| The Ark Project is a community-wide effort (founded by Rainseeker and Lancensis) to increase the number and variety of DF's real-life animals. Everyone is welcome to participate! Here's our home on the wiki. (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Modification:Ark_Project) Currently we're making baby steps toward implementing specific creatures, particularly in the Arachnids section, (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Modification:Ark_Project/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnids#Arachnida_.28arachnids.29) but the emphasis is still on listing animals and implementing high-level creature variations. (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Modification:Ark_Project/Animals/Arthropods#Arthropoda_.28arthropods.29) Where is help most needed?
How do I get involved?
To learn about creature modding in the next version, check out:
This post will be updated as the project evolves. The previous thread is here. (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=46472.0) Thanks for helping out! | (http://i45.tinypic.com/2l3xaa.png) (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Modification:Ark_Project) |
On the previous thread, concerning UK/American spelling, I was essentially told: "Do it yourself."
The problem is that there has be some consensus for this. Where do I put the information on the UK spelling?
If anyone is doing spiders can I suggest you please try to include some more generic spiders everyday spiders?
Also I find it hillarious that Footkerchief and L-guy lists all forms of bugs (I am sorry but I call all creepy crawlies bugs) under insects.
As far as I know, everything on that page has six legs, and exoskeleton, and possibly three body segments (harder to tell).
Yep my Goal of 100 Beetles, 100 Butterfly's and Moths will be underway soon.
At this point I am seriously starting to think Vermin should have sizes so the game can tell the difference between a Silverfish and Goliath Beetle.
I should mention that I skipped a few crabs the first time over because they didn't seem practical to add. The pea crab for instance, as you can see from the otter photo, is about the size of an acorn. I'm not sure the new DF body system is really meant for that.
I can't wait to see some titanic versions of these guys. Just imagine a fiddler crab with a claw that can crush houses. Or Attack of the Fifty Foot Barnacle. Oh yeah.
Now I just need to think of something else to cover.
You might think of asking Toady this question directly, it's a good point, Neo.
If their frequency variables are the same, then yeah, since it doesn't know the difference, but if you made the sheep frequencies half of the frog frequencies, it should give you roughly the same numbers
Hey! well it's my first time to post here on forums, but I've been playing DF for a long time now.
This project sounds amazing, I wonder if I could make sprites for the creatures? \o/
Maybe it's useless for so many critters, but I'm up for it. I've done some art stuff for other games like for CIV3 warhammer mod ;)
1) Natural Frequency: We stick strictly to how common a creature is in the wildThis may be extremely difficult to implement because we are cramming creatures from every earthly region into each biome.
2) Stereotype: We can create stereotypes of each biome, possibly based on real life locations and adjust frequency according to how "Exotic" they seem.We can always assign values based on guesses (and we'll have to do this for some creatures), but I'm hoping to find some resource to come up with more accurate distributions. Does anyone have some suggestions?
3) Vanilla Stereotype: We prioritize creatures according to how they seem to fit in the game such as mountain goats.
4) Exemplar: We can also increase the frequency of some creatures due to how they represent their category. For example the Ladybug is the best representative of the Ladybird family even if it may not be the most common (example).We will have to incorporate something like this; that's why I was suggesting starting with distributing biomass between classes, then orders working downwards in the heirarchy. This will be the best way to account for creatures not included.
Hey! well it's my first time to post here on forums, but I've been playing DF for a long time now.
This project sounds amazing, I wonder if I could make sprites for the creatures? \o/
Maybe it's useless for so many critters, but I'm up for it. I've done some art stuff for other games like for CIV3 warhammer mod ;)
I think we're open to this, although I'm not sure how sprites work in this respect. Does anyone know if we can have a custom sprite for each and every critter when the new release comes out? That would be amazing.
Firstly, we should start coming up with prefstrings for the entries, since we have info on each creature and that will not be a copy and paste affair.
Secondly, we should probably start doing some research to figure out how to balance the frequencies for animals. Maybe start by defining, for each biome, the percentage of creatures that should fall into each class, and then determine the percent distribution of each order in each class, etc. Once these ratios are established, it would be fairly simple to come up with appropriate frequencies for each creature in a spreadsheet. Maybe for the sake of realism, size should be accounted for so the ratios would be biomass, rather than number of creatures.
-Leptodirus hochenwartii (Amber Cave Beetle): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leptodirus_hochenwartii.jpg
--Including being one of the few true cave dwelling creatures. It also looks like it is made of Honey/Amber. Looks like an Ant though.
I am entirely for a better name then Amber Cave Beetle... though the only one I thought of is "Amber Statuette"
Vermin are still stuck with ASCII tiles, but that should be remedied in the nearish future when we get full graphics support (#4 on Eternal Suggestion Voting (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/eternal_voting.php)), so time spent making vermin sprites won't be wasted. The one graphics upgrade we're getting in the upcoming version is caste support -- you can now have separate sprites for male and female creatures.
Anyway, yeah, it would be really awesome if this project had creature graphics. Feel free to tackle it however interests you, but my advice would be to start by making generic graphics -- a generic squid, a generic antelope, a generic crab, a generic lizard, and so on.
As I have thought more about this, I'd like to offer my services for spreadsheet/database management for this project, if it is deemed necessary. We already have a lot of creatures listed with links to descriptions, but we could also start adding info on biomes, average weight, lifespan, prefstrings, flavor text, etc to a spreadsheet or database which could be on google docs or something similar. I'll start putting something together today if people sound interested.
What specifically did you want to ask him?
Yes, that would be way too much work. At the moment, it would be best to create some kind of template and decide what additional info to add to creatures, and make a one time conversion once we have a sufficient template. However, in the mean time couldn't we replace all the lists in the wiki with tables, and slowly add a little information to them? For instance, turn the list of herbivorous marsupials into a table, and do the same with the bovids, cats, etc.?
- Having a wiki and a spreadsheet at the same time is bad. Maintaining them against one another will be hard -- even if you try to automatically update the spreadsheet with a parser script, it'll get stymied by name changes etc. It has to be a one-time switch.
It's not clear how much redundant tags would matter...that is a good question for Toady.
- Whether we're putting raws snippets in a spreadsheet or the wiki, they'll be problematic until we get our basic templates ironed out, because people will include code that ends up being redundant with the templates and so on. So, I keep coming back to the need to get templates ironed out ASAP. But we still haven't seen how a creature variation (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_now.html#2009-12-15) works.
However, in the mean time couldn't we replace all the lists in the wiki with tables, and slowly add a little information to them? For instance, turn the list of herbivorous marsupials into a table, and do the same with the bovids, cats, etc.?
It's not clear how much redundant tags would matter...that is a good question for Toady.
Well, it shouldn't matter to the game (which always handles redundant tags gracefully, as far as I know). It's just a problem for us because it would violate Don't Repeat Yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself) and make the creatures hard to maintain.If this is a serious concern, we could assume a certain amount of redundancy, and code for that. This should be relatively simple, since Toady said that templates are able to both add and remove tags.
However, in the mean time couldn't we replace all the lists in the wiki with tables, and slowly add a little information to them? For instance, turn the list of herbivorous marsupials into a table, and do the same with the bovids, cats, etc.?
Yeah, that might be a sensible compromise for people who are anxious to start adding prefstrings etc.
What specifically did you want to ask him? I could ask him to just look at this thread if you want. Maybe highlight in limeGreen the stuff you would like Toady to help with?
Okay, so what are good things to be filling in now? Biomes, prefstring, flavor text, weight (does anyone know the relationship between weight and size in the next version?), maybe littersize and maturation time...anything else?
2) Will sequentially invoked variations basically act like a nested template? E.g., we'd want separate templates ARTHROPOD and CRUSTACEAN, where a creature invokes them in that order and CRUSTACEAN assumes that ARTHROPOD has already been invoked and modifies the ARTHROPOD stuff.For templates that are subtemplates of others, is it possible to do:
[CREATURE_VARIATION:ARTHROPOD]
(Do all the arthropod stuff here.)
[CREATURE_VARIATION:CRUSTACEAN]
[CV_NEW_TAG:APPLY_CREATURE_VARIATION:ARTHROPOD]
(Do all the crustacean stuff here.)
[CREATURE:CRAB_SPINY]
[APPLY_CREATURE_VARIATION:CRUSTACEAN]
(Do all the spiny crab stuff here.)
If that works, modifying the ARTHROPOD stuff in CRAB_SPINY would be guaranteed to work, instead of relying on the writer of the raws remembering to invoke ARTHROPOD. Basically it would remove a possible source of error.for example, if all squid have about the same maturation time (I have no idea if this is true or not), we can put the maturation time in the template and omit it from all the individual squid entries, which will massively cut down on clutter.Are we sure that aquatic life should be breeding right now? Especially on lakes or seas, where it's relatively hard to hunt sea creatures, this could lead to an unwanted explosion of sealife over time.
