can see about specialization. The lack of political information is part of the problem here -- an empire might have an easier time devoting a large swath of land to something. For local governments to commit to it, they need to be very worried about their food, especially as unforgiving as it currently is in world gen.
Quote from: MrWiggles
Why did you use this symbol, ?, for currency in DF?
I didn't want to use a dollar sign next to the numbers, and the yellow turtle seemed bright and shiny.
Quote from: iceball3
Once civs become less of a hivemind when you attack a citizen, how would the spread of word be handled if you assaulted someone who lived? Also, how far is it from now before the A.I. of someone decides you are too strong to fight in ways excluding dismemberment?
I'm not sure how the spread of word is going to work -- it might first come up when we go after the thief section of the dev page. I didn't understand the second question. If you are talking about early morale failures based on sensible evaluations, it'll probably be combat arc material.
Quote from: Glanzor
Will elf, goblin and koblin civilizations be integrated into the new economy system as well?
If yes, how will they get their food seeing that they don't do farming?
The elves pretend farm right now. Goblins don't need to eat. Kobolds forage for vermin. They should be part of the new economy, although kobolds are just parasitic.
Quote from: 1freeman
When mounts are implemented, will we be able to purchase mounts for our companion's? or will they have to slog it out on foot while the hero rides upon his valiant steed.
I'm not sure how it's going to turn out, but I'd hope that they get to have horses too, since you probably won't get a travel speed bonus without having everybody properly situated just as a matter of how the code'll work.
Quote from: LoSboccacc
what's the plan from mountainhome requests? will there be only prices hints as they're now about mountainhome needs, or will the caravan arc means that the mountainhome will now also make 'mandates' for us to comply?
There probably won't be anything like mandates until we get to fortress embark scenarios, but we are hoping to let you have more interesting trade agreements and interactions this time around. We'll have to see how it turns out though.
Quote from: Rip0k
1. Will town structure change? Including bigger/higher buildings and concentrated shop-area (Marketplace?)
2. Will peoples have beds again? Or/and maybe food containers?
Hopefully, yeah. It has the information about population, town vs village/agriculture %s for the use of their territory, and the items stockpiled, so it just needs to place it all. That's a bit of map-making, which'll be where there's some time spent. And we'll have to work a bit to support the higher populations as you walk through town.
Quote from: rex mortis
Have you planned further limiting the availability of plate armour? As far as I know, it is not 'one size fits all' equipment. So if we wanted to commission a set to our measurements, it'd cost a lot and take (a lot) of time make. Adventure mode in particular would benefit, fortress mode perhaps less so.
How about proper shield damage to make them less reusable? This is possibly coming with item damage though.
I don't have any particular plans, but it sounds reasonable enough. People have posted some relevant quotes and things here for the issues in fort mode.
Quote from: monk12
I have read in the past that between the interviews, DF Talks, bug fixes, active development, and little things like sleep, you have less time to go through the Suggestions forum. Is there a plan to revitalize or refocus that aspect of the forums?
I was wondering if [you] had had any thoughts on ways the community could do things to make it easier for [you]. Ways to group suggestions under arc, etc.
I still read threads, but I'm always behind. It's hard to keep up with email and PMs and questions here as well. I don't know if there's a lot that can be done about it. There's just a point when there's more input than output, as with the dev pages and everything else. I'm not sure that voting or anything like that would really focus things well in terms of which suggestions I'm going to get the most out of reading.
Quote from: MrWiggles
Since we're getting some new plant extracts, will the jobs these extra be used for extend to just beyond cooking with these release, or ever?
Olive oil comes to mine, as a plant product that has multiple uses from cooking to cleaning.
Well we see other minable things, like salt anytime soon?
We're up for anything reasonable, but we're starting with cooking and soap. Dunno about salt mines. We'd want to do food preservation first probably, and I'm not sure when I want to go down that road.
Quote
Quote from: QuatchHow will clay be gathered for pottery production? Are we looking at the sand style ordering a patch of ground, or will clay soil now drop rock-like objects?
Is that refresh of sand gathering also coming now as a result?
How far into pottery did you go? Glazes, bisque firing vs glaze firing, high fire ware being water tight, porcelain vs stoneware vs terracotta?Quote from: Osmosis JonesTo build on Quatch's earlier question, does this mean that we will be able to collect clay like sand? If so, how raw-definable is this collectability? E.g. would I be able to add the ability to collect an entirely new resource (say, peat, or sea salt), or is it just clay mining being added?Quote from: HephDoes "Pottery" include bricks and other uses as Building material (like filling for timber-frames)? What about Pipes? Also how many pottery items per wood-log, if they get fired in the kiln, can we expect? Are fruit trees in for this release?
Dunno yet on pottery in general. We were leaning toward digging out the clay, since the excavation of large open spaces seems to match more with what I've read, but I don't know if that is going to change sand. We have kaolinite so were thinking porcelain would be fair game that way, but I'm not sure where we'll get with the other distinctions. We'll probably have bricks. It would be nice to get to fruit trees, but getting to everything is going to be hard.
Quote from: Vattic
The mention of new raws for domestic animals got me wondering about domestic animals in general. Will we be able to define entity specific domestic animals any time soon? While most races should draw from the local surroundings some more fantastical races should be able to keep animals specific to them. Currently you have domesic, evil, and/or local animals leaving little room for modding.
The same question again but with seeds/crops instead of animals in mind?
It sounds reasonable, but I can't offer a timeframe for it.
Quote from: B0013
Will there be Hydra eggs? And dragon eggs? And giant eagle eggs? And giant desert scorpion eggs? And alligator eggs? And giant cave spider eggs?
Will vermin have eggs? So we can like have fluffy fluffy wambler eggs and toad eggs.
I guess scorpions are born live, so you might be disappointed there. I don't know about wamblers. The others seem fair, but vermin might depend on whether chickens are vermin or small unit-style creatures.
Quote from: Japa
I assume roads will be effected by trade routs, right?
Nothing has happened yet, but I hope so.
Quote
Quote from: HephAny Plans to make the civ-leaders aware of this network (in parts)? Will civs or entitys try to actively search for new resources and tradepartners?Quote from: TurnpikeLadFor example, if that little country on the other side of the world has some rare kind of plant or metal, will cultures eventually set up a much longer trade route? Will cultures that trade directly to faraway lands, cutting out the middleman, get a better deal on the merchandise than cultures that rely on an extended trade network where distant goods must change hands many times?
Also, I wonder how trade routes are set up in world gen, how static they are over time. Are they recalculated every year, or every century? If a town expands its hamlets and gains access to a kind of resource, will it cease its trade with a distant town which previously was providing them that resource? Is there a concept of discovery, where a culture might have too little information about another culture and so would not be able to trade with them, or are all cultures assumed to be aware of the relative availability and value of goods all over the world?Quote from: Jiri PetruWith the coming of the caravan arc, will there be any feature that fully utilizes the world-gen time? I mean, will there be something that makes year 900 really different from year 300? I can imagine the trade routes will take some years to develop, then small markets would start popping up, then small fairs, which over the course of hundreds of years could develop into huge cities, making the late-gen worlds pretty unique. But right now, the only difference between year 1000 and year 100 seems to be the number of dead people in the legends mode.
Without sea trade, they'd have to pass through territory held by others in a situation where it should probably be routine to compel traders to offer their food for trade at least to hungry cities and other goods as well, and we lack the political structures to arrange for a proper setup. Smuggling is possible I suppose, but we haven't really thought about how long distance interactions are going to work, aside from the fair mechanic which allows several steps on the network to trade at one location. The lack of information about the civilization and subgroups and so on makes it all sort of handwavy right now, but we just want something to build on. TurnpikeLad I think mentioned the Silk Road, and I'm not sure how they worked in terms of passing goods through a succession of political entities, if there were long distance traders instead of a succession of short distance trades. The things I've read about European systems indicate a lot more control applied making it difficult for that to work on land, in the absence of a strong authority that can grant safe passage over a longer route.
Some trade properties are recalculated weekly, and the rest are done yearly. If a town expands its hamlets and gains a new resource, everything can change, yeah. There has been a (weak) discovery system from the beginning. I'm not sure if I'm going to get a chance to strengthen it. All in all there should be a bit of dynamic activity, though it might take more political information and imperial muscle flexing to get the world to be really lively. Long-term, that is one of the things I care about the most, and I want the world map between 300 and 900 to be very, very different in terms of political boundaries, major cities, goods traded, etc., but I think we're only going to be partially there this time around. I haven't really gotten into it yet, but I suspect development will still be a little too fast. The site cap is such that the world has its settlement cap around year 100 or so, and that also means that agricultural output has maxed out, pretty much. It still takes time for a town to accumulate enough of an advantage to get more of that food directed to itself and grow into a city, but it probably sticks too long, because we don't really have internal catastrophe or other troubles/rot that cause power to shift to other locations/civs. I think succession struggles, plagues and famine, that sort of thing, will be most useful here, but we don't have them yet.
Quote from: Brisk
If in adventure mode we kill all the farms that feed into a town will the town suffer?
If you manage this, then yes, I'd expect suffering, even if it is a peaceful starvation at this point.
Quote from: Glanzor
Are the purple cities dark fortresses? Does that mean the goblins actually trade this time?
These are potential routes -- I marked them at this point just in case places end up getting conquered. On the other hand, I think trade might end up being possible, especially with those human civs that are led by demon-gods, but maybe more generally.
Quote
Quote from: Lord ShonusLooking over the maps posted in the devlog, I've noticed that there are many potential trade routes unused, and several of the marked sites are not connected.
With that in mind, how does the game determine the connections? Is it simple distance combined with relations? Is there something more complex going on?Quote from: MephansterasHmm. Some of the hamlets don't seem to connect to anything. Are those ruins, or just isolated hamlets?Quote from: HephI also noticed that a number of the dwarfen civs (on the middle-sized island) didnt trade at all not even between theyr own settlements. Bug/Feature?Quote from: VDOgamezWhat kind of algorithms are being used for determination of the trading patterns of cities, civilizations, and species?
It's just distance for the yellow routes -- I haven't really started that kind of trade yet, so that's subject to change. The hamlets connect to the nearest market, but they'll only connect currently to markets of their civ, so you get situations where some hamlets remain strictly as subsistence farmers. This should change, but I'm not sure at this point what I want to do there. An isolated elven settlement might not want to show up at a human town market regularly, but isolated humans might not have any problem with showing up at a dwarven market or at the market for another human civ. It's just not settled yet. The lack of distinction between cultures and political arrangements is causing trouble here, since lots of trading should still occur when a war is on, for instance.
Quote from: Psieye
Toady, will player built fortresses need to pay attention to the trade network to get caravans? As in, will the embark screen point out stuff like "no human town is close enough to you to send caravans"?
Yeah, I think it's going to matter more than it used to, and it should help you a bit with that. You might be given a significant amount of leeway if you are treated more like a fair than a market, so you can have a time where lots of traders come to visit. The acceleration of time in fort mode makes that feel more appropriate, anyway, since the traders stay for several weeks.
Quote from: monk12
Does the simulation account for the value of the goods being traded when determining the length of trade routes? Does the simulation account for how risky the trade route would be when trading, and do trade routes that regularly lose their caravans "dry up?"
I haven't gotten to that point yet, but it's the distance is going to add to the cost of trades in world gen, so more valuable commodities should travel farther when fairs roll around. There's a missing element of long distance ventures that aren't fair related at this point, because the sea isn't really considered properly and I'm not sure how long distance land routes work -- the ones I've read about had to deal with the intervening towns along the way and didn't seem like a pure long distance venture between two distant entities. It might be a little tricky getting the exact danger level during world gen compared to what's going to be happening during play, so they might be in for a rude awakening once the caravans are actually moving around. I'm just going to have to try to account for that as well as I can. The loss of pack animals is probably going to be as bad as anything for the continuation of trade if they keep losing caravans.
Quote
Quote from: EmeraldWindAre these trade routes literally routes or are they abstracted representation of the trade network?
More specifically, I'm asking if the caravans will follow the 'routes' as paths or are the 'routes' a simple representation of the fact the two locations are trading.Quote from: iceball3I actually think that the straight lines are more to make understanding trade connections easier, rather than actually lining out the actual route
Yeah, the lines are just lines for visualizing the network.
Quote from: Shadowfury333
Are there plans to be able to have multiple embarks at once, and to be able to zoom from fort view to world view and back on any of these embarks? An example of this would be in the old Accolade game Deadlock, though that was provinces instead of embarks, but a similar idea.
It's difficult to do this while time is passing and have what you come back to make sense, especially if you've got a lot of fluids or machines working particular ways, and you've got your stockpiles all set up in certain ways etc. The first thing we were thinking of was sort of freeze-time army battles where your fort comes back exactly how you left it. After that, it is harder.
Quote from: Jiri Petru
Will we ever be able to access the legends mode information directly from fortress or adventurer mode? Like in: you click at the leader of the enemy siege, open his details (z) screen and click something like (h)istory? I know you are planning to do books and some other "in-game" applications of legends, but these are hardly as useful as the legends mode. And I am able to copy my safe to a different folder, abandon the fortress, and open the Legends. Why prevent me from doing it the easy way?
I don't like having easily accessible histories in play, especially in adventure mode. I think it breaks immersion and it will essentially break features to be omniscient as we get a little further down the line. In fortress mode it isn't as bad, but you'd still be able to spoil for instance what sort of creatures are likely to come with an enemy leader before a siege for instance. It probably works best as a world init parameter.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 05, 2010, 04:39:02 am
So I saw the trade routes and all, and I was wondering. Do you think you'll ever invent value based off how exotic an item is? Say you've got a trinket made from the opposite corner of a large world, or from a civilization that isn't even connected with yours through trade routes. It should be rare and unique. Adventurers could get items from distant civilizations for eccentric collectors.
Thats on of the goals on the old devpages. Core 79, Bloats 212, 163, 324.
edit: Wow thanks for the answers toady!
Post by: dennislp3 on December 05, 2010, 06:06:59 am
The Sims uses this mechanic (freezing time at a given location) to let you switch between locations and all...sounds weird but comes off with reasonable results most the time...
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 05, 2010, 06:19:08 am
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 05, 2010, 06:47:58 am
[...]So... awesome...
Post by: Hummingbird on December 05, 2010, 08:08:11 am
Quote from: Jiri PetruWill we ever be able to access the legends mode information directly from fortress or adventurer mode? Like in: you click at the leader of the enemy siege, open his details (z) screen and click something like (h)istory? I know you are planning to do books and some other "in-game" applications of legends, but these are hardly as useful as the legends mode. And I am able to copy my safe to a different folder, abandon the fortress, and open the Legends. Why prevent me from doing it the easy way?
I don't like having easily accessible histories in play, especially in adventure mode. I think it breaks immersion and it will essentially break features to be omniscient as we get a little further down the line. In fortress mode it isn't as bad, but you'd still be able to spoil for instance what sort of creatures are likely to come with an enemy leader before a siege for instance. It probably works best as a world init parameter.
I agree that the player shouldn't be able to look at some book and be able to look up every single detail about his world's history, but I think there are immersive ways to allow the player to ask about history through conversation with people. For example, a "tell me more about <type in name of figure/event/place/etc>" option in the conversation menu is more informative and immersive than repeatedly asking about surroundings or telling people that they look like mighty warriors and relying on the RNG to receive useful information. It's infinitely more useful and immersive to incorporate historical information into gameplay than to have a separate game mode to look up all this information. As long as the information available is limited to what's known by the NPC you're talking to, it could also be reasonably realistic and non-game-breaking for historical information to be revealed through conversation in a natural way.
I would have greened the above, but it's more of a suggestion or even an argument than a question relevant to current development. In any case, it's more of a topic for Suggestions, I guess.
Edit: I'm talking mostly about Adventurer Mode, where you can talk to people one-on-one.
Post by: iceball3 on December 05, 2010, 08:35:36 am
Post by: Psieye on December 05, 2010, 10:45:34 am
Toady's future plans include a linguistics engine so it can simulate different speech styles for differnet people under different moods. I'm sure that kind of option to ask for specific information will be incorporated once it gets done, including whether the NPC feels like telling an outsider/stranger like you about it.Quote from: Jiri PetruWill we ever be able to access the legends mode information directly from fortress or adventurer mode? Like in: you click at the leader of the enemy siege, open his details (z) screen and click something like (h)istory? I know you are planning to do books and some other "in-game" applications of legends, but these are hardly as useful as the legends mode. And I am able to copy my safe to a different folder, abandon the fortress, and open the Legends. Why prevent me from doing it the easy way?
I don't like having easily accessible histories in play, especially in adventure mode. I think it breaks immersion and it will essentially break features to be omniscient as we get a little further down the line. In fortress mode it isn't as bad, but you'd still be able to spoil for instance what sort of creatures are likely to come with an enemy leader before a siege for instance. It probably works best as a world init parameter.
I agree that the player shouldn't be able to look at some book and be able to look up every single detail about his world's history, but I think there are immersive ways to allow the player to ask about history through conversation with people. For example, a "tell me more about <type in name of figure/event/place/etc>" option in the conversation menu is more informative and immersive than repeatedly asking about surroundings or telling people that they look like mighty warriors and relying on the RNG to receive useful information. It's infinitely more useful and immersive to incorporate historical information into gameplay than to have a separate game mode to look up all this information. As long as the information available is limited to what's known by the NPC you're talking to, it could also be reasonably realistic and non-game-breaking for historical information to be revealed through conversation in a natural way.
I would have greened the above, but it's more of a suggestion or even an argument than a question relevant to current development. In any case, it's more of a topic for Suggestions, I guess.
Edit: I'm talking mostly about Adventurer Mode, where you can talk to people one-on-one.
Post by: OmnipotentGrue on December 05, 2010, 12:20:54 pm
You can just open up another DF.exe, you know... I agree though, Legends in-game would be nice.I'm afraid that's not the case; a single save can support a fortress, an adventurer, or an active legends view, but not two or more at once. Viewing the legends of a world that has an existing adventurer or player fortress requires copying the save.
Are you sure about that? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I'm certain that just recently I opened up another .exe file of DF, with the same save, and opened up Legends mode to check the description of a god my dwarf worshipped while the other .exe was running in the background with the fort playing.
Edit: I could have possibly not saved yet first, which I suppose would make sense.
Post by: dennislp3 on December 05, 2010, 12:31:00 pm
You can just open up another DF.exe, you know... I agree though, Legends in-game would be nice.I'm afraid that's not the case; a single save can support a fortress, an adventurer, or an active legends view, but not two or more at once. Viewing the legends of a world that has an existing adventurer or player fortress requires copying the save.
Are you sure about that? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I'm certain that just recently I opened up another .exe file of DF, with the same save, and opened up Legends mode to check the description of a god my dwarf worshipped while the other .exe was running in the background with the fort playing.
Did you have 2 separate DF folders? if not you prolly hadn't saved your fort yet so when you opened another DF it was still thinking there was nothing (just the genned world) which allowed that
Post by: Todestool on December 05, 2010, 02:08:55 pm
Related to this, but getting more into suggestions territory, if wood and stone get subunits, then mining/wood-cutting skill could determine yields from a given tree/square of rock.
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 05, 2010, 02:09:48 pm
Post by: Misterstone on December 05, 2010, 02:30:12 pm
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on December 05, 2010, 02:33:07 pm
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 05, 2010, 03:33:37 pm
I was thinking more about Dwarf Mode - there is currently no way to read the history of your civilisation once you start the game, look at the details of your king, look who the goblins' ruler is, look up stories about the dragon that attacked you, etc. These ale all information that your dwarves could be expected to know, and I feel a bit "cheated" that I can't look at them (without duplicating the save and abandoning, etc...). While books are nice, they are quite a slow solution, and you can't expect to have a book handy about the hydra that happened to attack you just now. My idea was more like: "will there ever be something that allows me to click on a unit/entity/etc. and ask: Tell me what my character/my dwarves know about it"?
EDIT: But yeah, I understand what Toady's point is.
Post by: KillerClowns on December 05, 2010, 04:22:22 pm
Quote from: LoSboccaccAny plans for food of desperation to be available? Boiled shoes for dinner tonight, but it beats starving.
We haven't specifically thought about it for this time. Getting to the point of acts of cannibalism is probably inevitable in the long run though.
For species that have taboos on the topic, will eating sentients of other species be more acceptable than, and thus done before, eating one's own kind? It'd make sense to snack on goblin raiders or a bunch of elven traders who brought nothing of use before devouring one's own kind.
Post by: Cruxador on December 05, 2010, 04:37:32 pm
You might be given a significant amount of leeway if you are treated more like a fair than a market, so you can have a time where lots of traders come to visit.What does this mean? Specifically, what is a "fair" and what is a "market" in the context of Dwarf Fortress?
Post by: KillerClowns on December 05, 2010, 08:09:39 pm
You might be given a significant amount of leeway if you are treated more like a fair than a market, so you can have a time where lots of traders come to visit.What does this mean? Specifically, what is a "fair" and what is a "market" in the context of Dwarf Fortress?
This was briefly mentioned in the December Bay 12 Games Report (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=72115.0); markets are for local towns, where farmers sell food and buy tools, while fairs are hosted in larger towns and have goods from all over the world. Further clarification would be nice, though.
Post by: nenjin on December 05, 2010, 09:12:48 pm
Post by: Rex_Nex on December 05, 2010, 09:17:25 pm
Post by: nenjin on December 05, 2010, 09:32:50 pm
At the very least, he's going to start the caravan and army arcs before going on to anything else fortress mode specific, other than bug fixing.
Post by: monk12 on December 05, 2010, 09:57:22 pm
How long until we can see some more Dwarf Mode - Centric updates? Im not a classic rougelike fan, so dwarf fortress mode is the only mode I will really tolerate, and the latest updates seem mostly based around adventure mode.
You kidding me? Half of dwarf mode is interacting with the caravans, either preparing for them or dealing with them- the work he is doing here is going to make trade agreements actually MATTER, and having an economic system for the world is going to lay down the basis for wars in the Army Arc (coming soon!) Not to mention that all of this is going towards making your fortress exist in a living, breathing world instead of some kind of Sims-esque Time Bubble where everything not on your little map is inconsequential.
You already gen an entire world- this is the start of USING everything outside your little 4x4 embark.
Post by: Cruxador on December 05, 2010, 11:14:12 pm
How long until we can see some more Dwarf Mode - Centric updates? Im not a classic rougelike fan, so dwarf fortress mode is the only mode I will really tolerate, and the latest updates seem mostly based around adventure mode.Toady is doing caravans, followed by bug fixing, followed by army stuff. All of this is general world stuff which relates to Fortress mode just as strongly as it does to Adventure mode.
Post by: Untelligent on December 05, 2010, 11:19:50 pm
Post by: Quatch on December 06, 2010, 01:37:38 am
Post by: OmnipotentGrue on December 06, 2010, 01:45:47 am
Because that would be freaking hilarious.
Post by: Knigel on December 06, 2010, 02:55:11 am
That would be a lot less fun than having to find out about the people ingame through books, engravings and word-of-mouth. Maybe there could be some kind of log where you could check everything you learned about a historical figure yet?
That sounds pretty nice. You don't have to keep looking through all the information you get from talking around to find what's worth writing down, you can just look through any of it at any given time. Especially if it you could make it so people won't bother telling you what you already know.
OK I have a couple questions:
The question about you being able to build a road in adventure mode has me wondering about the mention of the ability to pass time to grow crops in the dev blog: will we ever be able to pass years or even decades, like continuing world gen? Most likely it would be something you can only do if you don't have a fortress or active adventurer. Maybe to skip ahead a century after the HFS you tapped destroyed to see what horrors you have unleashed upon the world.
Also, what sort of development hurdles do you face in trying to implement aimed ranged attacks or attacking prone enemies from a range (and thus choosing which of several targets in the same tile to attack)
A question about the development of supply and demand in the caravan arc: will there variable currency values and systems?
Currently, the money is all the same, just usable in different places. In the future, might the value of a civilization's currency depend on the state of it relative to the seller? For instance, money from a very far away place the seller rarely trades with would be worth less than normal, those from a collapsed civilization would only be worth the material it's made of, and money from a civilization that collapsed hundreds of years ago would cease functioning like currency and be valued as an artifact.
For that matter, would they ever have different value systems instead of the same copper/silver/gold currency system.
Finally, another trade question: Will you be able to fake scarcity, and thus increase price, by secretly hoarding goods?
Post by: PsyberianHusky on December 06, 2010, 05:10:37 am
I wonder what would happen if we were to build a wall across multiple embarks, blocking off a trade rout - would the traders and their pack animals get to the wall and freak out, doing that weird crawl thing they do whenever they get attacked at your depot?Or use it to demand a toll
Because that would be freaking hilarious.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 06, 2010, 05:30:03 am
I wonder what would happen if we were to build a wall across multiple embarks, blocking off a trade rout - would the traders and their pack animals get to the wall and freak out, doing that weird crawl thing they do whenever they get attacked at your depot?Or use it to demand a toll
Because that would be freaking hilarious.
I can see it now: A dragon which leads ahuman civ blocks a road to demand 7 virgins per caravan coming through. To be fair i would do that too - i mean someone has to clean the lair right?
Post by: Areyar on December 06, 2010, 10:11:58 am
Quote
A question about the development of supply and demand in the caravan arc: will there variable currency values and systems?I think not, variable currencies are a modern economic issue, linked to the amount of gold and less traditional valuables backing the economy of the coin. (etc)
Currently, the money is all the same, just usable in different places. In the future, might the value of a civilization's currency depend on the state of it relative to the seller? For instance, money from a very far away place the seller rarely trades with would be worth less than normal, those from a collapsed civilization would only be worth the material it's made of, and money from a civilization that collapsed hundreds of years ago would cease functioning like currency and be valued as an artifact.
For that matter, would they ever have different value systems instead of the same copper/silver/gold currency system.
In the setting of roman-greko economics, currency was worth it's weight litterally.
pureness of the metals used had to be determined offcourse, and a nation with a bad reputation for using adulterated gold in its coin could find its coin rejected by experienced traders/moneyexchangers.
As we are unable to use anything less than pure metals and allloys, this is a moot point. for now.
Post by: roguester on December 06, 2010, 12:05:04 pm
I didn't want to use a dollar sign next to the numbers, and the yellow turtle seemed bright and shiny.I've always referred to the dwarven unit of currency as the Shiny. 100 Shinys for a pigtail sock etc.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on December 06, 2010, 12:10:25 pm
Post by: Neonivek on December 06, 2010, 02:47:41 pm
Post by: Djohaal on December 06, 2010, 03:46:14 pm
Post by: Quatch on December 06, 2010, 04:08:52 pm
This could lead to easy access to metal shortly after refining techniques with a huge collapse when all of the surface/shallow pit accessible ore is used up. Fun times.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 06, 2010, 05:55:51 pm
Post by: The Minister on December 06, 2010, 08:42:12 pm
1) Will we get a return to differentiated sites for different civilizations next release? E.g. human towns being different from dwarven fortresses and goblin towers?
2) With the caravan arc starting, will towns have workshops corresponding to the professions of their citizens?
3) Will adventurers be able to build and use workshops so as to interact with the economy any time soon?
Thanks in advance Toady, your willingness to answer questions is amazing.
Post by: Untelligent on December 07, 2010, 02:03:39 am
Post by: TomiTapio on December 07, 2010, 05:58:53 am
I didn't want to use a dollar sign next to the numbers, and the yellow turtle seemed bright and shiny.I've always referred to the dwarven unit of currency as the Shiny. 100 Shinys for a pigtail sock etc.
From what I've gathered, one dwarf coin is about the equivalent of one Euro (€):
lowest quality stone mug: 10 €, elite handcrafted granite mug 120 €
nice stone +amulet+ 30€
good steel weapon: 1000 €, elite high-grade steel katana: 6000 €
pile of totally awesome meals: 1600-6000 € (30-60€ per meal like in fine restaurant)
and clothes are really expensive because they're all hand-woven and hand-crafted. Leather skips the weaving step so it's cheaper.
Post by: Rose on December 07, 2010, 06:02:06 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 07, 2010, 06:15:31 am
Post by: Demki on December 07, 2010, 08:59:33 am
(for windows XP users, ALT+15)
Post by: Nivim on December 07, 2010, 05:30:50 pm
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: AreyarMaybe kids will also play with toys to train their dexterity/ smarts/ etc depending on toy and have a preference for a certain toy type?Yeah, we've wanted kids to play with toys forever, but never found the time. Still not sure we will, he he he, but certainly having a kid bring a toy to a party would be a start.
Will dwarves be temporarily claiming or buying the instruments and such they desire/require for playing at a party?
Music at a meetingplace party, will give additional happythought (dep. on quality of music) layer?
I haven't planned out specifically how music will work. I'm not guaranteed to even get to it, but I imagine they'll just be able to claim an instrument if there's one sitting around, as there's no point wallowing in the economy for now. I put in some invisible skills for music a while ago, so the playing of the music would very likely have an impact on all of the party-goers.
Is there point in wallowing in the economy now? Will time be found soon for toys?
Post by: Hummingbird on December 07, 2010, 05:51:21 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 08, 2010, 09:27:54 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Footkerchief on December 08, 2010, 09:53:11 pm
AreHFS? I wasn't aware.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Leading up to 0.31.17, that feature was kept secret and only hinted at ("Proper burial is now somewhat more encouraged." (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2010-10-11)). So yeah, it's hidden and it's meant to be fun.
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 09, 2010, 12:15:09 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
And question 2:
I like the options the new "start a new world now!" thing gives you, but I don't think they're enough. For instance, I want really shallow cave systems but I don't want to fool around in the advanced settings for ten minutes to get them. Do you think we'll ever have a medium-complexity generator or something?
Post by: Greiger on December 09, 2010, 12:18:03 am
I mean back in the day hidden fun stuff was actually something rarely mentioned. I recall actually being surprised by it back then, despite having lurked on the forums for over a month at that point. Now 'days all the HFS is so alluded to and hinted at with the subtlety of a lead hammer I would be surprised if anything stayed secret for more than a day, even to folks trying to avoid spoiling themselves. Trying to keep such things hidden may be turning more and more futile.
Of course Toady 'spoilering' the responses himself does seem to point to such things not being intended to be common knowledge. Clearly this just means we must work harder at keeping such stuff under the table.
I blame what got out getting out on .... the armorsmith. He is to be detained for 92 days. Get to it.
Post by: Quatch on December 09, 2010, 10:37:25 am
Post by: Demki on December 09, 2010, 10:47:55 am
Will we be able to send dwarves for a job of exploring and mapping the caverns? As in, telling the dwarves to map certain "blacked out" regions of the embark map, such as the ones in caverns?
Post by: Psieye on December 09, 2010, 11:27:21 am
And question 2:Uh, the in-game worldgen parameter editor? I have no idea why everyone looks at the raw worldgen.txt file and gets scared off when the in-game editor explains a lot of the parameters.
I like the options the new "start a new world now!" thing gives you, but I don't think they're enough. For instance, I want really shallow cave systems but I don't want to fool around in the advanced settings for ten minutes to get them. Do you think we'll ever have a medium-complexity generator or something?
I don't know if it was asked, but:A cat will do this for you. It's their innate behaviour to explore all nooks and crannies of wherever they are. Don't ask how the cat communicates back the map information to you.
Will we be able to send dwarves for a job of exploring and mapping the caverns? As in, telling the dwarves to map certain "blacked out" regions of the embark map, such as the ones in caverns?
Post by: Demki on December 09, 2010, 11:39:32 am
They do? maybe I should make the doors to the caverns pet passable... hm...I don't know if it was asked, but:A cat will do this for you. It's their innate behaviour to explore all nooks and crannies of wherever they are. Don't ask how the cat communicates back the map information to you.
Will we be able to send dwarves for a job of exploring and mapping the caverns? As in, telling the dwarves to map certain "blacked out" regions of the embark map, such as the ones in caverns?
But then again, if any of the adopted cats walk in there...
Post by: teloft on December 09, 2010, 01:27:32 pm
Post by: Quatch on December 09, 2010, 01:36:09 pm
Infectious disease can be a nice controling element for populations in towns a cities, giving boost to mortality and keeping the populations down.
Read that as morality, and was seriously questioning yours.
Post by: Ratbert_CP on December 09, 2010, 01:48:49 pm
Infectious disease can be a nice controling element for populations in towns a cities, giving boost to mortality and keeping the populations down.
Read that as morality, and was seriously questioning yours.
GLad I'm not the only one who read it that way. Although, we *are* talking about DF... ;)
Post by: decius on December 09, 2010, 02:33:49 pm
Infectious disease can be a nice controling element for populations in towns a cities, giving boost to mortality and keeping the populations down.
Read that as morality, and was seriously questioning yours.
GLad I'm not the only one who read it that way. Although, we *are* talking about DF... ;)
I'm GLaD we've had this discussion about morality, infectious diseases, mortality, and population control. I expect to see overshoot-and-collapse behavior, modeled by having food supply and food stockpiles tracked separately, so that population can exceed supply by consuming the stockpile, followed by mass starvation and eating seed grain.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 09, 2010, 02:37:14 pm
The trade ad migration routes are perfect for transmitting diseases.
Post by: Scood on December 09, 2010, 02:44:40 pm
Post by: Dante on December 09, 2010, 03:37:03 pm
Okay, seeeecret question under the spoiler:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
We already have varieties of
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: TolyK on December 09, 2010, 03:41:56 pm
toady please look at: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=72675.new#new (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=72675.new#new)
Post by: Dante on December 09, 2010, 03:43:03 pm
I don't know if it was asked, but:A cat will do this for you. It's their innate behaviour to explore all nooks and crannies of wherever they are. Don't ask how the cat communicates back the map information to you.
Will we be able to send dwarves for a job of exploring and mapping the caverns? As in, telling the dwarves to map certain "blacked out" regions of the embark map, such as the ones in caverns?
Dwarf cats evolved from the elusive cave dolphin, and therefore have sonar, and a strange psionic power which allows them to send messages from deep in the caverns, possess dwarves completely, and secretly report back to their briny masters.
Post by: Demki on December 09, 2010, 04:19:19 pm
I think my puppies are more evolved than my cats. I have 29865(estimated number) puppies, and punny 5 kittens.I don't know if it was asked, but:A cat will do this for you. It's their innate behaviour to explore all nooks and crannies of wherever they are. Don't ask how the cat communicates back the map information to you.
Will we be able to send dwarves for a job of exploring and mapping the caverns? As in, telling the dwarves to map certain "blacked out" regions of the embark map, such as the ones in caverns?
Dwarf cats evolved from the elusive cave dolphin, and therefore have sonar, and a strange psionic power which allows them to send messages from deep in the caverns, possess dwarves completely, and secretly report back to their briny masters.
Post by: Vertigon on December 09, 2010, 05:50:07 pm
Post by: iyaerP on December 09, 2010, 08:12:57 pm
Quote from: Desdichado
when will item decay and item damage make it in? Will decay hit even mundane objects like chalices and doors? And will decay exist in worldgen, too, in some abstract form?
Decay already occurs for things like doors, although it is hard to see in practice most of the time. I'm not sure when we'll get item damage. When there's a big combat push, I imagine it'll be up there now. I don't have it yet, but I'm pretty sure we'll see some objects in stockpiles passing to debris/disappear just to make things make sense. We might not get to larger scale ruins until we get to that part officially, dev-wise.
In that vein, will cotton candy items suffer from decay and battle damage? Because given how limited supply is, I would hate to have to replace 10 ada shields after every battle, or something along those lines. Steel/iron shields I wouldn't mind replacing, but the blue metal is significantly more difficult to stock up on.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 09, 2010, 09:16:45 pm
Spoiler: spoilyspoilystuff (click to show/hide)
Post by: Nivim on December 09, 2010, 09:17:52 pm
Quote from: Desdichado
when will item decay and item damage make it in? Will decay hit even mundane objects like chalices and doors? And will decay exist in worldgen, too, in some abstract form?
Decay already occurs for things like doors, although it is hard to see in practice most of the time. I'm not sure when we'll get item damage. When there's a big combat push, I imagine it'll be up there now. I don't have it yet, but I'm pretty sure we'll see some objects in stockpiles passing to debris/disappear just to make things make sense. We might not get to larger scale ruins until we get to that part officially, dev-wise.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: ← Using these is a thing of courtesy to both new players and Toady. (click to show/hide)
(I think it's sufficiently removed.) I recall quite a bit of fiction or history, from Morrowind, China, and The King of Dragon Pass that include kinds of ancestor worship in place of god worship, thinking of them as guardians or sources of divination. Are you planning on going in that direction when you take care of religions?Okay, seeeecret question under the spoiler:Spoiler (click to show/hide)Spoiler: We already have varieties of... (click to show/hide)
Post by: sweitx on December 10, 2010, 04:05:06 pm
Quote from: Desdichado
when will item decay and item damage make it in? Will decay hit even mundane objects like chalices and doors? And will decay exist in worldgen, too, in some abstract form?
Decay already occurs for things like doors, although it is hard to see in practice most of the time. I'm not sure when we'll get item damage. When there's a big combat push, I imagine it'll be up there now. I don't have it yet, but I'm pretty sure we'll see some objects in stockpiles passing to debris/disappear just to make things make sense. We might not get to larger scale ruins until we get to that part officially, dev-wise.
In that vein, will cotton candy items suffer from decay and battle damage? Because given how limited supply is, I would hate to have to replace 10 ada shields after every battle, or something along those lines. Steel/iron shields I wouldn't mind replacing, but the blue metal is significantly more difficult to stock up on.
I would hazard a guess that item decay and battle damage scales with the strength of the material.
Admantium items may be completely indestructable (suffers no decay nor battle damage).
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 10, 2010, 04:10:00 pm
Post by: codezero on December 10, 2010, 04:50:44 pm
Post by: Neonivek on December 10, 2010, 09:49:31 pm
Post by: Quatch on December 10, 2010, 11:45:03 pm
Post by: bowdown2q on December 11, 2010, 12:02:24 am
With the new caravan focus on trading, will we get any improvements to the fortress mode trade screen? I'm thinking about commands like mass-select; trade all but bins; list things by type (armor/food/raw materials); don't display mandate violating items; etc.
In this vein, Will we get the ability to cull/select by material? For instance, culling all wood items would be great in case I miss one when trading to elves.
Post by: Areyar on December 11, 2010, 04:18:09 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Such as here: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=3683.msg54948#msg54948
Sorry, I would have deleted this post...but could not.
So... nice work on that decay rate T, now that goods have become consumable, trade makes more sense.
Now we need individuals buying or just grabbing those goods, even if they are not yet using that flute to make music, owning it will give a nice happy thought in the meantime. :)
Post by: Cruxador on December 11, 2010, 04:32:12 am
This is more a suggestion, but hell...The "known world" thing is probably largely pointless, as there is no meaningful way to explore from Dwarf mode, nor any real reason to want to. And as far as I know, that will remain unchanged indefinitely.
In adventure mode, the part of the map visible to you depends on the civ you start from.
How about extending this 'known world' info into dwarfmode and allow only settling in the area known (or slightly beyond)?
Alternatively, with caravan roleplay being developed,
How about leading the expedition from the mountainhomes to where you strike the earth as an adventurer?
This former should probably be optional, to avoid alienating DF purists. I feel something like this would create a stronger link between dwarf and advenurer mode, as you will want to create an adventurer to explore.
Prospecting for good spots could be a quest too.
It's unclear what exactly your green thing is supposed to mean. If you mean an adventurer starting off a fortress, then the current plan doesn't really combine the modes that much. You could do it, but it won't be the same as Dwarf Fortress.
If you mean one of the start scenarios, and use a retired adventurer, then would be an awesome option to have, but I don't see it as one that most people would use much.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on December 11, 2010, 07:11:19 am
Post by: Areyar on December 11, 2010, 07:35:07 am
What I meant was:
starting a fortress would be only possible in explored territory,
forcing you to explore with an adventurer to establish a fortress further out if you don't find a nice location nearby.
Not a DF-lite in adv-mode, but just interconnectedness.
My concept of an adventurer-expedition:
1- select dwarfs and equipment as normal during embark, select site.
2- adventure-travel from home location to site
3- end adventuremode, start fortressmode.
4- strike the earth!
Also being limited to territory gives some meaning to choosing the dwarf civ to start from,
besides the initially invisible equipment/animal availability and the (currently) non-issue of politics.
The idea is that fortresses die, just like adventurers, and the world goes on to provide opportunities for new histories of avarice and vice.
I realise that most worlds never live beyond a single fortress.
This is one reason why it is a big wish that abandoned fortresses will continue on in some way in a future release of DF. Reducing the reluctance to abandon a succesfull fortress to play several adventurers and start a new fortress in the same world.
In general, the world, adventure and fortresses need to interact more and more as DF develops and player-actions in one should be carried over to the others. (and Toady is aware of this -> see talk#10)
The introverted nature of DF play is such a waste of the rich worldgen.
(OK, dwarves are by tradition alcoholic, anti-social, recluses that rather dig down than look out a window, but still.)
Another suggestion:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: thvaz on December 11, 2010, 08:35:52 am
Post by: TolyK on December 11, 2010, 08:39:30 am
also narrative is great! those with a good eye can easily get clues for Legends
Post by: Demki on December 11, 2010, 10:27:23 am
I would like the option of being able to start a colony through adventurer. Except that you would need to gather 7 dwarves actually, but you can carry anything you want. the guys come with equipment, so when dwarf sites get fixed that should DEFINITELY become an option.I would like an option to make a HUMAN fortress through adventurer, and watch it fail.
also narrative is great! those with a good eye can easily get clues for Legends
Post by: Untelligent on December 11, 2010, 02:41:54 pm
Post by: Areyar on December 11, 2010, 03:54:50 pm
I must say playability of adventuremode has really improved recently. :D
Post by: Tilla on December 11, 2010, 06:26:14 pm
Post by: Areyar on December 11, 2010, 06:39:12 pm
What annoys me most is not being able to get a wound looked after.
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 11, 2010, 06:44:53 pm
It would add an extra layer of challenge.
Post by: Untelligent on December 11, 2010, 07:36:40 pm
Bogeymen are the worst thing, seriously :O I am thinking of just editing my raws to make them weak little blobs that can't move because they annoy so much
Really? I've yet to meet a pack of bogeymen I couldn't slaughter. Maybe it's because I usually make unarmed fighter/wrestlers. The mental image of grabbing a bogeyman and punching him in the face until he passes out is rather amusing.
Post by: Dradym on December 11, 2010, 07:39:54 pm
also as an alternative to just abandoning the fort
Post by: iceball3 on December 11, 2010, 08:32:18 pm
might it also be possible to leave your fort in the hands of the monarch at some point? so that the dwarf civ can conquer areas, or is something like other uncontrolled fortresses springing up of the dwarf civ?That option is already available, you just need a king/queen in your fort.
also as an alternative to just abandoning the fort
Post by: Untelligent on December 11, 2010, 08:48:25 pm
Post by: Dradym on December 11, 2010, 09:56:33 pm
Post by: 1LeftShroom on December 12, 2010, 11:50:35 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 12, 2010, 03:29:30 pm
Post by: James.Denholm on December 12, 2010, 03:40:42 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 12, 2010, 03:42:06 pm
Post by: Untelligent on December 12, 2010, 03:51:03 pm
Post by: Sizik on December 12, 2010, 04:30:44 pm
Post by: Areyar on December 12, 2010, 05:59:59 pm
Post by: Quatch on December 12, 2010, 07:18:19 pm
Post by: sockless on December 12, 2010, 11:19:25 pm
Post by: Areyar on December 13, 2010, 09:52:54 am
Such as allowing for a dwarf to perform (provisionary) medical acts on himself or restacking coins.
Post by: Quatch on December 13, 2010, 11:06:42 am
Post by: Cruxador on December 13, 2010, 02:36:38 pm
the december report indicated that the "army arc is on the horizon". So I doubt the economy will be the focus all winter. And the current dev goals are focused around adv mode, so you should be fine. This caravan thing is just jointly applicable to fortress mode."the horizon" in this case means "when we're done with this other stuff", which could easily end up being spring or even summer. Although what it is for you depends on where you live, I suppose. It will probably not be winter for me because winter is very short here, for example.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 13, 2010, 02:57:57 pm
Post by: thijser on December 13, 2010, 03:28:39 pm
Post by: Untelligent on December 13, 2010, 03:37:42 pm
the december report indicated that the "army arc is on the horizon". So I doubt the economy will be the focus all winter. And the current dev goals are focused around adv mode, so you should be fine. This caravan thing is just jointly applicable to fortress mode."the horizon" in this case means "when we're done with this other stuff", which could easily end up being spring or even summer. Although what it is for you depends on where you live, I suppose. It will probably not be winter for me because winter is very short here, for example.
Nah, I think this upcoming release won't take any later than, say, early February at the absolute latest. In the December 8th vlog post, he said he was going to work on worldgen stuff a bit more, which probably will be done by the break I expect him to take toward the end of the month for christmas or whatever. Then there'll be a bunch of basic trading-related post-worldgen stuff, which I don't think will take him ALL of January to finish.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 13, 2010, 03:40:41 pm
Post by: Areyar on December 13, 2010, 04:59:05 pm
A single living entity would be able to become any one of undead creatures...but not multiple of them obviously.
zombie-> skelleton could be a special case of undead transition. Though personally I'd prefer to have zombies degrade and just die.
Classically, animated skeletons are more powerfull (and more difficult to create) than zombies.
Zombies are easier because they stil have tissues that help keep the body together. Once the zombie degrades and becomes a pile of bones, it could be reanimated to a skeleton, but this should require some kind of magic reservoir.
This preference could be my Warhammer and D&D upbringing indoctrinating me though, many perverted undead concepts are possible. :p
Post by: Rexfelum on December 13, 2010, 08:10:37 pm
Classically, animated skeletons are more powerfull (and more difficult to create) . . .
Zombies are easier because they stil have tissues that help keep the body together. . . .
This preference could be my Warhammer and D&D upbringing indoctrinating me though
Really? I was looking forward to reading what "classical" source said skeletons were tougher, since it is exactly my D&D upbringing that told me that zombies were tougher. I've since decided that skeletons must in fact be harder to make (and probably harder to destroy), for the reasons you give, and thus I've moved on from D&D's definitions.
Has D&D changed its mind in recent editions?
--Rexfelum
Post by: Organum on December 13, 2010, 09:00:45 pm
Post by: Cruxador on December 13, 2010, 09:20:10 pm
This new blog post excites me because it seems to imply that a wonderful agrarian fortress could actually work. Now all we need is for Dwarves to clothe themselves properly.Why would they want to, though? It's just a waste of good cloth, as things stand.
I suppose it would make sense for Nobles to require clothes, but for everyone to do it seems silly.
Post by: Untelligent on December 13, 2010, 09:22:14 pm
Wild mass guessing on the new animals time! Alpacas, anyone?
Post by: SalmonGod on December 13, 2010, 09:33:08 pm
Post by: CharlesPeter on December 13, 2010, 09:42:04 pm
Post by: G-Flex on December 13, 2010, 09:42:56 pm
I love how it's only two lines and yet implies so much stuff.
It doesn't imply anything he hasn't already stated probably a dozen times. You ought to look into recent DF talks and wherever else he's talked about this, because he's gone into some detail before.
Post by: monk12 on December 13, 2010, 09:46:15 pm
Post by: Untelligent on December 13, 2010, 09:54:05 pm
Post by: monk12 on December 13, 2010, 09:58:14 pm
Post by: Greiger on December 13, 2010, 10:56:05 pm
Any thoughts on how those things are going to work when applied to a fortress race? Would a sheep-men civ be able to shave eachother to produce wool trade goods? Lizard or birdmen lay eggs and carry them around like babies? Or is it currently looking like they'll pretty much ignore that kind of stuff and make an omlette out of their young?
Solves babysplosions anyway.
Post by: Dante on December 14, 2010, 12:28:57 am
Post by: DeKaFu on December 14, 2010, 12:37:08 am
Post by: Rexfelum on December 14, 2010, 12:40:20 am
I realized something. We can already make "biscuits" with flour in them. Usually, this isn't too close to a planet Earth recipe. Now, however, we just might have flour, eggs, oil, and milk. Yes! We can do it! We can finally put together all the ingredients to make a . . .
. . .
. . . "roast." Wait a minute.
In other news, mentioning this to the person on the phone with me right now got the plaintive declaration "I have a cake roast!"
--Rexfelum
Post by: Knigel on December 14, 2010, 02:24:43 am
Post by: Untelligent on December 14, 2010, 02:26:52 am
Post by: zwei on December 14, 2010, 02:41:03 am
I hope that "hair" butchering result is now raw material for wool thread instead of cluttering stockpiles...
Post by: Urist McDepravity on December 14, 2010, 03:19:10 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 14, 2010, 04:35:31 am
Post by: TomiTapio on December 14, 2010, 04:49:15 am
This new blog post excites me because it seems to imply that a wonderful agrarian fortress could actually work. Now all we need is for Dwarves to clothe themselves properly.And for cloaks and robes to stop absorbing way too much incoming slashing and blunt damage. (spread over large surface area -bug) (Try robes vs. vest&pants arena battle)
ps. a few more animals in vanilla DF is very unimportant to us modders. But a get-thread-from-animal feature...
Post by: Ozyton on December 14, 2010, 04:57:04 am
I'm a bit excited about wool myself, but maybe it's just because I hate the cold.
I wonder how it would work, You would obviously need to process the wool at one of the workshops to get thread or yarn perhaps?
Clay could be nice as well to make pottery... however, since dwarves don't use plates, cups, jugs, or anything of that sort to eat it seems it would be a bit pointless maybe? It would probably be easy, put chests in a dining hall and they will put silverware in them and get happy thoughts from using them while eating? Would probably just be a pain though.
What other use would Clay have? Alternatives to buckets?
You know what I'd really like that I think I've mentioned before? A 2x2 or 3x3 'building' that's essentially a huge-ass barrel that your dwarves can fill with a whole ton of booze. They could just go to the barrel, fill their mugs, and then enjoy rather than dunking their heads in smaller barrels... Or be more old-fashioned and stick their dirty mouths to the faucet and chug from the tap.
Post by: therahedwig on December 14, 2010, 05:03:07 am
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 14, 2010, 06:41:55 am
Post by: zwei on December 14, 2010, 07:20:15 am
Are there plans to make changes to animal/unit list to better handle large number of units (i.e., filters, searching, sorting ... all that kinds of "boring business application" perks)
And, then there is one suggestion for preventing huge numbers of various animals: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=72968.0
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 14, 2010, 07:56:26 am
Post by: tps12 on December 14, 2010, 08:29:41 am
Will 'milking' be replaced by some generic animal resource gathering skill of some sort?
I doubt it. That's how modders have hacked in wool in the past, but it makes sheep's milk (and hence cheese) impossible. My guess is there will just be a new "Shear animal" job in the farmer's workshop, but who knows.
Can't really say how excited I am for wool, one of my favorite materials IRL. I expect we'll be able to spin it into yarn, but it would be cool to be able to make felt cloth as an alternative if it's early on and you don't have a loom or a spinner who can use it.
Eggs should be interesting too. If they just randomly pop out of poultry then you'll need to keep making omelets just to avoid an FPS-draining eggsplosion.
Post by: Starver on December 14, 2010, 09:32:52 am
[/quote]
(Late late late late late reply on this, I know, but I've only just gotten the time to even attempt to trawl this thread, but am too impatient to leave this point until I get to the end, so...)
With fully implementable moving fortress sections (e.g. several relative reciprocal movements capable of causing absolute movements of the whole) I can see the megaprojects starting off with "pull lever A to raise central foot and rest on outrigger pylons, pull lever B to move foot forwards, unpull lever to lower central foot, unpull lever B to return foot to back and send fortress forward a notch, rinse, repeat" as a proof of concept, and ending up with dwarflogic-controlled cyclic mechanisms sending a multi-legged mecha-fortress 'beastie' scuttling (in a large-scale slow motion way, of course) across the landscape, needing pressure-plates mounted against the legendary leg-ends to reliably take account of landscape contours and ensure that[1] the whole structure doesn't trip over a small rocky outcrop, pile into an inconvenient cliff-face or dive straight over a precipice.
(Although small soiltype-only rises in the landscape having their tops scraped off by an itinerant limb would be interesting. And a valuable clue as to what had happened with your mobile city if you'd turned up in Adventure mode, set it going and then accidentally fell off the side due to one of the inevitable shifts the structure would need to endure, being knocked unconscious for long enough for it to wander off under only its pre-programmed automatic control. :) )
[1] Especially once it's no longer possible that one wall tile near the edge can obliquely support a huge and otherwise 'floating' castle over the top of almost all of the rest of the map, without some form of dislocation/collapse at the most least reinforced stress-point!
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 14, 2010, 09:49:34 am
Chickens have the advantage of being very adamant about where they lay eggs and they accept human made nesting opportunities pretty fast. So you can set up nesting boxes before you move in the chickens so that they will nest on them. Btw. parting the cocks from the chickens isnt needed* even if a egg is fertilized its still eatable right after it is Layed if you gather and cool the eggs they still as eatable as unfertilized eggs. Also you dont need a cock to get eggs.
Chickens (well more modern breeds) grow also very fast. In 8 to 12 weeks they reach theyr Butchering weight and only need 1.5 Kilograms to grow 1kg of meat. For most other (modern) Farm animals you need 4 (pigs) to 10 Kilograms (cows) of food per Kilogram meat. The pig-breed "Yorkshire-pig" gathers btw. 750g of meat per day.
* In modern times male chicks get seperated from Egg-laying breeds. Same goes for female chicks in breeds that are grown for theyr meat. Said chicks get gassed and exported to zoos, snake-owners etc. or sqisched in a Chicksqischer (more like shreddere). The chick-shred goes then, among other industrys, into pet-food and fertilizer.
Post by: Areyar on December 14, 2010, 10:57:15 am
- A single multitile building, like bridges, but only enclosing instead of covering?
(would require some hardcoding to get animals in and out)
- Wall-like constructions, that allow ingress, but not egress of animals...?
! --> I was also wondering how difficult it would be to expand the custom pathing values to include directionality? (e.g. like restricted to the east, high traffic to the west and normal value to the other cardinal directions)
- I'd love a some type of herding job, for animal caretakers, who could be assisted by huntingdogs...
(I suspect this could be handled with a modified squad coherency AI, not sure how FPS would fare with animals trying to get away and being dragged back by dogs)
Post by: Quatch on December 14, 2010, 11:03:34 am
Post by: tps12 on December 14, 2010, 11:09:16 am
- I'd love a some type of herding job, for animal caretakers, who could be assisted by huntingdogs...
Hunting dogs don't herd. They hunt!
Post by: bowdown2q on December 14, 2010, 11:19:38 am
I think a farm plot would be the better building analogy for a (fenced) pasture. Assign animals like a cage. Really, the cage works mechanically, its just too small.
cages also prevent breeding, which can be an issue if you need it, although I've only ever needed to force breeding when I had 2 giant desert scorpions - every other fort was so full of puppies that 'puppy liver roast' was the #1 menu item.
...is anyone else thinking about weaponized beehives? If we have pottery and bees, then it's only a short jump to catapulting enraged bees into goblin sieges.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 14, 2010, 11:21:05 am
I think a farm plot would be the better building analogy for a (fenced) pasture. Assign animals like a cage. Really, the cage works mechanically, its just too small.
Yes that could work. include a door and some wall bars or grates as fence and its all set.
Post by: therahedwig on December 14, 2010, 12:04:35 pm
Quoting for emphasis.- I'd love a some type of herding job, for animal caretakers, who could be assisted by huntingdogs...
Hunting dogs don't herd. They hunt!
I wouldn't want a hunting dog to herd my sheep on the princible that hunting dogs are to scare animals out of hiding(and will bite for the kill), and you wouldn't want your flock of sheep to panic. Especcially because sheep+panic+corridors of a fortress = FUN like only dwarf fortress can give it to you.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 14, 2010, 01:01:13 pm
Post by: Ratbert_CP on December 14, 2010, 01:01:26 pm
Quoting for emphasis.- I'd love a some type of herding job, for animal caretakers, who could be assisted by huntingdogs...
Hunting dogs don't herd. They hunt!
I wouldn't want a hunting dog to herd my sheep on the princible that hunting dogs are to scare animals out of hiding(and will bite for the kill), and you wouldn't want your flock of sheep to panic. Especcially because sheep+panic+corridors of a fortress+booze+fire = !!FUN!! like only dwarf fortress can give it to you.
Fixed that for you...
Post by: mendonca on December 14, 2010, 01:20:18 pm
[1] Especially once it's no longer possible that one wall tile near the edge can obliquely support a huge and otherwise 'floating' castle over the top of almost all of the rest of the map, without some form of dislocation/collapse at the most least reinforced stress-point!
Of course, even if this does ever get implemented it would still be possible, provided the material strength at the point of stress is such that it can support the thing ... ;)
Post by: Demki on December 14, 2010, 01:37:46 pm
Actually, that's wrong, the game uses ‼, not !!. Also, he wasn't talking about ‼Fun‼, he was talking about Fun. He didn't mention fire in any way.Quoting for emphasis.- I'd love a some type of herding job, for animal caretakers, who could be assisted by huntingdogs...
Hunting dogs don't herd. They hunt!
I wouldn't want a hunting dog to herd my sheep on the princible that hunting dogs are to scare animals out of hiding(and will bite for the kill), and you wouldn't want your flock of sheep to panic. Especcially because sheep+panic+corridors of a fortress+booze+fire = !!FUN!! like only dwarf fortress can give it to you.
Fixed that for you...
Post by: Areyar on December 14, 2010, 01:58:17 pm
Hey that sounds like an awesome new trap. Spatter pigs in oil light them on fire and make sure that they panic-stampede into the directions of the goblins.:lol:
Sheep would be better at that, being -in essence- absorbant balls of fluff on legs.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 14, 2010, 02:04:33 pm
... only in dwarf fortress.
Post by: G-Flex on December 14, 2010, 02:56:52 pm
Actually, that's wrong, the game uses ‼, not !!. Also, he wasn't talking about ‼Fun‼, he was talking about Fun. He didn't mention fire in any way.Quoting for emphasis.- I'd love a some type of herding job, for animal caretakers, who could be assisted by huntingdogs...
Hunting dogs don't herd. They hunt!
I wouldn't want a hunting dog to herd my sheep on the princible that hunting dogs are to scare animals out of hiding(and will bite for the kill), and you wouldn't want your flock of sheep to panic. Especcially because sheep+panic+corridors of a fortress+booze+fire = !!FUN!! like only dwarf fortress can give it to you.
Fixed that for you...
I like how you focus on the fact that he used the wrong ASCII characters instead of the fact that booze doesn't burn well at all, in DF or in real life.
Post by: Areyar on December 14, 2010, 02:59:36 pm
also: ah, so boozeplosions are an arcis myth...interesting.
Post by: Ratbert_CP on December 14, 2010, 02:59:55 pm
Actually, that's wrong, the game uses ‼, not !!. Also, he wasn't talking about ‼Fun‼, he was talking about Fun. He didn't mention fire in any way.Quoting for emphasis.- I'd love a some type of herding job, for animal caretakers, who could be assisted by huntingdogs...
Hunting dogs don't herd. They hunt!
I wouldn't want a hunting dog to herd my sheep on the princible that hunting dogs are to scare animals out of hiding(and will bite for the kill), and you wouldn't want your flock of sheep to panic. Especcially because sheep+panic+corridors of a fortress+booze+fire = ‼FUN‼ like only dwarf fortress can give it to you.
Fixed that for you...
Edit: I retract my disagreement. However, lacking the mad keyboarding skillz to generate a ‼, I used two adjacent bangs. I have fixed all occurrences in this reply.
Post by: PTTG?? on December 14, 2010, 03:04:53 pm
Sheep Fortress.
Your dwarves are sheep. They can be trimmed periodically. Consider this.
Post by: SalmonGod on December 14, 2010, 03:13:16 pm
Ahem.
Sheep Fortress.
Your dwarves are sheep. They can be trimmed periodically. Consider this.
So they can wear clothing woven from their own beards?
Post by: Sowelu on December 14, 2010, 03:17:00 pm
Post by: Areyar on December 14, 2010, 03:17:30 pm
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 14, 2010, 03:18:25 pm
Ahem.
Sheep Fortress.
Your dwarves are sheep. They can be trimmed periodically. Consider this.
Your dwarves will not be happy about this. Prepare for a facepunch epidemic.
Post by: bowdown2q on December 14, 2010, 03:22:35 pm
Yeah well on the other hand pigs have a tremendous amount of fat that would burn after the oil is gone. Also they are are much stronger and heavier which makes them more deadly.
... only in dwarf fortress.
Actually, the Romans used incendiary pigs fairly often. 600lbs of flaming, screaming, hoofed fat comes running at you, you get out of the way. They also have a tendency to explode, due to the fat boiling away before the skin breeches, leading to over-pressurizing.
Post by: SalmonGod on December 14, 2010, 03:23:54 pm
Let's not go there, lest the subject of milk come up. Just...no.
The fluffy wambler tickles Urist in the lower body, but it's deflected by the -dwarf beard loincloth-!
Post by: Ozyton on December 14, 2010, 03:29:58 pm
Animals that get fed more often produce milk/eggs/wool a bit more often than those that go without food for long periods of time, maybe?
Post by: Fieari on December 14, 2010, 03:33:34 pm
Post by: Kesc on December 14, 2010, 03:35:47 pm
Post by: tps12 on December 14, 2010, 03:50:26 pm
Post by: Quatch on December 14, 2010, 05:11:20 pm
How about clay pots: the alternative to wooden barrels/bins that you can sell to the elves...(Or maybe not, as it would probly involve baking and thus wood... But even then most river-clays can harden fine by themselves so baking shouldn't be required...)
baking is required to make the clay vitrify. Without that it will return to mud when you wet it. A low-fired piece is probably not going to be water tight (you can get close by buffing the surface with excruciatingly fine clay) unless glazed. Lead glazes were popular because they fire at low temperatures.
Also, I hope that we can fire multiple pieces at once, or make barrel sized pieces (One less requirement for trees). And magma pottery kilns. mmmmm.
Post by: Ozyton on December 14, 2010, 05:24:44 pm
Post by: rex mortis on December 14, 2010, 06:13:11 pm
Now that the economy is being worked on, will adventure mode trading be improved?
Post by: Lord Vetinari on December 14, 2010, 06:24:13 pm
Are you planing stuffs like independent civ evolution, being those based on their resources and knowledge, on the world gen? Something like tribals, then small cities, then nations... While others don't evolve because they have no resources(Like Colombo going to America). Each one evolving their own language... Something like prehistory to middle ages.
It's not really lack of resources, it's lack of interaction with other civilizations and cultures.
Post by: Flaede on December 14, 2010, 06:53:40 pm
Yeah well on the other hand pigs have a tremendous amount of fat that would burn after the oil is gone. Also they are are much stronger and heavier which makes them more deadly.
... only in dwarf fortress.
Actually, the Romans used incendiary pigs fairly often. 600lbs of flaming, screaming, hoofed fat comes running at you, you get out of the way. They also have a tendency to explode, due to the fat boiling away before the skin breeches, leading to over-pressurizing.
Source PLZ.
Post by: SalmonGod on December 14, 2010, 06:59:42 pm
Yeah well on the other hand pigs have a tremendous amount of fat that would burn after the oil is gone. Also they are are much stronger and heavier which makes them more deadly.
... only in dwarf fortress.
Actually, the Romans used incendiary pigs fairly often. 600lbs of flaming, screaming, hoofed fat comes running at you, you get out of the way. They also have a tendency to explode, due to the fat boiling away before the skin breeches, leading to over-pressurizing.
Source PLZ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pig
Post by: Orkel on December 14, 2010, 07:05:00 pm
Edit:
If it is simulated in the current system, it sure doesn't show.
Post by: Dae on December 14, 2010, 07:16:05 pm
Are you planing stuffs like independent civ evolution, being those based on their resources and knowledge, on the world gen? Something like tribals, then small cities, then nations... While others don't evolve because they have no resources(Like Colombo going to America). Each one evolving their own language... Something like prehistory to middle ages.
I had something to say, but I feared I would publicly pinpoint a subject that would make the thread potentially explode, and we don't want that.
I would love to see ethics being tracked down and interacting with each other. For example, a civilisation worshipping dreams would consider extremely evil to wake someone up and make this a capital punishment, but at some point a road connects them with another civilisation who doesn't see it as a problem. Then they could enter wars or one civilisation could talk the other into using its system or at least not to be bothered with it.
I think there was a DFTalk about this subject, somewhere...
This raises the question of different lifestyles, architecturally and economically. Are variations of lifestyle inside a race, without regards to ethics, planned to go in, like an entire human civilisation being nomad, or building temporary cities that are destroyed every 2 years, or food/water/cattle being considered a common property and handled at the hamlet/village level instead of personnal level, or houses built in a circle instead of a square, or underground instead of aboveground ?
Technological evolutions have been discussed countless times. We more or less settle for the fact that while it would be fun to watch inventions and technology spawn and spread and be stolen, we don't have in a common Fantasy world much to discover and thus we would probably be more annoyed by the absence of features than we would be pleased by discovering them.
Post by: dree12 on December 14, 2010, 08:16:31 pm
Does the current combat system take into account "angles of impact"? Or does that fall under square shots? If angles were calculated somehow, it would allow stuff like steel swords to sometimes deflect off copper armor because of a glancing blow/bad angle. Would balance the "lower grade" armor metals and make them at least a little bit useful compared to now. It happens rarely if at all in the current system.I've seen it happen quite often (steel deflecting off iron) when I try a very non-square attack in adv. mode. It probably happens rarely because the creatures all choose the most square shots.
Edit:
If it is simulated in the current system, it sure doesn't show.
Post by: Untelligent on December 14, 2010, 09:48:36 pm
Post by: monk12 on December 14, 2010, 09:52:05 pm
Will 'milking' be replaced by some generic animal resource gathering skill of some sort?
Green'd that for ya
Yeah well on the other hand pigs have a tremendous amount of fat that would burn after the oil is gone. Also they are are much stronger and heavier which makes them more deadly.
... only in dwarf fortress.
Actually, the Romans used incendiary pigs fairly often. 600lbs of flaming, screaming, hoofed fat comes running at you, you get out of the way. They also have a tendency to explode, due to the fat boiling away before the skin breeches, leading to over-pressurizing.
Source PLZ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pig
You may have seen it in the game Rome: Total War, although that is hardly a good source.
Post by: SalmonGod on December 14, 2010, 09:54:38 pm
On a similar note to the flaming pigs as noted above, I seem to recall reading somewhere about an ancient Chinese weapon involving a great wad of explosives strapped to an ox. They'd give the ox a whack and send it off in the direction of the enemy.
Dogs carried explosives against fortifications and armored vehicles up to fairly recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_dog
Post by: Cruxador on December 15, 2010, 12:02:41 am
Will dwarves (and those poor goblins whose friends got roasted) learn a healthy fear of fire soon? At least improved sieges would require this, I think.The answer to that second question is "yes".
Now that the economy is being worked on, will adventure mode trading be improved?
Post by: Knigel on December 15, 2010, 01:42:54 am
I like how you focus on the fact that he used the wrong ASCII characters instead of the fact that booze doesn't burn well at all, in DF or in real life.
Depends on the proof.
Will dwarves (and those poor goblins whose friends got roasted) learn a healthy fear of fire soon? At least improved sieges would require this, I think.
Now that the economy is being worked on, will adventure mode trading be improved?
Proper response to fire issues and implementing fire-fighting are both mentioned in the dev wish-list.
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 15, 2010, 07:33:04 am
Will 'milking' be replaced by some generic animal resource gathering skill of some sort?
Green'd that for yaYeah well on the other hand pigs have a tremendous amount of fat that would burn after the oil is gone. Also they are are much stronger and heavier which makes them more deadly.
... only in dwarf fortress.
Actually, the Romans used incendiary pigs fairly often. 600lbs of flaming, screaming, hoofed fat comes running at you, you get out of the way. They also have a tendency to explode, due to the fat boiling away before the skin breeches, leading to over-pressurizing.
Source PLZ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pig
You may have seen it in the game Rome: Total War, although that is hardly a good source.
There's no reliable source to suggest that incendiary pigs were ever used at all, let alone widely.
Post by: Starver on December 15, 2010, 07:59:50 am
I think I'd like to play AS a villian/night creature. You know, roaming from town to town, converting the population into horrific creatures at my command? Eventually I'd have a "Children Golem" division for extended psychological sieges.That could be doable, given these bits:Quote from: Adventurer Role: Slayer of Night Creatures
- Curses and exposure
- Can be cursed by night creatures when you put them down
- The slaves of night creatures could have extreme effects from proximity that also affect you if you make a business of hunting them
Semi-related to the above, in a recent re-aquaintence with Adventurer Mode, I had a thought about "how do I know this boss is really bad?" A curse might force alignment with other forces, but what if the Boss instead of (repeatedly! even when he doesn't know I'm there!) shouting threats at me were to convince me (as a player, if not as a character) that he's more Robin Hood than anything else?
I'd bring the following aspects into this equation:
Quote from: DevLog page
Adventurer Mode: Hero
Villains
...Generally, "villians" are just leaders of groups you oppose at the time...
Capturing people alive and interrogations
Allowing people to lie also applying to the "honest" villagers who send you out to raid the camp. (They may have been lied to by their very own Sheriff of Mukcanesepum.)
Reputation
Reputation with entity populations, site governments, families and individuals (and other Reputation items)
Adventurer Role: Thief
Bounties and being hunted
(Various, but mainly) If your identity/appearance is associated to an alert over a crime, somebody responsible in the entity should put a bounty on you if appropriate for the entity
Concealing your identity
(Various of these could be involved)
Post by: Chthonic on December 15, 2010, 08:29:06 am
Post by: Areyar on December 15, 2010, 09:14:38 am
When the basics are working, more variation is welcome, but right now it is only a potential source of disruptive bugs and a distraction to Toady.
Post by: G-Flex on December 15, 2010, 09:27:25 am
Post by: Dae on December 15, 2010, 09:53:59 am
Post by: thvaz on December 15, 2010, 10:59:10 am
Things like wool and feather and eggs seem pretty basic to me.
Eggs won't just a food item on DF. Creatures have to lay them, hatch from them, and besides all the stolen dragon egg is a staple on fantasy literature.
Post by: Areyar on December 15, 2010, 11:38:10 am
Or in DF more likely [material:random] [offspring:egg]
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on December 15, 2010, 11:42:27 am
Post by: Starver on December 15, 2010, 12:02:43 pm
I sort of had the idea that that was what ClownMetal was all about. Something HFS couldn't interact with. Either some form of their own private Kryptonite, or an Unobtanium shell impervious to their effects. (The fact that when the shell is breached they currentlyWhat would prevent the clowns from coming straight from the H.F.S. Clown Car to your wagon at embark? If they really want to Entertain (i.e., bring FunTM to) the world's children, and they can swim through rock...Spoiler: HFS rock swimming (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
And on another matter I was previously tempted to reply to. (Probably already addressed.)
Quote
If you shift from (a six-limbed creature with a wound to the middle left limb) to a human, I'd expect you actually shift to (a human with a significant wound on the of your lower abdomen/back). Bleeding is bleeding - you can't shift to a human and mosey off to the dang hospital.My thoughts too. Heavy laceration to a limb that you 'reabsorb' and no longer have would be damage to the skin on the side of the torso that mapped directly (not necessarily precisely in code, just in general abstraction) to the where the limb emerged. A broken bone within the limb might relate to a rib in that location, but that's a dodgier relationship.
OTOH, while the talk (so far as I have read) has been a matter of defining primary and secondary upper limb-pairs, etc, and an assumption that a second set of arms (e.g. as an additional to the 'usual' tetrapedal limbs in a creature having a bipedal stance) would bud from the same part of the body as non-primary wings might (e.g. from the back/spine area of a tetrapod with quadrapedal stance). In some ways, this could be something we could make use of 'inconstencies' in the raws for.
e.g. A polymorphic creature in the form of a griffin or pegasus could have forelegs (left and right), hind legs (ditto) and wings (also paired). Changing into a centaur, are their forelegs now their arms and the wings the forelegs? The wings migrated 'up' the torso and are the arms, with the quadruped stance staying as-was? I'd be tempted for the wings (including any damage) to retreat into the mid-torso while the neck of the griffin/pegasus morph into the torso (sketching over, very briefly, whether the horse/lionish-ish arrangement of internal organs needs redistrubiting or doubling up into the 'new' chest cavity area) and buds its arms. Injuries to the pegasus wings would be reflected in a back injuries of the centaur. Injuries to the arms of the centaur might be neck/upper shoulder injuries in the pegasus form. But add a humaniform into that equation. Human arms == centaur arms? Or pegasus forelegs? Arghh! Unless you are happy for griffon wings to traverse down into pegasus forelimbs (morphing as they go) the only real solution is that both pegasus and centaur forelimbs 'debud' into the pelvis that the entire quadrapedal torso concertinas into while transforming the four lower limbs (and 'main' trunk of the body) into a two-legged lower half.
From a DF POV, this doesn't need much actual thought (at least not until some 3D graphical revamp of the future, if it remains unobstructed by a 'modesty shimmer' or similar effect). Possibly conflate (and average out) damage and injury to a lower limb of a beast form into the combined single lower limb of that side. (Monopods, of however many upper limbs, would combine all previous limb damage into their now sole pedestal.)
Logically, of course, a spider-form might have a number of relationships to a biped. I would tend to go for the three rear pairs of limbs marked as equivalent to lower limbs of a biped, the foremost ones being arm-equivalent manipulators, and thus having that connection. (Mandibles could be considered distortions of mouth-parts) Another argument would make all eight legs "lower body". Although biologically-speaking, a perhaps stronger argument would be that all eight legs were 'arms' (coming from the cephalothorax "head/torso" combo segment) and no legs at all sprouting from the abdominal segment(s). Indeed, despite the foremost pair of legs/arms (chilicerae) being the primary handling choice, all limbs could be deemed to have near identical prehensile abilities when it comes to large-scale work like grabbing and wrapping prey.
So, you (generic Toady-style developer) might be tempted to look at getting something into the raws to make some mapping which need not exactly map between creatures, but could be used as a guide. As an infrequent MODder (getting stuff like War Elephants is the top end of what I'd normally poke away to obtain) I've just looked at the GCS details, but can't actually spot the "there are eight legs" bit, at first glance, so can't see easily how limb damage on that entity might relate upon change to (say) Slugman form. Or Giant Earthworm. But as there's likely to be further raw changes between now and that future point in time where its possible I'm going to hold off suggesting the exact mechanisms in coding (for guesswork) or markup (where explicit relationships can be made between bodyform components) might be used.
Does that make sense? I sense not.
Post by: madciol on December 15, 2010, 12:21:31 pm
Post by: Kesc on December 15, 2010, 01:56:52 pm
Are you planing stuffs like independent civ evolution, being those based on their resources and knowledge, on the world gen? Something like tribals, then small cities, then nations... While others don't evolve because they have no resources(Like Colombo going to America). Each one evolving their own language... Something like prehistory to middle ages.
It's not really lack of resources, it's lack of interaction with other civilizations and cultures.
That too.
Imagine if cavemen had no stones to make weapons, they'll need another way to survive. European/asian civilizations evolved because they had resources, they had opportunities to grow. Just compare Mesopotamia with tribes from central Africa. Why some civilizations growed while others didn't? It wasn't only social interaction, the natural world can f*ck up a whole civ.
They survive with what they have and take different ways, and that changes their way of thinking, culture and, of course, their body(Africa = hot = black people; Europe = somewhat cold = White people, no racism).
Post by: Rose on December 15, 2010, 02:00:21 pm
Post by: Kesc on December 15, 2010, 02:13:37 pm
europe has a harsher climate than tropical places. that makes people have to invent shit to live better.Well... Don't know exactly why they did that, maybe I was wrong, but they needed to.
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 15, 2010, 02:19:07 pm
europe has a harsher climate than tropical places. that makes people have to invent shit to live better.Which is why the mainland Europe, Britain, etc. stayed barbaric until civilised from the outside (by conquering Rome, which still is an outside influence)
---
I always though it's availability of food that allows a civilisation to develop. To come up with crazy inventions, you need people who can work full-time at things like metalsmithing, architecture, philosophy, etc... to have these "specialists", there must be enough people around to buy the specialists' services. It all comes down to population density: if it is high enough, specialists will start popping up, if it is low, people will never get out of the barbaric farmers/herders phase. That's what happened in the Fertile Crescent, in comparison to, say, the barbaric mainland Europe.
Only then, once you have civilisations in areas of dense population, trade starts to matter. Easy access (= sea, and ideally an inland sea) to other civilised places allows for (and forces) continued development, as ideas can (and inevitably will) be exchanged. The civilisations will also start civilising the barbaric places, either by colonisation and assimilation or by force. Again, this is how civilisation spread from Mediterranean to mainland Europe.
Well... that was my personal Euro-centric analysis of the history of the world. 8)
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 15, 2010, 02:21:44 pm
Post by: Orkel on December 15, 2010, 02:43:17 pm
Does the current combat system take into account "angles of impact"? Or does that fall under square shots? If angles were calculated somehow, it would allow stuff like steel swords to sometimes deflect off copper armor because of a glancing blow/bad angle. Would balance the "lower grade" armor metals and make them at least a little bit useful compared to now. It happens rarely if at all in the current system.I've seen it happen quite often (steel deflecting off iron) when I try a very non-square attack in adv. mode. It probably happens rarely because the creatures all choose the most square shots.
Edit:
If it is simulated in the current system, it sure doesn't show.
Choosing what area to attack should depend on observer/fighter skill. Would likely make for more deflections. Kinda silly that dabbling soldiers always aim for square shots even when they don't know anything about fighting.
Post by: Quatch on December 15, 2010, 02:43:31 pm
europe has a harsher climate than tropical places. that makes people have to invent shit to live better.
Geographic determinism is quite passe now. Turned out just to be veiled racism.
Maya, Inca, Zulu, ancient Indian (not native american), Polynesian, Hawaian, Korean, etc, etc, etc. Many non-european climates have had successes.
The trade/resource availability/frequency of natural disaster, now that you could probably make an argument around. Of course it would prove your original point wrong because they did a hell of a lot with poor resources.
Post by: Chthonic on December 15, 2010, 02:56:41 pm
Geographic determinism is quite passe now. Turned out just to be veiled racism.
Maya, Inca, Zulu, ancient Indian (not native american), Polynesian, Hawaian, Korean, etc, etc, etc. Many non-european climates have had successes.
The trade/resource availability/frequency of natural disaster, now that you could probably make an argument around. Of course it would prove your original point wrong because they did a hell of a lot with poor resources.
I'm not sure that it's completely out or necessarily racist. Guns, Germs, and Steel did a good job of saying, basically, that the ground you're standing on is the primary factor in your ability to build a kick-ass civilization (which often proceeds to ass-kick other civilizations). That humans of all sorts are capable of building incredible stuff for a while even under the most unfavorable conditions speaks to the incredible tenacity and ingenuity that we all share as a species.
Post by: TolyK on December 15, 2010, 03:16:07 pm
Post by: Tilla on December 15, 2010, 04:27:26 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on December 15, 2010, 04:36:32 pm
It occurs to me the Devlist doesn't mention any ways of managing wounds in adventure mode. An oversight?
Possibly, but also...
Quote
This page doesn't represent everything we'd like to do. It just has some of the things we're thinking about doing sooner rather than later.
Post by: Ozyton on December 15, 2010, 05:43:53 pm
Same for curses and such, pay a priest to get rid of the curse at a temple.
Post by: Funk on December 15, 2010, 05:53:23 pm
It occurs to me the Devlist doesn't mention any ways of managing wounds in adventure mode. An oversight?no stuff like this in on the todo list some were.
Post by: Nivim on December 15, 2010, 07:02:19 pm
And it's all in the details; that one nail, or that one smith, or that one hick outside of history that burned a certain rock so hot it melted. Possibly on a bet.
(you can get close by buffing the surface with excruciatingly fine clay)This granted me an image of a dwarf crushing clay with his knuckles against rock until it was excruciatingly fine.
Post by: 1freeman on December 15, 2010, 09:34:39 pm
Post by: Chthonic on December 15, 2010, 10:05:04 pm
There are a ridiculous number of factors determining a civilization's failure or success . . .
Your post confuzzles me. I feel like you're scoffing at someone's arguments, but I'm not sure whose.
In any case, to synthesize from the a couple of Jared Diamond books, a civilization's success generally has to do with its geographic and other resources rather than its human intellectual capital (since human ingenuity and capability are pretty well distributed across our entire species). I'm not sure that your assertion of luck holds true at all, except in-so-far-as a civilization is lucky enough to start out in an area that is organized in an east-to-west rather than north-to-south manner and which has a lot of convoluted coastlines.
Post by: Knigel on December 15, 2010, 10:26:38 pm
Same for curses and such, pay a priest to get rid of the curse at a temple.
Just like in Dragon Quest!
Post by: Neonivek on December 15, 2010, 11:32:43 pm
There are a ridiculous number of factors determining a civilization's failure or success . . .
Your post confuzzles me. I feel like you're scoffing at someone's arguments, but I'm not sure whose.
In any case, to synthesize from the a couple of Jared Diamond books, a civilization's success generally has to do with its geographic and other resources rather than its human intellectual capital (since human ingenuity and capability are pretty well distributed across our entire species). I'm not sure that your assertion of luck holds true at all, except in-so-far-as a civilization is lucky enough to start out in an area that is organized in an east-to-west rather than north-to-south manner and which has a lot of convoluted coastlines.
Well the difference is if a civilisation is using its Human intelligence capital to its fullest. Some historians note that one problem with "cheap" slaves for example is that the cheap labor inhibits development of methods to increase production as it is cheaper to work slaves to the ground then to treat them right.
Post by: Quatch on December 16, 2010, 12:42:22 am
I'm not sure that it's completely out or necessarily racist. Guns, Germs, and Steel did a good job of saying, basically, that the ground you're standing on is the primary factor in your ability to build a kick-ass civilization (which often proceeds to ass-kick other civilizations). That humans of all sorts are capable of building incredible stuff for a while even under the most unfavorable conditions speaks to the incredible tenacity and ingenuity that we all share as a species.
I was considering mentioning Diamond's book in my post in support. The thing with geographic determinism is, its founded on the imperialist argument that heat makes you lazy, and thats why the tropic civilizations failed - lack of challenge.
I think we both agree that this is obviously false. However, I can see that you interpret the term differently than me. As I have discarded all of my human geography texts (I am a physical geographer) I can't refer to see if there is a better term :)
In summary, perhaps calling it resource-limited advancement rather than geographically-determined culture?
Post by: Rose on December 16, 2010, 01:06:58 am
It would be great to be able to go to one of the surgeons in a town and pay to get healed.
Same for curses and such, pay a priest to get rid of the curse at a temple.
coming up next: doctors hire bandits.
Post by: Richards on December 16, 2010, 01:15:33 am
Failing to provide tribute would result in there being no more peace with the goblins.
What do you think?
Post by: zwei on December 16, 2010, 02:45:42 am
I'm not sure that it's completely out or necessarily racist. Guns, Germs, and Steel did a good job of saying, basically, that the ground you're standing on is the primary factor in your ability to build a kick-ass civilization (which often proceeds to ass-kick other civilizations). That humans of all sorts are capable of building incredible stuff for a while even under the most unfavorable conditions speaks to the incredible tenacity and ingenuity that we all share as a species.
I was considering mentioning Diamond's book in my post in support. The thing with geographic determinism is, its founded on the imperialist argument that heat makes you lazy, and thats why the tropic civilizations failed - lack of challenge.
I think we both agree that this is obviously false. However, I can see that you interpret the term differently than me. As I have discarded all of my human geography texts (I am a physical geographer) I can't refer to see if there is a better term :)
In summary, perhaps calling it resource-limited advancement rather than geographically-determined culture?
I would not dismiss lack of challenge as easily. Certainly not on a rather hysterical grounds of racism-scare.
My own coutnerarguent to that is, however, that humans tend to fill any potential enviroment to it maximum possible population possible with their technology/resources. Africa has devepoled agriculture and other mechanisms to increase population beyond basic hunter gatherer levels - and "they can get away with just picking bananas" is wrong on so many levels. Challenge is not from eviroment - it is from inner population pressure.
Post by: Rockphed on December 16, 2010, 05:15:20 am
On the topic of the dev thread, I, for one, welcome our alpaca overlords.
Post by: zwei on December 16, 2010, 05:33:56 am
...
He also considers animals huge part of it, nothing how lack of variety of easily domesticated animals affected americas/africa/australia
Post by: Areyar on December 16, 2010, 06:19:15 am
Some of our most domestic animals tend to originate in africa; cows, horses, cats. Dogs and pigs are probably eurasian.
Llamas etc are tamish, cangaroos are also pretty easilly held. iirc.
Domesticatioin in Aus/americas more likely is less because of humans getting there rather later and already having some preferred animals from Africa/europe/asia.
Post by: LoSboccacc on December 16, 2010, 06:52:18 am
Define 'easilly domesticated', domesticated animals are generally descended from wild forebears that were as wild as those from other regions.
Some of our most domestic animals tend to originate in africa; cows, horses, cats. Dogs and pigs are probably eurasian.
Llamas etc are tamish, cangaroos are also pretty easilly held. iirc.
Domesticatioin in Aus/americas more likely is less because of humans getting there rather later and already having some preferred animals from Africa/europe/asia.
there are wild beast with fangs and wild beast without fangs. I'd put this latter category in 'easily domesticated'
how they managed to domesticate wolves so easily and so early remains a mystery to me.
Post by: Rose on December 16, 2010, 07:03:25 am
Post by: SalmonGod on December 16, 2010, 07:12:43 am
how they managed to domesticate wolves so easily and so early remains a mystery to me.
Because of the strict hierarchy of their social instincts?
Assert dominance. Done.
Post by: Areyar on December 16, 2010, 07:16:40 am
Predomesticated pigs have fangs, so do cats. Elephant have tusks...uh so do boar.
Post by: LoSboccacc on December 16, 2010, 07:19:26 am
sharing meat, perhaps?
here! have my arm. nice puppy.
nah, won't work. :D
Post by: Rose on December 16, 2010, 07:23:10 am
Post by: ungulateman on December 16, 2010, 07:47:57 am
Animals have a certain 'personal space' where predators or other threats can be tolerated, because they need to eat. Like zebras, who walk around eating only a couple of meters away from a pack of lions. If the animal is too flighty, it starves. If it's too foolhardy, it'll get eaten. Starvation is generally a bigger issue with pack animals.
Different wolves in a pack would have different personal spaces where they would tolerate humans while they scavenged for food. The more foolhardy ones would survive more often because they would get more food, and early man had better things to do than chase off every scavenger at their camp (and they could escape most of the time anyway). Over a long period of time, these wolves would get used to the presence of humans, and follow them while they were hunting, possibly even assisting them by harrying the animal or distracting it. At some point early man went "These animals could be trained to my benefit!" (and they could), and we end up with what amounts to the precursor of modern dogs. And then we get into selective breeding, which is much more interesting but I'm getting bored and drifting off-topic.
While I'm at it, one of the big reasons Europe was dominant until recent times was its rich soil, especially in the Fertile Crescent. This, combined with a huge amount of viable crops, its wide variety of domestic animals, and the fact that it has a large area of viable land (not having to sail to find new places makes it much easier to advance a civilisation), let them advance the way they did.
Diamond actually points out that Europe only had access to metalworking, philosophy, and almost everything beyond basic survival pretty much solely because of the horse. No other animal is anywhere near as good at work as a horse.
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 16, 2010, 07:56:39 am
Post by: Dae on December 16, 2010, 09:38:31 am
Felines are notably far less subservient than dogs, which suggests that they were tamed accidentally. (Rodents gather around human food stockpiles, the smaller kinds of cats move in to take advantage, man is happy that the cats are killing the rodents stealing his stored plants, so they tolerate one another.)
As for cats, you can really wonder who tamed who.
Post by: PTTG?? on December 16, 2010, 10:07:52 am
Post by: Chthonic on December 16, 2010, 10:45:53 am
As for cats, you can really wonder who tamed who.
One wonders, until one contemplates which member of the partnership is often a.) dressed up in silly costumes, b.) relieved of his or her burdensome gonads, or (if supernumerary) c.) euthanized and packed into barrels pending incineration.
Post by: thvaz on December 16, 2010, 10:49:41 am
As for cats, you can really wonder who tamed who.
One wonders, until one contemplates which member of the partnership is often a.) dressed up in silly costumes, b.) relieved of his or her burdensome gonads, or (if supernumerary) c.) euthanized and packed into barrels pending incineration.
I wish I could implement the first two options on my fortresses...
Post by: LoSboccacc on December 16, 2010, 10:52:35 am
bulls had a strong neck and were better suited for using the simpler throat collar, while horses were limited to the breast collar having side attachment for pulling, which prevented the harness of the horse full strength.
it was only around the 10th century that the modern collar became widespread in europe.
Post by: DeKaFu on December 16, 2010, 11:42:34 am
The scientists took a bunch of silver foxes and, over 40 years or so, selectively bred them for only one trait: non-fear towards humans.
And here's the interesting bit. As they became more comfortable around humans, a bunch of other traits appeared. They got curly tails, floppy ears and new coat markings. They started wagging their tails. Sound familiar?
Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDb27ZP9zEE)
Post by: Nivim on December 16, 2010, 02:23:20 pm
Post by: Mazonas on December 16, 2010, 02:52:46 pm
Belyaev's foxes are a fantastic view into domestication. Belyaev began strictly breeding caged foxes according to only a single criteria - those that were the least aggressive towards humans and the most willing to interact with humans bred. Within 60 years he's produced a breed of domesticated foxes that sell indivudall for around £4000 and are considered excellent pets, similar to both dogs and cats, and able to integrate well into most households as they will tend to copy the behaviour of other pets in the house.
What he noticed is that breeding for this one trait also produces a lot of the common traits seen in domesticated animals - shorter snouts, shorter limbs, curly tails, black and white markings including spotting and that little star on the forehead, wagging tails started to appear as did barking and licking behaviour.
It is entirely possible that early domestication may have been a somewhat mutual act, rather than us "enslaving" animals. Individuals from herds or packs with genetic mutations giving them less aggression or fear towards humans and more submissive tendencies may have been more likely to be drawn to the abundant food stores humans tended to stockpile. Obviously the humans could have seen the benefit of keeping the animal around, such as with cats that would keep vermin populations down,
*EDIT* Damnit beaten to it DeKaFu
Also: Cuteness!
http://www.sibfox.com/
Post by: Kesc on December 16, 2010, 03:24:57 pm
Post by: Sowelu on December 16, 2010, 03:53:00 pm
What do you wear when you leave the house? What about your cat?As for cats, you can really wonder who tamed who.
One wonders, until one contemplates which member of the partnership is often a.) dressed up in silly costumes
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 16, 2010, 05:22:20 pm
Its believed, by some scientists, that the domestication of the Wolf was not a continuous process in the beggining. In the begginning it was just some wolves following humans and loosing theyr fear for us. That is because you can scavenge from humans very well. On the other Hand was the Wolf a very good tracker so that Humans followed wolfpacks to animal herds. If there was enough game for both humans tended to share so both gained because the Human was able to score more often (yes we are that altruistic). The presences of the wolf was also a advantage for the humans in security terms since they keep away/warn us on other predators.
The "selection" for "tameness" was more coincidental. Humans praise good and punish bad behavior so a "behaving" wolf might have got more meat from a friendly human and a wolf that attacked a human became a nice jacket, if you get what i mean. So a behaving Wolf had a better chance to be fit and get higher status in the pack while the more aggressive types may have suffered injurys or death from humans so that theyr chances on passing on they traits was lowered. This means that the tamer individuals had an unfair advantage in passing on theyr genes. So the human tamed the wolf without realy trying.
Most "wild dogs" like African wild dogs,
As for the Development of societys: Scarcity of resources is a innovation driving motor yes but its in the development of societys it takes effect in a time where a social culture is already established. Before that you have the crucial population density, available Tradepartners also play a mayor role.
A Tribe of 15 people will never be able to sufficiently advance. Skills have to be passed down so say if said tribe looses its knapper before he passed his knowledge to a suitable replacement, this knowledge is lost. A human can master only so much skills and has only so much time to learn them. So smaller civs tendet to develop slower then bigger ones since The knowledge in Bigger civs was redundant and people thanks to sharing of work and specialisation had more time to learn things.
Outsourcing was also a big thing because your tribe could advance in a certain branch of knowledge while another could left dormant without suffering a disadvantage. If your people are proficient in making stone knives and spear/arrowheads you can export them to other tribes for other things - say hides clothes or whatever. This way you have more people that can learn and innovate the field of weapon making. You can also import foreign knowledge.
This can be seen in tasmanian tribes before the sea-level rose and cut them of from australia. They were on the average techlevel before the sea-level rose and they traded iirc. spearheads and stone-knives for clothes. Theyr population on the other hand was not dense enough to preserve the entirety of theyr knowledge and knapping so they lost the ability to make fine clothes in favor for the basic toolmaking. They also couldnt import foreign knowledge anymore.
Post by: Quatch on December 16, 2010, 05:51:27 pm
eg: "gloves made of bear leather" rather than "bear leather gloves"
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 16, 2010, 05:56:39 pm
Reading lists of items in DF is difficult because the least important information is presented first: material then item. Could we get an init option to display the item then its' material?
eg: "gloves made of bear leather" rather than "bear leather gloves"
Actualy a small table like structure would be nice which includes the Quality too. Switching the ordering in game would be also nice.
Post by: Knigel on December 16, 2010, 06:14:58 pm
Reading lists of items in DF is difficult because the least important information is presented first: material then item. Could we get an init option to display the item then its' material?
eg: "gloves made of bear leather" rather than "bear leather gloves"
I have to second this: the object is nearly always more important than the material, yet in a shop you often have to select an item just to find out what the hell it is because the material has such a huge name.
Post by: Nivim on December 16, 2010, 06:17:25 pm
Post by: Neonivek on December 16, 2010, 07:54:44 pm
Quote
yes we are that altruistic
Of course if you don't believe in that view, a lot of human nature is showing your supperiority through gifts and wastefulness.
Despite games depicting Gift giving as a diplomatic "Please like me" it was more of a "We are so great we can give our stuff away" in many cases.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 16, 2010, 08:10:18 pm
Post by: Chthonic on December 16, 2010, 08:12:24 pm
What do you wear when you leave the house? What about your cat?
I appreciate the suggestion, but my cat would probably object, especially since it's gotten so cold out.
:/
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on December 16, 2010, 08:14:13 pm
Post by: KillerClowns on December 16, 2010, 08:15:32 pm
(Please don't hurt me.)
Dragon and roc eggs imply dragons and rocs reproduce. How will inherently lonely megabeasts find mates? Will other megabeasts reproduce? And will FBs and titans be able to inherit egg laying?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 16, 2010, 08:36:10 pm
Post by: Sowelu on December 16, 2010, 09:14:09 pm
By all rights, it should be larger than a dragon. If anything was going to be a multi-tile creature, my money would be on Rocs. If a dragon was wagon-sized, Rocs would be depot-sized. Remember, they carry off whales to eat.
Post by: CharlesPeter on December 16, 2010, 09:36:43 pm
I think.
Post by: Knigel on December 16, 2010, 09:52:45 pm
(calculates)
:o 209.9 million cm^3!? That's more than 8 times the size of a dragon! I think Toady and/or ThreeToe have to reconsider that wingspan measure.
Post by: monk12 on December 16, 2010, 09:56:25 pm
Egul ... well fitting for the king of the Sky. I hope we get a Phoenix sometimes soon ;). Oh can we have a story on Egul the ROC?
Second!
So happy about eggs. Gonna gen an adventurer for the sole purpose of egging a megabeast to death.
"Assorted animals and thinking beings?" Care to elaborate on some of those?
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on December 16, 2010, 09:58:51 pm
:o 209.9 million cm^3!? That's more than 8 times the size of a dragon! I think Toady and/or ThreeToe have to reconsider that wingspan measure.
Double the size of a dragon in each dimension.
By all rights, it should be larger than a dragon. If anything was going to be a multi-tile creature, my money would be on Rocs. If a dragon was wagon-sized, Rocs would be depot-sized. Remember, they carry off whales to eat.
Post by: iceball3 on December 16, 2010, 10:02:00 pm
Post by: Nivim on December 16, 2010, 10:05:22 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 16, 2010, 10:06:13 pm
For everyone who does not know what a Boeing 747 is look at this picture (http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/2/7/1252724.jpg).
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on December 16, 2010, 10:10:29 pm
Post by: 1freeman on December 16, 2010, 10:12:33 pm
also will dwarfs be able to eat eggs or are they off limits.
Thanks.
Post by: Dante on December 16, 2010, 10:13:06 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 16, 2010, 10:18:49 pm
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on December 16, 2010, 10:21:14 pm
Post by: Knigel on December 16, 2010, 10:39:25 pm
I think that volume math is a bit off since mass increases by cube while surface area increases by the square. This means that as the bird gets larger, it needs proportionally larger wings to fly. Of course, with magic, all bets are off.
If that was necessary then animals that huge couldn't exist at all.
Post by: Sowelu on December 16, 2010, 10:51:35 pm
Which, strangely enough, they don't. It must have been a wizard!I think that volume math is a bit off since mass increases by cube while surface area increases by the square. This means that as the bird gets larger, it needs proportionally larger wings to fly. Of course, with magic, all bets are off.
If that was necessary then animals that huge couldn't exist at all.
Post by: freeformschooler on December 16, 2010, 11:34:32 pm
Post by: SalmonGod on December 16, 2010, 11:41:58 pm
I approve of dragon eggs. Thank you, Threetoe, for reporting this success. For the sake of those who are dead.
And now there's science to be done for the people who are still alive.
Sorry.
Post by: freeformschooler on December 16, 2010, 11:44:54 pm
I approve of dragon eggs. Thank you, Threetoe, for reporting this success. For the sake of those who are dead.
And now there's science to be done for the people who are still alive.
Sorry.
We need a reputation system on these forums. +1 rep.
Anyway, will DF ever having jumping mechanics, at least for adventurers? You know, other than flying over stuff if you get a rideable dragon and/or are a flying creature? It would be a little silly to implement with the mechanics in their current state, but I was wondering if it might be a long term goal
Post by: Footkerchief on December 17, 2010, 01:36:02 am
There's a recent trend of people posting feature/fix requests, often unrelated to current development, in the form of questions. Composing replies to all the questions is a lot of work. This post took me over an hour, and it addresses only a small fraction of the questions. So think how much time it takes for Toady! This level of developer-community interaction is rare, and with a community this large, the only way to make it work is to limit the discussion to current development. Asking Toady to speculate on far-off features is rarely productive, even if it makes interesting reading. Requests that aren't related to current development are best expressed in DF Suggestions (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?board=5.0), DF Talk Topic Discussion (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=47808.0), or the bug tracker. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/)
Quote from: LoSboccaccAny plans for food of desperation to be available? Boiled shoes for dinner tonight, but it beats starving.
We haven't specifically thought about it for this time. Getting to the point of acts of cannibalism is probably inevitable in the long run though.
For species that have taboos on the topic, will eating sentients of other species be more acceptable than, and thus done before, eating one's own kind? It'd make sense to snack on goblin raiders or a bunch of elven traders who brought nothing of use before devouring one's own kind.
As he said in the post you quoted, "We haven't specifically thought about it for this time." There isn't a more detailed answer yet.
The question about you being able to build a road in adventure mode has me wondering about the mention of the ability to pass time to grow crops in the dev blog: will we ever be able to pass years or even decades, like continuing world gen? Most likely it would be something you can only do if you don't have a fortress or active adventurer. Maybe to skip ahead a century after the HFS you tapped destroyed to see what horrors you have unleashed upon the world.
This came up before, in the context of using world gen to give adventurers a backstory: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg546116#msg546116)
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: FootkerchiefHe also mentioned (I think in that recently posted interview) wanting to do something for adventurers, like finding ways to interweave your past with history. But it would be even cooler if, when you start a new adventurer, the history generator starts back up so that your adventurer has a "real" history instead of a retconned one. As it's generating your life, the game could identify potentially pivotal moments and let you make a decision, which would not only change your character's goals but also shape their personality. Kind of like LCS character generation, but more hardcore.
The issue with restarting the generator is that you might not want the world to advance by more than a decade every time you play (especially if your characters tend to die immediately), but it would be cool as an option, and it would give you the opportunity to have more impact -- however, most of the impact should be during regular play instead of through a Q&A process, I think, so maybe it's not much different from the retconning approach in retrospect. With retconnning, you'd still be able to make decisions -- they'd just only be able to seriously affect the other new characters that have been pulled up from your abstract population. That isn't all that bad, since the populations can have attached historical events, so it can be very thorough with respect to the existing history, and you could meet the real old historical figures, just not have an effect up to the level of, say, killing them or taking their important things. It could insert new events back into the old histories though. You'd just not want those to make subsequent decisions seem odd.
An exception to the lack of impact (either desired impact in the restart-generator setup or technically feasible impact in the retcon setup) might be the start scenario, as it could involve some of the main historical figures sacrificing you by dropping you into a cave or something, but that is essentially a restart-generator scenario that has run a very short period of time.
The fact that metal seems to be somewhat more uncommon than currently left me a bit concerned about picking a good site (which already is a pain!). I wonder if different metal distributions could be used for each cavern layer, so it'd get more abundant the deeper it gets, and then civs could be limited to not being able to dig too deep (duw to low engineering hability) when it is working out the economy. Also another thing I wonder is if traders will bring more significant ammounts of metal bars when you ask, lest a bad sited fortress run into lack of metal (the horror!)
The concern about picking a site is the the reason he added a metal option to the site finder: (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2010-11-24)
Quote from: devlog
Metal isn't as easy to find, so I've added metal/soil to the site finder [...]
Making metal more abundant in deeper layers is really game-y and against the spirit of the realistic geology that DF aims for.
3) Will adventurers be able to build and use workshops so as to interact with the economy any time soon?
Recently addressed:
Quote from: Acanthus117Hey, Toady, will adventurers ever be able to use workshops, or will we be restricted to the 'buildingless' reactions?
We haven't decided what the future of workshops is in adventure mode. If the use of tools keeps up, it might be that we just keep simulating things, or that we'll throw in the workshops for things we don't get to simulating promptly. There are lots of discussions around generalizing/extending the workshop concept in dwarf mode, instead, so that it would be somewhat more like adv mode is shaping up, but we're really not sure what's going to happen there. So for now, the things that you do in adv mode will be tool-based actions. That should get us quite a way, until we start getting toward metal-working and furniture making, at which point we'll have to see if we slip back to workshops or try something more ambitious.
I like the options the new "start a new world now!" thing gives you, but I don't think they're enough. For instance, I want really shallow cave systems but I don't want to fool around in the advanced settings for ten minutes to get them. Do you think we'll ever have a medium-complexity generator or something?
I don't know if it was asked, but:
Will we be able to send dwarves for a job of exploring and mapping the caverns? As in, telling the dwarves to map certain "blacked out" regions of the embark map, such as the ones in caverns?
Will random illnesses be implemented in fortress mode anytime soon? e.g dwarves can catch a cold/get pneumonia.
Reading lists of items in DF is difficult because the least important information is presented first: material then item. Could we get an init option to display the item then its' material?
eg: "gloves made of bear leather" rather than "bear leather gloves"
These are good ideas, but since they aren't part of the current dev focus, they aren't likely to get implemented anytime soon.
I recall quite a bit of fiction or history, from Morrowind, China, and The King of Dragon Pass that include kinds of ancestor worship in place of god worship, thinking of them as guardians or sources of divination. Are you planning on going in that direction when you take care of religions?
As always, they'll pay attention to historical and thematic precedent, yes.
Are you planing stuffs like independent civ evolution, being those based on their resources and knowledge, on the world gen? Something like tribals, then small cities, then nations... While others don't evolve because they have no resources(Like Colombo going to America). Each one evolving their own language... Something like prehistory to middle ages.
This raises the question of different lifestyles, architecturally and economically. Are variations of lifestyle inside a race, without regards to ethics, planned to go in, like an entire human civilisation being nomad, or building temporary cities that are destroyed every 2 years, or food/water/cattle being considered a common property and handled at the hamlet/village level instead of personnal level, or houses built in a circle instead of a square, or underground instead of aboveground ?
Yes, it's a goal to make civs more diverse and distinctive. These comments are about nomads specifically, but in general the Adams brothers are 100% in favor of making the game less homogeneous.
Quote from: Knight OtuWith entity populations, I'm assuming that the first step would be taken for overworld nomadic civilizations, but is it likely that they'll be included?
We had roaming nomadic groups in adv mode before, and then they were removed. It's true this would give them a new lease on life, but we're not really sure about any of the details. It might start out with refugees from attacked cities or something, but I'm not sure. Once we have pro-active villains, there'll also be more backing in for roving horde AI.
Quote from: HephCan we get Overground tribes?
We used to have nomadic groups, and now we've got the underground entity pops that don't really do anything outside of making camps and staging attacks. I'd like to diversify what's going on with humans and others up there, and it might start more with the bandit/roving baddies more than anything.
Will dwarves (and those poor goblins whose friends got roasted) learn a healthy fear of fire soon? At least improved sieges would require this, I think.
This is on the dev page: (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html)
Quote from: dev
# Allowing constructions to burn, use of kindling/hay/etc. where reasonable
# Responding properly to personal fire issues (all modes)
# Fleeing burning buildings
# Fighting fire (all modes)
# Designation to set item or tile on fire in dwarf mode
Now that the economy is being worked on, will adventure mode trading be improved?
At a minimum, it'll make use of the new supply-demand valuation systems.
Fast question: Inquisition andfantasyreligions wars.
What's your question? Religious conflicts are a recurring theme in the old dev notes: (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html)
Quote from: dev_single
# Core63, SUCCESSION, ASSOCIATED CONFLICTS AND SCHISMS, (Future): First of all, succession for positions needs to occur in play, so that dead liaisons are replaced, as well as dead monarchs. Then the process needs to be made messier all around. Wars over succession, schisms over religious disagreements, etc., starting from world gen and coming into regular play. In dwarf mode, you might be involved on one side or the other, directly or indirectly, relying on more involved diplomacy and army code than we currently have, and adventure mode can also gain a lot from such conflicts.
# PowerGoal146, WALKING INTO THE WRONG BAR, (Future): Wearing a pendant of Imi the Owl of Hell, you enter a mead hall frequented by worshippers of Vutu the Playful Ooze of Midnight. They tie you to a post and break your fingers one by one.
# PowerGoal160, SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME, (Future): The Night King calls upon his vassal nation to join forces with his great army in order to cleanse the land once and for all of the brutal filth that worship the sun god.
"Assorted animals and thinking beings?" Care to elaborate on some of those?
The assorted animals are presumably birds (e.g. giant eagles), and as Heph said, the thinking beings are the bird- and reptile-people.
Toady, do you plan to add any new values to the material raws in the very new future, if so, then what kind?
The answer is probably "yes," but did you have particular tags in mind, or a particular feature that would necessitate new tags, or what?
Anyway, will DF ever having jumping mechanics, at least for adventurers? You know, other than flying over stuff if you get a rideable dragon and/or are a flying creature? It would be a little silly to implement with the mechanics in their current state, but I was wondering if it might be a long term goal
Quote from: dev_single
# Bloat227, LEAPING AND PITS, (Future): Could add little open pits in the caves, respecting Z coord, and the ability to leap into any space with a confirmation, it might be a hassle to teach the path-finding of your opponents to leap after you though
Post by: Glanzor on December 17, 2010, 03:31:36 am
And now exactly that is going to be a new addition for the game. How odd.
Post by: Areyar on December 17, 2010, 04:16:56 am
A lot of the questions posted here should rather be relegated to the DF-talk topics maybe, as their actual purpose is to get Toady to elaborate.
...I have no actual questions at thios poiint
Post by: Hummingbird on December 17, 2010, 05:14:55 am
Related: Will dwarven roads over mountains squares be accessible through fast-traveling in Adventurer Mode?
Post by: LoSboccacc on December 17, 2010, 05:35:38 am
it would make sense for walking on road to be easier, faster, and safer than hacking through wilderness.
not strictly easier. I'd say road should get a different kind of troubles. like more bandit than trolls on road and vice versa on forests?
Post by: Rose on December 17, 2010, 05:37:38 am
if the road is the most important trade route in the kingdom, you should get less bandits, and more tax collectors.
Post by: iceball3 on December 17, 2010, 05:38:54 am
Well then we might need conflict lines, where certain factions are trying to push forward down a road and are up against each other in a stalemate of sorts. If you can break the roadblock through violence or other means, then you get passage along with slight praise from the side that had most benefit.it would make sense for walking on road to be easier, faster, and safer than hacking through wilderness.
not strictly easier. I'd say road should get a different kind of troubles. like more bandit than trolls on road and vice versa on forests?
Post by: Lovechild on December 17, 2010, 05:40:37 am
Post by: Neonivek on December 17, 2010, 05:50:15 am
Quote
the only way to make it work is to limit the discussion to current development
I guess it is too popular now to ask Toady anymore questions.
I usually try not to ask Toady questions about current development because he usually tells use the features or it gets answered upon release anyway.
Though I can be the worst when it comes to questions
Post by: B0013 on December 17, 2010, 05:58:05 am
Also do this mean that all the animals that get eggs get lairs too?
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on December 17, 2010, 06:29:58 am
Post by: thvaz on December 17, 2010, 07:13:26 am
Post by: Areyar on December 17, 2010, 07:25:50 am
Eggs claim for nests.huh?
Arblarch the distracted feather, pet chicken, has gone into a brooding mood!
Arblarch the distracted feather, pet chicken, has claimed a nest!
...
Arblarch the distracted feather, pet chicken, has hatched Urist the chicken-dwarf, an artefact hybrid!
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 17, 2010, 07:43:26 am
Will you add any of the new craftable materials (wool, clay), but also some older ones (horn, teeth, pearls, feathers) as prerequisites for artifacts? And the other way around, will any of the new items (pottery, porcelain) be artifactable?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 17, 2010, 08:01:22 am
Hey Toady, can you say what the 16 new animals will be? or do you want it to be a surprise?
it's supposed to be a surprise. you will have to discuss them in spoiler tags even after the game comes out.
I'm sorry that this could count as a suggestion, but it's very minor, and doesn't even need a long reply past Yes/No.
Will you add any of the new craftable materials (wool, clay), but also some older ones (horn, teeth, pearls, feathers) as prerequisites for artifacts? And the other way around, will any of the new items (pottery, porcelain) be artifactable?
i think that's a valid question, it's relating to the new materials introduced in this version.
Post by: LoSboccacc on December 17, 2010, 08:17:23 am
it's supposed to be a surprise. you will have to discuss them in spoiler tags even after the game comes out.
oh god please no. it's silly enough as it is right now.
Post by: metime00 on December 17, 2010, 09:17:41 am
Post by: Untelligent on December 17, 2010, 10:48:26 am
it's supposed to be a surprise. you will have to discuss them in spoiler tags even after the game comes out.
If the animals are right there on the embark menu, I think that putting them in spoiler tags will be rather silly.
Post by: madciol on December 17, 2010, 11:19:06 am
Post by: Knight Otu on December 17, 2010, 11:44:51 am
Dragon and roc eggs imply dragons and rocs reproduce. How will inherently lonely megabeasts find mates? Will other megabeasts reproduce? And will FBs and titans be able to inherit egg laying?Maybe megabeasts reproduce now, but since the devlog didn't mention it, I wouldn't count on it, especially as reproducing megabeasts is part of the dev page. It may simply be that female rocs and dragons get inert eggs added to their lairs/nests (but it seems I'm wrong about the implementations often enough, and I would love to be wrong).
It's pretty clear that Askot is joking. And it seems that Toady doesn't really expect that even truly hidden fun stuff remains hidden for long after the release.it's supposed to be a surprise. you will have to discuss them in spoiler tags even after the game comes out.
oh god please no. it's silly enough as it is right now.
What kind of structures/towns will dwarves and elves have if they get visible settlements in the next update?That's a pretty big "if". Elves will probably take longer than dwarves and goblins to get proper sites again due to the multi-tile tree issue, and I wouldn't expect dwarf/goblin sites until after (maybe during) the army "month".
Post by: Areyar on December 17, 2010, 01:49:41 pm
If not, Askot is an idiot. ;)
Post by: freeformschooler on December 17, 2010, 03:21:15 pm
Step 1. King gives quest to kill dragon and bring back princess. (About half possible?)
Step 2. Fight modded-in slimes and other creatures to level up your skills and abilities. (Don't know how much % possible)
Step 3. Find new towns, explore dungeons for equipment (pretty much possible except for elaborate dungeons which will be incredible when implemented)
Step 4. Fight bosses as you go. (megabeasts and night creatures, anyone?)
Step 5. Townsperson: Retrieveth twenty bear guts. Will pay 20 gold. (probably eventually)
Step 6. With new equipment and skills, bash the dragon's head out. Complete your main quest. (Probably done except for the dragon capturing someone)
My face at this prospect is not unlike FSJAL.
Post by: ungulateman on December 17, 2010, 03:28:52 pm
I suddenly just realized that, with the addition of dragon LAIRS, we are this much closer to simulating Dragon Warrior/Quest (NES) in DF.
Step 1. King gives quest to kill dragon and bring back princess. (About half possible?)
Step 2. Fight modded-in slimes and other creatures to level up your skills and abilities. (Don't know how much % possible)
Step 3. Find new towns, explore dungeons for equipment (pretty much possible except for elaborate dungeons which will be incredible when implemented)
Step 4. Fight bosses as you go. (megabeasts and night creatures, anyone?)
Step 5. Townsperson: Retrieveth Twenty Bear Asses. Will pay 20 gold. (probably eventually)
Step 6. With new equipment and skills, bash the dragon's head out. Complete your main quest. (Probably done except for the dragon capturing someone)
My face at this prospect is not unlike FSJAL.
Fixed.
Post by: freeformschooler on December 17, 2010, 03:33:55 pm
New question -- and this has probably been asked, but I didn't see it -- I realize that we'll probably be able to raise dragons and rocs from eggs in Fortress mode, but will we be able to do so in ADVENTURE MODE? Since there will probably be horse riding, I don't think it's too far off.
Post by: Quatch on December 17, 2010, 03:54:55 pm
I suppose I'm also interested in why it is the way it is now.
Post by: tps12 on December 17, 2010, 04:12:45 pm
I realize that we'll probably be able to raise dragons and rocs from eggs in Fortress mode, but will we be able to do so in ADVENTURE MODE? Since there will probably be horse riding, I don't think it's too far off.
Wait, what's the horse for?
Post by: Skid on December 17, 2010, 04:23:15 pm
Feeding to your new pet dragon. Try to keep up here.I realize that we'll probably be able to raise dragons and rocs from eggs in Fortress mode, but will we be able to do so in ADVENTURE MODE? Since there will probably be horse riding, I don't think it's too far off.
Wait, what's the horse for?
Post by: Untelligent on December 17, 2010, 04:23:37 pm
Step 2. Fight modded-in slimes and other creatures to level up your skills and abilities. (Don't know how much % possible)
Yeah, my modded-in slimes are going to spawn in packs numbering in the dozens and cover you in corrosive slime slime. Surviving long enough to boost your skills and abilities might not be possible.
Post by: Sizik on December 17, 2010, 04:55:16 pm
I suddenly just realized that, with the addition of dragon LAIRS, we are this much closer to simulating Dragon Warrior/Quest (NES) in DF.
Step 1. King gives quest to kill dragon and bring back princess. (About half possible?)
Step 2. Fight modded-in slimes and other creatures to level up your skills and abilities. (Don't know how much % possible)
Step 3. Find new towns, explore dungeons for equipment (pretty much possible except for elaborate dungeons which will be incredible when implemented)
Step 4. Fight bosses as you go. (megabeasts and night creatures, anyone?)
Step 5. Townsperson: Retrieveth Twenty Bear Asses. Will pay 20 gold. (probably eventually)
Step 6. With new equipment and skills, bash the dragon's head out. Complete your main quest. (Probably done except for the dragon capturing someone)
My face at this prospect is not unlike FSJAL.
Fixed.
Is that some kind of donkey/bear hybrid?
Post by: monk12 on December 17, 2010, 05:23:36 pm
I suddenly just realized that, with the addition of dragon LAIRS, we are this much closer to simulating Dragon Warrior/Quest (NES) in DF.
Step 1. King gives quest to kill dragon and bring back princess. (About half possible?)
Step 2. Fight modded-in slimes and other creatures to level up your skills and abilities. (Don't know how much % possible)
Step 3. Find new towns, explore dungeons for equipment (pretty much possible except for elaborate dungeons which will be incredible when implemented)
Step 4. Fight bosses as you go. (megabeasts and night creatures, anyone?)
Step 5. Townsperson: Retrieveth Twenty Bear Asses. Will pay 20 gold. (probably eventually)
Step 6. With new equipment and skills, bash the dragon's head out. Complete your main quest. (Probably done except for the dragon capturing someone)
My face at this prospect is not unlike FSJAL.
Fixed.
Is that some kind of donkey/bear hybrid?
*facepalm*
Post by: freeformschooler on December 17, 2010, 05:36:35 pm
I suddenly just realized that, with the addition of dragon LAIRS, we are this much closer to simulating Dragon Warrior/Quest (NES) in DF.
Step 1. King gives quest to kill dragon and bring back princess. (About half possible?)
Step 2. Fight modded-in slimes and other creatures to level up your skills and abilities. (Don't know how much % possible)
Step 3. Find new towns, explore dungeons for equipment (pretty much possible except for elaborate dungeons which will be incredible when implemented)
Step 4. Fight bosses as you go. (megabeasts and night creatures, anyone?)
Step 5. Townsperson: Retrieveth Twenty Bear Asses. Will pay 20 gold. (probably eventually)
Step 6. With new equipment and skills, bash the dragon's head out. Complete your main quest. (Probably done except for the dragon capturing someone)
My face at this prospect is not unlike FSJAL.
Fixed.
Is that some kind of donkey/bear hybrid?
No. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TwentyBearAsses)
Unless that was tongue-in-cheek.
Post by: Knigel on December 17, 2010, 07:14:12 pm
Post by: slMagnvox on December 17, 2010, 08:01:29 pm
I realize that we'll probably be able to raise dragons and rocs from eggs in Fortress mode, but will we be able to do so in ADVENTURE MODE? Since there will probably be horse riding, I don't think it's too far off.
Wait, what's the horse for?
lol, missed a page, good joke though.
Will any creatures ever adopt an adventurer like cats do in Fort Mode? Also might some juveniles get an [IMPRESSIONABLE] tag or similar? Birds, that are about to hatch from all these crazy new eggs, are particularily good candidates for that I think.
Has anyone ever seen a cat .. dog, or any domestic animal in adventure mode? I can't ever recall seeing one at the moment. There isn't much mention pets on the
Post by: Quatch on December 18, 2010, 12:01:07 am
Post by: Rose on December 18, 2010, 12:11:20 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 18, 2010, 05:44:17 am
Askot is an idiot. ;)
hey!
Post by: Knight Otu on December 18, 2010, 05:48:16 am
Has anyone ever seen a cat .. dog, or any domestic animal in adventure mode? I can't ever recall seeing one at the moment. There isn't much mention pets on theThey used to roam the towns in the 2d version, and if everything goes according to plan, they'll again do so in the next version:dev_next/dev page. I'm sure is a topic that has been well explored though?
Quote from: Knight OtuWith ThreeToe's mention of pigs and chickens in the devlog and the November report... does that mean that the domestic animals, and any other tamed animals for that matter, will actually appear in adventure mode hamlets/towns again?
Yeah. We hope for a rather large collection of farm beasts wandering around villages. And perhaps pigs and chickens in the town yards as well. Everybody likes to keep pigs and chickens.
Post by: Untelligent on December 18, 2010, 02:16:20 pm
Post by: Dante on December 18, 2010, 02:54:51 pm
Post by: Arkose on December 18, 2010, 05:41:57 pm
Dragon cheese for the dragon cheese throne!
What with dragons not being mammals, I'd expect any dragon cheese to have an equally disgusting origin as dwarven milk.
Post by: Areyar on December 18, 2010, 06:36:20 pm
Post by: Nivim on December 18, 2010, 10:03:23 pm
Post by: Dante on December 19, 2010, 04:50:11 am
There's a little discussion on cauldrons, sieges, and ladders; so will our dwarves get to make use of the former? Thoughts include pouring boiling oil over siegers climbing up on ladders (building it and loading it as a siege weapon)Liquids are items, rather than flowing fluids, right now. Unless oil is implemented as an actual fluid, like magma or water, which is completely unlikely, then it could only be dropped as a projectile.
As in,
"The spinning cooking oil [5] hits the goblin in the left ear, tearing the skin and bruising the fat!"
So... probably not.
Post by: TolyK on December 19, 2010, 09:06:33 am
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 19, 2010, 10:45:39 am
Post by: TolyK on December 19, 2010, 11:27:08 am
but boiling contaminants SUCK. I just killed a party of kobolds (adventurer) by throwing boiling blood at them :D
it was FB blood from a fort. very useful ;D
Post by: Vattic on December 19, 2010, 12:02:20 pm
Post by: Areyar on December 19, 2010, 01:28:42 pm
If I throw an egg will it's shell break and spill it's insides?Toady said he considered adding eggs to require doing the different tissuelayers of eggs right, including yolk, eggwhite, shell etc. I assume that after all that trouble, he'll do the properties of those insides right as well and the insides will have liquid properties.
The bigger question is: will heated eggs have solidified insides or boiling?
Making them terrifying grenades! ;)
(Probably a non-issue though.)
Post by: zwei on December 19, 2010, 02:56:43 pm
To introduce manure/feces for example.
Post by: Cruxador on December 19, 2010, 02:59:12 pm
It occured to me ... if eggs definitions in raws are permitting enough, modders can abuse it.That's not abuse, that's just use. It's a very practical addition and there are lots of people who want that.
To introduce manure/feces for example.
Post by: TolyK on December 19, 2010, 03:32:16 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 19, 2010, 04:07:43 pm
also, as this is a topic that interests me, what is the latest word on it? the last time i heard of it footkerchief had found POWERGOAL 153 and we rejoiced
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 19, 2010, 04:32:44 pm
Post by: Dae on December 19, 2010, 05:51:05 pm
also, as this is a topic that interests me, what is the latest word on it? the last time i heard of it footkerchief had found POWERGOAL 153 and we rejoiced
Was it the one where your adventurer was eaten by a dragon but was not digested thanks to a magic ring, only to get out via "biological path" ?
Post by: Untelligent on December 19, 2010, 06:37:13 pm
Powergoal153, THE CRACKS OF DOOM, (Future): You flee into the sewer with the baron's ring, but sliding in the muck, you drop it. Try as you might, you cannot locate the precious object in the town's filth.
Post by: shadowform on December 19, 2010, 09:54:25 pm
I was the one that posted the cauldron thread, and my original idea was more along the lines of spreading contaminants... for instance, a creature caught in a spatter of hot oil might get a number of contaminants over their body, which in turn cause damage from the heat. Or cutting more to the point, more dangerous substances might be used - like something flammable or imported venom from other civs - that causes paralysis, rotting flesh, or so on, providing the toxin works on contact. I didn't actually mention anything about cooking (since kitchens already serve that purpose fine), and vapors seem a rather roundabout way of doing things unless the toxic substance in question only causes harm when inhaled/ingested.There's a little discussion on cauldrons, sieges, and ladders; so will our dwarves get to make use of the former? Thoughts include pouring boiling oil over siegers climbing up on ladders (building it and loading it as a siege weapon)Liquids are items, rather than flowing fluids, right now. Unless oil is implemented as an actual fluid, like magma or water, which is completely unlikely, then it could only be dropped as a projectile.
As in,
"The spinning cooking oil [5] hits the goblin in the left ear, tearing the skin and bruising the fat!"
So... probably not.
So, a better example of the intended outcome might be "The boiling plump helmet oil splashes onto the goblin, covering his upper left arm in boiling plump helmet oil!"
Could conceivable be performed with an attack type similar to how catapults/ballista work, except vertical rather than horizontal, and with an effect of something like deadly spittle, spreading contaminants in an area but otherwise causing relatively little harm.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 19, 2010, 10:40:09 pm
also, as this is a topic that interests me, what is the latest word on it? the last time i heard of it footkerchief had found POWERGOAL 153 and we rejoiced
Here's the collection of quotes (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=54494.msg1228547#msg1228547) (it's too long to post here). I don't think Toady has made any more recent comments.
Post by: Lancensis on December 19, 2010, 11:04:19 pm
Nope. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html)
Powergoal153, THE CRACKS OF DOOM, (Future): You flee into the sewer with the baron's ring, but sliding in the muck, you drop it. Try as you might, you cannot locate the precious object in the town's filth.
Eh. I've played a million sewer levels in a thousand games, and have yet to see a single solitary stool in any of them. I just assumed that "the town's filth" was going to be that generic green sludge that always seems to show up in computer game sewers. Rotting vegetables is my guess as to what it is, although DF sewers could be a disgusting tube of gristle, vermin parts, blood and vomit.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 20, 2010, 12:56:37 am
Eh. I've played a million sewer levels in a thousand games, and have yet to see a single solitary stool in any of them. I just assumed that "the town's filth" was going to be that generic green sludge that always seems to show up in computer game sewers. Rotting vegetables is my guess as to what it is, although DF sewers could be a disgusting tube of gristle, vermin parts, blood and vomit.
still, for there to be sewers, there must be a reason. you can't have sewers if you don't have anything producing sewage, i find it hard to believe that toady would implement a kind of mystical sewer, not unlike a minotaur's labirynth, that magically spawns in the middle of the wilderness
also, as this is a topic that interests me, what is the latest word on it? the last time i heard of it footkerchief had found POWERGOAL 153 and we rejoiced
Here's the collection of quotes (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=54494.msg1228547#msg1228547) (it's too long to post here). I don't think Toady has made any more recent comments.
yeah, i know those. thanks anyway.
Post by: Untelligent on December 20, 2010, 01:29:29 am
Post by: Quatch on December 20, 2010, 11:20:10 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 20, 2010, 02:49:46 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on December 20, 2010, 03:26:17 pm
Regarding the two of the top ten ESV items not specifically addressed on the new page, sped-up pathfinding and graphics support, the idea with the first is an upcoming date with the linux profiler now that we've got DF running over there to address the low-hanging fruit on the main grievance behind the suggestion (large, slow forts). In the case of supporting tiles for each game object, I need to figure out the deal with all the new SDL code before I can lay anything out in stark terms. The textures are stored differently (in a single atlas if it still works that way), and I'm not sure if it'll be feasible to move to full item/map texture support without altering the way that works.
That was about 6 months ago. Have these been on hold because Baughn's busy?
Post by: Cardinal on December 20, 2010, 09:34:22 pm
Will we start to see not-death endings of adventurers any time soon? Such as adventurers thrown into dungeons, enslaved, mentally dominated by night creatures or otherwise incapacitated and able to be rescued/fought by later adventurers?
Also, is the current on-map cycle of forgotten beasts, titans, dragons and so on going to become more nuanced any time soon? I'm particularly wondering about creatures interested in items (especially if they become part of the economy--I suppose that could apply more to raiding parties) and especially creatures--whether normal or mega--that leave the map in a timely manner, to carry on with their life.
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 20, 2010, 10:26:00 pm
This is not just against you, Cardinal, I'm talking in general - these questions are disturbingly common lately.
(And yes, I don't mean Footkerchief's, because that's about something Toady actually "promised" of sorts.)
Post by: CharlesPeter on December 20, 2010, 10:51:51 pm
Also, in regards to adventure mode, will there ever be torture/interrogation after capturing an enemy, in order to gain information about further parts in quests?
Sorry if either of those has been asked before.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 20, 2010, 11:01:34 pm
Will we start to see not-death endings of adventurers any time soon? Such as adventurers thrown into dungeons, enslaved, mentally dominated by night creatures or otherwise incapacitated and able to be rescued/fought by later adventurers?
Several such scenarios are listed on the dev page: (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html) (excerpted for brevity)
Quote
# Justice
* Surrender to those seeking you
o When you make a command that follows an order, there should be an option to skip ahead to stages of the journey (such as to a dungeon or halfway through the journey back if you want to attempt to escape from your captor)
* Punishment
o Imprisonment (until there are ways to escape, might as well retire the character, at which point rescue might be possible by a subsequent character)
Adventurer Role: Slayer of Night Creatures
* Torment the living
o Some victims can end up drained as subvillains or slaves in the same way a bandit leader has subordinates
* Curses and exposure
o The slaves of night creatures could have extreme effects from proximity that also affect you if you make a business of hunting them
Also, is the current on-map cycle of forgotten beasts, titans, dragons and so on going to become more nuanced any time soon? I'm particularly wondering about creatures interested in items (especially if they become part of the economy--I suppose that could apply more to raiding parties) and especially creatures--whether normal or mega--that leave the map in a timely manner, to carry on with their life.
Rogue creatures will have more nuanced goals, yes:
Quote
# Megabeasts
* Share any intelligent/diplomacy behavior that other hist figs have when appropriate
Kind of an idle question, and not very relevant; but I was just wondering. You've mentioned that multi-tile and z-level trees will be implemented for elven settlements. Would the length of world-gen affect the size and height of the elven structures? As in, if you ceased genning at 100 years, would the trees be smaller than if you genned the whole 1000 years? Or would they work in the same way as castles, just organic.
The part about roots breaking into caverns probably implies gradual growth of multi-tile trees: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg756830#msg756830)
Quote from: Toady One
I'd prefer to have realistically-sized root systems, including shallow roots and taproots and all of that, but it might depend a bit on how the underground plays with it. Of course, having roots breaking in through the ceiling of a cavern is cool, so maybe it's all good anyway. It'll also make things like gathering tuber-type things more fun.
Also, in regards to adventure mode, will there ever be torture/interrogation after capturing an enemy, in order to gain information about further parts in quests?
The dev page is a great place to look for answers to questions like this: (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html)
Quote
# Capturing people alive and interrogations
* Ability to disarm opponents
* Ability to hold somebody and immobilize them
* Ability to attempt to knock somebody out without killing them
* Surrendering in the face of death or death threat coupled with inability to escape or win
* Being able to ask people for the specific location of another person or place
* Allowing people to lie
* Ability to offer quick deaths to mortally wounded people to get them to talk
* Being able to force a prisoner to guide you somewhere
* Other interrogation stuff
* Making sure tracking works to the point that you could follow a released prisoner or other group back to a hideout
Post by: slMagnvox on December 21, 2010, 05:21:41 am
Please take no offense, but I don't think this sort of questions ("When will you implement XY", "How soon will this be"?) leads anywhere, they only clutter the thread and take from Toady's time. The current long-term development schedule is available at the main DF page, and Toady usually describes his short-term development plans in his monthly reports and the development blog. Aside from that, your guess is as good as Toady's, I think.
I kinda disagree. Our dabbling guesswork is not as good as Toady's and here is a good place to put a question you'd like to have him take a Legendary guess at.
Of course green things should try and stay as OP as possible, but that is a hard line to draw. There are always good tangents along the way to the next release and it is an easy place to look and see what is on the community's mind. It's what I do, not following many other threads here makes time management easier for me certainly. =) Hah, not every question pulls him away from coding and/or feeding Scamps the moment it gets posted.
Post by: zwei on December 21, 2010, 08:46:07 am
Please take no offense, but I don't think this sort of questions ("When will you implement XY", "How soon will this be"?) leads anywhere, they only clutter the thread and take from Toady's time. The current long-term development schedule is available at the main DF page, and Toady usually describes his short-term development plans in his monthly reports and the development blog. Aside from that, your guess is as good as Toady's, I think.
I kinda disagree. Our dabbling guesswork is not as good as Toady's and here is a good place to put a question you'd like to have him take a Legendary guess at.
Well, many such questions are thinly-veiled suggestions (I am guilty of that too, of course).
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 21, 2010, 08:54:35 am
Post by: madjoe5 on December 21, 2010, 03:23:57 pm
Post by: iceball3 on December 21, 2010, 03:59:22 pm
Don't forget: this is the "Future of the Fortress: The Development Page", and I'd assume that means any and all discussion/questions about the future of Dwarf Fortress are fair game. Then again, loads of "Can you put this in?" are kind of distracting.Which is what the suggestion forum is for.
Post by: harborpirate on December 22, 2010, 06:32:25 pm
Do you find the recent trend of megathreads that unite all known suggestions on a given topic into a single post to be helpful?
If so, are there any topics that you wish had a megathread that you haven't seen one for yet?
Post by: MrWiggles on December 22, 2010, 10:26:55 pm
Sir Toad,
Do you find the recent trend of megathreads that unite all known suggestions on a given topic into a single post to be helpful?
If so, are there any topics that you wish had a megathread that you haven't seen one for yet?
I think this question would be severed better in Dwarf Fortress Talk.
Post by: Cruxador on December 23, 2010, 05:52:36 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 23, 2010, 08:04:48 am
Post by: G-Flex on December 23, 2010, 08:15:49 am
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 23, 2010, 08:16:45 am
Post by: caknuck on December 23, 2010, 02:41:08 pm
(For the record, I'm cool with it using the Bonecrafter or Leatherworker skills.)
Post by: Skid on December 23, 2010, 03:04:34 pm
Better yet, when will "Decorate with feathers" be added as an option to the Craftsdwarf Workshop?Building on this, when will tar-and-feathering go in?
(For the record, I'm cool with it using the Bonecrafter or Leatherworker skills.)
Post by: SalmonGod on December 23, 2010, 04:49:53 pm
Better yet, when will "Decorate with feathers" be added as an option to the Craftsdwarf Workshop?Building on this, when will tar-and-feathering go in?
(For the record, I'm cool with it using the Bonecrafter or Leatherworker skills.)
Or tickling, which could serve multiple purposes? :D
Post by: caknuck on December 23, 2010, 05:46:55 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 23, 2010, 06:47:17 pm
edit: DF goes "War of the worlds"! The red grass is comming!
I hope some underwater grasses, lichens and mosses get added too so that other animals like manatees can grass too. Flowers for birds and bees would be nice.
Will only cows grass or other animals like horses and goats too? Do you have a food/meat gathering ratio as tag (i.e. a cow that grazes down 3 tiles grows 30kg of meat)? Do animals need water now too?
Post by: Dante on December 23, 2010, 08:59:10 pm
Post by: monk12 on December 23, 2010, 09:10:19 pm
Oh man the need for outdoor pastures is going to make me need to build topside again.
Is cattle herding in for adventure mode? Will we be able to rustle cattle in the next version? Will there be organized raids on herd animals in the future? Specifically in regards to quest giving- will the important historical figures recognize the importance of stealing the enemies herds and assign quests or bounties on enemy cattle.
Now I want to play a Bovine Bounty Hunter.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 23, 2010, 09:25:25 pm
Is cattle herding in for adventure mode? Will we be able to rustle cattle in the next version? Will there be organized raids on herd animals in the future? Specifically in regards to quest giving- will the important historical figures recognize the importance of stealing the enemies herds and assign quests or bounties on enemy cattle.
None of that has yet been implemented for the next version (as is generally true for features not mentioned in the dev log). Herding and other livestock stuff is planned, though: (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html)
Quote
Basic Adventure Mode Skills
* Raising livestock
o Farms associated to entity population sprawl
o Ability to buy a livestock animal and lead it around
o Keep track of your animals as with hunted animals so they are not easily and permanently lost
o Ability to build fences (more than one fence tile per tree used, as opposed to wall)
o Ability to perform decisive attacks on unsuspecting or heavily injured opponent (a cow being slaughtered, for instance)
o Tracking livestock breeding/pregnancy information
o Grazing and drinking for livestock
o Eggs, chickens and associated objects
Post by: Dante on December 23, 2010, 10:38:01 pm
Holy carp, EIGHTEEN new types of grass!?!I would be genuinely surprised if Toady hadn't added at least one subterranean mold, algae or fungal ground cover that could be grazed.
Oh man the need for outdoor pastures is going to make me need to build topside again.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 23, 2010, 10:48:58 pm
could it be after this long time,
a Garden in the dersert?
edit: this means a way for "gardenening" and moving soil would be neat.
Post by: monk12 on December 23, 2010, 10:53:25 pm
Is cattle herding in for adventure mode? Will we be able to rustle cattle in the next version? Will there be organized raids on herd animals in the future? Specifically in regards to quest giving- will the important historical figures recognize the importance of stealing the enemies herds and assign quests or bounties on enemy cattle.
None of that has yet been implemented for the next version (as is generally true for features not mentioned in the dev log). Herding and other livestock stuff is planned, though: (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html)QuoteBasic Adventure Mode Skills
* Raising livestock
o Farms associated to entity population sprawl
o Ability to buy a livestock animal and lead it around
o Keep track of your animals as with hunted animals so they are not easily and permanently lost
o Ability to build fences (more than one fence tile per tree used, as opposed to wall)
o Ability to perform decisive attacks on unsuspecting or heavily injured opponent (a cow being slaughtered, for instance)
o Tracking livestock breeding/pregnancy information
o Grazing and drinking for livestock
o Eggs, chickens and associated objects
Cheerfully withdrawn!
Post by: caknuck on December 24, 2010, 12:04:39 am
On the horizon,
A Garden in the desert
After this long time?
Haiku'd that for you
Post by: Fieari on December 24, 2010, 09:50:32 am
But it does lead to the question... are there any actual gameplay differences between the different kinds of grass? Is it just different names depending on biome, or do they have other effects? Is there a point to the different types beyond the names?
Post by: Knight Otu on December 24, 2010, 10:59:20 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 24, 2010, 11:18:25 am
Post by: Areyar on December 24, 2010, 12:09:41 pm
e.g. Towercaps are fungoid, yet they belong in the tree-morphological slot which provides wood.
....speculating...
For determining what species can feed on, we need a tag which is a list of what it can feed on, possibly multiple tags on all possible foodsources. (carni-omni-herbivore-fungivore etc, but also tree/shrub/grass, ecological: aquatic/land/magma/underground, or a list of specific species, for picky eaters such as panda.)
Post by: Bralbaard on December 24, 2010, 12:11:58 pm
Hey Bamboo is a grass too. Grass that can grow, depending on species, a meter a day up to 38 meters high and 80cm in diameter. Hehe i hope there is bamboo in this release.
Well, the panda is on the list of animals you can vote for, it would be kind of dissapointing if their presence in the game would be limited to a message in legends mode saying that they died out, because of a lack of food..
Post by: Lancensis on December 24, 2010, 07:14:06 pm
Well, the panda is on the list of animals you can vote for, it would be kind of dissapointing if their presence in the game would be limited to a message in legends mode saying that they died out, because of a lack of food..
Yeah, I forsee a lot of animals with obscure foodsources dying, untill their food is implemented. Personally, I'm going to ensure all my livestock get a diet of disgusting tentacle grass.
Post by: Untelligent on December 24, 2010, 08:30:17 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on December 24, 2010, 08:49:46 pm
I'm quite certain that any animal implemented that only eats an obscure resource will come along with access to that resource. Toady wouldn't implement pandas and make them only eat bamboo unless they were able to do so.
Keep in mind that the devlog only mentioned "bovine animals". It may not even include all ruminants, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruminantia) much less other herbivores.
Post by: Lancensis on December 24, 2010, 09:15:31 pm
I'm quite certain that any animal implemented that only eats an obscure resource will come along with access to that resource. Toady wouldn't implement pandas and make them only eat bamboo unless they were able to do so.
Keep in mind that the devlog only mentioned "bovine animals". It may not even include all ruminants, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruminantia) much less other herbivores.
Yeaaaaaah, but it'd be pretty odd for cows to be able to starve to death, but not pigs. Although, I guess it would get around the problems Toady mentioned with deer coming into your stockpile and eating your Plump Helmet Roasts and whatnot. I guess Wild Animals will probably still not eat, (other than the thieves).
Are the various types of Grass in the raws, or are they still hardcoded?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 25, 2010, 12:45:29 am
Post by: monk12 on December 25, 2010, 01:14:05 pm
Post by: Cruxador on December 25, 2010, 01:59:47 pm
I perceived that word choice as ThreeToe choosing to speak "colorfully" rather than a word chosen to most accurately reflect the actual circumstance.I'm quite certain that any animal implemented that only eats an obscure resource will come along with access to that resource. Toady wouldn't implement pandas and make them only eat bamboo unless they were able to do so.
Keep in mind that the devlog only mentioned "bovine animals". It may not even include all ruminants, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruminantia) much less other herbivores.
Post by: dennislp3 on December 25, 2010, 03:07:13 pm
Although, as a bit of wild Christmas Speculation, I could see on-site animal grazing operating like the existing GrassTrample, except that animals do it at regular intervals instead of all the time. Thus, their behavior doesn't really change insomuch as they still wander around a bit and stand around a bit and interrupt all your dwarves, just now you can watch them and see some grass disappear every once in a while when they graze.
In theory the trample mechanic alone can work for that. they graze in a spot/area enough it eventually gets trampled.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 25, 2010, 04:09:15 pm
Keep in mind that the devlog only mentioned "bovine animals". It may not even include all ruminants, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruminantia) much less other herbivores.I perceived that word choice as ThreeToe choosing to speak "colorfully" rather than a word chosen to most accurately reflect the actual circumstance.
That's probably true, but it's extremely unlikely that all types of herbivory have received as much attention as ruminant grazing. For example, we probably won't see aquatic creatures eating algae/seaweed yet.
Post by: zwei on December 25, 2010, 04:12:22 pm
Post by: Untelligent on December 25, 2010, 08:25:40 pm
I'm quite certain that any animal implemented that only eats an obscure resource will come along with access to that resource. Toady wouldn't implement pandas and make them only eat bamboo unless they were able to do so.
Keep in mind that the devlog only mentioned "bovine animals". It may not even include all ruminants, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruminantia) much less other herbivores.
I know, I was just saying that I highly doubt Toady would implement any animal with a food requirement unless it was able to get at that food.
Post by: Kogut on December 26, 2010, 07:26:56 am
Answered on devlog:
Is it planned to focus more on bugfixing? For example - there is hospital - it may be possible to add prosthesis for dwarves without limbs. But resolving bugs 191, 194 or 287 would have better effect for gameplay. Or maybe making something connected with hospital what will cause game to run on 1 more FPS.
Post by: Knight Otu on December 26, 2010, 07:47:17 am
Is it planned to focus more on bugfixing?Every release sees a few bugfixes, and the release after the next one is indicated to be a major bugfix release, or at least the beginning of such:
Quote from: ThreeToe on the dev log
11/17/2010 Alright. We got some bugs out the way and will make a big bug crunching push after this next release.
Post by: Kogut on December 26, 2010, 08:24:27 am
Is it planned to focus more on bugfixing?Every release sees a few bugfixes, and the release after the next one is indicated to be a major bugfix release, or at least the beginning of such:Quote from: ThreeToe on the dev log11/17/2010 Alright. We got some bugs out the way and will make a big bug crunching push after this next release.
Great! I missed devblog, I searched only over his posts in forum.
Post by: MrWiggles on December 26, 2010, 08:38:09 am
Post by: Demki on December 26, 2010, 09:18:13 am
Every release has on average, 18.4 bugs fixed.How do you fix .4 of the bug?
Post by: nbonaparte on December 26, 2010, 10:53:21 am
Post by: modger on December 26, 2010, 12:36:46 pm
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 26, 2010, 01:47:30 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on December 26, 2010, 02:44:25 pm
The older versions, I believe, had "canned" settlements.
Yeah, in the new versions procedural generation is just used to "magic up" some simple rectangle houses and fancier castles. There's nothing quite like the old versions, but having them entirely random is pretty nice.
Post by: Untelligent on December 26, 2010, 03:51:18 pm
Post by: kilakan on December 28, 2010, 10:44:27 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on December 28, 2010, 10:46:13 pm
hum anyone know if it's been answered that eggs will actually hatch into animals, as opposed to being a food product. Such as birds hatching from eggs, along with possibly dragons?I think its very likely. As when Toady spoke about Eggs last was in the Dwarf Talk podcast, ane he commented that eggs turning into other creatures should defiantly be going in.
Post by: Areyar on December 29, 2010, 10:16:16 am
...Though I'd think this line of inquiry very usefull in the case of elven settlements. As they don't cut trees, they'll have to somehow harvest saplings and hatch them into chairs and stuff.
Post by: TolyK on December 29, 2010, 11:10:22 am
I expect eggs to turn into grenades for folks ;) if we can mod them (*winks at the Great Toad*)
Post by: tfaal on December 29, 2010, 02:38:02 pm
Post by: Aklyon on December 29, 2010, 02:40:47 pm
Post by: Rose on December 29, 2010, 02:42:13 pm
they just get so pissed off when they see you cutting your own wood, that they throw theirs at you.
Post by: TolyK on December 29, 2010, 03:05:49 pm
kinda it makes sense
Post by: iceball3 on December 29, 2010, 03:07:34 pm
I see them more having way to much wood, and need to get rid of it all, at knifepoint, if needed.I am sigging that. Mainly because it's awesome, and secondly because I'm tired of people getting pissy when i quote something with my name in it.
they just get so pissed off when they see you cutting your own wood, that they throw theirs at you.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 29, 2010, 03:50:38 pm
Post by: iceball3 on December 29, 2010, 05:04:52 pm
Elves are allergic to wood, they just don't know how to live outside of the forest. Trading to elves is like when you give some hyper-Tschernobylian mutant cannibalist some plutonium and then wonder why he's suddenly barfing all over your face.Then how do they tolerate their wooden weapons?
Post by: monk12 on December 29, 2010, 05:09:31 pm
That is, when I'm not imagining Elves as some kind of medieval Mafia with a penchant for pine.
Post by: Neonivek on December 30, 2010, 12:29:57 am
All the towns were completely scrapped for a big, slow overhaul. As development continues, the level of complexity in towns will eventually reach and surpass the complexity of towns in older versions.
No we want it now! who cares about development? (joke)
Post by: Rip0k on December 30, 2010, 04:48:14 am
Need to earn some $ and figure out how the donation works. This is my main task for a new year.
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 30, 2010, 07:50:07 am
Anybody here read the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan? I've always imagined that elves harvest trees in a manner similar to the Ogier, giant peaceful troll-like creatures who have the ability to Treesing. Sung wood is a valuable commodity in universe, and the only time it happens "on screen" it is used to turn a sapling into a quarterstaff, presumably in a way that did not hurt the tree.
Good series. A bit too short for my taste.
That's what I assumed the elves did as well.
Post by: Dradym on December 30, 2010, 10:15:09 pm
Post by: NSQuote on December 31, 2010, 09:40:11 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on January 01, 2011, 03:44:16 am
Considering how the caravan arc is coming up, are there any plans to allow the player to choose the material used for rock crafts? This'd be really nice, as you could choose to use a more/less common or more/less valuable stone in your crafts. Plus, you could fnally color coordinate things. <3
Materiel selection was on the top ten Eternal Suggestion Vote mcjiger. In which, individual materiel choice through the manager would be keen, but simple color choice would be acceptable. So, yes there is.
Post by: G-Flex on January 01, 2011, 04:06:44 am
Post by: Neonivek on January 01, 2011, 05:29:41 am
If you answered this before please skip it. In fact by all means skip this question if you want, it just somehow seems off to me.
Post by: thvaz on January 01, 2011, 05:44:14 am
I was eagerly waiting the monthly report to know what are the plans for this month, but nothing was told. Since the animal sponsorship we don't hear a thing about the caravan arc. Is it on hold? What are the plans for this month?
Post by: NSQuote on January 01, 2011, 12:06:37 pm
I probably should have said "are you planning to allow the player to choose the material used for rock crafts in the next release?" I'm pretty sure it's planned to be done eventually, but It'd be nice to know when it's planned to come, ie. during the caravan arc, after the bugfixing push, etc.Considering how the caravan arc is coming up, are there any plans to allow the player to choose the material used for rock crafts? This'd be really nice, as you could choose to use a more/less common or more/less valuable stone in your crafts. Plus, you could fnally color coordinate things. <3
Materiel selection was on the top ten Eternal Suggestion Vote mcjiger. In which, individual materiel choice through the manager would be keen, but simple color choice would be acceptable. So, yes there is.
Post by: Untelligent on January 01, 2011, 02:36:26 pm
I was eagerly waiting the monthly report to know what are the plans for this month, but nothing was told. Since the animal sponsorship we don't hear a thing about the caravan arc. Is it on hold? What are the plans for this month?
I'm guessing we haven't heard anything in a while because Toady was taking a Christmas-related break. Can't remember if he takes regular month-end breaks anymore. He'll probably continue working again in the next day or two, with a game-related dev log update later this week.
Post by: thvaz on January 01, 2011, 03:20:51 pm
I'm guessing we haven't heard anything in a while because Toady was taking a Christmas-related break. Can't remember if he takes regular month-end breaks anymore. He'll probably continue working again in the next day or two, with a game-related dev log update later this week.
There is quite some time he doesn't take breaks anymore, and he usually tells when he does. But it his right, no problem there. M y main point is the lack of a lan in this monthly report. They always put up a plan. Will they work on the animals of the donation drive? Will theywork on the caravan arc?
Post by: MrWiggles on January 01, 2011, 04:50:45 pm
I don't see what the point would be in implementing color choice without implementing full choice of material. If anything, implementing color choice instead would probably be harder, not easier.I'm hoping for both, myself.
From the ESV, its a hold over from the 2d version.
Post by: Toady One on January 02, 2011, 02:52:01 am
Quote from: Toadstool
are raw material quantities going to be altered? Specifically, wood and stone. The fact that a wood earring takes as much wood as a wood bed or door seems like it would have a huge influence on item values
Lots of things will impact prices over time, but I can only do so much for the first release. I haven't altered those industries. I think it would make sense to do so, but stacking concerns probably need to be addressed first.
Quote from: Cruxador
What does this mean? Specifically, what is a "fair" and what is a "market" in the context of Dwarf Fortress?
Markets will be weekly (or more) happenings in the town locations and be as much for the surrounding agricultural communities as much as traveling merchants and town producers. Fairs will probably be annual and attract more merchants from more locations. There's the whole issue with safe conduct and exemptions from tolls/taxes etc. that should accompany them, but we don't have enough backing for that yet.
Quote
Quote from: nenjinSo in the flurry of the caravan and army arcs, are you going to rough out the dwarven, elven and goblin civs so there's something for people to see when they venture out to those sites? Or does that play into too much political/civ-specific design you don't want to get bogged down in yet?Quote from: metime00What kind of structures/towns will dwarves and elves have if they get visible settlements in the next update?
There will most likely be something there into the army arc. It's not in for the next update.
Quote from: Knigel
what sort of development hurdles do you face in trying to implement aimed ranged attacks or attacking prone enemies from a range (and thus choosing which of several targets in the same tile to attack)
Nothing significant. I remember feeling a little rushed and passing up on aimed ranged attacks the first time through, but there's nothing aside from time stopping it from happening.
Quote from: Knigel
will there variable currency values and systems?
