Post by: Toady One on May 11, 2011, 12:51:46 am
Development page (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html)
The purpose of the thread is to discuss current developments. 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). Questions and comments about the 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, although it is difficult to respond to everything when it is busy. I'll lean toward questions that involve current developments to avoid pulling the entire suggestion forum in here. 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: Toady One on May 11, 2011, 12:52:46 am
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2261541#msg2261541
Post by: Neonivek on May 11, 2011, 01:05:52 am
Post by: Deon on May 11, 2011, 01:08:55 am
Quote from: Toady One
Wow, the catsplosion gains another danger level. Now imagine a fortress full of zombie cats, zombie cat ears and zombie cat tails... Madness :). I guess we will have to design much more "undead vermin cleaning" rooms. And it sounds Fun!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.
Post by: PTTG?? on May 11, 2011, 01:23:45 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 11, 2011, 01:37:19 am
Post by: Mephansteras on May 11, 2011, 01:46:02 am
Beyond the stuff I've been slacking on, of course.
Post by: Urist McDepravity on May 11, 2011, 02:47:41 am
Quote
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.Would it be possible for these limbs to assemble into single frankenstein/abomination-like creature?
Post by: Uristocrat on May 11, 2011, 03:06:18 am
What sort of research would help you the most? And how should the research be presented: tables summarizing the findings, links to sources where you can get the data yourself, or both? Are modified and annotated RAWs ever useful, or is it better to focus on creating forum posts with the necessary information?
Post by: Dante on May 11, 2011, 03:07:04 am
Post by: Glanzor on May 11, 2011, 05:27:35 am
I mean, goblins and elves have little reason to search for immortality obviously, but what about dwarven necromancers?
Post by: Bronzebeard on May 11, 2011, 05:55:03 am
Post by: MasterMorality on May 11, 2011, 06:15:06 am
Post by: Sunday on May 11, 2011, 07:13:28 am
I know this must've been brought up before, and doesn't exactly pertain to the recent additions, but I've never read anything about it from Toady: the game is single core handling. One of the most detailed and intensive games around is handled on ONE core, instead of having HT support. That's like trying to run one of the biggest Hummers on an old Model T engine. Why? And are there plans to provide HT support? It's probably a very laborious thing to do, but it would (wouldn't it?) entail huge gains in performance and the capacity of game content.
One of Toady's answers (from a long time ago) can be seen here: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=2888.msg47857#msg47857. I think he's mostly avoided answering that question, though, because it's such a hot-button issue.
But basically, I think that that discussion should probably be kept out of FOTF, which is more about future features. So many threads get derailed as soon as someone brings up multithreading. And frankly, I doubt most people want to wade through yet another bunch of people getting angry and rehashing the same old arguments that get brought up every time the subject comes up.
Post by: antymattar on May 11, 2011, 07:24:44 am
Post by: Rose on May 11, 2011, 07:26:22 am
Post by: tfaal on May 11, 2011, 08:41:27 am
Post by: scriver on May 11, 2011, 09:48:38 am
Post by: Cruxador on May 11, 2011, 09:56:55 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on May 11, 2011, 10:14:13 am
A question, though;
Have you settled on what these 'secrets' will allow? Would you pretty please be able to post a list (so, immortality, raising and binding undead, rapid healing, etc)?
Cheers oh mighty Toad!
Post by: Aklyon on May 11, 2011, 11:48:05 am
Toady, will necromancy be possible in the Arena?
That seems like it could lead to some interesting battles.
Post by: jimi12 on May 11, 2011, 12:38:07 pm
Post by: tfaal on May 11, 2011, 12:52:48 pm
You know I don't think we're really on the topic of "Better town maps involving workshops/markets/shops based on world gen economic activities" any more.Well, once we had the cities we needed stuff to fight in the cities, and that means new night creatures to Toady. And new night creatures needed a new curse framework which led to interactions and yeah, it's a bit of a feature creep. I highly doubt that you or anyone else is sincerely complaining though, since it's also awesome.
Post by: Asmageddon on May 11, 2011, 12:55:03 pm
Post by: Megaman3321 on May 11, 2011, 12:57:27 pm
Oh, and another question: Will it be possible to get quests of revenge from your old dead adventurers for in exchange for the dead adventurer's equipment?
Post by: monk12 on May 11, 2011, 02:38:49 pm
Oh wow, the opportunities. Tags like water-breathing... wide-area curses... The first thing to do, obviously, is mod the various weather and water spheres to bestow a curse that gives everyone gills.
Can we make subtle region curses? I'd like to see little hamlets full of backwards, mutated townsfolk.
Getting a little Innsmouth in here.
Post by: tfaal on May 11, 2011, 03:31:20 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tTHn2tHhcIOh wow, the opportunities. Tags like water-breathing... wide-area curses... The first thing to do, obviously, is mod the various weather and water spheres to bestow a curse that gives everyone gills.Can we make subtle region curses? I'd like to see little hamlets full of backwards, mutated townsfolk.
Getting a little Innsmouth in here.
Post by: Areyar on May 11, 2011, 04:57:11 pm
My first thought was "Little Brittain".http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tTHn2tHhcIOh wow, the opportunities. Tags like water-breathing... wide-area curses... The first thing to do, obviously, is mod the various weather and water spheres to bestow a curse that gives everyone gills.Can we make subtle region curses? I'd like to see little hamlets full of backwards, mutated townsfolk.
Getting a little Innsmouth in here.
Anyhow, knowing a Secret could turn having a Curse into a Power.
n.b. Like being infected with undead curse X makes you a mindless zombie on death, however knowing the secret of how to preserve one's soul in a container allows one to preserve the mind. (like Ad&d Ghouls) Collecting knowledge of preserving meat, binding woulds or tachidermy could allow becoming a mummy.
Post by: tps12 on May 11, 2011, 06:38:58 pm
So many threads get derailed as soon as someone brings up multithreading.
When will the forums support multithreading?
Post by: Cruxador on May 11, 2011, 06:44:29 pm
It is awesome, but I'd still rather we didn't get into long releases, and Toady has that he doesn't want to either. And this release is heading towards being long.You know I don't think we're really on the topic of "Better town maps involving workshops/markets/shops based on world gen economic activities" any more.Well, once we had the cities we needed stuff to fight in the cities, and that means new night creatures to Toady. And new night creatures needed a new curse framework which led to interactions and yeah, it's a bit of a feature creep. I highly doubt that you or anyone else is sincerely complaining though, since it's also awesome.
Anyhow, knowing a Secret could turn having a Curse into a Power.I don't think it's going to have any level dynamic stuff like that in the near future. Maybe when we get to Magic arc.
n.b. Like being infected with undead curse X makes you a mindless zombie on death, however knowing the secret of how to preserve one's soul in a container allows one to preserve the mind. (like Ad&d Ghouls) Collecting knowledge of preserving meat, binding woulds or tachidermy could allow becoming a mummy.
This caused me to laugh until I coughed. Congratulations, good sir.So many threads get derailed as soon as someone brings up multithreading.
When will the forums support multithreading?
Post by: Neonivek on May 11, 2011, 06:45:34 pm
I was the one who did do that really REALLY oversized "artifact effects redux" thread.
Does anyone think it is a good idea?
Post by: greenskye on May 11, 2011, 07:43:07 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on May 11, 2011, 08:59:25 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 11, 2011, 10:33:15 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 11, 2011, 11:18:00 pm
@Threetoe: The dead rise around Halloween (according to myth) so your a little bit early.
Post by: Untelligent on May 12, 2011, 12:56:37 am
Post by: Areyar on May 12, 2011, 01:00:58 am
@No interactions of magical interaction yet:
well... depends on whether it will be possible to have multiple interactions/curses at the same time, if the mechanism is to switch the creature raws from one to another pregenerated one, as opposed to altering the creature's data, it may be problematic to implement such complexity untill more seperate yet similar methods are around.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 12, 2011, 01:37:27 am
Quote from: Toady one - last WoT
Quote from: HephA 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).
Post by: Neonivek on May 12, 2011, 02:03:46 am
Post by: Dae on May 12, 2011, 03:20:47 am
Post by: Moddan on May 12, 2011, 03:35:53 am
Man, this stuff sounds really cool :P
A question, though;
Have you settled on what these 'secrets' will allow? Would you pretty please be able to post a list (so, immortality, raising and binding undead, rapid healing, etc)?
Cheers oh mighty Toad!
Maybe they want to keep them secret.
Post by: Arkose on May 12, 2011, 03:49:42 am
Post by: thvaz on May 12, 2011, 04:27:03 am
I think this is important for the sake of consistency.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 12, 2011, 04:50:24 am
edit: What i want to say is that the immortality of The elves and Goblins is in theyr nature and most wouldnt question it. Sure some may know the secret behind it but for i guess there wouldnt be much importance behind it from the elves or Goblins pov.
Post by: thvaz on May 12, 2011, 05:08:18 am
Does a chameleon know the secrets of its color-change and can it teach them to you?
edit: What i want to say is that the immortality of The elves and Goblins is in theyr nature and most wouldnt question it. Sure some may know the secret behind it but for i guess there wouldnt be much importance behind it from the elves or Goblins pov.
Sorry, but the question is not for you, and unless like Footkerchief you can provide a quote from Toady answering this, the question remains.
I would like to know if it is their nature or if not, if the immortality is provided by a secret.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on May 12, 2011, 05:31:39 am
Post by: magmaholic on May 12, 2011, 05:42:47 am
Quote
The dead arise tonight!
WILL THEY???
Post by: Dae on May 12, 2011, 06:52:25 am
QuoteThe dead arise tonight!
WILL THEY???
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Gatleos on May 12, 2011, 07:05:21 am
Now I'm really hoping that necromancers will eventually be able to raise the dead with dance moves.QuoteThe dead arise tonight!
WILL THEY???Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on May 12, 2011, 07:34:26 am
Post by: Areyar on May 12, 2011, 07:41:53 am
That movie is pretty much what I imagine with evil biome.
Only now when writing this did the Adams family's "Thing" come to mind.
Actually, my first thought was; 'So that's why the grass is wriggling'. :p
Post by: jellsprout on May 12, 2011, 08:35:26 am
curse_zombieNow I'm really hoping that necromancers will eventually be able to raise the dead with dance moves.QuoteThe dead arise tonight!
WILL THEY???Spoiler (click to show/hide)
[MOONWALKS]
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 12, 2011, 09:32:14 am
In the last response, you only answered the first half of my question, however, so I'd like to ask the second part again:
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: NW_KohakuWith 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.
Will we, either as adventurers or as fortress managers have the ability to divine these weaknesses if it is impossible to kill night creatures without exploiting those weaknesses?
In the case of an adventurer, will we be capable of receiving training as a religious figure or whathaveyou that lets you acquire this sort of weakness-revealing information on your own, and become a "Adventurer Role: Slayer of Nightcreatures" in the sense of being a traveling exorcist? Or must you go out and find those religious figures and ask them on the weakness for every night creature you run across?
In the case of a fortress, we can't go out and search for religious figures to perform a divination for us. Will we have fortress temples where we can interact with the priest, and get them to tell us how to kill a nightcreature that can only be killed by exploiting some weakness? How will we even manage to control whether dwarves can exploit a weakness, for that matter? Will there be a "coat your swords in syrup" function going in any time soon? Or will Fortress Mode nightcreature weaknesses just be pushed off?
Post by: zwei on May 12, 2011, 09:42:20 am
I, for example, would like to make "The Castle" series mod where ruler grants imortality to best-of-best (swordmaster, armorer ..., but also cook, doctor ...).
Post by: Quatch on May 12, 2011, 11:39:35 am
Will we be able to mod secrets to be known/used by appointed noble?
I, for example, would like to make "The Castle" series mod where ruler grants imortality to best-of-best (swordmaster, armorer ..., but also cook, doctor ...).
Or ninjas with the secret of flying after they reach legendary swordsmaster (or grower, for historicallity).
Post by: Jiharo on May 12, 2011, 11:41:01 am
Post by: Asmageddon on May 12, 2011, 11:55:14 am
Sorry, if it is too early to ask such questions but will Legends mode at some point include additional economics information about towns such as main exports and imports or average production of various goods?Considering that that's how the economy will now work, I'll say the question isn't "will it?" but rather "when?" and "will toady remember to do it in this release?"
Post by: PTTG?? on May 12, 2011, 12:13:56 pm
curse_zombie
[WALKS:MOON]
There are also:
[WALKS:SILLY]
[WALKS:DOG_THE]
[WALKS:WALK_THE]
Post by: monk12 on May 12, 2011, 12:36:40 pm
Now I'm really hoping that necromancers will eventually be able to raise the dead with dance moves.QuoteThe dead arise tonight!
WILL THEY???Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Another exciting use for the musicality skill!
Post by: Asmageddon on May 12, 2011, 01:09:34 pm
[WALKS:DINOSAUR]
?
Post by: Dae on May 12, 2011, 01:22:14 pm
and
[WALKS:MC_HAMMER]
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 12, 2011, 03:28:56 pm
Thvaz: Sorry i was a weee bit philosophical and tired, i didnt want to troll you.
What i fear is butchering in Evil regions. Skeletons coming alive in your refuse pile and paws scrathing the butcher to death. What would be cool would be a undead Skin or Pelt that chokes you to death.
Post by: Skid on May 12, 2011, 04:56:35 pm
Post by: darkflagrance on May 12, 2011, 05:00:50 pm
Post by: Dante on May 12, 2011, 05:32:34 pm
What i fear is butchering in Evil regions. Skeletons coming alive in your refuse pile and paws scrathing the butcher to death. What would be cool would be a undead Skin or Pelt that chokes you to death.Good point, I hadn't considered this.
If it's not just severed limbs, and each body part has a chance of raising, then this could be a problem when forgotten beasts get butchered. When you have a stack of 80 great scaly lizard bones, I suppose there's a decent chance at least one of them is going to rise from the dead at any given time.
Post by: Neonivek on May 12, 2011, 06:38:29 pm
I am just sad I don't have as many bones from rotting corpses lately.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 12, 2011, 07:13:40 pm
What i fear is butchering in Evil regions. Skeletons coming alive in your refuse pile and paws scrathing the butcher to death. What would be cool would be a undead Skin or Pelt that chokes you to death.Good point, I hadn't considered this.
If it's not just severed limbs, and each body part has a chance of raising, then this could be a problem when forgotten beasts get butchered. When you have a stack of 80 great scaly lizard bones, I suppose there's a decent chance at least one of them is going to rise from the dead at any given time.
... I wonder if having an evil biome on the map will raise dead anywhere in the fortress if your fortress straddles an evil and a non-evil biome?
Theoretically, if zombies are raised by the power of an evil biome, then taking the corpse out of the evil biome should "kill its power supply". Even if it doesn't kill the zombie outright, taking body parts outside of the biome should stop them from being raised again.
Post by: Lac on May 12, 2011, 07:16:45 pm
Not sure I like the idea of bits of corpses rising up and living some sort of 'existence'. It just reminds me of the 'disembodied hand' that operates as a butler in the Adam's family. Just comical and pitiable. But then I never liked the idea of living statues or bronze colossi, so perhaps I'm just unimaginative. Can someone recommend the right kind of movie/book to get the right perspective on this?
Post by: Dante on May 12, 2011, 08:13:29 pm
... I wonder if having an evil biome on the map will raise dead anywhere in the fortress if your fortress straddles an evil and a non-evil biome?
Theoretically, if zombies are raised by the power of an evil biome, then taking the corpse out of the evil biome should "kill its power supply". Even if it doesn't kill the zombie outright, taking body parts outside of the biome should stop them from being raised again.
Going by what I've experienced,
Evidence for: trees growing on a good/evil map will only grow up dead on the actual evil biome side.
Evidence against: a good mountain / evil swamp area can still get undead mountain goats.
The code may be completely discrete from the way the existing good/evil stuff is managed, of course.
Post by: Sunday on May 12, 2011, 09:19:03 pm
Anyone else super excited about zombie sieges in fort mode?
Another road to Fun!
Post by: Urist McDepravity on May 12, 2011, 11:17:11 pm
If it's not just severed limbs, and each body part has a chance of raising, then this could be a problem when forgotten beasts get butchered. When you have a stack of 80 great scaly lizard bones, I suppose there's a decent chance at least one of them is going to rise from the dead at any given time.Personally I'd be worried much more about my stockpiles of -bone bolt-s and bone crossbows. Animated crossbow and bolts sounds like lots of Fun.
Post by: irdsm on May 12, 2011, 11:40:27 pm
Sooooo. . . . .The modding possibilities for syndrome based transformations excite me more, but it does sound pretty damn awesome.
Anyone else super excited about zombie sieges in fort mode?
Another road to Fun!
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on May 12, 2011, 11:46:46 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 13, 2011, 12:14:43 am
Personally I'd be worried much more about my stockpiles of -bone bolt-s and bone crossbows. Animated crossbow and bolts sounds like lots of Fun.
I doubt this will be the case.
Part of the reason goblins don't decay into bones is because the body is being kept for skeleton/zombification purposes. This implies that the object of a creature is what becomes the skeleton or zombie. A broken-off piece of a creature is still marked as "SpecificCreature's Left Arm" and that arm can become a creature.
When you actually butcher a creature, and turn it into a "creaturename bone crossbow bolt", then you are only using a material that came from a type of creature, but it doesn't record it as actually being the remains of a specific creature anymore.
Dwarf Fortress tends to have two totally separate categories of data: the item, or its shape or purpose as one set of data, and then its material data, which is separate. These zombies seem like they are built out of the item of a corpse, but the individual materials that make up the body (if removed from that body through butchering, and then transformed into completely new items,) are not a part of that.
Post by: Untelligent on May 13, 2011, 12:20:07 am
Post by: Psieye on May 13, 2011, 01:19:21 am
I usually block all stockpiles and workshops off with doors. So I'd be rather unaffected by a sudden refuse pile undead assault.Undead are building destroyers aren't they?
I am just sad I don't have as many bones from rotting corpses lately.
Right, but I don't see why Toady couldn't add a few bits to track a few extra things here and there.Extra coding time, extra memory consumption. It's up to Toady to judge whether that kind of sadistic phenomenon is worth delaying the release and potentially introducing headache bugs. He's already trying to control how much he's shoving into this release.
Post by: PTTG?? on May 13, 2011, 01:46:06 am
Post by: zwei on May 13, 2011, 01:49:14 am
All your goblin bone bolts, suddenly rising up in vengeance...
I wonder ... is it smart amunition or dumb amunition?
Post by: vogonpoet on May 13, 2011, 02:14:18 am
It feels like every new version gets darker and darker - call me an elf if you want, but I hope 'light' 'magic' gets some love at some point. Maybe not Rainbow Bright / Carebear levels of love, but maybe random charms for armies combating the evil forces of darkness in good biomes or something...
Having said that, necromancy = awesome :)
/[WALKS:WITHOUT_RHYTHM]
//sorry Heph, can't believe no one pointed this one out already.
Post by: Areyar on May 13, 2011, 02:19:15 am
At frst: probably.What i fear is butchering in Evil regions. Skeletons coming alive in your refuse pile and paws scrathing the butcher to death. What would be cool would be a undead Skin or Pelt that chokes you to death.Good point, I hadn't considered this.
If it's not just severed limbs, and each body part has a chance of raising, then this could be a problem when forgotten beasts get butchered. When you have a stack of 80 great scaly lizard bones, I suppose there's a decent chance at least one of them is going to rise from the dead at any given time.
... I wonder if having an evil biome on the map will raise dead anywhere in the fortress if your fortress straddles an evil and a non-evil biome?
Theoretically, if zombies are raised by the power of an evil biome, then taking the corpse out of the evil biome should "kill its power supply". Even if it doesn't kill the zombie outright, taking body parts outside of the biome should stop them from being raised again.
Later on, evil influence might even be like a contaminant that spreads like blood does, that priests will have to clean to prevent it affecting you where it is not wanted. or maybe placing special holy totems or whatever at strategic points to hold back evil. Maybe raising of dead will need a nightcreature capable of that nearby. Anything is possible in due time. :)
Toady, your recent dev-note had me confused a bit, You wrote that necromancers were building small towers and sending their smelly buddies to fortresses.
Are necromancers going to send their armies to all nearby sites?
(to harvest bodies)
or only to fortresses? If so, what is their common motivation to focus on dwarves so?
Also, will these small towers grow larger as the number of minions grows?
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 13, 2011, 03:56:06 am
If the player in adventure mode/armies in the future dwarf mode slaughter a village, will a necromancer be able to harvest their bodies / create an undead city while in-play? or will the necromancer rise be restricted in a short worldgen that happens between one adventure/fortress and the next one?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 13, 2011, 04:10:50 am
If toady goes with that and applys some of his castle code as well we could get a nice Little "Necropolis". Such a place would be perfect for a adventurer if he could take it over.
Post by: jellsprout on May 13, 2011, 06:08:57 am
-Somewhat realistic towns and cities
-Sewers, dungeons and catacombs
-Curses
-Necromancers with sieging undead armies and a complete undead rewrite
Why is it that every release somehow manages to appear far better than the previous release?
Post by: Taeraresh on May 13, 2011, 07:20:11 am
[WALKS:MOON]
and
[WALKS:MC_HAMMER]
And [WALKS:LIKE_AN_EGYPTIAN], though that'll probably have to wait for mummies to be implemented.
Post by: magmaholic on May 13, 2011, 07:51:14 am
(http://www.mrichildrensmusic.com/images/pharaoh_egyptian_dancing_walking_sm_clr.gif)[WALKS:MOON]
and
[WALKS:MC_HAMMER]
And [WALKS:LIKE_AN_EGYPTIAN], though that'll probably have to wait for mummies to be implemented.
Post by: FaultyLogic on May 13, 2011, 08:13:05 am
It feels like every new version gets darker and darker - call me an elf if you want, but I hope 'light' 'magic' gets some love at some point. Maybe not Rainbow Bright / Carebear levels of love, but maybe random charms for armies combating the evil forces of darkness in good biomes or something...
I hope so, the groundworks should already be in with the secrets and syndromes. Couldn't blessings just be polarized curses? And since the dwarves already are devoted to different dieties, I hope these will be fleshed out as well, to become more active in the shaping of a world. Unless they only exist in the minds of dwarves, that is.
Post by: freeformschooler on May 13, 2011, 08:53:48 am
I wonder how dynamic this system will be.
If the player in adventure mode/armies in the future dwarf mode slaughter a village, will a necromancer be able to harvest their bodies / create an undead city while in-play? or will the necromancer rise be restricted in a short worldgen that happens between one adventure/fortress and the next one?
If this happens I'm guessing "release 5".
Post by: Areyar on May 13, 2011, 09:07:14 am
-Being a low probability to begin with. (yet, corpses are patient customers)
-drastically reducing such chance of raising when in areas with light.
-requiring nearby necromancer(et.al.) in non-evil biomes.
-requiring an unbutchered corpse/bodypart to begin with.
-dunno. . .a bug that lives only in evil biomes having access to the corpse/bodypart, that way (many) animal traps could limit infection of your corpse-dense fortress areas?
Post by: Willfor on May 13, 2011, 09:08:39 am
We get crypts, and dungeons, and night creatures in this release. I am eagerly anticipating what we're going to be getting in the next few releases too.
Post by: Rockphed on May 13, 2011, 09:23:55 am
You know what I am truly excited about? The fact that this release is probably going to be more the rule than the exception. I'm betting that every one of the next few "new content" release cycles is going to have a fun element in it that Toady is going to enjoy coding (and that we're going to enjoy him coding) to help get him through what is obviously a necessary-but-tedious set of releases.
We get crypts, and dungeons, and night creatures in this release. I am eagerly anticipating what we're going to be getting in the next few releases too.
Considering that we had a year and a half with no release for the material rewrite et all, I'm glad we are getting all sorts of !!FUN!! now. I might actually start a fort in the new fort mode for something other than digging down to the bottom cavern or making steel armor. I will definitely spend some time hunting down necromancers in adventure mode. Having more to do than hunt down and kill megabeasts will be a nice improvement to adventure mode.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 13, 2011, 10:41:37 am
Wow, plopping a fortress down in an evil region is going to be mental.
It feels like every new version gets darker and darker - call me an elf if you want, but I hope 'light' 'magic' gets some love at some point. Maybe not Rainbow Bright / Carebear levels of love, but maybe random charms for armies combating the evil forces of darkness in good biomes or something...
I can't help but hope he doesn't really go that route, in a way.
While I'm not fond of the notion of a grimdark world where there is overwhelming corruption that is unopposed and will inevitably bring down the universe into zombie apocalypse land, I'm even less fond of seeing Dwarf Fortress become just another High Fantasy.
For reference, High Fantasy means something like Lord of the Rings, where the heroes (or player, in this case) is just a pawn in the game of a cosmic war of good and evil, and everything in the fantasy world is defined by what side of that line they stand upon. By being creatures that aren't part of the "evil" category, and opposing skeletons, that makes dwarves have to follow "good" just to survive, and I'm pretty sure we all rather prefer the option to be the most evil things in our particular universe.
Adventure Mode Dwarf Fortress works much better as Heroic Fantasy (think any "knight in shining armor" story, or any anti-hero spoof thereof) where there are bad guys and heroes, but it's always about the individual hero's choices making them heroic, rather than the cause they represent. (Or, alternately, a Puss In Boots being simply a manipulative bastard who lies, cheats, and kills everything standing in the way of getting himself and his master to power, and somehow still gets called "heroic".)
Fortress Mode is probably best as Low Fantasy (Think the Thief series) - cynical, mechanical, and pragmatic more than epic. It's just high on magical creatures for a Low Fantasy.
I'd rather see something like a sphere of War or a sphere of Fortresses that can somehow crowd out the sphere of Undead, or at least cut into its power supply, so that we aren't engaging so much in a battle of Good Versus Evil as a battle of Red Versus Blue.
Post by: Cthulhu on May 13, 2011, 11:16:14 am
You mentioned that new secrets will be able to be modded in on release. What kind of functionality on release are we looking at for that system? Will secrets be able to change attributes, give new body parts, or anything like that, or will it just be tags like [IMMORTAL] or whatever for now?
Post by: FaultyLogic on May 13, 2011, 11:37:40 am
But then again, as a fantasy world simulator, I hope it will be possible to gen a high fantasy world is that is what you like. Or a more mundane, medieval-esque world.
I do not believe DF has to choose any route that is so confining.
Post by: freeformschooler on May 13, 2011, 12:04:38 pm
I somewhat agree with you NW_Kohahu. I always liked low fantasy settings more, where magic and supernatural things are present, but vague, elusive and rare.
But then again, as a fantasy world simulator, I hope it will be possible to gen a high fantasy world is that is what you like. Or a more mundane, medieval-esque world.
I do not believe DF has to choose any route that is so confining.
Agree with this sentiment. Ideally, you don't like one route, so you gen a world that has this and that, all which you like.
Though I could see it becoming more complicated even than that.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on May 13, 2011, 12:12:18 pm
i am opposed to a "good" and "evil" sphere, i'd rather have "life" and "death" sphere, and would be delighted if some dichotomic deities like the god of life and death(cycle of life?) were possible... also, thinking about undead, why do they always have to be associated with death sphere? i can picture a god of death whose interest would be to keep the dead, well, dead, and having his followers hunt down ghosts and nightcreaturish undead, i picture zombies and animated skeletons more as a kind of soulless construct than proper undead
Post by: rex mortis on May 13, 2011, 01:02:08 pm
Even a warrior who does not use magic should be able to battle such foes. If I engaged on a crusade of bloody sacrifice to Armok, he might bestow me strength so that I may butcher even more, boosting my strength and endurance far beyond superdwarven levels. A typical legendary warrior might eventually tire as the nearly endless zombie horde presses on but my arms would tirelessly raise my steel axe to cleave one after another.
Of course, such power should come at a price. Especially when dealing with "evil" gods, a failure to please one's patron should have unpleasant consequences. At the very least the power they granted could be taken away.
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 13, 2011, 01:18:14 pm
Don't think you can take a secret away. But a proper God would certainly smite a lot.
Post by: monk12 on May 13, 2011, 01:24:54 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on May 13, 2011, 01:30:49 pm
Of course, if the people of the world feel differently... Even if ultimately there's no good or evil, just opposing forces, I imagine the various factions will still make it exist, if only in a symbolic fashion. Priests of death and deformity team up to create an army of deranged mutant undead, while priests of life and protection do battle against them. Most people will see that as pretty clear good vs. evil even if in the grand scheme of things that distinction doesn't matter.
I can't wait until secrets and the like get into Adventure Mode. That, along with the eventual fusion of adventure and dorf mode. I want to be Dagoth Ur.
NINJA: Yeah, what he said.
EDIT: And even then it's not that cut-and-dry. Maybe the priest (I"m using the word priest because the secrets come from gods. Just a quick label) of protection is on the bad side and is using his magic to protect the army. Maybe the priest of death is hunting down a rogue priest of life who's using his powers to overload people's life force and make them explode, or maybe the life priest has lost control of his powers and is hemorrhaging life energy into the forest, turning it into a nightmare world of maneating plants and Rodents of Unusual Size.
Post by: darkflagrance on May 13, 2011, 02:01:21 pm
i was about to post what faulty logic did, but i let this page go unrefreshed for too long and was ninjaed more due to my snail-like reflexes than any prowess by the ninja
i am opposed to a "good" and "evil" sphere, i'd rather have "life" and "death" sphere, and would be delighted if some dichotomic deities like the god of life and death(cycle of life?) were possible... also, thinking about undead, why do they always have to be associated with death sphere? i can picture a god of death whose interest would be to keep the dead, well, dead, and having his followers hunt down ghosts and nightcreaturish undead, i picture zombies and animated skeletons more as a kind of soulless construct than proper undead
Since the new necromancers gain their power to raise the undead from the secrets of immortal life, this might already be the tacit assumption behind the coming implementation of the undead.
Post by: EnigmaticHat on May 13, 2011, 02:43:40 pm
Basically, it would be cool if anything that had a soul acted according to reasonable motivations, instead of just random murder. The game would be so much more interesting that way. If your friend turns into a cannibalistic night creature, for instance, he could immediately start attacking you. But it would be more interesting if he remembered his friendship to you and sought other victims. That way you could choose between avoiding him, taking the heroic path and killing him so he couldn't harm others, or going the darker way and recruiting him to help you even though he kills people. And since he would go on to do things on his own, the player would eventually see consequences of their actions if they let him live.
Post by: Bralbaard on May 13, 2011, 02:47:33 pm
-Necromancers with sieging undead armies and a complete undead rewrite
Sieging undead, that should be interesting. I wonder if they will include some kind of ghosts among their ranks, that would put an end to the "just raise the drawbridge and we'll be fine" tactic.
Post by: Sizik on May 13, 2011, 03:51:10 pm
-Necromancers with sieging undead armies and a complete undead rewrite
Singing undead, that should be interesting. I wonder if they will include some kind of ghosts among their ranks, that would put an end to the "just raise the drawbridge and we'll be fine" tactic.
That's how I first read your post.
Post by: PTTG?? on May 13, 2011, 04:04:14 pm
Good to see you acquaintance, how've you been?
I've been content lately. I've become a zombie lately.
I really wish you'd let us in.
I think I speak for all of us when I say I understand
Why you folks might hesitate to submit to our mandate.
But here's an FYI: you're all gonna die screaming.
All we wanna do is eat your prepared dwarf brains.
We're not unreasonable, I mean, no one's gonna eat your prepared dwarf eyes
All we wanna do is eat your prepared dwarf brains.
We're at an impasse here, maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We'll all come inside and eat your prepared dwarf brains.
...
Post by: veok on May 13, 2011, 04:28:44 pm
I'm especially worried about a lock-picking, trap-avoiding Necrobold!
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on May 13, 2011, 04:31:38 pm
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on May 13, 2011, 04:35:30 pm
At least that's how I imagine it.
I can't imagine what would happen after Toady decides to code in rainbows and candy.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on May 13, 2011, 04:45:26 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on May 13, 2011, 05:28:57 pm
Post by: piecewise on May 13, 2011, 08:45:53 pm
1. What about necromancers will allow them to raise things? Will they make some sort of magic object which simply raises any dead in the area? Will they use some sort of nebulous power thats inherent to them? Will they be somehow able to raise themselves if they die, such as a Lich.
2.Will the necromancers make only one kind of dead or will there be multiple types with different duties, something like a ant nest. Will there be ghouls which scavenge the dead, living meat wagons to carry them, hulking flesh golems for combat, living pipe organs broadcasting the arrival of undead armies, etc, or just a wave of zombified woodland creatures?
3. Is it possible that the leader of a dwarven civ, perhaps the king at your fortress even, might become a necromancer while you're playing? What would happen if they did? Would they suddenly just become an enemy while standing in your fort and promptly get slaughtered, would they run off and disappear off screen before returning years later with an undead horde, or would they remain in power and you would just have what amounts to an invincible population in which any member who died was raised almost immediately.
4. Now that we have the general raise dead curse effect, will it be possible that this effect is placed on artifacts or items? Ie, that Shiny blue sword found down in the Curious structures near the bottom of the world might have the unfortunate effect of raising your enemies to try to kill you over and over.
Also, as an unrelated thing, I really want an option to "Raise former adventurer", like the reclaim fortress option but to bring a dead adventurer back as some sort of wraith. Because everyone knows that, with truly awesome heroes, death only makes them angry.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 13, 2011, 10:11:30 pm
i was about to post what faulty logic did, but i let this page go unrefreshed for too long and was ninjaed more due to my snail-like reflexes than any prowess by the ninja
i am opposed to a "good" and "evil" sphere, i'd rather have "life" and "death" sphere, and would be delighted if some dichotomic deities like the god of life and death(cycle of life?) were possible... also, thinking about undead, why do they always have to be associated with death sphere? i can picture a god of death whose interest would be to keep the dead, well, dead, and having his followers hunt down ghosts and nightcreaturish undead, i picture zombies and animated skeletons more as a kind of soulless construct than proper undead
I made a thread a little while ago, based off of a comment Toady made a couple months ago about how spheres work.
I also made the case for changing the dualism from "evil" or "death" being the undead sphere to becoming a dualism of "Mortality" versus "Immortality". Hence, undead are part of the immortal (as they are not bound by either life or death) side of the dualism, while the mortal side is more like what we currently have in Savage embarks, where creatures are "super-mortal" by having very quick, violent lives, but very final deaths, and are bound by extremes of natural selection.
This is the thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=84489.0). It was focused more on trying to find a way to contain all the spheres within a few "umbrella" sphere types, so "Mortality" as an umbrella sphere includes life, death, birth, fertility, disease, youth, hunting, etc. All things related to a sort of feral/natural selection type of thing.
It's also meant to be a thread trying to stimulate further suggestion on what could define creatures (or curses or interactions) from some of the other spheres, like Sound versus Silence as a dualism. As always, I hope that people who are interested in the notions of spheres and magic can help come up with ideas for how spheres can create different environments based upon the magic influence of those spheres.
Post by: tfaal on May 13, 2011, 10:27:10 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 13, 2011, 10:50:18 pm
High Fantasy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HighFantasy) is partially defined by the notion of a cosmic clash between two (maybe three) opposing cosmic concepts.
In The Lord of the Rings, the individuals are not nearly as important as they are in Heroic Fantasy for their own individual traits (the way that The Hobbit was, for example) as they are defined by their black-and-white demarcation of which cosmic force they belonged to.
Orcs are evil because they are on the side of "evil", and their entire race is evil because they have been declared on that side. They cannot be reasoned with or negotiated with, they will commit genocide against humans and dwarves and elves unless stopped, and the only way to stop them is to commit genocide against the orcs first.
Anyone who tries to negotiate with the orcish side is automatically evil, and will be shown as just doing it for personal gain, and become described in less-than-human terms (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NotEvenHuman) for daring to think that the enemy could be negotiated with.
There are no innocent orcs - women and children (if they existed) would be fair game for genocide, since they are just "supporting troops" in the Total War of Cosmic Warfare. You must commit genocide against the entire race if you are to be "good", because "good" is defined as committing genocide against "evil", and "evil" is defined as the things trying to commit genocide against "good", even if the only real difference between them is the color of their skin after a certain point of eternal mutual genocide (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeWhoFightsMonsters).
This is something you really get to see more when you are talking about something that better explores the role of the orcs, such as the ripoff-of-a-ripoff-of-a-ripoff-of-LOTR, Warcraft, where they've essentially come down to just making the two sides mirror images of each other, and just made them pretty much only aesthetically different and used different accents. The more you explore the dualism, as long as it becomes nothing but a protracted genocide, and you actually start to understand the other side, the differences between "good" and "evil" fade away. It just becomes genocide for genocide's own sake.
It is this aspect of "good versus evil" that I don't want in DF. It is the moral ambiguity of Low Fantasy that I prefer, not its specific level of magicality.
Moral ambiguity is a core feature of Dwarf Fortress as we know it. We have ethics that prevent some things, like cannibalism or slavery, but for the most part, the player can get away with almost anything the physics engine allows.
Dwarf Fortress is guided by pragmatism, not ideology.
Post by: PTTG?? on May 13, 2011, 11:04:59 pm
Post by: Asmageddon on May 14, 2011, 02:01:27 am
I made a thread a little while ago, based off of a comment Toady made a couple months ago about how spheres work.I for one would be delighted if there were any meta-spheres and some sort of hierarchy. It would be very interesting if gods formed some sort of society, probably hierarchy-based with same-level individuals being either friendly, neutral or opposed to each other.
I also made the case for changing the dualism from "evil" or "death" being the undead sphere to becoming a dualism of "Mortality" versus "Immortality". Hence, undead are part of the immortal (as they are not bound by either life or death) side of the dualism, while the mortal side is more like what we currently have in Savage embarks, where creatures are "super-mortal" by having very quick, violent lives, but very final deaths, and are bound by extremes of natural selection.
This is the thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=84489.0). It was focused more on trying to find a way to contain all the spheres within a few "umbrella" sphere types, so "Mortality" as an umbrella sphere includes life, death, birth, fertility, disease, youth, hunting, etc. All things related to a sort of feral/natural selection type of thing.
It's also meant to be a thread trying to stimulate further suggestion on what could define creatures (or curses or interactions) from some of the other spheres, like Sound versus Silence as a dualism. As always, I hope that people who are interested in the notions of spheres and magic can help come up with ideas for how spheres can create different environments based upon the magic influence of those spheres.
If in the future gods become real, probably mortal(but hard to kill ofc) beings, having them support each other and change their opinion about you after helping/killing a god or his/her followers would be very Fun thing to do.
I know this is not the suggestions forum, but what about the idea, Toady?
Post by: nil on May 14, 2011, 02:16:49 am
Post by: thvaz on May 14, 2011, 02:31:08 am
I for one would be delighted if there were any meta-spheres and some sort of hierarchy. It would be very interesting if gods formed some sort of society, probably hierarchy-based with same-level individuals being either friendly, neutral or opposed to each other.
If in the future gods become real, probably mortal(but hard to kill ofc) beings, having them support each other and change their opinion about you after helping/killing a god or his/her followers would be very Fun thing to do.
I know this is not the suggestions forum, but what about the idea, Toady?
If you know this is not the suggestions forum, why did you ask about a suggestion?
The purpose of the thread is to discuss current developments. 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). Questions and comments about the 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.
(emphasis mine)
We can talk about how cool it would be if x or y was implemented as long as we don't color it. Toady loses a lot of time to read and answers ours questions, please don't clutter the thread with questions-suggestions.
Post by: Dagoth Urist on May 14, 2011, 04:20:53 am
Quote
NW_KohakuIs there even a possibility for High Fantasy to not be a moralistic and simplistic tale with black-and-white morality. It's not weird that its not a particularly appreciated subgenre of fantasy any more. Also, what does a race of evil-doers actually imply?
*snip*
The absence of a 'jungle' biome have puzzled me a long time. Surroundings like "Polluted", "No-Gravity" and "Irradiated"(magically, that is) might be a bit out-of-place, but still possible to mod in.
In the future, are you planning on implementing other kinds of biomes and surroundings?
Post by: mendonca on May 14, 2011, 04:42:38 am
Post by: Raging Mouse on May 14, 2011, 05:08:30 am
Post by: Neonivek on May 14, 2011, 05:14:00 am
Post by: Asmageddon on May 14, 2011, 05:31:48 am
And as we all know, players usually tend to only lead it to further destruction.
Post by: Cruxador on May 14, 2011, 05:45:02 am
1. What about necromancers will allow them to raise things? Will they make some sort of magic object which simply raises any dead in the area? Will they use some sort of nebulous power thats inherent to them? Will they be somehow able to raise themselves if they die, such as a Lich.We already know all this from the devlog. They discover a secret, either directly from a death god, or indirectly through a slab engraved by a previous necromancer. If lichdom were going on, I imagine he'd have mentioned it.
Quote
2.Will the necromancers make only one kind of dead or will there be multiple types with different duties, something like a ant nest. Will there be ghouls which scavenge the dead, living meat wagons to carry them, hulking flesh golems for combat, living pipe organs broadcasting the arrival of undead armies, etc, or just a wave of zombified woodland creatures?There's just the one type, a creature raised. I'd imagine they can be zombies or skeletons depending on how the corpse is. There are certainly none of the silly warcraft-type fleshcrafting stuff you're talking about. I'm rather glad that this is the case actually. Such things make the whole procession rather farcical.
Quote
4. Now that we have the general raise dead curse effect, will it be possible that this effect is placed on artifacts or items? Ie, that Shiny blue sword found down in the Curious structures near the bottom of the world might have the unfortunate effect of raising your enemies to try to kill you over and over.From Toady's answers in the last thread:
Quote
Eventually, but not yet. I imagine anything that comes of artifacts etc. will use the interaction system.
Quote
Also, as an unrelated thing, I really want an option to "Raise former adventurer", like the reclaim fortress option but to bring a dead adventurer back as some sort of wraith. Because everyone knows that, with truly awesome heroes, death only makes them angry.Personally I would rather, if we get such an option, to make violent egress from the underworld. But I'm not sure if this will ever be possible, and it doesn't seem compatible with DF's current idea of what happens when you die. Perhaps when gods get some more love, it'll become clear. It would make sense if gods make new bodies for their followers to wear in the afterlife (as YHWH is said to do in Revelations), and it would then be possible for a suitably awesome adventurer to leave said afterlife somehow. But it shouldn't be easy. You'd have to be massively armipotent and perhaps have some sort of magic as well (secret of rebirth?). Certainly a fun possibility, though not any time in the near future I'm sure.
You know what I am truly excited about? The fact that this release is probably going to be more the rule than the exception. I'm betting that every one of the next few "new content" release cycles is going to have a fun element in it that Toady is going to enjoy coding (and that we're going to enjoy him coding) to help get him through what is obviously a necessary-but-tedious set of releases.Personally, I am in far greater anticipation of the actual caravan arc stuff, and the army arc stuff after it. This fancy undeath is all well and good, but I'd rather get economic and military stuff to play with sooner, and leave magic and slightly more compelling undeath until after the current dev page is taken care of. I do understand that this is the main portion of what Toady does with his time, and he does what he enjoys, and I don't begrudge him that. But I certainly don't want him to take time out for things like this for my sake, and I'd imagine I'm not alone in my preference there.
We get crypts, and dungeons, and night creatures in this release. I am eagerly anticipating what we're going to be getting in the next few releases too.
That said, there is some significant potential to do interesting stuff with city-dwelling vampires and similar, and I might very much enjoy what happens with them once cults and organizations get implemented and we can have a proper sub-society of shadow rulers. But I don't imagine they'll be much like that in the near future.
Post by: Psieye on May 14, 2011, 06:19:57 am
This isn't the magic arc. This is Toady putting in another placeholder-y feature in to plug the hole of "so what do we do with all these catacombs?"
Post by: thvaz on May 14, 2011, 07:11:17 am
This isn't the magic arc. This is Toady putting in another placeholder-y feature in to plug the hole of "so what do we do with all these catacombs?"
I think most of the undead features aren't placeholder-y. In fact Toady only mentioned one - the fact every necromancer becomes a tower-living sociopath. This would change with the personality rewrite.
Post by: zwei on May 14, 2011, 07:40:19 am
Combat clutter. I can easily imagine my dwarven soldiers kept busy by raised severed body parts while "main" force kills them off.
Post by: Psieye on May 14, 2011, 08:52:14 am
Well, Reading about raised bodz parts, I have one concern:Now you can experience what the goblins feel like when a dogsplosion-in-a-cage chaffs them while your dwarves kill them off.
Combat clutter. I can easily imagine my dwarven soldiers kept busy by raised severed body parts while "main" force kills them off.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 14, 2011, 09:38:10 am
Considering that they do not have technological progress and environment protection agencies, it can only be in three states: Broken, breaking and half-broken.
And as we all know, players usually tend to only lead it to further destruction.
Actually, if you're talking about environmental factors, humanity had only fairly limited impact upon the climate up until the Industrial Revolution. (As in, they'll screw over their own farms or temporarily kill off all the fish in their bay, but the ecological collapse was limited to striking down the civilization that caused it.) Back before our population exploded with the use of high-efficiency farming and medicine and our energy came from manual labor or animal power, we were at most limited to gradual deforestation of local areas and the soil erosion that followed.
The global ecosystem is robust enough to adapt to a Medieval Stasis world almost indefinitely, provided no concerted large-scale deforestation efforts take place. Evolution exists specifically to adapt to change, after all. It's the rate of change that industrial societies can produce, and the strain of a population of billions, each demanding greater and greater numbers of resources that causes problems.
Post by: Rift on May 14, 2011, 10:27:44 am
I just love progress.
Looks like the necromancer will be a part of the siege, actively raising people.
Also necro-towers are in towns, as a part of em. Neat.
Post by: Jiri Petru on May 14, 2011, 10:37:00 am
Post by: Asmageddon on May 14, 2011, 11:21:13 am
I meant necromancy. I believe it is a considerable threat to the environment.Considering that they do not have technological progress and environment protection agencies, it can only be in three states: Broken, breaking and half-broken.
And as we all know, players usually tend to only lead it to further destruction.
Alatulcy, if you're tkinlag aoubt eaeotrvnminnl fcotras, hnimtauy had olny flriay litemid ipacmt uopn the catmile up utinl the Iadstirunl Rvotluioen. (As in, tehy'll sercw oevr teihr own frmas or tlpomrariey klil off all the fsih in teihr bay, but the eclgoioacl cllpsaoe was lmtieid to sniikrtg dwon the ciaztoviliin taht cesuad it.) Bcak bfroee our ptiolaupon eeldopxd wtih the use of hgih-eeinfccify firmnag and midicnee and our eergny cmae form maunal lboar or amainl pewor, we wree at msot lietmid to gduaarl distfrtoeaoen of lcaol aears and the siol eiosorn taht flolweod.
The gbaoll essyeotcm is rsubot eogunh to aapdt to a Mdieavel Sasits wlrod asomlt ilfiteniedny, pvdieord no crenetcod lgrae-salce dosotrfaeiten eotfrfs tkae pcale. Eooitluvn etsixs sicecallfipy to aapdt to canghe, aetfr all. It's the rtae of cngahe taht isurtiadnl seeicitos can pudcore, and the saritn of a puatloipon of boinllis, ecah didnnmaeg geetarr and gaeetrr nemrbus of rescuores taht cesuas pelbomrs.
Post by: Aquillion on May 14, 2011, 01:44:47 pm
Quote
In getting zombies to appear in the tower, I had to make towns generally respect multiple entity populations (for instance, many different groups of bodies raised from various places), which was something I had to do for this release anyway, so shops will be a little faster once I get back to the market stuff.With this... would it be possible to easily add an init option or worldgen parameter to re-enable dwarves embarking on top of other people's sites? I'm curious whether this would make the game respond 'properly' now if dwarves try to embark on a dark fortress or somesuch, making for something interesting.
Actually, would it be possible to allow the dwarves to embark on 'hostile' sites in general in the main game, as long as there's no friendly population there? It seems like "deal with the undead, then settle in their tower" could be a fun (and challenging) way to start a fortress.
Post by: Cthulhu on May 14, 2011, 01:47:38 pm
Post by: Neoskel on May 14, 2011, 02:03:02 pm
Hehe, now i have a mental image of a player cremating (once controllable fire is in) every corpse in an evil biome and the ashes rising anyways. :o
Post by: thvaz on May 14, 2011, 02:04:41 pm
Regarding zombies ripping off the dog's head. Did they claw or bite it until it came off, or is there actual dismemberment in wrestling now?
This got my attention too. Though Toady didn't said what kind of zombies were attacking the dog. It could be zombie tigers, for example.
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on May 14, 2011, 02:40:51 pm
So, since corpses can be raised without their heads, how do you (at least temporarily) kill a zombie/skeleton? Will a complete corpse zombie still die when it loses its head? How bad off does a corpse have to be to be un-raisable? Especially when animated limbs/etc. go in, how do you kill those?Skellys and Zombies have hitpoints, so the head thing never mattered in the first place.
Hehe, now i have a mental image of a player cremating (once controllable fire is in) every corpse in an evil biome and the ashes rising anyways. :o
Post by: Cruxador on May 14, 2011, 02:44:00 pm
Necromancers take their dead from tracked entity populations. That means human, and probably also dwarven, elvin, and goblin. Perhaps kobold, I dunno, the boldlings don't get much love from Toady.Regarding zombies ripping off the dog's head. Did they claw or bite it until it came off, or is there actual dismemberment in wrestling now?
This got my attention too. Though Toady didn't said what kind of zombies were attacking the dog. It could be zombie tigers, for example.
Post by: Asmageddon on May 14, 2011, 03:08:07 pm
They used to, Toady is ow rewriting this, and I'm not sure if they will still do in next release. He could have said something in one of last two posts in previous FoTF threadSo, since corpses can be raised without their heads, how do you (at least temporarily) kill a zombie/skeleton? Will a complete corpse zombie still die when it loses its head? How bad off does a corpse have to be to be un-raisable? Especially when animated limbs/etc. go in, how do you kill those?Skellys and Zombies have hitpoints, so the head thing never mattered in the first place.
Hehe, now i have a mental image of a player cremating (once controllable fire is in) every corpse in an evil biome and the ashes rising anyways. :o
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 14, 2011, 04:10:42 pm
They used to, Toady is ow rewriting this, and I'm not sure if they will still do in next release. He could have said something in one of last two posts in previous FoTF thread
Clearly, we are running low on ways to combat the rising tide of undead.
The situation is dire. Ladies and Gentlemen, Melon-pults placed behind protective Wallnut barriers may be our only remaining solution to the zombie problem:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Uristocrat on May 14, 2011, 06:15:06 pm
Clearly, we are running low on ways to combat the rising tide of undead.
The situation is dire. Ladies and Gentlemen, Melon-pults placed behind protective Wallnut barriers may be our only remaining solution to the zombie problem:
That may work for a short time in foggy locales, but given that we're in more of a Survival - Endless kind of situation, and your defenses are too far forward. They'll never hold once you start getting hordes of gigantaurs. I suggest that you create garlic funnels and use those to max out on sun power, and use gloom shrooms over the water as your main attackers. You also need spikerocks to protect yourself from vehicles. Also, you pretty much need a couple of cob cannons, even though they cut into your sun production severely. Your economy will collapse eventually, but you can get past round 100 with enough skill and luck...
In short, what we really need to combat the new zombie menace are some poisonous mushrooms and pumpkins to protect them, along with garlic plants to force the zombies down the paths we choose.
Post by: Cthulhu on May 14, 2011, 06:42:42 pm
I for one want deformity secrets and some kind of domination secret. Make an army of mutated monsters to take over the world with. I'm also thinking it'd be cool to capture a kraken, make it huge and ugly and use my defomity powers to give it [FIREIMMUNE] and all that and stick it in my lava moat. Hell yes.
Also heavily armored mutant ogres to guard my inner sanctum and swarms of skittering pod things that burst open when you kill them releasing corrosive poison.
Post by: monk12 on May 14, 2011, 07:51:23 pm
Well, Reading about raised bodz parts, I have one concern:Now you can experience what the goblins feel like when a dogsplosion-in-a-cage chaffs them while your dwarves kill them off.
Combat clutter. I can easily imagine my dwarven soldiers kept busy by raised severed body parts while "main" force kills them off.
Sounds like a feature to me!
They used to, Toady is ow rewriting this, and I'm not sure if they will still do in next release. He could have said something in one of last two posts in previous FoTF thread
Clearly, we are running low on ways to combat the rising tide of undead.
Quote from: Threetoe
Right now all you have to do is hit them with a shovel.
:P
Post by: MrWiggles on May 14, 2011, 07:58:20 pm
Post by: Urist McDepravity on May 14, 2011, 08:23:22 pm
Personally, I am in far greater anticipation of the actual caravan arc stuff, and the army arc stuff after it. This fancy undeath is all well and good, but I'd rather get economic and military stuff to play with sooner, and leave magic and slightly more compelling undeath until after the current dev page is taken care of. I do understand that this is the main portion of what Toady does with his time, and he does what he enjoys, and I don't begrudge him that. But I certainly don't want him to take time out for things like this for my sake, and I'd imagine I'm not alone in my preference there.Couldn't agree more. Night creatures, secrets and so on are fun, and even Fun, but personally I'd like to get past-worldgen world advancement, with economy and at least basic military first. Static worlds are boring, and introducing enemies alone will not fix it.
Post by: Fieari on May 14, 2011, 08:44:58 pm
Post by: tfaal on May 14, 2011, 09:24:35 pm
I'll be honest, Dwarf mode now bores me. Adventure mode got interesting lately (and by lately, I mean ever since night creatures showed up in the first place), and it's all that keeps me interested in DF these days. So I'm ecstatic that there are more of them. I do look forwards to more to do besides kill though... being able to be a merchant lord will be fun. Trading games can be great.I agree on all accounts.
Post by: Dante on May 14, 2011, 11:22:38 pm
Post by: piecewise on May 15, 2011, 12:14:41 am
1. What about necromancers will allow them to raise things? Will they make some sort of magic object which simply raises any dead in the area? Will they use some sort of nebulous power thats inherent to them? Will they be somehow able to raise themselves if they die, such as a Lich.We already know all this from the devlog. They discover a secret, either directly from a death god, or indirectly through a slab engraved by a previous necromancer. If lichdom were going on, I imagine he'd have mentioned it.
Yes, we know the "secret" thing, but what will this secret involve? Will it allow them to create something to raise the dead with or will they just kind of do it. Will that vary?
Post by: Areyar on May 15, 2011, 02:58:48 am
Post by: Raging Mouse on May 15, 2011, 03:37:48 am
Clearly, we are running low on ways to combat the rising tide of undead.
Quote from: Threetoe
Right now all you have to do is hit them with a shovel.
But... but... there are no shovels in the game! *panics*
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on May 15, 2011, 03:46:10 am
Quote from: ThreetoeRight now all you have to do is hit them with a shovel.
But... but... there are no shovels in the game! *panics*
Isn't it obvious? Threetoe has betrayed his brother and has started playing Minecraft.
Post by: Cruxador on May 15, 2011, 04:06:55 am
They know the secret, and then they can raise the dead. There's no intermediate step. Maybe there will be in the future, but if Toady had added items that could raise the dead he would have said so.1. What about necromancers will allow them to raise things? Will they make some sort of magic object which simply raises any dead in the area? Will they use some sort of nebulous power thats inherent to them? Will they be somehow able to raise themselves if they die, such as a Lich.We already know all this from the devlog. They discover a secret, either directly from a death god, or indirectly through a slab engraved by a previous necromancer. If lichdom were going on, I imagine he'd have mentioned it.
Yes, we know the "secret" thing, but what will this secret involve? Will it allow them to create something to raise the dead with or will they just kind of do it. Will that vary?
Post by: Serrational on May 15, 2011, 06:34:58 am
This one just puzzles me at the moment.
Post by: Cruxador on May 15, 2011, 06:47:51 am
Will brewing continue to make liquid out of nowhere?I believe it's intended to require water at some point. Unless I'm mistaken, a lot of additional complication in the requirements for making things is intended after hauling rewrites.
This one just puzzles me at the moment.
Post by: werechicken on May 15, 2011, 07:26:21 am
If they can be caught in cages that might make it simple (assuming your cages don't get filled up by the zombie fodder) Begins plans for a goblin zombie mosh pit.
Post by: metime00 on May 15, 2011, 07:27:09 am
Post by: Knight Otu on May 15, 2011, 10:56:30 am
I'm just excited because it sounds like the night creature tangent is completeIt's almost certainly not. Toady has said that he wanted to do mummy-like undead after the necromancers, and were-beasts and vampires and phantoms have all been mentioned as likely inclusions, but he made absolutely no mention that he has done any work on them yet. Especially were-beasts certainly are more challenging than "boring loose ends that have piled up". More likely ThreeToe refers to small stuff that needs to be updated or things that need to be fixed, or maybe some raw tag extensions that aren't important enough to mention yet. I'd say we might be on night creatures for two, maybe just one, weeks still.
Post by: Willfor on May 15, 2011, 11:21:24 am
I hope I am wrong, as I would be interested in reading about the pitfalls of trying to program markets. However, I have history on my side. Damn history.
Post by: Rip0k on May 15, 2011, 11:28:44 am
but wait a minute... you guys are saying that we'll have to wait 2 weeks more? NOOOOOooooooo! I hope you're wrong o_o
Thank You Great Toady One for this wonderful game, and Daily Dev News are awesome too ;]
Post by: Asmageddon on May 15, 2011, 12:06:38 pm
Post by: thvaz on May 15, 2011, 12:10:16 pm
Post by: Asmageddon on May 15, 2011, 01:06:30 pm
Also, I don't use PayPal.
I don't even play DF anymore because my PC is not good enough. :/
Post by: Jiri Petru on May 15, 2011, 02:49:20 pm
Personally, I am in far greater anticipation of the actual caravan arc stuff, and the army arc stuff after it. This fancy undeath is all well and good, but I'd rather get economic and military stuff to play with sooner, and leave magic and slightly more compelling undeath until after the current dev page is taken care of. I do understand that this is the main portion of what Toady does with his time, and he does what he enjoys, and I don't begrudge him that. But I certainly don't want him to take time out for things like this for my sake, and I'd imagine I'm not alone in my preference there.Couldn't agree more. Night creatures, secrets and so on are fun, and even Fun, but personally I'd like to get past-worldgen world advancement, with economy and at least basic military first. Static worlds are boring, and introducing enemies alone will not fix it.
Yeah, the necromancy and undead sound neat but when you look at them from the gamer's perspective, nothing will change at all. You had zombies before, you will have zombies now. Perhaps there will be zombie sieges which sounds cool at first but in mechanical terms they are pretty much the same as all other sieges. Adding new monsters and their abilities doesn't affect gameplay much, it's just a cosmetic (= world gen) change - you'll still play the same fortress mode as ever.
I'm not saying I'm not excited (I am!), I just agree with the sentiment that actual gameplay changes like the army arc (coming since 2006!) will be much, much more awesome.
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 15, 2011, 03:00:45 pm
also, they may raise other deaths so you may need to bury that pesky goblins squads and such.
but yes, basically is the same. but you may also say that of the combat rewrite, as internals are, indeed, internals.
but there will be the economics again, before the army arc. that will change a lot, too.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 15, 2011, 04:08:53 pm
However, with that said, I'm probably most interested in the ways in which the cities and societies are going to be modeled to interact with one another. The Caravan arc is chock-full of things I really would like to see implemented. Having a procedurally generated world with procedurally generated towns full of citizens who go about their daily lives to run a simulated global economy almost makes my brain melt in anticipation. Especially so if we start getting procedurally generated individual citizens with more dynamic personalities to populate those cities, so that they can be fun and organic to interact with on a personal level.
So basically, I like the magic stuff, I like the economics/social dynamics stuff, and the bugfixing that comes in between. As far as the general arc of development goes, I'm more excited about where this game is going than I normally let myself get excited about any other game, it's just in a few of the details that I want to make some arguments one way or the other.
Post by: Thundercraft on May 15, 2011, 04:25:49 pm
With the introduction of these improvements on nightcreatures and undead, it sounds like we might get to see the beginnings of magic and (eventually) an expansion on syndromes.
Posting to watch thread.
Post by: NSQuote on May 15, 2011, 04:53:19 pm
Post by: PremierMeridian on May 15, 2011, 04:58:45 pm
GOOD WORK TOADY :D
Post by: scriver on May 15, 2011, 05:05:07 pm
Will we see non-human towns (such as mountain homes, goblin forts, and elf forest retreats) return sometime during the nine releases?Toady has stated before that we shouldn't expect non-human settlements until the army arc comes around.
Post by: Dradym on May 15, 2011, 06:16:11 pm
as for the good/evil-life/death thing, i could totally see a life priest raising the dead-seeing it as a form of continuing life-though not dominating it unless the life priest IS evil, or from a slavery-loving nation. oooo imagine a dwarf shop in fortress mode that raises the dead so they can be put back to work-though would contribute to unhappy thoughts among the living...
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 15, 2011, 06:53:54 pm
as for the good/evil-life/death thing, i could totally see a life priest raising the dead-seeing it as a form of continuing life-though not dominating it unless the life priest IS evil, or from a slavery-loving nation.
I really can't...
Death is a part of the cycle of Life, no matter how you break it down. Whether you see life as represented by nature (death is natural), or a "good god" with a "heaven" afterlife (you're stealing paradise from the goodly dead by bringing them back), or just the Ouroborus and its symbolic cycle of life and death, life means having to die and be replaced by other living things.
Besides, what's the point in having an "opposite of undead" that involves basically doing the same thing as raising the undead, but making them "look prettier" when you do it? That takes away the whole point of someone being tempted into raising zombies while looking for eternal life in the first place.
If something is going to be "opposite" of, "I want to live forever, even if it means being a zombie to do it," then it should be, "I am fine with dying one day, as that is my place in life."
Post by: Dae on May 15, 2011, 07:19:08 pm
Imagine a priest can make the dead come back for a little time with their full mind so they can explain the circumstances of their death or say goodbye to their families, with the cost that his soul promptly leaves its body - again - and its corpse now tries to kill every living thing. Wouldn't that be interesting ? That's a thing I love in DF : you never know what's going in next. I was totally taken aback by the whole "secrets" thing and it kicks randomization up one level. So much Fun to be had !
Post by: Cruxador on May 15, 2011, 07:40:42 pm
Keep in mind the separation of soul and body in DF, and the possibilities of raising them separately or together, and the implications thereof.as for the good/evil-life/death thing, i could totally see a life priest raising the dead-seeing it as a form of continuing life-though not dominating it unless the life priest IS evil, or from a slavery-loving nation.
I really can't...
Death is a part of the cycle of Life, no matter how you break it down. Whether you see life as represented by nature (death is natural), or a "good god" with a "heaven" afterlife (you're stealing paradise from the goodly dead by bringing them back), or just the Ouroborus and its symbolic cycle of life and death, life means having to die and be replaced by other living things.
Besides, what's the point in having an "opposite of undead" that involves basically doing the same thing as raising the undead, but making them "look prettier" when you do it? That takes away the whole point of someone being tempted into raising zombies while looking for eternal life in the first place.
If something is going to be "opposite" of, "I want to live forever, even if it means being a zombie to do it," then it should be, "I am fine with dying one day, as that is my place in life."
Post by: Thundercraft on May 15, 2011, 07:59:01 pm
Obviously, you don't agree.He's not the only one. I think if we did a poll for this, many more would disagree than agree.
It seems obvious that there's something not quite right about having a life priest - someone who worships and respects the natural life cycle - to use a curse or abuse the secrets of life and undeath - to trample on said cycle of life and death. Besides, there is a long-standing tradition in fantasy genres - almost without exception - that necromancy and life magic are complete opposites.
Imagine a priest can make the dead come back for a little time with their full mind so they can explain the circumstances of their death or say goodbye to their families....A big Maybe. But only in the form of a non-corporeal ghost that would naturally dissipate after those goodbyes are said and done. Even then, technically, that would be considered a form of necromancy or death magic. (Read the Wikipedia entry on necromancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necromancy) for clarification on the term.)
...and its corpse now tries to kill every living thing.Are you being serious? ??? A life priest raising the dead, knowing full well that it would go on a rampage and start killing everything in sight? That only makes sense if the life priest went completely insane.
Post by: Willfor on May 15, 2011, 08:03:55 pm
Unlimited power can be ours. All we need to do is avoid crocs, mummies, and hell itself, and we can grab the brass slabs of the gods.
BY THE POWER OF SPOTHRIB
Post by: tfaal on May 15, 2011, 08:26:09 pm
Well, in Christian lore, Jesus was divine, and he raised the dead. And as for the fantasty tradition aspect, it's a matter of taste, but I always enjoy seeing those things subverted. Randomly generated content is great for that, since it has no expectations except the ones coded in. Also, bear in mind that it's an interaction. That's only a curse if it does curse-like things.Obviously, you don't agree.He's not the only one. I think if we did a poll for this, many more would disagree than agree.
It seems obvious that there's something not quite right about having a life priest - someone who worships and respects the natural life cycle - to use a curse or abuse the secrets of life and undeath - to trample on said cycle of life and death. Besides, there is a long-standing tradition in fantasy genres - almost without exception - that necromancy and life magic are complete opposites.
Post by: Cthulhu on May 15, 2011, 08:28:38 pm
Man, I can't wait for the adventurer skills arc. Who cares about dorfs? I want to take over the world as a necromancer in a big obsidian tower.
Post by: Uristocrat on May 15, 2011, 08:49:19 pm
Post by: monk12 on May 15, 2011, 08:55:51 pm
Quote from: ThreetoeRight now all you have to do is hit them with a shovel.
But... but... there are no shovels in the game! *panics*
Isn't it obvious? Threetoe has betrayed his brother and has started playing Minecraft.
If he's beating zombies about the head with a shovel, he's playing Minecraft poorly.
Or awesomely. Come to think of it, those two things are not mutually exclusive.
Post by: KillerClowns on May 15, 2011, 09:56:10 pm
*Ironic: "both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or poignant and extremely improbable way." (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ironic)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 15, 2011, 09:56:59 pm
Well, in Christian lore, Jesus was divine, and he raised the dead. And as for the fantasty tradition aspect, it's a matter of taste, but I always enjoy seeing those things subverted. Randomly generated content is great for that, since it has no expectations except the ones coded in. Also, bear in mind that it's an interaction. That's only a curse if it does curse-like things.
Oh boy, an argument on religious interpretations of the Bible, how Fun! What could possibly go wrong?
Anyway, Jesus the mortal died there, but part of the whole Christian model of life and death revolves around the notion that a portion of the soul is immortal. This immortal portion of the person is supposed to go to Heaven for eternal life if they are deemed worthy, or be destroyed in the Lake of Fire after torment in Hell if not.
Hence, like I said in my previous post, a Christian priest would still be violating the order of life and death if they were raising the dead - because the good dead should have the right to enjoy the paradise they have earned, and the damned should not be kept from the punishment they have earned. It's part of Christianity to believe that the dead belong in one of those two places, and you are going against one of the fundamental principles of Christianity, that worldly matters are not as important as those which enrich your spirit or prepare you for Heaven, if you are raising the dead willy-nilly.
Jesus the divine, the other portion of Jesus, was immortal, and simply came back to life, but ascended into Heaven afterwards, where dead people are supposed to go, at that.
"God's in his heaven, all's right with the world."
Post by: Dakk on May 15, 2011, 10:08:26 pm
Consider this is DF, consider ethics may eventualy be randomly generated. In this spectrum, any interpretation is valid. Some religions might view raising the dead as a holy act, while others may despise it. There's nothing completely wrong or completely right, as ethics is a pretty inconsistent thing, even in the real world. While in the US it is a crime to kill your wife if she cheats on you, its accepted in other countries.
If you're going to start an argument over christian lore, you're doing it to disagree with someone, not to contribute with the thread.
Post by: tfaal on May 15, 2011, 10:12:45 pm
This is becoming somewhat more specific than the intended scope of my example. Perhaps it would be more to the point for me to say that human induced resurrection is not inherently evil in all popular worldviews.Well, in Christian lore, Jesus was divine, and he raised the dead. And as for the fantasty tradition aspect, it's a matter of taste, but I always enjoy seeing those things subverted. Randomly generated content is great for that, since it has no expectations except the ones coded in. Also, bear in mind that it's an interaction. That's only a curse if it does curse-like things.
Oh boy, an argument on religious interpretations of the Bible, how Fun! What could possibly go wrong?
Anyway, Jesus the mortal died there, but part of the whole Christian model of life and death revolves around the notion that a portion of the soul is immortal. This immortal portion of the person is supposed to go to Heaven for eternal life if they are deemed worthy, or be destroyed in the Lake of Fire after torment in Hell if not.
Hence, like I said in my previous post, a Christian priest would still be violating the order of life and death if they were raising the dead - because the good dead should have the right to enjoy the paradise they have earned, and the damned should not be kept from the punishment they have earned. It's part of Christianity to believe that the dead belong in one of those two places, and you are going against one of the fundamental principles of Christianity, that worldly matters are not as important as those which enrich your spirit or prepare you for Heaven, if you are raising the dead willy-nilly.
Jesus the divine, the other portion of Jesus, was immortal, and simply came back to life, but ascended into Heaven afterwards, where dead people are supposed to go, at that.
"God's in his heaven, all's right with the world."
Post by: monk12 on May 15, 2011, 10:14:37 pm
Well, in Christian lore, Jesus was divine, and he raised the dead. And as for the fantasty tradition aspect, it's a matter of taste, but I always enjoy seeing those things subverted. Randomly generated content is great for that, since it has no expectations except the ones coded in. Also, bear in mind that it's an interaction. That's only a curse if it does curse-like things.
Oh boy, an argument on religious interpretations of the Bible, how Fun! What could possibly go wrong?
Anyway, Jesus the mortal died there, but part of the whole Christian model of life and death revolves around the notion that a portion of the soul is immortal. This immortal portion of the person is supposed to go to Heaven for eternal life if they are deemed worthy, or be destroyed in the Lake of Fire after torment in Hell if not.
Hence, like I said in my previous post, a Christian priest would still be violating the order of life and death if they were raising the dead - because the good dead should have the right to enjoy the paradise they have earned, and the damned should not be kept from the punishment they have earned. It's part of Christianity to believe that the dead belong in one of those two places, and you are going against one of the fundamental principles of Christianity, that worldly matters are not as important as those which enrich your spirit or prepare you for Heaven, if you are raising the dead willy-nilly.
Jesus the divine, the other portion of Jesus, was immortal, and simply came back to life, but ascended into Heaven afterwards, where dead people are supposed to go, at that.
"God's in his heaven, all's right with the world."
I do believe he was referring to Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Although he may get a special exception what with being God and all (er, unless you don't accept the divinity of Christ, in which case maybe he gets a break for being super-cool?)
That said, having life and death play a much bigger role in the motives and doings of people in DF is naturally going to raise some bigger questions those people are themselves asking- is there an afterlife? Is there a god that cares one way or another? If the god(s) do care, what do we have to do to get to the afterlife with the best parties?
EDIT: Ninjas!
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 15, 2011, 10:18:24 pm
>MFW people start arguing over various interpretations of religions doctrines on a game that aims to randomly generate 90% of its content.
Consider this is DF, consider ethics may eventualy be randomly generated. In this spectrum, any interpretation is valid. Some religions might view raising the dead as a holy act, while others may despise it.
If you're going to start an argument over christian lore, you're doing it to disagree with someone, not to contribute with the thread.
But that's part of the point of having gods and spheres of death/undeath, isn't it?
In that last devlog update, Toady talked about how the goddess of death (and disease and blight) was the one that gave out the secrets of necromancy.
The point I was making, however, was that someone who is supposed to be the opposite of a death god/goddess (life gods/goddesses) (although I do hope that "death" and "undead" don't become associated for very long) shouldn't be doing things exactly the same way that the necromancers do, or else the entire notion of "opposite" gets lost.
Also, currently, we have dwarves that have procedural deities, and what religions they will have is already selected:
Code: [Select]
[RELIGION:PANTHEON]
[RELIGION_SPHERE:FORTRESSES]
[RELIGION_SPHERE:JEWELS]
[RELIGION_SPHERE:METALS]
[RELIGION_SPHERE:MINERALS]
[RELIGION_SPHERE:MOUNTAINS]
[RELIGION_SPHERE:WEALTH]However, any interpretation is not valid if "Death" spheres means those are gods who give out "raises dead to make zombies" secrets. There's only one valid interpretation of that - the "Death" sphere means "creates undead".
Post by: tfaal on May 15, 2011, 10:19:32 pm
That said, having life and death play a much bigger role in the motives and doings of people in DF is naturally going to raise some bigger questions those people are themselves asking- is there an afterlife? Is there a god that cares one way or another? If the god(s) do care, what do we have to do to get to the afterlife with the best parties?This is a line of speculation I find particularly enjoyable. I believe Toady's canonical response is "all of that's cool, and would ideally be random and optional via worldgen settings."
Post by: Dakk on May 15, 2011, 10:25:47 pm
Its all a matter of interpretation. Just because some death deity gave someone the power to raise the dead, it doesnt mean it might be exclusive to the death sphere. There's nothing stopping a god of life from showing its divity and power over life by raising the dead, or a god of death from despising life so much as to destroy all life he can, including unlife.
We just don't know enough on the matter to go around flailing our arms and taking certain interpretations of the devlog as truth set in stone.
Also, this:
That said, having life and death play a much bigger role in the motives and doings of people in DF is naturally going to raise some bigger questions those people are themselves asking- is there an afterlife? Is there a god that cares one way or another? If the god(s) do care, what do we have to do to get to the afterlife with the best parties?This is a line of speculation I find particularly enjoyable. I believe Toady's canonical response is "all of that's cool, and would ideally be random and optional via worldgen settings."
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 15, 2011, 10:26:42 pm
This is becoming somewhat more specific than the intended scope of my example. Perhaps it would be more to the point for me to say that human induced resurrection is not inherently evil in all popular worldviews.
I was refuting the specific example you listed, however.
I am also not making an association between "raising death" and "evil" (technically, Toady's the one doing that, though...) or with "life" and "good".
What I am saying, however, is that something that is supposed to be a diametric opposite of the "raising the dead" sphere should not be raising the dead, too.
If the defining characteristic of two "opposites" are the same, then they aren't opposites at all, are they?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 15, 2011, 10:32:12 pm
Interpretation brah. We don't know anything about toady's definitions on what sphere does what yet, we just know some goddess of death gave one of her worshippers the power to raise the dead.
Its all a matter of interpretation. Just because some death deity gave someone the power to raise the dead, it doesnt mean it might be exclusive to the death sphere. There's nothing stopping a god of life from showing its divity and power over life by raising the dead, or a god of death from despising life so much as to destroy all life he can, including unlife.
We just don't know enough on the matter to go around flailing our arms and taking certain interpretations of the devlog as truth set in stone.
Also, this:That said, having life and death play a much bigger role in the motives and doings of people in DF is naturally going to raise some bigger questions those people are themselves asking- is there an afterlife? Is there a god that cares one way or another? If the god(s) do care, what do we have to do to get to the afterlife with the best parties?This is a line of speculation I find particularly enjoyable. I believe Toady's canonical response is "all of that's cool, and would ideally be random and optional via worldgen settings."
And who's just doing something to disagree, again? :P
Anyway, no, it's not a matter of interpretation. You can't "interpret" that 2 + 2 = 5, you're just wrong.
If Toady codes in that the Death Sphere means that you can raise zombies, then the only valid interpretations of the death sphere are ones that are compatible with raising zombies.
If Toady puts these things in raws or worldgen parameters, then what you're doing is modding the game. Modding and "interpretations" are two totally different things, however. If you make [SPEED:0] dwarves, you aren't "interpreting dwarves differently", you're rewriting how the game works, you're making an actual change.
Post by: tfaal on May 15, 2011, 10:41:35 pm
This is becoming somewhat more specific than the intended scope of my example. Perhaps it would be more to the point for me to say that human induced resurrection is not inherently evil in all popular worldviews.
I was refuting the specific example you listed, however.
I am also not making an association between "raising death" and "evil" (technically, Toady's the one doing that, though...) or with "life" and "good".
What I am saying, however, is that something that is supposed to be a diametric opposite of the "raising the dead" sphere should not be raising the dead, too.
If the defining characteristic of two "opposites" are the same, then they aren't opposites at all, are they?
Good points. Still, someone with power over death would quite reasonably have the ability to delay or undo it. Someone with power over life would reasonably be able to extend or restore it. There is a necessary element of overlap and confusion in any interpretation that tries to divide these two things.
To ramble on a bit about the undead we have in the unreleased version, which are not necessarily indicative of future varieties, we can confirm that they do not have souls; the only connection they have to the people who once inhabited their bodies is in the mind of the bereaved. As such, I don't think this can be meaningfully called resurrection. More of an "animate dead bodies" spell, not too different from the ability to animate plants or stone. In that way it's firmly death based. That said, Sweatsucker did engrave her slab with the "secrets of life and death", so it seems Toady may be overlapping them a bit. New-agey and ancient chinesey yin and yang business being as it is, I've no real problem with that.
Post by: EmeraldWind on May 15, 2011, 10:52:29 pm
This is becoming somewhat more specific than the intended scope of my example. Perhaps it would be more to the point for me to say that human induced resurrection is not inherently evil in all popular worldviews.
I was refuting the specific example you listed, however.
I am also not making an association between "raising death" and "evil" (technically, Toady's the one doing that, though...) or with "life" and "good".
What I am saying, however, is that something that is supposed to be a diametric opposite of the "raising the dead" sphere should not be raising the dead, too.
If the defining characteristic of two "opposites" are the same, then they aren't opposites at all, are they?
-1 and 1 are numbers therefore their defining characteristic is the same. However, they are are opposites. Sometimes opposites aren't as different as people like to think. Opposites need some kind of common ground to be considered opposites. Left and Right are horizontal directions. Hot and Cold are temperatures.
Let's say, I want a god of Life and Death. In some cultures, Death and Life are treated as separate existences: a world of the living and the world of the dead. In others, Life and Death are simply part of one another. So shouldn't there be a possibility for a single god with the abilities of both Life and Death Spheres.
While, I think you are correct that a priest of the Life sphere might not want to disrupt the cycle of Life. What if the cycle of Life is already upset for some reason?
Wouldn't a god of Life attempt to fix the balance somehow, even if it required raising a hero that falls to unnatural causes? This doesn't necessarily mean raise them in an undead form, however. More like raise them or restore them before they are embraced by the sphere of Death. Granted, the god of Life in this case might try to have the hero born or select a champion from the living and give them a secret. There are many roads.
If the system is run by a god of both Life and Death spheres... well, stuff like Lazarus and Jesus will happen.
Post by: Cthulhu on May 15, 2011, 10:54:05 pm
Or maybe we could just use the game's simple and powerful moddability to make the game we want to play, instead of arguing over easily changeable mechanics.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 15, 2011, 10:58:16 pm
Good points. Still, someone with power over death would quite reasonably have the ability to delay or undo it. Someone with power over life would reasonably be able to extend or restore it. There is a necessary element of overlap and confusion in any interpretation that tries to divide these two things.
However, you are trying to portray these two as opposites, even while making the direct effect be the same... For a dualism to have meaning, they have to be actual opposing forces.
"Good versus Evil" makes an internally consistent dualism if you define "Good", and then define "Evil" as anything that is opposing Good.
Something else, like "Heat versus cold" or "healing versus harming" makes a dualism because there is something where you can make a judgement about which is one, and which is the other.
If both "Life" and "Death" have the same actual effect, then you can't tell which doctrine you are actually following, and the dualism is meaningless.
To ramble on a bit about the undead we have in the unreleased version, which are not necessarily indicative of future varieties, we can confirm that they do not have souls; the only connection they have to the people who once inhabited their bodies is in the mind of the bereaved. As such, I don't think this can be meaningfully called resurrection. More of an "animate dead bodies" spell, not too different from the ability to animate plants or stone. In that way it's firmly death based. That said, Sweatsucker did engrave her slab with the "secrets of life and death", so it seems Toady may be overlapping them a bit. New-agey and ancient chinesey yin and yang business being as it is, I've no real problem with that.
Well, "Life and Death" should actually be the opposite of undeath, as far as I'm concerned. But I've already put that part into writing (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=84489.msg2266672#msg2266672).
However, something is going into those corpses to power them. I wonder if there is some sort of Conservation of Spiritual Energy that might go into effect? An upper limit on the number of ghosts or whatever that can possess a zombie, even in an evil region.
Post by: tfaal on May 15, 2011, 10:59:31 pm
Perhaps the life secret (a life secret, no one said there could only be one per sphere) could be vanilla immortality and resurrecting the dead, restoring the body and soul, while the death one could be vampiric immortality, requiring stealing souls or bathing in blood, and can't restore the soul.
Or maybe we could just use the game's simple and powerful moddability to make the game we want to play, instead of arguing over easily changeable mechanics.
I would consider it more a friendly discourse, a debate at most. I believe all of you to be wonderful people and I enjoy your opinions on various matters. Given the opportunity I would gladly hug you all.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 15, 2011, 11:06:36 pm
-1 and 1 are numbers therefore their defining characteristic is the same. However, they are are opposites. Sometimes opposites aren't as different as people like to think. Opposites need some kind of common ground to be considered opposites. Left and Right are horizontal directions. Hot and Cold are temperatures.
No, -1 and 1 are positive and negative. They are opposite in that respect. Opposites have to be opposite somehow or they aren't opposite.
If we have both "Life" spheres and "Death" spheres do the same thing, then nothing is opposite at all.
Let's say, I want a god of Life and Death. In some cultures, Death and Life are treated as separate existences: a world of the living and the world of the dead. In others, Life and Death are simply part of one another. So shouldn't there be a possibility for a single god with the abilities of both Life and Death Spheres.
While, I think you are correct that a priest of the Life sphere might not want to disrupt the cycle of Life. What if the cycle of Life is already upset for some reason?
Wouldn't a god of Life attempt to fix the balance somehow, even if it required raising a hero that falls to unnatural causes? This doesn't necessarily mean raise them in an undead form, however. More like raise them or restore them before they are embraced by the sphere of Death. Granted, the god of Life in this case might try to have the hero born or select a champion from the living and give them a secret. There are many roads.
If the system is run by a god of both Life and Death spheres... well, stuff like Lazarus and Jesus will happen.
This is, again, confusing the ability to mod the game with something like "different interpretations".
If Toady encodes "Death" to mean "raising the dead", then that's what it means, period.
If this is something moddable (a big "if"), and you mod the game so that "Life" means zombies, and "Death" means happy bunnies or something, then that's what it means in your particular modded game, period. But even then, it's what you have defined, it's still not vanilla, and it's still not interpretable in different ways, it's defined.
That's what code does: it defines things, because computers don't deal in "interpretations", they deal in concrete, measurable values.
Post by: tfaal on May 15, 2011, 11:15:38 pm
If this is something moddable (a big "if")
Quite tangential to the rest of your post, but I can happily say that this is a probable yes:
Quote from: DevLog
The general idea is that by learning certain secrets, a historical figure in world gen gains various traits -- in the example it is immortality and the ability to animate the dead (via a syndrome which negates aging and imparts the ability to perform an "interaction"). The secrets are at first imparted by gods or demons or megabeasts with the proper sphere alignment
...
The vanilla secrets will all be generated during world gen, but I'm also including some examples for people to look at for raw editing.
Post by: EmeraldWind on May 15, 2011, 11:29:30 pm
-1 and 1 are numbers therefore their defining characteristic is the same. However, they are are opposites. Sometimes opposites aren't as different as people like to think. Opposites need some kind of common ground to be considered opposites. Left and Right are horizontal directions. Hot and Cold are temperatures.
No, -1 and 1 are positive and negative. They are opposite in that respect. Opposites have to be opposite somehow or they aren't opposite.
If we have both "Life" spheres and "Death" spheres do the same thing, then nothing is opposite at all.
Wait a second. You miss understood my point. I pointed out in order for the idea of opposites to exist, you need a common ground by which to compare. 1 and -1 are both numbers. They can be considered opposites because they are on the same scale. Numbers regardless of negative/positive still function with in the same principals. The can be added, multiplied, ect.
Yes, opposites must have a contrast, but in order to see a contrast there must be a basis for comparison. IE: Blue is not the opposite of Bark. Bark and Blue aren't compatible on the same scale, so they are simply different. Opposites still require common ground and therefore similarity, to an extent.
Let's say, I want a god of Life and Death. In some cultures, Death and Life are treated as separate existences: a world of the living and the world of the dead. In others, Life and Death are simply part of one another. So shouldn't there be a possibility for a single god with the abilities of both Life and Death Spheres.
While, I think you are correct that a priest of the Life sphere might not want to disrupt the cycle of Life. What if the cycle of Life is already upset for some reason?
Wouldn't a god of Life attempt to fix the balance somehow, even if it required raising a hero that falls to unnatural causes? This doesn't necessarily mean raise them in an undead form, however. More like raise them or restore them before they are embraced by the sphere of Death. Granted, the god of Life in this case might try to have the hero born or select a champion from the living and give them a secret. There are many roads.
If the system is run by a god of both Life and Death spheres... well, stuff like Lazarus and Jesus will happen.
This is, again, confusing the ability to mod the game with something like "different interpretations".
If Toady encodes "Death" to mean "raising the dead", then that's what it means, period.
If this is something moddable (a big "if"), and you mod the game so that "Life" means zombies, and "Death" means happy bunnies or something, then that's what it means in your particular modded game, period. But even then, it's what you have defined, it's still not vanilla, and it's still not interpretable in different ways, it's defined.
That's what code does: it defines things, because computers don't deal in "interpretations", they deal in concrete, measurable values.
Well, I was under the assumption that: The secret is coupled to Death via spheres. Basically, when you look at the raw for the secret is has the sphere there in the Secret's raw. If you change the undead secret to the Fire Sphere, now Fire Gods will give out the secret. I mean, that seems to be the most versatile way to deal with that. So the Sphere has no knowledge of the secret at all.
Post by: monk12 on May 15, 2011, 11:33:23 pm
If the system is run by a god of both Life and Death spheres... well, stuff like Lazarus and Jesus will happen.
This bit here is particularly interesting to me, since it does open up new interpretations of how things work in a given world. If we assume that a god adopts multiple spheres that are somewhat related or otherwise of interest to them, then in the broader philosophical/theological sense there must also be a connection between the two. In worlds where the spheres of life and death are largely dissociated, then it would make sense for them to be viewed as more or less discrete ideas, whereas worlds where those spheres are linked would see the prevailing view be that life and death are a continuum, a cycle, a single path or axis.
And lets not restrict ourselves to life and death here! One of my favorite deities I found in fortress mode was a skeletal god of death, war, and marriage- what does that imply about the way marriage is treated in that world? For that matter, the way war and death are viewed?
Can multiple gods adopt a sphere in DF? That could lead to Ares/Athena situations. For those rusty on their Greek Mythology, Ares is the god of battle, physical valor, and war, while Athena is the goddess of wisdom, strategy, and war (among other things, for both of them.) In DF terms, they both have war as a sphere, but because of their other associations the type of war they conduct is very different. Ares is the go-to guy for your classic "battle hero" (ignoring for the moment that Ares kinda sucked at his job,) while Athena's blessing is sought by the generals and leaders on the battlefield. That kind of competition/overlap could make for some very interesting dogma in the religions of the world, not to mention the way it influences the relationships and politics of the gods themselves.
Something tells me I'll have to wait a long time (likely after the magic arc) until I get to bandy about philosophy/theology with the priest giving me a quest, let alone analyze the world-view of random peasants, but then again, half the fun is the anticipation!
I now return you to the debate in progress :P
Post by: Untelligent on May 15, 2011, 11:36:40 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on May 15, 2011, 11:42:24 pm
There is no life sphere. At all.
Post by: EmeraldWind on May 15, 2011, 11:57:07 pm
And lets not restrict ourselves to life and death here! One of my favorite deities I found in fortress mode was a skeletal god of death, war, and marriage- what does that imply about the way marriage is treated in that world? For that matter, the way war and death are viewed?
That made me laugh. "War is like marriage. You live next to each other so long that you fight until you die!"
I'd also like to see what kind of relationships can be generated between the gods/goddesses of one religion. I even read a book, called Journey to the West, which had intermingling between Buddhism and Taoism. Two religions co-mingling like that was kind of interesting. I wonder if someday something like that could be supported.
Post by: CypherLH on May 16, 2011, 12:31:47 am
Will we be able to find and use slabs that contain knowledge of secrets? So my adventurer could find the "slab of death" and then go run off to build a tower and raise an undead army to conquer the region?
Post by: PTTG?? on May 16, 2011, 12:37:39 am
Will we be able to find and use slabs that contain knowledge of secrets? So my adventurer could find the "slab of death" and then go run off to build a tower and raise an undead army to conquer the region?
No, not yet. Do read this (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html).
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 16, 2011, 02:51:25 am
Hey guys, guess what I just noticed.
There is no life sphere. At all.
yet.
yet-ish.
yet-ish?
Post by: Areyar on May 16, 2011, 07:09:41 am
That would be a cool idea: to have a small pre-worldgen mythology phase, where several generations of deities can do their incestuous family thing
or possibly a thinning out of an initial large batch of weak deities that collect spheres from defeated peers, like despots acquire the lands of their neighbours.
This would not have a place in the player world, besides general relations between deities, their followers and thus quests and
maybe civilizations...if civs will have a preferred deity.
A question though:
Imagine, you get a quest from a priest of Merra -the blessed blossom- to attack a shrine to Armok -God of Blades- and kill it's priest. If both temples are located in the same civilization, how will this work out for your relations with that civ? Will relations with temples be seperate from those with civs? Will effects on relations be more confined to sites.
/sorry: suggestion-y
Post by: Asmageddon on May 16, 2011, 08:59:46 am
Post by: jellsprout on May 16, 2011, 09:05:23 am
In the Odyssey Odysseus visits the underworld. There he meets his fallen comrade, Achilles. When Odysseus says "Blessed in life, blessed in death", Achilles responds that he would rather be a living slave than king of the dead. It is clear from this story that Achilles would not mind being resurrected, even being a slave to the necromancer, as long as he would be alive again. In his view, there is nothing worse than death.
Orpheus was a poet and musician. In the mythology, he lost his wife to a snakebite. Instead of just accepting the death and moving on, as you claim is the good thing to do, he instead traveled down to the underworld and convinced Hades to return his wife to him. The great tragedy of this story arises from the fact that he eventually failed to do so. Orpheus was not allowed to look at his wife until they returned to the surface, but at the final few steps he looked back and lost her for ever. As you can see, the necromancy here isn't evil or wrong.
I also have to note that there are also different versions of the Orpheus story. In some versions he is considered wrong for trying to be reunited with his love by bringing her back to the world of the living, instead of dying.
I also see the story of Jesus and Lazarus has already been brought. A clear case of resurrection, and I don't think anyone here will claim that Jesus was an evil man.
I have been trying to make clear here that life and death is not as black and white as some make it seem to be. It is not the act of resurrection that is evil or good, it is the intention behind it.
Post by: Footkerchief on May 16, 2011, 09:13:08 am
Regarding zombies ripping off the dog's head. Did they claw or bite it until it came off, or is there actual dismemberment in wrestling now?
There's dismemberment in wrestling already, but it generally only works for adventurers that are very strong and/or aim for small body parts like fingers and teeth.
I'll be honest, Dwarf mode now bores me. Adventure mode got interesting lately (and by lately, I mean ever since night creatures showed up in the first place), and it's all that keeps me interested in DF these days. So I'm ecstatic that there are more of them. I do look forwards to more to do besides kill though... being able to be a merchant lord will be fun. Trading games can be great.
Fortress Mode has its enjoyable aspects but the interface ruins it for me. I'd love to see all the cool new features, but playing that mode gives me more stress than enjoyment. And I think it's dragging down development overall since it fits so badly into the world generation model (time dilation, site autonomy, etc).
Post by: Areyar on May 16, 2011, 10:08:15 am
Fortress Mode has its enjoyable aspects but the interface ruins it for me. I'd love to see all the cool new features, but playing that mode gives me more stress than enjoyment. And I think it's dragging down development overall since it fits so badly into the world generation model (time dilation, site autonomy, etc).
I don't agree at all, personally I enjoy fortressmode more and I don't like your -what sounds like- lobbying for the discontinuation of DF development and stripping it down to a standard roguelike.
My feeling is that Toady likes both modes and enjoys shifting his attention between them so that he does not get bored or frustrated with a single dimensional DF.
At least, I have that problem myself. :P
edit: That may have sounded a bit harsh. I'm not trying to flame or anything. :)
Post by: Genoraven on May 16, 2011, 10:17:02 am
How will the new syndromes/curses/interactions affect the arena mode? Will the undead option be removed in favor of the generated undead? Or will arena mode be left alone for the release?
Also, IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN. There is already 1 extension for the page numbers!
Post by: Chromasphere on May 16, 2011, 10:23:25 am
Post by: Asmageddon on May 16, 2011, 10:34:12 am
If you want to govern a mountainhome - become a respected dwarf, take people with you and embark.
Want legends mode? Go to a library and open an interface for browsing everything.
Want to be adventurer again? Retire from your position as for overseer and wander the world.
For those who don't want to have to do this for the start there should be different presets - adventurer(as peasant, hero or demigod), overseer(as, depending on race - village chief, king, princess, etc.), economy-oriented person(trader, diplomat, guild head, etc.), information-oriented(librarian, archeologist, expedition leader) or even something else(like a wizard or necromancer)
Post by: G-Flex on May 16, 2011, 10:48:41 am
If you want to govern a mountainhome - become a respected dwarf, take people with you and embark.
Want legends mode? Go to a library and open an interface for browsing everything.
Want to be adventurer again? Retire from your position as for overseer and wander the world.
But then there's no way to enjoy Fortress Mode as it exists today, as no matter what, your perspective is that of an individual dwarf. Playing a mayor or captain of the guard isn't quite the same as playing a fortress.
I'd still rather see tying up of loose ends and fixing of current features before new features are implemented. I love the new stuff we're getting, but shouldn't the old stuff be made to work as intended first? Just seems like the clear choice to me, from a software development perspective. I'm not trying to be selfish here, but it's harder to enjoy new features when some of the main draws of 0.31 in general (like the new body/combat/butchering systems) still need work and have problems both relatively small and relatively fundamental, when lag issues are bad enough that few people can enjoy an established fortress very well, and other various bugs, quirks, interface problems, and implementation flaws. These things are certainly inevitable in a product that is in development, but I have to wonder why there seems to be more and more of an emphasis on new, complex features when evidently the game doesn't properly support the features implemented within the past few months; why start with necromancy and sewers and knowledge systems when there's so much other work to be done on making existing features work, especially the really basic stuff like animals being able to eat without starving or going ultraviolent on a moment's notice, combat has some conceptual and particular problems that have been pointed out time after time, body tissue properties are out of whack enough to have contributed to bugs as major as the acid-rain fat-melting problem, and there are other things to contend with first that have been sitting around and see no sign of really being acknowledged?
Post by: tfaal on May 16, 2011, 10:50:56 am
Regarding zombies ripping off the dog's head. Did they claw or bite it until it came off, or is there actual dismemberment in wrestling now?
There's dismemberment in wrestling already, but it generally only works for adventurers that are very strong and/or aim for small body parts like fingers and teeth.I'll be honest, Dwarf mode now bores me. Adventure mode got interesting lately (and by lately, I mean ever since night creatures showed up in the first place), and it's all that keeps me interested in DF these days. So I'm ecstatic that there are more of them. I do look forwards to more to do besides kill though... being able to be a merchant lord will be fun. Trading games can be great.
Fortress Mode has its enjoyable aspects but the interface ruins it for me. I'd love to see all the cool new features, but playing that mode gives me more stress than enjoyment. And I think it's dragging down development overall since it fits so badly into the world generation model (time dilation, site autonomy, etc).
Agreed. It'll take some big changes to get me to want to play it. In particular, the military screen needs to be scrapped and replaced with a much simpler alternative, with reasonable default settings in place and the scheduling and alert systems pushed aside; they are too confusing to force anyone to deal with them.
Post by: Asmageddon on May 16, 2011, 11:05:34 am
Post by: Chromasphere on May 16, 2011, 11:10:16 am
Post by: PTTG?? on May 16, 2011, 11:27:19 am
Post by: nil on May 16, 2011, 11:30:47 am
Post by: monk12 on May 16, 2011, 12:17:34 pm
No, I meant that while you would still be a single dwarf, but you would not control him directly, and instead be presented with Dwarf Mode-style interface.
The plan is to keep adventure mode and dwarf mode separate- dwarf mode is more of a "spirit of the fortress" type deal, while the management aspect of adventure mode will be more a "King Conan the Barbarian" thing, where the whole thing is much more personal.
-bugfix rant-
I should probably just ignore this since its sure to inspire a derail, but I'm gonna respond to it anyway. From a software development perspective, bugfixing is boring and often frustrating, and spending months and months bugfixing after every release would likely suck the joy straight out of the project for Toady. Coupled with that, many of the bugs are (at least tangentially) placeholders that will be addressed later on in development. And of course, there is the whole issue with defining something as a bug when it is really more of a balance issue- the materials system and grazers spring to mind.
Just to wrap up, Toady is already devoting significant time to bugfixing- after this release he'll be spending time addressing new bugs introduced by it, and then he'll spend time on the bugs from former versions. I myself love this model, since it keeps me excited about new features while also periodically fixing old issues.
Post by: James.Denholm on May 16, 2011, 12:19:32 pm
Post by: Asmageddon on May 16, 2011, 12:38:35 pm
Yeah, but why not enable adventurer to become such "spirit of the fortress" ?No, I meant that while you would still be a single dwarf, but you would not control him directly, and instead be presented with Dwarf Mode-style interface.The plan is to keep adventure mode and dwarf mode separate- dwarf mode is more of a "spirit of the fortress" type deal, while the management aspect of adventure mode will be more a "King Conan the Barbarian" thing, where the whole thing is much more personal.
Post by: Dutchling on May 16, 2011, 12:51:09 pm
Adventure mode forts will be controlled by direct orders only. I don't know where Toady said that but someone here probably knows.Yeah, but why not enable adventurer to become such "spirit of the fortress" ?No, I meant that while you would still be a single dwarf, but you would not control him directly, and instead be presented with Dwarf Mode-style interface.The plan is to keep adventure mode and dwarf mode separate- dwarf mode is more of a "spirit of the fortress" type deal, while the management aspect of adventure mode will be more a "King Conan the Barbarian" thing, where the whole thing is much more personal.
When you could get a fortress like thing in adventure mode everything you want to be done should be directly told to either the ones who will do the work, or to someone lower in the hierarchy.
Post by: James.Denholm on May 16, 2011, 01:29:45 pm
If you want to govern a mountainhome - become a respected dwarf, take people with you and embark.
Want legends mode? Go to a library and open an interface for browsing everything.
Want to be adventurer again? Retire from your position as for overseer and wander the world.
But then there's no way to enjoy Fortress Mode as it exists today, as no matter what, your perspective is that of an individual dwarf. Playing a mayor or captain of the guard isn't quite the same as playing a fortress.
What if, instead of maintaining control over Urist McMayor, the player experienced a definite "promotion" to the spirit-of-the-site control level? So you'd gather your troupe, set off into the wild, and once you arrived the adventurer would have his puppet strings cut free. If you decided that a particularly awesome character deserved his own run around the country side, seeking fame, fortune, and the personal delivery of a pair of socks to his granny back at the mountain home, you would merely have to release the fortress and dust off your metaphorical marionette control bar and away you would go. Of course, there should be consequences of said action that would mean the player can't jump between the modes freely - perhaps insanity if the new adventurer doesn't feel he made enough of his one opportunity at fame, or other things to stop the player from abusing adventurers as free supply runs to a starving fortress.
Honestly, that's how I've always seen the player - Not tied down to a site or individual, but rather some strange deity, some fluid, gaseous being, capable of flowing and concentrating itself in the mind of an individual, or expanding to exist as a haze over a location, army, or similar. The player does not "die" when his fortress crumbles from within, or his adventurer takes his last breath staring at the rapidly approaching hoof of a Minotaur, oh no! He merely looses his host, and begins the process of seeking out a new one.
Post by: thvaz on May 16, 2011, 01:39:20 pm
Just to wrap up, Toady is already devoting significant time to bugfixing- after this release he'll be spending time addressing new bugs introduced by it, and then he'll spend time on the bugs from former versions. I myself love this model, since it keeps me excited about new features while also periodically fixing old issues.
G-Flex clearly knows that. He knows Toady spent over a month fixing a hundred issues with the game. 31.25 is probably the most stable and bug-free DF version ever. It has issues? It clearly does. And Toady knows it.
However, what G-Flex clearly doesn't understand, is that as Toady stated many times he must have fun with his project. This is what moves the project forward - our donated money only speeds the process, by giving Toady the means to work only on DF. And like you said, bug-fixing is not fun. It is necessary, and Toady continues to fix bugs.
DF isn't a standard software project. It is not funded by a company. It is not written by a team. It has its very specific needs to be succesful - and these needs are still fulfilled after almost five years of public release.
Post by: Aquillion on May 16, 2011, 01:50:39 pm
One thing I could see is allowing you to retire a hero who has risen to control some social group, then start a new game, Dwarf Mode-style, where you play as that group.Yeah, but why not enable adventurer to become such "spirit of the fortress" ?Adventure mode forts will be controlled by direct orders only. I don't know where Toady said that but someone here probably knows.
When you could get a fortress like thing in adventure mode everything you want to be done should be directly told to either the ones who will do the work, or to someone lower in the hierarchy.
It'd be nice to be able to take Dwarf Mode control of existing groups, cities, etc in some fashion. And I like the idea of playing Adventure Mode to 'unlock' them by gaining control of them in that, then saving and quitting and switching to a new-but-connected game in Dwarf Mode.
Doing it as "retire and start a new game" or some such puts some separation between the two, so they don't step on each other's toes so much.
(And, in the other direction, you should be able to take any dwarf from an abandoned fort you had and switch to controlling them.)
Post by: skaltum on May 16, 2011, 01:56:06 pm
you once mentioned in a df talk about artefacts playing larger roles such as a hat that sucks the world into a fire realm, considering that we already get named weapons, is it possible that you might include a way of the weapon getting "enchanted/cursed" from over use?
Post by: tps12 on May 16, 2011, 02:02:24 pm
it's harder to enjoy new features when some of the main draws of 0.31 in general (like the new body/combat/butchering systems) still need work and have problems both relatively small and relatively fundamental
What's an example of a relatively fundamental problem with bodies (materials?), combat, or butchering? I know combat had some serious issues initially, but I thought those had been pretty well solved at this point.
I think it's undeniable that the military screens are difficult to use in the sense that it's just a really flexible and complex system, so there's a steep learning curve to mastering it all.
OTOH, it's pretty painless to create a squad of soldiers who arm and armor themselves with whatever's at hand; give them a place to train that they'll start using on their own; and then send them off to kill things when needed. From there you can wade into the other various features at whatever pace you want.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 16, 2011, 03:08:15 pm
G-Flex clearly knows that. He knows Toady spent over a month fixing a hundred issues with the game. 31.25 is probably the most stable and bug-free DF version ever. It has issues? It clearly does. And Toady knows it.
However, what G-Flex clearly doesn't understand, is that as Toady stated many times he must have fun with his project. This is what moves the project forward - our donated money only speeds the process, by giving Toady the means to work only on DF. And like you said, bug-fixing is not fun. It is necessary, and Toady continues to fix bugs.
DF isn't a standard software project. It is not funded by a company. It is not written by a team. It has its very specific needs to be succesful - and these needs are still fulfilled after almost five years of public release.
Except building DF is a job, no matter how you cut it.
He makes his living making this game.
When there are serious flaws with this game, even if they aren't fun to fix, they stand in the way of his business model generating the money he needs to make a living without actually going out and getting another job. If that means that Toady sometimes has to do things he doesn't like at his job in between doing things he really does like at his job, then so be it.
That doesn't make Toady the slave of the donators, but it does mean that he has more responsibility to actually make a playable game than you seem to be realizing.
To be successful means that the game needs to be playable all the way through development, so that donations throughout the development process can keep coming in. The more that players are put off by obtuse interfaces or serious bugs, the less players DF will have, and the smaller its donation base will become.
Post by: G-Flex on May 16, 2011, 03:21:10 pm
it's harder to enjoy new features when some of the main draws of 0.31 in general (like the new body/combat/butchering systems) still need work and have problems both relatively small and relatively fundamental
What's an example of a relatively fundamental problem with bodies (materials?), combat, or butchering? I know combat had some serious issues initially, but I thought those had been pretty well solved at this point.
For reference, the two mantis reports I've written up:
This one is partly responsible for the "acid rain" fat-melting bug: http://bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=2676
This one is just strange and possibly indicative of greater problems: http://bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=3357
Creatures also don't properly respond to high heat in general (heating a dwarf's brain up to much higher than operational temperature doesn't kill or wound him at all; I only know this because I've seen actual burn wounds on brains in arena mode, albeit very rarely), tissue distribution in certain body parts is rather odd, there are still likely some lingering issues with what does/doesn't cause creatures to die properly (bleeding, effects of fractures, etc.), ribs follow some kind of bizarre electron-cloud model that doesn't work well and results in them hardly ever protecting the organs inside (this is likely because part positioning isn't implemented yet, so quite forgivable although it messes things up in practice a great deal; numbers could at least be tweaked), and the only time blunt objects seem to kill anything is when the skull is smashed through into the brain (which seems astonishingly common sometimes, even just from punching someone).
Tissue material properties in general, aside from fat, could also use some tweaking in some places. For instance, I have to wonder what values of "chitin" Toady used for the bug-type creatures, as it seems really easy to break through (one reason I'm curious is because in the real world, "chitin" as a pure material is very soft and pliable and differs greatly from the reinforced type found in something like a hard exoskeleton), and the heat/cold damage and melting points for several tissues could use adjusting. Also, weird little things like chicken skin being the same as anybody else's and being used for "chicken leather" (horse and chicken and human and elephant skin differ in more than just thickness, surely? But that's all debatable).
I also have a sneaking suspicion that all combat collisions (as in things-hitting-things, including weapon attacks) are treated as if they have a total momentum of zero at the end. To better explain: When you punch someone in the head in real life, the head (and to some extent the rest of the body) is pushed back, making the blow less severe. Compare this to someone's head being held entirely still (against a wall, by someone else, via invisible magicks, whatever) and punched; there's a big difference. My suspicion is that DF treats attacks more like the latter scenario than the former, turning every kick into a curbstomp. This would explain certain things, like why it's so easy to break certain body parts.
If you look on the bug tracker, you'll also find a lot of other oddities that make it clear things aren't what they should, such as "Elephant killed by three hoary marmots - Issue with pain", "Blunt weapons extremely ineffective, extended single combat with groundhog", and "BP_RELATION around upperbody have no effect". I could give plenty more examples, but it's easy enough if you just filter the report view by category.
There are also plenty of other oddities, tweaks, and minor problems that people on the forums have addressed in other threads, whether about bleeding or tissues or something else.
Quote
I think it's undeniable that the military screens are difficult to use in the sense that it's just a really flexible and complex system, so there's a steep learning curve to mastering it all.
In my experience, the problem is also that it doesn't provide enough feedback. If, for example, your dwarves aren't training when you want them to, you have no way of knowing what you did wrong, if anything (there are likely outstanding bugs). I think a little bit of work in that area could go a long way, if it hasn't been done already.
Anyway, I'm aware that bugfixing is tedious and kind of awful to do, but it's easier (and therefore more fun, or at least less not-fun) to fix the problems with a system before you start implementing other systems. I'd prefer to see more of a development cycle where a new set of features is introduced, then that set of features is polished as much as is feasible (obviously some placeholder junk is going to remain in a project like this at certain stages, and that's mostly fine), then rinse and repeat. I don't know why that isn't done, to be honest, except maybe that it's harder to get donations rolling in without consistent feature updates, but that feels both overly cynical and unrealistic.
I guess this has become a bit of a derail, and I apologize for that, but if I'm making a big deal out of it, it's because this issue is the one major thing about development that I've seen draw serious long-term fans away from the project.
Post by: thvaz on May 16, 2011, 04:11:33 pm
Except building DF is a job, no matter how you cut it.
He makes his living making this game.
When there are serious flaws with this game, even if they aren't fun to fix, they stand in the way of his business model generating the money he needs to make a living without actually going out and getting another job. If that means that Toady sometimes has to do things he doesn't like at his job in between doing things he really does like at his job, then so be it.
That doesn't make Toady the slave of the donators, but it does mean that he has more responsibility to actually make a playable game than you seem to be realizing.
To be successful means that the game needs to be playable all the way through development, so that donations throughout the development process can keep coming in. The more that players are put off by obtuse interfaces or serious bugs, the less players DF will have, and the smaller its donation base will become.
Programming DF is a job but Toady stated elsewhere that if the donation fountain dries up he will return to his academic job and will continue to work on DF on his free time. This isn't the worst case scenario: the worst case scenario is the one where he gets fed up with DF, regardless of donation ammount, and stop developing it completely. My point is not that he should only add new content, but that it should not be expected to have a completely bug-free game when the game is still in full development.
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/changelog_page.php
From February 16 to March 28 he fixed 160 issues. He spent over a month only fixing bugs. Like I said,
The interface problem I agree it should be tackled sooner than later.
The current development problem however is looking the most promising since Toady started the public releases. A relatively short development followed by fixing new bugs brought by the new features and then fixing old bugs. I thought everyone was happy with it.
Post by: Untelligent on May 16, 2011, 04:55:56 pm
Post by: LeeDub on May 16, 2011, 05:02:02 pm
[All this talk of Toady getting bored and leaving DF development has made me think we'd lose something amazing, for all the complaining. Pity I only have $4 left on my Paypal. Oh well, it's a beer. That's gotta be motivating, right? ;)]
Post by: G-Flex on May 16, 2011, 05:05:19 pm
Post by: Funk on May 16, 2011, 05:21:15 pm
A)thay dont read the wiki
B)thay try and uses it when under attack or in a rush.
C)get stuck over scheduling, burrows, alerts or Barracks you can get armed troops to kill stuff with out them.
take you time to read the wiki,and tinker with stuff.
but for the love of amok read this (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Attack)
Post by: thvaz on May 16, 2011, 05:28:07 pm
people don't like the interface because:
A)thay dont read the wiki
B)thay try and uses it when under attack or in a rush.
C)get stuck over scheduling, burrows, alerts or Barracks you can get armed troops to kill stuff with out them.
take you time to read the wiki,and tinker with stuff.
but for the love of amok read this (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Attack)
People shouldn't have to read a wiki to understand a interface. I like the interface but I've been playing DF for years. It's almost natural now. Most newcomers won't think the same, however.
Working on interface before all the features are in place isn't ideal, but I think Toady should at least work on its consistence. At least we would be spared of the constant complaints :P
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on May 16, 2011, 05:33:21 pm
*That and I like making good looking forts which is hard to do with all these gosh dern ores in the way.*
Post by: Cruxador on May 16, 2011, 06:06:52 pm
I've never really understood why people don't like the interface. I like it.Yeah, I'm in the same boat. It's mostly very efficient.
People shouldn't have to read a wiki to understand a interface.This is a subjective opinion. I personally disagree, as I feel it is not possible for huge in-depth experience to be conveyed easily without some outside explanation. Generic shooter no. 34372 shouldn't need a wiki to learn, because the only button that matters is the trigger. As games get deeper than that, they by necessity become more complex. In the old days, games often shipped with manuals as long as novels. In the modern era we have wikis. For games that are complicated, it is possible to do without these resources, but you will be confused and have to pick things up as you go along, and doing so will mean there are vast portions of the game that you don't immediately understand. That's how anything complicated works, and a complicated game is no exception.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 16, 2011, 06:12:54 pm
I think Fortress Mode will get less and less boring as more goals become apparent/possible within it. In other words, once we can have an actual significant role in the world (and vice-versa, the world interacts significantly with us), things will be much better.
Well, it's sort of the crux of my giant monologue on farming, and my other thread on making more complex social pressures inside the fortress that what the Fortress mode really needs is to have its maintenance become less of a task of making sure that micromanaged workshop orders stay in place, and more a task of automated systems whose inputs and outputs must be balanced, at least in the large scale.
Post by: NSQuote on May 16, 2011, 06:45:22 pm
As far as adventure mode goes, I wouldn't mind adventure mode overlapping a bit with the other modes while not outright replacing them. Playing the role of a Dwarven mayor would be great, but it'd be nice to have the option of playing from the perspective of the "magic all-seeing overseer" as well. The same with legends mode: you could choose between reading recorded history and dixcovering new history, or just browsing through the entire history of the world at will.
However, it would definitely be neat if your adventurer could start his own civilization and maybe even join up with an existing fortress as a migrant. It'd be interesting to see life at a fortress from a Dwarf's perspective (especially if you end up at a Boatmurder-y fortress!).
Post by: G-Flex on May 16, 2011, 06:51:23 pm
I like Toady's current plan of having bug fixes in between big feature releases. It keeps things interesting while maintaining a steady rate of bugfixes to keep the new ones at bay and to eventually fix the main older bugs.
I would agree, but the current state of affairs is one where each feature set implemented adds on to the pile of pre-existing problems, which are subsequently put on the back burner in favor of more features. It's not a sustainable condition unless Toady is planning on some massive catch-up work in the near future, and even then, I consider that less viable than simply making sure current features are up to speed before new ones are implemented, where plausible.
I think Fortress Mode will get less and less boring as more goals become apparent/possible within it. In other words, once we can have an actual significant role in the world (and vice-versa, the world interacts significantly with us), things will be much better.
Well, it's sort of the crux of my giant monologue on farming, and my other thread on making more complex social pressures inside the fortress that what the Fortress mode really needs is to have its maintenance become less of a task of making sure that micromanaged workshop orders stay in place, and more a task of automated systems whose inputs and outputs must be balanced, at least in the large scale.
I think we both have valid points here. On one hand, managing a fortress should be a little more interesting in the ways you're saying and then some (I'd love to see regional features, dwarven personalities, etc. come into play a lot more), and on the other hand, fortresses need to play a significant role in the life of the outside world and vice-versa. Of course, all that is coming as far as I know, so I don't consider it terribly worrisome.
Post by: tps12 on May 16, 2011, 07:23:34 pm
I like Toady's current plan of having bug fixes in between big feature releases. It keeps things interesting while maintaining a steady rate of bugfixes to keep the new ones at bay and to eventually fix the main older bugs.
I would agree, but the current state of affairs is one where each feature set implemented adds on to the pile of pre-existing problems, which are subsequently put on the back burner in favor of more features.
I think the question being debated is whether that is indeed an accurate description of the current state of affairs. A very many pre-existing problems have been resolved rather than put on the back burner.
Post by: G-Flex on May 16, 2011, 07:33:45 pm
Time will tell, I guess, but I'd rather voice concerns than just wait and hope things go well.
Post by: Jiri Petru on May 16, 2011, 07:48:12 pm
(...)
The real question isn't why bugs aren't fixed but why features are left unfinished before being abandoned for the sake of other half-finished features. For example, as you've said, combat calculations work as intended in terms of regarding all bodyparts as being propped agains a solid wall. That's not a bug, that's how the system is coded. It's an unfinished feature that has deliberately been left in an unsatisfactory state. Unintended bugs I can understand. Intended half-features I can't.
Post by: Untelligent on May 16, 2011, 07:55:12 pm
Post by: NSQuote on May 16, 2011, 08:21:40 pm
Post by: Genoraven on May 16, 2011, 08:26:34 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on May 16, 2011, 08:33:45 pm
The thing I dislike the most about the current version is the way you pretty much have to hit somebody in the head or heart to kill them. I'd like to see some kind of trauma system put in where severe injuries have a chance to kill you outright, with that chance increasing as you become more badly injured and probably related to toughness. Get impaled on a sword as a weedy peasant? Probably instant death. Same thing as a martial trancing axedorf? You might die, but probably not, unless you're already badly hurt.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 16, 2011, 08:35:08 pm
If he stayed with 1 feature till it was completely finished an relatively bugfree we would never get a release
You can make releases in the interim. It's just that you don't start on another feature until the old one is complete.
I can say that the new body types' most disappointingly unfinished business would be that these great big changes to the body system were there to make DF have more than just a size for a creature, and a set number of limbs, like in 40d. The fact that we have dogs and cows and alligators all having fundamentally the same body, with only size being a real difference between them, however, means that Toady spent all that much work to be able to make these creatures potentially radically different... and then didn't actually make them different in any way besides size alone, which is exactly the same as before he went through the update.
As I've mentioned before, a cow's bite is actually stronger than an alligator's bite, because they use the same jaw, the same type of bite attack, and the cows are larger than the alligator, so cows are more fearsome by default.
Of course, even that doesn't matter when it comes to attrition, because 18 cuts of any size to the paper-thin skin of any unarmored creature will be enough to cause any creature to faint, causing three hoary marmots to be capable of killing an elephant (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=4590).
Post by: G-Flex on May 16, 2011, 08:41:44 pm
If he stayed with 1 feature till it was completely finished an relatively bugfree we would never get a release
I don't mean "completely finished", just that it would be nice for the current systems to be worked on a bit more, as a general rule. I certainly wouldn't expect Toady to revamp body part positioning/relationships right off the bat, but there are some things, some of them very simple, that he could do now in order to cause the current system to give more consistently reasonable results.
I agree with what NW_Kohaku says above: The new body and wound systems are great ways to differentiate creatures and make combat interesting and realistic, but for that to happen, it has to work well and be provided with good data first. There are currently problems with both parts of this formula.
Post by: EmeraldWind on May 16, 2011, 09:59:28 pm
From the sound of Threetoe's teaser in the Dev Log, it sounds curses can possibly alienate you from normal not cursed individuals. Will these curses be causing effects that might make you unpleasant for normals to deal with?
For example, a curse of sores or a curse of ugliness. I imagine these types of curses might make it in because of how they are tied to mummies in fiction and simply want to know if they are within the scope of working on mummies. The idea of a curse making you an outcast is not uncommon either and that what it sounds like could happen from the Dev Log...
These powerful beings that can be disturbed. Will they all be Historical Figures that have been buried or will they be other Fun things as well?
Once again, sounds like mummies, but could there be things worse than mummies found in these resting places?
Post by: Dante on May 16, 2011, 10:07:15 pm
THIS I PROMISE.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 16, 2011, 10:10:36 pm
I WILL CHOOSE ADVENTURE, THREETOE.
THIS I PROMISE.
... I've always wondered...
Whenever people ask questions like that in a fantasy RPG, they never actually give you much alternative. I mean, until we get the caravan trading thing in, our choices are "adventure" and "just sit around town, maybe steal food or just starve".
Those sorts of questions have more weight when there is an actual alternative choice that can be made.
Post by: monk12 on May 16, 2011, 10:37:58 pm
I WILL CHOOSE ADVENTURE, THREETOE.
THIS I PROMISE.
... I've always wondered...
Whenever people ask questions like that in a fantasy RPG, they never actually give you much alternative. I mean, until we get the caravan trading thing in, our choices are "adventure" and "just sit around town, maybe steal food or just starve".
Those sorts of questions have more weight when there is an actual alternative choice that can be made.
Which is one of the reasons I'm excited about the caravan arc- "No thanks, my King, I have no desire to tramp across half a continent to kill some dragon that has been plaguing our people since the creation of the world. I'm perfectly capable of killing it should he try to meddle in my affairs, mind you, but I'd rather spend my time strengthening my stranglehold on the silver trade through my plan of economic domination, bribery, and strategic assassinations. But hey, if you would like some *silver warhammers* to equip some other fool with, don't hesitate to send your best offer!"
"Return the slab or suffer my curse!"
KING RAMSES!
The man in gauze!
The man in gauze!
Post by: G-Flex on May 16, 2011, 11:34:40 pm
I WILL CHOOSE ADVENTURE, THREETOE.
THIS I PROMISE.
... I've always wondered...
Whenever people ask questions like that in a fantasy RPG, they never actually give you much alternative. I mean, until we get the caravan trading thing in, our choices are "adventure" and "just sit around town, maybe steal food or just starve".
Those sorts of questions have more weight when there is an actual alternative choice that can be made.
It also means that the reward for such adventure would have to be really, really, really high in order to justify the risks.
Alternatively, maybe the adventurers are the desperate type. I can see more tomb-spelunking going on when there's a famine or something and people are willing to go to extreme lengths to improve their condition... as opposed to most fantasy settings, where it seems like people are willing to face down the Devil himself even when it means living some bizarrely-idyllic home-life behind.
Post by: Yoink on May 16, 2011, 11:36:00 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 16, 2011, 11:39:44 pm
Which is one of the reasons I'm excited about the caravan arc- "No thanks, my King, I have no desire to tramp across half a continent to kill some dragon that has been plaguing our people since the creation of the world. I'm perfectly capable of killing it should he try to meddle in my affairs, mind you, but I'd rather spend my time strengthening my stranglehold on the silver trade through my plan of economic domination, bribery, and strategic assassinations. But hey, if you would like some *silver warhammers* to equip some other fool with, don't hesitate to send your best offer!"
Part of why Koei's Uncharted Waters series has always held a place in my heart - you can be an explorer, a pirate, or a merchant. If you really felt like it, you can just drop the whole plot and go off doing whatever it is you really feel like doing, and there actually are other things to do.
I don't think I'll actually start playing Adventurer mode until we have an interactive enough city and economic model that I can actually play a character that doesn't have to engage in combat to be interesting.
I'd really like to see something like "I want to be a cheesemaker" somehow manage to become an interesting way to play the game, although I'm not sure that's going to really be possible for a long time, yet.
Post by: Yoink on May 16, 2011, 11:45:20 pm
Post by: Genoraven on May 17, 2011, 12:13:47 am
Which is one of the reasons I'm excited about the caravan arc- "No thanks, my King, I have no desire to tramp across half a continent to kill some dragon that has been plaguing our people since the creation of the world. I'm perfectly capable of killing it should he try to meddle in my affairs, mind you, but I'd rather spend my time strengthening my stranglehold on the silver trade through my plan of economic domination, bribery, and strategic assassinations. But hey, if you would like some *silver warhammers* to equip some other fool with, don't hesitate to send your best offer!"
Part of why Koei's Uncharted Waters series has always held a place in my heart - you can be an explorer, a pirate, or a merchant. If you really felt like it, you can just drop the whole plot and go off doing whatever it is you really feel like doing, and there actually are other things to do.
I don't think I'll actually start playing Adventurer mode until we have an interactive enough city and economic model that I can actually play a character that doesn't have to engage in combat to be interesting.
I'd really like to see something like "I want to be a cheesemaker" somehow manage to become an interesting way to play the game, although I'm not sure that's going to really be possible for a long time, yet.
I also look forward to that. Though i don't think it's that far off(comparatively).
Post by: zwei on May 17, 2011, 01:20:08 am
I'm always surprised when I find out how much trouble people have with the military interface- I've found that the basic premises behind it were rather intuitive, and a little dedicated work irons out most of the quirks with the system. I've always had more trouble with farming and maintaining the clothing industry- I can never quite balance it right.
There are some fundamental issues:
1) Schedulle switches do not provide feedback. It takes some time for dwarves to snap out of their previous orders. It makes everything seem like it just does not work at all. I completelly expect squad that was just assigned to patroll duty to actually start patroling instead of chilling out for month or so.
2) Enter key deletes. Seriously, how come, that is like ... worst key posible for that task. This is especially annoying when you accidentally delete chest item from default Metal Armor as there is not way to re-add that one other than reseting uniform... and if you manage to delete that from uniform, well it is ctrl-alt-del time and continuing from latest backup.
3) Squad assigments forces you to pick for all the dwarves, including other squads. Cue massive confusion and accidentally canibalized older squads. Even worse, when you add dwarf, list scroll position resets and if you want to add another dwarf that was right next to him (typical for new immigrants), you have to scroll again. It is also painfully useless if you decide to draft everyone as emergency response - try doing that to 150 pop fort without going insane.
Post by: James.Denholm on May 17, 2011, 01:24:23 am
Playing a cheesemaker in an average Fortress 'round here would be. Freaking. Terrifying.
What's so special about the cheesemakers?
Post by: Rip0k on May 17, 2011, 01:37:10 am
Playing a cheesemaker in an average Fortress 'round here would be. Freaking. Terrifying.
What's so special about the cheesemakers?
Back at 40d they didn't have easy lives. Best they could hope for was military.
Post by: James.Denholm on May 17, 2011, 01:59:52 am
But... You... There was... Daaaaaaah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLl1RWlgw7o).Back at 40d they didn't have easy lives. Best they could hope for was military.Playing a cheesemaker in an average Fortress 'round here would be. Freaking. Terrifying.What's so special about the cheesemakers?
Post by: G-Flex on May 17, 2011, 02:05:55 am
It would be cool if, other than just the terrible, zombifying curses, you could also get relatively benign ones, like a boil or wart on your character's nose, to set off the scars. :)
Or extremely fertile dwarves in some regions.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on May 17, 2011, 02:35:52 am
You guys are spoiled. You know how long it took to go from DF3D to Temples'n'Shit DF? Over a year. No releases in between.Funny thing is, that's almost what happens in the real life too. People don't really die outright unless their brain ceases functioning, the quickest ways of achieving which are hits to the heart to stop bloodflow, or hits to the head. In most cases where this is not achieved, the victim simply receives a severe wound that makes them die of blood loss or suffocation. What DF seems to have a lack of is a state of shock, or similar incapacitation due to sudden massive injury. We have "giving in to pain", which serves a similar purpose but is a bit too hazy, and getting knocked unconscious, which is exclusively a "headshot" thing. Giving in to pain seems to work as a threshold to an accumulated "pain" value right now, but maybe it could be improved by adding a "surge protector" quality to it? A sudden jump in the pain value should be able to trigger the state as well, which could probably make fights more realistic - you stab someone in the guts and they collapse, because of sudden overwhelming pain. Which lets you perform a finishing move while they're down.
The thing I dislike the most about the current version is the way you pretty much have to hit somebody in the head or heart to kill them. I'd like to see some kind of trauma system put in where severe injuries have a chance to kill you outright, with that chance increasing as you become more badly injured and probably related to toughness. Get impaled on a sword as a weedy peasant? Probably instant death. Same thing as a martial trancing axedorf? You might die, but probably not, unless you're already badly hurt.
Post by: Psieye on May 17, 2011, 02:36:59 am
It's a case of different play styles finding some issues to be irrelevant while others are glaringly huge. Issue #1 is a non-factor for me as I prefer to micromanage from the squads-screen instead of setting up patrol routes or defend burrows. Issue #2 is even less relevant because I prefer making all my equipment myself and I want a guarantee my soldiers equip specific armour types of specific materials which I know I've made. Issue #3 can be solved using Dwarf Therapist - give everyone temporary custom professions or nicknames like "S1", "S2" and remove them after setting up the squads. While the list position defaulting every time you select a dwarf is a nuisance, in the case of migrants I can just scroll backwards to get them as they're coming in from the map.I'm always surprised when I find out how much trouble people have with the military interface- I've found that the basic premises behind it were rather intuitive, and a little dedicated work irons out most of the quirks with the system. I've always had more trouble with farming and maintaining the clothing industry- I can never quite balance it right.
There are some fundamental issues:
1) Schedulle switches do not provide feedback. It takes some time for dwarves to snap out of their previous orders. It makes everything seem like it just does not work at all. I completelly expect squad that was just assigned to patroll duty to actually start patroling instead of chilling out for month or so.
2) Enter key deletes. Seriously, how come, that is like ... worst key posible for that task. This is especially annoying when you accidentally delete chest item from default Metal Armor as there is not way to re-add that one other than reseting uniform... and if you manage to delete that from uniform, well it is ctrl-alt-del time and continuing from latest backup.
3) Squad assigments forces you to pick for all the dwarves, including other squads. Cue massive confusion and accidentally canibalized older squads. Even worse, when you add dwarf, list scroll position resets and if you want to add another dwarf that was right next to him (typical for new immigrants), you have to scroll again. It is also painfully useless if you decide to draft everyone as emergency response - try doing that to 150 pop fort without going insane.
Well, that's this player's way of playing that doesn't get grossly bothered by these and other Issues with the game. Toady's task is to try and accommodate everyone's playstyles. The dev cycle currently does not have a "provide feedback for improvements, not just bugfixes". Toady moves on when he deems a set of features to be playable to certain styles, not every style.
Post by: Rockphed on May 17, 2011, 02:39:37 am
Issue #3 can be solved using Dwarf Therapist - give everyone temporary custom professions or nicknames like "S1", "S2" and remove them after setting up the squads. While the list position defaulting every time you select a dwarf is a nuisance, in the case of migrants I can just scroll backwards to get them as they're coming in from the map.
When an action practically requires the use of a third party software, it is probably a good sign that the action is too hard to accomplish with in-game tools.
Post by: Rip0k on May 17, 2011, 02:50:11 am
But... You... There was... Daaaaaaah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLl1RWlgw7o).Back at 40d they didn't have easy lives. Best they could hope for was military.Playing a cheesemaker in an average Fortress 'round here would be. Freaking. Terrifying.What's so special about the cheesemakers?
hehehhe... now, that have completely slipped my mind. ;]
Post by: thvaz on May 17, 2011, 02:54:58 am
I don't mean "completely finished", just that it would be nice for the current systems to be worked on a bit more, as a general rule. I certainly wouldn't expect Toady to revamp body part positioning/relationships right off the bat, but there are some things, some of them very simple, that he could do now in order to cause the current system to give more consistently reasonable results.
They are incomplete but they work, most of the time. If you make extensive tests the problems will show up, but they are rarely a factor during play. If we hadn't the arena most of them wouldn't be known (and it's good we have the arena) . Some problems could be solved easily but as someone said they aren't bugs, they are problematic/unfinished features or orversights. I think Toady knows these problems, he only decided to solve them when he gets around them. This may happen in release 7 (combat move/speed split) or later, when he gets around the combat rewrite (martial arts, special moves and such).
Issue #3 can be solved using Dwarf Therapist - give everyone temporary custom professions or nicknames like "S1", "S2" and remove them after setting up the squads. While the list position defaulting every time you select a dwarf is a nuisance, in the case of migrants I can just scroll backwards to get them as they're coming in from the map.When an action practically requires the use of a third party software, it is probably a good sign that the action is too hard to accomplish with in-game tools.
It isn't too hard, it can be done, but if the use of a third party makes it easier indeed there is room for improvement.
Post by: Cthulhu on May 17, 2011, 05:19:26 am
Post by: MasterMorality on May 17, 2011, 05:49:46 am
How cool would that be?
Post by: Rift on May 17, 2011, 08:17:36 am
If it was a toady post i would assume that means cursing your adventurer is possible in the next release, but since its threetoe i'm unsure.
..i hope so.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 17, 2011, 09:24:51 am
Is the old list of powergoals and stuff gone? I was trying to find it to see if there was anything in the future to let you play a Megabeast (Properly, not just setting it up so they're playable in adventure mode. Living in a cave, sleeping on a pile of gold, adventurers attacking, you get the idea) but it's not there anymore.
It's still there, there just aren't links to it anywhere but in the suggestions forum anymore.
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html
Post by: scriver on May 17, 2011, 09:55:33 am
"...You may escape, only to find that you have succumbed to a terrible curse, unable to show your face again to the world of the living. It is your choice. Will you choose adventure?"Maybe not the a curse of the turn-into-nightcreature kind. But other kinds, like a curse draining the PC of life, making him weaker or other stuff like that I guess is feasible. Also, I guess, nightcreature-type curses where you loose control of the PC (and thus loose the game) might be possible as well, I think. I'm keeping myself optimisticly dreaming about it ;)
If it was a toady post i would assume that means cursing your adventurer is possible in the next release, but since its threetoe i'm unsure.
..i hope so.
Post by: zwei on May 17, 2011, 09:57:30 am
Issue #3 can be solved using Dwarf Therapist - give everyone temporary custom professions or nicknames like "S1", "S2" and remove them after setting up the squads. While the list position defaulting every time you select a dwarf is a nuisance, in the case of migrants I can just scroll backwards to get them as they're coming in from the map.When an action practically requires the use of a third party software, it is probably a good sign that the action is too hard to accomplish with in-game tools.
It isn't too hard, it can be done, but if the use of a third party makes it easier indeed there is room for improvement.
Indeed, it is no game-breaker, might be issue with specific playstyle, but it kind of adds to "want to play df? theese utilities are essential!" thingie.
Oh, blood smears and broken bolts everywhere? run dfcleanmap!
Oh, you want to dig only vein and not surrounding rocks? run dfvdig!
etc etc...
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 17, 2011, 10:11:47 am
I'd post a roadkill image now but it would be of bad taste even for one like me.
Post by: monk12 on May 17, 2011, 12:18:23 pm
It's a case of different play styles finding some issues to be irrelevant while others are glaringly huge. Issue #1 is a non-factor for me as I prefer to micromanage from the squads-screen instead of setting up patrol routes or defend burrows. Issue #2 is even less relevant because I prefer making all my equipment myself and I want a guarantee my soldiers equip specific armour types of specific materials which I know I've made. Issue #3 can be solved using Dwarf Therapist - give everyone temporary custom professions or nicknames like "S1", "S2" and remove them after setting up the squads. While the list position defaulting every time you select a dwarf is a nuisance, in the case of migrants I can just scroll backwards to get them as they're coming in from the map.I'm always surprised when I find out how much trouble people have with the military interface- I've found that the basic premises behind it were rather intuitive, and a little dedicated work irons out most of the quirks with the system. I've always had more trouble with farming and maintaining the clothing industry- I can never quite balance it right.
There are some fundamental issues:
1) Schedulle switches do not provide feedback. It takes some time for dwarves to snap out of their previous orders. It makes everything seem like it just does not work at all. I completelly expect squad that was just assigned to patroll duty to actually start patroling instead of chilling out for month or so.
2) Enter key deletes. Seriously, how come, that is like ... worst key posible for that task. This is especially annoying when you accidentally delete chest item from default Metal Armor as there is not way to re-add that one other than reseting uniform... and if you manage to delete that from uniform, well it is ctrl-alt-del time and continuing from latest backup.
3) Squad assigments forces you to pick for all the dwarves, including other squads. Cue massive confusion and accidentally canibalized older squads. Even worse, when you add dwarf, list scroll position resets and if you want to add another dwarf that was right next to him (typical for new immigrants), you have to scroll again. It is also painfully useless if you decide to draft everyone as emergency response - try doing that to 150 pop fort without going insane.
Well, that's this player's way of playing that doesn't get grossly bothered by these and other Issues with the game. Toady's task is to try and accommodate everyone's playstyles. The dev cycle currently does not have a "provide feedback for improvements, not just bugfixes". Toady moves on when he deems a set of features to be playable to certain styles, not every style.
Issue 1 doesn't seem to bother me so much, perhaps because I already feel like I wait a good deal of time for dwarves to go do their jobs. If I have some mining designated and I make a random dwarf a miner, I hardly ever see him go straight there as soon as I tell him to. Then again, the infrequent occasions I use patrol routes I haven't noticed the kind of month-long delays you seem to be experiencing.
Issue 2 is again par for the course for me, and I regularly change some key bindings because I don't like the defaults. That said, enter to add/remove was pretty intuitive for me, once I grasped the general flow of the screen- add things from the list at the far right, remove things from the left. I've never noticed the lack of "metal chest" largely because I always delete it in favor of a more specific "metal mail shirt" and "metal breastplate" assignment, to make sure my dwarves layer properly.
Issue 3 is actually not an issue- when you scroll over a dwarf when choosing where to assign him it lists his squad affiliation, if any, in the upper right. I've always found it quite useful when I need to consolidate 3 squads into one because my military was decimated by a goblin siege. When immigrants arrive, they are always at the bottom of the list in the order they arrived- since I typically evaluate migrants for military suitability as soon as they arrive, I don't typically have troubles filling in my squads. I'll grant you it can be tricky looking for replacements later since there is no way (outside of Dwarf The Rapist) to organize dwarves by a particular skill (as opposed to profession,) but that problem is not unique to the military screen. As far as drafting your entire fortress goes, yeah, that's a pain in the butt, but if you're at that point its because other mistakes have been made previously- DF is a game about preparation and planning, not reaction.
Like Psieye said, how big an issue is depends on your playstyle and experience, and is different for everyone. If there was a big problem with, say, mechanics, I'd never know about it because I never do anything more advanced than a pump stack.
Post by: Knight Otu on May 17, 2011, 03:59:56 pm
Issue 3 is actually not an issue- when you scroll over a dwarf when choosing where to assign him it lists his squad affiliation, if any, in the upper right.It's pretty easy to miss, though, if you don't know to look for it. I'd say that ideally those soldiers should be color-coded in a way similar to people in the room assignment menus in addition to whatever military screen improvements there are.
Post by: Urist McDepravity on May 17, 2011, 07:31:42 pm
For me there are two problems with dwarf mode: lag and boredom. Its too slow for ambitious projects and neither challenging nor having any objective for regular play. So new features (esp. proper sieges, which could actually challenge my defenses) are vital for making it interesting again. Improved body systems or fighting simulation? Not so much. Most of the time I don't care about such little details. If siegers cannot overcome my defensive installations, it does not matter how exactly they die.
Yes, alligator is weaker than cow. Does that affect my gameplay? Not at all. When I throw legendary axedwarfs at that alligator, it dies from first strike anyway.
Post by: monk12 on May 17, 2011, 09:14:44 pm
Post by: darkflagrance on May 17, 2011, 09:25:07 pm
Post by: G-Flex on May 17, 2011, 09:31:13 pm
There will probably be tags on limbs like arms, like a CAN_ANIMATE_SEPARATELY similar to how limbs already have tags like LEFT and FLIER in the raws, that determines whether they raise by themselves.
This shouldn't be necessary; the game should be able to check to see if a severed part has a [GRASP] or [STANCE] part connected to it. At least I don't THINK that would cause problems.
Post by: darkflagrance on May 17, 2011, 09:37:49 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on May 17, 2011, 10:15:21 pm
There will probably be tags on limbs like arms, like a CAN_ANIMATE_SEPARATELY similar to how limbs already have tags like LEFT and FLIER in the raws, that determines whether they raise by themselves.
That or [DONT_ANIMATE] would be ideal.
Post by: Dante on May 17, 2011, 10:15:43 pm
I'd imagine that, as somebody pointed out, anything that is a Ngoso Smomstra's Left Arm or similarly named bodypart will be a candidate [as opposed to reaction products and food items]. Or since there would be problems with undead back left teeth and so on, I suppose there could be a requirement that the severed part is above a certain percentage of the original body.
I'd say a [DO_NOT_ANIMATE] might be better for modders at least, yeah. Or more likely, [DO_NOT_APPLY_CURSE:CURSE_NAME].
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 17, 2011, 11:15:51 pm
Post by: abadidea on May 17, 2011, 11:36:34 pm
Post by: hermes on May 18, 2011, 01:04:06 am
Quote from: Toady Log
I set up two lines of necromancers in the arena and gave them adamantine swords. The forces clashed, and then a roiling pile of severed limbs and heads and bodies jumped into the fray until one of the sides was victorious, with their new little buddy parts wandering around aimlessly near them.
Sounds manic! Some fine point questions...
Can Necromancers raise the limbs of slain-already-raised creatures?
Can Necromancers perform other actions (like wielding adamantine swords) whilst raising, or do they have some penalty to movement and action, or are they temporarily incapacitated?
It's really nice to see such cool game mechanics coming out so quickly from the "new" materials and raws rewrite.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on May 18, 2011, 01:49:51 am
Post by: zwei on May 18, 2011, 02:12:50 am
Issue 3 is actually not an issue- when you scroll over a dwarf when choosing where to assign him it lists his squad affiliation, if any, in the upper right.It's pretty easy to miss, though, if you don't know to look for it. I'd say that ideally those soldiers should be color-coded in a way similar to people in the room assignment menus in addition to whatever military screen improvements there are.
If you know where to look for it, it is still easy to ignore - it is in opposite corner of screen and you have to check it for each individual dwarf, it is quite important information that should be part of list.
I would support color-coding: simple yet informative. I shall make suggestion with this.
I find military to be quite stable in recent releases, and even healthcare is almost fine now.
It is stable, as in not crashing game anymore and doing fine job at killing foes and if you take your time to set it up it works like clockwork.
It just has pains associate with its setup, which kinda makes it broken for me.
As for healthcare - there are only weakly connected issues with it nowadays (Leftover buckets of water from canceled "give water" have strange tendency to be used for lye production and become bugged as result, which makes soap production pain - mantis 0001324 ).
I, of course, have some pet issue with it: Concerning pets - healthcare does not handle animals, so your dogs go on undiagnosed and then subsequently uncleaned, unsurtured, unbandaged... mantis 0000349
Post by: thvaz on May 18, 2011, 02:19:07 am
Quote
I'm setting up independent monument burial sites for people, so that in addition to the catacombs down below, they can also build pyramids and things, like we used to have
I hope "things" includes barrows.
Post by: MasterMorality on May 18, 2011, 03:03:32 am
Post by: Areyar on May 18, 2011, 04:28:33 am
Ok, so I'm still curious as to whether the undead still have a hit-points system, or whether there's some more intricate, awesomeness now coded into their systems? Because I really want to know, if it's not hit-points, how does one go about 'killing' a severed arm!?Arm soup. :P
Post by: James.Denholm on May 18, 2011, 05:17:05 am
Urist McNecromancer mutters some dark sounds...Ok, so I'm still curious as to whether the undead still have a hit-points system, or whether there's some more intricate, awesomeness now coded into their systems? Because I really want to know, if it's not hit-points, how does one go about 'killing' a severed arm!?Arm soup. :P
An unidentifiable piece of gore has been re-animated!
The piece of gore launches itself at Urist McAdventurer!
It pierces the brain!
Urist McAdventurer has been struck down.
Post by: BaLLz on May 18, 2011, 08:12:03 am
First time I ask a question here. I hope I'm doing it properly.
Post by: freeformschooler on May 18, 2011, 10:02:48 am
This month you have posted once per day on the Current Development page. So my question would be, will you continue to do so? Loving it.
First time I ask a question here. I hope I'm doing it properly.
Perfectly legitimate question, and I echo it completely. I really am loving the daily devlogs, they make the wait more fun.
Post by: Footkerchief on May 18, 2011, 10:18:25 am
This month you have posted once per day on the Current Development page. So my question would be, will you continue to do so? Loving it.
First time I ask a question here. I hope I'm doing it properly.
This seems like the ultimate in questions that will answer themselves, given a little patience.
Post by: PTTG?? on May 18, 2011, 10:30:54 am
Quote
Toady One I'm setting up independent monument burial sites for people, so that in addition to the catacombs down below, they can also build pyramids and things, like we used to have. It should be entertaining. I've also got arm and head animation mostly working -- I set up two lines of necromancers in the arena and gave them adamantine swords. The forces clashed, and then a roiling pile of severed limbs and heads and bodies jumped into the fray until one of the sides was victorious, with their new little buddy parts wandering around aimlessly near them.
So you can reanimate that arm ok?
Anyway, I really want to see a Jim Henson film starring these necromancers. I can just see the little felt bits inchworming around the set.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 18, 2011, 11:20:04 am
This month you have posted once per day on the Current Development page. So my question would be, will you continue to do so? Loving it.
First time I ask a question here. I hope I'm doing it properly.
Perfectly legitimate question, and I echo it completely. I really am loving the daily devlogs, they make the wait more fun.
I really, really doubt it.
Toady's probably going to burn out on it after he starts moving on to more boring things, like the bug-squashing phase after this release. He isn't going to want to post updates on, "I still can't figure out what causes this one bug, I'm going to go checking this other set of code later tonight."
Besides which, he isn't going to actually be coding every single day, either. Unless he just stores up announcements so that he can take a day off, and go visit his family or something, and make a smokescreen devlog post of something he actually did a couple days ago, he's not always going to have something to post.
Post by: Footkerchief on May 18, 2011, 11:35:06 am
Can we make subtle region curses? I'd like to see little hamlets full of backwards, mutated townsfolk.
From the sound of Threetoe's teaser in the Dev Log, it sounds curses can possibly alienate you from normal not cursed individuals. Will these curses be causing effects that might make you unpleasant for normals to deal with?
For example, a curse of sores or a curse of ugliness. I imagine these types of curses might make it in because of how they are tied to mummies in fiction and simply want to know if they are within the scope of working on mummies. The idea of a curse making you an outcast is not uncommon either and that what it sounds like could happen from the Dev Log...
This came up in the List thread: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg424041;topicseen#msg424041)
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).
A question, though;
Have you settled on what these 'secrets' will allow? Would you pretty please be able to post a list (so, immortality, raising and binding undead, rapid healing, etc)?
You mentioned that new secrets will be able to be modded in on release. What kind of functionality on release are we looking at for that system? Will secrets be able to change attributes, give new body parts, or anything like that, or will it just be tags like [IMMORTAL] or whatever for now?
"I don't want to post those now because the format is still fluid." (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-05-09)
Toady, will necromancy be possible in the Arena?
Today's devlog confirms this. (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-05-17)
With the advent of necromancy, will it be possible to use necromancer's powers to recruit ghosts on quests of revenge?
Oh, and another question: Will it be possible to get quests of revenge from your old dead adventurers for in exchange for the dead adventurer's equipment?
AFAIK there hasn't been any mention of necromancers recruiting ghosts in world gen or otherwise, so probably not.
Tangible rewards for quests haven't been implemented yet, nor has any notion of personal revenge, so no, not in the next version.
Are necromancers going to send their armies to all nearby sites?
(to harvest bodies)
or only to fortresses? If so, what is their common motivation to focus on dwarves so?
Also, will these small towers grow larger as the number of minions grows?
The dev log mentions necromancers raising corpses from old battlefields, (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-05-15) so they're not focusing on dwarves per se.
Tower size will probably be fixed at worldgen.
3. Is it possible that the leader of a dwarven civ, perhaps the king at your fortress even, might become a necromancer while you're playing? What would happen if they did? Would they suddenly just become an enemy while standing in your fort and promptly get slaughtered, would they run off and disappear off screen before returning years later with an undead horde, or would they remain in power and you would just have what amounts to an invincible population in which any member who died was raised almost immediately.
Covered in the last thread: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2261541#msg2261541)
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: monk12Will 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?
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.
If the player in adventure mode/armies in the future dwarf mode slaughter a village, will a necromancer be able to harvest their bodies / create an undead city while in-play? or will the necromancer rise be restricted in a short worldgen that happens between one adventure/fortress and the next one?
Creation of necromantic towers and undead armies will probably only occur during primary world generation. It definitely won't happen during play (that's a Release 5 thing at the soonest), and while the game does currently skip a year or two between Adventure/Fortress games, it doesn't seem to incorporate most of the stuff that happens during primary world generation.
The absence of a 'jungle' biome have puzzled me a long time. Surroundings like "Polluted", "No-Gravity" and "Irradiated"(magically, that is) might be a bit out-of-place, but still possible to mod in.
In the future, are you planning on implementing other kinds of biomes and surroundings?
'Jungle' is an inexact term, but the game has plenty of tropical forests. (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Biome#Forests)
As for new types of surroundings:
Quote from: dev_single
# Core94, RANDOMIZED REGIONS AND THEIR FLORA/FAUNA, (Future): The current good/evil regions should be scrapped and replaced by a system that aligns a region to varying degrees with a set of spheres. In this way you could end up with a desert where the stones sing or a forest where the trees bleed, with all sorts of randomly generated creatures and plants that are appropriate to the sphere settings. It's important that randomly generated objects be introduced to the player carefully during play rather than just being thrown one after another to allow for immersion, though there's also something to be said for cold dumping the player in a world with completely random settings, provided they can access enough information by looking/listening and having conversations, etc. Requires Core92.
You talked on the dev page about adventurers interrogating bad guys for information. While I understand that's a ways off, could that theoretically work for magical secrets?
Part of the implementation of secrets was that Toady "set up the knowledge structures for historical figures" (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-05-10), and coupled with his comment about "knowledge [of secrets] spreading all over the place" (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2261541#msg2261541) and the general goal of being able to interrogate people, yeah, it's one of those things that will hopefully work out later.
Will brewing continue to make liquid out of nowhere?
This one just puzzles me at the moment.
In the next release, yes. Later on, probably not.
Will we see non-human towns (such as mountain homes, goblin forts, and elf forest retreats) return sometime during the nine releases?
From the last thread: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2069500;topicseen#msg2069500)
Quote from: Toady One
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.
Will we be able to find and use slabs that contain knowledge of secrets? So my adventurer could find the "slab of death" and then go run off to build a tower and raise an undead army to conquer the region?
Last thread: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2261541#msg2261541)
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: tHe_silent_HWill 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.
Building towers and raising armies won't be possible yet, though.
Imagine, you get a quest from a priest of Merra -the blessed blossom- to attack a shrine to Armok -God of Blades- and kill it's priest. If both temples are located in the same civilization, how will this work out for your relations with that civ? Will relations with temples be seperate from those with civs? Will effects on relations be more confined to sites.
The game already separately tracks your affiliation with a temple vs. your affiliation with a civ, but in the next version, you will still become an enemy of the civ. Toady probably won't have any detailed predictions until he begins working on Justice (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html).
when weather becomes more implemented will there be creatures that affect the weather? such as a lightning titan that brings rain and causes random lighting strikes leading to Fun and fires?
Cool idea, but there's no timeline or definite answers yet.
you once mentioned in a df talk about artefacts playing larger roles such as a hat that sucks the world into a fire realm, considering that we already get named weapons, is it possible that you might include a way of the weapon getting "enchanted/cursed" from over use?
Spoiler: This was heavily covered in DF Talk. (click to show/hide)
These powerful beings that can be disturbed. Will they all be Historical Figures that have been buried or will they be other Fun things as well?
Night creatures too, it's sounding like.
Post by: Cruxador on May 18, 2011, 02:10:29 pm
Post by: monk12 on May 18, 2011, 08:13:16 pm
Post by: Genoraven on May 18, 2011, 09:04:19 pm
Post by: Toady One on May 18, 2011, 11:58:06 pm
I had some of these answers typed out yesterday, so rather than skipping them I might repeat/contradict/augment my previous statements.
Quote from: Urist McDepravity
Would it be possible for these limbs to assemble into single frankenstein/abomination-like creature?
I haven't done custom bodies yet because although I've had a custom body framework in for about as long as we've had bodies, that framework has never been tested so won't work without a lot of help. We were planning on doing those things (using the light red N), but if we get to it we were thinking of limiting it to otherly-sized body parts, sutures and grafted-on weapons, which is all do-able without going to full custom bodies.
Quote from: Uristocrat
What sort of research would help you the most? And how should the research be presented: tables summarizing the findings, links to sources where you can get the data yourself, or both? Are modified and annotated RAWs ever useful, or is it better to focus on creating forum posts with the necessary information?
Filling in the missing/incorrect/vague numbers I've got is the most useful thing that can be done now, since I'm most likely to be able to use it. Tables are fine, as long as there is a source for it, and having it already converted into the game's units is best. Raws are fine too, as long as they are sourced, and not so different from the originals that a diff utility is useless.
Quote
Quote from: GlanzorIn the upcoming release, will only human historical figures try to seek those secrets?
I mean, goblins and elves have little reason to search for immortality obviously, but what about dwarven necromancers?Quote from: thvazThere are a lot of immortal creatures in DF, goblins,elves and giants coming to mind. They know the secret of immortality? They can teach it?
I think this is important for the sake of consistency.Quote from: veokWhat races can necromancers arise from? Just Humans and Goblins? Or can Dwarves, Elves, Kobolds, (and modded races) become ones as well?Quote from: ArkoseI'm curious about what kind of requirements are going to be placed on who and what can learn secrets. Could an ordinary wild badger learn the secret of necromancy, and if it did, would it build itself a tower and start raising the dead? And if there are requirements for secrets, will they be settable on a per-secret level? (Like "the secret words of wisdom" requiring [INTELLIGENT] to learn and [CAN_SPEAK] to use, for example?)
For the example I've been using, it is restricted to mortals with can learn. Can speak might also be required, since kobolds shouldn't be able to read slabs. The restriction tags available are the same as the ones you can use for the syndromes, so it's still ongoing. You can use the current arbitrary string classes and specific creature tokens, so it's really whatever creatures you want. They don't have anybody they want to teach it to at this point, but there is a tag for it. I'm not sure what the future holds there.
Quote from: tfaal
Can we make subtle region curses? I'd like to see little hamlets full of backwards, mutated townsfolk.
It doesn't all have to be zombies, but I'm not sure any of the effects qualify as subtle with what I've got so far. Once we get to vampires, which might include small body modification effects, then you could make a region curse that makes people have giant hands or something, but I can't promise anything.
Quote
Quote from: Osmosis JonesHave you settled on what these 'secrets' will allow? Would you pretty please be able to post a list (so, immortality, raising and binding undead, rapid healing, etc)?Quote from: CthulhuYou mentioned that new secrets will be able to be modded in on release. What kind of functionality on release are we looking at for that system? Will secrets be able to change attributes, give new body parts, or anything like that, or will it just be tags like [IMMORTAL] or whatever for now?
I'm not sure what all is going to be available yet. Partial changes to bodies (new parts etc.) are the most time-consuming and won't be included this time. Once we are through vampires I should have a better idea.
Quote
Quote from: AklyonToady, will necromancy be possible in the Arena?Quote from: GenoravenHow will the new syndromes/curses/interactions affect the arena mode? Will the undead option be removed in favor of the generated undead? Or will arena mode be left alone for the release?
Right now for testing I've allowed one interaction effect to be applied to a given creature at creation. That doesn't let you specify how much flesh has rotted away, but it does let you test things like secret effects and so on.
Quote from: jimi12
Will curses/syndromes be curable in a way that does not kill the person who is cursed? For instance, if a gang of werewolves attacks my fort, can I trap them and then apply some cure, turning them into normal dwarves/humans/etc which could then be friendly and join my fort?
It isn't available as an effect right now, but it's certainly a reasonable thing to consider for later, especially if curses get to be a game-ruining mess that isn't your fault. I'm not sure that applies to grave robbers. We'll see.
Quote from: Asmageddon
How often do you currently check out suggestions forum?
I look at the front page every two or three days. My closer reading is still several months behind.
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
In the case of an adventurer, will we be capable of receiving training as a religious figure or whathaveyou that lets you acquire this sort of weakness-revealing information on your own, and become a "Adventurer Role: Slayer of Nightcreatures" in the sense of being a traveling exorcist? Or must you go out and find those religious figures and ask them on the weakness for every night creature you run across?
There's nothing wrong with learning things in advance rather than on a case by case basis. If we don't have time advancement, it's more of a char gen issue, which would be cool. We'll see if this is necessary during testing when we have our first creatures with weaknesses/etc., which might not happen this time.
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
In the case of a fortress, we can't go out and search for religious figures to perform a divination for us. Will we have fortress temples where we can interact with the priest, and get them to tell us how to kill a nightcreature that can only be killed by exploiting some weakness? How will we even manage to control whether dwarves can exploit a weakness, for that matter? Will there be a "coat your swords in syrup" function going in any time soon? Or will Fortress Mode nightcreature weaknesses just be pushed off?
It's probably not going to come up for this release. I don't know what's going to happen after that.
Quote
Quote from: zweiWill we be able to mod secrets to be known/used by appointed noble?
I, for example, would like to make "The Castle" series mod where ruler grants imortality to best-of-best (swordmaster, armorer ..., but also cook, doctor ...).Quote from: UristocratI've heard a lot of talk about "secrets" lately. Is the Dungeon Master's ability to tame exotic creatures also going to be one of these "secrets"?
It's possible to get sort of tech-treey with it, but I haven't done anything like that, and it's not set up to point to certain positions or to have positions confer any abilities on their own. The larger questions surrounding knowledge and technology have not been resolved.
Quote from: Jiharo
will Legends mode at some point include additional economics information about towns such as main exports and imports or average production of various goods?
There's more information now, but it doesn't currently track any long running stats. It'll want to have some sort of reputation/generic information for color purposes if anything, and it'll derive that from past trade, but I'm not sure when it'll happen.
Quote from: Areyar
Are necromancers going to send their armies to all nearby sites?
(to harvest bodies)
or only to fortresses? If so, what is their common motivation to focus on dwarves so?
Also, will these small towers grow larger as the number of minions grows?
Nothing happens during play aside from attacks on the fortress and local raisings in both modes. They focus on battlefields in world gen for bodies right now and raise whatever they find there. We wanted to do site infiltrations to bring corpses up from catacombs etc. as well, but it's an if-there's-time thing at this point.
Quote from: LoSboccacc
If the player in adventure mode/armies in the future dwarf mode slaughter a village, will a necromancer be able to harvest their bodies / create an undead city while in-play? or will the necromancer rise be restricted in a short worldgen that happens between one adventure/fortress and the next one?
Nothing happens on off-loaded sites yet once world gen is over. There will be peaceful interactions during play once we are further through this series of releases, then the army stuff is after that, which will include megabeast/night creature/bandit/etc. actions.
Quote from: piecewise
1. What about necromancers will allow them to raise things? Will they make some sort of magic object which simply raises any dead in the area? Will they use some sort of nebulous power thats inherent to them? Will they be somehow able to raise themselves if they die, such as a Lich.
2.Will the necromancers make only one kind of dead or will there be multiple types with different duties, something like a ant nest. Will there be ghouls which scavenge the dead, living meat wagons to carry them, hulking flesh golems for combat, living pipe organs broadcasting the arrival of undead armies, etc, or just a wave of zombified woodland creatures?
3. Is it possible that the leader of a dwarven civ, perhaps the king at your fortress even, might become a necromancer while you're playing? What would happen if they did? Would they suddenly just become an enemy while standing in your fort and promptly get slaughtered, would they run off and disappear off screen before returning years later with an undead horde, or would they remain in power and you would just have what amounts to an invincible population in which any member who died was raised almost immediately.
4. Now that we have the general raise dead curse effect, will it be possible that this effect is placed on artifacts or items? Ie, that Shiny blue sword found down in the Curious structures near the bottom of the world might have the unfortunate effect of raising your enemies to try to kill you over and over.
1. They learn the secret, and then they can do it at will. Magicky system type stuff like costs/conditions etc. will be put on over time. All I have now is whether or not it needs a line of sight and a range.
2. It'll depend on what the generator ends up doing. In the example they just raise corpses right now.
3. It's not possible right now.
4. Perhaps at some point, but I haven't done anything with existing artifacts.
Quote from: tfaal
You talked on the dev page about adventurers interrogating bad guys for information. While I understand that's a ways off, could that theoretically work for magical secrets?
There's a tag, and I'm not sure if it'll stay or be used yet, but it basically says if the secret is recordable in a way that non-deity people can understand. In that case, pumping people for secret knowledge would be fair when we get there, I think. A wizard game we made some years back focused in part on the different wizards torturing each other for information, so I expect it at some point.
Quote from: Dagoth Urist
The absence of a 'jungle' biome have puzzled me a long time. Surroundings like "Polluted", "No-Gravity" and "Irradiated"(magically, that is) might be a bit out-of-place, but still possible to mod in.
In the future, are you planning on implementing other kinds of biomes and surroundings?
The tropical moist broad leaf forest or whatever is the traditional "jungle" biome. There's a general coverage of biomes as far as I am aware of them, though there are many specific things that aren't addressed. As far as weird effects go, the regional interaction stuff is an initial step toward that, but I'm not going to do much with that for now.
Quote from: Aquillion
With this... would it be possible to easily add an init option or worldgen parameter to re-enable dwarves embarking on top of other people's sites? I'm curious whether this would make the game respond 'properly' now if dwarves try to embark on a dark fortress or somesuch, making for something interesting.
Actually, would it be possible to allow the dwarves to embark on 'hostile' sites in general in the main game, as long as there's no friendly population there? It seems like "deal with the undead, then settle in their tower" could be a fun (and challenging) way to start a fortress.
Adding an init option wouldn't make the game respond any better than it was when it was broken, so I think I'm misunderstanding something. There's something fundamentally silly about allowing those embarks, but I don't have a problem with the init option in principle. But it takes time to make sure that everybody is properly hostile in that artificial environment, so I haven't been eager to fix it up. That said, we've been toying with the idea of allowing some embarks on thoroughly bad places. We'll see what happens.
Quote from: Cthulhu
Regarding zombies ripping off the dog's head. Did they claw or bite it until it came off, or is there actual dismemberment in wrestling now?
I haven't changed anything, and I didn't check the combat report... just found a head on the ground. This was prior to the head raising which now occurs, so it stayed there for me to find.
Quote from: Neoskel
So, since corpses can be raised without their heads, how do you (at least temporarily) kill a zombie/skeleton? Will a complete corpse zombie still die when it loses its head? How bad off does a corpse have to be to be un-raisable? Especially when animated limbs/etc. go in, how do you kill those?
Same as it has been, with the "hitpoint" stuff, until we redo crushed-to-a-messy-pulp as a concept. Any animated creature has to sustain banging around proportional to its size and it'll collapse. It can be raised again immediately if it is still intact. Right now we're using a sort of weird definition, where you have to have at least one head or grasp left if your original body had any of those. If your body is weird enough not to have a head or grasp defined, and it is still marked as being from a "living" being, then it can always be raised, which would amplify your need to go after the source instead, if possible. This makes completely exotic monsters trouble in evil regions, and I'll have to see if additional precautions are necessary. I don't want to adopt a cumbersome tag system for this, but we'll see what's necessary. A body could be marked as pulped if it is successfully felled a number of times, for instance, until we make pulping a reality.
Quote from: CypherLH
Will we be able to find and use slabs that contain knowledge of secrets? So my adventurer could find the "slab of death" and then go run off to build a tower and raise an undead army to conquer the region?
It's still undecided in terms of being able to use them. We're hoping to get to it. You wouldn't get to build a tower either way until we get to that more generally. We've discussed having your (living) buddies be able to help you or be assigned construction tasks in the past, and it's roughly the same to let your undead buddies or buddy parts help out too. I guess it's arguable whether cutting off a zombie's arm so that you'd have two workers would be beneficial. It probably depends on the job.
Quote from: Areyar
Imagine, you get a quest from a priest of Merra -the blessed blossom- to attack a shrine to Armok -God of Blades- and kill it's priest. If both temples are located in the same civilization, how will this work out for your relations with that civ? Will relations with temples be seperate from those with civs? Will effects on relations be more confined to sites.
That scenario isn't possible the way things are now. The religion has its own entity, but people in the civ would still get angry the way things stand. Of course this should be changed.
Quote from: Asmageddon
Will raising the tower involve the secret itself? What kind of terrain modification/construction will secrets be able to do? Will shape, size, etc. of towers be randomized?
Right now they just need 50 zombies (I think) and then they are assumed to have a decent work force, and we haven't expanded out to interesting things like terraforming. The towers will be randomized somewhat, though they are smaller and less interesting than the larger dungeons, unless they have a dungeon underneath.
Quote from: EmeraldWind
From the sound of Threetoe's teaser in the Dev Log, it sounds curses can possibly alienate you from normal not cursed individuals. Will these curses be causing effects that might make you unpleasant for normals to deal with?
For example, a curse of sores or a curse of ugliness. I imagine these types of curses might make it in because of how they are tied to mummies in fiction and simply want to know if they are within the scope of working on mummies. The idea of a curse making you an outcast is not uncommon either and that what it sounds like could happen from the Dev Log...
These powerful beings that can be disturbed. Will they all be Historical Figures that have been buried or will they be other Fun things as well?
I'm not sure exactly how it's going to work yet, but something that separates you from people is what we are after, whether it's warty or a bad vibe or whatever ends up happening.
We are starting with historical figures that have been buried, and perhaps that's all we'll get to.
Post by: thvaz on May 19, 2011, 03:38:05 am
About today's devlog, I wonder how dangerous it will be to visit a tomb of a deceased demon...
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 19, 2011, 03:48:03 am
Right now we're using a sort of weird definition, where you have to have at least one head or grasp left if your original body had any of those.
so, we now know the proper 'safe' burial method: cut off hands, feet and heads of the defunct :P
Post by: Rip0k on May 19, 2011, 03:48:46 am
I wonder, what will be those "disturbance events." mentioned in devlog
Post by: Knight Otu on May 19, 2011, 04:33:57 am
About today's devlog, I wonder how dangerous it will be to visit a tomb of a deceased demon...I've wondered that myself. Should be interesting to see how that works out for demon lawgivers, especially if demons already get some interaction use in live.
so, we now know the proper 'safe' burial method: cut off hands, feet and heads of the defunct :PExcept for ghosts. :P
Post by: thvaz on May 19, 2011, 04:37:39 am
so, we now know the proper 'safe' burial method: cut off hands, feet and heads of the defunct :PExcept for ghosts. :P
And disfiguring a corpse should make more likely that a angry ghost would arise.
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 19, 2011, 05:01:46 am
so, we now know the proper 'safe' burial method: cut off hands, feet and heads of the defunct :PExcept for ghosts. :P
And disfiguring a corpse should make more likely that a angry ghost would arise.
I think you missed the "burial" part of the safe burial method. a coffin were involved :P
Post by: thvaz on May 19, 2011, 05:03:59 am
so, we now know the proper 'safe' burial method: cut off hands, feet and heads of the defunct :PExcept for ghosts. :P
And disfiguring a corpse should make more likely that a angry ghost would arise.
I think you missed the "burial" part of the safe burial method. a coffin were involved :P
I didn't missed anything. We don't know if burial will be a 100% safe method against ghost rising anymore.
Post by: stolide on May 19, 2011, 09:11:50 am
Post by: Dr. D on May 19, 2011, 09:45:11 am
Post by: James.Denholm on May 19, 2011, 09:50:18 am
If someone with a secret dies, and then they are raised, do they still know the secret? For example, if one necromancer kills another, and decides to raise his fallen enemy, does the newly undead necromancer maintain his ability to raise more undead?To expand on this a little, what happens to the soul on re-animation?
Because I just love runnin' the questionmobile, to expand on that further: Will there be methods of necromancy or other magic that will/will not bring back the soul? What about partially bringing back the soul, both through a "copy" (for example, zombie with skills but not memories, assuming skills are in the soul) and through weakly linking to the actual soul (as above, but upon seeing his daughter it all comes flooding back to him and he turns his rusty sword on his master instead of participating in the village sacking, saving everyone and leading to a fairly awkward family reunion on account of his badly rotted face). PowerGoal 177 was a wife being dumped in the sewers and then rising to seek revenge on her murdering husband - is that still the idea? Will it be possible for necromancers to mix and match souls and bodies?
So much possibility, so little brainpower to contain it all while typing.
Post by: scriver on May 19, 2011, 10:03:11 am
If someone with a secret dies, and then they are raised, do they still know the secret? For example, if one necromancer kills another, and decides to raise his fallen enemy, does the newly undead necromancer maintain his ability to raise more undead?And on a related note: Do necromancers/secret-knowers take on acolytes or apprentices and further their knowledge and/or fortress conquering agenda?
Spoiler: Semi-suggestive speculation (click to show/hide)
Post by: darkflagrance on May 19, 2011, 10:07:27 am
If someone with a secret dies, and then they are raised, do they still know the secret? For example, if one necromancer kills another, and decides to raise his fallen enemy, does the newly undead necromancer maintain his ability to raise more undead?To expand on this a little, what happens to the soul on re-animation?
Because I just love runnin' the questionmobile, to expand on that further: Will there be methods of necromancy or other magic that will/will not bring back the soul? What about partially bringing back the soul, both through a "copy" (for example, zombie with skills but not memories, assuming skills are in the soul) and through weakly linking to the actual soul (as above, but upon seeing his daughter it all comes flooding back to him and he turns his rusty sword on his master instead of participating in the village sacking, saving everyone and leading to a fairly awkward family reunion on account of his badly rotted face). PowerGoal 177 was a wife being dumped in the sewers and then rising to seek revenge on her murdering husband - is that still the idea? Will it be possible for necromancers to mix and match souls and bodies?
So much possibility, so little brainpower to contain it all while typing.
I'm pretty sure Toady commented somewhere else that the ghost is the soul, and reanimated bodies lack the ghost and thus the soul, and that therefore the reanimated body has none of the traits of the original dwarf's mind though his family members might be upset at seeing their loved one's body disturbed, and that there was potential for dwarven ghosts to get irritated that necromancers were animating their corpses.
Post by: James.Denholm on May 19, 2011, 10:42:23 am
I'm pretty sure Toady commented somewhere else that the ghost is the soul, and reanimated bodies lack the ghost and thus the soul, and that therefore the reanimated body has none of the traits of the original dwarf's mind though his family members might be upset at seeing their loved one's body disturbed, and that there was potential for dwarven ghosts to get irritated that necromancers were animating their corpses.
So no I-never-got-to-say-goodbye-I'm-so-sorry-give-Dad-a-cuddle moments?
That's actually probably a good thing, now that I think about it.
Post by: EddyP on May 19, 2011, 11:27:27 am
Post by: Footkerchief on May 19, 2011, 11:38:35 am
If someone with a secret dies, and then they are raised, do they still know the secret? For example, if one necromancer kills another, and decides to raise his fallen enemy, does the newly undead necromancer maintain his ability to raise more undead?
To expand on this a little, what happens to the soul on re-animation?
"To avoid crossing various streams, animated corpses now keep track of the historical figure that was the source of the raised body, even though the historical figure's soul is detached from it (and available for ghostage). So relatives can still be properly horrified by a raised body without it actually being the person in question, and they might be haunted at the same time, oddly enough, provided that evil region animation continues to have nothing to do with the soul stuff." (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-05-07)
The secret is attached to the soul, so reanimated corpse = no soul = no secrets.
Will all the secrets be big, special things like raising the dead, or will there eventually be less large secrets, such as the secret of making a musical instrument or how to cook something special?
Toady's last post mentioned that he doesn't yet know how secrets/knowledge will be used in the future:
Quote from: UristocratI've heard a lot of talk about "secrets" lately. Is the Dungeon Master's ability to tame exotic creatures also going to be one of these "secrets"?
It's possible to get sort of tech-treey with it, but I haven't done anything like that, and it's not set up to point to certain positions or to have positions confer any abilities on their own. The larger questions surrounding knowledge and technology have not been resolved.
And on a related note: Do necromancers/secret-knowers take on acolytes or apprentices and further their knowledge and/or fortress conquering agenda?
He'd probably have mentioned it if that were the case.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 19, 2011, 11:49:47 am
Quote from: NW_KohakuIn the case of an adventurer, will we be capable of receiving training as a religious figure or whathaveyou that lets you acquire this sort of weakness-revealing information on your own, and become a "Adventurer Role: Slayer of Nightcreatures" in the sense of being a traveling exorcist? Or must you go out and find those religious figures and ask them on the weakness for every night creature you run across?
There's nothing wrong with learning things in advance rather than on a case by case basis. If we don't have time advancement, it's more of a char gen issue, which would be cool. We'll see if this is necessary during testing when we have our first creatures with weaknesses/etc., which might not happen this time.
Hmm...
Does this mean that, instead of just "Peasant" "Hero" and "Demigod", we might be able to start out selecting "Priest" or "Fortuneteller" or whatever job produces this information? Or is this going to be a set of skills that anyone can train?
... I wonder how one trains seances to ascertain the weaknesses of fell creatures, anyway? Do you make guesses as to whether a coin flip will be heads or tails to up your prediction experience points?
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 19, 2011, 11:51:10 am
Quote from: NeoskelSo, since corpses can be raised without their heads, how do you (at least temporarily) kill a zombie/skeleton? Will a complete corpse zombie still die when it loses its head? How bad off does a corpse have to be to be un-raisable? Especially when animated limbs/etc. go in, how do you kill those?
Same as it has been, with the "hitpoint" stuff, until we redo crushed-to-a-messy-pulp as a concept. Any animated creature has to sustain banging around proportional to its size and it'll collapse. It can be raised again immediately if it is still intact. Right now we're using a sort of weird definition, where you have to have at least one head or grasp left if your original body had any of those. If your body is weird enough not to have a head or grasp defined, and it is still marked as being from a "living" being, then it can always be raised, which would amplify your need to go after the source instead, if possible. This makes completely exotic monsters trouble in evil regions, and I'll have to see if additional precautions are necessary. I don't want to adopt a cumbersome tag system for this, but we'll see what's necessary. A body could be marked as pulped if it is successfully felled a number of times, for instance, until we make pulping a reality.
Zombie floating guts once again says "Hi!"
... Or rather, something more akin to "blurglarglable"
Post by: bitterhorn on May 19, 2011, 11:55:10 am
Quote from: ArkoseI'm curious about what kind of requirements are going to be placed on who and what can learn secrets. Could an ordinary wild badger learn the secret of necromancy, and if it did, would it build itself a tower and start raising the dead? And if there are requirements for secrets, will they be settable on a per-secret level? (Like "the secret words of wisdom" requiring [INTELLIGENT] to learn and [CAN_SPEAK] to use, for example?)
For the example I've been using, it is restricted to mortals with can learn. Can speak might also be required, since kobolds shouldn't be able to read slabs. The restriction tags available are the same as the ones you can use for the syndromes, so it's still ongoing. You can use the current arbitrary string classes and specific creature tokens, so it's really whatever creatures you want. They don't have anybody they want to teach it to at this point, but there is a tag for it. I'm not sure what the future holds there.
It seems strange to employ CAN_SPEAK for whether or not a creature can read. I wonder if a distinction between CAN_SPEAK and a hypothetical LITERATE tag would be useful for anything else...
Quote
Any animated creature has to sustain banging around proportional to its size and it'll collapse. It can be raised again immediately if it is still intact.
:o
Shit just got real.
Post by: PTTG?? on May 19, 2011, 12:08:06 pm
That said, a shamanistic thing would be neat.
Post by: Zalminen on May 19, 2011, 02:36:32 pm
...we were thinking of limiting it to otherly-sized body parts, sutures and grafted-on weapons:o :) 8)
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on May 19, 2011, 04:53:49 pm
Will all the secrets be big, special things like raising the dead, or will there eventually be less large secrets, such as the secret of making a musical instrument or how to cook something special?
I can definitely see brewers and cooks making artifact recipes, which has been discussed quite a bit already. But it's now much closer I guess.
Post by: monk12 on May 19, 2011, 06:05:25 pm
I was gonna green that, but I figured it was too suggestion-y. Still an entertaining line of thought, though.
Post by: metime00 on May 19, 2011, 06:24:00 pm
I've gotta say, this update is bound to be rife with modding opportunities as well as expanding the gameplay on it's own. From what Toady's said it seems like secrets will be quite versatile. Might have to move away from vanilla to take advantage of the curses and secrets that can be made with this.
Plus adventure mode being even more connected with the history is always interesting and brings alot of weight to raiding tombs when they have a historical basis that you can explore in true roguelike/archeologist fashion!
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 19, 2011, 07:19:02 pm
How will the monument will be placed? Will there be stuff like valleys filled with Monuments or fields with grave-mounts respective whatever exists.
Also will there be political stuff around the "grave-sites" like starting a war with someone because they "disturbed the dead" from the builders pov.
Post by: Neonivek on May 19, 2011, 11:38:03 pm
Toady from what I see a large portion of what your secret system is, other then magical, is the exchange and passing of knowledge. do you forsee using similar systems for recipes, technology, and other such things?
Post by: NobodyPro on May 20, 2011, 06:34:15 am
Post by: Rose on May 20, 2011, 07:38:36 am
Why am I now looking forward to playing as the leader of a group of chef-assassins who deal in food and murder, kidnapping the opposition and beating the secret recipes out of them? Is this normal?
It's like it's straight out of the animes.
Post by: James.Denholm on May 20, 2011, 08:17:58 am
Why am I now looking forward to playing as the leader of a group of chef-assassins who deal in food and murder, kidnapping the opposition and beating the secret recipes out of them? Is this normal?
It's like it's straight out of the animes.
No, you may have mis-read: There was no mention of incredibly fit and over-optimistic children.
Post by: Footkerchief on May 20, 2011, 09:19:42 am
Well the secret system can be used for other things... In fact
Toady from what I see a large portion of what your secret system is, other then magical, is the exchange and passing of knowledge. do you forsee using similar systems for recipes, technology, and other such things?
This is the second time I've quoted this part in as many days (emphasis mine):
QuoteQuote from: zweiWill we be able to mod secrets to be known/used by appointed noble?
I, for example, would like to make "The Castle" series mod where ruler grants imortality to best-of-best (swordmaster, armorer ..., but also cook, doctor ...).Quote from: UristocratI've heard a lot of talk about "secrets" lately. Is the Dungeon Master's ability to tame exotic creatures also going to be one of these "secrets"?
It's possible to get sort of tech-treey with it, but I haven't done anything like that, and it's not set up to point to certain positions or to have positions confer any abilities on their own. The larger questions surrounding knowledge and technology have not been resolved.
Post by: Neonivek on May 20, 2011, 04:00:16 pm
Especially since infering otherwise will get me a speach.
Post by: Cruxador on May 20, 2011, 04:23:40 pm
Hmm while that doesn't exactly answer my question... I'll just leave it at thatIt informs you that no answer to your question currently exists, and you thus cannot have one. Not leaving it at that would be futile.
Especially since infering otherwise will get me a speach.
Post by: Neonivek on May 20, 2011, 05:41:07 pm
Hmm while that doesn't exactly answer my question... I'll just leave it at thatIt informs you that no answer to your question currently exists, and you thus cannot have one. Not leaving it at that would be futile.
Especially since infering otherwise will get me a speach.
After rereading this, I am very impressed by the wide range of meanings it can bring up.
Though mind you, I know what you mean.
Post by: Xgamer4 on May 20, 2011, 09:41:17 pm
Post by: Kishmond on May 20, 2011, 10:05:08 pm
I want to see a militiadwarf attacked by his own severed arm!
Post by: Genoraven on May 20, 2011, 11:59:08 pm
Can a severed 'buddy part' be reanimated if its original owner is still alive?
I want to see a militiadwarf attacked by his own severed arm!
Based on the earlier devlog about the line of necromancers in arena mode I'm going to have to guess yes.
Post by: darkflagrance on May 21, 2011, 03:50:36 am
Can a severed 'buddy part' be reanimated if its original owner is still alive?
I want to see a militiadwarf attacked by his own severed arm!
Based on the earlier devlog about the line of necromancers in arena mode I'm going to have to guess yes.
Imagine if reanimated limbs get their own names. Then they preserve those names when reanimated.
"This is an Ilandag Rozmololo Atek's Nolsmustrog Uxzoostad's Bomrek Ilralalath Lolum Obok's left upper arm"
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on May 21, 2011, 09:55:25 am
this is lolum obok's left upper arm's left upper arm
Post by: NinjaE8825 on May 21, 2011, 10:36:57 am
Well the secret system can be used for other things... In fact
Toady from what I see a large portion of what your secret system is, other then magical, is the exchange and passing of knowledge. do you forsee using similar systems for recipes, technology, and other such things?
Stealing the secret of fire from the gods?
Post by: Kishmond on May 21, 2011, 11:34:58 am
Post by: monk12 on May 21, 2011, 07:26:11 pm
Can a severed 'buddy part' be reanimated if its original owner is still alive?
I want to see a militiadwarf attacked by his own severed arm!
Based on the earlier devlog about the line of necromancers in arena mode I'm going to have to guess yes.
Imagine if reanimated limbs get their own names. Then they preserve those names when reanimated.
"This is an Ilandag Rozmololo Atek's Nolsmustrog Uxzoostad's Bomrek Ilralalath Lolum Obok's left upper arm"
Wait until individual limbs start getting names and honorifics the same as, say, animals.
Post by: metime00 on May 21, 2011, 07:28:42 pm
"..."
"killed urist mcdwarf"
Post by: Dante on May 21, 2011, 09:47:34 pm
Can a severed 'buddy part' be reanimated if its original owner is still alive?
I want to see a militiadwarf attacked by his own severed arm!
Based on the earlier devlog about the line of necromancers in arena mode I'm going to have to guess yes.
Imagine if reanimated limbs get their own names. Then they preserve those names when reanimated.
"This is an Ilandag Rozmololo Atek's Nolsmustrog Uxzoostad's Bomrek Ilralalath Lolum Obok's left upper arm"
Wait until individual limbs start getting names and honorifics the same as, say, animals.
And then once you've pulped them so they're not animated, you can wield them as a weapon and they get named from all the kills...
Post by: monk12 on May 21, 2011, 09:54:11 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 21, 2011, 10:16:22 pm
[quoutepyramid] something something [/quoutepyramid]
And then once you've pulped them so they're not animated, you can wield them as a weapon and they get named from all the kills...
Dwarf fortress has been struck down by a buffer overflow in the weapons name-string.
I could be wrong but the elves using buddy-pets in new right? I mean Buddy-pets and Animal-man were already in Threetoes stories but i didnt get to see it yet ingame. I hope toady can get the tomb builders to set some traps of various kinds. I am not sure if Guard-units would be the right.
Grave-robbing happens everywhere as well as to any time and many tombs werent defended that well - so actually toady sacking the mummy and selling it in London for a unwrapping-party is actually pretty accurate.
Post by: Dante on May 21, 2011, 11:59:23 pm
Also there is something inherently humorous about the idea of wandering into a major tomb, then wandering out again with a corpse sticking out of your backpack. I wonder if we'll see a re-vamp of adventurer traps?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 22, 2011, 12:28:41 am
Post by: Glanzor on May 22, 2011, 04:06:38 am
I thought war animals already turned up in worldgen battles, but I could be wrong. I'm more excited to see the townie elf / wild elf distinction. Multiple species under one entity or area? First step to multicultural fortresses.Well, that step has been made years ago. I think "townie elves" just means "elves that live in human town because they or their ancestors were captured as war prisoners and then integrated into human society".
And I've seen tons of trained war animals as part of elven attacks in fortress mode so the ones in world gen were probably war trained too. They just don't make that distinction in legend mode descriptions.
Post by: Lordinquisitor on May 22, 2011, 10:05:00 am
Post by: thvaz on May 22, 2011, 10:45:38 am
After reading the devlog update about raiding tombs i began to wonder whether tombs can be raided during worldgen, by Bandits for example. I think it would be pretty neat to find a empty tomb from time to time, it`s riches stored in the camp of some Bandits. I also think that finding and returning part of the treasures of a dead king might be a interesting quest.
You didn't even try to disguise your suggestion as a question! :)
Please color only questions to Toady. Your suggestion is pretty good, but Toady will answer only questions about current development. We have a board for suggestions.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on May 22, 2011, 10:57:38 am
Post by: Deimos56 on May 22, 2011, 12:15:31 pm
After reading the devlog update about raiding tombs i began to wonder whether tombs can be raided during worldgen, by Bandits for example. I think it would be pretty neat to find a empty tomb from time to time, it`s riches stored in the camp of some Bandits. I also think that finding and returning part of the treasures of a dead king might be a interesting quest.Expanding on this... in an odd sort of way I guess, will dead kings, under certain circumstances, rise up to avenge their tombs being looted? Say, if the king happened to simultaneously manage to be a major priest of the local God of Death, or otherwise be rendered capable of rising up to avenge himself (faithful necromancer subjects, certain burial methods, etc)?
The concept of tomb robbing made that pop into my head, I suppose.
Post by: Lordinquisitor on May 22, 2011, 12:53:12 pm
After reading the devlog update about raiding tombs i began to wonder whether tombs can be raided during worldgen, by Bandits for example. I think it would be pretty neat to find a empty tomb from time to time, it`s riches stored in the camp of some Bandits. I also think that finding and returning part of the treasures of a dead king might be a interesting quest.
You didn't even try to disguise your suggestion as a question! :)
Please color only questions to Toady. Your suggestion is pretty good, but Toady will answer only questions about current development. We have a board for suggestions.
I got carried away, but it wasn`t intended to be a suggestion. I merely wanted to ask wheter tombs could be raided during world gen. :D
Post by: bluephoenix on May 22, 2011, 07:59:39 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on May 22, 2011, 09:41:58 pm
I believe it's time to resurrect Land of Traps and Attractions.
Post by: Cerol Lenslens on May 22, 2011, 09:52:06 pm
This sounds promising!
Post by: Dante on May 22, 2011, 09:56:34 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on May 22, 2011, 10:07:15 pm
Or maybe ridiculous stuff happens like landslides and chasms open up around you.
Post by: monk12 on May 22, 2011, 10:10:09 pm
Post by: Genoraven on May 22, 2011, 10:43:03 pm
Post by: monk12 on May 22, 2011, 11:11:39 pm
Or maybe you guys are reading to much into his bad luck comment. =P
Since Toady said it, I'm inclined to think it is an actual mechanic. If Threetoe had said it, I'd be more inclined to think it was fluff.
And as much as I want "bad luck" curses to mean that ridiculous things happen to you, I bet it is just a negative modifier to luck-based skills based on the simple fact that that is a really easy thing to code and implement to test out the curse structure.
Post by: Dante on May 22, 2011, 11:13:34 pm
Post by: Khym Chanur on May 22, 2011, 11:27:24 pm
2. Will modders be able to attach their own curses/interactions to evil biomes, or will evil biomes be hardcoded to only use the "re-animate" interaction?
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 22, 2011, 11:43:04 pm
Woah, functioning traps? I wonder how Toady worked out the kinks in trap avoidance.
Attacking trap you can already Dodge/block.
Problem was with instagibbing ones, like cages and bridges, but this. Can be easily resolved by not placing them.
Post by: Neoskel on May 23, 2011, 12:19:12 am
Post by: Shinziril on May 23, 2011, 12:24:10 am
Post by: G-Flex on May 23, 2011, 12:50:04 am
How are mummies' bodies handled? Are they based off another creature (e.g. "dwarf mummy", "human mummy", "slugman mummy") somehow or are they their own thing entirely? And how are the materials/tissues for them handled in either case (bandages? dessication?)?
Here's to hoping those bandages are flammable.
Post by: Cruxador on May 23, 2011, 02:14:13 am
"Boxed in the face by a mummy" is an inherently hilarious phrase/concept and I'm glad that this is now a possibility.I would imagine they're based off of the interred individual.
How are mummies' bodies handled? Are they based off another creature (e.g. "dwarf mummy", "human mummy", "slugman mummy") somehow or are they their own thing entirely? And how are the materials/tissues for them handled in either case (bandages? dessication?)?
Here's to hoping those bandages are flammable.
Post by: Aqizzar on May 23, 2011, 03:12:11 am
Quote
I went in there, took Teme from the coffin and put the body in my backpack. Obviously the defenses will need to be improved.One Day Later
Quote
I was arteried in the leg by a giant axe blade, then cursed with bad luck and boxed in the face by a mummy.
It's been a little while since I laughed out loud at a devlog, it's good to see this stuff again.
Post by: Neonivek on May 23, 2011, 03:53:50 am
They don't have to actually be covered in bandages.
A lot of mummies in real life are simply dead bodies preserved with salt.
Mind you one large difference between a Mummy and Zombie is generally speaking... Mummies have very little moisture except in the case of ice mummies.
Post by: nenjin on May 23, 2011, 06:42:04 am
A few axe blade or whatever traps scattered across a room isn't that horrific. It's actually fairly realistic when you think about it.
Post by: Psieye on May 23, 2011, 07:09:38 am
I read that bit and simply thought "Oh, he added traps." The issue with traps in adventure mode is that they can't be removed or modified. That wouldn't stop Toady from putting them in a site with a low distribution. The stricture against traps carrying over to adventure mode has always been in relation to player construction. Players build traps for sieges and a single character will get splattered or trapped quickly.I thought the issue with adventure mode traps was cages (or whatever ridiculous kitten powered machine players built) - there is no way to break out of a cage if you're caught in it. All the other traps are essentially a weapon attack which a highly skilled and geared adventurer can do something about.
A few axe blade or whatever traps scattered across a room isn't that horrific. It's actually fairly realistic when you think about it.
Post by: nenjin on May 23, 2011, 07:14:05 am
So traps have always been functional in adventure mode, players just lack features in general to deal with them.
Post by: Neonivek on May 23, 2011, 07:20:17 am
They can't be removed either, not by adventurers. So going to an old fort you built to defend against sieges, that's a one way trip through 3+ weapon attacks you have absolutely no choice about. Could end up lethal in Adventure Mode depending on what you built them out of.
So traps have always been functional in adventure mode, players just lack features in general to deal with them.
Yep such as eternal damnation traps
Err I mean Cage traps
Post by: cephalo on May 23, 2011, 07:56:27 am
Post by: nenjin on May 23, 2011, 08:08:58 am
1. Go through it and hope whatever mechanics are running cause it to miss you/allow you to dodge/fails to penetrate your armor.
2. Go around it, if you know it's there.
3. Disable it before it even goes off.
I think most of #1 is already happening. #2 isn't possibly in adventure mode when dealing with your average player fort. In terms of however Toady is distributing traps at sites, I'd say it already works fine.
#3 cuts to the heart of the issue. Traps reload indefinitely in adventure mode, do they not? Because traps are ultimately there for Fort mode right now, they're set up to work best for it. Goblin choppers, whatever. When they miss in fort mode, it would suck to have to assign dwarves to go reload that trap. Maybe dwarven traps are just so awesome they're self balancing and instantly reset, like the ones in Indian Jones and the Last Crusade (versus the boulder in Raiders of the Lost Ark).
So that's what I think really needs to be addressed in Adventure mode. Traps in adventure mode need to be things that fire off and are done. The blades/spears/spikes shoot out and stay out. The cage trap comes down and stays down.
Cage traps need special consideration because we expect to be able to break out of some cages but not others, based on strength of the character and the quality of the materials its built from. I don't doubt Toady is cognizant of all of that, it just hasn't figured large enough in the current arc for him to sit down and flesh out. Depending on how much traps come into play at these sites, he may still not feel it's enough to warrant what I'm sure is a re-write of some sort.
If he did though, all those things also logically lead to a simple trap disarming skill, which tries to activate a trap safely while you're on the tile and set it to off. I imagine what's not happening right now is that traps aren't writing any information to the site file. They just exist and have a function and don't update in any sort of way.
It's also worth noting that as soon as we're allowed to create sites in adventure mode, people are going to want to add traps to them. And that's going to bring the issue back again of traps going off and staying off, or not, and how much of a pain it is to end up with two different versions of the same thing in fort mode vs. adventure mode.
Post by: tfaal on May 23, 2011, 09:04:54 am
Post by: Areyar on May 23, 2011, 10:30:11 am
mechanics could allow trap disarmament.
avoidance skill just allows one to get out of the way of that axeblade that jumps out of the coffin.
Post by: rhesusmacabre on May 23, 2011, 02:05:26 pm
For example, will legendary fighters be more dangerous than others?
Will the raised dead have equipment?
Obviously creatures that die in game 'drop' their gear, but will they try to pick it up if raised? Will they seek out their favourite axe/sword? Will necromancers equip their armies before they lay seige (or are besieged/adventure'd)?
Post by: Untelligent on May 23, 2011, 02:16:54 pm
Post by: metime00 on May 23, 2011, 04:51:27 pm
also
Succeeding at an observation skill check allowing you to bypass a trap without setting it off sounds very reasonable.^this
Post by: Neonivek on May 23, 2011, 05:05:25 pm
It can be tough to move past a trap without setting it off even if you know it is there, or even impossible.
Anyhow the person forgot an EXTRA possibility
4. Activate the trap from a safe distance
Unless a trap resets... often setting off a trap safely is the best way to deal with it.
So throwing stuff at the trap, firing at the trap, and hitting the trap from the next tile should all have a chance of setting it off or disabling it.
Cage traps are only terrible because items are currently indestructible. Otherwise you are likely to eventually get out unless your disarmed and the trap is particularly hearty.
Post by: PlainTextMan on May 23, 2011, 06:44:29 pm
SUMMARY of my question/argument:
Toady and Three Toe, what are your plans (short and longer term) for counter-forces to the whole undead menace? A sort of natural way to balance things out and prevent any necromancer or zombie virus to become semi-world-ruler easily except in extreme cases. Different levels of necromancy, and consequences to dabbling in the darkness stuffs that are difficult to deal with, even to experienced necromancers. Or magic-energy systems that balance things.
And how about forces of life and good and shite like that? I presume they should also play some significant roles.
The fullness of post here:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Specifically, I'm curious about your short-term/placeholder plans for things like these. Certainly, undead can't be allowed to run unbridled armok?
So generally, my rant is just that zombie apocalypse should be decidedly not the default state of things, and given the different forces and counter-forces at work to naturally balance things, rarely result from world gen. Cause after all, it's usually the living that do the interesting stuff like trading and mining and creating useless artifact scepters that weigh 53 kilograms.
Of course we still absolutely need these dangers to play a role in the game, but I think it would be less monotonous if they would for example be an almost non-existant threat in some regions of the world, and play a dangerous role in some others (instead of as with The Omnipresent Killer Bogeymen at the moment).
And of course, we all have that desire deep down; we all want to at least once try to survive in a zombie apocalypse world. So it would make a killer world-gen option!! ;)
Post by: BronzeElemental on May 23, 2011, 07:00:22 pm
Post by: PlainTextMan on May 23, 2011, 07:21:36 pm
Angels!YES
The other part to my last paragraph: every one will certainly at some point want to try and become the evil menace in a peaceful world were people are widely guarded by angels or such things. To battle with the forces of good. (haha but of course dwarves already do this a lot if you consider 'remaining alive' as good ;))
Post by: CypherLH on May 23, 2011, 07:25:48 pm
Hi, and thanks for reading
SUMMARY of my question/argument:
Toady and Three Toe, what are your plans (short and longer term) for counter-forces to the whole undead menace? A sort of natural way to balance things out and prevent any necromancer or zombie virus to become semi-world-ruler easily except in extreme cases. Different levels of necromancy, and consequences to dabbling in the darkness stuffs that are difficult to deal with, even to experienced necromancers. Or magic-energy systems that balance things.
And how about forces of life and good and shite like that? I presume they should also play some significant roles.
The fullness of post here:
A bit vague, so let me elaborate: generally in story themes including undead (and in other games) undead may be raised 'naturally' because of evil areas or monoliths or certain kind of deaths, but rarely to be anything more than a small nuisance, not a coordinated menace. It takes a (great) necromancer to really terrify a civilization. But if the power to raise found corpses is unlimited, we have a problem, and undead overtaking the world could become boringly common. Basically, the power to raise undead (and that of viral spreading) I see as a force pushing in a certain direction. There should be plenty forces acting against it for balancing and interestingness' sake.
Some include (which I'd like to see elaborated on):[/spoiler]
- The knowledge of (more than just dabbling) necromancy is rare (seems to be covered)
- It takes some sort of energy or mana to perform it (and some individuals or races have a natural affinity with certain kinds of magic) which can be developed but must essentially be limited by some (preferrably natural-seeming) effect (like that an individual can channel only so much power w/out damaging themselves etc). This may cause some necromancers to grow greater than others as they discover deeper secrets.
- Along this vein, it should require 'energy' to sustain 'unnatural' undead somehow (so a necromancer or lich has a reach limited by his or her power for eg.)
- There are 'forces of light' at work. Priests and stuff doing holeh magicx0rz. Dieties of light intervening. Amulets. Hey how about plain sunlight being deadly to any undead creature not imbued with enough magic?
Specifically, I'm curious about your short-term/placeholder plans for things like these. Certainly, undead can't be allowed to run unbridled armok?
So generally, my rant is just that zombie apocalypse should be decidedly not the default state of things, and given the different forces and counter-forces at work to naturally balance things, rarely result from world gen. Cause after all, it's usually the living that do the interesting stuff like trading and mining and creating useless artifact scepters that weigh 53 kilograms.
Of course we still absolutely need these dangers to play a role in the game, but I think it would be less monotonous if they would for example be an almost non-existant threat in some regions of the world, and play a dangerous role in some others (instead of as with The Omnipresent Killer Bogeymen at the moment).
And of course, we all have that desire deep down; we all want to at least once try to survive in a zombie apocalypse world. So it would make a killer world-gen option!! ;)
Well, presumably all of this stuff will be tweakable via world design params. So you could have a world with no curses, and/or no undead at all, or a world bursting at the seams with undead and gazillions of procedural curses and typically ending up as a apocalyptic continent-spanning graveyard, or anything in between. (I expect the same sort of world param control over magic when that gets introduced) As a worldgen junkie, I am thrilled at the idea of more worldgen design params and creating worlds of all different flavors.
Post by: Mountain-King on May 23, 2011, 08:22:41 pm
Post by: G-Flex on May 23, 2011, 08:41:47 pm
Will the raised dead retain experience (skills) and attributes?
For example, will legendary fighters be more dangerous than others?
Judging by everything we've heard so far, the raised corpses/body parts have no connection to the mind/soul of the owner, therefore they won't (or at least shouldn't) have its skills.
Post by: BronzeElemental on May 23, 2011, 09:07:36 pm
Post by: CypherLH on May 23, 2011, 11:31:21 pm
Wow, so per the new dev post a lot of the formerly "useless" adventure mode stats are about to become quite useful. It sounds like this is gonna be a big step in the direction of "Adventure Role : Treasure Hunter"
Post by: Johuotar on May 24, 2011, 01:34:57 am
The caravan stuff never sounded too interesting, but this sounds like lots of fun!
Post by: CypherLH on May 24, 2011, 02:38:51 am
Yeah this update seems to be bloating over the borders of caravan arc, and I love it!
The caravan stuff never sounded too interesting, but this sounds like lots of fun!
Well the Caravan Arc gets us more realistic supply/demand economic activity, and all sorts of economic activity happening in-game post worldgen that we can see and interact with in Adventure mode(plus Fort Mode of course). This means lots of Fun! "economic" sounds boring...until you remember that "economic activity" basically means "all activity". Its the reasons that stuff happens in a real world. So with a dynamic in-game economy post-worldgen we go from a static world with a few canned quests and fake trade activity to a dynamic world that you can interact with and impact dynamically, while still being able to do the canned quests if you want. (though eventually I assume the goal is to not have any canned quests at all, ideally things to do should just arise automatically from out of the simulated game world without needing to be canned)
In Adventure Mode terms, when the Caravan Arc is done we get caravan raiding or protecting, trading(everything from running your own caravan to building up a world-spanning trade empire, big interesting towns/cities with tons of stuff to do in them, seeing NPC's actually do stuff as you move around in Adventure mode, buying and selling property(build up a real estate empire?), building your own locations, more sophisticated companions and hirelings etc. All the stuff from the Caravan Arc dev page.
Then later the 'Army Arc' gets the political entities in the game to actually start struggling for control over all of this, with we players getting to play a larger role in that stuff. I shiver at the possibilities.
Anyway I'm rambling, preaching to the choir here mostly I suppose ;) This was supposed to be a couple sentences and it grew out of control. I do get excited about the possibilities.
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 24, 2011, 02:45:03 am
Yeah this update seems to be bloating over the borders of caravan arc, and I love it!
The caravan stuff never sounded too interesting, but this sounds like lots of fun!
well, it is a lot useful even if 'boring', because it will allow to create fortress in previously unsuitable areas.
Post by: piecewise on May 24, 2011, 02:55:27 am
Post by: zwei on May 24, 2011, 03:05:11 am
Yeah this update seems to be bloating over the borders of caravan arc, and I love it!
The caravan stuff never sounded too interesting, but this sounds like lots of fun!
well, it is a lot useful even if 'boring', because it will allow to create fortress in previously unsuitable areas.
But with more effort.
You might be able to order caravan of nothing but 100 Steel Bars, but if traders do not have demand for rock crafts or ex-goblin clothing or roasts, It you are going to be fairly screwed.
Imagine fort where you are forced to make furniture for export, for example - where you set up carpenter to make wooden furinture and encrust/stud/decorate hell of it.
Or fort where you actually export weapons/armor like real dwarf instead of seccond-hand clothing and snacks.
Post by: Dae on May 24, 2011, 03:11:20 am
Will the raised dead retain experience (skills) and attributes?
For example, will legendary fighters be more dangerous than others?
Judging by everything we've heard so far, the raised corpses/body parts have no connection to the mind/soul of the owner, therefore they won't (or at least shouldn't) have its skills.
But they WILL have the body stats, perhaps diminished a little. Superdwarven strength, speed and toughness.
Post by: MasterMorality on May 24, 2011, 05:28:29 am
Post by: Mantonio on May 24, 2011, 05:32:34 am
For example, that classic Dwarf Fortress situation where an unconscious troll several Z levels down manages to scare away everyone. Could that behaviour be altered? Perhaps you could make it even more !!FUN!! than before, by making Dwarfs naturally inclined to cluster around unconscious enemies and gawk. Forcing you to either kill the creature, get the crowds to move along, or accept what happens when an enemy wakes up surrounded by pointing children.
Post by: Jiri Petru on May 24, 2011, 07:34:38 am
They can't be removed either, not by adventurers. So going to an old fort you built to defend against sieges, that's a one way trip through 3+ weapon attacks you have absolutely no choice about. Could end up lethal in Adventure Mode depending on what you built them out of.
The easiest way to prevent these situations it not allow them to arise in the first place. If dwarves (and animals... and caravans...) were disallowed to walk on trapped squares in fortress mode, players would have to have proper trap-free entrances that adventurers could look for.
Post by: thvaz on May 24, 2011, 07:55:10 am
Post by: magmaholic on May 24, 2011, 07:55:39 am
WINGED SEXY FERTILE FEMALES!Angels!YES
Post by: rex mortis on May 24, 2011, 08:23:17 am
If there's a bad luck curse, there should be a luck stat.Who says there is not? But luck is such a fickle thing it might be better off hidden from the player.
Post by: PTTG?? on May 24, 2011, 09:40:27 am
Quote from: devlog
...including the odd dwarf.
Silly Toady, all dwarves are odd.
Post by: darkflagrance on May 24, 2011, 09:48:46 am
Yeah this update seems to be bloating over the borders of caravan arc, and I love it!
The caravan stuff never sounded too interesting, but this sounds like lots of fun!
well, it is a lot useful even if 'boring', because it will allow to create fortress in previously unsuitable areas.
But with more effort.
You might be able to order caravan of nothing but 100 Steel Bars, but if traders do not have demand for rock crafts or ex-goblin clothing or roasts, It you are going to be fairly screwed.
Imagine fort where you are forced to make furniture for export, for example - where you set up carpenter to make wooden furinture and encrust/stud/decorate hell of it.
Or fort where you actually export weapons/armor like real dwarf instead of seccond-hand clothing and snacks.
I doubt that demand for roasts will really change substantially from year to year. The roasts you send out each year should have expired or been consumed by the next season for the traders. The only risk is other towns specializing on prepared meals.
Post by: zwei on May 24, 2011, 09:53:22 am
Quote from: devlog...including the odd dwarf.
Silly Toady, all dwarves are odd.
But if they are unhappy, they tend to get even.
Post by: Rose on May 24, 2011, 10:21:47 am
WINGED SEXY FERTILE FEMALES!Angels!YES
What are you talking about? angels are neuter.
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 24, 2011, 10:34:25 am
WINGED SEXY FERTILE FEMALES!Angels!YES
What are you talking about? angels are neuter.
close enough
Post by: magmaholic on May 24, 2011, 12:50:32 pm
WINGED SEXY FERTILE FEMALES!Angels!YES
What are you talking about? angels are neuter.
close enough
YES
Post by: monk12 on May 24, 2011, 01:02:32 pm
This may become problematic when the necromancer raises them to strike you down, however...
Post by: BishopX on May 24, 2011, 01:18:31 pm
Post by: Karakzon on May 24, 2011, 01:24:16 pm
new adventurer
Mcadventurer has been struck down,
new adventurer
... x50 later
ok. we now have an adventurer horde of godlike zombies.
oh dear.
Post by: Johuotar on May 24, 2011, 01:48:02 pm
Roguelikes have a long history of allowing Players to encounter previous characters. Will the new undead mechanics include risen adventurers/retired adventurer tombs?
I dont think that tombs are going to be built after worldgen anytime soon.
Post by: tfaal on May 24, 2011, 02:08:55 pm
Roguelikes have a long history of allowing Players to encounter previous characters. Will the new undead mechanics include risen adventurers/retired adventurer tombs?
I dont think that tombs are going to be built after worldgen anytime soon.
Might happen in Release 5, since that's when worldgen stuff is supposed to continue into play.
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 24, 2011, 02:16:09 pm
Roguelikes have a long history of allowing Players to encounter previous characters. Will the new undead mechanics include risen adventurers/retired adventurer tombs?
I dont think that tombs are going to be built after worldgen anytime soon.
Might happen in Release 5, since that's when worldgen stuff is supposed to continue into play.
retired adventure are stored and persisted. a zombified one may be saved with the same mechanism if raised in one special place using the same mechanics.
not suggesting anything, just stating that the code providing a similar feature is already there
Post by: Asmageddon on May 24, 2011, 02:46:23 pm
Do you have any idea about how important other kinds of secrets will be in the future?
Post by: PTTG?? on May 24, 2011, 03:27:04 pm
What other secrets aside from immortality and undead rising will there be in upcoming release?
Do you have any idea about how important other kinds of secrets will be in the future?
Arghhhh This has been answered before!
Post by: Asmageddon on May 24, 2011, 04:25:24 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on May 24, 2011, 04:41:07 pm
I've been following Future of the Fortress for a long time already, and I don't think it was(at least not a question phrased like this one).
It was asked here first (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=84398.msg2267480#msg2267480), but I didn't see any answers to that. I'm pretty sure it was mentioned, though.
Post by: monk12 on May 24, 2011, 04:59:08 pm
Quote from: Osmosis JonesHave you settled on what these 'secrets' will allow? Would you pretty please be able to post a list (so, immortality, raising and binding undead, rapid healing, etc)?Quote from: CthulhuYou mentioned that new secrets will be able to be modded in on release. What kind of functionality on release are we looking at for that system? Will secrets be able to change attributes, give new body parts, or anything like that, or will it just be tags like [IMMORTAL] or whatever for now?
I'm not sure what all is going to be available yet. Partial changes to bodies (new parts etc.) are the most time-consuming and won't be included this time. Once we are through vampires I should have a better idea.
I believe that this would be the quote you are thinking of, PTTG??
Toady's response indicates that he hasn't figured out what the full extent of secrets will be yet, but he didn't indicate what he intends to have in the next release. That said, I'm pretty sure that we'll hear about any new secret shenanigans. I'm willing to bet that Asmageddon's second query falls under the same heading as the "tech tree" type questions Toady was asked in that same post-
Quote from: zweiWill we be able to mod secrets to be known/used by appointed noble?
I, for example, would like to make "The Castle" series mod where ruler grants imortality to best-of-best (swordmaster, armorer ..., but also cook, doctor ...).Quote from: UristocratI've heard a lot of talk about "secrets" lately. Is the Dungeon Master's ability to tame exotic creatures also going to be one of these "secrets"?
It's possible to get sort of tech-treey with it, but I haven't done anything like that, and it's not set up to point to certain positions or to have positions confer any abilities on their own. The larger questions surrounding knowledge and technology have not been resolved.
I emphasized the relevant bit there.
Post by: nenjin on May 24, 2011, 05:13:30 pm
Quote
The easiest way to prevent these situations it not allow them to arise in the first place. If dwarves (and animals... and caravans...) were disallowed to walk on trapped squares in fortress mode, players would have to have proper trap-free entrances that adventurers could look for.
Just so I have this straight: the best way to deal with traps in adventure mode is to trap your fortresses with adventure mode in mind?
Yeah, that doesn't sound totally broken, or anything.
Post by: tfaal on May 24, 2011, 05:41:27 pm
No, you've got his idea wrong; he's saying that if traps were impassible to dwarves, there would have to be an entrance to the fortress left untrapped.QuoteThe easiest way to prevent these situations it not allow them to arise in the first place. If dwarves (and animals... and caravans...) were disallowed to walk on trapped squares in fortress mode, players would have to have proper trap-free entrances that adventurers could look for.
Just so I have this straight: the best way to deal with traps in adventure mode is to trap your fortresses with adventure mode in mind?
Yeah, that doesn't sound totally broken, or anything.
Post by: nenjin on May 24, 2011, 05:50:19 pm
Post by: tfaal on May 24, 2011, 05:53:07 pm
Post by: Nihilist on May 24, 2011, 06:31:23 pm
That's accessible to an adventurer later on but not to goblin ambushes and seiges?Upright spike traps should still work for an entrance like that. Since they require dwarfpower to operate I doubt they would be made impassable in that kind of scenario.
Post by: nenjin on May 24, 2011, 07:05:46 pm
Post by: Jiri Petru on May 24, 2011, 08:10:22 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on May 24, 2011, 08:36:45 pm
Expanding on this... in an odd sort of way I guess, will dead kings, under certain circumstances, rise up to avenge their tombs being looted? Say, if the king happened to simultaneously manage to be a major priest of the local God of Death, or otherwise be rendered capable of rising up to avenge himself (faithful necromancer subjects, certain burial methods, etc)?
Will an adventurer (in the coming release) be able to see (cage/weapon) traps before setting them off? Will the traps be visible after they have been set off (by the adventurer or otherwise)? Will Observer or any other current skill have any effect on trap detection? Are there plans to handle that with a new skill in a later release instead? I assume some sort of trap disarming skill is intended for a (far?) future release.
I think today's dev log answers all of these. (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-05-23)
Will Dwarfs become more sophisticated in how they react to danger?
For example, that classic Dwarf Fortress situation where an unconscious troll several Z levels down manages to scare away everyone. Could that behaviour be altered? Perhaps you could make it even more !!FUN!! than before, by making Dwarfs naturally inclined to cluster around unconscious enemies and gawk. Forcing you to either kill the creature, get the crowds to move along, or accept what happens when an enemy wakes up surrounded by pointing children.
I don't have any real answers for this one, but the old dev page (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html) has some references to related stuff:
Quote from: dev_single
# Req444, FLEEING SOLDIER AI, (Future): Fleeing soldiers don't cope well with not being able to reach their exit location.
# Req569, BETTER TERRAIN ESCAPE, (Future): There is more that dwarves should be able to do while they are attempting to escape dangerous terrain, specifically in relation to running back and forth over squares they've already checked.
Roguelikes have a long history of allowing Players to encounter previous characters. Will the new undead mechanics include risen adventurers/retired adventurer tombs?
I dont think that tombs are going to be built after worldgen anytime soon.
I agree, but today's devlog (link above) definitely indicates that adventurers can get necromanced. IIRC, in23a (the last 2D version) (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/older_versions.html), adventurers killed at zombie-infested ruins would become zombies themselves, so it's nice to get that feature back.
Hi, and thanks for reading
SUMMARY of my question/argument:
Toady and Three Toe, what are your plans (short and longer term) for counter-forces to the whole undead menace? A sort of natural way to balance things out and prevent any necromancer or zombie virus to become semi-world-ruler easily except in extreme cases. Different levels of necromancy, and consequences to dabbling in the darkness stuffs that are difficult to deal with, even to experienced necromancers. Or magic-energy systems that balance things.
And how about forces of life and good and shite like that? I presume they should also play some significant roles.
The fullness of post here:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Specifically, I'm curious about your short-term/placeholder plans for things like these. Certainly, undead can't be allowed to run unbridled armok?
So generally, my rant is just that zombie apocalypse should be decidedly not the default state of things, and given the different forces and counter-forces at work to naturally balance things, rarely result from world gen. Cause after all, it's usually the living that do the interesting stuff like trading and mining and creating useless artifact scepters that weigh 53 kilograms.
Of course we still absolutely need these dangers to play a role in the game, but I think it would be less monotonous if they would for example be an almost non-existant threat in some regions of the world, and play a dangerous role in some others (instead of as with The Omnipresent Killer Bogeymen at the moment).
And of course, we all have that desire deep down; we all want to at least once try to survive in a zombie apocalypse world. So it would make a killer world-gen option!! ;)
It's planned not only to have regions linked to undeath, blight, decay, but also to have regions linked to more positive spheres (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Sphere) like nature, beauty, etc., which have counterbalancing or complementary effects. Many of ThreeToe's stories (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_story.html) discuss forest spirits:
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/story/tt_forest_befouled.html
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/story/tt_animal_justice.html
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/story/tt_snatcher.html
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/story/tt_root.html
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/story/tt_summon.html
Post by: monk12 on May 24, 2011, 08:41:43 pm
Evil biomes are going to be hardcore, even by DF standards.