About sea creatures: if there were too many, wouldn't they eat each other and keep the population down?
I'm not into programming the rawsThat doesn't really matter. Everything means pretty much what it sounds, and the work is more in research than understanding the raws. Biomes are chosen from the list on the wiki, prefstrings go into personality profiles as reasons for liking a creature, and time units are years.
Does making it take long?Not very, but I wouldn't want to do more than 10 or 20 in a sitting with that level of detail. Wikipedia and EOL typically had all the info I needed, and the missing info can be guessed pretty easily. Making HTML tables can be time consuming, but I made it in excel and emailed it to myself. That way I could view it in HTML on gmail and copy the source code to the wiki.
I don't think I can help you with that, the more people, the more chaos.No, help would definitely be easy to provide and valuable. Just like with making the original lists, anyone can claim a list that seems to be complete, do the research, and throw in a table. Most lists are less than 20 entries, making each fairly manageable individually. However there are several hundred creatures already listed, and I would need other people to help me do this.
About sea creatures: if there were too many, wouldn't they eat each other and keep the population down?
They don't eat each other yet. Unfortunately, sea and lake creatures may be a problem. It may behoove us to turn off breeding for them at the moment, or greatly slow it down. What is the consensus on this?
I just threw together a table for the lemurs. How does it look? http://dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/User_talk:Lancensis/Mammals#Strepsirrhini_.28lemurs_and_lorises.29 (http://dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/User_talk:Lancensis/Mammals#Strepsirrhini_.28lemurs_and_lorises.29)
We should probably put up a link to the discussion I had about this with Tarn. You can hear it here:
http://www.bay12games.com/media/Creature%20Tags.mp3
Would you mind putting this up on the first post, Foot?
That talk refers to the raws of the following dwarf. It may be useful to add this as well:
Great! It's also great that Toady helped to make it faster. I don't think I can help you with that, the more people, the more chaos, but if I have to make graphics with some sort of organized chart, give a sign. I know I can start making genuine creatures, but I still don't know about the sizes of templates.
I just threw together a table for the lemurs. How does it look? http://dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/User_talk:Lancensis/Mammals#Strepsirrhini_.28lemurs_and_lorises.29 (http://dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/User_talk:Lancensis/Mammals#Strepsirrhini_.28lemurs_and_lorises.29)I just changed the table to use wiki syntax, which is far less verbose and far easier to read.
We probably need to store the raws directly in the wiki, which means a table with four-ish columns: name, info link, raws text (in some kind of show/hide box), and completion status. Any notes about the creature can be put into the raws text, where they'll remain as comments alongside the actual tags. Gorobay, you mentioned MediaWiki templates (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Templates) -- that'll probably be necessary, do you have any experience with those?Yes, indeed I do. I could create it right now. What should I call it? "Template:Ark"?
Alright, I'll throw those in, and the cougar link as well. Later those links will be part of a full set of guidelines for making creature raws, like the current "How do I add a creature to the list?" thing.There's the fluffy wambler (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=46472.msg932239#msg932239) too.
We probably need to store the raws directly in the wiki, which means a table with four-ish columns: name, info link, raws text (in some kind of show/hide box), and completion status. Any notes about the creature can be put into the raws text, where they'll remain as comments alongside the actual tags. Gorobay, you mentioned MediaWiki templates (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Templates) -- that'll probably be necessary, do you have any experience with those?
Yes, indeed I do. I could create it right now. What should I call it? "Template:Ark"?
{{ark begin}}
{{ark row|<name>|<URL>|<raws>|<status>}}
|}
How's that?Hmm... it's not really feasible to put sprites on the wiki as individual 16x16 images. It'd just be a pain and someone would have to reassemble them into sprite sheets later. I guess my recommendation would be to just start making sprite sheets -- maybe one sheet per wiki page, roughly? You can post them in this thread to keep us updated, of course.
Okay, I have made two templates. They work like this:Code: [Select]{{ark begin}}How's that?
{{ark row|<name>|<URL>|<raws>|<status>}}
|}
All the information for the raws must be there somewhere, whether in the raws column or elsewhere. I think adding more columns would complicate the issue, unless the raws script will be more advanced than I imagine it.
I've been thinking about the possibility of adding mites/ticks and other parasites, as a vermin swarm with contact posion. Is this too bizarre?
I'd arrange it as name-status-URL-raws, but that's just nitpicking. Although now I'm wondering if we should start putting names in the raws' singular-plural-adjective format, and make that string a hyperlink so we don't need a separate URL column...I redid the column arrangement. Adding an override column will be simple once we have anything to override.
I do think the template override column is important because it'll let us see at a glance which creatures aren't using the standard templates.
{{ark begin}}
{{ark row|<name>|<URL>|<status>|<raws>}}
{{ark row|<name>|<URL>|<status>|<raws>}}
<...>
|}
For other extra columns... as long as biome tokens were separated by line breaks, the script wouldn't have to do anything fancy.I know a script can parse a list; my concern is that it might be complicated to interweave the tags correctly if they are scattered, some in special columns, some in a general "Raws" column. But maybe it won't be.
- limited width/number of columnsIf this is an issue, it is possible for a template to receive parameters and not display them. That way, the information would be in the source code, but it would not clutter the chart.
I redid the column arrangement.
If this is an issue, it is possible for a template to receive parameters and not display them. That way, the information would be in the source code, but it would not clutter the chart.
Is <br> the only way to force line breaks within the tables? That could make it annoying to edit raws on there.Fortunately, you can just use a line break, e.g.
{{ark row|Generic lemur|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuridae|not started|[CREATURE:LEMUR_GENERIC]
[DESCRIPTION:Just your average lemur.]
[PREFSTRING:agility]}}
That's very worth considering. Judging from what you did with the URL, the template can display multiple parameters as a single column. Maybe it could automatically merge the separate raws parameters to display them as a single column?Definitely doable. The only potential problem is ordering stuff with the invisible cursor, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
Wait... Should we be making Animal-man versions of creatures that don't do so well?I think that's beyond the scope of the project, at least for now. We should concentrate on the real-world creatures first.
Wait... Should we be making Animal-man versions of creatures that don't do so well?I think that's beyond the scope of the project, at least for now. We should concentrate on the real-world creatures first.
That isn't exactly what I meant. I'd think a proper conversion would be wanted at some point.I'm not sure what you mean by "proper conversion". Are you proposing changing CREATURE_VARIATION:ANIMAL_PERSON to work better? Or do you mean to do it manually?
Hmm... it's not really feasible to put sprites on the wiki as individual 16x16 images. It'd just be a pain and someone would have to reassemble them into sprite sheets later. I guess my recommendation would be to just start making sprite sheets -- maybe one sheet per wiki page, roughly? You can post them in this thread to keep us updated, of course.
Yes sir. I'll start as soon as I get some time off work/school and post something done here, to see if it fits and you accept the projects.
When I saw your post, I figured I should post this quickly, to save you some trouble.
I hope they'll be of some use.
So far, the examples we have of CREATURE_VARIATIONs are of changes applied to an existing creature. Can we have an example of a CREATURE_VARIATION used without a base creature?
Fortunately, you can just use a line break, e.g.Code: [Select]{{ark row|Generic lemur|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuridae|not started|[CREATURE:LEMUR_GENERIC]
[DESCRIPTION:Just your average lemur.]
[PREFSTRING:agility]}}
Definitely doable. The only potential problem is ordering stuff with the invisible cursor, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
doing a full family becomes problematic when two species really resemble eachother
Depending on the stage of the interface overhaul, ultimately I'm going to be support 2D tilesets (probably in dimensions of multiples of 4 because I'm lazy with image file headers). So if you want to draw up some 32x32s or something, you won't be wasting your time, I think.
I suppose we should work together to avoid doing same thing twice ;)
Well, both variations have their benefits:doing a full family becomes problematic when two species really resemble eachother
Believe me, if we only had one sprite for each family that would still be kickin' rad. If two species look too much alike, feel absolutely free to use the same sprite for both. Also, here's something for artists to consider:Depending on the stage of the interface overhaul, ultimately I'm going to be support 2D tilesets (probably in dimensions of multiples of 4 because I'm lazy with image file headers). So if you want to draw up some 32x32s or something, you won't be wasting your time, I think.
I honestly don't know if drawing 32x32 is easier or harder than 16x16, but it gives you more to work with, and there's a good chance Toady will be working on "Full graphics support" (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/eternal_voting.php) within the next 6 months or so.
I sign up for doing both 32 and 16 versions, it's pretty easy and won't take too much time. I think I will start off with some sea life this weekend, so expect stuff coming, and you will see if they suit your tastes.Well, I heard you could just press the 'edit' button that's on every wiki page...