Currently, the money is all the same, just usable in different places. In the future, might the value of a civilization's currency depend on the state of it relative to the seller? For instance, money from a very far away place the seller rarely trades with would be worth less than normal, those from a collapsed civilization would only be worth the material it's made of, and money from a civilization that collapsed hundreds of years ago would cease functioning like currency and be valued as an artifact.
I haven't had to tackle any of this yet, but something's going to have to give anyway, since it is annoying how it works now.
Quote from: Knigel
Will you be able to fake scarcity, and thus increase price, by secretly hoarding goods?
It's not quite clear to me at this point, because it depends on how the traders see availability when they arrive at your site. They need to be not entirely stupid about it -- with a computer game the easiest way to do that is to make them know everything. Then the issue becomes disguising the information from them correctly. If they can only see what you bring to your depot, I need to make sure that doesn't make them totally gullible.
Quote from: The Minister
1) Will we get a return to differentiated sites for different civilizations next release? E.g. human towns being different from dwarven fortresses and goblin towers?
2) With the caravan arc starting, will towns have workshops corresponding to the professions of their citizens?
1) Nope, not yet
2) Yeah, I should be getting to that soon as soon as I clean up what's left of the new dwarf mode industries/livestock stuff
Quote from: Nivm
Is there point in wallowing in the economy now? Will time be found soon for toys?
I dunno. I don't have a timetable for things, and right now the plan is to do caravan -> bugs -> army. I've wanted to do instruments/toys/etc. at parties especially for a long time, but it hasn't happened yet.
Quote from: Hummingbird
One of the major annoyances I have had with post-sprawl worldgen is that civilizations are allowed to overlap their territories, and you end up with several civilizations stacked on top of each other. You seemed to allude to this a while ago when you said that "the upcoming association of hamlets/villages to the town markets is going to force me to come to terms with loose boundaries a bit, as will the desire to set up some kind of difference in available trade goods." I wasn't very clear on what you meant by this; did you intend civilizations to have these overlapping territories, or are there technical problems with giving civs clear, well-defined borders? If so, what are they, and how high a priority is it for you to fix the problem?
Overlaps are intended, but only in the current influence maps and entity population mixes that now occur for the next release in a site. The "civilization" territories represent culture and everything else right now, rather than just political boundaries. Settlements aren't intended to be homogenous. The problem is that settlements and castles get placed all together without any respect to what should be the powers attempting to control territory -- we don't have enough political information and it's probably not going to happen until the army arc.
Quote from: penguinofhonor
Will we ever have ghosts that appear even if you bury your dead properly? Because I want ghosts but I like having elaborate tombs. Maybe ghosts with unfinished business, like if they were murdered. Of course, we need murder first. Which would be awesome.
Ever is a strong word, he he he. We had thought of putting one such instance for the first release, though, yeah. So I think it'll happen at some point before eternity comes around.
Quote from: Quatch
With the new caravan focus on trading, will we get any improvements to the fortress mode trade screen?
It's going to have to be different, anyway, to convey the new information. I'm not sure how it'll be yet though.
Quote from: Greiger
Any thoughts on how those things are going to work when applied to a fortress race? Would a sheep-men civ be able to shave eachother to produce wool trade goods? Lizard or birdmen lay eggs and carry them around like babies? Or is it currently looking like they'll pretty much ignore that kind of stuff and make an omlette out of their young?
There are a number of jobs that aren't applied to fortress critters or thinking critters in general. I haven't supported those because the dwarves don't have them and I imagine it could go either way on fort races which have the available properties, so it is extra work. It's possible that a fort race with eggs just wouldn't breed because it doesn't recognize nest boxes. In those cases you'd just want to leave the eggs out until such a time that they are supported.
Quote from: Urist McDepravity
Will that oil burn when exposed to fire/heat? Could we also have candles and torches from this update?
We won't get candles or torches until the general lighting improvements. Vegetable oil in general isn't super-flammable compared to other gassy/oily things, as far as I know, but we'll use whatever numbers we can find.
Quote from: Jiri Petru
I really, really wish we could get some fix to animals' pathfinding now, otherwise the 16 new domestic species will murder the FPS, and to add insult to injury, make all the hallways extremely crowded. Some kind of fenced pastures perhaps? Or allow us to create a special alert+burrow for domestic animals that would prevent them from pathing? Please?
There's going to be something. Leaning toward a zone as with pit/pond now, but where they just stay because they get their foods there. Ideally they'd go stray or need to be tended or something, but that would be for later. Having a dwarf lead the newly penned/pastured critter to the zone is enough work-credit toward animal herding now, I guess. Fences are fair, but I dunno if we're going there yet or not.
Quote from: zwei
Are there plans to make changes to animal/unit list to better handle large number of units (i.e., filters, searching, sorting ... all that kinds of "boring business application" perks)
The stocks screen is certainly going to get something. The unit screen most likely as well.
Quote
Quote from: 1freemanHey Toady, can you say what the 16 new animals will be? or do you want it to be a surprise?Quote from: monk12"Assorted animals and thinking beings?" Care to elaborate on some of those?
People are having too much fun speculating in that other thread for me to interrupt the process.
Quote from: KillerClowns
How will inherently lonely megabeasts find mates? Will other megabeasts reproduce? And will FBs and titans be able to inherit egg laying?
Until critters move around on the world map, which is coming but isn't here yet, we just have megabeast reproduction in world gen and eggs sitting around that ostensibly come around from whatever. I don't know that titans or FBs will ever lay eggs as a matter of course, because we don't really have an explanation for what they are or what their continuing role in the world is.
Quote from: 1freeman
Toady, will eggs have a stockpile option, and if so will it be considered food or an animal for stockpile purposes?
also will dwarfs be able to eat eggs or are they off limits.
It is the food stockpile, and they have their own category. Right now they are only cookable, rather than raw edible.
Quote from: Hummingbird
Now that trade routes depend on availability of roads (do they?), will fast-traveling over roads in Adventurer Mode confer reasonable bonuses to traveling speed (or penalties for moving off the road)? For both adventurers and merchants, it would make sense for walking on road to be easier, faster, and safer than hacking through wilderness.
Related: Will dwarven roads over mountains squares be accessible through fast-traveling in Adventurer Mode?
Fast travel speeds aren't going to be different from local travel speeds, for consistency, as close as I can make them anyway. So if traveling on roads should be faster, it has to be for a local reason. Right now, traveling on any terrain is the same speed. When we get to underbrush in the dev page, the movement speeds should be properly impacted. I'm not sure that we'll get to any of that this time, though the grass density information helps set us up for it.
Quote
Quote from: LovechildIf I steal a dragon egg, will it hatch? And will the baby dragon think I'm its mom, or try to kill me?Quote from: freeformschoolerI realize that we'll probably be able to raise dragons and rocs from eggs in Fortress mode, but will we be able to do so in ADVENTURE MODE? Since there will probably be horse riding, I don't think it's too far off.
Right now it won't hatch, but it could still turn out any way since I'm not finished yet. But yeah, as more pet support goes in, various stuff is going to happen.
Quote from: B0013
According to this pic ruc's eggs are enormous. How do we steal that?!
Also do this mean that all the animals that get eggs get lairs too?
He he he, you can probably put it in your "magic" backpack, yeah. Later you'll probably need a stretcher and bearers or something.
The regular birds that have eggs won't get lairs. I'm not quite sure which critters you were referring to.
Quote from: Jiri Petru
Will you add any of the new craftable materials (wool, clay), but also some older ones (horn, teeth, pearls, feathers) as prerequisites for artifacts? And the other way around, will any of the new items (pottery, porcelain) be artifactable?
Wool is the only one I've finished, and it made it in for artifacts. I haven't put teeth or horns in for artifacts. We'll have to see if the clay labors come up. It should be happening fairly soon.
Quote from: slMagnvox
Will any creatures ever adopt an adventurer like cats do in Fort Mode? Also might some juveniles get an [IMPRESSIONABLE] tag or similar? Birds, that are about to hatch from all these crazy new eggs, are particularily good candidates for that I think.
It certainly seems reasonable. I'm not sure when we'd get to imprinting or anything like that. Having all the extra animals around towns etc. is going to help, but we're just starting up with adv mode pets/animals so we'll have to see how that goes.
Quote from: Untelligent
Given that some of the new creatures and plants going in the game are going to have related economic benefits and produce tradable goods other than meat n' things, will we be able to buy rhino milk from the elves?
Is long distance milk trading ever practical? It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would keep well. Cheese is already traded if I remember, though I don't recall if elves make cheese. They are missing a number of professions and probably will until we get their giant trees settled.
Quote from: Vattic
If I throw an egg will it's shell break and spill it's insides?
There are lots of items that should break when they hit the ground, but I haven't done anything new with item damage yet. The egg is certainly a prime candidate for that sort of thing.
Quote from: Footkerchief
[OP statement about pathfinding/tiles] was about 6 months ago. Have these been on hold because Baughn's busy?
I haven't done any of the ESV items yet, so #1 vote hauling is really the one to be thinking about, in terms of scheduling, and I don't even know for that. I managed to squeeze a bit out of the profiler, but that's not done yet. I won't be able to do anything with tiles since the addition of map tiles and item tiles will blow out the atlas, and I don't know how to go to multiple atlases without breaking what he has done.
Quote from: harborpirate
Do you find the recent trend of megathreads that unite all known suggestions on a given topic into a single post to be helpful?
If so, are there any topics that you wish had a megathread that you haven't seen one for yet?
I like colors and well-organized posts, and I imagine if I missed something I'd be likely to see it again in a megathread OP, but I still read through all the other threads, so I'm not sure in the end what the effect is. I don't have any suggestions for things I'd like people to talk about.
Quote from: Cruxador
Now that we have a readily available source of feathers, will arrows and bolts require them? Will they not be required, but provide an advantage if used? If that won't be the case in this update, will it be eventually/soon?
It isn't that way now, and I can't answer soon to anything. Fletching is reasonable. It might come up if we start building dwarf mode items from more materials. There's probably a point where that becomes unworkable, but I don't think arrows are at the point where adding feathers to their production would cause trouble.
Quote from: Heph
Will only cows grass or other animals like horses and goats too? Do you have a food/meat gathering ratio as tag (i.e. a cow that grazes down 3 tiles grows 30kg of meat)? Do animals need water now too?
There will be many eating animals, but I'm not sure which ones exactly, and I haven't decided how it will work. I hope that small animals won't eat as much as large animals, anyway, even if it isn't that way for anybody right now. I'm not sure about water either, but I should have some information soon.
Quote from: Fieari
But it does lead to the question... are there any actual gameplay differences between the different kinds of grass? Is it just different names depending on biome, or do they have other effects? Is there a point to the different types beyond the names?
It's like the other atmospheric stuff at this point.
Quote from: Lancensis
Are the various types of Grass in the raws, or are they still hardcoded?
It is all in the raws.
Quote from: Heph
Will longland-grass yield hay/straw as side product?
We're going to have hay once they use the meadows they set aside in the villages, certainly, but I haven't done this yet. Straw after processing in the farmer's workshop or however it's going to work is probably faster to put in. Once I get through all the livestock stuff in the coming days, and the beasts are eating properly, we'll see if we need to let you collect food for them in advance of winter/sieges.
Quote from: Kogut
Part of menus are not using full screen space - for example main menu, trading menu etc. Is it by bug/by design/sth that is planned to do but less important than other stuff?
You mean if you go beyond the initial 80x25 grid resizing the window? We'll get to that eventually.
Quote from: Neonivek
With all these new animals any plans to diversify the biomes in terms of biodiversity or food stock? As I said before Dwarf Fortress doesn't handle variety well
If you answered this before please skip it. In fact by all means skip this question if you want, it just somehow seems off to me.
I don't understand the question. The spatial ranges of animals are a new addition for next time, but the regions always had different critters (when there were enough available to pick from).
Quote from: thvaz
I was eagerly waiting the monthly report to know what are the plans for this month, but nothing was told. Since the animal sponsorship we don't hear a thing about the caravan arc. Is it on hold? What are the plans for this month?
There just aren't any new plans yet this month. The unexpected amount of sponsorship drive and the holidays made things a little slower than anticipated, so we still have to do things like clay and vegetable oil. Once I'm caught up I'll put something up in the dev log.
Quote from: NSQuote
I probably should have said "are you planning to allow the player to choose the material used for rock crafts in the next release?" I'm pretty sure it's planned to be done eventually, but It'd be nice to know when it's planned to come, ie. during the caravan arc, after the bugfixing push, etc.
I don't know. I don't have any answers for timeline questions other than what we've said about the caravan arc, bugfixing and army stuff after that. Someone brought up the ESV stuff in response to your question, and I'm still not sure when it's going to be worked in. It won't necessarily be after all of the army stuff, but I'm definitely doing the caravan arc then bugs before other things.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 02, 2011, 03:32:18 am
Quote from: thvazI was eagerly waiting the monthly report to know what are the plans for this month, but nothing was told. Since the animal sponsorship we don't hear a thing about the caravan arc. Is it on hold? What are the plans for this month?
There just aren't any new plans yet this month. The unexpected amount of sponsorship drive and the holidays made things a little slower than anticipated, so we still have to do things like clay and vegetable oil. Once I'm caught up I'll put something up in the dev log.
Threetoe has to do that announcement so it "feels" right. ;)
Post by: Neonivek on January 02, 2011, 04:04:43 am
Quote
I don't understand the question. The spatial ranges of animals are a new addition for next time, but the regions always had different critters (when there were enough available to pick from).
Well I sort of meant if you would be allowing tracks of land more varieties of animals and have the selection of animals match their niches, size, and consumption types now that there is a huge influx of critters.
Also thanks again for answering out questions.
Post by: Cruxador on January 02, 2011, 04:14:51 am
If you were trying to reword for clarity, I think you didn't really do so well here. I don't get what you're trying to say. But I have a strong suspicion that whatever you're asking about is something that has been happening for a while, we've just not seen the effects of it due to limited creature types.QuoteI don't understand the question. The spatial ranges of animals are a new addition for next time, but the regions always had different critters (when there were enough available to pick from).
Well I sort of meant if you would be allowing tracks of land more varieties of animals and have the selection of animals match their niches, size, and consumption types now that there is a huge influx of critters.
Also thanks again for answering out questions.
Post by: thvaz on January 02, 2011, 04:26:05 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 02, 2011, 04:35:27 am
If you were trying to reword for clarity, I think you didn't really do so well here. I don't get what you're trying to say. But I have a strong suspicion that whatever you're asking about is something that has been happening for a while, we've just not seen the effects of it due to limited creature types.
Yes i dint understand it either. I think Neonivek means if 2 geographical independent places (island, Continents etc.) with the same biome will have different fauna and flora that can exist in this biome. Kinda like the northpole having Ice-bears while the Southpole has penguins (and gorgeous leopard seals that hunt them as food for Journalists that film them).
As for that you would need to calculate interconnectivity of such biomes and the mobility of theyr inhabitants. Most plants that dont have airborne seeds will not leap to other places, many mammals will not cross a mountainranges etc. .
Post by: Neonivek on January 02, 2011, 04:44:52 am
If you were trying to reword for clarity, I think you didn't really do so well here. I don't get what you're trying to say. But I have a strong suspicion that whatever you're asking about is something that has been happening for a while, we've just not seen the effects of it due to limited creature types.QuoteI don't understand the question. The spatial ranges of animals are a new addition for next time, but the regions always had different critters (when there were enough available to pick from).
Well I sort of meant if you would be allowing tracks of land more varieties of animals and have the selection of animals match their niches, size, and consumption types now that there is a huge influx of critters.
Also thanks again for answering out questions.
Thus I give up
Post by: Greiger on January 02, 2011, 10:32:47 am
McHauler: That chicken just laid an egg in the rapidly filling magma channel! I must get it to the food stockpile!
‼McHauler‼ cancels collect ‼Fried Egg‼; going to go get drunk.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 02, 2011, 01:35:00 pm
I think I get what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong:If you were trying to reword for clarity, I think you didn't really do so well here. I don't get what you're trying to say. But I have a strong suspicion that whatever you're asking about is something that has been happening for a while, we've just not seen the effects of it due to limited creature types.QuoteI don't understand the question. The spatial ranges of animals are a new addition for next time, but the regions always had different critters (when there were enough available to pick from).
Well I sort of meant if you would be allowing tracks of land more varieties of animals and have the selection of animals match their niches, size, and consumption types now that there is a huge influx of critters.
Also thanks again for answering out questions.
Thus I give up
Are there any plans to incorporate more creature variance between different areas with the same biome? For instance, in a world with two tropical dry broadleaf forests, will they eventually support different wildlife from each other?
Also, new question:
With the continued addition of good/evil/savage/calm flora and fauna, is there any chance of eventually having good/evil/savage/calm minerals/soils? I know it would involve changing worldgen to determine surroundings before minerals, so how feasible is this?
Post by: Cruxador on January 02, 2011, 02:42:18 pm
With the continued addition of good/evil/savage/calm flora and fauna, is there any chance of eventually having good/evil/savage/calm minerals/soils? I know it would involve changing worldgen to determine surroundings before minerals, so how feasible is this?It does seem like something that would naturally arise from the different grass types. But thus far, different types of grass are apparently very similar still, and soil doesn't inherit properties from things that die on it. This will likely remain unchanged until some farming rewrites, which I am pretty sure are not likely to be included in this update.
Post by: monk12 on January 02, 2011, 08:12:38 pm
People are having too much fun speculating in that other thread for me to interrupt the process.
Man, I feel like a kid guessing about his presents before Christmas. Except that given the unpredictable nature of DF releases, I will most likely not know its coming!
It is fun, though. Anticipation is nearly as exciting as the Event itself.
Post by: freeformschooler on January 03, 2011, 08:55:22 am
People are having too much fun speculating in that other thread for me to interrupt the process.
I laughed when I saw this. Bravo, Toady.
SSSOOOOO this has probably only been asked a million times before. I looked through two (?) dev pages but didn't see anything about it. Are there any long, LONG-term plans for any sort of multiplayer support? Hosting a server for multiple people to join? One player player Fortress Mode while the other plays a dorf? Two adventurers? I can't say that it would work really well (it doesn't look like it would) but it's fun to speculate about.
Post by: Lord Shonus on January 03, 2011, 09:56:43 am
Post by: freeformschooler on January 03, 2011, 10:09:56 am
Never. Not a chance. Not going to happen.
That's what I figured.
But never say never. Remember all the main dev goals are the ones up til 1.0.
Post by: nbonaparte on January 03, 2011, 10:27:10 am
Post by: Willfor on January 03, 2011, 10:27:29 am
He's stated that his goal is to make a massively single player game due to the plethora of massively multiplayer ones.Never. Not a chance. Not going to happen.
That's what I figured.
But never say never. Remember all the main dev goals are the ones up til 1.0.
Post by: nbonaparte on January 03, 2011, 10:32:26 am
Post by: Lord Shonus on January 03, 2011, 10:33:29 am
Post by: Demki on January 03, 2011, 10:35:08 am
Post by: freeformschooler on January 03, 2011, 10:37:27 am
Shoddy DRM and limited contend killed spore.
Yeah, seriously guys, no comparing DF to Spore. There's just no comparison.
I'm glad he's billing it as a massively singleplayer game. It allows more focus on content and less time troubleshooting whining people who want to make a server and don't know how to port forward.
I don't think multiplayer will work, unless you change the game to real-time, which steals it from it's roguelike aspects. Or a turn-based game, but then you should just make a new game.
Or you could just have each tick/turn end when all players have made an action. But then that would be very slow. And not fun.
Post by: nbonaparte on January 03, 2011, 11:21:22 am
Post by: harborpirate on January 03, 2011, 12:39:32 pm
This confirms my suspicions about megathreads, that they should focus on organization and suggesting ideas of how already suggested items could fit together.
Thanks again sir!
Post by: Festin on January 04, 2011, 07:11:22 am
Is there a chance that we will be able to give custom names to squads in the next release?
I don't think it would be difficult to implement, and the ability to name a squad "Entrance Guard" or "1st Axedwarves" instead of something like "The Rusty Shovels" would make squad management significantly easier.
Post by: G-Flex on January 04, 2011, 12:30:00 pm
Post by: jimi12 on January 05, 2011, 01:14:16 pm
Post by: thvaz on January 05, 2011, 03:10:53 pm
Post by: Lord Shonus on January 05, 2011, 03:11:52 pm
Post by: thvaz on January 05, 2011, 03:29:16 pm
Post by: Untelligent on January 05, 2011, 03:49:24 pm
Post by: jimi12 on January 05, 2011, 04:18:36 pm
Post by: thvaz on January 05, 2011, 06:07:34 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on January 06, 2011, 02:37:21 am
Like, what do you see as differences between Elves and Humans when their fort mode is part of the vanilla game. I think that can stir up some nifty conversation.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 07, 2011, 04:44:39 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on January 07, 2011, 04:49:15 pm
Kobolds are known for stealing. Here's a potential reason why;
Consider a Kobold nest While the eggs may be safe from predators, if hidden well in a good cave, they are not safe from a different Kobold clan, especially if they are left there while the parents forage and scavange. Now, what clan would be larger- one that respects property rights, or one that collects any old eggs they happen to see lying around?
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 07, 2011, 06:50:07 pm
Post by: Armok on January 07, 2011, 07:01:49 pm
You know, Kobolds laying eggs kinda works. Actually...Oooh, just like the slave-taking behaviours of some ant species?
Kobolds are known for stealing. Here's a potential reason why;
Consider a Kobold nest While the eggs may be safe from predators, if hidden well in a good cave, they are not safe from a different Kobold clan, especially if they are left there while the parents forage and scavange. Now, what clan would be larger- one that respects property rights, or one that collects any old eggs they happen to see lying around?
Post by: Dagoth Urist on January 07, 2011, 09:53:55 pm
You know, Kobolds laying eggs kinda works. Actually...
Kobolds are known for stealing. Here's a potential reason why;
Consider a Kobold nest While the eggs may be safe from predators, if hidden well in a good cave, they are not safe from a different Kobold clan, especially if they are left there while the parents forage and scavenge. Now, what clan would be larger- one that respects property rights, or one that collects any old eggs they happen to see lying around?
I can easily see Kobolds "pseudo-taming" creatures by stealing eggs, but stealing from other Kobolds? Wouldn't one of twenty Kobolds of a tribe stay and stand guard in the nest chamber of their home cave? Considering that they are prone to stealing, they'd be aware that other Kobolds are out there, capable of stealing their stuff and eggs.
Post by: MrWiggles on January 07, 2011, 10:18:57 pm
I can easily see Kobolds "pseudo-taming" creatures by stealing eggs, but stealing from other Kobolds? Wouldn't one of twenty Kobolds of a tribe stay and stand guard in the nest chamber of their home cave? Considering that they are prone to stealing, they'd be aware that other Kobolds are out there, capable of stealing their stuff and eggs.Aware, I think would be hard to judge. Kobolds to myself, don't seem to be very sapient. Being able to foresee events and plan for them is a pretty advance cognitive facility.
Post by: tps12 on January 07, 2011, 11:04:02 pm
Wouldn't one of twenty Kobolds of a tribe stay and stand guard in the nest chamber of their home cave? Considering that they are prone to stealing, they'd be aware that other Kobolds are out there, capable of stealing their stuff and eggs.
Stealing someone else's offspring to raise as your own seems like a pretty questionable strategy from an evolution standpoint. It's like the inverse of what a cuckoo does.
Post by: therahedwig on January 07, 2011, 11:44:41 pm
Now next to dwarven syrup and dwarven sugar, we'll have dwarven honey? ;)
I'm curious how it'll be implemented.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 07, 2011, 11:57:08 pm
Wouldn't one of twenty Kobolds of a tribe stay and stand guard in the nest chamber of their home cave? Considering that they are prone to stealing, they'd be aware that other Kobolds are out there, capable of stealing their stuff and eggs.
Stealing someone else's offspring to raise as your own seems like a pretty questionable strategy from an evolution standpoint. It's like the inverse of what a cuckoo does.
Actually for pack animals it might make sense to prevent inbreeding.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 07, 2011, 11:58:13 pm
Post by: aka010101 on January 08, 2011, 12:03:10 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 08, 2011, 12:08:13 am
Post by: Dante on January 08, 2011, 12:28:45 am
Stealing someone else's offspring to raise as your own seems like a pretty questionable strategy from an evolution standpoint.Not if you castrate em!
Post by: Neonivek on January 08, 2011, 01:17:34 am
CHANGE THE BACKGROUND OF THE ANIMAL DRIVE RESULTS!!!
My eyes BURN!!! :'(
Post by: Areyar on January 08, 2011, 09:53:49 am
(cave beez living in beards, leeches clinging unto exposed skin, flees/mites/crabs living in furry bits or clothes, maggots burrowing into rotten bodyparts. etc)
Will these creatures get special code as they get added or will they, for now, remain the same as the vermin we know?
I've never seen it happen yet, my dorfs generally die of infection or thirst before they lose additional limbs; is the necrosis syndrome modelled in the healthcare/wound healing system ?
Post by: Qinetix on January 08, 2011, 10:04:11 am
And if it could be like that could we craft weapons and furniture in adventure mode?
I think some of us would enjoy to be a single man building everithing
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on January 08, 2011, 10:06:21 am
Post by: Footkerchief on January 08, 2011, 11:51:07 am
Besides the standalone creatures, there are several vermin/parasites sponsored that (could) live on/adopt unwilling creatures.
(cave beez living in beards, leeches clinging unto exposed skin, flees/mites/crabs living in furry bits or clothes, maggots burrowing into rotten bodyparts. etc)
Will these creatures get special code as they get added or will they, for now, remain the same as the vermin we know?
This was covered in the sponsorship thread:
Oooh, niftiness. Out of curiosity, will these animals be implemented with all the expected bells and whistles, such as spitting cobras spitting venom, and termites eating wood?
I'm going to do my best -- there are things like the entire honey industry which I was considering putting in for the release but which overall might not be guaranteed with something like a bee sponsorship, but the existence and sponsorship of the bee certainly helps its prospects. So, some of the animals imply more work than others, and I can't guarantee absolute satisfaction, but I am dedicated to getting things up to speed, and I'm all for adding new tags and things.
Quote from: LASDWith animals like the Kakapo that produce a distinct booming sound that can be heard miles away, are you planning to add descriptive sound lines to Adventure Mode when these kind of creatures are around?
Yeah, it could happen. We'll probably focus on a few specific things for each animal, and it'll likely reverberate around a bit through the raws.
Also, it was revealed today that we're getting beekeeping. (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-01-07)
We will be able to mine and build in adventure mode?
And if it could be like that could we craft weapons and furniture in adventure mode?
I think some of us would enjoy to be a single man building everithing
As was already said, this is all on the dev page: (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html)
Quote from: dev.html
Basic Adventure Mode Skills
* Some survival skills
[...]
o Ability to make clothing and some other objects from hides
* Wood use
o Ground debris/sticks/underbrush
o Ability to chop down tree using appropriate tool
o Ability to make simple wooden weapons and ammunition
o Ability to use logs to make constructions
o Site recognition for saving adventurer-made sites (will require entity pops first, see below)
o Ability to name site
* Digging and stone constructions
o Ability to dig out soil tiles
o Buried boulders in some soils
o Ability to pull up surface boulders
o Ability to make rough stone constructions
* Hunting/tracking animals
[...]
[...]
* Growing crops
o Ability to till tile (faster with tool)
o Ability to plant seeds
o Ability to pass time quickly (unlike current sleep command)
o Ability to harvest plants
o Ability to make a quern from a boulder
o Ability to grind grindable plants (designating any proper container for products)
o Ability to cook and appropriate tools for this
* Raising livestock
o Farms associated to entity population sprawl
o Ability to buy a livestock animal and lead it around
o Keep track of your animals as with hunted animals so they are not easily and permanently lost
o Ability to build fences (more than one fence tile per tree used, as opposed to wall)
o Ability to perform decisive attacks on unsuspecting or heavily injured opponent (a cow being slaughtered, for instance)
o Tracking livestock breeding/pregnancy information
o Grazing and drinking for livestock
o Eggs, chickens and associated objects
[...]
Post by: Qinetix on January 08, 2011, 12:54:58 pm
Post by: Armok on January 08, 2011, 01:31:56 pm
Yea, and for there being advantages to simply living in a bigger tribe, and siblings helping each other and so on. It works best if kobold eggs are big and require lots of energy to produce, but kobolds don't require much intensive parenting.Wouldn't one of twenty Kobolds of a tribe stay and stand guard in the nest chamber of their home cave? Considering that they are prone to stealing, they'd be aware that other Kobolds are out there, capable of stealing their stuff and eggs.
Stealing someone else's offspring to raise as your own seems like a pretty questionable strategy from an evolution standpoint. It's like the inverse of what a cuckoo does.
Actually for pack animals it might make sense to prevent inbreeding.
Quote from: Dante link=topic=60554.msg1865671#msg1865671 date=1294464525
This'd probably be a good strategy to. Also very likely "slaves" would be killed and possibly eaten if food runs low enough that being in a large tribe stops being an advantage.Stealing someone else's offspring to raise as your own seems like a pretty questionable strategy from an evolution standpoint.Not if you castrate em!
EDIT: someone should make a suggestion about all this.
Post by: Neonivek on January 08, 2011, 01:36:38 pm
Mind you on the Laptop I was using the background was 100% the Zebra stripes without the overlay for the writing.
Was Toady responsible or was it my Laptop?
Post by: Quatch on January 08, 2011, 04:25:52 pm
Just out of curiosity. (Under the assumption that such is easily available rather than distracting)
Post by: PTTG?? on January 08, 2011, 07:59:45 pm
Wouldn't one of twenty Kobolds of a tribe stay and stand guard in the nest chamber of their home cave? Considering that they are prone to stealing, they'd be aware that other Kobolds are out there, capable of stealing their stuff and eggs.
Stealing someone else's offspring to raise as your own seems like a pretty questionable strategy from an evolution standpoint. It's like the inverse of what a cuckoo does.
Ah, but while not obviously advantageous, the additional members of the clans are available to do tasks that increase the survivability of the whole thing.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on January 08, 2011, 09:17:37 pm
Stealing someone else's offspring to raise as your own seems like a pretty questionable strategy from an evolution standpoint. It's like the inverse of what a cuckoo does.
even if it wouldn't perpetuate the species or endorse the genetic purity of the race, it would still be a self perpetuating cultural habit... a good example would be the goblinless goblin civilizations we used to have before the population rewrite, the race disappeared, but the civ would survive.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 09, 2011, 02:28:33 am
Hey Did Toady change the background to the Animal Drive or is it just my computer?
I guess your laptop may have chokedon the css (if there is one) file of that page.
Post by: Neonivek on January 09, 2011, 04:27:05 am
Hey Did Toady change the background to the Animal Drive or is it just my computer?
I guess your laptop may have chokedon the css (if there is one) file of that page.
Either that or my laptop is trying to give me an Epileptic Seizure
Post by: G-Flex on January 09, 2011, 07:51:44 am
Hey Did Toady change the background to the Animal Drive or is it just my computer?
Mind you on the Laptop I was using the background was 100% the Zebra stripes without the overlay for the writing.
Was Toady responsible or was it my Laptop?
Out of curiosity, what browser are you using?
Post by: Cardinal on January 09, 2011, 12:14:09 pm
Quote from: Dante link=topic=60554.msg1865671#msg1865671 date=1294464525
This'd probably be a good strategy to. Also very likely "slaves" would be killed and possibly eaten if food runs low enough that being in a large tribe stops being an advantage.Stealing someone else's offspring to raise as your own seems like a pretty questionable strategy from an evolution standpoint.Not if you castrate em!
EDIT: someone should make a suggestion about all this.
[/quote]
You guys are promoting an unsophisticated view of evolutionary fitness. There's nothing inherently wrong with bringing people into your tribe or society (Criminy, you'd think the United States being a nation of immigrants and simultaneously being the most powerful nation on Earth would kind of demonstrate that) and there are any number of different ways in which the immigrants are integrated into the tribe. Full membership, but subject to restrictions of age and clan is the most likely, given the technological level of the kobolds, but slavery is an option (though the kind of slavery practiced by early and small societies is not chattel slavery a la the American South or the later Roman Empire).
Post by: Dae on January 09, 2011, 01:02:27 pm
Criminy, you'd think the United States being a nation of immigrants and simultaneously being the most powerful nation on Earth would kind of demonstrate that
I doubt it's the only factor to take into account. I would bet more on the geographical situation : only two borders, with no ennemy around. No war was waged on american ground since the Civil War, I think ? It leaves the civilians free to do whatever they want. Waging a war doesn't really change anything for civilians in such a place.
Post by: iceball3 on January 09, 2011, 01:05:01 pm
WWII? Remember pearl harbor?Criminy, you'd think the United States being a nation of immigrants and simultaneously being the most powerful nation on Earth would kind of demonstrate that
I doubt it's the only factor to take into account. I would bet more on the geographical situation : only two borders, with no ennemy around. No war was waged on american ground since the Civil War, I think ? It leaves the civilians free to do whatever they want. Waging a war doesn't really change anything for civilians in such a place.
Post by: Lord Shonus on January 09, 2011, 01:25:52 pm
Post by: iceball3 on January 09, 2011, 01:30:33 pm
Pearl harbor started a foreign war. The only American soil that saw combat was a few Alaskan Islands, Hawaii, Midway, Wake, the Marinaras, and the Phillipenes, none of which were on the US mainland or were states.Derp. Just pointing that out.
Post by: Lord Shonus on January 09, 2011, 01:43:06 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 09, 2011, 01:44:42 pm
Post by: Roflcopter5000 on January 09, 2011, 04:14:08 pm
And that is debatable in most human-like scenarios, but keep in mind, kobolds are tiny and weak. They would see dwarves as large, stocky creatures. Getting a breeding pair and then training them from birth would give you hyper-intelligent cattle. Think like humans enslaving ogres, to use a fantasy setting example. As to why goblins snatch dwarves, I don't know. But, they worship demons and gods of slaughter. So, maybe they raise them to kill them ritually at a particular age, and the free labor part of it is just sort of a fringe benefit?
Post by: Dradym on January 09, 2011, 08:15:17 pm
brings me to another idea: its a kobold rite of passage to become an adult...like in some cultures, hunting. afterwards, they feast upon the child, and have a big, old party.
Post by: iceball3 on January 09, 2011, 08:17:33 pm
maybe kobolds need dwarves as part of their reproductive cycle? as silly as that thought is, it might make more !science! sense. they "couldve" evolved from the rats that infest dwarf fortresses...before the coming of cats and their powers over dwarves.Wait, don't they have cannibalism as a no-no in their ethics?
brings me to another idea: its a kobold rite of passage to become an adult...like in some cultures, hunting. afterwards, they feast upon the child, and have a big, old party.
Post by: DooMJake on January 09, 2011, 08:43:10 pm
maybe kobolds need dwarves as part of their reproductive cycle? as silly as that thought is, it might make more !science! sense. they "couldve" evolved from the rats that infest dwarf fortresses...before the coming of cats and their powers over dwarves.
brings me to another idea: its a kobold rite of passage to become an adult...like in some cultures, hunting. afterwards, they feast upon the child, and have a big, old party.
So Kobolds are Xenomorphs now?
Wait. Thats interesting can we mod Xenomorphs in? Which the whole Facehugger -> Chestburster -> real alien thing?
Post by: iceball3 on January 09, 2011, 08:44:43 pm
Nope.maybe kobolds need dwarves as part of their reproductive cycle? as silly as that thought is, it might make more !science! sense. they "couldve" evolved from the rats that infest dwarf fortresses...before the coming of cats and their powers over dwarves.
brings me to another idea: its a kobold rite of passage to become an adult...like in some cultures, hunting. afterwards, they feast upon the child, and have a big, old party.
So Kobolds are Xenomorphs now?
Wait. Thats interesting can we mod Xenomorphs in? Which the whole Facehugger -> Chestburster -> real alien thing?
Post by: therahedwig on January 09, 2011, 09:22:10 pm
maybe kobolds need dwarves as part of their reproductive cycle? as silly as that thought is, it might make more !science! sense. they "couldve" evolved from the rats that infest dwarf fortresses...before the coming of cats and their powers over dwarves.Uhm, just so you know, kobolds in DF are supossed to be yellow imp-like critters. Not the fluffy snout creature everyone seems to think it is.
EDIT: I'm sorry, brown skin and yellow eyes. And pointy ears. So yeah, sorta Dobby the house-elf from Harry Potter but then with yellow eyes.
Post by: darkflagrance on January 09, 2011, 09:29:11 pm
maybe kobolds need dwarves as part of their reproductive cycle? as silly as that thought is, it might make more !science! sense. they "couldve" evolved from the rats that infest dwarf fortresses...before the coming of cats and their powers over dwarves.Uhm, just so you know, kobolds in DF are supossed to be yellow imp-like critters. Not the fluffy snout creature everyone seems to think it is.
Hey, a lot of people think of fluffy wamblers as cuddly bunny-like quadrupeds before they check the raws and find out they're somehow humanoid bipeds.
I think the general idea here is not that slavery is silly, because from a purely logical standpoint it's obviously been proven to work, only whether or not it is worth the effort to actually bother raising somebody else's kid just to use them as a slave.
And that is debatable in most human-like scenarios, but keep in mind, kobolds are tiny and weak. They would see dwarves as large, stocky creatures. Getting a breeding pair and then training them from birth would give you hyper-intelligent cattle. Think like humans enslaving ogres, to use a fantasy setting example. As to why goblins snatch dwarves, I don't know. But, they worship demons and gods of slaughter. So, maybe they raise them to kill them ritually at a particular age, and the free labor part of it is just sort of a fringe benefit?
Or maybe they enjoy brainwashing the children of their enemies into learning their dark ways, and then unleashing them back on their former friends and family, to great effect. This is illustrated by a quote I found on the forums:
Quote
I found a kidnapped dwarf in Legends mode called Ingish Pillarspeak, who ended up being the sole defender of his adopted goblin civ, killing over two hundred dwarves, including his own mother, father, father in law (he married another kidnapped dwarf, she was killed by dwarves early in the war), brother in law (duelled him five times), several brothers, and a sister. He was at war with his original dwarven civ from the year 30 to 70, armed with a crossbow and presumably a knife. He liked to rip off the third toe of his opponents. Oh, and he ate the dwarves he killed (never his own family, at least).
He was the victor of his final battle against his original dwarven civ, but still (somehow) lost the war. He joined the new civ and died of old age, wandering the wild.
When I visited the now-dwarven dark fortress he'd defended for so long in Adventure mode, there was a goblin priest in the temple. Every dwarf I talked to had a relative who'd been killed by Ingish Pillarspeak.
I imagine the war was ended when Ingish was shown his own kill list, and it was explained how many of his own family he'd slain in battle. I imagine Ingish negotiated amnesty for the goblin priest, who may have been the only other surviving member of his adopted society by then.
Late in his life Ingish began worshipping a rampaging giant he'd seen battle his goblin kidnapper while still a prisoner. The giant passed through his life kind of like Halley's comet, right at the begining and just before the end. The list of gods and demons he'd worshipped and the various entities he'd claimed membership in made me sad: he fought so hard for so long, and for what? His dwarveness, his goblinness, his marriage, his nation, his sense of who his family was and who he had to protect, as it all kept shifting and changing around him. He was a dwarf constantly in search of something to believe in, and his capacity for belief gave him a terrible power. If that didn't alienate him from his fellow dwarves, I'm sure the fact he'd personally killed (and occasionally eaten) everyone's grandparents did.
I deleted his whole world after I realized I'd spent 40 hours researching his history in a week that I worked 50 hours, and was still accruing more detail. When I found out he'd shot and killed his youngest sister I cried. DF creates epic stories.
Post by: therahedwig on January 09, 2011, 09:32:21 pm
EDIT: Even better, fluffly wamblers are made from nothing but fluff and pudge.
... Now I'm curious what else we've got in the raws. /goes to check on elves.
EDIT2: If I'm reading those raws right, elves have whiskers AND mustaches/sideburns o_o
... and some have pink hair...
I think it might be a good idea to start a 'dig up weird shit nobody knows about from the raws'-thread.
EDIT3: Nvmd on the whiskers. Dwarves have them noted too.
Post by: darkflagrance on January 09, 2011, 09:49:08 pm
I know, I don't even mod, but somehow I seem to know what's in the raws better then some modders :|
EDIT: Even better, fluffly wamblers are made from nothing but fluff and pudge.
... Now I'm curious what else we've got in the raws. /goes to check on elves.
EDIT2: If I'm reading those raws right, elves have whiskers AND mustaches/sideburns o_o
... and some have pink hair...
I think it might be a good idea to start a 'dig up weird shit nobody knows about from the raws'-thread.
EDIT3: Nvmd on the whiskers. Dwarves have them noted too.
Don't forget that goblin hair comes in puce and other various synonyms for pink and violet.
Post by: abadidea on January 09, 2011, 09:50:26 pm
All kobolds would share something like 94% of their DNA as identical. Hence, raising another child of the same species is only slightly less beneficial than raising your own child. It's only the individual's "peculiar" features which don't get passed on. Since they are tribal creatures who need a social structure to be viable, cross-tribe gene exchange via eggnapping would reduce inbreeding and increase the viability of groups who succeed in increasing their membership (without going over that the environment and their tech can support of course).
Oh my FSM, are we discussing evolutionary biology in a roguelike? ::)
And it was a few pages back but I wanted to share my take on elves and wood. I always interpreted them as gathering wood which fell naturally, like the Jains in India will only eat fruit after it has fallen from the tree.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 09, 2011, 09:56:17 pm
Post by: therahedwig on January 09, 2011, 10:00:10 pm
I can see puce.
Don't forget that goblin hair comes in puce and other various synonyms for pink and violet.
Spoiler: Mildly disgusting (click to show/hide)
Humans and dwarves have pinks mentioned as well though. Which makes me wonder what is meant with pink. I mean, I don't think it's strawberry blond, is it?
Post by: Armok on January 09, 2011, 10:29:17 pm
There's nothing inherently wrong with bringing people into your tribe or societyThe problem is that if clans were of a size significantly below the optimum they'd simply merge. There has to be a benefit to STEALING an egg rather than having it given voluntarily.
Post by: Rose on January 09, 2011, 10:43:45 pm
I can see puce.
Don't forget that goblin hair comes in puce and other various synonyms for pink and violet.Spoiler: Mildly disgusting (click to show/hide)
Humans and dwarves have pinks mentioned as well though. Which makes me wonder what is meant with pink. I mean, I don't think it's strawberry blond, is it?
you can check the raws to see the exact color meant by the words, or use stonesense with version .16 or lower.
Post by: Cardinal on January 09, 2011, 10:54:14 pm
Oh my FSM, are we discussing evolutionary biology in a roguelike? ::)
Don't knock it, I find that to be the most compelling aspect of DF...
Post by: abadidea on January 09, 2011, 11:09:39 pm
Oh my FSM, are we discussing evolutionary biology in a roguelike? ::)
Don't knock it, I find that to be the most compelling aspect of DF...
I know. It's just hilarious that we're discussing whether egg-stealing is a sufficiently evolutionary viable strategy in a game that has unicorns, dragons, and magically animated colossi. And six-legged eyeless koalas that live underground.
Post by: monk12 on January 10, 2011, 12:10:56 am
Oh my FSM, are we discussing evolutionary biology in a roguelike? ::)
Don't knock it, I find that to be the most compelling aspect of DF...
I know. It's just hilarious that we're discussing whether egg-stealing is a sufficiently evolutionary viable strategy in a game that has unicorns, dragons, and magically animated colossi. And six-legged eyeless koalas that live underground.
Quite right- we should be discussing the evolutionary benefits of being an underground six-legged koala!
Or better yet, the evolutionary strategies of Dragons, as that would be marginally more on topic. It would be interesting to see dragon's lairs get more detailed, now that dragons have eggs to care for. Perhaps Dragons would choose to attack large and prosperous sites for the sole purpose of rearing their child there.
I just realized that I am assuming that Dragons have a single egg at a time, when they may in fact lay a clutch of eggs. And imagine the possibilities if other megabeasts or forgotten beasts laid a whole TON of eggs, like fish do. Digging your fortress on down, down, and as you breach the second cavern you find that the floors, walls, and ceiling are just covered in eggs. And then they all hatch at once, destroying your FPS and your fortress in one fell swoop. It occurs to me that this could well be the situation for GCS Eggs.
/ramble
Post by: abadidea on January 10, 2011, 12:15:48 am
Post by: monk12 on January 10, 2011, 01:35:14 am
Unfortunately it is a pretty inevitable fact that the higher on the food chain, the fewer offspring in the average litter. Otherwise the ecosystem would be destroyed by the dragon population spiraling out of control.
Except in the cases where the creature in question has a litter, and then the strongest/quickest baby kills the other ones to monopolize the mothers attention.
Which, if applied to dragons, would mean that they have a few babies and then the babies eat one another.
Which would lead to Adventurer's rescuing the babies and insuring 100% survival rate.
I think you see where I am going with this.
Post by: Neonivek on January 10, 2011, 01:49:58 am
Hey Did Toady change the background to the Animal Drive or is it just my computer?
Mind you on the Laptop I was using the background was 100% the Zebra stripes without the overlay for the writing.
Was Toady responsible or was it my Laptop?
Out of curiosity, what browser are you using?
IE
Post by: nbonaparte on January 10, 2011, 02:30:58 am
Post by: Neonivek on January 10, 2011, 02:51:46 am
But dragons are immortal unless killed. The population should still explode, and what about the time before sentients come into play and take dominance from the megabeasts? Dragons would be unequaled, except perhaps by collosi (which are probably magical, and thus a product of sentients).
Depends, if Dragons compete with eachother that would be a way to keep their populations down.
Post by: G-Flex on January 10, 2011, 03:27:05 am
Post by: thvaz on January 10, 2011, 04:42:36 am
Unfortunately it is a pretty inevitable fact that the higher on the food chain, the fewer offspring in the average litter. Otherwise the ecosystem would be destroyed by the dragon population spiraling out of control.
Not always. Lions usually has 2-3 cubs per litter, while most of their prey has a single offspring each time. Gnus, gazelles, come to mind.
Post by: de5me7 on January 10, 2011, 05:12:37 am
From fiction (may not be true of DF universe) we also know that dragons hibernate, and like caves. If they like caves they cannot be cold blooded (or at least it seems less likley). hibernation would allow them to survive longer if they had no territory but they would need somewhere secure against pesky humans, and other predators.
We also know they have a similar lust of shiny objects like the common magpie, and in some fiction, and i think DF, dragons are sentient. Even at lower populations dragons would have to attack sentients to claim shinies. they already appear to do this.
As for hatching eggs, they would need somewhere easily defendable, so a cave, empty fortress, or mountain top. I dont know what temperatures eggs need to survive, and whether a mother defending her egg(s) is in semi hibernation, or needs to hunt. Theres also the question of the males role, does the male just mate then leave, or is he an active parent? Also which is bigger, male or female dragons?
Luckily in df there will always be one population control for dragons.. Adventurers, the most mindless and ilogical predators of them all.
Post by: iceball3 on January 10, 2011, 06:00:29 am
But dragons are immortal unless killed. The population should still explode, and what about the time before sentients come into play and take dominance from the megabeasts? Dragons would be unequaled, except perhaps by collosi (which are probably magical, and thus a product of sentients).Unless I missed something in the raws, dragons are typically thought to be immortal because their age lifespan is so long that it is usually cut off by something like getting killed.
Post by: nbonaparte on January 10, 2011, 06:09:10 am
Post by: thvaz on January 10, 2011, 07:09:07 am
Post by: tps12 on January 10, 2011, 08:04:49 am
All kobolds would share something like 94% of their DNA as identical. Hence, raising another child of the same species is only slightly less beneficial than raising your own child.
Good point (though it's got to be more than 94%, right? I think humans and chimps have like 95% DNA in common), I got so distracted by the "stealing eggs is the opposite of what cuckoos do" thing that I didn't notice the obvious differences between stealing eggs from your own species vs. stealing from another's.
I was also thinking of kobolds as sort of animalistic; like maybe having caveman intelligence but not much beyond that. If they are more advanced then of course culture could trump biology.
From fiction (may not be true of DF universe) we also know that dragons hibernate, and like caves. If they like caves they cannot be cold blooded (or at least it seems less likley).
Deep caves should have pretty constant temperature year-round, so I think that could work for a cold-blooded creature.
Post by: freeformschooler on January 10, 2011, 09:01:33 am
Will we ever be able to customize the "look" of our characters in adventure mode? Rather than just set the skills.
I know this is an ASCII game and it doesn't much matter, but still! It would be cool.
Post by: LoSboccacc on January 10, 2011, 09:21:07 am
of course culture could trump biology.
I think it's mostly the other way around, like 'not eating pig/raw meat' which is very very bad for you in a desert was embedded in desert dwelling cultures - in general, look further than the standard muslims; jews have their kosher stuff too which, unsurprisingly, forbid usage of animals which died of natural death and for the same reason Yoreh De'ah forbids drinking still water (water that is still for more than one night, that is).
look further the culture and in the realm of superstitions and proverbs, and you'll find good survival traits
Post by: Footkerchief on January 10, 2011, 10:04:46 am
Will we ever be able to customize the "look" of our characters in adventure mode? Rather than just set the skills.
It's come up before: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg831163#msg831163)
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: wilsonnsWill be possible to edit the adventurer apperance or at least know about his apperance?
You can look at yourself and others. Changing the appearance would be an interface to write, which isn't the end of the day. You should certainly be able to customize yourself later on, at least in one version of the start setup (versus historical scenarios or whatever), since it's good to be able to be whatever you want to be. It'll probably depend on prodding or just me eventually doing it. Since you pick out where you are from first, it'll probably be constrained by the entity/race settings, with options to break convention or something. Breaking reality (ie making a blue-skinned human) is more difficult because of how the appearance variables are indexed, and there might even be some issues there with breaking out of entity stylings, though I don't think there are.
Post by: tps12 on January 10, 2011, 11:03:46 am
I think it's mostly the other way around, like 'not eating pig/raw meat' which is very very bad for you in a desert was embedded in desert dwelling cultures - in general, look further than the standard muslims; jews have their kosher stuff too which, unsurprisingly, forbid usage of animals which died of natural death and for the same reason Yoreh De'ah forbids drinking still water (water that is still for more than one night, that is).
look further the culture and in the realm of superstitions and proverbs, and you'll find good survival traits
Exactly, culture can trump biology.
Post by: DeKaFu on January 10, 2011, 12:15:57 pm
With the addition of eggs and vegetable oil, it's gotten me wondering. Are there any plans to overhaul cooking at all in the near future? For example, meals that require certain ingredients to be included?
It just seems such a shame that with so many ingredients available, like milk and eggs and all the different body parts, we're still limited to nonsensical biscuits and roasts...
Post by: iceball3 on January 10, 2011, 03:54:15 pm
From fiction (may not be true of DF universe) we also know that dragons hibernate, and like caves. If they like caves they cannot be cold blooded (or at least it seems less likley).
Deep caves should have pretty constant temperature year-round, so I think that could work for a cold-blooded creature.
[/quote]Why would a dragon be cold blooded? They breathe FIRE.
Post by: G-Flex on January 10, 2011, 04:07:58 pm
Being cold-blooded makes a lot of thermodynamic sense for a creature that lies dormant fairly often, and caves are a good place to do that.
Post by: Cardinal on January 10, 2011, 04:15:38 pm
I think it's mostly the other way around, like 'not eating pig/raw meat' which is very very bad for you in a desert was embedded in desert dwelling cultures - in general, look further than the standard muslims; jews have their kosher stuff too which, unsurprisingly, forbid usage of animals which died of natural death and for the same reason Yoreh De'ah forbids drinking still water (water that is still for more than one night, that is).
look further the culture and in the realm of superstitions and proverbs, and you'll find good survival traits
Exactly, culture can trump biology.
Except that goats do the same thing, for the same reason. Well, they avoid still water, not so sure about the not-eating-pork thing. I mean, they don't eat pork, obviously, but I think that has more to do with their lack of incisors than their keeping kosher. But, come to think of it, I haven't asked...
In all seriousness, any social mammal is making the same bet. Look at any herd or pack and you'll see that they do take in outsiders and, sometimes, they'll outcompete a rival group and then pick up members of that group. Of course they're not "enslaving" them, but all the same tenets of the Ayn Rand version of evolution are being broken by any social animal. While competition is an important part of evolution, cooperation is as well.
Post by: Mephansteras on January 10, 2011, 04:29:32 pm
Post by: scriver on January 10, 2011, 04:49:58 pm
Post by: abadidea on January 10, 2011, 05:53:49 pm
Looking through creature_standard, dwarves and humans have the MAXAGE tag. Elves, goblins,and dragons do not. Dragons are biologically immortal.
Goblins are immortal? o______________o
Post by: Willfor on January 10, 2011, 05:56:27 pm
There's a difference between immortality, and invincibility. The goblins have not yet obtained the latter.Looking through creature_standard, dwarves and humans have the MAXAGE tag. Elves, goblins,and dragons do not. Dragons are biologically immortal.
Goblins are immortal? o______________o
Post by: Dradym on January 11, 2011, 02:07:25 am
and no, i dont read through the raws...so i either think of cobolds as wow kobolds(rat-men) or d&d kobolds(leetle dragon-men)
omg...has lycanthropy been suggested?...or non-fairy vampirism? prolly has, so i guess im asking if magical diseases have been planned...eventually
Post by: G-Flex on January 11, 2011, 02:27:36 am
Post by: LoSboccacc on January 11, 2011, 08:13:33 am
Just out of curiosity, what is "non-fairy vampirism" supposed to be? Vampire fairies are kind of a hilarious idea though, fluttering around nipping people on the arms.
there was a thread about it no long ago http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=71994.0
Post by: thvaz on January 11, 2011, 08:26:25 am
Post by: zwei on January 11, 2011, 08:44:13 am
Just out of curiosity, what is "non-fairy vampirism" supposed to be? Vampire fairies are kind of a hilarious idea though, fluttering around nipping people on the arms.
There are badass vampires that drink fish blood, kick ass with katanas, have cat eyes and their passage through any area is best described as "collateral damage path". Vampires which solve hurt feelings with help of miniguns and homemade tanks.
Post by: PTTG?? on January 11, 2011, 01:01:08 pm
Post by: LoSboccacc on January 11, 2011, 02:29:42 pm
No, you're thinking of SCP-wannabe vampires. Real Vampires are corpses motivated only by truly inhuman forces. A true Vampire cannot be good, nor even evil, for it has no capacity to make moral decisions. It's only goal is domination of humans, and it's supernatural powers are merely compliments to it's most subtle and pererse ability- an incredible charisma and intelectual power that allows it to manipulate those around it with ease.
according to whom?
back when vampire were on tales and not on tv or even on book, they were sulking creatures. then it came the charming ones and they stood that way for a while, being ported on the tv also and becoming the true ones. then came the withewolf interpretation. in between dozens of films and tv series and books, ranging from splatter to teenage drama.
Post by: G-Flex on January 11, 2011, 02:37:45 pm
Real Vampire
You can basically stop right there. You're taking a broad folk concept with about a bazillion different iterations through several centuries, and pretending that only one of them can be correct even though it's a freaking fantasy creature.
Post by: Miko19 on January 11, 2011, 03:06:04 pm
Post by: LoSboccacc on January 11, 2011, 03:12:04 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on January 11, 2011, 03:24:23 pm
Real Vampire
You can basically stop right there. You're taking a broad folk concept with about a bazillion different iterations through several centuries, and pretending that only one of them can be correct even though it's a freaking fantasy creature.
Put your pants back on. You're supposed to say something to the effect of "No, a REALLY Real Vampire is actually just like this neat fanfiction I wrote...". I know that Vampires have had a long history terrifying people before Alucard ever wrote his name backwards.
Yeah, I second monster sponsor.
Post by: jellsprout on January 11, 2011, 03:59:59 pm
Post by: Areyar on January 11, 2011, 04:11:49 pm
(With the non-racist zombification and general undeath thing.)
Vampyxies fly!
Post by: Dagoth Urist on January 11, 2011, 05:30:52 pm
seconded! to hell the animal sponsorship drive, give us the monster sponsorship drive!
It occurs to me that vampirism usually only affects humans, DF is in a good position to challenge this trope.
(With the non-racist zombification and general undeath thing.)
Vampyxies fly!
Yes, and yes! Toady One, what do you say to a monster sponsorship deal? Mayhap I should turn to Rainseeker instead, on the other hand?
Fuck this yo vampire shit! I want man-chomping, hairy werewolves! And some kind of entity that turns boys into witchers! Fuck yea
xD
Post by: Sunday on January 11, 2011, 05:32:27 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on January 11, 2011, 05:34:38 pm
Post by: iceball3 on January 11, 2011, 05:57:56 pm
Real vampires are bunnies.I think I was working on a mod about something like that a while ago, but I sorta gave up.
Post by: Cardinal on January 11, 2011, 07:59:59 pm
Real vampires are bunnies.
Is it too late to vote for celery stalks???
Post by: Dradym on January 11, 2011, 08:31:30 pm
my comment was a shot at the twilight vamps-who shouldve just been called fairies-who ever said fairies cant be violent and drink blood, imo, wouldve actually interested me then.
yeah...monster drive FTW, though my fav is already in.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on January 11, 2011, 08:54:22 pm
Post by: Sowelu on January 11, 2011, 08:59:17 pm
my comment was a shot at the twilight vamps-who shouldve just been called fairies-who ever said fairies cant be violent and drink blood, imo, wouldve actually interested me then.
...Whoa. You're actually right. If they removed all references to "vampires" and just made them traditional faeries instead, it had the makings of a fair-quality urban fantasy.
(note that I did not say 'good-quality')
Post by: monk12 on January 11, 2011, 09:15:44 pm
real vampires are squash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_pumpkins_and_watermelons
http://www.diggercomic.com/?p=658
Post by: Knigel on January 12, 2011, 12:01:18 am
Post by: Dante on January 12, 2011, 12:50:15 am
Seriously, I wonder about their usage. Will they be a step between bucket and barrel (think urns), or between bucket and flask (think milk jugs)?
Post by: veok on January 12, 2011, 01:27:24 am
Turn one stack of items into two, cook them back together, voila!
Post by: Ves on January 12, 2011, 03:01:40 am
Also, more uses for Seeds is excellent, considering how quickly a 9 square farm plot can end up producing 200 seeds.
Post by: vogonpoet on January 12, 2011, 03:20:05 am
Looks like a good way to stretch a food supply.
Yes indeed - I love how the game seems to be coming together - it almost feels like efforts to create a balanced supply and demand economy caused potential starvation problems for the peasants in the outer villages, leading in turn to the implementation of more food creation potential. Or something.
Will the next update have a greater than 0.31 version number? Bee keeping surely deserves a +0.01 all by itself :)
Post by: Jiri Petru on January 12, 2011, 04:35:54 am
Post by: therahedwig on January 12, 2011, 06:35:40 am
I think it would be awesome if a nearby human town decided that they want to make walls or a special building of some kind and start mass-demanding stone blocks.
Post by: Doomshifter on January 12, 2011, 06:41:11 am
So, when moving fortress pieces are implemented, how mobile will they be?
For example, will we be able to move something to any point of our map, move things off-map, move it within a certain radius/confine/prepared area?
Also:
Could we put buildings and furniture (Workshops, ballistae, beds and etc.) on them? (I ask this because of the unbuildability of bridges, our only moving fortress terrain) How will they be controlled? Powered? Locomoted? Will we be able to make moving fortresses of death? Will we be able to make dwarven mecha suits?! WILL I EVER ACCOMPLISH MY GOAL OF MAKING ONE OF THOSE RIDICULOUS IMPERATOR CLASS TITANS FROM 40K?!?! WHY AM I USING CAPS-LOCK AARGH SO EXCITED!
Ahem. Sorry about that. Too carried away with myself. Especially since my last mecha just sort of dribbled magma at a beach.
Also, I'm not sure if anyone has asked in this thread yet, but has much thought been put into steam-power/other power sources except wind and water? It might not be quite in the time period for steam power, but dwarves are pretty ridiculous. What about animal powered dynamos?
Post by: Cruxador on January 12, 2011, 06:45:06 am
Will the next update have a greater than 0.31 version number?Considering the scope of the economic stuff going in, almost certainly. Footkerchief probably could provide an assessment of which cores are likely to involved, and a range that of numbers for how it could increment based depending on what Toady considers totally done. But there will be more going in than currently is in.
Quote
Bee keeping surely deserves a +0.01 all by itself :)Nope.
Post by: jellsprout on January 12, 2011, 07:34:10 am
Post by: tps12 on January 12, 2011, 09:29:53 am
Completing the Caravan Arc would imply two new core items (one of which, site resources, got worked on during the site sprawl development, so it's not out of the question), jumping right to 0.33.
http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Consolidated_Development:_Arcs,_core-items,_bloats,_Reqs_and_Powergoals (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Consolidated_Development:_Arcs,_core-items,_bloats,_Reqs_and_Powergoals)
Post by: PTTG?? on January 12, 2011, 10:56:23 am
RECIEVE BUTTON.
Post by: Kogut on January 12, 2011, 11:14:21 am
Post by: caknuck on January 12, 2011, 12:50:34 pm
Post by: vogonpoet on January 12, 2011, 01:45:11 pm
I came to DF from ADOM, and quite frankly, after more than a decade of waiting for JADE, I'm not sure if I can cope with the pace of DF development - I end up getting stuck waiting for the next version before embarking on what I always tell myself will be the fortress to end all fortresses, and then never make a fortress, and just read the devlogs instead.
The next version will be so awesome though, I shall have to find time to dive in...
@Doomshifter: I am pretty sure steam power has been suggested and knocked down as too advanced and too steampunk in hundreds of controversial threads all over the suggestion forums, with current thinking being eventual steam power is unlikely. Animal power seems reasonable though... maybe even prisoner powered treadmills.
Post by: Cruxador on January 12, 2011, 06:31:19 pm
@Doomshifter: I am pretty sure steam power has been suggested and knocked down as too advanced and too steampunk in hundreds of controversial threads all over the suggestion forums, with current thinking being eventual steam power is unlikely. Animal power seems reasonable though... maybe even prisoner powered treadmills.My understanding on Steam is that it's in the same boat as biological waste - because of its controversial nature, it would need to have an init option to disable it, and Toady doesn't want to prioritize something that a bunch of people would just turn off anyway.
Post by: G-Flex on January 12, 2011, 07:06:19 pm
My understanding on Steam is that it's in the same boat as biological waste - because of its controversial nature, it would need to have an init option to disable it, and Toady doesn't want to prioritize something that a bunch of people would just turn off anyway.
Steam power isn't being excluded because it's controversial amongst the players; it's being excluded because Toady doesn't want to include it. He's made statements about that plenty of times.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 12, 2011, 08:47:30 pm
Thus we will have a abundance of food if we focus on a vegetarian fortress but if we want to use Animals for whatever the situation will change drastically.
edit: Now that we have oil we could make grease for machine parts or extra slippery hallways with oil spatters to slow down incoming military. Hehe no seriously now oil could be a good use for maintaining weapons and Armor made from leather and Metal as soon rust for metal objects is in.
Post by: Quatch on January 13, 2011, 12:01:26 am
Advantage though is that animal feed does not need to be edible (grass), and pastureland need not be farmable.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 13, 2011, 01:31:50 am
Even different breeds differ in the food-to-meat ratio. Cows like the diary breed "Holstein Cattle" produce less meat per kilo grain then Meat/beef breads "Florida cracker cattle" or "German Angus cattle". For most animals you have to look at the feed the species and the breed to get the correct ratio.
Post by: MrWiggles on January 13, 2011, 06:27:54 am
trophic level for chickens is iirc 2:1 thus 2 Kilo grain on 1 Kilo meat but for cows you would be about right - it depends on the animal. The thing is that animal feed (like pure grain) has a higher content of fat and Nutrients then the natural diet of animals (say normal grassing) so the trophic level for these diets are different. Its a little bit like humans which have a healthy diet (lots of vegies, 3 to 4 times a weak meat) compared to someone who lives on Fastfood and Softdrinks.
Even different breeds differ in the food-to-meat ratio. Cows like the diary breed "Holstein Cattle" produce less meat per kilo grain then Meat/beef breads "Florida cracker cattle" or "German Angus cattle". For most animals you have to look at the feed the species and the breed to get the correct ratio.
Anyone else find it comical that the person in the above quote is named Heph and speaking about cow breeds and their grain to meat ratio?
Post by: Dutchling on January 13, 2011, 10:21:45 am
trophic level for chickens is iirc 2:1 thus 2 Kilo grain on 1 Kilo meat but for cows you would be about right - it depends on the animal. The thing is that animal feed (like pure grain) has a higher content of fat and Nutrients then the natural diet of animals (say normal grassing) so the trophic level for these diets are different. Its a little bit like humans which have a healthy diet (lots of vegies, 3 to 4 times a weak meat) compared to someone who lives on Fastfood and Softdrinks.
Even different breeds differ in the food-to-meat ratio. Cows like the diary breed "Holstein Cattle" produce less meat per kilo grain then Meat/beef breads "Florida cracker cattle" or "German Angus cattle". For most animals you have to look at the feed the species and the breed to get the correct ratio.
Anyone else find it comical that the person in the above quote is named Heph and speaking about cow breeds and their grain to meat ratio?
I don't think it's funny, enlighten me please
Post by: Areyar on January 13, 2011, 10:29:49 am
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on January 13, 2011, 10:32:09 am
Post by: Arkose on January 13, 2011, 12:37:44 pm
trophic level for chickens is iirc 2:1 thus 2 Kilo grain on 1 Kilo meat but for cows you would be about right - it depends on the animal. The thing is that animal feed (like pure grain) has a higher content of fat and Nutrients then the natural diet of animals (say normal grassing) so the trophic level for these diets are different. Its a little bit like humans which have a healthy diet (lots of vegies, 3 to 4 times a weak meat) compared to someone who lives on Fastfood and Softdrinks.
Even different breeds differ in the food-to-meat ratio. Cows like the diary breed "Holstein Cattle" produce less meat per kilo grain then Meat/beef breads "Florida cracker cattle" or "German Angus cattle". For most animals you have to look at the feed the species and the breed to get the correct ratio.
On a more general note, warm blooded animals generally require much more food than cold-blooded ones. Checking on wikipedia, "In general a warm-blooded animal requires 5 to 10 times as much food as a cold-blooded animal of the same size and build, so cold-blooded animals are better at surviving in environments with small amounts of food, such as a desert, or great seasonal variations in food, such as some tropical areas with long dry seasons."
I'm curious to know if biologists have charts for the expected food-mass consumption of an animal with a given size, build and metabolism; if it's a simple enough relationship Toady might be able to make use of it.
Post by: Arkose on January 13, 2011, 12:43:27 pm
Will villages produce and export other goods besides food? And will they also demand materials for these?
I think it would be awesome if a nearby human town decided that they want to make walls or a special building of some kind and start mass-demanding stone blocks.
Actually, I'm curious to know if the deforestation caused by human settlements is currently related to the amount of lumber demanded for the construction of buildings.
Post by: Doomshifter on January 13, 2011, 01:06:05 pm
My understanding on Steam is that it's in the same boat as biological waste - because of its controversial nature, it would need to have an init option to disable it, and Toady doesn't want to prioritize something that a bunch of people would just turn off anyway.
Steam power isn't being excluded because it's controversial amongst the players; it's being excluded because Toady doesn't want to include it. He's made statements about that plenty of times.
This is what I get for leaving Dwarf Fortress alone for three months. Not by choice, gentlemen.
But, at any rate, I leave it alone and come back to all this wonderful news!
Post by: Jiri Petru on January 13, 2011, 03:37:13 pm
Actually, I'm curious to know if the deforestation caused by human settlements is currently related to the amount of lumber demanded for the construction of buildings.
IIRC deforestation in history wasn't caused so by buildings, neither by house heating - those consume too little wood to have much impact. The main causes were charcoal burning for metal industry (should get in the caravan arc), ship building (far from in the game), and simply burning the woods to make more land for farming (which I guess is the current in-game deforestation).
Post by: Chthonic on January 13, 2011, 04:27:17 pm
Post by: Kogut on January 13, 2011, 05:04:33 pm
EDIT:
What was connected with the worst method of charcoal making ever
Rather than using techniques which could make forestry more productive for fuel, like coppicing and pollarding, the lack of title on much land results in charcoal burners digging up and using tree root structures. (sic!!!) [from enwiki].
Post by: Gnoll Fortress on January 13, 2011, 06:06:08 pm
Haiti is island with high population density.
EDIT:
What was connected with the worst method of charcoal making ever
Rather than using techniques which could make forestry more productive for fuel, like coppicing and pollarding, the lack of title on much land results in charcoal burners digging up and using tree root structures. (sic!!!) [from enwiki]
I feel the need to correct you here like some kind of geography jerk. Haiti only occupies half the island the other half, The Dominican Republic is still heavily forested thanks to that nations policies.
Post by: Cardinal on January 13, 2011, 11:25:10 pm
Actually, I'm curious to know if the deforestation caused by human settlements is currently related to the amount of lumber demanded for the construction of buildings.
IIRC deforestation in history wasn't caused so by buildings, neither by house heating - those consume too little wood to have much impact. The main causes were charcoal burning for metal industry (should get in the caravan arc), ship building (far from in the game), and simply burning the woods to make more land for farming (which I guess is the current in-game deforestation).
Wood is used in everything in a pre-modern society, such that wood as fuel--whether for cooking or for bricks or for meta--was not the only significant draw, and wood for scaffolding in the construction of stone structures consumed much more wood in the late Greek and early Roman period than earlier construction projects for mostly wood structures. Still, deforestation was not simply caused to get wood, it was also caused to create farmland or simply deny ecosystems services of forests to groups who were better suited to them. Urbanizing powers found that both their own people and competing, less advanced societies, were made weaker by large-scale destruction of forested regions, regardless of whether the wood was put to good use.
On the other side of things, oftentimes primeval forests could not regrow due to environmental changes (whether climate or soil regime) so any damage done to certain forests was, by their very nature, permanent.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 14, 2011, 05:36:01 am
I don't think it's funny, enlighten me please
Heffer was the cow from "Rockos modern life" which is a US american cartoon from the 90's. Adopted Son of a pair of wolfs which at first intended to eat him ironicly.
See as much i like this one character i like to refer to an old old old limb man. An lonely man who created a family for himself, a man with an extraordinary mind and sense for art, a man forged in the first fires of the universe itself. Or so the story goes. Nothing more to it and sadly not funny.
Post by: Pnx on January 14, 2011, 06:50:26 pm
Post by: jimi12 on January 14, 2011, 07:06:28 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on January 15, 2011, 07:00:47 pm
Isn't it about time you created the 2011 page of the devlog? ;)
BUT WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN 10% OF THE CURRENT ONE DONE YET
:o
Post by: TheDJ17 on January 16, 2011, 03:06:23 am
Just change 2010 to 2011 obviously :PIsn't it about time you created the 2011 page of the devlog? ;)
BUT WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN 10% OF THE CURRENT ONE DONE YET
:o
Post by: MrWiggles on January 16, 2011, 04:05:43 am
Once we get some pies, I'll be able to my tribute fort to both SOAD and crazed Chinese emperors.
Post by: thvaz on January 16, 2011, 05:12:33 am
I know you aren't good with release dates (no one is) but if a release is near, I won't start a fortress now (though I really want to play one)
Post by: Miko19 on January 16, 2011, 05:16:27 am
There still something to be done about trade and the caravan arc for this release? What do you still want to implement before a release?I started 3 fortresses in the last few days :P
I know you aren't good with release dates (no one is) but if a release is near, I won't start a fortress now (though I really want to play one)
You can always get a new one, hehe
Post by: thvaz on January 16, 2011, 05:20:24 am
There still something to be done about trade and the caravan arc for this release? What do you still want to implement before a release?I started 3 fortresses in the last few days :P
I know you aren't good with release dates (no one is) but if a release is near, I won't start a fortress now (though I really want to play one)
You can always get a new one, hehe
I don't really have too much time to play. And as a long time player, I usually get burned up few months by DF after a long fortress.
Post by: therahedwig on January 16, 2011, 06:01:51 am
Neato, now we have clay!
Once we get some pies, I'll be able to my tribute fort to both SOAD and crazed Chinese emperors.
Now we only need mercury as a fluid, so we can make a map of our world, with mercury rivers and oceans and our king-dwarf's tomb at the fort-location.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 16, 2011, 10:04:14 am
Do we get now a potter(-y) profession?
Amphoras will be a nice barrel-substitute for all that grain that i will have to store for my animals. Human (and goblin?) clay-pits would be interesting.
Post by: drvoke on January 16, 2011, 04:12:43 pm
I'd really like to finally have something other than wood or metal from which to construct food and booze containers. I think at least wine was, classically, stored in some kind of ceramic jug. I don't know how a glazed ceramic jug would fare for beer or rum.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on January 16, 2011, 04:50:59 pm
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on January 16, 2011, 04:57:32 pm
Post by: Sunday on January 16, 2011, 05:00:30 pm
IIRC, the high end of magma heat is around 2400˚F (1300˚C), hot enough to fire the highest heat ceramics (porcelain), which fire at around 2350˚F.
As with all magma things (including blacksmiths etc.), it would be hard to maintain the correct temperatures. Still, dwarfs are experts in all things magma, so it should be doable.
Post by: Buttery_Mess on January 16, 2011, 06:28:55 pm
Post by: thvaz on January 16, 2011, 06:51:57 pm
Post by: Aklyon on January 16, 2011, 07:11:42 pm
Toady, will we ever be able to build golems for defensive/offensive purposes?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on January 16, 2011, 07:44:03 pm
Post by: NSQuote on January 16, 2011, 08:18:54 pm
I'd assume it'd be from mining out clay soil layers, but it'd be nice to know of any alternative methods.
Post by: Kogut on January 17, 2011, 01:01:27 am
Post by: Mipe on January 17, 2011, 02:03:33 am
What about porcelain, ahem, ceramic thrones?
Post by: Flaede on January 17, 2011, 02:14:40 am
Where would you obtain clay from?
I'd assume it'd be from mining out clay soil layers, but it'd be nice to know of any alternative methods.
What about an interface like the sand one?
Post by: Areyar on January 17, 2011, 03:37:04 am
Claypits used by industrial pottery or brickmaking have had major impact on the landscape historically.
Outright mining would be a bit too quickly depleting the resource, with the current resource management (more incremental use of the qubic tonne of clay I assume can be dug from a tile).
I understand Toady is working on this issue of resource tracking though, so lets patiently wait for the developments to roll in. ;)
Post by: Rose on January 17, 2011, 04:32:24 am
just use a similar method as with thread.
so a clay pot uses less clay than what you get from mining out one block.
Post by: Ves on January 17, 2011, 08:19:11 am
Post by: therahedwig on January 17, 2011, 08:47:30 am
Post by: Kogut on January 17, 2011, 10:54:54 am
Post by: Areyar on January 17, 2011, 11:24:27 am
Hm... I thought clay showed up around pretty much all rivers? I could be wrong ofcourse...At the lower ends, yes, not so much in the high mountains. Where dwarfs
Post by: Stoup on January 17, 2011, 12:09:19 pm
I really hope it works this way, I'd hate for clay to drop boulders as if it were stone...Where would you obtain clay from?
I'd assume it'd be from mining out clay soil layers, but it'd be nice to know of any alternative methods.
What about an interface like the sand one?
Post by: NSQuote on January 17, 2011, 01:15:27 pm
Yeah, that would probably work well, without completely destorying all of the soil layers.Where would you obtain clay from?
I'd assume it'd be from mining out clay soil layers, but it'd be nice to know of any alternative methods.
What about an interface like the sand one?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 17, 2011, 01:24:04 pm
Post by: vlademir1 on January 17, 2011, 01:34:16 pm
Post by: NSQuote on January 17, 2011, 01:37:00 pm
With the inclusion of pottery will more obscure things like bone ware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_china) be included by default?It'd be neat to make goblin bones into mugs for our dwarves.
And I definitely see some applicaion for fell moods...
Post by: Festin on January 17, 2011, 02:41:39 pm
It'd be neat to make goblin bones into mugs for our dwarves.
Drinking mead from the skulls of our goblin enemies. This is all.
Post by: Sowelu on January 17, 2011, 02:47:03 pm
But dwarves...You normally think of them as kind of...hairy, don't you?
It stands to reason that even the potters would be...hairy.
*crickets*
Post by: NSQuote on January 17, 2011, 03:03:32 pm
We'd need to plug the eye holes first, though. Maybe with precious gems.It'd be neat to make goblin bones into mugs for our dwarves.
Drinking mead from the skulls of our goblin enemies. This is all.
I love this game. <3
Post by: Lord Shonus on January 17, 2011, 03:09:37 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on January 17, 2011, 03:14:04 pm
It's thin, but there is bone at the back of eye sockets, IIRC.
Yes, but there are little holes for the optic nerve and stuff.
Post by: iceball3 on January 17, 2011, 03:15:42 pm
Plus getting killed by a dwarf would usually mean their head is almost completely blown apart.It's thin, but there is bone at the back of eye sockets, IIRC.
Yes, but there are little holes for the optic nerve and stuff.
Post by: drvoke on January 17, 2011, 03:15:52 pm
you'd still need fuel to fire ceramic, though.
That's fine, since in a biome with a sedimentary layer, bituminous coal always leaves me with more coke than I know what to do with, even with a fully engaged 6-forge metal industry. If I could make beds or barrels out of coke, it'd be no problem. ;)
Post by: NSQuote on January 17, 2011, 03:22:54 pm
Fill in the cracks/missing pieces with a precious metal?Plus getting killed by a dwarf would usually mean their head is almost completely blown apart.It's thin, but there is bone at the back of eye sockets, IIRC.
Yes, but there are little holes for the optic nerve and stuff.
Post by: Areyar on January 17, 2011, 05:32:12 pm
Post by: zwei on January 18, 2011, 05:08:35 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 18, 2011, 07:51:06 am
With the inclusion of pottery will more obscure things like bone ware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_china) be included by default?
Bone-ware would be pretty (and i know now what will happen with my bones then i die). This would need to have the Bones ground to dust in a quern. Bone-meal is also usefull as long term fertilizer (delivers phosphor, NPK 4-12-0) and as animal feed partialy because it delivers calcium.
Toady does the new Ceramics stuff include enamel and decorations with enamel picture etc.?
Enamling stuff is a pretty old tech, the Egyptians did it and it was used in many medieval jewellery and sacral object.
Post by: Areyar on January 18, 2011, 11:18:41 am
Aren't there plans for more distinctive civilizations in future? With small deviations from raws ... a bit different ethics/reactions/items/etc were mentioned.
I'm experimenting with hill-dwarves myself... Unfortunately they still prefer to build in mountains though, despite my best efforts. Also they are a bunch of criminals that ambush me, kidnap people and take human names. something odd is going on in my raws. :/
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 18, 2011, 01:26:12 pm
This right here is DF.Plus getting killed by a dwarf would usually mean their head is almost completely blown apart.It's thin, but there is bone at the back of eye sockets, IIRC.
Yes, but there are little holes for the optic nerve and stuff.
Post by: abadidea on January 18, 2011, 09:55:35 pm
Urist Imiknorris, what is your avatar from? Tineye doesn't recognize it, so is it original art? I'm really intrigued. Something about her maniacal grin.
Post by: Rose on January 18, 2011, 10:00:02 pm
Post by: abadidea on January 18, 2011, 10:20:55 pm
it's from homestuck.
Thanks... TIL that the investigator comic actually had an ending...
Post by: 612DwarfAvenue on January 18, 2011, 11:44:31 pm
Toady, will we ever be able to build golems for defensive/offensive purposes?
This. So very much this.
"Shale, Golem cancels kill pigeon: Not activated"
I've been playing Dragon Age: Origins a lot :P.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 18, 2011, 11:45:27 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on January 19, 2011, 12:21:27 am
Post by: Areyar on January 19, 2011, 03:37:08 am
Toady, will we ever be able to build golems for defensive/offensive purposes?
HEH, yes. It is a powergoal obviously. And with clay, it comes incrementally closer to realization.
Though I'd rather make steel golem. . . activation is bound to have a major cost in magic... or lives...or a risk of throwing a tantrum, preventing us from building a golem-only defence. . . hehehe have a mental image of a fortress successfully defending against a siege with golem, only to be sieged by those same golem...who have building destruction.
...in the elder scrolls dwarves (dwemer), dissapeared possibly destroyed by their steam glem contraptions.
Would an artefact class golem be a colossus?
Post by: Dae on January 19, 2011, 04:08:04 am
Anyway, in any legend I came across, life were given as a sacrifice to the golem, more often as energy source but sometimes the soul remained untouched (as in Dragon Age : Origins). DF plans to separate soul from body and have things like multiple souls in one body, but I'm not sure if Toady wants souls to be seen as little more than magic charcoal.
Post by: Areyar on January 19, 2011, 04:24:11 am
...but I'm not sure if Toady wants souls to be seen as little more than magic charcoal.:lol:
if i'd be into puting quotes in my sig...
There is a whole thread on the subject though.
Post by: zwei on January 19, 2011, 05:00:56 am
Traditionally, golems have a parchment placed in their mouth that is the source of their energy.
We can engrave slab with name of dwarf that has some strange ability to affects its soul like putting his ghost to rest.
I'd say it could be fine soul storage for golems ... Imagine ripping your graveyard apart to make army of golems with souls of your long-dead warriors.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 19, 2011, 05:11:26 am
The most known legend is the Myth of Judah Löw a Rabi from Prague which lived in the 16th century so outside dfs timeframe. Actually Löw is just one of many Rabis that get associated with Golem(s) but because he was the adviser of emperor Rudolf the 2nd (which in turn was very interested in alchemy) he became the most known.
The criation of this particular Golem needed the representation of the 4 Classical Elements. The Golem itself represented earth while Judah considered himself the Wind element and his son in Law and his apprentice represented Fire and Water respectively.
The ritual was held in a clay-pit near Prague and started with the creation of the golems body. After that the apprentice circled the Golem 7 times while reciting a incantation uppon which the Golem glowed as if it was fired. Then the Son in law circled the Golem and did an incantation upon which the Golem took Human form (Hair and nail growing etc.). The Rabi circled the golem 7 times and after that all three, the Rabi his Son and the apprentice, standing at the Feet of the Golem Spoke an the sentence from the genesis where "god" gave adam his breath. As this was done the Golem came to life and followed easy commands like "Stand up".
For more complex behaviours the golem needed, depending on the variants of the myths, either a paper with Gods name under his tongue (which had to be removed each Sabbat) or a Seal with the hebraic word for Truth which could be deactivated by removing the first letter which lead the word to spell "Dead" instead. Today an educated person would use "import soul" instead.
Post by: LoSboccacc on January 19, 2011, 05:30:58 am
Today an educated person would use "import soul" instead.
"mport soul"
not the same dramatic narrative effect as in truth->death
wouldn't make legends as tasteful.
Post by: iceball3 on January 19, 2011, 05:50:49 am
Though, just creating a full grown person out of literally nowhere is how it goes. Though the import soul could work if a world feature was added (Dimensional rift inside the ruins of somewhere?) which, upon activating, would export a 'person' file, that could moved to another world folder and be loaded and played as you would play as a retired adventurer, except located in a random place on the world, preferably land.Today an educated person would use "import soul" instead.
"mport soul"
not the same dramatic narrative effect as in truth->death
wouldn't make legends as tasteful.
Traveling through dimensions anyone?...
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 19, 2011, 06:23:48 am
Post by: iceball3 on January 19, 2011, 06:28:09 am
Hehe werent a multiverse with different interconnected Df-worlds a idea of toady himself?Was it?
Still, it would be badass if your person traveled to different dimensions, maybe even giving them local raws so that they can end up going to a world that only pokemon or something exist in, without getting a 404 on their existence.
Post by: darkflagrance on January 19, 2011, 08:30:06 am
The most known legend is the Myth of Judah Löw a Rabi from Prague which lived in the 16th century so outside dfs timeframe. Actually Löw is just one of many Rabis that get associated with Golem(s) but because he was the adviser of emperor Rudolf the 2nd (which in turn was very interested in alchemy) he became the most known.
We're talking about imaginary magical creations as if they conceivably fall on some continuum of technological progress??? So vampires are also not acceptable because their modern depictions originated in the 19th century?
Post by: therahedwig on January 19, 2011, 09:02:04 am
Well, if that's the case, I want my zombie!vampires.
The most known legend is the Myth of Judah Löw a Rabi from Prague which lived in the 16th century so outside dfs timeframe. Actually Löw is just one of many Rabis that get associated with Golem(s) but because he was the adviser of emperor Rudolf the 2nd (which in turn was very interested in alchemy) he became the most known.
We're talking about imaginary magical creations as if they conceivably fall on some continuum of technological progress??? So vampires are also not acceptable because their modern depictions originated in the 19th century?
Post by: LoSboccacc on January 19, 2011, 09:03:43 am
The most known legend is the Myth of Judah Löw a Rabi from Prague which lived in the 16th century so outside dfs timeframe. Actually Löw is just one of many Rabis that get associated with Golem(s) but because he was the adviser of emperor Rudolf the 2nd (which in turn was very interested in alchemy) he became the most known.
We're talking about imaginary magical creations as if they conceivably fall on some continuum of technological progress??? So vampires are also not acceptable because their modern depictions originated in the 19th century?
there is already a thread of absurd length and detail which debates exactly that.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 19, 2011, 09:21:41 am
Back to topic please.
Have all ceramics to be fired or can very basic things like low quality bricks be left in the sun to dry?
In dryer regions (deserts, prairie etc.) this works reasonable well and you can do that in places like Europe in summer.
Post by: freeformschooler on January 19, 2011, 10:17:12 am
Hehe werent a multiverse with different interconnected Df-worlds a idea of toady himself?Was it?
Still, it would be badass if your person traveled to different dimensions, maybe even giving them local raws so that they can end up going to a world that only pokemon or something exist in, without getting a 404 on their existence.
Yeah, yeah I think it was Toady's idea. At least for the original Slaves to Armok. I think he had mentioned that in the desired feature list for that game but either way multiverse sounds like a great idea. Once we get worlds that are truly different (a war-ravaged world rather than a peaceful island world) it'll be more interesting.
Post by: iceball3 on January 19, 2011, 10:35:06 am
The main differences in worlds can be determined by mods, which does make much sense because they are all alternate worlds.Hehe werent a multiverse with different interconnected Df-worlds a idea of toady himself?Was it?
Still, it would be badass if your person traveled to different dimensions, maybe even giving them local raws so that they can end up going to a world that only pokemon or something exist in, without getting a 404 on their existence.
Yeah, yeah I think it was Toady's idea. At least for the original Slaves to Armok. I think he had mentioned that in the desired feature list for that game but either way multiverse sounds like a great idea. Once we get worlds that are truly different (a war-ravaged world rather than a peaceful island world) it'll be more interesting.
Post by: PTTG?? on January 19, 2011, 10:59:50 am
Post by: iceball3 on January 19, 2011, 11:05:39 am
DF's equivalent of teleporting someone's heart three feet to the left will be briefly teleporting them to the dimension where the air is full of 20,000 degree syndrome-laiden toxins that cause the victim to hallucinate, vomit, and melt all at once, generally fatally.I'm not too sure I can see a point of any kind coming from this...
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on January 19, 2011, 11:34:34 am
It's also relating to the multiple dimensions thing.
Post by: herpaderpz on January 20, 2011, 07:39:18 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 20, 2011, 08:32:36 am
Quote
from the magmawiki
Minotaurs inhabit Labyrinths (marked with a # on the Travel map). As you explore the labyrinth, the Minotaur will taunt you until you find and kill it.
Post by: thvaz on January 20, 2011, 08:33:45 am
Post by: Kogut on January 20, 2011, 08:42:55 am
In january 2010 Toady updated the devlogs around twenty days. his number slowly decreased during the course of 2010, and in january he only made four updates up to this day.Maybe it is connected with bugfixing? But it would be cool to announce "Today I fixed bugs #262626 #727272 and #626262"
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 20, 2011, 08:53:32 am
And for bugfixes you can look at the mantis-tracker under the chagelog link.
Post by: zwei on January 20, 2011, 09:00:31 am
In january 2010 Toady updated the devlogs around twenty days. his number slowly decreased during the course of 2010, and in january he only made four updates up to this day.Maybe it is connected with bugfixing? But it would be cool to announce "Today I fixed bugs #262626 #727272 and #626262"
Well, we have this page: http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/changelog_page.php
But it is not as if you can realibly judge dev progress from amount of messages:
Does writing too much mean he is procastrinating, working slowly and having enough time to note details or that he is really busy adding new stuff ahead schedule and thus having ton of stuff to inform us about.
Does writing too little mean that he is way too bus deving to take few minutes to inform us about new stuff or that he is simply taking it easy?
Then there is HFS as well as joys of letting people discover new features by themselves that conflict with making updates.
Really, you should not pay much attention to rate of devlog messages.
Post by: Mephansteras on January 20, 2011, 01:14:53 pm
Post by: thvaz on January 20, 2011, 01:18:59 pm
Post by: Scarpa on January 20, 2011, 01:35:55 pm
I think a lot of the stuff he's working on right now is pretty dry as well. It was hilarious to read about testing efforts around the medicine path, poisons, etc. Now that he's apparently mainly working on bringing up real industries in teh villages I don't suppose the bugs are as dramatic.
Post by: PTTG?? on January 20, 2011, 02:04:30 pm
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 20, 2011, 02:38:44 pm
Post by: Jiri Petru on January 20, 2011, 02:48:23 pm
I think a lot of the stuff he's working on right now is pretty dry as well. It was hilarious to read about testing efforts around the medicine path, poisons, etc. Now that he's apparently mainly working on bringing up real industries in teh villages I don't suppose the bugs are as dramatic.
I don't think it's necessary to post only hilarious stories or funny bugs. I for one would appreciate even a dry: "bugfixing the world-gen agriculture for the past two ways. There still hasn't been a famine, and I really want to tone the food amounts down". Or something. Background things like these could actually be more enlightening and interesting to read than funny stories.
But seriously, I woe about the days where we used to get our daily dose of DF news.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 20, 2011, 02:57:30 pm
Post by: Lord Shonus on January 20, 2011, 04:09:15 pm
Post by: Areyar on January 20, 2011, 06:00:59 pm
Even a negative finding. like: Added X today, it did not work at all, so it was removed again.
Though some elaboration on the goal and reason for failure would be prefered.
(Not that I think Tarn is not comminicating because of stagnation/failure. My theory is a belated bout of end-month project.)
Also it is wuffo-wup.
are people drunk or somethingh? spelling errors are proliferating as fast as cats.
i am. :p
*Areyar enterprises does not condone or encourage substance abuse of any kind*
*Areyar needs alcohol to get to sleep after a worki ng day, though.*
Post by: Kavalion on January 20, 2011, 06:20:27 pm
I agree about more weapon types being a good thing. Stuff like wooden javelins that make decent hunting and fighting weapons.
I just like the thought of starting with a primitive dwarven society and advancing it over time.
Post by: Armok on January 20, 2011, 07:27:27 pm
Post by: Mipe on January 21, 2011, 08:59:29 am
Yea, give us more short contentless updates.You heard him, lads.
Post by: Dae on January 21, 2011, 09:19:55 am
But anyway, I'm not as psyched about clay as others are. Of course, there has been people longing for it, I understand this. But compared to other features developped before and planned after, it looks pretty dull.
Now towns are fed by their own production ! Now towns try to connect to a mercantile network ! Now, it's very dangerous to sleep outside at night and, oh, you can finally target your strikes, a very long-awaited feature ! Tomorrow is the time when caravans will be roaming the world, trading goods to anyone who can afford them, rescuing dying fortresses from starvation, defending themselves from bandits, but now is not the time ! Now is the time for POTTERY.
D'uh.
Don't get me wrong, it is Toady's project and until now he has kept it alive and kicking in an astounding way, so he's the only one who can tell what is good and needed for the game. But my selfish self can't help but think clay is a little dent in the growing awesomeness fn the latest features implemented.
Although the joke about dwarves becoming hairy potters kinda saved the day.
Post by: zwei on January 21, 2011, 09:47:10 am
Post by: FaultyLogic on January 21, 2011, 10:55:40 am
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 21, 2011, 11:00:27 am
Post by: Quatch on January 21, 2011, 02:20:17 pm
Post by: Sowelu on January 21, 2011, 04:12:55 pm
Better site finder interface stuff etc. is important if you want the game to retain at least its current amount of playability and even get better.
Also, it's bad form to say "I thought about adding this feature / tried it out, and it didn't work, so I removed it". Gets peoples' hopes up or disappoints them. Leads to more havoc than it's worth.
Post by: SalmonGod on January 21, 2011, 04:44:29 pm
Post by: Rockphed on January 21, 2011, 06:36:35 pm
Post by: monk12 on January 21, 2011, 07:48:18 pm
Also, it's bad form to say "I thought about adding this feature / tried it out, and it didn't work, so I removed it". Gets peoples' hopes up or disappoints them. Leads to more havoc than it's worth.
Yeah, I get that with Minecraft, and it always makes me sad when something I was looking forward to didn't make the cut, regardless of the other cool things that did make it in. With DF, the release has no set date and no specified content, so it's always a pleasurable surprise.
And as far as the caravan arc, I'm excited by it in much the same way a homeowner is excited about a solid foundation. A lot of cool stuff is going to be built on this, but by itself it isn't terribly sexy.
Unless you regard chicken farming as sexy.
Which I do.
Post by: PTTG?? on January 21, 2011, 08:55:32 pm
Personally, I suspect that, at this very moment, toady is running a game where he builds the pyramid of Giza out of clay bricks. Well, not exactly the pyramid at giza, but something of similar scale, only with lots of twisty passages in the middle. Then, his next post is going to be something along the lines of "I made a pyramid of death. It is the site that is spawned when a necromancer decides to start making his undead legions. They automatically show up on the map, so they are easy to find. They sometimes connect to underground features. If you kill the necromancer and wield his staff, his undead minions might not attack you. Or they might all converge and hunt you down. Heh, heh, heh. Three Toe has now wasted 10, er, 11 adventurers trying to clear out a pyramid."
Argh, I read that in EXACTLY the same voice as I read the dev log.
Which is nothing like Tarn's actual voice.
Post by: Miko19 on January 22, 2011, 11:05:14 am
But I want to be an elf-meat trader!
All! Let Toady hear it!
We want butcherable sentients!
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 22, 2011, 11:19:43 am
Post by: dennislp3 on January 22, 2011, 03:41:37 pm
Post by: darkflagrance on January 22, 2011, 03:54:16 pm
That's an easy mod.
Not really; you can't use the meat or bones of creatures than can speak no matter what your ethics are. Civilized creatures that can learn but not speak are fair game (as my kobold meat roasts attest to).
Post by: G-Flex on January 22, 2011, 03:54:58 pm
aye but its still a pain....and realistically you should not be bound by the ethics of your race...during world gen...sure make them follow it...but once in fort you should be able to do whatever the hell you want!
Why? It doesn't really make any sense to allow the player to do absolutely anything they want, unless their own civilization crushes them like bugs for it and you never see any migrants again.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 22, 2011, 03:57:29 pm
That's an easy mod.
Not really; you can't use the meat or bones of creatures than can speak no matter what your ethics are. Civilized creatures that can learn but not speak are fair game (as my kobold meat roasts attest to).
Oh. You learn something new every day.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 22, 2011, 04:07:31 pm
Before we change a civ in game it would need a robust system of forces that act in favor and against such a change. Religion is important here as well as groups within the civ like guilds, noble factions etc.
Btw. That is again suggestion-land. Why do you keep invading FotF-eria? What did we do to you? Is it the religion? Even thought we have different cultures we still believe in the same almighty toad (and the saint threetoe)!
Post by: Dae on January 22, 2011, 05:27:12 pm
Btw. That is again suggestion-land. Why do you keep invading FotF-eria? What did we do to you? Is it the religion?
Probably because they don't have updates yet. No updates mean we don't know the immediate future of development, and we already know the not-so-immediate future of development, so there isn't much to talk about.
Some people prefer to talk about everything and nothing rather than letting the thread be silent.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 22, 2011, 05:53:47 pm
Post by: madciol on January 22, 2011, 05:58:13 pm
Personally, I suspect that, at this very moment, toady is running a game where he builds the pyramid of Giza out of clay bricks.If you think that Toady plays his game*, you are mistaken. From his comments, dev log and nature of existing bugs I have impression that he embarks on 2x2 map and checks and re-checks what needed until he is happy with result. And never returns to, say, check if next features accidentally broke previous things. Or if this really works always, not only accidentally in one test scenario... or... or... well, results are well known.
Oh boy, I can't wait for 0.31.19 bugs.
* Irony, it burns.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 22, 2011, 06:21:08 pm
Post by: drvoke on January 22, 2011, 06:22:43 pm
What will my dwarves be making in their ceramics workshops?
How many intermediate workshops will there be for ceramics from beginning of the process to the final product?
I could see it as a chain of processes such as, clay maker --> potter --> kiln operator, or even more steps for decorated objects, etc... Or a potter who collects his own clumps of clay from mining and has a kiln in/as the workshop, so the process involves a minimum of 1 dwarf and 1 workshop, like a glass furnace.
Sort of covered in the last question, but how is clay handled in the game? Workshop product or clumps from mining that are processed in some general "pottery" workshop into a finished piece of pottery?
edit:To clarify that last question, I mean specifically are we going to have "clay" that we can just collect off the ground (like sand) or as a result of mining (clay clumps), or will we have to process some intermediate substance into clay (e.g., clay soil mined into clay chunks made into pottery clay)? And finally, that also includes how clay is handled as a resource. Will we keep bins or bags of clay? Or will it be a pile of clay that hangs around like stone?
Also, I've written and read "clay" enough times now that when I read it, it doesn't look like a real word anymore.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 22, 2011, 06:33:39 pm
Quoe from Threetoe:
Quote
Prepare for ceramics. You will now be able to construct anything from a jug to a mighty castle wall starting with simple clay. You will be able to make different kinds of ceramics from earthenware to porcelain as well as fire them with different types of glazes. Imagine a great hall filled with your own terracotta army.
It lloks like you can make blocks, some kind of barrel surrogate, buckets, mugs, pipes, idols and statues an various crafts from clay - or so i would interpret that post.
Post by: canius on January 22, 2011, 06:38:43 pm
Not really; you can't use the meat or bones of creatures than can speak no matter what your ethics are. Civilized creatures that can learn but not speak are fair game (as my kobold meat roasts attest to).
[/quote]
Funny. My races ethics are set so i can eat sentient meat and bones as well as their skin. As my numerous elf leather hoods, human roasts and numerous crafts made from them can attest to.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 22, 2011, 06:43:19 pm
Who predicts/hopes that clay will be infinite, like sand is now? I do.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 22, 2011, 06:46:54 pm
Post by: Rockphed on January 22, 2011, 06:54:03 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on January 22, 2011, 07:28:22 pm
Post by: dennislp3 on January 22, 2011, 07:54:10 pm
Its also good to be able to make a fort designed around a culture or something...I would love to be able to have a desert settlement with no stone and clay instead (trade based only)...most likely humans (sometimes I play as other races)...I like to impose realistic restrictions on myself...so that every game doesn't turn into a make the same fort every time rinse and repeat type thing...
Post by: tps12 on January 22, 2011, 08:47:56 pm
Post by: G-Flex on January 22, 2011, 08:49:06 pm
I think infinite sand is a concession to the game not having any mechanism by which stone erodes into sand. In the real world, sand is practically infinite because the seas are constantly grinding out more of it.
Erosion doesn't take place so fast that sand is effectively infinite. You can still run out, realistically speaking, in a given location.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on January 22, 2011, 08:53:37 pm
Post by: dennislp3 on January 22, 2011, 08:58:37 pm
Post by: G-Flex on January 22, 2011, 09:00:05 pm
The only time that I can fathom sand being used up in its entirety is if there was a large mining operation akin to a rock pit or something...especially in the desert...
In real life, you don't just use any sand you can find to make sand, but I'm not sure how rare it would be.
Post by: dennislp3 on January 22, 2011, 10:46:36 pm
But I also would like to see some landscaping added to the game...you cant make natural mounds or hills or anything...everything is constructed...and you cant do aesthetic vegetation either...you cant even plant trees...(slightly unrelated but still along similar lines)
As for the purity of sand used perhaps there needs to be added a sifters workshop added to the glass production chain or sand can be like some ores and only work a certain % of the time...
Post by: G-Flex on January 22, 2011, 10:57:57 pm
I am aware of that....but even still...a handful of people digging sand wont make it go away...I think it makes sense and is realistic if it does to some degree...perhaps like well takes away from water...10 draws from a well = 1/7 water...apply that to sand would work.
Yeah, there are suggestions for sand to work like that, as a sort of semi-fluid, and I would enjoy that.
Quote
As for the purity of sand used perhaps there needs to be added a sifters workshop added to the glass production chain or sand can be like some ores and only work a certain % of the time...
No amount of sifting will turn red sand white.
Post by: dennislp3 on January 22, 2011, 11:10:30 pm
And besides...if they couldn't find some way to make it work they would just sift it into submission until it finally gives up and turns white...
Post by: G-Flex on January 22, 2011, 11:17:44 pm
I call BS....we are talking about dwarf !!!SCIENCE!!! here!
And besides...if they couldn't find some way to make it work they would just sift it into submission until it finally gives up and turns white...
I like to think that Toady doesn't choose which features to implement based on bad jokes.
Post by: dennislp3 on January 23, 2011, 12:11:42 am
I call BS....we are talking about dwarf !!!SCIENCE!!! here!
And besides...if they couldn't find some way to make it work they would just sift it into submission until it finally gives up and turns white...
I like to think that Toady doesn't choose which features to implement based on bad jokes.
I like to think that people take bad jokes as bad jokes and not legitimate attempts to suggest implementing a feature...but then again I don't see how your idea of pure sand with color as a restriction is so much better...nor do i see how it would mean a feature is poorly implemented. Toady does a good job of making things realistic but that doesnt mean the game is going to be on par with real life...
Post by: Caldfir on January 23, 2011, 12:19:30 am
Post by: Kavalion on January 23, 2011, 12:35:10 am
Its also good to be able to make a fort designed around a culture or something...I would love to be able to have a desert settlement with no stone and clay instead (trade based only)...most likely humans (sometimes I play as other races)...I like to impose realistic restrictions on myself...so that every game doesn't turn into a make the same fort every time rinse and repeat type thing...
Yeah, it seems that the main point of the game is to have a variety of means with which to provide for the dwarves so that we can shape a fortress to our liking.
I think it's a good idea to focus on polishing industries and adding new ones.
Post by: dennislp3 on January 23, 2011, 12:44:35 am
Post by: thvaz on January 23, 2011, 03:19:52 pm
Post by: Toady One on January 23, 2011, 03:29:15 pm
I think Toady went on vacation. Im not complaining - it is well deserved.
Things have been messy lately -- last few days, including today, are going to be marred running around trying to fix up Zach's broken computer, and I'm sitting on a hundred emails. I should have a beekeeping devlog up within the hour though. A vacation would be nice, and I'll announce it if I finally get a chance for one, he he he.
Post by: TolyK on January 23, 2011, 03:32:30 pm
;)
Post by: Armok on January 23, 2011, 04:08:41 pm
Post by: TolyK on January 23, 2011, 04:12:26 pm
Post by: Dante on January 23, 2011, 04:14:20 pm
Quote from: devlog
...
Oh... oh god. I'm covered in bees! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs-tl6GBOBo&feature=player_embedded)
Post by: CharlesPeter on January 23, 2011, 04:20:58 pm
Clay was implemented for the BEES. I love it!
Post by: Rockphed on January 23, 2011, 04:30:42 pm
Post by: thvaz on January 23, 2011, 04:35:20 pm
I think Toady went on vacation. Im not complaining - it is well deserved.
Things have been messy lately -- last few days, including today, are going to be marred running around trying to fix up Zach's broken computer, and I'm sitting on a hundred emails. I should have a beekeeping devlog up within the hour though. A vacation would be nice, and I'll announce it if I finally get a chance for one, he he he.
Nice to hear from you! We all like you, don't ever get shy.
Post by: EmperorNuthulu on January 23, 2011, 04:45:06 pm
Post by: metime00 on January 23, 2011, 04:48:04 pm
Also, always nice to hear from Toady.
Post by: Shootandrun on January 23, 2011, 04:48:22 pm
Now that we know more about bees, our first order of business is turning those bees into roaming death machines gentlemen!
I agree, and I have an idea. Hives we build will probably be like buildings, so it will be possible to make trap for building destroyers with them. I say, we should make troll grinders with our honey farms!
Post by: thvaz on January 23, 2011, 05:13:24 pm
Post by: G-Flex on January 23, 2011, 05:21:37 pm
If beehives are destroyed when the honey is harvested, what is the purpose (historically or in game logic) for collecting and relocating the bees in the first place instead of harvesting the honeycomb on the spot? I'm curious whether or not there's some historically-based reason, like protecting the bees from other animals or making the hive easier to monitor.
Man, I'm hoping we'll be able to brew honey into mead. That would be great. Not a difficult thing to ferment, either.
[EDIT]
My stupid and cursory research on Wikipedia seems to indicate that beekeeping wasn't really that popular until the 18th century or so because even artificial hives had to be killed off in order to get the honey. Interesting.
Post by: Kogut on January 23, 2011, 05:22:07 pm
Post by: NSQuote on January 23, 2011, 06:03:07 pm
Oh god yes, beeeeeees~
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 23, 2011, 06:09:13 pm
(the not-obvious one)
I would assume bees would be limited to certain biomes - I can't imagine a beehive on a glacier.
Post by: nenjin on January 23, 2011, 06:12:40 pm
Sound I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 23, 2011, 06:29:21 pm
Quote
We don't have flowers yet -- just a requirement that bees be kept adjacent to an open outside tile.
You know from the trees you have in the raws, Acacia, Ash, Alder, Birch, Candlenut, chestnut, [...] are flowering trees and acacia respective birch honey are even regarded as special and tasty varieties of honey. So actually we wouldnt need flowers at all and there are bees that are specialised for forrest environments even though they produce less honey.
Quote
Will said bees angrily attack whatever they land on/near and mercilessly chase them down? What would you do if said bees were attacking you? Can bees kill with their sting, or only produce bad thoughts?
I guess there arent any Killer-bees (affrican hybrids) in df. Since we have a very potent poison framework i hope they get a minor one - we still need a system for allergies though. Most honeybees stay next to the beehive only the more aggressive types tend to attack on longer ranges.
Post by: Cruxador on January 23, 2011, 06:33:56 pm
And an entirely different question,
Is honey brewable into mead?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 23, 2011, 06:42:19 pm
Post by: Alehkhs on January 23, 2011, 07:06:51 pm
We have titans made out of snow.
[So] I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility.
Well, titans are quasi-magical beings, whereas bees are insects - which are cold-blooded. I could see bees being bought in cold locations, though they would have to be kept warm.
That brings about the issues from winter though, when real beehives tend to go into a dormant state.
Honey ants would be nice too.
Eh, for diversity perhaps. Outside of aboriginal snacking and rare cultural instances, honeypot ants aren't really suitable for cultivation. For one thing, they don't produce too large a surplus, and for another - if they are not placed in the right conditions, they won't even undergo the pleregate phase, as this is actually an adaptation to barren, usually desertified areas.
Concerning the "sweet" nature of these ants: not all honeypot ants store nectar or honeydew - not even within a single species or colony. Rather, any given might instead be storing fats, water, even digested prey such as termites or other animals.
Post by: freeformschooler on January 23, 2011, 08:05:53 pm
-Hah, that's mildly amusing.
-Hah, that's correct and mildly amusing.
-Hah, the new release will include greater horrors than your feeble minds could possibly imagine, and these terrors on dwarfkind will stop at nothing to feast upon the flesh of your alchoholic midgets.
This has probably been asked, but what are the planned uses of wax collections, once they are implemented?
Post by: nbonaparte on January 23, 2011, 09:33:30 pm
Post by: Cruxador on January 23, 2011, 09:52:32 pm
I'm sensing exploits already. However, honey and bee keeping will be a fun mini-game/addition to the main game. Regardless, Toady's signature "he he he" has begun to frighten me. It could mean any of:It will be used for candles, I'm sure, once lighting goes in. That's by far one of my most anticipated additions that nobody ever talks about, incidentally. I hope it comes soonish, although there's an entire dev page full of things that are higher priority.
-Hah, that's mildly amusing.
-Hah, that's correct and mildly amusing.
-Hah, the new release will include greater horrors than your feeble minds could possibly imagine, and these terrors on dwarfkind will stop at nothing to feast upon the flesh of your alchoholic midgets.
This has probably been asked, but what are the planned uses of wax collections, once they are implemented.
Once we get written correspondence, it will be used to seal letters, I'm sure.
When/if Toady makes things use more different materials in Dwarf Mode (not before hauling is improved upon) cheese will probably require it, and it could be involved in lost-wax casting.
When styling is in, it could be used in mustache wax, if someone cares to find a recipe that was used before 1400.
It's been used for waterproofing historically, so it could be used in place of tar in boat construction or if constructed walls/floors ever gain the ability to leak.
And it was used in some old forms of painting, so depending on how much depth there might eventually be there, it could be involved in that.
It could also be used for sculpting directly as a medium, as in a wax museum.
It can be used in the preservation of dead people, such as with Vladimir Lenin or certain of the Egyptian mummies.
That's just what I came up with from a moment's thought, and another moment poking wikipedia.
Post by: tps12 on January 23, 2011, 09:58:35 pm
Post by: Quatch on January 23, 2011, 11:34:36 pm
Oh, and lost wax casting. Casting at least is dwarvenly, I'd think.
Post by: RedWick on January 23, 2011, 11:54:31 pm
Post by: TolyK on January 24, 2011, 12:03:33 am
:D
Post by: dennislp3 on January 24, 2011, 12:33:54 am
The addition of bees means that we'll have a chance to fight titans and forgotten beasts made of honey!
Get a grizzly, name it pooh, and sick it on said beast....
Post by: Knigel on January 24, 2011, 01:18:17 am
Post by: dennislp3 on January 24, 2011, 01:21:18 am
Post by: G-Flex on January 24, 2011, 01:37:35 am
Wait, were we already getting forgotten beasts made entirely of stuff like meat, bone, or chitin?
I don't think so, I'm pretty sure the single-material ones are inorganic (i.e. not based on creature materials).
Post by: RedWick on January 24, 2011, 01:42:56 am
Post by: Rockphed on January 24, 2011, 02:23:56 am
Wait, were we already getting forgotten beasts made entirely of stuff like meat, bone, or chitin?
I don't think so, I'm pretty sure the single-material ones are inorganic (i.e. not based on creature materials).
I thought there were creatures made of nothing but blood. I don't know that I have ever seen a forgotten beast made of it, but I thought there were. If not blood, then vomit. Anybody else seen anything like that?
Post by: G-Flex on January 24, 2011, 03:50:39 am
Post by: Kogut on January 24, 2011, 05:51:04 am
*one of top 4?
Post by: FaultyLogic on January 24, 2011, 08:42:19 am
Post by: Qinetix on January 24, 2011, 08:48:24 am
Post by: Knigel on January 24, 2011, 09:11:51 am
Wait, were we already getting forgotten beasts made entirely of stuff like meat, bone, or chitin?
I don't think so, I'm pretty sure the single-material ones are inorganic (i.e. not based on creature materials).
I thought there were creatures made of nothing but blood. I don't know that I have ever seen a forgotten beast made of it, but I thought there were. If not blood, then vomit. Anybody else seen anything like that?
I'm pretty sure the creature composed entirely of blood was something else entirely (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Blood%20man), but I have seen a humanoid weasel demon made of vomit.
Post by: Mephansteras on January 24, 2011, 01:09:57 pm
Hmmm. It'll be interesting to see what new tags come into play with bees. Might make for some interesting modding options.
Post by: Urist McDepravity on January 24, 2011, 02:06:36 pm
It will be used for candles, I'm sure, once lighting goes in. That's by far one of my most anticipated additions that nobody ever talks about, incidentally.Probably everyone is just too scared to even think about consequences of introduction of dozens of dynamic light sources. Even if Toady keeps it to binary light/dark state, re-calculating FOVs for them will be devastating fps-wise.
Post by: Quatch on January 24, 2011, 02:28:24 pm
Hmmm. It'll be interesting to see what new tags come into play with bees. Might make for some interesting modding options.
I'll just collect this little colony of leprechauns, and when they've filled the hive, press them for gold.
You have incentive to collect the hives so as to keep others from grabbing them first. The hives have to be stationed beside a drink stockpile though...
Post by: PTTG?? on January 24, 2011, 03:59:53 pm
Post by: ChristmasDwarf on January 24, 2011, 04:12:05 pm
Post by: nenjin on January 24, 2011, 04:53:50 pm
Post by: Dae on January 24, 2011, 05:53:47 pm
Yeah, though minecraft seems to do OK when it comes to light.
Absolutely. This is because Minecraft does not feature any moving light source. At all (the sun is global light). I think it's one of the reasons why you can't walk with your torch lit.
Post by: abadidea on January 24, 2011, 06:39:40 pm
Yeah, though minecraft seems to do OK when it comes to light.
I assume that's hardware-accelerated. Realtime 3D lighting is one of the reasons we pay $300 for those video cards :)
Speaking of which: I am excite. I am getting a new computer and moving from 1.6ghz per core to 3.0ghz. Full-speed Dwarf Fortress ahoy :D :D :D
Post by: dennislp3 on January 24, 2011, 06:41:09 pm
Yeah, though minecraft seems to do OK when it comes to light.
I assume that's hardware-accelerated. Realtime 3D lighting is one of the reasons we pay $300 for those video cards :)
Speaking of which: I am excite. I am getting a new computer and moving from 1.6ghz per core to 3.0ghz. Full-speed Dwarf Fortress ahoy :D :D :D
somehow I read that as "I am enzyte!" :o
You getting a single core or more?
Post by: MrWiggles on January 24, 2011, 06:42:56 pm
Is it planned to implement in 2011 one of the top* suggestions from DF Eternal Suggestion Voting?
*one of top 4?
Toady has said repeatedly that any of the top ten ESV not on the Dev page are planned to be implemented sooner then later. As for a time table, well Toady seems to be on Valve time.
Post by: abadidea on January 24, 2011, 06:52:35 pm
Yeah, though minecraft seems to do OK when it comes to light.
I assume that's hardware-accelerated. Realtime 3D lighting is one of the reasons we pay $300 for those video cards :)
Speaking of which: I am excite. I am getting a new computer and moving from 1.6ghz per core to 3.0ghz. Full-speed Dwarf Fortress ahoy :D :D :D
somehow I read that as "I am enzyte!" :o
You getting a single core or more?
1.6ghz 3-core to 3.0ghz 2-core. I am still keeping the old computer actually since it's still only a year old and pretty great. It's just that my dad got a promotion and all :D :D :D
But before that I had the same 2.8ghz mono pentium 4 for five whole years. It ran DF mighty fast.
Post by: Cruxador on January 24, 2011, 08:05:56 pm
We already have a binary light/dark state. Right there with inside/outside.It will be used for candles, I'm sure, once lighting goes in. That's by far one of my most anticipated additions that nobody ever talks about, incidentally.Probably everyone is just too scared to even think about consequences of introduction of dozens of dynamic light sources. Even if Toady keeps it to binary light/dark state, re-calculating FOVs for them will be devastating fps-wise.
It wouldn't be an FPS thing anyway, since the data only needs to be altered when it changes. Candles don't think, they just sit there and spread their light. Even with a brightness number (say, from 0 to 255, expressed in-game with a different word in a different color for different ranges of values) it's just assigning a number to a tile. The only potentially hazardous thing is how dwarves deal with areas that are too dark to see.
It should be pretty rare in a fortress, too. For each moving light source, that's still not much compared to pathfinding. And there should be way fewer mobile light sources than mobile pathfinders (and less than mobile pathfinding targets).Yeah, though minecraft seems to do OK when it comes to light.
Absolutely. This is because Minecraft does not feature any moving light source. At all (the sun is global light). I think it's one of the reasons why you can't walk with your torch lit.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 24, 2011, 08:22:58 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on January 24, 2011, 08:33:30 pm
Post by: Shadowfury333 on January 24, 2011, 08:36:43 pm
Post by: Knigel on January 24, 2011, 08:44:13 pm
I recall there being a big Lighting Arc thread, and if I recall correctly one of the supposed issues, was with spotting in different light issues, shadows, and converging light sources.
This it? (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=27999.msg346856#msg346856)
Post by: tps12 on January 24, 2011, 09:46:33 pm
Absolutely. This is because Minecraft does not feature any moving light source. At all (the sun is global light). I think it's one of the reasons why you can't walk with your torch lit.
There's a mod that lets you walk with your torch lit. It's not a lot of computation, it just looks weird when animated because the light changes in big chunks.
Post by: MrWiggles on January 24, 2011, 09:51:21 pm
I recall there being a big Lighting Arc thread, and if I recall correctly one of the supposed issues, was with spotting in different light issues, shadows, and converging light sources.
This it? (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=27999.msg346856#msg346856)
I think so.
Post by: nil on January 24, 2011, 10:55:53 pm
Post by: dennislp3 on January 24, 2011, 11:38:39 pm
Honestly, I hope Toady doesn't bother with light any time soon. I just don't see it bringing much to the table, at least not compared to the effort involved for both programmer and player. Either it doesn't have substantial effects (i.e., creatures can basically see in the dark) in which case you're not doing much more than adding flavor text to the {k} screen, or it does and a person won't be able to mine more than ten squares from the surface without a damn bee industry. Or maybe you make the dwarves see in the dark (like if cave-adapted) but take it away from surface creatures, which basically would amount to creating an entire new tile dimension solely to create another gimmicky way to kill elves. Now I'm not opposed to gimmicky ways to kill elves--far from it--but you gotta have the proper priorities. I hope Bay12 at least finishes the army arc and a dozen or so Eternal Suggestions before they start bothering with lighting..
I personally wouldn't mind if the current "dig deep til you find the magma sea" or "dig til you see what you want" methods of play were slowed down somehow...wouldnt hurt anything except making you not as invulnerable in many cases
Post by: Flaede on January 25, 2011, 12:39:49 am
Honestly, I hope Toady doesn't bother with light any time soon. I just don't see it bringing much to the table, at least not compared to the effort involved for both programmer and player. Either it doesn't have substantial effects (i.e., creatures can basically see in the dark) in which case you're not doing much more than adding flavor text to the {k} screen, or it does and a person won't be able to mine more than ten squares from the surface without a damn bee industry. Or maybe you make the dwarves see in the dark (like if cave-adapted) but take it away from surface creatures, which basically would amount to creating an entire new tile dimension solely to create another gimmicky way to kill elves. Now I'm not opposed to gimmicky ways to kill elves--far from it--but you gotta have the proper priorities. I hope Bay12 at least finishes the army arc and a dozen or so Eternal Suggestions before they start bothering with lighting..
I personally wouldn't mind if the current "dig deep til you find the magma sea" or "dig til you see what you want" methods of play were slowed down somehow...wouldnt hurt anything except making you not as invulnerable in many cases
You could make inferior tallow candles instead. Or fat or oil burning lamps.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 25, 2011, 12:54:31 am
Post by: Kogut on January 25, 2011, 01:17:27 am
Post by: abadidea on January 25, 2011, 01:45:25 am
Post by: MrWiggles on January 25, 2011, 03:06:23 am
Honestly, I hope Toady doesn't bother with light any time soon. I just don't see it bringing much to the table, at least not compared to the effort involved for both programmer and player. Either it doesn't have substantial effects (i.e., creatures can basically see in the dark) in which case you're not doing much more than adding flavor text to the {k} screen, or it does and a person won't be able to mine more than ten squares from the surface without a damn bee industry. Or maybe you make the dwarves see in the dark (like if cave-adapted) but take it away from surface creatures, which basically would amount to creating an entire new tile dimension solely to create another gimmicky way to kill elves. Now I'm not opposed to gimmicky ways to kill elves--far from it--but you gotta have the proper priorities. I hope Bay12 at least finishes the army arc and a dozen or so Eternal Suggestions before they start bothering with lighting..
As discussed in the linked thread about lighting, it could affect various things.
Such as workshop qualities, combat, sneaking detections, noble demands, room values, and plant growth.
Post by: LoSboccacc on January 25, 2011, 03:08:05 am
Honestly, I hope Toady doesn't bother with light any time soon. I just don't see it bringing much to the table, at least not compared to the effort involved for both programmer and player. Either it doesn't have substantial effects (i.e., creatures can basically see in the dark) in which case you're not doing much more than adding flavor text to the {k} screen, or it does and a person won't be able to mine more than ten squares from the surface without a damn bee industry. Or maybe you make the dwarves see in the dark (like if cave-adapted) but take it away from surface creatures, which basically would amount to creating an entire new tile dimension solely to create another gimmicky way to kill elves. Now I'm not opposed to gimmicky ways to kill elves--far from it--but you gotta have the proper priorities. I hope Bay12 at least finishes the army arc and a dozen or so Eternal Suggestions before they start bothering with lighting..
As discussed in the linked thread about lighting, it could affect various things.
Such as workshop qualities, combat, sneaking detections, noble demands, room values, and plant growth.
and another gimmicky way to kill elves
seriously, why disdain that?
Post by: ShadeJS on January 25, 2011, 08:24:17 am
Quote from: abadidea link=topic=60554.msg1912159#msg1912159 [/quote
1.6ghz 3-core to 3.0ghz 2-core. I am still keeping the old computer actually since it's still only a year old and pretty great. It's just that my dad got a promotion and all :D :D :D
But before that I had the same 2.8ghz mono pentium 4 for five whole years. It ran DF mighty fast.
Moving from a one core 3ghz machine to a two core 3ghz (with 2.5 x the bus speed, and faster RAM) was great for me. DF gets one core, the rest of the system, a web browser, and whatever libraries DF is taking to gets the other. People always talk about core speed and DF, but the impact of a fast low latency bus with fast low latency RAM really shouldn't be overlooked.
My single biggest issue is that I half live at my girlfriends place, and all I have there is a 1.6ghz P4 with 512MB of RAM on a Lenovo laptop. That's what Dungeon Crawl is for. :)
Post by: LoSboccacc on January 25, 2011, 08:41:43 am
Quote from: abadidea link=topic=60554.msg1912159#msg1912159 [/quote1.6ghz 3-core to 3.0ghz 2-core. I am still keeping the old computer actually since it's still only a year old and pretty great. It's just that my dad got a promotion and all :D :D :D
But before that I had the same 2.8ghz mono pentium 4 for five whole years. It ran DF mighty fast.
Moving from a one core 3ghz machine to a two core 3ghz (with 2.5 x the bus speed, and faster RAM) was great for me. DF gets one core, the rest of the system, a web browser, and whatever libraries DF is taking to gets the other. People always talk about core speed and DF, but the impact of a fast low latency bus with fast low latency RAM really shouldn't be overlooked.
My single biggest issue is that I half live at my girlfriends place, and all I have there is a 1.6ghz P4 with 512MB of RAM on a Lenovo laptop. That's what Dungeon Crawl is for. :)
I've a long lasting fortress running at 5 fps and the other core is for a brand new fortress! yay!
Post by: Caldfir on January 25, 2011, 11:32:22 am
I personally wouldn't mind if the current "dig deep til you find the magma sea" or "dig til you see what you want" methods of play were slowed down somehow...wouldn't hurt anything except making you not as invulnerable in many cases
I agree about this. There has been a loss of pacing in dwarf mode since the .31 release. I don't know if lighting is the best solution to this, but in my mind there should be something stopping the player from just drilling down to hit magma at embark. I'm not saying it is a difficulty issue or anything, just pacing - in 40d there was usually a long period of searching for magma that held back the metal industry until completed, and it was pretty fun.
Post by: Sizik on January 25, 2011, 12:46:25 pm
I personally wouldn't mind if the current "dig deep til you find the magma sea" or "dig til you see what you want" methods of play were slowed down somehow...wouldn't hurt anything except making you not as invulnerable in many cases
I agree about this. There has been a loss of pacing in dwarf mode since the .31 release. I don't know if lighting is the best solution to this, but in my mind there should be something stopping the player from just drilling down to hit magma at embark. I'm not saying it is a difficulty issue or anything, just pacing - in 40d there was usually a long period of searching for magma that held back the metal industry until completed, and it was pretty fun.
But that long period of searching was often done in the site finder, rather than in-game.
Post by: hermes on January 25, 2011, 12:53:27 pm
I personally wouldn't mind if the current "dig deep til you find the magma sea" or "dig til you see what you want" methods of play were slowed down somehow...wouldn't hurt anything except making you not as invulnerable in many cases
I agree about this. There has been a loss of pacing in dwarf mode since the .31 release. I don't know if lighting is the best solution to this, but in my mind there should be something stopping the player from just drilling down to hit magma at embark. I'm not saying it is a difficulty issue or anything, just pacing - in 40d there was usually a long period of searching for magma that held back the metal industry until completed, and it was pretty fun.
Good point about the pacing, I think the caves provide a nice diversion on the way down, but yes, something would be good to slow down the rate of development as things stand. For some reason, the low tech beginnings of each fortress is the high point of gameplay for me.
The lighting thread is horrendously overlooked IMO, and as a potential fortress mode feature I think it stands to change the game for the better in a dramatic way. However I do agree with nil on the technical issues, not least because I think they are twofold; the intersection of lighting and pathfinding is a veritable nightmare of DF underbelly-programming and I wouldn't blame Toady for putting that off for some time.
Bees and the new animals really shall be awesome. I really can't wait for the caravan arc to make an appearance... things are on the verge of getting really epic in DF. :)
Post by: Greiger on January 25, 2011, 01:02:05 pm
Things have been messy lately -- last few days, including today, are going to be marred running around trying to fix up Zach's broken computer, and I'm sitting on a hundred emails. I should have a beekeeping devlog up within the hour though. A vacation would be nice, and I'll announce it if I finally get a chance for one, he he he.
Probably way too late and old news but I wonder how many computer techs live in Washington that would happily fix the Adams' computers at cost, if not just completely for free.
Although it would probably be very hard to resist searching through the computer for a dev version, or hooking the drive up to a tech station with a data recovery program to look for deleted dev versions...
Huh... I probably single-handedly convinced Toady to never take his computer to a tech shop.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 25, 2011, 01:07:15 pm
yeah not to mention that they could find my keylogger on that pc ... umm i shouldnt have said that right?
Post by: dennislp3 on January 25, 2011, 03:30:59 pm
Things have been messy lately -- last few days, including today, are going to be marred running around trying to fix up Zach's broken computer, and I'm sitting on a hundred emails. I should have a beekeeping devlog up within the hour though. A vacation would be nice, and I'll announce it if I finally get a chance for one, he he he.
Probably way too late and old news but I wonder how many computer techs live in Washington that would happily fix the Adams' computers at cost, if not just completely for free.
Although it would probably be very hard to resist searching through the computer for a dev version, or hooking the drive up to a tech station with a data recovery program to look for deleted dev versions...
Huh... I probably single-handedly convinced Toady to never take his computer to a tech shop.
If I still lived there (I am in Virginia now...go figure) I would have that thing fixed before it was broken lol
Post by: abadidea on January 25, 2011, 04:03:20 pm
Actually at the moment I am getting snowed under on Cape Cod with my grandmother. It'd be a perfect day for DF if I had a computer more powerful than a 1.2ghz netbook with me. Technically playable, but it gets too slow too soon. It's also a really cramped keyboard.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 25, 2011, 04:05:16 pm
Post by: dennislp3 on January 25, 2011, 07:29:22 pm
High five fellow Virginian :D
Actually at the moment I am getting snowed under on Cape Cod with my grandmother. It'd be a perfect day for DF if I had a computer more powerful than a 1.2ghz netbook with me. Technically playable, but it gets too slow too soon. It's also a really cramped keyboard.
That sucks! its just starting to get a bit warmer here (in Virginia Beach)...which I am very glad about...
Post by: Flaede on January 25, 2011, 11:15:52 pm
Don't dwarves have IR vision anyway? That should alleviate the need for a while :P
Right, and a really good sense of smell (http://www.goblinscomic.com/10212005/) and laser vision. (heh)
Toady hasn't added anything to do with light perception other than glowing eyes in the dark, it's been made pretty apparent that we shouldn't go by other fantasy worlds as an indication of where things will go.
Post by: abadidea on January 26, 2011, 12:43:56 am
Don't dwarves have IR vision anyway? That should alleviate the need for a while :P
Right, and a really good sense of smell (http://www.goblinscomic.com/10212005/) and laser vision. (heh)
Toady hasn't added anything to do with light perception other than glowing eyes in the dark, it's been made pretty apparent that we shouldn't go by other fantasy worlds as an indication of where things will go.
Of course dwarves don't have a keen sense of smell... they have to put up with THEMSELVES after all...
Just saying, it would only make sense that a cave-adapted species would have better infrared than us sunlubbers. After all, even your typical digital camera can see into the very near IR.
Post by: nbonaparte on January 26, 2011, 12:58:19 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 26, 2011, 01:18:20 am
Post by: abadidea on January 26, 2011, 01:23:56 am
Well kobolds can see atleast infragreen.
You mean... yellow?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 26, 2011, 01:29:49 am
Post by: G-Flex on January 26, 2011, 01:38:03 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 26, 2011, 01:55:56 am
Also the term infra green appears in the green hornet but i fear this discussion gets out of hand. Again by me. Seriously i do that just by accident - if not thinking counts as such.
Post by: G-Flex on January 26, 2011, 02:04:08 am
Gflex you combo breaker ;) that was just a bit Wow humor. Too geeky?
I didn't get the joke; not everybody plays WoW.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 26, 2011, 02:24:48 am
Post by: Areyar on January 26, 2011, 03:14:54 am
I wonder if elves can see UV light...Elves can see megapurple... it is the colour of candy. :p
Post by: jellsprout on January 26, 2011, 05:25:14 am
Post by: Rose on January 26, 2011, 05:26:44 am
they tend not to live long enough to see red.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 26, 2011, 05:57:21 am
Post by: MrWiggles on January 26, 2011, 07:06:33 am
Spice Long Ham.
Post by: PTTG?? on January 26, 2011, 11:06:07 am
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 26, 2011, 12:17:09 pm
Most DF players see everything from infradead to ultraviolent.
To the tag line thread.
Post by: Rexfelum on January 26, 2011, 01:35:50 pm
Most DF players see everything from infradead to ultraviolent.
To the tag line thread.
To The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
--Rexfelum
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on January 26, 2011, 01:51:02 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on January 26, 2011, 02:04:30 pm
Post by: Mantonio on January 26, 2011, 03:20:57 pm
Are there any plans for better animal control? Maybe something where dwarfs will actively remove animals from an area where they're not allowed?
Because it seems that no matter how many non-pet passable doors I put down they always get through eventually, and it's such a pain to remove them. It's such an annoyance that I no longer stop the spikes in my Danger Room (a triple non-pet passable doored Danger Room at that) if an animal wanders into it, and I'm sure that's not the response I'm supposed to have.
Post by: G-Flex on January 26, 2011, 04:04:48 pm
Because it seems that no matter how many non-pet passable doors I put down they always get through eventually
There's an even greater problem with pet-impassable doors: Animals still try to path through them. They won't make it through, of course, but they'll think they can, and so you'll get some pretty significant lag if there are a lot of animals constantly pathfinding out of an area they can't actually get out of.
Post by: Sunday on January 26, 2011, 04:40:29 pm
I'm assuming questions are still posted here.
Are there any plans for better animal control? Maybe something where dwarfs will actively remove animals from an area where they're not allowed?
Because it seems that no matter how many non-pet passable doors I put down they always get through eventually, and it's such a pain to remove them. It's such an annoyance that I no longer stop the spikes in my Danger Room (a triple non-pet passable doored Danger Room at that) if an animal wanders into it, and I'm sure that's not the response I'm supposed to have.
I don't have a quote, but I thought that maybe this next version has a sort of "animal containment" zone option? Like a pasture-type dealy. Or maybe that was for a release after this next one or something.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 26, 2011, 04:43:13 pm
Post by: Knigel on January 26, 2011, 06:36:34 pm
Yep. Pastures are in for grazing animals to do their thing. IIRC, Toady also said that they would tend to stay there, given that it is a food source for them.
Fences for livestock (specifically for adventurers raising them) is listed under goals, but I don't remember Toady mentioning he's started implementing it.
Post by: Acanthus117 on January 26, 2011, 06:38:54 pm
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on January 26, 2011, 06:42:47 pm
Post by: Alehkhs on January 26, 2011, 07:26:51 pm
High five fellow Virginian :D
Actually at the moment I am getting snowed under on Cape Cod with my grandmother. It'd be a perfect day for DF if I had a computer more powerful than a 1.2ghz netbook with me. Technically playable, but it gets too slow too soon. It's also a really cramped keyboard.
That sucks! its just starting to get a bit warmer here (in Virginia Beach)...which I am very glad about...
Well, NOVA just got a ton of snow/rain dumped on it.
Post by: abadidea on January 26, 2011, 10:18:54 pm
High five fellow Virginian :D
Actually at the moment I am getting snowed under on Cape Cod with my grandmother. It'd be a perfect day for DF if I had a computer more powerful than a 1.2ghz netbook with me. Technically playable, but it gets too slow too soon. It's also a really cramped keyboard.
That sucks! its just starting to get a bit warmer here (in Virginia Beach)...which I am very glad about...
Well, NOVA just got a ton of snow/rain dumped on it.
Which has delayed my father coming to rescue me, which delays me being able to get a new computer, which delays me being able to play Dwarf Fortress in all its glory. :'(
Post by: Alehkhs on January 26, 2011, 11:58:11 pm
High five fellow Virginian :D
Actually at the moment I am getting snowed under on Cape Cod with my grandmother. It'd be a perfect day for DF if I had a computer more powerful than a 1.2ghz netbook with me. Technically playable, but it gets too slow too soon. It's also a really cramped keyboard.
That sucks! its just starting to get a bit warmer here (in Virginia Beach)...which I am very glad about...
Well, NOVA just got a ton of snow/rain dumped on it.
Which has delayed my father coming to rescue me, which delays me being able to get a new computer, which delays me being able to play Dwarf Fortress in all its glory. :'(
Unfortunately, all these snowy days might also delay me from getting my new computer, as it means I get paid less when the check is written in a month.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on January 27, 2011, 03:58:34 am
I was trying to get up to date on the updates, and came across the ceramics post that was put up on the sixteenth, and I was at first a little concerned, but then became very excited.
One of the things that I really love about Dwarf Fortress is that it lets me start getting very technical, and I start learning some things about, say, the difference between mafic and felsic magma. And one of the conversations I really learned a lot about was when Gazz taught me about pottery in one of the suggestion threads I participated in.
Essentially, the question I want to ask is will the ceramics be like the one in this thread on ceramics (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=49525.0)? Will we have just "clay" as a soil type to work with, or can we fire up any kind of soil to make terra cotta, so that it is (rightly) a material everyone with access to most types of dirt can make? Can we wood glaze pots? Do we need sand or crushed feldspar to glaze? Are glazes necessary to make a water-tight storage jug? Are we going to be crushing a single metal ore unit to make, say, 50 pots worth of glazes which can then be used to make decorations? I hate to think we have to use an entire metal unit for one pot's decoration.
Honestly, the attention to realism on this one really makes or breaks my hopes and dreams. If this is actually very similar to what was discussed in the suggestion thread, I will love you forever... foreverer than I already do, at least.
edit: to be more precise
Post by: Sunday on January 27, 2011, 09:02:43 am
Sorry to pile on the "ceramics" questions, but I just rejoined the forums after a three-month absence.
I was trying to get up to date on the updates, and came across the ceramics post that was put up on the sixteenth, and I was at first a little concerned, but then became very excited.
One of the things that I really love about Dwarf Fortress is that it lets me start getting very technical, and I start learning some things about, say, the difference between mafic and felsic magma. And one of the conversations I really learned a lot about was when Gazz taught me about pottery in one of the suggestion threads I participated in.
Essentially, the question I want to ask is will the ceramics be like the one in this thread on ceramics (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=49525.0)? Will we have just "clay" as a soil type to work with, or can we fire up any kind of soil to make terra cotta, so that it is (rightly) a material everyone with access to dirt can make? Can we wood glaze pots? Do we need sand or crushed feldspar to glaze? Are we going to be crushing a single metal ore unit to make, say, 50 pots worth of glazes which can then be used to make decorations? I hate to think we have to use an entire metal unit for one pot's decoration.
Honestly, the attention to realism on this one really makes or breaks my hopes and dreams. If this is actually very similar to what was discussed in the suggestion thread, I will love you forever... foreverer than I already do, at least.
Hmmm. I'd be surprised if any soil worked for terracotta. IRL, terracotta—as with all clays—needs clay of a certain quality to be viable for use. And there are better terracottas and worse terracottas, depending on where the clay's collected.
Clay itself is made up of certain minerals (phyllosilicates, IIRC). If the soil doesn't have those minerals, then it isn't going to work as clay.
Post by: MrWiggles on January 27, 2011, 06:29:06 pm
These finer technical details were already discussed in the linked Clay & Ceramic thread.Spoiler: NW_Kohaku Post (click to show/hide)
Hmmm. I'd be surprised if any soil worked for terracotta. IRL, terracotta—as with all clays—needs clay of a certain quality to be viable for use. And there are better terracottas and worse terracottas, depending on where the clay's collected.
Clay itself is made up of certain minerals (phyllosilicates, IIRC). If the soil doesn't have those minerals, then it isn't going to work as clay.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on January 28, 2011, 12:30:29 am
Will there be respect for different "burial customs"? I, for one, have started to prefer the "Proper Dwarven Funeral" method of flooding a burial chamber with magma, encasing the dwarf in obsidian, then making a statue out of his/her obsidian. It's just dwarfier that way. Will this now mean I have to choose between not having personally amusing burial practices and being annoyed by the results of my "desecration of the bodies"?
edit (and edit again): Actually, while I'm on topic...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: nbonaparte on January 28, 2011, 12:39:26 am
Post by: Flaede on January 28, 2011, 02:12:34 am
Post by: Caldfir on January 28, 2011, 11:54:58 am
Will there be respect for different "burial customs"? I, for one, have started to prefer the "Proper Dwarven Funeral" method of flooding a burial chamber with magma, encasing the dwarf in obsidian, then making a statue out of his/her obsidian. It's just dwarfier that way. Will this now mean I have to choose between not having personally amusing burial practices and being annoyed by the results of my "desecration of the bodies"?You can always carve them a burial slab out of the obsidian. Perhaps not as dorfy as a statue, but still gets the idea across.
Post by: darkflagrance on January 28, 2011, 08:43:40 pm
I was enjoying the idea of that dwarf ghost starting parties. I'd like more of that kind of thing. Or even more "defenders of the weak" ghosts, that chase off sieges. >:) I'd've kept him around, too, except I wanted to get at the goblinite, and he was... territorial.
I loved the old "Ghostly Mason has organized party" 'bug'. I was hoping it wouldn't be removed (has it been?)
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LA5bffBKTSE/0.jpg)
Post by: monk12 on January 28, 2011, 10:22:28 pm
Post by: Untelligent on January 28, 2011, 11:25:16 pm
Post by: Bralbaard on January 29, 2011, 03:56:55 am
Post by: Neonivek on January 29, 2011, 04:21:34 am
Quote
I loved the old "Ghostly Mason has organized party" 'bug'. I was hoping it wouldn't be removed
If it has it needs to come back in officially/intentionally so it works the way you would expect it. A totally creepy room with stuff flying around. OoOOooOoooo
Post by: jellsprout on January 29, 2011, 04:22:45 am
Post by: Flaede on January 29, 2011, 06:21:23 am
Mead, hive splitting and stinging bees? My first fort in the next version is going to be a pure bee industry fort. Honey roasts for food, mead for booze and the entrance surrounded with many hives linked to a single lever for fortress defense.
We need giant bee FBs.
Post by: drvoke on January 29, 2011, 12:16:23 pm
Quote from: Toady One
if you are collecting half of your hives and then splitting the other half back into those hives over and over I wouldn't be surprised.
Does this basically mean even with a max number of hives on the map, beekeeping will basically be "renewable" within that limit as long as you keep unharvested ones to split into your bee farm?
I guess that question can be answered by anyone who knows about beekeeping (which seems to be a surprising/alarming number of people) on this forum.
Post by: Mephansteras on January 29, 2011, 12:41:06 pm
Post by: zwei on January 29, 2011, 01:41:50 pm
I'm having a tiny bit of trouble parsing this sentence, but it could just be because of my ignorance of the whole beekeeping process:Quote from: Toady Oneif you are collecting half of your hives and then splitting the other half back into those hives over and over I wouldn't be surprised.
Does this basically mean even with a max number of hives on the map, beekeeping will basically be "renewable" within that limit as long as you keep unharvested ones to split into your bee farm?
I guess that question can be answered by anyone who knows about beekeeping (which seems to be a surprising/alarming number of people) on this forum.
Mechanically, you ought to me able havest max/2 hives in regular intervals.
As someone who knows a bit about RL beekeeping, yeah, it is pretty damn renewable with a bit care (for example, if you havest too much honey, you have to feed bees with sugar solution; if you take away honeycombs, you should replace them with frames filled with sheet of wax with hexagon pattern...).
Post by: NW_Kohaku on January 29, 2011, 03:27:17 pm
If it's like ranching is currently, where you have to manually mark every cow for slaughter, I think I'll stick with farming, which runs more-or-less automatically. The automated slaughterhouses (where cows fall through trapdoors to their death on the butcher's block) made automated ranching automated, if elaborate to set up, but I don't foresee us being able to perform large mechanical solutions to something as delicate as splitting a beehive.
Post by: Areyar on January 29, 2011, 03:41:03 pm
They just encourage the beez to create their new cells on the panels that the keeper provides, which are easilly removed and of standardized form and size.
without them the bees will create new combs in a chaotic ordered fashion, still roughly parrallel, yet the edges will grow organically also they will be solidly attached to the inside of the hivebox/basket/hollow, making harvesting only a part of the hive more difficult.
IIRC there is also an order in which cells are used, with older cells being used for storing pollen. With the modern prefabricated panels, combs that are mainly honey can be harvested preferably to those that contain mostly larvae. Also phased replacement allows for more homogenous use of combs.
Post by: Rockphed on January 29, 2011, 04:00:26 pm
I'm not sure whether or not to make it a green highlighted question, since I don't want to ask too many questions all at once, but I'm wondering how (player) manually intensive beekeeping might be...
If it's like ranching is currently, where you have to manually mark every cow for slaughter, I think I'll stick with farming, which runs more-or-less automatically. The automated slaughterhouses (where cows fall through trapdoors to their death on the butcher's block) made automated ranching automated, if elaborate to set up, but I don't foresee us being able to perform large mechanical solutions to something as delicate as splitting a beehive.
I suspect that we will be able to go into the manager and say something like "Harvest Hives 5" followed by "Split Hives 5" or "Collect Hives 5" and get the desired result that the dwarves go turn 5 hives into the appropriate resource and then go get 5 more. Hopefully, the beekeeper's workshop is different from the clay hive thing, because otherwise things will go screwy.
Post by: Jiri Petru on January 30, 2011, 07:26:49 am
EDIT: Hehe, I've only now read the above post and notices people are asking exactly the same, just not in green.
Post by: Areyar on January 30, 2011, 08:35:14 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on January 30, 2011, 10:18:08 am
When catching up on the previous FOTF answer sessions, I saw something about imprinting creatures born from eggs, and I was going through the wiki later, and glossed over the article on harpies again, and an idea started to germinate...
Do eggs open the door for Parthenogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis), the act of a female fertilizing her own eggs? (Most commonly occuring in "simpler" lifeforms like insects, but which also occurs in some reptile and even bird species.) Harpies as a species would make much more sense with parthenogenesis, excepting they become some sort of always-recurring night creature that has spouse converting qualities. It would also raise some potential for stealing harpy eggs, and raising them to be trained harpy watchdogs that prowl the sky.
Which leads to the next... Stealing the eggs of lizardpeople or some other sentient creature wouldn't necessarily need an "imprinting" to convince a lizardboy that you were his father or mother, and he probably wouldn't be that stupid, anyway. But if it's the only society they've ever known, wouldn't they feel some sort of loyalty to it, anyway, letting us players have some of that "Tigerman slave" stuff back that we enjoyed earlier? Basically, can we eventually adopt children of other races into our own "protective custody as a superior culture", and integrate them into our society?
This also makes me ask another question...
Is your dwarf racist?
Yes. Yes, he or she is.
Dwarves right now won't even speak to, much less form relationships with any species that is not a dwarf caste right now. I'm sure this has something to do with the fact that interspecies romance is utterly unsupported (which is yet more proof of dwarven racism!), but since we are supposedly moving towards having cultures where races mingle instead of being "racially pure nations" bent upon genocidal warfare, I have to wonder, what sort of interspecies friendship will we be able to achieve later on in development?
I know that interspecies breeding will eventually be possible, making for something like half-elves as well as just mules, but that's just being put off for now, but it's a little odd that dwarves and humans can't even be friends, much less dwarves and some of the cool hybrid critterpeoples like sharkmen. Likewise, humans or other people who somehow become part of dwarven society can't be assigned labors or assigned rooms without hacks.
I'm sure we won't have full interspecies breeding capabilities, although give me half a chance, and I'm interbreeding dwarves with GCS in a heartbeat.
Post by: thvaz on January 30, 2011, 10:28:49 am
And these aren't questions, they are veiled suggestions.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on January 30, 2011, 10:41:45 am
I am trying to limit myself to only three questions at most per session out of politeness, but if politeness is not reciprocated, then what is the point?
Also, I can assure you I am using the suggestions forum for what are real suggestions.
Post by: Kesc on January 30, 2011, 11:49:00 am
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on January 30, 2011, 12:01:50 pm
Is there going to be labors in adventurer mode?That would be very interesting.
This is planned for the adventurer skills arc
Post by: TolyK on January 30, 2011, 12:49:16 pm
ya beat me to it.Is there going to be labors in adventurer mode?That would be very interesting.
This is planned for the adventurer skills arc
Post by: thvaz on January 30, 2011, 02:25:45 pm
Nice to see you again, too.
I am trying to limit myself to only three questions at most per session out of politeness, but if politeness is not reciprocated, then what is the point?
Also, I can assure you I am using the suggestions forum for what are real suggestions.
Sorry for being rash, but this kind of elaborate question really doesn't fit here. Toady didn't answer this thread for more than a month maybe because questions like yours. We did discuss this point here many times. Think of a simple rule - if you have to elaborate too much to ask a question it is not a question for this thread. Try the DF Talk thread instead.
Post by: NSQuote on January 30, 2011, 02:30:10 pm
Which bugs have your highest priority? The Dungeon Master? The bone artifact bug? It'd be nice to know which ones are more likely to receive treatment first.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on January 30, 2011, 03:38:38 pm
Sorry for being rash, but this kind of elaborate question really doesn't fit here. Toady didn't answer this thread for more than a month maybe because questions like yours. We did discuss this point here many times. Think of a simple rule - if you have to elaborate too much to ask a question it is not a question for this thread. Try the DF Talk thread instead.
Well, I sort of asked one question and thought of another one to ask just after I had typed it. Such a thing should count against a three question limit, I suppose...
Still, if Toady doesn't really say something makes him more or less encouraged to do something, then that could be nothing but speculation. Besides, he's already said that he would only answer two or three questions from any given person per session (and followed through). I take that as a "restrict the number of questions" request, but not that it actually makes him less willing to answer questions in total.
Post by: NSQuote on January 30, 2011, 10:14:01 pm
Can't wait to see taverns and inns, as well as the new mounted combat system. <3
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 30, 2011, 10:18:28 pm
Especially 3d veins and the farmer shedules. I wonder if toady will use a priority system like many of the bigger rpgs like gothic.
Post by: RedWick on January 30, 2011, 10:36:43 pm
I personally am looking forward to the Dwarf Mode inn thing. That should add some interesting dynamics to fortress mode!
Post by: NSQuote on January 30, 2011, 10:40:23 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on January 30, 2011, 11:16:56 pm
Post by: drvoke on January 31, 2011, 12:43:51 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 31, 2011, 01:04:43 am
Post by: Knigel on January 31, 2011, 01:05:58 am
Also, I'm assuming "Adventure mode pack mules" just means letting your livestock carry stuff.
Post by: Rockphed on January 31, 2011, 01:11:44 am
Sounds great, but what does "Combat move/speed split" mean?
It means that being able to run fast won't always translate into being able to get multiple hits in before your opponent can react. It will allow things like cheetahs that can move really fast to attack at the same speed as lions, which can't move nearly as fast. Or it will allow for a golem to be a plodding things that anyone could out run, but can make 10 attacks for any one you make against it.
Post by: Untelligent on January 31, 2011, 01:13:07 am
Sounds great, but what does "Combat move/speed split" mean?
In the current state of the game, how fast you can perform any action -- move, work, stab, etc. -- is determined by your speed (which is determined by a number of things like your agility, how much you're carrying, any kind of status like hunger/crouching/nausea, etc.). Apparently when that release comes around how fast you can move and how fast you can attack won't be directly related.
EDIT: obligatory remark that I have been ninjad
Post by: Waparius on January 31, 2011, 01:33:00 am
Post by: EmeraldWind on January 31, 2011, 01:52:22 am
This release schedule is really good. I mean, I don't play adventure mode so the big thing I'm waiting for (Inns) will take a while, but I love knowing what order everything is in.
And don't forget those are just the tip of the iceberg... each of those releases are coming along with bug fixes. So there's more to look forward to than just what is listed.
Post by: drvoke on January 31, 2011, 02:03:16 am
I only ask because I had to wonder how merchants and travelers will pay for their rooms at The Inn of the Prancing Skinless Moose after update 4... If "dwarf mode inns" means what I think it means.
Post by: Festin on January 31, 2011, 03:57:56 am
Visiting an inn will probably generate a special happy thought. Also, this can be a nice use for mugs. New stuff like clay and mead fits nicely.
An obvious question:
Will we have tavern brawls in the dwarf mode?
Post by: slMagnvox on January 31, 2011, 04:10:07 am
An obvious question:
Will we have tavern brawls in the dwarf mode?
I will make a room, locked with a levered door, opening directly into the tavern. I will keep my hammerer locked inside of it. Just in case!
Post by: zwei on January 31, 2011, 04:24:02 am
Now, THAT sounds interesting, and here is my thinly veiled ... question: Will we be able to define "empty space" mineral?
I am aiming at ability to mod in gigantic geodes (cluster of empty space within cluster of amethyst) as well as "mini caverns", cracks and small openings.
Post by: Pirate on January 31, 2011, 05:41:11 am
Other stuff's fun too. Keep it up guys.
Post by: MrWiggles on January 31, 2011, 06:11:42 am
Has there been any word on how the caravan arc will impact the dwarven economy portion of fortress mode? Will minting coin have relevance now?