Post by: counting on May 24, 2011, 09:17:24 pm
Yeah this update seems to be bloating over the borders of caravan arc, and I love it!
The caravan stuff never sounded too interesting, but this sounds like lots of fun!
Well the Caravan Arc gets us more realistic supply/demand economic activity, and all sorts of economic activity happening in-game post worldgen that we can see and interact with in Adventure mode(plus Fort Mode of course). This means lots of Fun! "economic" sounds boring...until you remember that "economic activity" basically means "all activity". Its the reasons that stuff happens in a real world. So with a dynamic in-game economy post-worldgen we go from a static world with a few canned quests and fake trade activity to a dynamic world that you can interact with and impact dynamically, while still being able to do the canned quests if you want. (though eventually I assume the goal is to not have any canned quests at all, ideally things to do should just arise automatically from out of the simulated game world without needing to be canned)
In Adventure Mode terms, when the Caravan Arc is done we get caravan raiding or protecting, trading(everything from running your own caravan to building up a world-spanning trade empire, big interesting towns/cities with tons of stuff to do in them, seeing NPC's actually do stuff as you move around in Adventure mode, buying and selling property(build up a real estate empire?), building your own locations, more sophisticated companions and hirelings etc. All the stuff from the Caravan Arc dev page.
Then later the 'Army Arc' gets the political entities in the game to actually start struggling for control over all of this, with we players getting to play a larger role in that stuff. I shiver at the possibilities.
Anyway I'm rambling, preaching to the choir here mostly I suppose ;) This was supposed to be a couple sentences and it grew out of control. I do get excited about the possibilities.
If it did implementing on dynamic trade route, I presume that it will be a hybrid simulation with statistic simulation on large scale. There is only so much active-NPCs you can simulate at a giving time without FPS lagging.
Also, if purchasing cottages, and hirelings are implemented, does it must mean the come back of some kind of currency system. Does that means we will have a local currency system and world currency exchange rate? Or the purchase is done by fulfilling certain tasks, or paid by real commodities, rather than commodity money like coins? But with a face value 10 times of it's metal value (whatever what the "value" really means anyway), I wonder if anyone would think owning a real state be that hard. And without a proper "coins generating-removable" mechanism, the inflation or deflation will happen very quickly, and currency system won't be stable. (one good "coins removal system" is using dragons to "devour" excessive coins, or a general way using local government industries to sell general goods and recycle these coins. Provide that enough NPCs carried and used them, or it's just a specialized usage by players only. and as useless as before.)
Post by: James.Denholm on May 24, 2011, 10:50:33 pm
SLAYING SKELETONS MADE OF BONE!YESclose enoughWhat are you talking about? angels are neuter.WINGED SEXY FERTILE FEMALES!Angels!YES
Post by: Mechanoid on May 25, 2011, 12:38:57 am
In fortress mode, will dwarves get thoughts about having to deal with undead creatures they knew in another lifetime?
Post by: Urist McDepravity on May 25, 2011, 12:41:27 am
And without a proper "coins generating-removable" mechanism, the inflation or deflation will happen very quickly, and currency system won't be stable.Sure you cannot have truly 'stable' systems (and even current sophisticated system does not work, as indicated by 2008), but back in old days of silver/gold standards it was 'stable enough' without such recycle mechanisms, as amount of currency was limited by amount of silver/gold, which were value by itself.
Post by: Roflcopter5000 on May 25, 2011, 03:10:53 am
And without a proper "coins generating-removable" mechanism, the inflation or deflation will happen very quickly, and currency system won't be stable.Sure you cannot have truly 'stable' systems (and even current sophisticated system does not work, as indicated by 2008), but back in old days of silver/gold standards it was 'stable enough' without such recycle mechanisms, as amount of currency was limited by amount of silver/gold, which were value by itself.
Since the game has an absolute value tracking mechanism, I don't think we're going to need to worry too much about real-world style economic problems... Essentially, 'dwarfbucks' -are- the gold standard. And dedication to realism is awesome, but frankly, in order to get the system to function, Toady will almost certainly have to throw in some kind of meta-gameworld controls. Dragons/other invaders interested in wealth but unlikely to trade are certainly an excellent sort of control... But that could be too limited to rely on exclusively. It makes sense for controlling gold or mineral wealth, but what about the market being flooded with high-quality roasts? Or cabinets?
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 25, 2011, 03:41:40 am
are there any plan to put major economical events in the world available for browsing in the legend mode (or as engraving and such, for that matter)
Post by: Lovechild on May 25, 2011, 03:52:49 am
Post by: James.Denholm on May 25, 2011, 04:06:29 am
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 25, 2011, 04:06:59 am
Post by: Neoskel on May 25, 2011, 05:04:49 am
Post by: counting on May 25, 2011, 05:53:44 am
And without a proper "coins generating-removable" mechanism, the inflation or deflation will happen very quickly, and currency system won't be stable.Sure you cannot have truly 'stable' systems (and even current sophisticated system does not work, as indicated by 2008), but back in old days of silver/gold standards it was 'stable enough' without such recycle mechanisms, as amount of currency was limited by amount of silver/gold, which were value by itself.
What's really happening the history of economic history is much more complex than that, and the truly - "good old" gold standard, are not (always) stable at all. Or else we may still using them today. It really has "gold/silver removal" mechanism. (ex. Mughal India is a reservoir for excess gold , because they used silver standard system, treated gold as a commodity).
And as you may think that gold or gold/silver or silver standard system will be stable enough because the "money supply" was fixed due to limit amount of mental exist. But the truth is even that's only half-way true. There are so many combinations of standards already tells us they are not a global standard at all (the true gold standard lived not very long from 18th to early 20th century and only accepted in Europe and their colonies)
On the other hand, the gold/silver mining itself never stops through out human history (till today). And the amount of gold/silver been dug out are not constantly at all, like the discovery and colonization of new world, causing the excessive of gold/silver production. The true reason why a gold/silver standard CAN be used in expansion economics system from 16th to 18th century. And the downfall of gold standard like system, is that although it may be stable as a global exchange system, but again the exactly same reason causing it to be unstable.
Since the growth or recession of productions in economic systems can NOT be reflected by the constant "gold standard". And when a recession do come, The government often seek extreme measure to keep their gold reserve stable, rather than keep the system stable (Every government is selfish like that). And great recession periods like in 1930's and in 1970's, causing it to be abandoned. (Because most reserves in many countries were dried out. After 1970s, gold became a commodity again)
The real "stable" factor in an economic system, often only rely on the "good" government debt and the confidence towards the deferred payment of them by the government. (The government CAN and ABLE to paid back interests and full in the future, whether it's true or not)
Post by: counting on May 25, 2011, 06:46:13 am
And without a proper "coins generating-removable" mechanism, the inflation or deflation will happen very quickly, and currency system won't be stable.Sure you cannot have truly 'stable' systems (and even current sophisticated system does not work, as indicated by 2008), but back in old days of silver/gold standards it was 'stable enough' without such recycle mechanisms, as amount of currency was limited by amount of silver/gold, which were value by itself.
Since the game has an absolute value tracking mechanism, I don't think we're going to need to worry too much about real-world style economic problems... Essentially, 'dwarfbucks' -are- the gold standard. And dedication to realism is awesome, but frankly, in order to get the system to function, Toady will almost certainly have to throw in some kind of meta-gameworld controls. Dragons/other invaders interested in wealth but unlikely to trade are certainly an excellent sort of control... But that could be too limited to rely on exclusively. It makes sense for controlling gold or mineral wealth, but what about the market being flooded with high-quality roasts? Or cabinets?
The excessive productions abilities if they can be sustained, should make such excessive commodities become commodity money. If they can be easily stored for later used and CAN be used with real values. In ancient time, the excessive production of barley(foods) or even cloth, makes them the first kinds of commodity money. Because they can be stored and used in real life. And they can be weighted or counted as the measure and used as exchange mediums for other goods. And the metal coins will stay as representation money in large quantity exchange.
Think that if NPCs are autonomous enough to be aware that high-quality roasts are abundant, they may not prefer unusable coins as payments. If a dwarf is a masonry, it went to a market and found there are few other commodities or none, a lot of roasts. And it has a choice to sell the stone carvings it produced exchange of limited amount of coins. Or dwarfs should be smart enough to know they may not have the chance to wait until they can buy the goods they needed. But it's easy to exchange a lot of roasts at hand, at least they will keep them from starving.
Overtime, those roasts may be stored as "savings". dwarfs get excessive amount of roasts at hands, but very few coins. they may try to use roasts to exchange with other dwarfs, who also have few coins, lots of roasts, and the other less rare goods (like clothing) other dwarfs produced rather than using the few coins.(underground local markets) The coins will be saved as mean to buy hard to produced goods (like fine armor sets) or large quantities. (High level caravan markets)
Although this may be hard to implement into dumb and odd dwarfs. But it's really happening in the early day of commodity money / metal coinages in economic history (Or at least we thought they were). Coins and commodity money co-existed in thousands of years. One used in local areas, one used in long-distance exchanges.
I would like to see if these kind of exchange systems can emerge from simulations. (Rather than hard-coded into game mechanics), although I doubt it will be too difficult to emulate so much dwarfs to let a market emerge by themselves.
Post by: Areyar on May 25, 2011, 07:31:36 am
Engraved on the wall is an image of a group of humans and a large group of humans. The large group of humans are lynching the humans. The artwork relates to the lynching of bankers across the world in the year 2008.hah!
Never happened, those bankers just doubled their bonusses
Post by: bitterhorn on May 25, 2011, 07:43:15 am
Engraved on the wall is an image of a group of humans and a large group of humans. The large group of humans are lynching the humans. The artwork relates to the lynching of bankers across the world in the year 2008.hah!
Never happened, those bankers just doubled their bonusses
Yeah, it was pretty much like
Code: [Select]
Urist McBanker has mandated the construction of certain goods.Code: [Select]
( Mint Fairy-dust coins 0/12002509723575697236 ) This is one of those crafts we discussed in this thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=84858.msg2279109#msg2279109) that ends up having a negative value due to a b.s. mat type..
Code: [Select]
Urist McLowly cancels Mint Fairy-dust coins: job item lost or misplacedCode: [Select]
A section of the economy has collapsed!but then
Code: [Select]
Urist McSEC cancels Beat Criminal: Criminal Too Big to Fail
Post by: Knight Otu on May 25, 2011, 07:45:40 am
In either Adventurer or Fortress mode, can necromancers re-animate dead on-the-go? What's the expected range of a necromancer's influence to reanimate the dead, is it simply unlimited range, line-of-sight limited, or trigger-based like that story with the figurine?We have devlogs of a necromancer animating a slain dog, necromancers in arena mode animating "buddy" parts, and a mummy animating her retainers and an adventurer. It certainly sounds that this will happen. Range and line of sight appear to depend on the secret provided to the necromancer/the animating force of the mummy, according to Toady's recent answers.
In fortress mode, will dwarves get thoughts about having to deal with undead creatures they knew in another lifetime?
Quote from: piecewise1. What about necromancers will allow them to raise things? Will they make some sort of magic object which simply raises any dead in the area? Will they use some sort of nebulous power thats inherent to them? Will they be somehow able to raise themselves if they die, such as a Lich.
1. They learn the secret, and then they can do it at will. Magicky system type stuff like costs/conditions etc. will be put on over time. All I have now is whether or not it needs a line of sight and a range.
Dwarves getting thoughts from undead friends has also been mentioned in the dev log
Quote from: Toady One, 05/07/2011
To avoid crossing various streams, animated corpses now keep track of the historical figure that was the source of the raised body, even though the historical figure's soul is detached from it (and available for ghostage). So relatives can still be properly horrified by a raised body without it actually being the person in question, and they might be haunted at the same time, oddly enough, provided that evil region animation continues to have nothing to do with the soul stuff.
Post by: hermes on May 25, 2011, 07:59:01 am
Ah, some weretrolling spotted...
-- 7th economics essay in as many posts ---
Go easy there, counting, you've already participated in and started a separate thread on economics in the Suggestions forum, there is no need to bring that discussion here for the time being. Try to stay with the general comment, chat, question regarding the dev log format in Future of the Fortress... Suggestions forum is for just that, and unfortunately Bay 12 doesn't have a mistake-ridden-essay section yet, but you can always hope :)
Back on track... Footkerchief said that the old adventurers could become zombies... in Fortress mode how hostile shall non-infected Dwarves behave towards their lycanthropic brethren? I think, unlike zombie dwarves, weredwarves should stand of chance of achieving social integration, kind of like in Buffy, or Chopper from One Piece; would make for an awesome military.
edit - the nonsenseness of a "weredwarf" has just struck me... if "were" is the old germanic/saxon for "man", what is the old germanic for dwarf?
Post by: counting on May 25, 2011, 08:21:01 am
Wait.. what? Economics and currency standard discussions? Didn't Threetoe just post about freaking-weredwarves not 12 hours ago??
Ah, some weretrolling spotted...-- 7th economics essay in as many posts ---
Go easy there, counting, you've already participated in and started a separate thread on economics in the Suggestions forum, there is no need to bring that discussion here for the time being. Try to stay with the general comment, chat, question regarding the dev log format in Future of the Fortress... Suggestions forum is for just that, and unfortunately Bay 12 doesn't have a mistake-ridden-essay section yet, but you can always hope :)
Back on track... Footkerchief said that the old adventurers could become zombies... in Fortress mode how hostile shall non-infected Dwarves behave towards their lycanthropic brethren? I think, unlike zombie dwarves, weredwarves should stand of chance of achieving social integration, kind of like in Buffy, or Chopper from One Piece; would make for an awesome military.
edit - the nonsenseness of a "weredwarf" has just struck me... if "were" is the old germanic/saxon for "man", what is the old germanic for dwarf?
My bad, me like babble as dwarfs in fey moods :P. Can't stop it till dehydration or staved. Or can I be animated "back to life" using necromancy becoming weredwarf? XD
Post by: Dae on May 25, 2011, 08:38:11 am
edit - the nonsenseness of a "weredwarf" has just struck me... if "were" is the old germanic/saxon for "man", what is the old germanic for dwarf?
I bet it's close to "dwarf" and wouldn't make sense anyway. A Dwarf-dwarf ?
What we need is the old saxon word for "feral aquaphobic demon who never gets out in the sunlight". Oh, wait...
Post by: bitterhorn on May 25, 2011, 09:50:27 am
edit - the nonsenseness of a "weredwarf" has just struck me... if "were" is the old germanic/saxon for "man", what is the old germanic for dwarf?
If we're talking old english, we might end up with something like aeglaeca-dweorɡ? Of course, this would most certainly be truncated and vowel-shifted into something more concise by now.
Post by: Fieari on May 25, 2011, 10:23:59 am
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 25, 2011, 10:32:36 am
Post by: bitterhorn on May 25, 2011, 10:34:59 am
I think with would be dweorwolf then? Or in this case, dweorcapybara? You'll note that "wolf" isn't in old english. It's "Base Creature in Old English-Other Creature in Modern English".
I don't think the "-wolf" in "werewolf" would have ended up looking the same as ME "wolf" if the words weren't already cognate (OE word is "wulf")...
Post by: tps12 on May 25, 2011, 01:31:36 pm
Post by: Fieari on May 25, 2011, 01:36:27 pm
I don't think the "-wolf" in "werewolf" would have ended up looking the same as ME "wolf" if the words weren't already cognate (OE word is "wulf")...
Regardless, that's how it's used in modern day, with the exception of the concept of wolfwer, for obvious reasons of reversal. Language moves. But roots can be recognized, with modification.
Dwere is catchy and easy to remember, and fits a vowel shift with Dweor... although personally I think Dweor is cooler for the sake of being different.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on May 25, 2011, 01:44:24 pm
Post by: GenericOverusedName on May 25, 2011, 02:02:24 pm
Post by: bitterhorn on May 25, 2011, 02:17:55 pm
Dwerewolf is easier to remember, and Dweorwolf would't be such a clear indicator of what it it.
Unless you say it out loud ;)
Either variant seems awesome to me, really.
Post by: Fieari on May 25, 2011, 02:44:35 pm
Post by: bitterhorn on May 25, 2011, 02:51:05 pm
And for elves, the word was aelf or ylfe. I'd recommend shortening to ael-, so aelwolf.
Signed. I love how the final "f" of "wolf" just coincidentally happens to complete both "dweor(f)" and "ael(f)", too! :)
Post by: GenericOverusedName on May 25, 2011, 03:03:13 pm
Post by: Niyazov on May 25, 2011, 03:04:18 pm
Will Dwarfs become more sophisticated in how they react to danger?
For example, that classic Dwarf Fortress situation where an unconscious troll several Z levels down manages to scare away everyone. Could that behaviour be altered? Perhaps you could make it even more !!FUN!! than before, by making Dwarfs naturally inclined to cluster around unconscious enemies and gawk. Forcing you to either kill the creature, get the crowds to move along, or accept what happens when an enemy wakes up surrounded by pointing children.
This comment hasn't gotten enough love IMO. Placing onesself in harm's way is an integral part of the dwarven psyche. Given the amount of hideous mutilation that goes on in most forts it seems like there would be plentiful opportunity for rubbernecking.
Post by: Thief^ on May 25, 2011, 03:09:16 pm
...
Post by: GenericOverusedName on May 25, 2011, 03:16:18 pm
Will Dwarfs become more sophisticated in how they react to danger?
For example, that classic Dwarf Fortress situation where an unconscious troll several Z levels down manages to scare away everyone. Could that behaviour be altered? Perhaps you could make it even more !!FUN!! than before, by making Dwarfs naturally inclined to cluster around unconscious enemies and gawk. Forcing you to either kill the creature, get the crowds to move along, or accept what happens when an enemy wakes up surrounded by pointing children.
This comment hasn't gotten enough love IMO. Placing onesself in harm's way is an integral part of the dwarven psyche. Given the amount of hideous mutilation that goes on in most forts it seems like there would be plentiful opportunity for rubbernecking.
Perhaps they could get thoughts and preferences from it too. A more timid dwarf would probably react normally and keep the hell away. A more adventurous/curious/suicidally-thrill-seeking dwarf might be more interested in poking the unconscious !!Troll!!, and might even get some kind of positive thought from doing so. At least until the monster wakes up and rips him apart.
Post by: JimiD on May 25, 2011, 04:03:42 pm
With the addition of more were-animals, how will the aboveground animalmen be handled? We already have capybara men running around... would they be replaced by the were-byras? Or be handled as as separate case? Maybe they're groups of related were-critters that are trying to carve out some primitive form of society in the middle of the savage wilderness away from society... Just brainstorming. I always felt like the above-world Tigermen and whatnot needed some more fleshing out, and maybe forming simple settlements like the subterranean races do.
But a werewolf is different to a wolfman. As a weretiger is to a tigerman. It does beg the question, what is a weretigerman?
Post by: Neonivek on May 25, 2011, 04:18:44 pm
Post by: thvaz on May 25, 2011, 04:45:24 pm
With the addition of more were-animals, how will the aboveground animalmen be handled? We already have capybara men running around... would they be replaced by the were-byras? Or be handled as as separate case? Maybe they're groups of related were-critters that are trying to carve out some primitive form of society in the middle of the savage wilderness away from society... Just brainstorming. I always felt like the above-world Tigermen and whatnot needed some more fleshing out, and maybe forming simple settlements like the subterranean races do.
But a werewolf is different to a wolfman. As a weretiger is to a tigerman. It does beg the question, what is a weretigerman?
I think DF's approach to lycans will be the mithological one - lycans will change forms from their humanoid to animal forms (and back from animal to humanoid), but not to the form in-between. It is just a guess, though.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on May 25, 2011, 04:50:39 pm
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on May 25, 2011, 04:55:33 pm
I think DF's approach to lycans will be the mithological one - lycans will change forms from their humanoid to animal forms (and back from animal to humanoid), but not to the form in-between. It is just a guess, though.
Or possibly, to make both camps happy the in-between is in fact and in-between were at first your a human then night falls (full moon obviously) and you begin to transform into a were-wolf (wolfman) and you get to do all that comes with that but by the time the moon has set you are a full normal wolf until the moon rises again when you turn back rapidly into a human, and have to wander back through the woods naked back to town. The other option to make it truly a curse is that you stay in wolf form until the next full moon, but that just seems crazy without a time skip feature.
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 25, 2011, 04:56:18 pm
Post by: magmaholic on May 25, 2011, 05:00:42 pm
And now a question,will the werewolves be in entire animal form,or part animal/part man?
Assuming that the transformation happens only during full moon?
Or will the creature always be in one friggin cursed form?
Post by: monk12 on May 25, 2011, 05:01:51 pm
With the addition of more were-animals, how will the aboveground animalmen be handled? We already have capybara men running around... would they be replaced by the were-byras? Or be handled as as separate case? Maybe they're groups of related were-critters that are trying to carve out some primitive form of society in the middle of the savage wilderness away from society... Just brainstorming. I always felt like the above-world Tigermen and whatnot needed some more fleshing out, and maybe forming simple settlements like the subterranean races do.
But a werewolf is different to a wolfman. As a weretiger is to a tigerman. It does beg the question, what is a weretigerman?
Mostly tiger, all angry.
Post by: Neonivek on May 25, 2011, 05:15:15 pm
There is no real indication that the animalmen are even related to human beings.
Essentially a Tiger is to a Tigerman is what an Ape would be to a human being. Related but not the same.
Post by: thvaz on May 25, 2011, 05:29:02 pm
A Weretigerman is essentially a Human and Tigerman.
There is no real indication that the animalmen are even related to human beings.
Essentially a Tiger is to a Tigerman is what an Ape would be to a human being. Related but not the same.
Except that an ape is vaguely humanoid while a tiger is not.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on May 25, 2011, 05:54:42 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on May 25, 2011, 05:56:42 pm
surface animalmen are clearly defined in df, they are animals "blessed" into humanoidness by the spirit of the forest. i'm guessing wereanimals are humanoids cursed into animalness by the evil spirits of evil regions
but what about caveanimalpeople? like underground antmen?
Post by: magmaholic on May 25, 2011, 05:57:07 pm
surface animalmen are clearly defined in df, they are animals "blessed" into humanoidness by the spirit of the forest. i'm guessing wereanimals are humanoids cursed into animalness by the evil spirits of evil regionsyes,but are the ALWAYS animals? or only during full moon or sth?
Post by: Neonivek on May 25, 2011, 06:42:32 pm
A Weretigerman is essentially a Human and Tigerman.
There is no real indication that the animalmen are even related to human beings.
Essentially a Tiger is to a Tigerman is what an Ape would be to a human being. Related but not the same.
Except that an ape is vaguely humanoid while a tiger is not.
I know... but I have a hard time drawing a good comparison. It is still a fair comparison.
Post by: GenericOverusedName on May 25, 2011, 06:43:52 pm
surface animalmen are clearly defined in df, they are animals "blessed" into humanoidness by the spirit of the forest. i'm guessing wereanimals are humanoids cursed into animalness by the evil spirits of evil regions
Where? I've never seen that before.
Post by: Rose on May 25, 2011, 09:34:02 pm
killing the priests?
arranging the priests bodies in satanic symbols?
what about the symbol of the temple?
Post by: Organum on May 25, 2011, 09:59:04 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on May 25, 2011, 10:13:43 pm
surface animalmen are clearly defined in df, they are animals "blessed" into humanoidness by the spirit of the forest. i'm guessing wereanimals are humanoids cursed into animalness by the evil spirits of evil regions
Where? I've never seen that before.
threetoes's root. apparently my guess about wereanimals was off, though
Post by: monk12 on May 25, 2011, 10:22:51 pm
Oh, who am I kidding. There's gonna be desecrations going on as soon as this release is out- I should have said I hope that the game recognizes them as such and takes appropriate action.
Post by: Putnam on May 25, 2011, 10:31:57 pm
Can it turn you into a kobold? I would like that a lot :P
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 25, 2011, 11:43:50 pm
Can weres-somethings breed with each other respecktive theyr former spouses or do they do they do it like the hags etc. and turn someone? Also how fast is the change and when will the infected person realisize that s/he is cursed? Can they control there power/were-form (maybe depending on theyr willpower)? Will they have a chance to get cured?
A Dweor/were/ale-wolf hunt in a city will be something neat. 1 Beastie and 5K suspects. Better yet then the Dweor/were/ale-wolf has control over her/him-self during the transformed period your truly fucked because it could hunt you down, could present substitutes to trick you or use theyr power to get advantages. Take a priest preachin about the Dweor/were/ale-wolf as some sort of heavenly punishment. I really hope at some we get the AI for that XD. Or the drunk you hired turns out to be such a beastie.
I cant wait to see Dweor/were/ale-wolf to get the power over the undead (And Goblins ^^) if they arent excluded from the other Worldgen stuff.
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 26, 2011, 01:10:41 am
Post by: Raging Mouse on May 26, 2011, 03:00:14 am
Post by: Untelligent on May 26, 2011, 03:08:42 am
Post by: Dae on May 26, 2011, 03:46:42 am
Post by: Knight Otu on May 26, 2011, 04:53:33 am
threetoes's root. apparently my guess about wereanimals was off, thoughRoot is just one story that may become possible in the future, but that doesn't mean that it will be the only origin possible for animalmen.
Are you kidding ? The chance to destroy half the world with the body of a terrifying wambler ? I would gladly go with that only for the mental pictures.You'd need someone to throw you, though.
Post by: MasterMorality on May 26, 2011, 05:18:29 am
"stay back! On the full moon of each month I turn into a... "
"A what!?"
"A WERE-PLUMP-HELMET-MAN!"
DUN DUN DDDDUUUUHHHNNNNNNN!
Post by: Karnewarrior on May 26, 2011, 06:25:31 am
Randomly generated wereforms. Awesome.
"stay back! On the full moon of each month I turn into a... "
"A what!?"
"A WERE-PLUMP-HELMET-MAN!"
DUN DUN DDDDUUUUHHHNNNNNNN!
"I know what you are..."
"Say it! Say it out loud!"
"A... Night Creature"
*Dramatic chipmunk*
Post by: de5me7 on May 26, 2011, 06:45:44 am
Also will there be a way to lift curses?
Post by: nenjin on May 26, 2011, 07:10:27 am
While I'm sure curing curses is important once you have them, a lot of fun things in DF have no decent recourse right now, like extracts and syndromes. I think it would be semi difficult to write procedural outs for these curses, and Toady isn't going to default to something simple like a priest you talk to, who'd cure you for lots coins.
So I'd expect to be able to remove curses at some point, probably just not now. Because the expectation is not just curing your curse, but other people's curses and that will take time to sort out how it will work, and remain fun and interestingly designed.
I mean, if a world gen figure defiles a temple in world gen, the thing they would have to do to uncurse themselves (or you uncurse them) would require some attention from Toady. And it seems like in general, most of the curses aren't really intended to be cured.
Post by: Rockphed on May 26, 2011, 09:49:51 am
Post by: Genoraven on May 26, 2011, 10:34:31 am
Will getting cursed for desecrating a temple bestow immortality on the defiler? Otherwise, I don't expect to see many of the werebeasts around in adventure mode. Well, not unless they breed more of themselves somehow.
Well the idea is that desecrating temples is the way the curse gets into the world. From there the Lycanthropes should be able to spread the curse to their victims.
Post by: irdsm on May 26, 2011, 12:54:22 pm
And victims of their victims and so on, I hopeWill getting cursed for desecrating a temple bestow immortality on the defiler? Otherwise, I don't expect to see many of the werebeasts around in adventure mode. Well, not unless they breed more of themselves somehow.
Well the idea is that desecrating temples is the way the curse gets into the world. From there the Lycanthropes should be able to spread the curse to their victims.
Post by: PTTG?? on May 26, 2011, 01:22:26 pm
It would seem fitting for gods to occasionally "bless" people with benign mutations as well... the people of this town all have a faint yellow aura, being decedents of Krobarr, Slayer of Heed, the Crab of Death.
Post by: CypherLH on May 26, 2011, 02:44:47 pm
I definitely like the idea of divines having more (any) influence on the world.
It would seem fitting for gods to occasionally "bless" people with benign mutations as well... the people of this town all have a faint yellow aura, being decedents of Krobarr, Slayer of Heed, the Crab of Death.
Well we now know that during worldgen the Gods will...
1) Occasionally offer the _secret_ of immortality/necromancy to historical figures who are seeking those secrets
2) Occasionally _curse_ historical figures who "profane" their temples, turning them into were-creatures.
Presumably each of these things will/can be done by gods tied to certain spheres. And for now these things may only be occurring in worldgen.
Post by: Rip0k on May 26, 2011, 03:19:51 pm
- Better Towns
- Dungeons, Sewers, Catacombs and aboveground Graveyards (..or just big Tombs for crowned heads?)
- Improved undead
- Secrets and Curses (Necromancy, Shape-shifting) In other words "Baby Magic System"
...
I have a feeling that there is something more to add to that list... hmmm...
Post by: CypherLH on May 26, 2011, 03:25:00 pm
So far with this release, apart of occasional bugfixes we have:
- Better Towns
- Dungeons, Sewers, Catacombs and aboveground Graveyards (..or just big Tombs for crowned heads?)
- Improved undead
- Secrets and Curses (Necromancy, Shape-shifting) In other words "Baby Magic System"
...
I have a feeling that there is something more to add to that list... hmmm...
Temples are back in as well, and they link into the catacombs. Although I suppose this falls under the 'Better Towns' category.
Post by: metime00 on May 26, 2011, 05:10:57 pm
Post by: CypherLH on May 26, 2011, 05:25:13 pm
There's already so much going for this update and, as great as every single new thing added at this alarming rate is, I really just want to be able to play it already! Hopefully vampires will be a one day thing like the lycanthropes so the town structures can be fully finished. So much more content to play with. I just can't wait any longer!
Yeah I am really excited about the new Towns/Cities. Imagine as we get further into the Caravan Arc and theres are inns/taverns/manors/temples/palaces, , etc, in addition to the sewers/dungeons/cataboms below. Ability to buy/sales/rent property, hire NPC's to do thing, etc.
And all the NPC's visibly moving around and doing stuff, etc.
Ok, getting ahead of myself, I'll just take the better towns layouts for now ;)
Post by: Neonivek on May 26, 2011, 05:30:03 pm
There's already so much going for this update and, as great as every single new thing added at this alarming rate is, I really just want to be able to play it already! Hopefully vampires will be a one day thing like the lycanthropes so the town structures can be fully finished. So much more content to play with. I just can't wait any longer!
Yeah I am really excited about the new Towns/Cities. Imagine as we get further into the Caravan Arc and theres are inns/taverns/manors/temples/palaces, , etc, in addition to the sewers/dungeons/cataboms below. Ability to buy/sales/rent property, hire NPC's to do thing, etc.
And all the NPC's visibly moving around and doing stuff, etc.
Ok, getting ahead of myself, I'll just take the better towns layouts for now ;)
Well remember right now we have very little ability to even find these places.
Actually I wouldn't mind a "Far view" for Adventure mode when your in a city...
Post by: metime00 on May 26, 2011, 05:34:47 pm
Post by: CypherLH on May 26, 2011, 06:59:12 pm
There's already so much going for this update and, as great as every single new thing added at this alarming rate is, I really just want to be able to play it already! Hopefully vampires will be a one day thing like the lycanthropes so the town structures can be fully finished. So much more content to play with. I just can't wait any longer!
Yeah I am really excited about the new Towns/Cities. Imagine as we get further into the Caravan Arc and theres are inns/taverns/manors/temples/palaces, , etc, in addition to the sewers/dungeons/cataboms below. Ability to buy/sales/rent property, hire NPC's to do thing, etc.
And all the NPC's visibly moving around and doing stuff, etc.
Ok, getting ahead of myself, I'll just take the better towns layouts for now ;)
Well remember right now we have very little ability to even find these places.
Actually I wouldn't mind a "Far view" for Adventure mode when your in a city...
Yeah an "extended view" map the fills the gap between normal zoomed in mode and Travel mode would be nice, maybe only have it become visible after you explore the area. And it wouldn't show a live view of things, just a "memory shadow" view. But this is getting into suggestions so I'll stop here.
Post by: monk12 on May 26, 2011, 08:37:32 pm
Randomly generated wereforms. Awesome.
"stay back! On the full moon of each month I turn into a... "
"A what!?"
"A WERE-PLUMP-HELMET-MAN!"
DUN DUN DDDDUUUUHHHNNNNNNN!
All these were-creatures, eating the people. When you become a were-plump-helmet-man, people eat you!!!
I definitely like the idea of divines having more (any) influence on the world.
It would seem fitting for gods to occasionally "bless" people with benign mutations as well... the people of this town all have a faint yellow aura, being decedents of Krobarr, Slayer of Heed, the Crab of Death.
Well we now know that during worldgen the Gods will...
1) Occasionally offer the _secret_ of immortality/necromancy to historical figures who are seeking those secrets
2) Occasionally _curse_ historical figures who "profane" their temples, turning them into were-creatures.
Presumably each of these things will/can be done by gods tied to certain spheres. And for now these things may only be occurring in worldgen.
I figure that's worth a green question.
Are/will gods have a preference for certain
Post by: G-Flex on May 26, 2011, 09:03:54 pm
Example: Regions aligned with a god/force with the "Minerals" sphere get stony skin or organs, or metallic bones, or something like that, or a god with the "fire" sphere turns your blood to something highly flammable.
Post by: monk12 on May 26, 2011, 09:21:29 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on May 26, 2011, 09:35:35 pm
Quote from: Dev Log
The wereskunk, immortal, went on to terrorize various townspeople and villagers for 150 years and still lurks off in a lair someplace.
This is probably the only were-combination I never thought of before. I mean as far as curses go, this one... :-\ maybe I shouldn't say it. A bit too easy. :-X
Either way, I wonder if the game creates the were-creatures from the entire list of creatures or does it cull out some. Like Weredragons or werebronze colossus. A weredwarf might also be strange (not a dwarf that is inflicted with werecreature curse, but a human that turns into a dwarf as his curse).
I guess I might as well ask:
Assuming the werecreatures are randomly picked from the normal creature raws, are there any creatures that are excluded from being picked for the curse? For instance, megabeasts, inorganic creatures, or civilized creatures.
Post by: Karnewarrior on May 26, 2011, 09:37:37 pm
Randomly generated wereforms. Awesome.
"stay back! On the full moon of each month I turn into a... "
"A what!?"
"A WERE-PLUMP-HELMET-MAN!"
DUN DUN DDDDUUUUHHHNNNNNNN!
All these were-creatures, eating the people. When you become a were-plump-helmet-man, people eat you!!!
That would actually make a pretty freaky horror story. Accidental nightmare fuel?
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on May 26, 2011, 09:42:05 pm
Post by: Rose on May 26, 2011, 10:02:17 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 26, 2011, 10:05:18 pm
So turning into a were-person turns you immortal. interesting.
In some mythology this is somewhat accurate.
Sometimes the immortality was part of the punishment.
I can't wait until populations are more extrapolated then they currently are.
Post by: Rose on May 26, 2011, 10:17:59 pm
Post by: Thundercraft on May 26, 2011, 11:47:05 pm
The word you are looking for is "STINKS". :o :DQuote from: Dev LogThe wereskunk, immortal, went on to terrorize various townspeople and villagers for 150 years and still lurks off in a lair someplace.
This is probably the only were-combination I never thought of before. I mean as far as curses go, this one... :-\ maybe I shouldn't say it. A bit too easy. :-X
And, yeah, I hadn't even considered that one either. I guess it's one of those lycanthrope curses that really would be a curse.
Either way, I wonder if the game creates the were-creatures from the entire list of creatures or does it cull out some. Like Weredragons or werebronze colossus. A weredwarf might also be strange (not a dwarf that is inflicted with werecreature curse, but a human that turns into a dwarf as his curse).Those are some good points. If it does not cull out some were-choices, then some humanoids (possibly an adventurer PC) will be blessed with some powerful wereforms or they might be cursed will some really bad were forms. There are a lot of small, weakling animals in the raws. Imagine if the player's character in Adventure Mode was afflicted with "Were-Rainbow-Trout" ? :o Not only might the character be stranded, due to lack of water, but they'd be a laughingstock. And they'd probably get mauled to death and eaten by a family of hungry bears real quick!
Post by: hoveringdog on May 27, 2011, 01:00:59 am
Quote from: devlog
The wereskunk, immortal, went on to terrorize various townspeople and villagers for 150 years and still lurks off in a lair someplace.
Long time lurker, first time poster. Had to register just to express my appreciation for this update. The "emergent narrative" aspect of Dwarf Fortress had already ruined me for most other games, but this just renews my enthusiasm. Can't wait for the next release and the possibility of liberating peasants from the wereskunk menace.
Post by: thvaz on May 27, 2011, 02:07:33 am
So turning into a were-person turns you immortal. interesting.
In some mythology this is somewhat accurate.
Sometimes the immortality was part of the punishment.
I can't wait until populations are more extrapolated then they currently are.
Well, mithologic correctly or not, I would prefer they weren't immortal. There are many immortals in DF already. So many that it is not even special.
The contagious nature of the curse should be enough for the world to always have wereskunks around, without the need of being immortal just so you can meet a wereskunk in play.
I hope this is just a placeholder and will be changed in time( as is the immortality of giants for example). I know goblins will always be immortal though (and I will always put [MAXAGE:120] on their raws).
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 27, 2011, 02:21:48 am
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2011, 02:48:47 am
Quote
There are many immortals in DF already. So many that it is not even special
I will outright admit that some immortals in the game... really shouldn't be. (dragons for example)
While others are sort of throw away immortals.
Anyhow Werewolves generally speaking tended to be immortal to my knowledge.
Longevity could be brought into the game, so some of these curses could just create incredibly ancient creatures instead of immortal ones.
Post by: rex mortis on May 27, 2011, 03:11:37 am
Of course there will be those who feel it's a fair trade-off. I just might fall into that category. I usually play games to become the king of the hill. So some may see that immortality gives them as much time as they want to grow stronger. But if the curse denies you some other potent methods of powering up, there will be a cost. Besides, don't you want to try and be such badass that you turn divine punishment into your advantage?
Also, consider that there will be other means to attain immortality, perhaps with far less negative effects.
Of course, eternal punishment loses some of its potency because we can just quit at any time and start over.
Post by: jellsprout on May 27, 2011, 03:31:31 am
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2011, 03:33:18 am
There have been people who have been cursed into nearly all powerful beasts. They were stronger, faster, and more powerful then they were before but lost their fundemental humanity or even themselves in the process.
Becoming a werecreature sounds like a curse in it of itself.
I don't want everyone to keep thinking just in game terms. Of COURSE a player character would love to be cursed into a dragon (unless they lose the ability to control their character, which may be the case with some transformation curses). A person however would find it horrible!
I mean could you imagine being a dragon? How hard you would have to work to eat day to day, how nothing works for you, the fact that your naked ALL the time, no one could reasonably cook great meals for you, you can't have a intimate relationship.
Now of course a player is never going to have to experience any of that... though should that really color curses?
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 27, 2011, 03:44:17 am
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2011, 03:49:29 am
of all problems, I don't think that a weredragon would have the problem of cooked meals. not the cooking part, at least.
Sure, if you like plain cooked foods.
I mean sure you could have someone boil a bunch of potatoes... but you couldn't get them to turn it into Garlic Mashed potatoes.
Post by: Organum on May 27, 2011, 04:20:53 am
Post by: Knight Otu on May 27, 2011, 04:25:45 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on May 27, 2011, 05:58:36 am
i do have problems with immortals that breed like rabbits, like elves and goblins. i could live with elves being immortal, if a bit scarcer and awesomer, after all, immortality gives you enough time to train all your skills to legendary plus infinite, and i wouldn't mind immortal goblins as mischievous spirit-like creatures that live solitary lives in magical forests and old abandoned towers, that hoard treasures and murder unprepared travelers, but i cannot live without hordes of generic baddies to slaughter, and i cannot swallow the idea that a creature that exists to feed experience to my soldiers and raw materials to my bonecrafters of dubious ethics has the potential to live for a thousand years and watch the dawn and fall of ages
that all of this is based on personal opinions is obvious, and luckilly, generally very modable
Post by: nil on May 27, 2011, 09:05:12 am
dragons and giants make fine immortals in my book, and so does the first wereskunk, the immortal mother of all wereskunk-kin, and the stinkiest of them all, the mere mention of her name is enough to nauseate a person, and is usually spoken of in euphemisms. in my book, the first werecreature of it's kind should afford a special status, but the converted victims should be far weaker and far more mortal.Goblins have a natural lifespan. It's just bounded by murder--nothing more natural to goblins than murdering.
i do have problems with immortals that breed like rabbits, like elves and goblins. i could live with elves being immortal, if a bit scarcer and awesomer, after all, immortality gives you enough time to train all your skills to legendary plus infinite, and i wouldn't mind immortal goblins as mischievous spirit-like creatures that live solitary lives in magical forests and old abandoned towers, that hoard treasures and murder unprepared travelers, but i cannot live without hordes of generic baddies to slaughter, and i cannot swallow the idea that a creature that exists to feed experience to my soldiers and raw materials to my bonecrafters of dubious ethics has the potential to live for a thousand years and watch the dawn and fall of ages
that all of this is based on personal opinions is obvious, and luckilly, generally very modable
Post by: monk12 on May 27, 2011, 11:44:32 am
Now that we've got these kinds of specific horrible monsters, it feels much more appropriate to play a night creature hunter in adventure mode since you can conceivably hunt down and kill all of the were-whatevers. Kindof like your classic Vampire Hunter thing, but with werecritters.
Great now Skunk People are going to sexually harass our cats.
I assume that is what Toady meant by "terrorize the townspeople"
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 27, 2011, 12:22:50 pm
I hope we get some chance to interact in other ways with the weres in terms of healing them or helping them if they come to terms with theyr were-ness and dont harass others.
Great now Skunk People are going to sexually harass our cats.
I assume that is what Toady meant by "terrorize the townspeople"
Even in the middleages a "Adult content"-industrie did exist so i guess they dont need to harass anybody for that ;)
Post by: James.Denholm on May 27, 2011, 12:57:01 pm
I hope we get some chance to interact in other ways with the weres in terms of healing them or helping them if they come to terms with theyr were-ness and dont harass others.What about interacting with the vampires and being accepted into their society, culminating in a ritualised passing on of the blessing? I mean, I personally would find becoming a vampire desirable because I WANT MY SPARKLES DAMNIT. GIVE THEM TO ME NOW.
Post by: Moddan on May 27, 2011, 01:13:22 pm
Post by: thvaz on May 27, 2011, 01:22:05 pm
This has probably been asked before so no green text, but will we see proper regeneration with the new update like growing back limbs and stuff? Would fit for were-creatures from my point of view. They wouldn't be complete without it. 8)
I don't think it was asked, and though it may be view as a bit of a suggestion, it fits the current development, so it is fair game to ask, IMO.
Post by: Asmageddon on May 27, 2011, 02:24:33 pm
Post by: monk12 on May 27, 2011, 02:28:16 pm
This has probably been asked before so no green text, but will we see proper regeneration with the new update like growing back limbs and stuff? Would fit for were-creatures from my point of view. They wouldn't be complete without it. 8)
I'm pretty sure this kind of thing is due to show up when interactions start doing lots of body-part transformations (longer teeth, etc), and I'm also pretty sure that it won't make it in this release due to time constraints. That said, I don't remember the source and I'm too lazy to look up a citation.
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2011, 02:29:24 pm
Would a dragon even care? "Blargle nom nom, flesh is good, what, Garlic Mashed Potatoes? I can't even digest that, who is trying to gum up my works?"
If you were born a dragon or if your mind became that of a dragon after transforming... Yeah
If you were a human or dwarf (I don't think a uncooked diet would affect Elves... and Goblins don't eat for nutriance) it would be pretty poor.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on May 27, 2011, 02:29:54 pm
I asked it twice with a bit different questions, and I think somebody else asked it as well.
Well to some extend growing back limbs is the same vain as growing "new" limbs to which toady said that it is possible but unlikely to be in the next version. Atleast thats what i get and can remeber.
Post by: monk12 on May 27, 2011, 02:51:13 pm
Would a dragon even care? "Blargle nom nom, flesh is good, what, Garlic Mashed Potatoes? I can't even digest that, who is trying to gum up my works?"
If you were born a dragon or if your mind became that of a dragon after transforming... Yeah
If you were a human or dwarf (I don't think a uncooked diet would affect Elves... and Goblins don't eat for nutriance) it would be pretty poor.
Yeah, what if your human adventurer really liked Garlic Mashed Potatoes, and now they can't eat them because they're a dragon? And this is just representative of a whole range of problems- what if the hearing range of a dragon is different than a human? All your favorite songs would sound wrong, assuming you could find a minstrel to perform them for you in the first place! Y'know that feeling you get when its cold outside but you are snug and warm in your blankets early in the morning, with nothing to do all day? Dragons can't fit in blankets! All those things you enjoyed as a kid are completely beyond your grasp now! Dragons may have analogous pleasures, but they aren't the same as human pleasures, and that is the crux of the "it sucks to not be human" argument.
As for the "goblins don't eat" thing... can you imagine living your life for centuries, turning into a dragon, and suddenly you have to eat? ALL THE TIME, from your perspective! Sure, it turns out food you never would have tried is tasty, but you basically just lost an hour or more of your day to a chore you never had to do before.
Post by: G-Flex on May 27, 2011, 03:11:03 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on May 27, 2011, 03:22:45 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2011, 03:40:07 pm
I personally have to wonder what the ramifications and implications are of goblins not eating. What's to stop them from severe population explosion?
Nothing really... Though currently what stops goblins from population exploding is constant infighting.
The fact that in Goblin society anyone can not only murder anyone but it is also perfectly acceptible to do so, tends to keep populations low.
Anyhow so there we go. "Not being human" is a curse in it of itself of appropriate harshness to any benefit it may give you.
So Toady with gods giving curses, does this mean that more active or at least flavorful gods are not so far away?
Post by: G-Flex on May 27, 2011, 07:21:23 pm
I personally have to wonder what the ramifications and implications are of goblins not eating. What's to stop them from severe population explosion?
Nothing really... Though currently what stops goblins from population exploding is constant infighting.
But the population obviously does rise to some degree; what's the limiting factor? What factors increase or decrease such that the population grows to a certain equilibrium and then stops?
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2011, 07:30:56 pm
I personally have to wonder what the ramifications and implications are of goblins not eating. What's to stop them from severe population explosion?
Nothing really... Though currently what stops goblins from population exploding is constant infighting.
But the population obviously does rise to some degree; what's the limiting factor? What factors increase or decrease such that the population grows to a certain equilibrium and then stops?
More infighting?
Well currently it is because of the magical population limit
Post by: Cthulhu on May 27, 2011, 08:47:20 pm
Maybe their constant war with Dorfs and Humans keeps the population down.
Post by: nenjin on May 27, 2011, 09:03:37 pm
Post by: monk12 on May 27, 2011, 09:33:11 pm
Lunar phases should be exciting- the whole "top down" focus on many roguelikes and strategy games tends to make one forget about the cosmos. Throw in the fact that shooters are often indoors, and I realize that the sky is an underrepresented and underexplored environment from a gameplay perspective.
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2011, 10:05:22 pm
Maybe their breeding coefficient is so low that anything basically keeps them in check.
Actually Elves have a lower breeding coefficiant and breed like crazy relative to the goblins.
Their infighting is so horrible that usually by the time they have forces capable of doing anything... even the Dwarves have larger (and much stronger) armies.
Post by: Toady One on May 27, 2011, 11:35:45 pm
Quote
Quote from: stolideIf someone with a secret dies, and then they are raised, do they still know the secret? For example, if one necromancer kills another, and decides to raise his fallen enemy, does the newly undead necromancer maintain his ability to raise more undead?Quote from: James.DenholmTo expand on this a little, what happens to the soul on re-animation?
Because I just love runnin' the questionmobile, to expand on that further: Will there be methods of necromancy or other magic that will/will not bring back the soul? What about partially bringing back the soul, both through a "copy" (for example, zombie with skills but not memories, assuming skills are in the soul) and through weakly linking to the actual soul (as above, but upon seeing his daughter it all comes flooding back to him and he turns his rusty sword on his master instead of participating in the village sacking, saving everyone and leading to a fairly awkward family reunion on account of his badly rotted face). PowerGoal 177 was a wife being dumped in the sewers and then rising to seek revenge on her murdering husband - is that still the idea? Will it be possible for necromancers to mix and match souls and bodies?
The corpse won't know the secret if it is raised, but if the necromancer were to be resurrected properly soul-wise, then they would (that would only happen with a mod at this instant). The main difference between the "animate" and "resurrect" effects is what happens with the soul. Mummies are fully resurrected, for instance. We've thought a bit about soul pieces and soul makeup (and if I remember, there was a giant thread/fotf discussion some time ago about different ways of conceptualizing souls), but we haven't messed with that specifically yet, and similarly for other stuff. It will come in over time.
Quote from: Dr. D
Will all the secrets be big, special things like raising the dead, or will there eventually be less large secrets, such as the secret of making a musical instrument or how to cook something special?
I'm not sure how the knowledge system will end up being extended or if secrets are the way the mundane things are going to go.
Quote from: scriver
Do necromancers/secret-knowers take on acolytes or apprentices and further their knowledge and/or fortress conquering agenda?
Nope. They are too antisocial to have living friends right now. I imagine when it starts getting culty we'll have relationships like that.
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
Does this mean that, instead of just "Peasant" "Hero" and "Demigod", we might be able to start out selecting "Priest" or "Fortuneteller" or whatever job produces this information? Or is this going to be a set of skills that anyone can train?
Hard to say. We were leaning toward starting scenarios, running through a bit of history that it sort of shoehorns into the world, perhaps, but we'll see how limiting that feels.
Quote from: Heph
How will the monument will be placed? Will there be stuff like valleys filled with Monuments or fields with grave-mounts respective whatever exists.
Also will there be political stuff around the "grave-sites" like starting a war with someone because they "disturbed the dead" from the builders pov.
There are monument sites, then it puts monuments in them, occasionally branching out to a new site. The overall boundaries of the site grows the more monuments it gets. There isn't any political stuff yet, but it's certainly reasonable.
Quote from: Xgamer4
What part of the next update are you most excited about?
I don't have a particular thing. I'm glad that it's all moving along and that there are various new places to flesh out over time.
Quote from: Kishmond
Can a severed 'buddy part' be reanimated if its original owner is still alive?
Of course!
Quote
Quote from: LordinquisitorAfter reading the devlog update about raiding tombs i began to wonder whether tombs can be raided during worldgen, by Bandits for example. I think it would be pretty neat to find a empty tomb from time to time, it`s riches stored in the camp of some Bandits. I also think that finding and returning part of the treasures of a dead king might be a interesting quest.Quote from: Deimos56Expanding on this... in an odd sort of way I guess, will dead kings, under certain circumstances, rise up to avenge their tombs being looted? Say, if the king happened to simultaneously manage to be a major priest of the local God of Death, or otherwise be rendered capable of rising up to avenge himself (faithful necromancer subjects, certain burial methods, etc)?
We didn't get to it, but we were thinking of doing world gen tomb raids to get some bad things active and to spread items around. We might not get there though. As for kings rising up, it is all too common now, he he he.
Quote from: Khym Chanur
1. How exactly does "bad luck" work? Does it bias the RNG towards numbers that are bad for the victim?
2. Will modders be able to attach their own curses/interactions to evil biomes, or will evil biomes be hardcoded to only use the "re-animate" interaction?
1. In the effect I was using, it zeroes all the skill rolls intermittently (using a skill adjust syndrome). Due to the way syndromes are timed in combination with dwarf mode, time is cut into segments about 7 walking steps long, and your luck is bad for 20% of those time segments. So if you are attacked during one of your unfortunate times, it will go as badly as it can possibly go. There are many random rolls that aren't skill dependent, and I haven't hunted any of those down, but the way it works affects combat and the quality of crafts, sneaking, etc., so it is enough to work. There are all sorts of ways it could be changed, but this was a simple way to set it up.
2. You can attach your own, but world gen in particular can't predict how every effect works, so some of that won't work right -- if you made the gods curse a guy with something that stops his breathing, it won't kill him until he shows up in play for example. That kind of thing just needs to be sorted out, but it is a broad problem which I'm not going to address now. During play where it has all the variables and time at its disposal, it should work. So an evil region for example could be modded to hit dwarves up with blisters and retching fits periodically. Things like this will be in vanilla if we get to it.
Quote from: Neoskel
Will an adventurer (in the coming release) be able to see (cage/weapon) traps before setting them off? Will the traps be visible after they have been set off (by the adventurer or otherwise)? Will Observer or any other current skill have any effect on trap detection? Are there plans to handle that with a new skill in a later release instead? I assume some sort of trap disarming skill is intended for a (far?) future release.
Traps that you spot will be visible, and it announces them. They are always visible if you can see their tile when they are set off. The observer skill is used for now, though I imagine the mechanic skill would be as relevant, perhaps. I'm not sure if "trap detection" should be its own skill, in the presence of both the observer and trap production skill from dwarf mode. Trap disarming is similar, but I guess it might be something of its own thing. I don't know anything about it. Perhaps the mechanic skill suffices.
Quote from: G-Flex
How are mummies' bodies handled? Are they based off another creature (e.g. "dwarf mummy", "human mummy", "slugman mummy") somehow or are they their own thing entirely? And how are the materials/tissues for them handled in either case (bandages? dessication?)?
They are based on the body of the historical figure in question, and should have the accompanying wounds, etc. We haven't added extra items for them, but we were hoping to add some things along those lines, and address various burial practices at the same time. Might not have time though.
Quote from: tfaal
I take it that since stealing from graves is encouraged, adventurers will not be as prone to civilization-wide exile for such crimes?
We aren't doing anything like that at this point, but it's just a time issue. Stealing from graves should ideally be discouraged in various ways, balanced by what people hope to get out of it, so that people will do it anyway.
Quote from: rhesusmacabre
Will the raised dead retain experience (skills) and attributes?
For example, will legendary fighters be more dangerous than others?
Will the raised dead have equipment?
Obviously creatures that die in game 'drop' their gear, but will they try to pick it up if raised? Will they seek out their favourite axe/sword? Will necromancers equip their armies before they lay seige (or are besieged/adventure'd)?
The animation effect doesn't bring the soul around for the ride, but the physical stats are retained. I haven't done anything with equipment.
Quote from: PlainTextMan
Toady and Three Toe, what are your plans (short and longer term) for counter-forces to the whole undead menace? A sort of natural way to balance things out and prevent any necromancer or zombie virus to become semi-world-ruler easily except in extreme cases. Different levels of necromancy, and consequences to dabbling in the darkness stuffs that are difficult to deal with, even to experienced necromancers. Or magic-energy systems that balance things.
And how about forces of life and good and shite like that? I presume they should also play some significant roles.
Specifically, I'm curious about your short-term/placeholder plans for things like these. Certainly, undead can't be allowed to run unbridled armok?
Aside from what's on the dev page, there aren't any plans aside from adventurers and armies to stand against things that arise. Whatever other things are reasonable, but we don't have short term plans for them other than what comes up out of necessity. The undead aren't taking over the world as it stands, but if they do every time eventually, then we'll do something about it.
Quote from: Mantonio
Will Dwarfs become more sophisticated in how they react to danger?
Nothing about that is changing for this time.
Quote from: BishopX
Roguelikes have a long history of allowing Players to encounter previous characters. Will the new undead mechanics include risen adventurers/retired adventurer tombs?
We've had encountering previous characters from the beginning, whether through corpses or the retirement mechanic, and this shouldn't turn out any differently. We aren't going to have retired adventurer tombs until things like that get built post-world-gen in general, but after that, it should be automatic, since retired adventurers just become regular historical figures, assuming a retired adventurer is considered important enough. Risen adventurers will be encountered before that, since they are in for this release, if you manage to get yourself raised right when you die or if your body is sitting around in an evil region when somebody else plays there. It doesn't raise it if you die in an evil region and quit before you get raised until you see the body again, since that falls back in the category of continuing larger regional actions after play has begun, which is starting with Release 5 (though obviously we're only going to achieve subsets at a time there, starting with the important things).
Quote from: Mechanoid
In either Adventurer or Fortress mode, can necromancers re-animate dead on-the-go? What's the expected range of a necromancer's influence to reanimate the dead, is it simply unlimited range, line-of-sight limited, or trigger-based like that story with the figurine?
In fortress mode, will dwarves get thoughts about having to deal with undead creatures they knew in another lifetime?
At this point, they can raise all of the dead within line of sight and a certain number of tiles (10 or 25, depending). More will happen as we do more things.
The thoughts existed from the old zombie attacks before the original release, and I think I co-opted them for ghosts, and they should work for any raised bodies, though I had to add a specific variable for it, since the body and the soul can be unlinked but both active for the first time (zombie + ghost).
Quote from: LoSboccacc
are there any plan to put major economical events in the world available for browsing in the legend mode (or as engraving and such, for that matter)
It'll happen as more things go in. There are things like the first time a trade route is used, but it's very bare bones right now so I'm not sure it's exciting enough to spam the history with every edge of those graphs I displayed before until there's something more behind it.
Quote from: Neoskel
Were-critters involve temporary transformations into different creatures, with at least a tail being added to the body in most cases and lost upon turning back. Does this mean that natural metamorphosis will be available? Things like tadpoles gaining legs and losing tails when they change into frogs or mantis nymphs gaining wings as they become adults.
It'll start to lay some of the groundwork for that, but I'm not going to jump into that just yet. Wounds don't need to be preserved as much, and there isn't anything gradually about it, so it's easier to the the werebeasts.
Quote from: hermes
in Fortress mode how hostile shall non-infected Dwarves behave towards their lycanthropic brethren?
When they are going nuts, I expect it will end with mutual violence. When they aren't nuts, the dwarves won't know or care at first. After the first transformation, if the dwarf somehow goes through it without being in a fight, I imagine that will continue. If the dwarf attacks somebody as a werebeast and then changes back, I think the fight will continue due to the enemy status that comes into play, hopefully avoiding any civil war bug issues.
Quote from: GenericOverusedName
With the addition of more were-animals, how will the aboveground animalmen be handled? We already have capybara men running around... would they be replaced by the were-byras? Or be handled as as separate case?
They are completely different things. I think people posted some stuff from Root, which is an available theory for animal people. The werebeasts will mostly be periodic transforming and contagious former people that were cursed, that have some resemblance to the animal in question.
Quote from: Heph
Can weres-somethings breed with each other respecktive theyr former spouses or do they do they do it like the hags etc. and turn someone? Also how fast is the change and when will the infected person realisize that s/he is cursed? Can they control there power/were-form (maybe depending on theyr willpower)? Will they have a chance to get cured?
Right now they are without castes/gender/etc., just to avoid dealing with matching things up for now, so they don't do anything after a permanent switch. The curse transformation can be permanent or periodic. I haven't done voluntary transformations at this time, and there aren't any cures, though I'm not against either of those things. It's easiest to just have them run off in the woods when they are cursed, and I might stick with that for this release. We were really hoping to keep people integrated with vampires though, so it's not clear if werebeasts will get to see some of that -- the problem is that they'd just go nuts and kill people if you arrive in town on the wrong day, and that would conflict with their past many years of integration. So it needs some work.
Quote from: Rockphed
Will getting cursed for desecrating a temple bestow immortality on the defiler? Otherwise, I don't expect to see many of the werebeasts around in adventure mode. Well, not unless they breed more of themselves somehow.
It is still changing as we change things. They were immortal, and now they are not. We'll probably keep the first one around. Once I get the contagiousness done, the numbers should be helped.
Quote from: monk12
Are/will gods have a preference for certain curses interactions, or be more or less likely to bestow an interaction at all? Are gods going to receive personality traits like people? If so, when?
"If so, when?" is always the hardest question. I'm for it of course, but I have no timeline. In order for the werecurses to happen frequently enough, they aren't sphere-linked, and it seems like the sort of thing that should be more personality than sphere based. The secrets are sphere-linked, but people accept immortality secrets more than they profane temples right now, so the frequency isn't as much of an issue.
Quote
Quote from: EmeraldWindAssuming the werecreatures are randomly picked from the normal creature raws, are there any creatures that are excluded from being picked for the curse? For instance, megabeasts, inorganic creatures, or civilized creatures.Quote from: Knight OtuAre the wereforms taken from the same list as other random creatures, from existing creatures, or both?
It uses the forgotten beast system. Trying to parse the raws would be too messy I think, although something with variations could be doable though quite a bit more work to get right than what I'm doing now. If you want to add exotic wereforms in the meantime, the gods will use whatever curses you mod in for them, and I'll probably have some examples sitting there to look at.
Quote from: Neonivek
So Toady with gods giving curses, does this mean that more active or at least flavorful gods are not so far away?
I don't have a timeline for additional god activities. Things seem to get thrown in on occasion though.
Post by: OneTwentySix on May 28, 2011, 12:45:49 am
Overall, something like that might lead to interesting play, as you might know that someone's been infected, but have no idea who. If the stealth got more complicated, you might have people getting attacked/killed randomly, with the were hiding until the curse is over afterward, to the point where you might instigate a witch hunt. "Urist, where were you yesterday night?"
Post by: rex mortis on May 28, 2011, 03:16:41 am
Will the player be able to form their own custom organisations in play? Perhaps not in the immediate future but eventually. Or would something like an inquisition have to be defined in entity raws? How would one dynamically assign responsibilities and possibly law exemptions to them? Would it be possible for such an organisation to attempt to seize the power for themselves?
Imagine the possibilities. Any proper dwarf would confess their crimes even before the hired elven interrogator started to torture them. If they could tolerate its presence and not confess, they were obviously heretics anyway. Remember, there is no innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on May 28, 2011, 04:12:20 am
thanks toad, a nice batch of answers
Post by: Neoskel on May 28, 2011, 04:22:54 am
Quote from: NeoskelWere-critters involve temporary transformations into different creatures, with at least a tail being added to the body in most cases and lost upon turning back. Does this mean that natural metamorphosis will be available? Things like tadpoles gaining legs and losing tails when they change into frogs or mantis nymphs gaining wings as they become adults.
It'll start to lay some of the groundwork for that, but I'm not going to jump into that just yet. Wounds don't need to be preserved as much, and there isn't anything gradual about it, so it's easier to do the werebeasts.
So does this mean that more drastic complete metamorphosis such as Caterpillar->Chrysalis->Butterfly could be in (or just easier to do later)? Wounds wouldn't really matter since the larva stage is pretty much completely melted down and formed into the adult stage in the pupal stage. Of course this raises the issue of them leaving behind the pupal 'case' upon emerging.
On that note, are there any plans in the future for creatures to shed their skin/carapace and leave it behind as an object? Some depictions of were-critters have them tear off their skin when they transform and it would be interesting to collect dragon skin/scales without having to kill a dragon.
I can see it now, dragon skin farms. get some dragon eggs, hatch them and collect the skins/scales they shed as they grow. Expensive leather AND you get to keep your dragons. :o
Post by: irdsm on May 28, 2011, 05:18:48 am
Quote from: NeoskelWere-critters involve temporary transformations into different creatures, with at least a tail being added to the body in most cases and lost upon turning back. Does this mean that natural metamorphosis will be available? Things like tadpoles gaining legs and losing tails when they change into frogs or mantis nymphs gaining wings as they become adults.
It'll start to lay some of the groundwork for that, but I'm not going to jump into that just yet. Wounds don't need to be preserved as much, and there isn't anything gradual about it, so it's easier to do the werebeasts.
So does this mean that more drastic complete metamorphosis such as Caterpillar->Chrysalis->Butterfly could be in (or just easier to do later)? Wounds wouldn't really matter since the larva stage is pretty much completely melted down and formed into the adult stage in the pupal stage. Of course this raises the issue of them leaving behind the pupal 'case' upon emerging.
On that note, are there any plans in the future for creatures to shed their skin/carapace and leave it behind as an object? Some depictions of were-critters have them tear off their skin when they transform and it would be interesting to collect dragon skin/scales without having to kill a dragon.
I can see it now, dragon skin farms. get some dragon eggs, hatch them and collect the skins/scales they shed as they grow. Expensive leather AND you get to keep your dragons. :o
I think that's a good idea, though it's as much a suggestion as it is a question. Periodic shedding with a slight increase in size/healing of wounds would add a lot to creatures, I think.
Post by: magmaholic on May 28, 2011, 06:01:06 am
Post by: James.Denholm on May 28, 2011, 06:11:10 am
Post by: de5me7 on May 28, 2011, 06:38:36 am
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 28, 2011, 06:46:30 am
contagious ware-beasts in fortress mode. Toady does indeed understand his player base. Magma flooding rooms will now be a necessity for any fort wanting to avoid an epidemic.
you are underestimating the player base. if one could manage to have every one to transform at the same time, no combat nor loyalty cascade. probably. hopefully. maybe. one can only hope..
There should be some way to weaponize them, right?
Post by: hermes on May 28, 2011, 06:48:28 am
Quote from: hermesin Fortress mode how hostile shall non-infected Dwarves behave towards their lycanthropic brethren?
When they are going nuts, I expect it will end with mutual violence. When they aren't nuts, the dwarves won't know or care at first. After the first transformation, if the dwarf somehow goes through it without being in a fight, I imagine that will continue. If the dwarf attacks somebody as a werebeast and then changes back, I think the fight will continue due to the enemy status that comes into play, hopefully avoiding any civil war bug issues.
Thank you for the answers again, Toady. Following on from this, I wonder if it might be possible to segregate the Dwerewolves with burrows or locked rooms... is there any way to tell the phases of the moon in Fortress Mode?
Post by: Footkerchief on May 28, 2011, 09:36:04 am
Will the player be able to form their own custom organisations in play? Perhaps not in the immediate future but eventually. Or would something like an inquisition have to be defined in entity raws? How would one dynamically assign responsibilities and possibly law exemptions to them? Would it be possible for such an organisation to attempt to seize the power for themselves?
This is a question-suggestion, and it's on the dev page. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html) Please at least check the dev page before greening a question:
Quote from: dev.html
Fortress Subgroups
* Skilled dwarves should form guilds
* Dwarves with similar religious views should formally associate at times
* Guilds and sects should be able to make demands for meeting halls, temples, specific furniture or the resources and time to prepare their own furniture, statues of specific gods throughout the fortress, etc.
* Dwarves that have grudges or personal altercations should be able to drag their groups into it
* Removal of guild dwarves from their professions should result in trouble between the guild and the currently appointed manager/leader
* Various benefits to having a well developed guild or sect are under consideration
Also addressed in an answer post: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1367464#msg1367464)
Quote from: Toady One
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.
Also here: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg1213037#msg1213037)
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: ReeseToady, is it possible we might see insurance or mutual aid societies in the future, where dwarfs can get together and help each other pay for expensive things (like, say better off family members allowing their poorer relatives to use their accounts or a group of farmers pooling their money to help pay the medical costs of an injured farmer)
The first step for that kind of thing would be having more subgroups in the fortress, which is definitely going to happen. It should make the game more interesting. After that, it'll really depend on how the subgroups work. The largest groups like civilizations don't even do projects outside of world gen, and even then they don't involve any kind of resource pooling. As that stuff is handled, whatever subgroups that go in might see some automatic benefits, but it'll depend on how it works.
So does this mean that more drastic complete metamorphosis such as Caterpillar->Chrysalis->Butterfly could be in (or just easier to do later)? Wounds wouldn't really matter since the larva stage is pretty much completely melted down and formed into the adult stage in the pupal stage. Of course this raises the issue of them leaving behind the pupal 'case' upon emerging.
Easier to do later, yes. It's not in right now -- triggering a body change as part of a normal creature life cycle (as opposed to a curse) would be substantial extra work, and the notion of a totally inert, sessile creature (the chrysalis) would probably need lots of special handling.
On that note, are there any plans in the future for creatures to shed their skin/carapace and leave it behind as an object? Some depictions of were-critters have them tear off their skin when they transform and it would be interesting to collect dragon skin/scales without having to kill a dragon.
As can be assumed to apply to all features that Toady and ThreeToe haven't mentioned:
I'm for it of course, but I have no timeline.
can we start talking to gods at last?
See above; also, this has similar considerations: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2261541#msg2261541)
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: tHe_silent_HWill 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.
Post by: Skid on May 28, 2011, 11:26:21 am
"This area patrolled 24/7 by werebadgers during the waxing moon. Access restricted."
Post by: Quatch on May 28, 2011, 11:31:41 am
Quote from: toadyOne
QuoteQuote from: Heph
How will the monument will be placed? Will there be stuff like valleys filled with Monuments or fields with grave-mounts respective whatever exists.
Also will there be political stuff around the "grave-sites" like starting a war with someone because they "disturbed the dead" from the builders pov.
There are monument sites, then it puts monuments in them, occasionally branching out to a new site. The overall boundaries of the site grows the more monuments it gets. There isn't any political stuff yet, but it's certainly reasonable.
By "boundaries of the site grow.." does this imply that sites are now resize/shapeable? Is this possible in fortress mode?
Post by: Neonivek on May 28, 2011, 01:25:12 pm
oh, if only we had a suggestion forum...
Toady is getting close to the Leno zone with the suggestion forum. No wait that is the wrong reference... who was that guy who actually tried to answer all his fanmail and actually finally thrown it all out? Well that guy! (Lenon? Ringo? Targo?)
Anyhow Thanks Toady for answering our questions!
I REALLY gotta start my Secret suggestion soon...
I am getting depressingly late on all my projects...
Post by: magmaholic on May 28, 2011, 04:08:38 pm
then there would be a [FLIER] syndrome named MOONWALK
during full moon.
heh.
will we be able to add tags with syndromes?
Post by: Demonic Gophers on May 28, 2011, 06:41:37 pm
If a creature is killed while transformed, will its corpse be based on its transformed state or its original body?
Can gaining a secret lead to megabeast or semimegabeast behavior? In an old version of one of my mods, I had a semimegabeast based on one of my civilized creatures, with a few changes to make them more dangerous and no max age. They were supposed to represent individuals who had discovered arcane means of enhancing their physical abilities, and then gone mad from a combination of side effects of the process and their feelings of superiority over unenhanced beings. I love the possibility of adding a new version of them, that would actually be this, perhaps with a possibility of retaining their sanity and entity affiliations.
Post by: EmeraldWind on May 28, 2011, 09:35:23 pm
Quote from: DevLog
For instance, I misplaced a few lines of code and all of the castle guards ended up switching genders and getting entirely new appearances ten times per step.
Wow. I laughed, a lot.
Post by: Thundercraft on May 28, 2011, 11:08:54 pm
I wonder what will happen if a wereskunk gets bitten by a werewolf. Will they turn into full werewolfs, will they become wereskunkwolfs, will they be immune to the werewolf curse or will they periodically transform between their human, werewolf and wereskunk forms?I think DF would treat it like other games that have multiple types of lycanthropes: Once a humanoid is cursed with one form of lycanthropy, then they'd be immune to all other were-curses. I would imagine that limitation fits with mythology, too.
But the population obviously does rise to some degree; what's the limiting factor?... [snip]More infighting?
Well currently it is because of the magical population limit
Maybe there's a point where they just can't stand each other's shit and infighting turns into all out civil war. Maybe at a certain threshold where they break off and form new cities.Or, maybe the current system of Goblins being immortal and having no food requirement is a desperate workaround for a badly flawed system and some of us are reaching to make it sound plausible in-game?
Maybe their constant war with Dorfs and Humans keeps the population down.
Do you realize that, even after all the bug fixing, Kobolds still die off during world-gen due to starvation? The whole food requirements (and especially grazing values) are in desperate need of rebalancing. It's not game-breakingly bad, but it is pretty bad.
That's just... so backwards! By everything written in fiction and mythology, the goblins should be the ones who breed like crazy and have horrendous, constant infighting. And the elves (again, according to fiction and mythology) should be mostly civilized, with infighting being almost unheard of, and should breed very slowly in comparison.Maybe their breeding coefficient is so low that anything basically keeps them in check.
Actually Elves have a lower breeding coefficiant and breed like crazy relative to the goblins.
Their infighting is so horrible that usually by the time they have forces capable of doing anything... even the Dwarves have larger (and much stronger) armies.
I know goblins will always be immortal though (and I will always put [MAXAGE:120] on their raws).I still have hope that goblins won't always be immortal and they will eventually be given some sort of food requirement. Also, I think I will start adding [MAXAGE:120] to the goblins in my games as well.
Post by: Dante on May 28, 2011, 11:49:39 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on May 28, 2011, 11:56:04 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)Spoiler (click to show/hide)Or, maybe the current system of Goblins being immortal and having no food requirement is a desperate workaround for a badly flawed system and some of us are reaching to make it sound plausible in-game?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Do you realize that, even after all the bug fixing, Kobolds still die off during world-gen due to starvation? The whole food requirements (and especially grazing values) are in desperate need of rebalancing. It's not game-breakingly bad, but it is pretty bad.
(...)I still have hope that goblins won't always be immortal and they will eventually be given some sort of food requirement. Also, I think I will start adding [MAXAGE:120] to the goblins in my games as well.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
actually, toady has stated multiple times that goblins being immortal and not needing to eat is canon and will stay that way.
Quote
uh... i think you're misunderstanding neonivek here. in that second part he's talking about the goblins...That's just... so backwards! By everything written in fiction and mythology, the goblins should be the ones who breed like crazy and have horrendous, constant infighting. And the elves (again, according to fiction and mythology) should be mostly civilized, with infighting being almost unheard of, and should breed very slowly in comparison.Spoiler (click to show/hide)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
also:
Quote
... everything written in fiction and mythology ...nope. tolkien invented the modern conception of goblins, folklore never described them like you're picturing them, and before tolkien turned them into a weak version of his orcs they were pretty powerful evil spirits or fairies... if toady wants them to be closer to the original goblins they should probably be a more fearsome foe with magical properties, and should have some exotic means of breeding... see all those babies they kidnap? they're the goblins of tomorrow
of course if goblins became more powerful and mystical, we'd need an alternative cheap foe that we can slaughter by the hundreds
EDIT:
Is anybody else having trouble getting to the devlog recently? I'm accessing bay12forums just fine, but bay12games only really intermittently.it's working alright for me
Post by: G-Flex on May 29, 2011, 12:03:42 am
if toady wants them to be closer to the original goblins they should probably be a more fearsome foe with magical properties, and should have some exotic means of breeding... see all those babies they kidnap? they're the goblins of tomorrow
The way I understand folklore of the middle ages (and before), if Toady wants to stick to the original flavor of any of those creatures (goblins, elves, etc.), he'll basically make it up as he goes along and not care too much about adhering to anything in particular. Whenever I read about fairies, elves, goblins, trolls, or anything else similar, it seems like people had a million different ideas of what they were and could do, depending on what part of what region of Europe you asked around in.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on May 29, 2011, 12:51:54 am
Post by: nil on May 29, 2011, 12:56:03 am
nope. tolkien invented the modern conception of goblins, folklore never described them like you're picturing them, and before tolkien turned them into a weak version of his orcs they were pretty powerful evil spirits or fairies... if toady wants them to be closer to the original goblins they should probably be a more fearsome foe with magical properties, and should have some exotic means of breeding... see all those babies they kidnap? they're the goblins of tomorrowPlus even Tolkien's orcs (orc and goblin are synonyms dammit *goes off to tilt at a windmill*) were corrupted elves, and were at least long-lived; as far as I know there's no evidence for them being mortal beyond how cheap everyone considers their lives to be. Personally I love the idea of a creature that is technically immortal but that lives a sufficiently violent life that few if any of them will actually live much longer than a human being.
I'll agree that there is a disjunct in them being less zerglike than the elves, but the problem there is with the elves, not the goblins.
Post by: Kyselina on May 29, 2011, 12:58:24 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on May 29, 2011, 01:01:12 am
I wonder what will happen if a wereskunk gets bitten by a werewolf. Will they turn into full werewolfs, will they become wereskunkwolfs, will they be immune to the werewolf curse or will they periodically transform between their human, werewolf and wereskunk forms?I think DF would treat it like other games that have multiple types of lycanthropes: Once a humanoid is cursed with one form of lycanthropy, then they'd be immune to all other were-curses. I would imagine that limitation fits with mythology, too.
Post by: Patchouli on May 29, 2011, 01:02:51 am
Post by: Neonivek on May 29, 2011, 01:19:08 am
Quote
That's just... so backwards! By everything written in fiction and mythology, the goblins should be the ones who breed like crazy and have horrendous, constant infighting. And the elves (again, according to fiction and mythology) should be mostly civilized, with infighting being almost unheard of, and should breed very slowly in comparison.
with what another person saying that it isn't quite folklore your forgetting several aspects.
1) The Infighting while fierce wasn't a remake of Fightclub where Fight was replaced by Murder.
2) Even when it was a constant blood bath, usually there stepped up a leader who could quell such a force.
Heck one movie I saw the goblins were generally ignored as an organised army because they never really had the momentum to ever continue an attack. However strong leaders who could rally the goblins were nearly unstoppable since the Goblin armies were actually better.
The problem is that Goblin societies arn't so much infighting as constantly unceasing murder pits... and even a Leader doesn't even make a dent in this (In fact when the leader isn't constantly being killed off themselves... they are... constantly killing people off themselves)
The Goblins are the most ineffectual force EVER! and Toady just keeps heaping on undeserved advantages because they need to be a threat. I am sure this will be fixed up later though, and some of their better advantages were unwritten because the current coding wouldn't allow it... such as the lack of troll armies.
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on May 29, 2011, 02:03:58 am
nope. tolkien invented the modern conception of goblins, folklore never described them like you're picturing them, and before tolkien turned them into a weak version of his orcs they were pretty powerful evil spirits or fairies... if toady wants them to be closer to the original goblins they should probably be a more fearsome foe with magical properties, and should have some exotic means of breeding... see all those babies they kidnap? they're the goblins of tomorrowPlus even Tolkien's orcs (orc and goblin are synonyms dammit *goes off to tilt at a windmill*) were corrupted elves, and were at least long-lived; as far as I know there's no evidence for them being mortal beyond how cheap everyone considers their lives to be. Personally I love the idea of a creature that is technically immortal but that lives a sufficiently violent life that few if any of them will actually live much longer than a human being.
I'll agree that there is a disjunct in them being less zerglike than the elves, but the problem there is with the elves, not the goblins.
I was partly thinking that instead of goblins being civilized like they are now, at some point they'd be lowered to kobold status and instead randomly generated civilization wide curses would give us our new "goblins".
Post by: Neonivek on May 29, 2011, 02:34:19 am
Unless the Goblins were so numberous that they are essentially a moving tide of creatures, they cannot stand a chance.
Heck the only reason Elves win battles is because they attack with unreasonably HUGE numbers constantly.
Post by: thvaz on May 29, 2011, 02:39:32 am
Their "stock" fantasy world however is seriously lacking the niche orcs fill in other fantasy works though - savage, brutish, mortal, breed-like-rabbits warlike creatures. The closer we have filling this niche are elves, but they are immortal.
Post by: Dae on May 29, 2011, 03:05:49 am
Their "stock" fantasy world however is seriously lacking the niche orcs fill in other fantasy works though - savage, brutish, mortal, breed-like-rabbits warlike creatures. The closer we have filling this niche are elves, but they are immortal.
That's fine with me. Novelty is a good thing.
Post by: Neonivek on May 29, 2011, 03:39:19 am
No eating though... for goblins. Well.
It is just odd to me in the setting they created. I understand why Toady did so.
Though I am surprised he didn't find any alternatives to not herding and not growing.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on May 29, 2011, 03:58:36 am
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 29, 2011, 04:16:44 am
how much random is material weakness? right now the fortress and the adventurer are severely limited on what materials are usable for smelting weapons or available to purchase at shop.
even if I guess we can still kill wererandoms weak to pewter smiting them with a mug :P
Post by: DG on May 29, 2011, 05:17:37 am
Post by: Asmageddon on May 29, 2011, 05:34:57 am
Post by: jellsprout on May 29, 2011, 06:00:10 am
Post by: Lac on May 29, 2011, 06:20:09 am
I'm wondering what will kill a were-rabbit. Look at the bones!
Post by: Appelgren on May 29, 2011, 06:20:50 am
Post by: metime00 on May 29, 2011, 06:59:03 am
i could picture goblins herding pigs, feeding them with the remains of their dead and war prisoners they wouldn't eat themselves, and pasturing them on the caverns
Now that you mention it, I remember Toady talking about herding in world gen being what he needed to work on before he made goblins have to eat. Somebody go look into the last couple DF Talks or FoTF posts by Toady to confirm.
And the problems with kobolds dying in world gen is caused by the lack of options in world gen, but next few updates will see more movement on the world map and eventually moving caravans to mitigate the extreme surplus/starvation cycles in world gen, as well as make it possible for kobolds to procure their food.
On the subject of zerg rushing elves and immortal goblins:
1. Goblins (in Tolkien) were corrupted elves, and thus are immortal, albeit a tortuous life. The most fitting comparison is Gollum's long life, aka a pathetic and painful existence.
2. Cannibal, immortal, only-wood-using elves with the actual repercussions immortality has on the populations, aren't trying to be Tolkien's elves. They are Toady's elves, and his vision is different than Tolkien's. The Dwarf Fortress elves are more nature-oriented, seeking to emulate nature in eating the corpses of fallen foes, or communing with animals. They are less civilized in the human sense because they embrace their natural instincts and bring themselves to the same level as animals. Animals breed rapidly, so do elves.
If you want Tolkien's elves, find or make a mod, it's why the raws are there. Vanilla DF can't cater to everyone's favorite interpretations of fantasy races.
I hope that cleared up some of the issues people are having with the currently unfinished and unbalanced world gen and Toady's design decisions.
Post by: thvaz on May 29, 2011, 07:21:49 am
i could picture goblins herding pigs, feeding them with the remains of their dead and war prisoners they wouldn't eat themselves, and pasturing them on the caverns
Now that you mention it, I remember Toady talking about herding in world gen being what he needed to work on before he made goblins have to eat. Somebody go look into the last couple DF Talks or FoTF posts by Toady to confirm.
And the problems with kobolds dying in world gen is caused by the lack of options in world gen, but next few updates will see more movement on the world map and eventually moving caravans to mitigate the extreme surplus/starvation cycles in world gen, as well as make it possible for kobolds to procure their food.
On the subject of zerg rushing elves and immortal goblins:
1. Goblins (in Tolkien) were corrupted elves, and thus are immortal, albeit a tortuous life. The most fitting comparison is Gollum's long life, aka a pathetic and painful existence.
2. Cannibal, immortal, only-wood-using elves with the actual repercussions immortality has on the populations, aren't trying to be Tolkien's elves. They are Toady's elves, and his vision is different than Tolkien's. The Dwarf Fortress elves are more nature-oriented, seeking to emulate nature in eating the corpses of fallen foes, or communing with animals. They are less civilized in the human sense because they embrace their natural instincts and bring themselves to the same level as animals. Animals breed rapidly, so do elves.
If you want Tolkien's elves, find or make a mod, it's why the raws are there. Vanilla DF can't cater to everyone's favorite interpretations of fantasy races.
I hope that cleared up some of the issues people are having with the currently unfinished and unbalanced world gen and Toady's design decisions.
No, it did not. First, you are not Toady. Toady only said goblins won't need to eat, but didn't explain why yet. When it is explained, we may like it or not. Second, I'm fine with Toady's elves. Third, gollum was not a goblin. He had long life because of the ring.
You are however correct on the fact world gen is unfinished and unbalanced, and is a work in progress. This doesn't mean we shouldn't debate the current issues.
Post by: jellsprout on May 29, 2011, 07:33:30 am
Quote from: Toady One
QuoteIn 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: 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.
Source: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2243858;topicseen#msg2243858
Post by: metime00 on May 29, 2011, 08:16:32 am
No, it did not. First, you are not Toady. Toady only said goblins won't need to eat, but didn't explain why yet. When it is explained, we may like it or not. Second, I'm fine with Toady's elves. Third, gollum was not a goblin. He had long life because of the ring.
You are however correct on the fact world gen is unfinished and unbalanced, and is a work in progress. This doesn't mean we shouldn't debate the current issues.
I redacted my first point above with my misinformation, and I think jellsprout cleared up any questions about Toady's intentions on Goblins eating. :P
good find, jellsprout!
If you like the elves, then my comments were not directed at you. I rather like the more flawed elves in Dwarf Fortress than the Tolkien ones.
Third, I was using Gollum as an analogy for the kind of life goblins/orcs have. Gollum was corrupted by the ring and was granted long life, albeit a miserable one. Goblins, likewise, have an immortal but miserable life, as they were corrupted by Morgoth(I think). They both suffer similarly in their lives.
On debating issues that will probably be resolved with future updates as is(meaning kobolds starving), it just seems like people are talking about it as if the current version exists in a vacuum, without factoring in the future caravan arc updates into their arguments. But I guess that's just pedantic on my part.
On the previous subject on whether the goblins should be uneating, regardless of whether they're intended to be that way ever, I think that the "look and feel" of the goblins is far more important than whether they adhere to constraints of realism.
Post by: darkflagrance on May 29, 2011, 09:34:52 am
I'm sure that Threetoe would be able to work this possibility into a story somehow to legitimize it, perhaps as the punishment for an especially evil goblin warlord.
Post by: piecewise on May 29, 2011, 10:20:58 am
Post by: KillerClowns on May 29, 2011, 10:35:39 am
Post by: Karnewarrior on May 29, 2011, 10:43:36 am
What form will Were-animals take? Will they be half man half animal or will people just become animals. I mean, a demonic satyr half goat half man is pretty awesome, but just becoming a goat...less so.A demonic goat.
With sharp teeth. And probably eyes that are on fire.
Post by: metime00 on May 29, 2011, 10:51:14 am
I hope there's a curse to make someone a faun like in Pan's Labyrinth.
Post by: MasterMorality on May 29, 2011, 11:23:01 am
And Goblins not needing to eat...
If a convincing setting base answer can be given, I have no problem with it.
Post by: Knigel on May 29, 2011, 11:51:37 am
Post by: Caldfir on May 29, 2011, 01:53:26 pm
Has Toady yet mentioned if animal-transformation curses can be given to non-humanoids or the limits on what animals can cause a were-curse?That's actually an entertaining point; depending on how they are coded, worldgen might just select notable historical figures to get transformed. This would mean that all kinds of insane things might spring up!
Then again it might be pulling from civ pops... but again then people's pet cats or whatever might end up werecreatures... and what if your goat was a weregoat?
I don't think it probaby makes sense to have non-humanoid things get infected and become were-stuff, but it would be entertaining either way.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on May 29, 2011, 02:51:29 pm
Post by: jellsprout on May 29, 2011, 03:45:29 pm
Post by: Neoskel on May 29, 2011, 03:59:34 pm
Post by: magmaholic on May 29, 2011, 04:59:45 pm
if you disturb a wizard,druid,witch,or a certain god for example :v?
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 29, 2011, 05:08:00 pm
will we get a sex change curse?
if you disturb a wizard,druid,witch,or a certain god for example :v?
YAPPAPPA- YAPPAPPA- II SHAN TEN
hashagu koi wa ike no koi
YAPPAPA- YAPPAPPA- II SHAN TEN
mune no tai wa dakareTAI
:P
Post by: piecewise on May 29, 2011, 06:46:16 pm
Also, is it possible that someone who is turned into a were-whatever might get the shaft and turn into a were-carp and suffocate?
Also also, sometimes you say things like "If there's time", as though you're on a deadline. Do you set deadlines for yourself? If you do, are they based on dates or on certain key/bare minimum features you want to have in?
And lastly, how many more monsters and things are gonna go in this update? We've got necromancers/new undead, were-stuff, and vampires (I assume), is there anything else planned?
Post by: Knigel on May 29, 2011, 08:15:31 pm
Then again it might be pulling from civ pops... but again then people's pet cats or whatever might end up werecreatures... and what if your goat was a weregoat?
I believe you mean a goatwere.
Quote
I don't think it probaby makes sense to have non-humanoid things get infected and become were-stuff, but it would be entertaining either way.
Yes it would.
Werebeasts originate as a curse and if curses act like a secret, the target would need the INTELLIGENT and CAN_SPEAK tags. So no werebeast cats, but yes werebeast giants.
When did they say all curses were spread like a secret? We know necromancy works that way, but on the devblog ThreeToe mentioned the curse of the were-capybara spread through a bite.
Post by: monk12 on May 29, 2011, 08:48:44 pm
When did they say all curses were spread like a secret? We know necromancy works that way, but on the devblog ThreeToe mentioned the curse of the were-capybara spread through a bite.
Quote from: 5-25 Devlog
The general mechanism is an interaction as before. Instead of having a regional or secret knowledge origin, this one has a deity source
So what we have thus far are interactions, which are curses/blessings/etc. The three confirmed subsets are Regional interactions (zombies in evil biomes), secret knowledge (necromancy) and divine (divine curses, right now were-whatevers.) So no, these curses are not secrets, but because they are only used (right now) on civ members who piss off the gods, then the first victims must be intelligent (and whatever other tags are necessary to be civ-eligible.)
Where things get interesting is when they spread- 5-28 confirms that were-curses now spread by bite (well, "contagion", presumably bite.) AFAIK, right now we don't know at all whether this excludes the animal kingdom, or animal people or megabeasts or other fringe cases like that.
Does the were-curse "discriminate" among its victims- does it apply to all creatures bit by a cursed individual, or only to intelligent creatures, or some other set of criteria? Would this criteria be something that would be variable, either in game or via raw modding?
Do necromancers choose to settle in evil biomes, or do they set up shop wherever?
I just now thought of the second question- if they build their towers wherever, then we could start seeing zombies all over the place, not just evil biomes.
Post by: metime00 on May 29, 2011, 09:19:21 pm
Some good progress today :)
Post by: monk12 on May 29, 2011, 09:27:33 pm
Post by: 3 on May 29, 2011, 09:51:37 pm
I have the sudden urge to make a Pokemon mod after naming all the metals after element types.
YES. Finally it has the potential to become a reality. The entire release just has so much modding potential, not least that we can now create reactions that have direct effects on creature physiology (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=85521.0).
Post by: Catastrophic lolcats on May 29, 2011, 09:53:30 pm
YAPPAPPA- YAPPAPPA- II SHAN TENThe hell is this moonspeak?
hashagu koi wa ike no koi
YAPPAPA- YAPPAPPA- II SHAN TEN
mune no tai wa dakareTAI
The whole gender changing curses seems to be a fairly common trope in fantasy games. I don't have much doubt that it will find it way into Dwarf Fortress at some point.
Be interesting if Toady decides to go with the whole gender change thing or just changing appearence, guys having children after a gender bender curse seems a bit iffy to me...
Post by: G-Flex on May 29, 2011, 10:46:59 pm
Post by: darkflagrance on May 29, 2011, 11:02:39 pm
(http://i53.tinypic.com/2ztj50j.jpg)
Post by: Caldfir on May 30, 2011, 12:46:03 am
If weaknesses to odd materials start coming into play (weremeerkats weak to silver, evil regions populated by blistered giant rabbits weak to gold, demons weak to nothing but other demon bones, etc.), then would that open the possibility of broader material selection in fortress mode? Obviously right now there's no sense to making gold swords and hammers, but if you've got the possibility of things like an outbreak of lycanthropy where they're actually necessary due to material weakness, it starts making more sense to be able to do that.I assume that the current material weaknesses are limited to materials that can be made into weapons (there is a flag for that) but I could be wrong.
Post by: Neonivek on May 30, 2011, 01:35:49 am
For example Wolves have claws... yet Werewolves have sharp claws.
I remember in one pen and paperRPG I had there were both Wolfmen and Werewolves and my character declaired that the difference between them was if they had razorsharp claws or not.
Post by: ravensword227 on May 30, 2011, 01:37:10 am
Quote from: dev. log
I finally got myself transformed into a weregoat, pumped up with enough axe skill that I could bifurcate my attacker after the switch.Were-creatures use weapons?
Quote from: dev. log
the strength of werebeasts against their non-weak materials isn't so crazy as to make it impossible to beat them if you get ambushed.Will were-creatures heal fast?
Post by: darkflagrance on May 30, 2011, 02:00:54 am
Post by: Organum on May 30, 2011, 02:40:21 am
Post by: nil on May 30, 2011, 02:58:36 am
Post by: James.Denholm on May 30, 2011, 04:17:49 am
I think this will happen a lot.
Post by: MasterMorality on May 30, 2011, 08:40:57 am
http://www.gameartisans.org/forums/showthread.php?p=173117
Take a look - might give some better visual ideas of what these mad were-creatures could look like :)
Post by: zwei on May 30, 2011, 09:18:06 am
If my left front hoof gets chopped off while i am transnfromed to weregoat, will i miss left hand when i get turned back to humanoid? What about more complex stuff ... like what if my military dwarf has broken leg with cast on it, broken arm with splint, bandaged and surtured hand? Will his were-self still have surtures is his transformed limb and wound and retain other medical stuff?
Post by: Armok on May 30, 2011, 09:26:33 am
Post by: Jiri Petru on May 30, 2011, 09:44:32 am
As far as I know, lycanthropes are people who change to animals every full moon. You know... four legs, no hands... those kinds of animals? There's nothing in between. You are either a human, or a goat. There's no half goat/half human monstrosity. Lycanthropy doesn't work that way. As far as I know, mythological werewolves were always just big, nasty, hairy wolves - dangerous, sure, but still in an animal form. The half man-half wolf depictions come from D&D or whatever.
Well, Toady definitely said something along the lines that "with were-beings, I fortunately don't have to write code for partial transformations," so I suppose it works this way in DF too.
Post by: EmeraldWind on May 30, 2011, 10:54:37 am
I always imagined were-creature looking basically like their animal counterparts, but with little things to tell they are not exactly the normal creature. (For example, a fifth claw on a creature that normal has on four. Razor claws and teeth even if the base animal doesn't have it. Red eyes, maybe. Increased size.) I imagine little subtle differences are probably a ways off since they might be tough to include in transforms, but that doesn't stop me from using that as my mental depiction of a were-creature either.
Either way a distant and far cry calls out to me. I must have at least on adventurer become a werechicken. Buk buk buk cooooooooo!
Post by: Knigel on May 30, 2011, 01:06:54 pm
If they don't look any different, they how could you tell a were-beast from a regular beast?
Post by: Neoskel on May 30, 2011, 01:17:21 pm
Well, we already have a werewolf (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Werewolf) in the game, but without any kind of curse.
If they don't look any different, they how could you tell a were-beast from a regular beast?
Yeah, the same way we used to have a non-random, humanoid Titan before the procedurally generated Titans got put in.
I'm pretty sure cursed were-creatures will use that brown N with a ~ on the top like in that post by Threetoe in the devlog or at least flash between it and a letter specific to the type of critter.
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on May 30, 2011, 01:37:06 pm
Evidently they've been half-wolf/half-man since the 1700's.
Post by: Knight Otu on May 30, 2011, 02:02:14 pm
If weres use the FB system, does this mean we can get weresauropods or wereblobs?I doubt we'll get wereblobs, which sit along with humanoid and quadruped in the list (werehumanoid?), but weresauropods should be fair game along with werechickens, weretheropds, and werehares.
Post by: Knigel on May 30, 2011, 04:11:11 pm
Personally, I would rather have full-transformation curses for any creature than hybrid forms only for the one Toady went out of his way to create.
^I doubt we can have people transforming into creatures that don't have full entries in the game even if they can be in the description for a forgotten beast.
Post by: EmeraldWind on May 30, 2011, 04:21:14 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werewolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werewolf)
Evidently they've been half-wolf/half-man since the 1700's.
It's funny how often we find out here... some things are older than we think and others are a lot newer than me think.
Reading that I was surprised to hear the idea of transmitting the curse by bite is relatively new. And that humanoid werewolves have been around a lot longer than I thought. Though it does say that the werewolf typically looked like a wolf in most stories. The idea that a werewolf didn't have a tail is completely new to me though.
Though honestly it ultimately doesn't matter what is right and wrong. For now we get whatever Toady thinks is right for the meantime (which is fine by me as Toady seems to do his research) and someday we can mod werewolves to be whatever we personally decided we like. Therein lies the awesome of this game. Your idea of a werewolf not in the game, well then get to work. You want a werechicken to be in everyone of your worlds, just mod it in. I mean, yes, we have a while before the game gets to the point where we can do anything we want, but at the same time some of mod-ability is already going to be there.
Post by: NinjaE8825 on May 30, 2011, 04:29:10 pm
I ask because I suddenly got a mental image of a small inuit village being plagued by were-camels.
Post by: freeformschooler on May 30, 2011, 04:37:14 pm
When a were-curse is bestowed, is the creature selected completely random? If yes, is it going to stay random, or will it eventually depend on the god in questions or something?
I ask because I suddenly got a mental image of a small inuit village being plagued by were-camels.
Given it uses the FB system I'm leaning on "random" but this is a wonderful idea, heh.
Post by: EmeraldWind on May 30, 2011, 05:02:01 pm
When a were-curse is bestowed, is the creature selected completely random? If yes, is it going to stay random, or will it eventually depend on the god in questions or something?
I ask because I suddenly got a mental image of a small inuit village being plagued by were-camels.
Given it uses the FB system I'm leaning on "random" but this is a wonderful idea, heh.
Inuit: I was attacked by something... I think it was a moose... but it didn't look like moose... it had no antlers... and a strange protrusion in the middle of its back... what... was... it... :'(
Post by: Neonivek on May 30, 2011, 05:10:19 pm
Do Wereanimals automatically get claws?
I always found it odd that Werewolves got razorsharp claws.
Post by: NinjaE8825 on May 30, 2011, 05:11:16 pm
Exactly. I mean, sometimes gods should maybe turn people into creatures that didn't exist there before (like with Arachne and king Lykaeon from Greek myth), but there's a reason Europe had werewolves and not were-tigers, like in India. (also, a god associated with cats turning someone he doesn't like into a were-rat just feels so right)When a were-curse is bestowed, is the creature selected completely random? If yes, is it going to stay random, or will it eventually depend on the god in questions or something?
I ask because I suddenly got a mental image of a small inuit village being plagued by were-camels.
Given it uses the FB system I'm leaning on "random" but this is a wonderful idea, heh.
Inuit: I was attacked by something... I think it was a moose... but it didn't look like moose... it had no antlers... and a strange protrusion in the middle of its back... what... was... it... :'(
Post by: Neonivek on May 30, 2011, 05:14:15 pm
Post by: Lord Shonus on May 30, 2011, 07:06:39 pm
Post by: Rose on May 30, 2011, 08:19:23 pm
The Weretigers of India... were really REALLY not weretigers... they were a bit more awsome then that.
Did they Got Tiger?
Post by: freeformschooler on May 30, 2011, 08:48:15 pm
The Weretigers of India... were really REALLY not weretigers... they were a bit more awsome then that.
Did they Got Tiger?
They have been trying to get that got tiger throughout the history of the gotweretiger species.
Post by: LeeDub on May 30, 2011, 11:42:56 pm
Quote from: devlog
werelizard jeweler
I can already picture the werecow milkers. Ugh.
Post by: Dae on May 31, 2011, 03:07:52 am
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on May 31, 2011, 03:23:31 am
Can you milk a werecow ?If it's just had a werecalf within the last couple of months perhaps.
Post by: magmaholic on May 31, 2011, 04:38:06 am
Post by: DG on May 31, 2011, 05:01:56 am
Quote from: Toady One
O! My fisherdwarf was interrupted by... werelizard jeweler!?Fisherdwarves have ever been the unluckiest of dwarves.
Because if they can stay alive without need to eat, it either ruins law of conservation of energy or implies that they are able to get enormous amounts of energy from thin air using ultra advanced technology that even we don't yet have(nuclear fission of hydrogen from water mist, anyone?)In a setting that is planned to contain "real" gods and magic I think there will be easy and numerous ways to justify it (and even a few good ways). Unless you are also against gods and magic and prefer that everything in the game is explainable by the physical laws in our world, then that's something else.
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on May 31, 2011, 05:06:48 am
with a werebull?
I'm not going to discuss the possibility of milking a werebull. I'm just going to tell you to NOT do that.
Post by: HollowClown on May 31, 2011, 05:22:53 am
For instance, if a dwarf is bitten by a were-elk and turns into a were-elk, and the dwarf is then bitten by a were-groundhog, what will happen? Will the dwarf remain a were-elk? Become a were-groundhog? Become a bizarre hybrid were-elkhog? Turn into a randomly-mutated abomination similar to a forgotten beast?
Post by: Gamerlord on May 31, 2011, 05:36:12 am
Post by: Chromasphere on May 31, 2011, 06:54:02 am
Quote from: devlog
...but a third victim survived, pale from blood loss, but without any life-threatening injuries. Then it was time to watch the little moon indicator...
Hmmm, I think we will need to be able to designate a dwarf for chaining up.
I would love to be able to have the guards escort a injured dwarf to a jail cell or dungeon and have him chained there. Then, depending on the strength of the chain/cell door matterial and quality, have the werecreature be able to break out or not. Anyway, that's probably something for quite a ways in the future, but fun to think about. I'd settle for just being able to chain them up.
Post by: Psieye on May 31, 2011, 09:28:56 am
1x1 burrow or a lever on repeat. Wooden door. Come full moon, if Toady adds Building Destroyer to werebeasts, they'll bust out.Quote from: devlog...but a third victim survived, pale from blood loss, but without any life-threatening injuries. Then it was time to watch the little moon indicator...
Hmmm, I think we will need to be able to designate a dwarf for chaining up.
I would love to be able to have the guards escort a injured dwarf to a jail cell or dungeon and have him chained there. Then, depending on the strength of the chain/cell door matterial and quality, have the werecreature be able to break out or not. Anyway, that's probably something for quite a ways in the future, but fun to think about. I'd settle for just being able to chain them up.
Post by: Khym Chanur on May 31, 2011, 10:46:15 am
2. Are there any methods for curse contagion other than bites/wounds?
Post by: de5me7 on May 31, 2011, 11:15:11 am
Post by: Fieari on May 31, 2011, 11:58:42 am
You mentioned that you had set it such that it is possible to defeat a were-creature without the weakness as of right now, but would be willing to change it later on as the slayer role is developed. Is this a variable that can be set via the raws? I can imagine modders wanting to make a non-random creature with a particular weakness that MUST be used... which would be entirely fair for non-random creatures.
Post by: tfaal on May 31, 2011, 12:24:28 pm
Post by: NinjaE8825 on May 31, 2011, 12:27:46 pm
What kind of relation will there be between strange moods dwarves have currently and the secrets/curses spirit-interaction stuff that's coming in this release? Will the two systems become one eventually?
Post by: tfaal on May 31, 2011, 12:34:17 pm
Don't think anyone asked this, yet...Artifacts were intended to be the starting point of the magic and spheres system, but the new secrets and interactions have beat them out the gate it seems. There's nothing specific about magical artifacts on the new dev pages though, so I don't think there's any timeline.
What kind of relation will there be between strange moods dwarves have currently and the secrets/curses spirit-interaction stuff that's coming in this release? Will the two systems become one eventually?
Post by: Cruxador on May 31, 2011, 02:09:24 pm
It seems like something that could easily end up being an unplanned addition some time during the army arc, since historically the supernatural abilities of particular weapons and relics have (allegedly) changed the course of battles fairly often. It could of course also come earlier than that if Toady feels like tossing it in sooner.Don't think anyone asked this, yet...Artifacts were intended to be the starting point of the magic and spheres system, but the new secrets and interactions have beat them out the gate it seems. There's nothing specific about magical artifacts on the new dev pages though, so I don't think there's any timeline.
What kind of relation will there be between strange moods dwarves have currently and the secrets/curses spirit-interaction stuff that's coming in this release? Will the two systems become one eventually?
Post by: werechicken on May 31, 2011, 02:17:57 pm
1 I will finally be able to have my namesake in a game
2 If werecreatures don't attack each other there could be some fun having an entire fort of werecreatures, especially in a siege;
Goblin A: wow! These dwarves sure are weak!
Goblin B: Oh look a full moon
Goblin A: What the f***!? Where did these werebears come from!?
Post by: Fieari on May 31, 2011, 02:24:16 pm
EDIT: I was wrong! I just got to the point in the DF Talk where he states that weregoats don't attack weregoats, but werelions might attack weremaggots.
Post by: jellsprout on May 31, 2011, 02:25:47 pm
Don't think anyone asked this, yet...
What kind of relation will there be between strange moods dwarves have currently and the secrets/curses spirit-interaction stuff that's coming in this release? Will the two systems become one eventually?
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: hermesWill 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.
source: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2261541;topicseen#msg2261541
Quote from: Toady One
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.
source: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2243858;topicseen#msg2243858
Post by: monk12 on May 31, 2011, 02:47:22 pm
I get the feeling from the main page that werecreatures in dwarf mode will be hostile to everyone and everything.
EDIT: I was wrong! I just got to the point in the DF Talk where he states that weregoats don't attack weregoats, but werelions might attack weremaggots.
Oh yeah. This is gonna be awesome, if a bit problematic when the kobolds show up with silver daggers and shit.
Post by: werechicken on May 31, 2011, 02:50:29 pm
I get the feeling from the main page that werecreatures in dwarf mode will be hostile to everyone and everything.
EDIT: I was wrong! I just got to the point in the DF Talk where he states that weregoats don't attack weregoats, but werelions might attack weremaggots.
I think you'd have to have a few non-cursed dwarves or at full moon your population will be zero. Other than that that I can see a whole new era in weaponised monsters, both undead and werecreatures.
The only problem would be trying to deliberately infect dwarves without them getting killed.
Post by: monk12 on May 31, 2011, 03:00:18 pm
I get the feeling from the main page that werecreatures in dwarf mode will be hostile to everyone and everything.
EDIT: I was wrong! I just got to the point in the DF Talk where he states that weregoats don't attack weregoats, but werelions might attack weremaggots.
I think you'd have to have a few non-cursed dwarves or at full moon your population will be zero. Other than that that I can see a whole new era in weaponised monsters, both undead and werecreatures.
The only problem would be trying to deliberately infect dwarves without them getting killed.
Drop a "control" were-creature from a height sufficient to break most of its bones, but leave it alive. Introduce test subjects, unarmed, unarmored. Test subjects should receive bites/scratches but are unlikely to receive mortal wounds from the Were before somebody kicks its face in. Repeat as necessary.
If it is necessary to preserve a single dwarf, it should be easy to accomplish- it could even be automatic with judicious application of the military schedules screen and sufficiently advanced Dwarven Engineering. I predict that somebody will make a mechanical calendar in-game that displays the phases of the moon, which then can be linked to a safe room that will trigger just before the moon is full.
Post by: nenjin on May 31, 2011, 03:33:22 pm
Post by: G-Flex on May 31, 2011, 03:34:38 pm
Post by: Neoskel on May 31, 2011, 04:14:51 pm
Will the dark blue night creatures include things that try to lure you to rivers and other bodies of water and drown you?
Those are pretty common in mythology and folklore. Ranging from things pretending to be horses and jumping into the river to drown you when you ride them to things that pose as an attractive member of the opposite sex inviting you for a swim.
Though i guess it's kind of a toss up whether those count as 'night creatures' or not.
Edit: Also, can anyone think of any examples of 'generic intelligent undead' in media/folklore? I'm having a little trouble trying to imagine what they'd be like.
Post by: scriver on May 31, 2011, 04:40:44 pm
Those are pretty common in mythology and folklore. Ranging from things pretending to be horses and jumping into the river to drown you when you ride them to things that pose as an attractive member of the opposite sex inviting you for a swim.Or in Swedish(/Scandinavian) folklore, where it's a naked troll sitting in the river playing his.. fiddle... :-\
Post by: nenjin on May 31, 2011, 04:44:59 pm
In the rush of all these Night Creatures, and the fact they've been here a while in fortress mode, ghosts kind of slipped under the radar in terms of the next release.
Post by: Knight Otu on May 31, 2011, 04:48:31 pm
Edit: Also, can anyone think of any examples of 'generic intelligent undead' in media/folklore? I'm having a little trouble trying to imagine what they'd be like.I'm taking it to mean things like D&D liches and death knights, or Koschei the Deathless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koschei), achieving immortality without necessarily going out to animate the dead, or possibly D&D ghouls and wights (assuming those don't count among the animated dead) or bodaks (who might fall into the stalker category instead). Basically anything undead that doesn't definitely fall into the other categories. I guess it could be expanded into creatures like the rokurikubi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rokurokubi) if those don't fall into tweaked troll/hag behavior.
Post by: thvaz on May 31, 2011, 05:13:34 pm
Post by: Cruxador on May 31, 2011, 05:13:43 pm
Post by: Knigel on May 31, 2011, 06:14:18 pm
Post by: G-Flex on May 31, 2011, 06:18:30 pm
Post by: Jacob/Lee on May 31, 2011, 09:31:38 pm
Post by: darkrider2 on May 31, 2011, 09:34:27 pm
If a dwarf learns the secret of life and death from his or her deity, will they be able to migrate to your fortress and become a warrior that can re-animate body parts during combat one day?
I think this might go under wizards and the magic arc.
Post by: Khym Chanur on May 31, 2011, 09:41:36 pm
Well, if the gods a dwarf worships can influence the artifact made by a strange mood, the god's spheres could influence what artifact is made, without having to bring magic into it. The god's spheres could decide what type of artifact is made, rather than the dwarfs skills (WAR sphere makes armour or weapon, etc), and also the materials used (TREE makes wood be used, WEALTH increases the chance of decoration with gems, etc).Don't think anyone asked this, yet...Artifacts were intended to be the starting point of the magic and spheres system, but the new secrets and interactions have beat them out the gate it seems. There's nothing specific about magical artifacts on the new dev pages though, so I don't think there's any timeline.
What kind of relation will there be between strange moods dwarves have currently and the secrets/curses spirit-interaction stuff that's coming in this release? Will the two systems become one eventually?
Post by: Rockphed on June 01, 2011, 12:35:54 am
Or, perhaps, the gods worshipped by a dwarf influence the sphere's an artifact acquires. So a dwarf that worships a god of death, consolation, fortresses and wealth might create an artifact with any of those spheres, though it might acquire more the same way gods do. What effect the spheres of an artifact had is a whole other question. For instance, an anvil with the fire sphere might cause a workshop built with it to never need fuel. A throne with the war sphere might cause whoever sits in it to gain 1 point in a fighting skill for every frame they sit. A hammer with the death sphere might sometimes raise the bodies of its kills under its wielder's control.Well, if the gods a dwarf worships can influence the artifact made by a strange mood, the god's spheres could influence what artifact is made, without having to bring magic into it. The god's spheres could decide what type of artifact is made, rather than the dwarfs skills (WAR sphere makes armour or weapon, etc), and also the materials used (TREE makes wood be used, WEALTH increases the chance of decoration with gems, etc).Don't think anyone asked this, yet...Artifacts were intended to be the starting point of the magic and spheres system, but the new secrets and interactions have beat them out the gate it seems. There's nothing specific about magical artifacts on the new dev pages though, so I don't think there's any timeline.
What kind of relation will there be between strange moods dwarves have currently and the secrets/curses spirit-interaction stuff that's coming in this release? Will the two systems become one eventually?
Really, I don't think we have anywhere near enough information to begin speculating on what the effects of artifacts will be. For now, we are getting an awesome set of curses, undead, necromancer, and were-chihuahuas. Sufficient is the day for the !!FUN!! thereof.
Post by: darkflagrance on June 01, 2011, 12:40:51 am
Post by: werechicken on June 01, 2011, 07:32:46 am
I see artifact interaction being a whole new source of experimental terror.
As long as I can use at least half of these new features to commit war crimes against invading goblins I'll be happy
Post by: freeformschooler on June 01, 2011, 01:06:57 pm
Is having a scripting language for manipulating things (much like DFHack is doing to a small extent) something you've considered? Like I said, it's been brought up a few times, so I was wondering if this was more of a post-1.0 goal
Post by: Untelligent on June 01, 2011, 01:54:50 pm
Post by: 3 on June 01, 2011, 02:06:23 pm
Post by: nenjin on June 01, 2011, 02:17:39 pm
(As an aside, I love that metaphor. Low hanging fruit dangling from The Tree of Fun and Woe.)
Post by: werechicken on June 01, 2011, 02:28:10 pm
So we probably won't have legions of steel golems wandering around our fortress, unless they're really limited.
Post by: Cthulhu on June 01, 2011, 02:47:17 pm
Although when Toady does the partial bodies re-write down the road (and decides to let magic into Fortress mode), dwarves creating constructs sounds like low hanging fruit.
(As an aside, I love that metaphor. Low hanging fruit dangling from The Tree of Fun and Woe.)
The Tree of Cupidity and Avarice.
Do we really need more than one steel golem?
Post by: irdsm on June 01, 2011, 02:50:28 pm
Post by: nenjin on June 01, 2011, 03:00:56 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on June 01, 2011, 03:06:09 pm
Personally what I want most is the ability to mod in creature creation. To the level this is used in vanilla is irrelevent, I just want to be able to make a cow workshop, a golem workshop etc. and it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to code in for toady.You might actually be able to do that in the next version... if you're willing to sacrifice a dwarf for a golem. Create a material (or stinging vermin) with a transformation syndrome that keeps the victim part of your civ, expose a dwarf to it, and you should have a transformed dwarf. Doesn't work if transformed creatures automatically becomes foes, but we'll see.
Post by: Cruxador on June 01, 2011, 03:15:48 pm
Hell, you don't even need a full transformation. a curse that turns dwarven skin to adamantine and bones to steel would already make them immune to almost everything. If it also includes a side effect of turning them into a giant flesh-eating monster (that still has adamantine skin and steel bones) every full moon, then that's just an added bonus.Personally what I want most is the ability to mod in creature creation. To the level this is used in vanilla is irrelevent, I just want to be able to make a cow workshop, a golem workshop etc. and it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to code in for toady.You might actually be able to do that in the next version... if you're willing to sacrifice a dwarf for a golem. Create a material (or stinging vermin) with a transformation syndrome that keeps the victim part of your civ, expose a dwarf to it, and you should have a transformed dwarf. Doesn't work if transformed creatures automatically becomes foes, but we'll see.
I'm not sure if we'll be able to couple effects like that, though.
Post by: PlainTextMan on June 01, 2011, 05:21:15 pm
I was against goblins not having to eat until I started to think of them as eternally hungry rather than always sated. Eating all kinds of disgusting things if they have the chance - while still surviving forever without any sustenance.YES
Make them not have to eat to stay alive, but make them want to eat all the time. Make them crave blood and rotten kitten corpses. *barfs at own awesome suggestion*
All that needs doing to make this pretty
So, can you [guys] please elaborate on the the new Face Of Goblinness you have in mind, so that the dear people of the forums may have peace in this regard?
The way I understand folklore of the middle ages (and before), if Toady wants to stick to the original flavor of any of those creatures (goblins, elves, etc.), he'll basically make it up as he goes along and not care too much about adhering to anything in particular. Whenever I read about fairies, elves, goblins, trolls, or anything else similar, it seems like people had a million different ideas of what they were and could do, depending on what part of what region of Europe you asked around in.YES
Post by: eux0r on June 01, 2011, 06:06:45 pm
concerning the artefacts any effects and interactions probably need the item-rewrite where they get multiple materials(although i dont know what this ones schedule is), because a sword giving power and/or burning the ones being killed? how does it discriminate between the one wielding and the one "touching the other side really hard" if it cant even discern its own handle from its blade? but on the other hand this raises the problem with a power-granting chair, what if someone uses it in a bar fight to bash someone? will the one getting bashed get power too? so maybe all effects also need to be bound to certain actions(if its only bound to actions, and no material-contact, then touching the blade of the "sword of lightning" would be harmless), but then again i guess this means major (or at least _not_ minor) changes to whats in for now. therefore i guess: we still have to wait for that for some time
Post by: Neoskel on June 01, 2011, 09:16:10 pm
it only needs a satisfying reason and im happy (theyre all plants/mushrooms | theyre all distant offspring of some daemon | ...)
I think it's funny how it's a big deal that goblins don't need to eat, but it's a given that demons don't need to eat.
Post by: Untelligent on June 01, 2011, 11:26:53 pm
Unless he's going to add in more things after the frankensteiny things, of course. Odds of that? Did he mention anything in the Talk? Haven't read that yet, waiting for the transcript.
Post by: monk12 on June 01, 2011, 11:34:55 pm
it only needs a satisfying reason and im happy (theyre all plants/mushrooms | theyre all distant offspring of some daemon | ...)
I think it's funny how it's a big deal that goblins don't need to eat, but it's a given that demons don't need to eat.
I always figured demons were just able to subsist on RAW EVIL- then again, most demons don't do things like form societies. For humans, one of the reasons we all get together in societies is because it helps us to produce more food, more efficiently. If goblins don't need each other in order to form farm communities and hunting tribes, then why DO they hang out? They don't really seem to be very social, what with the constant murder and all, and they aren't terribly taken with art or trade either. About the only real benefit for a big group of gobbos is mutual protection, and goblins could probably get enough of that in a small tribe-like structure instead of these ravening hordes we've got.
So right now, one of the only reasons they form armies is, well, for the evulz (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForTheEvulz). But I seem to recall Toady saying that he wants his goblins to be a little more thought out than just an Always Chaotic Evil race, with the potential for peaceful goblin civs. It'll be interesting to see how he tackles it.
Post by: bitterhorn on June 01, 2011, 11:37:13 pm
Post by: TheNewerMartianEmperor on June 01, 2011, 11:56:16 pm
In the future, will randomly generated lunar cycles (such as having two or more moons, that sort of thing) become an important feature Re: werecreatures?
Post by: Montague on June 02, 2011, 12:09:52 am
I think it might take some tweaking of the worldgen. Having a pocket region where an adventurer can go from freezing tundra to tropical rainforests within a single days travel is silly. A pocket region should represent a... region, like Belgium or The southern half of Florida. Not so much, a planet's hemisphere with ice on one side and sweltering tropics on the other.
Though, tying that into lunar and solar cycles would probably complicate things further if the region you worldgen is separated from the planet and its celestial cycles.
Post by: Hellome on June 02, 2011, 12:19:41 am
Post by: tHe_silent_H on June 02, 2011, 03:18:21 am
If you're using a severed arm as a weapon can it be raised while you are still wielding/have it in your inventory or must it be on the ground?
Post by: eux0r on June 02, 2011, 09:47:02 am
it only needs a satisfying reason and im happy (theyre all plants/mushrooms | theyre all distant offspring of some daemon | ...)
I think it's funny how it's a big deal that goblins don't need to eat, but it's a given that demons don't need to eat.
...(goblins)... then why DO they hang out?
goblins not eating is no big deal at all, it would just be nice to have some more fluff around them in general and i guess they hang out because at first, being a hand full of individuals is simply better(in terms of survival rate) then being alone. and with them being so good at surviving in the first place their numbers simply grow easily enough for them to be able to sustain a big group, which can surely not being taken care of so easily by, more or less, _any_ enemy, which is still better then being a whole lot of single guys who everyone wants to kill, even when killing each other quite a lot inside that group. and then with them just being like that, they can decide "hey, i know everyone loves fighting and killing and see others die and suffer in here, so how about we band together and go to war?"
Unless he's going to add in more things after the frankensteiny things, of course. Odds of that? Did he mention anything in the Talk? Haven't read that yet, waiting for the transcript.
youre also thinking of the haunted mansions and furniture when you mention 'ghosts' and 'housework'? and there are also the markets that still need to be done in this release(at least i think he said so in the df-talk)
Post by: PTTG?? on June 02, 2011, 10:13:37 am
Just thought of this while reading the misc weapon thread:
If you're using a severed arm as a weapon can it be raised while you are still wielding/have it in your inventory or must it be on the ground?
This is a question that can only be asked about dwarf fortress.
Post by: h3lblad3 on June 02, 2011, 10:39:24 am
Why do they hang out? Looting!it only needs a satisfying reason and im happy (theyre all plants/mushrooms | theyre all distant offspring of some daemon | ...)
I think it's funny how it's a big deal that goblins don't need to eat, but it's a given that demons don't need to eat.
They don't really seem to be very social, what with the constant murder and all, and they aren't terribly taken with art or trade either. About the only real benefit for a big group of gobbos is mutual protection, and goblins could probably get enough of that in a small tribe-like structure instead of these ravening hordes we've got.
They aren't very artistic, and not the terribly organized/industrious creatures dwarfs and humans are.
So how do you get this stuff for yourself? You steal it! And it's easier to do with a group than alone.
Just give it up already and realize the truth: Goblins. Are. Vikings.
Post by: Neonivek on June 02, 2011, 06:36:37 pm
I guess I can hold off on it.
Post by: Cruxador on June 02, 2011, 07:10:33 pm
Goblins. Are. Vikings.Vikings had farms in their own nations, and valued poetry and song very highly.
Also they were not immortal and had to eat to not die.
Post by: Neonivek on June 02, 2011, 07:12:01 pm
Magical Teeth
Yep, the best description.
Post by: G-Flex on June 02, 2011, 09:07:25 pm
Goblins. Are. Vikings.Vikings had farms in their own nations, and valued poetry and song very highly.
Also they were not immortal and had to eat to not die.
They also weren't constantly murdering each other.
Post by: Neonivek on June 02, 2011, 09:08:30 pm
Except dumber (as in the goblins arn't as smart) and less goal centric.
So I guess Goblins are like a civilisation of naughty children who just don't care.
Post by: Montague on June 02, 2011, 09:21:56 pm
Or maybe they just don't eat right now because they tend to get wiped out quickly in world gen enough as it is?
Not sure what the problem is. Though, I suppose if you were immortal, never needed to eat and were entirely selfish, anti-social and misanthropic, you'd just wall yourself into some crevice underground or go be a hermit and decide to never be relevant to the world.
Post by: darkflagrance on June 02, 2011, 09:23:10 pm
Quote from: Toady One
I started the vampire process by adding ingestion syndromes. These'll be used to give the option to make drinking a vampire's blood a way to pass along the curse, but since it looks at item materials and contaminants and so on, when we get to poisoned apples/alchemy/etc./etc. that'll work without any additional fiddling.
I once read about a fort (Gemclod) where a forgotten beast attack laid the fort low with a terrible syndrome, but since it couldn't be transmitted in the food, the few survivors quarantined the rest of the fort off and survived off the forgotten beast dust-coated food in the larder.
Thanks to ingested syndromes, that's about to change...
Post by: Untelligent on June 02, 2011, 09:40:33 pm
Post by: Willfor on June 02, 2011, 09:43:08 pm
Quote from: Devlog
I started the vampire process by adding ingestion syndromes. These'll be used to give the option to make drinking a vampire's blood a way to pass along the curse, but since it looks at item materials and contaminants and so on, when we get to poisoned apples/alchemy/etc./etc. that'll work without any additional fiddling. It should also simplify some modding workarounds (any added food material or liquid material can be given ingestion syndromes).I think I speak for all of the modders, everywhere, when I say THANK YOU!!
I am going to have a lot of fun with this. A lot of fun...
Post by: G-Flex on June 02, 2011, 09:44:47 pm
Also: Will ingestion-related syndromes finally allow for alcohol to affect creatures, even if it's only in a binary sense (binary as in either you have the syndrome or you don't, as opposed to a continuum between "buzzed" and "hammered")?
Post by: tfaal on June 02, 2011, 10:19:37 pm
Also: Will ingestion-related syndromes finally allow for alcohol to affect creatures, even if it's only in a binary sense (binary as in either you have the syndrome or you don't, as opposed to a continuum between "buzzed" and "hammered")?YES. You should see a line like this under every brewable plant's entry in the plant_standard file:
Code: [Select]
[USE_MATERIAL_TEMPLATE:DRINK:PLANT_ALCOHOL_TEMPLATE]
[STATE_NAME_ADJ:ALL_SOLID:frozen dwarven beer]
[STATE_NAME_ADJ:LIQUID:dwarven beer]
[STATE_NAME_ADJ:GAS:boiling dwarven beer]
[MATERIAL_VALUE:2]
[DISPLAY_COLOR:6:0:0]
[EDIBLE_RAW]
[EDIBLE_COOKED]
[PREFIX:NONE]
Since that references and modifies a material template, you can then put a [SYNDROME] tag in the mix. You can find examples of how to use syndrome tags on the wiki, or in the creature_next_underground file. I would recommend long term stunning and maybe very mild nausea. Also, don't quote me on this, but I think some syndrome effects might stack, in which case it wouldn't be binary at all.
Post by: Montague on June 02, 2011, 11:11:15 pm
I'd imagine a drunk would have greater willpower or toughness, but with decreased agility and nausea, right?
Post by: Dante on June 02, 2011, 11:13:06 pm
Also: Will ingestion-related syndromes finally allow for alcohol to affect creatures, even if it's only in a binary sense (binary as in either you have the syndrome or you don't, as opposed to a continuum between "buzzed" and "hammered")?YES. You should see a line like this under every brewable plant's entry in the plant_standard file:Code: [Select][USE_MATERIAL_TEMPLATE:DRINK:PLANT_ALCOHOL_TEMPLATE]Since that references and modifies a material template, you can then put a [SYNDROME] tag in the mix. You can find examples of how to use syndrome tags on the wiki, or in the creature_next_underground file. I would recommend long term stunning and maybe very mild nausea. Also, don't quote me on this, but I think some syndrome effects might stack, in which case it wouldn't be binary at all.
[STATE_NAME_ADJ:ALL_SOLID:frozen dwarven beer]
[STATE_NAME_ADJ:LIQUID:dwarven beer]
[STATE_NAME_ADJ:GAS:boiling dwarven beer]
[MATERIAL_VALUE:2]
[DISPLAY_COLOR:6:0:0]
[EDIBLE_RAW]
[EDIBLE_COOKED]
[PREFIX:NONE]
I thought it just reset the syndrome timing counter, but don't quote me on that either.
Nevertheless, I'm super excited. As was pointed out in DF talk, syndromes + ingestion effectively gives us a functional magic system.
Post by: G-Flex on June 02, 2011, 11:15:36 pm
Can syndromes give status increases?
I'd imagine a drunk would have greater willpower or toughness, but with decreased agility and nausea, right?
You can get a lot more specific than that, actually.
Stats increased: Willpower (more stubborn and fewer pain effects, although perhaps pain reception could be manipulated directly in the tissues?) ... and okay, that's about it.
Stats decreased: Kinesthetic sense (by far!), Focus, Linguistic Ability, Analytical Ability, Patience, and/or Memory (to varying degrees).
Post by: tfaal on June 02, 2011, 11:22:51 pm
Can syndromes give status increases?Not in the current version, maybe in the next one. From what I can tell, you can pretty much put whatever tags you want onto a syndrome now, but that might require overwriting a stat, rather than tweaking it. Actually, can we put any creature tag inside a syndrome now? Can syndromes tweak stats?
I'd imagine a drunk would have greater willpower or toughness, but with decreased agility and nausea, right?
Post by: IT 000 on June 03, 2011, 01:25:07 am
How long (in real time) does the 'Full Moon' phase in Fortress mode last?
Post by: thvaz on June 03, 2011, 01:29:39 am
Post by: darkflagrance on June 03, 2011, 01:36:39 am
Forgive me if this has been asked before.
How long (in real time) does the 'Full Moon' phase in Fortress mode last?
Well, we know that a certain number of frames counts as the passing of a day in DF. Presumably, a set amount of days could correspond to a phase of the moon. In real life, a full moon lasts about 3 days.
Hopefully, the amount of time a moon phase takes, and perhaps even the number of moons a world has, will be things we can set during world gen.
Post by: thvaz on June 03, 2011, 01:56:03 am
Well, we know that a certain number of frames counts as the passing of a day in DF. Presumably, a set amount of days could correspond to a phase of the moon. In real life, a full moon lasts about 3 days.
Hopefully, the amount of time a moon phase takes, and perhaps even the number of moons a world has, will be things we can set during world gen.
In the lastest DF Talk, Toady said there will be only one moon.
Post by: Organum on June 03, 2011, 01:57:36 am
Post by: Cruxador on June 03, 2011, 02:06:32 am
My mind is aflame with randomly generated Camarilla/sabbat politics and wars of the night in DF, though of course such things won't actually be possible until we get group politics in general.
Post by: Untelligent on June 03, 2011, 02:13:11 am
Can there be multiple different types of vampires with different sets of randomly generated traits in the same world?
I can't see any reason why there wouldn't be.
Post by: Khym Chanur on June 03, 2011, 02:24:10 am
Like for example, a set of vampires that sparkle in the sun and enslave the minds of pubescent children,...
Urist McSparkles cancels drink blood: too busy stalking love interest
Post by: thvaz on June 03, 2011, 02:38:04 am
Didn't he also mention the possibility of multiple moons in the future?
Yes. I was talking about the next version.
Post by: stuntedkind on June 03, 2011, 04:37:23 am
In the lastest DF Talk, Toady said there will be only one moon.
That's no moon, its...
Post by: Gamerlord on June 03, 2011, 06:10:58 am
Post by: werechicken on June 03, 2011, 07:53:29 am
Also it's looking like goblin sieges are going to be the least of our worries in the next version. Not to mention grave sites and hospitals are going to have to be thought about very carefully, especially in werecreature areas
Post by: Dae on June 03, 2011, 08:16:56 am
For more fun, can we make some castes of the same creatures immune to a syndrome while others will be subect to it ?
Post by: cephalo on June 03, 2011, 08:19:05 am
or....
One of the human merchants will be a vampire, and when he bursts into flames, the rest of the human merchants will attack us.
I do greatly appreciate the bugs in DF, don't get me wrong.
Post by: freeformschooler on June 03, 2011, 08:42:07 am
I don't know the Raws well, but with ingested syndromes PLUS adventurer crafting PLUS secrets, won't we be able to hunt for a recipe for a secret potion, craft it and drink it, thus acquiring magical powers ? Also, poisons !
For more fun, can we make some castes of the same creatures immune to a syndrome while others will be subect to it ?
I don't know about magical powers, but if you can use arbitrary syndromes to buff the syndromee, then we definitely have potions now.
Now that I think about it, this release will be a perfect time for the "random plant generator" to get an update. The fun (Fun?) will come in finding out which random plant gives what effect.
Post by: Knigel on June 03, 2011, 10:17:17 am
Nevertheless, I'm super excited. As was pointed out in DF talk, syndromes + ingestion effectively gives us a functional magic system.
Well, it gives us magic food at least.
Post by: freeformschooler on June 03, 2011, 10:27:27 am
EDIT: actually i probably should have posted this in the DF talk thread
Post by: Knight Otu on June 03, 2011, 10:45:00 am
Uhh... is anyone interested in setting up a short reference list of what the night creature colors will probably represent? I might end up attempting it after the transcript is up, but not until then.Well, I have a very basic list here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=85718.msg2314887#msg2314887) if you want to use that.
Post by: Korbac on June 03, 2011, 11:35:20 am
Post by: Sysice on June 03, 2011, 03:01:48 pm
Obviously it does different things to different vampires, I wonder if any are neutral or even positive.
Post by: werechicken on June 03, 2011, 03:37:02 pm
That being said I wonder how vampires will work in dwarf mode due to the extra pace that time moves
Post by: metime00 on June 03, 2011, 04:14:11 pm
Post by: Areyar on June 03, 2011, 05:19:07 pm
(That does sound like a likely init setting; randomized syndromes: NO\YES\ALL)
Post by: Fieari on June 03, 2011, 05:20:20 pm
Actually, let me pose this as a more generic green question:
Toady, many of your forumites are repeatedly linking the Wikipedia Vampire Traits list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vampire_traits_in_folklore_and_fiction). Are you actually intending to try to implement all these traits, or is this merely wishful/hopeful thinking on the part of your fans?
Another question...
Werecreatures first appear by being cursed for defiling a temple. How will vampires appear? There are many ways suggested by stories...
Examples include:
- The first murderer (Vampires are sons of Cain theory)
- As a corpse that has blood drip into it's mouth by accident (Folklore)
- As a demonic possession (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
- World-gen randomly deciding someone is simply too cruel to be human and cursing them (Vlad the Impaler)
And I'm sure there are other options out there...
Post by: Cruxador on June 03, 2011, 06:38:56 pm
Does that mean there will be one random type of vampire per world or does that mean that all syndromes are randomised and there could be several instances of syndrome in a world that are 'vampirey'?I already greened a question of this nature, but it seems very likely to me that there will at least be significant potential for multiple vampire types.
(That does sound like a likely init setting; randomized syndromes: NO\YES\ALL)
Post by: Untelligent on June 03, 2011, 06:49:13 pm
Does that mean there will be one random type of vampire per world or does that mean that all syndromes are randomised and there could be several instances of syndrome in a world that are 'vampirey'?
(That does sound like a likely init setting; randomized syndromes: NO\YES\ALL)
Several kinds of vampires with a handful of random traits selected from a big pool of vampirey traits seems most likely.
Post by: EmeraldWind on June 03, 2011, 07:39:18 pm
Urist McSailorman: I'm strong to the finish cause I eat my spinach. I'm Urist McSailorman!
Granted though, you either need to cook it into every meal in the game or have a dwarf that really likes the stuff. To take advantage of it.
Post by: freeformschooler on June 03, 2011, 07:56:59 pm
Quote
Still doing tags. It takes a little longer since there's an interaction on a creature that activates a syndrome which activates another interaction on a body material that activates a syndrome, and that sort of thing in a few different permutations, but I think the moving parts are working now.
Am I the only one whose jaw is dropping at the implicit modding possibilities here?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on June 03, 2011, 08:55:24 pm
Will vamps have withdrawal symptoms from not getting theyr bloody fix? Stuff like raging, aging rapidly, loosing strength etc.? (just like dwarves that dont get booze)
Post by: bitterhorn on June 03, 2011, 09:02:52 pm
i cant wait for the fish-people of insmouth after all that is what i expect of an evil ocean.
Oh, me too. Dark-blue-Ń Deep Ones in the ocean, were-Deep Ones running the neighboring human coastal village... *drool*
Post by: G-Flex on June 04, 2011, 01:17:39 am
QuoteStill doing tags. It takes a little longer since there's an interaction on a creature that activates a syndrome which activates another interaction on a body material that activates a syndrome, and that sort of thing in a few different permutations, but I think the moving parts are working now.
Am I the only one whose jaw is dropping at the implicit modding possibilities here?
Hell no!
Sidenote: Drinking liquid fire in DF should cause your blood to actually turn into liquid fire. Under most circumstances, this wouldn't be a good thing.
Post by: Knigel on June 04, 2011, 01:42:33 am
Hm. So what if I created a plant that when eaten gives a syndrome that increases strength for a couple months.
Urist McSailorman: I'm strong to the finish cause I eat my spinach. I'm Urist McSailorman!
Granted though, you either need to cook it into every meal in the game or have a dwarf that really likes the stuff. To take advantage of it.
As someone else said, altering stats themselves isn't something syndromes can really do yet. However, you can do other stuff to get similar results, like changing tissue to a harder material to increase durability.
QuoteStill doing tags. It takes a little longer since there's an interaction on a creature that activates a syndrome which activates another interaction on a body material that activates a syndrome, and that sort of thing in a few different permutations, but I think the moving parts are working now.
Am I the only one whose jaw is dropping at the implicit modding possibilities here?
I might, but I'm still trying to parse that sentence (which is itself demonstrating the difficultly Toady is facing).
Hehe vampires are neat but i cant wait for the fish-people of insmouth after all that is what i expect of an evil ocean. But back to vamps.
Will vamps have withdrawal symptoms from not getting theyr bloody fix? Stuff like raging, aging rapidly, loosing strength etc.? (just like dwarves that dont get booze)
That's probably another thing which varies by world.
Post by: darkflagrance on June 04, 2011, 01:55:24 am
I wonder what eyeball grass will do to the dwarves who drink the milk of those cows :o
Post by: Gamerlord on June 04, 2011, 02:52:58 am
I wonder what eyeball grass will do to your cows.
I wonder what eyeball grass will do to the dwarves who drink the milk of those cows :o
it will make the dwarves... sane. OMFG! THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! THE DWARVES ARE SANE! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
Post by: Asmageddon on June 04, 2011, 04:26:40 am
Man, I just had this image of DF 1.0 in my head... awesome.
Post by: Dradym on June 04, 2011, 05:48:02 am
and i think the bright green night creatures could be evil fairies/spirits-id like to see something really nasty and primordial come from the dark forests.
the whole ingested syndromes could also be really nasty if a dwarf or a secret evil dwarf poisons the water/food/alcohol supply causing all sorts of problems-especially if it ends up some sort of political maneuver if the nobles were really just tired and or mad of the current people in charge. keep them happy or theyll kill everyone through poison or something to that effect.
Post by: Knigel on June 04, 2011, 11:51:00 am
I wonder what eyeball grass will do to your cows.
I wonder what eyeball grass will do to the dwarves who drink the milk of those cows :o
it will make the dwarves... sane. OMFG! THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! THE DWARVES ARE SANE! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
That does spring to mind the idea of dwarven prozac.
Will we be able to have any control over the kind of vampires that sprout out in world-gen?
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on June 04, 2011, 12:16:14 pm
I'm guessing "no", primarily because they're random and adding options for all kinds of vampires would be a little too much.I wonder what eyeball grass will do to your cows.
I wonder what eyeball grass will do to the dwarves who drink the milk of those cows :o
it will make the dwarves... sane. OMFG! THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! THE DWARVES ARE SANE! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
That does spring to mind the idea of dwarven prozac.
Will we be able to have any control over the kind of vampires that sprout out in world-gen?
That said, I'd very much like to see what Bay12ers come up with for vampire screenings. For example, if there exist vampires with magma immunity, a simple magmafall chamber will show which is which - if the dwarf is a vampire, he will survive.
Post by: Untelligent on June 04, 2011, 12:48:52 pm
Post by: irdsm on June 04, 2011, 01:26:13 pm
You ought to be able to mod in creatures using the same kinds of tags as the vampires'll have, though.
This. From the sound of the devlogs I'd guess the vampire tags will be added to either creature or syndrome RAWs or possibly a new RAW for night creature/paranormal related files.
Post by: EmeraldWind on June 04, 2011, 02:25:02 pm
You ought to be able to mod in creatures using the same kinds of tags as the vampires'll have, though.
This. From the sound of the devlogs I'd guess the vampire tags will be added to either creature or syndrome RAWs or possibly a new RAW for night creature/paranormal related files.
I'm pretty sure Toady has said all the tags for these creatures can be used in normal creature definitions as well as syndrome creature definitions. Want to make a black slime creature that dissolves in sunlight... it should be possible. I'm pretty sure Toady mentioned there will be a couple non-randomly generated creatures and syndromes for the purpose of examples.
Post by: werechicken on June 04, 2011, 06:02:53 pm
On the other hand if fb poisons get any of these new ingested symptoms that'd be pretty interesting
Post by: Greiger on June 04, 2011, 06:31:57 pm
So since I didn't get to read the first 50 pages, was there an answer on what happens when were-symptoms mix? Like say a werewolf gets bitten by a weretiger?
Post by: nenjin on June 04, 2011, 06:38:09 pm
Post by: monk12 on June 04, 2011, 06:39:26 pm
Posting to follow, mostly because theres a new 50 page long FoTF thread that I had no idea existed.
So since I didn't get to read the first 50 pages, was there an answer on what happens when were-symptoms mix? Like say a werewolf gets bitten by a weretiger?
Not yet, but it has been asked.
That said, I'd very much like to see what Bay12ers come up with for vampire screenings. For example, if there exist vampires with magma immunity, a simple magmafall chamber will show which is which - if the dwarf is a vampire, he will survive.
And if she weighs the same as a duck... SHE'S A WITCH!
Man, now I really hope witchcraft makes it in. Certainly seems to be low-hanging fruit (along with oh so many features) and at this point is basically a less powerful, more flavorful necromancer.
Post by: Greiger on June 04, 2011, 06:40:03 pm
Post by: nenjin on June 04, 2011, 06:57:06 pm
Post by: Dante on June 04, 2011, 07:53:53 pm
I wonder what eyeball grass will do to your cows.
I wonder what eyeball grass will do to the dwarves who drink the milk of those cows :o
Ah, I hadn't considered things like this. Yes, endless possibilities. Maybe I'll make bubble grass cause grazers to fly. And perhaps there's some way to add the new sunshine-based tags to the sunshine drink.
Post by: tfaal on June 04, 2011, 09:39:36 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on June 04, 2011, 10:49:26 pm
Post by: Urist McDepravity on June 04, 2011, 11:38:31 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on June 04, 2011, 11:45:27 pm
I wonder what eyeball grass will do to your cows.
I wonder what eyeball grass will do to the dwarves who drink the milk of those cows :o
Ah, I hadn't considered things like this. Yes, endless possibilities. Maybe I'll make bubble grass cause grazers to fly. And perhaps there's some way to add the new sunshine-based tags to the sunshine drink.
I like this idea. It reminds me of the Boktai series. Vampires couldn't eat fruit because of the high amount of solar energy stored in it (granted they could drink tomato juice). In this case, sunshine could be like holy water dwarven-style.
Ultimately, I'd like all the different vampire things to become apart of this game eventually... yes even sparkling in the sun... especially sparkly ones. Hunting down sparkly vampires and killing them sounds like a decent stress relief to me. ;D
Post by: freeformschooler on June 04, 2011, 11:48:11 pm
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on June 05, 2011, 12:02:54 am
With all these new tags I have to wonder. Do you foresee the RAW/tag system ever being outdated? After all, ultimately a tag is just a reference to something in the underlying hard-coding in the game.Yeah, I still think the game should've made a jump to Lua back when it was still feasible. Right now, rewriting every goddamn thing in the raws into any new format is going to be the most major demotivator for any moves in that direction.
Post by: qwert on June 05, 2011, 02:02:32 am
On the other hand if fb poisons get any of these new ingested symptoms that'd be pretty interestingUrist McDwarf cancels Clean Fish: is a Were-Ash Demon
Post by: RedWick on June 05, 2011, 06:51:43 am
I wonder if it will be possible for DF vampires to have Arithmomania (as one of the random weakness options, not for all of them)... I mean, that's one of the oldest classic vampire traits, yet no one portrays them as having it anymore (except Sesame Street). Granted, this is possibly because it seems silly, but so what?! It could be cool!
Mind = blown
Post by: Psieye on June 05, 2011, 07:21:18 am
Will sunlight always be a bad thing for vampires?It's going to be implemented as a syndrome. A syndrome that makes you burn up and is triggered by sunlight. Therefore, any syndrome effect can be used instead when modding your own creature. Given buffs from werebeast forms are also implemented as syndromes, you very much can have something that gets boosted in sunlight.
Obviously it does different things to different vampires, I wonder if any are neutral or even positive.
As for the worldgen vampires, likely Toady will form a list of possible syndrome effects triggered by sunlight for the dice to pick from. I don't see Toady putting good effects into the sunlight triggers for vampires. The real question is: will the forgotten beast generator be updated for next version to include all the new tags that got created while working on Night Creatures?
I mean can you imagine? "This is a forgotten beast. [Insert basic forgotten beast description]. It becomes even more messed up on full moons. If it ever breaks through to sunlit areas, it becomes several times more durable. Beware its tainted meat!"
Post by: thvaz on June 05, 2011, 08:15:52 am
Will vampire's victims always die when feeded upon?
How vampires decide when to create more vampires?
Can vampires learn the secret of raising corpses? If yes,the system can then handle two types of night creatures on the same historical figure. This means we will have vampire werecreatures?
Post by: Rose on June 05, 2011, 08:26:23 am
Post by: thvaz on June 05, 2011, 08:43:10 am
So what happens when a resurrected FB gets bitten by a werewolf and a vampire?
I think there will be a flag to forbid these weird things, hence the questions.
Post by: Cespinarve on June 05, 2011, 10:06:46 am
Is it an easy fix to separate bags and coffers/boxes/chests into separate categories on both the build menu and in the stockpile preferences?
It's difficult to macro stock bedrooms with chests if you have to forbid all bags first- and another problem arises when you have an empty bag stockpile outside, say, a millstone or sand gathering area, and your dwarves dutifully fill it with glass boxes.
Post by: Jiharo on June 05, 2011, 10:16:13 am
I wonder if it will be possible for DF vampires to have Arithmomania (as one of the random weakness options, not for all of them)...If it were possible to get such a vampire in your fortress he would be the perfect Bookkeeper.
Post by: Psieye on June 05, 2011, 11:16:50 am
This suggestion was discussed a bit last week, and since no one came out against itBut that's easy to sort: bags and boxes have mutually exclusive materials so you can further sort based on that. It's impossible to create a leather chest and it's impossible to create a glass bag.
Is it an easy fix to separate bags and coffers/boxes/chests into separate categories on both the build menu and in the stockpile preferences?
It's difficult to macro stock bedrooms with chests if you have to forbid all bags first- and another problem arises when you have an empty bag stockpile outside, say, a millstone or sand gathering area, and your dwarves dutifully fill it with glass boxes.
Post by: Organum on June 05, 2011, 11:26:31 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on June 05, 2011, 11:29:30 am
Post by: Organum on June 05, 2011, 11:43:15 am
I didn't know that, at all.
Edit: Well, now I know why they're grouped together. I retract my previous derp.
Post by: Greiger on June 05, 2011, 11:45:08 am
Post by: Cespinarve on June 05, 2011, 11:52:34 am
Yep, the serve the same purpose in a room too. Though I prefer to use real coffers and chests myself instead of bags.
The may serve the same purpose in a room, but bags have a while different set of functions that coffers et al don't- they store seeds, sand, dye and so on. Unless it is studded with diamonds, i want a bag being used for sand and seeds, not decorating a bedroom. As far as Im concerned, bags have enough special functions to be distinct from coffers.
Post by: Dakk on June 05, 2011, 02:05:36 pm
Post by: SirPenguin on June 05, 2011, 02:33:05 pm
I mean obviously vampires make absolutely no sense in Fortress mode where it's "always day", and even werewolves may have a maximum of 30 seconds or so of screen time given the current time compression.
Post by: darkflagrance on June 05, 2011, 03:07:45 pm
Post by: thvaz on June 05, 2011, 03:20:07 pm
Given the advent of very time-dependent creatures,have you considered reworking the time compression in Fortress mode? If not, how do you envision creatures like this working given the time scale?
I mean obviously vampires make absolutely no sense in Fortress mode where it's "always day", and even werewolves may have a maximum of 30 seconds or so of screen time given the current time compression.
I don't think it is always day, it is abstracted. Dwarves doesn't sleep one second each dozen seconds, nor they eat every day. Though it would be nice if there was a reworking, hopefully with a Fast Forwarding option. But I think this would need a great rewrite.
Post by: Lord Shonus on June 05, 2011, 03:31:52 pm
Post by: Willfor on June 05, 2011, 03:41:37 pm
Don't forget that there's no sun underground.I do have to point out that this sounds like a megaproject in the making. After all, we spend so much time trying to take heat from the underground, and place it in the outside world. Why not take the sun and put some heat back inside the world...
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on June 05, 2011, 03:49:41 pm
Speaking of which... pitchblende.. lead...
With the food (and material) based symptoms and weaknesses now being available, would (accidental) food poisoning from improper tableware materials become a sufficiently low-hanging fruit for reasonably expedient inclusion?
Post by: SirPenguin on June 05, 2011, 04:04:47 pm
Given the advent of very time-dependent creatures,have you considered reworking the time compression in Fortress mode? If not, how do you envision creatures like this working given the time scale?
I mean obviously vampires make absolutely no sense in Fortress mode where it's "always day", and even werewolves may have a maximum of 30 seconds or so of screen time given the current time compression.
I don't think it is always day, it is abstracted. Dwarves doesn't sleep one second each dozen seconds, nor they eat every day. Though it would be nice if there was a reworking, hopefully with a Fast Forwarding option. But I think this would need a great rewrite.
Right, it is abstracted, which I guess is what I'm talking about. If it continues to be abstracted then vampires will function identically to werewolves, in that they stick around for a few 'days' or some such nonsense.
I'm not even sure if there is a better system than what we have, but I've been wanting a "more accurate" version of the day cycle for awhile in fort mode, and I think now is a good chance to take a stab at it.
Post by: thvaz on June 05, 2011, 04:15:03 pm
Right, it is abstracted, which I guess is what I'm talking about. If it continues to be abstracted then vampires will function identically to werewolves, in that they stick around for a few 'days' or some such nonsense.
I'm not even sure if there is a better system than what we have, but I've been wanting a "more accurate" version of the day cycle for awhile in fort mode, and I think now is a good chance to take a stab at it.
The problem is that I doubt it would be just a stab ...more likely it would take months to be dealt with. But I do agree with you - the time compression will only make things more difficult as the development goes on.
Post by: Caldfir on June 05, 2011, 06:29:20 pm
With the food (and material) based symptoms and weaknesses now being available, would (accidental) food poisoning from improper tableware materials become a sufficiently low-hanging fruit for reasonably expedient inclusion?Well, this will likely have to wait at least for dwarf mode inns - when Toady has stated (I think) he'll be taking a look at getting mugs into actual fortress use (maybe).
Even then I don't know how simple it is, because if you cup isn't melting and you don't eat your cup, then there isn't any problem as far as DF knows.
Post by: Cruxador on June 05, 2011, 06:55:15 pm
I seem to recall that the main issue was that people would never get trade opportunities. With more varied types of commerce going in, this coulde become a non-issue.Given the advent of very time-dependent creatures,have you considered reworking the time compression in Fortress mode? If not, how do you envision creatures like this working given the time scale?
I mean obviously vampires make absolutely no sense in Fortress mode where it's "always day", and even werewolves may have a maximum of 30 seconds or so of screen time given the current time compression.
I don't think it is always day, it is abstracted. Dwarves doesn't sleep one second each dozen seconds, nor they eat every day. Though it would be nice if there was a reworking, hopefully with a Fast Forwarding option. But I think this would need a great rewrite.
Right, it is abstracted, which I guess is what I'm talking about. If it continues to be abstracted then vampires will function identically to werewolves, in that they stick around for a few 'days' or some such nonsense.
I'm not even sure if there is a better system than what we have, but I've been wanting a "more accurate" version of the day cycle for awhile in fort mode, and I think now is a good chance to take a stab at it.
Post by: EvilTwin on June 05, 2011, 08:00:11 pm
This same problem would surface with squad training, farming, sieges and so on.
Please don't get me wrong on this, I'd really like a slower timecycle in fortress mode, but I can't really see how it would work. When Toady does the army arc and tackles the question of what becomes of your fort when you are not present, we could perhaps get a fast forward option, but until then we will have to deal with compressed time.
Post by: Lac on June 05, 2011, 08:22:31 pm
I wonder if it will be possible for DF vampires to have Arithmomania (as one of the random weakness options, not for all of them)... I mean, that's one of the oldest classic vampire traits, yet no one portrays them as having it anymore (except Sesame Street).I hadn't heard of arithmomania as a symptom of vampirism before (and putting sand on a vampire's grave, etc). Nice little joke by Bram Stoker then to make his Vampire a 'Count'. And, as you imply, it makes Sesame Street's choice of using a vampire Count to obsessively count, doubly appropriate - didn't think I had more to learn from Sesame Street! :)
Post by: Greiger on June 05, 2011, 08:31:44 pm
Wanna vampire proof your house? Get rid of that mat in front of your door that says "Welcome".
Post by: Neonivek on June 05, 2011, 08:51:02 pm
Theres also that old thing that a vampire can't enter a home uninvited.
Wanna vampire proof your house? Get rid of that mat in front of your door that says "Welcome".
That sounds a lot like a recent Vampire Mythology.
Given that the older monster alegory was more about being a good house guest.
Post by: Untelligent on June 05, 2011, 09:30:31 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on June 05, 2011, 09:32:31 pm
Post by: Arihim on June 05, 2011, 09:50:23 pm
Pfff. The last part is the best part. Zombies beginning to suspect their creator? OH NO
This gave me a good laugh as well lol. THe necromancer must of ran off thinking ' Ye gawds, they're onto me!'
Post by: Glowcat on June 05, 2011, 09:59:41 pm
Pfff. The last part is the best part. Zombies beginning to suspect their creator? OH NO
I share your amusement. Perhaps they became jealous as they're the only ones rotting away.
Post by: Niveras on June 05, 2011, 10:00:06 pm
Though I wonder if the Dragon's kill count would increase if they start feeding on humans like the vampires, even if only sporadically throughout its life. There's no need to track each sheep it carries away (not that they even need to eat right now), while vampires have a leg up in that they need sustenance frequently, and every kill gets tracked.
By the way, can the vampires only sustain themselves on intelligent beings, or can they feed on vermin and animals if there's no sapient stock available?
Post by: monk12 on June 05, 2011, 10:41:06 pm
Post by: Caldfir on June 05, 2011, 10:48:55 pm
Quote from: NeonivekSo Toady with gods giving curses, does this mean that more active or at least flavorful gods are not so far away?I don't have a timeline for additional god activities. Things seem to get thrown in on occasion though.
Now that gods are active in worldgen (and with ever more activity working its way in), are there any plans on the horizon for reworking the system wherein gods are specifically and intrinsically tied to a specific civilization?
It does seem a bit strange if you start thinking about when civilizations will (presumably at some point in the future) have beginnings and/or endings. If a civilization crumbles, do its gods die? Are the gods of every civ the same but with different names? Can one civ "import" worship of a god from a nearby one?
Post by: monk12 on June 05, 2011, 10:56:07 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on June 05, 2011, 10:58:15 pm
If an acknowledged vampire is ruling a civ and oppressing people, as the one in the devlog did, will adventurers receive missions to kill him? Will anyone else take over if an adventurer kills him or will that have to wait for in-game succession?
Post by: monk12 on June 05, 2011, 10:59:45 pm
Post by: Toady One on June 05, 2011, 11:14:49 pm
Quote from: OneTwentySix
Will there be any sort of Fortress mechanism where a werebeast can infect a dwarf and disappear without the player noticing? Something like the kidnapping, maybe, where if someone other than the individual affected sees the were, he's detected, but if not, the dwarf is infected without notifying the player?
It doesn't work that way now since it is a post-ambush attack which'll be announced and also appear in the combat logs. It's hard to savage a dwarf without telling the player about it.
Quote from: Quatch
By "boundaries of the site grow.." does this imply that sites are now resize/shapeable? Is this possible in fortress mode?
Nope. It just happens in world gen when it is easier to do those things.
Quote
Quote from: magmaholicwill we be able to add tags with syndromes?Quote from: tfaalcan we put any creature tag inside a syndrome now? Can syndromes tweak stats?Quote from: thvazThe new creatures will have enhanced stats? Like a vampire with superhuman strengh or a were-creature faster than both the humanoid and the animal it changes to?
Many tags are available, but not all tags will be available. I don't have a final list, but more are added with each night creature so it should be a goodly amount, anyway. Syndromes can tweak stats by a percentage or by adding/subtracting a fixed number.
Quote from: Demonic Gophers
Are the were-creature transformations and rampaging directly linked, or separate effects that are both applied in the generated curses? Could we add, for example, a contagious madness curse with no transformation, or a regional curse that would temporarily transform everyone into stray cats on nights of the full moon without making them hostile?
If a creature is killed while transformed, will its corpse be based on its transformed state or its original body?
Can gaining a secret lead to megabeast or semimegabeast behavior?
Yeah, being crazed is a different thing, although I'm not sure if it considers a crazed person threatening enough to elevate to a historical threat, so that might not work quite like it should. People can be transformed without becoming hostile.
Quote from: Patchouli
Currently, genders are separated via castes with the appropriate gender tokens added to each caste. With the guards changing from male to female and back, does that mean the guard's caste is actively having its gender token changed, or is the guard picking any caste with a [FEMALE] token for a female transformation, and any caste with a [MALE] token for male transformation?
That particular bug was from a variable I was setting out of order, so it was thinking the caste was the null value -- that means that it chooses it at random, so it was jumping between the castes randomly. There weren't any actual gender transformations in play. It was a side effect from the werebeast bug.
Quote from: LoSboccacc
how much random is material weakness? right now the fortress and the adventurer are severely limited on what materials are usable for smelting weapons or available to purchase at shop.
It always uses weapon materials right now.
Quote from: piecewise
What form will Were-animals take? Will they be half man half animal or will people just become animals. I mean, a demonic satyr half goat half man is pretty awesome, but just becoming a goat...less so.
At the current time, they become humanoid animal hybrids a little larger than a human in general.
Quote from: Neoskel
Will it be possible for a curse to bestow different forms on a person at different times? Like a werewolf that turns into a half-wolf-half-human when the moon is waxing gibbous and waning gibbous but turns into a complete wolf when the moon is full. Or even a were-zodiac curse which turns the poor guy into a different were-creature every month.
Yeah, in modded form. None of the vanilla random ones do that.
Quote from: magmaholic
will we get a sex change curse?
Haven't planned anything.
Quote from: piecewise
Heres another for you. Will the game have certain curses take precedent over others? Ie, if I get bitten by a vampire and then by a were-moose, will I transform into a blood sucking moose man every full moon? If I raid a tomb is it possible that I'll find an undead necromancer vampire were-axolotl?
Also, is it possible that someone who is turned into a were-whatever might get the shaft and turn into a were-carp and suffocate?
Also also, sometimes you say things like "If there's time", as though you're on a deadline. Do you set deadlines for yourself? If you do, are they based on dates or on certain key/bare minimum features you want to have in?
And lastly, how many more monsters and things are gonna go in this update? We've got necromancers/new undead, were-stuff, and vampires (I assume), is there anything else planned?
It doesn't allow some combinations. Right now it allows for a vampire werebeast, which is strange, and may or may not be allowed. I don't think any of the werebeasts are strictly aquatic, but if I screwed that up I'm sure we'll see it when it happens.
I don't have strict deadlines, but sometimes it seems like things are taking too long, compared to how much I want to get along down the scheduled releases. I also obviously have a habit of going off on tangents and things, so it's best not to promise too many things or say I'm going to handle too many cases so that it doesn't get too out of control. We're certainly a bit out of control already for this release, but I think it is still okay.
We mentioned some others in DF Talk 14. We'll decide how many more we're going to get to as we get to each one. It could be that we spend too much time on one or the other and don't feel like we can finish, in the sense of the last paragraph.
Quote from: monk12
Does the were-curse "discriminate" among its victims- does it apply to all creatures bit by a cursed individual, or only to intelligent creatures, or some other set of criteria? Would this criteria be something that would be variable, either in game or via raw modding?
Do necromancers choose to settle in evil biomes, or do they set up shop wherever?
Werebeast bite victims will only catch the curse if they are intelligent, I think. I'm not sure if that'll last as the only criterion. That part is moddable. You can do classes and creature tokens as well as test for individual flags and active syndromes/syndrome classes. The individual flags available for testing are the same as the ones now available for syndromes, which is a growing list but not all the flags by any means. I'm just adding them as I need them.
Necromancers try to build their towers a bit away from civilization, but they don't particular care where.
Quote from: G-Flex
If weaknesses to odd materials start coming into play (weremeerkats weak to silver, evil regions populated by blistered giant rabbits weak to gold, demons weak to nothing but other demon bones, etc.), then would that open the possibility of broader material selection in fortress mode? Obviously right now there's no sense to making gold swords and hammers, but if you've got the possibility of things like an outbreak of lycanthropy where they're actually necessary due to material weakness, it starts making more sense to be able to do that.
Yeah, if it came up that we started tormenting people with esoteric stuff, we'd need to start having reasonable ways to get at counter measures.
Quote from: zwei
So, how are wounds and missing limbs handled when you transform to something else?
If my left front hoof gets chopped off while i am transnfromed to weregoat, will i miss left hand when i get turned back to humanoid? What about more complex stuff ... like what if my military dwarf has broken leg with cast on it, broken arm with splint, bandaged and surtured hand? Will his were-self still have surtures is his transformed limb and wound and retain other medical stuff?
It negates wounds now, but I'm considering stockpiling them so that your old wounds reappear when you revert. The difficult part is moving the wounds over to the new form, and I'm not doing that. All medical devices pop out or come off when you transform.
Quote from: NinjaE8825
When a were-curse is bestowed, is the creature selected completely random? If yes, is it going to stay random, or will it eventually depend on the god in questions or something?
It is random now, from among a pre-selected list (due to how creature defs currently work), but ideally the god would be able to justify their specific decision.
Quote from: Lord Shonus
Will dead creatures still have the generic "his upper body is gone" in their description now that corpses can be raised?
That comes from the body parts being moved over to the corpse object, which hasn't changed. It just shouldn't print anything, but it still does.
Quote from: HollowClown
Will the new were-curses stack?
For instance, if a dwarf is bitten by a were-elk and turns into a were-elk, and the dwarf is then bitten by a were-groundhog, what will happen? Will the dwarf remain a were-elk? Become a were-groundhog? Become a bizarre hybrid were-elkhog? Turn into a randomly-mutated abomination similar to a forgotten beast?
It disallows stacking since they all happen at the same time anyway.
Quote from: Khym Chanur
1. Will body modification curses revert on death? That is, if a transformed werewolf is killed, will the corpse be a wolf or a human?
2. Are there any methods for curse contagion other than bites/wounds?
Right now they don't revert, and I don't have further curses, though a visual ranged or non-visual ranged curse transfer could be modded in, or a poison curse transfer.
Quote from: de5me7
a creature turns into a wareform, or as a vampire turns into a bat, will it drop all its equipment/clothes? or are they magically kept in inventory but inaccessable?
They drop things now. A full werewolf fort is a mess. I don't know if further clothing management is in the cards for now, but we'll see what happens.
Quote from: Fieari
When attacking a were-creature without using their weakness, are they merely resistant to damage (I imagine this'd be the easy way), or do they rapidly heal instead (more traditional)?
You mentioned that you had set it such that it is possible to defeat a were-creature without the weakness as of right now, but would be willing to change it later on as the slayer role is developed. Is this a variable that can be set via the raws? I can imagine modders wanting to make a non-random creature with a particular weakness that MUST be used... which would be entirely fair for non-random creatures.
They are more resistant. Growing limbs back is something I haven't done, so mere rapid healing wouldn't really help, I think, although they should have that as well.
You can set the divisor to be high now, and you might be able to set the multiplier to be zero. That would make attacks not work at all.
Quote from: tfaal
Do big cities get sacked much in world gen? If we go into a ruined city in adventurer mode, what can we expect to find? Interesting things?
They get sacked as much as the others, but I'm not sure how frequently that is. There's nothing particularly interesting about a ruined city. Of course, there should be, there isn't now. It has the same underground as a living city, and there's nothing special dead up top.
Quote from: NinjaE8825
What kind of relation will there be between strange moods dwarves have currently and the secrets/curses spirit-interaction stuff that's coming in this release? Will the two systems become one eventually?
The possessed mood will probably be tied in eventually, but nothing's changing for this time.
Quote from: nenjin
If a necromancer animates a severed hand, will you have to hack off all its fingers to remove its "graspers" and kill it?
Since we haven't done pulping, you just have to knock it down through the animated HP equivalent.
Quote from: Neoskel
Will the dark blue night creatures include things that try to lure you to rivers and other bodies of water and drown you?
It's unclear if that's going to fall in the fairy color scheme instead. Probably depends on how the thing looks physically and whether it has a good side at all.
Quote from: nenjin
Can you talk a little bit more about ghosts Toady? Where they show up in adventure mode right now, what they can do there, or what they'll do in the future?
In the rush of all these Night Creatures, and the fact they've been here a while in fortress mode, ghosts kind of slipped under the radar in terms of the next release.
If it's working correctly, you can find ghosts when you visit your old fortresses. Ghosts haven't been a focus of this release since we have them already and don't have the others. We have some plans for them, but as before, I'm not sure that's going to be public.
Quote from: Cruxador
You mentioned stalkers will have traits related to their deaths. Is this likely to be related to the gruesome executions that currently happen in worldgen, or will it mostly be new stuff?
There could be new stuff.
Quote from: Jacob/Lee
If a dwarf learns the secret of life and death from his or her deity, will they be able to migrate to your fortress and become a warrior that can re-animate body parts during combat one day?
It's not something they do right now, and historical figures don't migrate in (aside from the king I suppose, if that still works), but if for some reason your king were a necromancer it would work. I think the only chance of that happening would be to catch them at the exact right year before they go off to raise bodies. I think you are more likely to have a king that is a vampire the way things stand.
Quote from: freeformschooler
Is having a scripting language for manipulating things (much like DFHack is doing to a small extent) something you've considered? Like I said, it's been brought up a few times, so I was wondering if this was more of a post-1.0 goal
...
With all these new tags I have to wonder. Do you foresee the RAW/tag system ever being outdated? After all, ultimately a tag is just a reference to something in the underlying hard-coding in the game.
There's a major accessibility issue in stepping up to an actual language, beyond whatever barriers the raws and the rest of the game already throw up. I also have no experience with it so I'm not sure how to get it linked in with everything while keeping the memory and speed healthy, since it would be pervasive throughout a real-time environment that already suffers from speed problems. I don't imagine that's guaranteed to go smoothly.
Quote from: Untelligent
Constructed monsters? Will we finally be able to create creatures in workshops in Fortress mode?
We're starting with necromancer types making things. I'm not sure where it's going to lead, but we haven't scheduled any creature building stuff for the dwarves.
Quote from: TheNewerMartianEmperor
In the future, will randomly generated lunar cycles (such as having two or more moons, that sort of thing) become an important feature Re: werecreatures?
If we have two moons, just by virtue of the variables it'll be immediately necessary to reconcile them with the behavior of werebeasts. I don't know when we're going to do exotic astronomy though. It is a typical fantasy thing though, so very fair.
Quote from: tHe_silent_H
If you're using a severed arm as a weapon can it be raised while you are still wielding/have it in your inventory or must it be on the ground?
I don't remember... but I think so (code is off on another machine from where I usually find time to answer these). I know there's a comment in there stating that the projectile case had not yet been handled.
Quote from: G-Flex
Will ingestion-related syndromes finally allow for alcohol to affect creatures, even if it's only in a binary sense (binary as in either you have the syndrome or you don't, as opposed to a continuum between "buzzed" and "hammered")?
I'm not doing it now, but something could be added with the ingestion effect.
Quote from: IT 000
How long (in real time) does the 'Full Moon' phase in Fortress mode last?
It lasts a little over two game-calendar days, whatever that comes out to in real time.
Quote from: Cruxador
Can there be multiple different types of vampires with different sets of randomly generated traits in the same world?Like for example, a set of vampires that sparkle in the sun and enslave the minds of pubescent children, and one that burns in the sun and has greatly boosted speed, as opposed to just one or the other. Assuming that's a yes, how frequently do you anticipate new vampire types will be made, and how many in general do you intend to have in a given world or city?
My mind is aflame with randomly generated Camarilla/sabbat politics and wars of the night in DF, though of course such things won't actually be possible until we get group politics in general.
It makes a number of vampire and werebeast curses at the beginning. Ideally, they'd be able to make a purely unique curse each time, but what we've got is equivalent if none of the curses are repeated. How often curses happen should probably end up being a parameter, since there isn't really a wrong answer and it's a flavor determiner more than anything. We might end up getting to individual territoriality this time around, just to keep villages from being depopulated too often, but yeah, real group politics will have to wait.
Quote from: Sysice
Will sunlight always be a bad thing for vampires?
Right now it doesn't take things far from the classic models, so yeah. The most would be a variety that doesn't care. Anything more exotic has to wait until we can avoid the gray-goo effect of complete randomization through more careful exposition than we've got now. Sticking with archetypes makes that a little less necessary.
Quote from: Fieari
Toady, many of your forumites are repeatedly linking the Wikipedia Vampire Traits list. Are you actually intending to try to implement all these traits, or is this merely wishful/hopeful thinking on the part of your fans?
Another question...
Werecreatures first appear by being cursed for defiling a temple. How will vampires appear? There are many ways suggested by stories...
I don't think it's feasible to do everything there now. Just doing some things is okay. We haven't settled on the method for the first vampire (just using profaning for the moment). Saying there was an improper or screwed up burial is the easiest way, but it would be better to inflict it upon somebody who has been bad. There aren't really any criminals aside from bandits now, unless you count the mass executions, which could be a good way to go if they happen often enough. Or we could use some new criminal stuff if it is going in for stalkers anyway.
Quote from: Heph
Will vamps have withdrawal symptoms from not getting theyr bloody fix? Stuff like raging, aging rapidly, loosing strength etc.?
It seems like something should happen, but since they won't always be able to hunt during play (mostly they won't, being off in the world some place), it's not important to do that until we get them activated.
Quote from: Knigel
Will we be able to have any control over the kind of vampires that sprout out in world-gen?
You can remove them and mod your own in, but there's aren't fine-tuning parameters for any of the randomly generated content. I'm not sure what those parameters should be.
Quote from: tfaal
Will vampires always get away from suspicious villagers, or will the townsfolk sometimes get proactive and take the pitchforks-and-torches route? Will anyone ever get mistaken for a vampire?
It doesn't randomly wipe people out with mistaken identity, but that's reasonable enough to do sometime. I was considering doing world gen mobs before the release. Unclear how it'll turn out.
Quote
Quote from: Urist McDepravityWill it be possible for feeding to be non-lethal and non-infecting?Quote from: thvazWill vampire's victims always die when feeded upon?
Right now none of the feeding infects, but we'll see how that goes -- if a vampire feeds every week, having vampirism be contagious through a simple bite is a world ender, I think, so we've stuck with vampire-blood-drinking for the moment. There isn't non-lethal feeding now, but I don't know how it'll turn out.
Quote from: Psieye
will the forgotten beast generator be updated for next version to include all the new tags that got created while working on Night Creatures?
There are some handy tags, but I'm not sure we're going to get at a lot of the potential there this time. I suppose they should be turning all your dwarves into gremlins with gremlin breath by now.
Quote from: thvaz
How vampires decide when to create more vampires?
Can vampires learn the secret of raising corpses? If yes,the system can then handle two types of night creatures on the same historical figure. This means we will have vampire werecreatures?
We should be doing the answer for that soon. It seems like it should be something romantic or companiony if it isn't the sort of conversion that happens with each meal, if they can't make any otherwise immortal friends. The vampire in the recent devlog might have offered to convert his wife, say, and the vampire could occasionally or even systematically follow through on immortality cult promises, though that would up the competition for food.
The secrets of life and death are only passed along to mortals currently, so I think when vampires lose their mortality, they are no longer eligible and don't care in any case, though the added power might be welcome to them (secrets of life and death are only sought by people that want to be immortal, but include powers beyond that, so it isn't consistent now). Necromancers tend to cut out from society too soon to profane any temples. When other vampire creation methods are working, necromancers might become vampires more often.
Quote from: SirPenguin
Given the advent of very time-dependent creatures, have you considered reworking the time compression in Fortress mode? If not, how do you envision creatures like this working given the time scale?
I mean obviously vampires make absolutely no sense in Fortress mode where it's "always day", and even werewolves may have a maximum of 30 seconds or so of screen time given the current time compression.
...
If it continues to be abstracted then vampires will function identically to werewolves, in that they stick around for a few 'days' or some such nonsense.
I think it's fine now, and about as good as it can be without significant work. It is neither day nor night in fortress mode, and even then I don't see why vampires have to vanish after a few days, especially if there's a lot of subterranean space or if the sun isn't lethal to the particular kind that's around.
Quote from: Sean Mirrsen
With the food (and material) based symptoms and weaknesses now being available, would (accidental) food poisoning from improper tableware materials become a sufficiently low-hanging fruit for reasonably expedient inclusion?
It makes it a step closer, but I don't think it'll be fast-tracked or anything.
Quote from: Untelligent
Can already-immortal races (whether elfs/gobs or modded ones) become vampires? How would the reputation system handle that?
I suppose it could happen rarely if one moved to a place with temples, and once the vampirification method changes then there might be more opportunities. The reputation system currently checks only for unnatural agelessness, so it all works fine with respect to races that are already immortal.
Quote from: Caldfir
Now that gods are active in worldgen (and with ever more activity working its way in), are there any plans on the horizon for reworking the system wherein gods are specifically and intrinsically tied to a specific civilization?
It does seem a bit strange if you start thinking about when civilizations will (presumably at some point in the future) have beginnings and/or endings. If a civilization crumbles, do its gods die? Are the gods of every civ the same but with different names? Can one civ "import" worship of a god from a nearby one?
Yeah, once the gods are real, it's something that comes up to be addressed. When none of the religions were known to be accurate, it didn't matter. The number of pantheons might end up being cut down, and they might share members with multiple names between different civs. There could be gods that are more local. When we do the correct creation myths, there'll be some group that did that, and other amazing events, and those gods would need to have some sort of edge. Or it could end up more exotic or involved sometimes.
Quote from: Cthulhu
If an acknowledged vampire is ruling a civ and oppressing people, as the one in the devlog did, will adventurers receive missions to kill him? Will anyone else take over if an adventurer kills him or will that have to wait for in-game succession?
Yeah, that is the intention -- it is not done yet, but it is nextish, hopefully with a sizable helping of wasting cultists. In-game succession is necessary to replace rulers. That's Release 5 as the schedule stands.
Post by: tfaal on June 05, 2011, 11:16:45 pm
Post by: Ig88 on June 05, 2011, 11:51:22 pm
I ask this because if the RNG is allowed enough room with this, I foresee many humorous(or fearsome) foes. "it has -iron maces-" for feet." "A humanoid with the pincers of a Giant Desert Scorpion."
Post by: Osmosis Jones on June 06, 2011, 12:05:42 am
Inspired me for a quick question;
When were-creatures transform, what are their alignments? Obviously anti-original civ, but if two werewolves are running around, will they fight each other? How about if a werewolf and a werecapybara meet?
Post by: Adamantine Fist on June 06, 2011, 12:22:25 am
Woooo WoT!
Inspired me for a quick question;
When were-creatures transform, what are their alignments? Obviously anti-original civ, but if two werewolves are running around, will they fight each other? How about if a werewolf and a werecapybara meet?
I'm fairly sure that was covered in DFTalk #14. Toady said that different kinds of werebeast will fight, but they won't fight their own kind of creature. So the werewolves and werecapybaras could fight, but a pack of werecapybaras would not fight amongst themselves.
Post by: Cruxador on June 06, 2011, 12:24:45 am
Quote
It's unclear if that's going to fall in the fairy color scheme instead.I was not aware that fairies were getting their own stuff. I was worried at their omission in the night creature rainbow, but I'm glad to hear we'll be getting some interesting fae coming in.
On a rather different note:
Will less direct effects of syndromes that are more narrativistic than simulationist be included in this Night Creature stuff? As a specific example, I'm thinking of vampires wearing black a lot, and cloaks often, but this question is more about the design philosophy than about that particular case.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on June 06, 2011, 12:37:58 am
I'm fairly sure that was covered in DFTalk #14. Toady said that different kinds of werebeast will fight, but they won't fight their own kind of creature. So the werewolves and werecapybaras could fight, but a pack of werecapybaras would not fight amongst themselves.
Ahh fair. I haven't gone through the talk yet, I usually wait for the transcript.
Post by: Glowcat on June 06, 2011, 12:44:31 am
Post by: Neoskel on June 06, 2011, 12:47:49 am
Quote from: NeoskelWill the dark blue night creatures include things that try to lure you to rivers and other bodies of water and drown you?
It's unclear if that's going to fall in the fairy color scheme instead. Probably depends on how the thing looks physically and whether it has a good side at all.
Oh. Oh my. I won't ask about that now, i'll just wait till it comes up in the devlog.
*goes into a corner to speculate*
Edit:
Will vampires be able to have kids after becoming vampires? Would they have to breed with another vampire of the same type? If they can breed with a normal individual would the children be vampires? Or will vampires just be sterile?
Post by: Tov01 on June 06, 2011, 12:57:48 am
Will we be able to embark on necromancer towers? And if so, will they be visible on embark, or hidden, like caves?
Also, will there be any more bug-fixing releases before this night creature release?
Post by: Neonivek on June 06, 2011, 01:10:36 am
I only have one, but I cannot remember if I asked it or not.
Toady right now you really want to take away the ability for anything to really end the world and I can see why. Afterall many of these creatures can destroy the world and no one can do anything about it. Do you think in the future you would allow such "world ending" conditions to exist but give the civilisations, heros, and benevolent creatures the consciousness and means to actually combat it? For example Vampires who do transform with every bite, but the amount of generated heat would cause different levels of vampire clensing within a city
Post by: Caldfir on June 06, 2011, 01:54:25 am
What basic concepts are you thinking of for constructs? Will we see beasts with weapons grafted into/replacing limbs are just mish-mashes of creature partsIn the latest DF Talk I believe Toady indicated that "hook-for-hand" stuff was either in, or that at least he was working on it. No transcript yet so I don't have a quote.
I ask this because if the RNG is allowed enough room with this, I foresee many humorous(or fearsome) foes. "it has -iron maces-" for feet." "A humanoid with the pincers of a Giant Desert Scorpion."
Hello! I was just wondering:The bugfix release will come after the night creature release most likely. Toady has previously indicated that following each major release he plans for a "week or two" of general bugfixing relating to both new bugs from the latest release and old bugs.
Will we be able to embark on necromancer towers? And if so, will they be visible on embark, or hidden, like caves?
Also, will there be any more bug-fixing releases before this night creature release?
I can't say with certainty if necromancer towers are going to be default-embarkable, but you can always use some utilities to embark there if you really want to (I myself have embarked within a goblin-controlled castle for increased levels of Fun).
Post by: Gamerlord on June 06, 2011, 01:58:44 am
Anyway:It is possible for adventurers to become necromancers/werebeasts/vampires, right? Or at least recruit a necromancer to join you?
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on June 06, 2011, 02:05:32 am
You mentioned 6 legged wolves as an example for evil region cursed animals, will this work as just 1 six legged wolf or will it become it's own creature that can breed and have working populations. If they do have working populations does this mean that we could be getting greek style monsters such as a lion with a scorpion tail and bat like wings, aka a manticore.
I thought that these type of creatures would be more exciting to fight then a wolf with 2 extra legs. It would also add tons of monsters that aren't night trolls, lycanthropes, or megabeasts.
Post by: Caldfir on June 06, 2011, 02:20:21 am
Dammit! I had no time to ask mine today!werewolves yes (devlog indicates so)
Anyway:It is possible for adventurers to become necromancers/werebeasts/vampires, right? Or at least recruit a necromancer to join you?
vampires presumably yes (drinking vampire blood is certainly possible in adventure mode)
adventurer necromancers no (Toady indicated he isn't going to bother with a necromancy interface)
necromancer recruits maybe (depends on if you can find a friendly one, but it is unlikely, since it sounds like they run off and become evil pretty much straight away)
Post by: darkflagrance on June 06, 2011, 02:44:30 am
Dammit! I had no time to ask mine today!werewolves yes (devlog indicates so)
Anyway:It is possible for adventurers to become necromancers/werebeasts/vampires, right? Or at least recruit a necromancer to join you?
vampires presumably yes (drinking vampire blood is certainly possible in adventure mode)
adventurer necromancers no (Toady indicated he isn't going to bother with a necromancy interface)
necromancer recruits maybe (depends on if you can find a friendly one, but it is unlikely, since it sounds like they run off and become evil pretty much straight away)
To become a necromancer, it seemed like you'd have to find a slab where the secret of necromancy was written by a god a long time ago and hidden in the catacombs.
Post by: Aqizzar on June 06, 2011, 03:44:52 am
Quote
In bug news, the zombies in a necromancer's tower became suspicious after the necromancer failed to age and he fled into the hills.
Zombie 1: Mmmmrrrrrrhhhhhh... I dunno, living a hundred years without a wrinkle? Seems pretty fishy to me.
Zombie 2: Ggggrrrrrrhhhhggg... Yeah, I hear you. I mean, we don't age, but we're dead, that's just how it works. What's his excuse?
Zombie 3: Nnnggggggghhhhh... I don't want to point any fingers, but you don't suppose it's... Just maybe... Dark magic?
Zombies 1 and 2: Zoinks!
I know it's certainly a bug as currently intended, but given the range of possibilities in raised creatures, is there any traction to the idea of a necromancer raising intelligent motile undead, and then being deposed by his creations? That's got a lot of literary history.
Post by: Neonivek on June 06, 2011, 04:01:43 am
Hense a Necromancer would eventually have to get new zombies to replace his old ones.
Post by: eux0r on June 06, 2011, 04:21:48 am
toady, do you have a timeline to overhauling the weapons(and items in general) to be multi-material(studding/difference between blade and handle)? is this something that will come during the caravan arc(i remembered some kind of combat overhaul being on the dev-list for one of the releases)? and do you have any plans already to how ornaments will impact combat(eg. will a steel-sword with silver-images on the blade be worse than a silver-sword against a weak-to-silver-Ń?)?
and:
do we have to wait for the personality-rewrite for nightcreatures to spread false rumours about their weaknesses or will something like this come earlier/later?
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on June 06, 2011, 04:22:54 am
It certainly would be interesting if Zombies did continue to age... and thus have their flesh continuously rot.
Hense a Necromancer would eventually have to get new zombies to replace his old ones.
Fleshless zombies are called skeletons. Now when the bones finally become brittle and break then he'd have to find new minions. Unless there some sort of corporeal ghost like thing, a ghost without a soul, not sure how'd that work but I suggest either calling them wraiths or revenants.
Post by: MasterMorality on June 06, 2011, 06:21:40 am
One of the most hilarious bugs ever?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on June 06, 2011, 06:45:42 am
Post by: EvilTwin on June 06, 2011, 06:49:50 am
2 questions concerning material weaknesses:
toady, do you have a timeline to overhauling the weapons(and items in general) to be multi-material(studding/difference between blade and handle)? is this something that will come during the caravan arc(i remembered some kind of combat overhaul being on the dev-list for one of the releases)? and do you have any plans already to how ornaments will impact combat(eg. will a steel-sword with silver-images on the blade be worse than a silver-sword against a weak-to-silver-Ń?)?
and:
do we have to wait for the personality-rewrite for nightcreatures to spread false rumours about their weaknesses or will something like this come earlier/later?
As it seems to me, the game is still working on a weapon material basis. It gets the original force of the blow from the weapon material, so it should be modifying it according to the weapon material as well. It would also be pretty overpowered considering you could just stud your weapons with every material available and then never care about werewolves (or vampires I guess?) again.
Anyway, it would have to wait for yet another combat rewrite, which is still far in the future I guess... (Probably when he decides to do multi-material weapons like you mentioned them, which is definitly far off)
Also I don't think the people in adventure mode tell you about the weaknesses of their feared foes, because if they'd know them, those enemies wouldn't be all that dangerous to them. In fortress mode, you'd either have to find out for yourself, or (unlikely I think) it will be in the creature-description.
Post by: irdsm on June 06, 2011, 06:58:29 am
2 questions concerning material weaknesses:
toady, do you have a timeline to overhauling the weapons(and items in general) to be multi-material(studding/difference between blade and handle)? is this something that will come during the caravan arc(i remembered some kind of combat overhaul being on the dev-list for one of the releases)? and do you have any plans already to how ornaments will impact combat(eg. will a steel-sword with silver-images on the blade be worse than a silver-sword against a weak-to-silver-Ń?)?
and:
do we have to wait for the personality-rewrite for nightcreatures to spread false rumours about their weaknesses or will something like this come earlier/later?
As it seems to me, the game is still working on a weapon material basis. It gets the original force of the blow from the weapon material, so it should be modifying it according to the weapon material as well. It would also be pretty overpowered considering you could just stud your weapons with every material available and then never care about werewolves (or vampires I guess?) again.
Anyway, it would have to wait for yet another combat rewrite, which is still far in the future I guess... (Probably when he decides to do multi-material weapons like you mentioned them, which is definitly far off)
Also I don't think the people in adventure mode tell you about the weaknesses of their feared foes, because if they'd know them, those enemies wouldn't be all that dangerous to them. In fortress mode, you'd either have to find out for yourself, or (unlikely I think) it will be in the creature-description.
The way toady has been going lately it wouldn't surprise me if he slid that in during the caravan arc.
Post by: Organum on June 06, 2011, 07:00:01 am
Post by: zwei on June 06, 2011, 07:05:22 am
you havent been playing dwarf fortress for long, did you?
Oh come on
Z1: You know, that black robe wearing guy tha raised us to undeath is kinda weird.
Z2: Ay, after all he did order us to attack village last week and slaughter peasants.
Z1: And then he raised them as usual, this is were Johny came from. Aint that normal thing to do for necromancer?
Zombie Johny: Howdy
Z2: Right, that is kind of usual thing. He has been doing it for past hundred and fifty years or so as far as i can remember.
Z1: A hundred and fifty years?
Z2: nods.
Z1: Do people even live that long?
Z2: Now that you mention it... over hundred years is kinda too long.
Z1: You do suppose he might be using some evil black magic to stay alive?
Z2: ...
Zombie Johny: Our evil necromancer master is an evil necromancer master!? But, um, that is kinda bad for us, right?
Z1: ...
Z2: ...
Z1: Lets not do anything rash. No torches or pitchforks or anything like that, lets just leave silently, okay?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on June 06, 2011, 07:15:58 am
Post by: cephalo on June 06, 2011, 07:27:26 am
It could happen! I saw a movie about this, where some priest was making zombies who all thought they were still alive. I can't remember what the name of it was. When they figured out they were all actually dead they were pissed.
Post by: Glowcat on June 06, 2011, 07:27:34 am
Oh come on
While one of the better ones, my first thought was the same as Askot's. There have been some really crazy fun bugs in the past.
Post by: 3 on June 06, 2011, 07:28:22 am
Yeah, world gen just ended at year 151, and the guy was still there. I'll probably use the same world to test adventures killing these guys without making the whole civ hate you, which is nextish. People should be happy to see them and their cultists dead.
Does this mean that the remaining "loyalty cascade" bugs are due to be fixed?
Post by: Sunday on June 06, 2011, 07:49:33 am
Post by: EvilTwin on June 06, 2011, 08:39:55 am
"In bug news, the zombies in a necromancer's tower became suspicious after the necromancer failed to age and he fled into the hills"
It could happen! I saw a movie about this, where some priest was making zombies who all thought they were still alive. I can't remember what the name of it was. When they figured out they were all actually dead they were pissed.
Someone please tell me the name of that movie, I love trash movies :D
Post by: freeformschooler on June 06, 2011, 08:50:43 am
Quote from: Toady
Quote from: freeformschoolerIs having a scripting language for manipulating things (much like DFHack is doing to a small extent) something you've considered? Like I said, it's been brought up a few times, so I was wondering if this was more of a post-1.0 goal
...
With all these new tags I have to wonder. Do you foresee the RAW/tag system ever being outdated? After all, ultimately a tag is just a reference to something in the underlying hard-coding in the game.
There's a major accessibility issue in stepping up to an actual language, beyond whatever barriers the raws and the rest of the game already throw up. I also have no experience with it so I'm not sure how to get it linked in with everything while keeping the memory and speed healthy, since it would be pervasive throughout a real-time environment that already suffers from speed problems. I don't imagine that's guaranteed to go smoothly.
Did I really ask the same question twice? Sorry Toady, didn't mean to be impatient, I've got a short memory!
Post by: Lord Zack on June 06, 2011, 09:20:49 am
Post by: tfaal on June 06, 2011, 09:34:28 am
When I saw that there will be dungeons under cities I was pretty excited. Some good old dungeon delving! However I wonder if dungeons will occur in contexts other than just under cities?I think they can occur under necromancer towers as well, and the pyramids are out in the Valley of the Kings style areas.
Post by: monk12 on June 06, 2011, 09:39:48 am
Oh come on
While one of the better ones, my first thought was the same as Askot's. There have been some really crazy fun bugs in the past.
True- just off the top of my head, Scalyrends the Alligator beat this one hands down.
And hey, it looks like adventure mode has healthcare now! All you have to do is turn into a werewolf, and all your wounds will be gone! And all your equipment, but hey, them's the breaks.
Post by: EmperorNuthulu on June 06, 2011, 09:57:23 am
QuoteIn bug news, the zombies in a necromancer's tower became suspicious after the necromancer failed to age and he fled into the hills.
Zombie 1: Mmmmrrrrrrhhhhhh... I dunno, living a hundred years without a wrinkle? Seems pretty fishy to me.
Zombie 2: Ggggrrrrrrhhhhggg... Yeah, I hear you. I mean, we don't age, but we're dead, that's just how it works. What's his excuse?
Zombie 3: Nnnggggggghhhhh... I don't want to point any fingers, but you don't suppose it's... Just maybe... Dark magic?
Zombies 1 and 2: Zoinks!
For some reason I was thinking this:
Zombie: Are you a necromancer?
Necromancer: Yes and you're a zombie.
Zombie: No... that's impossible!
Necromancer: Search your feeling you know it to be true, in some ways, I am your father!
Zombie: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
The necromancer slashes the zombies right hand, it sails off in an arc!
Post by: Caldfir on June 06, 2011, 11:21:54 am
Woooo WoT!Again, the latest DF Talk seems to indicate that each were-creature type belongs to a specific faction, and will attack anything else on sight. I'm not sure about nonsentient animals though - could go either way.
Inspired me for a quick question;
When were-creatures transform, what are their alignments? Obviously anti-original civ, but if two werewolves are running around, will they fight each other? How about if a werewolf and a werecapybara meet?
In short: (warning violent)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Untelligent on June 06, 2011, 11:49:27 am
Also I don't think the people in adventure mode tell you about the weaknesses of their feared foes, because if they'd know them, those enemies wouldn't be all that dangerous to them.
Toady said in the devblog that quest-givers tell you the weakness, presumably when you get the quests to kill the things.
Post by: EvilTwin on June 06, 2011, 12:02:19 pm
Also I don't think the people in adventure mode tell you about the weaknesses of their feared foes, because if they'd know them, those enemies wouldn't be all that dangerous to them.
Toady said in the devblog that quest-givers tell you the weakness, presumably when you get the quests to kill the things.
I need to boost out my reading comprehension skill then... sorry.
Post by: freeformschooler on June 06, 2011, 12:08:28 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on June 06, 2011, 12:29:09 pm
Although, wood does have the tag... but there we have elves and training weapons...
Post by: G-Flex on June 06, 2011, 12:31:24 pm
Unfortunately, if their weaknesses limited to weapons materials then... well, you can make short swords out of any stone, remember? Any of them.
Hasn't that been broken for a long time, though? Last I remember, the material for a stone short sword wound up being the *wood* used to make it, not the stone.
Post by: bitterhorn on June 06, 2011, 12:39:05 pm
Although, wood does have the tag... but there we have elves and training weapons...
The idea of druids growing spears in sacred groves in order that elven rangers might hunt down undead/night creatures with them is actually kind of thematically perfect.
Post by: freeformschooler on June 06, 2011, 12:39:25 pm
Unfortunately, if their weaknesses limited to weapons materials then... well, you can make short swords out of any stone, remember? Any of them.
Hasn't that been broken for a long time, though? Last I remember, the material for a stone short sword wound up being the *wood* used to make it, not the stone.
I'm pretty sure it's all working now, as I've made some Sylvite Short Swords in my current fort. Unless it's using the wood material and calling it the rock material, which seems unlikely. However, I should warn that they're not necessarily much better than wooden short swords.
Toady's almost certainly talking about weapon materials as in "materials with the ITEMS_WEAPON tag", which stone doesn't have. He's probably also limiting it so that DEEP materials won't be chosen as a weakness, or at least not the sole weakness. So no gneiss-hating weres to worry about for the time being.
Both things would be great. However, if the world was population with whole generations of gneiss-hating weres, I wouldn't mind attempting a gneiss expedition!
Post by: werechicken on June 06, 2011, 01:26:20 pm
As for vampires I wonder how world gen decides if profaning the temple turns you into a vampire or a werecreature. Maybe in future versions there will be different kinds of profaning and other methods (druidic rituals, cursed items or even the old classic bored gods)
I'm a bit disappointed that it seems like we won't be able to chain sun fearing vampires outside in df mode for make-shift torches. That said it would be nice to have a definite way of creating fires now that we're going to be besieged by undead hordes that will keep coming back.
Post by: EvilTwin on June 06, 2011, 03:26:57 pm
Reading the Wheel of Time series... I now finally know how elves are makin' their kosher wood stuff! Have a look guys: Treesinging (http://wot.wikia.com/wiki/Treesinging)
Post by: Lord Shonus on June 06, 2011, 03:56:58 pm
It always worked. The old bug was that it was naming the sword after the wood instead of the rock.Unfortunately, if their weaknesses limited to weapons materials then... well, you can make short swords out of any stone, remember? Any of them.
Hasn't that been broken for a long time, though? Last I remember, the material for a stone short sword wound up being the *wood* used to make it, not the stone.
I'm pretty sure it's all working now, as I've made some Sylvite Short Swords in my current fort. Unless it's using the wood material and calling it the rock material, which seems unlikely. However, I should warn that they're not necessarily much better than wooden short swords.
Post by: Serrational on June 06, 2011, 04:45:30 pm
On a completely unrelated note:Awesome, man. I've got stuck between 12th and 13th in the series.
Reading the Wheel of Time series... I now finally know how elves are makin' their kosher wood stuff! Have a look guys: Treesinging (http://wot.wikia.com/wiki/Treesinging)
On an on-topic note, Will were-creatures be possibly undead?
The thought of all my dwarfs turning into skeletal
Post by: G-Flex on June 06, 2011, 06:38:15 pm
It always worked. The old bug was that it was naming the sword after the wood instead of the rock.Unfortunately, if their weaknesses limited to weapons materials then... well, you can make short swords out of any stone, remember? Any of them.
Hasn't that been broken for a long time, though? Last I remember, the material for a stone short sword wound up being the *wood* used to make it, not the stone.
I'm pretty sure it's all working now, as I've made some Sylvite Short Swords in my current fort. Unless it's using the wood material and calling it the rock material, which seems unlikely. However, I should warn that they're not necessarily much better than wooden short swords.
No, it wasn't just the name, it was the material itself. Otherwise, that slade short sword I made would have weighed a bit more. That was a long time ago, though.
Post by: monk12 on June 06, 2011, 10:07:02 pm
Quote from: Threetoe, todays log
Don't stop believing
Woah-oo-OOOOOOOHH!
Post by: Willfor on June 06, 2011, 10:17:42 pm
Now with appropriate link.Quote from: Threetoe, todays logDon't stop believing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfUYuIVbFg0).
Woah-oo-OOOOOOOHH!
Post by: Neonivek on June 06, 2011, 10:24:50 pm
Post by: monk12 on June 06, 2011, 10:28:07 pm
Post by: Capntastic on June 06, 2011, 10:44:47 pm
Post by: Montague on June 06, 2011, 11:27:22 pm
Bring on the mundane arc! The little, tiny things are the ones that define tone the strongest.
Yes.
I think now hovels and the such will have beds, tables, chairs the such again so that the poltergeists in haunted houses have something to throw at you.
Really though, hovels needed beds, tables and chairs in the first place, more then they needed ghosts haunting them.
Post by: Glowcat on June 06, 2011, 11:43:53 pm
There is a whole lot of music I genuinely enjoy that most other people only seem to appreciate on an ironic level. Rick Astley, for starters.
I'm ashamed of how much I enjoy being Rick Rolled.
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on June 07, 2011, 01:00:37 am
There is a whole lot of music I genuinely enjoy that most other people only seem to appreciate on an ironic level. Rick Astley, for starters.
No one likes Journey ironically, everyone LOVES Journey. Thinking that just shows how uncool you are, square.
Post by: Untelligent on June 07, 2011, 01:27:27 am
Post by: Raging Mouse on June 07, 2011, 03:39:53 am
Only in Dwarf Fortress can you say this without being eye-twitchingly and brain-foamingly insane.
Post by: Aqizzar on June 07, 2011, 03:49:57 am
Everybody wants a thrill.
Payin' anything to roll the dice,
Just one more time!
Oh God, I can't wait for the Tavern Arc, when Dwarf Fortress can finally have bands on minstrels. I am going to make so many Microcline Guitars.
Post by: Cruxador on June 07, 2011, 04:11:03 am
Post by: Neonivek on June 07, 2011, 05:31:47 am
Bring on the mundane arc! The little, tiny things are the ones that define tone the strongest.
Hmm no more 14 people living in the same house? I certainly can get onboard that train.
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on June 07, 2011, 06:18:02 am
Hmm no more 14 people living in the same house? I certainly can get onboard that train.
Is it a midnight train going anywhere?
Okay I'm going to stop there before I... derail.. the thread.
And on topic, I'd like to see families make a return, instead of villagers living like hippies in a nude love in.
Post by: Neonivek on June 07, 2011, 07:25:55 am
Post by: Areyar on June 07, 2011, 08:58:59 am
At a minimum 4 tiles per person, unless a public place or a party would seem logical, especially when a bed, chair and chest is needed per person. and a place to stand. Having to crawl over people in a shop really is not seemly...unless there is a sale, in which case I'd like to see that mentioned on the sign outside. :p
Somehow I don't think dwarves will mind much having to crawl over naked humans though...as they seem to be doing that in my fortresses regularly out of their own volition in the dininghall.
Post by: Neonivek on June 07, 2011, 09:18:47 am
Post by: LoSboccacc on June 07, 2011, 09:22:58 am
As I remember correctly people of this time period, who weren't rich, actually didn't spend too much time at home.
well, they couldn't work at night without light, so while most of the day they were out making a living*, they still were at home about half of the time. probably.
*
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Neonivek on June 07, 2011, 09:29:26 am
-Which I find horrible... but it was history. History stinks.
So really your supposed to be involved with others with a lot of your free time.
Post by: Psieye on June 07, 2011, 09:35:37 am
Maybe in future versions there will be different kinds of profaning and other methods (druidic rituals, cursed items or even the old classic bored gods)Already confirmed. The only question is whether they'll get into this next release or if it'll wait for later.
Quote
I'm a bit disappointed that it seems like we won't be able to chain sun fearing vampires outside in df mode for make-shift torches.Depending on exactly what part of that sentence your interest lay, that can be modded in. It remains to be seen whether we can mod in a syndrome that causes sunlight to burn the victim. If it's about making a torch...
Quote
That said it would be nice to have a definite way of creating fires now that we're going to be besieged by undead hordes that will keep coming back.Magma.
Or if you want convenience, see the Bonfire mod.
Post by: irdsm on June 07, 2011, 10:36:35 am
Will rich people have any more furniture, or perhaps higher quality furniture in their houses?
Will there be multi-room or even multi-story houses for single people/families?
Will vampires have coffins in their house instead of beds?
Will houses have windows? Expanding on that, is there a chance that something like an adventurer openable curtain item might be included, allowing surprise sun attacks on vampires?
Finally, do you have any idea how much I look forward to modding in a whole bunch of drugs thanks to indigestible syndromes?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Caldfir on June 07, 2011, 10:47:42 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on June 07, 2011, 11:14:51 am
Finally, do you have any idea how much I look forward to modding in a whole bunch of drugs thanks to indigestible syndromes?I think the word you wanted is "ingestible".
Speaking of which, how about indigestion as a symptom? Reducing the nourishing value of food and causing random pains would be a fairly bad condition.
Post by: irdsm on June 07, 2011, 11:26:55 am
Finally, do you have any idea how much I look forward to modding in a whole bunch of drugs thanks to indigestible syndromes?I think the word you wanted is "ingestible".
Speaking of which, how about indigestion as a symptom? Reducing the nourishing value of food and causing random pains would be a fairly bad condition.
You're right. Indigestion would be useful for the drug mod too!
Post by: freeformschooler on June 07, 2011, 03:05:29 pm
Will rich people have any more furniture, or perhaps higher quality furniture in their houses?
Echoing this. I've been hoping new cities have multi story houses, or more furniture, or rooms, for different people from the start.
Post by: metime00 on June 07, 2011, 03:37:54 pm
Glad for a switch of gears to the city maps and city life stuff, those things are the ones that affect the most. Hopefully this means that release is soon! Coming back from a month long vacation to a new DF version (maybe with the bugfixes as well) would be priceless.
Post by: nenjin on June 07, 2011, 03:38:57 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on June 07, 2011, 03:43:34 pm
City maps, climbing, and jumping and then I'll have an ASCII turn based assassin's creed! Then I can live out my fantasy of being a superhero in a low fantasy setting.
We've all been thinking this. We just don't admit it.
Post by: EvilTwin on June 07, 2011, 03:48:17 pm
Really wanna know to which level that stuff goes :)
Post by: PTTG?? on June 07, 2011, 03:54:31 pm
Post by: EvilTwin on June 07, 2011, 04:11:21 pm
I can totally see players dropping vampires into the food stores to create vampire fortresses.
If it actually works, that'll be the first thing I will do... one fortress vampiric, the other one lycanthroph... could get pretty funny :)
Post by: thvaz on June 07, 2011, 04:38:27 pm
City maps, climbing, and jumping and then I'll have an ASCII turn based assassin's creed! Then I can live out my fantasy of being a superhero in a low fantasy setting.
More likely we will have The Elder Scrolls Roguelike. Only better.
Post by: freeformschooler on June 07, 2011, 04:46:09 pm
I can totally see players dropping vampires into the food stores to create vampire fortresses.
I can see players actively working towards a kill-a-vampire quest for the sole reason of drinking the vampire's blood.
Post by: Tlc2011 on June 07, 2011, 05:13:13 pm
Curses that make humans [or whatever] turn into another race that they hate [for example, dwarf to elf]
Awesome right?
Post by: Lord Shonus on June 07, 2011, 05:54:09 pm
Post by: hermes on June 07, 2011, 06:38:55 pm
Quote
The building blocks of the boring are also the building blocks of terror
Brilliant, should be the mantra for many a game developer, but by this yardstick I expect my life to degenerate into some kind of magma filled living hell in the not too distant future. :o
Post by: penguify on June 07, 2011, 08:49:52 pm
(edit: grammar)
Post by: Cespinarve on June 07, 2011, 09:52:40 pm
Really though, hovels needed beds, tables and chairs in the first place, more then they needed ghosts haunting them.
THis line demonstrates everything that is strange about the priorities of video game designers over almost any other career. Who else designs a house and the first thing on their interior checklist isn't tables, beds, families or food storage but the tortured souls of the deceased.
Post by: Dante on June 07, 2011, 10:23:57 pm
Really though, hovels needed beds, tables and chairs in the first place, more then they needed ghosts haunting them.
THis line demonstrates everything that is strange about the priorities of video game designers over almost any other career. Who else designs a house and the first thing on their interior checklist isn't tables, beds, families or food storage but the tortured souls of the deceased.
Well... me... but to be fair, my attitude towards my architecture degree has been quite passive-aggressive for some time now.
Post by: IT 000 on June 07, 2011, 10:33:22 pm
Quote from: IT000
How long (in real time) does the 'Full Moon' phase in Fortress mode last?
It lasts a little over two game-calendar days, whatever that comes out to in real time.[/quote]
If the wiki is to be trusted that's ~2.4 minutes, is that really enough time to have some Fun?
Also
Would it be possible to create a were-beast that creates a permanent change to a dwarf (rather then just activating on the a full moon?)
Post by: Neoskel on June 07, 2011, 10:43:13 pm
Post by: Untelligent on June 07, 2011, 11:14:30 pm
Would it be possible to create a were-beast that creates a permanent change to a dwarf (rather then just activating on the a full moon?)
Pretty sure.
Post by: Cruxador on June 08, 2011, 12:33:41 am
He gave an account of an attack in the dev log. Check that out. It's long enough.Quote from: Toady OneQuote from: IT000
How long (in real time) does the 'Full Moon' phase in Fortress mode last?
It lasts a little over two game-calendar days, whatever that comes out to in real time.
If the wiki is to be trusted that's ~2.4 minutes, is that really enough time to have some Fun?
Also
Quote
Would it be possible to create a were-beast that creates a permanent change to a dwarf (rather then just activating on the a full moon?)I don't know if it would be technically a werebeast, but creating something that worked like that would be pretty trivial to mod in, I'd think.
Post by: thvaz on June 08, 2011, 02:44:38 am
Currently, villages houses doesn't even have a floor.
Post by: Caldfir on June 08, 2011, 04:14:50 am
Currently, villages houses doesn't even have a floor.Ummm... well that's kind of accurate actually...
Post by: scriver on June 08, 2011, 04:20:01 am
Post by: thvaz on June 08, 2011, 05:25:27 am
Yup. Trampled dirt floors is the way to go. At least for the poor. More well-to-do farmers would do well with an actual floor, I guess, if only to show the difference.
Yes, I guess you are right. Even though, I would like that the villages would get some love.
Post by: Jiri Petru on June 08, 2011, 06:36:47 am
Toady, you said that when a dwarf in the fortress mode turns into a werewolf and kills a fellow dwarf, he'll be marked as an enemy of the civilisation and killed - even if he changes back to dwarf form in the meantime. Now... how about instead of making him an enemy, making him a criminal and imprison him for murder? Leave it for the player to decide whether they want to execute the murderer (via the kill command... presuming it gets fixed).
I just can't get behind the idea of dwarves killing their friend dwarf just because he's cursed. When the dwarf changes back to his dwarf form, he's friendly and harmless - they can't just butcher him! Lycanthropy should be handled as a criminal act, not an act of war. The code for murder and imprisonment is already in the game but is only rarely used - why not use it here? The game gains a bit more variety and everyone wins!
I know it's not an ideal solution (ideally a werewolf in a wolf form would be an enemy, in dwarf form a criminal) but as a placeholder it just seems better that the other extreme (kill him!).
Post by: Desdichado on June 08, 2011, 07:07:17 am
This was a missed development goal back in the Great Overhaul of 2010™, and it seems critical for an economy that items be not only produced but also consumed and worn out...
Post by: thvaz on June 08, 2011, 07:19:18 am
When will item damage be revisited?
This was a missed development goal back in the Great Overhaul of 2010™, and it seems critical for an economy that items be not only produced but also consumed and worn out...
I thought the same thing. Imagine warehouses overcrowded with furnitures made in the dawn of time...
Post by: Jiri Petru on June 08, 2011, 07:53:22 am
Post by: thvaz on June 08, 2011, 08:17:11 am
Are we sure item damage/decay is not it? I mean in the world-gen?
I don't recall Toady ever mentioning it. I recall, as Desdichado, that Toady wanted item damage in the DF2010 release but didn't have time.
edit:typo
Post by: Knight Otu on June 08, 2011, 08:18:23 am
Quote from: Toady One, 12/8/2010
There are lots of goods moving around now. It has taken a lot of iterations to get it up to this point, since trade imbalances and over-production that grind the whole system to a halt are fairly easy to come by. The more industries that get tracked in world gen, the more everything moves freely, which is nice. We've had to manage lots of decay rates to keep goods from getting massively stockpiled when they shouldn't realistically be stockpiled.
I'm not sure if it does extend to furniture, but it seems possible.
Post by: thvaz on June 08, 2011, 08:38:06 am
Post by: PTTG?? on June 08, 2011, 09:50:13 am
Towns just sound so awesome.
Post by: Desdichado on June 08, 2011, 10:02:58 am
Post by: Tov01 on June 08, 2011, 10:16:15 am
Will you also be putting back in non-human settlements and fleshing them out?
Post by: EvilTwin on June 08, 2011, 10:32:32 am
Quote
Those will be placed in general shops and warehouses for the time being. [...] The same should happen with extra food....general stores, absolutely ¤stuffed¤ with plump helmet stew and kitten roasts... Adventurers, rejoice! You just got *RESTAURANTS*!
Post by: thvaz on June 08, 2011, 10:36:14 am
Hey, I just thought of something. Since you are working on fleshing out cities now:
Will you also be putting back in non-human settlements and fleshing them out?
Short answer: unfortunately, no.
Post by: monk12 on June 08, 2011, 11:25:14 am
Hey, I just thought of something. Since you are working on fleshing out cities now:
Will you also be putting back in non-human settlements and fleshing them out?
Short answer: unfortunately, no.
Longer answer: no, but they are slated for the Army Arc. Toady wants to get cities and the economy working with some kind of stability before extending that to a world economy with crazy racial needs.
Post by: Quatch on June 08, 2011, 02:13:26 pm
Code: [Select]
javascript: x = new RegExp('(color: green;)', 'gi'); b = document.body.innerHTML; b = b.replace(x, 'color: limegreen;'); void(document.body.innerHTML = b);Sample dark green text to test with.
Post by: Caldfir on June 09, 2011, 01:06:23 am
It's nice when the progress is visibly humming along.
Post by: Gamerlord on June 09, 2011, 02:41:07 am
Post by: G-Flex on June 09, 2011, 02:45:33 am
Post by: Gamerlord on June 09, 2011, 03:14:39 am
Post by: Aqizzar on June 09, 2011, 04:11:10 am
Post by: zwei on June 09, 2011, 07:27:01 am
Bomrek Lokumlokum, King, has mandated the construction of a gemstone ball-pit.
Bomrek Lokumlokum, King, has mandated the construction of a gemstone spitball ballista.
Post by: PlainTextMan on June 09, 2011, 10:19:12 am
Quote from: Toady
The information stored there includes the source civilization, so a family could be the proud owners of a dwarven stone cabinet, for example, complete with dwarven artwork with the right materials, and the number of dwarven stone cabinets in the town would be the precise number that were traded in over the years.YES
I don't know exactly why, but this is just somehow really awesome. Perhaps because it carries such an essence of Dwarvenness. Making really cool crafts, superiour to any other races', and then having them distributed as rarities in the world, reflecting dwarves' fondness of industry and craftsmanship :D
Ooh, and having your fortress' demand for cheap booze imports causing nearby towns to build a significant economy on it wouldn't be bad at all...
Of course, I think with the current value/economy system, there is a high risk of breaking the world by flooding it with pigtail socks and cheap stone crafts :(
So do suspecting that it would be a problem? Perhaps got any short term placeholders to help prevent that? (such as pop-size based limits of exports of certain items)
Hmmm... imagine strange moods, but with technically/!!science!!/megaproject -inclined authorities getting ideas for usable military or other artifacts that would otherwise not be commisionable by the player...Bomrek Lokumlokum, King, has mandated the construction of a gemstone ball-pit.Bomrek Lokumlokum, King, has mandated the construction of a gemstone spitball ballista.
Post by: jimi12 on June 09, 2011, 04:17:25 pm
Post by: tfaal on June 09, 2011, 05:36:45 pm
Will people who are cursed as werebeasts know that they have killed people when they turn back to normal form? Will they be remorseful or get extra depressed if they know that they killed a loved one while a werebeast?Worldgen figures don't have the capacity to become depressed or remorseful at the moment.
Post by: EvilTwin on June 09, 2011, 06:01:50 pm
Will people who are cursed as werebeasts know that they have killed people when they turn back to normal form? Will they be remorseful or get extra depressed if they know that they killed a loved one while a werebeast?Worldgen figures don't have the capacity to become depressed or remorseful at the moment.
He isn't necessarily talking about worldgen, could apply to fortress mode as well... but I don't think so, Toady hasn't written or said anything about it, although it would be a quite Fun thing to have. But there was no time for a secretitive mood in his devlog :P
Post by: Chainlinc3 on June 09, 2011, 06:08:25 pm
Will we be allowed to embark on a city in fortress mode? If so, will it be (relatively) functional, or, at the very least, inhabited?
Post by: jimi12 on June 09, 2011, 06:39:24 pm
Will people who are cursed as werebeasts know that they have killed people when they turn back to normal form? Will they be remorseful or get extra depressed if they know that they killed a loved one while a werebeast?Worldgen figures don't have the capacity to become depressed or remorseful at the moment.
He isn't necessarily talking about worldgen, could apply to fortress mode as well... but I don't think so, Toady hasn't written or said anything about it, although it would be a quite Fun thing to have. But there was no time for a secretitive mood in his devlog :P
Yeah I was talking about fortress mode. I know Toady mentioned how residents will not be hostile to a werebeast person after they transform back to their normal self. I am assuming this is because it does not recognize that those murders were caused by the now normal looking person. This made me wonder if the cursed person also not figure this out.
Post by: nenjin on June 09, 2011, 07:43:35 pm
Post by: EvilTwin on June 09, 2011, 07:59:26 pm
Huh. I wouldn't be surprised if the things they did still registered with them ("Had a good fight recently; mourned the loss of a friend recently") even if that's not quite the same as "knowing" what they did.