I don't know how to edit wiki, really I'm such a noob in this matter. I prefer the oldstyle communication unless it's a problem.
Well, both variations have their benefits:
16x16 is great because it's small/quick to make, but it allows for little detail or realism.
32x32 is great because it allows for more detail, but it also takes more time to make(In my case mostly because of the anti-aliasing I do).
Personally, I think we should focus on 16x16 because from what I've seen there's more 16x16 sets then 32x32, and when the arc project is published, there's a high chance that there will still be more people with 16x16 sets.
Also, I don't think people would like it very much if sloths and anteaters are represented with an armadillo spite ;).
Well, I heard you could just press the 'edit' button that's on every wiki page...
Sarcasm and such aside, what do you see as old-style communication?
I think that it might be best if we just say like 'Oh, hey, I'm going to tackle this family' and make a sprite-set for it, which then could be uploaded to the wiki.
It makes for small chunks of work that can easily be ploughed through, while the family retains some consistency in style in itself. And I think this makes it much more manageable if we can just cross of whole families of the to do list rather then having to do a separate administration where we have to remember exactly which species haven't been done yet.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
tell me if they're bad, I don't want to push my help into the project if not needed ;D
(oh and it's my first time, so I guess I'm warming up)
Those are really good looking! You even did the pups and zombie/skeletal.. Cool! They all look different.. The larger size really allows for much more detail
I also was thinking of making a banner or a kind of poster for The Ark Project.
You said it first! Go for it!
A million points if it's the Sgt.Pepper album cover, but with animals.
You said it first! Go for it!
YES SIR! Will be done this weekend!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
tell me if they're bad, I don't want to push my help into the project if not needed ;D
(oh and it's my first time, so I guess I'm warming up)
I just put in a dozen or so bivalves and gastropods.. but then I realized that many of them are very small..
I'm a bit confused about what separates vermin from creatures and how the Ark project will handle them, and if I should even put potentially vermin-sized creatures in.. Will the ark project include vermin?
I don't know, it might be best to just to replace larvae with subadults until metamorphosis is in the game.
The future of zombie/skeleton graphics is uncertain, due to this dev_next (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_next.html) item: "Generalization of 'zombie' and 'skeleton' to broader curses/sphere-related alterations (Core96)." Effort spent on those might end up being wasted.
I'm not an artist, so take this with a grain of salt, but most of the ones with varied coloration (stripes and spots) look kind of jagged or jumbled. I think it's because a) it's hard in places to distinguish the coloration from the contour gradients, and b) some of the stripes/spots are too small to convey a shape, so they just look like individual pixels. If you look back at therahedwig's sprites, s/he doesn't even try to express much variation in skin/fur color. Of course this makes it harder to tell similar-looking creatures apart, but I think it ends up looking better. If two creatures look so similar that the difference can't be drawn in a way that looks good, we'll happily use the same sprite for both. Apologies if any of this sounds condescending, I'm not very experienced at critiquing.
I've done a lot of thinking about what would best suit our needs, and here's what I'm leaning toward now:It's a lot better than having the wiki do it, that's for sure. I have one question of clarification though. You say that taxons will have optional pre- and post-variation sections; does that mean one per page? Or more?
Incidentally, is there any way to avoid having lots of one-row tables and the associated overhead of typing "{{ark begin}}" for each one? Like a table that continues across section headers, or a "smart" row that automatically opens/closes the table?As far as I know, tables cannot cross over section headers. It can be simulated (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=339527062), but it is clumsy, and it won't show up in the table of contents. I could make a template for closing a table, starting a new section, and opening a table, if you think it's worth it. It would work like this:
{{ark begin}} <!-- first table on the page -->
{{ark row|...}}
...
{{ark next|<Name of next section>}} <!-- equivalent to |}<br>==Section==<br>{{ark begin}} -->
{{ark row|...}}
...
I personally think that Pizdzius's sprites look okay, though I agree it would be good to give them a contour. This is because a contour makes them look better over various backgrounds, while without contour they could blend in too much or look out of place.
If you would blow up mine, you'll notice they have a contour, but it's a bit coloured(relative to the shading). This refrains them from being too cartoony.
I had the benefit of having the creatures I was working on, as they didn't exactly have any spots, and in some cases trying to add variation would mess up the shape. Personally I think the spots look okay on your sharks, but a contour would really benefit it in bringing out the shapes.
I agree with trying to fit the creatures to how they really look though, because I think it'll add to the enjoyment of someone playing this mod, and then suddenly see creatures outside which look exactly like how s/he remembers them. Or imagine an animal lover who doesn't even have to hit K to see what kind of fauna is running about outside.
I guess I'll rework the sprites that I've done already to 32x32 size when I have the time(exam week coming up).
-Thera, who's a she.
I have one question of clarification though. You say that taxons will have optional pre- and post-variation sections; does that mean one per page? Or more?
It can be simulated (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=339527062), but it is clumsy, and it won't show up in the table of contents. I could make a template for closing a table, starting a new section, and opening a table, if you think it's worth it. It would work like this:
When you say overhead, do you mean for the server or for the human typist?
And another thing. I am not clear on how you want people to input the five parameters. Do you want people to type {{ark row|...|start=...|pre=...|body=...|post=...|end=...}}? Because if it really is to be that simple, I don't see the point of even breaking it up. I mean, if editors can fill in parameters in order, then they can write the raws in order, without any help, i.e. {{ark row|...|raws=...}}.
This also means creatures will be referencing variations from other pages (e.g. reptiles would use a generic vertebrate template from the main page), so the section headers (and page titles?) will have to match up sufficiently for the script to piece together the hierarchy.Or there could be something on each subpage that refers the script to the higher level.
No, the pre and post sections aren't manually entered. They're inserted by the script, based on the groups that the creature belongs to.Let me see if I understand. An editor would go on the wiki and, for each creature, input the "start", "body", and "end" sections. A script would then come along and add the "pre" and "post" sections... but where? Would the script edit the wiki itself, or put the final raws somewhere else?
Too tired today to do any work... *sigh*You should've just done Sphenodontia or some other group with only a miniscule amount of members, and then boasted that you'd done an entire order.
Too tired today to do any work... *sigh*You should've just done Sphenodontia or some other group with only a miniscule amount of members, and then boasted that you'd done an entire order.
One problem, though I don't expect you to change anything, is size/scale.
One problem, though I don't expect you to change anything, is size/scale.
What exactly? These are just sprites representing species. It's like a sprite of dragon vs sprite of dwarf, both same size, I don't see the problem, but if you have some good arguments, I'll change what you need ;)
I really don't have strong arguements. It is more of a preference of mine that sprites have some sort of semblence of scale (not perfect scale) so you don't have Dwarves Dwarfing humans or Giants looking ordinary.
It is however difficult to do sprites that way so I don't really expect much to be done and nor should you.
I really don't have strong arguements. It is more of a preference of mine that sprites have some sort of semblence of scale (not perfect scale) so you don't have Dwarves Dwarfing humans or Giants looking ordinary.You can't really do more than try to create a feeling of size by, for instance, showing the Giant hunched over, or a mouse surrounded by blank space. I guess if you feel you've got enough space, you could try drawing a creature with severe foreshortening. Or you could just draw the giant's foot taking up the entire tile.
It is however difficult to do sprites that way so I don't really expect much to be done and nor should you.
Or there could be something on each subpage that refers the script to the higher level.
Let me see if I understand. An editor would go on the wiki and, for each creature, input the "start", "body", and "end" sections. A script would then come along and add the "pre" and "post" sections... but where? Would the script edit the wiki itself, or put the final raws somewhere else?
EDIT: Also, how do you want the "start", "end", and maybe "body" sections displayed in the table on the wiki? Each in its own column?
EDIT 2: In fact, why have a table at all? We could keep the look and feel of the page the same as it is now and just have the raws in the source code.
Okay then, I think that making pygmy shark and bamboo/epaluette sharks smaller is enough ;)
These are just water animals and player even rarely spends time with them. I guess I'll pay more attention to this when I make land creatures
Another another question (sorry if I ask too much!): Should I be worried about adding too many varieties? I know I could add more to gastropoda for example, but should I/we bring the amount of animals (if they exist of course) to the level of the hawks? There are a lot of beetles but there are also a lot of beetle families, but all hawks, OW vultures, and eagles go in one family.
Oh, Lancensis, is it alright for me to be making up common names like Copper-Breasted and Black-tipped for all the Westerns and Europeans? I figure if there's a dispute we can just change them but it might be easier to do it as I go.
More varieties is fine, as long as the differences are interesting. A lot of mammal/lizard families have many representatives. However, if a group is getting very big, like Accipitridae, that's a good sign that you need to further organize it (in this case, it should probably be organized by subfamily).
...
I'm not sure which species you're talking about, but they need some pretty interesting differences to warrant just making up a name for them. If it's just coloration, I'd generally say to just make them a single creature.