I only ask because I had to wonder how merchants and travelers will pay for their rooms at The Inn of the Prancing Skinless Moose after update 4... If "dwarf mode inns" means what I think it means.
No, but something like this may come in Update 6. Though recall the major issue with the coins, is with how their stacked, a prevalent design issue with a lot of small items.
Post by: slMagnvox on January 31, 2011, 06:48:09 am
Has there been any word on how the caravan arc will impact the dwarven economy portion of fortress mode? Will minting coin have relevance now?
I only ask because I had to wonder how merchants and travelers will pay for their rooms at The Inn of the Prancing Skinless Moose after update 4... If "dwarf mode inns" means what I think it means.
No, but something like this may come in Update 6. Though recall the major issue with the coins, is with how their stacked, a prevalent design issue with a lot of small items.
Traders could at least abstract their payment to The Inn of the Prancing Skinless Moose in the trade screen. Say if you had an exceptional inn with quality food and a wide selection of intoxicants you would find your trade starting off with a certain trader profit to account for the "coin" they spent at your inn. Or maybe a legendary inn could at least give you more favorable trade rolls when offering the traders a less favorable deal.
Edit: Likewise, travelers (i.e. adventurers) might be more willing to do quests for your Fortress, and demand a less valuable reward, if your inn is really kick ass. That is assuming adventurers will someday be able to do quests for your fort; An idea I remember kicking around in a suggestion thread circa '08. At least a super rad inn might bring more noteworthy travelers to stop in and pretty the place up a bit, maybe challenge the hammerer to an arm wrestling contest; If you're brave enough to let Hammerer out of his/her cage for a spell.
Post by: LoSboccacc on January 31, 2011, 06:51:14 am
Post by: Flaede on January 31, 2011, 08:06:29 am
Post by: tps12 on January 31, 2011, 08:45:51 am
I know that interspecies breeding will eventually be possible, making for something like half-elves as well as just mules, but that's just being put off for now, but it's a little odd that dwarves and humans can't even be friends, much less dwarves and some of the cool hybrid critterpeoples like sharkmen. Likewise, humans or other people who somehow become part of dwarven society can't be assigned labors or assigned rooms without hacks.
I'm sure we won't have full interspecies breeding capabilities, although give me half a chance, and I'm interbreeding dwarves with GCS in a heartbeat.
I think they've talked before about better supporting interracial settlements, though I'm sure you've heard of dwarves ending up with elven monarchs at least, so it's not entirely segregated. Also I think the "enemy" mechanics are based on civilization rather than race, so nobody's racist in that sense (i.e., if your dwarves at war with one elven civilization then they can still be on good terms with others, though that's theoretical since I think a fortress only has contact with a single civilization of each race).
Not going to be part of the introduction of eggs, however, as far as I'm aware.
Post by: metime00 on January 31, 2011, 09:08:02 am
I like the idea of separating combat speed from movement. Because I'm lying on the ground doesn't mean I can't swing my axe like crazy :)
Other stuff's fun too. Keep it up guys.
I don't! That means I can't cut off peoples' feet to make them attack me slower! ;)
Post by: DeKaFu on January 31, 2011, 09:47:58 am
Unless of course we're assuming a Wizard Did It, and in the DF world inter-species romance brings about perfectly viable half-and-half offspring. And thus Tigermen were born...
Post by: tps12 on January 31, 2011, 10:36:52 am
Post by: tfaal on January 31, 2011, 11:13:18 am
I'm curious why people assume inter-species breeding would be possible. This rarely works out very well in nature, usually resulting in sterile mutants. Unless people are suggesting that dwarves and elves and goblins are actually all different races of the same species? (seems unlikely, considering half of them are immortal)
Unless of course we're assuming a Wizard Did It, and in the DF world inter-species romance brings about perfectly viable half-and-half offspring. And thus Tigermen were born...
I think there has to be some aspect of magic involved, since that genie was taken out of the bottle when immortality (as you mention) was brought into play. That said, I still like the "sterile mutant" method of cross breeding. The only other options seem to be a world without halfbreeds or a world of poorly defined racial lines and mixed raced individuals being the norm. The former lacks panache, and the latter (though an interesting twist on the standard model) seems a bit close to reality for a fantasy world.
Post by: tps12 on January 31, 2011, 11:34:58 am
The only other options seem to be a world without halfbreeds or a world of poorly defined racial lines and mixed raced individuals being the norm.
There's also nature vs. nurture to consider. It's known that something as simple as diet has a huge effect on human height, for example, so lifestyle choices as extreme as burrowing underground or living among the trees could plausibly account for the physical differences between races.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on January 31, 2011, 11:45:53 am
Just look at dogs to see how much difference can occur in a single species - compare a chihuahua to a great dane or both those to a weiner dog or bloodhound.
But yes, magic is the only way to explain most of the serious threat creatures in this game, unless there's some scientific explanation for magma men I'm missing.
But I'm not really too terribly concerned with actual inter-species romance so much as having the ability for forts to function properly with members of different species. Right now, if an elf or tigerman becomes part of your fortress somehow, then there isn't very much you can do with them, as they won't show up in many of the menus, they won't talk with dwarves, and you can pretty much be stuck with them being just haulers at best, or even just operate with the same functionality as simply being a tame animal.
(And having interspecies romance that cannot produce viable offspring would be worth having, anyway. If a dwarf, say, fell in love with a mermaid for some reason other than her potential profit margin, but they could never reproduce, it might make for an unusual and interesting story. Romances that can never really work due to the differences of species are pretty much the whole reason why mermaids became common and popular mythological creatures.)
Post by: Aklyon on January 31, 2011, 01:20:04 pm
I love that plan of mini-releases with bug fixes in between. Love it love it love it.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 31, 2011, 02:31:40 pm
I'm curious why people assume inter-species breeding would be possible. This rarely works out very well in nature, usually resulting in sterile mutants. Unless people are suggesting that dwarves and elves and goblins are actually all different races of the same species? (seems unlikely, considering half of them are immortal)
Unless of course we're assuming a Wizard Did It, and in the DF world inter-species romance brings about perfectly viable half-and-half offspring. And thus Tigermen were born...
Well interspecies romance is actually a big trope in crappy fantasy world and toady said himself he wants a crappy fantasy world simulator ;) Hehe and for animal-people well it wasnt wizard ... it was the forrest spirit (read three toes "root").
Anyway in terms of species purity i dont see many problems. 99% percent of the memeber sof a species wouldnt even consider another species as viable mate , in nature the chance is higher thought if the number of the possible mates of your own species is quite low (atm that can be seen in polarbears thatstart to mate with grizzles). The chances to generate healthy offspring get quite lower the more genetic distance you have - crossbreeds between spiders for example demand special diets and have a lower growth rate.
Given that the number of crossbreeds is quite low in a population you can be sure that bulk population will clean itself just by outbreeding the genetical material. For a living population of crossbreeds that makes an impact on your entire species you would need a considerable number of them compared to the rest of the population and you would have to have them all in more or less one place where the genetical material can refresh itself without needing a influx of new material from the outside.
But back to topic:
Toady will the town map rewrite (shortterm release 1) just include renewed shops or will it be more in the direction of "district/alley" based placement of stuff. Like having a clothier-alley, a dyer-street or a jew-lane (these are real-life examples not some kind of political statement) where all people with the same job (or whatever) are concentrated? It makes only sense for bigger towns thought.
Post by: freeformschooler on January 31, 2011, 02:40:07 pm
Will we ever have body parts on otherwise inanimate objects? Winged armor that lets you fly, gloves flowing with magma as blood, and so on.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 31, 2011, 02:47:58 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on January 31, 2011, 03:02:18 pm
Post by: Armok on January 31, 2011, 03:14:07 pm
I don't know if this question will ever be answered or not. It's a little bit silly.
Will we ever have body parts on otherwise inanimate objects? Winged armor that lets you fly, gloves flowing with magma as blood, and so on.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on January 31, 2011, 03:16:30 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on January 31, 2011, 05:04:15 pm
I don't know if this question will ever be answered or not. It's a little bit silly.
Will we ever have body parts on otherwise inanimate objects? Winged armor that lets you fly, gloves flowing with magma as blood, and so on.
yeah sorry I screwed up the hex and then left for a while, geeez
I wish for my Elona wings now :s
Primary inspiration.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 31, 2011, 05:12:51 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on January 31, 2011, 05:19:26 pm
Uh hex? you know there is a colour selector in the post-edit windowish thingy. right next to the font-size. Just mark your text and hit "change color" where you can select limegreen for example.
Oh dang, you're right.
I never saw the lime green option. I see green > choose green > it's too dark > I'll type it out myself.
My problem solving skills are fabulous as you can see.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Also, more ideas for body part materials:
Gemstones flow with any variety of precious fluids, but you can't extract these fluids without destroying the gem in question.
A sword with a blade made of fire (ala Balors from Genesis) and a hilt made of something decidedly fireproof.
And so on.
Of course these things are all very silly and improbably but the possibilities would be endless!
Post by: NW_Kohaku on January 31, 2011, 05:25:48 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on January 31, 2011, 05:28:30 pm
Honestly I'm not sure what all is possible with tissues and bodily fluids. I'll have to look it up on the wiki.
Post by: Inari on January 31, 2011, 05:42:46 pm
I can find the current development (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/) and current goals (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html) listings, but these don't mention some of the things being talked about here, such as updates. What am I missing?
Post by: Aklyon on January 31, 2011, 05:46:34 pm
Schedule is on your current goals link
Post by: NW_Kohaku on January 31, 2011, 05:46:55 pm
+Microcline Syrup+
I could respond to this so many different ways, but...
"Stone Soup" is all I can really think about.
I'm not sure letting dwarves outright eat the excess stone they generate is necessarily the way we want to send this game.
Post by: drvoke on January 31, 2011, 05:54:18 pm
Has there been any word on how the caravan arc will impact the dwarven economy portion of fortress mode? Will minting coin have relevance now?
I only ask because I had to wonder how merchants and travelers will pay for their rooms at The Inn of the Prancing Skinless Moose after update 4... If "dwarf mode inns" means what I think it means.
No, but something like this may come in Update 6. Though recall the major issue with the coins, is with how their stacked, a prevalent design issue with a lot of small items.
Yeah, it grinds fortresses to a halt. I only ever minted coins in my very first 40d fortress, and never bothered again. But the whole caravan arc begs the question of how exactly the economy is being handled. Barter is probably the most efficient method for between-site trade, but within-site (i.e., paying for an inn), it seems like it needs to be handled some other way.
Traders could at least abstract their payment to The Inn of the Prancing Skinless Moose in the trade screen. Say if you had an exceptional inn with quality food and a wide selection of intoxicants you would find your trade starting off with a certain trader profit to account for the "coin" they spent at your inn. Or maybe a legendary inn could at least give you more favorable trade rolls when offering the traders a less favorable deal.
Yes, unless there is actually going to be some corresponding economy overhaul within the caravan arc, some sort of abstraction is going to be taking place. The favorable trade rolls seems the most likely speculation in that case, corresponding with the quality of your inn, or whatever.
Edit: Likewise, travelers (i.e. adventurers) might be more willing to do quests for your Fortress
Is that happening any time soon? I guess this is all part of my other (green) question about what exactly the implications of "fortress mode inns" are.
Post by: Gatleos on January 31, 2011, 08:11:04 pm
Who knows, maybe Dwarves in this universe act like Gorons.+Microcline Syrup+
I could respond to this so many different ways, but...
"Stone Soup" is all I can really think about.
I'm not sure letting dwarves outright eat the excess stone they generate is necessarily the way we want to send this game.
Post by: Cruxador on January 31, 2011, 08:14:13 pm
Sorry to be thick, but where are the schedule and devblog?People are also asking about less immediate potential developments, as they come to mind. The things you linked are indeed the devlog and schedule.
I can find the current development (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/) and current goals (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html) listings, but these don't mention some of the things being talked about here, such as updates. What am I missing?
Post by: freeformschooler on January 31, 2011, 08:21:48 pm
Or maybe it's more fit for a Goron mod. (I hope Dwarves in a New World keeps being updated! Eventually!) It definitely doesn't belong in vanilla. NW's post made me smile.Who knows, maybe Dwarves in this universe act like Gorons.+Microcline Syrup+
I could respond to this so many different ways, but...
"Stone Soup" is all I can really think about.
I'm not sure letting dwarves outright eat the excess stone they generate is necessarily the way we want to send this game.
Heck, we can probably already do this with reactions, just minus the syrup being actually inside the stone.
I didn't know that minting coins destroyed FPS. Which brings another question to add to the list of probably thousands of unanswered questions that may or may not be currently giving Toady an aneurysm. When the economy (presumably after the caravan arc) is more fleshed out, will there be a possibility for more fleshed out specifically-for-trade goods? (coins, and so forth) Currently coins are just minted with a random engraving and/or the symbol of the civ, but it might not be hard to come up with an alternative solution.
Of course this is bare minimum priority compared to all of the cool things coming in, but still, come on.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 31, 2011, 08:42:30 pm
Who knows, maybe Dwarves in this universe act like Gorons.+Microcline Syrup+
I could respond to this so many different ways, but...
"Stone Soup" is all I can really think about.
I'm not sure letting dwarves outright eat the excess stone they generate is necessarily the way we want to send this game.
Yeah, the whole "eating rocks" thing reminded me of the trading sequence in Oracle of Seasons, where you give the Subrosian a pot and he makes you some lava soup.
Now that would be a meal!
Post by: Gatleos on January 31, 2011, 08:56:51 pm
REAL DWARVES EAT MAGMA FOR BREAKFASTWho knows, maybe Dwarves in this universe act like Gorons.+Microcline Syrup+
I could respond to this so many different ways, but...
"Stone Soup" is all I can really think about.
I'm not sure letting dwarves outright eat the excess stone they generate is necessarily the way we want to send this game.
Yeah, the whole "eating rocks" thing reminded me of the trading sequence in Oracle of Seasons, where you give the Subrosian a pot and he makes you some lava soup.
Now that would be a meal!
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 31, 2011, 08:59:32 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 31, 2011, 09:00:00 pm
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 31, 2011, 09:02:21 pm
Post by: Gatleos on January 31, 2011, 09:12:22 pm
Native silver roasts anyone?Well, they carry around whole barrels full of prepared fly brains. I'm guessing they tried to eat ores before they got to this point.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on January 31, 2011, 09:19:25 pm
In fact, it almost sounds like something a dwarf convinced a noble was a "delicacy", so afterwards, some poor shmuck was sent on fly brain extraction duty to sate the need for nobles to have fly brains to eat at their lavish parties.
Then again, I've always hated everything ever called a "delicacy", and always thought they were just scams to get people to pay outrageous sums of money to eat stuffed mice or snails or something.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 31, 2011, 10:36:45 pm
Post by: TolyK on January 31, 2011, 10:40:53 pm
Think pressure. Now think oil/petroleum/gas. That is all.
Will we have oil/gas in rocks sometime?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on January 31, 2011, 10:56:23 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 31, 2011, 10:56:57 pm
1. it has to be faster
2. it needs to support more fluids
and btw. for gas from shale thing i recommend the documentation "Gasland". Seriously if you can light the water from your water-tap on fire because its mixed with natural gas something must have gone really wrong.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 31, 2011, 11:09:09 pm
Seriously if you can light the water from your water-tap on fire because its mixed with natural gas something must have gone reallywrongRIGHT.
Fixed that for you.
Yeah, fossil fuels beyond coal are a popular suggestion, even appearing in the original Underground Diversity thread. Be fun to have, but difficult. That said, we're starting to get close. With things like rocknut oil going in, it's easy to see the possibility for flaming oil traps go in (and let's face it, that's what we really want crude oil for).
Post by: Knigel on January 31, 2011, 11:41:51 pm
Do flys even have brains? iirc they and many other insetcts have a ladder nervesystem that does all the stuff.
Insects have brains, they're just a lot different than ours. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_physiology#The_Nervous_System)
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 01, 2011, 01:56:42 am
Post by: Lord Shonus on February 01, 2011, 09:06:58 am
Then again, I've always hated everything ever called a "delicacy", and always thought they were just scams to get people to pay outrageous sums of money to eat stuffed mice or snails or something.
This is pretty much correct.
Post by: Flaede on February 01, 2011, 09:20:49 am
Then again, I've always hated everything ever called a "delicacy", and always thought they were just scams to get people to pay outrageous sums of money to eat stuffed mice or snails or something.
This is pretty much correct.
Actually, eatin' snails are really really good.
Post by: tps12 on February 01, 2011, 09:41:25 am
Post by: Areyar on February 01, 2011, 10:16:44 am
so-called delicasies are most often an acquired taste...
Some like their meat raw, some dont want any at all.
such preferences can be lost too, for instance I used to love strong smelling cheezes, yet I can't stand the smell of most cheeses anymore even (real)butter smells awful, this may be traced back to a very bad experience with cheese fondue, I think.
The real scam is articles made of only water and flavouring, for instance, that claim to contain 0% fat and/or sugar. I rage at supermarket coolers that contain in excess of twenty types of yoghurt (not counting flavoured ones) yet all are these adulterated 'Fat Free', 'Diet' or 'Light' mimics, forcing me to buy a very expensive double rich cream-like yoghurt, which is not good for me at all.
:p
lol
snails are similar eating to bivalves.
I see no mention of parties, musical instruments or toys in the new short-term goals.
Are behaviours involving this type of item going to be put on hold, or will the new inns and such include them.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 01, 2011, 12:20:32 pm
Why do I suddenly start hearing the music from the Cantina from Mos Eisley in my head when I think about this?
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on February 01, 2011, 12:22:46 pm
*Begins work on Star Wars mod*
Post by: Knigel on February 01, 2011, 12:58:17 pm
Because you are a genius?
*Begins work on Star Wars mod*
We already have the lightsabers! Except here they're called whips.
Post by: Miuramir on February 01, 2011, 01:00:08 pm
+Microcline Syrup+I'm not sure letting dwarves outright eat the excess stone they generate is necessarily the way we want to send this game.
Quote
... "The rivers run with claret fine,
The brooks with rich canary,
The ponds with other sorts of wine,
To make your hearts full merry:
Nay, more than this, you may behold,
The fountains flow with brandy,
The rocks are like refined gold,
The hills are sugar candy." ...
There's more than one kind of fantasy world out there. An Invitation to Lubberland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Invitation_to_Lubberland) dates back to at least 1685, and is in its own way pretty dwarfy. I've thought for some time that once the right pieces were in DF, *building* Lubberland would be an epic megaproject. You think you've got too many masterwork meals now? Start building a town out of them! :)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 01, 2011, 01:27:10 pm
Human 2: I think we can catch him before he gets there... He's almost in range!
Human 3: ... That's no mountain... It's a fortress!
Human 2: It's too big to be a fortress.
Human 1: I've got a bad feeling about this. I'm making a backup save so I can savescum back to this point later in case I get greased instead of you cannon fodder companions I picked up back at that last cantina.
Post by: Dante on February 01, 2011, 05:24:59 pm
in a update that promises to have strangers wandering in to your fortress's innNo such promise has really been made. Dwarf mode inns may well cater only to your citizens. They could be as simple as a zone pretty much like a dining room, to which your dwarves go to drink.
Post by: MrWiggles on February 01, 2011, 05:38:21 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on February 01, 2011, 07:22:14 pm
The update that has me excited is the rewrite of Dorf personalities, and wants. I think this will be in part, the ground work for guilds, and religions.
Whatwhatwhatwhat? I didn't see that OR the "adventure mode pack mules" in release 9 when the page was first put up, but now they're there! Awesome! Maybe I just missed it but that's unlikely.
Do personalities need a rewrite? :oI mean how much more complex and all-encompassing can personalities get?
Post by: Rockphed on February 01, 2011, 07:33:48 pm
Do personalities need a rewrite? :oI mean how much more complex and all-encompassing can personalities get?
I suspect that more encompassing is not the problem. The problem is that they don't interact with enough things meaningfully.
Post by: monk12 on February 01, 2011, 07:49:03 pm
Incidentally, anybody have a clear idea of what exactly this coming update will incorporate? I know a lot of the framework for the rest of the caravan arc is in- site resources, trade routes etc. Bees, bricks, ceramics, eggs, new domestic creatures... am I forgetting anything? As if that isn't an embarrassment of riches itself.
Post by: Jiri Petru on February 01, 2011, 07:53:14 pm
In other words: the game uses an artificial, mechanical, and politically correct system of expressing personalities. A system that is useless in the end, because when we talk about people or tell stories, we don't operate in a mechanical way. Toady said in one of the DF talks he would like to gut the current system and replace it with something which feels a bit more like a story, a book - when an author is writing a novel, he doesn't take his characters and assign each of them values from 0-100 on 30 different personality scales. He sticks labels like "manipulative bitch" or "helpful uncle" to them and works with these. So presumably, the personalities rewrite means a move from numbered scales to more lively and less number-based tags and descriptions.
Post by: metime00 on February 01, 2011, 08:09:26 pm
Human 1: Look at him! The dwarf scout is headed for that mountain.
Human 2: I think we can catch him before he gets there... He's almost in range!
Human 3: ... That's no mountain... It's a fortress!
Human 2: It's too big to be a fortress.
Human 1: I've got a bad feeling about this. I'm making a backup save so I can savescum back to this point later in case I get greased instead of you cannon fodder companions I picked up back at that last cantina.
Inserting Dwarf Fortress into quotes is my favorite. Thing. Ever. :D
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 01, 2011, 08:10:05 pm
Still, the general gist of it is correct, the problem with personalities is that they basically do nothing, are hidden in a wall of other text about ear lobe length and eyelash color, and there's basically no reason to ever read those or care about them.
I said something about it in the class warfare (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61620.0) suggestion, (and in Jiri's own personality suggestion that came a little before it,) but basically, everything you really need to know about a dwarf is expressed in what you see on the main screen: The happy face means it's a dwarf. Which of the two happy faces describes whether it's a military or civilian dwarf. The color describes job. If they flash, it describes they are really good at their jobs, and hence, valuable dwarves.
That's just about all you need to know most of the time, and anything more detailed, like how much longer until they flash and become valuable, is described in the 'v' menu.
There's just no way you can process all the information in the detailed view of your dwarves for TWO HUNDRED of the little buggers. At best, you have your starting seven and nobles memorized. Many of the long-time players who like the game for its Roguelikeness are the sorts who don't even care about that much.
Personalities need to be worked into a system where they actually have some meaning, and are presented to the player in a way that they can remember at least something unique about every one of hundreds of virtually identical little smileys milling around your fort.
Just picking up some threads on personalities, couldn't find the Jiri topic... did you write one, or did I imagine it?
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61540.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60463.msg1363636#msg1363636
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 01, 2011, 08:12:21 pm
The problem with the current personality system isn't not enough detail, it is too much detail. Or too much meaningless detail, because you have things like "liberalism", "self-efficiency", "vulnerability", and dozens others. These are scales you don't even perceive or judge in everyday life, but every dwarf has a rank in each of these, which leads to a huge list of random attributes that you can't really make heads or tails off. I never could translate the DF personalities to a coherent idea of who the dwarf is. If there weren't there, it would be basically the same. At the same time, the game is not able to grasp and communicate as simple character features as "cruel", "selfish", "kind", "evil," "arrogant," "innocent", "ignorant", "shy", etc. which are labels we use in everyday life.
In other words: the game uses an artificial, mechanical, and politically correct system of expressing personalities. A system that is useless in the end, because when we talk about people or tell stories, we don't operate in a mechanical way. Toady said in one of the DF talks he would like to gut the current system and replace it with something which feels a bit more like a story, a book - when an author is writing a novel, he doesn't take his characters and assign each of them values from 0-100 on 30 different personality scales. He sticks labels like "manipulative bitch" or "helpful uncle" to them and works with these. So presumably, the personalities rewrite means a move from numbered scales to more lively and less number-based tags and descriptions.
So in short the System doesn't change at all but the displaying of this info changes? I think these dozen traits are meaningful as part of the interaction between NPCs or NPC and the Player. Its a good foundation for much later.
I wonder if the behaviour in terms of needs changes too thus people doing work eating and stuff like in rl.
edit: a bit spelling
Post by: Jiri Petru on February 01, 2011, 08:19:47 pm
Just picking up some threads on personalities, couldn't find the Jiri topic... did you write one, or did I imagine it?
You did imagine it but thanks for thinking about me anyway ;)
EDIT: Just a note, the same criticism of personalities could be applied to appearance too. It suffers from the same problems - when all is said and done the dwarves appear one like each other because you can't really grasp the walls of text and imagine any differences. Aside from hairstyles, I guess.
But I doubt Toady is planning or even willing to rewrite the appearance system so soon after its debut :) It's not as needed as personalities anyway.
EDIT2:
So in short the System doesnt change at all but the displaying of this info changes? I think these dozen traits are meaningfull as part of the interaction between or NPC and the Player. Its a good foundation for much later.
I wonder if the behavior in terms of needs changes too thus people doing work eating and stuff like in rl.
No, it's not the same. The personalities actually miss important stuff like "cruel", "evil", "ambitious", "envious" etc... But even if they were there, the main point is that numbered 0-100 scales simply aren't the way people think and stories work.
Post by: Jiri Petru on February 01, 2011, 08:40:52 pm
Quote from: DF talk 8
So like I say, the system isn't ... I want to keep the personality facets, I like having the thirty different facets of the personalities, and just increasing the overall number of places those are used. But I think to complement the personality facets we also need stuff like different emotions that you can be feeling, and additionally some things along the lines of those likes and dislikes, but stuff that the dwarf could be into, or the dwarf's vices or something like that; some kind of more permanent characterstics, but that can be changed through exposure; just to give them more texture there. But happiness numbers are definitely going to go.
Which is weird because I seem to remember Toady talking something about how the system probably needs to be replaced because it's too modern, politically correct and generally unfitting. It was while they were talking about bandit leaders, I think, but I can't find it.
Post by: MrWiggles on February 01, 2011, 08:55:38 pm
In DF Talk, Toady spoke about guilds and family members mattering more, and helping each other in their various aims. I'm also hoping that some ground work for criminal Dwarf mode behavior gets some work. Thats what I think is going to get set up.
But time for a green question!
Will the personality and need rewrite include the foot work for the the ability for dorfs to commit crime? Such as but not limited to murder, theft, and corruption? (Like embezzling)
This would mean that the dorfs would need the ability to solve crime.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 01, 2011, 09:01:18 pm
From my PoV we dont need actually traits for "cruelness", being "envious" or being "evil" because either they are can be calculated from the current pesonality values or are context based like the "evil" trait you mentioned. "Ambitious" could for example come from high scores in "Achievement striving", "Assertiveness" and "Self efficacy". A cruel person could have low "sympathy", "altruism" and "cooperation" scores.
edit:
So I tried a bit of Footkerchiefing but I've found only this quote:Quote from: DF talk 8So like I say, the system isn't ... I want to keep the personality facets, I like having the thirty different facets of the personalities, and just increasing the overall number of places those are used. But I think to complement the personality facets we also need stuff like different emotions that you can be feeling, and additionally some things along the lines of those likes and dislikes, but stuff that the dwarf could be into, or the dwarf's vices or something like that; some kind of more permanent characterstics, but that can be changed through exposure; just to give them more texture there. But happiness numbers are definitely going to go.
Which is weird because I seem to remember Toady talking something about how the system probably needs to be replaced because it's too modern, politically correct and generally unfitting. It was while they were talking about bandit leaders, I think, but I can't find it.
I think toady wants to have the basic traits but having the reactions that include these traits being influenced by various things. Like say the vulnerability and depression boosted a bit because of the recent death of a friend. Which would lead to less static characters and if the influence is great enough it could change the trait permanently. Say someone who goes from a low to a high sympathy score.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 01, 2011, 09:11:46 pm
If I describe a small girl in plain, baggy clothing with thick glasses hiding behind her book in the library, nervously looking over as the glamourous girls of the high school walk by without stopping to notice her in their conversation that is loud enough to break the attention of everyone nearby... you get a pretty good idea of what those characters represent, don't you? You've probably got some memory of media or real-life high school tropes to call upon to fill in some blanks, and make some assumptions about what both of those characters are going to be like, aren't you? If I asked you to make up some story about how those people might react to some situation, you'd be able to make a good guess about it, wouldn't you?
Now, what if I describe to you a person who, "rarely feels discouraged, is self-conscoius, somewhat reserved, enjoys thrills, lives life at a leisurely pace, and constantly strives for perfection", then you'd probably have a bit more trouble. Especially since some of those things kind of contradict one another.
Likewise, go through all the description of about ten different dwarves' appearance, and tell me if you can say which one is the most handsome/beautiful, and which is the ugliest of the group.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 01, 2011, 09:53:31 pm
Also people contradict themselfes many times. Most people arent stringent tropes and shouldnt be displayed as such. Frankly i can actualy imagine your example very well. Sure one trait might in one or another situation contradict another but in such situations people make decisions to ignore one or the other even if said decision might leave some doubts etc.
Because you characterise someone as meganekko (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Meganekko) in one paragraph does not mean that said meganekko has to be some disciplined and organized or cant be cruel. Likewise can the Libby (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLibby) be actually be pretty intellectual and vulnerable. You can thought say ok these character is not disciplined and is not striving for achievment thus s/he is lazy. On the other hand someone with a high discipline who lack the the striving for achievement may appear to be lazy on the first glance but keeps working on stuff he realy likes. I think its just how the information is conveyed not the information itself - naturally you can say this one person is a Ditz/Libby/Meganekko/Emo/Jock/Geek etc. but in the end you end up with displaying flat Characers even if they arent flat at all.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 01, 2011, 10:03:24 pm
I'm not saying that you can't give characters quirks or that we have to get rid of all the traits, and only deal with archetypes, but that it gives the player a lot more information in a much shorter amount of space, since it relies more upon how the player already percieves and categorizes the world. You can say "Grouchy old man" and then follow up with "who has strict self-discipline" and "a deadly fear of mice" as further details.
In fact, I think I'm going to have to call you on what you think that dwarf whose set of personality traits I read out means... Let me see if I read the same thing into it that you read into it.
I give my dwarves nicknames based upon what I read in their details menu so that I can at least try to tell them apart, and frankly, I generally just devolve into calling dwarves stuff like "Silverboots" because she likes silver and boots, since the "likes" stuff is far simpler to read. If you can get something close to what I came up with when I nicknamed my dwarf in the game, then I'll admit that maybe you have some point. But really, I am unusual in that I spend much, if any, time at all caring about what's on every single one of my dwarfves' personality pages.
Post by: Beardless on February 01, 2011, 10:13:36 pm
While, having the personality affect the work ethic, or if they like their job.
Certain personality aspects already affect a dwarf's work ethic. Over the last several forts I've played, I've found three dwarves that consistently annoy the f#$&* out of me because they never do their damn job. Every one of them "is occasionally given to procrastination," or "has very little self-discipline." It's consistent enough that I never assign critical skills to dwarves with those personality traits any more.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 01, 2011, 10:42:20 pm
Quote
In fact, I think I'm going to have to call you on what you think that dwarf whose set of personality traits I read out means... Let me see if I read the same thing into it that you read into it.
Well the traits you gave me were:
Quote
Now, what if I describe to you a person who, "rarely feels discouraged, is self-conscoius, somewhat reserved, enjoys thrills, lives life at a leisurely pace, and constantly strives for perfection", then you'd probably have a bit more trouble. Especially since some of those things kind of contradict one another.
So i would say s/he is a Perfectionist which takes her/his time and is a bit distanced to society. To reach said perfectionism s/he might choose a risky path of action mre often then s/he used the safe way.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 01, 2011, 11:20:38 pm
Now then, lightning round time. Pick a fortress you have had around for a while, (preferably at least 60 dwarves) and gotten really attached to. Describe to me the personalities of as many dwarves as you can without having a look at their details page (looking at the list on the units page is fine), just from what you can remember of them from playing with them.
Then copy up the traits from the details page, for comparison. Also, list the percentage of the fort whose personalities you actually could remember or looked at in the first place.
Post by: EmeraldWind on February 01, 2011, 11:25:10 pm
I'm not saying that their personalities have to be defined by one particular archetype, which is just bad writing, but that it gives a quick way for players to be able to understand something about the character. (And I was thinking Shrinking Violet.)
I'm not saying that you can't give characters quirks or that we have to get rid of all the traits, and only deal with archetypes, but that it gives the player a lot more information in a much shorter amount of space, since it relies more upon how the player already percieves and categorizes the world. You can say "Grouchy old man" and then follow up with "who has strict self-discipline" and "a deadly fear of mice" as further details.
In fact, I think I'm going to have to call you on what you think that dwarf whose set of personality traits I read out means... Let me see if I read the same thing into it that you read into it.
I give my dwarves nicknames based upon what I read in their details menu so that I can at least try to tell them apart, and frankly, I generally just devolve into calling dwarves stuff like "Silverboots" because she likes silver and boots, since the "likes" stuff is far simpler to read. If you can get something close to what I came up with when I nicknamed my dwarf in the game, then I'll admit that maybe you have some point. But really, I am unusual in that I spend much, if any, time at all caring about what's on every single one of my dwarfves' personality pages.
Basically, it sounds to me, that you don't some much want to get rid of the old personality system. But instead you want to add a more easily read and understood personality archetype system.
Instead of saying, "Urist rarely feels discouraged, likes to work, prefers to have work done quickly, chooses not to associate with others." It could say, "Urist is a workaholic with no time for friends." Instead of saying, "Fikod likes to procrastinate, is very creative, likes to makes works of art." It could say, "Fikod is an artist that rarely has the drive to get work done."
It doesn't some much get rid of the numbers and multiple traits, but blends them together in a way that conveys personality quicker and with less though.
But in the background.. Urist still has his values and each still has their effect on him (if any). And Fikod might be a procrastinator, but maybe if the value is low enough his like of art might trump his procrastination and would therefore effect his work. For example, if Fikod was a Engraver, you might find he procrastinates smoothing stone (not being creative or art), but goes to work right away when told to engrave.
Thus, you have an easier to read personality type, but have all potential of the current system.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 01, 2011, 11:36:09 pm
I was thinking more like rolling on a chart for a big "archetype" personality trait, which has a package of traits that fall out of it, then skew it a little by rolling up some more small traits.
That way, you could still roll "The Libby", which would mean a few traits (and maybe a skew on the spirit attributes roll or something, or perhaps the archetype roll could somehow be influenced by the spirit attributes) get put on, and then get three or four other traits.
... This is really starting to slide into "just make a suggestion thread" territory, though.
Post by: caknuck on February 02, 2011, 12:05:08 am
I see no mention of parties, musical instruments or toys in the new short-term goals.
Are behaviours involving this type of item going to be put on hold, or will the new inns and such include them.
I, for one, would like to see Musician and Singer skills added. I envision a random harpist wandering through the fort, generating happy thoughts for my dorfs, gathering a few bored idlers on the way, eventually winding up at the statue garden (or inn, perhaps?) where a little soirée starts up. I also see this playing into religious services when priests and temples are implemented in 14 years or so.
Post by: CharlesPeter on February 02, 2011, 12:14:17 am
Post by: Knigel on February 02, 2011, 02:04:14 am
I agree that the "list of number-based personality traits" doesn't make a comprehensible personality but that's not where you should be looking for such a thing. You should tell what's effectively a dwarf's personality by the actions that they take, just like you do with people in real life.
Sort of like how the current weapon system, instead of just using a "this material does x damage", actually models the physical properties these materials have in real life and thus finding out the best materials required testing.
I see no mention of parties, musical instruments or toys in the new short-term goals.
Are behaviours involving this type of item going to be put on hold, or will the new inns and such include them.
I, for one, would like to see Musician and Singer skills added. I envision a random harpist wandering through the fort, generating happy thoughts for my dorfs, gathering a few bored idlers on the way, eventually winding up at the statue garden (or inn, perhaps?) where a little soirée starts up. I also see this playing into religious services when priests and temples are implemented in 14 years or so.
Maybe musical skills can be like weapon skills: the Musician skill could be one that affects use of any musical ability just like Fighter and Archer affect all melee and ranged combat, then there could be skills for each instrument or type of singing like there are for all weapons and unarmed combat.
And the types of instruments (woodwind, brass, however your categorize them) could be separated by what attributes they use, like breath-operated instruments requiring endurance.
Post by: MrWiggles on February 02, 2011, 03:59:07 am
Post by: therahedwig on February 02, 2011, 06:38:09 am
A sim with the loner personality trait would get a negative moodlet of being in a crowd. The system however didn't have points of seriousness, which arguably makes it less complicate then the DF system.
I guess, for me the personality traits just need better descriptors and more profound effect, and I'd be happy.
I have to admit I'm not too fond of a archetype system. Sure, it may convey information more quickly, but I just don't feel like having a fort filled with moe-moe dwarves. (You know that somewhere there's an RNG who would roll that)
Post by: zwei on February 02, 2011, 07:27:51 am
I would love to be able to easily match labors for dwarves by their personality. Some ability to ask game who is best Fisherdwarf that will take all the details into account (dwarf with preferences to fish, liking outdoors, procastrinating/lazy so that he wont overfish too fast and ideally with some skill ranks...).
There was suggestion with "HR" dorf that manages labor assigments to which you give worker template and amount of workers for it which you desire, template that would not only contain labor assigments, but also prefered presonalities and likes.
Post by: Areyar on February 02, 2011, 08:00:47 am
Is it doable to add data export functionality to dorfmode?
(For exporting fortress population and their individual characteristics.)
(Note that this is not a suggestion, but rather informing about the feasability.)
Post by: tps12 on February 02, 2011, 09:59:37 am
I would love to be able to easily match labors for dwarves by their personality. Some ability to ask game who is best Fisherdwarf that will take all the details into account (dwarf with preferences to fish, liking outdoors, procastrinating/lazy so that he wont overfish too fast and ideally with some skill ranks...).
In a simulation, "all the details" are highly context-dependent: if you breach a cavern full of water then "likes the outdoors" is suddenly a much less important qualification for a fisherdwarf. The only way to tell how the simulation is going to play out is by...running the simulation.
The upshot is that the HR idea makes a lot of sense, because any kind of heuristics or rules of thumb along these lines are inevitably going to fail, in which case it'll be important to have someone to blame. (Just like real life.)
Post by: Bryan Derksen on February 02, 2011, 10:47:28 am
I have also, once, discovered that it was a bad idea to assign a dwarf to the military when he's quick to become enraged and hates authority. He snapped and murdered someone within a matter of days.
Other than that, though, I tend to ignore personality too. It's just too tedious checking them, though Dwarf Therapist at least shows personality stats on mouseover.
Post by: zwei on February 02, 2011, 10:55:01 am
I would love to be able to easily match labors for dwarves by their personality. Some ability to ask game who is best Fisherdwarf that will take all the details into account (dwarf with preferences to fish, liking outdoors, procastrinating/lazy so that he wont overfish too fast and ideally with some skill ranks...).
In a simulation, "all the details" are highly context-dependent: if you breach a cavern full of water then "likes the outdoors" is suddenly a much less important qualification for a fisherdwarf. The only way to tell how the simulation is going to play out is by...running the simulation.
The upshot is that the HR idea makes a lot of sense, because any kind of heuristics or rules of thumb along these lines are inevitably going to fail, in which case it'll be important to have someone to blame. (Just like real life.)
Well, part of the idea is that player can define "worker profile" by himself and edit it later, with game providing only basic templates, if anything. Heuristics of choosing/reassigning dwarves would be challenging enough...
Post by: mendonca on February 02, 2011, 11:49:54 am
there was suggestion with "HR" dorf
He he he. I can imagine the carnage that would cause.
We just need them to sit in a room formulating working time directives, employers rights policy notes etc.
The 37.5 hour week will play havoc with the output of most fortresses, and what about maternity leave?
Post by: Jiri Petru on February 02, 2011, 12:08:47 pm
There was suggestion with "HR" dorf that manages labor assigments to which you give worker template and amount of workers for it which you desire, template that would not only contain labor assigments, but also prefered presonalities and likes.
Isn't this "too much control"? It feels like the player has absolute power over the dwarves and can also influence their personal lives and dictate their careers, bordering with social-engineering. IIRC, Toady repeatedly stated his goal is quite the opposite and that he wants the dwarves to retain some free will.
Post by: G-Flex on February 02, 2011, 12:11:29 pm
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on February 02, 2011, 12:14:24 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 02, 2011, 02:07:31 pm
I have to admit I'm not too fond of a archetype system. Sure, it may convey information more quickly, but I just don't feel like having a fort filled with moe-moe dwarves. (You know that somewhere there's an RNG who would roll that)
Heh, the idea of moe-moe dwarves is just difficult to really wrap my head around. I'm sort of imagining some sort of Happy Tree Friends, where fuzzy little beards with big googly eyes scream "THERE CAN BEEEEE ONLY ONE!" before going into a martial trance and killing fifty people with a sock.
Well, caring about personality traits is possible if you have 7 dwarves, but once you get closer to tripple digits than single... there is just no way i am going to familiarize myself with dwarf beyond basic labor assigment when they immigrate.
I would love to be able to easily match labors for dwarves by their personality. Some ability to ask game who is best Fisherdwarf that will take all the details into account (dwarf with preferences to fish, liking outdoors, procastrinating/lazy so that he wont overfish too fast and ideally with some skill ranks...).
There was suggestion with "HR" dorf that manages labor assigments to which you give worker template and amount of workers for it which you desire, template that would not only contain labor assigments, but also prefered presonalities and likes.
I remember having a conversation about something similar to this a few months ago in this thread. I went into a bit about "Dwarven Autonomy" in this thread, here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63109.0), where I was talking about how we could have more autonomous dwarves that chose their own jobs according to their own personality traits and having the player simply adjust the wages of different jobs to incentivize one job over another.
I have a quote here from back then:
Quote from: NW_KohakuWould you even consider changing the relationship that the player has with the dwarves right now (as unquestioned overlord and direct allower and denier of all things dwarves can and cannot do), so that dwarves can become more autonomous and individual, and possibly create a better simulation, while on the other hand, potentially dramatically upping the potential for Fun because dwarves are stupid and very likely to hurt themselves unless continually babysat, or perhaps more importantly, if it meant that the player had less direct control over his fortress, and had to rely more on coaxing the ants in his/her antfarm to do his/her bidding?
Our eventual goal is to have the player's role be the embodiment of positions of power within the fortress, performing actions in their official capacity, to the point that in an ideal world each command you give would be linked to some noble, official or commander. I don't think coaxing is the way I'm thinking of it though, as with a game like Majesty which somebody brought up, because your orders would also carry the weight of being assumed to be for survival for the most part, not as bounties or a similar system. Once your fortress is larger, you might have to work a little harder to keep people around, but your dwarves in the first year would be more like crew taking orders from the captain of a ship out to sea or something, where you'd have difficulty getting them to do what you want only if you've totally flopped and they are ready to defy the expedition leader.
EDIT: (Part of why I am intending to go back to Class Warfare, and rewrite some of it to make it clearer when dwarves start becoming more autonomous. Based off of population alone - they start demanding better lives when you hit pop 20, and only vaguely so at that, but below 20, it's assumed that survival is the only priority.)
Post by: zwei on February 02, 2011, 02:15:35 pm
There was suggestion with "HR" dorf that manages labor assigments to which you give worker template and amount of workers for it which you desire, template that would not only contain labor assigments, but also prefered presonalities and likes.
Isn't this "too much control"? It feels like the player has absolute power over the dwarves and can also influence their personal lives and dictate their careers, bordering with social-engineering. IIRC, Toady repeatedly stated his goal is quite the opposite and that he wants the dwarves to retain some free will.
Well, since goal of this is to be able to say “i want 5 carpenters“, and leave labor assigments to dwarves, I would say it would help with players excercising less controll a you would let dwarves decide what they will do ...
Post by: Untelligent on February 02, 2011, 02:47:28 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 02, 2011, 02:59:37 pm
And making everyone do everything is pretty much what having only a "bounty system" would wind up making of the fort.
*sigh* I need to go back to refining this idea more seriously, though. I kind of have to finish writing up the Farming proposal, and do the rewrites to Imperial Dwarves, first, though.
Post by: Rose on February 02, 2011, 03:03:09 pm
Post by: metime00 on February 02, 2011, 03:28:20 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 02, 2011, 03:33:39 pm
Basically, see it as a spectrum where on one end, we have factory-produced identical dwarves who can perform no action without direct micromanagement telling them that they are hungry, and that they need to go to this stockpile and eat this piece of food now, and on the other end, there are a bunch of special little snowflakes that can only be vaguely coaxed into doing the sorts of things they need to do to survive. How far do you want to slide along that axis?
Post by: tps12 on February 02, 2011, 04:27:09 pm
*sigh* I need to go back to refining this idea more seriously, though. I kind of have to finish writing up the Farming proposal, and do the rewrites to Imperial Dwarves, first, though.
Have you ever tried working on a game of your own? You have so many ideas, it might be fun.
Post by: TolyK on February 02, 2011, 04:33:39 pm
hmmm I could help program when i finish some projects.*sigh* I need to go back to refining this idea more seriously, though. I kind of have to finish writing up the Farming proposal, and do the rewrites to Imperial Dwarves, first, though.
Have you ever tried working on a game of your own? You have so many ideas, it might be fun.
Post by: SalmonGod on February 02, 2011, 04:35:05 pm
At least, this is what it feels like when I play, and I actually really like it. In my current fort, there's less than two dozen dwarves I actually care about out of 10 or so. Occassionally one dies, and occassionally I find reasons to care about another one who was previously just a face in the crowd. The cast and plot never seems to stagnate. It's awesome.
Post by: monk12 on February 02, 2011, 05:05:42 pm
Not following this too closely lately, but I've seen a couple mentions of how one cares less about their dwarves as they get into the triple digits. I think this is a kind of neat dynamic as it is. Things are really rough starting out, and the first couple waves of settlers have really interesting lives. You build a bond with those, and they're typically a large enough cast of characters to keep you drawn in for many years. After the 50+ dwarf point, you're only vaguely familiar with most of them, and occasionally one dwarf will do something noteworthy and join in with the original core cast of important characters.
At least, this is what it feels like when I play, and I actually really like it. In my current fort, there's less than two dozen dwarves I actually care about out of 10 or so. Occasionally one dies, and occasionally I find reasons to care about another one who was previously just a face in the crowd. The cast and plot never seems to stagnate. It's awesome.
I like this aspect of DF as well- I think of the guys who pop out at me as Historical Figures in amongst a crowd of NPC's. The whole thing contributes to that Ye Olde Medieval Fantasy Setting feeling, where there's a lot of random peasants and the world seems to revolve around the kings, queens, heroes, and monsters. Its refreshingly non-democratic, if you know what I mean.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 02, 2011, 05:13:52 pm
Have you ever tried working on a game of your own? You have so many ideas, it might be fun.
I guess the best way to respond to that is "Yeah, but who hasn't?"
Maybe once I get more experience with playing around with game engines or the like, but I'd rather stick to applying game theory and modding until I get a bit more grounded.
Not following this too closely lately, but I've seen a couple mentions of how one cares less about their dwarves as they get into the triple digits. I think this is a kind of neat dynamic as it is. Things are really rough starting out, and the first couple waves of settlers have really interesting lives. You build a bond with those, and they're typically a large enough cast of characters to keep you drawn in for many years. After the 50+ dwarf point, you're only vaguely familiar with most of them, and occasionally one dwarf will do something noteworthy and join in with the original core cast of important characters.
At least, this is what it feels like when I play, and I actually really like it. In my current fort, there's less than two dozen dwarves I actually care about out of 10 or so. Occasionally one dies, and occasionally I find reasons to care about another one who was previously just a face in the crowd. The cast and plot never seems to stagnate. It's awesome.
I like this aspect of DF as well- I think of the guys who pop out at me as Historical Figures in amongst a crowd of NPC's. The whole thing contributes to that Ye Olde Medieval Fantasy Setting feeling, where there's a lot of random peasants and the world seems to revolve around the kings, queens, heroes, and monsters. Its refreshingly non-democratic, if you know what I mean.
Especially since some people are destined to a life of hauling through no fault of their own, while the guy who migrated right next to them got selected to be a glass maker when the magma glass furnaces first went up, and is now living on easy street as a legendary.
Regardless, in some ways, personality does make a difference, as some of the people who have played around with doctors seem to find. It's hard to find exactly which ones do what, but the problem beyond the simple fact that most people have no clue what personality traits have what impact, and Toady seems dead set on not telling us how we are supposed to figure out the mechanics of the game, but that the information on each dwarf is hidden in an obtuse interface.
Actually, thinking about it, I'm kind of worried about a personality overhaul, now, because if personality traits become more important, but we never get told what does what, we'll be inviting all kinds of wild speculation with almost no real way to verify quite a bit of it.
What's the point in giving your players a complex system, and then no way to figure out how to manipulate it?
Post by: monk12 on February 02, 2011, 05:26:31 pm
What is involved in the Personality Rewrite? Do you have specific goals there?
I do wish there was a Dorfpedia in-game though. I'd bet money there's already a suggestion thread for that though, so I'll hold my peace.
Post by: SalmonGod on February 02, 2011, 05:29:14 pm
What's the point in giving your players a complex system, and then no way to figure out how to manipulate it?
Fun! When I feel like I have a game completely figured out, I usually don't feel like playing it anymore.
This is why I typically avoid things like MMOs or multiplayer RPGs in general, because everyone has decoded every aspect of the gameplay, crunched the numbers, and plastered all over the web exactly what character builds are 'the best' and how to play them. No fun.
I also enjoy leaving some things to fate when I'm making decisions. I'll do things without necessarily looking up all the relevant information that I could in order to make the best choice. I'll invent systems of management that only halfway make sense. I try to leave slightly more opportunity for failure than I do success, in general. This way it feels a lot more special when something goes really well... like there are more opportunities for those interesting historical figures to step forward and make themselves known.
Post by: G-Flex on February 02, 2011, 05:36:38 pm
Actually, thinking about it, I'm kind of worried about a personality overhaul, now, because if personality traits become more important, but we never get told what does what, we'll be inviting all kinds of wild speculation with almost no real way to verify quite a bit of it.
What's the point in giving your players a complex system, and then no way to figure out how to manipulate it?
In a case like this, if it's done well then it's organic/intuitive enough that you don't need to be told. After all, do you need to be told that a dwarf who doesn't like helping others might not make, say, a good doctor?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 02, 2011, 05:49:17 pm
Fun! When I feel like I have a game completely figured out, I usually don't feel like playing it anymore.
This is why I typically avoid things like MMOs or multiplayer RPGs in general, because everyone has decoded every aspect of the gameplay, crunched the numbers, and plastered all over the web exactly what character builds are 'the best' and how to play them. No fun.
I also enjoy leaving some things to fate when I'm making decisions. I'll do things without necessarily looking up all the relevant information that I could in order to make the best choice. I'll invent systems of management that only halfway make sense. I try to leave slightly more opportunity for failure than I do success, in general. This way it feels a lot more special when something goes really well... like there are more opportunities for those interesting historical figures to step forward and make themselves known.
Funny, I would almost say the complete opposite. I like games that let me explore their depth and complexity, and consider the strategic choices involved in that path, and consider a game that just tries to not tell you what you need to know to make an informed decision "cheating". I spent several days on MagmaWIKI before ever playing the game, and generally enjoyed just putting together all the pieces of how the game worked, and think I never would have had the patience to actually set up THAT many experiments on my own to figure out the game.
The problem of an MMO with the "best" build is that the game actually has a best build. It wasn't designed properly to make choices more meaningful, and to make play in general less of a mindless grind. (Of course, what is argument number one everyone who is not an MMO player has against MMOs? It's a mindless grind that trains you to perform the same routine actions over and over ad nauseum.)
I would go on to explain more, but this is sailing beyond where the topic is even still on the horizon anymore.
In a case like this, if it's done well then it's organic/intuitive enough that you don't need to be told. After all, do you need to be told that a dwarf who doesn't like helping others might not make, say, a good doctor?
Obviously, yes.
We had this problem with noise, as well. People spent much time worrying about making sure their workshops would not interrupt their residential neighborhoods with too much noise until people figured out that workshops and training drills and the like didn't create noise. Only re-arranging furniture caused noise. This meant someone moving in to their home created a noise cube that woke up everyone in the entire fortress who was sleeping, but the pounding of the forge wouldn't wake up someone two feet away.
Suspending fortresses on bars of soap. Drawbridges count for support, but grates do not. Tricks for not having dwarves build floodgates in ways that wall them in a magma chamber. Animals reproducing through spores, without needing direct contact.
Just think of all the things in this game that logically should or shouldn't happen, but where logic is suspended by dwarfiness, and you'll have your answer as to why people don't just assume that simply because something is logical, it doesn't necessarily mean it will happen in the game.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 02, 2011, 06:19:13 pm
I remember at the time that 31.01 first came out, one of the first things I did was go to work playing with the raws, and trying to figure out what I could manipulate, and what their effects would be. I almost immediately complained that there was no way of really measuring what a character's attributes were, and that it really impaired the ability players had to figure out what sort of impacts various actions they took really had. How can we perform experiments, and figure out the game's mechanics if we can't measure the results? How can we know how to do anything if we can't perform experiments?
This brought up a discussion about why people hated the idea of knowing the numbers, and why it was more 'Fun' to not have any ability to perform real science on the engine. Then it turned out that there was a bug that made stats for non-military dwarves decay, but never actually improve, leading to dwarves perpetually becoming more fat, slow, and useless. It was fixed after it was actually narrowed down, but it would have been worlds easier to find and diagnose if the system was just made more measurable.
If a game just inflicts things upon the player without having any real means to learn how or why, it's not a game, it's just sadism (or masochism on the part of the player). Games are about learning and understanding the mechanics to be better able to manipulate the system and achieve your ends.
(And as a quick addendum to the other part of my previous post, the thing that sets DF's ability to look something up on the wiki apart from MMOs having perfect builds is that in DF, simply having the blueprints for making logic gates in the most efficient way possible doesn't mean that the player no longer has to figure anything out or make decisions - you are in control of what those logic gates actually perform. People can keep coming back to DF because merely knowing how things operate doesn't mean you can't make something grander and more elaborate the next time. One of my favorite threads involved a water clock a guy had built that kept accurate track of the time down to two hour incriments up to cycles of years. He then went on the forums to ask what, exactly, he could actually use something like that for, having just built it to see if he could, not to actually be a "perfect solution" to any problem.)
Post by: G-Flex on February 02, 2011, 06:26:06 pm
Post by: SalmonGod on February 02, 2011, 06:48:27 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 02, 2011, 07:01:43 pm
The only reason it wouldn't be of benefit to the playerbase as a whole is when it actually outright impinges upon some other playstyle, and that is something that you can't really throw out blanket statements that anything that helps modders or mega-project makers enjoy the game will cause other types of players to enjoy the game less. It's something you have to be able to prove on a case-by-case basis.
The game already has "unexpected" things that happen, even when we know the mechanics of it - Cacame Awemedinade and Tholtig Cryptbrain (hope I spelled those correctly) don't rely upon some hardly-understood mechanic, they were just really, really rare occurances thanks to the specifics of warfare mechanics, procedural generation, and enough rolls with the RNG. And frankly, those are some of the best stories DF has ever had!
EDIT:
And to give another example, I think the appearance system is basically just a blob of text that has no particular usefulness, even though I do like trying to tie together a story, myself. The thing is, however, that I'm not calling for its removal, no matter how little I care for it, because it doesn't actually harm my ability to play. If I care what my dwarves look like in my mind's eye, and want my dwarves to look like something because of how I've built up my perceptions of them, then screw whatever's in the text description, I won't read it then, either.
Post by: SalmonGod on February 02, 2011, 07:22:06 pm
The game is made for people who enjoy modding, making mega-projects, and several other playstyles that would benefit from these things, already.
I actually avoided DF for a couple years against recommendations, because everyone mainly talked about their megaprojects. I wasn't too interested in that. It's why I still haven't played minecraft. Making stuff for the sake of making stuff is something I can appreciate a youtube video of once in a while, but not much more.
Then I read some stories and saw how much personality the game had, and how most of it came from either dwarves' complex/unpredictable behaviors or player incompetence... and how those things turned into insanely entertaining stories. That's what drew me in and has continued to keep me interested in DF.
Occassionally the RNG fucks with you... but random occurances are pretty easily mitigated if you understand the range of potential events and their probabilities. You can already see this in people being able to time preparation for sieges that happen on a regular annual schedule. So the more gameplay is understood mechanically, the more unexpected only lies in the realm of highly unlikely random generations. To get these things, you either need to sink tons of time into the game and wait for the unlikely occurance of something rare happening, or scour legends from worldgen, where most of this stuff seems to happen. I've seen the stories about Cacame and Tholtig. They're neat, but hardly motivation to play the game... at least for me.
You mentioned reading the raws on new releases or studying the wiki before you began playing the game... I've only looked at either when I had a specific question that needed to be answered in order to play. Otherwise, I prefer first-hand discovery.
DF is unique in how it appeals to both of us, despite having completely opposite approaches to gameplay. I hope it can stay that way.
Anyway, I'm going to go make a thread in a little while, in case this discussion is going to go any further.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 02, 2011, 07:40:12 pm
The thing about "the RNG fucks with you" is that DF is inherently a game about disaster preparation and disaster mitigation, not disaster management. Once the disaster is upon you, you have no recourse to anything but those tools you have already prepared in advance to combat those disasters. If something surprises your fortress, it's pretty much going to crumble, end of story. And frankly, most players, regardless of the tagline, aren't too happy to see some utterly random event completely wreck a long-term fortress they grew attached to.
If you're the sort of person who doesn't care about the mechanics, and doesn't want to read the wiki unless there's a specific question you want answered, and want to learn things first-hand, though, guess what? Just don't read the wiki. That's no reason to say that there shouldn't be a wiki for people who DO want these things, though. Otherwise this becomes about splitting the fanbase into factions that war over whose preferred playstyle is the ONLY way to play DF, and the game would see far, far less players, which doesn't seem to be what you want from your arguments.
Post by: SalmonGod on February 02, 2011, 07:55:14 pm
Once the disaster is upon you, you have no recourse to anything but those tools you have already prepared in advance to combat those disasters. If something surprises your fortress, it's pretty much going to crumble, end of story. And frankly, most players, regardless of the tagline, aren't too happy to see some utterly random event completely wreck a long-term fortress they grew attached to.
These are actually my favorite, and I've seen other people say the same. Recovering from an actual disaster is incredibly fun if you manage to resist getting discouraged, and the dwarves who survive to become veterans of these events are inherently more interesting.
Quote
If you're the sort of person who doesn't care about the mechanics, and doesn't want to read the wiki unless there's a specific question you want answered, and want to learn things first-hand, though, guess what? Just don't read the wiki.
You have a point... to an extent. It depends on how clearly defined you expect things to be in-game for easier manipulation. If you're hoping to be able to predict that exactly X term in a dwarf's profile means they'll react in exactly Y fashion to Z, then it's not just about this.
Also, I'm not sure how that link is relevant.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 02, 2011, 08:24:20 pm
Many disasters occur in the form of "I tried to tap a river without ever having done this before. I found out about water pressure when my entire fort flooded." Players get hit with disaster, but, and here's the key point, they understand why they were hit with disaster, and can learn to avoid and prevent that disaster in the future.
Compare this to the problems that players have with doctors not bothering to get their patients water, and having every injured dwarf die of thirst: Very, very few players know that personality traits play a role in this, and there is
If you can't understand why or how something happens, players react to it not as fun, but as a broken game. That's the difference I'm trying to highlight.
And just to reiterate and underline my point, it's because of the difference in what the player can actually see and understand about the game (because of what the game is actually willing to tell the player) - the player needs to understand what action caused what consequence in order to learn.
As for the linked thread, it goes into talk about who the game should be built for.
Post by: SalmonGod on February 02, 2011, 08:59:16 pm
In the absence of understanding why something happens, those things are just stuff that happens, not a real story.
With respect to things like physics, operation of mechanisms, etc, I totally agree.
What I'm mainly saying is, I don't want dwarves themselves to be easily understood/predictable. This would remove all of what I consider to be the flavor of the game.
Compare this to the problems that players have with doctors not bothering to get their patients water, and having every injured dwarf die of thirst: Very, very few players know that personality traits play a role in this, and there is almost no hint in-game that these things are related. Most players are just declaring "doctors are broken!" and reporting it as a bug.
Like here, these players must consider their dwarves to be automatons, which was immediately clear to me as not the case. Plus, I actually didn't know if personality traits had a large effect on dwarven behavior in the hospital, but if I have a dwarf who likes helping others available as chief medic, I will seek them out and give them that job just because it makes sense to do so. Even if it didn't matter, I would still do this, just because I imagine they would be the first person to take on the job. I keep logs of my forts and write my dwarves as characters, and I try to tie their personality profiles in with what they do.
But then again later in the life of the fortress, there's more structure and assignment rather than choice of labor. So when it comes to anyone but the chief medic, I assign anyone with notable skills in the field as a nurse (often not as their primary role), regardless of their profile... and I love it when they do a terrible job. It just brings flavor to the game.
(And there are plenty of other things that are beyond player control that almost certainly are bugs that prevent most medicine from working, at that, such as a crutches.)
But here, again, I agree with you, because it's something that literally does not work.
And just to reiterate and underline my point, it's because the difference in what the player can actually see and understand about the game because of what the game is actually willing to tell the player - the player needs to understand what action caused what consequence in order to learn.
So long as dwarves don't become automatons, which they are. They exist in code, so they're subject to specific conditionals and such, but so long as we don't understand them, they continue to appear as organic and independent little creatures going about their lives and we're free to laugh at and interpret their strange behaviors however we please. When I understand that "is prone to fits of anger" means they will tantrum at 75 points of anger, which amounts to exactly one dead child and a miasma... that aspect of the game is just gone.
And I don't want to create any divides here. This is just a really interesting subject to me. I think it says something that (I assume) we both love this game, despite having opposite perspectives on this. Leaving our understanding of creature behavior fuzzy strikes the perfect balance that leaves plenty of room in the game for both of us.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 02, 2011, 09:25:20 pm
I, Dwarfbot (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63109.0)
Class Warfare (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61620.0)
The thing is, the point of those is to make the player aware that the dwarves are becoming more autonomous if they are being autonomous.
The ideas behind those threads involve letting dwarves pick the professions that match their personalities themselves, and not making it all dependant upon a player who has better things to do than babysit every dwarf's labors and personality traits.
Further discussion of those topics are probably best moved over into those threads, as this conversation has already taken gone on too long in this thread, and is pretty derailed from the original topic of personality traits.
Post by: darkflagrance on February 02, 2011, 09:42:49 pm
In a case like this, if it's done well then it's organic/intuitive enough that you don't need to be told. After all, do you need to be told that a dwarf who doesn't like helping others might not make, say, a good doctor?
Obviously, yes.
We had this problem with noise, as well. People spent much time worrying about making sure their workshops would not interrupt their residential neighborhoods with too much noise until people figured out that workshops and training drills and the like didn't create noise. Only re-arranging furniture caused noise. This meant someone moving in to their home created a noise cube that woke up everyone in the entire fortress who was sleeping, but the pounding of the forge wouldn't wake up someone two feet away.
Suspending fortresses on bars of soap. Drawbridges count for support, but grates do not. Tricks for not having dwarves build floodgates in ways that wall them in a magma chamber. Animals reproducing through spores, without needing direct contact.
Just think of all the things in this game that logically should or shouldn't happen, but where logic is suspended by dwarfiness, and you'll have your answer as to why people don't just assume that simply because something is logical, it doesn't necessarily mean it will happen in the game.
In game design, when a feature is hidden so well that players cannot find it or it is commonly misunderstood as a bug, it is common practice to regard that feature as a failed mechanic and consequently revise it in some way.
If the obscurity of Dwarf Fortress game mechanics is leading to player-perceived problems with the game and thus driving away frustrated players, then the game mechanics need either illumination or reworking; in this case, the effect of personality traits on the functionality of in-game systems. Even if the exact mechanics are not revealed, revealing to the players that mechanics that once appeared useless now have a point can help reduce misunderstanding created by the previous paradigms players had built about older versions of the game. In an alpha like Dwarf Fortress, this is even more important. After all, since DF is currently still testing the balance of new mechanics and ridden with bugs, isn't in the developer's best interest for his players to have an idea of what to look for and how to know if it is working?
Post by: Untelligent on February 02, 2011, 10:47:42 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on February 02, 2011, 11:34:48 pm
Firstly, I think DF is a relatively hard game to figure out on your own. But even with some help (the wiki), I still gets those "ah-ha" moments when I research something and learn about it. I don't get discouraged because, as I scaled the difficulty cliff and finally make it to the first shelf, I looked back and saw the awesome sight. DF rewards you climbing the difficultly cliff with freedom otherwise unseen. As you learn more the game gets more interesting. Sometimes you stumble (or in this case BURN AND DIE), but you learn something new. So even with help you still get satisfaction of being able to figure out things about the game. This game is also broad enough that people can't figure down to an exact science. A fortress design may work out the first time, the next time things can go wrong.
I agree that to an extent games get boring when people figure out the perfect strategy for a game, because honestly to the people who believe in the perfect strategy accept that as the only strategy. I blatantly ignore these kinds of ultimate strategy, because there is no fun there. DF's ultimate goal seems to be to make a game where ultimate strategies don't exist, making each time you play it fun and different. Granted DF is far from that right now, but I have confidence that it will there someday.
I also understand that features need to be figure-out-able. If you can't figure out how a feature works, then what's the point of the feature unless its meant to be hard to understand for some reason. Ultimately, I think the actual fun challenge of a game should be in figuring out how different features interact with one another and honestly DF has a lot of that. Being able to find new things is always possible in a game this complex. Like today, I think I discovered an interesting thing about water pressure. I tried to make a lake that uses water pressure to fill up. The lake is 8 z-levels below the river... but only one z-level filled up. Apparently, stairways negate water pressure... at least that's what I've come up with. I read the Water Pressure page in the wiki and it doesn't say anything about it... but at the very least water pressure is not working like it should in this situation and the only fail point appear to be the stairs being the only thing not accounted for in the wiki... It has cost me a year of time in game and the completion of my first macro-project. It was frustrating, but it was also fun.
TL;DR: DF is a game where learning how to play the game can be half the fun. The other half comes from the fact that the game changes in ways that make it hard to succeed based on the fact you have mastered the use of a feature. When it is done, DF will be the kind of game where nothing can be taken for granted, ultimate strategies can and will fall simply because something unexpected happens... just like in real life... but at the same time that doesn't mean that the ultimate strategies are useless, but simply imperfect.
Post by: Sowelu on February 03, 2011, 12:45:06 am
dwarfbot thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63109.0)Aw, man, I thought that thread was going to be about an automatic DF-playing engine. There's bots for Starcraft and bots for Angband and I made a bot for Puzzle Pirates, so I figured maybe someone was crazy enough...
Post by: Toady One on February 03, 2011, 12:52:05 am
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris
With the continued addition of good/evil/savage/calm flora and fauna, is there any chance of eventually having good/evil/savage/calm minerals/soils? I know it would involve changing worldgen to determine surroundings before minerals, so how feasible is this?
It's quite feasible and we've considered it but haven't taken the plunge. Random minerals should be fun. Even the current stock minerals can be a bit confusing, and random minerals might add to that further, so further exposition of what minerals can be used for and so on might be necessary there.
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris
Will kobolds lay eggs, as was joked in (I believe) the last DF Talk?
Yeah, kobolds will lay eggs, although they'll need their homes fleshed out before you can actually find them.
Quote from: Areyar
Besides the standalone creatures, there are several vermin/parasites sponsored that (could) live on/adopt unwilling creatures.
(cave beez living in beards, leeches clinging unto exposed skin, flees/mites/crabs living in furry bits or clothes, maggots burrowing into rotten bodyparts. etc)
Will these creatures get special code as they get added or will they, for now, remain the same as the vermin we know?
I've never seen it happen yet, my dorfs generally die of infection or thirst before they lose additional limbs; is the necrosis syndrome modelled in the healthcare/wound healing system ?
The sponsored parasites should get proper support as parasites rather than free living wandering vermin. There are necrosis wounds, but it might only happen from poisons. I didn't get a chance to make infections interesting.
Quote from: Neonivek
Hey Did Toady change the background to the Animal Drive or is it just my computer?
Mind you on the Laptop I was using the background was 100% the Zebra stripes without the overlay for the writing.
Was Toady responsible or was it my Laptop?
I had only tested it in Firefox. Then after I saw your post I tried it out in IE and it was doing the bad background thing, so I tweaked it until it worked in both. I didn't try other browsers.
Quote from: Quatch
Can we see how many people and the total donation per animal?
I wanted to avoid giving any further information to avoid compromising the privacy of donors that chose to have their names listed in the raws.
Quote from: DeKaFu
With the addition of eggs and vegetable oil, it's gotten me wondering. Are there any plans to overhaul cooking at all in the near future? For example, meals that require certain ingredients to be included?
There aren't plans for the near future other than the release schedule I put up and the army stuff which is presumably coming after that, but all of the new materials certainly are suggestive of cooking and don't hurt its chances.
Quote from: Dagoth Urist
Toady One, what do you say to a monster sponsorship deal?
It was one of the ideas we had, along with trees/flowers and syndrome effects, but I'm really not sure what the future holds there. At the very least, we need to get through the currently sponsored animals before we consider starting up anything else.
Quote from: Jiri Petru
Are there plans to do something about the abundance of food in Fortress Mode? Right now, it's extremely easy to have almost endless food stocks - plants are easy to grow in huge numbers, using only a small land and dwarfpower; meat is very abundant thanks to the recent body changes which multiplied the number of food units in each creature, and thanks to massive and edible forgotten beasts; and now we have several new food sources to make things even easier. Doesn't this mean the player's fortress is a much bigger food producer than any other settlement on the world?
The other settlements now outdo fortress food production by many times, because they are feeding by the day on more of an adventure mode scale, but they don't have the same margins in terms of excess food. You shouldn't end up having a lot of impact on the world food market, but internally it is a bit strange. The plans currently are the farming overhauls, which should reduce crop output a bit, and changes like livestock feeding requirements, which have started up with grazing for the next release.
Quote from: therahedwig
Will villages produce and export other goods besides food? And will they also demand materials for these?
I think it would be awesome if a nearby human town decided that they want to make walls or a special building of some kind and start mass-demanding stone blocks.
Yeah, they have a number of industries. The towns have more industries than the agricultural villages and they often end up specializing.
Quote from: Doomshifter
So, when moving fortress pieces are implemented, how mobile will they be?
For example, will we be able to move something to any point of our map, move things off-map, move it within a certain radius/confine/prepared area?
Also:
Could we put buildings and furniture (Workshops, ballistae, beds and etc.) on them? (I ask this because of the unbuildability of bridges, our only moving fortress terrain) How will they be controlled? Powered? Locomoted? Will we be able to make moving fortresses of death?
Moving off-map seems unlikely, at least in terms of what will be worked on for that dev item, although since boat-support is part of what that framework is about, it'll be a consideration. Buildings and anything else that can be placed in a tile will definitely be supported. I don't have any idea about how the rest of it will work.
Quote from: Kogut
Is it likely to see any interface improvements before core element nr 25? For example - filtering for units list (now it is required to pass through all inhabitants of your fortress/or all dead creatures to reach invaders listing).
The Core system is outmoded. In the last wall of text response, somebody asked this, and I mentioned that the stocks screen and likely the unit list would be getting updates for this release (which is now a series of releases).
Quote from: Pnx
Isn't it about time you created the 2011 page of the devlog?
Do you mean giving the 2010 stuff its own page? I wanted to wait at least a month on that, but it is time now to split it up.
Quote from: jimi12
will only herbivore animals be eating now or will carnivores and omnivores be hunting or scavenging meat?
I'm starting with just the grazers. I'm not sure how I want to handle the others.
Quote from: Heph
Do we get now a potter(-y) profession?
Yeah, there are six new professions.
Quote from: drvoke
Will ceramic jugs (or some other ceramic product) be used to store any food or booze?
Yeah, there should be something. I just haven't found a name yet. Amphora made sense, and "large vase" seems too decorative, but I'm not really happy with anything yet, since those seem too specific. I'm not sure what the other historical examples are and if something else sounds nice and general. It could just be the jugs, but the jugs might be smaller. This was one of the last sort of unresolved quibbles for this release.
Quote
Quote from: NSQuoteWhere would you obtain clay from?Quote from: AreyarIt would be nice to see a mechanism where there is at least a small chance of a tile being mined out if clay mining will use the current sand collection interface. (Same for sand actually, but less so.)
Right now it works like sand, and we were considering making it eat up the tiles after a number of uses, but it doesn't currently do that.
Quote from: Ves
Are there any plans to increase the frequency of Clay and Sand layers? Or to change what certain layers count as to make Sandy Clay a source for both Glassmaking and Pottery, for example?
The glass layers are the same, and earthenware comes from clay and <adj> clay layers, which are fairly common. There's a new layer "fire clay" for stoneware, and the kaolinite deposits are used for porcelain.
Quote from: vlademir1
With the inclusion of pottery will more obscure things like bone ware be included by default?
I didn't put it in for this time.
Quote from: Heph
Toady does the new Ceramics stuff include enamel and decorations with enamel picture etc.?
All I've done at this point is mono-color glazing (and then other dwarves can do whatever they like as usual in terms of jewels or metal or whatever).
Quote from: Heph
Have all ceramics to be fired or can very basic things like low quality bricks be left in the sun to dry?
There isn't a wet phase for ceramics -- that is skipped and things are fired when they are made, so there aren't any mud bricks that you just leave out. "Ceramics" implies firing, I think, but I might be mistaken. Mud/adobe/etc. structures aren't in the game yet, but it's certainly a reasonable thing.
Quote from: Mephansteras
Now that site resources are going to become much more important, are we going to see items start to take multiple material types anytime soon? Spears are an obvious example, since wood is much cheaper than metal and it's cheaper and more efficient to make 4 spears instead of a single longsword.
I don't have a timeline. On the one hand, I've always been interested in multi-material, multi-part items, but there are complications, especially with using metal in small portions.
Quote from: drvoke
What will my dwarves be making in their ceramics workshops?
How many intermediate workshops will there be for ceramics from beginning of the process to the final product?
I could see it as a chain of processes such as, clay maker --> potter --> kiln operator, or even more steps for decorated objects, etc... Or a potter who collects his own clumps of clay from mining and has a kiln in/as the workshop, so the process involves a minimum of 1 dwarf and 1 workshop, like a glass furnace.
Sort of covered in the last question, but how is clay handled in the game? Workshop product or clumps from mining that are processed in some general "pottery" workshop into a finished piece of pottery?
Right now, as I mentioned up there, you don't set out the wet clay objects to dry before the initial firing. So you gather clay (from a kiln). Then you pick an object type and fire it at the kiln (currently jugs, bricks, statues, hives and crafts, I think). Then you can optionally glaze them at the kiln (and you'll want to glaze earthenware jugs).
Quote from: Cruxador
Since beehives are now in, any chance for a parallel underground creature in the underground? Or will wax production (once that's a thing) require that you keep your fort open to the surface?
And an entirely different question,
Is honey brewable into mead?
There isn't currently an underground parallel, and I'm not sure what I think of that. It seems like we probably shouldn't have an underground analog to everything above ground.
Mead is in.
Quote from: freeformschooler
This has probably been asked, but what are the planned uses of wax collections, once they are implemented?
Right now you can make wax crafts. The rest of it will have to wait for the relevant parts of the game to be added (lighting/sealing/mold-coating/waterproofing etc.), mostly, although I guess a few of those other uses that are out there don't require other mechanics (polishes/beard waxes).
Quote from: Mantonio
Are there any plans for better animal control? Maybe something where dwarfs will actively remove animals from an area where they're not allowed?
You have the pasture option for next time.
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
Essentially, the question I want to ask is will the ceramics be like the one in this thread on ceramics? Will we have just "clay" as a soil type to work with, or can we fire up any kind of soil to make terra cotta, so that it is (rightly) a material everyone with access to most types of dirt can make? Can we wood glaze pots? Do we need sand or crushed feldspar to glaze? Are glazes necessary to make a water-tight storage jug? Are we going to be crushing a single metal ore unit to make, say, 50 pots worth of glazes which can then be used to make decorations? I hate to think we have to use an entire metal unit for one pot's decoration.
I don't know what wood glazing is. If that means using wood ash, it is in. Glazing only requires the coloration right now, and like everything else, you use one unit for one item.
Quote from: drvoke
Does this basically mean even with a max number of hives on the map, beekeeping will basically be "renewable" within that limit as long as you keep unharvested ones to split into your bee farm?
Yeah.
Quote from: Mephansteras
Are we going to get people who are deathly allergic to bee stings and can die from it?
I don't have bee allergies at this point. It's certainly a reasonable thing to add though.
Quote from: Festin
Will we have tavern brawls in the dwarf mode?
You have brawls in dwarf mode everywhere already, but it seems like something like drunkenness will have to be added with taverns. In that case, you might have more focused troubles than before.
Quote from: Heph
Toady will the town map rewrite (shortterm release 1) just include renewed shops or will it be more in the direction of "district/alley" based placement of stuff. Like having a clothier-alley, a dyer-street or a jew-lane (these are real-life examples not some kind of political statement) where all people with the same job (or whatever) are concentrated? It makes only sense for bigger towns thought.
Yeah, we're going to try to add some additional structure, not just the improved workshops. There will have to be respect for market locations. They might even have walls in some cases. With a release focusing just on this, I expect to do some interesting things, anyway.
Quote from: freeformschooler
When the economy (presumably after the caravan arc) is more fleshed out, will there be a possibility for more fleshed out specifically-for-trade goods? (coins, and so forth) Currently coins are just minted with a random engraving and/or the symbol of the civ, but it might not be hard to come up with an alternative solution.
I wasn't really sure what you were getting at here. The coins are probably more fleshed out than many people want already, since the detail contributes to the stacking problems.
Quote from: Areyar
I see no mention of parties, musical instruments or toys in the new short-term goals.
Are behaviours involving this type of item going to be put on hold, or will the new inns and such include them.
I don't specifically have a timeline for these, although I've been wanting to do them for a long, long time, and the musicality attribute is just sort of sitting there.
Quote
Quote from: Jiri PetruNo, it's not the same. The personalities actually miss important stuff like "cruel", "evil", "ambitious", "envious" etc... But even if they were there, the main point is that numbered 0-100 scales simply aren't the way people think and stories work.
--
I seem to remember Toady talking something about how the system probably needs to be replaced because it's too modern, politically correct and generally unfitting. It was while they were talking about bandit leaders, I think, but I can't find
it.Quote from: MrWigglesWill the personality and need rewrite include the foot work for the the ability for dorfs to commit crime? Such as but not limited to murder, theft, and corruption? (Like embezzling)Quote from: HephFrom my PoV we dont need actually traits for "cruelness", being "envious" or being "evil" because either they are can be calculated from the current pesonality values or are context based like the "evil" trait you mentioned. "Ambitious" could for example come from high scores in "Achievement striving", "Assertiveness" and "Self efficacy". A cruel person could have low "sympathy", "altruism" and "cooperation" scores.Quote from: monk12What is involved in the Personality Rewrite? Do you have specific goals there?
I tried to find a DF Talk quote too, but the one I was thinking of might be in the one I still have to edit, so I'm confused. In any case, yeah, I think the current facets I've got are too wishy-washy. Instead of trying to use them as the basic axes and figuring out how something like "greed" might arise from them, it seems like using a new set which isn't focused on being non-judgmental will be more efficient. I'm not going over to a yes/no archetype/quirk/trait system. This will definitely include the foundations for crime, although initially we're thinking less about criminal dwarves and more about villains and their motivations in general for the army arc. My specific goal at first is just to capture a wider breadth of dispositions, since I had trouble writing world gen AI with the current facets. From there, I think adding personality effects to the game should be easier. I think goals and dreams are also a part of this. The "needs" rewrite is related to that, but we're still working that out.
Post by: G-Flex on February 03, 2011, 01:02:57 am
Quote from: Jiri PetruAre there plans to do something about the abundance of food in Fortress Mode? Right now, it's extremely easy to have almost endless food stocks - plants are easy to grow in huge numbers, using only a small land and dwarfpower; meat is very abundant thanks to the recent body changes which multiplied the number of food units in each creature, and thanks to massive and edible forgotten beasts; and now we have several new food sources to make things even easier. Doesn't this mean the player's fortress is a much bigger food producer than any other settlement on the world?
The other settlements now outdo fortress food production by many times, because they are feeding by the day on more of an adventure mode scale, but they don't have the same margins in terms of excess food. You shouldn't end up having a lot of impact on the world food market, but internally it is a bit strange. The plans currently are the farming overhauls, which should reduce crop output a bit, and changes like livestock feeding requirements, which have started up with grazing for the next release.
What about the (very large) amounts of food you can get from the animals themselves? At the moment, it seems like overkill being able to feed half the fortress meals made out of a single dog, which seems like just an odd consequence of the quantification of body materials (which also have some numerical and compositional anomalies, but I have stuff up on Mantis about that).
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 03, 2011, 01:19:31 am
Is it currently slated for animals of different sizes to require eating different amounts of food? If elephants and hoary marmots eat the same amount of food, but give off radically different amounts of meat when butchered, then it produces a rather silly comparison of which animals are the most effective to raise...
Post by: Rockphed on February 03, 2011, 02:44:41 am
Actually, on that topic...
Is it currently slated for animals of different sizes to require eating different amounts of food? If elephants and hoary marmots eat the same amount of food, but give off radically different amounts of meat when butchered, then it produces a rather silly comparison of which animals are the most effective to raise...
Well, in the case of Elephants, they take a while to grow up...
Post by: Kogut on February 03, 2011, 02:59:53 am
Quote
<talking about traits and effect on doctors> Most players are just declaring "doctors are broken!" and reporting it as a bug.There are broken - maybe it is really trait feature, but in that case doctors should display sth else than "No job". "On break" or even special thing for doctors. Without this doctors are broken.
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on February 03, 2011, 03:08:42 am
Post by: Kogut on February 03, 2011, 03:17:29 am
From what I've read a single cow could feed a family of 4 or 5 for a year.
Cow: 500 kg.
Family: 4 people.
Time: 365 days.
Meat/day=0,34 kg.
I think it is safe to say "single cow can deliver meat for a year" - but potatoes, rice or sth else are also neeeded.
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on February 03, 2011, 03:29:54 am
Post by: drvoke on February 03, 2011, 04:13:43 am
Mead! Ceramics!
BEEEEEEEEES!
Another good question would have been "how far along are you in adding the sponsored animals?" But I suppose I'm not too worried, the animal I sponsored is right near the top of the list. :D
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 03, 2011, 04:34:39 am
From what I've read a single cow could feed a family of 4 or 5 for a year.
Cow: 500 kg.
Family: 4 people.
Time: 365 days.
Meat/day=0,34 kg.
I think it is safe to say "single cow can deliver meat for a year" - but potatoes, rice or sth else are also neeeded.
Some fun with numbers (pretty rough):
On average a adult Human needs 2000-2300 kcal per day.
Well depending on which part of the cow you eat you get 100 (lung) to 870 (fat)Kcal/100g the average here is 230Kcal/100g. 340 Grams per day are then 782 kcal. Rice gives you 344 kcal per 100 grams Potatos only 70kcal/100g. Dark bread gives you 210 kcal/100g. Milk gives you 65 kcal/100g and a normal mediaeval cow should produce between 2000 and 5000 liters per year - so you get around 5 liters per day milk which means 1.25 liters per Person a day. Most fresh water fishes give on average 100kcal/100g. Lets say we have get enough potatos the cow meat, Milk for our Family of 4. Lets also take 20 Kilo (which are ~ 20 carp) fish for Fridays meal which would equal a dayly amount of 13g per person a day.
1.25 liters milk = 875kcal
340 grams cow meat= 782 kcal
200 grams potatos= 140 kcal
100 grams bread= 210 kcal
13g fish = 13 kcal
---------------------------------
= 2020 kcal per day
So yeah not counting fruits like apples etc. this would be a healthy diet. More the half of it comes from the cow. 292 kilos of potatos are needed per year which equals around 150 m² (2kilo/m²) of fields for them. IIrc Wheat fo 1 kilogram of bread neads 2,5m² and we need 146 kilo of bread which means 365m² of wheat fields.
The question is now how much grain/potatos/whatever do we get per tile? And how much grass/hay do we need do we need per cow.
edit: with fertilizing and good weather you can harvest potatoes 2 times a year.
edit: oooops yes thx Toady for all th answers. Just seen them.
Post by: Dante on February 03, 2011, 05:11:34 am
Oh man I just can't wait to eat me some kobold eggs.
Post by: MrWiggles on February 03, 2011, 06:10:35 am
Post by: Moddan on February 03, 2011, 06:48:07 am
Mead is in.
Checklist for introducing new industries to the dwarven work system:
1. Can it be used to make/obtain/store/consume alcohol?
Pottery? Mugs!
Beekeeping? Mead!
Post by: tps12 on February 03, 2011, 07:51:34 am
Well depending on which part of the cow you eat you get 100 (lung) to 870 (fat)Kcal/100g the average here is 230Kcal/100g...Milk gives you 65 kcal/100g and a normal mediaeval cow should produce between 2000 and 5000 liters per year - so you get around 5 liters per day milk which means 1.25 liters per Person a day.
...this would be a healthy diet. More the half of it comes from the cow.
Depending on how the milk output is impacted by hacking off the odd lung.
Post by: Lord Shonus on February 03, 2011, 08:07:05 am
Edit: However, his calorie requirements are too low for DF's period. An average peasant would require nearly twice that, with alcohol making up the lack.
Post by: Dae on February 03, 2011, 08:22:47 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 03, 2011, 08:37:53 am
uhhh let me get some statistics on medival breeds:
- "Alpine"/Swiss Brown -Brown Cow from the Lower Alps in Switzerland and Germany. May stretch back to one of the oldest cattle breeds. Large. Work/Milk. [130 cm (51"); 636 kg (1,400 lbs)/145 cm (57"); 909 kg (2000 lbs)]
- British ("Park") White (or White Park, Ancient White Park, White Forest, White Horned, Wild White)
England. Medium (or Small) and Shaggy. Longhorns and polled varieties exist. White fur with black points. The Chillingham Park herd allegedly has not had any interbreeding with other herds since 1220/50. Genetically related to the Galloway and Highland.
[636 kg (1,400 lbs)/954.4 kg (2,100 lbs)] depending on your sources. - Canadienne
France, related to the Normande, Jersey, and Alderney cattle, these milk producers were imported in 1541 to Quebec by Cartier. Milk.
[122 cm (48"); 550 kg (1,210 lbs)/137 cm (54"); 813 kg (1,790 lbs)] - "Celtic" Black
Britain (from which the Welsh Black, the Galloway, the Highland, and the Angus may have derived).
[110 cm/120 cm] - Corriente
Spain, imported to the New World by the Spaniards in the 15th and 16th centuries, their descendants remain in Northern Mexico, and are the also ancestral to the Texas Longhorn
[99 cm (39"); 363 kg (800 lbs)/99 cm (39"); 454.5 kg (1000 lbs)] - Galloway
Scotland (SW Islands) - May be the southern Scots polled cattle referred to since the 11th Century, they may only be 18th Century when the first solid records of them reach back to.
[122 cm (48"); 575 kg (1,265 lbs)/137 cm (54"); 813 kg (1,790 lbs)]
Post by: TolyK on February 03, 2011, 10:24:23 am
My notes:
Just a quick question: Are there any plans to change completely to a masked metric system? It seems popular and will save a lot of work.Quote from: DoomshifterSo, when moving fortress pieces are implemented, how mobile will they be?
For example, will we be able to move something to any point of our map, move things off-map, move it within a certain radius/confine/prepared area?
Also:
Could we put buildings and furniture (Workshops, ballistae, beds and etc.) on them? (I ask this because of the unbuildability of bridges, our only moving fortress terrain) How will they be controlled? Powered? Locomoted? Will we be able to make moving fortresses of death?
Moving off-map seems unlikely, at least in terms of what will be worked on for that dev item, although since boat-support is part of what that framework is about, it'll be a consideration. Buildings and anything else that can be placed in a tile will definitely be supported. I don't have any idea about how the rest of it will work.
I must re-start my vehicle megathread.Quote from: HephDo we get now a potter(-y) profession?Yeah, there are six new professions.
YES!
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 03, 2011, 10:28:15 am
Post by: zwei on February 03, 2011, 10:32:56 am
Quote
Yeah, there are six new professions.
So, beekeeping, waxcrafting, pottery, glazing. What else, i wonder...
Post by: Mephansteras on February 03, 2011, 11:44:50 am
Quote from: drvokeWill ceramic jugs (or some other ceramic product) be used to store any food or booze?
Yeah, there should be something. I just haven't found a name yet. Amphora made sense, and "large vase" seems too decorative, but I'm not really happy with anything yet, since those seem too specific. I'm not sure what the other historical examples are and if something else sounds nice and general. It could just be the jugs, but the jugs might be smaller. This was one of the last sort of unresolved quibbles for this release.
Who about just going with 'Pot'?
Quote
Quote from: MephansterasNow that site resources are going to become much more important, are we going to see items start to take multiple material types anytime soon? Spears are an obvious example, since wood is much cheaper than metal and it's cheaper and more efficient to make 4 spears instead of a single longsword.
I don't have a timeline. On the one hand, I've always been interested in multi-material, multi-part items, but there are complications, especially with using metal in small portions.
What are the complications with this? We already have metal stored as units (150 iron instead of 1 bar). So I'm curious what the blocking factor is. Lingering old code?
Post by: TolyK on February 03, 2011, 11:48:15 am
Who about just going with 'Pot'?Yeah, weeds will go in sometime and so should pot :P
Quote
What are the complications with this? We already have metal stored as units (150 iron instead of 1 bar). So I'm curious what the blocking factor is. Lingering old code?yeah, that might be it. when I add new stuff to my projects it tends to be hampered by old stuff :-\
Post by: Kogut on February 03, 2011, 12:13:41 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 03, 2011, 12:42:05 pm
Actually, on that topic...
Is it currently slated for animals of different sizes to require eating different amounts of food? If elephants and hoary marmots eat the same amount of food, but give off radically different amounts of meat when butchered, then it produces a rather silly comparison of which animals are the most effective to raise...
Well, in the case of Elephants, they take a while to grow up...
Even newborn elephant babies are worth insane amounts of food, though. You can just do the mermaid thing and keep some breeding stock, and then slaughter the infants. It is, in fact, something I do on some of my "experiment forts", since it's much easier to just mod elephants to be purchased at embark, and feed my dwarves elephant meat all day every day than it is to work on setting up a proper fort, and it lets me get right down to what I was experimenting on in that fort.
What are the complications with this? We already have metal stored as units (150 iron instead of 1 bar). So I'm curious what the blocking factor is. Lingering old code?
Well, this is something I went over pretty extensively in the Volume and Mass thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61215.0)...
Basically, almost every object type already has a volume, and every material type already has a density. The displayed mass of every object is derived from these two things.
The primary problem with implimenting Volume and Mass fully is that it requires Stacking to work. (That is, the thing on the top of the ESV, which I'm assuming Toady has been putting off because he's had trouble coding it before.) If we start using .1 kg of brass to make a brass earring instead of an entire 17.5 kg bar (2 liters), then we are using fractions of a unit, and that means that dwarves will need to start learning to put fractions of bars back into piles with other fractions of bars, again. Otherwise we wind up with the same problem we have with coins - a whole bunch of .03 kg of brass lying around the fort with no reaction that uses that small a quantity, but it takes up a whole tile in a stockpile, anyway.
The concept that you give quantifiable dimesions to tiles is also potentially involved in that, which means that it can lead to things like a rewrite of the liquids code so that water, for example, is measured in volume, as well. Quantifiable dimensions to tiles also means multi-tile trees and monsters, which is always one of those big game-crashers.
Of course, all of these things are pretty much necessary for the game going forward. Stacking is on the devpage (Toady just wants to do Caravan and Military arcs first), and liquids code needs some optimization and the ability to allow in other liquids like oil, as was mentioned in the last Q&A round. It's just that Toady is prioritizing other topics that he probably thinks are more fun.
(Which sounds cooler, invading other fortresses or getting mead, or making fluids take up less framerate?)
Post by: jimi12 on February 03, 2011, 02:08:08 pm
Post by: Chthonic on February 03, 2011, 02:45:26 pm
If only grazing animals will be needing food, is their any incentive for not just using large jaguar farms for food since they require nothing to keep alive?I bet it'll just be unbalanced until we get some more interesting carnivore type tags . . . things like [TASTES_GROSS] or [AGGRESSIVE_WHEN_PENNED] . . . although I be they start needing food before these are added.
Post by: PTTG?? on February 03, 2011, 03:26:53 pm
Post by: monk12 on February 03, 2011, 04:06:20 pm
Post by: madjoe5 on February 03, 2011, 04:07:12 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on February 03, 2011, 04:45:31 pm
My fortress will have the largest collection of fabrige kobold eggs.
Post by: Kesc on February 03, 2011, 05:09:19 pm
Is there going to be a fix for that? I mean... With poo you can make fertilizer, use it on spikes then you'll lead infections to your enemies, make dwarves unhappy(Very FUN), make them sick... Consider a fight between a monkey and a dwarf. *Monkey show the dwarf what he is made of* *Dwarf vomit* Aha.
Post by: monk12 on February 03, 2011, 05:24:01 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on February 03, 2011, 06:31:06 pm
Tricky one: Dwarves don't need to go to the bathroom... They don't need godamn toilet!
Is there going to be a fix for that? I mean... With poo you can make fertilizer, use it on spikes then you'll lead infections to your enemies, make dwarves unhappy(Very FUN), make them sick... Consider a fight between a monkey and a dwarf. *Monkey show the dwarf what he is made of* *Dwarf vomit* Aha.
There are several long, and heated debates over it, and probably best served in one of those threads then here. There also a Feces and Urine thing you can vote for on the ESV.
Post by: tps12 on February 03, 2011, 09:26:25 pm
There also a Feces and Urine thing you can vote for on the ESV.
There's probably also a Feces and Urine thing lurking in your third cavern. If you follow.
Post by: Footkerchief on February 03, 2011, 10:10:14 pm
Tricky one: Dwarves don't need to go to the bathroom... They don't need godamn toilet!
Is there going to be a fix for that? I mean... With poo you can make fertilizer, use it on spikes then you'll lead infections to your enemies, make dwarves unhappy(Very FUN), make them sick... Consider a fight between a monkey and a dwarf. *Monkey show the dwarf what he is made of* *Dwarf vomit* Aha.
There are several long, and heated debates over it, and probably best served in one of those threads then here. There also a Feces and Urine thing you can vote for on the ESV.
I collected some quotes a while back:
There are no plans to add "night soil". Dwarves poop little pebbles which seemlessly disappear into the cavern floor, or they collect them and cherish them or something.Do dwarves have water closets? Will we need to carefully craft "flushing" mechanisms to carry the unmentionables away?
There is currently no potty.4. Manure, as a fertilizer.
4. They just drop it everywhere? Everyone will might be doing it after a while... night soil, and so on. But it's a dangerous door to open, especially if the room on the other side is full. If a god turns you into a horse in adventure mode, would you suddenly start dropping the bomb?
From DF Talk: (http://bay12games.com/media/df_talk_combined_transcript.html)QuoteToady: [...] I like the idea of being able to track things and find them, and pick up little kobold scats and dig around to see what they've been eating ... after a fashion, anyway.QuoteRainseeker: So there's no poo creatures either?
Toady: It was a close thing! Because it was literally a decision I had to make, going down this list, because in the Hidden Fun Stuff of course if you get the tentacle demons then you get a layer scattered with various filth on the ground; and there's brown filth and yellow filth and so on and it's not clearly stated but it's a material that I had to put in properties for right? So there's these hard-coded filth materials, and when I was going down the list, you know 'Do I want creatures made out of mud? Do I want creatures made out of vomit? Do I want creatures made out of glass?', there's all these hard-coded materials, and I was just like 'Yeah, yeah, yeah ... No ... No ...' on the filth. But there are creatures made out of the grime, and the grime material is the material that collects on your body slowly over time, and it's also the material that's used in swamp water, so there's this ... I just needed this material called 'grime' for these miscellaneous purposes, it's just crap, just stuff that collects over time and when a creature is made out of that it just says 'composed of grime and filth'. So if you want to call that 'poo' even though it's not it's possible for you to extend your imagination.QuoteToady: [...] But the kind of thing that's on the table is gunpowder, and the materials that you need for that are already in the game, I think. We've got brimstone, which is sulphur, and I don't remember if we have saltpetre, if it's there or not, but ... I guess you could do all kinds of things with manure and urine to make it, or you can find it in a crystalline form in the ground perhaps.
And finally, sewers full of filth were a powergoal in the old dev item system:Quote# PowerGoal153, THE CRACKS OF DOOM, (Future): You flee into the sewer with the baron's ring, but sliding in the muck, you drop it. Try as you might, you cannot locate the precious object in the town's filth.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 03, 2011, 10:12:26 pm
I think I might just gen an adventurer right after the next release and devote my time to stealing eggs. ALL OF THEM.
Will he be entirely oophageous?
(OK, so I just like saying that word, and couldn't pass up the chance to use it.)
Tricky one: Dwarves don't need to go to the bathroom... They don't need godamn toilet!
Is there going to be a fix for that? I mean... With poo you can make fertilizer, use it on spikes then you'll lead infections to your enemies, make dwarves unhappy(Very FUN), make them sick... Consider a fight between a monkey and a dwarf. *Monkey show the dwarf what he is made of* *Dwarf vomit* Aha.
There are several long, and heated debates over it, and probably best served in one of those threads then here. There also a Feces and Urine thing you can vote for on the ESV.
There's also the Improved Farming thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=76007.0), which has plenty on the use of manure and turning urea into ammonia for use in the fields.
... With that said, it hasn't exactly attracted the sort of talk that involves waste throwing competitions, no doubt thanks to the simple text-heaviness of the thread.
Post by: Chthonic on February 04, 2011, 07:24:53 am
Post by: Chromasphere on February 04, 2011, 09:42:22 am
Quote from: drvokeWill ceramic jugs (or some other ceramic product) be used to store any food or booze?
Yeah, there should be something. I just haven't found a name yet. Amphora made sense, and "large vase" seems too decorative, but I'm not really happy with anything yet, since those seem too specific. I'm not sure what the other historical examples are and if something else sounds nice and general. It could just be the jugs, but the jugs might be smaller. This was one of the last sort of unresolved quibbles for this release.
Who about just going with 'Pot'?
Many times, archeologists and historians will use the word 'Vessel' . e.g. earthenware vessel, ceramic vessel. I think that word works well to describe something that may be a multi-purpose container.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on February 04, 2011, 10:18:22 am
Post by: PTTG?? on February 04, 2011, 11:24:20 am
Large Stoneware Vessel
Large China Vessel
+<*Large Stoneware Vessel*>+
I could see that.
You know, I've always wondered about having the angle brackets there. I think it's pretty clear that only the centermost quality symbol applies to the object itself. So it could be -+Sword+- instead of -<+Sword+>-.
Post by: Greiger on February 04, 2011, 12:41:14 pm
Post by: TolyK on February 04, 2011, 01:01:31 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on February 04, 2011, 01:22:44 pm
Large Adobe Vessel
Large Stoneware Vessel
Large China Vessel
+<*Large Stoneware Vessel*>+
I could see that.
You know, I've always wondered about having the angle brackets there. I think it's pretty clear that only the centermost quality symbol applies to the object itself. So it could be -+Sword+- instead of -<+Sword+>-.
i'm not sure, but i think there are no-quality decorations, so a vase can be a vase, a <+vase+>, a +<+vase+>+, and a +<vase>+
Post by: PTTG?? on February 04, 2011, 01:26:32 pm
Post by: zwei on February 04, 2011, 01:27:57 pm
Large Adobe Vessel
Large Stoneware Vessel
Large China Vessel
+<*Large Stoneware Vessel*>+
I could see that.
You know, I've always wondered about having the angle brackets there. I think it's pretty clear that only the centermost quality symbol applies to the object itself. So it could be -+Sword+- instead of -<+Sword+>-.
Is +sword+ a no quality sword with fine decoration or just a fine sword?
Post by: TolyK on February 04, 2011, 01:45:44 pm
Post by: Sowelu on February 04, 2011, 02:20:03 pm
if it's going to work as a barrel, it should probably specify it's a large vessel and not a bowl or a jugIMO, 'vessel' is clear and concise enough by itself...though it would be kind of neat to have an in-game glossary (to tell that a door and a portal are the same thing for example). If you have large vessels, wouldn't that imply the existence of non-large vessels? Only have adjectives when they distinguish between two things, I say.
Post by: Mephansteras on February 04, 2011, 02:48:20 pm
Large Adobe Vessel
Large Stoneware Vessel
Large China Vessel
+<*Large Stoneware Vessel*>+
I could see that.
You know, I've always wondered about having the angle brackets there. I think it's pretty clear that only the centermost quality symbol applies to the object itself. So it could be -+Sword+- instead of -<+Sword+>-.
Is +sword+ a no quality sword with fine decoration or just a fine sword?
Good point. Without the <> you'd have no way of knowing.
Post by: nbonaparte on February 04, 2011, 02:52:16 pm
The names of certain trap components would disagree.if it's going to work as a barrel, it should probably specify it's a large vessel and not a bowl or a jugIMO, 'vessel' is clear and concise enough by itself...though it would be kind of neat to have an in-game glossary (to tell that a door and a portal are the same thing for example). If you have large vessels, wouldn't that imply the existence of non-large vessels? Only have adjectives when they distinguish between two things, I say.
Post by: PTTG?? on February 04, 2011, 03:28:11 pm
Duh! I kept thinking there's a better term than "vessel".
Urn... best thing is you could store dead dwarves in urns too. You can have stone urns, clay urns, metal urns... I suppose you could even carve a wood urn.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 04, 2011, 03:39:54 pm
... I wonder if stoneware "goblets" will be called "steins"
Post by: Cruxador on February 04, 2011, 04:34:25 pm
Since everything in DF is prefaced with its material type, I'm sure people who might otherwise be confused would understand that a "stoneware vessel" is a type of ceramic container.Goblets and steins are significantly different. A stein is more like a mug.
... I wonder if stoneware "goblets" will be called "steins"
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 04, 2011, 04:38:47 pm
It's one of those little things that make me giddy to think that we'll be able to make stoneware steins (or whatever term actually gets associated with it) with images of whatever in cobalt blue glaze as a decoration.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 04, 2011, 09:11:27 pm
Post by: G-Flex on February 04, 2011, 09:16:55 pm
Post by: Knigel on February 05, 2011, 02:44:14 am
The names of certain trap components would disagree.if it's going to work as a barrel, it should probably specify it's a large vessel and not a bowl or a jugIMO, 'vessel' is clear and concise enough by itself...though it would be kind of neat to have an in-game glossary (to tell that a door and a portal are the same thing for example). If you have large vessels, wouldn't that imply the existence of non-large vessels? Only have adjectives when they distinguish between two things, I say.
As would names for daggers.
Post by: drvoke on February 05, 2011, 05:40:27 am
Quote from: drvokeWill ceramic jugs (or some other ceramic product) be used to store any food or booze?
Yeah, there should be something. I just haven't found a name yet. Amphora made sense, and "large vase" seems too decorative, but I'm not really happy with anything yet, since those seem too specific. I'm not sure what the other historical examples are and if something else sounds nice and general. It could just be the jugs, but the jugs might be smaller. This was one of the last sort of unresolved quibbles for this release.
Yes, amphorae are a specific design and origin, and I think it will actually be impossible to find a name for these particular ceramics that isn't specific to a particular culture, style, or use. I think "vessel" is the technical catch-all term for any kind of "ceramics-for-storage", even though it's almost unbearably generic.
Personally, I like olla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olla) (of either the specifically Roman or more generic kind), regardless of the controversy it might induce...
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 05, 2011, 04:20:50 pm
Recently in another thread, where I have been trying to revise the entire Improved Farming suggestion system, and also trying to include a system for farming "xenosynthetic"/"magic" plants, there was some talk about how you were planning on revising the sphere system. I tried doing a search on it, but came up empty, so I figure I might as well come to the source.
If you are planning on changing the sphere system, how are you planning on changing it? Are you still planning on introducing spheres as a replacement for the simpler Good/Evil Benign/Savage system of biomes, and if so, how far down are you planning on consolidating spheres (since it would be almost impossible to have different biomes and creatures for 128 different spheres)?
... hopefully that's not too complex a question this time. Having some feedback on this really helps divine where the suggestions themselves should go to have a fair chance of actually supplementing your vision in making this game, rather than opposing it.
Post by: Knight Otu on February 05, 2011, 06:30:30 pm
There was a quote early in the thread in that vein:QuoteQuote from: Jiri PetruNo, it's not the same. The personalities actually miss important stuff like "cruel", "evil", "ambitious", "envious" etc... But even if they were there, the main point is that numbered 0-100 scales simply aren't the way people think and stories work.
--
I seem to remember Toady talking something about how the system probably needs to be replaced because it's too modern, politically correct and generally unfitting. It was while they were talking about bandit leaders, I think, but I can't find
it.Quote from: MrWigglesWill the personality and need rewrite include the foot work for the the ability for dorfs to commit crime? Such as but not limited to murder, theft, and corruption? (Like embezzling)Quote from: HephFrom my PoV we dont need actually traits for "cruelness", being "envious" or being "evil" because either they are can be calculated from the current pesonality values or are context based like the "evil" trait you mentioned. "Ambitious" could for example come from high scores in "Achievement striving", "Assertiveness" and "Self efficacy". A cruel person could have low "sympathy", "altruism" and "cooperation" scores.Quote from: monk12What is involved in the Personality Rewrite? Do you have specific goals there?
I tried to find a DF Talk quote too, but the one I was thinking of might be in the one I still have to edit, so I'm confused.
Personalities come up in world gen, but they are kind of lacking, because the modern system is so non-judgmental, he he he. There isn't much of any intra-entity strife, so they aren't used for that anyway. So we're going to end up augmenting it with additional goals and "virtue/vice"-type stuff, and that should let us have people work out their ambitions in a consistent way, and then we should have more meat for the succession/schism stuff. I'm not sure about the future of the current personality facets. They are useful for things, but not so much for this. Freeing up some of the boring professions for entity pop people should also give us more room for personal ambition among the realized people (or appropriate people can be elevated from entity pops if they don't arise -- it's somewhat disappointing not to trace everybody back all the way to the beginning, but it's the only reasonable way at this point).
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 05, 2011, 06:59:01 pm
I saw Owlbread's suggestion thread on The Future of the Fortress Guard and Justice (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=76498.0), and got into a discussion about how it would be problematic to make some personality traits be purely negative.
If a single trait can give you a numeric answer as to how likely that dwarf is to break down, commit a crime, steal things, or in the case of doctors, just leave dwarves to die, and those traits are never positive... why shouldn't we just stop looking for migrants that have certain skills, and instead look for certain traits, and just send every dwarf guilty of the "Pre-Crime" of having traits that lead to undesirable behavior, and giving them a one-way ticket to the luxury magma spa?
Similarly, the more that personality traits, which are in a very difficult-to-access or remember format, (especially when you have to go through the units list, scroll down to the one dwarf you want to look at, read their description screen, and then remember that amongst potentially hundreds of other dwarves you have seen,) take a front-and-center stage in determining dwarf behavior and capacity to fulfil a job, the more that the "Dwarfy Resources" noble position or some sort of dwarfy autonomous job-position selection (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63109.60) that sorts dwarves according to their personalities and ability to perform certain jobs better than others starts to really look desirable.
Post by: Jessoftherocks on February 05, 2011, 07:50:53 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on February 05, 2011, 07:54:13 pm
Post by: Dwarfu on February 05, 2011, 09:14:42 pm
Is it for the locals or for visitors/foreigners?
Does it duplicate such functions of a dormitory and dining room?
I've wanted this for quite a while (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=20993.msg224825#msg224825).
Post by: Jessoftherocks on February 05, 2011, 11:49:47 pm
Post by: Mazonas on February 06, 2011, 06:26:22 am
With the fleshing out of so many things, could we have an additional use for bones? Pretty much all ancient cultures consumed bone marrow as part of their diet - it is a high-calorie substance, high in calcium (lactose intolerant cultures are particularly fond of it) and can be boiled into a jelly that can be used to extend the shelf life of meats by cooking them in it, or bones can be boiled up to make stock for gravy etc. Also, with vegetable and nut oils, will dorfs be abe to process raw animal fat into more than just tallow? I was thinking suet, lard, dripping...
Post by: Cruxador on February 06, 2011, 06:35:50 am
ToadyThe answer to this is something like "That sounds reasonable, but there's no timeline."
With the fleshing out of so many things, could we have an additional use for bones? Pretty much all ancient cultures consumed bone marrow as part of their diet - it is a high-calorie substance, high in calcium (lactose intolerant cultures are particularly fond of it) and can be boiled into a jelly that can be used to extend the shelf life of meats by cooking them in it, or bones can be boiled up to make stock for gravy etc. Also, with vegetable and nut oils, will dorfs be abe to process raw animal fat into more than just tallow? I was thinking suet, lard, dripping...
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on February 06, 2011, 06:45:25 am
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on February 06, 2011, 09:37:39 am
Post by: G-Flex on February 06, 2011, 09:38:17 am
if it gets answered at all. toady has been dismissing requests.
Yep. Suggestions Forum is for suggestions.
Post by: freeformschooler on February 06, 2011, 02:22:27 pm
Post by: nil on February 06, 2011, 02:44:43 pm
Post by: Kogut on February 06, 2011, 03:26:13 pm
Post by: Greiger on February 06, 2011, 03:51:18 pm
Post by: Untelligent on February 06, 2011, 04:23:16 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on February 06, 2011, 10:06:11 pm
Will we get working crutches in dwarf mode soon, either in this release or the next? It's one of the biggest bugs yet to be squashed, and it seems particularly tragic that after you went to the work of implementing this cool and useful feature something continues to keep it from actually working.There going to be between 9-18 weeks of bug fixes after this release and the next one. So, probably soonishly.
Post by: Dae on February 07, 2011, 07:13:47 am
Will we get working crutches in dwarf mode soon, either in this release or the next? It's one of the biggest bugs yet to be squashed, and it seems particularly tragic that after you went to the work of implementing this cool and useful feature something continues to keep it from actually working.There going to be between 9-18 weeks of bug fixes after this release and the next one. So, probably soonishly.
Did you get that quite vague number from a reliable source ?
Post by: Willfor on February 07, 2011, 08:07:01 am
Did you get that quite vague number from a reliable source ?
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html
"Each release will be accompanied by a general bug-fixing period one to two weeks long where we'll be working on old issues from the bug tracker."
Post by: Footkerchief on February 07, 2011, 10:11:52 am
Did you get that quite vague number from a reliable source ?
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html
"Each release will be accompanied by a general bug-fixing period one to two weeks long where we'll be working on old issues from the bug tracker."
That means there will be one to two weeks of bug-fixing after the next release, not 9-18 weeks of uninterrupted bug-fixing.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 07, 2011, 11:57:32 am
Especially since 18 weeks is basically a third of a year. Even if there are people clamoring for bugfixes with mounting frustration, I don't think the people who are waiting on what's on the devpage with baited breath will sit and quietly wait for four months to get some of the things they want, either.
Post by: Captain Mayday on February 07, 2011, 12:06:12 pm
9 Releases, with 1-2 weeks of bugfixing after each = 9-18 weeks of bugfixing in total.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 07, 2011, 12:21:17 pm
... Suddenly, this seems to be a much slower devpage than I had previously thought. I had hoped we would get stacking/wheelbarrows within a couple years, but if this is the expected rate of progress down that list, Adventure Mode will be taking up most of the rest of the decade, won't it?
Post by: therahedwig on February 07, 2011, 12:27:32 pm
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on February 07, 2011, 12:30:01 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on February 07, 2011, 01:09:59 pm
I don't think the two weeks of bugfixing will apply with the new, shorter, dev cycle.It is part of that dev cycle as per the dev page. That said, I would expect that the 2-week bugfix periods will be the minority, reserved for particularly stubborn bugs, so that Toady can get more releases out rather than fewer.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on February 07, 2011, 01:58:22 pm
Post by: therahedwig on February 07, 2011, 03:31:01 pm
It's like this:
Toady codes stuff into the game, does some bugfixing and releases it. Repeat x 9. Then army-arc & adventure mode and then eternal suggestion voting top 10. After that what else there's mentioned on the dev-list.
Hm... They have added the top 10 suggestion stuff to the dev-list while I wasn't looking?
Quote
Farming ImprovementsI have the feeling that someone who has been writing novels on the subject will be happy.
Soil moisture tracking and ability to moisten soil (buckets or other irrigation)
Soil nutrient requirements for plants and nutrient tracking to the extent the farming interface can provide decent feedback for you, fertilizers can reflect this
Harvestable flowers and fruit growing on plants, ability to plant trees
Weeds
More pests
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 07, 2011, 03:45:27 pm
I actually didn't even really support the NPK system (supporting a more abstract system, instead) until I read a Toady response in this thread saying he was considering NPK, if only he could find a "reasonable way to convey that information to the player." The rest just sort of spiraled out from there. (Which reminds me, I need to stop getting distracted, and finish up on my Interface section that's been sitting in my Word editor for a couple days, now.)
Post by: drvoke on February 07, 2011, 03:46:54 pm
I thought the point of the new release cycle was just so we had something to play with, rather than waiting ages for a release?
Max 2 weeks between minor releases is "ages"? lol. That, my friend, is a goddamn addiction!
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on February 07, 2011, 04:00:56 pm
Post by: nenjin on February 07, 2011, 04:59:29 pm
Toady's issue is when he decides to do something, he commits to the idea far and beyond what almost anyone expects. That naturally increases the amount of time between releases, but we reap the benefits all the same. (Not that I really had much interest in beekeeping, but hey, now it's the best damn bee-keeping simulator on the net, as well!)
Post by: Shoku on February 07, 2011, 05:03:28 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 07, 2011, 05:12:34 pm
This is nothing compared to the delay from the last major release.
Toady's issue is when he decides to do something, he commits to the idea far and beyond what almost anyone expects. That naturally increases the amount of time between releases, but we reap the benefits all the same. (Not that I really had much interest in beekeeping, but hey, now it's the best damn bee-keeping simulator on the net, as well!)
The thing is, this is pretty much mandatory for being able to perform good coding. You need to be able to write out a plan that expects where you will need to be a hundred steps further down the road than where you are right now, so that you don't have to rewrite your entire code to add on each new thing. It really should be what more people expect.
It is, however, also not as exciting as getting some little treat now. The amount of money Toady got in his donation drive by just offering to add in things like penguins, which only take raw modifications that you could mod in yourself proves that a good portion of the fanbase really like the excitement of opening up that new toy more than they enjoy really sitting down and exploring every facet of a more complex system like the new military or hospital systems... Not that the overall opacity of interface and density of bugs really helped that too much.
Post by: madciol on February 07, 2011, 05:49:52 pm
I can only weep.
Post by: freeformschooler on February 07, 2011, 07:33:39 pm
*shrug* Most of players here wants new features more than bugfixs (except crashes). And they get what they wish for. Oh, so much.
I can only weep.
I think you'd be surprised. A larger majority of the "veteran" fan base and a sizeable portion of the mid-to-new fans seem to think that bugfixes should take priority, or at least as much as new features.
Really, though, I think I can compare it to architecture for Toady. He's not contractually bound to do anything. Keep this in mind as I say that an architect enjoys building and designing a new construction -- setting down shop on a fresh slate, if you will -- more than pulling weeds from the garden recently placed on the grounds of the half- or completely-finished construction itself. Similarly, putting things into your program can be a lot more exciting and interesting than spending several hours scouring for the perfect way to find precisely where the bug is and eliminate it, which may or may not require reworking other code in the process.
Not that you shouldn't do it, of course; you have to as a programmer. If you didn't do a lot of bugfixing, you'd be crazy, and I think it should take high priority in DF along with many others on these forums. But when you're spending hours playtesting your own game, wouldn't you rather be playtesting new features rather than searching for that one telltale error report?
EDIT: Nevermind, I don't see why I offered a counterpoint in the first place. Looking through a few dozen of your posts, you seem like either a very embittered player who will complain about this same topic no matter what, or a troll. Pardon me/sorry if I'm wrong on that, but I'm gonna pretend I never posted this because it makes no difference in the long run.
Post by: Dante on February 07, 2011, 08:17:42 pm
Would it be so bad for a workshop to have a hidden "wooden planks" type counter that just goes up by something like 8 when a log is brought in? Right now you've got your 60,000 units of string and such but a messy workshop might not need quite so much precision. The dwarf working in it would know he had some extra scrap wood hither and thither but if you actually deconstructed it the dwarves wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of it and would just have a lump of garbage materials to toss in the rubbish heap.Like the smelter currently works? It'd be a step in the right direction, but seems like a bit of a stopgap measure.
Nothing says a log needs to be split into as huge a number of units as thread is. Toady might add a size counter to each log going up to, say, 256; a wooden cup could then use 1 unit and a door 100 or whatever.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 08, 2011, 12:27:51 am
Post by: Cruxador on February 08, 2011, 12:47:08 am
Why stop there? We can have trees that give more than a fixed amount of wood when cut down, after all. Why should all trees be exactly the same size, whether a saguaro or an oak or a tunnel tube? Why should all trees of the same kind be the same size, regardless of age?If the change is to include that, it will have to wait until we have multitile trees.
Which is probably for the better anyway.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 08, 2011, 01:06:58 am
Post by: Untelligent on February 08, 2011, 01:10:27 am
Post by: Morrigi on February 08, 2011, 02:10:38 am
Post by: Caldfir on February 08, 2011, 02:38:22 am
Anyone who has been playing the current version should know that there are in fact very few actual bugs* lurking about (however annoying those few might be). Nonetheless I have been poking about the bug tracker, and it really is a big heap of...things. The trouble is that the vast majority of the things on the tracker are likely not to be bugs at all. What seems to have accumulated are a full year of people's conversations with tech-support, with a few actual bugs sprinkled in. Even most of the (real) bugs are probably cases where something was broken, someone logged on the tracker to complain, and once it was fixed never reported the resolution. It can hardly be expected that a team of only a few people can sift through something like that**.
I am wondering if there are any plans on what to do with the bug tracker, since in its current state it looks to be hardly of use to anyone. Anything between a very aggressive cull and an outright flush would be perfectly reasonable actions at this time, if for no other reason than that Dwarf Fortress is so very different from what it was a year ago, and a major release is on the horizon.
Then again, I'm on the outside looking in on this, so perhaps I'm all wrong and there is some magical permutation of the search filters on the bug tracker that allow perfect summary of all actual bugs.
(It was very hard not to turn this post into a rant against people being generally dumb when posting on the tracker, especially after a weekend of trying to make sense of it all.)
*A true "bug" is not an unfinished feature, nor a someone's opinion about how the game should work, nor users making mistakes and whining about it ('you had caps lock on'), nor program performance under excessive load ('your game did not crash - the ocean froze').
**Footkerchief is essentially omnipresent on the tracker, but even his magical powers have limits.
Post by: Dae on February 08, 2011, 04:08:34 am
Bugfixing is necessary, more even if you keep on adding new features.
Post by: Cruxador on February 08, 2011, 05:30:29 am
We do need multi-tile trees, but even with everything fitting in one tile, you can make one tree give more wood than another. One tree gives 50 liters of wood, another gives 57 liters of wood, another gives 82 liters of wood.Sure, but how do you define what gives what? And how would it integrate with multitile trees when that happens, if it's done right away?
Better to hold off on it, and do all of the tree rewriting at once.
That sounds too complicated. I like the one-log system we have now better.In practice it would be basically the same. Except that you wouldn't need to count individual bits of wood, and you'd get more out of your lumber.
Oh god, if that were implemented wrong we'd end up with Wurm Online's WOOD SCRAPS EVERYWHERE problem, and that's bad enough in a 1st person game. And we'd probably end up with some silliness with dwarves needing 10 almost totally used up logs to make one bed anyway.With thread, extremely small bits are considered refuse. The same would likely apply to wood.
Post by: MrWiggles on February 08, 2011, 06:03:41 am
Spoiler: Caldfir Largish Post (click to show/hide)
Fookercheif, has stated that he, and the other Modders of the bug trackers and Toady have a fair idea of what are the most "popular" bugs, that the community wants to be fixed. So, seems to be serving its purpose.
---
Also, I'm not sure if its a growing concern of the community that wants bugs to be fix above new content. For me, it seems closer to a loud minority.
Post by: zwei on February 08, 2011, 06:43:33 am
Also, I'm not sure if its a growing concern of the community that wants bugs to be fix above new content. For me, it seems closer to a loud minority.
Well, there are patient but still concerned people...
As pointed out, new content has potential to make fixing bugs harder than it needs to be and there are quite serious bugs.
I would also like to point out that bugs usually *remove* bits of content - for example, lye/soap issues discourage soap making, crutch walking bug makes making crutches pointless, awol dungeon master and his ability to tame some creatures...
Post by: MrWiggles on February 08, 2011, 07:08:00 am
The measure of complication for prior bug quashing is speculative. We can't say by adding Y makes Z harder to fix, only Toady can make that call. And simply fixing bugs will also add new bugs, though hopefully at a depreciated rate. We also don't know that the lingering prominent bugs havent been addressed; they maybe lingering because they've been quite hard to quash, or they have been completely ignored. Those extremes are fairly different.Also, I'm not sure if its a growing concern of the community that wants bugs to be fix above new content. For me, it seems closer to a loud minority.
Well, there are patient but still concerned people...
As pointed out, new content has potential to make fixing bugs harder than it needs to be and there are quite serious bugs.
I would also like to point out that bugs usually *remove* bits of content - for example, lye/soap issues discourage soap making, crutch walking bug makes making crutches pointless, awol dungeon master and his ability to tame some creatures...
We do know that Toady does do some measure and effort of continue bug fixing with each release. The only person who really knows how to best handle the bugs, where & when to fix them, is Toady.
Maybe we're facing something like, bug X will be depreciated or disappear with addition of Y, because it changes Z and Z was the source of X.
Post by: thvaz on February 08, 2011, 07:11:33 am
Post by: therahedwig on February 08, 2011, 10:01:20 am
I guess the problem is partially that while in 40d we had the broken economy, but people could always ignore it and go with a military fort. Now we have a buggy military(and to similar extend a buggy hospital) and besides that you can play architect, if you don't want that there's no non-buggy specialisation options. So people try using the buggy military and get confronted with these bugs, unlike in 40d where they could avoid them.
So untill one of the specialisations is fully-functional (So, a bugless economy, a bugless military or others) People will keep clamouring for bug-fixes because they have to choose for bugs if they want to get further then 3 years into a fort without mega-projecting.
Also, Caldfir, I agree completely with you, but a bug is officially defined as any kind of flaw in the game, this can also mean design-flaws. However, you are right, considering that DF is in alpha, we should be focussing on flaws within the programming when it comes to bug reporting and have fixes in the design relegated to the suggestions forum(and I guess in the case of raw-fixes to the modding forum).
Post by: Sizik on February 08, 2011, 10:43:55 am
Post by: therahedwig on February 08, 2011, 01:28:25 pm
Economy and military aren't mutually exclusive.
Well, I guess in a way they aren't, but that doesn't change the fact that people could have a military fort without turning on economy. I would expect that once both are fully functional, there will be players who specialise in military, people who specialise in economy and ofcourse people who do a fort that focusses on both.
Unless you were meaning something entirely different, because then I have no clue what you exactly meant to say.
Post by: fartron on February 08, 2011, 02:10:07 pm
We won't get candles or torches until the general lighting improvements. Vegetable oil in general isn't super-flammable compared to other gassy/oily things, as far as I know, but we'll use whatever numbers we can find.
While we're on livestock and feeding, can we get manure? I've been imagining a pig-methane-powered fortress for a while.
Post by: Areyar on February 08, 2011, 03:19:57 pm
We won't get candles or torches until the general lighting improvements. Vegetable oil in general isn't super-flammable compared to other gassy/oily things, as far as I know, but we'll use whatever numbers we can find.
While we're on livestock and feeding, can we get manure? I've been imagining a pig-methane-powered fortress for a while.
Your first post since registering in 08 and you waste it by posting a suggestion for steampunk technology in the development questions thread?
Post by: caknuck on February 08, 2011, 05:10:22 pm
Post by: Beardless on February 08, 2011, 05:13:59 pm
While we're on livestock and feeding, can we get manure? I've been imagining a pig-methane-powered fortress for a while.
Your first post since registering in 08 and you waste it by posting a suggestion for steampunk technology in the development questions thread?
Way to welcome a new poster, Areyar. [/sarc] I know the suggestions in the development thread thing is annoying, but it's not hard to be less scornful about it. Remember, the atmosphere on this board is what we make of it--whether Bay12 remains an oasis of civility on the Internet is up to us.
Also, this is not steampunk technology. Steampunk is 99% pure BS (if you'll pardon the pun) that runs on the Rule of Cool. Manure power is actual real technology. Modern mostly, but the Chinese were using manure to produce power as early as the 1300s (brief Wikipedia reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas#History)). While I believe that's in the appropriate time period, it's not from the right geographic area. Regardless, it's not in the plan for DF.
As an aside, manure being used for heating does date to the appropriate time and region for DF. Of course, that won't matter until indoor/underground temperatures are no longer universally dwarf-comfortable.
Back on topic, I'm part of the generally-silent portion of the fan-base that is only semi-patiently awaiting bugfixing. I love me some new features, but it's kind of hard to get excited about them while I'm still waiting for old features that worked well to get fixed. Old broken features being ignored feel like something was given to you, and has now been taken away. Irrational, it's true, but that's how it feels. It's particularly discouraging when they've been ignored for the better part of a full year.
I know bugfixing isn't fun, but I'd like to request some attention to old bugs as well as the new ones during the upcoming debugging cycles. Or, since you're probably doing that already, just letting us know how it's going. Personally, knowing you're looking at why wagons don't appear would make my day, even if the final conclusion was "Damned if I know."
Having said that, I'm still very much enjoying the most recent version my computer can run, and look forward to seeing what comes next no matter what it is. Please don't allow people like me to discourage you! :)
Post by: Camden1990 on February 08, 2011, 07:04:38 pm
I'm not much of a poster either, but there have been a few complaints around bug fixing vs. new features.
Sure, I'd like crutches, hospitals, economies and wagons to work. But what I like much MUCH more than that is that this game is founded and developed by essentially one guy, who asks for nothing from his fanbase in terms of money.
We aren't entitled to complain, and have no reason to! The game is awesome, playable and regularly being improved. Bug fixes happen, quite frequently considering there is a SINGLE PROGRAMMER.
It is less game breakingly buggy than many mass developed beta games, and it is in alpha.
For those of you who donate and feel that it should give you some say in what Toady does with his game, for us fans, really aren't donating for the right reasons!
So really, I'm saying what Beardless is saying, ideally make the game perfect, but until then don't let any of the complaining get you down Toady! Keep up the awesome work.
Just my 2 cents, well, 2 pennies, being from England. And I mean no offense to anyone here, I just wanted to show solidarity for Toady.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 08, 2011, 07:31:24 pm
I like the schedule like it is right now. 1-2 weeks of bugfixing are actually nice and better then the even-numbered hotfix versions.
Post by: Camden1990 on February 08, 2011, 07:59:20 pm
I think that the nobles play with us in RL.
David Cameron, Conservative throws a fluffy wambler at the Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat
The Liberal Democrat has been struck down!
But yeah, I'm happiest when things are being released frequently, I like updates! Be it bugs or features!
Post by: Hondo on February 09, 2011, 01:50:52 am
Post by: Caldfir on February 09, 2011, 02:20:06 am
Post by: Cruxador on February 09, 2011, 02:41:20 am
I had a post all typed up about philosophy and bug fixes and things, but decided to drop it because talking about bugs is boring.Good idea - instead we can discuss whether or not it's boring to talk about bugs.
Post by: Areyar on February 09, 2011, 03:16:58 am
With the big revisions to various mechanics and the addition of so many features, it is logical that some older features get scrapped because they rely on depricated code, there have been some sweeping changes recently which will take time to settle down into something resembling a game.
I'm actually surprised how well the current version is running, a pity that so many interesting features just dont work right now, but I'd rather (temporarily!) not get a dungeon master than have him crash my party/game.
I am under the impression Toady is currently more concerned about getting some of the basics working right rather than fixing various very specific features/bugs. Which is fine. :D
One idea is to update the wiki so that features are marked for being buggy in version X.
Post by: Chromasphere on February 09, 2011, 11:48:40 am
I had a post all typed up about philosophy and bug fixes and things, but decided to drop it because talking about bugs is boring.Good idea - instead we can discuss whether or not it's boring to talk about bugs.
Uhhhh, I wake up... a little late... check the forums while coffee is brewing... and get the above discussion. It made me laugh quite loudly. Thank-you for helping me start the day off with a laugh and a good mood. :)
By the way, that was not sarcasm. I actually laughed out loud and found the humor enjoyable.
Post by: Mephansteras on February 09, 2011, 01:07:46 pm
I had a post all typed up about philosophy and bug fixes and things, but decided to drop it because talking about bugs is boring.
Bugs are quite interesting! We could have further exploration of ant-men society, the ramifications of beehives...oh. Those bugs. Yeah, that's boring.
Let's talk about insects instead. Much more interesting.
I want to see giant praying Mantis tied up in front of the fortress as guards.
Hmm...I should mod that in.
Post by: PTTG?? on February 09, 2011, 02:10:16 pm
Which leads to terrible misunderstandings when a diplomat comes up and demands to speak with the Queen.
Post by: Areyar on February 09, 2011, 03:21:37 pm
Have you read his recent fantasy novels of the Apt?
In this world all people/clans have insect totems and magical/inclination/physical abilities associated with that animal. It is a world in revolution as the ancient magically powerfull races are supplanted by practical 'apt' peoples as technology has advance to steam engines and powered flight.
It is an interesting concept and might make a fun mod.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Camden1990 on February 09, 2011, 08:33:33 pm
But his post made it look like we've got a medium-long wait for this release still. Not that I would complain much if that were the case, I'd be disappointed though!
Thoughts?
Post by: Cruxador on February 09, 2011, 08:38:53 pm
Did the "No ETA" part of Toady's post concern anyone else a bit? I was hoping that the news of having losts of quick releases meant we were getting close to this one, it has been nearly 3 months now. Not that Toady ever gave us reason to expect consistent updates, I just like them! 8)"No ETA" doesn't mean "It's a long time coming" it just means he doesn't really know how long. It's just dependent on what comes up. If everything goes swimmingly, it's entirely possible that we could get it in a week. Or it might take longer.
But his post made it look like we've got a medium-long wait for this release still. Not that I would complain much if that were the case, I'd be disappointed though!
Thoughts?
Post by: monk12 on February 09, 2011, 09:58:35 pm
Post by: Greiger on February 09, 2011, 10:25:58 pm
Post by: Untelligent on February 10, 2011, 01:50:22 am
Post by: drvoke on February 10, 2011, 03:45:09 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 10, 2011, 07:01:54 am
Post by: Knight Otu on February 10, 2011, 08:14:03 am
Thought the release-number is something he actually dont has to think about since he just greens out one or two points on his big list of features and fluff and the number goes up by itself.That used to be the case when the version number was married to the Core/Req/Bloat system. Now, while Toady still pays attention to the content of the relevant dev items, he doesn't quite track which cores get completed. With the mention that the number should technically go to about 33, I guess that he considers Core 38 (site resources) and maybe Core 78 (wilderness population tracking) to be (mostly) handled by the recent work. Cores 3 (caravans) and 77 (age and population tracking for entities) seem to be covered by the upcoming small releases (release 4 and 5, respectively).
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 10, 2011, 08:50:44 am
Post by: Qinetix on February 10, 2011, 10:32:28 am
Post by: MrWiggles on February 10, 2011, 11:04:40 am
Can we actually see during adventure mode goblins sieging a human fortress?This would be cool.
But I think this should be in the adventure mode discussion forum.
Post by: PTTG?? on February 10, 2011, 12:15:57 pm
Just try not to overload that cat on 'nip. It can do weird things to kitty brains.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 10, 2011, 12:28:37 pm
Can we actually see during adventure mode goblins sieging a human fortress?
That is something that should be part of the army arc which has yet to come. AtM sieges are only in Worlgen.
Post by: darkflagrance on February 10, 2011, 03:02:33 pm
Can we actually see during adventure mode goblins sieging a human fortress?
That is something that should be part of the army arc which has yet to come. AtM sieges are only in Worlgen.
Not entirely. I've read about adventurers coming across towns under siege by hordes of animals or elves. It's just a ridiculously rare and abnormal occurrence with unpredictable triggers.
Post by: Areyar on February 10, 2011, 04:23:08 pm
possibly he'll do sieges/armies together with caravans, gangs and other travellers
If Foot were here, he'd be able to tell you which DFtalk or even literally quote Toady.
Post by: Lord Shonus on February 11, 2011, 09:07:03 am
I've done it with humans against humans. Was a real mess.Can we actually see during adventure mode goblins sieging a human fortress?
That is something that should be part of the army arc which has yet to come. AtM sieges are only in Worlgen.
Not entirely. I've read about adventurers coming across towns under siege by hordes of animals or elves. It's just a ridiculously rare and abnormal occurrence with unpredictable triggers.
Post by: Footkerchief on February 11, 2011, 10:40:48 am
IIRC Tarn talked a bit about groups moving on the map again,
possibly he'll do sieges/armies together with caravans, gangs and other travellers
If Foot were here, he'd be able to tell you which DFtalk or even literally quote Toady.
Not sure which specific quote you had in mind, but here's some recent stuff from DF Talk.
Quote from: DF Talk
Rainseeker: [1d]Is there ever going to be a time when goblins actually come and say 'we demand tribute, and then we'll go away?'
Toady: Yeah I mean there should be, they already do that in ... I mean they don't, I guess ... actually I don't remember if they do ... is it just the humans that do tribute relationships? Because there's these fake tribute relationships in world generation that aren't realised in any way. You could start in a fortress where every other fortress in your civilization is paying tribute to humans and you just don't hear or have anything to do with it. That kind of thing is ... I think all that stuff is up on dev next which means we're kind of starting to think about how it's going to work. It's all coming; we have this thing up on the future - post version one - goals about actual complicated diplomacy, whatever that means, where we'd actually be thinking a lot more about arrangements and individual goals and so on; but we're going to be doing a lot of that also in the pretty short term here. With things like tribute it's going to require ... I don't want to point everything back at the caravan arc because that became kind of a habit ... Really what that is shorthand for 'sites have resources and things are tracked', so that's going to have to happen kind of soon too, especially when you start sending armies out which is one of the things right after sieges are improved quite a bit, there's already going to be armies moving on the world map at that time, and your dwarves are also going to be able to send out armies after sieges are improved, and at that point we've got to start thinking about things like supply lines and so on. There's a sense in which that could be aggravating, but I think it really improves the flow of wars and so on to have to worry about that kind of thing so you just don't have strange things happening like some army marching from town to town without taking anything, just killing everything, without being supported. What I'm getting at, though, is [that] when you've got supply lines where an army's being supplied it's similar to paying tribute, to moving goods around in that way, which also goes back to the caravan arc. It's kind of a race to see which one's going to go in first, but people are going to be moving stuff around; at that point things like guys coming to you and demanding things of you instead of just trying to kill everybody would be easily attained, which would be cool.
[...]
Toady: [...] So for improved sieges you need to have armies moving around the map, that was one of our requirements; it's not a strict requirement, you could just improve the sieges, but in order for them to make sense they need to be coming from someplace, and we're going to want them to come from real historical figures, more so than they already do if they're commanders. For that to work out the civilization needs to know where to pull them from, and also just to increase the overall interest in our world we're going to do that motivation stuff right there, at least enough pieces of it to make some sense out of things; to have the armies moving on the world map, having them come from places and so on. So when they decide to attack you we're going to step that up from just being a random event that occurs: right now it's just like 'It's Spring, and ... flip the coin? Did you get it? Oh, well, too bad; goblin attack'. There's nothing going on there, nothing at all. So the more we put in there ... you put it into dwarf mode, you put it into world generation, and eventually adventure mode starts to see some of this as well; and it'll just get better and better. Hopefully now that I've done so much of it there'll be less fussing around with 'what tissues make up the toe?' [and more] sweeping world generation changes.
[...]
Rainseeker: Here's a question from DG: 'Will the arrival of a merchant once per year no longer be guaranteed if or when the time it takes for them to arrive is determined by the distance and terrain between your fort and their starting point?'
Toady: We're thinking about letting that one float once we got the model up to the point where it worked well enough, then we're just going to let it ride. Now right now the world is not so big that you can't walk across it in ... what does it take in adventure mode, I think you can step twelve tiles in day? I really don't remember. So if you're in adventure and you can go twelve tiles in a day then even in a large world you can go twenty or twenty two days to cross the entire world. So if you take the caravans time and up it up - up it up, up it up, that's great - if you shoot it up by like five times then it would still take a hundred days to cross the entire world, and if that's the case then there shouldn't be problems with not getting a dwarven caravan every year, even if they stop at various cities, even if they stop a city for like five days and move on. Five days is nothing in dwarf mode time, and then they'll mode to the next place and be shooting all over the world. That should work out well, especially if you can support several caravans at once and you have something that ends up looking more like a bazaar or something out in front of your fortress, people stop, there could even be local merchants from nearby villages or something like that that hang there quite a bit and your own guys and so on. It could be pretty cool out there.
Post by: Camden1990 on February 11, 2011, 12:13:58 pm
And if you say it 3 times in one post, he appears in real life to take you to the magma baths for asking too many questions.
Edit: Tol is Right! I did forget to ask my question... hmmm... if an elf dies in the woods, so no one hears it, is it still Dorfy? Or does it have to be witnessed?
Post by: TolyK on February 11, 2011, 12:18:07 pm
I've heard that if you say Footkerchief in your post, he is immediately summoned with all the knowledge you could need.and what is your question?
And if you say it 3 times in one post, he appears in real life to take you to the magma baths for asking too many questions.
;)
Will caravan arc things be re-used in the army arc? (i.e. traveling entities, the stuff they carry, etc.)?
Post by: Knight Otu on February 11, 2011, 01:34:47 pm
Will caravan arc things be re-used in the army arc? (i.e. traveling entities, the stuff they carry, etc.)?Unless I'm terribly misunderstanding, that's part of the point, isn't it? Support for traveling groups, the equipment they have access to, the reason why they go where they are going...
Post by: Untelligent on February 11, 2011, 02:41:27 pm
Post by: TolyK on February 11, 2011, 02:43:08 pm
Yeah, there's a lot of stuff that needs framework provided by the caravan arc like that stuff for stuff to work.which is why I asked ;)
Post by: EmeraldWind on February 11, 2011, 11:08:46 pm
The reason I ask is I noticed in my first fort that there were some battles nearby where human villages were besieged by elephants once every 20 years or so. I wanted to look more into these weird occurrences, but found I could not look up battles as a topic (at least I couldn't find a way).
I figured that its a feature in the works (both because I see that each major battle in dwarf mode has a name and I'm pretty sure I seen it mentioned in a DF Talk somewhere) so I just thought "oh well", but with the Army Arc coming I was curious if that would be included in with the Army Arc or saved for a future update perhaps when Legends mode receives updates. I'm not asking for an ETA or anything specific timing-wise. Just if it will be included in the Army Arc or not.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 12, 2011, 12:01:59 am
Will Legends mode have a section for battle added to it as a part of the Army Arc?
The reason I ask is I noticed in my first fort that there were some battles nearby where human villages were besieged by elephants once every 20 years or so. I wanted to look more into these weird occurrences, but found I could not look up battles as a topic (at least I couldn't find a way).
I figured that its a feature in the works (both because I see that each major battle in dwarf mode has a name and I'm pretty sure I seen it mentioned in a DF Talk somewhere) so I just thought "oh well", but with the Army Arc coming I was curious if that would be included in with the Army Arc or saved for a future update perhaps when Legends mode receives updates. I'm not asking for an ETA or anything specific timing-wise. Just if it will be included in the Army Arc or not.
That's funny... I can find battles and such just fine in legends mode. It doesn't have a "battles" tab, if that's what you mean, but it's all the yellow stuff in the "The Age of ____" catagories.
I haven't gone looking for animal attacks specifically, though.
Post by: Caldfir on February 12, 2011, 02:05:14 am
So yes, you can look at battles now, and someday you will be able to see more.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 12, 2011, 11:35:44 am
Post by: Caldfir on February 12, 2011, 01:37:05 pm
Toady you planned for release 2 of the current arc "Work with 3D mineral veins and mine maps" does this include 3D Stone-blobs? Like microline being more a spheric inclusion then a circle-ish sheet in the surrounding stone.Oh good. More microline.
Post by: Untelligent on February 12, 2011, 02:25:00 pm
Post by: darkflagrance on February 12, 2011, 03:53:09 pm
Post by: MagmaMcFry on February 12, 2011, 04:40:08 pm
Oh hell, I hope the radius of 3D clusters is shortened a bit to compensate for the extra stuff on the other levels.
I think the large cluster mechanism will be updated to have more variations, not just one big fat blob o' microcline right in the middle of every map square on every z-level. Think of a bag of marbles, not a coin stack.
Post by: Untelligent on February 12, 2011, 06:10:52 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 12, 2011, 08:03:58 pm
... I'm going to Wikipedia to look at how these things actually form, be back later...
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 12, 2011, 08:23:09 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 12, 2011, 08:37:02 pm
Microcline and other feldspars are apparently formed in igneous layers just based upon having a set number of the right types of minerals forming together in one place. They stick around in metamorphic layers just by not changing. Their formation should roughly reflect the shape of the layer they are found in. If it came up in a volcanic vent that cooled at or near the surface, it should be a flat blob of a stratified layer. If it cooled in a magma chamber, it should be a lining of that magma chamber, reflecting the path that the magma took to get there, so a tube and a bulb type of shape.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on February 12, 2011, 08:43:27 pm
wich reminds me of something...
Quote from: dev page
# Work with 3D mineral veins and mine mapswill stone layers become less... flat? i mean:
Spoiler: picture (click to show/hide)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 12, 2011, 08:54:07 pm
I'd really like to see something like a diagonal layer of metamorphic stone, with veins of ore travelling in a similar diagonal band, and then have the layer above it be a horizontally-flat sedimentary stone.
Post by: TolyK on February 13, 2011, 02:55:57 am
Like this kinda (side view):
Code: [Select]
######~~~###
###~~~###~~~
~~~#########
Post by: zwei on February 13, 2011, 04:43:00 am
hmmm I'm already seeing some of this in my current fort. there's soil/sand/sedimentary/flux going in a sort of "wave" on the z-axis.
Like this kinda (side view):Code: [Select]######~~~###
###~~~###~~~
~~~#########
This usually happens when you have several different biomes meeting at map, layers are then kida erratic like this.
Post by: TolyK on February 13, 2011, 04:45:52 am
it's actually 1 biome. I think it's already partially in (light folding and such)hmmm I'm already seeing some of this in my current fort. there's soil/sand/sedimentary/flux going in a sort of "wave" on the z-axis.
Like this kinda (side view):Code: [Select]######~~~###
###~~~###~~~
~~~#########
This usually happens when you have several different biomes meeting at map, layers are then kida erratic like this.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 13, 2011, 01:43:15 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 13, 2011, 02:14:59 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grand_Canyon_geologic_column.jpg
See the diagonal layers at the bottom with the horizontal layers stacked on top? Yeah, like that.
Spoiler: picture (click to show/hide)
This is ideal. This isn't just "the layer bends with the surface height", it's "actual geologic processes are modeled and represented in-game."
If we had things like modeling how mafic or felsic magma was, and what minerals it would produce in specific regions, so that we would have to start having that Abundance of Resources (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=69644.0) type of thing, where we would have to look for very specific geological formations to have any chance of finding that Lapis Lazuli deposit which is so imperitive to find for your Aquamarine pigments that are so valuable in trade.
Post by: Knigel on February 13, 2011, 03:51:17 pm
Post by: EmperorNuthulu on February 13, 2011, 04:08:49 pm
Post by: metime00 on February 13, 2011, 04:10:46 pm
I'm posting a little late, but I have personally seen animals siege a town in Adventure mode: it was in a early .31 version (before .08, because I remember I couldn't butcher anything) where a town was invaded by horses and rhesus macaques.
I kited a wolf pack into a town once. I believe there was one or two human casualties. Does that count?
Post by: NSQuote on February 13, 2011, 08:04:11 pm
> Just started a new fortress hours before the announcement
EVERY SINGLE TIME ::)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 13, 2011, 08:17:23 pm
> The time frame for the release is <7 days
> Just started a new fortress hours before the announcement
EVERY SINGLE TIME ::)
So? It shouldn't be save-breaking, so just enjoy your fort, and upgrade when it's time to upgrade.
If you held off on playing because there would be a new version coming out, then you would never have played DF at all. The game will probably never truly stop having updates until Toady either ragequits the whole thing or dies of old age.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 13, 2011, 08:30:36 pm
Btw. thanks toady for the scamps picks :P he has grown up very well. He kinda reminds me of the cat i head some years ago. *sheds a tear*
Post by: Untelligent on February 13, 2011, 08:44:44 pm
Post by: NSQuote on February 13, 2011, 08:47:13 pm
Since Toady said there was a new version coming soon, I decided to hold off for a few weeks and build up some serious apetite for Microcline.> The time frame for the release is <7 days
> Just started a new fortress hours before the announcement
EVERY SINGLE TIME ::)
So? It shouldn't be save-breaking, so just enjoy your fort, and upgrade when it's time to upgrade.
If you held off on playing because there would be a new version coming out, then you would never have played DF at all. The game will probably never truly stop having updates until Toady either ragequits the whole thing or dies of old age.
The day I crack and give into temptation is the day I find out a new version is on the horizon. I am the worst~ :U
---
Former-Baby Scamps looks adorable, you need to post more pictures of our fuzzy-wuzzy megabeast.
Post by: caknuck on February 13, 2011, 09:49:47 pm
... although I'm not sure actual geology works that way, though. They shouldn't all be the same depth, but at the same time, layers are layers because they are created at different times through different geological methods. A geode might form inside of a small pocket in the stone, but a total sphere doesn't seem like the sort of thing that should happen.
... I'm going to Wikipedia to look at how these things actually form, be back later...
Igneous intrusive formations (granite, gabbro, etc.) almost never occur in layers. If you want a good Wikipedia article with which to start, try batholith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batholith).
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 13, 2011, 09:50:38 pm
And after that it goes Open-source (given that toady did die on oldage) and someone else like Baughn and small group of enthusiasts takes the hat.
Btw. thanks toady for the scamps picks :P he has grown up very well. He kinda reminds me of the cat i head some years ago. *sheds a tear*
Yeah, I have an American Shorthair that looks similar, but has a tail, and a white underbelly and "gloves" on her paws. She's an old cat, now, though, (17!) and has an arthritic hip and moves around even less than her lazy bones used to move. She basically just acts as a hot water bottle in bed, now, and only gets up to go to the food dish and litterbox and occasionally rowls for attention.
Post by: superradish on February 13, 2011, 09:59:56 pm
Thanks for everything!
Post by: Cruxador on February 13, 2011, 10:28:40 pm
What's the timeline for adding a better mouse interface? The goblin camp UI comes to mind... MS-paint style wall creation and right click to bring up most menus. It's very slick, really. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm-dPes5NgEThat's presentation arc stuff. It's essentially last in line, as including it earlier would make other additions harder. In other words, not for years. There's no specific timeline, though.
Thanks for everything!
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 13, 2011, 10:55:36 pm
That's presentation arc stuff. It's essentially last in line, as including it earlier would make other additions harder. In other words, not for years. There's no specific timeline, though.
I get to use the exact same quote and general message twice in one day...
"The stocks screen and likely the unit list" (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1943773#msg1943773) are scheduled to get reworked soon, but I doubt a comprehensive interface overhaul will ever happen. It's just too entrenched at this point.
Interface is not something that cripples the game or the ability to expand it, it's something that fundamentally changes the way in which the game is viewed from even a fundamental philosophical standpoint, player and developer alike. What is easily presented to the player determines what is important to the game overall. You can't pretend like it's just some superficial gloss, it's what determines what the player has the ability to do in the game, and because of that, what can go (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61215.0) and can't go in the game (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=76926.0) for want of ability to represent it.
Interface changes are what enable expansions of the game, not something that prevents them. To dismiss interface requests as "bottom of the list" or unimportant until everything else in the game is done is simply an invalid argument.
... That said, I'm not exactly holding my breath for mouse-based interface (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=77192.0).
Post by: Untelligent on February 14, 2011, 12:36:23 am
Interface changes are what enable expansions of the game, not something that prevents them. To dismiss interface requests as "bottom of the list" or unimportant until everything else in the game is done is simply an invalid argument.
The argument isn't really that they're less important than other stuff, so much that making an time-consuming interface update for a feature that's going to be scrapped and reworked within a year or two makes it less appealing to do, and so DF's interface doesn't get as many updates as people would like.
That's not to say we don't get interface updates when there's a pressing need for it. I seem to recall the trade depot menu used to be more convoluted. And then there's the mass construct/forbid/dump stuff.
Post by: Cruxador on February 14, 2011, 01:01:51 am
That is true in some respects - I'd think that the game will remain 2d, tile-based, and top down, for example. Despite all the visualizers that have existed, I don't imagine dwarf fortress will ever natively exist in 3d.That's presentation arc stuff. It's essentially last in line, as including it earlier would make other additions harder. In other words, not for years. There's no specific timeline, though.
I get to use the exact same quote and general message twice in one day..."The stocks screen and likely the unit list" (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1943773#msg1943773) are scheduled to get reworked soon, but I doubt a comprehensive interface overhaul will ever happen. It's just too entrenched at this point.
Interface is not something that cripples the game or the ability to expand it, it's something that fundamentally changes the way in which the game is viewed from even a fundamental philosophical standpoint, player and developer alike. What is easily presented to the player determines what is important to the game overall. You can't pretend like it's just some superficial gloss, it's what determines what the player has the ability to do in the game, and because of that, what can go (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61215.0) and can't go in the game (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=76926.0) for want of ability to represent it.
Interface changes are what enable expansions of the game, not something that prevents them. To dismiss interface requests as "bottom of the list" or unimportant until everything else in the game is done is simply an invalid argument.
... That said, I'm not exactly holding my breath for mouse-based interface (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=77192.0).
But adding the mouse stuff seen in Goblin Camp should mostly be feasible.
Post by: superradish on February 14, 2011, 01:13:43 am
Post by: kiffer.geo on February 14, 2011, 07:27:05 am
Nothing about that goblin camp interface would even touch anything about the game or make it unchangeable. The difference in programming between 'press this key to make this happen' and 'click here to make this happen' is so superficial it's hardly worth mentioning. You can already click spots to dig, and change the volume with the mouse. Same concept.