That might lead to regular Denethor (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Denethor_II) similar suicide scenes in the fortress... "What have I dooooooooone?!" Those would be awesome to have in the fortress!
Post by: Psieye on June 09, 2011, 09:11:05 pm
This is a bit random, but it's been on my mind for a while... And it's probably already been asked. :\That's not been possible since sprawl went in around .12 and Toady has said it won't be possible for towers either as it's silly. So no, don't expect cities to be valid embark sites in the new version.
Will we be allowed to embark on a city in fortress mode? If so, will it be (relatively) functional, or, at the very least, inhabited?
Post by: monk12 on June 09, 2011, 09:46:39 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on June 09, 2011, 11:29:33 pm
Will rich people have any more furniture, or perhaps higher quality furniture in their houses?
Will there be multi-room or even multi-story houses for single people/families?
Check the dev page first: (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html)
Quote
Adventurer Role: Thief
* Valuables and mansions
o Towns with large entity populations should have sections/quarters with varying residence quality etc.
o Mansions/villas out of the way as well
o Many high quality dwarf mode style items in these places
...
Will vampires have coffins in their house instead of beds?
That's probably already on the list of things that might or might not get included in the release:
Quote from: FieariToady, many of your forumites are repeatedly linking the Wikipedia Vampire Traits list. Are you actually intending to try to implement all these traits, or is this merely wishful/hopeful thinking on the part of your fans?
I don't think it's feasible to do everything there now. Just doing some things is okay.
Will houses have windows? Expanding on that, is there a chance that something like an adventurer openable curtain item might be included, allowing surprise sun attacks on vampires?
Light only shines straight down in DF, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.
Can transformation-curses be performed on a creature that is already transformed? Ie, could a (modded) creature do the were-albatross-becoming-thing, and then turn into something else when it's were-form is hit with it's own were-albatross-blood? (Form 1 -> Form 2 -> Form 3 -> etc) Can these changes be made permanent, so that when form 3 wears off, the creature remains as form 2?
That kind of thing is still up in the air:
Quote from: piecewiseHeres another for you. Will the game have certain curses take precedent over others? Ie, if I get bitten by a vampire and then by a were-moose, will I transform into a blood sucking moose man every full moon? If I raid a tomb is it possible that I'll find an undead necromancer vampire were-axolotl?
It doesn't allow some combinations. Right now it allows for a vampire werebeast, which is strange, and may or may not be allowed.
Would it be possible to create a were-beast that creates a permanent change to a dwarf (rather then just activating on the a full moon?)
Yes.
Will curses like those for vampires and were-creatures be able to put in subtle 'tells' on the affected creature when it isn't transformed? Such as hairy palms for werewolves, fangs and pasty skin for vampires, etc.
Fangs and hairy palms may be possible, (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2261541#msg2261541) but I doubt there'd be any interface for noticing them:
Quote from: Toady One
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).
Will you also be putting back in non-human settlements and fleshing them out?
Not yet: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2069500;topicseen#msg2069500)
Quote from: Toady One
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.
This is a bit random, but it's been on my mind for a while... And it's probably already been asked. :\
Will we be allowed to embark on a city in fortress mode? If so, will it be (relatively) functional, or, at the very least, inhabited?
This was just answered:
Quote from: AquillionWith this... would it be possible to easily add an init option or worldgen parameter to re-enable dwarves embarking on top of other people's sites? I'm curious whether this would make the game respond 'properly' now if dwarves try to embark on a dark fortress or somesuch, making for something interesting.
Actually, would it be possible to allow the dwarves to embark on 'hostile' sites in general in the main game, as long as there's no friendly population there? It seems like "deal with the undead, then settle in their tower" could be a fun (and challenging) way to start a fortress.
Adding an init option wouldn't make the game respond any better than it was when it was broken, so I think I'm misunderstanding something. There's something fundamentally silly about allowing those embarks, but I don't have a problem with the init option in principle. But it takes time to make sure that everybody is properly hostile in that artificial environment, so I haven't been eager to fix it up. That said, we've been toying with the idea of allowing some embarks on thoroughly bad places. We'll see what happens.
Of course, I think with the current value/economy system, there is a high risk of breaking the world by flooding it with pigtail socks and cheap stone crafts :(
So do suspecting that it would be a problem? Perhaps got any short term placeholders to help prevent that? (such as pop-size based limits of exports of certain items)
Flooding the market has come up before: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1719248;topicseen#msg1719248)
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: Xgamer4Just 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: Areyar on June 10, 2011, 02:38:34 am
It might be a good idea to tone down worldgen attacks and wars in the early years, untill civs have had a chance to develop a bit. It's looks like most fortresses get a sieged almost immediately now, being pillaged or deprived of farmers in the process.
I also hope that mountainhalls will become visible on the map again. New Dark Towers also seem to not appear. the prerequisites seem inconsistent, human hamlets are always visible, but dwarves never, goblins sometimes, kobolds never (but that is good).
Post by: scriver on June 10, 2011, 04:15:51 am
Post by: Knight Otu on June 10, 2011, 05:48:54 am
I also hope that mountainhalls will become visible on the map again. New Dark Towers also seem to not appear. the prerequisites seem inconsistent, human hamlets are always visible, but dwarves never, goblins sometimes, kobolds never (but that is good).The mountain halls, dark towers, and forest retreats that appear on the map (and mountain halls can certainly appear there) are the major settlements, equivalent to the human towns. Those that don't appear are the minor settlements, equivalent to the hamlets. Presumably Toady needs to choose new symbols for the minor settlements, which he might base on whatever structures end up being found there. The main reason that mountain halls rarely are seen seems to be the starvation problem Toady has tackled here.
Speaking of sites and site structures - Conquered sites used to keep their old civ's structures, around which the structures of the new civ would be build if they were different. Once the dwarf/goblin/elf sites are more fleshed out in the army arc, do you foresee that this will be the case again?
Post by: Nistenf on June 10, 2011, 09:52:24 am
Post by: Livonya on June 10, 2011, 01:41:49 pm
I recently fired up a few new fortresses to get back in the groove of things and learn how all the new features work... first time playing the DF2010 version(s). So much has changed. Quite cool.
At some point I have to try Adventure mode... it almost sounds like their is a game there now.
Anyway, I just wanted to say how exciting all the changes look and I can't wait for the new version.
Keep at it.
Post by: Cruxador on June 10, 2011, 04:42:40 pm
I have taken a long break from Dwarf Fortress (over 2 years) and it has been quite a long time since I posted in the forums, though I do follow what is going on with Dwarf Fortress on a regular basis.If you're going to do Adventure, I recommend waiting for the new version, since then you'll have proper cities with proper markets to explore, and tombs to raid. The current game mostly is just going to where bandits or trolls or megabeasts live, and killing them. Markets will add a bit of commerce to that, and tombs at least have traps and curses to contend with. And there's all the other new night creatures, which add substantial variety to things.
I recently fired up a few new fortresses to get back in the groove of things and learn how all the new features work... first time playing the DF2010 version(s). So much has changed. Quite cool.
At some point I have to try Adventure mode... it almost sounds like their is a game there now.
Anyway, I just wanted to say how exciting all the changes look and I can't wait for the new version.
Keep at it.
Post by: Drevlin on June 10, 2011, 05:13:19 pm
In relation to what Knight Otu said is it planned to have the world map symbols be selectable so that graphic packs can represent them with a proper sprite?
...or maybe a complete decoupling of the text user interface from the graphics tiles? Even though I think that can be complex (and boring) to do.
Anyway this is my first post on bay12forums. Toady, you're doing a very good job, Dwarf Fortress is great!
Post by: Interus on June 10, 2011, 05:24:12 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on June 10, 2011, 05:35:26 pm
like what we have now with the true type fonts support?In relation to what Knight Otu said is it planned to have the world map symbols be selectable so that graphic packs can represent them with a proper sprite?
...or maybe a complete decoupling of the text user interface from the graphics tiles? Even though I think that can be complex (and boring) to do.
Anyway this is my first post on bay12forums. Toady, you're doing a very good job, Dwarf Fortress is great!
Post by: Neonivek on June 10, 2011, 05:41:32 pm
Anyhow there is talks Internus but currently religions arn't really fleshed out at any level.
Post by: Drevlin on June 10, 2011, 06:08:18 pm
like what we have now with the true type fonts support?
No, what i meant was the sharing of the symbols between the text interface (like the "prepare to the journey" screen) and the graphic tiles.
When using a tileset (I use phoebus') for example the male symbol is replaced with a bag, or the "<" with a staircase, and that can be misleading if you are in an interface screen. (The vanilla version obviously is not affected by this problem).
I'm sorry if I can't explain myself well, I'm not a native English speaker. (I put this on my signature as well)
Post by: Cruxador on June 10, 2011, 06:24:09 pm
The truetype font support does that. You can turn that on in init, though it's not really done yet because Baughn got a job part way through doing it.like what we have now with the true type fonts support?
No, what i meant was the sharing of the symbols between the text interface (like the "prepare to the journey" screen) and the graphic tiles.
When using a tileset (I use phoebus') for example the male symbol is replaced with a bag, or the "<" with a staircase, and that can be misleading if you are in an interface screen. (The vanilla version obviously is not affected by this problem).
I'm sorry if I can't explain myself well, I'm not a native English speaker. (I put this on my signature as well)
Post by: Footkerchief on June 10, 2011, 07:16:58 pm
Woosh I avoided the Footkerchief answering tyraid.
Whoa, I missed a lot. Thanks!
What basic concepts are you thinking of for constructs? Will we see beasts with weapons grafted into/replacing limbs are just mish-mashes of creature parts
I ask this because if the RNG is allowed enough room with this, I foresee many humorous(or fearsome) foes. "it has -iron maces-" for feet." "A humanoid with the pincers of a Giant Desert Scorpion."
I haven't done custom bodies yet because although I've had a custom body framework in for about as long as we've had bodies, that framework has never been tested so won't work without a lot of help. We were planning on doing those things (using the light red N), but if we get to it we were thinking of limiting it to otherly-sized body parts, sutures and grafted-on weapons, which is all do-able without going to full custom bodies.
Do children of were-creatures inherit the curse? How about similar curses?
It's the kind of thing that would need special work, and it hasn't been mentioned, so probably not.
Will we be able to embark on necromancer towers? And if so, will they be visible on embark, or hidden, like caves?
Currently no, probably later:
Quote from: AquillionWith this... would it be possible to easily add an init option or worldgen parameter to re-enable dwarves embarking on top of other people's sites? I'm curious whether this would make the game respond 'properly' now if dwarves try to embark on a dark fortress or somesuch, making for something interesting.
Actually, would it be possible to allow the dwarves to embark on 'hostile' sites in general in the main game, as long as there's no friendly population there? It seems like "deal with the undead, then settle in their tower" could be a fun (and challenging) way to start a fortress.
Adding an init option wouldn't make the game respond any better than it was when it was broken, so I think I'm misunderstanding something. There's something fundamentally silly about allowing those embarks, but I don't have a problem with the init option in principle. But it takes time to make sure that everybody is properly hostile in that artificial environment, so I haven't been eager to fix it up. That said, we've been toying with the idea of allowing some embarks on thoroughly bad places. We'll see what happens.
Also, will there be any more bug-fixing releases before this night creature release?
Nope. Toady never does midstream releases.
Toady right now you really want to take away the ability for anything to really end the world and I can see why. Afterall many of these creatures can destroy the world and no one can do anything about it. Do you think in the future you would allow such "world ending" conditions to exist but give the civilisations, heros, and benevolent creatures the consciousness and means to actually combat it? For example Vampires who do transform with every bite, but the amount of generated heat would cause different levels of vampire clensing within a city
You probably remember this, but just for everyone's context: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg872866#msg872866)
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: NeonivekToady with the mythos/plot generator, will it be possible for it to set up Armagedon scenarios or at least situations where the mass destruction of the world is possible? Both in World Generation and when the player is involved (afterall the world ending during World Gen would be boring outside of the planes arc).
-I am mostly reminded of one person's failed attept to break into the HFS. His fortress was destroyed and the demons that poured out and proceeded to destroy much of the world due to the sheer number of powerful beings.
Originally, we had a few broad arcs for a world's life. There were the fading out ones (which is most like the current system, just because nothing comes back), the marches toward apocalypse, the cyclic ones, and the sort of "gothic" style where there's an established order and you just sort of cower against it on the bottom rung. That kind of division is no longer in the cards really, but the notion of having powerful forces and established metaphysical facts like a predestined ending to the world are all still floating around. I guess it would be amusing if the world ended during world gen -- it would just be a reject, he he he. In terms of the demons and all that, once the pre-siege individuals are thinking about things, both anything you've released and the mega beasts and so on will begin to be more than just random attack events, which should be cool.
toady, do you have a timeline to overhauling the weapons(and items in general) to be multi-material(studding/difference between blade and handle)? is this something that will come during the caravan arc(i remembered some kind of combat overhaul being on the dev-list for one of the releases)? and do you have any plans already to how ornaments will impact combat(eg. will a steel-sword with silver-images on the blade be worse than a silver-sword against a weak-to-silver-Ń?)?
do we have to wait for the personality-rewrite for nightcreatures to spread false rumours about their weaknesses or will something like this come earlier/later?
As usual, there's no specific timeline for features that aren't explicitly listed on the release schedule. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html)
Post by: Neonivek on June 10, 2011, 07:50:56 pm
Still standing baby!
Post by: fivex on June 10, 2011, 08:56:08 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on June 10, 2011, 08:57:41 pm
Are werecreatures generated off of a hardcoded list of creatures, or creatures in the raws, so we'll get weird stuff like Weremagmacrabs and Wereseamonsters?
QuoteQuote from: EmeraldWindAssuming the werecreatures are randomly picked from the normal creature raws, are there any creatures that are excluded from being picked for the curse? For instance, megabeasts, inorganic creatures, or civilized creatures.Quote from: Knight OtuAre the wereforms taken from the same list as other random creatures, from existing creatures, or both?
It uses the forgotten beast system. Trying to parse the raws would be too messy I think, although something with variations could be doable though quite a bit more work to get right than what I'm doing now. If you want to add exotic wereforms in the meantime, the gods will use whatever curses you mod in for them, and I'll probably have some examples sitting there to look at.
Post by: Cruxador on June 10, 2011, 09:29:18 pm
Yep I remember it Footkerchief. luckly for me it doesn't eliminate my question. *wipes forhead*I don't know what's lucky about that. Surely having an answer to your question is the preferable outcome?
Still standing baby!
Post by: Willfor on June 10, 2011, 09:39:12 pm
In the past, Neonivek has tried to ask Toady questions, and Footkerchief has shut him down due to misunderstandings with the question itself. I think. My history may be wrong.Yep I remember it Footkerchief. luckly for me it doesn't eliminate my question. *wipes forhead*I don't know what's lucky about that. Surely having an answer to your question is the preferable outcome?
Still standing baby!
Post by: monk12 on June 10, 2011, 11:14:14 pm
In the past, Neonivek has tried to ask Toady questions, and Footkerchief has shut him down due to misunderstandings with the question itself. I think. My history may be wrong.Yep I remember it Footkerchief. luckly for me it doesn't eliminate my question. *wipes forhead*I don't know what's lucky about that. Surely having an answer to your question is the preferable outcome?
Still standing baby!
Just generally speaking, it feels better to come up with a good question instead of a question some diligent searching (aka Footkerchief) could solve.
Post by: EmeraldWind on June 11, 2011, 10:59:58 am
You mentioned the tower cap bed with the design on it and I was curious where it came from. Once the trading upgrade is put in, we can go around in Adventure after playing Fort and find stuff we made and traded away. But will there be a way to tell for sure if the item was made in the Fort we just played?
I imagine once the ability to make production orders in more detail is in the game, we'll be able to brand the objects ourselves. But for now I wonder if there is any info relating to the object's origin being attached to the object somehow.
Post by: Caldfir on June 11, 2011, 02:06:23 pm
Currently, I noticed goblin helms tend to be branded with their civ's symbol. Will dwarven manufactured items and furniture have a way to identify which civ or entity the item was manufactured by. Or will there be no way to tell where the item came from for the time being?
I noticed this as well with many civilizations/invaders. It is a really nice touch. I hope that someday we can specify "decorate with civ symbol" or something in dwarf mode to replicate this.
So much cool stuff.
Post by: tfaal on June 11, 2011, 02:40:20 pm
Post by: irdsm on June 11, 2011, 03:36:04 pm
SnipI was thinking something along the lines of a cheap light workaround. The properties of windows might be altered in such a way that it checks for light around each side and projects it 'x tiles in that direction' or something to that effect. I realize it was a bit of a longshot and bordering on a suggestion, but it feels like we're getting close to the expansion or even fix for some of the light-related issues. Toady could ignore it at this minute, but he's kind of jumping around and getting larger swaths of fixes of varying degrees in and at this moment light is a logical next step with light-related syndromes and night creatures.Will houses have windows? Expanding on that, is there a chance that something like an adventurer openable curtain item might be included, allowing surprise sun attacks on vampires?
Light only shines straight down in DF, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.
-snip
Post by: Neonivek on June 11, 2011, 04:10:52 pm
Sometimes creatures will get knocked unconscious by blows to the head, independent of pain effects. This sometimes happens when it only bruises the muscle, other times it fails to happen when the skull is shattered. Can you tell us a bit about what factors determine this?
Sometimes this happens if a bone is chipped as well.
Post by: eux0r on June 11, 2011, 04:38:09 pm
*chop*
As usual, there's no specific timeline for features that aren't explicitly listed on the release schedule. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html)
this is obviously true, but doesnt answer my questions, since both a combat rewrite(release 7) as well as a personality rewrite(release 8) are on the release schedule. its just about how much toady foresees the extend of those. (im asking because actually the things i talked about shouldnt be incorporated considering whats written there alone while in the meantime the actual release grows far beyond whats written in the release schedule)
i could generalize my questions to:
toady, do you think the next releases will also 'bloat'/include many unforeseen(but juicy!) extras or will you try to stick closer to the slim announcements on the schedule?
Post by: tfaal on June 11, 2011, 06:22:30 pm
I think that's due to pain. You can tell depending on whether it says "gives in to pain" or "has been knocked unconscious".Sometimes creatures will get knocked unconscious by blows to the head, independent of pain effects. This sometimes happens when it only bruises the muscle, other times it fails to happen when the skull is shattered. Can you tell us a bit about what factors determine this?
Sometimes this happens if a bone is chipped as well.
Post by: G-Flex on June 11, 2011, 06:25:40 pm
SnipI was thinking something along the lines of a cheap light workaround. The properties of windows might be altered in such a way that it checks for light around each side and projects it 'x tiles in that direction' or something to that effect. I realize it was a bit of a longshot and bordering on a suggestion, but it feels like we're getting close to the expansion or even fix for some of the light-related issues. Toady could ignore it at this minute, but he's kind of jumping around and getting larger swaths of fixes of varying degrees in and at this moment light is a logical next step with light-related syndromes and night creatures.Will houses have windows? Expanding on that, is there a chance that something like an adventurer openable curtain item might be included, allowing surprise sun attacks on vampires?
Light only shines straight down in DF, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.
-snip
By this logic, though, a window allows light in horizontally while empty space doesn't. Seems like a bizarre solution with counterintuitive properties.
Post by: EvilTwin on June 11, 2011, 06:45:27 pm
Sometimes creatures will get knocked unconscious by blows to the head, independent of pain effects. This sometimes happens when it only bruises the muscle, other times it fails to happen when the skull is shattered. Can you tell us a bit about what factors determine this?
I'd guess the "knocked unconcious" means that the brain was shaken too badly. I'm no medic or anything like that, but a skull that gets shattered would probably take a lot of force from the blow (by absorbing lots of energy to use for breaking up the bone's structure, before the relatively heavy head can be accelerated). That would mean there is less energy to accelerate the head and the brain isn't shaked as badly.
This is only a relatively wild guess, I'm neither a doc nor do I know about the way the code works, but it'd be pretty damn awesome if Toady's code respected even somewhat counterintuitive physical mechanisms like this one.
Post by: Neoskel on June 11, 2011, 06:52:56 pm
Are material weaknesses respected in worldgen?
I can imagine necromancers grafting silver weapons to their constructs to deal with were-critters getting up in their business.
Post by: irdsm on June 11, 2011, 06:58:02 pm
SnipI was thinking something along the lines of a cheap light workaround. The properties of windows might be altered in such a way that it checks for light around each side and projects it 'x tiles in that direction' or something to that effect. I realize it was a bit of a longshot and bordering on a suggestion, but it feels like we're getting close to the expansion or even fix for some of the light-related issues. Toady could ignore it at this minute, but he's kind of jumping around and getting larger swaths of fixes of varying degrees in and at this moment light is a logical next step with light-related syndromes and night creatures.Will houses have windows? Expanding on that, is there a chance that something like an adventurer openable curtain item might be included, allowing surprise sun attacks on vampires?
Light only shines straight down in DF, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.
-snip
By this logic, though, a window allows light in horizontally while empty space doesn't. Seems like a bizarre solution with counterintuitive properties.
Like I said, a rough workaround, but this is a game that is in constant refinement. Toady's goals appear to be finding a balance between making sense, filling necessary solutions, and opening up as many options as possible. This would also increase the use of windows in fortress mode and open up a lot of options. Not ideal but still a positive that (depending highly on how it's coded) is far from out of reach. Toady could also make it even more complicated and better, but that takes more work, or completely leave it out. I don't remember seeing much in the devlog though, so I believe it's open field for a question.
Examples of broken lighting (I haven't tested it lately, but haven't seen much talk about it either) : Building a stone floor doesn't block lighting underneath it regardless of how thorough it is, but bridges (and walkways, perhaps) do for some reason. Light doesn't travel horizontally under any circumstances (as mentioned) The use of underground and light are treated separately. If you floor over a previously exposed are it counts as underground but still lighted (makes sense with glass blocks, obviously) so you can grow both indoor and outdoor plants, which seems wrong, but may not be depending on how you view the biology of underground plants (is it about stable temperature? lighting? air circulation? spore dissemination? etc. etc.)
Post by: Mel_Vixen on June 11, 2011, 10:51:08 pm
Hehe cant say i am disappointed by the influx of new Animals, Animalpeople and there Giant companions. Well i hope the second one get some development on the cultural side at some point but heck yes kiwis and red pandas and ... *goes nuts*. It would also be interresting to have kiwis as fruits.
New tags are also very nice, i wonder what could these animals could do. Squids are actually pretty straight forward with ink but they could use something that lets them change color to fit the surroundings respecktive to communicate emotions.
Post by: Cruxador on June 11, 2011, 11:26:05 pm
Dwarf fortress: Histories of monsters and furries :DPlease don't try to push your fetish onto DF. Animal men are vile beasts, subhuman and abominable. You can't yiff them.
Post by: Montague on June 11, 2011, 11:40:14 pm
I don't know why Toady put this stupid animal sponsorship thing up and actually spent so much damn time programming fucking capybaras, bees and badgers into the game.
I would have paid money to see him finish the cities and NOT put anymore silly animals in the game. Animals can be made by modders, or anybody that can double click on the raw files that have animals in them, for that matter. If you want some stupid animal in your game, mod them in there.
I guess Toady is going to spend the next year or so adding in some exotic real-life animals rather then finishing the basics of the game due to this animal sponsorship drive.
Which is just... well, ts just awesome guys, good idea.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on June 11, 2011, 11:50:18 pm
Nice to see the animals going in. While I do reckon Toady ought to take the time to do animals right, these don't really need anything in particular.
Well while i can relate to that i am not going to make a comment on the your second statement (but this and the following) for the sake of sanity and my inner peace. Please grow up a bit. And that was my last thing on this. ::)
Post by: Willfor on June 12, 2011, 12:08:45 am
I would have paid money to see him finish the cities and NOT put anymore silly animals in the game. Animals can be made by modders, or anybody that can double click on the raw files that have animals in them, for that matter. If you want some stupid animal in your game, mod them in there.You misunderstand. The animals he's putting in, they are also adding in tags for modding and game mechanics that didn't exist before so that these animals can be represented better. Honey was not an industry until bees were added in thanks to this drive. Etc.
Post by: Cruxador on June 12, 2011, 12:14:06 am
Bees were the number one request. The ones we are on now are further down the line and may not get any tags at all.I would have paid money to see him finish the cities and NOT put anymore silly animals in the game. Animals can be made by modders, or anybody that can double click on the raw files that have animals in them, for that matter. If you want some stupid animal in your game, mod them in there.You misunderstand. The animals he's putting in, they are also adding in tags for modding and game mechanics that didn't exist before so that these animals can be represented better. Honey was not an industry until bees were added in thanks to this drive. Etc.
Post by: Rose on June 12, 2011, 12:19:21 am
Post by: Cruxador on June 12, 2011, 12:40:12 am
nah, he said he's gonna try to make new tags for pretty much all of them.The latest devlog seems to imply otherwise.
Post by: thvaz on June 12, 2011, 01:22:12 am
Post by: EmeraldWind on June 12, 2011, 01:28:58 am
From the sound of the devlog he may tone it down a bit, but he might make tags that benefit more than one creature (for example: armadillos, turtles, hedgehogs, etc all have a tendency to roll up in a ball or compress themselves, so a tag that allows a creature to enter a defense mode might be in order), but a tag that only affects specific animals might be too much (ex: a hedgehog's tendency to spread poison on their quills (which hedgehogs currently lack quills anyway)). So basically, the more common tags might have priority. I imagine he wouldn't do something as elaborate as honey industry again, either for the time being.nah, he said he's gonna try to make new tags for pretty much all of them.The latest devlog seems to imply otherwise.
Ultimately though, he's been working on the extra creatures on the side and they have for the most part been non-intrusive to the project. It sounds he going to work on them as weekend projects now. I'd say the way Toady works, he's probably going to get it done anyway.
Post by: Neonivek on June 12, 2011, 02:24:15 am
Though I am confused. So Toady actually has to create by hand every Beastman and every Werebeast? I thought it was a template creature.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on June 12, 2011, 02:30:59 am
Post by: Neonivek on June 12, 2011, 02:33:10 am
I gues most of it goes by template but toady has to check if the transition between the animal and the template-creature works without messing the new tags up.
I checked it, from what I understand it is sort of a mix of both.
In order for an animalman to be capable of appearing it needs to be in the raws. In the lets say "Donkey Animalman" section you would need new raws just for the donkey animalman, but there would be shortcuts.
Here it the Platypus man raw as an example
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Also after checking the raws on a Platypus I found something odd. I thought only the males had venom.
Post by: Knight Otu on June 12, 2011, 03:44:37 am
Also after checking the raws on a Platypus I found something odd. I thought only the males had venom.The same is true in the raws. Well, the way creature materials work, females technically do have the venom as well, but only the male has an attack to inject it.
Post by: Neonivek on June 12, 2011, 03:45:56 am
Also after checking the raws on a Platypus I found something odd. I thought only the males had venom.The same is true in the raws. Well, the way creature materials work, females technically do have the venom as well, but only the male has an attack to inject it.
Hmm... redundant organs huh?
Also when I thought about it...
Animalmen who are "builder" insects should go by different tags. Namely Bees, Termites, Ants, and Me! (kidding!)
Think Toady will finish the animalmen and werecreature of his current animals too?
Post by: Moddan on June 12, 2011, 04:10:26 am
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on June 12, 2011, 05:47:07 am
And no I'm not just saying this because weasels aren't in yet.
Post by: Yoink on June 12, 2011, 05:53:24 am
Post by: Neonivek on June 12, 2011, 05:57:00 am
Oh well, at least I get to play as a squidman adventurer(a la Davy Jones), with an axe in each of my face-tentacles, hacking ten-plus people apart at once. :)
Well I believe you have to mod.
I certainly look forward to the day when the sentient creatures are less bared to you.
In fact...
Toady, any plans for when are we going to be able to play the other non-(semi)megabeast sentiences in adventure mode? You added so many but so far only three are playable without modding, though not all of them may be what you envision as playable either
Pretty sure that has been asked though I have no way of filtering though it all. (no I am not asking for the next playable sentient)
Post by: Drevlin on June 12, 2011, 06:15:35 am
The truetype font support does that. You can turn that on in init, though it's not really done yet because Baughn got a job part way through doing it.like what we have now with the true type fonts support?
No, what i meant was the sharing of the symbols between the text interface (like the "prepare to the journey" screen) and the graphic tiles.
When using a tileset (I use phoebus') for example the male symbol is replaced with a bag, or the "<" with a staircase, and that can be misleading if you are in an interface screen. (The vanilla version obviously is not affected by this problem).
I'm sorry if I can't explain myself well, I'm not a native English speaker. (I put this on my signature as well)
I tried it and like you said it's a bit broken, but at least there is some kind of support, good to know! :)
I have some questions about the development cycle: The next release will be the "Caravan Arc Release 2" or it's unrelated and involves only night creatures and curses? There are other arcs that are overlapping with the caravan arc? (Some of you talk about a new army arc)
Post by: Jiharo on June 12, 2011, 06:52:28 am
I have some questions about the development cycle: The next release will be the "Caravan Arc Release 2" or it's unrelated and involves only night creatures and curses? There are other arcs that are overlapping with the caravan arc? (Some of you talk about a new army arc)
Next release will be "Caravan Arc release 1." It is going to include new town maps and night creature stuff.
After that there'll be some bugfixing releases and then on to "release 2" which may or may not include more that is stated on the schedule. Army arc is supposed to be after entire Caravan Arc (those nine scheduled releases) is finished.
A question: was there any mention of plans for all those animal-headed people in DF Talks or elsewhere? It looks like there is quite a lot of them and will be even more but they don't seem to play any role in worldgen or anywhere. On devpage there is a snippet of them being grouped with protectors of wildlife, I wonder if they can have other "uses".
Post by: Drevlin on June 12, 2011, 08:54:52 am
Next release will be "Caravan Arc release 1." It is going to include new town maps and night creature stuff.
After that there'll be some bugfixing releases and then on to "release 2" which may or may not include more that is stated on the schedule. Army arc is supposed to be after entire Caravan Arc (those nine scheduled releases) is finished.
Thanks!
Post by: KillerClowns on June 12, 2011, 09:46:02 am
Post by: Serrational on June 12, 2011, 09:48:21 am
Post by: Neonivek on June 12, 2011, 09:51:27 am
If this was Octopus fortress the humans would be the ones with the [corrupt_intentions] tag.
Post by: Korbac on June 12, 2011, 10:00:55 am
Post by: Lord Shonus on June 12, 2011, 10:07:09 am
Post by: Untelligent on June 12, 2011, 10:37:16 am
Post by: EmeraldWind on June 12, 2011, 10:58:13 am
Well if your not going to actually use the animal then there was no point in including it in the drive for the most part.
Though I am confused. So Toady actually has to create by hand every Beastman and every Werebeast? I thought it was a template creature.
Werebeasts are randomly generated as a part of a curse and Toady doesn't need to create them individually. (Though it is possible to create one yourself using the RAWs if you want a specific werebeast to appear in your world.)
Beastmen and Giant Beasts though are done by hand it seems.
Post by: Korbac on June 12, 2011, 11:22:21 am
Post by: Beardless on June 12, 2011, 11:35:37 am
I certainly look forward to the day when the sentient creatures are less bared to you.
Is there a bug regarding clothing in adventure mode?*
Post by: Neonivek on June 12, 2011, 12:07:50 pm
Post by: Sizik on June 12, 2011, 02:14:06 pm
Never really liked this animal drive thing, he's spending a lot of time on animals that may as well get replaced down the line by a more procedural animal production system. Such as instead of having cows and bison we just have a bovine type that gets different traits based on it's biome and a few random doodads added.
And no I'm not just saying this because weasels aren't in yet.
That would be more appropriate as a world gen option, so you don't have to learn what all of the randomly-generated are each time you create a world.
Post by: tfaal on June 12, 2011, 08:43:01 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on June 12, 2011, 10:49:50 pm
Will tortoise men tuck into their shells? That would be adorable.
Man... I love being a turtle.
Post by: fivex on June 12, 2011, 10:57:35 pm
Post by: DeKaFu on June 13, 2011, 12:50:19 am
Are there any plans to make surnames pass down in family lines? As it is now, it's very difficult to get a sense of families as a unit, because there's no way to tell if people are related without going out of your way to check for it.
Even if it's an option that's set prior to worldgen, it could make so much difference in making the larger world appear cohesive and less random in adventure mode. Being able to recognize relatives of people you'd met before at a glance would be amazing.
Post by: Bralbaard on June 13, 2011, 02:04:55 am
Post by: Aqizzar on June 13, 2011, 03:26:40 am
I'm sad that crabs probably won't make it into the first release, by the sound of things. I'm not sure what kind of signature mechanic they could add, besides maybe mating dances.
Post by: thvaz on June 13, 2011, 03:40:10 am
Anyway, today Toady returns development to city markets?
Post by: bluephoenix on June 13, 2011, 03:47:24 am
I'm sad that crabs probably won't make it into the first release, by the sound of things. I'm not sure what kind of signature mechanic they could add, besides maybe mating dances.Maybe by introducing mating dances, we would get rid of "spores" since the crabs would probably have to be in close proximity of one another for the mating dance.
Post by: rex mortis on June 13, 2011, 05:03:23 am
On the contrary, because it's a magical curse it does magic things. Such as change the chromosomes in every single cell in your body and creates a fully functional reproductive system of the other gender. So for example, you end up in a completely female body, but have a lifetime of memories of a male. You cannot tell anyone, because they'd know you are cursed.YAPPAPPA- YAPPAPPA- II SHAN TENThe hell is this moonspeak?
hashagu koi wa ike no koi
YAPPAPA- YAPPAPPA- II SHAN TEN
mune no tai wa dakareTAI
The whole gender changing curses seems to be a fairly common trope in fantasy games. I don't have much doubt that it will find it way into Dwarf Fortress at some point.
Be interesting if Toady decides to go with the whole gender change thing or just changing appearence, guys having children after a gender bender curse seems a bit iffy to me...
Well ok, if you are female and pregnant when you change gender, it's a bit icky. Maybe abortion?
Post by: Gamerlord on June 13, 2011, 06:08:36 am
Post by: darkflagrance on June 13, 2011, 06:48:52 am
When Toady mentioned Kiwimen, I thought it meant fruit-men, like the plump-helmet-men.
I'm sad that crabs probably won't make it into the first release, by the sound of things. I'm not sure what kind of signature mechanic they could add, besides maybe mating dances.
They could be parasitized by that worm that takes over the gonads of the crab, basically turns it female, wraps its tendrils over the entire crab, and then has the crab pop out parasite babies for the rest of its life. A nightmarishly dramatic transformation-reproducing syndrome like that would be worthy of an addition.
Post by: DeKaFu on June 13, 2011, 08:38:13 am
They could be parasitized by that worm that takes over the gonads of the crab, basically turns it female, wraps its tendrils over the entire crab, and then has the crab pop out parasite babies for the rest of its life. A nightmarishly dramatic transformation-reproducing syndrome like that would be worthy of an addition.
This reminds me. What with all the giant mushrooms that already abound, I'd be totally ecstatic to see some cordyceps all up in here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKjBIBBAL8).
Urist McInfected has begun acting strangely...
Post by: scriver on June 13, 2011, 10:50:43 am
Post by: Areyar on June 13, 2011, 12:42:41 pm
This sounds like too tempting a surprise feature for Toady to pass up. ;)
Post by: Zared on June 13, 2011, 03:09:12 pm
Next version, any dwarf that starts to alternately display a plumphelmet symbol or have tendrils of fungus emerging from his/her beard after visiting the underland caverns, will be locked outside -or better yet- incinerated in magma!I do hope so! We really only need two tokens. (one of which we might already be getting). First, we need the ability for syndromes to alter behavior. It appears we'll at least be able to make creatures to berserk/aggressive. Perhaps it will be low-hanging fruit to also be able to have them go melancholy or into gibbering insanity. That lets us add insanity syndromes to heavy metals, too :)
This sounds like too tempting a surprise feature for Toady to pass up. ;)
And then, obviously, we need the "give birth to nightmare inducing abomination" token as suggested by darkflagrance ;) A syndrome token that causes the infected creature to give birth to a specified race would be super cool for more than just this one thing. Xenomorphs from the Alien movies, for example. Bonus points if it allows for the specification of a different caste distribution than the default for the target race. So that you could have a race with a few casts, but one of them has 0 probability of being born. But the ones that can be born can infect other creatures, and those creatures give birth to the third caste. That would need a lot of work to function in world-gen, though. Or perhaps not, since night creatures already do something similar in world-gen.
Along those lines, a curse that causes a person to give birth to assorted random monsters (forgotten beast generator style) is a very mythological sort of curse to be meted out by vengeful gods. (OK, I think the Greek monsters like Hydra, the Nemean Lion etc were birthed by a titan, not a mortal woman, but still!) It may even be a way to keep a world's forgotten beast/titan populations up, rather than allowing forgotten beasts to reproduce directly, which has been suggested. An epic-level quest might be to find and kill a women cursed by the gods to give birth to monsters for all eternity. Sounds easy until you remember that she'll be surrounded by a menagerie of forgotten beasts!
Post by: Jiri Petru on June 13, 2011, 03:39:25 pm
That would be very useful.
Post by: EmeraldWind on June 13, 2011, 04:48:12 pm
Will tortoise men tuck into their shells? That would be adorable.Man... I love being a turtle.
Was I the only one who looked at turtle-men and thought, "god, i have to mod in ninja weapons and strips to cover the eyes"
No, you were not. I was wondering if a ninja rat-man could adopt them.
Dwarf: We found an enemy inside the fort, sir. It killed two guards and ran off with a lot of our cheese, a bunch of flour, and a whole bush of that strange red fruit we found growing outside. We also think it was responsible for the missing pig meat and plump helmets from yesterday as well.
Overseer: Hmmm... Sounds like whatever it is must be suffering from a mood... what kind of strange artifact is it trying make, I wonder...
Next version, any dwarf that starts to alternately display a plumphelmet symbol or have tendrils of fungus emerging from his/her beard after visiting the underland caverns, will be locked outside -or better yet- incinerated in magma!I do hope so! We really only need two tokens. (one of which we might already be getting). First, we need the ability for syndromes to alter behavior. It appears we'll at least be able to make creatures to berserk/aggressive. Perhaps it will be low-hanging fruit to also be able to have them go melancholy or into gibbering insanity. That lets us add insanity syndromes to heavy metals, too :)
This sounds like too tempting a surprise feature for Toady to pass up. ;)
And then, obviously, we need the "give birth to nightmare inducing abomination" token as suggested by darkflagrance ;) A syndrome token that causes the infected creature to give birth to a specified race would be super cool for more than just this one thing. Xenomorphs from the Alien movies, for example. Bonus points if it allows for the specification of a different caste distribution than the default for the target race. So that you could have a race with a few casts, but one of them has 0 probability of being born. But the ones that can be born can infect other creatures, and those creatures give birth to the third caste. That would need a lot of work to function in world-gen, though. Or perhaps not, since night creatures already do something similar in world-gen.
Along those lines, a curse that causes a person to give birth to assorted random monsters (forgotten beast generator style) is a very mythological sort of curse to be meted out by vengeful gods. (OK, I think the Greek monsters like Hydra, the Nemean Lion etc were birthed by a titan, not a mortal woman, but still!) It may even be a way to keep a world's forgotten beast/titan populations up, rather than allowing forgotten beasts to reproduce directly, which has been suggested. An epic-level quest might be to find and kill a women cursed by the gods to give birth to monsters for all eternity. Sounds easy until you remember that she'll be surrounded by a menagerie of forgotten beasts!
Whoa... sounds kind of like Stephen King's Dreamcatcher...
I like the idea of mushrooms attaching as parasites to dwarves... reminds me of the mushroom status effect from Earthbound. (The dwarf can slowly start growing a mushroom on his head... until *pop* it falls off... ready to ensnare a new victim... unless said dwarf is dumb enough to eat it again...)
Post by: Korbac on June 13, 2011, 04:51:54 pm
Was I the only one who looked at turtle-men and thought, "god, i have to mod in ninja weapons and strips to cover the eyes"
I was actually planning to mod these in last week, but looks like Toady's doing it now! :D
Post by: EvilTwin on June 13, 2011, 05:21:01 pm
Next version, any dwarf that starts to alternately display a plumphelmet symbol or have tendrils of fungus emerging from his/her beard after visiting the underland caverns, will be locked outside -or better yet- incinerated in magma!I do hope so! We really only need two tokens. (one of which we might already be getting). First, we need the ability for syndromes to alter behavior. It appears we'll at least be able to make creatures to berserk/aggressive. Perhaps it will be low-hanging fruit to also be able to have them go melancholy or into gibbering insanity. That lets us add insanity syndromes to heavy metals, too :)
This sounds like too tempting a surprise feature for Toady to pass up. ;)
And then, obviously, we need the "give birth to nightmare inducing abomination" token as suggested by darkflagrance ;) A syndrome token that causes the infected creature to give birth to a specified race would be super cool for more than just this one thing. Xenomorphs from the Alien movies, for example. Bonus points if it allows for the specification of a different caste distribution than the default for the target race. So that you could have a race with a few casts, but one of them has 0 probability of being born. But the ones that can be born can infect other creatures, and those creatures give birth to the third caste. That would need a lot of work to function in world-gen, though. Or perhaps not, since night creatures already do something similar in world-gen.
Along those lines, a curse that causes a person to give birth to assorted random monsters (forgotten beast generator style) is a very mythological sort of curse to be meted out by vengeful gods. (OK, I think the Greek monsters like Hydra, the Nemean Lion etc were birthed by a titan, not a mortal woman, but still!) It may even be a way to keep a world's forgotten beast/titan populations up, rather than allowing forgotten beasts to reproduce directly, which has been suggested. An epic-level quest might be to find and kill a women cursed by the gods to give birth to monsters for all eternity. Sounds easy until you remember that she'll be surrounded by a menagerie of forgotten beasts!
so we herd u liek megabeasts, so we put a megabeast inside you, so you be beast while besting beasts.
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on June 13, 2011, 06:11:45 pm
Post by: G-Flex on June 13, 2011, 06:27:34 pm
Crabs should add proper mechanics for claws and their strength.
That would be very useful.
This is true for pretty much every animal in DF. They're very ill-differentiated at the moment, most quadrapeds falling within two or three different body types with little to no variation between them, hence oddities like herbivores biting harder than alligators.
Post by: Talanic on June 13, 2011, 08:14:11 pm
From there, the player should be able to produce foods that cause them to adapt into better castes, including gaining genders and allowing for hive queens.
Alternatively (or additionally), if there's a way, I intend to spray down invaders with a manufactured goop that causes them to split into more drones. I hope that transformation syndromes allow you to specify whether or not the transformation is permanent, as well as whether or not the creature receives a new soul (and therefore new allegiances, mental attributes, loses all old skills / attachments, etc.) I sincerely hope we'll be able to do that.
Post by: Chronas on June 14, 2011, 07:19:26 am
My only sadness is for the lack of curses/syndromes adding parts; sure a dwarf cursed with a head the size of a beachball is absolutely hilarious, but i still really love the idea of a Harold style bonsai tree growing out of someone's head, which leaves a good question.
Can undead get syndromes/curses?
I'd assume the common cold would be beneath them, but a future curse causing rapid bone rot in undead given by an adventurer with a holy secret makes sense.
Post by: KillerClowns on June 14, 2011, 08:50:39 am
Can undead get syndromes/curses?
It's a logical assumption. Most mortal creatures have [CREATURE_CLASS:GENERAL_POISON] that causes them to be affected by the usual syndromes; venom, poison clouds, et cetera. Forcing any "undead" to have [CREATURE_CLASS:UNDEAD] or some such would make them vulnerable to poisons that were explicitly designed to damage non-specific undead with [SYN_AFFECTED_CLASS:UNDEAD], be they procedurally generated or modded in.
Post by: Lord Shonus on June 14, 2011, 12:01:28 pm
Post by: irdsm on June 14, 2011, 08:23:46 pm
I don't mind reading about slow days at all, personally. Don't feel bad or slow down because of it, at least 1 person appreciates it. But I hope you don't feel compelled to overdo it if you hate frequent updates either.
:D
Post by: G-Flex on June 14, 2011, 08:30:43 pm
Can undead get syndromes/curses?
It's a logical assumption. Most mortal creatures have [CREATURE_CLASS:GENERAL_POISON] that causes them to be affected by the usual syndromes; venom, poison clouds, et cetera. Forcing any "undead" to have [CREATURE_CLASS:UNDEAD] or some such would make them vulnerable to poisons that were explicitly designed to damage non-specific undead with [SYN_AFFECTED_CLASS:UNDEAD], be they procedurally generated or modded in.
Could you guarantee that a procedurally generated creature belongs to that class, though?
Post by: Zesty on June 14, 2011, 08:31:03 pm
Quote
I suppose this is the sort of day that doesn't usually get a dev log.
Not at all. Glad to get these daily updates about where you're at. It keeps me interested and endlessly fascinated by the process.
Post by: tfaal on June 14, 2011, 08:35:51 pm
I think he was saying that, in the days before daily updates, this is the kind of day that would be left out. Nonetheless, I agree wholeheartedly; even for uneventful days, being kept up to date with the development of the game helps to abate my impatience for the release.QuoteI suppose this is the sort of day that doesn't usually get a dev log.
Not at all. Glad to get these daily updates about where you're at. It keeps me interested and endlessly fascinated by the process.
Post by: thvaz on June 15, 2011, 01:54:26 am
Post by: Quatch on June 15, 2011, 07:55:20 am
QuoteI suppose this is the sort of day that doesn't usually get a dev log.
Not at all. Glad to get these daily updates about where you're at. It keeps me interested and endlessly fascinated by the process.
Yep, I too appreciate the update.
Post by: Footkerchief on June 15, 2011, 12:19:19 pm
I have a feeling this must have been covered before, but I'm throwing it out here anyway, especially in light of how adventure mode/legends are just going to keep getting more interesting now...
Are there any plans to make surnames pass down in family lines? As it is now, it's very difficult to get a sense of families as a unit, because there's no way to tell if people are related without going out of your way to check for it.
Some old research: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg719986#msg719986)
Quote from: Footkerchief
Quote from: TaritusAlrighty, there's something that's always bugged me. I like to start fortresses in worlds without a living dwarf civilization, because I like the whole building a fortress over time via births, and I've noticed that children don't take the name of either their father or mother. I'm wondering if in the next release there will be any changes to inheritance of names or if there is some cultural reason that's acting as a placeholder for now as to why dwarves don't have family names.
Dug this up from an ancient thread on that very topic:It's true, due to sheer laziness there are no rules for name transfer. If I do that, it'd be part of the civ defs and randomizable probably.
Oh, and this too...I'm afraid to see p/matronym based names once adventurers start having kids now that name entry is in. My child would have had the F word!
Post by: Untelligent on June 15, 2011, 12:32:18 pm
'course nowadays we have a whole bunch of abstracted population in worldgen so I'm not sure whether that would still be an issue.
Post by: PTTG?? on June 15, 2011, 12:41:34 pm
I imagine players locking Bombreck Gripboats and Urist Steelbodice in a room, chuckling merrily.
Post by: monk12 on June 15, 2011, 01:13:17 pm
It'd be interesting to see dwarves take one part of the compound name from one parent, and one part from the other.
I imagine players locking Bombreck Gripboats and Urist Steelbodice in a room, chuckling merrily.
Bismark Steelboats!
Post by: Livonya on June 15, 2011, 01:38:52 pm
QuoteI suppose this is the sort of day that doesn't usually get a dev log.
Not at all. Glad to get these daily updates about where you're at. It keeps me interested and endlessly fascinated by the process.
Absolutely. I check the dev log at least once a day, and even a tiny somewhat unexciting post is better than nothing.
So bravo for the unexciting dev log!
Post by: freeformschooler on June 15, 2011, 03:24:40 pm
Post by: Ves on June 15, 2011, 05:16:03 pm
Post by: tfaal on June 15, 2011, 06:01:00 pm
Post by: Rift on June 15, 2011, 08:03:47 pm
Quote
...an elf bone carver running a bone craft shop. I guess the forest got knocked all the way out of that one.
hehe.. reformed elves.
Post by: Ale and Axes on June 15, 2011, 08:21:27 pm
Post by: Neonivek on June 16, 2011, 01:20:59 am
Good to hear that urban elves aren't as pansy as their wild kin.
You seen Legends mode right? They are anything but a pansy.
Post by: Untelligent on June 16, 2011, 01:30:58 am
Post by: Neonivek on June 16, 2011, 01:33:01 am
Pfft, they only mercilessly devour their foes because it's some nature thing and they don't want to waste their kills. If they were truly badass they'd do it because they were bored and/or hungry.
They they will devour creatures made of metal or who are otherwise poisonous... WHOLE!
Post by: G-Flex on June 16, 2011, 01:34:54 am
Good to hear that urban elves aren't as pansy as their wild kin.
You seen Legends mode right? They are anything but a pansy.
Or read ThreeToe's stories, for that matter.
Post by: Caldfir on June 16, 2011, 10:32:36 am
Post by: monk12 on June 16, 2011, 11:09:10 am
As it makes sense for two civs who were recently at war and will likely war again to avoid shipping one another weapons.
Post by: greenskye on June 16, 2011, 12:44:24 pm
Will trade embargoes be handled at some point in the Caravan Arc?
As it makes sense for two civs who were recently at war and will likely war again to avoid shipping one another weapons.
I love how in dwarf fortress you can buy weapons from elves and then turn around and murder them with it. Always annoyed me that NPCs tend to be invulnerable.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on June 16, 2011, 01:49:40 pm
This brings up an interesting question; if elves are going to start being able to trade for metal armor and weapons... aren't they going to just steamroll everybody in worldgen?
i think they generally confine their attacks to their native forests. and i think they use wooden weapons because of ethical reasons
Post by: scriver on June 16, 2011, 02:23:32 pm
Post by: Chronas on June 16, 2011, 02:26:35 pm
Always annoyed me that NPCs tend to be invulnerable.Oh no, NPCs are definately not invulnerable. you just cant target them with your army.
A well connected lever on the other hand...
Post by: scriver on June 16, 2011, 02:30:15 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on June 16, 2011, 02:34:33 pm
Post by: Spish on June 16, 2011, 06:24:36 pm
You can do that now, actually.Always annoyed me that NPCs tend to be invulnerable.Oh no, NPCs are definately not invulnerable. you just cant target them with your army.
Post by: thvaz on June 16, 2011, 06:35:00 pm
Post by: Mantonio on June 17, 2011, 02:26:27 am
Apologies if this has been asked before.
Post by: Neonivek on June 17, 2011, 05:25:37 am
I don't think so. The only reason they don't use metal is because they lack the means or will for metalsmithing. Metal and rock are those "more ethical" products the elves mention they like when you trade with them. It's bone and wood they find unethical, their wood is supposedly better because they don't overexploit the forest or only use dead wood or something. Come to think or it, it's a bit weirs they don't use the bones of naturally dead or the ones they kill - if they have to eat their foes to not waste the meat, how fome they think it's okay to waste the bones? They make perfect arrows, clubs, tools and bowls.
It is very possible they see bone tools as a sort of trophy... either that or bones are their "Too far" point where you start to devour someone's soul (though that would make the Hyena an evil creature to the elves). Either that or bones are considered too macabre.
I mean Dwarves use almost every single part of the animal and the only parts they don't are ones they don't know a use for (and to admit, I question if even the Native Americans could use some of the stuff the Dwarven Surgical Butchers get... I mean could the native americans even cut out a creatures entire nerve system if they tried? Heck could we even do it today?)
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on June 17, 2011, 10:04:57 pm
Post by: Thundercraft on June 18, 2011, 01:03:34 am
Will curses eventually be developed in a way that Adventurers will be able to cure an intelligent creature cursed into an animal form with something as mundane and simple as a kiss or hug?
Similarly, will there be a chance for dwarves in Fortress Mode to encounter a talking cursed creature and the player be given the option to lead their dwarves to find a cure for it... with cured being either joining the fort or giving them some sort of reward?
Post by: Armok on June 18, 2011, 09:12:34 am
I just read "Weaponsmith and Cave Crocodile (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Stories#.22Weaponsmith_and_Cave_Crocodile.22.2C_a_poem_by_Urist_McShakeSpear.)", a poem by Urist McShakeSpear. It's a creative spin on the old cursed frog prince fairytale. And it got me thinking about discussions in this thread about ToadyOne's work on curses.This!
Will curses eventually be developed in a way that Adventurers will be able to cure an intelligent creature cursed into an animal form with something as mundane and simple as a kiss or hug?
Similarly, will there be a chance for dwarves in Fortress Mode to encounter a talking cursed creature and the player be given the option to lead their dwarves to find a cure for it... with cured being either joining the fort or giving them some sort of reward?
Also, somehting similar might be usable for the classic "usually harmless but powerful creature gone berserk due to a thorn in it's paw and needs to be cured with kindness and bravery rather than violence" plot.
Post by: Niccolo on June 18, 2011, 10:32:07 am
I mean could the native americans even cut out a creatures entire nerve system if they tried? Heck could we even do it today?)
Short answer? Yes. The major nerves are actually quite thick (surprisingly so) and the minor nerves... well, you can't taste them.
Post by: Karakzon on June 18, 2011, 04:54:25 pm
thats not a tendon. Thats a big ass nerve bundle.
Post by: freeformschooler on June 18, 2011, 08:08:11 pm
Post by: Newbunkle on June 18, 2011, 08:09:54 pm
Also... Mmm, microcline! Best stone ever.
Post by: Niccolo on June 18, 2011, 08:28:06 pm
know when you chew on a chicken leg, and you get that stretchy chewy white long bit?
thats not a tendon. Thats a big ass nerve bundle.
I'm not sure which part you're talking about, 'cause there's a big stretchy chewy white tendon in the chicken leg too. But yes, there is a big fat nerve cord in there.
Post by: penguify on June 18, 2011, 08:31:28 pm
Those look fantastic!No, that's clearly adamantine. Can't you tell the difference? Besides, it's insulting to imply that the humans would ever build a wall out of anything but the very strongest mineral accessible.
Also... Mmm, microcline! Best stone ever.
Wars have been started over lesser offenses. You should apologize, and beg that they spare your miserable life!
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on June 18, 2011, 08:43:03 pm
Wow, the new pictures are amazing. I'll admit, the first tile-level shots were very jarring for me, since the towns fit perfectly into the surrounding terrain... and the original town maps made them look like they existed within a vacuum. I noticed that the portion of @'s vs U's was pretty even-ish; what's the distinction here? Am I remembering wrong and U is used for Elves?
U is human bro.
Post by: freeformschooler on June 18, 2011, 09:28:16 pm
Wow, the new pictures are amazing. I'll admit, the first tile-level shots were very jarring for me, since the towns fit perfectly into the surrounding terrain... and the original town maps made them look like they existed within a vacuum. I noticed that the portion of @'s vs U's was pretty even-ish; what's the distinction here? Am I remembering wrong and U is used for Elves?
U is human bro.
Yes, but aren't the @'s also human? If so what is the distinction? If not, what do they represent? Up until now, I've mostly seen them as only adventurers in the current player's party.
Post by: Toady One on June 18, 2011, 09:56:25 pm
Post by: Neonivek on June 18, 2011, 09:58:53 pm
Behold! Our hero in the quest to find the store before he runs out of food and starves!
Hero: "Dear sir do thee know where the market is?"
Sir: "No Hero, for I have to go mill about in my stead for the next harvest!"
Hero: "Madam do you know where the market is?"
Madam: "I'm Four!"
Hero: "ACK! I am suddenly afflicted with the thirsty!"
Narrator: "Will our hero fall to the thirsty? and how long until he finds the market? Find out on the next episode of Slaves to Armok!"
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on June 18, 2011, 10:00:56 pm
Yes, but aren't the @'s also human? If so what is the distinction? If not, what do they represent? Up until now, I've mostly seen them as only adventurers in the current player's party.Wow, the new pictures are amazing. I'll admit, the first tile-level shots were very jarring for me, since the towns fit perfectly into the surrounding terrain... and the original town maps made them look like they existed within a vacuum. I noticed that the portion of @'s vs U's was pretty even-ish; what's the distinction here? Am I remembering wrong and U is used for Elves?
U is human bro.
I haven't played in forever, but if I recall @ are soldiers and guards, and the adventurer.
Post by: freeformschooler on June 18, 2011, 10:02:59 pm
Getting around is going to be a nightmare of epic proportions!
Behold! Our hero in the quest to find the store before he runs out of food and starves!
SOUNDS LIKE AN RPG I WOULD PLAY
And oh thank you kindly Toady. It does make sense that those screenshots would be taken in fort mode, hehe.
Post by: Neonivek on June 18, 2011, 10:05:11 pm
How are we going to be able to find things in the city? It was unreasonably difficult before cities were HUGE!
Post by: freeformschooler on June 18, 2011, 10:11:29 pm
How are we going to be able to find things in the city? It was unreasonably difficult before cities were HUGE!
I did not find it difficult at all. You could report success to anyone, and a given market usually had 1 or more of every main type of shop you could want, all within 1 or 2 travel map tiles of each other. And you could always find markets by the yellow boxes.
Post by: Neonivek on June 18, 2011, 10:13:06 pm
How are we going to be able to find things in the city? It was unreasonably difficult before cities were HUGE!
I did not find it difficult at all. You could report success to anyone, and a given market usually had 1 or more of every main type of shop you could want, all within 1 or 2 travel map tiles of each other. And you could always find markets by the yellow boxes.
and if it isn't market building or if it isn't in an obvious spot? Heck what if it is a person?
Better yet it is a new city and the buildings are on halfmarks.
Post by: Sir Iryn on June 18, 2011, 10:56:17 pm
First question I've ever asked Toady. Can't believe I've been around this long without pestering the guy.
Post by: inteuniso on June 18, 2011, 11:02:58 pm
Post by: NobodyPro on June 18, 2011, 11:38:42 pm
Will fort-manufactured items that are traded to outside civs now be properly tracked and owned?Items are already tracked and release five will enable this to effect anything.
Post by: Cruxador on June 18, 2011, 11:59:00 pm
Post by: nenjin on June 19, 2011, 12:04:32 am
Post by: Dante on June 19, 2011, 12:26:30 am
Also, some of those houses have saplings growing inside. Hilarious. On the whole, the cities look great though.
Post by: Thundercraft on June 19, 2011, 01:27:16 am
Quote from: zweiSo, how are wounds and missing limbs handled when you transform to something else?It negates wounds now, but I'm considering stockpiling them so that your old wounds reappear when you revert. The difficult part is moving the wounds over to the new form, and I'm not doing that. All medical devices pop out or come off when you transform.
If my left front hoof gets chopped off while i am transnfromed to weregoat, will i miss left hand when i get turned back to humanoid?
...[snip]
Personally, I hope Toady leaves were creatures as negating wounds, rather than having them reappear. For one thing, that is the way it seems to work in the movies and popular culture. (I'm not sure about the mythology.) For another, it makes things simpler.
Post by: Neoskel on June 19, 2011, 01:40:11 am
One would kinda expect shops to be on the ground floor and living quarters on the floor above that. Also, the ratio of shops to regular houses seems pretty crazy right now. The shrine/temple in the third town looked pretty darn dinky squished down like that.
I like the fact that i recognized the sign for furniture stores without having to be told. :D
I didn't see anything that could be the warehouses Toady talked about in earlier devlog posts though.
Also, some of those houses have saplings growing inside. Hilarious.Actually those are probably rat weed or some other food plant.
Post by: Neonivek on June 19, 2011, 01:59:16 am
Quote
and REALLY HIGH ceilings
Oddly enough this wasn't that uncommon for houses to have at least three stories worth of head room.
Post by: Lord Shonus on June 19, 2011, 02:08:47 am
Post by: Khym Chanur on June 19, 2011, 02:25:10 am
2) Are the occasional floor grates ("#") in the paved roads for covering up potholes?
Post by: LoSboccacc on June 19, 2011, 02:55:47 am
Post by: thvaz on June 19, 2011, 02:57:05 am
1) Are those lower case "e"s human children?
2) Are the occasional floor grates ("#") in the paved roads for covering up potholes?
1) They are elves.
2) Most likely.
uhm, I was expecting more monumental temples, akin to how castles are handled. I can't see them in the city, nor in the schematics
In the first city I noticed two temples.
Post by: Akett on June 19, 2011, 02:58:50 am
Post by: David Dark on June 19, 2011, 03:36:52 am
Post by: Toady One on June 19, 2011, 03:43:58 am
It is place the temples on small lots now (it is even screwing up and not picking the best ones for some reason), but when I handle market squares I might give the temples some more room as well. We'll see. They aren't used by people for ceremonies or anything yet, so the floorspace isn't that important yet, but it should be changed.
Post by: thvaz on June 19, 2011, 03:46:16 am
Otherwise, great work! I am now more anxious than before.
Post by: Areyar on June 19, 2011, 03:54:50 am
Loving the metropolitan feel of the place. :D Lots of elves and dwarves in this human town, haven't spotted any kobold yet, but assume those hide themselves in the sewers? No goblins either...town at war or are goblins just to antisocial to be allowed into town?
About the varied grate colours: I understand production of stuff is varied in material. Yet, wouldn't this be a most typical item a mayor would mandate? identical grates of a single type of metal/stone.
Buildings built out of different materials is more likely...I think Tarn mentioned this in a talk though.
I did not see any stairs/hatches leading down into the sewrs/crypts/cellars. Nor food stockpiles in any inns.
also : bottomright town1 119 : this building is filled with tables, those people in the backroom are going to starve unless they can destroy/move the furnitre around.
Post by: Knight Otu on June 19, 2011, 04:23:09 am
Nor food stockpiles in any inns.Well, there are no inns yet, so there wouldn't be any food stockpiles in them anyway. I didn't see any food shops though, now that you mention it. Also, two shop types are currently always empty, one of them with the general store/cloth sign, and the other with the crown(?) sign, so I guess there's still some things to be done. And just noticed that the shop chests aren't placed for the shopkeepers to keep their money - or is that in cabinets now?
also : bottomright town1 119 : this building is filled with tables, those people in the backroom are going to starve unless they can destroy/move the furnitre around.Tables don't block movement. Shopping would be pretty hard if they did the way things work right now.
Post by: eux0r on June 19, 2011, 05:53:44 am
/offtopic
toady, what percentage of the game or how many features(just a number is enough for me), if anything at all, would you personally consider finished(in the sense of not being a placeholder for something else to come)?
Post by: thvaz on June 19, 2011, 06:11:11 am
hm, i have the impression the towns dont really feel natural or logical. dont get me wrong, i think they really look awesome and interesting, just not too much like real towns. but i might also be totally off, i guess one needs to walk in them as an adventurer first to be able to get an impression of whats really going on.
Do you mean they don't look like real modern towns or real medieval towns?
I think they are very organic-looking. They don't look planned in any way. There are a lot of details lacking (like windows on the houses, bins, proper floors (at least on the shops) and workshops (where the goods are produced?)
Post by: Areyar on June 19, 2011, 07:12:09 am
>Yeah, noticed too that the chests were gone. Oh well, this is a peek into the development of town layout. We are expecting too much pollish. ;)Nor food stockpiles in any inns.Well, there are no inns yet, so there wouldn't be any food stockpiles in them anyway. I didn't see any food shops though, now that you mention it. Also, two shop types are currently always empty, one of them with the general store/cloth sign, and the other with the crown(?) sign, so I guess there's still some things to be done. And just noticed that the shop chests aren't placed for the shopkeepers to keep their money - or is that in cabinets now?
>I figured the shops with the leather-symbol (béta) were inns, because of the beds and cabinets.
>Anyhow, I'd prefer it when the bulk of goods were stored in a warehouse/backroom/attic/cellar and only a selection of goods were presented on tables/cabinets/chests in the actual shop.
e.g. Talk to a shopkeeper to request more of a certain type of item and get told to come back tomorrow or in a few hours, so that shopboy can go to stockpile and retrieve the goods.
Same concept for clothiers etc: to have them produce fitted items. As is, it can be very frustrating to be a rich dwarf tombraider. :p
Tables don't block movement. Shopping would be pretty hard if they did the way things work right now.huh? I thought they did.
Post by: Rafal99 on June 19, 2011, 08:37:08 am
Do they all have mud or dust piles under them, or is it a new way to show movable items (so you can differentiate them from placed furniture) ?
Edit: Nevermind. I just checked it in 0.31.25 and it looks the same. The background seems to mean that an item is placed on a table.
Post by: LordZorintrhox on June 19, 2011, 09:57:31 am
One advantage is that it creates a road system that preserves some sense of 'blocks' fairly well, which in terms of navigability is a good thing for gameplay.
Post by: Footkerchief on June 19, 2011, 10:47:27 am
How are we going to be able to find things in the city? It was unreasonably difficult before cities were HUGE!
This mostly came up before: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2154630#msg2154630)
Quote from: Toady One
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.
toady, what percentage of the game or how many features(just a number is enough for me), if anything at all, would you personally consider finished(in the sense of not being a placeholder for something else to come)?
[...] on the subject of version numbering, 0.31 referred at the time to 31 of the specific dev 100 core items being finished. Then we changed dev systems and the version number was on hold for a while. Now it refers to being 0% complete done with a new list that counts for 0.69 of the version number, but the new slightly unsettled list pretty much corresponds to the old core items, so it's not much of a change.
The old core items are listed here. (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html)
Post by: scriver on June 19, 2011, 11:06:56 am
Post by: KillerClowns on June 19, 2011, 11:10:10 am
Post by: Footkerchief on June 19, 2011, 11:15:16 am
What are the plans for obtaining armor to fit non-humans? Will an elven/dwarvern smith in a human city produce armor sized for their kind in the human style, or will non-humans have to rely on imports?
This was partly addressed earlier: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1776138#msg1776138)
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: Lord ShonusWill 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.
Post by: Greiger on June 19, 2011, 11:17:36 am
Of course I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. Maybe if the humies just made and sold a small supply of armor sized for the different civs in their shops. It is a fantasy world after all, doesn't seem too absurd for an armorsmith to have clients of different sizes come in now and then. Especially since those that do visit the city are likely travelers that have more use for armor than the average citydweller.
EDIT: Thanks Foot.
Post by: Jiri Petru on June 19, 2011, 12:44:48 pm
I think one reason the towns look a little artificial is how the road system is created
I wholeheartedly agree (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2196577#msg2196577).
EDIT: But I still find the current towns great and fascinating.
Post by: Areyar on June 19, 2011, 02:22:06 pm
At the least, inhabitant race should have an impact on demand for specific racial items in the overall trade balance of a comunity/site.
Post by: Psieye on June 19, 2011, 02:44:49 pm
Given the percentage of non-humans living in cities, there should be a lively trade in goods for these minorities as well.However, given the other races adopt the culture of the humans when settling in human cities, all that means is more booze and small clothing. Somebody is going to make a post once the new version hits exclaiming "I found an elf who's a woodcrafter!"
At the least, inhabitant race should have an impact on demand for specific racial items in the overall trade balance of a comunity/site.
Post by: Cruxador on June 19, 2011, 03:05:20 pm
Yeah, those are sewer grates that connect down into the sewer system, with a shaft when necessary (you can see the shafts in some of the pictures, like in the black part near the top of Town 1, el 119, with corresponding grates at el 120).Seems to me it would be ideal to have a pretty wide range of temple sizes, considering that throughout history, there's pretty much always been both large, grand places of worship for those who could afford to build such a thing, and smaller churches for folks living in poorer and more remote areas, for less popular gods, or even just for people who didn't or couldn't fit in the big church. I don't know how many non-me people would like to wait for the implementation, but I'd certainly consider it worthwhile.
It is place the temples on small lots now (it is even screwing up and not picking the best ones for some reason), but when I handle market squares I might give the temples some more room as well. We'll see. They aren't used by people for ceremonies or anything yet, so the floorspace isn't that important yet, but it should be changed.
Post by: Neonivek on June 19, 2011, 03:05:51 pm
Quote
to provide a new zoomed-in-3x map splitting the travel map that a resolution appropriate for all city travel.
Yep that works.
Partially... Actually I'd have to see that in action. In fact... It may not be enough... hmmm *thinkgs hard*
Post by: Jiri Petru on June 19, 2011, 04:08:38 pm
Given the percentage of non-humans living in cities, there should be a lively trade in goods for these minorities as well.
At the least, inhabitant race should have an impact on demand for specific racial items in the overall trade balance of a comunity/site.
Ideally, clothings wouldn't even be sold in shops - you'd either have to order a tailor-made piece (if you were rich), or purchase cloth and have your wife stitch something (if you were poor). Clothing shops are a result of industrial revolution and mas productions.
But I guess the same goes for most other DF industries as well (for example, I don't think there should be furniture shops). The game is full of anachronisms. Except bees. Those are historically correct, for some reason. :)
Post by: Lac on June 19, 2011, 05:58:19 pm
I didn't see anything that could be the warehouses Toady talked about in earlier devlog posts though.Neoskel, found this for you:
Huh. In the schematics, there are pretty big dark-gray buildings with thick lines around them, one for each town. Where these buildings are in Toady's embark area, only their empty ceiling area is shown, and they have many internal walls. Are those warehouses, perhaps?
Yeah, those are the warehouses. Fill every tile in them with random items of every variety you see in the shops and you have the picture. Bins in time.
Post by: eux0r on June 19, 2011, 06:36:01 pm
toady, what percentage of the game or how many features(just a number is enough for me), if anything at all, would you personally consider finished(in the sense of not being a placeholder for something else to come)?[...] on the subject of version numbering, 0.31 referred at the time to 31 of the specific dev 100 core items being finished. Then we changed dev systems and the version number was on hold for a while. Now it refers to being 0% complete done with a new list that counts for 0.69 of the version number, but the new slightly unsettled list pretty much corresponds to the old core items, so it's not much of a change.
The old core items are listed here. (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html)
i have the impression im seriously unable to formulate my questions the right way, cause i often get answers id not have expected: im aware there are those goals(although thanks for finding that link again) but its like one could say "goal XYZ is implemented" and deduce from the version-number how many 'XYZ's there are but its obvious counting stuff like "hauling is implemented" would be wrong. and that one is just the most obvious example, there are others like ghosts(does the possesion thing that was mentioned make ghost like they exist right now a placeholder for the final ghosts? what about more ways of getting ghosts and what factors influence what type you get? whats the placeholder here?), or shops or tables(will one always be able to walk through them? does that count as the furniture itself being a placeholder? or is it just a placeholder for walking-mechanics?)...
well anyways i hope that makes clear what i wanted to ask if not, ill try asking 'from the other side':
toady, how many percent of the implemented content would you consider still being a place-holder for a more complex/different/somehow overhauled version? (im not expecting more than a subjective guess here)
hm, i have the impression the towns dont really feel natural or logical. dont get me wrong, i think they really look awesome and interesting, just not too much like real towns. but i might also be totally off, i guess one needs to walk in them as an adventurer first to be able to get an impression of whats really going on.
Do you mean they don't look like real modern towns or real medieval towns?
I think they are very organic-looking. They don't look planned in any way. There are a lot of details lacking (like windows on the houses, bins, proper floors (at least on the shops) and workshops (where the goods are produced?)
i guess for me, its a massing of smaller stuff like:
-buildings being forced to the same height for big parts and too high buildings
-2-square-thick-walls where a singe wall would be used
-strange wall-like 1-square-long hills(/dunes?) or pits
-placement of furniture and items in a way i can absolutely not understand(storage as the entrance-room / rooms with randomly scattered tables, cabinets, beds(a bed in the middle of a room?) and chairs / ... )
-inaccessible spaces(surrounded by buildings and no doors towards the surrounded space)
-stretched buildings with 4 rooms in a row and decreasing amounts of content starting from the entrance
so overall they just dont look like any town, neither modern nor medieval, because there is too much stuff where i would think: wtf, who would _do_ something like that?
but while all those things are problems, i assume toady is well aware of, youre absolutely right that on first glance they look very organic and have a good overall feel.
EDIT:
if anyone feels any of my formatting of the text is sub-optimal please feel free to tell me, every suggestion on improving the readability is welcome
Post by: BishopX on June 19, 2011, 07:18:16 pm
Given the percentage of non-humans living in cities, there should be a lively trade in goods for these minorities as well.
At the least, inhabitant race should have an impact on demand for specific racial items in the overall trade balance of a comunity/site.
Ideally, clothings wouldn't even be sold in shops - you'd either have to order a tailor-made piece (if you were rich), or purchase cloth and have your wife stitch something (if you were poor). Clothing shops are a result of industrial revolution and mas productions.
But I guess the same goes for most other DF industries as well (for example, I don't think there should be furniture shops). The game is full of anachronisms. Except bees. Those are historically correct, for some reason. :)
Durable goods, such as furniture, were produced and then sold prior to the industrial revolution. If you look at colonial era American furniture, much of it was produced and then shipped long distances before it was sold (e.g. there wasn't much of a furniture industry in the American south, most of the high quality furniture was imported from the mid Atlantic and new England).
The other issue is that there isn't any public/domestic distinction in DF. Things that would normally be done within a household are done in public instead. If people are going to get all of their meals from a public kitchen workshop, then they might as well get all their clothes and furniture from similar institutions.
A quick aside on the topic of clothing, left and right shoes were introduced early in the industrial revolution. Prior to that everything except from armored boots were produced to fit on both feet.
Post by: Aqizzar on June 19, 2011, 08:38:16 pm
Spoiler: Room with three walls. (click to show/hide)
Post by: Untelligent on June 19, 2011, 08:38:16 pm
-placement of furniture and items in a way i can absolutely not understand(storage as the entrance-room / rooms with randomly scattered tables, cabinets, beds(a bed in the middle of a room?) and chairs / ... )
so overall they just dont look like any town, neither modern nor medieval, because there is too much stuff where i would think: wtf, who would _do_ something like that?
Well, for starters, you just described my garage.
Post by: monk12 on June 19, 2011, 08:42:13 pm
I noticed another bug in one of the maps. On the east, middle-ish side of the first citySpoiler: Room with three walls. (click to show/hide)
It's not a bug, its a feature! Toady has implemented Gazebos.
Post by: Organum on June 19, 2011, 09:40:37 pm
Edit:
:| It's back now, crisis averted.
Post by: Dante on June 19, 2011, 10:30:03 pm
Quote from: devlog
kitty cat head-bumps
Quote from: devlog
touch-range curses
Just throwing that out there... ;D
Post by: Osmosis Jones on June 19, 2011, 10:41:11 pm
Quote from: devlogkitty cat head-bumpsQuote from: devlogtouch-range curses
Just throwing that out there... ;D
Hmmmm wonder if there's anyway to effect a character's luck (a la martial trance, but in reverse). Modded in black cats would be awesome.
Post by: monk12 on June 19, 2011, 11:00:06 pm
Also, kitty cat head-bumps sounds awesome, but I'm curious to see how it comes up in game. I'm waiting to see a legendary cat start bumping dwarven legs off in its bid for attention.
Post by: Psieye on June 19, 2011, 11:36:40 pm
Post by: atomfullerene on June 19, 2011, 11:38:49 pm
It's not a bug, its a feature! Toady has implemented Gazebos.
[/quote]
You must face the Gazebo alone!
Post by: Neonivek on June 20, 2011, 06:28:09 am
Though I still think it is important to have some negative say... Jumping on something and then going "Is it REALLY fixed?" is kinda going towards the line of silly.
It is interesting that Toady actually added "Cleaning" for animals who actually have the ability to effectively clean themselves. Such as Cats who essentially have Soap like saliva.
Now maybe Cats will be able to clean the several layers of crud off of things.
Post by: zwei on June 20, 2011, 06:46:32 am
Now maybe Cats will be able to clean the several layers of crud off of things.
What could possibly go wrong when cat licks off some FB blood from its paws and swallows it...
Post by: freeformschooler on June 20, 2011, 09:27:54 am
Now maybe Cats will be able to clean the several layers of crud off of things.
What could possibly go wrong when cat licks off some FB blood from its paws and swallows it...
Well, for one, perhaps the cat could become a wereforgottenbeast.
I've lost track of the things that will be in this release. There is TOO MANY
Post by: Untelligent on June 20, 2011, 12:18:11 pm
- Giant-ass cities
- Dungeons, catacombs, sewers
- Regional curses, necromancers, tomb-monuments and their mummy-esque denizens, werewolves, vampires, ghosts and haunted houses, frankensteiny things, possibly more night creature types by the release
- Expansion of the syndrome system into the vastly more powerful "interaction" system
- Kiwis, squid, red pandas, ostriches, narwhals, peregrine falcons, giant tortoises, armadillos, with associated new tags
- Cabochons!
Post by: PTTG?? on June 20, 2011, 12:26:47 pm
I for one am really looking forward to a monster drive.
Post by: Jothki on June 20, 2011, 12:49:31 pm
Post by: Khym Chanur on June 20, 2011, 01:06:45 pm
Post by: Neonivek on June 20, 2011, 04:22:32 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on June 20, 2011, 04:26:22 pm
How much do cats actually digest of stuff they are cleaning? I don't THINK they actually injest it... but I am not sure.
I think I know what you're talking about.
Hmm... A dwarven pet that wanders around and rubs up against people. Too bad elves are allergic to it. Caustically so.
Post by: Xaft on June 20, 2011, 04:46:47 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on June 20, 2011, 04:51:31 pm
How much do cats actually digest of stuff they are cleaning? I don't THINK they actually injest it... but I am not sure.
Hairballs suggest that they swallow quite a bit.
Post by: Dae on June 20, 2011, 05:18:01 pm
A "That's what she said" would be particularly inappropriate here, I guess. Oh, well.How much do cats actually digest of stuff they are cleaning? I don't THINK they actually injest it... but I am not sure.
Hairballs suggest that they swallow quite a bit.
Toady, with the new "cleaning" effect in, will you update soap so it uses the new cleaning tag ? Also, does cleaning only remove layers of dirst/blood/whatever or does it have real medical properties, like prevening infections ? Will we be able to mod in adventurer reactions for cleaning wounds ?
If you're trying to understand the deep reason to my question, it would allow reactions of the type "rub yourself with said object/material". And when these are done, not only do they substantially expand modding capacity (allowing on top of my head modding in warpaintings), but they make coating an object with a material a much lower hanging fruit. What I'm failing to do here is subliminally pushing Toady into a possibly awesome feature creep. Sorry about that.
Post by: PlainTextMan on June 20, 2011, 07:45:44 pm
Toady, with the new "cleaning" effect in, will you update soap so it uses the new cleaning tag ? Also, does cleaning only remove layers of dirst/blood/whatever or does it have real medical properties, like prevening infections ? Will we be able to mod in adventurer reactions for cleaning wounds ?
If you're trying to understand the deep reason to my question, it would allow reactions of the type "rub yourself with said object/material". And when these are done, not only do they substantially expand modding capacity (allowing on top of my head modding in warpaintings), but they make coating an object with a material a much lower hanging fruit. What I'm failing to do here is subliminally pushing Toady into a possibly awesome feature creep. Sorry about that.
The awesome would exist if that could be.
Post by: Untelligent on June 20, 2011, 09:48:23 pm
I suppose it's not that important, but it's something that's been bothering me since 31.01.
Post by: Neonivek on June 21, 2011, 01:44:39 am
With the brief material breath attack rewrite, is the minor bug where liquid glob attacks shoot out solid globs instead fixed?
I suppose it's not that important, but it's something that's been bothering me since 31.01.
I kinda wish the solid globs that are supposed to be solid globs would have more force.
Post by: Caldfir on June 21, 2011, 03:24:25 am
Post by: Cruxador on June 21, 2011, 05:33:07 am
I hope firebreath/randombreath/webs/fireballs/flows get merged to the point where they all work within a system that is understandable. Dragonbreath being magic nuclear instadeath (unless you block it!) seems kinda crazy, and almost all the other attacks are messed up in one way or another. It would be especially nice to make some forgotten beast silk socks for Urist to wear to the prom.It would also be nice to have proms for urist to wear his nice silk socks to.
Post by: Niccolo on June 21, 2011, 08:15:58 am
Make a pretty statue garden and burrow all of the children in there. One of them will eventually start a party.I hope firebreath/randombreath/webs/fireballs/flows get merged to the point where they all work within a system that is understandable. Dragonbreath being magic nuclear instadeath (unless you block it!) seems kinda crazy, and almost all the other attacks are messed up in one way or another. It would be especially nice to make some forgotten beast silk socks for Urist to wear to the prom.It would also be nice to have proms for urist to wear his nice silk socks to.
Post by: de5me7 on June 21, 2011, 08:36:25 am
Make a pretty statue garden and burrow all of the children in there. One of them will eventually start a party.I hope firebreath/randombreath/webs/fireballs/flows get merged to the point where they all work within a system that is understandable. Dragonbreath being magic nuclear instadeath (unless you block it!) seems kinda crazy, and almost all the other attacks are messed up in one way or another. It would be especially nice to make some forgotten beast silk socks for Urist to wear to the prom.It would also be nice to have proms for urist to wear his nice silk socks to.
in confinement, and given enough time, it is dwarven nature to PARTY
Post by: LoSboccacc on June 21, 2011, 09:10:58 am
Quote
I hope firebreath/randombreath/webs/fireballs/flows get merged to the point where they all work within a systemthat is understandable.that can be used from players in adventure mode and weaponized in fortress mode
:P
Post by: Niccolo on June 21, 2011, 09:41:47 am
Make a pretty statue garden and burrow all of the children in there. One of them will eventually start a party.I hope firebreath/randombreath/webs/fireballs/flows get merged to the point where they all work within a system that is understandable. Dragonbreath being magic nuclear instadeath (unless you block it!) seems kinda crazy, and almost all the other attacks are messed up in one way or another. It would be especially nice to make some forgotten beast silk socks for Urist to wear to the prom.It would also be nice to have proms for urist to wear his nice silk socks to.
in confinement, and given enough time, it is dwarven nature to PARTY
This can be written as a proper equation.
(http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e334/niccolo101/ProbParty.jpg)
Post by: NSQuote on June 21, 2011, 12:37:32 pm
Anyways, some observations/ideas about cities:
- I don't really like the high ceilings. I know multiple floors aren't in yet, but when they are I'd prefer high ceilings to be reserved for temples, castles, and warehouses, rather than every shop. I always viewed Z-levels as "stories" and think it would be odd to have a single story shop with three stories of ceiling space.
- In larger cities, once markets are in prehaps we could see city squares. They could be the equivilent of statue gardens, raising the happiness of the city members and being a site for parties.
- Even after bins are finished, I think the shops should store most of their wares in the attic/basement/warehouses. They could keep their best wares on display, while minimizing clutter.
I'm sure a lot of this is planned, as cities won't be finished for a while.
Post by: Untelligent on June 21, 2011, 02:47:37 pm
Post by: mendonca on June 21, 2011, 02:56:17 pm
Middle eastern architecture and town planning contains lots of 'passive stack' ventilation (basically chimneys), a decent subsitute for a high ceiling - and the markets are generally oriented north/south with a narrow central street to avoid direct sun in to the stalls.
I suspect (but don't know) that high ceilings were implemented generally by the wealthy merchant class when they had a bit of extra money to build more of a house, and waste materials on a large reservoir for hot air to gather whilst not sacrificing large windows (and daylight).
Not really sure about historical Scandinavian architecture, but I can't imagine that was overly concerned with keeping places cool, and more volume would just be more to heat - a waste of precious fuel for the common man (have you played unreal world?)
Bonus points to Toady if he gets the civilisations to build towns according to climate ;)
Post by: Lord Shonus on June 21, 2011, 03:14:31 pm
Post by: The Grackle on June 21, 2011, 03:14:31 pm
But, y'know, those are just details. In all, I'm really liking these new towns. I'm curious to look at them with a visualizer like Stonesense or Overseer.
Post by: BishopX on June 21, 2011, 03:23:18 pm
What I noticed that all the roofs are flat. They should be slanted to keep off rain, and steeply slanted in any climate with snowfall. Maybe have roofs made out of ramps instead of just floors.
But, y'know, those are just details. In all, I'm really liking these new towns. I'm curious to look at them with a visualizer like Stonesense or Overseer.
I don't think of the roofs are "flat" I just think that they're closer to flat than they are to whatever angle DF's ramps are (have we decided on the dimensions for 1 tile?).
Post by: NSQuote on June 21, 2011, 03:25:01 pm
Are tall ceilings going to be the norm once multiple floored buildings make it in? Will it depend on the type of building (A kitchen using fires would have a high ceiling with chimneys for ventilation, the carpenter's shop might not)?
Also, will shop owners live on the floors above/below their shop, or will they have morning commute? Will they have workshops to create goods, or will the process be abstracted?
Post by: PTTG?? on June 21, 2011, 03:27:14 pm
Post by: G-Flex on June 21, 2011, 03:54:53 pm
7 feet tall from floor to floor, 2.5 feet on each edge. +-1 foot for each tile.
Tiles are definitely cubic. The geometry doesn't make sense otherwise.
Post by: Quatch on June 21, 2011, 03:58:20 pm
Post by: Rose on June 21, 2011, 04:20:27 pm
but not more than a single standing gnome.
Post by: nenjin on June 21, 2011, 04:25:36 pm
Post by: Untelligent on June 21, 2011, 04:52:22 pm
Post by: Toady One on June 21, 2011, 06:01:08 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on June 21, 2011, 06:12:18 pm
Post by: tps12 on June 21, 2011, 08:18:42 pm
Tiles are definitely cubic. The geometry doesn't make sense otherwise.
It doesn't make sense anywise. Diagonal movements take the same time as movements along an axis, so tiles aren't even square.
Post by: dree12 on June 21, 2011, 08:19:29 pm
Nope. Diagonal movement takes 1.41 times as long.Tiles are definitely cubic. The geometry doesn't make sense otherwise.
It doesn't make sense anywise. Diagonal movements take the same time as movements along an axis, so tiles aren't even square.
Post by: NSQuote on June 21, 2011, 08:34:14 pm
The entire reason for high ceilings is because of how the ramps work. Without 2 tile high houses, there's way too much roof walking.Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the quick answer!
Post by: Vattic on June 22, 2011, 01:53:36 pm
The entire reason for high ceilings is because of how the ramps work. Without 2 tile high houses, there's way too much roof walking.
The cities are looking great so far but I do have one question. Are there any plans for, humans at least, to avoid building into the sides of hills? Right now some of the shots remind me of the Shire. In my family's first home there were huge steps cut into the hillside on which homes were built and walls to hold the dirt back but never have I seen a house surrounded on most sides by dirt like in the shots you posted. Perhaps some landscaping would solve the roof walking problem?
I don't mean to be overly critical; I'm mostly pleased and excited about the new cities. I strayed into a suggestion near the end but I'm not sure if suggestions about unreleased features belong on the suggestions forum.
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on June 22, 2011, 01:57:44 pm
Post by: Vattic on June 22, 2011, 02:06:41 pm
Post by: Dae on June 22, 2011, 02:43:55 pm
The cities are looking great so far but I do have one question. Are there any plans for, humans at least, to avoid building into the sides of hills? Right now some of the shots remind me of the Shire. In my family's first home there were huge steps cut into the hillside on which homes were built and walls to hold the dirt back but never have I seen a house surrounded on most sides by dirt like in the shots you posted. Perhaps some landscaping would solve the roof walking problem?
I have spent most of my childhood in a 400 years-old house with the ground at roof level on the rear and left side, and a slope on the right. The walls were mostly made of stones approximately 60cm, 20 cm and 30cm of length, width and depth respectively. This house used to be the servants' quarters back then, and a few centuries before, the building it was built onto was a stable.
So nope, it was done at that time. It's not the most likely to be found, but it was lovely. Only bad sides were that it was litterally freezing inside in winter (it turns out having a few tons of wet soil behind a stone wall does not help with humidity either). Oh, and the walls slowly curved and will probably keep on for only a few decades now.
Good sides : temperature was perfect in summer.
Post by: Neonivek on June 22, 2011, 04:43:27 pm
Post by: IT 000 on June 22, 2011, 05:50:42 pm
Post by: Dante on June 22, 2011, 06:10:28 pm
Just out of curiosity, why not have roof walkers? Sure it's unrealistic, but a night creature that jumps from roof to roof would easily allow him to sneak into buildings, and would make the battle more interesting, do you chose to stand your ground? or do you chose to dodge and chance a fall. Additionally a group of bandits that have set up a small camp or some random cache would make it just as interesting as the sewers.
The only night creatures that sneak into towns are the ones that abduct townsfolk, and that's all abstracted away in worldgen so is irrelevant to adventure mode roof-walkers.
And bandits camping on rooftops is just ridiculous.
Post by: IT 000 on June 22, 2011, 06:26:01 pm
In one of A Terror to Behold (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/story/tt_terror.html) it is a story about an adventurer hunting a night creature. Toady has mentioned in one of the dev notes that we would need to track creatures in the future. Additionally Night creatures are becoming more and more diverse with weaknesses and strengths against certain metals. In this story they could shapeshift, presumably they would also be able to hide in different places other then generic caves (abandoned buildings, shapeshift, roof dwellings) making it more fun.
Additionally living gargoyles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gargoyle#Legend_of_La_Gargouille) would be a nice touch.
And if you were a bandit running from the law. The roof would make an easy place to hide, being out of sight by most villagers and thus guards. Additionally you would still have access to the town's goods. So I don't see why you shouldn't camp on the roof.
Post by: tfaal on June 22, 2011, 07:09:15 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on June 22, 2011, 07:11:20 pm
Just out of curiosity, why not have roof walkers? Sure it's unrealistic, but a night creature that jumps from roof to roof would easily allow him to sneak into buildings, and would make the battle more interesting, do you chose to stand your ground? or do you chose to dodge and chance a fall. Additionally a group of bandits that have set up a small camp or some random cache would make it just as interesting as the sewers.
It's fine to have creatures walking on roofs sometimes. I think what Toady was getting at was that 1-tile-high buildings leave many roofs at ground level (on slopes), which makes roof access too easy and commonplace.
Post by: freeformschooler on June 22, 2011, 08:11:11 pm
Post by: monk12 on June 22, 2011, 08:17:07 pm
Just out of curiosity, why not have roof walkers? Sure it's unrealistic, but a night creature that jumps from roof to roof would easily allow him to sneak into buildings, and would make the battle more interesting, do you chose to stand your ground? or do you chose to dodge and chance a fall. Additionally a group of bandits that have set up a small camp or some random cache would make it just as interesting as the sewers.
It's fine to have creatures walking on roofs sometimes. I think what Toady was getting at was that 1-tile-high buildings leave many roofs at ground level (on slopes), which makes roof access too easy and commonplace.
This is how I interpreted it as well. It's one thing for adventurers and bandits and creatures of the night prowling the rooftops, it is quite another for those same rooftops to be the neighborhood shortcut. If nothing else, the owner of the house would take measures to keep people from tramping over it all day and all night.
Post by: irdsm on June 22, 2011, 10:37:57 pm
Really really looking forward to this next update.
Post by: nil on June 23, 2011, 01:02:23 am
This is how I interpreted it as well. It's one thing for adventurers and bandits and creatures of the night prowling the rooftops, it is quite another for those same rooftops to be the neighborhood shortcut. If nothing else, the owner of the house would take measures to keep people from tramping over it all day and all night.Although, in the long run, I'd love to see sufficient randomized cultural variation to permit this norm to be occasionally subverted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk#Culture).
Post by: Vattic on June 23, 2011, 02:19:58 am
I have spent most of my childhood in a 400 years-old house with the ground at roof level on the rear and left side, and a slope on the right. The walls were mostly made of stones approximately 60cm, 20 cm and 30cm of length, width and depth respectively. This house used to be the servants' quarters back then, and a few centuries before, the building it was built onto was a stable.
So nope, it was done at that time. It's not the most likely to be found, but it was lovely. Only bad sides were that it was litterally freezing inside in winter (it turns out having a few tons of wet soil behind a stone wall does not help with humidity either). Oh, and the walls slowly curved and will probably keep on for only a few decades now.
Good sides : temperature was perfect in summer.
Fair enough but I doubt it was ever as common as it is in the released shots and Toady even mentioned a problem it causes in the shape of accessible rooves. A prime example of what I mean can be found just up from the centre in this shot (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/shops/passionhelm_119.png). The road to the left dips for just one tile length to allow for this shop and I can't help but think it likely that they'd of put the shop on the level above with perhaps a basement bellow. I only wanted to know if Toady plans on doing more than just cutting into the terrain when it comes to landscaping for cities. I hope I'm not coming across as too critical I'm just eager to see things nicely polished.
Post by: tps12 on June 23, 2011, 07:58:28 am
Diagonal movements take the same time as movements along an axis, so tiles aren't even square.Nope. Diagonal movement takes 1.41 times as long.
This is often asserted, but I have never seen it confirmed. I came to my conclusion by running around in arena mode with a stopwatch, but perhaps my experimental design was flawed.
Post by: nogoodnames on June 23, 2011, 08:21:02 am
Diagonal movements take the same time as movements along an axis, so tiles aren't even square.Nope. Diagonal movement takes 1.41 times as long.
This is often asserted, but I have never seen it confirmed. I came to my conclusion by running around in arena mode with a stopwatch, but perhaps my experimental design was flawed.
A more accurate experiment would be to start an adventure and count how many steps it takes for a time related announcement such as "It is noon." to appear. Of course this would be very tedious.
Post by: Footkerchief on June 23, 2011, 08:32:10 am
Diagonal movements take the same time as movements along an axis, so tiles aren't even square.Nope. Diagonal movement takes 1.41 times as long.
This is often asserted, but I have never seen it confirmed. I came to my conclusion by running around in arena mode with a stopwatch, but perhaps my experimental design was flawed.
All you have to do is search Toady's post history for 'diagonal': (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=1709.msg24055#msg24055)
Quote from: Toady One
movement uses standard euclidean distances when calculating times (ie, it root 2's the diagonal)
Anyway, yeah, diagonal moves take longer, by approximately 362/256. The actual step times are only 10 or so, which doesn't multiply up very well, so there are some random elements to get it back to around 362/256, ostensibly, on average.
Post by: tomblifter on June 23, 2011, 11:58:15 am
Post by: Knight Otu on June 23, 2011, 12:19:44 pm
On the topic of movement; Will creatures with different movement patterns (leaping across squares, for example), and jumping skill for playable characters be added (Jumping 1-2 squares over a a gap, or jumping out of hiding in order to ambush)?Jumping and climbing are planned for the future (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html).
Quote from: dev page
# Movement
* Improved swimming (holding breath, currents, etc.)
* Ability to climb in adv mode
* Ability to jump in adv mode
There's no telling when it might come, especially as Toady has mentioned potential creature pathfinding problems with regards to jumping. Some sponsorship animals might want jumping and climbing, but if it's too much to code, it won't go in despite that.
Post by: tomblifter on June 23, 2011, 12:37:31 pm
Jumping and climbing are planned for the future (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html).That's coo-Quote from: dev page# Movement
* Improved swimming (holding breath, currents, etc.)
* Ability to climb in adv mode
* Ability to jump in adv mode
There's no telling when it might come, especially as Toady has mentioned potential creature pathfinding problems with regards to jumping. Some sponsorship animals might want jumping and climbing, but if it's too much to code, it won't go in despite that.And now I'm sad.
Post by: tps12 on June 23, 2011, 08:29:51 pm
All you have to do is search Toady's post history for 'diagonal': (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=1709.msg24055#msg24055)Quote from: Toady Onemovement uses standard euclidean distances when calculating times (ie, it root 2's the diagonal)
Ooh, nice, thanks. I guess arena (and adventure?) mode must limit the simulation steps based on the player's movement speed, so when I was running diagonally it just ran more steps per second.
An improved experiment would use a slower creature as a control: if a half-speed human can take as many steps in a real-time minute as a regular human then you can't compare elapsed wall times.
Post by: Areyar on June 24, 2011, 02:59:34 am
;)
About this dead-popcap, if unlikely, I can imagine it could become a problem if someone wishes to run history for 10000 years or so.
When a site reaches this cap, how will the dead be culled?
Will it simply not add new corpses, or will it use the FIFO-system removing an old corpse for each new entry?
Will there be some sort of weighing? (Not realistic maybe, but heck) e.g. corpses of important figures last longer than 'generic cheesemaker's corpse'.
You will likely have very extensive catacombs when the mentioned cap is reached though....possibly nobody will notice anymore at some point. But might for historical figures sooner than for peasants.
Post by: thvaz on June 24, 2011, 03:25:54 am
Post by: tfaal on June 24, 2011, 08:20:59 am
Well, corpses decay after a time.Unless they're mummified. I'd expect some form of preservation, if only to keep the catacombs from smelling like death.
Post by: Areyar on June 24, 2011, 09:42:38 am
Well, corpses decay after a time.corpses do, yes, but do skelletons do so when underground?
Post by: PTTG?? on June 24, 2011, 09:47:51 am
Post by: scriver on June 24, 2011, 09:59:40 am
Well, corpses decay after a time.corpses do, yes, but do skelletons do so when underground?
From Wikipedia on skeletonization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletonization_(forensics))
Quote
After skeletonization has occurred, if scavenging animals do not destroy the bones, the skeleton of mid to large size mammals such as humans takes about twenty years to be completely dissolved by the acids in many fertile soils, leaving no trace of the organism. In neutral pH soil or sand, the skeleton will persist for at least several thousand years before it finally disintegrates. Infrequently, however, the skeleton can undergo fossilization, leaving an impression of the bone that can persist for millions of years.
I guess crypted skeletons would be kept above ground in the air though, and it says nothing about it. Don't think crypt air is very acidic, however. So they would probably last for quite some time.
Post by: Willfor on June 24, 2011, 10:03:00 am
Post by: scriver on June 24, 2011, 10:08:09 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on June 24, 2011, 11:11:42 am
Post by: malvado on June 24, 2011, 07:26:57 pm
Such as :
Dark Fortress
Elven Retreats.
Dwarven Fortresses.
Took me a while to figure they only appear on the world map but are non-existant ingame , its a pitty the wiki is quite unclear on these matters and the release notes doesnt mention a lot about it either.
Post by: monk12 on June 24, 2011, 07:46:01 pm
Post by: irdsm on June 24, 2011, 08:13:28 pm
Post by: monk12 on June 24, 2011, 08:25:51 pm
Post by: Neonivek on June 24, 2011, 10:15:49 pm
Well, corpses decay after a time.
I am still waiting for some corpses to decay. Mind you they died very specific deaths.
Post by: thvaz on June 25, 2011, 01:26:33 am
Well, corpses decay after a time.
I am still waiting for some corpses to decay. Mind you they died very specific deaths.
I meant corpses in real life.
Post by: Neonivek on June 25, 2011, 01:41:00 am
Well, corpses decay after a time.
I am still waiting for some corpses to decay. Mind you they died very specific deaths.
I meant corpses in real life.
Maybe I am too. Maybe I am talking about a person who fell into a vat of salt and another who collapsed in a giant jar of pickles.
Post by: Sunday on June 25, 2011, 05:41:40 am
Well, corpses decay after a time.
I am still waiting for some corpses to decay. Mind you they died very specific deaths.
I meant corpses in real life.
Maybe I am too. Maybe I am talking about a person who fell into a vat of salt and another who collapsed in a giant jar of pickles.
. . .what?
Post by: metime00 on June 25, 2011, 10:00:11 am
Post by: Footkerchief on June 25, 2011, 12:34:58 pm
Has Toady mentioned when he plans to work on the other sites that was removed previously?
Such as :
Dark Fortress
Elven Retreats.
Dwarven Fortresses.
Took me a while to figure they only appear on the world map but are non-existant ingame , its a pitty the wiki is quite unclear on these matters and the release notes doesnt mention a lot about it either.
From the last thread: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2069500;topicseen#msg2069500)Quote from: Toady OneQuote 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.
Post by: segfault on June 25, 2011, 06:57:04 pm
Post by: Untelligent on June 25, 2011, 10:11:11 pm
Post by: monk12 on June 25, 2011, 10:19:24 pm
The only other alternative is roofs at 45 degree angles, mind you.
well, you could have roofs with one seam, or pyramid roofs, or roofs with dormers, or...
The angle isn't so much the problem as is the lack of variety.
Re: Devlog
My thought, as far as giving each sponsorship animal something unique, is that some of them won't need something special, and I anticipate many of them will end up being somewhat redundant- for example, all the poisonous snakes just have different toxins, and share the method of delivery (I don't see spitting cobras, anyway.) And if nothing else, I don't see much of an issue with waiting a long time to get them all done right (I say this despite my favorite Harp Seal being near the end of the list, mind you.) Although I can't speak for Toady's work habits, if it were me I wouldn't mind playing with animal stuff on weekends, or every other weekend, or whatever, just as a pleasant change of pace. Obviously that last sentence assumes that Toady's main concern is that he doesn't want to delay stuff for the fandom too long, instead of just being sick of doing animals already.
Post by: Willfor on June 25, 2011, 10:23:21 pm
Post by: jockmo42 on June 25, 2011, 11:48:26 pm
Post by: G-Flex on June 26, 2011, 12:04:55 am
On the other hand, I can understand wanting to get all those sponsorship animals in regardless. Got to keep the investors happy!
Post by: Neonivek on June 26, 2011, 12:20:33 am
I understand that these are sponsorship animals, and that donations were given under the pretenses of their addition, but I don't see any reason for Toady to give himself a real time limit on them as long as he adds the occasional animal every now and then.
He feels that waiting more then a year is cheating and doing things halfheartedly.
At least that is the impression I get.
Post by: EmeraldWind on June 26, 2011, 02:52:26 am
I assume he's at around Otter as the material breath thing was mixed up with the squid's ink, right?
My thought, as far as giving each sponsorship animal something unique, is that some of them won't need something special, and I anticipate many of them will end up being somewhat redundant- for example, all the poisonous snakes just have different toxins, and share the method of delivery (I don't see spitting cobras, anyway.) And if nothing else, I don't see much of an issue with waiting a long time to get them all done right (I say this despite my favorite Harp Seal being near the end of the list, mind you.) Although I can't speak for Toady's work habits, if it were me I wouldn't mind playing with animal stuff on weekends, or every other weekend, or whatever, just as a pleasant change of pace. Obviously that last sentence assumes that Toady's main concern is that he doesn't want to delay stuff for the fandom too long, instead of just being sick of doing animals already.
Yeah, I pointed a bit ago that some creatures overlap with each other. Other animals may also overlap with existing features(like a snake's venom bite seems to be mostly in the game already). For some of the animals, Toady may get to them and realize there's an animal he really can't add anything new to. In fact, with probably a handful of these it will probably be a matter of typing up the RAWs and the research that goes into that.
Looking at echidnas, hedgehogs, and porcupines, they don't need a whole lot to be complete. Egg-laying is already in for Echidnas. the defense mode tag from armadillos can cover these guys. Together the biggest thing they need are their quills. For the most part, the quills will be a simple addition to the system already in place. The missing piece is the quills actually being able to do damage. As this feature would make for some interesting FBs I'm guessing it is going in. But looking at this there isn't a whole big chuck that needs done for these guys. And I can't think of anything that can be done for each individual to make a new tag for each.
The material breath thing seemed to suck up some time the way Toady makes it sound, but actually he probably saved time somewhere down the line by getting it set up now. Honestly, I am surprised at how people are already starting to talk like this is cutting into their fun. I mean, yeah it is harder to think of the creatures as features, but think of some of the stuff that is getting added to the game as a result. Every new tag is a new possibility for FBs isn't it? I mean, now the giant turtles from nowhere can go in to defense mode and maybe make it impossible to defeat it until it decides to start attacking again because it has an iron shell. New creatures with new tags means a lot more interesting stuff can happen and some of these new tags/features can open the way to other new stuff as well. The material breath bit sounds like it is going to add some interesting new possibilities to generated creatures.
The key thing to remember here is Toady will not always be working on new game mechanics, sometimes he will be adding flavor features like the animals. These kinds of things may not add anything to the backbone of the game, but they make the game a fuller richer experience. Honestly, he needs to do it to keep the game interesting. Think about it, the new towns are interesting and awesome, but the new crypts/dungeons/sewers and the new animals/night creatures will make this update Fun.
Post by: thvaz on June 26, 2011, 03:02:17 am
Toady is worried he can't finish his promise of putting everyone name's on the raws before the end of the year. It is a valid concern.
However, every new unique tag he adds would save a lot of time on the end of the road, and would bring new possibilities to the game overall. For example, the barking of the capybaras brought a new possibility for every creature that isn't really used right now. A night creature that howl at the night isn't really howling right now except in its description.
Post by: Neonivek on June 26, 2011, 03:53:39 am
Creatures that have "damage auras" so to speak... would be interesting.
Post by: Moddan on June 26, 2011, 04:42:52 am
Post by: de5me7 on June 26, 2011, 04:43:42 am
Post by: Knight Otu on June 26, 2011, 05:02:07 am
Post by: Caldfir on June 26, 2011, 05:10:58 am
Realistically, squid ink is likely the most complicated rewrite of the whole batch, with many of the creatures lower down on the list getting progressively more like "generic quadruped X".
Post by: Knight Otu on June 26, 2011, 05:43:22 am
I don't think the devpage comment about "more than two years" is meant to be taken at face value - he's just saying that this particular one took much longer than expected.While yes, he said that it only would take that long if each animal got that much attention, there are still a number of potential animal behaviors coming up that could at least rival squid ink in complexity if he wants to do them. I can think of at least three, with two of them being reasonably near the current batch of animals.
Realistically, squid ink is likely the most complicated rewrite of the whole batch, with many of the creatures lower down on the list getting progressively more like "generic quadruped X".
Post by: Jiri Petru on June 26, 2011, 05:55:13 am
To reiterate what I and others have said before, I'd rather see more meaningful and fundamental differentiation of animals before seeing more of them. There's no real point in having twelve different kinds of bears if bears and cats aren't even really differentiated yet except in size, for example, and when there are more fundamental issues with bodies and parts and tissues.
This. Hundred times this. The more animals Toady adds, the more will he have to rewrite when he eventually starts improving the basic mechanics.
Post by: Zared on June 26, 2011, 10:57:03 am
While yes, he said that it only would take that long if each animal got that much attention, there are still a number of potential animal behaviors coming up that could at least rival squid ink in complexity if he wants to do them. I can think of at least three, with two of them being reasonably near the current batch of animals.
Beaver dams, certainly. That involves critters building structures during play. Sounds difficult.
The mongoose would require their anti-snake behavior. More generally, it would mean animals fighting each other. A short step from animals eating each other, so that carnivores need to eat too, not just grazers.
Leeches (and later ticks and mosquitos) would require parasite tags, or at least the latching-on and blood sucking bit. And spreading disease, at least for the last two. Proper mosquito control involves draining stagnant pools, or making sure the water stays flowing. So I think that by mosquito time, insects (and amphibians) should have proper lifecycles in place. I mostly want this because it would be cool for fisherdwarfs to be catching "giant damselfly nymph" and "giant toad tadpole".
Post by: Knight Otu on June 26, 2011, 11:11:31 am
Post by: Quatch on June 26, 2011, 12:10:52 pm
I was in no way expecting the crazy level of detail toady is putting into each... oh wait. Probably should have seen this one coming.
Anyhow, It was a donation drive where the stated promise was twofold:
*An animal with the name/description of the real animal chosen would be in vanilla DF
*Your name would be associated in a comment in the raws, if you wanted.
I'd still participate in another if thats all that got done.
Post by: Caldfir on June 26, 2011, 12:13:16 pm
Physically, the "relsize" component as well as modifying the attributes of the creatures could easily have them be more physically different, and combat-wise, substantial !!science!! would be need to be done to ensure that bear maulings and lion attacks were different kinds of events.
The carnivore/herbivore split is the most major milestone to making the animals actually behave differently from each other. Aside from that, the work to be done is largely repetitive research and tweaking to get each animal right. I would assert that Toady's work on animal tags is the important part to get done, and once that's all rounded out, the community has the man(dwarf?)-power necessary to do that. The "sponsorship animals" are turning out to be the "animals arc".
Post by: nenjin on June 26, 2011, 02:15:36 pm
And then it'd be back to the Arc stuff, with its 2 to 5 month development time. While I've personally felt that in the grand scheme of things the Sponsored Animals are a pretty big distraction. But being that it's put food on Toady's table and he does not want to leave sponsors waiting 2 years for their results....if he decided to spend 3 months cranking out animals and delay starting the next arc, I'd understand. The Army Arc is going to be a huge endeavor anyways, maybe he'll want a break after the Caravan arc and doing Sponsored Animals would be somewhat like one.
Post by: thvaz on June 26, 2011, 02:47:35 pm
And then it'd be back to the Arc stuff, with its 2 to 5 month development time. While I've personally felt that in the grand scheme of things the Sponsored Animals are a pretty big distraction. But being that it's put food on Toady's table and he does not want to leave sponsors waiting 2 years for their results....if he decided to spend 3 months cranking out animals and delay starting the next arc, I'd understand. The Army Arc is going to be a huge endeavor anyways, maybe he'll want a break after the Caravan arc and doing Sponsored Animals would be somewhat like one.
The point is that he shouldn't be obliged to make a new tag for each sponsored animal. Quoting Quatch:
Quote
Anyhow, It was a donation drive where the stated promise was twofold:
*An animal with the name/description of the real animal chosen would be in vanilla DF
*Your name would be associated in a comment in the raws, if you wanted.
Post by: nenjin on June 26, 2011, 03:01:48 pm
Post by: jockmo42 on June 26, 2011, 04:36:36 pm
I understand that these are sponsorship animals, and that donations were given under the pretenses of their addition, but I don't see any reason for Toady to give himself a real time limit on them as long as he adds the occasional animal every now and then.
He feels that waiting more then a year is cheating and doing things halfheartedly.
At least that is the impression I get.
Yeah, I'm asserting that he shouldn't feel that way, since any animal donors should be satisfied with simply supporting development no matter when their chosen animal gets put in the game (as long as it's added at some point). I also understand that he isn't as much of a dick as I am, though.
Post by: Untelligent on June 26, 2011, 04:49:09 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on June 26, 2011, 05:56:35 pm
animal donors*chuckle* do they happen to be animals themselves or did they donate animals?
Post by: jockmo42 on June 26, 2011, 06:08:23 pm
animal donors*chuckle* do they happen to be animals themselves or did they donate animals?
Oh pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.
Post by: PTTG?? on June 27, 2011, 01:26:43 am
Post by: G-Flex on June 27, 2011, 01:27:24 am
Any chance we might see Stumpy Wumples as a creature? (http://www.bay12games.com/subgames/stumpywumples.zip) I'd totally donate to have those guys added!
I want the Metagendersaurus.
Post by: Neonivek on June 27, 2011, 06:39:27 am
Any chance we might see Stumpy Wumples as a creature? (http://www.bay12games.com/subgames/stumpywumples.zip) I'd totally donate to have those guys added!
Seems legitimate to me. Cameos from other games Toady made (I assume)
Though what is a stumpy wumple?
Post by: Lac on June 27, 2011, 04:28:25 pm
Though what is a stumpy wumple?The clue was in the question [mark]. Seems you can turn them into hexscuits.
Post by: freeformschooler on June 28, 2011, 11:47:00 am
Material breath as interactions.
Whenever the adventure mode interface gets here (hopefully this release) you know what this means right? It means ADVENTURE MODE OVERPOWERED BREATH ATTACKS.
YES.
Post by: Knight Otu on June 28, 2011, 11:54:50 am
Though what is a stumpy wumple?The clue was in the question [mark]. Seems you can turn them into hexscuits.
Couldn't you say that stumpy wumples are kind of like gorlaks? I wouldn't know, I only looked at it a bit before following Toady's advice.
Post by: PTTG?? on June 28, 2011, 12:29:04 pm
"I'll take this sword, shopkeep."
"Certainly, milord. That'll be 123 gold pieces"
"One second... HNNNNOOOROOOORRRRRKKKKKKKK... Do solid lumps work for you?"
"No problem. Let me get you your change."
Post by: Cheese on June 28, 2011, 02:17:38 pm
Also, is gunpowder/explosions ever a possibility? It'd be interesting to use as both a weapon and for mining. It could probably also be used for various other stuff.
Post by: Footkerchief on June 28, 2011, 03:36:56 pm
When is the improved siege stuff on the dev page going to begin? After the caravan arc?
Yes.
Also, is gunpowder/explosions ever a possibility? It'd be interesting to use as both a weapon and for mining. It could probably also be used for various other stuff.
There have been dozens of gunpowder threads. (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?action=search2;params=YWR2YW5jZWR8J3wxfCJ8YnJkfCd8NXwifHNob3dfY29tcGxldGV8J3x8InxzdWJqZWN0X29ubHl8J3x8Inxzb3J0X2RpcnwnfGRlc2N8Inxzb3J0fCd8cmVsZXZhbmNlfCJ8c2VhcmNofCd8Z3VucG93ZGVy)
If you want an official answer, though, it's "maybe":Given that anything I add which is both highly controversial and unnecessary will be optional, people can afford to be calm about future additions.
A lot of it comes down to where I devote my energy. Technological innovations sort of fall into a category with projects like tileset support. These options would make some people happy and expand the audience, while taking up some of my time that other people want put somewhere else. As they get further and further away from what we've already got, they are less likely to have time found for them.
For those interested in a specific development timeline for gunpowder, I'll be faced with the question when I make the alchemist's workshop more interesting (assuming that workshop continues to exist). Handling the workshop itself is a middle-priority matter, since the game elements involved aren't crucial but the the building is languishing in a limbo surrounded by mysterious useless raw entries like golden salve and gnomeblight. I may or may not add optional gunpowder around that time. I don't know.
Regarding gunpowder and some basic associated technologies, I can see myself playing either way, really, since I'm not that picky. If I had to choose between having gunpowder on or off in a release distribution init file, it would be off, because Arnold got shot in Commando not Conan, and the Argonauts didn't get shot by handguns or cannons, and Medusa had a bow not a gun, and stuff. We grew up with that crap, and our core DF, our myth/fantasy game, mainly hovers around that sort of fluffy nostalgia, but it doesn't need to impact you more than a one line file change.Yeah, I'm aware of this. I've been thinking for a while of using their chemistry as the dwarven model, prior to gunpowder arriving in the mid 13th century. Plaster isn't the first time we've bumped into them. In any case, as plaster casts predate that by 300 years and had the direct mineral link I mentioned, I think it's all good. Dwarves should probably distinguish themselves in fields like this, if anything. It's their element, at least in part. Some of it'll depend on flavor (gunpowder is a decision like this more or less). I'll have to decide on a case by case basis, but I think most of it will go in. Our dwarves have more idle time than fighting crazy viking-style scottish dwarves.
edit: though they drink twice as much.
Post by: Greiger on June 28, 2011, 04:35:00 pm
I just realized.
Material breath as interactions.
Whenever the adventure mode interface gets here (hopefully this release) you know what this means right? It means ADVENTURE MODE OVERPOWERED BREATH ATTACKS.
YES.
Now I don't wanna completely dash your hopes and dreams but I'm thinking he was talking more about the materiel breaths being merged into the same interaction system the new were critters and vampires and things use for the syndrome effects. I'm not Toady though, so I could be wrong. Feel free to maintain a sliver of hope.
Post by: thvaz on June 28, 2011, 04:52:46 pm
I just realized.
Material breath as interactions.
Whenever the adventure mode interface gets here (hopefully this release) you know what this means right? It means ADVENTURE MODE OVERPOWERED BREATH ATTACKS.
YES.
Now I don't wanna completely dash your hopes and dreams but I'm thinking he was talking more about the materiel breaths being merged into the same interaction system the new were critters and vampires and things use for the syndrome effects. I'm not Toady though, so I could be wrong. Feel free to maintain a sliver of hope.
Greiger is right even he not being Toady. We could hope, however, that Toady will add a interface for all these interactions.
Post by: freeformschooler on June 28, 2011, 07:21:16 pm
I just realized.
Material breath as interactions.
Whenever the adventure mode interface gets here (hopefully this release) you know what this means right? It means ADVENTURE MODE OVERPOWERED BREATH ATTACKS.
YES.
Now I don't wanna completely dash your hopes and dreams but I'm thinking he was talking more about the materiel breaths being merged into the same interaction system the new were critters and vampires and things use for the syndrome effects. I'm not Toady though, so I could be wrong. Feel free to maintain a sliver of hope.
Greiger is right even he not being Toady. We could hope, however, that Toady will add a interface for all these interactions.
Yeah, I know. Secretly though I'm crossing my fingers that everything noted as an "interaction" uses the same system, making material breath, necromancy and panda head-bumps or WHATEVER a few keypresses and an adventure mode interface away. Wouldn't that be awesome? It would certainly add a preposterous amount of flavor to adventure mode.
But you're right, it could all be different. I just guess I assumed that anything called an "interaction" in the dev log was the same kind of "interaction" that necromancy is. That would seem to be pretty logical, no? After all the same words are used, and we know that material breath and necromancy are going to fall under an "interaction framework".
Post by: irdsm on June 28, 2011, 09:20:23 pm
Post by: monk12 on June 28, 2011, 09:48:10 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on June 28, 2011, 10:00:56 pm
Toady, since you weren't planning to add livestock till release 3 (I believe) what use will livestock have to adventurers if you do have them this release? Will they act as unarmed companions? Expanding on that, what are the chances of being able to tame wild animals within the next few releases?
Since livestock is still a firm "maybe," we'll probably hear more about it if and when it gets implemented.
Post by: Mechanoid on June 28, 2011, 11:47:52 pm
I hope you'll say yes. Even if you think it'd be too harsh on a player who just wants to ADVENTURE! all the time, it'd be better as an init option in that case. It'd just seem... Wrong, to have such awsome market places and not bother buying anything from them as an adventurer.
Post by: thvaz on June 29, 2011, 02:14:21 am
Since there will be food markets now, will adventurer hunger/thirst be re-enabled for this next version?
I hope you'll say yes. Even if you think it'd be too harsh on a player who just wants to ADVENTURE! all the time, it'd be better as an init option in that case. It'd just seem... Wrong, to have such awsome market places and not bother buying anything from them as an adventurer.
Indeed...though it would be cooler if the food roting (a feature that already exists) would be enabled on the adventurer's pack - leading to a new industry that would be fun in fortress mode too- food conservation(smoking and salting, amongst others).
Post by: Dae on June 29, 2011, 03:29:41 am
For the adventurer, rotting food wood be good if we had in the vanilla game some way of getting it from game we'd hunt. Mods such as wanderer's friend already include that so it wouldn't bother me ;) By the way, does wanderer's friend add a way to cook butchered animals' hum... products ? Raw goat intestines aren't really tasty.
Post by: Neonivek on June 29, 2011, 03:39:46 am
And even the largest possible maps in Dwarf Fortress wouldn't get close to that sort of distance.
I guess I COULD measure the side of the largest world. I'll see how large it is by time.
Let me see... in a 12 hour period I was able to move (a bit over) 4 tile squares
I got 276x276 (probably a miscount) so let me see
Let me see in Ideal condition a person walks at about 3mph for about 8 hours (but I'll say 12, since I used 12) so according to my calculator the size of a world is
9936 Miles squared
Now the City of Toronto is about 2700 miles squared while Great Britian is about 88,000 miles squared.
So really... Dwarf Fortress sort of takes place in a sort of microcountry or island nation even on the largest world.
So it is by FAR realistic for Carrivans to even be able to transport goods from one side of the game ALL the way to the other without being too too worried about spoilage unless it could only be sold fresh.
Mind you I look forward to a possible, though unlikely, day when Dwarf Fortress can finally simulate sizes that could encompass a real country (or world) but even with all of Toady's extrapolations we just don't got the CPU (though in 5 years)
Post by: Jimlad11 on June 29, 2011, 04:53:22 am
Post by: Newbunkle on June 29, 2011, 05:34:15 am
Post by: Organum on June 29, 2011, 06:05:10 am
Post by: Lofn on June 29, 2011, 07:40:21 am
[snip]Butchery is not modded into Adventure mode, it's hardcoded. Cooking via reactions isn't possible as far as I am aware.
Post by: Dae on June 29, 2011, 09:14:26 am
Post by: darkflagrance on June 29, 2011, 11:19:06 am
Post by: Chromasphere on June 29, 2011, 11:35:20 am
that seems to be one of my less constructive posts
Post by: Sizik on June 29, 2011, 12:13:43 pm
I don't know... I've heard of traders who were able to get fruit all the way from China to Britian on foot (though probably by sea)
And even the largest possible maps in Dwarf Fortress wouldn't get close to that sort of distance.
I guess I COULD measure the side of the largest world. I'll see how large it is by time.
Let me see... in a 12 hour period I was able to move (a bit over) 4 tile squares
I got 276x276 (probably a miscount) so let me see
Let me see in Ideal condition a person walks at about 3mph for about 8 hours (but I'll say 12, since I used 12) so according to my calculator the size of a world is
9936 Miles squared
Now the City of Toronto is about 2700 square miles while Great Britian is about 88,000 square miles.
So really... Dwarf Fortress sort of takes place in a sort of microcountry or island nation even on the largest world.
So it is by FAR realistic for Carrivans to even be able to transport goods from one side of the game ALL the way to the other without being too too worried about spoilage unless it could only be sold fresh.
Mind you I look forward to a possible, though unlikely, day when Dwarf Fortress can finally simulate sizes that could encompass a real country (or world) but even with all of Toady's extrapolations we just don't got the CPU (though in 5 years)
Fixed that for you. 9936 miles squared is 98,724,096 square miles, which is roughly half of the earth's surface.
Post by: PTTG?? on June 29, 2011, 12:56:10 pm
Post by: eux0r on June 29, 2011, 01:26:48 pm
since there is absolutely _no_ form of preservation or non-abstract preparation form(e.g.: a prepared meal does not need any kind of fuel) its pretty much just the weather and whether youre using barrels or not. so, not even what those merchants carrying fruit from china to europe, that have been mentioned, could transport anything
Post by: G-Flex on June 29, 2011, 01:28:25 pm
In my calculations, assuming tiles are 2.5 feet on edge on average, then the largest worlds are 100 miles long, or near enough to be about the same. That means that they could contain the big island of Hawaii.
Tiles are almost certainly cubic, and would have to be much more than 2.5 feet high.
Post by: Zared on June 29, 2011, 02:41:55 pm
Fixed that for you. 9936 miles squared is 98,724,096 square miles, which is roughly half of the earth's surface.Basic order of operations. "9936 miles squared" only squares the units, so it is equal to 9936 miles2, or 9936 square miles. Much how "pi r squared" means pi * r2 not (pi * r)2. But, 10 miles squared is not the same thing as 10 miles square. A mile square is what you're thinking of, not a mile squared. The D is very important. Of course if you just use metric, there's no such thing as a "kilometer square" to cause such confusion in the first place.
Post by: Quatch on June 29, 2011, 04:00:23 pm
In my calculations, assuming tiles are 2.5 feet on edge on average, then the largest worlds are 100 miles long, or near enough to be about the same. That means that they could contain the big island of Hawaii.
Tiles are almost certainly cubic, and would have to be much more than 2.5 feet high.
Quote from: Silverionmox
what are the plans concerning distances, weight, etc. Now a square holds anything from a butterfly to a tree or colossus - how far do you intend to go in sticking to a specific size for squares, with all the implications for large creatures, mass conservation etc. ?
I'm pretty comfortable with not specifying square sizes. It's a ginormous mess to get into that. At the same time, some of the plans will require steps in that direction, such as large item piles (so you could have a giant skull mound to slide down in adv mode for instance) and multi-tile trees to hop around on.
The 1/8 of a planet comes from the desire for a diverse set of biomes, and the UK statements come from the tile size of the world (197376x197376). If you throw out a, say, 2 meter side to a tile (no need to start the tile size discussion again...), then you arrive at 155,829 km^2. The island of Great Britain is 209,331-215,595 km^2 according to different parts of wikipedia. The quest for a more representative island can begin at this time. South Island, New Zealand is looking pretty good. We can go all LotR movies there. That assumes the 4m^2 tile size of course, which is arbitrary. My calculations, are, as usual, suspect, so don't hold me to them.<p>[ January 28, 2008: Message edited by: Toady One ]
I seem to recall a more recent one too, but can't find anything.
Post by: abadidea on June 29, 2011, 04:24:12 pm
In my calculations, assuming tiles are 2.5 feet on edge on average, then the largest worlds are 100 miles long, or near enough to be about the same. That means that they could contain the big island of Hawaii.
Tiles are almost certainly cubic, and would have to be much more than 2.5 feet high.
While it is absolutely impossible to come up with a value that's consistent in all cases - remember the Hundred Sleeping Dragons but Only One Gnome problem - it seems like the only way they can even kinda sorta work is if they are tall rectangles rather than perfect cubes. The value I prefer is a meter on a side and two meters tall. I also think that "the floor" is a thin layer BETWEEN each z-level. IE, if it's two meters from each floor to the ceiling directly above it, then there has to be some extra thickness for the floor/ceiling itself.
The Visual Fortress 3D viewer (not sure if it's still maintained, but I used it back in 40d) portrays tiles as having twice the height of their width and depth. It looks visually and logically correct. By analogy to other games in the same genre, Minecraft has proper cube tiles (generally taken to be a meter) but people are two tiles tall.
The whole discussion is purely academic, because the tiles are faux quantum physics magic anyway.
Post by: Neonivek on June 29, 2011, 05:16:46 pm
Quote
Fixed that for you. 9936 miles squared is 98,724,096 square miles, which is roughly half of the earth's surface
No I did that mistake too and had to correct it. 9936 by 9936 is 9936 squared.
Or rather
9936= 9936
9936 Squared = 9936 x 9936
I use time as my measurement of distance since by all means that is the most significant.
Post by: G-Flex on June 29, 2011, 06:16:40 pm
While it is absolutely impossible to come up with a value that's consistent in all cases - remember the Hundred Sleeping Dragons but Only One Gnome problem - it seems like the only way they can even kinda sorta work is if they are tall rectangles rather than perfect cubes.
Why? Something like 7 feet cubed works well enough. It sure doesn't work perfectly, but it's the least problematic. The game's geometry assumes that it's cubic, and quite frankly, it would be bizarre if it wasn't.
Quote
I also think that "the floor" is a thin layer BETWEEN each z-level. IE, if it's two meters from each floor to the ceiling directly above it, then there has to be some extra thickness for the floor/ceiling itself.
No, the thickness of a floor is infinitesimal. Quick proof: A tile having a floor does not lower the amount of water it can hold.
Post by: Sunday on June 29, 2011, 06:25:01 pm
While it is absolutely impossible to come up with a value that's consistent in all cases - remember the Hundred Sleeping Dragons but Only One Gnome problem - it seems like the only way they can even kinda sorta work is if they are tall rectangles rather than perfect cubes.
Why? Something like 7 feet cubed works well enough. It sure doesn't work perfectly, but it's the least problematic. The game's geometry assumes that it's cubic, and quite frankly, it would be bizarre if it wasn't.QuoteI also think that "the floor" is a thin layer BETWEEN each z-level. IE, if it's two meters from each floor to the ceiling directly above it, then there has to be some extra thickness for the floor/ceiling itself.
No, the thickness of a floor is infinitesimal. Quick proof: A tile having a floor does not lower the amount of water it can hold.
Well, technically, that doesn't prove that the floor is infinitesimal, as long as you assume that water units are actually being "rounded" into the nearest 1/7 (rather than 1/7 being an actual unit of water in the game—and since a 1/7 chunk of water can turn into further units of water if placed in a bucket, one should be able to make that argument).
That way, as long as floors displace less than 1/14 of a given cubic tile (i.e. less than 1/2 of one of the 1/7 units of water), the game could be "rounding" it to the nearest 1/7.
Anyway, it's pretty obvious that DF's tile system doesn't really break into conventional measurements at all.
Post by: Sizik on June 29, 2011, 08:19:13 pm
Fixed that for you. 9936 miles squared is 98,724,096 square miles, which is roughly half of the earth's surface.Basic order of operations. "9936 miles squared" only squares the units, so it is equal to 9936 miles2, or 9936 square miles. Much how "pi r squared" means pi * r2 not (pi * r)2. But, 10 miles squared is not the same thing as 10 miles square. A mile square is what you're thinking of, not a mile squared. The D is very important. Of course if you just use metric, there's no such thing as a "kilometer square" to cause such confusion in the first place.
I was assuming "9936 miles squared" meant "(9936 miles) squared", not "9936 (miles squared)" which is more accurately described as "9936 square miles". Also, metric-ness has nothing to do with it. It'd be the same if he said "9936 kilometers squared".
QuoteFixed that for you. 9936 miles squared is 98,724,096 square miles, which is roughly half of the earth's surface
No I did that mistake too and had to correct it. 9936 by 9936 is 9936 squared.
Or rather
9936= 9936
9936 Squared = 9936 x 9936
I use time as my measurement of distance since by all means that is the most significant.
So you're saying "9936 miles squared" as meaning equivalent to a square 9936 miles on a side, correct?
Post by: Neonivek on June 29, 2011, 08:36:29 pm
Quote
So you're saying "9936 miles squared" as meaning equivalent to a square 9936 miles on a side, correct?
Yes.
The Sizes in Dwarf Fortress are mildly small when I use "Travel time" as the measurement of the world.
Post by: Sizik on June 29, 2011, 08:45:47 pm
QuoteSo you're saying "9936 miles squared" as meaning equivalent to a square 9936 miles on a side, correct?
Yes.
The Sizes in Dwarf Fortress are mildly small when I use "Travel time" as the measurement of the world.
Then what I said before is correct:
9936 miles squared is 98,724,096 square miles, which is roughly half of the earth's surface.
Post by: Neonivek on June 29, 2011, 08:47:24 pm
Especially since it leads to inconsistancies.
For example... it would take over a year to walk around the earth. Yet only two months (give or take) to walk across the Dwarf Fortress world.
There is something wrong with my math somewhere.
The Earth itself is 40,000x40,000 km
or 24,854 x 24,844 miles
So I'll need a different calculation here.
Post by: Sizik on June 29, 2011, 08:50:28 pm
Code: [Select]
#####
#####
#####
#####
#####The area of this square is (5 units) squared = 25 square units.
In general, the area of a square with a side length of n units is n2 square units.
Quote
There is something wrong with my math somewhere.
The Earth itself is 40,000x40,000 km
or 24,854 x 24,844 miles
So I'll need a different calculation here.
Since the Earth isn't rectangular, you technically can't express it's area like that.
Let's check your math:
Quote
Let me see... in a 12 hour period I was able to move (a bit over) 4 tile squares
I got 276x276 (probably a miscount) so let me see
Let me see in Ideal condition a person walks at about 3mph for about 8 hours (but I'll say 12, since I used 12) so according to my calculator the size of a world is
9936 Miles squared
I'm assuming you multiplied 276 * 12 * 3, since that results in 9936. This would be correct if you walked 276 tiles (the size of the world?), but you didn't, you walked 4. Therefore, the size is 3 mi/h * 12 h / 4 tiles = 9 mi/tile, so (276 tiles * 9 mi/tile)2 = (2484 miles)2 = 6,170,256 square miles.
Post by: Neonivek on June 29, 2011, 08:58:40 pm
It just often feels like there is less in the Dwarf Fortress world and that you easily travel around.
Travel wise the size of the Largest DF world is fine I guess (it needs to be almost 2.4 times larger to hit earth size)
Assuming my math is correct. Which once again is
It takes my character 12 hours to move 4 squares on the world map (of which there are 276 squares). If we assume that the character is moving at a constant 3mph then 4 squares are the equivilant of 36 miles (or 9 miles for every square). Thus 276 squares are 2484mph... hmmm
Ok... my math was rather wrong. it is 2484miles by 2484miles. That is significantly smaller.
Smaller then Europe (ignoring water mass)
UGH, where did I make that mistake? I guess I forgot to divide something there by 4... Ohh I see I forgot to divide the number I came up with 9936 by 4... which gets 2484
-------
Anyhow this means that even in the Largest worlds Dwarf Fortress is less then the Size of Europe
So it isn't unrealistic for Carrivans to get from one end of the world to the other.
Post by: Sizik on June 29, 2011, 09:07:46 pm
(Fun fact: the unit for 9936 is tiles*miles)
Post by: Neonivek on June 29, 2011, 09:10:37 pm
Which is why blindly reading answers off a calculator is not recommended.
(Fun fact: the unit for 9936 is tiles*miles)
Interestingly enough I did that so I wouldn't make a mistake. Though I am pretty sure I made a mistake in counting... mostly on water since they blend soo much.
Post by: monk12 on June 29, 2011, 11:26:11 pm
Post by: Thief^ on June 30, 2011, 04:55:02 am
I was assuming "9936 miles squared" meant "(9936 miles) squared", not "9936 (miles squared)" which is more accurately described as "9936 square miles".Google seems to think that 9936 miles squared and 9936 square miles mean the same thing:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=9936+square+miles+minus+9936+miles+squared
EDIT: And this clarifies things: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57209.html : "That is, the problem is not that "12 meters squared" MEANS the area of a 12-meter square, but that it can be taken either way, and is thus ambiguous."
Post by: Jimlad11 on June 30, 2011, 05:03:28 am
Did we ever hear what Toady's mysterious month-end project was? Is that still a thing?
When did he mention that? I am intrigued...
Post by: monk12 on June 30, 2011, 11:59:33 am
Did we ever hear what Toady's mysterious month-end project was? Is that still a thing?
When did he mention that? I am intrigued...
The last time it was mentioned was halloween of 2010 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_2010.html), when he said he was skipping it in order to get that release out (it was the one that included ghosts and night creatures that he wanted out for halloween.) It used to be that Toady would take the last week of every month to take a breather, do some Bay12 housekeeping (art rewards, legalese and stuff) and he'd also work on the mysterious month-end project. The reason it sticks out in my memory is that we wouldn't get an update during that, so this thread would devolve into wild mass guessing about the nature of the project.
Post by: Greiger on June 30, 2011, 05:19:55 pm
I bet it's a Kitten simulator. You play as a kitten with the ultimate goal of scratching your owner while he's doing podcasts.
Post by: monk12 on June 30, 2011, 05:56:33 pm
Well it IS the end of the month, and theres not likely to be a release today sooooo....
I bet it's a Kitten simulator. You play as a kitten with the ultimate goal of scratching your owner while he's doing podcasts.
Oh there we go- we haven't heard anything about it because it has been finished. Little did we know the latest DF Talks were actually Kitten Simulator Beta testing.
Post by: Dradym on June 30, 2011, 06:44:37 pm
so is markets replacing trade depots in dwarf mode? ill not green it because im sure someone other than toady knows the answer
Post by: Jimlad11 on June 30, 2011, 07:02:30 pm
so is markets replacing trade depots in dwarf mode? ill not green it because im sure someone other than toady knows the answer
I'm pretty sure that the markets are only for the new cities. I imagine they will be in the centre of the city, with all the stalls and (hopefully, if Toady has time) livestock. I am looking forward to wandering through the markets with a bag full of coins, purchasing things to use as improvised weapons. Battle Chair anyone? :))
Dwarf Mode trade depots are untouched as far as I know.
Post by: monk12 on June 30, 2011, 09:13:58 pm
Post by: zwei on July 01, 2011, 03:19:57 am
That would naturally give in to "marketplace feel" of your trading district. Especially if you take your time to design warehouses, offices for your Trader(s)...
Post by: AutomataKittay on July 01, 2011, 05:16:53 am
When we get rid of caravan schedulle in favor of more worldgenny approach, you might get multiple caravans from different civilizations at once. (should be FUN if they are in war...), so you might need to set up multiple depots in order to be able to give each caravan offloading place.
That would naturally give in to "marketplace feel" of your trading district. Especially if you take your time to design warehouses, offices for your Trader(s)...
People don't do that already? I've seen a few maps built like that, warehouses everywhere and offices :o
Post by: NobodyPro on July 01, 2011, 11:33:27 am
Post by: piecewise on July 01, 2011, 01:20:37 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on July 01, 2011, 02:25:42 pm
Are the "stalker" ghosts that toady talked about going to be in this release? And if not, have they been pushed to the next release or are they going to be on hold till "later" .We don't know. They are not among the already coded night creatures, but it seems likely that Toady will go back to night creatures after markets are done to add in some more night time evilness. As such, they could easily come in before the release still. He also has indicated that the first versions of stalkers, the animated furniture, the frankensteinian creatures, and the intelligent undead (which are those night creatures still missing with the best chances to get into the release) should not take the same amount of time as the first versions of necromancers, mummies, weres, and vampires did. If any of those night creatures end up being cut from the release after all, however, I would expect them to be on hold for a while, until they can go in with one or more of the three remaining night creature types.
Post by: nenjin on July 01, 2011, 03:08:12 pm
With all the content we're guaranteed to get already (sewers, catacombs, burial tombs, necromancer towers), he might call it good. Or it might be a "trivial" couple day's work to set up their procedurally generated vengeful ghostiness, conditions and interactions for when they show up in town, and he might decide to delay just a little bit longer for completion's sake.
Being that he managed to crank out vampires, werewolves and necromancers to a workable state in less than a week's time, on their face Vengeful Ghosts sound easier to create. (Because they probably aren't going to require so much additional stuff like syndromes, moon phases and population/body storage.)
Post by: Neonivek on July 01, 2011, 03:09:40 pm
Post by: nenjin on July 01, 2011, 03:22:40 pm
Post by: Dae on July 01, 2011, 03:30:39 pm
I would say to hold them until marketplaces are around and personal fortune is kept track of. This way we'd have poor people and rich people with actual stuff to steal. Let's just throw a quick check for "am I really poor ? did i use to be richer ? is there someone rich near ? Damn, i might very well try to steal that person." and then take a random decision for the outcome.
Wait, for criminals to be sentenced to death, they need to go to jail somewhere, which means they need to be taken alive. Dungeons could be used as jail, but making people capture other people without killing them, even only in worldgen, could require some significant work, depending on how it is for the moment.
Post by: nenjin on July 01, 2011, 03:33:18 pm
Quote
Also, if he does stalker he might need some more types of stalkers, which means some more types of death. At the moment, people die of old age (not really stalker-worthy), killed in battle or of starvation. He specifically mentionned criminals sentenced to death, which means he'd have to implement some form of crime.
I'm almost certain he's going to fake all that stuff. I.e. their generation isn't going to tied that heavily to world gen. It would be a Toady One thing to do, to say one Night Creature requires an entire writing of the justice and punishment system.....but he hasn't indicated that's what he's thinking. He'll probably make gibbets in the towns and assume that over time people have been punished there and one of them became a vengeful ghost haunting that site, and go from there.
Post by: Cruxador on July 01, 2011, 03:46:56 pm
People are already executed in worldgen, for war-related reasons.QuoteAlso, if he does stalker he might need some more types of stalkers, which means some more types of death. At the moment, people die of old age (not really stalker-worthy), killed in battle or of starvation. He specifically mentionned criminals sentenced to death, which means he'd have to implement some form of crime.
I'm almost certain he's going to fake all that stuff. I.e. their generation isn't going to tied that heavily to world gen. It would be a Toady One thing to do, to say one Night Creature requires an entire writing of the justice and punishment system.....but he hasn't indicated that's what he's thinking. He'll probably make gibbets in the towns and assume that over time people have been punished there and one of them became a vengeful ghost haunting that site, and go from there.
Post by: nenjin on July 01, 2011, 05:17:24 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 01, 2011, 06:29:49 pm
Quote
people die of old age (not really stalker-worthy)
I've seen murderous ghosts who died of old age done well. People who either lived their life in tragety or people who were so fearful of dying that they simply did not move on even after their natural deaths.
I wouldn't be entirely against a Stalker being created from someone who was imprisoned for life or part of some sort of ritualistic torture.
Post by: NSQuote on July 02, 2011, 08:40:12 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 02, 2011, 08:41:48 pm
Random thought: if we can mod in touch related syndrome, it looks like our lead goblets can finally kill Elves! Hooray!
Unless properly lined.
Post by: EmeraldWind on July 02, 2011, 09:59:12 pm
Random thought: if we can mod in touch related syndrome, it looks like our lead goblets can finally kill Elves! Hooray!Unless properly lined.
Granted, you might need to mod the dwarves to be resistant to lead poisoning... otherwise anyone that touches the lead goblets will get sick too...
Post by: monk12 on July 02, 2011, 10:05:41 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 02, 2011, 10:15:32 pm
Random thought: if we can mod in touch related syndrome, it looks like our lead goblets can finally kill Elves! Hooray!Unless properly lined.
Granted, you might need to mod the dwarves to be resistant to lead poisoning... otherwise anyone that touches the lead goblets will get sick too...
From what I understand it takes a bit more then simply touching a lead goblet to get sick... or even just drinking out of it once or twice.
Post by: Dakk on July 03, 2011, 12:04:36 am
Post by: Urist McDepravity on July 03, 2011, 12:51:32 am
Also, as typically they would have to pack up and move goods back to storage each day, it would make sense to use wheelcarts of something like that instead of tables.
Post by: thvaz on July 03, 2011, 01:31:34 am
Market seem to be kind of weird. Why everyone have same goods for trade? Yes, I've read note about them having stuff under prickle berries, but its still about ~100 traders selling same stuff at same place.
Also, as typically they would have to pack up and move goods back to storage each day, it would make sense to use wheelcarts of something like that instead of tables.
Do you notice most of them are farmers? I think of the markets as fairs where the farmers of the hamlets around the town would take their products to sell - most of it being food.
Post by: Caldfir on July 03, 2011, 01:46:19 am
Post by: thvaz on July 03, 2011, 04:07:34 am
Post by: Deon on July 03, 2011, 04:24:54 am
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 03, 2011, 04:28:48 am
Markets in towns are situated on squares. For all intents and purposes, a market = a town square. Which means it should be inside of a town block, and the roads the towns now have should enclose the market on sides. However, Toady's market doesn't follow this rule and instead sits on a crossroads, invading four (three) separate town blocks.
Or another way how to imagine it: take a graph paper. The lines are streets. Markets should go inside of a cell, not on an intersection of two lines.
EDIT: Also, I'd suggest paving the market if the roads are paved.
Post by: Yoink on July 03, 2011, 08:34:17 am
Of course, some would have markets in the town square. Me, I'm looking foward to buying a pet camel, walking it to the homes of my (hopefully rich) enemies, having it kick their heads in, and then loading it up with their belongings and leading 'em back to town. :D
Post by: Cruxador on July 03, 2011, 06:21:29 pm
The market doesn't have to be situated in a square- What if they have a perfectly good green, or grass field just outside town? Would be spacier, and preferable to having cow turds all over the town centre, methinks.You're thinking backward. People don't make a town and then randomly decide to make a market. Markets grow up from enterprising fellows at crossroads, catering to farmers and travelers, and then people build homes near there, and towns form.
Of course, some would have markets in the town square. Me, I'm looking foward to buying a pet camel, walking it to the homes of my (hopefully rich) enemies, having it kick their heads in, and then loading it up with their belongings and leading 'em back to town. :D
Post by: cephalo on July 03, 2011, 06:59:54 pm
Post by: x2yzh9 on July 03, 2011, 09:21:37 pm
Post by: jockmo42 on July 03, 2011, 09:38:11 pm
This has probably been asked a ton of times, but any idea on when this update will be out?
Optimistic projections say a couple to a few weeks, but this is just what I've heard around the forum. I'm not sure if Toady has said much about when it'll be out, but he usually takes the "when it's done" approach to questions about releases.
Post by: Yoink on July 03, 2011, 09:44:42 pm
He just keeps adding more awesomeness, at this rate when it's released it'll probably overload my computer!
Post by: monk12 on July 03, 2011, 10:24:16 pm
This has probably been asked a ton of times, but any idea on when this update will be out?
My personal estimate is somewhere between this week and September.
Post by: Cruxador on July 03, 2011, 11:17:47 pm
Considering it's been 'done' enough to more than please most of us for a while now, all bets are off. :PIt hasn't been done. The markets and squares are an importnat part of cities, and those were put on hold for other things such as night creatures.
He just keeps adding more awesomeness, at this rate when it's released it'll probably overload my computer!
Post by: Neonivek on July 04, 2011, 12:56:14 am
We are under assault by a SUPER spammer!
We need the Hammer of Armok to slay so foul a creature!
Ohh gawd... they are everywhere!!!
Post by: G-Flex on July 04, 2011, 01:06:49 am
Toady we need your help!
We are under assault by a SUPER spammer!
We need the Hammer of Armok to slay so foul a creature!
Ohh gawd... they are everywhere!!!
... What?
Post by: Neonivek on July 04, 2011, 01:08:00 am
Plus some other spambots just joined but have yet to message yet.
They are crawling through the walls! The WALLS HAVE EYES!
Post by: Vattic on July 04, 2011, 01:11:51 am
Toady we need your help!
We are under assault by a SUPER spammer!
We need the Hammer of Armok to slay so foul a creature!
Ohh gawd... they are everywhere!!!
Cue lousy photoshop attempt:
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14508972/DF/toadsign.jpg)
Post by: G-Flex on July 04, 2011, 01:13:07 am
Post by: Untelligent on July 04, 2011, 01:14:58 am
Post by: Toady One on July 04, 2011, 04:08:28 am
Post by: Toady One on July 04, 2011, 05:26:31 am
Quote from: Cruxador
Will less direct effects of syndromes that are more narrativistic than simulationist be included in this Night Creature stuff? As a specific example, I'm thinking of vampires wearing black a lot, and cloaks often, but this question is more about the design philosophy than about that particular case.
It's a pretty small set of things we're dealing with, so I wouldn't expect anything, but design-wise I think it's weird to have the curse cause that sort of thing strictly by itself. It should be more related to the circumstances (if the vampire was/is a Count, dressing how they dressed is reasonable, and they might darken it up a bit because they are feeling sinister now that they drink blood or something... I don't remember Dracula's motivation if it ever got into them).
Quote from: Neoskel
Will vampires be able to have kids after becoming vampires? Would they have to breed with another vampire of the same type? If they can breed with a normal individual would the children be vampires? Or will vampires just be sterile?
I cut out breeding vampires since I didn't want to deal with it for this release, but I know it's a popular thing to have mixed-breed vampire slayers and that sort of thing, so it'll probably happen at some point.
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady right now you really want to take away the ability for anything to really end the world and I can see why. Afterall many of these creatures can destroy the world and no one can do anything about it. Do you think in the future you would allow such "world ending" conditions to exist but give the civilisations, heros, and benevolent creatures the consciousness and means to actually combat it? For example Vampires who do transform with every bite, but the amount of generated heat would cause different levels of vampire clensing within a city
It'll have to be balanced out, whatever it is, or else the world gen has to stop some short period before a known date sensitive calamity is going to happen. Then I think I mentioned before that heading toward an apocalypse is fine, and non-date sensitive ones are fine as well. It just has to be fun. If world gen ends up with too many rejects after doing several hundred years, that would be horrible. If a post-apocalypse world is playable and not all that common, then that's okay as well. It should be difficult to kill absolutely everybody without blowing up the world, and worlds with small isolated groups of humans clinging to life are cool, if a bit limited.
Quote from: Gamerlord
It is possible for adventurers to become necromancers/werebeasts/vampires, right? Or at least recruit a necromancer to join you?
At the moment it is possible as an adventurer to become a werebeast (and probably a vampire). Haven't decided if we will fit in necromancers. The necromancers you meet will all be hostile at this point.
Quote from: King_of_the_weasels
You mentioned 6 legged wolves as an example for evil region cursed animals, will this work as just 1 six legged wolf or will it become it's own creature that can breed and have working populations. If they do have working populations does this mean that we could be getting greek style monsters such as a lion with a scorpion tail and bat like wings, aka a manticore.
I'm planning to do these like forgotten beasts, so they'd get their own definitions and be full breeding populations (or at least numerous if some of them don't breed) -- the idea is to slowly make the generators be able to do anything the raws have, while at the same time not turning the game into gray goop. I think throwing a few of these into certain evil places will be fine, and maybe vermin, but for large commonplace beasts and civilized creatures it'll need to do some exposition (I've probably said more on this here or in DF Talk). As soon as forgotten beasts support glued-together critters rather than the one-modified-animal type we have now, we'll have our mantichimgriffotaurs and stuff... and hopefully it won't be too confusing. Glued-together critters are harder because it has to support the materials/tissues/decorations from each base critter and get them placed correctly in the raw definition it draws up.
Quote from: Aqizzar
I know it's certainly a bug as currently intended, but given the range of possibilities in raised creatures, is there any traction to the idea of a necromancer raising intelligent motile undead, and then being deposed by his creations? That's got a lot of literary history.
Yeah, the necromancers are very likely going to have some intelligent undead this time around so that they don't need to attack fortresses themselves and so that it isn't always just zombies. This will then lead to any manner of situations once humans can stage coups and so on -- it should all follow automatically if the undead aren't bound in some way (and by default, it wouldn't think that they were). It's unclear exactly when we are going to get those kinds of political situations in our regular civs -- the personality rewrite and succession stuff might be necessary and sufficient conditions, at least for the kind that don't involve lots of armies.
Quote from: Lord Zack
However I wonder if dungeons will occur in contexts other than just under cities?
More and more -- the external tombs are basically dungeons now. The towers will probably get them this time (right now they are like zombie piñatas, but give them better maps is trivial with the tomb code). We already have the labyrinths. Hopefully before long it'll feel like there's a dungeon diving game sitting inside there, although it'll never really have quite the standard feeling of those in terms of experience + items + monster progression, so we'll have to make up for it in other ways.
Quote
Quote from: SerrationalWill were-creatures be possibly undead?Quote from: ChronasCan undead get syndromes/curses?
The vamps can't be vamped and the weres can't be wered, but everything else looks technically legal now. I'm not sure what situations can actually arise though. Weres go nuts, so they don't have opportunities to become undead really. I think a vamp could get wered during a were attack though, or if the vamp decides to become a monster slayer in world gen and screws up. In world gen, I think that would make the vampire go nuts, in which case it would attack on the full moons, as a werebeast that also has the vampire properties I suppose. And then it could attack your fortress.
However, this is because the werecurse is very lax about passing on right now. It just needs a non-were who can learn. If it also checked living status or something, it wouldn't be catching for vamps. Right now an intelligent rock man could get wered. Dunno what I want, but that last is a little or a lot weird.
Quote from: EvilTwin
With the ingestion of vampire blood carrying the curse, would food or water that got spattered with it curse my dwarves as well when they eat it?
Any ingestion syndrome is passed through the contaminants. I haven't tested that example though.
Quote from: penguify
Can transformation-curses be performed on a creature that is already transformed? Ie, could a (modded) creature do the were-albatross-becoming-thing, and then turn into something else when it's were-form is hit with its own were-albatross-blood? (Form 1 -> Form 2 -> Form 3 -> etc) Can these changes be made permanent, so that when form 3 wears off, the creature remains as form 2?
Yeah, you'd have to mod it to get around the were-block (ie, use your own custom weres), but you can have a bunch of interactions sitting on you, with one permanent one and others that happen at various times. I don't remember if conflicts in timing have the first or last one winning though, so if you have a temporary curse and a permanent curse, you might always still have the permanent form and have the temporary one ignored depending on which order you got them.
Quote from: IT000
(re: werewolf attacks) If the wiki is to be trusted that's ~2.4 minutes, is that really enough time to have some Fun?
Yeah, it's enough if the werewolf connects with your buddies during the first minute or so. A minute of combat is a long time.
Quote from: Neoskel
Will curses like those for vampires and were-creatures be able to put in subtle 'tells' on the affected creature when it isn't transformed? Such as hairy palms for werewolves, fangs and pasty skin for vampires, etc.
Adding new tissue layers is about as hard as adding new body parts, so it'll have to wait for custom bodies to work. Changing skin color is probably easier, but neither is supported at the moment.
Quote from: thvaz
Will villages get a rewrite too, or only towns?
I would like to get villages to work with this system, which will also improve the surroundings of the smaller towns by turning them into fields etc., but I might not feel like I have time. That's the plan though, certainly by the village schedule release.
Quote from: jimi12
Will people who are cursed as werebeasts know that they have killed people when they turn back to normal form? Will they be remorseful or get extra depressed if they know that they killed a loved one while a werebeast?
There's a sort of missing piece here where they should be able to learn or infer something afterward, and there's nothing like that now. It seems more typical (maybe?) for werewolves to not be aware of what they have done during the rampage itself, but I'm not sure what we'll have there.
Quote from: Knight Otu
Conquered sites used to keep their old civ's structures, around which the structures of the new civ would be build if they were different. Once the dwarf/goblin/elf sites are more fleshed out in the army arc, do you foresee that this will be the case again?
It was storing every structure back when it did that, because it could. It can still do that to a great extent, and it would be ideal to have the history of the site represented by the buildings that are there. I don't know when it'll happen.
Quote from: EmeraldWind
Currently, I noticed goblin helms tend to be branded with their civ's symbol. Will dwarven manufactured items and furniture have a way to identify which civ or entity the item was manufactured by. Or will there be no way to tell where the item came from for the time being?
This doesn't happen all the time, but it can already happen everywhere. If the item doesn't have specific artwork on it, you can't tell where it is from right now, and people don't offer up that information, but when we have caravan people moving around, it should be more clear with their items, and the older traded items might get linked into however caravans are selling things on site if they haven't been moved around a lot.
Quote from: tfaal
Sometimes creatures will get knocked unconscious by blows to the head, independent of pain effects. This sometimes happens when it only bruises the muscle, other times it fails to happen when the skull is shattered. Can you tell us a bit about what factors determine this?
It's one of the oldest mechanics in the game, predating the first release. It's probably just a rare chance as with stunning, some nausea and some winding. It needs to be updated.
Quote from: eux0r
toady, do you think the next releases will also 'bloat'/include many unforeseen(but juicy!) extras or will you try to stick closer to the slim announcements on the schedule?
It would be foolish for me to say I'm going to stick with just what's on the schedule, because obviously I'm incapable of doing that.
Quote from: Neoskel
Can (modded) creatures have a material weakness to the material from another creature? Like a vampire that is weak to werewolf teeth/claws a la Van Helsing. Will natural attacks using parts made from that material get the bonus against that kind of creature? That is, will bite attacks from a creature with silver teeth get bonuses against silver weak were-creatures?
Are material weaknesses respected in worldgen?
Any material can be used for material weaknesses, although it does not recognize a material that comes from an old race that just has a syndrome on it (for instance, it does not know what a vampire bone is for the purposes of weakness, although it does understand how to alter materials for the purposes of giving them a syndrome like ingesting vamp blood). Natural attacks will get the bonus (not if you are doing a wrestling joint lock or something -- those might still suffer any general resistance effect though). Falling on the ground from a distance even grants the right bonus for the ground's material, although it won't recognize stuff like snow or blood if you fall on it.
World gen doesn't hand out specific equipment at this point, so I just skipped bothering with material weakness checks there. As we get more information, especially for world gen heroes, but more generally, it'll come up.
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady, any plans for when are we going to be able to play the other non-(semi)megabeast sentiences in adventure mode? You added so many but so far only three are playable without modding, though not all of them may be what you envision as playable either
Nope, no timeline. It was post-v1 in the old notes, but that was for monsters. I'm not sure where the animal people fit in. Once their civilizations are more fleshed out in even the most basic ways, it might be a natural addition. Same with goblins and kobs (though kobs don't speak which is an impediment).
Quote from: tfaal
Will tortoise men tuck into their shells? That would be adorable.
Yeah, they use the animal person variation and that tag is inherited. Armadillo men roll into balls as well.
Quote from: fivex
Will it be possible for animal men to become werecreatures?
Yeah, even a rock with a brain or a giant mother brain thing would at this point, as long as they can learn.
Quote from: Lord Shonus
Regarding the gem cuts mentioned in the devlog. How will this affect gem decorations?
Some of the decorations inherit the cut and it is displayed with the rest of information. Some of them don't display the cut (I think images and rings, maybe). I might fiddle with it later to retain the information as much as possible, to the extent that it makes sense anyway.
Quote from: monk12
Will trade embargoes be handled at some point in the Caravan Arc?
In those first releases? Probably not, since the listed releases just get the basics of caravans moving around at all and the ability to make basic agreements with them.
Quote from: Thundercraft
Will curses eventually be developed in a way that Adventurers will be able to cure an intelligent creature cursed into an animal form with something as mundane and simple as a kiss or hug?
Similarly, will there be a chance for dwarves in Fortress Mode to encounter a talking cursed creature and the player be given the option to lead their dwarves to find a cure for it... with cured being either joining the fort or giving them some sort of reward?
Whatever happens in fairy tales is fair. I have no idea what or when though.
Quote from: Sir Iryn
I noticed the keeps were still just large empty rooms, any plans on giving them more detail before the next release?
Probably not. I think that fits in more with manors which is in the release list a little further down.
Quote from: Areyar
No goblins either...town at war or are goblins just to antisocial to be allowed into town?
I haven't seen goblins in towns for a bit, but they had been moving into them in small numbers before. I'm not sure if it has been chance or if something is afoot. The intended result is that there be a few goblins here and there in town.
Quote from: eux0r
toady, how many percent of the implemented content would you consider still being a place-holder for a more complex/different/somehow overhauled version? (im not expecting more than a subjective guess here)
Everything is subject to change, but some things aren't going to change again because I won't get to them again in preference for other things for the remainder of the project's life. In general the game is not something I'm trying to hammer into finished form within a few years or anything like that.
Quote from: Jothki
How exactly are interactions being handled? Is there a single action that handles all types of interactions, or is there a seperate action for every possible interaction? Will adventurers be able to perform interactions if their species is capable of them?
There are a few types (resurrection and cleaning are distinguished, for example), but many parameters are shared and it's all the same thing overall. Targets are separated from effects (effects take target tokens as parameters). I haven't done an interaction interface for adv mode yet. It clearly needs one but I don't want to promise it for this time because I'm not sure I will do it for this release.
Quote from: Dae
Toady, with the new "cleaning" effect in, will you update soap so it uses the new cleaning tag ? Also, does cleaning only remove layers of dirst/blood/whatever or does it have real medical properties, like prevening infections ? Will we be able to mod in adventurer reactions for cleaning wounds ?
If you're trying to understand the deep reason to my question, it would allow reactions of the type "rub yourself with said object/material".
I'm not eager to rewrite every job to use corresponding interactions even if it is ideal for everything to use the same framework. The amount of invisible grime removed can be set by the effect, so it can have various effects on infection (right now, red panda licking leaves a small bit of grime behind). Reactions are not currently linked to the interaction framework. They will almost surely be hooked together at some point, when things like spell reagents etc. go in, and then we'll see how it plays out. They might be merged completely later on, but it's too large a project to take on now.
Quote from: Untelligent
With the brief material breath attack rewrite, is the minor bug where liquid glob attacks shoot out solid globs instead fixed?
I haven't addressed many bugs that didn't stand directly in my way, but we'll see what happens when I finish up my animal tests.
Quote from: NSQuote
Are tall ceilings going to be the norm once multiple floored buildings make it in? Will it depend on the type of building (A kitchen using fires would have a high ceiling with chimneys for ventilation, the carpenter's shop might not)?
Also, will shop owners live on the floors above/below their shop, or will they have morning commute? Will they have workshops to create goods, or will the process be abstracted?
The shop owners all live in their shops now. There are living spaces behind the shop room, or else they live in the shop room if it is the only one. When multiple floored buildings go in, there won't necessarily be an extra level of air on top of the top floor, but the air is remaining on one story buildings for the reason I mentioned earlier (to stop universal rooftop movement).
When they begin producing goods, I'm not sure that there will be workshops or an abstracted process -- the most likely thing will be a more specific process using various tools/items/furniture, which'll also be what your adventurer uses. The ability of the adventurer to do jobs will possibly go in with the AI being able to do it, or before. That is far more likely than it going in after.
Quote from: Vattic
The cities are looking great so far but I do have one question. Are there any plans for, humans at least, to avoid building into the sides of hills? Right now some of the shots remind me of the Shire. In my family's first home there were huge steps cut into the hillside on which homes were built and walls to hold the dirt back but never have I seen a house surrounded on most sides by dirt like in the shots you posted. Perhaps some landscaping would solve the roof walking problem?
The house I'm sitting in now is built into a hill on two sides. I'm not sure how common that sort of thing is, but it's the easiest way to do it in the game. Widely terraforming the area will have some blockiness problems if I don't spend some time on it. The way the road pops up and down sometimes though is pretty bad, and it causes some of the worst burrowings. Not sure when I'll be handling that.
Quote from: Areyar
About this dead-popcap, if unlikely, I can imagine it could become a problem if someone wishes to run history for 10000 years or so.
When a site reaches this cap, how will the dead be culled?
Will it simply not add new corpses, or will it use the FIFO-system removing an old corpse for each new entry?
Will there be some sort of weighing? (Not realistic maybe, but heck)
I don't recall the order that is uses when it goes through the batches. It still keeps track of all the dead, it's just that some of them aren't placed when it runs out of room. Once it doesn't have to produce a whole corpse (like the skeletal walls under Paris), then it can do everything within reason.
Quote from: segfault
Will there be proper roofs (materials and triangular shape) or will they still be regular ol' flat floors?
It's the same material as the walls right now, and flat, like in the pictures. Ideally, we'd have other things going on.
Quote from: Mechanoid
Since there will be food markets now, will adventurer hunger/thirst be re-enabled for this next version?
Hopefully. How it is handled during travel is the main issue. Since the time passes fairly quickly, it will probably be too annoying to force you to eat manually all the time (though there's an atmosphere argument for forcing you to do it depending on the exact frequency, as long as you don't have to zoom in to do it -- having an abstract camp on the travel screen would be cool, just a bit beyond the current sleeping). So I need to add eating from the travel screen, either automatically and/or manually.
Post by: Ves on July 04, 2011, 06:05:26 am
And lo, the players did begin working out a system for tossing goblins off of towers, trying to get them to land on the spots they're fatally allergic to.
Post by: Neonivek on July 04, 2011, 07:11:34 am
Post by: rangarkash on July 04, 2011, 07:22:47 am
I cut out breeding vampires since I didn't want to deal with it for this release, but I know it's a popular thing to have mixed-breed vampire slayers and that sort of thing, so it'll probably happen at some point.
Sir, I'd be eternally grateful if you pushed the half-vampire vamp slayers to sometime post version 1.00
No, really.
It's not dorfy.
Please don't.
Sir.
Post by: de5me7 on July 04, 2011, 08:54:45 am
It would be cool if you could influence this in the world gen parameters. So we could have a number for curse probability or darkness or some general measure that you could increase or decrease to influence the spread and number of curses created in world gen. So if you wanted a world full of undead with few humans left you wouldnt need to gen dozens of worlds and get lucky, but rather tweek the parameter until you got a world where some humans just about survived. Even better would be to have parameters for different curses or curse catagories so you could customise your world to create loads of vampires, but not to many necromancers.
Post by: monkeyfetus on July 04, 2011, 02:44:14 pm
I cut out breeding vampires since I didn't want to deal with it for this release, but I know it's a popular thing to have mixed-breed vampire slayers and that sort of thing, so it'll probably happen at some point.
Sir, I'd be eternally grateful if you pushed the half-vampire vamp slayers to sometime post version 1.00
No, really.
It's not dorfy.
Please don't.
Sir.
IMO, Adventure mode shouldn't have to be dorfy. I think you can rest assured it won't happen for a long time, anyway.
Post by: Mephansteras on July 04, 2011, 03:22:11 pm
Quote from: MechanoidSince there will be food markets now, will adventurer hunger/thirst be re-enabled for this next version?
Hopefully. How it is handled during travel is the main issue. Since the time passes fairly quickly, it will probably be too annoying to force you to eat manually all the time (though there's an atmosphere argument for forcing you to do it depending on the exact frequency, as long as you don't have to zoom in to do it -- having an abstract camp on the travel screen would be cool, just a bit beyond the current sleeping). So I need to add eating from the travel screen, either automatically and/or manually.
The roguelike Caves of Qud does automatic eating/drinking from your inventory if you have it for overland travel that works pretty well. I think that an automatic system for Adventure Mode would work pretty well, provided that the game was smart enough to tell you that you are out of food/water. An automatic setting to refill waterskins when near fresh water might be nice, too. As would a basic auto-gather option. Maybe a percentage of time spent gathering setting so that you can balance food gathering with speed. So if you've got plenty of food or are in a hurry you can do no/minimal gathering and if you aren't in a hurry but don't want to spend too much time hunting you could just set a high gather-time and meander your way through the wilds.
Post by: de5me7 on July 04, 2011, 05:14:59 pm
Post by: ffaerie on July 04, 2011, 05:41:24 pm
What would be also nice is an expansion to the current mechanisms to make them more portable, I am thinking umbrellas here, maybe leather+mechanism+wood tents and such stuff for personal use. First things first, crafting while adventuring (and also ropes and other ways to improve mobility across z-levels and in general) should be pretty amazing.
Post by: Mechanoid on July 04, 2011, 05:59:32 pm
[Eating/drinking enabled?]As long as i can die from thirst/starvation on a quest to kill a necromancer in his tower in The Desert of Thirst, that'll be simply awsome, even if i have to walk there manually (not travel mode) to do it. [edit - of course, assuming i don't die from infected blisters first, because the desert is EVUL and causes blisters]
Hopefully.
Post by: darkflagrance on July 04, 2011, 08:03:02 pm
Quote from: MechanoidSince there will be food markets now, will adventurer hunger/thirst be re-enabled for this next version?
Hopefully. How it is handled during travel is the main issue. Since the time passes fairly quickly, it will probably be too annoying to force you to eat manually all the time (though there's an atmosphere argument for forcing you to do it depending on the exact frequency, as long as you don't have to zoom in to do it -- having an abstract camp on the travel screen would be cool, just a bit beyond the current sleeping). So I need to add eating from the travel screen, either automatically and/or manually.
The roguelike Caves of Qud does automatic eating/drinking from your inventory if you have it for overland travel that works pretty well. I think that an automatic system for Adventure Mode would work pretty well, provided that the game was smart enough to tell you that you are out of food/water. An automatic setting to refill waterskins when near fresh water might be nice, too. As would a basic auto-gather option. Maybe a percentage of time spent gathering setting so that you can balance food gathering with speed. So if you've got plenty of food or are in a hurry you can do no/minimal gathering and if you aren't in a hurry but don't want to spend too much time hunting you could just set a high gather-time and meander your way through the wilds.
df 56.18.13 bug: Adventurers ignore tinned rations in their inventory when auto-eating and instead eat seeds, leather items, and severed heads taken as trophies, while auto-drinking from waterskins filled with blood and molten gold.
Post by: Korbac on July 04, 2011, 08:46:40 pm
>Falling on the ground from a distance even grants the right bonus for the ground's material
And lo, the players did begin working out a system for tossing goblins off of towers, trying to get them to land on the spots they're fatally allergic to.
Drop Goblins onto constructed steel floors. That should work. :D
Post by: monk12 on July 04, 2011, 10:02:27 pm
>Falling on the ground from a distance even grants the right bonus for the ground's material
And lo, the players did begin working out a system for tossing goblins off of towers, trying to get them to land on the spots they're fatally allergic to.
Drop Goblins onto constructed steel floors. That should work. :D
Already done- I think it turned out that they were fatally allergic to all the floors more than 5 z-lvls down.
Post by: EmeraldWind on July 04, 2011, 10:53:24 pm
Quote from: AreyarNo goblins either...town at war or are goblins just to antisocial to be allowed into town?
I haven't seen goblins in towns for a bit, but they had been moving into them in small numbers before. I'm not sure if it has been chance or if something is afoot. The intended result is that there be a few goblins here and there in town.
:o The goblins are planning an attack! Close the gates! Raise the bridges! Marksmen, to arms! Axedwarves, patrol the farm land! Elves, stand on the border and attract the enemies' attention! Nobles hide like cowards in the keep! SOUND THE TRUMPETS, so that no man, dwarf, or elf's heart be in fear! SOUND THE TRUMPETS, so that the enemy knows we are waiting and are ready to FIGHT!. SOUND THE TRUMPETS, so that every creature in the valleys, in the hills, in the mountains, and in the seas know that today, we stand and fight! SOUND THE TRump... what do you mean we can't sound the trumpets? Will someone tell me, why we traded for all those trumpets from the dwarves, when nobody knows how they work!?
Seriously though, good job and thanks for answering my question.
Post by: piecewise on July 04, 2011, 11:01:23 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on July 04, 2011, 11:19:55 pm
Just saying, I vote for delaying the release long enough to get in player Necromancers. Being able to get the secret tablets buried in the depths of a necromancer's tomb/tower would be severely less cool if you can't do anything with them.
Yes please. If we had a player reaction interface, everything would suddenly be awesome.
Post by: Untelligent on July 05, 2011, 12:03:15 am
On an unrelated note, one problem I can see with automated edibles could arise when the game has you eat some dragon steaks you were saving to sell at the market when you got back to town instead of your rations of badger haggis.
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 05, 2011, 12:12:56 am
Post by: Vherid on July 05, 2011, 12:20:17 am
When shall we see hammerer, beast tamer, etc, being fixed with their migrant issue.
Post by: Kay12 on July 05, 2011, 01:30:14 am
When shall we see hammerer, beast tamer, etc, being fixed with their migrant issue.
I don't have an idea, but hopefully soon. To be honest, I'd sooner have a bug-free DF than any amount of cool, new, buggy features. Some bugs have been open for over a year now, and the game may become unmaintainable if more features are added before the old ones work.
Post by: thvaz on July 05, 2011, 01:52:55 am
When shall we see hammerer, beast tamer, etc, being fixed with their migrant issue.
I don't have an idea, but hopefully soon. To be honest, I'd sooner have a bug-free DF than any amount of cool, new, buggy features. Some bugs have been open for over a year now, and the game may become unmaintainable if more features are added before the old ones work.
They will be fixed when Toady get around them. After this release we will have a series of bugfixes releases. Last time we got hundreds of bugs fixed.
Toady's schedule: new features release, "new bugs" bugfixing release, "old bugs" bugfixing release. It is perfecct - it advances this alpha stage game while letting it to be playable.
An alpha denotes that a game isn't feature complete.
Post by: Kay12 on July 05, 2011, 02:02:20 am
Post by: Vattic on July 05, 2011, 02:16:02 am
The roguelike Caves of Qud does automatic eating/drinking from your inventory if you have it for overland travel that works pretty well. I think that an automatic system for Adventure Mode would work pretty well, provided that the game was smart enough to tell you that you are out of food/water. An automatic setting to refill waterskins when near fresh water might be nice, too. As would a basic auto-gather option. Maybe a percentage of time spent gathering setting so that you can balance food gathering with speed. So if you've got plenty of food or are in a hurry you can do no/minimal gathering and if you aren't in a hurry but don't want to spend too much time hunting you could just set a high gather-time and meander your way through the wilds.Some way of judging how much food and water you'll need might be nice, though, I guess we'd just get a feel for it.
Post by: thvaz on July 05, 2011, 04:49:14 am
Nevertheless, I'd still prefer a development cycle that fixes bugs before introducing new features. DF has boatloads of stuff already, feature-complete or not. Fixing bugs quicker would make this game a lot more playable than adding more and more stuff to maintain.
I'm glad you aren't in charge then. This was discussed to exhaustion already. There is no point in fixing every bug when everything is subject to change. The game is completely playable now, and that is enough for me, and to a lot of people.
Post by: Dae on July 05, 2011, 05:26:22 am
Post by: Gamerlord on July 05, 2011, 05:42:45 am
Post by: Kay12 on July 05, 2011, 05:45:28 am
Nevertheless, I'd still prefer a development cycle that fixes bugs before introducing new features. DF has boatloads of stuff already, feature-complete or not. Fixing bugs quicker would make this game a lot more playable than adding more and more stuff to maintain.
I'm glad you aren't in charge then. This was discussed to exhaustion already. There is no point in fixing every bug when everything is subject to change. The game is completely playable now, and that is enough for me, and to a lot of people.
The features are enough as well, if you ask me. And of course I'm not in charge. I'm just expressing my opinions. I'd sooner have the current feature set with no bugs than a wider array of features with the old bugs and the bugs introduced by the new features.
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 05, 2011, 09:03:22 am
Post by: Dae on July 05, 2011, 09:53:47 am
Also, please consider what you're saying. "Basically, the better metal will win" is the common design in every other RPG and no one ever complains about it. Here it wins because its mechanical properties are more suitable for the weapon used. I don't see why you're complaining.
Post by: Zared on July 05, 2011, 10:31:20 am
Also, please consider what you're saying. "Basically, the better metal will win" is the common design in every other RPG and no one ever complains about it. Here it wins because its mechanical properties are more suitable for the weapon used. I don't see why you're complaining.
"The better metal wins" doesn't mean if you put 50 dwarfs in iron, and 50 in steel, the steel dwarfs will edge out the iron dwarfs. It means if you do that it will be 50 to 0 in favor of steel, since they are completely invincible (ok, not entirely, occasionally a shield bash might shatter a skull). The iron battle axes will hit the steel armor and they will deflect harmlessly, while the steel battle axe will be hacking limbs off like no tomorrow. Of course, give them blunt weapons instead of axes and now iron wins with its heavier weaponry that ignores armor.
This is, of course, pretty much how it actually works. But RPGs never do it that way, as opposed to always doing it that way. Because it's not fun, and it's not what's in books and on TV. Unarmored dude chops anonymous knights in full plate armor into ribbons, sword slicing through solid steel as though it were butter. It's never "knights bonk each other around a bit until one is too tired and bruised to keep up his guard, and the other stabs him in the armpit with a dagger".
Post by: monk12 on July 05, 2011, 11:37:10 am
Same here.
On an unrelated note, one problem I can see with automated edibles could arise when the game has you eat some dragon steaks you were saving to sell at the market when you got back to town instead of your rations of badger haggis.
I imagine an interface similar to the Kitchen screen in Dwarf Mode would be easy to implement and use.
Also, please consider what you're saying. "Basically, the better metal will win" is the common design in every other RPG and no one ever complains about it. Here it wins because its mechanical properties are more suitable for the weapon used. I don't see why you're complaining.
"The better metal wins" doesn't mean if you put 50 dwarfs in iron, and 50 in steel, the steel dwarfs will edge out the iron dwarfs. It means if you do that it will be 50 to 0 in favor of steel, since they are completely invincible (ok, not entirely, occasionally a shield bash might shatter a skull). The iron battle axes will hit the steel armor and they will deflect harmlessly, while the steel battle axe will be hacking limbs off like no tomorrow. Of course, give them blunt weapons instead of axes and now iron wins with its heavier weaponry that ignores armor.
This is, of course, pretty much how it actually works. But RPGs never do it that way, as opposed to always doing it that way. Because it's not fun, and it's not what's in books and on TV. Unarmored dude chops anonymous knights in full plate armor into ribbons, sword slicing through solid steel as though it were butter. It's never "knights bonk each other around a bit until one is too tired and bruised to keep up his guard, and the other stabs him in the armpit with a dagger".
The reason why we like stories where the unarmored swordsman cuts the knight to ribbons is because of how unlikely it is- it speaks to superior skill trumping superior armament. And you know what? Toady already has plans for that- stances, more tactically interesting combat, etc. As far as the "sword slicing through steel" bit, the only time that happens with any shred of plausability is when the material or magic of the sword is sufficient to handle it. Which, as you've pointed out, is how things work now.
There is a significant difference between "fixing a bug" and "replacing a placeholder with the fully-feature" in a game like DF. DF is ambitious on virtually every side of it. Each placeholder is there because a whole other arc of features is missing, so before fixing it said features have to be implemented. If you consider it that way, he is actively working towards fixing your bug. It's only the sheer scale of the projet that makes it a long way.
Y'know, what he said. DF isn't the greatest Heroic Fantasy RPG right now, but it will be. Until then, I'll settle for having the most accurate Medieval Combat simulator around.
Unrelated: GAH SMF 2.0
Post by: piecewise on July 05, 2011, 12:17:07 pm
I'm not sure if you're saying that thats a bad thing or a good thing. Personally, I love that it stays as close to reality as possible because it gives a real sense of progression. If unarmored people could just go around hacking through chestplates like nothing then it would make armor entirely meaningless. As it is, good quality armor and weapons are very valuable because of their ability to defend and destroy better then anything below them. If we remove those properties that makes it like that, then all metals just become pseudo-equal and boring.Also, please consider what you're saying. "Basically, the better metal will win" is the common design in every other RPG and no one ever complains about it. Here it wins because its mechanical properties are more suitable for the weapon used. I don't see why you're complaining.
"The better metal wins" doesn't mean if you put 50 dwarfs in iron, and 50 in steel, the steel dwarfs will edge out the iron dwarfs. It means if you do that it will be 50 to 0 in favor of steel, since they are completely invincible (ok, not entirely, occasionally a shield bash might shatter a skull). The iron battle axes will hit the steel armor and they will deflect harmlessly, while the steel battle axe will be hacking limbs off like no tomorrow. Of course, give them blunt weapons instead of axes and now iron wins with its heavier weaponry that ignores armor.
This is, of course, pretty much how it actually works. But RPGs never do it that way, as opposed to always doing it that way. Because it's not fun, and it's not what's in books and on TV. Unarmored dude chops anonymous knights in full plate armor into ribbons, sword slicing through solid steel as though it were butter. It's never "knights bonk each other around a bit until one is too tired and bruised to keep up his guard, and the other stabs him in the armpit with a dagger".
And here's the thing, iron does not beat steel every time. I've got an adventurer with close to 600 kills who uses nothing but a average copper sword. I've fought men in plate steel armor and won without having to strip off a single piece, and you know why? First, rarely are people completely armored. Hands and feet are often prime ground for amputation, and doing so can end a battle quickly. But even if an opponent is fully armored, I can still strike with the pommel of my sword, or slap with the blade. Nearly every weapon has a blunt attack, and thats what will kill armored men. Admittedly, in fortress mode all this is random, so the odds are stacked in steel's favor simply because the iron wielding ai isn't smart enough to fight tactically; but the point is that there are other factors in play beyond simply "steel beats iron".
As per the add vs fix debate, you have to remember that for every update he's doing 2 bug fix releases, so he's literally doing twice as much bug fixing as updating and you want him to do more? The problem with that is that df is already relatively slow to add new content (or at least release this new content) and adding more bug fixing would only delay that. Bug fixing is important but it can't arrest development in favor of infinitely bogging the project down in fixing systems that might not even exist in a few more updates. Right now the important thing is keeping the game fixed enough to be playable and fun while moving toward the future.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on July 05, 2011, 12:33:21 pm
Toady's schedule: new features release, "new bugs" bugfixing release, "old bugs" bugfixing release. It is perfecct - it advances this alpha stage game while letting it to be playable.
you have to remember that for every update he's doing 2 bug fix releases, so he's literally doing twice as much bug fixing as updating and you want him to do more?Yes. Feature creep (like whole undead&werewhatevers mini-arc) does not get its own release and bugfix release, rendering whole "release, bugfix, release, bugfix" business menaningless.
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on July 05, 2011, 12:48:42 pm
Post by: Miuramir on July 05, 2011, 12:54:27 pm
I cut out breeding vampires since I didn't want to deal with it for this release, but I know it's a popular thing to have mixed-breed vampire slayers and that sort of thing, so it'll probably happen at some point.
Sir, I'd be eternally grateful if you pushed the half-vampire vamp slayers to sometime post version 1.00
No, really.
It's not dorfy.
Please don't.
Sir.
I don't see why the South Slavic / Balkan traditions of how vampires function and behave are any less relevant than other historical regional beliefs on vampires. The dhampir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhampir) is technically the child of a vampire father and a human mother, but the term has become more general to include various other half-breed combinations. Originally they were most commonly the result of a vampire returning to a woman they were attracted to in life; this is a classic folklore motif and is a good starting point for interesting plots; it should fit well into DF's Night Creature framework. The belief that they have many of the powers of the vampire without some of the limitations makes for both dangerous foes and interesting adventure PC possibilities. Given DF's procedural framework, the mix of bonuses and penalties they cross-inherit may be at least somewhat randomized, making them potentially tricky foes as well.
Post by: TheSlimeGod on July 05, 2011, 01:12:27 pm
I'd by worried that the game would make auto-eat either dangerous foods or things that you want to keep, such as seeds. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the game will never be smart enough to avoid auto-eating the foods the players want to keep, especially if you consider all the weird stuff people could mod (would the player prefer to eat the root that makes them go berserk, or the berries that make them turn into a ghost for an hour?). I'm hoping there's some sort of interface so that we can forbid things... I'd hate to learn my character ran out of water and auto-drank some vampire blood...
Could certain basic foods be fitted with some kind of tag that identifies them as safe to automatically consume while other edibles that may be valuable could be eaten manually? That way, if you ran out of basic foods to eat while fast-travelling the game could alert you to the fact and you would have to decide to eat part (or all) of your precious cargo until you could restock. Or you could greedily press on and potentially die of starvation ...
This game and Toady's continuing vision for it still make my jaw drop. Thanks Toady!
Post by: G-Flex on July 05, 2011, 03:21:15 pm
There is a significant difference between "fixing a bug" and "replacing a placeholder with the fully-feature" in a game like DF.
That's true. There are still plenty of bugs and issues that fall into either category, and a lot of "placeholders" could be replaced with a fleshed-out, less-problematic version with not much cost now or in the future.
I do not personally believe in implementing features that do not work properly, and then leaving them working improperly for years.
As per the add vs fix debate, you have to remember that for every update he's doing 2 bug fix releases, so he's literally doing twice as much bug fixing as updating and you want him to do more? The problem with that is that df is already relatively slow to add new content (or at least release this new content) and adding more bug fixing would only delay that. Bug fixing is important but it can't arrest development in favor of infinitely bogging the project down in fixing systems that might not even exist in a few more updates. Right now the important thing is keeping the game fixed enough to be playable and fun while moving toward the future.
You can't measure effort in number of releases; that's just silly and absurd. You also can't measure need that way.
You're also making the fairly typical excuses. Yes, it's true that sometimes it's not worth fixing something up past a certain degree because those systems may be replaced. This is not an excuse you can use against any suggestion that more bugfixing or polishing be done. The fact remains that there are plenty of changes and fixes that could be done now, wouldn't really take much time (such as simple raw value problems, to provide the most obvious example), and involve systems that were just implemented and wouldn't likely be replaced any time soon at all.
In my opinion, what would "infinitely bog the project down" is the continuous implementation of new features on top of new features when the previous "new features" don't actually work right, or have too many problems to reliably produce the correct results.
Post by: Neonivek on July 05, 2011, 07:14:32 pm
Quote
It'll have to be balanced out, whatever it is, or else the world gen has to stop some short period before a known date sensitive calamity is going to happen. Then I think I mentioned before that heading toward an apocalypse is fine, and non-date sensitive ones are fine as well. It just has to be fun. If world gen ends up with too many rejects after doing several hundred years, that would be horrible. If a post-apocalypse world is playable and not all that common, then that's okay as well. It should be difficult to kill absolutely everybody without blowing up the world, and worlds with small isolated groups of humans clinging to life are cool, if a bit limited
Thank you for your answer Toady
Though I meant more about not removing a creature's (or situation's) inherant world ending potential because people will have means to prevent that from ever happening.
For example a Vampire who infects people with a touch (or something) could end the world because he is relatively unharmed by the populous at large. If the game however gave a form of consciousness to the people so that they could counter such a uprising by that vampire then maybe you wouldn't have to nerf it. Even if that means a town may end up being populated entirely by vampires.
Or a civilisation of super expansionists with great technology and powerful patrons looking over them possibly forcing everyone else to team up on that power.
Or rather the ability for others to recognise a threat and manuver against it.
Not sure how I translate that into a question though to reask Toady.
Post by: piecewise on July 05, 2011, 10:40:38 pm
1. If there are easy, raw based fixes that you really want to be done, then go do them yourself.There is a significant difference between "fixing a bug" and "replacing a placeholder with the fully-feature" in a game like DF.
That's true. There are still plenty of bugs and issues that fall into either category, and a lot of "placeholders" could be replaced with a fleshed-out, less-problematic version with not much cost now or in the future.
I do not personally believe in implementing features that do not work properly, and then leaving them working improperly for years.As per the add vs fix debate, you have to remember that for every update he's doing 2 bug fix releases, so he's literally doing twice as much bug fixing as updating and you want him to do more? The problem with that is that df is already relatively slow to add new content (or at least release this new content) and adding more bug fixing would only delay that. Bug fixing is important but it can't arrest development in favor of infinitely bogging the project down in fixing systems that might not even exist in a few more updates. Right now the important thing is keeping the game fixed enough to be playable and fun while moving toward the future.
You can't measure effort in number of releases; that's just silly and absurd. You also can't measure need that way.
You're also making the fairly typical excuses. Yes, it's true that sometimes it's not worth fixing something up past a certain degree because those systems may be replaced. This is not an excuse you can use against any suggestion that more bugfixing or polishing be done. The fact remains that there are plenty of changes and fixes that could be done now, wouldn't really take much time (such as simple raw value problems, to provide the most obvious example), and involve systems that were just implemented and wouldn't likely be replaced any time soon at all.
In my opinion, what would "infinitely bog the project down" is the continuous implementation of new features on top of new features when the previous "new features" don't actually work right, or have too many problems to reliably produce the correct results.
2. I did not say that no bug fixing or polishing should be done, just that there is a great deal being done already and that calling for a halt in development in favor of pure bug fixing isn't the best idea. New features keep people interested, keep donations coming and expand the game as a whole. The important thing is to not do too much of either. Personally, it all seems to be going right for now.
3.In the end, because neither of us really know about how the inner workings of the game, so it's probably better to trust toady's scheduling.
Post by: Nivim on July 06, 2011, 12:52:13 am
Could certain basic foods be fitted with some kind of tag that identifies them as safe to automatically consume while other edibles that may be valuable could be eaten manually?You could go a step further and give adventurers more general forbid or use options, similar in system to fortress mode, that will apply to everything normally happening automatically. Such as auto-burning torch/lamp oil or not when travelling at night, or auto-changing wound dressings and applying herbs at every meal.
Post by: Kay12 on July 06, 2011, 01:35:55 am
3.In the end, because neither of us really know about how the inner workings of the game, so it's probably better to trust toady's scheduling.
I find this one a fair argument. However, I still consider that requesting bugs to be fixed is just as fair as requesting certain new features. Toady may accept, Toady may decline, Toady may not even notice, but heck, at least I got to have my voice heard.
Post by: G-Flex on July 06, 2011, 02:00:51 am
1. If there are easy, raw based fixes that you really want to be done, then go do them yourself.
Er, that kind of misses the point. Yeah, there are some things that modders can fix, but why should they have do? Easy fixes should be incorporated into the game itself. There are also a lot of things that are doubtless trivial but that aren't reparable by modders, like the mishaps with grazing animal metabolism.
Quote
2. I did not say that no bug fixing or polishing should be done, just that there is a great deal being done already and that calling for a halt in development in favor of pure bug fixing isn't the best idea. New features keep people interested, keep donations coming and expand the game as a whole. The important thing is to not do too much of either. Personally, it all seems to be going right for now.
I would agree, but there are enough significant problems with enough of the newer systems that I find the current model unsustainable, as it doesn't give me much hope that those problems will actually be fixed. The ratio of problems fixed to new problems created seems too low to me. Maybe Toady's just thinking more long-term, and these things will be sorted out as part of a much more significant fixer-upper release cycle a little while from now, but I don't want to assume that, nor do I think it's necessarily the smartest way to go.
Quote
3.In the end, because neither of us really know about how the inner workings of the game, so it's probably better to trust toady's scheduling.
Why? I mean, there's a bit of a point here, but I'm talking about fairly fundamental development practices that don't have a whole lot to do with particular implementations of things, and some of the stuff I mentioned is fairly easy to fix. At any rate, I can only judge based on what I see, and I see a lot of recently-implemented subsystems with flaws ranging from trivial to bizarre to fundamental and important, and I get a little discouraged when those things linger for what is very many months now. There's really no other way to feel when you see bug tracker reports (my own or otherwise) relating to a new feature sit for a year or more without further comment.
Post by: thvaz on July 06, 2011, 02:53:47 am
3.In the end, because neither of us really know about how the inner workings of the game, so it's probably better to trust toady's scheduling.
I find this one a fair argument. However, I still consider that requesting bugs to be fixed is just as fair as requesting certain new features. Toady may accept, Toady may decline, Toady may not even notice, but heck, at least I got to have my voice heard.
The problem with your argument is that Toady does both, so you really have no reason to complain. What do you want is a finished game now for what looks like selfish reasons (do you want to play it now without bugs).
And by bringing this old argument back you wake up sleeping beasts like G-Flex, that won't leave the matter settle, ever.
-rant-
What do you really fail to consider is that Toady is working alone (only he does the code) on this project for nine years already. Dwarf Fortress isn't a standard software project that could use fundamental development practices because it is a very singular project. You won't find many examples of someone doing what Toady does.
There is a lot of problems, everyone knows it, but bugs are being fixed (over 150 reports last time, on six releases) and as I played recently, there are no gamebreaking bugs left, the game is really stable (didn't crashed once), military is working fine (I couldn't go back to old system now), health care is mostly working... so what are you complaining? Are you really playing the game at all?
Post by: G-Flex on July 06, 2011, 03:07:55 am
What do you really fail to consider is that Toady is working alone (only he codes) on this project for nine years already. Dwarf Fortress isn't a standard software project that could use stand fundamental development practices.
I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything. Spending more time on properly fixing/implementing things and hunting bugs instead of implementing features doesn't really have much to do with him working alone. You're making an assertion without really even attempting to back it up, here. I know it's a lone-developer project, but I'm speaking from a perspective regarding this project to begin with, not "standard practices". If this were a standard software project, a whole lot of things would be different; I'm well aware of that.
Quote
There is a lot of problems, everyone knows it, but bugs are being fixed (over 150 reports last time, on six releases) and as I played recently, there are no gamebreaking bugs left, the game is really stable (didn't crashed once), military is working fine (I couldn't go back to old system now) so what are you complaining?
Bugs don't have to be "game-breaking" to be important. DF is the kind of game that prides itself in its detail, and for something like that to work, those details have to work right. For instance, there's no sense in having such complex body and combat systems if they're still quirky enough that they often-enough don't provide sensible results.
Again, I'm aware bugs are being fixed, but what I question is whether or not the problems with recently-implemented systems will get fixed in the near future at all.
The problem with your argument is that Toady does both, so you really have no reason to complain. What do you want is a finished game now for what looks like selfish reasons(do you want to plaiy it now without bugs).
And by bringing this old argument back you wake up sleeping beasts like G-Flex, that won't leave the matter settle, ever.
Of course he does both. The point of contention is over how much of each is done, when, and in what order, and that all does still matter. I don't really see this as any more selfish than any other request or commentary anybody makes; requesting new features can certainly be selfish, too. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm more concerned about the project than my own interests here, and I've spoken to plenty of people who have been frustrated by the issues I'm talking about. It's not that I don't respect Toady's work or anything, but critical commentary is kind of a necessary part of any community revolving around a project, especially when said community acts as its testers as well as its users. The only reason I'm so adamant about stuff like this is because I love the project enough to want to see it do well and be what it can be, and because it's a perspective that needs a part in discussion as much as the people cheering on new features or suggesting things.
And I know I'm kind of rehashing things I've said before, but the topic came up, so I responded.
Post by: thvaz on July 06, 2011, 03:31:10 am
Quote
Again, I'm aware bugs are being fixed, but what I question is whether or not the problems with recently-implemented systems will get fixed in the near future at all.
Well, most of the bugs introduced with 31.17 and 31.19 were fixed. Beekeeping, Clay industry, Night Creatures, ghosts, targeted attacks, castles, are all introduced then and are working well.
Post by: Kay12 on July 06, 2011, 03:32:35 am
3.In the end, because neither of us really know about how the inner workings of the game, so it's probably better to trust toady's scheduling.
I find this one a fair argument. However, I still consider that requesting bugs to be fixed is just as fair as requesting certain new features. Toady may accept, Toady may decline, Toady may not even notice, but heck, at least I got to have my voice heard.
The problem with your argument is that Toady does both, so you really have no reason to complain. What do you want is a finished game now for what looks like selfish reasons (do you want to play it now without bugs).
I'm not following your logic. If I prefer bug fixes to new feature additions, I'm supposedly "selfish". What about the people who wish for new features? How are they less selfish? And in any case, leave out the ad hominem - why I prefer bug fixes to features is a matter of taste, not that I'm some horrible monster.
Post by: irdsm on July 06, 2011, 04:15:35 am
Post by: Dae on July 06, 2011, 04:20:48 am
But that is applyable to normal projects. DF is not a normal project. DF is special because :
- Its sheer ambition raise placeholder to the level of what would be final release features in other projects, and its final version features would be more at their place in a dedicated simulator. That makes the cost of working on placeholder really significant, up to several months for a one-man team.
- We are playing an alpha version. In normal projects, the public has access to a version that has to be fully working. A work in progress is not supposed to. It's a work in progress. Things are missing, some are buggy, but the team is working on it. DF is not supposed to be perfect until at least beta, and the fact that we're playing it means we have to acknowledge that. Toady is listening very closely to its public and he pays attention to us more than every other developer I've seen out there : we should be grateful for that.
- Toady has not been hired to do it. He's dedicating his life to it. As such, the project dies as soon as his interest in the project dies. For the people here who are not coders, bugfixing is frustrating, to say the least. Sometimes you notice the door creaks, so you oil it up and as a consequence the wall crumbles into dust. Implementing features is more fun, and we should see the last period of feature creep as a treat Toady gave to himself, and as soon as the next release is out, a treat he gave us.
I'm not saying you are wrong. As it was said, requesting bug fixes is as acceptable as requesting features, and as long as there will be requests of one there should be requests of the other, because Toady is reading most of this and listening to his fan base. The most recent proof is the most wonderful daily updates.
BUT we have to keep in mind how unorthodox this project is, and as far as requesting goes, ranting or expecting Toady to act exactly as we say looks awfully ungrateful to me. It's more a question of how you say it than what you say.
Post by: Kay12 on July 06, 2011, 04:50:34 am
However, I do have something of a reason for fixing bugs instead of adding features, the MoSCoW method. I know Toady has a lot more ambitious view than I do, so he'd probably group stuff differently than I do, but I consider that bugs *should* be removed, and features *could* be added. Of the people I've introduced DF to and who got past the initial difficulty of learning the interface, three decided to leave the game until it's more stable. None left because they felt the game lacked a feature they wanted. Eventually though, it's useless to argue this because Toady probably has a roadmap that's thought-out well enough.
EDIT: Oh, and a question that has been rolling around in my mind for a while now and hopefully allows us to concentrate on something else than this useless arguing. DF is a bigger-than-life project, and it's admirable that a single coder is carrying it on. However, I'm a bit concerned about the long-term (hopefully not short-term) Future of the Fortress - who will carry on the development in the unfortunate event that Toady is, for any reason, unable to?
Post by: Cruxador on July 06, 2011, 04:58:00 am
It's mainly a difference in design philosophy, not that the bugs are game-breaking. Personally, I'm fine with the current features of DF, and have no problem with any additions. I'd just prefer bug fixes to new features for the time being. A matter of taste, and of course Toady isn't obliged to design the game according to my desires.Besides the "Alternate content and bugfixing", I think there's no relevant roadmap. There's certainly nothing as formalized as MoSCoW, because although I don't know what that is, I know Toady almost never uses stuff so formalized that it has a name. The problem with the notion of fixing bugs in lieu of adding content is that then you get no content. DF is far from finished, and polishing the placeholders is ultimately a waste of time, even if it might be nice in the immediate term.
However, I do have something of a reason for fixing bugs instead of adding features, the MoSCoW method. I know Toady has a lot more ambitious view than I do, so he'd probably group stuff differently than I do, but I consider that bugs *should* be removed, and features *could* be added. Of the people I've introduced DF to and who got past the initial difficulty of learning the interface, three decided to leave the game until it's more stable. None left because they felt the game lacked a feature they wanted. Eventually though, it's useless to argue this because Toady probably has a roadmap that's thought-out well enough.
Post by: Kay12 on July 06, 2011, 05:13:05 am
* Must have
* Should have
* Could have
* Would have (or in some cases, Want to have or Won't have now)
Personally, I consider DF has everything that it *Must have* to be an enjoyable game. Toady, I read somewhere, intends DF to be a full-fledged fantasy world simulation, but I'm not sure how high he'd rank the yet unimplemented elements of the game. In any case, I would personally rank bug fixes in the *Should have* as many bugs are annoying, but there is currently no bug that makes the game impossible to enjoy. There are no glaringly obvious missing features by my experiences, so I would personally rank any feature requests on the *Could have* level. The only feature so far I have expected to be in this game but it turned out not to exist (yet) is mining and building in adventure mode.
But again, I know nothing of Toady's plans for the next months so it's hard for me to express anything than my personal opinion.
Post by: Dae on July 06, 2011, 06:00:45 am
Post by: Sunday on July 06, 2011, 06:05:50 am
Toady has fixed all the bugs that were bothering me (mostly the hospital ones, along with laggy ghosts), and he's already spent a ton of time fixing bugs that could have been spent working on new features. And I'd rather have necromancers attacking my fortress with an army of zombies than, say, the correct values for the various materials in the raws. Because I don't really care whether copper has the right tensile strength (I seriously doubt that will change my playstyle at all), but I do care about fighting a desperate last stand against heaving hordes of ravening undead.
Post by: Kay12 on July 06, 2011, 06:10:48 am
Post by: zwei on July 06, 2011, 07:26:32 am
Well, I'd prefer to have new features over more time spent bugfixing.
Toady has fixed all the bugs that were bothering me (mostly the hospital ones, along with laggy ghosts), and he's already spent a ton of time fixing bugs that could have been spent working on new features. And I'd rather have necromancers attacking my fortress with an army of zombies than, say, the correct values for the various materials in the raws. Because I don't really care whether copper has the right tensile strength (I seriously doubt that will change my playstyle at all), but I do care about fighting a desperate last stand against heaving hordes of ravening undead.
Well, while we are being selfish here, I would prefer fixes to bugs that bother me over features you would want.
Or, what about this: He could work on features I want to have but leave any undead bugs unfixed because I could not care less about that stuff working properly, that would be your problem.
Either works for me :-)
Post by: Sunday on July 06, 2011, 08:59:23 am
Well, I'd prefer to have new features over more time spent bugfixing.
Toady has fixed all the bugs that were bothering me (mostly the hospital ones, along with laggy ghosts), and he's already spent a ton of time fixing bugs that could have been spent working on new features. And I'd rather have necromancers attacking my fortress with an army of zombies than, say, the correct values for the various materials in the raws. Because I don't really care whether copper has the right tensile strength (I seriously doubt that will change my playstyle at all), but I do care about fighting a desperate last stand against heaving hordes of ravening undead.
Well, while we are being selfish here, I would prefer fixes to bugs that bother me over features you would want.
Or, what about this: He could work on features I want to have but leave any undead bugs unfixed because I could not care less about that stuff working properly, that would be your problem.
Either works for me :-)
Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make. :)
For every person that wants more bugfixing, someone else (well, me, at least) wants more features.
So if someone else can criticize Toady for not working on bug-fixes, then I get to praise him for working on the stuff I like. If someone else is just saying that in their opinion they want more bug-fixes, then I get to say that in my opinion, I want more features.
Of course, since Toady's development style doesn't seem to be built on a survey of what people are saying in FotF threads, it seems kind of pointless to me to spend pages talking about whether he should be fixing more bugs or not, when we could be talking about cool stuff like towns and dungeons. The point is moot. Though that doesn't seem to stop people from continually bringing up and criticizing Toady for not fixing as many bugs as they'd like.
Ah well.
Post by: Untelligent on July 06, 2011, 10:36:52 am
MoSCoW is merely grouping stuff between
* Must have
* Should have
* Could have
* Would have (or in some cases, Want to have or Won't have now)
Huh. The old core/req/bloat/powergoal development plan system sounds remarkably similar to that.
Post by: jockmo42 on July 06, 2011, 01:32:17 pm
Post by: KennySheep on July 06, 2011, 02:39:47 pm
Will workshops ever require tools to work? Like, deboning knives for the fishery, hammers and tongs for the forges, stuff like that.
Post by: Dae on July 06, 2011, 03:00:38 pm
Will workshops ever require tools to work? Like, deboning knives for the fishery, hammers and tongs for the forges, stuff like that. [/color]
Toady has stated multiple times that the tools used are part of the workshops made. If I Recall Correctly, he said that if tools were made a requirement for workshops, building one would be too much of a hassle. So overall, no. I don't know his plans for adventure tools though. The workshop system would work as well I think.
Post by: zwei on July 06, 2011, 03:06:09 pm
Post by: G-Flex on July 06, 2011, 04:16:11 pm
Will workshops ever require tools to work? Like, deboning knives for the fishery, hammers and tongs for the forges, stuff like that. [/color]
Toady has stated multiple times that the tools used are part of the workshops made. If I Recall Correctly, he said that if tools were made a requirement for workshops, building one would be too much of a hassle. So overall, no. I don't know his plans for adventure tools though. The workshop system would work as well I think.
Yeah, it's a question of abstraction. Obviously, you don't want to be forcing the player to micromanage every hammer and nail and screw and plank of wood. I think I've heard him mention that less abstraction is okay in Adventure Mode, but I can't think of any quotes in particular.
QuoteAgain, I'm aware bugs are being fixed, but what I question is whether or not the problems with recently-implemented systems will get fixed in the near future at all.
Well, most of the bugs introduced with 31.17 and 31.19 were fixed. Beekeeping, Clay industry, Night Creatures, ghosts, targeted attacks, castles, are all introduced then and are working well.
I was referring more to the body, creature, combat, and other major subsystems introduced in 0.31 in general. A lot of the problems aren't obvious, but are still consequential, and some of the obvious ones, like the melting-dwarf-acid-rain bug, were never entirely fixed (in that case, one culprit was/is a couple raw values for body tissue that don't make sense).
But yeah, all this talk of what's "selfish" is pretty weird to me. I'm trying to talk about what I think would work best for the project, not what I personally desire.
Post by: Cruxador on July 06, 2011, 04:20:12 pm
MoSCoW is merely grouping stuff betweenYeah, Toady doesn't use anything that formalized any more. He scrapped the old system with cores and bloats and what-not. And due to the unbouded dev cycle that DF enjoys, things are basically are:
* Must have
* Should have
* Could have
* Would have (or in some cases, Want to have or Won't have now)
Personally, I consider DF has everything that it *Must have* to be an enjoyable game. Toady, I read somewhere, intends DF to be a full-fledged fantasy world simulation, but I'm not sure how high he'd rank the yet unimplemented elements of the game. In any case, I would personally rank bug fixes in the *Should have* as many bugs are annoying, but there is currently no bug that makes the game impossible to enjoy. There are no glaringly obvious missing features by my experiences, so I would personally rank any feature requests on the *Could have* level. The only feature so far I have expected to be in this game but it turned out not to exist (yet) is mining and building in adventure mode.
But again, I know nothing of Toady's plans for the next months so it's hard for me to express anything than my personal opinion.
*should have soon
*won't have soon
The current list of "should have soon" is on the dev page: http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html
Note that this lists just content, bugfixes come between content releases. And it doesn't include the donation animals, which are the product of weekends now.
I know how massive DF aims to be. In my opinion that's a good reason to fix bugs quickly, because building on bad foundations may result in unwanted consequences and unfortunate accidents. But yeah, I trust Toady knows the best and will stabilize stuff soon enough.That only matters if
1. the bugs have far-reaching consequences, and
2. the bugs are in the foundation of systems he's currently working on.
Since this caravan arc stuff is basically all being built mostly from scratch, that's not an issue because the latter case is not satisfied.
Post by: thvaz on July 06, 2011, 04:48:39 pm
QuoteAgain, I'm aware bugs are being fixed, but what I question is whether or not the problems with recently-implemented systems will get fixed in the near future at all.
Well, most of the bugs introduced with 31.17 and 31.19 were fixed. Beekeeping, Clay industry, Night Creatures, ghosts, targeted attacks, castles, are all introduced then and are working well.
I was referring more to the body, creature, combat, and other major subsystems introduced in 0.31 in general. A lot of the problems aren't obvious, but are still consequential, and some of the obvious ones, like the melting-dwarf-acid-rain bug, were never entirely fixed (in that case, one culprit was/is a couple raw values for body tissue that don't make sense).
These problems aren't obvious and are mostly working. It needs more work and Toady knows that. I have not the time to search for a quote, but he plans to tackle these issues
after he deal with the split of movement and combat speeds.
I don't like everything Toady does - for instance, I would like he would attain more for the plans he sets for himself (if not for the night creatures we should already be entering
Release 2!). But I trust he knows what he is doing. He is doing this already for years.
Post by: piecewise on July 06, 2011, 08:47:22 pm
1. On of the things that always kinda annoys me with Adventure mode is that you can never really tell what someone is wearing. You have to dig through their inventory menu and then mentally piece what they look like together. Is it possible that, in the future, when you select someone and press "d" to look at their description, it could say not only what they look like physically but also what they're wearing? It could just say whatever they're wearing in the "top" layer of each body part and say nothing if they're not wearing anything. something like "He has a [whatever] on his upper body, [another whatever] on the his lower body, [yet another whatever] on his left hand, etc."
2.Another problem I tend to have in adventure mode, in mods especially, is knowing what skill a specific weapon uses. Would it be possible to have some way of finding out what skill a weapon uses in game (without checking raws or using it to see what skill increases)?
3.Right now, injury in adventure mode is kinda...sporadic in its effects. I managed to shatter the bones of the upper and lower legs and upper and lower arms of some merchant and he continued to attack seemingly unabated and without any real negative effects. Similarly, damaging organs seems to be completely ineffective except in the case of heart, lungs and brain (and spine, if you consider that an organ). Tendons also don't seem to effect much, if anything, from what I've seen. Is this sort of thing more of a side effect of a personality strangeness (ie "all my limbs are shattered but I'll still cut the eyes out of that guy who stole a spoon because the hivemind desires it") or just that body structures and actual physical actions don't quite correlate yet?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 06, 2011, 08:59:43 pm
Post by: G-Flex on July 06, 2011, 09:17:37 pm
These problems aren't obvious and are mostly working. It needs more work and Toady knows that. I have not the time to search for a quote, but he plans to tackle these issues
after he deal with the split of movement and combat speeds.
I don't like everything Toady does - for instance, I would like he would attain more for the plans he sets for himself (if not for the night creatures we should already be entering
Release 2!). But I trust he knows what he is doing. He is doing this already for years.
I'm not sure what movement and combat speed have to do with any of that. Anyway, I wish we could have a conversation about this without cop-outs like "he knows what he's doing" or, conversely, the implication that criticism implies a lack of faith or anything like that.
Post by: Untelligent on July 06, 2011, 09:37:18 pm
Post by: Kay12 on July 07, 2011, 01:10:00 am
None of the current bugs and issues really bother me at all.
Yeah, and I'm not bothered at all if <feature x> is postponed a bit. Matter of preference. And the choice is ultimately Toady's so I see very little point in discussing this.
<open source argument>
Of course, if the source was opened I could try to patch any bugs that annoy me myself.
</open source argument>
Post by: PTTG?? on July 07, 2011, 01:18:05 am
Quote from: Toady One
More advice from Janus: "By the way, an issue to expect: if people have any problems such as textboxes running off the page, BBCode buttons missing, or anything else like that, the solution is for that person to clear their browser cache or do a full page refresh (not just a normal page refresh). In Firefox for example, the way to do a full page refresh is to hold the Shift key on your keyboard and click the Reload button."
Three cheers for Janus! Once again I shall type in bountiful word wrappage!
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 07, 2011, 05:48:24 am
<open source argument>Of course, if the source was opened I could try to patch any bugs that annoy me myself.</open source argument>
that's not even on the table, just suggesting it on the forums basically amounts to treason. you do know df is toady's sole mean of sustenance?
Post by: Kay12 on July 07, 2011, 05:59:48 am
<open source argument>Of course, if the source was opened I could try to patch any bugs that annoy me myself.</open source argument>
that's not even on the table, just suggesting it on the forums basically amounts to treason. you do know df is toady's sole mean of sustenance?
Err, what's your problem? I was just saying that I could do the bug fixes myself if the code was freely available. If you want to dispute this, go ahead.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 07, 2011, 06:13:04 am
Post by: de5me7 on July 07, 2011, 06:19:05 am
or immediately after a slightly buggy release. I guess toady will know best. All the suggestions on bugs here have been said
before, by my reconing at least twice a year for the past 2 years.
Post by: Kay12 on July 07, 2011, 06:24:03 am
i'm not disputing your claim that you'd be able to fix the bugs, i'm disputing your right to make an argument for open sourcing df
Why are you disputing it and comparing me to a traitor?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 07, 2011, 06:30:48 am
Post by: Kay12 on July 07, 2011, 06:39:50 am
because it would put his highness out of work?
A pretty bad excuse. Linus Torvalds has been the boss of an open project for over two decades now.
While I think DF's development could (and probably would) gain from being open source and I certainly hope it to happen at some point, the code is Toady's and he's doing good work. There's no way I'm pressuring or forcing him to open the code. It's his project, he can decide what to do with it. He can keep it closed, he can open it and either stay in charge or retire entirely - whatever he does and at what point, it's his choice only, and that choice is justified by his sheer ownership and authorship of the code.
However, Toady's sovereignity over the project is not a reason for suppressing arguments for/against anything.
Post by: Lord Shonus on July 07, 2011, 06:42:57 am
However, Toady's sovereignity over the project is not a reason for suppressing arguments for/against anything.
No, but his repeated and insistent desire that people stop bringing the subject up is.
Post by: Kay12 on July 07, 2011, 06:45:39 am
However, Toady's sovereignity over the project is not a reason for suppressing arguments for/against anything.
No, but his repeated and insistent desire that people stop bringing the subject up is.
And, precisely for that reason, my original open source argument was enclosed in an HTML-esque <tag> to prevent people from taking it as a serious reason to "MAKE IT OPEN NOW OR DIE".
(Also, pardon my ignorance of this subject's apparent... what's that word for arguments that have already been revisited a bazillion times? I'm quite new to these DF forums, I've only made a few casual visits earlier.)
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 07, 2011, 06:57:43 am
Linus Torvaldswe're talking about a niche game here, you're comparing it to the kernel that almost every open source os in existence uses. the scope of both projects is so disproportional i'd say that comparison isn't very good
but yeah, let's drop this
Post by: Dae on July 07, 2011, 07:08:52 am
Post by: Dsarker on July 07, 2011, 07:57:23 am
Post by: thvaz on July 07, 2011, 08:39:19 am
And public hangings on the market.
Post by: Fieari on July 07, 2011, 09:19:07 am
Presumably, criminals would be based on the ethic tags of a civilisation.
I'm imagining elf prisoners who cut down trees...
Basically, anything forbidden by the ethics could cause someone to be in the dungeons. Even if it only showed up in Worldgen/Legends and perhaps the speech "What are you in for? Cutting down trees" it would be cool.
Post by: Senty on July 07, 2011, 09:38:19 am
Post by: Dsarker on July 07, 2011, 09:49:48 am
Post by: Caldfir on July 07, 2011, 12:53:51 pm
Which situations in adventure/dwarf mode are (currently) pulling from real populations, and which ones are just spawning random creatures of the associated type of the given civ? Meaning that they are either a historical figure, or they represent some actual member of the parent civ's actual current population of creatures.
We already know that random spawns are:
- starting 7 (dwarf mode)
- immigrants (dwarf mode)
- invaders (dwarf mode)
- traders (dwarf mode)
- guards (dwarf mode)
- diplomats (dwarf mode)
- cities
- castle guards (adventure mode)
- bandits (adventure mode)
Do the creatures that historical figures tame get used anywhere?
edit: thanks Footkerchief - edited to only ask about potentially ambiguous characters
Post by: Shinziril on July 07, 2011, 02:57:42 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on July 07, 2011, 03:21:27 pm
Which situations in adventure/dwarf mode are (currently) pulling from real populations, and which ones are just spawning random creatures of the associated type of the given civ? Meaning that they are either a historical figure, or they represent some actual member of the parent civ's actual current population of creatures.