Yeah, I'll go back and sort them better. I really don't know how or where to cut it off... I'm probably just trying too hard, but what goes in and what stays out? Where should I draw the line? I mean, mammals are fairly different in looks, from elephants to whales, but birds all have the same sort of body. I guess I'm thinking from a genetic perspective, where two hawks will be as different as humans and gorillas but look very similar in comparison.
Another problem is that there aren't standard genetic lines between hawks and eagles, like, there are many genuses of animals named hawks, many with animals named eagles, some named eagle-hawks, some named hawks and eagles. This is the case for many different groups of animals. It's a blend and if we want to draw lines and make distinct creatures that's okay. Is that what we're aiming for?
Well, for right now I reverted the birds page and dumped all my stuff onto my dfwiki page. I'll go through and sort them by Subfamily or genus and stuff like that, and that will probably help out. I'll look though and see if I can condense a genus into a single representative, or something like that.
Here's the new Accipitriformes http://dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/User_talk:Lancensis/Birds#Accipitriformes_.28Hawks.2C_Vultures.2C_Eagles.29 (http://dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/User_talk:Lancensis/Birds#Accipitriformes_.28Hawks.2C_Vultures.2C_Eagles.29), Footkerchief. Is that more how it's should be? I can't say I'm pleased paring down the list like that but I suppose that's how it'll have to be for now.
Yeah, it probably didn't need to be pared down that much (especially the hawks). Have you tried breaking it down by subfamily? I think may help give you a better overall picture of how many representatives are needed.
Or, the script could start at the root page and work its way down, following links to subpages, so it would only go from a high level to a lower.Or there could be something on each subpage that refers the script to the higher level.
Ah, yeah, that'd probably be easier.
It would put them somewhere else -- the script is what turns the wiki pages into .txt raw files, so that we don't have to copy/paste each individual creature. A creature's "pre" and "post" sections wouldn't actually exist on the wiki.Where will the creature variations be, in that case?
It would put them somewhere else -- the script is what turns the wiki pages into .txt raw files, so that we don't have to copy/paste each individual creature. A creature's "pre" and "post" sections wouldn't actually exist on the wiki.Where will the creature variations be, in that case?
Each taxon gets a single optional variation (this can just be kept in the page source, too), and a creature's raws just need two sections, between which the script inserts the necessary templates (in the process of exporting the raws to text files).
Okay. Here we go. Following in your lead, Footkerchief, I helped organize part of the larger bird lists by subfamily/family. How does it look? Should I keep working in that manner?
Note that lots of the ducks and the like are similar, most of those were other peoples' and I didn't want to be the one to mess with them (except the few that were in the wrong groups.)
Let me know if it still doesn't make sense, I'm probably still not explaining it clearly.It makes sense now.
You just use a few text files to say "this entity" and "this image file" and "this grid point on the image."Hey! well it's my first time to post here on forums, but I've been playing DF for a long time now.
This project sounds amazing, I wonder if I could make sprites for the creatures? \o/
Maybe it's useless for so many critters, but I'm up for it. I've done some art stuff for other games like for CIV3 warhammer mod ;)
I think we're open to this, although I'm not sure how sprites work in this respect. Does anyone know if we can have a custom sprite for each and every critter when the new release comes out? That would be amazing.
Also you would probably have to coordinate with Mayday or someone who does graphics for DF.
I thought the region display just plucked out five groups of animals to show at a time and if one dies or leaves the next comes in. There shouldn't be any issue with having large populations.About sea creatures: if there were too many, wouldn't they eat each other and keep the population down?
They don't eat each other yet. Unfortunately, sea and lake creatures may be a problem. It may behoove us to turn off breeding for them at the moment, or greatly slow it down. What is the consensus on this?
I never even edited a wiki entry, I prefer not to touch this to not ruin your work ;DIf you're ok posting in a forum it shouldn't be unfamiliar to you.
Given two species, otherwise similar, is color enough to make both merit inclusion?As ever, it's a judgement call, but I would argue not, in most cases. Usually two creatures differentiated only by colours will merely be subspecies, anyway
What about differences in number and size of a body part (i.e. horns, humps, wattles, or toes)?Probably not, unless it's a particularly spectacular difference
What about differences in biome?Consider making a more generalised creature, and giving it extra biomes. Some biomes, like mountains, deserts and tundra need all the variety they can get, however.
Terrestrial versus arboreal?? I'm not sure where this would be an important distinction.
If there are many similar but differently colored/sized/etc. creatures such that we decide to include only one, should we choose one specific species, or make a generic creature as a meld of all of them?I tend to try and create a generic creature, but I'll usually have a representative species in mind, even if I name it after the group.
Should we include parthenogenerators? If so, how?Can't really be implemented, but DF animals reproduce more like spores than real animals anyway
Since creatures do not live in trees (I think), should we include arboreal creatures?Animals don't live in trees, unless you get (un?)lucky and the game accidentally spawns a goat on top of a tree. I think they should be included nontheless.
Should we include gliders and water-walkers?They'll have to be implemented as fliers and swimmers respectively, but I don't think that's too much of a break from reality. I think the enjoyment from having a flying frog probably outways the strangeness of occaisionally seeing it a dozen Z-levels above the trees. There are updrafts, after all ;)
Basically, should we include creatures whose interesting unique features DF cannot model yet?I guess it depends how integral they are to the animal, and how approximately they can be replicated. Put it on the list - if it can't be done, it's not the end of the world
Is there any way currently to model diet?You can get them to kill other animals with [liKES_FIGHTING], attack dwarves, and steal food and drink. That's the best that can be done.
Can we model color variation, as in chameleons and cuttlefish?Not to my knowledge. You can, however make the tile flash different colours
Can creatures dig, like worms or moles?Nope. They can be found in caves, or by searching the ground.
Is camouflage possible yet?With [AMBUSH_PREDATOR]
How about vocalizations?No. Their vocalizations are a good thing to mention in the PREFSTRING, however
Should extinct creatures be considered [MUNDANE]?Hmmmm. Up for discussion. I would say no, though
Should parrots have [UTTERANCES]?Heh. Well, wild parrots wouldn't know human speech. They could be given [SLOW_LEARNER] however, and they would slowly devolop conversationalist skills
Can a creature variation delete certain body parts? I know it can swap existing parts (like QUADRUPED with HUMANOID in the example), but can it swap a part with nothing? This would be useful with legless lizards, so they can [APPLY_CREATURE_VARIATION:LIZARD] and then delete the legs.I think they can, yes
Should we include tardigrades and other microscopic creatures?Nah. The entire concept of microscopic creatures (apart from angels) was pretty much unknown in the medieval world. Also, if we included them, they would literally be coating every surface in the game.
What makes something vermin?That's one for the philosophers, I suppose. It's a very pertinent question actually, and I'll have to think about that myself.
Where will we keep the new [BODY] parts that there surely will be?Just in a new body.txt file
Should we list color morphs, like the pied raven?Yeah, they can be implemented, so make a note of them
How will we assign symbols for so many creatures?Convention is just the first letter of the animal's name. Vermin tend to have their own symbols.
How do genetics work? Are there dominance, codominance, and carriers?Uh........Oh! Look at the time
I believe it does it from the source. However, does anyone know if the game assigns values to the creature, or do we? As you know, some bones are more valuable than others.
Toady has an item for eggs and feathers, we'll have to wait for that.
...Are there beaks in the game?
The most fun in the Ark Project isn't just the animals themselves, but also capturing them or making stuff out of them. They should drop some funky stuff, have you guys included the thought of "spotted hyena" leather, etc? Or does the game generate the names itself from the source?
Toady has an item for eggs and feathers, we'll have to wait for that.
...Are there beaks in the game?
I don't think there are any animals who even have beaks in the game who arn't vermin.
Actually, you need the [STANDARD_FLESH] (?) tag, otherwise leather produced from the animal will be ungodly heavy.
What makes something vermin?
1. noxious, objectionable, or disgusting animals collectively, esp. those of small size that appear commonly and are difficult to control, as flies, lice, bedbugs, cockroaches, mice, and rats.
2. an objectionable or obnoxious person, or such persons collectively.
3. animals that prey upon game, as coyotes or weasels.
In DF, to my understanding, vermin is defined as anything cats like to hunt, and are small enough to be unable to damage normal creatures, and spawn spontaneously in the environment without breeding. In the current version, vermin also have no defined bodies, though that's changing in the new version. On the other hand, in the new version, I don't believe the body parts are USED except for templating larger critters.When have they ever hunted flies?
Rainseeker, what could you possibly be doing with an elephant in your basement?
What about differences in biome?Consider making a more generalised creature, and giving it extra biomes. Some biomes, like mountains, deserts and tundra need all the variety they can get, however.