... Making a load of context menues isn't the hardest thing in the world but is harder than listening for keypresses and reacting... But more importantly than how difficult it is to do... it takes a lot of time and testing, and every time a new thing is added it adds to the update work load... and spending time on a half assed update that will be gutted out anyway is a little wasteful...
List orders, sorting and keyboard layout would do more to clean up the interface than a nice set of clicky mouse options...
No one thinks that the interface doesn't need work...
Post by: zwei on February 14, 2011, 07:49:37 am
Nothing about that goblin camp interface would even touch anything about the game or make it unchangeable. The difference in programming between 'press this key to make this happen' and 'click here to make this happen' is so superficial it's hardly worth mentioning. You can already click spots to dig, and change the volume with the mouse. Same concept.
... Making a load of context menues isn't the hardest thing in the world but is harder than listening for keypresses and reacting... But more importantly than how difficult it is to do... it takes a lot of time and testing, and every time a new thing is added it adds to the update work load... and spending time on a half assed update that will be gutted out anyway is a little wasteful...
List orders, sorting and keyboard layout would do more to clean up the interface than a nice set of clicky mouse options...
No one thinks that the interface doesn't need work...
While i agree on the fact that lists sorts, and searches would benefit more than goblin camp style stuff, lets think in terms of framework: Properly done ui "component" can be reused, saving works and helping user at same time.
There are, however, other thing that can help out user interface: for example, when all workshops get rawified (which i guess is going to be quite hard), workshop ui improvements will be easier to pull off.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 14, 2011, 08:26:29 am
A first person game would have obvious use for a mouse - that has analogue look and movement style. Having an analogue input makes it much easier to interact with the game. The big push in this, however, seems to be to add click-and-drag to map viewing...
I mean, really, you want click-and-drag?! Why would you ever want click-and-drag scrolling when you have keypress scrolling already? Click-and-drag scrolling is the bane of ease of control, especially in any game that might possibly have lag, where it still thinks you're holding down the mouse button while you're flicking the mouse back up to grab again, and it sends your screen flying in the opposite direction you want it to. And you know this is going to be a problem with Dwarf Fortress, don't even kid yourselves.
A sensible all-keyboard interface is the ideal in a setup like DF has. Let's just work on getting a revised set of keys and menus that gives the player a more streamlined and intuitive set of controls, rather than gluing in some of the worst interface aspects from the rest of computing.
Post by: TolyK on February 14, 2011, 08:30:03 am
> The time frame for the release is <7 daysSame thing here.
> Just started a new fortress hours before the announcement
EVERY SINGLE TIME ::)
wait.
> The time frame for the release is <7 days
> Just started a new fortress hours before the announcement
> The time frame for the release is <7 days
release is <7 daysFUCK YEAH!!!
*****
I guess I just don't see any advantage to using the mouse. I mean, I look at those goblin camp demos, and just see someone with a system that forces me to hunt through a context menu every time when it's so much easier to just mash "bCwlllll7774" than to try to find the proper spots on the screen to click. indubitably.Agreed.
A first person game would have obvious use for a mouse - that has analogue look and movement style. Having an analogue input makes it much easier to interact with the game. The big push in this, however, seems to be to add click-and-drag to map viewing...
I mean, really, you want click-and-drag?! hell no! Why would you ever want click-and-drag scrolling when you have keypress scrolling already? Click-and-drag scrolling is the bane of ease of control, especially in any game that might possibly have lag, where it still thinks you're holding down the mouse button while you're flicking the mouse back up to grab again, and it sends your screen flying in the opposite direction you want it to. And you know this is going to be a problem with Dwarf Fortress, don't even kid yourselves. in*insert little kid picture here*
A sensible all-keyboard interface is the ideal in a setup like DF has. Let's just work on getting a revised set of keys and menus that gives the player a more streamlined and intuitive set of controls, rather than gluing in some of the worst interface aspects from the rest of computing.
Basically, "I Want the Z key to bring stocks everywhere, X to expand lists, U for units, K for looking, and so on." Sensible I think.
Post by: Jiri Petru on February 14, 2011, 08:51:20 am
Every single time someone cries for a better interface, it quickly evolves into a pro mouse - vs. mouse fight. It's just a strawman. Forget about the mouse. Even re-organizing the horrible gumbo of menus, commands and underlying systems (the mishmash of workshops, zones, rooms, designations) so that they'd have at least some sanity would help users immensely and wouldn't make further developments any slower.
Post by: G-Flex on February 14, 2011, 09:40:42 am
Post by: KillerClowns on February 14, 2011, 10:57:43 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 14, 2011, 11:11:51 am
Post by: Waparius on February 14, 2011, 11:19:19 am
Every single time someone cries for a better interface, it quickly evolves into a pro mouse - vs. mouse fight. It's just a strawman. Forget about the mouse. Even re-organizing the horrible gumbo of menus, commands and underlying systems (the mishmash of workshops, zones, rooms, designations) so that they'd have at least some sanity would help users immensely and wouldn't make further developments any slower.
Pretty much, though I don't know how easy it would be to implement some of the things that keep coming up. I mean, I don't know anything about programming, but for example one thing a lot of people (me included) want is to have the building system streamlined so that everything works like hospitals - you designate rooms or workshops or meeting halls like a zone or a stockpile, and place furniture in them for your dwarves to work/sleep on. It's all in one system. But it seems like it would change a whole lot of little things and make programming trickier, since it means workshops are now rooms, new furniture has to be put in, multiple dwarves have to be able to work in workshops, etc, etc.
But I have to admit it would help a lot if I could go straight from the [N]otes menu to the building options/[q] menu without moving the cursor, since I like to put levers in meeting halls.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 14, 2011, 12:12:41 pm
I am with G-flex here and seriously Therapist and Co. might be usefull but they arent needed at all to play the game.
Perhaps not necessary, but Therapist doesn't really add any sort of functionality to the game, it doesn't really "cheat" unless you make it, it just serves to help format your information to make it more readily accessable. It's a major help in sorting information so that you can make informed decisions. It gives you information in seconds that would take five, ten minutes of scanning the unit lists and writing down information about dwarves that you would have to do without it because that information requires digging through many pages of interface with no help from any sort of cursor memory or easy sorting in the units screen.
No, maybe you don't need to really care about all the information, and you can just blithely ignore many things like personality traits when assigning jobs, and never looking back and never bothering to manage how many people were assigned to any one particular job. (Of course, didn't we just have a dialogue in this thread about why ignoring personality traits when assigning jobs was a problem?)
It shouldn't even be controversial that Dwarf Therapist adds some information management utilities that the game really could use, since even Toady seems to implicitly agree and may be working on some of the interface soon, like the Units screen.
Post by: Caldfir on February 14, 2011, 12:53:47 pm
Anyway, the UI debate shouldn't be seen as "pro-UI" vs "anti-UI" because I think we can all agree that intuitive user interface is in general a good thing (even pro- and anti-mouse is silly because nobody is talking about removing keyboard functions). It is just a question of priority. Toady avoids UI changes because, if I remember correctly, he worries about moving everything to a system that needs to be totally overhauled because of some future functionality. UI improvements mid-development can really turn into a time-waster when there is a chance you will just be throwing them away.
The question here is if there is a system for these things that would universally work, be intuitive, and wouldn't need updating when new features are added. The question of what to update is important as well. Toady is, as is often pointed out, only one guy, so he can only work on one ting at a time, and in the end, all of our debates and questions are really about what is highest priority.
Post by: tps12 on February 14, 2011, 01:14:25 pm
Perhaps not necessary, but Therapist doesn't really add any sort of functionality to the game, it doesn't really "cheat" unless you make it, it just serves to help format your information to make it more readily accessable. It's a major help in sorting information so that you can make informed decisions. It gives you information in seconds that would take five, ten minutes of scanning the unit lists and writing down information about dwarves that you would have to do without it because that information requires digging through many pages of interface with no help from any sort of cursor memory or easy sorting in the units screen.
Well there is the idea that the information available to the player represents what can reasonably be known by a fortress's leadership. So you can know how many socks you have, but only if you've assigned somebody to run around counting up all the socks, and so forth.
Having to wade through all those personality profiles and labor settings taking notes can be seen as a reasonably good representation of the difficulty of organizing a populous community.
I think the medical system shows where the developers tend to want to go with this kind of thing, which is why we will be more likely to see an actual dwarf who is a therapist in the game than the DT functionality reproduced inside DF.
Post by: Chthonic on February 14, 2011, 01:28:06 pm
Pretty much, though I don't know how easy it would be to implement some of the things that keep coming up. I mean, I don't know anything about programming, but for example one thing a lot of people (me included) want is to have the building system streamlined so that everything works like hospitals - you designate rooms or workshops or meeting halls like a zone or a stockpile, and place furniture in them for your dwarves to work/sleep on. It's all in one system. But it seems like it would change a whole lot of little things and make programming trickier, since it means workshops are now rooms, new furniture has to be put in, multiple dwarves have to be able to work in workshops, etc, etc.
This is my ideal world. Designate a long hall as some type of workshop. Designate a stockpile in that hall to receive raw materials from a master stockpile. Without stockpiles, dwarves might use coffers or built bins, or leave the large stuff lying on the floor. For meticulous things, a dwarf squat on the floor, or in better workshops sit on a chair at a table. Another stockpile might be used as a receiver for new items. Pieces of big equipment like the loom or anvil become bits of furniture like tables/chairs . . . quality of items produced is partially dependent on the workshop's equipment and quality thereof . . .
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 14, 2011, 01:40:05 pm
Well there is the idea that the information available to the player represents what can reasonably be known by a fortress's leadership. So you can know how many socks you have, but only if you've assigned somebody to run around counting up all the socks, and so forth.
Having to wade through all those personality profiles and labor settings taking notes can be seen as a reasonably good representation of the difficulty of organizing a populous community.
I think the medical system shows where the developers tend to want to go with this kind of thing, which is why we will be more likely to see an actual dwarf who is a therapist in the game than the DT functionality reproduced inside DF.
And in a real world, you don't have the absolute command you have over dwarves that you do in DF. I've argued in the past to make dwarves more autonomous, to let them choose their own jobs, and to only give out incentives or set wages for jobs to entice dwarves whose personalities are more suited to one job or another choose for themselves.
This is met by criticism from many of the same people who make that sort of argument that it takes away control over the dwarves, and that they need their ability to micromanage, which in turn, makes the player need far more information so as to effectively do that micromanagement.
Post by: Untelligent on February 14, 2011, 05:15:59 pm
Also since DT lets me do that even more instantly it would be nice if its job-management thing were in the vanilla game someday.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 14, 2011, 06:11:14 pm
I did some searching Toady posts and "UI" and "GUI" and "interface", but everything is either from two or more years ago, or very short and specifically about the stocks and units screen (and even then, vague).
Toady, since so many of us are discussing possible UI changes, could you give us some sort of idea of what sort of changes are "on the table" for you? There is talk about how much the mouse will dominate the interface, whether the interface ideas like Jiri Petru's (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=34949.0) are feasable, and whether we can have a sweep-up of controls in vanilla keybindings, so that there is more consistancy in the interface's control philosophy, and if you are set on one control philosophy (like first letter in a word is its keybinding versus localizing keybindings, such as with "u" being upstair and "j" being downstair to be be near one another). Likewise, it's worth those of us in the debate knowing how much possibility is there of either minor or major changes to the UI like the changes to the long and short term (short being "a couple years") of DF's development.
I realize it makes some people upset when I ask detailed questions, but to a certain extent, it feels like the forums are arguing over what is feasable or not with scraps of information. A clear idea of what is or isn't feasable, and in what vague timeframe these things might happen would go a long way in helping shape the debate.
Post by: G-Flex on February 14, 2011, 06:13:25 pm
There does seem to be a group of people who think that not using tilesets or utilities makes them somehow better, and argue furiously that these things are pointless. Really I don't understand the mindset. It is pretty clear that dwarf therapist does a very good job of presenting otherwise obscured information. Its fine to like using ASCII tiles or the default job interface, but trying to argue it is better is very strange.
I don't think these are very comparable things. I mean, I agree with you except that I think ASCII vs. tiles is even more up to personal preference, as tiles have their drawback to and (aside from creatures) you're still limited to the same number of tiles. There are certainly valid reasons to prefer text, whereas the impact of something like Dwarf Therapist is almost strictly positive.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 14, 2011, 06:32:20 pm
I mean, I agree with you except that I think ASCII vs. tiles is even more up to personal preference, as tiles have their drawback to and (aside from creatures) you're still limited to the same number of tiles.
Theoretically, isn't this what the "Full Graphical Support" ESV winner was about doing? The "make everything potentially graphics-pack-able"?
... Of course, now that I look, it isn't actually on the Devpage... was it always off the devpage, or was it taken off?
Post by: G-Flex on February 14, 2011, 06:35:07 pm
Theoretically, isn't this what the "Full Graphical Support" ESV winner was about doing? The "make everything potentially graphics-pack-able"?
Even if tile count were totally arbitrary, there's still something to be said for how subjective the argument between the two styles is. Even if you could use a different tile for everything, it would still be interesting to see how that looks using textual glyphs.
Post by: Cruxador on February 14, 2011, 07:57:54 pm
OK, since I'm in multiple threads talking about this at the same time, I think I might as well throw this one out there, as well.This probably would be a better DF Talk question than a question for here. Though I doubt Toady has much to tell us about it anyway.
I did some searching Toady posts and "UI" and "GUI" and "interface", but everything is either from two or more years ago, or very short and specifically about the stocks and units screen (and even then, vague).
Toady, since so many of us are discussing possible UI changes, could you give us some sort of idea of what sort of changes are "on the table" for you? There is talk about how much the mouse will dominate the interface, whether the interface ideas like Jiri Petru's (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=34949.0) are feasable, and whether we can have a sweep-up of controls in vanilla keybindings, so that there is more consistancy in the interface's control philosophy, and if you are set on one control philosophy (like first letter in a word is its keybinding versus localizing keybindings, such as with "u" being upstair and "j" being downstair to be be near one another). Likewise, it's worth those of us in the debate knowing how much possibility is there of either minor or major changes to the UI like the changes to the long and short term (short being "a couple years") of DF's development.
I realize it makes some people upset when I ask detailed questions, but to a certain extent, it feels like the forums are arguing over what is feasable or not with scraps of information. A clear idea of what is or isn't feasable, and in what vague timeframe these things might happen would go a long way in helping shape the debate.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 14, 2011, 08:29:08 pm
Besides, I just don't listen to DF Talk, and its hard to read the transcripts because it's so rambling and often either vague or only tangentially addresses topics. This thread provides much more direct and useful answers to questions.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on February 14, 2011, 08:30:12 pm
This probably would be a better DF Talk question than a question for here. Though I doubt Toady has much to tell us about it anyway.
eh, that seems to be a trend with nw_kohaku... it's a pity, though, he seems to really think things through, has really good sugestions and his questions are both pertinent and well elaborated, but for toady to answer them properly he'd probably have to waste as much time on his questions as he'd waste answering all the others...
i'd vote for toady to dedicate a df talk or another interview just to his questions and suggestions, not only to reward his dedication, but because his thoughts are actually interesting and pertinent... he does have a tendency to plug his own suggestion threads, but i usually don't mind it because i think they deserve some attention
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 14, 2011, 08:55:57 pm
he does have a tendency to plug his own suggestion threads, but i usually don't mind it because i think they deserve some attention
Actually, I'm not sure how much that annoys people... I try to plug other people's too, when it's relevant, but I'm not as good at remembering the threads I didn't at least have some serious conversation in. But I tend to scare people off with tl;dr, so "advertising" occasionally brings people into the conversation when I throw it in. I have no real idea how much it annoys people when I do it, though...
I guess PM me about it if it annoys you and you want to say so, though, as this topic really doesn't belong in the FotF thread.
Post by: nbonaparte on February 14, 2011, 08:57:44 pm
Post by: G-Flex on February 14, 2011, 09:36:03 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 14, 2011, 09:59:41 pm
EDIT:
Although I recognize it was a complex question, what I asked was also something that many people have been discussing for quite some time now. At best, the Footkerchief fairy appears and graces the threads with select Toady quotes, and links to previous discussions.
Those quotes are a couple years old now, and the game has changed since then, and so has DF to a degree. It's reasonable to expect that Toady has grown as a developer and changed his mind about a handful of his earlier ideas. Which ones, I don't know until the question gets asked.
If the stocks screen has been changed, or is being changed in the course of the next set of releases, it's reasonable to speculate that he has changed his mind on how best to have the game interact with the player on at least some levels, and it's worth knowing how far he's willing to go with that trend, so that it can shape what sorts of avenues forumgoers who want to contribute through the suggestion threads travel down.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on February 14, 2011, 11:02:16 pm
I think that a lot of people have potentially interesting things to say, and that Who Gets To Talk To Toady shouldn't be decided via some weird forum popularity contest based on who talks the most about his own ideas (which isn't to say anything about about NW_Kohaku's ideas; I just think this is extremely silly).it's not really that, it's just that i think he has some merit for actually taking his suggestions seriously and doing his homework, this often makes his suggestions and questions a bit... unwieldy, though, so the only way to address them properly would be with a dedicated interview. i understand how that might go against the democratic values, though
I guess PM me about it if it annoys you and you want to say so, though, as this topic really doesn't belong in the FotF thread.i thought i had made it clear that it doesn't annoy me at all, as i said, i think your ideas deserve some atention
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 14, 2011, 11:32:13 pm
I guess PM me about it if it annoys you and you want to say so, though, as this topic really doesn't belong in the FotF thread.i thought i had made it clear that it doesn't annoy me at all, as i said, i think your ideas deserve some atention
Errr... I expanded the scope of that "you" to mean anyone in the thread, even if I guess I didn't make that explicit.
Post by: carebear on February 15, 2011, 06:15:03 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 15, 2011, 06:45:35 am
btw. I am not against Therapist or tilesets i was just saying that these things arent necessary to play the game in a proper way. I can see therapists usefullnes thought.
Post by: Jiri Petru on February 15, 2011, 08:23:15 am
...Dwarf Fortress is not an alpha. Not in the typical sense, where alphas are a shortish (say, a year) time frame with a definite end. Dwarf Fortress is expected to reach version 1.0 in about 20 years (?) which stretches the definition of alpha quite a bit. While some people are happy to judge the game by alpha standards, many others (me included) do not. By all normal standards except the official numbering, Dwarf Fortress is a released product with an established player base that just keeps getting further "expansion packs".
The problem here is simple. I think noone would mind accepting the "alpha argument" if there was an end in sight. Something like: "I'd love to finish the caravan and army arcs, after which I'll proclaim the game beta and will focus on polishing more." I've bought and supported many games with development models like this (Mountain Blade, Minecraft) and unlike Dwarf Fortress, people seemed quite happy with the deal and didn't moan. But the point is that all of these had attainable, near ends to the "testing" phase. Mountain Blade, for example, keeps getting updates and expansions up to this day, but it did reach version 1.0 a couple of years ago and did go through a polishing phase before going on with expansions. It could have been alpha even now, sure, but the developers wisely decided against it, to the benefit of all. But if you have a project where the alpha is supposed to take 20 years, it is basically meaningless and only leads to frustration.
The deal here is that Dwarf Fortress is a unique project in the sense that Toady doesn't really care about the player base, and instead does it for himself. I can't compare it to anything because I don't know about any similar project like that. And I'm not mad at Toady either, it's his game after all, but you can't be surprised that people keep bringing it up.
TLDR version: for god's sake, stop using the alpha argument already. A 20 years long development arc is not an alpha, no matter what the official label says! >:(
Also: The development schedule needs some serious rethinking.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 15, 2011, 08:42:47 am
Post by: hermes on February 15, 2011, 09:22:19 am
I agree that a direct discussion of NW_Kohaku's ideas would be interesting and rewarding. Toady, what say you?
Really? And again... Really?
Everyone, the Scamps included, is aware that DF needs an improved interface and I'm pretty sure asking Toady about it is going to get such a speculative response on his part because there are a million and one ways to improve it so unless he's sat down and finalised everything he's gonna program, even he won't know what it's going to be like. Sure he can talk about the generalities of what they're thinking about, or what could possibly happen - but so has the forum - many, many, many times - and there are enough Toady comments on the subject scattered around the place to give this info anyway. So what's the point?
This discussion is best held in the already excellent threads where speculation and advice remain where they should. I've never seen Toady ever give definite answers to anything that's not more than a few weeks away in development. As is quite right.
Post by: Phmcw on February 15, 2011, 09:25:27 am
Post by: Areyar on February 15, 2011, 09:28:02 am
Quote
The deal here is that Dwarf Fortress is a unique project in the sense that Toady doesn't really care about the player base, and instead does it for himself. I can't compare it to anything because I don't know about any similar project like that.Aurora, the spreadsheet X4 space empire sim which requires a 50" screen.
Steve also does it for himself, even more so! And does not care about user-interface at all. But that is okay, because he does not ask for any donations.
Post by: Magentawolf on February 15, 2011, 09:28:52 am
Perhaps not necessary, but Therapist doesn't really add any sort of functionality to the game, it doesn't really "cheat" unless you make it, it just serves to help format your information to make it more readily accessable. It's a major help in sorting information so that you can make informed decisions. It gives you information in seconds that would take five, ten minutes of scanning the unit lists and writing down information about dwarves that you would have to do without it because that information requires digging through many pages of interface with no help from any sort of cursor memory or easy sorting in the units screen.
Exactly this. If there was a 'Z->Health' type screen that gave an overview of exactly what labors were assigned to what dwarves, I could stop using Therapist. It was so frustrating trying to remember if anyone had a skill enabled or any experience with said skill, and then manually search through every bloody dwarf to find out.
Post by: G-Flex on February 15, 2011, 09:33:27 am
Post by: de5me7 on February 15, 2011, 10:30:01 am
but the posters above make a compelling arguement.
Therefore, i'd like to see Toady, not immediatly drop everything for interface, at least put it on the dev page, with a brief on what changes he will make. My guess is that any GUI improvements will have to be targeted at specific areas. For example, the military interface was revised for 2010. Im not sure that the military GUI should be revised again for the sake of pure GUI improvement, because it will probably get changed again with the army arc. Stocks on the other hand maynot be changed radically for several years, and may warrent a GUI lift.
Part of the GUI challenge, is that the game is A: as already said very information dense, theres more data for the player to browse than in some 4x games. B: no mouse and popup windows, C: ASCII only display. I personally happy with ASCII only and no mouse... actually i dont why im typing all of this most of its covered else where and in this thread etc http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=34949.0 (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=34949.0)
in short i agree
Post by: Greiger on February 15, 2011, 11:04:17 am
Anyway Scamps is adorable. And is still entranced by shoes apperantly. (give Scamps a good belly scratching for me Toady!)
Post by: Areyar on February 15, 2011, 11:46:42 am
And yes he is. I just noticed for the first time he has no tail.
Is this a concequence of an accident or is Scamps a mutant? ;)
Post by: G-Flex on February 15, 2011, 11:52:45 am
It's weird seeing pictures of Scamps now, since the last time I did, he was still a kitten or close to it.
Post by: Footkerchief on February 15, 2011, 01:09:13 pm
I agree that a direct discussion of NW_Kohaku's ideas would be interesting and rewarding. Toady, what say you?
Really? And again... Really?
Everyone, the Scamps included, is aware that DF needs an improved interface and I'm pretty sure asking Toady about it is going to get such a speculative response on his part because there are a million and one ways to improve it so unless he's sat down and finalised everything he's gonna program, even he won't know what it's going to be like. Sure he can talk about the generalities of what they're thinking about, or what could possibly happen - but so has the forum - many, many, many times - and there are enough Toady comments on the subject scattered around the place to give this info anyway. So what's the point?
This discussion is best held in the already excellent threads where speculation and advice remain where they should. I've never seen Toady ever give definite answers to anything that's not more than a few weeks away in development. As is quite right.
Toady would be speculating when it comes to the implementation details, yeah, but Kohaku's questions were pretty general (really they were more about inclination and will than about specific features) and I'm interested in hearing the answers too. Right now, the "Presentation Arc" feels further away than it did back in 2008. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?action=search2;params=eJwti8EOgjAQRH-FePEyB1cE9Su8cG9Ku5EaaElbNCT9eLcJp933Zkbbr_aGbTkXKqeyJY5pZSM4BG335uVZ9Bhr4QG6oEeHO4hAV9AN1EIuWsjbgySRVgd6yipN4adMWNaZM8u-qm38sMkq-Hk_TIhZWReFdDKHEHBWLeldmXU0k5g1cmKfdXbBN-L-mNNAzA..) I would love to be able to enjoy Fortress Mode again, but it's not happening without an interface overhaul.
Post by: MrWiggles on February 15, 2011, 02:28:59 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manx_(cat)
I have a Manx kitty.
Post by: Scarpa on February 15, 2011, 02:37:17 pm
Toady would be speculating when it comes to the implementation details, yeah, but Kohaku's questions were pretty general (really they were more about inclination and will than about specific features) and I'm interested in hearing the answers too.
I second (third, fourth?) this sentiment.
The last thing I personally recall is Toady saying something to the effect of 'when I do it, I will make sure it makes sense' but that's about all. I mainly want to know if everything UI related is going to be deferred for a long time yet, or if there are minor interface improvements coming. Now, that said the last UI work added in was the Military Screens IIRC, and that does not bode well for most people looking for something more intuitive. ;)
Post by: monk12 on February 15, 2011, 10:21:33 pm
I think that a lot of people have potentially interesting things to say, and that Who Gets To Talk To Toady shouldn't be decided via some weird forum popularity contest based on who talks the most about his own ideas (which isn't to say anything about about NW_Kohaku's ideas; I just think this is extremely silly).it's not really that, it's just that i think he has some merit for actually taking his suggestions seriously and doing his homework, this often makes his suggestions and questions a bit... unwieldy, though, so the only way to address them properly would be with a dedicated interview. i understand how that might go against the democratic values, thoughI guess PM me about it if it annoys you and you want to say so, though, as this topic really doesn't belong in the FotF thread.i thought i had made it clear that it doesn't annoy me at all, as i said, i think your ideas deserve some atention
Myself, I think a good way to do it would be to suggest a DF Talk specifically about Toady looking at the suggestion forums and providing commentary on select threads. That way, we get a nice smattering of topics in the talk based on what Toady happens to read, it draws attention to the suggestion forums as a place Toady frequents (which may or may not cut down on some of the "suggestion thread" stuff in this thread), and it means that Toady would be able to give some of the larger, well thought out threads some of the attention they deserve without just saying "NW_Kohaku has the most well developed ideas, so lets just talk about his stuff". It may so happen that that is true, and that it does form the bulk of the Talk, but "well developed ideas" is more democratic that "NW_Kohaku's well developed ideas"
Think I might go make a post to that effect in the DF Talk Topic Discussion Thread.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 15, 2011, 11:31:44 pm
Ok, I'm doing some failing at finding the old dev goals. What specifically is entailed in the Presentation Arc?
It's basically the polish on the interface Toady wanted to do before declaring DF "complete". Of course, the last time "Presentation Arc" was mentioned, Toady responded with a "the arc system is obsolete", making that all moot, anyway.
Myself, I think a good way to do it would be to suggest a DF Talk specifically about Toady looking at the suggestion forums and providing commentary on select threads. That way, we get a nice smattering of topics in the talk based on what Toady happens to read, it draws attention to the suggestion forums as a place Toady frequents (which may or may not cut down on some of the "suggestion thread" stuff in this thread), and it means that Toady would be able to give some of the larger, well thought out threads some of the attention they deserve without just saying "NW_Kohaku has the most well developed ideas, so lets just talk about his stuff". It may so happen that that is true, and that it does form the bulk of the Talk, but "well developed ideas" is more democratic that "NW_Kohaku's well developed ideas"
Think I might go make a post to that effect in the DF Talk Topic Discussion Thread.
As much as I like the idea that it wouldn't then be all about me, as it's kind of embarressing, I think maybe some more open line of communication might be established with what's on the Suggestions Forum and Toady.
I would think that the suggestions forum (and modding forum) could be a place where we might be able to not just throw suggestions, but also try to work on ways to actually assist Toady in improving the game, even without doing something like asking for some sort of back-door to the game for making third-party GUIs or the like.
There are problems with the current military system that are caused largely by the fact that materials and creature bodies are often dummied out - dogs are so useless now because their bite and jaw and other materials are no different from that of any other creature of their size (basically, a child's), even though canine family creatures' capacity to hunt relies upon the ability to take down large prey through their bite. Players could probably be applied to a sort of Ark Project to try to make a less-dummied-out set of raws.
Likewise, the Jiri Petru interface thread had a lot of talk about breaking open the game to have an interface, but as we've been talking about in this thread already, it's entirely possible to make some improvements to the interface without actually doing many drastic changes to the way that the game is coded, but simply by changing the way that information is displayed, and the way that players can move from one screen to another or finding ways to standardize controls to be more intuitive.
If we had some sort of alternate Toady feedback system, especially one that focuses upon encouraging the fanbase to contribute in a way that would actually be productive for the game as a whole, we could probably see more constructive use out of the Suggestions Forum.
Right now, it just seems like a vacuum to scream into, and while yes, we all know Toady is busy and he's behind on reading the suggestions, at the same time, there's no way to know if he's "I'll catch up once a month" behind or "he even tried reading it since .31 came out" behind. It's sort of led to people dismissing the entire Suggestions Forum entirely (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=24818.msg1954983#msg1954983), or treating it as a passive-aggressive joke (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=76606.0).
Right now, as with that last link I posted, there are some gripes that are gripes about the game (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=77192.0) that people feel aren't (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=77329.0) being seriously addressed without some sort of donations scheme (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=77073.msg1970223#msg1970223) to carrot and stick Toady into what they see as priorities (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=74827.msg1956486#msg1956486). (Plus, I managed to stumble across this little gem (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=58796.0) doing searches on interface to see some previous Toady comments on the topic...)
I think getting Toady to provide some sort of guidelines for getting the forum to work in constructive contributions, rather than assuming any attempt to help the game outside of modding is futile would be able to both assist him in making some design decisions and also possibly redirect some of the frustration and demands for things like opening up a backdoor for third party interfaces that Toady clearly doesn't really want to do.
...
Plus, I'm not sure letting Captaintastic express his open opinions on the Suggestions Forum is necessarily going to lead good places. He has been less than patient with posters in the past. (Not that I've been a saint, myself...)
Post by: Kogut on February 16, 2011, 02:10:51 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 16, 2011, 02:47:17 am
It is mainly problem with too large community - it is impossible for Toady to even read suggestion forum. And it is clear that "many people want X" is not reason good enough to implement X (see ESV). So - I am just ignoring suggestion forum.
And that's exactly the problem - after about .31, the suggestions forum largely became a joke to be ignored. There is no feedback, no care for the ESV whatsoever, most of the long-term posters don't bother even looking at the forum anymore, posting anything related to a suggestion in this thread gets negative responses, and the other option, DF Talk, requires submission of your ideas to Captaintastic, who openly mocks the entire idea of the Suggestions Forum, and DF Talk only even gets run maybe once every four months, anyway, so just put your suggestion thread on hold for four months to maybe get some feedback.
It's basically a giant "Your Ideas And Feedback Not Welcome (but feel free to donate some money)" sign on the front of the community.
Which is pretty funny, since one of the things that people (myself included) are supposed to like about DF is the community.
Yes, I know this is an awfully big community to be managed by just two people, but maybe there should be a little bit more attention paid towards managing it? It's why I suggested maybe having another Toady Speaks To The Masses thread that could be used to give some sort of guidance or direction to the creative efforts of the people who want to contribute to the game in means other than just donations.
Alternately, there's always this (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=74484.msg1857470#msg1857470)... ignoring the entire thread after Retro's original post.
Sure, I realize that Toady is a pretty private person, and doesn't want people looking at his code and all, but letting people help manage things like the forums shouldn't be something he becomes terribly opposed to, especially since he seems to not particularly like having to moderate things very much.
There's just this utter fatalism about so many of these things, where people aren't even trying to get past the impasses, and decide it's better to just let these things stagnate. We can't talk about improving the interface, we can't make suggestions, we can't talk about how magic will be implemented, etc.
I mean, making my own suggestion, I joke about it being my own attempt to push a boulder up a mountain for the umpteenth time, and just tell myself I'm doing it for the love of exploring the idea, because I can't really expect that anyone but the same half-dozen people who were there from the start will ever notice it, no matter how many different ways I try to stir up discussion about something. When trying to talk about interweaving the magic system or talking about interface, it brought up plenty of "that's an old fight, don't even try" responses from people who I must assume never read the thread again after posting that.
Post by: Dae on February 16, 2011, 04:45:53 am
Then there are all the megathreads (in which you appear quite a lot), in which suggestions are inspected very deeply, to an incredible level of detail ; the trouble is, we don't know if it will fit into Toady's view for the game nor if it is technically doable.
I'm not sure Toady has each and every detail planned, so there is no way we could know how and even IF it will go in.
Every time I see a giant megathread of suggestions, I feel like I am watching a young child preparing to stay awake all night so as to catch Santa Claus. I feel like I'm saying "Oh, honey, Santa doesn't exist. Take a cookie and go cry yourself to sleep".
This is the cause of the stagnation you're talking about. Someone asked what constitutes a good suggestion to Toady and I don't remember the answer if it was given, and that's the core of the problem too.
Perhaps no suggestion will ever make it in the game as it was suggested, but will bend other thing in Toady's mind so as to make its own little idea-nest in Toady's vision. The trouble is thinking about something that will both not be in the incredibly long list of what is already planned and still be compatible with the game spirit.
Post by: thvaz on February 16, 2011, 04:57:09 am
Quote
It's basically a giant "Your Ideas And Feedback Not Welcome (but feel free to donate some money)" sign on the front of the community.
Toady stated that he in fact read the suggestions forums (though often behind), and you should be happy about this, he is an exception to the rule. You should donate because you like the game and wants to see its continued development, not because you want your ideas in. In this case, you should be better writing your own game.
I do agree however with the need of others people moderating the forum. It would stop distracting Toady doing what I really want from him - coding Dwarf Fortress.
Post by: Kogut on February 16, 2011, 05:32:58 am
Quote
Toady stated that he in fact read the suggestions forums (though often behind)So it would be great to show sign of it - like "nice idea, similar to mine"/"I think that it is not good thing for DF"
Post by: thvaz on February 16, 2011, 05:56:37 am
QuoteToady stated that he in fact read the suggestions forums (though often behind)So it would be great to show sign of it - like "nice idea, similar to mine"/"I think that it is not good thing for DF"
Not a good idea if he wants to avoid his ass sued off by a jerk. Not that most people would sue him, but there is always the possibility.
Post by: Kogut on February 16, 2011, 06:03:35 am
So maybe only first type of response?QuoteToady stated that he in fact read the suggestions forums (though often behind)So it would be great to show sign of it - like "nice idea, similar to mine"/"I think that it is not good thing for DF"
Not a good idea if he wants to avoid his ass sued off by a jerk. Not that most people would sue him, but there is always the possibility.
Post by: ribosom on February 16, 2011, 06:31:32 am
Not a good idea if he wants to avoid his ass sued off by a jerk. Not that most people would sue him, but there is always the possibility.
lolwut?
You mean he´ll sue because Toady stole an idea that was posted in the SUGGESTIONS FOR THE GAME forum? And that some judge would find that in favor of him?
This is the most ridiculous thing I´ve heard in a long time.
Post by: thvaz on February 16, 2011, 06:41:32 am
So maybe only first type of response?
It would give the proof of aknowledgment of the suggestion anyway.
lolwut?
You mean he´ll sue because Toady stole an idea that was posted in the SUGGESTIONS FOR THE GAME forum? And that some judge would find that in favor of him?
This is the most ridiculous thing I´ve heard in a long time.
I never said some judge would find that in favour of him. And there isn't any kind of contract you sign on suggestions forum giving the rights of your ideas to Toady.
Most certainly Toady would won, but this doesn't mean someone wouldn't want to try. And though Toady doesn't make the kind of money people would find worthy of a sue, you never know the future.
Post by: ribosom on February 16, 2011, 06:56:31 am
I never said some judge would find that in favour of him. Please work on your reading.
Though most certainly Toady would won, this doesn't mean someone wouldn't want to try. You have to remember Toady lives in the US.
Right you didn´t. No offense, mate, it just is really ridiculous.
Is there a case where something like that actually happened?
Post by: Chthonic on February 16, 2011, 07:02:23 am
I'll even play it if it ends up that there can be no functional sewers.
I agree with Kohaku, though, that certain haunters of the suggestions forum (in the past at least--I don't go there regularly anymore) are pretty off-puttingly cranky, ruling the threads therein with the iron snark of tyranny. There should be a super-secret-double-suggestions forum for them, where they can huddle together and stew in their snide superiority, leaving the escaped lunatics to their fun :P
Post by: thvaz on February 16, 2011, 07:12:06 am
Right you didn´t. No offense, mate, it just is really ridiculous.
Is there a case where something like that actually happened?
No, I don't know any case, but the United States are infamous for this kind of ridiculous litigations, and I think Toady is very right on being cautious as he is.
Post by: Kogut on February 16, 2011, 07:24:12 am
Post by: ribosom on February 16, 2011, 07:33:16 am
Right you didn´t. No offense, mate, it just is really ridiculous.
Is there a case where something like that actually happened?
No, I don't know any case, but the United States are infamous for this kind of ridiculous litigations, and I think Toady is very right on being cautious as he is.
Maybe you´re right. I was really astonished when I heard for the first time why the americans have those 'Caution Hot Coffee' stickers on cups, or 'Caution XXX' on freakin' everything.
But I digress... ;)
Post by: Lord Shonus on February 16, 2011, 07:58:27 am
Post by: tps12 on February 16, 2011, 08:12:40 am
No, I don't know any case, but the United States are infamous for this kind of ridiculous litigations, and I think Toady is very right on being cautious as he is.
Maybe you´re right. I was really astonished when I heard for the first time why the americans have those 'Caution Hot Coffee' stickers on cups, or 'Caution XXX' on freakin' everything.
The US has relatively weak consumer protection laws in general, so the accessibility of our civil courts sort of serves as a stop-gap. Not necessarily the most efficient way of doing things, but not completely pointless.
Post by: G-Flex on February 16, 2011, 08:16:14 am
The US has relatively weak consumer protection laws in general, so the accessibility of our civil courts sort of serves as a stop-gap. Not necessarily the most efficient way of doing things, but not completely pointless.
Except that it costs so much money and is so difficult to actually win a case that they're pretty much always settled out-of-court. You can't really win.
Post by: TolyK on February 16, 2011, 09:56:31 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Greiger on February 16, 2011, 09:59:38 am
I heard some kid at Disney burned himself on some nacho cheese because he was eating it too quickly or something. Then the parents decided to sue. Because the cheese was hot...no shit Sherlock, it's nacho cheese, if it wasn't hot it would be....a lump of cheese....well it wouldn't be nacho cheese at any rate.
But more or less on topic, I don't really think Toady's worried about lawsuits. Our civil courts aren't quite that nuts. And even if somebody did try to sue for money from a suggestion forum suggestion they would have a hard time getting a lawyer for it. They aren't cheap even when they are pretty sure they will win, let alone when a loss is almost assured. Toady's probably just too busy.
P.S. TolyK ninjad me with an anti-politics post. I blame society.
Post by: TolyK on February 16, 2011, 10:04:44 am
we don't want
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: G-Flex on February 16, 2011, 10:09:08 am
I love troll-wool and evil grasses. On the other hand, I'm also afraid that this continues the trend of "everybody has all of the same stuff, except flavored differently" (e.g. dwarves get trees except they're fungus now, and grass except they're fungus now, and farming except... it's, well, fungus now, etc.) whereas I'd prefer to see more substantial distinction in that regard. That being said, both types of development can be good and make sense to a reasonable degree, and troll wool is freaking great.
Quote
I'm starting the first one to two week bug fix cycle now, so there weren't a lot of bug fixes for this release, but creatures, items and vegetation don't pick up as many contaminants now.
I'm just hoping this doesn't mean that those one to two weeks will be the entirety of the bug-fixing. I was under the impression a more thorough effort was planned for the near future, and I hope that's still the case, since the game could really use some cleaning up in a few areas before moving on to new ones.
Post by: KillerClowns on February 16, 2011, 10:15:20 am
Eyeballs. Okay... that's a little, uh... eyeballs.
Post by: hermes on February 16, 2011, 10:20:34 am
I love troll-wool ... and troll wool is freaking great.
I don't think I ever envisioned trolls having yarnable hair. Or any hair. But what the heck, can captured animals be shorn?
Quote
I'm just hoping this doesn't mean that those one to two weeks will be the entirety of the bug-fixing. I was under the impression a more thorough effort was planned for the near future, and I hope that's still the case, since the game could really use some cleaning up in a few areas before moving on to new ones.
Yes, I really can't wait to see the economics in all their glory. Have to go fishin' for some bugs now...
Post by: TolyK on February 16, 2011, 10:22:11 am
Now that there's a new release, we can talk about that instead!*screams of joy heard throughout the land*
...
Quote from: Download Page
Animals can be placed in pen/pasture zones, and grazing animals will need to graze on grassCool! Now to get rid of those pesky...
Quote
This is the first release of what we once called the Caravan Arc, where we'll be changing how trade and the economy work. The entire release schedule is up at the development page. This particular release doesn't have visible changes to trade -- just a lot of world generation infrastructure.'Tis Cool.
Quote
You can mill rocknuts into paste and press the paste for oil (which goes into jugs). Pressing occurs at the new screw press building.Oil! Does it do anything?
Quote
*Ceramics*Oh goodie!
Quote
The site finder records the best hit in each square now, and you can stop the finder at any time and browse the results. The categories and readout have been changed up a bit. Minerals have been redistributed on the world map, though this might not be satisfying as I was expecting to get a bit farther with dwarf mode trade.Hell yeah! This will probably be fairly popular.
Quote
The evil grasses are probably a little extreme and seizure-inducing. I might throttle that back.OH YEAH! that will be Hilarious!
Quote
I'm starting the first one to two week bug fix cycle now, so there weren't a lot of bug fixes for this release, but creatures, items and vegetation don't pick up as many contaminants now.Hmmm... less contaminants are good, bugfixes are good. I think it's not just game-breaking bugs, but also contaminants, maybe even stacking.
Quote
For a list of the new tags available for modding (container reagents in reactions, etc.) see file_changes.txt or the new stock reactions.Thank you so much! This will be great!
In short:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: G-Flex on February 16, 2011, 10:31:31 am
Post by: therahedwig on February 16, 2011, 10:33:48 am
The key word here is 'cycle' which means that Toady tackles some bugs first for about a week or longer and then adds new features, repeat*9.QuoteI'm starting the first one to two week bug fix cycle now, so there weren't a lot of bug fixes for this release, but creatures, items and vegetation don't pick up as many contaminants now.
I'm just hoping this doesn't mean that those one to two weeks will be the entirety of the bug-fixing. I was under the impression a more thorough effort was planned for the near future, and I hope that's still the case, since the game could really use some cleaning up in a few areas before moving on to new ones.
So don't worry.
(Though I find it interesting that this is the 3rd time I had to explain this, I know Toady is no master of eloquence, but I didn't think his posts were that difficult to understand.)
Oh well... *skadiddles off to download new release*
Post by: G-Flex on February 16, 2011, 10:34:40 am
With eyeball grass made out of eye tissue, and wormy grass made out of muscle tissue, how is it that cows and such are supposed to eat them? Assuming they actually can.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 16, 2011, 10:43:53 am
I'm with Capntastic on this. Suggestions forum only exist everywhere on game fora because regardless if the developers will read and use them or not, people will feel entitled to make them anyway. The "suggestions forum" is there so they don''t clutter the rest of the fora with their self-entitled right to make suggestions.
There should be a super-secret-double-suggestions forum for them, where they can huddle together and stew in their snide superiority, leaving the escaped lunatics to their fun :P
And this is exactly the problem I'm talking about.
Someone who likes DF, and wants to try to help make the game better tries to make a suggestion? No, no such thing exists, they're just self-entitled assholes who are only making suggestions because they want to flaunt their ego.
No, there's nothing that can be done to make the suggestions forum or process become any more smooth, effective, or beneficial to Toady or the development process, we should just insult anyone who even tries until nobody even wants to participate anymore.
We're just going to accept this defeatism?
I actually really do like this community, and think it has quite a few very intelligent people who have some great ideas and some of the really specialized niche knowledge bases that can really flesh out some parts of the game.
Beyond that, it's worth having a serious discussion about the forums - They're not getting smaller. Not unless Toady actually wants to start driving players off, or just stagnates in development for a very long period of time until players lose interest, neither of which we should really want. (Especially if this project stays funded by donations - not everyone is going to make yearly donations of the same amount every year. In order to keep the money coming in at a rate capable of supporting Toady, it means he needs an influx of new players.)
That means that if it's difficult for them to moderate these forums and juggle everything else to do with this game now, it's only going to get worse as time goes on.
He's not going to make this open source and accept a collaborative coding project, so why can't the community itself help with some of the other jobs?
guh, quintuple ninjad...
Post by: DStecks on February 16, 2011, 10:50:08 am
snip
Geez you can get defensive. Like, holy cow, you don't need to write an essay every time you feel slighted. This is at least the third time I've seen you do this. Calm down.
Post by: G-Flex on February 16, 2011, 11:01:45 am
Looking at the raws for giraffes:
- They don't have long necks.
- Their head horns appear identical in type and proportion to, say, the horns of a yak or bull.
- Speaking of proportions, the fact that giraffes are so big probably means they have gigantic heads as well, but I'm not sure because I didn't pay much attention to the animal's size.
So yeah, our "giraffes" are basically just regular old ruminant animals. But with a different name, I guess!
Post by: Footkerchief on February 16, 2011, 11:17:08 am
Beyond that, it's worth having a serious discussion about the forums
In another thread, please.
Calm down.
This too.
Hahaha.
Looking at the raws for giraffes:
- They don't have long necks.
- Their head horns appear identical in type and proportion to, say, the horns of a yak or bull.
- Speaking of proportions, the fact that giraffes are so big probably means they have gigantic heads as well, but I'm not sure because I didn't pay much attention to the animal's size.
So yeah, our "giraffes" are basically just regular old ruminant animals. But with a different name, I guess!
Man, that's pretty bad. I was hoping the donation drive animals would be a little more carefully implemented.
Post by: G-Flex on February 16, 2011, 11:19:25 am
Think about it: DF has no particular way to represent a body part being long and thin. You can make a giraffe's neck larger relative to body size, but that would effectively also make it extremely thick, wouldn't it?
Post by: Footkerchief on February 16, 2011, 11:22:34 am
To be honest, I don't think you can give giraffes long necks. Not without problems.
Think about it: DF has no particular way to represent a body part being long and thin. You can make a giraffe's neck larger relative to body size, but that would effectively also make it extremely thick, wouldn't it?
Body parts are basically all big spheres or cubes or something, yeah, but at least it would be more likely to get hit. And impossible to cut through, I guess.
Post by: freeformschooler on February 16, 2011, 11:25:32 am
snip
Geez you can get defensive. Like, holy cow, you don't need to write an essay every time you feel slighted. This is at least the third time I've seen you do this. Calm down.
Oh, he does that all the time, but as Footkerchief stated, this is not the place to discuss this. Anyway, now I'm wondering... will the town revamp starting with the next release finally give us elf/dwarf settlements with actual elves & dwarves?
Post by: G-Flex on February 16, 2011, 11:26:29 am
To be honest, I don't think you can give giraffes long necks. Not without problems.
Think about it: DF has no particular way to represent a body part being long and thin. You can make a giraffe's neck larger relative to body size, but that would effectively also make it extremely thick, wouldn't it?
Body parts are basically all big spheres or cubes or something, yeah, but at least it would be more likely to get hit. And impossible to cut through, I guess.
Yeah. I find it a little ironic that we were pretty much just introduced to the new creature body system and it's already running into brick walls even with totally mundane animals.
Post by: EmperorNuthulu on February 16, 2011, 11:36:28 am
Post by: TolyK on February 16, 2011, 11:38:02 am
(http://img.ie/a5c73.png)
He made help come up on the starting screen! Haven't checked fort mode yet.
So I noticed we can embark with bunnies now... How long until war !!bunnies!!? Or a fortress that completely lives off eating and butchering bunnies.You can easily mod them to be war bunnies. just make them "trainable" in the raws ;)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 16, 2011, 11:42:48 am
Geez you can get defensive. Like, holy cow, you don't need to write an essay every time you feel slighted. This is at least the third time I've seen you do this. Calm down.
I'm sorry, but I find it more than a little destructive to claim that the only reason people make suggestion threads is because they want to throw their ego around, or to be a "thread tyrant", and that such people can't possibly want to help make a better game.
And yes, I tend to be verbose no matter what my emotional state.
Post by: thvaz on February 16, 2011, 11:53:49 am
I'm sorry, but I find it more than a little destructive to claim that the only reason people make suggestion threads is because they want to throw their ego around, or to be a "thread tyrant", and that such people can't possibly want to help make a better game.
And yes, I tend to be verbose no matter what my emotional state.
When people just make suggestions hoping it can help the developer, it's fine by me. When they want said developer reads all their suggestions and implement them, and make a fuss about it when he don't, they are throwing their ego around.
On other news: New release! Thanks Toady!
Post by: darkflagrance on February 16, 2011, 11:55:50 am
To be honest, I don't think you can give giraffes long necks. Not without problems.
Think about it: DF has no particular way to represent a body part being long and thin. You can make a giraffe's neck larger relative to body size, but that would effectively also make it extremely thick, wouldn't it?
Body parts are basically all big spheres or cubes or something, yeah, but at least it would be more likely to get hit. And impossible to cut through, I guess.
Yeah. I find it a little ironic that we were pretty much just introduced to the new creature body system and it's already running into brick walls even with totally mundane animals.
I think a custom "long neck" part and maybe horns of a custom tissue, along with a unique color pattern (spots, like stripes) would complete giraffes.
Maybe we should outsource the creation of donation drive creatures to solve this problem?
Post by: MrWiggles on February 16, 2011, 12:00:40 pm
Quote from: ToadyI'm starting the first one to two week bug fix cycle now, so there weren't a lot of bug fixes for this release, but creatures, items and vegetation don't pick up as many contaminants now.
I'm just hoping this doesn't mean that those one to two weeks will be the entirety of the bug-fixing. I was under the impression a more thorough effort was planned for the near future, and I hope that's still the case, since the game could really use some cleaning up in a few areas before moving on to new ones.
Quote from: Toady
I'm starting the first one to two week bug fix cycle now, so there weren't a lot of bug fixes for this release, but creatures, items and vegetation don't pick up as many contaminants now.
Its not the entirely, just the start of it. It actually means, that we're getting more bug fixes then previous thought. Instead of 9-18 weeks, we're getting 10-20 weeks of bug fixes.
Post by: Footkerchief on February 16, 2011, 12:01:37 pm
I think a custom "long neck" part and maybe horns of a custom tissue, along with a unique color pattern (spots, like stripes) would complete giraffes.
Maybe we should outsource the creation of donation drive creatures to solve this problem?
Long necks are a code issue, not a raws issue per se.
Post by: G-Flex on February 16, 2011, 12:02:24 pm
I think a custom "long neck" part and maybe horns of a custom tissue, along with a unique color pattern (spots, like stripes) would complete giraffes.
Maybe we should outsource the creation of donation drive creatures to solve this problem?
This is not possible. You can't make a body part that is thin, but long. Creature body parts can effectively be thought of as spheres and little else.
Post by: darkflagrance on February 16, 2011, 12:17:56 pm
I think a custom "long neck" part and maybe horns of a custom tissue, along with a unique color pattern (spots, like stripes) would complete giraffes.
Maybe we should outsource the creation of donation drive creatures to solve this problem?
This is not possible. You can't make a body part that is thin, but long. Creature body parts can effectively be thought of as spheres and little else.
Since DF tracks everything by mass anyway, this is still the most accurate replication that its engine can achieve. And in combat, I don't think there'll be a significant observable difference.
Post by: G-Flex on February 16, 2011, 12:26:05 pm
I think a custom "long neck" part and maybe horns of a custom tissue, along with a unique color pattern (spots, like stripes) would complete giraffes.
Maybe we should outsource the creation of donation drive creatures to solve this problem?
This is not possible. You can't make a body part that is thin, but long. Creature body parts can effectively be thought of as spheres and little else.
Since DF tracks everything by mass anyway, this is still the most accurate replication that its engine can achieve. And in combat, I don't think there'll be a significant observable difference.
This simply isn't correct at all.
Yes, you'll see a huge difference in combat, unless you're telling me you couldn't tell the difference between cutting through something a foot thick and cutting through something five feet thick. It's not much more difficult (if at all) to cut through something if it's twice as long as normal, but if it's twice as thick as normal, that's quite different.
Also, "tracks everything by mass"? I don't know how that's relevant. The game tracks things like depth, surface area, volume, and various other measures as well. The creature body system just needs a notion of how "oblong" a part is, so that the game can know that despite having, say, a large mass, it doesn't have huge cross-sectional area and isn't very "deep". There's no real reason why this has to be difficult to implement, at least not that I know of.
Post by: thvaz on February 16, 2011, 12:43:13 pm
I think a custom "long neck" part and maybe horns of a custom tissue, along with a unique color pattern (spots, like stripes) would complete giraffes.
Maybe we should outsource the creation of donation drive creatures to solve this problem?
This is not possible. You can't make a body part that is thin, but long. Creature body parts can effectively be thought of as spheres and little else.
Since DF tracks everything by mass anyway, this is still the most accurate replication that its engine can achieve. And in combat, I don't think there'll be a significant observable difference.
This simply isn't correct at all.
Yes, you'll see a huge difference in combat, unless you're telling me you couldn't tell the difference between cutting through something a foot thick and cutting through something five feet thick. It's not much more difficult (if at all) to cut through something if it's twice as long as normal, but if it's twice as thick as normal, that's quite different.
Also, "tracks everything by mass"? I don't know how that's relevant. The game tracks things like depth, surface area, volume, and various other measures as well. The creature body system just needs a notion of how "oblong" a part is, so that the game can know that despite having, say, a large mass, it doesn't have huge cross-sectional area and isn't very "deep". There's no real reason why this has to be difficult to implement, at least not that I know of.
There is the problem of the height still. Toady said he would one day tackle this issue, maybe when he gets around it he willfix this problem. Right now, even if the giraffe had a long neck you could hit his head just as well as if it hadn't.
Post by: Untelligent on February 16, 2011, 12:55:25 pm
Post by: KillerClowns on February 16, 2011, 01:08:51 pm
Post by: Sunday on February 16, 2011, 01:43:34 pm
Also, I like KillerClowns' giraffe hack. It seems quite workable—if body-sizes are an unspecified shape, then one can just break them into component segments and string them together, in general.
Post by: therahedwig on February 16, 2011, 02:01:58 pm
(Tis is good, because was kinda getting sick of always being out of wood for my barrel, which meant my dwarves couldn't store booze)
Just had a turkey hen lay about 11 eggs in a nesting box(isn't this a wee bit much? Or is this just to compensate for the weird way time flows in fortress mode?) and a hive full of honey-bees.(I think the graphics pack pixelers are going to have a hard time with the bees in general, as it pretty much is all tileset bound...)
I like the hive interface, it's very clear what it's supossed to be, and automatic, which is a plus.
I also like how crafters have gained some importance again, what with most of the new stuff being made by them rather then the mason/carpenter. Makes em useful for other things besides crafts.
I haven't figured out pottery yet, does anyone know how that one works?
Post by: Kogut on February 16, 2011, 02:14:03 pm
Quote
I like the hive interface, it's very clear what it's supossed to be, and automatic, which is a plus.How can I produce honeycomb? <sorry for derail, but my experimental fortress is killed by bad combination of stockpile, pick, elk bird, deep shaft and dodging bug>
Post by: Areyar on February 16, 2011, 02:27:38 pm
edit:
Maybe bodypart shape can be botched by indeed stringing along several 'neck' balls, for a neck it is not needed as it is flexible, but for parts such as arms and legs, joints need to be defined and whether they bend and in what direction.
edit2:
there is a whole forum for gameplay questions. ;)
Post by: Sizik on February 16, 2011, 02:37:52 pm
Holy shit. Toady's a genius.
(http://img.ie/a5c73.png)
He made help come up on the starting screen! Haven't checked fort mode yet.
That's been there since 0.31.17.
Post by: TolyK on February 16, 2011, 02:57:44 pm
then how come I've noticed it only now, after playing LOADS of df .17/.18?
I've started forts and adventures for friends and have never got that before.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on February 16, 2011, 03:01:40 pm
So.. cool...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Greiger on February 16, 2011, 03:03:12 pm
Post by: TolyK on February 16, 2011, 03:11:21 pm
^That goes in the facepalm thread.
Post by: Areyar on February 16, 2011, 03:16:38 pm
ed: No, I still hear the music. ? :-[
Just the tray icon is gone (it was minimized)
yeah. CTR-ALT-DEL and activating the DF process brings it back up.
Post by: TolyK on February 16, 2011, 03:19:18 pm
reproduced 9/10 times.
Post by: Areyar on February 16, 2011, 03:22:53 pm
Post by: Dante on February 16, 2011, 03:41:23 pm
I suppose a temporary workaround for giraffes would be a "lower neck, middle neck, upper neck" thing -- still made of spheres, just a linear stack of them.
I already use this method for long, whippy tails and tentacles. It works: they're hard to destroy with blunt weapons because you have to beat every inch, but they can be severed at any point along them, which is useful.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on February 16, 2011, 03:47:52 pm
Post by: G-Flex on February 16, 2011, 04:01:20 pm
Post by: decius on February 16, 2011, 04:12:47 pm
Post by: Untelligent on February 16, 2011, 04:22:57 pm
EDIT: Aha! Finally found some. Yeah, that is really annoying.
Post by: KillerClowns on February 16, 2011, 04:41:44 pm
Reference: Evil grass being seizure-inducing: Is that a comment on the default display values for said grass, or is there a syndrome now associated with some ground cover?
The former, judging by the raws. They don't cause any syndrome, but tendrils do have an alt-tile thing going on so that they "writhe."
Post by: Toady One on February 16, 2011, 05:35:27 pm
So yeah, our "giraffes" are basically just regular old ruminant animals. But with a different name, I guess!
Man, that's pretty bad. I was hoping the donation drive animals would be a little more carefully implemented.
Giraffes are not a donation drive animal. Only bees were, and I think I did enough work for them. But yeah, there are things to be done.
Post by: G-Flex on February 16, 2011, 06:02:45 pm
Reference: Evil grass being seizure-inducing: Is that a comment on the default display values for said grass, or is there a syndrome now associated with some ground cover?
The former, judging by the raws. They don't cause any syndrome, but tendrils do have an alt-tile thing going on so that they "writhe."
The evil and below-ground grasses are pretty colorful too, so you get wacky rainbow stuff going on.
Also, some people have noticed some really obvious square blocking with grass growth... not the normal kind of obvious, but the extreme kind. 16x16 squares and that sort of thing.
So yeah, our "giraffes" are basically just regular old ruminant animals. But with a different name, I guess!
Man, that's pretty bad. I was hoping the donation drive animals would be a little more carefully implemented.
Giraffes are not a donation drive animal. Only bees were, and I think I did enough work for them. But yeah, there are things to be done.
For the record, that quote about ruminant animals was mine, not NW_Kohaku's.
Post by: Toady One on February 16, 2011, 06:06:17 pm
Post by: G-Flex on February 16, 2011, 06:07:50 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on February 16, 2011, 06:21:53 pm
I want to point out something about Bees in the raws: They don't have to make honey.
They could make a lot of things. Molten gold, possibly booze, maybe even Armok bees that produce hives full of blood. I'm going to have to play with this.
Post by: Footkerchief on February 16, 2011, 06:29:05 pm
Giraffes are not a donation drive animal.
Oh whoops, my bad.
Post by: RedWick on February 16, 2011, 06:43:25 pm
Edit: And they're attacking my dwarves for trying to harvest the eggs!
Post by: Acanthus117 on February 16, 2011, 06:43:53 pm
Post by: Sowelu on February 16, 2011, 07:18:22 pm
A wild turkey hen just claimed one of my nest boxes and laid some eggs!
You make it sound like a fey mood!
Post by: hagbard on February 16, 2011, 07:45:05 pm
Being able to actually play DF with up to 200 dwarves would make me a lot more happier than all new features and animals combined.
Post by: G-Flex on February 16, 2011, 07:46:20 pm
Great Toady, have you planned to make DF multithreaded? Or have at least a separate thread for the GUI, so that it frees at least a few cpu cycles for pathfinding etc.? Is there still hope to avoid the nowadays inevitable FPS-Death some day in the future?
Being able to actually play DF with up to 200 dwarves would make me a lot more happier than all new features and animals combined.
This is one of those extremely repeated suggestions that we really, really don't need another discussion about in here... again.
But hey, feel free to post random feature/implementation suggestions in the development thread instead of the suggestions forum. That seems to be the thing to do these days.
Post by: Dante on February 16, 2011, 07:47:26 pm
The wild turkey hen sketches pictures of hay.A wild turkey hen just claimed one of my nest boxes and laid some eggs!
You make it sound like a fey mood!
The wild turkey hen sketches pictures of chaff.
The wild turkey hen sketches pictures of grit.
The wild turkey hen has begun a delicious construction!
Post by: Skid on February 16, 2011, 07:50:20 pm
Post by: hagbard on February 16, 2011, 07:58:49 pm
I'm aware of the suggestions forum, and I'm also aware that multithreading has already been suggested. I didn't intend to misuse the development thread for a suggestion; my Intention was to make a status request about that issue. So basically I just wanted to know if it is in the works or not (or not yet). Sorry if it's still wrong, didn't mean any harm.Great Toady, have you planned to make DF multithreaded? Or have at least a separate thread for the GUI, so that it frees at least a few cpu cycles for pathfinding etc.? Is there still hope to avoid the nowadays inevitable FPS-Death some day in the future?
Being able to actually play DF with up to 200 dwarves would make me a lot more happier than all new features and animals combined.
This is one of those extremely repeated suggestions that we really, really don't need another discussion about in here... again.
But hey, feel free to post random feature/implementation suggestions in the development thread instead of the suggestions forum. That seems to be the thing to do these days.
Post by: decius on February 16, 2011, 08:17:11 pm
Tor Tastycreator has made a Masterful Turkey egg omelet!The wild turkey hen sketches pictures of hay.A wild turkey hen just claimed one of my nest boxes and laid some eggs!
You make it sound like a fey mood!
The wild turkey hen sketches pictures of chaff.
The wild turkey hen sketches pictures of grit.
The wild turkey hen has begun a delicious construction!
The wild turkey hen has gone stark raving mad.
Post by: MrWiggles on February 16, 2011, 09:22:32 pm
I'm aware of the suggestions forum, and I'm also aware that multithreading has already been suggested. I didn't intend to misuse the development thread for a suggestion; my Intention was to make a status request about that issue. So basically I just wanted to know if it is in the works or not (or not yet). Sorry if it's still wrong, didn't mean any harm.Great Toady, have you planned to make DF multithreaded? Or have at least a separate thread for the GUI, so that it frees at least a few cpu cycles for pathfinding etc.? Is there still hope to avoid the nowadays inevitable FPS-Death some day in the future?
Being able to actually play DF with up to 200 dwarves would make me a lot more happier than all new features and animals combined.
This is one of those extremely repeated suggestions that we really, really don't need another discussion about in here... again.
But hey, feel free to post random feature/implementation suggestions in the development thread instead of the suggestions forum. That seems to be the thing to do these days.
Well, we can answer this question in part without Toady anyway. Multithreading is in the ESV, and its somewhat low on that list. The top ten are currently on the short term dev notes, even if they aren't explicitly listed. So, no its not on any short term to-do list.
Post by: Beardless on February 16, 2011, 10:05:50 pm
On a more positive note: I like seeing the oldschool bay12 quirkiness show through with the evil/good grasses and troll wool. There is no substitute for that kind of thing.
Love the troll wool. I'd totally forgotten about the Cavern of the Woolly Trolls in the Castle of Frome's dungeon... Man, that was a great series.
Post by: Peaceful Slugman on February 16, 2011, 11:31:06 pm
Post by: Captain Mayday on February 17, 2011, 02:43:55 am
Guinea Fowl have this line for eggs:
"[CLUTCH_SIZE:4:15] should be 25 to 30"
What reason did you have for not just making it 25:30?
Post by: Serrational on February 17, 2011, 03:41:21 am
Post by: Lofn on February 17, 2011, 05:19:29 am
Sorry if this has already been asked, I posted it in the wrong thread.
Post by: Neoskel on February 17, 2011, 06:48:00 am
I see that hydras do not lay eggs. Is this intentional? Do you intend for hydras to have gooey amphibian eggs instead of shelled eggs?
And another, somewhat related question:
Do you intend on giving crocodiles, etc. proper leathery eggs at some point?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 17, 2011, 06:51:52 am
Post by: tps12 on February 17, 2011, 07:55:42 am
Great Toady, have you planned to make DF multithreaded? Or have at least a separate thread for the GUI, so that it frees at least a few cpu cycles for pathfinding etc.? Is there still hope to avoid the nowadays inevitable FPS-Death some day in the future?
Being able to actually play DF with up to 200 dwarves would make me a lot more happier than all new features and animals combined.
I believe graphics already have their own thread.
Post by: Flaede on February 17, 2011, 08:34:28 am
A wild turkey hen just claimed one of my nest boxes and laid some eggs!
You make it sound like a fey mood!
No. Just a fowl one.
Post by: thijser on February 17, 2011, 08:36:19 am
and are there any plans to improve the trader interface and improve the amout of traders that will visit you?
Post by: tps12 on February 17, 2011, 09:36:57 am
and are there any plans to improve the trader interface and improve the amout of traders that will visit you?
"Dwarf mode trading improvements" is release 6 on the dev page.
Post by: Areyar on February 17, 2011, 10:23:21 am
Are there any plans to put metal abundance in the worldgen?
and are there any plans to improve the trader interface and improve the amout of traders that will visit you?
It might be fun if you had to prospect for The Smitten Socks civ / hear about rumours of golden mountains in advernture mode.
edit: But as an option, there are times when you just want to get stuck right in the DF and not get bogged down in the specifics. (For some those times are all the times)
Post by: Lord Shonus on February 17, 2011, 10:59:17 am
Post by: Coaldiamond on February 17, 2011, 12:59:42 pm
Question: Has Toady ever mentioned taking the principle of stigmergy from the ACO scheme in order to dynamically modify the PATH_COST value for tiles as dwarves travel over those tiles? My thought is that since we can already improve framerate by manually designating High Traffic Areas, perhaps inserting some code to dynamically modify High Traffic areas as the dwarves are travelling would provide the same benefit while keeping the same A* algorithm in place.
So how about that? Have I missed Toady's prior comments on this very topic?
Post by: Chthonic on February 17, 2011, 01:34:48 pm
Question: Has Toady ever mentioned taking the principle of stigmergy from the ACO scheme in order to dynamically modify the PATH_COST value for tiles as dwarves travel over those tiles? My thought is that since we can already improve framerate by manually designating High Traffic Areas, perhaps inserting some code to dynamically modify High Traffic areas as the dwarves are travelling would provide the same benefit while keeping the same A* algorithm in place.
So how about that? Have I missed Toady's prior comments on this very topic?
I don't know if he's commented on it, but I'm pretty sure that sort of thing has come up in the pathfinding discussions before (it sounds kind of like how ants lay pheromone trails, more-or-less?).
Post by: G-Flex on February 17, 2011, 03:13:11 pm
- Parent civilizations tend to be lacking in available resources. We have reports of lots of cases where dwarves can't even embark with iron or steel. This is possibly because of problems tracking site/civ resources, or possibly because civilizations are not smart about choosing where they expand and build new sites. In the latter case, civilizations should attempt to expand to locations containing resources they know they're missing; there's no excuse for dwarves going 150 years without finding some sources of iron and copper and building sites there. There's also no real excuse for your starting dwarves not knowing what's available from their civilization pre-embark, preferably when you choose your civ.
- What minerals exist on your site is far too difficult to determine. It's understandable that we don't have or need the old layer count anymore. However, it would be both realistic (enough) and less frustrating for people if the major deposits on a site were identified, such as iron, or copper, or coal, as well as possibly (but less importantly) the general classification of rock (e.g. igneous extrusive, sedimentary) near the surface, as this is stuff that isn't unreasonable to know, and prevents people from scumming constantly just to embark on an iron vein. After all, wanting to found an iron-smithing or coal-mining fortress is completely valid, and there's no huge reason we shouldn't be able to have access to some of that information (after all, how does it make sense that we know that metal and flux exist somewhere, but not that the top layer of the place is sedimentary, or that the metal is iron?). For that matter, it would be nice to treat other valuable non-metal resources such as coal, sand, kaolinite, and whatever else is useful but not tracked here, as if they're worth mentioning.
- Trade is not robust enough to supply the player with what he does not have. Evidently, the goal is for sites to have more of a signature to them and be less "all-purpose", e.g. less of the "everything is everywhere" approach and more focus on larger deposits of fewer resources, so that trade of those resources between sites matters. However, without the trade to back that up, players are left in sort of a sticky situation, having to rely on fairly unreliable and small caravans for major resources.
- The world just plain doesn't have enough mineral wealth. This is somewhat speculative on my part since I'm relying on what other people are telling me and I'm not sure how much is known here, but it's possible that too much of the world is simply barren in terms of mineral wealth. If this is the case, it's no wonder that civs and fortresses are lacking in these things, but it would probably also be relatively simple to adjust compared to the other things mentioned here.
- The relative scarcity of some resources is off. Probably owing to the lack of adjustments to how veins work (so this may be fixed soon), I have heard that extremely valuable and rare metals like platinum can constitute very, very large deposits. Now, large gold mines aren't that strange, I suppose, but for things that are meant to be rare to the point that you're lucky to ever find some, like aluminum and platinum, it's pretty important to make sure they're actually as rare as they should be. In fact, when veins get adjusted, it might be worth going over minerals in general and breaking away from the old vein/cluster system, so that we can have things like realistic coal mines/layers, extremely rare platinum, kimberlite pipes in volcanic areas, and whatever else is deemed fun/realistic/necessary.
- Inertia. Players are used to having a lot of materials and their sites being self-sufficient. Moving away from this paradigm and towards a better long-term one is fine, but people are shaken up by this level of change, especially when they're stuck in this state of limbo where the change looks bad because it isn't complete enough to be as viable as what we had before. Obviously, the only solution to that at this point is to keep on trucking and get those other features in, or, if necessary, tone down the lack of minerals until the game has the infrastructure to support it better.
That's all I can think of at the moment. There's probably more, but that's all I have rattling around in my head right now.
I'm aware that at least some of this has been considered for far longer than this release has been out, but it's still worthwhile, I think, to examine what's going on just so it's more clear to everyone.
[edit]
Added two points and added a small bit about non-metal resources to the point about the embark screen/mineral randomness.
Post by: thvaz on February 17, 2011, 03:31:10 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 17, 2011, 04:37:52 pm
Because I'm bored, I've decided to sort of catalog some of the ways in which the new embark screen and mineral distributions (and other resource availability issues) are causing people problems or frustration, potential reasons for those issues, and possible solutions. This way, there's at least sort of a rundown in one location, as opposed to retyping various bits of it all over the place. This is sort of for everybody's benefit, including the people miffed by how things have changed, just to make it easier to think about these changes, what they mean, and how things might go in the near future.
5. I would addend that minerals seem too rare right now on a global scale. Using the site finder to look for areas with no metals, shallow or deep, reveals that on the maps I've looked, about 1/2 to 2/3s of the map have no mineral resources that the site finder can filter. (Excluding flux and soil types as a mineral, as those are layers.) Minerals in general need to be more common, so that there aren't massive swaths of land with absolutely no mineral wealth whatsoever, not even microcline. Currently, players have to hunt for rare sites where minerals can be in confluence, but this shouldn't require genning multiple worlds to find the one world where iron and coal actually do exist near one another.
6. On a related note, platinum seems about as common in the crust of the world as most other metals, now. We need to have that percentage that the raws have for probability of each mineral actually hooked up to some function that determines how rare the materials are.
7. Speaking of microcline, a means of searching for or at least seeing non-metal minerals would be nice. This means being able to see the presence of kaoline for porcelain, sand for glass, and even microcline or certain gems. We already see clay and metal, why not sand, gems, and minerals in veins that aren't metal ores?
Of course, these complaints all get rendered a little moot if there are going to be major changes to the way veins work in general (especially 6), but after the veins are 3d-ified, then these are important balance issues to keep to mind when duct taping the whole system together.
Post by: Untelligent on February 17, 2011, 04:38:16 pm
I suspect that in Release 2 on the development page the on-site minerals are going to get rebalanced, however.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 17, 2011, 04:43:45 pm
Post by: G-Flex on February 17, 2011, 05:04:53 pm
Post by: thvaz on February 17, 2011, 05:11:54 pm
Point 2 on gflex list i think does not actually need big setlements to be moved. I would say if the dwarfs would open some mining outposts it would be enough to scratch this issue.
Indeed.This would be a nice addition.
Post by: G-Flex on February 17, 2011, 05:15:23 pm
Post by: Mantonio on February 17, 2011, 06:22:22 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Why is it understandable that we don't have a means of knowing what kind of rock / soil we'll be embarking on? Why do we not need to know anymore? I fail to see how that's a good thing, it just makes it arbitrarily harder for you to get your perfect fort.
[Rant in 3... 2... 1...]
In fact, this whole new system just straitjackets you. Before this metal-apocalypse you could survive and thrive anywhere. Now you HAVE to go to certain areas just to make sure you have some kind of metal to defend yourself with. Everywhere else, the only way you can possibly make it is if you completely wall yourself in. It's unnecessary and completely arbitrary to punish players this way. Now they're be no more sea forts, no more jungle forts of swamp towns, simply because the game decided to make the earth barren.
And even if you manage to find a decent site, that is the biome you want (an extraordinary feat in itself!) you're going to be screwed over by the fact that your civilisation doesn't have iron or steel (so no anvils), or doesn't have copper meaning you have to give up half your supplies just so you can fork over three times as many dwarfbucks get a few picks and an axe!
tl;dr, this whole new system is stupid, and I mad.
Post by: G-Flex on February 17, 2011, 06:26:09 pm
Why is it understandable that we don't have a means of knowing what kind of rock / soil we'll be embarking on? Why do we not need to know anymore? I fail to see how that's a good thing, it just makes it arbitrarily harder for you to get your perfect fort.
It's understandable that you won't know every single layer of the Earth's crust, and it matters less now that the game seems to be focused more on localized mineral deposits and less on what types of layers you have. It matters more that the game tells you that you have metal than, say, granite, because layers are no longer such a guaranteed predictor of mineral wealth like they were before.
Quote
In fact, this whole new system just straitjackets you. Before this metal-apocalypse you could survive and thrive anywhere. Now you HAVE to go to certain areas just to make sure you have some kind of metal to defend yourself with. Everywhere else, the only way you can possible make it is if you completely wall yourself in. It's unnecessary and completely arbitrary to punish players this way. Now they're be no more sea forts, no more jungle forts of swamp towns, simply because the game decided to make the earth barren.
If you'd care to read the post of my that you quoted, I went over multiple reasons why this is happening and what can be done to make it more reasonable and fun for the player.
Quote
And even if you manage to find a decent site, that is the biome you want (an extraordinary feat in itself!) you're going to be screwed over by the fact that your civilisation doesn't have iron or steel (so no anvils), or doesn't have copper meaning you have to give up half your supplies just so you can fork over three times as many dwarfbucks get a few picks and an axe.
tl;dr, this whole new system is stupid, and I mad.
Again, you start your post by quoting mine, but apparently didn't get much from it. Granted, there's no guarantee that much of this will change in the near future, which would be unfortunate, but none of your complains have to do with the "whole new system" being "stupid"; it's more like most of the "whole new system" isn't even implemented yet, and the order in which it's being implemented so far isn't very player-friendly.
Post by: agatharchides on February 17, 2011, 06:29:40 pm
Post by: Jiri Petru on February 17, 2011, 07:14:38 pm
Yeah... because having valuable minerals everywhere is how things should work in a simulation of "real" geography ::)
I never understood this "want to have a perfect site on every world square" fetish. I love the way how minerals are rare now and I love that there are actually places with no mineral veins, because otherwise, they'd be no point in trading. Now only wait till civ sites are built on intelligent spots and trade gets improved and you have a perfect economy.
EDIT: Also, it makes each embark site more unique and makes the player accommodate their strategies, which is a good thing!
Post by: G-Flex on February 17, 2011, 07:27:03 pm
I never understood this "want to have a perfect site on every world square" fetish.
I think this point of view makes at least a little sense with DF in a state where nothing outside your fortress is at all relevant to you, but even then, I like my sites to have actual character to them, with their own (dis)advantages. At any rate, DF is getting more cosmopolitan in the sense that your fortress will start existing within a more meaningful global context, so it's going to make less and less sense to want perfect sites with everything on them.
Post by: Mantonio on February 17, 2011, 07:27:23 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
It's understandable that you won't know every single layer of the Earth's crust, and it matters less now that the game seems to be focused more on localized mineral deposits and less on what types of layers you have. It matters more that the game tells you that you have metal than, say, granite, because layers are no longer such a guaranteed predictor of mineral wealth like they were before.
But the fact that you don't have an inkling of what kind of stone you're facing does hinder you. You said it yourself that it's silly that we don't even know the top layer of stone or soil. Plus - and my biggest gripe with it is here - it means you have to savescum over and over if you want a fort made of the stone you want. Not letting us know what type of stone or soil to expect adds nothing to the game, but detracts something.
(not to the post above, but those above above):
Yeah... because having valuable minerals everywhere is how things should work in a simulation of "real" geography ::)
But what we've been given here is nothing like real geography. What we have now is like if in the whole of Europe, only France had any minerals in it. And you couldn't get any different metals from anywhere else in the world. That's what this is like.
All in all, I just think the ball has been dropped here. Like it's been said before, this reduced metal feature has been implemented before the trading framework needed to support it was implemented. Which means were worse off than before overall.
Post by: G-Flex on February 17, 2011, 07:29:32 pm
But the fact that you don't have an inkling of what kind of stone you're facing does hinder you. You said it yourself that it's silly that we don't even know the top layer of stone or soil. Plus - and my biggest gripe with it is here - it means you have to savescum over and over if you want a fort made of the stone you want. Not letting us know what type of stone or soil to expect adds nothing to the game, but detracts something.
To clarify, I feel that the player should be told some information, just not all information, and that the detailed layer summary we had before isn't really as important or necessary. It would still be nice to see things like "there's sedimentary stone on top, and some nice coal deposits and sand".
Post by: Mantonio on February 17, 2011, 07:32:20 pm
But the fact that you don't have an inkling of what kind of stone you're facing does hinder you. You said it yourself that it's silly that we don't even know the top layer of stone or soil. Plus - and my biggest gripe with it is here - it means you have to savescum over and over if you want a fort made of the stone you want. Not letting us know what type of stone or soil to expect adds nothing to the game, but detracts something.
To clarify, I feel that the player should be told some information, just not all information, and that the detailed layer summary we had before isn't really as important or necessary. It would still be nice to see things like "there's sedimentary stone on top, and some nice coal deposits and sand".
I agree, but I think it was important, if only for aesthetic choices. I feel we should be told what kind of rock is on top, if only so we can make those aforementioned aesthetic choices. It makes sense that the top layer of rock at least would be identified.
Post by: agatharchides on February 17, 2011, 07:39:07 pm
Post by: G-Flex on February 17, 2011, 07:40:13 pm
Post by: Sowelu on February 17, 2011, 08:06:28 pm
That would be a way of giving your civ access to new materials.
Post by: Sunday on February 17, 2011, 08:26:18 pm
Anyway, has anyone else noticed a higher percentage of features? Before, I'd only ever (in many, many fortresses) got a magma pool once, and a downward passage once.
My first (& thus far only) fort on this version has (in addition to the volcano caldera I settled on) both a deep pit and a second magma pool. I guess I could have just gotten lucky though.
Also, I'm having some difficulty with pets attacking dwarfs a lot—is that normal? I've had both a pet dog and a pet gobbler going crazy.
Post by: G-Flex on February 17, 2011, 08:35:42 pm
One feature of the new version is that animals get mad if kept in too close quarters for too long, presumably to prevent you from putting them in 1x1 pasture zones or something.
Its implementation results in animals getting mad as hell on a pretty consistent basis, though, even if they're only cluttered up because they're in a small meeting zone.
Post by: Sunday on February 17, 2011, 08:36:51 pm
I guess that makes sense. It will make meeting zones a bit more complicated to figure out, but that's OK.
Post by: G-Flex on February 17, 2011, 08:38:35 pm
Post by: Sunday on February 17, 2011, 08:55:49 pm
Frankly, I'd kind of like to be able to pasture pets as well as generic tame animals. It's nice being able to get all the tame animals out of the way, and it would be awesome to be able to control pets a little bit. Though, admittedly, that would almost certainly lead to massive pet execution.
Post by: Dwarfu on February 17, 2011, 08:58:12 pm
... that would almost certainly lead to massive pet execution.
I'm fairly certain every path in the game leads to some sort of massive execution.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 17, 2011, 10:10:50 pm
In my last 40d fort, I think my zoo had one cage that had over 600 creatures in it. (I had very effective cage traps... and a looooooot of unicorns.)
If some of the classic tricks for handling animals goes away, people may just decide not to bother with animals at all. It's a large amount of micromanagement to monitor and order the slaughtering of animals by hand when you inevitably wind up with a couple dozen species of domestic farm animals all having up to 50 creatures apiece, who can't be allowed to overcrowd lest they attack you.
Post by: Shadowfury333 on February 18, 2011, 01:33:38 am
I'm fairly certain every path in the game leads to some sort of massive execution.
Finally, a quote to adorn my signature with.
With the added foods, materials, and items being made, and thus needing to be stored, has fixing stacking behaviour become higher priority, so that stacking items don't clutter bins and barrels as much?
Post by: zwei on February 18, 2011, 03:03:33 am
Besides, you do NOT need abundant metal to defent yourself - you still have humans/dwarves to buy weapon and armor pieces from. You CAN make use of leather and bones to armor your dwarves for first ambushes if you are completelly dry and after defeated ambush, you ought to have some metal laying around... conveniently in form of fitting armor and even some usable weapons.
Game could let you bootstrap metal indrustry from nothing thou - like making anvil without forge ... clay form from kiln and reaction at smelter to pour iron into it would be rather nice if you have iron-less civ.
Post by: LoSboccacc on February 18, 2011, 03:43:04 am
Game could let you bootstrap metal indrustry from nothing thou - like making anvil without forge ... clay form from kiln and reaction at smelter to pour iron into it would be rather nice if you have iron-less civ.
wow, this would allow to start with a zero point embark... now, can somebody do it?
pretty please?
Post by: Xgamer4 on February 18, 2011, 03:53:57 am
If some of the classic tricks for handling animals goes away, people may just decide not to bother with animals at all. It's a large amount of micromanagement to monitor and order the slaughtering of animals by hand when you inevitably wind up with a couple dozen species of domestic farm animals all having up to 50 creatures apiece, who can't be allowed to overcrowd lest they attack you.
The best way to handle this, imo, would be to implement conditional manager orders. The normal example is "Brew booze when stocks < 100", or similar, but using that to do something like "butcher cows when stock > 3" would work just as well. That would get rid of a lot of micromanagement in a lot of places.
EDIT:
Found it. It's currently number two, "Standing production orders" on the ESV. The relevant thread is here:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=46325.0
EDIT EDIT:
Ok, so not exactly like the thread I linked to. But it's close enough it fits in the ESV idea. This is from the thread.
Quote
Only certain things would work with this. Things that need designations, like stone, logs, plants from gathering/farming, meat from butchering, as well as other various things wouldn't work. I'll put up a list later.
Post by: Sowelu on February 18, 2011, 04:22:41 pm
Game could let you bootstrap metal indrustry from nothing thou - like making anvil without forge ... clay form from kiln and reaction at smelter to pour iron into it would be rather nice if you have iron-less civ.
wow, this would allow to start with a zero point embark... now, can somebody do it?
pretty please?
Where do you get pickaxes to mine out the iron ore? --Oh wait. Goblinite. Whoa. If you can survive that long, you really could make an anvil out of goblinite, and use surface magma for your fuel. Damn.
Post by: Foxbyte on February 18, 2011, 05:01:51 pm
Post by: Greiger on February 18, 2011, 05:40:21 pm
Post by: Willfor on February 18, 2011, 05:43:52 pm
Yea they are, I think the most recent speculation is that they don't have anybody nearby enough to filch food from and die out. Some worlds do get surviving kobolds, but it I understand it correctly those kobolds that survive started very close to one of the big 3 civs.Some might call this natural selection.
Post by: PTTG?? on February 18, 2011, 06:38:24 pm
Post by: G-Flex on February 18, 2011, 09:46:22 pm
Post by: drvoke on February 18, 2011, 10:50:53 pm
What do you mean "what we once called the Caravan Arc"? What are we calling it now?
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on February 18, 2011, 10:53:00 pm
Post by: Dwarfu on February 19, 2011, 01:09:36 am
Yea they are, I think the most recent speculation is that they don't have anybody nearby enough to filch food from and die out. Some worlds do get surviving kobolds, but it I understand it correctly those kobolds that survive started very close to one of the big 3 civs.
If a kobold can take off my commander's head in one swipe of a large dagger, I don't see why they can't at least do some self sustaining foraging for edible raw plants, some fishing, or even rustle up a brace of coneys. Even vermin would do.
Post by: Untelligent on February 19, 2011, 02:17:14 am
I believe he was referring to the fact that it has been split into a series of mini releases.
I highly doubt any of the arcs were ever intended to come all at once in a single release. I think Toady's just referring to the giant dev page that says "caravan arc" on it being outdated.
Post by: Glanzor on February 19, 2011, 05:50:36 am
If a kobold can take off my commander's head in one swipe of a large dagger, I don't see why they can't at least do some self sustaining foraging for edible raw plants, some fishing, or even rustle up a brace of coneys. Even vermin would do.Well, they are carnivores, so plants wouldn't do it. Vermin is actually what they are supposed to live of according to Toady, but that doesn't seem to work right.
Post by: jellsprout on February 19, 2011, 06:21:21 am
Game could let you bootstrap metal indrustry from nothing thou - like making anvil without forge ... clay form from kiln and reaction at smelter to pour iron into it would be rather nice if you have iron-less civ.
wow, this would allow to start with a zero point embark... now, can somebody do it?
pretty please?
I've been doing zero point embarks since 40d. It is not difficult if you start in a forest.
Post by: TolyK on February 19, 2011, 10:41:56 am
I've done it quite a bit too...
Post by: Footkerchief on February 19, 2011, 11:49:29 am
Toady One,
What do you mean "what we once called the Caravan Arc"? What are we calling it now?
I believe he was referring to the fact that it has been split into a series of mini releases.
That and the fact that the Arc system was part of the old dev goals, (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html) which have obsolete nomenclature, numbering, etc., although the concepts are still relevant.
Post by: metime00 on February 19, 2011, 05:39:52 pm
Post by: Scamps on February 20, 2011, 02:47:24 am
Post by: TolyK on February 20, 2011, 02:56:20 am
...
:o
Post by: Flaede on February 20, 2011, 03:32:52 am
Post by: PTTG?? on February 20, 2011, 02:09:01 pm
Post by: monk12 on February 20, 2011, 04:37:29 pm
Post by: NSQuote on February 20, 2011, 10:03:07 pm
I have seen the future of the fortress, and it has whiskers.But apparently no tail.
Post by: Thundercraft on February 21, 2011, 02:15:05 am
meow :3
Cute! :D
Post by: Dutchling on February 21, 2011, 08:18:59 am
DIE!meow :3
Cute! :D
Post by: Untelligent on February 21, 2011, 12:25:03 pm
Development Page Thread cancels all rational thought: Interrupted by Scamps
So anyway, after the round of bugfixes the next thing on the dev page is some town stuff, including workshops. Will we be able to use these workshops in Adventure Mode?
Post by: SirPenguin on February 21, 2011, 01:55:39 pm
Right now it seems their use as storage is completely random at best. I have a food stockpile full of plants, meat, and fish and a workshop full of stone pots, and no one is seeing fit to combine the two. Others have said pots have near unlimited storage capacity.
Any idea what's up? I haven't glazed the pots, but would I have to with a stone pot?
Post by: Neonivek on February 21, 2011, 11:07:30 pm
Scamps has been adopted by Development Page Thread.
Development Page Thread cancels all rational thought: Interrupted by Scamps
So anyway, after the round of bugfixes the next thing on the dev page is some town stuff, including workshops. [color=chartreuseWill we be able to use these workshops in Adventure Mode?
At this point I am surprised Toady didn't create an account called "Scamps" Especially for April Fools.
Post by: Thundercraft on February 22, 2011, 01:11:59 am
31.19 does not have animal mass play any factor in how much they eat. How much they need to eat is derived from an absolute value in the [GRAZER:<integer>] tag. The integer determines how much of the hunger variable is removed per unit of grass eaten.
...keep in mind that milk production is also independent of creature size - goats produce just as much milk as cows, in spite of eating less than a tenth as much grass.
It seems that neither milk production, nor grazing, nor other food requirements are adjusted based on the genetics of creatures and civilizations. Nor are they directly influenced by or proportional to body size.
Question: Are there any plans to make milk production, grazing, and/or food consumption influenced by genetics or body size?
Post by: Rockphed on February 22, 2011, 03:58:49 am
Question: Are there any plans to make milk production, grazing, and/or food consumption influenced by genetics or body size?
Not an answer, but remember that dwarves are happy if they make a meal out of dragonfly brains.
Post by: Flaede on February 22, 2011, 09:16:54 am
Quote
# stopped regrow from adding extra grass types on a tile
Aw. I thought It like meadows with different grasses sticking up between each other.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 22, 2011, 09:51:37 am
Post by: Flaede on February 22, 2011, 09:52:50 am
Post by: DrDada on February 22, 2011, 10:20:03 am
Post by: Rockphed on February 22, 2011, 11:05:30 am
Quote
# stopped megabeasts from coming back to life and continuing to kill people
This is a bug I almost want to see in action. And advice on reproducing?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 22, 2011, 11:18:39 am
Quote# stopped regrow from adding extra grass types on a tile
Aw. I thought It like meadows with different grasses sticking up between each other.
Deon talked about it in this thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=77656.0). Apparently, you can't see multiple grasses in a single tile from the game itself, but the memory hacking tools let you know that there are multiple types of grass in a single tile.
Post by: Lord Shonus on February 22, 2011, 11:20:20 am
Post by: Rockphed on February 22, 2011, 11:24:04 am
Post by: Knight Otu on February 22, 2011, 11:43:40 am
It's been my impression that you only need to generate a world to at least 125 or 250 years or so, and you should be able to see dead megabeasts continuing their megabeast stuff in Legends mode (They seem to be dropping like flies in this release). I've had at least one that got killed, and later got revenge on the warrior that killed it. Whether they can be met in adventure mode though I don't know.Quote# stopped megabeasts from coming back to life and continuing to kill people
This is a bug I almost want to see in action. And advice on reproducing?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 22, 2011, 12:16:48 pm
Post by: SirPenguin on February 22, 2011, 12:46:05 pm
As someone originally from Maine and New Hampshire, it still blows my mind that 2 inches of snow can completely shut down this state.
Post by: Serrational on February 22, 2011, 12:49:16 pm
As someone originally from Maine and New Hampshire, it still blows my mind that 2 inches of snow can completely shut down this state.As someone originally from Scotland, that blows my mind :o.
Post by: Megaman3321 on February 22, 2011, 01:57:03 pm
Post by: tolkafox on February 22, 2011, 05:16:19 pm
Is this a fix in the next release? Good Armok, the blinking is so annoying...
Post by: Toady One on February 22, 2011, 05:23:23 pm
Quote# stopped regrow from adding extra grass types on a tile
Aw. I thought It like meadows with different grasses sticking up between each other.
Yeah that was kinda realistic. Pure breed lawns are a human invention. A real meadow has all sorts of grasses and plants all over the place.
Yeah, as a few people mentioned -- there is no change to what you see in the game currently (where grasses are all mixed up among different adjacent tiles). There was just some unintended invisible overlap on regrow that might end up breaking who knows what.
Post by: Rose on February 22, 2011, 05:33:53 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 22, 2011, 06:22:43 pm
Quote# stopped regrow from adding extra grass types on a tile
Aw. I thought It like meadows with different grasses sticking up between each other.Yeah that was kinda realistic. Pure breed lawns are a human invention. A real meadow has all sorts of grasses and plants all over the place.
Yeah, as a few people mentioned -- there is no change to what you see in the game currently (where grasses are all mixed up among different adjacent tiles). There was just some unintended invisible overlap on regrow that might end up breaking who knows what.
Actually, considering that Deon was talking about how "only the top listed grass is shown, not the longest grass", then it could be the cause of this problem:
After a few months, grasses seem to settle for a perfectly square pattern.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Is this intentional? It looks ugly.
Post by: Arkose on February 22, 2011, 08:46:20 pm
Quote
stopped bees and vermin from being assignable to pastures
I'm kind of sad to see this one go; it was kind of fun having your dwarves capture and tame a swarm of rats and then put them out to pasture. (Not that it was very useful to do so with rats, but I was hoping to eventually do the same with cave spiders to set up silk farms.)
Post by: Beardless on February 22, 2011, 08:50:18 pm
Quote from: devlog
- stopped dwarves from encrusting honeycombs with jewels etc.
I... kind of want to make that my main export now. But I understand why it must go. Oh, the sacrifices we must make in the pursuit of the glorious version 1.0!
Post by: caknuck on February 22, 2011, 11:21:40 pm
Quote
# stopped shearing/milking/pasture/cage jobs from fighting with each other
My favorite bug's been fixed? GAH!
Post by: Flaede on February 22, 2011, 11:35:52 pm
Why on earth is that your favourite bug? I liked the one where invaders' mounts claim your nesting boxes much more than animal handlers fighting over a cow.Quote# stopped shearing/milking/pasture/cage jobs from fighting with each otherMy favorite bug's been fixed? GAH!
As someone from Winnipeg, I just laugh.As someone originally from Maine and New Hampshire, it still blows my mind that 2 inches of snow can completely shut down this state.As someone originally from Scotland, that blows my mind :o.
Post by: Devling on February 23, 2011, 12:58:02 am
Post by: Cruxador on February 23, 2011, 01:44:17 am
Horses? Not just horses, but riding them to. Wait, GOBLINS RIDING TROLLZ! HOLY FUCK! Or is that already implated? If so, then make it in adventure mode. And stables to buy animals from. Please, o mighty toady, be a kind god of AWESOME!I'm not really sure where the question is supposed to be here, but anyway, that's already going in.
Post by: TolyK on February 23, 2011, 11:06:25 am
Will horses and other animals be implemented to be traded and ridden in Adventure mode?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 23, 2011, 11:14:47 am
Let me try and rephrase if for him:
Will horses and other animals be implemented to be traded and ridden in Adventure mode?
As Cruxador said, though, it is already going in...
Quote from: The Devpage
Adventure Role: Hero
- Mounts
- Can buy them as with livestock, handled as with livestock
- Movement speeds, turning and inertia
- Combat effects (velocity addition, body part selection, trampling)
Post by: TolyK on February 23, 2011, 11:16:51 am
*I gotz ninja'd*
I was looking through the devlog myself for that :P
Post by: Knight Otu on February 23, 2011, 05:28:15 pm
Post by: Armok on February 23, 2011, 06:34:59 pm
Post by: Mantonio on February 23, 2011, 06:44:02 pm
I'm actually starting to miss those little guys.
Post by: Granite26 on February 23, 2011, 07:43:18 pm
Dwarf fortress: Where even the bugs are so good, players complain when they are fixed.
I noticed that the problem where zombie birds would claim nest boxes and lay live eggs was fixed. Didn't mention what fixed meant, though... <eg>
Post by: Devling on February 23, 2011, 09:07:39 pm
YAY! Wait... somebody insulted me. :'(Let me try and rephrase if for him:
Will horses and other animals be implemented to be traded and ridden in Adventure mode?
As Cruxador said, though, it is already going in...Quote from: The DevpageAdventure Role: Hero
- Mounts
- Can buy them as with livestock, handled as with livestock
- Movement speeds, turning and inertia
- Combat effects (velocity addition, body part selection, trampling)
Post by: Neonivek on February 23, 2011, 09:13:30 pm
Dwarf fortress: Where even the bugs are so good, players complain when they are fixed.
I noticed that the problem where zombie birds would claim nest boxes and lay live eggs was fixed. Didn't mention what fixed meant, though... <eg>
My goodness... Exactly like Grim Fandango
Post by: caknuck on February 23, 2011, 09:16:55 pm
Because it was the closest thing DF has to dancing dwarves.Why on earth is that your favourite bug? I liked the one where invaders' mounts claim your nesting boxes much more than animal handlers fighting over a cow.Quote# stopped shearing/milking/pasture/cage jobs from fighting with each otherMy favorite bug's been fixed? GAH!
As someone originally from Winnipeg who just suffered through the iciest Super Bowl week ever, I just facepalmAs someone from Winnipeg, I just laugh.As someone originally from Maine and New Hampshire, it still blows my mind that 2 inches of snow can completely shut down this state.As someone originally from Scotland, that blows my mind :o.
Post by: Sunday on February 24, 2011, 09:05:31 am
Are you planning on ever implementing browsing animals? Right now all herbivores are grazers, but lots of animals eat basically only shrubs and trees.
I think it would add some interest to biomes, as well—if trees are densely packed enough, then (after multitile trees go in, at least) grasses should be a lot rarer in dense forests, meaning grazers shouldn't be very prevalent. Likewise, if you're on a savanna, there should be very limited numbers of browsers.
Post by: Caldfir on February 24, 2011, 12:00:58 pm
Are you planning on ever implementing browsing animals? Right now all herbivores are grazers, but lots of animals eat basically only shrubs and trees.
If you read through the raw entries on actual browsing animals (giraffes and the like) there are notes from Toady about browsing. Presumably this means he wants to include it at some point, but it is unlikely to occur before multi-tile vegetation gets some attention.
Post by: JohnieRWilkins on February 24, 2011, 12:37:25 pm
Do you see humans as the seafaring race? Will waterways and trade by ship play a central role to civilizations? Which races will participate in sailing and building ships? How large, in units of men and/or dwarfcube dimensions*, will the larger boats be in the future?
*Does the dwarfcube unit have a name? I'm referring to the smallest unit square tile that fit a dwarf, a cabinet, a door or a wall.
I can't really pictures dwarves sailing around in ships, they might make ships, but not sail in them. Elves likely view boats as massacres of entire forests. Goblins aren't really interested in trade. Kobolds can't even wipe their own behinds, how can they sail or build vessels? So that only leaves humans?
Pirates. Sailing merchants. Navy captain adventurers.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 24, 2011, 12:53:34 pm
*Does the dwarfcube unit have a name? I'm referring to the smallest unit square tile that fit a dwarf, a cabinet, a door or a wall.
A beard score (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=76186.msg1929144#msg1929144), the distance a beard grows in 20 years.
I can't really pictures dwarves sailing around in ships, they might make ships, but not sail in them. Elves likely view boats as massacres of entire forests. Goblins aren't really interested in trade. Kobolds can't even wipe their own behinds, how can they sail or build vessels? So that only leaves humans?
Dwarves don't sail? Are you mad? Just look at how pirates treated their booze (http://www.thepirateking.com/historical/pirate_booze.htm), (or the drinking game where the pirate captain shoots wildly into the dark and declares that whoever he happened to shoot must have been a traitor) and tell me those aren't just unusually lanky dwarves!
Furthermore, Vikings.
Clearly, dwarves are viking pirates who prowl the seas with ballista at the ready to slaughter any who dare ply the seas without donating to the dwarves' booze stockpiles! Besides, how else are you going to capture enough mermaids and sea serpents to stock your fisheries but to go chasing them down? You don't honestly believe that mere humans are dwarfy enough to trully plunder every natural resource to its stomach-churning limits?
Travelling over the world map by sea would also be a great way to break out of being locked into a single mountain range for all of worldgen.
Post by: Thundercraft on February 24, 2011, 12:58:39 pm
Quote from: devlog
- stopped dwarves from encrusting honeycombs with jewels etc.
I... kind of want to make that my main export now. But I understand why it must go. Oh, the sacrifices we must make in the pursuit of the glorious version 1.0!
Has anyone seen an artifact bee hive yet? Considering that the hive is made at a craftsdwarf's workshop, I assumed this was possible. I'd like to see that achieved before Toady drastically reduces the value of hives in the next version. If for no other reason than to see how insane the value of the thing can reach. Such a hive would be fit for a Queen bee and royal jelly, at least. :P
Post by: jellsprout on February 24, 2011, 01:23:08 pm
Post by: JohnieRWilkins on February 24, 2011, 01:38:57 pm
Dwarves don't sail? Are you mad? Just look at how pirates treated their booze (http://www.thepirateking.com/historical/pirate_booze.htm), (or the drinking game where the pirate captain shoots wildly into the dark and declares that whoever he happened to shoot must have been a traitor) and tell me those aren't just unusually lanky dwarves!(The humans undoubtedly like booze just as much as the dwarves)
Furthermore, Vikings.
Clearly, dwarves are viking pirates who prowl the seas with ballista at the ready to slaughter any who dare ply the seas without donating to the dwarves' booze stockpiles! Besides, how else are you going to capture enough mermaids and sea serpents to stock your fisheries but to go chasing them down? You don't honestly believe that mere humans are dwarfy enough to trully plunder every natural resource to its stomach-churning limits?
Travelling over the world map by sea would also be a great way to break out of being locked into a single mountain range for all of worldgen.
Viking, to me, is synonymous with giant mountain of a man with pale skin and blonde hair. The exact opposite of the image of dwarf I'm getting. They probably wouldn't be able to tolerate all that sun bearing down on them. Besides, dwarves too short to row galleys.
Although chaining merfolk to the bow of the ship on short lengths of chain... in front of giant spikes is totally dwarf. That'd be like the dwarven secret to super fast ships. Ya gotta have the mermaids drag the ship by chains.
What would you call the time when the mermaids get tired of dragging? Dinner.
Post by: Areyar on February 24, 2011, 02:03:37 pm
In the world were Toady writes DF, Vikings called their dwarves trolls IIRC. :p
Calling a dwarf troll: a good way to get your knees capped.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 24, 2011, 02:14:35 pm
Anyway, it wouldn't be hard to "dwarfify" vikings. They don't all look like Thor, and look fairly dwarfy to me already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dannevirke_welcome_sign.jpg) in popular culture.
The longship has a sail, and uses oars to sail against the wind or upriver. Oars are all about leverage, anyway, so being stronger and having a better fulcrum point should make up for shorter arms.
Besides, I'm not saying we have to make dwarves into vikings, just that vikings and viking ways (and pirates) are a good model for how dwarves can take to the sea: A short, sturdy creature fond of drink and
There are two ways to go, really... Vikings were so successful because they had shallow draft ships that let them sail upriver to attack inland.
The other way to go is to make bigger ships the way that the ancient Greeks and Egyptians made theirs. Dwarves might make bigger ships than humans do, with "forecastles" and "aftcastles" that are literal stone battlements and stack marksdwarves and catapults and ballistas on them. The Archimedes Screw, the basis of the screw pump, was actually devised to keep pumping the water that filled up ships like this out of the holds of these ships, since they tended to be cumbersome and less-than-watertight behemoths. These sorts of ships require dedicated ports to land upon, although dinghys could certainly be launched. These are also the ships of major traders on the open seas who don't give a damn about how they are chopping down their entire nation's forests to make these sorts of ships (leading to Greece's decline as they completely deforested their country, and that led to soil erosion and a drop in the ability to feed their people and armies).
The longship fought by just boarding the enemy and fighting hand-to-hand between the ships. The giant ancient ships fought by ramming or using the catapults and ballistas to sink the opposing ships, and hand-to-hand combat was more rare.
Big flavor difference, but both are the sorts of extremes of medieval naval combat. Honestly, I can see dwarves doing either one, but I think vikings and hand-to-hand warfare are more dwarfy than the Egyptians.
Post by: KillerClowns on February 24, 2011, 02:35:39 pm
...Honestly, I can see dwarves doing either one, but I think vikings and hand-to-hand warfare are more dwarfy than the Egyptians.
Au contraire. Gigantic ships mounted with catapults, ballistae, and even more complicated machinery are far more dwarfy than Viking style raiding galleys. The latter seems like it should be a goblin specialty.
Post by: Areyar on February 24, 2011, 02:45:26 pm
I'd expect the entire dwarven hull be crafted out of mermaid bone. :D
Post by: Knight Otu on February 24, 2011, 03:15:11 pm
hehehe, just a mermaid figurehead?Mermaid bone? Mermaid bone?!
I'd expect the entire dwarven hull be crafted out of mermaid bone. :D
Seriously?
You're supposed to use mermaid fingernail. :P
Post by: Footkerchief on February 24, 2011, 03:22:49 pm
Do you see humans as the seafaring race? Will waterways and trade by ship play a central role to civilizations? Which races will participate in sailing and building ships? How large, in units of men and/or dwarfcube dimensions*, will the larger boats be in the future?
This is the first of several posts from Toady in a topic about ships and boats:
I had an email discussion about this recently and I didn't see any posts of mine in the threads Footkerchief linked (though I've said it elsewhere), so I figured I'd say it again. We'd like to have larger ships, something 16x5 with a 3 tile wide deck and multiple z levels would be fine. And yeah, there are a few problems.
With the improved sieges (sometime soon after this release, likely) will come a different and more properly supported notion of a moving vehicle (say, a siege tower), likely as a set of tiles handled something like constructions, but with the ability to move as a unit (along with any creatures or items in their tiles).
Now, boats can move along any heading in a near perfect approximation (over over up over over up etc., maybe using the guts of the standard line drawing algorithm, etc.) but the main issue is displayed facing. There are issues with any rotation idea I've heard of that does more than 4 directions. The shearing row by row idea in alfie's post for example has issues with flows coming in along the diagonals (especially in a multi-story ship), and that there's still going to be a fundamental flip once you hit 45 degrees anyway. The flows might be plugged up with temporary tiles along the new diagonals or something, but that might lead to temporary floors for items that then disappear or something. There are a lot of issues.
There's also the idea of just using 4 directions for the boat (it can move in many more directions, but it can actually only sit in 4 directions). This leads to teleportation and displacement problems, but these aren't necessarily deal breakers, especially if you add a requirement that the ship must have a free space underneath any tile (so water critters and swimmers can just be pushed down a tile instead of teleported across the ship, which isn't so different from what would happen if you get run over). You can also deal with the ship flipping back and forth between two directions by instituting some buffer versus the actual facing, so that crossing from 30 degrees to 45 doesn't change you from east to north, but you have to actually get to 60 or so first. Then once your ship shoots up to north, you have to go all the way back to 30 to get it back to east, which gives you a 30 degree difference so you can't just flip back and forth. Flips need to be minimized not only because they are ugly, but especially with issues like wrestling and stuck-ins, they can be fundamentally messy and game-breaking (say a guy on deck is holding a crew member who is dangling overboard while a sea serpent is chomping on the dangling guy's leg and then the boat turns, and the sea serpent is hooked to a post underwater, etc. -- you'd probably want to break the chain of creatures and buildings at the weakest link, but it might be a net not a chain, etc etc etc).
Anyway, things are possible in dwarf mode, but the idea here was more for adventure mode and the necessity of boats there. If boats never make it into dwarf mode it wouldn't particularly bother me, since we are talking about dwarves, but I wouldn't rule anything out. I'm starting from an adv mode perspective here though, since it would obviously be a lot of fun to do things like epic voyages and piracy.
It's also mentioned on the development page (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html):
Quote
Adventurer Role: Explorer
* Mapping and obstacles
o Ferries
o Ports and boats (even if they are just used to teleport to other ports at first)
Military
* Improved sieges
o Siege engine improvements depend on state of boats, lifts/moving fortress sections, since these should all use the same framework
*Does the dwarfcube unit have a name? I'm referring to the smallest unit square tile that fit a dwarf, a cabinet, a door or a wall.
No official name. "Tile" (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=4787.msg64877#msg64877) is typically used but it's ambiguous since larger groupings of tiles (48x48 blocks and so on) are also referred to as "world tiles" etc.
Post by: LunatictheInvincible on February 24, 2011, 03:36:52 pm
Do you see humans as the seafaring race? Will waterways and trade by ship play a central role to civilizations? Which races will participate in sailing and building ships? How large, in units of men and/or dwarfcube dimensions*, will the larger boats be in the future?
Personally, I see all races as having some manner of sea/river travel ability possible in the future. First question: Yes. Second question: Chances are good,
(All measurements in length by width by height and in dwarfcubes)
Humans: Yes: fishing boats (smaller, maybe 5-7x3-5x2-3 dwarfcubes in size), galleys along the line of ancient greeks/romans/egyptians (i.e. ramming, boarding, ballistas, catapults).
Elves: Yes: Canoes or hollowed logs, perhaps some manner of specially cultivated tree (2-20x1-3x1-2) with the larger measurements being for the massive trees. Alternatively, give them boats similar to the humans made entirely out of sentient corpses.
Kobolds: Yes: More by accident than anything else, but they can travel by fallen tree express (1-3x1x1).
Goblins: Yes: They are intelligent enough for the smelting of metals, so they should have sailing capabilities, probably something along the lines of the viking raider/pirate style that I believe has been mentioned previously.
Forgotten Beasts/Titan: They walk.
Dwarves: Most certainly yes. I support the previously mentioned designs, all of them. Also, just because they are dwarves, I see them sailing in massive vessels composed of anything from wood to stone to bones to bones/flesh to ice. These massive vessels would possess extensive fortifications and excessive quanitites of weapons (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoreDakka), not to mention the onboard plump helmet farms and the endless supply of booze.
Speaking of booze, does dwarven wine really fit for dwarves? Perhaps it could be named whiskey or something similarly more liver terrifying.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on February 24, 2011, 03:53:07 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 24, 2011, 04:47:42 pm
Speaking of booze, does dwarven wine really fit for dwarves? Perhaps it could be named whiskey or something similarly more liver terrifying.
When I go out to one of those Japanese Hibachi restaurants, they always insist on calling things odd names, like Soy Sauce is "Japanese Ketchup". (What? No it isn't. It's nothing like ketchup, other than the excessive salt!)
I always assume that "Dwarven ____" is just a euphamism dwarves have for things that are far too disgusting to really call a truly descriptive name.
"Dwarven Cheese" is made by milking a giant maggot instead of a cow, for example.
So basically, "dwarven wine" is something that dwarves call their booze to get humans to drink it so they can watch their reactions. It's made from fermenting magic mushrooms, after all.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on February 24, 2011, 05:02:48 pm
Post by: G-Flex on February 24, 2011, 05:10:41 pm
Of course, it's a rather pedantic complaint, but in a game with this much detail, why not?
Post by: scriver on February 24, 2011, 05:47:38 pm
Kobolds: Yes: More by accident than anything else, but they can travel by fallen tree express (1-3x1x1).It's the ship's kobold! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobold#Water_spirits)
Post by: Thundercraft on February 24, 2011, 07:02:32 pm
...just because they are dwarves, I see them sailing in massive vessels composed of anything from wood to stone to bones to bones/flesh to ice. These massive vessels would possess extensive fortifications and excessive quanitites of weapons (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoreDakka), not to mention the onboard plump helmet farms and the endless supply of booze.
Although it sounds impractical, it is theoretically possible to make ships out of stone. Of course, certain types of stone could be preferable for having less mass while still being watertight. (To be realistic, chalk should be excluded because it's porous and would leak water. It's also too brittle.)
Stone may be heavier than water, but so is steel. It's just a matter of the boat displacing enough water. The real problem would be forming such a close fit between joints that a bit of cement of some sort would make it watertight and hold it together. (I've read that the joints between stones in the pyramids in Egypt are so close that one can not fit a knife blade between them. But then, some claim the Ancient Egyptians used some form of super concrete. Apparently, material testing seem to suggest this.)
Making huge sailing ships out of ice? Now that's very dwarfy! It is also 100% possible.
In fact, towards the end of WWII the Allies were building a prototype for a battleship made almost entirely of ice and wood pulp (called "Pykrete"). In order to make such ships bomb and torpedo-proof they planned on making the hulls 35 feet thick. And one of their science advisors said such ships could be made fast and cheap at about 4,000 feet long and 600 feet wide.
Link: Pykrete & Ice Ships (http://jmbell.org/blog/2010/03/pykrete/)
Post by: Kogut on February 24, 2011, 07:09:04 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_ship
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:SS_Faith_launching_First_Concrete_Ship_Service_Studio_Photo.JPG
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Betonowiec_kz.jpg
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 24, 2011, 07:22:09 pm
Having a literal floating fortress could be a quite dwarfy experiment.
In some hypothetical future version of DF, we could create some sort of oceanside embark, create a concrete fortress in the ocean, and then sail it into the ocean, to where there are resources that you cannot reach from land (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=78079.msg2010209#msg2010209), and we could set up a dwarven "oil rig" that sails into position, "drills" into the crust, sets up oceanic mining expeditions, loads up on ores and magma, then pulls up anchor, and sets sail once again in search of new material wealth to plunder from the briney deep.
Post by: Thundercraft on February 24, 2011, 07:49:41 pm
...we could create some sort of oceanside embark, create a concrete fortress in the ocean, and then sail it into the ocean, to where there are resources that you cannot reach from land (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=78079.msg2010209#msg2010209), and we could set up a dwarven "oil rig" that sails into position, "drills" into the crust, sets up oceanic mining expeditions, loads up on ores and magma, then pulls up anchor, and sets sail once again in search of new material wealth to plunder from the briney deep.
Nice idea. Though, if we have dwarven ships of stone, steel, and cannons, we'd also have to have pirates! Dorf pirates might find it preferable to sink ships, rather than fight on deck. Then they'd scoop up any cargo that floats on water and retrieve the
On the subject of grasses on evil biomes:
I embarked in an evil area and a lot of the ground is covered in, um, eyeballs on stalks. Will this actually work for animal feed or will I have to break a cavern?
At the moment, grazing animals will eat staring eyeball and wormy tendril grass as if it were normal with no ill effects. I'm hoping this will change in the future, but at the moment it's just cosmetic.
Perhaps grazing animals that eat those should make the milk and cheese taste funny? :D
Urist McCheeselover: Yuck... Why does this cheese taste of onion? And why is it rubbery and tough like leather?
Urist McObservant: Well, I guess there are consequences to living off this cursed, forsaken place. Maybe it had something to do with all those eyeballs and worms the goats were eating?
Seriously, though, I hope it does not make grazing animals sick or dying. That'd really limit the options for animals on evil biomes. Instead, you could have milking give some other substance, which has much less food and material value. It makes sense, too, because what cows and goats eat does affect the flavor of milk. If a cow eats a sizable quantity of wild onions, you can taste it.
Post by: Sowelu on February 24, 2011, 08:07:36 pm
Though I wonder what would become of non-grazers when they discovered fields of flesh and eyeballs. Wouldn't the place be, like, engorged with ravens that swoop down and peck the eyes out of the grass?
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on February 24, 2011, 08:42:08 pm
Wouldn't the place be, like, engorged with ravens that swoop down and peck the eyes out of the grass?
Don't forget the worm grass.
It would be like something out of a Hitchcock movie.
Post by: Thundercraft on February 24, 2011, 09:18:27 pm
Besides, I have a suspicion that if it smells and tastes plant-like and edible, most grazing animals would not care what the grass looks like. Although, grass that wiggles like worms or tentacles should certainly spook them. At least until they either get used to it or get hungry enough.
Truth be told, if cows are starving enough they will even eat stuff that's pretty poisonous - such as raw poke weed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poke_weed).
Also, animals can be more adaptable than some people give credit. For example, there is a certain species of butterfly that is attracted to the bloody wounds on the back of cattle in Africa, where the tick birds have pulled the ticks out. Some scientists speculate that we might be seeing the beginnings of a new vampire species of butterfly! :o
I even seem to recall some wild predictions that kangaroos might evolve to become carnivorous some day. This was years ago, but the magazine article I read even had a 3D model of what the killer roos might look like. They had fangs. (Though, by itself, fangs do not a carnivorous animal make. There is such a thing as "vampire deer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_deer)" with fangs instead of antlers, but they are herbivores.)
Post by: G-Flex on February 24, 2011, 09:21:28 pm
Don't forget that goats will eat all kinds of garbage, including paper.
Besides, I have a suspicion that if it smells and tastes plant-like and edible, most grazing animals would not care what the grass looks like. Although, grass that wiggles like worms or tentacles should certainly spook them. At least until they either get used to it or get hungry enough.
To be fair, the eye and worm grass are literally made out of eye and muscle tissue, respectively. They aren't grass at all, so it is pretty damn weird that herbivorous grazing animals can eat them just the same.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 24, 2011, 09:54:31 pm
The idea of growing magic meat grass to feed your pack of tame tigers might be amusing, though.
Post by: JohnieRWilkins on February 24, 2011, 11:47:55 pm
Thanks for the answers footkerchief. I don't think that the question on seafaring races has been answered by toady though. I'm looking through all of the boat threads in existence now.
E: I think that DF might be in dire need of a new dominant seafaring race. The vikings basically. Because having seafaring humans would detract from landlubber quests. Ships just sort of make land adventuring obsolete in a way since it would lessen the focus on that. If a new race is added, you'd still be able to adventure as the human, but then you pick the vikings to sort of float around and yarr at people.
Post by: PTTG?? on February 25, 2011, 12:35:42 am
Urist Stonekiller: Blacksmith cancels forge war-hammer: Interrupted by duck.
Post by: Flaede on February 25, 2011, 12:36:16 am
Units have reached a new level of cowardice:
Urist Stonekiller: Blacksmith cancels forge war-hammer: Interrupted by duck.
Nono. That's pretty standard levels of cowardice.
Post by: PTTG?? on February 25, 2011, 12:47:35 am
How do I go about getting these eggs hatched?
Post by: G-Flex on February 25, 2011, 01:15:07 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 25, 2011, 01:22:42 am
Units have reached a new level of cowardice:
Urist Stonekiller: Blacksmith cancels forge war-hammer: Interrupted by duck.
That's not cowardice. Those ducks can be pretty annoying sometimes. They'll whip around inside your clothes, then kiss you on the lips, then dance around while yelling "WOOHOO! WOOHOO! WOOHOO!", and no matter how many times you blast them with your shotgun during "Wabbit Season", they never die.
I mean, that'd interrupt anything you were trying to do.
Post by: Thundercraft on February 25, 2011, 02:38:53 am
To be fair, the eye and worm grass are literally made out of eye and muscle tissue, respectively. They aren't grass at all, so it is pretty damn weird that herbivorous grazing animals can eat them just the same.
Pigs are one of the new grazers. And in real life they will eat dam* near anything - including meat. I wouldn't be surprised if pigs would eat pork. Feral pigs are also well known for tearing up fields of crops overnight and harming whole ecosystems. For instance, the Conservation Department in Hawaii has to take drastic measures to kill feral pigs because they do not have any natural predators on the islands. Pigs are a seriously harmful invasive species there, rooting up the ground and killing a lot of native vegetation.
For that matter, many agribusiness farms were feeding "animal byproducts" to livestock - including cattle and chickens - until this practice was banned for fear of spreading Mad Cow Disease. They were doing this because animal byproducts (i.e., animal organs and other leftover tissues) were cheap and it made them gain weight. Even if the feed was doctored up to be more palatable to them, is it odd that herbivores would be willing to eat junk like that? I've heard that in some cases the animals were basically forced into becoming cannibals...
Post by: Ethicalfive on February 25, 2011, 04:04:23 am
Units have reached a new level of cowardice:
Urist Stonekiller: Blacksmith cancels forge war-hammer: Interrupted by duck.
That's not cowardice. Those ducks can be pretty annoying sometimes. They'll whip around inside your clothes, then kiss you on the lips, then dance around while yelling "WOOHOO! WOOHOO! WOOHOO!", and no matter how many times you blast them with your shotgun during "Wabbit Season", they never die.
I mean, that'd interrupt anything you were trying to do.
Lol! I think you may have been getting ducks and rabbits confused there...?
It would be nice if small fluffy harmless animals were ignored, or simply if the dwarf could not bear to ignore it the interuption could be something like:
Urist Stonekiller: Blacksmith cancels forge war-hammer: Strangling annoying duck
or something similar
Post by: G-Flex on February 25, 2011, 04:15:21 am
Post by: Thief^ on February 25, 2011, 05:12:49 am
I've been trying out a kobold mod. So far it's working, but I'm getting a LOT of Kobold eggs... and they're going in the food stockpile.
How do I go about getting these eggs hatched?
Disable them in the stockpile and they'll stay in the nestboxes, but you want to dump infertile ones because they'll never hatch.
Post by: Areyar on February 25, 2011, 08:02:54 am
also: infertile eggs? Oo
edit: Ahh #3828
Post by: veok on February 25, 2011, 01:04:30 pm
Post by: Areyar on February 26, 2011, 06:06:40 am
I just read the description of the Giant Earthworm.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
It should be called a Rockworm or maybe a Sqyrm (as in Wyrm) ;).
Post by: Knight Otu on February 26, 2011, 06:31:50 am
Does this mean you have added [TUNNELLING] as a tag and method of movement?Nope, it's currently just description. I think another of the new underground beasts is described as hanging from the ceilings, which also is just description.
Post by: darkflagrance on February 26, 2011, 07:31:50 am
I've been trying out a kobold mod. So far it's working, but I'm getting a LOT of Kobold eggs... and they're going in the food stockpile.
How do I go about getting these eggs hatched?
Disable them in the stockpile and they'll stay in the nestboxes, but you want to dump infertile ones because they'll never hatch.
Worse than that, you can cook or eat them, so they're even more useless than stone crafts. Might as well magma them or atom-smash them.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on February 26, 2011, 08:12:35 am
Post by: TolyK on February 26, 2011, 08:14:24 am
[/derail]
afaik you can't
Post by: G-Flex on February 26, 2011, 03:36:58 pm
Possibly a stupid question and one that will probably be answered before you even read this:
I just read the description of the Giant Earthworm.Does this mean you have added [TUNNELLING] as a tag and method of movement?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
It should be called a Rockworm or maybe a Sqyrm (as in Wyrm) ;).
You realize you could have spent less time checking the raws than you took to ask the question, right?
Post by: Areyar on February 26, 2011, 04:39:10 pm
Isa form o socializing. ;)
Post by: Lemunde on February 26, 2011, 06:18:00 pm
Post by: Areyar on February 26, 2011, 06:30:00 pm
saltpeter, rocksalt.
I guess they are there for when the alchemy gets an overhaul...and salted pork/fish!
Post by: G-Flex on February 26, 2011, 06:39:35 pm
So what are your plans for cobaltite and cinnabar?
Cobalt is pretty far beyond the technological realm of possibility here, although cinnabar mining isn't, and I don't think mercury extraction from cinnabar even requires much of a "smelting" operation, per se (I think it mostly consists of tumbling the broken rock in a high-heat environment).
Post by: nil on February 26, 2011, 06:58:07 pm
Post by: Granite26 on February 26, 2011, 08:36:51 pm
Is there any reason to expect a 1 to 1 correlation between location inside the ship and location outside? What I mean is, when you're on the ship, calculate your location in relation to the ship. If you jump out, calculate a 'best guess' square to land in based on where the ship is. Then all you need to do is handle normal movement(Display as whatever angle you want, but move 1 up 1 across style) and parking (since docks will be on the grid, a docked ship has to align to the grid to dock.).
Added bonus: Reference frame for everything on the ship is to the ship, so you don't have to think about anything on the ship when you move it.
Post by: Arkose on February 26, 2011, 08:39:41 pm
So what are your plans for cobaltite and cinnabar?
Cobalt is pretty far beyond the technological realm of possibility here, although cinnabar mining isn't, and I don't think mercury extraction from cinnabar even requires much of a "smelting" operation, per se (I think it mostly consists of tumbling the broken rock in a high-heat environment).
I don't know if they were talking about smelting necessarily; cobalt and cinnabar have historically been used as blue and red pigments. I could see them being used as ingredients in the dyer's workshop.
Post by: monk12 on February 26, 2011, 08:48:45 pm
So what are your plans for cobaltite and cinnabar?
Cobalt is pretty far beyond the technological realm of possibility here, although cinnabar mining isn't, and I don't think mercury extraction from cinnabar even requires much of a "smelting" operation, per se (I think it mostly consists of tumbling the broken rock in a high-heat environment).
Cobalt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt#History) has been used for making crap blue since ancient times. To quote, "Cobalt compounds have been used for centuries to impart a rich blue color to glass, glazes, and ceramics. Cobalt has been detected in Egyptian sculpture and Persian jewelry from the third millennium BC, in the ruins of Pompeii (destroyed AD 79), and in China dating from the Tang dynasty (AD 618–907) and the Ming dynasty (AD 1368–1644).[8]" and furthermore, "Cobalt has been used to color glass since the Bronze Age. The excavation of the Uluburun shipwreck yielded an ingot of blue glass, which was cast during the 14th century BC.[9][10] Blue glass items from Egypt are colored with copper, iron, or cobalt. The oldest cobalt-colored glass was from the time of the Eighteenth dynasty in Egypt (1550–1292 BC)."
Cinnabar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinnabar) has a similar history, with an added bonus of body painting by the Romans.
That article also taught me that Cobalt is from the German kobalt, from kobold, meaning goblin. Whee!
Post by: G-Flex on February 26, 2011, 08:54:48 pm
I know that there were some cobalt compounds (maybe just cobalt oxide of some sort?) used to color glass and porcelain in various areas here and there throughout history, but I have no idea what compounds they use, and have suspicions that they weren't derived from cobaltite.
Post by: monk12 on February 26, 2011, 09:23:26 pm
A bit of further digging popped up Cobalt blue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_blue), which is a compound of cobalt monoxide and aluminum-oxide. It has existed in impure form for centuries and was the source of cobalt in chinese porcelain, but was only produced on a large scale in 1807.
Cobalt Monoxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt%28II%29_oxide) has a shoddy wiki entry which mentions that cobalt monoxide is one the ingredients in cobalt blue, and also suggests that it was used independently to make blue glazes and glass.
Further digging also brought me to cobalt poisoning, which makes me wish for more syndromes.
I'm pretty well along on a wiki walk now, but as far as this discussion it looks like ancient cultures got cobalt wherever they could, and often didn't realize that it was the cobalt in whatever compound they were using that gave the blue color. Whether cobaltite was the most common source or is just a catchall term used by DF is unclear.
Post by: Chthonic on February 26, 2011, 10:22:46 pm
Back to boats:
Is there any reason to expect a 1 to 1 correlation between location inside the ship and location outside? What I mean is, when you're on the ship, calculate your location in relation to the ship. If you jump out, calculate a 'best guess' square to land in based on where the ship is. Then all you need to do is handle normal movement(Display as whatever angle you want, but move 1 up 1 across style) and parking (since docks will be on the grid, a docked ship has to align to the grid to dock.).
Added bonus: Reference frame for everything on the ship is to the ship, so you don't have to think about anything on the ship when you move it.
Granite is smart. These are good ideas.
Post by: Ratbert_CP on February 27, 2011, 01:14:18 am
Quote from: Chthonic
Granite is smart. These are good ideas.
Someone thought it was a good idea to send seven random "volunteers" into the wilderness to start a settlement. Then someone thought it was a good idea to send a contingent from the lye-makers local 153 to said settlement...
Both "good" and "ideas" have fluid meanings in and around Dwarf Fortress.
Post by: TolyK on February 27, 2011, 03:32:23 am
Back to boats:Post it here please: Vehicles Megathread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=72675)
Is there any reason to expect a 1 to 1 correlation between location inside the ship and location outside? What I mean is, when you're on the ship, calculate your location in relation to the ship. If you jump out, calculate a 'best guess' square to land in based on where the ship is. Then all you need to do is handle normal movement(Display as whatever angle you want, but move 1 up 1 across style) and parking (since docks will be on the grid, a docked ship has to align to the grid to dock.).
Added bonus: Reference frame for everything on the ship is to the ship, so you don't have to think about anything on the ship when you move it.
yeah, while on a ship or vehicle (i.e. adventure mode) you have the view centered on the ship, and coordinates for that marked relative to the ship. you could have the same thing for AI ingame, just make them move to a certain spot on the ship (the "docking deck zone" or whatever) and then onto shore.
Post by: therahedwig on February 27, 2011, 10:02:10 am
Question was already awnsered.
Post by: EmperorNuthulu on February 27, 2011, 11:14:22 am
I'd love to see salt in DF. Historically it was extremely important (and a major trade good).
I think it's in there in some sort of obscene way, since you can have a god of salt. Although it might just be in the vocabulary files.
The development page states that the next release is going to focus on the towns. Are you planning to do the non-human civ dwellings as well?
Apparently this is happening much later on in the army arc.
Post by: metime00 on February 27, 2011, 11:27:30 am
I'd love to see salt in DF. Historically it was extremely important (and a major trade good).
I think it's in there in some sort of obscene way, since you can have a god of salt. Although it might just be in the vocabulary files.The development page states that the next release is going to focus on the towns. Are you planning to do the non-human civ dwellings as well?
Apparently this is happening much later on in the army arc.
Salt is a material that forgotten beasts, demons, and titans can be made out of. Also, where did you hear about the non-human civ dwellings being in the army arc? I would like to read.
Post by: Knight Otu on February 27, 2011, 12:07:28 pm
QuoteQuote from: nenjinSo in the flurry of the caravan and army arcs, are you going to rough out the dwarven, elven and goblin civs so there's something for people to see when they venture out to those sites? Or does that play into too much political/civ-specific design you don't want to get bogged down in yet?Quote from: metime00What kind of structures/towns will dwarves and elves have if they get visible settlements in the next update?
There will most likely be something there into the army arc. It's not in for the next update.
Post by: therahedwig on February 27, 2011, 12:19:23 pm
Post by: metime00 on February 27, 2011, 02:06:43 pm
This quote's from before the current release.QuoteQuote from: nenjinSo in the flurry of the caravan and army arcs, are you going to rough out the dwarven, elven and goblin civs so there's something for people to see when they venture out to those sites? Or does that play into too much political/civ-specific design you don't want to get bogged down in yet?Quote from: metime00What kind of structures/towns will dwarves and elves have if they get visible settlements in the next update?
There will most likely be something there into the army arc. It's not in for the next update.
I was the one that asked the question that got answered that I don't remember. D'oh :P
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on February 27, 2011, 02:38:36 pm
Salt is a material that forgotten beasts, demons, and titans can be made out of.I'd love to see salt in DF. Historically it was extremely important (and a major trade good).
I think it's in there in some sort of obscene way, since you can have a god of salt. Although it might just be in the vocabulary files.
There's also rock salt the sedimentary layer stone.
Post by: Areyar on February 27, 2011, 03:02:07 pm
but rocksalt is treated as any other type of non-economic stone type. It does not melt in the rain for example. I have seen mountains of rocksalt exposed to the elements...this was not in an arid ecology btw.
having sweetwater ponds on naked rocksalt is even weirder. :-\
It would be interesting if a salt golem would dissolve(quickdrown-rot) in sweetwater. :)
Post by: Thundercraft on February 27, 2011, 10:21:00 pm
Where in inits is option for animal population cap? I can't find it. I believe the default is 50, but I'd like to set it to 20.
It's not in the inits. It appears to be a hard-coded limit in the code. You can't change it.
Has it been considered to turn this into an init.txt or d_init.txt option?
I'm sure more than a few players would appreciate that. I assume this would be simple to code. (The game would just have to read a variable from init.txt instead of using a constant.) And it's not like doing this would be something that players could abuse or would ruin the atmosphere of the game. We can already control population caps for dwarves and children.
Post by: Dante on February 27, 2011, 11:58:40 pm
Where in inits is option for animal population cap? I can't find it. I believe the default is 50, but I'd like to set it to 20.
It's not in the inits. It appears to be a hard-coded limit in the code. You can't change it.
Iirc, there is indeed a site cap for each animal in the relevant creature's raws.
Post by: 3 on February 28, 2011, 12:09:38 am
Post by: Mantonio on February 28, 2011, 08:24:22 am
Post by: Knight Otu on February 28, 2011, 09:09:54 am
... and you should be able to see dead megabeasts continuing their megabeast stuff in Legends mode (They seem to be dropping like flies in this release).
Actually, I'm wondering how much of the increase in megabeast deaths is intentional? When you fixed the comeback bug, you made no mention of the increased number of megabeast deaths itself being a bug, but it seems off to see an elf kill a slade colossus (quick mod to test this out).
Post by: thvaz on February 28, 2011, 10:00:58 am
Why megabeasts doesn't reproduce yet? I thought Dragons and hydras were waiting for eggs. Do you plan to change this soon?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 28, 2011, 10:32:06 am
Has it been considered to turn this into an init.txt or d_init.txt option?
I'm sure more than a few players would appreciate that. I assume this would be simple to code. (The game would just have to read a variable from init.txt instead of using a constant.) And it's not like doing this would be something that players could abuse or would ruin the atmosphere of the game. We can already control population caps for dwarves and children.
Iirc, there is indeed a site cap for each animal in the relevant creature's raws.
Actually, I'd like this more in the creature raws than in the init. Having a population cap of 50 for bunnies as well as for elephants will get wierd the more that size differences play a role. Creatures you tend to just stuff into cages en masse are not going to have the same amount of lag problems, while dralthas that completely vacuum up your entire gass supply, need different responses.
Post by: Footkerchief on February 28, 2011, 12:07:11 pm
In my last generated world two megabeasts were killed by elves...and both of them came back due to the bug.
Why megabeasts doesn't reproduce yet? I thought Dragons and hydras were waiting for eggs. Do you plan to change this soon?
It sounds like it's already in:
Quote from: KillerClownsHow will inherently lonely megabeasts find mates? Will other megabeasts reproduce? And will FBs and titans be able to inherit egg laying?
Until critters move around on the world map, which is coming but isn't here yet, we just have megabeast reproduction in world gen and eggs sitting around that ostensibly come around from whatever. I don't know that titans or FBs will ever lay eggs as a matter of course, because we don't really have an explanation for what they are or what their continuing role in the world is.
Are you sure they aren't reproducing?
Post by: thvaz on February 28, 2011, 12:20:13 pm
In my last generated world two megabeasts were killed by elves...and both of them came back due to the bug.
Why megabeasts doesn't reproduce yet? I thought Dragons and hydras were waiting for eggs. Do you plan to change this soon?
It sounds like it's already in:Quote from: KillerClownsHow will inherently lonely megabeasts find mates? Will other megabeasts reproduce? And will FBs and titans be able to inherit egg laying?
Until critters move around on the world map, which is coming but isn't here yet, we just have megabeast reproduction in world gen and eggs sitting around that ostensibly come around from whatever. I don't know that titans or FBs will ever lay eggs as a matter of course, because we don't really have an explanation for what they are or what their continuing role in the world is.
Are you sure they aren't reproducing?
I didn't see anyone talking about it and didn't see in the worlds I generated. I asked about because of this specific answer. Maybe they reproduce in play but not in world gen, then.
Post by: randompeep on February 28, 2011, 07:03:37 pm
Post by: Granite26 on February 28, 2011, 07:20:11 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on February 28, 2011, 07:41:21 pm
I, personally, don't want to see Toady recreating Warcraft, here, and think that we don't need to have a set of "good" and "evil" ranked bunch of opponents. Especially when the two sides mirror each other so fiercely that the term "evil" is only superficially different from "good", and may as well be described as a battle between the forces of "green skin" versus "hairy people".
Post by: Caldfir on February 28, 2011, 09:07:17 pm
Why megabeasts doesn't reproduce yet? I thought Dragons and hydras were waiting for eggs. Do you plan to change this soon?
It's in, just SUPER rare.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=78588.0 (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=78588.0)
Post by: Granite26 on February 28, 2011, 09:42:51 pm
Or elite goblin marksmen? (Or elite trolls in steel armor, help us all...)
I, personally, don't want to see Toady recreating Warcraft, here, and think that we don't need to have a set of "good" and "evil" ranked bunch of opponents. Especially when the two sides mirror each other so fiercely that the term "evil" is only superficially different from "good", and may as well be described as a battle between the forces of "green skin" versus "hairy people".
And here I thought the horde was where I fit in.
Post by: nil on February 28, 2011, 11:23:00 pm
Or elite goblin marksmen? (Or elite trolls in steel armor, help us all...)I'm with you. It might cool if the game organically created some form of progression (like early on you only fight the closest enemy civs, which usually have two or three towers and rely on hide and copper, but eventually you may become wealthy enough to attract the attention of the five-hundred-pount, bronze-armored gorilla halfway across the map. But threats abroad should be at most balanced with those from below and within.
I, personally, don't want to see Toady recreating Warcraft, here, and think that we don't need to have a set of "good" and "evil" ranked bunch of opponents.Plus, no one will ever convince me that orc isn't just a word for particularly large goblin. 8)
Post by: Granite26 on February 28, 2011, 11:59:42 pm
Or elite goblin marksmen? (Or elite trolls in steel armor, help us all...)I'm with you. It might cool if the game organically created some form of progression (like early on you only fight the closest enemy civs, which usually have two or three towers and rely on hide and copper, but eventually you may become wealthy enough to attract the attention of the five-hundred-pount, bronze-armored gorilla halfway across the map.
This'd be especially awesome if 'civ threat level' was a map layer on the embark screen.
Post by: thvaz on March 01, 2011, 01:23:21 am
Or elite goblin marksmen? (Or elite trolls in steel armor, help us all...)I'm with you. It might cool if the game organically created some form of progression (like early on you only fight the closest enemy civs, which usually have two or three towers and rely on hide and copper, but eventually you may become wealthy enough to attract the attention of the five-hundred-pount, bronze-armored gorilla halfway across the map. But threats abroad should be at most balanced with those from below and within.I, personally, don't want to see Toady recreating Warcraft, here, and think that we don't need to have a set of "good" and "evil" ranked bunch of opponents.Plus, no one will ever convince me that orc isn't just a word for particularly large goblin. 8)
Any form of progression is too gamey. If you manage to settle besides goblins with many legendary goblins, you should be screwed.
This'd be especially awesome if 'civ threat level' was a map layer on the embark screen.
This one is a good enough suggestion.
Post by: Cruxador on March 01, 2011, 03:23:37 am
Post by: MrWiggles on March 01, 2011, 03:51:53 am
Do people actually reach legendary in world generation now?
If my immigrant is any indication. No. The highest I've gotten is Grand Master. I think its grand master. Whatever the skill level right below Legendary is.
Post by: zwei on March 01, 2011, 04:42:32 am
Post by: Flaede on March 01, 2011, 05:32:36 am
Post by: Thief^ on March 01, 2011, 05:48:14 am
Post by: MrWiggles on March 01, 2011, 05:53:52 am
DF 0.31.20 now contains more fixes than any other 0.31.* version (according to the bug tracker). Go toady!
Wouldn't it be like .31.19A?
Its suppose to be just bug fixes.
Post by: Knight Otu on March 01, 2011, 06:25:00 am
Other bugfix releases also increased the release number.DF 0.31.20 now contains more fixes than any other 0.31.* version (according to the bug tracker). Go toady!
Wouldn't it be like .31.19A?
Its suppose to be just bug fixes.
Post by: MrWiggles on March 01, 2011, 06:27:51 am
Those other bugfix releases also contained new content.Other bugfix releases also increased the release number.DF 0.31.20 now contains more fixes than any other 0.31.* version (according to the bug tracker). Go toady!
Wouldn't it be like .31.19A?
Its suppose to be just bug fixes.
Post by: Toady One on March 01, 2011, 06:33:45 am
Post by: Knight Otu on March 01, 2011, 06:50:22 am
Those other bugfix releases also contained new content.Not really. 31.02, 31.06, 31.08, 31.10, and 31.15 pretty much were bugfix releases only. Depending on what you consider a feature rather than a tweak, you could add more to that list.
Post by: Kaiser Reinhard on March 01, 2011, 08:59:19 am
Post by: Footkerchief on March 01, 2011, 11:21:50 am
Say, Toady, what with the new trade improvements coming up, will it eventually be possible for traders to place orders or commission stuff from your fortress, such as armour? In that case, will it be possible for dwarves in Fortress mode to make armour fitted to the size of other races? This would be most helpful in adventure mode too.
This has come up a couple times:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg1088744#msg1088744
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: jpwrunyanwhen will we be able to forge non-dwarf size weapons and armor?
Probably when agreements with humans become more interesting. They just pay more for certain weapons right now, but it would be fun to have them commission several human breastplates, for example.
Have you planned further limiting the availability of plate armour? As far as I know, it is not 'one size fits all' equipment. So if we wanted to commission a set to our measurements, it'd cost a lot and take (a lot) of time make. Adventure mode in particular would benefit, fortress mode perhaps less so.
Making clothing size requirements more stringent is iffy:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg994813;topicseen#msg994813Quote from: Toady Onehaving to size clothing for different dwarves [...] is a nightmare
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg698450;topicseen#msg698450Quote from: Toady OneQuote from: ArkDelgatoWill there ever be size differentiation for clothes?
There might be size differentiation for clothes later, but only when we can handle it without it being a total nightmare for the player.
Quote from: rex mortisHave you planned further limiting the availability of plate armour? As far as I know, it is not 'one size fits all' equipment. So if we wanted to commission a set to our measurements, it'd cost a lot and take (a lot) of time make. Adventure mode in particular would benefit, fortress mode perhaps less so.
How about proper shield damage to make them less reusable? This is possibly coming with item damage though.
I don't have any particular plans, but it sounds reasonable enough. People have posted some relevant quotes and things here for the issues in fort mode.
Post by: Granite26 on March 01, 2011, 02:30:08 pm
Post by: Mantonio on March 01, 2011, 05:33:28 pm
Post by: Thundercraft on March 01, 2011, 06:16:11 pm
The oldest question in the book: When you were editing the raws for all the new stuff, what did you add first, the chicken or the egg?Good question. :o :D
As for which came first on planet Earth, I've started a thread on the debate (and I've got some wicked arguments!):
Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg? (a debate) (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=78644.0)
Post by: Mel_Vixen on March 01, 2011, 10:56:42 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on March 02, 2011, 02:26:54 am
Well the actual question would be if we can get a selfhetching egg. We have now eggs and itemcorpses so could i create now a proper phoenix(?) that keeps killing stuff for centurys with fire?
According to the wiki, (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Egg) eggs won't hatch unless fertilized by a male, so I don't think you can make them self-hatching.
Post by: LoSboccacc on March 02, 2011, 04:54:40 am
Well the actual question would be if we can get a selfhetching egg. We have now eggs and itemcorpses so could i create now a proper phoenix(?) that keeps killing stuff for centurys with fire?
even if that worked it would not be recognized as the same phoenix in history. you'll need also to transfer the soul for that to be a 'proper'* phoenix
* as usual with trying to properly defining fantasy stuff, your mileage may vary.
Post by: Areyar on March 02, 2011, 06:37:01 am
being litteral I guess the egg came before chicken.
taken more broadly, there were kobolds, lizards, reptiles and birds before they started laying eggs.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on March 02, 2011, 06:40:23 am
Post by: Areyar on March 02, 2011, 07:41:00 am
Post by: Granite26 on March 02, 2011, 08:42:44 am
Well the actual question would be if we can get a selfhetching egg. We have now eggs and itemcorpses so could i create now a proper phoenix(?) that keeps killing stuff for centurys with fire?
According to the wiki, (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Egg) eggs won't hatch unless fertilized by a male, so I don't think you can make them self-hatching.
What if you add the male AND female tags?
mods are like alternate realities. :?Pretty much... there's a fallout mod for df with supermutants and everything. a few zombie survival mods, and just about every alternate culture you can think of.
most people just mod in stuff to make the game easier/harder though
Post by: TolyK on March 02, 2011, 08:48:08 am
...
But yeah, it's mostly to just add to the experience.
Post by: Areyar on March 02, 2011, 10:52:15 am
Post by: Footkerchief on March 02, 2011, 02:23:01 pm
Are you planning on ever implementing browsing animals? Right now all herbivores are grazers, but lots of animals eat basically only shrubs and trees.
If you read through the raw entries on actual browsing animals (giraffes and the like) there are notes from Toady about browsing. Presumably this means he wants to include it at some point, but it is unlikely to occur before multi-tile vegetation gets some attention.
Yeah, someone else posted the quote in the Modding forum:
The elephant raw entry has a note:Quote from: creature_large_tropical.txt[GRAZER:12] don't have browsing trees yet
Post by: Sowelu on March 02, 2011, 03:17:12 pm
Post by: Mephansteras on March 02, 2011, 03:21:32 pm
That sounds like trees WHICH browse, not trees FOR browsing. (I know which one it is, yeah, but the concept of trees roaming around nomming smaller trees and/or shrubs is terrifying and awesome. And now I think that would make an awesome creature, if you set up their armor and limbs such that they're most vulnerable to axes, and made them drop wood when killed.)
Now I need to mod a grazing tree-creature into the game. That's awesome.
Post by: 3 on March 02, 2011, 03:26:45 pm
I also attempted to make it so that the creature used its shadow to attack via some bodypart trickery, but I don't think I ever got it to work properly.
Post by: Waparius on March 02, 2011, 05:48:26 pm
Post by: Flaede on March 02, 2011, 05:51:44 pm
Back in 40d I made a "glumprong" creature that was extremely slow but appeared in massive numbers and ambushed. Naturally it'd only appear in evil forests alongside "benign" glumprongs.
I also attempted to make it so that the creature used its shadow to attack via some bodypart trickery, but I don't think I ever got it to work properly.
if you use feathers it works. Attacks pass through feathers (or at least they used to). I was going to use it to make "smoke creatures", but did not know enough about modding to create new bodyparts out of it.
Post by: MarineMorton on March 02, 2011, 07:13:37 pm
That sounds like trees WHICH browse, not trees FOR browsing. (I know which one it is, yeah, but the concept of trees roaming around nomming smaller trees and/or shrubs is terrifying and awesome. And now I think that would make an awesome creature, if you set up their armor and limbs such that they're most vulnerable to axes, and made them drop wood when killed.)
An Ent then?
Post by: Sowelu on March 02, 2011, 09:26:29 pm
I also attempted to make it so that the creature used its shadow to attack
D8
I was already planning to jump my characters in a tabletop RPG with that, but it's still CREEPY AS HELL.
Post by: G-Flex on March 02, 2011, 10:31:21 pm
Well the actual question would be if we can get a selfhetching egg. We have now eggs and itemcorpses so could i create now a proper phoenix(?) that keeps killing stuff for centurys with fire?
According to the wiki, (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Egg) eggs won't hatch unless fertilized by a male, so I don't think you can make them self-hatching.
What if you add the male AND female tags?
[MALE] and [FEMALE], as far as I know, are mutually exclusive. A caste can't be both; one will override the other, although I'm not sure what has priority (probably either the first or second listed in the definition).
As far as unusual eggs turning into creatures, I assume it works the same way as item-corpses do, in that you can't create full-fledged creatures with them.
Post by: Granite26 on March 02, 2011, 10:47:55 pm
Post by: nil on March 02, 2011, 11:54:06 pm
Civilizations are starving in world gen, in part because the caravans of food aren't set up yet. Will civilizations continue to starve if they can't afford the food? Will there be cities/whatever that can't feed themselves without trade (from areas beyond their immediate zone of influence), such that sudden price changes will cause starvation?...I hope so. That's often how famines happen in the real world, and the same should be true in DF. Plus, once adventurers can lead caravans, it would be the perfect hook for a "please go procure grain for my/our people" quests.
Post by: Granite26 on March 03, 2011, 07:42:58 am
Post by: Areyar on March 03, 2011, 08:56:28 am
Do you have code to stop pregnant women from having moods, so that actually having the baby doesn't interrupt the mood? If so, why are pregnant women the LEAST moody dwarves? If so, how does that work? Urist cancels 'Make awesome artifact, seeking infant'?the child is used as a material. Artefact decorated with spikes of infant. ;)
Post by: 3 on March 03, 2011, 07:23:28 pm
if you use feathers it works. Attacks pass through feathers (or at least they used to). I was going to use it to make "smoke creatures", but did not know enough about modding to create new bodyparts out of it.
That's due to the feather tissue being so thin it's practically non-existent. You'll get the same effect if you make a really tiny creature (it'd have to be a vermin to be small enough) and try to attack it.
That in mind, the idea is probably possible in .31, but making the parts too incorporeal to be attacked yet still strong enough to attack with might be a bother.
Post by: G-Flex on March 03, 2011, 07:25:06 pm
Post by: 3 on March 03, 2011, 08:35:47 pm
Post by: eux0r on March 04, 2011, 01:55:35 pm
considering you want to get to fights between ships and giant squid and such at some point wouldnt it be more wise to rename the 'roc' to 'ziz' as it fits better with leviathan and behemoth? cause you know, leviathan would be like an imperative at sea(at least as far as i see it) and adding behemoth wouldnt change too much, considering the existence of some other megabeasts
second:
do you plan on making the races more diverse(at least later on, when more races are available in fortress mode)? right now, all the races are just like different flavours of humans. yeah, they have their own culture and habits and ethics and morphologies, but those differences also exist between, lets say the chinese and some african tribe. i thought more of something along the lines of goblins actually being humanoid carnivorous plants or something like that. this one, for example, could actually help explain their ethics(lives are expendable) and where they take their numbers from(i never could imagine goblins to have intersexual relationships of any kind, in my mind theyre asexual and just coming from _somewhere_).
third:
do you plan to include 'throwing us bones', like adding a 'prepared meals' category to the 'bring to depot' list or making 'bone/shell' or 'wood' additional options when choosing materials for your military dwarves' equipment , while doing the next few releases, as they would only contain bugfixes, as far as i understood. you know, just easy and fast to implement stuff(at least i think my examples are like that) to prevent having several releases without anything added. i guess it would also help to keep your income at a bearable level.
forth:
right now, i have the impression the opportunity-attacks are just some random numbers thrown around, so will the opportunities ever be the actual result of relative positions changing? for example like after i do a swinging attack with my right arm, my right shoulder gets exposed, or attacking the enemies head after he made a step to _my_ left with _his_ left foot, so i can get around his mask
fifth:
i assume youre already planing to make an elbow-check with armplates that are 'decorated with spikes of steel' some combination attack of piercing and bludgeoning, but will stirking with your shield(or a spiked shield for that matter) ever become some real smiting instead of just a misc. object-use? shields are already ingame and in RL you can use them as very good weaponry, even if they have no spikes or sharp edges or whatever. in addition some controllable pushback (kicks with pushback too? maybe just shoving/poking?) can be very usefull when mounts and real charging comes around or just near a cliff...
yes, i am aware that i can achieve many things easily through modding and im already modding in chaincoifs, tower shields a slashing attack for spears(you can do other things with the tip of a spear than stab, and quite effective stuff at that...) and some other stuff. but those are still things i would prefer to see in the official release.