Ones that are potentially up in the air are:
- diplomats (dwarf mode)
- traders (dwarf mode)
- guards (adventure mode)
- bandits (adventure mode)
Diplomats are historical, and I'm pretty sure that bandits (or at least bandit leaders) are too. I think you can find bandits in Legends even if you've never encountered them in Adv Mode. Traders and guards are spawned.
Do the creatures that historical figures tame get used anywhere?
As mentioned above, they're used in attacks on your fortress: (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_2009.html#2009-11-04)
Quote from: devlog
Getak Twigracks was a human warlord ruling the town of Spoongrizzle. After four peaceful years, he decided to make a journey to a nearby mountain range called the Belted Tooth, and in the manner of the legendary stories, he managed to tame the giant eagles that lived there. Eight years later, he traveled west, befriending the jaguars that lived in the hills there and bringing some back for his personal menagerie. Many more years drifted by, and the aging warrior thought perhaps he would be able to live out the end of his life in harmony with his many beasts. However, this was not to be -- because I forced a human assault on my fortress with a debug command. Several squads of foot soldiers came, as well as a group of trained jaguars running along with them. Getak was escorted by his personal guard, all riding giant eagles. The seven dwarves milling around by the wagon put up a modest defense.
The elves still have a great advantage in the use of beasts, but there can be a bit of variety now. As in fortress mode, the historical dwarves can now take advantage of certain underground beasts (not that you fight dwarves yet), and the goblins should have a greater variety available as well.
Post by: Cruxador on July 07, 2011, 03:51:41 pm
It should be nice if the dungeons under the castle would have some prisoners for you to free.Hopefully that sort of thing will come in when we get the revamped party code.
And public hangings on the market.
Will there be an active way in which we can engage in diplomacy, something like sending out envoys akin to the ones you receive.Unless I'm mistaken, that's intended to be part of Army Arc, which will come after the current Caravan Arc. We're probably looking at a year or two for completion of Caravan Arc (though if Toady keeps adding tons of stuff to releases, could be really long). We don't know when during Army Arc that particular feature will be added.
Post by: Dareon Clearwater on July 07, 2011, 04:55:43 pm
It would be a little bit boring to go down and find a market stall in a sewer room with a few prickle berries and a rope reed amulet at the same prices as on the surface, but if the civilization had some material taboos in place that prevented legal sales of certain things (Gnomeblight or whip wine, for instance), that would be flavorful even if the prices weren't any different from what they are in the next civ over, which sells gnomeblight and whip wine like it ain't no thang. Actual supply and demand making higher prices for black market whip wine in The Purple Shafts would make it worthwhile to play a smuggler hauling barrels from The Brazen Balls.
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 07, 2011, 06:23:06 pm
How are prices determined?
I mean in the new economy, of course.
EDIT: Or is there no new economy yet? I might have lost track of it.
Post by: piecewise on July 07, 2011, 06:28:32 pm
this is not a suggestions thread, those are not even remotely concealed.
First one and second one, yeah, more suggestion then anything, though I actually assumed that something like them might be in the later versions (considering they're in most other text games). The third one isn't a suggestion at all, at least I can't see where the suggestion is.
Post by: Neonivek on July 07, 2011, 08:19:17 pm
Besides I've seen actually suggestions asked.
Post by: G-Flex on July 07, 2011, 08:53:01 pm
Now this might be an interesting question...
How are prices determined?
I mean in the new economy, of course.
EDIT: Or is there no new economy yet? I might have lost track of it.
I don't know when this is actually happening, but I remember a while back, asking Toady about materials whose real-life value is determined by things DF doesn't really simulate or care about yet (such as being pretty, or not corroding, both being examples that apply to gold), and he mentioned that for a while we'll probably have to deal with deflated values for materials like that. Aside from that, I don't remember anything, and I really have no idea how the game would accurately gauge the value of something, since it's all very context-dependent. Some materials are more valuable because they're light, for instance, or some because they're heavy, depending on what you're using them for.
Post by: Roflcopter5000 on July 07, 2011, 09:47:11 pm
Will the caravan arc include changes that allow fortress mode players to dispatch their own trade caravans to certain regions?
And as a sub question, if so this would set precedent for persistent entities leaving your fort and doing things that effect the world, which would be pretty necessary for the army arc, so would I be correct in assuming that if this is the case, it would get thrown in somewhere around the end of the caravan development arc?
Also:
At what level of abstraction will the relative value adjustments of trade goods applied?
IE: Is the supply/demand of goods handled by settlement, by individual merchant, by general region, etc.
Post by: Neonivek on July 08, 2011, 12:34:58 am
Thought of using this for the Fortress talks... but It wouldn't be answered for sure.
Also guys right now do people who pretend to be gods take on their name? is your look command psychic for that?
Post by: Kay12 on July 08, 2011, 01:05:55 am
Now, what would be interesting is if a person's deeds carried over, sort of like a war crimes thing. Elves somehow capture a human city, devour them all because they cut down a tree.
I fixed your post to make sure it accurately portrays the elven ethics.
Post by: Dsarker on July 08, 2011, 01:10:39 am
Post by: Kay12 on July 08, 2011, 01:19:14 am
Post by: Vherid on July 08, 2011, 05:07:54 am
So really, will we be seeing more advanced social interactions in the future, such as ones that could potentially seperate people into groups and cause strife or even civil war.
Post by: Caldfir on July 08, 2011, 09:58:54 am
Toady now that gods are real (somewhat), how exactly can anyone even pretend to be one? How do they stop the ire of the gods? What are your thoughts on this?Right now, as I understand it, creatures with the [POWER] tag will try to take over civilizations. Right now that's just worldgen demons in vanilla, and I don't think they really give a flip about angering the gods (on account of being demons). The impersonation is based on spheres, so you can sometimes get impersonators that look like the gods they are supposed to be, but this is not always the case by a long shot.
Thought of using this for the Fortress talks... but It wouldn't be answered for sure.
Also guys right now do people who pretend to be gods take on their name? is your look command psychic for that?
If you read the worldgen text carefully, you will note that creatures pretend to be a "manifestation" of a god, so not looking like them is fine. For example: Zeus was most often portrayed as a human, but he manifested in many greek myths as any number of different animals, so pretending to be a manifestation of a god is actually pretty easy, as long as you don't clash with the overall principles the god represents.
As a fun related aside, I once modded in lionmen, and gave them a savage civilization with some sphere preferences I thought would fit nicely. I also gave dragons [INTELLIGENT] and [POWER], without really thinking much of it. Sure enough, dragons reliably took control of lionman civs. This kind of makes sense, since if I saw a dragon and it told me it was "the god of fire and strength," I think I would tend to believe it.
Post by: Neonivek on July 08, 2011, 02:11:08 pm
Quote
if I saw a dragon and it told me it was "the god of fire and strength," I think I would tend to believe it
Actually Megabeasts make good gods on their own without any additions being required interestingly enough. Similar to the many creatures born of gods in mythology.
Quote
you will note that creatures pretend to be a "manifestation" of a god, so not looking like them is fine
I am also aware. I was asking if the adventure mode cheats and tells you if a Power isn't. It would be interesting if they would take on the name of the god during adventure mode and have a description that befits that of a diety. Rather then cheating psychic sight.
Post by: Cruxador on July 08, 2011, 02:57:33 pm
Now I'm sure guilds will come back eventually or so, but are there ever plans for maybe not just between guilds, but "groups" of people rather to have strife. I just watched gangs of new york again, so that is flavoring my ideas but I'm sure it would make sense for there to be fights over groups of people for whichever reason or even civil war type of deals. Or how about give people some motives to take out those nobles who are just dicks. Look at the gem cutter whos life trade and skill is useless once it's all mandated. I'd imagine he'd have a few words with that noble with his gem cutting tools. But then you have a whole gem cutting industry. Couple people maybe 5-10. Where on the other hand that noble is just doing everything for the wood crafting industry. You have this group of gem cutters quite angry at the noble, and anger with jealousy of the lumberjacks. So now you have this brawl or even lynching(Which I'm sure would be done by hammering for dwarves) occurring, and then you have a lot of FUN.This is discussed in depth in DF Talk 5. The short answer is "yes".
So really, will we be seeing more advanced social interactions in the future, such as ones that could potentially seperate people into groups and cause strife or even civil war.
Post by: thvaz on July 09, 2011, 04:41:42 am
Post by: Untelligent on July 10, 2011, 12:50:45 am
Post by: Dsarker on July 10, 2011, 03:19:36 am
Post by: Areyar on July 10, 2011, 03:56:19 am
Government has a mandate forbidding badger hunting.
Do critters (other than vermin) dig up plants/fields in DF?
I've never seen it, but I'm not that observant. :p
Some critters have stolen edible food items since forever, but only items not unharvested stuff afaik.
Post by: Gamerlord on July 10, 2011, 08:09:13 am
I now know what I must do. If it ever becomes possible to have a necromancer as a dwarf in your fort, I shall name him Tim.
Post by: Dsarker on July 10, 2011, 09:41:05 am
Post by: Untelligent on July 10, 2011, 12:33:07 pm
Post by: Kay12 on July 10, 2011, 01:59:44 pm
Wasn't he an enchanter?
Yeah, Tim the Enchanter. Classic. Here's the clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZJZK6rzjns) for the culturally ignorant to see...
Post by: de5me7 on July 10, 2011, 03:34:23 pm
ironically such a demon wouldnt be out of place in DF, but we might say fish instead of rodent
Post by: Gamerlord on July 10, 2011, 11:22:19 pm
Post by: Quatch on July 10, 2011, 11:51:49 pm
Post by: Caldfir on July 11, 2011, 02:21:24 pm
[...] It would be interesting if they would take on the name of the god during adventure mode and have a description that befits that of a diety. Rather then cheating psychic sight.Ah, yeah, I'm fairly certain that you see their real name in adventure mode. I seem to recall meeting the demon master of a human civ and seeing his name, so that's probably something that needs to be fixed at some point.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 11, 2011, 04:45:17 pm
Post by: Cruxador on July 11, 2011, 04:55:48 pm
jesus christ did not call himself yahwehThe demons are calling themselves the gods that they usurp, though.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 11, 2011, 05:26:04 pm
they claim to be manifestations of the gods, much like jesus christ and the holy spirit, according to catholic mythology, are manifestations of yaweh
Post by: Drevlin on July 11, 2011, 05:33:04 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on July 11, 2011, 05:35:41 pm
Is the month-end project completely secret or someone knows something about?
He is actually Notch.
Post by: Jimlad11 on July 11, 2011, 05:37:30 pm
Is the month-end project completely secret or someone knows something about?
He is actually Notch.
That would blow my mind. :o And worry me a little.
I am also intrigued by this "Project". What is it?...Only time will tell...
Post by: Dsarker on July 11, 2011, 09:17:08 pm
Jesus the Christ did not call himself YHWH
Fixed it for you.
Post by: Neonivek on July 12, 2011, 12:30:32 am
While some gods did have multiple forms each either different abilities and names... it isn't uniform and none of the current gods in DF do.
I just find it odd that your vision sort of cheats. EVEN if their names did match up, and their forms definately don't, the descriptions of all the powers befits some horror from hell more then a celestial diety (Do Forces still exist right now?)
Heck I am not even sure but it may even give away the race of the power too.
Post by: Untelligent on July 12, 2011, 10:18:08 am
I just find it odd that your vision sort of cheats. EVEN if their names did match up, and their forms definately don't, the descriptions of all the powers befits some horror from hell more then a celestial diety
Who says celestial deities can't look like horrors from hell? Heck, I remember at least one interpretation of the bible where that the angels were lovecraftian nightmares.
Post by: Vherid on July 12, 2011, 10:20:02 am
I just find it odd that your vision sort of cheats. EVEN if their names did match up, and their forms definately don't, the descriptions of all the powers befits some horror from hell more then a celestial diety
Who says celestial deities can't look like horrors from hell? Heck, I remember at least one interpretation of the bible where that the angels were lovecraftian nightmares.
Probably because they were aliens.
Post by: Dae on July 12, 2011, 11:42:58 am
Post by: Drevlin on July 12, 2011, 11:56:05 am
Is the month-end project completely secret or someone knows something about?
He is actually Notch.
So we should expect a new green exploding creature... Interesting :D
"I just caged a cree..." BOOM!
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 12, 2011, 01:06:03 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 12, 2011, 01:56:22 pm
Jesus the Christ did not call himself YHWH
Fixed it for you.
eh?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 12, 2011, 02:24:45 pm
Seriously its a little bit offtopic guys.
Post by: Areyar on July 12, 2011, 03:18:05 pm
;)
To get back on-topic:
Zombies suck right now, I hope they will get better with the necromancer stuff.
Post by: Neonivek on July 12, 2011, 03:24:18 pm
I just find it odd that your vision sort of cheats. EVEN if their names did match up, and their forms definately don't, the descriptions of all the powers befits some horror from hell more then a celestial diety
Who says celestial deities can't look like horrors from hell? Heck, I remember at least one interpretation of the bible where that the angels were lovecraftian nightmares.
Because the Powers don't look like Horrors from Hell their descriptions make them seem that way.
All I meant is that the Fluff text should change so instead of saying that the diety is... A Ram twisted into human shame... it would be something else.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 12, 2011, 03:32:53 pm
Hehe and if we are lucky we get this chimera and Frankenstein stuff for the deity descriptions too. Who says a prehistoric *somecolor*Ń cant become a "deity". There are some weird lovecraftian descriptions for the various Angelchoirs too iirc.
Post by: jockmo42 on July 12, 2011, 03:38:22 pm
I just find it odd that your vision sort of cheats. EVEN if their names did match up, and their forms definately don't, the descriptions of all the powers befits some horror from hell more then a celestial diety
Who says celestial deities can't look like horrors from hell? Heck, I remember at least one interpretation of the bible where that the angels were lovecraftian nightmares.
Because the Powers don't look like Horrors from Hell their descriptions make them seem that way.
All I meant is that the Fluff text should change so instead of saying that the diety is... A Ram twisted into human shame... it would be something else.
Are they always something like that? I suppose things could afford to look less diabolical once in a while if that's the case, but I don't think the potential for something nasty shouldn't be there. I always figured it would tie into spheres somehow.
Post by: eux0r on July 12, 2011, 03:54:34 pm
I just find it odd that your vision sort of cheats. EVEN if their names did match up, and their forms definately don't, the descriptions of all the powers befits some horror from hell more then a celestial dietyWho says celestial deities can't look like horrors from hell? Heck, I remember at least one interpretation of the bible where that the angels were lovecraftian nightmares.
not just interpretation but the higher tiers of angels are actually described to have many additional limbs and sets of wings, animal body parts and, as yhwh himself, are risky to look at(i dont remember exactly what happens, but i guess youd at least lose your mind). this brings me to ask:
-since gods seem to get fleshed out more and more, are you also planning to introduce something along the lines of angels?
-if yes: would those exist for every god or would that be more a "gods preference", so one god has his own and another doesnt or do you have other plans, like maybe there is just some kind of angel army that follows the orders of all the gods?
-related: do you plan any hierarchy between demons?
-if yes: would something like a demon-king emerge naturally through power struggles or would it be something with a certain demon(demon-race) to be predestined to be the king(higher demons)?
(-will there be something like demon-races at all?)
Post by: Neonivek on July 12, 2011, 03:58:23 pm
Quote
since gods seem to get fleshed out more and more, are you also planning to introduce something along the lines of angels?
Ahhh yes the god servants such as: Eihmarijar, Valkyrie, The Crows of Odin, Anubites, and angels.
Or do you mean the Celestial residents?
Or do you mean benevolent divine beings as opposed to lets say a demons melovolent divine being.
Post by: Areyar on July 12, 2011, 04:25:47 pm
anyway, my experience is that usually dwarven deities look like a male/female dwarf. maybe dorf gods are boring and unimaginative?
Post by: Neonivek on July 12, 2011, 04:28:21 pm
Will there be mercenary angels for those deities that don't have their own? ;)
anyway, my experience is that usually dwarven deities look like a male/female dwarf. maybe dorf gods are boring and unimaginative?
It feels more like dieties attempt to look like the beings they recieve worship from or possibly that the gods havn't appeared before them and thus their form is always what the people imagine itself to be (but if it is the second... you would think the legends mode would change if a Power immitates that diety... Afterall the diety is technically appearing in a new shape)
Mind you I think Toady has yet to really REALLY work on dieties. Since there is just soo much he can do with them.
Post by: Cerol Lenslens on July 12, 2011, 06:34:33 pm
To be honest, I kind of prefer it this way.
Post by: Dsarker on July 13, 2011, 08:32:58 am
I just find it odd that your vision sort of cheats. EVEN if their names did match up, and their forms definately don't, the descriptions of all the powers befits some horror from hell more then a celestial dietyWho says celestial deities can't look like horrors from hell? Heck, I remember at least one interpretation of the bible where that the angels were lovecraftian nightmares.
not just interpretation but the higher tiers of angels are actually described to have many additional limbs and sets of wings, animal body parts and, as yhwh himself, are risky to look at(i dont remember exactly what happens, but i guess youd at least lose your mind).
I believe that it is the Cherubrim who are the ones described, and they apparently have four heads (human, ram, lion, and something else that I cannot recall at this point). And the risk usually described is that the person who looks upon the Glory of YHWH will die.
Post by: eux0r on July 13, 2011, 08:41:18 am
Quotesince gods seem to get fleshed out more and more, are you also planning to introduce something along the lines of angels?
Ahhh yes the god servants such as: Eihmarijar, Valkyrie, The Crows of Odin, Anubites, and angels.
Or do you mean the Celestial residents?
Or do you mean benevolent divine beings as opposed to lets say a demons melovolent divine being.
i was asking for more specifics on that too, cause all those options come to mind, and they arent necessarily exclusive.
Will there be mercenary angels for those deities that don't have their own? ;)
thats more or less what i meant, when i said
Quote
maybe there is just some kind of angel army that follows the orders of all the gods?
Post by: Areyar on July 13, 2011, 09:34:12 am
Quote
maybe there is just some kind of angel army that follows the orders of all the gods?In Norse mythology, these be dorfs. :p
Post by: Parker147 on July 13, 2011, 12:49:52 pm
Post by: dree12 on July 13, 2011, 01:43:32 pm
What is the status of Legends Mode's XML dump? The last time it was updated was in 31.13.It was updated in .19 with goods transfer, and will be updated this release.
Post by: Neonivek on July 13, 2011, 03:29:05 pm
In otherwords they are beings who make everything better just be existing.
Though there are also Guardian Angels who are each one assigned to a single person.
I really REALLY want to see Benevolent creatures. Even the Would Be Benevolent Titans smash people just because.
Post by: Mephansteras on July 13, 2011, 03:38:05 pm
I really REALLY want to see Benevolent creatures. Even the Would Be Benevolent Titans smash people just because.
They just play with their toys too roughly.
Post by: Dakk on July 13, 2011, 11:31:34 pm
Post by: Dae on July 14, 2011, 03:46:04 am
I'd also be a happier adventurer is the giant shrimp shaped plains titans of love and harmony didn't share its benevolence with me by caving my skull in.
Well, you can't say harmony without harm.
Post by: Kay12 on July 14, 2011, 03:53:43 am
I'd also be a happier adventurer is the giant shrimp shaped plains titans of love and harmony didn't share its benevolence with me by caving my skull in.
Well, you can't say harmony without harm.
And you can't deal harm without arm. Except by kicking and headbutting.
Post by: PTTG?? on July 14, 2011, 09:32:39 am
I'd also be a happier adventurer is the giant shrimp shaped plains titans of love and harmony didn't share its benevolence with me by caving my skull in.
Well, you can't say harmony without harm.
And you can't deal harm without arm. Except by kicking and headbutting.
Someone say "Arm"? OK.
Post by: Organum on July 14, 2011, 09:43:29 am
GRASPERS:4
Oh forgotten beasts, you so crazy
Post by: Untelligent on July 14, 2011, 11:14:15 am
Post by: EmperorNuthulu on July 14, 2011, 01:42:25 pm
Post by: thvaz on July 14, 2011, 04:59:19 pm
Whoah, two days without updates. That hasn't happened in a while.
I'm suffering withdrawal already.
Post by: Dae on July 14, 2011, 06:55:06 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on July 14, 2011, 07:52:26 pm
Someone MP'ed me discreetly between two threads to tell me he could give me some legit, first hand updates on the development if I had a few bucks left. Should I ? Should I not ? Now I just don't know anymore !
Considering that realistically there are probably only four people that know about all the latest unposted developments (Toady, Threetoe, Capntastic, Rainseeker), if it's not any of those I'm betting you're getting scammed.
Post by: dree12 on July 14, 2011, 08:09:06 pm
Someone MP'ed me discreetly between two threads to tell me he could give me some legit, first hand updates on the development if I had a few bucks left. Should I ? Should I not ? Now I just don't know anymore !I call a scam. Besides, Toady's devlog is a first hand update on the development.
Post by: monk12 on July 14, 2011, 08:55:36 pm
Someone MP'ed me discreetly between two threads to tell me he could give me some legit, first hand updates on the development if I had a few bucks left. Should I ? Should I not ? Now I just don't know anymore !
Well played, gentle sir
Post by: FallingWhale on July 15, 2011, 05:06:45 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 15, 2011, 09:38:54 pm
So guys how long is Toady going to be gone for for the meet up?
Post by: monk12 on July 15, 2011, 09:56:21 pm
I guess if Toady doesn't know quite what to do with the animal men... maybe I should make a suggestion on Minor Races to collect ideas on how races not entering play as a civ are handled.
So guys how long is Toady going to be gone for for the meet up?
At least the weekend, I think.
Post by: Capntastic on July 16, 2011, 02:08:18 am
Post by: Neonivek on July 16, 2011, 02:58:56 am
Like Kim Song-il, Glorious Toady can appear simultaneously in the North, South, East, and West.
So the world is centered around Toady?
Post by: Gamerlord on July 16, 2011, 03:33:44 am
Post by: Dradym on July 16, 2011, 11:37:04 am
im sure i wasnt the only one hoping he would release the next version before the meetup
Post by: Dsarker on July 17, 2011, 09:14:57 pm
Post by: tfaal on July 17, 2011, 10:22:02 pm
Post by: monk12 on July 17, 2011, 10:39:52 pm
Post by: de5me7 on July 19, 2011, 07:25:02 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
"Like Kim Il-Sung, Glorious Toady can appear simultaneously in the North, South, East, and West."
I knew i'd seen Toady somewhere before this forum.
Post by: Niccolo on July 19, 2011, 08:22:59 am
"Like Kim Il-Sung, Glorious Toady can appear simultaneously in the North, South, East, and West."
I knew i'd seen Toady somewhere before this forum.
I'm not sure if that's funny or just plain bizarre.
Besides, there's got to be something wrong with representing what is effectively the deity of our favourite alcoholic mole-people as the sun. They just don't go together.
Kinda like if the spokesperson for the local maximum security prison is the Pope.
Post by: PTTG?? on July 19, 2011, 09:55:08 am
...Kinda like if the spokesperson for the local maximum security prison is the Pope.
Well...
Actually, no, I'm not going to go there.
Post by: Dradym on July 19, 2011, 01:12:42 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 19, 2011, 02:38:34 pm
thats not the sun, its a ball of magma...and those are elves about to have their faces gloriously melted off by him
What is interesting is that faces DO in fact melt off in dwarf fortress.
Post by: Dante on July 19, 2011, 08:22:02 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on July 19, 2011, 09:00:18 pm
Guys, I am so glad to see designations over z-levels, you don't even know.
Yeah, that sort of took me by surprise.
Post by: veok on July 19, 2011, 09:04:13 pm
Post by: Zesty on July 19, 2011, 09:09:24 pm
Quote
Added ability to do designations over Z levels (e.g. long up/down staircases).
Cool beans. Thanks!
Post by: FallingWhale on July 19, 2011, 09:18:58 pm
I wonder if it applies to "b"->"c" construction designations as well.No.
Post by: Greiger on July 19, 2011, 09:36:37 pm
Quote
Added ability to do designations over Z levels (e.g. long up/down staircases).
Wooooooooooooo! I won't need one of my macros anymore! Thanks Toady!
Post by: jockmo42 on July 19, 2011, 10:26:45 pm
I wonder if it applies to "b"->"c" construction designations as well.No.
Care to elaborate?
Post by: Mondark on July 19, 2011, 10:57:41 pm
YES! 3D designations! Finally, one of those little niggling things that's always bothered me about the interface! Thank you Toady!I wonder if it applies to "b"->"c" construction designations as well.No.
Care to elaborate?
As to whether or not constructions are included in that, I don't think so, based on the fact that the interface treats designations as one thing, and constructions as a completely different thing, using a different selection/layout system. Unifying those in some way would be wonderful, but hasn't happened yet to my knowledge, and thus changes made to one will probably not affect the other.
Post by: Dwarfu on July 20, 2011, 12:13:21 am
Quote
Added ability to do designations over Z levels (e.g. long up/down staircases).
*swoons*
Post by: Untelligent on July 20, 2011, 01:20:18 am
Post by: snelg on July 20, 2011, 01:43:30 am
Maybe not, but will sure help with all those stairs. Thanks!
Post by: G-Flex on July 20, 2011, 01:58:32 am
Post by: Dsarker on July 20, 2011, 02:12:22 am
Every time Toady implements a usability improvement, an angel gets a case of beer.
I hope these are dwarf angels. Otherwise, we'll have them dropping out of the sky.
Post by: Organum on July 20, 2011, 03:18:49 am
QuoteAdded ability to do designations over Z levels (e.g. long up/down staircases).
*swoons*
Post by: Johuotar on July 20, 2011, 03:22:17 am
8)
Post by: darkflagrance on July 20, 2011, 03:44:49 am
Post by: Tweakd on July 20, 2011, 07:49:31 am
Excellent stuff Toady.
Post by: Fieari on July 20, 2011, 11:04:05 am
Post by: Fedor on July 20, 2011, 05:15:52 pm
I've enjoyed the heck out of your game for about four years now. While I haven't contributed nearly as much as your superlative work deserves, it amounts to more than my spending on any two other games in that time period.
But I haven't really had fun since 40d.
You just can't get to where you've been wanting to go for a long time now without fundamental changes to the way the game interacts with the player. A 25x80, extended ASCII interface and keyboard-driven menus haven't really cut the mustard since 2D days. Every Cool Thing you do makes the problem worse, and all your much-appreciated interface improvements - such as the one yesterday! - haven't matched the pace of your deepening and complexifying of the gameplay.
The other problem that's just killing me is processing inefficiency. Again, you've worked hard and effectively on this. Again, the improvements (and my much newer computer, built around a i750 chip) haven't matched the advances in gameplay. Every fort, every single fort I really care about and invest time and emotion in has died to lag. This has happened to me over and over and over again, and again the only solution for someone who plays the ways I do is to either stay with versions years out of date, or find another game.
This isn't good-bye. I'm sticking around. But until things change, and change fundamentally, Dwarf Fortress will never be one of my favorite games again.
-Fedor Andreev
Post by: Greiger on July 20, 2011, 05:29:28 pm
Toady does appear to know of the interface issues, but if I recall he doesn't really want to put a whole bunch of work into it with so many features that would make it meed to be changed at this point. But maybe it is time soon for another small optimization of the interface. Perhaps not a full overhaul, though since there are so many things to be added that would break interface improvements. But maybe half a week or so of little things.
The multi z-level designations are a pretty major step in that direction already. It was one of those little things that didn't seem to make sense why it didn't work. Burrow designations after all always worked over multi z-levels. It seemed off that regular designations didn't.
P.S. Slightly off topic but... *August 2007 brofist*
Post by: Untelligent on July 20, 2011, 06:20:25 pm
Well, maybe the designations could benefit from mouse stuff, but most of the menus are probably much better off with the hotkeys.
Also you can make it bigger than 25x80 if you want.
Personally, the only problem I have with the current interface was the default "cancel" key switching from space to esc, which was kind of a boneheaded move (and the only reason I can think of for it happening was allowing the squad menu to be open without pausing the game, which itself doesn't make much sense as I can't think of any other menu I'd less want to have open while unpaused). I can't for the life of me figure out how to bind cancel back to space without making text-entry irritating (closest I can get is making shift-space make a space, but even that's annoying and it cancels if I accidentally don't use shift).
Post by: eux0r on July 20, 2011, 06:56:20 pm
the only thing i can say about the interface is, that it feels a little off, because all sections and sub-menus look different. a unified menu-template might be especially useful for new players, so once they understand one menu they dont have to think all over for the next one.
back on the thread-topic: does anyone know whether the last pictures of towns toady posted are actually what towns will look like this release, or did something change there since those were posted? i cant seem to remember anything being said relating this, but my memory is terrible...
Post by: Untelligent on July 20, 2011, 07:12:14 pm
Post by: Dwarfu on July 20, 2011, 09:43:01 pm
Quote
This leaves more dead criminals and heroes down below, and now their items are available in adv mode.
Will world gen "heros" ever assume the role of treasure hunter and go after these items, or will they just be looking for kills?
I know there is the dev section for adventurer treasure hunters, but nothing about world gen people doing this other than villains seeking artifacts. Even a peasant might brave the sewers in hopes of finding a silver ladle to pawn to feed his family...
Another scenario is the 'recruit' status of some of these heros without equipment...surely they'd see it as an opportunity to get equipment much like the players do.
Post by: MaskedMiner on July 20, 2011, 11:11:57 pm
Also, I had opposite problem with 40d: I tried it out since I wanted to play adventure mode with cities, but I couldn't get used to space instead of esc.
Post by: thvaz on July 21, 2011, 01:36:52 am
Post by: zwei on July 21, 2011, 02:04:14 am
I also wonder whats wrong with keyboard based interface o-o
Nothing, really. It is very efficient for giving commands and quickly navigating static menu system.
But what is terribly sucks for is targeting (placing constructions and drawing them, querying buildings, viewing units, etc...) where you are better off with tool that was designed for this task.
Also, selecting something from list is usually better done with mouse unless you have more advanced aids (similar to what is in manager screen or in bring to trade depot screen).
Post by: MaskedMiner on July 21, 2011, 03:15:10 am
BTW, why do people prefer 40d? Just because you can embark on top of site of other races and adventure mode has more different kind of cities?
Post by: thvaz on July 21, 2011, 03:27:27 am
BTW, why do people prefer 40d? Just because you can embark on top of site of other races and adventure mode has more different kind of cities?
Nostalgia.
Post by: Areyar on July 21, 2011, 04:49:43 am
beastmasterBTW, why do people prefer 40d? Just because you can embark on top of site of other races and adventure mode has more different kind of cities?
Nostalgia.
Post by: Organum on July 21, 2011, 04:55:15 am
beastmasterBTW, why do people prefer 40d? Just because you can embark on top of site of other races and adventure mode has more different kind of cities?
Nostalgia.
Lack of bugs, maybe.
Post by: JimiD on July 21, 2011, 05:28:40 am
Imagine if the game continued when using the designation menu, the build menu, the k,v,q, and t menus. It might not increase FPS, but much more in game time would pass for any hour sat playing. I would also love to see the game continue when looking at the thoughts and descriptions of dwarves. There is so much detail there, but any research means the game is paused. And with a slow PC, and a low FPS, I try to minimise any menu use, so that at least something is happening.
Post by: zwei on July 21, 2011, 05:40:02 am
Hopefully the squad menu is only the start of things.
Imagine if the game continued when using the designation menu, the build menu, the k,v,q, and t menus. It might not increase FPS, but much more in game time would pass for any hour sat playing. I would also love to see the game continue when looking at the thoughts and descriptions of dwarves. There is so much detail there, but any research means the game is paused. And with a slow PC, and a low FPS, I try to minimise any menu use, so that at least something is happening.
Indeed. You can often spend about hour designating larger construction (or mining operation) and then wait similar amount of time till it is finished.
While not improving fps, it would speed up gameplay considerably if game was running whole time
Post by: Knight Otu on July 21, 2011, 06:29:51 am
Post by: monk12 on July 21, 2011, 09:55:18 am
beastmasterBTW, why do people prefer 40d? Just because you can embark on top of site of other races and adventure mode has more different kind of cities?
Nostalgia.
Lack of bugs, maybe.
People bring up lack of bugs a lot, but really, 40d was just as buggy as the more recent versions- we were just accustomed to working around them, so they didn't feel like bugs.
Post by: Fieari on July 21, 2011, 10:34:11 am
Me, I miss the challenges of 23a! Surviving your first winter was an actual thing back then! It was a necessity to open yourself up to danger simply by building! No walling off your enemies! Sure, you could make a trap corridor, but EVEN THEN frogmen could jump up onto your bridges and tackle your dwarves into the underground river. EVEN THEN batmen could blowgun snipe dwarves into the pits.
There were constant challenges, and they could be met. Granted, there were tricks you could learn to save yourself from them very easily, but they were TRICKS, and thus tricky to perform/understand. Compare a 23a steam-cannon to... well, simply building a wall to permanently block off all enemies. Compare training up an army of guard dogs to... having a front door.
I've taken to enjoying adventure mode due to the challenge there, but I likely won't be back to dwarf mode until enemies can dig their way straight into your dining hall. That said, the anticipation for the next release with night creatures has me thrilled!
Post by: Neonivek on July 21, 2011, 11:02:43 am
Quote
I likely won't be back to dwarf mode until enemies can dig their way straight into your dining hall
You would be surprised how controvercial that is. Even if the enemies don't leave pernament tunnels there are quite a bit of people who absolutely dislike the idea of digging enemies.
Post by: MaskedMiner on July 21, 2011, 11:15:45 am
Post by: Untelligent on July 21, 2011, 11:37:26 am
Post by: Dradym on July 21, 2011, 02:05:07 pm
prolly a better idea is subterranean bad guys dig under the fort, and not into it, and cause cave-ins.
Post by: tfaal on July 21, 2011, 02:17:34 pm
Post by: Johuotar on July 21, 2011, 02:48:29 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 21, 2011, 03:05:22 pm
A Fortress can reasonably feed a population of five times its own, it has no fortifications to really care about, they can dig and build like the wind, and its soldiers are super powerful.
Post by: G-Flex on July 21, 2011, 03:49:08 pm
The issue with dwarven fortresses is that they're completely self-sufficient. Dwarves can farm without using any resources, any significant area of land, or even any recognizable source of energy. In fact, their farming is better and faster than above-ground farming. They don't even need a source of water for most purposes. They can, using a space about the size of a dining hall, secure enough food, clothing material, and drink to survive quite well and easily. They can also raise many animals as livestock; they can even raise grazing animals if a bit of underground pasture is secured, and dogs give more meat than cows anyway (I'm not kidding (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=3357)).
Realistically, an underground settlement should be much less self-sufficient than a real-life human castle, yet it is currently much more so.
Post by: Neonivek on July 21, 2011, 04:00:47 pm
Which is kinda what makes Dwarven Fortresses different then real life ones. Castles in real life specialised. Dwarf Fortresses do everything... They are basically like city centers producing tons of goods.
Though to admit... Unlike Castles/Forts in real life and heck even in the game (outside of war outposts) Dwarf Fortresses are not supported by surrounding infrastructure. They don't sport a "surrounding country side" they have no towns, cities, or anything except forts.
Dwarf Fortresses are living cities. The Mary Sues of Castles (joke)
Post by: nil on July 21, 2011, 04:14:51 pm
Realistically, an underground settlement should be much less self-sufficient than a real-life human castle, yet it is currently much more so.With the caveat that access to the magic vibrant underground ecosystem should be almost as good as access to the surface.
Post by: G-Flex on July 21, 2011, 04:25:25 pm
Above-ground, you have plants and grass and farming and trees. Below-ground, you have underground plants and underground grass and underground farming and underground trees.
I don't understand why dwarves need an underground stand-in for everything that exists above-ground, but this is getting more and more true as development continues. At this rate, there will end up being nothing special about the underground at all; it'll just be a weirder version of the above-ground world. I'd rather have meaningful distinctions between them. Why shouldn't underground farming work differently (and probably less well), and why should underground towering mushrooms serve exactly the same function as trees? Why am I able to burn giant mushrooms to lye-bearing ash, and why should cows be just fine grazing on fungus? In my opinion, it makes the underground a lot less special when it's given an "underground version" of all the normal stuff, because then it's less distinct. I'd rather see things developed for the underground that are actually unique to it, and not just perfect substitutes for the things above the surface.
Post by: Roflcopter5000 on July 21, 2011, 04:43:38 pm
Frankly, the idea of waiting out a siege, as a player, is dull. There is no way that would be an enjoyable experience.
Actively fighting off enemies that can breach your defenses, however, would be interesting.
Actively fighting off enemies that can breach your defenses arbitrarily, such as through digging, not interesting. Honestly, random hostile civs busting into my dining hall without warning would completely kill my desire to play the game. Perhaps the ability to dig through soil-layers, but honestly, the amount of effort it may take to code an AI that could implement that strategy might be prohibitive.
The whole 'self-sufficiency' aspect of dwarven fortresses is a little cheese-ball, but then again, this is sort of supposed to be what makes the dwarves special. Dwarves make the best fortresses, fortresses that are supernaturally good. Goblins don't have to eat, Elves live forever, and Dwarves can create a self-sustaining settlement in an incredibly cramped subterranean space. It's their thing.
As far as the unique nature of the caverns goes... I think that it should be less about a mirror image of the above-ground world, and more about work-able alternatives that accomplish the same end. Like you -should- be able to have grazing beasts in the caverns... But maybe not cows. Maybe giant worms, or something. And perhaps there is a harvest-able moss that you burn or treat to make lye, etc. A player shouldn't be limited by a choice to rely solely on the caverns, in short.
Post by: Greiger on July 21, 2011, 04:44:14 pm
We can already rebuild walls that get dug out, just needs the ability to make it look and behave like natural stone with a little extra effort. Hell I think that was part of the jist of the origonal "rewalling" suggestion anyway. And unrevealing terrain serves no purpose outside of aesthetics.
EDIT: I want them to dig, but I don't think it should be done in secret. Dwarves are natural diggers, so have goblins dig slower, also don't hide their digging. Keep it revealed the whole time so you can divert your military to intercept them at the breach. The Chinese could detect digging enemies during a siege, Dwarves who live with the rock their entire lives and to the constant sound of tunneling should probably be able to know exactly where the digging invaders are located, so no need to fog of war their tunnels.
Goblins need to be able to invade your fortresses. And honestly the goblins just sitting around outside trying to starve you out is not entertaining even if it had a chance of working. Allowing them to dig is the only reasonable way to do that to any normally built dwarven fortress. There should never be a way to keep goblins from reaching a part of the map via some method or another they can employ against you. They should even be able to dig into HFS if that's where the easiest to reach dwarves are located. Of course I'm all for an init option. But if you are going to have that option on you might as well cut out the middle man and turn invaders off completely. Without invaders having the ability to dig it is downright trivial to have a defense there is nothing an invading force can overcome.
Post by: G-Flex on July 21, 2011, 04:50:55 pm
Goblins need to be able to invade your fortresses. And honestly the goblins just sitting around outside trying to starve you out is not entertaining even if it had a chance of working.
It would be if resource management in DF meant anything. Right now, it doesn't sound like it would be fun, but keep in mind that trade and management of resources are so simplistic right now there's not much way for them to be fun or interesting under any circumstance.
Quote
There should never be a way to keep goblins from reaching a part of the map via some method or another they can employ against you. Of course I'm all for an init option.
I agree, but I don't know if an init option is a good idea. One cannot assume that making something optional will always make everyone happy or make the game better without consequence. Sometimes, a game feature is so consequential, or so relevant to other features, that it becomes more and more difficult for an option to make sense.
Of course, if invaders dig, material strength for walls should probably start mattering. I'm sure some stone and ore is harder than others, and this is obviously true for metals as well. Of course, sand is another, stranger matter entirely, for which suggestions have been made.
One problem is that mining in DF is really easy. In the real world, mining out large areas takes a lot of time and effort and cleanup, but this isn't very much the case in DF. The problem here is that even if goblins digging a tunnel into your fortress is a good thing, it would be preferable (in my opinion) if it weren't as easy as mining is today; it should be a long-term project meant to seriously compromise your defenses. Of course, you could just wall it back up, but that's a good reason to make constructed walls less tough than natural stone (I imagine it's easier to dismantle a mortared-together wall than it is to mine a tunnel through solid rock).
Post by: Jimlad11 on July 21, 2011, 04:53:39 pm
Overall, I am in favour of invaders digging, as long as it could be repaired easily. I would not like to see my dining hall tunnelled into and trashed :( But as long as I can repair/reinforce afterwards, it would be fine.
Post by: Areyar on July 21, 2011, 04:59:34 pm
The ability to build "Cavern walls" would be great. It would be nice to tear out all the old, poor quality engravings and replace them with engravings from your new, legendary engraver.Not sure about building virgin rock wall, but a designation to remove engravings (smooth again?) would make more sense.
Overall, I am in favour of invaders digging, as long as it could be repaired easily. I would not like to see my dining hall tunnelled into and trashed :( But as long as I can repair/reinforce afterwards, it would be fine.
Would you be happy with tunnelers if you could engrave any built walls? (or maybe only those built from blox)
wait...this isnt the suggestions thread.. ;P
Post by: Neonivek on July 21, 2011, 05:23:02 pm
Quote
I don't understand why dwarves need an underground stand-in for everything that exists above-ground
Ohh you want a reminder?
Because people complained that they needed the site finder to find everything. In otherwords the underground is a stand in for everything that exists above-ground so that people have a stand in for everything that exists above-ground. So no matter where people are they would have access to everything.
That is why the underground is what it is currently.
Honestly I am surprised at this point the underground isn't a paradise.
Post by: PTTG?? on July 21, 2011, 05:40:34 pm
Overall, I am in favour of invaders digging, as long as it could be repaired easily. I would not like to see my dining hall tunnelled into and trashed :( But as long as I can repair/reinforce afterwards, it would be fine.
...Or you could just send troops out and kill the invaders before they reach it. Anyway, invaders need not be so stupid. They would only take the shortest route into the fortress. Just put your most precious structures deep and secure.
Post by: Little on July 21, 2011, 05:50:30 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 21, 2011, 05:55:08 pm
When did goblins become immortal? ???
They always lived forever.
Their lack of need to eat however is relatively recent.
Post by: thvaz on July 21, 2011, 06:00:22 pm
QuoteI don't understand why dwarves need an underground stand-in for everything that exists above-ground
Ohh you want a reminder?
Because people complained that they needed the site finder to find everything. In otherwords the underground is a stand in for everything that exists above-ground so that people have a stand in for everything that exists above-ground. So no matter where people are they would have access to everything.
That is why the underground is what it is currently.
Honestly I am surprised at this point the underground isn't a paradise.
This. People complain so much and Toady is so eager to please them that the game is losing its identity. One thinks it is too much realistic, other thinks it is too much fantastic. One likes the mineral scarcity, the other wants every mineral in existance in one single spot. Some think DF should be like Minecraft, others think it should be like Sim City, others think it should be like Dungeon Keeper, and all of them complain the game development isn't going in the direction it should go.
Post by: G-Flex on July 21, 2011, 06:25:31 pm
Post by: monk12 on July 21, 2011, 06:30:31 pm
Part of the point of the Caravan Arc is that dwarven fortresses will not be able to be completely self sufficient. Your fortress will need to import other things, and your trading partners will presumably care enough about your exports to come to your aid. Personally, I think that as more complex social interactions amongst your dwarves are implemented sieges will get more interesting, with "siege mentalities," traitors, faction politics, and so forth being strained by the siege. The reason fortresses can be self sufficient right now is because the rest of the framework isn't there- a player can't reasonably expect to maintain a fortress if they must rely on trade. This is why the Caravan Arc is super exciting, if somewhat boring in its implementation.
Just about the entire point of the Army Arc is to make sieges themselves more interesting- make siege weapons work right, introduce enemies that will avoid walking through your trap hallway like cattle to the slaughter, adding new siege equipment/creatures that can destroy constructed (but not natural) walls, and of course the external political scene that sieges effect- the decisions of your allies, aid from the rest of your civ, sieges that can have endings other than total annihilation of one party or the other, etc. The reason this isn't in yet is... well, mostly it is just waiting on the Caravan Arc. As Toady has said, there is a lot of low-hanging fruit right now, so it just comes down to what bit of DF goodness gets added next.
Post by: Dsarker on July 21, 2011, 07:53:38 pm
Post by: G-Flex on July 21, 2011, 08:16:47 pm
Part of the point of the Caravan Arc is that dwarven fortresses will not be able to be completely self sufficient.
I would like to believe this, but what evidence is there of this in the development plans? I mean, I can believe it when it comes to mineral distribution, but when it comes to actual needs (food, drink, and such), I don't recall anything being mentioned along those lines.
I mean, yeah, I'd love for this to be the case, but I don't know of any existing plans that would significantly affect something like how easy it is to farm without external input.
Post by: Dsarker on July 21, 2011, 08:31:58 pm
Post by: ffaerie on July 21, 2011, 08:37:10 pm
Post by: monk12 on July 21, 2011, 09:02:08 pm
Presumably that is because making the fortress not be self sufficient without the ability to survive from Caravans would be counter productive.
In a nutshell. I know mineral stuff is explicitly on the release cycle, and he's talked about a farming rewrite at some point in the (relatively for DF) not-too-distant future. NW_Kohaku has a nice thread about that in the Suggestions forum someplace.
Post by: Neonivek on July 21, 2011, 09:03:48 pm
Post by: Organum on July 21, 2011, 09:46:03 pm
Post by: counting on July 22, 2011, 12:23:15 am
Presumably that is because making the fortress not be self sufficient without the ability to survive from Caravans would be counter productive.
Trade and Caravans? (TEXT WALL! ;D, not really)
I think there is not just YES/NO in the field of self sufficient. I think it's a level of differences. A fortress can just be self sufficient to a certain level. Unless its in the center of the trade, like the capital. And those who don't rely on trade can not go beyond certain limit with small population and less effective. And the farming output rate will be linked with how long food can be preserved and how long a trade cycle may take. Hence in a way it's making a certain level of "combined" dwarf populations and resources/productions to determine the strength of dwarven kingdoms, and caravans should be the link between them. Or you can build a self-sustain kingdom that just limited to local small area, but it will develop slowly as in populations and productions via in slow increases. (On the contracts that trading empires can stretch far and wide via trading quickly, but also suffering the vulnerabilities)
Post by: monk12 on July 22, 2011, 12:29:55 am
Post by: counting on July 22, 2011, 01:27:46 am
DF is exact opposite to it, 90% experts and less than 10% farmers, and how little lands it requires. And although I know its impossible to make DF a farming centered simulation or it will be boring as hell, but this did contribute a lot about how self-sufficiency existed. (Imagine a 20-80 ratio, then you just can not have enough specialists to sustain your fortress with 100 pop, let alone dozens. Dwarfs will have to be full time farmers and part time craftsmen).
Post by: JimiD on July 22, 2011, 01:51:06 am
If it's unclear, I think this would be a good thing. It would stop mature forts being all the same.
As for Toady trying to please all players, I had the reverse impression, that ge does whatever he wants, and maybe puts in an init option for the odd serious issue.
Post by: Dsarker on July 22, 2011, 02:53:16 am
Post by: Ethicalfive on July 22, 2011, 03:21:40 am
Building natural rock and hiding the area behind it, apart from satifying the OCD inflicted among us, seems like an odd proposal to me. How does one build natural rock formations(apart from pouring magma and water in there) and then forget what was behind it?
Post by: Caldfir on July 22, 2011, 03:28:46 am
- slowing food production to match food consumption (not my favorite because it makes the simulation less realistic, not more)
- making dwarves eat more often (again, for reasons above, can only go so far)
- make dwarves eat more things during each meal (dwarves grab X food and Y drink, sit down for meal)
- dwarves carry food around and eat from their private supply (like soldiers from a backpack)
- ??
Whatever happens, I look forward to farming actually being something that matters, because my current forts can survive off the bodies of immigrant cats, and something about that makes no sense at all.
Post by: zwei on July 22, 2011, 03:54:36 am
Post by: Neonivek on July 22, 2011, 04:11:09 am
Quote
Dwarfs are super farmers up to the level of modern mechanized agriculture
Actually Dwarves are even better then that.
The ONLY thing that gets close to comparing is hydroponics which is extremely expencive.
Then again Humans arn't all that inefficiant either. You even been in those Farm houses? Each farm plot is feeding a family of twelve.
Post by: counting on July 22, 2011, 04:23:24 am
I like to pretend that each farm plot represents village that supplies fort and dwarf with farmer labor is its overseer.
So each dwarf fortress has its own miniaturized farming villages underground, and magical shrinking/expending machines to turn miniaturized crops back to normal size. That makes a lot of sense right now.
And it is wrong that each dwarf fortress is isolated during siege. In fact if they want, they can all shrinking into their miniaturized villager land when things get FUN.
Post by: Neonivek on July 22, 2011, 04:26:56 am
Could you imagine a single turnip, a single strawberry, or even a cookie filling you for an entire meal?
Post by: Areyar on July 22, 2011, 04:28:00 am
Farming fixes
If dwarfs eat more often, then time needs to be slowed down, which would be frustrating to megaproject builders.
I would like it if we'd be needing big stocks of seed, in order to sow larger fields.
edit:
Well ok to be fair another aspect is how little dwarves actually need to eat.then again, they also need a barrel of beer.
Could you imagine a single turnip, a single strawberry, or even a cookie filling you for an entire meal?
also: yay at vertical selection!
Post by: Neonivek on July 22, 2011, 04:29:24 am
Well ok to be fair another aspect is how little dwarves actually need to eat.
Could you imagine a single turnip, a single strawberry, or even a cookie filling you for an entire meal?
Saving myself from the law of next page switch.
Anyhow also cooking and brewing is basically a multiplication machine. Squeezing a few bits of food into a lot of meals.
Post by: Johuotar on July 22, 2011, 05:10:21 am
Farming fixes
If dwarfs eat more often, then time needs to be slowed down, which would be frustrating to megaproject builders.
I would like it if we'd be needing big stocks of seed, in order to sow larger fields.
Well there's the question if it should even be possible to build 200z level high megadwarf out of gold at all.
As DF is mode more realistic this kind of things get more and more difficult. I mean being able to build huge golden dwarves has never been planned part of the game and it might not be possible in the future.
Its a big problem, like the fact that 0.23 was more challenging, the game has seen drastic changes and is going to change a lot in the future. Those who are used to the rules from old versions can be disappointed.
Post by: counting on July 22, 2011, 05:26:53 am
There must be a better way to specialize or differentiate the fortress growth. (Not just by limiting the populations of fortress experts number). One I can think of it to increase the degradation rate of other goods when used, so the industries have to keep producing replacement commodities on the market. If you build every industries and only produce only a few of each, then these commodities will run out quickly. Or you can specialize in some productions and exchanging them with other fortresses. So each fortress can have their special products of their own. (Also a fortress can be located in area that are not perfect in every resources level, only need to be good at a few)
Post by: zwei on July 22, 2011, 05:56:07 am
I like to pretend that each farm plot represents village that supplies fort and dwarf with farmer labor is its overseer.
So each dwarf fortress has its own miniaturized farming villages underground, and magical shrinking/expending machines to turn miniaturized crops back to normal size. That makes a lot of sense right now.
And it is wrong that each dwarf fortress is isolated during siege. In fact if they want, they can all shrinking into their miniaturized villager land when things get FUN.
More of plot being "stockpile" where they bring products of full size but off-site villages mixed with office that issues orders and displays progress.
Abstraction and stuff...
Post by: Areyar on July 22, 2011, 07:07:19 am
It already feels like half the immigrants I get in my fortress/forge is a brown-shirt. :p
Oh well, good food for the war-machine. ;)
Post by: Ghills on July 22, 2011, 07:08:36 am
Well ok to be fair another aspect is how little dwarves actually need to eat.
Could you imagine a single turnip, a single strawberry, or even a cookie filling you for an entire meal?
The amount of food is just abstracted. We don't see every single strawberry, just the number of strawberry-meals that come from the bush.
In RL, strawberries come on a bush, and there's a lot strawberries on a bush after the berries are ripe. A pound or two, especially if you harvest the bush as thoroughly as dwarves do. 1 pound of strawberries is really a lot of strawberries, and it's pretty reasonable that it would be considered a meal for one or two dwarfs.
Post by: Areyar on July 22, 2011, 07:49:05 am
Post by: Dsarker on July 22, 2011, 08:57:59 am
Post by: counting on July 22, 2011, 09:19:27 am
avg_production_amount * producers >= avg_consume_amount * consumers
So this is a general rule
avg_production_to_consume_ratio >= consumer_producer_ratio
That is if 20% (1/5) of people are farmers, they must produce 5 times of crops than they can eat themselves, or people starve. The amount of extra yield will determine how many specialists can exist. Hence if a dwarf eat 1 unit of food per month and it can produce 10 units in the mean time, means 90% of extra dwarfs can exist in a fortress. You can calculate using this as how effective barriers are for food.
Post by: PTTG?? on July 22, 2011, 10:01:11 am
Quote
...his computer desk, a framed picture of his part Manx, part Maine Coon cat, Scamps...
Well, that explains a lot. Maine Coons = giant, insane. Manx = insane, insane.
Post by: Dsarker on July 22, 2011, 10:04:21 am
Post by: Niccolo on July 22, 2011, 12:22:28 pm
But either increase the food consumptions, or reduce the farming output, all will lead to the increase number of farmer's number percentage of the population. And how much more was it enough, before Dwarf Fortress becomes Farmer Fortress?
There must be a better way to specialize or differentiate the fortress growth. (Not just by limiting the populations of fortress experts number). One I can think of it to increase the degradation rate of other goods when used, so the industries have to keep producing replacement commodities on the market. If you build every industries and only produce only a few of each, then these commodities will run out quickly. Or you can specialize in some productions and exchanging them with other fortresses. So each fortress can have their special products of their own. (Also a fortress can be located in area that are not perfect in every resources level, only need to be good at a few)
If one wishes to, say, use the whole food idea to affect the fortress growth;
What about taking soil fertility into account? A given patch of land might produce bundles of crops for a full year, but eveything's leached out and nothing will grow there for a time. It will make having to pay attention to crops - and getting a decent rotation of fallow and functional plots going - all the more important without actually reducing the farming output or increasing the consumption rate.
Post by: werechicken on July 22, 2011, 01:43:41 pm
As for the mega-projects: surely making it harder will make it that much more impressive.
Post by: Neonivek on July 22, 2011, 02:31:25 pm
Quote
The amount of food is just abstracted
Well a single Strawberry plant would probably BARELY feed a single person for one meal in one day.
So even abstracted... (which remember if you go to the fort with an adventurer, those "abstract foods" are real food)
Though I think the issue is that DF can't handle bunches well at all... Remember how Toady couldn't combine stacks of arrows?
Post by: irmo on July 22, 2011, 03:26:02 pm
Presumably that is because making the fortress not be self sufficient without the ability to survive from Caravans would be counter productive.
Losing is fun, no?
After the Big Rock Candy Wasteland that was 40d, I wouldn't mind a few releases where the resource mechanics prevented ever achieving self-sufficiency, and all fortresses were doomed.
Because all fortresses are doomed. Either the fortress falls, or you eventually get bored with it and stop playing. It's not necessarily bad for the mechanics to ensure that all fortresses fall before they get boring.
Post by: magmaholic on July 22, 2011, 04:06:37 pm
Post by: Johuotar on July 22, 2011, 05:23:00 pm
Are we going to have ghost towns/ruins?
Famines are going to leave buildings empty and Toady mentioned buildings with missing roofs and other signs of ruination (not caused by bugs) I dont know for sure if entire towns are going to be ruined but it seems to be possible because of deaths caused by famines/attacks. There are going to be haunted buildings too.
Post by: Greiger on July 22, 2011, 06:09:58 pm
Woah, when did this happen? (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/magazine/the-brilliance-of-dwarf-fortress.html?_r=1&ref=technology&pagewanted=all)Huh another interview, this one goes into quite a bit of detai- Holy crap is that the New York frikkin Times!? Wow. I don't think you can get much bigger than that. Mentions DF being Put into the Museum of Modern Art too. Wow. Congrats, I think you guys finally made it.Quote...his computer desk, a framed picture of his part Manx, part Maine Coon cat, Scamps...
Well, that explains a lot. Maine Coons = giant, insane. Manx = insane, insane.
I might have to find a way to get a copy of that issue and frame the page.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 22, 2011, 07:53:27 pm
4 quick questions:
Will we be able to see other adventurers in the sewers fighting for theyr lives/looting stuff?
Will the maps have say some small markers for important people/the places where important people hang out normaly?
Can a (nonplayer) adventurer be tasked to kill a werebeast if he did himself the killings (thus if he is said werebeast)?
Would you notice if someone did some guerilla gardening around your house?
Post by: Neonivek on July 22, 2011, 07:57:49 pm
Quote
If atleast DF wouldnt be art in some way why would the renown Museum of Modern exhibit it?
I don't know...
I mean I believe videogames are art (mind you not all videogames are art) but I wouldn't use the museum of modern art as a very good judge unless you litterally believe that EVERYTHING is high art
Post by: Greiger on July 22, 2011, 08:07:51 pm
But DF being there does indicate a significant influence on the world of some kind. It can't be easy to get a spot inside a major museum like that.
Post by: Dsarker on July 22, 2011, 08:19:22 pm
Presumably that is because making the fortress not be self sufficient without the ability to survive from Caravans would be counter productive.
Losing is fun, no?
After the Big Rock Candy Wasteland that was 40d, I wouldn't mind a few releases where the resource mechanics prevented ever achieving self-sufficiency, and all fortresses were doomed.
Because all fortresses are doomed. Either the fortress falls, or you eventually get bored with it and stop playing. It's not necessarily bad for the mechanics to ensure that all fortresses fall before they get boring.
But the point is, we haven't reached 1.0 yet. We're still in alpha testing. Until Toady has everything confirmed as working the way he wants it to, I doubt we're going to see a game mode with all the intended difficulty.
Post by: nil on July 22, 2011, 08:23:05 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on July 22, 2011, 10:49:49 pm
I'm surprised that constructed walls cannot be engraved. Countless ancient civ's could clearly build stone walls, smooth them(even to the point where a wall looked like a singular peice of stone) and set engravers to work on decorating the surface. I also like an above suggestion that engraved walls should also be able to be taken back to a smoothed surface for engraving something else.
Building natural rock and hiding the area behind it, apart from satifying the OCD inflicted among us, seems like an odd proposal to me. How does one build natural rock formations(apart from pouring magma and water in there) and then forget what was behind it?
"The Hobbit" pointed out that dwarves could even make a door that appeared to be a natural wall until it was opened. And it may not be possible for any other race, but Dwarves being the masters of stone they are could probably do such a feat even in dwarf fortress. Granted though the walls should still appear as constructed walls to the dwarves that built it and therefore should appear as "Disguised Stone Wall" when looked at in fortress mode. As for hiding the stuff behind it, that is more of a aesthetic thing and it would be nice to make sure that goblins don't ruin the look of your fort for the people who care.
I like the idea of being able to have the dwarves disguise constructed walls and floors (and possibly doors and hatches) to look natural. And such features would be cool to have in Adventure Mode, imagine being in a dwarven fortress and walking past a room because the door looks like the rest of the walls (note: this could also maybe be used in fortress mode against sieges to make sure certain rooms remain hidden from invaders) then eventually you notice the wall isn't a wall at all. Added to this the disguised objects can have quality levels to determine how well they are hidden (a masterfully disguised door could be practically unnoticeable, where a decent disguised door could be easy to notice).
Granted, I think there is little chance anything like this would happen soon, but I wanted to point out there could be a use for disguised stuff other than aesthetics.
Post by: Neonivek on July 22, 2011, 11:46:35 pm
Toady right now the world only wobbles it mostly stays in place with very little actually affecting the balance as a whole, especially since by the very fabric of a game no one can really make large strides, but nothing really shifts, changes, rises, falls, put at risk, or really created even with everything your putting in now. What do you think needs to be in place before that kind of narrative can occur?
I guess I am not being fair.
Hmmm... I should probably scan that if it is good enough as a Toady Talks question... Though my gut says "It begs a discussion, thus it is anathema to Fortress Talks".
Also yes I know I based that off my semi-rant on the suggestion forum.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 22, 2011, 11:57:03 pm
Quote
Richard Garfield, who created the hit card game Magic: The Gathering, once attended a Dwarf Fortress fan meet in Seattle to introduce himself to Tarn. “I told him there’s nothing out there quite like it,” Garfield recalled. He suggested ways of broadening the game’s appeal, but “that stuff didn’t matter to Tarn. The charm of it is that he’s making exactly the game he wants to make.”
i didn't knew that... how awesome
Post by: Dakk on July 23, 2011, 01:17:17 am
But then this feeling is thrown aside by the fact the next release is going to give you massive catacombs, markets, complex cities and necromancy to play with, and start devising ways to weaponize dwarven zombies against elven merchants and their mules. Because you're a Dwarf Fortress player.
Post by: MasterMorality on July 23, 2011, 01:47:15 pm
Post by: darkflagrance on July 23, 2011, 07:48:17 pm
Anyone else as interested in how insane the next lets plays are going to be when dealing with this next version? It could become VERY messy...
Is there even that much new stuff for Fortress Mode yet? We have occasional attacks by necromancers and werebeasts, and ... ? Basic tracking of goods and resources between sites?
Post by: Dsarker on July 23, 2011, 10:41:23 pm
Post by: Untelligent on July 23, 2011, 10:48:20 pm
Whether that'll get done or not is anyone's guess.
Anyway, evil regions ought to be more interesting in fort mode. Speaking of which, the interaction system is going to be VERY fun for modders, I expect.
Post by: MaskedMiner on July 24, 2011, 12:28:46 am
Post by: Caldfir on July 24, 2011, 12:29:55 am
Anyway, evil regions ought to be more interesting in fort mode. Speaking of which, the interaction system is going to be VERY fun for modders, I expect.Giant octopus with ink that dissolves all your bones? That's coming.
Elves selling you elfberries, that turn your dwarves into elves? That too.
Honestly I'm looking forward to seeing if such things are possible. DF is already fairly crazy, and adding magical interaction things in there is going to result in one HELL of a wild ride.
Post by: Putnam on July 24, 2011, 01:41:16 am
Will there be some sort of tag to have vampires under a different name on a per-creature/caste basis? E.G, [CASTE_VAMPIRE_NAME:rainbow drinker:rainbow drinkers]
Post by: Dsarker on July 24, 2011, 03:57:23 am
Post by: thvaz on July 24, 2011, 04:05:28 am
The way it currently works I would think they would be naked, but it would be nice to have them using the equipment they had when they died. A naked zombie is no challenge at all for a soldier, but that axedwarf clad in adamantine that died defending the fortress from the necromancer would be a terrible enemy.
Post by: Torchy on July 24, 2011, 04:10:12 am
Elves selling you elfberries, that turn your dwarves into elves?
...Those SONS OF BITCHES
Post by: Gamerlord on July 24, 2011, 05:18:55 am
I'm little sad that the new release won't probably come out before my summer vacation ends =/ I have less time to play during school... Anyway, not that I want him to hurry or anything, thats not exactly good for health ^^;
Same here. Except it's my winter vacation. :P I hope he has it done be next holidays though.
Post by: Serrational on July 24, 2011, 06:27:22 am
This could lead to travesties beyond scope. Export them dwarf-helmets that turn them into weredwarves.Elves selling you elfberries, that turn your dwarves into elves?
...Those SONS OF BITCHES
Post by: Greiger on July 24, 2011, 11:27:54 am
Druid: Oh no... the dwarves have discovered the ancient weredwarf shrooms... 'Ach I need a drink...
Elves: O Noes!
Post by: counting on July 24, 2011, 12:37:20 pm
But either increase the food consumptions, or reduce the farming output, all will lead to the increase number of farmer's number percentage of the population. And how much more was it enough, before Dwarf Fortress becomes Farmer Fortress?
There must be a better way to specialize or differentiate the fortress growth. (Not just by limiting the populations of fortress experts number). One I can think of it to increase the degradation rate of other goods when used, so the industries have to keep producing replacement commodities on the market. If you build every industries and only produce only a few of each, then these commodities will run out quickly. Or you can specialize in some productions and exchanging them with other fortresses. So each fortress can have their special products of their own. (Also a fortress can be located in area that are not perfect in every resources level, only need to be good at a few)
If one wishes to, say, use the whole food idea to affect the fortress growth;
What about taking soil fertility into account? A given patch of land might produce bundles of crops for a full year, but eveything's leached out and nothing will grow there for a time. It will make having to pay attention to crops - and getting a decent rotation of fallow and functional plots going - all the more important without actually reducing the farming output or increasing the consumption rate.
There is a difference between "player efficiency" and "dwarf efficiency". And if by default letting soul fertility degrade, and it is in effect reduce the productivity of the farming output (if no notice). So it should increase the farmers count, but not as effective and quantitative as direct approach. And wasting players' efficiency is as disruptive as increasing eating rate when building mega-projects. (perhaps not that much)
Post by: Willfor on July 24, 2011, 12:41:46 pm
There is a difference between "player efficiency" and "dwarf efficiency". And if by default letting soul fertility degrade, and it is in effect reduce the productivity of the farming output (if no notice). So it should increase the farmers count, but not as effective and quantitative as direct approach. And wasting players' efficiency is as disruptive as increasing eating rate when building mega-projects. (perhaps not that much)
You have NO IDEA how hard I am resisting making a joke based on "soul fertility" to do the right thing by just pointing the typo out. No idea.
Post by: Niccolo on July 24, 2011, 01:10:00 pm
If one wishes to, say, use the whole food idea to affect the fortress growth;
What about taking soil fertility into account? A given patch of land might produce bundles of crops for a full year, but eveything's leached out and nothing will grow there for a time. It will make having to pay attention to crops - and getting a decent rotation of fallow and functional plots going - all the more important without actually reducing the farming output or increasing the consumption rate.
There is a difference between "player efficiency" and "dwarf efficiency". And if by default letting soul fertility degrade, and it is in effect reduce the productivity of the farming output (if no notice). So it should increase the farmers count, but not as effective and quantitative as direct approach. And wasting players' efficiency is as disruptive as increasing eating rate when building mega-projects. (perhaps not that much)
That is true... almost. It will increase the farmers count - and the number of farms - but the player efficiency need not be docked.
If you look at how the farming thing is laid out there's already the option for a field to be left fallow for a season automatically; upon farm creation, the entire pattern can be set up and then left behind by the player. However, as it is that function has literally no use. My idea gives it some function, is already almost implemented and in latter stages of a fort, when megaprojects begin, the fortress will likely already have a decent crop rotation setup anyway.
Another farming idea (Yes, I carry on with the farming idea, since it serves as a useful base) is to limit the sheer volume of seeds that are produced. After my fortress is a year old, the whole place gets swamped by a tidal wave of seeds that I furiously begin cooking solely so that I can make room in my stockpile for more seeds.
Post by: counting on July 24, 2011, 01:14:08 pm
There is a difference between "player efficiency" and "dwarf efficiency". And if by default letting soul fertility degrade, and it is in effect reduce the productivity of the farming output (if no notice). So it should increase the farmers count, but not as effective and quantitative as direct approach. And wasting players' efficiency is as disruptive as increasing eating rate when building mega-projects. (perhaps not that much)
You have NO IDEA how hard I am resisting making a joke based on "soul fertility" to do the right thing by just pointing the typo out. No idea.
I am not a native English users, so I'll leave the "Soul fertility" intact for people to remember that image. 8)
Post by: Willfor on July 24, 2011, 01:26:30 pm
Yeah, I decided against making one in case you weren't a native English speaker.There is a difference between "player efficiency" and "dwarf efficiency". And if by default letting soul fertility degrade, and it is in effect reduce the productivity of the farming output (if no notice). So it should increase the farmers count, but not as effective and quantitative as direct approach. And wasting players' efficiency is as disruptive as increasing eating rate when building mega-projects. (perhaps not that much)
You have NO IDEA how hard I am resisting making a joke based on "soul fertility" to do the right thing by just pointing the typo out. No idea.
I am not a native English users, so I'll leave the "Soul fertility" intact for people to remember that image. 8)
Post by: counting on July 24, 2011, 01:31:53 pm
That is true... almost. It will increase the farmers count - and the number of farms - but the player efficiency need not be docked.
If you look at how the farming thing is laid out there's already the option for a field to be left fallow for a season automatically; upon farm creation, the entire pattern can be set up and then left behind by the player. However, as it is that function has literally no use. My idea gives it some function, is already almost implemented and in latter stages of a fort, when megaprojects begin, the fortress will likely already have a decent crop rotation setup anyway.
Another farming idea (Yes, I carry on with the farming idea, since it serves as a useful base) is to limit the sheer volume of seeds that are produced. After my fortress is a year old, the whole place gets swamped by a tidal wave of seeds that I furiously begin cooking solely so that I can make room in my stockpile for more seeds.
I like the crop rotation idea, but in history it was in fact used to increase the farm output (not the opposite). But it is a very important agriculture development in medieval, hence no reason not to introduce it in DF.
And the "seeds" in real life is just "uncooked" or crops that are not dried. So dwarfs already skip one many steps between harvest and stockpiles. In history there is a very important factor in measuring agriculture - crop yield. It's the ratio between the crops (seeds) planned and the crops produced. And there is a magic number of 1:3 in real life as a base line. (Modern genetic altered crops can have up to 1:30 yield). I guess DF can use similar mechanism to solve the seeds overflow. (By introducing the drying process, and letting the "seeds" to rot fast as they are in real life).
Also some things left out in DF farming are natural fertilizers, and farming tools/animals. (But animals I guess they will be introduced later, a lot later I think). But natural fertilizers may be an interesting plan if designed properly. One of the reason behind rotation farming is originally what's left from the harvest in old crop field needs to rot on the ground, and provide nature fertilization. But in rotations they will use different crops which uses different kind of nutrient in different depth (root depth). Maybe it can be factored in with the synthetic fertilizers like the potash.
Post by: Niccolo on July 24, 2011, 10:16:32 pm
I like the crop rotation idea, but in history it was in fact used to increase the farm output (not the opposite). But it is a very important agriculture development in medieval, hence no reason not to introduce it in DF.
And the "seeds" in real life is just "uncooked" or crops that are not dried. So dwarfs already skip one many steps between harvest and stockpiles. In history there is a very important factor in measuring agriculture - crop yield. It's the ratio between the crops (seeds) planned and the crops produced. And there is a magic number of 1:3 in real life as a base line. (Modern genetic altered crops can have up to 1:30 yield). I guess DF can use similar mechanism to solve the seeds overflow. (By introducing the drying process, and letting the "seeds" to rot fast as they are in real life).
Also some things left out in DF farming are natural fertilizers, and farming tools/animals. (But animals I guess they will be introduced later, a lot later I think). But natural fertilizers may be an interesting plan if designed properly. One of the reason behind rotation farming is originally what's left from the harvest in old crop field needs to rot on the ground, and provide nature fertilization. But in rotations they will use different crops which uses different kind of nutrient in different depth (root depth). Maybe it can be factored in with the synthetic fertilizers like the potash.
*Shrug* Fair enough. I'd like to see crop rotation brought into DF too - it bugs me when things exist that have practically zero purpose. Except lead goblets. Their purpose is to be sold to Elves and drive them crazy through lead poisoning..
Your natural fertiliser idea is a good one too; a certain percentage of the season's crops have to be sacrificed. That makes sense - and since we don't have clover growing (pre industrial revolution farmers grew clover or beans to fix nitrogen into the soil, not that they knew it was nitrogen) then rotting plant matter is a good option.
Post by: G-Flex on July 24, 2011, 10:27:23 pm
Your natural fertiliser idea is a good one too; a certain percentage of the season's crops have to be sacrificed. That makes sense - and since we don't have clover growing (pre industrial revolution farmers grew clover or beans to fix nitrogen into the soil, not that they knew it was nitrogen) then rotting plant matter is a good option.
You need more fertilizer than part of last season's crops. In fact, using previously-grown crops as fertilizer is ridiculous; why sacrifice crops to grow crops? The amount of fertilizer provided by a pound of corn crop is enough fertilizer for, er, another pound of corn crop, or (more likely) far less. You aren't going to magically get more nutrients from a crop than are necessary to grow that amount of crop in the first place.
Farming has been discussed to death in other threads and it probably isn't worth going through too much in this thread, but I will say that for underground farming, you need both a source of nutrients and a source of energy (you don't have the sun). Decaying organic matter makes sense (plants, animal remains, waste, mulch, whatever), for example, especially if we're talking fungus.
Post by: counting on July 24, 2011, 10:55:59 pm
But it will be a farming efficiency boost, rather than a modifier though. I think it needs to be combined with the idea of "
In real world, rotten planets are used since you actually needed some nutrient to feedback into field. And growing some intermediate planets. Since in real world not every harvests are perfect and every bit good worth collecting (each grains are different, and some crops are bad). But in game sense, I do agree it's a bit over complicated indeed.
However I still believe the seed problem remains to be corrected for its way too long shelf life.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 24, 2011, 11:28:54 pm
rotten planets
Post by: JohnieRWilkins on July 25, 2011, 02:33:37 am
Post by: Dae on July 25, 2011, 03:17:58 am
rotten planets
That sounds lovely. I heard they're quite scenic in the summer.
Post by: Johuotar on July 25, 2011, 03:54:28 am
I believe that toady stated his ideas for making farming a giant nightmare somewhere and basically forcing players to buy food from the hilldwarves/trade caravans, unless the players want to dedicate 100% to the farming industry. That sounds like a reasonable way to buff sieges and maybe make cavern African trading posts clutch.
That could make thing a lot more Fun. A mean the current farming isn't too interesting feature, its just something you set to be done in first 15min and then forget about it. That would make managing foodstocks a proper feature. Can't wait for hilldwarf stuff!
Post by: counting on July 25, 2011, 11:14:42 am
I believe that toady stated his ideas for making farming a giant nightmare somewhere and basically forcing players to buy food from the hilldwarves/trade caravans, unless the players want to dedicate 100% to the farming industry. That sounds like a reasonable way to buff sieges and maybe make cavern African trading posts clutch.
One simply way of doing that is to introduce scalability. It makes entry hard and inefficient, and with rise of scale, the production output level will increase faster (margin rate) than the input capitals and manpower. It will naturally lead to monopoly in productions. But farming traditionally can only scale to certain level (due to the lack of machinery).
Post by: irmo on July 25, 2011, 03:19:49 pm
One simply way of doing that is to introduce scalability. It makes entry hard and inefficient, and with rise of scale, the production output level will increase faster (margin rate) than the input capitals and manpower. It will naturally lead to monopoly in productions. But farming traditionally can only scale to certain level (due to the lack of machinery).
How is this a "simple way"? In a simulation at this level of detail, you can't just magically turn on economies of scale. Which part of the (already absurdly efficient) crop-growing process gets more efficient in a specialized farming community?
Post by: counting on July 25, 2011, 04:38:34 pm
How is this a "simple way"? In a simulation at this level of detail, you can't just magically turn on economies of scale. Which part of the (already absurdly efficient) crop-growing process gets more efficient in a specialized farming community?
Scalability is not about absolute values, but the relative values. It's not increasing the current efficiency, but to differentiate the efficiency level between scale. In effect, the entry efficiency like if there's only 1 farmer, the efficiency will be much lower than current level (and probably limited the amount of fields 1 farmer can effectively taken care of). And with the growing of farming labors and capitals invested (tools, farm fields, fertilizers), the efficiency can slowly increased to current level or beyond. THAT's the definition of scalability. Only specialized agriculture society will be able to make a profit out of it, and the level of sustaining a community itself will require a large portion of the populations/industry capability. Those only choose small farmer populations will have to import foods. (Or completely dependent on importing food or hunting)
Post by: irmo on July 25, 2011, 04:54:44 pm
And with the growing of farming labors and capitals invested (tools, farm fields, fertilizers), the efficiency can slowly increased to current level or beyond. THAT's the definition of scalability.
I'm aware of the definition, thank you.
Quote
Only specialized agriculture society will be able to make a profit out of it, and the level of sustaining a community itself will require a large portion of the populations/industry capability. Those only choose small farmer populations will have to import foods. (Or completely dependent on importing food or hunting)
In case you haven't tried this: download Dwarf Fortress, create a world, start fortress mode, and build a farm on a patch of muddy ground. You will make a profit. It's almost impossible not to. So how can this be changed so that "farming capital" and specialization actually matter? Right now there's no place where "scalability" can change anything--each additional square of farm plot is exactly as productive as the first one, and the labor input is small enough to be irrelevant.
Post by: PTTG?? on July 25, 2011, 05:24:03 pm
What's more, make farming a full time job. every farm tile will need to be "tended" at least twice while it's growing. Failure to tend will result in the crop failing.
You will thus need a large investiture in water moving equipment and in semi-skilled farming labor, including full-time farmers.
Also, we need scythes. I could totally see some random human farmer beheading a dragon with a scythe in legends mode.
Post by: Rockphed on July 25, 2011, 05:25:23 pm
Post by: eux0r on July 25, 2011, 06:58:19 pm
i dont think we need to throw suggestions on the specifics around in here any more, theres the suggestion forum for that, and pretty much anything said here is probably already there and i guess toady will check there and think things over together with threetoe once he gets to it himself.
but theres the issue of what rockphed said and i think its a legitimate question, so ill green it:
At some point dwarves are going to be able to carry multiple small things in their hands, yes? I figure at that point toady will consider making dwarves gather up a significant amount of food to eat at once. Until then, having dwarves eat a proper amount of food is too hard to manage.
Post by: Dsarker on July 25, 2011, 09:29:19 pm
And with the growing of farming labors and capitals invested (tools, farm fields, fertilizers), the efficiency can slowly increased to current level or beyond. THAT's the definition of scalability.
I'm aware of the definition, thank you.QuoteOnly specialized agriculture society will be able to make a profit out of it, and the level of sustaining a community itself will require a large portion of the populations/industry capability. Those only choose small farmer populations will have to import foods. (Or completely dependent on importing food or hunting)
In case you haven't tried this: download Dwarf Fortress, create a world, start fortress mode, and build a farm on a patch of muddy ground. You will make a profit. It's almost impossible not to. So how can this be changed so that "farming capital" and specialization actually matter? Right now there's no place where "scalability" can change anything--each additional square of farm plot is exactly as productive as the first one, and the labor input is small enough to be irrelevant.
Are you being completely ignorant?
Each tile produces X food. This food requires Y effort to take care of it, with untrained labourers.
From what I understand, he wants the time taken by labourers to pick and plant the crops to be much increased. This is reduced by having highly skilled labourers, tools to aid in the process, and fertiliser. A fort that isn't dedicated to keeping these in good condition will be unable to efficiently produce food via farming.
We can then introduce the efficiency of having larger fields by having a efficiency increase in crops produced in a larger field, while countering the exploitability by forcing a set amount of labour that, in a small amount of food production, would favour the smaller fields.
Post by: Areyar on July 26, 2011, 09:30:24 am
If dwarves can cary an entire bag of seeds and continue to seed one tile after another, without needing to return to the seeds stockpile for each task, while a bunch of smaller fields would require separate tasks and thus returning to the stockpile anyhow.
(... right?)
placing stockpiles nearby is a common efficiency booster, but still each new task introduces the chance the dwarf goes off to the other side of the map to haul a log or something unproductive such as visiting a dead relative. ;)
Post by: slyeye on July 26, 2011, 09:52:26 am
Edit: Ah yes, relegated was the word I wanted, can never keep those two straight...
Post by: Areyar on July 26, 2011, 10:15:39 am
Are there any considerations to add proper portcullis' to the game with the inclusion of vast walled cities or will this be regulated to the future moving fortress parts update?it's 'relegated to'...
anyhow: haha, I used to think this dev item read 'Moving Fortress' and imagined it as a manga thing (Howl's Moving castle (http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/C1276349108/E1035837334/Media/howls%20moving%20castle.jpg)), where giant fortresses stalked the map.
Post by: Tweakd on July 26, 2011, 10:58:43 am
Quote
It isn't ready to navigate you to specific buildings at this point, just to show what's around you as you move.
Presumably this will work quite simply with compass bearings. Looks great from here!
Post by: Dae on July 26, 2011, 12:03:57 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on July 26, 2011, 12:09:52 pm
I just noticed something with the maps. Along the northern part of the city, you can see roads ending straight into the city walls. That's not dramatic, after all there might be houses or farms there. What strikes me more is the road going through the northern gate which literally leads to nowhere. It ends at the gate. Could you please explain this Toady ?
My guess is that the mid-level maps just aren't yet properly resolving the roads vis-a-vis surrounding obstacles.
Post by: jimi12 on July 26, 2011, 01:16:19 pm
Post by: thvaz on July 26, 2011, 01:20:19 pm
On the bottom of the travelmap just posted there is a "c:clouds". Does this mean that there are now clouds in game? Can we now build towers in fort mode that are above the cloudtops?
This is screen is of adventure mode, where you can see the clouds since the first public release.
Post by: Footkerchief on July 26, 2011, 01:41:10 pm
On the bottom of the travelmap just posted there is a "c:clouds". Does this mean that there are now clouds in game? Can we now build towers in fort mode that are above the cloudtops?
As thvaz said, it's an Adventure Mode thing. It's the same toggle that you can use on the current Adv. Mode travel screen. Clouds will not show up in Fortress Mode yet.
Post by: EnigmaticHat on July 26, 2011, 03:10:25 pm
Post by: Ghills on July 26, 2011, 07:05:25 pm
When hilldwarves are in, is there a chance we could end up with a town map like the one you posted, but with our own fortress at the center?
I really, really want this.
Post by: hermes on July 26, 2011, 09:12:27 pm
Post by: Untelligent on July 26, 2011, 10:05:48 pm
Post by: gimli on July 27, 2011, 06:43:57 am
Post by: Jelle on July 27, 2011, 07:09:29 am
You'd have a hauling job like any other, but as soon as the dwarf picks up the item he looks for nearby items that should go to the same targeted stockpile untill the cart is filled, potentially saving a huge amount of time running back and forth. Maybe even have a setting in the stockpile wether to allow cart hauling or not.
That'd be pretty awesome imo, make hauling more realistic and practical.
In fact you could go as far as to make railways with minecarts going through your mines to haul ores and gems to the fortress, to complete the mining experience.
I'm sure it's been discussed before, just throwing in my 2 cents. I can imagine it'd be tricky to code in though.
Post by: Quatch on July 27, 2011, 07:45:32 am
Guys, I wasn't very active on the DF forums, and I haven't played sinced a long time, so here is my question to you. [I guess the community can give me an answer as well] Baughn started to work on some OpenGL stuff + he wanted to separate text and graphics IIRC. What happened to the project? Is it working in the SDK version or?
Yeah, its rolled into the mainline now. More or less working (there exist some bugs specific to it) afaik. you enable it one of the init files where you change the graphics setting. Instead of standard or 2d you can put in text.
Post by: hermes on July 27, 2011, 07:54:23 am
Guys, I wasn't very active on the DF forums, and I haven't played sinced a long time, so here is my question to you. [I guess the community can give me an answer as well] Baughn started to work on some OpenGL stuff + he wanted to separate text and graphics IIRC. What happened to the project? Is it working in the SDK version or?
Yes that project seems to be still ongoing, but since it seems rather stable and the immediate goals have been met (and Baughn got a job) I guess development has slowed a bit. Baughn is still fixing bugs (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/changelog_page.php) as they crop up as you can see in the bug tracker. The SDL version you can download is the product of that development. I haven't been following recent development though, Baughn did post in the Ironhand thread quite a bit, you can check there (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=53180.3975) for some more info.
Don't see why not. Makes sense to use what map systems he already has unless there's a pressing need to write up a new one from scratch, like he did here.
Yes, that's what I was thinking. The scale seems kind of right for a battlemap, and since this is a feature I am dying to see I am inclined to get my hopes up! But I realise that can only really come in once the army arc starts... just wishful dreaming :)
Post by: gimli on July 27, 2011, 10:43:28 am
Post by: Neonivek on July 27, 2011, 11:36:36 am
I love the new town screen. It shows me exactly where the shops I am looking for as well as giving me an interface to walk around in.
Finally I won't have to go on the last crusade to find the weapon shop.
Post by: Areyar on July 27, 2011, 01:41:08 pm
Or does it list only a handfull of local buildings of interest?
Post by: Waparius on July 27, 2011, 09:56:04 pm
On topic of dwarves carrying multiple items at once, I kind of wish for the entire hauling labor to get some love, specificly make it possible to make carts from wood or some other material, and having either dwarves or beasts of burden pull them around.
[...]
I'm sure it's been discussed before, just throwing in my 2 cents. I can imagine it'd be tricky to code in though.
IIRC, that's going in with the mechanics and siege engine updates after Toady gets the moving buildings stuff working properly. I think the multiple-small-item-hauling stuff will be in before that though, and probably then something to make it harder to haul beds up thirty levels of spiral staircase so people will actually have a reason to build those winches they're always bringing up in the suggestion forum.
Post by: Caldfir on July 28, 2011, 01:50:00 am
So far we have:
- items moving around the world in worldgen (other modes?)
- expanded/walled cities
- city underground
- undead/necromancy
- vampires/werecreatures
- criminals and dungeons
- tombs
- town maps involving workshops/markets/shops based on world gen economic activities
This is a pretty beefy list of features, each of which have me pretty excited. I am currently unable to play DF because I keep thinking about all this new stuff coming. I hope the release comes before I...
Caldfir cancels write thread, too insane.
Caldfir has been stricken by melancholy!
Post by: Johuotar on July 28, 2011, 02:17:49 am
town maps involving workshops/markets/shops based on world gen economic activities
Hmm, I wonder how ready workshop and market stuff is now. There are probably going to be new animals in the next release too.
Post by: Knight Otu on July 28, 2011, 06:43:11 am
When hilldwarves are in, is there a chance we could end up with a town map like the one you posted, but with our own fortress at the center?Seems unlikely - the hill dwarf settlements probably will use different structures from human towns. Perhaps if you mod the game to have dwarves use towns rather than mountain halls.
Yeah, Toady has mentioned that he wants to do more animal work after the town travel map. By my count, he should be at otter, snapping turtle, mongoose, crow, octopus, wolverine, wild boar, raven, beaver, coyote, hamster, and hyena. I think there's also a good chance that he'll work on a few more night creatures (stalkers, constructed undead, intelligent undead, and animated furniture at most, I believe).town maps involving workshops/markets/shops based on world gen economic activities
Hmm, I wonder how ready workshop and market stuff is now. There are probably going to be new animals in the next release too.
Post by: tfaal on July 28, 2011, 10:49:33 am
Post by: thvaz on July 28, 2011, 11:06:22 am
Post by: Johuotar on July 28, 2011, 11:16:57 am
Post by: scriver on July 28, 2011, 11:22:13 am
Post by: Organum on July 28, 2011, 01:30:09 pm
I'm really hoping we get stalkers in this release, because I just know that if it doesn't happen now, it'll get put off forever. Just look what happened to formations. :\
Formations? Like stalactites, or like worker unions?
Post by: Footkerchief on July 28, 2011, 01:38:27 pm
I'm really hoping we get stalkers in this release, because I just know that if it doesn't happen now, it'll get put off forever. Just look what happened to formations. :\
Formations? Like stalactites, or like worker unions?
Military formations. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_2009.html#2009-06-02) It was planned for the big 2010 release, but got cut.
Post by: Organum on July 28, 2011, 01:46:30 pm
Formations? Like stalactites, or like worker unions?
Military formations. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_2009.html#2009-06-02) It was planned for the big 2010 release, but got cut.
Oh. Thanks for the link.
Post by: Areyar on July 29, 2011, 02:28:03 am
80's idoru pop formations! ><I'm really hoping we get stalkers in this release, because I just know that if it doesn't happen now, it'll get put off forever. Just look what happened to formations. :\
Formations? Like stalactites, or like worker unions?
seriously though: instruments (etc) need to be used already. :)
Post by: magmaholic on July 29, 2011, 04:49:17 pm
Post by: G-Flex on July 29, 2011, 05:38:29 pm
Post by: Scarpa on July 29, 2011, 06:26:54 pm
What I want to know is what an "idoru" is.
A really good book.
Post by: thvaz on July 30, 2011, 03:20:41 am
Post by: Cruxador on July 30, 2011, 12:58:05 pm
But we don't have a keyboard-only interface, we just have a predominantly keyboard interface. You can still use the mouse to place the X cursor in most situations, and that will doubtless be expanded as Toady continues (though hopefully expansion to that happens sooner rather than later).I also wonder whats wrong with keyboard based interface o-o
Nothing, really. It is very efficient for giving commands and quickly navigating static menu system.
But what is terribly sucks for is targeting (placing constructions and drawing them, querying buildings, viewing units, etc...) where you are better off with tool that was designed for this task.
Also, selecting something from list is usually better done with mouse unless you have more advanced aids (similar to what is in manager screen or in bring to trade depot screen).
When hilldwarves are in, is there a chance we could end up with a town map like the one you posted, but with our own fortress at the center?It won't be identical, since the different races (humans, elves dwarves, etc.) are getting unique stuff in army arc. But I'd imagine that's the general idea.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on July 30, 2011, 05:53:19 pm
Post by: Areyar on July 30, 2011, 05:59:25 pm
What I want to know is what an "idoru" is.
A really good book.
Yes.
it is also japanese slang for 'idol', as they tend to have difficulty with pronouncing the 'el'.
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 30, 2011, 06:00:49 pm
This question needs to be answered once and for all.
Post by: Dae on July 30, 2011, 06:08:10 pm
Yeah i would like to see a little hobbington with tunnels running from building to building and hidden auto-cannons UN-wire and Landmines. ... Wait i think i confuse LOTR with france.
What ? You're aware WWI has been over for quite some time in France right ?
Post by: Cruxador on July 30, 2011, 07:05:32 pm
Only officially.Yeah i would like to see a little hobbington with tunnels running from building to building and hidden auto-cannons UN-wire and Landmines. ... Wait i think i confuse LOTR with france.
What ? You're aware WWI has been over for quite some time in France right ?
Post by: scriver on July 30, 2011, 09:22:38 pm
Toady, what are double braids? (Google Image would help)Do you mean the appearance thingie? I always assumed it meant two braids.
This question needs to be answered once and for all.
Post by: Untelligent on July 31, 2011, 12:31:33 am
Post by: Putnam on July 31, 2011, 03:42:06 am
Post by: DG on July 31, 2011, 06:18:06 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Urist_McArathos on August 01, 2011, 12:08:46 am
Are there plans to allow you to eventually "retire" a fortress, and then found another? For example, you build a mining fortress, then retire it and it becomes part of your civ instead of an abandoned site for reclamation, then you can found another one somewhere else, essentially building your kingdom up? Or those migrants you may be able to send on missions, maybe you take control of them and start a new fortress? Also, any plans to allow reclamation of lost cities/sites in your civ's history?
I assume that if this idea is in the works, or in order for it to be, more work would have to be done on citizens being a part of the legends and history, not just randomly generated migrants. Also, cities and sites that have been created in the past would need a set structure, and other details. I was just wondering since, at the moment, it seems like civs rise and fall INDEPENDENTLY of player actions, and your fortresses are nothing but brief establishments doomed to fail (since leaving them results in abandonment). With trade and armies coming, it would seem like a natural progression that you can have a greater impact on your civ.
Post by: Cruxador on August 01, 2011, 12:18:35 am
My apologies if this has been asked before: I could not find a reference to it with my searching.The issue with this is that some things that work in the fortress mode don't work so well in the more abstracted mechanics of a fortress that the player isn't present for. A lot of people want this, but until a solution can be found for that it's not going in.
Are there plans to allow you to eventually "retire" a fortress, and then found another? For example, you build a mining fortress, then retire it and it becomes part of your civ instead of an abandoned site for reclamation, then you can found another one somewhere else, essentially building your kingdom up? Or those migrants you may be able to send on missions, maybe you take control of them and start a new fortress? Also, any plans to allow reclamation of lost cities/sites in your civ's history?
I assume that if this idea is in the works, or in order for it to be, more work would have to be done on citizens being a part of the legends and history, not just randomly generated migrants. Also, cities and sites that have been created in the past would need a set structure, and other details. I was just wondering since, at the moment, it seems like civs rise and fall INDEPENDENTLY of player actions, and your fortresses are nothing but brief establishments doomed to fail (since leaving them results in abandonment). With trade and armies coming, it would seem like a natural progression that you can have a greater impact on your civ.
Post by: Urist_McArathos on August 01, 2011, 12:34:58 am
I know the FIRST obvious hurdle is writing the game so that time can continue to move forward and affect the retired fortress. It would also be nigh impossible if migrants continue to be random dwarves instead of members of the existing legends timeline; how does one fold into the history of the world creatures that literally appeared out of thin air one summer? I can't understand what other issues or hurdles there would be, but I am not saying there aren't any; I'm simply stating that I am ignorant of the problems and hurdles involved.
I also won't say they "should be easy enough to fix down the line" (I tend to see that assumption made on a lot of suggestions), because I truly have no clue. It's a feature that I for one dearly want, and just wanted an idea of whether or not it was even being considered as a long term goal, or was possible.
Post by: Cruxador on August 01, 2011, 12:45:20 am
Post by: Urist_McArathos on August 01, 2011, 12:54:07 am
Of course, if the game does take into account defenses dwarves know how to use (and those things don't get fixed), I could see a LOT of fortresses that are perfectly defensible as player forts suddenly being overrun by goblins as the AI would forget to enable the magma trap and have an army of copper-clad recruits.
Post by: Niccolo on August 01, 2011, 05:20:05 am
Of course, if the game does take into account defenses dwarves know how to use (and those things don't get fixed), I could see a LOT of fortresses that are perfectly defensible as player forts suddenly being overrun by goblins as the AI would forget to enable the magma trap and have an army of copper-clad recruits.
And then the goblins keep that fortress and stage raids on any nearby dwarven fortresses. Can you imagine Goblin swordmasters with candy swords invading?
Post by: Footkerchief on August 01, 2011, 08:57:26 am
My apologies if this has been asked before: I could not find a reference to it with my searching.
Are there plans to allow you to eventually "retire" a fortress, and then found another? For example, you build a mining fortress, then retire it and it becomes part of your civ instead of an abandoned site for reclamation, then you can found another one somewhere else, essentially building your kingdom up? Or those migrants you may be able to send on missions, maybe you take control of them and start a new fortress? Also, any plans to allow reclamation of lost cities/sites in your civ's history?
I assume that if this idea is in the works, or in order for it to be, more work would have to be done on citizens being a part of the legends and history, not just randomly generated migrants. Also, cities and sites that have been created in the past would need a set structure, and other details. I was just wondering since, at the moment, it seems like civs rise and fall INDEPENDENTLY of player actions, and your fortresses are nothing but brief establishments doomed to fail (since leaving them results in abandonment). With trade and armies coming, it would seem like a natural progression that you can have a greater impact on your civ.
There have been a lot of threads dedicated to this idea:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=53896.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=45086.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=19689.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=3326.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=3841.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=29331.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30750.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=5717.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=6233.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=21353.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=3744.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=19905.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=23487.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=3726.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=3017.0 (includes comment from Toady)
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=54905.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=69685.0Spoiler: tags (click to show/hide)
Post by: Karakzon on August 01, 2011, 09:43:43 am
Post by: stolide on August 01, 2011, 11:41:35 am
you would have to have a defence AI that recognised pathing, levers and their functions and the implacations of said functions and so on. something very complex. Know how drawbridges work, were and when to deploy the infantry, deploying marksdorfs, handling the injured. release of pets or war animals and the resetting of said trap. considering, it would take a wile to code and take up some cpu to run, but it is conceivable to get a defence AI for a fortress that wouldnt kill everyone in said fort sometime in future. Only problem is that someone could take such an AI and use it in fortress mode or some such.
Toady could put in some very basic instructions that you could give a dwarf, perhaps just any dwarf through the manager.
Something like "On siege, wait 50 steps, pull lever 11." Lever 11 being the level that seals the fort.
I don't know how hard that would be, but it sounds like it would not be too complicated. If the game allowed said instructions to last after you leave the fort without abandoning it, you could have a fort that would be able to make rudimentary use of whatever nonsense the player builds.
Personally, I would like something like that for the sole purpose of removing some micromanagement. If it were extended with a large list of events to trigger it, and potential actions, you could have a mostly automated fortress.
Post by: Cruxador on August 01, 2011, 12:36:23 pm
"Grazing and Drinking for Livestock" should already be purple already since grazing was added in fort mode, but it isn't.
Under Markets:
"Small markets associated to entity population villages" should certainly be green by the time this is done, although I don't know if Toady's done everything he wanted to with them yet.
"Markets need to replenish goods and manage ownership changes" may well be green too. I don't know about ownership changes.
Under Villains, we could get some purple from necromancers.
Under adventure sites:
"Non-town sites need to created and used for various purposes in world generation (prisons, tombs, temples, mines, castles, etc.)" should be purple, we'll get everything but mines added.
Under Night Creatures and the Undead:
"Replace skeletons and zombies with generalized generated types of creature corruption/undeath etc." I think should be green. If Toady considers some not yet completed night creature stuff to fall under this, it'll at least be purple.
"Causes -- existing from the beginning, death circumstances, being cursed, focusing on specific historical figures at first" purple
"Goals, if any, as individuals, even if it is murdering or mutilating wayfarers in the woods" Vampires have some of this, so purple.
"Weaknesses, restrictions on movement, other limitations" Purple. No restrictions on movement yet, as far as I'm aware.
Under Torment the Living:
"Night creatures must act out their goals during play" I think green
"Some victims can end up drained as subvillains or slaves in the same way a bandit leader has subordinates" I think green, at least purple, because vampires.
Under Curses and Exposure:
"Can be cursed by night creatures when you put them down" probably purple since I think Toady wanted to do more with this.
A couple questions that arose from rereading the dev page:
Will we get population sprawl with farms and whatnot growing up around adventurer-created sites?
I feel like that should happen based on the adventurer's reputation and what stuff the site actually includes.
Will merchants come to adventurer sites?
It would be a good reward that makes sense for building a nice site, both traveling caravans like in Dwarf mode and potentially markets formed by the population.
Post by: EnigmaticHat on August 01, 2011, 03:02:41 pm
you would have to have a defence AI that recognised pathing, levers and their functions and the implacations of said functions and so on. something very complex. Know how drawbridges work, were and when to deploy the infantry, deploying marksdorfs, handling the injured. release of pets or war animals and the resetting of said trap. considering, it would take a wile to code and take up some cpu to run, but it is conceivable to get a defence AI for a fortress that wouldnt kill everyone in said fort sometime in future. Only problem is that someone could take such an AI and use it in fortress mode or some such.
Toady could put in some very basic instructions that you could give a dwarf, perhaps just any dwarf through the manager.
Something like "On siege, wait 50 steps, pull lever 11." Lever 11 being the level that seals the fort.
I don't know how hard that would be, but it sounds like it would not be too complicated. If the game allowed said instructions to last after you leave the fort without abandoning it, you could have a fort that would be able to make rudimentary use of whatever nonsense the player builds.
Personally, I would like something like that for the sole purpose of removing some micromanagement. If it were extended with a large list of events to trigger it, and potential actions, you could have a mostly automated fortress.
There are several problems with relying on instructions like that. First, that requires that the player is very smart and can anticipate every outcome. For example, the above command would seal the farmers and hunters outside, something the player would know to avoid but the AI wouldn't. And what if a random tantrum killed the lever? Or the dwarf that was supposed to pull the lever died? A fort run by predetermined instructions would be doomed, because even if the instructions were really thoughtful as the situation changed they would make less and less sense.
Likewise, that sort of control lends itself to a lot of exploits and unrealistic behavior. For example, the player could put all the fort's valuables in a vault, set the dwarves to open the vault to the outside when a bunch of obscure conditions were met, then come back as an adventurer, trigger the conditions, and get rich for nothing. Or, using a similar trick, get the dwarves to stockpile their equipiment and then seal themselves in small rooms, then come in and get a bunch of experience beating them to death.
If you ask me, a better idea is simply to wait. Players forts right now rely on a lot of defenses that shouldn't work; literally unstoppable automated defenses, unbreakable walls, magma that never cools and can be easily pumped, small farms that provide infinite food from inside the fortress, ect. As these things are made more realistic and the siege AI gets smarter, actual fights between soldiers should matter more, and the AI's job becomes easier; it just needs to know where to put the soldiers, a much easier task then knowing when to pull the lever. And, it won't matter quite so much if the AI screws up the trap portion of the defenses.
Post by: darkflagrance on August 01, 2011, 04:01:14 pm
Rather, I predict that retired forts, should the functionality be added to DF, will:
-randomly generate items depending on workshops and craftsdwarves available and randomly export non-artifact worn items
-never mine out or construct any new area
-populate the fort with a random combination of dwarves who were present when the fort was abandoned and dwellers from the fort's surroundings (a feature yet to be implemented)
-randomly place dwarves proximate to places they are likely to be (meeting areas, workshops or farms if appropriate labors are enabled)
-be unable to use complex lever-/timing-based traps without some sort of trigger AI also being implemented (highly unlikely)
-support dwarves based on available underground soil + farming output, and perhaps build additional farms on farmable areas that seeds are available to the civ for.
-battles can be simulated using the worldgen battling algorithm: a forgotten beast or siege can be generated, and then each enemy can be placed into battle with a fortress inhabitant, priority given to fortress inhabitants with military skills.
Post by: Caldfir on August 01, 2011, 07:23:28 pm
That said, it is (and has been a long time) within reach to have abandoned forts simply "paused," however this seems just as unsatisfactory to me as the current state of affairs, so I would rather wait for development to naturally progress to include this feature than have Toady spend time coding something that would be a very unimpressive placeholder. Still, dare to dream I guess :)
Post by: loose nut on August 01, 2011, 08:16:48 pm
Post by: metime00 on August 02, 2011, 08:02:41 am
Post by: zwei on August 02, 2011, 08:08:34 am
Other than the obvious problems with complex machinery that the dwarves wouldn't be able to use and other logistical problems, I think that retiring a fortress sort of defeats the whole "losing is fun and you will lose" mission statement. You're watching a fortress through its rise and fall, it doesn't get to live forever. Just my two cents.
Think "losing is fun and you will lose" applied to whole kingdoms.
Post by: thvaz on August 02, 2011, 08:12:02 am
Other than the obvious problems with complex machinery that the dwarves wouldn't be able to use and other logistical problems, I think that retiring a fortress sort of defeats the whole "losing is fun and you will lose" mission statement. You're watching a fortress through its rise and fall, it doesn't get to live forever. Just my two cents.
"Losing is fun" never was an official motto. And retiring a fortress is not "winning" either. Toady visions plans for a living world. Your impact on this world would be diminished if your greater contribution were abandoned mountain halls.
Post by: Dsarker on August 02, 2011, 08:54:55 am
Other than the obvious problems with complex machinery that the dwarves wouldn't be able to use and other logistical problems, I think that retiring a fortress sort of defeats the whole "losing is fun and you will lose" mission statement. You're watching a fortress through its rise and fall, it doesn't get to live forever. Just my two cents.
"Losing is fun" never was an official motto. And retiring a fortress is not "winning" either. Toady visions plans for a living world. Your impact on this world would be diminished if your bigger contribution were abandoned mountain halls.
You call them abandoned mountain halls, I call them a great habitat for monsters.
Post by: stolide on August 02, 2011, 10:17:03 am
you would have to have a defence AI that recognised pathing, levers and their functions and the implacations of said functions and so on. something very complex. Know how drawbridges work, were and when to deploy the infantry, deploying marksdorfs, handling the injured. release of pets or war animals and the resetting of said trap. considering, it would take a wile to code and take up some cpu to run, but it is conceivable to get a defence AI for a fortress that wouldnt kill everyone in said fort sometime in future. Only problem is that someone could take such an AI and use it in fortress mode or some such.
Toady could put in some very basic instructions that you could give a dwarf, perhaps just any dwarf through the manager.
Something like "On siege, wait 50 steps, pull lever 11." Lever 11 being the level that seals the fort.
I don't know how hard that would be, but it sounds like it would not be too complicated. If the game allowed said instructions to last after you leave the fort without abandoning it, you could have a fort that would be able to make rudimentary use of whatever nonsense the player builds.
Personally, I would like something like that for the sole purpose of removing some micromanagement. If it were extended with a large list of events to trigger it, and potential actions, you could have a mostly automated fortress.
There are several problems with relying on instructions like that. First, that requires that the player is very smart and can anticipate every outcome. For example, the above command would seal the farmers and hunters outside, something the player would know to avoid but the AI wouldn't. And what if a random tantrum killed the lever? Or the dwarf that was supposed to pull the lever died? A fort run by predetermined instructions would be doomed, because even if the instructions were really thoughtful as the situation changed they would make less and less sense.
Likewise, that sort of control lends itself to a lot of exploits and unrealistic behavior. For example, the player could put all the fort's valuables in a vault, set the dwarves to open the vault to the outside when a bunch of obscure conditions were met, then come back as an adventurer, trigger the conditions, and get rich for nothing. Or, using a similar trick, get the dwarves to stockpile their equipiment and then seal themselves in small rooms, then come in and get a bunch of experience beating them to death.
If you ask me, a better idea is simply to wait. Players forts right now rely on a lot of defenses that shouldn't work; literally unstoppable automated defenses, unbreakable walls, magma that never cools and can be easily pumped, small farms that provide infinite food from inside the fortress, ect. As these things are made more realistic and the siege AI gets smarter, actual fights between soldiers should matter more, and the AI's job becomes easier; it just needs to know where to put the soldiers, a much easier task then knowing when to pull the lever. And, it won't matter quite so much if the AI screws up the trap portion of the defenses.
I thought about that an hour after I posted. All you need is to have "On siege, activate alert 'indoors'." Which is then followed by what I posted before.
Your principle point still stands though. It would eventually degenerate into uselessness, and have the potential for abuse for adventurers. On that last point though, I do not really see a problem. If the player is going to use out of character knowledge, then they are already exploiting the game. If the player actually wants to build a fort whose sole purpose is to store valuables for an adventurer, that should be their decision.
Post by: darkflagrance on August 02, 2011, 05:44:16 pm
you would have to have a defence AI that recognised pathing, levers and their functions and the implacations of said functions and so on. something very complex. Know how drawbridges work, were and when to deploy the infantry, deploying marksdorfs, handling the injured. release of pets or war animals and the resetting of said trap. considering, it would take a wile to code and take up some cpu to run, but it is conceivable to get a defence AI for a fortress that wouldnt kill everyone in said fort sometime in future. Only problem is that someone could take such an AI and use it in fortress mode or some such.
Toady could put in some very basic instructions that you could give a dwarf, perhaps just any dwarf through the manager.
Something like "On siege, wait 50 steps, pull lever 11." Lever 11 being the level that seals the fort.
I don't know how hard that would be, but it sounds like it would not be too complicated. If the game allowed said instructions to last after you leave the fort without abandoning it, you could have a fort that would be able to make rudimentary use of whatever nonsense the player builds.
Personally, I would like something like that for the sole purpose of removing some micromanagement. If it were extended with a large list of events to trigger it, and potential actions, you could have a mostly automated fortress.
There are several problems with relying on instructions like that. First, that requires that the player is very smart and can anticipate every outcome. For example, the above command would seal the farmers and hunters outside, something the player would know to avoid but the AI wouldn't. And what if a random tantrum killed the lever? Or the dwarf that was supposed to pull the lever died? A fort run by predetermined instructions would be doomed, because even if the instructions were really thoughtful as the situation changed they would make less and less sense.
Likewise, that sort of control lends itself to a lot of exploits and unrealistic behavior. For example, the player could put all the fort's valuables in a vault, set the dwarves to open the vault to the outside when a bunch of obscure conditions were met, then come back as an adventurer, trigger the conditions, and get rich for nothing. Or, using a similar trick, get the dwarves to stockpile their equipiment and then seal themselves in small rooms, then come in and get a bunch of experience beating them to death.
If you ask me, a better idea is simply to wait. Players forts right now rely on a lot of defenses that shouldn't work; literally unstoppable automated defenses, unbreakable walls, magma that never cools and can be easily pumped, small farms that provide infinite food from inside the fortress, ect. As these things are made more realistic and the siege AI gets smarter, actual fights between soldiers should matter more, and the AI's job becomes easier; it just needs to know where to put the soldiers, a much easier task then knowing when to pull the lever. And, it won't matter quite so much if the AI screws up the trap portion of the defenses.
I thought about that an hour after I posted. All you need is to have "On siege, activate alert 'indoors'." Which is then followed by what I posted before.
Your principle point still stands though. It would eventually degenerate into uselessness, and have the potential for abuse for adventurers. On that last point though, I do not really see a problem. If the player is going to use out of character knowledge, then they are already exploiting the game. If the player actually wants to build a fort whose sole purpose is to store valuables for an adventurer, that should be their decision.
The adventurer can fulfill the obscure conditions required to access the loot because he is a "chosen one" selected by the gods to receive the riches of the kingdom.
I don't see the need for a complex fortress defense AI except when a battle actually takes place on a fortress that a player does not currently rule, such as an enemy or npc dwarf fortress.
Post by: Neonivek on August 03, 2011, 01:02:17 am
We get that sometimes a release takes longer, it only means that more went into it.
Don't be so hard on yourself (or appologetic to the fanbase)
Post by: G-Flex on August 03, 2011, 01:43:41 am
Post by: Neonivek on August 03, 2011, 01:54:06 am
He'd probably feel less a need to be apologetic if people didn't freak out whenever he goes two days without an update.
WHAT!?! two more days?
Ok, just kidding. Yeah I guess yeah that is a problem.
Post by: Dae on August 03, 2011, 02:49:27 am
He'd probably feel less a need to be apologetic if people didn't freak out whenever he goes two days without an update.
I'm not freaking out ! I just need my fix ! My good, so good fix of goodly dev log goodies...
Post by: Dradym on August 03, 2011, 02:56:19 am
anyways, keep up the good work, and cant wait til the new version is up, no matter how long it takes.
also, i dunno it this is answered somewhere: any chance a fully customizable dwarf description is in the works? basically for adventure mode, but maybe for special dwarfs in dwarf mode? it would be nice to model a dwarf after my looks and/or personality, or others that "sponsor" a dwarf in my fortress.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 03, 2011, 04:32:53 am
Post by: DG on August 03, 2011, 06:10:27 am
it would be nice to model a dwarf after my looks and/or personality, or others that "sponsor" a dwarf in my fortress.You're approaching this from the wrong angle. Don't remake the dwarves in your image, remake yourself in theirs. Save on razors.
Post by: zwei on August 03, 2011, 07:50:15 am
it would be nice to model a dwarf after my looks and/or personality, or others that "sponsor" a dwarf in my fortress.You're approaching this from the wrong angle. Don't remake the dwarves in your image, remake yourself in theirs. Save on razors.
Also, make sure your model dwarf never, ever, ever gets into combat.
Missing extremities may require razors on your part anyway.
Post by: Footkerchief on August 03, 2011, 08:42:01 am
also, i dunno it this is answered somewhere: any chance a fully customizable dwarf description is in the works? basically for adventure mode, but maybe for special dwarfs in dwarf mode? it would be nice to model a dwarf after my looks and/or personality, or others that "sponsor" a dwarf in my fortress.
This came up in the old List thread: (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: Rayc on August 03, 2011, 12:26:52 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on August 03, 2011, 12:39:03 pm
After my mayor mandated the construction of piccolos for the tenth time, I got to wandering: With Taverns being put in, will instruments become playable?
This has come up before with regard to taverns: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1943773#msg1943773)
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: AreyarI 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.
It also came up in DF Talk 12: (http://bay12games.com/media/df_talk_12_transcript.html)
Quote
Toady: It should be entertaining, and it's good - even independent of all the visitors - giving the dwarves something finally to do with those instruments they've had for years just sitting there. And it's like there's all these attributes, like musicality ...
Capntastic: Musicality, and kinetic sense.
Toady: Yeah, all that stuff that they don't use at all, like musicality: there's zero use for it ... and also the language abilities don't get used that much and we can have people telling ... it would be cool, like the historical information sometimes it gives you on engravings, you can have a dwarf say 'Now I will tell you of the story of the time that I carved cheese pictures in my room' or something, and they'll sit there ...
Capntastic: Gather round.
Toady: So you have these really funny dwarf parties where ... more like the way, it'll probably use the same stuff - that was the point - of the military stuff where it says exactly what they're doing during their training exercises and that kind of thing. You know you'd have these activities that pop up at parties, like there's a storytelling activity going on, or there's a musical activity and then people can join in as participants in different ways, and just kind of hang out in the meeting hall doing this different stuff, and the same with the games that they play.
Post by: Rockphed on August 03, 2011, 07:44:28 pm
Which would not be a half bad thing to find on an artifact come to think of it.
Post by: tps12 on August 03, 2011, 08:46:28 pm
Something like "On siege, wait 50 steps, pull lever 11." Lever 11 being the level that seals the fort.
...
Personally, I would like something like that for the sole purpose of removing some micromanagement. If it were extended with a large list of events to trigger it, and potential actions, you could have a mostly automated fortress.
Scripting dwarves is micromanagement.
Post by: Matz05 on August 03, 2011, 09:24:43 pm
Actually, if->then standing orders sound perfectly logical.
If a seige arrives, everyone comes inside, all guards are activated and stationed inside the main gate, and the gate is closed with lever 4 in X steps.
Real buildings have posters with evacuation/emergency procedures...
Post by: EmeraldWind on August 03, 2011, 10:10:57 pm
But it is EFFICIENT micromanagement.
Actually, if->then standing orders sound perfectly logical.
If a seige arrives, everyone comes inside, all guards are activated and stationed inside the main gate, and the gate is closed with lever 4 in X steps.
Real buildings have posters with evacuation/emergency procedures...
DwarfBASIC for all your dwarf programming needs.
Post by: Dradym on August 04, 2011, 12:59:43 am
at least this is how i would evolve the combat system
Post by: counting on August 04, 2011, 02:09:14 am
Post by: Dsarker on August 04, 2011, 02:18:17 am
Post by: irmo on August 04, 2011, 11:09:33 am
Post by: Mephansteras on August 04, 2011, 11:20:44 am
I'm not sure why anyone thinks "retired" forts will be simulated at the Fortress Mode level of detail, including things like mechanisms and exact positioning of dwarves. Your computer is not powerful enough to run two fortress simulations at once.
This issue, I think, is not that the fort needs to be simulated while you're running another fort except in high level detail. The issue is that it needs to be simulated correctly if you visit as an Adventurer. Basic things like: What state for various levers has the drawbridge up or down so you can actually get in? If there is an airlock system, what levers have to be pulled to open the inner doors after travelers have entered through the first set of doors?
It's those more complicated structures that Toady is concerned about. Players do all sorts of interesting things in their fortresses, and sometimes there isn't a decent 'default' state to leave it in that'll keep the fortress working properly if it's loaded during visiting. We can debate about how much of an issue that is, but from what Toady has said he would like these issues to be handled properly.
Post by: Neonivek on August 04, 2011, 11:41:49 am
Quote
What state for various levers has the drawbridge up or down so you can actually get in? If there is an airlock system, what levers have to be pulled to open the inner doors after travelers have entered through the first set of doors?
So then the clunky solution would be to allow designations.
Post by: Mephansteras on August 04, 2011, 12:35:02 pm
So then the clunky solution would be to allow designations.
Yes. But I think the issue here is more that Toady doesn't feel particularly compelled to add in a clunky solution. There are lots of clunky solutions, but I get the impression that he's holding out for a more elegant one. Or at least having a bunch of other aspects of the game coded so that he doesn't have to go back and touch the fortress simulation code multiple times.
Post by: Neonivek on August 04, 2011, 12:41:45 pm
So then the clunky solution would be to allow designations.
Yes. But I think the issue here is more that Toady doesn't feel particularly compelled to add in a clunky solution. There are lots of clunky solutions, but I get the impression that he's holding out for a more elegant one. Or at least having a bunch of other aspects of the game coded so that he doesn't have to go back and touch the fortress simulation code multiple times.
I am not asking for clunky solutions.
Though... a Dropgate designation wouldn't be so bad...
The dwarves would automatically raise and lower gates to accomidate travelers (or other dwarves) and refuse to lower them if an enemy comes forth.
Post by: caknuck on August 04, 2011, 07:57:12 pm
Quote from: Dev log Toady
I suppose the current peak of this feature will be learning to be a necromancer and then animating your own severed arm as a permanent traveling companion.
This is fucking awesome.
I intend to have my adventurers walk around with an honor guard of zombified elephant trunks.
Post by: Rift on August 04, 2011, 07:57:32 pm
With 150 kills, Urist Mcadventuerer's right arm was a legendary hero and travelling companion to the necromancer Urist, most famous for cutting off his own arm and using it as his right-hand man...
Post by: nogoodnames on August 04, 2011, 08:09:20 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on August 04, 2011, 09:19:35 pm
Nothing I say is worthy.
Post by: Neonivek on August 04, 2011, 10:12:58 pm
And doth did yon adventurer ride with his great companion handy, master of the flute, in tow.
Post by: Footkerchief on August 04, 2011, 10:27:30 pm
Post by: Evercy on August 04, 2011, 10:46:00 pm
Post by: Urist_McArathos on August 04, 2011, 11:00:24 pm
I'm not sure why anyone thinks "retired" forts will be simulated at the Fortress Mode level of detail, including things like mechanisms and exact positioning of dwarves. Your computer is not powerful enough to run two fortress simulations at once.
This issue, I think, is not that the fort needs to be simulated while you're running another fort except in high level detail. The issue is that it needs to be simulated correctly if you visit as an Adventurer. Basic things like: What state for various levers has the drawbridge up or down so you can actually get in? If there is an airlock system, what levers have to be pulled to open the inner doors after travelers have entered through the first set of doors?
It's those more complicated structures that Toady is concerned about. Players do all sorts of interesting things in their fortresses, and sometimes there isn't a decent 'default' state to leave it in that'll keep the fortress working properly if it's loaded during visiting. We can debate about how much of an issue that is, but from what Toady has said he would like these issues to be handled properly.
This answers a nagging question of mine I wanted to bring up here, but didn't out of fear for what Footkerchief would do to me. ;)
I had only thought of fortress mode, and figured "Who cares whether or not your magma trap or airlock works? You won't be going there, it just needs to simulate battles and trade, and the caravan arc will take care of the latter, world gen already does the former! Where's all this mechanism stuff come in?"
I never considered retiring a fortress and then going into adventure mode, mainly because I played adventure mode once and freaked out at the learning curve, which seemed even steeper and crazier than fortress mode (to me). Obviously, this creates a whole slew of problems that I'd never imagined due to my narrow vision on the game as a whole. Thanks for pointing it out.
Post by: monk12 on August 04, 2011, 11:12:36 pm
Because if so- freaking awesome! I would create a necromancer for the sole purpose of severing all my sever-able parts and reanimating them in a bid to live forever- in a manner of speaking.
Post by: Untelligent on August 04, 2011, 11:15:07 pm
Post by: Organum on August 05, 2011, 12:40:06 am
Post by: thvaz on August 05, 2011, 01:38:54 am
Post by: Gamerlord on August 05, 2011, 02:06:46 am
Going to animate my teeth!!! :D :D :D
Then my toes, then my fingers, then just everything I can have cut off without dieing!
Post by: Areyar on August 05, 2011, 02:22:32 am
If you sever your arm and reanimate it, and then you die, will your arm continue to have adventures?I would think that an 'animate dead(parts)' spell has a timer on it.
Because if so- freaking awesome! I would create a necromancer for the sole purpose of severing all my sever-able parts and reanimating them in a bid to live forever- in a manner of speaking.
like: after 1/n*Y*X frames, (where Y is a spell value in the spell-raws and X the skillfactor of the caster and n the number of parts that are affected by this spell, unless a fixed number is affected/casting), the spell should fizzle due to running out of energy.
spell cost could be variable as well, depending on how many bodyparts a corpse consists of.
I wonder how Toady has it working currently... Sweet expectation, it's like waiting for -insert presents giving festival here-!
Post by: EddyP on August 05, 2011, 03:21:51 am
Post by: Aqizzar on August 05, 2011, 03:24:47 am
Quote from: The Greatest Thing
I suppose the current peak of this feature will be learning to be a necromancer and then animating your own severed arm as a permanent traveling companion. That's going to be my test case, anyway. That'll probably make your arm into a historical figure with its own entry on the legends screen.
Okay, that's it. I can't take it anymore, this is just too much. I love this game.
Post by: Putnam on August 05, 2011, 03:26:16 am
Also...
Will the Shift+I menu work for the interactions, or will there be a new bind (oh god)?
Post by: Dsarker on August 05, 2011, 03:57:53 am
Interactions are going to be AWESOME. I mean, just the framework is getting me excited. The sheer possibilities are incredible!
Also...
Will the Shift+I menu work for the interactions, or will there be a new bind (oh god)?
Depending on how they're going to be working with the game, it could be under the same menu as the adventurer crafting.
Post by: B0013 on August 05, 2011, 04:10:08 am
(http://www.pisymbol.com/images/thing.jpg)
Best. Game. Ever.
Also-
Do this mean you can now strangle people from a distance?
Post by: Dae on August 05, 2011, 04:24:54 am
Also it seems like an animated part receives a new soul, so except if you can give clear orders to animated companions, you won't control your hand from a distance.
The next release is going to be GLORIOUS. Allowing interactions means we can mod in sooooo many shiny things.
Post by: metime00 on August 05, 2011, 07:31:18 am
snipI think animated things operate without a soul, they're essentially braindead and only operating on the standard "attack enemies of your faction that you see" AI.
Also it seems like an animated part receives a new soul, so except if you can give clear orders to animated companions, you won't control your hand from a distance.
snip
This is going to be one of the best updates ever and it'll probably mean I can get my more adventure mode liking friends to play the game too. I might have to learn to actually mod too :D
Post by: Dsarker on August 05, 2011, 07:54:55 am
snipI think animated things operate without a soul, they're essentially braindead and only operating on the standard "attack enemies of your faction that you see" AI.
Also it seems like an animated part receives a new soul, so except if you can give clear orders to animated companions, you won't control your hand from a distance.
snip
This is going to be one of the best updates ever and it'll probably mean I can get my more adventure mode liking friends to play the game too. I might have to learn to actually mod too :D
On the other hand, if they do get new souls it will give you an easy cure for all those dorfs with bad ones.
Post by: tfaal on August 05, 2011, 08:01:41 am
Post by: Urist_McArathos on August 05, 2011, 08:29:52 am
If you sever your arm and reanimate it, and then you die, will your arm continue to have adventures?
Because if so- freaking awesome! I would create a necromancer for the sole purpose of severing all my sever-able parts and reanimating them in a bid to live forever- in a manner of speaking.
Some things should not be severed.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Just sayin'.
Post by: Ratbert_CP on August 05, 2011, 09:13:48 am
Provided we can craft/procure the appropriate sleevies...
Post by: Dbuhos on August 05, 2011, 09:37:59 am
If you sever your arm and reanimate it, and then you die, will your arm continue to have adventures?
Because if so- freaking awesome! I would create a necromancer for the sole purpose of severing all my sever-able parts and reanimating them in a bid to live forever- in a manner of speaking.
Some things should not be severed.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Just sayin'.
I cringed so hard...and then reality hit me.
Post by: monk12 on August 05, 2011, 09:58:59 am
Do this mean you can now strangle people from a distance?
Just use your own animated body parts as projectile weapons.
Holy cow, I just remembered Toady musing about weaponized zombie dragon heads. WE CAN DO THAT.
Post by: CaptainArchmage on August 05, 2011, 10:10:14 am
So... This would be the culmination of the Armies arc, right?
Provided we can craft/procure the appropriate sleevies...
The army arc isn't over until Toady says it is, and even then there might be changes in the future. Before that happens, we will at least be able to send out armies from our fortresses, and command armies as an adventurer.
Toady did the interactions change because it fixes a lot of missing functionality, which would be vastly increased in the next version had it not been implemented.
Post by: Ratbert_CP on August 05, 2011, 10:46:51 am
So... This would be the culmination of the Armies arc, right?
Provided we can craft/procure the appropriate sleevies...
The army arc isn't over until Toady says it is, and even then there might be changes in the future. Before that happens, we will at least be able to send out armies from our fortresses, and command armies as an adventurer.
Toady did the interactions change because it fixes a lot of missing functionality, which would be vastly increased in the next version had it not been implemented.
*sigh*
Where did the General keep his armies?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Dakk on August 05, 2011, 12:29:51 pm
Urist McGeneral: Fear not Captain, bring me the necromancer and an axe. In some hours we'll be at equal odds with them.
Post by: gimli on August 05, 2011, 02:02:24 pm
So... This would be the culmination of the Armies arc, right?
Provided we can craft/procure the appropriate sleevies...
The army arc isn't over until Toady says it is, and even then there might be changes in the future. Before that happens, we will at least be able to send out armies from our fortresses, and command armies as an adventurer.
Toady did the interactions change because it fixes a lot of missing functionality, which would be vastly increased in the next version had it not been implemented.
While we are at it...what are the "biggest" and most awesome features in the upcoming new version? Can we move armies in dwarf mode and conquer settlements for example? I am unable to figure it out after reading the devblog.
Post by: nogoodnames on August 05, 2011, 02:17:15 pm
As for the best feature of this next release, that's entirely a matter of opinion and I'm going to have to see them in action before I can decide on which one I like best.
Post by: freeformschooler on August 05, 2011, 02:23:48 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 05, 2011, 02:27:10 pm
Post by: Untelligent on August 05, 2011, 02:33:42 pm
While we are at it...what are the "biggest" and most awesome features in the upcoming new version? Can we move armies in dwarf mode and conquer settlements for example? I am unable to figure it out after reading the devblog.
No armies yet.
Personally, I think the biggest and most awesome feature in the upcoming new version will be the new interaction modding system. On the surface, you won't really see a whole lot come of it aside from the vampires and werewolves, but it's going to open up a rather large number of modding possibilities.
Post by: Ratbert_CP on August 05, 2011, 03:10:28 pm
Mea Culpa! Mea Maxima Culpa!
The next release is NOT the culmination of the Army Arc. As hinted by my spoilered pun, I thought I was making a joke. I apparently overestimated my sense of humor, not an uncommon occurance.
Disembodied Arm brought back to life... Little Arm -> Armie... Armies... Sleevies... ::)
Post by: gimli on August 05, 2011, 03:15:19 pm
We're not into the army arc yet, this next release is release one of the caravan arc and there are nine caravan arc releases planned before moving on to the army arc. It's going to be a while yet before you can start sending out invading armies.
As for the best feature of this next release, that's entirely a matter of opinion and I'm going to have to see them in action before I can decide on which one I like best.
I see, thanks! Whoa...so I won't be able to move my lil' armies for quite some time. Oh well, when the new version is out....I am going to start playing again anyway..:)
Post by: DrHojo on August 05, 2011, 03:21:03 pm
Post by: Scarpa on August 05, 2011, 03:44:57 pm
umm i know this is stupid but i don't get what it means by when it says interactions ^^; yeah i know i'm stupid
Think of a mummy's curse or something like that. If you just search the devlog for 'interaction' you'll find a series of posts talking about what it is. Looks like in this release we'll have interactions for raising the dead (or acquiring knowledge of how to do it at least), were-creatures and vamipres.
Post by: monk12 on August 05, 2011, 03:50:07 pm
umm i know this is stupid but i don't get what it means by when it says interactions ^^; yeah i know i'm stupid
Or more likely you don't follow the devlog (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/).
Interactions are first mentioned way the hell back in the post of May 3rd- basically, the "interaction" framework is what Toady created to handle curses and such- interaction is a more neutral term than curse, since some of these interaction abilities can be quite beneficial (more of a blessing, if you will.) Right now the confirmed interactions are the ability to raise the dead, immortality, "bad luck" curses (dispensed by mummies/dead kings/whatever) and the curses that turn people into vampires and were-creatures. He's also rewritten material breath attacks to use the interaction framework. 6-19 he mentions that he "Added contact and cleaning effects to the interaction framework and linked them back to red panda grooming, narwhal tusking, and kitty cat head-bumps, with the ability to do touch-range curses/powers as well."
The short version is that the Interaction Framework is a way for creatures/deities to mess with the world and each other in internally consistent yet non-standard ways- it's been referred to as the "baby magic framework." Certainly exciting stuff.
:o ???
Mea Culpa! Mea Maxima Culpa!
The next release is NOT the culmination of the Army Arc. As hinted by my spoilered pun, I thought I was making a joke. I apparently overestimated my sense of humor, not an uncommon occurance.
Disembodied Arm brought back to life... Little Arm -> Armie... Armies... Sleevies... ::)
If it makes you feel better, I got it, and gave a hearty groan as well.
Unrelated, anybody else excited about stalkers? I like the idea of a monster that has more motivation to mess with me than "he's the player, kill'm," especially since it seems they'll do that in wierd, freaky ways.
Post by: Strange guy on August 05, 2011, 04:20:28 pm
And let's not forget emergent gameplay will create new, unplanned best features.
I doubt we are going to see a better feature than zombifying your severed own limbs as allies. I'd love to be proved wrong, and some of the night creature stuff seems great, but that's still a very hard to beat best feature.
Post by: freeformschooler on August 05, 2011, 04:26:41 pm
And let's not forget emergent gameplay will create new, unplanned best features.
I doubt we are going to see a better feature than zombifying your severed own limbs as allies. I'd love to be proved wrong, and some of the night creature stuff seems great, but that's still a very hard to beat best feature.
I'm looking more at things like hunting down dragons so you can raise their severed head to have mobile flamethrower turrets.
Post by: DrHojo on August 05, 2011, 04:38:16 pm
Thank for telling me and i do follow the devlogs i didnt know it was called interactions i just thought it was magic =S etiher way sounds awsome ^^umm i know this is stupid but i don't get what it means by when it says interactions ^^; yeah i know i'm stupidOr more likely you don't follow the devlog (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/).
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 05, 2011, 05:16:42 pm
Will special attacks such as firebreath or webs be handled under the interaction system?
Post by: nogoodnames on August 05, 2011, 05:30:52 pm
Quote from: Toady One
Squid ink addition turned into material-flows-as-interaction rewrite, which is longer but allows the breath cloud/glob/cone stuff to be added as interaction powers now, which will doubtless come in handy. It also makes material breath have body part requirements, which they were missing. Fire breath hasn't been integrated yet. I suppose webs should be as well, but we'll have to see what happens. Back to towns for now.
Looks like they most likely will. Imagine the possibilities, especially with all the new syndrome effects!
Post by: freeformschooler on August 05, 2011, 05:33:14 pm
(between a necromancer and whatever abomination modding has turned the player into of course)
Post by: tolkafox on August 05, 2011, 08:23:36 pm
Quote from: Devlog
ability to perform interactions as an adventurer now
My mind had a fantasy of a wooden house in the wilderness built from oak logs and furnished with wolf bone chairs and lion tables while an adventurer defends his fisher berry farm from groundhogs before I realized what the rest of the page said. :(
When will I be able to marry that hot one-armed hammerwoman? After all, these leopard sweetbreads aren't going to cook themselves.
Post by: Rose on August 05, 2011, 10:16:05 pm
Animate them as needed.
Post by: Neonivek on August 05, 2011, 10:22:26 pm
have wolf bone chairs.
Animate them as needed.
Not possible unfortunately :'(
Post by: Knigel on August 06, 2011, 12:51:55 am
Just use your own animated body parts as projectile weapons.
As awesome as that would be, you can't throw other units, just inanimate objects or ones so small they don't even have parts.
Quote
Holy cow, I just remembered Toady musing about weaponized zombie dragon heads. WE CAN DO THAT.
This may seem self-explanatory, but I wanted to be sure.
Will special attacks such as firebreath or webs be handled under the interaction system?
Which brings me to something else. This was brought up before, and might have been answered already, but will these abilities be retained by re-animated corpses and will it only be with certain parts still there? Like, could a dragon head breath fire even if it no longer had lungs to breath with at all?
Also on the topic of necromancy, can the severed body parts of non-organic creatures be revived? I remember in arena mode that, while some severed parts of a bronze colossus were just "bronze colossus #x's bronze" others specified a body-part.
Post by: Demonic Gophers on August 06, 2011, 01:07:49 am
Just use your own animated body parts as projectile weapons.
As awesome as that would be, you can't throw other units, just inanimate objects or ones so small they don't even have parts.
But you could at least use your severed hands as projectile weapons and then animate them in the midst of your foes.
Post by: nogoodnames on August 06, 2011, 01:27:52 am
will these abilities be retained by re-animated corpses and will it only be with certain parts still there? Like, could a dragon head breath fire even if it no longer had lungs to breath with at all?
Seeing as abilities like these are now linked to body parts it seems likely that a reanimated corpse with the required part will still be capable of performing the ability.
Also on the topic of necromancy, can the severed body parts of non-organic creatures be revived? I remember in arena mode that, while some severed parts of a bronze colossus were just "bronze colossus #x's bronze" others specified a body-part.
This will probably be handled the same way it is now, with the [no_undead] (or whatever it is) tag.
Post by: tfaal on August 06, 2011, 08:19:11 am
Just use your own animated body parts as projectile weapons.
As awesome as that would be, you can't throw other units, just inanimate objects or ones so small they don't even have parts.
Yes you can. Just wrestle it by whatever part, go into the wrestling menu, select "wrestle with [the part you used to grab it]." then select "throw". Small enough creatures will go flying.
Post by: Knigel on August 06, 2011, 08:24:57 am
Seeing as abilities like these are now linked to body parts it seems likely that a reanimated corpse with the required part will still be capable of performing the ability.
Wait, when Toady say they'd be linked to body parts?
Yes you can. Just wrestle it by whatever part, go into the wrestling menu, select "wrestle with [the part you used to grab it]." then select "throw". Small enough creatures will go flying.
But you have no control over the direction they'll go in. You could very well end up throwing it at yourself.
Post by: Zared on August 06, 2011, 10:32:59 am
Seeing as abilities like these are now linked to body parts it seems likely that a reanimated corpse with the required part will still be capable of performing the ability.
Wait, when Toady say they'd be linked to body parts?
It was in one of the development updates when he was talking about making breath attacks into interactions.
Quote
Squid ink addition turned into material-flows-as-interaction rewrite, which is longer but allows the breath cloud/glob/cone stuff to be added as interaction powers now, which will doubtless come in handy. It also makes material breath have body part requirements, which they were missing. Fire breath hasn't been integrated yet. I suppose webs should be as well, but we'll have to see what happens. Back to towns for now.
Post by: MorleyDev on August 06, 2011, 06:53:25 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on August 06, 2011, 11:07:34 pm
I think the question we all want an answer to with the latest devlog post: Does this mean I can finally storm a Dragon's den leading an armada of decapitated and reanimated babies with my own right hand as my lieutenant?
With DFusion?
YES, you can do all of this.
Post by: Untelligent on August 07, 2011, 12:20:02 am
Post by: Cruxador on August 07, 2011, 02:32:38 am
I think the question we all want an answer to with the latest devlog post: Does this mean I can finally storm a Dragon's den leading an armada of decapitated and reanimated babies with my own right hand as my lieutenant?No, being able to appoint followers to positions won't happen for (probably) quite a while. Even when it does, raised body parts are unlikely to be viable choices, as they lack cognitive ability. Everything else is possible.
Post by: penguify on August 07, 2011, 11:09:49 am
Also, can creatures be truly resurrected rather than zombified (retaining original soul and/or with a non-decaying body), or resurrected but with an interaction applied? (and if so, do they retain their previous entity allegiance, or change to that of their resurrector?)
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 07, 2011, 01:50:15 pm
Post by: G-Flex on August 07, 2011, 10:19:29 pm
Suppose I have a necromancer companion. If I die, could he reanimate me? Would I still have control?
I doubt you'd still have control since you'd basically just be a mindless (or at least without your original mind) zombie.
Post by: Neonivek on August 07, 2011, 11:06:38 pm
Suppose I have a necromancer companion. If I die, could he reanimate me? Would I still have control?
I doubt you'd still have control since you'd basically just be a mindless (or at least without your original mind) zombie.
Also by the same concept you would gain control of yourself if an enemy necromancer raised you.
Though it could be something Toady could look into for the future... an ability Necromancers could have that raises people back from the dead as undead monstrocities.
Post by: Areyar on August 08, 2011, 09:38:45 am
n.b. An adventurer killed by the Necromancer's buddies would be resurrected to fight for him, retaining part of his/her historical skills and history. After each failed attempt to kill the dark sorceror, the number of undead heroes increases and the task becomes more difficult.
fun times! :)
Post by: freeformschooler on August 08, 2011, 11:38:54 am
Suppose I have a necromancer companion. If I die, could he reanimate me? Would I still have control?
I doubt you'd still have control since you'd basically just be a mindless (or at least without your original mind) zombie.
Also by the same concept you would gain control of yourself if an enemy necromancer raised you.
Though it could be something Toady could look into for the future... an ability Necromancers could have that raises people back from the dead as undead monstrocities.
Note that for player control there's no difference between an undead mindless player and a regular player. If you really wanted you could play as a skeleton in Arena Mode, but I'm not so sure about your already-dead body being raised and you continuing to play. Oh well, that would be awesome though.
Post by: jellsprout on August 08, 2011, 02:05:01 pm
Taking down a Necromancer would be a pretty difficult task if not handled with care:
n.b. An adventurer killed by the Necromancer's buddies would be resurrected to fight for him, retaining part of his/her historical skills and history. After each failed attempt to kill the dark sorceror, the number of undead heroes increases and the task becomes more difficult.
fun times! :)
That is not the only problem. You fight the necromancer before he has too many minions. You chop off one of his arms. As the necromancer is slowly bleeding to death, you start your victory dance. Only for the chopped off arm to suddenly strangle you. When fighting a necromancer, you need to be careful not to accidentally give him more minions.
Post by: Karnewarrior on August 08, 2011, 05:31:13 pm
Well you could always get suspicious and run him out of town.Suppose I have a necromancer companion. If I die, could he reanimate me? Would I still have control?
I doubt you'd still have control since you'd basically just be a mindless (or at least without your original mind) zombie.
Post by: drvoke on August 08, 2011, 07:08:00 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 08, 2011, 07:24:40 pm
Adventurers being able to do interactions is easily the most epic DF announcement since.. I dunno. Probably multiple Z levels. I'm pretty damn excited, anyway.
For the modding community maybe.
There are so few interactions adventurers even get outside of mods.
Post by: Rockphed on August 08, 2011, 08:43:41 pm
Adventurers being able to do interactions is easily the most epic DF announcement since.. I dunno. Probably multiple Z levels. I'm pretty damn excited, anyway.
For the modding community maybe.
There are so few interactions adventurers even get outside of mods.
Consider this: if you play as a dragon, you will be able to breath fire. If you find a tablet detailing how to become a necromancer, you will be able to raise your own severed hand to follow you. When artifacts gain abilities(like shooting fireballs), the interface will already be there to use them. If you get bitten by a werespider, you will be able to shoot webs while in spider form.
Okay, so the odds of any of that happening are vanishingly small. But I think the first explains why people like this so much. Actually being able to breath fire as a dragon is just plain cool.
Post by: Footkerchief on August 08, 2011, 09:27:44 pm
Consider this: if you play as a dragon, you will be able to breath fire. [...] Actually being able to breath fire as a dragon is just plain cool.
I'm not sure why people are talking like dragonfire is a sure bet: (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-06-20)
Quote from: devlog
Fire breath hasn't been integrated yet.
And there's no guarantee that it'll be integrated before the release.
Post by: Dsarker on August 08, 2011, 09:31:22 pm
Consider this: if you play as a dragon, you will be able to breath fire. [...] Actually being able to breath fire as a dragon is just plain cool.
I'm not sure why people are talking like dragonfire is a sure bet: (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-06-20)Quote from: devlogFire breath hasn't been integrated yet.
And there's no guarantee that it'll be integrated before the release.
But it does imply that it is or will be coming.
Post by: Footkerchief on August 08, 2011, 09:37:21 pm
But it does imply that it is or will be coming.
But it does not imply that it's coming in this release, which is what some people are anticipating. "Yet" covers a lot of a ground with a planning horizon as long as DF's.
Post by: Dsarker on August 08, 2011, 09:39:17 pm
I'm looking forward to the dwarfinator food.
Post by: Dsarker on August 09, 2011, 07:46:04 am
Post by: Knight Otu on August 09, 2011, 08:49:27 am
Actually...no. There is something possibly even better than necromancy or that sort of stuff. If we can get interactions to change a body part, we could possibly create a crude evolution.That'd presumably mostly fall under the body part/tissue layer changes that won't be possible yet, unfortunately. I'm not clear on whether interactions would be able to act as "genes" in the necessary manner, either.
Post by: Dsarker on August 09, 2011, 09:55:26 am
Post by: Rockphed on August 09, 2011, 07:54:15 pm
Consider this: if you play as a dragon, you will be able to breath fire. [...] Actually being able to breath fire as a dragon is just plain cool.
I'm not sure why people are talking like dragonfire is a sure bet: (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-06-20)Quote from: devlogFire breath hasn't been integrated yet.
And there's no guarantee that it'll be integrated before the release.
Bah! Humbug! I thought it had been. Oh, well. There goes pretty much all my reason for wanting adventure mode interactions. *pout*
Post by: nogoodnames on August 09, 2011, 08:01:37 pm
Post by: tfaal on August 09, 2011, 10:28:49 pm
Post by: Untelligent on August 09, 2011, 11:29:14 pm
Post by: Dsarker on August 09, 2011, 11:42:54 pm
A while back I tried all sorts of varying combinations of things that could go in a breath attack to find one that could set things on fire or at least cause heat damage, but never succeeded. Closest thing I got was a dragon that spewed goop all over things that made them freeze to death.
Check the genesis mod.
Post by: thvaz on August 10, 2011, 02:04:58 am
Post by: Johuotar on August 10, 2011, 02:43:34 am
Post by: Niccolo on August 10, 2011, 06:08:21 am
Six days without development updates after two months of almost daily updates... maybe we will have a release soon?
I hope so. And it will be glorious.
Post by: metime00 on August 10, 2011, 06:49:38 am
Six days without development updates after two months of almost daily updates... maybe we will have a release soon?
I was thinking that maybe making interactions work with adventurers took a long time to implement, but maybe it's a bunch of uninteresting loose ends being tied up for release :D
Post by: Knight Otu on August 10, 2011, 07:02:26 am
Post by: EmperorJon on August 10, 2011, 07:11:55 am
Post by: irdsm on August 10, 2011, 07:41:59 am
I've resigned myself to it being another few months yet, to be honest. Off on holiday soon, it'd be a pleasant surprise if it was here when I came back. :D
I went on a road trip for the last few weeks thinking the same thing. I hope you have more luck than I did
Post by: Knight Otu on August 10, 2011, 07:53:06 am
Post by: Niccolo on August 10, 2011, 08:58:47 am
At this point, it'll probably be weeks rather than months (and rather than days, for that matter). Stalkers (which might make the other likely night creatures easier to implement, so those might come in as well), sponsorship animals (I'm uncertain whether Toady actually wants to try and make proper beaver dams, but other than that, he might do little things here and there), preliminary testing and bugfixing at the very least. Emergent features could always happen, and I might be forgetting things.
Beaver dams? Oh dear.
I'm imagining the hail of fun that will ensue during large-scale pumping projects... Especially if your dwarves are beard-deep in aquifer layers and the pumps switch off.
Hee hee.
Ah well. Weeks is better than months!
Post by: Gaspa Craftdreams on August 10, 2011, 09:31:45 pm
But actually I was really hoping that adventurers would be able to spit alcohol into a lit torch to make a makeshift flamethrower. Because, y'know, FIRE.
Also, how many more months away are we from seeing procedurally-generated, sprawling underground dungeons that span 27+ levels with multiple branches?
Post by: EmeraldWind on August 10, 2011, 09:34:53 pm
Quote from: DevLog
My kitchen flooded today, which was FUN. It was a valve on the washing machine I guess. Scamps remained dry, though every towel in my apartment is now soaking on the floor.
I had this happen once, sort of. Except it was because my roommate try to use dish soap instead dish detergent. Hilarity ensued. I walk in and the dish washer was foaming at the mouth and half the kitchen was covered in bubbles. It had apparently been going on for a while too. I asked him why he didn't turn off the washer and he responded to me with a blank stare. I guess he had panicked and didn't think of that. All the towels in the apartment were reassigned to floor duty... though since we had a dryer in the apartment we had a cycle of using the towels and drying them. I'm just lucky I showed up when I did. Another 5 minutes and it would have reached critical levels of disaster as the 2nd rinse cycle would have begun.
Hopefully, your experience went as easy as mine. It was a tough job to clean up, but it could have been a lot worse easily.
Post by: jellsprout on August 11, 2011, 06:18:28 am
Post by: Areyar on August 11, 2011, 09:49:50 am
Post by: linx09 on August 11, 2011, 11:48:21 am
Post by: nogoodnames on August 11, 2011, 11:51:59 am
Hey I'm just wondering if you will implement a multiplayer mode for DF Adv mode.No, the game just isn't set up in a way that would make multiplayer possible, especially in adventure mode. Also, read the roleplaying section description.
Quote
You can participate in the only multiplayer games B12 is likely to have anything to do with here. Feel free to start one of your own.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on August 11, 2011, 12:39:46 pm
Hey I'm just wondering if you will implement a multiplayer mode for DF Adv mode.It will never happen.
Post by: Greiger on August 11, 2011, 05:06:20 pm
...
*please don't hurt me ThreeToe*
Post by: Dae on August 12, 2011, 03:27:27 am
Don't worry bout the flood Toady! See it as the opportunity it is! get some grass to grow on the muddied tiles and you'll be able to Threetoe in your kitchen!
... I'm not a native speaker... Are you positively sure a word isn't missing in your sentence ?
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on August 12, 2011, 03:44:30 am
Don't worry bout the flood Toady! See it as the opportunity it is! get some grass to grow on the muddied tiles and you'll be able to Threetoe in your kitchen!
... I'm not a native speaker... Are you positively sure a word isn't missing in your sentence ?
I am a native speaker and I can assure you what he said makes no sense.
Post by: Neonivek on August 12, 2011, 03:58:27 am
Like doing the Monkey.
Though it does beg the question about what exactly Threetoe'ing is.
Post by: Areyar on August 12, 2011, 04:21:37 am
It makes sense but you have to assume that Threetoe is an action of some sort.hanging upside down from the ceiling/rafters one assumes...
Like doing the Monkey.
Though it does beg the question about what exactly Threetoe'ing is.
Post by: scriver on August 12, 2011, 05:53:50 am
Post by: Greiger on August 12, 2011, 04:29:42 pm
I think I'll keep that unedited for posterity though. Pretty funny if I so myself.
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on August 12, 2011, 10:00:52 pm
I think I'll keep that unedited for posterity though. Pretty funny if I so myself.
I see what you did there.
Post by: Rockphed on August 13, 2011, 12:38:54 am
Post by: magmaholic on August 13, 2011, 03:06:30 am
Post by: mendonca on August 13, 2011, 03:07:13 am
I wonder how common secret learning opportunities will be.
Could be an interesting bug coming across whole communities of necromancers. Every one has a pet hand.
Post by: RedWick on August 13, 2011, 06:57:12 am
Post by: Knight Otu on August 13, 2011, 07:33:57 am
Post by: Dradym on August 13, 2011, 01:11:35 pm
yeah interactions sound like basically actions that break the in-game laws of physics and are just programmed to happen, maybe a better term should be came up with, like......dwarphysics, superphysics, magic, cheating...etc
Post by: Dae on August 13, 2011, 03:02:01 pm
I could theorize quite a bit on this, but magic in its essence is breaking the laws of physics, and replacing them with the laws of magic.
Post by: Cerol Lenslens on August 13, 2011, 09:02:43 pm
Beaver dams? Oh dear.
I'm imagining the hail of fun that will ensue during large-scale pumping projects... Especially if your dwarves are beard-deep in aquifer layers and the pumps switch off.
Hee hee.
If I'd been able to at the time, I would have nominated beavers for the animal drive for exactly that reason:
Urist McAide: "Sir, the lower levels are filling with magma! For some reason, the obsidian generators aren't getting any water!"
Urist McOverseer: *Facepalm* "Ugh! How could this day get any worse?"
Urist McAide: "Sir, the elves are right outside. They're angry. And they brought war unicorns! Their leader said something about us disregarding the timber quota!"
Urist McOverseer: "What!? We haven't touched those trees! Wait a minute...! Aargh! You win this round, beavers, but next time! Next time!!!" *Fistshake*
Post by: Untelligent on August 13, 2011, 11:43:18 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 14, 2011, 12:51:55 am
In my opinion, it's fantastically fitting that the first thing that vaguely resembles magic that adventurers will be able to do in vanilla Dwarf Fortress is the ability to animate the bits and pieces of people you've recently hacked apart.
With no limitations either making it possibly the most broken ability in Dwarf Fortress.
Post by: Johuotar on August 14, 2011, 06:19:45 am
Well when the magic starts going in the game balance is 99% sure to be broken for few releases until they are finetuned after some serious playtesting.In my opinion, it's fantastically fitting that the first thing that vaguely resembles magic that adventurers will be able to do in vanilla Dwarf Fortress is the ability to animate the bits and pieces of people you've recently hacked apart.
With no limitations either making it possibly the most broken ability in Dwarf Fortress.
Post by: Karnewarrior on August 14, 2011, 09:33:24 am
In my opinion, it's fantastically fitting that the first thing that vaguely resembles magic that adventurers will be able to do in vanilla Dwarf Fortress is the ability to animate the bits and pieces of people you've recently hacked apart.
With no limitations either making it possibly the most broken ability in Dwarf Fortress.
ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE!
Post by: Greiger on August 14, 2011, 09:55:22 am
A zombie arm is ok. It has a grasp part. A zombie Leg is not.
Post by: NSQuote on August 14, 2011, 10:35:43 am
Post by: tfaal on August 14, 2011, 10:40:51 am
Post by: Jimlad11 on August 14, 2011, 10:56:57 am
Urist McAdventurer: Hell no. I want that book so I can do all this undead-raising business myself.
Necromancer: Ah, crap...
Post by: mendonca on August 14, 2011, 11:02:27 am
Townsfolk: Nah thanks, I'm fine tending my cabbages.
Urist McAdventurer: Ok. We do this the hard way. *cleave*
Urist McAdventurer: *mysterious mumbling*
Townsfolk's upper and lower halves of body stand to attention beside Adventurer
Urist McAdventurer: Onwards we go then!
Post by: Neonivek on August 14, 2011, 02:21:11 pm
Well, you do have to find the secrets first, which probably means taking down an enemy necromancer or raiding a dungeon.
Yeah but go a few months back before necromancers and go
"Hey, what if we had magic that was clearly overpowering allowing us to bring Megabeasts on our side for no cost or penelty. However it was hard to find ability"
I would suspect almost everyone would be against it.
That is what I find funny.
It is part of the "Everything is forgivable if it is awsome"
Post by: jellsprout on August 14, 2011, 02:29:43 pm
Well, you do have to find the secrets first, which probably means taking down an enemy necromancer or raiding a dungeon.
Yeah but go a few months back before necromancers and go
"Hey, what if we had magic that was clearly overpowering allowing us to bring Megabeasts on our side for no cost or penelty. However it was hard to find ability"
I would suspect almost everyone would be against it.
That is what I find funny.
It is part of the "Everything is forgivable if it is awsome"
This is Dwarf Fortress. If it can lead to enough Fun, I don't think there is anything the community is against. The core community has also learned to trust Toady in his decisions.
Post by: thvaz on August 14, 2011, 02:36:16 pm
Well, you do have to find the secrets first, which probably means taking down an enemy necromancer or raiding a dungeon.
Yeah but go a few months back before necromancers and go
"Hey, what if we had magic that was clearly overpowering allowing us to bring Megabeasts on our side for no cost or penelty. However it was hard to find ability"
I would suspect almost everyone would be against it.
That is what I find funny.
It is part of the "Everything is forgivable if it is awsome"
Is there a leaked version? Or can you see the future? It must be one of these, for it looks like you know too much already.
Post by: Neonivek on August 14, 2011, 02:40:26 pm
Quote
Is there a leaked version? Or can you see the future? It must be one of these, for it looks like you know too much already.
Yes, I can see the future of the fortress. How did you know?
Post by: zwei on August 14, 2011, 03:43:08 pm
There are limitations. The animated bits require either a head or a grasp part or they either can't be reanimated or collapse immediately. That's one of the new undead rules, they need one of those to stay 'alive'.
A zombie arm is ok. It has a grasp part. A zombie Leg is not.
It still allows huge momentum if kill results in +2 to 4 numeric advantage. If you meet with opposition with equal number of combatants, you will at worst have no losses and at best double your army.
This is, of course, assuming average undead foe has 50/50 chance of scoring kill vs. average soldier.
I have flashbacks of D2 necromancer building army of skeletons from weak foes, then using them to grind down strong foes and then use those to kick some serious demon lord ass.
Post by: Untelligent on August 14, 2011, 04:08:06 pm
Post by: 3 on August 14, 2011, 06:18:10 pm
An arm or even half of a person is going to be significantly weaker than a living soldier due to the huge size disadvantage.
That in mind, I expect there'll be the regular size-based weirdness when it comes to animated parts; a lot of them'll probably be too small to pierce the skin/break bones, and thusly they'll just cause a lot of attack spam and no real effect.
Post by: Niccolo on August 14, 2011, 07:45:25 pm
An arm or even half of a person is going to be significantly weaker than a living soldier due to the huge size disadvantage.
That in mind, I expect there'll be the regular size-based weirdness when it comes to animated parts; a lot of them'll probably be too small to pierce the skin/break bones, and thusly they'll just cause a lot of attack spam and no real effect.
I'm now imagining adventuring with a veritable cloud of hands. At a word from me, they all leap for the nearest not-mine throat and start squeezing.
Even better, the ability to 'assemble' golems would be sweet. Take a hydra's body, switch out each head for a firebreathing dragon's... maybe add some wings and then ride this bastard into battle.
Post by: penguify on August 14, 2011, 08:04:32 pm
Urist McAdventurer: Will you come and journey with me? Share in my glory!You couldn't reanimate the lower body. It doesn't have a GRASP or MOUTH part. You could, however, stab him in the brain and then reanimate the entire corpse.
Townsfolk: Nah thanks, I'm fine tending my cabbages.
Urist McAdventurer: Ok. We do this the hard way. *cleave*
Urist McAdventurer: *mysterious mumbling*
Townsfolk's upper and lower halves of body stand to attention beside Adventurer
Urist McAdventurer: Onwards we go then!
Can zombies learn?
Post by: monk12 on August 14, 2011, 08:19:13 pm
An arm or even half of a person is going to be significantly weaker than a living soldier due to the huge size disadvantage.
That in mind, I expect there'll be the regular size-based weirdness when it comes to animated parts; a lot of them'll probably be too small to pierce the skin/break bones, and thusly they'll just cause a lot of attack spam and no real effect.
I'm now imagining adventuring with a veritable cloud of hands. At a word from me, they all leap for the nearest not-mine throat and start squeezing.
Even better, the ability to 'assemble' golems would be sweet. Take a hydra's body, switch out each head for a firebreathing dragon's... maybe add some wings and then ride this bastard into battle.
Are constructed "Frankenstein Monster" type things going to be in the upcoming version?
Will the player be able to take advantage of that mechanic to complement whatever necromancy they pick up?
Now that specific abilities are attached to specific body parts, will we be able to perform the aforementioned Dragon Head/Hydra Body and expect firebreath as a result?
I know that they were mentioned in a DF talk, but I don't see confirmation of their inclusion in the devlog (apart from a brief "after vampires" from Threetoe,) and that Talk was certainly before the decision to make interactions usable by the player.
Mostly, I'm picturing sewing daggers to the fingers on those severed hands to give them serious damage potential, or sewing a human hand to that same human's lower body in order to animate it separately. Or sewing that human hand onto other normally unraisable things.
Post by: Untelligent on August 14, 2011, 10:11:57 pm
Post by: monk12 on August 14, 2011, 10:20:39 pm
More excitingly, does this imply that reading the slab is (theoretically) possible in Dwarf Mode, or is he simply clearing out the area to make the adventure mode smash and grab easier? ONLY TIME WILL TELL.
Post by: Neonivek on August 15, 2011, 12:55:33 am
Quote
Will the player be able to take advantage of that mechanic to complement whatever necromancy they pick up?
Now that specific abilities are attached to specific body parts, will we be able to perform the aforementioned Dragon Head/Hydra Body and expect firebreath as a result?
From what I understand it is a mechanic that occurs outside the scope of actual gameplay, as well Toady has yet to input the codes requires for any creature to have the bodyparts of another (which would take him a month).
So actually... No you wouldn't be able to do that.
Also though I can't speak for Toady on your first question about whether the Frankenstiens would be in this release... It is looking distinctly no.
Post by: thvaz on August 15, 2011, 02:18:13 am
Quote
My seven dwarves were able to dispatch some dozens of zombies without difficulty, which might be a problem.
It is certainly a problem. All your work on undeads would be pointless if they aren't a challenge. I hope you have time to fix it.
Post by: Neonivek on August 15, 2011, 02:30:22 am
From devlog:QuoteMy seven dwarves were able to dispatch some dozens of zombies without difficulty, which might be a problem.
It is certainly a problem. All your work on undeads would be pointless if they aren't a challenge. I hope you have time to fix it.
I personally am not all that surprised. By what means should the zombies be getting any sort of advantage other then "No pain" and "No exhaust" and "No bleed"?
I don't see how exactly there is a problem unless these were skilled ninja undead fully clad in armor.
The only other fix I can think of would be to give zombies a "Move through" so to speak where they can ignore attacks projected at them (especially ones that don't do a lot of blunt damage) to get opportunity attacks. Which is one of the dangers of zombies is that for the most part they can just ignore anything you do, but at the same time it is also a weakness.
Actually to admit... How exactly did the Dwarves win? Was it the lumber jack who eventually got to the rest of the zombies while the rest managed to avoid the zombie attacks?
Post by: Cruxador on August 15, 2011, 02:38:20 am
Post by: thvaz on August 15, 2011, 02:41:03 am
Clearly necromancers need more zombies. And raise their hit point number, that'll have to hold until the proper pulping goes in. Proper pulping shouldn't go in now, this release is taking long enough already.
Yeah, I think it is a matter of too few hit points right now.
Post by: Neonivek on August 15, 2011, 03:03:13 am
Clearly necromancers need more zombies. And raise their hit point number, that'll have to hold until the proper pulping goes in. Proper pulping shouldn't go in now, this release is taking long enough already.
Yeah, I think it is a matter of too few hit points right now.
Or the fact that zombies don't have their monsterous strength as if they were on a pernament adrenalin rush.
Post by: thvaz on August 15, 2011, 04:49:27 am
Post by: assasinwar9 on August 15, 2011, 05:06:42 am
Post by: zwei on August 15, 2011, 05:39:37 am
If they had and could use weapons they would be a lot more dangerous.
I really hope reanimated bodies will keep their clothing/armor.
Post by: thvaz on August 15, 2011, 05:51:38 am
If they had and could use weapons they would be a lot more dangerous.
I really hope reanimated bodies will keep their clothing/armor.
If nothing changed I doubt they will, as when something dies it drops all their clothes and equipment.
Post by: rhesusmacabre on August 15, 2011, 06:46:27 am
I haven't done anything with equipment.
So not yet, but maybe in the future.
Post by: thvaz on August 15, 2011, 07:40:22 am
I asked about this a while back.I haven't done anything with equipment.
So not yet, but maybe in the future.
Well, it is a pity. They are worthless gameplay-wise as long as they don't offer some challenge to players.
Post by: zwei on August 15, 2011, 08:22:38 am
I asked about this a while back.I haven't done anything with equipment.
So not yet, but maybe in the future.
Well, it is a pity. They are worthless gameplay-wise as long as they don't offer some challenge to players.
Still, it still brings iteresting elements to play:
Right now, graveyard design does not matter. You can have coffins in your hallways and dining room, untreatenin.
But when you face possibility of your dead raising as undead, you have to make it with threat in mind. Seal your crypts away, install traps amongst coffins, that kind of stuff...
Post by: Lordinquisitor on August 15, 2011, 08:24:27 am
The need to monitor your graveyards combined with the possibility of Undead Raids and the permanent psychological stress on your dwarves should offer a nice additional challenge.
Post by: Evil One on August 15, 2011, 08:33:09 am
I asked about this a while back.I haven't done anything with equipment.
So not yet, but maybe in the future.
Well, it is a pity. They are worthless gameplay-wise as long as they don't offer some challenge to players.
Depends on the undead... A naked undead human might not be much of a threat, but I'd imagine that an undead cyclops, giant or dragon would be much more of a problem.
And of course your dwarves might end up fighting undead relatives and loved ones... I'd imagine that'd cause some problems for them too.
Post by: Chromasphere on August 15, 2011, 09:31:29 am
Post by: thvaz on August 15, 2011, 10:22:43 am
Yes, exactly. Not everything needs to be super 'uber'. My take on zombie's, particularly humanish ones, is that they are not all that hard to handle in small quantities. It's in their overwhelming numbers where they become dangerous. So a few dozen humanish zombies against 7 dwarves isn't 'overwhelming' and should be survivable (if they're the slow, shambling type I usually envision). Now, if you get cornered or up against zombified beasts, monsters and other nasties... that could be very different of a story.
I can accept a soldier killing scores of disarmed human zombies, but civilians killing dozens of them I find a bit hard to believe.
Post by: Dae on August 15, 2011, 10:48:41 am
I checked the wiki for intel on wrestling and couldn't find anything about its effects besides allowing you to do other stuff, like take-downs...
Toady, is there a negative effect to being grabbed by some body part right now ? For example, does being grabbed by the leg slow down your moves, being grabbed by the hammer arm decrease your attack speed, being grabbed by the shield or the shield arm impair you ability to block ? If not, it could be a good way to make zombies stronger.
Also, zombies usually have an iron hand when it comes to grabbing a prey... will DF zombie have such strength as well ? DF zombie obviously won't have the contaminated bite thing (although something close might be modded in), but will their bite have a higher tendency to cause infections, given the rottyness they're famous for ?
Post by: Sscral on August 15, 2011, 03:07:10 pm
Toady, is there a negative effect to being grabbed by some body part right now ? For example, does being grabbed by the leg slow down your moves, being grabbed by the hammer arm decrease your attack speed, being grabbed by the shield or the shield arm impair you ability to block ? If not, it could be a good way to make zombies stronger.
Also, zombies usually have an iron hand when it comes to grabbing a prey... will DF zombie have such strength as well ? DF zombie obviously won't have the contaminated bite thing (although something close might be modded in), but will their bite have a higher tendency to cause infections, given the rottyness they're famous for ?
Currently being grabbed prevents you from moving away unless you win some sort of strength contest with whatever is grabbing you and 'break' their hold, also, you cannot dodge while being grabbed/wrestled. I'm not sure if there are any other effects though
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on August 15, 2011, 03:14:20 pm
Post by: grueburger on August 15, 2011, 05:32:41 pm
I really hope Toady will fix bug with vanishing zombies, while he is at it. Maybe add at last pulping? Feature creep is in full effect anyway, so why not. I am still sad there was no separate release (with additional bugfix release, of course) because of said creep.
I hope this does happen, because zombies as they are now are very broken, seemingly due to the hitpoints system. The zombie elk and reindeer on my current evil glacier fort seemed far too weak, so I ran some tests with an unskilled, unarmed, unarmoured dwarf in the arena, and he demolished a zombie ettin, a zombie giant, a zombie minotaur and a zombie roc one after another with his worst wound being a bruise on his arm (which healed up during the minotaur fight). not exactly a rigorous scientific test, but a roc or a minotaur are normally serious threats, and just being zombified shouldn't make them easily killable by the most peasanty peasant imaginable (even after all the fights he had no skills above novice and no attributes listed in his status screen)
Even if pulping isn't introduced, DF's combat simulation has moved on a bit since the introduction of the hitpoint system for undead (I think, can't think of any changes off the top of my head), so maybe its time to see if they function at the right difficulty level without it.
Post by: Neonivek on August 15, 2011, 05:42:14 pm
One of the things I liked about Dwarf Fortress is its realism even in face of what is usually considered a threat.
Though to me I'd think the problem is that Dwarves are too good rather then the zombies being too weak.
Quote
he demolished a zombie ettin, a zombie giant, a zombie minotaur and a zombie roc one after another with his worst wound being a bruise on his arm
I think it is because the rot makes zombies weaker (rotten muscle should be weaker). They lack the unholy strength they usually possess.
I assumed that Necromantic Zombies would have their muscles empowered by dark energies to allow them to function just as well in death then in life.
Post by: DG on August 16, 2011, 01:51:48 am
And of course your dwarves might end up fighting undead relatives and loved ones... I'd imagine that'd cause some problems for them too.
"Dad, you killed the zombie Urist!"
"He was a zombie?"
Post by: monk12 on August 16, 2011, 09:56:33 am
And of course your dwarves might end up fighting undead relatives and loved ones... I'd imagine that'd cause some problems for them too.
"Dad, you killed the zombie Urist!"
"He was a zombie?"
Stupid sexy Urist.
Post by: Armeleon on August 16, 2011, 09:43:07 pm
Post by: Untelligent on August 16, 2011, 10:26:40 pm
People don't like it when other people post suggestions in this thread. Here's a better place to put them.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?board=5.0
Post by: Rift on August 17, 2011, 08:37:21 pm
Quote
My adventurer fought through around sixty zombies in the tower, killed the necromancer, learned the secrets of life and death, and then raised various limbs (not my own). Then I talked to one of them, and it told me that it was peasant. It was flattered but had no need of my services. I imagine its little fingers were shaped into the form of a mouth and they flapped back and forth while it spoke with a high-pitched voice. I guess there's still work to do.
:D It's so easy to imagine a adventurer achieving so much and then having the limbs he raise politely decline to follow him... Try gaining some undead Rep points first.
Post by: Dsarker on August 17, 2011, 09:46:24 pm
Post by: Dwarfu on August 17, 2011, 11:10:13 pm
Post by: Cruxador on August 17, 2011, 11:37:26 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on August 18, 2011, 04:33:11 am
Post by: Ratbert_CP on August 18, 2011, 09:23:17 am
"No, Moreno is not here."
"S'Awright?" "S'Awright."
Post by: Vic Romano on August 18, 2011, 02:56:28 pm
Post by: Greiger on August 18, 2011, 04:34:17 pm
Post by: Rift on August 18, 2011, 04:39:46 pm
Post by: Dsarker on August 18, 2011, 05:33:32 pm
Post by: Aqizzar on August 19, 2011, 04:44:09 pm
Quote
I imagine its little fingers were shaped into the form of a mouth and they flapped back and forth while it spoke with a high-pitched voice.
Y'know, I'd love to see this become an actual feature somehow...
Post by: Neonivek on August 19, 2011, 05:47:09 pm
QuoteI imagine its little fingers were shaped into the form of a mouth and they flapped back and forth while it spoke with a high-pitched voice.
Y'know, I'd love to see this become an actual feature somehow...
Planes of madness, Trickery, or Chaos?
Post by: Ghills on August 19, 2011, 06:09:16 pm
QuoteI imagine its little fingers were shaped into the form of a mouth and they flapped back and forth while it spoke with a high-pitched voice.
Y'know, I'd love to see this become an actual feature somehow...
Planes of madness, Trickery, or Chaos?
Neither. The Addams Family.
Post by: MrWiggles on August 19, 2011, 06:58:04 pm
QuoteI imagine its little fingers were shaped into the form of a mouth and they flapped back and forth while it spoke with a high-pitched voice.
Y'know, I'd love to see this become an actual feature somehow...
Planes of madness, Trickery, or Chaos?
Neither. The Addams Family.
Labyrinth.
Post by: monk12 on August 19, 2011, 09:02:26 pm
Post by: Jimlad11 on August 20, 2011, 06:48:03 am
Just poked my head into Mantis to report a bug, and I noticed that this upcoming release has a couple Truetype bugs fixed by Baughn, so that's exciting.
For me, bugfixes are almost as good as new content, so this pleases me greatly...Although I think that the current version is pretty bug-free! Huzzah!
Post by: NRDL on August 20, 2011, 06:51:29 am
I sincerely doubt that, but it can't hurt to ask. Or can it?
Post by: Knight Otu on August 20, 2011, 07:50:58 am
Toady, will all severed body parts be capable of re-animation? Even stuff that can't move, such as spleens, hearts, eyes, etc?As far as the stock interactions are concerned, they need a head or grasp (if the original creature had them) still attached to the body part to make that body part eligible to be reanimated.
I sincerely doubt that, but it can't hurt to ask. Or can it?
Right now we're using a sort of weird definition, where you have to have at least one head or grasp left if your original body had any of those. If your body is weird enough not to have a head or grasp defined, and it is still marked as being from a "living" being, then it can always be raised, which would amplify your need to go after the source instead, if possible. This makes completely exotic monsters trouble in evil regions, and I'll have to see if additional precautions are necessary.
Post by: PTTG?? on August 20, 2011, 12:35:35 pm
Post by: Tov01 on August 20, 2011, 01:04:32 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on August 20, 2011, 01:20:34 pm
Since zombies need a head or grasping body parts to be reanimated, what happens to a resurrected zombie that gets its head and hands chopped of in battle?It collapses, according to DF Talk 14. But since chopping off body parts isn't that easily controllable in Dwarf mode, the ease of killing the zombies probably can be attributed to the hit point system.
Post by: Caldfir on August 20, 2011, 02:17:57 pm
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on August 20, 2011, 02:34:07 pm
Speaking of the hit point system - when it was put in place it was to deal with the fact that zombies had no death conditions, and as such were nearly impossible to kill (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=692). Now that there are death conditions for zombies (losing all graspers/mouths) the hit point system is probably on its way out. It was always a temporary measure, but we'll see if it is still necessary.
You have to shoot em in the head.
Post by: penguify on August 20, 2011, 02:56:53 pm
Speaking of the hit point system - when it was put in place it was to deal with the fact that zombies had no death conditions, and as such were nearly impossible to kill (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=692). Now that there are death conditions for zombies (losing all graspers/mouths) the hit point system is probably on its way out. It was always a temporary measure, but we'll see if it is still necessary.But severing body parts isn't always possible, remember. I'm sure you've fought forgotten beasts that just won't be bisected, right? Or the nigh-impossible to decapitate bronze colossus? I think the hitpoint system will still be needed unless/until the sever mechanics are changed.
Post by: Untelligent on August 20, 2011, 03:26:35 pm
Just poked my head into Mantis to report a bug, and I noticed that this upcoming release has a couple Truetype bugs fixed by Baughn, so that's exciting.
Those have been up there for a long time.
Post by: Caldfir on August 20, 2011, 03:37:58 pm
Those creatures don't use the hitpoint system to my knowledge, even though they probably should.Speaking of the hit point system - when it was put in place it was to deal with the fact that zombies had no death conditions, and as such were nearly impossible to kill (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=692). Now that there are death conditions for zombies (losing all graspers/mouths) the hit point system is probably on its way out. It was always a temporary measure, but we'll see if it is still necessary.But severing body parts isn't always possible, remember. I'm sure you've fought forgotten beasts that just won't be bisected, right? Or the nigh-impossible to decapitate bronze colossus? I think the hitpoint system will still be needed unless/until the sever mechanics are changed.
Post by: penguify on August 20, 2011, 04:23:15 pm
No, but you suggested that the hitpoint system might no longer be used for zombies, a suggestion with which I have no issues, given that the sever mechanics are changed to permit multiple strikes to increase the probability of a severing on any given hit via damage to the connecting region, as otherwise very large undead creatures could become impossible to kill.Those creatures don't use the hitpoint system to my knowledge, even though they probably should.Speaking of the hit point system - when it was put in place it was to deal with the fact that zombies had no death conditions, and as such were nearly impossible to kill (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=692). Now that there are death conditions for zombies (losing all graspers/mouths) the hit point system is probably on its way out. It was always a temporary measure, but we'll see if it is still necessary.But severing body parts isn't always possible, remember. I'm sure you've fought forgotten beasts that just won't be bisected, right? Or the nigh-impossible to decapitate bronze colossus? I think the hitpoint system will still be needed unless/until the sever mechanics are changed.
Post by: scriver on August 20, 2011, 04:45:55 pm
Post by: Jimlad11 on August 20, 2011, 04:59:35 pm
However I do think that a HP system would have to be put in place for undead hands/arms. That way after a few hits the arm would just collapse, as there is no way at the moment to kill something that does not have a brain/blood supply/upper or lower body.
TL;DR: I would prefer it if the HP system only applied to severed arms/hands.
Post by: scriver on August 20, 2011, 05:03:46 pm
Post by: zwei on August 20, 2011, 05:34:33 pm
I think that the pulping system is un-needed.
(http://df.zweistein.cz/pub/sut_loslaltacnu.png)
Post by: Jimlad11 on August 20, 2011, 06:05:02 pm
I think that the pulping system is un-needed.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
But the Zombies won't be made from steel. At least I hope they wont. Ah...I have horrible images of that Forgotten Beast corpse that was left outside being reanimated...That would be interesting 8)
Post by: nil on August 20, 2011, 06:27:38 pm
Post by: Caldfir on August 20, 2011, 06:33:39 pm
I don't think zombies were ever really overpowered, the problem was forgotten beasts/late-game enemies and the fix for them just sort of happened to also apply to zombies.I can assure you that they were. I had my military fight a zombified eagle for several months before my soldiers started dying of thirst. With no death conditions, combat with the puddle of zombie eagle just went on and on and on despite it being unable to move or respond in any way. Perhaps they were not "overpowered" in the sense that they did not do substantial damage, but something just refusing to die if pretty game-breaking.
I am nevertheless having trouble imagining how a pulping system would work that wouldn't just be a fancy hitpoints thing. Maybe after red damage to an area you just keep hitting it until it turns to goo? But this still doesn't fix dumb stuff like thousands of undead fingers crawling around.
It is almost as though zombies make no scientific sense...
Post by: Neonivek on August 20, 2011, 07:33:39 pm
"I am nevertheless having trouble imagining how a pulping system would work that wouldn't just be a fancy hitpoints thing"
Likely it will work on like cumulative damage where each blow increases the chance that a zombie will be turned to pulp until it is practically guarenteed.
If Necromancy ever gets a skill to me it would be the amount the zombie is unhindered by injuries. So a legendary revived Zombie that had all its bones broken would still be able to fight effectively.
Post by: nil on August 20, 2011, 08:33:19 pm
Were they wrestlers? I killed plenty of zombie camels and even a few scorpions before the fix, all it took was a headshot with a sword or axe. That said, the only real difference between zombies and the inorganic forgotten beasts who were undeniably broken is size, so I suppose a large enough zombie would have posed the same problems they did.I don't think zombies were ever really overpowered, the problem was forgotten beasts/late-game enemies and the fix for them just sort of happened to also apply to zombies.I can assure you that they were. I had my military fight a zombified eagle for several months before my soldiers started dying of thirst. With no death conditions, combat with the puddle of zombie eagle just went on and on and on despite it being unable to move or respond in any way. Perhaps they were not "overpowered" in the sense that they did not do substantial damage, but something just refusing to die if pretty game-breaking.
I am nevertheless having trouble imagining how a pulping system would work that wouldn't just be a fancy hitpoints thing. Maybe after red damage to an area you just keep hitting it until it turns to goo? But this still doesn't fix dumb stuff like thousands of undead fingers crawling around.
It is almost as though zombies make no scientific sense...
Neonivek is right, too, dwarves need to respond a little more intellegently to nearly harmless and practically unkillable creatures (edit: especially with stalkers and vulnerabilities coming in).
Post by: Cruxador on August 21, 2011, 02:03:28 am
Stalkers shouldn't be nearly harmless.Were they wrestlers? I killed plenty of zombie camels and even a few scorpions before the fix, all it took was a headshot with a sword or axe. That said, the only real difference between zombies and the inorganic forgotten beasts who were undeniably broken is size, so I suppose a large enough zombie would have posed the same problems they did.I don't think zombies were ever really overpowered, the problem was forgotten beasts/late-game enemies and the fix for them just sort of happened to also apply to zombies.I can assure you that they were. I had my military fight a zombified eagle for several months before my soldiers started dying of thirst. With no death conditions, combat with the puddle of zombie eagle just went on and on and on despite it being unable to move or respond in any way. Perhaps they were not "overpowered" in the sense that they did not do substantial damage, but something just refusing to die if pretty game-breaking.
I am nevertheless having trouble imagining how a pulping system would work that wouldn't just be a fancy hitpoints thing. Maybe after red damage to an area you just keep hitting it until it turns to goo? But this still doesn't fix dumb stuff like thousands of undead fingers crawling around.
It is almost as though zombies make no scientific sense...
Neonivek is right, too, dwarves need to respond a little more intellegently to nearly harmless and practically unkillable creatures (edit: especially with stalkers and vulnerabilities coming in).
Post by: irdsm on August 21, 2011, 02:12:05 am
Post by: Knight Otu on August 21, 2011, 04:34:49 am
Post by: cameron on August 21, 2011, 06:49:29 am
Post by: piecewise on August 21, 2011, 01:41:48 pm
Post by: DaemonBomb on August 21, 2011, 06:29:23 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 21, 2011, 06:44:43 pm
Post by: G-Flex on August 21, 2011, 06:59:34 pm
Post by: dree12 on August 21, 2011, 07:57:43 pm
Yeah, the Extremely Specific and Arbitrary Suggestions Forum is one or two forums down.For some reason two forums down is the Curses forum.
Post by: Ubiq on August 21, 2011, 08:27:08 pm
Quote from: The Devlog
Raising little bits and pieces and adventure-moding them in the arena continued to expose various problems. At the worst of it, knocking out an animated head's teeth caused two copies of the head to fly out and land on the ground, which would then be raised (complete with teeth), continuing the process until the arena was a churning mass of heads.
I don't suppose that there's any way that this bug could be adjusted so that it only applies to hydras with the resulting creation being skeleton warriors instead of more animated heads, is there?
Post by: monk12 on August 21, 2011, 08:36:55 pm
Quote from: devlog
I tried the butcher command in the arena, and the necromancer managed to raise both a skeleton and a walking hollow skin... which I suppose I'll keep since it makes about as much sense as a walking skeleton. So... keep the necromancer away from your raw skin stockpiles, he he he.
Holy moly, that is an unsettling mental image.
Post by: KillerClowns on August 21, 2011, 08:48:31 pm
Quote from: devlogI tried the butcher command in the arena, and the necromancer managed to raise both a skeleton and a walking hollow skin... which I suppose I'll keep since it makes about as much sense as a walking skeleton. So... keep the necromancer away from your raw skin stockpiles, he he he.
Holy moly, that is an unsettling mental image.
I can't imagine a walking skin putting up much of a fight. Though I suppose the same could be said of a walking skeleton. How well did the hollow creatures fare in combat?
Post by: Jimlad11 on August 21, 2011, 08:50:53 pm
Hollow skin? Eeeeeew.
Now all I can imagine is a hollow zombie with a "leatherface" face.
Post by: Ubiq on August 21, 2011, 08:57:13 pm
Just as well that processes like cooking change them over to a different item class if only because that means that people won't have their feet gnawed off by enraged footwear. Armok help the poor schmuck in leather armor otherwise.
Post by: piecewise on August 21, 2011, 09:42:38 pm
Post by: Untelligent on August 21, 2011, 10:18:51 pm
Bam! New night creature subtype right there. Give 'em that name in-game, get 8% increase in monthly donations.
Post by: Ubiq on August 21, 2011, 10:55:59 pm
I'd just like to throw out there that Hollow Men is a REALLY badass/scary sounding name.
Let's see if I can make them scarier.
Hmm...
Empty skin with a rictus grin.
Good folks must all stay in,
for wander tonight,
those foul wight,
the dreaded Hollow Men.
Darkly creep while we're asleep,
these lost souls from the deep.
Don't scream or shout,
they'll hear no doubt.
The Hollow Men are all about.
To sleep, not blink nor slyly wink,
there's never any time to think.
Not a sound nor pip
or under the door will slip
those Hollow Men to drink.
Wolves won't howl, the bear won't growl.
Monks will tremble in their cowl.
'Til break the dawn,
and their time is gone
Then Hollow Men will scowl.
Post by: NobodyPro on August 21, 2011, 11:15:59 pm
Post by: monk12 on August 21, 2011, 11:29:48 pm
Post by: Ubiq on August 21, 2011, 11:30:45 pm
Quote from: NobodyPro
Unfortunately, the Fable franchise already has Hollow Men
So?
The phrase itself comes from T.S. Eliot's poem of the same name and there have been numerous other works that use undead creatures that are called Hollow Men in the near-century since then. Gordon R. Dickson's The Dragon on the Border had tangible spirits that inhabited suits of armor that called themselves The Hollow Men almost two decades ago and Myth 2 had them over a decade ago.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 21, 2011, 11:38:58 pm
What i fear is butchering in Evil regions. Skeletons coming alive in your refuse pile and paws scrathing the butcher to death. What would be cool would be a undead Skin or Pelt that chokes you to death.
Post by: Dwarfu on August 21, 2011, 11:43:29 pm
...someone came up with...
lol "someone".
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 21, 2011, 11:49:49 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on August 22, 2011, 12:01:00 am
Post by: Niccolo on August 22, 2011, 12:10:00 am
That line about zombies making a good first impression. I imagined a zombie going to an interview and wearing a suit.
"So, what makes you think you're right for this job?"
"Well... I have all of my limbs intact, the necromancer who raised me was nice enough to stitch up the massive gaping stomach wound and I have this really snazzy suit."
"... You're hired!"
Post by: Chaoseed on August 22, 2011, 12:42:15 am
Post by: Mechanoid on August 22, 2011, 04:04:23 am
Do material properties on skin carry over properly, so an animated imp skin is magma/fire immune?
If material properties do carry over, would it be reasonable to assume that if a creature has metal skin, then the skin that's animated will also be the same metal with all those same properties?
If plant, animal, or metal threads/cloth are sutured/covering various limbs, does the animated skin retain that item in the location it was stitched in/on to or is that information lost when the creature "dies"?
Do creatures even "die" in the same terms that they did in the past (currently released) versions?
How much more time do all these questions i've asked extend the time spent on the testing phase? :-\ (ha ha ha?)
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 22, 2011, 05:55:56 am
Post by: Neoskel on August 22, 2011, 02:17:12 pm
Do butchered skulls animate? Or do those count as 'skeletal heads' already?
Post by: Knight Otu on August 22, 2011, 03:49:25 pm
The hollow skin reminds me of Aztec priests flaying victims' skins and using them as clothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xipe_Totec#Annual_festival). It's not hard to get to a hollow skin zombie from that. (Actually, there was a Hecatomb card along those lines, the "Forsaken Shell (http://www.trollandtoad.com/p192698.html)"...)Which is apparently from another game of Wizards that's slightly more successful (and which in turn certainly has other sources, and so on). It's a very cool feature still, though.
Can reanimated dragons breathe fire, and reanimated imps throw fireballs?In all likelihood, material properties do carry over. That kind of consistency is what material definitions should help with. Actually, they kind of have to carry over, along with wounds etc.
Do material properties on skin carry over properly, so an animated imp skin is magma/fire immune?
If material properties do carry over, would it be reasonable to assume that if a creature has metal skin, then the skin that's animated will also be the same metal with all those same properties?
Hmm,They should animate. They're a head body part of a once-living creature, as you note. Unless the totem stuff wreaks havoc with that.
Do butchered skulls animate? Or do those count as 'skeletal heads' already?
Though the butchery parts have me wondering how it works with butchered severs, and the fact that you get skin from each body part... can we get animated skin from arms while the skin of the feet remains unanimated? Do feathers or hair of a creature animate if they cover the appropriate body parts, or does the tissue have to be a layer type?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 22, 2011, 04:10:28 pm
Poisons that make skin rot suddenly became more valueable.
Post by: Matz05 on August 22, 2011, 11:10:59 pm
Actually, that would be rather cool...
Post by: PTTG?? on August 23, 2011, 02:12:48 am
And suddenly, you turn around to see... a strange sight. It appears to be a human, but melted, flesh hanging in loose coils, bulging and flowing unnaturally. Its eyes are closed, and its mouth, and the limbs hang limply, every joint appearing to be dislocated... but the strangest thing of all is the glow... under the deflated crown of the head, a glow, and in the chest a fire, amber-red through the thin flesh.
The arms swing up, elbows bending backwards with nauseating fluidity. Just like its footsteps, every motion is punctuated by squelches and slaps as the still-wet skin flaps and slides. The mouth opens, and the glow streams out, yellow light from the toothless, tongueless maw.
The eyes open. There are no eyes.
Post by: G-Flex on August 23, 2011, 05:05:45 pm
8) i hope the hairs scales and spines get animated along with the skin. I can see easely a animated hedgehog-men husk driving his spines into your body.
Doubt it. Hair comes off separately when butchering is done, and I'm pretty sure the skin object is only skin and nothing else.
Post by: Organum on August 23, 2011, 05:06:05 pm
Post by: Karakzon on August 23, 2011, 05:08:19 pm
Unless of course you tie loose strands of cut up fresh skin round a war hammer and use it as a strangulation/holding device when you reanimate the skin?
the possabilitys are endless ^^
Post by: Untelligent on August 23, 2011, 09:22:12 pm
It's funny how one simple thing can add a whole new flavor of nightmare fuel.
It's funnier how from the way Toady worded it the fact that they exist at all was a complete accident.
Post by: G-Flex on August 23, 2011, 09:27:05 pm
Post by: Dsarker on August 23, 2011, 11:16:24 pm
Post by: Cruxador on August 24, 2011, 12:51:53 am
I like the hollow skin idea, but with one question: Presumably, the animated "skin" is in the shape of the creature, as if the creature had been hollowed out. I'm wondering what kind of weird butchering processes dwarves have that leave the entire hide intact! Maybe they extract the innards by boring a hole in the top and pureeing the insides? I don't want to think about it.They just pull it all out through the mouth.
Post by: eux0r on August 24, 2011, 04:56:47 am
Post by: Toady One on August 24, 2011, 09:29:25 am
Quote from: GamerLord
Will we ever get objects/items that can do certain attacks, like strangling. (E.g. Will we one day be able to garrote someone with his best friends guts, or whip him with them? And will we be able to build in Adventurer Mode anytime in the foreseeable future?
Item attacks like that were languishing on the old dev pages for a while (and in particular various things with the guts), but it hasn't happened yet. There are various adv mode building things on the current dev pages. I don't have a timeline for any of it.
Quote from: KennySheep
Will players in fortress mode ever be able to bring curses upon their dwarves by building a temple to one of the gods, then profaning it themselves by taking out the alter to put in a refuse stockpile or something? Will we even be able to build temples in fortress mode?
It's more likely that some temple furnishing or another will be toppled in a tantrum, probably, but yeah, I think it'll all fit together when we get there. The dwarves currently have deities they worship, so you'll get something tangible to mess with eventually to make that come to life in the fortress.
Quote from: piecewise
1. On of the things that always kinda annoys me with Adventure mode is that you can never really tell what someone is wearing. You have to dig through their inventory menu and then mentally piece what they look like together. Is it possible that, in the future, when you select someone and press "d" to look at their description, it could say not only what they look like physically but also what they're wearing? It could just say whatever they're wearing in the "top" layer of each body part and say nothing if they're not wearing anything. something like "He has a [whatever] on his upper body, [another whatever] on the his lower body, [yet another whatever] on his left hand, etc."
2.Another problem I tend to have in adventure mode, in mods especially, is knowing what skill a specific weapon uses. Would it be possible to have some way of finding out what skill a weapon uses in game (without checking raws or using it to see what skill increases)?
3.Right now, injury in adventure mode is kinda...sporadic in its effects. I managed to shatter the bones of the upper and lower legs and upper and lower arms of some merchant and he continued to attack seemingly unabated and without any real negative effects. Similarly, damaging organs seems to be completely ineffective except in the case of heart, lungs and brain (and spine, if you consider that an organ). Tendons also don't seem to effect much, if anything, from what I've seen. Is this sort of thing more of a side effect of a personality strangeness (ie "all my limbs are shattered but I'll still cut the eyes out of that guy who stole a spoon because the hivemind desires it") or just that body structures and actual physical actions don't quite correlate yet?
1. Is the difference picking out the top-most or the most prominent objects? The paragraph would be even more cumbersome if it listed everything that is already in the inventory list. It probably shouldn't reveal their entire inventory anyway, I suppose.
2. Yeah, that's reasonable. I don't know when I'll get to it. Item descriptions in general are entirely deficient.
3. The injury effects aren't fully realized yet. What you've seen could have had something to do with personality/atts on occasion, but it's mostly just stuff not being done.
Quote from: Dae
Ah, apparently Toady is on to adding criminals. How deep will criminals be implemented for this time ? Random formation, ot will it be tied to for example poverty ? Does this means Stalkers will get in too ?
It might see a bit more work when we do the stalkers, but I don't think it can be all that interesting until we do a little more legwork on individual property as well as the personality rewrite -- and the entire crime/punishment dev role for adv mode and whatever effects that has on dwarf mode. If there's a feeling that crime happens and is punished in appropriate ethic civs during world gen, with the rare supernatural happening, that'll be good for now.
Quote from: Caldfir
Which situations in adventure/dwarf mode are (currently) pulling from real populations, and which ones are just spawning random creatures of the associated type of the given civ? Meaning that they are either a historical figure, or they represent some actual member of the parent civ's actual current population of creatures.
We already know that random spawns are:
starting 7 (dwarf mode)
immigrants (dwarf mode)
invaders (dwarf mode)
traders (dwarf mode)
guards (dwarf mode)
And that real population pulls are:
diplomats (dwarf mode)
cities
Ones that are potentially up in the air are:
castle guards (adventure mode)
bandits (adventure mode)
The castle guards and non-leader bandits come from the nebulous entity populations, rather than historical figures. These are numbered groups, however the individual details are generated on the fly. But they do come from a finite pool. Just to clarify (I assume this is known), invader leaders can be historical (and all the megabeasts are historical). Once breeding is in (Release 5 currently, I think), getting rid of all from-thin-air generation will be a high priority, since the systems can't begin to be tuned without that. I suppose that'll unleash a (hopefully brief version-wise) period of absolute chaos and world death after play.
Quote from: Dareon Clearwater
With thieves down in the sewers, is there any consideration being given to literally underground black markets?
I have a feeling things like that are going to wait for the player-as-criminal stuff to be worked on with vigor, and it arises naturally there to give you something to do with ill-gotten gains. Depending on how trade agreements work out, smuggling could happen sooner I suppose.
Quote
Quote from: Jiri PetruHow are prices determined?
I mean in the new economy, of course.
EDIT: Or is there no new economy yet? I might have lost track of it.Quote from: RoflcopterAt what level of abstraction will the relative value adjustments of trade goods applied?
IE: Is the supply/demand of goods handled by settlement, by individual merchant, by general region, etc.
It's only napkin-calc'ing stuff in world gen, based on the demand from regions comprising a market and its local villages. I haven't embarked on the in-play numbers yet, and it'll need to have happened by the time (or during the time) that caravans/merchants start moving in play. That's currently at Release 4, but the basic calculations will quite probably be attempted sooner, by the time you are doing stuff in taverns in both modes, especially if you are able to do things like set prices at the dwarven tavern, where we'll want that to fit into something more final in the rest of the world. I expect it will be a very bumpy ride overall, getting it to work at all legitimately, with various intractible situations arising, but we should be able to bluster through with a hammer if things go terribly wrong.
Quote from: Roflcopter
Will the caravan arc include changes that allow fortress mode players to dispatch their own trade caravans to certain regions?
And as a sub question, if so this would set precedent for persistent entities leaving your fort and doing things that effect the world, which would be pretty necessary for the army arc, so would I be correct in assuming that if this is the case, it would get thrown in somewhere around the end of the caravan development arc?
I think eventually we'll get there, and as you say there are going to be relevant things going on around that time. I'm not sure how it's going to play out though. There will be lots of additions and alterations to how trading on-site works earlier on.
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady now that gods are real (somewhat), how exactly can anyone even pretend to be one? How do they stop the ire of the gods? What are your thoughts on this?
Many real-world religions have people surrounding them that claim this or that, and they aren't struck down in obvious fashion for whatever reason, so far as I can tell. It'll continue to be that way until there are ways for the gods to care, and then they may or may not care, depending on whatever. I think they should be able to act, though, sometimes, although they might not always do it directly since that seems to be the way things go (it might be preferable if the fortress or adventurer the player is acting with are involved if they worship the god, for example, though I'm sure it'll mostly be left to chance). A system where the gods can just act directly on everybody that slights them is possible, but it would probably lead quickly to a very uniform world depending on how many things the gods care about (assuming the world's gods have the kind of direct powers necessary to stop a demon from swiping a throne, for example).
Quote from: thvaz
The dungeons denizens like bandits, beasts and animal peoples will make incursions into the surface to attack or steal? These attacks will be restricted only for the city they live under?
Nothing intentional happens during play, in the same way there are no raids by the bandits from their outdoor camps or the night creatures from lairs. The addition of these things will probably happen around the same time, as the first bonafide army arc step. In world gen things happen as usual. I don't think it restricts the location, but they restrict targets spatially and by pop to some extent overall so the city they live in will be targeted more often that way.
Quote from: eux0r
-since gods seem to get fleshed out more and more, are you also planning to introduce something along the lines of angels?
-if yes: would those exist for every god or would that be more a "gods preference", so one god has his own and another doesnt or do you have other plans, like maybe there is just some kind of angel army that follows the orders of all the gods?
-related: do you plan any hierarchy between demons?
-if yes: would something like a demon-king emerge naturally through power struggles or would it be something with a certain demon(demon-race) to be predestined to be the king(higher demons)?
(-will there be something like demon-races at all?)
Yeah, we've considered it a bit. We started with night creatures, and we have a fairy/general otherworldly color scheme as well. From there it was rethinking the &s as well as the gods and critters associated to gods, where they live and how they interact with the main world and others, but we don't have details on these last two groups, and how they and general otherworldly fairy critters might overlap. When we handle the afterlife stuff we mentioned in Zach's last story, I think it'll all come into play rapidly. Certainly there's no reason every god will have every (or any) category of critters wherever they reside (if anywhere), but it could also be that every category of critter comes into play for a single god, and I suppose there are plenty of examples of entire pantheons with critters associated to the pantheon rather than one god or another, as you mentioned. Issues like hierarchy are also going to be generated with the world -- I suppose it can just be handled with an entity and its positions as usual. We've thought about how it'll work in general terms, much along the lines of the question themselves, but just in the manner of musing rather than coming up with definite priorities.
Quote from: Dwarfu
Will world gen "heros" ever assume the role of treasure hunter and go after these items, or will they just be looking for kills?
Probably when we go for the treasure hunter role stuff on the dev page, but perhaps before, just to get artifacts flowing around a bit. The movement of artifacts should be one of the main potential driving forces of events. It would be fun to develop a rivalry and to hunt them down once we've got tracking and interrogation, if it comes to that.
Quote from: magmaholic
Are we going to have ghost towns/ruins?
There are ruins with ruined buildings at times now, though they tend to resettle the old sites if they can. Many towns can be in a bust state at this point, in which case a lot of the buildings are in bad shape if they aren't occupied.
Quote from: Heph
Will we be able to see other adventurers in the sewers fighting for theyr lives/looting stuff?
Will the maps have say some small markers for important people/the places where important people hang out normaly?
Can a (nonplayer) adventurer be tasked to kill a werebeast if he did himself the killings (thus if he is said werebeast)?
If it keeps bugging out and placing people down there you will, he he he, but moving critters are for later.
I haven't sorted out how the map is going to be used for navigation. It has to be usable and not entirely cluttered, so that you can still see the road network. The way things are, I think it should be possible, since there are so few buildings that fall out of the "shop" or "home" category.
Although it would be ideal to be tasked to hunt yourself down, it isn't currently possible (unless there's a bug). I imagine when we do the crime rewrite, where crime is separated from historical figures at the outset, that that sort of thing would happen more automatically, where you'd be looking for information and so on related to a crime, without it just giving you the target critter (e.g. all the interrogation stuff on the dev page). It would be interesting to investigate the murders you've been committing, especially if you aren't sure you are doing them. Having the player not know would be a bit easier if it happened while you are sleeping, but that isn't something that'll always be true. In general, sometimes the werewolf is aware, sometimes they wake up all bloody, so they know something's wrong, and sometimes they have no idea anything happened until they hear about it from somebody else.
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady right now the world only wobbles it mostly stays in place with very little actually affecting the balance as a whole, especially since by the very fabric of a game no one can really make large strides, but nothing really shifts, changes, rises, falls, put at risk, or really created even with everything your putting in now. What do you think needs to be in place before that kind of narrative can occur?
I guess I am not being fair.
Nah, it's a fair question by itself, but you might be referring to a thread of discussion from before, where there was some bitterness. I don't really understand why, because a large portion of the dev stuff has always been directed right at this, but I guess it just hasn't come fast enough and the sidetracks are wearing on patience here and there. On the dev page now, Release 5 is the key to these ends, leading into sustaining populations for the army arc, with the resource movement provided by the caravan arc as an important foundation. Once you have people being born, dying, and reorganizing the difference, it should be good enough to say something is happening, and then we can continue on from there.
Quote from: Putnam
Will there be some sort of tag to have vampires under a different name on a per-creature/caste basis? E.G, [CASTE_VAMPIRE_NAME:rainbow drinker:rainbow drinkers]
The existence of vampire-style creatures is hard-coded, but the particular kinds are not, so this wouldn't really be possible as things are. A vampire mod could set restrictions on targets and have a series of effects/syndromes as it stands, for each creature type, but there isn't an isolated naming tag.
Quote from: thvaz
Will raised undead have the clothes, equipments and weapons they had when they died? Or will they be naked?
The way it currently works I would think they would be naked, but it would be nice to have them using the equipment they had when they died.
The corpse-as-container is a little messy for dwarf mode, since you want to get those items back into circulation and they'd be one step removed from all the current code that addresses ground objects. Because there are bag/bins/etc., and dwarves dip into them regularly, I don't think it is an impossible change, but I'm pretty sure lots of things would break if I just went ahead with it, so I've avoided it this time around to prevent further delays. It has been on my mind and is really necessary for them to work well, and for the game to make sense. I'm not sure when it's going to happen. It has been a desired feature for a long time, and the zombie animation makes it moreso. It's kind of like the move/attack speed split. Necessary, with a sort of nebulous fix-up time that constantly sees it pushed off for years.
Quote from: slyeye
Are there any considerations to add proper portcullis' to the game with the inclusion of vast walled cities or will this be regulated to the future moving fortress parts update?
I don't have anything for this time. It doesn't need to be much different from the vertical bars attached to a lever at first, but I suppose making floodgates or any of these other buildings work requires the part of moving fortresses that allows buildings to change their occupancy through multiple z levels.
Quote from: Dae
I just noticed something with the maps. Along the northern part of the city, you can see roads ending straight into the city walls. That's not dramatic, after all there might be houses or farms there. What strikes me more is the road going through the northern gate which literally leads to nowhere. It ends at the gate. Could you please explain this Toady ?
Ah, that was a bug, if I'm looking at the same picture. Roads that legitimately are dead-ends get that circle picture, and the one you are talking about is a line that just stops -- it just wasn't forming the south connection properly in the square above, and that has been fixed.
Quote
Quote from: EnigmaticHatWhen hilldwarves are in, is there a chance we could end up with a town map like the one you posted, but with our own fortress at the center?Quote from: Knight OtuSeems unlikely - the hill dwarf settlements probably will use different structures from human towns. Perhaps if you mod the game to have dwarves use towns rather than mountain halls.Quote from: CruxadorIt won't be identical, since the different races (humans, elves dwarves, etc.) are getting unique stuff in army arc. But I'd imagine that's the general idea.
Yeah, it's definitely going to be some analagous setup, with some dwarfification. Hopefully all of the army stuff and hilldwarf/extending settlement management and road management and trade and whatever else will see those maps and the scale one higher come up in some uniform and combined way.
Quote from: hermes
I was wondering if this comment, "I'm in the middle of rewriting the army code to support the new zoomed-in maps (your traveling group is stored as an army for homogeneity's sake)." could be taken to imply that the future Worldgen battle report maps might use the same/a similar map system? (i.e. same scale, representation of roads/rivers etc.)
Yeah, that's the idea for wars in general. I usually bring up things like those maps from the American Civil War documentary. Lots of bars and arrows and things, and to see little generated ones for the world gen fights has been a little pet thing of mine forever. It was almost added during one of the releases a bit ago, but I'm glad (and lucky) I held off now because the new maps will come up during site attacks. It should be fun when it happens.
Quote from: Areyar
How does the building list work, you select one and it shows you the icon(or *) on the citytravel map?
Or does it list only a handfull of local buildings of interest?
It's not yet a navigation system. That's just everything that's in the square you are in. Navigation is later, either this time or after depending on how necessary it seems as we play through in testing.
Quote from: Jiri Petru
Toady, what are double braids? (Google Image would help)
I had imagined it as two separate braids, but DG posted an image of the technical double braid, which seems to be one braid with strands in pairs (or whatever, you'll have to look, he he he). I think it's best to use proper terms when they exist, and to the extent that there is a more-or-less universal set of words, I'd like to go with that eventually. So it should probably be "arranged in a pair of braids" or something, but there could be a word for that too, maybe. In a heavily decorated beardy culture that likes to name things.
Quote from: Cruxador
A couple questions that arose from rereading the dev page:
Will we get population sprawl with farms and whatnot growing up around adventurer-created sites?
I feel like that should happen based on the adventurer's reputation and what stuff the site actually includes.
Will merchants come to adventurer sites?
It would be a good reward that makes sense for building a nice site, both traveling caravans like in Dwarf mode and potentially markets formed by the population.
They aren't going to be any different from other sites, technically speaking. It'll require the fluxuation of sprawl post-world-gen, unless it's handled as a special case first, but, yeah, your site is a site. We haven't discussed specifically about you being able to establish places like markets, but there's no reason it wouldn't make sense for them to arise or be created, assuming you have a place the trade AI would see a reason to travel to once caravans can move around. There's also the matter of very local traders like peddlars that wouldn't even require markets to operate, and you might see those almost automatically once they go in, since you'd almost certainly have a resource pool and a population from the outset.
Quote from: Dradym
any chance a fully customizable dwarf description is in the works? basically for adventure mode, but maybe for special dwarfs in dwarf mode? it would be nice to model a dwarf after my looks and/or personality, or others that "sponsor" a dwarf in my fortress.
It's not in the works, but I think we need to do it, just because it'd be funny to have a low-budget text analog to those game features where you construct a 3D character in detail with all the sliders. I don't mind people being able to tweak their starting dwarves as a scenario setting perhaps. There should be care not to make it routine to remove all imperfections, though, so it should be something you kind of commit to at the outset overall I guess. Being able to alter dwarves that are in play is a little strange, especially because personalities and some physical traits have game effects, but for community games it could be an optional setting for your embark setup as with the starting dwarves, explicitly established at the outset.
Quote from: monk12
If you sever your arm and reanimate it, and then you die, will your arm continue to have adventures?
Well, to the extent that any of the NPCs do -- they don't really, unless you ask them to join you in the next game. Your arm wouldn't be able to talk, so you wouldn't be able to recruit it. If you were fighting with another civ, that civ might send you on a quest to kill your last adventurer's arm though, if that code is all still working. Once we've got people moving around post-world-gen, your arm would have more of a chance, but without a soul, it might not have a rich inner life, and so not really have goals or do anything but defend its patch of dirt. If at some point the animation mechanic is more of a possession-by-spirit thing, then the arm could become integrated properly as a citizen until people start to judge.
Quote
Quote from: PutnamWill the Shift+I menu work for the interactions, or will there be a new bind (oh god)?Quote from: DsarkerDepending on how they're going to be working with the game, it could be under the same menu as the adventurer crafting.
The "Interact" there was interacting with buildings, which is an old word I didn't remember I had put in for a while. These abilities/powers are rare, so, yeah, they are in the 'x' menu, separated by whether they are innate or acquired. It's probably a good place to move in dwarf mode hotkeys to avoid a few keypresses, especially as modded innate abilities become more common for player adv critters (I'm sure it'll eventually reach vanilla as well, especially if you can start as an animal man).
Quote from: B0013
Do this mean you can now strangle people from a distance?
In a way it does... I haven't seen it happen, but I think the grasp allows it to do that. You don't control it though... it's sort of a strange animation, with a basic will of its own. So you'd have to hope your arm does you proud.
Quote from: Lord Shonus
Will special attacks such as firebreath or webs be handled under the interaction system?
It has not happened yet. That is the plan though. It's still in the "hopeful" category for this release. Fire is annoying because it might not work quite right as a "gas" material, so there'd need to be some kind of alteration for a material breath weapon to work as the template. Webs are also a bit strange the way they come into being as items. If I get it done it'll make the game neater though, and allow more options, so it isn't pushed off yet either.
Quote from: Knigel
Also on the topic of necromancy, can the severed body parts of non-organic creatures be revived? I remember in arena mode that, while some severed parts of a bronze colossus were just "bronze colossus #x's bronze" others specified a body-part.
It calls the skeletons "human bone" presently as well, just like the butchery product for animals -- it uses a material name when it is one material (for job materials), which leads to the strangeness. I have a note to refine it a little bit. As for who is affected in general, right now it is critters that don't have "CANNOT_UNDEAD" that also have that overtaxed "GENERAL_POISON" class string. CANNOT_UNDEAD was changed into NOT_LIVING (CANNOT_UNDEAD still works), which isn't quite the same feeling, so I thought I needed something else. It could very well just be a new arbitrary class string in the end, but I also don't want those to proliferate.
Quote from: penguify
Suppose I have a necromancer companion. If I die, could he reanimate me? Would I still have control?
Also, can creatures be truly resurrected rather than zombified (retaining original soul and/or with a non-decaying body), or resurrected but with an interaction applied? (and if so, do they retain their previous entity allegiance, or change to that of their resurrector?)
A reanimated body doesn't have the same historical information (or a soul/skills). A resurrection (which exists, for use by mummy disturbance currently) does bring the soul back. I haven't tried adding in a targeted resurrection to test your scenario, so it would be bad to commit on an answer, but my first guess is that since it is the overall historical figure that carries the "I was a player adventurer" flag, you'd be able to select your adventurer from the retirement list if they were resurrected right after you die -- it would have to be very good timing though. And even then I'm not sure, since they'd have to make it back to a site and become situated properly there to be recognized by the adventurer selector. It's the sort of thing that should eventually work properly though, and also which might tie into both the afterlife stuff as well. If your adventurer goes straight to afterlife mode when you die, with you still in control, loaded in a small slice next to the still-active battle field, you might find yourself fluctuating back and forth (another reason for corpses not to drop items). For now, you'd have to hope the retirement mechanic gets activated correctly.
Quote from: monk12
Are constructed "Frankenstein Monster" type things going to be in the upcoming version?
Will the player be able to take advantage of that mechanic to complement whatever necromancy they pick up?
Now that specific abilities are attached to specific body parts, will we be able to perform the aforementioned Dragon Head/Hydra Body and expect firebreath as a result?
I know that they were mentioned in a DF talk, but I don't see confirmation of their inclusion in the devlog (apart from a brief "after vampires" from Threetoe,) and that Talk was certainly before the decision to make interactions usable by the player.
Mostly, I'm picturing sewing daggers to the fingers on those severed hands to give them serious damage potential, or sewing a human hand to that same human's lower body in order to animate it separately. Or sewing that human hand onto other normally unraisable things.
We are hoping to get to constructed undead and the stalkers. You can't mix and match pieces though -- that will take significant work (and should also lead to proper centaur-style critter generation). Having weapons tacked on to the constructed undead is about as far as we'll be able to take it this time (since that can more or less co-opt the stitch-as-inventory-item code). Player involvement there is unknown. It may even end up being in dwarf mode first as a mood before anything else anywhere, since they practically do it already, although there is an atmosphere question there.
Quote
Quote from: DaeToady, is there a negative effect to being grabbed by some body part right now ? For example, does being grabbed by the leg slow down your moves, being grabbed by the hammer arm decrease your attack speed, being grabbed by the shield or the shield arm impair you ability to block ? If not, it could be a good way to make zombies stronger.
Also, zombies usually have an iron hand when it comes to grabbing a prey... will DF zombie have such strength as well ? DF zombie obviously won't have the contaminated bite thing (although something close might be modded in), but will their bite have a higher tendency to cause infections, given the rottyness they're famous for ?Quote from: SscralCurrently being grabbed prevents you from moving away unless you win some sort of strength contest with whatever is grabbing you and 'break' their hold, also, you cannot dodge while being grabbed/wrestled. I'm not sure if there are any other effects though
Strength amplification is an angle we're thinking of, yeah. They might need to be sped up too, until we get to the attack/move speed split, since they not only shamble slowly around, but wait a zillion years before getting their first attack off if they were in movement. I don't think there are additional wrestling effects aside from what SScral mentioned, unless it restricts attacks when an item is grabbed or something. There should be more effects, and especially relevant here would be effects from lots of grabs and lots of weight... and gnawing and stuff.
Quote from: Cruxador
Do the resurrected limbs get names based on their body of origin? If not, are they assigned names when you talk to them? From which entity would those names be sourced?
It gives them a name based on the name of their former owner and the corpse piece name. I think it can get a little weird though, like it might tack a heroic name on the end after some kills and so on. It's sort of new ground, because it's a modification of the creature racial name more than an alteration of the individual name, and there just aren't a lot of examples there (the former "skeletal"/"zombie", and unit professions, maybe a few more), but it's also coupled with the need to get the former owner's name across (and not doing that if you never learned their name), so it'll have to tweak everything. It should be sorted out by release. But it could get strange, like "Urist the Nightslayer, Aliz's right hand" in the look list, where both interpretations might end up being true.
Quote from: Tov01
Since zombies need a head or grasping body parts to be reanimated, what happens to a resurrected zombie that gets its head and hands chopped of in battle? Does it fall "dead" (and if so, could that be why the zombies are being defeated so easily?), or does it continue "living" without the head and grasp parts?
Yeah, it collapses, but it's generally the animation hitpoint thing that's causing the trouble (coupled with the move/attack speed issue and no compensation for zero skills).
Quote from: KillerClowns
I can't imagine a walking skin putting up much of a fight. Though I suppose the same could be said of a walking skeleton. How well did the hollow creatures fare in combat?
It sucked, but the zombies are all so bad now it's hard to tell the difference. It calculates weight of bodies for punches and so on, so all the missing bulk should make the skin kind of embarrassing as a striker. As a wrestler I think it will be harder than a normal critter if we make all the animated stronger and faster than they are now, if you aren't skilled enough to get away.
Quote from: Mechanoid
Can reanimated dragons breathe fire, and reanimated imps throw fireballs?
Do material properties on skin carry over properly, so an animated imp skin is magma/fire immune?
If material properties do carry over, would it be reasonable to assume that if a creature has metal skin, then the skin that's animated will also be the same metal with all those same properties?
If plant, animal, or metal threads/cloth are sutured/covering various limbs, does the animated skin retain that item in the location it was stitched in/on to or is that information lost when the creature "dies"?
Do creatures even "die" in the same terms that they did in the past (currently released) versions?
I haven't tried, but I imagine the attacks work. The material properties carry over, because it all points to the same place. That holds for the separated skin as well. All stitches are lost. When corpse containers are implemented, it'll work properly. The death detection hasn't been altered except for the extra animation conditions (grasp etc), as far as I remember.
Quote from: Neoskel
Do butchered skulls animate? Or do those count as 'skeletal heads' already?
Nah, the butchered bones animate by themselves (as separate objects), so the skeletons are headless if you animate them from a butchery (or otherwise). Skulls themselves are an odd case, because they don't have teeth or even a head flag, so they don't animate, and they don't get lumped with the other bones. You still get skeletons properly from heavily rotted zombies. It has to understand the relationship between teeth and a skull before the basic animation will work right, and then there's the skull's relationship to the spine that needs to be worked out. In many cases, even if the skull and other bones are detached, you'd still want them to animate together, and that might just take some kind of structural grouping tag for the animation effect.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 24, 2011, 10:00:47 am
does this mean there will be artifacts created during worldgen? how soon do you expect to work on it?Quote from: DwarfuWill world gen "heros" ever assume the role of treasure hunter and go after these items, or will they just be looking for kills?