Terrestrial versus arboreal?? I'm not sure where this would be an important distinction.
Should extinct creatures be considered [MUNDANE]?Hmmmm. Up for discussion. I would say no, though
Should parrots have [UTTERANCES]?Heh. Well, wild parrots wouldn't know human speech. They could be given [SLOW_LEARNER] however, and they would slowly devolop conversationalist skills
Can a creature variation delete certain body parts? I know it can swap existing parts (like QUADRUPED with HUMANOID in the example), but can it swap a part with nothing? This would be useful with legless lizards, so they can [APPLY_CREATURE_VARIATION:LIZARD] and then delete the legs.I think they can, yes
Where will we keep the new [BODY] parts that there surely will be?Just in a new body.txt file
How will we assign symbols for so many creatures?Convention is just the first letter of the animal's name. Vermin tend to have their own symbols.
How do genetics work? Are there dominance, codominance, and carriers?
I believe it does it from the source. However, does anyone know if the game assigns values to the creature, or do we? As you know, some bones are more valuable than others.
The most fun in the Ark Project isn't just the animals themselves, but also capturing them or making stuff out of them. They should drop some funky stuff, have you guys included the thought of "spotted hyena" leather, etc? Or does the game generate the names itself from the source?
Huh? You can tan the hide of animals by default, unless you give it a certain tag (I can't remember which). You don't have to specify that it can be made into leather goods.
Actually, you need the [STANDARD_FLESH] (?) tag, otherwise leather produced from the animal will be ungodly heavy.
What makes something vermin?That's one for the philosophers, I suppose. It's a very pertinent question actually, and I'll have to think about that myself.
In DF, to my understanding, vermin is defined as anything cats like to hunt, and are small enough to be unable to damage normal creatures, and spawn spontaneously in the environment without breeding. In the current version, vermin also have no defined bodies, though that's changing in the new version. On the other hand, in the new version, I don't believe the body parts are USED except for templating larger critters.
Vermin CAN damage normal creatures, though, at least by injecting them with poison (e.g. cave spiders in the current version). It's not clear yet how much the new version has blurred the line between vermin and creatures, like whether they can use the new poison-oriented stuff like secretions and gas clouds.Robber/coconut crabs should definately be full-sized creatures though. With the Curiousbeast tags. There are stories of them carrying off cooking stoves. Maybe Cane Toads too. Releasing a flood of [VERMINHUNTER] toads to wipe out the local vermin would be a fun option.
So yeah, it's going to be tricky to draw the line between creatures and vermin, and it'll depend somewhat on how vermin behave in the next version. If worse comes to worst, we can establish a numerical cutoff for size, allowing some leeway for vermin-sized animals that would work much better as full creatures.
You could easily kill a fox by stepping on it. Just got to raise your foot high enough. It is kinda wierd how cats are a size up from foxes in DF, though.
So if being stepped on by a person would kill them... Then Vermin they be.
-or rather... Smaller then a Fox? Smaller then a box? Smaller then an ox? Then Vermin you be
--Or rather they are soo small that their body doesn't matter (So being hit by a club for example could reasonably shatter their whole body)
In the the original DF Foxes were the smallest Non-Vermin creatures
So Squirls, Chipmonks, most crabs, most turtles, and walking severed hands are all vermin... albiet impressive vermin.
So how does this new thing work, Foot? Is it like a mini-wiki of our own?
Well done on Template:Ark, Footkerchief! I suggest that the creature's name and link be included in the template, so that the headers in the example would read "Cougar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar): (invalid status)", etc.
Also, why did you put an empty table at the end?
The VERTEBRATE variation will, I assume, include the male and female castes; is there some way to tell a creature to delete castes from a variation and make new ones, as we would want to do for naked mole rats?
Though unrelated to these templates, I need to say this: there are some tags, like [MUNDANE], [PET], [PETVALUE], [VERMIN], [PREFSTRING], [CREATURE_TILE], [COLOR], [GOOD]/[EVIL]/etc., and [WAGON_PULLER], that don't have obvious right or wrong answers. Before we start churning out raws, there must be some system in place that can standardize the use of such tags so we are consistent.
I think everything on the list is MUNDANE, and none of them can be considered GOOD or EVIL. Basically all real-world animals in vanilla are considered PET (except for some of the crocodiles, strangely), so I guess we can conclude that Dwarves are capable of taming most anything without assistance.
Some may certainly be [SAVAGE] though.
We should find out if The Toady One intends to keep the [PET] tokens as they are in vanilla. It may not always be the case that dwarves can take bears and alligators and turn them into creatures safe to be around. The future critter genetics might complicate this, especially if individual animals have somewhat distinct personalities.
I think the PREFSTRINGS are something that people can just go ahead and contribute to immediately, although ones that are too "knowing" should be used sparingly.
I wonder if we can put in a temporary-fix to get birds to fly less. Cranes, geese and other waterfowl obviously prefer to hang out in water, and many other birds forage on the ground, or roost on trees.
Semi-unrelated note: Should undead birds really be able to fly? *stir, stir, stir* <---trouble
I think birds (vermin-size ones, at least) do hang out at ground level a lot, so it shouldn't be too bad.Do you mean small birds should not be given FLIERs?
I think birds (vermin-size ones, at least) do hang out at ground level a lot, so it shouldn't be too bad.Do you mean small birds should not be given FLIERs?
I just added a whole bunch of obscure creatures like sponges, worms, and xenoturbellids, when I noticed that Osteichthyes contains all tetrapods. And *gasp*: we have put them on the same level! Should I rearrange the pages to be taxonomically correct, or just leave well enough alone?
You know, it's quite possible they will have a failure in this regard,
since it checks the muscles explictly. Of course, tatters of muscles
might remain to stop the skeletons from falling apart, but I'm not
sure it'll be enough to fly. I haven't checked what happens. It
should be fun to see. Skeletons can walk around, so it seems they are
getting a pass on some of the checks.
Toady's response
Toady's response
Haha, interesting. But yeah, sounds like we shouldn't have to worry about it, in any case.
Oh, BTW, Gorobay -- did you work through all of the phyla in Animalia that didn't already have an entry? I know a lot of them can be discarded entirely for our purposes.
Oh, BTW, Gorobay -- did you work through all of the phyla in Animalia that didn't already have an entry? I know a lot of them can be discarded entirely for our purposes.I'm pretty sure I did; I'll check again though. I have generally been discarding anything less than 1 cm.
Is there any sort of easily-comprehensible grunt work I could do to help out?Fancy looking up some bugs?
Is there any sort of easily-comprehensible grunt work I could do to help out?
I'm completely new to any wiki editing, so if I am doing anything obviously stupid it is likely not to be deliberate so just let me know.
The Ken Loach joke made me laugh, but it had to go.
Will the Ark Project include giant versions of creatures?
So there's a chance we'd see stuff like "Giant anteater titan," or worse, "Giant giant anteater."
It won't? I thought it would use them for giants if we use the right tag...
Sigh. Rainseeker and his Quails.
On a less SILLY note, is "Sandwich" a person-specific name, or has it become part of the english language?
Wow, actually, the normal work seems like I can do it. So I just pick an undone section and fill it in with name/link of important species?
Oh yeah, and "sandwich" seems fine to me too.
So there's a chance we'd see stuff like "Giant anteater titan," or worse, "Giant giant anteater."
MANTEATER
Why not allow names of the form "giant __" (e.g. anteater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Anteater), tortoise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_tortoise), clam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_clam), and deer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Elk)), since they would be unambiguous? Currently, most of these are marked with asterisks.
I guiltily PM'd Toady to ask whether it's an issue
Hey, another Ark Project question, hopefully the last for a while:
There are a lot of Earth creatures with "giant" in their names, e.g. the Giant Anteater. Is this likely to cause problematic names for the titans, like "titanic giant anteater" or "giant giant anteater"? I guess this is really two questions:
1) Do randomized titans draw from the creature raws, or are they likely to in the near future?
2) If so, does it generate a name/description by sticking "giant"/"colossal"/"titanic" on the front?
They don't draw from the creature raws now, and I'm not sure they will later. The hardcoded templates they are using now don't have an analog like raws, but they could end up something like variations. Names are one of the things that need to be handled in parts -- none of the hardcoded templates interact poorly with their random uses (as far as I know). That will change at the time when it needs to change. For now, it won't cause any problems.
It'd be kind of weird to have something like "giant miniature ostrich" or whatnot, though.
Giant animals? They are all done explicitly in the raws. Like giant
rats and stuff, that's about it. Footkerchief sent me a similar
question about titans and name conflicts. The titans use hard-coded
templates, so there won't be interaction problems at this point. We
might have to jiggle the adjectives later on, but it shouldn't be a
big deal.