Post by: PTTG?? on March 04, 2011, 02:00:35 pm
Post by: eux0r on March 04, 2011, 02:46:56 pm
eux0r: Those are good suggestions. They should go in the suggestions forum.
yeah, youre probably right, i was also thinking about posting the stuff there, but in the end, i was too interested in toady's thoughts on that stuff and from the lurking ive done before i got the impression, this forum gets the most replies from him.
edit: added reasons for me posting here
in addition: all those points are more or less already on the list of additions
1: magabeasts will get some kind of remake, at least when multitiles come in and when dragons get their wings and stuff
2: races will get some changes like when elves get their forest retreats and when you can fortress with more than just dwarves
3: all interfaces will probably get some kind of remake when all the features are in
4/5: there already seems to be some gradual development of the fighting over time
this makes those points somewhat less like suggestions but more like asking for details of the changes coming at some point or when this point will be, so i still think the post is not misplaced here
Post by: thvaz on March 04, 2011, 02:58:56 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on March 04, 2011, 06:35:13 pm
first:
considering you want to get to fights between ships and giant squid and such at some point wouldnt it be more wise to rename the 'roc' to 'ziz' as it fits better with leviathan and behemoth? cause you know, leviathan would be like an imperative at sea(at least as far as i see it) and adding behemoth wouldnt change too much, considering the existence of some other megabeasts
I don't understand. It only "fits better" in the sense that they're all from Jewish mythology, but the point of megabeasts has never been to coherently emulate a particular mythology. Moreover, leviathans and behemoths lack interesting attributes and nobody knows what a ziz is.
second:
do you plan on making the races more diverse(at least later on, when more races are available in fortress mode)? right now, all the races are just like different flavours of humans. yeah, they have their own culture and habits and ethics and morphologies, but those differences also exist between, lets say the chinese and some african tribe. i thought more of something along the lines of goblins actually being humanoid carnivorous plants or something like that. this one, for example, could actually help explain their ethics(lives are expendable) and where they take their numbers from(i never could imagine goblins to have intersexual relationships of any kind, in my mind theyre asexual and just coming from _somewhere_).
It's a long-term goal: (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html)
Quote
# Core87, PROPER DWARVES, (Future): Dwarves are, of course, proper when they are played in dwarf mode, but their sites in adventure mode are completely lacking and their society isn't really realized anywhere outside of dwarf mode play. They need to be brought up to standards throughout the world and in adventure mode. Also note, for this and the following three core items, there will be some emphasis not on just building up the stock universe, but extending modding/random possibilities for all civilizations by providing these as fleshed-out and somewhat diverse examples.
# Core88, PROPER ELVES, (Future): As with the dwarves, the current elves, especially their sites, suffer from a lack of almost everything. Multi-tile trees, how the druids and the regional forces interact, their relationship with animals and the animal peoples, their dining habits in-game rather than just in world generation...
# Core89, PROPER GOBLINS, (Future): At the very least, the role of baby-snatching needs to be further sorted, and their demonic leaders should have proper world-spanning aspirations. Many of the elements of their might-makes-right ethical framework need to be fleshed out and used in actual play.
# Core90, PROPER KOBOLDS, (Future): Of course, this means different things to different people. To us, a proper kobold is neither a chihuahua man nor a mini-draconian, but instead sort of a small mammaloreptilian humanoid with pointy ears and yellow eyes with a penchant for trickery and mischief, context-based sublanguage, poisonous critter collection, traps and kleptomaniacal hoarding.
third:
do you plan to include 'throwing us bones', like adding a 'prepared meals' category to the 'bring to depot' list or making 'bone/shell' or 'wood' additional options when choosing materials for your military dwarves' equipment , while doing the next few releases, as they would only contain bugfixes, as far as i understood. you know, just easy and fast to implement stuff(at least i think my examples are like that) to prevent having several releases without anything added. i guess it would also help to keep your income at a bearable level.
Inability to bring prepared meals to the depot is on the bug tracker, (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=1732) but the the upcoming (at some point) cooking overhaul will probably make it very hard to trade prepared meals anyway (since they'll spoil and stuff). Specifying wood/bone/shell items in uniforms (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=1300) is also on the tracker.
Post by: G-Flex on March 04, 2011, 06:37:31 pm
Moreover, leviathans and behemoths lack interesting attributes and nobody knows what a ziz is.
I don't see why it matters that people don't have pre-existing knowledge of a creature before coming into the game; that would be an argument against most anything creative in most works of fiction, wouldn't it? And if anything, DF does the opposite of shying away from including elements just because people might be unfamiliar with them at first glance.
I personally think that including a ziz, leviathan, and behemoth would be too consistent with Jewish folklore.
Post by: Neonivek on March 04, 2011, 06:55:00 pm
Though right now Megabeasts are disapointingly weak for the most part... and oddly enough I am not just talking about the Titans.
It was disapointing to watch my small group of guards kill my megabeasts one after another. I didn't have to lend any hand in its destruction.
Unfortunately while I could solo megabeasts myself at that point... a chipped bone knocked me out and killed me. Which was odd because I could be turned into goo and have several punctured organs before I'd get knocked out... yet the most deadly injury was chipping.
Post by: Footkerchief on March 04, 2011, 07:16:29 pm
Moreover, leviathans and behemoths lack interesting attributes and nobody knows what a ziz is.
I don't see why it matters that people don't have pre-existing knowledge of a creature before coming into the game; that would be an argument against most anything creative in most works of fiction, wouldn't it? And if anything, DF does the opposite of shying away from including elements just because people might be unfamiliar with them at first glance.
Choosing a label for a creature that is intended as a specific mythological allusion is very different from just inventing a creature. Creativity is great, but there's a reason why creatures like the Hydra and Dragon and Bronze Colossus and Unicorn and Satyr and so on have such uncreative names. You could call a unicorn a re'em, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re%27em) too, but that means nothing to 99% of people.
Post by: eux0r on March 05, 2011, 05:24:03 am
concerning the ziz:
-is the roc really a that much wider known name?
-i was simply assuming leviathan would go into the game when ships come around(just like i am assuming basilisks will come with more general dragons and gryphons will become more than just art-motives) and i thought it would be strange to have one of the 3 around and when players expect the others to be there after seeing one it would be strange if they werent. i dont think the game should emulate some mythology coherently, but i always think of those 3 as some kind of unit
concerning the races:
yes, i knew about those cores, but there my questions just arises from: the cores just talk about the cultures of those(except the kobolds)
i wanted to know how far the changes of the races actually will affect their _physiology_(or how changes to their physiology will influence their cultures), as even when the elves get their forstretreats and the goblins their leaders(and so on...), they would still be nothing more than groups of somewhat strange humans.
concerning the stuff on the bugtracker:
i wasnt specifically asking for those things to be done now, those were just examples. this question should have looked more like:
will the future series of releases also cover some of the older annoyances(at least one per release) or will they only include the new features of the arc and related bugs?
Post by: Thief^ on March 05, 2011, 06:04:12 am
EDIT: After looking both up to check, they're nothing alike. The ziz is a griffin, the roc is a giant eagle.
EDIT 2: Also check out Haast's Eagle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haast%27s_eagle) for a real life giant eagle.
Post by: MrWiggles on March 05, 2011, 07:10:47 am
concerning the stuff on the bugtracker:
i wasnt specifically asking for those things to be done now, those were just examples. this question should have looked more like:
will the future series of releases also cover some of the older annoyances(at least one per release) or will they only include the new features of the arc and related bugs?
As Toady has stated several time in his dev log, that yes the 1-2 period of bug fixing between releases, will cover both new bugs and older bugs.
Post by: eux0r on March 05, 2011, 07:15:25 am
Yes, the roc is a much wider known name. I'd never heard of the "ziz".
EDIT: After looking both up to check, they're nothing alike. The ziz is a griffin, the roc is a giant eagle.
EDIT 2: Also check out Haast's Eagle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haast%27s_eagle) for a real life giant eagle.
hm, you are right, i only knew of the ziz trough wikipedia after looking for leviathan. and the german article only said it was a giant bird comparable to other culture's beasts like the roc(thats where i heard first of the roc too)
thanks for looking it up
As Toady has stated several time in his dev log, that yes the 1-2 period of bug fixing between releases, will cover both new bugs and older bugs.
hm, i cant seem to remember seeing this, but thanks for reminding. after reading through so many posts and logs i already cant remember very many things i read at the beginning 0o
Post by: Footkerchief on March 05, 2011, 01:03:15 pm
As Toady has stated several time in his dev log, that yes the 1-2 period of bug fixing between releases, will cover both new bugs and older bugs.
hm, i cant seem to remember seeing this, but thanks for reminding. after reading through so many posts and logs i already cant remember very many things i read at the beginning 0o
I don't think it was actually mentioned in the dev log, just in the Bay 12 Games Report (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=78613.msg2032082#msg2032082) and another recent post:
The idea is to do a bug fix with the new bugs, and then to spend one to two weeks with old bugs, so the timer hasn't even started yet. That said, the first one should probably be up in a few days. I won't get to all of the bugs with the new stuff with the first release, but I might clean up more of those with the old bugs depending on what's left.
Post by: Untelligent on March 05, 2011, 06:46:34 pm
-i was simply assuming leviathan would go into the game when ships come around
We already have sea serpents and sea monsters (the former is a big dragon-snake-thing and the latter is more like a kraken-squid-thing), those could easily be altered to be significant threats when ships are a thing.
Post by: TolyK on March 06, 2011, 01:48:00 am
Post by: Footkerchief on March 06, 2011, 01:59:29 am
Will humans go on ships, and dwarves be more ... feetonin the ground? As in, will humans be far more seafaring than dwarves?
This was touched on in that big quote I always repost about boats. Toady indicated that dwarves will be less inclined toward seafaring (emphasis mine):
Anyway, things are possible in dwarf mode, but the idea here was more for adventure mode and the necessity of boats there. If boats never make it into dwarf mode it wouldn't particularly bother me, since we are talking about dwarves, but I wouldn't rule anything out. I'm starting from an adv mode perspective here though, since it would obviously be a lot of fun to do things like epic voyages and piracy.
Post by: TolyK on March 06, 2011, 05:21:17 am
Post by: thvaz on March 06, 2011, 07:33:53 am
Post by: TolyK on March 06, 2011, 07:42:15 am
Which of the options is the default mineral distribution as in 31.19? Sparse/Rare/Very Rare?Rare I think.
Post by: Cruxador on March 06, 2011, 11:55:44 am
Post by: thvaz on March 06, 2011, 12:06:39 pm
Wait, is animals vocalizing something that's already in and I just haven't seen it due to the current state of towns? Or is that new?
It's new, though I think it is only for capybaras.
Post by: Cruxador on March 06, 2011, 12:28:20 pm
How soon can we expect more preexisting animals to be vocalizing?
Post by: Knight Otu on March 06, 2011, 02:04:47 pm
In that caseHeh, also several of the procedural creatures could benefit. Muttering or howling creatures, creatures that intone names, banshees...
How soon can we expect more preexisting animals to be vocalizing?
Post by: Xgamer4 on March 06, 2011, 02:44:25 pm
I don't think it was actually mentioned in the dev log, just in the Bay 12 Games Report (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=78613.msg2032082#msg2032082) and another recent post:The idea is to do a bug fix with the new bugs, and then to spend one to two weeks with old bugs, so the timer hasn't even started yet. That said, the first one should probably be up in a few days. I won't get to all of the bugs with the new stuff with the first release, but I might clean up more of those with the old bugs depending on what's left.
Wow, his bug-fixing chunks are a lot more in-depth than I thought they'd be. Kudos to him. Though I've gotta admit, I am rather excited for the new features.
Post by: Armok on March 06, 2011, 08:36:33 pm
Post by: monk12 on March 06, 2011, 08:50:17 pm
Cows need vocalizations so they can ACTUALLY have hunting moos.
"Urist, we can't stop here! This is cow country!"
"Mooooooo!"
"By Armok, Urist, the pack is closing in! Quickly, to the mines! There isn't much time!"
Post by: Serrational on March 07, 2011, 11:17:39 am
Legendary Milkers, what daredevils they have become in .19....Cows need vocalizations so they can ACTUALLY have hunting moos.
"Urist, we can't stop here! This is cow country!"
"Mooooooo!"
"By Armok, Urist, the pack is closing in! Quickly, to the mines! There isn't much time!"
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on March 07, 2011, 01:53:20 pm
Post by: syvarris on March 07, 2011, 06:25:44 pm
Cows need vocalizations so they can ACTUALLY have hunting moos."Urist, we can't stop here! This is cow country!"
"Mooooooo!"
"By Armok, Urist, the pack is closing in! Quickly, to the mines! There isn't much time!"
Heh, Sigged.
Post by: veok on March 08, 2011, 12:33:40 am
Post by: Thundercraft on March 08, 2011, 12:58:23 am
Cows need vocalizations so they can ACTUALLY have hunting moos.Heh! :D I think you meant to say "haunting moos". Cows with "hunting moos" implies that we have carnivorous predator cows that will ambush things and tear them limb from limb with their fangs. :P
Have you recently reconsidered allowing constructed floors and walls to be engraved, like natural stone? I just don't understand why constructed stone walls/floors and other surfaces should not be engravable. In real life this is possible, as all it takes is a hammer and chisel...
Also, how about changing it so passing by high quality engravings will give dwarves a minor happy thought? Engraving seems to add a lot to value. So one might naturally assume that it would make dwarves happy to be surrounded by masterpiece engravings.
Edit: ninja'd... (http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/verkleidung/costumed-smiley-049.gif)
Post by: G-Flex on March 08, 2011, 01:00:03 am
Cows need vocalizations so they can ACTUALLY have hunting moos.Heh! :D I think you meant to say "haunting moos". Cows with "hunting moos" implies that we have carnivorous predator cows that will ambush things and tear them limb from limb with their fangs. :P
Have you recently reconsidered allowing constructed floors and walls to be engraved, like natural stone? I just don't understand why constructed stone walls/floors and other surfaces should not be engravable. In real life this is possible, as all it takes is a hammer and chisel...
Also, how about changing it so passing by high quality engravings will give dwarves a minor happy thought? Engraving seems to add a lot to value. So one might naturally assume that it would make dwarves happy to be surrounded by masterpiece engravings.
How many times do people have to say to leave suggestions to the suggestions forum? Seriously, this thread is cluttered enough, and Toady won't be responding to them anyway.
Post by: Footkerchief on March 08, 2011, 01:03:27 am
Have you recently reconsidered allowing constructed floors and walls to be engraved, like natural stone? I just don't understand why constructed stone walls/floors and other surfaces should not be engravable. In real life this is possible, as all it takes is a hammer and chisel...
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg994813#msg994813
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: JoshuaFHHey, you know how it's possible to engrave floors? Well, what if I don't LIKE whatever material the floor is? As it stands, I can place artificial floors down with other materials, but not artificial engravings ontop of the natural floors! Will this change in the future? I want my entire fortress to adhere to ONE color scheme!
can I engrave those constructed floors in the future?
I always thought of engraving lots of blocks as sort of weird, at least for a large engraving. You'll probably be allowed to place larger engraved panels later.
Post by: Kogut on March 08, 2011, 02:02:48 am
I would like to have it in my fort.
</suggestions>
Post by: Mephansteras on March 08, 2011, 11:29:16 am
Post by: PTTG?? on March 08, 2011, 11:43:41 am
One problem is that slabs could be decorated with all kinds of stuff, which might not work to well with normal wall tiles.
Post by: Kogut on March 08, 2011, 01:17:24 pm
If I remember correctly the issue isn't with doing the engravings on the blocks, it's what to do if the blocks are then re-purposed. Say you disassemble that wall and then use those blocks as part of a bridge? Does the game need to remember that they're engraved blocks and what's on them?No.
It isn't very realistic but may be useful simplification (like 1-log-for-everything-including-walls-and-splints)
Post by: Cruxador on March 08, 2011, 06:05:51 pm
That one-log thing is going away, though.If I remember correctly the issue isn't with doing the engravings on the blocks, it's what to do if the blocks are then re-purposed. Say you disassemble that wall and then use those blocks as part of a bridge? Does the game need to remember that they're engraved blocks and what's on them?No.
It isn't very realistic but may be useful simplification (like 1-log-for-everything-including-walls-and-splints)
We're moving away from placeholders and towards having everything make more sense.
Post by: Narmio on March 08, 2011, 08:05:31 pm
That doesn't mean that new simplifications and placeholders won't be introduced as the scope of the project grows. Toady has recently expanded a number of systems, but when the first few trading rewrites happen you can bet they'll be stuffed full of simplifications and placeholders, at least for a while. The fact that some simplifications are being expanded on should have no bearing on the introduction of new ones.That one-log thing is going away, though.If I remember correctly the issue isn't with doing the engravings on the blocks, it's what to do if the blocks are then re-purposed. Say you disassemble that wall and then use those blocks as part of a bridge? Does the game need to remember that they're engraved blocks and what's on them?No.
It isn't very realistic but may be useful simplification (like 1-log-for-everything-including-walls-and-splints)
We're moving away from placeholders and towards having everything make more sense.
And yeah, I think I'd be happy with a wall constructed from a block losing its engraving if it was deconstructed. A single stone or block is an abstraction anyway, so we can say there's quite a bit of refitting, re-cutting and reshaping involved in deconstructing and then reusing the block for something else. Easy enough to say that that process destroys any engravings.
Post by: rex mortis on March 09, 2011, 01:23:32 am
Post by: Caldfir on March 09, 2011, 01:45:02 am
Post by: vogonpoet on March 09, 2011, 02:54:20 am
I always saw the "no construction engravings" thing as an incentive tolive undergroundconstruct incredibly byzantine pump stack mega complexes to raise water and magma to the roof of the world, only to send it tumbling together back down into a crazy jelly mold, thus casting a tower of doom from obsidian in which to live. Is this not an intended metagame directive?
ftfy?
Post by: zwei on March 09, 2011, 05:08:22 am
Post by: Zifnab on March 09, 2011, 09:07:08 am
I'm glad to see the fixing of some bugs with the military/uniform screen are coming up. However it would be nice if when assigning specific armor/weapons to a dwarf, the items that were already assigned to someone were noted somehow as when you assign them again, it deletes the original assignment.
Post by: Silophant on March 09, 2011, 09:52:37 am
However it would be nice if when assigning specific armor/weapons to a dwarf, the items that were already assigned to someone were noted somehow as when you assign them again, it deletes the original assignment.
This. It'd be even nicer, though, if the equivalent were done when assigning dwarves to squads.
Post by: Areyar on March 09, 2011, 10:05:19 am
However it would be nice if when assigning specific armor/weapons to a dwarf, the items that were already assigned to someone were noted somehow as when you assign them again, it deletes the original assignment.
This. It'd be even nicer, though, if the equivalent were done when assigning dwarves to squads.
You mean that the equipment stays with the dwarf instead of the squad surely?
(As a reassigned dwarf is already removed from any previous squad assignment)
Dunno, I'd like it if items that are already assigned or used would have this noted somewhere in the assignnment screen, just like it is done for dorfs when looking through candidates for a squad position,
but not if equipment would stick to them. . . unless this would only happen with specifically assigned and favored equipment.
Probably we'll have to wait till the armouy master comes back. ;)
I think this does count as a suggestion though. :)
Post by: Silophant on March 09, 2011, 10:51:26 am
Post by: Tenebrais on March 09, 2011, 11:15:00 am
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/Tenebrais/Squads.png)
Post by: Granite26 on March 09, 2011, 11:42:03 am
Post by: Footkerchief on March 09, 2011, 11:54:10 am
Post by: Kogut on March 09, 2011, 11:55:58 am
Post by: Lovechild on March 09, 2011, 12:05:41 pm
Post by: monk12 on March 09, 2011, 12:15:41 pm
Totally non-phallic squad names ya got there, Tenebrais.
I lol'd
Post by: agatharchides on March 09, 2011, 12:52:05 pm
Post by: TolyK on March 09, 2011, 12:57:54 pm
same here.Totally non-phallic squad names ya got there, Tenebrais.
I lol'd
@Foot: wow, these are great.
Post by: Rockphed on March 09, 2011, 02:31:47 pm
Quote from: dev log
fixed problem causing attacks to occur through multiple z levels
Well, now my way to rush down stairs at random won't work any more. I hope. I'll have to make a test fort to determine.
As a note, if that is the bug I think it is, you could change z-levels by charging at things. I think, to some extent, the problem evaporated when manual aiming was implemented, but now I want to test to find out.
To the fortress!
Post by: metime00 on March 09, 2011, 02:49:25 pm
Quote from: Toady One
# fixed problems with glass material properties
Holy crap! Could it be that random glass material properties are no more!?! Consistent glass traps here I come!
Post by: Quatch on March 09, 2011, 03:13:21 pm
Post by: Shinziril on March 09, 2011, 04:41:13 pm
Quote from: Toady One
cleaned up some wood/metal etc. issues in stockpile settings
The metals category no longer includes every type of stone and wood in the game? Nice.
Post by: Silophant on March 09, 2011, 10:18:09 pm
I'm pretty sure there is. When you highlight a dwarf in that menu it tells you what squad he's in.
I can't even begin to describe how foolish I feel at this point.
Post by: monk12 on March 09, 2011, 10:38:46 pm
I'm pretty sure there is. When you highlight a dwarf in that menu it tells you what squad he's in.
I can't even begin to describe how foolish I feel at this point.
Don't feel too bad, I had never noticed that either. And I thought I had a pretty good handle on the military screen!
Post by: zwei on March 10, 2011, 02:08:42 am
I'm pretty sure there is. When you highlight a dwarf in that menu it tells you what squad he's in.
I can't even begin to describe how foolish I feel at this point.
Don't feel too bad, I had never noticed that either. And I thought I had a pretty good handle on the military screen!
I'd still feel bad, but for ui.
Dwarves assigned to military/guards should disappear from "recruit pool" list to unclutter it. Mot of the time, you do not want to reassign dwarves between squads but rather assign fresh recruits to new squad/fill holes in older squads.
Post by: Chthonic on March 10, 2011, 09:20:26 am
Post by: Areyar on March 10, 2011, 10:56:55 am
I actually shuffle my squads quite a lot, especially if I have weapon-specific squads, but then want to make a combined-arms squad to deal with general threats. Or if I have my fortress guard armed with wooden swords for day-to-day work (so they don't slaughter the guys they beat) but then want them moved to a real squad with real swords for when actual slaughter is appropriate.ditto
Post by: Tenebrais on March 10, 2011, 01:40:18 pm
Post by: Granite26 on March 10, 2011, 03:42:21 pm
It might be more clear if dwarves already assigned to a squad are listed in a different colour. Maybe someone should suggest that.
Maybe... someone that thought of it?
Post by: ZeroSumHappiness on March 10, 2011, 04:34:34 pm
Post by: Flaede on March 10, 2011, 04:40:38 pm
Quote from: dev logfixed problem causing attacks to occur through multiple z levels
Well, now my way to rush down stairs at random won't work any more. I hope. I'll have to make a test fort to determine.
As a note, if that is the bug I think it is, you could change z-levels by charging at things. I think, to some extent, the problem evaporated when manual aiming was implemented, but now I want to test to find out.
To the fortress!
Nope. You could manually aim at demons in Hell. (Which I will miss immensely).
Post by: Areyar on March 11, 2011, 03:40:46 am
Also, they could be shuffled to the bottom of the list. Perhaps even an option to show them in order, hide them or put them at the bottom of the list.
Like the Nobles, which are listed in order of qualification of the position?
Listing warriors in order of XP points in specific weaponskill>>general combat skills.
I rather like that recruits are listed in order of appearance though.
Makes it easier to find favored skilled soldiers and especially handy in finding those immigrant recruits.
Post by: Granite26 on March 11, 2011, 08:59:22 am
Also, they could be shuffled to the bottom of the list. Perhaps even an option to show them in order, hide them or put them at the bottom of the list.
Like the Nobles, which are listed in order of qualification of the position?
Listing warriors in order of XP points in specific weaponskill>>general combat skills.
I rather like that recruits are listed in order of appearance though.
Makes it easier to find favored skilled soldiers and especially handy in finding those immigrant recruits.
Agreed, although that may be an artifact of the unfamiliar names.
There's no reason not to have a (c)ull existing squad members or (s)ort differently option.
Colors may be the quick and dirty, pre-UI arc, answer.
Post by: Toady One on March 12, 2011, 08:47:56 pm
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
Is it currently slated for animals of different sizes to require eating different amounts of food? If elephants and hoary marmots eat the same amount of food, but give off radically different amounts of meat when butchered, then it produces a rather silly comparison of which animals are the most effective to raise...
Grazers already work this way (in a basic way that doesn't respect age or individual differences), and as new diets are implemented, size/etc. will probably be more and more respected.
Quote from: Kogut
Quote from: MephansterasRather: how to handle partly used bars to avoid economy induced coin spam.Quote from: Toady OneI don't have a timeline. On the one hand, I've always been interested in multi-material, multi-part items, but there are complications, especially with using metal in small portions.What are the complications with this? We already have metal stored as units (150 iron instead of 1 bar). So I'm curious what the blocking factor is. Lingering old code?
Yeah, there's that mess with using a 75 and a 50 and a 25 for a 150 unit job, which it might be able to handle now, but I'm worried about lots of smaller stacks slowly cropping up as a variety of jobs are performed/cancelled/etc. Bars are easier to restack than coins, anyway, and they are also exhausted when they are used, so it isn't quite the same nightmare as coins, but that's the basic flavor of my issue, yeah.
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
If you are planning on changing the sphere system, how are you planning on changing it? Are you still planning on introducing spheres as a replacement for the simpler Good/Evil Benign/Savage system of biomes, and if so, how far down are you planning on consolidating spheres (since it would be almost impossible to have different biomes and creatures for 128 different spheres)?
Some of the spheres definitely won't matter as much. A sphere is really just a hard-coded concept, something that should be a basic idea that doesn't really need to be moddable, much like "MATERIAL" or "COLOR" (though moddable extensions of spheres could end up happening). If anything, the sphere list is going to grow but the sphere list used for regions in any meaningful way will be smaller. There isn't a specific plan at this point. I'd like to include as many as possible, especially because it aligns with the deities, etc., but realistically many spheres are going to be shafted, with regions that should have a given sphere association moving over to "friend/parent/child" spheres with meaningful region interactions, etc.
Quote from: Dwarfu
what exactly is the functionality of the dwarf-mode inn?
DF Talk 12 will have more on this.
Quote from: nil
Will we get working crutches in dwarf mode soon, either in this release or the next? It's one of the biggest bugs yet to be squashed, and it seems particularly tragic that after you went to the work of implementing this cool and useful feature something continues to keep it from actually working.
I'm planning to handle medical bugs included crutch use problems in the next few days.
Quote from: Heph
Toady you planned for release 2 of the current arc "Work with 3D mineral veins and mine maps" does this include 3D Stone-blobs? Like microline being more a spheric inclusion then a circle-ish sheet in the surrounding stone.
Everything will probably be changed, since I'm going to be committing a bit on mine maps and I want something a little more permanent to work with (whatever that means...). The main addition is going to be some sort of recognition of edges/z-levels below the really large scale geological layers but above the 48x48x1 tile block level, so that veins and everything else can be larger and more interesting. We haven't plotted out the specifics yet.
Quote from: darkflagrance
Ratmen mysteriously vanished in the transition from 40d to DF 2010. Since you'll now be adding new creatures such as bees, maintaining the sameness of the creature raws between versions will no longer matter as much. Assuming the removal of ratmen was an oversight, does this mean we will see ratmen reintroduced in the next version of DF?
Removal of subterranean ratmen was intentional -- however, with the new amphibian/serpent/reptile men we were also supposed to get "rodent men" underground, with rat men being moved outside with the regular outdoor rats. Since March of last year, I've had a half-finished raw file on my desktop that I always forget about that has many new animal people, but when I added panda men and capybara men I remembered it again, so we should have official subterranean rodent men in the next version, and perhaps others, as well as the next round of sponsored beasts and their allies.
Quote from: G-Flex
With eyeball grass made out of eye tissue, and wormy grass made out of muscle tissue, how is it that cows and such are supposed to eat them? Assuming they actually can.
They do eat them, but they aren't supposed to, in the end. I remember adding the muscle tissue to worms and thinking "grazers are going to eat this..." and then just taking a note and moving on. So it'll be handled sometime, maybe extending the specific food tags to classes or something, or waiting for actual diet rewrites. Until then, gummy treats!
Quote from: freeformschooler
will the town revamp starting with the next release finally give us elf/dwarf settlements with actual elves & dwarves?
Doing those prior to the dwarf mode army arc releases is the current plan, so that you have something to attack. So in between the caravan releases and the army-related army arc releases. If it comes up, it might happen sooner, if it's forced in some way by the trading, but that might not be how it works out.
Quote from: Captain MayDay
Guinea Fowl have this line for eggs:
"[CLUTCH_SIZE:4:15] should be 25 to 30"
What reason did you have for not just making it 25:30?
If they lay 30 fertilized eggs, there would be many new units, possibly by many guineafowl at a time, so I cut it down a bit. It's probably still a massive problem with egg-layers even at the 4-15 level, if you have 40 birds laying 10 fertilized eggs all at once.
Quote from: Lofn
Toady, what are the conditions for eggs hatching? Civ races can use nesting boxes and lay eggs, but will the eggs hatch?
Apparently they can lay them, they can hatch, but they get snatched up for eating before that? Creepy.
Quote from: Neoskel
I see that hydras do not lay eggs. Is this intentional? Do you intend for hydras to have gooey amphibian eggs instead of shelled eggs?
And another, somewhat related question:
Do you intend on giving crocodiles, etc. proper leathery eggs at some point?
I think live birth is the current idea for the hydra, but the amphibian egg is fun and maybe more appropriate given their swamply associations. Maybe there should be tadhydras.
I vaguely remember crocodile eggs, but if people have stats for the eggs I'll move them over. I don't have any reason to keep the hard shells for critters that shouldn't have them, so moving over to realistic properties for all of them is ideal.
Quote from: metime00
What is going to be the fate of the current market towns that boom and subsequently die during world gen, leaving a myriad of abandoned stores?
Ghost towns seems like a reasonable thing, but they happen too often now. We might have to wait for the treasure hunter stuff to have really satisfying ruins, but we'll see how it plays out in the next release, since there are going to be a lot of towns with higher building/infrastructure counts than their current populations that I have to work with.
Quote from: Knight Otu
DF Talk 11 mentioned that towns can get specialized in materials and/or items, which is something that can be seen if you go looking for it, but it isn't always quite out in the open. As the short-term releases come in, are there plans to make those specializations more visible to adventurers or fortresses?
When we do town maps, which is Release 1 on the dev page, it should be quite a bit more apparent what goods the town specializes in because of the sorts of workshops/units/etc. present especially when similar ones are concentrated. It's not going to just have random unit types in cottages as we have now. There might be some additional conversation information as well, but we'll have to see how that plays out -- when you can ask about supply/demand information, that'll be in, and that was Release 9 I think, but there might be some stuff earlier.
Quote from: JohnieRWilkins
Do you see humans as the seafaring race? Will waterways and trade by ship play a central role to civilizations? Which races will participate in sailing and building ships? How large, in units of men and/or dwarfcube dimensions*, will the larger boats be in the future?
Footkerchief posted quite a bit on this one. I just wanted to add that, yeah, some humans should be seafarers to different degrees -- probably all of the civs on the coast, but not the civs that have no settlements on the water. The same goes for other races on the water or large rivers. Dwarves and kobolds are sort of the odd ones out here. I have trouble imagining seafaring dwarves, especially out on the open ocean, but there are large bodies of water underground and lakes up in the mountains, so it's hard to say what we'll end up with once all the mechanics are just sitting there waiting to be used.
Quote from: veok
I liked the option of setting a pasture for my tame Phantom Spiders (it made silk production / collection easier). Now that you've fixed the "bug" of allowing vermin assigned to pastures, is there anything I can do to restrict my phantom spiders to a particular area? (I'd been using entry-less pits, previously, but they still wander out of there if they're able.)
The pasture never actually restricted them anyway, unless you've always got a dwarf putting them back, and vermin are sort of odd the way they disappear in and out, so they aren't really ready for it in general, and there aren't any options that take care of themselves as far as I know. Having something like an actual spider pit would be neat, but there's are some limitations for vermin information since it has to support large numbers of them.
Quote from: Knight Otu
I'm wondering how much of the increase in megabeast deaths is intentional? When you fixed the comeback bug, you made no mention of the increased number of megabeast deaths itself being a bug, but it seems off to see an elf kill a slade colossus (quick mod to test this out).
There is an intentional increase there, by quite a lot, mostly to facilitate reproduction (see next question). It never completely denies a kill, so something like a slade colossus can always die, it's just less likely.
Quote
Quote from: thvazWhy megabeasts doesn't reproduce yet? I thought Dragons and hydras were waiting for eggs. Do you plan to change this soon?
<discussion>
Maybe they reproduce in play but not in world gen, then.Quote from: CaldfirIt's in, just SUPER rare.
Megabeasts only reproduce during world gen at this time (you might be able to get them to breed in nest boxes as well assuming you somehow get a mating pair tamed in your fortress, modded or whatever). The reason it doesn't happen very often is that there is a hard cap now to prevent world gen from being overrun by megabeasts. It doesn't simulate dragons needing to eat etc., and maybe that would help, but even then, you'd probably just end up destroying half the world or something, or the civilizations would be engaged in more organized hunting of them that would also be strange and demegabeastifying. So it's currently just a gamey restriction.
Quote from: Granite26
When you were editing the raws for all the new stuff, what did you add first, the chicken or the egg?
My recollection is that I did all of the domestic raws and then added all of the egg raws in afterward.
Quote from: Granite26
Civilizations are starving in world gen, in part because the caravans of food aren't set up yet. Will civilizations continue to starve if they can't afford the food? Will there be cities/whatever that can't feed themselves without trade (from areas beyond their immediate zone of influence), such that sudden price changes will cause starvation? How will food be distributed?
Food is transported around during world gen. It just isn't adequate, and sometimes strong cycles can develop and then ultimately break down. There are already cities that increase in size because of trade beyond their own villages, and when they run into trouble there can be starvation. So it's all sort of sitting there, but there aren't enough systems/checks etc. for it be more than a chaotic mess, mostly because I jumped out and released the caravan arc partway through.
Quote from: Granite26
Do you have code to stop pregnant women from having moods, so that actually having the baby doesn't interrupt the mood? If so, why are pregnant women the LEAST moody dwarves? If so, how does that work? Urist cancels 'Make awesome artifact, seeking infant'?
I'm not 100% sure without testing, but it appears that pregnant dwarves can have moods, but they won't seek infants while they are still working on the artifact.
Quote from: Cruxador
How soon can we expect more preexisting animals to be vocalizing?
I didn't want to go through every animal at first since I'm not sure if the format is going to be adequate, and I don't know when I'm going to get back to it. It'll definitely happen though, maybe sooner rather than later, since having capybara barks be the only barks is a bit charming for a while, I guess, but will eventually give way to having other barks as a necessity.
Post by: Greiger on March 12, 2011, 09:17:14 pm
Currently [CARNIVORE] civs are a little wonky not just in the worldgen with the starvation stuff, but modded fortress races seem to be greatly limited on their food supply. They can eat Meat products...and Fish...and that's it. Prepared meals don't work at all, even ones made entirely of meat products last I checked. Nor eggs though I'm not sure whether those are on a carnivorous diet anyway.
I'm no expert on what a carnivore can or cannot eat (It probably varies between species) but when you get around to getting goblins properly eating in worldgen would any dietary changes have any effect on fortress mode? Or are the checks to see what a civ can eat separate between worldgen and the game modes? Are you satisfied with the goblins' current menu?
And the final question, Am I asking too many stupid questions?
Post by: Granite26 on March 12, 2011, 10:10:38 pm
tadhydras sound awesome, especially with the ability to use the growth system to make them actually different shapes (multiheaded snakes? Medusi? a big ball of heads?)
Post by: Untelligent on March 13, 2011, 12:04:17 am
Quote from: Kogut
Quote from: Toady OneRather: how to handle partly used bars to avoid economy induced coin spam.Quote from: MephansterasI don't have a timeline. On the one hand, I've always been interested in multi-material, multi-part items, but there are complications, especially with using metal in small portions.What are the complications with this? We already have metal stored as units (150 iron instead of 1 bar). So I'm curious what the blocking factor is. Lingering old code?
the names here don't seem to be in the right order
Post by: Dante on March 13, 2011, 01:01:28 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on March 13, 2011, 02:38:52 am
Btw. is that animal-man rawfile just Body-definition-raws or does it include more cultural and technological stuff and fluff for them? How soon could it be included?
Secondly the grass raws include now tissues which is nice but could it support more indepth stuff like a simplifyed body-defintion (which would be nice for shrubs too).
Post by: Dradym on March 13, 2011, 03:12:59 am
speaking of madness...
yeah i got nuthin
Post by: Cruxador on March 13, 2011, 05:36:28 am
Secondly the grass raws include now tissues which is nice but could it support more indepth stuff like a simplifyed body-defintion (which would be nice for shrubs too).Plants still have a fair bit of work coming. I don't think grass stands to benefit that much from body definitions, though. Shrubs were planned to have there own system very using a lot of the same code as the grass stuff, but I imagine they'll nonetheless be separate. And of course, trees are going to have to be significantly different from grass, because they need the potential to be multi-tile. For them it would make sense to have something like a body-detail plan - though it would also ideally be something that defines the shape of the tiles that the tree occupies.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on March 13, 2011, 06:52:06 am
edit: I can see it with my minds eye. From a cinematographic stance i would show a slightly bend finger against the blue sky. A gnat lands on it and seeks after after a brief moment the next bloodvesel. As said gnat fills itself with blood the camera pulls closer showing its translucent body in full datail with the abdomen bulging and getting a darkish red color. As the camera climbs up towards the sky it tilts down showing the Finger being stuck in grayish dusty earth and the gant flying away. As you take more distance more and more fingers appear till the screen is filled with a skincollored, waving ocean. Suddenly you hear a buzz and millions of gnat in full detail flow onto the screen darkening it quickly till its black.
Post by: madjoe5 on March 13, 2011, 09:23:58 am
Post by: thvaz on March 13, 2011, 09:38:29 am
Nice work Toady!
Post by: freeformschooler on March 13, 2011, 10:06:15 am
I know that eventually, the plan is to be able to play an adventure from any scenario (a politician, merchant etc.) Do you plan to have the implementation for that similar to a long list of "Peasent/Demigod/etc"? Or more like "When you were young, if you encountered a weary traveller, you would..." and then some multiple choice questions or something? I have always been interested in this idea.
Post by: Cruxador on March 13, 2011, 12:52:20 pm
I know that eventually, the plan is to be able to play an adventure from any scenario (a politician, merchant etc.) Do you plan to have the implementation for that similar to a long list of "Peasent/Demigod/etc"? Or more like "When you were young, if you encountered a weary traveller, you would..." and then some multiple choice questions or something? I have always been interested in this idea.If I recall correctly, this was discussed at length in one of the talks.
Post by: metime00 on March 13, 2011, 01:23:13 pm
Post by: Untelligent on March 13, 2011, 03:58:01 pm
Quote
0000005 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=5): [Legends Mode -- Display] Underground regions have no names in Legends (Toady One (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view_user_page.php?id=2)) - resolved.Might this mean the caverns have names now?
Post by: Toady One on March 13, 2011, 06:58:41 pm
Quote0000005 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=5): [Legends Mode -- Display] Underground regions have no names in Legends (Toady One (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view_user_page.php?id=2)) - resolved.Might this mean the caverns have names now?
Nope -- the specific bug was the ugly " , "" " stuff you'd get, which is very buglike. Now they are unnamed. Since adding them, we'd intended the underground layers to be the first places you'd get to name yourself, but that hasn't happened yet.
Post by: Lord Shonus on March 13, 2011, 07:04:45 pm
Post by: Toady One on March 13, 2011, 07:26:13 pm
Post by: Caldfir on March 13, 2011, 08:56:55 pm
Quote from: Toady 03/13/2011
- made dwarves get crutches properly
Yay! Crutches at last!
Post by: Moddan on March 13, 2011, 09:12:52 pm
Post by: xtank5 on March 13, 2011, 10:24:22 pm
EDIT: I'm supposed to pose questions to Toady in green right?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on March 13, 2011, 10:58:20 pm
Anyway, thanks for answering questions again, Toady. Some of those are very interesting and useful to think about...
They do eat them, but they aren't supposed to, in the end. I remember adding the muscle tissue to worms and thinking "grazers are going to eat this..." and then just taking a note and moving on. So it'll be handled sometime, maybe extending the specific food tags to classes or something, or waiting for actual diet rewrites. Until then, gummy treats!
That implies that flesh material types will actually have nutritional values and animals will try to eat specific plant or animal material types. That would go a long way in making dietary tokens much more dynamic and potentially wierd and fun.
Post by: yarr on March 14, 2011, 08:45:58 am
*tears of joy*
Post by: Willfor on March 14, 2011, 09:45:38 am
omg crutches will work(http://img.ie/706ab.png)
*tears of joy*
My artistic rendering of your current state of overjoyedness.
All of these bug fixes are pretty awesome. .22 is likely going to be one of those very stable version everyone plays forever until the next stable version comes along.
Post by: freeformschooler on March 14, 2011, 10:01:01 am
All of these bug fixes are pretty awesome. .22 is likely going to be one of those very stable version everyone plays forever until the next stable version comes along.
Especially because of towns suddenly being nice again.
I'm looking forward to these bugfixes even though I don't particular notice the bugs myself.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on March 14, 2011, 10:23:33 am
I recognize that up to now, Toady has mainly focused upon the crash bugs, but I'd rather have some rare crash bugs with a game that fundamentally works than have a game where I don't even bother to have a hospital because of how debilitating the "minor" bugs are.
It's hard to get excited about a "new feature" of hospitals when they never actually treat or heal anyone...
Post by: Silophant on March 14, 2011, 11:22:00 am
Especially because of towns suddenly being nice again.
They won't be. The schedule, as I understand it, lists content releases. Following each of those is a release to fix new bugs from the previous release, then a release where old bugs are fixed. Hence, .22 will fix old hospital and stockpile bugs, .23 will have "Better town maps involving workshops/markets/shops based on world gen economic activities", .24 will fix bugs introduced in .23, .25 will fix more old bugs, and .26 will have "Villager/farmer schedules/activities and work with 3D mineral veins and mine maps".
Post by: Zaerosz on March 14, 2011, 12:11:31 pm
Post by: TolyK on March 14, 2011, 12:43:40 pm
*stuff about spheres*hmm that would be nice.
Quote
Hmm eagerly awaiting.Quote from: Dwarfuwhat exactly is the functionality of the dwarf-mode inn?DF Talk 12 will have more on this.
Quote
YAY~ Next few days! I'll probably refrain from playing non-LP fort.Quote from: nilWill we get working crutches in dwarf mode soon, either in this release or the next? It's one of the biggest bugs yet to be squashed, and it seems particularly tragic that after you went to the work of implementing this cool and useful feature something continues to keep it from actually working.I'm planning to handle medical bugs included crutch use problems in the next few days.
Quote
Lol, this sounds cool.Quote from: G-FlexWith eyeball grass made out of eye tissue, and wormy grass made out of muscle tissue, how is it that cows and such are supposed to eat them? Assuming they actually can.
They do eat them, but they aren't supposed to, in the end. I remember adding the muscle tissue to worms and thinking "grazers are going to eat this..." and then just taking a note and moving on. So it'll be handled sometime, maybe extending the specific food tags to classes or something, or waiting for actual diet rewrites. Until then, gummy treats!
Quote
Hmm is it possible to have at least placeholders for now (shallow caves for dwarves, circles of trees for hippies, etc.)? Or would it not make much sense to do that now?Quote from: freeformschoolerwill the town revamp starting with the next release finally give us elf/dwarf settlements with actual elves & dwarves?
Doing those prior to the dwarf mode army arc releases is the current plan, so that you have something to attack. So in between the caravan releases and the army-related army arc releases. If it comes up, it might happen sooner, if it's forced in some way by the trading, but that might not be how it works out.
Quote
Creepy.:o
Quote
*ghost towns*sounds interesting, cool.
Quote
Anxiously awaiting...Quote from: JohnieRWilkinsDo you see humans as the seafaring race? Will waterways and trade by ship play a central role to civilizations? Which races will participate in sailing and building ships? How large, in units of men and/or dwarfcube dimensions*, will the larger boats be in the future?
Footkerchief posted quite a bit on this one. I just wanted to add that, yeah, some humans should be seafarers to different degrees -- probably all of the civs on the coast, but not the civs that have no settlements on the water. The same goes for other races on the water or large rivers. Dwarves and kobolds are sort of the odd ones out here. I have trouble imagining seafaring dwarves, especially out on the open ocean, but there are large bodies of water underground and lakes up in the mountains, so it's hard to say what we'll end up with once all the mechanics are just sitting there waiting to be used.
Quote
TOADY HATH SOLVED THE MYSTERIOUS QUESTION!Quote from: Granite26When you were editing the raws for all the new stuff, what did you add first, the chicken or the egg?
My recollection is that I did all of the domestic raws and then added all of the egg raws in afterward.
All in all: YAY!
@Last few posts: yeah I guess.
Post by: Ves on March 14, 2011, 01:10:48 pm
Post by: monk12 on March 14, 2011, 01:24:31 pm
On the topic of healthcare, what's the plan for Animal Caretakers? Will they eventually Diagnose/Surgery/Set/Suture/Dress injured animals using just the Caretaker skill?
Seems likely, but you may want to green that question so we can get a timeline- I haven't heard one, and I'd like to know. Part of me hopes it'll come with mounts.
Post by: Kogut on March 14, 2011, 01:26:38 pm
On the topic of healthcare, what's the plan for Animal Caretakers? Will they eventually Diagnose/Surgery/Set/Suture/Dress injured animals using just the Caretaker skill?
I thought that it will use standard doctor skills
Post by: monk12 on March 14, 2011, 01:31:07 pm
On the topic of healthcare, what's the plan for Animal Caretakers? Will they eventually Diagnose/Surgery/Set/Suture/Dress injured animals using just the Caretaker skill?
I thought that it will use standard doctor skills
At that point, there won't be much use for a distinct "veterinarian" school of medicine. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason animal healthcare is in limbo is because Toady isn't sure which way to jump on the issue.
Post by: Mephansteras on March 14, 2011, 01:32:00 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on March 14, 2011, 01:36:22 pm
Quote from: Toady OneHmm is it possible to have at least placeholders for now (shallow caves for dwarves, circles of trees for hippies, etc.)? Or would it not make much sense to do that now?Quote from: freeformschoolerwill the town revamp starting with the next release finally give us elf/dwarf settlements with actual elves & dwarves?
Doing those prior to the dwarf mode army arc releases is the current plan, so that you have something to attack. So in between the caravan releases and the army-related army arc releases. If it comes up, it might happen sooner, if it's forced in some way by the trading, but that might not be how it works out.
The game used to have placeholder mountain halls and forest retreats, at least up through 31.03 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=1227) and maybe later. I'm not sure why they were taken out, but a second set of placeholders probably isn't practical at this point.
On the topic of healthcare, what's the plan for Animal Caretakers? Will they eventually Diagnose/Surgery/Set/Suture/Dress injured animals using just the Caretaker skill?
This is from a year ago, but: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg1012311#msg1012311)
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: ChthonicAre dwarves with animal care enabled going to be able to splint wardogs' broken legs and so forth, and in general make veterinary care functional?
It's one of those things that is sitting on the put-off pile and I'm not sure what's going to happen.
Also, any plans for a way to designate how long chains can be?
The default chains were originally going to be longer, but it takes some technical infrastructure to have them drag across the floor properly, especially if you want the dragging to behave somewhat sensibly. Ideally you'd be able to lay down lengths of thread to follow back out of a cave and so on, not that it's hard to get out when you have the whole map sitting right there, but maybe it'll become easier to get lost sometimes.
Post by: Knight Otu on March 14, 2011, 02:03:18 pm
They won't be. The schedule, as I understand it, lists content releases. Following each of those is a release to fix new bugs from the previous release, then a release where old bugs are fixed. Hence, .22 will fix old hospital and stockpile bugs, .23 will have "Better town maps involving workshops/markets/shops based on world gen economic activities", .24 will fix bugs introduced in .23, .25 will fix more old bugs, and .26 will have "Villager/farmer schedules/activities and work with 3D mineral veins and mine maps".That's not quite it, either, I believe - the 31.20/21 releases were not actually part of the new release schedule like 31.22 will be. So the releases should go, barring any emergency updates, 31.22 bugs (and possibly a few sponsored animals), 32.01 (remember Toady hopes to increment version number here) better town maps and a few sponsored animals, 32.02 bugs, 32.03 schedules, veins, and mines, 32.04 bugs, 32.05 Taverns, hirelings, manors... insert sponsored animals, their kin, potentially the mentioned animal men, and various supplemental new features as appropriate.
Post by: Dante on March 14, 2011, 04:07:31 pm
On the topic of healthcare, what's the plan for Animal Caretakers? Will they eventually Diagnose/Surgery/Set/Suture/Dress injured animals using just the Caretaker skill?
I thought that it will use standard doctor skills
At that point, there won't be much use for a distinct "veterinarian" school of medicine. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason animal healthcare is in limbo is because Toady isn't sure which way to jump on the issue.
Perhaps it should be merged into the 'Butcher' skill ;D
Post by: monk12 on March 14, 2011, 04:39:42 pm
Post by: Ves on March 14, 2011, 06:48:44 pm
Cue Urist McHouse getting angry he can't treat his Dwarven patient because the Hospital's only Traction Bench is currently being used to heal a War Elephant.
Post by: Captain Mayday on March 14, 2011, 10:28:00 pm
How do Grazing, Hunger, and grass growth work alongside each other?
To be more specific, I can see that the GRAZER:X token allows X hunger to be removed for every unit of grass eaten.
What determines the rate at which hunger increases? Is creature size a factor?
Is a 'unit' of grass simply 1/4 the maximum amount that is growing on a space?
If creature size is a factor in determining rate of hunger, why is there such an enormous difference in how much hunger is removed?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on March 15, 2011, 12:16:00 pm
I have a question, partially regarding the problems grazing animals have right now with starving to death so easily
How do Grazing, Hunger, and grass growth work alongside each other?
To be more specific, I can see that the GRAZER:X token allows X hunger to be removed for every unit of grass eaten.
What determines the rate at which hunger increases? Is creature size a factor?
Is a 'unit' of grass simply 1/4 the maximum amount that is growing on a space?
If creature size is a factor in determining rate of hunger, why is there such an enormous difference in how much hunger is removed?
First, Limegreen, not Green.
Second, one unit of hunger is added every frame, regardless of creature speed. The average creature gets 1 turn every 10 frames, and one of those turns has to be used moving, so any creature with Grazer:19 or less cannot feed itself. An elephant, which only removes 12 hunger per eating of grass, is on a countdown to starvation the instant that hunger is in place. I'm told they generally starve within a season regardless of anything you try to do, short of butchering them immediately.
Third, creature size is only a factor in how Toady hand-coded the raws. I'm assuming hunger coding involves simply iterating a hunger counter for every hunger-tracked creature every frame, and creature size will only have an impact on how much they need to eat at once. You can manually recode Elephants to eat as little as rabbits if you so chose.
Fourth, creature size is such an enormous difference because the creatures have such enormous differences in size (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Pasture). Toady clearly simply started with 60,000,000 and divided by creature size to find the grazer value. No other factors of creature metabolism or attributes or individual animal size difference compared to the average of the species or even the age category are as yet implemented (although Toady's recent response implies that is coming), so this is purely a function of size alone, and you're comparing a 5-metric-ton elephant to a .5-kilogram rabbit. Hence, rabbits eat 1/10,000 as much food as an elephant. (Only technically not, since a rabbit would starve before it got to 120,000 hunger, anyway. This intermediate-stage hunger thing lacks sanity checking.)
Post by: Sizik on March 15, 2011, 02:43:56 pm
First, Limegreen, not Green.Lime's brighter.
Post by: Untelligent on March 15, 2011, 04:34:15 pm
Post by: Organum on March 16, 2011, 12:22:11 am
How about teal instead? It's like the bastard cousin of the green family!
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on March 16, 2011, 02:17:51 am
Edit: Plus he specifically asks for lime green.
Post by: Glanzor on March 16, 2011, 05:35:51 am
Nope. I'd need to see a save for that, and even that might not help. Getting it to reliably reproduce is the best way. If all that's already on the bug tracker it'll just take time to get there.Sometimes creatures get notable without getting a name. This affects civilized creatures without [CAN_SPEAK] and the merchants' animals in Fortress mode when they are killed.
The game treats them like they have a name, however and this produces ugly " , "" "-entries in the creature list in legends mode similar to the unnamed region and civilization problem you just solved.
I think this causes the problem Shonus is talking about as well.
Post by: Lord Shonus on March 16, 2011, 07:11:46 am
Post by: Captain Mayday on March 16, 2011, 09:49:34 am
I have a question, partially regarding the problems grazing animals have right now with starving to death so easily
How do Grazing, Hunger, and grass growth work alongside each other?
To be more specific, I can see that the GRAZER:X token allows X hunger to be removed for every unit of grass eaten.
What determines the rate at which hunger increases? Is creature size a factor?
Is a 'unit' of grass simply 1/4 the maximum amount that is growing on a space?
If creature size is a factor in determining rate of hunger, why is there such an enormous difference in how much hunger is removed?
First, Limegreen, not Green.
Second, one unit of hunger is added every frame, regardless of creature speed. The average creature gets 1 turn every 10 frames, and one of those turns has to be used moving, so any creature with Grazer:19 or less cannot feed itself. An elephant, which only removes 12 hunger per eating of grass, is on a countdown to starvation the instant that hunger is in place. I'm told they generally starve within a season regardless of anything you try to do, short of butchering them immediately.
Third, creature size is only a factor in how Toady hand-coded the raws. I'm assuming hunger coding involves simply iterating a hunger counter for every hunger-tracked creature every frame, and creature size will only have an impact on how much they need to eat at once. You can manually recode Elephants to eat as little as rabbits if you so chose.
Fourth, creature size is such an enormous difference because the creatures have such enormous differences in size (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Pasture). Toady clearly simply started with 60,000,000 and divided by creature size to find the grazer value. No other factors of creature metabolism or attributes or individual animal size difference compared to the average of the species or even the age category are as yet implemented (although Toady's recent response implies that is coming), so this is purely a function of size alone, and you're comparing a 5-metric-ton elephant to a .5-kilogram rabbit. Hence, rabbits eat 1/10,000 as much food as an elephant. (Only technically not, since a rabbit would starve before it got to 120,000 hunger, anyway. This intermediate-stage hunger thing lacks sanity checking.)
I was concerned that perhaps the rate at which hunger increases is also linked to size, in which case creature size would be affecting it twice.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on March 16, 2011, 10:17:41 am
I was concerned that perhaps the rate at which hunger increases is also linked to size, in which case creature size would be affecting it twice.
I don't think so - this seems to be based off of a iterate-each-frame method, so that all creatures starve after the same period of time with no food (when the unsigned integer hits its maximum value at 65535), they simply eat more (or lose less hunger when eating the same amount) to compensate for size at this moment.
To do otherwise would require a system where all the units on the map weren't iterated through every single frame. You can't add 1.25 to an integer for a creature 1.25 times normal mass, after all. That's not to say that Toady couldn't overhaul the system so that hunger was only added on every 10 frames or so to give some room for a "fraction" of a hunger per turn, of course, but that's just not the system we have right now.
Post by: Captain Mayday on March 16, 2011, 10:30:41 am
I was concerned that perhaps the rate at which hunger increases is also linked to size, in which case creature size would be affecting it twice.
I don't think so - this seems to be based off of a iterate-each-frame method, so that all creatures starve after the same period of time with no food (when the unsigned integer hits its maximum value at 65535), they simply eat more (or lose less hunger when eating the same amount) to compensate for size at this moment.
To do otherwise would require a system where all the units on the map weren't iterated through every single frame. You can't add 1.25 to an integer for a creature 1.25 times normal mass, after all. That's not to say that Toady couldn't overhaul the system so that hunger was only added on every 10 frames or so to give some room for a "fraction" of a hunger per turn, of course, but that's just not the system we have right now.
You can modify the maximum hunger though, by doing that. Especially if the hungry, very hungry, starving states are based on percentages.
Post by: Quatch on March 16, 2011, 02:16:05 pm
All in all, its obviously a placeholder, which means we'll probably have it for a while until it gets fully detailed. Shame about the elephants though.
Post by: Urist Da Vinci on March 17, 2011, 12:04:03 am
Post by: Sowelu on March 17, 2011, 12:06:55 am
The glittery balls of fire that fire imps toss look pretty, but they don't appear to do anything in arena mode, even if you get hit by dozens.Just wanted to verify, do you have temperature turned on?
Post by: Areyar on March 17, 2011, 03:11:24 am
Do dwarves on-fire go out after running around panicked and aflame for a while?
If not, it seems unfair.
Post by: Greiger on March 17, 2011, 07:32:07 am
Depending on clothing materiel alone, a fire can take between about 10 days to half a year to go out without the application of water. (And if you aren't fast enough even water won't help as the fire can get hot enough to flash boil it to steam before touching the fire.) I don't know what materiel goes out fastest, I just know it has an effect.
Post by: Urist Da Vinci on March 17, 2011, 11:28:04 am
The glittery balls of fire that fire imps toss look pretty, but they don't appear to do anything in arena mode, even if you get hit by dozens.Just wanted to verify, do you have temperature turned on?
Just tested, arena mode, 1 elf vs ~60 imps. I ran the elf around to stay just out of melee range of the horde. "You are caught in a cloud of flames!" 19x, and "You are struck by a ball of flames!" 26x. Temperature was on. Nothing happened. However, dragon breath did cause the elf to bleed/melt to death.
Post by: Captain Mayday on March 17, 2011, 01:08:09 pm
The glittery balls of fire that fire imps toss look pretty, but they don't appear to do anything in arena mode, even if you get hit by dozens.Just wanted to verify, do you have temperature turned on?
Just tested, arena mode, 1 elf vs ~60 imps. I ran the elf around to stay just out of melee range of the horde. "You are caught in a cloud of flames!" 19x, and "You are struck by a ball of flames!" 26x. Temperature was on. Nothing happened. However, dragon breath did cause the elf to bleed/melt to death.
Were you naked? If you were, you didn't have any clothes to catch alight.
Post by: Untelligent on March 17, 2011, 04:48:42 pm
Were you naked? If you were, you didn't have any clothes to catch alight.
In other words yeah, fireballs and fire in general need a fair bit of work yet.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on March 17, 2011, 07:36:10 pm
Were you naked? If you were, you didn't have any clothes to catch alight.
In other words yeah, fireballs and fire in general need a fair bit of work yet.
The problem is that there are only two numbers that matter - what point something burns at, and what point something melts at.
Real creatures are harmed by heat and cold for reasons other than their flesh actually being so hot it melts off. Homeostasis isn't really modeled that well.
Post by: G-Flex on March 17, 2011, 08:38:10 pm
The problem is that there are only two numbers that matter - what point something burns at, and what point something melts at.
You're forgetting the HEATDAM_POINT and COLDDAM_POINT, which are useful for things like bodily tissues, which suffer structural/chemical damage well before melting or being set on fire.
Quote
Real creatures are harmed by heat and cold for reasons other than their flesh actually being so hot it melts off. Homeostasis isn't really modeled that well.
Very much true. There's something wrong when your insides can get to such a temperature that your brain burns, without you losing consciousness, much less dying.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on March 17, 2011, 11:18:55 pm
Post by: isitanos on March 18, 2011, 02:40:44 am
... Given that underground rivers could be seen as a "vein of water" and various kinds of natural tunnels (i.e. dried underground rivers or lava tunnels) could be seen as a "vein of air", it doesn't seem so far-fetched. Presumably chasms wouldn't be bottomless any more, but they were a nice variation in the landscape.
Of course, some kind of underground erosion model would be even better, and you could use it to wash some minerals like gold down the riverbed. And have rivers that disappear underground somewhere and surface far away: a nice
Post by: tfaal on March 18, 2011, 07:09:13 am
Post by: Neonivek on March 18, 2011, 07:10:04 am
I don't understand how a river can surface if they go downhill. :\
Momentum
Post by: Rose on March 18, 2011, 07:13:47 am
yeah, that's what we need, cliff-faces, with exposed caverns.
Post by: Areyar on March 18, 2011, 08:34:42 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on March 18, 2011, 09:29:32 am
I don't understand how a river can surface if they go downhill. :\
The same way that water will go up a "U" shaped pipe or chamber if you add enough water in, and flood your fortress.
Hydrostatic Pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_pressure#Hydrostatic_pressure).
If the source of the river is on a higher elevation than where the river resurfaces, and the bedrock around the river is impermeable to water, it can act like a natural bit of plumbing, and the upriver water will simply force the water uphill if there is no other place for that water to go (typically creating a lake if there is no "roof" overhead to make it an underground river), although it would more likely just create a "natural spring" when the underground river simply hit permeable ground again, it wouldn't just be an open cavern with water rushing out.
Just keep in mind that rivers start in the mountains and other highlands, and flow to the oceans or inland seas, which means there's always pressure from behind.
Post by: G-Flex on March 18, 2011, 06:23:45 pm
Post by: TolyK on March 19, 2011, 09:25:07 am
or the surface of the ground falling faster than the river level. probably exiting at a cliff-face.I feel the urge...
yeah, that's what we need, cliff-faces, with exposed caverns.
...
I will do it in about 5 minutes.
Post by: TolyK on March 19, 2011, 03:37:24 pm
On caverns showing on cliffs, and such (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=80052.new#new)
Post by: SalmonGod on March 19, 2011, 08:43:58 pm
Quote
cleaned up a lag problem from ghosts and some other general lag issues
Would I be wrong to read this as some known causes of disproportionate FPS hits have been alleviated?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on March 19, 2011, 08:49:18 pm
Post by: monk12 on March 19, 2011, 08:55:27 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on March 19, 2011, 11:05:42 pm
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 19, 2011, 11:10:37 pm
Post by: Kogut on March 20, 2011, 02:10:50 am
Post by: Interus on March 20, 2011, 03:01:58 am
or the surface of the ground falling faster than the river level. probably exiting at a cliff-face.
yeah, that's what we need, cliff-faces, with exposed caverns.
Shoulda been reading this more... I actually had a cliff face with an exposed cavern once. Parts of it caved in to a river like 15 z-levels below the cavern. I didn't end up actually playing on that map because I was so stunned I had no idea where to even begin. And I'm not entirely sure it wasn't a bug.
Post by: eux0r on March 20, 2011, 08:15:17 am
is there some kind of raw-file-system-overhaul on the dev list, to merge them all in one coherent system?
i think of stuff like using attack entries for armor(eg attacks using a horned helmet) or creature tokens for objects(eg the dragonbreath-system can be used for nice effects when modding firearms, when firing smoke instead of dragonfire)
Post by: Orkel on March 20, 2011, 12:10:05 pm
Toady, when will you revisit combat balancing? Stuff like "Superdwarvenly dwarf gets a broken finger, falls to the ground (gives into pain) and gets his skull instantly bashed in", or "whips/scourges/arrows/bolts can whip and punch through every armor in existence", or "a slightly bruised brain from a punch for example is always lethal" etc.
Post by: thvaz on March 20, 2011, 12:35:52 pm
Haven't been in this thread for a long time so not sure if this has been asked before, but:
Toady, when will you revisit combat balancing? Stuff like "Superdwarvenly dwarf gets a broken finger, falls to the ground (gives into pain) and gets his skull instantly bashed in", or "whips/scourges/arrows/bolts can whip and punch through every armor in existence", or "a slightly bruised brain from a punch for example is always lethal" etc.
When people start getting over questions-suggestions, we now have questions-requests. ::)
Post by: freeformschooler on March 20, 2011, 12:55:00 pm
For the "explorer/archeologist" adventurer role type... what are the plans for generating ancient ruins and dungeons and so on? Is the ideal something like a random Legend of Zelda, with each room elaborately linked up by your great precursors? Are they going to be anything like the caverns we have today? Or should we expect them to meld into the rest of the world as easily as possible?
I have always been interested in dungeon generation.
Post by: Johuotar on March 20, 2011, 03:08:25 pm
Post by: Greiger on March 20, 2011, 04:05:09 pm
A) Don't make any soap and live with losing dwarves to infection.
B) Make very small amounts of soap and hope some gets taken to the hospital before the chests get filled with cloth and forbid all that isn't, and
C) Make soap normally, and just live with the job cancellation spam and nobody ever cleaning themselves.
Of course it is possible that this is one of the last bugs. And it's also possible that it is more complicated than it looks making it be set aside for a while longer.
Post by: G-Flex on March 20, 2011, 04:12:14 pm
And is hard to Of course it is possible that this is one of the last bugs.
Have you ever seen the bug tracker? There are plenty left.
Post by: Greiger on March 20, 2011, 04:19:51 pm
Post by: Narmio on March 20, 2011, 09:48:39 pm
So, I haven't played seriously since .16 or so, so I'm out of the loop on this, but what really, truly irritating bugs remain that aren't in the changelog for .22? Hospital stocking is fixed, marksdwarf training/combat bolts are fixed, hunters are (at least partially) fixed, fishing is fixed...
So what's left on the "really irritating" list? The soap cancellation spam is one (hopefully that's up for slaying soon!), what else am I forgetting?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on March 21, 2011, 12:16:39 am
When people start getting over questions-suggestions, we now have questions-requests. ::)
Do you ever do anything besides tell people that they don't have a right to speak up?
Have you ever seen the bug tracker? There are plenty left.
I meant one of the last bugs he was doing before release.
Toady's apparently planning on doing one of these for every one of the "short-term releases", so he's probably going to knock out most of the really bad ones... of course, then I have to start talking about things that aren't really "bugs", but are still incomplete features or dummied-out pieces of raws or even things that could be made more modder-friendly (like the recent splitting of vermin_hunter to have the cat adoption code separate from eating vermin). Hopefully, he'll get around to some of those at some point, as well.
I generally look forward more to completing more functionality or adding in new features to bugfixes, anyway, but if a Toady dedicated to squashing bugs for a couple weeks can do this much damage to the worst bugs in the game, then I am certainly happy to see it.
Post by: yarr on March 21, 2011, 01:47:39 am
Quotecleaned up a lag problem from ghosts and some other general lag issues
Would I be wrong to read this as some known causes of disproportionate FPS hits have been alleviated?
1000 fps @ 250 dwarves, here we come!
Post by: thvaz on March 21, 2011, 02:01:42 am
When people start getting over questions-suggestions, we now have questions-requests. ::)
People have the right to speak up as I have the right to complain. Free of speech works in both ways.
If I was wrong when you made your questions-suggestions in this thread, Toady wouldn't have ignored them.
Post by: Footkerchief on March 21, 2011, 02:38:08 am
Quotecleaned up a lag problem from ghosts and some other general lag issues
Would I be wrong to read this as some known causes of disproportionate FPS hits have been alleviated?
1000 fps @ 250 dwarves, here we come!
In case you're being serious, do not expect orders of magnitude of improvement
Post by: SalmonGod on March 21, 2011, 03:26:06 am
Quotecleaned up a lag problem from ghosts and some other general lag issues
Would I be wrong to read this as some known causes of disproportionate FPS hits have been alleviated?
1000 fps @ 250 dwarves, here we come!
In case you're being serious, do not expect orders of magnitude of improvement
Key word was 'disproportionate' as in things like sudden noticeable FPS drops when there are hidden ambushes on the map. I'm definitely not expecting a widespread improvement based on Toady's wording.
Post by: Ethicalfive on March 21, 2011, 05:26:20 am
This could be a real possability if toady gave us the ability to choose a 10x10x10 tile sized embarks :PQuotecleaned up a lag problem from ghosts and some other general lag issues
Would I be wrong to read this as some known causes of disproportionate FPS hits have been alleviated?
1000 fps @ 250 dwarves, here we come!
Post by: Areyar on March 21, 2011, 06:07:58 am
Either: Supercomputer DF or vertical fortress! hehe
Post by: TolyK on March 21, 2011, 08:18:43 am
the key word here is the 10x10x10, i.e. 10 z-levels ;)This could be a real possability if toady gave us the ability to choose a 10x10x10 tile sized embarks :PQuotecleaned up a lag problem from ghosts and some other general lag issues
Would I be wrong to read this as some known causes of disproportionate FPS hits have been alleviated?
1000 fps @ 250 dwarves, here we come!
Post by: greenskye on March 21, 2011, 09:20:24 am
Yea the clean self soap thing pretty much seems to be a massive issue with it. And is hard to workaround while still keeping the soap's functionality to healthcare. It's either
A) Don't make any soap and live with losing dwarves to infection.
B) Make very small amounts of soap and hope some gets taken to the hospital before the chests get filled with cloth and forbid all that isn't, and
C) Make soap normally, and just live with the job cancellation spam and nobody ever cleaning themselves.
Of course it is possible that this is one of the last bugs. And it's also possible that it is more complicated than it looks making it be set aside for a while longer.
Not sure if this was fixed when you posted but the soap bug appears to be fixed now!
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=1023 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=1023)
Seems like hospitals will be very useful from now on. Now we just need a better way to train doctors, but I guess that's more of a feature rather than a bug.
Post by: Greiger on March 21, 2011, 10:18:17 am
*clicks link*
Spoiler: for size (click to show/hide)
I will give you my firstborn Toady. Do you prefer you slave children delivered in bags sacks or cardboard boxes? Boxes would be best for me (I could just use one of those postal service flat rate boxes. I think I could cram the kid in there.) but of course your preference determines the final say.
Post by: Areyar on March 21, 2011, 11:23:08 am
ah...the key word here is the 10x10x10, i.e. 10 z-levels ;)This could be a real possability if toady gave us the ability to choose a 10x10x10 tile sized embarks :PQuotecleaned up a lag problem from ghosts and some other general lag issues
Would I be wrong to read this as some known causes of disproportionate FPS hits have been alleviated?
1000 fps @ 250 dwarves, here we come!
Imagines the pathing of 250 crawling dwarves.
Post by: freeformschooler on March 21, 2011, 12:03:09 pm
EDIT:
Uh oh. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=4285) Does this mean we won't be able to magically tell whether a clown fortress is in our embarks anymore?
EDIT2:
Nevermind, that's not "fixed" yet. I read "resolved" as "fixed".
Post by: Dohon on March 21, 2011, 12:28:46 pm
Post by: Thief^ on March 21, 2011, 12:54:20 pm
Hospitals are going to work in .22? *brain explodes*Check: http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=10
EDIT:
Uh oh. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=4285) Does this mean we won't be able to magically tell whether a clown fortress is in our embarks anymore?
EDIT2:
Nevermind, that's not "fixed" yet. I read "resolved" as "fixed".
Quote
Toady One (administrator)
2011-03-13 12:33
I've fixed the wealth count and hidden items on the stock screen issues, but I'm going to leave it open until I get through more of the child issues which might be resolved.
Post by: freeformschooler on March 21, 2011, 01:43:52 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on March 21, 2011, 02:27:02 pm
Oh nuts, you're right, I missed that :( oh well. Guess we'll have to find clown fortresses ourselves, now.
Hidden items on the stock screen != rooms. The HFS rooms report (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=1456) hasn't been marked as fixed, so you'll probably still have that exploit for now.
Post by: Caldfir on March 21, 2011, 04:00:58 pm
Its kind of funny in hindsight, because this stint of bug fixes was, at that time, already scheduled. Like what, people thought Toady should drop what he was working on at that moment to get bugfixes done a week earlier?
I for one have faith in the Toad.
Post by: thvaz on March 21, 2011, 04:21:50 pm
Does anyone else remember how angry the forums seemed just a few weeks ago with people jumping up and down for bug fixes?
Its kind of funny in hindsight, because this stint of bug fixes was, at that time, already scheduled. Like what, people thought Toady should drop what he was working on at that moment to get bugfixes done a week earlier?
I for one have faith in the Toad.
They will now complain as why it wasn't fixed earlier. Or complain about bugs not fixed this time.
Post by: Hiiri on March 21, 2011, 04:40:24 pm
They will now complain as why it wasn't fixed earlier. Or complain about bugs not fixed this time.
Or about the possible bugs that are not even in the game yet. ::)
Nah just kidding, DF-community seems chill and relaxed in comparison to many others. Super meat boy-community is going crazy because of free content delay. Calling developers useless assholes, liars etc.
Edit: Sorry, off-topic
Post by: Uristocrat on March 21, 2011, 04:58:59 pm
I will give you my firstborn Toady. Do you prefer you slave children delivered in bags sacks or cardboard boxes? Boxes would be best for me (I could just use one of those postal service flat rate boxes. I think I could cram the kid in there.) but of course your preference determines the final say.
Obviously, children should be delivered in lead bins, preferably with some cinnabar, rutile, and pitchblende toys to keep them busy. Just don't tell the Elf Protection Agency.
Post by: Kogut on March 21, 2011, 05:32:50 pm
Or complain about this irritating bug number... Dammit, it is fixed. :D (The worst one on my personal list is 0001899: Game locks up for 30 min during seasonal temperature shift)Does anyone else remember how angry the forums seemed just a few weeks ago with people jumping up and down for bug fixes?
Its kind of funny in hindsight, because this stint of bug fixes was, at that time, already scheduled. Like what, people thought Toady should drop what he was working on at that moment to get bugfixes done a week earlier?
I for one have faith in the Toad.
They will now complain as why it wasn't fixed earlier. Or complain about bugs not fixed this time.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 21, 2011, 07:55:59 pm
Post by: Cruxador on March 21, 2011, 09:22:22 pm
If previous trends hold, they'll complain about how he's spending all this time bugfixing, when he should be adding content.Does anyone else remember how angry the forums seemed just a few weeks ago with people jumping up and down for bug fixes?
Its kind of funny in hindsight, because this stint of bug fixes was, at that time, already scheduled. Like what, people thought Toady should drop what he was working on at that moment to get bugfixes done a week earlier?
I for one have faith in the Toad.
They will now complain as why it wasn't fixed earlier. Or complain about bugs not fixed this time.
They may also complain about something they think is a bug but is actually a feature, or, more likely, an insufficiency in existing systems caused by a planned feature not yet being implemented.
Post by: Rockphed on March 21, 2011, 09:59:20 pm
Post by: Greiger on March 21, 2011, 10:22:38 pm
They will also complain when bugs that they thought were features get fixed.
What? no more permaflooding or permawaves? But they were so much fun! And why can't we red-line the chasm anymore?
Huh? Traps kill traders now? Wow that is an awesome way to remove overreliance on traps...wait that was a bug? And yer fixing it? Init option plox?[/sarcasm]
Post by: Lord Shonus on March 22, 2011, 07:19:14 am
Post by: Kogut on March 22, 2011, 11:01:36 am
I still see nothing wrong in giant bughunt.If previous trends hold, they'll complain about how he's spending all this time bugfixing, when he should be adding content.Does anyone else remember how angry the forums seemed just a few weeks ago with people jumping up and down for bug fixes?
Its kind of funny in hindsight, because this stint of bug fixes was, at that time, already scheduled. Like what, people thought Toady should drop what he was working on at that moment to get bugfixes done a week earlier?
I for one have faith in the Toad.
They will now complain as why it wasn't fixed earlier. Or complain about bugs not fixed this time.
Post by: Footkerchief on March 22, 2011, 11:05:34 am
If previous trends hold, they'll complain about how he's spending all this time bugfixing, when he should be adding content.
Link please. I must have missed where people were doing this.
Post by: Captain Mayday on March 22, 2011, 11:29:25 am
If previous trends hold, they'll complain about how he's spending all this time bugfixing, when he should be adding content.
Link please. I must have missed where people were doing this.
I believe he was making an amusing prediction that since people were complaining about all the content and no bugfixing, that the reverse will now be true.
I don't think anybody will complain about much needed bug-fixing being done.
Post by: freeformschooler on March 22, 2011, 12:04:26 pm
Post by: Cruxador on March 22, 2011, 01:14:12 pm
Not on these forums, necessarily. But complaints about lack of content being added pop up whenever we aren't getting content updates rolling out quickly. They're not really prevalent, but bug complaints aren't all that frequent either.If previous trends hold, they'll complain about how he's spending all this time bugfixing, when he should be adding content.
Link please. I must have missed where people were doing this.
Post by: LoSboccacc on March 22, 2011, 04:37:43 pm
apart from the obvious caravan arc stuff, with prices and availability and such, does it also involve a better trade agreement interface (pre paid shipment of exact quantities and the like), a better trading screen (filters or sorting or something like that) and most importantly will be there a separation between the handling/working of fortress/civilizations relationships and fortress/fair relationship?
that is, is in the plans having fair out of fortress control (apart quantity/quality influenced by zones and wealth and stuff like that) and detailed trade agreement between civilizations/important sites (and the keyword here is detailed) or something like that
Post by: Caldfir on March 22, 2011, 06:45:58 pm
Hopefully the endless goblin waves (and their associated endless clutter waves) will cease as site tracking of items get implemented... or I guess at latest when the army arc things preventing invaders being spawned ex nihilo along with a full suit of armor get in. At this point I'm pretty sure I've killed about double the number of goblins ever to have lived in my world, but they still keep showing up in armor they couldn't possibly have made.
I wonder how this is going to work once it gets done.
Post by: Jiri Petru on March 22, 2011, 09:31:09 pm
What I mean - you've scratched the old economy so any plans to replace it? Some kind of in-fortress supply/demand system? Buying/selling? A notion of collective/personal ownership? I suppose the answer is no because it sounds like a great deal of work... but then there are the fortress inns that would suggest some kind of fortress-mode economy.
Post by: Quatch on March 22, 2011, 09:46:53 pm
Post by: Interus on March 22, 2011, 10:03:58 pm
Are there any plans for an in-fortress economy in the near future (I mean as part of the next few updates)? It's not specifically mentioned on the list but seeing as this is the "caravan arc", i though might be hidden under a larger goal.
What I mean - you've scratched the old economy so any plans to replace it? Some kind of in-fortress supply/demand system? Buying/selling? A notion of collective/personal ownership? I suppose the answer is no because it sounds like a great deal of work... but then there are the fortress inns that would suggest some kind of fortress-mode economy.
I was just wondering about this too, though I think it may have been mentioned. Since goods are supposed to change in value over the world based on how common they are, will that be in play in fortress mode too? Will dwarves be able to sell things they own in order to make money to buy other things that they may want more? There's a lot that could be done, and I'm interested in hearing what might be planned. I hope that the economy in fortress mode isn't perfectly stable within the fortress. That would be boring.
Oh, and as for all the talk about complaints, "They" is a rather generic term. People have been complaining about the lack of bugfixes for awhile, and may still complain about certain ones that haven't been fixed. And the complaints were getting more and more common as more updates came out with new content but no new fixes. But with the schedule of fixing both new and old bugs in between releases, at least for awhile, I really doubt that "they" will be complaining. As for the people who said that new content was more important than bug fixes, I doubt "they" will complain about getting problems fixed when new content is planned fairly regularly too. But if somebody does complain, I doubt they will, when they are specifically the people complaining about not enough bugfixes. I may be ranting a little though, I read a thread last night on minecraft where somebody was basically saying you aren't allowed to say the creator needs to fix bugs when the game is still in development, even though that's when bugs really need to be worked out. Point is, the people who are complaining about things are real people who have a legitimate right to voice their concerns, even if they aren't the same as the majority.
Post by: Passive Fist on March 22, 2011, 10:49:00 pm
Post by: Untelligent on March 22, 2011, 10:56:28 pm
Post by: caknuck on March 23, 2011, 12:42:15 am
They will now complain as why it wasn't fixed earlier. Or complain about bugs not fixed this time.
Or about the possible bugs that are not even in the game yet. ::)
These are the non-existent bugs that I want fixed with version .24:
- Cats have started adopting each other
- Deconstructing the wagon causes a deceased wagon to appear in the unit list. If you don't erect a slab to its memory, a ghost wagon will haunt your booze stockpile and occasionally run over hapless dwarves
- My baron enacted a mandate for a porcelain anvil
- My one-legged dwarf has claimed and is using eight crutches simultaneously
- A goblin snatcher placed a baby in a screw press. (The elf caravan paid handsomely for the resultant babycakes.)
Post by: Caldfir on March 23, 2011, 01:21:21 am
Oh, and as for all the talk about complaints, "They" is a rather generic term. People have been complaining about the lack of bugfixes for awhile, and may still complain about certain ones that haven't been fixed. And the complaints were getting more and more common as more updates came out with new content but no new fixes. But with the schedule of fixing both new and old bugs in between releases, at least for awhile, I really doubt that "they" will be complaining. As for the people who said that new content was more important than bug fixes, I doubt "they" will complain about getting problems fixed when new content is planned fairly regularly too. But if somebody does complain, I doubt they will, when they are specifically the people complaining about not enough bugfixes. I may be ranting a little though, I read a thread last night on minecraft where somebody was basically saying you aren't allowed to say the creator needs to fix bugs when the game is still in development, even though that's when bugs really need to be worked out. Point is, the people who are complaining about things are real people who have a legitimate right to voice their concerns, even if they aren't the same as the majority.I wasn't meaning to imply that bug fixes aren't a necessary part of development; only that bug fixing was already scheduled, so complaining about it was moot.
Also, most of the most recent "features" grew out of Toady trying to fix adventure mode, which was completely broken beyond belief and needed to be made playable again before the last few fortress mode bugs got sorted. Prior to that, Toady was on crashbug-patrol for something like 5 months straight. Bugfixing has always been a major part of DF development so people just... don't need to get worried.
Post by: Ves on March 23, 2011, 02:01:58 am
- My one-legged dwarf has claimed and is using eight crutches simultaneously
One of the first things I'm going to do in the next release is give Dwarves an extra pair of legs and arms, then get a bunch of them lopped off and see what happens.
Post by: MrWiggles on March 23, 2011, 02:50:29 am
And the complaints were getting more and more common as more updates came out with new content but no new fixes.
Thats false, each of the release this year and last after the initial .31 release has had bug fixes. With an average of 18 or so per release.
Post by: Areyar on March 23, 2011, 03:06:34 am
That IS an interresting experiment!
- My one-legged dwarf has claimed and is using eight crutches simultaneously
One of the first things I'm going to do in the next release is give Dwarves an extra pair of legs and arms, then get a bunch of them lopped off and see what happens.
Will the octopedal spiderdwarf who finds himself suddenly being a biped crawl, or will he instantly learn to balance on two legs?
Keep us posted. :)
edit: bonuspoints for giving him a web attack.
Post by: tfaal on March 23, 2011, 10:14:17 am
Post by: Interus on March 23, 2011, 04:43:37 pm
And the complaints were getting more and more common as more updates came out with new content but no new fixes.
Thats false, each of the release this year and last after the initial .31 release has had bug fixes. With an average of 18 or so per release.
Yeah, I completely forgot that like, every other update was almost exclusively bug-fixing. I don't know how, since I always waited for the bug-patches to get an update. But it did seem to me like people were getting more vocal over time, and I'm pretty sure that was just because the hospital bugs staying out of every patch was bugging lots of people. I expect things to die down a little bit for a little while.
Post by: Kogut on March 23, 2011, 05:00:46 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on March 23, 2011, 05:13:47 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on March 23, 2011, 05:19:35 pm
Well somehow the Number of fxed Bugs keeps jumping. This morning (for me) it was 56 and now its back to 49.
I changed the resolution of several redundant bugs from "fixed" to "duplicate" so that the changelog would only contain unique fixes. Don't want to look like we're padding our numbers.
Post by: Lord Shonus on March 23, 2011, 06:29:14 pm
Deconstructing the wagon causes a deceased wagon to appear in the unit list. If you don't erect a slab to its memory, a ghost wagon will haunt your booze stockpile and occasionally run over hapless dwarves
Funny, but I don't think that this game needs anything from Toejam and Earl.
Post by: freeformschooler on March 23, 2011, 06:56:14 pm
And the complaints were getting more and more common as more updates came out with new content but no new fixes.
Thats false, each of the release this year and last after the initial .31 release has had bug fixes. With an average of 18 or so per release.
Yeah, I completely forgot that like, every other update was almost exclusively bug-fixing. I don't know how, since I always waited for the bug-patches to get an update. But it did seem to me like people were getting more vocal over time, and I'm pretty sure that was just because the hospital bugs staying out of every patch was bugging lots of people. I expect things to die down a little bit for a little while.
To be fair, mostly the bugs being fixed by those releases were the higher priority bugs introduced by the release that came just behind it. That's why they could come out so quickly. For this release Toady is focusing a lot on the older bugs that have been sitting around the bugtracker for some time.
Post by: Orkel on March 23, 2011, 07:29:48 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVhsIGGg3QE
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 23, 2011, 07:40:03 pm
Post by: Kogut on March 24, 2011, 11:39:29 am
What caused this bug? I am really interested in it.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 24, 2011, 01:59:21 pm
Post by: Dante on March 24, 2011, 05:02:18 pm
Post by: G-Flex on March 24, 2011, 05:07:21 pm
My guess would have to be that some ghosts were using the normal A*-based pathfinding code, but with ALL tiles allowed (including hidden ones), making it incredibly expensive to recalculate.
Why would that make it more expensive? It's not computationally expensive to "pathfind" a straight line. Unless that path fails, obviously.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on March 24, 2011, 05:09:51 pm
Post by: G-Flex on March 24, 2011, 05:10:55 pm
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on March 24, 2011, 05:14:39 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on March 24, 2011, 05:19:08 pm
A* is only really problem if there are plenty of dead-ends for the pathfinding to go down, realize it's a dead end, then have to path back out, go down another dead end, and path around until it finally finds its way to the destination by trial-and-error.
Ghost pathfinding (and possibly flying HFS pathfinding) probably did a flood-fill type of pathfinding, instead, which would contribute to the massive lag, since that WOULD involve checking every tile.
Post by: Dante on March 24, 2011, 05:25:47 pm
I don't think they can, as far as I recall there was a case of a ghost throwing itself off a cliff repeatedly in an attempt to path to it's body onceGhosts do travel through walls, floors, fluids, etc. You can see them hanging out inside your walls sometimes, or travelling in a straight line through a mountain.
Post by: EmeraldWind on March 24, 2011, 07:18:12 pm
Post by: G-Flex on March 24, 2011, 07:31:19 pm
Yeah, that's what I meant I think. All tiles allowed to be checked for a route, instead of just the immediate adjacent non-fluid-covered non-walled non-empty-space ones.
That is not the difference we're talking about. NW_Kohaku is talking about the difference between something like A* and a basic flood-fill algorithm, although I don't know why anything would use the latter. Hell, something that can travel in a straight line doesn't really need pathfinding at all.
I don't think they can, as far as I recall there was a case of a ghost throwing itself off a cliff repeatedly in an attempt to path to it's body onceGhosts do travel through walls, floors, fluids, etc. You can see them hanging out inside your walls sometimes, or travelling in a straight line through a mountain.
[/quote]
Post by: NW_Kohaku on March 24, 2011, 07:45:27 pm
That is not the difference we're talking about. NW_Kohaku is talking about the difference between something like A* and a basic flood-fill algorithm, although I don't know why anything would use the latter. Hell, something that can travel in a straight line doesn't really need pathfinding at all.
I can't remember where, but I remember in my searching for material on Pathfinding seeing a Toady quote that said that there is no connection map for fliers in the game. This is why fliers don't work so well in fortress mode, except for wild animals. Toady said he let them do flood-fill pathfinding and that he just kept their searches short-range to prevent that from doing dire things to the FPS. HFS pathfinding is probably very slow and causes dramatic spikes in lag specifically because they are using flood-fill pathing constantly.
It's possible Toady just made ghosts flood-fill pathfind entire maps until they found their destination to cut down on how much he'd have to code or take up memory for a secondary connectivity map that includes every tile, or something. It would certainly explain the massive lag ghosts cause.
Post by: G-Flex on March 24, 2011, 07:50:47 pm
It's possible Toady just made ghosts flood-fill pathfind entire maps until they found their destination to cut down on how much he'd have to code or take up memory for a secondary connectivity map that includes every tile, or something. It would certainly explain the massive lag ghosts cause.
True, but for something that moves like a ghost, you don't need a connectivity map anyway; you could even just shoehorn in a "go in a straight line" stub algorithm for their pathfinding.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on March 24, 2011, 07:56:52 pm
Or am I just totally misunderstanding the usage of the word certain?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on March 24, 2011, 08:08:54 pm
Post by: darkflagrance on March 25, 2011, 02:41:52 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on March 25, 2011, 02:56:42 pm
Tunneler units, especially, can blow the whole pathfinding thing up, depending on how much they are allowed to dig.
Post by: Lovechild on March 25, 2011, 03:28:33 pm
Post by: Untelligent on March 25, 2011, 03:32:45 pm
Post by: SalmonGod on March 25, 2011, 03:38:51 pm
Post by: Garnett on March 25, 2011, 05:13:14 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on March 25, 2011, 05:27:23 pm
Speaking of which, is stairs one of the things that got an FPS fix? I remember some science proving stairs drain FPS more than ramps, but then we get this update where some unspecified sources of fps problems were cleaned up. So can anyone tell if stairs was one of those?
I would highly doubt that, as the cost of stairs is probably due to having a more open environment (as in, more tiles to stand on) than a ramp would have interacting with A* pathfinding.
Those problems are relatively minor, as far as I remember, and would really only be fixed by working on a change to the core pathfinding code, itself.
Post by: Shinziril on March 25, 2011, 05:30:51 pm
Is there a way to strangle/cut throats with weapons besides slashing/stabbing them in aimed combat? It would be cool to some sort of stealth kill for scrawny rogue characters, such as the aforementioned throat cutting and garroting.You can strangle using aimed wrestling (hand or limb -> throat). Once they're unconscious, you can use an aimed melee attack to cut their throats easily. It works quite well.
Post by: PTTG?? on March 25, 2011, 05:35:06 pm
Assuming an unaware opponent provides a bonus, that should work for you. I'll have to try this out in the arena with a highly skilled sneaker and a peasant.
Post by: Kogut on March 26, 2011, 02:48:40 am
Quote
some other general lag issuesCan you specify what was fixed?
Post by: Cruxador on March 26, 2011, 02:52:19 am
Did you check on Mantis? If not, you would do well to do so. If you did and require additional information, you would do well to make your question more specific.Quotesome other general lag issuesCan you specify what was fixed?
Post by: Kogut on March 26, 2011, 04:08:30 am
Yes, I checked and only "0003651: [Undeath] Ghost appearing/disappearing causes a massive slowdown" is lag related.Did you check on Mantis? If not, you would do well to do so. If you did and require additional information, you would do well to make your question more specific.Quotesome other general lag issuesCan you specify what was fixed?
Post by: Ethicalfive on March 26, 2011, 09:16:45 am
Post by: Greiger on March 26, 2011, 09:28:40 am
...but that also means that I have a better computer than Toady since I was getting 50 FPS....time to donate!
Post by: TolyK on March 26, 2011, 09:32:05 am
this is GREAT i wish I could help program ;(
Post by: freeformschooler on March 26, 2011, 10:09:21 am
Now that we have bamboo, will we ever be able to chop it down and make bamboo crafts? Currently it is only a grass, which is technically correct, but...
Post by: Ethicalfive on March 26, 2011, 10:32:13 am
New release is great.
Now that we have bamboo, will we ever be able to chop it down and make bamboo crafts? Currently it is only a grass, which is technically correct, but...
That would be cool.. I can imagine bamboo walls, or scafholding! Maybe collected bamboo for crafts and building materials could come in with the hay collecting that may go in later for animal feed. Also, thinking about it more. It'd be sweet to take different grass seeds with you and get a dwarf to go around throwing out handfuls of them to grow specific grasses on your embark.
Post by: monk12 on March 26, 2011, 01:09:22 pm
Post by: Areyar on March 26, 2011, 02:00:26 pm
For instance high quality log, fit for working into anything (or the planks IIRC you mentioned once). and branches/roots (low quality wood/debris), perfect for coalburning, building fences or stuff requiring small bits of wood (bolts, beads etc?).
Will there eventually be creeper vines as well?
So next will be the dwarven inn?
I guess this will require the fort to have a supply of coinage?
I'm also guessing that many new shops and such will be freeform area+furniture based, like the hospital and barracks.
Would an inn require a coffin for this coinage. (You suggested a counter in T12 IIRC, I think a table would suffice here.)
In my own attempt at a surface inn (40d) I'd a line of tables for the counter/bar.
does exchange of money require characters to be next to eachother? traded items are just dropped by an adventurer...it would be cool if money would be put on the table, taken by the barman and replaced by a mug of Sunshine. instead of dropping the coinage on the floor and having to go over to the barrel of sunshine and uppending it over one's head...oh well, you get the service you deserve, I guess. ;)
Post by: Untelligent on March 26, 2011, 02:15:50 pm
So next will be the dwarven inn?
Nope.
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html
So next is more stuff in towns, then a bugfix release or two, then stuff for villagers and farmers to do, then bugfix, then "taverns, hirelings, and manors," which probably refers to just taverns in towns, then bugfix, THEN inns in dwarf mode and adventure mode.
It'll be a little while.
Post by: Areyar on March 26, 2011, 02:52:27 pm
Nothing happened, really ! ;)
All those earlier things are very cool as well.
And at the rate Tarn is going recently... (no presure, no pressure at all. hahaha)
Post by: Symmetry on March 26, 2011, 03:39:12 pm
Post by: Chainlinc3 on March 26, 2011, 10:59:43 pm
Do we have any word on when the fortress economy will make a reappearance? Or at least a projected portion of the development that will contain it? Because I just met the previous requirements, then was all "where's mah economy?" and the wiki said it was removed but wasn't entirely clear on it. So yeah.
Post by: monk12 on March 26, 2011, 11:35:46 pm
I'm pretty sure that the answer to this is elsewhere, but I've looked around for ten-ish minutes and haven't found an answer, so, figured I might as well ask.
Do we have any word on when the fortress economy will make a reappearance? Or at least a projected portion of the development that will contain it? Because I just met the previous requirements, then was all "where's mah economy?" and the wiki said it was removed but wasn't entirely clear on it. So yeah.
From the current development cycle (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html), Release 6 is "Dwarf mode trading improvements incorporating all the world gen/supply/demand/merchant info etc." which is probably when microeconomics will come back into play. Just a guess though.
Post by: Areyar on March 27, 2011, 05:25:50 am
I just like to observe how the world develops. :)
edit:
aw wrong thread. this is about the 31.23 version.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 27, 2011, 08:48:45 am
That's really my only major complaint with 31.19+: not being able to guarantee sand on my embark unless I embark in a sand desert (which guarantees no clay).
Post by: Kogut on March 27, 2011, 09:01:17 am
it seems world gen is faster, but that may just be because I did a default gen and usually choose to go for maximum size.But larger map in worldgen would be great...
I just like to observe how the world develops. :)
Post by: LoSboccacc on March 27, 2011, 10:25:16 am
When will sand get the same treatment as clay? (finder option, shown on embark screen)
That's really my only major complaint with 31.19+: not being able to guarantee sand on my embark unless I embark in a sand desert (which guarantees no clay).
and a line for flux too, which can be searched but it's not shown (unless I'm an idiot and I cannot see it, in that case disregard anything I said)
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 27, 2011, 10:28:52 am
Post by: monk12 on March 27, 2011, 06:11:49 pm
Post by: TomiTapio on March 27, 2011, 07:23:01 pm
Say, I was thinking of the future multitile trees. Will this mean multiple types of wood from variaous 'tissues' as well?I already have modded GOODWOOD material, it's for fine barrels and furniture and better crafts & ammo.
For instance high quality log, fit for working into anything (or the planks IIRC you mentioned once). and branches/roots (low quality wood/debris), perfect for coalburning, building fences or stuff requiring small bits of wood (bolts, beads etc?).
I've set it to oak, ash, mahogany, chestnut, maple, highwood, redcedar, redwood, sequoia, cypress, yew, puzzle-tree, black-cap, nether-cap, blood thorn, glumprong.
Post by: MrWiggles on March 27, 2011, 09:41:19 pm
With the Talk of upcoming Hill dwarves, I had a thought today- What happens to the hill dwarves when a fortress is abandoned/destroyed? Do they just pack up and leave now that they lack the protection of a fortress, or do they huddle in their villages muttering about the cursed fortress up on the hill? Will these kinds of choices be determined by the reason the fortress ended- HFS, Siege, or just plain old player boredom?
I think this may depend on things in the Army Arc and the potential Embark goal thingy.
Post by: Asmageddon on March 28, 2011, 07:21:58 am
Perhaps add possibility for rivers to go underground, so we'd get a new way to travel into caverns in adventurer mode.
Ok, going with water-related suggestions, I'd also like to suggest lakes, as I haven't really seen big lakes that are not sea.
Post by: PTTG?? on March 28, 2011, 09:15:01 am
That wonderful land of mystery.
Where threads of suggestions are commen;
And you comment should now be.
-Ode to the Suggestions Forum (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?board=5.0)
Post by: Quatch on March 28, 2011, 02:02:07 pm
I'm sure they've been asked a bunch, but no need to jump on the guy (those questions don't really seem to form enough of a suggestion to merit an actual suggestion).
If you cant find good answers by searching (if you do find it, PM me because I'd love to know), you should submit it to DF talk. Those will not be simple answers, and they are not in the immediate future (see the mini release arc details, I'm guessing those'll take until christmas), so you won't get a satisfactory Toady reply here.
While I am complaining about this, I find it very difficult to ask a question here. If I ask a very detailed specific question I get told it is a suggestion. If it is too broad, it is for DF talk. Could you update the first post with a very brief outline of what you will consider valid subjects for questions?
Post by: TolyK on March 28, 2011, 02:05:06 pm
Hey Toady, will we someday get dried streams and rivers, including underground ones(With nearby caverns covered in mud, soil, etc. and some rare plants and animals.)?I made a thread for this. Search for "cliffs rivers exposed caverns" and you should see a thread by me on this.
Perhaps add possibility for rivers to go underground, so we'd get a new way to travel into caverns in adventurer mode.
Ok, going with water-related suggestions, I'd also like to suggest lakes, as I haven't really seen big lakes that are not sea.
Post by: Sowelu on March 28, 2011, 02:22:08 pm
Post by: Cruxador on March 28, 2011, 03:29:10 pm
Those all seemed like clear suggestions to me... If you ask "will we ever get X" and it's related to something recently added or a planned feature on the dev log in a short-term way, then it's a suggestion, really.This definition is somewhat imperfect. In its current state, it could apply to a fair few perfectly legitimate questions. Consider issues of phrasing. Suppose the questions had been as follows:
I've been thinking about water a lot lately. What is the future of fresh water bodies? Will we get the frlooding of 2d back? Presumably if you did this in depth it would be weather-oriented and we could have wet and dry spells, but is weather likely to get that level of detail?
Also, will more realistic or at least more varied subterranean water go in with the mines coming up? I'm thinking specifically of the return of the underground rivers, and ideally even rivers that could traverse different z-levels and breach the surface or caverns."
Then slap some limegreen on a couple of those sentances. It would at the very least appear to be perfectly legitimate, despite containing and requesting very similar sets of information.
Post by: thvaz on March 28, 2011, 03:37:02 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on March 28, 2011, 04:09:43 pm
To clarify, if Town A has trade routes with B, C, and D. Will we see three caravans coming and going between the towns or will Town A have a single caravan going to B, C, and D?
Will the caravans be sent by bigger towns going to the smaller towns or will the smaller towns send trade caravans to the bigger towns or will both be possible?
Altogether, I'm just a bit curious about what kind of movement behavior we are likely to see from caravans once they begin to move around the map.
Post by: nenjin on March 28, 2011, 04:40:06 pm
I've always been struck by how migration is sort of all or nothing in the default version, so you're either getting slammed by waves of new migrants or getting none at all through a modified pop cap. Would Hill Dwarves coming in have any impact on the whole migrant situation?
Post by: thvaz on March 28, 2011, 05:20:45 pm
I've always been struck by how migration is sort of all or nothing in the default version, so you're either getting slammed by waves of new migrants or getting none at all through a modified pop cap. Would Hill Dwarves coming in have any impact on the whole migrant situation?
I hope so. It would be nice if instead of tantrumming, some dwarves would just left your fortress.
Post by: Sowelu on March 28, 2011, 05:36:43 pm
Post by: caknuck on March 28, 2011, 06:27:28 pm
Post by: monk12 on March 28, 2011, 07:02:06 pm
Are Hill Dwarves going to be heavily agricultural as opposed to a largely industrial/military Mountainhome society? If my adventurer wanders into a Hill Dwarf settlement, will it be mostly brown smilies? And will fortress dwarves be largely grey/white/red?
Protip: questions addressed to toady should be made lime green so he sees them, otherwise he'll skip it.
Post by: Caldfir on March 28, 2011, 07:08:57 pm
Noble -> Diplomat -> Set policy to "Love It or Leave It"? We can only wish, and also hope. :DHmm... That makes me think of the potential possibilities for immigration as well. Might shift at some point of a fortress' life from random immigrants from the mountainhome to selected recruits from the surrounding hill-dwarf population. That would be neat.
Not to mention the fact that if player forts get hilldorf colonies around them, then adventuring to an abandoned fort would be extra neat.
Man, so much cool stuff to look forward to.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 28, 2011, 07:38:57 pm
Those all seemed like clear suggestions to me... If you ask "will we ever get X" and it's related to something recently added or a planned feature on the dev log in a short-term way, then it's a suggestion, really.This definition is somewhat imperfect. In its current state, it could apply to a fair few perfectly legitimate questions. Consider issues of phrasing. Suppose the questions had been as follows:
I've been thinking about water a lot lately. What is the future of fresh water bodies? Will we get the flooding of 2d back? Presumably if you did this in depth it would be weather-oriented and we could have wet and dry spells, but is weather likely to get that level of detail?
Also, will more realistic or at least more varied subterranean water go in with the mines coming up? I'm thinking specifically of the return of the underground rivers, and ideally even rivers that could traverse different z-levels and breach the surface or caverns."
Then slap some limegreen on a couple of those sentances. It would at the very least appear to be perfectly legitimate, despite containing and requesting very similar sets of information.
I would like to know the answers to these, so lime'd.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on March 28, 2011, 07:48:31 pm
I've always been struck by how migration is sort of all or nothing in the default version, so you're either getting slammed by waves of new migrants or getting none at all through a modified pop cap. Would Hill Dwarves coming in have any impact on the whole migrant situation?
There was something Toady said a few months ago about having dwarves that would emmigrate back out of your fortress if the economy went south on them...
Let me see if I can find it...
Quote from: NW_KohakuWould you even consider changing the relationship that the player has with the dwarves right now (as unquestioned overlord and direct allower and denier of all things dwarves can and cannot do), so that dwarves can become more autonomous and individual, and possibly create a better simulation, while on the other hand, potentially dramatically upping the potential for Fun because dwarves are stupid and very likely to hurt themselves unless continually babysat, or perhaps more importantly, if it meant that the player had less direct control over his fortress, and had to rely more on coaxing the ants in his/her antfarm to do his/her bidding?
Our eventual goal is to have the player's role be the embodiment of positions of power within the fortress, performing actions in their official capacity, to the point that in an ideal world each command you give would be linked to some noble, official or commander. I don't think coaxing is the way I'm thinking of it though, as with a game like Majesty which somebody brought up, because your orders would also carry the weight of being assumed to be for survival for the most part, not as bounties or a similar system. Once your fortress is larger, you might have to work a little harder to keep people around, but your dwarves in the first year would be more like crew taking orders from the captain of a ship out to sea or something, where you'd have difficulty getting them to do what you want only if you've totally flopped and they are ready to defy the expedition leader.
Hmm... I remember it giving more of an impression that they'd actually just up and leave... Maybe there was a DF Talk where he said something along those lines, as well, but I can't remember good search terms to datamine from DF Talk, since he apparently didn't use words like "emmigrate".
Anyway, I can't come up with good proof of it, but I recall Toady saying something else that gave an impression of having dwarves that would be willing to just up and leave for the hills in the villages around your fort if there were no rooms left or it was too expensive or the economy was bad and they couldn't get a job.
Post by: Quatch on March 28, 2011, 09:08:16 pm
I've always been struck by how migration is sort of all or nothing in the default version, so you're either getting slammed by waves of new migrants or getting none at all through a modified pop cap. Would Hill Dwarves coming in have any impact on the whole migrant situation?
I hope so. It would be nice if instead of tantrumming, some dwarves would just left your fortress.
I hope you mean "try" to leave. Those deep moats, drawbridges draped in magma, and locked doors aren't just for keeping problems out.
Post by: Caldfir on March 28, 2011, 09:23:59 pm
Slow downs due to water freezing/thawing seem to be gone! When did this happen??!
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 28, 2011, 09:34:02 pm
Post by: monk12 on March 28, 2011, 09:41:22 pm
OH MY GOD
Slow downs due to water freezing/thawing seem to be gone! When did this happen??!
Dear lord, if this is true I may have to try a temperate/cold embark again. That was the biggest annoyance that kept me away.
Post by: monk12 on March 28, 2011, 10:17:46 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on March 28, 2011, 10:37:13 pm
Will the mounted combat rewrite slated for the seventh caravan arc release allow amphibious mounts to hold their riders above water when fording rivers/streams/lakes/oceans, or will that come in the army arc sometime?
Cf. 0000926: Amphibian invader mounts drown their riders (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=926)
Post by: monk12 on March 28, 2011, 10:49:36 pm
Will the mounted combat rewrite slated for the seventh caravan arc release allow amphibious mounts to hold their riders above water when fording rivers/streams/lakes/oceans, or will that come in the army arc sometime?
Cf. 0000926: Amphibian invader mounts drown their riders (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=926)
Actually the very bug that made me ask it- I'm operating under the assumption that the reason it hasn't been addressed is because it will be resolved at the same time all the other mounted riding features get implemented. The reason I asked is because I'm not sure whether he's going to incorporate that kind of mount/rider relationship into the mounts rewrite in the (relatively) near future, or if it is going in with the advanced sieges and battles stuff in the army arc.
Post by: PTTG?? on March 29, 2011, 12:29:43 am
Will the mounted combat rewrite slated for the seventh caravan arc release allow amphibious mounts to hold their riders above water when fording rivers/streams/lakes/oceans, or will that come in the army arc sometime?
Cf. 0000926: Amphibian invader mounts drown their riders (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=926)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
Post by: Uristocrat on March 29, 2011, 02:46:18 am
Post by: vlademir1 on March 30, 2011, 06:07:18 am
Anyway, I can't come up with good proof of it, but I recall Toady saying something else that gave an impression of having dwarves that would be willing to just up and leave for the hills in the villages around your fort if there were no rooms left or it was too expensive or the economy was bad and they couldn't get a job.
I can't remember or find where either, but also remember that being said or implied as something that would eventually happen. I do have a vague feeling it was sometime during the long interval prior to the 0.31 release cycle though.
Post by: Beardless on March 30, 2011, 01:54:44 pm
Anyway, I can't come up with good proof of it, but I recall Toady saying something else that gave an impression of having dwarves that would be willing to just up and leave for the hills in the villages around your fort if there were no rooms left or it was too expensive or the economy was bad and they couldn't get a job.
I can't remember or find where either, but also remember that being said or implied as something that would eventually happen. I do have a vague feeling it was sometime during the long interval prior to the 0.31 release cycle though.
I remember asking Toady about that about 240 pages ago (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1458150#msg1458150):
Quote from: Beardlessare you saying that dwarfs may emigrate to the sprawl if fortress housing prices are too high? More broadly, what are your plans for emigration during fortress mode in general?
If fortress housing prices are too high for everybody, they should be lowered. If they are too high just for few dwarves, then yeah, if an affected dwarf has some way/place to survive out in the world and nothing keeping them in the fort then they should leave. In general, a dwarf seeing better opportunity or lack of death elsewhere should go when practical -- some of your initial dwarves especially might feel more bound by loyalty, depending on the start scenario. A start scenario oriented around a temple or something might see many of the dwarves refusing to leave under any circumstances. Overall, the emigration mechanics shouldn't have them squirting out of your fort at the drop of a hat, since it would often be a hard journey with an uncertain future, but you should have to work a bit to keep them.
My interpretation was that it would vary from dwarf to dwarf, but it would most likely not be "at the drop of a hat." (Which was disappointing, but realistic.) This was also a long time ago, so Toady's plans may have evolved since then.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on March 30, 2011, 08:51:07 pm
I remember asking Toady about that about 240 pages ago (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1458150#msg1458150):Quote from: Beardlessare you saying that dwarfs may emigrate to the sprawl if fortress housing prices are too high? More broadly, what are your plans for emigration during fortress mode in general?
If fortress housing prices are too high for everybody, they should be lowered. If they are too high just for few dwarves, then yeah, if an affected dwarf has some way/place to survive out in the world and nothing keeping them in the fort then they should leave. In general, a dwarf seeing better opportunity or lack of death elsewhere should go when practical -- some of your initial dwarves especially might feel more bound by loyalty, depending on the start scenario. A start scenario oriented around a temple or something might see many of the dwarves refusing to leave under any circumstances. Overall, the emigration mechanics shouldn't have them squirting out of your fort at the drop of a hat, since it would often be a hard journey with an uncertain future, but you should have to work a bit to keep them.
My interpretation was that it would vary from dwarf to dwarf, but it would most likely not be "at the drop of a hat." (Which was disappointing, but realistic.) This was also a long time ago, so Toady's plans may have evolved since then.
Ah, there it is. It's so much easier to search for these things when you were the one asking the question. (I remember the terms I use for things, but can't necessarily remember the terms other people called the same thing to search for them.) :P
Anyway, that's a good quote to keep onto, especially if I go back into the class warfare or dwarven autonomy stuff. I'd better copy it somewhere...
Post by: Chromasphere on April 01, 2011, 01:58:49 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on April 01, 2011, 02:10:15 pm
Ankh-morpork
Post by: thvaz on April 01, 2011, 02:49:23 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 01, 2011, 04:10:40 pm
Post by: thvaz on April 01, 2011, 04:29:24 pm
I cant wait to see big citys like Rome or Constantinople emerging from the bigger empires hopefully they include also stuff like viaducts and canalisations (Not to mention piping for proper fountains) at some point. I just hope the building stuff gets more Procedural in terms of style and design - i would like if we could visit a fucking huge cathedral or something that equals the Hagia sophia. On the Other hand some overrun Slums with a mace of shacks, bordellos and slavemarkets would be welcome as well. Also wooooo pictures!
And walls and ports and palaces and manors! I want to see guettos full of goblins and elves. Slave markets! A proper city the size of Rome needs a sewer system, full of rats and rodent man.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 01, 2011, 04:36:20 pm
Post by: tfaal on April 01, 2011, 04:44:28 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 01, 2011, 05:09:11 pm
Given that people flush almost everything a big city will provide foot and fertilisizer in such quantitys that caverns below them could turn into very lush Forrests.
Hehe cant wait for red eyed rodent man to say stuff like "The city is the spice and the Giant Rant."
Post by: Caldfir on April 02, 2011, 01:35:22 pm
Quote from: Threetoe
Imagine what the adventurer could possibly be thinking as he approaches the great stone walls of the city, stretching as far as he can see. Once inside, men and beasts fill the streets. He finds himself in a great wooden canyon of stores and shop fronts, all with signs advertising their wares. You should now begin to see the possibilities. Cities are so big you could have as many adventures as before without having to ever leave the city gates. But first the cities must be built and this is but the first stage from which to leap off into glory.
I'm looking forward to seeing what cities look like architecturally, as well as the other site types once they get added.
What kinds of structures and buildings do you think you will be adding to make cities happen? Will they be the same square buildings from before, or can we expect something as interesting as the generated castles?
Have any player-built structures inspired worldgen building models?
Post by: Footkerchief on April 02, 2011, 02:10:23 pm
What kinds of structures and buildings do you think you will be adding to make cities happen? Will they be the same square buildings from before, or can we expect something as interesting as the generated castles?
Emphasis mine:
04/01/2011: [...] This month we will be creating new cities with development pictures upcoming. (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-04-01)
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 02, 2011, 05:21:09 pm
Joke aside, i wonder if towns layouts, building styles etc. get rawified in some way or another. Now would be the perfect opportunity for that. I also hope that the buildingstyles are in some way procedural but it may be to early to ask that.
Post by: Caldfir on April 02, 2011, 07:09:37 pm
What kinds of structures and buildings do you think you will be adding to make cities happen? Will they be the same square buildings from before, or can we expect something as interesting as the generated castles?
Emphasis mine:
04/01/2011: [...] This month we will be creating new cities with development pictures upcoming. (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-04-01)
I had intended the question to be a little broader than just the dev_next city stuff, as sort of an open-ended thing, but I guess Foot is right; once there are some screens posted, that will answer questions about the immediately upcoming items, and Toady's answer to something broader would likely be something generic like; "oh, lots of cool and interesting stuff" on account of the fact that he doesn't have magic future vision.
Still, I'm excited.
Post by: Dradym on April 04, 2011, 01:00:23 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 04, 2011, 01:40:58 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
In all seriousness now: The different species of already got theyr distinctions in traits and abilities. They also got and get more over time, so i wouldnt worry about that. Having that said "FotF: The development page" is mostly about the Dev-blog and the roadmap + questions and idle speculation as seen in the last half dozen posts. For suggestion we have the aptly named "Suggestion Forum".
Post by: Neonivek on April 04, 2011, 01:47:57 am
Why would humans be any better at farming then other races who farm just as much?
Is it because they developed greater farming technology? Is it because humans have a natural greater intelligence and instincts? Do they have inherant farming skill they are inately born with or inately talented with?
You want to be careful with magical skill. Heck Dungeons and Dragons is absolutely horrible with that junk, but then again that is a game of "Selective incompetence" (In otherwords: Dungeons and Dragons is a world filled with highly incompetent specialists.)
Post by: thvaz on April 04, 2011, 01:57:04 am
In all seriousness now: The different species of already got theyr distinctions in traits and abilities. They also got and get more over time, so i wouldnt worry about that. Having that said "FotF: The development page" is mostly about the Dev-blog and the roadmap + questions and idle speculation as seen in the last half dozen posts. For suggestion we have the aptly named "Suggestion Forum".
I think there is nothing wrong about suggestions here if people doesn't mark it limegreen.
Post by: Korgus on April 04, 2011, 07:53:24 am
Post by: tfaal on April 04, 2011, 08:55:19 am
Post by: Areyar on April 04, 2011, 10:02:20 am
Aboveground building in general should probably be a lot easier; at the moment it's thoroughly impractical to make an aboveground, wooden city.A single wooden building, like an Inn, guardtower or roman-style encampment already deforests an entire 4x4 embark forrest (medium dense), never mind the rest of the city.
Post by: Jeoshua on April 04, 2011, 10:13:32 am
I know, I've modded it to be so.
Post by: tfaal on April 04, 2011, 10:19:25 am
Post by: Kappas on April 04, 2011, 10:35:21 am
Post by: Jeoshua on April 04, 2011, 10:40:01 am
Post by: Cruxador on April 04, 2011, 03:10:29 pm
Why would humans be any better at farming then other races who farm just as much?Well, the obvious reason would be because humans are tall and have strong backs. Can you imagine a willowy little elf trying to pull a hoe through dirt all day? He could do it, sure, but I,d be surprised if he could get through a third of what a human could each day. What of the dwarf, with his diminutive stature and short arms? Each swing and pull that he makes would be half as long as a human. He's exerting double the effort for the same work. The performance of elves and dwarves in the harvest suffers from parallel issues. Goblins are carnivorous and kobolds scavenge, so they aren't relevant, but they have similar issues.
Is it because they developed greater farming technology? Is it because humans have a natural greater intelligence and instincts? Do they have inherant farming skill they are inately born with or inately talented with?
Post by: Neonivek on April 04, 2011, 03:38:17 pm
The quality and bounty of farming doesn't have a whole lot to do with that.
Post by: nil on April 04, 2011, 03:58:43 pm
Post by: greenskye on April 04, 2011, 04:09:00 pm
imo the unique characteristic of humans shouldn't be a single thing like farming or trade, but rather variability. I'd love it if, in contrast to the relatively consistent dwarven, elven civilizations, every world generation resulted in half dozen wildly varying human cultures with randomly or semi-randomly generated ethics, personal appearances, town styles, primary economies, clothing and military strategies.
This is a great idea. It would be cool if in the upcoming trade changes that each civ. could differ slightly in trade preferences. I'm thinking that certain civs might value a certain material above normal to boost it's value or might have a mild (or strong) dislike for other objects. Learning your particular trade civs likes and dislikes would require more than a quick wiki read and might help shape your fortress exports.
Post by: Armok on April 04, 2011, 04:13:14 pm
The actual real specialities of humans, the things we evolved to do better than other animals, are endurance running and politics.
Post by: Neonivek on April 04, 2011, 04:19:15 pm
The fact that humans build cities in WAAAY more locations then any other race gives them a huge advantage.
Post by: monk12 on April 04, 2011, 04:30:47 pm
Post by: Ves on April 04, 2011, 05:13:23 pm
Post by: nil on April 04, 2011, 05:31:06 pm
The variability thing is a myth to. Almost everything smart enough to have a civilization would be just as adaptable and varied.This would be true in a realistic or science fiction setting, where civilized races can all be presumed to have evolved. But it's a pretty common trope in fantasy settings for humans to be uniquely dynamic and adaptable, with elves and dwarves and the like sticking to static cultures taught to them by their creators. At the very least, long/indefinite lifespans would be sure to make a species relatively conservative.
Besides, if you really want to rely on evolutionary explanations you're gonna have to contend with how wildly improbable it would be for four separate intelligent species (with at least three sharing roughly the same ecological niche) to develop in the same area.
Post by: Dradym on April 04, 2011, 06:02:49 pm
ok if not farming, pasturing...because they are taller and therefore more imposing to animals, and easier to herd, though how this would work i have no idea, maybe quicker, more effective breeding, milking, shearing. but yeah i didnt mean to write up a suggestion in here, i was tired and it seemed like it was connected to the current conversation. but maybe i was asking if tarn, or someone else had thought of this idea before, since theres been talk of multi-tile trees, and new structures, and that were in the caravan arc now would be a good time for more variability in the nations
yeah my mind wanders and i voice the thoughts
Post by: Armok on April 04, 2011, 06:12:52 pm
Post by: Jeoshua on April 04, 2011, 06:30:37 pm
imo the unique characteristic of humans shouldn't be a single thing like farming or trade, but rather variability. I'd love it if, in contrast to the relatively consistent dwarven, elven civilizations, every world generation resulted in half dozen wildly varying human cultures with randomly or semi-randomly generated ethics, personal appearances, town styles, primary economies, clothing and military strategies.
This is a golden idea, and one I've thought of many times. I've started modding in other human races, using entity files from mods like Genesis and changing their names.
I'm thinking of making a bunch of different entity files, one for every civ of humans I'd like on the planet, and then giving them all [MAX_STARTING_CIV_NUMBER:1]. They'd be randomly placed and named, and if I used [CREATURE:HUMAN] for all of them, I think I might be able to make different cultures. I would be nice if they could be randomized, but I find that a few well placed PERSONAL_MATTER ethics get the hair of the other "races" up well enough to cause some intrugue as it is.
Post by: nil on April 04, 2011, 07:37:33 pm
I was thinking the same thing recently, but then I realized that as well as that would work in world-gen and adventure mode, in fortress mode you would be totally swamped with humans.imo the unique characteristic of humans shouldn't be a single thing like farming or trade, but rather variability. I'd love it if, in contrast to the relatively consistent dwarven, elven civilizations, every world generation resulted in half dozen wildly varying human cultures with randomly or semi-randomly generated ethics, personal appearances, town styles, primary economies, clothing and military strategies.
This is a golden idea, and one I've thought of many times. I've started modding in other human races, using entity files from mods like Genesis and changing their names.
I'm thinking of making a bunch of different entity files, one for every civ of humans I'd like on the planet, and then giving them all [MAX_STARTING_CIV_NUMBER:1]. They'd be randomly placed and named, and if I used [CREATURE:HUMAN] for all of them, I think I might be able to make different cultures. I would be nice if they could be randomized, but I find that a few well placed PERSONAL_MATTER ethics get the hair of the other "races" up well enough to cause some intrugue as it is.
Post by: monk12 on April 04, 2011, 09:11:26 pm
And by Armok, they're ENORMOUS! I'm looking forward to doing some exploration.
Post by: Rose on April 04, 2011, 09:18:40 pm
It seems a bit strange that all cities would have walls that exactly match up with the city boundaries.
Post by: Quatch on April 04, 2011, 09:34:29 pm
Post by: Rose on April 04, 2011, 09:36:46 pm
Post by: monk12 on April 04, 2011, 10:07:28 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on April 04, 2011, 10:12:20 pm
Toasy, will we be having cities that extend beyond the walls? or cities without walls?
It seems a bit strange that all cities would have walls that exactly match up with the city boundaries.
It would be pretty weird if he un-implemented all the sprawl stuff, so probably yeah.
It occurs to me that cities may be large enough to get lost in- lost enough to require directions when you are looking for a specific type of shop/market. I hope that functionality makes it in soon.
It was a dev goal at one point, at least: (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html)
Quote
# Req471, ASKING DIRECTIONS, (Future): You should be able to ask directions more robustly in adventure mode. They should be able to give you directions and location descriptions. You should be able to ask about general or specific items or trades, and various other things. Different creatures might have a broader knowledge of more areas depending on various factors.
Post by: Aqizzar on April 04, 2011, 10:19:39 pm
I do like how organic the cities look, but the lack of a central plan of any kind - public buildings, open squares, direct paths from one entrance to another - makes them feel a bit unnatural. All of the paths being the same size will make them really cramped and maze-like when walking around in them.
Still, holy crap, cities. Whoa.
Post by: Sunday on April 04, 2011, 10:41:22 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 04, 2011, 10:52:08 pm
In citys that were on a trade route you could normaly go from one gate to another in a (more or less) straight line. The citys on the toadys maps almost do that but somehow this straight path gets obstructed on the last meters every time.
Post by: Kogut on April 04, 2011, 10:57:50 pm
And I just realised - is it possible that dwarves will use designs copied from player?
Post by: monk12 on April 04, 2011, 11:15:12 pm
Post by: Dwarfu on April 04, 2011, 11:35:01 pm
Just sayin'.
Post by: Neonivek on April 04, 2011, 11:40:15 pm
I should start looking it up.
Post by: Untelligent on April 04, 2011, 11:52:41 pm
Post by: Caldfir on April 05, 2011, 12:04:23 am
When towns have various important buildings in them and other stuff to do, will there be any plans to prevent intra-city walks from being too long and monotonous?
I don't know if that's going to be a problem right away. Remember that the reason you generally end up walking for so long is quests that send you to fetch from every point of the map, and, thus far, DF quests aren't really like that. Add to this the fact that "slow travel" in adventure mode is relatively speedy (for the player) compared to a 3D game, and the problem might be solved.
We'll have to wait and see if there is an annoyance there before we need a fix I think.
Post by: onodera on April 05, 2011, 12:18:39 am
I imagine a city on the plains will have mostly brick buildings, with only the city hall and the cathedral made of stone. We just need to get adobe bricks or more charcoal from one log or animal poo fuel, because it'll be easier to build it out of wood now.
Post by: Bralbaard on April 05, 2011, 12:25:10 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 05, 2011, 12:47:46 am
Modern humans and Neanderthals once coexisted in the same place simultaneously. It's not very improbably at all if they are somewhat closely related. At least dwarves, elves and humans seem like they'd have a rather recent common ancestor.
Actually, I've rather liked the comparison of dwarves to Neanderthals...
Neanderthals evolved and split off from the branch of humanity before humans as a species fully formed, and left Africa for Europe before humans emerged there, and when humans eventually caught up with neanderthals in Europe, they largely coexisted for tens of thousands of years before the genocide wiped all the neanderthals out.
Neanderthals also had some distinct differences from humans - they were shorter and hairier (like dwarves), and as such, were poor long-distance runners, but were also stronger and more compact (like dwarves), which made them better suited for colder environments in forests, where they could ambush prey from close range (where their lack of running ability wasn't such a liability). They attacked prey larger than themselves head-on, in spite of the dangerous nature of their prey, such as trying to kill a wooly mammoth by jumping on its back and stabbing it with a wooden spear repeatedly, hopefully before it throws the neanderthal off its back and gores him/her.
In short, they were suicidally aggressive creatures with an absurdly high incidence of injury and a short lifespan. (Like dwarves.)
A creature like a dwarf, which is different from a human in that they are adapted to living in caves predominantly makes some evolutionary sense, provided they have a common ancestor to explain the very many similarities their people have. (Of course, that's assuming evolution, and not creation, since apparently, the world literally springs from nothing with creatures coming into existence at a random age at year 0.)
There's an interesting nugget of speculation- the possibility of Planned Communities. Ye Olde cities that grow naturally over time end up looking quite a bit like what those pictures do, but what happens when Rome burns and Nero decides to rebuild it along more organized lines? Given the nature of dwarves (or the immortal races) it is entirely plausible that they would plan their settlements far in advance, regardless of whether they ever expect to be a major city.
(Purely a technical aside, here...)
Nero rebuilt the chunk of Rome that burned down to be an absurdly massive personal pleasure palace for himself on the taxpayer's dime. That's when the story that he fiddled while Rome burned got circulated by his political enemies: They wanted to paint him as the guy who enjoys and profits from the suffering of the Roman people.
When Nero died, they tore that palace down, and built the Colosseum in its place. This was because the next emperor (who managed to last a while, at least, Nero's death sparked "The year of Four Emperors") wanted to make a public statement that his reign would be unlike Nero's by dismantling the pleasure palace, and building a massive public amusement center where average Romans could enjoy public games - using public land and money for public use rather than his own personal pleasure.
What I'm most wondering about while looking at those cities is what happens with all that open space in the middle of those buildings... Are they used as neighborhood parks? Or is there no way to directly access them, and nobody uses those open areas?
I also notice that the size of the buildings are all generally similar. Some houses are two or three times the size of the smallest buildings, but if you start talking about Roman towns, there were always the really wealthy, upper-class citizens who had estates with larger amounts of land and a personal garden and the like.
I also notice the "corners" of some of the ring-shaped clusters of buildings have unusually large amounts of unused space - the builders aren't trying to make non-rectangular buildings to take up some extra space that they could get away with building into...
Ancient and Medieval cities, where there weren't real building codes, were often expanded by the people living in them, which meant that middle-class families over generations would try to split or build extended conjoined homes taking up all the space they could get, and filling in the gaps (creating the sort of long, continuous rows of houses you see in those maps - all the space in the alleyways are filled in over time). Having those corners that don't take up the space they can take up looks unnatural because of it.
Post by: Dante on April 05, 2011, 01:00:14 am
Quote from: ToadyOne
These are all cities of the maximum sizeI doubt navigation will really be a problem most of the time.
Quote from: ToadyOne
The buildings often enclose yards where several families will keep their pigs and other beasts and birds.So. Cool.
I note every city has exactly four cardinal gates, but presumably 'cleaning up' will change that too. All I can really wish for is the old days of embarking on other people's settlements. My mind is buzzing with plans for blocking the gates and flooding a whole city...
Post by: Cruxador on April 05, 2011, 02:28:20 am
What I'm most wondering about while looking at those cities is what happens with all that open space in the middle of those buildings... Are they used as neighborhood parks? Or is there no way to directly access them, and nobody uses those open areas?I'm pretty sure that's what he was referring to with the following:
Quote from: Toady One
The buildings often enclose yards where several families will keep their pigs and other beasts and birds. Later these yards will be used for additional buildings and they'll also be expanded out in this release and merged with roads to support things like market squares.
Post by: therahedwig on April 05, 2011, 03:02:10 am
Hmmm I thought Cities tended to have Spiderweb designs somewhere and then more organised designs the further out you go.The cities you're thinking off are usually cities build around military posts. The center being the old encampment.
I should start looking it up.
However, often cities grew as part of a port(London, Amsterdam) or a trading route. The trading route ones tend to have the trading route being huge-ass inbetween.
I hope the cities will somewhat respect the surroundings. Or that people will start modifying the surroundings: like channels. (http://medievalcooking.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/braun_hogenberg_i_16_b-map-of-medieval-brugge_jjs-08172009.jpg)
Perhaps city fires will become a worldgen thing now(Pretty much all medieval cities out there had a couple of huge cityfires that destroyed half the town, until they realised it might be a better idea to forbid making houses of wood.)
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 05, 2011, 03:31:00 am
Also, will the cities get divided into districts? Say a livestock/butchers/tanners section downwind of the city, or cramped and dingy slums/ghettos & more expensive and spacious rich districts?
Either way, can't wait.
Post by: Karakzon on April 05, 2011, 03:57:44 am
Post by: Kappas on April 05, 2011, 04:00:47 am
Post by: jellsprout on April 05, 2011, 04:16:58 am
Post by: Karakzon on April 05, 2011, 04:35:20 am
hmm. minimum is 45 squares for a base lets say, for a 2 room down stair and 2 room upstairs. divide 17x17 embark square tiles by 45 game tiles, and add 50% to 75% since some of the population will be living together. what number you get is the population. im willing to bet it is a hell of alot.
Post by: B0013 on April 05, 2011, 04:53:38 am
1 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/palegate.png), 2 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/hatchetash.png)
2011:
1 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/city1.png), 2 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/city2.png)
Also, will there be variations of city layouts beetween different human civilizations? Like, if a civ makes more "organic" looking cities another may make them more rigid (larger roads, no curves, etc.)
Post by: darkflagrance on April 05, 2011, 05:02:27 am
Will there be any kind of navigational tools like signposts or slabposts, or perhaps even a system where villages guide adventurers in place so that the player doesn't easily get lost in these cities?
I imagine the lag from these things might become a serious matter; when I adventured in my old fort, every movement was a pain because every surviving dwarf and cave animal was in the fort pathing around and fighting.
Post by: Jeoshua on April 05, 2011, 05:12:55 am
Now all we need is for those houses to not all just be hovels.
Post by: Knight Otu on April 05, 2011, 05:49:03 am
I hope the cities will somewhat respect the surroundings. Or that people will start modifying the surroundings: like channels. (http://medievalcooking.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/braun_hogenberg_i_16_b-map-of-medieval-brugge_jjs-08172009.jpg)Toady specifically mentioned working on bridges and channels next after some gate work, so yeah, the cities should be respecting surroundings in a few days. And settlements of all kinds desperately need working bridges right now anyway, so they can follow their soonish-to-come schedules.
Will there be any kind of navigational tools like signposts or slabposts, or perhaps even a system where villages guide adventurers in place so that the player doesn't easily get lost in these cities?I'm sure it's a concern that Toady'll look into. He already mentioned that new conversation options may come in, so that could be one help. I hope you can still (T)ravel in the confines of the new cities like you can in the current towns, though. As long as you can't (T)ravel over the walls, that should be ok.
So one pixel is equal to one in-game tile? That would make these cities the size of a full 17x17 embark area. I wonder how many people these cities will hold.Someone in another thread estimated a good 1500 to 2000 buildings. If that's accurate, we're looking at maps for cities of 10000+ people (assuming an average of 5 to 7 inhabitants), which is much larger than most towns currently get (though caravan improvements may change that).
Post by: Areyar on April 05, 2011, 05:59:59 am
These three cities look very similar. I'm sure it is just 3xamples of the same generic city type.
There do need to be destinations for those main roads to lead to and from, otherwise the pattern will just be of a slums.
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 05, 2011, 06:05:02 am
---
I was wondering:
How does the building process in world-gen work? Are the large buildings like walls or castles built gradually, segment after segment, or do they just pop into existence overnight? Is there some resource gathering going on? Basically, I'm just wondering if it is possible to encounter a city with unfinished walls, or a castle where just the keep has been finished.
I imagine this will come into play on a bigger scale later, when buildings like temples that can take dozens or hundreds of years get added.
Post by: B0013 on April 05, 2011, 06:33:32 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 05, 2011, 07:00:15 am
Now take a dwarfen mountainhome. If they get theyr hives in a comparable size there must be tremendous amounts of landfill (if the dont ship that to humans to pave streets). This stuff has to go somewhere since not all can be turned into trade-goods.
One thing i want to see first hand is a dragon or a forgotten beast rampaging trough the streets bringing death and destruction.
Post by: TolyK on April 05, 2011, 07:13:29 am
Toady's got pics of the city up!Those are max-sized cities, so I'm looking forward to them.
And by Armok, they're ENORMOUS! I'm looking forward to doing some exploration.
I hope they will have more than z-level.
Post by: freeformschooler on April 05, 2011, 07:26:22 am
Are all those orange rectangles ALL buildings? As improbably as that seems, it's not without the scope of reality I suppose.
Post by: darkflagrance on April 05, 2011, 07:29:08 am
It would also be nice if there was an indicator on the map that showed your relative distance from large buildings, which you would use in real-life as a landmark.
Post by: tfaal on April 05, 2011, 08:00:35 am
Another problem with these cities is that there no large buildings: keeps, palaces, town halls and government buildings, grand markets, parade fields (the Romans were big into these), armories, and in the future, museums, libraries, docks, factory-type things or workshop complexes, warehouses, mage towers, and so on.
Addressed in the Devlog here:
Quote from: Devlog
The different buildings will be workshops and houses -- there aren't any really large ones because we haven't gotten to manors/taverns/inns etc., but the system can easily encompass that sort of thing. Those buildings are for future releases though.
Post by: cephalo on April 05, 2011, 08:57:53 am
Algorithmically, you would:
pick a city center
grow outwards until the city is attacked in world gen
encase it in a wall
continue to grow outward.
Post by: TolyK on April 05, 2011, 09:15:33 am
Post by: PTTG?? on April 05, 2011, 09:43:31 am
The variability thing is a myth to. Almost everything smart enough to have a civilization would be just as adaptable and varied.
The actual real specialities of humans, the things we evolved to do better than other animals, are endurance running and politics.
You forgot throwing. Human hand-eye coordination is quite good, allowing us to throw projectiles with precision and force.
Ah, cities!
They look fantastic- though I agree with cephalo that they could use some radial organization. In particularly large cities, this may include multiple "center points."
There's also a very small thing that stood out- in a real city, any external walls are basically thought of as free siding. You'd expect to see houses built against the walls, if not into the walls.
Post by: Greiger on April 05, 2011, 10:00:07 am
Of course that's more of a suggestion I guess.
I can't wait to get lost in those cities. Way back when I remember Toady saying that he wants you to be able to have a full adventurer without ever having to leave a major city. Wonder what kind of quests will be available... Muggers? Fugitive hunting? Monsters causing trouble in the sewers? Haunted manors need clearing? Pizza delivery?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 05, 2011, 10:07:26 am
edit:
heh i can see tons of fetch-quests already :P
Post by: freeformschooler on April 05, 2011, 10:29:03 am
heh i can see tons of fetch-quests already :P
As absurd as it sounds, I would fall down and roll over for fetch quests in DF (especially ones completely inside the cities!). Something to do other than kill kill kill!
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 05, 2011, 10:33:27 am
The cities look great, but I really think that there should be a radial organization to them. This provides a focus point where most of the points of interest could be found. That way, if a city is large, you don't have to nevigate this inpenetrable maze to conduct your business here. I think this is also why real cities often grew this way in the days before the automobile.
Algorithmically, you would:
pick a city center
grow outwards until the city is attacked in world gen
encase it in a wall
continue to grow outward.
Anyway, as someone said before, many cities start out as a military outpost where the city grows as services to the military that is stuck in that one point. Other cities, like London, grow around a port (See Jiri's map (http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/dweb/images/maps/decworld/London1300.jpg) again) and then fan out from there.
There is a reason for this - many of the industries that grow a city are fairly flexible - you can set up a clothier's shop anywhere you can ship cloth or fabric. The "seeds" of cities are typically things you can't move, but which attract people to live near them to perform industrial activities there. Either it's because the government moved a military base there, and the people live near the military base, or because the river is there, and you can't move the river, or because some natural resource only occurs in regions like that one, and the industry based on that resource cannot be moved very far away from that sort of resource because it is difficult to ship properly. In modern times, almost all aluminum factories are built near hydroelectric powerplants - aluminum smelting requires phenomenal amounts of electric power to heat the ore, and the cheapest electricity is found right next to a hydroelectric dam, where the energy comes from free water rather than expensive coal or gas, and the least electricity is wasted through resistance in the electric wires. In more distant times, rivers were the best way to transport many goods downriver to port - you can just shove a log onto a river, and know it will float downriver on its own, so you can send loggers far upriver of a trading port and cheaply get logs or barges down to them for their building projects and industry and trade.
Further, cities in the middle ages were built and populated by the younger children of farmers who could not inherit land. They left for cities because that's where the jobs were.
In a time before good transportation, cities developed packed together, even though it made for terrible living conditions, only because they had to live within walking distance of their jobs and all their services. As soon as people had access to personal cars or public mass transit systems, people started spreading out from cities, and living in the suburbs around cities.
Hence, if you want to accurately model cities, you need to start with a city centered on some sort of industry that acts as a source of jobs that attract people to live there, preferably one that has to be in that one specific location for some reason (rivers, major iron foundries on sites where there is both iron ore and fuel for the iron industry, major military outposts, major trade crossroads, etc.). All the first houses crowd around that job center, and then commercial districts and support industries pop up around the initial wave. These smaller, more movable industries can be placed anywhere there is a market of people to support them. (This is something like clothiers or leatherworkers or small-time blacksmiths or metalsmiths. Things that can set up anywhere their market goes.) These act as job centers on their own, creating a fractal effect as each smaller, minor job center pops up off of the outskirts of the other job centers, causing the city to spread out radially along more and more individual points.
Rivers, especially the mouths of major rivers are historically THE place where cities formed, however - rivers are trade hubs, sources of water, destinations of sewage, and, with fishing fleets, even a source of food. (It's your highway, sewer, drinking fountain, and sushi bar, all-in-one!)
As a trading crossroads, all the towns upriver of the mouth of a river could easily send goods down to the mouth of the river by river barge, but then had to change over to ocean-going vessels, where they had access to the rest of the world (and it was easier to ship large volumes of trade goods halfway around the world by ship than to the next town over by wagon), meaning that almost all the trade in the entire region had to take place at the ports at the mouths of the nearest major river. This, in turn, is where the wealth of the nations gravitated.
EDIT:
Oh, and shipyards - docks are their own job center, but so are shipyards, and if you have forests upriver from a city with a port, you're going to have a separate industry built around some sort of shipyard, as well. And those are even more major industrial centers.
EDIT 2:
Err, to make the point a little more concise,
You need to start from a "city center" that is some sort of immobile source of jobs, but then you start creating fractal mini-city-centers based around some sort of industrial districts as the city becomes better-formed and developed.
If cities are procedurally generated over time, rather than instantly, then you could even model their growth from the very start, with crowding only coming into play as more and more houses are built into the nooks and crannies that were once the alleys between previously standing buildings.
Post by: Chthonic on April 05, 2011, 10:36:45 am
For a city of the size presented, are shops going to be scattered throughout? Is there going to be one great central market? Or little clusters of shops serving different parts of the city? Are cities going to be segregated by individuals of different social class (i.e., the good parts of town, where you can pay extra for the good booze and gem-encrusted duds, and the other side of the tracks where all you can buy are swill and rags)?
Post by: freeformschooler on April 05, 2011, 10:39:57 am
This is going to make the obsessive-compulsive in me that always has to comb every inch of every city and comparison-shop for the very best armor or weapon of the particular kind I really really want because I have to be kitted out as thoroughly as possible . . . just about die. But it looks awesome.
For a city of the size presented, are shops going to be scattered throughout? Is there going to be one great central market? Or little clusters of shops serving different parts of the city? Are cities going to be segregated by individuals of different social class (i.e., the good parts of town, where you can pay extra for the good booze and gem-encrusted duds, and the other side of the tracks where all you can buy are swill and rags)?
I would imagine markets would be integrated pretty well into the cities (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html).
Quote
- Better town maps involving workshops/markets/shops based on world gen economic activities
Though social class is less likely to be going in. But who knows!
Post by: PTTG?? on April 05, 2011, 10:49:29 am
And anyway, Streets of SimCity was pretty awesome and it was entirely fetch quests.
With flying, force-shielded, rocket-armed combat cars.
PS: NW_Kohaku is awesome.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 05, 2011, 11:26:49 am
Toady's got pics of the city up!Those are max-sized cities, so I'm looking forward to them.
And by Armok, they're ENORMOUS! I'm looking forward to doing some exploration.
I hope they will have more than z-level.
Here's the problem I have - cities seem to have really funky models for how their population goes up and down right now. They seem to need the caps that are placed over their population to prevent rampant growth at times, because there is no downward pressure on their population growth unless it actually gets to starvation.
I'll ask my question first, then let the rest of the post get taken up by all the random musings I have on the subject.
What models are there governing population growth and decline? Where do you want it to go - a simple and streamlined abstract model of growth and decline based upon a tally of upward population growth forces and downward pressures on populations, or a very gritty and detailed model where every wave of disease is tracked, so that there will be history events of the great city fire of 231?
The problem with that is that starvation doesn't seem to be modelled very well at all - people just keep eating normally right up until there's only food for 30% of them left, and so 70% of the population just sits there and waits to die.
Realistically, you'd have hoarding before the crisis point, and inflated food prices so that only the really wealthy or those who saw the crisis coming furthest off and hoarded early would have a chance to really stockpile some food to weather the storm. People are going to want to protect themselves and their families, after all.
After that, people who are faced with starving and their families starving are going to want to protect their families, after all, so they're going to start rioting or trying to kill and steal food from those who are hoarding it for themselves.
I doubt a city would actually see 70% of its population just plain starve - you'd rather see 80% of its population die in riots and an orgy of crime, and the other 20% probably not be able to put the city back together again, except in a fractured state, and most of the survivors would probably scatter as refugees.
In a real city of the Ancient or Medieval world, there were serious downward forces on population thanks to the utterly rampant diseases that flourished in crowded cities with close human contact for disease transfer, with water sources tainted by sewage, with no proper sewer system, especially in the most crowded, poorest parts of town that received no city planning, and as such, the larger and more crowded and less-maintained a city was, the more ravaged by disease it would become.
The Total War series models this, especially in its earlier, more abstract and "clean" games by just plain having a -0.5% population growth rate modifier due to "Squalor" per every arbitrary amount of population in a city. Public sanitation projects (among others) give a +0.5% or +1% population growth benefit to help counteract this, although at the highest levels of population, it's pretty hopeless to try to stave off the problems of overcrowding. As population grows geometrically quickly, but the time it takes to build more complex sanitation systems becomes even more lengthy and cumbersome, and there are only a finite number of things you can do, population levels just naturally plateau on their own as disease and overcrowding's downward pressure on population hits equallibrium with the upward pressure of birthrate.
Now, that's a fairly abstract system (and not even Total War stuck with it, which is a bit of a shame, honestly), and I know that DF likes to go for the nitty-gritty realism...
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there were procedurally generated diseases with procedurally generated mortality rates in DF. Each one coming through some different disease vector.
Infant mortality rates can be modeled abstractly or with greater detail, as well - areas with more crowding, more pollution, less sanitation, and poorer food quality and availability just plain have lower "fertility rates" in an abstract model, versus having the children being born then dying off in greater numbers than adults due to weaker immune systems and tolerances for the lack of food.
(Oh, and now I just thought about how childhood diseases and malnutrition also leads to poor development of the mind and body - leading to permanent loss of intelligence and smaller body size and disease immunity. That would mean tracking some sort of average population malnutrition factors for different population centers in worldgen... I honestly like abstract models better than the really gritty ones most of the time, but being able to tell that someone is from a city rather than a village because they're shorter would be kind of cool...)
Especially since it's possible to split off each district of a town as a separate area (where the best parts of town have better sanitation than the worst parts).
DF could simply have a simple birthrate bonus or penalty system, or it could actually model waves of diseases killing off individuals, food riots, infant mortality rates, violent crime rates, etc. and do these by individual town district (so the docks are a nasty part of town, but the clothier's district is fairly safe).
As I said, though, I honestly like Rome: Total War's simpler model (although that was when I had to actually control it, personally), but given how much gritty realism DF crams in versus how difficult it would be to code and store many of these things in memory, I honestly think Toady could go either way on how much detail he wants, here, so I'd say it's worth asking which way his winds are blowing.
Post by: monk12 on April 05, 2011, 11:35:31 am
Personally, I'd rather see more of the realistic version of mass death in a city, so that when you visit you can ask around and hear about the Great Fire of 102 or the Eighth Plague of Whippedgranite in 227. Even better would be if there was visible changes to the city as a result- the Great Fire burns down the north side of the city, which is then redone in stone. Your adventurer is walking around and notices all these buildings are stone even though its not a really important place, so you ask around and the old-timers tell you this story about a horrible fire they rebuilt from.
Or in short, I'd rather see tracking of the little details, because you need to track them first before you can do interesting things with them.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 05, 2011, 11:50:34 am
Another problem with these cities is that there no large buildings: keeps, palaces, town halls and government buildings, grand markets, parade fields (the Romans were big into these), armories, and in the future, museums, libraries, docks, factory-type things or workshop complexes, warehouses, mage towers, and so on.
Addressed in the Devlog here:Quote from: DevlogThe different buildings will be workshops and houses -- there aren't any really large ones because we haven't gotten to manors/taverns/inns etc., but the system can easily encompass that sort of thing. Those buildings are for future releases though.
Now, now, it's easy to see something that thought provoking, and completely forget to actually read the rest of the devlog post because you get so lost in thought. So let's be forgiving...
What I'm most wondering about while looking at those cities is what happens with all that open space in the middle of those buildings... Are they used as neighborhood parks? Or is there no way to directly access them, and nobody uses those open areas?I'm pretty sure that's what he was referring to with the following:Quote from: Toady OneThe buildings often enclose yards where several families will keep their pigs and other beasts and birds. Later these yards will be used for additional buildings and they'll also be expanded out in this release and merged with roads to support things like market squares.
:-[
Looking at those enclosed areas, one of the other things I think of is that if you boarded up the enterances to those common, fenced-in areas, and then buy two or three small houses with access there (for escape routes when the guard comes), you could have a thieves' den in a fairly large area that is cut off from the rest of the open city.
Speaking of thieves, smugglers like those from Robin Hood's Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood's_Bay#Smuggling) would use the closely crammed buildings to build tunnels where smugglers, with the implicit blessings of the townspeople, could pass goods through the houses of the townsfolk without ever using the streets to avoid having to pay taxes on goods like alcohol and tea, which had tariffs.
More recently in history, there were Chicago apartment building projects that were so heavily controlled by gangs that they could occupy all the upper floors of the buildings, and punch holes through the walls dividing the building up - when police raided one building, the criminals would just go through the maze of holes they punched through buildings to escape out another building.
Are cities going to be segregated by individuals of different social class (i.e., the good parts of town, where you can pay extra for the good booze and gem-encrusted duds, and the other side of the tracks where all you can buy are swill and rags)?
Well, if Toady said he'd be making larger buildings like manors, it makes sense that he'd make exceptionally crummy parts of town at the same time that he makes exceptionally nice parts of town.
Something else I notice is that many of those enclosed areas aren't actually closed - some are crescents, and others have a corner where you could squeeze into the common enclosed area.
In regards to the lag concern a few pages back, I recall Toady saying something (I think in a DF talk) about how there isn't much lag because all the city folk just stand around doing nothing all day. Release 2 is Villager/Farmer schedule/activities, part of which is finding ways to make the towns feel alive with people in the streets and such without having to simulate pathfinding for every single resident of the city even when you can't see them.
In many modern games with advanced graphics that take up a lot of time, but want seemless transitions through different areas without loading screens, you typically have individual sections of a map that are being modelled at once. In Adventurer Mode, you wouldn't have to model that much beyond what the adventurer can actually see, except in a fairly abstract manner.
That means you could basically just have people teleporting places so long as the starting and destination points are not close enough to you for you to actually notice the difference.
Of course, we might also just want some people walking the streets to create the illusion of business. Many games like GTA just generate random people who simply walk on sidewalks with no real destination in mind, and just follow sidewalks randomly. I somehow doubt Toady would want to have players capable of following a randomly generated person around all day, and seeing that they just walk in circles all day...
However, there could be tricks to evading that sort of problem. You could wind up with a "Shroedenger's Gun" situation, where random walkers suddenly have their empty backstory filled in if they stay in the adventurer's sight for long enough, or the adventurer actually asks them questions. Basically, the first 150 steps, they are just walking randomly, but then suddenly, they were going to the market that's in the direction they were walking in the direction of, and their home was in the direction they were walking away from, because now that the adventurer is following them and presumably might be looking at them, they have to have a purpose all of a sudden.
That would require a largish reserve of completely ambiguous buildings, where none of the details of who lives there matter until the player is actually looking at them. It might also get complicated if a player can basically set up shop in a single neighborhood, and starts to get to know all the neighbors, at which point a large chunk of territory in the city might become "known", and you can't pull some of these tricks as easily.
Bah, I know I've got enough for a suggestion thread in here somewhere, but I'm not sure what I want to suggest, yet.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on April 05, 2011, 12:06:00 pm
Post by: Hummingbird on April 05, 2011, 12:10:42 pm
Post by: thvaz on April 05, 2011, 12:28:11 pm
Is it just me or are the buildings a little out of scale? I think that the rooms are much too large. Most lower-class houses in the middle ages had really tiny rooms stuffed with tons of people, so either the houses should be much smaller, or they should be split into many small rooms (2x3 to 2x4). A bed, a table, two chairs, a cabinet and one free tile should be able to support at least three people. An inn could be about 8x8, inn "hotel" rooms could be 1x2, market stalls could be 2x2, middle-class houses should be about 6x6 inside.
Maybe each of these large buildings are many houses packed together.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 05, 2011, 12:45:11 pm
Is it just me or are the buildings a little out of scale? I think that the rooms are much too large. Most lower-class houses in the middle ages had really tiny rooms stuffed with tons of people, so either the houses should be much smaller, or they should be split into many small rooms (2x3 to 2x4). A bed, a table, two chairs, a cabinet and one free tile should be able to support at least three people. An inn could be about 8x8, inn "hotel" rooms could be 1x2, market stalls could be 2x2, middle-class houses should be about 6x6 inside.
Maybe each of these large buildings are many houses packed together.
Or multiple families live in a single communal/apartment building with "soft" dividers between them.
Romans lived in multi-story apartment buildings, and were forbidden from having personal kitchens (risk of fire too great), and so had a sort of "fast food" industry where the kitchens (made of fire-proof materials) would serve food to the area.
The very poor could just live in a common room with no walls between them at all, just some straw and a place for their personal belongings (also, this is what inns are probably like for the "adventurer" with little spending cash).
There's a certain amount of inherent unrealism in the way that walls take up an entire tile in this game, when a wall is as thick as the living space of an individual, so having soft dividers that don't involve walls, but just involve saying "these three tiles are mine" would be a way of cramming people in closer together.