Probably when we go for the treasure hunter role stuff on the dev page, but perhaps before, just to get artifacts flowing around a bit. The movement of artifacts should be one of the main potential driving forces of events. It would be fun to develop a rivalry and to hunt them down once we've got tracking and interrogation, if it comes to that.
Post by: m4davis on August 24, 2011, 10:31:53 am
Post by: Footkerchief on August 24, 2011, 10:37:09 am
Quote from: Tov01Since zombies need a head or grasping body parts to be reanimated, what happens to a resurrected zombie that gets its head and hands chopped of in battle? Does it fall "dead" (and if so, could that be why the zombies are being defeated so easily?), or does it continue "living" without the head and grasp parts?
Yeah, it collapses, but it's generally the animation hitpoint thing that's causing the trouble (coupled with the move/attack speed issue and no compensation for zero skills).
Yeah zombies definitely need some inherent biting skills. Chops, if you will.
does this mean there will be artifacts created during worldgen? how soon do you expect to work on it?Quote from: DwarfuWill world gen "heros" ever assume the role of treasure hunter and go after these items, or will they just be looking for kills?
Probably when we go for the treasure hunter role stuff on the dev page, but perhaps before, just to get artifacts flowing around a bit. The movement of artifacts should be one of the main potential driving forces of events. It would be fun to develop a rivalry and to hunt them down once we've got tracking and interrogation, if it comes to that.
It's the first item on the dev page under the 'Artifacts' section. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html) As usual, there is no clear timeline. The clearest prediction Toady can give is probably the one he already gave -- that it'll coincide with Treasure Hunter stuff when that happens.
Post by: Glanzor on August 24, 2011, 10:38:22 am
We are hoping to get to constructed undead and the stalkers. You can't mix and match pieces though -- that will take significant work (and should also lead to proper centaur-style critter generation). Having weapons tacked on to the constructed undead is about as far as we'll be able to take it this time (since that can more or less co-opt the stitch-as-inventory-item code). Player involvement there is unknown. It may even end up being in dwarf mode first as a mood before anything else anywhere, since they practically do it already, although there is an atmosphere question there.
What about Intelligent Undead? Aren't they necessary for the necromancers' armies so they can execute organized attacks on fortresses without risking their masters' lives?
Post by: Footkerchief on August 24, 2011, 10:55:43 am
We are hoping to get to constructed undead and the stalkers. You can't mix and match pieces though -- that will take significant work (and should also lead to proper centaur-style critter generation). Having weapons tacked on to the constructed undead is about as far as we'll be able to take it this time (since that can more or less co-opt the stitch-as-inventory-item code). Player involvement there is unknown. It may even end up being in dwarf mode first as a mood before anything else anywhere, since they practically do it already, although there is an atmosphere question there.
What about Intelligent Undead? Aren't they necessary for the necromancers' armies so they can execute organized attacks on fortresses without risking their masters' lives?
No, they aren't necessary yet, because attacks on fortresses aren't organized and attack leaders already risk their lives anyway, and half the point of the necromancer attacks is to have the necromancer on the front lines raising the freshly dead/severed. "Intelligent" undead (in the sense of having intact souls) do exist, though, in the form of resurrected mummies:
A reanimated body doesn't have the same historical information (or a soul/skills). A resurrection (which exists, for use by mummy disturbance currently) does bring the soul back.
Post by: Mephansteras on August 24, 2011, 11:44:33 am
QuoteQuote from: EnigmaticHatWhen hilldwarves are in, is there a chance we could end up with a town map like the one you posted, but with our own fortress at the center?Quote from: Knight OtuSeems unlikely - the hill dwarf settlements probably will use different structures from human towns. Perhaps if you mod the game to have dwarves use towns rather than mountain halls.Quote from: CruxadorIt won't be identical, since the different races (humans, elves dwarves, etc.) are getting unique stuff in army arc. But I'd imagine that's the general idea.
Yeah, it's definitely going to be some analagous setup, with some dwarfification. Hopefully all of the army stuff and hilldwarf/extending settlement management and road management and trade and whatever else will see those maps and the scale one higher come up in some uniform and combined way.
I've been wondering what your idea of a Hill Dwarf settlement is. Do you have a specific idea in mind right now for what those settlements will look like, or is that something you haven't really gotten too far into thinking about yet? The dwarven ability to combine above and below ground aspects seems like it lends itself to a lot of variation.
For those that are interested, we've started a Hill Dwarf Challenge (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=90988.0) over in the community games section. Not too far along yet, but it'll be interesting to see what everyone's settlements end up looking like.
Quote
Quote from: CruxadorA couple questions that arose from rereading the dev page:
Will we get population sprawl with farms and whatnot growing up around adventurer-created sites?
I feel like that should happen based on the adventurer's reputation and what stuff the site actually includes.
Will merchants come to adventurer sites?
It would be a good reward that makes sense for building a nice site, both traveling caravans like in Dwarf mode and potentially markets formed by the population.
They aren't going to be any different from other sites, technically speaking. It'll require the fluxuation of sprawl post-world-gen, unless it's handled as a special case first, but, yeah, your site is a site. We haven't discussed specifically about you being able to establish places like markets, but there's no reason it wouldn't make sense for them to arise or be created, assuming you have a place the trade AI would see a reason to travel to once caravans can move around. There's also the matter of very local traders like peddlars that wouldn't even require markets to operate, and you might see those almost automatically once they go in, since you'd almost certainly have a resource pool and a population from the outset.
With adventurer sites, are we going to see people building their own homes/shops/farms/etc? Or is it going to end up like fortress mode, where the player designates everything and then the people go and do the work?
If they do end up building their own stuff, will that eventually be an option in fortress mode? It'd be interesting, especially as the fortress gets larger and the player is focused more on world/army stuff, to be able to give your dwarves a lot more autonomy.
Post by: monk12 on August 24, 2011, 11:52:06 am
Quote from: Toady
Having weapons tacked on to the constructed undead is about as far as we'll be able to take it this time (since that can more or less co-opt the stitch-as-inventory-item code). Player involvement there is unknown. It may even end up being in dwarf mode first as a mood before anything else anywhere, since they practically do it already, although there is an atmosphere question there.
That's pretty awesome- I think it would fit the atmosphere if it was a "Macabre Mood" kinda thing, although obviously this depends on how prevalent necromancy gets in dwarf mode to begin with.
Urist McWolverine has completed an artifact! Urist McWolverine has completed Sabrefangs, an adamantine skeleton!
His hands menace with spikes :P
Post by: jimi12 on August 24, 2011, 12:43:24 pm
Post by: Sanure on August 24, 2011, 01:26:50 pm
if so, how will it be handled? would it be a random event, a necromancer's power, or would it be an act of a god or goddess deciding its necessary to have a headless person running around with head in hand to fight evil?
also, are outside forces (gods, goddesses, and forces) going to have temples dedicated to them or has that already been asnwered?
Post by: Dienes on August 24, 2011, 01:50:23 pm
Quote from: toady
Yeah, it collapses, but it's generally the animation hitpoint thing that's causing the trouble (coupled with the move/attack speed issue and no compensation for zero skills).Is there any plan to have undead scale with the power of the necromancer?
It sucked, but the zombies are all so bad now it's hard to tell the difference. It calculates weight of bodies for punches and so on, so all the missing bulk should make the skin kind of embarrassing as a striker. As a wrestler I think it will be harder than a normal critter if we make all the animated stronger and faster than they are now, if you aren't skilled enough to get away.
I feel like it would make sense for an incredibly powerful age old necromancer to have more powerful servants than an initiate who just raised his first zombie. My thought was of giving the raised creature something like natural skill levels based on the necromancer's age or overall skill level or something which would also help make undead more of a challenge. I would kind of like to see this implemented as raised undead having a quality level so if you you found a bunch of no quality zombies you knew they were much less dangerous than a handful of masterwork zombies.
And will there be any way to connect interactions to something like a crafted item type or building type?
I was thinking it would be cool to mod in a building that would do interactions. Either in the area around the building or as some kind of product from a reaction in the building. This would give moders a lot of opportunity to create magic-like effects and provide a good way to make use of interactions without having to give them to all dwarves or hope you get lucky and your fort learns a secret somehow. You could make a building like a cleric's shrine that would have a reaction to sacrifice (butcher) an an animal consuming the corpse and causing an interaction to speed up healing of everyone around the shrine for a bit. Or a necromancer's lab with a reaction requiring a corpse that's not consumed and some other ingredients that are consumed (ichor, silver barb, a precious/rare gem) and uses the necromancy interaction on the corpse so you could raise the dead but it would be an expensive thing to do rather than it being 'free' once you got the interaction like if you turned a dwarf into a necromancer who could raise the dead at will.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on August 24, 2011, 02:00:48 pm
I would kind of like to see this implemented as raised undead having a quality level so if you you found a bunch of no quality zombies you knew they were much less dangerous than a handful of masterwork zombies.I think "quality levels" in this case are completely unappropriate. Use better skill levels.
Post by: erissian on August 24, 2011, 02:31:19 pm
Quote from: thvazWill raised undead have the clothes, equipments and weapons they had when they died? Or will they be naked?
The way it currently works I would think they would be naked, but it would be nice to have them using the equipment they had when they died.
The corpse-as-container is a little messy for dwarf mode, since you want to get those items back into circulation and they'd be one step removed from all the current code that addresses ground objects. Because there are bag/bins/etc., and dwarves dip into them regularly, I don't think it is an impossible change, but I'm pretty sure lots of things would break if I just went ahead with it, so I've avoided it this time around to prevent further delays. It has been on my mind and is really necessary for them to work well, and for the game to make sense. I'm not sure when it's going to happen. It has been a desired feature for a long time, and the zombie animation makes it moreso. It's kind of like the move/attack speed split. Necessary, with a sort of nebulous fix-up time that constantly sees it pushed off for years.
I always thought it was weird that a dwarf's possessions explode off of him when he dies. Is it possible to drag a dwarf and everything on them to a corpse stockpile before looting their body for socks? Could it be treated like a special case of moving an injured dwarf? Can properly buried dwarfs be raised?
Post by: Knight Otu on August 24, 2011, 03:26:08 pm
Oh, I hadn't considered that adding webbing to that framework could kinda-sorta lead to "item breaths". Should be interesting if it comes in.Quote from: Lord ShonusWill special attacks such as firebreath or webs be handled under the interaction system?
It has not happened yet. That is the plan though. It's still in the "hopeful" category for this release. Fire is annoying because it might not work quite right as a "gas" material, so there'd need to be some kind of alteration for a material breath weapon to work as the template. Webs are also a bit strange the way they come into being as items. If I get it done it'll make the game neater though, and allow more options, so it isn't pushed off yet either.
Skulls themselves are an odd case, because they don't have teeth or even a head flag, so they don't animate, and they don't get lumped with the other bones.Aw, no Morte yet. :(
Post by: Neonivek on August 24, 2011, 04:58:55 pm
It took me quite a few minutes to understand what you were refering to when you mentioned the "thread of discussion" and I can only guess you meant when I went into the rant where I wanted things in the world to shift wildly.
Post by: Jiri Petru on August 24, 2011, 05:31:31 pm
Aw, no Morte yet. :(
You tell me.
Post by: Yoink on August 24, 2011, 05:44:11 pm
It's kinda worrying that that idea actually got me really excited. :-\
Post by: Darthhaha on August 24, 2011, 05:53:44 pm
Sorry if this has already been answered
Post by: yobihodazine on August 24, 2011, 06:49:12 pm
Post by: Parker147 on August 24, 2011, 07:01:32 pm
What is the status of Legends Mode's XML dump? The last time it was updated was in 31.13.
Post by: Footkerchief on August 24, 2011, 07:07:35 pm
Re-asking this since I didn't see an answer.What is the status of Legends Mode's XML dump? The last time it was updated was in 31.13.
Kind of answers itself, doesn't it? The status is that it hasn't been updated.
Post by: Cable on August 24, 2011, 07:37:12 pm
Hey... Wow, I can just imagine with these 'constructed undead', Urist McStrange going into a fell mood, murdering a bunch of his fellows and then splicing them together into some kind of giant, blood-crusted fleshy monsotrosity, tasked with defending the fortress in its agonizing state of un-life! :DI love the idea of a dwarf doing this and his buddies just dismissing it is one of 'those moods'.
Post by: Parker147 on August 24, 2011, 07:52:59 pm
Re-asking this since I didn't see an answer.What is the status of Legends Mode's XML dump? The last time it was updated was in 31.13.
Kind of answers itself, doesn't it? The status is that it hasn't been updated.
I should have asked: Are there plans to complete the XML dump?
Post by: Willfor on August 24, 2011, 08:45:30 pm
The problem with this is that it is still not the question you're trying to ask. What you should have asked is this:Re-asking this since I didn't see an answer.What is the status of Legends Mode's XML dump? The last time it was updated was in 31.13.
Kind of answers itself, doesn't it? The status is that it hasn't been updated.
I should have asked: Are there plans to complete the XML dump?
Are there plans to complete the XML dump in the near future, or is this a very low priority?
Post by: SeymoreGlass on August 24, 2011, 09:56:48 pm
As I understand it Armok is more the name of a gameplay feature than an actual entity, and it's conceivable that he's only an outside force. But I would love to see followers of Armok determined to spread chaos and destroy order popping up in adventure/fortress mode (or even just legends mode); though I guess that's what adventurers are for.
Post by: Organum on August 24, 2011, 10:24:20 pm
Speaking of profaning and the gods, whill Armok himself ever make an appearance? Will he always be an outside force? And most importantly, will Blood for the Blood God ever enter as an actual gameplay element?
As I understand it Armok is more the name of a gameplay feature than an actual entity, and it's conceivable that he's only an outside force. But I would love to see followers of Armok determined to spread chaos and destroy order popping up in adventure/fortress mode (or even just legends mode); though I guess that's what adventurers are for.
Armok isn't really involved in Dwarf Fortress aside from the title, and "Blood for the Blood God" is something the forumites took from Khorne.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 24, 2011, 10:33:56 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on August 24, 2011, 11:25:00 pm
Because the player is kind of like an semi-all-seeing, somewhat-all-knowing, and occasionally livid god.
Adventures rise from nowhere to die at your command. Entire forts rise from the dirt for your entertainment. Dwarves and Elves die to provide you with your godly lolz. Entire worlds are created simply because the last one grew boring. You are Armok, God of Blood, you alone control the fates of the worlds you bring into being.
Post by: hermes on August 24, 2011, 11:31:49 pm
i see "slaves to armok ii" as more of a working title, i think the concept of armok doesn't fit at all in the game, and would hate to see it implemented as a stock lore character. in fact, i think df could drop that part of the title already
You, er, have played DF before, right? :o Don't your fortresses and adventurers meet grisly, blood themed demises?
I can kind of understand not understanding the title, since it does feel somewhat unexplained... however we have been relatively recently treated to some shrimps of information regarding the nature of kobolds/goblins and the afterlife (in FotF, DF Talk and in Cado), which I think has gone someway towards sketching a picture of a world that has a definite logic to life and death, and it certainly seems to revolve around death.
Perhaps Armok might turn out to be the demiurge of the world and so not feature in the lesser pantheon, or perhaps he will be a god like all the others, but I can't imagine that the fantasy world could possibly be better for his absence... IMO Armok provides a gravitational centre to the fantasy at the moment, even if he is a mystery.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 24, 2011, 11:57:34 pm
Perhaps Armok might turn out to be the demiurge of the world and so not feature in the lesser pantheon, or perhaps he will be a god like all the others, but I can't imagine that the fantasy world could possibly be better for his absence... IMO Armok provides a gravitational centre to the fantasy at the moment, even if he is a mystery.armok wont turn out to be anything, it's just an in joke referring to a game long defunct now. i can't imagine how a procedurally generated universe would be better with a recurring stock character. would you like some cacame with your armok?
Post by: Mephansteras on August 25, 2011, 12:06:37 am
Post by: Flaede on August 25, 2011, 01:10:25 am
Quote
Once we've got people moving around post-world-gen, your arm would have more of a chance, but without a soul, it might not have a rich inner life, and so not really have goals or do anything but defend its patch of dirt.
I love this! Dwarf Fortress - worrying about the habits and social lives of reanimated corpse-bits. Honestly, I'm now wondering if an animated head would have a different time of it. It has a mouth, after all. And braaaaains.
Post by: Chronas on August 25, 2011, 02:56:51 am
I think armok should be just as constant as dwarfs and goblins.Perhaps Armok might turn out to be the demiurge of the world and so not feature in the lesser pantheon, or perhaps he will be a god like all the others, but I can't imagine that the fantasy world could possibly be better for his absence... IMO Armok provides a gravitational centre to the fantasy at the moment, even if he is a mystery.armok wont turn out to be anything, it's just an in joke referring to a game long defunct now. i can't imagine how a procedurally generated universe would be better with a recurring stock character. would you like some cacame with your armok?
If it got to a point deities were consigned to raws, then Armok could be a defined overgod with a set personality, with a lesser pantheon generated in the same manner as current gods/forgotten beasts. This allows him to be modded out/replaced, so his permanency in the game is up to the player. This could have amusing results if the title page took its name from the raws. in terms of a modded game:
SLAVES TO ARGLBARGLE: GOD OF VERMIN
Post by: mendonca on August 25, 2011, 02:59:46 am
Arm_Not_OK
Arm_Reanimated?
Post by: Organum on August 25, 2011, 03:08:05 am
Arm_OK
Arm_Not_OK
Arm_Reanimated?
Slaves to Armreanimated: God of Bile.
Post by: Twisted Mansions on August 25, 2011, 03:39:31 am
Post by: Dae on August 25, 2011, 12:44:29 pm
Post by: Tov01 on August 25, 2011, 01:44:33 pm
Also, I'm not sure if this has been asked yet, so bear with me if it has. When hill dwarf settlements are in, are there plans to allow adventurers to visit them in adventure mode, and if so, how would they be different from the standard dwarven mountain halls, if at all.
Post by: Footkerchief on August 25, 2011, 01:57:31 pm
Since zombies currently resurrect naked, would it be possible for them to pick up armor and weapons they find, either on their own initiative or by direction of their necromancer. This would of course be limited to what parts they have left. No weapons without a hand, no boots without a foot, and so on.
This falls under the broader need for companion equipment, which Toady is aware of but hasn't implemented yet: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1719248#msg1719248)
Quote from: Toady One
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.
Also, I'm not sure if this has been asked yet, so bear with me if it has. When hill dwarf settlements are in, are there plans to allow adventurers to visit them in adventure mode, and if so, how would they be different from the standard dwarven mountain halls, if at all.
Yes, adventurers will be able to visit any site. The specifics of what their sites will look like probably aren't clear yet (and neither are the new dwarven mountain halls, AFAIK).
Post by: Neonivek on August 25, 2011, 04:31:30 pm
Footkerchief has toady commented on the possibility of Shore leave (for back of a better term) or rather when you go to town for your companions to do what they want to until your ready to leave?
Post by: Mephansteras on August 25, 2011, 04:49:49 pm
Footkerchief has toady commented on the possibility of Shore leave (for back of a better term) or rather when you go to town for your companions to do what they want to until your ready to leave?
If not, that would make a great DF Talk subject.
Post by: PTTG?? on August 25, 2011, 05:10:39 pm
Post by: cameron on August 25, 2011, 05:20:01 pm
Post by: Dr. D on August 25, 2011, 06:39:33 pm
For a question, will there be more mundane problems in cities for adventurers to take care of, such as the ever-popular dwarf mode task of dealing with as swarm of feral cats?
Post by: Lord Dakoth on August 25, 2011, 07:44:22 pm
Since zombies currently resurrect naked, would it be possible for them to pick up armor and weapons they find, either on their own initiative or by direction of their necromancer. This would of course be limited to what parts they have left. No weapons without a hand, no boots without a foot, and so on.
Once cultural fashion is implemented, this could be very interesting. I'm imagining a zombie sporting clothing from ten different civs. If dwarves' fashion choices are any indication, a zombie might find and pick up a shirt, a single bronze high boot, a turban, striped socks, bell bottoms, and a fake Groucho Marx mustache.
Post by: Greendogo on August 25, 2011, 07:51:56 pm
Post by: DG on August 26, 2011, 02:01:39 am
Post by: Rose on August 26, 2011, 04:30:56 am
last thing I saw made of leather was pretty damn tough.
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 26, 2011, 07:24:33 am
Post by: Halconnen on August 26, 2011, 11:17:55 am
Post by: peskyninja on August 26, 2011, 02:18:13 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 26, 2011, 02:33:51 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on August 26, 2011, 03:18:29 pm
Item attacks like that were languishing on the old dev pages for a while (and in particular various things with the guts), but it hasn't happened yet.
Topical but NWS for stupid digusting martial arts violence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vMKN1tYknE)
Post by: Neonivek on August 26, 2011, 03:21:17 pm
TO the Fortress Talks!
Post by: Footkerchief on August 26, 2011, 04:01:42 pm
Judging by Footkerchief's response I am guessing the answer to my question was no!
TO the Fortress Talks!
Oh, I missed that. Yeah, I don't think shore leave has been brought up at all.
Post by: MrWiggles on August 26, 2011, 06:39:23 pm
Judging by Footkerchief's response I am guessing the answer to my question was no!
TO the Fortress Talks!
Oh, I missed that. Yeah, I don't think shore leave has been brought up at all.
Shore Leave could happen though. With the Time Passing mechanics that Toady spoken of, it could be an addition to it.
Post by: Neonivek on August 26, 2011, 06:41:00 pm
*Gets on the thinking glasses*
Given I always do this wrong, I'll have to do some extra thinking.
Hmm do I say "What do you think about Shore leave" or... something else... AHHHH!
Dang it Fortress Talks! At least with Future of the fortress I am aware if my question was wrong.
Post by: Dakk on August 26, 2011, 11:26:29 pm
I think armok should be just as constant as dwarfs and goblins.Perhaps Armok might turn out to be the demiurge of the world and so not feature in the lesser pantheon, or perhaps he will be a god like all the others, but I can't imagine that the fantasy world could possibly be better for his absence... IMO Armok provides a gravitational centre to the fantasy at the moment, even if he is a mystery.armok wont turn out to be anything, it's just an in joke referring to a game long defunct now. i can't imagine how a procedurally generated universe would be better with a recurring stock character. would you like some cacame with your armok?
If it got to a point deities were consigned to raws, then Armok could be a defined overgod with a set personality, with a lesser pantheon generated in the same manner as current gods/forgotten beasts. This allows him to be modded out/replaced, so his permanency in the game is up to the player. This could have amusing results if the title page took its name from the raws. in terms of a modded game:
SLAVES TO ARGLBARGLE: GOD OF VERMIN
Its been strongly suggested that the player is armok anyways. The player can go in and out of worlds as he pleases guiding civilizations and controlling heroes directly. If armok has any in game presence its through the player.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure this has been asked before, soooo, has toady mentioned anything regarding reanimated people keeping their skills? Or are they just like the old zombies and stuff?
Post by: Knight Otu on August 27, 2011, 02:04:36 am
Its been strongly suggested that the player is armok anyways. The player can go in and out of worlds as he pleases guiding civilizations and controlling heroes directly. If armok has any in game presence its through the player.The player is supposed to be the whole of the fortress government. Yes, the player routinely performs partial suicide. :P
Anyway, I'm pretty sure this has been asked before, soooo, has toady mentioned anything regarding reanimated people keeping their skills? Or are they just like the old zombies and stuff?The reanimated dead lack their souls and skills. "Resurrected" dead like mummies have their souls and skills.
A reanimated body doesn't have the same historical information (or a soul/skills). A resurrection (which exists, for use by mummy disturbance currently) does bring the soul back.
Post by: G-Flex on August 27, 2011, 02:37:10 am
Its been strongly suggested that the player is armok anyways.
By who? Everything Toady has said about the matter directly contradicts this.
Post by: Neonivek on August 27, 2011, 02:59:05 am
Its been strongly suggested that the player is armok anyways.
By who? Everything Toady has said about the matter directly contradicts this.
Not to mention Armok being called by name in some threetoe stories.
After that point Armok officially stopped being the player.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on August 27, 2011, 06:06:52 am
Many people in fanon. This theory better match known facts than what Toady himself says (as Knight Otu commented, it is not very consistent). Oh, delicious irony. And even if we leave fortress mode as player being local goverment, what with adventure mode?Its been strongly suggested that the player is armok anyways.By who? Everything Toady has said about the matter directly contradicts this.
Anyway... embodiement of dwarf goverment, yeah right. While goverments can be suicidally stupid (I will NOT give examples), consequences/punishment must be more indirect and distant in space/time than it is ever in DF.
Armok is player fits perfectly. Well, as perfectly, as something contradictiong Word Of God (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod) can be. :P
Not to mention Armok being called by name in some threetoe stories. After that point Armok officially stopped being the player.Officially it never was player to begin with.
Post by: MrWiggles on August 27, 2011, 06:45:34 am
Its been strongly suggested that the player is armok anyways.
By who? Everything Toady has said about the matter directly contradicts this.
Not to mention Armok being called by name in some threetoe stories.
After that point Armok officially stopped being the player.
Yea, I gotta agree here.
When Armok was said by name in ThreeToes stories, it was no longer the player.
Toady has said that he wanted the player actions to always be represented through the dorfs own IC actions. Admittedly there are some glaring holes left for this, but they have been closing.
Post by: Neonivek on August 27, 2011, 07:09:57 pm
Quote
Officially it never was player to begin with
I am aware. It only was the player in light of the popular amount of cruelty I doubt Toady intended.
let me see so to formulate the Fortress talks question...
"What are your thoughts and tribulations on shore leave, or rather autonomous activity taken by charges within cities?"
No that isn't any good...
Post by: Mel_Vixen on August 27, 2011, 08:36:57 pm
I myself think of Armok as a constant in threetoes storys and only as Background figure in the game that as justification for some events.
Post by: Neonivek on August 27, 2011, 10:55:32 pm
Guys talk questions go to toady by email ;) just in case someone wants to write down another one in here.
I myself think of Armok as a constant in threetoes storys and only as Background figure in the game that as justification for some events.
I know, I just can't come up with a good way of saying it.
When I ask a question badly here Toady just answers it in a way I didn't mean.
when I ask a question badly in Fortress talks they just reject it and don't tell me. >_>
Unfortunately... I am not really getting someone jumping in like I thought so I have to think about it.
"Toady you spoke about giving characters orders and conditions they would disobey them. What do you think about the concept of allowing the characters in your party to do as they wish in town; such as shoreleave; to rest, relax, buy equipment, speak to others, and fulfill their own personal goals?"
Better but too wordy. As well it is structured as a suggestion, which is bad.
Post by: monk12 on August 27, 2011, 11:24:11 pm
Guys talk questions go to toady by email ;) just in case someone wants to write down another one in here.
I myself think of Armok as a constant in threetoes storys and only as Background figure in the game that as justification for some events.
I know, I just can't come up with a good way of saying it.
When I ask a question badly here Toady just answers it in a way I didn't mean.
when I ask a question badly in Fortress talks they just reject it and don't tell me. >_>
Unfortunately... I am not really getting someone jumping in like I thought so I have to think about it.
"Toady you spoke about giving characters orders and conditions they would disobey them. What do you think about the concept of allowing the characters in your party to do as they wish in town; such as shoreleave; to rest, relax, buy equipment, speak to others, and fulfill their own personal goals?"
Better but too wordy. As well it is structured as a suggestion, which is bad.
I tend to wait on such things when I know it is (comparatively) right around the corner. Part of the reason we get evasive answers to some questions is because Toady himself hasn't thought it out more thoroughly yet, and isn't going to try since he is busy focusing on the current release.
This specific question, I'd wait until sometime after Release 2 to ask, since that will be when he starts devoting significant time to Basic Hirelings (Release 3,) and we'll be more likely to get a detailed answer. Bear in mind, half of your question also deals with the Personality Rewrite detailed for Release 8, so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the autonomy questions get handled then.
I myself would probably ask something like "How autonomous will hirelings be? How much control does the player have over group inventory/time management?" once we get closer to Release 3. Depending on the answer to those questions I'd ask followups about how the personalities of your party members play into those decisions, and how much he expects that to change with the personality rewrite, so on and so forth.
Post by: jockmo42 on August 29, 2011, 02:37:31 pm
I tend to wait on such things when I know it is (comparatively) right around the corner. Part of the reason we get evasive answers to some questions is because Toady himself hasn't thought it out more thoroughly yet, and isn't going to try since he is busy focusing on the current release.
This specific question, I'd wait until sometime after Release 2 to ask, since that will be when he starts devoting significant time to Basic Hirelings (Release 3,) and we'll be more likely to get a detailed answer. Bear in mind, half of your question also deals with the Personality Rewrite detailed for Release 8, so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the autonomy questions get handled then.
I myself would probably ask something like "How autonomous will hirelings be? How much control does the player have over group inventory/time management?" once we get closer to Release 3. Depending on the answer to those questions I'd ask followups about how the personalities of your party members play into those decisions, and how much he expects that to change with the personality rewrite, so on and so forth.
But just because Toady isn't working on a feature right now doesn't necessarily mean he wouldn't have anything to say about it. I think mostly anything is fair game.
Post by: LordMogra on August 29, 2011, 03:30:36 pm
In Fortress mode, seemingly one "goal" to a fort is to become a capital. I can't help but realize I am trying to create a capital with at most 200 or so dwarfs when there are cities number in the thousands or more. Now, historically (real world), forts served as safe havens, strongholds, in the frontiers and cities developed around them. So how about that? Trading with a growing metropolis around you. Having to send your troops to defend the local city from invaders, etc.
Post by: nil on August 29, 2011, 03:52:25 pm
This may have already been answered, but I could find it.This is pretty much exactly what is planned, the suburbanites are tentatively called "hill dwarves." Check out DF Talk #12 (http://www.bay12games.com/media/df_talk_12_transcript.html).
In Fortress mode, seemingly one "goal" to a fort is to become a capital. I can't help but realize I am trying to create a capital with at most 200 or so dwarfs when there are cities number in the thousands or more. Now, historically (real world), forts served as safe havens, strongholds, in the frontiers and cities developed around them. So how about that? Trading with a growing metropolis around you. Having to send your troops to defend the local city from invaders, etc.
Post by: Dakk on August 29, 2011, 08:36:44 pm
Post by: Cruxador on August 29, 2011, 09:01:46 pm
And on a related note: How would an adventurer learn about the properties that a certain vampire type would have? Will there usually be enough information for an adventurer to make a decision dealing with whether he wants to drink the blood or not?
Post by: MASTER_PROGRAMMER on August 30, 2011, 09:44:22 am
i have 1 small request.
Grabbing an ally....i want to be able to drag them out of harms way.
such as grabbing them underwater, and dragging them out of the water before they drown themselves.
Post by: Rockphed on August 30, 2011, 11:54:52 am
Toady One.
i have 1 small request.
Grabbing an ally....i want to be able to drag them out of harms way.
such as grabbing them underwater, and dragging them out of the water before they drown themselves.
Doesn't anybody except an adventurer currently leave water by ramps? I agree that it sucks when your allies fall into rivers or murky pools, but otherwise they tend to get out themselves.
As for the other thing, there is a suggestion forum further up the main page.
Though that does bring up an issue:
Currently dwarves in fortress mode will carry other dwarves who are injured to their beds or a hospital. What obstacles stop invaders and adventurers from carrying comrades?
Post by: MASTER_PROGRAMMER on August 30, 2011, 12:38:49 pm
They don't get out by themselves when they're unconscious.
Post by: scriver on August 30, 2011, 12:58:22 pm
Currently dwarves in fortress mode will carry other dwarves who are injured to their beds or a hospital. What obstacles stop invaders and adventurers from carrying comrades?Aren't babies fullworthy creatures (as in the same kind as dwarves or animals) as well? And they get carried around all the time as well, I mean.
Post by: LordMogra on August 30, 2011, 03:30:43 pm
In my experience, even babies don't get carried out of the water if the parent carrying them falls in. The parent seems to just drop them in a panic and never go back.Currently dwarves in fortress mode will carry other dwarves who are injured to their beds or a hospital. What obstacles stop invaders and adventurers from carrying comrades?Aren't babies fullworthy creatures (as in the same kind as dwarves or animals) as well? And they get carried around all the time as well, I mean.
Post by: scriver on August 30, 2011, 04:43:41 pm
Post by: MASTER_PROGRAMMER on August 30, 2011, 04:47:07 pm
that's all i ask.
and being a c++ programmer, i know, that should NOT be really hard to add if everything is set up cleanly and properly.
but then again, i have no clue how toady one set things up, so for all i know, it could be impossible with his setup.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 30, 2011, 06:59:52 pm
Would be nice to be able to play a "necromancer fortress"
Post by: monk12 on August 30, 2011, 08:24:42 pm
Basically, all i want, is to be able to drag poor unconscious fluttershy out of the water, before she drowns, then take the elf that knocked her unconscious, and drag him into magma.
that's all i ask.
and being a c++ programmer, i know, that should NOT be really hard to add if everything is set up cleanly and properly.
but then again, i have no clue how toady one set things up, so for all i know, it could be impossible with his setup.
Again, suggestions forum (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?board=5.0)- and it's probably already been suggested, just search around for it. Failure to not add this feature in the near future is not a matter of lack of skill on Toady's part, so much as it is the incredibly low priority such a little thing has in the grand scheme of the game. There's a lot of "low-hanging fruit," in Toady's words- he's working on the stuff that relates to the economy (world and local) as well as some more detailed monsters/necromancy/etc right now. It'll come, be patient.
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on August 30, 2011, 08:39:45 pm
Post by: monk12 on August 30, 2011, 08:48:52 pm
Are there necromancer-type interactions planned for the other spheres? Sorry if this was already asked.
Do you have any specific plans on introducing new uses for the interaction framework in the next couple releases, do you plan on sticking to new night creatures/monsters, or do you just want your unplanned tangents to remain unplanned?
nevermind, Footkerchief found it
Post by: EmeraldWind on August 30, 2011, 09:59:31 pm
Are there necromancer-type interactions planned for the other spheres? Sorry if this was already asked.
It would be worth it to point out. The interactions are linked to the spheres, but not the other way around. So you can link the current necromancer interaction to the Fire Sphere or the Art Sphere, if you want to mod that in.
Spheres seem to be used for interactions to allow gods (who also reference spheres) to know if they are compatible with an interaction. Using my example above, a god of Art might not create tablets for Necromancy (because necromancy is most likely established as being within the Death Sphere), but modding the Necromancy interaction to include the Art Sphere will change that so the god of art will use the interaction now. (Unless the god happened to be a God of Art and Death. :o)
I think Spheres are supposed to represent abstracted concepts/ideas. The Sphere itself probably has no internal definition of what applies to it (however, Spheres may contain info about its relationship to other spheres), but ultimately objects (creatures, interactions, gods, etc) have to declare themselves a part of the Sphere, the Sphere doesn't declare or even know that an object belongs to it. Also objects most likely determine on their own the relationship they have with an object by checking the other object's declared spheres.
Just in case I'm wrong though,
Read the last paragraph of my post. Is this how Spheres generally work? If not, can you point out what I got wrong?
Post by: Untelligent on August 30, 2011, 10:40:12 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on August 30, 2011, 10:59:23 pm
Are there necromancer-type interactions planned for the other spheres? Sorry if this was already asked.
I don't think this one has been asked, but it is safe to assume this kind of thing is an intended use of the interaction framework. I think I'll reword it slightly though-
Do you have any specific plans on introducing new uses for the interaction framework in the next couple releases, do you plan on sticking to new night creatures/monsters, or do you just want your unplanned tangents to remain unplanned?
I found some previous answers about this: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2261541#msg2261541)
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: KillerClownsWhat'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.
I think Spheres are supposed to represent abstracted concepts/ideas. The Sphere itself probably has no internal definition of what applies to it (however, Spheres may contain info about its relationship to other spheres), but ultimately objects (creatures, interactions, gods, etc) have to declare themselves a part of the Sphere, the Sphere doesn't declare or even know that an object belongs to it. Also objects most likely determine on their own the relationship they have with an object by checking the other object's declared spheres.
Just in case I'm wrong though,
Read the last paragraph of my post. Is this how Spheres generally work? If not, can you point out what I got wrong?
You're pretty much right. (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/40d:Sphere) Spheres have no intrinsic definition, although they do have relationships to other spheres. As demonstrated in the current raws (if you search for SPHERE), creatures and entities do declare their association to spheres, rather than the other way around, and interactions are apparently no different.
Post by: monk12 on August 31, 2011, 12:04:00 am
Post by: MASTER_PROGRAMMER on August 31, 2011, 08:35:38 am
Basically, all i want, is to be able to drag poor unconscious fluttershy out of the water, before she drowns, then take the elf that knocked her unconscious, and drag him into magma.
that's all i ask.
and being a c++ programmer, i know, that should NOT be really hard to add if everything is set up cleanly and properly.
but then again, i have no clue how toady one set things up, so for all i know, it could be impossible with his setup.
Again, suggestions forum (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?board=5.0)- and it's probably already been suggested, just search around for it. Failure to not add this feature in the near future is not a matter of lack of skill on Toady's part, so much as it is the incredibly low priority such a little thing has in the grand scheme of the game. There's a lot of "low-hanging fruit," in Toady's words- he's working on the stuff that relates to the economy (world and local) as well as some more detailed monsters/necromancy/etc right now. It'll come, be patient.
Just so you know, i wasn't implying that Toady One couldn't i was more putting that there for in case someone(who didn't know what they were talking about) tried to tell me otherwise.
i do get that a lot, so i tend to try to find ways of making those kinds of people shut up, before they even start. >.>
Post by: Neonivek on August 31, 2011, 10:55:32 pm
Hopefully that storm hasn't torn the place asunder.
Post by: NobodyPro on September 01, 2011, 12:08:37 am
Would this count as a bug, a leftover from previous versions or intentional design?
Post by: Footkerchief on September 01, 2011, 08:38:37 am
I couldn't help but notice that gremlins (only creature with the [MISCHEVIOUS] tag) have a maximum of 1 per (season/year/area?).
Would this count as a bug, a leftover from previous versions or intentional design?
You should probably include a copy/paste of the "maximum" tag you're asking about.
Post by: Untelligent on September 01, 2011, 01:06:48 pm
I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be intentional.
Post by: Dradym on September 01, 2011, 01:48:26 pm
on a side note, it would be !!FUN!! to see them reproduce with water
Post by: Neonivek on September 01, 2011, 04:02:37 pm
Post by: tps12 on September 01, 2011, 07:29:54 pm
i was more putting that there for in case someone(who didn't know what they were talking about) tried to tell me otherwise.
i do get that a lot
Sort of asking for it with that username.
Post by: Neonivek on September 01, 2011, 10:35:34 pm
Edit addition: I REALLY hope I didn't just develop psychic powers.
Post by: monk12 on September 02, 2011, 03:09:15 pm
Wow, that was a pretty good Autumn for no release- still fallout from that NY Times article, you think?
Post by: Neonivek on September 02, 2011, 04:27:21 pm
Re: Bay12 Report
Wow, that was a pretty good Autumn for no release- still fallout from that NY Times article, you think?
Well Dwarf Fortress has been making more money over time. Though yeah the Newyork article was likely the cause of that burst.
Post by: monk12 on September 02, 2011, 07:22:05 pm
Re: Bay12 Report
Wow, that was a pretty good Autumn for no release- still fallout from that NY Times article, you think?
Well Dwarf Fortress has been making more money over time. Though yeah the Newyork article was likely the cause of that burst.
Oh my, I just realized I typed "Autumn" instead of "August"- I think I need to take a breather from DF.
Post by: Sphalerite on September 03, 2011, 07:52:31 am
Re: Bay12 Report
Wow, that was a pretty good Autumn for no release- still fallout from that NY Times article, you think?
Well Dwarf Fortress has been making more money over time. Though yeah the Newyork article was likely the cause of that burst.
Oh my, I just realized I typed "Autumn" instead of "August"- I think I need to take a breather from DF.
At least you didn't type Galena instead of August.
Post by: kasan on September 04, 2011, 08:43:09 am
Quote
Nah, the butchered bones animate by themselves (as separate objects), so the skeletons are headless if you animate them from a butchery (or otherwise). Skulls themselves are an odd case, because they don't have teeth or even a head flag, so they don't animate, and they don't get lumped with the other bones. You still get skeletons properly from heavily rotted zombies. It has to understand the relationship between teeth and a skull before the basic animation will work right, and then there's the skull's relationship to the spine that needs to be worked out. In many cases, even if the skull and other bones are detached, you'd still want them to animate together, and that might just take some kind of structural grouping tag for the animation effect.
Since animating a skull by itself isn't possible to create a skeleton, would it to be possible to animate a skull into a different form of critter/unit type?
When I read this, it made me think of Morte the skull from Planescape: Torment, which in turn made me think of http://www.wowhead.com/spell=53316 (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=53316) (which is a mini non-combat pet in that game for those unfamiliar).
With that being said, would it be possible to implement a reanimation of parts as pets that are unsuitable for Zombies or Skeletons? I'm semi clueless as to how the internals of DF work so I might be suggesting the not feasible with out major code rewrites here.
Post by: PTTG?? on September 04, 2011, 12:01:20 pm
Post by: Organum on September 04, 2011, 12:21:25 pm
Post by: zwei on September 04, 2011, 03:02:55 pm
The just-a-head style of reanimated creature would make sense from a role-playing perspective. Say you're a necromancer on a quest to learn all the secrets of the gods. So, you end up decapitating a magically endowed priest or whatever. "Oh no," you might say,"How ever shall I learn the secret now? OH WAIT." At this point you reanimate the head of the priest and trap his soul within it. Bent to your will, the priest has no choice but to give to you his secret.
You know, I imagine my dwarves reanimating my legendary armorcrafter and have his eyeless skull instruct newbie armorcrafter on how to make decent shields...
And if we take it to extreme, building whole galery of legendary teachers. Sometimes by arranging unfortunate accidents.
Head museums, just like from futurama. Except that our heads are undead monstrosities.
Post by: Hitty40 on September 04, 2011, 04:15:43 pm
And maybe a possible 'marrage/family' system in adventure mode?
Post by: MrWiggles on September 04, 2011, 05:25:03 pm
Will there be a way to become a leader of a civ in adventure/fort mode?
And maybe a possible 'marrage/family' system in adventure mode?
Its a goal, but I dont think we're anywhere near being able to do that.
Post by: Footkerchief on September 05, 2011, 12:05:14 am
Will there be a way to become a leader of a civ in adventure/fort mode?
And maybe a possible 'marrage/family' system in adventure mode?
It has been an explict dev goal: (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html)
Quote from: dev_single
# 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.
# RELATIONSHIPS ARC: You should be able to take a spouse, make a household, and create playable heirs as an adventurer. The dwarven relationships and personalities can also be expanded upon.
Post by: Cruxador on September 05, 2011, 12:49:53 am
I believe it's currently planned to be a part of the army arc, actually. So it could easily happen within the next couple years.Will there be a way to become a leader of a civ in adventure/fort mode?
And maybe a possible 'marrage/family' system in adventure mode?
Its a goal, but I dont think we're anywhere near being able to do that.
Post by: LeeDub on September 05, 2011, 04:38:47 am
Watch as a lover's spat ignites a tantrum spiral that kills hundreds...Quote from: dev_single# RELATIONSHIPS ARC: You should be able to take a spouse, make a household, and create playable heirs as an adventurer. The dwarven relationships and personalities can also be expanded upon.
Post by: Knight Otu on September 05, 2011, 05:12:26 am
Becoming a leader, probably. Adventurer marriage, I wouldn't count on for the army arc - though it might potentially emerge from the former by way of adding diplomatic relations, which may include marriage between certain factions.I believe it's currently planned to be a part of the army arc, actually. So it could easily happen within the next couple years.Will there be a way to become a leader of a civ in adventure/fort mode?
And maybe a possible 'marrage/family' system in adventure mode?
Its a goal, but I dont think we're anywhere near being able to do that.
Post by: Greiger on September 05, 2011, 04:54:03 pm
You know, I imagine my dwarves reanimating my legendary armorcrafter and have his eyeless skull instruct newbie armorcrafter on how to make decent shields...
And if we take it to extreme, building whole galery of legendary teachers. Sometimes by arranging unfortunate accidents.
Head museums, just like from futurama. Except that our heads are undead monstrosities.
And now I am reminded of the talking rat skull elders from that really really old Dos(?) Darksun game.
Post by: Chronas on September 05, 2011, 09:51:41 pm
Makes me think of the ancestor brains from Lexx.You know, I imagine my dwarves reanimating my legendary armorcrafter and have his eyeless skull instruct newbie armorcrafter on how to make decent shields...And now I am reminded of the talking rat skull elders from that really really old Dos(?) Darksun game.
And if we take it to extreme, building whole galery of legendary teachers. Sometimes by arranging unfortunate accidents.
Head museums, just like from futurama. Except that our heads are undead monstrosities.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on September 06, 2011, 01:25:53 am
god i love that game.You know, I imagine my dwarves reanimating my legendary armorcrafter and have his eyeless skull instruct newbie armorcrafter on how to make decent shields...
And if we take it to extreme, building whole galery of legendary teachers. Sometimes by arranging unfortunate accidents.
Head museums, just like from futurama. Except that our heads are undead monstrosities.
And now I am reminded of the talking rat skull elders from that really really old Dos(?) Darksun game.
also, the mimir from planescape, and the norse mythology's mimir whose decapitated head was odin's favorite advisor
Post by: PTTG?? on September 06, 2011, 01:32:02 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on September 06, 2011, 02:22:22 pm
Post by: monk12 on September 06, 2011, 06:12:58 pm
Askot, I've been meaning to ask you this for a while, but wouldn't your avatar's arm get tired after a while? It just bugs me.
I, for one, am impressed by the quantum corpse stockpile he's got going. Very efficient.
Post by: PTTG?? on September 07, 2011, 10:22:55 am
You know, I just pictured a fortress that sends out raiding parties throughout the world to collect the forbidden knowledge, destroying dark lords and bringing the slabs back to the mountains, to be sequestered in deep vaults. When the fort itself falls to siege, the last inhabitant pulls a lever, sealing every access to the fort but one- the labyrinth through which a hero may try to find the slabs should the secrets therein be needed again...
Post by: jimi12 on September 07, 2011, 12:17:58 pm
How urgent is the need for a vampire to feed? Will they starve to death or grow weaker if they don't feed for a long time? Or is it more like a somemthing they are just driven to do without any real benefits to themselves other than filling their bloodlust?
Post by: Knight Otu on September 07, 2011, 12:30:30 pm
Quote from: HephWill vamps have withdrawal symptoms from not getting theyr bloody fix? Stuff like raging, aging rapidly, loosing strength etc.?
It seems like something should happen, but since they won't always be able to hunt during play (mostly they won't, being off in the world some place), it's not important to do that until we get them activated.
Post by: EmperorJon on September 07, 2011, 03:28:33 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on September 07, 2011, 03:54:16 pm
Question for the Toad: Are there any plans/has there been anything done/any investigation into the whole clothing rot and repeated attempt to pick up clothes but never actually causing eventual FPS death for every fort? It's like a leak... a fort can quite happily sit on my PC with a cap around 120 Dwarves or so, and be at 60-70FPS if I'm lucky. But it goes down. And down. And down. I usually give up at about 30... It's a real game killer for me.
If you have before/after saves demonstrating a massive peformance impact from clothing, you should upload it to http://dffd.wimbli.com and post the link on this bug report. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=3942) There's some evidence that it has a performance impact -- which is true of many, many things -- but the claim that it's the primary culprit for lag is just a rumor.
Post by: Greiger on September 07, 2011, 04:03:50 pm
Don't worry, if I recall correctly the fever status is mostly harmless!
Post by: Jimlad11 on September 07, 2011, 04:11:19 pm
Get well soon Toady and Threetoe!
Don't worry, if I recall correctly the fever status is mostly harmless!
*Rimshot* (http://instantrimshot.com/) :D
Post by: Cruxador on September 08, 2011, 02:26:22 am
Secret Slabs!That may well be possible once the Army Arc is added. Until then, you'd have to do it as an adventurer, using an abandoned fortress.
You know, I just pictured a fortress that sends out raiding parties throughout the world to collect the forbidden knowledge, destroying dark lords and bringing the slabs back to the mountains, to be sequestered in deep vaults. When the fort itself falls to siege, the last inhabitant pulls a lever, sealing every access to the fort but one- the labyrinth through which a hero may try to find the slabs should the secrets therein be needed again...
Post by: Neonivek on September 08, 2011, 03:36:06 am
Get well soon Toady and Threetoe!
Don't worry, if I recall correctly the fever status is mostly harmless!
Actually it is completely harmless on its own so long as the temperature doesn't get too high and liquids are given freely.
It is accompaning illnesses that make it dangerous.
Ohh and get better as well Toady, Threetoe, and Scamps
Post by: MasterMorality on September 08, 2011, 04:14:42 am
Post by: EmperorJon on September 08, 2011, 02:37:19 pm
Post by: Caldfir on September 08, 2011, 03:23:20 pm
On another note, I am looking forward to seeing what goofy bugs show up on the devlog.
Post by: piecewise on September 08, 2011, 03:39:55 pm
Post by: Jimlad11 on September 08, 2011, 03:47:55 pm
But first? I shall take a stroll around a city, and check out the underground goodies and such 8)
Post by: Mephansteras on September 08, 2011, 04:19:05 pm
Yay, we're on the final stretch! I can't wait to see what modders create with this new interaction system.
I can't wait to see what we can do with it!
Post by: Neonivek on September 09, 2011, 08:30:49 am
Given that the rate of injury during these periods were such that it was actually rather unlikely that by the time someone reached the level of master that they wouldn't have been injured once.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on September 09, 2011, 10:48:20 am
Post by: piecewise on September 09, 2011, 11:22:12 pm
Post by: Dienes on September 10, 2011, 10:38:43 am
If toady has a list of the current problems that need to be fixed before release, I kinda want to see it. It would be cool to have the list up somewhere so he could cross off things when he's done, add more when he finds them, and in general give us a way of seeing how much is left without having to make any sort of guess about how long is left. Or a dev page update about progress every couple of days, just to know how things are going, even if there' nothing really interesting going on.
While I would love more transparency in toady's work I can totally see why he doesn't want to. First most of the bugs are probably not interesting, like off by 1 store inventory or the like. Second the apparent size of a bug can mislead players about how easy it is to fix. Imagine if there is a bug that looks like its hardly worth fixing but its the tip of an iceberg? Toady sets out to fix it thinking it will be a few minutes and ends up spending days on it. Players would be howling for blood that he's wasting their time.
Post by: Untelligent on September 10, 2011, 11:41:04 am
While I would love more transparency in toady's work I can totally see why he doesn't want to. First most of the bugs are probably not interesting, like off by 1 store inventory or the like. Second the apparent size of a bug can mislead players about how easy it is to fix. Imagine if there is a bug that looks like its hardly worth fixing but its the tip of an iceberg? Toady sets out to fix it thinking it will be a few minutes and ends up spending days on it. Players would be howling for blood that he's wasting their time.
This isn't the Minecraft forums. DF players don't really howl for blood.
Post by: Greiger on September 10, 2011, 11:55:10 am
Post by: piecewise on September 10, 2011, 02:14:54 pm
Post by: Chronas on September 10, 2011, 05:02:17 pm
Post by: thvaz on September 10, 2011, 05:36:49 pm
Post by: caknuck on September 10, 2011, 08:43:42 pm
Just ask Toady.
F'YEAH! The features in this forthcoming update have given me a semi.
Post by: monk12 on September 10, 2011, 09:02:56 pm
Quote from: devlog
Magma crabs were also machine-gunning their magma globs and firing at all visible targets at once...
I imagine that was an entertaining sight to witness.
Post by: riznar on September 10, 2011, 09:21:28 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on September 10, 2011, 09:50:55 pm
This isn't the Minecraft forums. DF players don't really howl for blood.
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!
:reads the above quote:
Wait... am I in the right forum?
Post by: darkflagrance on September 11, 2011, 12:09:21 am
Post by: Cruxador on September 11, 2011, 02:40:30 am
Man, now I want to mod in a siege of magma crabs all shooting their magma globs in all directions at the same time at gatling gun speed. It sounds hilarious and FUN :3Yeah, I hope he leaves that behavior in as something that Forgotten Beasts can sometimes have access to.
Post by: DG on September 11, 2011, 05:49:37 am
Man, now I want to mod in a siege of magma crabs all shooting their magma globs in all directions at the same time at gatling gun speed. It sounds hilarious and FUN :3Yeah, I hope he leaves that behavior in as something that Forgotten Beasts can sometimes have access to.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Drevlin on September 11, 2011, 06:02:10 am
Post by: Dsarker on September 11, 2011, 06:56:36 am
Post by: piecewise on September 11, 2011, 10:30:33 am
Words can not express the awesome.
Post by: Untelligent on September 11, 2011, 01:27:48 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on September 11, 2011, 06:48:11 pm
Post by: penguify on September 11, 2011, 06:51:25 pm
I would like everyone to take a moment and remember that the newest devlog means modders can now make our dwarves breathe swords and puke magma.No, it doesn't. They might be able to breathe swords (depending on how the spider web works: you might be able to replace the web with swords), but magma is definitely a flow, not an item. There is no reason to believe that flows can be produced via interactions.
(Flow is the technical term, right?)
Post by: Matz05 on September 11, 2011, 06:51:41 pm
Just... the image!
Post by: freeformschooler on September 11, 2011, 07:24:57 pm
I would like everyone to take a moment and remember that the newest devlog means modders can now make our dwarves breathe swords and puke magma.No, it doesn't. They might be able to breathe swords (depending on how the spider web works: you might be able to replace the web with swords), but magma is definitely a flow, not an item. There is no reason to believe that flows can be produced via interactions.
(Flow is the technical term, right?)
Man why you gotta go and ruin my funny with your overly serious rebuttal. It was just a joke. Obviously we don't know if they can puke magma, or if we can even properly give them two different breath reactions. But both would be nice.
Post by: jockmo42 on September 11, 2011, 07:55:08 pm
I would like everyone to take a moment and remember that the newest devlog means modders can now make our dwarves breathe swords and puke magma.No, it doesn't. They might be able to breathe swords (depending on how the spider web works: you might be able to replace the web with swords), but magma is definitely a flow, not an item. There is no reason to believe that flows can be produced via interactions.
(Flow is the technical term, right?)
Man why you gotta go and ruin my funny with your overly serious rebuttal. It was just a joke. Obviously we don't know if they can puke magma, or if we can even properly give them two different breath reactions. But both would be nice.
But under your avatar it says it's okay to be cynical!
Post by: freeformschooler on September 11, 2011, 08:00:15 pm
Post by: nil on September 11, 2011, 09:58:47 pm
Well, magma isn't only a flow. Those crabs in the devlogs were shooting out something, after all (Toady doesn't "cludging" it like he does fire) and I'm fairly sure I've seen item/contaminant/whatever adjective-less magma created from some sort of melted item (probably non-ore boulders). Something around the lines of a counterpart to the "water" item found in buckets.I would like everyone to take a moment and remember that the newest devlog means modders can now make our dwarves breathe swords and puke magma.No, it doesn't. They might be able to breathe swords (depending on how the spider web works: you might be able to replace the web with swords), but magma is definitely a flow, not an item. There is no reason to believe that flows can be produced via interactions.
(Flow is the technical term, right?)
Post by: Untelligent on September 11, 2011, 10:00:43 pm
they're like regular rocks but more melted
Post by: Greiger on September 11, 2011, 10:04:01 pm
Honestly I think it's already possible to get dwarves to breath magma. Should just be a matter of giving dwarves a vapor breath attack that uses some kind of stone as a materiel. Should come out molten since vapor is just a liquid that behaves like a gas, and cover whatever it comes in contact with head to toe in very hot magma contaminants.
Post by: caknuck on September 11, 2011, 10:28:52 pm
I would like everyone to take a moment and remember that the newest devlog means modders can now make our dwarves breathe swords and puke magma.
Weaponizing cave adaptation!
Post by: jockmo42 on September 11, 2011, 10:31:41 pm
My personal text has grown increasingly less appropriate over the years, to the point where now it's like the old grandparent you hate but don't smother to death in their sleep because they're a timeless, priceless antique and your aunt would be mad if you did.
Fair enough.
Post by: Aqizzar on September 12, 2011, 02:57:22 am
Quote
Magma crabs were also machine-gunning their magma globs and firing at all visible targets at once... that's sorted now.
Oh Hell yes, magma crabs. I modded in magma crabs like three years ago, and had not realized until now that they exist in the new version. They are the only crabs in the game at this point, but that's fine.
Y'know, machinegunning fireballs may not have been too out of character all things considered, but oh well. Maybe it'll be possible to re-machine them.
Post by: MasterMorality on September 12, 2011, 06:33:10 am
machine-gun-lava-spraying magma crabs? God damn that's awesome.
Post by: Neonivek on September 12, 2011, 11:03:25 am
That way we can have creatures who breathe clouds of jagged glass.
Actually wait... I don't think that would be possible even WITH projectile glass... as it would just be shooting a peice of glass rather then a cloud of jagged glass.
Hmm which makes me wonder when we will get creatures made up of smaller creatures (swarms as creatures, or creatures of maggots, or people made of snakes)
I wonder, wait, actually.
Post by: Untelligent on September 12, 2011, 01:54:17 pm
Post by: Dienes on September 12, 2011, 02:01:47 pm
I am starting to wonder how close we are to firing objects as projectiles (other then globs)
That way we can have creatures who breathe clouds of jagged glass.
I'm hoping that someone will find a way to make a monster breathe clouds of monsters that will attack.
Post by: Caldfir on September 12, 2011, 02:28:28 pm
Post by: monk12 on September 12, 2011, 02:33:33 pm
Post by: CharlesPeter on September 12, 2011, 08:06:20 pm
Post by: Dienes on September 12, 2011, 10:37:04 pm
Wasn't there somebody trying to make chickens lay bees? Similar concepts may apply, for to make Bee Breath.Last I heard you could only make rather buggy useless bees. But it might be possible to then do an interaction on the bee to turn it into a werewolf or something. Then it would wander, possibly invisible, around the map and once a month turn into a blood thirsty monster.
Although depending on how robust the interaction system is it may also be possible to have a material breathe attack of a placeholder material and an interaction on that material that animates it as a creature in a bizarre pseudo necromancy.
Post by: Xen0n on September 13, 2011, 02:17:21 pm
Could you make dogs with bees in their mouths and when they bark they shoot bees at you? Are we getting closer to a version where that could be reality?
This. This idea has been mulling in my head ever since I heard about the bee-laying chicken experiment, but I have not yet mustered a Competent level of Rawsmith to attempt it.
Post by: Greiger on September 13, 2011, 06:45:15 pm
When it rains, instead of dwarves melting they just catch on fire. ;)
Post by: caknuck on September 13, 2011, 09:32:06 pm
Quote from: Toady One
The player-controlled dragonfire worked on all those elves in the arena...
A man who knows his audience.
Quote from: Toady One
...and things will actually catch on fire now instead of just melting.
Dwarven funeral pyres!
Post by: freeformschooler on September 13, 2011, 09:45:26 pm
Post by: caknuck on September 13, 2011, 09:53:43 pm
Post by: NobodyPro on September 13, 2011, 10:28:05 pm
Just wish I could see the pages of issues.
Post by: Untelligent on September 14, 2011, 12:07:11 am
Wait. Is catching on fire as a living thing something new entirely? I don't think I've seen anything except objects be on fire!
No, they caught fire back before 31.1. That release overhauled a bunch of different systems and apparently bjorked the temperature system in the process. Fire was very nasty in the past; if a dwarf caught fire, it probably wouldn't be long before most of your other dwarves were on fire too.
Next release'll be awesome!
Inching closer to release. It's just so close to being finished. EA would have already released it :P .
And sell the bits they didn't finish as DLC later.
Post by: Chronas on September 14, 2011, 12:51:33 am
I was under the impression that the clothing was what was on fire when dwarves ignited.Wait. Is catching on fire as a living thing something new entirely? I don't think I've seen anything except objects be on fire!No, they caught fire back before 31.1. That release overhauled a bunch of different systems and apparently bjorked the temperature system in the process. Fire was very nasty in the past; if a dwarf caught fire, it probably wouldn't be long before most of your other dwarves were on fire too.
Post by: Alu on September 14, 2011, 02:46:00 am
If you use Dragon Fire on a Bronze Golem, will it burn or melt now?
I think, it should melt, because Dragon Fire is supposed to be really hot :>
Or maybe you could add a heat level for creatures made of metal, so it would be possible to melt it after several bursts of Dragon Fire.
Post by: Footkerchief on September 14, 2011, 09:57:03 am
You say you fixed items from melting by Dragon Fire.
If you use Dragon Fire on a Bronze Golem, will it burn or melt now?
I think, it should melt, because Dragon Fire is supposed to be really hot :>
Or maybe you could add a heat level for creatures made of metal, so it would be possible to melt it after several bursts of Dragon Fire.
Bronze isn't flammable, and bronze golems already melt in dragon fire. The point of the devlog was that things that should catch on fire will now do so in addition to melting, rather than melting and nothing else. Things that should not catch on fire (bronze) will continue to just melt.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on September 14, 2011, 10:40:16 am
Post by: Flink on September 14, 2011, 11:24:25 am
1. With all the new trading stuff, will there be a way to sell more than you got(f.e. for coins)? Will there be a treasury where all my valuables can be stored?
2. Once something has been build, it never deacays/gets damaged and right now, this kinda slows down the late game, as you do not need to build as many beds and other stuff any more(except for trading). This is kinda bad, because you have more dwarfs in each profession, but less to do for them.
Will there be damage and maybe even a technican/repairman profession?
3. As new dwarfs join the fortress because of it's wealth, wouldn't it be just normal, if they left when things got bad? Maybe they take some of my gold and leave to settle somewhere else a.s.o.
4. Will there be a chance to cure insanity someday? Maybe... with some kind of potion?
5. ... will there be potions / alchemy? I can already harvest and process gathered plants. Right now I don't use this a lot, because there is always loads of food in a "normal" fortress. So why not use the spare plumpo helmets to make some strong anti-dragon poison ;)
6. Will there ever be a way to prevent dwarfs form reproducing and emigrating? It would be kinda cool if one could change community settings with mandates so fortress growth can be controlled a little better.
Post by: monk12 on September 14, 2011, 11:51:07 am
Post by: G-Flex on September 14, 2011, 01:26:16 pm
Post by: MasterMorality on September 14, 2011, 03:44:32 pm
Post by: Chronas on September 14, 2011, 07:15:58 pm
Anybody else want to fire a corpse from a catapult?Fire a living thing from drawbridge. i can assure you, most of them will be a corpse when they land.
Post by: Dsarker on September 14, 2011, 08:23:07 pm
Anybody else want to fire a corpse from a catapult?Fire a living thing from drawbridge. i can assure you, most of them will be a corpse when they land.
All of them will be a corpse. Some of them won't be still attached.
Post by: EveryZig on September 14, 2011, 09:17:39 pm
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on September 15, 2011, 02:22:16 am
So if creatures can breathe items, can you can make a ballista-beast that shoots like an actual ballista, or does item-breath just drop the items at the target's location?
Do you mean ballista bolt? or like an actual ballista that then fires ballista bolts? Like a tower defense beast.
Post by: runiq on September 15, 2011, 03:13:03 am
So if creatures can breathe items, can you can make a ballista-beast that shoots like an actual ballista, or does item-breath just drop the items at the target's location?
Do you mean ballista bolt? or like an actual ballista that then fires ballista bolts? Like a tower defense beast.
I'd like to see cats that can puke cats.
…please disregard me, I'm just posting to follow.
Post by: LordDemon on September 15, 2011, 07:00:15 am
I'd assume it would make sense. You might not be able to swim, and diving into a moat with full plate is a bad idea anyway, but it would give you a bit more time. Anyone know if water mist puts out fires in game?
edit: Cleared the green text up a abit.
Post by: Greiger on September 15, 2011, 07:10:14 am
But at the same time that could be really hard to implement. Does the pathing even recognize water as such? Does it only see it as something that blocks movement? What if it recognizes liquids but doesn't distinguish between water and magma? Would Urist McOhgodmyflesh jump into a pool of magma to sooth his burning flesh? Those are the burning questions.
Post by: zwei on September 15, 2011, 08:15:33 am
Would Urist McOhgodmyflesh jump into a pool of magma to sooth his burning flesh? Those are the burning questions.
Urist McSnakeOilUser: I am burning, lets cure this with tiny drop of magma dissolved in magma!
Post by: Xen0n on September 15, 2011, 08:38:52 am
Would Urist McOhgodmyflesh jump into a pool of magma to sooth his burning flesh? Those are the burning questions.
Urist McSnakeOilUser: I am burning, lets cure this with tiny drop of magma dissolved in magma!
Hair of the dog that bit you, and all that.
Post by: EveryZig on September 15, 2011, 10:10:59 am
I mean shooting ballista bolts the same way a ballista shoots them; doing damage to creatures and sometimes passing through them.So if creatures can breathe items, can you can make a ballista-beast that shoots like an actual ballista, or does item-breath just drop the items at the target's location?
Do you mean ballista bolt? or like an actual ballista that then fires ballista bolts? Like a tower defense beast.
Post by: LordDemon on September 15, 2011, 11:40:21 am
But at the same time that could be really hard to implement. Does the pathing even recognize water as such? Does it only see it as something that blocks movement? What if it recognizes liquids but doesn't distinguish between water and magma? Would Urist McOhgodmyflesh jump into a pool of magma to sooth his burning flesh? Those are the burning questions.
Interesting point. One could test this with secluded "island" that has moat with ramps, and something on the island to dump, or other similar thing forcing target on island. Interests mostly include "does pathfinding get limited if:
a) there is any water
b)certain amount of water (more then 4/7 for example)
c)never
Does the possible swimming skill have effect?
Then repeat this test with magma moat for complete set of test data.
Post by: penguify on September 15, 2011, 05:05:05 pm
If they can swim, they will path through the water, but will interrupt their job due to unstable terrain or somesuch as soon as they enter the water.But at the same time that could be really hard to implement. Does the pathing even recognize water as such? Does it only see it as something that blocks movement? What if it recognizes liquids but doesn't distinguish between water and magma? Would Urist McOhgodmyflesh jump into a pool of magma to sooth his burning flesh? Those are the burning questions.
Interesting point. One could test this with secluded "island" that has moat with ramps, and something on the island to dump, or other similar thing forcing target on island. Interests mostly include "does pathfinding get limited if:
a) there is any water
b)certain amount of water (more then 4/7 for example)
c)never
Does the possible swimming skill have effect?
Then repeat this test with magma moat for complete set of test data.
Post by: LordDemon on September 16, 2011, 02:28:30 am
(Will they happily wade through 2/7 water for example?)
Post by: Rockphed on September 16, 2011, 11:28:30 am
Does any amount of water do, or does i require amount of water that makes them swim?
(Will they happily wade through 2/7 water for example?)
I know that dwarves will cancel construction of walls that are submerged in more than 1/7 water. This was my bain in a fortress with an aquifer in sand.
Post by: Caldfir on September 16, 2011, 12:00:43 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on September 16, 2011, 07:55:29 pm
I don't think the "dwarves on fire" thing is late to the party because of some sort of technical issue. It is likely just another thing that's been somewhere on a to-do-list that has never been gotten around to. I do have to admit that it seems past due at this point though. Being able to determine you are on fire and react in a sane way seems like a higher priority than necromancy, but yeah, every bit of coding takes time.
I'm pretty sure Toady did mention before, that stuff like that would require a rewrite of the dwarf AI and that he is putting that off until later. IIRC, it's because he is planning on adding something eventually that requires a total rewrite of the dwarf AI and it would be pointless to totally rewrite the AI twice. He mentions a similar idea with the siege AI. He said something along the lines of he could improve the siege AI now or wait until after he adds moving fortress components which will require a rewrite anyhow.
The idea is: Yes, there are things that could have been added already. But if you have to tear it down later and rebuild it again, was it worth it? In the end, he saves time by delaying a feature until other features that might require said feature to be implemented in a certain way are developed or implemented enough that he does not have to go back and change it later.
Blah blah blah, for some reason I don't feel like shutting up today... :-X
Post by: dwarf_reform on September 16, 2011, 09:57:48 pm
Toady, I love you, sir. You are as majestic as a unicorn in a good biome :)
I just wanted to say that in this wild and wide world of games I check the df front page almost every single day just to know that df is growing. Wanted you to know that of all other available options and approaching games good old df is practically all I'm truly on the edge of my seat waiting on..
I'd gladly give up ever playing Diablo 3 to see df finished in a magical flash :O
I know that we are the real dwarves and after we're all dead that the next generation will be modding and expanding df :P Like migrants arriving :D
And then realizing that I'd prod you with a cattle prod just to get df done faster got me thinking about the pressure you're under, with all these people looking at you like you're the only cook in the middle of a famine :D To write you must read, and to create an awesome game you must game.. Just dont see how you ever get a minute to unwind and be lazy :( And of course I'd never prod anyone.. The carrot-and-stick approach doesn't leave the smell of burned hair in the air ;)
It is a large hat to wear, sir, and I'm glad as anything that it is not on my head :P If it must be a hat then I hope its a gardening hat, the ones with solar panels and battery packs that power the tiny built-in fan to keep your face nice and cool..
I definately plan on donating in the near future. Df is adamantine and there should be some kind of lava for enjoying it..
In one grammatically correct sentence: DF are the greatest.
Maybe I should have just posted that instead of all the cattle prod stuff :|
Post by: penguify on September 17, 2011, 09:32:49 pm
And will the healing behavior be controllable (via modding) later on, once wounds are saved?
Post by: Neonivek on September 17, 2011, 11:26:14 pm
Are severs regrown when regaining original form?
And will the healing behavior be controllable (via modding) later on, once wounds are saved?
If I remember correctly shifting forms as it is currently entirely heals the creature in question.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on September 18, 2011, 12:27:01 am
Post by: Neonivek on September 18, 2011, 12:42:02 am
hm...but do the wounds reappear when you turn back into the shifted shape? can't recall if there's a word on that
I believe it heals a creature to perfection everytime. For now...
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on September 18, 2011, 12:48:14 am
Post by: Neonivek on September 18, 2011, 01:07:31 am
that seems a bit too benign... i guess we'll never lose dwarves to infection, from now on... and olin the lame will be walking again
I hope Olin can survive until then, you know with severe bodily trauma... and I hope those dwarves don't die of infection before the transformation.
Post by: Keldane on September 18, 2011, 02:38:40 am
Post by: Chronas on September 18, 2011, 03:43:52 am
So now, as an alternative to healthcare, we can have controlled infection camps and in-fortress castes of dwarves separated by whether or not they're werebeasts? Interesting. Who will use their werebeast dwarves as disposable creatures, the lowest class of society, and who will treat them as kings?I'd use them as redshirts. doing the cavern exploration, dangerous digging and frontline defense. I'd keep 2 wardogs on them at all times just in case i havent locked them up for the full moon.
Post by: darkflagrance on September 18, 2011, 04:06:39 am
So now, as an alternative to healthcare, we can have controlled infection camps and in-fortress castes of dwarves separated by whether or not they're werebeasts? Interesting. Who will use their werebeast dwarves as disposable creatures, the lowest class of society, and who will treat them as kings?I'd use them as redshirts. doing the cavern exploration, dangerous digging and frontline defense. I'd keep 2 wardogs on them at all times just in case i havent locked them up for the full moon.
Ugh, the roleplaying potential for this kind of usage in a community fort or something similar is too much. Imagine two dwarves wandering into the cavern wilderness, prepared to devote their lives to their mountainhome but shunned by everyone else because they were the children of dwarves infected with a werebeast syndrome and treated like the dregs of society, unable even to enter the grand meeting hall that the other dwarves rave about for fear that they transform inside it. Even as they undertake the only line of work available to them - expendable scouts of the darkness - they warily watch each other, each fearing that the other will transform and, forgetting their friendship forged in adversity, kill him. The two trusted wardogs with them love them as dwarves and defend them against cavern beasts, having saved their lives on multiple occasions by acting as distractions or killing helmet snakes before they could inject their feared venom, but at the same time both dwarves are aware that the dogs they love will turn on them without pause if they turn into the monsters the fortress abhors and despises.
Post by: Dakk on September 18, 2011, 11:07:28 am
So now, as an alternative to healthcare, we can have controlled infection camps and in-fortress castes of dwarves separated by whether or not they're werebeasts? Interesting. Who will use their werebeast dwarves as disposable creatures, the lowest class of society, and who will treat them as kings?
Burn the heretic, kill the mutant, purge the unclean.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on September 18, 2011, 11:25:39 am
that seems a bit too benign... i guess we'll never lose dwarves to infection, from now on... and olin the lame will be walking again
I hope Olin can survive until then, you know with severe bodily trauma... and I hope those dwarves don't die of infection before the transformation.
we'll have an indicator of the moon phases, so we can prepare beforehand and lockup our infected dwarves... maybe this isn't so bad, from a roleplaying perspective it does sound cool, but this kind of things usually become memetic cliques, oftet thought of as the only way of playing the game. i fear this will do to hospitals and surgeons what danger rooms did to proper routines
Post by: EveryZig on September 18, 2011, 11:33:22 am
Will legendary combat skills make for tougher werebeasts?
Post by: jellsprout on September 18, 2011, 12:09:26 pm
Post by: Neonivek on September 18, 2011, 12:19:21 pm
How exactly do you plan on injuring your dwarf during a werewolf attack without killing either dwarf? Especially if one dwarf is a cripple.
There are so many questions as to how to even make a Werewolf fort even viable without fudging things in your favor.
Also in mythology it wasn't uncommon for lycantropes to have regained their limbs even while in human form. (though one I saw the werewolf COULD regenerate his limbs, but if it was cut off he had to find it in order to use it)
Post by: EveryZig on September 18, 2011, 12:27:44 pm
How exactly do you plan on injuring your dwarf during a werewolf attack without killing either dwarf? Especially if one dwarf is a cripple.I think were-things are naturally hard to kill, and with the other dwarf I plan to try things such as locked doors or floor hatches. (For example, I could make a room with a checkerboard of floor and one z level drops. Once a dwarf gets bitten, I have a lever pulled to open the hatches until one falls through but not the other.)
Post by: Cruxador on September 18, 2011, 03:16:11 pm
How exactly do you plan on injuring your dwarf during a werewolf attack without killing either dwarf? Especially if one dwarf is a cripple.There will be a substantial loss of population before the fort is converted entirely to werebeasts, I imagine.
Post by: Keldane on September 18, 2011, 03:39:39 pm
So now, as an alternative to healthcare, we can have controlled infection camps and in-fortress castes of dwarves separated by whether or not they're werebeasts? Interesting. Who will use their werebeast dwarves as disposable creatures, the lowest class of society, and who will treat them as kings?
Burn the heretic, kill the mutant, purge the unclean.
You, sir, get my vote for mayor. Especially if your mandates have to do with your comment.
As for Werebeast Medical, I suspect that it won't prove viable in the majority of forts. While danger rooms can be constructed almost completely under player control, werebeast medical facilities require a random attack that results in an infection and not a death. The random chance factor seems a little too major for it to become commonplace, depending on how widespread and common werebeasts are in fortress mode.
Post by: Dienes on September 18, 2011, 04:34:16 pm
Having the treatment occur on a retracting bridge or lever operated hatches 1 level above cage traps would also let you end the fight quickly after infection without causing too much more damage.
Post by: fivex on September 18, 2011, 06:31:02 pm
Wasn't there somebody trying to make chickens lay bees? Similar concepts may apply, for to make Bee Breath.I was that person, and I DID eventually get it working! If it becomes possible to specify what type of item you want shot, then, yes, it will be possible to have Bee Breath.
Post by: Cruxador on September 18, 2011, 06:34:28 pm
As for Werebeast Medical, I suspect that it won't prove viable in the majority of forts. While danger rooms can be constructed almost completely under player control, werebeast medical facilities require a random attack that results in an infection and not a death. The random chance factor seems a little too major for it to become commonplace, depending on how widespread and common werebeasts are in fortress mode.It would hardly be an exact science, but a topside dormitory populated by cripples would probably see decent results.
Of course, if the cripple can't move himself there, that could cause problems. You might want to put your entire infirmary topside.
Post by: rhesusmacabre on September 19, 2011, 08:40:42 am
Sorry.
Post by: EveryZig on September 19, 2011, 11:52:43 pm
How will supply and demand effect / not effect created/displayed wealth?
Post by: kasan on September 20, 2011, 12:44:57 am
If there a post/link/article/single place where it lists what's been confirmed/expected or likely to be in the next release to us?
I keep seeing in various threads comments eluding to features that are slated to be in the next release but I'm having a damnable time checking to see whats coming out in the build vs whats coming out in much later builds.
Post by: MrWiggles on September 20, 2011, 01:00:21 am
A thought occurs:
How will supply and demand effect / not effect created/displayed wealth?
This will be answered during release six.
Post by: Cruxador on September 20, 2011, 03:32:20 am
dumb question:https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1u8jibE1TV7BAwAI2b4TzRkWFlBboLiXMrVBhYmDYPhI&pli=1
If there a post/link/article/single place where it lists what's been confirmed/expected or likely to be in the next release to us?
I keep seeing in various threads comments eluding to features that are slated to be in the next release but I'm having a damnable time checking to see whats coming out in the build vs whats coming out in much later builds.
Post by: kaypy on September 20, 2011, 06:29:37 am
Hmm. On that note:
If someone gives birth while under were-transformation, what do they give birth to?
I can't help but hope for "invalid pointer reference causes transformed dwarf to give birth to forgotten beast/HFS"
Post by: Lofn on September 20, 2011, 08:25:07 am
Post by: EveryZig on September 20, 2011, 09:35:38 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on September 20, 2011, 09:50:37 am
Post by: Knight Otu on September 20, 2011, 11:54:43 am
If someone gives birth while under were-transformation, what do they give birth to?Given that were-creatures are apparently implemented as a separate creature definition that lacks any kind of caste and gender, and that only female can give birth, I'd expect that this can't actually happen, and that existing pregnancies are postponed until after the transformation. If for some reason a werebeast does manage to give birth (perhaps through modding), I'd expect the child to be a full-fledged beast type without a human (dwarf, goblin, kobold) side.
Quote from: HephCan weres-somethings breed with each other respecktive theyr former spouses or do they do they do it like the hags etc. and turn someone? Also how fast is the change and when will the infected person realisize that s/he is cursed? Can they control there power/were-form (maybe depending on theyr willpower)? Will they have a chance to get cured?
Right now they are without castes/gender/etc., just to avoid dealing with matching things up for now, so they don't do anything after a permanent switch. The curse transformation can be permanent or periodic....
Post by: jellsprout on September 20, 2011, 03:11:16 pm
Post by: TheChosen on September 21, 2011, 01:06:42 am
The question is are they still vulnerable somehow? Do they die by decapitation?
If so, the first swordsman Im gonna make in that version is so gonna be immortal, and he will hunt down the rest of them, because in the end....
Post by: thvaz on September 21, 2011, 03:00:50 am
I read that there's gonna be immortality, possibility for both players and NPC's.
The question is are they still vulnerable somehow? Do they die by decapitation?
If so, the first swordsman Im gonna make in that version is so gonna be immortal, and he will hunt down the rest of them, because in the end....
Immortality rarely means unkillable.
Post by: zwei on September 21, 2011, 03:56:36 am
I read that there's gonna be immortality, possibility for both players and NPC's.
The question is are they still vulnerable somehow? Do they die by decapitation?
If so, the first swordsman Im gonna make in that version is so gonna be immortal, and he will hunt down the rest of them, because in the end....
Immortality rarely means unkillable.
Indded, It usually means removal of aging (and rapid aging to death if immortality is stripped)
Post by: Dsarker on September 21, 2011, 04:52:02 am
I read that there's gonna be immortality, possibility for both players and NPC's.
The question is are they still vulnerable somehow? Do they die by decapitation?
If so, the first swordsman Im gonna make in that version is so gonna be immortal, and he will hunt down the rest of them, because in the end....
Immortality rarely means unkillable.
Indded, It usually means removal of aging (and rapid aging to death if immortality is stripped)
Considering some of the interactions are said to completely heal you....
Post by: zwei on September 21, 2011, 05:07:18 am
I read that there's gonna be immortality, possibility for both players and NPC's.
The question is are they still vulnerable somehow? Do they die by decapitation?
If so, the first swordsman Im gonna make in that version is so gonna be immortal, and he will hunt down the rest of them, because in the end....
Immortality rarely means unkillable.
Indded, It usually means removal of aging (and rapid aging to death if immortality is stripped)
Considering some of the interactions are said to completely heal you....
Those can be two different secrets...
Besides, I can see pretty much every adventurer of the note to eventually become immortal werewolf necromancer.
Post by: Dsarker on September 21, 2011, 05:11:50 am
I read that there's gonna be immortality, possibility for both players and NPC's.
The question is are they still vulnerable somehow? Do they die by decapitation?
If so, the first swordsman Im gonna make in that version is so gonna be immortal, and he will hunt down the rest of them, because in the end....
Immortality rarely means unkillable.
Indded, It usually means removal of aging (and rapid aging to death if immortality is stripped)
Considering some of the interactions are said to completely heal you....
Those can be two different secrets...
Besides, I can see pretty much every adventurer of the note to eventually become immortal werewolf necromancer.
I was assuming he meant the healing one, not necessarily the eternal life one.
Post by: TheChosen on September 21, 2011, 06:49:14 am
I read that there's gonna be immortality, possibility for both players and NPC's.
The question is are they still vulnerable somehow? Do they die by decapitation?
If so, the first swordsman Im gonna make in that version is so gonna be immortal, and he will hunt down the rest of them, because in the end....
Immortality rarely means unkillable.
Indded, It usually means removal of aging (and rapid aging to death if immortality is stripped)
Considering some of the interactions are said to completely heal you....
Those can be two different secrets...
Besides, I can see pretty much every adventurer of the note to eventually become immortal werewolf necromancer.
I was assuming he meant the healing one, not necessarily the eternal life one.
I didnt actually think there was a difference. Besides, what good is of immortality to player character if its only age related? I dont think many have spend in-game years in adventure mode.
Post by: zwei on September 21, 2011, 07:05:28 am
I read that there's gonna be immortality, possibility for both players and NPC's.
The question is are they still vulnerable somehow? Do they die by decapitation?
If so, the first swordsman Im gonna make in that version is so gonna be immortal, and he will hunt down the rest of them, because in the end....
Immortality rarely means unkillable.
Indded, It usually means removal of aging (and rapid aging to death if immortality is stripped)
Considering some of the interactions are said to completely heal you....
Those can be two different secrets...
Besides, I can see pretty much every adventurer of the note to eventually become immortal werewolf necromancer.
I was assuming he meant the healing one, not necessarily the eternal life one.
I didnt actually think there was a difference. Besides, what good is of immortality to player character if its only age related? I dont think many have spend in-game years in adventure mode.
On the other hand, historical figures can find it usefull. As can dwarves in dwarf mode. Enough time to watch pyramids grow and whatnot.
Post by: Knight Otu on September 21, 2011, 07:12:37 am
Necromancers are the ones that achieve immortality (though the first werebeast of a type might stick around). They'll still be as allergic to sudden weapon exposure as before per the devlog, though they'll have several layers of undead around them before that happens (and potentially other tricks).
Whether vampires can transform hasn't been actually revealed yet, to the best of my knowledge, though it was a goal. Even then, the transformation ought to be more of an escape chance than a quick heal (especially as transforming creatures lose their stuff).
Besides, what good is of immortality to player character if its only age related? I dont think many have spend in-game years in adventure mode.Retire the immortal, play a long fortress with a mass of artifacts, then take over the fortress with your army of zombies and ghouls once the fortress inevitably falls. Then, rule the world (Okay, parts of this may have to wait).
Post by: Johuotar on September 21, 2011, 07:16:34 am
Post by: Neonivek on September 21, 2011, 08:19:10 am
Quote
Whether vampires can transform hasn't been actually revealed yet, to the best of my knowledge, though it was a goal.
They have vermin transformation.
Quote
Immortality is not even rare since all elfs and gobbos are already immortal
True, immortality is quite common. Megabeasts and Semimegabeasts are also, to my knowledge at least, immortal. Along with quite a few other creatures.
Mind you, I highly suspect some of them won't be immortal once proper breeding is implimented.
Post by: penguify on September 21, 2011, 01:26:12 pm
Edit in:
Could you upload the example interaction folder early, so modders can get acquainted with it sooner?
Post by: Fieari on September 21, 2011, 08:20:32 pm
What can you "learn" from books? How does one learn to read?
Post by: monk12 on September 21, 2011, 08:35:18 pm
Is there a variety of subjects/genres?
Can the player write as well as read?
Do they show up any place other than necromancer towers?
Can books be made in dwarf mode?
Are books on the short list for recreational items when the tavern/inn update comes?
Whee books! Half these questions will probably be obsolete in a day or two, but still, gotta ask!
Post by: Hiiri on September 21, 2011, 09:25:48 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on September 21, 2011, 11:02:02 pm
Cities, new night creatures, sewers, catacombs, temples, monuments, even books.
I certainly going to take a stab at some of these new features and I can wait to see the rest.
You know, that bit about books really got me thinking. Someday in this game it might be possible
to walk into a library and start reading around for info on treasures, hidden locations, and creatures.
In your studies, you travel far and wide to the libraries of all the major cities. One day, you read a
book of fairy tales that tells about a town you are familiar with and how an artifact of great power
was hidden there long ago. You slowly begin to find similar tales, some that expand the story, some
that twist it, and other that embellish it. Eventually, you track down a version of the story with more
details and use it to track down the artifact.
Something, like this might be possible someday. I mean the game already keeps track of historical events.
Once people can write, sing, and tell fictional stories, they can incorporate history in the tales. Since there
is already plans for more personalities, the changes made to a historical account can be based on the
story-teller's preferences. In example, the artifact might be a wooden amulet, but someone might like gold and
decide a golden amulet is better for the story. (Though I guess it could just as easily be changed to a wooden
cabinet by the right person.)
The day DF is capable of that, will be a fine day indeed. I mean the game can already put together interesting
stories, but just think of what it might someday be capable of is astounding.
Post by: Toady One on September 22, 2011, 12:24:37 am
Quote from: Mephansteras
I've been wondering what your idea of a Hill Dwarf settlement is. Do you have a specific idea in mind right now for what those settlements will look like, or is that something you haven't really gotten too far into thinking about yet? The dwarven ability to combine above and below ground aspects seems like it lends itself to a lot of variation.
Yeah, and hill dwarf is just a name, since the settlements external to your fort will also possibly include deep groups you've sent to colonize the underground layers which could be massively cave-adapted and somewhat alien, in addition to others along the mountains rather than in lower-lying lands. We don't really have specific images in mind though. For the low-lying ones, we don't want it to end up human, but we don't want it to exactly be hobbity either, since that would be sort of a hack job. Perhaps most of their farming would still be underground, as odd and disrespectful of the sun as that is. I'm not sure what the main restrictions are... that it can't be more fortressy than your fort, I suppose, although it could be more wally.
Quote from: Mephansteras
With adventurer sites, are we going to see people building their own homes/shops/farms/etc? Or is it going to end up like fortress mode, where the player designates everything and then the people go and do the work?
If they do end up building their own stuff, will that eventually be an option in fortress mode? It'd be interesting, especially as the fortress gets larger and the player is focused more on world/army stuff, to be able to give your dwarves a lot more autonomy.
I'm not sure on the specifics, but we're aiming for it not to be like fortress mode, since we have that. Ideally, it would feel like you fill whatever role you actually fill. So if it's your place to order somebody to do something, you can do it, but that doesn't mean they have to do it. We'll have to concede ground to game stuff, but that's the idea. Since you start from nothing, presumably, they could end up with more freedom than the preexisting sites, since things need to be built. I'm not sure about fortress mode either. We had just started on that back in the beginning, with the shops, where they'd pick the type of shop and buy inventories for them and then sell them (however that's supposed to work with the whatever the economy was). It's something to think about with the upcoming taverns there. Should they be able to set those up, or do their own room furniture? There are styles of play that will undoubtedly conflict there.
Quote from: jimi12
So Toady, what else do you plan on implementing before this release is over?
The last big question regards the night creatures we didn't get to. Stalkers and constructed undead, new ghosts and animated furniture and things. It's not clear what'll happen there. I'm going to continue on with the things that need to happen, and we'll see later on if I put any of those in. It's hard to say how I'll feel about it then. Releasing would be good, but I won't know until I get there.
Quote from: Dienes
Is there any plan to have undead scale with the power of the necromancer?
Eventually it'll be a full magic system with a whole lot of scaling sort of things and tweaks and specific personalized alterations to effects and various coolness, but for now it is utterly dull.
Quote from: Dienes
And will there be any way to connect interactions to something like a crafted item type or building type?
It isn't currently there. As a generalized magic system, it's definitely supposed to touch upon all of that, but it hasn't done so yet. It's a time/priority thing as usual.
Quote from: erissian
Is it possible to drag a dwarf and everything on them to a corpse stockpile before looting their body for socks? Could it be treated like a special case of moving an injured dwarf? Can properly buried dwarfs be raised?
Nothing has changed so that's not possible. The hope sometime is to get that done, but it invites a horror of bugs. If a necromancer gets a tile-wise line of sight on a body, including those in your coffins, then the body can be raised. I think because the body becomes a unit, a ghost probably won't additionally be disturbed, but once you knock out the zombie... I'm not sure. It would physically match the old dwarf in id, and so possibly excite a ghost, but it wouldn't have the right historical or unit id, so maybe not. Probably not...
Quote from: Darthhaha
Is it possible for an Interaction to add someone into an entity, for Vampire Civilisations and such
There isn't an effect like that right now.
Quote from: Willfor
Are there plans to complete the XML dump in the near future, or is this a very low priority?
I generally add some things to the dump each time, but sitting down and completely it entirely in one go has associated snags so it hasn't happened. There will be more done for next time, but holes as well.
Quote from: Dr. D
For a question, will there be more mundane problems in cities for adventurers to take care of, such as the ever-popular dwarf mode task of dealing with as swarm of feral cats?
As the life of people becomes more complicated, this will be more natural, but right now they don't have lives. Once they have life goals etc. from the personality rewrite, we'll be at the starting point of one of our overarching conceptual goals, which is to allow you to pick out a person or family and help them indefinitely, as a sort of proof-of-dynamic-world thing, even if it is a strange thing to do. That still wouldn't necessarily get at the mundane side of life, but it would be related.
Quote from: Greendogo
Will the following ever be possible?: Your adventurer and his companions are taken captive and sold to a slave caravan transporting them deep underground to the caverns for days, joining in with the other inmates and captured subterranean folk to fight off attacking underground monsters while the evil goblins and dwarves who captured you bet on survivors, finally ending your trek in a deep slavery trade depot, whereupon non-player characters are sold for hard labor and the player character must somewhere along the way devise his escape.
There are precursor elements for that in world gen and you can find slaves in adventure mode that came about from world gen. Natural extensions of these systems would involve the player in whatever way, but as with everything, it currently sits as it sits.
Quote from: Halconnen
On the topic of wrestling, especially with the prospect of zombies getting iron grips, are there any plans on making the grapples generally more detailed? I sort of had to imagine a particularily brawny (mass advantage?) adventurer just going and dragging zombies latched onto him along if he cannot break their grips. Perhaps to intentionally haul himself (and the latched zombiepile) off of a cliff while praying in order to get out of that situation.
Yeah, there are a slew of dev things on wrestling, and dragging was in there. Combat arcish, whenever that happens.
Quote from: Cruxador
How exactly does the syndrome and/or interactions involved in drinking vampire blood work? How much of that process is part of the interaction system itself?
And on a related note: How would an adventurer learn about the properties that a certain vampire type would have? Will there usually be enough information for an adventurer to make a decision dealing with whether he wants to drink the blood or not?
It's all the interaction system. The blood is linked to the historical figure, and the historical figure has a syndrome that carries body transformation information. There is no vampire creature definition, so there are no new materials, so it has to run a trace essentially when you eat any material attached to a specific being. If it loses the connection as it sometimes does between historical figure and generic creature, then the blood would just be, say, "human blood" and have no transformation capability.
The notes up online had things about entity groups that would tell you about vampire capabilities and so on, but we didn't do that, so there isn't much of anything now. Of course, there isn't much variety now either, so it doesn't matter much.
Quote from: Rockphed
Currently dwarves in fortress mode will carry other dwarves who are injured to their beds or a hospital. What obstacles stop invaders and adventurers from carrying comrades?
Time and priority, same as everything. Nothing really consequential. I guess the invaders need to give a crap about anything before they'd do that.
Quote
Quote from: NobodyProI couldn't help but notice that gremlins (only creature with the [MISCHEVIOUS] tag) have a maximum of 1 per (season/year/area?).
Would this count as a bug, a leftover from previous versions or intentional design?Quote from: Untelligent[POPULATION_NUMBER:1:1]
That determines the overall population, which isn't really important, rather than the attack rate. Was it something else?
Quote from: jimi12
How urgent is the need for a vampire to feed? Will they starve to death or grow weaker if they don't feed for a long time? Or is it more like a somemthing they are just driven to do without any real benefits to themselves other than filling their bloodlust?
Nothing special yet.
Quote from: caknuck
If flammable objects (cloth, wood furniture, booze, hair, etc...) catch fire, do they eventually exhaust their fuel and leave a "bar" of ash behind? Or do they burn indefinitely like the "bin o' flaming lignite" of the past?
Nothing has changed about this, but a lot of objects have always burned and disappeared, rather than leaving something or burning forever. It's all still the same. It's just the firebreath/fireball effect that has changed.
Quote from: EveryZig
So if creatures can breathe items, can you can make a ballista-beast that shoots like an actual ballista, or does item-breath just drop the items at the target's location?
It's not that versatile, but more might end up happening.
Quote from: LordDemon
Is there/will there be some sort of panic mode for them[creatures on fire], so that they would dive into water/roll on ground to put out the fire?
I suppose that has been sitting on the back burner for years, and it hasn't been moving either.
Quote from: penguify
Are severs regrown when regaining original form?
And will the healing behavior be controllable (via modding) later on, once wounds are saved?
Yeah, the body is currently rebuilt. Hard to say what'll be possible later. Any change will be in the raws, anyway.
Quote from: EveryZig
Will legendary combat skills make for tougher werebeasts?
The generalized fighting skills as well as the biting and grasp attack style skills will all be used, as the soul is the same. An adventurer could also pick up their weapon as it stands.
Quote from: EveryZig
How will supply and demand effect / not effect created/displayed wealth?
Dunno yet. It's definitely something that'll need to be addressed though, since the numbers will all become fluid/meaningless.
Quote
Quote from: kaypyIf someone gives birth while under were-transformation, what do they give birth to?Quote from: Knight OtuGiven that were-creatures are apparently implemented as a separate creature definition that lacks any kind of caste and gender, and that only female can give birth, I'd expect that this can't actually happen, and that existing pregnancies are postponed until after the transformation. If for some reason a werebeast does manage to give birth (perhaps through modding), I'd expect the child to be a full-fledged beast type without a human (dwarf, goblin, kobold) side.
If I recollect, it'll remove any pregnancy where the gender variable doesn't match when the pregnancy is ready to go. If not, then yeah, it'll be born as a pure werewolf without any transformation back. Hmm... unless I transferred the birth race variable directly, in which case the baby would be born as a werewolf and then immediately and permanently transform back into a human/dwarf/etc. In any case, testing/handling pregnancy was one of the notes in the vampire section.
Quote
Quote from: TheChosenI read that there's gonna be immortality, possibility for both players and NPC's.
The question is are they still vulnerable somehow? Do they die by decapitation?Quote from: thvazImmortality rarely means unkillable.
It stops aging and adds a few other random effects. Decapitation and bifurcation are always lethal to the living, whatever syndrome they have. It won't always be that way, I think, although in the case of decapitation there's the tricky question of whether the soul goes with the head or the body. If you want the thing where the guy walks over and puts his head back on, you kind of want the soul to still be in control of both units, which isn't currently supported at all by the framework. Maybe just being in the most mobile one is crucial, but then the head couldn't grimace and stuff.
Quote
Quote from: FieariWhat can you "learn" from books? How does one learn to read?Quote from: monk12How is the content of books determined?
Is there a variety of subjects/genres?
Can the player write as well as read?
Do they show up any place other than necromancer towers?
Can books be made in dwarf mode?
Are books on the short list for recreational items when the tavern/inn update comes?
It's way too early, but I'll give the current answers, as unsatisfactory as that is. You can pick the reading skill now from character generation, and that says whether or not you can read. Unlike other skills (because there isn't anything like long-term training at this time), you can't learn to read later. The content is determined by what the author in world gen knows, and that isn't all that much. Right now the necromancers are the only writers, and they don't even have decent skills -- just their secret knowledge. Not sure when that'll change. Players cannot yet write, and I haven't done anything in dwarf mode. I'm not sure when or where they are going to come in to other places.
Post by: Neonivek on September 22, 2011, 12:41:53 am
I am also surprised I was write about a few of the questions I answered... :o
Post by: Mel_Vixen on September 22, 2011, 01:22:39 am
Anywaythank again for the answer post.
Post by: thvaz on September 22, 2011, 02:28:30 am
Post by: Cruxador on September 22, 2011, 02:35:12 am
It would make sense to perpetually help a family if it was your own family. Once adventurers are more directly related to the world that seems like something that more than a few folks would want to do.Quote from: Dr. DFor a question, will there be more mundane problems in cities for adventurers to take care of, such as the ever-popular dwarf mode task of dealing with as swarm of feral cats?
As the life of people becomes more complicated, this will be more natural, but right now they don't have lives. Once they have life goals etc. from the personality rewrite, we'll be at the starting point of one of our overarching conceptual goals, which is to allow you to pick out a person or family and help them indefinitely, as a sort of proof-of-dynamic-world thing, even if it is a strange thing to do. That still wouldn't necessarily get at the mundane side of life, but it would be related.
And it would make sense to become a knight in service to a king, and one could see relationships of that nature coming up with other people too. So in that situation you'd have a certain lineage that you are somewhat obligated to serve, though of course that obligation could be limited and it would be possible to ignore your obligation and run off somewhere.
Quote
That first possibility seems way cooler.QuoteQuote from: kaypyIf someone gives birth while under were-transformation, what do they give birth to?Quote from: Knight OtuGiven that were-creatures are apparently implemented as a separate creature definition that lacks any kind of caste and gender, and that only female can give birth, I'd expect that this can't actually happen, and that existing pregnancies are postponed until after the transformation. If for some reason a werebeast does manage to give birth (perhaps through modding), I'd expect the child to be a full-fledged beast type without a human (dwarf, goblin, kobold) side.
If I recollect, it'll remove any pregnancy where the gender variable doesn't match when the pregnancy is ready to go. If not, then yeah, it'll be born as a pure werewolf without any transformation back. Hmm... unless I transferred the birth race variable directly, in which case the baby would be born as a werewolf and then immediately and permanently transform back into a human/dwarf/etc. In any case, testing/handling pregnancy was one of the notes in the vampire section.
I wouldn't mind if the night creatures still not implemented get postponed for a later release, to be honest.Same. We have enough night creatures to make the upcoming release very interesting in that regard; we don't need more to play with there for a fair while. On the other hand, I'd like to see a lot more done with the books. At least set up non-necromancer authors and bookshops in cities, even if we don't get a full system in a player-controlled situation yet.
Libraries would be a cool bonus and are a part of what this release is supposed to be about, so that would be cool too, but depending on how Toady thinks those should work it might be a lot of work.
Post by: Dsarker on September 22, 2011, 02:53:33 am
Post by: TheChosen on September 22, 2011, 05:46:41 am
Cheers Toady.
Post by: zwei on September 22, 2011, 06:07:30 am
I wouldn't mind if the night creatures still not implemented get postponed for a later release, to be honest.
Yep.
It seems like they can be added pretty much anytime so I would not mind them to be delayed and added to some other later release that would otherwise lack new enemies...
Post by: freeformschooler on September 22, 2011, 09:30:12 am
Post by: DG on September 22, 2011, 10:10:41 am
Post by: magmaholic on September 22, 2011, 10:11:06 am
Or at very least, a good heavy book is also a good weapon.Two words.
Toilet paper.
Post by: Mephansteras on September 22, 2011, 11:33:24 am
This update should be awesome.
Post by: thvaz on September 22, 2011, 02:23:55 pm
Patience people, please, I don't like hearing Toady being encouraged to dump features just so a release can come a few days earlier.
Do you suggest then that we wait for DF 1.0, I suppose?
Post by: Neonivek on September 22, 2011, 02:38:23 pm
Cool, books are going in! As usual, I'm going to have to redo a bunch of the work I just did on my mod. :P
This update should be awesome.
I am going to have to start to make suggestions about allowing parts to be given individual graphics for the sake of tilesets.
Post by: Hiiri on September 22, 2011, 06:15:14 pm
Patience people, please, I don't like hearing Toady being encouraged to dump features just so a release can come a few days earlier.
Do you suggest then that we wait for DF 1.0, I suppose?
Haha, exactly my thoughts too; just didn't want to be a dick pointing it out.
Whoops.
Post by: Dsarker on September 22, 2011, 06:17:22 pm
Patience people, please, I don't like hearing Toady being encouraged to dump features just so a release can come a few days earlier.
Do you suggest then that we wait for DF 1.0, I suppose?
Haha, exactly my thoughts too; just didn't want to be a dick pointing it out.
Whoops.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't?
Post by: MrWiggles on September 22, 2011, 07:10:12 pm
Patience people, please, I don't like hearing Toady being encouraged to dump features just so a release can come a few days earlier.
Do you suggest then that we wait for DF 1.0, I suppose?
Haha, exactly my thoughts too; just didn't want to be a dick pointing it out.
Whoops.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't?
I suggest pie.
Post by: Dienes on September 22, 2011, 09:18:38 pm
I'd love to see constructed night creatures and the horrors players could put together but there is already a ton in this version so I guess I will be happy either way.
For the long term do you have any idea what kind of role writing will play in dwarf mode? Like writing books about whatever the dwarf wants like engravings (books about books about cheese) or where dwarves actually record information that gets used for something later on?
Post by: EmeraldWind on September 22, 2011, 09:58:43 pm
Thanks Toady. Its really awesome to have some back and forth with you and what's going on with the game. I love seeing the devlog too even when its just general 'working on X today' and not zombies getting suspicious and chasing off the necromancer that raised them.
I'd love to see constructed night creatures and the horrors players could put together but there is already a ton in this version so I guess I will be happy either way.
For the long term do you have any idea what kind of role writing will play in dwarf mode? Like writing books about whatever the dwarf wants like engravings (books about books about cheese) or where dwarves actually record information that gets used for something later on?
I imagine at the very least the book keeper will have a record of some kind. It would be useful for adventurers to look up info about stuff from the fort. For people who play with Legends Mode empty the book keeper's books could easily provide you with the arrival of dwarves, masterpiece, and artifact events. As for use in the fortress, I imagine maps, info on other settlements, and info on monsters could come in handy once the army arc is in place. There is potential for a lot of different things and more.
Post by: Dsarker on September 22, 2011, 10:04:57 pm
Post by: DG on September 23, 2011, 05:58:19 am
Patience people, please, I don't like hearing Toady being encouraged to dump features just so a release can come a few days earlier.
Do you suggest then that we wait for DF 1.0, I suppose?
No, you suppose incorrectly. I'm just asking for patience. I could have requested some perspective, too, but that would be over-reaching.
You can relax. If toady adds books without first notifying the playerbase and if he still intends to add other features he's already flagged, it doesn't mean we won't have another release before the game is finished. Neither does it mean we shouldn't support him. Support is a good motivational tool.
Post by: thvaz on September 23, 2011, 06:47:46 am
No, you suppose incorrectly. I'm just asking for patience. I could have requested some perspective, too, but that would be over-reaching.
You can relax. If toady adds books without first notifying the playerbase and if he still intends to add other features he's already flagged, it doesn't mean we won't have another release before the game is finished. Neither does it mean we shouldn't support him. Support is a good motivational tool.
You can't ask for perspective if you didn't have none when you thought I was asking for Toady to dump features. I was simply saying I would prefer he left those features for future releases.
Post by: Neonivek on September 23, 2011, 08:32:23 am
That is how I veiw many things Toady adds to the game or wants to.
Post by: jellsprout on September 23, 2011, 08:34:11 am
Post by: thvaz on September 23, 2011, 09:03:20 am
He set himself the plans for shorter development cycles with bugfixes releases in-between, and it was a really good plan - it would appease the "moar bugfix" masses and would still bring the game forward. It is a pity he can't attain to his own plans. The last release was almost(more?) than six months ago.
Post by: Neonivek on September 23, 2011, 09:07:01 am
I have faith in Toady, but even he admits he sidetracks a lot. Longer development cycles has been proven very hurtful to the game - just look at 31.01.
He set himself the plans for shorter development cycles with bugfixes releases in-between, and it was a really good plan - it would appease the "moar bugfix" masses and would still bring the game forward. It is a pity he can't attain to his own plans. The last release was almost(more?) than six months ago.
Ohh, I thought it was longer. Like nearly a year at this point.
Six months isn't so bad.
Post by: Knight Otu on September 23, 2011, 09:37:30 am
Post by: Neonivek on September 23, 2011, 09:41:19 am
31.25 was released on march 28 (pretty much a year after 31.01). So we're closing in on six months. That is a tad long for a short-term release as it was supposed to be, and people are visibly getting restless. Much as I'd think the remaining night creatures wouldn't add all that more time to the release, I can understand why people would rather that they be postponed (which might simply mean postponed to release 2).
They sort of want things postponed to a nebulous period of time that is likely never to come... for MOST people (not all)
Which is why I have a hard time taking "stop working on that" suggestions seriously. They arn't done with the honest intent that they should be worked on again at another time.
Post by: Knight Otu on September 23, 2011, 10:02:57 am
Now, I would prefer that the other night creatures do go in - a new complete system with the kinks that Toady could find being worked out is preferable to a new rushed incomplete system that then floods the bug tracker (in triplicate, probably) with stuff that Toady is aware of but didn't get to fix because he "had to" release it - and the other night creatures could well help with that.
Post by: thvaz on September 23, 2011, 11:57:41 am
They sort of want things postponed to a nebulous period of time that is likely never to come... for MOST people (not all)
Which is why I have a hard time taking "stop working on that" suggestions seriously. They arn't done with the honest intent that they should be worked on again at another time.
This is not true. I think the stalkers will be one of the most interesting night creatures - it is just that I prefer them to be worked later and well than now and rushed.
Post by: EmeraldWind on September 23, 2011, 02:18:27 pm
I have faith in Toady, but even he admits he sidetracks a lot. Longer development cycles has been proven very hurtful to the game - just look at 31.01.
He set himself the plans for shorter development cycles with bugfixes releases in-between, and it was a really good plan - it would appease the "moar bugfix" masses and would still bring the game forward. It is a pity he can't attain to his own plans. The last release was almost(more?) than six months ago.
Yeah, but his sidetrack here came about because while the new cities are interesting and cool he wanted to add stuff to do in them as well. The catacombs would be cool but ultimately pretty boring without all the other stuff he added. Granted this entire release wouldn't have even had fortress mode improvements if it wasn't for the side track. Thanks to interactions there's a good deal for everybody to have fun with.
Post by: Neonivek on September 23, 2011, 02:25:31 pm
Quote
This is not true. I think the stalkers will be one of the most interesting night creatures - it is just that I prefer them to be worked later and well than now and rushed
Not true in all cases. Though the best test is to ask the person "When".
Post by: Caldfir on September 23, 2011, 06:22:38 pm
On the other hand, it's pretty clear that the city maps and such (things planned for this release) are an independent set of things from the night creatures. It would have been completely possible (and potentially easier for Toady) for the caravan arc release 1 stuff to get finished, then work on "release 1.5" for the night creatures. I'm excited about the night creatures, but right now it just feels like I'm missing out on cool city goodies for no real reason.
I don't think an argument can really be made that separating this into two releases would have been a bad thing (though I suppose this is a hindsight thing).
Post by: Neonivek on September 23, 2011, 06:59:59 pm
Though since these are two LONG releases... I guess that isn't so much. though it can stop progress for even a month.
Post by: Dsarker on September 23, 2011, 07:08:15 pm
Post by: Neonivek on September 23, 2011, 07:30:41 pm
I think we're not getting at the most important part. Toady, despit all his awesomeness, is a human like everyone else. He decides to do things this way for his own reasons, and they are ineffable reasons.
Ohh yeah the Toady Factor.
Yeah when dealing with an artist you have to prepare for their whims.
Post by: Mountain-King on September 23, 2011, 09:13:42 pm
in the end, it's Toady's decision, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't express their views
personally, i'd prefer if the other night creatures were left for a later release. this release seems more than complete even without them, and it has dragged on for a while. i don't mind that much either way, though.
Post by: Cruxador on September 24, 2011, 12:46:02 am
Six months isn't so bad.It's not bad compared to the 18-month release, but it's still not good.
Post by: Rip0k on September 24, 2011, 03:08:05 am
i dunno when i'm working on a thing outside input helps a lot
in the end, it's Toady's decision, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't express their views
personally, i'd prefer if the other night creatures were left for a later release. this release seems more than complete even without them, and it has dragged on for a while. i don't mind that much either way, though.
True, but as to expressing one's views. Some people out here seem to rather express their inner child's point of view. Something like: "I wanna dessert before dinner, or else I'm gonna grumble all day" factor.
I have complete confidence in Toady's competence.
Peace.
Post by: Sanure on September 24, 2011, 07:50:13 am
It stops aging and adds a few other random effects. Decapitation and bifurcation are always lethal to the living, whatever syndrome they have. It won't always be that way, I think, although in the case of decapitation there's the tricky question of whether the soul goes with the head or the body. If you want the thing where the guy walks over and puts his head back on, you kind of want the soul to still be in control of both units, which isn't currently supported at all by the framework. Maybe just being in the most mobile one is crucial, but then the head couldn't grimace and stuff.
My questions:
1. Could the head be used like a phylactery keeping the body alive and making it resistant to death?
2. If phylacteries are possible, will it be possible to transfer your life energy into the chosen item and become a lich?
3. Will an undead be able to re-attach body parts he or she has lost thru an interaction or will this be near impossible?
4. Would it be possible for when an adventure dies to be transported to the land of the dead? This of course would only be his soul, and not his body and items, which would lead to some interesting situations, and would give one way to become an undead.
Post by: keenerd on September 24, 2011, 08:26:57 am
Quote from: erissian
Can properly buried dwarfs be raised?
Quote from: Toady One
If a necromancer gets a tile-wise line of sight on a body, including those in your coffins, then the body can be raised. I think because the body becomes a unit, a ghost probably won't additionally be disturbed, but once you knock out the zombie... I'm not sure. It would physically match the old dwarf in id, and so possibly excite a ghost, but it wouldn't have the right historical or unit id, so maybe not. Probably not...
Having ghosts come back from your raised and re-slain dead would be awesome. Firstly because very few fictional zombie universes ever show respect for the dead. Reburying the zombie corpses seems like a natural thing to do. Secondly, because it adds an element of balance. Otherwise players will pull the magma lever to their crypt without hesitation. Thirdly, dealing with ghosts after putting down zombies sounds more Fun.
Will we ever have to bury the dead in adventure mode, to avoid overrunning the countryside with ghosts? I can see villagers giving mundane starter quests of the nature "I found a dozen bodies about two hours walk from here. Probably from a bandit attack. But I am too busy farming, could you give them proper burials before it is too late?"
Post by: zwei on September 24, 2011, 10:34:26 am
Peace.
Consider that this sub-topic evloved from
"Guys, i might delay some features"
"Fine by me, go ahead"
to quite astonishing
"childish people want to micromanage toady for their own selfish needs."
It should rest in peace.
Post by: Evil One on September 24, 2011, 12:34:22 pm
Essentially turning [DEAD] creatures into untargetable, unconscious creatures that slowly rot, till they reach a certain point whereupon they cease to be [DEAD] NPCs and turn into just left over parts as they do now.
This'd allow for fully armoured zombies and skeletons as well as meaning that fortress mode Dorfs can drag a body inside the fortress and then loot it.
It'd certainly make the necromancers more fearsome and allow nobles and other high-ranking dorfs to be buried with their equipment.
Just an idea.
Post by: ShoesandHats on September 24, 2011, 02:56:22 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on September 24, 2011, 03:26:46 pm
Will there be any kind of mixing and matching system in necromancy? For example, if you have several limbs from different creatures, could you make an octo-tiger-man-zombie? It'd be pretty awesome, but I don't know if it would be possible or overpowered.No. As DF Talk 14 notes, that would be pretty much the pinnacle of the constructed undead, but it would necessitate a large update of the body system.
Post by: Neonivek on September 24, 2011, 03:28:04 pm
Will there be any kind of mixing and matching system in necromancy? For example, if you have several limbs from different creatures, could you make an octo-tiger-man-zombie? It'd be pretty awesome, but I don't know if it would be possible or overpowered.No. As DF Talk 14 notes, that would be pretty much the pinnacle of the constructed undead, but it would necessitate a large update of the body system.
Yep and that update would take over a month. While polled most people were against the idea of having a month be devoted to the update.
Post by: freeformschooler on September 24, 2011, 04:12:52 pm
Post by: piecewise on September 24, 2011, 07:54:37 pm
I'm curious what the barely conscious ai wrote about.
Post by: malvado on September 24, 2011, 08:21:52 pm
Btw great work oh Toady one, really worth the wait considering all that is going to be included in the next big release ^_^
Post by: monk12 on September 24, 2011, 08:33:27 pm
Quote from: devlog
broke the "Cannot follow order" message for soldiers into about a dozen hopefully helpful messages.
Thank goodness! Hopefully this is the first step in getting some of those bugs fixed as well, in the upcoming bughunting release. And good to hear the zombies are a bit beefier, as well. They've always been kind of pathetic (apart from that brief period where they were nigh-invulnerable, anyway) and I normally avoid zombie areas. Hopefully this facelift will make them worth the challenge.
Post by: EmeraldWind on September 24, 2011, 10:50:54 pm
Are there any differences between skeletons and zombies other than the lack of tissue and organs?
How will the raise the dead interaction mesh with other interactions? For example, will were-creatures still transform?
I've seen questions about the interaction combinations between vampire were-creatures, but not about the raising interaction.
Plus, while I think a raised necromancer loses his ability to raise once dead due to the loss of his soul, were-creature interactions might be applied to the body for all I know.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on September 25, 2011, 05:48:42 am
Any chance future releases will be more update compatible?Exactly zero chance.
It is not like you are forced to use new version. You can finish up your old fortress with old version and later start new fortress in new version. Really.
EDIT:
While seems like vanishing zombies was fixed... do zombies still have HP? I seen no clear declaration about removing that placeholder fix.
Post by: Halconnen on September 25, 2011, 05:56:30 am
It stops aging and adds a few other random effects. Decapitation and bifurcation are always lethal to the living, whatever syndrome they have. It won't always be that way, I think, although in the case of decapitation there's the tricky question of whether the soul goes with the head or the body. If you want the thing where the guy walks over and puts his head back on, you kind of want the soul to still be in control of both units, which isn't currently supported at all by the framework. Maybe just being in the most mobile one is crucial, but then the head couldn't grimace and stuff.
I vaguely it being mentioned somewhere (old dev goals list, maybe?) that you were planning to eventually allow one body to have several souls, as well as one soul to have several bodies. Wouldn't the mentioned situation be a case of the latter? Two bodypieces, with the same soul and the urge to reunite. That could, storywise, even lead to fun situations like a headless horseman wandering around the world looking for the head he is lacking. Which is locked in some adventurer's basement. Or something.
Post by: Neonivek on September 25, 2011, 04:07:30 pm
Quote
do zombies still have HP?
Yes they do. Zombies will have HP until the game is changed to allow the ability to "Pulp" (or uttarly destroy) a creature.
Anyhow last time I checked the size of the world in relation to travel time over the world map and it came to be slightly smaller then Europe (which was much larger then I thought it was, which was "huge city size")
Toady what would have to happen for Dwarf Fortress to include an even larger world then the maximum it has now? I wonder what would go into a decision like that.
Post by: Armok on September 25, 2011, 04:51:20 pm
This is technically incorrect. The protons in the cable might decay in just the right way to randomly flip just the right bits to make a thus changed version be what arrives at the server as he uploads it.Any chance future releases will be more update compatible?Exactly zero chance.
Post by: tps12 on September 25, 2011, 07:38:09 pm
Anyhow last time I checked the size of the world in relation to travel time over the world map and it came to be slightly smaller then Europe (which was much larger then I thought it was, which was "huge city size")
I used a Toady estimate of one small tile being 2m in each dimension to conclude that the largest world size was around the size of the greater New York region. I think that fits in a lot of ways (the number of distinct medieval civilizations in the region, variety and relative size of ecosystems and geological variation) and makes no sense in some others (the proximity of the ice cap to equator, the number of volcanoes).
Post by: Neonivek on September 25, 2011, 07:45:21 pm
I measured it that way because people were asking about "rot" so to speak and I wanted to see how long it took one character basically to go from one side of the world to the other. (20 days or something like that). Meaning that Dwarf Fortress doesn't deal with huge distances.
I'd certainly would love worlds to be SO large that there would be their version of very foreign places almost completely (or perhaps completely) cut off from the rest of the known world and not because of a civilisations REALLY small roaming area. Though right now that wouldn't be TOO worthwhile because Dwarf Fortress doesn't really alter civilisations too much anyhow.
Post by: Footkerchief on September 25, 2011, 10:08:15 pm
For the long term do you have any idea what kind of role writing will play in dwarf mode? Like writing books about whatever the dwarf wants like engravings (books about books about cheese) or where dwarves actually record information that gets used for something later on?
dev_single (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html) has ideas about this:
Quote from: dev_single
# Bloat185, LIBRARIES, (Future): Books and libraries utilizing histories. Once these are in, people that you chat with don't need to know as much. You can find legends here that reveal locations of ruins made by world gen, or your dwarf games. Various other books are possible.
# PowerGoal46, THE GIANT ASS BOOK, (Future): You go to a dwarf fortress and see a giant unliftable tome filled with maps of the Underworld. You sketch a copy and depart.
Will we ever have to bury the dead in adventure mode, to avoid overrunning the countryside with ghosts? I can see villagers giving mundane starter quests of the nature "I found a dozen bodies about two hours walk from here. Probably from a bandit attack. But I am too busy farming, could you give them proper burials before it is too late?"
Ghosts only arise in Fortress Mode right now (AFAIK). Ghosts arising from world battlefields is reasonable, but it's not in yet. If that does go in, it would probably only occur in world gen, and would need Release 5 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html) to occur during actual play.
Any chance future releases will be more update compatible? Ie additional features could be added to the existing world you are playing in kinda like an software patch?
Toady already does that where feasible. Lots of bugfixes in particular are retroactive. However, some features affect the world/save structure fundamentally enough that they can't be added retroactively without excessive effort.
While seems like vanishing zombies was fixed... do zombies still have HP? I seen no clear declaration about removing that placeholder fix.
Yes:
Quote from: nenjinIf a necromancer animates a severed hand, will you have to hack off all its fingers to remove its "graspers" and kill it?
Since we haven't done pulping, you just have to knock it down through the animated HP equivalent.
It stops aging and adds a few other random effects. Decapitation and bifurcation are always lethal to the living, whatever syndrome they have. It won't always be that way, I think, although in the case of decapitation there's the tricky question of whether the soul goes with the head or the body. If you want the thing where the guy walks over and puts his head back on, you kind of want the soul to still be in control of both units, which isn't currently supported at all by the framework. Maybe just being in the most mobile one is crucial, but then the head couldn't grimace and stuff.
I vaguely it being mentioned somewhere (old dev goals list, maybe?) that you were planning to eventually allow one body to have several souls, as well as one soul to have several bodies. Wouldn't the mentioned situation be a case of the latter? Two bodypieces, with the same soul and the urge to reunite. That could, storywise, even lead to fun situations like a headless horseman wandering around the world looking for the head he is lacking. Which is locked in some adventurer's basement. Or something.
One soul with several bodies is a valid approach to the decapitation issue, yes, but not the only valid approach. That's what makes it a tricky question.
Post by: Neonivek on September 25, 2011, 10:09:19 pm
I am not on it! SCORE!
Thanks for answering our questions Footkerchief, your watchful eye blesses us all.
Post by: Cruxador on September 25, 2011, 10:21:38 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on September 26, 2011, 11:21:53 am
My questions:
1. Could the head be used like a phylactery keeping the body alive and making it resistant to death?
2. If phylacteries are possible, will it be possible to transfer your life energy into the chosen item and become a lich?
3. Will an undead be able to re-attach body parts he or she has lost thru an interaction or will this be near impossible?
4. Would it be possible for when an adventure dies to be transported to the land of the dead? This of course would only be his soul, and not his body and items, which would lead to some interesting situations, and would give one way to become an undead.
Missed these before:
1, 2. Not in the upcoming version.
3. The closest the next release might get is "constructed undead":
Quote from: monk12Are constructed "Frankenstein Monster" type things going to be in the upcoming version?
We are hoping to get to constructed undead and the stalkers. You can't mix and match pieces though -- that will take significant work (and should also lead to proper centaur-style critter generation). Having weapons tacked on to the constructed undead is about as far as we'll be able to take it this time (since that can more or less co-opt the stitch-as-inventory-item code). Player involvement there is unknown. It may even end up being in dwarf mode first as a mood before anything else anywhere, since they practically do it already, although there is an atmosphere question there.
4. This is discussed heavily in DF Talk 16.
(http://bay12games.com/dwarves/df_talk.html)
Would the ability to state your intent for a retired character use the same framework as the hopes and dreams of the personality rewrite?
If you mean the storage aspect of that ability, that sounds reasonable, but since Toady isn't implementing either system yet, there's little certainty to be had. Were you anticipating specific advantages/pitfalls aside from the obvious similarities?
The input aspect will probably look more like the proposed systems for adventurer backstories, like in Liberal Crime Squad etc.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on September 26, 2011, 11:27:34 am
Bummer. :( Ah well, it seems zombies are now harder to kill, so I can patiently wait for pulping.Quotedo zombies still have HP?Yes they do.
what would have to happen for Dwarf Fortress to include an even larger world then the maximum it has now? I wonder what would go into a decision like that.64-bit version of DF, for starters. DF already is too big on 32-bit when dealing with largest embarks, and I would imagine world data take significant chunk of memory allocated by DF.
Post by: Neonivek on September 26, 2011, 01:55:12 pm
*Wipes forehead*
Now I just have to survive the "What were you asking in the first place?" that happens to me quite often.
Post by: Willfor on September 26, 2011, 02:27:51 pm
Survived a second round of Footkerchief's ever burning eye.This might have something to do with the fact that I can't even find your question, and I have searched between here and Toady's last post three times.
*Wipes forehead*
Now I just have to survive the "What were you asking in the first place?" that happens to me quite often.
Post by: metime00 on September 26, 2011, 06:13:44 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on September 26, 2011, 06:19:47 pm
E: i mean, if you're not satisfied with foot's answer, ask a more specific one or clarify your previous question. footkerchief is doing a service for free here, a bit of gratitude would be appropriate
Post by: Neonivek on September 26, 2011, 06:33:08 pm
you guys are talking as if getting your question answered is a bad thing
a bit of gratitude would be appropriate
I thanked him earlier. Not only because he deserves to be thanked but because my checking to see if he answered one of my questions could be seen falsely as antagony
Also it IS a bad thing. It means you asked a bad question and should be ashamed. ASHAMED!
Post by: Cruxador on September 26, 2011, 06:53:18 pm
I dunno, I suppose I'm just hoping for insight into how the two might interact.Would the ability to state your intent for a retired character use the same framework as the hopes and dreams of the personality rewrite?
If you mean the storage aspect of that ability, that sounds reasonable, but since Toady isn't implementing either system yet, there's little certainty to be had. Were you anticipating specific advantages/pitfalls aside from the obvious similarities?
The input aspect will probably look more like the proposed systems for adventurer backstories, like in Liberal Crime Squad etc.
For input, that was my assumption as well.
Also it IS a bad thing. It means you asked a bad question and should be ashamed. ASHAMED!I disagree. The average person really can't be expected to have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything Toady's ever said. That Footkerchief does and is able to help us out is a significant benefit to the community and to Toady, but it's a proficiency that few have the memory or time to acquire.
On that note, thank you Footkerchief!
Post by: freeformschooler on September 27, 2011, 10:48:51 am
Post by: Knight Otu on September 27, 2011, 11:41:23 am
Of course, the pages of notes aren't the only "obstacles" to the release.
Post by: Cruxador on September 27, 2011, 02:44:23 pm
Post by: Putnam on September 27, 2011, 06:12:41 pm
I mostly ask because the interface in it is pretty much rock solid >_>
Post by: Senty on September 27, 2011, 09:17:16 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on September 27, 2011, 09:54:40 pm
Are decorations solely images (innately understood to be of specific historical figures and events) or are they representational images along with words/names that can be read?
I don't understand the distinction you're drawing between the two. Images fall into several distinct categories: historical/gameplay events, civilization emblems, illustrations of personality traits (upset dwarves surrounded by vermin, etc), and probably a few others that I'm forgetting.
Post by: Sizik on September 27, 2011, 10:13:38 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Endiqua on September 28, 2011, 08:38:43 am
He means, would an image of, say, George Washington, look like this:or like this:Spoiler (click to show/hide)?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Can't....stop.....laughing....
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on September 28, 2011, 02:15:42 pm
Post by: CaptainArchmage on September 28, 2011, 04:44:11 pm
If we have a fort which contains one of these secret slabs or books, say by having an adventurer drop it in a location of our choice and then embarking over it, will it be treated as an artifact?
Since interactions can now target multiple units (as of the devblog on 9/10/2011), will this functionality be added to weapons as well?
On estimates as to when the release is coming out, I would give between today and a month from now. It seems like issues are being sorted out quite quickly, and it may just be so mundane that it doesn't go in the devblog.
I suspect in a potential sidetrack libraries may be going in as part of the city update.
Bugs are probably going to be of the more minor kind, like the game crashing when you try to produce a book in a modded reaction. As a modder you're going to !!RAAAAAAAAAAAGE!! >:( >:( >:( about this but it won't be that serious or take away any of the functionality not there under 0.31.25. Toady said there will be a massive bugfix cycle for a few weeks afterwards and then it will be onto Release 2.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on September 28, 2011, 04:57:08 pm
Bugs are probably going to be of the more minor kind,Lol. Wanna bet?
Post by: Footkerchief on September 28, 2011, 04:58:19 pm
If we have a fort which contains one of these secret slabs or books, say by having an adventurer drop it in a location of our choice and then embarking over it, will it be treated as an artifact?
I'm 99% sure the answer is no. The overlap between books and artifacts is pretty small, and one of the distinguishing features of the current artifacts is that they're only created in player fortresses.
Since interactions can now target multiple units (as of the devblog on 9/10/2011), will this functionality be added to weapons as well?
Nope. Interactions will have many flexibilities that weapons don't yet, and the targeting systems aren't unified.
Post by: Sizik on September 28, 2011, 06:24:04 pm
i think you can turn off the "innately understood" part of engravings somewhere in worldgen, so i'd say it's the first caseIt's an init option.
Post by: Araph on September 28, 2011, 06:43:36 pm
How extensive are you planning on making magic be? Will it simply be useful in combat or for necromancing up minions? Or will you be able to do more complex things, like enchanting objects or using spells that affect other people's actions?
Following up on the bit about other people...
Are interactions between NPCs ever going to happen? By this I mean, will NPCs ever change how they act based on how you have acted to them and people they like/dislike? And will they perform mundane actions related to their jobs as opposed to lounging around for all eternity?
And by eternity, I mean until a player gets bored of killing Cloisterlark the Brilliant Spoon of Wigs or whatever and decides to go on a mad rampage through town.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on September 28, 2011, 09:57:12 pm
i think you can turn off the "innately understood" part of engravings somewhere in worldgen, so i'd say it's the first caseIt's an init option.
ah, yes, the
Quote
If you'd prefer to leave the history behind every engraving for your adventurers to discover, then set this to NO.in d_init.txt
[SHOW_ALL_HISTORY_IN_DWARF_MODE:YES]
Post by: antymattar on September 29, 2011, 01:27:55 pm
Post by: Cruxador on September 29, 2011, 01:40:58 pm
Couple of questions about various things:Although we don't know any specifics on magic yet, we do know it will go substantially beyond that. After all, if magic was just another weapon, what point would there be in implementing it?
How extensive are you planning on making magic be? Will it simply be useful in combat or for necromancing up minions? Or will you be able to do more complex things, like enchanting objects or using spells that affect other people's actions?
Post by: zwei on September 29, 2011, 02:46:18 pm
Couple of questions about various things:Although we don't know any specifics on magic yet, we do know it will go substantially beyond that. After all, if magic was just another weapon, what point would there be in implementing it?
How extensive are you planning on making magic be? Will it simply be useful in combat or for necromancing up minions? Or will you be able to do more complex things, like enchanting objects or using spells that affect other people's actions?
Because pulp fantasy novels are full of fireball throwning and magic missile firing mages and wizzards?
And frankly, squad of dwarven druids shapeshifting to elephants to stop siege sounds as awesome as dwarves summoning weaponized clowns.
Post by: Jheral on September 29, 2011, 05:29:38 pm
Post by: Neonivek on September 29, 2011, 09:18:56 pm
*You know what... nevermind... I just don't care*
It sometimes bugged me when I saw a world where pure scathing evil was not only real but in your face. While genuinly good beings, at least from a human perspective, either don't exist or are so on the side that they might as well not exist. Dwarf Fortress has the evil the genuin scathing evil... but even "Good" is seething with hatred for all things living.
Yes I am aware that Toady has talked a bit about Blessings...
Edit: Deleted question
Post by: MrWiggles on September 29, 2011, 09:30:19 pm
Are interactions between NPCs ever going to happen? By this I mean, will NPCs ever change how they act based on how you have acted to them and people they like/dislike? And will they perform mundane actions related to their jobs as opposed to lounging around for all eternity?The short answer is yes. And it happens to a small degree already. We do have the start of a reputation like system in now.
And by eternity, I mean until a player gets bored of killing Cloisterlark the Brilliant Spoon of Wigs or whatever and decides to go on a mad rampage through town.
Release 8 will see a personality and need rewrite. This is preparation for the army for more dynamic player vs. npc interaction, and npc vs. npc interaction. This combined with various dev will lead to more dynamic NPC interactions. On the Dev Page, we have Hunting/Tracking Animals, that'll be used for NPC to hunt and track players. Then there the Adventure Role, such as the Hero, and Villain. There more Reputation stuff that going in on the dev page.
Post by: Cruxador on September 30, 2011, 01:03:27 am
Edit: Deleted questionWay to make us all curious.
Post by: Dsarker on September 30, 2011, 03:10:08 am
Edit: Deleted questionWay to make us all curious.
He wanted to know if the 'Good' regions and deities and such would have their own 'curses', and whether they would be 'Vicious Blessings' or 'Benevolent Curses'.
Post by: Armok on September 30, 2011, 06:48:59 am
It sometimes bugged me when I saw a world where pure scathing evil was not only real but in your face. While genuinly good beings, at least from a human perspective, either don't exist or are so on the side that they might as well not exist. Dwarf Fortress has the evil the genuin scathing evil... but even "Good" is seething with hatred for all things living.That's called realism. You only mind it because you were after escapism.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on September 30, 2011, 07:27:33 am
Edit: Deleted questionWay to make us all curious.
He wanted to know if the 'Good' regions and deities and such would have their own 'curses', and whether they would be 'Vicious Blessings' or 'Benevolent Curses'.
i'm guessing toady's answer would be something along the lines, "we want that eventually, we're not thinking about it now". i'm guessing neonivek guessed the same. it's a question much more suited for a dftalk, and i think it's been talked, though probably not in depth enough to satiate everyone's curiosity
Post by: Neonivek on September 30, 2011, 08:41:25 am
I was mostly asking about how the flip side of Curses and cursed lands would even function given they arn't allowed the same libertise as curses.
Also "Pure scathing evil" is escapism as well. It creates a world where people's motives are no longer complex but instead single focused into doing harm for harm... In otherwords it creates a world where "The bad guys are obvious" and that "There is nothing wrong with killing them because they are pure evil".
It is just odd that both great evil and great good are both antagonistic towards the living
Post by: Cruxador on September 30, 2011, 01:19:47 pm
It's only realistic to an extreme cynic.It sometimes bugged me when I saw a world where pure scathing evil was not only real but in your face. While genuinly good beings, at least from a human perspective, either don't exist or are so on the side that they might as well not exist. Dwarf Fortress has the evil the genuin scathing evil... but even "Good" is seething with hatred for all things living.That's called realism. You only mind it because you were after escapism.
Post by: Armok on September 30, 2011, 04:53:59 pm
Post by: Neonivek on September 30, 2011, 06:02:40 pm
Not necessarily. It's possible that the pure evil is rare, and there is a whole lot of the mostly but not entirely good stuff.
Pure evil cannot exist as it represents a living logical fallacy.
It can only exist in fantasy because evil itself is a living breathing force all on its own.
Post by: Armok on October 01, 2011, 03:22:15 pm
Post by: Willfor on October 01, 2011, 03:55:55 pm
I didn't think anyone would interpret it literally. What I meant is there are plenty of things with no redeeming features (providing a challenge/common enemy doesn't count, demons in fantasy do that to.), such as for example cancer or certain kinds of psychopaths, but the closest you'll come to perfect goodness are certain altruistic humans but all such admit to being flawed.That doesn't invalidate the fact that things with flaws can exist in a state where their natural tendency isn't to automatically rip other living people's faces off. All I would ask is that things with the [Good] descriptor be moved into that category, and away from the "will rip your face off at a moments notice regardless of who you are" category.
Post by: Neonivek on October 01, 2011, 07:01:55 pm
Quote
as for example cancer or certain kinds of psychopaths
Well in Cancer's situation, which is a thing and thus can't be evil anyway, its redeeming factor could be that it isn't trying to hurt you it is just following its own programming that got messed up.
In a Psychopath's situation they are people who are driven crazy who likely can't tell what is really going on or cannot understand the nature of the situation (though there are psychopaths whos insanity did lead them to commit a crime but who who have no psychosis that really prevented it.), their redeeming factor is usually that even though they are insane they are attempting to do good, however limited it may be, within the scope of their madness.
-Also Psychopaths arn't nessisarily murderers I believe.
Quote
closest you'll come to perfect goodness are certain altruistic humans but all such admit to being flawed
There is an old saying: "Even a Thief will go out of his way to help a friend"
So if you looking for pure evil people you are not going to find them either. Sociopaths, according to some psychologists, are people who took in the wrong hints and messages society sends out at a regular basis and simply follows them to their logical, and often destructive, conclusion.
Look the only point that in Dwarf Fortress Evil seems to be a force. Curses exist, cursed lands exist (as well as their mechanics to become cursed), and even creatures who are evil exist. Yet good is fanciful and just as destructive and dangerous to all life. There is no benevolence only malevolence.
which is what is essentially the question
Where is the Benevolence?
Post by: Gamerlord on October 01, 2011, 08:03:20 pm
Post by: Neonivek on October 01, 2011, 08:06:10 pm
I've gotta ask, will there ever be ways to just... do stuff? Like, if I wanted to do a dance on the corpse of a hydra I could go into a menu and select 'dance' from a list while standing on the hydra? Maybe do stuff like yelling at enemies during battle, or taunts?
Hillariously it sounds like you want an Emote system. The ability to just click a button and type "Dance on the Hydras head while signing I'm a little Teapot"
Post by: Gamerlord on October 01, 2011, 08:08:02 pm
I've gotta ask, will there ever be ways to just... do stuff? Like, if I wanted to do a dance on the corpse of a hydra I could go into a menu and select 'dance' from a list while standing on the hydra? Maybe do stuff like yelling at enemies during battle, or taunts?
Hillariously it sounds like you want an Emote system. The ability to just click a button and type "Dance on the Hydras head while signing I'm a little Teapot"
Thats kind of what I want. Just a little more interactivity with the world.
Post by: Greiger on October 01, 2011, 08:09:54 pm
Where is the Benevolence?
My vote is the adventurer. The heroic adventurer not the destructive ones. They assist the people by destroying powerful evil creatures that have been terrorizing the villages for no materiel gain. They do gain the respect of the people and the ability to bring more companions with them, but for what purpose? To continue what they have already been doing, helping the people.
Sure they can often collect loot from such locations, but they can just sneak in, grab everything not nailed down and leave without killing the monster. Yet, the adventurer often kills the monster, despite little materiel reason to do so.
Post by: Neonivek on October 01, 2011, 08:14:31 pm
Where is the Benevolence?
My vote is the adventurer.
If that is truely the explanation that also makes perfect sense. It is a world where you truely are the only ray of sunshine. You are the beacon of hope, the pervayer of justice, and the bringer of truth in a world of despair, chaos, and darkness. That is what makes you precious and special.
Though still... given that this is a generated system... I'd still would like to know.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 01, 2011, 08:33:19 pm
_____
arguably, the bittersweet fey moods are benevolent, it's a supposedly positive magical event. i don't think there is anything like it in adventure mode, though.
Post by: Neonivek on October 01, 2011, 08:34:59 pm
i don't think toady has been building up to that type of fantasy, though. i think he envisions df's default world as much more generic, but to be tweaked by the players to generate specific scenarios
_____
arguably, the bittersweet fey moods are benevolent, it's a supposedly positive magical event. i don't think there is anything like it in adventure mode, though.
It is more that the universe is supposed to be unique yet Done before. Logical yet illogical.
A cheap fantasy world generator so to speak.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 01, 2011, 08:50:23 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on October 01, 2011, 11:37:56 pm
Quote from: DevLog
There was a general whose wife was the leader of a civilization. In the year 8, she was kidnapped and turned into a bleak horror. Over the decades, the general became obsessed with his own mortality and sought out the necromancer's tower, becoming a lowly apprentice in return for eternal life. Years later, he wrote a 30 page essay about his horror wife called Victory By The Creature. He also took an apprentice of his own, a former queen of the dwarves, and wrote a touching and concise 282 page biography about her. You end up with quite a few formerly important apprentices, since it only concerns itself with the secret worries of important people at this time -- a technical hurdle which needs to be worked through now or later.
When you say 282 page, do you mean literally or informatively?
To clarify: Is it actually written out or does the game just tell you that is how long it is?
Post by: Nivim on October 02, 2011, 12:27:24 am
But that's just it, if Toady isn't coding specific effects for such actions, you aren't interacting with the world; just displaying some text, and maybe using up one of your turns. Each particular action you can think of needs to be both tied into all the other systems and work as a building platform for future development, or it isn't worth dealing with by itself. Taunting a goblin? Should include analysis of personality traits, social skills, the intended meaning and the recieved meaning of the taunt, relative strengths, and relative fames to determine the appropriate shift in AI behavior, if any. It alone would take a few weeks, but if done with a/the diplomacy rewrite, it could come with only a few hours of extra effort.Thats kind of what I want. Just a little more interactivity with the world.I've gotta ask, will there ever be ways to just... do stuff? Like, if I wanted to do a dance on the corpse of a hydra I could go into a menu and select 'dance' from a list while standing on the hydra? Maybe do stuff like yelling at enemies during battle, or taunts?Hillariously it sounds like you want an Emote system. The ability to just click a button and type "Dance on the Hydras head while signing I'm a little Teapot"
If you're really interested in displaying text, isn't the interaction system capable of doing so?
Post by: Mechanoid on October 02, 2011, 05:21:43 am
To clarify: Is it actually written out or does the game just tell you that is how long it is?Seconding the request for an answer to this. We must know...
Can we read the contents of a book whatever the size of it? Does it function like an in-game legends mode viewer that's highly specific to a single creature?
... If the weight of a book is based on the number of pages it has, can a book contain so many pages, that the player can not lift it without being heavilly slowed?
If reading speed is influenced by your movement speed, and you're moving at a crawl, and it takes a long time to read just one page... "Oh i'll just read this b-" *You have starved to death*
Post by: thvaz on October 02, 2011, 05:32:20 am
Do apprentices learn the secrets directly from their masters or by using books/slabs found on their towers?
Only necromancers can have apprentices or the system will also allow other historical figures to have apprentices?
Post by: hoveringdog on October 02, 2011, 06:00:25 am
Look the only point that in Dwarf Fortress Evil seems to be a force. Curses exist, cursed lands exist (as well as their mechanics to become cursed), and even creatures who are evil exist. Yet good is fanciful and just as destructive and dangerous to all life. There is no benevolence only malevolence.
which is what is essentially the question
Where is the Benevolence?
There's plenty of precedent, though, in myth and fantasy literature for a good that is so pure, so otherworldly, it becomes antithetical to flawed human existence. People are too impure or just too ignorant to deal with that kind of transcendent purity or holiness. Opening that ark might melt your face off or touching that unicorn plunge the world into eternal winter. Or, you know, most of the Old Testament, where the minor sin of being an obnoxious teenager might get you curb stomped by she-bears (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2jmT35fygc).
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on October 02, 2011, 06:00:28 am
To clarify: Is it actually written out or does the game just tell you that is how long it is?Almost certainly it is just description.
Post by: Dsarker on October 02, 2011, 06:12:42 am
Look the only point that in Dwarf Fortress Evil seems to be a force. Curses exist, cursed lands exist (as well as their mechanics to become cursed), and even creatures who are evil exist. Yet good is fanciful and just as destructive and dangerous to all life. There is no benevolence only malevolence.
which is what is essentially the question
Where is the Benevolence?
There's plenty of precedent, though, in myth and fantasy literature for a good that is so pure, so otherworldly, it becomes antithetical to flawed human existence. People are too impure or just too ignorant to deal with that kind of transcendent purity or holiness. Opening that ark might melt your face off or touching that unicorn plunge the world into eternal winter. Or, you know, most of the Old Testament, where the minor sin of being an obnoxious teenager might get you curb stomped by she-bears (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2jmT35fygc).
Really? Never heard of that old testament story before. You sure you're not translating it incorrectly? As in using the word that is used in other parts for young adults, especially those of age to become a soldier, for teenagers? And slang that would best be translated as worthless, powerless, (saying that God is powerless and worthless by proxy) as referring to his hair (or lack thereof)?
Post by: DG on October 02, 2011, 06:46:18 am
Post by: Dsarker on October 02, 2011, 06:49:18 am
Post by: hoveringdog on October 02, 2011, 08:36:31 am
Post by: inteuniso on October 02, 2011, 09:10:47 am
Post by: Willfor on October 02, 2011, 10:20:22 am
Apologies, my exaggeration for humorous effect didn't work out as I had intended. But I hope the point, with regard to fantasy and myth and how it might be potentially interpreted in DF, still makes some sense. Even the more benevolent deities and powers have their quirky taboos no mortal is allowed to violate lest they get a divine bolt to the face.Your point is valid. However, completely uninteresting from a mechanical perspective if the only reason this happens is because they use the same AI process of choosing their targets as an [Evil] creature. We need [Good] to have the capacity for benevolence before we can have taboos that will forfeit that benevolence.
What I am saying: That eventually I would like it if I spent five days tracking a night creature who wandered into a [Good] aligned area, left a trail of corpses, and when I finally caught up to it it was stalking a unicorn. I walk up to the unicorn, and it regards me with some respect, and continues grazing. From out of the bushes comes that stalking night creature intent on unicorn blood, but I step up to defend the beast. I slay the night creature, but then from behind I hear the message "You've killed a being with a soul!" THAT is when it's a good time for the unicorn to run me through with its horn. Not before I've done something to earn its ire, but after I've specifically broken its code of benevolence.
Post by: Neonivek on October 02, 2011, 10:22:09 am
Apologies, my exaggeration for humorous effect didn't work out as I had intended. But I hope the point, with regard to fantasy and myth and how it might be potentially interpreted in DF, still makes some sense. Even the more benevolent deities and powers have their quirky taboos no mortal is allowed to violate lest they get a divine bolt to the face.
That is why I said Benevolent and not good or holy and why I said "Blessings that act like curses" originally (as that would be a malevolent good) and "Curses that act like blessings" (since that would be a benevolent evil).
Post by: scriver on October 02, 2011, 10:23:19 am
Post by: Willfor on October 02, 2011, 10:28:52 am
Well, if that ever happens, I'm so starting a "Unicorns are Hypocrite Bastards" campaign. ;)What I would find most interesting is if whether you broke the unicorn's code was determined by the personality of the unicorn. Say, some have looser standards if you killed a specifically evil creature, or some are too lazy to want to make an enemy. And then you just need to get to know the unicorn, and make sure it's not a fundamentalist before you slay a souled creature in front of it.
Edit: Yes, yes, I know, "take it to the suggestion board." However, I'm reasonably confident that this is Toady's plan for it already based on how much complexity he's aiming for in the game, and this isn't a well-planned out system for implementation. It's just me spouting off about how I see the game developing in the future. Even though I'm not the one making the game, and my word should be taken with quite a few grains of thought whenever I say "this is how I was thinking he was going with it" that is based on observation of what he's done and his listed goals alone.
Post by: CaptainArchmage on October 02, 2011, 11:28:15 am
Now that we have books, secrets can still be find on slabs? There other places people can learn secrets?
Secrets can probably still be found on slabs. The books are actually written by the necromancers and seem to document events or people.
Now that writing is in, will dwarves who enter fey moods also do writings if they have the proper skills, thus becoming legendary poets?
If writing is a moodable skill it will probably happen. I think Toady said that literacy was not a skill that could be picked up in fortress mode. I don't think Toady ever mentioned updating moodable skills but I could be wrong.
Well, if that ever happens, I'm so starting a "Unicorns are Hypocrite Bastards" campaign. ;)
If you do something bad to a Good creature, they will attack just as though they were any other creature. The alignment tag does not effect the method of self-defence, only [LIKES_FIGHTING] or [FLEEQUICK] or [PRONE_TO_RAGE:9001] deal with that.
Do apprentices learn the secrets directly from their masters or by using books/slabs found on their towers?
I think either way is fair, but Toady will need to confirm. It may just be that there will be a "has learned secrets of eternal life" flag that just gets checked when the apprentice signs up, abstracting the method out.
Only necromancers can have apprentices or the system will also allow other historical figures to have apprentices?
There may be equivalents to apprentices for the other night creatures, like a master vampire having a number of subordinate lesser vampires. I suspect this may not happen with werewolves. Positions in entities already allow historical figures to have some kind of apprentice, though Toady could add in something where a historical figure (i.e. adventurer or explorer) can take on apprentices.
There will be some kind of Good magic or interaction added at some point, be it healing or something that causes damage to the undead.
According to the latest devblog, the layout of towers were generated on arriving in an area, rather than during worldgen. Is this true of all worldgen locations?
Post by: thvaz on October 02, 2011, 11:33:56 am
CaptainArchmage, greened questions are for Toady(and for Footkerchief to prove that we don't know how to use the search engine). Try at least to quote Toady when answering them. It looks like you know as much as I do. Anyway, thanks for trying to help.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 02, 2011, 11:57:38 am
According to the latest devblog, the layout of towers were generated on arriving in an area, rather than during worldgen. Is this true of all worldgen locations?i'm pretty sure that's how it goes, i think it's been clarified on a discussion about cities several moths ago, possibly more than a year, but can't recall enough details to search for a proper quote
Post by: Knight Otu on October 02, 2011, 03:21:24 pm
Yeah, I also seem to recall some discussion on the mutability of city layouts (and I've seen it happen myself). Presumably the same forces were at work here, so that should be solved, then.According to the latest devblog, the layout of towers were generated on arriving in an area, rather than during worldgen. Is this true of all worldgen locations?i'm pretty sure that's how it goes, i think it's been clarified on a discussion about cities several moths ago, possibly more than a year, but can't recall enough details to search for a proper quote
The part with the sleeping undead reminded me of the same happening in a dark tower in a mod of mine with pseudo-undead, back in 40d times I think. Not sure why I didn't report it back then.
Book length is quite certainly based on the number of events/facts transcribed therein. There presumably are other variables, of course, so that it isn't a 1 event is 1 page thing (whether on an event basis or based on how purple and flowery the prose is).
Post by: freeformschooler on October 02, 2011, 04:45:39 pm
Book length is quite certainly based on the number of events/facts transcribed therein. There presumably are other variables, of course, so that it isn't a 1 event is 1 page thing (whether on an event basis or based on how purple and flowery the prose is).
Wait, how do you know it's that and not just a random-number-of-pages-per-book placeholder? Did Toady say anything about how the length of books is determined other than they have a length? The latest devlog doesn't lead me to believe so, and I don't remember anything from the FotF.
Post by: Knight Otu on October 02, 2011, 05:23:10 pm
Post by: Cruxador on October 02, 2011, 05:31:05 pm
Quote
On the more amusing side, I went to a tower at night, and all the zombies were sleeping. But they can't sleep or be KO'd in any way, so they were actually just pretending to sleep. They didn't attack me, but I didn't get any attack bonuses either, aside from the one for them being on the ground.This would be a cool feature to have happen in the towers of more eccentric necromancers.
Post by: Neonivek on October 02, 2011, 06:15:24 pm
QuoteOn the more amusing side, I went to a tower at night, and all the zombies were sleeping. But they can't sleep or be KO'd in any way, so they were actually just pretending to sleep. They didn't attack me, but I didn't get any attack bonuses either, aside from the one for them being on the ground.This would be a cool feature to have happen in the towers of more eccentric necromancers.
Well it isn't uncommon in fiction for Zombies to suddenly stop moving completely until they are a decent distance away from anyone.
Post by: darkflagrance on October 03, 2011, 12:35:31 am
Post by: zwei on October 03, 2011, 01:24:54 am
I can't help but feel that to some extent, the tying of the creation of monsters, apprentices, and books to previously extant historical figures is decreasing the verisimilitude of world gen. Because of how few world gen figures there are (and can be due to computational costs), it is inevitable that every possible dwarf fortress world gen event will happen to a world gen figure; it will be bizarre reading histories where every world gen figure is a leader or noble or one kind or another who had wrote a book, discovered immortality, and then became a monster.
Do not forget taming giant eagles!
Post by: Neonivek on October 03, 2011, 08:50:00 am
I can't help but feel that to some extent, the tying of the creation of monsters, apprentices, and books to previously extant historical figures is decreasing the verisimilitude
For now Toady is just working on making it happen rather then making things unfold logically. This is starting to have the problem of "Some actions are purely illogical"
Also creating books isn't that unusual. Things were boring back then and as such a lot of people with some intellect would do... something...
They are usually just pen written first copies.
Post by: Miuramir on October 03, 2011, 09:27:38 am
I can't help but feel that to some extent, the tying of the creation of monsters, apprentices, and books to previously extant historical figures is decreasing the verisimilitude of world gen. Because of how few world gen figures there are (and can be due to computational costs), it is inevitable that every possible dwarf fortress world gen event will happen to a world gen figure; it will be bizarre reading histories where every world gen figure is a leader or noble or one kind or another who had wrote a book, discovered immortality, and then became a monster.
Given the preponderance of real early texts that are either 1) religious, 2) biographies/family histories of nobility, 3) secret knowledge (alchemy, metallurgy, etc.); it seems reasonable that DF texts follow similar patterns. We still seem to be missing the "generic holy book" ("In 324 Urist McDevout created a masterpiece 81 page tome 'Ushilzangin' on the worship of Ethbeshonshen, in his aspect as a Giant Sparrow exemplifying the sphere of Seasons") and their follow-on effects ("In 349 Urist McDilettante read the tome 'Ushilzangin' and became a devout worshiper of Ethbeshonshen"); but I would guess something along those lines is likely to go in eventually.
Looking at the other side of things, world gen can easily have thousands of notable figures; setting the odds so that the right number of them have "unusual" events is a balance question for fairly late in the process. Hopefully, it will be controlled by init options, so people wanting long histories don't end up with everyone important undead (unless they want it that way), but also allowing for it to be cranked up for testing. From another standpoint, how many medieval or earlier historical figures do most people know that *didn't* have something unusual happen to them? Reality tends to prune unimportant historical figures even more harshly than DF.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 03, 2011, 10:15:04 am
We still seem to be missing the "generic holy book" ("In 324 Urist McDevout created a masterpiece 81 page tome 'Ushilzangin' on the worship of Ethbeshonshen, in his aspect as a Giant Sparrow exemplifying the sphere of Seasons") and their follow-on effects ("In 349 Urist McDilettante read the tome 'Ushilzangin' and became a devout worshiper of Ethbeshonshen")i loved that, now there's a great suggestion.
Post by: Melissia on October 03, 2011, 10:21:50 am
Is crafting (or perhaps paying others to craft for you, putting those lazy human weaponsmiths/armorsmiths/clothiers to good use!), planned for an official DF Adventurer mode update?
Is there further customization for adventurer mode being made, such as choosing your description at character generation instead of it being randomly generated?
I find DF Fort mode to be pretty damned good, so I'm awaiting that update simply for extra bonus content, but adventurer mode really needs an update in comparison.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 03, 2011, 12:32:32 pm
Post by: Untelligent on October 03, 2011, 01:16:50 pm
Post by: monk12 on October 03, 2011, 02:07:19 pm
Post by: Melissia on October 03, 2011, 02:49:03 pm
Also yay for the crafting thing... I want to, eventually, do a game where there's no more civilizations and I'm basically living off of the melted and re-forged items of the victims of night creatures or other beasts, and the leathers, furs, and bones of beasts I've slain.
Post by: scriver on October 03, 2011, 02:59:35 pm
also, i dunno it this is answered somewhere: any chance a fully customizable dwarf description is in the works? basically for adventure mode, but maybe for special dwarfs in dwarf mode? it would be nice to model a dwarf after my looks and/or personality, or others that "sponsor" a dwarf in my fortress.
This came up in the old List thread: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg831163#msg831163)Quote from: Toady OneQuote 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: freeformschooler on October 03, 2011, 03:38:16 pm
What makes you think I know anything? All I'm doing is extrapolating from the stuff Toady told us - that the necromancers write about stuff they know, and that a book about a converted spouse gets 30 pages while one about a direct apprentice who also happened to be a queen gets almost ten times that much.
When you use words like "is quite certainly" instead of "is probably" and "is very likely", you're generally stating something as fact. Any reasonable person would deduce from a statement stated as fact that the stater knows, or at least believes to know, the truth behind the fact they state. Just so you know. For an example of a fact: the aforementioned rule most certainly applies to extrapolation in most circumstances.
I've got another question.
To what extent are we going to see randomly generated interactions/variations on interactions in this release? I know we've got, for example, some flexibility on vampires based on past FotF posts.
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 03, 2011, 03:42:37 pm
Are all books currently unique, or can there be copies? For example, if one entity writes a biography of the dwarven king, then several others do the same, would those that had access to the original biography copy it, or write their own. If the former, how would this be represented in-game?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 03, 2011, 04:14:05 pm
i'm picturing dwarves highly proficient in certain subjects writing books other dwarves could read on their break times to level up both student skill and the respective skill. also, martial arts manuals.
EDIT:and any short term plans for libraries outside of necromancer towers?
Post by: Dsarker on October 03, 2011, 04:22:27 pm
is there a short term plan to integrate books in fortress mode?
i'm picturing dwarves highly proficient in certain subjects writing books other dwarves could read on their break times to level up both student skill and the respective skill. also, martial arts manuals.
EDIT:and any short term plans for libraries outside of necromancer towers?
Hmmmm... I'm just imagining a book for the student skill....
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 03, 2011, 04:23:11 pm
Post by: Greiger on October 03, 2011, 04:25:29 pm
Ninjas.
Post by: monk12 on October 03, 2011, 09:51:19 pm
Quote from: devlog
One more zombie invasion thing to do -- something fun.
Oooh, intriguing. Allow me to begin the wild mass guessing- I bet it's some kind of special siege zombie, or perhaps zombie mounts.
Post by: piecewise on October 03, 2011, 09:55:16 pm
Post by: Neonivek on October 03, 2011, 09:57:40 pm
I vote for spending a little more time on books, because they're awesome.
Ohh yeah NOW I know you... Too bad there is little I can remedy about it :'(
I am very vague sometimes.
Post by: piecewise on October 04, 2011, 01:57:01 am
Very vague indeed.I vote for spending a little more time on books, because they're awesome.
Ohh yeah NOW I know you... Too bad there is little I can remedy about it :'(
I am very vague sometimes.
Post by: thvaz on October 04, 2011, 02:57:18 am
I vote for spending a little more time on books, because they're awesome.
They are awesome, but I vote for them to be worked later, in a proper way. The lack of releases is already hurting Toady's income.
Post by: Cruxador on October 04, 2011, 03:26:40 am
I can't help but feel that to some extent, the tying of the creation of monsters, apprentices, and books to previously extant historical figures is decreasing the verisimilitude of world gen. Because of how few world gen figures there are (and can be due to computational costs), it is inevitable that every possible dwarf fortress world gen event will happen to a world gen figure; it will be bizarre reading histories where every world gen figure is a leader or noble or one kind or another who had wrote a book, discovered immortality, and then became a monster.I don't feel that the computational load of worldgen stuff should be considered too heavily. Even if worldgen's computation cost were massively huge, it's not that big of a deal because we can just let the world generate on one core while doing other things on a different core.
Post by: eux0r on October 04, 2011, 04:24:50 am
is there a short term plan to integrate books in fortress mode?
i'm picturing dwarves highly proficient in certain subjects writing books other dwarves could read on their break times to level up both student skill and the respective skill. also, martial arts manuals.
EDIT:and any short term plans for libraries outside of necromancer towers?
im interested in those questions too.
on another note: martial arts manuals are useless irl, so i doubt it would make sense implementing those(well, they could be there, but without the effect of actually learning any combat skills)
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 04, 2011, 04:29:28 am
Post by: Rose on October 04, 2011, 04:35:29 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 04, 2011, 04:43:41 am
Quote
The term Martial Arts today has become heavily associated with the fighting arts of eastern Asia, but was originally used in regard to the combat systems of Europe as early as the 1550s and an English fencing manual of 1639 used it in reference specifically to the "Science and Art" of swordplay. The term is ultimately derived from Latin, martial arts being the "Arts of Mars," the Roman god of war.[1]and an example of a european martial arts manual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.33)
-------------------
we're discussing martial arts manuals, and from what i get, euxor either has a problem with eastern martial arts considering them useless in a fight, or has a problem with cheap manuals on eastern martial arts.
Post by: Neonivek on October 04, 2011, 06:11:45 am
and while there is some truth to what he says, afterall an advanced calculous manual is useless for someone without any calculous, there have been people who have taught themselves successful martial arts through manuals.
Some martial arts manuals include actually very specific training regiments and stances.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 04, 2011, 08:00:23 am
That could be modelled in game too, one could acquire theoretical knowledge of a skill and it would be represented in game similarly to rusted skills(replacing the "(rusted)" with "(theoretical)", or something along those lines), and then with practice he could master that knowledge much faster than what he would by simple practice alone
Post by: [NO_THOUGHT] on October 04, 2011, 09:48:58 am
Now that spacebar no longer works as a menu escape as well as unpause, is there any way for the auto-pause in menus (such as designation and construction) to be disabled? I would really like to be able to designate and dig at the same time.
I know the OP says to avoid bringing in the suggestion forum (for which I am sorry that I didn't ask this question when it was current) but there is a suggestion topic and most people think it's a good idea for a pace change.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 04, 2011, 09:54:07 am
Post by: thedrelle on October 04, 2011, 11:45:18 am
well, that can be said for any practical knowledge being acquired from theoretical manuals, not only martial arts.
That could be modelled in game too, one could acquire theoretical knowledge of a skill and it would be represented in game similarly to rusted skills(replacing the "(rusted)" with "(theoretical)", or something along those lines), and then with practice he could master that knowledge much faster than what he would by simple practice alone
What we need is "Necromancy for Dummies".
Post by: Rose on October 04, 2011, 11:49:04 am
It will be written by guy that was alive since year 1
it will have his entire life story.
each day will be described in detail.
50 pages will be "Watched the trees today. They did not eat me."
Post by: Rip0k on October 06, 2011, 11:31:47 am
I think Euxor believes that you can't learn martial arts through a manual.
and while there is some truth to what he says, afterall an advanced calculous manual is useless for someone without any calculous, there have been people who have taught themselves successful martial arts through manuals.
Some martial arts manuals include actually very specific training regiments and stances.
well, that can be said for any practical knowledge being acquired from theoretical manuals, not only martial arts.
That could be modelled in game too, one could acquire theoretical knowledge of a skill and it would be represented in game similarly to rusted skills(replacing the "(rusted)" with "(theoretical)", or something along those lines), and then with practice he could master that knowledge much faster than what he would by simple practice alone
Since books contain only knowledge, and not the skill itself. Wouldn't it be better then, if in game manual-books just give a temporary (depending on memory) boost to learning rate of specific skill?
Post by: scriver on October 06, 2011, 11:52:52 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 06, 2011, 12:02:40 pm
Post by: Tiny on October 06, 2011, 01:43:32 pm
well, that can be said for any practical knowledge being acquired from theoretical manuals, not only martial arts.
That could be modelled in game too, one could acquire theoretical knowledge of a skill and it would be represented in game similarly to rusted skills(replacing the "(rusted)" with "(theoretical)", or something along those lines), and then with practice he could master that knowledge much faster than what he would by simple practice alone
That would be a neat way to handle it, it could be improved further is the rustyness of a skill was more granular, so you have the theoretical skill and the practice of the skill. Maybe skill rust would never hit zero practice but that's where you'd start is you leanerd a practical skill from books.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 06, 2011, 02:45:13 pm
Post by: Untelligent on October 06, 2011, 03:41:12 pm
Post by: eux0r on October 06, 2011, 10:19:14 pm
-i have no problems with eastern martial arts, i practice one myself ^^
-my problem with the manuals would be that it is impossible to actually gain any combat skills just by reading books, no matter how detailed they are. however, they can give guidance on how to train. but without the actual training itself, reading the book gives no benefits, thats what i meant
Post by: zwei on October 07, 2011, 02:12:58 am
-on the usage of the term martial arts: i thought the person using it for the manuals only meant hand-to-hand combat skills
-i have no problems with eastern martial arts, i practice one myself ^^
-my problem with the manuals would be that it is impossible to actually gain any combat skills just by reading books, no matter how detailed they are. however, they can give guidance on how to train. but without the actual training itself, reading the book gives no benefits, thats what i meant
On the other hand, books about administration should give you skills even if you do not use then in practice and books about carpentry that give you something inbetween - modest skill raise and some theoretical knowledge that can be built upon with practice.
Post by: thvaz on October 07, 2011, 03:53:55 am
Quote
The necromancer/invasion/books part is done. Next up are mummies. The main things to do there are to improve their tomb maps and to add some variety to their curses. We might also activate some mummies during world gen, which would open them up to mess with you during dwarf mode.
It would be still cooler if entombed nobles of our fortresses could become mummies if disturbed in adventure mode.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 07, 2011, 09:11:32 am
Post by: Neonivek on October 07, 2011, 09:15:12 am
thats not how you create mummies
To admit most settings where Mummies arn't simple zombies usually have an explanation as to why a preserved corpse becomes a zombie instead of a mummy.
In Dungeons and Dragons for example Mummies have extra sorcery involved.
Post by: Kappas on October 07, 2011, 10:03:43 am
Must have!
(notice: this was not really a suggestion!)
Post by: Dae on October 07, 2011, 10:12:45 am
-my problem with the manuals would be that it is impossible to actually gain any combat skills just by reading books, no matter how detailed they are. however, they can give guidance on how to train. but without the actual training itself, reading the book gives no benefits, thats what i meant
So reading a book would give you an experience bonus when you get some in a particular skill, up to a limit fixed by the skill of the writer and his ability to teach others, said bonus being proportionnal to your memory and decreasing with time ?
Post by: Rip0k on October 07, 2011, 10:32:26 am
Additionally, Wiki mentions some "unused" skills, like Reader and Writer Does it mean that those are already in game and just need to be used somewhere?
EDIT: Unnecessary Quotation removed ;p
Post by: Mephansteras on October 07, 2011, 11:00:47 am
Let's not forget skills like Concentration, Student and Teacher that could take part in this as well.
Additionally, Wiki mentions some "unused" skills, like Reader and Writer Does it mean that those are already in game and just need to be used somewhere?
Yes, those skills are valid. You can mod with them, although they aren't really used for much.
Post by: scriver on October 07, 2011, 11:30:56 am
Post by: DG on October 09, 2011, 05:14:30 am
Post by: jdf318 on October 09, 2011, 12:33:30 pm
Post by: Rose on October 09, 2011, 12:43:04 pm
Post by: EnigmaticHat on October 09, 2011, 03:17:30 pm
Will the combat system ever support blowing holes through someone if a projectile is shot with enough force? Right now it just propells the target creature back.
Well... I know that people have gotten one of their internal organs wet by getting stabbed and then jumping in a river, so I'm pretty sure the system already supports holes. Presumably the right weapon can make a hole all the way through a person, but I'm not sure if that has any particular effects.
Post by: jdf318 on October 09, 2011, 03:45:28 pm
Will the combat system ever support blowing holes through someone if a projectile is shot with enough force? Right now it just propells the target creature back.
Well... I know that people have gotten one of their internal organs wet by getting stabbed and then jumping in a river, so I'm pretty sure the system already supports holes. Presumably the right weapon can make a hole all the way through a person, but I'm not sure if that has any particular effects.
Oh I can make holes alright, the problem is its to a point. After that they just get propelled, which is the problem.
Post by: Hugo van der Sanden on October 09, 2011, 06:36:20 pm
1. A follower gets tapped on the arm and drops their weapon; they never pick it up again, and eventually become a wrestler; a crossbowman starts with 30 bolts, but has no means to pick up a used bolt or acquire more; eventually, they become a hammer{man,dwarf}.
Ideally these example guys would know their needs and desires, would pick up and wield weapons and missiles as appropriate, as well as looting defeated enemies for useful weapons, armour and (more generally) wealth.
But until then: I read in the original dev notes an intention to support the idea that "everyone would permit trade, at the right price" - if I could trade with my followers to give them what they need, that'd make a huge difference to my ability to keep them alive. I think that'd need, in addition, allowing gifts to give an "are you sure?" rather than x-for-zero trades automatically givbing a "yes yes, that's what you want to trade, but what do you want in return?"; I think it'd also need a follower to be capable of wielding/wearing/using an item received in such a trade, if suitable (and, trickier, knowing what's suitable - giving an accordion to a swordsman should ideally not cause them to wield the accordion in the next fight).
2. After travelling in the world map, my follower list is often fatally reduced from what it was when I set out. Either automatically on entering travel mode, or by means of a separate "gather followers" command, I could really do with "5 followers are not available to travel: 2 because they are dead, 1 because she is unconscious, 1 because she is enthralled, and 1 because she's busy fighting an enraged badger".
I'm not sure if it happens, but likewise if a follower gets distracted during a world-map journey, I'd like a warning and an option to descend to local map and chase/help her.
There are many smaller things, but these two feel like they'd make a huge difference to the concept of forging a band of coaligned fighters.
- it'd be hugely helpful if there was a "rally to me" shout that would attract those in earshot that had a "duty" rating sufficient to exceed their engagement in whatever they were busy with;
- I'd love to be able to see their stats, make them train, have them sneak and swim when I do, have them post lookouts when camping, and have them automatically build a temporary (fortified, according to ability and knowledge) camp when camping;
- there should probably also be some potential for in-camp treachery (thieving, assassinating), impregnation and other interactions, and eventually a round-up page that allows you to check (your adventurer's analysis of) the psychological makeup of the group and potential for problems;
- that might end up being a useful precursor for a similar round-up page for fortress mode.
Can I make potential recruits fill in a personality profiling questionnaire before recruiting them? Can they then turn me down on the grounds that "I am not a number"? :)
Hugo
Post by: Untelligent on October 09, 2011, 07:10:16 pm
Post by: scriver on October 09, 2011, 07:14:26 pm
However, while at least I and I'm sure others enjoyed your well thought-out post, this thread was not intended as a suggestion thread as we already have a forum for that (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?board=5.0), and any future suggestions would be more fit to go there. This thread is more for asking questions to Toady about the current development as well as discussion of, well, the current development.
Also I'm sorry for sounding so overly formal. It always happens when I try to write posts like this. ;)
Post by: Greiger on October 09, 2011, 09:13:35 pm
We must protect the Toady and the Threetoe! We're looking as disorganized and ineffectual as those silly Free Masons here for Armok's sake!
P.S. Get better soon!
Post by: Neonivek on October 09, 2011, 09:32:57 pm
Post by: Cruxador on October 09, 2011, 10:31:17 pm
I actually don't know what "Rolling over your ankle" even is. Is it like what I do sometimes and step on my ankle? I admit after doing it 3 or 4 times in a row it certainly felt sprained.I assume it means he stepped wrong such that weight wasn't distributed on his ankle in the way that it's designed for, and the ankle was thus damaged.
Post by: Footkerchief on October 09, 2011, 11:13:04 pm
How extensive are you planning on making magic be? Will it simply be useful in combat or for necromancing up minions? Or will you be able to do more complex things, like enchanting objects or using spells that affect other people's actions?
In this version, just the former plus some vampire-type stuff, although modders may discover interesting possibilities. Enchanted objects, allegiance changes etc. would ideally be covered by a complete magic system, but won't be possible with the next update.
Ok heres one from me: Do you intend to, any time soon, ad and actual world goal mechanism. By that I mean, will the worldgen also make give the world a specific reason or something that it has to do. For instance- Before time There was a spirit that rebelled against the rest of the spirits and it sought to destroy the world that they had all made(Thats a sort of bad vs good) or something like three dudes who made the world now at war with each other or maybe even nothing at all. What are your thoughts on that?
This has been covered recently: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1653216#msg1653216)
Quote from: Toady One
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.
Look the only point that in Dwarf Fortress Evil seems to be a force. Curses exist, cursed lands exist (as well as their mechanics to become cursed), and even creatures who are evil exist. Yet good is fanciful and just as destructive and dangerous to all life. There is no benevolence only malevolence.
which is what is essentially the question
Where is the Benevolence?
Tranquil, constructive, balance-seeking entities come up in ThreeToe's stories as forest spirits etc.
I've gotta ask, will there ever be ways to just... do stuff? Like, if I wanted to do a dance on the corpse of a hydra I could go into a menu and select 'dance' from a list while standing on the hydra? Maybe do stuff like yelling at enemies during battle, or taunts?
A generic "do stuff" system is the holy grail of videogames -- because it's impossibly hard and basically implies AI and supercomputers. Those examples could be implemented individually, but due to finite resources, that'll only happen if they're pertinent to the setting/gameplay.
Now that we have books, secrets can still be find on slabs? There other places people can learn secrets?
Do apprentices learn the secrets directly from their masters or by using books/slabs found on their towers?
Only necromancers can have apprentices or the system will also allow other historical figures to have apprentices?
I see no reason to think books have made slabs obselete.
Since apprenticeships only occur in world gen, it's probably abstracted out.
If the system had been extended to other types of historical figures, we'd have heard about it.
According to the latest devblog, the layout of towers were generated on arriving in an area, rather than during worldgen. Is this true of all worldgen locations?
I think so. I don't know of any low-level, fully fleshed-out maps that are created during world generation.
Is crafting (or perhaps paying others to craft for you, putting those lazy human weaponsmiths/armorsmiths/clothiers to good use!), planned for an official DF Adventurer mode update?
All kinds of stuff under "Basic Adventure Mode Skills". (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html)
Will the combat system ever support blowing holes through someone if a projectile is shot with enough force? Right now it just propells the target creature back.
I know Toady discussed exit wounds in an older FotF thread, but I can't find the post
Post by: monk12 on October 09, 2011, 11:36:16 pm
Toady rolled his ankle in a parking lot! Clearly we are failing our bodyguard duties. Where was the agent with futuresight to protect the ankle? Where was the instant teleporting ankle brace that is supposed to teleport into position at the exact moment it is needed to prevent injury? Where is the level 85 druid to spam lifeblooms and regrowths to hasten the healing?
We must protect the Toady and the Threetoe! We're looking as disorganized and ineffectual as those silly Free Masons here for Armok's sake!
P.S. Get better soon!
Monk12 uses Future Sight! It's not very effective...
Post by: Neonivek on October 09, 2011, 11:38:26 pm
Quote
Tranquil, constructive, balance-seeking entities come up in ThreeToe's stories as forest spirits etc
Oddly enough these have been Antagonistic and malevolent as well. These very same creatures already exist in the game and they as destructive as their violent, destructive, and chaotic brothers.
Also Tranquil, Constructive, and Balance Seeking are not benevolent. It is why I used that word and not "good" or "Nice" or "peaceful".
Also I was hardly asking for a Threetoe Non-canon summation of my question. They are Threetoe writing whatever he likes while Toady thinks about it in terms of possible features.
Because I know the implication of Footkerchief answering one of your questions. I'll actually respond to it in full later.
Post by: Rose on October 10, 2011, 02:52:27 am
Him and Toady work together on the stories to flesh out what they want to happen in the game. If it's in one of his stories, it's canon, and odds are, given infinite time, it'll be in the game.
Post by: DG on October 10, 2011, 04:19:43 am
Toady rolled his ankle in a parking lot! Clearly we are failing our bodyguard duties. Where was the agent with futuresight to protect the ankle? Where was the instant teleporting ankle brace that is supposed to teleport into position at the exact moment it is needed to prevent injury? Where is the level 85 druid to spam lifeblooms and regrowths to hasten the healing?
We must protect the Toady and the Threetoe! We're looking as disorganized and ineffectual as those silly Free Masons here for Armok's sake!
P.S. Get better soon!
Monk12 uses Future Sight! It's not very effective...
You need to organise a squad of ten to carry a sedan chair. Only four members should be active at once to prevent bad thoughts from overly long duty time.
Post by: Neonivek on October 10, 2011, 11:16:57 am
ah, but you see, Threetoe is canon.
Within the context of his own stories. Read the features section and you will see why it is often... to say the least tenuious (if that is the correct word)
Post by: Footkerchief on October 10, 2011, 12:21:09 pm
Oddly enough these have been Antagonistic and malevolent as well. These very same creatures already exist in the game and they as destructive as their violent, destructive, and chaotic brothers.
If you mean the forest titans etc, I don't think those are meant to be exactly the same as forest spirits.
Also Tranquil, Constructive, and Balance Seeking are not benevolent. It is why I used that word and not "good" or "Nice" or "peaceful".
What sort of actions would be associated with a benevolent force?
Because I know the implication of Footkerchief answering one of your questions. I'll actually respond to it in full later.
I wasn't answering that question so much as bringing up a point of discussion.
Post by: Neonivek on October 10, 2011, 12:41:25 pm
What sort of actions would be associated with a benevolent force?
I wasn't answering that question so much as bringing up a point of discussion.
Really? Whee! I was worried my question was outright negated >_> (which always stinks when it happens)
Anyhow a benevolent force is giving, nuturing, and generally a "benefit" (so to speak).
The reason why "good" or even "peace" isn't nessisarily benevolent is because for the sake of peace one can slaughter a nation, to purge the world of evil one can plunge the world into death.
A Benevolent force whos prime goal is the benefit of all around it. A Restless Spirit of a great doctor who cures the sick, a Tree that gives of its own fruits, or a great water spirit who gives those dying in the desert live giving water and who do so for no benefit of their own (no alterior motives).
The "Good lands" is possibly the best example of a good as malevolent, though probably through no fault of its own. Sure it looks like a magical wonderland, but just like the real wonderland it is brimming with danger and the average being of good is antagonistic towards those that are not simply because to those bathed in nothing but good, the minds of one who is not is vile evil.
My question is with a world filled with dangerous and evil forces who want nothing but to rip you to shreds, who use people to their own ends, who don the cloak of good and stab those around them. Where is the benevolent forces? Supernatural Beings whos goal is the genuin good, lands that actively benefit those that reside in them, and heck even Altruism in the culture themself.
Mind you I am not blind to the fact that benevolent forces can in essence be harmful in that they can help the wrong kind of people. A Spirit Doctor could only heal bandits, being once one himself.
Post by: monk12 on October 10, 2011, 01:16:14 pm
Found it! (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:String_dump)
"it emanates an aura of giving and kindness"
Towards the bottom of the Worldgen strings, in with the other randomly generated pieces. Also of note are "it bears a look of unbelievable peace," "joy marks its every movement," and "it moves its will in accordance with the truth of things."
So yes, it appears that altruistic creatures are planned. The likely reason they aren't in yet is because it is much more interesting and immediate, from a gameplay perspective, to have random creatures make life worse for you than have them make it better. Making it Better is what your adventurer is supposed to be doing, after all, and if Random Acts of Good counteract the Random Acts of Evil, then your hero's to-do list gets markedly shorter.
Lest my position be misunderstood, I am fully in favor of truly benevolent critters and look forward to Good Fairies, Shoe-making Elves, Friendly Oracles and whatever all else is bound to make it in- it's just fairly inevitable that Evil gets in before Good (using those terms loosely, anyway.)
Post by: Neonivek on October 10, 2011, 01:18:39 pm
Quote
"it emanates an aura of giving and kindness"
It gives pain and you end up Kinda in peices.
Post by: NobodyPro on October 10, 2011, 09:31:20 pm
Quote
"it emanates an aura of giving and kindness"IIRC, Toady said that this happens when a titan comes from a 'good' area. They can't be any kind of carrion animal and have that description despite their murderous tendencies.
Post by: Neonivek on October 10, 2011, 09:44:10 pm
Quote
If you mean the forest titans etc, I don't think those are meant to be exactly the same as forest spirits
I don't know. They seem to be spirits / incarnate gods. Large and powerful ones that are capable of exuding their very presence upon others (an unnatural feature).
Heck by all means they could be gods/forces.
Post by: hoveringdog on October 12, 2011, 01:02:42 am
What sort of actions would be associated with a benevolent force?
I wasn't answering that question so much as bringing up a point of discussion.
Really? Whee! I was worried my question was outright negated >_> (which always stinks when it happens)
Anyhow a benevolent force is giving, nuturing, and generally a "benefit" (so to speak). *snip*
Yeah, that all makes good sense. Maybe this sort of thing will become easier to add once different types of adventurer roles are better fleshed out. Adventurers right now are also pretty limited to demonstrating their moral preferences based solely on whom they choose to slay. Perhaps one day it will be possible for an adventurer to make his or her mark also by healing the sick, giving food to the hungry, and such. And when it does, I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult, coding wise, to program other sentient creatures who also initiate those kind of tasks.
I mean, at least until the hippies get slaughter by undead badgers.
Post by: piecewise on October 12, 2011, 04:31:01 pm
It makes sense to me that a divine tablet containing the power to revoke death would be rather powerfully magic even if not actively in use. I imagine it would do anything from passively raising the dead to protect itself to actively corrupting mortals into using it, Ring of power style.
Post by: Neonivek on October 12, 2011, 07:30:26 pm
To admit I always like seeing them. It tells me people think this game has serious potential.
Post by: Dsarker on October 12, 2011, 07:48:21 pm
Hmm a lot of "Toady needs to hire some people to do some of the work" suggestions lately.
To admit I always like seeing them. It tells me people think this game has serious potential.
Of course, best reply is "If Toady hires people, that means he needs to probably double his donations for every person he hires, plus all the other time wasting stuff that he needs to do to get them working properly, plus his donations have to be secure (i.e., making sure we have people definitely donating at least X amount per month and not Xx12 per year), and all that means the game will take longer to make, will be less efficient about the time (longer times per release, per bug fix, etc), and won't be as good."
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on October 12, 2011, 07:50:32 pm
What sort of actions would be associated with a benevolent force?
I wasn't answering that question so much as bringing up a point of discussion.
Really? Whee! I was worried my question was outright negated >_> (which always stinks when it happens)
Anyhow a benevolent force is giving, nuturing, and generally a "benefit" (so to speak). *snip*
Yeah, that all makes good sense. Maybe this sort of thing will become easier to add once different types of adventurer roles are better fleshed out. Adventurers right now are also pretty limited to demonstrating their moral preferences based solely on whom they choose to slay. Perhaps one day it will be possible for an adventurer to make his or her mark also by healing the sick, giving food to the hungry, and such. And when it does, I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult, coding wise, to program other sentient creatures who also initiate those kind of tasks.
I mean, at least until the hippies get slaughter by undead badgers.
Hippy? Apparently you have never fought a Vinhiem cleric! He spreads the light with a 10 pound spiked mace.
Post by: Dae on October 12, 2011, 07:56:37 pm
the hungry, and such. And when it does, I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult, coding wise, to program other sentient creatures who also initiate those kind of tasks.
If they do it randomly yes. If they do it properly, you are oh so wrong.
Post by: hoveringdog on October 12, 2011, 10:15:28 pm
the hungry, and such. And when it does, I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult, coding wise, to program other sentient creatures who also initiate those kind of tasks.
If they do it randomly yes. If they do it properly, you are oh so wrong.
Well, random, but in that way that DF effectively makes random look like an intentional narrative.
Post by: EveryZig on October 12, 2011, 10:31:38 pm
Post by: piecewise on October 12, 2011, 11:53:02 pm
Since raised corpses will no longer be in their coffins, will being raised cause a dwarf to also come back as a ghost?
To quote the Devlog
Quote
05/07/2011 I starved a dwarf and it came back (as a friendly undead peasant...). To avoid crossing various streams, animated corpses now keep track of the historical figure that was the source of the raised body, even though the historical figure's soul is detached from it (and available for ghostage). So relatives can still be properly horrified by a raised body without it actually being the person in question, and they might be haunted at the same time, oddly enough, provided that evil region animation continues to have nothing to do with the soul stuff. This'll also let it animate multiple severed body parts separately, though it'll also need to understand not having a central body part before that'll work. It would be cool to have arms crawling around though.
Emphasis mine.
Post by: Gamerlord on October 12, 2011, 11:56:55 pm
Post by: EveryZig on October 13, 2011, 12:20:07 am
To quote the DevlogMy point is not that ghostage can happen at the same time as zombification. What I meant was that with the system of disrupt tomb = ghost, a necromancer raiding a coffin will automatically be generating a ghost each time, unless zombification does not make the coffin stop counting for haunt-prevention.Quote05/07/2011 I starved a dwarf and it came back (as a friendly undead peasant...). To avoid crossing various streams, animated corpses now keep track of the historical figure that was the source of the raised body, even though the historical figure's soul is detached from it (and available for ghostage).
Emphasis mine.
Post by: jellsprout on October 13, 2011, 09:12:56 am
Since raised corpses will no longer be in their coffins, will being raised cause a dwarf to also come back as a ghost?
Quote from: erissianIs it possible to drag a dwarf and everything on them to a corpse stockpile before looting their body for socks? Could it be treated like a special case of moving an injured dwarf? Can properly buried dwarfs be raised?
Nothing has changed so that's not possible. The hope sometime is to get that done, but it invites a horror of bugs. If a necromancer gets a tile-wise line of sight on a body, including those in your coffins, then the body can be raised. I think because the body becomes a unit, a ghost probably won't additionally be disturbed, but once you knock out the zombie... I'm not sure. It would physically match the old dwarf in id, and so possibly excite a ghost, but it wouldn't have the right historical or unit id, so maybe not. Probably not...
Post by: Yoink on October 13, 2011, 09:46:05 am
I mean, like you could have your veteran adventurer, hunting evil all over the known world for years, gaining scars and followers and being pretty darn badass, and then suddenly he stumbles upon some ancient, forgotten tomb.
And then of course, having slain dragons and hydras and titans galor, he's pretty confident this isn't going to be much trouble. So he goes in with his small army, and... Something horrible happens.
Tl;Dr, there's always something NASTIER to discover. :D
Also, another thing I was thinking of the other week when 'moving fortress parts' were mentioned: BOATS.
Just imagine, your average disfunctional, bloodstained fortress, filled with despair, stale booze and dirty socks, afloat, heading down rivers or across the open sea, with forgotten beasts coming from the sky, or as forgotten, barnacle-crusted things from the depths... Imagine goblin pirates trading ship-mounted ballistae bolts and arrows with your trusty crew, and eventually when the whole damn thing has been afloat for years, is taking water, you can just put ashore and build a new fort on the other side of the world. :)
Sorry for rambling, I probably don't make much sense as I'lm half aslee-Zzzzzz.
Post by: piecewise on October 13, 2011, 10:37:38 am
I don't think Disturbing a coffin is a 100% chance of raising a ghost right now, but I'm not sure. If not, I don't see why it would if necromancers did it.To quote the DevlogMy point is not that ghostage can happen at the same time as zombification. What I meant was that with the system of disrupt tomb = ghost, a necromancer raiding a coffin will automatically be generating a ghost each time, unless zombification does not make the coffin stop counting for haunt-prevention.Quote05/07/2011 I starved a dwarf and it came back (as a friendly undead peasant...). To avoid crossing various streams, animated corpses now keep track of the historical figure that was the source of the raised body, even though the historical figure's soul is detached from it (and available for ghostage).
Emphasis mine.
Post by: monk12 on October 13, 2011, 03:40:24 pm
I don't think Disturbing a coffin is a 100% chance of raising a ghost right now, but I'm not sure. If not, I don't see why it would if necromancers did it.To quote the DevlogMy point is not that ghostage can happen at the same time as zombification. What I meant was that with the system of disrupt tomb = ghost, a necromancer raiding a coffin will automatically be generating a ghost each time, unless zombification does not make the coffin stop counting for haunt-prevention.Quote05/07/2011 I starved a dwarf and it came back (as a friendly undead peasant...). To avoid crossing various streams, animated corpses now keep track of the historical figure that was the source of the raised body, even though the historical figure's soul is detached from it (and available for ghostage).
Emphasis mine.
I'm pretty sure it isn't 100%- I seem to recall SCIENCE being conducted on this in an attempt to weaponize ghosts.
Post by: Xgamer4 on October 14, 2011, 08:36:50 pm
Post by: Dakk on October 14, 2011, 10:01:52 pm
Post by: Dbuhos on October 15, 2011, 02:50:14 am
I'm watching berserk again, and yet again I'm amazed about how the worlds DF generate are berserk like. What with the overworld demons being pretty much like apostles, bogeyman attacks resembling the monsters hunting guts because of the brand, generaly violent and unforgiving world, etc.
Imo the manga is better than the anime, but ey' I though of that too.
Post by: Karakzon on October 15, 2011, 03:41:34 am
If toady is going to do minor planes etc, would that mean you can gen a map, move all your dwarves into a plane and then build a gate of some kind so that if say you find a plane made of adamantine and magma -and a water source from somewere- you could just build your fortress in this extra dimensional plane and seal the gate when ever seiges come.
The hidden fortress of karakdur etc etc.
Post by: Dakk on October 15, 2011, 11:30:36 am
I'm watching berserk again, and yet again I'm amazed about how the worlds DF generate are berserk like. What with the overworld demons being pretty much like apostles, bogeyman attacks resembling the monsters hunting guts because of the brand, generaly violent and unforgiving world, etc.
Imo the manga is better than the anime, but ey' I though of that too.
True dat. They're making a series of animated films about the events that happen during the black swordsman arc and beyond to be released next year though, so it'll be awesome all around.
And with minor planes, it only gets more similar to berserk (astral world and all that). Now if toady ever makes it so some creatures have a presence on multiple planes at once, and maybe elves could live almost exclusively in another plane.
Post by: darkflagrance on October 15, 2011, 12:59:50 pm
I'm watching berserk again, and yet again I'm amazed about how the worlds DF generate are berserk like. What with the overworld demons being pretty much like apostles, bogeyman attacks resembling the monsters hunting guts because of the brand, generaly violent and unforgiving world, etc.
Imo the manga is better than the anime, but ey' I though of that too.
True dat. They're making a series of animated films about the events that happen during the black swordsman arc and beyond to be released next year though, so it'll be awesome all around.
And with minor planes, it only gets more similar to berserk (astral world and all that). Now if toady ever makes it so some creatures have a presence on multiple planes at once, and maybe elves could live almost exclusively in another plane.
And maybe the trees have a massive sentient presence on the other plane, and that's where the elves go to tree-sing their wood from them, and that's why the elves are so angry when you cut down trees; you kill a much greater being that what you think you're killing.
Post by: Neonivek on October 15, 2011, 01:10:06 pm
It certainly gives strong evidence towards a lot of the things elves do.
Post by: scriver on October 15, 2011, 01:37:19 pm
Post by: Neonivek on October 15, 2011, 01:44:18 pm
...Like making tools/weapons/armour out of and selling their dead relatives..?
They willingly gave of themselves... unlike those selfish Dwarves, cutting down unwilling trees.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 15, 2011, 07:41:28 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on October 15, 2011, 09:15:28 pm
And maybe the trees have a massive sentient presence on the other plane, and that's where the elves go to tree-sing their wood from them, and that's why the elves are so angry when you cut down trees; you kill a much greater being that what you think you're killing.
I really like this idea. The idea of trees being a sort of "root" for a sentient being in another plane. That also raises the question are there other things like that. Maybe in reverse. Like maybe elves are flowers in the tree plane and the tree-links take care of the elf-links, so they have a sort of symbiotic relationship. Thus elves must protect the trees that are keeping them alive in the other plane.
This is the awesome part of this community: every day you hear something interesting, funny, or both.
Post by: Neonivek on October 16, 2011, 04:36:33 am
In this case EmeraldWind is using "Nature Spirits" where each tree and possibly animal is connected with a spirit (or in this case being) that is also equally harmed by your actions.
Nature as Entity possibilities
1) Trees and animals are in fact fully sentient (or sapient if you want to be technical) beings that lack the ability to communicate (Hercules Adventures uses this)
2) Nature is a energy or spirit that permiates through all nature and living beings (Dungeons and dragons uses this)
3) Spirits exist inside non-intelligent beings or are otherwise connected (World of Darkness uses this)
4) The planet's health is represented by an avatar who grows stronger and weaker depending on its condition (Captain Planet uses this)
5) All nature co-exists into a single point creating a near dietific nature entity (Quest for Glory uses this)
6) Beings connected strongly with nature fight for its survival, creating a nature faction.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 16, 2011, 09:40:36 am
you saw james cameron' avatar? i hate it, it tries to convey all this crap about living in harmony with nature, only pandoras nature is nothing like nature, at all, it's more like one of those automated "houses of the future" you used to read about in curiosity magazines and crappy tv documentaries. if we had a nature that awesome here on earth(in the way that M. Sues are awesome), it'd be pretty easy not to destroy it. We don't, but that doesn't make destroying ecosystems cool.
I get this is a fantasy setting, and i'm ok with spirits of nature magically rewarding those who defend it, etc. but "hey, i know why elves are so uptight about mass logging, it kills creatures in another dimension" makes it sound as if the goal of halting the destruction of forests wouldn't be worth pursuing if they weren't magic, and that annoys me, not because i'm a tree-hugging hippy or an elf lover, i'm not, but because it reeks with hypocrisy and missing-the-pointisy
we don't need for trees to be magical beings in another world for mass logging to be a crime; the destruction of non-sentient forests actively harms the real world, and has done so since the beginning of civilization, and thats why the elves should fight to prevent it, not because every time you cut a tree, "god kills a kitten" in another dimension
Post by: scriver on October 16, 2011, 09:57:10 am
Also the aesop for this example wasn't "forests are magical and therefore worthy of protection" as much as it was "trees keeps us from getting killed in another dimension and therefore it benefits us to keep them alive in ours" selfish stuff.
Post by: G-Flex on October 16, 2011, 10:48:36 am
See: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceWhaleAesop
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 16, 2011, 11:07:10 am
Post by: scriver on October 16, 2011, 12:54:39 pm
i'm just complaining that simple ecological concerns should be enough to justify elves' behaviorAh, yes. I agree about that. Though I think it's more interesting if it's a religious thing. Also more likely, in my mind.
But hey, I envision them Elves as a league of mercantilistic oligarchies trying to maintain a monopoly on wood and wooden objects.
For no apparent reason. ;D
Post by: Neonivek on October 16, 2011, 02:02:42 pm
you guys doin that trope where you make nature something special and magical so it's worthy of protection? i hate that.
you saw james cameron' avatar? i hate it, it tries to convey all this crap about living in harmony with nature, only pandoras nature is nothing like nature, at all, it's more like one of those automated "houses of the future" you used to read about in curiosity magazines and crappy tv documentaries. if we had a nature that awesome here on earth(in the way that M. Sues are awesome), it'd be pretty easy not to destroy it. We don't, but that doesn't make destroying ecosystems cool.
I get this is a fantasy setting, and i'm ok with spirits of nature magically rewarding those who defend it, etc. but "hey, i know why elves are so uptight about mass logging, it kills creatures in another dimension" makes it sound as if the goal of halting the destruction of forests wouldn't be worth pursuing if they weren't magic, and that annoys me, not because i'm a tree-hugging hippy or an elf lover, i'm not, but because it reeks with hypocrisy and missing-the-pointisy
we don't need for trees to be magical beings in another world for mass logging to be a crime; the destruction of non-sentient forests actively harms the real world, and has done so since the beginning of civilization, and thats why the elves should fight to prevent it, not because every time you cut a tree, "god kills a kitten" in another dimension
Avatar isn't this trope in it of itself as the aliens weren't truely on the side of nature nor did nature have a voice.
Quote
it kills creatures in another dimension" makes it sound as if the goal of halting the destruction of forests wouldn't be worth pursuing if they weren't magic, and that annoys me, not because i'm a tree-hugging hippy or an elf lover, i'm not, but because it reeks with hypocrisy and missing-the-pointisy
It is still mostly a kill or be killed situation. In the VAST majority of fiction I've seen where Trees are connected with spirits... Other things like Rocks, mushrooms, and grass also each have their own individual spirit. Then in some of those that spirit isn't nessisarily a sapient or even sentient being, they often do mostly what the being itself does. (Note that Spirit and "Creature in another dimension" I consider to be the same thing. It still involved a creature partially related dying)
The issue is mostly that Elves will use deadly force to stop logging. or any tree anywhere. Even in real life did the the native americans not treat every tree as sacred to the point of being incapable of tearing them down (They had sacred groups of trees mind you... but those had significance).
So sometimes generation should, and sometimes it should not, generate nature itself as an actual living breathing force. Maybe Nature is another kind of magic, or IS magic, or maybe nature is some sort of living being somewhere (A god such as Gaia or possibly some sort of huge tree) and maybe Spirits and other creatures could represent nature's "side" so to speak. Othertimes maybe nature is just nature and Elves just like using deadly force to stop Dwarves from cutting their 50th large mushroom because of their belief systems.
This is what Dwarf Fortress should be doing at sometime. Making worlds where the differences can be fundemental. Where two worlds can have such stark differences as to feel like they are entirely different planets rather then what could possibly be different sections of the same world.
Post by: EveryZig on October 16, 2011, 04:40:18 pm
you saw james cameron' avatar? i hate it, it tries to convey all this crap about living in harmony with nature, only pandoras nature is nothing like nature, at all, it's more like one of those automated "houses of the future" you used to read about in curiosity magazines and crappy tv documentaries.I was always of the opinion that the 'nature' in Avatar was actually semi-forgotten biotech. The stuff with the animals and plants almost makes sense if the ecosystem actually was built to for the navi rather than just conveniently acting that way.
This is what Dwarf Fortress should be doing at sometime. Making worlds where the differences can be fundemental. Where two worlds can have such stark differences as to feel like they are entirely different planets rather then what could possibly be different sections of the same world.I agree that kind of thing would be awesome, if difficult. It would be quite hard to program multiple different magic systems that it selects from (such as god magic, naturally occuring magic, or no magic), but it would be really interesting to try and find out which one exists in your current world (especially once there are legends that are embellished or just myths).
Post by: EmeraldWind on October 16, 2011, 06:52:10 pm
you guys doin that trope where you make nature something special and magical so it's worthy of protection? i hate that.
you saw james cameron' avatar? i hate it, it tries to convey all this crap about living in harmony with nature, only pandoras nature is nothing like nature, at all, it's more like one of those automated "houses of the future" you used to read about in curiosity magazines and crappy tv documentaries. if we had a nature that awesome here on earth(in the way that M. Sues are awesome), it'd be pretty easy not to destroy it. We don't, but that doesn't make destroying ecosystems cool.
I get this is a fantasy setting, and i'm ok with spirits of nature magically rewarding those who defend it, etc. but "hey, i know why elves are so uptight about mass logging, it kills creatures in another dimension" makes it sound as if the goal of halting the destruction of forests wouldn't be worth pursuing if they weren't magic, and that annoys me, not because i'm a tree-hugging hippy or an elf lover, i'm not, but because it reeks with hypocrisy and missing-the-pointisy
we don't need for trees to be magical beings in another world for mass logging to be a crime; the destruction of non-sentient forests actively harms the real world, and has done so since the beginning of civilization, and thats why the elves should fight to prevent it, not because every time you cut a tree, "god kills a kitten" in another dimension
I wasn't really putting that in a way that makes nature more mystical or anything... at least not for purposes SAVING nature.
It's a bit more interesting to think of things like that. And I'm not saying it should be a universal constant either.
But the idea of creatures that do not have the same presence on multiple planes is kind of interesting to me. IE: A tree in the main plane is just a tree, but in the Tree plane it is a sort of caretaker. Whereas the elves exist in a sort of backward version of that.
As for the trees being caretakers to the elves' other selves and vise versa it is just an idea for an interesting relationship that can exist between the two entities. (It doesn't have to be elves either, I was just making an example.)
I also understand that there is plenty of reasons for elves to want to protect nature without magic and stuff to justify it, but the elves don't exactly respect nature in that vein of thought either. I mean right now elves don't really seem to care so much about nature as just trees specifically. By elven morals beavers an termites are against nature as much as anything else.
Plus, would cutting a tree here and killing a kitten there really stop anyone from doing it? (Actually, it sounds more like encouragement to me.) I wasn't in it for the Nature is Magic and needs Protection trope (whatever its real name is) just the idea and story potential of such a relationship and the mechanics there-in. On top of that, such a relationship is an interesting metaphor for how nature is often more important than we give it credit for.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 16, 2011, 06:55:08 pm
Even in real life did the the native americans not treat every tree as sacred to the point of being incapable of tearing them down (They had sacred groups of trees mind you... but those had significance).they will use deadly force(as deadly as hitting steel clad warriors with wooden toy swords can be) if you disrespect a diplomatic agreement. they wont declare war on you for cutting one tree.
i don't think a comparison to native americans fits very well. their lifetime doesn't end naturally, so they get to see, in one lifetime, forests being completely destroyed. They are not an exotic foreign culture, they've watched dwarves and humans defiling the forests since worldgen 0 and are perfectly aware of what they're capable.
The fact that for them the effects of logging are observable in real time might inspire them some urgence, and because human and dwarves lifespans are so short, they might see their lives as less worthy, especially due to the long term consequences of such a short lived creature
So sometimes generation should, and sometimes it should not, generate nature itself as an actual living breathing force. Maybe Nature is another kind of magic, or IS magic, or maybe nature is some sort of living being somewhere (A god such as Gaia or possibly some sort of huge tree) and maybe Spirits and other creatures could represent nature's "side" so to speak. Othertimes maybe nature is just nature and Elves just like using deadly force to stop Dwarves from cutting their 50th large mushroom because of their belief systems.i'm all for df generating different settings every worldgen
This is what Dwarf Fortress should be doing at sometime. Making worlds where the differences can be fundemental. Where two worlds can have such stark differences as to feel like they are entirely different planets rather then what could possibly be different sections of the same world.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 16, 2011, 08:18:09 pm
Elves are adjusted to theyr forrest like we are to citys and as a culture i think they understand the natural cycle and that cutting down to many trees is harmfull. After all forrests have a broad array of functions from soaking up water, binding soil up to manipulating the weather (this is a property of more tropical forests).
Deforrestation is btw. rather harmful for a medieval society. First of all you would need a alternative to firewood and trustme camel-shit isnt available everywhere and needs to be dried outside the desert. Secondly the metalproduction goes down because you cant get charcoal anymore. This also means that many farming tools like plows made from iron suddenly are very limited. Thirdly you cant build like you are used to. Higher floors were often made from wood and in some places people used "framed" buildings.
Anyway back to elves. I could imagine they have a rather animistic worldview which means that everything has a soul. This means not thought that every form life is so sacred that you cant use it to some extend. It just says that you should respect each and everything. If you kill a dear to eat it and wear its fur its fine if you have to and if you pay your respect and thanks to it. Given that elves are vegetarian communists with a vivid rope-reed industrie this means also that they as culture dont see a need to kill a dear because everyone has enough food and clothing.
I mean look at the USA they are so infused with the Idea of capitalism and market that they consider communism (which never existed in its pure form) or socialism as almost synonymous with pure evil. (not all US citizen mind you, but thats the gist i get by from watching the bigger networks once in a while). This has gone so far that were wars fought over this. Sure not cutting down trees and capitalism are not the same but the way both are ideas are imposed on other societies is the same.
And i am sorry for dragging politics as well economy into this.
Post by: Dae on October 16, 2011, 09:02:55 pm
you saw james cameron' avatar? i hate it, it tries to convey all this crap about living in harmony with nature, only pandoras nature is nothing like nature, at all, it's more like one of those automated "houses of the future" you used to read about in curiosity magazines and crappy tv documentaries.I was always of the opinion that the 'nature' in Avatar was actually semi-forgotten biotech. The stuff with the animals and plants almost makes sense if the ecosystem actually was built to for the navi rather than just conveniently acting that way.
A fact supporting that is the anatomy of the Na'vi. Namely the fact that they follow the same limb-organisation than humans whereas every other animal on the planet has 4 arms, 6 eyes and nostrils on the body directly connected to the lungs. Granted, it would've been much harder to relate and feel compassion for them.
Post by: Toady One on October 16, 2011, 10:07:33 pm
Quote from: Dienes
For the long term do you have any idea what kind of role writing will play in dwarf mode? Like writing books about whatever the dwarf wants like engravings (books about books about cheese) or where dwarves actually record information that gets used for something later on?
In our original idea for the game before it became our main game, the adventurer was going to go back and find diaries and production logs, so we'll probably have something like that in addition to the types we've already got for necromancers.
Quote from: Dsarker
Do current interactions that are not forced have a chance of being done by the creature, will always be done by the creature, or something else entirely? For example, will a necromancer with an interaction fire breath choose between raising dead or breathing fire?
They don't have a lot of criteria to work with, aside from use-on-foe type stuff, so they basically choose at random. But they do that instead of always using the first on the list, anyway, so it's something. When we've got more to work with, they'll be able to choose better, but it'll likely be through the "hint" variable I've got in the raws now, since it's not easy or even possible to make the game guess what to do with a mod through in-game analysis.
Quote from: keenerd
Will we ever have to bury the dead in adventure mode, to avoid overrunning the countryside with ghosts? I can see villagers giving mundane starter quests of the nature "I found a dozen bodies about two hours walk from here. Probably from a bandit attack. But I am too busy farming, could you give them proper burials before it is too late?"
Yeah, it isn't really coherent now that we have interactions, what's going on in dwarf mode, but as soon as dwarf mode ghosts occur through an interaction rather than a hard-coded mechanic, it'll be something to be considered, and as we track more body information and add more ghost story type stuff, that kind of thing should come up. We wanted to do haunted houses this time around, but it looks like we probably won't.
Quote from: piecewise
Would you mind showing us an example of one of the books in the game? Like, just pick one up from a necromancer tower and tell us what it says.
Those ones from the dev log are pretty much what you get now (I think I put them up after this question was asked). There aren't any actual quotes from the text.
Quote from: EmeraldWind
Will zombies continue to rot until they become skeletons or does their rotting stop once they are raised?
Are there any differences between skeletons and zombies other than the lack of tissue and organs?
How will the raise the dead interaction mesh with other interactions? For example, will were-creatures still transform?
I've seen questions about the interaction combinations between vampire were-creatures, but not about the raising interaction.
Plus, while I think a raised necromancer loses his ability to raise once dead due to the loss of his soul, were-creature interactions might be applied to the body for all I know.
Skeletons and zombies aren't distinguished in a binary named fashion anymore -- the body is just missing more or less stuff, and they can be in whatever state a regular creature body is in. They don't rot once they are raised, but I'm not sure what should be happening there in the end (not rotting is the status quo). I think if a dead werewolf is animated, it won't retain the interaction information attached to the historical figure (it's all basically soul-based now), so you'd just have a werewolf body that doesn't change back. If the werewolf is resurrected, it should retain the information, even if the resurrection effect adds new status variables (as being a new mummy does).
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady what would have to happen for Dwarf Fortress to include an even larger world then the maximum it has now? I wonder what would go into a decision like that.
It's a memory problem the way things are now, and a world gen speed problem after that. I guess the first would be remedied with 64 bits, but it would still be slow to generate, unless there were caps on the amount of stuff it had to think about. If the number of historical figures etc. were capped, then the only speed problems would be from the occasional pathing/connectivity routines that occur as well as the weather routine. The first isn't bad (since it doesn't have to account for changes like the local map does), but weather would probably have to be curtailed a bit. Oh, and I guess the save size would increase somewhat, and I'm not sure how annoying that would get with load times in between plays.
Quote from: Cruxador
Would the ability to state your intent for a retired character use the same framework as the hopes and dreams of the personality rewrite?
It would make the most sense to have everything under the same umbrella, since the pre-existing critters all need to act as well, so that would be my first choice.
Quote from: CaptainArchmage
Will books be found in bookcases, on tables, or just lying around on the floors of towers?
If we have a fort which contains one of these secret slabs or books, say by having an adventurer drop it in a location of our choice and then embarking over it, will it be treated as an artifact?
I passed on bookshelves and put the books on tables, as a time thing. The slab has the status of a mood artifact, and a book is the same extended class of item as a favorite weapon.
Quote from: Araph
How extensive are you planning on making magic be? Will it simply be useful in combat or for necromancing up minions? Or will you be able to do more complex things, like enchanting objects or using spells that affect other people's actions?
For now it is just the uses I've talked about, but for later it'll be all of whatever we can do. DF Talk transcripts might be the best place to go for information at this point, though I don't remember exactly how much I've talked about it.
Quote from: Neonivek
There is an old saying: "Even a Thief will go out of his way to help a friend"
So if you looking for pure evil people you are not going to find them either. Sociopaths, according to some psychologists, are people who took in the wrong hints and messages society sends out at a regular basis and simply follows them to their logical, and often destructive, conclusion.
Look the only point that in Dwarf Fortress Evil seems to be a force. Curses exist, cursed lands exist (as well as their mechanics to become cursed), and even creatures who are evil exist. Yet good is fanciful and just as destructive and dangerous to all life. There is no benevolence only malevolence.
which is what is essentially the question
Where is the Benevolence?
...
A Benevolent force whos prime goal is the benefit of all around it. A Restless Spirit of a great doctor who cures the sick, a Tree that gives of its own fruits, or a great water spirit who gives those dying in the desert live giving water and who do so for no benefit of their own (no alterior motives).
There's basically less of a return on that kind of work in terms of the game moving along, the way it's structured, but it's fair to have and I'm not against it or anything. The dwarves help each other out a bit. Inevitably there will be little fairies that live in houses and fix your shoes while you are sleeping and stuff. We already have a color and letter for them picked out -- but it's the kind of thing that will always struggle to be prioritized except by whim.
Quote
Quote from: EmeraldWindWhen you say 282 page, do you mean literally or informatively?
To clarify: Is it actually written out or does the game just tell you that is how long it is?Quote from: MechanoidCan we read the contents of a book whatever the size of it? Does it function like an in-game legends mode viewer that's highly specific to a single creature?
... If the weight of a book is based on the number of pages it has, can a book contain so many pages, that the player can not lift it without being heavilly slowed?
If reading speed is influenced by your movement speed, and you're moving at a crawl, and it takes a long time to read just one page... "Oh i'll just read this b-" *You have starved to death*Quote from: YetAnotherStupidDorfAlmost certainly it is just description.Quote from: inteunisoNow that writing is in, will dwarves who enter fey moods also do writings if they have the proper skills, thus becoming legendary poets?Quote from: thvazNow that we have books, secrets can still be find on slabs? There other places people can learn secrets?
Do apprentices learn the secrets directly from their masters or by using books/slabs found on their towers?
Only necromancers can have apprentices or the system will also allow other historical figures to have apprentices?
It just tells you the number of pages. I can't generate lots of prose. The legends are bad enough. I'm still wondering what a poetry generator would end up like, but for that, I probably will wait for the grammar rewrite to keep it all in a system.
There are no unliftable books (haven't done that old power goal yet). The books are instantly readable regardless of length. This'll be revisited sometime after we have longer term hours-long actions (which we mentioned in terms of things like tending your created site or training). There aren't dwarf book industries/jobs at this point.
The apprentices must learn the secrets immediately to avoid being killed by life-hating zombies, so they learn directly from teachers. Nobody can yet discover the book in world gen, and at that point you'd have kind of second generation necromancy going on (aside from the current adventurer, who can already do this). The apprentice system will doubtless be expanded (the framework is general) but I haven't done anything specific there.
Quote from: CaptainArchmage
According to the latest devblog, the layout of towers were generated on arriving in an area, rather than during worldgen. Is this true of all worldgen locations?
It keeps track of the information it needs to think about in attack AI/conversation/etc. It would take too long to generate every map from the start, and it would take more save space, especially now with the largest towns occupying up to a 17x17 embark area (which isn't all loaded at once). If it becomes important to remember one thing or another, it'll be moved into the world gen/map gen information (information about where city wall openings are, for example, which are currently generated later on but will want to be pre-known in time). The main downside of the way I'm doing it is save compatibility, since most tweaks to the map code will cause old saves to create maps differently even if you've been there before.
Quote from: freeformschooler
To what extent are we going to see randomly generated interactions/variations on interactions in this release? I know we've got, for example, some flexibility on vampires based on past FotF posts.
There are tweaks on various things like the Zombie Speed question and stuff like that, or whether or not a power is present, but there's nothing so sweeping that it would require some kind of exposition or different naming.
Quote from: Lord Shonus
Are all books currently unique, or can there be copies? For example, if one entity writes a biography of the dwarven king, then several others do the same, would those that had access to the original biography copy it, or write their own. If the former, how would this be represented in-game?
It would be cool to have things like monks copying books and so on, but right now they are unique. It saves the written content with its own independent id and so on, so copies of a given id are easy enough to do later (as with art images, where copying already occurs).
Quote from: Askot Bokbondeler
is there a short term plan to integrate books in fortress mode?
I don't have a short term plan for it.
Quote from: DG
Are the pages in DF books made of a specific material at the moment? Do you intend to have paper in the game or will it be limited to vellum?
I haven't gotten into the new page materials issue, since I'm not setting up industries at this point. At the same time, the pages are made of a tracked material different from the binding, and it keeps the craft info and maker for that (as with cloth or dye), even if there aren't technically any makers right now. The writing on it is independent of that. Ink/writing material is not tracked yet.
Quote from: jdf318
Will the combat system ever support blowing holes through someone if a projectile is shot with enough force? Right now it just propells the target creature back.
I'm not sure when it'll happen, but if there are reasonable cases for that (and there are even now with grazed fingers and so on, stopping bolts), then I'm sure I'll get to it when we focus more on combat.
Quote from: piecewise
Will Items from the gods, such as the tablets that contain the secrets of life and death, be handled as magical artifacts with related powers in the future?
It makes sense to me that a divine tablet containing the power to revoke death would be rather powerfully magic even if not actively in use. I imagine it would do anything from passively raising the dead to protect itself to actively corrupting mortals into using it, Ring of power style.