Tarn
Looks good except for one thing -- use equals signs (=, ==, ===, etc.) for the section headers, not bold text (''' ... '''). This makes them show up in the table of contents, and it'll help our raws generator understand the taxonomic tree.
The Ken Loach joke made me laugh, but it had to go. I also asterisk'd "coolie loach" just in case, although I don't find it too problematic.
I also made a note that family Cyprinidae may need further representation -- I glanced through and saw a few large genera (with common names) that weren't represented, and "minnow" should probably be diversified.
All in all, though, it looks pretty close to ideal, so thanks!
I quite agree; that banner is magnificent. (Incidentally, does the Dwarvish on the scroll mean anything?)
Are those unicorns?
I am not sure if it is appreciated if the families are listed like they are now (with no info in) but I thought I would throw it down whilst I had done the typing.
Also I am not in any way a butterfly geek, if anybody is and wishes to add / omit / alter please feel free, I'm not precious.
I am, I am. I was very sick for a while and I am ready to jump back in.
I thought I'd have a go at some of the butterflies, but alas! Most of the species that I looked at had no common name that I could find.
Do we have a policy on what to do if an animal has no common name? If not, I suggest that we translate the scientific name literally. I'd be glad to offer my services as a Latin translator.
I have a complaint about Sirenidae, actually. Given that this is a fantasy game, when I hear "Siren", I don't think "tiny little slimy worm thing". I think fishgirl with magic voice. We can't call those sirens, even if that is their mundane name.A similar complaint could be brought against the many lizards called "dragon".
I have a complaint about Sirenidae, actually. Given that this is a fantasy game, when I hear "Siren", I don't think "tiny little slimy worm thing". I think fishgirl with magic voice. We can't call those sirens, even if that is their mundane name.Siren Salamander then. And they're bird-ladies, not fish-ladies.
A similar complaint could be brought against the many lizards called "dragon".Hmm. I guess we can go with Ora for Komodo Dragons. Don't know what to do with Bearded Dragons and others.
A similar complaint could be brought against the many lizards called "dragon".Hmm. I guess we can go with Ora for Komodo Dragons. Don't know what to do with Bearded Dragons and others.
Gotcha.
Lepidoptera is done. I realized that in many cases the caterpillar of the species is at least as iconic as the adult, so you'll notice that there are a bunch of larva scattered across the list. They should probably be implemented as their own creatures, completely distinct from the adult forms, since they're so different shape-wise.
With that in mind, I'm considering separating them out to their own section after the main Lepidoptera stuff. That way we could have a single caterpillar template for all of them.
I can't believe pistol shrimp (snapping shrimp) were absent! think of the mayhem!! (added)
"Siren salamander" would be acceptable. However, at least one siren species has the common name "mud eel." Sirens don't seem to differ in many important ways, so maybe we could just lump them all together under the name "mud eel"?
A similar complaint could be brought against the many lizards called "dragon".Hmm. I guess we can go with Ora for Komodo Dragons. Don't know what to do with Bearded Dragons and others.
Also, there has to be a more intuitive and organized way to manage this than Wiki lists.Actually, our wiki lists are intuitive, organized, and (importantly) easy to edit.
I'm still undecided as to whether caterpillars should be included at all. It's a real can of worms (pun not intended but spotted in hindsight with shameful glee) because there are tons of notable larval forms -- maggots, grubs, etc. -- and it's not even confined to invertebrates, what with tadpoles and such.One possibility is to separate them into their own file. In Template:Ark_creature there could be a parameter to specify what file to put the creature in, so we could put larvae in creature_larvae.txt and mammoths in creature_extinct_cenozoic.txt. That way, creatures that are not the main focus of the Ark Project could still be included, but would be easy to take out.
My personal instinct is to leave them out until metamorphosis is properly supported, but if people feel strongly that they should be included despite the drawbacks, I'll try to come up with a relatively sane way of doing so. In the mean time, I request that we not add larval forms to the list as separate creatures.
I'm a little bummed that we won't see giant hairy purple versions of random beetles, but at least that's one less naming problem.
One possibility is to separate them into their own file. In Template:Ark_creature there could be a parameter to specify what file to put the creature in, so we could put larvae in creature_larvae.txt and mammoths in creature_extinct_cenozoic.txt. That way, creatures that are not the main focus of the Ark Project could still be included, but would be easy to take out.
Also, there has to be a more intuitive and organized way to manage this than Wiki lists.Actually, our wiki lists are intuitive, organized, and (importantly) easy to edit.
I'm interested in contributing and I'll try to get people from Something Awful to help too, but every animal I find has already been listed. The list is MASSIVE [...]
I think we should at least start writing prefstrings for each animal soon.
I was really excited by that prospect as well, but we could make our own workaround, since the creatures would be in the raws. We could bundle the Ark raws with a text editing program that will create a new set of raws with new giant semi-megabeast versions of a few creatures added.
I know that this doesn't match the theme of the project (only real-world creatures), but I think it would be reasonable to add as an option since a lot of us thought this was going to be a feature in the next version. What does everyone else think of this?
I was really excited by that prospect as well, but we could make our own workaround, since the creatures would be in the raws. We could bundle the Ark raws with a text editing program that will create a new set of raws with new giant semi-megabeast versions of a few creatures added.
I know that this doesn't match the theme of the project (only real-world creatures), but I think it would be reasonable to add as an option since a lot of us thought this was going to be a feature in the next version. What does everyone else think of this?
That's an awesome idea. I don't think it would be possible to force worldgen to include those as totally unique creatures, so they wouldn't be exactly like the new titans, but they'd be a really good substitute. It definitely deserves its own project, though, since it would come in handy even for people who aren't using the Ark Project.
What I'm proposing is to make a program which randomly selects a few creatures and makes semi-megabeast giant versions of them. The only really difficult part of this will be figuring out how to weight the random choice of creatures so each category of creatures has an equal chance of being chosen, so for instance ants aren't favored just because the Ark Project included 100 different species.
Yeah, there's a reason I only included a few really iconic or interesting caterpillars.One possibility is to separate them into their own file. In Template:Ark_creature there could be a parameter to specify what file to put the creature in, so we could put larvae in creature_larvae.txt and mammoths in creature_extinct_cenozoic.txt. That way, creatures that are not the main focus of the Ark Project could still be included, but would be easy to take out.
That would help, yeah. The main issue is that manually implementing a larval form as a separate creature for each insect, amphibian, etc. would be insane.
The best option I see is to implement them as separate castes, which would allow us to put the larvae in the taxon-level variations. This would make it straightforward to handle cases like inchworms, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometer_moth#Caterpillars) which is a generic term for the caterpillars of a certain family of moths. All we'd have to do is add a variation to the Geometridae section (http://dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/Modification:Ark_Project/Animals/Arthropods/Insects#Geometroidea_.28geometer_moths_and_swallowtail_moths.29) (currently it's Geometridea, it would have to be further split) that customizes the names of the larval castes declared in Insecta or wherever.I could have sworn I saw something about vermin not having castes, so I skipped that idea right off the bat. A second look at the Fluffy Wambler raws tells me that I was mistaken, so yes, making caterpillars a templated caste is probably the best idea.
I'm still not sure what we should do about prefstrings. As many as possible should probably go in taxon-level creature variations ("creature templates"), so that if we want [PREFSTRING:rough skin] for sharks, we can just put that in the shark template instead of adding it to each individual shark. What do other people think about this approach?Sounds good as a default for if we can't think of any specific distinguishing features for a creature; that said, I hope that most of our creatures are interesting enough that we can give each of them a unique prefstring.
I was really excited by that prospect as well, but we could make our own workaround, since the creatures would be in the raws. We could bundle the Ark raws with a text editing program that will create a new set of raws with new giant semi-megabeast versions of a few creatures added.
I know that this doesn't match the theme of the project (only real-world creatures), but I think it would be reasonable to add as an option since a lot of us thought this was going to be a feature in the next version. What does everyone else think of this?
Thank's for the enthusiasm! I'll be starting a new thread (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=49379.0) for suggestions on the process, but I wanted to quick ask a couple questions here to those who presumably know the most about tags and raws:
Firstly, do we have an incomplete list of tags that will be used in the new version? And secondly, do we have any idea of how the Ark's raw .txt files will be organized and differentiated from the vanilla .txt files? I'd like to be able to make the differentiation so I don't end up creating giant HFS or anything else inappropriate.
QuoteI'm still not sure what we should do about prefstrings. As many as possible should probably go in taxon-level creature variations ("creature templates"), so that if we want [PREFSTRING:rough skin] for sharks, we can just put that in the shark template instead of adding it to each individual shark. What do other people think about this approach?Sounds good as a default for if we can't think of any specific distinguishing features for a creature; that said, I hope that most of our creatures are interesting enough that we can give each of them a unique prefstring.