Post by: PTTG?? on April 05, 2011, 12:50:21 pm
I don't really see the point of cramming the people in like sardines... you might as well give everyone a little bit of room. That way, you can have more unique randomly generated rooms. There are only two 1x2 bedrooms- one with the bed on the right, and one with the bed on the left. A 4x5 bedroom with a bed, 2-3 containers, a decoration, and some totally random item (chair, table, statue, bookcase, ect...) has at least hundreds of variations.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 05, 2011, 12:58:40 pm
Anyway, not everyone has to live in the same conditions - there's no reason not to have a 1x2 room for the guys who are basically just the haulers of the town, while having a 3x8 one-floor house (or one floor of a multi-floor house) for the accomplished woodcarver, and then a 4x10 three-story house for the master gemsetter.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on April 05, 2011, 01:04:55 pm
*lotsa awesome gibberish*NW_Kohaku, how the hell do you know all this?
Also,
That scale would make any kind of combat rather boring. You need a little bit of maneuvering room.Why would you want so many variations? A 4x2 room with 5 distinct furniture items already has 13440 variations, which is totally enough for me. And you already have enough maneuvering room in places outside of cities, which make up about 99,5% of any DF world. Ever had a swordfight in your bathroom? Also, support realism, because this totally isn't a fantasy setting.
I don't really see the point of cramming the people in like sardines... you might as well give everyone a little bit of room. That way, you can have more unique randomly generated rooms. There are only two 1x2 bedrooms- one with the bed on the right, and one with the bed on the left. A 4x5 bedroom with a bed, 2-3 containers, a decoration, and some totally random item (chair, table, statue, bookcase, ect...) has at least hundreds of variations.
/junk
Edit:
Anyway, not everyone has to live in the same conditions - there's no reason not to have a 1x2 room for the guys who are basically just the haulers of the town, while having a 3x8 one-floor house (or one floor of a multi-floor house) for the accomplished woodcarver, and then a 4x10 three-story house for the master gemsetter.Totally.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 05, 2011, 01:11:52 pm
*lotsa awesome gibberish*NW_Kohaku, how the hell do you know all this?
I watch a lot of History Channel, and spend too much time wiki crawling Wikipedia, basically.
It's what I like about DF - it gives me the reason to go learn about vulcanism or geology or the growth cycles of fungi.
Post by: Sizik on April 05, 2011, 01:42:59 pm
However, there could be tricks to evading that sort of problem. You could wind up with a "Shroedenger's Gun" situation, where random walkers suddenly have their empty backstory filled in if they stay in the adventurer's sight for long enough, or the adventurer actually asks them questions. Basically, the first 150 steps, they are just walking randomly, but then suddenly, they were going to the market that's in the direction they were walking in the direction of, and their home was in the direction they were walking away from, because now that the adventurer is following them and presumably might be looking at them, they have to have a purpose all of a sudden.
That would require a largish reserve of completely ambiguous buildings, where none of the details of who lives there matter until the player is actually looking at them. It might also get complicated if a player can basically set up shop in a single neighborhood, and starts to get to know all the neighbors, at which point a large chunk of territory in the city might become "known", and you can't pull some of these tricks as easily.
Peasant1: (Oh shit, here comes the PC!)
Player: Hello good sir, may I enquire as to where you're heading?
Peasant1: Umm... Well I was going to the... market! Yeah, that's it, the market. I'm going to the market to buy some...potatoes. From the market. To feed my family, et cetera.
Player: Well then, good day!
Peasant1: (That was a close one. Aw, now I have to go to the market and buy potatoes so that he doesn't catch on to the truth.)
Reminds me a bit of the Truman Show.
Post by: Sowelu on April 05, 2011, 02:32:17 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 05, 2011, 02:46:02 pm
Is it me, or are a lot of those roads just too small? I saw a lot of people talking about central industries, and I know that buildings will get larger over time and crafts more centralized, but regardless of whether cities are blocky or spiderweb patterned I still expected to see some regions with massive wide streets and some with two or three tile wide alleys...
Hopefully, along with larger and smaller building sizes, plus bridges, we will get major roads, as well.
Post by: thvaz on April 05, 2011, 03:03:07 pm
Post by: LoSboccacc on April 05, 2011, 03:12:46 pm
Is it me, or are a lot of those roads just too small? I saw a lot of people talking about central industries, and I know that buildings will get larger over time and crafts more centralized, but regardless of whether cities are blocky or spiderweb patterned I still expected to see some regions with massive wide streets and some with two or three tile wide alleys...
well, we have lots of medieval town around here and their road are seriously small and twisted. that's to say, two people could not walk along.
look, this is Spello: http://goo.gl/maps/YI4s
you should see the one road, that would give you a sense of scale of the passageways between houses.
Post by: Knigel on April 05, 2011, 03:46:37 pm
Is there some resource gathering going on? Basically, I'm just wondering if it is possible to encounter a city with unfinished walls, or a castle where just the keep has been finished.
Or cities made entirely out of things such as sand or platinum ore.
Post by: thvaz on April 05, 2011, 03:54:53 pm
Or cities made entirely out of things such as sand or platinum ore.
Unlikely, as since 31.19 resources are tracked by ammount in world gen.
Post by: Korgus on April 05, 2011, 04:29:17 pm
Post by: LoSboccacc on April 05, 2011, 04:41:36 pm
I've seen fortresses in this version made of lignite and horn silver. Could be interesting to see an entire city made of gold or coal or something.
just because there aren't (yet) fire arrows :P
Post by: Dante on April 05, 2011, 04:41:48 pm
pick a city center
grow outwards until the city is attacked in world gen
encase it in a wall
continue to grow outward.
Excellent idea, but world gen varies enough that different rates of wall-building to different rates of attack would have to be buffered a bit.
To prevent things like
(http://i55.tinypic.com/2laepgg.png)
Post by: LoSboccacc on April 05, 2011, 04:47:03 pm
Post by: Dradym on April 05, 2011, 04:50:53 pm
Post by: Cruxador on April 05, 2011, 05:53:01 pm
But still, some are bigger than others, which is what he was talking about.Is it me, or are a lot of those roads just too small? I saw a lot of people talking about central industries, and I know that buildings will get larger over time and crafts more centralized, but regardless of whether cities are blocky or spiderweb patterned I still expected to see some regions with massive wide streets and some with two or three tile wide alleys...
well, we have lots of medieval town around here and their road are seriously small and twisted. that's to say, two people could not walk along.
look, this is Spello: http://goo.gl/maps/YI4s
you should see the one road, that would give you a sense of scale of the passageways between houses.
Post by: Jothki on April 05, 2011, 06:26:33 pm
Both of these are different from a quest to deliver serious bodily harm to the kobolds living in the sewers.
Speaking of that, I have to wonder if the cities are going to eventually have enormous explorable sewer systems. Completely unrealistic, but they're a cherished RPG tradition.
Post by: Kishmond on April 05, 2011, 06:51:01 pm
It's Ankh-Morpork!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
No Ankh though.
Post by: monk12 on April 05, 2011, 08:47:30 pm
Both of these are different from a quest to deliver serious bodily harm to the kobolds living in the sewers.
Speaking of that, I have to wonder if the cities are going to eventually have enormous explorable sewer systems. Completely unrealistic, but they're a cherished RPG tradition.
I know it was mentioned in the old dev goals- it comes up every now and then when the Poo question arises.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 05, 2011, 09:09:45 pm
Both of these are different from a quest to deliver serious bodily harm to the kobolds living in the sewers.
Speaking of that, I have to wonder if the cities are going to eventually have enormous explorable sewer systems. Completely unrealistic, but they're a cherished RPG tradition.
I know it was mentioned in the old dev goals- it comes up every now and then when the Poo question arises.
At this point, I might as well have a text document with a form response that I can copy-paste any time this topic comes up...
From a Reddit article (http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/cuvnl/tarn_adams_creator_of_dwarf_fortress_his_response/):
Quote from: Toady One
I like fertilizer, animal tracking and sewers. I dislike potty breaks. This is an example of realism that I think has a lot of potential for trouble. Potty breaks in adventure mode might be realistic, but there are immersion issues there. He he he, I mean in the sense of the player being kicked out of their groove. The other kind of immersion wouldn't be so bad, because sewers are common adventure environments. In dwarf mode, dwarves already take a lot of time out for self-maintenance, and this would be a more senseless kind, compared to something like eating.
I also remember a quote from before talking about how it would be bad to have only animals produce waste, because then if you somehow were transformed into a donkey, you'd start doing it.
Also:
Quote from: Old Devlist
# PowerGoal153, THE CRACKS OF DOOM, (Future): You flee into the sewer with the baron's ring, but sliding in the muck, you drop it. Try as you might, you cannot locate the precious object in the town's filth.
Also:
Quote from: DF Talk
Rainseeker: So there's no poo creatures either?
Toady: It was a close thing! Because it was literally a decision I had to make, going down this list, because in the Hidden Fun Stuff of course if you get the tentacle demons then you get a layer scattered with various filth on the ground; and there's brown filth and yellow filth and so on and it's not clearly stated but it's a material that I had to put in properties for right? So there's these hard-coded filth materials, and when I was going down the list, you know 'Do I want creatures made out of mud? Do I want creatures made out of vomit? Do I want creatures made out of glass?', there's all these hard-coded materials, and I was just like 'Yeah, yeah, yeah ... No ... No ...' on the filth. But there are creatures made out of the grime, and the grime material is the material that collects on your body slowly over time, and it's also the material that's used in swamp water, so there's this ... I just needed this material called 'grime' for these miscellaneous purposes, it's just crap, just stuff that collects over time and when a creature is made out of that it just says 'composed of grime and filth'. So if you want to call that 'poo' even though it's not it's possible for you to extend your imagination.
See also the wiki page on Material Tokens (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Material_token), where they list that brown and yellow filth are indeed one of the few materials that are hardcoded into the game. As in those two materials already exist in the game, it's just that nothing produces them as of yet.
Post by: veok on April 05, 2011, 11:35:48 pm
Incidentally, some of these small creatures aren't large enough to produce meat when butchered. Any chance of partial meat-units (a la fat's "globs") to make it so killing rabbits eventually nets you enough meat for a +Rabbit Stew+ ?
Post by: Footkerchief on April 05, 2011, 11:58:44 pm
Incidentally, some of these small creatures aren't large enough to produce meat when butchered. Any chance of partial meat-units (a la fat's "globs") to make it so killing rabbits eventually nets you enough meat for a +Rabbit Stew+ ?
Cf. 0003993: Cavies and rabbits produce no meat when slaughtered, but caravan still brings rabbit meat (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=3993)
Post by: Toady One on April 06, 2011, 12:10:42 am
Quote from: Japa
Toady, will we be having cities that extend beyond the walls? or cities without walls?
Yeah. It can handle multiple internal walls/gates (tested, but doesn't place any yet) while still managing a fairly decent building density, and it retains the old fields outside of smaller town maps (walls or not), though I might have to rewrite the field placement code to correspond to more manageable shapes that link in with the new system if the towns end up changing more over time after play begins. Right now the towns are very shrinkable/extendible, but fields are less so.
Quote
Quote from: AqizzarChalk me up for another person who think the cities would likely be a bear to navigate, by the current standards of navigation in Adventure Mode.Quote from: UntelligentWhen towns have various important buildings in them and other stuff to do, will there be any plans to prevent intra-city walks from being too long and monotonous?Quote from: darkflagranceWill there be any kind of navigational tools like signposts or slabposts, or perhaps even a system where villages guide adventurers in place so that the player doesn't easily get lost in these cities?
The things we are looking at now are letting people move along roads on the travel map (they already appear there), and where internal walls make that have too small a resolution, to provide a new zoomed-in-3x map splitting the travel map that a resolution appropriate for all city travel. Then there's asking directions. You should not end up having to take 800 steps to get straight across town -- if there is a road without obstacles, it should just be the 15-17 steps on the travel map, and if there's an intervening wall or river, you might have to take ~50 steps on the 3x map. We'll see how these maps interfere with a sense of exploration in new cities, and then uncover them as you move around, perhaps, or limit their use in extreme cases perhaps. In any case, I'm going to try to remain mindful of the annoyances.
Quote from: onodera
Will building materials reflect the location of the city and the importance of the building?
I imagine a city on the plains will have mostly brick buildings, with only the city hall and the cathedral made of stone. We just need to get adobe bricks or more charcoal from one log or animal poo fuel, because it'll be easier to build it out of wood now.
Each building stores its material, so theoretically it shouldn't be a problem once we get into important buildings. Right now it just throws a civ wood in there. It'll be good to differentiate even the simple buildings a bit, but that might have to be done through shop signage for the shops. I'm not sure what the deal is with paint or whatever.
Quote from: Osmosis Jones
Those city designs look crazy awesome! I have to ask though, will we have things like central keeps, inside a second wall?
Also, will the cities get divided into districts? Say a livestock/butchers/tanners section downwind of the city, or cramped and dingy slums/ghettos & more expensive and spacious rich districts?
I'm not sure when castles will be placed in the towns. It can handle it map-wise, so it's just a matter of time -- world gen would need to respect city+fortress combinations. The cities will have some division to them. I'm not sure if there's going to be a rich/poor distinction until the manor release, and even then I guess it'll be up to the town -- it is my understanding that depending on how property acquisition worked etc., you might have highly integrated towns or towns with separated rich/poor areas. Right now, we just have the division of labor that arises during world gen, which will allow us to divide up the town somewhat based on the workshop types.
Quote from: B0013
Also, will there be variations of city layouts beetween different human civilizations? Like, if a civ makes more "organic" looking cities another may make them more rigid (larger roads, no curves, etc.)
Eventually. First I need to get anything working, and then variety can start to arise, both in the overall layout and in the individual buildings. The number and regularity of intersections, road width, building size etc. is all pretty easy to control now.
Quote from: Jiri Petru
How does the building process in world-gen work? Are the large buildings like walls or castles built gradually, segment after segment, or do they just pop into existence overnight? Is there some resource gathering going on? Basically, I'm just wondering if it is possible to encounter a city with unfinished walls, or a castle where just the keep has been finished.
You can't see anything happen gradually yet. There are stone resource stockpiles, but it doesn't tie into giant constructions yet. Eventually it should work out -- the walls and towers are pretty modular, so having half-constructed buildings that get finished during play outside of view is certainly feasible, though making it happen if you are sitting there staring might not be quite so easy.
Quote from: freeformschooler
Are all those orange rectangles ALL buildings?
Yeah -- I haven't done larger buildings or market squares or whatever else, so we just have lots of similar buildings (some of these will have internal walls). It'll be a bit different by the release, but we aren't really going to get into it until taverns/manors/inns a few releases down the line.
Quote from: Chthonic
For a city of the size presented, are shops going to be scattered throughout? Is there going to be one great central market? Or little clusters of shops serving different parts of the city?
In the maximal cities presented, there will be at least one giant market, and perhaps some smaller ones -- they'll probably be stalls grouped by type, some permanent. Then there will be shops -- for now, perhaps the majority of the buildings depending on the most prevalent professions.
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
What models are there governing population growth and decline? Where do you want it to go - a simple and streamlined abstract model of growth and decline based upon a tally of upward population growth forces and downward pressures on populations, or a very gritty and detailed model where every wave of disease is tracked, so that there will be history events of the great city fire of 231?
The problem with that is that starvation doesn't seem to be modelled very well at all - people just keep eating normally right up until there's only food for 30% of them left, and so 70% of the population just sits there and waits to die.
Starvation doesn't work quite that blindly in world gen, but even when they try to save up for hard times and go as far as infanticide (cutting pop growth rate), they can't really forage or disperse right now -- they don't know how to move -- which is when they start to die off. It has all of the food and population tracked numerically, so they just need more methods to deal with unexpected crop failures or missing caravans or overall food shortages. Since it is tracking everything, historical citations of specific instances of famine etc. is just a matter of detecting/adding historical events now when something bad happens over a period of weeks. The new slowness in world gen comes from pushing all of this info around. When we get to disease, I'm sure that'll be tracked site by site, pop by pop, over the years as well.
Quote from: Greiger
I'm no expert on what a carnivore can or cannot eat (It probably varies between species) but when you get around to getting goblins properly eating in worldgen would any dietary changes have any effect on fortress mode? Or are the checks to see what a civ can eat separate between worldgen and the game modes? Are you satisfied with the goblins' current menu?
Goblins are not going to need to eat. That is intentional. They might enjoy eating certain things though, but I don't think any significant changes are going to come from it.
Quote from: Heph
the grass raws include now tissues which is nice but could it support more indepth stuff like a simplifyed body-defintion (which would be nice for shrubs too).
I'm not sure how that's going to play out. They won't have limbs like creatures do that are always the same. Multi-tile trees need to have different shapes.
Quote from: madjoe5
Will trees and shrubs ever be expanded on (in terms of the Evil/Good) more so, like grass. We have one Good and one Evil for each, I think, but I it seems we have lots of fantasy-flavored grasses.
I think there are two grasses were there might be one tree for each sort of thing, at least for good/evil/savage. No clue when that'll change.
Quote from: Mephansteras
When animals get revisited, are we going to be able to designate fodder spaces that get filled? Currently you can't just tie up a grazing animal somewhere and expect it to live long.
I don't know what the mechanic will be, but something will have to happen there with hay and whatever else.
Quote
Quote from: Captain MaydayHow do Grazing, Hunger, and grass growth work alongside each other?
To be more specific, I can see that the GRAZER:X token allows X hunger to be removed for every unit of grass eaten.
What determines the rate at which hunger increases? Is creature size a factor?
Is a 'unit' of grass simply 1/4 the maximum amount that is growing on a space?
If creature size is a factor in determining rate of hunger, why is there such an enormous difference in how much hunger is removed?Quote from: NW_KohakuThe average creature gets 1 turn every 10 frames, and one of those turns has to be used moving, so any creature with Grazer:19 or less cannot feed itself. An elephant, which only removes 12 hunger per eating of grass, is on a countdown to starvation the instant that hunger is in place.
Hunger increases 1 each frame, but they don't have to move to eat, so elephants can technically survive (they gain 2 per 10 frames for 1000 frames then have to move once, net positive), but in practice they won't likely survive long since they have to do their movement very effectively to keep it up. It'll be better when they can browse. I haven't revisited the overall system at this point, but I doubt the hunger variable would survive it.
Quote from: Urist Da Vinci
Are the hardcoded "fire breath", "fireball toss", "dragon fire breath", and "shoot web" behaviours considered complete, or placeholder? I ask because breath attacks and secretions with associated materials have been added. The glittery balls of fire that fire imps toss look pretty, but they don't appear to do anything in arena mode, even if you get hit by dozens. Back in 0.28.181.40d, those balls could be lethal, so the code appears to outdated. Do you intend to merge the hardcoded breath weapons into the material breath system?
Obviously it needs to be changed, but I'm not sure what the solution is going to be.
Quote from: isitanos
Toady, with your mineral veins rework are we gonna see the return of chasms and underground rivers?
That probably won't be the time for it, but the placement of larger scale mineral features that span more than a 48x48x1 will increase abilities there a bit for the future.
Quote from: freeformschooler
For the "explorer/archeologist" adventurer role type... what are the plans for generating ancient ruins and dungeons and so on? Is the ideal something like a random Legend of Zelda, with each room elaborately linked up by your great precursors? Are they going to be anything like the caverns we have today? Or should we expect them to meld into the rest of the world as easily as possible?
It's going to be based on what happened in world gen, but some strange things will be added to world gen to make them more interesting -- tombs and prisons, etc., and once a location can be used over time for different purposes, it should be interesting. A given tomb might be sort of weird and Zelda-y in that way, since it can engage in arbitrary trap-and-interesting-thing placement under the guise of keeping out graverobbers and respecting the dead. I think the last two DF Talks had some related Q&A with a bit more detail you can find in the transcripts.
Quote from: LoSboccacc
will be there a separation between the handling/working of fortress/civilizations relationships and fortress/fair relationship? that is, is in the plans having fair out of fortress control (apart quantity/quality influenced by zones and wealth and stuff like that) and detailed trade agreement between civilizations/important sites (and the keyword here is detailed) or something like that
Without hill dwarves, fairs associated to the fort would occur on fortress grounds, and you'd have that sort of control over what's going on there. Also, normally, the fairs will involve various trade agreements between whoever, but in fort mode, the time is compressed and a little screwy that way, so it might be that fort fairs are far more fort-centric than other fairs that occur on sites. We'll have to see how that plays out. I'm not sure if that addresses your questions though. I don't have all the details yet.
Quote from: Jiri Petru
Are there any plans for an in-fortress economy in the near future (I mean as part of the next few updates)? It's not specifically mentioned on the list but seeing as this is the "caravan arc", i though might be hidden under a larger goal.
When we get to taverns and inns, we'll see what comes up. That would be a time to try something, but I'm going to stay focused on the stated goals as best as I can. Which isn't saying much, I guess, he he he.
Quote from: Lovechild
When 3D mineral veins are in, how will you know when they go upwards or downwards (without digging stairs everywhere)?
If you reach the end of a vein, digging down in one spot shouldn't be a big deal, but if they have a weird spidery shape up and down then it might be harder, but then you'd be hitting them in more places on every level anyway. We'll have to see what comes up.
Quote from: freeformschooler
Now that we have bamboo, will we ever be able to chop it down and make bamboo crafts? Currently it is only a grass, which is technically correct, but...
It's probably on the same unstated time-table as hay and straw.
Quote from: Areyar
Say, I was thinking of the future multitile trees. Will this mean multiple types of wood from variaous 'tissues' as well?
For instance high quality log, fit for working into anything (or the planks IIRC you mentioned once). and branches/roots (low quality wood/debris), perfect for coalburning, building fences or stuff requiring small bits of wood (bolts, beads etc?).
It could. I can't promise anything. The main thing will be to get elves up, probably.
Quote
Quote from: monk12What happens to the hill dwarves when a fortress is abandoned/destroyed?Quote from: nenjinToady: How do you see Fort mode migration waves changing in light of the Hill Dwarf feature, if at all? Would it still be the primary source of new dwarves? Would people migrate to become Hill Dwarves instead of Fort Dwarves?
Migration will need to be changed -- your main source of new fort dwarves might just be hill dwarves in some situations, though far-away migrants that get admitted to the fort would probably be more skilled on average. In that way, it's hard to see how a lost game could accompany anything but the total loss/conquest of the hill dwarves as well -- either through battle or morale failure. The start situation might involve some notion that links continued play to certain dwarves (one religion, one family, etc.) that takes many of the hill dwarves out of the equation. In that case, perhaps a loss might not involve losing the settlement at all, but I haven't really thought about it much yet.
Quote from: EmeraldWind
When the caravans begin to move around the map, will there be caravans for every trade route or caravans that travel along multiple trade routes?
To clarify, if Town A has trade routes with B, C, and D. Will we see three caravans coming and going between the towns or will Town A have a single caravan going to B, C, and D?
Will the caravans be sent by bigger towns going to the smaller towns or will the smaller towns send trade caravans to the bigger towns or will both be possible?
It's going to depend on who is running the caravan and what good exchanges are involved. I can see a single caravan making it across the world or local carriers that never get away from one town. I'm still not sure exactly how the larger ones are going to work though. This release will have people moving between towns and villages, but the rest is going to get sorted out later in the release list.
Quote from: Uristocrat
It sounds like there are some geology changes anticipated in Release 2. Is there anything that players could research that would be helpful?
Hard to say... I'm going to try to add some new overall structures to it, and if people have favorites it might speed things up a bit.
Quote from: veok
Are you happy with the way Vermin have turned out? Recent updates have brought in very small non-vermin creatures such as rabbits, guinea pigs, chickens, etc. Where does the line fall?
It's certainly an uncomfortable line. I didn't really want to make chickens vermin though, since it complicates pasturing/nest boxes, and that bumped the line down to something odd, and there are some bugs to be fixed. I'm not sure what the future holds.
Post by: devek on April 06, 2011, 01:06:15 am
Quote from: DF TalkRainseeker: So there's no poo creatures either?
Toady: It was a close thing! Because it was literally a decision I had to make, going down this list, because in the Hidden Fun Stuff of course if you get the tentacle demons then you get a layer scattered with various filth on the ground; and there's brown filth and yellow filth and so on and it's not clearly stated but it's a material that I had to put in properties for right? So there's these hard-coded filth materials, and when I was going down the list, you know 'Do I want creatures made out of mud? Do I want creatures made out of vomit? Do I want creatures made out of glass?', there's all these hard-coded materials, and I was just like 'Yeah, yeah, yeah ... No ... No ...' on the filth. But there are creatures made out of the grime, and the grime material is the material that collects on your body slowly over time, and it's also the material that's used in swamp water, so there's this ... I just needed this material called 'grime' for these miscellaneous purposes, it's just crap, just stuff that collects over time and when a creature is made out of that it just says 'composed of grime and filth'. So if you want to call that 'poo' even though it's not it's possible for you to extend your imagination.
See also the wiki page on Material Tokens (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Material_token), where they list that brown and yellow filth are indeed one of the few materials that are hardcoded into the game. As in those two materials already exist in the game, it's just that nothing produces them as of yet.
There also seems to be some hard-coded creatures, such as "CREATURE_1" through "CREATURE_22".
Post by: thvaz on April 06, 2011, 02:28:54 am
Post by: Kogut on April 06, 2011, 02:30:49 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 06, 2011, 04:37:15 am
Post by: Dwarfu on April 06, 2011, 06:06:06 am
Post by: Areyar on April 06, 2011, 06:09:40 am
interresting city you have there, would be cool if it weas built on a hill. :)pick a city center
grow outwards until the city is attacked in world gen
encase it in a wall
continue to grow outward.
Excellent idea, but world gen varies enough that different rates of wall-building to different rates of attack would have to be buffered a bit.
To prevent things like
(http://i55.tinypic.com/2laepgg.png)
City growth outside of the walls tend to be around gates , not randomly all around the walls.
also, often planned expansion just adds a plot of ground by building a semi-circular wall attached to the outside.
edit
@ Wall-o-text:
Oh my Goat! Goblins are autotrophic!
Post by: TolyK on April 06, 2011, 08:33:37 am
Thanks for the answers, Toady.
***
areyar: I think those walls would be at least partially deconstructedwhen the outer walls were being put up.
Post by: cephalo on April 06, 2011, 12:09:11 pm
pick a city center
grow outwards until the city is attacked in world gen
encase it in a wall
continue to grow outward.
Excellent idea, but world gen varies enough that different rates of wall-building to different rates of attack would have to be buffered a bit.
To prevent things like
(http://i55.tinypic.com/2laepgg.png)
You definately don't want a wall every time a city is attacked, since they are expensive to build. I would say that a new wall would be warranted when some percentage of city ends up outside the wall.
Post by: PTTG?? on April 06, 2011, 12:41:12 pm
Post by: monk12 on April 06, 2011, 01:03:15 pm
Oh my Goat! Goblins are autotrophic!
It's why they have green skin, obviously!
Quote from: Toady
The start situation might involve some notion that links continued play to certain dwarves (one religion, one family, etc.) that takes many of the hill dwarves out of the equation. In that case, perhaps a loss might not involve losing the settlement at all, but I haven't really thought about it much yet.
I am now eagerly anticipating playing out The Hobbit, where reclaims involve former fortress members returning to take back what was once theirs. Which also suggests an interesting Adventure Mode start scenario available whenever a settlement is lost to invasion/megabeasts and gives you motivation beyond "Adventure is fun!" It could also be just a general quest that is available to highly skilled adventurers. Moves quests away from "Kill this thing for revenge" and towards "Kill this thing because we want our lands and possessions back."
I'd make that a suggestion thread, but somehow I suspect these are the kinds of things Toady is already considering, when he turns his thoughts in that direction.
Post by: darkflagrance on April 06, 2011, 01:30:34 pm
Although, when were Hilldwarves officialized?
Post by: monk12 on April 06, 2011, 01:36:38 pm
Good answers Toady.
Although, when were Hilldwarves officialized?
Last DF Talk (or two) discussed them in detail.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 06, 2011, 02:03:58 pm
We apparently generated enough speculation for Toady to come and answer the questions in person.
QuoteQuote from: AqizzarChalk me up for another person who think the cities would likely be a bear to navigate, by the current standards of navigation in Adventure Mode.Quote from: UntelligentWhen towns have various important buildings in them and other stuff to do, will there be any plans to prevent intra-city walks from being too long and monotonous?Quote from: darkflagranceWill there be any kind of navigational tools like signposts or slabposts, or perhaps even a system where villages guide adventurers in place so that the player doesn't easily get lost in these cities?
The things we are looking at now are letting people move along roads on the travel map (they already appear there), and where internal walls make that have too small a resolution, to provide a new zoomed-in-3x map splitting the travel map that a resolution appropriate for all city travel. Then there's asking directions. You should not end up having to take 800 steps to get straight across town -- if there is a road without obstacles, it should just be the 15-17 steps on the travel map, and if there's an intervening wall or river, you might have to take ~50 steps on the 3x map. We'll see how these maps interfere with a sense of exploration in new cities, and then uncover them as you move around, perhaps, or limit their use in extreme cases perhaps. In any case, I'm going to try to remain mindful of the annoyances.
So, basically, you have a zoomed-out mode of travel? That sounds like an interesting and reasonable system...
Although I wonder if there will be any "ambushes" when walking around town where hucksters try to sell you some snake oil or some pickpockets bump into you or the like...
It would be kind of boring to be able to walk all over town and nothing really happened. Sandbox games like inFamous were pretty fun just because you'd be walking along, see an injured civilian, hop down from the telephone poles, whap them with the healing lightning, then *boom* suddenly the ambush springs on you, and you're fighting a bunch of thugs out in the streets, and you have to go diving for cover as the bullets start flying overhead.
Quote from: Jiri PetruHow does the building process in world-gen work? Are the large buildings like walls or castles built gradually, segment after segment, or do they just pop into existence overnight? Is there some resource gathering going on? Basically, I'm just wondering if it is possible to encounter a city with unfinished walls, or a castle where just the keep has been finished.
You can't see anything happen gradually yet. There are stone resource stockpiles, but it doesn't tie into giant constructions yet. Eventually it should work out -- the walls and towers are pretty modular, so having half-constructed buildings that get finished during play outside of view is certainly feasible, though making it happen if you are sitting there staring might not be quite so easy.
This is something I will really look forward to - seeing a city that is cramped because it's long since outgrown its city walls, with an old town surrounded by stout walls, a mid-town only half-covered by half-built walls, and then the new town that keeps sprining forth, outgrowing even the new walls. The city has gone too long without a seige and forgets how to protect its citizens.
The mid-town citizens, well-off traders with some clout demand the protection of their homes and property, while new-town citizens, the poor stragglers are left out in the cold to die when the war comes, and the old-town citizens, who have traditional clout, say that the money would be better spent on guards than on extending a wall that probably wouldn't protect the mid-towners in time, anyway.
Having the marks of old walls that have since been torn down (or old walls that still remain in some parts, as walls of some buildings) built into the geography of a city would add some extra historical flavor to the cities.
Quote from: NW_KohakuWhat models are there governing population growth and decline? Where do you want it to go - a simple and streamlined abstract model of growth and decline based upon a tally of upward population growth forces and downward pressures on populations, or a very gritty and detailed model where every wave of disease is tracked, so that there will be history events of the great city fire of 231?
The problem with that is that starvation doesn't seem to be modelled very well at all - people just keep eating normally right up until there's only food for 30% of them left, and so 70% of the population just sits there and waits to die.
Starvation doesn't work quite that blindly in world gen, but even when they try to save up for hard times and go as far as infanticide (cutting pop growth rate), they can't really forage or disperse right now -- they don't know how to move -- which is when they start to die off. It has all of the food and population tracked numerically, so they just need more methods to deal with unexpected crop failures or missing caravans or overall food shortages. Since it is tracking everything, historical citations of specific instances of famine etc. is just a matter of detecting/adding historical events now when something bad happens over a period of weeks. The new slowness in world gen comes from pushing all of this info around. When we get to disease, I'm sure that'll be tracked site by site, pop by pop, over the years as well.
Hmm... that sounds like a somewhat mixed answer, actually.
"Infanticide" by just dropping the population growth rate is the abstract style, while still having gritty detail on plagues and famines. (Not that the frequency Hansel and Gretle-ing children would necessarily be something you want to see in statistical detail in a game...)
Still, it has no details on breakdowns on civil order due to food shortages (I.E. food riots or stealing food) and instead, people are simply talked about just trying to move to a place that does have food.
I guess cultural unrest modelling is still something on the back-burner.
Quote from: Captain MaydayHow do Grazing, Hunger, and grass growth work alongside each other?
To be more specific, I can see that the GRAZER:X token allows X hunger to be removed for every unit of grass eaten.
What determines the rate at which hunger increases? Is creature size a factor?
Is a 'unit' of grass simply 1/4 the maximum amount that is growing on a space?
If creature size is a factor in determining rate of hunger, why is there such an enormous difference in how much hunger is removed?Quote from: NW_KohakuThe average creature gets 1 turn every 10 frames, and one of those turns has to be used moving, so any creature with Grazer:19 or less cannot feed itself. An elephant, which only removes 12 hunger per eating of grass, is on a countdown to starvation the instant that hunger is in place.
Hunger increases 1 each frame, but they don't have to move to eat, so elephants can technically survive (they gain 2 per 10 frames for 1000 frames then have to move once, net positive), but in practice they won't likely survive long since they have to do their movement very effectively to keep it up. It'll be better when they can browse. I haven't revisited the overall system at this point, but I doubt the hunger variable would survive it.[/quote]
Oh? Always good to be corrected if I was making a false assumption. I guess they don't have to stand on top of the grass to eat it.
Hmm... how do you remain still for 1000 frames/100 turns? Over time, if you move diagonal, you would have access to 5 new tiles, so that means that an elephant would be able to eat from the same tile 20 times without moving in order to make that work. (And that still requires pristine dense fields of grass.)
... The hunger variable is going to be changed, hmm? I could probably go into a thread on that...
Quote from: UristocratIt sounds like there are some geology changes anticipated in Release 2. Is there anything that players could research that would be helpful?
Hard to say... I'm going to try to add some new overall structures to it, and if people have favorites it might speed things up a bit.
Now there's a lead if I ever saw one...
Quote from: veok
Are you happy with the way Vermin have turned out? Recent updates have brought in very small non-vermin creatures such as rabbits, guinea pigs, chickens, etc. Where does the line fall?
It's certainly an uncomfortable line. I didn't really want to make chickens vermin though, since it complicates pasturing/nest boxes, and that bumped the line down to something odd, and there are some bugs to be fixed. I'm not sure what the future holds.
[/quote]
Technically, AFAIK, rabbits are the smallest (500 mL) - and smaller than fluffy wamblers (2000 mL), which are vermin. (So the line curves.)
Perhaps, though, the line should be behavioral more than size-based, anyway.
Post by: Neonivek on April 06, 2011, 07:47:08 pm
I have sort of mixed feelings about this.
On one hand Goblins simply do not work as a species in a world of supply and demand since a dangerous population sustained entirely on hunted meat is impossible.
On the other hand Goblins that don't need to eat feels a lot like a cop out to attempt to make them threatening without actually making them threatening (and they are mildly pathetic as it is)
Unless of course Toady was refering to a holdover... hmmm
Toady do you mean Goblins don't need to eat in any future update or that Goblins won't need to eat until you can get it working properly?
Post by: MrWiggles on April 06, 2011, 08:22:13 pm
oook it looks like Goblins are going to get more and more supernatural as the game goes on.I think Toady made it pretty clear, that his Gobo do not need to eat, and he has no plans to change.
I have sort of mixed feelings about this.
On one hand Goblins simply do not work as a species in a world of supply and demand since a dangerous population sustained entirely on hunted meat is impossible.
On the other hand Goblins that don't need to eat feels a lot like a cop out to attempt to make them threatening without actually making them threatening (and they are mildly pathetic as it is)
Unless of course Toady was refering to a holdover... hmmm
Toady do you mean Goblins don't need to eat in any future update or that Goblins won't need to eat until you can get it working properly?
His elves eat their opponents. Gobo don't need to eat.
Post by: JohnieRWilkins on April 06, 2011, 08:30:41 pm
oook it looks like Goblins are going to get more and more supernatural as the game goes on.I was wondering about that too. The language made it sound like it was there to stay, but it feels like a complete cop out.
I have sort of mixed feelings about this.
On one hand Goblins simply do not work as a species in a world of supply and demand since a dangerous population sustained entirely on hunted meat is impossible.
On the other hand Goblins that don't need to eat feels a lot like a cop out to attempt to make them threatening without actually making them threatening (and they are mildly pathetic as it is)
Unless of course Toady was refering to a holdover... hmmm
Toady do you mean Goblins don't need to eat in any future update or that Goblins won't need to eat until you can get it working properly?
IDK why goblins wouldn't need to eat. Subsisting on hunted meat is impossible, but I bet they could get really good at herding animals and still sustain decent sized populations if they also supplement with hunting and cannibalism. (see #111 http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Powergoal#Power_Goals)
e:
Quote
PowerGoal 111, OFF TO THE LARDER, (Future): The goblins pull an obese child out from under the bed and insult him, saying he isn't fit to a work in the mines before carting him off to the larder.
Post by: darkflagrance on April 06, 2011, 08:31:31 pm
Post by: devek on April 06, 2011, 08:32:58 pm
If you find it in yourself to love elves, they will all starve and die.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on April 06, 2011, 08:44:44 pm
They are fed by your hatred of elves.And dry up our goblinite mines.
If you find it in yourself to love elves, they will all starve and die.
Post by: monk12 on April 06, 2011, 09:03:38 pm
They are fed by your hatred of elves.And dry up our goblinite mines.
If you find it in yourself to love elves, they will all starve and die.
Crashing the world's economy. Save the world. Hate an elf.
Post by: veok on April 07, 2011, 12:01:02 am
Do the food production/starvation routines during worldgen factor in any of the actual plant tokens (such as seasons, growdur, etc.)?
It may have some correlation with the number of plants available. Running 31.25, I had much larger civs (judged by number of blue "mountainhomes" symbols on the civ select sub-menu of the embark screen after running Sphalerite's procedurally generated plants and adding 20 or so new food etc. plants.
Extremely small sample size, so take it as you will.
Post by: Cruxador on April 07, 2011, 03:42:50 am
It looks a good bit better this way, I think.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 07, 2011, 03:55:49 am
edit: Any guesses how the city-generation code works? I would like to understand it. I mean i get 90% of the systems behind the simulation more or less But i hadnt time to get into this thing yet. Toady can you help out here?
Post by: Newbunkle on April 07, 2011, 08:47:52 am
I can't wait to get lost in those cities. Way back when I remember Toady saying that he wants you to be able to have a full adventurer without ever having to leave a major city. Wonder what kind of quests will be available... Muggers? Fugitive hunting? Monsters causing trouble in the sewers? Haunted manors need clearing? Pizza delivery?
That's what I loved about Daggerfall. I loved exploring and raiding dungeons, but the cities were much more vibrant and alive, even if my imagination was filling in a lot of the blanks. It's a pity the towns got smaller as the series went on.
It was awesome arriving in town and reading those notice boards by the gate that gave news of disease outbreaks and wars. I loved leaving my inn in the night to go and burgle some store, and then getting attacked by muggers who were hiding in alleys. And in the city of Daggerfall itself, you'd hear that ghostly voice shouting "vengeance!" and be attacked by ghosts.
The new cities might be what encourages me to give adventure mode a serious try. I for one am very excited.
Post by: Ethicalfive on April 07, 2011, 08:59:09 am
Toady, could not some of these immersive city ideas be delegated through raws? This way, you only need to lay the basics, then add in new content from raw mods that you like at a later date. Seems like a lifetime worth of content for one person to add just inside a city alone.
Post by: cephalo on April 07, 2011, 08:59:39 am
growth loop:
Pick a spot for the city.
Draw roads from city center to all other neighboring cities that exist at that time.
Expand the city from the center, without covering the initial roads, according to immigration, births.
When a new neighbor town is founded and can't easily use the existing road system, bring a road towards the current growth center but stop when it hits buildings.
Create plazas at the end of these new roads to serve as alternative town centers.
When the city is attacked, evaluate whether its wealthy and important enough to encase within a wall.
Place the gates of the city near the initial roads, and also the ones from new neighbors.
If the city has a wall, only create a new one if 60% of the town has grown beyond the gates.
Grow the town further centered around the existing gates as if it were a new town, starting the whole process again.^^
maintenance loop:
Attemp to destroy houses near the city center to make way for important new buildings and intercity roads.
Some random houses should be protected as if they were the homes of important, influential people. This is to break up the homogeny of the important public buildings near the center.
When new town centers emerge, try to create direct avenues between them by knocking down houses.
This should lead to some interesting, sensible cities.
Post by: finka on April 07, 2011, 09:38:24 am
edit: Any guesses how the city-generation code works? I would like to understand it. I mean i get 90% of the systems behind the simulation more or less But i hadnt time to get into this thing yet. Toady can you help out here?
Looks to me like it's more or less doing this:
- choose the footprint of the city
- fill it up with a grid of intersections at 48-tile spacing
- randomly perturb the locations of the intersections to nearby points
- for each two adjacent intersections in the grid, put a street between them with about 7/8 probability
- put the city walls in around the footprint, with one gate in each cardinal direction aligned with a street. extend those streets to the gates
- for each connected block that this leaves, carve out the interior yard, and then try to fill the space between them with buildings all facing a street (it looks like sometimes the yard space gets close enough that it can't place any buildings, e.g. one of the tall blocks in the NE of city 1)
- do something similar around the outside (I'm not sure why there are funny whorl-shaped accesses to the space next to the wall)
Post by: Untelligent on April 07, 2011, 10:11:34 am
How long have Toady and Three Toe's portraits on the dev log been on the right? Did that just happen? Because I just now noticed it.
It looks a good bit better this way, I think.
Sometime between 11/11/2010 and 11/14/2010.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 07, 2011, 10:34:41 am
Depending on the distance to markets, tempels and the mainstreets one could apply some sort of richness modifier that determines how big the houses are with the biggest and most prominent ones on the edge of the markets and plazas.
@Untelligent the avatars of toady and threetoe were orignally on the left side of the post. That they turned to right side is a new development.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 07, 2011, 11:15:02 am
Toady, could not some of these immersive city ideas be delegated through raws? This way, you only need to lay the basics, then add in new content from raw mods that you like at a later date. Seems like a lifetime worth of content for one person to add just inside a city alone.
There was a question I asked a while ago that was on a similar topic:
Quote from: NW_KohakuWill you code in the ability to create our own raw-defined building types for worldgen? Using the Arena Mode and Custom Workshops as a model, we already have most of the pieces to create both custom buildings and define functions for them.
I'm not eager to get into this right now, since I'm not sure what the overall specs need to be and I don't want to tie myself to a raw format early. One of the main things is that I'm not sure I'd be satisfied with static maps of buildings, rather than buildings that are a bit more adaptable. For instance, I'm not sure what raws would look like for the existing temples, which adapt portions of their architecture to the spheres associated to their deities. The raw format would inevitable restrict my ability to do things like that, unless it were really complicated. At the same time, I can see how a modder would want to be able to deviate wildly from what is currently available. It might be most simple to allow static building maps to be used by custom races, but since I won't be using that in vanilla it's difficult to prioritize.
Also, just recently:
Quote from: B0013Also, will there be variations of city layouts beetween different human civilizations? Like, if a civ makes more "organic" looking cities another may make them more rigid (larger roads, no curves, etc.)
Eventually. First I need to get anything working, and then variety can start to arise, both in the overall layout and in the individual buildings. The number and regularity of intersections, road width, building size etc. is all pretty easy to control now.
Basically, he responded to my previous question with a functional "not now" and a "I don't want to tie myself to a raw format early", both of which imply he's at least seriously considering doing it at some point down the road. (I still hold onto hope for a raw system that can stitch together various raw-defined pieces so as to create multiple permutations of buildings based upon the same handful of raws.)
Having variable numbers of intersections, road width, and the types of buildings seem like they are going to be much more likely to be shoved into the raws earlier.
Post by: PTTG?? on April 07, 2011, 12:15:24 pm
With enough basic Building plans- they could be anything from sphere-sensitive temples to generic hovels or a variety of workshop plans or castle designs. Then you're free to do anything from making a civ that builds everything with low, adobe buildings to a techie civ with everything made of metal and glass in shiny towers.
Post by: Mephansteras on April 07, 2011, 12:36:51 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 07, 2011, 12:45:22 pm
It seems to me that a compromise may be to define large scale building types and uses and let the hard code fill the out. So one could say "this civ uses [BUILDING_PLAN:TEMPLE] buildings that have [BUILDING_SPHERE:METAL] and [BUILDING_SPHERE:BY_CIV_PREFRENCE], and it uses them to [BUILDING_USE:MEETING_AREA:ALL], [BUILDING_USE:WORKSHOP:METALWORKING], and [BUILDING_USE:RELIGION:ALL]. Perhaps you might also say [SELECT_CONSTRUCTION_MAT:FLOOR:LOCAL_STONE] and [SELECT_CONSTRUCTION_MAT:WALLS:ANY_METAL].
With enough basic Building plans- they could be anything from sphere-sensitive temples to generic hovels or a variety of workshop plans or castle designs. Then you're free to do anything from making a civ that builds everything with low, adobe buildings to a techie civ with everything made of metal and glass in shiny towers.
Well, that's where I tried to go with a follow-up question:
Spoiler: Long quote (click to show/hide)
You can make a fairly flexible system by having the furniture procedurally placeable inside of the buildings as a separate chunk of code, having the wall and furniture materials be a separate chunk of code, making the amount of space around the building or ways to access it be another chunk of code, and then making the actual shape of one or more chunks of a building be a chunk of code.
For example, you can make a "downstairs" zone of 4x8, and have a stairwell somewhere in that building, which allows you to stick any raw-defined "upstairs" that fits into the 4x8 area allotted to it, and maybe a basement in the same area. If it's supposed to be a really crowded city, you could force only 4x8 or at least only 4xwhatever building shapes to take up the space in the upstairs.
You can make a temple's each room, or even portions of rooms, be defined in different pieces of the raws if you want to.
Having 30 different versions of just one building will only lead to 30 different buildings, but having 5 different versions of 6 different assembleable pieces of a building will lead to 15,625 different buildings (albiet potentially only "different" in minor ways).
Post by: Neonivek on April 07, 2011, 05:41:17 pm
Ohh well... odd.
I guess they are going to be like Trolls in the Majesty Universe where they are born from slime.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 07, 2011, 05:48:57 pm
Post by: Dradym on April 07, 2011, 08:33:10 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 07, 2011, 09:28:14 pm
well, in most folklore, goblins are faeries of a sort...and thus, nature spirits...i could see this idea as what goblins are more like in dwarf fortress...though, then, they couldnt reproduce...except by "assimilating" others, without technology, more like pod-people, which would explain why they need to abduct people
In most folklore, dwarves and elves are just as much fae creatures as goblins are. In fact, much of folklore uses "elves" and "dwarves" and "gnomes" pretty much interchangably, and only refers to goblins in terms of being a malicious elf. (And they are all Keebler Elf-sized elves, at that.) So it's not like we're being particularly faithful to the source material, here.
I'm pretty sure that whatever choice Toady is making regarding goblins, it's something he's come up with, himself.
Post by: Neonivek on April 07, 2011, 09:38:34 pm
Because it is a rather large jump for how we understand Dwarf Fortress now.
Post by: Rexfelum on April 07, 2011, 10:14:48 pm
Because it is a rather large jump for how we understand Dwarf Fortress now.
I dunno, actually. I wonder if that "Goblins are not going to need to eat" thing relates to how goblins already function: if you capture a goblin, you don't need to feed it. Sure, sure, the same holds true for other sentient creatures on your map (except for your dwarves), and we know that the Toady One intends for (say) human civilizations off your map to need food. But maybe he's thinking of a similar dynamic.
--Rexfelum
Post by: nil on April 08, 2011, 02:57:24 am
Post by: zwei on April 08, 2011, 02:59:11 am
Prime numbers beat fractals!
Post by: Knigel on April 08, 2011, 07:55:41 am
interresting city you have there, would be cool if it weas built on a hill. :)
Sounds like Ba Sing Se.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 08, 2011, 10:16:44 am
While we are talking about composites and content generation: http://designfestival.com/the-cicada-principle-and-why-it-matters-to-web-designers/
Prime numbers beat fractals!
That's a neat idea... Once I digest that, I'll have to start using it.
Post by: Miuramir on April 08, 2011, 11:17:39 am
While we are talking about composites and content generation: http://designfestival.com/the-cicada-principle-and-why-it-matters-to-web-designers/
Prime numbers beat fractals!
While that's a decent summary of an interesting technique for creating "stupid" designs, DF is generally using far better procedural designs that are at least partly "smart". In general, prime-tiled systems are good for making repetitive, unimportant background info look slightly less repetitive; in situations where the material actually matters for gameplay, content-aware procedural generation will give vastly superior results.
The main improvement I'd like to see in the city generator is a focus around what the city is actually *there* for. Historically, the majority of early cities (DF is nominally pre-1400 IIRC) were located around a trade-related location; natural harbor, river ford, river portage, trade route crossing, mountain pass, etc. Of the ones that aren't, the majority of the remainder were organized around defensible locations (mostly hills, islands, or peninsulas). There are a very few that were located around unusually rich sources of food or mineral wealth (effectively also a trade location, as they became a source node in the network), or in dry climates sources of fresh water. Offhand I'm having difficulty coming up with any significant cities pre-1400 that didn't form around at least one of the above; the possible exception might be religious sites in the middle of nowhere, and I'm not aware of any that were cities pre-1400 that weren't also trade hubs or the like.
In other words, the city generator shouldn't generate a city and plunk a river or caravan route through it; the vast majority of cities should pick a location based on one of the above reasons, and then generate the city out from the fortress, river, etc. The generator can "cheat" a little in some cases; picking a spot along a river that it wants a city, and then putting in a ford / rapids / bridge / island as part of city generation to retroactively explain why the city ended up in that particular spot on the river. (The default DF river generation doesn't do well at generating mid-river islands, which historically were a popular choice for a citadel around which a city grew.)
Another useful city-generation trick is that, as several folks have noted, earlier inner city walls tend to get "mined" for stone for buildings or newer, outer walls; this tends to end up with a pattern of roughly ring-shaped larger roads along where the old walls were. This is why many old-world cities end up with a radial plan; the original major roads were radial from the keep / crossing (or it was placed on existing roads), and as it grew larger, circumferential main roads took the place of successive generations of walls. If you have a generator for a small city, generate that, then replace the wall with a main road and generate a medium city around that; repeat again to get a large one. In addition to some of the maps already linked, the early map of Moscow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Moscow_1784.jpg) is a pretty clear illustration of how that works out.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 08, 2011, 12:01:58 pm
While we are talking about composites and content generation: http://designfestival.com/the-cicada-principle-and-why-it-matters-to-web-designers/
Prime numbers beat fractals!
While that's a decent summary of an interesting technique for creating "stupid" designs, DF is generally using far better procedural designs that are at least partly "smart". In general, prime-tiled systems are good for making repetitive, unimportant background info look slightly less repetitive; in situations where the material actually matters for gameplay, content-aware procedural generation will give vastly superior results.
It depends upon what you are going for... To a certain extent, if we have a set of 3x3 rooms for various villagers inside of buildings, and each room has a bed, a box, a cabinet, a table, and a chair, and all we want is to have those five items arranged in different ways so that each and every villager bedroom isn't identical, then you could essentially use a more "random" procedural placement code, where all that is important is that there is an empty tile near the door, and the chair is next to the table.
The main improvement I'd like to see in the city generator is a focus around what the city is actually *there* for. [...]
I'm not 100% on this one, but given what Toady said about these cities, the cities are just towns and villages that were started for the purpose of farming, and as they become more populous, they become more urbanized.
In other words, they're there for having some open fields to farm. But when the city grows, the fields are replaced with ever-more densly packed buildings until all the fields are gone when the city hits its maximum population size. Meaning that the reason they are there is no longer there.
And yes, that's a bit of a problem.
Post by: Asmageddon on April 09, 2011, 07:15:58 am
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 09, 2011, 08:31:25 am
But also a bit disappointing at the same time.
It's now clearly visible that all towns simply plop down a circular web of roads on the map and then start filling it up with buildings. All towns are perfectly circular and look all the same. Moreover this system results in illogical outcomes like here:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
The village parts on the maps look like American suburbia, but not like a medieval village. Historical villages didn't spread out in a circular cobweb pattern.
Basically, my beef is that the maps seem to lack any logical "simulation" of growth and spreading patterns. It doesn't resemble historical examples of towns and villages. Plopping a circle on the map and filling it with streets and houses feels too unreal and arbitrary. As a result, they don't look believable and they also lack character because they're virtually identical.
(Now, I realise these are all testing towns not implemented in the actual game world yet, so here's hoping it changes! Toady is most probably just testing the street algorithms before going on with more complex shapes. Also, this is a whining of an ungrateful person who has grown accustomed to Toady's high standards and expects him to do better. Even in this phase the generation is better than in any other game.)
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 09, 2011, 09:05:15 am
Post by: TolyK on April 09, 2011, 09:06:56 am
although iirc there were many (very small) bridges and only 1-2 big ones in those days...
Post by: Kogut on April 09, 2011, 09:10:29 am
Maybe instead of:
Code: [Select]
make_roads();
make_buildings();It should be
Code: [Select]
for(int i=0; i<size_of_town; i++){
grow_roads();
grow_buildings();
}
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 09, 2011, 09:14:55 am
The fun thing is that villages in previous versions of DF were done better - they formed a dense core, they even spread around the existing roads instead of creating their own suburban street networks. The new maps actually seem like a step backward in this regard.
Post by: TolyK on April 09, 2011, 09:17:39 am
Post by: Footkerchief on April 09, 2011, 09:26:22 am
Pardon if this was already asked, but:
Will there be many different city layouts? If so - how many?
This was covered in Toady's last post in this thread:
Quote from: B0013Also, will there be variations of city layouts beetween different human civilizations? Like, if a civ makes more "organic" looking cities another may make them more rigid (larger roads, no curves, etc.)
Eventually. First I need to get anything working, and then variety can start to arise, both in the overall layout and in the individual buildings. The number and regularity of intersections, road width, building size etc. is all pretty easy to control now.
And second question(not sure if it qualifies as a question or as a suggestion, but here we go):
Also, how many city 'features' will there be? (stuff like markets, wider streets, big manors, etc.)
EDIT:
As to more interesting things to do in cities, I would like to suggest sewers, graveyards(along with crypts and dungeons), cellars under houses, etc.
And maybe multi-store houses(especially the important ones)
This was also covered by many parts of that post:
Quote from: Osmosis JonesThose city designs look crazy awesome! I have to ask though, will we have things like central keeps, inside a second wall?
Also, will the cities get divided into districts? Say a livestock/butchers/tanners section downwind of the city, or cramped and dingy slums/ghettos & more expensive and spacious rich districts?
I'm not sure when castles will be placed in the towns. It can handle it map-wise, so it's just a matter of time -- world gen would need to respect city+fortress combinations. The cities will have some division to them. I'm not sure if there's going to be a rich/poor distinction until the manor release, and even then I guess it'll be up to the town -- it is my understanding that depending on how property acquisition worked etc., you might have highly integrated towns or towns with separated rich/poor areas. Right now, we just have the division of labor that arises during world gen, which will allow us to divide up the town somewhat based on the workshop types.Quote from: freeformschoolerAre all those orange rectangles ALL buildings?
Yeah -- I haven't done larger buildings or market squares or whatever else, so we just have lots of similar buildings (some of these will have internal walls). It'll be a bit different by the release, but we aren't really going to get into it until taverns/manors/inns a few releases down the line.Quote from: ChthonicFor a city of the size presented, are shops going to be scattered throughout? Is there going to be one great central market? Or little clusters of shops serving different parts of the city?
In the maximal cities presented, there will be at least one giant market, and perhaps some smaller ones -- they'll probably be stalls grouped by type, some permanent. Then there will be shops -- for now, perhaps the majority of the buildings depending on the most prevalent professions.Quote from: freeformschoolerFor the "explorer/archeologist" adventurer role type... what are the plans for generating ancient ruins and dungeons and so on? Is the ideal something like a random Legend of Zelda, with each room elaborately linked up by your great precursors? Are they going to be anything like the caverns we have today? Or should we expect them to meld into the rest of the world as easily as possible?
It's going to be based on what happened in world gen, but some strange things will be added to world gen to make them more interesting -- tombs and prisons, etc., and once a location can be used over time for different purposes, it should be interesting. A given tomb might be sort of weird and Zelda-y in that way, since it can engage in arbitrary trap-and-interesting-thing placement under the guise of keeping out graverobbers and respecting the dead. I think the last two DF Talks had some related Q&A with a bit more detail you can find in the transcripts.
Post by: hermes on April 09, 2011, 09:30:13 am
Quote
But the houses were not scattered randomly amongst the fields, hundreds of feet apart, with a nice road grid in between them. That's just silly.
I don't really buy that houses were not scattered randomly around fields, if you go walking in England round old farming areas that haven't been significantly developed, you find homes and farms dotted about all over the place, with roads connecting them, within easy walking distance. ???
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 09, 2011, 12:10:25 pm
The towns in the new post are exciting!
But also a bit disappointing at the same time.
It's now clearly visible that all towns simply plop down a circular web of roads on the map and then start filling it up with buildings. All towns are perfectly circular and look all the same.
I wouldn't get disappointed just yet, as Toady is obviously still working on it. It's only when something is (at least temporarily) finalized that it's time to get disappointed. Rather, it's just time to point out the flaws or potential flaws you see, and try to give hints as to how to improve the system while he's still trying to build it up towards its final state.
It is fairly obvious when you see the one building with a grid road nearby that it doesn't look too attractive, especially compared to the major city-type that was displayed in the last update. Maybe throwing some fields down near those buildings would look better, but, as Kogut said, it would look better if the roads weren't built before there were things to connect the roads to. A single building with four roads the same size as the densely-crowded city roads crossing right at the front doorstep looks a little silly, like someone just went out and built the roads in that pattern, regardless of whether anyone lived there or not.
I don't think it would be too terrible to mark the entire region "city area", but then have portions of the landscape that is too far from the main town simply not have any roads (besides the major trade roads out of town) or buildings at all, which would help mask the notion that all cities take up the same space and are the same shape.
You could still lay out the roads, but just make them disappear until the population density that would demand expansion and the building of the road is actually present before the roads are constructed. Basically, predetermine where the road will be placed, but don't place it until there are buildings that would go alongside it.
Any outlying buildings, of course, would look much better if they had some fields to go with them, although I think that's already a given.
Also, while a brook is a step up from making a city out in some random field, you still don't build London on a creek - you build it on a natural harbor near the sea. At the very least, you build Paris far upriver on a more major river.
(See: http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/arth/Images/ARTH_214images/Paris/map.jpg and a page with more images: http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/arth/arth214_folder/paris_maps.htm )
They put the castle and Notre Dame on an island in the middle of the river. That was a river large enough to float barges up and down the river as transport, to Le Harve (the port at the mouth of the River Seinne) if it were destined for foreign lands. (Le Harve basically just means "The Harbor".) (Technically, a little Wikisearching says Le Harve was a planned city built in the 16th century to replace the older towns of Harfleur and Honfleur, which didn't have shipyards capable of supplying the French navy any more, but the idea is still the same.)
I know we have yet to get the "large road" part in yet, and that will almost certainly help to make some roads seem larger and more important, but it still really strikes me that the "reason for the town" is now "castles" in this update.
These are all castle towns, and the towns are built radiating from the major roads leading away from the castle - the brooks that divide the town is the major obstacle on population density, and they grow up first on the side with the castle, and then closest to the bridges to the castle.
I do hope we get cities built around other purposes, or better yet, multiple purposes and job centers. I would really hope that cities with multiple purposes could morph out into different sized circles, the way Jeoshua was talking about it earlier.
Spoiler: The image again, for those who forgot (click to show/hide)
A city with multiple job centers/purposes, which grows outward based upon how many jobs its job centers provide, and bounded by both the considerations of natural terrain, and where they put their city walls, would make for a much more "realistic-looking" city.
Of course, Toady hasn't said anything one way or the other, so maybe that already is his plan.
Post by: Kogut on April 09, 2011, 12:18:37 pm
Post by: tfaal on April 09, 2011, 01:23:04 pm
What's up with sparse outskirt sections of the cities? Is there farming going on out there, and if not, why all the empty space? Are cities ever smaller than a world tile?
Post by: Untelligent on April 09, 2011, 02:08:00 pm
There's been a lot of discussion, but about this, but I don't think anyone's asked the question yet;
What's up with sparse outskirt sections of the cities? Is there farming going on out there, and if not, why all the empty space? Are cities ever smaller than a world tile?
The empty space looks like farmland/pastures to me.
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 09, 2011, 03:33:21 pm
I don't really buy that houses were not scattered randomly around fields, if you go walking in England round old farming areas that haven't been significantly developed, you find homes and farms dotted about all over the place, with roads connecting them, within easy walking distance. ???
Bear in mind that probably none of the buildings and farms you see when strolling around England are older than two or three hundred years. But even disregarding that, it's OK to have a stray farmhouse for the occasional loner family, but in Toady's current cities, all the farmers are separatist loners.
If were're still taking 1400 like the norm, then there are basically two types of villages, and both of them cluster the buildings close to each other. A village type means not only the arrangement of houses, but even more importantly the arrangement of fields.
1) Dense villages clustered around one spot like the church, the village common or even crossroads, with farmland all around. This is the "standard" type of village, and the English manorial villages look just like that. Peasants live together on one place so valuable farmland isn't wasted, and each morning they travel to their fields outside the village.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
2) Stretched villages arranged in a single long line along a road. Farmland insn't in a circle around but each field connects directly to a house. I know these villages as German "colonising" villages that have usually been built where woods have been cut, but I suppose they appeared elsewhere in different contexts (like river valleys).
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
And while it's very well possible to have a stray farm or two outside the "core", it's quite apparent the villages tend to be as dense as possible, the logic being (1) to save the valuable farmland and not waste it on roads; (2) to live close to each other because people are very social beings; (3) defense, because you can dig a ditch or erect a palisade around a closely-packed village.
Note that the villages don't have a street plan, and the only "street" present is always the trade road or two, if we're talking about crossroads. There's no point to have any streets aside of that, because farmers and farm animals don't use cars or carriages - they walk on foot ::) The only time farmers need wagons is when they gather crops after harvest... and you don't need roads for this, wagons can ride through the cut fields easily. There will be sparse tracks for easier access to the vicinity of your field, but nothing with the density of Toady's suburbia.
The logical way for towns to blend into landscape isn't to build a dense streetweb and fill it sparsely with buildings, but simply to build densely packed houses along the one or two main roads, thus resembling the linear village. Then build additional streets as needed but always pack them closely with buildings. Like here:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I'm not saying all of this because I expect Toady to create ultra-real simulations, but because he's already done it right in previous versions but is now diverting away from it. I want to prevent this! :) But I'm aware Toady is far from done, and is still working on it, so basically I'm just hoping to provide some valuable insights or inspiration.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 09, 2011, 03:36:09 pm
diverting to the land of nonsense.
Hyperbole much?
Post by: Dante on April 09, 2011, 03:39:04 pm
Also, those people who compared the first set of pictures to Ankh-Morpork must regret not waiting to see these!
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 09, 2011, 03:40:06 pm
diverting to the land of nonsense.
Hyperbole much?
Yes.
Sorry if I sounded too aggressive. I'm just passionate about Dwarf Fortress and want to help. ::)
EDIT: Fixed it in the post.
I still love what Toady is doing, otherwise I wouldn't be so damn excited about it.
Post by: Neonivek on April 09, 2011, 04:35:57 pm
diverting to the land of nonsense.
Hyperbole much?
Yeah it isn't like he is driving the car of good intentions down delusion drive and striking the wall of insanity without the helmet of common sense.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on April 09, 2011, 06:17:03 pm
Post by: tfaal on April 09, 2011, 06:24:30 pm
Post by: Narmio on April 09, 2011, 09:31:47 pm
Heh. But not even dwarves are *that* good at moving earth and stone!interresting city you have there, would be cool if it weas built on a hill. :)
Sounds like Ba Sing Se.
Post by: Xombie on April 10, 2011, 12:27:57 am
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on April 10, 2011, 02:02:19 am
Now where is that Caius Cosades' house?Morrowind didn't have random generated towns..
Post by: atomfullerene on April 10, 2011, 03:23:03 am
Post by: eux0r on April 10, 2011, 05:41:58 am
for the towns: they do really look good when not thinking about details too much but like many people have already pointed out, you can see they arent built over time and expanding from a small starting point, but placed to be _as_if_ they developed. so i guess all problems will solve themselves once toady makes them actually grow in steps during worldgen. all complaints should solve themselves through that but i think that wont be until the army arc is completely done.
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 10, 2011, 06:55:53 am
But this shouldn't be a problem, hopefully. Even this retrospective generation can IMHO be fauxed to produce results that look as if they had developed over time.
This post is a big IMHO, obviously.
Post by: eux0r on April 10, 2011, 08:17:25 am
Spoiler: it could then look like this: (click to show/hide)
so what im trying to say is right now the city gets placed in its finished state in one go. but once all worldgen events are in, cities can be placed as villages first, and then multiple cycles of different types of city-generation get applied to what is already placed.
Post by: hermes on April 10, 2011, 09:44:20 am
If were're still taking 1400 like the norm, then there are basically two types of villages,
Googling "Medieval farm layout" gives...
http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/westciv/medsoc/17.shtml (http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/westciv/medsoc/17.shtml)
"Two types of villages dominated the European countryside: nucleated and dispersed. The former was found in the most fertile areas such as river valleys, and were mainly in northern Europe. A nucleated village was what you probably think of when you picture a village: houses clustered about a village green, with farms surrounding the village and a road running through it, while nearby stands the manor where the lord lives.
The other type of village was also characterized by its physical layout and was determined by the type of soil. Dispersed villages were more common in southern Europe, and any place where the soil was light and sandy.
....
Dispersed settlements were found in regions of poor soil, such as Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany, and the central highlands of France. In these settlements, each household had a small plot of land close by, the "in-field". They grew garden crops, fertilized with manure, and these fields were the more heavily cultivated. They also had open land, the "out-field", which they farmed for a year or two and then abandoned for another patch. The surrounding wasteland was used for grazing."
I think you have some great points about how the towns could evolve through time, but just saying I don't think Toady's pics are as flawed as you're claiming. I've been to plenty of places in Europe (mainly England and France) where there really are solitary (farm) houses every few hundred yards, outlying a nucleated village such as you describe. I could speculate at the logic for that layout, but would rather defer to the more educated, quoted above!
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 10, 2011, 09:54:42 am
I don't think the maps will ever be established during world-gen, because that would presumably consume too much resources. The way I see it, worldgen only counts population and the number of buildings to keep it simple. Sites like roads, castles etc. get localised to a map square, but the detailed map isn't actually generated until you visit them in-game for the first time. What I think happens with the cities is that once an adventurer travels there, the game looks at the population, looks at special sites that should be present and the number of buildings and somehow produces a map out of it.
But this shouldn't be a problem, hopefully. Even this retrospective generation can IMHO be fauxed to produce results that look as if they had developed over time.
Yes, "faking it" shouldn't be too terribly difficult.
Like people have said before, people "mine" old walls for materials for their homes - sometimes people build their homes into the city walls, and when the rest of the wall is mined out, a part of their home is still city wall standing tall.
What you can do is create a city in worldgen, leave a marker for how large a ring the walls would have made (as in, "encompassing 26 blocks" as the recorded instruction), and just keep going with the simulation until you hit the population milestone that triggers wall expansion, and if you go far enough past the expansion point, people will mine out the old city walls, and expand through them.
Then, you can even have worldgen wars that respect how much of the city is protected when raiders come. Outlying areas might get pillaged and their people may be killed, but the rest of the population flees inside the walls. Then you can have the siege with whatever food was stored inside the walls for the number of people who are inside the walls. (Unless the commander of the city defenses actually shuts the gates or throws people out to ensure the rest don't starve...)
You can basically store all of this with population numbers and general radii of different features of the city. Even something like the "job centers" I've been talking about can basically just be stored as a "how many people can get a job here" variable that simply guides worldgen in how big the radius of town clustering gets and how many people are going to move in.
I think you have some great points about how the towns could evolve through time, but just saying I don't think Toady's pics are as flawed as you're claiming. I've been to plenty of places in Europe (mainly England and France) where there really are solitary (farm) houses every few hundred yards, outlying a nucleated village such as you describe. I could speculate at the logic for that layout, but would rather defer to the more educated, quoted above!
If you look at the maps, though, you will see that there aren't just a few dispersed houses. The houses aren't the real problem, if they had some fields with them (although there is no reason they wouldn't cluster closer to town if they were THAT close, anyway), the problem is the roads.
The roads are built in the same obvious grid pattern that the city *could* be built on.
That's the problem - the roads are layed out as if the city is already there, not as if they are servicing a rural farmland. A rural farmland doesn't need a grid of roads, especially one that cross-hatches that densely so as to allow travel in every direction - the only direction you'd need to go is to the city proper.
Post by: scriver on April 10, 2011, 10:55:06 am
The other point I would like to bring up is the kind of development seen in, for example, this (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/city_37.png) and this (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/city_51.png) screenshot. Look at how the city has grown in those - only one side of the river is being settled (so far), but that side has been built on to it's limit. It looks a bit funny, seeming how people would want to be as close to "fresh" water as possible and should spread out along the river before they start "broadening" it away from the water. It doesn't really look like "natural" growth when it builds mostly on one side first, as it seems to do, judging from the majority of the shots provided.
Off course, it also have to be said (it can't really be said enough) that Toady has just begun writing the cities, so maybe it's not the time to complain about it yet, until we have seen more of what Toady intends for the cities. It should also be added, and I'd like to put emphasis on this, that this is the best cities I have ever seen in a game, hands down. It doesn't matter if all those buildings are mostly the same and "useless" (as of now), this is still more impressive to me than anything else, and I get really excited just thinking about experiencing them for myself. I can't wait until all the other stuff (of this release as well as those following) gets put in :D
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 10, 2011, 11:29:52 am
"Two types of villages dominated the European countryside: nucleated and dispersed.
Thanks, that was enlightening. My knowledge is for the most part limited to central Europe so it's nice to see examples from other parts of the world. Some pictures would be nice, though, I'd really want to see how this dispersed farmland looked like (and I still don't like the idea of road grids in villages).
By the way, I like this kind of healthy argument and i think it might bring some new insights.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 10, 2011, 11:51:45 am
The other point I would like to bring up is the kind of development seen in, for example, this (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/city_37.png) and this (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/city_51.png) screenshot. Look at how the city has grown in those - only one side of the river is being settled (so far), but that side has been built on to it's limit. It looks a bit funny, seeming how people would want to be as close to "fresh" water as possible and should spread out along the river before they start "broadening" it away from the water. It doesn't really look like "natural" growth when it builds mostly on one side first, as it seems to do, judging from the majority of the shots provided.
I can (partially) justify this in Toady's defense, actually.
The town is spreading out from the castle. Look at where the concentrations are, especially in the first picture - they are not only clustering around the castle, but are clustering based upon the shortest "as the road winds" route to the central keep.
In fact, in the first picture you linked, you will see a sparse area right next to the keep's outer walls because it isn't close enough (by road) to one of the gates to access the keep.
They simply aren't choosing to build on the river at all. Maybe they should, maybe they should build closer to some other "job center" besides the keep, but they are at least clustering according to some logic.
Now, the thing is, this seems to imply that everyone wants to live as close as possible to the keep. If we are talking about it as a "job center", this means everyone works at the keep. This, obviously, seems silly to have a population of thousands based solely upon keeping the keep running. I somehow doubt Toady will actually keep it that way for very long, and hopefully, we'll see more "forces" at play when determining where people choose to settle in a town before long. That way, there could be more desirable locations (like near the river for fresh water or on top of the hill) where the people who have the most choice in where they live will want to congregate, and then the people who are just desperate to get as close to their job center as possible are going to be crammed up next to those.
It also does bring up another point about the density, however...
There appears to be some "packed" housing, where everything is crammed cheek-to-jowl, and then there's "sparse" housing where there is only one house per embark tile. In between these, however, seems to be some strange "sparsely packed" areas, where all the buildings are crammed together, but not all the space is taken up.
Those houses where they share the walls of one house to the other are built because they literally can't find any space to build a house but filling up the spaces between two existing houses.
The better way to model that is to lay out where all the "crammed" houses would be, and then start deleting one or two houses after every house you leave there, so that you wind up with no houses that actually touch one another.
Post by: Urist McDepravity on April 10, 2011, 12:35:07 pm
Post by: monk12 on April 10, 2011, 02:12:29 pm
This could make sense as the nucleus for cities (down at the village level), but once they get higher in population then the extra military they can support and the walls they can pay for means that other considerations should start factoring into where people build their houses. Citizens of well established and protected cities should feel safe, and therefore value the advantages of a short commute and prestigious location over personal safety. And once individual citizens start wielding significant wealth they should have the ability to maintain personal guards and private fortifications, and accordingly feel even less restricted in where they put their houses (or by this point, manors)
All that said, I'm willing to bet that part of the reason that they all cluster around the keep is because that is the only interesting thing in the city. I'll wager that as future buildings go in over the next series of releases, each one will affect city generation in some way. Some more respect should be paid to geography at this point (rivers, hills and such) but I think this next release will have only the bare bones of city generation in- more of a work in progress throughout the caravan arc.
Post by: thvaz on April 10, 2011, 02:21:23 pm
New city layouts are awesome. Seem to be pretty natural to me. Adding manors and town squares to the mix would make it perfect.
Indeed. DF is a Fantasy World Simulator, not a Medieval Cities Generator.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 10, 2011, 03:31:56 pm
New city layouts are awesome. Seem to be pretty natural to me. Adding manors and town squares to the mix would make it perfect.
Indeed. DF is a Fantasy World Simulator, not a Medieval Cities Generator.
A fantasy world with medieval cities that need some sort of generation to be there...
You can't say you're unappreciative of the new cities, now can you?
Post by: Dae on April 10, 2011, 04:57:16 pm
Well, if we assume that DF is modeling the Bad Old Days of Feudalism, then clustering around the keep makes sense- the ability to quickly get inside the keep to safety is much more important than shaving an hour or two off of your walk to work every morning. If goblins and neighboring warlords are showing up to burn things to the ground every few seasons, or even every year or so, then all the buildings will be clustered close to the protection of the castle and its associated military. In short, if you don't feel safe you won't stray far from the keep.
But there will be places where they will be safe. Far from the borders, where every (semi)megabeast 5 days from there has been slain.
Actually, if we're looking at a generator that works with only population, roads and landscape as input, it can be a good placeholder if we get rid of these extra roads. So, first time you enter a city, we might just generate the city based on population and important buildings, in a single take.
But later on, if the generator is able to take as input a preexisting city (and I suppose it will) we can take the list of events related to this city and say :
- creation of the village, population 45
- nothing relevant for 10 years
- migrants come in from a town destroyed by a megabeast : generate 10 years of population growth and place resulting fields and houses accordingly using already existent generator; in a second step, add the migrants and place their homes (possibly in another cluster of buildings if Toady adds in suspicions and/or racism)
- a fire occurs 2 years later : generate 2 years of development then place origin of fire and make it destroy some buildings
- another human kingdom takes the city after 4 years : generate 4 years of growth and then switch building style to the one of the new civilization.
- etc
- player come in the city : generate the last 17 peaceful years and prepare for the carnage
On the bad side, city generation will take longer. On the good side, cities will look definitely more organic, they will have remnants of their pasts, we can throw in features quite easily (just change how each event is interpreted) and it can be used after the first city generation, when you come back in a town you had visited 20 years earlier.
Post by: thvaz on April 10, 2011, 07:27:35 pm
New city layouts are awesome. Seem to be pretty natural to me. Adding manors and town squares to the mix would make it perfect.
Indeed. DF is a Fantasy World Simulator, not a Medieval Cities Generator.
A fantasy world with medieval cities that need some sort of generation to be there...
You can't say you're unappreciative of the new cities, now can you?
I'm very happy with the new cities. They don't need to be perfect examples of real medieval cities to fulfil their purpose.
Post by: EmeraldWind on April 10, 2011, 10:01:07 pm
New city layouts are awesome. Seem to be pretty natural to me. Adding manors and town squares to the mix would make it perfect.
Indeed. DF is a Fantasy World Simulator, not a Medieval Cities Generator.
A fantasy world with medieval cities that need some sort of generation to be there...
You can't say you're unappreciative of the new cities, now can you?
I'm very happy with the new cities. They don't need to be perfect examples of real medieval cities to fulfil their purpose.
In fact, there probably only so much realism that Toady can cram into them at this point. There may be some things that should wait until later on to fix certain qualities of the town. In truth, there are probably things Toady can or already have added that will make it harder for him to expand it later on.
So yeah, I imagine almost everyone here will understand if the towns aren't perfect, yet. At the same time though discussion is always good.
On that note, I kind of like the way the one town forms farm land on one side of the river. It actually resembles the town I live in as well as a couple nearby towns. They look more or less like that. The farms around here tend to be on the east side of the river with the cluster of the town being on the west. Though as Kohaku points out there are more interesting clusters that form than that. The town I live in actually has a cluster in the center of town on the east half, because it used to be a ferry town and the town formed a cluster on each side of the river near the ferry. There's also a third cluster on the south eastern area, because of where the coal mines are. As a plus, the town also used the river to ship the coal down river to the nearest big city in the north.
You also have nearby towns that had either purely mining based or purely farming based that have unique looks. The town I live in has the biggest cluster of house thanks to the location of the old ferry, whereas the rest tend to be more spread out. Some of the mining towns also used to be bigger, but lots of them shrunk after the mines were used up or abandoned. I wonder if we will see something similar happen in DF.
Thinking about this stuff actually makes me wonder how much of this DF will someday emulate.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 10, 2011, 10:31:50 pm
I'm very happy with the new cities. They don't need to be perfect examples of real medieval cities to fulfil their purpose.
In fact, there probably only so much realism that Toady can cram into them at this point. There may be some things that should wait until later on to fix certain qualities of the town. In truth, there are probably things Toady can or already have added that will make it harder for him to expand it later on.
On the contrary, you wind up saving more time just taking the time to do things properly the first time than doing things half-way, and having to come back again later. Toady's pretty clearly nothing if not ambitious, and just a look over the old "Power Goals" lets you have a real idea of how much of a simulated fantasy life Toady really wants in his world.
He wants sewers that thieves can skulk through, with caves with glowing moss, and dynamic quests to steal the duke's ring or have kings thrown into exile rather than outright executed.
In order to be the sorts of places that would make for an exciting adventure inside the city, the city needs to actually have some sort of modeling to make it more than just a handful of random peasants who mysteriously got their skill levels by staring at the walls.
Toady is obviously still working on it, and has said he wants to throw in other features, like larger and smaller buildings, markets, and the like.
It's much easier to build the system when you have a better idea of what you want it to do later on. It's much harder and much messier to have to break apart old code to try to expand it in ways it was never built to be expanded. Building in access points for future expansion, even if those parts are dummied-out, allows you to easily expand the code.
It's what Toady did quite a bit of in the jump to .31.01, in fact. Much of the materials code was extra data that wasn't quite used, but which was added in, anyway, just so he wouldn't have to break the raws again to add it in later. Musicality is an obvious attribute with no use, but Toady threw it in there because he expected he would one day have a use for it.
Talking about ways in which the cities can be improved and expanded has plenty of practical purpose, even if Toady doesn't actually do all these things right now - it can give him the idea of what he wants to do in the future, and what sorts of concepts he has to build his system to cater to in the future.
A "Medieval Cities Generator" where the town is built looking like a real medieval town only sounds like a superficial detail if you're looking at maps. If you're actually building the simulation, and standing in the streets, looking at how people go about their day, then the physical layout of a town is just a single portion of the overall mindset of the townperson.
In order to make a town seem real, and really simulate a fantasy world, the actions that the townspeople take need to have some sort of observable logic behind them.
If, as Monk12 points out, they are all clustered around the keep for protection, then that implies a town that is frightful, and may be more wary of strangers - just because the new so-called "adventurer" in town is human doesn't mean he's not with the goblins - they kidnap kids and train 'em to betray their race, you know. I hear the goblins are gettin' ready to mount another siege, we best hide another stash inside the walls, so we have something there when we have to run for the castle.
A city built around a harbor or major trade crossroads, however, would imply an open trade city with a more cosmopolitan outlook on life. As long as they have coin, they're welcome to the city's best shops and houses, built right up on "The Strip" of the caravan roads and the area near the markets. If they run out, they'll meet the city's worst, in the back alleys far from the major roads, far from where the city guard dare tread.
The architecture and layout of a town says a lot about their values, and you can carry those implications over into the ways in which the game interacts with the player, as well.
Earlier on, hermes mentioned that the layout of the rural village was based much more on the quality of the soil that much else - and that's something that wouldn't actually be hard to model. The game can tell fairly easily how good or poor the soil is - that gets made and is tracked first off when a world is generated. Arid lands with sandy soil get more dispersed layouts, while river valley villages are clustered, while deforestation built-along-the-road villages are the type which are built along one long road, with farms fanning out behind the buildings.
It wouldn't even be a terrible stretch, compared to what Toady has already had to do to get this far, to have a few different patterns for building towns, and it would help tell different stories about the people who have adapted to different conditions. That would help avoid the sort of Daggerfall problem of having tons of procedurally generated towns, but where every town looked and felt the same.
And that is, ultimately, the thing that can really kill the excitement about cities - if every town is exactly the same, it doesn't matter what crazy stuff is in them, they're still going to be fairly boring after the first 15 minutes it takes to see all the things inside them. Toady isn't going to stay content with just those orange rectangle homes with nothing in them, but wouldn't that be an incredible letdown if that was all we got?
So let's encourage him to consider the ways in which physical layouts of towns can have an impact upon the social topography of the game, as well as just the physical top-down views.
Post by: thermite on April 10, 2011, 11:44:44 pm
Are we going to have things made from water soluble materials like rock salt and saltpeter degrade and dissolve in the future? Perhaps at a minimum prevent these materials from being used for certain purposes such as making pots which will be exposed to liquids.
As things stand in my fort I have a lot of rock salt pots that hold alcohol for my dwarves. Somehow they don't seem to notice any salt in their dwarven wine. I can imagine a rock salt statue left in the rain degrading and eventually dissolving and the use of a rock salt floodgate causing fun eventually (or perhaps an intentional flooding delay). I also think that any water that comes into contact with rock salt should become salt water.
I feel that there could be other uses for these materials that would offset their inability to be used for certain things such as using salt for cooking or salt glazes and using saltpeter for fertilizer.
Post by: Areyar on April 11, 2011, 03:43:09 am
-Square (at least one)
-public official stuff and social gatherings.
-markets (produce from surrounding farmers/fisheries etc,
-a place to locate/cluster public buildings on. (religious, administrative, economic, possibly social like bathhouses)
-statues :)
-fresh water sources. wadeable section/stairs in open water inside city, wells, fountains.
- military buildings like barracks, guardhouses, armouries, etc will likely be located either at outshkirts, near gates, or in a central fortified position within the city.
- industry and trade.
- packhouses, grannaries, storage.
- inns
- shops and workshops
-guildhouses will probably take care of education/science.
-Shops usually have the owner living above them.
-Plantation owners/landlords commonly build hovels for their 'employees' near the fields. Plantation owners often build walled manors near their holdings as well.
(I realise much -and more- is already planned and for later dev-cycles at that, so don't bother mentioning that.)
Post by: Xombie on April 11, 2011, 07:33:08 am
Some thoughts on required stuffs for a working city:
-Square (at least one)
-public official stuff and social gatherings.
-markets (produce from surrounding farmers/fisheries etc,
-a place to locate/cluster public buildings on. (religious, administrative, economic, possibly social like bathhouses)
-statues :)
-fresh water sources. wadeable section/stairs in open water inside city, wells, fountains.
- military buildings like barracks, guardhouses, armouries, etc will likely be located either at outshkirts, near gates, or in a central fortified position within the city.
- industry and trade.
- packhouses, grannaries, storage.
- inns
- shops and workshops
-guildhouses will probably take care of education/science.
-Shops usually have the owner living above them.
-Plantation owners commonly build hovels for their 'employees' near the fields. Plantation owners often build walled manors near their holdings as well.
(I realise much -and more- is already planned and for later dev-cycles at that, so don't bother mentioning that.)
You reminded me my old thread on urban architecture.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=6048.msg75565#msg75565
(beware it's 2008)
Post by: JimiD on April 11, 2011, 07:54:46 am
In my limited understanding of the history of London, it started off on the north bank, with Southwark, a seperate town, on the south, located on the best route south across the river. It was only later in the cities history that it became more integrated. Perhaps due to the size of the river compared to other examples.
Post by: Areyar on April 11, 2011, 08:41:06 am
@Xombie: Good thread. :)
I forgot about graveyards. for zombies and smelly adventures. (sewers not so much)
definately need those early-ish, like >3houses. size should follow number of deaths in history of settlement. (or just pop-size, but that would be off)
sewers would probably only appear in the largest metropoli of large/rich empires.
Post by: de5me7 on April 11, 2011, 09:04:26 am
imo the extensiveness of defensives should be in part a product of wealth, and in part the number of attacks a settlement recieves. Perhaps poor (if their wealth is modelled) cities should start of with just a very low wall, or even a wooden wall. After each time the city is attacked the game could check city wealth, if it is high enough the walls could be upgraded, or even expanded in area coverage. Additionally if the city gets a ruler that has defence as one of his/her goals, or views big walls as a stature statement they could be upgraded (wealth providing).
Id also like to see some rudamentry sewer system going in sooner rather than later, simply because sewers are fun. Also sewer outflows into the river system, or somewhere outside the city walls for an alternative entrance/exit (hmmm miasma).
Post by: Jeoshua on April 11, 2011, 09:07:20 am
On a different topic than the new awesome cities...
Are we going to have things made from water soluble materials like rock salt and saltpeter degrade and dissolve in the future? Perhaps at a minimum prevent these materials from being used for certain purposes such as making pots which will be exposed to liquids.
I would love to see this, along with non-magma safe stone (both natural and contructed stuff) to melt when in contact with magma. This last part could be especially interesting when paired with 3d ore veins of non-magma safe ore. Horizontal lava-tubes, anyone? 8)
Post by: TolyK on April 11, 2011, 10:01:41 am
hmm I'm thinking init options :D
Post by: Jeoshua on April 11, 2011, 10:04:52 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on April 11, 2011, 10:24:22 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 11, 2011, 10:31:47 am
iirc the problem was that magma traps and such would be MUCH harder to do (you need to line all your tunnels with magma-proof stuff, yadda yadda) but the water solubility would be nice.
hmm I'm thinking init options :D
I thought the problem was that it would require much more checks.
If a salt wall has to check if it is adjacent to a water-bearing tile, then every some-odd frames, the game will probably wind up checking all the walls in the fortress to see which walls are salt walls, and then having to check each salt wall for adjacency to water. Keeping in mind the hundreds of thousands of walls in a typical fortress embark site, you'll see why that sort of thing can be problematic. It's the reason temperature is such a problem, as well.
Something like a "not-liquids-compatible" token (or conversely, a "is-liquids-compatible") token in a stone raw is fairly easy - you only have to check them when you are making the materials.
Post by: Rose on April 11, 2011, 10:35:55 am
Post by: JohnieRWilkins on April 11, 2011, 10:49:12 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 11, 2011, 10:50:05 am
On a different topic than the new awesome cities...
Are we going to have things made from water soluble materials like rock salt and saltpeter degrade and dissolve in the future? Perhaps at a minimum prevent these materials from being used for certain purposes such as making pots which will be exposed to liquids.
I would love to see this, along with non-magma safe stone (both natural and contructed stuff) to melt when in contact with magma. This last part could be especially interesting when paired with 3d ore veins of non-magma safe ore. Horizontal lava-tubes, anyone? 8)
I would like to see that. The problem is iirc. that the temperature of the magma is uniform thus each tile has the same temperature. This would lead to entire layers melting. Without some way to model heat flow, which would also need thermal conductivity as material attribute, you wont get you horizontal tubes.
If such a model is found i would bet the first thing some players would do would be building a "freezing chamber".
As for water disolving salt, limestone etc: Yes please! But make it so that dissolved materials get dumped somewhere else in form of stalact/mites, crusts etc.
Back to towns.
I hope the bigger citys get more then one Marketplace, many of the bigger citys had smaller markets for the dayli stuff like food or firewood (medieval walmart?). I also would like to see multiple layered walls and trenches around the city.
Another stimulus for growth by the way were rights the city could obtain. Say the right to brew beer, minting coins or staple right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staple_right)s on certain goods thus the wealth of a certain city has not entirely to base on the surrounding land and resources.
Btw. as this map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Plan_von_der_Statd_Goerlitz_%28um_1750%29.jpg) shows the these lone buildings out in the fields did exist. If you compare that to the two maps i linked earlyer you can see how the city grows and that toadys estimate isnt that wrong. I think the problem with toadys map is that the divide between town and farmland is a bit to hard.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 11, 2011, 11:00:16 am
you only need to check the walls when the water is spreading, and mark the ones that need to eventually dissolve.
We already have the game flag wall tiles as wet, so couldnt we just have a tag that says if wall is 'damp', check surrounding tiles (8 around, and 1 above) for open, water-filled tiles. I personally would then make it a requirement to check if the water is flowing.
Two reasons for this;
1) Solutes dissolve slowly without mixing, because the water immediately next to the salt etc is very concentrated, meaning its difficult for excess salt to dissolve. Flowing water means its constantly adding fresh water, so the concentration of salt in water next to the solid is always low, and the solid salt will dissolve far faster.
2) Rock salt as a mineral is actually a lot more robust than you might think. It doesn't disolve like your nice fine table salt; it's generally been weathered already, and has reprecipitated into large, hard to dissolve crystals. I'm not saying its insoluble, just that it takes a fair bit more effort to get it to do so. As such, the mechanical action from flowing water (and the detritus it carries) helps in breaking up the crystals into a more soluble size.
Then, if everything is satisifed, damage the rock as with mining. Sufficient damage, and the wall goes poof.
Re the city discussion; going back to the obvious circular nature of the cities, couldn't we just delete the roads between the isolated houses? It's not perfect, but it does make the preplanned city shape a bit less obvious.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 11, 2011, 12:16:58 pm
Btw. as this map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Plan_von_der_Statd_Goerlitz_%28um_1750%29.jpg) shows the these lone buildings out in the fields did exist. If you compare that to the two maps i linked earlyer you can see how the city grows and that toadys estimate isnt that wrong. I think the problem with toadys map is that the divide between town and farmland is a bit to hard.
Actually, that shows what I was talking about fairly well - the problem isn't so much that there are houses out there, but the problem is the roads.
The roads in the Toady mockup are a grid, as if the city was already being planned out over in the fields.
The roads in the map just stretch past the small clusters of farmhouses and head directly to town. It looks more like a spiderweb, with roads radiating out fo a central point and a cluster of cross-hatched roads in the middle, and then there is just a couple ring roads out beyond that one.
Post by: Miuramir on April 11, 2011, 01:30:12 pm
The other point I would like to bring up is the kind of development seen in, for example, this (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/city_37.png) and this (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/city_51.png) screenshot. Look at how the city has grown in those - only one side of the river is being settled (so far), but that side has been built on to it's limit. It looks a bit funny, seeming how people would want to be as close to "fresh" water as possible and should spread out along the river before they start "broadening" it away from the water. It doesn't really look like "natural" growth when it builds mostly on one side first, as it seems to do, judging from the majority of the shots provided.
This is not actually that unusual; particularly where the river is winding, and the town is situated on the upper side of the river where a bend comes near to the edge of the primary floodplain. One side will be higher, drier ground and a bit better for buildings; the other side will be lower, more frequently flooded ground that is better for farming and grazing. London is the classic example here; the 1300 map of London and surrounding areas of Westminster and Southwark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London_1300_Historical_Atlas_William_R_Shepherd_%28died_1934%29.PNG) is instructive. By 1300 London had nearly 100,000 inhabitants, and Westminster upriver and Southwark across the river in the marshes were still considered separate towns.
Another consideration is that crossing a river is likely to be either dangerous or expensive; not something that ordinary folk will want to do every day. Having one or a few folk from the farm paying to ford, ferry, or bridge some of your products to the monthly or maybe even weekly market is probably a reasonable cost of doing business, but it's unlikely even that reduced traffic would be cost-effective daily; and having to "commute" any significant fraction of your stock or personnel would likely be right out in this time period. It would not be uncommon for people to walk several hours to market, but paying rare cash money for a toll (bridge, ferry, etc.) or risking loosing livestock (or yourself) while fording would be something that had to be carefully considered.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 11, 2011, 01:46:38 pm
This is not actually that unusual; particularly where the river is winding, and the town is situated on the upper side of the river where a bend comes near to the edge of the primary floodplain. One side will be higher, drier ground and a bit better for buildings; the other side will be lower, more frequently flooded ground that is better for farming and grazing. London is the classic example here; the 1300 map of London and surrounding areas of Westminster and Southwark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London_1300_Historical_Atlas_William_R_Shepherd_%28died_1934%29.PNG) is instructive. By 1300 London had nearly 100,000 inhabitants, and Westminster upriver and Southwark across the river in the marshes were still considered separate towns.
Another consideration is that crossing a river is likely to be either dangerous or expensive; not something that ordinary folk will want to do every day. Having one or a few folk from the farm paying to ford, ferry, or bridge some of your products to the monthly or maybe even weekly market is probably a reasonable cost of doing business, but it's unlikely even that reduced traffic would be cost-effective daily; and having to "commute" any significant fraction of your stock or personnel would likely be right out in this time period. It would not be uncommon for people to walk several hours to market, but paying rare cash money for a toll (bridge, ferry, etc.) or risking loosing livestock (or yourself) while fording would be something that had to be carefully considered.
The answer to this obviously being that you don't build a city "with a river cutting through it", but that you build a city "right next to the river".
It would also stop the notion that a city is always a circle if you build it as a sort-of-hemisphere sort-of-blob sticking to the edge of the river.
Post by: Jeoshua on April 11, 2011, 02:49:14 pm
The problem is iirc. that the temperature of the magma is uniform thus each tile has the same temperature. This would lead to entire layers melting.
Easy peasy. Don't have igneous layer stone that isn't magma safe, but ore could very well be. If there is a layer stone that isn't magma safe yet is spawned near magma, it shouldn't melt when you start the map. Rather, it should never generate in that position in the first place! Simple enough to cull during world-gen, I should think.
Post by: monk12 on April 11, 2011, 03:28:02 pm
The problem is iirc. that the temperature of the magma is uniform thus each tile has the same temperature. This would lead to entire layers melting.
Easy peasy. Don't have igneous layer stone that isn't magma safe, but ore could very well be. If there is a layer stone that isn't magma safe yet is spawned near magma, it shouldn't melt when you start the map. Rather, it should never generate in that position in the first place! Simple enough to cull during world-gen, I should think.
The problem arising when you pump the magma to the surface and pour it out onto the battlefield, where it begins melting its way back down to the mantle.
Post by: Sowelu on April 11, 2011, 05:07:00 pm
Once sites can expand over time, I'm sure cities will do better there.
That said, it's almost unimaginable to me that cities would not be generated during worldgen, but would instead be retroactively created later. That's asking for trouble, because it means a city you've visited as an adventurer will likely develop in a different way over time (once that's implemented) than one you have never visited.
Remember that it's ideal that people will create a world and then play LOTS AND LOTS in that one world, without needing to gen a new one.
Post by: wlerin on April 11, 2011, 06:30:40 pm
The problem is iirc. that the temperature of the magma is uniform thus each tile has the same temperature. This would lead to entire layers melting.
Easy peasy. Don't have igneous layer stone that isn't magma safe, but ore could very well be. If there is a layer stone that isn't magma safe yet is spawned near magma, it shouldn't melt when you start the map. Rather, it should never generate in that position in the first place! Simple enough to cull during world-gen, I should think.
The problem arising when you pump the magma to the surface and pour it out onto the battlefield, where it begins melting its way back down to the mantle.
Magma should not do this. Think about it. Real world magma is gradually losing heat to the surrounding rock as it approaches the surface. Yes, it melts some rock, but not much--It does far more pushing than actual melting. Unless you want your magma to gradual cool and harden into pumice and lava rock, don't ask for it to melt the walls (even if it did, it wouldn't happen instantly. Melting solid rock takes a much longer time than melting a tinfoil hat. less exposed surface area.)
Post by: nil on April 11, 2011, 06:59:08 pm
Actually, that shows what I was talking about fairly well - the problem isn't so much that there are houses out there, but the problem is the roads.Might the easiest was to solve this be to have some sort of mechanism that identifies whether or not roads would be used, and destroy them if they are not? Legit question, I'm no programmer.
The roads in the Toady mockup are a grid, as if the city was already being planned out over in the fields.
The roads in the map just stretch past the small clusters of farmhouses and head directly to town. It looks more like a spiderweb, with roads radiating out fo a central point and a cluster of cross-hatched roads in the middle, and then there is just a couple ring roads out beyond that one.
Post by: monk12 on April 11, 2011, 07:05:37 pm
The problem is iirc. that the temperature of the magma is uniform thus each tile has the same temperature. This would lead to entire layers melting.
Easy peasy. Don't have igneous layer stone that isn't magma safe, but ore could very well be. If there is a layer stone that isn't magma safe yet is spawned near magma, it shouldn't melt when you start the map. Rather, it should never generate in that position in the first place! Simple enough to cull during world-gen, I should think.
The problem arising when you pump the magma to the surface and pour it out onto the battlefield, where it begins melting its way back down to the mantle.
Magma should not do this. Think about it. Real world magma is gradually losing heat to the surrounding rock as it approaches the surface. Yes, it melts some rock, but not much--It does far more pushing than actual melting. Unless you want your magma to gradual cool and harden into pumice and lava rock, don't ask for it to melt the walls (even if it did, it wouldn't happen instantly. Melting solid rock takes a much longer time than melting a tinfoil hat. less exposed surface area.)
Exactly the point I was making- that its not something easy to just slap in because it requires extra resources to be realistic. To get an accurate, workable model for magma you need to model heat loss, which means modeling the heat of specific parts of magma, which is not something the current fluid simulation is terribly equipped to do, at least not efficiently.
Actually, that shows what I was talking about fairly well - the problem isn't so much that there are houses out there, but the problem is the roads.Might the easiest was to solve this be to have some sort of mechanism that identifies whether or not roads would be used, and destroy them if they are not? Legit question, I'm no programmer.
The roads in the Toady mockup are a grid, as if the city was already being planned out over in the fields.
The roads in the map just stretch past the small clusters of farmhouses and head directly to town. It looks more like a spiderweb, with roads radiating out fo a central point and a cluster of cross-hatched roads in the middle, and then there is just a couple ring roads out beyond that one.
That actually sounds fairly reasonable- set up the network of roads to provide many different paths, then simulate traffic from each homestead to the city gates- it has the added bonus of not only dropping unused roads, but expanding well traveled roads, and then there will be just the little dirt wagon ruts out by the farms to show where they drive every week to get to market. Presumably only the major highways built in worldgen will be paved- all of this helps with navigation as well, since the player knows the larger roads lead to population centers and the smaller roads to farms.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 11, 2011, 07:43:52 pm
I'm imagining that, at present, cities claim a certain region of land for "this is my site" early on. External fields are new sites, added as needed. Hence the preplanned look of that city; it has to be, because land is claimed in advance.
Once sites can expand over time, I'm sure cities will do better there.
That said, it's almost unimaginable to me that cities would not be generated during worldgen, but would instead be retroactively created later. That's asking for trouble, because it means a city you've visited as an adventurer will likely develop in a different way over time (once that's implemented) than one you have never visited.
Remember that it's ideal that people will create a world and then play LOTS AND LOTS in that one world, without needing to gen a new one.
Unfortunately, the game is simply not very well equipped for playing in the same world over and over again right now. In adventurer mode right now, pretty much the only activity is to kill everything in the world. Yeah, sure, you, as an adventurer will get more things, but the basic problem with the rest of the world is still the same.
Something I said in another thread:
As it stands right now, as I remember it, one of Toady's games as an adventurer involved him running away from an alligator to go visit the king of a castle, and get a quest, and when he came back from the quest, the king had been eaten by the alligator, so he recruited all the guards he could from the castle, and went looking for a new castle to get his quests from, because there would never be another king in that castle again. Once something dies, the function it fulfilled is gone forever. The game is built on a massive amount of entropic decay. Societies cannot function, they can only collapse.
...That is really dark.
I am so glad that that's not what the real world is like.
In the real world, behavior like that in DF's AI would never have led to civilization in the first place. It has its ups and downs, but real-life cultures have always generally striven to build and advance. DF cultures do not. They cannot advance, there is no "upward pressure" to innovate or build, and so the "downward pressures" of destruction are completely unopposed, leading to inevitable global extinction.
Killing every living thing (besides vermin) in the entire region is not something epic in this game, it's just hastening the inevitable, completely unopposed entropic decay of a DF world.
In trying to set up a small world for a game I'm playing in right now, I had to cut back the amount of years spent in history to 120 years, just so that dwarves would survive worldgen. They keep starving by year 27, but for a select few. Those starve at year 200.
When you haven't visited a town as an adventurer yet, everything is cellophane-wrapped and pristine, but it only is a matter of time after you visit before everything collapses, because the random alligator you walked past will eat the king the next time you come by, and nobody will crown a new king, nobody will build anything or replace anything that gets broken, but everything can break.
That, in a nutshell, is the overarching problem with the simulated fantasy world right now - nothing can be built, but everything can be destroyed.
Unopposed entropic decay.
Post by: Sowelu on April 11, 2011, 07:56:11 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 11, 2011, 08:30:10 pm
Still. Just because that happens now, doesn't mean it will happen in the future. Why write a fancy-pants retroactive town simulator when that entropic decay won't be an issue in the future?
Actually, I kind of split the response to your previous post in two, making the last post a complete post unto itself in order to help underline the problem by not letting it get mixed up with the alternatives.
I'm imagining that, at present, cities claim a certain region of land for "this is my site" early on. External fields are new sites, added as needed. Hence the preplanned look of that city; it has to be, because land is claimed in advance.
Once sites can expand over time, I'm sure cities will do better there.
That said, it's almost unimaginable to me that cities would not be generated during worldgen, but would instead be retroactively created later. That's asking for trouble, because it means a city you've visited as an adventurer will likely develop in a different way over time (once that's implemented) than one you have never visited.
Remember that it's ideal that people will create a world and then play LOTS AND LOTS in that one world, without needing to gen a new one.
The reason why this is, however, is that it MASSIVELY cuts down on save bloat. The save file of a world doubles in size on your hard drive the instant that you actually embark or visit a large site. Just an empty 3x3 embark takes up several megs of space.
When you play a game like, say, Oblivion (an example on my mind because of all this talk about Daggerfall) then you have all the unnamed characters and random caves simply reset every three days if you haven't actually looked at them. (Meaning that a cave full of bandits respawns, and all its treasures can be looted again, and all its bandits can be killed again, but anything you left there has now disappeared.) On the other hand, named characters are dead forever if they happen to be killed by a crab somewhere offscreen without you knowing about it, and any quest related to them can never be completed because of their death.
To an extent, something like that has to be used just to prevent the fact that the player can mess with so many chests, random NPCs, and simply kick over so many chairs or push books off of counters whose positions need to be recorded individually that the save files would become even more horrifically bloated than they already are without them. (Plus, the gameworld is small enough that you would eventually depopulate a pretty wide swath of the world.)
There have to be two ways of doing things -
- Players who don't visit a city for long enough might simply have that city removed from the saves altogether, and go back to being a sort of Schroedinger's Box after a set amount of time, like how Oblivion does it, but where the town can be built up or stripped down from its "pristine" condition if time passes. This assumes some sort of period of time that passes will basically make whatever changes the player performed on the town glossed over by whoever visited the town afterwards. If half the population was killed by the adventurer, then the rest of the survivors would just be assumed to have deconstructed old buildings for materials, and rebuilt the town in a huddled-together mass.
- Players who stay in one city for long enough are basically going to actually SEE changes to the city taking place. If an adventurer sticks around a city for ten game years, then odds are, the player's going to have to witness some births to go along with all those deaths. The player's going to need to see the dead king's heir take the throne. The player's going to watch the new wall slowly be built up day after day.
This wouldn't be a problem in the case that the player actually spends the overwhelming majority of their time in one specific city (in which case, only that one city only has to be closely tracked), but the game has to be smart enough to recognize when it is one case and not the other.
The other thing is that towns being put back in Schroedinger's Box need to at least look superficially similar to what it looked the last time. Some sort of seed or guidelines for construction does still need to be retained for when the city is rebuilt.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 11, 2011, 09:30:42 pm
I guess, you could give every "building" sub-seeds (for layout, inhabitants etc.) to break the town down into handleable chunks. Messing up one building wouldnt interfere with the entire town and killing half the population would just mean that you set a "not used" flag for the corresponding buildings.
Sure you would get an overhead but it beats saving everything. Any changes the player made gets saved in one or multiple "lists".
Also you could set up a (literal) clean-up routines by the population that lives in the place so that minor changes get gradualy removed. That and stuff geting destroyed by erosion and decomposing respective the building repopulated by new people etc. (depending on what happend) thus reseting a building to some predefined state (out of who knows many). After that you could remove stuff from said lists that became irrelevant.
Minor stuff like a book left on the table, or footprints left on the floor should expire within a day or two if the building is used. Food left out should be gone within a Month or two.
A town is fuzzy for lack of words. To any time its just a seed with a list of events attached that determine the growth and changes. If it appears "on screen" you go from planting the intial stuff over all the tiny historical things like wars. Presto your town in the pre-adventurer state. Then you consult the formaly mentioned list to apply the player made changes and that are still around. Its like an incremental backup, i would say.
Post by: G-Flex on April 11, 2011, 09:43:10 pm
To an extent, something like that has to be used just to prevent the fact that the player can mess with so many chests, random NPCs, and simply kick over so many chairs or push books off of counters whose positions need to be recorded individually that the save files would become even more horrifically bloated than they already are without them. (Plus, the gameworld is small enough that you would eventually depopulate a pretty wide swath of the world.)
Then what about, say, Morrowind? You could store anything pretty much anywhere and it would stay put.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 11, 2011, 11:11:15 pm
To an extent, something like that has to be used just to prevent the fact that the player can mess with so many chests, random NPCs, and simply kick over so many chairs or push books off of counters whose positions need to be recorded individually that the save files would become even more horrifically bloated than they already are without them. (Plus, the gameworld is small enough that you would eventually depopulate a pretty wide swath of the world.)
Then what about, say, Morrowind? You could store anything pretty much anywhere and it would stay put.
Morrowind was also problematic - there was a major bug that meant the game would be unplayable after certain periods of time because certain characters would gradually "shift" in their positions over time, eventually moving through walls in interior cells where they would become inaccessible. See: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Glitches#Moving_NPCs
Also, there are problems with that game's saves - go too long without saving and reloading, and the game crashes because of a memory overflow. Also, if you save too many times, the game starts having load errors. See: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Tes3Mod:Engine_Bugs#Savegame-related_bugs
Beyond that, Oblivion simply was a game with more things to save, IIRC. It used the game engine that let it throw random bits and pieces of objects like carrots and books and cups all over the floor. Tracking the facing and location of each individual radish and fork on random farmer's dining room table adds up to a lot of data in a larger gameworld than Morrowind was tracking.
Plus, I think it was a bit of a design decision to let you hunt vampires in the same cave again and again if you just kept playing the game - you get to keep playing even after you have finished the main quest and every side-quest. At that point, modding and adventuring back into the same bunch of vampire caves are pretty much all the game you have left. If all you want is a fight and a crack at some loot, you can do those until the end of time if you just go in a circuit of dungeons every three days.
Plus, it's kind of required for the whole rubberbanding the level of the enemies and loot thing they were doing in Oblivion, although that has no real bearing on DF, obviously.
Post by: G-Flex on April 12, 2011, 12:00:49 am
Morrowind was also problematic - there was a major bug that meant the game would be unplayable after certain periods of time because certain characters would gradually "shift" in their positions over time, eventually moving through walls in interior cells where they would become inaccessible. See: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Glitches#Moving_NPCs
Haha, I remember this. Not sure why that's a necessary aspect of the system, though... sounds like just a weirdass solvable bug to me.
Quote
Also, there are problems with that game's saves - go too long without saving and reloading, and the game crashes because of a memory overflow. Also, if you save too many times, the game starts having load errors. See: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Tes3Mod:Engine_Bugs#Savegame-related_bugs
Also sounds solvable; it's a buffer overflow problem.
Quote
Beyond that, Oblivion simply was a game with more things to save, IIRC. It used the game engine that let it throw random bits and pieces of objects like carrots and books and cups all over the floor. Tracking the facing and location of each individual radish and fork on random farmer's dining room table adds up to a lot of data in a larger gameworld than Morrowind was tracking.
You could move just as much stuff in Morrowind, with facing and orientation and stuff... of course, there was probably still a lot less granularity, since everything was still plastered to surfaces.
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 12, 2011, 05:01:21 am
Btw. as this map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Plan_von_der_Statd_Goerlitz_%28um_1750%29.jpg) shows the these lone buildings out in the fields did exist. If you compare that to the two maps i linked earlyer you can see how the city grows and that toadys estimate isnt that wrong. I think the problem with toadys map is that the divide between town and farmland is a bit to hard.
Actually, the map you have posted is from 1750, which is way too modern. I doubt those outlying farms were present in the middle ages. What you see are most probably "country manors" of rich burghers (most probably traders, guildmasters, lower nobility etc.) who grew tired of the filth of the city and moved outside. They could afford carriages to go back to the town on a daily basis, and generally were nothing like medieval peasants (notice the fancy gardens). You can even see that all the roads are in fact avenues with trees which means they're made for rich people. Before the modern ages this "middle class" didn't really exist and these avenues and country houses couldn't exist. In fact the emergence of the middle class is what started the modern era and made it so different (and turbulent).
Here (http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/71/Goerlitz_1575.jpg)'s Görlitz in 1575. I couldn't find an older map. You can't see much of the countryside though. But I'd say there would be normal villages around, not suburbia.
By the way, ancient Romans did have suburbs of sorts - but again it was rich people building their villas out in the coutryside. The point here is that if you generate suburbs like these, it should be manors of rich people, not cottages of poor peasants. Peasants live in villages.
EDIT: By 1650 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Görlitz_1650_Merian.jpg), the suburbs had only just started appearing.
Post by: LoSboccacc on April 12, 2011, 06:42:02 am
edit:
the same suburban area on the north of the latest map is to be found on the left of the previous drawing (it's quite hard to differentiate between trees and roofs)
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 12, 2011, 06:46:35 am
The "map" of 1575 actually is more like a elaborated postcard i would say and is "shot" from the (now) polish side of the river, didnt change much btw. thought we have a new bridge and the cityside gate doesnt exists anymore.
You make a point with the manors but these places didnt exist in a vacuum and they did exist since before the 1400s in the case of nearby Königshain for example (1298 created as Hunting lodge for the Kings wife). We had a healthy population of lower nobles around here too in fact many of the surrounding villages were originally Knight-manors.
That alleys and gardens you see are a symptom of the barock and i would say many of the manors etc. existed before. I give you thought that the density might have increased to a point that wasnt possible in the 1400s.
edit: and before you say something the bastion in the west of the city (that rondel that sticks out from the citywall) was etablisched 1427 and got modernised over the time ;) (as did the Gate-tower) so even if it looks barockish its foundations are "old". Just saying.
edit2: The oldest "map"/view of the town i have found online so far is from 1565 ... well maybe i should walk over into the museum for older stuff.
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 12, 2011, 08:04:24 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 12, 2011, 08:22:51 am
Also for the sizecomparsion: Between the 1415 and the late 1700s the city maintained between 5000 (around the 1500s due to the plague and various other stuff) to 8000 people. If you guys can set that in rlation to toadys maps we could estimate how big the populations should be to be realistic.
:P i think we have gone a bit astray from the original discussion.
Post by: de5me7 on April 12, 2011, 09:54:58 am
The entropy situation has always been a major issue for me in certainly adventure mode (atm due to limited interaction its less noticable in fortmode). It really kills the persistent world aspect if it cannot maintain its self.
Ive always assumed that the game would just (or does) just save the significant information. Certainly for sites you havent visited it does. For sites you do visit i dont see it as a problem, if youve dropped something and next time you go to site X it isnt there (unless its a very signficiant item such as an artifact, or if its in a container that is somehow tagged as significant). In a city aslong as the important characters are tracked at a detailed level i dont think tracking the pesants matters much unless they become part of the story and there by important. If i visited a city twice, and found different named people living in different houses it wouldnt bother me. But i would expect main characters to be in their correct place. As for destruction of property and rebuilding of property i guess you could modulalise it or something. So when a city map is genned, the game could gen several alternate states for said city. It could gen 4 size expansion maps, and 4 ruined versions of the city (far more than this could be genned, this is simply an example). WHen a city goes past a threshold in population or wealth the next phase could simply be loaded from these original gens. This would be very un organic but it would be simple and presumably take less space than a truely organic system, where the state of every building/item is tracked. You could add detail to such a system by giving certain structures within the city several versions which they could move between depending on whether they had been upgraded, or sacked etc.
Can new cities be created after world gen in the current version? Perhaps the game could do a simulation update at the end of every X number of years and add new settlements if some prequisits were fulfilled. Presumably updating the simulation is what is needed for kings to be replaced etc, and entropy to be defeated.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 12, 2011, 11:06:53 am
As for destruction of property and rebuilding of property i guess you could modulalise it or something. So when a city map is genned, the game could gen several alternate states for said city. It could gen 4 size expansion maps, and 4 ruined versions of the city (far more than this could be genned, this is simply an example). WHen a city goes past a threshold in population or wealth the next phase could simply be loaded from these original gens. This would be very un organic but it would be simple and presumably take less space than a truely organic system, where the state of every building/item is tracked. You could add detail to such a system by giving certain structures within the city several versions which they could move between depending on whether they had been upgraded, or sacked etc.
You wouldn't have to have whole chunks of cities fall into disrepair. If you have a crowded urban block grow up because the population was large enough for it, but then the population fell again because of a siege or a famine or something, then you could simply make all the "extra" buildings burned out or fallen into disrepair.
Just determine which houses are still populated when the player starts looking into Schroedinger's Box.
It wouldn't be that weird to have two still-populated houses with one or more abandoned, condemned, or burned-down-but-not-rebuilt houses between them if nobody was there to care for them.
Can new cities be created after world gen in the current version? Perhaps the game could do a simulation update at the end of every X number of years and add new settlements if some prequisits were fulfilled. Presumably updating the simulation is what is needed for kings to be replaced etc, and entropy to be defeated.
Supposedly, we're eventually going to have the ability to for an adventurer to become a minor noble, and get lands of his/her own. Hopefully, that would involve some sort of ability to claim some unclaimed land, offer lots of money to some peasants to help you build it up, and then build a new town from scratch, yourself.
As a general concept, though, Toady seems to be building towards "the game runs like in Worldgen even once worldgen stops", which would mean all those things that happen in worldgen like expansion should still happen... although right now, most civs stop growing after a couple hundred years, and just keep pillaging the same empty cities over and over.
Post by: Neonivek on April 12, 2011, 05:18:04 pm
Post by: Untelligent on April 12, 2011, 07:08:48 pm
EDIT: I just realized the last screenshot from the second set looks a lot like what I was thinking of in the first line up there. So yeah, we'll be seeing those still.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 12, 2011, 09:52:13 pm
From the way he worded his devlog posts, I think we'll still see cities that are more like the ones in the first set of screenshots than the second set.
EDIT: I just realized the last screenshot from the second set looks a lot like what I was thinking of in the first line up there. So yeah, we'll be seeing those still.
I don't know, I see an awful lot of towns in the current worldgen with only 20-30 individuals alive in it, clustered around a small handful of towns with 100-200 individuals, and the most powerful and overpopulated (elven) empires have a single town with 900 individuals in it, surrounded by a bunch of 30-individual towns.
Of course, the formulas are always subject to change, but that's what I see right now.
Post by: Jeoshua on April 12, 2011, 10:41:33 pm
Post by: cephalo on April 13, 2011, 09:51:39 am
Have you thought about whether dwarves should have an advantage to accessing resources that are deep underground? Do you think this should this be a purely cultural affinity for digging, or should there be some physiological reason why men and elves can't dig down and mine the spoilerite?
Spoilerite does become boring after a while. I want blue diamonds dammit! and no matter how much I cheat with material scarcity set to 100 and dfprospector and dfreveal, I can't find any. :( I want to believe that the reason for risking an encounter with the dark ones down below, is because of the a large amount of highly varied mineral wonders.
Post by: Caldfir on April 13, 2011, 11:49:38 am
Spoilerite does become boring after a while. I want blue diamonds dammit! and no matter how much I cheat with material scarcity set to 100 and dfprospector and dfreveal, I can't find any. :( I want to believe that the reason for risking an encounter with the dark ones down below, is because of the a large amount of highly varied mineral wonders.
You could always try adding blue diamonds to the cotton candy deposits in the raws. Or switch gems to occur in veins.
On the other hand, I've had a few embarks practically overflowing with gems, but completely devoid of metals, so maybe you just need to be lucky?
Post by: Quatch on April 13, 2011, 01:16:20 pm
Morrowind was also problematic - there was a major bug that meant the game would be unplayable after certain periods of time because certain characters would gradually "shift" in their positions over time, eventually moving through walls in interior cells where they would become inaccessible. See: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Glitches#Moving_NPCs
Haha, I remember this. Not sure why that's a necessary aspect of the system, though... sounds like just a weirdass solvable bug to me.
Sounds like the whole GIS positional accuracy problem. When you store a location as a real number it has a certain amount of precision. If your location in reality, does not happen to lie exactly on a spot of this position (imagine a grid of very high resolution, that is your precision, even in a vector storage system), you get rounded to the nearest spot. If you are repeatedly compared/intersected/otherwise interacted with other objects undergoing the same rounding you might get a systematic error (drift).
see, for more details: http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/error/error_f.html (http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/error/error_f.html), section 4.3. and http://www.geog.ubc.ca/courses/klink/gis.notes/new.ncgia/u26.htm#SEC26.3.4 (http://www.geog.ubc.ca/courses/klink/gis.notes/new.ncgia/u26.htm#SEC26.3.4)
I guess this would be an advantage to toady's grid.
Post by: G-Flex on April 13, 2011, 05:59:32 pm
Morrowind was also problematic - there was a major bug that meant the game would be unplayable after certain periods of time because certain characters would gradually "shift" in their positions over time, eventually moving through walls in interior cells where they would become inaccessible. See: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Glitches#Moving_NPCs
Haha, I remember this. Not sure why that's a necessary aspect of the system, though... sounds like just a weirdass solvable bug to me.
Sounds like the whole GIS positional accuracy problem. When you store a location as a real number it has a certain amount of precision. If your location in reality, does not happen to lie exactly on a spot of this position (imagine a grid of very high resolution, that is your precision, even in a vector storage system), you get rounded to the nearest spot. If you are repeatedly compared/intersected/otherwise interacted with other objects undergoing the same rounding you might get a systematic error (drift).
True. However, this even applies to NPCs who shouldn't necessarily be moving at all. I mean, you have silt strider operators falling off their platforms offscreen for no reason, even though nothing even touches them.
Post by: Jeoshua on April 13, 2011, 07:48:15 pm
They also walked around alot.
Neither one of these should be problems in DF due to it's grid system and lack of static animations. Even if they do wander, it won't be due north.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 13, 2011, 09:26:22 pm
Ok instead of objects being displaced its the souls that keep surfing around thus half the guards end up being theyr own swords. In addition to that certain citys are constantly on fire because somehow the robs of priest got set on fire near the magma-pool of the local temple.
Hehe its time we get another
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on April 13, 2011, 09:29:32 pm
-Rivers will cause walls to go crazy
-Streets will go through fields
-Streets will go through walls (without gates, just the street cutting a hole in the wall)
-Shops are all owned by random peasants on the other side of town
Post by: monk12 on April 13, 2011, 10:13:08 pm
-Cities will overlap the surroundings too much when they grow, meaning random farmers will have little hovels inside of the castle
Post by: Quatch on April 13, 2011, 10:19:46 pm
Neither one of these should be problems in DF due to it's grid system and lack of static animations. Even if they do wander, it won't be due north.
For the moment, once we get multi-tile things moving, there will be reprojection and the possibility of this.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 13, 2011, 10:47:25 pm
Hehe well lets make some bug-predictions then for the citys. ^^ its a tradition in here before the feature releases anyway.
- Every citizen will try to live in the same house. All other houses are empty.
- Wild animals will be spawned inside of homes.
- Tame animals such as yaks, dogs, and mysteriously enough, a lungfish will own houses and be treated as full civ members.
- A building type that was supported in the previous history of a town (such as a shop) before a mass die-off will be built in the middle of farmland because it was never subsequently removed.
- Houses will not respect the topography of the land they are built upon - they will be built several z-levels above the roads they supposedly connect to if they are built upon a slope.
- Failing that, and houses are forced to be on the same z-level as a road, houses built over the other end of the slope will hover in mid-air to be able to connect to the road.
- Cities will be built partially over tundra or glaciers that are Freezing, and citizens will die of the cold if they are spawned in those portions of the city that are in those biomes.
- The streams in the middle of the city will have hippos and alligators that are constantly aggravated into attacking citizens who come by for water, leading to a single legendary hippo killing half the populace some time you weren't looking, including the guys you were doing quests for.
- You are considered "trespassing" and hence, the entire population will hunt you down to kill you, if you accidentally enter any building that is not a shop. There will be no outward sign which buildings are shops or not.
- Empty houses still have limitless food barrels, and you can take the property of potentially thousands of unclaimed homes (technically not stealing), and sell them for functionally infinite money.
... I'm having trouble coming up with more, but I think these should be fairly representative.
Post by: Kogut on April 14, 2011, 01:00:15 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 14, 2011, 01:25:26 am
Post by: Untelligent on April 14, 2011, 02:28:30 am
-Some denizens are simultaneously bandit group members and citizens of whereverville, when you go to the town they attack you and start a loyalty cascade
-House In River
Post by: de5me7 on April 14, 2011, 08:18:33 am
All the cities will die out after 200 years of world gen
carp will depopulate a city
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 14, 2011, 09:07:57 am
carp will depopulate a city
Carp will found a city.
Post by: Areyar on April 14, 2011, 10:24:12 am
Post by: PTTG?? on April 14, 2011, 10:31:54 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 14, 2011, 10:47:51 am
Z and X will be occasionally swapped, causing horizontal cities complete with NPCs plunging hundreds of feet down roads before splattering against shack walls.
And peasants being teleported into the walls.
Post by: jellsprout on April 14, 2011, 12:09:50 pm
Post by: EmperorNuthulu on April 14, 2011, 12:20:36 pm
Post by: caknuck on April 14, 2011, 12:29:58 pm
-Volcano cities (imagine the insurance premiums!)
Post by: Neonivek on April 14, 2011, 03:16:35 pm
Megabeast lairs will be in the cities.
I have no problem with megabeast lairs being in cities.
Heck even in fantasy it isn't that uncommon for there to be sprawling monster filled catacombes inside cities. Heck Britania has a HUGE sprawling super dungeon sewer.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 14, 2011, 03:55:42 pm
edit: And dont forget Ankou on every graveyard.
edit2: gah its late - cant write straight.
Post by: Untelligent on April 14, 2011, 05:05:40 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 14, 2011, 05:13:11 pm
Well we are here on something i think. Many citys has its own creatures - good and evil. New York has its crocodiles (and daleks), Prague has skeletons walking certain streets not to mention the Golem, my hometown has (among others) a demonic Monk, a headless Gravedigger, and a restless smith. It doesnt has to be megabeasts but some trolls and asorted creatures and beings might be neat. It would be neat thought if some were still made up hehe.
edit: And dont forget Ankou on every graveyard.
A titan that has a religious following living in a city, or better yet, a temple built to that titan? Good idea for some city flavor.
People building their city on top of a titan's front doorstep, so that the instant a player starts a game in a random city, he's in the middle of a titan's rampage? Obvious bug.
Post by: EmeraldWind on April 14, 2011, 05:39:22 pm
Well we are here on something i think. Many citys has its own creatures - good and evil. New York has its crocodiles (and daleks), Prague has skeletons walking certain streets not to mention the Golem, my hometown has (among others) a demonic Monk, a headless Gravedigger, and a restless smith. It doesnt has to be megabeasts but some trolls and asorted creatures and beings might be neat. It would be neat thought if some were still made up hehe.
edit: And dont forget Ankou on every graveyard.
A titan that has a religious following living in a city, or better yet, a temple built to that titan? Good idea for some city flavor.
People building their city on top of a titan's front doorstep, so that the instant a player starts a game in a random city, he's in the middle of a titan's rampage? Obvious bug.
Actually, I read a story that was kind of like that, though. The story starts with the town under attack by a monster that had been living under the town for centuries. So it could definitely make an interesting start to an adventure.
Post by: Untelligent on April 14, 2011, 08:42:25 pm
Post by: Rose on April 14, 2011, 09:17:18 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 14, 2011, 09:37:12 pm
edit: Japa each new avatar of yours is creeper then the last.
Post by: Greiger on April 14, 2011, 09:41:17 pm
I miss losing 3 or 4 dwarves a year to the cave river flooding.
P.S. It doesn't sound out of time to me, didn't the Romans have storm drains after all?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 14, 2011, 09:55:11 pm
Quote
First, the Romans did not invent sewers. Many ancient civilizations, including the Babylonians had them. There have even been some evidence of small sewer systems in Scotland dating back to 3000 BC.
The Roman system was not always underground. The first sewers were simply open trenches that led to the Tiber River. It was not until around 300 BC that the first underground sewers were built. The main purpose at that time was to carry away runoff rain water from storms. Romans still through their waste into the streets. However, regular street cleanings washed the waste down into the sewers and kept things relatively clean.
After the Empire collapsed, the sewers, which were basically just rock enclosed river beds, continued to be used for centuries. It was not until the 1840's that they began to get updated in any serious way. However, most of the ancient system remained in continuous use.
Many of the larger medieval cities of Europe had some sort of sewage system. Even though they did not understand the health issues, the smell of human sewage was enough to encourage such systems wherever large numbers of people lived together. Paris, for example, had a sewage system by the 1200's and built its first underground system in the 1370's.
Post by: monk12 on April 14, 2011, 11:06:13 pm
That said, re-purposed catacombs would be cool, and hopefully DF will one day model those, and it would be sweet if you could crawl through the filth and grime to sneak in/out of places even if it is nowhere you'd want to fight.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 15, 2011, 12:16:49 am
Post by: Ethicalfive on April 15, 2011, 04:34:29 am
Post by: Chthonic on April 15, 2011, 06:51:49 am
Post by: de5me7 on April 15, 2011, 07:02:43 am
I do hope we get seasonal flooding in DF at some point
Post by: Shadowfury333 on April 15, 2011, 12:02:40 pm
storm sewers would make it harder for a player to close up the city wall and flood a city, but i suppose we could just wall up the outflow.
We have magma, that will probably do it.
Post by: Knight Otu on April 15, 2011, 12:25:47 pm
-House In RiverDoes it count as a prediction if it already happens?
Spoiler: Getting many customers? (click to show/hide)
Yes, I didn't report this on the bug tracker, since I figured that the current rewrites would likely obsolete the report. This is actually one "arm" of a river spring that this house was built in.
Z and X will be occasionally swapped, causing horizontal cities
Castlevania 2? Will we need to get silk bags from the graveyard duck?
Post by: Neonivek on April 15, 2011, 01:53:07 pm
Post by: Kogut on April 15, 2011, 03:10:16 pm
Fortunately storm sewers.
Post by: Sowelu on April 15, 2011, 04:08:10 pm
Post by: Miuramir on April 15, 2011, 04:12:52 pm
Well, a little google-fu reveals this: http://en.allexperts.com/q/General-History-674/Sewers.htmQuoteFirst, the Romans did not invent sewers. Many ancient civilizations, including the Babylonians had them. There have even been some evidence of small sewer systems in Scotland dating back to 3000 BC. ...
An interesting example in this discussion is Mohenjo-daro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohenjo-daro), which was originally built in 2600 BC and abandoned around 1500 BC. It was destroyed and rebuilt about seven times over those 1,100 years; it is believed mostly due to major flooding. (In general terms, the city's structures and even foundation weren't reliably proof against 100-year floods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-year_flood).) Some selected quotes to spark thought:
Quote
Mohenjo-daro is located in Sindh, Pakistan on a Pleistocene ridge in the middle of the flood plain of the Indus River Valley. The ridge is now buried by the flooding of the plains, but was prominent during the time of the Indus Valley Civilization. The ridge allowed the city to stand above the surrounding plain. The site occupies a central position between the Indus River valley on the west and the Ghaggar-Hakra river on the east. The Indus still flows to the east of the site, but the Ghaggar-Hakra riverbed is now dry.So one of the most successful large early cities planetwide was at the intersection of a huge river trade network (the Indus valley), and another river system, situated on a geographically prominent ridge. The more I research, the more I'm convinced that the basic recipe for a successful early major city is to place it on (comparatively) high ground along a major river, around or near some other significant trade feature... another river, the ocean, an overland caravan route, etc.
...
Anthropogenic construction over the years was precipitated by the need for more room. The ridge was expanded via giant mud brick platforms. Ultimately, the settlement grew to such proportions that some buildings reached 12 meters above the level of the modern plain, and therefore much higher than this above the ancient plain.
Quote
Mohenjo-daro has a planned layout based on a street-grid of rectilinear buildings. Most are of fired and mortared brick; some incorporate sun dried mud-brick and wooden superstructures. The sheer size of the city, and its provision of public buildings and facilities, suggests high levels of social organisation. At its peak of development, Mohenjo-Daro could have housed around 35,000 residents.
The city had a central marketplace, with a large central well. Individual households or groups of households obtained their water from smaller wells. Waste water was channeled to covered drains that lined the major streets. Some houses, presumably those of wealthier inhabitants, include rooms that appear to have been set aside for bathing, and one building had an underground furnace (hypocaust), possibly for heated bathing. Most house have inner courtyards, with doors that opened onto side-lanes. Some buildings were two-storeyed.
...
Close to the "Great Granary" is a large and elaborate public bath, sometimes called the Great Bath. From a colonnaded courtyard, steps lead down to the brick-built pool, which was waterproofed by a lining of bitumen. The pool is large – 12m long, 7m wide and 2.4m deep. It may have been used for religious purification.
...
Mohenjo-daro had no circuit of city walls but was otherwise well fortified, with towers to the west of the main settlement, and defensive fortifications to the south.
...
The city is divided into two parts, the so-called Citadel and the Lower City. Most of the Lower City is yet to be uncovered, but the Citadel is known to have the public bath, a large residential structure designed to house 5,000 citizens and two large assembly halls.
In general, Mohenjo-daro had water and sanitation infrastructure that most folks would not have expected until the sanitation of the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitation_in_ancient_Rome); by comparison, Rome had the first simple open sewers between 800 BC and 735 BC, more major work around 600 BC, the main Cloaca Maxima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaca_Maxima) not enclosed until 33 BC, and the system generally in full form by around 100 AD. A possibly relevant quote for those looking for early "adventurer-compatible sewers", from Strabo's Geographica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographica) (info dates from the ~20 BC to ~23 AD range):
Quote
The sewers, covered with a vault of tightly fitted stones, have room in some places for hay wagons to drive through them.The main failing in the overuse of the Absurdly Spacious Sewer (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AbsurdlySpaciousSewer) trope isn't that they didn't exist (see the extensive Real Life section on that page for some more examples), it's that they were historically a rare feature of the world's major cities only. Too many video games put a Paris-scale catacombs + sewer under some tiny starting town.
Post by: Sowelu on April 15, 2011, 04:32:17 pm
The main failing in the overuse of the Absurdly Spacious Sewer (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AbsurdlySpaciousSewer) trope isn't that they didn't exist (see the extensive Real Life section on that page for some more examples), it's that they were historically a rare feature of the world's major cities only. Too many video games put a Paris-scale catacombs + sewer under some tiny starting town.
Eh, it can work in fantasy games that have a LOOOONG history behind them, where even a dinky town might have been built on ancient ruins (hey! free plumbing!).
Post by: CaptainArchmage on April 15, 2011, 07:12:10 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 15, 2011, 07:20:36 pm
The main failing in the overuse of the Absurdly Spacious Sewer (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AbsurdlySpaciousSewer) trope isn't that they didn't exist (see the extensive Real Life section on that page for some more examples), it's that they were historically a rare feature of the world's major cities only. Too many video games put a Paris-scale catacombs + sewer under some tiny starting town.
Eh, it can work in fantasy games that have a LOOOONG history behind them, where even a dinky town might have been built on ancient ruins (hey! free plumbing!).
Well, one of the OTHER cliches of RPGs, especially JRPGs, (such as, for example, everything ever made by Squaresoft, Enix, or Squarenix) is that your peaceful agrarian society that is trapped in the Dark Ages was built upon the ruins of a much more advanced civilization with laser-shooting robots, and the villain is using technology to destroy the world. Because remember kids, technology is evil! (Except when it's a prototype that only you can use, and refuse to allow to be understood or replicated.) Now smash that loom like a good Luddite!
Post by: Lord Shonus on April 15, 2011, 07:30:57 pm
Post by: SalmonGod on April 15, 2011, 08:15:12 pm
Secret of Evermore, maybe?... I don't remember that one so clearly, but I think it was in there.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 15, 2011, 08:34:09 pm
Yeah, I'm actually really confused by that, as I can think of no Square-specific examples. I've played FF 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Tactics, and Mystic Quest... I've got nothing.
Secret of Evermore, maybe?... I don't remember that one so clearly, but I think it was in there.
What are you talking about?
Final Fantasies 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 all have this. All the "good" towns are farming villages, and all the "evil empires" are built upon machinery, typically reverse-engineered from some sort of Ancients from a fallen civilization. 8 only doesn't have it because they're still modern, and 13 has their ancient precursors still alive and villainous. They even directly declare the ancients were destroyed because of abuse of either technology or magitek by either overusing or trying to flood their world with more of their technology's energy source or magic.
All the Seiken Densetsu series games are based upon it - they even open Secret of Mana talking about how the ancient evil empire fell because of their abuse of magitek.
Final Fantasy Tactics and both Final Fantasy Tactics Advances have ancient mechanic cities and special characters based around being engineers who work on ancient machines dug up from the past. It's not even an important plot point in those cases, they just do it because they're so used to having ancient civilizations that fell because of their technology that they don't even have to explain it.
Post by: SalmonGod on April 15, 2011, 09:23:05 pm
It's not that bad a trope, anyway. Technology often increases need for resources, which fuels expansionism and violence. If such abuse is taken to its logical conclusion, this can lead to fallen civilizations, which makes for interesting game settings where there's history and cool stuff to uncover and experiment with.
Post by: Sowelu on April 16, 2011, 12:53:59 am
Post by: Neonivek on April 16, 2011, 01:02:56 am
You need to be well off to have enough free time to be evil. (also small farming villages can MORE then be evil... even outside of the horror genre)
As for "needs to be falling appart" that all depends really. I realise that right now Megabeasts and Semi-megabeasts pretty much stink SO MUCH that the only reason they are surviving world generation is because the game alters things in their favor. If the monsters could reasonable survive a cities' defense force, unlike now, then by all means "Please stop that beast". Especially since a megabeast could simply go where armies cannot.
-Afterall the original Hydra was pretty much suicide to fight against and Dragons lived in deep caves on tall mountains.
As well you also have to remember resources. Bandits often succeeded not because an army couldn't stop or even find them but because they were so low on the importance of a great empire that there was little in terms of resources that they would spend fighting them. Some fiction includes dungeons brimming with evil that are relatively harmless, killing a few people a year, but even whole brigades have been unable to quell essentially making them complacent.
Then there is of course stealth, organisational ties, comming back to life, having armies of their own.
There are ways to do it.
Post by: kaypy on April 16, 2011, 01:57:12 am
... I'm still confused. Some of those games you list are straight high fantasy, like 1(http://img.ie/ac206.gif)
Post by: Neonivek on April 16, 2011, 02:12:42 am
Norse Mythology and Greek Mythology had mechanical animals of incredible power.
This is of course ignoring the robot people created in mythology as well.
THOUGH to admit depictions of these mechanical beasts were usually very lifelike. So it is likely that they were just crafted to life rather then machines as we know them.
I'd say Jewish mythology... but I think Golems were less "myth" and more "Fable" (That and they were brought to life with good old sorcery)
Post by: Kogut on April 16, 2011, 03:44:52 am
Quote from: UristocratIt sounds like there are some geology changes anticipated in Release 2. Is there anything that players could research that would be helpful?
Hard to say... I'm going to try to add some new overall structures to it, and if people have favorites it might speed things up a bit.
Geologic Structures and the 3d Ore Veins (The Original Classic Rock) topic is here: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=82309.msg2183808#msg2183808
Post by: Caldfir on April 16, 2011, 03:19:02 pm
You need to be well off to have enough free time to be evil. (also small farming villages can MORE then be evil... even outside of the horror genre)*ahem* http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/lotry.html
Post by: monk12 on April 16, 2011, 07:19:56 pm
You need to be well off to have enough free time to be evil. (also small farming villages can MORE then be evil... even outside of the horror genre)*ahem* http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/lotry.html
Note that this story doesn't contain any tips on how to win the lottery, but rather is a chilling tale of conformity gone mad!
Post by: rex mortis on April 17, 2011, 03:57:04 am
I like how in this city, the castle is attached to the city wall. It might not happen all that often but seeing it occasionally will make the cities seem more, organic. I also like how the river could become a significant tactical (dis)advantage if the city is sieged. If ships can move freely, it might allow for resupply. On the other hand, the siegers could bring reinforcements and supplies on ships.
Once improved sieges are in, will they employ variable tactical and strategic situations? Say, the defenders can see the reinforcements of the sieging army in horizon. Would they wait to be starved or overwhelmed? Or perhaps mount a desperate charge to break the siege while there is still a better chance?
Also, would a powerful civilisation attempt massive megaprojects, say like the great wall? Completely walling off a huge area of land seems like a sound defensive strategy. Would we be able to take part in the construction? Completing the assigned section of the fall in schedule (or at least not too far behind schedule) might get the overseer a nice salary as well as secure future contracts. Fail, and it might be better to flee the sovereign's wrath.
Post by: scriver on April 17, 2011, 05:45:18 am
Or they'll seduce and steal your horses and bash in your head for good measure.
Post by: B0013 on April 17, 2011, 05:53:00 am
Happy birthday Toady!
Post by: TolyK on April 17, 2011, 08:12:53 am
HAPPY B-DAY, TOADY ONE THE GREAT!
...
What? I am the first one?dammit, you ninja!
Happy birthday Toady!
:P
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 17, 2011, 08:26:49 am
Post by: Acanthus117 on April 17, 2011, 08:36:44 am
Post by: Funk on April 17, 2011, 09:34:19 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 17, 2011, 10:29:39 am
Post by: Haspen on April 17, 2011, 11:27:33 am
Post by: Kogut on April 17, 2011, 12:17:59 pm
And on-topic. [see pictures]
Spoiler: Streets in farmland, now (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Streets in farmland, better (?) (click to show/hide)
I removed part of roads to change road graph into tree. It can be addition to existing implementation.
Post by: Rip0k on April 17, 2011, 02:53:45 pm
Post by: Jeoshua on April 17, 2011, 03:00:59 pm
I REALLY HOPE TOADY TAKES NOTICE OF THAT!
Applying it to cities would be good too, leading to many "blind alleys". And I'm sure we agree a blind alley can be just as good as an intersection, when it comes to ambiance. Maybe even better.
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 17, 2011, 03:34:01 pm
To show what I mean:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Kogut on April 17, 2011, 04:11:35 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 17, 2011, 04:17:03 pm
Spoiler: Streets in farmland, now (click to show/hide)Spoiler: Streets in farmland, better (?) (click to show/hide)
I removed part of roads to change road graph into tree. It can be addition to existing implementation.
Why would you voluntarily create road trees and blind alleys? The very purpose of roads is that they enable people getting from somewhere to somewhere else - in case of the farms, the roads should offer a straight and simple connection to the town. Even Toady's original roads were too twisted and nonsensical, why would you complicate them even more?
To make Jiri's point a little more directly, the problem isn't just that there are too many roads, but that they're heading in the wrong directions.
There are two things those roads should be heading towards - either they head into the middle of town, and their markets, or they head into the nearest existing more major road, which takes them either to the middle of town, and its market, or out along a major trade road.
You need to start, once again, with the rivers and major roads and the major job-creating centers of towns (right now, the castle, although hopefully, at some point, the market will be the center of town, or A center of town), and then draw other supporting roads around them, as a way of getting to the major roads.
These roads should not look like a grid in any way. They should look like tributaries from a river - small streams joining up to make major rivers as all the traffic consolidates into a major flow.
Spoiler: city made to have "tributary roads" (click to show/hide)
I made the most important roads yellow, orange be an intermediate road that is only important in getting across the river, and the red roads be the "tributaries" that are minor roads that are still more important than the dark brown paths. I left the city roads alone.
I also highlighted in purple a completely pointless bridge crossing the river just to place one extra house on the riverbank.
All of these paths are just the quickest path for every house to reach the nearest minor tributary road.
These tributary roads I selected fairly arbitrarily, just to make them spaced apart a little, and reach out to a swath of farmland, and make the isolated houses have a little bit easier access to the tributary roads.
More organically, the tributary roads would come first, and the farms would be built to take advantage of the access to the closest road.
Still, this is leaving all the roads that were generated by the current code intact, but just "hiding" the useless ones. You can tell the sometimes bizarre angular bends in the roads probably shouldn't be there at a glance.
Post by: Aquillion on April 17, 2011, 05:26:12 pm
Anyone who's lived in a major city and really looked at its layout should know that city planning doesn't always make sense.
Post by: Neonivek on April 17, 2011, 06:52:34 pm
Quote
These roads should not look like a grid in any way
Well of the natural flow of building construction there is the Spiderweb design as well. Which makes sense as cities at this point of time are extremely centralised
While in modern times cities have become more and more decentralised.
Post by: Untelligent on April 17, 2011, 07:36:02 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 17, 2011, 07:47:53 pm
Likewise, that bridge is a public bridge that is built for a single common residence, of the exact same type as every other peasant house in the city, as there are no manors or distinctions in wealth or status, which means that this is the functional equivalent of building the Brooklyn Bridge to reach one single suburban home crammed up against the back of another apartment building in a way that doesn't give it access to the road.
These are not for speculative purposes, or just put into the back cover of a book, these are constructed game zones which will be populated by simulated characters with simulated tasks and traffic. This isn't a matter of imagination, the game is going to tell you exactly who lives in that house, and he's probably going to be another farmer, or whatever gets put into the areas too far away to be in the "urban" area, so that is a "rural" house.
There's no indication that this is anything other than a bug, which Toady should correct, because if the game can't tell when it's building a Bridge to Nowhere now, it's not going to be able to tell when it's building a Bridge to Nowhere when the game actually does have manors and tanneries that it might want to isolate, either.
Post by: Mephansteras on April 17, 2011, 08:21:20 pm
Post by: tps12 on April 17, 2011, 08:46:41 pm
Post by: monk12 on April 17, 2011, 10:05:44 pm
Post by: Patchy on April 17, 2011, 10:12:06 pm
Hope you have a great time surrounded by friends and family.
Post by: Untelligent on April 18, 2011, 02:44:44 am
Also happy birthday. Although I suppose that was yesterday now. Maybe not in Washington. effing time zones how do they work
Post by: Aquillion on April 18, 2011, 02:53:46 am
The 'little bridge' issue isn't really about the bridge itself -- roads and bridges in general should be shoddier when they're serving fewer people. Eventually the game will probably detect that, at which point it'll realize that a bridge like that only serves one person, and make it appropriately small and rickety (along with little dirt roads rather than big paved ones.) But the same argument applies to every road everywhere on that map; that bridge is just an obvious case. They all need to be scaled appropriately for the role they're serving. Obviously not every bridge should be the Brooklyn Bridge, but that's a separate issue.
Post by: Sunday on April 18, 2011, 09:29:08 am
There's lots of other explanations for that bridge, though. Maybe that area used to be more connected, but it was destroyed by a fire and rebuilt oddly. Maybe there was going to be something big built there, but it wasn't. I've seen plenty of really oddly-placed roads and bridges like that...
The 'little bridge' issue isn't really about the bridge itself -- roads and bridges in general should be shoddier when they're serving fewer people. Eventually the game will probably detect that, at which point it'll realize that a bridge like that only serves one person, and make it appropriately small and rickety (along with little dirt roads rather than big paved ones.) But the same argument applies to every road everywhere on that map; that bridge is just an obvious case. They all need to be scaled appropriately for the role they're serving. Obviously not every bridge should be the Brooklyn Bridge, but that's a separate issue.
Putting your point in slightly different language: it's kind of silly to complain about that bridge being the same size as all other bridges when there's currently only a single size for roads and bridges. Eventually, there may very well be different sizes, which will be nice. But right now there aren't, and so having a less used bridge the same size as a more used bridge is to be expected.
Also, while it probably won't happen—because it probably isn't of interest to enough people to justify the work that goes into it—it would be neat to see a system of property ownership arise, particularly one that takes advantage of how the land gets used depending on the owner's personality. If a certain disliked landowner is surrounded by other landowners with a grudge against her, she may very well not be able to get an easement to build a road across any particular chunk of land. Thus, building the bridge might be the only option left for her. However, if that landowner is a child of the local warlord, the warlord might be able to seize the neighboring land and either turn it over to the disliked landowner, or just seize enough land to build a road.
This, in turn, could lead to interesting politics, as landowners band together to combat the warlord and the warlord's disliked daughter in either legitimate (try to gain the warlord's favor by giving him gifts), or illegitimate (sponsor a coup, or try to make it appear as if the warlord's own daughter is sponsoring a coup, or even just hire bandits to distract the warlord from internal politics) means.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 18, 2011, 10:33:10 am
There's lots of other explanations for that bridge, though. Maybe that area used to be more connected, but it was destroyed by a fire and rebuilt oddly. Maybe there was going to be something big built there, but it wasn't. I've seen plenty of really oddly-placed roads and bridges like that...
The 'little bridge' issue isn't really about the bridge itself -- roads and bridges in general should be shoddier when they're serving fewer people. Eventually the game will probably detect that, at which point it'll realize that a bridge like that only serves one person, and make it appropriately small and rickety (along with little dirt roads rather than big paved ones.) But the same argument applies to every road everywhere on that map; that bridge is just an obvious case. They all need to be scaled appropriately for the role they're serving. Obviously not every bridge should be the Brooklyn Bridge, but that's a separate issue.
Putting your point in slightly different language: it's kind of silly to complain about that bridge being the same size as all other bridges when there's currently only a single size for roads and bridges. Eventually, there may very well be different sizes, which will be nice. But right now there aren't, and so having a less used bridge the same size as a more used bridge is to be expected.
Also, while it probably won't happen—because it probably isn't of interest to enough people to justify the work that goes into it—it would be neat to see a system of property ownership arise, particularly one that takes advantage of how the land gets used depending on the owner's personality. If a certain disliked landowner is surrounded by other landowners with a grudge against her, she may very well not be able to get an easement to build a road across any particular chunk of land. Thus, building the bridge might be the only option left for her. However, if that landowner is a child of the local warlord, the warlord might be able to seize the neighboring land and either turn it over to the disliked landowner, or just seize enough land to build a road.
This, in turn, could lead to interesting politics, as landowners band together to combat the warlord and the warlord's disliked daughter in either legitimate (try to gain the warlord's favor by giving him gifts), or illegitimate (sponsor a coup, or try to make it appear as if the warlord's own daughter is sponsoring a coup, or even just hire bandits to distract the warlord from internal politics) means.
No, it's silly to defend the bridge as possibly having some other purpose when there can be no other purpose right now.
Sure, you can make a bridge out of some sort of purposeful modeling of government waste or a personally wealthy merchant who just wants a personal bridge for show... but to do that, you have to actually model in government waste, and make the game recognize the difference between being waste and just being stupid AI.
If you don't do that, it's just AI that doesn't recognize what it's doing, and you're just making up stories to try to rationalize a bug.
It is a bug. It needs to be identified as a bug so that Toady can fix it.
Making wasteful decisions on purpose may be something that can be expanded upon later, but for now, Toady needs to know when he's getting the AI to make wasteful decisions because it can't make rational decisions at all.
Post by: Neonivek on April 18, 2011, 10:44:30 am
Also because of how the game handles resources... the roof of the shack they call a house costs more then the bridge.
Post by: LoSboccacc on April 18, 2011, 10:50:58 am
One problem Kohaku is that all rivers are basically streams or creeks rather then anything one would call a river. So people arn't really going to brand it an outright bug since by all means a small bridge to get into a single nondescript house happens in reality.
Also because of how the game handles resources... the roof of the shack they call a house costs more then the bridge.
well, bridge uses the architecture job while the floor(roofs, ops) does not. that could be part of the equation (or not, of course)
yeah, I know that you can floor your way across the river but that would not be stylish, would it? :D
Post by: tps12 on April 18, 2011, 12:35:09 pm
No, it's silly to defend the bridge as possibly having some other purpose when there can be no other purpose right now.
Sure, you can make a bridge out of some sort of purposeful modeling of government waste or a personally wealthy merchant who just wants a personal bridge for show... but to do that, you have to actually model in government waste, and make the game recognize the difference between being waste and just being stupid AI.
If you don't do that, it's just AI that doesn't recognize what it's doing, and you're just making up stories to try to rationalize a bug.
It's characteristic of procedural generation is that you can get complex and organic looking outcomes like that without modeling things like government waste, the same way you can get interesting looking mountain ranges without modeling plate tectonics. As long as the result is plausible (the point Aquillion spoke to), that complexity is one of the whole benefits of doing things procedurally.
Post by: Miuramir on April 18, 2011, 12:59:25 pm
One problem Kohaku is that all rivers are basically streams or creeks rather then anything one would call a river. So people arn't really going to brand it an outright bug since by all means a small bridge to get into a single nondescript house happens in reality.
Also because of how the game handles resources... the roof of the shack they call a house costs more then the bridge.
The river is 16 dwarf-squares across at that point, by actual measurement. If we use 2m per dwarf-square [1], that's a 32m river, and usually you'd need a few meters past the actual water's edge on either side for support, approaches, etc. For comparison, this is pretty close to the size of bridge you'd need to cross an 8-lane highway in the US (Euro lanes are frequently narrower, it might be closer to 10 lanes there). Depending on depth and flow rate, that's reasonable to call a river (rather than stream, creek, etc.). Prior to 1400, that would *not* have been a casual sort of construction; even now, this is not usually the sort of thing a few people throw up for the heck of it.