They don't necessarily need to be magical, but they'd certainly be up for whatever is available as things come in, as arbitrarily powerful and magical objects.
Quote from: EveryZig
Since raised corpses will no longer be in their coffins, will being raised cause a dwarf to also come back as a ghost?
I'm not sure, but what I think it depends on is the presence of a slab. If the body disappears from the coffin, it'll probably start looking for a slab, anyway. While the animated body is walking around, it won't count against you, but if it dies again, you might have to re-coffin it -- though that's not a sure thing. I'd have to look back to see if it wants the physical or metaphysical id on the corpse. I don't know what the right answer should be there, if there is only one.
Quote from: Gamerlord
Can Necromancers raise and command ghosts?
There's nothing like that now. When we get to constructed undead and other such things that necromancers will be playing with, a source of souls will need to be considered, which'll raise a zillion other questions. I'm not sure how ghosts are going to figure into it, but interactions that specifically target ghosts etc. are inevitable later on, and more likely when we start targeting souls and shuffling them around.
Post by: Hitty40 on October 16, 2011, 10:19:48 pm
Post by: Neonivek on October 16, 2011, 10:39:45 pm
I also laughed quite a bit when you answered my question on Benevolence. It was hillarious when you really think about it.
Post by: EveryZig on October 16, 2011, 11:03:24 pm
A fact supporting that is the anatomy of the Na'vi. Namely the fact that they follow the same limb-organisation than humans whereas every other animal on the planet has 4 arms, 6 eyes and nostrils on the body directly connected to the lungs. Granted, it would've been much harder to relate and feel compassion for them.I personally haven't had much experience with strange things being less sympathisable (except for very creepy things), and I kind of wonder whether I am unusual in that respect or whether the effect does apply to me and I haven't noticed it.
(Umm, is this getting too off-topic for this thread?)
Post by: Dae on October 16, 2011, 11:24:21 pm
Thank you once again Toady, I fought that insightful.
I also laughed quite a bit when you answered my question on Benevolence. It was hillarious when you really think about it.
"Yeah, the dwarves pretty much destroy everything around their fortress, but they're not that bad you know, they like to sing songs and stuff... Also, if your house was buried in lava, we'll eventually have fairies fixing you semi-molten shoes. Stay tuned ! We still don't have any short term plan for the Psychiatrist Pixies though, so I guess it's okay to cry yourself to sleep evey night in the meantime, he he he"
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 16, 2011, 11:35:06 pm
no it wouldnt: district 9 managed to do it quite effectively, heck even alien resurrection managed to do it to some extent with a giger aberration. avatar just has a cheap setting.you saw james cameron' avatar? i hate it, it tries to convey all this crap about living in harmony with nature, only pandoras nature is nothing like nature, at all, it's more like one of those automated "houses of the future" you used to read about in curiosity magazines and crappy tv documentaries.I was always of the opinion that the 'nature' in Avatar was actually semi-forgotten biotech. The stuff with the animals and plants almost makes sense if the ecosystem actually was built to for the navi rather than just conveniently acting that way.
A fact supporting that is the anatomy of the Na'vi. Namely the fact that they follow the same limb-organisation than humans whereas every other animal on the planet has 4 arms, 6 eyes and nostrils on the body directly connected to the lungs. Granted, it would've been much harder to relate and feel compassion for them.
Post by: Untelligent on October 16, 2011, 11:36:24 pm
Thank you once again Toady, I fought that insightful.
I also laughed quite a bit when you answered my question on Benevolence. It was hillarious when you really think about it.
"Yeah, the dwarves pretty much destroy everything around their fortress, but they're not that bad you know, they like to sing songs and stuff... Also, if your house was buried in lava, we'll eventually have fairies fixing you semi-molten shoes. Stay tuned ! We still don't have any short term plan for the Psychiatrist Pixies though, so I guess it's okay to cry yourself to sleep evey night in the meantime, he he he"
Oh lordy, that's a perfect impersonation of him. Well, during the Talks, anyway. He seems to have a different style of talking than typing.
Post by: O11O1 on October 16, 2011, 11:51:09 pm
Thank you once again Toady, I fought that insightful.
I also laughed quite a bit when you answered my question on Benevolence. It was hillarious when you really think about it.
"Yeah, the dwarves pretty much destroy everything around their fortress, but they're not that bad you know, they like to sing songs and stuff... Also, if your house was buried in lava, we'll eventually have fairies fixing you semi-molten shoes. Stay tuned ! We still don't have any short term plan for the Psychiatrist Pixies though, so I guess it's okay to cry yourself to sleep evey night in the meantime, he he he"
Psychiatrist Pixies actually like a demonstrably useful feature of a good biome.
Though we may or may not need to wait until we have actual Psychiatrist Dorfs. And the requisit masterwork straightjackets.
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on October 17, 2011, 01:27:55 am
Thank you once again Toady, I fought that insightful.
I also laughed quite a bit when you answered my question on Benevolence. It was hillarious when you really think about it.
"Yeah, the dwarves pretty much destroy everything around their fortress, but they're not that bad you know, they like to sing songs and stuff... Also, if your house was buried in lava, we'll eventually have fairies fixing you semi-molten shoes. Stay tuned ! We still don't have any short term plan for the Psychiatrist Pixies though, so I guess it's okay to cry yourself to sleep evey night in the meantime, he he he"
Psychiatrist Pixies actually like a demonstrably useful feature of a good biome.
Though we may or may not need to wait until we have actual Psychiatrist Dorfs. And the requisit masterwork straightjackets.
I reckon a masterwork straightjacket would be sweet.
" I killed my entire family in a a tantrum then a necromancer raised them and I was forced to kill my entire family Again. Hey non nonny, nonny, hey nonny Nonny heeeey... This Masterwork giantcavespider straight jacket studded with exceptionaly work gold and encrusted with Sapphires of my favorite god with lessens my grief. I think i'm better now, bye nurse ratched."
Post by: Eric Blank on October 17, 2011, 02:06:07 am
Thank you once again Toady, I fought that insightful.
I also laughed quite a bit when you answered my question on Benevolence. It was hillarious when you really think about it.
"Yeah, the dwarves pretty much destroy everything around their fortress, but they're not that bad you know, they like to sing songs and stuff... Also, if your house was buried in lava, we'll eventually have fairies fixing you semi-molten shoes. Stay tuned ! We still don't have any short term plan for the Psychiatrist Pixies though, so I guess it's okay to cry yourself to sleep evey night in the meantime, he he he"
Psychiatrist Pixies actually like a demonstrably useful feature of a good biome.
Though we may or may not need to wait until we have actual Psychiatrist Dorfs. And the requisit masterwork straightjackets.
heheheh... Yes, psychiatrist pixies to help console and pacify dwarves, increasing the time it takes an unhappy dwarf to go insane. And giving a happy thought to boot. And then a huge sad thought when the cats eat one in front of a dwarf, at which point the overseer decides that the cats need to be put down, leading to all the cat owners getting pissed off, and a lack of pixies to pacify them.
Just a normal tantrum spiral with a couple extra steps. :P
I rather like the idea though. I had hoped Gorlaks could act similarly, actually. Making good conversation with dwarves on break, and even becoming friends (requiring currently-impossible inter-species relationships, besides being pets.)
Even other dwarves, especially friends and family, actively consoling one-another when they're feeling unhappy.
Actually, Toady; do you currently have any plans for making inter-species relationships possible, and letting other tame, sentient creatures assist dwarves? Not specifically as slaves, since dwarves consider slavery unthinkable, but through those (good) inter-species relationships, or as pets, or even for personal love for/interest in a certain field of work. I suppose it would be most helpful to the player to permit us to assign labors, but perhaps creatures that don't have a sense of desire for the labors set or duty to their home and loved ones, or have been having a bad day, would be far less likely to actually go do it. Currently, only fishing and hunting function for tame sentient beings.
For example, pet and master between sentient beings is essentially a loosely implied responsibility to one another, but actual assistance demanding their being in good relations. And assistance from non-pet creatures demanding a personality that favors being helpful, or some AI-tracked view of working out of necessity in a stressful situation (carrying wounded which they have no relation to, if they're a similar or greater size to dwarves). Perhaps pets or friends could help carry goods necessary for a reaction/construction, or hauling, cleaning, and other tasks like healthcare.
Combat too, but preferably with a mechanic that implies pets unfit for combat will remain behind when their master becomes active in the military, especially since there's currently no way to arm or armor tamed animals and get them to train, let alone produce goods that are appropriately sized for them.
Somehow, dwarves seem like they are inherently racist, and/or dislike foreigners, but would reward hard work and loyalty with full citizenship. It sort of goes hand-in-hand with permitting any civilized foreigners to become citizens in the fortress.
Post by: Rondol on October 17, 2011, 03:16:20 am
Do/will zombies learn, gain skills, etc?
Can a necromancer raise zombies of varying power levels (depending on, say, the necromancer's experience and time to prepare, freshness of corpse, etc)?
Related to the last two questions: Could a necromancer raise a corpse, and then make that corpse his apprentice?
Also related, can necromancers use their apprentices to raise themselves in such a way that they retain their powers (or gain new ones)?
And connecting to that: Could a necromancer's ghost raise the dead?
Are there any limits on a necromancer's necromantic powers? For example, is the necromancer's apprentice just as good at raising the dead as his master, and is able to raise just as many just as quickly?
Can non-humanoid corpses be raised? If so, can a zombified human ride a zombified horse? (Zombie cavalry!)
That was about three times as many questions as I meant to ask!
Post by: Knight Otu on October 17, 2011, 07:15:52 am
Do/will zombies learn, gain skills, etc?Lacking souls, zombies won't learn (though in the future, it might depend on the generated interaction more). They presumably can get some sorts of natural skill that won't improve.
Can a necromancer raise zombies of varying power levels (depending on, say, the necromancer's experience and time to prepare, freshness of corpse, etc)?Only in the sense that corpse completeness and corpse size/origin affect things. There is no notion of experience or skill for necromancers yet, so two people learning the same necromancy secret have the same abilities from the secret.
Are there any limits on a necromancer's necromantic powers? For example, is the necromancer's apprentice just as good at raising the dead as his master, and is able to raise just as many just as quickly?
Related to the last two questions: Could a necromancer raise a corpse, and then make that corpse his apprentice?Zombies lose their souls, so neither should work.
Also related, can necromancers use their apprentices to raise themselves in such a way that they retain their powers (or gain new ones)?
And connecting to that: Could a necromancer's ghost raise the dead?Since the ghost keeps/is/might be/... the soul, that should work.
Can non-humanoid corpses be raised? If so, can a zombified human ride a zombified horse? (Zombie cavalry!)Nonhumanoid creatures can be zombified indeed. There were mentions of zombie dogs, zombie ducks, zombie elephants, and zombie dragon heads. There has been no mention of riding zombies, so we don't know yet.
Spoiler: some applicable quotes (click to show/hide)
Post by: CaptainArchmage on October 17, 2011, 07:57:24 am
Several of the questions were answered by Footkerchief already, and as usual those won't be below unless I have something to add.Quote from: CaptainArchmageWill books be found in bookcases, on tables, or just lying around on the floors of towers?
If we have a fort which contains one of these secret slabs or books, say by having an adventurer drop it in a location of our choice and then embarking over it, will it be treated as an artifact?
I passed on bookshelves and put the books on tables, as a time thing. The slab has the status of a mood artifact, and a book is the same extended class of item as a favorite weapon.Quote from: CaptainArchmageAccording to the latest devblog, the layout of towers were generated on arriving in an area, rather than during worldgen. Is this true of all worldgen locations?
It keeps track of the information it needs to think about in attack AI/conversation/etc. It would take too long to generate every map from the start, and it would take more save space, especially now with the largest towns occupying up to a 17x17 embark area (which isn't all loaded at once). If it becomes important to remember one thing or another, it'll be moved into the world gen/map gen information (information about where city wall openings are, for example, which are currently generated later on but will want to be pre-known in time). The main downside of the way I'm doing it is save compatibility, since most tweaks to the map code will cause old saves to create maps differently even if you've been there before.
Two things.
Having a new map on load prevents the "I'm reloading until I can get past this specific trap layout" problem because that happens a lot in adventuring games. Asking players rather than Toady, what do you think of this?
Have you actually used a book in adventure mode combat?
Post by: Dutchling on October 17, 2011, 10:47:01 am
Post by: buhb11 on October 17, 2011, 11:57:28 am
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on October 17, 2011, 12:29:34 pm
If we'd somehow acquire a house in a a town (adventure mode), will it be at a different place every time you visit the town?Maybe you should just forget about save compatibility? Frankly speaking, it is not important at all. No one force you to use newest available version of DF. You do not lose old game or old saves.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 17, 2011, 12:31:18 pm
If we'd somehow acquire a house in a a town (adventure mode), will it be at a different place every time you visit the town? Or will some towns remain the same every time?
Iirc toady said somewhere that a house would obtain the "adventurer site" status so it would be static. Althought Footkerchief could have the right quote.
Post by: scriver on October 17, 2011, 01:53:37 pm
...I find your thoughtpaths hard to follow.If we'd somehow acquire a house in a a town (adventure mode), will it be at a different place every time you visit the town?Maybe you should just forget about save compatibility? Frankly speaking, it is not important at all. No one force you to use newest available version of DF. You do not lose old game or old saves.
Post by: Buttery_Mess on October 17, 2011, 02:19:01 pm
Dwarf Fortress is a strange game.
I wonder if Toady could be persuaded to improve the slab engraving menu to include the race of the body and whether or not it has already been slabbed? Seems like an appropriate time to slide something like that in. Come to think of it, if animated body parts are treated as critters in their own right, the arrival of a necromancer could cause an explosion in the size of the list of dead critters in the unit list. Would the body parts be recognised on the slab menu? How often are dead units checked on the frame cycle? I wonder if having lots of things having died on your map slows the game down.
Honestly I'm expecting the next release to be chock full of delicious bugs to fix.
Post by: Mephansteras on October 17, 2011, 02:31:28 pm
Quote from: DGAre the pages in DF books made of a specific material at the moment? Do you intend to have paper in the game or will it be limited to vellum?
I haven't gotten into the new page materials issue, since I'm not setting up industries at this point. At the same time, the pages are made of a tracked material different from the binding, and it keeps the craft info and maker for that (as with cloth or dye), even if there aren't technically any makers right now. The writing on it is independent of that. Ink/writing material is not tracked yet.
Will we be able to mod in book-making with this kind of tracking in Dwarf Mode? I already have modded reactions that use bindings and pages of different materials, but I'd like to know if I'll be able to get the game to track them.
Post by: Dutchling on October 17, 2011, 03:21:42 pm
Did you quote the wrong person or am I just completely missing the point here?If we'd somehow acquire a house in a a town (adventure mode), will it be at a different place every time you visit the town?Maybe you should just forget about save compatibility? Frankly speaking, it is not important at all. No one force you to use newest available version of DF. You do not lose old game or old saves.
Post by: RabidAnubis on October 17, 2011, 04:22:54 pm
I was thinking you could record your own history with scholars. Crimes, money, ect. Perhaps looking up history will take time now.
Or, you could find a long abandoned fort, and have to have your people read through the notes to find out what happened.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 17, 2011, 04:29:06 pm
Post by: Moonshadow101 on October 17, 2011, 06:16:32 pm
...
...
..."it would be funny to see babies spontaneously combust." I just typed that.
...What have you people done to me?
Also, and I know this isn't the question anyone wants to read, but is there are roadmap to the next release? Like, right after the mummies and tombs? Or is there another thing after the Mummies before release?
Post by: Cruxador on October 17, 2011, 06:36:59 pm
I think he interpreted the original statement as asking whether that would happen on updating the game (because of how Toady mentioned that changes to generation would make towns generate differently) rather than asking about what happens within a single version.Did you quote the wrong person or am I just completely missing the point here?If we'd somehow acquire a house in a a town (adventure mode), will it be at a different place every time you visit the town?Maybe you should just forget about save compatibility? Frankly speaking, it is not important at all. No one force you to use newest available version of DF. You do not lose old game or old saves.
Post by: Eric Blank on October 17, 2011, 07:32:34 pm
Any plans for hereditary curses? "Your family shall suffer for seven generations" seems like a pretty common tropes, and it would be funny to see babies spontaneously combust because their parents had a nasty run-in with a mummy two years ago.
...
...
..."it would be funny to see babies spontaneously combust." I just typed that.
...What have you people done to me?
Also, and I know this isn't the question anyone wants to read, but is there are roadmap to the next release? Like, right after the mummies and tombs? Or is there another thing after the Mummies before release?
These are all great questions. However, even I can answer the second one for you: "A wonderful thing."
I'm curious about the first as well, though. I want to see that sort of thing being possible at one point. I think I recall Toady mentioning in the recent DF talk that vampires and were-beast curses can be transmitted to the children as well, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is "Yes, and they're already here." But I would still enjoy other forms of curses that can become hereditary. Whenever Toady gets around to letting our adventurers with a successful love life produce heirs, assuming the curse was applied beforehand and isn't transmitted to previously-born children, it could all become fairly amusing.
Post by: Toady One on October 17, 2011, 08:18:29 pm
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on October 17, 2011, 09:53:22 pm
Seriously. They want the trash, dwarves produce lots of trash. I hate it that letting them take my trash generates attacks instead of a symbiotic relationship.
Another Kobold ambush? What, did I forget to pay them or something? Geez, pass off a few carcinogen-laden fluid holding devices and everyone suddenly gets all touchy!
Post by: Dutchling on October 18, 2011, 03:25:05 am
I'm not sure if there's a bit of confusion about it generating maps on the fly, but I thought I'd jump in again to say that the maps it generates are still the same map. So you'll always find the same buildings in the same spots for the same world. It just doesn't have the tiles generated and sitting around somewhere, and it doesn't know what layout is going to be generated in advance -- but it will always make the same one. This makes the maps more susceptible to being busted by changes between versions, but it's not something exploitable where you can generate a new map for a town on each load.Thanks, I guess I misunderstood something here.
Post by: Koji on October 18, 2011, 06:17:52 am
Seriously. They want the trash, dwarves produce lots of trash. I hate it that letting them take my trash generates attacks instead of a symbiotic relationship.
That's because you're a human. Our strength is in being able to compromise, which is not something that Dwarves and Elves are good at. To you, it's garbage that no one should want. To a kobold, it's treasure that we have to have. To a dwarf, yeah, it's garbage--but it's my garbage. Kobolds are freeloaders and Dwarves value hard work.
Post by: TheFlummox on October 18, 2011, 07:52:15 am
Being able to create a fort focused around a dwarven newspaper, generating dwarven propaganda or just making a little poetry publishing house would be amazing.
Post by: Neonivek on October 18, 2011, 08:06:08 am
I mean SURE, I know they will have bandages, wraps, and rags.
But will they have golden death masks, dazzling robes, and even tools/weapons burried with them?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 18, 2011, 08:27:47 am
i'd like to see df have some variation, preferably by civilization, for example, the human civilization the Thingies of Stuff smoke the corpses of kings, while the dwarven civilization the Stuffing of Thingies freeze-dry them on the top of mountains...
...
mmm, dwarf king jerky *drool*
Post by: piecewise on October 18, 2011, 09:42:56 am
Right now I am kinda curious about what Mummys will wear.
I mean SURE, I know they will have bandages, wraps, and rags.
But will they have golden death masks, dazzling robes, and even tools/weapons burried with them?
Do you just want to wear their golden death masks? Because I just want to wear their Golden death masks.
Post by: numerobis on October 18, 2011, 12:04:14 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on October 18, 2011, 12:08:04 pm
Right now I am kinda curious about what Mummys will wear.Actually, I think last this was mentioned, Toady said he hadn't done bandages and the like yet. Would be nice if they were in, though.
I mean SURE, I know they will have bandages, wraps, and rags.
Post by: Rockphed on October 18, 2011, 12:29:32 pm
I'm not sure if there's a bit of confusion about it generating maps on the fly, but I thought I'd jump in again to say that the maps it generates are still the same map. So you'll always find the same buildings in the same spots for the same world. It just doesn't have the tiles generated and sitting around somewhere, and it doesn't know what layout is going to be generated in advance -- but it will always make the same one. This makes the maps more susceptible to being busted by changes between versions, but it's not something exploitable where you can generate a new map for a town on each load.
So the current issue where towns change maps between visits(or over night) will be fixed in the next version? Sweet! That was always the most annoying part of adventure mode.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on October 18, 2011, 12:43:09 pm
...I find your thoughtpaths hard to follow.
Did you quote the wrong person or am I just completely missing the point here?Sorry, brain fart. Somehow I thought you was talking about wanting to have your own place in new version from old save.
Post by: peskyninja on October 18, 2011, 03:51:06 pm
Post by: mendonca on October 18, 2011, 04:11:30 pm
Quote from: peskyninja
There's a little bit of talk about this in Dwarf Fortress Talk #8, you could check through the combined manuscript (link below) or listen in.
http://www.bay12games.com/media/df_talk_combined_transcript.html (http://www.bay12games.com/media/df_talk_combined_transcript.html)
I think that is the last time it came up, someone else might be able to clarify.
Post by: Jakob on October 18, 2011, 10:10:06 pm
Post by: Putnam on October 19, 2011, 12:22:03 am
If say, we go on a rampage with our undead army, will anyone ever stand up and try and fight us? Like an army or some such? Killing everything in existence is bland when the most challenging fight is three or four guys in forts.
I'm sure that's for the army arc, mostly.
Post by: Footkerchief on October 19, 2011, 10:45:23 am
Actually, Toady; do you currently have any plans for making inter-species relationships possible, and letting other tame, sentient creatures assist dwarves? Not specifically as slaves, since dwarves consider slavery unthinkable, but through those (good) inter-species relationships, or as pets, or even for personal love for/interest in a certain field of work. I suppose it would be most helpful to the player to permit us to assign labors, but perhaps creatures that don't have a sense of desire for the labors set or duty to their home and loved ones, or have been having a bad day, would be far less likely to actually go do it. Currently, only fishing and hunting function for tame sentient beings.
Will it ever be possible for dwarves and Kobolds to live in peace?
This was discussed in DF Talk 5: (http://bay12games.com/media/df_talk_5_transcript.html)
Quote
Rainseeker: Our next one is from R A Browning, he is saying that a few of the members of the mining forum discovered that if you mess around with the raws you're able to embark with intelligent - or at least can learn and can speak pets - who are counted as members of your civilization, and can be given tasks like hunting, fishing or recruited into the military. If they aren't given any tasks they mostly stand around talking with one another and gaining experience at their little animal man parties. The question is this: 'Are there any plans to expand on this interesting phenomenon in later versions of the game, such as by allowing the intelligent pets to equip weapons and armor and fight alongside the controlling civilization, or to allow them to take up other labours on a limited basis?'
Toady: The pet part, I guess, is the strange part of that. This actually ties in very very closely to the people that had the elf queen of their dwarven society show up, and then the elf queen was kind of broken. The problem is the old code, the oldest stuff, assumes that members of your civilization are all the same race, and the newer stuff just needs them to be potential participants; they need to have in most cases can learn and can speak, or in some cases just can learn, and then they can join into civilization activities. So what you're seeing with the pets is the same thing you seem with the elf queen most likely, you just wouldn't have noticed the hunting and fishing, probably because the nobles can't be recruited in general for that kind of stuff. So it's kind of a weird split, the weird part there is that they're also a pet. That I'm not sure how to deal with offhand. What does that mean, is that dwarven slavery, or is that just a really affectionate relationship or something? I don't know. But the answer about rebellions and things; anything that dwarves will be able to do later, they'll be able to do. We haven't really planned a lot for version 1 especially for massively multiracial forts with like ten goblins hanging out, but really when you get back to some of this entity stuff we were talking about, there should be a notion of them cliquing up a bit and making a sub-entity, at least for certain races. It's quite possible that goblins with all their kidnapping behaviour and so on don't really see the species of the creatures the same way and might not even clique up based on their goblin nature unless they're spurned by the rest of the dwarves or something. It's all going to depend on how that works out, I don't pretend to have the algorithms set up for making sure that stuff is going to work right, but hopefully that would be one of the main considerations when you start forming sub-groups like miners' guild is if there's multiple species in the fort.
Toady, do you have any plans of changing the current cave in system by the old one where large areas would collapse or another system, if so when?
Here's the quote from DF Talk 8 (http://bay12games.com/media/df_talk_8_transcript.html) that mendonca mentioned:
Quote
Then there's static things like cave-ins or your Red Faction: Guerrilla type stuff with collapsing structures and so on. Originally that worked when the game was 2D so any open subterranean area could just be assumed to have a ceiling that was willing to fall on you and as soon as you had an open seven by seven area on the 2D underground map then it would just collapse it on you eventually. In the later versions with the Z axis you've got these large connected structures that can spin and spiral all over the plan and as long as they're connected to something stable like the bottom of the map or the edge of map by a single tile then they won't fall over, because the seven by seven rule doesn't really make sense anymore, and that's something we can discuss expansions of.
This also came up in FotF: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1682438#msg1682438)
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: skaltumWhen 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.
Toady has had ideas for improved cave-ins for a long time: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=2287.msg36534#msg36534)
Quote from: Toady One
I read the cave-in algorithms thread, but nothing really jumped out. Not that I've done much in terms of practical results. I'm basically interested in trying to do things that are a little less local, rather than trying to get things to arise from rules that are applied to cells. So far I've just collected information about columns of rock and their connections and weights, and done a connectivity check on the resulting graph, but I should be able to use the graph of columns to handle things like hanging statue arms with some care. For instance, it shouldn't be too hard to pit the weight of a hanging arm against how much it is shearing against a shoulder joint, because it just needs to compare the weight to the material and surface area of the join with the neighbor. Aside from the connectivity calculation, none of this has to be calculated particularly often, so it can get fairly complicated, and the routines used to do it can also be used to provide information to the user about potential cave-ins as necessary. I haven't really had time to get much done with it though, since we are a bit behind, so I wouldn't even say there's a system at this point.
Will printing/scribing eventually be an industry with its own quality of paper, binding and creative content? Or will it be restricted to individual dwarven diaries much like engravings?
This was already pretty much answered; dwarves will eventually write both public and personal information:
Quote from: DienesFor the long term do you have any idea what kind of role writing will play in dwarf mode? Like writing books about whatever the dwarf wants like engravings (books about books about cheese) or where dwarves actually record information that gets used for something later on?
In our original idea for the game before it became our main game, the adventurer was going to go back and find diaries and production logs, so we'll probably have something like that in addition to the types we've already got for necromancers.Quote from: Askot Bokbondeleris there a short term plan to integrate books in fortress mode?
I don't have a short term plan for it.
Post by: Kogut on October 20, 2011, 03:28:37 am
Post by: kasan on October 20, 2011, 11:26:49 am
Quote
I'm still wondering what a poetry generator would end up like, but for that, I probably will wait for the grammar rewrite to keep it all in a system.
A simple haiku generator wouldn't take any real work. Nothing says the poetry has to be readable and really make sense, but you could get a working haiku generator set to follow certain rules out fairly simply.
You'd have to attack the languages file and assign a value for number of syllables to each word then assigned the generator to pick words based on type (noun, verb, adjective, particle, etc), then to only use words that in combination match syllables of a total value.
I'm sure somebody on the forums would even attack the language file for you and get the values at least there and save you a few hours of counting words in your head.
edit: Bonus points if the generator only returns poetry written in the racial language pre-english translation.
A rough example of a working (web-based generator) would be found at http://www.everypoet.com/haiku/default.htm (http://www.everypoet.com/haiku/default.htm). You can see that it may not make sense, but it fits the rules.
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on October 20, 2011, 12:03:34 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on October 20, 2011, 12:29:49 pm
Footkerchief, that wasn't quite what I was asking. I was more asking if Kobolds whom were stealing the Left Iron glove that the goblin whom was eviscerated three seasons ago would always spark Kobold war parties, or if someday we could set it so the Kobolds loot the battlefields outside our fortresses with no conflict at all. I guess the Mechanics might work with sub-entities, but I doubt it since it would be a primary entity, the Kobold Civilization or raiding band or whatever. That would be from a separate site. More likely it'd use the adventuring band visiting a fortress kind of mechanic, when they have a task (steal items, sleep in inn, buy beer) that they go in, accomplish, then leave. Since it's already hardcoded to form attack bands though, that would cause problems. I'm looking to see if the form attack bands will stop being set in stone and start to be a little more flexible.
Army arc.
Post by: Neonivek on October 20, 2011, 03:25:03 pm
Ohh Carrivan Arc you are the Lynch pin in ALL features. *joke*
Post by: thvaz on October 20, 2011, 04:07:55 pm
Could be worse. Footkerchief could have said Carrivan Arc.
Ohh Carrivan Arc you are the Lynch pin in ALL features. *joke*
Carnival Arc?I bet this one will be the best.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 20, 2011, 05:23:17 pm
Post by: Jakob on October 20, 2011, 07:00:54 pm
isn't cardinal arc the one we're currently on?I thought it was caravan.
Post by: monk12 on October 20, 2011, 07:03:42 pm
isn't cardinal arc the one we're currently on?I thought it was caravan.
No no, this is definitely the Caramel Arc.
Post by: Dsarker on October 20, 2011, 07:17:45 pm
isn't cardinal arc the one we're currently on?I thought it was caravan.
No no, this is definitely the Caramel Arc.
No, it's the Charity Arc. That's why he wanted to know that.
Post by: scriver on October 20, 2011, 07:31:05 pm
Post by: Greiger on October 20, 2011, 08:38:07 pm
Post by: monk12 on October 20, 2011, 09:32:51 pm
Pfft, it's the Capntastic arc. Implementing superhero powers.
I do believe Capntastic is on record as wanting to play a chicken farmer in adventure mode in one of the DF Talks. Clearly, the Capntastic Arc is everything associated with that goal.
And I, for one, welcome our coming swarm of chicken farming wereskunk necromancers!
Post by: Torchy on October 21, 2011, 04:46:53 pm
There's even burial-chamber treasure to be found, and Mummy curses!
Clearly, this is the Carnarvon Arc.
Post by: Interus on October 21, 2011, 04:50:14 pm
I suppose if non-aggressive kobolds showed up to just visit and spend money at your inn, then it would make sense for increasing numbers of them to actually be there to steal stuff, so that your law enforcers actually have something to do(watching for thieves).
Post by: Neonivek on October 21, 2011, 07:48:13 pm
Currently it is like everything that likes to eat humanoids conspire together.
Post by: Ganthan on October 21, 2011, 09:18:32 pm
Post by: scriver on October 21, 2011, 09:29:19 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on October 22, 2011, 06:26:51 am
Post by: KilloZapit on October 22, 2011, 05:44:44 pm
Quote from: DsarkerDo current interactions that are not forced have a chance of being done by the creature, will always be done by the creature, or something else entirely? For example, will a necromancer with an interaction fire breath choose between raising dead or breathing fire?
They don't have a lot of criteria to work with, aside from use-on-foe type stuff, so they basically choose at random. But they do that instead of always using the first on the list, anyway, so it's something. When we've got more to work with, they'll be able to choose better, but it'll likely be through the "hint" variable I've got in the raws now, since it's not easy or even possible to make the game guess what to do with a mod through in-game analysis.
It seems to me a necromancer who breaths fire at everyone would burn the bodies up to bad to be raised. It makes me wonder if it's better to give NPCs a preference that is determined genetically at wouldgen somehow. All the necromancers who liked fire-breathing would be less powerful because they have less servants. That of course depends on worldgen keeping track of all that. To be honest, I don't really know much about interactions.
Post by: Organum on October 22, 2011, 06:40:42 pm
Quote from: DsarkerDo current interactions that are not forced have a chance of being done by the creature, will always be done by the creature, or something else entirely? For example, will a necromancer with an interaction fire breath choose between raising dead or breathing fire?
They don't have a lot of criteria to work with, aside from use-on-foe type stuff, so they basically choose at random. But they do that instead of always using the first on the list, anyway, so it's something. When we've got more to work with, they'll be able to choose better, but it'll likely be through the "hint" variable I've got in the raws now, since it's not easy or even possible to make the game guess what to do with a mod through in-game analysis.
It seems to me a necromancer who breaths fire at everyone would burn the bodies up to bad to be raised. It makes me wonder if it's better to give NPCs a preference that is determined genetically at wouldgen somehow. All the necromancers who liked fire-breathing would be less powerful because they have less servants. That of course depends on worldgen keeping track of all that. To be honest, I don't really know much about interactions.
Hm, considering skinwalkers are canon (those are still in, right?) I doubt fire-damage has much effect on undeath viability.
Post by: KiTA on October 22, 2011, 09:34:49 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 22, 2011, 09:37:19 pm
Post by: Dae on October 23, 2011, 12:12:06 am
If I Recall Correctly, it's not defined yet if you can get a necromancer king and have him come to your fortress though.
Post by: KiTA on October 23, 2011, 12:59:30 am
To be more explicit, no because necromancer tend to get a little antisocial-going-to-build-myself-a-tower-where-I-will-disturb-the-rest-of-the-dead-and-form-them-into-reanimated-corpses.
If I Recall Correctly, it's not defined yet if you can get a necromancer king and have him come to your fortress though.
Heh, I'd love to actually play a antisocial-going-to-build-myself-a-tower "Necromancer fortress." ;) It could be fun, having to manage hiding out from others, managing magic resources, etc etc.
Post by: Kogut on October 23, 2011, 02:55:37 am
Will Necromancy be available as a Dwarf career choice in Fortress mode? I'd love to have an army of undead defending my fortress.Probably not implemented. Necromancer + typical dwarf stupidity -> ??FUN??
Post by: rex mortis on October 23, 2011, 03:26:39 am
I foresee tantrum spirals. A dwarf dies and gets raised as a zombie. His friends do not really like it but the legendary dining room is pretty nice. Then his ghost comes back to haunt the fortress, which pushes his friends over the edge. Many end up with bruises but unfortunately, poor Urist's skull was smashed into her brain by accident. So she gets raised and her friends become unhappy about it. Since they were just beaten up, they tantrum, which leads into a couple of more deaths. Meanwhile, Urist's ghost scares somebody so bad they have a heart attack.Will Necromancy be available as a Dwarf career choice in Fortress mode? I'd love to have an army of undead defending my fortress.Probably not implemented. Necromancer + typical dwarf stupidity -> ??FUN??
In short, you'll end up with a fortress of more or less intact zombies and the former inhabitants' ghosts. Sounds Fun to me.
Post by: Greiger on October 23, 2011, 08:46:58 am
Might be possible to do that with werebeasts too.
EDIT:Which reminds me,
Is it possible in the new version to link powers to a particular job skill? Such as giving elven druids some psudo-magical curses, or shapeshifting?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 23, 2011, 12:25:37 pm
Well since interactions and curses will be moddible, and undeadifying corpses is apperantly just going to be a curse, it might be possible to mod in a caste or race where all the members have necromancer powers by default.
Might be possible to do that with werebeasts too.
EDIT:Which reminds me,
Is it possible in the new version to link powers to a particular job skill? Such as giving elven druids some psudo-magical curses, or shapeshifting?
[arbitary MTG joke] Only if you have 7 or more friends of the druid in the graveyard [arbitary MTG joke]. Anyway this would seem reasonable althought i wonder what else except for creating a stream of angry bees with the current interaction syste would be possible. Maybe streghtening muscels and "hardening" wooden items?
edit: Actually certain abilitys being only useable in a certain state of mind like "grief" combined with "hatred" would be rather nice. I mean the elven druid is (mostlikely) at piece with the land and nature to get him go Wer-bear on you should need a appropriate trigger.
Post by: Cruxador on October 23, 2011, 03:21:06 pm
In other words, when his happiness is low he turns into a bear. Tantrums weren't bad enough, now we need bear tantrums.Well since interactions and curses will be moddible, and undeadifying corpses is apperantly just going to be a curse, it might be possible to mod in a caste or race where all the members have necromancer powers by default.
Might be possible to do that with werebeasts too.
EDIT:Which reminds me,
Is it possible in the new version to link powers to a particular job skill? Such as giving elven druids some psudo-magical curses, or shapeshifting?
[arbitary MTG joke] Only if you have 7 or more friends of the druid in the graveyard [arbitary MTG joke]. Anyway this would seem reasonable althought i wonder what else except for creating a stream of angry bees with the current interaction syste would be possible. Maybe streghtening muscels and "hardening" wooden items?
edit: Actually certain abilitys being only useable in a certain state of mind like "grief" combined with "hatred" would be rather nice. I mean the elven druid is (mostlikely) at piece with the land and nature to get him go Wer-bear on you should need a appropriate trigger.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 23, 2011, 07:46:09 pm
In other words, when his happiness is low he turns into a bear. Tantrums weren't bad enough, now we need bear tantrums.
I have absolutely no problem with this. Especially if I can crosstrain all my warriors in bear-magic; if they're winning, they're fine. If they're losing, they get scared and turn into bears that just eat whatever was attacking them. You can't lose!
Post by: Cruxador on October 23, 2011, 11:31:28 pm
Bearserkers are all well and good, but what it one of them is happily relaxing in your craft halls when all of a sudden a cave in kills his dog? It would be horrible. Especially since the bearserker probably benefits from [CAN_LEARN] even in bear form.In other words, when his happiness is low he turns into a bear. Tantrums weren't bad enough, now we need bear tantrums.
I have absolutely no problem with this. Especially if I can crosstrain all my warriors in bear-magic; if they're winning, they're fine. If they're losing, they get scared and turn into bears that just eat whatever was attacking them. You can't lose!
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 23, 2011, 11:35:02 pm
Post by: Cruxador on October 23, 2011, 11:37:39 pm
actually, the ber in berserkr already means bear, you're not actually making a punIt's derived from that, anyway. One could argue that it lost that meaning several centuries ago. Regardless, that's the spelling that's commonly used when a berserker actually turns into a bear.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 23, 2011, 11:43:02 pm
Bearserkers are all well and good, but what it one of them is happily relaxing in your craft halls when all of a sudden a cave in kills his dog? It would be horrible. Especially since the bearserker probably benefits from [CAN_LEARN] even in bear form.
That just adds to the ‼Fun‼ >:D
Seriously though, yeah, something like that would be a good reason to diversify the emotion system beyond just ecstatic <-> suicidal like we have now. If you have seperate stats for (say) happiness, anger, grief, fear and satisfaction, and can tie each one to different actions, we could have a lot of fun. Oh well, I'm sure I remember Toady talking about it somewhere, so it's probably coming eventually.
Post by: Buttery_Mess on October 24, 2011, 02:56:34 am
Post by: zwei on October 24, 2011, 03:04:07 am
If the ber is berserker means bear, what does the zerk mean?
zerg.
Its literal translation to modern english is "Bear Zerging", it relates to medieval image of hairy men swarming expensive knights and subduing them while ignoring wounds and losses as you can always cheaply field more naked hairy men.
duh.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 24, 2011, 03:32:22 am
If the ber is berserker means bear, what does the zerk mean?shirt or coat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker)
Post by: Footkerchief on October 24, 2011, 09:15:19 pm
Quote from: devlog
The last thing I got to was getting the historical dwarven vampires from world gen to come as migrants on occasion. Next up will be getting them to feed. This will leave one of your own dwarves routinely doing troubling things to the rest of your population, without you knowing immediately who is responsible. In order to make this a fun thing rather than an annoying thing, we're going to revamp the justice system a bit so that you can have crimes that have been committed (in the Justice screen, say) where the perpetrator is not known. In this case, the plan is to then have a witness to a bloodfeeding be able to report that to a guard/sheriff/etc., and then that'll be available for you when you decide on somebody to accuse/arrest/punish. You'll be able to accuse the wrong dwarf, and we might have the vampire or grudge-holding dwarves level false accusations that'll muddy the witness accounts a bit. It should be entertaining once it is tweaked and tested, but first I need to get the guts of it in.
Does the Justice revamping mean that the bug with baron-appointed nobles e.g. the hammerer (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=3453) will be fixed?
Post by: caknuck on October 24, 2011, 09:27:21 pm
Post by: monk12 on October 24, 2011, 11:57:11 pm
How extensive will the Justice rewrite be this time? Will the new tweaks only apply to "witch-hunts" for vampires/werecreatures, or will it also apply to failed mandates/tantrum-related crimes?
It'll be cool if we can make the useless dwarves scapegoats for impossible mandates instead of losing the skilled craftdwarves.
Semirelated, I'm quite interested in where this goes- the prospect of an improved Justice system has intrigued me ever since the DF Talk with the inns/taverns, where it was speculated rambunctious mercenaries might come, get drunk, and wreck your place, and you'd have to have a justice system to sort that all out.
The aging bit is pretty cool, though I bet it'll be a while before we start seeing more cool stuff utilizing it (unless that bit of code is in the interaction framework or otherwise mod friendly.)
And I'm excited to see you can contract vampirism by just drinking the blood- it's already going to be difficult enough to let a were-creature infect you without ripping your arm off, catching vampirism as well would greatly increase the mortality rate. I can already see the hero charging into the palace and valiantly slaying the cruel vampire king... before promptly licking puddles of blood off the floor to become a super fun vampire himself.
Post by: Urist McDepravity on October 25, 2011, 12:49:26 am
Post by: Neonivek on October 25, 2011, 12:54:28 am
So we finally could officially sentencedamned noblescriminals to magma swimming rather than making accidents? Sounds good.
I am not sure it means you can sentence nobles to death.
Post by: Yoink on October 25, 2011, 01:02:12 am
Post by: zwei on October 25, 2011, 01:06:01 am
It would be interesting to see if grudges eventually lead to violent crime too, rather than just tantrums or vampirism. :) And grudges seem to form at random, wouldn't it make sense, for example, the widow of an executed dwarf (most likely killed for failing a noble's mandate) forming a grudge against the Captain of the Guard? Just thoughts.
I thought it already happens.
I had 4 captains of the guard killed by tantrumers within season. Law enforcement definitelly is not popular.
Post by: Yoink on October 25, 2011, 01:07:50 am
Post by: Urist McDepravity on October 25, 2011, 01:12:38 am
I am not sure it means you can sentence nobles to death.As nobles are appointed from local population, vampire would be able to get appointed as noble too, probably, so there should be a way to accuse him too. Maybe in form of ol' good torches&pitchforks.
Post by: thvaz on October 25, 2011, 01:16:04 am
The aging bit is pretty cool, though I bet it'll be a while before we start seeing more cool stuff utilizing it (unless that bit of code is in the interaction framework or otherwise mod friendly.)
I hope he goes back to curses and adds aging curses to the mummies.
Post by: Cruxador on October 25, 2011, 02:52:35 am
Post by: mendonca on October 25, 2011, 03:10:22 am
Welp, there goes the hope of getting this release soon.
A small price to pay for such glorious features!
Post by: EddyP on October 25, 2011, 03:28:40 am
Post by: Niveras on October 25, 2011, 04:56:56 am
Will you get vampires with your starting seven, I wonder? Maybe you can just "deal with it" until you get your immigrant waves, or its just not a serious issue in that first year (depending on how often they need to feed, or whether they kill/convert victims), and then accuse and kill/drive out the vampire - or other cursed dwarves, for that matter. Werecapybara. Well, it'll be a lot more obvious when you have a werecritter in your midst.
Post by: zwei on October 25, 2011, 05:13:44 am
For example, I would punish dwarf by assigning him to surface patroll squad for one year.
Or punish him by forced labor - say, enabled woodcutter job.
Post by: Yoink on October 25, 2011, 07:20:12 am
Will it be possible to actually choose to 'feed' your vampire-dwarf, possibly establishing them as your ruler?
And will dwarven vampires be able to feed on enemies, like goblins and kobolds? Or, for that matter, tame animals?
Post by: Sphalerite on October 25, 2011, 07:53:48 am
It will also depend on how 'trustworthy' witness accounts work out to be, independent of gameplay mechanics; that is, in the opinion of players, are witness accounts generally 90% accurate? 50%?
I expect that mental attributes - observer and memory in particular - may have an effect on that. And we may see a use for the Liar skill now too.
Post by: Knight Otu on October 25, 2011, 08:18:03 am
Welp, there goes the hope of getting this release soon.The ten-and-a-half pages of notes might have already done that.
Post by: Footkerchief on October 25, 2011, 08:39:54 am
Welp, there goes the hope of getting this release soon.
A small price to pay for such glorious features!
Don't forget that it also means a longer period of post-release brokenness. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=95111.msg2703599#msg2703599)
Post by: zilpin on October 25, 2011, 08:50:37 am
Personally, I plan on having a vampire fortress. No point fighting the inevitable, if migrants can be vampires.
If your whole fortress becoming vampires becomes a losing condition, then I will wall off one farmer/brewer/miner/engraver into an independent section of the fortress, to keep the fortress "alive". Let the rest become a horde of vampires, striking fear into all who dare lay siege.
Although the sole mortal never sees anything outside his cave, he will engrave the stories of the tragic vampire fortress.
Until he dies of old age.
Hmm. Maybe wall in a family. Wonder how many generations that could last.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 25, 2011, 12:00:25 pm
Post by: EnigmaticHat on October 25, 2011, 12:06:41 pm
The worst situation that could arise is that the long histories of vampires result in them having high skills in useful areas. That legendary weaponcrafter/dodger/axedwarf? Yeah, they're so good because they have hundreds of years experience. Quarantine or punish them, and you lose a valuable asset. Let them go free, and you risk losing dwarves to a vampire. Whereas the useless migrants you don't care about are much less likely to be vampires...
And of course, some players would just lock said weaponcrafter in the cellar and feed them threshers and fish dissectors.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on October 25, 2011, 12:32:54 pm
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on October 25, 2011, 01:24:59 pm
Quote
we're going to revamp the justice system a bit so that you can have crimes that have been committed (in the Justice screen, say) where the perpetrator is not known.Oh
There goes my January prediction.
Post by: Organum on October 25, 2011, 01:45:30 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on October 25, 2011, 01:57:57 pm
Just give each suspect a burrow with an expendable migrant and see who still has blood in them after a few weeks.Could work, but could have its own pitfalls.
"Urist McExecutioner was angered at having proper procedures ignored lately."
"Urist McPeasant was scared due to hearing about a random execution lately."
Or just give them a burrow in the sun.No day/night cycle in fortress mode. And some vampires aren't killed by sunlight.
Post by: Lac on October 25, 2011, 02:49:38 pm
Feature creep alert!Absolutely ... work with veins was supposed to be in Caravan Arc release 2.
Post by: thvaz on October 25, 2011, 03:13:31 pm
Feature creep alert!Absolutely ... work with veins was supposed to be in Caravan Arc release 2.
I really just don't care anymore. Feed us awesome devlogs and I'm cool up to 1.0.
Post by: monk12 on October 25, 2011, 03:49:10 pm
Feature creep alert!Absolutely ... work with veins was supposed to be in Caravan Arc release 2.
...I c wat u did thar
Post by: Neonivek on October 25, 2011, 07:23:04 pm
Welp, there goes the hope of getting this release soon.
A small price to pay for such glorious features!
Don't forget that it also means a longer period of post-release brokenness. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=95111.msg2703599#msg2703599)
There is always the chance the stars will align and the next release doesn't have too much brokenness.
Post by: Urist Da Vinci on October 25, 2011, 10:29:54 pm
How will a blood-drinking vampire murder be announced? Will it be obvious who the attacker was?
I'd hope that I can't simply identify the vampire because he's the only dwarf standing in the room next to the guy who just died of blood loss.
Post by: Neonivek on October 26, 2011, 12:26:11 am
Post by: i2amroy on October 26, 2011, 12:52:58 am
And I'm all with thvaz, if I have devlogs that allow me to read about the cool new features that are coming, I'm willing to wait easily twice as long for the next update then without them.
Post by: Neonivek on October 26, 2011, 12:56:57 am
Reading the latest dev logs I now can envision it perfectly, the vampire detection system! All new migrants are now placed into the military and made to fight a captured goblin. If they are a vampire then they should have no problem at all killing a goblin, allowing us to immediately execute them where they stand. And if the goblin kills them then of well, they were just a migrant anyways. Mandatory entrance exams for everyone!
And I'm all with thvaz, if I have devlogs that allow me to read about the cool new features that are coming, I'm willing to wait easily twice as long for the next update then without them.
I can't wait until my Masons create the Vampire trip wire and the Vampire detection alarms.
Combined with the home security datapad my fortress will be impenetrable.
Post by: Kogut on October 26, 2011, 01:11:27 am
Reading the latest dev logs I now can envision it perfectly, the vampire detection system! All new migrants are now placed into the military and made to fight a captured goblin. If they are a vampire then they should have no problem at all killing a goblin, allowing us to immediately execute them where they stand. And if the goblin kills them then of well, they were just a migrant anyways. Mandatory entrance exams for everyone!
Kill them? I will put them in separate section of fortress with milkers etc and use as elite soldiers (see my signature, it will be really useful). And I will keep goblin from killing anybody! BTW, I hope that they kill list may be revealed.
Post by: thvaz on October 26, 2011, 01:35:53 am
Post by: Dsarker on October 26, 2011, 01:51:35 am
Post by: Kogut on October 26, 2011, 01:57:46 am
I love the bonus features we get from features creeps. Historical figures as migrants is something I always dreamt of.
We welcome bug 972: Historic figure dies of old age when migrating ( http://216.97.239.212/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=972 ). Now it will be even more depressing, in fort older than 10 years large part of historic figures will do the same.
Post by: Dsarker on October 26, 2011, 02:01:42 am
I love the bonus features we get from features creeps. Historical figures as migrants is something I always dreamt of.
We welcome bug 972: Historic figure dies of old age when migrating ( http://216.97.239.212/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=972 ). Now it will be even more depressing, in fort older than 10 years large part of historic figures will do the same.
Which will probably be fixed in this update.
Post by: Kogut on October 26, 2011, 02:09:39 am
Well, it requires worldgen going during fort mode and it is yet another feature creep and will result in many, many, many crash type bugs.I love the bonus features we get from features creeps. Historical figures as migrants is something I always dreamt of.
We welcome bug 972: Historic figure dies of old age when migrating ( http://216.97.239.212/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=972 ). Now it will be even more depressing, in fort older than 10 years large part of historic figures will do the same.
Which will probably be fixed in this update.
Post by: zwei on October 26, 2011, 02:26:13 am
Post by: Kogut on October 26, 2011, 02:31:25 am
Post by: thvaz on October 26, 2011, 03:11:41 am
Well, it requires worldgen going during fort mode and it is yet another feature creep and will result in many, many, many crash type bugs.I love the bonus features we get from features creeps. Historical figures as migrants is something I always dreamt of.
We welcome bug 972: Historic figure dies of old age when migrating ( http://216.97.239.212/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=972 ). Now it will be even more depressing, in fort older than 10 years large part of historic figures will do the same.
Which will probably be fixed in this update.
You are some kind of bug doomsayer now, aren't you?
Post by: Alu on October 26, 2011, 03:35:14 am
Damn it would be so fun having a somewhat tamed vampire in your army C:
Post by: scriver on October 26, 2011, 03:37:34 am
Currently, we get "Urist has drowned!", "Urist has bled to death!", etc. It is often possible to fast-zoom to the location using the stocks menu or a combat report, or an auto-pause setting. The cause of death, such as an attacker, is often just standing there next to the body.I'd guess they'll be using some variant of the sneaking system, like undetected thieves and ambushes, so they'll probably be invisible to the player.
How will a blood-drinking vampire murder be announced? Will it be obvious who the attacker was?
I'd hope that I can't simply identify the vampire because he's the only dwarf standing in the room next to the guy who just died of blood loss.
Post by: Aqizzar on October 26, 2011, 04:03:25 am
Quote
I've tried to keep the identities separate from their users, so you could have multiple critters use the same identity later on, either as a sequential hand-me-down or in competition at the same time.
Oh, this is going to be a lot of fun. I can just imagine a couple of historical dwarves claiming to be the same guy or something. How do you know who's the evil one when they all have beards?
Quote
Bekat the Adorable Skull
That's a go getter if there ever was one right there.
Post by: CharlesPeter on October 26, 2011, 05:52:05 am
QuoteI've tried to keep the identities separate from their users, so you could have multiple critters use the same identity later on, either as a sequential hand-me-down or in competition at the same time.
Oh, this is going to be a lot of fun. I can just imagine a couple of historical dwarves claiming to be the same guy or something. How do you know who's the evil one when they all have beards?
that kinda sets up a historical precedent for a Dread Pirate Roberts situation. Maybe later you could even intentionally leave a historical figure open in adventure mode, and then make a new character to take over that persona. I like this new side-track. A lot.
Post by: DG on October 26, 2011, 06:02:03 am
Post by: HungryHobo on October 26, 2011, 07:32:02 am
It would be nice if toady ironed out more of the bugs before going into long releases but he does come up with such cool features.
Toady could probably deal with the Zoom To Death problem by delaying the death until a while after a vampire has fed.
If they killed the moment they fed I'd just lock all the doors in that section of my dormitory and then send in a military squad or something to find the vampire.
If on the other hand they inflicted a syndrome which prevented healing, caused permanent sleep and left the dwarf bleeding slowly then it could be quite some time before a dwarf bled to death leaving the vampire time to get back to his room.
I hope that the behavior of vampires and similar will be moddable in the raws because some lower level creatures which act similarly but feed on pets would also be cool.
If you could specify the type/species/classification of the victims and what is done to the victims it would allow us to mod in psychopath dwarves. Think a Dexter type character who works as quiet members of the fortress guard but occasionally disappears... and then one of the caged goblins is found butchered in a quiet corridor.
I'd mod in The Phantom. A "curse" passed from fathers to son, all members of the family claim the same identity, all strong and skilled. They take it upon themselves to murder goblins.
Post by: Neonivek on October 26, 2011, 08:32:03 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: PTTG?? on October 26, 2011, 09:00:53 am
Post by: Knight Otu on October 26, 2011, 10:06:35 am
More varied skill lists for immigrants? I found them already pretty varied, unless Toady means adding the unused skills.
I'm assuming that the assumed personas have the usual likes and dislikes of the generated dwarves, rather than the lack that historical dwarves show - though I guess that since historical dwarves might immigrate as well, they don't need to yet. And some of those historical figures just might be good enough that they could act as "false positives" for the vampire immigrant detection goblin...
Post by: darkflagrance on October 26, 2011, 10:14:26 am
Currently, we get "Urist has drowned!", "Urist has bled to death!", etc. It is often possible to fast-zoom to the location using the stocks menu or a combat report, or an auto-pause setting. The cause of death, such as an attacker, is often just standing there next to the body.I'd guess they'll be using some variant of the sneaking system, like undetected thieves and ambushes, so they'll probably be invisible to the player.
How will a blood-drinking vampire murder be announced? Will it be obvious who the attacker was?
I'd hope that I can't simply identify the vampire because he's the only dwarf standing in the room next to the guy who just died of blood loss.
I've rarely seen people complain about feature creep in this game. I mean feature creep seems to make up most of the game.
It would be nice if toady ironed out more of the bugs before going into long releases but he does come up with such cool features.
Toady could probably deal with the Zoom To Death problem by delaying the death until a while after a vampire has fed.
If they killed the moment they fed I'd just lock all the doors in that section of my dormitory and then send in a military squad or something to find the vampire.
If on the other hand they inflicted a syndrome which prevented healing, caused permanent sleep and left the dwarf bleeding slowly then it could be quite some time before a dwarf bled to death leaving the vampire time to get back to his room.
I hope that the behavior of vampires and similar will be moddable in the raws because some lower level creatures which act similarly but feed on pets would also be cool.
If you could specify the type/species/classification of the victims and what is done to the victims it would allow us to mod in psychopath dwarves. Think a Dexter type character who works as quiet members of the fortress guard but occasionally disappears... and then one of the caged goblins is found butchered in a quiet corridor.
I'd mod in The Phantom. A "curse" passed from fathers to son, all members of the family claim the same identity, all strong and skilled. They take it upon themselves to murder goblins.
I'd definitely prefer the implementation of such a syndrome as HungryHobo presents, as opposed to say, some wider-scale
Post by: uioped1 on October 26, 2011, 11:20:34 am
I have to assume that this is not the introduction of AI into the game, but it would be hilariously annoying for your lazy dwarfs to walk slower than they could, or to fake injuries. If a vampire tantrums, I'd assume they drop the ruse, but what if they're just hungry? What if the entire fort becomes vampires, or as some have suggested, a vampire cult forms around them?
This is beginning to have some of the features of ai, In particular it's starting to look like a knowledge system...
Post by: isitanos on October 26, 2011, 12:38:44 pm
Just wanted to chime in to say that sneaky vampires spreading false accusations sound awesome. Now if only the military was back to a usable state...
I have to assume that this is not the introduction of AI into the game (...)err... what? This game already has the most evolved AI of all the games out there, with each dwarf going about his own business with his own set of goals and all. This would just be an extra behavior layered on top of all the existing ones.
Unless for some reason you've convinced yourself that AI only means neural networks and other kinds of "machine learning".
Post by: Footkerchief on October 26, 2011, 01:02:59 pm
err... what? This game already has the most evolved AI of all the games out there, with each dwarf going about his own business with his own set of goals and all. This would just be an extra behavior layered on top of all the existing ones.
Unless for some reason you've convinced yourself that AI only means neural networks and other kinds of "machine learning".
Dwarves don't have personal goals and ambitions. They have personality traits and preferences with very limited effects on their actions. The AI overall isn't terribly sophisticated -- while certain actions can affect their happiness, they generally just react to stimuli rather than deliberately seeking out positive stimuli and avoiding negative stimuli. For example, a dwarf can become unhappy as a result of wounds sustained from being on fire, but will not attempt to extinguish the fire. I think the Sims series wins over DF in the AI department.
Post by: thvaz on October 26, 2011, 02:02:25 pm
Now if only the military was back to a usable state...
You are a troll. I won't bite...this time.
Post by: Psieye on October 26, 2011, 02:14:46 pm
err... what? This game already has the most evolved AI of all the games out there, with each dwarf going about his own business with his own set of goals and all. This would just be an extra behavior layered on top of all the existing ones.Not yet implemented. That's the objective, but the game isn't there yet.
Post by: tolkafox on October 26, 2011, 02:18:10 pm
Will the real Erith Delershorast please stand up? Does this mean we can accuse two dwarves with the same name as being vampires and order them to be executed?
Quote from: isatanos
Now if only the military was back to a usable state...I'll bite! :) The military works fine for me, I've tested every melee style (including wrestler) and archers and both work better than I had expected. That includes archers in towers and soldiers patrolling with food/water rations. I think the real problem here isn't the military system, but your inability to understand/use it. Now I'll quit trolling if you quit trolling :p
Post by: PTTG?? on October 26, 2011, 02:33:55 pm
It would make creating a basic squad as simple as finding a dwarf, pressing v, going to his labor screen, selecting the squad you want him to join/create, and pressing enter. A vast improvement when we're dealing with massive immigrant waves, anyway.
Post by: Neonivek on October 26, 2011, 02:52:30 pm
Post by: Dsarker on October 26, 2011, 03:26:55 pm
What is Feature Creep?
"I like this hamburger, but what would be nice is some cheese. I'll go get some cheese." *goes to get cheese. Halfway there* "Hey, you know what would go great with the cheese? Pickles. I'll go get some pickles!" *forgets about the cheese, goes to get pickles* "Actually, what would go great with pickles is some lettuce. Let's go get some lettuce!" etc.
Post by: Neonivek on October 26, 2011, 03:28:11 pm
Except I think the point is that all those ingrediants would be added to that Hamburger anyway, but that way of going about doing so makes it take much longer.
Though I don't really think that is happening with Toady as he doesn't lose effort by switching tasks.
Post by: Dsarker on October 26, 2011, 03:40:28 pm
So Feature Creep is basically feature adding ADD
Except I think the point is that all those ingrediants would be added to that Hamburger anyway, but that way of going about doing so makes it take much longer.
Though I don't really think that is happening with Toady as he doesn't lose effort by switching tasks.
Basically.
Post by: O11O1 on October 26, 2011, 03:53:15 pm
I sent an email to Toady One some months back suggesting a very simple improvement to the current military system- simply adding an option on the "v" screen that would assign the current dwarf to a new squad/ a squad from a selection menu. That alone would make the new military system practical.
It would make creating a basic squad as simple as finding a dwarf, pressing v, going to his labor screen, selecting the squad you want him to join/create, and pressing enter. A vast improvement when we're dealing with massive immigrant waves, anyway.
That actually would be pretty handy, when I find a shiftless dorf lounging in the meeting hall and discover he has combat skills. Dumping him to a squad then and there would speed things nicely.
Post by: Cruxador on October 27, 2011, 12:12:17 am
Not exactly. It's more like if he actually does get all that stuff and properly assemble the sandwich, but it gets so huge that by the time he's done it's dinner time.What is Feature Creep?
"I like this hamburger, but what would be nice is some cheese. I'll go get some cheese." *goes to get cheese. Halfway there* "Hey, you know what would go great with the cheese? Pickles. I'll go get some pickles!" *forgets about the cheese, goes to get pickles* "Actually, what would go great with pickles is some lettuce. Let's go get some lettuce!" etc.
Post by: Shinziril on October 27, 2011, 12:17:26 am
Post by: Cruxador on October 27, 2011, 12:45:40 am
And then you get to eat the totally awesome sandwich, so it's not all bad. Although you may have to wait a while.Except as soon as you take a bite, it all comes apart because you didn't build it quite perfect and it's fucking huge so you still have to spend ages fixing it before you really get to enjoy it.
Post by: Dae on October 27, 2011, 03:29:19 am
And then you get to eat the totally awesome sandwich, so it's not all bad. Although you may have to wait a while.Except as soon as you take a bite, it all comes apart because you didn't build it quite perfect and it's fucking huge so you still have to spend ages fixing it before you really get to enjoy it.
Your metaphor sort of wears out at the end of your sentence.
I don't mind the feature creep, as long as it is really awesome. Sometimes I get the impression that Toady polishes things more and more before releasing as time goes by. Remember the human towns back in the 2D days ? They were placeholders. They all looked the same. But they still managed to make adventurer mode playable. I wouldn't mind if Toady releases a build where the statues are not properly placed within the tombs, as long as they don't block the way.
But from a programming perspective, such little hassles would eventually pile up. It's probably better to fix them while Toady has his hands on it. Moreover, it's better if he realises the current framework can't do certain things now than later on. Once again, trust the Toad.
More on topic, a justice system change has been asked for a looong time. It would have been necessary at some point. Is it feature creep if you're just messing with the scheduled order of implementation for features, so the scheduled features are well backed-up ? It's something over which we could spend quite some time arguing.
Post by: G-Flex on October 27, 2011, 03:41:25 am
Post by: Kogut on October 27, 2011, 04:31:41 am
Quote from: JRR Tolkien
The wealth of Moria was not in gold and jewels, the toys of the Dwarves; nor in iron, their servant. Such things they found here, it is true, especially iron; but they did not need to delve for them: al things that they desired they could obtain in traffic.With current style of development caravan arc will end around 2020. I am not sure what is the point of creating development plans and then ignoring it.
Post by: greenskye on October 27, 2011, 09:03:11 am
It's hardly feature creep to implement things that are a necessary part of fundamental design goals. Feature creep is what happens when things are implemented on a lark, or that have little to do with the original goals, or aren't cohesive. The things Toady implements are pretty much always part of preestablished goals and design philosophy, so "feature creep" really isn't an issue.
Technically I would still consider it feature creep if he's adding things that aren't a part of the current design goals. Given that the design goals for Dwarf Fortress number in the hundreds a line in the sand needs to be drawn for any particular release. If it isn't part of the release, then it's feature creep. Not that I mind particularly, but it is what it is.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on October 27, 2011, 10:12:23 am
Post by: Kogut on October 27, 2011, 10:53:36 am
well, the justice revamp was actually needed for the vampires to work properly, so i'm not sure it qualifies as feature creepVampires are part of a feature creep (Release 1 - Better town maps involving workshops/markets/shops based on world gen economic activities (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html)).
Post by: thedrelle on October 27, 2011, 11:10:35 am
It's hardly feature creep to implement things that are a necessary part of fundamental design goals. Feature creep is what happens when things are implemented on a lark, or that have little to do with the original goals, or aren't cohesive. The things Toady implements are pretty much always part of preestablished goals and design philosophy, so "feature creep" really isn't an issue.
Technically I would still consider it feature creep if he's adding things that aren't a part of the current design goals. Given that the design goals for Dwarf Fortress number in the hundreds a line in the sand needs to be drawn for any particular release. If it isn't part of the release, then it's feature creep. Not that I mind particularly, but it is what it is.
I'm sure toady is well aware of this fact, however, with the MASSIVE amount of code he now has to work with, i'm thinking he would rather deal with an issue, however simple, while he has the related chunk of code fresh in his mind, rather than waiting until a later date and taking 3 times as long because he's got to sift through code he hasn't worked with in weeks or so.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on October 27, 2011, 01:43:39 pm
Feature creep is what happens when things are implemented on a lark, or that have little to do with the original goals, or aren't cohesive.Yes, zombie apocalypse, necromancers, mummies, werewolfes, justice system have, in fact, little to do with original goal - better town maps. Whoa, who would guess??
Post by: monk12 on October 27, 2011, 03:59:21 pm
Feature creep is what happens when things are implemented on a lark, or that have little to do with the original goals, or aren't cohesive.Yes, zombie apocalypse, necromancers, mummies, werewolfes, justice system have, in fact, little to do with original goal - better town maps. Whoa, who would guess??
Of course, all of these things were added to make towns interesting places to be- otherwise there would be no point to ever visit, let alone do interesting things there. And rather than incorporate half-finished features, Toady took the time to do'm properly- maybe not being the complete embodiment of his vision, but enough to be playable, interesting, and more importantly fun on their own. Let's face it, all the sexy fun things about this release have been a result of that sidetrack- this will indeed be a delicious cheeseburger, whenever it gets here.
I'd rather have that approach than, say, the Minecraft approach of "add one thing that does one thing and is otherwise pointless," or worse the "add one thing that does nothing but now we can say we added it!" (XP anyone?)
Post by: greenskye on October 27, 2011, 04:09:37 pm
All that feature creep really means is that Toady doesn't like to plan things out too much ahead of time. Rather than spend a bunch of time coming up with design documents and carefully planning out each feature, Toady seems to prefer a more off-the-cuff style of programming. If Dwarf Fortress is what happens when you allow a programmer to do this, I say more companies need to try it.
Post by: Footkerchief on October 27, 2011, 04:19:20 pm
Of course, all of these things were added to make towns interesting places to be- otherwise there would be no point to ever visit, let alone do interesting things there.
Sewers, dungeons and catacombs populated with bandits and wild animals, as well as markets, were all within the scope of the stated release plans. Those would have been sufficient to make cities interesting, and we could have been exploring those features while Toady works on night creatures.
Post by: G-Flex on October 27, 2011, 04:57:19 pm
Feature creep is what happens when things are implemented on a lark, or that have little to do with the original goals, or aren't cohesive.Yes, zombie apocalypse, necromancers, mummies, werewolfes, justice system have, in fact, little to do with original goal - better town maps. Whoa, who would guess??
I meant the goals of the game, not one particular release cycle. You could argue that the release itself is a little muddled, but... well, what Footkerchief said.
Granted, I disagree with him that we can know if a feature is "half-finished" or more fully realized until we actually see it in action. In my opinion, a lot of the features introduced/altered in 0.31.1 are still half-finished, for instance (only an opinion to some degree; there are some pretty objective and far-reaching things wrong with them that require fixing at some point).
Post by: monk12 on October 27, 2011, 06:10:58 pm
Of course, all of these things were added to make towns interesting places to be- otherwise there would be no point to ever visit, let alone do interesting things there.
Sewers, dungeons and catacombs populated with bandits and wild animals, as well as markets, were all within the scope of the stated release plans. Those would have been sufficient to make cities interesting, and we could have been exploring those features while Toady works on night creatures.
Ah, but what kind of catacomb lacks ravening hordes of the undead :P I should say I'm not suggesting that features haven't creeped, just that (most) of our feature creep has followed a logical, cohesive path, though not exactly the path he foresaw when making his release schedule. Deviating from that schedule is one of the joys of self-employment, methinks.
Post by: Neonivek on October 27, 2011, 06:15:44 pm
A Matter of Fact statement.
Post by: Footkerchief on October 27, 2011, 06:35:46 pm
Ah, but what kind of catacomb lacks ravening hordes of the undead :P I should say I'm not suggesting that features haven't creeped, just that (most) of our feature creep has followed a logical, cohesive path, though not exactly the path he foresaw when making his release schedule. Deviating from that schedule is one of the joys of self-employment, methinks.
There are certainly thematic connections, yeah. I guess we should count ourselves lucky that this release only involves one new framework (interactions) instead of the half-dozen or so in the 2010 release.
Post by: Dakk on October 27, 2011, 06:38:08 pm
They probably don't or else they'd just burn on arrival :P
Post by: Footkerchief on October 27, 2011, 06:46:24 pm
Do these vampires actualy fear or get burned by the sun? If they do, well, since fortress mode has no day night cycle (since times goes so fast in fortress mode it'd look real silly, like a flickering lightbulb), how will it work?
They probably don't or else they'd just burn on arrival :P
Looks like the answer is yes, but not sure how that'll work in Fort Mode.
Quote from: SysiceWill sunlight always be a bad thing for vampires?
Right now it doesn't take things far from the classic models, so yeah. The most would be a variety that doesn't care. Anything more exotic has to wait until we can avoid the gray-goo effect of complete randomization through more careful exposition than we've got now. Sticking with archetypes makes that a little less necessary.
Post by: Shadowlord on October 28, 2011, 12:08:07 am
I was going to wait for the whole "you can send armies to attack your attackers" arc because I was quite tired of infinite armies, but... I could just turn those off, I suppose.
Post by: Kogut on October 28, 2011, 12:31:12 am
And is it planned to fix (in new version or following bugfixes) impossible mandates (slade - bug #782, blue jay tooth etc - bug #1623) due to strange preferences (wagon wood - bug #3676 etc) - as common workaround is to never assign sheriff position, what will be impossible in new version.
Post by: Cruxador on October 28, 2011, 01:29:54 am
Is it planned to fix in this release bug 972 (Diplomat/liaison arrives, immediately dies of old age (and other old age issues)) to prevent automatic death of all mortal historic figures appearing in old forts?It is planned to fix the bugs. It is not planned at any particular time.
And is it planned to fix (in new version or following bugfixes) impossible mandates (slade - bug #782, blue jay tooth etc - bug #1623) due to strange preferences (wagon wood - bug #3676 etc) - as common workaround is to never assign sheriff position, what will be impossible in new version.
Post by: G-Flex on October 28, 2011, 04:48:32 am
Is it planned to fix in this release bug 972 (Diplomat/liaison arrives, immediately dies of old age (and other old age issues)) to prevent automatic death of all mortal historic figures appearing in old forts?It is planned to fix the bugs. It is not planned at any particular time.
And is it planned to fix (in new version or following bugfixes) impossible mandates (slade - bug #782, blue jay tooth etc - bug #1623) due to strange preferences (wagon wood - bug #3676 etc) - as common workaround is to never assign sheriff position, what will be impossible in new version.
Sure, although it would be nice to receive at least some acknowledgement of bug reports that have been sitting on the tracker for months.
Post by: Cruxador on October 28, 2011, 05:17:06 am
Post by: Armok on October 28, 2011, 05:36:17 am
Post by: CharlesPeter on October 28, 2011, 06:30:15 am
Post by: G-Flex on October 28, 2011, 06:33:53 am
And if people got pissed there could be a fast-forward button (which wouldn't work quite as well in DF but w/e)
That's precisely the problem; in most circumstances, DF is already running as fast as it can, so a "fast-forward" feature wouldn't be plausible.
Basically, people would complain if a year in fortress mode took, what is it, 72 times as long as it currently does? At 100 FPS (which is quite fast), it would take about 72 hours of gameplay to play through one year of fortress mode. Playing a fortress for just ten years (which shouldn't be considered very long-term, even, at least not ideally) would take an entire month of the game running constantly and never being paused. And that's assuming a very nice framerate, and never making any designations or otherwise pausing.
So you see the problem. I don't like the time dilation in fortress mode either, but I don't see a good solution to it.
Post by: Footkerchief on October 28, 2011, 09:15:24 am
Hmm, is it just me or is the inconsistent time scales of fortress mode getting more and more ridiculous and suspension-of-disbelief shattering consequences?
Yeah. I'm afraid it's becoming more and more of a boat anchor on my beloved Adventure Mode.
That's precisely the problem; in most circumstances, DF is already running as fast as it can, so a "fast-forward" feature wouldn't be plausible.
A fast-forward with full simulation wouldn't be possible, but an abstracted fast-forward, while it poses a number of difficulties, is a looming potential necessity. Although I guess if people are playing Fort Mode to watch dwarves' real-time antics, a FF button wouldn't be enough to make a slower timescale palatable.
Post by: CharlesPeter on October 28, 2011, 09:43:23 am
That would be a further separate time scale wouldn't it? I can definitely see this becoming a problem that gets put off until it can't wait anymore.
Maybe that's just the way Toady has always envisioned it; each part of the game comprising a different scope of time, with Legends being the whole thing, Kingdom being the largest scale, then Fortress and finally Adventure being the actual day to day. And in these cases too, not only the time-scale telescopes, but also the amount of control. I think that's kind of interesting. Legends has no control, Kingdom would logically have control over a large group with the day to day operations left out, and Fortress takes on a relatively small group with the building aspect, and Adventure a single person.
This time scale thing seems to be pretty inherent in the function of the game actually. Has Toady ever made any statements about his plans on the differences in time/scale?
Post by: darkflagrance on October 28, 2011, 11:28:14 am
Post by: Chromasphere on October 28, 2011, 11:55:15 am
Post by: G-Flex on October 28, 2011, 03:35:56 pm
Hmm, is it just me or is the inconsistent time scales of fortress mode getting more and more ridiculous and suspension-of-disbelief shattering consequences?
Sure is. The time abstraction in Fortress Mode especially breaks down when you have to deal with cycles that are just too small for it to properly deal with, like day/night. Even lunar cycles are probably going to be an issue.
Post by: Cruxador on October 28, 2011, 03:49:18 pm
Post by: G-Flex on October 28, 2011, 04:24:32 pm
My understanding is that the timescales in DF exist as they do mostly for the sake of things like traders and invasions, which you otherwise might not see many of. But traders are being redesigned now/soon, and invaders are later (and, unless I'm mistaken, are already calculated weekly). So abandoning the slowed time is looking more viable. A fast forward in the sense of "more calculations per minute" isn't viable, but something like the current fastforwarding, where things like time, movement and work happen more quickly than is realistic is a viable option, I think. And an FPS cap toggle for those of us whose fortresses don't calculate at max speed could also be useful to that end.
We have a "current fastforward"?
Also, time dilation in Fortress Mode isn't just for the sake of trade. Imagine ever trying to run a multi-generational fortress. At Adventure Mode timescale, even running a fortress through the entirety of one generation would be implausible.
Post by: Dae on October 28, 2011, 04:57:23 pm
Post by: G-Flex on October 28, 2011, 04:59:57 pm
Of course, that would mean you could, say, turn on "fortress time" to intentionally avoid the effects of things that rely on time-cycles that fortress time can't properly simulate.
Damn, why can't there be an actually good solution to this problem?
Post by: Neonivek on October 28, 2011, 05:44:43 pm
Oh, right. I'm stupid.
Of course, that would mean you could, say, turn on "fortress time" to intentionally avoid the effects of things that rely on time-cycles that fortress time can't properly simulate.
Damn, why can't there be an actually good solution to this problem?
Because if the Fortress ran in real time the game would either
A) Take forever to do everything
B) Take an unrealistically short amount of time for things to occur
or
C) I forgot what this was.
To admit... the only other way of doing it I can see is that Fortress mode runs the way it normally does. However when something vital happens the fortress shifts into real time with day and night cycles.
Post by: G-Flex on October 28, 2011, 07:11:25 pm
To admit... the only other way of doing it I can see is that Fortress mode runs the way it normally does. However when something vital happens the fortress shifts into real time with day and night cycles.
Except if you can switch time modes, either dwarves have to start moving 1/72 as fast (per tick) or start doing things 72 times as fast (in game-world time).
Also: There really is no "real time" here. I guess you could call Adventure Mode time "real time" because it's the more realistic of the two options, though.
Post by: Neonivek on October 28, 2011, 07:13:19 pm
To admit... the only other way of doing it I can see is that Fortress mode runs the way it normally does. However when something vital happens the fortress shifts into real time with day and night cycles.
Except if you can switch time modes, either dwarves have to start moving 1/72 as fast (per tick) or start doing things 72 times as fast (in game-world time).
Also: There really is no "real time" here. I guess you could call Adventure Mode time "real time" because it's the more realistic of the two options, though.
You come up with a better term that sounds just as nice and says exactly the same thing with the no explaining needed... and we will use that term :D
Post by: Shadowlord on October 28, 2011, 08:14:59 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on October 28, 2011, 09:27:11 pm
Quote from: DevLog
Next I created a new world and started up a dwarven adventurer. Because dwarven sites on the world map are still blank, you start in a human village as usual. I walked day and night through the wilderness to get back to one of these blank sites and finally stumbled drowsily into the mountains, where it let me retire. I then created a dwarf fortress from the same civilization and waited for immigrants. It was only year 3, so without a large roster to choose from, my dwarven adventurer showed up to be a hard-working citizen... although he fell asleep on the edge of the map since it hadn't reset his drowsiness. Any dwarves from your abandoned fortresses should also show up in subsequent forts, whether originally historical or not, as long as you are with the same overall dwarven civilization.
Nice. I think this is kind of cool.
Time Scale Discussion:
I'd like to point out something here. Isn't it possible for Toady to just expand the scale. I mean you don't really need to make the game do more or less calculations, just make it so that time itself is recorded differently.
For example, making a year last twice as long can be independent of the gameplay for the most part. Right now a dwarf and a goblin can fight for three days and the same fight can take place in Adventure Mode in less than a day. So it's not like things are getting done faster in fortress mode... in fact they are happening slower based on the game world's time frame.
I think it should be pointed out that generally DF doesn't use the Timescale to calculate stuff, instead it uses the ticks unit. (To be clear, Timescale is days, month, year calculation of time used to relate to the player how much "time" has passed and ticks is how the game actually counts time. From reading the wiki Dwarves move based on ticks, so changing the Timescale will have no effect on the Dwarves moving or doing their jobs. Timescale itself is based on ticks. In fortress mode: 1 day = 1200 ticks. In adventure mode: 1 day = 86400 ticks. So a dwarf in adventure mode can do things at 72 times the speed of a dwarf in a fort in relative time.)
The biggest things influenced by Fortress mode's time scale are when the traders come, when seasons change, and when the year flips. Setting the scale to be twice as long mostly means you'd get twice as much done in a year, but migrants, trades, and possibly harvests (assuming these are linked to the timescale and not ticks) will happen less frequently. So you'll probably end up with twice as many trade goods, but have less opportunities to trade them until the caravan arc balances that.
The other problem lies in dwarves will consume twice as much food and drink in a 2x timescale due to the fact their eating and drinking habits are synced to the timescale but dependent on tick count. Though this can be changed if it is a problem (though honestly, I don't see that being a problem as it is far too easy to have surplus food and drink).
It is mostly a question of can you deal with having longer gaps between trades. It doesn't need to change anything else really, some things might be changed to make them take a more realistic time, but that is merely a possibility. It doesn't need to have any performance issues or fast-forwards because the game will still appear to run at the same speeds, the time it takes a year to pass is longer.
Post by: G-Flex on October 28, 2011, 09:52:47 pm
I think it should be pointed out that generally DF doesn't use the Timescale to calculate stuff, instead it uses the ticks unit.
Not entirely true. Age, gestation periods, creature growth, and that sort of thing rely strictly on game-world time. Plant growth is also linked to time and the seasons. These things don't matter as much as trade does, but they do matter.
Post by: Kogut on October 28, 2011, 11:34:02 pm
Toady, thanks for info.</sarcasm>Is it planned to fix in this release bug 972 (Diplomat/liaison arrives, immediately dies of old age (and other old age issues)) to prevent automatic death of all mortal historic figures appearing in old forts?It is planned to fix the bugs. It is not planned at any particular time.
And is it planned to fix (in new version or following bugfixes) impossible mandates (slade - bug #782, blue jay tooth etc - bug #1623) due to strange preferences (wagon wood - bug #3676 etc) - as common workaround is to never assign sheriff position, what will be impossible in new version.
Post by: Dae on October 28, 2011, 11:37:53 pm
Instead, the only thing that I see would be to abstract some of the more down to earth details, like pathfinding and so on, and only keep track of what jobs there are that need be done and simulating quickly how long they would need, how many people could do it, etc. Basically, assign jobs, click the "see you in 4 months" button and there you are. You could probably be stopped by sieges/attacks/traders, too.
Basically, what is lacking is this simulation, which should get some love as soon as fortress autonomy is on the table. It could even come before, since it wouldn't require the fortress to think of self-sustenance and just leave this responsibility to you.
Post by: EmeraldWind on October 28, 2011, 11:59:03 pm
I think it should be pointed out that generally DF doesn't use the Timescale to calculate stuff, instead it uses the ticks unit.
Not entirely true. Age, gestation periods, creature growth, and that sort of thing rely strictly on game-world time. Plant growth is also linked to time and the seasons. These things don't matter as much as trade does, but they do matter.
I did say generally. My point was mostly that you can adjust the Timescale without breaking much. Timescale and ticks are pretty well separated that changes can be made to the scale to incorporate some more time. Some stuff might fall out of sync that rely on ticks, but are synced to game time (like eating/drinking). All the stuff that relies on the game time will still work and simply take longer to happen from the player's perspective. Some of this might need to be adjusted for balance purposes, if such a change was made.
I mostly pointed this out due to some people hearing about an expanded scale and immediately saying it would make things slower and start talking about a fast forward option to get things done faster. But expanding the timescale enough to allow for a day/night cycle might make the seasons and years longer, but it wouldn't really slow down the gameplay just the occurrence of certain events.
I also pointed out that keeping the gameplay at a consistent speed, but expanding the timescale doesn't really break the realism as Adventurer/Fortress mode dwarves do things in the same amount of ticks, but the timescale makes fortress dwarves seem ridiculously slow. As what takes an adventurer dwarf hours can take the fortress dwarf days. I should also point out that fortress mode doesn't need to run on the same scale as adventure mode, but closing the gap a bit wouldn't really hurt either way. This isn't a suggested solution or a really serous one either, just pointing out that the timescale could be changed rather easily and would ultimately be more of a game balance issue rather than something that needs fixed perfectly.
Post by: Rip0k on October 29, 2011, 02:06:03 am
Post by: Kogut on October 29, 2011, 02:14:12 am
Can he be of other race than dorf?[/color]Probably not - but maybe as merchant?
Post by: G-Flex on October 29, 2011, 02:56:44 am
I did say generally. My point was mostly that you can adjust the Timescale without breaking much. Timescale and ticks are pretty well separated that changes can be made to the scale to incorporate some more time. Some stuff might fall out of sync that rely on ticks, but are synced to game time (like eating/drinking). All the stuff that relies on the game time will still work and simply take longer to happen from the player's perspective. Some of this might need to be adjusted for balance purposes, if such a change was made.
What would you be able to adjust without severely screwing with how reasonable worldgen or fort mode play is? You would need to make humans grow old and die within a year or so in order to maintain the current generational flow, for instance. Things would have to happen too fast (in terms of world-time) to make sense.
Post by: jellsprout on October 29, 2011, 05:11:01 am
Post by: Dsarker on October 29, 2011, 08:04:46 am
Post by: Rockphed on October 29, 2011, 10:00:45 am
Toady, how does immigrating to a new fortress affect things like artifact creation? Can my smith who was possessed in my last fort immigrate and get a fey mood in a new fort, or will he be billed as "creator of libushtastic" even though said artifact is still moldering in the halls of the old fortress?
Also, will immigrants from other fortresses have the same list of preferences in the new fort as the old?
Also, relating to the question about adventurers and backpacks, will immigrants from old forts be wearing the same thing they were when the fort was abandoned?
Post by: Footkerchief on October 29, 2011, 01:12:58 pm
Does the recent devlog mean that we can create a race with an adventurer-only caste, and have one of our adventurers of that caste show up? Does it prefer historical figures to generated?
Based on this snippet from the devlog, it's picking randomly from the entire civ population with no special weighting:
Quote
It was only year 3, so without a large roster to choose from, my dwarven adventurer showed up to be a hard-working citizen
Also, will immigrants from other fortresses have the same list of preferences in the new fort as the old?
I think this one is a definite yes. The issue with prefs was that world gen historical figures weren't getting them at all, but a given historical figure's prefs should be consistent regardless.
Post by: caknuck on October 29, 2011, 01:45:50 pm
Post by: Cruxador on October 29, 2011, 01:50:03 pm
That implies that a historical figure's meta role isn't a factor, but it doesn't imply no weighting. It would make sense for personalities. To play into it.Does the recent devlog mean that we can create a race with an adventurer-only caste, and have one of our adventurers of that caste show up? Does it prefer historical figures to generated?
Based on this snippet from the devlog, it's picking randomly from the entire civ population with no special weighting:QuoteIt was only year 3, so without a large roster to choose from, my dwarven adventurer showed up to be a hard-working citizen
Post by: eux0r on October 29, 2011, 04:17:06 pm
----
toady, do you have a roadmap or something similar to the devgoals for not ingame related stuff? i am specifically interested whether i could ever run dwarffortress directly in a terminal of my choice(urxvt in my case) since everyting is only ascii and text anyways.
running df on a remote server via ssh from my mobile phone and similar things would be really awesome
Post by: Dutchling on October 29, 2011, 04:51:46 pm
Post by: G-Flex on October 29, 2011, 06:00:55 pm
toady, do you have a roadmap or something similar to the devgoals for not ingame related stuff? i am specifically interested whether i could ever run dwarffortress directly in a terminal of my choice(urxvt in my case) since everyting is only ascii and text anyways.
running df on a remote server via ssh from my mobile phone and similar things would be really awesome
The linux build of DF already has a text output mode, doesn't it?
Also, I remember something called "dfterm" that would allow you to do exactly that: Run DF on a remote machine and connect via (probably) SSH.
Post by: thvaz on October 30, 2011, 07:43:31 am
Quote
Deeper and deeper into the night. Join us, on a trek into terror. What could be creepier than the ghoulish, blood sucking freaks -- so evil they cannot bear the sun. Insidious, the more domesticated of their kind can pass for the living, sending their slaves to do their bidding after sunrise. Vampires are next on the list. Followed by angry ghosts and constructed monsters. The night will live undead.
And the next one by Toady:
Quote
Some of the styles of vampire will be able to pass for being alive, even maintaining their old positions for different lengths of time, and some of them won't be able to at all.
It looks like there is a randomized trait for vampires that makes them impossible to blend in dwarven society (for example, Nosferatu-like vampires). These "monster" vampires would try to blend in anyway? It isn't clear from the last devlogs.
I ask because you could have a world with only "monster" vampires and then lose the opportunity to have infiltrated vampires in your fortress.
Post by: Knight Otu on October 30, 2011, 03:51:14 pm
It looks like there is a randomized trait for vampires that makes them impossible to blend in dwarven society (for example, Nosferatu-like vampires). These "monster" vampires would try to blend in anyway? It isn't clear from the last devlogs.The impression I got from the devlogs was that currently, there are no "monster" vampire types, and ThreeToe's "storylet" was an ideal of what vampires could be capable of. Perhaps they weren't worth mentioning because they'd act much like werebeasts currently, running into the wilds and then attacking from their lairs, though.
I ask because you could have a world with only "monster" vampires and then lose the opportunity to have infiltrated vampires in your fortress.
Post by: Neonivek on October 30, 2011, 03:53:36 pm
I mean... such things did actually happen where someone was so hopelessly disfigured that they were covered up and no one saw their face (such as some people who got Leprocy)
Post by: Cruxador on October 30, 2011, 06:29:02 pm
The only way I can imagine monster vampires, who arn't just pure murderous monsters who psychologically could never hope to blend in, would be to hide their face.In some stories, particularly in the World of Darkness universe, the ugliest of vampires sometimes tend to live in the sewers and undercities, and are more beast than man in lifestyle. Seems like an appropriate extreme to me.
I mean... such things did actually happen where someone was so hopelessly disfigured that they were covered up and no one saw their face (such as some people who got Leprocy)
Post by: Rose on October 31, 2011, 04:20:53 am
Post by: Neonivek on October 31, 2011, 07:57:52 am
Toady, if you can give an announcement for any dwarf that nobody has seen in more than X amount of time without it taking up too many resources, that would be fantastic.
Bad form Japa. While I know many questions are either suggestions or suggestiony the point of the Green Coloration is to ask Toady questions.
Post by: scriver on October 31, 2011, 08:28:40 am
Quote
It would be amusing to make a hunter or miner that hasn't seen another one of your dwarves for a year or two be marked as missing, but that might be going too far, he he he.
Though it would be hilarious when the hunter/miner marked all the other dwarves as missing too :D
Post by: Catastrophic lolcats on October 31, 2011, 09:26:20 am
Quote
It would be amusing to make a hunter or miner that hasn't seen another one of your dwarves for a year or two be marked as missing, but that might be going too far, he he he.I assume the Hunter will get seen by the rest of the fortress when he goes to return the meat to the stockpile and a miner will more than likely go and eat/drink back at the stockpiles as well (considering you haven't built mini-supply stations).
Might be possible in the future if Hunters get tents, the ability to dry meat and really "live off the land".
The missing feature is great and I can't wait for one day when a dwarf gets a strange mood and disppears for a few weeks, get declared missing and presumed dead, only to be found by traders and returned to the fortress holding treasures of his wonderlust. Bonus points if he returns during his own funeral. :)
Post by: greenskye on October 31, 2011, 10:08:40 am
Lets imagine a dwarf called Urist McRomeo is married to Urist McJuliet. McJuliet goes missing and is presumed dead, McRomeo, distraught with loss, jumps into the river and drowns. Later McJuliet is found, but discovers McRomeo has committed suicide. She too is overcome with grief and joins her lover at the bottom of the river.
I can't wait for the day that dwarf fortress can finally rival the daytime soap operas.
Post by: Untelligent on October 31, 2011, 10:27:09 am
Post by: Fieari on October 31, 2011, 10:53:33 am
Post by: thedrelle on October 31, 2011, 11:34:29 am
overall, regardless of whether or not this could happen, having dwarves disappear in general is a great idea.
Post by: Untelligent on October 31, 2011, 02:17:42 pm
It would be pretty cool to have dwarves that disappear do so from the player's perspective as well. For instance, If a dwarf had his own supply of food/ drink down where he was digging, but he himself was never seen by any of the other dwarves, and therefore by you. you only notice that he's still alive because the stockpile he's using slowly goes down in qty. Concerned for your dwarf, you could send down the militia, who discovers him digging away, revealing him to the player.
overall, regardless of whether or not this could happen, having dwarves disappear in general is a great idea.
This idea, while interesting, could get sort of complicated. What if he has a few buddy miners down there who stay with him but the group never gets seen by other dwarves?
Post by: penguify on October 31, 2011, 03:03:49 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: darkflagrance on October 31, 2011, 03:32:07 pm
As for the concerns with childsnatching interacting with dwarves going "missing" referenced in the dev log, the child could go "missing" the moment it is snatched, but the player is not notified unless he specifically runs a check through on the list of dwarves. This simulates the sending out of alerts through the dwarven community to search for missing children; only when the child reaches the edge is the snatched alert sent. This might even make dealing with childsnatching more interesting.
Post by: Cruxador on October 31, 2011, 06:06:13 pm
Post by: Dae on October 31, 2011, 06:26:15 pm
Quickly followed by the sheriff blackmailing rich, guilty people for covering them up. Quickly followed by the sheriff blackmailing rich, innocent people for NOT accusing them. Not-quite-quickly followed by rich people orchestrating a most unfortunate occurence to your sheriff. Fun times !
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on October 31, 2011, 07:47:14 pm
1. Are all migrants historical figures, or are they still mostly generated on-the-spot?
2. What happens when your civ runs out of citizens? Or do historical migrants stop genning before then?
3. If something like the famous Cacame Apebalded incident happened, could you get elf migrants?
3b. I suppose this would count for non-dwarven adventurers as well.
4. Can the monarch migrate to your fortress if it houses most/all of the civ's population? (Which would require massive worldgen wars or something, but how unlikely is that?)
5. If that happened, would it count as a bug or an unintended feature? I can't imagine a monarch wanting to live in the Mountainhome after everyone else there is living at Fortressmurders or wherever.
#3 and possibly 2 and 5 might be kinda obvious, but I'm still interested.
(Okay, 5 might be a bit more than a few, but still...)
Post by: Neonivek on October 31, 2011, 07:54:47 pm
I have a few questions inspired by your mention of historical migrants:
1. Are all migrants historical figures, or are they still mostly generated on-the-spot?
2. What happens when your civ runs out of citizens? Or do historical migrants stop genning before then?
3. If something like the famous Cacame Apebalded incident happened, could you get elf migrants?
3b. I suppose this would count for non-dwarven adventurers as well.
4. Can the monarch migrate to your fortress if it houses most/all of the civ's population? (Which would require massive worldgen wars or something, but how unlikely is that?)
5. If that happened, would it count as a bug or an unintended feature? I can't imagine a monarch wanting to live in the Mountainhome after everyone else there is living at Fortressmurders or wherever.
#3 and possibly 2 and 5 might be kinda obvious, but I'm still interested.
(Okay, 5 might be a bit more than a few, but still...)
1) Mostly generated on the spot. It just occasionally takes a historical figure now.
2) Age doesn't happen in game unless they enter active play. So your Civ cannot run out of citizens while your playing your fortress.
3) ???
4) Not currently
5) Bug
Post by: Footkerchief on October 31, 2011, 08:48:56 pm
I have a few questions inspired by your mention of historical migrants:
1. Are all migrants historical figures, or are they still mostly generated on-the-spot?
2. What happens when your civ runs out of citizens? Or do historical migrants stop genning before then?
3. If something like the famous Cacame Apebalded incident happened, could you get elf migrants?
3b. I suppose this would count for non-dwarven adventurers as well.
4. Can the monarch migrate to your fortress if it houses most/all of the civ's population? (Which would require massive worldgen wars or something, but how unlikely is that?)
5. If that happened, would it count as a bug or an unintended feature? I can't imagine a monarch wanting to live in the Mountainhome after everyone else there is living at Fortressmurders or wherever.
#3 and possibly 2 and 5 might be kinda obvious, but I'm still interested.
(Okay, 5 might be a bit more than a few, but still...)
Cruxador already gave very complete answers to your questions when you asked them in the thread you posted to ask them. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=95586.msg2721676#msg2721676)
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 31, 2011, 09:08:19 pm
I have a few questions inspired by your mention of historical migrants:
-snip-
Cruxador already gave very complete answers to your questions when you asked them in the thread you posted to ask them. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=95586.msg2721676#msg2721676)
Ironically, he posted that question thread after this one, and the very first post told him to post them here.
Now, as for an important question;
Did you get Scamps a halloween costume?
Post by: DG on November 01, 2011, 04:29:14 am
Will it be possible that a member of the starting seven is a vampire before embark? Will vampires check the population of a fort before emigrating? Can another vampire come to a fort if one is already present? Will the lying skill be used for claims and counter-claims of vampirism and will it provide skill xp? If unmasked do vampires have an option between fleeing off map and fighting to the death (their own or the forts)?
The following is for us to discuss and not suggestions veiled as whatever, promise.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: zwei on November 01, 2011, 04:54:35 am
If the starting seven can't be vampires they become fairly important individuals when it comes to testimony against others.
That assumens that one of them was not converted to vampire later by imigrating vampire. Ideally, right after first wave.
Post by: DG on November 01, 2011, 05:04:06 am
Post by: Neonivek on November 01, 2011, 07:56:43 am
If the starting seven can't be vampires they become fairly important individuals when it comes to testimony against others.
That assumens that one of them was not converted to vampire later by imigrating vampire. Ideally, right after first wave.
Well if the starting 7 included a Vampire... they probably wouldn't have survived the trip... that would have taken a week tops.
Post by: zwei on November 01, 2011, 08:05:40 am
If the starting seven can't be vampires they become fairly important individuals when it comes to testimony against others.
That assumens that one of them was not converted to vampire later by imigrating vampire. Ideally, right after first wave.
Well if the starting 7 included a Vampire... they probably wouldn't have survived the trip... that would have taken a week tops.
That really depends on flavor of vampire.
For example vampires from J.Kulhanek books only drink about once a month and prefer cold (fish) blood over warm and absolutelly detest human blood (because it tastes bad).
They also have no trouble with sunlight and wield katanas and smgs.
Post by: thedrelle on November 01, 2011, 11:45:52 am
This idea, while interesting, could get sort of complicated. What if he has a few buddy miners down there who stay with him but the group never gets seen by other dwarves?
I agree, where do you draw the line?. How many dwarves can disappear at a time?
what also might be awesome is a mood where the dwarf in question wanders off to the cave system below. have this happen only after you open one of the caves. have them ignore locked doors. they run into the caves and disappear from your view.
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on November 01, 2011, 12:36:23 pm
Post by: EmperorJon on November 01, 2011, 02:44:44 pm
(Vampire gets hungry -> pulls lever to dispense goblin -> nomnomslurp)
Post by: Quatch on November 01, 2011, 02:59:00 pm
Let me just say, that having a dwarf who has not seen another dwarf for a full year is should be plenty eligible for being "Missing". Even miners and hunters come back for meals, after all. I wouldn't call someone THAT isolated being missing unreasonable or going overboard at all! You'd have to really WORK at it to trigger it, after all.
Finally, a use for those children that run around and follow people to their jobs. They are part of the dwarven secret police, keeping tabs on everyone's location.
Post by: Greiger on November 01, 2011, 06:09:46 pm
Egg laying civs will take nest boxes before the animals you are trying to breed do so, I often have to lock one resident in a little room with 30 years worth of food and a well to take care of the animals, and handle one side of the airlock. With folks not seen for a while disappearing it might be problematic for that. ....Though I suppose I could just install some windows or fortifications so that the regular fortress residents can see in.
Seems unnecessarily cruel for the poor sap locked in with the smelly beasties though if they can see their friends and family so close...
Post by: GeorgiaPeanuts on November 01, 2011, 07:33:12 pm
Firstly, can a gobrin become a vampire too or just only certain species can be vampire. In that same vein can you encounter vampiric forgotten beasts?
Secondly, how does feeding work? Will the feeding for vampire be similar to how normal dorf eats. (Some vampire canon holds that vampire detests to eat food, etc.) If so, will the feeding always cause death or will it depend on how hungry the vampire is for blood? Essentially, will the time between feedings impact how much blood the vampire takes, and if not all feedings kill, will the vampire attack just cause unconsciousness?
As an aside will the personality of the vampiric dorf also impact how it chooses to feed. I mean essentially, will an angry vampiric dorf be more prone to drain all their 'live'-stock of their blood, and on the opposite spectrum a very nice vampiric dorf would be more apt to avoid taking too much blood from a victim.
In relation to the vampire wounds, will it work how in most vampire canon that the blood will regenerate for the one feeded on over time and if so, would multiple feedings on the same dorf in too short a time create more risk for death, and then to pull back to my questions about personality, one might expect a friendlier vampiric dorf to try to avoid feeding on the same dorf too regularly.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 01, 2011, 08:16:37 pm
Will Vampires require periodic blood feeding, and if so, does it matter which species?
Quote from: jimi12How urgent is the need for a vampire to feed? Will they starve to death or grow weaker if they don't feed for a long time? Or is it more like a somemthing they are just driven to do without any real benefits to themselves other than filling their bloodlust?
Nothing special yet.
Post by: Organum on November 01, 2011, 10:15:52 pm
Quote from: Three Toe
But that doesn't matter because you won't have to wait much longer.
Quote from: Toady One
All the same, the list grows shorter and it's exciting to be drawing close to the end of this process.
Yes yes, yes yes yes yes. :|
Post by: monk12 on November 01, 2011, 10:41:46 pm
Quote from: Three ToeBut that doesn't matter because you won't have to wait much longer.Quote from: Toady OneAll the same, the list grows shorter and it's exciting to be drawing close to the end of this process.
Yes yes, yes yes yes yes. :|
Hooray, it'll be right on time for Christmas :P
Post by: Cruxador on November 01, 2011, 11:58:58 pm
periodic blood feedingAt first glance, I read that as "period blood feeding". That theoretically should be a possibility, but I doubt most of us would want to deal with it.
Makes me wonder about modding possibilities, though.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 02, 2011, 12:35:33 am
Hooray, it'll be right on time for Christmas :P
You know the world ends on the 21st according to the maya?
Post by: Hiiri on November 02, 2011, 12:43:25 am
Hooray, it'll be right on time for Christmas :P
You know the world ends on the 21st according to the maya?
Isn't that supposed to be next year? If not, Toady better hurry, so we can all die happy.
Post by: Dsarker on November 02, 2011, 01:10:13 am
Hooray, it'll be right on time for Christmas :P
You know the world ends on the 21st according to the maya?
Isn't that supposed to be next year? If not, Toady better hurry, so we can all die happy.
Next year, and the Maya didn't think the world was going to end anytime soon. More like several million years from now.
Post by: G-Flex on November 02, 2011, 02:39:33 am
Hooray, it'll be right on time for Christmas :P
You know the world ends on the 21st according to the maya?
Correction: According to a bunch of revisionists wanting to make money off the Maya. The Maya themselves never made any such prediction at all. It's a hoax, like the moon-landing-is-fake people. Shouldn't be a surprise, though.
Post by: DG on November 02, 2011, 05:51:27 am
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on November 02, 2011, 01:07:41 pm
That also made me think about animals and their superior senses being able to detectAFAIK only smell-related thing implemented in DF as of now is miasma.non-humannon-dwarven creatures masquerading as dwarves because they smell differently.
Post by: Quatch on November 02, 2011, 01:23:34 pm
I wonder if assigning five war animals to every dwarf in your fort would give a vampire problems.
Only because they would be limited by the FPS. 200 dwarves, 1000 dogs (or equiv)?
You might be better chaining an animal in every hallway as a lookout, and go for total individual coverage rather than individual. Zone defense.
Post by: MrWiggles on November 02, 2011, 11:18:07 pm
Post by: Dakk on November 03, 2011, 03:26:18 pm
Post by: Quatch on November 03, 2011, 03:38:13 pm
Post by: thvaz on November 03, 2011, 03:54:04 pm
has anyone asked how common vampires will be in fort mode?
I don't think anyone asked, butI think it will depend on how common they are in the generated world. The chances of getting one vampire in your fortress must be higher as smaller is your world.
Post by: jellsprout on November 03, 2011, 04:23:39 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on November 03, 2011, 07:35:52 pm
Post by: Orkel on November 03, 2011, 07:55:56 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on November 03, 2011, 11:26:14 pm
Toady: Any plans to add actual feeding for beasts in? Like instead of beasts leaving the corpses to rot, acting disinterested, they actually start eating the flesh away bit by bit leaving a skeleton or partly eaten corpse afterwards. Don't think this has been asked before.
Its been asked before and answered, in both FotF (I think) and defiantly in the DF Talks podcasts. Toady acknowledges that animals in Fort actively, and adventure mode, more passively, that animals dont quite act like animals yet. Carnivores dont hunt, and only recently do pasture animals need to eat. He does stipulate, that eventually, this wont be the case.
Post by: G-Flex on November 04, 2011, 01:51:59 am
I dont think every fort is going to get a vamp, or a lycan (cant forget the lycans kill folks now too), or necro sieges.
Just out of curiosity, where exactly does the word "lycan" come from here? I've never seen that before except for one or two bad movies recently. Is that an established term or something?
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 04, 2011, 01:54:39 am
I dont think every fort is going to get a vamp, or a lycan (cant forget the lycans kill folks now too), or necro sieges.
Just out of curiosity, where exactly does the word "lycan" come from here? I've never seen that before except for one or two bad movies recently. Is that an established term or something?
Mmmm plus it should really be therians (from therianthropy, i.e. lycanthropy for animals beyond just wolves).
Post by: Dsarker on November 04, 2011, 02:05:46 am
I dont think every fort is going to get a vamp, or a lycan (cant forget the lycans kill folks now too), or necro sieges.
Just out of curiosity, where exactly does the word "lycan" come from here? I've never seen that before except for one or two bad movies recently. Is that an established term or something?
Lycan is the latinised transliteration of the Greek word λυκος, or wolf.
Post by: Girlinhat on November 04, 2011, 03:40:40 am
If you retire an adventurer on a mountainhome (currently an empty plot) then that adventurer can become a migrant. Does this mean your elf or human adventurer can retire on a mountainhome and become a fortress mode migrant? And as a sub question, if your adventurer retires on a site of a different civ or species, will that adventurer be able to migrate, or do they need to be on the specific civ site?
Post by: MrWiggles on November 04, 2011, 06:17:36 am
I dont think every fort is going to get a vamp, or a lycan (cant forget the lycans kill folks now too), or necro sieges.
Just out of curiosity, where exactly does the word "lycan" come from here? I've never seen that before except for one or two bad movies recently. Is that an established term or something?
Mmmm plus it should really be therians (from therianthropy, i.e. lycanthropy for animals beyond just wolves).
Yea, therian or zoanthropy, are more inclusive terms, but it seems that lycanthropes tends to be used for general animal ship shaping.
Post by: Dsarker on November 04, 2011, 06:31:28 am
Post by: MrWiggles on November 04, 2011, 06:32:08 am
Don't you mean shapeshifting?Its like 4:30am for me.
Post by: Neonivek on November 04, 2011, 08:34:23 am
Post by: Areyar on November 04, 2011, 08:46:50 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Is there a racist tag in cultural values?
n.b. communities being exclusive to 'strangers' or being extremely un-fond of irrellevant features, such as beards or being tall.
Post by: Neonivek on November 04, 2011, 08:51:00 am
Given that your reducing racism to a fundemental aspect of an entire society...
Post by: Areyar on November 04, 2011, 08:55:21 am
But I meant it as a variable value.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 04, 2011, 09:01:34 am
Toady: Any plans to add actual feeding for beasts in? Like instead of beasts leaving the corpses to rot, acting disinterested, they actually start eating the flesh away bit by bit leaving a skeleton or partly eaten corpse afterwards. Don't think this has been asked before.
This has been commented on before:
Pets used to eat. It made them worthless. If it goes back in, there has to be more meat. Dogs ate bones and it didn't help much. The livestock also ate plump helmets instead of grazing. I'd like them to eat, but there need to be a lot of changes. If dogs also ate chunks it might help enough. I'd rather add more game elements than model it.
And more recently: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1943773#msg1943773)
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: jimi12will 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.
Is there a racist tag in cultural values?
n.b. communities being exclusive to 'strangers' or being extremely un-fond of irrellevant features, such as beards or being tall.
There obviously is not. (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Entity_token) Toady has suggested that there may be some civ differences later with goblins being less discriminatory etc.
Post by: Neonivek on November 04, 2011, 09:01:35 am
probably.
But I meant it as a variable value.
As a measure of what exactly?
Post by: Areyar on November 04, 2011, 10:31:13 am
Something like:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on November 04, 2011, 12:41:42 pm
10- Evil bastards - only exceptionally good humoured people will speak to you, unless money is involved. Prices for outsiders will always be higher than insiders are charged. Keep an eye on your backpack at all times!You forgot "15 - Kill these
Post by: Fieari on November 04, 2011, 01:45:25 pm
But only if it's a 5 minute addition as part of the code that alienates vampires and werewolves.
Post by: Neonivek on November 04, 2011, 02:40:32 pm
As a measure a being friendly and helpfull to strangers and especially to those that look/behave differently than the norm.
Something like:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Then that isn't racism... at all.
Quote
Since you brought it up, as a jew, I'd love to see homicidal racism in DF.
I just don't way it to be brought in artificially through some sort of weird superficial racism slider. There are reasons why racism is brought up and grow, or even shrink, over time.
Plus by what measure is the difference between rightful racial anger and unjust racist behavior? (For example: Hating demons vs. I don't know). A lot of precepts towards racism already exists within dwarf fortress but that is because of the unsolvable differences between the civilisations... but that isn't the same thing.
For the SAKE of conversation can we define racism as: Prejudice and hatred towards a race/species WITHIN the same civilisation?
Post by: Girlinhat on November 04, 2011, 04:14:06 pm
Post by: G-Flex on November 04, 2011, 04:16:57 pm
Of course, we can't take the modern concept of "race" for granted here. In the past, centuries ago, it's very possible that people drew distinctions based more on other things than skin color or whatever... especially in a hypothetical fantasy world where actual distinct humanoid species exist.
Post by: Girlinhat on November 04, 2011, 05:00:21 pm
Post by: scriver on November 04, 2011, 05:38:15 pm
...But it sounds slightly silly.
Post by: Chromasphere on November 04, 2011, 06:12:34 pm
Post by: monk12 on November 04, 2011, 07:03:45 pm
In any case, it would be interesting to be able to set race relations (which would be a form of those things mentioned in above posts) beyond the ethics settings. To see two carravans come in at the same time that utterly hated each other and thus started fighting. Or were capable of starting a fight if two people with just the right personalities came too close to one another... as would happen at a trade depot. Of if a particular adventurer would get shunned at certain civ cities or treated unfairly or, again, if in a unfriendly city and getting too close to someone with a particular personality who would then pick a fight, which could escalate into a mob chasing you. Dunno if anything like that is planned. Might even happen naturally with the personality rewrite.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see some of this with Taverns/Inns in Release 3- can't hardly have a proper tavern without the potential for a tavern brawl, right? :D
Post by: Willfor on November 04, 2011, 08:01:40 pm
Post by: EveryZig on November 04, 2011, 08:45:53 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on November 04, 2011, 08:57:32 pm
A thought occurs: How will lycanthropy interact with moods? I think transformed dwarfs will probably be unable to mood, but what happens if a lycanthrope dwarf is mooding when the full moon (or whatever triggers the transformation) occurs?
Urist McWolf cancels mood: Howling at moon
Post by: Rafal99 on November 04, 2011, 09:43:08 pm
Quote from: devlog
(...) I split the unit screen into 4 categories (citizens, pets/livestock, others, dead/missing). (...)
Such a little change makes things so much easier!
No more scrolling through 120 dwarves and 200 livestock animals just to see what sort of wildlife you currently have.
Please more little things like this Toady!
Post by: MrWiggles on November 04, 2011, 09:45:58 pm
Yay! Interface improvement!Quote from: devlog(...) I split the unit screen into 4 categories (citizens, pets/livestock, others, dead/missing). (...)
Such a little change makes things so much easier!
No more scrolling through 120 dwarves and 200 livestock animals just to see what sort of wildlife you currently have.
Please more little things like this Toady!
What date was this dev log posted? oO
Post by: Untelligent on November 04, 2011, 09:47:33 pm
Suppose I ought to go remove that suggestion I put up on the Eternal Suggestion Voting page ages ago, then.
Yay! Interface improvement!Quote from: devlog(...) I split the unit screen into 4 categories (citizens, pets/livestock, others, dead/missing). (...)
Such a little change makes things so much easier!
No more scrolling through 120 dwarves and 200 livestock animals just to see what sort of wildlife you currently have.
Please more little things like this Toady!
What date was this dev log posted? oO
Sometime this night. If you don't see it on the blog try F5ing.
Post by: freeformschooler on November 04, 2011, 09:56:06 pm
Will you leave the magic debug button in as an init option?
Post by: monk12 on November 04, 2011, 10:33:00 pm
Yay! Interface improvement!Quote from: devlog(...) I split the unit screen into 4 categories (citizens, pets/livestock, others, dead/missing). (...)
Such a little change makes things so much easier!
No more scrolling through 120 dwarves and 200 livestock animals just to see what sort of wildlife you currently have.
Please more little things like this Toady!
What date was this dev log posted? oO
Today- not long ago, even.
And yeah, this is pretty awesome. Hopefully I won't be surprised when angry giant badgers replace the docile deer anymore.
Post by: Silophant on November 05, 2011, 12:44:01 am
Yay! Interface improvement!Quote from: devlog(...) I split the unit screen into 4 categories (citizens, pets/livestock, others, dead/missing). (...)
Such a little change makes things so much easier!
No more scrolling through 120 dwarves and 200 livestock animals just to see what sort of wildlife you currently have.
Please more little things like this Toady!
And, more importantly, no more scrolling up past every single thing that's ever died to get a look at your siege.
Post by: thvaz on November 05, 2011, 03:40:31 am
Yay! Interface improvement!And, more importantly, no more scrolling up past every single thing that's ever died to get a look at your siege.Quote from: devlog(...) I split the unit screen into 4 categories (citizens, pets/livestock, others, dead/missing). (...)
Such a little change makes things so much easier!
No more scrolling through 120 dwarves and 200 livestock animals just to see what sort of wildlife you currently have.
Please more little things like this Toady!
While he is on it, he could create more categories: one for each class of professions, one for active dwarves and other for "no job" dwarves.
edit: fixing quote
Post by: Kogut on November 05, 2011, 04:05:54 am
Thanks!Yay! Interface improvement!Quote from: devlog(...) I split the unit screen into 4 categories (citizens, pets/livestock, others, dead/missing). (...)
Such a little change makes things so much easier!
No more scrolling through 120 dwarves and 200 livestock animals just to see what sort of wildlife you currently have.
Please more little things like this Toady!
While he is on it, he could create more categories: one for each class of professions, one for active dwarves and other for "no job" dwarves
And, more importantly, no more scrolling up past every single thing that's ever died to get a look at your siege.
Post by: gamerman on November 05, 2011, 09:07:07 am
Yay! Interface improvement!And, more importantly, no more scrolling up past every single thing that's ever died to get a look at your siege.Quote from: devlog(...) I split the unit screen into 4 categories (citizens, pets/livestock, others, dead/missing). (...)
Such a little change makes things so much easier!
No more scrolling through 120 dwarves and 200 livestock animals just to see what sort of wildlife you currently have.
Please more little things like this Toady!
While he is on it, he could create more categories: one for each class of professions, one for active dwarves and other for "no job" dwarves.
edit: fixing quote
subcategories maybe? something like a toggle option the stockpiles have for woodcutters/miners/cheese makers/ect on the citizen page, or the other page sorted with hostile/caravan/ect.
sounds somewhat useful
Post by: thvaz on November 05, 2011, 09:39:39 am
Yay! Interface improvement!And, more importantly, no more scrolling up past every single thing that's ever died to get a look at your siege.Quote from: devlog(...) I split the unit screen into 4 categories (citizens, pets/livestock, others, dead/missing). (...)
Such a little change makes things so much easier!
No more scrolling through 120 dwarves and 200 livestock animals just to see what sort of wildlife you currently have.
Please more little things like this Toady!
While he is on it, he could create more categories: one for each class of professions, one for active dwarves and other for "no job" dwarves.
edit: fixing quote
subcategories maybe? something like a toggle option the stockpiles have for woodcutters/miners/cheese makers/ect on the citizen page, or the other page sorted with hostile/caravan/ect.
sounds somewhat useful
Let the ideas flowing, every small idea improving on the interface while taking few coding time from Toady is great.
Post by: Rafal99 on November 05, 2011, 10:45:43 am
Let the ideas flowing, every small idea improving on the interface while taking few coding time from Toady is great.
I have several ideas improving an interface that would take less than a hour each to implement, most have been posted somewhere already, yet none made it into the game. I would happily code them myself if it was possible, but unfortunately it is not.
The most important one being:
Remember the last material used for construction and select it automatically when building another construction!
Post by: thvaz on November 05, 2011, 12:40:25 pm
Let the ideas flowing, every small idea improving on the interface while taking few coding time from Toady is great.
I have several ideas improving an interface that would take less than a hour each to implement, most have been posted somewhere already, yet none made it into the game. I would happily code them myself if it was possible, but unfortunately it is not.
The most important one being:
Remember the last material used for construction and select it automatically when building another construction!
Do not get so carried over, this is not the way Toady works. As he just had improved the Unit Screen, it may be easier to him do add something more there, as he is involved in that part of the code. This does not mean it is easy to change the interface somewhere else. Or that he is willing to. ( I don't really expect he will heard me either, he must already has moved on from that part)
Post by: veok on November 05, 2011, 01:51:06 pm
I have several ideas improving an interface that would take less than a hour each to implement
;D Oh, the naivety.
Post by: flabort on November 05, 2011, 04:05:18 pm
I'm just wondering, will there ever be a "Save and continue", or "Save and don't quit", or "Save and keep going!" button?
Even if it pauses once it finishes saving, in case you left the room, having to press 'space' once is far preferable to having to load up again entirely.
Post by: Cruxador on November 05, 2011, 04:29:12 pm
Been a while since I've been on the DF forum.Autosave doesn't quit. Other than that, I doubt it. It's not something I've heard of anyone caring about.
I'm just wondering, will there ever be a "Save and continue", or "Save and don't quit", or "Save and keep going!" button?
Even if it pauses once it finishes saving, in case you left the room, having to press 'space' once is far preferable to having to load up again entirely.
Post by: thvaz on November 05, 2011, 04:32:12 pm
Been a while since I've been on the DF forum.Autosave doesn't quit. Other than that, I doubt it. It's not something I've heard of anyone caring about.
I'm just wondering, will there ever be a "Save and continue", or "Save and don't quit", or "Save and keep going!" button?
Even if it pauses once it finishes saving, in case you left the room, having to press 'space' once is far preferable to having to load up again entirely.
It is called permadeath, a convention of the roguelike genre. Autosave is to avoid to lose everything because of a crash. You aren't supposed to use it after you lose. Though it is a single player game, so anyone can does as it best pleases them.
Post by: dree12 on November 05, 2011, 06:43:34 pm
He asked for "save and don't return to the main menu", not "don't save and return to the main menu".Been a while since I've been on the DF forum.Autosave doesn't quit. Other than that, I doubt it. It's not something I've heard of anyone caring about.
I'm just wondering, will there ever be a "Save and continue", or "Save and don't quit", or "Save and keep going!" button?
Even if it pauses once it finishes saving, in case you left the room, having to press 'space' once is far preferable to having to load up again entirely.
It is called permadeath, a convention of the roguelike genre. Autosave is to avoid to lose everything because of a crash. You aren't supposed to use it after you lose. Though it is a single player game, so anyone can does as it best pleases them.
Post by: Dsarker on November 05, 2011, 06:46:26 pm
From what I can tell, he wants a manual autosave, as it were.He asked for "save and don't return to the main menu", not "don't save and return to the main menu".Been a while since I've been on the DF forum.Autosave doesn't quit. Other than that, I doubt it. It's not something I've heard of anyone caring about.
I'm just wondering, will there ever be a "Save and continue", or "Save and don't quit", or "Save and keep going!" button?
Even if it pauses once it finishes saving, in case you left the room, having to press 'space' once is far preferable to having to load up again entirely.
It is called permadeath, a convention of the roguelike genre. Autosave is to avoid to lose everything because of a crash. You aren't supposed to use it after you lose. Though it is a single player game, so anyone can does as it best pleases them.
Post by: dree12 on November 05, 2011, 07:01:19 pm
"Manual autosave" is a confusing oxymoron. He wants a save without returning to the main menu.From what I can tell, he wants a manual autosave, as it were.He asked for "save and don't return to the main menu", not "don't save and return to the main menu".Been a while since I've been on the DF forum.Autosave doesn't quit. Other than that, I doubt it. It's not something I've heard of anyone caring about.
I'm just wondering, will there ever be a "Save and continue", or "Save and don't quit", or "Save and keep going!" button?
Even if it pauses once it finishes saving, in case you left the room, having to press 'space' once is far preferable to having to load up again entirely.
It is called permadeath, a convention of the roguelike genre. Autosave is to avoid to lose everything because of a crash. You aren't supposed to use it after you lose. Though it is a single player game, so anyone can does as it best pleases them.
Post by: scriver on November 05, 2011, 07:08:50 pm
Post by: Tweakd on November 06, 2011, 05:36:29 pm
Post by: SirPenguin on November 06, 2011, 06:50:49 pm
Which wouldn't make the permadeath feature obsolete, by the way, as it would still save upon death/quit as well. But an option to save when I want to would be great (for example, if I designate my whole living quarters level in early spring, I always fear the game will crash before summer and I'll have to do it over again).
"Perma-death" might as well be synonymous with "perma-decisions" as well. A "Save and Continue" option would encourage save-scumming, otherwise known as the practice of dicking around with little consequence because you can always roll back to a previous save.
Without holding the player responsible for his actions, we'd never have stories of people flooding their fortresses, or losing their forts due to a butterfly clogging up the door hinges, or any of the other memorable moments. It'd be incredibly disappointing for him to add such an unneeded feature
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 06, 2011, 07:16:57 pm
"Perma-death" might as well be synonymous with "perma-decisions" as well. A "Save and Continue" option would encourage save-scumming, otherwise known as the practice of dicking around with little consequence because you can always roll back to a previous save.
...but what he is proposing won't change the permadeath nature. At least not to any notable degree, given that if you're really anal about save scumming, you can do so anyway. As long as you still save on exit, the only difference it will make is shaving the 30s or so of loading time off between saves. It just makes life easier for those with unstable builds such as Tweakd.
Post by: MrWiggles on November 06, 2011, 07:20:23 pm
"Perma-death" might as well be synonymous with "perma-decisions" as well. A "Save and Continue" option would encourage save-scumming, otherwise known as the practice of dicking around with little consequence because you can always roll back to a previous save.
...but what he is proposing won't change the permadeath nature. At least not to any notable degree, given that if you're really anal about save scumming, you can do so anyway. As long as you still save on exit, the only difference it will make is shaving the 30s or so of loading time off between saves. It just makes life easier for those with unstable builds such as Tweakd.
This conversation is sounding a lot more that it should be had in Suggestion Forum.
Post by: Quatch on November 06, 2011, 11:18:29 pm
Quote from: 'Devlog'
the accuse button will send a dwarf straight to the punishment phase.
I can't imagine how abuse prone this is going to be.
A mandate eh? Murderer!
Post by: Neonivek on November 06, 2011, 11:21:00 pm
Quote from: 'Devlog'the accuse button will send a dwarf straight to the punishment phase.
I can't imagine how abuse prone this is going to be.
A mandate eh? Murderer!
I don't know. Falsely accusing people is bound to get a few penelties.
Namely unhappy thoughts.
Post by: scriver on November 06, 2011, 11:23:51 pm
Post by: G-Flex on November 06, 2011, 11:48:58 pm
Quote
Without trials etc., which we aren't going to spend time on (and it's hard to get lots of specific dwarves in the same spot at the same time, so I'm not sure we'll ever get to that in any proper way in a fortress), the accuse button will send a dwarf straight to the punishment phase.
To be truthful, I found this a little disheartening. Considering the game's far-reaching long-term goals, I'd think that a framework allowing for dwarves to organize events/get together would be necessary, much less something that won't likely ever happen.
Post by: Neonivek on November 06, 2011, 11:50:39 pm
Mind you I mean this as more of a "take that" to people who dislike Dwarves having a social life.
Post by: G-Flex on November 06, 2011, 11:54:52 pm
Really though, I'd think that organized social events are a pretty fundamental necessity to the game, eventually.
Post by: Dwarfu on November 07, 2011, 12:59:17 am
Quote
...the accuse button will send a dwarf straight to the punishment phase.
Does this mean that the player must take action, or will the sheriff eventually mete out justice on his own (like now) based on the information available to him at the time (say, after a week or so)?
Post by: billybobfred on November 07, 2011, 01:05:00 am
Quote
the accuse button will send a dwarf straight to the punishment phaseI hope this works even on "innocent" dwarves!
There is always one idiot who gets in the way and needs to be locked up, but hasn't committed any real crimes.
(also, it lets us be complete dicks, which is always a bonus)
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 07, 2011, 03:25:28 am
Post by: Toady One on November 07, 2011, 03:40:17 am
QuoteWithout trials etc., which we aren't going to spend time on (and it's hard to get lots of specific dwarves in the same spot at the same time, so I'm not sure we'll ever get to that in any proper way in a fortress), the accuse button will send a dwarf straight to the punishment phase.
To be truthful, I found this a little disheartening. Considering the game's far-reaching long-term goals, I'd think that a framework allowing for dwarves to organize events/get together would be necessary, much less something that won't likely ever happen.
Actually i dont think "trials" with a ton of dwarfs need to be done. Just send the inquisitor and the hammerer after the Criminal was seized by the fortress guard. A modern justice system is nice and dandy (althought still prone to abuse in most variants) but wasnt that common. On the other hand the actuall punishment was often a big party - i mean beer, snacks and bodyparts flying off? Its like the superbowl!
I don't think it is all that modern or uncommon, though I'm not up on things enough to say what was common for commoners in different eras. But yeah, the issue is getting say 8 specific dwarves in the same place at the same time, while still allowing them to eat, drink and sleep and without having the loss of labor be a large issue. I think it's a difficult problem on the fortress time scale. The current squad activities don't generally require total attendance. Perhaps if they were provided beverages by servants and could subsist on alcohol throughout the trial...
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on November 07, 2011, 03:43:14 am
Post by: Alu on November 07, 2011, 03:52:26 am
Post by: hoveringdog on November 07, 2011, 04:00:33 am
Given that, on the rare occasion I actually appoint a sheriff, it's usually the weakest, most incompetent dwarf I can find (lest the beatings turn into massacres), I can see it becoming a problem if every sheriff sent to take down the vampire becomes the next victim.
Post by: Kogut on November 07, 2011, 04:45:56 am
Post by: zwei on November 07, 2011, 04:53:32 am
I don't think it is all that modern or uncommon, though I'm not up on things enough to say what was common for commoners in different eras. But yeah, the issue is getting say 8 specific dwarves in the same place at the same time, while still allowing them to eat, drink and sleep and without having the loss of labor be a large issue. I think it's a difficult problem on the fortress time scale. The current squad activities don't generally require total attendance. Perhaps if they were provided beverages by servants and could subsist on alcohol throughout the trial...
Well, most players seem to have issues with too many idlers / huge surplus of dwarven labor / keeping dwarves busy. I do not see gatherings like court sessions to be issue, but rather one of things that mature fort is supposed to be able to handle without fun consequences.
Post by: Kogut on November 07, 2011, 05:14:14 am
Post by: Johuotar on November 07, 2011, 05:19:09 am
I don't think it is all that modern or uncommon, though I'm not up on things enough to say what was common for commoners in different eras. But yeah, the issue is getting say 8 specific dwarves in the same place at the same time, while still allowing them to eat, drink and sleep and without having the loss of labor be a large issue. I think it's a difficult problem on the fortress time scale. The current squad activities don't generally require total attendance. Perhaps if they were provided beverages by servants and could subsist on alcohol throughout the trial...
Well, most players seem to have issues with too many idlers / huge surplus of dwarven labor / keeping dwarves busy. I do not see gatherings like court sessions to be issue, but rather one of things that mature fort is supposed to be able to handle without fun consequences.
True, but I think that the problem is like this:
25% do all work and work 90% of the time.
75% haul items and work 10% of the time.
Out of 8 dwarves needed in court most might be those who work 90% of time because theyre the ones who are most active in the fort and thus Witness crimes that happen. Unless the crime happens in meeting hall of course.
Post by: Kogut on November 07, 2011, 05:40:45 am
Post by: de5me7 on November 07, 2011, 06:26:35 am
Quote from: 'Devlog'the accuse button will send a dwarf straight to the punishment phase.
I can't imagine how abuse prone this is going to be.
A mandate eh? Murderer!
I don't know. Falsely accusing people is bound to get a few penelties.
Namely unhappy thoughts.
Sweet mercy. Who cares about unhappy thoughts. Sadism reigns.
It would be interesting if later, when dorf personality is rewritten, if dorfs could make false accusations to attempt to get you or the sherif to remove political rivals.
Post by: Knight Otu on November 07, 2011, 07:31:59 am
I don't think it is all that modern or uncommon, though I'm not up on things enough to say what was common for commoners in different eras. But yeah, the issue is getting say 8 specific dwarves in the same place at the same time, while still allowing them to eat, drink and sleep and without having the loss of labor be a large issue. I think it's a difficult problem on the fortress time scale. The current squad activities don't generally require total attendance. Perhaps if they were provided beverages by servants and could subsist on alcohol throughout the trial...It kind of sounds to me that the inn/tavern framework would at least help with the providing beverages and food thing.
Urist Poirot cancels Solve Crime: Getting food
Urist Poirot cancels Eat: Mistaken for Human
Urist Poirot is throwing a tantrum!
Trials seem very much in flavor for dwarves to me. The inquisitor idea seems to be better suited for the stock humans.
Post by: jellsprout on November 07, 2011, 07:51:34 am
Post by: Kogut on November 07, 2011, 07:55:28 am
Post by: Neonivek on November 07, 2011, 09:36:06 am
Something to make murders a bit more interesting to solve.
Post by: Dae on November 07, 2011, 10:36:33 am
Post by: Dakk on November 07, 2011, 10:50:47 am
But yea, it'd be nice if the criminal tried to conceal his crime in some way, but that can be left for later. What would be nice to have now is criminals that don't just commit crimes in front of everyone. A vampire noble could wait for someone to come in his office rather then just attacking them in the dining hall, etc.
Post by: Untelligent on November 07, 2011, 03:34:26 pm
Given that, on the rare occasion I actually appoint a sheriff, it's usually the weakest, most incompetent dwarf I can find (lest the beatings turn into massacres), I can see it becoming a problem if every sheriff sent to take down the vampire becomes the next victim.
Well, obviously if it becomes more important that the sheriff is a good fighter you might want to start assigning better fighters to be sheriff.
Post by: Karakzon on November 07, 2011, 03:48:43 pm
Post by: caknuck on November 07, 2011, 05:06:39 pm
Post by: Aqizzar on November 07, 2011, 06:19:48 pm
Quote from: Devlog
...give you the ability to level an accusation. Without trials ... the accuse button will send a dwarf straight to the punishment phase.
Did somebody say "Instant Tantrum Button"? Because I think I heard "Instant Tantrum Button". Finally, one-touch fortress collapse. Hell yes.
Post by: Ubiq on November 07, 2011, 07:51:05 pm
Will a dwarf's personality have an impact on reporting a crime like feeding/recovering wounded does? In other words, will a dwarf who loves chaos get a bad thought for upholding the system by reporting it while a dwarf who loves stability and order gets a happy thought?
Second, do dwarves just stop/finish their current task and report the crime or will they ever attempt to intervene? For instance, will Urist McLegendary+5Miner go find the sheriff or will Urist McVampire become Urist McBrainShatteredViaExtremePickination? On a related note, what about pets? If Urist McVictim has a pet Giant Cave Spider, does Peter McParker watch his owner get drained or does it defend him?
Post by: MrWiggles on November 07, 2011, 07:54:24 pm
A few questions about the new Report Crime job.
Do dwarves just stop/finish their current task and report the crime or will they ever attempt to intervene? For instance, will Urist McLegendary+5Miner go find the sheriff or will Urist McVampire become Urist McBrainShatteredViaExtremePickination? On a related note, what about pets? If Urist McVictim has a pet Giant Cave Spider, does Peter McParker watch his owner get drained or does it defend him?
I'm gonna say no. That stuff will probably have to wait until the personality rewrite. As for pets, I'm also gonna say no, unless they are war animals or hunter animals.
Post by: Neonivek on November 07, 2011, 10:26:53 pm
Post by: rex mortis on November 08, 2011, 01:14:01 am
Post by: cephalo on November 08, 2011, 10:10:41 am
Post by: cephalo on November 08, 2011, 11:08:36 am
For example, if the sheriff is murdered in the main meeting hall in front of half the fort, does that mean there is no crime to report?
It also seems there are scenarios where rumors ought to be announced. A dwarf would not report to the sheriff regarding a murder he witnessed the sherrif commiting, but he would certainly tell his friends what he saw.
Post by: Areyar on November 08, 2011, 11:29:11 am
1) you can accuse anyone or only those dwarves who have decent evidence against them?
2) What happens if you accuse an innocent dwarf? angry dwarf friends?
3) Is there such a button for every commited/noticed/reported crime? or is it a generic button to accuse a dwarf of a certain crime.
4) Will there be more random/mandate crimes now? e.g. Consumption of sewerbrew is forbidden.
Post by: eataTREE on November 08, 2011, 01:22:58 pm
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on November 08, 2011, 01:56:25 pm
Is this complete rewrite, or extension of current justice system?
Mentioned in first sentence assumption would suggest it is extension (in other words, you get to accuse only for murder, but mandates/tantrums/etc are done as usual), but I want to be sure, because I did not notice anything in devlog that would clearly state that this new justice system code is (not) only for murders.
Post by: darkflagrance on November 08, 2011, 03:16:31 pm
Post by: Kogut on November 08, 2011, 03:17:32 pm
Post by: Greiger on November 08, 2011, 03:31:06 pm
New bug: Murder committed in dining room. Sheriff is surrounded by 200 dwarves all trying to report the same murder. It takes a year to resolve the reports, by which time half the fortress has starved to death, suffered alcohol withdrawal, or gone berserk.
Werebeast transforms and kills a dwarf. The werebeast changes back and reports the murder. When questioned they report themselves as the murderer.
Post by: PTTG?? on November 08, 2011, 04:15:19 pm
Post by: Armok on November 08, 2011, 04:17:39 pm
This doesn't need to be a bug, it could be quite realistic and dramatic if it depends on the dwarfs personality!New bug: Murder committed in dining room. Sheriff is surrounded by 200 dwarves all trying to report the same murder. It takes a year to resolve the reports, by which time half the fortress has starved to death, suffered alcohol withdrawal, or gone berserk.Werebeast transforms and kills a dwarf. The werebeast changes back and reports the murder. When questioned they report themselves as the murderer.
Post by: monk12 on November 08, 2011, 09:11:37 pm
Was gonna say, not a bug, a feature! Especially if he has guilty unhappy thoughts regarding the transformation.This doesn't need to be a bug, it could be quite realistic and dramatic if it depends on the dwarfs personality!New bug: Murder committed in dining room. Sheriff is surrounded by 200 dwarves all trying to report the same murder. It takes a year to resolve the reports, by which time half the fortress has starved to death, suffered alcohol withdrawal, or gone berserk.Werebeast transforms and kills a dwarf. The werebeast changes back and reports the murder. When questioned they report themselves as the murderer.
"I murdered that dude. Kill me or lock me up before I do it again! Please!"
Post by: hoveringdog on November 08, 2011, 10:36:21 pm
It may be interesting to see ghost reporting murders.
Curious now whether a ghost could report his own murder...
Post by: Neonivek on November 08, 2011, 10:39:45 pm
It may be interesting to see ghost reporting murders.
Curious now whether a ghost could report his own murder...
If I remember correctly ghosts can only report their own murder in the case of ear poisoning.
Post by: monk12 on November 08, 2011, 10:42:29 pm
It may be interesting to see ghost reporting murders.
Curious now whether a ghost could report his own murder...
If I remember correctly ghosts can only report their own murder in the case of ear poisoning.
I lol'd. Just think, with the taverns update we may have performances/plays, with which to catch the conscience of the King!
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 08, 2011, 10:59:25 pm
On a related note;
Toady, does a witness to a murder only ascribe cause if they see the actual blow being struck? As in, if I had a dwarf get attacked on his own (say by a vampire, for instance), but he manages to escape to a populated area only to die of his wounds, will the dwarf that witnesses his death report the vampire, or just that the dwarf has died?
Also, what happens when there are multiple attackers? Does only the person that strikes the final blow count, or can multiple attackers get reported?
Anyhoo, loving the way the game is going, especially because I can see all this contributing to things like goblin-raised spies infiltrating the fortress to lower the gates, secret societies that wish to overthrow the monarchy, or pickpockets and burglars.
Post by: Cruxador on November 09, 2011, 01:33:42 am
Right now that wouldn't be necessary, since the devils cannot assume a pleasing shape.It may be interesting to see ghost reporting murders.
Curious now whether a ghost could report his own murder...
If I remember correctly ghosts can only report their own murder in the case of ear poisoning.
I lol'd. Just think, with the taverns update we may have performances/plays, with which to catch the conscience of the King!
Post by: Dae on November 09, 2011, 01:58:25 am
Right now that wouldn't be necessary, since the devils cannot assume a pleasing shape.It may be interesting to see ghost reporting murders.
Curious now whether a ghost could report his own murder...
If I remember correctly ghosts can only report their own murder in the case of ear poisoning.
I lol'd. Just think, with the taverns update we may have performances/plays, with which to catch the conscience of the King!
Unless you're into tentacles I guess...
There is something I don't grasp with the ear-poisoning. Is it a Hamlet reference ?
Post by: Ubiq on November 09, 2011, 02:17:38 am
Post by: Kogut on November 09, 2011, 02:31:19 am
Post by: G-Flex on November 09, 2011, 03:36:11 am
Attributes are supposed to impact performance at various tasks, but according to my testing impact of attributes on quality of products is completely unimportant compared to skill. There is no noticeable difference between "legendary carpenter with a boundless creative imagination" and "legendary carpenter (with average creativity)". Is it intended?
It's just as well, since (as far as I've heard since 0.31.1 came out) attribute gains from use are pretty much completely broken.
Post by: Cruxador on November 09, 2011, 03:48:23 am
Unless you're into tentacles I guess...That entire quote chain is about Hamlet.
There is something I don't grasp with the ear-poisoning. Is it a Hamlet reference ?
Post by: Number7 on November 09, 2011, 06:34:51 am
It may be interesting to see ghost reporting murders.
Curious now whether a ghost could report his own murder...
If I remember correctly ghosts can only report their own murder in the case of ear poisoning.
I lol'd. Just think, with the taverns update we may have performances/plays, with which to catch the conscience of the King!
a terrible idea, Get thee to a nunnery
Post by: PTTG?? on November 09, 2011, 09:54:10 am
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 09, 2011, 01:22:24 pm
Post by: caknuck on November 09, 2011, 01:22:54 pm
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on November 09, 2011, 01:24:52 pm
Does the other dwarf report this (fell mood) as a crime or are the only crimes recognized those that involve vampires/werewolvesI bet that fell mood will be handled as usual.
Well, we know from the Devlog that a ghost appearing will inform the Sheriff that a dwarf is dead,I do not see in devlogs anything about ghosts reporting to sheriff. Only that dwarves will know that one of them is dead, when ghost appears. Your intepretation, while not contradictiory, is too specific and thus have low chance to be actually true.
will the dwarf that witnesses his death report the vampire, or just that the dwarf has died?Depends. It should be relatively simple to remember indirect reason of death, but remebering both causes (vampire attack and later bleeding to death) and that dorf witnesses both events will be harder. This will get complicated fast when dorf on his way moves through moving upright spikes. Or get goblin arrow. Or get mauled by badger. Or whatever. Now he bleeds for zilion reasons. So... probably dorf will report direct reason of death (or even only that he is dead, Jim) and thats it.
Also, what happens when there are multiple attackers? Does only the person that strikes the final blow count, or can multiple attackers get reported?Again, depends how much work was done programming this. I assume for now that only one person at once can be reported.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 09, 2011, 02:21:37 pm
Well, we know from the Devlog that [the fact of] a ghost appearing will inform the Sheriff that a dwarf is dead,I do not see in devlogs anything about ghosts reporting to sheriff. Only that dwarves will know that one of them is dead, when ghost appears. Your intepretation, while not contradictiory, is too specific and thus have low chance to be actually true.
I think you misinterpreted Jones' quote -- see my edit.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 09, 2011, 04:23:49 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on November 09, 2011, 10:16:46 pm
Huzzah! The Hammerer is back. Now I will get to see him at work for first time!
Post by: Zesty on November 09, 2011, 10:29:30 pm
Quote
and test out the new hammerer
That was the first thing I noticed too!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: monk12 on November 09, 2011, 10:33:46 pm
And the potential for family heirlooms (noble-related or not) makes me smile.
Post by: Urist McDagger on November 09, 2011, 11:34:29 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on November 09, 2011, 11:37:46 pm
Speaking of family heirlooms, will adventurers ever be able to start with them?
In Dwarf Talk, Toady has spoken about your Adventure's children being able to use your old equipment. So in that way, yes.
Toady has spoken about taking over someone that exist in the world, with a preestablished history, but he hasn't spoken about it. But probably.
Post by: Urist McDagger on November 09, 2011, 11:50:21 pm
Wait, adventurers will be able to have families? Awesome!Speaking of family heirlooms, will adventurers ever be able to start with them?
In Dwarf Talk, Toady has spoken about your Adventure's children being able to use your old equipment. So in that way, yes.
How long will that feature last before it gets removed due to people beating their spouses to death with their kids' bodyparts?
Post by: Dsarker on November 09, 2011, 11:54:50 pm
Wait, adventurers will be able to have families? Awesome!Speaking of family heirlooms, will adventurers ever be able to start with them?
In Dwarf Talk, Toady has spoken about your Adventure's children being able to use your old equipment. So in that way, yes.
How long will that feature last before it gets removed due to people beating their spouses to death with their kids' bodyparts?
Why would it get removed?
Post by: Urist McDagger on November 09, 2011, 11:58:56 pm
Post by: Willfor on November 10, 2011, 12:00:32 am
Post by: Urist McDagger on November 10, 2011, 12:13:25 am
Post by: Cruxador on November 10, 2011, 12:18:37 am
Wait, you can still butcher mermaids? O.oOf course. They're not worth some ungodly high price any more, though.
Post by: scriver on November 10, 2011, 12:51:37 am
Likewise, a character probably wouldn't be able to beat his wife to death with his childrens bodyparts without being shun by his community, at least in the final product.
Post by: Silophant on November 10, 2011, 01:44:17 am
Post by: Kogut on November 10, 2011, 02:39:42 am
Well, I believe they're also sentient, so not without modding. It's against the dwarves morals.Or maybe even intervention of angry goods.
Likewise, a character probably wouldn't be able to beat his wife to death with his childrens bodyparts without being shun by his community, at least in the final product.
Post by: Dsarker on November 10, 2011, 02:54:05 am
Well, I believe they're also sentient, so not without modding. It's against the dwarves morals.Or maybe even intervention of angry goods.
Likewise, a character probably wouldn't be able to beat his wife to death with his childrens bodyparts without being shun by his community, at least in the final product.
Damned Goods, always getting angry. Can't they stay finished?
Post by: Dwarfu on November 10, 2011, 05:32:29 am
Quote
The hammerer is now an appointable position from the beginning...
Does this mean the royal guard is gone, or will the hammerer promote into it like the sheriff does as the captain of the guard with the fortress guard?
Post by: zwei on November 10, 2011, 06:44:47 am
QuoteThe hammerer is now an appointable position from the beginning...
Does this mean the royal guard is gone, or will the hammerer promote into it like the sheriff does as the captain of the guard with the fortress guard?
There is a royal guard in DF2010?!
Post by: Chthonic on November 10, 2011, 07:54:32 am
Post by: Greiger on November 10, 2011, 08:32:07 am
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!
MAJOR ARTERIES FOR THE MAJOR ARTERY CABINET!
LIMBS FOR THE LIMB QUERN!
[BODYPART] FOR THE [BODYPART] [FURNITURE]
Post by: cephalo on November 10, 2011, 10:40:03 am
Post by: Chthonic on November 10, 2011, 01:56:28 pm
Son, I present to you our prized family heirloom passed down from and named by the very first hammerer... 'The Pillows of Softness' the peasant crafted, low quality, featherwood hammer.
I'm thinking of a situation where your hammerer is assigned both the "beat the craftsmen who didn't fulfill a mandate" detail and the "execute the depraved and powerful vampire who has been feeding on peasants" detail. Equipment becomes a bit of a dilemma.
Post by: cephalo on November 10, 2011, 02:17:33 pm
Post by: Cruxador on November 10, 2011, 02:36:48 pm
In the latter case, you can send a military detail with him.Son, I present to you our prized family heirloom passed down from and named by the very first hammerer... 'The Pillows of Softness' the peasant crafted, low quality, featherwood hammer.
I'm thinking of a situation where your hammerer is assigned both the "beat the craftsmen who didn't fulfill a mandate" detail and the "execute the depraved and powerful vampire who has been feeding on peasants" detail. Equipment becomes a bit of a dilemma.
This new hammerer might actually solve the problem of doctors never getting any practice and losing skills.I have never had that problem.
Post by: cephalo on November 10, 2011, 02:51:56 pm
I have never had that problem.
I guess its not a huge problem since it seems that unskilled doctors do the job just fine, but it bugs me. You notice it when you first get some good security set up in your fort early in its history so that few get injured, yet you have decades to go in your planned megaproject. Every five years or so you'll have some catastrophy that will require every doctor in the house, but that's not enough work to keep skills up over time. No doctor has ever gained skill in my forts unless he was unskilled to begin with.
Post by: Cruxador on November 10, 2011, 03:19:07 pm
Post by: Cerol Lenslens on November 10, 2011, 05:51:19 pm
Son, I present to you our prized family heirloom passed down from and named by the very first hammerer... 'The Pillows of Softness' the peasant crafted, low quality, featherwood hammer.
I'm thinking of a situation where your hammerer is assigned both the "beat the craftsmen who didn't fulfill a mandate" detail and the "execute the depraved and powerful vampire who has been feeding on peasants" detail. Equipment becomes a bit of a dilemma.
Which is why he made the hammer from wood! It doubles as a really blunt stake!
Post by: monk12 on November 10, 2011, 07:15:36 pm
Son, I present to you our prized family heirloom passed down from and named by the very first hammerer... 'The Pillows of Softness' the peasant crafted, low quality, featherwood hammer.
I'm thinking of a situation where your hammerer is assigned both the "beat the craftsmen who didn't fulfill a mandate" detail and the "execute the depraved and powerful vampire who has been feeding on peasants" detail. Equipment becomes a bit of a dilemma.
It'll be interesting, if your "loves tradition" hammerer prefers to keep the old traditional hammer (becoming immediately attached to it, maybe) while a "defies tradition" hammerer instead chooses to get the best hammer in the fort.
Post by: cephalo on November 11, 2011, 09:59:21 am
Post by: rex mortis on November 11, 2011, 10:50:00 am
The new hammerer sounds fun, but do we have any news on the new dungeon master?Dungeon master to tame vampires, werewolves and necromancers? I like the way you think.
Post by: Knight Otu on November 11, 2011, 01:19:49 pm
The new hammerer sounds fun, but do we have any news on the new dungeon master?Presumably it waits for either the proper bugfix, or until entity positions like the "official hammerer" are "a priority within the larger framework again".
Post by: numerobis on November 11, 2011, 10:32:41 pm
And particularly for the unmarried. Right now if two kids fall in love, then one falls in magma, the other will be forever alone.
Post by: Pokon on November 11, 2011, 10:38:33 pm
Post by: thvaz on November 12, 2011, 02:02:57 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 12, 2011, 05:03:51 am
Well, considering the newist post, how long will we have before people start modding in super-solder syndromes to infect your dwarves with by a increadably complicated way?
Nah its just not worth it yet. We dont have syndromes that turn pants purple yet.
On another note: Lengthening teeth?! Wow thats the first step towards real bodypartmorphing and better were-creatures. I love it!
Post by: Cruxador on November 12, 2011, 05:52:22 am
What? No it's not. Better therianthropy stuff has been in the new version for months. Where the hell have you been?Well, considering the newist post, how long will we have before people start modding in super-solder syndromes to infect your dwarves with by a increadably complicated way?
Nah its just not worth it yet. We dont have syndromes that turn pants purple yet.
On another note: Lengthening teeth?! Wow thats the first step towards real bodypartmorphing and better were-creatures. I love it!
Here: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1u8jibE1TV7BAwAI2b4TzRkWFlBboLiXMrVBhYmDYPhI&pli=1
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 12, 2011, 06:04:34 am
Also i guess that vampires will get a ton of teeth enlargement spam.
Post by: Cruxador on November 12, 2011, 04:34:40 pm
I have been reading the devlogs thank you ;) . I meant the transformation on itself not the endproducts. Like growing a tail, claws etc. life on screen. I want to hit those monstrous bastards in the middle of the transformation. I hate it when they go "*poof* and now i am a werewolf" in a flash of light and smoke or worse yet doing it offscrene. This also gives the peasent the chance to realise that s/he is fucked.I don't think there's any intermediate states in this either. Toady mentioned that body parts could be different sizes relative to each other a long time ago.
Also i guess that vampires will get a ton of teeth enlargement spam.
Post by: Putnam on November 12, 2011, 05:44:29 pm
Can interactions be applied to weapon attacks?
Post by: Neonivek on November 14, 2011, 09:49:08 am
No we still arn't there yet. Right now they are made from the ground up and happen instantly.
We won't have "better" therianthropy for a very very long time since Toady estimated it would take a month of dedicated focus to JUST put in the framework required.
Post by: Gaspa Craftdreams on November 14, 2011, 05:15:43 pm
Just give us a new release is what I'm saying.
Post by: Willfor on November 14, 2011, 05:29:26 pm
I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but why not release a compiled development version so that we can know exactly what and how the new features are being implemented? This way, we can help find any bugs you may have missed that are not in the latest stable release and you can get better feedback on the new features you are currently working on.I think the answer to that question is because the things on his list are the things he knows need to be NOT broken when he finally releases it. As in, game breakers and other extreme problems that he already knows are wrong with it, and that would generate more complaints than praise if he were to release it.
Just give us a new release is what I'm saying.
And before you say "oh well, he can release it with the disclaimer that it is a buggy version", do remember that particular disclaimer is already attached the game, and even still we have people complaining in almost angry tones over any particular bug that breaks the game. A release now would only multiply those breaks, and thus only multiply the complaints. The sheer amount of people who I can see saying "why did he release such a buggy version??? I can't play this!" the moment your own wish is fulfilled is mindboggling.
And before you say "well the breaks can't be that bad," he is already on record as saying that currently cities cause massive slowdowns. That's one of the big features going out this release, and it appears to be broken at the moment. There are already a number of angry-ish complaints that he has taken the time to push out a number of systems lately that players can't use because of bugs, and this would only add another one to the pile.
Post by: Gaspa Craftdreams on November 14, 2011, 05:37:40 pm
So about the justice rewrite: will dwarven justice eventually be like in Liberal Crime Squad (http://www.bay12games.com/lcs/) where the appointed judge reads a list of charges, lawyers and witnesses can be called to aid in convincing the jury, and the judge can determine what punishment best suits the verdict?
Post by: Footkerchief on November 14, 2011, 06:08:32 pm
So about the justice rewrite: will dwarven justice eventually be like in Liberal Crime Squad (http://www.bay12games.com/lcs/) where the appointed judge reads a list of charges, lawyers and witnesses can be called to aid in convincing the jury, and the judge can determine what punishment best suits the verdict?
This was covered recently (answer is "hopefully yes"):
QuoteWithout trials etc., which we aren't going to spend time on (and it's hard to get lots of specific dwarves in the same spot at the same time, so I'm not sure we'll ever get to that in any proper way in a fortress), the accuse button will send a dwarf straight to the punishment phase.
To be truthful, I found this a little disheartening. Considering the game's far-reaching long-term goals, I'd think that a framework allowing for dwarves to organize events/get together would be necessary, much less something that won't likely ever happen.Actually i dont think "trials" with a ton of dwarfs need to be done. Just send the inquisitor and the hammerer after the Criminal was seized by the fortress guard. A modern justice system is nice and dandy (althought still prone to abuse in most variants) but wasnt that common. On the other hand the actuall punishment was often a big party - i mean beer, snacks and bodyparts flying off? Its like the superbowl!
I don't think it is all that modern or uncommon, though I'm not up on things enough to say what was common for commoners in different eras. But yeah, the issue is getting say 8 specific dwarves in the same place at the same time, while still allowing them to eat, drink and sleep and without having the loss of labor be a large issue. I think it's a difficult problem on the fortress time scale. The current squad activities don't generally require total attendance. Perhaps if they were provided beverages by servants and could subsist on alcohol throughout the trial...
Post by: Silophant on November 14, 2011, 11:55:50 pm
Quote from: Toady One
I'm going to move on to the final town cleaning now.
The release is in sight!
Post by: Neonivek on November 14, 2011, 11:58:06 pm
Quote from: Toady OneI'm going to move on to the final town cleaning now.
The release is in sight!
Unless he is handling more then towns.
Post by: Putnam on November 15, 2011, 12:00:43 am
Quote from: Toady OneI'm going to move on to the final town cleaning now.
The release is in sight!
Unless he is handling more then towns.
The drudgery is nearly over, it must be noted, as towns are pretty much "da big one" this update. This update is release one of the Caravan arc, and towns are the only stated goal for it. The reason that we have all these night creatures and interactions and crap is so that we have something to do while in town.
Post by: darkflagrance on November 15, 2011, 04:50:18 am
Post by: Knight Otu on November 15, 2011, 08:43:41 am
I wonder if Toady has indicated when on the Caravan Arc adding NPC Mountainhomes happens.Current plan for those is the army arc, along with the other site types.
Post by: Gaspa Craftdreams on November 15, 2011, 09:17:01 am
Still, if we're going to have sewers, ancient mummy tombs, and elaborate vampire hideouts, there's a good chance that dwarven underground cities might not be too far off.
Post by: Areyar on November 15, 2011, 09:43:12 am
As long as there is someplace to have dwarves hang out.
to be honest, even a human style village with all the dwarves/elves in the inns would be preferable to the empty spots they are currently. :)
Post by: Gaspa Craftdreams on November 15, 2011, 10:11:50 am
It might not be able to generate rooms that take up multiple Z-levels, but it should work.
Also I think that was how mountainhomes were generated back in 40d, but I don't exactly remember.
Post by: zilpin on November 15, 2011, 11:01:10 am
But this is Toady we're talking about.
No way he'll go with the solution that uses the least code.
;D
Post by: Sizik on November 15, 2011, 12:47:34 pm
Post by: Keldane on November 15, 2011, 12:55:57 pm
Concerning fast travel maps accommodating multiple z-levels, if there are major stairways going between levels, they could be noted on the map, and standing on that particular fast travel tile (assuming the mid-zoom city map) would allow use of the standard 'Go up/Go down' commands as appropriate.
At least, that's what I'm picturing. Secret stairways, or houses that span multiple z-levels, would likely have to be found in regular travel anyway.
... Except, you were probably meaning letting players know when what they want to find is on a level above or below them, weren't you? <_<
Post by: Footkerchief on November 15, 2011, 01:10:49 pm
For my part, I only hope that this final stretch draws to a close around Friday
2011-09-13: (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-09-13)Quote from: devlogI still have a page of issues for each of the new night creatures, and six and a half pages for the cities/markets/underground, in addition to the animal stuff.
The night creatures areaboutdone, which puts us at 4 of 11 pages completed. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=92741.msg2691490#msg2691490) Current prediction:Feb 27, 2012March 1, 2012. Of course, Toady might blow through the city notes and postpone stuff.
Post by: grueburger on November 15, 2011, 01:46:53 pm
(based on the 10.5 pages of issues estimate Toady gave us and the devlog updates)
Code: [Select]
09/13 - 09/21 werewolves 8 days
09/21 - 10/06 necro/zombies 15 days
10/06 - 10/21 mummies 15 days
10/21 - 11/06 vampires 16 days
average 49/4 = 12.25 days
cities pages = 6.5
6.5 * 12.25 = 79.625 days at average rate
6.5 * 8 = 52 days at fastest (werewolf) rate
6.5 * 16 = 104 days at slowest (vampire) rateGiving us a possible release date somewhere between 6th jan and the 27th feb, with the likeliest date being 2nd feb.
Of course this all assumes that Toady doesn't take any days off or have any kitchen floods again, and that the issues he has to work on for cities are of roughly the same difficulty as the ones he had for night creatures. Which are not assumptions I'd make bets on. But it is at least a nice concrete set of dates for us all to fetishise! (All of which are more optimistic than Footkerchief's date, which worries me. He isn't often wrong...)
Post by: Cruxador on November 15, 2011, 01:56:22 pm
(All of which are more optimistic than Footkerchief's date, which worries me. He isn't often wrong...)And in general, when in comes to DF releases, the actual date tends to be later than the least optimistic prediction.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 15, 2011, 02:00:49 pm
Code: [Select]09/13 - 09/21 werewolves 8 days
09/21 - 10/06 necro/zombies 15 days
10/06 - 10/21 mummies 15 days
10/21 - 11/06 vampires 16 days
average 49/4 = 12.25 days
Not trying to quibble over numbers, but is 49 the correct total? I get 54 as the total from your numbers, although since vampires were just finished yesterday, I count them as 24 days, bringing the total to 62 and the days-per-page to 15.5. I also counted sponsorship animals as a half-page for a total of 11 pages. But yeah, it's all pseudoscience and I suspect Toady will try to get through the city notes faster.
Post by: grueburger on November 15, 2011, 06:18:20 pm
Not trying to quibble over numbers, but is 49 the correct total? I get 54 as the total from your numbers, although since vampires were just finished yesterday, I count them as 24 days, bringing the total to 62 and the days-per-page to 15.5. I also counted sponsorship animals as a half-page for a total of 11 pages. But yeah, it's all pseudoscience and I suspect Toady will try to get through the city notes faster.
Oof, yeah, you are right about the total AND the end of the vampire list being yesterday. Turns out I can't add OR read (my excuse? Will flu do? That's the excuse I usually use for work)... The new figures give 23th feb for the average speed deadline and a horrifying 19th april for the slowest speed deadline.
New table:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Thanks for spotting that, I like my pseudoscience to be accurate (its no fun otherwise). Including sponsorship animals was a good idea too - the last segment seemed to take 5 or so days but it was interspersed with normal development so its hard to get exact numbers. A half-page of notes seems like a good approximation for that.
Post by: CharlesPeter on November 15, 2011, 09:51:06 pm
Not trying to quibble over numbers, but is 49 the correct total? I get 54 as the total from your numbers, although since vampires were just finished yesterday, I count them as 24 days, bringing the total to 62 and the days-per-page to 15.5. I also counted sponsorship animals as a half-page for a total of 11 pages. But yeah, it's all pseudoscience and I suspect Toady will try to get through the city notes faster.
Oof, yeah, you are right about the total AND the end of the vampire list being yesterday. Turns out I can't add OR read (my excuse? Will flu do? That's the excuse I usually use for work)... The new figures give 23th feb for the average speed deadline and a horrifying 19th april for the slowest speed deadline.
New table:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Thanks for spotting that, I like my pseudoscience to be accurate (its no fun otherwise). Including sponsorship animals was a good idea too - the last segment seemed to take 5 or so days but it was interspersed with normal development so its hard to get exact numbers. A half-page of notes seems like a good approximation for that.
you really think it could take him HALF A YEAR to finish cleaning up the towns? I don't see the justification for that based on coding in Vampires and Werewolves etc. Also, who's to say that each monster was a full "page" of notes? What defines a page? Were the things that were feature creep on the pages? Or were those separate pages? There's really not much to base that on, is there? It seems like there isn't a large font of info to make predictions like this on. Or at least there's not much depth to it other than a few casual mentions by Toady.
I dunno, it seems like a pre-Christmas release to me, if all that's left is the cleaning of towns like Toady seems to have implied.
Post by: Willfor on November 15, 2011, 10:51:05 pm
This isn't a complaint, more of a "this is how it will likely happen" type of post.
Post by: monk12 on November 15, 2011, 11:00:29 pm
Whenever it does get released, I imagine it's going to feel like it's been longer than it really has been from this point forward. This is because I can't imagine that the devlog is going to be updated very much between now and the release. We've burned through the things Toady is viewing as fun, and he tends to log about things that he finds are fun to code. As we're entering a slog, I doubt we're going to get nearly as many devlog reports.
This isn't a complaint, more of a "this is how it will likely happen" type of post.
Yeah, pretty much. I'm privately hoping for Thanksgiving (idealistic, I know :P) but barring any particularly amusing bugs I foresee a dearth of devlogs.
Post by: EnigmaticHat on November 16, 2011, 12:13:18 am
even a human style village with all the dwarves/elves in the inns would be preferableYou can already get that in your game very easily. Just go into entity_default in the raws and change the site tokens for dwarves and elves to [DEFAULT_SITE_TYPE:CITY] and [LIKES_SITE:CITY], or copy and paste the appropriate lines from the human's civ. Except I don't think anyone has inns yet.
Post by: caknuck on November 16, 2011, 12:30:01 am
Post by: EmeraldWind on November 16, 2011, 01:26:54 am
you really think it could take him HALF A YEAR to finish cleaning up the towns? I don't see the justification for that based on coding in Vampires and Werewolves etc. Also, who's to say that each monster was a full "page" of notes? What defines a page? Were the things that were feature creep on the pages? Or were those separate pages? There's really not much to base that on, is there? It seems like there isn't a large font of info to make predictions like this on. Or at least there's not much depth to it other than a few casual mentions by Toady.
I dunno, it seems like a pre-Christmas release to me, if all that's left is the cleaning of towns like Toady seems to have implied.
Um, didn't you read the part where they said pseudo-science... It was just fun with numbers never meant to be serious.
Whenever it does get released, I imagine it's going to feel like it's been longer than it really has been from this point forward. This is because I can't imagine that the devlog is going to be updated very much between now and the release. We've burned through the things Toady is viewing as fun, and he tends to log about things that he finds are fun to code. As we're entering a slog, I doubt we're going to get nearly as many devlog reports.
This isn't a complaint, more of a "this is how it will likely happen" type of post.
Yeah, pretty much. I'm privately hoping for Thanksgiving (idealistic, I know :P) but barring any particularly amusing bugs I foresee a dearth of devlogs.
Yeah, I think you are right here. The bulk of the stuff he is fixing is just problems with the generation of the new towns. Most of the amusing bugs will be standard "house in the catacombs" kind of stuff. So unless something particularly memorable happens, there will most likely be nothing worth talking about.
Post by: Toady One on November 16, 2011, 05:42:01 am
There was a bit of a discussion about save compatibility. I think in this release we've been moving slowly in the direction of it being practically impossible... and crossed that line a while ago. Between the map changes and all the interaction stuff, it's not going to be feasible time-wise to keep things operating smoothly in old saves.
I'd hesitate to hazard a guess in this release date discussion. If I say something, it'll end up taking twice as long, if my past estimates are any indication.
Quote from: CaptainArchmage
Have you actually used a book in adventure mode combat?
Nope. I have been pretty respectful with the books so far.
Quote from: Mephansteras
Will we be able to mod in book-making with this kind of tracking in Dwarf Mode? I already have modded reactions that use bindings and pages of different materials, but I'd like to know if I'll be able to get the game to track them.
I still haven't tested it, but I think you should be able to do this through modding. Getting writing to appear on the pages is another matter, as that's not something that happens yet outside of the specific world gen cases.
Quote from: Moonshadow101
Any plans for hereditary curses? "Your family shall suffer for seven generations" seems like a pretty common tropes, and it would be funny to see babies spontaneously combust because their parents had a nasty run-in with a mummy two years ago.
Also, and I know this isn't the question anyone wants to read, but is there are roadmap to the next release? Like, right after the mummies and tombs? Or is there another thing after the Mummies before release?
We don't have any specific plans, but it's a reasonable thing. I think we were thinking of doing some kind of generation counter for vampires so that you could do things like power dilution etc., and that might be related, but it wasn't done either, so it doesn't matter yet.
There were the vampires, as you now know, and there's a lot of city cleanup left to do, and I have to finish up the sponsorship animals, new tags or not, before the release. Maybe that's it. As long as vampires took to finish, the city cleanup will take longer.
Quote from: Greiger
Is it possible in the new version to link powers to a particular job skill? Such as giving elven druids some psudo-magical curses, or shapeshifting?
There's nothing like that. It's the same issue as a dungeon master. I don't want skills or powers to arise out of nothing if I can help it.
Quote from: Footkerchief
Will non-vampire migrants also be drawn from historical figures? If a vampire adventurer retired in a human town in a Human Fortress-playable world, could that adventurer migrate to a player fortress? I'm asking about human towns since dwarf settlements are presumably still a broken feature.
Does the Justice revamping mean that the bug with baron-appointed nobles e.g. the hammerer will be fixed?
I think this question shows how long it has been since I answered FotF... but yeah, we have historical migrants, both vampire and non-vampire adventurers as it comes up. A human could go to a human fort, and yeah, humans in dwarf forts are still a no-go.
The hammerer was fixed. The dungeon master is still in limbo.
Quote from: monk12
How extensive will the Justice rewrite be this time? Will the new tweaks only apply to "witch-hunts" for vampires/werecreatures, or will it also apply to failed mandates/tantrum-related crimes?
Mandate crimes were left the same -- the wronged dwarf in question assigns the convict immediately. Tantrums have been moved over to the new system.
Quote from: Yoink
Will it be possible to actually choose to 'feed' your vampire-dwarf, possibly establishing them as your ruler?
And will dwarven vampires be able to feed on enemies, like goblins and kobolds? Or, for that matter, tame animals?
They only feed on critters that are asleep, so it's pretty much limited to your citizens. If you choose not to convict, that's up to you, but it'll probably lead to your site getting a bit of a death trap status.
Quote from: Urist Da Vinci
How will a blood-drinking vampire murder be announced? Will it be obvious who the attacker was?
The witness report is announced when it is brought to the sheriff or, failing that, after an in-game week, assuming the witness is still alive. We've tried to make it non-obvious who the attacker was, but we have almost certainly screwed up on a number of scores, which we'll just have to sort out as they are brought to our attention.
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady considering the world's cultures. Where do you think Mummies will go with that in consideration?
I'm not knowledgable enough about the world's mummies to answer this question. Our mummies don't even have their bodies prepared yet, so that would be something. That requires corpse inventories and new industries. I'm sure there are a zillion other things, but I'm not sure what you are getting at. Did you have something in mind?
Quote
Quote from: AluWhat happens if a vampire was unmasked? Is it possible to keep him after a non-lethal punishment? And does he try to behave after he was punished? Like, only drinking blood from animals or volunteers from that point and stuff?Quote from: hoveringdogIf the sheriff is sent to punish a suspected vampire, and the accusation proves true, will the vampire passively accept punishment or fight back? Will there come a point where it's obvious that the dwarf is a vampire and can be targeted as an enemy through the squads menu or will it always remain a matter of civil justice?
The evil monster part doesn't really bother them as much as it should at present, and the vampire stands up and takes its punishment. A hammering is difficult to survive, but should it happen, then the punishment is served and the community naively assumes the convict is reformed. It's reasonably silly as things stand, and we'll have to do more in the future.
Quote from: uioped1
How does a being decide to assume an identity, and when does it decide to abandon the ruse?
Currently it's very simple and isolated to vampires entering forts and the world gen demons. Vampires cheerfully accept their executions, which is silly, but criminals dodging punishment more generally isn't something we've embarked upon yet.
Quote from: Dakk
Do these vampires actualy fear or get burned by the sun? If they do, well, since fortress mode has no day night cycle (since times goes so fast in fortress mode it'd look real silly, like a flickering lightbulb), how will it work?
They probably don't or else they'd just burn on arrival
We thought we'd get to that, but the adv mode stuff wasn't quite up to it, and it's pointless in fort mode. So that'll be for later in adv mode, and I'm not sure we'll ever do it in dwarf mode.
Quote from: Kogut
Is it planned to fix in this release bug 972 (Diplomat/liaison arrives, immediately dies of old age (and other old age issues)) to prevent automatic death of all mortal historic figures appearing in old forts?
And is it planned to fix (in new version or following bugfixes) impossible mandates (slade - bug #782, blue jay tooth etc - bug #1623) due to strange preferences (wagon wood - bug #3676 etc) - as common workaround is to never assign sheriff position, what will be impossible in new version.
I have to get to the birth/death/succession reform of world gen before there's much of a point of fixing that bug. If I remember, I've put in a check were near/post death people don't come to the fort anymore, but that doesn't attack the core problem. I think that's Release 5 on the list, though I've become more recently inclined to think birth/death/succession/personality rewrite should be pushed forward so the world will be alive. I should get to the heart of the game at some point before several more years pass.
If I don't get to mandates, and I probably should sometime, they can be raw-snipped, but there should be a healthy number of bugs eliminated during the next bug fixing round.
Quote from: darkflagrance
I'm curious as to whether you've thought seriously about procedurally generated poetry and text, and the depth of complexity you'd hope to have in each, and your goals, both in regards to their practicality to the player for things such as trade or gathering information (more "artistic" or "well-written" texts being worth more, divine texts being useful to gain an idea of a god's sphere alignments, poetry/warsongs giving the player an idea of the elves' gracefulness or the goblin's brutishness) for any procedurally generated texts - unless these were all elaborate in-jokes I failed to get
We have to distinguish whether we are talking about making the actual readable text, or whether we are describing the properties of the text. It's obviously a very tricky task to produce text that you can read which on top of that has different qualities of writing. I doubt I'll ever be attempting that. Producing better legends mode text which can then be used elsewhere should probably be the priority. I was hoping with the grammar rewrite to produce some text so that it could do translations which you could see happen on screen or which would be partial translations based on your language knowledge, that kind of thing. But it's a large task to do if you go beyond the most simple, practical text for that, and it complicates later real-world translation work as well. Procedural poetry is something that I wanted to mess aroud with, but more to horrify than to entertain.
For just describing text, everything is fair and we've taken some steps in that direction for this release.
Quote from: Dsarker
Does the recent devlog mean that we can create a race with an adventurer-only caste, and have one of our adventurers of that caste show up? Does it prefer historical figures to generated?
Is there a frequency trick to distinguish castes like that? As far as I know, generated migrants from every caste will always show up, if they belong to the civ, unless you guys have already figured something there. Any adventurer you have of the correct race, regardless of caste, will be available to show up to the fort. It doesn't always use historical figures if it has them, but it quite often uses them.
Quote
Quote from: Rip0kSo If an adventurer shows up in my fortress, will he bring all the stuff I've gathered in his backpack? Can he be of other race than dorf?Quote from: RockphedToady, how does immigrating to a new fortress affect things like artifact creation? Can my smith who was possessed in my last fort immigrate and get a fey mood in a new fort, or will he be billed as "creator of libushtastic" even though said artifact is still moldering in the halls of the old fortress?
Also, relating to the question about adventurers and backpacks, will immigrants from old forts be wearing the same thing they were when the fort was abandoned?
My understanding is that the new migrant will still be burned out and have the creator tag. The immigrants should have their old stuff, but it might end up calling the "dress for local environment" function on every immigrant, which would cause them to lose their clothes. Adventurers keep more of their crap, but they still end up dropping stuff on the edge of the map. The races have to match. I haven't gone back to clean up all the problems there. That was one of the inn/tavern goals if I remember, getting multiracial forts to work.
Quote from: thvaz
It looks like there is a randomized trait for vampires that makes them impossible to blend in dwarven society (for example, Nosferatu-like vampires). These "monster" vampires would try to blend in anyway? It isn't clear from the last devlogs.
As it ended up, they are all non-monstrous (except when they are drinking). We'll revisit it later I think.
Quote from: Untelligent
What happens if the player sees a dwarf's corpse before any of your dwarves do? Do unannounced corpses show up on the stocks screen?
It doesn't matter if you see it. A dwarf still needs to show up for it to announce. I don't think I've dealt with the stocks screen, and I probably won't for this time. There will be a lot of things like that which let you see indirectly, some that should stay in and some that shouldn't.
Quote from: Cruxador
How will vampire blood and the eventual potion system interact? Will a draught of blood be prepared like a potion and dwarves will choose to drink it or not on the same system? Do you picture doing anything special there when you eventually implement this stuff?
I really have no idea how all of that is going to work. The way world gen and the personality stuff is going, there'd be dwarves that would take an interest in that sort of thing, but I don't know if they'd be bottling it up and sharing it or exporting it abroad.
Quote from: Osmosis Jones
Did you get Scamps a halloween costume?
Nope. I was off doing crayon art and handing out candy from my grandmother's place. Scamps was left alone. It was a dull day for him.
Quote from: DG
Will it be possible that a member of the starting seven is a vampire before embark? Will vampires check the population of a fort before emigrating? Can another vampire come to a fort if one is already present? Will the lying skill be used for claims and counter-claims of vampirism and will it provide skill xp? If unmasked do vampires have an option between fleeing off map and fighting to the death (their own or the forts)?
The starting seven don't get to be vampires, so yeah, they can be treated as safe. Vampires don't know the other vampires in the fort, and you can get more than one. They tend to come with the larger migrant waves, but they don't look at the overall population at this point. We didn't do vampire lying skill in part to avoid detection, but we should probably go through the skill list and just not have it show the lying skill for anybody that has a secret identity. Vampires submit to punishment as it stands. Criminals in general should have more options.
Quote from: Kilroy the Grand
Will vampires have a different bite attack than regular dwarfs? Or will they have more levels in biting? Will different werebeasts have different skills, such as werecabybaras being excellent swimmers?
Bite attacks are still a mess, so I don't want to assert anything about them. The bigger teeth probably matter to some degree, but they only have those when they are drinking blood -- I haven't done voluntary transformations so they don't use them at other times. Werebeast definitions don't use much along the lines of actual knowledge about the creature in question. Whenever forgotten beasts care about that sort of thing it'll carry over for werebeasts.
Quote from: Girlinhat
If you retire an adventurer on a mountainhome (currently an empty plot) then that adventurer can become a migrant. Does this mean your elf or human adventurer can retire on a mountainhome and become a fortress mode migrant? And as a sub question, if your adventurer retires on a site of a different civ or species, will that adventurer be able to migrate, or do they need to be on the specific civ site?
Nope. It does racial checks to prevent the current bugs that you still get when your king/queen is a human/elf and migrates in. That needs to be fixed. So everything there is still based on racial matching. Your adventurer does need to retire at the right civilization. All of the historical migrants come from the same civilization. We'll probably want to change that later, I guess, to some extent, since there are already inter-cultural migrations in world gen.
Quote from: EveryZig
How will lycanthropy interact with moods?
I think it'd cancel the mood job, which may or may not drive the guy more crazy than he already is as a werebeast. If the gone-crazy mood doesn't stick, then the guy might actually be fine when he turns back. Without trying, I'm not really sure.
Quote from: freeformschooler
Will you leave the magic debug button in as an init option?
Nah, I don't want to have to support it.
Quote from: Dwarfu
Does this mean that the player must take action, or will the sheriff eventually mete out justice on his own (like now) based on the information available to him at the time (say, after a week or so)?
At this moment, the player must take action on murders and tantrum crimes if you want somebody punished. If you are the official will of the fortress, the sheriff shouldn't take an official action without your approval, I suppose. It could be fair to automate that with a sort of "after two weeks, pick the one with the most witnesses, if any" kind of thing, but that would still leave crimes to deal with where the course of action isn't clear. We were thinking about having mob incidents occur if you leave crap sitting around for too long, but I didn't get there, and I'm not sure anything like that should happen without an active move from the player in the wrong direction or if you were to explicitly turn some future automation off and then not do something about a crime that has 8 witnesses or something.
Quote from: Alu
What happens if the only witness dies on the way to the sheriff?
The next person to find the body will take up the torch and give it another shot, but they'll only report that the body was found -- the actual eye witness report that names the attacker is lost.
Quote from: Kogut
Is it planned to make vampires init/worldgen option?
There are already world gen parameters for it, though I don't remember if vampires and werebeasts are distinguished there.
Quote from: Ubiq
Will a dwarf's personality have an impact on reporting a crime like feeding/recovering wounded does? In other words, will a dwarf who loves chaos get a bad thought for upholding the system by reporting it while a dwarf who loves stability and order gets a happy thought?
Second, do dwarves just stop/finish their current task and report the crime or will they ever attempt to intervene? For instance, will Urist McLegendary+5Miner go find the sheriff or will Urist McVampire become Urist McBrainShatteredViaExtremePickination? On a related note, what about pets? If Urist McVictim has a pet Giant Cave Spider, does Peter McParker watch his owner get drained or does it defend him?
I didn't think the "liberality" trait really worked, if that's the one, since a dwarf that isn't a traditionalist shouldn't let monster murderers slide. Another thing the personality rewrite should help with.
Nobody tries to intervene. It's messier to introduce different levels of hostility (the current fistfights are clunky -- they are a job!). The first foray into that is still slated for the tavern release.
Quote from: Neonivek
Can Dwarves be sentenced to death dirrectly now instead of the usual many strikes?
A dwarven death penalty still stands at 50 hammerstrikes.
Quote from: rex mortis
Will we be able to summarily order the execution of anyone we wish?
Nope.
Quote from: Areyar
With this "J'accuse!" button,
1) you can accuse anyone or only those dwarves who have decent evidence against them?
2) What happens if you accuse an innocent dwarf? angry dwarf friends?
3) Is there such a button for every commited/noticed/reported crime? or is it a generic button to accuse a dwarf of a certain crime.
4) Will there be more random/mandate crimes now? e.g. Consumption of sewerbrew is forbidden.
1) You can accuse anyone, once you've got a crime.
2) There are some thoughts for ridiculous convictions and some happy thoughts for good ones, but there should be more. A difficulty comes in when you convict somebody that you know is guilty (because you saw it in the main screen for example), but it isn't backed up by witness reports -- if you convict an innocent guy or the guilty guy, should the fortress reaction be different? We didn't want the dwarves using meta-cheating-information to decide these things, but I'm not sure it'll be avoidable with all the lack-of-police-work we've got going on in the fort. There just isn't a lot to work with yet.
3) Once a crime is recorded, and it isn't a mandate-related crime (which are still out of your control), you get it in a list along with a list of witness reports, and you can then choose to convict a dwarf of that particular crime.
4) We haven't added any additional crimes aside from what we've talked about.
Quote from: eataTREE
Are all murders perpetrated by vampires? Or can a natural dwarf just decide to murder someone s/he doesn't like if s/he has appropriate personality traits, etc? Or would a dwarf only kill another dwarf in the context of a tantrum, as is the case now?
Yeah, tantrums are the only other murders. That and fell moods.
Quote from: YetAnotherStupidDorf
Is this complete rewrite, or extension of current justice system?
It sits somewhere in between code-wise, but I'd say it's more of an extension since I didn't change much of the imprisonment/law code.
Quote from: Osmosis Jones
Toady, does a witness to a murder only ascribe cause if they see the actual blow being struck? As in, if I had a dwarf get attacked on his own (say by a vampire, for instance), but he manages to escape to a populated area only to die of his wounds, will the dwarf that witnesses his death report the vampire, or just that the dwarf has died?
Also, what happens when there are multiple attackers? Does only the person that strikes the final blow count, or can multiple attackers get reported?
I think it needs to be a killer blow for the witness reports to be generated with an accusation. Multiple attackers like two dwarves throwing a tantrum simultaneously? Or two vampires with the same target? I suppose it can happen, but there are so few crimes right now that I didn't deal with any of that. A related and more general question applies to attributing the kill in the legends, and it doesn't worry about that either. I'm not sure when it's going to be changed.
Quote from: Ubiq
Say that two dwarves are walking down a hall and another dwarf near them lets out a roaring laugh, fell and terrible, before striking down one of the two and dragging off the corpse to the nearest workshop. Does the other dwarf report this as a crime or are the only crimes recognized those that involve vampires/werewolves?
Tantrums are reported, and I think this one might be too, but it could be that the old punishment exception applies to mood dwarves. I'm pretty sure I gutted all that, though I could be wrong. So I'm expecting it to be treated as murder. If you defer punishment until the artifact is done, well...
Quote from: Dwarfu
Does this mean the royal guard is gone, or will the hammerer promote into it like the sheriff does as the captain of the guard with the fortress guard?
Yeah, it's all official out of the raws now and deleted. I'm not sure when it'll be replaced or what with.
Quote from: Cthonic
Is the hammerer still going to need a hammer, or will he improvise if no hammer is available? Can we set his weapon/equipment preference in the military screen?
The hammerer still uses a hammer. The skill, if any, can be put in the raws. If you get rid of the skill in the raws, I think they'll use whichever weapon. They might even beat somebody to death with a crossbow, come to think of it.
Quote from: Cruxador
From the dev log, it sounds like you're done with Justice. You haven't mentioned implementing the Grudge mis-accusations that you earlier said you planned on, though. Did you just not mention them, are they going in soon, or did you change your mind? What about a converse situation with friends of the murderer being the only witness(es)?
Grudge-holding dwarves can level false accusations, although they only change their witness reports as it stands. I haven't made friends try to cover it up or anything else.
Quote from: Putnam
Can interactions be applied to weapon attacks?
As a property of the item? There's nothing like that. Contaminants can be spread around, but nothing deliberate.
Post by: Dsarker on November 16, 2011, 06:03:54 am
I'm loving how the vampires just stand there and take it. Proper dorfy behaviour.
Post by: Kogut on November 16, 2011, 06:36:29 am
If I don't get to mandates, and I probably should sometime, they can be raw-snipped, but there should be a healthy number of bugs eliminated during the next bug fixing round.:D
Post by: Neonivek on November 16, 2011, 09:43:27 am
Quote
I'm sure there are a zillion other things, but I'm not sure what you are getting at. Did you have something in mind?
I should have been more specific in that I am refering to where the Mummy is stored. The types of objects within (Funeral rites). and yeah even the clothes and objects the mummy is dressed in. With respect to different cultures such as not egyptian.
I wouldn't have reasked but since I was asked to...
Thanks for Answering our Questions Toady!
Also interesting. Since there is no "Death" penelty so to speak. That means a particularly hearty vampire can have a license to kill. It is why I originally asked if there was a death penelty that only ended in death.
Though since Toady hasn't change the justice system I am guessing we won't have the kind of vampires who can take 50 hammer blows.
Post by: Mephansteras on November 16, 2011, 11:12:42 am
Quote from: MephansterasWill we be able to mod in book-making with this kind of tracking in Dwarf Mode? I already have modded reactions that use bindings and pages of different materials, but I'd like to know if I'll be able to get the game to track them.
I still haven't tested it, but I think you should be able to do this through modding. Getting writing to appear on the pages is another matter, as that's not something that happens yet outside of the specific world gen cases.
Cool. Having actual text isn't too important for Dwarf Mode, so I'm just happy to have books that aren't a strange hack-job in my mod.
Thanks for answering our questions, Toady!
Post by: Footkerchief on November 16, 2011, 11:15:50 am
I am guessing we won't have the kind of vampires who can take 50 hammer blows.
But 50 adamantine crossbow blows...
Post by: EmeraldWind on November 16, 2011, 12:30:26 pm
I am guessing we won't have the kind of vampires who can take 50 hammer blows.
But 50 adamantine crossbow blows...
Unless the vampire has a material weakness to adamantine...
That would actually be the perfect situation. Then you can have the Hammer hammer normals with the adamantine crossbow/hammer and they'd be fine, but a vampire would have its head explode.
Post by: Neonivek on November 16, 2011, 12:43:03 pm
I still think an adamantine hammer to the head would still hurt quite a bit.
Post by: monk12 on November 16, 2011, 01:13:04 pm
Quote from: Toady
At this moment, the player must take action on murders and tantrum crimes if you want somebody punished. If you are the official will of the fortress, the sheriff shouldn't take an official action without your approval, I suppose. It could be fair to automate that with a sort of "after two weeks, pick the one with the most witnesses, if any" kind of thing, but that would still leave crimes to deal with where the course of action isn't clear. We were thinking about having mob incidents occur if you leave crap sitting around for too long, but I didn't get there, and I'm not sure anything like that should happen without an active move from the player in the wrong direction or if you were to explicitly turn some future automation off and then not do something about a crime that has 8 witnesses or something.
Mob rule? Vigilante Justice? Grudge/friendship based factions and rudimentary witchcraft politics? Awesome!
And I'm quite looking forward to the personality rewrite- that's one I'd like to see pushed forward.
I am guessing we won't have the kind of vampires who can take 50 hammer blows.
But 50 adamantine crossbow blows...
Unless the vampire has a material weakness to adamantine...
That would actually be the perfect situation. Then you can have the Hammer hammer normals with the adamantine crossbow/hammer and they'd be fine, but a vampire would have its head explode.
That's bloody brilliant- the key is getting the hammerer to switch between materials to handle both vampires and werewolves.
Honestly I would like someone expert in the laws of physics to determine how effective it would be to hit someone with a pole like object that has almost no mass but with near supernaturally strong durability and hardness (with absolutely NO flexibility).
I still think an adamantine hammer to the head would still hurt quite a bit.
I imagine the net effect would be rather like punching them with your fist (you wouldn't get any additional force from the mass of the hammer.) The kicker would be the surface area of the strike- if you were hitting somebody with an adamant stick, then the surface area for that blow would be much smaller than your fist, and would accordingly multiply the force of your swing. If the hammerhead is significantly larger than your fist, then you'd be doing quite a bit less damage- this latter situation is the current way it is handled with hammers, I think. I don't know if you can bash somebody with an adamant spear, but I imagine the result should be something like a severe caning.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on November 16, 2011, 01:23:17 pm
Honestly I would like someone expert in the laws of physics to determine how effective it would be to hit someone with a pole like object that has almost no mass but with near supernaturally strong durability and hardness (with absolutely NO flexibility).It would be in practice probably a little more than directly punching him.
And yay, my first response directly from Toady!
Post by: Knight Otu on November 16, 2011, 02:07:19 pm
I guess it would be a good idea to move some things up in the short term goals in that the succession would solve a number of issues. Speaking of the short term goals - You've talked quite a bit about what you feel you need to do for releases 3, 4, and 5 (games, music, storytelling, fistfights, multiracial forts etc) that isn't explicitly mentioned on the dev page, but there's very little about what you want for the upcoming release 2 aside the explicit mentions of schedules/activities and mines. I think you mentioned village maps if you don't get to extending the town map generation to that, workshops, and geological structures, but is there more than that?
Post by: NakedFury on November 16, 2011, 04:11:28 pm
Post by: monk12 on November 16, 2011, 04:57:24 pm
What future feature are you most "exited/Proud" about?
My personal bet is Release 5, as I recall in one of the DF Talks he mentions that it will "test the premise of the entire game, that you could have all these systems running simultaneously" [paraphrased]
Post by: CharlesPeter on November 16, 2011, 05:46:28 pm
What future feature are you most "exited/Proud" about?
My personal bet is Release 5, as I recall in one of the DF Talks he mentions that it will "test the premise of the entire game, that you could have all these systems running simultaneously" [paraphrased]
I agree with that. I think he's most looking forward to when the game actually IS a functioning fantasy world generator, instead of just a place for Dorfs to dig around in. (not that there's anything wrong with that.)
Post by: Willfor on November 16, 2011, 05:55:28 pm
Quote from: Toady
I think that's Release 5 on the list, though I've become more recently inclined to think birth/death/succession/personality rewrite should be pushed forward so the world will be alive. I should get to the heart of the game at some point before several more years pass.
I am very excited about this possible prospect.
Post by: Neonivek on November 16, 2011, 06:57:50 pm
Honestly I would like someone expert in the laws of physics to determine how effective it would be to hit someone with a pole like object that has almost no mass but with near supernaturally strong durability and hardness (with absolutely NO flexibility).It would be in practice probably a little more than directly punching him.
And yay, my first response directly from Toady!
Yeah but you got leverage and a surface that doesn't give way as much as even your fist.
Afterall Iron Knuckles adds almost no mass to your fist but is dramatically more impactful then just your raw fist.
Post by: Dakk on November 16, 2011, 08:04:49 pm
That, combined with the fact DF doesn't really take lead's maleability into account (as far as I know) only make the difference between adamantine and lead blunt weapons even bigger. Granted, a lead hammer would deliver a suprising ammount of force, but it wouldn't be able to hold its form after a few strikes (or after a single strike, even).
Post by: Kogut on November 17, 2011, 03:21:14 am
Post by: Di on November 17, 2011, 08:03:56 am
The evil monster part doesn't really bother them as much as it should at present, and the vampire stands up and takes its punishment. A hammering is difficult to survive, but should it happen, then the punishment is served and the community naively assumes the convict is reformed.UristMcGuard: Alright, Vlad, we have found another bloodless corpse which brings us back to a talk we had last week. Your reluctance to review your behavior saddens me. You know I've tried persuasion, beating, imprisonment but I give up, maybe 20 hammerstrikes will teach you the ways of a good dwarf.
This bring up a few questions though:
1. Will being a vampire be separate crime (killing by drinking blood)? Current murder doesn't bring death sentence.
2. What are benefits from having hammerer? I mean, we have guards already and by adjusting their weapons we can alter the punishment degree, while hammering offers death and heavy crippling.
3. How vampires can reproduce in fortress mode? Can they have children?
4. If a child is turned into vampire, will it grow into adulthood?
Post by: Footkerchief on November 17, 2011, 09:24:59 am
Attributes are supposed to impact performance at various tasks, but according to my testing impact of attributes on quality of products is completely unimportant compared to skill. There is no noticeable difference between "legendary carpenter with a boundless creative imagination" and "legendary carpenter (with average creativity)". Is it intended?
It's definitely not intended for all attributes to affect every job. The idea is that each labor benefits from a subset of attributes. Did you try testing any others?
Post by: Knight Otu on November 17, 2011, 10:34:48 am
It's definitely not intended for all attributes to affect every job. The idea is that each labor benefits from a subset of attributes. Did you try testing any others?
According to the wiki, Creativity (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Attribute) may or may not be supposed to impact carpentry. The part that doesn't support creativity being linked to carpentry seems to be based on this post by Toady (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1413312#msg1413312). So a test with a stonecrafter may be better suited to see whether creativity (and as such, any attribute) impacts performance.
Post by: casserol on November 17, 2011, 10:35:58 am
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 17, 2011, 10:55:55 am
Post by: MASTER_PROGRAMMER on November 17, 2011, 11:03:22 am
or....was that already talked about before, and i'm just being oblivious like i always am? :(
Post by: Rockphed on November 17, 2011, 11:21:23 am
ummm....am i the only one who's curious if adventurers can be bitten and turned into Vampires/werefill-in-the-blanks?
or....was that already talked about before, and i'm just being oblivious like i always am? :(
I'm pretty sure adventurers can turn into vampires if they drink the blood of a vampire they kill. And getting mauled by a werebeast and turning into one seems like it can happen, you just need to survive the mauling. I don't remember if there is a quote from Toady, but Footkerchief can probably find it if it exists.
Post by: MASTER_PROGRAMMER on November 17, 2011, 11:23:29 am
ummm....am i the only one who's curious if adventurers can be bitten and turned into Vampires/werefill-in-the-blanks?
or....was that already talked about before, and i'm just being oblivious like i always am? :(
I'm pretty sure adventurers can turn into vampires if they drink the blood of a vampire they kill. And getting mauled by a werebeast and turning into one seems like it can happen, you just need to survive the mauling. I don't remember if there is a quote from Toady, but Footkerchief can probably find it if it exists.
Sweeto. :3
Thanks for the answer. ^^
Post by: MrWiggles on November 17, 2011, 03:06:55 pm
ummm....am i the only one who's curious if adventurers can be bitten and turned into Vampires/werefill-in-the-blanks?
or....was that already talked about before, and i'm just being oblivious like i always am? :(
I'm pretty sure adventurers can turn into vampires if they drink the blood of a vampire they kill. And getting mauled by a werebeast and turning into one seems like it can happen, you just need to survive the mauling. I don't remember if there is a quote from Toady, but Footkerchief can probably find it if it exists.
Sweeto. :3
Thanks for the answer. ^^
No, you can't be a vampire and a lycanthrope. At most, you could be a lycanthrope or vampire necromancer.
I'm like 85 percent sure, this is what Toady said on the matter.
Post by: Knight Otu on November 17, 2011, 03:30:24 pm
Quote from: GamerlordIt is possible for adventurers to become necromancers/werebeasts/vampires, right? Or at least recruit a necromancer to join you?
At the moment it is possible as an adventurer to become a werebeast (and probably a vampire). Haven't decided if we will fit in necromancers. The necromancers you meet will all be hostile at this point.QuoteQuote from: SerrationalWill were-creatures be possibly undead?Quote from: ChronasCan undead get syndromes/curses?
The vamps can't be vamped and the weres can't be wered, but everything else looks technically legal now. I'm not sure what situations can actually arise though. Weres go nuts, so they don't have opportunities to become undead really. I think a vamp could get wered during a were attack though, or if the vamp decides to become a monster slayer in world gen and screws up. In world gen, I think that would make the vampire go nuts, in which case it would attack on the full moons, as a werebeast that also has the vampire properties I suppose. And then it could attack your fortress.
However, this is because the werecurse is very lax about passing on right now. It just needs a non-were who can learn. If it also checked living status or something, it wouldn't be catching for vamps. Right now an intelligent rock man could get wered. Dunno what I want, but that last is a little or a lot weird.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 17, 2011, 03:31:08 pm
This is the latest I could find on it:
Quote from: piecewiseWill the game have certain curses take precedent over others? Ie, if I get bitten by a vampire and then by a were-moose, will I transform into a blood sucking moose man every full moon? If I raid a tomb is it possible that I'll find an undead necromancer vampire were-axolotl?
It doesn't allow some combinations. Right now it allows for a vampire werebeast, which is strange, and may or may not be allowed. I don't think any of the werebeasts are strictly aquatic, but if I screwed that up I'm sure we'll see it when it happens.
Post by: Ganthan on November 17, 2011, 10:01:56 pm
Post by: Areyar on November 18, 2011, 05:43:58 am
Probably a little less because of the extremely low inertia of the rod.Honestly I would like someone expert in the laws of physics to determine how effective it would be to hit someone with a pole like object that has almost no mass but with near supernaturally strong durability and hardness (with absolutely NO flexibility).It would be in practice probably a little more than directly punching him.
...like hitting someone with a long paper tube, filled with foam for 'sturdity'.
Post by: jellsprout on November 18, 2011, 06:41:26 am
Post by: G-Flex on November 18, 2011, 07:22:39 am
The adamantine head has almost no momentum. With adamantine knuckles this wouldn't matter too much, because you still have the mass of your entire arm behind it, but there is nothing behind the head. The rod is orthogonal to the momentum, so little to no energy from your body can be transferred through the impact. The head will probably just bounce back and the target will feel hardly anything.
Yep. Leverage is great, but you don't really get the opportunity for follow-through like you would on a stab/punch.
The head being super-hard and super-durable... really doesn't matter. That just means it might scratch or cut you better, but we're talking about a blunt object here. Getting hit with a hollowed-out, super-light round diamond wouldn't hurt much even if it's a hell of a lot harder than your flesh.
Of course, DF also doesn't properly slow down a weapon due to its weight. Silver hammers should be kind of terrible, because of the fact that having a heavier-than-normal hammer isn't quite an advantage; you swing more slowly and more clumsily with less maneuverability, therefore there's less energy behind the blow. Past a certain point, there's simply no advantage to adding more weight, or else iron hammers would just be made with more iron to begin with.
Post by: Dsarker on November 18, 2011, 07:45:35 am
Post by: King Mir on November 18, 2011, 08:00:05 am
The adamantine head has almost no momentum. With adamantine knuckles this wouldn't matter too much, because you still have the mass of your entire arm behind it, but there is nothing behind the head. The rod is orthogonal to the momentum, so little to no energy from your body can be transferred through the impact. The head will probably just bounce back and the target will feel hardly anything.The head won't bounce back, because it's rigid.
You won't get the benefit of a swinging weight at the end, but you can still impart any force that you could with your hands. Depending on the surface area it would be like either a paddle or a rod, made of hollow steal. Armor would make it feel more like a paddle.
Post by: G-Flex on November 18, 2011, 08:32:36 am
The head won't bounce back, because it's rigid.
You still don't get the benefit of any sort of follow-through because you're relying entirely on the stored momentum at the end of the lever, not any additional momentum from, say, your own body. That momentum/kinetic energy is all you get. This is why very light hammers are a bad idea, but a very light dagger works well.
Quote
You won't get the benefit of a swinging weight at the end, but you can still impart any force that you could with your hands. Depending on the surface area it would be like either a paddle or a rod, made of hollow steal. Armor would make it feel more like a paddle.
This is not true for the reasons stated above. A punch (or stab) carries with it the momentum of your own body, as well as continuously applied force from yourself continuing to push your body forward; you're putting your weight and momentum into it. A "swing" of a sword, mace, hammer, etc. only imparts the momentum imparted to the head of the weapon by the swing.
Post by: Areyar on November 18, 2011, 08:54:57 am
(n.b. Iron, copper, zinc, nickel = about 8-9, lead, silver = about 11, gold, platinum = about 20, aluminum, magnesium, bone = about 2-3, diamond = 3.5, polystyrene = 1)
edit: wiki: ada ~200
alu: 2700 etc
the onlky thing I can find less dense would be balsawood (150). :p
The type of attack is important as well,
slicing, cutting -sharpness (hardness/area), speed
piercing : idem dito, only angle of attack is different (same as a slap vs a poke)
hacking : sharpness, impetus
bashing : impetus, speed+weight /impact area
Post by: Kogut on November 18, 2011, 09:21:05 am
It's definitely not intended for all attributes to affect every job. The idea is that each labor benefits from a subset of attributes. Did you try testing any others?
According to the wiki, Creativity (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Attribute) may or may not be supposed to impact carpentry. The part that doesn't support creativity being linked to carpentry seems to be based on this post by Toady (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1413312#msg1413312). So a test with a stonecrafter may be better suited to see whether creativity (and as such, any attribute) impacts performance.
"creativity skills: all crafts, trapping, cheesemaking, cook, architecture, organization, lying, comedy" I believe that carpentry is a craft (note that carpentry is not mentioned in linked post, moreover there is a very, very small but noticeable impact for completely unskilled workers)
Post by: mendonca on November 18, 2011, 09:30:28 am
You still don't get the benefit of any sort of follow-through because you're relying entirely on the stored momentum at the end of the lever, not any additional momentum from, say, your own body. That momentum/kinetic energy is all you get. This is why very light hammers are a bad idea, but a very light dagger works well.
There's nothing wrong with light hammers, if you can swing them fast enough (which in practice means there is plenty wrong with light hammers)
This is not true for the reasons stated above. A punch (or stab) carries with it the momentum of your own body, as well as continuously applied force from yourself continuing to push your body forward; you're putting your weight and momentum into it. A "swing" of a sword, mace, hammer, etc. only imparts the momentum imparted to the head of the weapon by the swing.
f = ma.
The force you can impart to a hammer (or sword) will accelerate it, and increase it's momentum, prior to reaching the maximum practical weapon speed of a humanoid operator. This is determined by your technique and your body strength. If you 'get your back into it' you can speed the head up faster (and to a higher speed, I should think).
Your point sounds as if someone is just standing perfectly still - 'wafting' a weapon, but bodyweight is a key function of getting the weapon up to speed in the first place. Wrist / arm strength will also factor in to the effectiveness of a blow, as you 'follow through'.
Also the dagger 'stab' issue is more related to the pressure (force / area) exerted by the sharp point. A perfect point needs very little pressure to exert a huge force (and therefore cut easily), so with a stiletto (or an ice pick) you might not need as much gusto in a jab as with a kitchen knife. Once you get to the hilt, the dagger has done as much as it can anyway, whether you are stabbing hard or soft (ignoring the possibilty of thrusting your entire arm through your victims torso).
Post by: Footkerchief on November 18, 2011, 09:52:11 am
It's definitely not intended for all attributes to affect every job. The idea is that each labor benefits from a subset of attributes. Did you try testing any others?
According to the wiki, Creativity (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Attribute) may or may not be supposed to impact carpentry. The part that doesn't support creativity being linked to carpentry seems to be based on this post by Toady (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1413312#msg1413312). So a test with a stonecrafter may be better suited to see whether creativity (and as such, any attribute) impacts performance.
"creativity skills: all crafts, trapping, cheesemaking, cook, architecture, organization, lying, comedy" I believe that carpentry is a craft (note that carpentry is not mentioned in linked post, moreover there is a very, very small but noticeable impact for completely unskilled workers)
Crafting most likely means these skills. (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Craftsdwarf) Woodcrafting != carpentry.
Post by: Areyar on November 18, 2011, 10:00:54 am
You'll have to be 35 times faster to get the same impact from an Ada hammer(0.23) as from a steel (7.8 ) one. That would be the equivalent of a projectile, I guess. :/
Also, with such low densities/speeds, air friction will also become a major factor.
Post by: mendonca on November 18, 2011, 10:08:07 am
Mendoza
You'll have to be 35 times faster to get the same impact from an Ada hammer(0.23) as from a steel (7.8) one. That would be the equivalent of a projectile, I guess. :/
Also, with such low densities/speeds, air friction will also become a major factor.
It would be great to see someone move their arm that fast! (or maybe it would have to be in the wrist?)
Post by: block spiders! on November 18, 2011, 10:18:49 am
Quote
Of course, DF also doesn't properly slow down a weapon due to its weight. Silver hammers should be kind of terrible, because of the fact that having a heavier-than-normal hammer isn't quite an advantage; you swing more slowly and more clumsily with less maneuverability, therefore there's less energy behind the blow. Past a certain point, there's simply no advantage to adding more weight, or else iron hammers would just be made with more iron to begin with.
I think this is true for weak and untrained hammer users, but for a strong and coordinated user, it's less of an issue. The mass of the hammer is always there; if there's more muscle to accelerate it, then it can be used more effectively. It's the inverse of the brass/adamantine knuckles mentioned earlier. A hammer's force is applied by the momentum of the hammer's head, and the user's strength is used to accelerate it quicker, instead of pushing the weapon like brass knuckles or a sword/spear thrust. A stronger user would be able to attack faster as well as with more accuracy. Imagine an industrial robot the size of a dwarf, equipped with powerful motors and swinging a hammer with perfect accuracy and terrifying force. A more trained user might know how to keep the hammer moving if he doesn't score a hit, instead of swinging, missing, and planting the hammer in the dirt.
Post by: Neonivek on November 18, 2011, 10:28:48 am
As well often the danger isn't keeping the weapon moving after it misses. Sometimes the danger is moving the weapon after it hits.
Post by: Areyar on November 18, 2011, 10:55:55 am
Problem with that technique becomes accuracy... certainly after more than half a minute. :lol:
Post by: block spiders! on November 18, 2011, 10:57:09 am
Quote
Once you get a heavier weapon Block it becomes tougher and tougher to "reset" your weapon. As you need to use more and more strength just holding on.My point was that the awkwardness and inertia of the weapon inversely correlates to the strength and skill of the user. I think it's reasonable to assume that a legendary hammerdwarf would be able to hit harder with a platinum hammer than with a copper one. Realistically, this would still mean a relative loss of maneuverability, parrying ability, and an increase of time between attacks, but a capable hammer user would be able to do more damage per hit with a heavier weapon, and a dwarf that is twice as strong would probably not be hindered by a weapon that's 15% heavier. I concede that something impossibly heavy like a slade hammer would be difficult to wield simply because of the immense effort needed to overcome its inertia and get it moving.
Quote
As well often the danger isn't keeping the weapon moving after it misses. Sometimes the danger is moving the weapon after it hits.I know; every bit of force that is applied to the target is spent in the attack. In real life this wouldn't be as much of an issue because a solid hit would probably stun or knock back the victim enough that the attacker would have plenty of time to recover, and a glancing blow would not slow the hammer as much. It could be dangerous in a melee with multiple foes due to the vulnerability while recovering from a swing, though.
Post by: King Mir on November 18, 2011, 11:33:31 am
Daggers are different, yes. The main objective there is to cut.The head won't bounce back, because it's rigid.
You still don't get the benefit of any sort of follow-through because you're relying entirely on the stored momentum at the end of the lever, not any additional momentum from, say, your own body. That momentum/kinetic energy is all you get. This is why very light hammers are a bad idea, but a very light dagger works well.QuoteYou won't get the benefit of a swinging weight at the end, but you can still impart any force that you could with your hands. Depending on the surface area it would be like either a paddle or a rod, made of hollow steal. Armor would make it feel more like a paddle.
This is not true for the reasons stated above. A punch (or stab) carries with it the momentum of your own body, as well as continuously applied force from yourself continuing to push your body forward; you're putting your weight and momentum into it. A "swing" of a sword, mace, hammer, etc. only imparts the momentum imparted to the head of the weapon by the swing.
It's true that hammering technique is designed to capitalize on the weight at the end, whereas a good punch would have your body behind the thrust. So you'd want to fight differently than with a traditional hammer. However, it's far better than a rubber mallet.
A carbon fiber tennis racket may be a better analogy than hollow steal, since those are lighter without breaking easily, and are designed to be light and strong.
Post by: Rystic on November 18, 2011, 01:07:27 pm
Do you think it's possible that we'll see prisoner executions in the future? IE, if we have a caged Goblin in a stockpile, would we be able to 'mark it' for execution? This would make life a lot easier than it is now, where we have to disarm prisoners in sort of a hacky-way, then build the cage/mechanisms. It would also give the Hammerer a useful purpose in between punishing dwarves for crimes.
Post by: EmeraldWind on November 18, 2011, 01:33:05 pm
Since the Hammerer is coming back, I thought I'd ask this question:It's a little bit easier with the pasture areas. I set up a pasture area right where my soldiers train and assign the prisoner to that. Still complicated if you want to disarm an opponent first though.
Do you think it's possible that we'll see prisoner executions in the future? IE, if we have a caged Goblin in a stockpile, would we be able to 'mark it' for execution? This would make life a lot easier than it is now, where we have to disarm prisoners in sort of a hacky-way, then build the cage/mechanisms. It would also give the Hammerer a useful purpose in between punishing dwarves for crimes.
Based on answers to other questions, I would assume any improvement on this would wait at least until the army arc. Unless taverns add foreign justice due to bar fights or something.
BTW, if you want Toady to answer a question change the question's text to green.
Post by: Rystic on November 18, 2011, 02:08:52 pm
Since the Hammerer is coming back, I thought I'd ask this question:It's a little bit easier with the pasture areas. I set up a pasture area right where my soldiers train and assign the prisoner to that. Still complicated if you want to disarm an opponent first though.
Do you think it's possible that we'll see prisoner executions in the future? IE, if we have a caged Goblin in a stockpile, would we be able to 'mark it' for execution? This would make life a lot easier than it is now, where we have to disarm prisoners in sort of a hacky-way, then build the cage/mechanisms. It would also give the Hammerer a useful purpose in between punishing dwarves for crimes.
If a change like this is implemented, a designated zone for executions would be preferable. I just think there should be some place where a caged prisoner can be safely executed.
Quote
BTW, if you want Toady to answer a question change the question's text to green.
Fixed. Ty!
Post by: Talvieno on November 18, 2011, 03:07:57 pm
I have a couple questions about future releases, not this one in particular.
1. Will vampires always submit willingly to their punishment when discovered and accused, or will they ever "transform" - i.e. gain extra strength, tooth length, etc - when threatened? Or possibly discretely attempt to flee the map when found out, coming back later with a new disguise?
2. Similarly, will convicted criminals ever have the option of going (temporarily) berserk and trying to defend themselves against the hammering/beating?
edited for clarity
Post by: Dsarker on November 18, 2011, 03:14:54 pm
I've looked through the dev stuff and the stuff Toady One wrote, but I didn't find anything that directly addressed this... Maybe it's been asked already, I don't know. Anyway...
I have a couple questions.
1. Will vampires always submit willingly to their punishment when discovered and accused, or will they "transform" - i.e. gain extra strength, tooth length, etc - when threatened? Or will they possibly discretely attempt to flee the map when found out, coming back later with a new disguise?
2. Similarly, will convicted criminals have the option of going (temporarily) berserk and trying to defend themselves against the hammering/beating?
Last answers, he said no, they stand still and take it like a dorf.
Post by: Talvieno on November 18, 2011, 03:52:19 pm
I know that, I was meaning to ask if it would always stay that way. I'll change it to be clearer.I've looked through the dev stuff and the stuff Toady One wrote, but I didn't find anything that directly addressed this... Maybe it's been asked already, I don't know. Anyway...
I have a couple questions.
1. Will vampires always submit willingly to their punishment when discovered and accused, or will they "transform" - i.e. gain extra strength, tooth length, etc - when threatened? Or will they possibly discretely attempt to flee the map when found out, coming back later with a new disguise?
2. Similarly, will convicted criminals have the option of going (temporarily) berserk and trying to defend themselves against the hammering/beating?
Last answers, he said no, they stand still and take it like a dorf.
Post by: Dsarker on November 18, 2011, 03:53:30 pm
Post by: Talvieno on November 18, 2011, 03:55:11 pm
Oh! Yes, he said he was planning on changing it.Fast response. :) I like it. Didn't even finish editing. All right, if this question has already been answered, should I de-green?
Post by: Dsarker on November 18, 2011, 04:23:25 pm
Post by: Kittah_Khan on November 18, 2011, 06:42:10 pm
Mendoza
You'll have to be 35 times faster to get the same impact from an Ada hammer(0.23) as from a steel (7.8 ) one. That would be the equivalent of a projectile, I guess. :/
Also, with such low densities/speeds, air friction will also become a major factor.
Kinetic Energy = Mass*Velocity Squared
The adamantine hammer only has 1/34th of the kinetic energy at the same velocity, yes, but it does not need to move 34 times faster to direct 34 times as much kinetic energy, it only needs to move the root of 34 times faster, slightly less than 6 times, which is doable...once....probably.
Post by: G-Flex on November 18, 2011, 08:53:58 pm
Mendoza
You'll have to be 35 times faster to get the same impact from an Ada hammer(0.23) as from a steel (7.8 ) one. That would be the equivalent of a projectile, I guess. :/
Also, with such low densities/speeds, air friction will also become a major factor.
Kinetic Energy = Mass*Velocity Squared
The adamantine hammer only has 1/34th of the kinetic energy at the same velocity, yes, but it does not need to move 34 times faster to direct 34 times as much kinetic energy, it only needs to move the root of 34 times faster, slightly less than 6 times, which is doable...once....probably.
Some people here are probably forgetting that you can only swing your arm so fast. You probably can't swing an adamantine hammer 6 times as fast as a steel one.
Of course, this all goes back to the obvious, common sense argument: If a lighter hammer were more usable than a heavier one, then steel hammers would be made lighter in the first place. It's not as if it's hard to make something with a smaller head.
Post by: Ak-Sai on November 19, 2011, 04:57:38 am
Sorry if that question was already mentioned before, but:
Would Toady add some culture-dependent pro's and con's in game?
For example, there might be a pool of '+' and '-' traits from which civilization pattern are created during the world gen.
There might be '+' like a 'boost to masonry skill' 'less dependence to brewery' or 'ability to craft "some_specific_weapon" ', etc .
And '-' like 'poorer health', or 'more likely to succumb to infections/diseases', 'less knowledge of farming'etc.
So we can expect to have something like that:
"World has three civs:
1. Blackrock clan - better weaponsmiths but poor trading skills
2. Broken Anvils - extremely healthy but tends to have problem with smithing
3. Drunken artisans - tends to have 'strange mood' more often but consumes double amount of alcohol
(Of course number of traits might be more than two).
And that might lead to interesting things in future, like a cultural wars or building isolationist-style society (like medieval Japan) and so on.
Thanks ahead for everyone for readying and replying.
P.S. Sorry for possible mistakes. My English is not so good as I want it to be. But I'm working on it )
Post by: jellsprout on November 19, 2011, 05:59:10 am
The head won't bounce back, because it's rigid.
Because the head is rigid, it won't be able to deform. As a result no energy will be lost in the deformation and the head should bounce back again. It is difficult to find the correct answer for this, because no material exists which is as rigid and light as adamantine, so we can't really compare it to anything.
Kinetic Energy = Mass*Velocity Squared
The adamantine hammer only has 1/34th of the kinetic energy at the same velocity, yes, but it does not need to move 34 times faster to direct 34 times as much kinetic energy, it only needs to move the root of 34 times faster, slightly less than 6 times, which is doable...once....probably.
I doubt it is possible to move your arm 6 times faster. In comparison, there is also a factor 6 difference between walking and driving in the inner city. Even if you are not holding anything, I doubt you can swing your arm 6 times faster than if you are holding an iron hammer.
This discussion makes me wish we had brass knuckles or something.
Post by: Knight Otu on November 19, 2011, 06:05:52 am
Post by: ab00 on November 19, 2011, 10:06:31 am
Post by: Neonivek on November 19, 2011, 12:06:55 pm
Just one thing I noticed about vampires and sunlight: How about having them automatically cave-adapted? Although, some of the historical migrants probably should also be cave adapted then.