I am of the opinion all the creatures should be contained (let's use the manatee as an example) in a text file like this:
ark_creature_mammalia_aphroteria.txt
Whichever structure we decide on, we are currently organizing creatures in the wiki by taxonomic rank, and I think it would be really useful if we could preserve that information in the raws. At the very least, we could place the ranks of each as comments after each creature's name. This would be really helpful for utilities like the one I'm making, so you can make conditional statments which evaluate whether a creature falls under a specific classification.
I'm doing some "other mammals" which will hopefully for sure end up in the Ark ProjectSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Should I keep you guys updated weekly or just go with the flow and once per some time show you a lot of updates? I'm not sure which animals are finished so I don't have to worry I'm spending my time at something that won't appear in the end
Or something will get up added there but I won't notice cause I already have the sprites for this family etc
Those look awesome. I love all the little details like the bettong's tail. One thing -- transparency in the upcoming version uses the PNG alpha channel, not magenta. I'm sure whatever tool you're using has a "color to transparency" tool, though, so hopefully it's not a problem.
I'm sure that little photoshop adding alpha for png is all right. I'd have to see the ready stuff to be sure how it should look like in the end, but I guess I can keep them coming now with some... more neutral background then ;)
Oh wow, that's really clever. I don't know if prefstring works on a fanciful creature, but a biomeless creature should work just as well... that may be the solution to all our prefstring worries.
Something we haven't talked about that's even more subjective than prefstrings is the SPHERE tag. If we do include SPHERE associations, (http://dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/Sphere) like SPHERE:WATER for fish and so on, we should use the same approach there.
Sorry to double post, but I was wondering how vermin are defined in the next version...there are lots of vermin tags, but it is not clear which one identifies a vermin. There could also be a size cutoff, since vermin will have size. Does anyone know?As far as I know, if a creature has any tag that starts with VERMIN, it's a vermin. I haven't heard about any size cutoff either.
Come to think of it, they do do something now. If the creature gets hit with Zantan's megabeast template, its predefined spheres will determine how it's named and who might worship it.That would be amazing. I decided that in my utility (more than a template at this point), I am going to give creaturess special abilities which build on associations we already have with them (e.g. turtles get armor, colony based insects are smaller non-megabeasts which come in swarms, creatures known for their roars emit a poison gas called 'terrifying roar' which causes fear, etc.). The problem I'm having right now is that I need to identify categories of creatures that are eligible for each variation. That's why I requested that each creature raw include a note on its taxonomic rank, but using and inventing spheres to describe the nature of each creature would open up all kinds of possibilities for my utility and others like it.
Ok a bit questions regarding genetics to footers, toady and everyone else who knows more.
To get all those "just different colors" variations down into the game wouldn't it be sufficient enough to have the different patterns around and then let the game upon WG pop groups down instead of individuals? If in said groups all members have the same colour-pattern we would get our "just different colors"-variations by the genetics pretty easily.
Sorry to double post, but I was wondering how vermin are defined in the next version...there are lots of vermin tags, but it is not clear which one identifies a vermin. There could also be a size cutoff, since vermin will have size. Does anyone know?As far as I know, if a creature has any tag that starts with VERMIN, it's a vermin. I haven't heard about any size cutoff either.
Wait, why would that be part of the Ark Project? I thought having a sphere meant that you represented the concept so well you were worshipped for it...what does that have to do with mundane creatures? Is toady now letting us define in the raws what is governed by each sphere?
I may be wrong, but I don't believe there are any non-[POWER] creatures in vanilla that have the [SPHERE] token. As far as I can tell, [SPHERE] only deals with worship, name generation, and some HFS-related stuffSpoiler (click to show/hide)
It's weird that mundane creatures don't have spheres, because we've all seen gods that are depicted as a bat or a mussel or something. If I had to guess, I'd say the choices of animal are based on biome (water creatures automatically get [SPHERE:WATER]) or certain other tags ([FLIER]s automatically get [SPHERE:AIR]). If that's the case, we won't need to supply any of the obvious tags; the game will do it for us.
That said, I see no reason why we shouldn't add the unobvious tags. If we want to relate, say, butterflies with beauty or mongeese with trickery, we should definitely mark those down. Even if the tags don't do anything now, they might in the future. Better to be prepared.
EDIT: Come to think of it, they do do something now. If the creature gets hit with Zantan's megabeast template, its predefined spheres will determine how it's named and who might worship it.
As subjective as sphere tags might be, I think there are some that we could add safely. SPHERE:HUNTING on the Carnivora template and SPHERE:FISH on the fish, to name two. Anything immediately suggested by a prefstring--dogs and SPHERE:LOYALTY, for instance--would also be reasonable. Of course we should err on the side of caution, but that shouldn't stop us from adding more useful data to our creatures.
Do we have Precident? Are there natural animals with sphere tags in the game as it is?
We can also make the inclusion of sphere tags in the raws optional. We could comment it out in the raws (without brackets; I'm not sure how to comment out items in brackets in the raws), or we could have them in a separate file. At some point, I'm sure all the Ark creatures will go into a database, and that database could be used to create raws with and without sphere tags.
Generated World appropriate Name Tags
I've been looking at the issue presented with not using 'real world' references, such as 'Northern' or 'Komodo' or the like. I'm wondering what the possibility is with the upcoming expansion that we could have species that reference the world gen file and dig up things like "The Smooth Spires of Pride" and generate the "Pride Cardinal", or the "Swamps of Regret" and create the "Crocodiles of Regret". Neither are spectacular examples, but I think you get the idea. These would allow us to have the critters named in a way that references the world in which they exist. Additionally names would be referenced by Biome, so the names would only be applied to those from the appropriate Biome. Part of the basis of this idea is the sheer amount of information generated during the world gen process.
Where would that be being done Lacensis?
gulper eels. Wasn't exactly lengthy
I've been working on a couple of top-level creature templates to make sure that whole approach actually works. If they work well, then I'll post them so that people can start implementing creatures. It'll be a couple more days at least, though, and unfortunately I still won't have much time for Ark stuff until after this release.Now that it's released, how are those top-level creature templates coming along?
Now that it's released, how are those top-level creature templates coming along?
@Fieari re: Komodo Dragons
Might I suggest "Ora Lizard" or "Ora Dragon" for the Komodo dragon? Kinda combining the best of both worlds, and the first one conveniently leaves out Dragon as well.
Vermin and Grubs/Maggots/etc
One possible justification has occurred to me regarding including things like larval stages. Can vermin eat your food? If so, can we alter them to eat other stuff? If so then having maggots in your food supply, moth larvae in your silk bins, and termites in your lumber pile could all be reasons to include these kinds of critters. (I realize Termites step away from the grub concept, but I had to include them conceptually)
"Footkerchief: I think we should at least start writing prefstrings for each animal soon.
(Unsure who this was, failed to note it)I'm still not sure what we should do about prefstrings. As many as possible should probably go in taxon-level creature variations ("creature templates"), so that if we want [PREFSTRING:rough skin] for sharks, we can just put that in the shark template instead of adding it to each individual shark. What do other people think about this approach?"
Well, there's an argument to be made for liking a particular beetle for it's 'color of shell', kinda like enjoying a particular parrot for it's 'color of plumage'. I just wish there was a way to tie a dwarf's preference in color to their selection of favorite animal. (Like's Blue Macaws for their blue plumage. He likes Blue, Dwarven Ale, and Purring Maggot meat when he can get it.)
This doesn't mean the project is doomed, as there are probably many optimizations (both in speed and mem usage) that Toady can make at some point.Do you know what he can do specifically, or is that merely a reasonable assumption?
I've been doing some experimenting. Turns out the game doesn't cope well, currently, with 3000 types each of dummy creatures and vermin. It's pretty much impossible to load on my machine due to crappy memory (1 GB), although on my friend's much better machine (4 GB) it runs fine after a few minutes of loading (although it takes up 1 GB of memory all by itself).
If abstract creatures consist only of prefstrings, should they have the [DOES_NOT_EXIST] tag, or will the game figure it out?I'm not sure precisely what the tag does. If it just removes them from stockpile menus and stops people liking their skin/bone I guess so. Does it have any wierd side effects?
I've been doing some experimenting. Turns out the game doesn't cope well, currently, with 3000 types each of dummy creatures and vermin.
This doesn't mean the project is doomed, as there are probably many optimizations (both in speed and mem usage) that Toady can make at some point.
Do you know what he can do specifically, or is that merely a reasonable assumption?
I've been doing some experimenting. Turns out the game doesn't cope well, currently, with 3000 types each of dummy creatures and vermin. It's pretty much impossible to load on my machine due to crappy memory (1 GB), although on my friend's much better machine (4 GB) it runs fine after a few minutes of loading (although it takes up 1 GB of memory all by itself).
Does it slow down in-game stuff or is it mainly Worldgen/loading type things? If it bogs down creature creation in arena, we could use the arena_restricted tag judiciously.