With only a quick look, the closest match I found was where the Aar river (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aar) (one of the major rivers that make up the Rhine) passes through Bern, Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bern). The Old City of Bern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_City_of_Bern) (a UNESCO World Heritage site, with an unusually large amount of the medieval character preserved) had about 5,000 inhabitants, and was situated on a hilly peninsula created by a large loop of the Aar. The 1638 map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MerianBern.jpg) is obviously later than our target pre-1400 (and the outer defensive works by then had cannon in mind), but you can clearly see the gaps left as the city built successive walls further out. The largely wooden houses were ravaged by a great fire in 1405, and rebuilt in stone afterward; so much of the surviving old city dates from just a hair after the end of our target timeframe.
The Untertorbrücke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertorbr%C3%BCcke) has a fascinating history in its own right. Bern was founded around 1191, and their first attempt at setting up a bridge around 1254 triggered a war! This 1470 manuscript illustration of the 1254 interdiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Untertorbr%C3%BCcke_Tschachtlanchronik.jpg) is an interesting resource. Things were resolved, and the wooden bridge completed by 1256; it survived a heavy siege in 1288. Construction was of oak and at least partially covered.
A 1460 flood severely damaged the bridge, and it was decided to rebuild in stone and a master architect was brought in; construction of the main way was finished by around 1467 when the bridge chapel was consecrated, but further work was put on hold due to cost overruns and various wars. This 1477 manuscript illustration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Untertorbr%C3%BCcke_1477_Schilling.jpg) shows it in the usable but not fully defensible state it was in the interim. Construction resumed in 1484 and by 1487 it was considered complete. Further fortifications were added around 1517, and the state of the bridge around 1600 is visible on this detailed map drawing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Untertorbr%C3%BCcke_1600_Sickinger.jpg). By 1757, the defensive value of the fortifications had become less useful and more of a hassle, and the renovation of the bridge basically consisted of removing the previous defenses, and putting it back much closer to its medieval core.
Note that this bridge remained the only bridge over the Aar in the city until 1834, and the wooden bridge added at that time was a much smaller footbridge. (There was a 1466 wooden bridge built elsewhere to replace a ferry, but that was well outside the city of the time.) Even this 1819 lithograph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Untertorbr%C3%BCcke.jpg) (from the viewpoint of the far bank) shows that the densely packed medieval city still contrasts with the more pastoral setting on the far bank; and this remains somewhat the case even today; this high-res 2007 image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CH_Bern_Aare_pano-4.jpg) (click through for much higher resolution version) and this similar hi-res photo also from 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Panorama_Nydeggbruecke_Bern.jpg) show the difference clearly.
The modern bridge length is listed as 52.5m, with two 14m arches and a 15m arch. Based on Google Earth measurements, the actual water distance, not counting the solid approaches, is about 43-45m. Given the uncertainty on the "actual" size of a dwarf square, this is of roughly equivalent size to the bridges we're talking about, probably about a third longer.
[1] Depending on debate, a dwarf-square is probably between 3' (~0.9m) and 20' (~6m) across, and typically assumed to be on the lower end of that range; I personally tend to think something in the 5' (~1.5m) to 2m (~6.5') range is the best fit, and normally use 2m for simplicity.
Post by: Untelligent on April 18, 2011, 01:07:05 pm
and you're just making up stories to try to rationalize a bug.
Haven't DF players been doing that for years?
Also I don't see any reason whatsover to remove a bridge as awesome as that.
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 18, 2011, 01:44:13 pm
Also I don't see any reason whatsover to remove a bridge as awesome as that.
I have one: bridges would be cooler if they were something rare and remarkable, rather than something you encounter every two steps. Sure, players can come up with interesting backgrounds for a silly bridge the find in game, and that's great! But players are more likely to come up with these interpretations if the silly bridges are something extraordinary, something they can boast about - like Cacame the dwelven king! If there were a couple of Cacames in everyone's world, nobody would care. If you have a silly bridge in each town, you won't care either.
Miuramir's example of the bridge in Bern would never happen if Bern had 12 bridges.
The same logic of course applies to many in-game elements, not only bridges.
Post by: Skid on April 18, 2011, 02:08:05 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on April 18, 2011, 03:23:38 pm
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 18, 2011, 03:43:42 pm
There is still a lot of work to do.
Of course we know that, Footkerchief, and we love what Toady has already done (well, at least I do). This is just a friendly discussion on possible future improvements, or isn't it? ;D
Of course we need to remember that is is fantasy. If dwarves can build magma cannons and monstrous adding machines in their spare time, some human hobbyist can probably afford to build a bridge or two.
You know what would be cool? If the game used the bridges already there and made variations between them - like you would have only one stone bridge in town, but a couple of ferries and perhaps a floating footbridge here and there.
Post by: Neonivek on April 18, 2011, 04:58:49 pm
One problem Kohaku is that all rivers are basically streams or creeks rather then anything one would call a river. So people arn't really going to brand it an outright bug since by all means a small bridge to get into a single nondescript house happens in reality.
Also because of how the game handles resources... the roof of the shack they call a house costs more then the bridge.
that would *not* have been a casual sort of construction; even now, this is not usually the sort of thing a few people throw up for the heck of it.
and Yet that would be true... IF bridges weren't such a small undertaking provenly in game.
If you pay attention to the bridge you would see that they are all just extra large suspension bridges without further support. In fact there are no side rails.
In otherwords it is a cheap arrow drawn bridge you see in the woods rather then a testiment to medieval bridges. Except without the rope.
Post by: Cruxador on April 18, 2011, 05:41:28 pm
You know what would be cool? If the game used the bridges already there and made variations between them - like you would have only one stone bridge in town, but a couple of ferries and perhaps a floating footbridge here and there.Or if it varied based on location. The bridges of Venice are not much like the bridges of London, after all. And things can vary more than architectural differences. Perhaps in one city every road has a grand stone bridge. Perhaps in another there is only one bridge in the entire city, but the houses are built over the river so far that they almost touch so people just walk from the roof of one house to another. Even in small towns and farmsteads, one place could toss logs across the creek, one could place stones.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 18, 2011, 07:32:23 pm
It's characteristic of procedural generation is that you can get complex and organic looking outcomes like that without modeling things like government waste, the same way you can get interesting looking mountain ranges without modeling plate tectonics. As long as the result is plausible (the point Aquillion spoke to), that complexity is one of the whole benefits of doing things procedurally.
And once again, you're missing the part about how there has to be some sort of story or reason behind purposeful waste.
I can't pull up an exact matching article, but I remember reading about something in Chicago. There were two publicly constructed apartment buildings built in the downtown area. One was built for $80,000, and then an identical one was built on the exact same blueprint for $140,000.
That's what government waste/corruption looks like. An additional $60,000 written off to a political ally with a construction company.
There's a story there, where you would be able to track down who is wasting taxpayer money to pay back favors for who.
When it's a random person building a massive bridge across a river just because this game doesn't yet handle architecture or how to build bridges very well, then we're just making the game look laughable and unrealistic when Toady has clearly worked hard to make the game look realistic and organic.
and you're just making up stories to try to rationalize a bug.
Haven't DF players been doing that for years?
Also I don't see any reason whatsover to remove a bridge as awesome as that.
Yes, and it's obviously becoming a bad habit when you don't report a bug just because you rationalize it.
Worse still, people complain when bugs or exploits are fixed because they grew used to it.
Bugs are bugs, and need to be reported as such. This complacency harms the development of the game.
Post by: tps12 on April 18, 2011, 08:10:52 pm
It's characteristic of procedural generation is that you can get complex and organic looking outcomes like that without modeling things like government waste, the same way you can get interesting looking mountain ranges without modeling plate tectonics. As long as the result is plausible (the point Aquillion spoke to), that complexity is one of the whole benefits of doing things procedurally.
And once again, you're missing the part about how there has to be some sort of story or reason behind purposeful waste.
What's the distinction between the bridge with no reason versus the mountain range with no reason?
When it's a random person building a massive bridge across a river just because this game doesn't yet handle architecture or how to build bridges very well, then we're just making the game look laughable and unrealistic when Toady has clearly worked hard to make the game look realistic and organic.
"Laughable and unrealistic" is in the eye of the beholder, but I think Aquillion made a strong case that a single weird bridge is plausible even if the game itself doesn't attempt to explain its existence.
Post by: Untelligent on April 18, 2011, 10:49:31 pm
Post by: Jeoshua on April 18, 2011, 10:58:26 pm
Post by: Aquillion on April 19, 2011, 12:03:21 am
So it's not only all-right but desirable for the city-planning algorithm to occasionally make odd decisions. Ideally, yes, it would model everything leading up to those odd decisions, but that's not going to be feasible in all cases.
Post by: Areyar on April 19, 2011, 05:55:40 am
Post by: TolyK on April 19, 2011, 08:58:29 am
Quote from: the front page
The cities more or less show up in tiles now, and I've been fiddling with storm sewers under the paved roads for the last few days. They should be entertaining adventure environments, especially if the people forget to grate off the outflow and critters get in from the river.ooooh yeah! awesome!
I wonder if we will be able to remove the grates ourselves - would be awesome!
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 19, 2011, 10:49:48 am
I'd still rather have the possibility of bridges like that than not have the possibility of bridges like that. Especially if there's no good, reasonable reason to put it there. Just because it's a bug or a flaw in some procedural generator does not mean it needs to be removed or fixed, especially if it adds to the flavor of the game.
Which is why Toady One removed the value of mermaid bones from the vanilla game.
Dwarves were never supposed to harvest and butcher mermaids. The work-around that someone found and managed to use to profit off of industrial-scale farming and murder of sentient beings, because, remember, dwarves are supposed to consider many of the things that players revel in doing to be unthinkable crimes.
I'm sure he's also a little miffed by the treatment of cats that many players perform. He probably split off the "Adopts Owner" tag to just get people to stop genociding cats.
If something is stupid and pointless, and demonstrates that this is a mindless simulation when he has clearly worked very hard to generate verisimilitude in his world, it is something he should know about.
Right now, all you're arguing is that bugs that reveal how unrealistic the game that Toady has worked so hard to try to make realistic is actually a good thing, and shouldn't be fixed.
No matter how lofty its goals are, the game is never going to be able to fully model all of the things that make humans inefficient and chaotic, especially in something as big and as convoluted as city planning.
So it's not only all-right but desirable for the city-planning algorithm to occasionally make odd decisions. Ideally, yes, it would model everything leading up to those odd decisions, but that's not going to be feasible in all cases.
The problem with this is that you are completely discounting how massive a project bridge-building is.
Miuramir just went to great lengths to demonstrate how much trouble it is for a medieval society to build a bridge, and how costly they are.
It is not a matter of placing 1 stone for every three tiles of bridge, that's a game mechanic, and it is blatantly unrealistic. Real bridges were serious endeavors that cost significant sums of cash, and were not taken lightly.
A random road that has an inefficient path? Fine, it's stupid and gamey, but you could at least see someone clearing a dirt path in an odd direction.
A massive engineering project? No. Those were things of great import, and were done only when it would be proven to be very economically lucrative to build.
Post by: Mephansteras on April 19, 2011, 10:54:17 am
A random road that has an inefficient path? Fine, it's stupid and gamey, but you could at least see someone clearing a dirt path in an odd direction.
A massive engineering project? No. Those were things of great import, and were done only when it would be proven to be very economically lucrative to build.
Well, as someone else mentioned this somewhat depends on the scope of the bridge. Over a river: obviously a major effort. A small footbridge over a stream? that could easily be made by a few people who'd make use of it and wouldn't need to be a massive endeavor. So once we start to see a distinction between major bridges and small personal bridges I think having small bridges randomly show up is fine.
And, of course, once we have manor houses and other areas of the rich you can have all sorts of frivolous nonsense. It might still be a major project, but that's never stopped the rich from spending their money on stupid stuff in our history. No reason it should stop them in the game.
Post by: LoSboccacc on April 19, 2011, 11:01:34 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_Rhine_bridges
yes, romans where quite more engineering oriented that other people living in that ages (but less architectural oriented than greeks, for example) but we're talking on a world with living dwarven architects so meh.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 19, 2011, 11:10:24 am
The problem with this is that you are completely discounting how massive a project bridge-building is.
Miuramir just went to great lengths to demonstrate how much trouble it is for a medieval society to build a bridge, and how costly they are.
It is not a matter of placing 1 stone for every three tiles of bridge, that's a game mechanic, and it is blatantly unrealistic. Real bridges were serious endeavors that cost significant sums of cash, and were not taken lightly.
A random road that has an inefficient path? Fine, it's stupid and gamey, but you could at least see someone clearing a dirt path in an odd direction.
A massive engineering project? No. Those were things of great import, and were done only when it would be proven to be very economically lucrative to build.
Man, have I got some bad news for you about castles.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2011, 11:23:03 am
Nor is there any indication that the ones in Dwarf Fortress are.
I mean... I've seen bridges, Long bridges, that were hardly the "awe inspiring feat of engineering" your talking about. I've seen a town where EVERY house had its own bridge.
Post by: Beardless on April 19, 2011, 02:43:41 pm
Right now, all you're arguing is that bugs that reveal how unrealistic the game that Toady has worked so hard to try to make realistic is actually a good thing, and shouldn't be fixed.
Yes. It's a flaw. I think you've made your point.
Be that as it may, right now the reason for bridges seems to be "a road hit a river." Once the game actually starts building things for a reason, we can worry about things being there for no reason. If I remember correctly, the city generation Toady is working on is just a prototype--just a step above "placeholder"--and it's not even released yet!
Also, it seems a little odd to get so upset over an arguably misplaced bridge when dwarves still can't tell they're on fire. Just saying.
Post by: Cruxador on April 19, 2011, 03:45:36 pm
Also not all bridges were magnificant awe inspiring bridges.Aye, this is a good point.
"Oh, honey, I got that bridge you wanted done."
"You built an entire bridge in one afternoon?"
"Sure, there was a tree standing right there, took me like an hour and a half to saw through it, and an other two hours to take the branches off."
Post by: Untelligent on April 19, 2011, 04:04:09 pm
Post by: Jeoshua on April 19, 2011, 04:22:46 pm
Post by: darkflagrance on April 19, 2011, 04:34:43 pm
I don't see why I shouldn't set up a massive industrial mermaid harvesting thing just because Toady thinks dwarves wouldn't do that.
Mermaid harvesting on grand scales has very well-established roots in fantasy for such benefits as immortality from the consumption of their flesh. A little thing like less valuable bones won't stop me from following in the tradition of my ancestors... ;D
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on April 19, 2011, 05:03:30 pm
I don't see why I shouldn't set up a massive industrial mermaid harvesting thing just because Toady thinks dwarves wouldn't do that.you are free to mod that. you can also mod dwarves to be cannibalistic, but toady thinks dwarves wouldn't do that, so he turned it off on their ethics
Post by: Miuramir on April 19, 2011, 05:05:36 pm
The problem with this is that you are completely discounting how massive a project bridge-building is.
Miuramir just went to great lengths to demonstrate how much trouble it is for a medieval society to build a bridge, and how costly they are.
It is not a matter of placing 1 stone for every three tiles of bridge, that's a game mechanic, and it is blatantly unrealistic. Real bridges were serious endeavors that cost significant sums of cash, and were not taken lightly.
A random road that has an inefficient path? Fine, it's stupid and gamey, but you could at least see someone clearing a dirt path in an odd direction.
A massive engineering project? No. Those were things of great import, and were done only when it would be proven to be very economically lucrative to build.
I would prefer a situation where material and quality matters a lot more than it does. A human community should be able to build a no-quality Birch Footbridge with Rope Reed Fittings over a small, low creek fairly easily in terms of manpower and materials (assuming you're in someplace with wood); it would be vulnerable (at least in worldgen) to floods, fires, sieges, and gradual rot / wear; and probably need to be rebuilt every so often. An +Oak Cartbridge+ with +Iron Fittings+ would probably require bringing in at least one skilled archtect, possibly importing the fittings, and a fair amount of much higher-skilled labor; it should have a much lower chance to fail in worldgen rolls, and the return of the "accessible via wagon" mechanic actually has a considerable degree of utility in looking at the differences between the scales of transport links; this would give locations a game-mechanical *reason* to want to invest in the larger bridge despite the up-front costs. The Untertorbrücke may well be a ≡Sandstone Double-cart Bridge≡ with ≡Granite Fittings≡ (and in several time periods *Granite Fortifications*), and for a random human community should require hiring a master architect (at considerable expense) and years of skilled labor; but they get something fireproof and floodproof that lasts for hundreds of years with comparatively little maintenance (most of the changes over the last 500 years have been adding or removing various combinations of add-on gates and fortifications).
Note that I'm well aware that DF is ultimately intended to be a *fantasy* world simulator; one logical way to develop this is for Dwarves to have significantly improved abilities in architecture, quarrying, and mining (civil engineering, generally); explained perhaps by some combination of "Armok made them that way because it pleased him to do so" (i.e., tags in the raws) and a generally handwaved explanation that dwarven engineering proceeded in continual development from Roman-era skills to late Medieval-level skills without the intervening thousand years or so of "dark ages". Having a community of weird short folks in the hills that have even finely-honed late Roman engineering skills in a setting where most of the human communities are dealing with, say, 1100s continental peasant skill levels naturally has a lot of mythic-grade results come out without even having to invoke any magic or exotic materials.
Another, perhaps even simpler, take that would quickly result in increased realism of both the worldgen and fortress mode bridges would be to have a third type of bridge, "static", that works identically to the existing types do when down, but cannot be linked to a lever to raise it. Additionally, the materials requirement and construction time for bridges would go up non-linearly with length; a bridge 10 dwarf-squares long should be considerably more than five times as hard as one 2 dwarf-squares long. Note that when you look at it from a DF view, the Untertorbrücke is really three 8 dwarf-square long static bridges between columns (and originally had an additional several square long raising drawbridge off the end as part of the fortifications, now filled in), because they were unable to span it with two 12 square bridges.
One fairly interesting way to handle both the default DF world and various mods would be to have the material and design requirements for a static bridge based on the compressive strength of the material selected; and the material and design requirements for a retracting or raising bridge based on the tensile strength of the material selected, in addition to a cumulative length factor. By relatively easy tuning of only three or four new numerical parameters per world (in one of the raw files), and the use of existing material information, you could very quickly get something with very interesting results. Hiring dwarves with access to iron or steel suddenly becomes even more valuable if you want that trendy fireproof raising drawbridge. The infamous soap constructions would become far less practical by default, yet those wanting a much sillier fantasy world could either increase the stats on soap, or reduce the material-strength-factor value for their world in the raws. (It could be argued that many fantasy world constructions and illustrations can be rationally explained by a combination of having a much lower exponent for material strength, and ready access to Legendary Architects; all those slender spires and leaping stone arches simply fall out of a couple of equation parameter changes, in a triumph of procedural design.)
Post by: Armok on April 19, 2011, 05:19:40 pm
Post by: darkflagrance on April 19, 2011, 07:00:30 pm
We already have a way to explain naturally higher dwarven architecture, masonry, forging etc. skills: the natural skill tag in the raws allows all members of a race to start with higher levels in certain skills. I imagine that when dwarves are no longer the primary race and humans/elves are playable too, the natural skill tags will be invoked to differentiate the playing experiences of the various races.
Post by: Caldfir on April 19, 2011, 09:44:39 pm
We already have a way to explain naturally higher dwarven architecture, masonry, forging etc. skills: the natural skill tag in the raws allows all members of a race to start with higher levels in certain skills. I imagine that when dwarves are no longer the primary race and humans/elves are playable too, the natural skill tags will be invoked to differentiate the playing experiences of the various races.Speaking of the other races; who else is really looking forward to what dwarf/goblin/elf (/kobold?) sites are going to look like? Seeing this phase of the game come together is really exciting.
I know just humans are on the table right now (and the other races aren't coming up for a while), but seeing what Toady's done with them has me thinking.
Post by: Sowelu on April 19, 2011, 10:27:19 pm
Post by: Miuramir on April 20, 2011, 10:07:52 am
what about those bridges some cities have with a load of houses ON the bridge so you don't even notice you're on a bridge not just a normal street when you're walking over it?
My thought is that the tradeoff advantage of declaring a bridge "static" would be that you could build on it; the best Dwarven representation of our running example bridge Untertorbrücke in historical times would probably be 5-6 squares across, to allow for a square of fortifications down each side and room for a wagon to go down the middle; then when the fortifications are removed later it would be just wide enough to be two lanes. (The actual Untertorbrücke seems to be 8-9m across at the arch spans, and the support pillars extend out to about 12-13m total width. Without any fortifications in modern times this handles two narrow lanes of traffic and some sidewalks. It's not clear how far the earlier fortifications were built out from the edge; it would not be uncommon at all for them to overhang at least somewhat, both for more room and for better fields of fire.)
Part of the problem here is that DF wagons have been 3x3, which is unusually wide for the streets, tracks, and bridges in many historical eras; and additionally problematic when you consider the unimproved and frequently mountainous terrain involved in getting to an early fort. From the Wikipedia article on Lane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane):
Quote
"The U.S. Interstate Highway System uses a 12-foot (3.7 m) standard for lane width. 11-foot (3.4 m) lanes are found to be acceptable by the Federal Highway Administration for automobile traffic, but as lane width decreases (9-foot (2.7 m) lanes are found in some areas) traffic capacity decreases. ... In the United Kingdom, many lanes are found in the countryside, and most of these lanes are wide enough for one car at a time and often have a lay by for cars to pass. In general, European laws and road width vary per country, with the minimum widths of lanes being anywhere between 2.5 m to 3.25 m"
From the snopes.com entry on railroad gauges (http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp) and the origins of "Standard" gauge of 4 ft 8.5 in (1.435m) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_gauge):
Quote
"Historian James Crow, writing about Housesteads (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/3d/houstead.shtml), the 3rd century Roman fort built along Hadrian's Wall, notes that:QuoteThe wheel rut and gate stop in the north passage are well preserved, and a number of reused stone blocks formed part of the latest surface to survive. The gauge between the ruts is very similar to that adopted by George Stephenson for the Stockton to Darlington railway in 1837, and a 'Wall myth' developed that he took this gauge from the newly excavated east gate. There is a common link, but it is more prosaic, and the 'coincidence' is explained by the fact that the dimension common to both was that of a cart axle pulled by two horses in harness (about 1.4m or 4ft 8in). This determined both the Roman gauge and Stephenson's, which derived from the horsedrawn wagon ways of South Northumberland and County Durham coalfields.
What we're talking about in DF is usually more closely related to Loading gauge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge) and Structure gauge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_gauge), which has to do with the tunnel size (or other restricted space) that something can fit through. Modern European loading gauge width is 10 ft 10 in (3.29m), Great Britain an older 8 ft 6 in (2.6m), North America mostly 10 ft 8 in (3.25m);
An obvious parallel to the DF wagon is the Conestoga wagon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conestoga_wagon), specifically designed for heavy duty use in hills and low mountains, for fording streams and rivers, and for breaking new ground into new territories. "The average Conestoga wagon was 18 feet (~5.5m) long, 11 feet high (~3.4m,), and 4 feet (~1.2m) in width. It could carry up to 12,000 pounds of cargo (~5.5mt)." I'm a bit suspicious of the narrow width they list, but there seems to be some precedence for the actual Conestoga wagon to be that narrow so it could fit down certain trails; a more typical "prairie schooner" of later years and wider spaces would be wider, and a lot of the covered wagons you see are actually of this later type. This photo (http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pacahs/wagon.htm) shows something closer to the early Conestoga type, and is indeed quite narrow. Note that the narrow and curved bottom was supposedly at least partly to keep barrels from rolling about, certainly a concern for dwarves! (Also note that in this historical context, barrels were not only used for liquids and powders, but for many things that DF dwarves would store in bins, such as small finished goods. If you wanted a reasonably portable, standard sized, heavy-duty, waterproof container you used a barrel; boxes and the like were for light duty in-town use, and crates were typically larger items for use on ships and would require multiple people and/or a block and tackle to move.)
All of these really point to wagons being more sensible at no more than 2 squares wide. Transporting a 3x3 DF wagon would be an ultra-wide load taking up most of two modern highway lanes, special planning as it would be too large for many ramps and some bridges, and probably requiring police escort if not closing the roads entirely; it would never fit on a railroad. You could probably make a pretty good case that DF dwarven wagons should be 1x2, on the smaller end of a Conestoga wagon, designed for tight quarters and rough terrain; having human wagons at 2x3 as they are designed more for use in the lowlands would preserve the concept of "we need better roads and bridges to get the full human caravan" that was a useful DF gameplay mechanic in many versions.
Post by: Shinziril on April 20, 2011, 11:31:52 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 20, 2011, 11:53:47 am
Another, perhaps even simpler, take that would quickly result in increased realism of both the worldgen and fortress mode bridges would be to have a third type of bridge, "static", that works identically to the existing types do when down, but cannot be linked to a lever to raise it. Additionally, the materials requirement and construction time for bridges would go up non-linearly with length; a bridge 10 dwarf-squares long should be considerably more than five times as hard as one 2 dwarf-squares long. Note that when you look at it from a DF view, the Untertorbrücke is really three 8 dwarf-square long static bridges between columns (and originally had an additional several square long raising drawbridge off the end as part of the fortifications, now filled in), because they were unable to span it with two 12 square bridges.
One fairly interesting way to handle both the default DF world and various mods would be to have the material and design requirements for a static bridge based on the compressive strength of the material selected; and the material and design requirements for a retracting or raising bridge based on the tensile strength of the material selected, in addition to a cumulative length factor. By relatively easy tuning of only three or four new numerical parameters per world (in one of the raw files), and the use of existing material information, you could very quickly get something with very interesting results. Hiring dwarves with access to iron or steel suddenly becomes even more valuable if you want that trendy fireproof raising drawbridge. The infamous soap constructions would become far less practical by default, yet those wanting a much sillier fantasy world could either increase the stats on soap, or reduce the material-strength-factor value for their world in the raws. (It could be argued that many fantasy world constructions and illustrations can be rationally explained by a combination of having a much lower exponent for material strength, and ready access to Legendary Architects; all those slender spires and leaping stone arches simply fall out of a couple of equation parameter changes, in a triumph of procedural design.)
This is suggestions thread material. You should probably make a suggestion based on this, and I'd like to see it in the fortress mode game, itself.
We can't have cave-ins right now because of the difficulty of modeling building stresses in 3d, but a bridge can be considered a self-contained structure for these purposes.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 20, 2011, 12:05:54 pm
Having the human wagons be 2 squares wide would also let them be pulled by two draft animals side-by-side, which is a pretty standard configuration for a wagon (to the point where it generated the width of "Standard" gauge, as cited in your post).
I think part of the problem here is that Toady is using 3x3 as a shortcut in pathfinding, because he hasn't taken the time to handle true multitile creature support.
Basically speaking, to create a "wagon access" map, you just take the regular map, and test to make sure that every other tile nearby has another open tile. If any tile directly adjacent is blocked, then the middle of the wagon couldn't fit there. That way, you can make a "wagon access" map fairly simply by just tracking only the middle tile of a 3x3 wagon, and disconnecting the rest of the tiles, and you can just use the same standard A* methods.
Thing is, this is basically a kludge solution that doesn't scale to other sizes of vehicles. Toady is going to need to design a multitile creature pathfinding code before we can have something other than one tile creatures and maybe a 3x3 wagon which has code specifically designed for that one design.
Post by: darkflagrance on April 20, 2011, 02:36:39 pm
Post by: Dante on April 20, 2011, 06:02:51 pm
Quote from: devlog
Catacombs! Undead!
I'm hoping to see proper vampires, personally, with some of their insanely numerous associated powers.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on April 20, 2011, 06:37:18 pm
Post by: Dante on April 20, 2011, 06:41:57 pm
Post by: Sowelu on April 20, 2011, 06:42:53 pm
vampires is one of the things i definitely don't want in df
Any particular reason? I mean, we've already got critters that capture and twist people to their will, night creatures and stuff...
Post by: darkflagrance on April 20, 2011, 06:47:58 pm
Post by: Dante on April 20, 2011, 06:54:02 pm
[LIKES_COUNTING]
[PREY:ALL:COMMON_DOMESTIC]
[SPECIFIC_WEAKNESS:SEED_MAT:MUSTARD]
[ALTFORM:MIST:BAT:RAT:SPIDER:WOLF]
[SYNDROME:TUBERCULOSIS]
Post by: Jeremy on April 20, 2011, 07:14:35 pm
Post by: Fieari on April 20, 2011, 07:29:58 pm
Post by: monk12 on April 20, 2011, 07:30:23 pm
I wonder if added undead types will start moving us towards an explanation for them in the first place.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on April 20, 2011, 07:35:21 pm
Why not? I don't mean sissy modern sparkly vampires, but medieval shambling fanged, clawed, horse-frightening light-fearing OCD stakeable creatures. Maybe with partially randomised vampire traits.undead night creatures with potential random traits, being bloodsucking one of them are okay in my book, but not vampires. they're not that medieval, actually.
i have problems with other things in game, too, i think trolls, ogres and giants should be random names given to a class of randomly generated enormous antropophagous humanoid megabeasts, and ghouls, revenants and wights should also be just possible names for randomly generated undead night creatures, with vampirism as one possible trait
i dislike the idea of a vampire as a defined creature with specified weaknesses and traits, as that often wasn't the case with folkloric monsters. and also, while many creatures were described as being of vampiric nature, the word "vampire" is very recent, and probably just meant "undead" or "witch\ogre" in it's original incarnation
Post by: Jeoshua on April 20, 2011, 07:40:11 pm
It would be nice if Night Creatures didn't take over the world so easilly, or formed actual societies of their own somehow... but yeah right now they're just beasts.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 20, 2011, 07:43:43 pm
Post by: G-Flex on April 20, 2011, 08:13:13 pm
i dislike the idea of a vampire as a defined creature with specified weaknesses and traits, as that often wasn't the case with folkloric monsters. and also, while many creatures were described as being of vampiric nature, the word "vampire" is very recent, and probably just meant "undead" or "witch\ogre" in it's original incarnation
Yeah, one thing I've noticed about medieval legends is that they are not consistent with this sort of faux-scientific taxonomy we use today. There weren't as much well-defined "vampires", "werewolves", "goblins" and so forth; the concepts were wishy-washy, varied a lot depending on region and decade, and so on. Things weren't so set in stone.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 20, 2011, 08:23:21 pm
Why not? I don't mean sissy modern sparkly vampires, but medieval shambling fanged, clawed, horse-frightening light-fearing OCD stakeable creatures. Maybe with partially randomised vampire traits.
[NOCTURNAL]
[LIKES_COUNTING]
[PREY:ALL:COMMON_DOMESTIC]
[SPECIFIC_WEAKNESS:SEED_MAT:MUSTARD]
[ALTFORM:MIST:BAT:RAT:SPIDER:WOLF]
[SYNDROME:TUBERCULOSIS]
I would certainly look forward to stocking up on beans just to be able to throw them on the floor as a distraction for a vampire.
That, or killing them in Fortress Mode with flowing water.
i dislike the idea of a vampire as a defined creature with specified weaknesses and traits, as that often wasn't the case with folkloric monsters. and also, while many creatures were described as being of vampiric nature, the word "vampire" is very recent, and probably just meant "undead" or "witch\ogre" in it's original incarnation
Yeah, one thing I've noticed about medieval legends is that they are not consistent with this sort of faux-scientific taxonomy we use today. There weren't as much well-defined "vampires", "werewolves", "goblins" and so forth; the concepts were wishy-washy, varied a lot depending on region and decade, and so on. Things weren't so set in stone.
As opposed to modern-day versions of vampires, where you have to declare the "rules of vampires" right after the first one gets screentime because every single author uses different rules?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 20, 2011, 08:41:57 pm
Vampires as such as well as many wer- creatures (and dragons) exist in many cultures but were very diverse even before the advent of modern media and taximony. The modern ideas are more like prototypes respective generalisations thus we label everything that drains "life" from another being as "vampire" or "vampiric".
What i am exited about is that if toady works on the undead again they may work in a proper way soon. Thus skelletons etc. may loose theyr "hp".
Post by: Untelligent on April 20, 2011, 08:53:43 pm
'course simply adding more abilities and features to night creatures coudl be what they meant by "more undead types."
Post by: G-Flex on April 20, 2011, 08:54:00 pm
IIrc the Witch and to lesser extend the werewolf (as a form of witchcraft by usage of wolffurs and belts etc.) were fairly well described in the Malleus Maleficarum and influenced good parts of europe.
Vampires as such as well as many wer- creatures (and dragons) exist in many cultures but were very diverse even before the advent of modern media and taximony.
That's... kind of my point. These legends were more diverse and loosely-defined than they are in modern fantasy.
There were books like the one you described, but I'm speaking more of traditional oral history and that sort of thing.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 20, 2011, 09:48:52 pm
An integral part of those creatures in folklore are their weaknesses, and stories of vampires go hand-in-hand with the stories of what they are weak against.
So how does the player get access to the information on a whatever creatures' weaknesses? Do adventurers hear about them in taverns from strange old men with one giant bug eye huddled over in the corners of taverns?
What about fortresses, if these things lurk in caverns or something? Do they just append the description of the creature with "beware its venomous breath, but strike it down with breath mints!"?
Post by: darkflagrance on April 20, 2011, 09:59:48 pm
If you have night creatures or procedural undead with procedural weaknesses, though... how do you know what those weaknesses are?
An integral part of those creatures in folklore are their weaknesses, and stories of vampires go hand-in-hand with the stories of what they are weak against.
So how does the player get access to the information on a whatever creatures' weaknesses? Do adventurers hear about them in taverns from strange old men with one giant bug eye huddled over in the corners of taverns?
What about fortresses, if these things lurk in caverns or something? Do they just append the description of the creature with "beware its venomous breath, but strike it down with breath mints!"?
Vulnerabilities would come in two forms: a syndrome that afflicts the creature upon exposure to that substance, such as necrosis, or repulsion, where a creature avoids tiles that contain that substance.
Creatures could have a vulnerabilities page or sub-description that determines whether they are weak to/repelled by water, certain types of metal/minerals, or organic substances. They would be hidden to the player until he encountered them by chance or by testing.
The player could then treat weapons with crushed organic fluids. To discover a weakness, the player would have to observe the creature struck by an appropriate object or either trapped or repelled by that object.
Skilled observers or scholars might also learn this by observation. Taverns could improve the player's knowledge of monster weaknesses.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on April 20, 2011, 10:01:59 pm
*you can acquire these at the local temple\general store... no guarantees that it actually works and isn't just local superstition
Post by: monk12 on April 20, 2011, 10:13:24 pm
If monster types do end up being the way Toady goes (or the successful single night creature posited above), then you have the justification that some folk hero has killed one before, and therefore everyone knows the story. This leads to the situation where all the villagers just know that if you carry holly berries around on your person the local monster won't bother you- unfriendly little towns may withhold this information in order to dispose of unwelcome foreigners who wouldn't know the custom. This could lead to the quasi-symbiotic situation where the villagers are afforded some measure of protection from bandits and the like because the outsiders do not know how to defeat the monster, and since this is beneficial to the villagers they never tell outsiders how to defeat it, which helps the monster kill new victims.
Post by: Untelligent on April 20, 2011, 10:25:23 pm
How will night creature creature weaknesses, important ways to deal with specific monsters, making sure they're permanently dead, etc. be dealt with? Especially for night creatures way out in savage lands where nobody's heard of them and information-gathering might not be possible?
Post by: Dante on April 20, 2011, 10:27:13 pm
What i am exited about is that if toady works on the undead again they may work in a proper way soon. Thus skelletons etc. may loose theyr "hp".Oh yes, I forgot about this. Working out the 'how to kill a skeleton without just giving it fixed hp' problem would be ace, pretty much #1 on my list of undead improvements. Every skeleton I hit as an adventurer evaporates at the moment, and it's almost as bad in fortress mode.
Post by: hermes on April 20, 2011, 10:40:26 pm
Quote from: Threetoe
With the construction of sewers drawing to an end comes the beginnings of catacombs. These will twist and turn and mix with other underground structures creating fertile ground for quests and adventuring.
Wow, multi-layered cities are gonna be sweet. Double question time... Could be answers already to these but I cannot recall...
Are there plans to have some entities inhabit the sewers and catacombs (as opposed to just wandering around like the undead), if so what kinds? eg. sewer hermits, black market traders.
And...
Will the undead be given life by a necromancer of sorts, or a god, or the spirits of dead entities, or just.. something else? (I'm thinking of Threetoe's story, Warriors of the Dead (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/story/tt_warriors_dead.html), where the soldiers who come back to the "real world" have returned from a kind of hell, could the undead be populated from entities who have actually already died in worldgen history?)
Edit - Have been going through all Threetoe's stories recently, and another question popped into mind...
How can one access the catacombs? In Dragon Quest (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/story/tt_dragon_quest.html) the priest accesses the catacombs from a church, will it be like this, or through the sewers, or something else?
Post by: Willfor on April 20, 2011, 10:44:06 pm
It hasn't been outright stated anywhere, but that is how I see it most likely happening. In my opinion.
Post by: tigrex on April 20, 2011, 11:58:23 pm
In a world where undead exist, why would anyone bury their dead at all? Why not just chuck everyone in the crematorium?
I'd love there to be a thematic or logical reason, you understand.
Post by: Untelligent on April 21, 2011, 12:03:55 am
Post by: Dbuhos on April 21, 2011, 12:41:51 am
That may be one of the reasons.
Post by: G-Flex on April 21, 2011, 12:51:42 am
How would you feel if your loved one was chopped to pieces then incinerated instead of getting a proper funeral ?
To many cultures, that is a proper funeral. Cremation exists in the real world, as do funeral pyres and that sort of thing.
Post by: Dbuhos on April 21, 2011, 12:56:24 am
How would you feel if your loved one was chopped to pieces then incinerated instead of getting a proper funeral ?
To many cultures, that is a proper funeral. Cremation exists in the real world, as do funeral pyres and that sort of thing.
True...
Post by: Kogut on April 21, 2011, 01:03:44 am
How will night creature creature weaknesses, important ways to deal with specific monsters, making sure they're permanently dead, etc. be dealt with? Especially for night creatures way out in savage lands where nobody's heard of them and information-gathering might not be possible?
Clairvoyance? Prophets? A Wizard Detected It? No information?
Post by: Sowelu on April 21, 2011, 01:04:52 am
In some fantasy universes, undead are a relatively recent invention, too. When the dead were buried, nobody was worried about zombies or skeletons.
Post by: G-Flex on April 21, 2011, 01:07:26 am
I love the sound of catacombs. One question sticks in my mind:
In a world where undead exist, why would anyone bury their dead at all? Why not just chuck everyone in the crematorium?
I'd love there to be a thematic or logical reason, you understand.
Speaking purely hypothetically, there could be practical magical/spiritual reasons for keeping the bodies around. For instance, maybe it's possible to actually convene with said spirits, or for their spirits to actually benefit you from time to time instead of just being wailing ghosts if you're unlucky. I can totally see dwarves (or other entities) engaging in a sort of ancestor-worship, you know, offering prayers to Granddad for good luck or to help with the harvest or what have you.
See also: Morrowind, where the dark elves traditionally bind their ancestors' bones/spirits to a given place for practical reasons, and they eventually have to pretty much donate all their dead people in order to keep the Ghostfence running.
Post by: Dbuhos on April 21, 2011, 03:13:28 am
Post by: Cruxador on April 21, 2011, 03:25:17 am
I love the sound of catacombs. One question sticks in my mind:We already know the answer to this from Dwarf Mode. Burning them yields ghosts. It's undoubtedly much easier to just chuck the bodies in a glorified cellar and bolt the door so they stay there. Ghosts can pass through walls, zombies can't.
In a world where undead exist, why would anyone bury their dead at all? Why not just chuck everyone in the crematorium?
I'd love there to be a thematic or logical reason, you understand.
There's a more pertinent question here.
What sort of situation is likely to prevent bodies from being laid to rest properly? Or are these walking dead active for some other reason?
Post by: Jeremy on April 21, 2011, 07:16:11 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 21, 2011, 09:40:45 am
I'd like to see weaknesses and such be procedurally generated, but unique to monster type. So all the hags are weak to oak wood, and the trolls hate honey, or whatever. Of course, right now I think that each individual night creature is unique compared to all the rest, so unless we get one super-successful night creature that takes enough mates and sires enough children to perpetuate itself (a la Dracula), then we have to deal with the odd fact that the peasants somehow know how to defeat the night creature, but are unable to do it themselves.
If monster types do end up being the way Toady goes (or the successful single night creature posited above), then you have the justification that some folk hero has killed one before, and therefore everyone knows the story. This leads to the situation where all the villagers just know that if you carry holly berries around on your person the local monster won't bother you- unfriendly little towns may withhold this information in order to dispose of unwelcome foreigners who wouldn't know the custom. This could lead to the quasi-symbiotic situation where the villagers are afforded some measure of protection from bandits and the like because the outsiders do not know how to defeat the monster, and since this is beneficial to the villagers they never tell outsiders how to defeat it, which helps the monster kill new victims.
Weaknesses may not kill the creature, though.
Vampires, as Dante was saying, have a weakness to beans - they aren't killed by beans, but they have to stop and count the beans. It distracts them.
I've looked up mythologies from around the world, and some cultures have very quirky, if not outright humorous "weaknesses" for some monsters.
Kappa, for example, are Japanese river creatures that look like humanoid turtles with beaks and carry a plate on their head. The plate is somehow affixed to the top of their bald head and contains the water from their home body of water. If they ever lose contact with their home water, they die immediately, so breaking the plate is the killer weakness of the creature. Their second-favorite meal is human (especially human children)... something. The actual thing they eat changes depending on the story, but generally, it's either the livers, intestines, or some portion of the human's soul, which they suck out through the belly button (or some other, lower opening in the human).
Thing is, their absolute favorite food is cucumbers. So if you bribe kappa with cucumbers, they'll leave you alone, and won't eat you. There are festivals where people write the names of their family members on cucumbers, and toss the cucumbers in the river to bribe the kappa every year, giving up a tribute of cucumbers so the monsters don't eat their souls.
Other amusing things are that, for all their potential soul-eating, you can just plain talk to them, as well, and they were forced to obey customary politeness. If you bow deeply to a kappa in greeting, they would have to bow just as deeply in return, which could spill the water out of their plate, and defeat the kappa for you.
Anyway, something like a way to distract or bribe a monster would probably be more generally known knowledge, since it's something where you didn't have to kill the creature to know it. Maybe a not-quite-so-hostile monster will just outright go up and ask to be bribed if he prefers people throw him his favorite food of their own accord as a sort of protection racket. I mean, the more people know that leaving your favorite whip wine out near your cave will keep you from busting in and killing their family, the more whip wine you'll suddenly find out near your cave for you to drink whenever, right?
Post by: Kogut on April 21, 2011, 10:56:26 am
Post by: Neonivek on April 21, 2011, 11:09:24 am
For example Chinease (I THINK it is) vampires hunt by smelling one's breath. Thus holding your breath legitimately works.
So I guess another weakness could be a condition where the creature lacks the ability to sense the presence of something.
So lets see weaknesses so far
1) Cannot notice
2) Hurt
3) Satiated
4) Stall
I mean if you want more things people have done to avoid monsters
-Walking across a bridge backwards avoids the attention of fairies (and trolls)
-Hemlock under your pillow wards off spirits (I think)
-Wolvesbane wards off Werewolves
Oooh there should be Nightcreatures where if you say their name three times they should just strangle you no matter where you are and they are. Bloodymary should TOTALLY be a night creature!
Post by: darkflagrance on April 21, 2011, 11:15:58 am
Post by: Neonivek on April 21, 2011, 11:47:02 am
Post by: Armok on April 21, 2011, 01:09:57 pm
Post by: Kogut on April 21, 2011, 03:11:33 pm
I really hope Toady actually reads at least part of this great discussion and suggesting.fixed?
Post by: de5me7 on April 21, 2011, 05:00:38 pm
I support any ideas of giving specific creatures some sort of weakness to certain equipment as well as moves etc. It would give silver weapons, wooden weapons, and potentially carp leather amulets another dimension in the game. If bogey men were afraid of carp leather (for bogey men they could get an extreme random dislike of one material) they might not approach within 1 square of any creature wearing that material.
Post by: Vorthon on April 21, 2011, 05:48:12 pm
other roguelikes are all about weaknesses. You need intrinsics to stand a chance of surival in nethack, and exploiting monsters weaknesses to fire etc is essential. The danger with this approach is that you need to spend loads of time collecting a kit together to go on your adventures (this isnt necessarily a bad thing but id defo makes the game even less casual and more research necessary).
I support any ideas of giving specific creatures some sort of weakness to certain equipment as well as moves etc. It would give silver weapons, wooden weapons, and potentially carp leather amulets another dimension in the game. If bogey men were afraid of carp leather (for bogey men they could get an extreme random dislike of one material) they might not approach within 1 square of any creature wearing that material.
Reminds me of the Modern D20 SRD. There's a table for generating random weaknesses for monsters included with it.
Post by: Jeoshua on April 21, 2011, 07:34:55 pm
Talking with certain individuals about those Night Creatures would yield information about them, their strengths and weaknesses. Then you could look around in Legends mode and basically get a list of what weaknesses various creatures have for that world generation.
Adventurer: "What do you know of the beasts that are plaguing your town?"
Peasant: Leans in close
Peasant: "They say that the Horned Woman can't stand the sight of Diamonds."
Peasant: "But maybe that's just an old wives tale."
Post by: monk12 on April 21, 2011, 08:21:30 pm
Not an uncommon trope, I won't even bother pulling out examples.
Post by: Jarhyn on April 21, 2011, 11:16:30 pm
Post by: Jeoshua on April 21, 2011, 11:21:02 pm
I know I can't be the only one that's brought this up before, but why in the heck isn't pyrite usable as an ore of iron? It's well known to be one of the primary ores of iron in the real world.
Quote from: Wikipedia
Pyrite enjoyed brief popularity in the 16th and 17th centuries as a source of ignition in early firearms, most notably the wheellock, where the cock held a lump of pyrite against a circular file to strike the sparks needed to fire the gun.
Pyrite has been used since classical times to manufacture copperas, or iron sulfate. Iron pyrite was heaped up and allowed to weather as described above (an early form of heap leaching). The acidic runoff from the heap was then boiled with iron to produce iron sulfate. In the 15th century, oil of vitriol (sulfuric acid) was manufactured either from copperas or by burning sulfur to sulfur dioxide and then converting that to sulfuric acid. By the 19th century, the dominant method was to burn iron pyrite.[15]
Pyrite remains in commercial use for the production of sulfur dioxide, for use in such applications as the paper industry, and in the manufacture of sulfuric acid. Thermal decomposition of pyrite into FeS (iron sulfide) and elemental sulfur starts at 550 °C; at around 700 °C pS2 is about 1 atm.[16]
Pyrite is a semiconductor material with band gap of 0.95 eV.[17]
During the early years of the 20th century, pyrite was used as a mineral detector in radio receivers, and is still used by 'crystal radio' hobbyists. Until the vacuum tube matured, the crystal detector was the most sensitive and dependable detector available- with considerable variation between mineral types and even individual samples within a particular type of mineral. The most sensitive mineral was galena, which was very sensitive also to mechanical vibration, and easily knocked off the sensitive point; the most stable were perikon mineral pairs; and midway between was the pyrites detector, which is approximately as sensitive as a modern 1N34A diode detector.[18][19]
Pyrite has been proposed as an abundant,inexpensive material in low cost photovoltaic solar panels.[20] Synthetic iron sulfide is used with copper sulfide to create the experimental photovoltaic material.[21]
Pyrite is used to make marcasite jewelry (incorrectly termed marcasite). Marcasite jewelry, made from small faceted pieces of pyrite, often set in silver, was popular in the Victorian era.[22]
I see nothing in there about being an ore. It was used in alchemy, guns, semiconductors, and jewlery. In DF we have it as a gemstone, and gemstones cannot be ores. Since we don't have alchemy in DF Vanilla, there would be no way to extract the Iron Sulfide from it... and if we did no way to separate the Sulfate from the Iron.
But you can make Jewlery from it.
Post by: EmeraldWind on April 21, 2011, 11:33:23 pm
For example, a particular Night Creature may have a tail. The creature cutting off the tail will weaken the creature. In the case of a spouse, removing said tail could restore them to their original form.
I like idea of the possible random weaknesses as like Kohaku pointed out, the kind of folk creatures that Night Creatures are based on have this tendency and at times can be funny in a Nightmare Retardant kind-of-way (which makes sense, as the most likely reason for the weird or funny weaknesses might have be to make the monster less scary).
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 22, 2011, 12:10:59 am
Hercules fought two very notable creatures as part of his trials - the Hydra and the Nemian Lion.
Although the hydra is already in the game, a part of the myth that isn't already a part of the game is that the hydra had poisonous blood and heads that would regrow as he cut them off. Hercules "failed" the trial of the hydra because he had to get advice for how to defeat the hydra (cauterizing the wound with fire to prevent the head from regrowing), but after defeating the hydra, he put his arrows in the blood of the hydra, and used those as poison arrows in his subsequent adventures.
There was also the Nemian Lion, whose hide was essentially impervious to harm. Basically similar to having adamantine skin, the lion could not be harmed by conventional kinetic attack... through its hide. Some tellings of the myth state the weakness of the lion was to attack its open mouth, and crack the skull from the inside, where its hide did not protect it. (Which sounds a lot like a video game boss... "Who would have thought that the boss's only weakness was its giant, glowing red eye?") Hercules then hollowed the lion out, and used its hide as a cloak as a sort of armor.
Also, since I was trying to think of "alternate" type of monster, Celtic folktales have the Leanan Sidhe (or some variant spelling thereof). Sidhe are a general class of fairies in Celtic myth, but the Leanen Sidhe takes the form of beautiful women who act like greek muses - inspiring artists and craftsmen, but at the same time, draining away portions of their life as they pour it into their work.
Some versions of the myth have them feeding off of artistry, and encourage artists to literally put their souls onto their canvas, so that they can feed off them. Other versions have them as something like a succubus. Other versions just play the whole thing as a metaphor for romance in general, and say that any woman can take the aspect of a Leanan Sidhe, and if your love is unrequited, you become her slave, and if you resist her, and her love is unrequited, she becomes your slave.
And of course, there are the potentially beneficial kind of monster, like the Russian Domovoi, or its Japanese counterpart, the Zashiki-Warashi. These are creatures that like to live in people's houses, but hide. As long as they are living with you, they bring your family good fortune, but if they ever leave, it will fall immediately to ruin. As such, if you have one of those, you have to find ways to ensure it can't ever leave, even if that means trying to find a way to cage it. Domovoi are generally entirely benign, unless angered, although Zashiki-Warashi are child-like and enjoy pranks.
When you get onto Japanese stuff, though, they have entirely crazy monsters, like Tenjoname, the ceiling-licker. Apparently a mythological rationalization for water damage to ceilings, the tenjoname literally is a creature that wants to break into your house in the middle of the night to lick your ceiling (and do nothing else), leaving a slobber stain on it.
I'd honestly like to see some more of the utterly bizarre-but-benign magical creatures out there.
Post by: Neonivek on April 22, 2011, 04:19:46 am
Post by: zwei on April 22, 2011, 05:08:01 am
It can ge tiring.
First, i can not really imagine that testing alchemy parameters in each new world would be fun after several worlds.
Seccond, I kinda dislike nethackish adventurer which carries tons of junk around to deal with everything. Gathering said junk can become major checklist pita. (shark leather item against boogey men, check. diamonds against horned women, check, silver whip against ghouls, check ... )
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on April 22, 2011, 09:36:19 am
Post by: Kiktamo on April 22, 2011, 12:31:22 pm
That and I can imagine an awesome story of a hero obtaining power from a night creature or megabeast early on to proterct them then when they obtain enough of there own power coming back to slay the creature.
Post by: Greiger on April 22, 2011, 03:47:01 pm
BOOM
"Another fine successful day doing the work of the gods."
Post by: Asmageddon on April 23, 2011, 02:29:40 am
As for vampires, I like their representation in The Witcher(the books, not the game) - they actually come from another dimension to which a rift was briefly opened long ago by magic, and there are many kinds of them:
Ekimm and Fleder - lower vampires, they are beast-like, humanoid monsters, very brutal and pretty dangerous.
Alp - A higher vampire. Takes on a form of a human women, but can also morph into animals like dog or a cat, usually found near villages. Attacks only during full moon at 12' o'clock. It usually sucks blood of sleeping creatures, injecting a sleep-inducing substance causing nightmares. They move perfectly silently
Katakan - A higher vampire. On Kreta and in Greece it's called "happy vampire" as he always shows his white teeth which looks like a smile. Spits blood at his victims; if it touches someone, he starts burning. Usually attacks cows and horses. To kill a katakan, separate him from salt water in which he lives or boil his head in vinegar.
Bruxa - a higher vampire, does not fear sunlight, can attack with sound waves, has sharp fangs and sings after drinking blood. Can transform into a black bat. Attacks during days and nights, looks like a beautiful woman, and is often mistaken with a dryad or an undine. Has skills of charming and telepathy, but to take control over a crearure she must regularly drink it's blood. It mainly fights with high-pitched, incapacitating sounds
Nosferatu - the highest of vampires. Has a human form and can not be killed with ordinary means. Is resistant to heat and fire, can regenerate even after being chopped up and being buried(although this might take many years). During full moon he can transform into a bat. They don't have to drink blood, but usually do it for pleasure - for them it's like drinking alcohol, except better; most of them are practically addicted to it. A nosferatu can easily live among normal humans, but animals can sense that he's not a normal human with his smell.
Oh, and vampires don't multiply by turning others into vampire - as Regis from The Witcher explained - If there were 12 initial vampires and every of them would drink blood of one person at every full moon, there would be 144 new vampires per year, and all these vampires would create 12 vampires each next year, soon the whole world would be vampires, and I'm not even counting geometric increase per month.
Of course these are just examples, but I would really like to see more kinds of vampires in game - a human-like Nosferatu that the player could eventually even make an ally of(by finding out where a one is, you know, gossip about a strange man that dogs bark at, people with fang marks on their necks, but no casaulties, etc.), some lower, brutal vampires assaulting mainly animals living near villages or in sewers, rich nobles having Bruxes as mistresses and perhaps some other kind of higher vampire that could create new vampires(although perhaps need some special ritual and be limited to one or two in lifetime, so the world does not become full of vampires - perhaps one or two dozens per city on average(with cities with no vampires and ones with tons) forming a strict hierarchy based on who created who)
Pardon my eventual poor grammar, but I'm too lazy to spellcheck it(I spent a lot of time writing this, I have no intention of spending even more on correcting it to sound well).
Post by: Dante on April 23, 2011, 07:02:40 am
Pardon my eventual poor grammar, but I'm too lazy to spellcheck it(I spent a lot of time writing this, I have no intention of spending even more on correcting it to sound well).This seems a strange approach to take.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on April 23, 2011, 09:39:27 am
As for vampires, I like their representation in The Witcher(the books, not the game) - they actually come from another dimension to which a rift was briefly opened long ago by magic, and there are many kinds of them:no thanks. why would ripping vampires from crappy fiction be better than base them on actual folklore?
Post by: Willfor on April 23, 2011, 11:37:21 am
As for vampires, I like their representation in The Witcher(the books, not the game) - they actually come from another dimension to which a rift was briefly opened long ago by magic, and there are many kinds of them:no thanks. why would ripping vampires from crappy fiction be better than base them on actual folklore?
Of course these are just examples, but I would really like to see more kinds of vampires in game - a human-like Nosferatu that the player could eventually even make an ally of(by finding out where a one is, you know, gossip about a strange man that dogs bark at, people with fang marks on their necks, but no casaulties, etc.), some lower, brutal vampires assaulting mainly animals living near villages or in sewers, rich nobles having Bruxes as mistresses and perhaps some other kind of higher vampire that could create new vampires(although perhaps need some special ritual and be limited to one or two in lifetime, so the world does not become full of vampires - perhaps one or two dozens per city on average(with cities with no vampires and ones with tons) forming a strict hierarchy based on who created who)
From the above quote, I think he is simply throwing in ideas that could be incorporated into the design, and not that these should be ripped wholesale.
As for my own take, I think weaknesses would be fun as long as one thought is borne in mind: With enough firepower, anything should be removed from the material world. If it is weak against garlic, and I have garlic, cool. If it's weak against garlic, and I have an axe, I should be able to have a shot at mangling it until it's no longer able to physically exist.
I make the distinction between physical existence and an other-form of existence because some things should be able to come back to haunt the mortal world, even if they have been removed from their bodies.
Post by: de5me7 on April 23, 2011, 12:48:33 pm
Seccond, I kinda dislike nethackish adventurer which carries tons of junk around to deal with everything. Gathering said junk can become major checklist pita. (shark leather item against boogey men, check. diamonds against horned women, check, silver whip against ghouls, check ... )
I here you Zwei
whilst i approve of weaknesses if they are common every adventure would start with you going out to collect a load of crap. Imo they weakness should be restricted to a small portion of the games monsters. Possibly some undead, the boogey men, and perhaps some individual mega or forgotton beasts. So you may have the occasional quest where you need to get an item or material inorder to increase your chances of success, or if you really want to go out of your way to fight the boogyondown men etc.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on April 23, 2011, 01:19:30 pm
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 23, 2011, 01:46:17 pm
In fact, anything that makes monsters a bit more different from a random goblin is good.
Post by: Neonivek on April 23, 2011, 01:49:16 pm
You don't find monsters in everyday woods.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 23, 2011, 03:12:07 pm
Well, monsters in Dwarf Fortress are rare. In generic roguelike, you kill dozens of monsters per minute. In Dwarf Fortress, you spend a lot of time wandering from town to town and finding a monster's lair and then killing one monster. They are so uncommon they could very well all have distinct disadvantages without you having to have a bloated inventory.
In fact, anything that makes monsters a bit more different from a random goblin is good.
Yes, if you have to be specifically hunting for a monster, or know that only 3 particular night creatures are in the area, you can stock up on that one town's particular creature's weaknesses at the local shops, rather than knowing that horned hags are vulnerable to shark leather bags, and carrying one around everywhere after you've left the only town near one (or killed the last of the horned hags) .
Also,
As for my own take, I think weaknesses would be fun as long as one thought is borne in mind: With enough firepower, anything should be removed from the material world. If it is weak against garlic, and I have garlic, cool. If it's weak against garlic, and I have an axe, I should be able to have a shot at mangling it until it's no longer able to physically exist.
I definitely agree with this.
Even things like trolls that regenerate unless you kill them with fire or acid should eventually stop regenerating if you chop it into kindling and then mash the kindling into paste enough times. EVENTUALLY, its energy supply or food supply or whatever will run out, and it should just plain starve to death after you keep mashing it into a finer and finer paste faster than it can heal.
Post by: SalmonGod on April 23, 2011, 03:17:32 pm
Even things like trolls that regenerate unless you kill them with fire or acid should eventually stop regenerating if you chop it into kindling and then mash the kindling into paste enough times. EVENTUALLY, its energy supply or food supply or whatever will run out, and it should just plain starve to death after you keep mashing it into a finer and finer paste faster than it can heal.
Heh... Heh... once had to kill a troll in Nethack by eating it. That was fun.
Post by: Untelligent on April 23, 2011, 03:23:44 pm
Also,As for my own take, I think weaknesses would be fun as long as one thought is borne in mind: With enough firepower, anything should be removed from the material world. If it is weak against garlic, and I have garlic, cool. If it's weak against garlic, and I have an axe, I should be able to have a shot at mangling it until it's no longer able to physically exist.
I definitely agree with this.
Even things like trolls that regenerate unless you kill them with fire or acid should eventually stop regenerating if you chop it into kindling and then mash the kindling into paste enough times. EVENTUALLY, its energy supply or food supply or whatever will run out, and it should just plain starve to death after you keep mashing it into a finer and finer paste faster than it can heal.
Aye, I was thinking along these lines but I couldn't quite figure out how to put my thoughts into words. You two did that quite eloquently, though.
Post by: de5me7 on April 23, 2011, 04:36:46 pm
An interesting weakness for a monster might be to be beaten with part of its own anatomy.
Post by: G-Flex on April 23, 2011, 04:47:24 pm
An interesting weakness for a monster might be to be beaten with part of its own anatomy.
This is actually more likely and reasonable than you might think. For instance, imagine a creature with extremely tough skin, but also extremely sharp claws capable of piercing that skin better than your own weapon. Alternatively, imagine stinging a giant scorpion with its own stinger.
Post by: Lord Shonus on April 23, 2011, 05:14:39 pm
Post by: dree12 on April 23, 2011, 05:43:51 pm
The vast majority of venomous animals irl are immune to their own poison, so that makes less logic than one would think.This isn't entirely correct, as far as I know.
Quote from: Wikipedia
The question whether individual snakes are immune to their own venom is not yet definitely settled, though there is a known example of a cobra which self-envenomated, resulting in a large abscess requiring surgical intervention but showing none of the other effects that would have proven rapidly lethal in prey species or humans.[8] Furthermore, certain harmless species, such as the North American Coronella getula and the Brazilian Rhacidelus brazili, are proof against the venom of the crotalines which frequent the same districts, and which they are able to overpower and feed upon. The Tropical Rat Snake, Spilotes variabilis, is the enemy of the Fer-de-lance in St. Lucia, and it is said[who?] that in their encounters the Cribo is invariably the victor. Repeated experiments have shown the European Common Snake, Tropidonotus natrix, not to be affected by the bite of Vipera berus and Vipera aspis, this being due to the presence, in the blood of the harmless snake, of toxic principles secreted by the parotid and labial glands, and analogous to those of the venom of these vipers. Several North American species of Rat snakes as well as King snakes have proven to be immune or highly resistant to the venom of Rattle snake species.
It could well be possible that venom will kill the bearer.
Post by: EmeraldWind on April 23, 2011, 06:08:41 pm
That said, it may not be bad carrying around a bunch of Night Creature weaknesses if you are specifically trying to get rid the world of Night Creatures. I imagine a vampire hunter pulling out a case with several vials with different grasses in them, silver and gold daggers, maybe a wooden stake, perhaps a holy symbol or two, and a notebook filled with research about different creatures. It's kind of a cool image and I would probably do it once or twice.
Post by: Untelligent on April 23, 2011, 06:58:45 pm
Post by: Quatch on April 23, 2011, 08:39:25 pm
Post by: Greiger on April 23, 2011, 09:13:50 pm
Like the legend of werewolves being vulnerable to silver for instance. A werewolf may be particularly resilient, but I always thought of werewolves to still be living creatures. A lopped off arm is still a lopped off arm no matter what did it. The creature may have the strength of will to continue fighting through the wound, or just flies into a berserk rage. Or maybe even has strong regeneration like a troll, and the wound quickly stops bleeding and could even grow back good as new after a week or so.
A sword to the heart would still be very lethal, lose blood far too too quickly in that case for the wound to begin to heal over in time, should a warrior manage the strike. Same with a decapitation or a cut throat, and other wounds would still cause the creature to lose blood, and even disable the part for the present. But the bloodloss would be insignificant unless it's a massive injury. And most fatalitles in DF seem to come from bloodloss.
And then a creature's weakness comes in. A seasoned warrior may be able to handle such creatures with normal methods. However most are not seasoned warriors. A local average Joe town militia would need an advantage. Silver in the case of a werewolf. For example silver could act as a strong anti-coagulant, causing a werewolf to bleed out from even a minor wound. Or a creature with special 'impenetrable' hide's flesh could react chemically with a certain element, causing necrosis. Or it could even just be a simple allergy. Even without magic being involved.
That seems perfectly reasonable to me anyway, and as long as the object comes into contact with the creature it doesn't seem too hard to explain it without magic being around. An adventurer could still brute force their way through a fight. But it still gives incentive to obtain such items if possible. If you and 5 buddies in full armor want to go kill a single werewolf or something in the woods, going through the effort to obtain silver weapons is probably not worth the trouble. However if you were a lone adventurer in leather who can barely hold a sword right, or you replace the werewolf with something akin to a dragon, the extra preparation is prudent, and could very well be the difference between amazing glorious victory and unfortunate chewy defeat. While not being completely necessary for success.
Post by: Untelligent on April 23, 2011, 09:16:23 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 23, 2011, 09:47:32 pm
The vast majority of venomous animals irl are immune to their own poison, so that makes less logic than one would think.
Less often than you would think.
Real-life spiders are capable of being trapped in their own web, for example. They just always build their webs with only certain strands being sticky, so that they know to only walk on the strands that they know don't have sticky parts.
Defeating a GCS by tricking it into getting caught in its own web would be an amusing adventure tale.
Generally speaking, it's more evolutionariliy advantageous to save venom and develop a venom delivery system that will not accidentally inject yourself with venom than it is to actually make yourself immune to your own venom.
Also, who knows how the physiologies of magic creatures work? Maybe some creatures have flaming steel-like horns whose magical upkeep requires portions of their body be vulnerable to fire or a steel-like horn piercing it? It could be using flammable liquid stored in a pair of bladders that cause the fire by being combined at the tip of the horn. By breaking the flammable liquid bladders, they'll combine inside the creature's own body, and cause it to start internal combustion. Just like in actual battles from ancient Japan, attack the weak spot of that giant crab for MASSIVE DAMAGE.
Post by: Lord Shonus on April 23, 2011, 10:00:48 pm
Post by: Arihim on April 23, 2011, 10:04:46 pm
like the following:
- walking their dog
- going to the market
- walking down a street, meeting a person they know, then having a conversation
- hobos, (a must in cities). Hobos that get drunk and get taken away by the guards
- They'll be guards or some form of law inforcement right ?
- Some citizens should walk in pairs or as a group. I've yet to see this in games.
Post by: monk12 on April 23, 2011, 10:06:25 pm
And then a creature's weakness comes in. A seasoned warrior may be able to handle such creatures with normal methods. However most are not seasoned warriors. A local average Joe town militia would need an advantage. Silver in the case of a werewolf. For example silver could act as a strong anti-coagulant, causing a werewolf to bleed out from even a minor wound. Or a creature with special 'impenetrable' hide's flesh could react chemically with a certain element, causing necrosis. Or it could even just be a simple allergy. Even without magic being involved.
This actually got me thinking about different types of heroes- you've got the "seasoned warrior" types who beat down their enemies through legendary strength and battle prowess (Hercules being the classical example, and Superman being a comic book example), and you've got the "trickster" types, who use planning, foresight, and quick wits to out-think their enemies (Perseus being the classical example, and Batman being the comic book example.)
In DF, you can obviously emulate the former by genning a demigod adventurer who is legendary at everything and has great stats, or by training up the skills of a regular hero, and then going and killing monsters. There's basic tactics and skill at fighting at work, and the contest comes down to skill, strength, and a bit of luck. The addition of night creature weaknesses opens up the second type of hero more, allowing the adventurer to do a bit of research and grab the silver sword/random shrub/misc. object that will enable him to easily overcome an otherwise formidable obstacle.
The former type of hero is well modeled (which I actually find rather refreshing, in a very Beowulf sort of way,) while the latter is sorely lacking. Right now, about as tricky as you can get as a hero is to bring half a castle along with you on your adventures. It even (kinda) makes sense for this sort of thing to come in parallel to caravan arc stuff- after all, what kind of city market doesn't have a lovable rogue in it?
Post by: Ghills on April 23, 2011, 10:39:20 pm
And then a creature's weakness comes in. A seasoned warrior may be able to handle such creatures with normal methods. However most are not seasoned warriors. A local average Joe town militia would need an advantage. Silver in the case of a werewolf. For example silver could act as a strong anti-coagulant, causing a werewolf to bleed out from even a minor wound. Or a creature with special 'impenetrable' hide's flesh could react chemically with a certain element, causing necrosis. Or it could even just be a simple allergy. Even without magic being involved.
This actually got me thinking about different types of heroes- you've got the "seasoned warrior" types who beat down their enemies through legendary strength and battle prowess (Hercules being the classical example, and Superman being a comic book example), and you've got the "trickster" types, who use planning, foresight, and quick wits to out-think their enemies (Perseus being the classical example, and Batman being the comic book example.)
In DF, you can obviously emulate the former by genning a demigod adventurer who is legendary at everything and has great stats, or by training up the skills of a regular hero, and then going and killing monsters. There's basic tactics and skill at fighting at work, and the contest comes down to skill, strength, and a bit of luck. The addition of night creature weaknesses opens up the second type of hero more, allowing the adventurer to do a bit of research and grab the silver sword/random shrub/misc. object that will enable him to easily overcome an otherwise formidable obstacle.
The former type of hero is well modeled (which I actually find rather refreshing, in a very Beowulf sort of way,) while the latter is sorely lacking. Right now, about as tricky as you can get as a hero is to bring half a castle along with you on your adventures. It even (kinda) makes sense for this sort of thing to come in parallel to caravan arc stuff- after all, what kind of city market doesn't have a lovable rogue in it?
The well-fed and thought-fully policed kind. If there are enough legitimate ways to make money fewer people become criminals, and if law and order is enforced carefully and with planning then fewer criminals stick around.
I'm interested in the chances to be thoughtful and clever legally, and it sounds like that kind of thing is coming up with chances to buy/sell real estate, run caravans, etc.
Post by: Untelligent on April 23, 2011, 10:59:36 pm
Does anyone know what release, if any, Toady plans to implement activities for city citizens ?
like the following:
- walking their dog
- going to the market
- walking down a street, meeting a person they know, then having a conversation
- hobos, (a must in cities). Hobos that get drunk and get taken away by the guards
- They'll be guards or some form of law inforcement right ?
- Some citizens should walk in pairs or as a group. I've yet to see this in games.
Release #2 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html) has villager activities and farmer schedules, so that seems the most likely.
In other words, there'll be the upcoming version with yet another town revamp, then a few releases in which many bugs are swatted and several more emerge from their fallen corpses, and then after Toady takes a flamethrower to all those digital arthropods he'll start working on a feature release with people doing stuff and more interesting mineral stuff.
I don't know exactly what Toady means by villager activities, but we should get at least a few things. Releases 3 and 4 will have taverns, and inns and fairs, respectively, so villagers'll do even more stuff to do in those.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 23, 2011, 11:46:34 pm
after all, what kind of city market doesn't have a lovable rogue in it?
The well-fed and thought-fully policed kind. If there are enough legitimate ways to make money fewer people become criminals, and if law and order is enforced carefully and with planning then fewer criminals stick around.
I'm interested in the chances to be thoughtful and clever legally, and it sounds like that kind of thing is coming up with chances to buy/sell real estate, run caravans, etc.
Believe it or not, not all rogues are criminals. Some rogues are just scouts, army irregulars, or exceptionally multi-talented businessmen.
Anyway, yes, I do look forward to an adventurer mode where combat is less a matter of just having more stats and experience points and better armor than the other guy. It smacks of the exact kind of common RPG grind that DF is supposed to be avoiding.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on April 24, 2011, 01:50:41 am
Believe it or not, not all rogues are criminals. Some rogues are just scouts, army irregulars, or exceptionally multi-talented businessmen.outside of dnd, rogue means a criminal or generally unprincipled person... i don't think people were referring to "rogue" as a character class
Post by: Lord Shonus on April 24, 2011, 01:58:38 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on April 24, 2011, 02:07:09 am
Quote
scouts, army irregulars, or exceptionally multi-talented businessmenmade it sound like nw_kohaku was talking about the dnd character class or a specific set of skills
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 24, 2011, 02:41:35 am
well, yeah, butQuotescouts, army irregulars, or exceptionally multi-talented businessmenmade it sound like nw_kohaku was talking about the dnd character class or a specific set of skills
This actually got me thinking about different types of heroes- you've got the "seasoned warrior" types who beat down their enemies through legendary strength and battle prowess (Hercules being the classical example, and Superman being a comic book example), and you've got the "trickster" types, who use planning, foresight, and quick wits to out-think their enemies (Perseus being the classical example, and Batman being the comic book example.)
...
Right now, about as tricky as you can get as a hero is to bring half a castle along with you on your adventures. It even (kinda) makes sense for this sort of thing to come in parallel to caravan arc stuff- after all, what kind of city market doesn't have a lovable rogue in it?
I think Monk12 was referring to both the "adventurer archetype" as well as the sort of "rogue" that you might hear about in phrases like "a dashing rogue".
Post by: kaypy on April 24, 2011, 05:54:00 am
Post by: freeformschooler on April 24, 2011, 10:58:37 am
That's what I'm gonna do.
No, not really - I'm gonna be a vegetable trader. But I'll try that too.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 24, 2011, 11:30:06 am
I think Release 9 is going to be the most interesting release. You buy a cottage, and with adventure mode reactions become a crafting or one thing or another -- and then you sell your useless crafts to people for as much gold as you can get, and then you pile your house sky high with gold and swim around in it (half-literally).
That's what I'm gonna do.
No, not really - I'm gonna be a vegetable trader. But I'll try that too.
While that sounds like a cool idea on paper, I worry that it will be quite boring in practice.
I mean, you outline it by saying that you'll make crafts or trade vegetables, but when you fill in the space between the lines, you're going to be moving back and forth in your house, picking up individual items, putting them in whatever workspace you have, manually punching through the tasks of doing things, and then walking to market, selling those things, then picking up more raw materials, and rinse-repeating this whole process again.
The fun parts are the parts you just mentioned, but the thing about Fortress Mode is that the dwarves do the tedious "actually doing the labor" part for you. If all we're doing all the manually crafting things and selling them, we're basically playing an MMO or community game except with no "MM" or "O" or community.
If we're going to have a fun domestic life, we're going to need to have a town that is more fun to simply hang out around, and talk to people and do basic things around. That means that release 2, the part about having bustling towns and interesting daily lives for all the random peasants is most important.
Post by: Kogut on April 24, 2011, 11:38:06 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 24, 2011, 11:52:42 am
When you get right down to it, doing some basic chores every day, using some crafting skills to make items that you only wind up selling, and basically just generating cash is the basis of Harvest Moon... and even Harvest Moon has started turning itself into a Legend of Zelda-style adventure game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rune_Factory) that just happens to have farming being the basis of your magic skills and easiest path to cash, and even early on, the major point of Harvest Moon was to build up relationships with the other villagers.
Basically, just grinding money by producing stacks of items isn't very fun all on its own, you either need to make the actual process of making those items fun (See Puzzle Pirates (http://www.puzzlepirates.com/)) or else you need to make the process of crafting or raising money an intermediate step on the way to getting to something else more fun.
Of course, if we just go for full-blown Sims mode, where we can buy a plot of land, design our own house, build our own furniture, and decorate however we want, there's at least some of the "Dollhouse" game fun aspect of it.
Still, I'm going to say that making interactions with the random citizens of your town the part where you're supposed to have your fun would be the best overall course of action.
Again, crafting things and contributing to the community works in a MMO or community game because people want to be a part of the community, and if the community was bad, they wouldn't bother crafting things for money. (This is generally why everyone plays World of Warcraft - it's where all the clans already are, and where everyone who's been playing there already knows people. Even if there was a World of Warcraft clone that fixed all of WoW's problems, and was better in every way, people would still play WoW, because that's where their friends are.)
Toady has a great capacity to surprise with what he can actually manage to pull off, but I'm not sure procedurally generated communities are going to be as dynamic and enjoyable as real-life people will be, even if we take out points for griefing and trolling, any time soon.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 24, 2011, 01:40:12 pm
Post by: tps12 on April 24, 2011, 07:34:13 pm
The fun parts are the parts you just mentioned, but the thing about Fortress Mode is that the dwarves do the tedious "actually doing the labor" part for you. If all we're doing all the manually crafting things and selling them, we're basically playing an MMO or community game except with no "MM" or "O" or community.
That stuff sounds boring to me even within an MMO game, but it comes up all the time. For whatever reason, some people seem really enamored of role-playing the life of Urist the Hauler.
Post by: Dakk on April 24, 2011, 08:53:55 pm
Really though, the reason to why every MMO bogs down to a lame grind race is because in the end its the numbers on your equipment and not your skill that matters most.
But anyway, having a slice of economy is necessary for the DF roleplaying experience get closer to being complete. Imagine playing as a trader, gathering enough wealth to buy yourself a nice mansion in the richest part of the town, become a member of nobility through your money and influence and eventualy usurp the throne. An RPG doesn't need to consist only of "I HIT ARGUEBARGLE WITH MY STEEL SWORD +3"
Post by: zwei on April 25, 2011, 02:19:54 am
Or Urist the resource gatherer/auction house economic speculator.
Really though, the reason to why every MMO bogs down to a lame grind race is because in the end its the numbers on your equipment and not your skill that matters most.
But anyway, having a slice of economy is necessary for the DF roleplaying experience get closer to being complete. Imagine playing as a trader, gathering enough wealth to buy yourself a nice mansion in the richest part of the town, become a member of nobility through your money and influence and eventualy usurp the throne. An RPG doesn't need to consist only of "I HIT ARGUEBARGLE WITH MY STEEL SWORD +3"
Not really. Guild Wars - MMO where you could not really improve character with grinding also ended up being grindfest because people still wanted pretty items (even if they were sometimes less powerfull that ordinary ones) and nice title under character name.
Grind also happens when you run out of content. No-one sane will grind that +3 right away. But grinding it when they run out of interesting quests/dungeons/exploration/whatever is natural choice - the only other solution is to quit game. Also noted in GW. People were done playing but did not want to quit so they ASKED for grind.
Post by: Kogut on April 25, 2011, 03:58:44 am
Quote
Grind also happens when you run out of content. No-one sane will grind that +3 right away. But grinding it when they run out of interesting quests/dungeons/exploration/whatever is natural choice - the only other solution is to quit game. Also noted in GW. People were done playing but did not want to quit so they ASKED for grind.Tom Sawyer Whitewashing the Fence
Post by: tps12 on April 25, 2011, 08:44:19 am
Post by: Serrational on April 25, 2011, 11:15:48 am
On the topic of "weird folklore monsters," I just remembered magical penis thieves (http://harpers.org/archive/2008/06/0082063)....if you run Deons, beware.
Post by: monk12 on April 25, 2011, 11:59:02 am
I think Release 9 is going to be the most interesting release. You buy a cottage, and with adventure mode reactions become a crafting or one thing or another -- and then you sell your useless crafts to people for as much gold as you can get, and then you pile your house sky high with gold and swim around in it (half-literally).
That's what I'm gonna do.
No, not really - I'm gonna be a vegetable trader. But I'll try that too.
I plan to be a cattle rancher, on the theory that once the novelty of being able to ranch in an RPG wears off I can push it to extremes, and try to perform successful cattle raids until I control the worlds supply of beef. Then perform genocide.
Post by: Totaku on April 25, 2011, 08:37:24 pm
Have you considered the possibiitly that since your making sewers and other building structure about including graveyards?
Perhaps even a possibility that the graveyard could be haunted you maybe you'l have to go extermine the undead? I think that would be sort of fun.
I don't know if this is releated enough with the current arc. But I thought that since cities are being made this would be a good oprotunity to ask since it just seems to make sense.
Post by: Greiger on April 25, 2011, 09:00:31 pm
I plan to be a cattle rancher, on the theory that once the novelty of being able to ranch in an RPG wears off I can push it to extremes, and try to perform successful cattle raids until I control the worlds supply of beef. Then perform genocide.
I've already been doing something along the lines of making a hunter instead of an adventurer. Killing animals (aggressive and non-aggressive alike) butchering the corpses and selling crafts made from the results(thanks to a home-brew mod). It is actually quite entertaining despite how I expected it to be grindy and boring. And it actually seems to be a reliable and comparatively safe (compared to running into a dragon lair, grabbing loot and running for your life) way to make money. Even without the mod to allow crafting, the raw materials from the butchering like the hide and the meat products seem to fetch a pretty good price in shops for the effort.
Can't wait til I can actually build a hunting hut and stuff like that to store things and act as a safe base of operations more than a day's travel from civilization.
Post by: monk12 on April 25, 2011, 09:39:36 pm
I plan to be a cattle rancher, on the theory that once the novelty of being able to ranch in an RPG wears off I can push it to extremes, and try to perform successful cattle raids until I control the worlds supply of beef. Then perform genocide.
I've already been doing something along the lines of making a hunter instead of an adventurer. Killing animals (aggressive and non-aggressive alike) butchering the corpses and selling crafts made from the results(thanks to a home-brew mod). It is actually quite entertaining despite how I expected it to be grindy and boring. And it actually seems to be a reliable and comparatively safe (compared to running into a dragon lair, grabbing loot and running for your life) way to make money. Even without the mod to allow crafting, the raw materials from the butchering like the hide and the meat products seem to fetch a pretty good price in shops for the effort.
Can't wait til I can actually build a hunting hut and stuff like that to store things and act as a safe base of operations more than a day's travel from civilization.
Last time I did much adventuring I went for a Gentleman Adventurer vibe, attempting to kill all animals in the world. Went pretty well up until I tried the caverns- kept getting wiped out by GCS and Blind Cave Ogres before I realized they were there.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 25, 2011, 09:49:51 pm
Have you considered the possibiitly that since your making sewers and other building structure about including graveyards?
This is from the old dev goals, (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html) but since it's a core item and graveyards are much easier to implement than the catacombs that are currently being implemented, I'd expect it sooner rather than later:
Quote from: dev_single
# Core68, GRAVEYARDS AND TOMBS, (Future): Right now the dead are so dead they don't exist outside of the fantastic memories of the people that have heard of them. There should be various methods of disposal, some adventure-full ones being graveyards and tombs, including large and elaborate tombs with all sorts of treasure and traps appropriate for the civilization that created them. Related to Core67.
Post by: darkflagrance on April 26, 2011, 12:21:58 am
Have you considered the possibiitly that since your making sewers and other building structure about including graveyards?
This is from the old dev goals, (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html) but since it's a core item and graveyards are much easier to implement than the catacombs that are currently being implemented, I'd expect it sooner rather than later:Quote from: dev_single# Core68, GRAVEYARDS AND TOMBS, (Future): Right now the dead are so dead they don't exist outside of the fantastic memories of the people that have heard of them. There should be various methods of disposal, some adventure-full ones being graveyards and tombs, including large and elaborate tombs with all sorts of treasure and traps appropriate for the civilization that created them. Related to Core67.
Toady did say that the new catacomb additions and their inhabitants had fortress mode implications.
I plan to be a cattle rancher, on the theory that once the novelty of being able to ranch in an RPG wears off I can push it to extremes, and try to perform successful cattle raids until I control the worlds supply of beef. Then perform genocide.
I've already been doing something along the lines of making a hunter instead of an adventurer. Killing animals (aggressive and non-aggressive alike) butchering the corpses and selling crafts made from the results(thanks to a home-brew mod). It is actually quite entertaining despite how I expected it to be grindy and boring. And it actually seems to be a reliable and comparatively safe (compared to running into a dragon lair, grabbing loot and running for your life) way to make money. Even without the mod to allow crafting, the raw materials from the butchering like the hide and the meat products seem to fetch a pretty good price in shops for the effort.
Can't wait til I can actually build a hunting hut and stuff like that to store things and act as a safe base of operations more than a day's travel from civilization.
You can always use DFHack to convert an abandoned fort into a lair so your items don't scramble when you leave the map, and use that as your HQ.
Post by: blue sam3 on April 26, 2011, 03:17:18 pm
Quote
Not really. Guild Wars - MMO where you could not really improve character with grinding also ended up being grindfest because people still wanted pretty items (even if they were sometimes less powerfull that ordinary ones) and nice title under character name.
Grind also happens when you run out of content. No-one sane will grind that +3 right away. But grinding it when they run out of interesting quests/dungeons/exploration/whatever is natural choice - the only other solution is to quit game. Also noted in GW. People were done playing but did not want to quit so they ASKED for grind.
I can think of precisely one online game that isn't a grindfest, and it's the only MMO I've ever paid for. These days it's gone a bit downhill in terms of the size and quality of the population (which more or less makes or breaks the game) and the implementation of a whole variety of features (although the new devs say they'll be fixing that, eventually) and a very, very small grind that only a small portion of the population partakes in for any length of time, but it's still reasonably decent.
Anyway, on to the point of that lot. Grinding isn't absolutely necessary in a game, but it is very, very difficult to avoid. With sufficient levels of depth and complexity and / or a reliance on the abilities of the individual sitting at the screen above and beyond stats within the game, it is doable, but it will need an awful lot of thinking and planning in advance to make it work at all (as shown by the above example - a series of very minor adjustments utterly destroyed the balance that had previously existed for a long while (years), that it's only just beginning to recover from).
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 26, 2011, 10:31:11 pm
On the topic of "weird folklore monsters," I just remembered magical penis thieves (http://harpers.org/archive/2008/06/0082063).
*just read that*
OoooOOOOoooh! What a nice find! That's exactly the sort of article I love.
Post by: freeformschooler on April 26, 2011, 11:04:07 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 26, 2011, 11:17:04 pm
QuoteNot really. Guild Wars - MMO where you could not really improve character with grinding also ended up being grindfest because people still wanted pretty items (even if they were sometimes less powerfull that ordinary ones) and nice title under character name.
Grind also happens when you run out of content. No-one sane will grind that +3 right away. But grinding it when they run out of interesting quests/dungeons/exploration/whatever is natural choice - the only other solution is to quit game. Also noted in GW. People were done playing but did not want to quit so they ASKED for grind.
I can think of precisely one online game that isn't a grindfest, and it's the only MMO I've ever paid for. These days it's gone a bit downhill in terms of the size and quality of the population (which more or less makes or breaks the game) and the implementation of a whole variety of features (although the new devs say they'll be fixing that, eventually) and a very, very small grind that only a small portion of the population partakes in for any length of time, but it's still reasonably decent.
Anyway, on to the point of that lot. Grinding isn't absolutely necessary in a game, but it is very, very difficult to avoid. With sufficient levels of depth and complexity and / or a reliance on the abilities of the individual sitting at the screen above and beyond stats within the game, it is doable, but it will need an awful lot of thinking and planning in advance to make it work at all (as shown by the above example - a series of very minor adjustments utterly destroyed the balance that had previously existed for a long while (years), that it's only just beginning to recover from).
Or Urist the resource gatherer/auction house economic speculator.
Really though, the reason to why every MMO bogs down to a lame grind race is because in the end its the numbers on your equipment and not your skill that matters most.
But anyway, having a slice of economy is necessary for the DF roleplaying experience get closer to being complete. Imagine playing as a trader, gathering enough wealth to buy yourself a nice mansion in the richest part of the town, become a member of nobility through your money and influence and eventualy usurp the throne. An RPG doesn't need to consist only of "I HIT ARGUEBARGLE WITH MY STEEL SWORD +3"
Well toady has mentioned a fast forward feature for stuff like meditating under a waterfall for a week or hanging out in giant tree for 3 days. Given that you have the tools and corresponding rooms i could imagine the same would apply to farming. And you could still hire some people to help you out with the farming given that you have some cash.
Well, the point I was trying to raise is that, while this stuff can be a part of the game, that doesn't mean that just because we have to include some crafting and a way to make a living off of doing crafting, we shouldn't be coming up with ways to make it more fun. (Or Fun, as the case may be.)
I have played relatively few MMO games, and never played World of Warcraft, and generally only liked the ones I liked, however briefly, because I liked the people I was playing with, and generally just went with the grind because that's what you had to do, keep up with your friends.
There was only one MMO that I actually "enjoyed the grind" with, and that was Puzzle Pirates.
I loved carpentry. Most people hated carpentry, too, which was all the better for me, because I could go into sieges, pull incredibles all day, and walk away with boatloads of cash for my trouble. I didn't care whether anybody needed carpentry or not, if I was on a boat where I didn't have to care about the outcome of the battle too much, I would carp, and was basically capable of single-handedly keeping a mid-sized ship in top shape.
I actually only started getting bored with the game when I did get involved with the community, and wound up having to play the games I didn't like as much. (The damn non-combat navigation puzzle... which was very boring and repetitive, but which I was the best in my flag at, so I wound up either soloing to raise money by navigating around all the time, or I was navigating for my crew because it's an important job, and I was the best at it. Also, loading cannons.)
The thing is, you don't really have levels in Puzzle Pirates, you just have property and cash, and you do things to get money and buy neat things like your own boat or large houses and furniture and clothing, and if you gather enough people in your crew and enough crews to make a flag and enough boats under your flag, you can even go claiming islands.
I'm kind of drifting WAAAAY off point, but what I'm trying to say is that there are a few ways to make these things actually enjoyable and worth doing for more than just having the option to do them.
One way is to make there be a reward for grinding cash. To an extent, being able to buy land and build a house is certainly something, if only for the "dollhouse" fun of being able to construct your own personal little playpen. Still, this makes the grinding a bit of a chore to be done in order to get to the fun parts.
The second way is to make the grinding itself fun and interesting. This means that, like Puzzle Pirates, you make the part where you actually are crafting something into a minigame that people would enjoy for its own sake.
In Puzzle Pirates, I didn't like the distilling minigame, but I had to go through the motions of being good at it to supply my crew with the stockpiles of rum they needed. I actually rather liked the alchemy minigame, though, and would happily waste time playing alchemy, even though I was only "practicing" so that I wouldn't waste my labor points that I needed to spend on distilling.
If the grind itself is fun, then you don't really need anything at the other end of the grind to make the tedious parts worth it - after all, many games have a "grind" where you have to go through successive levels or stages before you get to the final boss, but generally speaking, the actual act of rampaging through the maps is exactly what you came for in the first place, not seeing the credits roll.
If, for example, hunting all by itself is fun, especially if we make all the animals have more distinct behaviors, so that hunting different animals really does feel different, and not like a wild horse is basically the same thing as a mountain goat, but larger, then we can have a fun game just hunting those wild animals.
Likewise, if we want to make driving a caravan fun, we might want to look at the classic Koei Uncharted Waters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncharted_Waters) series, where you sailed as a merchant trader, explorer, or even pirate of the Age of Exploration. Searching out and exploiting trade routes, evading pirates, and picking fights with targets of opportunity whose national alliances happened to be enemies of your own were all fun in and of their own right, especially when you have things like the ability to make investments in certain ports to develop their markets, and having temporarily fulfilled the demand or exhausted the supply of certain routes, forcing you to find new ones.
For something like a "living the life of a farmer/clothier/potter/bowyer/cheesemaker" to be a fun game, we need to introduce something that might make the actual act of whatever labor it is you are doing become interesting.
I'm not sure if Puzzle Pirate-style minigames even fit with DF's motif, much less are a right answer, but there should be an effort to put some kind of dynamic spin on most of the jobs that a player can take up.
The third way to make things enjoyable, however, is to make the world around it enjoyable. This is what most MMO games live upon - they have a boring, repetitive game, but you can play it with your friends, and you derive all your fun from hanging out with people that you like online. (And the game is agonizing if you hate the people you play with.)
In order to do this, as I hinted at before, you need to generate procedural populations in towns that are actually fun to get to know.
This goes hand in hand with the sort of "The Sims" dollhouse aspect of the game, where you can basically not only make your own little cottage on the edge of town, but where you can then go out and interact with the neighbors in some sort of meaningful way. In The Sims, this means doing things like setting up block parties or trying to have a character that "Woohoos" as many other characters as possible, or otherwise having some sort of way in which you can feel like your character is participating in a world with characters that have motivations and their own personal dramas. Then, you can start trying to manipulate the story to your own liking.
Ideally, these characters would be capable of telling some sort of procedurally-generated life story where one boy is in love with a girl he's known forever, but she ignores him for the wild boy who spent time living with elves, and plays up his foreign tastes, but is a big show-off and phony. Or the competition of the two most notorious gossiping housewives in town. Or what the Dark Duck Saloon's barkeep has been putting in his brew that's been suddenly getting him so much more of the business around town...
And then you can walk in and kick dirt all over all the personal dramas however you want.
Maybe the examples I've listed are a bit too much to ask of DF any time soon, but something at least approaching what The Sims has will hopefully be the minimum goal.
Wow, that was a lot more writing than I thought it would be.
Post by: Untelligent on April 27, 2011, 12:29:32 am
Post by: NobodyPro on April 27, 2011, 08:34:34 am
Do I herd the cattle around the elven commune or through it? Do I attempt to herd badgers instead? Do I now herd the badgers into the night creatures lair? Do I sell badger and night creature corpses for fun and profit?
Even this doesn't compare to creating a farm dedicated to making Rhesus-Pieces.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 27, 2011, 12:20:04 pm
You have to remember that this is Dwarf Fortress, if something feels like grind you do it slightly differently.
Do I herd the cattle around the elven commune or through it? Do I attempt to herd badgers instead? Do I now herd the badgers into the night creatures lair? Do I sell badger and night creature corpses for fun and profit?
Even this doesn't compare to creating a farm dedicated to making Rhesus-Pieces.
That's if it's a farm or ranch, though.
Merchants who travel and have to avoid bandits, ranchers raising wild animals, and especially adventurers all have fairly dynamic jobs where you can do things very differently to accomplish the same tasks, and where you are actively avoiding real threats.
If you are a smith, a clothier, a cheesemaker, what do you really do? Unless "I don't feel like sewing cloth anymore, I want to sew a garment made of live badgers!" is an option, or you have to somehow do battle against the curds and whey to complete the cheese making activity, then those jobs are going to be pretty much just taking raw materials to a workshop, and hitting the "make stuff" button.
Post by: Vorthon on April 27, 2011, 12:26:46 pm
Post by: Asmageddon on April 27, 2011, 12:54:15 pm
I was wondering: Will night creature generation ever be able to produce night creatures that feed on/are repelled by abstract concepts, such as happiness, the laughter of children, contentement, rage, etc.?
I'm not Toady, but I don't think so. Perhaps sounds and scents, maaaaybe stuff like hunger, but I doubt about abstract concepts. That would require a very complex AI system, and processing all kinds of sensory data by every creature would be pretty expensive, especially if we'd want them to analyze it carefully to detect abstract concepts.
Post by: Vorthon on April 27, 2011, 12:57:35 pm
I was wondering: Will night creature generation ever be able to produce night creatures that feed on/are repelled by abstract concepts, such as happiness, the laughter of children, contentement, rage, etc.?I'm not Toady, but I don't think so. Perhaps sounds and scents, maaaaybe stuff like hunger, but I doubt about abstract concepts. That would require a very complex AI system, and processing all kinds of sensory data by every creature would be pretty expensive, especially if we'd want them to analyze it carefully to detect abstract concepts.
What about generic AoE-type stuff? Eg., every intelligent creature within distance X of a certain type of a night creature gradually becomes more depressed (Or more angry, passive, whatever).
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 27, 2011, 12:59:00 pm
I was wondering: Will night creature generation ever be able to produce night creatures that feed on/are repelled by abstract concepts, such as happiness, the laughter of children, contentement, rage, etc.?
I'm not Toady, but I don't think so. Perhaps sounds and scents, maaaaybe stuff like hunger, but I doubt about abstract concepts. That would require a very complex AI system, and processing all kinds of sensory data by every creature would be pretty expensive, especially if we'd want them to analyze it carefully to detect abstract concepts.
If "happiness" repels a monster, then wouldn't you just need to check a dwarf's happiness stat? It's not like we need to have some sort of "happy-vision" for the player, just make the monster not like going near characters with a high happiness value.
Post by: Totaku on April 27, 2011, 01:30:24 pm
One case can be the "Dream Eater" a japanese mythical creature that's sort of like a dream catcher, that generally eats peoples dreams (usually nightmares from what I remember). This is the kind of stuff fantasy is made for!
Please make this possible Toady!
Post by: Armok on April 27, 2011, 02:26:41 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 27, 2011, 02:32:45 pm
You know the idea of a night creature feeding off of an emotion would be very amusing. In fact that would be something I'd want to see happen! Cause if there were such night creatures like for example "Feed off of scaring people by surprising them" I could see a whole lot of interesting ideas that could come together for new night creatures.
One case can be the "Dream Eater" a japanese mythical creature that's sort of like a dream catcher, that generally eats peoples dreams (usually nightmares from what I remember). This is the kind of stuff fantasy is made for!
Please make this possible Toady!
And you have no ulterior reason to want code for a night creature that feeds off of surprising people, eh, "Suika Fortress"?
;)
Actually, this discussion on strange creatures has gone on long enough to warrant a suggestion thread.
Here's the thread: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=83426.0
Post by: Asmageddon on April 27, 2011, 02:38:19 pm
No, wait, take that back, this would be a good way of dealing with certain dwarfs who want more happiness than they should have.
Ok, so here we go:
Assuming that someday there will be monsters feeding off emotions and other abstract concepts, do you think we could have creatures that simply prefer or dislike people with certain personality or appearance traits to some extent(for example some creatures could eat only people with scars, some would prefer people who get angry easily, some would completely avoid people with 6 toes and drop dead upon touching them, etc.)?
Post by: Cruxador on April 27, 2011, 03:08:17 pm
Post by: Asmageddon on April 27, 2011, 03:17:49 pm
Post by: Dae on April 27, 2011, 04:20:56 pm
Unless I'm gratly mistaken, the number of toes a person has is noth variable.
It should be if we want DF to be a true fantasy generator : how many times have interesting characters started as outcasts because of white hair/cat eyes/claws/scales/tail/whichever mark ?
I'm thinking also of people "touched by the gods" who get an attribute reflecting which god acted upon them, suck as an unusally high body temperature for the god of fire, an icy breath for a cold god...
Also, the Rain Wilders.
Post by: darkflagrance on April 27, 2011, 04:29:00 pm
Unless I'm gratly mistaken, the number of toes a person has is noth variable.
It wouldn't be hard to make it so. Just add another caste with the appropriate digits :3. Maybe a third eye to go along with the polydactyly.
Post by: Untelligent on April 27, 2011, 04:41:27 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on April 27, 2011, 05:55:36 pm
Post by: IT 000 on April 27, 2011, 05:59:49 pm
Will wild animals favor targeting certain bodyparts. Like how most large predators go for the throats of creatures? And would we get to mod creatures to tell them what bodyparts they would prefer to target.
Additionally
Will modders ever have the ability to mod other features of ranged weapons? Like reload time or inherent speed of the shot? This could have uses for moders who have modded guns into the game. But also make the game more realistic as Crossbows take longer to reload then bows, but packed more of a punch.
Post by: metime00 on April 27, 2011, 06:16:56 pm
With settlements back into adventure mode, will we see thirst and hunger be added in during the next release or a subsequent caravan arc release?
Post by: Dante on April 28, 2011, 07:54:22 am
"I don't feel like sewing cloth anymore, I want to sew a garment made of live badgers!" is an option
you have to somehow do battle against the curds and whey to complete the cheese making activity
I would pay good money to play a game like that.
Post by: Asmageddon on April 28, 2011, 09:41:56 am
Perhaps also trading posts?
And
Can we expect some sort of territory marking done by civilizations? At least some kinds of gates on roads connecting a city to territory of another civ?
Post by: PTTG?? on April 28, 2011, 09:51:35 am
Sir Toady
Will wild animals favor targeting certain bodyparts. Like how most large predators go for the throats of creatures? And would we get to mod creatures to tell them what bodyparts they would prefer to target.
Additionally
Will modders ever have the ability to mod other features of ranged weapons? Like reload time or inherent speed of the shot? This could have uses for moders who have modded guns into the game. But also make the game more realistic as Crossbows take longer to reload then bows, but packed more of a punch.
Sir IT000,
Will you ever learn about the Suggestions forum?
Post by: devek on April 28, 2011, 09:52:26 am
Post by: Vorthon on April 28, 2011, 09:54:34 am
:P
* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle_green)
Post by: Footkerchief on April 28, 2011, 09:58:50 am
Pink is awesome! <3
So is Jungle Green!*
:P
* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle_green)
Don't spam.
Seeing how now cities "grow" buildings alongside roads, can we expect to see some kind of inns/taverns/hotels and small, few-house large cottages aligned alongside normal roads and paths?
Perhaps also trading posts?
Dev page: (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html)
Quote
Caravan Arc Releases
[...]
* Release 3
o Taverns
o Basic hirelings
o Manors
* Release 4
o Dwarf mode inns
o Adv mode inns
o Fairs
o Merchants moving around from place to place during play
[...]
* Release 8
o Renting/buying cottages and other properties
Post by: Vorthon on April 28, 2011, 10:01:49 am
Pink is awesome! <3So is Jungle Green!*
:P
* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle_green)
Don't spam.Seeing how now cities "grow" buildings alongside roads, can we expect to see some kind of inns/taverns/hotels and small, few-house large cottages aligned alongside normal roads and paths?
Perhaps also trading posts?
Dev page: (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html)QuoteCaravan Arc Releases
[...]
* Release 3
o Taverns
o Basic hirelings
o Manors
* Release 4
o Dwarf mode inns
o Adv mode inns
o Fairs
o Merchants moving around from place to place during play
[...]
* Release 8
o Renting/buying cottages and other properties
And you should grow a sense of humour.
-----
Also, can't wait for taverns and manors.
Post by: thvaz on April 28, 2011, 01:38:45 pm
edit: silly me, Toady must be taking some days off. It is end of the month.
Post by: Asmageddon on April 28, 2011, 01:57:53 pm
Dev page: (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html)QuoteCaravan Arc Releases
[...]
* Release 3
o Taverns
o Basic hirelings
o Manors
* Release 4
o Dwarf mode inns
o Adv mode inns
o Fairs
o Merchants moving around from place to place during play
[...]
* Release 8
o Renting/buying cottages and other properties
Aren't these dev goals in-city features?
Post by: Footkerchief on April 28, 2011, 02:22:58 pm
Aren't these dev goals in-city features?
Those buildings will probably get implemented in cities first, because cities are being worked on currently, but roadside buildings are mentioned in some of ThreeToe's stories (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_story.html) and some old dev goals:
Quote
# Core85, CHOP, DIG, BUILD!, (Future): As an adventurer, chop down trees, dig channels, mine into a cliff face, build whatever structure you have the patience for. Your efforts should be saved as a proper site or at least some similar notion (whatever inns and so on along roads end up using), and the contents should remain relatively undisturbed with proper precautions.
At a minimum, adventurers will be able to build roadside structures and have them saved as sites.
Post by: Knight Otu on April 28, 2011, 02:33:24 pm
Aren't these dev goals in-city features?In addition to what Footkerchief quoted, the dev page specifically mentions "Inns associated to roads and entity pop sprawl where you can stay and get information about the surroundings" as part of the Thief adventurer role. I'd imagine these sites could possibly turn up in the "army arc" releases at least.
Post by: EmperorNuthulu on April 28, 2011, 02:35:02 pm
Quote
# Core85, CHOP, DIG, BUILD!, (Future): As an adventurer, chop down trees, dig channels, mine into a cliff face, build whatever structure you have the patience for.
Whatever structure you have the patience for? Oh god, I can see the 100z level tall 50 z level thick fortresses already.
Post by: PTTG?? on April 28, 2011, 02:54:47 pm
Well, no I guess that not really it...
MINE FORTRESS
That's closer... but it's not likely to be a big fortress most of the time. So how about
MINE CAMP
Wait-
Post by: Armok on April 28, 2011, 04:28:43 pm
Post by: Ganthan on April 28, 2011, 04:49:12 pm
Post by: Untelligent on April 28, 2011, 05:08:51 pm
DWARFCRAFT
Well, no I guess that not really it...
MINE FORTRESS
That's closer... but it's not likely to be a big fortress most of the time. So how about
MINE CAMP
Wait-
Fortresscraft?
Post by: metime00 on April 28, 2011, 05:48:57 pm
Post by: Sunday on April 28, 2011, 07:32:05 pm
Hmmm.
Legends mode is going to be exciting!
Also, I wonder if the dead from invading armies are also stored in catacombs. A crazed legion of undead elfs rising from the grave to fight old battles sounds like fun.
Post by: Jeoshua on April 28, 2011, 08:07:07 pm
Quote
Aside from some general busy-ness, I managed to bump my head up against the wall a bit trying to get the dungeons and catacombs and sewers and underground layers and topography and rivers and buildings to all play nice together, but I think I've got it working now. I need to mess with the dungeon layout a little more and then that'll finally be done. World gen tracks crops of the dead now, numerically and by cause for each site, so if all the starved dead from the last hundred years in a city happen to be raised, it can only happen once, and the catacombs should reflect their populations correctly.
Quote
I managed to bump my head up against the wall a bit trying to get the dungeons and catacombs and sewers and underground layers and topography and rivers and buildings to all play nice together
Quote
dungeons and catacombs and sewers
:o
I am the happiest hacker in the house, right now. Finally I'll get to go on a proper dungeon crawl. Also, does the last part of that bring to mind "Armageddon" to anyone else?
Post by: IT 000 on April 28, 2011, 09:28:56 pm
Quote
Sir IT000,
Will you ever learn about the Suggestions forum?
It's not a suggestion, we've had aimed attacks for a few releases now. Toady has talked about ranged targeting in a past DFtalk. Asking if AI will ever prefer one attack over the other is a perfectly reasonable question.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 28, 2011, 10:39:19 pm
I mean, real-life graveyards had contraptions that were designed to make sure that any dead men that tried to rise from their graves would be beheaded, or staked the dead into their coffins, and they didn't even actually have the dead rise from their graves.
It seems unfathomable that any world with a very real threat of undead rising from the grave wouldn't go for the "incinerator and slab" option of burial, or at least crush the arms and legs of the dead to make sure they aren't going to be walking dead.
Post by: G-Flex on April 28, 2011, 10:45:45 pm
Post by: Rose on April 28, 2011, 10:49:32 pm
Hindus never have a chance to turn into zombies.
Post by: Urist McDepravity on April 28, 2011, 11:02:14 pm
Post by: tfaal on April 28, 2011, 11:26:00 pm
That's a good point. Who the hell inters their dead intact, in simple wooden boxes, if there's some threat of zombie uprising?
Dwarf Fortress strives to be a good simulator of crappy fantasy.
Post by: G-Flex on April 28, 2011, 11:35:54 pm
Post by: SalmonGod on April 28, 2011, 11:43:55 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on April 28, 2011, 11:55:41 pm
I can't see anything about this on the dev page, but is it gonna be possible to eventually control the equipment of your companions in Adventure Mode? I want to be able to assemble my own mercenary band and train them up in different formations and tactics like Mount and Blade.
Quote from: FuzzyDoomWill there be a way to give items to our companions? And perhaps an easier way to equip weapons? (Just had to wiki it.)
We have to get to companion equipment sooner than later, since it can be very frustrating to either lose a weapon or just have lots of excess armor that shouldn't be excess. It isn't in for 0.31.17 though.
Post by: Sowelu on April 28, 2011, 11:55:51 pm
DWARFCRAFT
Well, no I guess that not really it...
MINE FORTRESS
That's closer... but it's not likely to be a big fortress most of the time. So how about
MINE CAMP
Wait-
I feel a horrible, horrible need to hail the joke that went right over everyone's head.
Post by: xtank5 on April 29, 2011, 12:33:24 am
DWARFCRAFT
Well, no I guess that not really it...
MINE FORTRESS
That's closer... but it's not likely to be a big fortress most of the time. So how about
MINE CAMP
Wait-
I feel a horrible, horrible need to hail the joke that went right over everyone's head.
I suppose it would be a struggle to build a fortress by yourself in adventure mode...
Post by: Kogut on April 29, 2011, 03:16:02 am
I'm not saying that we shouldn't have the dead rising from graves, but it seems rather odd that people under such threat would bury their dead to begin with, unless other methods of burial/disposal carry risks of their own. It's not an unanswerable question, and I think potential answers could be interesting.Because other methods of burial/disposal carry risks of angry ghost.
Post by: zwei on April 29, 2011, 03:21:52 am
I'm not saying that we shouldn't have the dead rising from graves, but it seems rather odd that people under such threat would bury their dead to begin with, unless other methods of burial/disposal carry risks of their own. It's not an unanswerable question, and I think potential answers could be interesting.Because other methods of burial/disposal carry risks of angry ghost.
Well, not incineration and slab engraving.
Also, iic, all you need to properly burry dwarf is one bodypart. One bone for example. Single bone becoming undead is not all that scarry. What's it going to do?
Post by: Zalminen on April 29, 2011, 04:29:03 am
...bone everyone?I'm not saying that we shouldn't have the dead rising from graves, but it seems rather odd that people under such threat would bury their dead to begin with, unless other methods of burial/disposal carry risks of their own. It's not an unanswerable question, and I think potential answers could be interesting.Because other methods of burial/disposal carry risks of angry ghost.
Well, not incineration and slab engraving.
Also, iic, all you need to properly burry dwarf is one bodypart. One bone for example. Single bone becoming undead is not all that scarry. What's it going to do?
Post by: Serrational on April 29, 2011, 04:54:26 am
...this topic just turned waaaay strange....bone everyone?I'm not saying that we shouldn't have the dead rising from graves, but it seems rather odd that people under such threat would bury their dead to begin with, unless other methods of burial/disposal carry risks of their own. It's not an unanswerable question, and I think potential answers could be interesting.Because other methods of burial/disposal carry risks of angry ghost.
Well, not incineration and slab engraving.
Also, iic, all you need to properly burry dwarf is one bodypart. One bone for example. Single bone becoming undead is not all that scarry. What's it going to do?
Post by: Dante on April 29, 2011, 05:15:40 am
And problematic for adventurers especially:
You hack the upper right canine in the upper right canine, chipping the bone! x9000
We'd truly be boned.
Post by: Cruxador on April 29, 2011, 05:39:25 am
On a similar, but ultimately separate note:
You didn't mention basements or cellars. Does that mean you weren't working on them, or were they just simple enough that they didn't contribute to the complications you mentioned?
It seems like it would be somewhat silly to include all the awesome fancy underground stuff and not include simple underground stuff too.
Post by: Knight Otu on April 29, 2011, 07:22:58 am
Well, not incineration and slab engraving.I'm actually pretty sure that Toady mentioned that potentially even properly buried dead might rise as undead, so even incinerating and slabbing the dead might not be enough at some point. Might as well just bury them. I'm sure religion will also come into play with burial practices and the rising dead at some point later, perhaps even conflicting practices in a single religion depending on the deity - one god wants the dead being incinerated, another buried with all body parts, a third mummified, and whomever you followed most ardently is the one whose practices need to be used for proper burial.
Also, iic, all you need to properly burry dwarf is one bodypart. One bone for example. Single bone becoming undead is not all that scarry. What's it going to do?
As for a single bone is going to do - take up sorcery, and become a demilich. Find a few other likeminded bones, and form a cabal of demiliches that looks like a single skeleton. (Then throw dice at the DM for such a cheesy idea) ;)
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 29, 2011, 07:34:06 am
Post by: Lac on April 29, 2011, 08:13:03 am
I feel a horrible, horrible need to hail the joke that went right over everyone's head.I didn't speak out, because I wasn't a mermaid.
Post by: zwei on April 29, 2011, 08:22:31 am
I feel a horrible, horrible need to hail the joke that went right over everyone's head.I didn't speak out, because I wasn't a mermaid.
First they came and made bone bolts
and I didn't speak out, because I wasn't a goblin.
Then they came and made totems
and I didn't speak out, because I wasn't a mermaid.
Then they came and made soap
and I didn't speak out, because I wasn't a forgotten beast.
Then they came and made dwarf leather backpacks
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Post by: Lac on April 29, 2011, 08:32:20 am
Do the various under-city structures sometimes meet with the highest underground layer? It sounded like the first bit was a "yes" from the devlog, but I'd like confirmation.It's just as possible Toady was having to code defensively to stop them interacting.
I had to look up catacombs to see how it differed from dungeons. Wikipedia's first paragraph had the phrase "Many are under cities and have been popularised by stories of their use as war refuges, smugglers' hideouts, or meeting places for cults." So they could contain almost anything!
Post by: Footkerchief on April 29, 2011, 08:52:40 am
Do the various under-city structures sometimes meet with the highest underground layer? It sounded like the first bit was a "yes" from the devlog, but I'd like confirmation.It's just as possible Toady was having to code defensively to stop them interacting.
This sounded like a confirmation: (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-04-20) "04/20/2011: With the construction of sewers drawing to an end comes the beginnings of catacombs. These will twist and turn and mix with other underground structures creating fertile ground for quests and adventuring."
Post by: thvaz on April 29, 2011, 10:22:58 am
Post by: Asmageddon on April 29, 2011, 11:35:52 am
Also, would Toady accept contributions if somebody made code that can easily be integrated into DF? Like bitmap-outputting map generators(for example a tower/village/temple generators) or conversation AI algorithms?
Post by: Kogut on April 29, 2011, 11:41:43 am
Post by: Footkerchief on April 29, 2011, 11:55:04 am
Also, would Toady accept contributions if somebody made code that can easily be integrated into DF? Like bitmap-outputting map generators(for example a tower/village/temple generators) or conversation AI algorithms?
Quote from: readme.txt
We do not accept submissions for the official Dwarf Fortress releases. Please do not ask for your code, art, sound or raw/objects txt files to be incorporated into the official releases.
Post by: Knigel on April 29, 2011, 12:01:01 pm
Once caravans and such get tracked on the local map, will things be flexible enough that you can do things like... go in with a flying adventurer, wall up the entrances to a city, wait for them to starve because food caravans cant get it, then buy the food from those caravans, fly over with it, and sell it on the black market for insane amounts of money?
The last DFTalk mentions that in the release after they start moving, change in supplies and such will actually affect things after worldgen ("Changing populations, food use and other world gen stuff moved to actual play"), so yes.
Post by: Serrational on April 29, 2011, 12:53:16 pm
The actual walling-up sound slike it would be difficult, I can imagine the horrible Adventure-walling problems.Once caravans and such get tracked on the local map, will things be flexible enough that you can do things like... go in with a flying adventurer, wall up the entrances to a city, wait for them to starve because food caravans cant get it, then buy the food from those caravans, fly over with it, and sell it on the black market for insane amounts of money?
The last DFTalk mentions that in the release after they start moving, change in supplies and such will actually affect things after worldgen ("Changing populations, food use and other world gen stuff moved to actual play"), so yes.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on April 29, 2011, 01:19:48 pm
Post by: Cruxador on April 29, 2011, 01:26:07 pm
I read "other underground structures" as other things which were actually structures, so catacombs, sewers, and dungeons all interact with each other.Do the various under-city structures sometimes meet with the highest underground layer? It sounded like the first bit was a "yes" from the devlog, but I'd like confirmation.It's just as possible Toady was having to code defensively to stop them interacting.
This sounded like a confirmation: (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-04-20) "04/20/2011: With the construction of sewers drawing to an end comes the beginnings of catacombs. These will twist and turn and mix with other underground structures creating fertile ground for quests and adventuring."
There's no indication that doing this will involve pathfinding. It's entirely possible that once you leave a site, the locals will forget that they are trapped, and just go right ahead with trading.Once caravans and such get tracked on the local map, will things be flexible enough that you can do things like... go in with a flying adventurer, wall up the entrances to a city, wait for them to starve because food caravans cant get it, then buy the food from those caravans, fly over with it, and sell it on the black market for insane amounts of money?
The last DFTalk mentions that in the release after they start moving, change in supplies and such will actually affect things after worldgen ("Changing populations, food use and other world gen stuff moved to actual play"), so yes.
And I would imagine that someone would just grab a pickaxe and knock the wall downThat would require specific code allowing them to identify what the problem was and remedy it.
Post by: Armok on April 29, 2011, 02:03:51 pm
Post by: Asmageddon on April 29, 2011, 02:13:09 pm
Post by: Cruxador on April 29, 2011, 02:43:32 pm
well yea,k you'd have to stay there the entire time to guartd the gates so that they werent demolished or path-ignored due to abstraction.You'd have to stay at all four gates simultaneously.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 29, 2011, 02:56:55 pm
Well, not incineration and slab engraving.I'm actually pretty sure that Toady mentioned that potentially even properly buried dead might rise as undead, so even incinerating and slabbing the dead might not be enough at some point. Might as well just bury them. I'm sure religion will also come into play with burial practices and the rising dead at some point later, perhaps even conflicting practices in a single religion depending on the deity - one god wants the dead being incinerated, another buried with all body parts, a third mummified, and whomever you followed most ardently is the one whose practices need to be used for proper burial.
Also, iic, all you need to properly burry dwarf is one bodypart. One bone for example. Single bone becoming undead is not all that scarry. What's it going to do?
As for a single bone is going to do - take up sorcery, and become a demilich. Find a few other likeminded bones, and form a cabal of demiliches that looks like a single skeleton. (Then throw dice at the DM for such a cheesy idea) ;)
Actually, at this point, might as well ask...
Quote from: devlog
World gen tracks crops of the dead now, numerically and by cause for each site, so if all the starved dead from the last hundred years in a city happen to be raised, it can only happen once, and the catacombs should reflect their populations correctly.
Will a city surviving a zombie apocalypse have an effect on burial practices in-game? Do they "learn" to do something different in how they bury their dead using some sort of method to stop another mass rising?
Also, will there be a "safe" method of burial, such as incineration and slabbing, or will that just produce some other kind of undead in a zombie apocalypse?
Post by: Willfor on April 29, 2011, 03:01:45 pm
Post by: Jeoshua on April 29, 2011, 03:10:42 pm
You make an excellent point, Sir. May I suggest that is the Evil areas, and not the Neutral or Good ones?
Post by: PTTG?? on April 29, 2011, 03:23:27 pm
Of course, eventually a culture in particularly haunted surroundings may simply make safe burial a part of death rituals. In that case, whatever they do to the bodies will ultimately tie lead to some new kind of undead.
Got zombies? de-brain them and mummify them. Got Mummies? Feed the dead to wolves. Got Werewolves? Burn the bodies. Got Ashwraiths? Lock the dead in catacombs for a few years. Got skeletons? Look, Dad, I know we've lived in the Forboding Plains of Nightmurder for generations, but I'm moving to the Flowery Meadows of Sunshine.
Post by: Asmageddon on April 29, 2011, 03:37:15 pm
On the other hand, why exactly would undead attack living beings? Malice and hatred of spirits bound to bodies?
Also, what factors will influence undead activity? Will there be sudden undead outbreaks?
On another note, will we see some new AI in this release? Crowd simulation or at least caching common paths. Simply digging into caverns can sometimes result in fps-death, and with 2k+ people in a city this might be enough to bring a 666 core(or so) 10.0GHz PC to a crawl...
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on April 29, 2011, 03:40:34 pm
Not saying undead won't ever be a threat. Thieves stilling relics, necromancers being necromancers, extremely long eclipses, basements being raided by ghouls. Pizza delivery guys getting lost trying to find an obscure address.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 29, 2011, 03:46:32 pm
On another note, will we see some new AI in this release? Crowd simulation or at least caching common paths. Simply digging into caverns can sometimes result in fps-death, and with 2k+ people in a city this might be enough to bring a 666 core(or so) 10.0GHz PC to a crawl...
As noted in the latest DF talk, (http://bay12games.com/media/df_talk_13_transcript.html) the game won't have entire cities loaded in memory at once, just the immediate surrounding area (as is always the case for Adv Mode). A major project like AI overhaul would have been listed on the dev page (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html) if there were immediate plans for it.
Quote from: DF Talk 13
I'm basically always going to be extra mindful of the speed concerns that come with having cities with large populations, and there's basically going to be a lot of people hanging out in their houses, and a lot of people walking along roads, and that's not bad, because that's what happens in cities, so I think we'll end up in good shape. The vast majority of the people aren't going to be loaded at a given time so it's pretty easy to keep it under control, I think, as long as the cities don't get larger than they are now. But even if they do ... you could have a world spanning city, it just doesn't have all the people loaded.
Post by: Asmageddon on April 29, 2011, 04:01:04 pm
This thread is only for people who read every single word ever written by Toady...
Post by: tps12 on April 29, 2011, 04:05:59 pm
Post by: thvaz on April 29, 2011, 04:07:12 pm
So I again asked a question that was practically already answered? :/
This thread is only for people who read every single word ever written by Toady...
Stop making stupid questions and you will be fine. The first one was fine, but the second... If I were developing a game I would stop answering questions at all.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on April 29, 2011, 05:14:23 pm
Stop making stupid questions and you will be fine. The first one was fine, but the second... If I were developing a game I would stop answering questions at all.
Eight days without a proper devlog. I need my fix!
All these people pressuring him to keep putting things out... If I were making the game, I would stop devlogging at all.
Post by: thvaz on April 29, 2011, 05:32:55 pm
Stop making stupid questions and you will be fine. The first one was fine, but the second... If I were developing a game I would stop answering questions at all.Eight days without a proper devlog. I need my fix!
All these people pressuring him to keep putting things out... If I were making the game, I would stop devlogging at all.
I think the "I need my fix" imply a little joke. But I think a guy dedicated to write little books no one bothers to read every day on this forum wouldn't get any joke.
I think you should stop replying every single remark I make. You can see I don't have problems only with you, so it's not personal. You obviously have something personal against me.
Post by: Greiger on April 29, 2011, 05:37:31 pm
Stop making stupid questions and you will be fine. The first one was fine, but the second... If I were developing a game I would stop answering questions at all.Eight days without a proper devlog. I need my fix!
All these people pressuring him to keep putting things out... If I were making the game, I would stop devlogging at all.
GASP! No! I mean, then I would have nothing to check after work every day to wind down! The devlog and the forums are very stress relieving.
That and naming a dwarf after your supervisor/most annoying employee and trowing them off a really tall tower and watching them blow into components. HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT DON! YOUR UPPER LEG IS IN A TREE! HUH DON? HUH?
Post by: Dante on April 29, 2011, 05:51:44 pm
I'm just glad that the next version of df will have more cool stuff, so it will be better than the last version. Should I really be quibbling that it could be 67% better, and more 'realistic' according of my own ideas of realism, instead of 66% better?
Just asking you guys to keep that in mind.
Post by: PTTG?? on April 29, 2011, 05:58:36 pm
...The devlog and the forums are very stress relieving.
That and naming a dwarf after your supervisor/most annoying employee and trowing them off a really tall tower and watching them blow into components. HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT DON! YOUR UPPER LEG IS IN A TREE! HUH DON? HUH?
Indeed. I quite agree. The... forums, yes.
Post by: thvaz on April 29, 2011, 06:03:11 pm
I've got to say, it must be a little dispiriting to be putting these neat things in the game - cities, adventurer skills, the restless dead - and then just have everybody complain about them in the dev thread.
"Everybody" in the last time were just two or three. A very vocal minority, though.
Post by: metime00 on April 29, 2011, 06:25:00 pm
Without critique, systems couldn't improve, and we all want the game to be awesome, totally and completely. That's why discussions about the mechanics happen, not to say the current system is bad, just that there is room for improvement.
Post by: greenskye on April 29, 2011, 08:47:54 pm
And even if none of it is helpful, I do learn a lot of random facts that I never would have known otherwise.
Post by: Asmageddon on April 30, 2011, 03:21:28 am
Without critique, systems couldn't improve, and we all want the game to be awesome, totally and completely. That's why discussions about the mechanics happen, not to say the current system is bad, just that there is room for improvement.Criticizing a developer makes him correct and improve his programs, but it does not make him want to work more, praise is necessary as well, even if useless. That said I in no way treat Toady like such a simpleminded creature, I couldn't imagine working on one thing for so long(I usually get bored with writing a game/program after around 3-4 days) :p
Post by: Dae on April 30, 2011, 05:34:35 am
However, there has been a lot "these early cities look AWESOME, I hope the finished ones will have such and such".
The only reason why there has been so little praises is because they haven't been released yet so we can't judge just how awesome they are.
Post by: Greiger on April 30, 2011, 09:15:45 am
The city seems like it would look fairly natural when viewed from adventure mode. Those roads in the rural parts of the city? I would have probably thought of them as access roads between fields. at 1 px per tile they don't look like they are very wide. And they are probably just dirt roads instead of stone. You have to get your cart to the other end of the tomato field somehow after all.
Post by: Asmageddon on April 30, 2011, 10:17:16 am
If not then somebody write it in green for me(I don't want to risk asking already answered questions again :<)
Post by: hermes on April 30, 2011, 10:41:47 am
I like your road material question... When you think about it, just roads in themselves are rather complex; you could change roads based on available resources, skill of local craftsmen, frequency of use, type of traffic, district of the city etc... I wouldn't expect them to be so fancy just yet, but let's ask anyway...
Will road (and other civil construction) materials vary with local/economic availability and/or class/economic districts within urban areas?
Post by: Neonivek on April 30, 2011, 10:54:42 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 30, 2011, 02:27:07 pm
Hang in there Toady One! You can be such a trooper sometimes.
Did i miss something?
Anyway Neonivek is right, hang in there and solutions for all problems will come. Hehe and take a day or two of after the release nobody would mind.
Post by: freeformschooler on April 30, 2011, 06:57:54 pm
I still don't think the cities look stupid at all. I remember one of my first experiences with RPGs was Final Fantasy I (or one of the remakes of it, I don't remember). I remember first leaving the starting castle at Corneria and seeing the city was just sort of built around it and being like "Wow! How cool!" Then when I saw these even more cool preliminary city maps my little kid came back for a moment. Then my programmer side pushed him off a cliff and started sitting there amazed with how the cities could be 17x17 and procedurally generated.
Post by: Urist McDepravity on May 01, 2011, 05:28:38 am
Although ASCII here fails to make them creepy and, um, 'ancient'. I don't think monsters alone would help with atmosphere.
Post by: magmaholic on May 01, 2011, 05:30:42 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
WOO!
Post by: Knight Otu on May 01, 2011, 05:48:27 am
Yep, I think those undercities will be great adventuring locations. I do guess they'll get "decorations" depending on their use and inhabitants. Moss, statues, engravings, doors, I'm pretty sure those will be in the actual sewers etc. since we don't see any grates in those two sewers, and we know some sewers will have grates.
Actual werewolves and their like, too? Does that mean Toady thinks he has found a good way to solve the transformation problems he mentioned?
Post by: Vorthon on May 01, 2011, 05:51:26 am
Post by: BishopX on May 01, 2011, 06:08:11 am
Umm, not to be smart-ass know-it-all, but moss needs sunlight. It is a plant, after all.
This is DF, it's probably methane powered moss.
Post by: Serrational on May 01, 2011, 06:08:31 am
If the actual catacombs look like that, then I like this coming update.
I LOVE IT.
Post by: Vorthon on May 01, 2011, 06:13:15 am
Heh. Then it wouldn't be a plant.Umm, not to be smart-ass know-it-all, but moss needs sunlight. It is a plant, after all.
This is DF, it's probably methane powered moss.
Post by: scriver on May 01, 2011, 06:29:23 am
Post by: Asmageddon on May 01, 2011, 06:40:52 am
Post by: Vorthon on May 01, 2011, 06:47:08 am
Rivers with walls and floors look lame, also, corridors should be longer. Besides that it looks a bit too bright and not regular enough.
Those 'rivers with walls and floors' are sewer channels. Y'know because of them being in sewers and all that jazz.
Post by: Asmageddon on May 01, 2011, 07:13:18 am
Rivers with walls and floors look lame, also, corridors should be longer. Besides that it looks a bit too bright and not regular enough.
Those 'rivers with walls and floors' are sewer channels. Y'know because of them being in sewers and all that jazz.
I'd rather imagine sewers as more regular and with moss-covered walls and floors(not to mention that nobody would make them out of some kind of white stone...).
And they are shaped in an absolutely useless way...
Post by: darkflagrance on May 01, 2011, 07:14:09 am
err..CITIES,SEWERS,CATACOMBS AND DUNGEONS?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
WOO!
Let the sewers be filled with Giant Cockroaches, Albino Alligators, Werewolves, and
Hopefully there will be SEWER_LAIR tags for creatures so that we can hide populations of them under cities >:D
Will there be a HAS_SEWER_LAIR or similar tag so that modders can specify that certain creatures like crocodiles or grimelings inhabit sewers?
Post by: metime00 on May 01, 2011, 07:21:48 am
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the sewer map is the only one without water?
On that note, I hope that catacombs, sewers, and dungeons are differentiated more in the future, as they appear to be the same thing but with different color blocks. Albeit awesome similar underground dungeons!
Post by: Appelgren on May 01, 2011, 07:29:39 am
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the sewer map is the only one without water?
I thought so at first. But I think all the maps show a mix of different underground structures (since the two first maps clearly feature sewers of some sort.)
Post by: metime00 on May 01, 2011, 07:37:44 am
Probably too soon to criticize, plus they're awesome regardless. I can't wait to get lost in there and starve to death like in the old caves.
Post by: Appelgren on May 01, 2011, 07:55:56 am
I like how the sewers only connect to the other underground structures in a few select places.
Post by: Jeremy on May 01, 2011, 08:16:04 am
Post by: metime00 on May 01, 2011, 08:21:53 am
I think the first map is catacombs and sewers (big tomb rooms aplenty). The second map: dungeons and sewers? Third map?
I like how the sewers only connect to the other underground structures in a few select places.
Oh I see that now. The sewers are interspersed in the underground, and the dungeons and catacombs are placed around it. It makes more sense now, with sewers being simply sewers. I hope there's some underwater sections like in the caves, where you have to swim underwater to get somewhere.
Post by: Orkel on May 01, 2011, 08:28:13 am
Toady, does this mean we can create zombie viruses in fortress mode?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 01, 2011, 09:07:06 am
edit: Man i can already see all that little stories of family-members or lovers turning into were-rats and "Phantom of the opera" like stuff.
Post by: Quatch on May 01, 2011, 09:29:04 am
On the other hand, why exactly would undead attack living beings? Malice and hatred of spirits bound to bodies?
Think of it as the ultimate in delayed "Get off my lawn".
Also, with sewer/catacombs as dense as in the first example, we're going to see caveins a-la: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/MSI/WhatIsMS.html
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on May 01, 2011, 09:39:32 am
And while I'm here I just have to ask this question, because it just suddenly dawned on me. How far away, tentatively, is adventurer-enabled mining and constructing? After soaking up several hours of Terraria Let's Plays, I realized that DF is capable of one-upping both Minecraft and Terraria as far as survival and creative building is concerned, lacking only the multiplayer aspect. It could probably boost the playerbase quite a bit, especially with great visualizers like Stonesense.
Post by: magmaholic on May 01, 2011, 09:50:18 am
Hehe to bad we dont have torches at the moment.
Can we have torches included in the update,PLEASE?:3
Or are they added later?
Post by: Footkerchief on May 01, 2011, 09:51:53 am
How far away, tentatively, is adventurer-enabled mining and constructing?
As usual, unless the feature is directly mentioned in the upcoming releases, (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html) nobody can give you a meaningful answer for when it'll be implemented, not even Toady. It could sneak into release 2, 7, or 9, or it might be even later. Releases will probably each take at least a month. So, I would guess between one month and one year from now.
Hehe to bad we dont have torches at the moment.
Can we have torches included in the update,PLEASE?:3
Or are they added later?
This thread isn't for feature requests, but torches are in the dev notes, so they'll be coming sooner or later:
Quote from: dev
Adventurer Role: Treasure Hunter
# Lighting
* Proper environmental lighting
* Construction and use of torches
* Candles/lamps/lanterns
Post by: Orkel on May 01, 2011, 09:52:20 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on May 01, 2011, 10:25:59 am
I was rather interested in an in-engine evaluation rather than time, I know it won't be around the bend for a while. Such as, what are the biggest things in the way at the moment. I can guess handling the random small sites is one such thing, since the actual mechanics already exist in Fortress mode.How far away, tentatively, is adventurer-enabled mining and constructing?
As usual, unless the feature is directly mentioned in the upcoming releases, (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html) nobody can give you a meaningful answer for when it'll be implemented, not even Toady. It could sneak into release 2, 7, or 9, or it might be even later. Releases will probably each take at least a month. So, I would guess between one month and one year from now.
Oh, and a related question. What is your opinion on a possibility of a waypoint/target-based Adventure mode control system? By this I mean that you would control your adventurer like an AI unit, and the game would use its own pathing engine to move him. For lack of a better comparison, think Diablo. Click/point to a destination, the character walks there. Select an enemy, the character attacks. All done in realtime with autopause, preventing, for example, horrendous control problems from control lag in large cities. This system would also, essentially, allow using Fort mode tasks and constructions more or less as-is. Manual direction-based control would be preserved, of course, to handle situations that the game's pathfinding can't, like jumping, flying, or swimming.
Post by: KillerClowns on May 01, 2011, 10:29:31 am
Post by: G-Flex on May 01, 2011, 10:36:12 am
I mean, I like where this is going, but it looks to me like a little more navigability and geometric regularity would be somewhat more realistic and fun here.
Post by: Footkerchief on May 01, 2011, 11:44:22 am
Does anybody else find the new dungeon/sewer/catacomb maps a little excessively chaotic? I just can't imagine any real person designing or building anything with that shape. They kind of remind me of those experiments where they give spiders drugs and see how messed up their webs are as a result.
I mean, I like where this is going, but it looks to me like a little more navigability and geometric regularity would be somewhat more realistic and fun here.
Yeah, there's way too much going on. My guess is that Toady cranked up a density parameter for development reasons (making it easier to see if the structures were intersecting badly), but hopefully they'll be toned down in the release (or controlled by world gen params).
Post by: Neonivek on May 01, 2011, 12:00:27 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 01, 2011, 12:09:32 pm
The thing is we cant judge relay if the thing looks right or not without knowing how the city above looks like. I would even go so far to say that many, atleast 50%, of this structures are just -1 Z cellars under the richer parts of a big trading city.
The maps btw. seem to be 2x3 embarktiles if anyone is wodering.
Post by: Asmageddon on May 01, 2011, 12:53:22 pm
Post by: Vorthon on May 01, 2011, 12:55:41 pm
As far as I know there will(or might be) magic in the future, so concerning magic towers(and all other kinds of towers), will we get something more than big stone bricks? For example tower and walls being random regular polygons made of random material, with hidden artifacts, etc.?
Now I want to see a tower made entirely out of elf bones...
Post by: Asmageddon on May 01, 2011, 01:02:03 pm
Ah, just wait for adventure mode building and larger elf populations :>As far as I know there will(or might be) magic in the future, so concerning magic towers(and all other kinds of towers), will we get something more than big stone bricks? For example tower and walls being random regular polygons made of random material, with hidden artifacts, etc.?
Now I want to see a tower made entirely out of elf bones...
Post by: Miko19 on May 01, 2011, 01:17:11 pm
Post by: thvaz on May 01, 2011, 01:42:53 pm
I think they look great. I hope they intersect with the caverns and with house basements. And maybe the sewer water should have another color. I like how the underground interact well with the river on the second picture.
Quote
In the cities there will be haunted houses
Cool! I can't wait.
Post by: Asmageddon on May 01, 2011, 02:09:44 pm
I hope they intersect with the caverns and with house basements.I hope not. Perhaps only sewers and only with certain houses.
Post by: Ethicalfive on May 01, 2011, 02:13:52 pm
Does anybody else find the new dungeon/sewer/catacomb maps a little excessively chaotic? I just can't imagine any real person designing or building anything with that shape. They kind of remind me of those experiments where they give spiders drugs and see how messed up their webs are as a result.Pretty sure that drugs+spiders making funky webs video is a comedy sketch/propaganda and not actually a real experiment..
I mean, I like where this is going, but it looks to me like a little more navigability and geometric regularity would be somewhat more realistic and fun here.
I hope the rare catacomb will extend down to the first cavern layer, some more structured, while others more random, sort of how castles can take on several design shapes. To spice up variety between cities.
Looks to me like there are basements in those maps..I hope they intersect with the caverns and with house basements.I hope not. Perhaps only sewers and only with certain houses.
Post by: Serrational on May 01, 2011, 02:20:07 pm
And maybe the sewer water should have another color.Maybe plumbing will happen.
Just a thought.
Might have a need.
Might not....
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Quatch on May 01, 2011, 02:31:26 pm
Pretty sure that drugs+spiders making funky webs video is a comedy sketch/propaganda and not actually a real experiment..
Too lazy to find the LSD one, but here is a similar one with a different toxin: http://www.springerlink.com/content/ut03846286p47737/
Post by: devek on May 01, 2011, 02:34:06 pm
I would cut my wrist with joy, but I'm immortal and it doesn't matter either way.
Post by: Jeoshua on May 01, 2011, 02:53:41 pm
Very roguelike, Toady. Me likey.
Post by: Vorthon on May 01, 2011, 02:55:08 pm
Post by: thvaz on May 01, 2011, 03:47:58 pm
I hope not. Perhaps only sewers and only with certain houses.
Not in every basement, but in some. What I think is that in some old houses falling in desrepair sometimes a breach to the underground would be opened. Maybe when we have digger monsters.
Maybe plumbing will happen.
Just a thought.
Might have a need.
Might not....Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Maybe you are right. After all, Iin real life it is pretty hard to see rivers with blue water, no?
Post by: Asmageddon on May 01, 2011, 04:01:53 pm
Not in every basement, but in some. What I think is that in some old houses falling in desrepair sometimes a breach to the underground would be opened. Maybe when we have digger monsters.Ok, that doesn't sound bad and brings me to ask the question I will ask next:
How many houses will be abandoned and ruined and how will it eventually look? Will some of them be falling apart enough to breach underground? Will there be any kind of creatures(or just bands of outlaws) living in them?
Post by: Untelligent on May 01, 2011, 04:36:06 pm
Pretty sure that drugs+spiders making funky webs video is a comedy sketch/propaganda and not actually a real experiment
It was a parody of real drugs+spiders experiments.
Post by: Jeremy on May 01, 2011, 05:45:14 pm
Pretty sure that drugs+spiders making funky webs video is a comedy sketch/propaganda and not actually a real experiment
It was a parody of real drugs+spiders experiments.
Not that the real drugs+spider experiments have any real value -- many psychotropic compounds (such as caffeine) are insecticides, which just happen to have effects on mammals such as us.
Post by: Dante on May 01, 2011, 07:13:43 pm
Maybe awakening the king as a monster as a result of disturbing his stuff (like it hints at in the devlog).I'm hoping to see powerful creatures like LOTR barrow-wights, or D&D liches. In as far as that is possible before we have magic.
I can't wait to see the catacombs decorated. Coffins, slabs, pillars, heavy doors, big urns... hopefully creatures will be able to den in rooms within the dungeons, so we'll have night-creature-style dwellings there too.
Also, the bugs here are going to be hilarious. If only we could still embark on towns. I'd love to find one of those embarks which immediately caves in, on top of a city, so the citizens spill into the sewers and the sewers drain into the catacombs and the halls of the restless dead fall into the caverns, which can then be drained into hell...
Edit: I wonder if the thirty accented N's ThreeToe included actually means 29 new types of undead are planned. That would be beyond epic.
Post by: monk12 on May 01, 2011, 08:19:14 pm
Quote from: Threetoe
You will not be safe in either adventure or dwarf mode as you are beset by vampires, werewolves and vengeful ghosts. Entire armies of walking corpses will besiege you, led by undead phantoms. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=83680.0)
whaaaaaaaaa? I sincerely hope this means what I think it means.
Post by: Acanthus117 on May 01, 2011, 08:22:45 pm
Post by: Angel Of Death on May 01, 2011, 08:50:42 pm
GIGGITY!Quote from: ThreetoeYou will not be safe in either adventure or dwarf mode as you are beset by vampires, werewolves and vengeful ghosts. Entire armies of walking corpses will besiege you, led by undead phantoms. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=83680.0)
whaaaaaaaaa? I sincerely hope this means what I think it means.
Yay!
Post by: Ganthan on May 01, 2011, 09:41:18 pm
Post by: Jeoshua on May 01, 2011, 09:47:14 pm
With all the new monsters, night creatures, undead, titans, and demons... is there any consideration being given to how the different races are actually going to survive? Will there be great heroes, other than the player character, that actually stand a chance against these threats? Or can we look forward to entire worlds dying off by the year 200?
Alternately, if we can look forward to massive death from armies of undead, will these creatures take over and form a new society that we can then interact with in some way other than killing them?
Post by: Neonivek on May 01, 2011, 10:00:45 pm
Generation goes WAAAY out of its way to ensure that megabeasts and semimegabeasts live. I mean if a hydra attacked your town would you solo it or get the entire town watch on it? It also goes out of its way to make Megabeasts and Semimegabeasts oddly harmless... Rampages feel more like Sunday Brunch and I would have no problem with less frequent megabeast attacks but with a lot more damage.
A group of 5 soldiers can dogpile and kill megabeasts in adventure mode (disapointingly)
For the most part though as powerful as a creature is, an army is a good deterrant.
If anything I'd like to know how different races could actually, reasonably, die.
Post by: darkflagrance on May 01, 2011, 10:27:56 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 01, 2011, 10:41:59 pm
Maybe world gen should limit megabeast attacks while the world is young, and ramp them up when there are great empires? That would allow more interesting interactions between great civilizations and powerful monsters.
Well from what I understand Megabeasts arn't outright there to destroy civilisation and the ones that would (Like a Titan) either
A) Arn't interested in small villages
or
B) Actually would create a "No civ" zone
I have nothing against B EXCEPT that so far civs treat megabeasts like they don't exist.
Post by: Jeoshua on May 02, 2011, 12:36:36 am
A) Arn't interested in small villages
or
B) Actually would create a "No civ" zone
A is already the case. Titans don't attack until a certain level of civilization has been reached.
B SHOULD be the case, as nobody would live near an active megabeast cave.
The thing is I believe that once city rot is introduced, the cities that are destroyed by megabeast attacks should slowly but surely turn to dust and eventually disappear off the map.
Or at least, that's what SHOULD happen.
Post by: Dae on May 02, 2011, 05:28:27 am
...The devlog and the forums are very stress relieving.Indeed. I quite agree. The... forums, yes.
That and naming a dwarf after your supervisor/most annoying employee and trowing them off a really tall tower and watching them blow into components. HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT DON! YOUR UPPER LEG IS IN A TREE! HUH DON? HUH?
Why, Yes. As in "http://www.bay12forums.com".
Post by: Areyar on May 02, 2011, 05:47:44 am
B SHOULD be the case, as nobody would live near an active megabeast cave.Except for a certain group of seven dwarves that is.
Post by: Arihim on May 02, 2011, 07:34:38 am
Quote from: ThreetoeYou will not be safe in either adventure or dwarf mode as you are beset by vampires, werewolves and vengeful ghosts. Entire armies of walking corpses will besiege you, led by undead phantoms. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=83680.0)whaaaaaaaaa? I sincerely hope this means what I think it means.
Does anyone know whether toady has mentioned whether we will be able to become vampires or werewolves ? I've seen it being mentioned in this thread before.. maybe Toady took our enthusiasm into consideration then.
Post by: Areyar on May 02, 2011, 09:22:20 am
Quote from: ThreetoeYou will not be safe in either adventure or dwarf mode as you are beset by vampires, werewolves and vengeful ghosts. Entire armies of walking corpses will besiege you, led by undead phantoms. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=83680.0)whaaaaaaaaa? I sincerely hope this means what I think it means.
Does anyone know whether toady has mentioned whether we will be able to become vampires or werewolves ? I've seen it being mentioned in this thread before.. maybe Toady took our enthusiasm into consideration then.
I've heard -or read- him recently state that the undead syndromes are contageous.
edit: Ah, it was brother sloth. :)
Post by: Deon on May 02, 2011, 09:27:35 am
Quote from: ThreeToe
Vampires, were-beasts and armies of the living dead will terrorize adventurers and fortresses alike. These creatures can pass on their curse, condemning their victims to a half-life of suffering and dread.I wonder, will this be an actual gameplay mechanic, or another worldgen-only feature?
Post by: Serrational on May 02, 2011, 09:40:22 am
Wait it out till morn, mayhaps.
Post by: Footkerchief on May 02, 2011, 09:46:50 am
In Adventure Mode, will we be able to control the equipment of companions and maybe even spar with them to improve skills?
I answered your equipment question last week:
I can't see anything about this on the dev page, but is it gonna be possible to eventually control the equipment of your companions in Adventure Mode? I want to be able to assemble my own mercenary band and train them up in different formations and tactics like Mount and Blade.Quote from: FuzzyDoomWill there be a way to give items to our companions? And perhaps an easier way to equip weapons? (Just had to wiki it.)
We have to get to companion equipment sooner than later, since it can be very frustrating to either lose a weapon or just have lots of excess armor that shouldn't be excess. It isn't in for 0.31.17 though.
Post by: Genoraven on May 02, 2011, 12:38:38 pm
Simple questions: are there plans for PCs be infect-able by night creatures in upcoming versions? If so, will there be a way for PCs to cure themselves, and upon succumbing will infected PCs remain under player control, or will the transformation be considered equivalent to death, converting the PC to a (potentially brutal) NPC for a later adventurer to eliminate?I also really want to know this!
Post by: Jeoshua on May 02, 2011, 01:24:47 pm
Except for a certain group of seven dwarves that is.
Okay, nobody that isn't completely insane would live near an active megabeast cave.
Better? I think so.
Post by: Dante on May 02, 2011, 04:31:27 pm
Quote from: ThreeToeVampires, were-beasts and armies of the living dead will terrorize adventurers and fortresses alike. These creatures can pass on their curse, condemning their victims to a half-life of suffering and dread.I wonder, will this be an actual gameplay mechanic, or another worldgen-only feature?
I wouldn't be at all surprised if it started out using the night creature code that is already in place. So individuals disappear and are either eaten or become undead creatures, and you have to hunt down the one who took them.
Undead armies sieging your fortress dwarves, the werewolves breaking down the doors and the vampires swooping down to instantly turn your dwarves into thralls, would be so cool though.
Post by: Neonivek on May 02, 2011, 04:49:05 pm
Vampires can be sustained as long as they don't constantly spread their disease (and if other sources of blood is acceptible)
Though how much blood a vampire needs often changes.
Or even a Night Creature army whos cities and castles only exist at night.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 02, 2011, 05:06:25 pm
I wonder how much protection the common villager has against these things? I mean, if your root cellar just has an open hallway leading into the catacombs, where vampires are coming up to feast on human blood... what, exactly is stopping them from rampaging out through your house, and then on to the streets?
Those maps look very easy to get lost in... we're going to need more breadcrumbs. (Or should I just snap off ratman parts to mark my path?)
Speaking of which, while undead are obviously getting a lot of love, I hope we can see some ratman or sewer alligatorman or something tribes down in the muck, as well.
Stumbling across a band of friendly molemen down in the lower reaches, before the catacombs give way to the caverns proper would make for a cool staging area for further exploration.
For the most part it isn't that tough for people to survive.
Generation goes WAAAY out of its way to ensure that megabeasts and semimegabeasts live. I mean if a hydra attacked your town would you solo it or get the entire town watch on it? It also goes out of its way to make Megabeasts and Semimegabeasts oddly harmless... Rampages feel more like Sunday Brunch and I would have no problem with less frequent megabeast attacks but with a lot more damage.
A group of 5 soldiers can dogpile and kill megabeasts in adventure mode (disapointingly)
For the most part though as powerful as a creature is, an army is a good deterrant.
If anything I'd like to know how different races could actually, reasonably, die.
I find that elves and humans reliably survive, but goblins tend to get chopped to kibble just because they're at war with everyone else, and dwarves tend to starve to death an awful lot, or have populations low enough that night critters are capable of keeping pace with dwarven reproduction rates. Kobolds often go extinct, as well.
Post by: Dae on May 02, 2011, 05:20:52 pm
Also, if you look closely, you'll see that the sewers don't really communicate with anything. There are several stairs leading up, and then things are organized in clusters of reasonable size (unless they connect at a lower level I didn't see).
Honestly, I think it will be manageable.
By the way, can you tell catacombs from dungeons ?
Post by: thvaz on May 02, 2011, 05:30:39 pm
I can't tell sewers apart from catacombs, but I guess they are supposed to be this way. Being lost in a dungeon is exciting !
Also, if you look closely, you'll see that the sewers don't really communicate with anything. There are several stairs leading up, and then things are organized in clusters of reasonable size (unless they connect at a lower level I didn't see).
Honestly, I think it will be manageable.
By the way, can you tell catacombs from dungeons ?
Sewers are the water things. They communicate with the river in the only picture where there is a river; apart from that, I think they start off from nowhere because its where the water fall off.
It's hard to tell apart catacombs from dungeons because there is no coffins or chains.
Post by: Neonivek on May 02, 2011, 05:31:17 pm
Quote
what, exactly is stopping them from rampaging out through your house, and then on to the streets?
For the most part desire and nature though intellectually a sudden uprising would gain the attention of a stronger force.
Though for nature:
It is like for example: "What is stopping a vulture from just killing its prey?"
Really nothing a vulture has more then enough power to kill its prey, I believe some do.
As well Cats live in communities but they arn't a coherant unit (or rather... they live together but they don't do things together). So just because creatures live in large communities with eachother it doesn't mean they are all watching out for eachother's interest or working together.
Not that I wouldn't want to see Nightcreatures just up an deciding they more then overpower a town and uttarly destroy it over night.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 02, 2011, 06:15:01 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 02, 2011, 08:23:51 pm
Quotewhat, exactly is stopping them from rampaging out through your house, and then on to the streets?
For the most part desire and nature though intellectually a sudden uprising would gain the attention of a stronger force.
Though for nature:
It is like for example: "What is stopping a vulture from just killing its prey?"
Really nothing a vulture has more then enough power to kill its prey, I believe some do.
As well Cats live in communities but they arn't a coherant unit (or rather... they live together but they don't do things together). So just because creatures live in large communities with eachother it doesn't mean they are all watching out for eachother's interest or working together.
Not that I wouldn't want to see Nightcreatures just up an deciding they more then overpower a town and uttarly destroy it over night.
But that doesn't exist in the game right now...
The problem I am foreseeing is this one:
Quote from: devlog 11/07/2010
The river ran pretty close to the gates, and when I walked out, we had a little alligator trouble. Well, the swordsman had more trouble than I did and ended up in the middle of the river where I couldn't help. The alligator became Skinnyrends and I left on my quest. I found a bronze breastplate in the first chamber, with no sign of the bridegroom other than the mess. I found him in the next room and lopped his head off with my axe. He wasn't alone however. The dark creature was still living there! This would be much more difficult. After getting my weapon stuck in her shoulder, she bit my arm and kept shaking it repeatedly. I broke free after losing a lot of blood, and that's when she took her copper meat cleaver to my toe. I fled, leaving my toe and axe behind.
I made it to a market just before nightfall and the shopkeeper graciously let me sleep on the floor overnight. In the morning I gave up my coins, my breastplate and half of my clothes to get a bronze great axe. My right arm was still useless, but I could manage the weapon with one hand. I went back to the castle by the river to report my success... a technical success, anyway, since the quest was for the bridegroom. As I stepped through the doors of the keep, I witnessed a scene of horror. The alligator Skinnyrends was inside, and the lord was next to his own head on the bloody stone floor. One of the lord's soldiers was holding his own, but I managed to put down the murderous beast myself. I reported my news of the spouse to the soldier, and with my late rescue in the keep, I became a greatly respected figure. Unfortunately, I would need to travel to a castle far away to quest for further glory. Outside the keep, I noticed an elf prisoner. I also noticed his nose was missing. A forensic examination of the keep revealed the body part among the remains. I needed somebody to travel with me in the wilds to help dissuade night attacks on the long journey, so I invited the prisoner along. We made it to the second castle after sunfall and slept in one of the towers.