What? Sunlight doesn't hurt vampires. It makes them Twinkle like diamonds... because you see when you die your skin crystalizes. So when a vampire rises from the grave they still have the crystalized skin.
More seriously it should depend on the vampire.
Post by: Dutchling on November 19, 2011, 04:20:49 pm
I know it doesn't change your point in any way but I'd like to correct your mistake nonetheless. :)Mendoza
You'll have to be 35 times faster to get the same impact from an Ada hammer(0.23) as from a steel (7.8 ) one. That would be the equivalent of a projectile, I guess. :/
Also, with such low densities/speeds, air friction will also become a major factor.
Kinetic Energy = 1/2*Mass*Velocity Squared
The adamantine hammer only has 1/34th of the kinetic energy at the same velocity, yes, but it does not need to move 34 times faster to direct 34 times as much kinetic energy, it only needs to move the root of 34 times faster, slightly less than 6 times, which is doable...once....probably.
Post by: eux0r on November 19, 2011, 06:31:34 pm
thx to whoever it was again who reminded me of dfterm, i havent had the time to test it yet, but its definitely worth a try. also changing the outputmode to text is awesome, but somehow ugly, even with the best fonts. i hope the guy who maintains dwarffortress in the archlinux repository also adds dfterm in the near future, since that would make my life much easier ;)
also, thanks to toady for answering those questions
on the brass-knuckles discussion: i think noone mentioned that those knuckles are not only very rigid, but also concentrate the force of a punch onto a thin line, which means something like 1/20th of the surface
warhammers: when attacking an unarmored human or dwarf it doesnt matter anymore if you have something incredibly undeformable like adamantium: steel doesnt deform the least bit when crushing some bones, therefore you wont get any benefits from adamantium
someone mentioned swinging around your whole body like warhammer(TM) goblin fanatics do to gain the speed necessary to compensate the lower mass, but thats not just really difficult to control, but absolutely useless in a real fight.
yes olympic hammer-throwers do that, but they dont have to fight against someone and even those, who do that probably some hundred times a day when practising cant really control the direction they throw better than a 30°(or so i estimate) cone. i hope df never makes turning in circles _any_ viable in combat: its stupid, dont ever try that when fighting only because many games make you think its really strong. (yes i know, martial arts incorporate turning attacks, and some of my favorite moves we do in kung-fu training are spinning ones, but those only do _one_ turn and are allready much much harder to control and aim than the normal ones and you do them when you know its no problem to turn away from your enemy for a brief moment)
and one last thing for those who dont know yet: the designated color for questions is called limegreen, not just green, normal green is not that nice to read since the background is so dark(i like the dark background, bright letters on dark ground are far superior to the standard dark on white, pls dont misunderstand this statement!)
Post by: O11O1 on November 19, 2011, 11:46:27 pm
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on November 20, 2011, 01:33:24 am
With these new upgrades to the city systems, how close are we to having a 'Retire' option, where instead of abandoning the fort, you give it to the gameworld to control, allowing you to, say, start a new fort and trade with the old one?
Probably not until after we have actual dwarf towns being generated, and then some.
Post by: Sevi on November 20, 2011, 06:10:42 am
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on November 20, 2011, 06:14:12 am
With these new upgrades to the city systems, how close are we to having a 'Retire' option, where instead of abandoning the fort, you give it to the gameworld to control, allowing you to, say, start a new fort and trade with the old one?It is planned to have living world after halting worldgen. I suspect this will be just continuation of worldgen in background (so size of world starts to matter in fortress mode), only it will be affected by player decisions. And how close... um, few years?
Will silver bullets/arrows instantly kill werebeasts? :DIf RNG gods will be kind. Material weakness are randomized.
Post by: O11O1 on November 20, 2011, 09:58:24 am
With these new upgrades to the city systems, how close are we to having a 'Retire' option, where instead of abandoning the fort, you give it to the gameworld to control, allowing you to, say, start a new fort and trade with the old one?It is planned to have living world after halting worldgen. I suspect this will be just continuation of worldgen in background (so size of world starts to matter in fortress mode), only it will be affected by player decisions. And how close... um, few years?Will silver bullets/arrows instantly kill werebeasts? :DIf RNG gods will be kind. Material weakness are randomized.
So we might have have werewolves weak to iron (but not steel). Or copper. Or Elephant Bone.
This is probably answered somewhere, so not gonna green it:
Is this limited to just weapon materials? If not, does that world grant our forges/workshops to make esoteric weapons for that purpose?
Post by: Dutchling on November 20, 2011, 10:04:55 am
Post by: Knight Otu on November 20, 2011, 10:06:10 am
Quote from: LoSboccacchow much random is material weakness? right now the fortress and the adventurer are severely limited on what materials are usable for smelting weapons or available to purchase at shop.
It always uses weapon materials right now.
Post by: caknuck on November 20, 2011, 02:19:41 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on November 20, 2011, 02:31:42 pm
Will pottery and waxworking be moodable skills in the upcoming version?There's no reason to assume that he touched those specific industries, so odds are pretty low.
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on November 20, 2011, 04:34:13 pm
Will pottery and waxworking be moodable skills in the upcoming version?There's no reason to assume that he touched those specific industries, so odds are pretty low.
Hasn't he made it so furniture/weapons/crafts/etc in world gen are actually built instead of just spawned randomly now? Seems like that would be touching upon skills in a way. I don't remember if artifacts can be built yet though...
Post by: Cruxador on November 20, 2011, 04:44:55 pm
No, if he'd made artifacts happen in worldgen he doubtless would have said. Especially since it would almost certainly entail making strange moods happen in worldgen.Will pottery and waxworking be moodable skills in the upcoming version?There's no reason to assume that he touched those specific industries, so odds are pretty low.
Hasn't he made it so furniture/weapons/crafts/etc in world gen are actually built instead of just spawned randomly now? Seems like that would be touching upon skills in a way. I don't remember if artifacts can be built yet though...
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on November 20, 2011, 08:07:09 pm
No, if he'd made artifacts happen in worldgen he doubtless would have said. Especially since it would almost certainly entail making strange moods happen in worldgen.Will pottery and waxworking be moodable skills in the upcoming version?There's no reason to assume that he touched those specific industries, so odds are pretty low.
Hasn't he made it so furniture/weapons/crafts/etc in world gen are actually built instead of just spawned randomly now? Seems like that would be touching upon skills in a way. I don't remember if artifacts can be built yet though...
I know they're planned for the thief arc, and hopefully will also involve curses. but now it's getting off topic.
ends it before it derails, like the hammer talk.
Post by: Gaspa Craftdreams on November 21, 2011, 09:20:05 am
Actually this question's more for Footkerchief to see because he can search the forum better than I can and I'm not sure if this question was already asked by someone else
Post by: Footkerchief on November 21, 2011, 09:39:13 am
Will item creation eventually get into Legend of Mana (http://lparchive.org/Legend-of-Mana/Explanations%205/) levels, where you can add materials into existing weapons and armor to enhance them (ex. add a coating of adamantine on silver warhammers to drastically increase their durability) and certain combinations of materials will add intrinsics to items?
Actually this question's more for Footkerchief to see because he can search the forum better than I can and I'm not sure if this question was already asked by someone else
Multi-material weapons have come up: (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. <quote about multi-material items>
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.
Older quote:
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.
Intrinsics are kind of game-y and therefore unlikely.
Post by: Shinotsa on November 21, 2011, 01:50:35 pm
Can dwarfs fight back while being fed on and do vampires avoid military/strong dwarfs? I'd hate to lose my militia commander to the weird guy nobody likes. If they can fight back what skills dictate whether they'll wake up? Will it be an awareness thing, or just a struggle when they are bitten?
Edited for greenening
Post by: Cruxador on November 21, 2011, 02:57:53 pm
I cant seem to find any posts on this, though it seems like it should have been answered before and I'm just missing it. Can dwarfs fight back while being fed on and do vampires avoid military/strong dwarfs? I'd hate to lose my militia commander to the weird guy nobody likes. If they can fight back what skills dictate whether they'll wake up? Will it be an awareness thing, or just a struggle when they are bitten?We don't have information on that yet. This would be a good thing to green.
Post by: rhesusmacabre on November 21, 2011, 03:23:45 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on November 21, 2011, 03:27:49 pm
I cant seem to find any posts on this, though it seems like it should have been answered before and I'm just missing it.
Can dwarfs fight back while being fed on and do vampires avoid military/strong dwarfs? I'd hate to lose my militia commander to the weird guy nobody likes. If they can fight back what skills dictate whether they'll wake up? Will it be an awareness thing, or just a struggle when they are bitten?
Edited for greenening
Toady, said that after the body is discovered or reported, that the combat report will be available. (Probably with some obscuring of the vamp dorf attacking.) So, that seems to imply combat. It might just be reports of Vamp Dorf drinking, but I'd imagine, it'd be form of wrestling. The Vamp higher speed and strength, will probably give him an advantage.
As for target selection, it seems like, from what has been said, that the Vamps just target someone who is asleep. And following general dorf logic, it'll probably be the closet person from the top right, down with no account for pathing distance.
Post by: O11O1 on November 21, 2011, 08:15:06 pm
When is blood going to fade away correctly, and not spread everywhere all the time?
Post by: MrWiggles on November 21, 2011, 08:25:08 pm
Also, while this is rather off-topic, and not green-worthy really:
When is blood going to fade away correctly, and not spread everywhere all the time?
*shrugs* For now, we have an official work around inside the init options.
It might be getting better with this release, or the pending bug fixes afterward, since vampirism is commutable through their blood. Nothing stated inside the dev logs though.
Post by: Dsarker on November 21, 2011, 08:27:09 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on November 21, 2011, 08:30:49 pm
If the blood thing isn't changing, and a well gets contaminated by vampire blood (say by the sheriff after he executes him, or by a survivor of a fight when the vampire did not), will that make vampires, or does the blood need to be pure?From the Dev Log, with the Arena test, he had to make his adventure lick the blood, a fair amount before he became infected. So, it seems like Vampirism, has to be digested for it to spread like that. And contamination sprawl can get on food.
Post by: Dakk on November 21, 2011, 09:15:58 pm
Post by: Cruxador on November 21, 2011, 09:23:47 pm
What happens if all of your dwarves are vampires? Do they feed off each other?
Post by: Gaspa Craftdreams on November 22, 2011, 09:40:03 am
My prediction is that if your dwarves are all vampires, expect them to do things like feeding on innocent wildlife or willingly wade through an army of goblins just to taste freshly spilled blood.
Damn, someone should make some fanart of a vampire dwarf visiting unholy terror on a group of unsuspecting goblins.
Post by: Areyar on November 22, 2011, 09:59:56 am
until they prove undeath is only a temporary state?
Post by: Fieari on November 22, 2011, 12:39:44 pm
Which makes me think of a question:
Toady, while you aren't making varieties of vampires and other undead monsters NOW, have you included the framework for expanding them in the future? Can we mod in additional types of vampirism ourselves? If so, are they "whole package" or did you make the framework for random parts in the curse/secrets system?
Post by: Footkerchief on November 22, 2011, 01:04:28 pm
Actually, he's said that while he intends vampires to be procedurally generated in the future, for now there's just one kind.
Which makes me think of a question:
Toady, while you aren't making varieties of vampires and other undead monsters NOW, have you included the framework for expanding them in the future? Can we mod in additional types of vampirism ourselves? If so, are they "whole package" or did you make the framework for random parts in the curse/secrets system?
Since night creature cleanup has been checked off, maybe the new raws are even ready for a pre-release peek.
Post by: Knight Otu on November 22, 2011, 05:07:09 pm
Actually, he's said that while he intends vampires to be procedurally generated in the future, for now there's just one kind.Huh? Last I checked, he did say that there were different vampire types, just that the differences are very big (for instance, there are no monstrous type vampires yet). Similar for the animated dead.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Dsarker on November 22, 2011, 05:14:10 pm
Post by: Cruxador on November 22, 2011, 07:38:25 pm
Do vampires, when disguised, still transform others? Say, would Vampire X, who claims to be C, and gets a cut, when D drinks X's blood, would it track it as if it belonged to X or C? Would you be able to tell a vampire if it bleeds by the name on the blood?By my understanding: They aren't actually transforming, they're just assuming a role. The thing with teeth elongating while they feed is separate. Their physical properties remain unchanged, thus the blood still carries the appropriate properties to transform others.
Post by: Dsarker on November 22, 2011, 07:56:56 pm
Do vampires, when disguised, still transform others? Say, would Vampire X, who claims to be C, and gets a cut, when D drinks X's blood, would it track it as if it belonged to X or C? Would you be able to tell a vampire if it bleeds by the name on the blood?By my understanding: They aren't actually transforming, they're just assuming a role. The thing with teeth elongating while they feed is separate. Their physical properties remain unchanged, thus the blood still carries the appropriate properties to transform others.
But what Toady says is that the blood doesn't have any properties that makes it transform except that it is linked to the historical figure who happens to be a vampire. While they are disguised, if they bleed blood of the disguise, would it stop them from transforming others?
Post by: Kogut on November 23, 2011, 04:11:27 am
No. There are disguised ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disguise ), not transformed into different creature.Do vampires, when disguised, still transform others? Say, would Vampire X, who claims to be C, and gets a cut, when D drinks X's blood, would it track it as if it belonged to X or C? Would you be able to tell a vampire if it bleeds by the name on the blood?By my understanding: They aren't actually transforming, they're just assuming a role. The thing with teeth elongating while they feed is separate. Their physical properties remain unchanged, thus the blood still carries the appropriate properties to transform others.
But what Toady says is that the blood doesn't have any properties that makes it transform except that it is linked to the historical figure who happens to be a vampire. While they are disguised, if they bleed blood of the disguise, would it stop them from transforming others?
Post by: Dsarker on November 23, 2011, 05:11:26 am
No. There are disguised ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disguise ), not transformed into different creature.Do vampires, when disguised, still transform others? Say, would Vampire X, who claims to be C, and gets a cut, when D drinks X's blood, would it track it as if it belonged to X or C? Would you be able to tell a vampire if it bleeds by the name on the blood?By my understanding: They aren't actually transforming, they're just assuming a role. The thing with teeth elongating while they feed is separate. Their physical properties remain unchanged, thus the blood still carries the appropriate properties to transform others.
But what Toady says is that the blood doesn't have any properties that makes it transform except that it is linked to the historical figure who happens to be a vampire. While they are disguised, if they bleed blood of the disguise, would it stop them from transforming others?
Yes. But Toady has ALREADY SAID that if the vampire is not an important historical figure, and gets culled, the blood of it does not work. So will it, as it stands, display the blood as if it were from a vampire (and allow you to identify it) or as the disguisee and allow you to become a vampire or as the disguisee and not turn you into a vampire?
Post by: Kogut on November 23, 2011, 05:14:57 am
Post by: penguify on November 23, 2011, 07:59:12 am
A chart would be useful here.No. There are disguised ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disguise (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disguise) ), not transformed into different creature.Do vampires, when disguised, still transform others? Say, would Vampire X, who claims to be C, and gets a cut, when D drinks X's blood, would it track it as if it belonged to X or C? Would you be able to tell a vampire if it bleeds by the name on the blood?By my understanding: They aren't actually transforming, they're just assuming a role. The thing with teeth elongating while they feed is separate. Their physical properties remain unchanged, thus the blood still carries the appropriate properties to transform others.
But what Toady says is that the blood doesn't have any properties that makes it transform except that it is linked to the historical figure who happens to be a vampire. While they are disguised, if they bleed blood of the disguise, would it stop them from transforming others?
Yes. But Toady has ALREADY SAID that if the vampire is not an important historical figure, and gets culled, the blood of it does not work. So will it, as it stands, display the blood as if it were from a vampire (and allow you to identify it) or as the disguisee and allow you to become a vampire or as the disguisee and not turn you into a vampire?
U = Blood labeled "Urist McTotallyNotAVampireHonest"
V = Blood labeled "Bloodletter the bloodguzzler of bleeding-veins"
(Obviously, Urist McTotallyNotAVampireHonest is the disguised form of our vampire)
T = Blood transforms others
N = Blood doesn't
X = True
- = False
? = What happens?
Code: [Select]
U V
T ? X
N ? -Further, which blood does he bleed when disguised as Urist? It'd blow his cover if he bled vampire blood, right?
Post by: Torchy on November 23, 2011, 10:59:42 am
Further, which blood does he bleed when disguised as Urist?
Nobody makes me bleed my own blood!
Post by: eux0r on November 23, 2011, 11:12:28 am
Post by: Areyar on November 23, 2011, 11:32:16 am
I understand the corpse can be hidden, if there were no witnesses?
Will other un-discovered items be invisible to Armok (me) in time? such as stuff in caves.
Post by: O11O1 on November 23, 2011, 11:47:01 am
Will the ability to make toy stuffed animals ever be implemented, and if so, what list would be used for this? Also, do dwarves make their stuffed animals just out of cloth and silk, or also leather and stone?
The idea of plush forgotten beasts amuses me.
Post by: Neonivek on November 23, 2011, 11:58:09 am
I was doing some trading and craft making, and a thought occured to me:
Will the ability to make toy stuffed animals ever be implemented, and if so, what list would be used for this? Also, do dwarves make their stuffed animals just out of cloth and silk, or also leather and stone?
The idea of plush forgotten beasts amuses me.
Did those exist back then?
Post by: Rip0k on November 23, 2011, 12:30:17 pm
I was doing some trading and craft making, and a thought occured to me:
Will the ability to make toy stuffed animals ever be implemented, and if so, what list would be used for this? Also, do dwarves make their stuffed animals just out of cloth and silk, or also leather and stone?
The idea of plush forgotten beasts amuses me.
Did those exist back then?
That just made my day
Post by: Dae on November 23, 2011, 12:45:27 pm
No. There are disguised ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disguise ), not transformed into different creature.Do vampires, when disguised, still transform others? Say, would Vampire X, who claims to be C, and gets a cut, when D drinks X's blood, would it track it as if it belonged to X or C? Would you be able to tell a vampire if it bleeds by the name on the blood?By my understanding: They aren't actually transforming, they're just assuming a role. The thing with teeth elongating while they feed is separate. Their physical properties remain unchanged, thus the blood still carries the appropriate properties to transform others.
But what Toady says is that the blood doesn't have any properties that makes it transform except that it is linked to the historical figure who happens to be a vampire. While they are disguised, if they bleed blood of the disguise, would it stop them from transforming others?
Yes. But Toady has ALREADY SAID that if the vampire is not an important historical figure, and gets culled, the blood of it does not work. So will it, as it stands, display the blood as if it were from a vampire (and allow you to identify it) or as the disguisee and allow you to become a vampire or as the disguisee and not turn you into a vampire?
IIRC he also said that vampires for now were ALWAYS historical figures. But that raises a question : if a disguise is just another "displayed name", is the disguise name also an historical figure ? Can a disguise be culled while the vampire name stays known ? In other words, what happens if a vampire in disguise bleeds in worldgen, will the blood be called by the disguise name ? If so, what happens if the disguise name gets lost ?
Post by: Knight Otu on November 23, 2011, 01:55:11 pm
Why mountain caves are placed only on the borders of mountains?Presumably because the inner mountains are semi-off-limits.
Do vampires, when disguised, still transform others? Say, would Vampire X, who claims to be C, and gets a cut, when D drinks X's blood, would it track it as if it belonged to X or C? Would you be able to tell a vampire if it bleeds by the name on the blood?We know that the disguised vampires retain their other abilities and just repress those that would betray them outside of combat (maybe they just repress their speed, maybe they use the creature definition to determine how they should act). Thus, it is most likely that all of the interaction effects apply, including the transformative abilities of their blood. Whether they actively transform dwarves in your fortress is an interesting question, but I suspect we'd have heard about that.
Apparently rag dolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rag_doll) existed as far back as 300BC. Not quite stuffed animals, but the idea has existed before the cut-off point.Will the ability to make toy stuffed animals ever be implemented, and if so, what list would be used for this? Also, do dwarves make their stuffed animals just out of cloth and silk, or also leather and stone?Did those exist back then?
Post by: rhesusmacabre on November 23, 2011, 03:34:44 pm
Post by: irdsm on November 23, 2011, 04:00:32 pm
Dwarven plushies would be stuffed with gravel (or just chunks of granite) however.Oh I dunno, glass and metal bars seem reasonable too.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 23, 2011, 05:52:44 pm
Post by: monk12 on November 23, 2011, 05:59:50 pm
Dwarven plushies would be stuffed with gravel (or just chunks of granite) however.Oh I dunno, glass and metal bars seem reasonable too.
And I'm sure they menace with spikes.
Post by: monk12 on November 23, 2011, 11:44:37 pm
I LOVE BRIDGES!
Are all bridges the same right now, or do they vary? Covered bridges, open bridges, so on and so forth.
I imagine fences instead of walls is going to wait on fences existing at all. I'm hoping to tour the bridges of Urist County.
Post by: [NO_THOUGHT] on November 24, 2011, 12:00:29 am
Post by: Footkerchief on November 24, 2011, 01:49:11 am
Now that some crimes can be hidden, will it be possible to kill (accidentally of course) an entire caravan and not have the civilization know (and start war) as long as you left no survivors?
No, that's not a crime in the sense of the Fortress Mode justice system. None of the knowledge/deception stuff applies.
Post by: hermes on November 24, 2011, 04:04:19 am
Post by: Cruxador on November 24, 2011, 05:01:16 am
are there any plans to add multi-tile foliage/piles within the current release series?Current plan is they'll go in when the elves get their cities, which will be some time during army arc. So a few years from now.
Post by: hermes on November 24, 2011, 06:44:48 am
are there any plans to add multi-tile foliage/piles within the current release series?Current plan is they'll go in when the elves get their cities, which will be some time during army arc. So a few years from now.
OK, thanks! Makes sense.
Post by: rex mortis on November 24, 2011, 11:13:34 am
Will we have to discover a bridge or be able to swim across a river to cross one in the next version? Or is it still possible to ignore rivers completely by using fast travel?
Post by: Urist McDagger on November 24, 2011, 12:03:27 pm
A few? Isn't the current prediction somewhere on the order of two decades?are there any plans to add multi-tile foliage/piles within the current release series?Current plan is they'll go in when the elves get their cities, which will be some time during army arc. So a few years from now.
Post by: Dutchling on November 24, 2011, 02:46:44 pm
'Few' is relative. In DF it means around 0,1 and 0,4 TLs (Toady-Lifetimes)A few? Isn't the current prediction somewhere on the order of two decades?are there any plans to add multi-tile foliage/piles within the current release series?Current plan is they'll go in when the elves get their cities, which will be some time during army arc. So a few years from now.
Post by: Cruxador on November 24, 2011, 03:10:37 pm
Current prediction is two decades until 1.0. I'd imagine that the current stuff could be done in only a little more than half that.A few? Isn't the current prediction somewhere on the order of two decades?are there any plans to add multi-tile foliage/piles within the current release series?Current plan is they'll go in when the elves get their cities, which will be some time during army arc. So a few years from now.
Post by: Kogut on November 24, 2011, 03:35:07 pm
Current prediction is two decades until 1.0. I'd imagine that the current stuff could be done in only a little more than half that.A few? Isn't the current prediction somewhere on the order of two decades?are there any plans to add multi-tile foliage/piles within the current release series?Current plan is they'll go in when the elves get their cities, which will be some time during army arc. So a few years from now.
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html
first release + bugfixing (new & old bugs) - around 1 year
There are 9 planned releases, what puts end of caravan arc in 2020.
There are 19 planned goals, what puts end of caravan arc in 2030.
And all estimations like this are worthless, as feature creep is completely unpredictable (this release was described as "Better town maps involving workshops/markets/shops based on world gen economic activities" and resulted in multiple unrelated features).
Post by: Neonivek on November 24, 2011, 11:12:39 pm
Look at World 2 Town 4 and see the insanity!
Perhaps roads without houses shouldn't exist.
Post by: Toady One on November 24, 2011, 11:17:49 pm
eg: http://www.designsofwonder.com/images/MapImages/plan_mediaeval_manor.jpg
Post by: Catastrophic lolcats on November 24, 2011, 11:41:36 pm
Will Elves construct roads or does that go against their ethics?
Post by: Neonivek on November 24, 2011, 11:48:47 pm
Those are supposed to delineate the plots for different purposes. A small town that just got a market will essentially use the village code I'm getting to. It just also has the market, a keep (because we have a profusion of those), and a few specialized workshops. They all use the manorish map system, which isn't ideal since there should be other kinds of villages, but it isn't about having a road for wagons or something. It is just a boundary. The larger towns will also use the village stuff for the plots remaining open.
eg: http://www.designsofwonder.com/images/MapImages/plan_mediaeval_manor.jpg
Interesting.
Assuming these plots will have different purposes.
Post by: G-Flex on November 24, 2011, 11:57:43 pm
Post by: Toady One on November 25, 2011, 12:06:44 am
I noticed in World 1 that there was a road leading to a Goblin Tower. Was this a conqured tower, can humans and goblins be at peace for enough time to construct a road or are wars just not considered when roads are built?
Will Elves construct roads or does that go against their ethics?
It was a conquered tower. There can be long periods of peace, but both goblins and elves aren't road builders -- right now both sides need to be road builders for it to go ahead with it, but perhaps later it'll let one side build a road in some circumstances. It was that way originally, and I almost left it in, but decided against it for whatever reason.
World 2, Town 1 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/map2town1.png) seems to have a large section of walled-off city that... doesn't really contain much of anything. Is this intentional?
It isn't something I tried to stop, because of a historical map I saw with some farmland inside a wall much like this, but I do think it is kind of strange. I'm not sure they'd want to rebuild it that way the first time the outer buildings get burned, so I'm also not sure if it'll last up to the army stuff, but I'll have to look at more example images from history and whether the one I saw was a total anomaly. It should probably prefer to fill out the interior -- right now it just spills out buildings from the keep area.
Post by: Anatoli on November 25, 2011, 01:40:16 am
Quote
It isn't something I tried to stop, because of a historical map I saw with some farmland inside a wall much like this, but I do think it is kind of strange. I'm not sure they'd want to rebuild it that way the first time the outer buildings get burned, so I'm also not sure if it'll last up to the army stuff, but I'll have to look at more example images from history and whether the one I saw was a total anomaly. It should probably prefer to fill out the interior -- right now it just spills out buildings from the keep area.I'm not sure if it's a reliable historical reference, but I was reading "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame" and it had a section that told a little history about the architecture of Paris.
Basically, several times in the history of Paris, attempts were made to build walls to encompas the entire city. Most were relativelly unsuccessful, and those that were, were only successful for 50-100 years. The tactics to do this, were restricting the building outside city walls, and building another giant section of the wall extending way beyong the city. Eventually, the shops and houses got too crowded, and spilled beyong the walls, which triggered another round of wall building in a couple decades. But for a short period of time, there was empty space that was not filled with anything.
Basically, the moral of the story, is that a strong ruler wants to protect his city and commands a wall to be build around all the buildings in the city. Of course, he can fail depending on his personna and the layout of the city, but the desire to have some empty space is not an anomality. So as long the empty space you have is rare, or quickly fill up, the stuff you have there Toady, is totally legit. Of course, Threetoe probably knows about this more than I do, but I think it's totally legit.
Post by: Kogut on November 25, 2011, 02:58:01 am
AFAIK it is quite typical big cities:QuoteIt isn't something I tried to stop, because of a historical map I saw with some farmland inside a wall much like this, but I do think it is kind of strange. I'm not sure they'd want to rebuild it that way the first time the outer buildings get burned, so I'm also not sure if it'll last up to the army stuff, but I'll have to look at more example images from history and whether the one I saw was a total anomaly. It should probably prefer to fill out the interior -- right now it just spills out buildings from the keep area.I'm not sure if it's a reliable historical reference, but I was reading "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame" and it had a section that told a little history about the architecture of Paris.
Basically, several times in the history of Paris, attempts were made to build walls to encompas the entire city. Most were relativelly unsuccessful, and those that were, were only successful for 50-100 years. The tactics to do this, were restricting the building outside city walls, and building another giant section of the wall extending way beyong the city. Eventually, the shops and houses got too crowded, and spilled beyong the walls, which triggered another round of wall building in a couple decades. But for a short period of time, there was empty space that was not filled with anything.
Basically, the moral of the story, is that a strong ruler wants to protect his city and commands a wall to be build around all the buildings in the city. Of course, he can fail depending on his personna and the layout of the city, but the desire to have some empty space is not an anomality. So as long the empty space you have is rare, or quickly fill up, the stuff you have there Toady, is totally legit. Of course, Threetoe probably knows about this more than I do, but I think it's totally legit.
Rome walls google search: - http://nolli.uoregon.edu/wallsOfRome.html - at least 5 different attempts
Paris - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_walls_of_Paris ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Enceintesp.jpg )
EDIT: Anatoli, I only wanted to confirm that "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame" is right.
Post by: Anatoli on November 25, 2011, 03:22:49 am
I have to acknowledge you're smarter than I am in terms in time spent. However, I do wander if it is better to put three hyperlinks without explanation, or explain what and why without hyperlinks in terms of user-friendliness. What do you prefer more, Toady?AFAIK it is quite typical big cities:QuoteIt isn't something I tried to stop, because of a historical map I saw with some farmland inside a wall much like this, but I do think it is kind of strange. I'm not sure they'd want to rebuild it that way the first time the outer buildings get burned, so I'm also not sure if it'll last up to the army stuff, but I'll have to look at more example images from history and whether the one I saw was a total anomaly. It should probably prefer to fill out the interior -- right now it just spills out buildings from the keep area.I'm not sure if it's a reliable historical reference, but I was reading "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame" and it had a section that told a little history about the architecture of Paris.
Basically, several times in the history of Paris, attempts were made to build walls to encompas the entire city. Most were relativelly unsuccessful, and those that were, were only successful for 50-100 years. The tactics to do this, were restricting the building outside city walls, and building another giant section of the wall extending way beyong the city. Eventually, the shops and houses got too crowded, and spilled beyong the walls, which triggered another round of wall building in a couple decades. But for a short period of time, there was empty space that was not filled with anything.
Basically, the moral of the story, is that a strong ruler wants to protect his city and commands a wall to be build around all the buildings in the city. Of course, he can fail depending on his personna and the layout of the city, but the desire to have some empty space is not an anomality. So as long the empty space you have is rare, or quickly fill up, the stuff you have there Toady, is totally legit. Of course, Threetoe probably knows about this more than I do, but I think it's totally legit.
Rome walls google search: - http://nolli.uoregon.edu/wallsOfRome.html - at least 5 different attempts
Paris - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_walls_of_Paris ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Enceintesp.jpg )
Post by: Kogut on November 25, 2011, 03:28:50 am
mockup based on map2town4:
before:
(http://www.img.ie/images/08786_thumb.png) (http://www.img.ie/08786.png.html)
after:
(http://www.img.ie/images/71313_thumb.png) (http://www.img.ie/71313.png.html)
EDIT: road->roads
Post by: Knight Otu on November 25, 2011, 09:11:50 am
And in world 1, there don't seem to be any, presumably due to a lack of death gods. Are the necromancy secrets generated regardless of the presence of death gods?
Post by: Neonivek on November 25, 2011, 09:16:50 am
People, during an attack, would seek protection either in the woods or the fortress.
So you don't always need a wall around the entire city or town.
I am surprised though that now places taken over will have construction in them.
Post by: Rip0k on November 25, 2011, 10:28:23 am
Unfortunately it is obvious that road are pre-generated and ignore city size. Maybe pre-generating and hiding part of roads in villages/smaller towns may be interesting?
Must say that I agree. That empty web of roads looks rather silly to me.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 25, 2011, 11:04:30 am
Unfortunately it is obvious that roads are pre-generated and ignore city size. Maybe pre-generating and hiding part of roads in villages/smaller towns may be interesting?
It sounds like those aren't necessarily roads:
Those are supposed to delineate the plots for different purposes. A small town that just got a market will essentially use the village code I'm getting to. It just also has the market, a keep (because we have a profusion of those), and a few specialized workshops. They all use the manorish map system, which isn't ideal since there should be other kinds of villages, but it isn't about having a road for wagons or something. It is just a boundary. The larger towns will also use the village stuff for the plots remaining open.
eg: http://www.designsofwonder.com/images/MapImages/plan_mediaeval_manor.jpg
Post by: Rip0k on November 25, 2011, 01:52:40 pm
Post by: tfaal on November 25, 2011, 06:55:10 pm
Post by: Sizik on November 25, 2011, 10:49:28 pm
Is there some legend I could use to tell the intended purpose of all these buildings? In particular, what's with the cluster of red buildings in World 1 City 1?
You can compare building colors with their contents using the screenshots in this devlog post, (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-06-18) but those red buildings aren't featured.
Post by: Toady One on November 25, 2011, 10:59:02 pm
You can see the rectangle groupings in this old dev image: http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/market.png.
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/map2town6.png
This image is different from the others as well, not just because it is small, but because they've apparently come upon hard times. All the white buildings are abandoned. It's still a place people come to sell vegetables, but apparently it once supported more people.
Post by: EmeraldWind on November 25, 2011, 11:10:03 pm
Unfortunately it is obvious that roads are pre-generated and ignore city size. Maybe pre-generating and hiding part of roads in villages/smaller towns may be interesting?
It sounds like those aren't necessarily roads:Those are supposed to delineate the plots for different purposes. A small town that just got a market will essentially use the village code I'm getting to. It just also has the market, a keep (because we have a profusion of those), and a few specialized workshops. They all use the manorish map system, which isn't ideal since there should be other kinds of villages, but it isn't about having a road for wagons or something. It is just a boundary. The larger towns will also use the village stuff for the plots remaining open.
eg: http://www.designsofwonder.com/images/MapImages/plan_mediaeval_manor.jpg
Interesting, so we probably won't know exactly what a bigger town looks like until the village code is done.
Will town maps like the one you posted be available to export through Legends Mode (once an adventure visits a town) or will they remain a dev only visual?
Basically, I'm asking if a city/town site map will be exportable in the format shown in the dev log or not.
Post by: Cruxador on November 26, 2011, 02:27:03 am
Red is the butcher, green is plants, and brown are constructed goods from other cities.So it's a butcher a grocer, and a trader/hardware store? Are we going to get more specific in-period names for businesses that are used within the game?
Post by: Dsarker on November 26, 2011, 04:00:53 am
Post by: MiniMacker on November 26, 2011, 06:26:53 am
And I'm curious about the disguises.
If a disguised vampire gains a title through the military, will said title stay if the disguise is busted? Or maybe that isn't not how the disguise system works.
Post by: Knight Otu on November 26, 2011, 06:33:28 am
So if a Were-dwarf dashes for the closest target during a full moon to attack. Will it be any target, including other Were-dwarves?Werecreatures of the same type are friendly to each other. Weres of differing types aren't.
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on November 26, 2011, 12:12:45 pm
Post by: Hitty40 on November 26, 2011, 01:29:16 pm
Post by: acetech09 on November 26, 2011, 01:57:40 pm
Will mugs soon be weaponized?
Also keep in mind that we have declared that anything that is throwable by an adventurer is weaponizable. This means that every single item that can be held is weaponizable. This includes dead plants, refuse, stones, bodies, pebbles, armor, unbuilt furniture, cooked meals, [mugs], and anything else that is haul-able by a dwarf. So if you are looking for something that isn't weaponizable you are going to need to look into things that can't be carried by a dwarf, such as snow (which I think has come closest to winning), clouds, mist, or other more intangible things.
From the 'A challenge' thread in Dwarf Mode discussion.
Post by: Shinotsa on November 26, 2011, 02:35:29 pm
I assume this is a troll question, so just to troll you a bit more, I have the answer. It already is.Will mugs soon be weaponized?Also keep in mind that we have declared that anything that is throwable by an adventurer is weaponizable. This means that every single item that can be held is weaponizable. This includes dead plants, refuse, stones, bodies, pebbles, armor, unbuilt furniture, cooked meals, [mugs], and anything else that is haul-able by a dwarf. So if you are looking for something that isn't weaponizable you are going to need to look into things that can't be carried by a dwarf, such as snow (which I think has come closest to winning), clouds, mist, or other more intangible things.
From the 'A challenge' thread in Dwarf Mode discussion.
Bravo, you beat me to it. I don't know whether it's sad or exceedingly funny that people can't legitimately troll because we've already thoroughly defined and SCIENCEd everything we can think of.
Also,
Why did you choose to only let body parts with a head or grasp be animatable by necromancers, and not all body parts or those with a stance (e.g. feet and legs)? It seems sensible to be able to raise someone's lower half.
I can't recall any zombie lower halfs from any other games/movies I've seen. On many, MANY occasions in other games you'll strike down a zombie only to have the top half come crawling after you, but I've never seen a lower half hop up and run into things. I guess that's the big reason, what in the world would a lower half actually DO? I can't imagine they'd kick too hard since they have little to no weight behind em so unless they'd... throw their innards or something the only other possible attacks would require immediate brain bleach.
Post by: Hitty40 on November 26, 2011, 02:36:39 pm
I assume this is a troll question, so just to troll you a bit more, I have the answer. It already is.Will mugs soon be weaponized?Also keep in mind that we have declared that anything that is throwable by an adventurer is weaponizable. This means that every single item that can be held is weaponizable. This includes dead plants, refuse, stones, bodies, pebbles, armor, unbuilt furniture, cooked meals, [mugs], and anything else that is haul-able by a dwarf. So if you are looking for something that isn't weaponizable you are going to need to look into things that can't be carried by a dwarf, such as snow (which I think has come closest to winning), clouds, mist, or other more intangible things.
From the 'A challenge' thread in Dwarf Mode discussion.
They are? I didn't even realize mugs are weaponized.
Post by: Dakk on November 26, 2011, 05:18:40 pm
Tales of adventurers dual wielding dragons are not unheard of :P
Post by: Hitty40 on November 26, 2011, 08:13:53 pm
Anything you can grasp in DF can be used as a weapon, from ballista bolts to dragon corpses.
Tales of adventurers dual wielding dragons are not unheard of :P
Dwarf Fortress: When you thought dual-wielding elephants was enough...
Post by: acetech09 on November 26, 2011, 09:01:49 pm
Post by: Cruxador on November 26, 2011, 11:05:09 pm
I have a feeling we already have an answer to this but what's a meadow in the context of DF?
And also, does "waste" refer to land that's unused and thus wasted, or a dump?
Do the wooded areas have free-roaming swine, or are all pigs penned up as things are now?
Post by: Footkerchief on November 27, 2011, 12:12:22 am
And also, does "waste" refer to land that's unused and thus wasted, or a dump?
"Waste" appears to be a term for a specific type of pasture; (http://books.google.com/books?id=a98qN3HHG9gC&lpg=PA253&ots=R_Z6MjGA_c&dq=medieval%20manor%20waste&pg=PA252#v=onepage&q&f=false) I haven't read that carefully enough yet to understand the distinction.
Post by: Dsarker on November 27, 2011, 12:30:16 am
Post by: Cruxador on November 27, 2011, 01:30:14 am
Post by: Dsarker on November 27, 2011, 01:31:04 am
Post by: thvaz on November 27, 2011, 04:37:56 am
Post by: Cruxador on November 27, 2011, 05:03:05 am
Cities can have multiple layers of walls?Over the course of history? Yes. Simultaneously extant during adventure mode? Toady said he wasn't getting to that, some months ago when he did the walls. It requires ruin framework that isn't in yet.
Post by: Dsarker on November 27, 2011, 05:15:32 am
Post by: Cruxador on November 27, 2011, 06:06:12 am
Post by: Dsarker on November 27, 2011, 06:10:38 am
How quickly is the wall scrapped? Does it tick over at year's end and suddenly the wall disappears?
Post by: Knight Otu on November 27, 2011, 06:17:24 am
Once again, we're left with no key, and thus little insight into what we're actually looking like.I'll go out on a limb and say that the striped plots are the crop areas, solid black is waste, solid brown the "pig yards", and dark green the woodlands. That leaves medium green and light green for meadows and pastures.
Cities can have multiple layers of walls?
Theoretically, yes. Given the maps so far, it doesn't seem to be actually implemented.
Regarding internal walls (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2154630;topicseen#msg2154630)
Quote from: Toady One
I moved the questions on the new city maps etc. to the top for convenience.I guess it is possible that Toady might get to multiple walls with the current work, but he hasn't said anything. I also notice that the walls seem to invariably have three gates now, when the oldest maps had four gates.Quote from: JapaToady, 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.
Post by: Cruxador on November 27, 2011, 06:28:35 am
Okay.I don't think Toady's said that. I would guess it's instant.
How quickly is the wall scrapped? Does it tick over at year's end and suddenly the wall disappears?
Post by: Dsarker on November 27, 2011, 06:43:40 am
Post by: Rafal99 on November 27, 2011, 06:50:18 am
Now, iirc, worldgen doesn't happen in either of the modes, does it?
You mean worldgen stuff happening during normal play?
No. That is planned for the release 5.
Post by: Dsarker on November 27, 2011, 06:51:08 am
Post by: Rafal99 on November 27, 2011, 06:55:58 am
But more advanced stuff doesn't happen. New roads or cities are not built. The cities doesn't change their structure. No wars are begun except those cause by the player. Etc.
Post by: Cruxador on November 27, 2011, 07:08:23 am
So the state that the world's in, once you start playing, is the state it remains in.Barring player interference, yes. The world doesn't change independently of the player until Toady gets release 5 taken care of.
Post by: metime00 on November 27, 2011, 08:37:35 am
But what's the really red cluster of buildings by the keep in this town (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/w3town6.png)? another town has something similar but it's green. Are these the temples?
Post by: therahedwig on November 27, 2011, 08:45:13 am
This looks really cool. Can't wait to see it in action.
Post by: Knight Otu on November 27, 2011, 08:45:25 am
But what's the really red cluster of buildings by the keep in this town (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/w3town6.png)? another town has something similar but it's green. Are these the temples?That's a market. Red is meat, green is plants, and brown is foreign crafts. Temples are a kind of purple (seen here (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/w3town1.png), north-east of the keep and a biggish building in the south-west).
Post by: Rafal99 on November 27, 2011, 09:19:16 am
In my opinion it would look better with half as much of them.
Post by: Knight Otu on November 27, 2011, 09:50:47 am
Post by: Sevi on November 27, 2011, 02:07:44 pm
Post by: Rose on November 27, 2011, 02:51:55 pm
Will you be able to walk around in those town maps at some stage ?
No, you will not be able to walk around the maps.
The towns that they are maps of? yes.
Post by: geneisnotlame on November 27, 2011, 03:14:52 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on November 27, 2011, 03:32:48 pm
ya but i wanna FAST TRAVEL through these huge cities
The city travel map was implemented some months ago: (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-07-27)
Quote from: devlog
07/21/2011: I jumped in on the town travel map. It is used in place of the old travel map when you are in a city, since many of your moves on the old travel map would not match with the road network. A full-sized town on this map is 51x51 instead of 17x17, so it is zoomed in three times (I should have usable pictures in a few days). There's room to show a list of nearby shops/buildings/sewer entrances as well, and once we're done it should also be able to help you navigate to a specific known building of your choice on the other side of town.
07/26/2011: Here are a few preliminary pictures (day (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/site_travel.png), night (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/site_travel_2.png)). In the brown part with the paved white roads, you can only move along the roads themselves. In the green part you can walk anywhere, ignoring the lines. It isn't ready to navigate you to specific buildings at this point, just to show what's around you as you move.
07/27/2011: Here are a few more (three (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/site_travel_3.png), four (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/site_travel_4.png)). This shows the larger scale travel map instead of the building list, and then moving out into the forest to the point where the zoomed in city map vanishes.
And you can of course still travel in the fully zoomed-in mode (i.e. the screen where combat occurs).
Post by: Shinotsa on November 27, 2011, 03:40:43 pm
I'm actually fairly excited to see how they compare since I find the maps that are being put up now to have a strange kind of beauty and I hope at least some of that's carried over.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 27, 2011, 03:51:05 pm
Are there any pictures of the new cities/towns in the zoomed in city fast travel screen? Perhaps we could see one of the maps already shown compared to the in game city travel screen if it's not too much trouble.
By "new cities/towns" you mean "the very latest cities from today's build," not just "the cities in the upcoming version," right?
Post by: Sizik on November 27, 2011, 04:09:17 pm
Anyone else thinks that wall towers are placed too densely?
In my opinion it would look better with half as much of them.
There's one for every 16x16 square, or one tile on the zoomed-in travel map.
Post by: ribosom on November 27, 2011, 04:13:57 pm
new villages and towns look awesome :D
keep up the good work
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 27, 2011, 10:10:31 pm
Do the "Breeds" only apply to actual breeded animals or do they extend wild animal-populations? Say all wildhorses in a certain region looking similiar?
Post by: Cruxador on November 27, 2011, 10:20:24 pm
The game is being dumbed down for console kiddies.
When you get such things done, how much interbreeding between different breeds/populations do you anticipate their being? How much variance is there in a cat (or any other domestic animal) population at the moment, and how much would you see as ideal? I know such things would be influenced heavily by the size and age of the population, but I'd appreciate some general thoughts on the situation.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 27, 2011, 10:46:28 pm
What would interest me is if and how the pet keeping species decide which traits they favour and want in a animal? I could see Humans for example keep atleast 3 kinds of horses 1 each for light and heavy cavalery and one as work-horse.
Post by: Anatoli on November 28, 2011, 12:29:57 am
Quote
The breeds I put in a while ago seem to be working, now that I can finally look at the animals -- the cats in the first town I looked at were all large and slate gray with dark brown ears.Are there going to be any gene variances (in cats) from inside a town, or is it going to be mostly one kind per town? Are there going to be any ways for animals to travel between towns besides trade? What are (will be) the triggers for a trade in these animals?
Post by: Cruxador on November 28, 2011, 01:13:25 am
Actually for breeds to work in you just need the actually just the traits of a creature (and maybe some recessive genes as backup) so you can get actual breeds. I agree that tracking the linage would be cool but for the sake of keeping the memory-usage down just saving the data of the actual current existing individuals is sufficient.I was being facetious.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on November 28, 2011, 01:37:58 am
Post by: Dsarker on November 28, 2011, 02:09:39 am
Post by: Cruxador on November 28, 2011, 02:12:19 am
Well, we could use the framework for vampires to do the tracking of the lineage of the special animals. Say, a dog kills five goblins (however it does so), and has puppies. Those puppies would be listed as the historical figure dog's children, and so on.We already have lineage tracking for historical figures. We have for ages. The vampire framework is irrelevant to that.
Post by: Dsarker on November 28, 2011, 02:17:50 am
Post by: Footkerchief on November 28, 2011, 10:16:33 am
Actually for breeds to work in you just need the actually just the traits of a creature (and maybe some recessive genes as backup) so you can get actual breeds. I agree that tracking the linage would be cool but for the sake of keeping the memory-usage down just saving the data of the actual current existing individuals is sufficient. Also i asume toady did some (gene-)pooling to cut down the memory even more althought this would also cut the genetic variance of the population. But these are only guesses and i also would like to hear the answer.
What would interest me is if and how the pet keeping species decide which traits they favour and want in a animal? I could see Humans for example keep atleast 3 kinds of horses 1 each for light and heavy cavalery and one as work-horse.
No, there's no selective breeding of animals right now.
Post by: i2amroy on November 28, 2011, 10:57:51 am
Post by: Neonivek on November 28, 2011, 11:47:08 am
I'm just happy that every animal will no longer be a patchwork of colors, with "his fur on his front right paw is light blue, on his left paw+back paws it is tawny, on his ears is grey, on his upper body is brown, on his have is white, etc., etc."
Paibald or however you spell it, is probably the closest I can think of to "Patchwork of colors"
Post by: Footkerchief on November 28, 2011, 12:08:41 pm
Post by: Neonivek on November 28, 2011, 12:11:53 pm
Really enjoying these daily devlogs and the screenshots.
Yeah.
I was sort of hoping for something else in effect but it didn't happen and thus my hope for another resulting effect is dashed.
Ohh well.
Post by: flabort on November 28, 2011, 02:39:45 pm
I'm wondering, with the current 'breeds' mechanic being worked on right now, if traits NOT in the creature's RAWs will eventually be able to show up in a specific breed of the creature, or at least extend/retract certain numbers beyond their normal limits. Say, you isolated a bunch of cats, and slaughtered certain ones, until one showed up with "bone protrusions on it's head", just little nubs of bone, and you bred them for that, until you have a breed of cats with small little blunt horns. Trade some of these out of the fortress, so that they end up in another town, and soon a human town has another population of horned tabbies. And then another, as they trade among themselves, and another. And then they bring some horned tabbies BACK.
Or Dogs with scorpion tails, or lions with blue (or pink) fur?
Basically, Will the Uninvited Guest's code governing variety somehow appear in the Breeds mechanic (even if scaled down)?
Post by: Draco18s on November 28, 2011, 02:56:29 pm
They look terribly funny and not very realistic when encountered when playing, and a 4-intersections have disastrous results (http://mkv25.net/dfma/map-2155-crystalblockade).
Edit: greenified.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 28, 2011, 03:04:03 pm
Hmm... With the Forgotten Beasts and Plains Titans, it seems to randomly pick a random creature, and add some random "flaws/upgrades" to it, possibly from other creatures.
They aren't from other creatures. There's a small hardcoded grab bag of traits that are only used for randomly generated creatures (forgotten beasts, titans and demons).
Hmm... With the Forgotten Beasts and Plains Titans, it seems to randomly pick a random creature, and add some random "flaws/upgrades" to it, possibly from other creatures.
I'm wondering, with the current 'breeds' mechanic being worked on right now, if traits NOT in the creature's RAWs will eventually be able to show up in a specific breed of the creature, or at least extend/retract certain numbers beyond their normal limits. Say, you isolated a bunch of cats, and slaughtered certain ones, until one showed up with "bone protrusions on it's head", just little nubs of bone, and you bred them for that, until you have a breed of cats with small little blunt horns. Trade some of these out of the fortress, so that they end up in another town, and soon a human town has another population of horned tabbies. And then another, as they trade among themselves, and another. And then they bring some horned tabbies BACK.
Or Dogs with scorpion tails, or lions with blue (or pink) fur?
Basically, Will the Uninvited Guest's code governing variety somehow appear in the Breeds mechanic (even if scaled down)?
No, there is no spontaneous creation of new traits. The only variation is what's explicitly specified in the raws. The "breeds mechanic" is just the extension of the 31.01 genetics to animal populations.
Post by: Cruxador on November 28, 2011, 03:52:26 pm
I'm just happy that every animal will no longer be a patchwork of colors, with "his fur on his front right paw is light blue, on his left paw+back paws it is tawny, on his ears is grey, on his upper body is brown, on his have is white, etc., etc."We don't know for certain that this is the case - Toady said his cats are grey with brown ears, but that could be happenstance as easily as it could be a code change. More easily even.
Toady, you ever going to take a look at odd river intersections, eg. the triangle as seen in world 1, near lake (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/map1_lake.png)?There are a lot of weird things about rivers that could stand to be improved.
They look terribly funny and not very realistic when encountered when playing, and a 4-intersections have disastrous results (http://mkv25.net/dfma/map-2155-crystalblockade).
Post by: Lac on November 28, 2011, 04:33:49 pm
Toady, you ever going to take a look at odd river intersections, eg. the triangle as seen in world 1, near lake (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/map1_lake.png)?The correct place to record your sighting is of course the triangular lake sighting internet site (http://www.satellitediscoveries.com/discoveries/triangles/main.html). Sorry; the internet never ceases to amaze me. (Apologies to those for whom the magic has worn off).
Post by: kwieland on November 28, 2011, 04:48:15 pm
Toady, you ever going to take a look at odd river intersections, eg. the triangle as seen in world 1, near lake (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/map1_lake.png)?
They look terribly funny and not very realistic when encountered when playing, and a 4-intersections have disastrous results (http://mkv25.net/dfma/map-2155-crystalblockade).
I don't think the triangles are that unrealistic. Look at the interception of these two rivers near my home town here (http://g.co/maps/d5hra). When the rivers flood, then the top profile is nearly exactly a triangle.
I didn't get the point of your second link. I see one river that forms a waterfall into a lake below. Am I missing something?
Post by: Draco18s on November 28, 2011, 05:01:30 pm
I don't think the triangles are that unrealistic. Look at the interception of these two rivers near my home town here (http://g.co/maps/d5hra). When the rivers flood, then the top profile is nearly exactly a triangle.
I didn't get the point of your second link. I see one river that forms a waterfall into a lake below. Am I missing something?
Triangle:
Alright, but it doesn't occur with every river ever. It's also not a year-round thing.
Second link:
I don't think I have the world any more (number of version increments and computer changes since then) but essentially it was an embark where 2(?) major rivers came together. I don't know which direction was SUPPOSED to flow, but essentially they came together like this:
.║
═╬═
║
And the embark was a nano embark on the center tile.
It didn't look like a lake on the world screen, but had a really odd result.
Post by: Sizik on November 29, 2011, 12:20:03 am
Post by: MrWiggles on November 29, 2011, 12:28:33 am
Are there any plans for zoomed-in travel maps for player-made forts?
Wouldnt it be zoomed out?
Is this for use in Aventure Mode or Fort Mode?
If its Adventure Mode, then yea, all signs point to yes.
If you mean in Fort Mode, then I cant see it really have any utility .
Post by: TurnpikeLad on November 29, 2011, 02:15:14 am
Post by: Olix on November 29, 2011, 05:27:36 am
Not really a question for Toady, but I hope that Dwarven farming gets some revisions soon, because it's super strange seeing these authentically gigantic fields and pastures around NPC settlements and then founding a fort and being able to feed all 200 of your dwarves on a few 5x5 plots.
I came to post here for the first time in ages to say just this. I love the scale of the new fields for the farms in these recent maps. It would be cool if we needed a similar scale in our fields to feed the dwarfs in fortress mode. Space limitations for small embark sites wouldn't be a problem, as there are so many z-levels to work with.
Post by: Rafal99 on November 29, 2011, 06:55:54 am
First thing: Awesome work Toady!!
Any plans on making the rivers look more natural? Like less straight segments with sharp edges?
Quote from: devlog
(...) the mud blends too much with the dirt roads here because the local soil is also brown.Perhaps use unvaried tiles for the dirt roads? Would make them look more like something man-made.
Any chance to have the paved roads look different (not brown) from dirt roads in the map?
I hope noone minds too much these suggestion-questions.
Post by: MrWiggles on November 29, 2011, 07:29:08 am
The answer, is a surprising yes. Fort Mode farming will be worked over... eventually. It'll probably also incorporate something with the outlying hill dwarfs, that aren't physically in your fort, but our a part of the fort overall.Not really a question for Toady, but I hope that Dwarven farming gets some revisions soon, because it's super strange seeing these authentically gigantic fields and pastures around NPC settlements and then founding a fort and being able to feed all 200 of your dwarves on a few 5x5 plots.
I came to post here for the first time in ages to say just this. I love the scale of the new fields for the farms in these recent maps. It would be cool if we needed a similar scale in our fields to feed the dwarfs in fortress mode. Space limitations for small embark sites wouldn't be a problem, as there are so many z-levels to work with.
Post by: Shinotsa on November 29, 2011, 08:29:27 am
Post by: hermes on November 29, 2011, 08:56:46 am
Quote from: Procedural Toady
No animals or people use the streets yet
I don't know if adventure mode uses the same pathfinding system as fortress mode but, does this mean that adventure mode will incorporate the fortress mode path-designation mechanic - say by auto assigning roads and paths a lower (or is that higher?) pathfinding weight? Could/would this be extended to all terrain in general?
Post by: Areyar on November 29, 2011, 09:24:47 am
that might prove to be a pathing hassle.
The developments are awesome. :D
Post by: Footkerchief on November 29, 2011, 10:05:53 am
Not really a question for Toady, but I hope that Dwarven farming gets some revisions soon, because it's super strange seeing these authentically gigantic fields and pastures around NPC settlements and then founding a fort and being able to feed all 200 of your dwarves on a few 5x5 plots.
I came to post here for the first time in ages to say just this. I love the scale of the new fields for the farms in these recent maps. It would be cool if we needed a similar scale in our fields to feed the dwarfs in fortress mode. Space limitations for small embark sites wouldn't be a problem, as there are so many z-levels to work with.
The timescale will probably be a bigger problem than space limitations. There's not enough time in the year for Fortress Mode farmers to walk around such a big field.
Oh yeah! Will echo the sentiments of all above, the livestock in the fields looks awesome. Who'd have thought an ASCII picture of pigs and poultry could turn my thoughts from Skyrim? But it has. :oQuote from: Procedural ToadyNo animals or people use the streets yet
I don't know if adventure mode uses the same pathfinding system as fortress mode but, does this mean that adventure mode will incorporate the fortress mode path-designation mechanic - say by auto assigning roads and paths a lower (or is that higher?) pathfinding weight? Could/would this be extended to all terrain in general?
Townspeople in current and past versions of Adventure Mode already use roads and little dirt paths to travel around town. I'm guessing that the same code will be used for the new towns, although not sure what the implementation is. I doubt it's pathfinding weight. Maybe it does A* on the abstracted road map -- that's been proposed for Fort Mode, but the big problem there is figuring out which abstract nodes your start/end points are closest to. Adv Mode towns probably have a relatively small number of destinations that can easily be grouped by the nearest road intersection/terminus.
What do you mean about "all terrain in general"?
Post by: Chromasphere on November 29, 2011, 10:45:50 am
Quote from: devlog
There are some pigs and turkeys among the market stalls... I'm not sure why yet
That actually sounds reasonable for the time period, especially for a small market in a village or small town. Of course if it's a programming glitch, it could lead to other problems.
I must say that the town and maps and everything look superb! I'm really excited to wander around these new types of places. I particularly like the ramp in the dead-end alley leading down into the sewers! It's placed perfectly.
Anyone know what the Left Brackets are on the street east of the market area? They are near the end of the paved street at the Y intersection? Nevermind, sorry, I just realized they are signs for the shops... (I only play in ascii occassionally)
Post by: Shinotsa on November 29, 2011, 10:47:42 am
On a more related note,
Edit: Stricken question answered
Post by: Knight Otu on November 29, 2011, 11:18:49 am
On a more related note, Are there any plans to implement irrigation channels in appropriate biomes? Also, will there be farming related disaster in worldgen like locust swarms or salt buildup that cause an area to produce little to no food for a period of time or, in the case of salt buildup, become unfarmable due to improper/unsustainable farming habits?I'd say all of that fits under the Farming Improvements bullet on the dev page (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html):
Quote
Farming Improvements
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
The disasters are more likely to come in at the tail end of those improvements, once worldgen people no longer routinely starve to death.
Post by: Dwarfu on November 29, 2011, 11:34:43 am
Post by: diegokilla on November 29, 2011, 04:07:32 pm
Post by: Rafal99 on November 29, 2011, 04:18:40 pm
Are the animals in the villages/pastures owned by particular people or are they considered a part of the village entity - who gets angered when livestock is killed by an adventurer?
My bet is that whole civilization gets angered. :) As with every other crime in adventure mode.
Post by: hermes on November 29, 2011, 07:12:48 pm
Townspeople in current and past versions of Adventure Mode already use roads and little dirt paths to travel around town. I'm guessing that the same code will be used for the new towns, although not sure what the implementation is. I doubt it's pathfinding weight. Maybe it does A* on the abstracted road map -- that's been proposed for Fort Mode, but the big problem there is figuring out which abstract nodes your start/end points are closest to. Adv Mode towns probably have a relatively small number of destinations that can easily be grouped by the nearest road intersection/terminus.
Thanks, Footkerchief.
Quote
What do you mean about "all terrain in general"?
I was thinking along the lines of Shinotsa's post...
Hmm, perhaps rougher terrain should slow down people walking on it? Then it would actually be more efficient for dwarves to travel on a nice road or a smoothed floor rather than have to wade through chin high grass or struggle over rocks and divets to get places. Is there any system like this already in place? Would a system like this affect adventure mode NPCs, or do they pathfind different from dwarves or does the same pathfinding weight argument above nullify it for them?
eg. rocky/forested tiles have high travel cost, paved roads super low cost and all shades of grey in between. This should lead to all entities using the roads naturally, but I expect the processor cost would be quite high, especially for long-distance path-finding, so the system you described that's already in place sounds good.
Post by: EnigmaticHat on November 29, 2011, 07:35:04 pm
Also, Shinotsa, I just want to point out that real life roads don't magically make people faster. They're more effective because they are kept at an even elevation, make it harder to get lost, are clear of obstacles, prevent plants from growing, and don't turn to mud in rain. Most of these things are already represented in game or could be without too much difficulty. Making people walk faster on roads for no reason is an abstraction DF doesn't really need.
Post by: PTTG?? on November 29, 2011, 08:02:53 pm
Post by: Putnam on November 29, 2011, 08:39:27 pm
Hey, look, houses have furniture now. Anyone know what that symbol that looks like pi means (it means goblin tower on the world map). Also, the people of that town seem to have designated large areas of their houses as "table rooms" that do absolutely nothing but contain tables. Are the table rooms intended behavior?
Also, Shinotsa, I just want to point out that real life roads don't magically make people faster. They're more effective because they are kept at an even elevation, make it harder to get lost, are clear of obstacles, prevent plants from growing, and don't turn to mud in rain. Most of these things are already represented in game or could be without too much difficulty. Making people walk faster on roads for no reason is an abstraction DF doesn't really need.
The pi symbol represents cabinets.
Also, I agree with that second paragraph. An abstraction that the game does need is getting lost, which we're already starting with.
Post by: EmeraldWind on November 29, 2011, 09:43:37 pm
Hey, look, houses have furniture now. Anyone know what that symbol that looks like pi means (it means goblin tower on the world map). Also, the people of that town seem to have designated large areas of their houses as "table rooms" that do absolutely nothing but contain tables. Are the table rooms intended behavior?
Yes. I would assume these are the storage buildings (warehouses) that Toady has mentioned before. It seems goods that aren't placed in houses and shops end up in storage.
Quote
What I'm working on now is dividing up all of the objects that were produced at the town (that weren't placed in houses) among the shops. It selects the type of shop based on the overall town specialization information that is built up during world gen. This leaves some excess foreign items that would normally be associated to caravans/etc./etc. Those will be placed in general shops and warehouses for the time being (and the market when I get to that in a bit). The same should happen with extra food.
Quote
Toady One Found my first tower-cap bed in a human's bedroom. It had an image of the foundation of a dwarven mountain hall in giant toad bone. An iron scourge made by the goblins made it to the back of the warehouse as well -- it commemorated a skinless demon becoming the law-giver of the goblin civilization. I also put in some extra precautions and tweaks so that dwarves form markets properly and are more survivable in world gen. Kobolds as well.
Post by: Sphalerite on November 29, 2011, 10:52:55 pm
"... stopped pigs from thinking that they are selling things at the market ..."
I see that the new version has not failed to bring forth its share of hilarious bugs.
Post by: Murphy on November 29, 2011, 10:58:43 pm
Not really a question for Toady, but I hope that Dwarven farming gets some revisions soon, because it's super strange seeing these authentically gigantic fields and pastures around NPC settlements and then founding a fort and being able to feed all 200 of your dwarves on a few 5x5 plots.I came to post here for the first time in ages to say just this. I love the scale of the new fields for the farms in these recent maps. It would be cool if we needed a similar scale in our fields to feed the dwarfs in fortress mode. Space limitations for small embark sites wouldn't be a problem, as there are so many z-levels to work with.
The timescale will probably be a bigger problem than space limitations. There's not enough time in the year for Fortress Mode farmers to walk around such a big field.
It's good, because we will then need more dwarves dedicated to farming. Which is realistic.
Post by: EmeraldWind on November 29, 2011, 11:07:15 pm
Quote
There are some pigs and turkeys among the market stalls... I'm not sure why yet!
Quote
... stopped pigs from thinking that they are selling things at the market...
So when he said "among the stalls" he meant selling at the stalls, not just wondering around the stalls.
LMAO! :D
Post by: monk12 on November 29, 2011, 11:09:15 pm
QuoteThere are some pigs and turkeys among the market stalls... I'm not sure why yet!Quote... stopped pigs from thinking that they are selling things at the market...
So when he said "among the stalls" he meant selling at the stalls, not just wondering around the stalls.
LMAO! :D
Another mystery solved by the great Toady One!
Post by: Cruxador on November 30, 2011, 01:30:58 am
"OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK"
Post by: PTTG?? on November 30, 2011, 01:53:37 am
"SQUEEEEEEE"
Post by: Cruxador on November 30, 2011, 03:04:29 am
Post by: peskyninja on November 30, 2011, 03:49:55 am
Post by: Jiri Petru on November 30, 2011, 06:18:42 am
Also I really hate all the random roads - there's way too many of them in the village parts of the map. But I've already rambled a lot about it (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2167016#msg2167016) here so I won't repeat myself.
(EDIT: But looking at the older town pictures it seems Toady has reduces the number of roads a bit, so there's that.)
Oh and I miss the old villages. Those were great (http://i.imgur.com/oL6Uj.png)!
Post by: Areyar on November 30, 2011, 08:48:20 am
Just like in the Restaurant at the end of the Universe.
edit: or that is just bigotry: calling traders pigs. J/K (obviously)
Post by: Knight Otu on November 30, 2011, 09:12:34 am
Hey, look, houses have furniture now. Anyone know what that symbol that looks like pi means (it means goblin tower on the world map). Also, the people of that town seem to have designated large areas of their houses as "table rooms" that do absolutely nothing but contain tables. Are the table rooms intended behavior?Those are the empty shops Toady has mentioned in the dev log post. You should see a ß or a µ next to the doors leading to those houses. The warehouses are large buildings that we haven't quite seen yet (in the most recent town (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/pig_town_map.png), it's outside the embark area - the dark gray building a bit up from the upper right corner of the rectangle marking the embark area.)
Post by: thvaz on November 30, 2011, 10:50:36 am
The new town maps are looking increasingly better, but I still dislike them for one thing: the circularity. Each settlement is a perfectly circular web of roads. And no matter the size of the village/town/city, they all take up the same space. It gets repetitive and boring very soon. Unfortunately, it looks that it's such a fundamental part of Toady's design that it's impossible to change. I suppose the circular web is the very building block of the new towns that can't be replaced.
Also I really hate all the random roads - there's way too many of them in the village parts of the map. But I've already rambled a lot about it (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2167016#msg2167016) here so I won't repeat myself.
(EDIT: But looking at the older town pictures it seems Toady has reduces the number of roads a bit, so there's that.)
Oh and I miss the old villages. Those were great (http://i.imgur.com/oL6Uj.png)!
Most of what you think as roads in the pictures aren't roads, they are there just to divide the fields. It is obvious though that the same process to decide where the building will be constructed is used to divide the fields, but the end result is very good.
And though a very big city would end up circular, most of them are very varied. This one is very linear (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/w3town3.png), this one is almost a square (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/w3town2.png).
Post by: CharlesPeter on November 30, 2011, 06:08:46 pm
Post by: abadidea on November 30, 2011, 06:34:48 pm
Will fortresses that are set up in cold and freezing biomes ever be required to have heating of some kind so that the dwarfs don't freeze to death? Or even more generally, so that in any biome the dwarfs could heat the fortress, say in a moderate biome but during the winter, so that they could be comfortable? They conquer their environment in about every other way than temperature regulation.
Cave temperature explains this away pretty easily unless you like to make people sleep on the surface... caves around the world are all the same once you get a fair bit underground
Post by: Weaselcake on November 30, 2011, 09:54:06 pm
This would be easier for me to understand if the 'Dwarf Fortress Development' webpage wasn't so... minimal? It's difficult to tell what's going on on it. Caravan Uptades 1+ come after this patch or what? Is this next update Caravan Update 0?
Post by: monk12 on November 30, 2011, 10:32:38 pm
This would be easier for me to understand if the 'Dwarf Fortress Development' webpage wasn't so... minimal? It's difficult to tell what's going on on it. Caravan Uptades 1+ come after this patch or what? Is this next update Caravan Update 0?
This next release (release, not patch) is Release 1 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html) of the Caravan Arc, an arc which is expected to take anywhere from three to ten years to complete. After the next coming release will be a series of bugfixing releases, first focusing on newly introduced bugs, then focusing on older, preexisting bugs. That'll probably take a good month or two. After that is Release 2, which is Villager Schedules/Activities (so random peasants do crap in town when you visit in adventure mode) and 3D mineral veins and mine maps (to make mineral distribution more realistic, and presumably make mining a thing that happens in worldgen.) As you may have noticed, this release schedule is prone to unplanned tangents, which are just that- unplanned. Toady has mentioned (in the last DF Talk, or Talk before last) that the Personality Rewrite currently slated for Release 8 could very well move up to Release 5 or earlier.
Below the list of Release content on that devpage, you'll see a list of other short-term goals to be added in no particular order, wherever they fit or whenever Toady feels like working on them as a change of pace. Basically, this is the stuff that'll flesh out the broader goals outlined in the Release section. Most of the recent tangent falls under "Slayer of Night Creatures," with a bit of "Treasure Hunter" thrown in.
Post by: EmeraldWind on November 30, 2011, 11:16:20 pm
The new town maps are looking increasingly better, but I still dislike them for one thing: the circularity. Each settlement is a perfectly circular web of roads. And no matter the size of the village/town/city, they all take up the same space. It gets repetitive and boring very soon. Unfortunately, it looks that it's such a fundamental part of Toady's design that it's impossible to change. I suppose the circular web is the very building block of the new towns that can't be replaced.
Also I really hate all the random roads - there's way too many of them in the village parts of the map. But I've already rambled a lot about it (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg2167016#msg2167016) here so I won't repeat myself.
(EDIT: But looking at the older town pictures it seems Toady has reduces the number of roads a bit, so there's that.)
Someone already brought this up, but not all the roads are actually roads so much as they are borders separating the different plots of land.
Toady has also mentioned that he thinks the towns are too similar, but seems to be more focused on getting the framework working. He mentioned that eventually they will be other town types, but the reason these ones are circular is because they are based on Manors. The keyword Toady uses is framework, which means he's designing something that can deal with more than one way of doing things, so the spiral web shaped towns is not necessarily the only thing it is capable of. I assume it is just what Toady is using to test the framework.
Quote
The maps are also too similar to each other, without branching out into different styles of dividing up land, etc., and they don't really respect their own history or the elevation. The rivers still have exclusion zones (the blocky part). Later there will have to be river-oriented industries/etc. with associated stuffs. The main roads are also a bit ignored by people that should appreciate them. I suppose inns will help that. Overall, we aren't there yet, but these layouts here are likely to unchange for this release (aside from the village cleanup stuff, which'll be farmy and animalish), and I think this framework can accomodate future town updates for a while.
Ideally, towns will someday be able to have more variance, but until the framework is considered done it is probably best that it sticks with a simple pattern to start with (adding additional patterns can be rather easy (comparatively) with the proper foresight and design). It could be possible that one framework can handle the towns of all the civilizations through the use of proper design. Even then, the town framework probably wouldn't be complete until modders can define town creation patterns of their own (which is likely to be a loooong way off).
And even if the current framework is only capable of a circular pattern it will pave the way for a more robust framework in the future. Sometimes in programing, you have to program something that is good enough so you can see how it works. Then go back and program again once you know what you are doing. It is kind of like writing multiple drafts for a paper. You write the rough draft to get an idea of what you want to do. The rough draft can be used to see where the paper needs improvement as well as showing if more research on the topic needs to be done.
Even after this update towns are still going to get updates in the (relatively speaking) near future. Even after that other civs sites will get worked on during the Army Arc.
Er... that was a bit long wasn't it... TL;DR: Yes, Toady thinks the towns are to similar too, but currently it is good enough to expand upon, test out, and learn from.
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 01, 2011, 10:06:24 am
Most of what you think as roads in the pictures aren't roads, they are there just to divide the fields. It is obvious though that the same process to decide where the building will be constructed is used to divide the fields, but the end result is very good.
I'm pretty sure they are all roads. I guess you could say "nah, they're hedges" on maps like this one (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/w3town3.png), but when you look at, say, this town (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/w3town2.png) it's apparent those lines need to be roads so the farms can get to their homes. But so far we've only seen town maps. I'd love to see a proper village.
Toady, could we see a map of a village? I don't know if there's any strong distinction between towns and villages now, so take "village" as a settlement of ~100 people with no market.
And what happened to the old village maps we've had a couple of versions ago? I suppose the code was scrapped?
Thanks.
Post by: Rose on December 01, 2011, 10:20:35 am
Post by: Vertigon on December 01, 2011, 11:37:34 am
Post by: Untelligent on December 01, 2011, 05:44:00 pm
Post by: Neonivek on December 02, 2011, 12:05:15 pm
Then I smelled pig town
Post by: monk12 on December 03, 2011, 09:56:29 am
Quote from: Devlog
cleaned up an issue which made shop types change at random
Hooray!
Post by: penguify on December 03, 2011, 10:48:58 pm
Post by: Cruxador on December 03, 2011, 11:44:11 pm
Can working gloves and gauntlets be created by adventurer reactions yet? Will that be in this release?It isn't in the vanilla game. It might be possible to mod in, I don't know.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 04, 2011, 12:48:42 am
Quote from: devlog
12/03/2011: The first section of town issues from the B12 Report are done. Distribution of scarce items, handling gloves/shoes in cabinets properly, as well as a few different broken road issues, and what was hopefully the main cause of all those long-standing cave-in-on-embarks. Next up are all the market and shopping-related notes.
Oh damn, that would be a relief.
Post by: Putnam on December 04, 2011, 12:56:48 am
Can working gloves and gauntlets be created by adventurer reactions yet Will that be in this release?
Helped you there.
To answer the first question, you can make gloves, but they have no handedness and that can't be worn.
Post by: Jacob/Lee on December 04, 2011, 09:48:34 pm
Post by: NobodyPro on December 04, 2011, 11:02:42 pm
Can anyone give me a little lesson on how to link the Dwarf Fortress devlog to my Windows 7 RSS feed widget?As far as I know, it doesn't have an RSS feed. Keeps me on my toes.
Post by: Jacob/Lee on December 04, 2011, 11:08:43 pm
I swear I saw a Bay12er post their desktop with Dwarf Fortress RSS feeds on it.Can anyone give me a little lesson on how to link the Dwarf Fortress devlog to my Windows 7 RSS feed widget?As far as I know, it doesn't have an RSS feed. Keeps me on my toes.
Post by: monk12 on December 04, 2011, 11:13:18 pm
Post by: G-Flex on December 04, 2011, 11:13:27 pm
Can anyone give me a little lesson on how to link the Dwarf Fortress devlog to my Windows 7 RSS feed widget?As far as I know, it doesn't have an RSS feed. Keeps me on my toes.
You missed the giant "RSS Feed" link on the dev page.
http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_now.rss
Post by: Willfor on December 04, 2011, 11:31:51 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I've got to thank you Toady for keeping the rate of devlog postings consistent. I know I went into this pessimistically about the chances of it happening, and I am gratefully proven wrong.
Post by: monk12 on December 04, 2011, 11:39:29 pm
And yeah, I didn't expect to get this. It's pretty cool. Thanks, Toady!
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 05, 2011, 08:05:52 am
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 05, 2011, 09:19:13 am
I actually doubt it would be realistic for all those bones to become crafts. I mean, think about it. How many bone crafts does the world need? I suspect that you'd have legendary bone crafters in one or two cities, and their crafts are exported, but they would need a relatively limited number of bones to do that. Elsewhere, the bones'd just be buried.
Well actually... bones served a lot of other purposes over time. Some were fed to dogs, some were made into tools (like needles), and others into crafts. The problem is I think animals produce too many craft-able bones and not all the uses of bones are reflected in DF yet.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on December 05, 2011, 09:27:29 am
Post by: Greendogo on December 05, 2011, 09:58:13 am
Post by: Areyar on December 05, 2011, 10:22:22 am
Post by: Knight Otu on December 05, 2011, 10:37:02 am
Post by: Hectonkhyres on December 05, 2011, 11:36:47 am
Post by: Sizik on December 05, 2011, 12:32:50 pm
Post by: Greendogo on December 05, 2011, 12:43:51 pm
Post by: caknuck on December 05, 2011, 01:01:49 pm
Toady is already starting to model supply & demand in worldgen. He is just having balance issues related to bones (as a byproduct of slaughtering livestock) and bone crafts. We're offering options to help with the balancing.
Post by: Fieari on December 05, 2011, 01:17:15 pm
Post by: Greendogo on December 05, 2011, 01:41:07 pm
Bone char can be used to filter water and to whiten sugar at a refinery.
Bones can be used as fish hooks and all kinds of needles (knitting, sewing, awls for leatherwork).
They can be used to make buttons, or sent to a furnace to make calcium-phosphate ash which can be used to make bone china.
They can of course be used to make woodwind instruments like bone flutes, or even bone china instruments for the wealthy.
The bone meal though, that one is still probably your best bet for using large piles of bone for one purpose. As fertilizer.
Post by: Areyar on December 05, 2011, 01:46:04 pm
"Bone Folders" were used in book making and to mark fabric.those are pretty much 'crafts' or at least small/tiny items.
Bone char can be used to filter water and to whiten sugar at a refinery.
Bones can be used as fish hooks and all kinds of needles (knitting, sewing, awls for leatherwork).
They can be used to make buttons, or sent to a furnace to make calcium-phosphate ash which can be used to make bone china.
They can of course be used to make woodwind instruments like bone flutes, or even bone china instruments for the wealthy.
The bone meal though, that one is still probably your best bet for using large piles of bone for one purpose. As fertilizer.
Also: bonemeal: another reason to build querns. (i think milling it is weird somehow). It's also used in bonechina ceramic.
Post by: Greendogo on December 05, 2011, 01:55:08 pm
Post by: Justiceface on December 05, 2011, 04:14:12 pm
Quote
...and what was hopefully the main cause of all those long-standing cave-in-on-embarks.
I'd be interested to know what caused those. I've had a few, and they always startle me: I unpause the game and suddenly I see "A section of the cave has collapsed!" I blink at the computer and say, "I haven't even dug anything out yet!" :)
Post by: Hummingbird on December 05, 2011, 09:04:10 pm
Using the bones in villages as a major source of fertilizer for their crops (bone meal) would make a great way to decrease the number of idle bones filling up the town's stores.
I think bone meal already exists in the game, but as food for goblin civilizations.
Post by: monk12 on December 05, 2011, 09:07:53 pm
Using the bones in villages as a major source of fertilizer for their crops (bone meal) would make a great way to decrease the number of idle bones filling up the town's stores.
I think bone meal already exists in the game, but as food for goblin civilizations.
I don't know as goblins use it, but the wiki confirms its existence in game- currently it shows up in night creature lairs a lot.
Post by: hoveringdog on December 05, 2011, 10:48:49 pm
Post by: monk12 on December 05, 2011, 11:04:13 pm
Kind of an aside, but has anyone found evidence that bone meal was used as fertilizer in the middle ages? I would imagine it wasn't used before the eighteenth century at the earliest, when plant nutrition first began to be understood, but I'm far from sure about that. Ink was made from bone char, though, so there's that if book production ever becomes a reality. In any case, discarded animal bones are pretty ubiquitous in medieval archeological sites, which seems to indicate that supply far exceeded demand in reality too..
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_fertilizer), nobody tried it in England until the mid-1800's, and even then it was unsuccessful until later. That said, it's a pretty lean wiki article and is mostly focused on fertilizer as an industry, so it's hardly definitive.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 05, 2011, 11:09:02 pm
Quote from: devlog
Next up will be a series of market stall tweaks, then some adv trading interface stuff, then reenabling hunger (and thirst if I do wells and river tweaks).
Adv Mode is gonna be righteous.
Post by: monk12 on December 05, 2011, 11:27:11 pm
CAUTIONSAURUS LIVESQuote from: devlogNext up will be a series of market stall tweaks, then some adv trading interface stuff, then reenabling hunger (and thirst if I do wells and river tweaks).
Adv Mode is gonna be righteous.
Awesome. This has been a good day.
And I wondered what had happened to Cautionsaurus...
Post by: Dsarker on December 05, 2011, 11:27:43 pm
Cautionsaurus?
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 05, 2011, 11:30:24 pm
Having just taken a basic economics course, I'd suggest implementing a basic supply and demand economy (although, worldgen seems a bit lacking in the demand area at the moment).
That is one of the major goals of the current set of releases.
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 05, 2011, 11:54:17 pm
"Bone Folders" were used in book making and to mark fabric.Better use is as fuel. Many Stone Age sites in wood-poor regions show signs of bone being used as a substitute fuel. Even though there's not a working system for heating yet, allocating a demand in worldgen for bones to be burned for the purpose should be possible.
Bone char can be used to filter water and to whiten sugar at a refinery.
Bones can be used as fish hooks and all kinds of needles (knitting, sewing, awls for leatherwork).
They can be used to make buttons, or sent to a furnace to make calcium-phosphate ash which can be used to make bone china.
They can of course be used to make woodwind instruments like bone flutes, or even bone china instruments for the wealthy.
The bone meal though, that one is still probably your best bet for using large piles of bone for one purpose. As fertilizer.
Post by: darkflagrance on December 06, 2011, 01:02:43 am
Post by: Catastrophic lolcats on December 06, 2011, 08:02:33 am
Cautionsaurus?(http://bay12games.com/pointer.png)
Post by: CharlesPeter on December 06, 2011, 08:22:37 am
Cautionsaurus?(http://bay12games.com/pointer.png)
I saw the Cautionsaurus and immediately transferred money to my paypal to get ready for a christmas donation.
Also, can't wait for Adv mode. gunna spend whole days in some sewers.
Post by: zwei on December 06, 2011, 08:28:32 am
I think I'd just prefer any non-hackish solution to account for the bone crafts not replacing adventurer-related items; although to be fair, simply ranking adventurer related items as having higher priority in markets might not be so bad.
Bone armor pieces and bone bolts/crossbows seem like decent adventurer-related stuff...
Bone bolts could be consumed in world-gen as training material.
Post by: Rockphed on December 06, 2011, 12:34:06 pm
I think I'd just prefer any non-hackish solution to account for the bone crafts not replacing adventurer-related items; although to be fair, simply ranking adventurer related items as having higher priority in markets might not be so bad.
Bone armor pieces and bone bolts/crossbows seem like decent adventurer-related stuff...
Bone bolts could be consumed in world-gen as training material.
Or we could have the option of buying all those bone bolts in adventure mode. Or making them from the bones we get from butchering our kills. Then we would have a much easier time using crossbows in adventure mode.
Though I think the primary obstacle is that while in caves, or at night, we cannot see very far. So a bow is not very useful.
Post by: Caldfir on December 06, 2011, 02:14:37 pm
As many have mentioned, there are plenty of useful things that can be made from bones, but if we zoom out and look at the big picture, then a few releases from now, when there are dwarven worldgen settlements, they will undoubtedly do the same thing with the stone crafts. It may (eventually) spell the end to forts whose economic productivity is the equivalent of a macaroni-art factory. I would be in favor of dwarves being forced to export weapons and armor (or at least something useful), though I realize that's still a long way off.
Post by: tfaal on December 06, 2011, 02:53:41 pm
From the sounds of the devlog, it seems like there is already some kind of supply/demand worldgen activity, and that what's being worked on is tightening it up. Realistically, yeah, people need mugs, but I can imagine that in worldgen, unless production goes to 0, people are actively throwing crafts which have no use whatsoever, then you're going to end up with shops full of them.
As many have mentioned, there are plenty of useful things that can be made from bones, but if we zoom out and look at the big picture, then a few releases from now, when there are dwarven worldgen settlements, they will undoubtedly do the same thing with the bone crafts. It may (eventually) spell the end to forts whose economic productivity is the equivalent of a macaroni-art factory. I would be in favor of dwarves being forced to export weapons and armor (or at least something useful), though I realize that's still a long way off.
I hope it's not too far away. It's sort of necessity if trading is to lose its status as a win button.
Post by: metime00 on December 06, 2011, 03:48:03 pm
Post by: Hydrall on December 06, 2011, 04:48:21 pm
Post by: Dsarker on December 06, 2011, 04:51:01 pm
What's with the buildings that are filled with just tables? Are those shops or something?
Warehouses.
Post by: Glanzor on December 06, 2011, 05:38:55 pm
I waited so long for that ...
Post by: murlocdummy on December 06, 2011, 09:35:56 pm
Hmm a lot of "Toady needs to hire some people to do some of the work" suggestions lately.
To admit I always like seeing them. It tells me people think this game has serious potential.
Of course, best reply is "If Toady hires people, that means he needs to probably double his donations for every person he hires, plus all the other time wasting stuff that he needs to do to get them working properly, plus his donations have to be secure (i.e., making sure we have people definitely donating at least X amount per month and not Xx12 per year), and all that means the game will take longer to make, will be less efficient about the time (longer times per release, per bug fix, etc), and won't be as good."
Since my last post [1], I ended up writing another 15 pages of review for the game. None of which I will post here.
I kind of half-expected someone to make a post in that thread that said something along the lines of
"Look, asshole, this utility here <Insert.Link.Com> fixes all of your problems, now please shut the fuck up."
which would have probably prompted me to donate $50 to Toady right then and there for ever questioning him or the community.
I mostly expected my review to get picked apart to hell, like crows over an above-ground farm plot. Especially since I barely put in 40% of what I actually wanted to say. After which, I would be forced to go back into the thread and clarify my statements.
At the very least, I expected people to continue asking questions and continue the Noob Guide I left behind.
Frankly, I was quite surprised that none of that happened, and the conversation was simply shoved into a corner like the personal belongings of so many dwarves when you activate a water-based hall flooder.
I was somewhat surprised to find out, after lurking the forums for a bit, that those concerns that I brought up, as well as the ones that I didn't mention in my review were not only present in the thoughts of the community, but widespread.
With each post that I read, I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned at Toady and Dwarf Fortress in general. It seems that he's known about these problems for years, but hasn't done nearly enough to address them, and he knows that he hasn't done enough. He presses onward with new content without ever really fixing the problems in it, as noted by Miko19 [2]. Yes, he spends alot of time fixing bugs, but I'm sure that as most of the remaining users that haven't ragequitted will attest to, Toady seems to almost-but-not-quite fix the issues caused by the new features he implements. Out of the ungodly number of major problems in the game, I'll only note a few of the minor ones:
The military system is complete torture to manage. The PRI/Assignments doesn't even show you what the particular dwarf you've selected is actually wearing. You have to exit the menu, go into the Units menu, scroll through the non-alphabetized list and find the name of the dwarf you were just looking at two seconds ago, select them, then view their inventory. If the highlighted item in the PRI/Assignments list isn't in the dwarf's inventory yet, you THEN have to find out how to coerce the dwarf into acquiring the piece of equipment. Sometimes this means just waiting until they go to the requisite stockpile and pick up the item, but other times it means that the dwarf has put on their armor in the wrong order or has been determined by the hidden equipment algorithm that they've equipped too much equipment.
Nearly every single thing that you do in the game is a workaround of some sort. For example, in order to get your dwarves to reprioritize their activities and do something you want them to do, like feed a starving prisoner, or to stop stepping over the immobile and injured body of one of their comrades and take him to the hospital, you have to completely reassign practically every assignable parameter in order to make him stop being a narcissistic asshole and help his dying kinsman out. First, you have to pause the game and forbid whatever he's hauling, disable every single job he has except for Carry Wounded, assign him a burrow whose definition includes only the wounded dwarf and a direct pathway to the hospital, then after resuming the game, you'll have to ensure that the dwarf takes up the job of Carry Wounded. I have on more than one occasion had to have dwarves strip naked, have their pets killed, forbid and burrow OTHER dwarves, disassemble buildings, and do a whole host of other things just to get one dwarf to do a single task.
There is also the matter of not being able to play the game unless you've gotten at least a Master's degree in Dwarf Fortress. It also helps if you've got a minor in Accounting. No, that last part wasn't a joke. You really do fucking need a background in either accounting or at least a background in some office job in order to play the game efficiently [3]. I've increased my total efficiency by at least 20% by using Excel to organize my dwarves. That's not the efficiency change from just menu scrolling. That's my OVERALL efficiency, and that includes the time needed to make the spreadsheets. Generally speaking, if opening up MS Office and doing some paper-pushing and Excel spreadsheets enables you to SAVE time while playing a game, there's obviously something wrong with the game. If the game had a Multiplayer RTS mode, I'd probably win most of the battles due to my in-battle use of Excel spreadsheets. After about 50 dwarves, the game becomes little more than a menial, repetitive office job due to the extreme micromanagement you have to do just to keep your fortress running properly and smoothly. Of course, whenever I have the time, I love doing menial, repetitive office work in order to reach a goal. But then again, I'm probably a reclusive nutcase that gains an unusual amount enjoyment in doing menial, repetitive office work.
That isn't to say that the whole game is a clusterfuck. The game's great as great can be. The fact that the storyline is procedurally generated, as well as the entire backstory of your world is just jaw-droppingly awesome. What game developer wouldn't want to not have to hire a team of writers in order to make a decent storyline for their game? Any player could spend hours in the library without ever getting bored of the stories that were generated. They could also do the same by reading the information screens of each individual dwarf. The wholly procedural nature of Dwarf Fortress is one of the major reasons its fans love it so much. Having a new and fresh adventure every time you play and replay the game is the ultimate goal of most game makers, and this game has achieved that goal with flying colors.
The various intricacies of the game's mechanics are also something to be awed at. Each and every dwarf has enough skills and xp levels to make JC Denton look as customizable as the Fighter from Final Fantasy 1. Each dwarf's individual personality significantly affects what they will or will not do, and the various factors affecting how they go about doing it, a feat of coding that you'd expect to be available only for the main protagonists of Skyrim or some equally big-name RPG. The combat system even looks like it was originally made for Fallout 3, with each body part having its own health and status effects based on what kind of damage is done to it.
The economy of the game is definitely something worthy of praise. The complexity of coding the various workshops and how they interact with one another in a manner that seems to work, and work well, must have been daunting. Whenever I think about making a fort, it's always entertaining to plan out the various industries that you can engage in, and it's always nice to be able to make it work and become highly profitable simply due to good planning and foresight.
Unfortunately, with every reason for praise, there is reason for criticism.
After so many years of development, all of the three quarters-baked code and partially realized ideas have taken their toll on the game. There's so much there, and yet there is so much that isn't. I came to this game after a quest to find the ultimate game for me: RTS, RPG, management, intricate attention to gameplay elements, and maybe even a decent storyline on the side. My search will end here, but it's not done yet. The game's not done yet, and as I read these forums, it looks more and more like the game's not only not going to get finished, but it's not even going to feel like a finished product any time soon. And more disturbing yet, the more I read Toady's own posts, I'm not sure that the game will ever feel like a finished product.
If this game were a car, we'd be test driving it right now, and what we'd be test driving would be a pile of twisted and rusty scrap metal with three empty axles and one wheel sticking off the side. Of course, the thing would get 3L/100km, be able to turn 360 degrees in a 4m wide circle, reach a maximum speed of 350kmph, and would fly. IT WOULD FLY. WITH THE ONE WHEEL. Its control scheme and handling would consist of being able to only make left turns, the steering wheel being replaced with a series of buttons, levers, dials, switches, and every single non-steering wheel control you've ever seen in your life. In order to use the acceleration or brake, you'd have to activate the windshield wipers and radio in a precise manner, and to make it fly, you'd have to perform over 325 steps in an exact order. Most of of couldn't care less that the thing looks like a piece of shit. Alot of us, however, care about the fact that we have to listen to that piece of shit Mexican Salsa Gospel Choir Rap every time we want to make the thing go forward.
I want to say that I'm excited for the new version that will be coming out next year, but I have to be honest. I've seen what Toady's posted, heard the lastest DF Talk, and have experienced first hand his handiwork. It makes me worried. It makes me worried that he will give us the same thing that he's given this community for years. It makes me worried that he will give us what he's been giving us: hopes, dreams, promises, and unfortunately, crap. I don't actually think that the vampires, 3D, or battlefield combat will ever work right, at least not any time soon. The vampires will probably be bugged to hell, the 3D will undoubtedly lack the ability to either scroll or change your camera angle, and the battlefields will probably have the same tactical AI as regular squad orders, with your dwarves invariably breaking formation and doing such things as running in a completely out-of-formation manner towards the enemy, ignoring attack orders to pick up goods off the ground, or attempting to haul dead bodies and repeatedly cancelling the activity because somebody's stabbing them in the leg with a spear.
Toady's the rougelike player whose first course of action upon acquiring the ability to leave the starting town is to do everything EXCEPT follow the main storyline. Right now, he's level 48, slept in an Inn 9842 times, found half of the Secret Jewel Pieces, crafted 7 Secret Dungeon Keys, is on his way to the Forest of the End Times Secret Jewel Dungeon, and has yet to defeat the evil Bandit Mid-Boss that lit his house on fire in the opening FMV sequence at the beginning of the game. Also, his character's house is still on fire.
Toady seems to have made his dwarves in his own image. They don't do anything you tell them to, you have to jump through hoops in order to make them do anything, and they do whatever the hell they want to do most of the time, in spite of what they really should be doing. Toady's a Legendary +5 programmer, but he's just one man, with one agenda, and I don't think that that agenda involves making the game better any time soon. He's more interested in adding new content instead of making the game enjoyable, and I'm fairly sure that he knows exactly what he's doing to the game and to the community.
People have extreme trouble enjoying the game because of its obvious flaws, and that translates to extreme trouble getting donations. That's not to say that they don't. There are obviously plenty of users that enjoy the game and plenty of users that donate, but you have to look at the math. The most recent financial data Toady gave seems to indicate that his income is probably somewhere between 30000USD and 80000USD. It can be assumed that pretty much everyone on these forums are the remaining few, the boiled down, concentrated elite gamers that tend to stick with a game to see it through. We are the gamers that actually bother to finish games that require us to spend alot of time and energy on them, like Chrono Trigger, Fallout 2, Final Fantasy 7. The percentage of gamers that we make up is roughly 10%[4]. That means that 9 out of 10 users that play this game won't stick with it, and seeing how ridiculously difficult of a game Dwarf Fortress is to pick up, it can be safely assumed that they're the ones that absolutely won't donate. That means that if the game wasn't so damned hard to pick up and play, we could potentially get 10 times as many users, which would logically translate to an assload more donations (I would wager that that factor is at least between 3-5 due to various demographic factors). With that money, he could hire a programmer to work on the game for him and take a vacation, like Notch does.
Toady knows this. How could he not? He's a fucking math professor. He could probably calculate the probability of efficacy bell curve of my statement in his sleep. The only reason that I can think of as to why he doesn't spend the time and effort to get himself that cash is that he just doesn't care about the cash all that much, and as much as I REALLY don't want to admit this, a fact that I'd rather want to overlook, I feel that it's necessary to say that
I think he might feel the same way about us.
At least, to some SMALL extent, anyway. I'm sure he cares about us, at least somewhat, but it's obvious that he cares alot more about putting new features into his game than much else. He's probably taken the derivative of his Time Spent Programming vs. Enjoyment curve and found that he'll be happier with himself if he spends less time worrying about what the hell we common fans think and more time pumping out barely functional new features for his game.
I hope that Toady sees this. I hope that he reads this. I hope that he truly knows that his game could go far, if only he makes it right, and that he takes action to make the game as great as it could be.
Let {DF} be the idea of a great game satisfying these conditions:
1. Our Hopes
2. Our Ideals
3. Our Dreams
Then {DF} will converge into reality.
[1] http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=96173.195 (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=96173.195)
[2] http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=95698.0 (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=95698.0)
[3] http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=96173.msg2782761;topicseen#msg2782761 (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=96173.msg2782761;topicseen#msg2782761)
[4] http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/08/17/finishing.videogames.snow/ (http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/08/17/finishing.videogames.snow/)
Post by: Untelligent on December 06, 2011, 09:57:56 pm
Since my last post [1], I ended up writing another 15 pages of review for the game. None of which I will post here.
I kind of half-expected someone to make a post in that thread that said something along the lines of
"Look, asshole, this utility here <Insert.Link.Com> fixes all of your problems, now please shut the fuck up."
We're not the sort of community that goes around calling each other assholes.
Loved your post, though. The bugs and interface issues don't really bother me, but I can see why there's a good amount of people that wish Toady'd spend more time working on those.
Post by: monk12 on December 06, 2011, 10:00:16 pm
-rant-
Feel better?
If you want a finished game, come back in 2030- that's the optimistic estimate for when this game will be done. As you yourself noted, this isn't your baby- it's Toady's. He can do with it what he wants, he isn't trying to get rich. DF isn't our dreams, hopes or ideas- it is HIS. He can make this game the way he wants it to be made, and he's fortunate enough to be able to make a living at it. If you don't feel it deserves to be supported, then don't donate. Toady's never charged you a dime.
I could rant right back at you, but that's not what this space is for.
Re-enabling hunger oh yeah! I just got that much more excited for the next release. There is nothing like having to stock up on food before going down into a cave or dungeon, it just makes it that much cooler and more immersive :D
I never played a version of adventure mode with hunger in it- how much food do you need to eat, and how long does it sustain you? Anyone got input on this?
Post by: Ragnar_Deerslayer on December 06, 2011, 10:16:33 pm
If this game were a car, we'd be test driving it right now, and what we'd be test driving would be a pile of twisted and rusty scrap metal with three empty axles and one wheel sticking off the side. Of course, the thing would get 3L/100km, be able to turn 360 degrees in a 4m wide circle, reach a maximum speed of 350kmph, and would fly. IT WOULD FLY. WITH THE ONE WHEEL. Its control scheme and handling would consist of being able to only make left turns, the steering wheel being replaced with a series of buttons, levers, dials, switches, and every single non-steering wheel control you've ever seen in your life. In order to use the acceleration or brake, you'd have to activate the windshield wipers and radio in a precise manner, and to make it fly, you'd have to perform over 325 steps in an exact order. Most of of couldn't care less that the thing looks like a piece of shit. Alot of us, however, care about the fact that we have to listen to that piece of shit Mexican Salsa Gospel Choir Rap every time we want to make the thing go forward.
I hearby christen this the DWARFMOBILE. It's an mechanocentric image of the DWARF FORTRESS game (and community, if it has a driver).
I dare someone to draw it. Or better yet, request it as a Crayon Art Award.
Ragnar
Post by: Eктωρ on December 06, 2011, 10:23:16 pm
I've never seen anyone in this community who has trouble with the game for its "flaws" and seriously, Toady (to much of my respect), wouldn't give a rat's arse for the people who look at the game for two minutes, yell 'DIS IS TOO HAERD' and quit. Everybody here acknowledges this is incomplete, and we love it anyway. You've picked two slightly confuse mechanics of the game and made a storming fuzz about it. Wait until the army arc is even properly started, it's an incomplete game and you're whining about a part of it that has only placeholder'd in the best way possible. Also, if you have a spare dwarf for tending the prisoners, you wouldn't need a massive pile of "workarounds" to get him to do it.
He has multiple focuses, this is a very, very big game and he is NOT working on this right now. He's messing around with Adventure Mode and JUST LOOK THE THINGS HE PUT UP! Just look how the game has progressed since last version. Damn it.
Post by: G-Flex on December 06, 2011, 10:32:47 pm
Feel better?
If you want a finished game, come back in 2030- that's the optimistic estimate for when this game will be done. As you yourself noted, this isn't your baby- it's Toady's. He can do with it what he wants, he isn't trying to get rich. DF isn't our dreams, hopes or ideas- it is HIS. He can make this game the way he wants it to be made, and he's fortunate enough to be able to make a living at it. If you don't feel it deserves to be supported, then don't donate. Toady's never charged you a dime.
I feel like you're deflecting here. Yeah, Toady can do essentially whatever he wants with the game; that's totally his prerogative, and I think everyone here knows that. That doesn't mean people have to agree with how things are going, or that nobody can give useful advice.
I admit I've become a little disillusioned myself, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. I was a pretty staunch defender of the 0.31 content while it was in development, then I spent some time testing the new combat, tissues, and other things when it came out. Then I waited, and waited, and... there are still a whole slew of issues with those systems, to the point where the new level of detail is kind of wasted because it results in less realistic behavior (in some cases) than the old, abstracted-to-hell-and-back system. There are the makings of some great stuff there, but I wish some of the game's systems could see more care before more and more new content is added. The game is very detail oriented, but for that to work, the details have to be there and work right! You can really only wait so many months or years before you, say, give up on a bug report ever being acknowledged. When DF2010 (as it was called) came out, I planned to start playing the game seriously again when the kinks got worked out of the new systems. I don't know how long it's been since then, but... I'm still waiting. It just seems so contradictory for the game to have more complex systems to get better simulation results and to work toward the highly detail-oriented nature and appeal of the game, but for those systems to be quirky enough that those details and simulations don't really hold up to the kind of scrutiny that those detail-oriented fans would probably have toward the game in the first place. So, yeah, still waiting, just... not holding my breath quite as much.
Post by: monk12 on December 06, 2011, 10:41:20 pm
Feel better?
If you want a finished game, come back in 2030- that's the optimistic estimate for when this game will be done. As you yourself noted, this isn't your baby- it's Toady's. He can do with it what he wants, he isn't trying to get rich. DF isn't our dreams, hopes or ideas- it is HIS. He can make this game the way he wants it to be made, and he's fortunate enough to be able to make a living at it. If you don't feel it deserves to be supported, then don't donate. Toady's never charged you a dime.
I feel like you're deflecting here. Yeah, Toady can do essentially whatever he wants with the game; that's totally his prerogative, and I think everyone here knows that. That doesn't mean people have to agree with how things are going, or that nobody can give useful advice.
I agree- I'm deflecting. I also agree that people don't have to agree, or that they can't give useful advice (that's why we have a Suggestions Forum, after all.) I just don't think derailing this thread is the appropriate way to have this discussion, especially in the manner he's chosen to introduce the topic. If he feels like snipping that wall 'o text and moving it to a new thread, then I'll happily give my thoughts on the matter there.
This would also why I attempted to rerail the conversation- who here's played adventure mode with hunger enabled? Lord knows I'll be spending plenty of time in Adventure mode, come the update, so I'd like to have an idea of how many elk I need to butcher before having some extended sewer exploration :P
Post by: MrWiggles on December 06, 2011, 10:43:09 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 06, 2011, 11:22:44 pm
Generally speaking, if opening up MS Office and doing some paper-pushing and Excel spreadsheets enables you to SAVE time while playing a game, there's obviously something wrong with the game.
...
I beg to differ on that one. There are plenty games (RPGs, TCGs, Simulations) where opening up a spreadsheet can be a valid tool. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the game. Back in the day, it was easier to whip out a piece of paper and draw the map for the game yourself as you explored before automapping became mainstream. Does that mean there was something wrong with those old games?
The real problem here... is why would you WANT to operate your fortress that efficiently? I mean, I honestly can't see a reason for that... if your going through that much trouble it ceases to be a game and becomes a chore. This is a game, you can just relax and have fun. The biggest amount of effort I've put into a fort has been giving my dwarves names based on the Crayola Crayons.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 07, 2011, 12:06:27 am
I've never seen anyone in this community who has trouble with the game for its "flaws"
Present!
and seriously, Toady (to much of my respect), wouldn't give a rat's arse for the people who look at the game for two minutes, yell 'DIS IS TOO HAERD' and quit.
You're wrong -- he and ThreeToe have expressed concern about the game's inaccessibility:
More specifically, what problems did you have before learning the ropes of the game? We figure we are losing 90% of the players because of the UI and other barriers, and that doesn’t even count the ones scared away by the ASCII graphics. Now, this doesn’t mean we are about abandon the rest of the game to start the presentation arc. It is just as important to have endless monster attacks from the underground, and challenging sieges.
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen? Or maybe its finding the right tile sets and setting them up. We are hoping at some point to build easier commands and tutorials to help bring in more players. We have to identify the main culprits first. So what is frustrating you the most about Dwarf Fortress?
Post by: Kogut on December 07, 2011, 12:14:52 am
-rant-
tl;dr (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3Bdr)
Default answer: yes, there are many bugs - in effect disabling/breaking about half of features, game is slooooooooooow - but nobody forces you to use it. And even with its flaws DF is one of the best games ever.
Post by: monk12 on December 07, 2011, 12:19:21 am
I've never seen anyone in this community who has trouble with the game for its "flaws"
Present!and seriously, Toady (to much of my respect), wouldn't give a rat's arse for the people who look at the game for two minutes, yell 'DIS IS TOO HAERD' and quit.
You're wrong -- he and ThreeToe have expressed concern about the game's inaccessibility:More specifically, what problems did you have before learning the ropes of the game? We figure we are losing 90% of the players because of the UI and other barriers, and that doesn’t even count the ones scared away by the ASCII graphics. Now, this doesn’t mean we are about abandon the rest of the game to start the presentation arc. It is just as important to have endless monster attacks from the underground, and challenging sieges.
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen? Or maybe its finding the right tile sets and setting them up. We are hoping at some point to build easier commands and tutorials to help bring in more players. We have to identify the main culprits first. So what is frustrating you the most about Dwarf Fortress?
See, that's the thread the rant should be in, not here.
Post by: irdsm on December 07, 2011, 01:05:36 am
Post by: Caldfir on December 07, 2011, 02:01:21 am
-rant-This has all been said before, and just as before, the majority of the community rushes to defend Toady. This is an old song-and-dance. This isn't really a video game, this is one man's insane project.
I for one am just along for the ride, content to watch a madman at work.
Post by: thvaz on December 07, 2011, 02:29:11 am
Post by: Cruxador on December 07, 2011, 02:32:30 am
Post by: zwei on December 07, 2011, 03:31:42 am
First, game is not that hard. It is complicated, but solid 30 minute tutorial can easily get pretty much everyone up to speed because there are many things you can easily ignore and never, ever touch, many things that are semi-optional until you reach "expert" gameplay level and only few core things you absolutelly have to take care of.
Seccond, spreadsheeting is sign that You take it too seriously. I feel it is not that similar to raiders in wow who insist that you have to play perfectly and to do so, you have to maintain your equipment/talent/biorhytmn spreadsheed with calculations which tells you optimal times to poop in your sock. You can just assign jobs semi-randomly and it will work out just fine.
Your issues stem from wating to have perfect gameplay in unifinished game - which is impossible.
I do agree with bugs, interface and incompleteness, but everyone else does as well and only discussion is about priority of that versus adding new features.
Post by: Knight Otu on December 07, 2011, 06:53:54 am
What's with the buildings that are filled with just tables? Are those shops or something?They're just empty shops that'll presumably be filled in the release.
Warehouses.No, the warehouses are the large dark-gray buildings (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=87111.msg2368114#msg2368114) on the overview maps. There were no warehouses in the latest tile-level image.
Post by: huhu on December 07, 2011, 10:26:45 am
I would like to point out that the next release won't change radically the game (as it was the case when the Z-level got implemented or when DF2010 came out with its body system and materials changes). The single really complex feature will be the new cities. Everything else is bells and whistles. The new version won't break the game as those other did.
The economy system has already showed some emergent hilarities as seen in the recent devlog entries. I suspect we haven't seen even the tip of the iceberg on that front, yet.
Post by: hermes on December 07, 2011, 10:39:58 am
The economy system has already showed some emergent hilarities as seen in the recent devlog entries. I suspect we haven't seen even the tip of the iceberg on that front, yet.
Yes, with this release I'd also assume that the majority of the world-gen economy must be "up and running" so to speak. I'm curious as to what Toady's approach to the world economy design has been, with an eye on later releases... Will the economy be "grounded" in the world-gen scale, where gross supply/demand is balanced and then individual producers take their cues from those global values, or will you try to balance it from the bottom up, where producers make as much as they want/can per their situation and personality, and let them react to market forces as they emerge?
Post by: murlocdummy on December 07, 2011, 12:34:28 pm
Feel better?
If you want a finished game, come back in 2030- that's the optimistic estimate for when this game will be done. As you yourself noted, this isn't your baby- it's Toady's. He can do with it what he wants, he isn't trying to get rich. DF isn't our dreams, hopes or ideas- it is HIS. He can make this game the way he wants it to be made, and he's fortunate enough to be able to make a living at it. If you don't feel it deserves to be supported, then don't donate. Toady's never charged you a dime.
I feel like you're deflecting here. Yeah, Toady can do essentially whatever he wants with the game; that's totally his prerogative, and I think everyone here knows that. That doesn't mean people have to agree with how things are going, or that nobody can give useful advice.
I agree- I'm deflecting. I also agree that people don't have to agree, or that they can't give useful advice (that's why we have a Suggestions Forum, after all.) I just don't think derailing this thread is the appropriate way to have this discussion, especially in the manner he's chosen to introduce the topic. If he feels like snipping that wall 'o text and moving it to a new thread, then I'll happily give my thoughts on the matter there.
This would also why I attempted to rerail the conversation- who here's played adventure mode with hunger enabled? Lord knows I'll be spending plenty of time in Adventure mode, come the update, so I'd like to have an idea of how many elk I need to butcher before having some extended sewer exploration :P
I'm starting to feel worse, actually. I'm not even sure that we've got the whole 10% here on the forums. Maybe 8% at most. I'm sure that more than 80% of DF users on this forum are part of the Cult of Toady and will flat-out dismiss anything and everything I have to say, but to the remainder, I don't feel that the new warehouse and shop systems are going to work, and I'd probably be right. Looking at Toady's track record, you could probably even make educated guesses about what won't work. By 2030, I expect the game to get worse, not better, but its inherent popularity due to the game that it -could be- will undoubtedly keep the donations flowing.
I think we should start up a betting pool (Using non-real money, of course) to bet what isn't going to work in the next update.
I'm going to put 5☼ on lumps of stones being edible in Adventure.
Post by: huhu on December 07, 2011, 12:45:12 pm
I'm sure that more than 80% of DF users on this forum are part of the Cult of Toady and will flat-out dismiss anything and everything I have to say
Over the years, I've acknowledged every point you made so far about the failings of DF. There are some things that annoy me in the game that I didn't see you mention yet. I just feel that the positives outweigh the negatives, which is just a personal opinion. I'd say those "80% of the DF users on this forum" you mentioned belong to that category instead.
Post by: murlocdummy on December 07, 2011, 01:16:58 pm
I'm sure that more than 80% of DF users on this forum are part of the Cult of Toady and will flat-out dismiss anything and everything I have to say
Over the years, I've acknowledged every point you made so far about the failings of DF. There are some things that annoy me in the game that I didn't see you mention yet. I just feel that the positives outweigh the negatives, which is just a personal opinion. I'd say those "80% of the DF users on this forum" you mentioned belong to that category instead.
I may feel the same way, but that feeling only applies to the beginning portions of Embark and up to 50 dwarves. After that point, the Excel spreadsheets start to save time and enable you to progress through the game faster, and it makes me die a little on the inside that Toady would allow such a thing to happen.
Also, 15☼ on at least 3 shops not calculating item values correctly and giving you wrong prices for things
20☼ on at least 2 shops either taking your money without giving you the items you selected to buy, or giving you money without taking the items you selected to sell
Post by: thvaz on December 07, 2011, 02:16:08 pm
I would like to point out that the next release won't change radically the game (as it was the case when the Z-level got implemented or when DF2010 came out with its body system and materials changes). The single really complex feature will be the new cities. Everything else is bells and whistles. The new version won't break the game as those other did.
The economy system has already showed some emergent hilarities as seen in the recent devlog entries. I suspect we haven't seen even the tip of the iceberg on that front, yet.
The economy system has been worked over a few releases already. One of the "bugs" we already have about the economy system is the one that causes entire civilizations to die of famine. So I still stand that nothing radical was changed for the new release, so it won't be broken as bad as 31.01 was.
Post by: Shinotsa on December 07, 2011, 02:18:40 pm
I may feel the same way, but that feeling only applies to the beginning portions of Embark and up to 50 dwarves. After that point, the Excel spreadsheets start to save time and enable you to progress through the game faster, and it makes me die a little on the inside that Toady would allow such a thing to happen.
Also, 15☼ on at least 3 shops not calculating item values correctly and giving you wrong prices for things
20☼ on at least 2 shops either taking your money without giving you the items you selected to buy, or giving you money without taking the items you selected to sell
Please be pessimistic in another thread or at least ask a question. The players who are bothered by inaccessibility either tough it out or download something such as dwarf therapist which is basically what you've been complaining the game lacks when it comes to job assignments. Right now you're arguing that the basic ball and stick sketch that artists do before drawing people should be scrapped in favor of an immediately finished product. It simply doesn't work that way. You lay down a framework and flesh it out lightly. If a line is broken, smudged, or too light you don't go back and change it, you simply continue fleshing it out until the framework supports a greater picture that you then scrutinize and perfect. Sure if you drew the legs in an awkward position you'd change that, but anything more than fixing what is necessary for the next steps and adding new detail and features to the pre-existing framework would be a waste of time since, as has been stated many times, it would be replaced later on. And let's not start with the ad hominem, just because we're mostly fans of Toady doesn't mean we're cultists supporting the game without reason.
/derail
Anyhow, I saw someone's question about old adventure mode thirst/hunger get blocked out before. Does anyone know how food and drink were handled in the older versions? I know any liquid was drinkable which made dehydration almost impossible, but how often did eating/drinking have to occur? Was it a 3 squares kind of thing, a once a day kind of thing, or was it less often?
Post by: Dsarker on December 07, 2011, 03:04:54 pm
'Damnit, nearly run out of food...I feel uneasy. Hmmm, well, time to wait for my next food supply'
Post by: thvaz on December 07, 2011, 03:23:56 pm
And you could fast travel without worrying about food or water.
Post by: G-Flex on December 07, 2011, 03:36:17 pm
Right now you're arguing that the basic ball and stick sketch that artists do before drawing people should be scrapped in favor of an immediately finished product. It simply doesn't work that way. You lay down a framework and flesh it out lightly.
A lot of people have been making counterarguments like this, to the effect of "of course it has flaws; it's not nearly complete yet". In some ways, this holds water, but it's not a relevant argument if what people are criticizing is the development process itself, such as the order in which things are done, or their priority, or other aspects of the process. I just felt this might be worth mentioning.
Post by: Shinotsa on December 07, 2011, 03:47:48 pm
Anyway, I'm pretty excited for the eating/drinking thing to be done. The "uneasiness" message makes me feel a little better now that I remember that my adventurer would routinely be set upon by easy to dispatch animals made of millions upon millions of sweet, succulent parts. And I suppose drinking blood really might be viable since, if I remember in Life of Pi, he survived at sea by drinking sea turtle blood. Granted I'm not really sure if that was unique of sea turtles or something, it's a little macabre for me seeing as how I have a whole host of similar little buggers at home. I'm just worried that I'll be stuck in a group of dead goblins, starving, wishing my ethics were a little different.
Post by: MaskedMiner on December 07, 2011, 03:48:24 pm
Seriously, never argue with argument "Obviously you are biased, so your word can't be trusted!" Always counter the argument itself, if argument is bad then it can always be argued against.
Besides, doesn't this seem to be opinion thing anyway? I mean, if the "Cultists of Toady" don't mind the whole Alpha thing, then why can't we like it? If you don't like it, there is no need for you to try to stop us liking it xD
Post by: irmo on December 07, 2011, 03:54:23 pm
He has multiple focuses, this is a very, very big game and he is NOT working on this right now. He's messing around with Adventure Mode and JUST LOOK THE THINGS HE PUT UP! Just look how the game has progressed since last version. Damn it.
The game has progressed not at all, because there hasn't been a release.
"Real artists ship."
-- Steve Jobs
Post by: thvaz on December 07, 2011, 04:45:04 pm
When someone thinks he has the right to complain, the trolls soon follow in his track.
Post by: murlocdummy on December 07, 2011, 05:51:30 pm
I'm pretty sure that even when the sewer system is released, it will only be half-finished, with each town having a completely non-functioning sewer system that's almost completely incapable of being explored by your adventurer, and by that time, Toady will already be working on warships to be released sometime in 2015.
Post by: Caldfir on December 07, 2011, 06:14:00 pm
Post by: irmo on December 07, 2011, 06:15:24 pm
I find it annoying how he seems to think that we are just fanboys so arguing with us is useless.
Do not feed the troll guys!
When someone thinks he has the right to complain, the trolls soon follow in his track.
Post by: Dsarker on December 07, 2011, 06:26:27 pm
I don't think it is fair to look at it that way. The first month or two after an update release is always when the majority of bugs get found and corrected. Even Skyrim, a multi-million dollar undertaking, has had 3 patches since its release a month ago. People will find problems, most of the things that aren't placeholders will get fixed up enough to be playable, and we'll have another stable release for a while. I am not really certain what else could be expected.
Well, it's easy, isn't it? The game should be complete! After all, murlocdummy made a game in Flash, and that didn't take a year to do.
Post by: murlocdummy on December 07, 2011, 07:13:48 pm
I don't think it is fair to look at it that way. The first month or two after an update release is always when the majority of bugs get found and corrected. Even Skyrim, a multi-million dollar undertaking, has had 3 patches since its release a month ago. People will find problems, most of the things that aren't placeholders will get fixed up enough to be playable, and we'll have another stable release for a while. I am not really certain what else could be expected.
Well, it's easy, isn't it? The game should be complete! After all, murlocdummy made a game in Flash, and that didn't take a year to do.
Did I ever hint at the idea of going back and fixing bugs was easy? Of course not, nor did I ever try and make the case that the game should be totally complete. I'm just saying that the game should be functional and entertaining, at least to a minimum degree. The easy part is half-baking something, letting people have it, then forgetting about it and moving on. The hard part is half-baking something, then going back over and baking it completely.
I'm not asking even that much out of Toady. I just want him to put some cinnamon on that half-baked idea that he's giving us so it stops tasting like raw egg slime and dried batter clumps. I'd like to see vampires, mummies, and war with other civilizations, but I don't want to get vampires that come out of specifically mummy-defined sarcophaguses, mummies sucking blood, or civilization wars that involve you having to micromanage your entire army just so that they don't starve to death in the middle of battle, dropping 45 food items all over their dead bodies, and causing the enemy to stop attacking you so that they can pick up the loot.
Is it so much to ask that Toady make it look like he's giving a minimal level of care for his work in his work? He really needs to hire another programmer to help him out. Maybe an intern or something. I like how he's taken it upon himself to make DF his life's work and wants the donation rewards to make it seem like he's giving a personal gift to his contributors, but the real thank you gift that he can make is to make the game properly palatable to its users.
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 07, 2011, 07:27:25 pm
Also, trying to guess upcoming bugs is pointless. You're forgetting that the game's main issue aren't bugs but user-unfriendliness - interface, micromanagement, tedium etc. You got it right in your rant, don't get sidetracked by bugs.
Post by: Eктωρ on December 07, 2011, 07:28:47 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on December 07, 2011, 07:31:23 pm
His continued steady stream of donations, suggest that the game is palatable to its users. Its ongoing progress, steady userbase, and exposure also suggest, that for an game, thats you say, is in an unplayable state, is played a quite a fair bit.I don't think it is fair to look at it that way. The first month or two after an update release is always when the majority of bugs get found and corrected. Even Skyrim, a multi-million dollar undertaking, has had 3 patches since its release a month ago. People will find problems, most of the things that aren't placeholders will get fixed up enough to be playable, and we'll have another stable release for a while. I am not really certain what else could be expected.
Well, it's easy, isn't it? The game should be complete! After all, murlocdummy made a game in Flash, and that didn't take a year to do.
Did I ever hint at the idea of going back and fixing bugs was easy? Of course not, nor did I ever try and make the case that the game should be totally complete. I'm just saying that the game should be functional and entertaining, at least to a minimum degree. The easy part is half-baking something, letting people have it, then forgetting about it and moving on. The hard part is half-baking something, then going back over and baking it completely.
I'm not asking even that much out of Toady. I just want him to put some cinnamon on that half-baked idea that he's giving us so it stops tasting like raw egg slime and dried batter clumps. I'd like to see vampires, mummies, and war with other civilizations, but I don't want to get vampires that come out of specifically mummy-defined sarcophaguses, mummies sucking blood, or civilization wars that involve you having to micromanage your entire army just so that they don't starve to death in the middle of battle, dropping 45 food items all over their dead bodies, and causing the enemy to stop attacking you so that they can pick up the loot.
Is it so much to ask that Toady make it look like he's giving a minimal level of care for his work in his work? I like how he's taken it upon himself to make DF his life's work and wants the donation rewards to make it seem like he's giving a personal gift to his contributors, but the real thank you gift that he can make is to make the game properly palatable to its users.
Part of the reason why this release took longer, was for the so called, cinnamon, is being added to the release. The expansion of the night creatures, sewers, crypts, mummies ect, is to make the new towns/cities, actually be worth something. From the Dev Log, it appears that the towns, without such side tracking, would have been pretty empty and boring, and probably would have undermined the release entirely.
ToadyOne does do bug fixes. About half the releases so far for DF, are just bug fixes, and all the release, minus the first one, contain bug fixes.
With as much activity as the forum has, with its steady stream of new users coming on here, with community forts games still happening, ect, that the game is fun and entertaining.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 07, 2011, 10:47:51 pm
The bugfixes that Toady usually spends time with are the ones that interact with his own portion of the game, like ore placement, fluid connection algorithms, and stuff that's almost entirely under the hood. The fact that we fans see any of that is undoubtedly by pure coincidence.
Welp, this is where you segued from pessimism into being blatantly wrong.
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 07, 2011, 11:10:26 pm
Quote
Well, I would have gotten to the trading interface, but a bridge opened a hole to the underworld instead. Again.
ROFL. Bridges... either they are harboring trolls or opening holes to the underworld... you just can't trust them.
Post by: G-Flex on December 07, 2011, 11:11:28 pm
Post by: Kogut on December 07, 2011, 11:58:44 pm
Yeah, in my experience Toady works on the bugs that people bug him about most frequently and that are most apparent. I think.I decided to check this (poll).
BTW, as the thread is derailed: Thanks for bugfixes! And working on interface (the best feature in planned version is reworking "cannot follow orders").
Post by: Cruxador on December 08, 2011, 12:57:23 am
That's not a question.Yeah, in my experience Toady works on the bugs that people bug him about most frequently and that are most apparent. I think.I decided to check this (poll).
BTW, as the thread is derailed: Thanks for bugfixes! And working on interface (the best feature in planned version is reworking "cannot follow orders").
Post by: Rockphed on December 08, 2011, 02:23:55 am
Post by: G-Flex on December 08, 2011, 03:21:28 am
Yeah, in my experience Toady works on the bugs that people bug him about most frequently and that are most apparent. I think.I decided to check this (poll).
Er, what poll?
Post by: hermes on December 08, 2011, 03:41:47 am
Quote
I want to clump similar stores a bit before I get along to the trading interface stuff, and I should get to all of that tonight.
Quote
Well, I would have gotten to the trading interface...
Oh man, this happens to me *all* the time programming. It's got to the point where if I reckon I'll be able to finish the most trivial of trivial features tonight, I know I can immediately scrap that estimate and pencil completion in for sometime next week. Though in my case it is certainly due to a lack of skill, I am heartened to hear it even happens to a great programmer like Toady.
Also, would like to echo the anticipation for thirst and hunger, the new adventure mode is going to be a whole new game. I remember the combat changes from last year spicing things up, but now I feel there is a substantial framework falling into place for some really great adventures.
Post by: Chthonic on December 08, 2011, 09:26:56 am
You are re-enabling thirst with dungeon and sewer exploration in mind. Does this mean that we should be packing full waterskins--i.e., are there going to be hazards (contaminants, diseases, etc.) inherent in drinking sewer water as we find it on the floor or in channels?
Post by: Serrational on December 08, 2011, 10:27:29 am
Okay. Bear with me. This is gross.
You are re-enabling thirst with dungeon and sewer exploration in mind. Does this mean that we should be packing full waterskins--i.e., are there going to be hazards (contaminants, diseases, etc.) inherent in drinking sewer water as we find it on the floor or in channels?
Speaking of which...... Will drinking vomit and blood as a staple be subject to horrific illnesses?
Post by: Areyar on December 08, 2011, 10:44:30 am
Code: [Select]
*Your belly hurts*
*You vomit on your feet*
I: vomit -It has sunberries!
East, East, North.
*You...*
*... it is now dark.*
* It appears you passed out. *
* You are surrounded by Bogeymen. *[/color]
Post by: Knight Otu on December 08, 2011, 10:50:25 am
Post by: zwei on December 08, 2011, 10:51:46 am
I wonder what the player will notice of the adventurer being ill? . . .Code: [Select]*Your belly hurts*[/color]
*You vomit on your feet*
I: vomit -It has sunberries!
East, East, North.
*You...*
*... it is now dark.*
* It appears you passed out. *
* You are surrounded by Bogeymen. *
I hope this will be accompanied by detailed status report on each body part:
Your left hand itches a little.
You have small trouble focusing your eyes in bright sunlight.
Your right left tooh feels uncomfortable.
Player: OMG, I have malaria! And scurvy! And heart disease!
... Yay for hypochondria.
Post by: Kogut on December 08, 2011, 11:18:31 am
This: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=94802.0 (there is a link in my signature).Yeah, in my experience Toady works on the bugs that people bug him about most frequently and that are most apparent. I think.I decided to check this (poll).
Er, what poll?
Post by: Serrational on December 08, 2011, 01:33:03 pm
Actually, that takes horror to a new level. Damn my dorfy mind...
Post by: Cruxador on December 08, 2011, 04:32:21 pm
Post by: Caldfir on December 08, 2011, 08:26:55 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 08, 2011, 08:35:23 pm
Do we have ingested poisons yet? It has come up a few times before but as I recall you cannot be poisoned by eating things at this time.
Ingested interactions (ie vampire blood) seems to imply syndromes can now be ingested as well.
Post by: Caldfir on December 09, 2011, 04:09:58 am
Speaking of which...... Will drinking vomit and blood as a staple be subject to horrific illnesses?
Do we have ingested poisons yet? It has come up a few times before but as I recall you cannot be poisoned by eating things at this time.
Ingested interactions (ie vampire blood) seems to imply syndromes can now be ingested as well.
Hmm, well then, it would be pretty easy to make drinking vomit/grime/etc cause illness. If it doesn't go in vanilla, then I'm sure it will get modded in within a week of release.
Post by: Knight Otu on December 09, 2011, 08:04:59 am
Ingested interactions (ie vampire blood) seems to imply syndromes can now be ingested as well.
It's confirmed that ingested syndromes will be possible in the next version, specifically for vampire blood - the interaction framework is essentially an expansion of the syndrome framework in that regard.
Post by: zwei on December 09, 2011, 09:07:56 am
Speaking of which...... Will drinking vomit and blood as a staple be subject to horrific illnesses?Do we have ingested poisons yet? It has come up a few times before but as I recall you cannot be poisoned by eating things at this time.Ingested interactions (ie vampire blood) seems to imply syndromes can now be ingested as well.
Hmm, well then, it would be pretty easy to make drinking vomit/grime/etc cause illness. If it doesn't go in vanilla, then I'm sure it will get modded in within a week of release.
I am not sure if modding blood to be "poison" is such a good idea...
Post by: CharlesPeter on December 09, 2011, 11:05:32 am
Speaking of which...... Will drinking vomit and blood as a staple be subject to horrific illnesses?Do we have ingested poisons yet? It has come up a few times before but as I recall you cannot be poisoned by eating things at this time.Ingested interactions (ie vampire blood) seems to imply syndromes can now be ingested as well.
Hmm, well then, it would be pretty easy to make drinking vomit/grime/etc cause illness. If it doesn't go in vanilla, then I'm sure it will get modded in within a week of release.
I am not sure if modding blood to be "poison" is such a good idea...
I think it's the BEST idea. poison only works when ingested, whereas venom only works when introduced into the bloodstream. so it'd be okay to mod it to be blood, since it wouldn't do anything til they drank it. I don't know how that would work in the game, but it makes me excited.
Post by: Funk on December 09, 2011, 01:51:25 pm
this will add AIDs to DF.
Post by: G-Flex on December 09, 2011, 01:57:14 pm
if blood is going to be a poison make it so that only other peoples blood can make you ill.
this will add AIDs to DF.
Classy. Classy as hell.
Post by: murlocdummy on December 09, 2011, 01:59:04 pm
I am not sure if modding blood to be "poison" is such a good idea...
Frankly, I don't see how drinking blood shouldn't poison you. It's poisonous in real life due to it rotting extremely quickly. Then again, it would probably have to give you an infection after sitting for more than a few minutes or so to be completely realistic, or have to have some sort of "preservative" item added to food to prevent it from rotting.
murlocdummy, you should really move this discussion to this thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=34311.0). That's where it belongs, people won't complain about you posting there.
Also, trying to guess upcoming bugs is pointless. You're forgetting that the game's main issue aren't bugs but user-unfriendliness - interface, micromanagement, tedium etc. You got it right in your rant, don't get sidetracked by bugs.
Jiri, I just think that a thread titled "Future of the Fortress" ought to be more than just a place to put all of your "OMG, I'm so excited for new releases!" posts. Also, I'm sorry that this post is so brief and not well thought-out. I'll endeavor to make future posts more comprehensive.
BTW, what's Toady's policy for donation refunds? I've tried looking around the forums for mention of it, but it doesn't seem like it's ever come up.
Post by: Areyar on December 09, 2011, 02:22:16 pm
Quote
BTW, what's Toady's policy for donation refunds? I've tried looking around the forums for mention of it, but it doesn't seem like it's ever come up.
Just send him an e-mail explaining your problem and I'm sure Toady will be reasonable.
I did something wrong myself with my first donation (donated Euros iso USD or something), as I was laid off and destitute at the time I was highly appreciative of DF distracting me but one still has to eat as well... Toady sent me half the credits back. :)
Keep in mind that Paypal charges Tarn for every transaction. (IIRC 3% +20cts)
----
Also ALL nutricious fluids need to be sweetened, salted, boiled, fermented, etc. or they will spoil very quickly, not just blood.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 09, 2011, 02:26:31 pm
BTW, what's Toady's policy for donation refunds? I've tried looking around the forums for mention of it, but it doesn't seem like it's ever come up.
PM (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=2) or email (http://toadyone@bay12games.com) Toady about it.
Post by: irmo on December 09, 2011, 03:14:01 pm
Classy. Classy as hell.
I'm waiting for someone to declare simulated AIDS to be "dwarfy".
Post by: thvaz on December 09, 2011, 03:17:06 pm
Quote
I think we should start up a betting pool (Using non-real money, of course) to bet what isn't going to work in the next update.I'm going to put 5☼ on lumps of stones being edible in Adventure.
Quote
Also, 15☼ on at least 3 shops not calculating item values correctly and giving you wrong prices for things
20☼ on at least 2 shops either taking your money without giving you the items you selected to buy, or giving you money without taking the items you selected to sell
Quote
I'm pretty sure that even when the sewer system is released, it will only be half-finished, with each town having a completely non-functioning sewer system that's almost completely incapable of being explored by your adventurer, and by that time, Toady will already be working on warships to be released sometime in 2015.
Quote
I'd like to see vampires, mummies, and war with other civilizations, but I don't want to get vampires that come out of specifically mummy-defined sarcophaguses, mummies sucking blood, or civilization wars that involve you having to micromanage your entire army just so that they don't starve to death in the middle of battle, dropping 45 food items all over their dead bodies, and causing the enemy to stop attacking you so that they can pick up the loot.
Each of these quotes is from a different post by murlocdmmy disdaining Toady's work by guessing ridiculous problems the next release may have. He tries do disarm people by calling us all fanboys. And no one point how ridicuous he is in doing so.
I'm disgusted at this forum. Really disgusted. I'm going to be banned by Toady but I will continue to support and play the game.
Trying to reasoning with a troll like him is impossible, so, murlocdummy, get a life. Also, fuck you.
Post by: G-Flex on December 09, 2011, 03:19:39 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 09, 2011, 03:34:49 pm
Asking for a refund on a donation is... I don't know. I'm kind of paralyzed by the audacity of that!
He may have a good reason for it. Unless he wants the donation back simply because he isn't satisfied with the game no more... in which case I'd have to wonder if he does the same thing to the Salvation Army Santa Clauses.
Him: "Here's 5 bucks."
Santa: "Thank you, this will go to helping others."
Him: "Wait, you mean I don't get anything out of it? Give it back!"
That aside, I wonder what the improvements to the adventure trading screen will be...
I mean, I never really did any trading in adventure mode... I always just salvaged stuff from lairs and camps. Then I'd die in the process.
I imagine though with the new cities, tombs, dungeons, and catacombs I'll probably spend a good bit in adventure mode this time. Though I am also looking forward to the dwarf mode stuff, like historical migrants and the better unit screen. Then there's the stuff that affects both modes, vampires, were-creatures, and necromancers. It may not change the game drastically, but there is certainly going to be enough to keep me busy for while.
Post by: Dakk on December 09, 2011, 04:00:24 pm
Post by: Dae on December 09, 2011, 04:11:05 pm
Asking for a refund on a donation is... I don't know. I'm kind of paralyzed by the audacity of that!
I could see a few reasonable reasons why one could want to do so. Namely you give something, but a disaster happens and you need as much money as possible... Or, as shown above, you entered the wrong amount on Paypal.
I would stay speechless if you donated something and asked it back because you "thought u ad 2 buy it" or "der wer no updates in 4evar !".
To murlocdummy: I am highly admirative of the scope of Df and Toady's devotion to his life project. I could be considered a fanboy under this regard. Many people are more or less in my case. However, we see the shortcomings of Toady's decisions (the UI problems, the failure to follow the recent development schedule, etc). We had the chance to ask him before, and it turns out his decisions all have a perfectly sensible reason behind it.
Yes there will be bugs, it's normal. It's not a problem, though. The funniest moments of DF were bugs. There was a thread trying to predict what bugs would happen, much like you, except people in there weren't so unpleasant.
Post by: Knight Otu on December 09, 2011, 04:23:34 pm
*Semi-perceived since, yes, we haven't had a bugfix release in a while, but that's mostly because we haven't had a release in a while, period - the next round of bugfixes is scheduled after this release, after all.
**I think about anyone can agree that bugfixes are needed for several things. Some of them might not be easy fixes, though, and thus may have to wait while other bugs are fixed or new content is added, which again fuels the frustrations of people.
Post by: Areyar on December 09, 2011, 05:23:43 pm
I got a nice donation from Sinterklaas 5th the latest and I'm giving half of it to Toady. :P
Post by: PTTG?? on December 09, 2011, 05:39:58 pm
Deck the halls with goblin entrails,
Fa la la la la, la la la la
'Tis the season for... um... what rhymes with entrails?
Post by: Dsarker on December 09, 2011, 06:03:11 pm
Post by: Jimlad11 on December 09, 2011, 06:08:28 pm
Badger Tails?
Rather large snails?
I am really looking forward to adventure mode on the next release! Starving, cities, new beasties, basic interaction framework stuff in place! "I'm pumped!" as I believe the kids say nowadays.
Post by: Cruxador on December 09, 2011, 06:25:18 pm
This forum does have an ignore function.Bah, that's for fools without the stones to ignore manually.
Post by: DS on December 09, 2011, 06:27:54 pm
Jiri, I just think that a thread titled "Future of the Fortress" ought to be more than just a place to put all of your "OMG, I'm so excited for new releases!" posts. Also, I'm sorry that this post is so brief and not well thought-out. I'll endeavor to make future posts more comprehensive.
Actually, this thread really isn't the place to have such spirited debates - and it is more than just a place to post about how excited one is about the next update, although people do that too.
The purpose of the thread is to discuss current developments. 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). Questions and comments about the 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.
Emphasis mine - the fact that at least one person has made a heated comment towards you places discussion of your points squarely under the purview of a "contentious topic." That said, I'm sure that, if you were to start a new thread concerning the topics you've mentioned (or were to offer a direct link to a thread, if you've already started one), people would be happy to discuss the issue with you. I, for one, have restrained from replying to your posts precisely because this isn't the place for it.
On another topic... Toady, you mention that placing designations over multiple z-levels is now possible, and you give the example of long up/down staircases. It seems logical that this would extend to designating 3d areas for digging and channeling as well, but will designations over multiple z-levels also be possible concerning the setting of traffic areas and/or building item properties?
Post by: Eктωρ on December 09, 2011, 06:41:34 pm
Post by: Rockphed on December 09, 2011, 06:53:57 pm
And will the dwarfs dig the multi-z designations without needing to be babysat so they won't cause collapses?
Toady hasn't mentioned rewriting the digging ai, so I doubt it. You will still need to designate channeling from the top down.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 09, 2011, 10:59:32 pm
Quote from: devlog
12/09/2011: I finished trading partial amounts in both modes. You can also type in amounts of currency to trade in adventure mode. Most people carry around little pouches with money stuffed into some article of clothing or another, and the market vendors will use those. The shops that have multiple traders working with the same objects still have a money chest, but you don't have to fuss around with picking up the money from it. Money and goods will teleport to you for the time being, until something better comes up, but you are still allowed to grab the objects you want to buy first and bring them to the merchant if you want to do it that way. Next up comes people in the market hollering at you on the street. Then hunger/thirst, which is probably going to involve a lot of messing with river ramps etc.
Whoa. Does this mean the end of (or at least a sharp reduction in) pointless drownings in both modes?
Post by: monk12 on December 09, 2011, 11:08:13 pm
Being able to manipulate partial stacks is pretty sweet though, as is having your money teleport to you. I don't know how many times I've walked out of a shop without getting my change. And vendors yelling at you is pretty entertaining- I'll be interested to see how that's implemented. In fact,
How do the vendors yell? Is it a specific/new application of the Vocalization tag? AFAIK that tag doesn't work on a profession level, but hey, what do I know?
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 10, 2011, 01:21:03 am
I certainly hope so! I doubt it, but I can still hope.
Being able to manipulate partial stacks is pretty sweet though, as is having your money teleport to you. I don't know how many times I've walked out of a shop without getting my change. And vendors yelling at you is pretty entertaining- I'll be interested to see how that's implemented. In fact,
How do the vendors yell? Is it a specific/new application of the Vocalization tag? AFAIK that tag doesn't work on a profession level, but hey, what do I know?
He mentioned having vendors shout at you being similar to a random encounter during travel in one of the DF Talks (I think).
It's something to grab your attention while in city travel. I think city bandits were mentioned in the same breath as this. But it might entail more than that though...
A Vendor draws near! He want to sell you cheese at a low price! Command?
Post by: Osmosis Jones on December 10, 2011, 02:04:51 am
-The Tame Horse strikes the Child in the left arm-
-The flesh is torn-
-The bone is broken-
*HO FINE SIR! May I interest you in my wares?*
-The Child bites the Tame Horse on the front right hoof-
etc
Post by: scriver on December 10, 2011, 04:48:59 am
Post by: Toady One on December 10, 2011, 06:52:21 am
Quote from: Neonivek
I should have been more specific in that I am refering to where the Mummy is stored. The types of objects within (Funeral rites). and yeah even the clothes and objects the mummy is dressed in. With respect to different cultures such as not egyptian.
I'm all for whatever, as usual, but right now I'm just mixing random cliched-ish customs as they come up. I imagine some diversity will be added in over time, and eventually cross the boundaries of what I currently know anything about (a line we just crossed with gem faceting for instance, with all the new cuts). But for now it is fairly boring and generally unrawified. Once I feel more comfortable with how things are going, it'll come out into text and get spread out.
Quote from: Knight Otu
You've talked quite a bit about what you feel you need to do for releases 3, 4, and 5 (games, music, storytelling, fistfights, multiracial forts etc) that isn't explicitly mentioned on the dev page, but there's very little about what you want for the upcoming release 2 aside the explicit mentions of schedules/activities and mines. I think you mentioned village maps if you don't get to extending the town map generation to that, workshops, and geological structures, but is there more than that?
The idea for that release is to get the town and villages up to a baseline of people moving around, working, and having all of their raw material industries in place, although the lack of trade or otherwise moving goods would preclude finishing this. Right now, you can't find any raw materials in the towns and villages (stone, bone stockpiles, etc.), and despite the time spent on mining in world gen, you can't find any miners aside from people that incidentally get the skills. People also just sit in their houses all day, so there is no sense of bustle. There's a problem with not being able to consume resources because they aren't renewed or brought in, but something has to give or happen first -- I imagine there'll be various reprioritization and movements of dev goals to keep the game playable and somewhat sensible as it goes, but what I've written above is the overall feel, anyway. This Release 2 is now subject to some of the things being moved up, which I'll mention below. I think it might be more 5-ey and 8-ey than 2-ey for a bit, but nothing has been formalized. We still have to think about it.
Quote
Quote from: NakedFuryWhat future feature are you most "exited/Proud" about?Quote from: monk12My personal bet is Release 5, as I recall in one of the DF Talks he mentions that it will "test the premise of the entire game, that you could have all these systems running simultaneously" [paraphrased]
Yeah, as much as I can comfortably answer a "favorite"-type question, that works. To the point where it is very likely being moved up.
Quote from: Kogut
Attributes are supposed to impact performance at various tasks, but according to my testing impact of attributes on quality of products is completely unimportant compared to skill. There is no noticeable difference between "legendary carpenter with a boundless creative imagination" and "legendary carpenter (with average creativity)". Is it intended?
It's not intended, but that is how it is, for all attributes and all skills (with some combat related exceptions probably). In response to the discussion, creativity is an attribute for carpentry and it does effect the roll, but skill outpaces it. To check, just ran a test - an unskilled, meager creativity dwarf with no other notable atts made 10 lowest quality items, where an unskilled, great creativity dwarf with no other notable atts had 5 come out well-crafted. Once they are legendary and churning out exceptional goods and masterpieces, it doesn't matter anymore. I don't want attributes to dominate the game, but I think they should be important even at the highest levels. It kind of makes me want to split quality into different categories though.
Quote from: Di
1. Will being a vampire be separate crime (killing by drinking blood)? Current murder doesn't bring death sentence.
2. What are benefits from having hammerer? I mean, we have guards already and by adjusting their weapons we can alter the punishment degree, while hammering offers death and heavy crippling.
3. How vampires can reproduce in fortress mode? Can they have children?
4. If a child is turned into vampire, will it grow into adulthood?
Vampirism etc. aren't separate crimes, but the point of view is a reasonable thing and it makes sense that it would move beyond the justice system and into the that's-horrifying-let's-kill-it-to-save-ourselves realm. I'm not sure if the punishments were being reduced for lenience, but all my murderers were getting the dwarven death sentence of 50 strokes of the hammer. You don't need to have a hammerer if you aren't interested in justice. If I recollect, vampires are sterile as it stands. If it works, child vampires won't grow up, though I haven't specifically tested that so there's a chance it doesn't work properly. I think it all looks at the same age value, which is controlled by vampirism... so I hope it works.
Quote from: Ganthan
Will it ever be possible for your fortress to fight for independence from your home civilization? Will the king ever start taxing you, claiming some of your soldiers or issuing some new kind of mandates of his own like "You need to export at least 30 battle axes, 20 mining picks and 500 prepared meals by next year," and thus start getting rebel sentiment in your fortress? It would be neat to have a Colonization style revolutionary war against other steel clad dwarves, although unless they were trap immune or something it would still be too easy to win.
There isn't war with the home civ right now, but you do have the ability to refuse the barony, which is going to amount to something similar (respecting whatever changes). There's a whole section in some of the old notes about obligations to the king, and that all stands in theory. I really have no idea when we'll be getting to that sort of thing though.
Quote from: Rystic
Do you think it's possible that we'll see prisoner executions in the future? IE, if we have a caged Goblin in a stockpile, would we be able to 'mark it' for execution? This would make life a lot easier than it is now, where we have to disarm prisoners in sort of a hacky-way, then build the cage/mechanisms. It would also give the Hammerer a useful purpose in between punishing dwarves for crimes.
Overall respecting the status of a civilized prisoner beyond that of a caged beast is a reasonable goal.
Quote
Quote from: O11O1With these new upgrades to the city systems, how close are we to having a 'Retire' option, where instead of abandoning the fort, you give it to the gameworld to control, allowing you to, say, start a new fort and trade with the old one?Quote from: King_of_the_weaselsProbably not until after we have actual dwarf towns being generated, and then some.
Yeah, since the new city system moves us closer to re-enabling dwarf towns, we are at least descending in our orbit around this one.
Quote from: caknuck
Will pottery and waxworking be moodable skills in the upcoming version?
I haven't changed anything with these. If I remember (and I'm not sure I do), the impediment is getting tools and moods to play nice. Moods are old and creaky, so it takes a bit of work.
Quote from: Cruxador
What happens if all of your dwarves are vampires? Do they feed off each other?
They only feed on sleeping people, and the vampires don't sleep. So they'd have to wait for dinner to move in. Then they'd probably go a bit piranha on it when it decides to sleep.
Quote from: Shinotsa
Can dwarfs fight back while being fed on and do vampires avoid military/strong dwarfs? I'd hate to lose my militia commander to the weird guy nobody likes. If they can fight back what skills dictate whether they'll wake up? Will it be an awareness thing, or just a struggle when they are bitten?
The victims are sleeping so nothing dramatic happens. I originally wanted to have a wider range of feeding encounters, but we've inhabited a time-squeezed process for a while and this was less fussy.
Quote from: Dsarker
If the blood thing isn't changing, and a well gets contaminated by vampire blood (say by the sheriff after he executes him, or by a survivor of a fight when the vampire did not), will that make vampires, or does the blood need to be pure?
It hits all of the contaminants during the ingestion check, so a polluted well would lead to a vampire-ridden fortress, provided the contaminant actually gets into the bucket water and maintains its historical figure status through the entire event. I'm not sure if that's the case, but if you've seen named blood in a well bucket before, then you've got trouble for the next release.
Quote from: Fieari
Toady, while you aren't making varieties of vampires and other undead monsters NOW, have you included the framework for expanding them in the future? Can we mod in additional types of vampirism ourselves? If so, are they "whole package" or did you make the framework for random parts in the curse/secrets system?
I don't quite understand the random parts part, but you can add your own interactions that have a series of tags to play with, and if you add in many kinds of curses, the gods will pick and choose randomly, so all of your kinds could show up in one world and some of them in another, etc.
Here are the interactions as they stand untested and possibly type-o-ey from the example folder (the game uses slightly randomized versions of these). They will be cleared before release. Even at this stage I'd hesitate to call anything final, but it's close enough, and it should show some of the strengths and limitations of the current setup. I think the main issue is the conflict between info in the interaction and in the "can do interaction" for targeting and so on. It's a bit redundant at times, but there are a number of tricky issues so it's just going to stand for now.
Mummy
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
The werewolf in this case would have the material weakness on the beast definition, but you could also add it to the syndrome if you want the non-transformed to suffer from it (I don't remember convention there).
Quote from: Dsarker
Do vampires, when disguised, still transform others? Say, would Vampire X, who claims to be C, and gets a cut, when D drinks X's blood, would it track it as if it belonged to X or C? Would you be able to tell a vampire if it bleeds by the name on the blood?
I think somebody mentioned this, but the C identity is treated as an identity rather than a full creature, so it doesn't impact the properties of the blood. At the same time (I think) it still manages to obscure the true identity of the blood since it intercepts the historical figure name attached to the blood. I don't recall if I tested that case specifically though. There are going to be a lot of bugs that make vampires easily findable, especially at first.
Quote from: Dae
if a disguise is just another "displayed name", is the disguise name also an historical figure ? Can a disguise be culled while the vampire name stays known ? In other words, what happens if a vampire in disguise bleeds in worldgen, will the blood be called by the disguise name ? If so, what happens if the disguise name gets lost ?
It doesn't get the same status as a historical figure, and identities are few enough that they are never culled, even if historical figures are. I'm not sure what you mean by the worldgen blood -- like if a night troll captured the vampire and butchered it, and you found it afterward? There isn't any blood tracked in world gen as far as I remember.
Post by: Toady One on December 10, 2011, 06:53:11 am
Quote from: monk12
Are all bridges the same right now, or do they vary? Covered bridges, open bridges, so on and so forth.
They vary in length and also width! He he he. It is boring.
Quote from: rex mortis
Will we have to discover a bridge or be able to swim across a river to cross one in the next version? Or is it still possible to ignore rivers completely by using fast travel?
Currently in towns you have to use bridges on the zoomed-in map. Away from the map it is still a to-do to change anything. In the next few days, I'm going to be changing rivers quite a bit, and if they are all crossable by swimmers, I think it might help the expedition feel to force you to cross manually by a road or by swimming. I'm leaning that way anyway. You wouldn't have to zoom in for the walkable brooks.
Quote from: Knight Otu
And in world 1, there don't seem to be any, presumably due to a lack of death gods. Are the necromancy secrets generated regardless of the presence of death gods?
They can also be held by death demons, though I don't think they share or use them, so effectively they don't come up. I'm not sure the lack of towers is due to the lack of death gods though. It depends on the length of the generation, and I don't remember how long it was. The towers tend to come up a little later, once there are significant graves to raid (enough to get zombies to build a tower). It could be that there were no death gods though. That happens sometimes.
Quote from: EmeraldWind
Will town maps like the one you posted be available to export through Legends Mode (once an adventure visits a town) or will they remain a dev only visual?
Basically, I'm asking if a city/town site map will be exportable in the format shown in the dev log or not.
I guess that would just take a button from the site list in legends. It would be reasonable to add the button.
Quote from: Cruxador
Are we going to get more specific in-period names for businesses that are used within the game?
I'm more or less for it, in general, if we have something that fits. I don't know quite how esoteric it gets though, and what we're going to have that matches up. I've seen lists of names but I don't know a lot of the specifics. What did you have in mind?
Quote from: MiniMacker
So if a Were-dwarf dashes for the closest target during a full moon to attack. Will it be any target, including other Were-dwarves?
And I'm curious about the disguises.
If a disguised vampire gains a title through the military, will said title stay if the disguise is busted? Or maybe that isn't not how the disguise system works.
Weredwarves respect each other, as long as they are the same beast form.
Hmmm... titles... I think it probably would never show you the way it is. It should probably put the title on the identity name, although ideally the titles they get would be an extra identity for even regular people, so that people can have more than one from different places.
Quote from: GreatWyrmGold
Why did you choose to only let body parts with a head or grasp be animatable by necromancers, and not all body parts or those with a stance (e.g. feet and legs)? It seems sensible to be able to raise someone's lower half.
I don't remember now if there was a reason any more compelling than thinking a foot twitching around was unscary. Or a lower/upper body with nothing else attached. A lower body with two legs is probably okay, but you might as well allow everything at some point. It might be revisited when there's pulping.
Quote from: Cruxador
Do the wooded areas have free-roaming swine, or are all pigs penned up as things are now?
There are various animals out in the wastes. It's all very simple though. Pigs aren't treated as special -- it distinguishes only grazers and non-grazers at this point.
Quote from: Shinotsa
Are there any pictures of the new cities/towns in the zoomed in city fast travel screen? Perhaps we could see one of the maps already shown compared to the in game city travel screen if it's not too much trouble.
I'm actually fairly excited to see how they compare since I find the maps that are being put up now to have a strange kind of beauty and I hope at least some of that's carried over.
I haven't made pictures because I'm not happy how they fade out into the surroundings, and even when I get to it, it'll still be a bit blocky, but I guess that's okay. I'll probably remember to put one up when I work that out -- you can recognize the intersections from the graphical maps, more or less, but they lose the distinction of the individual buildings, and they aren't as colorful.
Quote from: Heph
Do the "Breeds" only apply to actual breeded animals or do they extend wild animal-populations? Say all wildhorses in a certain region looking similiar?
It doesn't extend to wild animal populations, but I think that's a reasonable way to do subspecies stuff and it would be cool to throw in variations that way. The raws themselves would need to have more variations in the wild animals first before it would matter. Some of the domestic ones too for that matter...
Quote
Quote from: CruxadorWhen you get such things done, how much interbreeding between different breeds/populations do you anticipate their being? How much variance is there in a cat (or any other domestic animal) population at the moment, and how much would you see as ideal? I know such things would be influenced heavily by the size and age of the population, but I'd appreciate some general thoughts on the situation.Quote from: HephWhat would interest me is if and how the pet keeping species decide which traits they favour and want in a animal? I could see Humans for example keep atleast 3 kinds of horses 1 each for light and heavy cavalery and one as work-horse.Quote from: AnatoliAre there going to be any gene variances (in cats) from inside a town, or is it going to be mostly one kind per town? Are there going to be any ways for animals to travel between towns besides trade? What are (will be) the triggers for a trade in these animals?
The breed allows for some variation now, so it's a bit more (too?) flexible than the word would suggest I suppose. The breed definition restricts the available genes, but doesn't specify them entirely. I think ideally there'd be animals bred toward specific purposes, as well as perhaps a stray population of some of the animals that takes traits from both the breeds as well as at random (or perhaps all the way back toward being random -- or further, specialized for stray living, since a lot of the breed characteristics wouldn't be adapted to that environment). I think animal trade is quite limited now in world gen. It doesn't worry about mixing populations or anything either. Overall, it's very simple, but it's a start.
Quote from: Draco18s
Toady, you ever going to take a look at odd river intersections, eg. the triangle as seen in world 1, near lake?
They look terribly funny and not very realistic when encountered when playing, and a 4-intersections have disastrous results.
I'm not sure if it'll be addressed with the upcoming river changes for adv thirst. They do look strange and can be buggy.
Quote from: Sizik
Are there any plans for zoomed-in travel maps for player-made forts?
I haven't done anything with it, but I suppose it could use something like the dwarf mode minimap at the very least. I still have some travel map issues to work through. I'm not sure if I'll get to that. I also wanted to changed the dwarf mode embark town blocks to something with a little more detail (even if you can't embark on the towns).
Quote from: Rafal99
Any plans on making the rivers look more natural? Like less straight segments with sharp edges?
Any chance to have the paved roads look different (not brown) from dirt roads in the map?
The ones away from towns look a little better (away from intersections). I haven't thrown in the curviness in towns as a matter of expedience, but I assume this will change at some point.
Roads look different on the in-game travel map. It hasn't been important for me on the graphical map, which I've been using to debug. It could be changed by the time it gets added to legends export, but I'm not sure.
Quote from: hermes
I don't know if adventure mode uses the same pathfinding system as fortress mode but, does this mean that adventure mode will incorporate the fortress mode path-designation mechanic - say by auto assigning roads and paths a lower (or is that higher?) pathfinding weight? Could/would this be extended to all terrain in general?
It isn't currently doing anything interesting in the towns. I'm not going to address anything there until it's necessary, when people move around during the day again. It would make sense to use the traffic designations, since they are in place in dwarf mode, especially to stop them from running up on the bridges walls to cut corners.
Quote from: Shinotsa
will there be farming related disaster in worldgen like locust swarms or salt buildup that cause an area to produce little to no food for a period of time or, in the case of salt buildup, become unfarmable due to improper/unsustainable farming habits?
There's nothing like that now. There are vague plans, but I dunno when it's going to happen. It's a handy way to change the world and get people to move around, but there's enough difficulty as it stands just keeping the towns happy in the first place, until we get industries and trade settled a bit more.
Quote from: Dwarfu
Are the animals in the villages/pastures owned by particular people or are they considered a part of the village entity - who gets angered when livestock is killed by an adventurer?
I think it's probably an entity issue at this point. I assume it'll be sorted out when I do the first adventurer livestock, since you'll have to buy something from somebody (if you are polite).
Quote from: Cruxador
Now that we have both trolls and bridges represented pretty well, will there be trolls under some of the bridges? Maybe not in this update, but will traditional fairytale notions like that get a nod eventually?
There's that whole "Age of Fairytales" thing to worry about, and our current spouse-converting trolls are derived from the darker variety of those stories. It'd be almost legit if those trolls could talk a little more than their kill list rants. Having them live under bridges as an option would be cool, and I think spreading out to give an ogre or beast here and there some extra character would be good. Thinking realistically about when stuff like this might start getting looked at, I'd say there's a chance when megabeast AI kicks in as the sort of proto-army arc. One model of getting the army arc started up is to get the megabeasts and bandits running around properly, to get moving groups in play, and then growing and coordinating the groups, and it could still turn out that way. The personality stuff that'll be in place before then should give them a proper character, even if it doesn't align with fairytales for many of them... then we just need to have them accost goats and lost children.
Quote from: peskyninja
What's the average population of a city? Each new family that settles in one determined city will build a house or we will end with filthy childrens living in the sewers?
People that aren't specifically sewer dwellers (all adult criminals or beasts or mans or kobs at this point) get to live in houses. I don't know when poverty will be explored -- the manor stuff on dev leads to distinctions, but I'm not sure if they are between rich and not rich or if poor goes in somewhere around there as well.
Quote
Quote from: Jiri PetruThe new town maps are looking increasingly better, but I still dislike them for one thing: the circularity. Each settlement is a perfectly circular web of roads. And no matter the size of the village/town/city, they all take up the same space. It gets repetitive and boring very soon. Unfortunately, it looks that it's such a fundamental part of Toady's design that it's impossible to change. I suppose the circular web is the very building block of the new towns that can't be replaced.
Also I really hate all the random roads - there's way too many of them in the village parts of the map. But I've already rambled a lot about it here so I won't repeat myself.
(EDIT: But looking at the older town pictures it seems Toady has reduces the number of roads a bit, so there's that.)
Oh and I miss the old villages. Those were great!Quote from: thvazMost of what you think as roads in the pictures aren't roads, they are there just to divide the fields. It is obvious though that the same process to decide where the building will be constructed is used to divide the fields, but the end result is very good.Quote from: Jiri PetruI'm pretty sure they are all roads. I guess you could say "nah, they're hedges" on maps like this one (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/w3town3.png), but when you look at, say, this town (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/w3town2.png) it's apparent those lines need to be roads so the farms can get to their homes. But so far we've only seen town maps. I'd love to see a proper village.
Toady, could we see a map of a village? I don't know if there's any strong distinction between towns and villages now, so take "village" as a settlement of ~100 people with no market.
And what happened to the old village maps we've had a couple of versions ago? I suppose the code was scrapped?
Thanks.
The old village image is actually as circular as the current versions and, unlike the new ones, it was made explicitly as a circular web -- parts of the web aren't realized because they are waste etc., as with the current maps, so neither the new nor old map ends up completely circular. The current villages are blobbish just because they occupy site rectangles and a circular blob is a more natural shape to fill out a rectangle, but the algorithm works on the square grid required by the moving load area, with a 3x3 subgrid for each square, and can be adapted without too much effort to various shapes (basically by setting yes/no flags through the grid -- it'll fill out whatever shape it is given, and it already does this at with respect to the river/ocean/lake blocks). It takes on a bit of a rounded character locally on the edges because corners and three way intersections are down toward the square boundary to degridify the picture. The main problem is more that the sites can't merge with each other and all have to occupy rectangles. They'd have different shapes and merge more naturally if that weren't the case (having a diagonal boundary with a neighbor for instance), but that will take more work to change. If it happens that sites stop occupying rectangles and can begin to come closer to each other along different boundaries, the site growing algorithm can adapt to that just as it adapts to rivers and other boundaries.
Within one town, my principle concern was dividing up the plots in a way I could use them for both towns and villages while at the same time respecting the square load areas (which the previous village code was a total flop for). The roads have been a secondary concern up to this point, but the divisions you see on the map can be defined as paved roads, or dirt roads, or as hedges or whatever else when it comes time for it. Any division below a paved road is currently realized as a dirt road. My starting point for merging my town and village maps were web-searched maps along these lines:
http://historic-cities.huji.ac.il/germany/aachen/maps/braun_hogenberg_I_12_b.jpg
http://historic-cities.huji.ac.il/british_isles/london/maps/braun_hogenberg_I_A_b.jpg
http://historic-cities.huji.ac.il/belgium/bruges/maps/braun_hogenberg_I_16_b.jpg
which can have some outlying structures which aren't even on roads but instead within the plot divisions of whatever kind, but overall I think I probably agree with your sentiments on roads, and I don't intend to simply emulate pieces of pictures without respecting the underlying structure.
For villages, the plot model is still the manor picture that came up before, minus the manor and church etc.
http://www.bownet.org/jvulgamore/Charlemagne%20and%20Franks/Manors/Plan_Mediaeval_Manor.jpg
Here is the current village output: schematic (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/vil1_schematic.png), tiles (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/vil1_tiles.png)
I'm aware that there are various other possible setups for villages, but only so much can happen at a time. I'd like to set up these (http://www.deutsche-und-polen.de/bilder/294_Waldhufendorf.jpeg) sorts at some point, and I was hoping to have them already, which associate fields more to individual families without respect to a central manor, since I don't want manors everywhere -- the long strip fields should even be able to lean away from the two major axes with some careful treatment of the vertices. It will be ultimately stuck to 48x48 tile grid sections though. Otherwise the AI will be impossible later. There are a zillion different things to do though, so you'll have to continue to suffer through these limited similar maps a while.
Quote from: Weaselcake
Assuming that the patch is closing in on the release date, what are the immediate development plans after the post-patch celebration? Is the Caravan arc going to still be the primary focus in development, will there be other planned features from the Development Page which might have an unexpected priority jump? I know these are broad questions, but I'm just wondering what what Toady has in mind, even if it's just a tiny speck of a planned idea for the next update.
The post-patch celebration being the bug-fixing releases, of course. This release obviously took a long time, and that time has clarified some things about that release list that is going to switch up the order a bit, I'm pretty sure. Currently what's been decided is that the birth/death/succession stuff and the personality stuff will be moved up. That'll crystallize into something definitive sometime during the bugfixing.
Quote from: Vertigon
I really enjoyed the monthly report containing the actual numbers of issues left to work out. Any chance of that happening more often in the devlog?
I decided against having a running countdown during the last long release, when it became more of an annoyance to manage than a motivator for development. So probably not. I've never really found a good way of communicating release timing, because there isn't a good estimate of the release time. The list of issues I greened out before doesn't really work, since there's always a mass of crap to cleanup after it's all greened out. I'm ostensibly doing that cleaning list now, but it's always a three steps forward two steps back kind of thing. I'm just trying to log as much as I can, as boring as lot of it is, with the vague idea more or less that I'm moving down the issue list from the report, even if I expect a few big bumps up ahead there, where one optimization issue or another might eat a few days or more all by itself.
Quote from: penguify
Can working gloves and gauntlets be created by adventurer reactions yet? Will that be in this release?
I haven't changed it. If it isn't changed I can throw it in with the bug fixes if I'm reminded.
Quote from: Greendogo
Toady, you mentioned that you had an abundance of bone materials in cities that builds up making the number of bone crafts unreasonable. I think one problem with this viewpoint is that in the real world bone material often has many more uses than are present in the game and in large industry and small industry alike the bones get used for all sorts of things. For instance, there is a small amount of bone ash present in many pet food brands (for cats and dogs) even though the higher quality companies try to limit that amount for health reasons. Many early cultures used bones for needles or knitting needles (Dwarf Fortress lacks knitting, btw). Also, bones were often used as jewelry, something that already occurs in the game. I think if you wanted to increase the usability of bones and thereby decrease their build-up in city stockpiles you would need to make the market for bone larger by increasing the demand for bone crafts or bone decoration, or other uses such as bone meal for fertilizer. I think this would be much more realistic than trying to limit the production and accumulation of bone. If you don't want the stores to be full of the stuff, why not make it more prevalent as something that is actually more useful for the townspeople?
I was looking for a short-term fix, which was rebalancing the number of bone crafts made and just letting the rest of the bones sit. I'm all for adding more industries, but I'm trying to arrive at a release now. Hopefully there will be more bone industries in the future. There certainly are a lot of bones!
Quote from: Fieari
When modeling demand for objects, is it done by a hard-coded object class (ie, all food has this demand, weapons have that demand, art has the other demand, and so forth), flat aspect (everything is equally in demand, and supply is the only concern), or is there an element in the raws that determines how it much it will be used during worldgen (set plump helmets to low demand and sun berries to high demand, modifiable to the other way around if we want)?
The raws don't interact with it right now. Towns just want a certain number of each thing on hand based on population, and the differences in specialization lead to differences in supply, so things have places they want to go, in each of the general categories. I believe it also quibbles a bit with how much of each specific type in a category is on hand, to simulate rarity costs, but I don't remember how much. It gets to be very number crunchy but there's still some room to move for customization, and I imagine it'll get more complicated over time, but there's not a whole lot going on right now. There are those weird trade valuation things it uses in fortress mode, for instance for pictures containing animals with ART_IMAGE_ELEMENT_MODIFIER etc., and that should probably be expanded into something that respects all of the objects in a more uniform way.
Quote from: hermes
Will the economy be "grounded" in the world-gen scale, where gross supply/demand is balanced and then individual producers take their cues from those global values, or will you try to balance it from the bottom up, where producers make as much as they want/can per their situation and personality, and let them react to market forces as they emerge?
The villages are sort of mindless producers right now, and that lets their associated town use more of a bottom up approach where it can afford to screw up without worrying as much about basic survival -- at least at a minimum population level. It doesn't mandate anything at the world level -- the world could end up devoid of certain types of goods if nobody has occasion to make them. Food is reliable enough now that the system isn't completely disasterous, but I'm sure there's already all sorts of silliness, and I don't have a problem slapping some weird global behavior on there to fix things (the unnaturally clunky supply/demand stuff counts perhaps in some way, though it isn't the same as a forced global agreement).
Quote from: Rockphed
I don't suppose you got pictures of the hole to the underworld. Or at least a better description. Was it a hole to the first cavern layer, or were we in danger of having hordes of hidden fun stuff all up in our faces? Or was it both, and you are hiding some sort of new thing in the caverns from us because it brings you mirth when you see our outraged reactions to unexpected things.
It went all the way down, and because I was embarking dwarf mode, the breach detector was triggered and it even gave me a helpful announcement telling me I was going to die.
Quote from: Chthonic
You are re-enabling thirst with dungeon and sewer exploration in mind. Does this mean that we should be packing full waterskins--i.e., are there going to be hazards (contaminants, diseases, etc.) inherent in drinking sewer water as we find it on the floor or in channels?
It would make sense not to drink that water, but it doesn't currently penalize you. There isn't water in most of the dungeon, so it won't help you everywhere, even if it does remain clean for a while.
Quote from: Serrational
Will drinking vomit and blood as a staple be subject to horrific illnesses?
Could an adventurer drink forever by making himself ill to drink his vomit to get ill etc. ad infinitum?
It seems like a reasonable enough thing, but I haven't done anything with it.
Quote from: DS
Toady, you mention that placing designations over multiple z-levels is now possible, and you give the example of long up/down staircases. It seems logical that this would extend to designating 3d areas for digging and channeling as well, but will designations over multiple z-levels also be possible concerning the setting of traffic areas and/or building item properties?
Yeah, anything in the 'd' menu.
And will the dwarfs dig the multi-z designations without needing to be babysat so they won't cause collapses?
Nothing has changed with how they select which designations they dig. Whatever happened before when you designated them manually will happen now.
Quote from: monk12
How do the vendors yell? Is it a specific/new application of the Vocalization tag? AFAIK that tag doesn't work on a profession level, but hey, what do I know?
I'm pretty sure it's gonna end up entirely creature independent. The civilized critters don't keep a lot of speech down below yet, since it's more of an entity thing, and there isn't a lot of speech there either. I'm not even sure the extent to which travel mode is going to be involved, since there's not a good deal of data to work with at that level (though there is some). Just a little fun aside. Eat/drink/river/etc. is the next big push.
Post by: MrWiggles on December 10, 2011, 07:25:10 am
Post by: Kogut on December 10, 2011, 08:33:27 am
They only feed on sleeping people, and the vampires don't sleep. So they'd have to wait for dinner to move in. Then they'd probably go a bit piranha on it when it decides to sleep.
So it is possible to find vampires by creating bedrooms, without assigning. Wait. Dwarves without claimed ones are vampires. Is it a intended behaviour? Maybe vampire also should claim bedrooms? Or maybe it is somehow predicted but not mentioned.
Post by: freeformschooler on December 10, 2011, 08:42:12 am
Post by: Greiger on December 10, 2011, 09:10:30 am
So it is possible to find vampires by creating bedrooms, without assigning. Wait. Dwarves without claimed ones are vampires. Is it a intended behaviour? Maybe vampire also should claim bedrooms? Or maybe it is somehow fixed but not mentioned.
Yay! a reason to provide private housing for everyone!
Bromek McBookeeper didn't claim a bedroom! To the magma chamber!
"Wait I just haven't gotten tired yet! I took a nap before they were designated Auuugh!"
"If he lives he's a vampire and we need to kill him, if he burns he was a vampire and we get to skip a step and go get some mead early."
"But sir, are vampires immune to magma?"
"Looks like the answer is.....no. Whelp time to see what Totallynotavampire McBrewer brewed up for us today."
Thanks Toady!
Post by: MrWiggles on December 10, 2011, 09:19:46 am
Thanks for answers!They only feed on sleeping people, and the vampires don't sleep. So they'd have to wait for dinner to move in. Then they'd probably go a bit piranha on it when it decides to sleep.
So it is possible to find vampires by creating bedrooms, without assigning. Wait. Dwarves without claimed ones are vampires. Is it a intended behaviour? Maybe vampire also should claim bedrooms? Or maybe it is somehow fixed but not mentioned.
I believe, the Disguise that the vampire portray make them seem normal. They'll walk normal dorf speed, for instance. They'll probably fake sleep too. Or at least, idle in their bed.
Post by: Lofn on December 10, 2011, 09:23:05 am
Post by: Knight Otu on December 10, 2011, 09:31:48 am
Hmm, does this
Quote
[IS_SECRET:MUNDANE_RECORDING_POSSIBLE:objects/text/book_instruction.txt:objects/text/secret_death.txt]mean that at least some of data/speech is moved into a subfolder of raw/objects? Would be nice if that's the case.
Didn't see anything explicitly about the towers and writing books in the sample (I guess the above might be, but that seems to be solely about passing on the secret), but maybe it's part of the secret_goal or something.
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 10, 2011, 10:05:19 am
Here is the current village output: schematic (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/vil1_schematic.png), tiles (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/vil1_tiles.png)
(And a huge talk about maps, villages and towns.)
First of all, thanks for the exhausting response and the pictures! The village looks great, actually. I was afraid it would end up with the houses scattered randomly all around the map, but they're actually keeping together very well. I love it!
I guess my issue was seeing the farm houses scattered around randomly on the town maps. I guess they were using some kind of separate, town logic for their placement? Anyway, as you've said, the problem will disappear once towns can merge with outlying villages properly, and I can imagine it will create some interesting shapes. I'm excited for that, although it won't likely come soon.
Now if only some of those dirt roads were realised as hedges, and it would be perfect. But I understand you can't do everything at once. Now that I know you are aware of that and are planning to address it some day in the future, I'm perfectly satisfied. Thanks once more for the response and congratulations on the village/town code. It looks really rigid.
Post by: Vattic on December 10, 2011, 10:50:55 am
Killing giant rats in some poor NPCs basement as an early quest seems appropriate even if a little clichéd.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 10, 2011, 11:25:52 am
With fairly large towns being in the next release are there plans to have certain non-domestic animals appear in and under them? Rats, pigeons, and cockroaches being some of the obvious ones. Perhaps new BIOME tokens are in order?
Killing giant rats in some poor NPCs basement as an early quest seems appropriate even if a little clichéd.
IIrc there are already cockroaches and rats as vermin and they have tendency to hover around food and trashstockpiles in dwarfmode. I guess they could be expanded to Adv-mode. Pidgeons are a bit harder since they were actually breed for food and eggs.
Cities as "biomes" would be nice. Foxes, raccoons and many other woodland-critters (including the evil chrismas kind) feel at home in this places because of the free food and the free lodging. For pedgeons its actually mostly the later. They are cliff-dwellers and a 2 storyhouse looks like a good cliff for them XD. Saying that i atleast would be for some new biomes like "cliffs" but i am a friend of micro-biomes anyway.
I dont know if Pest-control should be a appropriate "Quest" but you could earn some money as "Rat-catcher", iirc. some cities paid you good money for each rat-tail you brought in. Day labor in general would be a good way to make small quantities of money if needed.
Anyway thank you toady for answering all our questions :)
Post by: SuicideJunkie on December 10, 2011, 01:22:38 pm
Seems to me that it is much too easy to accidentally walk out with unpaid merchandise. A player conscience ("you feel uneasy about the $iron whip$") could also be nice as a warning.
Post by: Eктωρ on December 10, 2011, 01:40:39 pm
Post by: i2amroy on December 10, 2011, 02:33:30 pm
Post by: Urist McCheeseMaker on December 10, 2011, 03:02:39 pm
Post by: Neonivek on December 10, 2011, 03:04:11 pm
Toady I think it was more so you don't have an excessive explosion of raised parts that confuses the AI and slows the game down. As it is technically possible to have creatures explode into their individidual components.
So limiting it to include only meaningful parts and deciding that it is any mouth or grasp was likely part of that strategy.
Also dang are Bridges dangerous in Fairytales.
If it isn't Bandits, Bridges breaking, or a lone soldier waiting for one last duel... It is Trolls, Fairies, and murderous ghosts.
Post by: Knight Otu on December 10, 2011, 03:43:30 pm
With fairly large towns being in the next release are there plans to have certain non-domestic animals appear in and under them? Rats, pigeons, and cockroaches being some of the obvious ones. Perhaps new BIOME tokens are in order?Well, we'll get sewer/dungeon/catacomb dwellers, so some aspect of "under them" is taken care off, and it seems that it should be relatively easy to allow some more creatures in basements (once they're in), roads, and town skies.
Killing giant rats in some poor NPCs basement as an early quest seems appropriate even if a little clichéd.
I noticed that any undead-ed creature's strength and toughness are reset to a range from 300 to 1000. Would there be a way to make it multiply current values instead, or perhaps abide by a minimum value so that undead rats are as nasty as undead rats should be?While I don't know just what the numbers mean, I can almost guarantee that they are not a range that those attributes are set to. These tags are specifically in there to make sure that the animated dead aren't as weak as some of the first dev posts indicated, and setting the attributes that low would be the opposite. As a guess, I'd say the ATTRIBUTE:X:Y tag adds X to the ATTRIBUTE, and sets it to a minimum of Y if it's still below that.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 10, 2011, 04:29:45 pm
MummyNecromancerSpoiler (click to show/hide)Regional ZombiesSpoiler (click to show/hide)WerewolfSpoiler (click to show/hide)VampireSpoiler (click to show/hide)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
For a moment, I seriously thought I had to be careful not to grin my ears off.
Post by: thezeus18 on December 10, 2011, 05:13:34 pm
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 10, 2011, 05:46:26 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on December 10, 2011, 06:22:13 pm
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 10, 2011, 06:29:15 pm
Post by: monk12 on December 10, 2011, 08:16:30 pm
Am I the only one pumped for the personality rewrite and succession issues being bumped up? I think those were the things I was looking forward to most, so I'm extremely happy they're getting moved earlier in the schedule.
Post by: Neonivek on December 10, 2011, 08:19:15 pm
Awesome posts- hooray for Toady!
Am I the only one pumped for the personality rewrite and succession issues being bumped up? I think those were the things I was looking forward to most, so I'm extremely happy they're getting moved earlier in the schedule.
My excitement is tempered by reality and how it will probably be very simple and "at a arm's length" long after it has been added.
Post by: MrWiggles on December 10, 2011, 08:23:58 pm
Awesome posts- hooray for Toady!
Am I the only one pumped for the personality rewrite and succession issues being bumped up? I think those were the things I was looking forward to most, so I'm extremely happy they're getting moved earlier in the schedule.
My excitement is tempered by reality and how it will probably be very simple and "at a arm's length" long after it has been added.
I've very excited for that release myself. Its intended goal, it to all for Army Arc villains, but apparently, it'll hold the framework for more indepth fort mode interactions, like crimes.
Post by: Cruxador on December 10, 2011, 08:39:53 pm
By my recollection, there were some shop names listed in the devlog that seemed incorrect to me, but I can't find the post now, so I'm not sure.Quote from: CruxadorAre we going to get more specific in-period names for businesses that are used within the game?
I'm more or less for it, in general, if we have something that fits. I don't know quite how esoteric it gets though, and what we're going to have that matches up. I've seen lists of names but I don't know a lot of the specifics. What did you have in mind?
Quote
As far as stray populations go, I saw a documentary on the feral dogs of East St. Lewis not too long ago. Despite blood tests indicating different breed mixes, they were all medium-sized dogs with black coats and pointed ears.QuoteQuote from: CruxadorWhen you get such things done, how much interbreeding between different breeds/populations do you anticipate their being? How much variance is there in a cat (or any other domestic animal) population at the moment, and how much would you see as ideal? I know such things would be influenced heavily by the size and age of the population, but I'd appreciate some general thoughts on the situation.Quote from: HephWhat would interest me is if and how the pet keeping species decide which traits they favour and want in a animal? I could see Humans for example keep atleast 3 kinds of horses 1 each for light and heavy cavalery and one as work-horse.Quote from: AnatoliAre there going to be any gene variances (in cats) from inside a town, or is it going to be mostly one kind per town? Are there going to be any ways for animals to travel between towns besides trade? What are (will be) the triggers for a trade in these animals?
The breed allows for some variation now, so it's a bit more (too?) flexible than the word would suggest I suppose. The breed definition restricts the available genes, but doesn't specify them entirely. I think ideally there'd be animals bred toward specific purposes, as well as perhaps a stray population of some of the animals that takes traits from both the breeds as well as at random (or perhaps all the way back toward being random -- or further, specialized for stray living, since a lot of the breed characteristics wouldn't be adapted to that environment). I think animal trade is quite limited now in world gen. It doesn't worry about mixing populations or anything either. Overall, it's very simple, but it's a start.
Quote from: Vertigon
I really enjoyed the monthly report containing the actual numbers of issues left to work out. Any chance of that happening more often in the devlog?
I decided against having a running countdown during the last long release, when it became more of an annoyance to manage than a motivator for development. So probably not. I've never really found a good way of communicating release timing, because there isn't a good estimate of the release time. The list of issues I greened out before doesn't really work, since there's always a mass of crap to cleanup after it's all greened out. I'm ostensibly doing that cleaning list now, but it's always a three steps forward two steps back kind of thing. I'm just trying to log as much as I can, as boring as lot of it is, with the vague idea more or less that I'm moving down the issue list from the report, even if I expect a few big bumps up ahead there, where one optimization issue or another might eat a few days or more all by itself.[/quote]I don't find that stuff boring. I'm pretty sure I'm far from unique in this.
Am I the only one pumped for the personality rewrite and succession issues being bumped up? I think those were the things I was looking forward to most, so I'm extremely happy they're getting moved earlier in the schedule.I am pleased as most of that personality rewrites are required for are things I'd quite like to interact with. The rewrite itself is of less particular importance to me, although getting some more concrete and definite personality traits and getting them more involved in more decisions would be a significant boon.
Post by: Vattic on December 10, 2011, 08:52:07 pm
I dont know if Pest-control should be a appropriate "Quest" but you could earn some money as "Rat-catcher", iirc. some cities paid you good money for each rat-tail you brought in. Day labor in general would be a good way to make small quantities of money if needed.I was less than serious for that last bit. It's a typical RPG quest (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RatStomp).
I suppose what I should be asking is can we get things to spawn in sewers, dungeons, catacombs, and above ground in cities specifically using biome like tokens perhaps?.With fairly large towns being in the next release are there plans to have certain non-domestic animals appear in and under them? Rats, pigeons, and cockroaches being some of the obvious ones. Perhaps new BIOME tokens are in order?Well, we'll get sewer/dungeon/catacomb dwellers, so some aspect of "under them" is taken care off, and it seems that it should be relatively easy to allow some more creatures in basements (once they're in), roads, and town skies.
Killing giant rats in some poor NPCs basement as an early quest seems appropriate even if a little clichéd.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 10, 2011, 08:59:58 pm
By my recollection, there were some shop names listed in the devlog that seemed incorrect to me, but I can't find the post now, so I'm not sure.Quote from: CruxadorAre we going to get more specific in-period names for businesses that are used within the game?
I'm more or less for it, in general, if we have something that fits. I don't know quite how esoteric it gets though, and what we're going to have that matches up. I've seen lists of names but I don't know a lot of the specifics. What did you have in mind?
This one?
Red is the butcher, green is plants, and brown are constructed goods from other cities.So it's a butcher a grocer, and a trader/hardware store? Are we going to get more specific in-period names for businesses that are used within the game?
I don't find that stuff boring. I'm pretty sure I'm far from unique in this.
Yeah, the daily tidbits never get old for me.
Post by: MrWiggles on December 10, 2011, 09:01:31 pm
I don't find that stuff boring. I'm pretty sure I'm far from unique in this.
Yeah, the daily tidbits never get old for me.
I concur. They make me feel connected to the development of the game, and keep me interested for the next release.
Post by: Cruxador on December 10, 2011, 09:03:49 pm
This one?Well that'd be why I couldn't find it in the dev log. Yeah, "plants" and "constructed goods" seemed like less than ideal ways to refer to shops.Red is the butcher, green is plants, and brown are constructed goods from other cities.So it's a butcher a grocer, and a trader/hardware store? Are we going to get more specific in-period names for businesses that are used within the game?
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 11, 2011, 02:01:05 am
This is interesting because I noticed that it is on vampires and necromancers. It would seem if a creature became a necromancer/vampire/etc, other than immediate gains to Attributes due to the syndrome, they would cease to grow in physical attributes. Thus a necromancer could in theory be really weak and never really get much stronger.
IT_CANNOT_HAVE_SYNDROME_CLASS:WERECURSE-
IT_CANNOT_HAVE_SYNDROME_CLASS:VAMPCURSE-
IT_CANNOT_HAVE_SYNDROME_CLASS:DISTURBANCE_CURSE- I also noticed these. Last time it was asked, you mentioned that different curses could possibly overlap, but these tags seem to imply otherwise. Has this changed or is this just the case for the example creatures?
Will the examples actually be in the raw folder to be generated in a world or will we just get the randomized interactions/creatures?
Spoiler: Long weird idea leading into next question (click to show/hide)
How do werebeasts determine to ignore similar werebeasts? Do they just check the other creature's current form, do they look at the underlying syndrome for the same syndrome, look at the creature definition the syndrome references, or some other way?
Post by: BodyGripper on December 11, 2011, 02:02:27 am
They only feed on sleeping people, and the vampires don't sleep. So they'd have to wait for dinner to move in. Then they'd probably go a bit piranha on it when it decides to sleep.
Hmm... if a victim is jerked out of sleep by a strange mood, or even woken up by noise, will they discover the vampire?
Post by: Gamerlord on December 11, 2011, 02:05:52 am
Post by: MrWiggles on December 11, 2011, 02:07:31 am
Quick question cos I can't find anything about this: Will we be able to purchase animals? Like buying a pig so that later you can butcher it, or buying some dogs to help you fight?
Buy livestock is for a later release.
Post by: hermes on December 11, 2011, 04:48:17 am
Awesome posts- hooray for Toady!
Am I the only one pumped for the personality rewrite and succession issues being bumped up? I think those were the things I was looking forward to most, so I'm extremely happy they're getting moved earlier in the schedule.
This is the post I wanted to write :D It would be fantastic if those features were promoted to a sooner release, this is about as exciting as game development news gets for me. The extended discussion on town maps was very interesting too, thanks for the great posts, Toady.
Post by: Knight Otu on December 11, 2011, 05:56:51 am
NO_PHYS_ATT_GAIN - I noticed this tag in a couple of the entries in the new interaction based nightcreatures. Does it prevent future Attribute gains for the creature?It certainly sounds like it does that. It does seem a bit weird that necromancers and vampires would have that tag, but the presence of that tag could be randomized.
This is interesting because I noticed that it is on vampires and necromancers. It would seem if a creature became a necromancer/vampire/etc, other than immediate gains to Attributes due to the syndrome, they would cease to grow in physical attributes. Thus a necromancer could in theory be really weak and never really get much stronger.
Will the examples actually be in the raw folder to be generated in a world or will we just get the randomized interactions/creatures?[/color]I'm pretty sure Toady mentioned that the example file is in a separate folder, and thus wouldn't be used by the game - just the randomized interactions.
How do werebeasts determine to ignore similar werebeasts? Do they just check the other creature's current form, do they look at the underlying syndrome for the same syndrome, look at the creature definition the syndrome references, or some other way?I'm assuming that it's part of the were's creature definition - some sort of [AT_PEACE_WITH_OWN_TYPE] or [OPPOSED_TO_DIFFERENT_CREATURES] tag, perhaps.
I noticed that all of the tags added in the samples don't have parameters - is that true of all tags that can be added via syndromes, or are there some tags that allow parameters (such as the CHILD tag)?
Post by: narhiril on December 11, 2011, 09:43:52 am
1) Will it be possible to specify the caste of a CE_BODY_TRANSFORMATION?
2) If not, will it be possible to radically reconfigure the body without changing the actual creature identification?
The reasons I ask for 1 and 2 is because they would drastically open up the possibilities for modding - enabling everything from miraculous healings to divine "blessings," such as a dwarven warrior with skin of steel or a miner with four arms, or even a creature with a breath attack that causes everything it hits to spontaneously grow a tail. I know this is possible to do by changing the target's creature identification, but I want to know if it's possible to retain these individuals in a society without, say, turning them into another creature (i.e. werewolf) and causing them to abandon their labors and go hostile to everyone else.
3) A last, unrelated question, that may have already been answered (forgive me if it has) - Will we be getting caste-specific graphics soon?
Post by: Knight Otu on December 11, 2011, 10:20:34 am
1) Will it be possible to specify the caste of a CE_BODY_TRANSFORMATION?All signs point to yes - the DEFAULT after the WEREBEAST in [CE:CREATURE:WEREBEAST:DEFAULT] refers to the default caste of a casteless creature.
2) If not, will it be possible to radically reconfigure the body without changing the actual creature identification?No. Body part/shape modifications such as adding body parts were too time-consuming for Toady to attempt for this release. The only body modifications that we know are in are size modifications. It may be possible to modify other appearance modifiers, though.
but I want to know if it's possible to retain these individuals in a society without, say, turning them into another creature (i.e. werewolf) and causing them to abandon their labors and go hostile to everyone else.Toady has mentioned that the hostility is not inherent in the transformation. It's possible that it is part of the random creature definition created by the game.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 11, 2011, 10:31:35 am
Quick question cos I can't find anything about this: Will we be able to purchase animals? Like buying a pig so that later you can butcher it, or buying some dogs to help you fight?
Buy livestock is for a later release.
Specifically Release 7 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html) on the current schedule.
Will the examples actually be in the raw folder to be generated in a world or will we just get the randomized interactions/creatures?[/color]I'm pretty sure Toady mentioned that the example file is in a separate folder, and thus wouldn't be used by the game - just the randomized interactions.
Yes, I think all those interactions will be hardcoded, then permuted slightly during worldgen. That won't be the case for the animal behavior interactions (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-06-19), though -- I was hoping he'd post those too, but there's plenty to absorb already.
I noticed that all of the tags added in the samples don't have parameters - is that true of all tags that can be added via syndromes, or are there some tags that allow parameters (such as the CHILD tag)?
The equivalent tag from creature variations, CV_NEW_TAG, allows parameters. Hopefully the implementation is the same.
2) If not, will it be possible to radically reconfigure the body without changing the actual creature identification?
You can change the appearance modifiers (and thereby the ingame size) of any body part, but that's it short of a full transformation to a different creature type:
Code: [Select]
[CE_BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:START:0:BP:BY_CATEGORY:TOOTH:APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:LENGTH:150]
[CE:COUNTER_TRIGGER:DRINKING_BLOOD:1:NONE:REQUIRED]So you could make a creature's eyes become huge, bulging and red, or transform a creature into twice its normal size, but you couldn't make it sprout extra limbs.
Post by: kasan on December 11, 2011, 01:08:46 pm
Quote from: GreendogoToady, you mentioned that you had an abundance of bone materials in cities that builds up making the number of bone crafts unreasonable. I think one problem with this viewpoint is that in the real world bone material often has many more uses than are present in the game and in large industry and small industry alike the bones get used for all sorts of things. For instance, there is a small amount of bone ash present in many pet food brands (for cats and dogs) even though the higher quality companies try to limit that amount for health reasons. Many early cultures used bones for needles or knitting needles (Dwarf Fortress lacks knitting, btw). Also, bones were often used as jewelry, something that already occurs in the game. I think if you wanted to increase the usability of bones and thereby decrease their build-up in city stockpiles you would need to make the market for bone larger by increasing the demand for bone crafts or bone decoration, or other uses such as bone meal for fertilizer. I think this would be much more realistic than trying to limit the production and accumulation of bone. If you don't want the stores to be full of the stuff, why not make it more prevalent as something that is actually more useful for the townspeople?
I was looking for a short-term fix, which was rebalancing the number of bone crafts made and just letting the rest of the bones sit. I'm all for adding more industries, but I'm trying to arrive at a release now. Hopefully there will be more bone industries in the future. There certainly are a lot of bones!
Toady, if you need a short term fix that could have a lasting usable sense, allow bones to be used in regular food production. Bone serves two purposes in human cooking. The first, is as a stock ingredient, the second: ground up bone meal is used in the production of clear gelatin. It shouldn't be too difficult to flag bones as usable for food production and add two new food descriptors: Soup (or stew) and Gelatin Mold. I know this can be accomplished with RAWs at the moment, but if towns/villages/castles also produce food items as well as bone crafts, it should drastically drop the bone stockpiles while offering a wider selection of random food. (forgotten beast bone, unicorn bone, sunshine, elephant meat stew anybody?)
There was also mention one of the dwarf fortress talks about period themed tavern/inn names (or even shops in general). Dungeons and Dragons actually has a simple die roll generator that takes an Adjective (i.e. Drunken) and a noun (i.e. Blade) And appends The at the start. So you end up with The Drunken Blade (which could be a blacksmith alcoholic or a nice place to get a drink and a brawl.) Wouldn't be terribly different from how dwarf settlements get a name during embark.
Thoughts?
Post by: narhiril on December 11, 2011, 02:37:57 pm
2) If not, will it be possible to radically reconfigure the body without changing the actual creature identification?
You can change the appearance modifiers (and thereby the ingame size) of any body part, but that's it short of a full transformation to a different creature type:Code: [Select][CE_BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:START:0:BP:BY_CATEGORY:TOOTH:APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:LENGTH:150]
[CE:COUNTER_TRIGGER:DRINKING_BLOOD:1:NONE:REQUIRED]
So you could make a creature's eyes become huge, bulging and red, or transform a creature into twice its normal size, but you couldn't make it sprout extra limbs.
I'm thinking it might be possible to circumvent that limitation by defining the desired body change as a new caste, then using CE_BODY_TRANSFORMATION to "change" over. All of that hinges on the ability to specify the caste of a transformation though.
1) Will it be possible to specify the caste of a CE_BODY_TRANSFORMATION?All signs point to yes - the DEFAULT after the WEREBEAST in [CE:CREATURE:WEREBEAST:DEFAULT] refers to the default caste of a casteless creature.
What I was unclear on - is DEFAULT a generic caste of werebeasts or is it used in the same way as DEFAULT is used in graphics definitions?
i.e. [DEFAULT:HUMIES:0:0:AS_IS:DEFAULT]
The difference is that one allows caste specification, while the other doesn't (if it did, we would have caste-level graphics, but we don't yet). I'm hoping you're right, as it was how I was planning to use the new tokens for dwarven "augmentation."
Post by: Dsarker on December 11, 2011, 02:41:48 pm
3) A last, unrelated question, that may have already been answered (forgive me if it has) - Will we be getting caste-specific graphics soon?
Already have it.
Post by: rex mortis on December 11, 2011, 03:05:58 pm
If it is permanent, I see it as merely a reason to rage quit even more characters because there is nothing I can do to overcome it. It is not possible to prepare for randomly rolling against skill 0, because often it takes just one badly failed roll to die in Dwarf Fortress. Nerve damage already permanently cripples a character in ways that are not Fun, at least beyond the initial encounter. Suddenly losing hold of one's shield is a great way to make the battle end more quickly. However, should one live through the battle in which the nerves got damaged, the character loses its appeal to me.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 11, 2011, 03:49:11 pm
3) A last, unrelated question, that may have already been answered (forgive me if it has) - Will we be getting caste-specific graphics soon?
Already have it.
Are you sure? AFAIK caste selectors for graphics didn't make it into 31.01, and I don't think they were added in subsequent releases.
Post by: murlocdummy on December 11, 2011, 04:00:58 pm
Asking for a refund on a donation is... I don't know. I'm kind of paralyzed by the audacity of that!
He may have a good reason for it. Unless he wants the donation back simply because he isn't satisfied with the game no more... in which case I'd have to wonder if he does the same thing to the Salvation Army Santa Clauses.
Him: "Here's 5 bucks."
Santa: "Thank you, this will go to helping others."
Him: "Wait, you mean I don't get anything out of it? Give it back!"
That aside, I wonder what the improvements to the adventure trading screen will be...
I mean, I never really did any trading in adventure mode... I always just salvaged stuff from lairs and camps. Then I'd die in the process.
I imagine though with the new cities, tombs, dungeons, and catacombs I'll probably spend a good bit in adventure mode this time. Though I am also looking forward to the dwarf mode stuff, like historical migrants and the better unit screen. Then there's the stuff that affects both modes, vampires, were-creatures, and necromancers. It may not change the game drastically, but there is certainly going to be enough to keep me busy for while.
You know what, EmeraldWind? You were right about the latter portion about me. It really is because I'm dissatisfied with the game, and yes, I'd ask for money back from the Salvation Army Santa if I found out that the "helping others" bit actually means spending 99% of the money on paying Salvation Army Santa paychecks and overhead, causing a total effect of 10% of that money trickling down to the needy. In fact, I'd either ask for my money back or I'd stand right next to him with my own bell and start yelling at people on the street to stop giving to them, or at the very least start yelling in a very loud and audible voice for them to change their ways.
I kind of feel like I was unfairly lured into this game and community, and my money was taken for a cause that didn't really exist. The more I look at the community, the more I'm starting to wonder if that cause seemed to exist more in a statistical calculation of the proportion of potential DF players that would have been tricked into donating before finding out that the game isn't even playable to them and 90% of the general public. I thought I was donating to a good cause, the creation of a game that is the answer to Valve's over-popular main-streamized releases, Minecraft's endlessly addictive grinding, and Angry Birds' coffee break gaming. What I eventually found out was that the game's getting rave reviews from people who don't seem to have any real interest in making the game more accessible to the general public, there's an endless amount of mindless grinding just to do anything, and you'd have to take Angry Birds breaks just to prevent yourself from ripping your hair out.
As much as I like a close-knit community that isn't composed of 8 year old children calling you "fagget" every 3 seconds, I'd still prefer Toady to hire someone to help him with making the game more playable to its users, rather than trying to add on new content that undoubtedly more than 90% of players will never see.
The more I look at the devlog, the more I'm concerned that the previous problems with the game such as the AI and menu grinding are going to interfere in a game-breaking way. Sure there's going to be more content to explore, but knowing Toady's track record, I'll have to come to expect not only new problems, but the old problems causing even more issues than before. I know it's probably redundant, and most of the users on this thread have already either voiced or formulated their concerns, thoughts, and praise from Toady's last post, but I'll summarize them anyway.
-----------------------------------
[1]At first, I thought the first sentence of Toady's answer about customs indicated that he had completed the framework for procedurally generated cultures. This made perfect sense, since his brother's got a degree in history, and anyone that knows anything about history knows that cultures are based on any and all cultures that have interacted with them in their past or present. Knowing that Toady likes coding and things that interact with one another, it would seem like an obvious progression. Unfortunately, it just seems that cultural motifs are simply based on his writer, ThreeToe, and not on some sort of totally awesome history algorithm.
[2]I don't think that keeping a bare minimum playability and sensibility would really fly for those 90% that keep leaving the game. Somehow, I don't think that making villagers move around and work is a good idea at all, based on the AI from Fortress Mode. Of course, making villagers completely invincible and incapable of changing mood, hunger, thirst, or any other individual stat that's changeable in Fortress Mode would likely alleviate that, but I don't want to have anybody moving about and performing jobs if that's only going to make them do stupid things like swim around in the sewers and rivers, flood the entire town with lava, or have everyone in town congregate into a moshpit in a closet somewhere.
[3]It almost sounds like Toady's never really played his own game, which would go a long way to explain why he doesn't seem to really give a capybara's ass in regards to the problems that are scaring the majority of users away. Then again, that'd just be silly. He's undoubtedly played Dwarf Fortress before, and and probably doesn't give a damn about that statement he made two years ago about not wanting the community to get all elitist on him.
Come on now. I want people to play my game. When you guys get all exclusive, it's bad for me.I'm starting to think he's intentionally making the game worse than what it should be in order to keep the exclusive nature of the community intact so he and the community don't have to deal with moderating a forum of newby jackasses all day long, which is understandable, but of course, that's a debate for another time.
[4]In the stance on attributes, I think that it's spot-on. Attributes shouldn't be the be-all, end-all of what determines a dwarf's output. Of course, it should have some sort of XP and job-related happiness modifier to make it more realistic, but then again, the game was never about realism, was it?
[5]It looks like Toady really, truly intended prisoner punishments to be death sentences, which would make the game all kinds of harder, and would make the game more enjoyable except for the fact that they're usually imprisoned for not reprioritizing their job orders to coincide with your baroness' mandates. Until the Job Prioritization portion of the devlog gets done, the whole of the punishment and justice system will remain broken and untenable
[6][7][13][14] I think that most of us can agree that war with the homeland is just one of a myriad of things that Toady really shouldn't be prioritizing, and won't make the game much better, even if he implements it in all of its full glory. Much to our chagrin, I'm sure he's going to end up working on this long before he fixes whatever problems with vendor pricing, vampires, or town generation he causes in the upcoming releases. I do believe that the answers to caknuck, King_of_the_weasles, and Cruxador are the only things that I have no real reservations about, which is kind of sad, in my opinion. They're the little details that make the game a little bit nicer if they work, and don't really matter at all if they don't work.
[8]I think that Toady is expecting kind of a lot from the player in regards to prisoner ethics. Then again, he's always expecting an excessive amount of contribution and devotion from the player in order to play his game, so I guess that point isn't really valid. Regardless, I find it odd that he expects the player to keep prisoners despite the fact that the only use they have is probably preventing more attacks from coming from their homeland. Hell, I'm not even sure that there even is a diplomatic disposition modification that takes place whenever you execute prisoners, but there is obviously no discernable incentive for keeping prisoners alive. You can't negotiate with the hostile nation, they can't be converted to the dwarven side, you can't even take them out of their cages without them trying to attack you like some wild animal. It's quite unreasonable to expect the player to treat them any differenely.
[9]I find it interesting that Toady's starting to get "time-sqeezed" working on all of these new additions. He won't hire anyone to fix the old, game-breaking problems, and he isn't willing to fix them himself, and now it seems that he can't even be bothered to handle issues regarding things that haven't even been released to the public yet. I'm starting to really fear for the future of DF if things like this keep up.
[10] The main issue about this is the fact that every time I find and kill a vampire, I'd have not only repeat the Burrow Dance in order to prevent my dwarves from contaminating my cistern, I'd have to also look around and check every single dwarf in the area to make sure they haven't hauled away a contaminated bucket or have to go into Dwarf Therapist and ensure that I've disabled every single job on every single dwarf in the hopes that 1 or 2 of them will consider Cleaning to be a more important job than No Job. Of course, more likely than not, out of a fortress of 235 dwarves, not a single one of them will consider Cleaning to be more important than No Job, so I'd probably have to do the DFHack Waltz whenever a vampire is killed to clean up all that contaminated blood. Of course, I'm sure you all are aware of the fact that though most of us would do all that, the overwhelming majority of players would probably do the Fuck This Game Tango and stop playing at that point.
[11]Is that really NOEMOTION I see? It makes me think that to identify vampires, all you have to do is just go into the unit's description screen and find that there's either no mention of what the dwarf was feeling lately, or that the description of their emotional state never changes. I'm quite worried with what Toady's admitted to in regards to the problems with vampires at this point. It's nice that he admits to releasing something that doesn't work right, but it'd be nicer if he admitted to more than just the occasional sentence. I'd like to know what problems to expect, rather than have to find them all on my own.
[12]The only thing I'm glad about is the fact that you won't have to do burrowing surgery in order to find a vampire, since it looks like just examining the unit description should be sufficient. Repeating mandatory blood testing and cleaning procedures would take hours to do for each and every migrant wave and might even make 95% of players leave instead of just 90%.
-----------------------------------
I doubt that I was very comprehensive in this post, and I apologize in advance for the next part not meeting real analysis-type standards, either. It also seems that I butchered the point on [4]. I'll make sure to read over the information a few more times before posting on the next part.
[1] Neonivek
[2] Knight Otu
[3] Monk12
[4] Kogut
[5] Di
[6] Ganthan
[7] caknuck
[8] Rystic
[9] Shinotsa
[10] Dsarker
[11] Fieari
[12] Dae
[13] King_of_the_weasles
[14] Cruxador
Post by: SirPenguin on December 11, 2011, 04:11:48 pm
I guess this style of forum doesn't let you include straight up HTML, so you can find said overlays here:
http://jreengusoccurring.blogspot.com/2011/12/city-map-overlays.html
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 11, 2011, 04:19:10 pm
So, in an effort to help visualize the cities, I created a couple of "map overlays" that allow you to see a direct comparison between the abstracted maps we've seen so far, and what is actually in-game. I didn't know that this relationship is practically one-to-one, so the overlays ended up looking really nice.
I guess this style of forum doesn't let you include straight up HTML, so you can find said overlays here:
http://jreengusoccurring.blogspot.com/2011/12/city-map-overlays.html
That's neat, but I thought those maps were 1-to-1...
Post by: Dsarker on December 11, 2011, 04:26:13 pm
3) A last, unrelated question, that may have already been answered (forgive me if it has) - Will we be getting caste-specific graphics soon?
Already have it.
Are you sure? AFAIK caste selectors for graphics didn't make it into 31.01, and I don't think they were added in subsequent releases.
In that different castes of the same creature (say, a dwarf for example) have different tiles? Yes.
Post by: SirPenguin on December 11, 2011, 04:26:26 pm
So, in an effort to help visualize the cities, I created a couple of "map overlays" that allow you to see a direct comparison between the abstracted maps we've seen so far, and what is actually in-game. I didn't know that this relationship is practically one-to-one, so the overlays ended up looking really nice.
I guess this style of forum doesn't let you include straight up HTML, so you can find said overlays here:
http://jreengusoccurring.blogspot.com/2011/12/city-map-overlays.html
That's neat, but I thought those maps were 1-to-1...
I guess that's old news, then. I just didn't know it mapped so perfectly. I figured the abstracted maps were just that, a more general idea of what districts or building placements should look like.
Post by: Putnam on December 11, 2011, 04:30:28 pm
3) A last, unrelated question, that may have already been answered (forgive me if it has) - Will we be getting caste-specific graphics soon?
Already have it.
Are you sure? AFAIK caste selectors for graphics didn't make it into 31.01, and I don't think they were added in subsequent releases.
In that different castes of the same creature (say, a dwarf for example) have different tiles? Yes.
Caste-level graphics are impossible, I'm pretty sure.
Post by: Knight Otu on December 11, 2011, 04:36:48 pm
In that different castes of the same creature (say, a dwarf for example) have different tiles? Yes.The question wasn't about tiles though, but about graphics.
The devlog has mentioned 'bad luck' curse before. If one is afflicted, is it possible to get better?Curses are permanent for the time being. Lifting curses has been talked about in DF Talk and a few of the answer posts, though, and is planned for the future.
What I was unclear on - is DEFAULT a generic caste of werebeasts or is it used in the same way as DEFAULT is used in graphics definitions?I'm pretty sure it's the default caste. It's the same format as other tags that select specific castes, and the xml export names the caste of casteless creatures as DEFAULT.
i.e. [DEFAULT:HUMIES:0:0:AS_IS:DEFAULT]
The difference is that one allows caste specification, while the other doesn't (if it did, we would have caste-level graphics, but we don't yet). I'm hoping you're right, as it was how I was planning to use the new tokens for dwarven "augmentation."
Post by: Toady One on December 11, 2011, 05:32:18 pm
I kind of feel like I was unfairly lured into this game and community, and my money was taken for a cause that didn't really exist.
I normally don't go into contribution details, but since murlocdummy has become somewhat ridiculous, and the payments are recent, I've returned them. I've also banned his account to make it easier for him to move along to greener pastures.
Post by: Neonivek on December 11, 2011, 05:47:16 pm
He probably should have done his research a bit more... as the vast majority of his points were already long since answered or explained.
Post by: CharlesPeter on December 11, 2011, 05:48:17 pm
I kind of feel like I was unfairly lured into this game and community, and my money was taken for a cause that didn't really exist.
I normally don't go into contribution details, but since murlocdummy has become somewhat ridiculous, and the payments are recent, I've returned them. I've also banned his account to make it easier for him to move along to greener pastures.
hahaha, niiiiiiice. he was like, the ultimate troll.
Post by: Neonivek on December 11, 2011, 05:52:03 pm
I kind of feel like I was unfairly lured into this game and community, and my money was taken for a cause that didn't really exist.
I normally don't go into contribution details, but since murlocdummy has become somewhat ridiculous, and the payments are recent, I've returned them. I've also banned his account to make it easier for him to move along to greener pastures.
hahaha, niiiiiiice. he was like, the ultimate troll.
I see him more like someone who saw 20% of a great idea and wanted the other 80% of it to be just as great.
In a similar way to my relationship with Minecraft (except I complain a bit less and understand why it is going where it is going and only blame myself for gambling on it being a game I'd really enjoy later on based on inconclusive evidence).
THOUGH specifically calling me out before I even posted to say that I don't listen to him...
I have the sneeking suspicion that the correct course is to just instantly move on.
Post by: CharlesPeter on December 11, 2011, 06:01:18 pm
I see him more like someone who saw 20% of a great idea and wanted the other 80% of it to be just as great.
In a similar way to my relationship with Minecraft (except I complain a bit less).
THOUGH specifically calling me out before I even posted to say that I don't listen to him...
I have the sneeking suspicion that the correct course is to just instantly move on.
maybe. but for DF at least, the problem is that the other 80% of the game doesn't exist in it's final state yet, so of course it's gunna feel thrown together and/or not meeting potential and gunna let some people down. but it just seemed like he was being belligerent for the sake of it. That Salvation Army Santa thing was hilarious.
Post by: Neonivek on December 11, 2011, 06:02:49 pm
I mean he saw 20% as a great idea. In otherwords he didn't like the other 80% of the game.
It is my relationship with Minecraft. I see a lot of potential for it to be one of the games I always wanted... it is just that it isn't going to be that game and it is quite obvious now.
Also the Salvation army santa check thing I also found hillarious if only because he said it as if it wasn't in some way true. One of the major criticisms of many a charity is that their overhead is often quite large and it isn't unusual for a charity to give less to the cause itself then its own costs.
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 11, 2011, 06:04:16 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on December 11, 2011, 06:19:34 pm
Are there going to be more complicated trade agreements than what we have now, based on the outside world? For example, the liaison might say, "Hey, Urist, I know this is kind of on short notice, but last Felsite old Bomrek III died and his son Solon IV ascended to the throne and declared war on the elves to the east, so we're getting our army set up, and we'll buy all the steel you can produce- at 150% the cover price."
"Improved dwarf mode trade agreements" are on the dev page (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html) under "World economy," and that's all in the broader context of the Caravan Arc. So it's on the way. However, the scenario you described won't be possible until settlements are making trade decisions during gameplay a la Release 5. The more immediate changes to trade agreements will probably involve getting them working with the new caravans:
Quote from: monk12Will trade embargoes be handled at some point in the Caravan Arc?
In those first releases? Probably not, since the listed releases just get the basics of caravans moving around at all and the ability to make basic agreements with them.
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 11, 2011, 06:59:04 pm
It's over now.
Post by: Neonivek on December 11, 2011, 07:08:08 pm
Let's not talk about a person who's been banned and can't defend themselves.
It's over now.
Let us instead talk about the possibility of possible Megabeast Mummies with curses that transform people into their half-breed children/kin.
Oooh! or possibly Megabeasts that instead of dying come back as some sort of corrupted version of themselves (I can imagine Titans doing that)
Though I believe right now... Powers cannot be mummies and there are no "sentient" Megabeasts and no "social" semimegabeast.
Post by: Squanto on December 11, 2011, 08:21:18 pm
Let us instead talk about the possibility of possible Megabeast Mummies with curses that transform people into their half-breed children/kin.
Oooh! or possibly Megabeasts that instead of dying come back as some sort of corrupted version of themselves (I can imagine Titans doing that)
Though I believe right now... Powers cannot be mummies and there are no "sentient" Megabeasts and no "social" semimegabeast.
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of weremegabeasts that happen to also be necromancers while transformed and spread their disease through secreted gasses and blood...
Post by: G-Flex on December 11, 2011, 08:23:09 pm
Let's not talk about a person who's been banned and can't defend themselves.
It's over now.
I'm just sad that someone like him can start off with a coherent enough argument (at least in part), then completely devolve into feeling ripped off because he made a voluntary donation to someone with extremely transparent development practices and pretty much nothing at all to hide. Christ, donating to DF isn't exactly an uninformed decision unless you really, really try hard not to try.
Post by: Neonivek on December 11, 2011, 08:26:06 pm
Let's not talk about a person who's been banned and can't defend themselves.
It's over now.
I'm just sad that someone like him can start off with a coherent enough argument (at least in part), then completely devolve into feeling ripped off because he made a voluntary donation to someone with extremely transparent development practices and pretty much nothing at all to hide. Christ, donating to DF isn't exactly an uninformed decision unless you really, really try hard not to try.
I have to agree... At first I didn't mind his alternative oppinions to the almost sardonic chants of the board (Is sardonic the correct word?).
Post by: sambojin on December 11, 2011, 08:39:53 pm
"But what about the bugs? The horrible user interface? The fact that it runs slowly sometimes?".
For many of us, we'll be laughing pretty hard if his answer is "That's exactly how I wanted the game to be. It's finished. Have fun!"
We can only hope he never does, as long as the donations are enough to keep him coding.
Post by: Funk on December 11, 2011, 09:18:08 pm
Post by: Capntastic on December 11, 2011, 09:31:06 pm
Post by: Mr Frog on December 11, 2011, 09:35:37 pm
I have to agree... At first I didn't mind his alternative oppinions to the almost sardonic chants of the board (Is sardonic the correct word?).
I think the word you're looking for is 'sycophantic'. However, though I think this forum goes a bit overboard with the Toad-Worship at times, it's a lot better than some forums I've seen in that you're actually allowed to express dissenting opinions so long as you aren't an idiot about it. The community as a whole seems to value maturity, not conformity. [/sycophantic gushing]
Is it/will it be possible for a single interaction to have multiple targets/means of selecting targets? For example, could I mod in an interaction that paralyzes a target on line-of-sight, but makes the caster dizzy/drowsy as a sort of backlash?
Post by: astaldaran on December 11, 2011, 10:06:16 pm
I'm just mad Toady still hasn't used all the money I've funneled to him to put in tac nukes.
well actually...if you edit the raws you can get the game to go all the way to 'The Age of Starcraft" and tac nukes are right beside tanks in the B screen....
Post by: Footkerchief on December 11, 2011, 10:11:36 pm
Is it/will it be possible for a single interaction to have multiple targets/means of selecting targets? For example, could I mod in an interaction that paralyzes a target on line-of-sight, but makes the caster dizzy/drowsy as a sort of backlash?
It looks like interactions are set up to allow multiple targets with different effects for each. However, I'm not sure how an interaction would be made self-targeting. Shot in the dark, but maybe SELF instead of LINE_OF_SIGHT in the CDI:TARGET tag?
It's sort of weird how the interaction def is split between the INTERACTION block and the CE_CAN_DO_INTERACTION. I guess the idea is that certain interaction attributes only make sense when the interaction is being performed by a creature.
I also can't tell from those raws how "native" interactions are handled, i.e. a native ability to perform an interaction without getting the ability from a syndrome. Maybe creature effect (CE) stuff can just be included in a creature def as well as a syndrome def?