If abstract creatures consist only of prefstrings, should they have the [DOES_NOT_EXIST] tag, or will the game figure it out?
I'm not sure precisely what the tag does. If it just removes them from stockpile menus and stops people liking their skin/bone I guess so. Does it have any wierd side effects?
Turns out the game doesn't cope well, currently, with 3000 types each of dummy creatures and vermin.
Turns out the game doesn't cope well, currently, with 3000 types each of dummy creatures and vermin.
We could write a program that takes the massive ark raws and produces a 10% sample of its creatures. The hierarchical setup would allow the program to make sure the inclusions are spread out relatively evenly among different types of creatures.
This may even make it more realistic, because you wouldn't have a world's worth of biodiversity packed into every biome. Also, each playthrough will be more distinct, since each would have a unique combination of creatures.
Dunno. Barring weird side effects, though, it'd be perfect for our needs. The wiki parser script could probably add that automatically... no point in manually adding it to every single Abstract Creature.Actually, do we even need abstract creatures? Couldn't we write, for each creature, lines like [APPLY_CREATURE_VARIATION:FISH_PREFSTRING], where that variation would consist only of [CV_NEW_TAG:PREFSTRING:shiny scales]? If this works I think it would be better, because then someone could "like pirahnas for their shiny scales" instead of just "fish".
Turns out the game doesn't cope well, currently, with 3000 types each of dummy creatures and vermin.
We could write a program that takes the massive ark raws and produces a 10% sample of its creatures. The hierarchical setup would allow the program to make sure the inclusions are spread out relatively evenly among different types of creatures.
This may even make it more realistic, because you wouldn't have a world's worth of biodiversity packed into every biome. Also, each playthrough will be more distinct, since each would have a unique combination of creatures.
Oh! That's not a bad idea at all. Certainly a nice interim measure.
As I recall, the purpose of having abstract creatures was so that dwarves could like fish in general, rather than specific types of fish, to make preferences more interesting. As far as whether we need them, we don't, but necessity is not the driving force behind the Ark Project, or the majority of dwarfy endeavors for that matter.
Firstly, XML will not be necessary here, since we can include any necessary metadata in comment lines.We could write a program that takes the massive ark raws and produces a 10% sample of its creatures. The hierarchical setup would allow the program to make sure the inclusions are spread out relatively evenly among different types of creatures.That could also be a solution to the weirdness we discussed a while back, where you'll get Australian and North American fauna in the same biome. We could include some basic geographical metadata in our raws (XML?) as hints for the program that selects the subset.
We could add our own redundancy groups to the raws in comment lines. If we added a line containing '*normal_frogs' to the raws of the redundant frogs, a program could easily identify them, group them, and randomly choose which to include in the final raws without a geographical identifier.It sounds like a very reasonable and useful solution. A similar system could be used for the dialect problem discussed before:
How does that sound?
[PREFSTRING:coloration] *en-US
[PREFSTRING:colouration] *en-UK
The compiler would include only one of the two lines.
Yes, I would encourage you to buy this fine repellent for 5,000 credits. It's guaranteed to keep them away at every tourist location!Pfft. I could get like, five Magikarp for that.
Yes, I would encourage you to buy this fine repellent for 5,000 credits. It's guaranteed to keep them away at every tourist location!Pfft. I could get like, five Magikarp for that.
Yes, I would encourage you to buy this fine repellent for 5,000 credits. It's guaranteed to keep them away at every tourist location!Pfft. I could get like, five Magikarp for that.
Oh.. uh... I thought it was an Escape Velocity reference! ???
Hey, I don't have to justify how my mind works. Apparantly I judge the value of money by how much pokémon it will get me. Just roll with it.
Firstly, XML will not be necessary here, since we can include any necessary metadata in comment lines.
Also, geographical metadata would not be enough, even combined with the taxonomic classifications. For example, we may decide that five frogs in a family are redundant with each other, but the sixth should always be included because of its distinct poison. We would need a system that would allow a program to identify the five frogs and select two of them for inclusion, and always include the sixth. Even worse, there will be cases where a group of redundant creatures include some family level entries and some genus level entries.
We could add our own redundancy groups to the raws in comment lines. If we added a line containing '*normal_frogs' to the raws of the redundant frogs, a program could easily identify them, group them, and randomly choose which to include in the final raws without a geographical identifier.
How does that sound?
A similar system could be used for the dialect problem discussed before:Code: [Select][PREFSTRING:coloration] *en-USThe compiler would include only one of the two lines.
[PREFSTRING:colouration] *en-UK
Has anyone suggested a 4 armed humanoid ala Sinbad yet? Might be fun to fight it or play as one. Dunno if holding 4 swords will make for more attacks or not though.
Has anyone suggested a 4 armed humanoid ala Sinbad yet? Might be fun to fight it or play as one. Dunno if holding 4 swords will make for more attacks or not though.
This mod is for real life animals only, so no, we won't be including that...
Has anyone suggested a 4 armed humanoid ala Sinbad yet? Might be fun to fight it or play as one. Dunno if holding 4 swords will make for more attacks or not though.
This mod is for real life animals only, so no, we won't be including that...
Sorry, that's what I get for 'speed skimming' the front page.
As for the game not handling 3000+ creatures. I think there is something when it comes for Toady modding the game to make it more compatable with many creatures, civilisations, and civ creatures.
Though I don't expect that to be in any Dev or for Toady to get to it for a long time if ever.
So why aren't you guys making raws yet? The new version's out.
Wow, good idea about a skunk. Borrowing :).
Wow, good idea about a skunk. Borrowing :).Spoiler (click to show/hide)
That seems to work pretty well for me. I suppose if it was a vapor spray/contact poison it would stick to the guy and he would keep vomiting until he had a bath, but I can't get contact poisons to work right. This was easier.
DF consumed a maximum of 1399.980 MB of the 4GB RAM this value was after striking the earth. Frames were 70-80 (normal). From starting DF to setting the first stockpile passed about 15 minutes. Jeah.. enything else you want to know?
Hey guys,
I tryed to code some examples of my beloved spiders (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Modification:Ark_Project/Animals/Arthropods/Raws). It's very far from beeing finished, but i'ts a start. Have I done it corectly? Please someone review the lines i wrote so far.
I noticed this brings very many questions and new tasks with it. We quite likely have to create new body default raws - where do we place them? Different kinds of webs - leads to: make the silk from the webs usable? They have different colors, they could have different material values and so on...
Greetings
2. The "Ark Body" template is actually for defining new body parts like in body_default. The BODY tag (and the BODY_DETAIL_PLAN tag) used inside a creature definition still belongs in the creature raws (or more commonly, in its creature variation).
3. I changed the BLOOD material to ICHOR, in keeping with the vanilla arthropods.
4. You don't need to start our creature variations with CREATURE_VARIATION, and similarly the creatures don't have to start with a CREATURE tag. That's boilerplate that can easily be filled in by the script.
5. I was thinking about putting an explicit SELECT_CASTE:ALL at the end, but I think it's essentially boilerplate too, so yeah, we can leave it out. I've made a note about this on the new script planning page, (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Modification:Ark_Project/Script_planning) which is a list of stuff that the script needs to do.
Actually insects have transparent blood called hemolymph. Spiders included. The arthropods with blue blood are the crustaceans.
I'm pretty sure that it would be almost impossible to mod the RAWS so much that it would crash the game due to RAM overload. I modded DIG DEEPER in the last version to have over 500+ changes and it was still going strong, nobody had problems.Yeah I don't think that it's an issue too. Probably there's some error in the raws which is not showed in errorlog but causes crashes. DF can be crashed by anything, i.e. by a creature with a wrong bodypart connectivity or something else, like a plant with leaves set up wrong.
- make spiders milkable for anti-venom?
- make specific webs?
- how long does a "TIMEUNIT" take ingame? - I met the value with the syndroms
[NATURAL]
[MUNDANE]
[CREATURE_CLASS:GENERAL_POISON]
I can't think of anything unless we want to give them all [BENIGN]Code: [Select][NATURAL]
[MUNDANE]
[CREATURE_CLASS:GENERAL_POISON]
Anything else that needs to go in there?
If anyone has feedback on the body/tissue ideas I was throwing around earlier, I'd love to hear it.
I'm not so hot on the first idea, but the second and third seem reasonable to me. I think I'd sooner go with the second option, because the third would require using tags to remove body parts/tissues, which I can imagine getting confusing fast (to me at any rate). This is just personal prejudice, mind.
- Bony fish (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Modification:Ark_Project/Animals/Bony_fish)
- Insects (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Modification:Ark_Project/Animals/Arthropods/Insects)
- Birds (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Modification:Ark_Project/Animals/Birds)
- Snakes (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Modification:Ark_Project/Animals/Reptiles)