So, basically, an alligator, because there was nothing particularly stopping it from doing so, just happened to amble into the lord's court and eat the lord...
The alligator is supposed to only eat the things that come close to its river, but apparently, it just randomly wandered while still "within range" of the game to keep calculating, and happened to randomly wander close enough to the lord to get a kill, and nobody happened to stop him beforehand.
That's a bit of a problem if every single random critter down in the catacombs can just amble on up and eat half the town while you're taking a snooze. (Especially if it only happens in the parts of town you happen to occupy, because those are the only ones where the simulation is running.)
It's not an organized or intentional behavior, it's just that the game right now doesn't recognize there's a problem when there are hippos in the river until one hippo gets it in its mind that it feels like human tonight.
Post by: Neonivek on May 02, 2011, 08:50:03 pm
So yeah you don't mean in world gen you mean through gameplay.
I guess he needs to write new codes.
Post by: Rexfelum on May 02, 2011, 08:54:50 pm
Quote from: devlog 11/07/2010Devlog stuff.
So, basically, an alligator, because there was nothing particularly stopping it from doing so, just happened to amble into the lord's court and eat the lord...
The alligator is supposed to only eat the things that come close to its river, but apparently, it just randomly wandered while still "within range" of the game to keep calculating, and happened to randomly wander close enough to the lord to get a kill, and nobody happened to stop him beforehand.
That's a bit of a problem if every single random critter down in the catacombs can just amble on up and eat half the town while you're taking a snooze. (Especially if it only happens in the parts of town you happen to occupy, because those are the only ones where the simulation is running.)
It's not an organized or intentional behavior, it's just that the game right now doesn't recognize there's a problem when there are hippos in the river until one hippo gets it in its mind that it feels like human tonight.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the cited example wasn't so much "the simulation is still running," as "there's something weird when you load/unload a site." There had been lots of reports of "sleepwalking" (here was mine (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=70651)) where beings would suddenly appear in an inappropriate location within an area after you slept and awoke. I believe that there's something in the abstraction when the "camera" looks away that leads to problems like this.
It would still be a problem, of course, whatever the cause.
--Rexfelum
Post by: Untelligent on May 02, 2011, 09:00:55 pm
It's hard to tell apart catacombs from dungeons because there is no coffins or chains.
I think the dungeons are mostly large, rectangular rooms (noticeable in the first dev picture) and the catacombs are mostly winding corridors with a few rooms here and there (as in pic three).
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 02, 2011, 09:18:18 pm
Anyway, yes, that's what I'm worried about - either sewer gators or zombies that get displaced during the accelerated simulation during sleep, or else just plain people having basements that connect directly to the catacombs, so when they go down to the cellar to grab some wine, they happen to walk into sight range of a zombie who chases them upstairs. Then that zombie who happens to be in a place he isn't "supposed to be" will just keep doing some periodic aimless wandering, and happen to walk out into the streets, and start eating the brains of the random villagers on the street, potentially killing someone important while your character is doing something totally unrelated.
This was one of the problems in TES: Oblivion, as well. Some characters would hang out at the docks, but mud crabs would randomly spawn at the waterside, and occasionally, they'd manage a kill on a named peasant character, and potentially automatically fail any quest those characters were associated with. There was even one noble who made weekly trips from one town to another with a single bodyguard, and if you happened to be near her path at those times, monsters could spawn near her and manage to kill her without you ever knowing she or the monsters had been there.
Having some sort of "solid barrier" like having the cities themselves being a different "area" that has a area transition door so that creatures generally cannot spawn inside a city makes sure those civilians and monsters stay separate, so that quest-participants stay alive.
In DF, of course, few of those procedurally generated characters have any importance at all that we, as players, do not assign to them (although one can always hope that somewhere down the road, the random peasants will start getting procedural personalities that actually manifest in their daily schedule and dialogue), and DF has a very definite "Life is Cheap" mentality, but it would be nice if, after buying a house in the city, you wouldn't have to immediately clean out the sewers in the area around that house or else have all your neighbors die of sewer gator attacks.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 02, 2011, 09:27:17 pm
Post by: monk12 on May 02, 2011, 10:04:22 pm
For example, lets take the obvious "living death" curse. Do creatures suffer from the curse because they have been attacked/cursed by a certain creature (as is the case with most "infection" kinds of zombie apocalypse, or vampires) or do they suffer because they died in a certain area, perhaps without taking precautions (burial on unhallowed ground in an evil biome, for instance)?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 02, 2011, 10:45:25 pm
For a gorgon you would need just need a "gaze" attack that actually would be some kind of "instant" projectile. "Cursed" objects would be as if they are coated in some or another contact-poison, althought the "curse" would need to evade protective layers like cloth.
If you wonder now if this curses stuff means that you can create rabbies i actually have to say that, i think, it would work more or less, although having them based on a material poison would be in my eyes more realistic for some cases. The thing is that the curse/illness has to be able to propagate itself and that may be biggest thing in this issue. It also, in case of an "normal" illness, shouldnt alter you to species.
I guess we might also get a new "Creature class", we already have "General_Poison" but a "General_Curse" would be nice to have. A way for nesting and coupling different classes could be needed in the future.
Post by: hermes on May 03, 2011, 03:57:51 am
Quote from: Toady Log
most or even all of the curses will be randomly created during world generation
If I'm reading this right, I really like the sound of this; being beset upon by creatures with powers that you can only understand through experience, undead that differ from world to world... more and more DF is bringing the curiosity of adventure back into gaming, this has to be one of the best dev tangents.
What aspects of curses might be randomised? Constitution, strength, appearance, names, other things entirely?
Post by: Lovechild on May 03, 2011, 06:22:31 am
Post by: Areyar on May 03, 2011, 07:47:22 am
Will the new night creatures be hardcoded (like the current ones) or will they be placed in the raws (and thus be removable for modders)?ahum...
Quote from: Toady
05/02/2011 The first step is to add "curses", which might be based on or a subset of the current syndrome system used for poisons, and to use these to replace the skeleton and zombie flags. Even though most or even all of the curses will be randomly created during world generation, there should still be raws for them that support everything that's going on for modders as well. The old skeleton and zombie flags should be able to be legacy'd in for old saves. Once the framework is done, we'll start adding new sorts of night creatures.That means "No, the nightcreatures will be procedural and their condition equivalent to a syndrome."
Post by: tfaal on May 03, 2011, 09:17:37 am
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
Alligator concerns
This issue is not fundamentally related to the current one. In that version, alligators were not fundamentally intended to exist in forts. That alligator became a historical figure by killing someone, and a naive simulation meant that historical figures got corralled into forts. These kinds of creatures will exist for the fundamental purpose of occasionally terrorizing the city-folk, and while Toady's code is scarcely bug-free, I think we'll probably see that happen to a reasonable extent.
Post by: Caldfir on May 03, 2011, 11:43:53 am
Yeah, I remember an older version where I was chased to a fort by a band of goblins attacking me. I made it inside the fort full of humans, slept, and when I woke up there were goblins all over the place inside the keep. Thinking back, this was almost certainly the same bug. Presumably the devlog entry we are referencing about the alligator indicates that this behaviour is now fixed.Quote from: NW_KohakuAlligator concerns
This issue is not fundamentally related to the current one. In that version, alligators were not fundamentally intended to exist in forts. That alligator became a historical figure by killing someone, and a naive simulation meant that historical figures got corralled into forts. These kinds of creatures will exist for the fundamental purpose of occasionally terrorizing the city-folk, and while Toady's code is scarcely bug-free, I think we'll probably see that happen to a reasonable extent.
Post by: Rift on May 03, 2011, 06:18:08 pm
Quote
Devlog:The first of the test interactions is underway, recreating the animated dead that are already in the evil regions, with the additional effect of intermittently raising any corpse that is in its area of influence during regular play. I suppose without a specific flag, it'll reraise defeated corpses that are still intact after a while, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
:o
Oh my, Evil regions just became.. insanely harder.. this likely means if a animated dead kills your dwarf it will end up being raised and attacking your dwarves.. growing in numbers, even if you kill them they might be raised again to attack you..
...So exciting!
Wonder if "it's influence" refers to the influence of other undead, or just the entire evil region.
Post by: Cruxador on May 03, 2011, 06:26:40 pm
Wonder if "it's influence" refers to the influence of other undead, or just the entire evil region."its" is singular, and thus would seem to indicate that he's referring to the region, as there will presumably be many undead in evil regions.
Post by: Dante on May 03, 2011, 06:52:52 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
If Toady does end up putting a flag in, I hope it's variable with different types of pseudorandom undead, so some creatures come back multiple times and others don't.
Post by: Fieari on May 03, 2011, 07:18:55 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 03, 2011, 07:31:52 pm
I still worry about the FPS entropy implications of undead that pile up in your fort and can never actually be disposed of in any way, though.
Although having a bunch of groundhog skeletons around as training dummies that always come back to life for your warriors to test out some of their skills upon would also be amusing. I remember back in the earlier, nearly unkillable versions of undead, I would train my military up as legendary wreslters against some very weak versions of undead, like skeletal river eels, before giving them weapons and letting them work on their kill skills.
Post by: Genoraven on May 03, 2011, 07:53:06 pm
Post by: devek on May 03, 2011, 08:15:17 pm
I agree-- definitely allow re-raising, but require a corpse to have a minimum level of "intact-ness" before being raised. Having a head that is attached to a body might be an okay minimum standard, for example.
AFAIK no monster can survive having its head or lower torso cut off.
The trick will be getting your dwarfs to watch zombieland before embarking... or at least learn the double tap :P
Post by: Jeoshua on May 03, 2011, 08:25:19 pm
Post by: monk12 on May 03, 2011, 08:41:22 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 03, 2011, 09:05:31 pm
That or toady just has fun :D . Seriously now the intactness is a nice thing and i wonder if it can be used and tuned for other stuff like having a curse outright kill you, instead of turning you into something, if you are weakened by a poison or something.
Also you have to double kill all mega and forgotten beasts in the evil biomes now. I wonder what we might get for the "good" places.
Post by: devek on May 03, 2011, 09:24:18 pm
I wonder what we might get for the "good" places.
Ponies, hopefully.
Post by: Rift on May 03, 2011, 09:33:50 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 03, 2011, 09:49:48 pm
The Mouse is raised!
The undead mouse runs away!
Actually i wouldnt wonder of we get undead vermin as a "side" effect. And undead trees are already in the game, it would nice to see undead grass (well the eyebalss and fingers are more like mutant-grass) and plants too.
regarding ponies: iirc there is a sphere for friendship and one for magic so they would fit into a spherical land once (if) they make into df.
edit: Ok just checked there is no magic sphere for itself and only a loyality sphere instead of friendschip.
Post by: Angle on May 03, 2011, 10:03:11 pm
Post by: Cruxador on May 03, 2011, 11:15:36 pm
We already get unicorns. They gore dwarves to death.I wonder what we might get for the "good" places.
Ponies, hopefully.
Post by: Dante on May 04, 2011, 12:22:54 am
Post by: monk12 on May 04, 2011, 12:38:15 am
But not the dead turning into unicorns.
In my mind, there is a whole field of corpses after a siege, and as Ursit McGreedy runs out to claim some really nice socks he suddenly finds himself in the middle of a field of unicorns, clawing their way out of the husks of the fallen like butterflies from a cocoon.
They are very angry unicorns.
Post by: Toady One on May 04, 2011, 01:08:07 am
Quote from: Dwarfu
Do the food production/starvation routines during worldgen factor in any of the actual plant tokens (such as seasons, growdur, etc.)?
Nope. I'd rather balance against a simple yearly planting cycle rather than the current numbers until the farming rewrite. Once we have a clearer handle on farming, supporting that sort of thing should be more natural. I expect the numbers will be quite a bit different at that time, probably, since the growing seasons are all pretty short right now.
Quote
Quote from: NeonivekToady do you mean Goblins don't need to eat in any future update or that Goblins won't need to eat until you can get it working properly?Quote from: MephansterasToady: Could you clairify a bit on the "Goblins don't need to eat" bit? Just curious how that's going to play out and what the reasoning behind it is (from a world lore perspective). Also, even if goblins don't eat what about any other future carnivorous civs? Wolfmen or the like? Do you see yourself adding in herding-based civilizations to accommodate that? Even in our history we have examples of very successful civilizations that did very little actual farming and mostly just herded animals around. The Mongols are probably the best example of that.
In any future update. I know a few people were dismissive of our decision and called it a cop out, but we thought about these situations (including the Mongols) and rejected them. Goblins that herd meat animals are insufficiently scary to us. Goblins that die exclusively violent deaths in great numbers in a potentially vegetationless wasteland are better, and we want to explore a wider variety of possibilities than humans allow -- humans can be Mongols, because the Mongols were human, and we hope to support some human variety eventually. There are beak dog considerations, etc., but those aren't fundamental -- wrangling some critters isn't as image-shattering as having large herds of meat animals ranging over grasslands with goblin ranchers.
Quote from: cephalo
Have you thought about whether dwarves should have an advantage to accessing resources that are deep underground? Do you think this should this be a purely cultural affinity for digging, or should there be some physiological reason why men and elves can't dig down and mine the spoilerite?
I haven't thought about it much, or come to any conclusions anyway. I'd hate to have a strong physiological barrier, depending on what that means, since it would screw up adventurers in abandoned forts. The actually spoilerite stuff could just be hidden technical knowledge.
Quote from: Untelligent
How will night creature creature weaknesses, important ways to deal with specific monsters, making sure they're permanently dead, etc. be dealt with? Especially for night creatures way out in savage lands where nobody's heard of them and information-gathering might not be possible?
It'll certainly be the same between them, at least with the creature types that live in both civilized and uncivilized places. Without knowing how to kill stuff, I imagine putting yourself in those sorts of situations is kind of like drinking a mottled potion in order to identify it. It's an unsafe choice. It's obviously a game problem if you have to do like 7 steps to put something down and there's no access at all to that information -- this points to making the information always being attainable once it is required, with the information only being obtainable by supernatural means when it isn't widely-held (or even guarded) mundane knowledge. This is a common theme -- going to see the seer or commune with the spirits, etc. The gathering of the information might be the more challenging quest in the end, but the information should be out there somewhere... it might even be a task to figure out where to get the information in the first place. Those sorts of layers will come in over time, but we're not planning to jump the gun on creature weaknesses, especially in some game-breaking way.
Quote from: hermes
Are there plans to have some entities inhabit the sewers and catacombs (as opposed to just wandering around like the undead), if so what kinds? eg. sewer hermits, black market traders.
And...
Will the undead be given life by a necromancer of sorts, or a god, or the spirits of dead entities, or just.. something else? (I'm thinking of Threetoe's story, Warriors of the Dead, where the soldiers who come back to the "real world" have returned from a kind of hell, could the undead be populated from entities who have actually already died in worldgen history?)
Edit - Have been going through all Threetoe's stories recently, and another question popped into mind...
How can one access the catacombs? In Dragon Quest the priest accesses the catacombs from a church, will it be like this, or through the sewers, or something else?
The easiest non-animal/non-monstery thing that fits in with what we already have would just be a bandit analog. Working in other stuff is most likely a later thing with all that's on the plate now.
There will be some pseudo-justifications for the initial undead stuff, and a lot of them will be previously living world gen people -- the historical ones are tracked, and all the entity pop ones are now too, by cause of death and location. We've been exploring and doing some code on a large variety of afterlife stuff for some months now, but there's no concrete timeline on that, so likely they'll just return from "the dead" if they are being brought back as themselves (rather than just an animated corpse).
Temples are back in this version, and there can be catacombs access there. There can also be sewer access and probably links to other dungeons.
Quote
Quote from: tigrexIn a world where undead exist, why would anyone bury their dead at all? Why not just chuck everyone in the crematorium?Quote from: NW_KohakuWill a city surviving a zombie apocalypse have an effect on burial practices in-game? Do they "learn" to do something different in how they bury their dead using some sort of method to stop another mass rising?
Also, will there be a "safe" method of burial, such as incineration and slabbing, or will that just produce some other kind of undead in a zombie apocalypse?Quote from: PTTG??Undead uprisings are extremely rare events. It is rational that a culture will generally take only the minimum level of burial protection.
Some people think the undead exist in our world, and possibly did in greater numbers in the past depending on the kind, and still do/did burials of whole bodies in many places. Without zombie uprisings there are just minor traditions, I think, as PTTG?? brings up.
Adding cultural reaction to widespread zombie attacks is fair to explore, although having it pop out naturally from some sort of basic AI is not in the cards most likely. There will still be large concentrations of unhandled bodies at places like battlefields, probably, especially if the culture that worries the most about the undead loses. Your fortress dwarves are free to improvise in advance of course. I doubt there's going to be a 100% safe burial method for your dwarves, but being respectful will almost always be the better choice (although being respectful and also placing the coffin in a sheer pit might be the best choice in certain areas).
Quote from: Dbuhos
Are the quest givers going to reward us with anything beside fame and glory in the near future ? (Urists, Weapons, Amulets and different useless/useful stuff.)
It's certainly reasonable for people to do things like that, but I don't have a timeline for it. We're slowly getting to property notions, and once we arrive at manors in Release 3, it might be ready, but not until then.
Quote from: Cruxador
What sort of situation is likely to prevent bodies from being laid to rest properly? Or are these walking dead active for some other reason?
For things like curses that are passed on (vampirey werewolfy stuff, for instance), having a proper burial isn't relevant. There might also be problems that arise inevitably from criminals that are executed or that die in a dungeon, regardless of the burial.
Quote from: Totaku
Have you considered the possibiitly that since your making sewers and other building structure about including graveyards?
Perhaps even a possibility that the graveyard could be haunted you maybe you'l have to go extermine the undead? I think that would be sort of fun.
Footkerchief brought up the old goal there, and we've also got the new dead piles from world gen to people the catacombs with bodies. That has made graveyards a much lower hanging fruit, but I'm not sure if we're going to do it just yet, if it involves burial in soil, since we don't really have that covered. In the underground catacomby places, coffins can be placed exposed. There will be giant crypty pyramidy sites independent of the towns again, on the other hand, but unlike the old ones they'll have a proper world gen tie-in with historical undead (in part). It'll either have something already awakened in world gen, or just a giant place on the map where you are like, yeah, I'll go there and disturb the dead and take their things. Dwarf embarks probably possible only on the ones you can't see, I guess. Dwarf embark is always tricky, because it is inevitably silly.
Quote
Quote from: VorthonI was wondering: Will night creature generation ever be able to produce night creatures that feed on/are repelled by abstract concepts, such as happiness, the laughter of children, contentement, rage, etc.?Quote from: AsmageddonAssuming that someday there will be monsters feeding off emotions and other abstract concepts, do you think we could have creatures that simply prefer or dislike people with certain personality or appearance traits to some extent(for example some creatures could eat only people with scars, some would prefer people who get angry easily, some would completely avoid people with 6 toes and drop dead upon touching them, etc.)?
I'm not sure what it'll ever be able to do, but as we add more effects, things certainly become more powerful -- if what I'm doing is analogous to the very beginnings of a magic system generator, then having power sources come from any creature variable is fair, and having supernatural creatures feed/powered in the same way all fits back in.
Quote from: metime00
With settlements back into adventure mode, will we see thirst and hunger be added in during the next release or a subsequent caravan arc release?
It's probably not entirely unreasonable to put it in now, but it might have to wait for Release 5 (when the world is activated), or when proper hunting goes in.
Quote from: Armok
Once caravans and such get tracked on the local map, will things be flexible enough that you can do things like... go in with a flying adventurer, wall up the entrances to a city, wait for them to starve because food caravans cant get it, then buy the food from those caravans, fly over with it, and sell it on the black market for insane amounts of money?
There was already a discussion about the pathfinding component, and that's the main obstacle in this case, if you aren't there babysitting the gate. If we simplify it to say, waylaying the caravan as it travels then yeah, people will have a high demand for food eventually, and it'll probably take a much longer time for their suspicion of you to be put in the game, unless they are your enemies automatically due to some magical factional thing from the caravan murder.
Quote from: Cruxador
Do the various under-city structures sometimes meet with the highest underground layer? If so, how common is it? And will Forgotten Beasts and other subterranean creatures eventually come up through such connections to live in sewers (and whatnot) or attack the town? It sounded like the first bit was a "yes" from the devlog, but I'd like confirmation.
On a similar, but ultimately separate note:
You didn't mention basements or cellars. Does that mean you weren't working on them, or were they just simple enough that they didn't contribute to the complications you mentioned?
It seems like it would be somewhat silly to include all the awesome fancy underground stuff and not include simple underground stuff too.
We've thought about how it might look, but right now we are still avoiding the top layer (that mention in the dev log was more about threading the rest between the upper and lower limits, which are variable). It's easy enough to hit it, but for it to have a point beyond the intrusion of flying beasts, we need the adventurer to have a way to get down to the cavern floor, which would mean the humans digging stairs or placing a scaffoldy stair or something. It would be a fun place to have a lever and bars though, and a sign with a warning on it. We haven't ruled out doing it, and it's always good to have more cavern access points that aren't far-away rare caves -- there still isn't much to do down there though, so it's not a key addition yet.
Basements/cellars were in my mind with the complication list in the "buildings" part, particularly because temples can currently have multilevel underground parts from before that aren't the new catacombs themselves. I haven't done basements/cellars generally though. They should be that bad, but doing them too thickly will mess with my sewer stuff -- the sewers try to follow the roads but have to skip them at times.
Quote from: Asmageddon
Also, what factors will influence undead activity? Will there be sudden undead outbreaks?
The area stuff is randomly distributed, so it's just ongoing. The organized attack stuff will be according to availability until we get to Army Arc/Release 5ey stuff... the ghost outbreaks are already in... some of it'll also depend on the attacks by individual creatures that can convert fort members, perhaps stealthfully, and then you'd have sort of a sudden outbreak. We'll have to see how that works.
Quote from: hermes
Will road (and other civil construction) materials vary with local/economic availability and/or class/economic districts within urban areas?
Hopefully -- furniture is going to use the numerically stored items, but the larger constructions I think right now just use local stone at will. Except the grates that connect the sewers up through shafts to the roads... for some reason those are all rainbow colors now.
Quote from: darkflagrance
Will there be a HAS_SEWER_LAIR or similar tag so that modders can specify that certain creatures like crocodiles or grimelings inhabit sewers?
I took this macabre break from the sewers right before I added critters, so I don't have the clear answer yet, but I imagine it'll be something like that, since we're only going to want certain vanilla beasts to be down there, and different than the river critters that sometimes get in there naturally.
Quote from: Orkel
Toady, does this mean we can create zombie viruses in fortress mode?
Yeah, curses will be able to give rise to curses in various ways, and something relatively like some existing varieties of zombie apocalypse should be possible, even in vanilla DF. In general with all this stuff, there is a danger with the world dying, which on its face increases as the dead come to outnumber the living more and more (although the game can place arbitrary controls on these things to prevent too much going on). Could be up to world params, or chance, or be tightly controlled. But from a mod perspective it should be possible to get something done. In some broad way, it's going to be able to treat different sorts of curse behavior in all three modes (world gen, adv mode, dwarf mode), so it is hoped custom curses will at least somewhat work as expected. Obviously there will be bugs and oversights and incomplete portions to revel in.
Quote from: Sean Mirrsen
How far away, tentatively, is adventurer-enabled mining and constructing?
...
I know it won't be around the bend for a while. Such as, what are the biggest things in the way at the moment.
The site thing you mentioned is pretty much the only significant obstacle, and as you also mentioned, it's partially handled. The rest is just sitting down and doing it, which involves thinking through how tool-heavy adv mode should be, I guess, and how much time should pass mining through stone walls, for example, and if it influences dwarf mode mining times at all. Tile-by-tile constructions are silly in many cases, but I doubt that'll change before or when we get to them in adv mode.
Quote from: KillerClowns
Simple questions: are there plans for PCs be infect-able by night creatures in upcoming versions? If so, will there be a way for PCs to cure themselves, and upon succumbing will infected PCs remain under player control, or will the transformation be considered equivalent to death, converting the PC to a (potentially brutal) NPC for a later adventurer to eliminate?
It's most natural to make adventurers susceptible to all the trouble, since that's how it works when you don't change anything. We're for making the affected player playable if they can do enough of the bad things available to the non-adventurer creature, and that may or may not be in the cards.
Quote from: thvaz
These underground features will have coffins, doors, statues, small bridges over the sewer channels, or they will be bare for now? And the houses in the city? There will be furniture?
All of that should be in by the time of the release.
Quote
Quote from: AsmageddonHow many houses will be abandoned and ruined and how will it eventually look? Will some of them be falling apart enough to breach underground? Will there be any kind of creatures(or just bands of outlaws) living in them?Quote from: AngleWill cities occasionally perish, leaving infested ruins that we can embark upon?
There is a very exaggerated population cycle that goes on in the cities now, so it might actually be frequent to have uninhabited structures making up a great section of the city, if they don't have some reason to go away. Haunting houses and bandits and things all hoped for, should get to some stuff. If the undead get out of hand during world gen, there will be trouble spots, yeah.
Quote from: Jeoshua
With all the new monsters, night creatures, undead, titans, and demons... is there any consideration being given to how the different races are actually going to survive? Will there be great heroes, other than the player character, that actually stand a chance against these threats? Or can we look forward to entire worlds dying off by the year 200?
Alternately, if we can look forward to massive death from armies of undead, will these creatures take over and form a new society that we can then interact with in some way other than killing them?
I think Neonivek brought up the ineffectual nature of the megabeasts. There are already heroes in world gen, but they aren't really fleshed out. As we progress, they will be, to make your companions and adversaries more interesting.
The new night creature curses will be a new little test for world gen, as mentioned above, and we'll have to see how the world does. Since there are caps on the overall living population, due to technical constraints, the dead bodies being tracked almost always come to outnumber the living as the years roll on. Depending on how raising works, that doesn't bode well for the living without controls. A powerful "contagious" curse could also be a problem. Ideally, you'd want situations where you can sometimes play in a half-dead world, but not so much a fully dead world. There could be something analogous to the megabeast percentage for world gen stoppage -- it could just stop world gen if it detects that the world is a zombie infested hellhole where humanity and dwarfdom are just barely clinging to life, so you can have fun there. It's not difficult to cap outbreaks to keep the world under control, through params probably.
Quote from: monk12
Will curses be associated with particular creatures, or will they be associated with particular areas, or both?
For example, lets take the obvious "living death" curse. Do creatures suffer from the curse because they have been attacked/cursed by a certain creature (as is the case with most "infection" kinds of zombie apocalypse, or vampires) or do they suffer because they died in a certain area, perhaps without taking precautions (burial on unhallowed ground in an evil biome, for instance)?
Both areas and creatures will have curses, and the system will be expandable to artifacts and so on later. It's not unlike a magic framework in the end and could become that in time, though were obviously focusing on a narrow slice right now without tackling some of the stumbling blocks.
Quote from: Lovechild
Will the new night creatures be hardcoded (like the current ones) or will they be placed in the raws (and thus be removable for modders)?
Though the "interactions" as the curses are currently called are rawable, the ones in the game will almost all be randomly created for each world and thereby dependend on world parameters. You'll probably be able to turn them off entirely, although the parameters might not be fine-grained at first to preserve some surprises at first.
Post by: Untelligent on May 04, 2011, 02:10:51 am
Quote from: hermesAre there plans to have some entities inhabit the sewers and catacombs (as opposed to just wandering around like the undead), if so what kinds? eg. sewer hermits, black market traders.
The easiest non-animal/non-monstery thing that fits in with what we already have would just be a bandit analog.
Sewer hobos! YES
Post by: Dante on May 04, 2011, 02:34:14 am
Quote
I doubt there's going to be a 100% safe burial method for your dwarvesFun!
Quote
There might also be problems that arise inevitably from criminals that are executed2x Fun!
Looks like punishment-based tantrum spirals now just became a lot deadlier.
Quote
There will be giant crypty pyramidy sites independent of the towns again3x Fun!
...
It'll either have something already awakened in world gen, or just a giant place on the map where you are like, yeah, I'll go there and disturb the dead and take their things.
Post by: thvaz on May 04, 2011, 02:56:04 am
Post by: Asmageddon on May 04, 2011, 03:01:02 am
Will it be possible for there to be multiple demographics in a single city?
Aside from the civ owning the city there would probably be cultural minorities, including dwarves and elves.
On the same topic, will we see any cultural/racial discrimination? I'm mainly talking about humans who are racist in nature, but as well as about dwarv-elf conflict.
Can we see sections of city dedicated to a subculture, you know, ghettos and the like. Perhaps genocides and civil wars in the future that shift balance of the city, perhaps going as far as the city changing it's owner civ?
In such cases, will there be any undead cases in which defeated defenders of the city and their ancestors raise to exact revenge on them?
Will there be in general any racial/cultural preferences among undead? (eg.: dead dwarf attacking elves rather than humans, dead human not attacking his family if there are other targets, etc.)
Oh, and thanks for the answers, o Toady One.
Post by: Moddan on May 04, 2011, 06:11:33 am
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 04, 2011, 06:23:43 am
Quote
A powerful "contagious" curse could also be a problem. Ideally, you'd want situations where you can sometimes play in a half-dead world, but not so much a fully dead world. There could be something analogous to the megabeast percentage for world gen stoppage -- it could just stop world gen if it detects that the world is a zombie infested hellhole where humanity and dwarfdom are just barely clinging to life, so you can have fun there. It's not difficult to cap outbreaks to keep the world under control, through params probably.
hell yeah! we can tune it already from the evilness parameter, just a world gen option to stop while too few living are alive and whammo! the dwarven commercial hall is ready to roll against the zombies
Post by: hermes on May 04, 2011, 07:13:59 am
Quote from: Mr Toad
Though the "interactions" as the curses are currently called are rawable, the ones in the game will almost all be randomly created for each world and thereby dependend on world parameters. You'll probably be able to turn them off entirely, although the parameters might not be fine-grained at first to preserve some surprises at first.
This all sounds really exciting, and we get cities too. :o
Post by: Knight Otu on May 04, 2011, 07:49:30 am
Temples are back in this version, ...Yay!
There will be giant crypty pyramidy sites independent of the towns again, on the other hand, but unlike the old ones they'll have a proper world gen tie-in with historical undead (in part).Yay!!
I took this macabre break from the sewers right before I added critters, so I don't have the clear answer yet, but I imagine it'll be something like that, since we're only going to want certain vanilla beasts to be down there, and different than the river critters that sometimes get in there naturally.Seems to me that sewers and the like could be treated as additions to the biome tags. I guess that it could generate some weirdness if you give it to megabeasts, and they lair under the city then, but I think that could happen with other implementations, too.
Though the "interactions" as the curses are currently called...Since that opens up the possibility of non-evil "curses" without sounding silly, I kind of hope that name sticks, even if there are none of those in the initial release. Which reminds me - Since current deities occasionally use the zombie and skeleton flags when their spheres are compatible, will the deities in the upcoming release use certain or all curses in their description? Such that, if there was a "winged zombie" interaction associated with sky and death, a deity of sky and death might be depicted as a winged zombie human?
Will it be possible for there to be multiple demographics in a single city?Such migrations are already in the game where people of all races settle in major sites (such as towns) - but there seems to be a problem that makes Dwarf Fortress only place a single race in the site in question (usually humans, but occasionally goblins), and I suspect that it could extend to only placing members of a single descend. And even without that problem, I suspect it will be hard to tell that a given human('s ancestors) originally came from a different civ unless there was some kind of common knowledge regarding prevailing tissue colors in your culture or if people said things like "I have no family to speak of, but I am a descendant of immigrants from the Nation of Gardens".
Aside from the civ owning the city there would probably be cultural minorities, including dwarves and elves.
Edit - forgot the question I wanted to ask - Will some of the new night creature behaviors work for other creatures as well, whether civilized, wild, mega, or procedural (I could certainly see demons spreading curses, and if transformation effects were to come in, that could be very interesting for mods)?
Post by: Lovechild on May 04, 2011, 07:53:58 am
Post by: Fieari on May 04, 2011, 10:11:57 am
Thus, when the zombie apocalypse happens, the collapse of civilization happens emergently from simple, realistic rules.
Post by: Footkerchief on May 04, 2011, 10:13:16 am
Temples are back in this version, ...Yay!There will be giant crypty pyramidy sites independent of the towns again, on the other hand, but unlike the old ones they'll have a proper world gen tie-in with historical undead (in part).Yay!!
Yeah this is going to be rad.
Post by: Vorthon on May 04, 2011, 10:18:50 am
Temples are back in this version, ...Yay!There will be giant crypty pyramidy sites independent of the towns again, on the other hand, but unlike the old ones they'll have a proper world gen tie-in with historical undead (in part).Yay!!
Yeah this is going to be rad.
Indeed.
Post by: Deon on May 04, 2011, 10:50:02 am
Quote from: 'Toady One'
Quote from: OrkelHell yeah! So many new Total Conversion mod possibilities and DF tunings :). I am more than happy to hear that!
Toady, does this mean we can create zombie viruses in fortress mode?
Yeah, curses will be able to give rise to curses in various ways, and something relatively like some existing varieties of zombie apocalypse should be possible, even in vanilla DF. In general with all this stuff, there is a danger with the world dying, which on its face increases as the dead come to outnumber the living more and more (although the game can place arbitrary controls on these things to prevent too much going on). Could be up to world params, or chance, or be tightly controlled. But from a mod perspective it should be possible to get something done. In some broad way, it's going to be able to treat different sorts of curse behavior in all three modes (world gen, adv mode, dwarf mode), so it is hoped custom curses will at least somewhat work as expected. Obviously there will be bugs and oversights and incomplete portions to revel in.
Post by: Orkel on May 04, 2011, 11:53:02 am
New one that one of my friends (Goast) thought up, so I'm asking on his behalf:
A Zombie Goast: That makes me wonder
A Zombie Goast: Why isn't there a skill for fighting certain animals?
A Zombie Goast: It would certainly give using arenas added incentive
So basically, will there ever be small skills that increase per fought creature? Like, "novice at fighting goblins" or "competent at fighting hedgehogs".
Post by: Knight Otu on May 04, 2011, 11:58:49 am
Thanks for the answers Toady!I think those things have been mentioned in conjunction with fighting styles, actually. These skills existed in Armok as well, I'm pretty sure.
New one that one of my friends (Goast) thought up, so I'm asking on his behalf:
A Zombie Goast: That makes me wonder
A Zombie Goast: Why isn't there a skill for fighting certain animals?
A Zombie Goast: It would certainly give using arenas added incentive
So basically, will there ever be small skills that increase per fought creature? Like, "novice at fighting goblins" or "competent at fighting hedgehogs".
Edit: From DF Talks:
Quote from: DF Talk 6:
Rainseeker: ... Is there any plan to implement experiences with particular types of enemies.
Toady: The original Armok had this unimplemented knowledge system for creatures, and I was definitely thinking about doing that in dwarf mode, you could be an excellent dragon fighter, that kind of thing, and the knowledge could be about their behaviour, it could be about how to butcher them in particular, and so on. So your dwarf mode guy might be excellent at butchering all the deer and cows and things that your guys bring to him, but then you bring him some kind of giant spider and he's supposed to do something with that and he's like 'What is this? I don't even know where anything is' and would spoil the thing even if he's pretty good at butchering in general. So I'm for that kind of thing, I don't think it would be unnecessarily complicated. There are some questions about what it means to be a goblin fighter versus an elf fighter if they're humanoids or whatever; is that more learning about a culture or a species or whatever, if their anatomy is roughly the same. There are questions to answer there but in general I think the more knowledge types and things that there are for fighters and the more different skills and so on that they learn the more they could be differentiated, and that's always good. I think it's good to have particulars like that, and that one in particular is something that's planned. Not planned as in completely planned out, but something we definitely want to do.
Quote from: DF Talk 9:
Rainseeker: Let's talk about martial arts. So I see that you have specific skills for fighting monsters, you have a skill for hand-on-hand combat against a dragon ...
Toady: I'm not sure how specific it's going to be, but once we put in things like if you're fighting a giant who's way taller than you then it would make sense that if people have been doing that for centuries then they'd have strategies. I'm not sure what those are going to be specifically, if it just gives you a knowledge against a monster and a bonus then that would be the easiest way to do it, but it would be way more fun to have particular things that you can do, to jump up on them, or attack them when they're swinging down at you, people practicing strikes to hack a dragon in the head when it comes down to bite them or whatever. There might be stereotyped ways of doing that, although I don't think enough people fight dragons and survive to really learn that stuff ... it'd be kind of weird to see the training facilities with the giant cardboard dragons, people practicing against them ...
Rainseeker: Well you never know when a dragon's going to show up ...
Post by: Miko19 on May 04, 2011, 12:09:12 pm
Deonapocalypse in DF, fuck yeah.Quote from: 'Toady One'Quote from: OrkelHell yeah! So many new Total Conversion mod possibilities and DF tunings :). I am more than happy to hear that!
Toady, does this mean we can create zombie viruses in fortress mode?
Yeah, curses will be able to give rise to curses in various ways, and something relatively like some existing varieties of zombie apocalypse should be possible, even in vanilla DF. In general with all this stuff, there is a danger with the world dying, which on its face increases as the dead come to outnumber the living more and more (although the game can place arbitrary controls on these things to prevent too much going on). Could be up to world params, or chance, or be tightly controlled. But from a mod perspective it should be possible to get something done. In some broad way, it's going to be able to treat different sorts of curse behavior in all three modes (world gen, adv mode, dwarf mode), so it is hoped custom curses will at least somewhat work as expected. Obviously there will be bugs and oversights and incomplete portions to revel in.
I always wanted to have my own zombieland fort with extremely sharp humour, very realistic injury system and hilarious incidents happening.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 04, 2011, 12:31:27 pm
Spoiler: quote relating to the undead night creatures from Toady's last post (click to show/hide)
... I get the impression that the game is going to look a lot like Final Fantasy X in the new version...
The monsters are all undead/ghosts, the global church conspiracy is run by ghosts, the villains are all undead, Bruce Willis was a ghost all along, and the total global population of actually living people shrank down to about 50 while nobody was looking.
Somehow, it seems like "Adventurer Role: Slayer of Night Creatures" might need to look more like this:
Adventurer Role: Exorcist
- Waki miko ofuda throwing?
In fact, I have to ask some questions about this...
With night creatures, you mentioned that you might need to do some questing to find a weakness to a night creature. Will it actually be impossible to kill night creatures without exploiting their weaknesses? (As in, is there no way to simply chop them into a fine enough paste faster than they regenerate, or just drag them away from whatever magical power source they have to kill them "the hard way", so that we must rely upon finding a weakness, no matter the difference in strength or skill our characters have with our enemies?)
Likewise, if some sort of religious practice to divine weaknesses or to exorcise undead must happen to kill certain creatures, will we, as players, (at least some point in the future, perhaps having to wait on general magic system) have the ability to become one of those religious figures, capable of divining or performing exorcisms of ghosts or reversals of curses on our own, and can our fortresses train exorcists or the like to combat un-slabbable ghosts? Or do we have no power to fight these things on our own?
If we have no way of making our fortress completely safe from having an undead uprising, that's all well and good, so long as we have some way of actually dealing with them. Anything like a zombie you killed the first time you can probably kill again.
Ghosts, however, are invulnerable right now, and if slabs don't stop them...
Making ghosts undefeatable and having the dead goblin siegers just come back as vengeful ghosts to pick off your dwarves one-by-one at their leisure like after-dinner mints because you have no recourse against them doesn't sound fun at all, it sounds like the game just forces you to abandon a perfectly good fort for no reason.
Post by: Asmageddon on May 04, 2011, 12:42:53 pm
Will regeneration of any sort be possible as a syndrom of a curse/"disease"/something.
Post by: tps12 on May 04, 2011, 12:45:40 pm
Making ghosts undefeatable and having the dead goblin siegers just come back as vengeful ghosts to pick off your dwarves one-by-one at their leisure like after-dinner mints because you have no recourse against them doesn't sound fun at all, it sounds like the game just forces you to abandon a perfectly good fort for no reason.
The phrasing preferred by the Trolling Promotion Society of Bay12 is as follows: "that isn't fun; it isn't even Fun."
Post by: monk12 on May 04, 2011, 01:08:52 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on May 04, 2011, 01:13:39 pm
[giant Toad-quote]
If you have to quote that much of a post, please move it into a spoiler tag.
Post by: Neonivek on May 04, 2011, 01:56:23 pm
I never thought I'd be referenced. I guess my observations on the ineffectual nature of the current megabeasts was spot on.
I think I'll drop the goblin thing. Unfortunately I cannot think of equally evil and freightening alternatives unless Goblins harvest large fleshlike creatures that they forever rip open and devour or they have the ability to grant their prisoners eternal life at which they can constantly eat their limbs and organs forever (or demons...). So yeah no ideas.
Post by: Armok on May 04, 2011, 01:59:29 pm
Awesome! ^_^Quote from: ArmokOnce caravans and such get tracked on the local map, will things be flexible enough that you can do things like... go in with a flying adventurer, wall up the entrances to a city, wait for them to starve because food caravans cant get it, then buy the food from those caravans, fly over with it, and sell it on the black market for insane amounts of money?
There was already a discussion about the pathfinding component, and that's the main obstacle in this case, if you aren't there babysitting the gate. If we simplify it to say, waylaying the caravan as it travels then yeah, people will have a high demand for food eventually, and it'll probably take a much longer time for their suspicion of you to be put in the game, unless they are your enemies automatically due to some magical factional thing from the caravan murder.
Thought of another thing reading this:
Will there ever be "benign" undead or cursed people who do not automatically enemies of the entity they came from? Like for example, undead from an [undeath][good] sphere land or somehting that just go back to their old life?
Post by: Footkerchief on May 04, 2011, 02:09:18 pm
I think I'll drop the goblin thing. Unfortunately I cannot think of equally evil and freightening alternatives unless Goblins harvest large fleshlike creatures that they forever rip open and devour or they have the ability to grant their prisoners eternal life at which they can constantly eat their limbs and organs forever (or demons...). So yeah no ideas.
It would be cool if goblins raised ogres/trolls for meat, or maybe giant cave spiders for eggs. I understand Toady's stance against goblin ranchhands, but if the "cattle" are sufficiently hardcore and dangerous, I think it works thematically.
Will there ever be "benign" undead or cursed people who do not automatically enemies of the entity they came from? Like for example, undead from an [undeath][good] sphere land or somehting that just go back to their old life?
This kinda came up back in the last FotF thread. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg424041;topicseen#msg424041) Note that you wouldn't have an "[undeath][good] sphere" -- the spheres are a replacement for the good/evil system.
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: NeonivekI know your removing Good and Evil in the not so distant future... but what would be your guess of the Spheres which would be closest to good and evil? Actually undertaking all the Sphere related Spherical Land conversion of the Evil/good lands seems like a lot. I am guessing the dev item refers to you taking the first steps? What exactly does that entail if I am allowed to ask.
You mean not close to good in the moral/whatever sense but in the close to good in terms of having unicorns and fairies and fluffy wamblers occur as they do now? If a unicorn is associated to particular spheres (luck, say) then it would be luck-lands that get them, rather than anything else (unless luck is linked to other spheres, then there's some chance of pulling them over to those as well). The evil lands either get the "evil" creatures or the undead curses, so when those are sphered out, it would be handled that way. Of course, since there are like 100 spheres (and will be many more no doubt), yeah, this is a large project overall, especially when you get away from the stock raw monsters and ask which random creature/veg/etc. traits should be linked to spheres and try to do every sphere justice. If it also gets deity links at that time, you have the local civilizations associated to the deities to consider as well, so an "evil" god sphere-related land near a human civ might take the human body definition and then sphere-twist it into something that is meant to be a mockery of human form (good ones do the same thing but the twists would not be seen as a negative thing, though they could still be terrifying). In real-world mythological examples, a lot of this depends on the cultural values associated to certain animals, though simple things like stripping off the outer layer (ie skin) or adding fire breath or making the skin a different color etc. all work as well, and I've got the tools to do all of that now with this revision. As long as the sphere/cultural links are reasonably maintained, I think it won't devolve into a sea of garbage slush (as a more trivial but current example, take god names vs. some of the other names -- sphere-links tend to make the god names "better", in one sense at least, though clearly it all needs work).
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 04, 2011, 02:25:41 pm
Thanks for answers toady.
A question on curses: Will curses be able to just alter certain attributes or do they turn anything in the same "nightcreature"? For example could we make a curse that makes the victims skin fall off, turns the the nails/claws and teeth to iron and replaces eyes with fire so that a dog and human both affected by said curse are similiar but still different creatures? Or does the "turning" curse make anything it hits into same beasty, say a 5 meter tall head-crap? Both options would actually be neat.
edit: Also footkerchief thank for digging that quote up. The new curses could lend themselfs very well t the spherical places.
Post by: Orkel on May 04, 2011, 02:48:47 pm
Post by: tps12 on May 04, 2011, 02:57:21 pm
It would be cool if goblins raised ogres/trolls for meat, or maybe giant cave spiders for eggs. I understand Toady's stance against goblin ranchhands, but if the "cattle" are sufficiently hardcore and dangerous, I think it works thematically.
Or the best of both worlds: goblins are magical monsters that don't need food to survive, but they'll feast on trollflesh once in a while just because they feel like it.
Post by: Neonivek on May 04, 2011, 03:00:35 pm
Actually... technically the scientific reasoning for Goblin's lack of need to eat... is that they eat the air.
If I was REALLY vindictive and a horrible person... I'd give the Goblins the name the "Air Eaters"
Which to admit isn't that far off from historical mythology. Snakes ate dust for example and Fish spawned from nothing.
Post by: Cruxador on May 04, 2011, 03:12:42 pm
Will cursed areas have physical effects on dwarves? Like randomly bursting in hives, starting to vomit from nausea, bleeding from the mouth, or something more serious like a dwarf suddenly going blind in one eye or both? These would be rare events, maybe similar in frequency as artifacts.Effects like this would be cool in spheres. Assuming spheres will not be binary, the frequency and severity of such effects could be dependent on the strength of the sphere.
I am mostly dropping it Footkerchief because I know I can complain about the goblins ability to get all their nutriance from the particles in the air pretty much forever.Consider the following points:
Actually... technically the scientific reasoning for Goblin's lack of need to eat... is that they eat the air.
If I was REALLY vindictive and a horrible person... I'd give the Goblins the name the "Air Eaters"
Which to admit isn't that far off from historical mythology. Snakes ate dust for example and Fish spawned from nothing.
Goblins are green.
Goblins do not eat.
Plants do not eat.
Plants are green.
Plants are green and do not need to eat due to photosynthetic organelles which convert solar energy into ATP.
Conclusion:
It is possible that goblins are green and do not need to eat due to photosynthetic organelles which convert solar energy into ATP.
Post by: Neonivek on May 04, 2011, 03:20:44 pm
So are you suggesting that Goblins eat dirt or that they absorb dirt through their skin?
Post by: thvaz on May 04, 2011, 03:33:40 pm
If goblins won't need to eat, they will need to feed the kidnapped children somehow. How you will deal with this problem?
Post by: PTTG?? on May 04, 2011, 03:37:09 pm
Or maybe they don't realize everybody else needs to eat, so they don't feed them, and sooner or later they have to go out and get more.
Post by: tps12 on May 04, 2011, 03:48:45 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 04, 2011, 03:59:33 pm
Goblins eat fear. This is why they attack your fortress and take your children.
If goblins won't need to eat, they will need to feed the kidnapped children somehow. How you will deal with this problem?
If they eat our fear, then I somehow suspect that goblins that attack most player forts, ringed as they are with deathtraps and legendary warriors, would starve if it weren't for the brutally short span of their lives.
I don't know about the future plans, but goblins start farming right now when they get other humanoids in their civilization in order to feed their captives.
Remembering a Toady quote on the subject, I went searching, and came up with an amusingly out-of-date (but only half a year old) quote:
Quote from: MephansterasConsidering that the goblins snatch a lot of non-carnivorous folk, have you considered adding in slave-run farming villages for the goblins?
They don't snatch any strict herbivores, so the most simple option is just to force their captives to eat hunted meat as the goblins will themselves. This wouldn't be practical if the captive numbers got way out of control as they do now, but I don't expect that to last in the new system.
Of course, since some of the assumption that the response I'm quoting relied upon has now changed, it's completely valid to ask the question again.
Post by: thvaz on May 04, 2011, 04:28:45 pm
edit: silly change of names
Post by: Untelligent on May 04, 2011, 04:48:47 pm
goblins are green n' stuff
Not all goblins are green. Some are grey. Grey skin is the dominant skin coloration trait in goblins actually, IIRC.
The monsters are all undead/ghosts, the global church conspiracy is run by ghosts, the villains are all undead, Bruce Willis was a ghost all along, and the total global population of actually living people shrank down to about 50 while nobody was looking.
Way to spoil Final Fantasy X for me. e_e
Post by: Neonivek on May 04, 2011, 05:31:37 pm
Goblins eat fear. This is why they attack your fortress and take your children.
If goblins won't need to eat, they will need to feed the kidnapped children somehow. How you will deal with this problem?
Either goblins will stop raising children
Or children of Goblins don't need to eat because they are being taken care of by goblins.
Those are my guesses :P
Post by: Cruxador on May 04, 2011, 06:33:39 pm
Presumably they have both chlorophyll and some degree of other pigment.goblins are green n' stuffNot all goblins are green. Some are grey. Grey skin is the dominant skin coloration trait in goblins actually, IIRC.
Post by: Appelgren on May 04, 2011, 08:48:41 pm
Or the best of both worlds: goblins are magical monsters that don't need food to survive, but they'll feast on trollflesh once in a while just because they feel like it.
Yeah! While they don't need food, I imagine the goblins are driven by bottomless hunger. That way they don't need to farm or herd cattle and will never starve - but they might still devour you if they get the chance.
Post by: hiho216 on May 04, 2011, 09:56:13 pm
Goblins that herd meat animals are insufficiently scary to us.
[/quote]
Dwarves, elves, and humans are meat too. Goblins are already snatching babies, why can't they designate some of their booty to be cattle instead of forcing them all into slavery? Sounds scary to me.
Post by: EnigmaticHat on May 04, 2011, 09:58:48 pm
I ask only because it seems so illogical to me that goblins are so aggressive yet they have no need for resources. As it is, all they would have to do to take over the world is just hide in one place until their population grows to insane numbers. I feel like goblins would be more believable if it were somehow in their best interests to constantly pick fights.
Post by: EmeraldWind on May 04, 2011, 10:07:26 pm
Dwarves, elves, and humans are meat too. Goblins are already snatching babies, why can't they designate some of their booty to be cattle instead of forcing them all into slavery? Sounds scary to me.
Maybe the goblins simply let the kids starve until the kids get too hungry to resist eating each other. The strong ones will survive and be more useful to the goblins. Plus, the psychological damage from doing this might make them easier to handle and take charge of. That is scary...
Post by: darkflagrance on May 04, 2011, 10:30:23 pm
Cannibalism would also probably deaden the victims emotionally and prepare them for suicidal sieges of dwarven fortresses.
Post by: monk12 on May 04, 2011, 11:26:46 pm
Post by: Nasikabatrachus on May 04, 2011, 11:29:48 pm
Player-run fortresses can potentially have a powerful impact on geography, e.g. by damming rivers and such. Will players be able to influence wider geography over time through such actions in future releases? Will damming a river starve human settlements downriver, contribute to desertification, or have similar effects? Will a civ AI be able to deal with player geo-engineering, i.e. by deconstructing a dam, or will these things be a permanent blind spot for the AI?
I am imagining damming every river in the world so that only dwarves have water and live. There can be only dwarves!
Post by: Interus on May 05, 2011, 12:10:31 am
One of the things I'm sort of interested in is how long curses last and if they can be ended by other things using the curse code or other triggers. Like, if there's a holy power "curse" that empowers a character, and if it affects something with a zombie curse, then both curses simply stop affecting the creature. Or if a necromancer has to be within a certain range of his zombies or they stop being cursed.
Also, I hope that people can come up with more interesting ideas than zombies, vampires, and werewolves if given enough time, and just looking at this thread makes me sure that's possible. At least, if the necessary framework is in place.
Post by: Untelligent on May 05, 2011, 12:17:30 am
Can someone point me to where Hill Dwarves were first mentioned? I searched for it on the forum and didn't find an explanation, so I assume it must be on DF Talk?
I just checked; Talk 12 seems to be the first to actually use the phrase "hill dwarves," but 11 mentioned "dwarves living in the hills" at some point. The actual concept has probably been around longer than that.
Post by: Rainseeker on May 05, 2011, 12:27:27 am
But not the dead turning into unicorns.In my mind, there is a whole field of corpses after a siege, and as Ursit McGreedy runs out to claim some really nice socks he suddenly finds himself in the middle of a field of unicorns, clawing their way out of the husks of the fallen like butterflies from a cocoon.
They are very angry unicorns.
Going back over previous posts. I find this hilarious.
Post by: Ethicalfive on May 05, 2011, 02:04:12 am
Also are there any plans to have ghosts be active AND invisable some of the time, so then when poltergeist type activities occur, it would add some mystery to how those events actually happened? Adventure mode with ghosts could be quite creepy and cool if instead of seeing the ghost every time, you instead see a chair slide accross the floor, or get a message saying you felt a cold shiver(ghost passing through you/trying to interact with you)
# Bloat21, VARIOUS GHOST IDEAS, (Future): Blame the lever puller for flooded dungeon, make a ghost constantly pull the lever. Save relationships with various entities and have ghosts react to entity members as they would in life possibly. Ghosts can show you their bodies. Ghosts can pretend to do their old jobs. Ghost appearance can depend on how they died. Could force the adventurer to interact with ghosts to access now-secret parts of the fortress (could also use writings and legends for this). It can keep outposts that it normally throws away for fun little ghost stories. If the dwarves hate the elves, the ghosts could guide the adventurer to a poisoned goblet or insultingly engraved object to bring back to the elves, and they could lie to the player about it.
Post by: Alu on May 05, 2011, 02:30:52 am
Post by: Cruxador on May 05, 2011, 03:00:22 am
Of course, if goblins don't need to eat, and therefore don't spend their time farming or hunting or herding or fishing or what-have-you, what DO they spend their time doing?The first thought that came into my head was "masturbating", and I imagined towers full of goblins just whacking it 24/7.
But in practice, probably sex, fights, sleeping, and a little bit of building and doing other sorts of gainful work.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on May 05, 2011, 03:05:34 am
Of course, if goblins don't need to eat, and therefore don't spend their time farming or hunting or herding or fishing or what-have-you, what DO they spend their time doing?
Simple, looting and pillaging.
That's why they attack, it's a simple case of nothing better to do
Post by: Serrational on May 05, 2011, 03:05:45 am
This has always puzzled me, and I up till now thought Plump Helmets were just extremely absorbent and spongy...
Post by: Beardless on May 05, 2011, 03:18:27 am
As it is, all they would have to do to take over the world is just hide in one place until their population grows to insane numbers. I feel like goblins would be more believable if it were somehow in their best interests to constantly pick fights.
Imagine living in a tower where no one aged, where no one ever died. Babies are born, the population rises. Centuries pass. The population continues to rise. And rise. And rise. And rise. Living room becomes scarce. Privacy is a concept lost ages ago. Soon you're running out of room to put all the new goblins. Soon after that, you're running out of standing room. And the population keeps rising...
(Before you object to this scenario, one word: Spores.)
Yeah, I think there's some pretty strong incentives to pick fights.
Post by: Jiri Petru on May 05, 2011, 04:15:52 am
I am imagining damming every river in the world so that only dwarves have water and live. There can be only dwarves!
If you dam a river, where does all the water go?
Post by: Areyar on May 05, 2011, 05:13:37 am
Adding to your question:
Interactivity of live forts: will there be additional pathfinding checks for (un)blocked roads/rivers/travelaccess/etc?
more a suggestion, but: instead of just sitting there and starving, unemployed or otherwise hungry people should leave/steal/riot/pillage/rebel/etc. but this is a dev goal, so...meh. ;)
Post by: Karakzon on May 05, 2011, 06:18:00 am
Just because with this ability ripping down buildings for arable land becomes an option. it also helps players in dwarf mode to get their farms going in a realistic way.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on May 05, 2011, 07:39:59 am
Will their be an ability to replace stone and soil in future? ie: fill square with stone to form a rought stone wall, or fill a square with gatherd soil - or night soil -farmers workshop- to make arable land? or fill with sand for the same effect?FTFY
Just because with this ability ripping down buildings for arable land becomes an option. it also helps players in dwarf mode to get their farms going in a realistic way.
And I for one certainly hope so
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 05, 2011, 11:04:18 am
I am imagining damming every river in the world so that only dwarves have water and live. There can be only dwarves!
If you dam a river, where does all the water go?
What water? Water only spawns up to the water level of the water-spawning tiles, silly! As long as you dam the river, no new water will be created.
If Dwarf Fortress taught me anything about the hydrosphere, it's that water is spawned infinitely from water-producing tiles.
That's why my well water, which comes from an aquifer, will never run dry, no matter how much water I take out to make my own man-made lake. Now if you'll excuse me, my house seems to be sinking into the ground for some odd reason.
[/NowYou'reThinkingWithDwarfs]
Post by: Gaspa Craftdreams on May 05, 2011, 11:39:36 am
In the next version, will all the non-human civilizations have actual, thriving sites based on the model for human cities and fortresses, in lieu of actual city designs unique to each race?
Also, will the next version have better garbage handling? Currently, in fortress mode, all units that are deceased or traded away in cages remain in memory until you quit the game. Can the next version simply cull deceased and traded units every season and just generate a condensed list of important dead figures without taking up unit slots?
And on a related note, how will the next version handle undead units in memory?
Post by: Footkerchief on May 05, 2011, 12:03:45 pm
Also, will the next version have better garbage handling? Currently, in fortress mode, all units that are deceased or traded away in cages remain in memory until you quit the game. Can the next version simply cull deceased and traded units every season and just generate a condensed list of important dead figures without taking up unit slots?
As with every other unmentioned feature, Toady would probably have mentioned this if we was working on it. Suggestions go here (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?board=5.0).
And on a related note, how will the next version handle undead units in memory?
You'll probably have to elaborate on this. Do you mean flags that mem hackers can use, or performance concerns or what?
Post by: Gaspa Craftdreams on May 05, 2011, 12:15:50 pm
You'll probably have to elaborate on this. Do you mean flags that mem hackers can use, or performance concerns or what?
Mostly performance issues, particularly when creating undead from existing dead figures in history.
Post by: Footkerchief on May 05, 2011, 12:29:36 pm
Mostly performance issues, particularly when creating undead from existing dead figures in history.
It sounds like, for now, undead will be transformations of existing figures, not new figures per se:
Quote from: hermesWill the undead be given life by a necromancer of sorts, or a god, or the spirits of dead entities, or just.. something else? (I'm thinking of Threetoe's story, Warriors of the Dead, where the soldiers who come back to the "real world" have returned from a kind of hell, could the undead be populated from entities who have actually already died in worldgen history?)
There will be some pseudo-justifications for the initial undead stuff, and a lot of them will be previously living world gen people -- the historical ones are tracked, and all the entity pop ones are now too, by cause of death and location. We've been exploring and doing some code on a large variety of afterlife stuff for some months now, but there's no concrete timeline on that, so likely they'll just return from "the dead" if they are being brought back as themselves (rather than just an animated corpse).
Post by: Neonivek on May 05, 2011, 12:34:34 pm
I mean even I have thought of ways to handle zombie uprisings in such a way that they don't take over the world while at the same time not fudging things in their favor (Dang this ever thinking brain of mine that won't shut up)
But I hold off... Though I have semi-intentionally laced questions with suggestions.
Toady will monsters (Night creatures, Megabeasts, semimegabeasts, named creatures) still get along perfectly happy with eachother for quite some time? I am only wondering because with sewers I was sort of wondering if one type of night creatures could somehow claim dominance over the sewers and beat out the others, or suppress them.
Post by: metime00 on May 05, 2011, 04:30:48 pm
Now, I'm not sure if any of this has been asked before, but
In the next version, will all the non-human civilizations have actual, thriving sites based on the model for human cities and fortresses, in lieu of actual city designs unique to each race?
Non human races get sites in the army arc, probably at least a year from now. Just give non humans the same site tags in the raws until then and they'll work on the exact same mechanics.
Post by: Vorthon on May 05, 2011, 06:16:14 pm
Now, I'm not sure if any of this has been asked before, but
In the next version, will all the non-human civilizations have actual, thriving sites based on the model for human cities and fortresses, in lieu of actual city designs unique to each race?
Non human races get sites in the army arc, probably at least a year from now. Just give non humans the same site tags in the raws until then and they'll work on the exact same mechanics.
I wonder how the cities in the upcoming release would interact with mountain biomes (Seeing how weird the results are in the current version...)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 05, 2011, 07:21:28 pm
Non human races get sites in the army arc, probably at least a year from now. Just give non humans the same site tags in the raws until then and they'll work on the exact same mechanics.
Actually, this raises a good question...
Quote from: B0013Also, will there be variations of city layouts beetween different human civilizations? Like, if a civ makes more "organic" looking cities another may make them more rigid (larger roads, no curves, etc.)
Eventually. First I need to get anything working, and then variety can start to arise, both in the overall layout and in the individual buildings. The number and regularity of intersections, road width, building size etc. is all pretty easy to control now.
Will any of the aspects of procedural city construction be raw-editable in the foreseeable/near future? If so, which ones?
I'm most wondering about whether cities in the raws will be built like they have been built, with there being a token for "dwarf-type" cities and "human-type" cities, or if there will be a possibility to mix-and-match elements to create more subtle variations. (Sort of like caverns, with their ability to change tunnel width and chamber size probabilities.)
Basically, will dwarven cities be basically like human cities, but with a raw tag that says "but put this all underground, and have more willingness to have z-levels stacked together"? Or is it going to be an entirely different kind of procedural-city-creation code, so that there can't be an in-between state?
The simple idea that we could one day have procedurally determined architectural styles arising from cultural differences that spring up out of procedural worldgen acclimations to different climates or cultures or religions or the like just tickles my brain in ways that make me drool...
Putting these things into the raws could also let modders do a world of good with all these total conversion-type mods that are running around.
Post by: HollowClown on May 05, 2011, 09:01:55 pm
But does the whole cursing thing apply to severed body parts as well? With our hypothetically decapitated elf, is there a chance of the the severed head also rising as a zombie? For that matter, if you chop the arm off the elf after it's become a zombie, will you have a severed arm that is a zombie? Or will you just get the severed arm of a zombie?
Post by: Ghills on May 05, 2011, 09:31:36 pm
I doubt there's going to be a 100% safe burial method for your dwarves, but being respectful will almost always be the better choice (although being respectful and also placing the coffin in a sheer pit might be the best choice in certain areas).
I think this could be a really bad idea. It's going to result in magma-frying the dead asap to prevent their zombification, and it takes control away from the player in a similar way to the recent (and annoying) embark screen changes. If it were handled like tantruming - there is a list of things you have to take care of, that will prevent undead from rising in your fort, and if you forget/don't take care of them you run the risk of undead - that would be one thing. But getting cursed by the RNG? ::)
It's also fairly mythologically-inaccurate for cultures with corporeal undead. Even for non-corporeal undead, actually - ghosts have typically had some reason for their existence (although maybe not one that the living would think of). And there should be some cultural impact of needing to include re-burial in one's funeral plans.
Can we have some more details on how the undead will be animated? I'm especially interested in the cultural impact of having to plan for Granny Urist's potential reburial, possibly at the wrong end of her own axe.
Post by: Neonivek on May 05, 2011, 09:36:26 pm
Especially since depending on the culture a proper burial actually IS the best deterrant for the undead. Plus not all undead are "bad".
Several use ghosts quite strongly as a good thing (African Voodoo sort of, as well as Chinese Mythology if you ignore ancestors being infamously petty).
I mean I can understand maybe posting soldiers at gravesites to stop possible undead uprising... but outright defiling of the dead seems a bit much. Even during deadly plagues did sometimes bodies go unburned and that was a lot more dangerous then zombies and skeletons (who are actually mildly harmless without HUGE masses or magical powers)
"Even for non-corporeal undead, actually - ghosts have typically had some reason for their existence"
Naw sometimes they were just there. African Voodoo didn't have long lists of WHY someone was a ghost/spirit/god after they died. They just were because that is how things work.
Though I do notice by my own limited observation that in mythologies that don't explain ghosts strongly tend to focus more on the "that is just how things are" in a similar way you wouldn't write an extra page about why the sky is blue.
It is Dungeons and Dragons that use a more modern idea of ghosts.
Post by: monk12 on May 05, 2011, 10:07:14 pm
In fact, proof of the dead rising was found on the infrequent occasions when a corpse would be exhumed for one reason or another- sometimes, the insides of the casket were scratched up. They attributed it to an abortive attempt at zombism- we attribute it to burying comatose/hypothermic/"not quite dead" victims who then woke to find themselves in their graves. [citation needed]
Not to mention the expedient "wall up the tomb" solution.
Post by: Gaspa Craftdreams on May 05, 2011, 10:32:55 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 05, 2011, 10:36:04 pm
Post by: Cruxador on May 05, 2011, 11:20:30 pm
In a future release, if world gen events get simulated during normal play, will it occur in real-time or after a game has ended? I would imagine the latter is more viable at this stage of development, but is having real-time world growth a future goal?http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html
Release 5.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 06, 2011, 12:28:13 am
I don't know... even when people did believe in the undead they didn't go through such lengths to destroy bodies.
Especially since depending on the culture a proper burial actually IS the best deterrant for the undead. Plus not all undead are "bad".
Those are the words of someone who hasn't lost 6 dwarves to a zombie plague.
Actually, I think that having crypts that are giant mazes and crammed with traps makes perfect sense in a world where those crypts are filled with mindlessly wandering zombies - the maze keeps them lost, and they'll wander back and forth over the giant serrated blade traps.
When you get right down to it, crypts and the like can only serve two real purposes - A) to give some kind of solace/closure to the living, and B) To keep the dead IN their "final" resting places.
Now then, since we don't need A, because coping with grief is what legendary dining rooms are for, all that matters is B, making sure the dead stay dead. As such, it is not only rational to invest in booby-trapped and drawbridge-enclosable crypts (and making sure your dead are corporeal), it is actually completely irrational not to ensure that you are prepared for the attack you know will be coming, eventually.
Though I do notice by my own limited observation that in mythologies that don't explain ghosts strongly tend to focus more on the "that is just how things are" in a similar way you wouldn't write an extra page about why the sky is blue.
This is caused by the oxygen-rich atmosphere we have, created by the planet's abundant plantlife, first starting with ancient stromatalites. The--- oh, wait, you DIDN'T want a page on why the sky is blue?
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on May 06, 2011, 01:38:46 am
Though I do notice by my own limited observation that in mythologies that don't explain ghosts strongly tend to focus more on the "that is just how things are" in a similar way you wouldn't write an extra page about why the sky is blue.
This is caused by the oxygen-rich atmosphere we have, created by the planet's abundant plantlife, first starting with ancient stromatalites. The--- oh, wait, you DIDN'T want a page on why the sky is blue?
WHAT DON'T YOU KNOW
Post by: Organum on May 06, 2011, 03:45:10 am
Post by: werechicken on May 06, 2011, 04:51:46 am
Are they scavangers eating the rotting corpses and bones of the dead (bone marrow helps bring out a healthy, shiny coat after all) or will they be more into their plump helmets and wild berries?
As for the undead thing, this seems like guaranteed fun. Especially if you have a particularly bad siege involving a demon lord (will demons come back from the dead too - that'd be scary) and are in a race to stuff as many corpses as you can into coffins and then sealing the tomb areas.
I'm looking forward to actually seeing these temples in adventure mode as I only started playing adventure mode in the last few versions and seem to only find abandonded castles filled with local wildlife (my guy got kicked to death by a horse after killing 3 bandit leaders) and not much else. It'll be nice to have temple, sewers and catacombes to explore.
Post by: Arkose on May 06, 2011, 05:59:18 am
As for the undead thing, this seems like guaranteed fun. Especially if you have a particularly bad siege involving a demon lord (will demons come back from the dead too - that'd be scary) and are in a race to stuff as many corpses as you can into coffins and then sealing the tomb areas.
Actually, that makes me wonder if there will be tags to prevent certain types of creatures from getting certain kinds of curses. If I mod in angelic beings, I'm not sure if they should become holy zombie angels. (No, wait, they definitely should; pretend I came up with a better example.)
Post by: Asmageddon on May 06, 2011, 07:08:39 am
Which of these will be possible and available for custom/procedural curses:
-Changing materials of bodies(replace bones with rotten bones, skin with wood, etc.)
-Adding new limbs/organs(horns growing out of head) and what happens if a creature does not have what is needed(eg.: no back for curse that adds wings)
-Removing limbs/organs and what happens when they are not there(or never were, for that matter)
(I already asked that, but)-Regeneration of all or some of body parts
-Levels of progress(eg.: victim first grows horns, then hooves and a tail and finally gets wings and steel skin)
-Mixing different curses and resolving conflicts.
Also, what about effects on personality traits/physical properties?
Post by: Catastrophic lolcats on May 06, 2011, 07:22:47 am
It does make me wonder how you can handle having undead without any hitpoints in a way that's neither too weak or over powered. Guess the undead just aren't very realistic when you come down to it...
With that out of the way adeventure mode is starting to look like a game! I can't wait to tred through those sewers, killing monsters and gathering loot.
Can't wait 'till we get the issues with coins and other items not stacking. When that's out of the way it will be like a true roguelike!
Post by: Knight Otu on May 06, 2011, 07:28:45 am
Actually, that makes me wonder if there will be tags to prevent certain types of creatures from getting certain kinds of curses. If I mod in angelic beings, I'm not sure if they should become holy zombie angels. (No, wait, they definitely should; pretend I came up with a better example.)Well, there's already a CANNOT_UNDEAD tag, so I imagine if there are interaction/curse classes (a la creature classes and "reaction (material)" classes), that tag could be generalized into a new tag (NO_CURSE:UNDEAD perhaps).
Could we get some more detail about effects of curses on bodies?We're only at the start of curse development. I'm certain Toady wants to do all of the above and work out multi-cursed creatures as well, but chances are that he can't promise what details will be in definitely until he codes some more - and he may very well post what curses can do (and whether these things are creature effects that work in syndromes as well) on the dev log as the implementations come in (as he did with syndrome effects), long before he posts another "wall of answers".
Post by: Miko19 on May 06, 2011, 08:28:54 am
I think Legion has broke out of Mass Effect....I don't know... even when people did believe in the undead they didn't go through such lengths to destroy bodies.
Especially since depending on the culture a proper burial actually IS the best deterrant for the undead. Plus not all undead are "bad".
Those are the words of someone who hasn't lost 6 dwarves to a zombie plague.
Actually, I think that having crypts that are giant mazes and crammed with traps makes perfect sense in a world where those crypts are filled with mindlessly wandering zombies - the maze keeps them lost, and they'll wander back and forth over the giant serrated blade traps.
When you get right down to it, crypts and the like can only serve two real purposes - A) to give some kind of solace/closure to the living, and B) To keep the dead IN their "final" resting places.
Now then, since we don't need A, because coping with grief is what legendary dining rooms are for, all that matters is B, making sure the dead stay dead. As such, it is not only rational to invest in booby-trapped and drawbridge-enclosable crypts (and making sure your dead are corporeal), it is actually completely irrational not to ensure that you are prepared for the attack you know will be coming, eventually.Though I do notice by my own limited observation that in mythologies that don't explain ghosts strongly tend to focus more on the "that is just how things are" in a similar way you wouldn't write an extra page about why the sky is blue.
This is caused by the oxygen-rich atmosphere we have, created by the planet's abundant plantlife, first starting with ancient stromatalites. The--- oh, wait, you DIDN'T want a page on why the sky is blue?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 06, 2011, 09:05:58 am
WHAT DON'T YOU KNOW
Learning is Fun!
Post by: tfaal on May 06, 2011, 09:44:28 am
I think this could be a really bad idea. It's going to result in magma-frying the dead asap to prevent their zombification...
I doubt there's going to be a 100% safe burial method for your dwarves, but being respectful will almost always be the better choice (although being respectful and also placing the coffin in a sheer pit might be the best choice in certain areas).
If there's no 100% safe burial method, magma-frying will present problems too. Probably ghosts.
Post by: Starmantis on May 06, 2011, 09:51:41 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 06, 2011, 09:56:04 am
I think this could be a really bad idea. It's going to result in magma-frying the dead asap to prevent their zombification...
I doubt there's going to be a 100% safe burial method for your dwarves, but being respectful will almost always be the better choice (although being respectful and also placing the coffin in a sheer pit might be the best choice in certain areas).
If there's no 100% safe burial method, magma-frying will present problems too. Probably ghosts.
*shudder* stuff like the old "Spirits of fire" would be interesting.
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 06, 2011, 10:00:55 am
like a crematory workshop, making hashes that then are to be put into a coffin. zombie ashes are way less troublesome.
but, well, magma plus a better slab interface will do right now.
Post by: Areyar on May 06, 2011, 10:09:58 am
They could maybe even be mostly benign during life, giving only small clues in the behaviour of a carrier, for instance pyromania.
When hammered to death for setting fire to the legendary dininghall, the corpse combusts spontaneoulsy, the flesh crisping and peeling back like a husk, exposing a tiny infant spirit of fire. All bystanders -that were previously ignoring the beating- look up annoyed as the bright creature gives a high pitched squeel, then scampers off leaving a trail of smoldering detritus down the tunnel floor.
mmmm. zombie hash...:P
I've heard of ash ghouls, iirc they could be annoying.
Post by: tfaal on May 06, 2011, 10:12:46 am
in the long run we'll probably see some sort of safe burial to be done, by today or modders.
like a crematory workshop, making hashes that then are to be put into a coffin. zombie ashes are way less troublesome.
but, well, magma plus a better slab interface will do right now.
You seem to forget about ghosts. The main reason toady is making undeath more prevalent now is so that you don't have to be completely negligent to encounter it. Challenges seem less fulfilling if you have to go out of your way for them.
Post by: thvaz on May 06, 2011, 11:10:49 am
About the undead and ghosts, I think that in certain areas (like terrifying biomes and such) they should be unavoidable. In other areas, certain conditions should be met before the dead rise: unburied corpses, disturbed tombs and murders come to mind.
To those concerned about the evil Toady wrestling control of the players, maybe an init option would solve their problems.
Post by: zwei on May 06, 2011, 11:52:37 am
Think lite version of Ignus from Planescape Torment.
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on May 06, 2011, 01:02:17 pm
Post by: monk12 on May 06, 2011, 01:39:36 pm
I'd definitely like to see different types of dead dependent on how they died. Like starvation leading to unending hunger that must be satiated, even by HUMAN FLEEEESH. And you know other stuff.
So a zombie elf is just a regular elf, then?
Post by: Rockphed on May 06, 2011, 02:43:30 pm
I'd definitely like to see different types of dead dependent on how they died. Like starvation leading to unending hunger that must be satiated, even by HUMAN FLEEEESH. And you know other stuff.
So a zombie elf is just a regular elf, then?
A slow, stupid, very aggressive elf with hygiene issues.
Also, I wonder if zombie and skeleton curses are going to be in the raws.
Post by: PTTG?? on May 06, 2011, 02:54:51 pm
I'd definitely like to see different types of dead dependent on how they died. Like starvation leading to unending hunger that must be satiated, even by HUMAN FLEEEESH. And you know other stuff.
So a zombie elf is just a regular elf, then?
A slow, stupid, very aggressive elf with hygiene issues.
Also, I wonder if zombie and skeleton curses are going to be in the raws.
Oh, so it's a slow elf.
Post by: Areyar on May 06, 2011, 03:06:14 pm
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 06, 2011, 03:19:37 pm
in the long run we'll probably see some sort of safe burial to be done, by today or modders.
like a crematory workshop, making hashes that then are to be put into a coffin. zombie ashes are way less troublesome.
but, well, magma plus a better slab interface will do right now.
You seem to forget about ghosts. The main reason toady is making undeath more prevalent now is so that you don't have to be completely negligent to encounter it. Challenges seem less fulfilling if you have to go out of your way for them.
no, that's the point of slabs.
unless you talk of wandering ghosts, then those are a problem indeed, but for fortress/civ population a burial would prevent ghost and incineration would prevent zombie.
so right now magma+slab is a safe burial mechanism.
Post by: Greiger on May 06, 2011, 06:26:25 pm
*shudder* stuff like the old "Spirits of fire" would be interesting.
I am totally going to try my best to make a curse that makes them. All you post materiel rewrite folks think Unicorns are bad? Pfft, try a huge creature that perpetually burned at exactly 1○ urist below the melting point of ADAMANTINE. Forget magma safe. Those suckers could probably ignite the atmosphere.
Of course, under the current system they would die to one bolt...I would probably have to make them out of superheated adamantine or somesuch.
Post by: Dante on May 06, 2011, 06:38:43 pm
Post by: veok on May 06, 2011, 06:48:16 pm
Post by: Cruxador on May 06, 2011, 07:04:12 pm
Can we more often expect daily updates, now? It's nice to read a paragraph about the assorted hijinks Mr. Adams gets into in the course of his craft.He updates when he thinks there's something worth sharing; I doubt he can predict that much more accurately than we can.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 06, 2011, 09:12:21 pm
Post by: veok on May 06, 2011, 10:06:06 pm
Can we more often expect daily updates, now? It's nice to read a paragraph about the assorted hijinks Mr. Adams gets into in the course of his craft.He updates when he thinks there's something worth sharing; I doubt he can predict that much more accurately than we can.
Admittedly, the computer scientist I happen to be would be more interested about interesting FOR and WHILE loops Toady debugs than the average Urist.
Post by: Neonivek on May 07, 2011, 01:30:42 am
Anyhow for the most part Toady is sporatic in what he thinks is worth an update. Sometimes he posts every day.
Personally I don't think it is a "what he has to report" thing, I think it is more of a "Inspiration" think. As he seems to update more often when he is particularly full of energy.
Though I have no idea how I even pretend to pick up on such things as I am likely incorrect.
Post by: Alu on May 07, 2011, 03:58:28 am
Like, for example bugged king- and dungeon master- arrival.
Do you have plans to put slade into the crafting system?
slade war hammers for my dwarfs! :D
Post by: thvaz on May 07, 2011, 07:07:04 am
Will you take a look at the nobles bugs in the next few updates?
Like, for example bugged king- and dungeon master- arrival.
After this release we will have another series of bug-fixing releases. This thread is for questions about current development of the game, not for bugfixing requests...
Do you have plans to put slade into the crafting system?
slade war hammers for my dwarfs! :D
...or suggestions. Please don't clutter this thread with them.
Post by: MrWiggles on May 07, 2011, 07:18:34 am
This last dev post, I dont know why exactly, but it made me really want the next release.
I cant wait for it any longer.
Post by: Rip0k on May 07, 2011, 07:42:23 am
For myself, and I'm sure for others, there comes a time when reading the Dev log that the promised new features just drain my patience, and makes me really excited for the next release.Second that! This release starts something BIG for adventure mode fans, however promises of Release 5 really puts me on the edge here. Finally the world will come alive, and I seriously hope it will survive being alive. I already can't wait for each one of those upcoming releases. It's like when I look on the list of those "Nine" scheduled, I almost can see my 'patience bar' on each of them and for the first one that bar is already empty for two weeks, that's why I shudder when remind myself of the fifth one :D
This last dev post, I dont know why exactly, but it made me really want the next release.
I cant wait for it any longer.
Post by: Orkel on May 07, 2011, 07:59:11 am
Post by: tfaal on May 07, 2011, 09:20:20 am
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 07, 2011, 09:27:59 am
in the long run we'll probably see some sort of safe burial to be done, by today or modders.
like a crematory workshop, making hashes that then are to be put into a coffin. zombie ashes are way less troublesome.
but, well, magma plus a better slab interface will do right now.
You seem to forget about ghosts. The main reason toady is making undeath more prevalent now is so that you don't have to be completely negligent to encounter it. Challenges seem less fulfilling if you have to go out of your way for them.
no, that's the point of slabs.
unless you talk of wandering ghosts, then those are a problem indeed, but for fortress/civ population a burial would prevent ghost and incineration would prevent zombie.
so right now magma+slab is a safe burial mechanism.
Except that if magma and slab was a "100% safe method of burial", then there would be a 100% safe method of burial, and Toady just said there won't be any 100% safed method of burial. Hence, magma and slab can no longer be safe.
Again, this can all be well and good to have some "random disaster" for players on one very specific condition - that the players are actually given a means to combat the problem.
Right now, you can flood your fortress with a careless river breach very easily, and while it's possible to prevent that disaster, there's almost no way to stop it once it has occurred, unless you went ahead and made failsafes you could activate (which is basically the same thing as preventing it, anyway).
You can prepare for a siege fairly well if you train up your military or build an effective deathtrap, but if your warriors are all dead or your deathtrap bypassed, pretty much all you can do is activate your entire civilian force as military, arm them with whatever's at hand, and hope for the best.
The game would be improved, in a sense, with a random event that you actually could react to on-the-fly, rather than simply predicting it and preparing for it, or losing when it appears.
A game like SimCity lets you react to a disaster while it happens by hitting you unexpectedly (or just letting you launch disasters whenever you want if you feel destructive) get hit with a building fire or a plane crash or an earthquake or the like. The thing is, you don't have much way to completely prevent that, but you do have ways to combat it while it is in progress - you can control the spread of a fire with bulldozing, starve the fires to mitigate their damage, clean up the aftermath, and rebuild.
Here's the important part, though: Fires, plane crashes, tornadoes, and earthquakes all STOP at some point. The amount of damage they can do, unless you specifically do nothing to stop the spread of a fire, is limited, and won't completely destroy your city.
A flood or breach of HFS or a siege that gets past your defenses keeps going until all your dwarves are dead - either you have negligible casualties, or a total fortress wipeout, with a very rare in-between state. Hence, "disasters" in DF are either "meh, another siege, Urist, pull the Boatmurdered lever", or else "Everybody's Dead, Dave".
It's because of this I say that having ghosts that you can't prevent is all well and good if and only if there is some sort of means of "defeating" them once they are created. Maybe that means appeasing them by throwing lots of expensive crap on their slab as an offering, or maybe that means that dwarves get priests and exorcists that can do spiritual combat with ghosts, or maybe that just plain means that you can "kill" a ghost with a sword, but as long as we have some sort of way of actually making the event stop at some point, then it's all good, and maybe the game can start giving you some sort of "challenge" that doesn't come in the form of a total pass/fail "did you remember to do X" type of question.
If, however, ghosts spawn, and there is no way to stop them from killing your dwarves and slabs and such don't work, and you can't stop or combat them in any way, then we're dealing with the equivalent of playing Sim City where the earthquake just never stops. There's no chance to rebuild or manage the disaster, because the disaster never stops, and any means you might take to mitigate the damage are ruined as the disaster just continues to break through your preparations and actions.
One of these makes for a good game, and one of these makes for a bad game.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 07, 2011, 09:42:20 am
We have had an awful lot of complaint threads or paranoid accusations that Toady wasn't posting because someone has offended the Gods, and we must make a ritual sacrifice to appease them, or some other nonsense.
Post by: thvaz on May 07, 2011, 09:52:45 am
*essay about good and bad games*
Right now there is only one way ghosts arise on DF, and it is by unburied corpses. There is ways of dealing with them, and it is by burying the corpse or engraving a slab.
We should wait the release to judge the new features, instead of writing pages and pages of replies based off a line or a picture on the devlog.
I do hope, however, that Toady is making all these devlog comments because he is having fun and wants to share it.
We have had an awful lot of complaint threads or paranoid accusations that Toady wasn't posting because someone has offended the Gods, and we must make a ritual sacrifice to appease them, or some other nonsense.
Even if these complaints threads demanded your blood it wouldn't be as nonsense as complaining about a bridge on a picture showing a work-in-progress.
Post by: Footkerchief on May 07, 2011, 10:03:03 am
Full list of newly syndromable tags, mayhap?
It hasn't settled down yet and probably won't until release.
Toady, with the unusually high frequency of devlogs, I bet you're having way more fun making these curses and undead, than some of the previous stuff you've worked on. Right?
Man it makes me a little uncomfortable when people get this meta about the dev process.
Post by: tfaal on May 07, 2011, 10:43:46 am
Toady, with the unusually high frequency of devlogs, I bet you're having way more fun making these curses and undead, than some of the previous stuff you've worked on. Right?
Man it makes me a little uncomfortable when people get this meta about the dev process.
I suppose. But in the end, it's really just a more elaborate way to say "y'all having fun coding this?" which seems innocent enough.
Post by: Makbeth on May 07, 2011, 10:45:30 am
Post by: hermes on May 07, 2011, 10:45:49 am
Hehe the newest (06/05) devblog is nice. So we will be able to add and remove certain tags? I wonder if that includes the gender respective-tags (no fantasy-world is complete without Genderbender ^^) and the "Prone to rage" tag. The later would be nice to get "rabbies" in for animals, pets and farmers. I wonder also if we could change different things like the regeneration speed or the musclemass of a creature - these two would be nice for a "positive curse" within "good" places.
Interesting ideas, I would love to know more about what the using the interaction/curse framework for new things means because there are so many cool possibilities. I guess the best part about this is, as was mentioned in DF talk IIRC, the curses are kind of like the first stage of magic in the world, so it really is cool to start having this stuff make an appearance. It feels like this question should have been asked before, but I'll try it anyway...
Will curses extend to inanimate objects such as swords, thrones and socks? If so, could they "transfer" kind of like contact poisons (eg. from sword to wielder)?
Post by: Orkel on May 07, 2011, 10:53:26 am
Toady, with the unusually high frequency of devlogs, I bet you're having way more fun making these curses and undead, than some of the previous stuff you've worked on. Right?
Man it makes me a little uncomfortable when people get this meta about the dev process.
I suppose. But in the end, it's really just a more elaborate way to say "y'all having fun coding this?" which seems innocent enough.
yepp.
Hehe the newest (06/05) devblog is nice. So we will be able to add and remove certain tags? I wonder if that includes the gender respective-tags (no fantasy-world is complete without Genderbender ^^) and the "Prone to rage" tag. The later would be nice to get "rabbies" in for animals, pets and farmers. I wonder also if we could change different things like the regeneration speed or the musclemass of a creature - these two would be nice for a "positive curse" within "good" places.
Interesting ideas, I would love to know more about what the using the interaction/curse framework for new things means because there are so many cool possibilities. I guess the best part about this is, as was mentioned in DF talk IIRC, the curses are kind of like the first stage of magic in the world, so it really is cool to start having this stuff make an appearance. It feels like this question should have been asked before, but I'll try it anyway...
Will curses extend to inanimate objects such as swords, thrones and socks? If so, could they "transfer" kind of like contact poisons (eg. from sword to wielder)?
Afaik he said that the curses framework was expandable later on to artifacts and the such, so I'd take that as a "yes, later"
Post by: Footkerchief on May 07, 2011, 12:48:13 pm
Toady, you mentioned that we may request certain geological structures for the next releases. Can you expand on that?
I must have missed this -- where did he mention that?
Post by: Demonic Gophers on May 07, 2011, 12:50:55 pm
Do you have plans to put slade into the crafting system?
slade war hammers for my dwarfs! :D
Considering all the effort Toady went to in order to make slade as close to impossible to get or use as he could manage, I'd be astonished if the answer was anything but "No, absolutely not".
Is the current mechanic for night creatures kidnapping spouses in world gen going to be incorporated into the curse/interaction system, or will it remain separate, like fire breath is separate from material breath?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 07, 2011, 01:22:56 pm
Toady, you mentioned that we may request certain geological structures for the next releases. Can you expand on that?
I must have missed this -- where did he mention that?
I believe that refers to this quote, by Uristocrat, who was and is working on a suggestion relating to doing more thorough research for material properties (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=80022.0):
Quote from: UristocratIt sounds like there are some geology changes anticipated in Release 2. Is there anything that players could research that would be helpful?
Hard to say... I'm going to try to add some new overall structures to it, and if people have favorites it might speed things up a bit.
I went and did some research, and came up with some in this suggestion thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=82309.msg2183808#msg2183808) because of that.
Post by: Asmageddon on May 07, 2011, 01:30:50 pm
Post by: Vorthon on May 07, 2011, 01:37:48 pm
NW_Kohaku, for the sake of our peace of mind, can you confirm that you are a human by writing down 5 things you don't know?
I'm pretty sure NW's actually an archailect or at least a transapient from the far future. :P
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 07, 2011, 01:47:16 pm
Right now there is only one way ghosts arise on DF, and it is by unburied corpses. There is ways of dealing with them, and it is by burying the corpse or engraving a slab.
And he is talking about changing these things, and therefore, it is worth discussing.
We should wait the release to judge the new features, instead of writing pages and pages of replies based off a line or a picture on the devlog.
...
Even if these complaints threads demanded your blood it wouldn't be as nonsense as complaining about a bridge on a picture showing a work-in-progress.
Actually, no, at the time that Toady is actively working on something, or just before he starts actively working on something is the best time to discuss such things, because that is when he can most easily change his decisions without breaking existing code or having him too distracted by the other work he intends to do to consider acting upon the discussion.
Discussing potential pitfalls may be wasted if he is already aware of them, but if he was not, we can point them out before Toady falls into them. Further, there is certainly no harm in pointing them out.
Once again, I made a circle on a map, and made a one-sentence note about how the bridge looked strange. Truly, the most nonsensical thing you have ever heard, am I right? ::)
What Toady needs is discussion about historical research when Toady is trying to aim for historical accuracy, and talks about how players will likely react to changes to gameplay. Players, especially players of games like DF, will always look for exploits and ways to push the rules to the limits, and it is often difficult to foresee every possible ramification of a change until after you have let the genie out of the bottle. (See: Mermaid Farming.)
What Toady doesn't need are people that make two-word lip-service praise comments at every one of Toady's posts just to act as a smokescreen for every comment they make everywhere else in the forum being thinly veiled griefing or insults of the entire community, so as to either openly or implicitly discourage all forms of discussion that they don't personally approve.
It doesn't matter how much "you are protecting his ego", if you grief potential donators into quitting on the forums, you're doing Toady harm.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 07, 2011, 01:54:41 pm
NW_Kohaku, for the sake of our peace of mind, can you confirm that you are a human by writing down 5 things you don't know?
I am no expert on geology. I knew next to nothing about geology before playing DF. What I appreciate most about DF is its ability to provide the impetus for tangential learning.
I did research over the Internet to acquire all the information I put in that suggestion thread. If you look for it on YouTube, there are even some professors in some university in India who put up their entire course lectures up on YouTube, so you can basically take a home geology course from YouTube alone.
You just have to want to do the research.
Post by: Dae on May 07, 2011, 02:26:45 pm
What Toady doesn't need are people that make two-word lip-service praise comments at every one of Toady's posts just to act as a smokescreen for every comment they make everywhere else in the forum being thinly veiled griefing or insults of the entire community, so as to either openly or implicitly discourage all forms of discussion that they don't personally approve.
Well, let's not get into such specific descriptions about what one does not need, shall we ? Too many details destroys the harmony of this topic.
Post by: thvaz on May 07, 2011, 02:33:37 pm
Post by: metime00 on May 07, 2011, 03:00:35 pm
The point is that pointing out flaws in a system's mechanics is paramount to it not sucking and/or being as good as it could be while it's still being actively worked on and easily changed.
Calling Kohaku's bridge comment nonsense is like reprimanding an editor for being too hard on the author. The author can easily defend himself. That is, of course, overlooking the fact that it's the editor's job to edit the author and criticize the work where necessary.
Likewise this thread is for discussion of the DF development not just praise, blind or otherwise. Just as well, praise and criticism are not mutually exclusive, you can have both.
Post by: zwei on May 07, 2011, 03:06:59 pm
NW_Kohaku, for the sake of our peace of mind, can you confirm that you are a human by writing down 5 things you don't know?
...
You just failed Turing test... ;)
Post by: Asmageddon on May 07, 2011, 03:14:18 pm
You just have to want to do the research.Yeah, I know. I love reading about all kinds of stuff concerning informatics. Guess I could use widening my horizons a bit.
What wikipedia pages(my fav method of acquiring new information) would you recommend as starting point?
I'm particularly interested in all kinds of mythology, especially interesting creatures.
Post by: Cruxador on May 07, 2011, 03:15:11 pm
That is not what the turing test is.NW_Kohaku, for the sake of our peace of mind, can you confirm that you are a human by writing down 5 things you don't know?
...
You just failed Turing test... ;)
Post by: Asmageddon on May 07, 2011, 03:20:32 pm
No. While this was not official, I'm pretty convinced that zwei is human while NW_Kohaku might not be.That is not what the turing test is.NW_Kohaku, for the sake of our peace of mind, can you confirm that you are a human by writing down 5 things you don't know?
...
You just failed Turing test... ;)
Post by: Greiger on May 07, 2011, 05:04:16 pm
Anyway they are like some kind of dynamic duo.
Post by: Vorthon on May 07, 2011, 05:13:43 pm
Post by: Makbeth on May 07, 2011, 08:08:44 pm
Toady, you mentioned that we may request certain geological structures for the next releases. Can you expand on that?
I must have missed this -- where did he mention that?
I believe that refers to this quote, by Uristocrat, who was and is working on a suggestion relating to doing more thorough research for material properties (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=80022.0):Quote from: UristocratIt sounds like there are some geology changes anticipated in Release 2. Is there anything that players could research that would be helpful?
Hard to say... I'm going to try to add some new overall structures to it, and if people have favorites it might speed things up a bit.
I went and did some research, and came up with some in this suggestion thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=82309.msg2183808#msg2183808) because of that.
What he (and that thread) said. I've already posted some ideas in past threads, but I think the introduction of pegmatites (extremely coarse-grained and occasionally gemstone-rich intrusive rocks at the upper margins of batholiths, stocks, and laccoliths, the inclusion of said intrusive bodies, and maybe the occasional fault would be neat.
Also, I think I suggested that caverns should be sensitive to rock layers. The current style would be more common in flux stones, lava tubes (long, narrow, twisty passages rather than large rooms) would be more common in extrusive layers (especially basalt), and other rocks would have them only rarely. In addition, the locales where rocks are found should have more variation. Limestone can be found well below the surface, though it tends to become marble if it's buried deep enough. Also, sedimentary rocks are very commonly found together. In my field experience, limestone, sandstone, conglomerate, and shale are found together more often than they are found separately.
Post by: Arkose on May 07, 2011, 08:46:27 pm
Post by: Niveras on May 07, 2011, 10:05:27 pm
Perhaps this could also allow for things like floating heads/skulls, headless corpses?
Post by: PTTG?? on May 07, 2011, 10:25:32 pm
I'm definitely looking forward to having a dwarf's zombie and ghost get into fights, and/or team up and become a wacky crime-fighting duo.
But... which one's the brains of the operation?
Post by: Dante on May 07, 2011, 10:33:49 pm
The rookie ghost really gets into the spirit of being a vigilante. The zombie has seen too many good cops un-die, and has a rotten sense of humour as a result.I'm definitely looking forward to having a dwarf's zombie and ghost get into fights, and/or team up and become a wacky crime-fighting duo.
But... which one's the brains of the operation?
Post by: monk12 on May 07, 2011, 10:56:16 pm
The rookie ghost really gets into the spirit of being a vigilante. The zombie has seen too many good cops un-die, and has a rotten sense of humour as a result.I'm definitely looking forward to having a dwarf's zombie and ghost get into fights, and/or team up and become a wacky crime-fighting duo.
But... which one's the brains of the operation?
><
Don't take this too far, there could be some adaption decay.
Post by: Vorthon on May 07, 2011, 11:51:29 pm
The rookie ghost really gets into the spirit of being a vigilante. The zombie has seen too many good cops un-die, and has a rotten sense of humour as a result.I'm definitely looking forward to having a dwarf's zombie and ghost get into fights, and/or team up and become a wacky crime-fighting duo.
But... which one's the brains of the operation?
><
Don't take this too far, there could be some adaption decay.
Nicked for the Sigtext thread.
Post by: Gaspa Craftdreams on May 08, 2011, 12:26:40 am
Will a retired adventurer get married, have kids, become leader of a civ, etc., while playing a different adventurer or running a fortress? And if they can have kids, will the offspring be playable after a certain age?
Post by: PTTG?? on May 08, 2011, 02:20:26 am
The second paragraph: Word for word, that has all been planned. It's not going to be in yet, though.
Post by: Bralbaard on May 08, 2011, 02:30:52 am
So Footkerchief is the forum search system turned sentient, NW is... I dunno, probably like a brain hooked into a USB port, being fed pure protien from a complex machine system locked away in the basement of some area 51 lab.
Anyway they are like some kind of dynamic duo.
In the light of the most recent dev log update, they could be the undead remains of a single hyperintelligent entity. But who is the zombie and who is the ghost?
Post by: Mercanthyr on May 08, 2011, 07:22:33 am
Will Dwarf moods be affected by the activities of souls or gods?
i.e. a master armorsmith dwarf dies and because he is buried in a lavish tomb
his soul is at rest and he inspires a novice armorsmith to make
a masterwork plate item.
This is a random fact, but I am a Baha'i and Baha'is believe that creativity is guided by those who have passed on.
And I like the idea of the dwarves being inspired by specific dwarves from their city's history to make artifacts.
Post by: thvaz on May 08, 2011, 07:55:25 am
Will Dwarf moods be affected by the activities of souls or gods?
i.e. a master armorsmith dwarf dies and because he is buried in a lavish tomb
his soul is at rest and he inspires a novice armorsmith to make
a masterwork plate item.
This is a random fact, but I am a Baha'i and Baha'is believe that creativity is guided by those who have passed on.
And I like the idea of the dwarves being inspired by specific dwarves from their city's history to make artifacts.
There are various kinds of moods, and one of them is the possessed mood. I hope Toady has time to bring this on this release, but as the name of the mood indicates, this was already planned.
Post by: Jeremy on May 08, 2011, 08:30:22 am
Quote
To avoid crossing various streams...-- from Dev Log
It is indeed wise to avoid crossing streams when dealing with ghosts (and other undead creatures).
Post by: EmeraldWind on May 08, 2011, 09:10:14 am
I wouldn't mind seeing the ability for ghosts to possess their original corpse, creating some kind of super-zombie-undead. Sort of, having the strength and physical presence of a zombie, but requiring whatever special steps ghosts need to deal with it. If, for example, spectral undead can be fought only with silver, then you'll need a silver weapon to deal with this "zomghost" (or banish/calm the ghost portion via proper burial rites). Dismembering the zombie may still remove the physical part, but the spectral part will still exist and may still allow for physical activity.
Perhaps this could also allow for things like floating heads/skulls, headless corpses?
The separation between body and soul could cause the creature's superego to split into it's parts. Thus the ghost would be the ego and the zombie be the id. Though I don't really think that kind of thing would be important, but it does create a rather interesting dynamic for the process. Thus if a ghost possess its own body, it would bring the superego back and maybe the zombie might be less dangerous... or more dangerous.
For example, a zombie might not actively seek out relatives, but still freak out relatives if they happen to meet. If possessed by their ghost, they might gain the ghost's ability to seek out and haunt relatives. Which even if the zombie doesn't do anything to the relative (due to being controlled by a benign ghost) might freak out the relatives even more. It's one thing having an old friend come after you in his hunger for brains, but this one might want to chat about old times. A more violent ghost could target the friends and family to first get them to feel real depressed and then kill them, specifically so that their friends and family come back as violent ghosts.
Seems like plenty of ways to torture and maim those poor little dwarves.
Post by: KillerClowns on May 08, 2011, 12:04:04 pm
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 08, 2011, 12:14:08 pm
You do realize this means I shall have to go to an evil area and build a Zombie Mosh Pit to throw goblins in, right?
I wonder how many time a zombie may rise from death. and what injuries does it keep. bleeding would obviously not be an issue, but broken bones are sort of broken right now, as they only makes target feel pain.
Post by: PTTG?? on May 08, 2011, 01:16:03 pm
Post by: darkflagrance on May 08, 2011, 07:06:03 pm
I had a vision of a fortress made up of the seven original dwarves chopped into bits, each bit now an individual unit.
I once read a story where a demigod once cut up and recombined his three followers into ten lesser beings. If you did this with every migrant, you could have a fort of efficient, emotionless, non-tantrumming dwarves, who don't spawn useless children to boot!
Post by: monk12 on May 08, 2011, 08:12:08 pm
QuoteTo avoid crossing various streams...-- from Dev Log
It is indeed wise to avoid crossing streams when dealing with ghosts (and other undead creatures).
And whatever you do, if somebody asks whether you are a god, YOU SAY YES!
Post by: magmaholic on May 08, 2011, 08:14:55 pm
And whatever you do, if somebody asks whether you are a god, YOU SAY YES!:v
me wanna.
Post by: monk12 on May 08, 2011, 08:20:23 pm
Post by: Interus on May 08, 2011, 08:40:41 pm
For example, a zombie might not actively seek out relatives, but still freak out relatives if they happen to meet. If possessed by their ghost, they might gain the ghost's ability to seek out and haunt relatives. Which even if the zombie doesn't do anything to the relative (due to being controlled by a benign ghost) might freak out the relatives even more. It's one thing having an old friend come after you in his hunger for brains, but this one might want to chat about old times. A more violent ghost could target the friends and family to first get them to feel real depressed and then kill them, specifically so that their friends and family come back as violent ghosts.
Seems like plenty of ways to torture and maim those poor little dwarves.
Ever read Handling The Undead? It's a book by Jon Swedishname that details what is essentially a zombie uprising where every zombie is possessed by the spirit that used to inhabit the body. I'm not actually sure people were horrified by seeing their dead relatives since they weren't as aggressive as you might expect a zombie to be. Mostly it was the random acts of aggression and decayed bodies that caused problems. Also, the Fisher.
These frequent updates on the state of curses make me so happy.
Post by: Mercanthyr on May 08, 2011, 10:03:06 pm
There are various kinds of moods, and one of them is the possessed mood. I hope Toady has time to bring this on this release, but as the name of the mood indicates, this was already planned.
right, I asked the question in a very general way because I wanted to know what his plans are for integrating those moods specifically with souls, I know about the different dwarf moods very well.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 08, 2011, 10:12:53 pm
Quote from: Threetoe devpage
Here is the scenario: long ago a powerful king discovered the secrets of life and death. Whether it was from an evil god or his own nefarious research, none can say. All the people knew is that while he reigned, the dead walked the earth. Legions of undead zombies risen from ancient battlefields built him a mighty tower from which his ghastly armies stalked the land. Will the dwarf fortress be next? Happy Mother's Day!
... exactly what I think of when I think of mother's day...
(Don't let my mother see that.)
This implies something different about the way that the game's "story" works, however. Right now, there really isn't a consistent story between game worlds, besides dwarves and goblins and elves, and with modding, even that isn't consistent.
If we have this as a "backstory" for every randomly generated world it means that every game world had the same king of the undead (or perhaps different kings who behaved in so identical a fashion that they are individually fungible) or whatever he is called.
This is as opposed to simply having some sort of "undead energy" that just innately causes dead to rise, which could potentially work the same between worlds.
Post by: Cruxador on May 08, 2011, 10:35:42 pm
Will kobolds live in the undercity?
That's not where the game is going, Toady has said plenty of times that it's going towards more procedural generation, and things that aren't procedurally generated tend to be placeholders. Presumably this was but one possible scenario that could occur during worldgen or (eventually) during play.Quote from: Threetoe devpageHere is the scenario: long ago a powerful king discovered the secrets of life and death. Whether it was from an evil god or his own nefarious research, none can say. All the people knew is that while he reigned, the dead walked the earth. Legions of undead zombies risen from ancient battlefields built him a mighty tower from which his ghastly armies stalked the land. Will the dwarf fortress be next? Happy Mother's Day!
... exactly what I think of when I think of mother's day...
(Don't let my mother see that.)
This implies something different about the way that the game's "story" works, however. Right now, there really isn't a consistent story between game worlds, besides dwarves and goblins and elves, and with modding, even that isn't consistent.
If we have this as a "backstory" for every randomly generated world it means that every game world had the same king of the undead (or perhaps different kings who behaved in so identical a fashion that they are individually fungible) or whatever he is called.
This is as opposed to simply having some sort of "undead energy" that just innately causes dead to rise, which could potentially work the same between worlds.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 08, 2011, 11:18:38 pm
That's not where the game is going, Toady has said plenty of times that it's going towards more procedural generation, and things that aren't procedurally generated tend to be placeholders. Presumably this was but one possible scenario that could occur during worldgen or (eventually) during play.
That's why I bring it up: It's incongruous with what I remember of Toady's statements.
I remember one Toady quote floating around in a signature saying something to the effect of "I don't want to create crappy fiction, I want to create a crappy fiction generator".
I would rather like the notion that we have a way to roll up different scenarios, especially if worldgen were to somehow become interactive, so that you can have some "buy in" with the way that worldgen turns out, but having the same scenario every time seems like something very odd for what DF is supposed to be.
Post by: Cruxador on May 08, 2011, 11:32:21 pm
You did notice that it's actually one of ThreeToe's statements, right? ThreeToe generally posts things phrased to be entertaining rather than to most precisely represent the state of things. And his little stories never represent something that happens in all worlds ever.That's not where the game is going, Toady has said plenty of times that it's going towards more procedural generation, and things that aren't procedurally generated tend to be placeholders. Presumably this was but one possible scenario that could occur during worldgen or (eventually) during play.
That's why I bring it up: It's incongruous with what I remember of Toady's statements.
Post by: Silophant on May 08, 2011, 11:47:04 pm
I had a vision of a fortress made up of the seven original dwarves chopped into bits, each bit now an individual unit.
I once read a story where a demigod once cut up and recombined his three followers into ten lesser beings. If you did this with every migrant, you could have a fort of efficient, emotionless, non-tantrumming dwarves, who don't spawn useless children to boot!
Seven. But, they also all died when one was killed. Which, in my forts at least, would be suboptimal.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 09, 2011, 01:33:42 am
Also if the stuff from threetoes small interlude (which reminds that i have to donate to get my story-fix) holds some water this would be the first variant of actively used"magic" in the game (ignoring fireballs). I do wonder if one could obtain more then one curse at a given time especially if it is possible to use these curse on something without being affected by it.
Post by: thvaz on May 09, 2011, 01:43:49 am
That's why I bring it up: It's incongruous with what I remember of Toady's statements.
I remember one Toady quote floating around in a signature saying something to the effect of "I don't want to create crappy fiction, I want to create a crappy fiction generator".
I would rather like the notion that we have a way to roll up different scenarios, especially if worldgen were to somehow become interactive, so that you can have some "buy in" with the way that worldgen turns out, but having the same scenario every time seems like something very odd for what DF is supposed to be.
Indeed. I hope these sources aren't all the same from a world to another, and even in a given world there is more than a source for undeads.
Post by: Neonivek on May 09, 2011, 04:00:07 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 09, 2011, 05:06:22 am
This opens the question: Would goblins accept different forms of power apart from raw strength? Say political power or someone who has a powerfull trait/abilty/knowledge/whatever?
Post by: Knight Otu on May 09, 2011, 06:25:48 am
Regarding whether this is a departure from the idea that things should be procedural where possible, I'd guess that it goes along the same ideas as the currently ubiquitous bogeymen - right now, they're always in (unless you set night creatures to 0), later they might only haunt certain regions, and maybe much later you have some kind of content scripts, where you can choose a Grim Fairytale script for lots of bogeymen and hags and trolls and evil wolves, and only the occasional dragon or the like, or a High Fantasy script where two or more great forces are generated to clash (good vs evil, earth vs air), where more of these undead kings and megabeasts and so on arise and choose a side in the great conflict.
Post by: Arkose on May 09, 2011, 08:29:10 am
This opens the question: Would goblins accept different forms of power apart from raw strength? Say political power or someone who has a powerfull trait/abilty/knowledge/whatever?
I've definitely had demons come to power in goblin civs through force of argument or general popularity; I don't know if that is based on traits of the civ or demon, but the idea is already there.
Post by: PTTG?? on May 09, 2011, 10:59:33 am
Post by: Koji on May 09, 2011, 12:34:29 pm
This is a random fact, but I am a Baha'i and Baha'is believe that creativity is guided by those who have passed on.
And I like the idea of the dwarves being inspired by specific dwarves from their city's history to make artifacts.
I've always wanted to be able to figure out who/what was possessing possessed dwarves. Jewish tradition talks about dybbuks, which are spirits that died without completing some task and now hassle the living about it.
Quote
Would goblins accept different forms of power apart from raw strength? Say political power or someone who has a powerfull trait/abilty/knowledge/whatever?
What I'm curious about is what need goblins have that drives them to create a civilization in the first place. Human society is built entirely around food acquisition. Goblins don't eat now, so what is it they need? What would drive them to look for a quality leader?
Post by: Rose on May 09, 2011, 12:38:09 pm
What would drive them to look for a quality leader?I think the goblin word for leader is also their word for 'Somebody that will kill you if you don't do what he says'
Notice that most common goblin leaders aren't goblins.
Post by: Owlbread on May 09, 2011, 12:54:11 pm
Post by: thvaz on May 09, 2011, 01:29:02 pm
I must say that I am concerned that there are still enormous issues with the nobility and the military, even a year after DF2010's release. These issues will be solved at some point, won't they?
Dwarf Fortress is a work in progress. Many bugs are in fact placeholder features which will be finished properly in the future, and others are in fact constantly being fixed. Recently we had more than five releases with mostly bugfixes.
Currently the development includes a feature release (new stuff) followed by a release fixing the bugs brought by the new features, followed by a release (or more) fixing old bugs. The next release will be a feature release, so you should expect new bugs with it (which will be fixed shortly after, as with the last cycle of releases).
By the way, the last cycle of bugfixing saw next to 150 issues fixed in about a month and a half.
Post by: Neonivek on May 09, 2011, 03:31:51 pm
Post by: Zahariel on May 09, 2011, 04:53:24 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 09, 2011, 05:08:11 pm
Rather the game should prevent it through logic and logistics.
Afterall Jack the Ripper was able to murder tons of people and was never caught, or so I hear. An Army of Jack the Rippers would have been taken down after a week.
There is a point where vampires, undead, or werewolves go from obscure creature to epidemic.
If the creatures just so happen to also defeat the nation even after becoming noticable... Well then personally it should be up for grabs that they become a nation (or create a dead zone) and simply use "Roaming distance" or "motives" to stop world destruction.
Post by: darkflagrance on May 09, 2011, 05:30:30 pm
Post by: jockmo42 on May 09, 2011, 06:33:50 pm
These issues will be solved at some point, won't they?Well if they're issues, they're likely bound to be solved at some point.
Post by: Lac on May 09, 2011, 06:40:49 pm
Post by: Owlbread on May 09, 2011, 07:19:23 pm
I must say that I am concerned that there are still enormous issues with the nobility and the military, even a year after DF2010's release. These issues will be solved at some point, won't they?
Dwarf Fortress is a work in progress. Many bugs are in fact placeholder features which will be finished properly in the future, and others are in fact constantly being fixed. Recently we had more than five releases with mostly bugfixes.
Currently the development includes a feature release (new stuff) followed by a release fixing the bugs brought by the new features, followed by a release (or more) fixing old bugs. The next release will be a feature release, so you should expect new bugs with it (which will be fixed shortly after, as with the last cycle of releases).
By the way, the last cycle of bugfixing saw next to 150 issues fixed in about a month and a half.
Then that is good. I was just concerned that it appeared as though we were adding more content than we were fixing, but I have misjudged the situation.
Post by: Zesty on May 09, 2011, 09:15:51 pm
Post by: tHe_silent_H on May 09, 2011, 09:22:51 pm
Post by: tfaal on May 09, 2011, 09:47:47 pm
Will adventures be able to learn these new "secrets"?(really want to play as a necromancer)I can't speak for Toady and ThreeToe, but they want adventurers to be interactionable, and secrets are really just a special type of syndrome; it sounds like low hanging fruit, and the engraved secret slabs seem like a step towards it.
Is the raw implementation of necromancy a special case, or do we have an arbitrary interaction-effecting tag for creatures/syndromes? On that note, I take it that interactions have a fairly flexible raw framework themselves?
Post by: Ethicalfive on May 09, 2011, 11:21:02 pm
Post by: Urist McDepravity on May 09, 2011, 11:56:41 pm
"- Urist, are you sure we should follow instructions on this ancient engraving? It does not mention outcome, and there was that big crater nearby...
- Sure we should. What possibly could go wrong?"
Post by: EmeraldWind on May 10, 2011, 12:37:08 am
I'm basically asking, say if Baron Von Deadraiser finds a slab with the secret of necromancy on it and later it is stolen by Ben the Kobold. Will Baron Von Deadraiser still be able to use the secret or will he have to file paperwork for a new name?
Post by: LeeDub on May 10, 2011, 01:56:07 am
I'd like me some undead-raising-secret inscribed artifact bed. Raise skeletal armies from the comfort of your bedroom.
Post by: thvaz on May 10, 2011, 02:16:10 am
I'd like me some undead-raising-secret inscribed artifact bed. Raise skeletal armies from the comfort of your bedroom.
A bed would be impractical, as rarely there are corpses over them. An artifact coffin, however...
Gods aren't active yet. Will demons and megabeasts with the death sphere be able to raise the undead? Will the undead megabeasts (Zombie Dragons for example) appear from the beggining or be raised after being killed?
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 10, 2011, 02:29:24 am
A bed would be impractical, as rarely there are corpses over them. An artifact coffin, however...
impractical until we have travelers' inns, then you'll have an endless supply of body walking in waiting for the soul removal process.
Post by: Aqizzar on May 10, 2011, 03:36:44 am
I also had a zombie hydra defending the kobolds that killed it.Kobold necromancers.
This is not a bug, it's a feature. An awesome feature.
As much as I'd like undead megabeasts to come back and lead kobold armies, it's a bug.
Not anymore it's not! This day was long in coming, but I knew it would come eventually. Oh man, this is so cool.
Post by: Knight Otu on May 10, 2011, 04:01:12 am
If the gods might give secrets to our adventurers, Hero of Time stuff too (without the time travel, of course).
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 10, 2011, 04:16:44 am
Post by: Areyar on May 10, 2011, 05:04:34 am
knowing about a sectret and using said sectret could be 2 very separate things.
Post by: tfaal on May 10, 2011, 09:54:06 am
Knowing about a secret and using said sectret could be two very separate things.Possibly. I think Toady is taking a more Lovecraftian approach though, in which knowledge of the mythos is corrupting and transformative in itself. Since these are things the gods want kept secret, and which are often told to mortals by demons, I think that's thematically appropriate. It could vary by the secret of course.
Post by: PTTG?? on May 10, 2011, 09:59:46 am
Quote from: Toady One
...a syndrome which negates aging...
Well, there's at least one thing people (including myself) have suggested over and over again.
Post by: Areyar on May 10, 2011, 10:04:59 am
bathing in kittenblood does not work...Quote from: Toady One...a syndrome which negates aging...
Well, there's at least one thing people (including myself) have suggested over and over again.
edit: this could vary depending on world seed ofcourse... unfortunately the world needs to end in order to change the seed.
Post by: KillerClowns on May 10, 2011, 10:05:16 am
Post by: StatueOfWax on May 10, 2011, 10:05:35 am
knowing about a sectret and using said sectret could be 2 very separate things.
This was my first thought reading the update. The secret might be a sort of procedure or formula for attaining a set of powers. So to become an immortal necromancer, say, you might have to slaughter an innocent with a specific artifact bone dagger during an eclipse on a specific day of the year and then feast on their flesh after boiling it in gnomeblight. Or something. This kind of thing would actually open the door to setting personality requirements for different powers (not to mention make the bar for entry much higher), as you'd obviously have to be pretty heinous already to want to partake of the above ritual...and maybe this could be done without a huge personality rewrite? Could it also be possible that the knowledge around a given ritual might become tainted? Maybe a demon decides to mess with the wannabe necromancer he's teaching and adds an extra bit of awfulness that isn't required for the ritual to succeed. Or someone makes a translation error when reading the stone tablet they discovered in those undead-infested ruins. What about skill requirements? The first person to do the ritual above would have to be skilled enough to actually craft the dagger in question, but there's also another skill required by them and all future practitioners, like being a talented cook?
Post by: Areyar on May 10, 2011, 10:12:22 am
- Law and Dorfness - Need for alcohol.
Post by: tfaal on May 10, 2011, 05:10:52 pm
Post by: darkflagrance on May 10, 2011, 05:17:06 pm
Imagine the bugs though! Zombies + Carnivorous civ + babysnatched victims -> zombies = ???
Post by: scriver on May 10, 2011, 05:27:33 pm
Knowing about a secret and using said sectret could be two very separate things.Possibly. I think Toady is taking a more Lovecraftian approach though, in which knowledge of the mythos is corrupting and transformative in itself. Since these are things the gods want kept secret, and which are often told to mortals by demons, I think that's thematically appropriate. It could vary by the secret of course.
Quote from: The Toad
There's no reason why a historical figure that gains immortality and the power to animate the dead should immediately become an antisocial evil tower-living guy, but we'll have to wing that part until we get to the personality rewrite in Release 6.
Post by: Neonivek on May 10, 2011, 05:37:50 pm
and possibly some changes these secrets force upon the hearer. If this was a Lovecraftian universe each secret would impart insanity.
Actually I wonder why he doesn't just call it "The Arcane" (given it is the same thing)
I am sort of confused what I do in this case...
Do I create a new suggestion topic even though other people's input is totally unneeded... or do I just PM Toady in general? Last time I asked I was told by others to just contact Toady, but overtime I am wondering about that.
Post by: Areyar on May 10, 2011, 05:38:51 pm
A bit meta, but I must wonder why there's been such little discussing over the last few hours. The devlog is in its most active state in ages,
Many Baywatchers have been waiting for these new developments for quite a while. . .
can't you smell the baited breaths?
hehe
Magic type features have been discussed in very great detail in the suggestions forum (and dev thread), I find it refreshing that the such speculative ramblings are on the backburner for once. ;) Not that I don't enjoy the occasional feature phantasia. I guess that in this case it is just better to wait a bit to see what develops.
Also, with the regular updates, we addicts are getting our fix. So we don't need to sollicit for small change at this dev-thread, I guess. :p
Post by: Cruxador on May 10, 2011, 06:12:46 pm
What's the difference between Inns and Taverns in DF?
They're usually pretty similar things, but they're in separate releases.
I guess Toady is going to need to impart "Secret Ethics" so that people who gain knowledge of some secrets won't nessarily like to use it.Ideally this should function as an outgrowth of the personality system in general, without requiring a specific thing of its own.
Quote
and possibly some changes these secrets force upon the hearer. If this was a Lovecraftian universe each secret would impart insanity.Just hearing a secret shouldn't usually do anything beyond granting the capacity to use it. Maybe in some particularly unusual instances it would, but I wouldn't care to see that be the norm.
Quote
Actually I wonder why he doesn't just call it "The Arcane" (given it is the same thing)Connotation. Calling it "arcane", while technically accurate, implies it is generic magic and separate from the normal rules of the universe, due to the use of that word in fantasy.
Post by: Neonivek on May 10, 2011, 06:18:36 pm
Quote
Just hearing a secret shouldn't usually do anything beyond granting the capacity to use it. Maybe in some particularly unusual instances it would, but I wouldn't care to see that be the norm
It is a common theme that arcane knowledge were not meant for mortals to have. Either the power corrupting them or the secrets by their very nature corrupt those that know it. For example in Lovecraftian universes it is that the true knowledge of the world is inherantly maddening and we remain ignorant for our own safety/sanity.
Quote
Connotation. Calling it "arcane", while technically accurate, implies it is generic magic
But instead it is "Secrets" which implies 'cheating'.
I am just surprised because it is probably the MOST accurate use of "Arcane" I ever seen and yet it isn't going to have its name. It is almost disapointing. It is like seeing someone use classical fairies and call them "Pranksters".
Post by: nenjin on May 10, 2011, 06:20:03 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 10, 2011, 06:27:01 pm
Eat that! Previous page ignorance!
Post by: Cruxador on May 10, 2011, 06:35:10 pm
Can you cite any examples other than the Lovecraft mythos? Historically, I'm pretty sure such ideas are almost nonexistent.QuoteJust hearing a secret shouldn't usually do anything beyond granting the capacity to use it. Maybe in some particularly unusual instances it would, but I wouldn't care to see that be the norm
It is a common theme that arcane knowledge were not meant for mortals to have. Either the power corrupting them or the secrets by their very nature corrupt those that know it. For example in Lovecraftian universes it is that the true knowledge of the world is inherantly maddening and we remain ignorant for our own safety/sanity.
Quote
I don't see an implication of cheating. I don't see where you're coming from on this at all. Perhaps our cultural backgrounds differ in this.QuoteConnotation. Calling it "arcane", while technically accurate, implies it is generic magic
But instead it is "Secrets" which implies 'cheating'.
Quote
I am just surprised because it is probably the MOST accurate use of "Arcane" I ever seen and yet it isn't going to have its name. It is almost disapointing. It is like seeing someone use classical fairies and call them "Pranksters".Sadly I feel that "arcane" has drifted too far from its original meaning. Considering classical fairies are often called "the fae" in modern times, significant drift of meaning appears to have happened there too. Language changes. You may not like it, but it happens.
Yes, So I guess you like "Pranksters" Nenjin :PHe is not necessarily ignorant of it. Consider that he may have ignored your argument as uncompelling, or even have been responding to it, ignoring your comparison as irrelevant.
Eat that! Previous page ignorance!
Post by: Neonivek on May 10, 2011, 06:42:32 pm
Quote
Can you cite any examples other than the Lovecraft mythos?
-Catholocism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam... So them
-Dungeons and Dragons
-Dr. Who
-Celtic Mythology (if I remember correctly)
-Science! Knowing something changes the outcome!
:P
Quote
I don't see an implication of cheating. I don't see where you're coming from on this at all.
For the most part I was being whimsy.
Quote
He is not necessarily ignorant of it. Consider that he may have ignored your argument as uncompelling, or even have been responding to it, ignoring your comparison as irrelevant
Ohh I was mostly poking fun that his post entirely invalidated mine by virtue that it kicked the page up. So I made a quip that he liked "Pranksters" a phrase that no one will even know where it came from because no one would have read the previous page.
In otherwords Insiders.
Quote
Language changes. You may not like it, but it happens
Actually in this case it didn't. The only difference is the people who will jump on the word Arcane.
The best reason I came up with as to why Toady didn't use Arcane, other then objecting any words that refer to magic, was because "What would I call magic magic?".
I mean could you imagine the confusion when someone has to refer to magic magic when there is something already there called "The Arcane" or "Arcane Knowledge"?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 10, 2011, 06:51:07 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 10, 2011, 06:53:15 pm
On a positiv note: Zen-buddhism. Suddenly understanding for eaxample a Koan can lead to "enlightment" or atleast to much more wisdom.
Ahh yes, I forgot about "Possitive secret knowledge" that changes people.
Post by: Cruxador on May 10, 2011, 06:56:02 pm
Cite instances of this, please. As far as I'm aware, this is not a tenet of Abrahamic religions. Being somewhat educated in history and theology, I would be quite surprised to learn of something of this nature.QuoteCan you cite any examples other than the Lovecraft mythos?-Catholocism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam... So them
Quote
-Dungeons and DragonsThe Far Realm does this, but it's Lovecraft with a coat of paint, so that hardly counts. Other than that, Arcane power doesn't corrupt any more than other sorts of power do.
Quote
-Dr. WhoI'm not particularly familiar with the franchise, so I'll accept this as probably valid, but a show about fighting aliens and time traveling isn't really the same tone as DF.
Quote
It is possible I am misunderstanding this. If you mean what I think you mean:QuoteLanguage changes. You may not like it, but it happens
Actually in this case it didn't. The only difference is the people who will jump on the word Arcane.
The change is to the connotation and perceived meaning of the word. Because language is formed by consensus, if the word is perceived to have different meaning, it does have different meaning. Hence, change.
Post by: Neonivek on May 10, 2011, 07:02:01 pm
Quote
"Cite instances of this, please"
While I could get into other examples including writings on the corrupting nature of demonology. The EASIEST example would be "Adam and Eve" with the "Fruit of knowledge of good and evil".
Quote
Other than that, Arcane power doesn't corrupt any more than other sorts of power do
It corrupts but not mechanically because that would just be horrible as a mechanic. This is of course ignoring the many powers in dungeons and dragons that ARE knowledge that kills, drives people insane, and stuuf, or the monsters and gods in dungeons and dragons that attack by basically revealing maddening knowledge.
Quote
The change is to the connotation and perceived meaning of the word. Because language is formed by consensus, if the word is perceived to have different meaning, it does have different meaning. Hence, change.
Yes but in this case the conotation didn't alter the meaning of the word. It only made it carry extra meaning that isn't required.
Post by: Dante on May 10, 2011, 07:07:00 pm
He is not necessarily ignorant of it. Consider that he may have ignored your argument as uncompelling, or even have been responding to it, ignoring your comparison as irrelevant.
I find most of Neonivek's arguments uncompelling, but to be fair, it's often because I can't understand what s/he's trying to say.
Post by: Cruxador on May 10, 2011, 07:11:22 pm
They gained the knowledge of good and evil and thus were able to do good and evil.Quote"Cite instances of this, please"
While I could get into other examples including writings on the corrupting nature of demonology. The EASIEST example would be "Adam and Eve" with the "Fruit of knowledge of good and evil".
Quote
Other than that, Arcane power doesn't corrupt any more than other sorts of power do
It corrupts but not mechanically because that would just be horrible as a mechanic.[/quote]cite examples of it corrupting in fluff?
Quote
This is of course ignoring the many powers in dungeons and dragons that ARE knowledge that kills, drives people insane, and stuuf.Oh, that's true. There are some spells like that, especially in 4e.
Quote
Whether you think it's required or not, it makes the word carry extra meaning which it now carries. The meaning now encompasses additional information. Hence, it is altered.QuoteThe change is to the connotation and perceived meaning of the word. Because language is formed by consensus, if the word is perceived to have different meaning, it does have different meaning. Hence, change.
Yes but in this case the conotation didn't alter the meaning of the word. It only made it carry extra meaning that isn't required.
Post by: Neonivek on May 10, 2011, 07:14:18 pm
Quote
it's often because I can't understand what s/he's trying to say.
Neonivek Translation is quite the 'secret'. It probably would drive you insane... or cause you to ascend. Maybe both.
Quote
They gained the knowledge of good and evil and thus were able to do good and evil.
Which represents a stark alteration in their very being. A dramatic alteration just by knowing good and evil.
Post by: G-Flex on May 10, 2011, 07:26:57 pm
Quote"Cite instances of this, please"
While I could get into other examples including writings on the corrupting nature of demonology. The EASIEST example would be "Adam and Eve" with the "Fruit of knowledge of good and evil".
They gained the knowledge of good and evil and thus were able to do good and evil.
JFYI, this is likely a rather poor literal translation, with the actual phrase probably meaning something more like "knowledge of all things" and having less of a moral connotation. Even if this isn't true, I'm not sure there's any real popular doctrine stating that they didn't know of right and wrong before eating the fruit.
Post by: Footkerchief on May 10, 2011, 07:32:13 pm
Cite instances of this, please. As far as I'm aware, this is not a tenet of Abrahamic religions. Being somewhat educated in history and theology, I would be quite surprised to learn of something of this nature.QuoteCan you cite any examples other than the Lovecraft mythos?-Catholocism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam... So them
The example that sprang to mind for me was when Moses asks to see God's glory and God's like "Nope you'd die if you saw my face, you can peep my back though." This part. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+33&version=NIV)
Post by: Dakk on May 10, 2011, 07:41:31 pm
There's also plenty of examples in the bible and in catholic writings, such as the arc of the covenant, which contain the ten commandments, write by the hand of god himself, whose power is so enormous and incomprehensible that merely touching it can kill a man, and seraphims who cover themselves with 2 of their 3 pair of wings, apparently because their form is beyond human understanding that merely gazing at it would mean ruin, and they are described as the creatures most similar to god.
Basicaly the christian god is, at times, sort of like an eldritch abomination, and at times he seems pretty human.
There's also several real life examples of scientists and the like comming to a conclusion in something and apparently going insane.
This monk apparently went insane from realizing just how big the universe is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno)
Post by: monk12 on May 10, 2011, 09:06:42 pm
There's also plenty of examples in the bible and in catholic writings, such as the arc of the covenant, which contain the ten commandments, write by the hand of god himself, whose power is so enormous and incomprehensible that merely touching it can kill a man, and seraphims who cover themselves with 2 of their 3 pair of wings, apparently because their form is beyond human understanding that merely gazing at it would mean ruin, and they are described as the creatures most similar to god.
Well, the Ark of the Covenant is more of a Jewish thing- kinda like their version of the Holy Grail. And the idea of [/url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_mysteries]sacred mysteries[/url] is a pretty common theme in Judeo-Christian and ancient Greek traditions. Depending on your particular faith and the mystery in question, the answer to a sacred mystery is either something you get after going through the initiation (especially common in Greek/Roman cults, and early Christianity) or is a way of describing one of the great mysteries of Life, the answer to which is unknowable unless God tells you.
To quote that article, "The word mysterion (μυστήριον) is used 27 times in the New Testament. It denotes not so much the meaning of the modern English term mystery, but rather something that is mystical. In the biblical Greek, the term refers to "that which, being outside the unassisted natural apprehension, can be made known only by divine revelation.""
As far as all this relates to DF, we know that there are certain ineffable secrets about the nature of the world that demons/gods can spell out to whatever vessel they choose. We know that they can do certain crazy things like allow the raising of the dead, which implies that less profound things are certainly within reach.
Will secrets make an appearance in dwarf mode any time soon?
Lets say that a demon relates a secret to a man in world gen. That man writes it down on his fancy stone tablet. A megabeast then steals that tablet and takes it back to his lair. World gen ends, and the player embarks with their dwarves on that lair. Will the tablet be there for the dwarves to find? When can we expect some kind of meaningful interaction with that kind of world-gen artifact?
Do you foresee secrets playing a role in the formation/abilities/motives of cults in world-gen?
Obviously the Lovecraftian mythos is big on the "learn secret of the Old Ones, go mad from the revelation, work to summon them so they can kill us all and end our miserable insignificant existences" kind of cult, but I for one would like to find cults based on secrets learned from other spheres. Glancing at the list (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Sphere), I can imagine some kind god giving a mortal the secret of Happiness at which point he goes spreading it around, causing all kinds of shenanigans. And some of the weird ones could be quite entertaining- having to foil the machinations of the Cult of Muck as an adventurer could be all kinds of amusing, not to mention baffling once you make it to the head of the cult and he whips out whatever secret is associated with that sphere.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 10, 2011, 09:52:40 pm
Post by: Dakk on May 10, 2011, 10:11:26 pm
Is this going to become the framework for a magic system in the future, with every sphere having its own secrets, which can be used for a variety of ways, with its own risks and benefits? Like, using the secret of deformity to alter your own body, gaining extra limbs, giving yourself wings, scales, tails, increasing/decreasing your size, and doing the same to others, or using the secret of strenght and being able to wrestle a bronze colossus to the ground?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 10, 2011, 10:24:27 pm
Post by: The Minister on May 10, 2011, 10:28:48 pm
Do you foresee secrets playing a role in the formation/abilities/motives of cults in world-gen?
Obviously the Lovecraftian mythos is big on the "learn secret of the Old Ones, go mad from the revelation, work to summon them so they can kill us all and end our miserable insignificant existences" kind of cult, but I for one would like to find cults based on secrets learned from other spheres. Glancing at the list (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Sphere), I can imagine some kind god giving a mortal the secret of Happiness at which point he goes spreading it around, causing all kinds of shenanigans. And some of the weird ones could be quite entertaining- having to foil the machinations of the Cult of Muck as an adventurer could be all kinds of amusing, not to mention baffling once you make it to the head of the cult and he whips out whatever secret is associated with that sphere.
Interesting question. On that note,
With secrets giving the gods tangible roles in the world, will the temples or religions have an increased functionality in the near future?
Will the followers of a deity have any special relation to the secrets granted by that deity? For example, will followers of a religion seek to recover or destroy the tablets recording their god's secrets that fall into the hands of non believers?
Post by: tfaal on May 10, 2011, 10:30:41 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 10, 2011, 10:49:42 pm
Post by: Cruxador on May 10, 2011, 10:56:25 pm
Will there be different kinds of immortality? Like the plain old "You never die of old age" but also things like "Bodysurfing" or leaching "Years" from someone.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodysurfing
I think you mean "bodysnatching". Since souls can move independently of bodies already, all we need for that is possession.
Leaching years also sounds good, but it's not something that there's any framework for at this point (as far as I know).
Post by: Fieari on May 10, 2011, 10:57:15 pm
And any excess caused by secrets might be fixable by secrets. Undead army ravaging the world? Why not find some secret of the Sun that can banish them. Or perhaps your megabeast slaying line of heroes (secret passed down in the family) is making the nation unbeatable in war? A secret of Lies might cause strife and betrayal in the family to disrupt them, causing the secret to die.
Secrets and counter-secrets, is what I'm saying. Forces in the world to keep things potentially stable. And the beauty of this is, with enough rock-paper-scissors, there's plenty of conflicts, and not all of them will necessarily take place in any given world! By that I mean, maybe sometimes the undead army ISN'T beaten by the secret of the Sun. It could, but not this time...
That would make for more world-types that could be genned. AND it would allow for roguelike quests to find the secrets so that YOU can change history and defeat the evil empire.
(None of this is a suggestion, more an observation of the direction Toady seems to be taking)
Post by: PTTG?? on May 10, 2011, 11:05:05 pm
*puffs pipe*
- it's an excellent idea and must be implemented immediately.
Post by: Neonivek on May 10, 2011, 11:06:32 pm
I guess it could depend on the creature. Though for the most part I'd think the Megabeasts are so perfect in their design that in essence the secrets are either useless on them or already in motion.
Post by: Cruxador on May 10, 2011, 11:07:23 pm
*puffs pipe*
- you're taking things a wee bit too far.
Post by: Neonivek on May 10, 2011, 11:08:28 pm
My immediate impression of that idea is that-
*puffs pipe*
- you're taking things a wee bit too far.
It makes sense.
A demon could bring you great wealth... but a demon does not need wealth (except to bribe humans I guess).
A dragon could teach you the roar that gives you great strength. Though a dragon already has great strength. Perhaps the secret is that of the dragon rather a secret that the dragon contains itself.
Post by: Cruxador on May 10, 2011, 11:11:21 pm
Sorry, that was directed at Fieari. Your points are valid.My immediate impression of that idea is that-
*puffs pipe*
- you're taking things a wee bit too far.
It makes sense.
A demon could bring you great wealth... but a demon does not need wealth (except to bribe humans I guess).
A dragon could teach you the roar that gives you great strength. Though a dragon already has great strength. Perhaps the secret is that of the dragon rather a secret that the dragon contains itself.
Post by: Arkose on May 10, 2011, 11:46:03 pm
At the most primitive levels, a herd of animals exposed to "the secret of civilization" by a god / wizard / monolith from space might be affected by a "curse" turning them into a new kind of animal-people. They probably wouldn't be all that talkative without "the secret of language", though, unless they happened to have been parrots.
Actually, distinct languages would be another good use for secrets. Currently even though humans, dwarves, elves and goblins have their own words, everyone can understand everyone else. Maybe "the secret of speaking like an elf" isn't special enough to warrant being called a secret, but "the secret language of the damned" or "the secret to making sense of kobold utterances" might work.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 10, 2011, 11:58:34 pm
My immediate impression of that idea is that-
*puffs pipe*
- you're taking things a wee bit too far.
It makes sense.
A demon could bring you great wealth... but a demon does not need wealth (except to bribe humans I guess).
A dragon could teach you the roar that gives you great strength. Though a dragon ali thinkready has great strength. Perhaps the secret is that of the dragon rather a secret that the dragon contains itself.
For a dragon, knowledge itself could be enough to go on a killing spree. See if the word reaches the dragon that someone has "great power" he could come to the conclusion that said secret could be dangerous to himself. For short Worldgen gets suddenly more interesting. Same would be true for many others too.
Arkose animal-people curses (well curse depending on who it hits) is i think something the elven Forrest-spirits have as it appeared in Threetoes story "Root". As i see it "secrets", like poisons, only affect bodys so no alchemy, how far you can manipulate Knowledge and souls is a different issue though.
Oh and actually i meant the body surfing (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BodySurf) of the other wiki.
Post by: PTTG?? on May 11, 2011, 12:25:13 am
I wonder what happens if/when a ghost dies of old age.
Post by: Interus on May 11, 2011, 12:29:13 am
I'm a bit confused as to why there's all this talk of secrets coming from demons and stuff, though I suppose megabeasts do often end up being worshiped and associated with various spheres. It does seem possible that they might discover secrets on their own or acquire them from others, and then offer those secrets as bargains. I was going to say something about offering the secret of mind control in exchange for a promise of loyalty before I realized that was an incredibly dumb idea.
Then I obviously decided to mention it anyway.
Post by: Toady One on May 11, 2011, 12:50:17 am
Quote from: Asmageddon
Will it be possible for there to be multiple demographics in a single city?
Aside from the civ owning the city there would probably be cultural minorities, including dwarves and elves.
On the same topic, will we see any cultural/racial discrimination? I'm mainly talking about humans who are racist in nature, but as well as about dwarv-elf conflict.
Can we see sections of city dedicated to a subculture, you know, ghettos and the like. Perhaps genocides and civil wars in the future that shift balance of the city, perhaps going as far as the city changing it's owner civ?
In such cases, will there be any undead cases in which defeated defenders of the city and their ancestors raise to exact revenge on them?
Will there be in general any racial/cultural preferences among undead? (eg.: dead dwarf attacking elves rather than humans, dead human not attacking his family if there are other targets, etc.)
As Knight Otu pointed out, we have non-functional multiple demographics right now, and those will work for the next release. Not sure about any of the farther future stuff.
Quote from: Knight Otu
Since current deities occasionally use the zombie and skeleton flags when their spheres are compatible, will the deities in the upcoming release use certain or all curses in their description? Such that, if there was a "winged zombie" interaction associated with sky and death, a deity of sky and death might be depicted as a winged zombie human?
It's unclear. One of those things I have marked to handle. I think it used the word "rotting" instead of "zombie" for deities in at least one of the text portions, since it's sort of weird to associate a death deity with a soulless animated corpse rather than a rotted appearance. Or something.
Quote from: Knight Otu
Will some of the new night creature behaviors work for other creatures as well, whether civilized, wild, mega, or procedural (I could certainly see demons spreading curses, and if transformation effects were to come in, that could be very interesting for mods)?
All of the new night creature stuff is going to be in the raws (even if all the ones used in vanilla are randomly generated). So if mummy-style disturbed undead can curse people then whatever critter will be able to do it as well -- there's the one extra step of making a creature able to perform interactions in the same way somebody with a syndrome can do it, but that's way too tempting once I've got mummies done.
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
With night creatures, you mentioned that you might need to do some questing to find a weakness to a night creature. Will it actually be impossible to kill night creatures without exploiting their weaknesses? (As in, is there no way to simply chop them into a fine enough paste faster than they regenerate, or just drag them away from whatever magical power source they have to kill them "the hard way", so that we must rely upon finding a weakness, no matter the difference in strength or skill our characters have with our enemies?)
Likewise, if some sort of religious practice to divine weaknesses or to exorcise undead must happen to kill certain creatures, will we, as players, (at least some point in the future, perhaps having to wait on general magic system) have the ability to become one of those religious figures, capable of divining or performing exorcisms of ghosts or reversals of curses on our own, and can our fortresses train exorcists or the like to combat un-slabbable ghosts? Or do we have no power to fight these things on our own?
It might be impossible to permanently kill a creature without figuring something out. There isn't going to be anything so unstoppable that it ruins your game. My comment about non-100% effectiveness is more in reference to people that died particular deaths, for example. A slab might not be enough to stop a hammered execution victim from coming back for revenge every so often, but I don't have any specifics.
Quote from: Asmageddon
Will regeneration of any sort be possible as a syndrom of a curse/"disease"/something.
We'll see what comes up in terms of changing healing rate and so on, perhaps with some of the werewolfy/vampirey ones, but I'm not sure what's going to happen.
Quote from: Armok
Will there ever be "benign" undead or cursed people who do not automatically enemies of the entity they came from? Like for example, undead from an [undeath][good] sphere land or somehting that just go back to their old life?
I think so. There are plenty of examples of non-evil ghosts and so on, like Casper. We had one in mind for this time, but who knows what we'll get to.
Quote from: Heph
A question on curses: Will curses be able to just alter certain attributes or do they turn anything in the same "nightcreature"? For example could we make a curse that makes the victims skin fall off, turns the the nails/claws and teeth to iron and replaces eyes with fire so that a dog and human both affected by said curse are similiar but still different creatures? Or does the "turning" curse make anything it hits into same beasty, say a 5 meter tall head-crap? Both options would actually be neat.
I haven't gotten to any of the werewolfy/vampirey curses yet, but there's a significant time/delay issue with doing partial body modification, especially ones that add parts, but smaller modifications aren't a problem. A complete guess at this point would be that we'll be doing both, in the sense that a vampire-style curse, in addition to all the non-body stuff, could also increase teeth size for any tooth part it finds, while leaving the "race" the same (with possible choices to do a wolf/bat/cloud transform perhaps), whereas a werewolf-style curse might turn you into a werewolf creature which would have its own definition. That's as likely as anything. Not to imply that randomly generated vampire/werewolf interactions will stick so closely to the generic image. But those two kinds of body modifications are likely to be handled (small modification or total overhaul, with partial overhaul being the hard one likely to be left out this time).
Quote from: Orkel
Will cursed areas have physical effects on dwarves? Like randomly bursting in hives, starting to vomit from nausea, bleeding from the mouth, or something more serious like a dwarf suddenly going blind in one eye or both? These would be rare events, maybe similar in frequency as artifacts.
Yeah, it's all fair. Once we get to the mummy-style creatures (probably the ones after the necromancers), we'll be doing some cursing of live targets by the mummy-style night creature. At that point, extending any of these we like to the same intermittently targeting method the region uses for animation would be a natural thing. It might even happen before then, depending on how necromancers turn out.
Evil regions should be crappy places to live.
Quote from: Nasikabatrachus
Player-run fortresses can potentially have a powerful impact on geography, e.g. by damming rivers and such. Will players be able to influence wider geography over time through such actions in future releases? Will damming a river starve human settlements downriver, contribute to desertification, or have similar effects?
It's not easy to do. Questions like this have been floating around since the infinite floods of the 2D days, but I don't really have a timeline or plans for addressing them.
Quote from: Ethicalfive
Regarding the future bloat implementation below, and seeings that ghosts are now getting attention from you, can we expect to see some ghost based lever pulling soon?
Also are there any plans to have ghosts be active AND invisable some of the time, so then when poltergeist type activities occur, it would add some mystery to how those events actually happened? Adventure mode with ghosts could be quite creepy and cool if instead of seeing the ghost every time, you instead see a chair slide accross the floor, or get a message saying you felt a cold shiver(ghost passing through you/trying to interact with you)
I don't have a timeline for re-enactment type stuff. The detection of a little re-enactable plot for the lever example is the hard part. Yeah, I don't think night creature activity is always going to be tied to visible Ns. We're hoping to get to some of that when we do haunted houses, but we'll see what happens.
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady will monsters (Night creatures, Megabeasts, semimegabeasts, named creatures) still get along perfectly happy with eachother for quite some time? I am only wondering because with sewers I was sort of wondering if one type of night creatures could somehow claim dominance over the sewers and beat out the others, or suppress them.
Yeah, it's going to be strange down there if there isn't some kind of something, although I don't expect much to change this time around. I'll be happy to have them all cohabitating down there without appearing in the walls or something.
Quote from: HollowClown
But does the whole cursing thing apply to severed body parts as well? With our hypothetically decapitated elf, is there a chance of the the severed head also rising as a zombie? For that matter, if you chop the arm off the elf after it's become a zombie, will you have a severed arm that is a zombie? Or will you just get the severed arm of a zombie?
There is hope of this, though I haven't done it yet, though the parts will have to wait for their raising to occur, rather than staying animated, with the way things are set up now.
Quote from: Asmageddon
Could we get some more detail about effects of curses on bodies?
Right now it is more limited, focusing on tags instead of body parts, because it hasn't come up yet. We'll see when we get vampirey and werewolfy what ends up going on there. It is my suspicion that the addition of body parts is by far the hardest thing to do. A lot of the program was written with that in mind, but the parts that aren't are going to be a source of headaches whenever we get there, and I'm not sure I want to bite that off with everything else right now.
Quote from: hermes
Will curses extend to inanimate objects such as swords, thrones and socks? If so, could they "transfer" kind of like contact poisons (eg. from sword to wielder)?
Eventually, but not yet. I imagine anything that comes of artifacts etc. will use the interaction system.
Quote from: Demonic Gophers
Is the current mechanic for night creatures kidnapping spouses in world gen going to be incorporated into the curse/interaction system, or will it remain separate, like fire breath is separate from material breath?
It would be ideal to move it over, but it's an extra piece of time, so it might get put off.
Quote from: Mercanthyr
Will Dwarf moods be affected by the activities of souls or gods?
I don't have a timeline or specifics on this sort of thing. thvaz mentioned the possessed mood, which wants some kind of satisfactory resolution, but I dunno when that'll happen.
Quote from: Heph
Would goblins accept different forms of power apart from raw strength? Say political power or someone who has a powerfull trait/abilty/knowledge/whatever?
Anything that could run a prison gang, I suppose.
Quote from: Zahariel
has any formal modeling been done of the various new curses or other "contagious" effects? Can you present mathematical conditions under which the undead, werewolves, night creatures, and plague will (probably) not destroy the world by accident during worldgen?
Running the game itself is as formal as we're going to get.
Quote from: tHe_silent_H
Will adventures be able to learn these new "secrets"?
It comes down to adding an interface to it, pretty much, and supporting any special interactions that might take some care when coming from the player. Ideally if you can turn into some sort of night creature, you'd get all of its powers and get to keep playing, but the use of interactions is exactly the problem with allowing the player to do that. We'll see what the breadth of interactions ends up being. It could end up being pretty straightforward to do.
Quote from: tfaal
Is the raw implementation of necromancy a special case, or do we have an arbitrary interaction-effecting tag for creatures/syndromes? On that note, I take it that interactions have a fairly flexible raw framework themselves?
It is arbitrary, though I've been leaning toward tags necessary for my purposes. You could do water breathing for instance, though, by applying a NOBREATHE or whatever tag to a syndrome. I can't really comment on the flexibility -- I imagine it'll only take a moment to stretch it to capacity. It's not a formal scripting language or anything remotely that useful.
Quote from: EmeraldWind
If secrets are transferred by an artifact slab, is the ownership of the slab required to use the secret?
I suppose it should work either way, but they'll probably not be required at first since that's the easier way to do it. That does it make more dangerous to control the knowledge spreading all over the place, but that's something that should be fun to deal with anyway.
Quote from: LeeDub
Will possessed dwarfs have a chance to inscribe secrets on slabs instead of creating an artifact? Or maybe inscribe secrets whispered by the demon on the artifact itself? Also: will secrets be found only on slabs (and later, books) or will it be possible to find a secret on a sword blade, like a power word to make this sword ignite?
I don't have any specific plans at this point, since we're trying to keep things held down to our specific focus so that we can get a release up sometime. It all sounds like a fair thing to do.
Quote from: thvaz
Will demons and megabeasts with the death sphere be able to raise the undead? Will the undead megabeasts (Zombie Dragons for example) appear from the beggining or be raised after being killed?
The specific secret I'm using for testing makes a mortal immortal and allows them to raise the dead, and because the target is a mortal, it doesn't apply to the immortal critters that initially have the knowledge.
Haven't decided on the undead megabeasts yet -- having one there from the beginning seems to fit the character of the place fine, and the ones that are raised should be automatic. I guess world gen would need to be taught that if the dragon's head is chopped off in an evil region, the head itself might come back. It would be funny to have all these zombie megabeast limbs lingering after a long world gen, cowering in caves and occasionally running out to snatch a cow or something.
Quote from: KillerClowns
What's the time table for spheres other than Death granting transformations and secrets? I know it's a long-term dev goal, I'm just curious to know if we can expect non-necromantic secrets and alterations next release.
I don't have a time table for much. Mods could do it the way it already stands. Since we're trying to keep our focus narrow this time, I wouldn't count on much. There are some other things we want to finish before we jump full into magic.
Quote from: Cruxador
What's the difference between Inns and Taverns in DF?
Taverns are the wider category -- any place that is boozy. The inn part refers to the staying-in-a-room part specifically. Not all taverns will have that function, and the function won't even be available until Release 4.
Quote from: monk12
Will secrets make an appearance in dwarf mode any time soon?
Lets say that a demon relates a secret to a man in world gen. That man writes it down on his fancy stone tablet. A megabeast then steals that tablet and takes it back to his lair. World gen ends, and the player embarks with their dwarves on that lair. Will the tablet be there for the dwarves to find? When can we expect some kind of meaningful interaction with that kind of world-gen artifact?
Do you foresee secrets playing a role in the formation/abilities/motives of cults in world-gen?
I'm not sure what's going to happen with dwarf mode vs. the world gen artifacts. It seems like they will be available in the same space, which I guess would mean if it's a slab you could unforbid it and place it like a building... but I dunno if your dwarves will suddenly all become immortal and start raising their pets. We'll have to see what happens.
Yeah, I imagine secrets are going to be very important to many of the cults when we get there.
Quote from: Dakk
Is this going to become the framework for a magic system in the future, with every sphere having its own secrets, which can be used for a variety of ways, with its own risks and benefits? Like, using the secret of deformity to alter your own body, gaining extra limbs, giving yourself wings, scales, tails, increasing/decreasing your size, and doing the same to others, or using the secret of strenght and being able to wrestle a bronze colossus to the ground?
It's sort of a baby magic system for a specific purpose. There are giant missing components though that aren't being captured by this system. Hopefully whatever I end up with this time can be grown into something better.
Quote from: The Minister
With secrets giving the gods tangible roles in the world, will the temples or religions have an increased functionality in the near future?
Will the followers of a deity have any special relation to the secrets granted by that deity? For example, will followers of a religion seek to recover or destroy the tablets recording their god's secrets that fall into the hands of non believers?
I don't really have a timeline, but it certainly provides a source of both legitimacy and power to have this sort of thing potentially out there. I'm not sure what's going to be done with it.
Quote from: Heph
Will there be different kinds of immortality? Like the plain old "You never die of old age" but also things like "Bodysurfing" or leaching "Years" from someone.
We are starting with the most boring kind as usual. We haven't done anything interesting useful with souls yet, which would be the first alternate kind. Leeching would also be fun... I guess it would just be a certain effect. So many things to do.
Post by: Toady One on May 11, 2011, 12:53:49 am
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=84398.0