Post by: Capntastic on December 11, 2011, 10:15:26 pm
I'm just mad Toady still hasn't used all the money I've funneled to him to put in tac nukes.
well actually...if you edit the raws you can get the game to go all the way to 'The Age of Starcraft" and tac nukes are right beside tanks in the B screen....
Don't toy with me, I'm this close to revoking my donations!! You'll regret this!!
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 11, 2011, 10:42:28 pm
Is it/will it be possible for a single interaction to have multiple targets/means of selecting targets? For example, could I mod in an interaction that paralyzes a target on line-of-sight, but makes the caster dizzy/drowsy as a sort of backlash?
It looks like interactions are set up to allow multiple targets with different effects for each. However, I'm not sure how an interaction would be made self-targeting. Shot in the dark, but maybe SELF instead of LINE_OF_SIGHT in the CDI:TARGET tag?
It's sort of weird how the interaction def is split between the INTERACTION block and the CE_CAN_DO_INTERACTION. I guess the idea is that certain interaction attributes only make sense when the interaction is being performed by a creature.
I also can't tell from those raws how "native" interactions are handled, i.e. a native ability to perform an interaction without getting the ability from a syndrome. Maybe creature effect (CE) stuff can just be included in a creature def as well as a syndrome def?
From the look of the werebeast, the werebeast's bite attack (in the creature def) needs a line telling it to use an interaction. "Native" interactions are probably handled similarly (technically in the werebeast's case the bite is a "native" interaction because it isn't caused by the syndrome, but instead a part of creature def).
As for the CE_CAN_DO_INTERACTION, it seems to add the interaction to the creature similar to how adding SPECIALATTACK_INTERACTION:WEREBEAST_BITE to the creature's bite attack gives the bite attack an associated interaction. As a result it needs to define more specifically how the interaction is done.
As for why part of the interaction is in the interaction definition and the other half is under the CE_CAN_DO_INTERACTION tag is sort of clever.
I would assume this is because the interaction can be used in more that one way. For example, say there is a creature that can raise zombies like a necromancer, but instead of line of sight it is an area effect. Instead of rewriting the interaction a second time you just link CE_CAN_DO to the same interaction, but define the attack differently. This way the interaction is more user friendly to other creatures and modders. IIRC this is called the Adapter Pattern. HUZZAH FOR DESIGN PATTERNS!
Post by: Mr Frog on December 11, 2011, 10:45:14 pm
Is it/will it be possible for a single interaction to have multiple targets/means of selecting targets? For example, could I mod in an interaction that paralyzes a target on line-of-sight, but makes the caster dizzy/drowsy as a sort of backlash?
It looks like interactions are set up to allow multiple targets with different effects for each. However, I'm not sure how an interaction would be made self-targeting. Shot in the dark, but maybe SELF instead of LINE_OF_SIGHT in the CDI:TARGET tag?
It's sort of weird how the interaction def is split between the INTERACTION block and the CE_CAN_DO_INTERACTION. I guess the idea is that certain interaction attributes only make sense when the interaction is being performed by a creature.
I also can't tell from those raws how "native" interactions are handled, i.e. a native ability to perform an interaction without getting the ability from a syndrome. Maybe creature effect (CE) stuff can just be included in a creature def as well as a syndrome def?
From what I can tell, the CE specifically stands for "Creature Effect" or some such, so [CE_CAN_DO_INTERACTION:Blah] specifically means that the creature can perform Interaction Blah while under the effect of Interaction Blargle. I'm willing to guess that a "native" interaction would just be straight-up [CAN_DO_INTERACTION:blah]. But I guess you've already figured that...
EDIT: Ninja'd, though in an attempt to save face I must point out that Footie prolly was referring to non-attack/substance-based interactions, such as turtles retracting into their shells.
EDIT The Second, Because Why Bother Making A New Post: I see that the secret-based interactions have a hint as to what would motivate units to search them out in worldgen. Are there any others besides a fear of dying (as in necromancers) and if so, what are they?
Relatedly, for vampire- and werewolf-style divine-punishment thingies, are there any hint tags besides MAJOR_CURSE and, if so, what do they do?
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 12, 2011, 12:06:43 am
EDIT: Ninja'd, though in an attempt to save face I must point out that Footie prolly was referring to non-attack/substance-based interactions, such as turtles retracting into their shells.
I forgot about those. I thought he was talking about stuff like a werewolf's bite where it was linked to an attack. But in my defense there is quite a chunk of cool stuff in the next version so keeping it all straight is becoming hard. Heck, I think once this version is released people will be busy for quite a while in the modding forums.
Also, though I think my initial idea for the reason the interactions are broken up is correct, I am wondering why the mummy entry has "Example D Raise" when it is tag for tag the same as the necromancer's "Example Raise". Is it to make things less confusing for the purpose of showing the interaction in the same spoiler? It's weird because like I said earlier the Mummy can easily use the Necromancer's raise without the second definition since they are the same, it is as simple a deleting that one 'D' from the tag. Maybe the mummy's is there in case someone copies and pastes it and accidentally creates duplicate entries...
Post by: monk12 on December 12, 2011, 12:11:09 am
Quote from: devlog
The rivers have ramps now, so you can get in and out of them, and the water is generally a bit more accessible.
YES! Oh, so very nice. I hope this applies to murky pools as well. I'm also curious to see if goblin invaders on amphibious mounts will be able to path back out of the water now.
Quote from: devlog
adventurers traveling can get thirsty and hungry now and can last 5 and 30 days without, respectively, as things stand
Also cool! Now my random animal murderings can have slightly more purpose than before.
The wiki is bugging out for me right now, otherwise I'd check- is DF still on the "one food unit fills you up completely" plan? That's how I remember it, and although the abstraction works well enough in Fort mode I'm not sure how it'll hold up in adventure mode.
Post by: Dae on December 12, 2011, 01:18:40 am
Post by: Deimos56 on December 12, 2011, 01:23:36 am
Will substances other than food or drink nourish or quench adventurers, such as, for the sake of simplicity and the most likely thing I suspect some people to drink, blood? And if so, is it possible for any substances to do both?
Post by: MrWiggles on December 12, 2011, 01:44:41 am
This is more of a curiosity than anything I suppose, and a strange one at that, but...
Will substances other than food or drink nourish or quench adventurers, such as, for the sake of simplicity and the most likely thing I suspect some people to drink, blood? And if so, is it possible for any substances to do both?
I suspect that blood, right now is still a contaminant, and not a liquid, so it cant be quaffed. Presumably, the Creature Raws will determine what you can eat for nourishment. So an example, goblins should be able to eat bones for nourishment.
I dont know if something can do both though.
Post by: Deimos56 on December 12, 2011, 02:24:03 am
Well, what I mean is, you can currently drink blood and such in adventure mode, and I'm curious as to whether or not that will actually do anything. Other than be a terrible diet.This is more of a curiosity than anything I suppose, and a strange one at that, but...
Will substances other than food or drink nourish or quench adventurers, such as, for the sake of simplicity and the most likely thing I suspect some people to drink, blood? And if so, is it possible for any substances to do both?
I suspect that blood, right now is still a contaminant, and not a liquid, so it cant be quaffed. Presumably, the Creature Raws will determine what you can eat for nourishment. So an example, goblins should be able to eat bones for nourishment.
I dont know if something can do both though.
Post by: MrWiggles on December 12, 2011, 02:27:12 am
Outside of giving the affects of indigesting the contaminant, I suspect nothing.Well, what I mean is, you can currently drink blood and such in adventure mode, and I'm curious as to whether or not that will actually do anything. Other than be a terrible diet.This is more of a curiosity than anything I suppose, and a strange one at that, but...
Will substances other than food or drink nourish or quench adventurers, such as, for the sake of simplicity and the most likely thing I suspect some people to drink, blood? And if so, is it possible for any substances to do both?
I suspect that blood, right now is still a contaminant, and not a liquid, so it cant be quaffed. Presumably, the Creature Raws will determine what you can eat for nourishment. So an example, goblins should be able to eat bones for nourishment.
I dont know if something can do both though.
Post by: Quantumtroll on December 12, 2011, 03:19:54 am
But that brings up a question:
Do household items like pots and jars wear out or break? Will there be garbage middens for DF archaelogists to dig through?
Post by: Caldfir on December 12, 2011, 03:38:56 am
This is more of a curiosity than anything I suppose, and a strange one at that, but...I saw a barrel of honeybee venom for sale in a shop today. I wonder if that would qualify as thirst-quenching? (along with all the random animal liquids in barrels)
Will substances other than food or drink nourish or quench adventurers, such as, for the sake of simplicity and the most likely thing I suspect some people to drink, blood? And if so, is it possible for any substances to do both?
Post by: drkpaladin on December 12, 2011, 04:13:36 am
Let's not talk about a person who's been banned and can't defend themselves.
It's over now.
I'm just sad that someone like him can start off with a coherent enough argument (at least in part), then completely devolve into feeling ripped off because he made a voluntary donation to someone with extremely transparent development practices and pretty much nothing at all to hide. Christ, donating to DF isn't exactly an uninformed decision unless you really, really try hard not to try.
Wow, seeing as how I've enjoyed both the game and community for a long time now without donating makes me feel like an ass after reading that guy's rants. I promise I'll find gainful employment soon and start donating regularly! I just have to make sure I can scrape together a few Christmas presents first too.
Post by: zwei on December 12, 2011, 04:28:15 am
This is more of a curiosity than anything I suppose, and a strange one at that, but...I saw a barrel of honeybee venom for sale in a shop today. I wonder if that would qualify as thirst-quenching? (along with all the random animal liquids in barrels)
Will substances other than food or drink nourish or quench adventurers, such as, for the sake of simplicity and the most likely thing I suspect some people to drink, blood? And if so, is it possible for any substances to do both?
Mental image of someone crazy enough to milk enough bees to fill barrel with venom ...
And pile of dead bees ... poor, poor abused bees ...
Post by: rhesusmacabre on December 12, 2011, 04:52:40 am
eg:
., .,
▒▒▲ ▲▒▒
▒▒▒▲ ▲▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒▲≈≈▲▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
edit:typo
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 12, 2011, 06:06:14 am
Post by: namad on December 12, 2011, 06:07:03 am
Asking for a refund on a donation is... I don't know. I'm kind of paralyzed by the audacity of that!
He may have a good reason for it. Unless he wants the donation back simply because he isn't satisfied with the game no more... in which case I'd have to wonder if he does the same thing to the Salvation Army Santa Clauses.
Him: "Here's 5 bucks."
Santa: "Thank you, this will go to helping others."
Him: "Wait, you mean I don't get anything out of it? Give it back!"
That aside, I wonder what the improvements to the adventure trading screen will be...
I mean, I never really did any trading in adventure mode... I always just salvaged stuff from lairs and camps. Then I'd die in the process.
I imagine though with the new cities, tombs, dungeons, and catacombs I'll probably spend a good bit in adventure mode this time. Though I am also looking forward to the dwarf mode stuff, like historical migrants and the better unit screen. Then there's the stuff that affects both modes, vampires, were-creatures, and necromancers. It may not change the game drastically, but there is certainly going to be enough to keep me busy for while.
You know what, EmeraldWind? You were right about the latter portion about me. It really is because I'm dissatisfied with the game, and yes, I'd ask for money back from the Salvation Army Santa if I found out that the "helping others" bit actually means spending 99% of the money on paying Salvation Army Santa paychecks and overhead, causing a total effect of 10% of that money trickling down to the needy. In fact, I'd either ask for my money back or I'd stand right next to him with my own bell and start yelling at people on the street to stop giving to them, or at the very least start yelling in a very loud and audible voice for them to change their ways.
I kind of feel like I was unfairly lured into this game and community, and my money was taken for a cause that didn't really exist. The more I look at the community, the more I'm starting to wonder if that cause seemed to exist more in a statistical calculation of the proportion of potential DF players that would have been tricked into donating before finding out that the game isn't even playable to them and 90% of the general public. I thought I was donating to a good cause, the creation of a game that is the answer to Valve's over-popular main-streamized releases, Minecraft's endlessly addictive grinding, and Angry Birds' coffee break gaming. What I eventually found out was that the game's getting rave reviews from people who don't seem to have any real interest in making the game more accessible to the general public, there's an endless amount of mindless grinding just to do anything, and you'd have to take Angry Birds breaks just to prevent yourself from ripping your hair out.
As much as I like a close-knit community that isn't composed of 8 year old children calling you "fagget" every 3 seconds, I'd still prefer Toady to hire someone to help him with making the game more playable to its users, rather than trying to add on new content that undoubtedly more than 90% of players will never see.
The more I look at the devlog, the more I'm concerned that the previous problems with the game such as the AI and menu grinding are going to interfere in a game-breaking way. Sure there's going to be more content to explore, but knowing Toady's track record, I'll have to come to expect not only new problems, but the old problems causing even more issues than before. I know it's probably redundant, and most of the users on this thread have already either voiced or formulated their concerns, thoughts, and praise from Toady's last post, but I'll summarize them anyway.
-----------------------------------
i think you don't understand the difference between a donation and an investment. if the salvation army went ahead and sent relief to a country you hated in their time of need, there's not a god damn thing you could do about it. you don't go to stockholders meetings, your opinions don't actually matter. if salvation army santa clause doesn't use the money the way you want him to, stop giving it to him.
Post by: Moddan on December 12, 2011, 07:12:05 am
Why does everyone keep saying that blood should be poisonous, made you ill or whatnot? Blood is actually completely edible and quite nourishing. It's more of a food than drink, though.
Wait, doesn't drinking good of amounts blood over a longer time actually lead to an iron overdose? I think the human body has serious problems getting rid of excess iron from ingested stuff. Some animals might be adapted to that.
Post by: Knight Otu on December 12, 2011, 07:14:13 am
Oooh! or possibly Megabeasts that instead of dying come back as some sort of corrupted version of themselves (I can imagine Titans doing that)Actually, from the mummy raws, it does look that powers can be mummies. I'm assuming that the IT_FORBIDDEN:SUPERNATURAL in the were and vamp interactions prevents powers from getting those, but mummies lack that tag in the posted raws.
Though I believe right now... Powers cannot be mummies and there are no "sentient" Megabeasts and no "social" semimegabeast.
It looks like interactions are set up to allow multiple targets with different effects for each. However, I'm not sure how an interaction would be made self-targeting. Shot in the dark, but maybe SELF instead of LINE_OF_SIGHT in the CDI:TARGET tag?Toady mentioned when he was on the interaction interface that interactions should be able to target multiple creatures/corpses easily, so that should be possible. For the native interactions, I'm assuming that the is a separate CAN_DO_INTERACTION creature tag below which the CDI tags are written.
I also can't tell from those raws how "native" interactions are handled, i.e. a native ability to perform an interaction without getting the ability from a syndrome. Maybe creature effect (CE) stuff can just be included in a creature def as well as a syndrome def?
Do household items like pots and jars wear out or break? Will there be garbage middens for DF archaelogists to dig through?Toady has mentioned before that there is some decay of worldgen goods, but we haven't heard any details yet. It doesn't happen afterwards yet, of course. We probably won't see garbage/broken stuff for a while. Archeology was mentioned by Toady as something of a goal when the game was smaller (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg582940#msg582940). I'm not sure what the current stance is there, though the Treasure Hunter and Explorer roles play into that idea.
Why does everyone keep saying that blood should be poisonous, made you ill or whatnot? Blood is actually completely edible and quite nourishing. It's more of a food than drink, though.Probably because it tends to be seen as gross. But yeah, since there's a number of blood-based foods, blood shouldn't be poisonous by default.
Post by: zwei on December 12, 2011, 08:12:22 am
Do household items like pots and jars wear out or break? Will there be garbage middens for DF archaelogists to dig through?Toady has mentioned before that there is some decay of worldgen goods, but we haven't heard any details yet. It doesn't happen afterwards yet, of course. We probably won't see garbage/broken stuff for a while. Archeology was mentioned by Toady as something of a goal when the game was smaller (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg582940#msg582940). I'm not sure what the current stance is there, though the Treasure Hunter and Explorer roles play into that idea.
Also:
Quote
Digging and stone constructions
Ability to dig out soil tiles
Buried boulders in some soils
Ability to pull up surface boulders
If this ever comes to this particular thing, burried weaponry, clay jugs/pots and other items seem like logical thing to add "while he is at it", much like what happens with any other feature.
Post by: Muffindog on December 12, 2011, 11:17:17 am
Sweet! Interaction tags! This already looks like it's going to be awesome some of the modding capabilities out there. I earnestly look forward to the next release.
I've seen your works on the modding forum. I look forward to seeing what you'll make with these :D
Post by: Urist McDagger on December 12, 2011, 11:34:38 am
Quote
The rivers have ramps now, so you can get in and out of them, and the water is generally a bit more accessible. Adventurers traveling can get thirsty and hungry now and can last 5 and 30 days without, respectively, as things stand, though if you don't take care of yourself your rolls will start to deteriorate after 8 hours. It'll drop you out of travel and prevent you from sleeping if you are nearly dead. I think I'm going to mess around with salt water a bit next, and perhaps adds some usable wells in places.
Quote
The rivers have ramps now, so you can get in and out of them
Cool. Now competent swimmers won't drown to death because there's no way out of the river anymore. :)
Post by: Dakk on December 12, 2011, 11:51:21 am
Why does everyone keep saying that blood should be poisonous, made you ill or whatnot? Blood is actually completely edible and quite nourishing. It's more of a food than drink, though.
Wait, doesn't drinking good of amounts blood over a longer time actually lead to an iron overdose? I think the human body has serious problems getting rid of excess iron from ingested stuff. Some animals might be adapted to that.
Drinking blood in regular DF adventure mode circunstances (IE spilled on your right out of whatever you just killed, or directly from the corpse) is actualy very dangerous though. For blood to be used as nutrition it needs to be prepared like most kind of animal products. Blood has a higher possibility of carrying diseases then actual flesh, plus there's the issue with iron overdose as he mentioned.
Using blood to hydrate and feed yourself is not unheard of though. Crusaders would sometimes bleed their horses to drink their blood if they got lost in the desert without water and food. I think the french resistance fighters did it as well but I'm not sure.
Post by: mnemon on December 12, 2011, 01:16:53 pm
Why does everyone keep saying that blood should be poisonous, made you ill or whatnot? Blood is actually completely edible and quite nourishing. It's more of a food than drink, though.
Wait, doesn't drinking good of amounts blood over a longer time actually lead to an iron overdose? I think the human body has serious problems getting rid of excess iron from ingested stuff. Some animals might be adapted to that.
Drinking blood in regular DF adventure mode circunstances (IE spilled on your right out of whatever you just killed, or directly from the corpse) is actualy very dangerous though. For blood to be used as nutrition it needs to be prepared like most kind of animal products. Blood has a higher possibility of carrying diseases then actual flesh, plus there's the issue with iron overdose as he mentioned.
Using blood to hydrate and feed yourself is not unheard of though. Crusaders would sometimes bleed their horses to drink their blood if they got lost in the desert without water and food. I think the french resistance fighters did it as well but I'm not sure.
Drinking fresh blood is quite common among hunters even nowdays(From the vein when bleeding the kill, not splatters or whatever) and it isn't really any more dangerous than eating the flesh as far as i know, the flesh will have some blood left in it anyways and the most common problem of getting parasites can happen with meat too.
That said, drinking large amount of blood will probably make you throw up and might cause ironpoisoning and since blood spoils fast only fresh blood is suitable for consumption unprepared.
Drinking blood from their steeds(horses/camels) is/was quite commong among nomandic people in dry climates.
Post by: Caldfir on December 12, 2011, 02:09:59 pm
Mummies I (assume) have to be created by disturbing the tomb of some historical figure, which means they would need to be civ-linked in some way. Currently only worldgen demons qualify for this... which is actually incredibly awesome. I for one look forward to the curse of the mummified demon overlord.Oooh! or possibly Megabeasts that instead of dying come back as some sort of corrupted version of themselves (I can imagine Titans doing that)Actually, from the mummy raws, it does look that powers can be mummies. I'm assuming that the IT_FORBIDDEN:SUPERNATURAL in the were and vamp interactions prevents powers from getting those, but mummies lack that tag in the posted raws.
Though I believe right now... Powers cannot be mummies and there are no "sentient" Megabeasts and no "social" semimegabeast.
Post by: Zesty on December 12, 2011, 09:37:43 pm
I've heard about multi-tile trees and that you'd like mountainhomes to look more like player fortresses.
Could you go into more detail on the changes you'd like to make to mountainhomes, forest retreats, goblin towers, and maybe kobold dwellings?
I certainly understand that these kinds of things are still far off.
Post by: MrWiggles on December 12, 2011, 09:48:13 pm
The new human towns look great. I'm excited.
I've heard about multi-tile trees and that you'd like mountainhomes to look more like player fortresses.
Could you go into more detail on the changes you'd like to make to mountainhomes, forest retreats, goblin towers, and maybe kobold dwellings?
I certainly understand that these kinds of things are still far off.
Nothing as of yet. Right now, its just human towns. Though by having human towns being more dynamic, means that fort, towers, and forest retreats will get reworked too.
Though when he's talked about working on those other cities, seem to be waiting for the fabled army arc.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 13, 2011, 12:16:19 am
The new human towns look great. I'm excited.
I've heard about multi-tile trees and that you'd like mountainhomes to look more like player fortresses.
Could you go into more detail on the changes you'd like to make to mountainhomes, forest retreats, goblin towers, and maybe kobold dwellings?
I certainly understand that these kinds of things are still far off.
Nothing as of yet. Right now, its just human towns. Though by having human towns being more dynamic, means that fort, towers, and forest retreats will get reworked too.
Though when he's talked about working on those other cities, seem to be waiting for the fabled army arc.
Bolded a part of Met's post that I'm not sure you saw.
I tried to dig up some details, but I couldn't find much. It came up in DF Talk, but the answer went slightly off the rails:
Spoiler: long (click to show/hide)
Post by: Zesty on December 13, 2011, 11:04:08 am
I suppose my question can be better expressed as: Now that you have put in so much work into human towns and brought sewers, dungeons, and markets into the mix, has that given you new ideas for the dwellings of other races? For instance, instead of sewers for players to explore and fight monsters in, perhaps mountainhomes would have... abandoned mining caves or something that criminals and creepy-crawlies would hide in?
Post by: Sizik on December 13, 2011, 12:46:17 pm
Side question: Labyrinths and Shrines still exist, right?
* and elven retreats, but there wasn't anything there anyways.
Post by: Zesty on December 13, 2011, 12:54:01 pm
* and elven retreats, but there wasn't anything there anyways.
There were elves to
Post by: Sharp on December 13, 2011, 04:24:45 pm
Werewolf does not mean wolf-wolf. Of course a dwarf turning into a human at the full moon might be interesting, a perfect spy to infiltrate the rival human civs or perhaps an abomination cast out by both dwarves and men.
If you want to go Old English into it then it would be dweorg-wulf but dwarf-wolf might do. Were-dwarf makes me cringe. Unless you want to start calling werewolves into were-men in which case I could take that as an artistic licence.
Post by: wierd on December 13, 2011, 04:30:38 pm
Personally though, I find that the current amount of blood in barrels shipped as trade goods by merchants far exceeds this culinary use.
What I would like to see is a new set of jobs available at querns/mills, and at furnaces, which would deal with the "way too many bones causing too many bone crafts." Issue, as well as the "what in armak's name do we do with all this bottled blood!?" problem. Simple: fertilizer.
Right now the only fertilizer we have is potash. I suggest expanding that to bonemeal and bloodmeal. (Bonemeal could be further burned in the ashery to get bone ash, which is required to make white glazes and chinaware, irl.)
Coupled with the food use for blood, that should solve all the trouble.
So, for a question for toady:
You mentioned in the dev log entry that there were problems with too many bone crafts showing up in the village markets. Have you considered other industrial uses for bones other than as a crafting material, such as bonemeal, or as a secondary material in the pottery industry, such as bone ash?
Post by: Cruxador on December 13, 2011, 04:38:33 pm
When you say were-dwarves do you mean dwarves that turn into men?We've already talked about that for like three pages. We don't need to do it again.
Werewolf does not mean wolf-wolf. Of course a dwarf turning into a human at the full moon might be interesting, a perfect spy to infiltrate the rival human civs or perhaps an abomination cast out by both dwarves and men.
If you want to go Old English into it then it would be dweorg-wulf but dwarf-wolf might do. Were-dwarf makes me cringe. Unless you want to start calling werewolves into were-men in which case I could take that as an artistic licence.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 13, 2011, 04:48:58 pm
When you say were-dwarves do you mean dwarves that turn into men?
Werewolf does not mean wolf-wolf. Of course a dwarf turning into a human at the full moon might be interesting, a perfect spy to infiltrate the rival human civs or perhaps an abomination cast out by both dwarves and men.
If you want to go Old English into it then it would be dweorg-wulf but dwarf-wolf might do. Were-dwarf makes me cringe. Unless you want to start calling werewolves into were-men in which case I could take that as an artistic licence.
"Were-dwarf" in the context of dev discussion is a convenience term that means "a dwarf that has been cursed to turn into a were-creature".
Post by: PTTG?? on December 13, 2011, 05:13:37 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on December 13, 2011, 10:24:29 pm
Post by: Chthonic on December 13, 2011, 10:27:35 pm
Post by: monk12 on December 13, 2011, 10:30:06 pm
Post by: Sphalerite on December 13, 2011, 10:42:08 pm
Post by: wierd on December 13, 2011, 10:43:43 pm
Post by: Neonivek on December 13, 2011, 11:09:57 pm
But it is probably something boring like food and water.
Post by: MrWiggles on December 13, 2011, 11:17:51 pm
Goodness this whole thing makes me morbidly curious on what Toady actually spends his donation money on.
But it is probably something boring like food and water.
Well, the bigger ticket items are probably easy to figure out. Rent, and web space. Then Soda, then food.
After that, who knows. The New York Times articles described his abode as rather spartan.
Post by: Anatoli on December 14, 2011, 12:07:35 am
Quote
The fewer spontaneously generated objects the betterWhy?
For that matter, what does "spontaneously generated objects" mean in this context?
Post by: monk12 on December 14, 2011, 12:11:49 am
Post by: Kogut on December 14, 2011, 12:11:54 am
"objects that were not supposed to be created" - especially as it may be adamantine figurine or whatever else (it is my pure guess).QuoteThe fewer spontaneously generated objects the betterWhy?
For that matter, what does "spontaneously generated objects" mean in this context?
Post by: Osmosis Jones on December 14, 2011, 12:17:03 am
QuoteThe fewer spontaneously generated objects the betterWhy?
For that matter, what does "spontaneously generated objects" mean in this context?
Items that are tacked-on; added from nowhere. This is opposed to items that arise from the natural mechanics of play.
A good analogy is the goblin invasions;
The current, spontaneous system has goblin invaders generated on the map boundary; except for the odd leader, they do not exist in the universe prior to the siege.
The planned, emergent system is to have Gobbo McGoblin be born in year X to parents Gobbo McGoblin Snr and Gobbo MsGoblin, of the noble line of McGoblin, train as a pikeman by killing dwarves in a number of clashes with the neighbouring civilisation, the Syrup of Boats, then get summoned to war against you and get thoughly smooshed by a degrinchinator. All of which is viewable in the legends.
Post by: rex mortis on December 14, 2011, 12:26:13 am
Although, as far as I know, said goblin only becomes a historical figure at the moment it comes to your fortress. It will be taken from existing population pool but all the detailed history will be generated on the spot. Unless the goblin is somebody who had been made a historical figure before.QuoteThe fewer spontaneously generated objects the betterWhy?
For that matter, what does "spontaneously generated objects" mean in this context?
Items that are tacked-on; added from nowhere. This is opposed to items that arise from the natural mechanics of play.
A good analogy is the goblin invasions;
The current, spontaneous system has goblin invaders generated on the map boundary; except for the odd leader, they do not exist in the universe prior to the siege.
The planned, emergent system is to have Gobbo McGoblin be born in year X to parents Gobbo McGoblin Snr and Gobbo MsGoblin, of the noble line of McGoblin, train as a pikeman by killing dwarves in a number of clashes with the neighbouring civilisation, the Syrup of Boats, then get summoned to war against you and get thoughly smooshed by a degrinchinator. All of which is viewable in the legends.
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 14, 2011, 04:06:03 am
You mentioned in the dev log entry that there were problems with too many bone crafts showing up in the village markets. Have you considered other industrial uses for bones other than as a crafting material, such as bonemeal, or as a secondary material in the pottery industry, such as bone ash?
Or, you know, let them just throw the bones away.
Post by: Zaerosz on December 14, 2011, 04:57:56 am
Quote from: Devlog
And sock-wearing kobolds that have little coats and caps for some reason.Please don't change this. This is perfect.
Post by: Moddan on December 14, 2011, 05:37:19 am
Quote from: DevlogAnd sock-wearing kobolds that have little coats and caps for some reason.Please don't change this. This is perfect.
Disguising as little children might help stealing stuff from the big races unnoticed.
Post by: CharlesPeter on December 14, 2011, 07:05:25 am
Goodness this whole thing makes me morbidly curious on what Toady actually spends his donation money on.
But it is probably something boring like food and water.
Well, the bigger ticket items are probably easy to figure out. Rent, and web space. Then Soda, then food.
After that, who knows. The New York Times articles described his abode as rather spartan.
I think Zach gets some of it too. And he probably saves some of it, in case donations ever slow down. That'd be my best guess.
Post by: wierd on December 14, 2011, 01:30:22 pm
You mentioned in the dev log entry that there were problems with too many bone crafts showing up in the village markets. Have you considered other industrial uses for bones other than as a crafting material, such as bonemeal, or as a secondary material in the pottery industry, such as bone ash?
Or, you know, let them just throw the bones away.
Grinding the bones up and then plowing them under destroys them, which pretty much *is* throwing them away. Given the objective of having all items be produced via game mechanics, and the issues with starvation that could happen, giving a way to fertilize without massive deforestation for ashes would be a good thing to consider. The bone ash suggestion for ceramics to make china and white glazes was just to throw out another suggestion.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 14, 2011, 01:48:57 pm
Post by: wierd on December 14, 2011, 02:10:52 pm
Other historical uses of bones prior to ending up as midden, bonemeal, or bone ash was to boil them for creating soup base.
Chicken bones are soft and porous, so it would take a whole lot of them to make any reasonable quantity of either bonemeal or bone ash (a whole chicken would only produce a few ounces...), so they were usually used for soup stock, then discarded.
Bonemeal was traditionally made from the thick, heavy bones of herbivores where you would get more out of the labor.
Post by: King_of_the_weasels on December 14, 2011, 02:46:39 pm
Post by: Anatoli on December 14, 2011, 03:46:29 pm
He means that there shouldn't be items that appear out of nowhere just so there are interesting things down in the sewers. Ideally, every item would come from someplace in worldgen.Thanks. I get it now.
Post by: Neonivek on December 14, 2011, 04:08:06 pm
But also, it has never been rare for bone to get thrown away unused. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midden) I doubt it was ever common to go around collecting chicken bones from family homes.
I think the issue is that Dwarf Fortress is a world where labour has no value.
So why WOULD they throw away anything?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 14, 2011, 06:17:47 pm
Post by: Neonivek on December 14, 2011, 06:20:20 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on December 14, 2011, 06:41:18 pm
Right but there is little mechanism for someone to go "Hey maybe it wouldn't be worthwhile to turn these chicken bones into rings and just throw it out" Except possibly a Production Possibilities curve.
Or making bone craft production subject to demand, which was what it sounds like Toady did. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-12-04)
Post by: Caldfir on December 14, 2011, 09:59:06 pm
More specifically, it sounds (from later devlog entries and his most recent post in this thread) that for now at least there is a static demand for all types of finished goods, and items in surplus of this get junked. From the player's perspective, this makes pretty much no difference, apart from meaning you probably can't wreck the economy by flooding the market with spoons or whatever (at least not anytime soon).Right but there is little mechanism for someone to go "Hey maybe it wouldn't be worthwhile to turn these chicken bones into rings and just throw it out" Except possibly a Production Possibilities curve.Or making bone craft production subject to demand, which was what it sounds like Toady did. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-12-04)
Post by: Koji on December 15, 2011, 12:46:18 pm
Medieval cities, as I understand it, generally either maintained a midden outside the gates or just threw their garbage in the street, where a lot of things like half-rotted food and discared/damaged tools might end up. Mix in a little rain and it all goes down eventually.
And who else is going to mod CHUD into this release?
Post by: Thundercraft on December 15, 2011, 01:01:10 pm
...More specifically, it sounds (from later devlog entries and his most recent post in this thread) that for now at least there is a static demand for all types of finished goods, and items in surplus of this get junked. From the player's perspective, this makes pretty much no difference, apart from meaning you probably can't wreck the economy by flooding the market with spoons or whatever (at least not anytime soon).
Toady, you were worried the sewers lacked enough items. What about things like garbage discarded by the townspeople or accidentally washed down in floods etc? It might be fun to start on the bottom of the food chain (Say, as a kobold) and literally pick through trash to get by until I could start competing with my angrier neighbors.
Why not solve both problems at once? When town crafters find that they can't sell more of their bone crafts, perhaps they'll conclude that their craftmanship wasn't quite up to par on those particular items and dump (some portion of them) them into the sewers? While adventurers probably don't want to keep many bonecraft items or other leftovers, beggars shouldn't be choosers. And perhaps some times some more valuable, random items get washed down as well?
Though, if the game continually dumped the excess bone crafts into the sewers, then it would probably get cluttered rather fast. Probably best to put a limit on it or something...
Post by: Footkerchief on December 15, 2011, 01:06:05 pm
Toady, you were worried the sewers lacked enough items. What about things like garbage discarded by the townspeople or accidentally washed down in floods etc? It might be fun to start on the bottom of the food chain (Say, as a kobold) and literally pick through trash to get by until I could start competing with my angrier neighbors.
The devlog indicates concern about having interesting items -- the kind that would be deliberately taken down there by criminals and adventurers. If you want to pick through garbage, you can still go to a craft shop.
Post by: Vattic on December 15, 2011, 11:17:58 pm
Following from above: If one of your dwarves becomes a werewolf and gets killed how do they treat the corpse? Does it count as a dwarf corpse with burial? Can you butcher and have it eaten / leather made from it's skin?
Post by: Urist Da Vinci on December 16, 2011, 02:11:42 am
Is there a cap on the sewer population vs the surface population, or can we get situations where are more criminals in the sewer than people living in homes above?
Are the groups/creatures in the sewer all allied against the player, or can we see/cause factions in conflict?
Post by: hermes on December 16, 2011, 03:18:03 am
Do/Will the bandits (or gobbo camps etc.) perform raids on, say, the town or the marketplace, from their bases in the sewers/dungeons - either in world gen or adventure mode?
Post by: Rip0k on December 16, 2011, 10:21:45 am
Edit:
On second thought. I haven't found anything like that in the game, and don't recall if Toady said something about it. So..
Do You plan to add a "Secret Room" feature during caravan arc releases?
Post by: Knight Otu on December 16, 2011, 10:48:02 am
If you kill a were-creature while in it's were-form does it's corpse change back?
Following from above: If one of your dwarves becomes a werewolf and gets killed how do they treat the corpse? Does it count as a dwarf corpse with burial? Can you butcher and have it eaten / leather made from it's skin?
Werebeasts do not revert on death last we heard:
Considering that the current werewolf creature has the CAN_LEARN tag, I would assume that the werebeasts generally will have it, as well, which would mean no butchery for dwarves. Since it would not be a dwarf corpse, the dwarves likely wouldn't bury it in a coffin. The were might not even return as a ghost, but don't quote me on that.Quote from: Khym Chanur1. Will body modification curses revert on death? That is, if a transformed werewolf is killed, will the corpse be a wolf or a human?Right now they don't revert, and I don't have further curses, though a visual ranged or non-visual ranged curse transfer could be modded in, or a poison curse transfer.
In the screenshots provided on the dev log, the river water was 2 z-levels below the town, so the sewers 1 z-level below the town wouldn't flood.I don't think that it's a result of the sewer, actually. The river being 2 z-levels (or more) down happens very often in the current version already.
hey guys, are there secret rooms in the dungeons or anywhere for that matter? I mean something like when normally you just see continuous wall, but if you look closer you might notice a hidden lever to open up a passage.Secret doors most likely won't be in this release, as Toady hasn't said anything about that. Similarly, it is unlikely that he has planned for them to be in the next few content releases. It is quite possible that an opportunity arises for them to come in due to some emergent feature addition or other, similar to the night creatures in this release. However, seeing that pyramids (re)-entered the game without secret doors coming in, the probably best opportunity has already passed. I suppose some manors could use them, but I wouldn't count on it.
Edit:
On second thought. I haven't found anything like that in the game, and don't recall if Toady said something about it. So..
Do You plan to add a "Secret Room" feature during caravan arc releases?
Post by: Rip0k on December 16, 2011, 11:38:28 am
I really hope that Toady manage to somehow throw it in before Army Arc starts.
Anyway this release will be sweet anyhow. :P
Post by: Vattic on December 16, 2011, 12:21:39 pm
It's a shame that we will likely be unable to butcher were-creatures but it makes some sense.
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 16, 2011, 04:30:27 pm
I thought of an idea involving a creature getting a syndrome that kills them and then causes them to raise a while later.
But while examining the tags I noticed that my idea might not be possible... because the raise portion of the interaction isn't in the syndrome, but in the interaction effect... (Though I did notice you could probably give a necromancer a
That's not to say delayed raising isn't there. I noticed the [IE_IMMEDIATE] and [IE_INTERMITTENT:WEEKLY]. The first seems to mean the interaction's effect takes place immediately when the interaction is used. The second seems to be a result of a continuous effect used in regional zombies and by my guess raises corpses on a weekly basis. So I would assume there are other tokens involving timing as well.
Are there other interaction effect tokens that deal with timing and delays? Are there any event trigger effect tokens? (Like an IE_TRIGGER:UPON_DEATH)
But it would be hard to do something like a zombie virus that kills the victim and raises them later from what I can tell.
Is it possible to have syndromes have interaction effects, like raising a corpse killed by said syndrome?
Actually, I think I'm asking if it is possible for a syndrome to be a source for an interaction instead of simply giving the creature the ability to use an interaction. (Just because I thought it would be funny if a dwarf was hit by a FB syndrome that later causes it to become the walking dead. The idea of a zombie dwarf raising for no obvious reason is good for the 'wtf' factor FB syndromes have.)
I kind of wish Toady would release a list of all the new tokens to get a better idea of the possibilities and limits of the interactions.
Post by: Caldfir on December 16, 2011, 04:50:35 pm
Post by: monk12 on December 17, 2011, 01:02:32 am
Quote from: devlog
It now keeps track of all the former positions of historical figures by start/end year, so you can see those in the legends, and so I can mention the important points about a person on memorial slabs.
Ooh, that's pretty cool. This means we can actually have memorial slabs be interesting, instead of just a name.
Post by: Kogut on December 17, 2011, 03:17:28 am
In part it is done (artifacts, date of death & birth, preferences, kill list)...Quote from: devlogIt now keeps track of all the former positions of historical figures by start/end year, so you can see those in the legends, and so I can mention the important points about a person on memorial slabs.
Ooh, that's pretty cool. This means we can actually have memorial slabs be interesting, instead of just a name.
Post by: Newbunkle on December 17, 2011, 04:50:34 am
Quote
fixed some catacombs that managed to exit out into the ocean and fill with water
Actually, I think I would have LOL'd finding those in-game. I'd know that it wasn't just me who drowns my own base.
Post by: Areyar on December 17, 2011, 09:11:24 am
Quote
. . . It now keeps track of all the former positions of historical figures by start/end year . . .Does this mean that items in an abandoned/killed fortress don't wander around the site when reclaimed or visited?
Even if it is just the corpses that keep their stuff/don't move around, that would be cool.
Post by: Knight Otu on December 17, 2011, 09:17:06 am
I think you are misunderstanding what Toady said there. He's talking about positions of people, not of items during play (and I'm not fully certain, but he might be talking entity positions rather than location - though the game already tracks the former, he might make it more clear in legends mode or something).Quote. . . It now keeps track of all the former positions of historical figures by start/end year . . .Does this mean that items in an abandoned/killed fortress don't wander around the site when reclaimed or visited?
Even if it is just the corpses that keep their stuff/don't move around, that would be cool.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 17, 2011, 10:15:45 am
I think you are misunderstanding what Toady said there. He's talking about positions of people, not of items during play (and I'm not fully certain, but he might be talking entity positions rather than location - though the game already tracks the former, he might make it more clear in legends mode or something).Quote. . . It now keeps track of all the former positions of historical figures by start/end year . . .Does this mean that items in an abandoned/killed fortress don't wander around the site when reclaimed or visited?
Even if it is just the corpses that keep their stuff/don't move around, that would be cool.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's entity positions and not "Lived in Fishtown" per se.
Post by: caknuck on December 17, 2011, 01:57:02 pm
Urist Rustytongues (b. 612 d. 629)
Named Broker of Maimedchannels on 12 Felsite 627
Replaced as Broker of Maimedchannels on 24 Felsite 627 (when the usual broker finished his nap)
Drowned 3 Malachite 629
Post by: Areyar on December 17, 2011, 05:14:09 pm
He did also write he fixed a problem with adventurer equipment in the dungeons. . . I can't think of another problem besides it wandering away from dead adventurers on its own.I think you are misunderstanding what Toady said there. He's talking about positions of people, not of items during play (and I'm not fully certain, but he might be talking entity positions rather than location - though the game already tracks the former, he might make it more clear in legends mode or something).Quote. . . It now keeps track of all the former positions of historical figures by start/end year . . .Does this mean that items in an abandoned/killed fortress don't wander around the site when reclaimed or visited?
Even if it is just the corpses that keep their stuff/don't move around, that would be cool.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's entity positions and not "Lived in Fishtown" per se.
Post by: Neonivek on December 17, 2011, 05:30:16 pm
Urist Rustytongues (b. 612 d. 629)
Named Broker of Maimedchannels on 12 Felsite 627
Replaced as Broker of Maimedchannels on 24 Felsite 627 (when the usual broker finished his nap)
Drowned 3 Malachite 629
Kinda makes me wish accidental death was actually put into legends mode.
Post by: Knight Otu on December 17, 2011, 05:37:21 pm
He did also write he fixed a problem with adventurer equipment in the dungeons. . . I can't think of another problem besides it wandering away from dead adventurers on its own.From the top of my head - The generated equipment might not respect the adventurer's skills. The quality might not reflect the adventurer's skill level as it does with living adventurers. The equipment might be generated from a wrong entity definition (potentially according to local culture rather than home culture if adventurer traveled there from elsewhere). The armor and clothing might be generated at the wrong size. Then there might be problems we might not quite perceive as problems, such as not reflecting the adventurer's history properly (such as wolf bone crafts for an adventurer who slew tons of wolves before being gutted by a sewer kobold).
Post by: Rockphed on December 17, 2011, 08:35:57 pm
such as wolf bone crafts for an adventurer who slew tons of wolves before being gutted by a sewer kobold.
That was always my favorite part of resuming a retired adventurer. They always had a boat load of crafts from all their previous kills.
Post by: monk12 on December 17, 2011, 11:43:45 pm
Alright, Toady just called for mid-January release, which pushes my personal prediction to mid-February :P
Post by: Neonivek on December 17, 2011, 11:49:45 pm
If it takes a bit longer us sane people will understand :D
Post by: Kogut on December 18, 2011, 01:12:54 am
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 18, 2011, 07:35:11 am
As optimization is coming, after fixing new bugs and before fixing old bugs - I may wait till February 2013.Not unless Toady finds a way to optimize optimization.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on December 18, 2011, 09:06:36 am
Post by: Zahariel on December 19, 2011, 12:13:20 pm
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on December 19, 2011, 04:48:02 pm
Is there anything that (has been|will be) done about whips, lashes, and scourges?AFAIK nothing and probably nothing will be done with it any time soon. If you get lucky, maybe it will be taken care of in some bugfix round after this major release. If not, well, you can wait year or two, right?
Post by: MrWiggles on December 19, 2011, 04:53:01 pm
Is there anything that (has been|will be) done about whips, lashes, and scourges? It's still a little ridiculous that my full-adamantine-plate-champions have to cower in terror from a common goblin lasher because he has a lightsaber.We might see some combat fixes to the raw numbers when we goes in for the more combat stuff in Release 8. With the combat move/speed split. But nothing for this release.
Post by: SirPenguin on December 19, 2011, 09:18:50 pm
Multithread the optimization code, then run it through a profiler and WinRAR it (double compression) a few times. Guaranteed to squeak out a solid 10 FPS gainAs optimization is coming, after fixing new bugs and before fixing old bugs - I may wait till February 2013.Not unless Toady finds a way to optimize optimization.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 19, 2011, 10:19:27 pm
Post by: Willfor on December 19, 2011, 10:48:05 pm
Post by: Urist McCheeseMaker on December 19, 2011, 10:49:24 pm
Toady after reading the latest devlog entry i was wondering if only the blood of intelligent creatures work or if you could suck out a bunny or a boar. Secondly i wonder what would happen if you suck the blood of a creature that has an interaction linked to its blood?Oh gods let it be just like other drinking-... That'd be neat. Perhaps we could someday even look forward to setting nutritional values for all kinds of stuff.
And the hostility thing-... Toady said that, in fortress mode, the vamp has to be found out first. I'm guessing the same goes for adv.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 19, 2011, 10:54:36 pm
And the hostility thing-... Toady said that, in fortress mode, the vamp has to be found out first. I'm guessing the same goes for adv.
I doubt that. An Adv Mode justice revamp would have been a major undertaking in its own right, and we haven't heard about it.
Toady after reading the latest devlog entry i was wondering if only the blood of intelligent creatures work or if you could suck out a bunny or a boar. Secondly i wonder what would happen if you suck the blood of a creature that has an interaction linked to its blood?
You can attach any properties you want (including interaction-bestowing syndromes) to the blood of any species, and those should be respected regardless of historical figure status. The historical figure limitation applies to material properties that are attached to the blood of only a single individual instead of the blood of the entire species. When a dwarf becomes a vampire, that status is stored in addition to all of their normal dwarf attributes from the raws, and to become persistent, that individual status has to be attached to a historical figure.
If you made a whole race of vampires, then the blood syndrome would be part of the creature definition, and the hist fig info wouldn't be necessary to contract the syndrome.
Quote from: devlog
http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-06-02
I started the vampire process by adding ingestion syndromes. These'll be used to give the option to make drinking a vampire's blood a way to pass along the curse, but since it looks at item materials and contaminants and so on, when we get to poisoned apples/alchemy/etc./etc. that'll work without any additional fiddling. It should also simplify some modding workarounds (any added food material or liquid material can be given ingestion syndromes).
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 19, 2011, 11:00:04 pm
Post by: Osmosis Jones on December 19, 2011, 11:02:06 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on December 19, 2011, 11:04:19 pm
The question is if "Bloodsucking" counts as ingestion or as something different.
Oh gotcha. Yeah, I'm sure it counts as ingestion. Not sure about sucking animal blood to satisfy your vampirism though -- Toady mentioned unconscious bandits as a more ethical source, so maybe that means it has to be the same species.
edit: I forgot to mention that the frozen ramp fixes probably got me more excited than any other part of tonight's devlog. I'm not gonna count on all of these being fixed, (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=1265) but it's a start.
Post by: Deimos56 on December 19, 2011, 11:09:00 pm
Hmmm, time to add in an effect to vampire blood so that drinking it, as a vampire, will cause nasty things to happen.Nonsense. We should encourage vampire cannibalism somehow.
Alternatively, vampire cannibals could just be given an effect that makes them rather obvious. Such as an uncontrollable tendency to glitter...
Post by: Mel_Vixen on December 19, 2011, 11:19:39 pm
Post by: Osmosis Jones on December 20, 2011, 01:50:02 am
Alternatively, vampire cannibals could just be given an effect that makes them rather obvious. Such as an uncontrollable tendency to glitter...
Man I was just thinking like longer teeth, maybe nausea or a chance for beserk rages. Sparklepire though? That's just nasty.
Post by: Sizik on December 20, 2011, 03:49:52 am
Post by: Lac on December 20, 2011, 07:47:27 am
Not sure about sucking animal blood to satisfy your vampirism thoughWatership Down all around and not a drop to drink, that's what I call rabbit starvation (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation).
Post by: Footkerchief on December 20, 2011, 10:28:34 am
What about, say, chopping off someone's arm and drinking the blood that spills on the ground?
If it doesn't work with a corpse, it definitely won't work with a blood spatter.
Post by: MrWiggles on December 20, 2011, 03:30:06 pm
When testing if you can get Vampirism from the blood, Toady stated he was in Arena mode, his adventure licked the blood splatter.What about, say, chopping off someone's arm and drinking the blood that spills on the ground?
If it doesn't work with a corpse, it definitely won't work with a blood spatter.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on December 20, 2011, 03:35:06 pm
Multithread the optimization code, then run it through a profiler and WinRAR it (double compression) a few times. Guaranteed to squeak out a solid 10 FPS gainThis is joke, right? Right?
Post by: Footkerchief on December 20, 2011, 03:51:58 pm
When testing if you can get Vampirism from the blood, Toady stated he was in Arena mode, his adventure licked the blood splatter.What about, say, chopping off someone's arm and drinking the blood that spills on the ground?
If it doesn't work with a corpse, it definitely won't work with a blood spatter.
I thought Sizik meant drinking blood for the purpose of satisfying vampiric thirst, not contracting vampirism.
Post by: MrWiggles on December 20, 2011, 04:53:53 pm
^^^ yesAfter rereading it, that does sound like what Sizik did mean.When testing if you can get Vampirism from the blood, Toady stated he was in Arena mode, his adventure licked the blood splatter.What about, say, chopping off someone's arm and drinking the blood that spills on the ground?
If it doesn't work with a corpse, it definitely won't work with a blood spatter.
I thought Sizik meant drinking blood for the purpose of satisfying vampiric thirst, not contracting vampirism.
Post by: LordNagash on December 20, 2011, 05:21:02 pm
Post by: monk12 on December 20, 2011, 05:30:28 pm
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on December 20, 2011, 05:39:27 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 20, 2011, 10:44:30 pm
Quote
Did a bunch of tweaks with undead naming in world gen, and next up I'll be extending that throughout the game, so that any interaction syndrome can provide a name like "vampire", "mummy", etc. (or whatever you want for mods).
Will this cause creatures to be referred as the syndrome provided name in Legends mode and engravings (like how King Urist is noted as being a Night Hag Spouse for his entire history) or will the Legends display the original creature type?
Post by: Footkerchief on December 21, 2011, 02:26:52 am
My question would be, Why do they have to be unconscious? I mean if you're fighting someone one-on-one, seems likely that you'd be able to grapple them and then bite into them.
Quote from: CruxadorWhat happens if all of your dwarves are vampires? Do they feed off each other?
They only feed on sleeping people, and the vampires don't sleep. So they'd have to wait for dinner to move in. Then they'd probably go a bit piranha on it when it decides to sleep.Quote from: ShinotsaCan dwarfs fight back while being fed on and do vampires avoid military/strong dwarfs? I'd hate to lose my militia commander to the weird guy nobody likes. If they can fight back what skills dictate whether they'll wake up? Will it be an awareness thing, or just a struggle when they are bitten?
The victims are sleeping so nothing dramatic happens. I originally wanted to have a wider range of feeding encounters, but we've inhabited a time-squeezed process for a while and this was less fussy.
QuoteDid a bunch of tweaks with undead naming in world gen, and next up I'll be extending that throughout the game, so that any interaction syndrome can provide a name like "vampire", "mummy", etc. (or whatever you want for mods).
Will this cause creatures to be referred as the syndrome provided name in Legends mode and engravings (like how King Urist is noted as being a Night Hag Spouse for his entire history) or will the Legends display the original creature type?
The original night creatures that do the monstrous conversion stuff haven't yet been upgraded to use the new interaction system, so that change won't affect them.
Post by: rex mortis on December 21, 2011, 10:05:02 am
It has been asked several times already so I will not bother greening.
If it happens that a vampire feeding on a person turns their entity hostile, adventurer mode justice will have to move up in priority.
Post by: Quatch on December 21, 2011, 10:55:20 am
So one could remain friendly to the civ while drinking it dry/killing them all in their sleep.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 21, 2011, 11:02:09 am
Quote from: devlog
I stopped the town's citizens from giving kobolds and beasts in the dungeons dignified burials when they happened to die from old age.
I'm definitely looking forward to some old-school kobold encounters below the city.
If it happens that a vampire feeding on a person turns their entity hostile, adventurer mode justice will have to move up in priority.
It doesn't strike me as that crucial compared to the other Adv Mode improvements on the table. Playing as a vampire is still kind of a fringe use case.
I thought that was the point of the new sheriff reporting tasks: vampirism would go unnoticed until it was noticed, then wouldn't necessarily be linked to a specific individual.
So one could remain friendly to the civ while drinking it dry/killing them all in their sleep.
And the hostility thing-... Toady said that, in fortress mode, the vamp has to be found out first. I'm guessing the same goes for adv.
I doubt that. An Adv Mode justice revamp would have been a major undertaking in its own right, and we haven't heard about it.
Post by: monk12 on December 21, 2011, 09:31:53 pm
Besides, from what we've heard the benefits of vampirism allow the sufferers to regularly take over civilizations and start harvesting the population- at this point Adventure Mode is still pretty much just a murder simulator (albeit a quite entertaining one,) and it is indeed rather arcadey in the "take an arrow to the knee, retire" aspect of it already. If you don't feel like playing as a world-killing Vampire, then retire it and enjoy your subsequent adventurer's quest to kill the adventurer-turned-Vampire.
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 21, 2011, 10:05:34 pm
QuoteDid a bunch of tweaks with undead naming in world gen, and next up I'll be extending that throughout the game, so that any interaction syndrome can provide a name like "vampire", "mummy", etc. (or whatever you want for mods).
Will this cause creatures to be referred as the syndrome provided name in Legends mode and engravings (like how King Urist is noted as being a Night Hag Spouse for his entire history) or will the Legends display the original creature type?
The original night creatures that do the monstrous conversion stuff haven't yet been upgraded to use the new interaction system, so that change won't affect them.
Um... actually I was asking the opposite. I was asking if the new way will work like the monstrous conversion does now, not if this new thing will change/fix the way monstrous conversion does it. Cuz, I actually figured that the monstrous conversion naming stuff will get fixed when the multiple alias/identity/nickname is put into full swing.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 21, 2011, 10:15:42 pm
Post by: Kogut on December 22, 2011, 03:53:37 am
Post by: Caldfir on December 22, 2011, 07:47:21 pm
Why is it not in dwarf fortress?
Post by: MrWiggles on December 22, 2011, 07:50:44 pm
Lutefisk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutefisk)sounds awful.
Why is it not in dwarf fortress?
No one vouched for it during the animal drive.
Post by: UltraValican on December 22, 2011, 07:56:46 pm
Lutefisk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutefisk)sounds awful.Theres most likely a way to mod it in as fish cheese....
Why is it not in dwarf fortress?
Post by: Rockphed on December 22, 2011, 08:21:32 pm
Lutefisk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutefisk)sounds awful.
Why is it not in dwarf fortress?
It doesn't sound that bad. It is only fish soaked in lye, like olives. Thems are inedible until soaked in lye.
Post by: DS on December 22, 2011, 09:09:22 pm
Lutefisk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutefisk)sounds awful.
Why is it not in dwarf fortress?
It doesn't sound that bad. It is only fish soaked in lye, like olives. Thems are inedible until soaked in lye.
Conversely, lutefisk is soaked in lye until inedible.
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 22, 2011, 10:24:04 pm
Lutefisk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutefisk)sounds awful.Theres most likely a way to mod it in as fish cheese....
Why is it not in dwarf fortress?
Well, now I need to use the phrase "fish cheese" in an otherwise coherent sentence sometime in the next week.
Post by: Chromasphere on December 23, 2011, 11:12:45 am
Lutefisk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutefisk)sounds awful.
Why is it not in dwarf fortress?
No one vouched for it during the animal drive.
It doesn't sound that bad. It is only fish soaked in lye, like olives. Thems are inedible until soaked in lye.
Conversely, lutefisk is soaked in lye until inedible.
Hehehe..... oh, thank-you boys for starting my day with a great laugh.
Post by: Neonivek on December 24, 2011, 01:25:42 am
Post by: Urist McDagger on December 24, 2011, 06:03:28 am
I think for Christmas Toadyone should add Raindeermen and have them make little tribes with a passion for toy making in their blood.
And now we'll get it.. in July. :D
Post by: Spish on December 24, 2011, 07:21:22 am
Post by: Lac on December 24, 2011, 08:17:02 am
Post by: Knight Otu on December 24, 2011, 08:27:36 am
Wait, honey bee venom-coated blowdarts? Does this mean applying poison to weapons is now possible via interactions?No, it's something the animalmen are supposed to be doing already (I haven't seen any for quite a while, so I can't say whether they actually do).
Post by: Neonivek on December 24, 2011, 03:34:24 pm
In otherwords I am confused.
As for why people may tollerate deadly animalmen in their sewers. There can be many reasons for this.
1) They keep the rat population low
2) They don't bother anyone who doesn't go down while maintaining the sewers
3) They are more dangerous then the town can muster a force to deal with.
Post by: Anatoli on December 24, 2011, 06:38:39 pm
As for why people may tollerate deadly animalmen in their sewers. There can be many reasons for this.4) Maybe for the same reason there are trolls under the bridge?
1) They keep the rat population low
2) They don't bother anyone who doesn't go down while maintaining the sewers
3) They are more dangerous then the town can muster a force to deal with.
As English is not my first language, I don't quite understand what the following means: "Despite soaping out my insides"
Anybody cares to explain it to me?
Post by: Footkerchief on December 24, 2011, 06:47:38 pm
As English is not my first language, I don't quite understand what the following means: "Despite soaping out my insides"
Anybody cares to explain it to me?
It's a reference to the lutefisk mentioned the day before.
Post by: scriver on December 24, 2011, 06:53:05 pm
Very dwarfy.
Post by: Anatoli on December 24, 2011, 07:32:01 pm
to the point it is poisonous and needs to be washed before you can eat it. Traditional Nordic dish.I see. That would make sense.
Post by: Rose on December 24, 2011, 08:49:05 pm
Post by: Keldane on December 24, 2011, 09:20:09 pm
Post by: Rockphed on December 25, 2011, 04:21:32 am
I see that toady encountered the flying frozen river bug. I've met that one.
I don't think I have seen that bug, but it sounds amusing in the extreme.
Post by: Rose on December 25, 2011, 07:40:13 am
Here's the map: http://mkv25.net/dfma/map-8566-domainmirrored
Post by: Footkerchief on December 25, 2011, 11:48:17 pm
Post by: monk12 on December 25, 2011, 11:55:59 pm
The Christmas devlog entry brings good tidings! The steady progress through the dungeon issues has been really encouraging.
Indeed it has! It gives me hope for the mid-January release date, despite my cynicism.
Post by: Caldfir on December 26, 2011, 01:22:48 am
The Christmas devlog entry brings good tidings! The steady progress through the dungeon issues has been really encouraging.Indeed it has! It gives me hope for the mid-January release date, despite my cynicism.
Bug 0003169:
Players retain hope for an on-schedule release.
Post by: Rockphed on December 26, 2011, 02:02:22 am
The Christmas devlog entry brings good tidings! The steady progress through the dungeon issues has been really encouraging.Indeed it has! It gives me hope for the mid-January release date, despite my cynicism.
Bug 0003169:
Players retain hope for an on-schedule release.
An on-schedule release would have been in July. At this point it is more "players hope for release soon." Then again, I do sometimes wish this were all a dream and it were July. On the other hand, finals were evil and I don't want to go through them again.
In any case, I enjoy the progress through dungeon issues and the tackling of an unexpected bug(the flying frozen river thing). I look forward to finding humerous bugs in the next release. And by humerous I mean things like the magma spawning above pits thing from a couple years ago. I wish I knew where a video of that one was. It was most amusing.
Post by: NobodyPro on December 26, 2011, 03:25:53 am
Quote from: Devlog
Then I test-embarked in a different town, and bandit leaders were embedded in the walls, dungeon rooms came up through the street and into the center of stores, the sewers were completely inaccessible, amphibian men were hanging out in a farm house and a gigantic frozen river of ice raised up from the ground and partitioned the town except where the bridges cut tunnels through it. I fixed all of those problems to get back where I thought I was when I started.I've read this several times and I still can't find these problems you men- Oh. Those things were unintentional. :P
Post by: Aqizzar on December 27, 2011, 12:50:17 pm
Quote from: DevlogThen I test-embarked in a different town, and bandit leaders were embedded in the walls, dungeon rooms came up through the street and into the center of stores, the sewers were completely inaccessible, amphibian men were hanging out in a farm house and a gigantic frozen river of ice raised up from the ground and partitioned the town except where the bridges cut tunnels through it. I fixed all of those problems to get back where I thought I was when I started.I've read this several times and I still can't find these problems you men- Oh. Those things were unintentional. :P
Sounds like Dwarf Fortress. Who else wishes they could see towns like this? It's totally unplayable sure, but it'd sure be fun to visit.
Post by: zwei on December 27, 2011, 02:02:51 pm
Post by: franti on December 27, 2011, 02:09:37 pm
Post by: monk12 on December 27, 2011, 02:25:16 pm
I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place for this, but I'd like to have an option to 'turn away' waves of migrants. Sometimes, a dozen idle craftdwarves is enough, you know?
First, you can already do this in game- set the population cap lower in the .ini file. Second, the Suggestions forum would be more appropriate. Third, reformed immigration has already been suggested multiple times, so if it's really important to you you could go vote for it in the Eternal Suggestion Voting (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/eternal_voting.php). Dwarven INS (which would make Immigration Control a noble-related function) is currently 84 (out of ~350, that's pretty good) and Slow Down Immigration (which would just cut down size/frequency of migrant waves) is at 30. Note you get 3 votes, so go ahead and spread them around to worthy causes!
Post by: MasterMorality on December 28, 2011, 05:37:56 am
Post by: Areyar on December 28, 2011, 08:16:39 am
(or have them drink from it)
Besides that, I've not thought of any other use for barrels of blood either. :)
Will you add bleeding out animals into barrels to the butchershop chores?
Will harvesting blood from forgotten monstrosities be possible via such a job?
Will
(*) I forget the word used for effects caused by contact poisons etc.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 28, 2011, 10:28:48 am
Hmmm, I don't know if this has been asked yet, but do vampires necessarily require fresh blood? Of a sentient being? Because merchants have barrels and barrels of various types of blood, but I don't know a single use for any of it. Maybe I could, in future, stock up on it for the sake of my potential night-dwelling population?
I believe it's the actual drinking-warm-blood-from-a-sleeping-person thing that quenches the bloodthirstiness, not just ingestion of blood per se.
Will you add bleeding out animals into barrels to the butchershop chores?
Will harvesting blood from forgotten monstrosities be possible via such a job?
Willsymptoms (*)syndromes be carried by blood harvested into barrels?
1, 2: there's no timeline for these features. Definitely not in this release.
3: If the slaughtered creature has a syndrome attached to its blood material species-wide, or if the creature is a historical figure and had a syndrome attached to its blood via interaction, then the drinkers will be subject to the syndrome. If you mean a syndrome of which the slaughtered creature is a victim, e.g. a cave spider injected venom into the cow's bloodstream, the contaminant (venom) would not end up in the barrel unless the code specifically checked for it.
Post by: Urist McCheeseMaker on December 28, 2011, 11:04:06 am
Post by: Areyar on December 28, 2011, 01:41:17 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on December 28, 2011, 04:20:48 pm
You can throw them into a pond and have your dwarves bathe in the bloody mess.1. & 2. There been no changes to the butchery jobs mention in the Dev Log.
(or have them drink from it)
Besides that, I've not thought of any other use for barrels of blood either. :)
Will you add bleeding out animals into barrels to the butchershop chores?
Will harvesting blood from forgotten monstrosities be possible via such a job?
Willsymptoms (*)syndromes be carried by blood harvested into barrels?
(*) I forget the word used for effects caused by contact poisons etc.
3. Yes! But, the blood can forget its Historical importance, and become regular blood. (I'm not sure if this was said, as if its a bug or a feature.)
Post by: Greiger on December 28, 2011, 04:47:36 pm
Using a barrel of X to trap a doorway would be cool. SpyvSpy style! hehe
Silly, a barrel full of X would be a bin not a barrel. :P
As for the animal attacks too close to town I just imagine half a dozen wolves just camping out on top of some invisible line. They don't care about you one bit until you cross that line, but once you do, suddenly, OMG wolves!
Post by: MasterMorality on December 28, 2011, 06:15:38 pm
Post by: Caldfir on December 29, 2011, 02:12:08 am
I once had a dwarf with a sword coated in forgotten beast blood that caused paralysis, and it actually worked. Getting that to happen again though? Pretty much impossible.
Post by: Urist Da Vinci on December 29, 2011, 02:24:46 am
Quote from: Toady One
... made rivers (not brooks) block movement, and added a little valid travel direction indicator. When necessary, you can jump out of travel and swim across a stream with your buddies, and it can also be a good time to refill your waterskin.
DF is now the Oregon Trail. Have fun fording the river. ;D
Post by: Rockphed on December 29, 2011, 04:12:09 am
Post by: thvaz on December 29, 2011, 04:30:04 am
Post by: Sizik on December 29, 2011, 04:33:19 am
It is still dangerous to cross rivers if you don't have swimming skill?
Specifically, do you still have to Alt-move down into the river in order to survive at all, as moving "straight" over the river results in you falling in and getting stunned?
There also needs to be some way to hold your breath, so experienced swimmers don't drown after swimming down one z-level.
Post by: thvaz on December 29, 2011, 04:48:44 am
Post by: MrWiggles on December 29, 2011, 04:52:41 am
Specifically, do you still have to Alt-move down into the river in order to survive at all, as moving "straight" over the river results in you falling in and getting stunned?Well, Toady talked about how rivers ramps along it sides are far more common, to allow for less dangerous filling of your water skins. So that might be a moot issue.
There also needs to be some way to hold your breath, so experienced swimmers don't drown after swimming down one z-level.
As for the holding your breath, that is on the board of more nearish future of Improvements, but I dont recall Toady speaking about improving swimming.
Post by: Caldfir on December 29, 2011, 06:16:53 am
Post by: tfaal on December 29, 2011, 08:28:55 am
Post by: monk12 on December 29, 2011, 11:32:46 am
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-12-28Quote from: Toady One... made rivers (not brooks) block movement, and added a little valid travel direction indicator. When necessary, you can jump out of travel and swim across a stream with your buddies, and it can also be a good time to refill your waterskin.
DF is now the Oregon Trail. Have fun fording the river. ;D
Consarnit, now I really want boats, and I know they're years away at this point. Fuddruckers.
Post by: Knight Otu on December 29, 2011, 11:39:22 am
You mentioned a couple days ago that rivers have ramps for edges now. Will companions follow adventures into the water, or can we still lose them by hopping into a river and swimming a little down stream?Since Toady mentioned that you could "swim across a stream with your buddies", I'd assume that your companions do follow.
Can vampires, necromancers, and other powerful night creatures come to rule goblin civilizations? If not, why not?We haven't heard anything yet, so presumably no. The why not probably boils down to "time and priority", but as far as in-universe reasons, necromancers inevitably become antisocial right now, weres always become monsters, vampires don't arise among goblins (meaning that if they do take over a civ, it'll be a human one), and mummies lack worldgen disturbance events.
Post by: EmeraldWind on December 29, 2011, 11:54:27 am
Post by: PTTG?? on December 29, 2011, 12:32:28 pm
If a child gets turned into a vampire and shows up at your fortress, will the goblins be able to kidnap the vampire?
That'd be hilarious.
Post by: monk12 on December 29, 2011, 01:31:42 pm
If a child gets turned into a vampire and shows up at your fortress, will the goblins be able to kidnap the vampire?[/color]
That'd be hilarious.
This REALLY makes me wish the "take over historical figure" in adventure mode thing was in, because I would play the crap out of that.
Slightly more on topic, that may actually be a way for goblins to get taken over by a vampire, albeit an extremely unlikley one. Abductions happen in worldgen, right? Otherwise that nonsense will have to wait for Release 5.
Post by: Caldfir on December 29, 2011, 01:41:24 pm
Post by: Areyar on December 29, 2011, 01:41:35 pm
This made me wonder: in the case of a ruler being a vampire. What happens when it is exposed? Will the justice system apply to the ruler or will the ruler be immune. (say by inherent immunity to justice or mandating vampyrism to be allowed)Can vampires, necromancers, and other powerful night creatures come to rule goblin civilizations? If not, why not?We haven't heard anything yet, so presumably no. The why not probably boils down to "time and priority", but as far as in-universe reasons, necromancers inevitably become antisocial right now, weres always become monsters, vampires don't arise among goblins (meaning that if they do take over a civ, it'll be a human one), and mummies lack worldgen disturbance events.
I don't think the mores of rulers affects their peoples morals, yet, but it would be a good idea to have rulers try to impose their own morals on their realm, providing a starting point for revolutions and other future political flux.
Post by: Murphy on December 29, 2011, 02:18:26 pm
I was under the impression that the fact that "drowning" is not instantaneous was the DF version of "holding your breath". Are we talking about a breath meter or something here? Because otherwise I can't really see how holding your breath is (gamewise) any different from drowning taking time.I used to think drowning negated the swimming skill...
However, last time I checked in DF I was able to swim down in a many z-level deep lake and back up despite being "drowning" while at the bottom. My speed did plummet down to something very low, though, but that's only realistic.
Post by: PTTG?? on December 29, 2011, 03:13:20 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on December 29, 2011, 04:36:33 pm
As I recall, goblin towers used to be full of slaves - mostly children. I suspect that they were just generated on-the-fly though.Nah, those were indeed historical figures (or their children). When that reliably happened, there weren't any abstract entity populations yet. Would be nice if they could kidnap from the entity populations though (and other events targeting historical figures). For that matter, I suspect that children don't get generated on the fly (ed - that is, for entity populations; obviously they are generated as migrants).
Post by: MrWiggles on December 29, 2011, 05:32:09 pm
If a child gets turned into a vampire and shows up at your fortress, will the goblins be able to kidnap the vampire?I think that'll boil down to how Identities are respected by the rest of the game. If Identities are 100% in, then goblins kidnappers should see the Vamp Kid, as its Identity, not what it actually is. I bet for now, only the Fort Dorfs (and world gen) can recognize the Identity for now. Time and Priority thing.
Adult Vamps being in the military, dont have to worry about that as much, I bet, because their still part of the Entity of the Fort, that the goblins are attacking, so even if the Goblins aren't actually respecting the identity, they appear to be doing superficially.
Post by: Anatoli on December 29, 2011, 10:43:10 pm
Quote
Humans no longer create towns or villages in world gen away from rivers/brooks or aquifersIt there anyone on this forum with knowledge of how frequently there were real-life historical settlements that were away from rivers, brooks, and aquifers. I'm thinking Las Vegas, but since it's a modern city, that should be all right.
Also, humans make settlements on the coastline? I doesn't seem to fit into the "rivers, brooks, or aquifers", but it's not like there's no water on the coastline. I'm not making it green, since I think it was answered somewhere (is it on the same list as Mountainhome, forests, and towers?), but I still want to make sure.
Post by: Aquillion on December 30, 2011, 01:09:20 am
Unless you've turned aquifers off, there will almost always be one near the coastline. If you did turn them off... well, you're playing a custom game, so some things might be weird.QuoteHumans no longer create towns or villages in world gen away from rivers/brooks or aquifersIt there anyone on this forum with knowledge of how frequently there were real-life historical settlements that were away from rivers, brooks, and aquifers. I'm thinking Las Vegas, but since it's a modern city, that should be all right.
Also, humans make settlements on the coastline? I doesn't seem to fit into the "rivers, brooks, or aquifers", but it's not like there's no water on the coastline. I'm not making it green, since I think it was answered somewhere (is it on the same list as Mountainhome, forests, and towers?), but I still want to make sure.
Post by: Anatoli on December 30, 2011, 01:15:54 am
I realize I may have been unclear, (or I might have misunderstood you) but I meant ON the coastline. That means with the Ocean/Sea in sight. And I also meant in the upcoming version. I didn't see Toady post any screenshots with Sea in them, so I guess not.Unless you've turned aquifers off, there will almost always be one near the coastline. If you did turn them off... well, you're playing a custom game, so some things might be weird.QuoteHumans no longer create towns or villages in world gen away from rivers/brooks or aquifersAlso, humans make settlements on the coastline? I doesn't seem to fit into the "rivers, brooks, or aquifers", but it's not like there's no water on the coastline. I'm not making it green, since I think it was answered somewhere (is it on the same list as Mountainhome, forests, and towers?), but I still want to make sure.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on December 30, 2011, 01:29:47 am
Unless you've turned aquifers off, there will almost always be one near the coastline. If you did turn them off... well, you're playing a custom game, so some things might be weird.
Aren't coastal aquifers salty, and thus useless for watersources?
Post by: Sizik on December 30, 2011, 03:21:18 am
I was under the impression that the fact that "drowning" is not instantaneous was the DF version of "holding your breath". Are we talking about a breath meter or something here? Because otherwise I can't really see how holding your breath is (gamewise) any different from drowning taking time.
A breath meter is kind of what I was going for, as it's nice to know how long you have until you die. Also, arena testing shows that it takes 25 turns for someone to die from drowning, no matter the swimming skill. People can hold their breath for quite a bit longer than that, and trained swimmers should be able to last longer than unskilled people.
Post by: Murphy on December 30, 2011, 06:05:01 am
Post by: cameron on December 30, 2011, 11:15:27 am
Aren't coastal aquifers salty, and thus useless for watersources?
they are in game but I'm pretty sure that irl coastal aquifers are normally fresh water
Post by: CharlesPeter on December 30, 2011, 11:42:29 am
Aren't coastal aquifers salty, and thus useless for watersources?
they are in game but I'm pretty sure that irl coastal aquifers are normally fresh water
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifer#Saltwater_intrusion
Post by: Untelligent on December 30, 2011, 12:59:02 pm
Post by: thvaz on December 30, 2011, 01:13:55 pm
Aren't coastal aquifers salty, and thus useless for watersources?
they are in game but I'm pretty sure that irl coastal aquifers are normally fresh water
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifer#Saltwater_intrusion
The links says that coastal aquifers are fresh water unless contaminated by saltwater, so how is cameron wrong?
Post by: O11O1 on December 30, 2011, 01:15:04 pm
Post by: Andreus on December 30, 2011, 01:17:25 pm
a. Given that we're able to designate fortifications on constructed walls, are we at some point going to be able to engrave constructed walls and floors as well? I'd be really pleased about being able to do this.
b. I'm noticing right now that the randomly generated night beasts (like gloom creatures, horrors of evil, etc.) tend to heap death and destruction upon dwarven civilizations, leaving none of them with any living members until an enterprising player comes along with his newly-created seven dwarves and rebuilds dwarven society from scratch with migrant waves. Is this tendency going to be toned back in future versions?
Post by: Tiny on December 30, 2011, 02:19:52 pm
Aren't coastal aquifers salty, and thus useless for watersources?
they are in game but I'm pretty sure that irl coastal aquifers are normally fresh water
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifer#Saltwater_intrusion
from the link
"If too much ground water is pumped near the coast, salt-water may intrude into freshwater aquifers"
wells don't count as alot of pumping, it takes science or !!science!! to make that much mess.
Post by: Dae on December 30, 2011, 02:36:14 pm
a. Given that we're able to designate fortifications on constructed walls, are we at some point going to be able to engrave constructed walls and floors as well? I'd be really pleased about being able to do this.Still not, no. The problems are still the same as before, and to prevent this thread to be derailed by another discussion on the subject please look one such discussion up.
b. I'm noticing right now that the randomly generated night beasts (like gloom creatures, horrors of evil, etc.) tend to heap death and destruction upon dwarven civilizations, leaving none of them with any living members until an enterprising player comes along with his newly-created seven dwarves and rebuilds dwarven society from scratch with migrant waves. Is this tendency going to be toned back in future versions?The night creatures aren't responsible for this. Toady took the generation of dwarven cities out some time ago because the current progress conflicted with it; of course they'll be back after getting as much love as human cities. Perhaps a little less.
Post by: dree12 on December 30, 2011, 04:31:23 pm
It depends on toughness a lot. And yes, it should give more time if you aren't doing anything strenuous, but if you're swimming or fighting, 25 turns (what are they, seconds? three-second intervals?) looks like realistic for a person of moderate toughness.I can survive more than 25 seconds (DF Adventure 'ticks' by means of day calculation) underwater, and most people can. If we use 2m as our step width, it actually takes more like 11 ticks just to move one square without water interfering. I would suggest more like 120 ticks (2 minutes) underwater, which allows an unexperienced swimmer to move 5 or so squares underwater.
Post by: Karlito on December 30, 2011, 11:40:41 pm
QuoteHumans no longer create towns or villages in world gen away from rivers/brooks or aquifersIt there anyone on this forum with knowledge of how frequently there were real-life historical settlements that were away from rivers, brooks, and aquifers. I'm thinking Las Vegas, but since it's a modern city, that should be all right.
Even Vegas was built on an oasis. There was water available so that the steam trains could stop. There's actually even a small wetlands area that continues to exist today.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 30, 2011, 11:44:17 pm
a. Given that we're able to designate fortifications on constructed walls, are we at some point going to be able to engrave constructed walls and floors as well? I'd be really pleased about being able to do this.
This came up a while back: (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.
Also, a general note on how to ask questions in development threads:
If you have specific questions, I'll try to answer them all, although it is difficult to respond to everything when it is busy. I'll lean toward questions that involve current developments to avoid pulling the entire suggestion forum in here. 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: drvoke on December 31, 2011, 12:26:40 am
b. I'm noticing right now that the randomly generated night beasts (like gloom creatures, horrors of evil, etc.) tend to heap death and destruction upon dwarven civilizations, leaving none of them with any living members until an enterprising player comes along with his newly-created seven dwarves and rebuilds dwarven society from scratch with migrant waves. Is this tendency going to be toned back in future versions?The night creatures aren't responsible for this. Toady took the generation of dwarven cities out some time ago because the current progress conflicted with it; of course they'll be back after getting as much love as human cities. Perhaps a little less.
I think he meant that worldgen has a tendency to sometimes produce worlds in which most or all of the dwarven civilizations have been laid to waste by night creatures (or titans, or whatever). It's not a huge problem for me, I just check the world for surviving dwarven civs pre-embark (along with all the other relevant Legends-mode info), but I can see how it might be annoying. Worldgen takes a lot longer than it used to.
Post by: Zesty on December 31, 2011, 01:57:53 am
Quote from: Devlog
there was a well with a bucket that was lowered down through an open tomb filled with skeletons into a pool in the center of the grimy room
This isn't a bug. It was clearly a feature waiting to happen.
Post by: Neonivek on December 31, 2011, 02:38:11 am
Quote from: Devlogthere was a well with a bucket that was lowered down through an open tomb filled with skeletons into a pool in the center of the grimy room
This isn't a bug. It was clearly a feature waiting to happen.
It isn't like that is a completely unheard of event for wells to connect to tunnels that have had skeletons.
Post by: thvaz on December 31, 2011, 04:26:10 am
"In 205, when escavating the sewers, Woodenhome breached the underground.
In 205, Human Mcminer was killed by a Giant Cave Spider.(x5)
In 205, a tribe of Antmen settled in the sewers of Woodenhome.
In 210, the passage to the underground in the sewers of Woodenhome was sealed."
Post by: MasterMorality on December 31, 2011, 06:24:41 am
Quote from: Devlogthere was a well with a bucket that was lowered down through an open tomb filled with skeletons into a pool in the center of the grimy room
This isn't a bug. It was clearly a feature waiting to happen.
Seconded.
Next the skeletons need to be able to climb up the rope and attack the town.
Post by: Lac on December 31, 2011, 10:21:51 am
Next the skeletons need to be able to climb up the rope and attack the town.hums: There's a ghoul in my bucket, dear Liza, a ghoul.
Post by: Urist McCheeseMaker on December 31, 2011, 01:12:09 pm
Of course, that would require some actual foresight and a bit of simulation on the map generator's part.
Post by: Chromasphere on December 31, 2011, 03:12:38 pm
It'd be nice if town generation was indeed iterative, and went on for a few years. Size and some other parameters could be generated and stored by the map generator, and unfolded into a proper, multi-stage town when someone looks at it.
Release 5 might start to do aspects of that. Maybe not specifically during world gen, but there might be growth in cities etc during gameplay. Dunno if that would affect city construction or not, but would be cool to see new wall sections being built to accommadate new housing and so on.
Post by: EmeraldWind on January 01, 2012, 12:05:58 am
Post by: Footkerchief on January 01, 2012, 10:06:53 am
Post by: Totaku on January 01, 2012, 10:30:27 am
Post by: Toady One on January 01, 2012, 02:35:07 pm
Post by: thvaz on January 01, 2012, 02:38:01 pm
edit: look, DF's article on New York Times was one of the best of the year: http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/30/2667920/best-tech-writing-2011
Post by: Toady One on January 01, 2012, 06:12:59 pm
Happy New Year! Zach is still asleep. He has six hours to get up and write his part of the report, he he he.
Post by: Owlbread on January 01, 2012, 11:37:05 pm
Quote
This new year promises to start off with a bang! New night creatures, cities, and magic, followed by a new attack on the peskiest of bugs.
Post by: Rose on January 01, 2012, 11:39:48 pm
Post by: Owlbread on January 01, 2012, 11:45:13 pm
Necromancy is a type of magic.
It really hadn't hit me yet that necromancy was the beginning of tangible magic in DF. I'm amazed.
Post by: darkflagrance on January 01, 2012, 11:49:35 pm
Post by: monk12 on January 01, 2012, 11:50:58 pm
EDIT: NINJA!
Post by: Owlbread on January 01, 2012, 11:53:11 pm
Not to mention interactions in general are basically magic without the really mystical sphere-involved transdimensional stuff that literally rewrites the laws of physics.
I suppose that's the stuff I'm waiting for. I'm looking forward to seeing how Toady pulls it off, since it's DF after all. Magic is going to be very interesting indeed.
Post by: Neonivek on January 02, 2012, 02:48:37 am
Not to mention interactions in general are basically magic without the really mystical sphere-involved transdimensional stuff that literally rewrites the laws of physics.
I suppose that's the stuff I'm waiting for. I'm looking forward to seeing how Toady pulls it off, since it's DF after all. Magic is going to be very interesting indeed.
Dang that is right. I need to make more secrets...
Post by: rex mortis on January 02, 2012, 08:19:47 am
Obviously said walking blood supply would turn hostile, along with the entire offended entity. Desperate times call for desperate measures, however.
Post by: MrWiggles on January 02, 2012, 09:15:48 am
Will a vampire be able to drink from their sleeping travel rations...I mean companions?Ooh, that's a good question. I bet the answer is tied to weather or not, you can also attack your companions. If you can do that, then I bet you can suck them dry too.
Obviously said walking blood supply would turn hostile, along with the entire offended entity. Desperate times call for desperate measures, however.
Post by: freeformschooler on January 02, 2012, 10:48:51 pm
Because I think I heard randomly generated materials.
Now I'm excited all over again. I can't wait to see what sort of random mists are in. In what situation would we encounter these mists? Spreading from a creature? Just sprawled about underground?
Post by: Xgamer4 on January 02, 2012, 11:13:22 pm
Quote
...and the framework lets things like random stone/metals go in for free later.
...For the first time in pretty much ever, I'm actually hoping Toady gets distracted and decides to do a bit of work with this.
Post by: monk12 on January 02, 2012, 11:20:11 pm
Quote from: devlog
My first test took place in the Fields of Doom, and the buggy mist caught the wagon on fire and melted all the badgers.
I laughed so hard at this. I hope it still happens every now and then.
Are the mists a visible thing like miasma?
Post by: Willfor on January 02, 2012, 11:41:17 pm
Wait, that already happens.
...
hide your terrismen....
Post by: darkflagrance on January 03, 2012, 12:06:54 am
I would love to have a chance of encountering random dangerous mist that brutally eviscerates my dwarves :P. It should be interesting to see how other forumites deal with the possibility that gas could creep in from the caverns and kill everyone...
Post by: Putnam on January 03, 2012, 12:13:13 am
Quote from: devlog
My first test took place in the Fields of Doom, and the buggy mist caught the wagon on fire and melted all the badgers.
Wagon, eh?
Post by: Doomshifter on January 03, 2012, 12:18:07 am
It should be interesting to see how other forumites deal with the possibility that gas could creep in from the caverns and kill everyone...Naturally the first response would be to weaponise the mist using none other than the finest of dwarven !!SCIENCE!!
With these randomly generated materials, what sort of things will we see? Will they just have random names/hardnesses/etc. or will there also be ores of their own random metals (or even ores that have to be combine with other random ores to make even more random metal)?
Do you think it would be possible at all (even if just through modding) to entirely randomly generate every single material in the game for each world?
Post by: Caldfir on January 03, 2012, 01:11:32 am
If there was some obvious reason for the randomly generated whatever to be randomly generated, then awesome, but right now it would just kinda suck because they would be pointlessly differentiated. Who cares if there is another kind of copper in the world? I suspect the reason that random-minerals-and-metals aren't already included in the game is that before it is worthwhile, they need to be different in some meaningful or useful way. The gases on the other hand, have syndromes attached to them, so that makes sense already. Blisterfog and Vomitfog are different.
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 03, 2012, 01:33:35 am
Post by: thvaz on January 03, 2012, 01:54:16 am
Post by: Footkerchief on January 03, 2012, 01:58:22 am
I love the idea of random generated clouds of evil as everyone else, but please Toady, keep your focus!
To be fair, he's been talking about material emissions for a while. (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-12-18) This seems to mainly be an issue of making the interaction system consistently respected -- we already had interactions for creature-attached material emission and region-attached zombification, but not region-attached material emission. Although randomizing the material goes a little beyond that scope.
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 03, 2012, 02:05:10 am
I love the idea of random generated clouds of evil as everyone else, but please Toady, keep your focus!Come on think how awesome it'd be to have a nice fledgling fort going strong and then a wave of faint yellow fog comes creeping in from the east. You don't know what it does so you send a dwarf in toinvestigate. His eyeballs melt his skin rots off and bleeds to death little more then a skeleton. And the he starts to move. So you have to quickly build a hacth cover to seal off your fort to stop the zombie gas from coming in the stair well. or if you are building above ground you have to lock all the doors an make sure the walls a high enough and that no one goes outside into the lethal murk, and a lone crossbowdwarf is stuck atop the highest tower unable to descend as the fatal gloom has penetrated the very fortification meant to protct him. Can you honestly say that isn't worth a week or two of added waiting. Good thing come to those who wait.
-Edit, And what if there were good interactions as well? Like if there was a mist which increased healing by a thousand, and made lost limbs and severed nerves grow back? Imagineif the fog rolled in so you sent your whole population out to get healed. And then A vile force of darkness comes! So you send in the militia and there's a battlefield coated in blood as the everhealing dwarfs and goblins fight and fight severing limbs only to grow them back again.
So i must ask OH Great Toady One will this crazed fever dream of mine ever be a reality?
Post by: DG on January 03, 2012, 07:09:28 am
While I like the idea of randomly generated metals, there is a lot of "grey blob" area on this one.
If there was some obvious reason for the randomly generated whatever to be randomly generated, then awesome, but right now it would just kinda suck because they would be pointlessly differentiated. Who cares if there is another kind of copper in the world? I suspect the reason that random-minerals-and-metals aren't already included in the game is that before it is worthwhile, they need to be different in some meaningful or useful way. The gases on the other hand, have syndromes attached to them, so that makes sense already. Blisterfog and Vomitfog are different.
Could be minor randomisations. Like maybe you have "blue copper" which is exactly the same as copper except that it has a special effect against a specific creature. It needn't be entirely randomized for complete new name, density, hardness, tensile strength etc etc
Post by: MasterMorality on January 03, 2012, 07:31:45 am
The 'bugs' that this game produces are awesome on an astronomical level.
Post by: Areyar on January 03, 2012, 07:54:09 am
Randomly generated mists that sets the wagon on fire and melts badgers?Nah, they are magical. ;)
The 'bugs' that this game produces are awesome on an astronomical level.
--
This "blue copper" only to be found in small structures deep in the earth where they inproson these creatures that are alergic to it's touch?
Post by: Chthonic on January 03, 2012, 08:51:29 am
Randomly generated mists that sets the wagon on fire and melts badgers?Nah, they are magical. ;)
The 'bugs' that this game produces are awesome on an astronomical level.
--
This "blue copper" only to be found in small structures deep in the earth where they inproson these creatures that are alergic to it's touch?
"Blue copper" is the discount material used by the gods to trap primordial kobolds.
Post by: Jheral on January 03, 2012, 10:25:13 am
Post by: LoSboccacc on January 03, 2012, 10:30:32 am
or are those going to be used just for FB and curses and stuff outside the reach of a fortress?
Post by: Footkerchief on January 03, 2012, 11:28:07 am
will this 'randomized material' system be tied within the reactions and within the job manager for reactionless workshops?
or are those going to be used just for FB and curses and stuff outside the reach of a fortress?
You may have to explain this question a little more. I'm not sure what "be tied within the reactions and within the job manager" means.
Post by: LoSboccacc on January 03, 2012, 11:39:23 am
will this 'randomized material' system be tied within the reactions and within the job manager for reactionless workshops?
or are those going to be used just for FB and curses and stuff outside the reach of a fortress?
You may have to explain this question a little more. I'm not sure what "be tied within the reactions and within the job manager" means.
depending on what will be available and how, random metals and stone may affect the fortress jobs.
without considering the availability of random stuff for digging:
bronze colossus leave a stone statue, will 'random metal colossus' leave an usable statue? that is, usable in rooms and in workshop.
magma man leaves obsidian, will 'random molten man' leave usable stone? that is, selectable for use in the stone menu and available in mason/trap/etc workshops
considering the availability of random stuff in layers where it can be dug out:
will those dug stone be available for jobs? will random ores be available for smelting? what will be the use of those smelt ores within the forges? right now, metal using jobs (weapons, armors, anvils, bins) are strictly defined in raws and the job manager allows to create specific metal jobs ("seven iron dagger", but also "smelt copper ore" and alloys)
Post by: Fieari on January 03, 2012, 12:02:52 pm
Quote from: Toady One
and incorporation of Baughn's fixes to the SDL stuff
Since Baughn hasn't personally posted on the forums since last May...
Can you post a changelog of his bugfixes? I'd LOVE to see what is being fixed!
Post by: Kogut on January 03, 2012, 12:08:25 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on January 03, 2012, 12:47:46 pm
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dwarf+fortress+bug+tracker+changelog
Or more directly: http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/changelog_page.php
Quote
- 0003246: [TrueType] TrueType: Some dwarves' names are cut off at diacritics, other diacritics are turned into blocks (Baughn) - resolved.
- 0003762: [TrueType] Crash on moving (k) cursor over certain spatters with TrueType (long names?) (Baughn) - resolved.
It's all TrueType fixes AFAIK -- one of them is a significant crash that probably holds our record for most duplicate reports ever.
Post by: caknuck on January 03, 2012, 01:24:52 pm
"Wait? What's uristite?"
"It's the ore for toadinium."
"Uh... And toadinium is?"
"It's like lay pewter, but you can make beds out of it."
Post by: Cruxador on January 03, 2012, 01:38:05 pm
Post by: Knight Otu on January 03, 2012, 02:25:59 pm
This will probably be answered by the devlog before Toady answers questions here, but if burning and melting things isn't intended behavior for the mist, what is it supposed to be doing?Given the context, I'm going to go with delivering curses/syndromes. Like, rotting your eyes out, turning you into frogs, giving you blisters...
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on January 03, 2012, 06:43:09 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 03, 2012, 07:05:51 pm
Actually couldnt sand be handled via the new "gaseous stuff in regions" addition? I dont mean a full fledged Dust-storm (which would still be cool) but small clouds of wind driven sand that literally sand you down if you dont have clothing/protection?
Also how do those gases work in the game? Like smoke/miasma/steam?
Edit:
Also happy new year and good luck for it!
Post by: EmeraldWind on January 03, 2012, 10:18:15 pm
Quote
It didn't even work out right with the rodent man blood -- the indexing was screwed up, and we ended up with "a dusting of rodent man skin"... dandruff snow. Less Slayer and more Breakfast Club than we wanted, but at least I sorted that part out.
This is great. So rain is considered a material emission, interesting.
Edit: There should also be areas where it snows angel down or something.
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 03, 2012, 10:26:59 pm
Post by: monk12 on January 03, 2012, 10:30:35 pm
I did not realize that "region material emissions" were going to be this awesome. I hope I can mod it to rain deadly FB blood. In any event, an appropriate mixture of disgusting and awesome.
Post by: caknuck on January 03, 2012, 10:32:44 pm
Post by: Neonivek on January 03, 2012, 10:39:15 pm
Post by: DS on January 03, 2012, 11:06:02 pm
I must say embarking in a region which rains elf blood sounds quite lovely.
The question is: will murky pools in that particular biome fill with elf blood?
Post by: Name Lips on January 04, 2012, 12:34:32 am
Post by: darkflagrance on January 04, 2012, 12:41:22 am
More importantly, will there be regions where it rains BEER?
It would seem to make sense if it was possible if for the region to go to the pig tails and get the liquid version of them to drop it from the sky :p
Post by: monk12 on January 04, 2012, 12:42:35 am
Post by: MrWiggles on January 04, 2012, 01:16:08 am
More importantly, will there be regions where it rains BEER?
This sounds so awesome. Collect in muddy pools, store it in a cistern, and have wells through the fortress.
The downside is unhappy thoughts for drinking the same old drink.
Post by: Dae on January 04, 2012, 01:35:33 am
Post by: Footkerchief on January 04, 2012, 01:46:38 am
Toady, if there are vampires, and there are places in the world where it freely rains blood (human, elven or dwarven), wouldn't a vampire find more sense in going to such a place and living happily ever after rather than dangerously hunting other people while they sleep ?
Hmmm, I don't know if this has been asked yet, but do vampires necessarily require fresh blood? Of a sentient being? Because merchants have barrels and barrels of various types of blood, but I don't know a single use for any of it. Maybe I could, in future, stock up on it for the sake of my potential night-dwelling population?
I believe it's the actual drinking-warm-blood-from-a-sleeping-person thing that quenches the bloodthirstiness, not just ingestion of blood per se.
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 04, 2012, 02:22:27 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on January 04, 2012, 05:00:08 am
Post by: Aqizzar on January 04, 2012, 05:07:27 am
Post by: zwei on January 04, 2012, 05:15:32 am
rodent man blood rain!
oh my...
Post by: Drevlin on January 04, 2012, 05:34:52 am
But what's the logic behind blood raining? There isn't a blood counterpart of the water cycle. The only reason I can think is that armok wants to have fun.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on January 04, 2012, 06:12:06 am
There isn't a blood counterpart of the water cycle.Let's do something about it.
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on January 04, 2012, 07:30:53 am
One of the best devlogs I ever read! Raining blood...It's in an evil area. Blood rain and the like makes it Evil due to the ambiance.
But what's the logic behind blood raining? There isn't a blood counterpart of the water cycle. The only reason I can think is that armok wants to have fun.
Post by: Areyar on January 04, 2012, 08:33:23 am
The vitric humors of gods rain down or well up from the lands under their influence...
water for the gods of life,
blood for the gods of war,
vomit and pus for the gods of desease,
magma rain for Armok.
etc
;)
Does it still rain normal water in Evil lands? I can see a small problem with contaminants. Or does the 'blood of the land' evaporate like the water from rain?
Post by: Neonivek on January 04, 2012, 09:18:17 am
Though I have nothing wrong with "Generic" blood when the blood in question may not have actually come from a specific source.
Especially since by all means how do you know whos blood it is?
Post by: slink on January 04, 2012, 09:43:21 am
Post by: Neonivek on January 04, 2012, 09:45:15 am
I imagine that you know whose blood it is by looking at the description of what is coating your skin after it rains down on you.
Well you need to "enhance" your vision a few times before you can see the shape of blood cells on your own skin.
At least that is what I learned on CSI: Dwarfami
Post by: Areyar on January 04, 2012, 09:57:30 am
Even then at most you could determine visually is the probable group of speciesI imagine that you know whose blood it is by looking at the description of what is coating your skin after it rains down on you.
Well you need to "enhance" your vision a few times before you can see the shape of blood cells on your own skin.
(mammalian, lizard, fish, undead).
To determine species you'd need specific antibodies and to determine the specific individual as DF provides a PCR test and a sample from such individual organism. (or eye-witness account of the blood being spilled.)
Post by: thvaz on January 04, 2012, 10:12:32 am
Post by: Neonivek on January 04, 2012, 11:13:14 am
I think at some point here we are allowed to call it just "blood"
Post by: darkflagrance on January 04, 2012, 01:21:08 pm
Well we arn't even talking about genuin human blood anyhow. We are talking about artificial blood given off by a raincloud.
I think at some point here we are allowed to call it just "blood"
Dwarf Fortress is a procedural world; the blood was not just spontaneously generated by the rain cloud...rather, thousands of rodent men were eviscerated and their body fluids evaporated into the sky, while later rained down on the dwarves.
It must have been rodent blood FOR A REASON :o
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on January 04, 2012, 01:48:17 pm
About naming, this blood not neccesairly should be named just "blood", but should have its own distinct source (as coming from evil rainfall, not spilled from living being).
BTW it would be nice to fix for real contamination spread and weathering/rot issues. Because I can imagine how FPS would react on blood rain right now.
Post by: Bralbaard on January 04, 2012, 03:16:08 pm
Rodent man blood and dandruff snow falling from the skies?
I think I'll check the weather forecast, next time I go outside with my adventurer.
Post by: CaptainArchmage on January 04, 2012, 03:38:43 pm
I believe that Toady could just make the "blood rain" specific to a region. The liquid would show up as "<biome name> blood/ichor/goo rain", and have the randomly generated properties of that region. It could take the properties from one of the creatures in the raws though.
The blood doesn't have to be treated as a liquid; the biome can just rain water contaminated with blood. This is more realistic, since blood is water with other components floating around in it. If you had oil, then it would be reasonable to make that a fluid though; same with molten metals.
I believe that whatever is done about the weather formations, it should be possible to manually designate an area for cleaning.
Hopefully the mist doesn't affect FPS much.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 04, 2012, 03:46:40 pm
Is the regional mist omnipresent or does it show up periodically, like rain?
That most likely is configurable.
Post by: CaptainArchmage on January 04, 2012, 03:53:10 pm
Are walls and tunnels going to be included in the next release as well as roads? By this I mean the worldgen walls that are an option in the entity preferences as of DF2011.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 04, 2012, 04:13:27 pm
Is it going to be possible to embark on top of sites in the new release?
Last word is that it's still disabled:
Quote from: AquillionWith this... would it be possible to easily add an init option or worldgen parameter to re-enable dwarves embarking on top of other people's sites? I'm curious whether this would make the game respond 'properly' now if dwarves try to embark on a dark fortress or somesuch, making for something interesting.
Actually, would it be possible to allow the dwarves to embark on 'hostile' sites in general in the main game, as long as there's no friendly population there? It seems like "deal with the undead, then settle in their tower" could be a fun (and challenging) way to start a fortress.
Adding an init option wouldn't make the game respond any better than it was when it was broken, so I think I'm misunderstanding something. There's something fundamentally silly about allowing those embarks, but I don't have a problem with the init option in principle. But it takes time to make sure that everybody is properly hostile in that artificial environment, so I haven't been eager to fix it up. That said, we've been toying with the idea of allowing some embarks on thoroughly bad places. We'll see what happens.
Are walls and tunnels going to be included in the next release as well as roads? By this I mean the worldgen walls that are an option in the entity preferences as of DF2011.
You're referring to the WORLD_CONSTRUCTION (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Entity_token#Placement) entity token? WALL was a placeholder when implemented, (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=21418.msg230422#msg230422) but since we have walled settlements in the current version, you can probably test for yourself whether WALL now controls that behavior. Tunnels are still out.
Also, please use limegreen for your posts as stated in the OP.
Post by: Knight Otu on January 04, 2012, 04:35:17 pm
You're referring to the WORLD_CONSTRUCTION (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Entity_token#Placement) entity token? WALL was a placeholder when implemented, (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=21418.msg230422#msg230422) but since we have walled settlements in the current version, you can probably test for yourself whether WALL now controls that behavior.I'm guessing that it doesn't. Just like roads do connect different sites and tunnels used to do so, I'm assuming that those walls were supposed to exist beyond the boundaries of sites - more on the scale of the Great Wall of China than that of city walls. Thus world construction.
Post by: thvaz on January 04, 2012, 05:04:13 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on January 04, 2012, 05:12:14 pm
I loved the idea of tunnels - I used to imagine that in the future they would be used as starting points for entire underground cities without access to the outside.
It's still planned: (http://bay12games.com/media/df_talk_3_transcript.html#8.burrow_its_all_youve_got)
Quote from: DF Talk 3
Rainseeker: Okay, XSI asks: [8]'Dwarven strongholds seem to have tunnels between them, would it be possible to eventually make one of those in fortress mode; probably useful to get migrants and dwarf caravans while being sieged?'
Toady: I think there's a dev item on that, I don't know if it was called 'deep outposts' or something like that, and I think it originally sprang forth from a suggestion someone posted so there's probably a few posts on it as well. We're definitely for that; the issues that arise are the same issues that always arise when you have off-site sites. How do you connect it up? How does digging commence off map? And the same thing would go to like building an aboveground wall, or aboveground roads and that kind of thing; how do you build that site when your view is restricted to a single fortress? But I think those questions are just a matter of making a good decision about it; I don't think that they're super hard and we're definitely planning to do that, especially because those tunnels are there. The fact that the tunnels are there is one of those things that kind of demands satisfaction in terms of actually being able to do it yourself or getting rid of them. So it's just a matter of ... Right now you can't designate digging on the edge of your map, and if you can designate 'I want to dig there, I want to dig a tunnel' then that's got to be some kind of special requirement or you have to have say five or six miners leave the map and do that digging for you and it's going to tie into a number of things. It's going to tie into having little - like when you become a capital - having outposts outside of your map and sending armies off the map, having those larger populations that we talked about last time; all of it ties in again to that kind of thing so I imagine those questions will start to be answered around that time.
It's also come up more recently in the context of hill dwarves:
Quote from: MephansterasI've been wondering what your idea of a Hill Dwarf settlement is. Do you have a specific idea in mind right now for what those settlements will look like, or is that something you haven't really gotten too far into thinking about yet? The dwarven ability to combine above and below ground aspects seems like it lends itself to a lot of variation.
Yeah, and hill dwarf is just a name, since the settlements external to your fort will also possibly include deep groups you've sent to colonize the underground layers which could be massively cave-adapted and somewhat alien, in addition to others along the mountains rather than in lower-lying lands. We don't really have specific images in mind though. For the low-lying ones, we don't want it to end up human, but we don't want it to exactly be hobbity either, since that would be sort of a hack job. Perhaps most of their farming would still be underground, as odd and disrespectful of the sun as that is. I'm not sure what the main restrictions are... that it can't be more fortressy than your fort, I suppose, although it could be more wally.
Post by: PTTG?? on January 04, 2012, 05:36:11 pm
Post by: Dae on January 04, 2012, 10:42:57 pm
Toady, if there are vampires, and there are places in the world where it freely rains blood (human, elven or dwarven), wouldn't a vampire find more sense in going to such a place and living happily ever after rather than dangerously hunting other people while they sleep ?Hmmm, I don't know if this has been asked yet, but do vampires necessarily require fresh blood? Of a sentient being? Because merchants have barrels and barrels of various types of blood, but I don't know a single use for any of it. Maybe I could, in future, stock up on it for the sake of my potential night-dwelling population?
I believe it's the actual drinking-warm-blood-from-a-sleeping-person thing that quenches the bloodthirstiness, not just ingestion of blood per se.
Yes, alright, but that seems cheap. Very cheap. I know for the time being it will be limited to drinking from sleeping people. My real question is : Is it intended for the vampire to only feed on living, fresh, same specie creature, even in the hypothetical version 1 ? In short, what is the final plan ?
Post by: MrWiggles on January 04, 2012, 10:44:48 pm
Toady, if there are vampires, and there are places in the world where it freely rains blood (human, elven or dwarven), wouldn't a vampire find more sense in going to such a place and living happily ever after rather than dangerously hunting other people while they sleep ?Hmmm, I don't know if this has been asked yet, but do vampires necessarily require fresh blood? Of a sentient being? Because merchants have barrels and barrels of various types of blood, but I don't know a single use for any of it. Maybe I could, in future, stock up on it for the sake of my potential night-dwelling population?
I believe it's the actual drinking-warm-blood-from-a-sleeping-person thing that quenches the bloodthirstiness, not just ingestion of blood per se.
Yes, alright, but that seems cheap. Very cheap. I know for the time being it will be limited to drinking from sleeping people. My real question is : Is it intended for the vampire to only feed on living, fresh, same specie creature, even in the hypothetical version 1 ? In short, what is the final plan ?
Well, the final plan, I believe, is to have these creatures be formed procedurally from World Generation gaining a certain set abilities, weakness and requirements.
Post by: EmeraldWind on January 04, 2012, 11:18:18 pm
Is the regional mist omnipresent or does it show up periodically, like rain?
That most likely is configurable.
I think the [IE_INTERMITTENT:WEEKLY] token that appears in regional zombies may been a way of making the mist happen periodically since it seems like the mist is using the interaction system.
It also seems like the blood rain might be an interaction too being a part of the material emissions. This might mean that you can specify the rain's item type... (and since material breath seemed to be the creature version of material emissions) it maybe possible to make it rain some very interesting things... add in syndromes and transformations and you can potentially have a 50 year rain that turns all the dwarves hit by it into cats...
Or speaking of cats... you might be able to literally make it rain... cats and dogs... (JK, I'm pretty sure material emissions means just materials not full out items or creatures.)
Also on the subject of materials, some FBs can be made of odd materials... I wonder if it is possible for it to rain some of those, like shadow.
Will the regional emission that causes the blood rain still be able to do solid materials or was that removed after the "dandruff snow" thing?
Edit:
Quote
That variety of weather only takes up a slowly moving area about 40 tiles across. The troubling rain is harder to avoid but can only have mild poisonous effects.
This keeps getting more and more interesting.
Post by: monk12 on January 04, 2012, 11:21:24 pm
Quote from: devlog
The fisherdwarf was got caught up in an eerie gloom and turned into a cursed bloodless husk that attacked his old buddies and pets. That variety of weather only takes up a slowly moving area about 40 tiles across. The troubling rain is harder to avoid but can only have mild poisonous effects. Of course, these things happen exclusively in bad, bad places, so you can avoid this sort of problem by just not embarking in the hell-on-earth spots. Carrying on with other miscellaneous issues next.
[/quote
O.o
That's... truly terrifying. Nice to see the variety going in, so Terrifying doesn't just mean "evil but more so."
Post by: Anatoli on January 05, 2012, 12:10:28 am
Where did you see it? I'm opening devlog right now, and the top message I see is the one with the rodent man blood.Quote from: devlogThe fisherdwarf was got caught up in an eerie gloom and turned into a cursed bloodless husk that attacked his old buddies and pets. That variety of weather only takes up a slowly moving area about 40 tiles across. The troubling rain is harder to avoid but can only have mild poisonous effects. Of course, these things happen exclusively in bad, bad places, so you can avoid this sort of problem by just not embarking in the hell-on-earth spots. Carrying on with other miscellaneous issues next.
O.o
That's... truly terrifying. Nice to see the variety going in, so Terrifying doesn't just mean "evil but more so."
Also, I'll delete this post if it's a problem on my side, but I seriously don't get how you can see a devlog and I can't. Hope I'm not being stupid.
Edit: Nevermind, it's fine now. I've refreshed it many time, including opening a new window. My attempts took about 3.5 minutes. Then I wrote this post, which took another 3 minutes, all the while refreshing the devlog tab I had in my window. Then, 5 seconds before Wirevix posted, it worked. Weird. So I'm asking, does anyone has any clue what's going on?If anybody's interested, I had (and still have) one cession of Firefox running, and no I did not restart my computer. :o :o :o
Thanks for help, through.
Post by: Wirevix on January 05, 2012, 12:14:46 am
Post by: monk12 on January 05, 2012, 12:19:57 am
Try a Ctrl + F5 to clear your cache when you refresh; I'm seeing the new devlog as well, so maybe your cache is stuck.
If you're on Firefox (like me,) Ctrl + Shift + R is hard refresh, which accomplishes the same thing. I regularly hard refresh right before I go to sleep, since that seems to be when Toady posts.
On topic, I really hope those cursed husk making mists work on wild animal populations as well.
Post by: Wirevix on January 05, 2012, 12:24:37 am
To keep this even slightly relevant to the topic, roving clouds of death-mist are one of the things that I consider absolutely terrifying. Possibly because I live in a mountains-and-valleys area where we get heavy fog pretty regularly during certain times of the year, and I have to drive home through it. It's one of those slow but unstoppable (well, unless you have a big enough fan, but that's getting silly...) horrors that you can do nothing about, just wait and hope you come out the other side.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 05, 2012, 12:31:13 am
Will the regional emission that causes the blood rain still be able to do solid materials or was that removed after the "dandruff snow" thing?
99% sure that solid materials will still be possible. Material phase is respected everywhere else, and it'd be silly if a material that's solid at ambient temperature was forced into the liquid phase for emission purposes.
Post by: Anatoli on January 05, 2012, 12:40:41 am
Love the mists and the rains.
1). How do the dwarves react to those things? Do the get bad negative emotions and try to run away?
2). This is more of a suggestion, but is there any connections between creatures like demons, megabeasts, and mists? How are they affected by it?
3). Do mists happen underground in caverns? That, would be really, really, terrifying. On the same note, bloody rivers (Nile)?
Yeah, I meant caverns. Don't want to post 3 pages after just to report a mistake, but for anyone wondering, I meant caverns.
Post by: caknuck on January 05, 2012, 12:52:06 am
Will foreign civs hold us responsible if their merchants happen to get zombified/face-melted/pukey by what our insurance agent would call an "act of Armok"?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 05, 2012, 01:10:15 am
Well how to weaponize this stuff? I guess you could get some "spaters" on things like clothing or wooden spears for weapons and spike-traps. hmmm maybe you can "evaporate" a liquid or solid poison via a burning object/magma or with a object of sufficient temperature (think zink+magma gas-chamber). Fogs could be condensed/solified by using grates or bars made from Nether-cap. Sadly you cant collect spaters like spiderwebs (damn!).
Personally i thought procedural materials come up with FB/Titan/nightcreature content to get some interresting organ-materials for the meatier kinds - say magma-prof skin, the runner up would have been trees and plants for the outworldy places.
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 05, 2012, 01:25:01 am
will different mists/weathers hit the same region, or will it be specific to each region?
If mist is specific to region? and how will it act in regards to moving across a multi-biome map. Will it just disappear as it crosses the boundary for it's biome?
For some reason I see evil fogs sort of floating around all the evil biomes at random. For example acid flesh melting fog floats across the haunted plains into the calm forest, has a slight fortress-only overlap with forest and then floats into the neighbooring terrifying desert while the desert has it's own evil fog. So you could get two evil fogs coming from each direction closeing in on your fortress like a etheral vice, burning and corrupting all it touches.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 05, 2012, 02:10:39 am
3). Do mists happen underground in caves? That, would be really, really, terrifying. On the same note, bloody rivers (Nile)
The devlog indicates that (at least in vanilla) they only happen in evil regions, which doesn't include caves.
Will foreign civs hold us responsible if their merchants happen to get zombified/face-melted/pukey by what our insurance agent would call an "act of Armok"?
Yeah, the algorithm has always just checked for whether they safely return, not for a particular cause of death.
Post by: Cruxador on January 05, 2012, 02:30:49 am
How many of these new region effects can happen in the same location as other region effects? How many varieties can we get at once? Does the regional undead thing function differently than material emissions for these purposes?
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 05, 2012, 02:40:55 am
3). Do mists happen underground in caves? That, would be really, really, terrifying. On the same note, bloody rivers (Nile)
The devlog indicates that (at least in vanilla) they only happen in evil regions, which doesn't include caves.
Really? Because I had to fight off a skeleton giant cave swallow and a mix of zombie and skeletrogglodytes in my current fort.
Post by: Cruxador on January 05, 2012, 03:01:48 am
Those are caverns. Caves are hollows and tunnels just below the surface, which you can generally enter through a few surface entrances.3). Do mists happen underground in caves? That, would be really, really, terrifying. On the same note, bloody rivers (Nile)
The devlog indicates that (at least in vanilla) they only happen in evil regions, which doesn't include caves.
Really? Because I had to fight off a skeleton giant cave swallow and a mix of zombie and skeletrogglodytes in my current fort.
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 05, 2012, 03:52:17 am
Post by: MasterMorality on January 05, 2012, 07:15:46 am
It's a shame Bravemule won't be dealing with the next update. It'd be even more amazing.
Post by: Neonivek on January 05, 2012, 08:22:05 am
Interesting.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 05, 2012, 09:44:11 am
3). Do mists happen underground in caves? That, would be really, really, terrifying. On the same note, bloody rivers (Nile)
The devlog indicates that (at least in vanilla) they only happen in evil regions, which doesn't include caves.
Really? Because I had to fight off a skeleton giant cave swallow and a mix of zombie and skeletrogglodytes in my current fort.
(I did assume Anatoli meant caverns.) In that case I don't really know.
Post by: thvaz on January 05, 2012, 10:50:26 am
Post by: ayoriceball on January 05, 2012, 11:13:01 am
I'd imagine they'd have different effects or properties.
Post by: Caldfir on January 05, 2012, 11:21:30 am
Do dwarves try to avoid at least the worst of the stuff (like turning into a bloodless husk) or will he have to either manually block those areas out somehow or accept resulting losses?Alright, I'm not privy to the particulars or anything, but I'm 99.9% positive that's a big NO. Dwarves still have no fear of fire, so I would be shocked if they behaved in a related self-preservation-themed way with regards to this.
Part of the fun of DF is dealing with your utterly idiotic dwarves and their apparent desire for self-destruction.
Post by: Neonivek on January 05, 2012, 11:31:35 am
Post by: Knight Otu on January 05, 2012, 12:06:53 pm
(I did assume Anatoli meant caverns.) In that case I don't really know.I don't recall where it was said, but I'm pretty sure that caverns have good and evil as well that's independent of the surface alignment, becoming more evil the deeper you go.
Post by: Lemunde on January 05, 2012, 01:05:48 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on January 05, 2012, 01:38:13 pm
Will those metals include descriptions verbose enough so we know how useful they are?
Transmitting that information to the player in some form is definitely a goal.
Post by: Hummingbird on January 05, 2012, 01:51:42 pm
Post by: monk12 on January 05, 2012, 01:54:50 pm
Post by: Mr Frog on January 05, 2012, 02:12:59 pm
In any case, I am very, very happy that Terrifying regions will actually be terrifying instead of just being an evil region with [SAVAGE] wildlife, although that does render a significant portion of my mod redundant to to point of overkill :/
Also, monk12's post above brought to mind something odd...
'Evil' can be pretty subjective sometimes.
Bloody rain would certainly be creepy as all hell to, say, a human or an elf, but to a species that feeds on blood it'd be pretty much the greatest thing ever (assume that the blood-feeding species in question is itself benign, and that they have the resources to disinfect the 'rain' of airborne contaminants). In fact, if it weren't for the quasi-cannibalism factor involved in eating human/dwarf blood (I say "quasi" because it doesn't appear to be coming from an actual, living human/dwarf), I'm sure there are many real-life cultures who would go "Yay, free black pudding!" and set funnels outside before every rainstorm, or at least after they'd gotten used to it enough to not freak out every time the sky started bleeding.
Of course, this isn't really a problem; part of the fun of DF is taking fantasy clichés, applying them to an internally-consistent simulation, and seeing how such things would actually play out.
EDIT: Actually, I guess finding potable water would be tough in such a region.
Post by: monk12 on January 05, 2012, 02:17:25 pm
Post by: Deimos56 on January 05, 2012, 02:37:09 pm
I suppose it would depend on whether all the rain was magically transformed to blood, or just a few of the showers. I imagine the whole place would stink to high heaven after a storm, too.I would imagine the miasma will be terrible.
Post by: Spish on January 05, 2012, 03:07:03 pm
Miasma doesn't happen outdoors.I suppose it would depend on whether all the rain was magically transformed to blood, or just a few of the showers. I imagine the whole place would stink to high heaven after a storm, too.I would imagine the miasma will be terrible.
Post by: Caldfir on January 05, 2012, 03:13:54 pm
HELL
NO
I don't care how many jewel-encrusted socks are lying on the patio. Not going out there.
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 05, 2012, 07:22:26 pm
Post by: Urist McCheeseMaker on January 05, 2012, 08:06:42 pm
Post by: ayoriceball on January 05, 2012, 08:14:00 pm
You mean like a resistance to inhaled/ingested/touched contaminants overall? Because that's what the murdermist and zombierain are, really. I think it'd be a good idea though, maybe even a separate resistance for each way a syndrome can be contracted. Hell, they might be trainable. Don't smokers generally have an easier time dealing with foul air and stuff, at the cost of also being bad at absorbing oxygen?Attributes aren't trainable. And that's a terrible point to make. The more you smoke, the more likely you are to die. :\
Post by: Anatoli on January 05, 2012, 09:58:30 pm
You mean like a resistance to inhaled/ingested/touched contaminants overall? Because that's what the murdermist and zombierain are, really. I think it'd be a good idea though, maybe even a separate resistance for each way a syndrome can be contracted. Hell, they might be trainable. Don't smokers generally have an easier time dealing with foul air and stuff, at the cost of also being bad at absorbing oxygen?Eh, not really. I'm not speaking from experience, as I never smoked, but as far as I know, no. On the contrary, they are much more vulnerable than normal people, and can get badly affected by something that would not affect normal people that way. For example, some of the smokers develop asthma. If there's anyone out here who can disprove me, please do so, but I am pretty confident in what I'm saying.
Also, I've wrote a page on how I see the rain in my imagination. I don't have dandruff snow there, but I don't think it's a bad take on it.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98567.msg2882322#msg2882322
Post by: monk12 on January 05, 2012, 10:23:01 pm
Post by: Name Lips on January 05, 2012, 11:38:29 pm
New devlog! Apparently material based mandates are on hold for some reason.Urist McMayor demands a ratman dandruff statue.
Post by: CharlesPeter on January 05, 2012, 11:43:55 pm
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 05, 2012, 11:51:21 pm
You mean like a resistance to inhaled/ingested/touched contaminants overall? Because that's what the murdermist and zombierain are, really. I think it'd be a good idea though, maybe even a separate resistance for each way a syndrome can be contracted. Hell, they might be trainable. Don't smokers generally have an easier time dealing with foul air and stuff, at the cost of also being bad at absorbing oxygen?Attributes aren't trainable. And that's a terrible point to make. The more you smoke, the more likely you are to die. :\
attributes are trainable, At least in Adventure mode, which is where I was thinking of using it.
Post by: Lemunde on January 05, 2012, 11:54:20 pm
Post by: O11O1 on January 06, 2012, 02:37:22 am
Well it sounds like the rain and fog are supposed to have more curse-like effects so, I guess maybe it might depend on how religious/superstitious the dwarf is. Maybe their god could protect them from the cursed precipitation if they believe strongly enough.
I say that each mist/fog type should check a different stat/attribute, ideally selected at world-gen.
Post by: Areyar on January 06, 2012, 11:37:18 am
Bring those butchers and rubish-piles inside!
In all movies and virtually all books with zombies, you get 'it' when bitten by them. Assuming DF uses a syndrome to convey this contagion, does this happen in DF as well? Or is it more personal, like a curse?
Post by: Caldfir on January 06, 2012, 12:44:47 pm
One could, however, probably mod in something similar to the "zombie plague" using the interaction framework.
Post by: magmaholic on January 06, 2012, 12:46:42 pm
like "urist mcSadguy has been unhappy lately. he has been caught by a bloodfall lately"
Post by: Untelligent on January 06, 2012, 01:35:08 pm
Post by: thvaz on January 06, 2012, 01:44:40 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 06, 2012, 02:15:37 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on January 06, 2012, 02:41:16 pm
How does the evil rain interact with the Adventure Mode character?
It won't be a Fort Mode-only feature, so it'll interact with Adv Mode creatures the same way. Did you have a more specific question?
does bloodstorm cause unhappy thoughts?
like "urist mcSadguy has been unhappy lately. he has been caught by a bloodfall lately"
Anatoli asked this on the last page, (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=84398.msg2880649#msg2880649) although there's no answer yet.
May i suggest that we open a new FotF thread once the new version (or as i call it DF2012: Pre-apocalypse-party) is rolled out?
Yeah, this thread's getting long in the tooth anyway.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on January 06, 2012, 08:28:52 pm
New devlog! Apparently material based mandates are on hold for some reason.Probably because they are broken with all new things that Toady implemented. I just hope it will be back earlier than year or two. I do not like when things are "fixed" by turning them off (*cough* contamination spread *cough*).
Post by: darkflagrance on January 06, 2012, 09:36:19 pm
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 07, 2012, 01:11:54 am
in this case you'd have to make the cabinet out of Cobalite/ Kimberite/ microline.
Though I do wonder how long it'll be till it comes out. While I'm willing to wait a month or two, With only 20 or so miscellaneous issues, It could come out before feb. Mind you I'm making the assumption that misc issues are the last thing toady does. and you know what they say about what happens when you Assume something.
Post by: thvaz on January 07, 2012, 01:35:06 am
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 07, 2012, 02:23:24 am
Post by: MrWiggles on January 07, 2012, 02:44:46 am
The Animals, Map Maint. and optimization could about a week each, but it doesnt mean that each will will take a week each.
Post by: Kogut on January 07, 2012, 07:27:38 am
probably because of the randomized materials he was thinking of implementing.And justice is now required.
Post by: MrWiggles on January 07, 2012, 08:02:11 am
Justice isn't required, you can still not act on crimes committed.probably because of the randomized materials he was thinking of implementing.And justice is now required.
Post by: Kogut on January 07, 2012, 09:22:54 am
*cough* vampires *cough*Justice isn't required, you can still not act on crimes committed.probably because of the randomized materials he was thinking of implementing.And justice is now required.
Post by: Tiny on January 07, 2012, 10:41:50 am
Quote
Toady One I'm moving into a part of the miscellaneous issues list where the really random stuff from the last nine months has piled up (via email conversations, future of the fortress etc.). So today I fixed an issue with projectiles not moving when you become an adventurer in the arena mode, fixed a rare forgotten beast crash which has undoubtedly scuttled various fortresses in the currently released version, made the legacy mouse work again, and added quite a lot of information to the historical figure XML dump.
So close...
Post by: Yoink on January 07, 2012, 11:45:44 am
One was where the creatures in the underground caverns/catacombs beneath a city could hear the humans above talking, and another where his test adventurer went to a city, got two town guards to escort him to where the monsters were coming out from the catacombs, and one of the two was wearing sunglasses, which was apparently a bug. :P
There was more to it than that, but... Yeaaah.
Post by: Dae on January 07, 2012, 12:33:21 pm
One was where the creatures in the underground caverns/catacombs beneath a city could hear the humans above talking
Even RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY ! Can you believe that ? Never had such awful neighbors... I think I'm going to go upstairs and eat one or two of them to get the message across.
Post by: Anatoli on January 07, 2012, 06:32:48 pm
I just had a weird dream about a new version of DF while I was napping... I don't remember much of it, but Toady was saying (in some strange, dreamt-up version of a devlog) that he'd just squashed another couple of bugs.Pretty awesome dream. Actually, does this forum have a thread where DF dreams are shared? I'd really enjoy reading one.
One was where the creatures in the underground caverns/catacombs beneath a city could hear the humans above talking, and another where his test adventurer went to a city, got two town guards to escort him to where the monsters were coming out from the catacombs, and one of the two was wearing sunglasses, which was apparently a bug. :P
There was more to it than that, but... Yeaaah.
Post by: MrWiggles on January 07, 2012, 11:43:03 pm
Yes'em. Now the players get to decide who gets punished, and from the Dev log, we can choose not to act on them.*cough* vampires *cough*Justice isn't required, you can still not act on crimes committed.probably because of the randomized materials he was thinking of implementing.And justice is now required.
Post by: Yoink on January 07, 2012, 11:55:12 pm
Pretty awesome dream. Actually, does this forum have a thread where DF dreams are shared? I'd really enjoy reading one.
Now you mention it, I'm pretty sure there is a dream-sharing thread, down in General Discussion somewhere... I'll see if I can find it. :) It's not Df-specific, though.
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 08, 2012, 02:30:52 am
I just had a weird dream about a new version of DF while I was napping... I don't remember much of it, but Toady was saying (in some strange, dreamt-up version of a devlog) that he'd just squashed another couple of bugs.Man I've had a weirder df dream then that.
One was where the creatures in the underground caverns/catacombs beneath a city could hear the humans above talking, and another where his test adventurer went to a city, got two town guards to escort him to where the monsters were coming out from the catacombs, and one of the two was wearing sunglasses, which was apparently a bug. :P
There was more to it than that, but... Yeaaah.
I was actually an Adventurer with a first person view point. everything was blocky and Coloured in the appropriate Ascii graphics, So I was walking through a minecraft style forest fighting goblins made out a humanoid shaped collection of blue "g"'s. And then I thought how the "g"s looked like a swarm of wasps and it all went down hill.
Post by: Dwarfu on January 08, 2012, 02:39:54 am
Since the hammerer is appointed from the beginning and not attached to the barony any more, has the hammerer's [PRECEDENCE] value changed?
Post by: Owlbread on January 08, 2012, 10:02:05 am
Yes'em. Now the players get to decide who gets punished, and from the Dev log, we can choose not to act on them.*cough* vampires *cough*Justice isn't required, you can still not act on crimes committed.probably because of the randomized materials he was thinking of implementing.And justice is now required.
The problem is though that there doesn't seem to be much point in punishing a dwarf. If dwarves commit crimes nowadays they usually have a good reason i.e. they're upset and are having a tantrum or they're not listening to a silly noble's orders. If you punish the dwarf they just feel worse, and there would be no need to imprison or beat a good worker who might be doing something more useful to your fortress like making cage traps instead of a bloody platinum throne or something.
I think dwarves should be more likely to commit crimes if they don't get punished.
Post by: Lysabild on January 08, 2012, 10:59:08 am
Post by: Spish on January 08, 2012, 11:53:20 am
Is there a chance that this bug will be fixed? http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=2481I'm more curious about this one: http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=3942
Post by: Footkerchief on January 08, 2012, 11:57:37 am
Is there a chance that this bug will be fixed? http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=2481I'm more curious about this one: http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=3942
If bugs of that magnitude are fixed, they'll generally get mentioned in the dev log. I don't think the chances of those getting fixed in this release are very good -- they don't appear to be quick fixes. Fortunately this release will be followed by bugfix releases. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98355.0)
Post by: MrWiggles on January 08, 2012, 03:51:37 pm
The underlying issue here, is that dorfs personalities are in need of a rewrite. You are correct, right now dorfs do not respond well to punishments. But we dont be seeing that until release 8. From a previous Answer Dump, from Toady, he said that that release will also contain the frame work for Fort Mode criminals. Though it was meant to create villains during world gen, and invaders for fort mode.Yes'em. Now the players get to decide who gets punished, and from the Dev log, we can choose not to act on them.*cough* vampires *cough*Justice isn't required, you can still not act on crimes committed.probably because of the randomized materials he was thinking of implementing.And justice is now required.
The problem is though that there doesn't seem to be much point in punishing a dwarf. If dwarves commit crimes nowadays they usually have a good reason i.e. they're upset and are having a tantrum or they're not listening to a silly noble's orders. If you punish the dwarf they just feel worse, and there would be no need to imprison or beat a good worker who might be doing something more useful to your fortress like making cage traps instead of a bloody platinum throne or something.
I think dwarves should be more likely to commit crimes if they don't get punished.
Post by: Owlbread on January 08, 2012, 05:33:09 pm
The underlying issue here, is that dorfs personalities are in need of a rewrite. You are correct, right now dorfs do not respond well to punishments. But we dont be seeing that until release 8. From a previous Answer Dump, from Toady, he said that that release will also contain the frame work for Fort Mode criminals. Though it was meant to create villains during world gen, and invaders for fort mode.Yes'em. Now the players get to decide who gets punished, and from the Dev log, we can choose not to act on them.*cough* vampires *cough*Justice isn't required, you can still not act on crimes committed.probably because of the randomized materials he was thinking of implementing.And justice is now required.
The problem is though that there doesn't seem to be much point in punishing a dwarf. If dwarves commit crimes nowadays they usually have a good reason i.e. they're upset and are having a tantrum or they're not listening to a silly noble's orders. If you punish the dwarf they just feel worse, and there would be no need to imprison or beat a good worker who might be doing something more useful to your fortress like making cage traps instead of a bloody platinum throne or something.
I think dwarves should be more likely to commit crimes if they don't get punished.
Excuse me, can I ask what the release number for the new release is going to be?
Post by: eux0r on January 08, 2012, 07:28:17 pm
Post by: Cruxador on January 08, 2012, 07:34:05 pm
Post by: monk12 on January 08, 2012, 11:10:23 pm
Quote from: devlog
The last world I tested had a vampire that managed to get abducted by a gloom troll and turned into a "spouse of the gloom troll vampire"
So, in the quoted case, would the quest to kill such a creature be considered on par with killing a Gloom Troll Spouse, or on par with killing a vampire?
Because I'm fairly certain that the vampire quests are much more high-end than the Night Creature spouse ones, at least from what the devlog has led me to believe.
Post by: Andrew425 on January 09, 2012, 12:09:57 am
Quote
The last world I tested had a vampire that managed to get abducted by a gloom troll and turned into a "spouse of the gloom troll vampire", which isn't exactly the best way to say it.
Is it possible for your adventurer to end up in the same fate? A large troll smacks you over the head and your character lives out the rest of his life as the spouse?
Post by: Putnam on January 09, 2012, 12:14:55 am
QuoteThe last world I tested had a vampire that managed to get abducted by a gloom troll and turned into a "spouse of the gloom troll vampire", which isn't exactly the best way to say it.
Is it possible for your adventurer to end up in the same fate? A large troll smacks you over the head and your character lives out the rest of his life as the spouse?
Well, it isn't possible right now, so...
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 09, 2012, 12:43:30 am
Quote from: devlog
The last world I tested had a vampire that managed to get abducted by a gloom troll and turned into a "spouse of the gloom troll vampire"
Whoa wait! This is a interresting case which makes Dfs monsters even scarier. If this vamp were to propagate would he make normal Humans to his "basic" vampire type or to his new mixed type? What about his weaknesses? Would the powers stack? Would be the child out of this unhealthy combination be also a vampire and troll? How would the behavior change? Will you take this stuff out? I hope not!
Post by: monk12 on January 09, 2012, 12:52:19 am
Post by: Lord Dakoth on January 09, 2012, 03:08:44 am
Post by: thvaz on January 09, 2012, 04:34:14 am
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 09, 2012, 05:11:33 am
I would like if the trolls or hags could abduct dwarves in fortress mode too. I don't know why it still isn't in, as the system is already mostly in place (it may use the same code for goblin thieves)Because nobody actually wants to marry dwarves.
Post by: thvaz on January 09, 2012, 05:16:28 am
I would like if the trolls or hags could abduct dwarves in fortress mode too. I don't know why it still isn't in, as the system is already mostly in place (it may use the same code for goblin thieves)Because nobody actually wants to marry dwarves.
Funny, because in world gen they do.
Post by: MasterMorality on January 09, 2012, 07:31:13 am
This raises interesting ideas about the wedding night, and the effects of Stockholm syndrome....
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 09, 2012, 07:49:48 am
I would like if the trolls or hags could abduct dwarves in fortress mode too. I don't know why it still isn't in, as the system is already mostly in place (it may use the same code for goblin thieves)Because nobody actually wants to marry dwarves.
Funny, because in world gen they do.
Technically they marry dwarves-turned-into-troll/hag/ogres, not quite the same :p
Post by: Neonivek on January 09, 2012, 09:06:01 am
QuoteThe last world I tested had a vampire that managed to get abducted by a gloom troll and turned into a "spouse of the gloom troll vampire", which isn't exactly the best way to say it.
Is it possible for your adventurer to end up in the same fate? A large troll smacks you over the head and your character lives out the rest of his life as the spouse?
No because currently the game doesn't handle "Non-lethal", making people surrender, or gradual transformations.
So being turned into a troll isn't going to be in the game for a while.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on January 09, 2012, 11:45:27 am
Post by: EmeraldWind on January 09, 2012, 01:04:59 pm
Once they have been updated to work with interactions it will probably work more or less like transforming into any other creature via syndrome, it just needs to make a transformation that keeps the base creatures' gender caste as well as targets only certain castes (unless you want female night trolls converting female adventures into male night troll spouses) and flags the creature as being a spouse.
As low hanging as this is... troll spouse conversion may be the first possible "marriages" for player characters...
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on January 09, 2012, 01:38:26 pm
troll spouse conversion may be the first possible "marriages" for player characters...Now this is what I call desperation.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 09, 2012, 01:40:38 pm
Some would say Evolution :Ptroll spouse conversion may be the first possible "marriages" for player characters...Now this is what I call desperation.
DF taking a very, VERY different perspective.
Post by: EmeraldWind on January 09, 2012, 10:27:09 pm
Some would say Evolution :Ptroll spouse conversion may be the first possible "marriages" for player characters...Now this is what I call desperation.
DF taking a very, VERY different perspective.
I was thinking more BAD END.
Post by: Caldfir on January 10, 2012, 01:53:48 am
It will be nice to get some more interactivity with those worldgen figures. Unfortunate how dwarves don't exist in adventure mode yet though. I wonder what percentage of migrants will end up being historical, not to mention the question of how actually useful historical dwarves will be compared with the current setup.
Post by: hermes on January 10, 2012, 06:04:32 am
Looking forward to historical migrations :)
Me too, but I'm not sure if this isn't going to exponentially increase the chances of tantrum spirals ;)
Following from this quote...
Quote
One of the nice things about that is that the relationship pages start out with plenty of family members scattered around the world
I'm curious, does this diaspora of dwarven families arise from children or parents actually migrating from fortress to fortress in worldgen, or is this movement abstracted?
The new release is getting near, I'm getting pretty excited about it. It's lucky that we've had so much training in waiting, DF forum membership should be a prerequisite for those wishing to attain Buddha like patience :D
Post by: finka on January 10, 2012, 08:15:56 am
Post by: Caldfir on January 10, 2012, 11:19:26 am
What are the obstacles to just assembling the starting seven dwarves as if they were a migrant wave (and possibly replacing their skills)?Probably the reasoning behind not doing it it mainly because the "seven ideally chosen dwarves at embark" thing is a tested formula for dwarf fortress, and that adding historical figures to the mix results in a bit of ugliness. If you're just replacing their skillsets, then why bother making them historical at all? If you aren't replacing them then how does it work? Do you do searches through historical populations for candidates or what? Would you need a bunch of new screens for looking at entity poulations filtered by skill/social attributes/age/availability? It is one of those things that on the surface is totally possible, but for Toady to do it now would set the release back a month, because doing it well would take a long time, because it would involve setting up all the embark scenario stuff.
It is the same problem that has been mentioned about the player in adventure mode - they don't have any history. There are potential fixes for this, but all of them are kinda bi picture things that would take a long time, and like anything with DF of substance, it needs to be scheduled a chunk of time for Toady to code it.
As things stand, the starting seven aren't a complete lie, because your civ has plenty of non-historical dwarves anyway. I'm looking forward to having the fully fleshed-out embark scenarios; especially getting a band together in adventure mode and then embarking that way.
Post by: finka on January 10, 2012, 12:52:08 pm
What are the obstacles to just assembling the starting seven dwarves as if they were a migrant wave (and possibly replacing their skills)?If you're just replacing their skillsets, then why bother making them historical at all?
Family ties? General world richness?
Quote
If you aren't replacing them then how does it work?Do you do searches through historical populations for candidates or what? Would you need a bunch of new screens for looking at entity poulations filtered by skill/social attributes/age/availability? It is one of those things that on the surface is totally possible, but for Toady to do it now would set the release back a month, because doing it well would take a long time, because it would involve setting up all the embark scenario stuff.Well, you're probably right that Toady's answer would be "no reason to put in a stopgap now, as opposed to the real thing when we do embark scenarios".
But as for the skills stuff, implicit in my question was a question about what's being done with historical migrant skills. We're familiar with migrant skills being selected to fill gaps in the fortress's skill roster. Does this extend to historical migrants: are they also chosen because their skills are needed, or are they thrown in by an entirely separate method? In the former case, it's not inconceivable that you might make a starting build exactly as you do now, DF would take your skill preferences and assemble a hist-fig-including set of seven with the migrant wave algorithm, and then replace their skills with your selections which would be expected not to be a large change. This would be extra work, yes, but I don't know whether several weeks or a day.
Post by: darkflagrance on January 10, 2012, 01:59:57 pm
Quote
You might get more child immigrants in the youngest worlds before the population starts to level out.
New bug: when you play in worlds generated to year 20, after the first ten immigrants, the rest are all children!
Post by: Cruxador on January 10, 2012, 02:58:57 pm
Quote
The starting seven dwarves seem a little thin now that they don't fit into the world as much as the other dwarves you'll have arriving, but we'll have to wait a bit longer for possible solutions for that to be explored (start scenarios, the potential for historical figures to be used, etc.).But wouldn't a lot of this be solved just by adding a mechanism whereby a list of relationships is generated for a dwarf, either retconned as long lost relatives to historical figures or just made up on the spot by assigning a name and relationship to mostly undefined ahistorical figures? This would be good in adventure too, if when you ask somebody of their family it generates some relationships for them to tell you about.
Not greened since it's sort of a suggestion question. But it seems like the obvious solution to the problem to me.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 10, 2012, 03:06:05 pm
Post by: Areyar on January 10, 2012, 03:37:28 pm
I wouldn't consider that a bug, just the way things are. (and should be)QuoteYou might get more child immigrants in the youngest worlds before the population starts to level out.
New bug: when you play in worlds generated to year 20, after the first ten immigrants, the rest are all children!
Post by: EnigmaticHat on January 10, 2012, 06:48:08 pm
Post by: Wirevix on January 10, 2012, 07:05:55 pm
Eventually, that'll become a thing, but hopefully the aspect of Justice where dwarves don't instantly know who killed who will by then be expanded to a general lack of hive-minded telepathy so that the only way they can find out is if someone sends them a letter.
Post by: Dsarker on January 10, 2012, 07:18:16 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on January 10, 2012, 07:19:00 pm
So, we're getting dwarves with off-sight relations... I can smell a recipe for Fun here. When people start dying outside the play area, will the dwarves be able to suffer bad thoughts for friends who died in distant lands? If so, what will it take for them to be considered aware of the deaths? Random uncontrollable bad thoughts because of the outside world would be interesting. At the very least, it would give you a reason to care about the rest of your civ.
No, incorporating off-site events into dwarves' thoughts would have been a bigger rewrite. Off-site relations will not be qualitatively different.
World sim is going to be continued in this patch, remember.
No it won't. That's Release 5 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html).
Post by: Willfor on January 10, 2012, 07:19:37 pm
Post by: irmo on January 10, 2012, 07:24:17 pm
Actually, no, but he's going to start working on that in the next version most likely. Or rather, he has indicated that it is a strong possibility.
Meanwhile, farming continues to be horribly unbalanced.
Post by: UltraValican on January 10, 2012, 08:39:31 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on January 10, 2012, 08:47:32 pm
So if I make a ton of human adventurers, and have them retire in dwarven sites.....will they become migrants as well?
Humans and other non-dwarves don't migrate to dwarf fortresses (at least ones controlled by the player), so it would have to be a dwarf adventurer. But since dwarf sites don't really exist right now, I don't think you can retire in them. It'll work with a human adventurer and human fortress, though:
Quote from: FootkerchiefWill non-vampire migrants also be drawn from historical figures? If a vampire adventurer retired in a human town in a Human Fortress-playable world, could that adventurer migrate to a player fortress? I'm asking about human towns since dwarf settlements are presumably still a broken feature.
I think this question shows how long it has been since I answered FotF... but yeah, we have historical migrants, both vampire and non-vampire adventurers as it comes up. A human could go to a human fort, and yeah, humans in dwarf forts are still a no-go.
Post by: Putnam on January 10, 2012, 08:53:40 pm
So if I make a ton of human adventurers, and have them retire in dwarven sites.....will they become migrants as well?
Humans and other non-dwarves don't migrate to dwarf fortresses (at least ones controlled by the player), so it would have to be a dwarf adventurer. But since dwarf sites don't really exist right now, I don't think you can retire in them. It'll work with a human adventurer and human fortress, though:Quote from: FootkerchiefWill non-vampire migrants also be drawn from historical figures? If a vampire adventurer retired in a human town in a Human Fortress-playable world, could that adventurer migrate to a player fortress? I'm asking about human towns since dwarf settlements are presumably still a broken feature.
I think this question shows how long it has been since I answered FotF... but yeah, we have historical migrants, both vampire and non-vampire adventurers as it comes up. A human could go to a human fort, and yeah, humans in dwarf forts are still a no-go.
Actually, it is fully possible to retire in a dwarven settlement. Though there may be nothing actually there, the placeholder landscape will still be counted as a site that you can retire in.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 10, 2012, 08:55:30 pm
Post by: CharlesPeter on January 10, 2012, 09:06:13 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on January 10, 2012, 09:21:18 pm
4 issues. Release tomorrow/next day?
Nope. Misc issues will be followed by: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98355.0)
Quote
map maintenance, optimization of the new stuff, sponsorship critters and incorporation of Baughn's fixes to the SDL stuff. The map maintenance, optimization, and sponsorship stuff have the highest chance of bogging me down, and each of those three could add a week a piece, say, which would put us just into February.
I wouldn't expect it any sooner than a week.
Also, what's the context of the LCS reference? I don't quite get it.
Most likely the New Hampshire primaries (http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ncl=dkdwYijmgnxYvYMqkKl8IVnqAgiXM&topic=h).
Post by: Caldfir on January 10, 2012, 10:36:27 pm
Quote from: Toady One 10/28/2011
Next I created a new world and started up a dwarven adventurer. Because dwarven sites on the world map are still blank, you start in a human village as usual. I walked day and night through the wilderness to get back to one of these blank sites and finally stumbled drowsily into the mountains, where it let me retire. I then created a dwarf fortress from the same civilization and waited for immigrants. It was only year 3, so without a large roster to choose from, my dwarven adventurer showed up to be a hard-working citizen... although he fell asleep on the edge of the map since it hadn't reset his drowsiness. Any dwarves from your abandoned fortresses should also show up in subsequent forts, whether originally historical or not, as long as you are with the same overall dwarven civilization.
Oh my god... I remembered something Footkerchief didn't...
(I was beaten to the comment, but not the quote!)
Anyway, what excited me more about that particular devlog was the possibility of getting dwarves from old forts moving in. Not only could your old adventurer move in, but he could follow your embark sites around, adventuring between forts! (in theory at least, if you're lucky)
Post by: PTTG?? on January 11, 2012, 01:01:45 am
Hmmm... If you make humans playable, but then create human adventurers and send them over to retire in a dwarf civ, then create a dwarf fortress, do we then see the humans show up? And is making humans playable strictly necessary?
Post by: Rose on January 11, 2012, 01:40:32 am
Post by: Rockphed on January 11, 2012, 02:41:55 am
I think it still cares about species. We have to wait for toady to properly implement racism and treating of humans as second class citizens.
That would be a step up from their current situation. Civ members who aren't the primary race of the civ tend to be ignored by that civ. Except when they are promoted to things like "queen" and proceed to immigrate and stand at the entrance, turning invaders into red mist.
Post by: NobodyPro on January 11, 2012, 03:50:10 am
So if I make a ton of human adventurers, and have them retire in dwarven sites.....will they become migrants as well?7 posts later
I like the fact that it remembered that he was still tired.This has to be some sort of record.
Hmmm... If you make humans playable, but then create human adventurers and send them over to retire in a dwarf civ, then create a dwarf fortress, do we then see the humans show up? And is making humans playable strictly necessary?
EDIT: Noticed the slight difference but it feels like fridge logic.
Post by: tps12 on January 11, 2012, 06:27:37 am
Quote from: Toady One
It's sort of a half day, because as you might have guessed from Liberal Crime Squad, we feel compelled to witness certain political events in full.
Toady's a Republican?!?
Post by: Yoink on January 11, 2012, 07:01:02 am
Post by: Kogut on January 11, 2012, 08:19:53 am
Anyway, what excited me more about that particular devlog was the possibility of getting dwarves from old forts moving in. Not only could your old adventurer move in, but he could follow your embark sites around, adventuring between forts! (in theory at least, if you're lucky)Impossible, as "abandon fortress" counts as "kill everything"
Post by: EmeraldWind on January 11, 2012, 08:50:09 am
Anyway, what excited me more about that particular devlog was the possibility of getting dwarves from old forts moving in. Not only could your old adventurer move in, but he could follow your embark sites around, adventuring between forts! (in theory at least, if you're lucky)Impossible, as "abandon fortress" counts as "kill everything"
Quote from: Toady One 10/28/2011
I walked day and night through the wilderness to get back to one of these blank sites and finally stumbled drowsily into the mountains, where it let me retire. I then created a dwarf fortress from the same civilization and waited for immigrants. It was only year 3, so without a large roster to choose from, my dwarven adventurer showed up to be a hard-working citizen... although he fell asleep on the edge of the map since it hadn't reset his drowsiness. Any dwarves from your abandoned fortresses should also show up in subsequent forts, whether originally historical or not, as long as you are with the same overall dwarven civilization.
Post by: Rose on January 11, 2012, 09:54:41 am
Anyway, what excited me more about that particular devlog was the possibility of getting dwarves from old forts moving in. Not only could your old adventurer move in, but he could follow your embark sites around, adventuring between forts! (in theory at least, if you're lucky)Impossible, as "abandon fortress" counts as "kill everything"
Um... actually it doesn't. If you go there as an adventurer, you do see your old dorves faffing about.
Post by: Tiruin on January 11, 2012, 09:57:07 am
This, and the fact that sometimes, your fortress-less dwarves will migrate into abandoned human settlements, along with waterskins and supplies.Anyway, what excited me more about that particular devlog was the possibility of getting dwarves from old forts moving in. Not only could your old adventurer move in, but he could follow your embark sites around, adventuring between forts! (in theory at least, if you're lucky)Impossible, as "abandon fortress" counts as "kill everything"
Um... actually it doesn't. If you go there as an adventurer, you do see your old dorves faffing about.
Post by: corporalcody on January 11, 2012, 12:37:30 pm
The lack of an ability to sort through the inventory, as well as the fact that putting something on drops it the very bottom of the inventory list, makes for a bit of frustration. Additionally, will we be given the ability to wash off blood/wipe off water? It's a bit silly to be wandering around covered from head to toe in the blood of my fallen enemies, and it also clogs up the inventory screen after a while.
Post by: Greiger on January 11, 2012, 12:48:00 pm
At least last I checked.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 11, 2012, 12:58:36 pm
Seeing as how this update is mostly an adventure-mode related one, will we also see improvements with the inventory (its screen, uses, etc)?
The lack of an ability to sort through the inventory, as well as the fact that putting something on drops it the very bottom of the inventory list, makes for a bit of frustration. Additionally, will we be given the ability to wash off blood/wipe off water? It's a bit silly to be wandering around covered from head to toe in the blood of my fallen enemies, and it also clogs up the inventory screen after a while.
It won't be any different from the current version AFAIK.
Post by: Putnam on January 11, 2012, 01:24:15 pm
Anyway, what excited me more about that particular devlog was the possibility of getting dwarves from old forts moving in. Not only could your old adventurer move in, but he could follow your embark sites around, adventuring between forts! (in theory at least, if you're lucky)Impossible, as "abandon fortress" counts as "kill everything"
No (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=84987.msg2283770#msg2283770) it doesn't. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=80488.0)
Post by: blue sam3 on January 11, 2012, 01:40:38 pm
Quote from: Toady OneIt's sort of a half day, because as you might have guessed from Liberal Crime Squad, we feel compelled to witness certain political events in full.
Toady's a Republican?!?
Watching the primaries != Republican. If anything, it's more important for the Democrats to watch it - these are the people they've got to beat, and deal with if the Dems lose the next election. Hell, I'm a) British and b) way, way left by US standards, and I'm watching them.
Post by: Putnam on January 11, 2012, 01:55:12 pm
Post by: Dae on January 11, 2012, 03:18:39 pm
Plus, who really cares about who Toady votes for ? He's making an awesome game, that's all that counts.
Post by: Urist McDagger on January 11, 2012, 04:22:09 pm
Once I had a swedish friend tell me the US citizens had the choice between rightwing and stupid rightwing. I let everyone assume which one is which according to his personal opinions :)I don't really care, but now kinda curious.. Didn't he take a moderate stance in Liberal Crime Squad by making both sides crazy?
Plus, who really cares about who Toady votes for ? He's making an awesome game, that's all that counts.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 11, 2012, 04:57:02 pm
Post by: ayoriceball on January 11, 2012, 05:05:16 pm
Apropos of nothing, I'd like to note that we've had over a month and a half of consistent daily devlogs. Getting a daily fix has made this wait a lot less painful, and reminded me of something that impressed me about this project in the first place: the level of communication.
I feel the need to agree with you. The devlog has kept me interested in DF for over a year now, even when I found the game difficult to learn.
Will blood rain form rivers or seas (or any other body of water)? I think it would be cool if there were certain crops we could grow that would require some kind of blood irrigation.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 11, 2012, 05:15:57 pm
Will blood rain form rivers or seas (or any other body of water)? I think it would be cool if there were certain crops we could grow that would require some kind of blood irrigation.
Unfortunately no. Right now the water/magma dichotomy is thoroughly hardcoded, and rewriting the fluid system is one of those difficult and far-off projects: (http://bay12games.com/media/df_talk_8_transcript.html)
Quote from: DF Talk 8
Rainseeker: How is the fluid model going to change?
Toady: We have hopes there. I guess there are two things ... one of them has a couple of sections ... but two things that are important are floating objects and additional fluid types. So for floating objects right now all the material have densities and they also have sizes and whatever other physical properties you might need, so it can tell, you know 'is this object going to float?' in water or magma. There are some issues there but it's not an impossible problem, you kind of worry when people use quantum stockpiles if they take a bunch of logs and drop five thousand of them in the same square and then that square suddenly gets wet is the CPU going to die? Maybe. But it's not like there needs to be a super lot of calculation going on because if it knows the density of the object to begin with ... I don't know if we're going to have to worry about shapes as well, like if an object has a concave shape the density isn't the only variable that's important ... but getting an object to float, especially for water which is so important, is just something that can be known about the object, it could just be a flag on the object so it doesn't have to do any calculation at all except for the actual floatation. As for that it just depends how you want it to work. There's some other trickiness; if your tile is two out of seven water with a seven out of seven below it, so it's actually bone fide water, it's not just a puddle, does the item float in the two out of seven square? Does it float in the seven out of seven square? What if you have a one of seven, what if you have a zero out of seven with a seven out of seven below it? Which square does it sit in is part of the problem of having this quantized space where you have a tile here and then a tile here and then a tile here, you want to decide where your item rests. Then there's the matter of having currents - the water has a direction that it's supposed to be flowing in even if the tiles aren't actually changing - the objects then can move and that's not really a big process or problem or anything, depending on how many objects you're actually monitoring, or how many squares you're monitoring if you want to monitor it by object or tile, there's a lot of different ways you can look at the problem. Just basically it's not a super hard problem, and then it would be really cool to flood a room and have everything either - depending on how heavy it is - just to get pushed along or float up and float out and go wherever you want it to go, I'm sure there'd be a lot of applications that would come out of that, for people that are doing all kinds of strange things.
Rainseeker: It would be a good reason to have all stone furniture in that case.
Toady: Yeah. The other problem that I was going to mention ... well one of the sub-problems I was going to mention for liquids was boats; boats are important once you get to fluids. Then you've almost got like a cave-in problem; does this multi-tile thing that you've built, perhaps tile by tile, and in whatever shape; does it float? And if so how deep does the boat float and how much of it shows above the surface of the water. It could do that, once it understands the boat as a multi-tile object that's not so hard to calculate, because you have the total mass of the boat and how many air tiles dip down at each level, those kind of things are pretty easily calculated, it would just be a known quantity for that boat and then you could stick it in the water. If you have some giant galleon or something you'd have a couple of tiles below the surface of the water and a couple of tiles above the surface of the water, and you can just walk around on it and stuff; it'd be really cool. The other fluid problem was multiple liquids. It doesn't seem so bad at first if I want to add a couple more liquid types like oil and I mentioned sand before. Sand, you want to be able to build on it or walk on it or whatever has its own problems, but even if you just consider other liquids like actual liquids, like oil and ... I'm not sure what else people have suggested, blood ... and giant alcohol silos.
Rainseeker: 'Release the alcohol upon the goblins!'
Toady: That's right, those kinds of thing. Once you get those up to flow levels; not just items but an actual map flow, you can use the existing code and so on to move it around, but the problem becomes mixing. There's already quite a bit of code devoted to mixing water and magma; does it make obsidian, what happens to the objects in there, and so on. But if you had fluids that could mix, or fluids that can't mix but don't destroy each other when they touch each other, like oil and water, or alcohol and water; they do different things when they touch each other. And it just seems like that's a can of worms that needs to be handled in one way or another, it's something that I haven't thought that deeply about but it seems like it opens a lot of problems. I'd still like to do it, but those are things that would need to be addressed before I embark on that project.
Post by: monk12 on January 11, 2012, 05:43:58 pm
Apropos of nothing, I'd like to note that we've had over a month and a half of consistent daily devlogs. Getting a daily fix has made this wait a lot less painful, and reminded me of something that impressed me about this project in the first place: the level of communication.
Hear hear!
...I suppose I don't have a lot to add to this, other than to say I'm sure the majority of the forums (and the community at large) feel this way as well.
Post by: thvaz on January 12, 2012, 04:23:39 am
Apropos of nothing, I'd like to note that we've had over a month and a half of consistent daily devlogs. Getting a daily fix has made this wait a lot less painful, and reminded me of something that impressed me about this project in the first place: the level of communication.
Hear hear!
...I suppose I don't have a lot to add to this, other than to say I'm sure the majority of the forums (and the community at large) feel this way as well.
I always try to donate when he posts every day after a time of sparse devlogs.
Post by: MasterMorality on January 12, 2012, 07:29:33 am
Sodding university...
Post by: Neonivek on January 12, 2012, 08:16:22 am
I seriously hope the release isn't until after the 25th. I have deadlines to meet!
Sodding university...
For some reason I think the Sponsorship animals may help there.
Post by: Urist McCheeseMaker on January 12, 2012, 10:17:00 am
Post by: Ghills on January 12, 2012, 11:18:18 am
And is anyone else excited about the new info in the XML dump? I'm pretty happy about it. Think of all the awesome things DF LegendViewer can do now. And the expanded possibilities for using DF as a backdrop for tabletop campaigns. :D
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on January 12, 2012, 01:27:22 pm
Think of all the awesome things DF LegendViewer can do now. And the expanded possibilities for using DF as a backdrop for tabletop campaigns. :DWell, to be fully usable, Toady have to fix things like burning down same village 187 times in row...
Post by: Footkerchief on January 12, 2012, 01:50:00 pm
Think of all the awesome things DF LegendViewer can do now. And the expanded possibilities for using DF as a backdrop for tabletop campaigns. :DWell, to be fully usable, Toady have to fix things like burning down same village 187 times in row...
Do you mean this bug? (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=3802) Never hurts to link the report when you're trying to draw attention to a bug.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on January 12, 2012, 06:25:27 pm
Do you mean this bug? (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=3802) Never hurts to link the report when you're trying to draw attention to a bug.Ah yes, this kind of bug. I forgot to link it.
Post by: Zesty on January 12, 2012, 08:57:26 pm
Quote
The quest log reacts a little better to the new maps and building locations, and conversations will give you more location information about critters you are seeking out, especially vampires that are hiding off wherever in town.
Neat. Wonder how those quests will work.
"I think there's a vampire in that town. Kill it."
or
"Doris McHuman is a Vampire. He's spends his time in the tavern. Kill it."
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 12, 2012, 10:10:21 pm
Post by: Zesty on January 12, 2012, 11:40:50 pm
You kill him. He's not a vampire. The town comes to take you out. You're dragged to the gallows, accusing Human 1 of giving you false information.
Quests of Tomorrow.
Post by: Spish on January 13, 2012, 02:08:17 pm
Post by: blue sam3 on January 13, 2012, 04:01:36 pm
A very large chunk of the world is way left by U.S standards, especially in Europe >_>
I'm well left by European standards, so yeah...
Post by: Urist McManiac on January 14, 2012, 10:52:27 am
1. Are we going to see new crafting skills introduced in adventure mode?
2. I read somewhere about necromancy being a "secret", and that "secrets" can be learned by reading a stone slab which has this secret engraved on it. Does this mean that it will be possible to become a necromancer in adventurer mode?
Post by: Knight Otu on January 14, 2012, 11:10:44 am
Are we going to see new crafting skills introduced in adventure mode?Not in the upcoming release, no. Expanding adventurer skills is a relatively-near-future goal, but that doesn't mean all that much on when we'll see it. In the meantime, there are mods that use the adventure mode reactions for this kind of thing.
Does this mean that it will be possible to become a necromancer in adventurer mode?Yes. Toady specifically spent some time to make interactions usable by adventurers, and secrets learnable by them.
Post by: Dae on January 14, 2012, 07:11:08 pm
Not sure if it's too technical to be asked, but Toady : how can a necromancer line of sight affect a non-necromancer targetting something ? Do you mean targetting as in chosing which body part to attack or the "fire crossbow"-type targetting ? And finally, what do werewolves have to do with any targetting at all ?
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on January 14, 2012, 07:28:54 pm
And finally, what do werewolves have to do with any targetting at all ?They can be... um... targeted??
Post by: Kogut on January 14, 2012, 08:05:01 pm
Sometimes (targetable during werephase by dwarves/tagetable by everuthing else during dwarfphase? And wereturtle will attack wereelephant, but it will leave different wereturtle unharmed)And finally, what do werewolves have to do with any targetting at all ?They can be... um... targeted??
EDIT: Praise FPS increase!
Post by: Willfor on January 14, 2012, 09:35:46 pm
Post by: Cheese on January 15, 2012, 08:34:11 am
Post by: Knight Otu on January 15, 2012, 08:41:26 am
Is the problem of dwarven civs and to a lesser extent goblin civs tending to go extinct/near extinct (perhaps due to humans and elves doing so well because of farming) going to be fixed at some point? Perhaps in the next update cycle?The next version should do this.
Quote
01/07/2012 Toady One More random issues today. I put iron back into the weapon stockpile menu were it was erroneously excluded, corrected manual typos, checked out how books/pages interact with reactions, tested all of the interactions in the interaction example folder, and forced world gen to check out farming races more closely so there'd be fewer worlds generated with starving dwarves (due to a lack of underground plants at their starting location).
Quote
06/09/2011 Toady One Found my first tower-cap bed in a human's bedroom. It had an image of the foundation of a dwarven mountain hall in giant toad bone. An iron scourge made by the goblins made it to the back of the warehouse as well -- it commemorated a skinless demon becoming the law-giver of the goblin civilization. I also put in some extra precautions and tweaks so that dwarves form markets properly and are more survivable in world gen. Kobolds as well.
Post by: Ghills on January 15, 2012, 10:33:04 am
Am I the only one worried by the sentence "Targetting [has gotten slow] too, in all modes, something to do with the werewolf/necromancer checks" ?
Not sure if it's too technical to be asked, but Toady : how can a necromancer line of sight affect a non-necromancer targetting something ? Do you mean targetting as in chosing which body part to attack or the "fire crossbow"-type targetting ? And finally, what do werewolves have to do with any targetting at all ?
I didn't read that as necromancer line of sight - I read it as "Targeting is slow in all modes, and it seems to be due to targetting checking for necromancer/werewolves". That's the only thing that makes sense. The slow code isn't necromancers/werewolves targeting others, it's X targeting Y and all the code that runs to tell if X or Y are necromancers/werewolves.
This might be related to the new interactions - necromancers and werewolves are only types of people who use the new framework as far as I know.
The news about markets is really awesome. I'm excited for non-starved kobolds and dwarfs. :)
Post by: EmeraldWind on January 15, 2012, 11:30:51 am
Am I the only one worried by the sentence "Targetting [has gotten slow] too, in all modes, something to do with the werewolf/necromancer checks" ?
Not sure if it's too technical to be asked, but Toady : how can a necromancer line of sight affect a non-necromancer targetting something ? Do you mean targetting as in chosing which body part to attack or the "fire crossbow"-type targetting ? And finally, what do werewolves have to do with any targetting at all ?
I didn't read that as necromancer line of sight - I read it as "Targeting is slow in all modes, and it seems to be due to targetting checking for necromancer/werewolves". That's the only thing that makes sense. The slow code isn't necromancers/werewolves targeting others, it's X targeting Y and all the code that runs to tell if X or Y are necromancers/werewolves.
This might be related to the new interactions - necromancers and werewolves are only types of people who use the new framework as far as I know.
The news about markets is really awesome. I'm excited for non-starved kobolds and dwarfs. :)
Another possible problem is that checking to see IF a creature (this include player characters) has a interaction as/attached to an attack.
I say this is because there is no reason to check to see if the targeted creature is a werewolf anymore more than it checks to see if the creature is a chicken.
But the fact that a creature can have several various targeting interactions (some of which might be randomly generated), the targeting system needs to check through any attached syndromes/interactions for attacks and to check the attack for which type of targeting it uses (assuming that all interactions are treated as attacks for targeting).
Post by: Neonivek on January 15, 2012, 05:46:03 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 15, 2012, 07:35:27 pm
Post by: Dae on January 15, 2012, 08:04:26 pm
Post by: monk12 on January 15, 2012, 09:27:02 pm
Post by: Untelligent on January 15, 2012, 11:23:54 pm
I'm fine with this.
Post by: Greendogo on January 16, 2012, 01:08:42 am
Toady, will the game ever automatically remove the "salt" flag from empty dry spaces and provide us with means to scrub away "salt" as a contaminate in spaces filled with dry stuff so using cisterns becomes easier and more logical? Also, will screw pumps ever be changed so they don't purify water and have that function replaced by a desalination tool of some sort?
Edit: To clarify, currently if you dig out a cistern and fill it with fresh water, and then contaminate that water with salt water, it makes the whole cistern full of salt water. But as an added "bonus" it permanently makes any fresh water later entering the space of the emptied cistern into salt water. This is irregardless of whether or not you have dug out the cistern and replaced every single block with new blocks, the "space" is what's contaminated, not the materials or items in the space. So, my question is really why haven't you just made a check that removes "salt" from spaces that have nothing in them (no floor, no blocks, no rocks or trees or items or water) except air, and then just make the salt that still exists a contaminate that can only be removed from dry squares (so a cistern would just be emptied of salt water and scrubbed down good as new).
Post by: Kogut on January 16, 2012, 07:42:07 am
why haven't you just made a check that removes "salt" from spaces that have nothing in themthousands (additional) checks every single tick may be described as "Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag"
Post by: MrWiggles on January 16, 2012, 08:21:23 am
Lag smag. Toady already describe checking for such thing, doesnt actually impact game responsiveness. As far as liquids go, its their logarithmic exponential mixing/interaction checks per tick that'll bog down the game.why haven't you just made a check that removes "salt" from spaces that have nothing in themthousands (additional) checks every single tick may be described as "Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag"
Whats probably closer to a real reason to this long standing bug, is that it hasn't come up as part of DF development. It'll probably remain that way until liquids get looked at again. Maybe when more liquid types are added, or maybe when additional vehicles are added to the game, IE, ships.
Just some salt and water related questions:
Toady, will the game ever automatically remove the "salt" flag from empty dry spaces and provide us with means to scrub away "salt" as a contaminate in spaces filled with dry stuff so using cisterns becomes easier and more logical? Also, will screw pumps ever be changed so they don't purify water and have that function replaced by a desalination tool of some sort?
The answer to this question, is most likely to be, yes, eventually.
Post by: Neonivek on January 16, 2012, 08:54:25 am
Toady do the sponsorship animals means that soon we will have giant and person versions of all the animals currently in the game? Are we that far from a Monarch Butterflyman?
Post by: Willfor on January 16, 2012, 11:45:30 am
Post by: magmaholic on January 16, 2012, 12:09:23 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on January 16, 2012, 01:17:37 pm
Hmm I wonder... Well I guess I'll put out the Footkerchief bait... but this question is driving me nuts
Toady do the sponsorship animals means that soon we will have giant and person versions of all the animals currently in the game? Are we that far from a Monarch Butterflyman?
I don't have an answer for that. I do personally have mixed feelings about the inclusion of giant/person versions of every new animal, but I guess it mostly stems from the fact that it takes actual work (and semi-duplicated raws, which can have errors). If giant/person variants were created procedurally I wouldn't care.
Post by: Knight Otu on January 16, 2012, 02:25:37 pm
Post by: Kogut on January 16, 2012, 05:07:22 pm
Everybody knows that DF is a giant CPU eater - and iterating over every single sock, rock and toe is likely to be part of it.Lag smag. Toady already describe checking for such thing, doesnt actually impact game responsiveness.why haven't you just made a check that removes "salt" from spaces that have nothing in themthousands (additional) checks every single tick may be described as "Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag"
Post by: Caldfir on January 16, 2012, 05:27:53 pm
Hmm I wonder... Well I guess I'll put out the Footkerchief bait... but this question is driving me nuts
Toady do the sponsorship animals means that soon we will have giant and person versions of all the animals currently in the game? Are we that far from a Monarch Butterflyman?
I don't have an answer for that. I do personally have mixed feelings about the inclusion of giant/person versions of every new animal, but I guess it mostly stems from the fact that it takes actual work (and semi-duplicated raws, which can have errors). If giant/person variants were created procedurally I wouldn't care.
Yeah I have to agree with Foot on this. In my mind at least it seems like it would be simpler to do it procedurally... although I know firsthand that there are some pretty major stumblng blocks with that, namely that many animals have very un-human shapes, and forcing them to be humanoid without killing the flavour is pretty hard. I fiddled a bit with moose-men and the nitemare of hoof-based nonsense was quite awful.
I am also a bit concerned that they might all get replaced next time Toady decides to take a look at procedral creature generation. Right now we have FBs and Titans, but they tend to kind of suck. Obviously at some far-flung point of the future this is planned to be fixed up and made more robust, and I can easily imagine that part of such a framework would allow some nifty giant/person variants. Not to mention other variations as well, like "giant evil badger" or "gelatenous cave crocodile" or "mechanical aardvark" or whatever, and generally it is a good idea to just bring all that under the same umbrella when the time isright, rather than working very hard on wat will probably end up a placeholder (or at least that's the general approach the Toad seems to take with just about everything else).
TLDR: Toady spending time on making the variants seems out of character, because they are probably going to end up a placeholder.
Post by: PTTG?? on January 16, 2012, 05:37:40 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on January 16, 2012, 07:18:45 pm
There are already Giant-X and Y-man templates. I'm pretty sure they work.
They do some of the work, but the giants still tend to have about 30 lines of their own raws, and the people around 50. More than enough to introduce bugs.
Post by: abadidea on January 17, 2012, 01:26:49 am
There are already Giant-X and Y-man templates. I'm pretty sure they work.
They do some of the work, but the giants still tend to have about 30 lines of their own raws, and the people around 50. More than enough to introduce bugs.
perhaps a tool for "crossbreeding" raws is in order.
Post by: Hummingbird on January 17, 2012, 03:54:01 am
Post by: Urist McDagger on January 17, 2012, 04:04:52 am
I'm sure there's an answer for this out there somewhere, but does anybody know whether the city underground will intersect with cavern systems at all?Yup. Toady does. :)
Post by: hermes on January 17, 2012, 05:15:55 am
I'm sure there's an answer for this out there somewhere, but does anybody know whether the city underground will intersect with cavern systems at all?
Ooh, good question. Even if the caves were limited in their depth and expanse compared to fortress mode, to be able to scramble down to some underground lake and make that a home beneath the city would be a wonderful way to play a dwarf. Ever since playing Dark Souls I'm all for more vertical exploration in RPGs. Are there any plans for city structures, of any race, to reach into the sky?
Post by: Rose on January 17, 2012, 09:02:31 am
Post by: abadidea on January 17, 2012, 12:35:41 pm
One would thing that elven glades would eventually.
Off-topic but I've finally decided that the way your avatar changes to a zombie sometimes must be a back-end script and my hat is off to you for managing to freak me out every dang time
Post by: Caldfir on January 17, 2012, 02:08:35 pm
I'm sure there's an answer for this out there somewhere, but does anybody know whether the city underground will intersect with cavern systems at all?
I will look for the quote...
...located:
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: CruxadorDo 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.
Post by: monk12 on January 17, 2012, 11:23:21 pm
Post by: Rose on January 17, 2012, 11:31:09 pm
One would thing that elven glades would eventually.
Off-topic but I've finally decided that the way your avatar changes to a zombie sometimes must be a back-end script and my hat is off to you for managing to freak me out every dang time
There's a site that will redirect a URL to a random on from a list whenever that url is accessed.
Post by: Untelligent on January 18, 2012, 12:00:36 am
Anyway, my current release date prediction: Sometime next week.
Post by: Neoskel on January 18, 2012, 12:30:39 am
I know he's not going to add in specific features for most of the new ones yet, but dang that's a lot of new animals. This'll probably mean some nonsense with people wearing hamster leather tunics and stuff.
Post by: NobodyPro on January 18, 2012, 04:07:06 am
Post by: Niccolo on January 18, 2012, 05:50:56 am
Toady just added ALL the remaining animals.
I know he's not going to add in specific features for most of the new ones yet, but dang that's a lot of new animals. This'll probably mean some nonsense with people wearing hamster leather tunics and stuff.
Wouldn't that take something like a hundred and fifty hamsters to get anywhere?
Post by: Tiruin on January 18, 2012, 05:59:49 am
Size doesn't seem to matter when it comes to armor. Unless Toady did implement a clever way that "Tan [small creature] hide > Small [name of small creature] leather."Toady just added ALL the remaining animals.Wouldn't that take something like a hundred and fifty hamsters to get anywhere?
I know he's not going to add in specific features for most of the new ones yet, but dang that's a lot of new animals. This'll probably mean some nonsense with people wearing hamster leather tunics and stuff.
Although, for those small creatures, I think it would end up just like all the others when they're tanned. Just a skull, as the rest is deemed useless.
Post by: Areyar on January 18, 2012, 09:21:34 am
and squirel meat [1] ;)Size doesn't seem to matter when it comes to armor. Unless Toady did implement a clever way that "Tan [small creature] hide > Small [name of small creature] leather."Toady just added ALL the remaining animals.Wouldn't that take something like a hundred and fifty hamsters to get anywhere?
I know he's not going to add in specific features for most of the new ones yet, but dang that's a lot of new animals. This'll probably mean some nonsense with people wearing hamster leather tunics and stuff.
Although, for those small creatures, I think it would end up just like all the others when they're tanned. Just a skull, as the rest is deemed useless.
I was thinking along similar lines, nb quantification of the size of skins
either similar to smelter reactions with fractional skins being combined into a 'patched leather' or leathers being upgraded a system similar to the food stacks.
Toady probably already has been thinking about this already for some time.
Post by: Neonivek on January 18, 2012, 09:39:38 am
Post by: Putnam on January 18, 2012, 10:47:15 am
Well one of the issues is that "Leather" is mostly uniform and no one here knows the different strengths of leather for all the animals.
There is none. They all use [STANDARD_MATERIALS], which means they all have the same leather.
Post by: Knight Otu on January 18, 2012, 12:58:42 pm
Post by: magmaholic on January 18, 2012, 02:16:13 pm
Quote
I guess it'll be another day or two of wombats and giant storks and octopus men fighting each other in the arena to work out the kinks.
according to current development,all i can say is:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Rose on January 18, 2012, 02:20:18 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: thvaz on January 18, 2012, 04:44:48 pm
Post by: monk12 on January 18, 2012, 04:50:57 pm
Post by: trees on January 18, 2012, 04:55:02 pm
Possibly showing solidarity with other websites doing blackouts today?
Post by: thvaz on January 18, 2012, 04:59:29 pm
Post by: snpaa on January 18, 2012, 05:16:58 pm
Why the devlog of the day 01/18/2012 is blank???
I assumed he was trying to subtly protest sopa and Pipa
Post by: monk12 on January 18, 2012, 05:17:26 pm
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on January 18, 2012, 05:17:39 pm
Post by: Aquillion on January 18, 2012, 06:18:34 pm
Post by: werechicken on January 18, 2012, 06:24:15 pm
The sites which are protesting sopa are used by a wider variety of people and are completely down, the fact that we're still posting shows that this isn't the case.
Maybe he just accidentally created the blank post.
Post by: Dae on January 18, 2012, 06:55:04 pm
Most of the people who go on this site either think sopa is moronic or, like myself, live somewhere were corporate interests have slightly less of a stranglehold on government policy.
You're not out of danger. Most servers are located in the US. Google and Paypal are forced to cease cooperation with you if SOPA says so.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 18, 2012, 07:04:16 pm
Post by: Greiger on January 18, 2012, 07:09:49 pm
Post by: Anatoli on January 18, 2012, 07:19:35 pm
Why the devlog of the day 01/18/2012 is blank???I lean to the side that he misposted. The devlog was about 7 hours ahead of schedule.
But I just wanted to make the question formal to make sure Toady answers it. (not like he won't otherwise. It's not like he doesn't respond to a whole page of conspiracy theories.
But I find the blank devlog thoughtfully hilarious, whatever the intentions. Also, Toady, what is your stance on SOPA and the like. I reckon (from Dwarf Talk) you are pretty paranoid about such things.
For those who don't remember what Toady said, he said that his reasons for not implementing any mods, tilesets, not making DF open-source, and for working alone included that he was afraid he'd get bogged down in legislation, which would distract him from his work.
Post by: caknuck on January 18, 2012, 07:49:53 pm
Why the devlog of the day 01/18/2012 is blank???
Toady accidentally the whole devlog
Post by: werechicken on January 18, 2012, 08:51:42 pm
I actually meant that we wouldn't have a say either way, also if the US government is daft enough to enact this then I'll bet those companies will just relocate their servers to a country which doesn't impose those kind of laws. This is especially true for multinational companies like google who could be badly mauled by these laws.Most of the people who go on this site either think sopa is moronic or, like myself, live somewhere were corporate interests have slightly less of a stranglehold on government policy.
You're not out of danger. Most servers are located in the US. Google and Paypal are forced to cease cooperation with you if SOPA says so.
It seems like the US government is burning its house down to get rid of a mouse and people like Robert Murdoch are selling the matches (when he's not running newspapers that hack into the voicemail of murdered schoolgirls)
Post by: Greendogo on January 18, 2012, 10:08:19 pm
Why the devlog of the day 01/18/2012 is blank???
I assumed he was trying to subtly protest sopa and Pipa
I agree; it seemed obvious to me when I saw it today. I thought it was very clever! We love you Toady and Threetoe!!!
Post by: snelg on January 19, 2012, 07:16:38 am
If related to SOPA I find the blank update pretty clever.
Post by: Kappas on January 19, 2012, 04:18:34 pm
If related to SOPA I find the blank update pretty clever.Oh yes. He managed to provoke some attention to the issue, regardless of if it was intentional or not.
Post by: jockmo42 on January 20, 2012, 02:05:51 am
Post by: Caldfir on January 20, 2012, 03:54:32 am
So I know this gets asked constantly, but is there anyone who knows what Toady has left to sort out before release? I am so excited to play this beast. :]Well, according to the bay12 report (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98355.0), and assuming that he is working trough tasks in the order listed there, all that's left after the animals is incorporating some SDL fixes.
In any case, the list of new stuff in the upcoming version is enormous. There will be a lot to check out. I for one am most excited to see adventure mode finally looking like it will be more of a "game". Places to explore, quests to be had, monsters to fight, dungeons to delve, and most importantly, lots and lots of pointless crap to buy (all points into misc object user -> beat goblins to death with an iron chair).
Post by: Yoink on January 20, 2012, 07:01:26 am
There would, of course, be one lonely, unhinged dwarf locked in an adjacent room clad only in stretchy exercise clothes and charged with repeatedly pulling the lever to activate the dwarven fitness machine. He would be rewarded for his efforts with a yearly, unsatisfying meal of -pig milk protein shake- and +rope reed salad+.
...Of course, you could utilize this ability in practical ways too, such as the efficient destruction of invaders, but where's the fun in that?! [/completely unrelated to the current discussion]
More on-topic, I am so very very very very excited for this release. :P I had an important question for Toady too, but then I forgot it. I hate it when that happens. :-\
Post by: tfaal on January 20, 2012, 08:22:41 am
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 20, 2012, 09:11:40 am
Will there be Snow Shoveling In Dwarf/adventure mode eventually.
I was originally going to make this into a joke, but it occurred to me that snow and sand building dunes and ramps could be interesting,But may be unrealistic or unfeasible.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 20, 2012, 09:23:33 am
So I know this gets asked constantly, but is there anyone who knows what Toady has left to sort out before release? I am so excited to play this beast. :]Well, according to the bay12 report (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98355.0), and assuming that he is working trough tasks in the order listed there, all that's left after the animals is incorporating some SDL fixes.
My understanding is that optimization and map maintenance aren't done yet: (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/#2012-01-13)
Quote
01/13/2012 Toady One While I continue to mull over map maintenance on paper, I undertook some general optimization today [...] There's still a large change that'll need to be made in how items are stored, since all of the auxiliary indexing structures that keep dwarf mode playable get hammered as you move around in item-heavy towns in adventure mode. Artwork generation has also become slow. Targeting too, in all modes, something to do with the werewolf/necromancer checks.
He hasn't mentioned completing those optimizations, or doing map maintenance on not-paper, so I wouldn't be shocked if there's a week's worth of work left on those sections combined.
Looking over the Devlog today the first thought I had was
Will there be Snow Shoveling In Dwarf/adventure mode eventually.
I was originally going to make this into a joke, but it occurred to me that snow and sand building dunes and ramps could be interesting,But may be unrealistic or unfeasible.
This came up in DF Talk 4 (http://www.bay12games.com/media/df_talk_4_transcript.html):
Quote from: DF Talk 4
Toady: There's this notion of sand as a fluid I think, that's kind of intriguing. Like if you have a bunch of sand leaning up against a rock wall and you remove the rock wall, the sand doesn't retain its shape, it'll just flow into the cavern. So it would be really cool if it could be made into a fluid like that, that behaves kind of like lava does now; because lava makes more slopes, it doesn't worry about fluid pressure and all that kind of thing. And it would be cool if the sand could move like that, but at the same time you could still walk or even build on it, or whatever you need to do. And in that way it would become a limited resource because when you scoop up some it would just remove a unit of sand from the square. Snow has a similar thing. Right now though it depends not just on the fluid rewrite - which is going to allow us to support more fluid types at once - but also the notion that this is a very special fluid that can be walked on and all that. So you'd be pathfinding over it, and at the same time it would be able to flow. It's one of those things like; is this an insurmountable problem? It might be, it might be one of those things that's very very difficult to do.
Rainseeker: Well [it] would make it actually very difficult to build; especially if someone decided to build on a sand dune.
Toady: That should be hard, but you could still pitch a tent there or something; and then that tent should just fall over if you drain the sand into a giant sinkhole or something.
Rainseeker: Well I'm thinking people build pillars to support things, so if someone built a pillar on a sand dune which then shifted that thing should fall over and that should be really interesting to do.
Toady: That's one of those things that's very difficult but you'd ideally want sand to have those additional properties.
Also DF Talk 8 (http://bay12games.com/media/df_talk_8_transcript.html):
Quote from: DF Talk 8
Rainseeker: If I could ask briefly about gravity and cave-ins. I had a dwarf once ... I had an entrance that was over some soil and then I had seven layers hollowed out beneath, just individual layers and at one point one of my dwarves fell through the soil - I'm not sure how this happened - and fell seven layers, through each floor, and they proceeded to be rock. I got a message that 'so and so had died' and I looked at the top and found a hole going seven layers deep so I was just curious, is that a random event that happens occasionally if enough people run over something?
Toady: Oh no, no. That shouldn't have happened at all. There's nothing like quicksand or sinkholes or soil disappearing or anything like that.
Capntastic: There should be ...
Toady: Well it's quite a weird thing right now, like especially when you're in a sandy desert, you can dig out a room underneath the sand and the sand is just pretending to be sandstone or something, and it's one of those things where you have the fluid model and the cave-in model should intersect in some way. We wanted sand to be a fluid that acts like magma does but it's a difficult problem to have the path finding and building structures - or at least certain kinds of structures - and dropping items on it that stand on top of it, and then having it also interact with other fluids; it's a difficult problem. It's one we haven't completely given up on but it's tricky. Just in general if soil collapsed all the time that might be fine but one of the problems with cave-ins is if you don't have a simple model like that - like either it collapses all the time or it's a seven by seven or something like that - you can model all the complicated statics and arches and all the things that you want; you can work really hard on getting a system that's accurate but then communicating with the player about when something is going to collapse, when is it not collapsing, when is it close to collapsing, how far you can go, becomes very difficult. You want people to be able to build a statue like the Crazy Horse monument or something where the arm is outstretched and not just going to collapse, but at the same time if you took the Crazy Horse monument and then built a giant building and put giant golden status in there and stuff you might want the arm to give at some point and collapse and fall down into the plains or whatever. But how do you communicate that to the player? So right now we're stuck in this almost no cave-in system where the player is clear when things are going to collapse because they actually have to be disconnected and if we step away from that then communication becomes actually the largest problem. There's a bit of infrastructure already; it keeps track of columns up and down of solid stone and could communicate information between those columns: how they are shearing against each other and transmitting forces downward to try and find a place to anchor to, and if the forces got too high maybe something could shear off and fall. But if your model is really complicated then you're leaving the player hanging - or not hanging as the case may be - and this is a big problem I think with trying to do a really accurate model; bothering investing the time in that when it's just going to lead to a ton of confusion.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 20, 2012, 09:27:05 am
vvvv yeah I suck :[
Post by: MrWiggles on January 20, 2012, 10:00:44 am
For shame.
Post by: Owlbread on January 20, 2012, 11:36:13 am
So I know this gets asked constantly, but is there anyone who knows what Toady has left to sort out before release? I am so excited to play this beast. :]Well, according to the bay12 report (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98355.0), and assuming that he is working trough tasks in the order listed there, all that's left after the animals is incorporating some SDL fixes.
In any case, the list of new stuff in the upcoming version is enormous. There will be a lot to check out. I for one am most excited to see adventure mode finally looking like it will be more of a "game". Places to explore, quests to be had, monsters to fight, dungeons to delve, and most importantly, lots and lots of pointless crap to buy (all points into misc object user -> beat goblins to death with an iron chair).
I've got to be honest in saying that I don't really like it when Toady makes these massive releases. When I hear "The list of new stuff in the upcoming version is enormous", I hear "The upcoming version is going to be buggier than a rotten tree in the Amazon".
Perhaps I'm just traumatised by DF2010's release.
Post by: Knight Otu on January 20, 2012, 12:20:04 pm
My understanding is that optimization and map maintenance aren't done yet: (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/#2012-01-13)Yeah, the bulk of the optimizations are probably still coming. Likely as the very last step, after everything else is in place.Quote01/13/2012 Toady One While I continue to mull over map maintenance on paper, I undertook some general optimization today [...] There's still a large change that'll need to be made in how items are stored, since all of the auxiliary indexing structures that keep dwarf mode playable get hammered as you move around in item-heavy towns in adventure mode. Artwork generation has also become slow. Targeting too, in all modes, something to do with the werewolf/necromancer checks.
He hasn't mentioned completing those optimizations, or doing map maintenance on not-paper, so I wouldn't be shocked if there's a week's worth of work left on those sections combined.
Also regarding the sponsorship animals - there are 127 animals on the list of sponsored animals. Seven of them (and the hedgehog, but I guess it shouldn't count if it's been reworked, as well as leechmen, snailmen, and slugmen, but they're probably also reworked, or at least marked for any new features for their base creatures) are in the game already, leaving 120 for the next version. That means that the next version contains nearly 360 new (non-random) stock creatures (base, giant, person). With the released sponsorship creatures, Toady occasionally added other relatives (penguin types, honey badger), so there could be a few more (unless other relatives count as features).
Post by: Karlito on January 20, 2012, 12:34:33 pm
I've got to be honest in saying that I don't really like it when Toady makes these massive releases. When I hear "The list of new stuff in the upcoming version is enormous", I hear "The upcoming version is going to be buggier than a rotten tree in the Amazon".
Perhaps I'm just traumatised by DF2010's release.
This has been the pattern of DF's release schedule since the very beginning: Long wait for version with many new features followed by several months of bugfix releases, repeat.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 20, 2012, 12:53:48 pm
I've got to be honest in saying that I don't really like it when Toady makes these massive releases. When I hear "The list of new stuff in the upcoming version is enormous", I hear "The upcoming version is going to be buggier than a rotten tree in the Amazon".
Perhaps I'm just traumatised by DF2010's release.
I agree. A while back, I looked at the past big releases (32a, 31.01) and found a pattern: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=95111.msg2703599#msg2703599) for every 4.75 months of pre-release work, it takes 1 month of bugfixing to get the game playable after release.
This has been the pattern of DF's release schedule since the very beginning: Long wait for version with many new features followed by several months of bugfix releases, repeat.
Well, it's been one of the two patterns. The other pattern is relatively lightweight releases containing new features in addition to bug fixes.
Let's assume a Feb 1 release. Together, the long cycles (32a, 31.01, and the upcoming version) will have taken up 800 days, out of the 1638 total days since the first public release. So it's fair to say that Toady does this about half the time.
Post by: nil on January 20, 2012, 01:05:35 pm
Post by: Caldfir on January 20, 2012, 01:15:50 pm
I do wish though that people would try to do a search for their bugs before posting a new one - I'm certain Foot is going to be run ragged trying to figure out what the root bugs are and linking things intelligently.
So yeah, we aren't anywhere near a 'stable' release, however in general the place bugs are most crippling is fort mode, since the typical player puts a significant investment into their fortress, and having, I dunno, all your dwarves' skeletons melt in the summer heat can be pretty disheartening. That's why I mentioned I was looking forward to adventure mode - not only is that where the new features are most evident, but the adventurer is kind of an expendable guy. Game crashes and deletes your adventurer? Unfortunate, but not as soul-crushing as having a 20-year fort getting a corrupted savefile and becoming unusable.
I guess my main point is that yeah, bugs are proportional to the number of new/changed features, but I'll be playing a lot of adventure mode, so I'm not gonna let them bring me down :)
Post by: Footkerchief on January 20, 2012, 01:36:16 pm
I do wish though that people would try to do a search for their bugs before posting a new one - I'm certain Foot is going to be run ragged trying to figure out what the root bugs are and linking things intelligently.
Not just me! I'm only 1/4 as ragged now, thanks to Logical2u, Dwarfu, and Knight Otu.
Also, the thing about searching is that people who do search are by nature much harder to count. There could be 10 people who search for every 1 that doesn't (whether on the bug tracker or in Suggestions), and we wouldn't really know.
Post by: Yoink on January 20, 2012, 06:40:12 pm
I'm pretty sure that sprang from taverns, which obviously came about to populate the new cities. :P Will drunken-yet-friendly brawls be a possibility, then? As in, you can have a punch-up without becoming the hated enemy of an entire civilization?
Post by: trees on January 20, 2012, 06:49:09 pm
Post by: monk12 on January 20, 2012, 07:52:09 pm
Post by: DS on January 20, 2012, 09:17:48 pm
Post by: monk12 on January 20, 2012, 09:21:21 pm
... I'm eager to see how sponge men are to be implemented...
And will we be able to craft square pants for them?
Post by: MrWiggles on January 20, 2012, 09:22:54 pm
You.... I'm eager to see how sponge men are to be implemented...
And will we be able to craft square pants for them?
GTFO.
Yes you, get your stuff, and leave.
You're fired.
Post by: Yoink on January 20, 2012, 09:25:19 pm
So, we have markets and housing so far, as well as the sewers/catacombs beneath, and then the occasional necromancer tower and things like that? Are any other kinds of buildings planned? I'm not putting any of these in green, since my helpful fellow forum-goers can most likely answer them for me.
Post by: monk12 on January 20, 2012, 09:40:40 pm
You.... I'm eager to see how sponge men are to be implemented...
And will we be able to craft square pants for them?
GTFO.
Yes you, get your stuff, and leave.
You're fired.
Who lives in a fortress on top of Mount Doom?
SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gec2_kg3uoo&feature=related)
Post by: Quatch on January 20, 2012, 10:13:28 pm
Post by: Gamerlord on January 20, 2012, 10:38:41 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on January 20, 2012, 11:00:27 pm
Will armour ever have a noticeable effect on speed and dodging? I mean, will leather armour have a concrete advantage over steel when it comes to fast response to attacks and a dodging boost?
Release 7 has a Combat move/speed separation. That may change things a bit depending on the specifics.
Post by: lastofthelight on January 20, 2012, 11:00:51 pm
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAN, WE CAN LIVE WITH THOSE BEING BUGS! RELEASE. THE. GAME. !!!!!!!!
Post by: monk12 on January 20, 2012, 11:06:05 pm
So I know this gets asked constantly, but is there anyone who knows what Toady has left to sort out before release? I am so excited to play this beast. :]Well, according to the bay12 report (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98355.0), and assuming that he is working trough tasks in the order listed there, all that's left after the animals is incorporating some SDL fixes.
My understanding is that optimization and map maintenance aren't done yet: (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/#2012-01-13)Quote01/13/2012 Toady One While I continue to mull over map maintenance on paper, I undertook some general optimization today [...] There's still a large change that'll need to be made in how items are stored, since all of the auxiliary indexing structures that keep dwarf mode playable get hammered as you move around in item-heavy towns in adventure mode. Artwork generation has also become slow. Targeting too, in all modes, something to do with the werewolf/necromancer checks.
He hasn't mentioned completing those optimizations, or doing map maintenance on not-paper, so I wouldn't be shocked if there's a week's worth of work left on those sections combined.
Post by: werechicken on January 20, 2012, 11:06:53 pm
This is assuming what I heard about how in certain regions creatures will just rise from the dead is.true, if this isn't the case please ignore.
Post by: monk12 on January 20, 2012, 11:11:40 pm
Post by: EmeraldWind on January 20, 2012, 11:50:53 pm
will titans, forgotten beasts and mega beasts automatically rise from the dead in regions were normal creatures would? Also would this only apply above ground, or all the way down to the circus?
This is assuming what I heard about how in certain regions creatures will just rise from the dead is.true, if this isn't the case please ignore.
Depending on what you mean by automatically (I'm assuming that you mean instantaneously as in right after death), creatures may or may not. The regional zombie interaction Toady showed us had this: [IE_INTERMITTENT:WEEKLY].
I assume it mean that the interaction only animates the dead once a week or every other week.
Though some versions of the interaction (player-made or randomly generated) could have dead creatures immediately getting up as a zombie.
Post by: Putnam on January 21, 2012, 12:18:15 am
(http://mspaforums.com/images/smilies/weasel.gif)
Post by: Willfor on January 21, 2012, 12:26:20 am
Post by: Putnam on January 21, 2012, 12:28:19 am
When you're compiling to distribute to testers (in this case, ThreeToe) you create a release compile rather than a debug compile. It's a technical term rather than an indication that it's as close as you might think. It's still close, it's just not that close.
yeah I about 50% thought that was what it meant v_>
Post by: Rafal99 on January 21, 2012, 02:53:17 am
Post by: eux0r on January 21, 2012, 08:24:21 am
will titans, forgotten beasts and mega beasts automatically rise from the dead in regions were normal creatures would? Also would this only apply above ground, or all the way down to the circus?
This is assuming what I heard about how in certain regions creatures will just rise from the dead is.true, if this isn't the case please ignore.
this made me think: regional effects and things like the vileness-level are distributed totally at random atm, arent they? would it be more df-like if those things had a reason to be there? i am pretty sure having reasons for that kind of stuff is already planned but does anyone know the specifics of those plans? the thing werechicken made me think of specifically is: the circus is completely labeled as evil region and around entrances you have those regions on the surface too. im pretty sure there are entrances, since some clowns become rulers from time to time
Post by: werechicken on January 21, 2012, 08:40:54 am
My main worry is opening the circus, the clowns coming to visit, then later; zombie clowns!
That being said my first fort is still definitely going to be in one of these evil regions.
Post by: Knight Otu on January 21, 2012, 08:54:06 am
this made me think: regional effects and things like the vileness-level are distributed totally at random atm, arent they? would it be more df-like if those things had a reason to be there? i am pretty sure having reasons for that kind of stuff is already planned but does anyone know the specifics of those plans? the thing werechicken made me think of specifically is: the circus is completely labeled as evil region and around entrances you have those regions on the surface too. im pretty sure there are entrances, since some clowns become rulers from time to timeThere was a bit about this in DF Talk 16 (http://www.bay12games.com/media/df_talk_16_transcript.html), namely as part of the last question. I don't think there are detailed plans at the moment, though there is a plan to replace good/evil regions with sphere-aligned regions (the various stuff Toady did for evil regions would then migrate to death/disease/deformity/misery/murder/etc regions, as far as those exist).
Post by: EmeraldWind on January 21, 2012, 10:32:43 am
If titans and like do rise from the dead I could have my own zombie zoo. I might even be able to weaponise the horrors, depending how undead react to goblins in the next release.
My main worry is opening the circus, the clowns coming to visit, then later; zombie clowns!
That being said my first fort is still definitely going to be in one of these evil regions.
When you defeat a clown in combat they become ash (confetti?), so I don't think the clowns are going to be zombies...
But being as skin can raise, it is possible the clown's confetti could be zombiefied depending on if it is treated as remains or not.
Post by: Kappas on January 21, 2012, 11:55:50 am
In the otherhand, when the program is changed, even in a small manner, it may bring forth new bugs.
Post by: nil on January 21, 2012, 01:39:42 pm
Zombie HFS is already in the game (http://mkv25.net/dfma/poi-26737-necropolis), unless they were removed in a later version (that was 31.04 or so).If titans and like do rise from the dead I could have my own zombie zoo. I might even be able to weaponise the horrors, depending how undead react to goblins in the next release.
My main worry is opening the circus, the clowns coming to visit, then later; zombie clowns!
That being said my first fort is still definitely going to be in one of these evil regions.
When you defeat a clown in combat they become ash (confetti?), so I don't think the clowns are going to be zombies...
Post by: Remuthra on January 21, 2012, 04:49:44 pm
Post by: Kappas on January 21, 2012, 04:52:34 pm
regarding new weather being worked on, will there be evil snow? If so, will it be yellow?Now that was a good one albeit rather disgusting.
Post by: Remuthra on January 21, 2012, 08:00:21 pm
Post by: ShoesandHats on January 21, 2012, 08:18:20 pm
Post by: Toady One on January 21, 2012, 09:22:21 pm
Quote from: Kogut
So it is possible to find vampires by creating bedrooms, without assigning. Wait. Dwarves without claimed ones are vampires. Is it a intended behaviour? Maybe vampire also should claim bedrooms? Or maybe it is somehow predicted but not mentioned.
I don't think I handled that. Keep 'em coming, he he he. It'll be an arms race for a while as we patch up stuff I didn't cover.
Quote from: Cruxador
As far as stray populations go, I saw a documentary on the feral dogs of East St. Lewis not too long ago. Despite blood tests indicating different breed mixes, they were all medium-sized dogs with black coats and pointed ears.
I think I made my comment because of something similar I saw or read about the dogs around Mexico City.
Quote from: Vattic
With fairly large towns being in the next release are there plans to have certain non-domestic animals appear in and under them? Rats, pigeons, and cockroaches being some of the obvious ones. Perhaps new BIOME tokens are in order?
...
can we get things to spawn in sewers, dungeons, catacombs, and above ground in cities specifically using biome like tokens perhaps?
Yeah, we'll probably need to get something like that together, although it'll be interesting to see how that plays out in world gen -- I wonder if it'll need to model a conversion from wild populations to city populations, since the cities don't exist in advance and I don't like the idea of spontaneously generating city creatures if it isn't necessary/thematic. Sort of the opposite of that feral dog thing, but we won't generally have as much time in world gen as critters had from through history.
Quote from: SuicideJunkie
When the shopkeepers start calling out to sell their wares, will they also shout out a warning if they see you're about to leave without paying?
I haven't added anything along those lines. You do deserve a little slack, but they don't give it to you yet.
Quote
Quote from: EmeraldWindNO_PHYS_ATT_GAIN - I noticed this tag in a couple of the entries in the new interaction based nightcreatures. Does it prevent future Attribute gains for the creature?Quote from: Knight OtuIt certainly sounds like it does that. It does seem a bit weird that necromancers and vampires would have that tag, but the presence of that tag could be randomized.
Yeah, it locks attributes in place. For some reason, I didn't imagine vampires being able to lift weights and load themselves out. I dunno if that'll be randomized in the future. As a general note, you can zero out the number of random vampires and use the example vampire to make your own work how you want. I'm not sure when we're going to have parameters for how the randomization actually works. I think the current plan was to do that first with random dragons, but I'm not sure what the format is going to be.
Quote from: EmeraldWind
IT_CANNOT_HAVE_SYNDROME_CLASS:WERECURSE-
IT_CANNOT_HAVE_SYNDROME_CLASS:VAMPCURSE-
IT_CANNOT_HAVE_SYNDROME_CLASS:DISTURBANCE_CURSE- I also noticed these. Last time it was asked, you mentioned that different curses could possibly overlap, but these tags seem to imply otherwise. Has this changed or is this just the case for the example creatures?
It's also the case with the random ones. I don't recall exactly what the reasoning was. It could just be the world gen AI going goofy or something. It's the kind of restriction I wouldn't mind relaxing, but there was some stumbling block or another.
Quote
Quote from: EmeraldWindWill the examples actually be in the raw folder to be generated in a world or will we just get the randomized interactions/creatures?Quote from: Knight OtuI'm pretty sure Toady mentioned that the example file is in a separate folder, and thus wouldn't be used by the game - just the randomized interactions.
Yeah, it's just the randomized ones, but you can use the examples to make your own and turn the random ones off if you want. If you leave the random ones on it'll still use any reactions you move over or otherwise add to the raw/objects folder in addition to the random ones.
Quote from: EmeraldWind
How do werebeasts determine to ignore similar werebeasts? Do they just check the other creature's current form, do they look at the underlying syndrome for the same syndrome, look at the creature definition the syndrome references, or some other way?
Creatures that have "CRAZED" will attack anybody that isn't their race, and all of the werebeasts are generated with it. There isn't currently a way to make them attack everybody or analyze syndromes.
Quote
Quote from: Knight OtuI noticed that all of the tags added in the samples don't have parameters - is that true of all tags that can be added via syndromes, or are there some tags that allow parameters (such as the CHILD tag)?Quote from: FootkerchiefThe equivalent tag from creature variations, CV_NEW_TAG, allows parameters. Hopefully the implementation is the same.
The tags in CE_ADD_TAG are parameterless. Appearance modifiers and material force modifiers are creature tags which also have their own CE tags, rather than being used in CE_ADD_TAG (you can see them in the vampire def). I was thinking at the time that CE_ADD_TAG would be a convenient place to throw in lots and lots of simple tags all at once, while retaining the single START/PEAK/END/etc. info used by syndromes, and complicated tags would have their own format, especially if the tag has a variable length parameter list (like a color modifier, which you can't do yet). CV_NEW_TAG alters the raw text before it is even processed, where CE_ADD_TAG has to deal with a creature def that is a processed raw through a unit that has already processed the creature def. Various optimizations are already in place, so it can't alter the text directly. I'm not sure if it's better to stop processing multiple tags and treat it exactly like creature raws, because that would really lengthen the syndrome raws (you'd have to deal with a zillion START/PEAK/END/etcs or globalize to groups of tags or something) and there might be cases where a syndrome would want a very different parameter list than the creature uses (so making them use an assumed identical format would add confusion, although having things live outside CE_ADD_TAG is also confusing). This and the whole interaction system is certainly subject to suggestions.
In general, regarding the addition of existing creature tags to the syndromes, due to the creature raws already being processed by the time the syndromes alter a critter on-the-fly (placing two levels of formating/optimization between a specific unit and its text definition), making syndrome tags from creature tags isn't always simple to support, which is part of why the growing of the magic system will be a gradual process.
Quote
Quote from: Mr FrogIs it/will it be possible for a single interaction to have multiple targets/means of selecting targets? For example, could I mod in an interaction that paralyzes a target on line-of-sight, but makes the caster dizzy/drowsy as a sort of backlash?Quote from: FootkerchiefIt looks like interactions are set up to allow multiple targets with different effects for each. However, I'm not sure how an interaction would be made self-targeting. Shot in the dark, but maybe SELF instead of LINE_OF_SIGHT in the CDI:TARGET tag?
It's sort of weird how the interaction def is split between the INTERACTION block and the CE_CAN_DO_INTERACTION. I guess the idea is that certain interaction attributes only make sense when the interaction is being performed by a creature.
I also can't tell from those raws how "native" interactions are handled, i.e. a native ability to perform an interaction without getting the ability from a syndrome. Maybe creature effect (CE) stuff can just be included in a creature def as well as a syndrome def?
Yeah, you can add an additional effect and have a different target. I don't remember if I have any like that in vanilla, so it might act oddly, but we'll work through the issues that come up.
Here is an imp's fireball:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
where "MATERIAL_EMISSION" looks like this:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
So MATERIAL_EMISSION is just sort of a general shell for creatures to use. It is kind of odd how it ended up. I think I mentioned in the last set of responses that interactions had a sort of uncomfortable split between their own format and the creature/syndrome format. The syndrome and creature use the same "CAN_DO_INTERACTION" tags (the CDI stuff).
I don't think vanilla has any self-targeting syndrome interactions, but you can feed the target SELF_ALLOWED or SELF_ONLY with/instead of LINE_OF_SIGHT/TOUCHABLE. They don't have any hints or AI to help them know how to do things like adding a water breathing syndrome when they are drowning, so the side effect example of Mr Frog is more applicable for this release, although I could add a generic "combat aid" hint or something to get something in. Real magic AI will be a longer process.
Quote from: Mr Frog
I see that the secret-based interactions have a hint as to what would motivate units to search them out in worldgen. Are there any others besides a fear of dying (as in necromancers) and if so, what are they?
Relatedly, for vampire- and werewolf-style divine-punishment thingies, are there any hint tags besides MAJOR_CURSE and, if so, what do they do?
Nah, that's it for goals. It's just a little thing that I needed to throttle things before the personality rewrite. The hints that I've needed so far are MAJOR_CURSE, ATTACK, GREETING, CLEAN_SELF and CLEAN_FRIEND. There aren't any beneficial vanilla interactions, but as I mentioned in the last answer I could throw in a kind of beneficial catch-all until I have time to work further on magic AI. It would be cool if there could just be a hint like "AS_NEEDED" or something that'll let it analyze the effects for beneficial/harmful effects or something, but I'm not sure what's going to work out. The more versatile the effects are, the harder it is for the computer to analyze them.
Quote from: Deimos56
Will substances other than food or drink nourish or quench adventurers, such as, for the sake of simplicity and the most likely thing I suspect some people to drink, blood? And if so, is it possible for any substances to do both?
Nope, there isn't anything that works both ways, and I haven't changed how the other items work.
Quote
Quote from: QuantumtrollDo household items like pots and jars wear out or break? Will there be garbage middens for DF archaelogists to dig through?Quote from: Knight OtuToady has mentioned before that there is some decay of worldgen goods, but we haven't heard any details yet. It doesn't happen afterwards yet, of course. We probably won't see garbage/broken stuff for a while. Archeology was mentioned by Toady as something of a goal when the game was smaller. I'm not sure what the current stance is there, though the Treasure Hunter and Explorer roles play into that idea.
Yeah, things break down a little percentage of the stockpile at a time (depending on the item type), but it doesn't store them as broken garbage.
Quote from: rhesusmacabre
Regarding rivers and ramps, what happens if a river is lower than the surrounding terrain? Are the ramps just on the top level or do the banks extend further out?
There are fewer of those canyon style rivers now, and when river canyons do happen, it generally doesn't last long, so you'll usually have no trouble finding a crossing. When we officially get into cliffs and canyons (and climbing), I'll likely revisit this.
Quote from: Met
Now that you have put in so much work into human towns and brought sewers, dungeons, and markets into the mix, has that given you new ideas for the dwellings of other races? For instance, instead of sewers for players to explore and fight monsters in, perhaps mountainhomes would have... abandoned mining caves or something that criminals and creepy-crawlies would hide in?
We've thought about it a bit more now, but I don't have anything really concrete to add yet. We certainly hope to reflect the balance of dwarven industries in their sites, and that would lead to various mines and magma forges and underground farms and whatever that implies about trouble down below.
Quote from: Sizik
Why, when you started on the new town structure a while back, did you remove dark fortresses and mountain halls* instead of leaving them in until they were ready for a rewrite? Or did the new town code make those structures incompatible with the site-generation code?
Side question: Labyrinths and Shrines still exist, right?
I don't remember, but I assume there was some sort of compatibility problem. It's not like I don't want those sites. Labyrinths and shrines should still be there.
Quote from: wierd
You mentioned in the dev log entry that there were problems with too many bone crafts showing up in the village markets. Have you considered other industrial uses for bones other than as a crafting material, such as bonemeal, or as a secondary material in the pottery industry, such as bone ash?
That log was in the context of me trying to get a release up. I've written down some bone-related industries, but I don't want to implement them or even add garbage for this time.
Quote
Quote from: KojiToady, you were worried the sewers lacked enough items. What about things like garbage discarded by the townspeople or accidentally washed down in floods etc? It might be fun to start on the bottom of the food chain (Say, as a kobold) and literally pick through trash to get by until I could start competing with my angrier neighbors.
Medieval cities, as I understand it, generally either maintained a midden outside the gates or just threw their garbage in the street, where a lot of things like half-rotted food and discared/damaged tools might end up. Mix in a little rain and it all goes down eventually.Quote from: FootkerchiefThe devlog indicates concern about having interesting items -- the kind that would be deliberately taken down there by criminals and adventurers. If you want to pick through garbage, you can still go to a craft shop.
He he he, well, garbage would be cool. And there are still crafts shops. I think the sewers do need to have more character, which would involve garbage. As I said above it doesn't track the garbage. I'm not sure I want to do it numerically as specifically as I track the regular items, because there's be a memory/speed hit there, but something will happen there. I'm not sure what though.
Quote from: Urist Da Vinci
Is there a cap on the sewer population vs the surface population, or can we get situations where are more criminals in the sewer than people living in homes above?
Are the groups/creatures in the sewer all allied against the player, or can we see/cause factions in conflict?
It tries to keep a certain relationship in place, but after starvation and wars, you can end up with some weird situations.
I haven't tried pitting different bandit groups against each other, so I'm not sure what happens. I haven't specifically tried to ally them with each other, but I have them section out the dungeon to avoid contact without help from you, since in theory they should have figured out their own areas during world gen, at least when they behave so violently.
Quote from: hermes
Do/Will the bandits (or gobbo camps etc.) perform raids on, say, the town or the marketplace, from their bases in the sewers/dungeons - either in world gen or adventure mode?
They don't leave their spots. One of the earlier army-related changes will be getting bandits and monsters to move around. There is a bit of theft in world gen now by the outcasts/kobs living in the dungeons.
Quote from: Rip0k
Do You plan to add a "Secret Room" feature during caravan arc releases?
I don't have a specific timeline for that sort of thing. Secret doors and one-way doors complicate the current pathfinding optimizations, especially in dwarf mode.
Quote from: EmeraldWind
Are there other interaction effect tokens that deal with timing and delays? Are there any event trigger effect tokens? (Like an IE_TRIGGER:UPON_DEATH)
But it would be hard to do something like a zombie virus that kills the victim and raises them later from what I can tell.
Is it possible to have syndromes have interaction effects, like raising a corpse killed by said syndrome?
It's a very, very limited system right now. I did what I needed to do to get by, with very little extra. It wasn't my intent to make a more robust magic system, but just to create a seed for one. The interaction system will be expanded slowly, and perhaps we'll just end up with magic gradually by accident or something. Syndromes don't run on creatures after they are dead, and it isn't possible to target the corpse of a specific dead unit as that unit dies, but that would be a reasonable trigger and target to add later.
Quote
Quote from: HephToady after reading the latest devlog entry i was wondering if only the blood of intelligent creatures work or if you could suck out a bunny or a boar. Secondly i wonder what would happen if you suck the blood of a creature that has an interaction linked to its blood?Quote from: LordNagashWhy do they have to be unconscious? I mean if you're fighting someone one-on-one, seems likely that you'd be able to grapple them and then bite into them.
You'd be able to drain an unconscious animal, if you want to strangle one or something. Any ingestion syndrome from the blood would be triggered.
The unconsciousness condition is just a matter of convenience. I wanted to do the grapple-bite-suck thingy, but I didn't get there.
Quote from: Willfor
Will drinking someone's blood instantly declare you hostile toward their civilization, or do they have to catch you in the act for it to be flagged? I'm pretty much assuming that it's an instantly hostile thing, and planning to pick an adventuring place that is nestled between two human civilizations: I use one as a source of blood coming only at night to feed, and I use the other as my friendly place of business. I just have to make sure not to get my towns mixed up...
Somebody has to spot you for it to count against you, even if the target is killed. That doesn't apply to regular attacks yet.
Quote
Quote from: meDid a bunch of tweaks with undead naming in world gen, and next up I'll be extending that throughout the game, so that any interaction syndrome can provide a name like "vampire", "mummy", etc. (or whatever you want for mods).Quote from: EmeraldWindWill this cause creatures to be referred as the syndrome provided name in Legends mode and engravings (like how King Urist is noted as being a Night Hag Spouse for his entire history) or will the Legends display the original creature type?
It's the crappy way. The identity stuff isn't supported everywhere. It'll be great when that is finally sorted out, but it isn't properly handled yet. Comprehensively rewriting the history code is more of a project.
Quote from: RockPhed
You mentioned a couple days ago that rivers have ramps for edges now. Will companions follow adventures into the water, or can we still lose them by hopping into a river and swimming a little down stream?
They give it an honest shot.
Quote
Quote from: thvazIt is still dangerous to cross rivers if you don't have swimming skill?Quote from: SizikSpecifically, do you still have to Alt-move down into the river in order to survive at all, as moving "straight" over the river results in you falling in and getting stunned?
It is dangerous once you get out in the water. You have to alt-move to move to get into the air over the river, so that shouldn't happen by accident, although you also have to alt-move to use the ramp, since it doesn't allow movement into water as a non-careful action. I haven't changed how jumping works.
Quote
Quote from: tfaalCan vampires, necromancers, and other powerful night creatures come to rule goblin civilizations? If not, why not?Quote from: Knight OtuWe haven't heard anything yet, so presumably no. The why not probably boils down to "time and priority", but as far as in-universe reasons, necromancers inevitably become antisocial right now, weres always become monsters, vampires don't arise among goblins (meaning that if they do take over a civ, it'll be a human one), and mummies lack worldgen disturbance events.
I don't remember if goblins build temples right now... if so, then they can come up, if not, then I think it won't happen, because there aren't vampire children to be stolen in world gen.
Quote from: EmeraldWind
If a child gets turned into a vampire and shows up at your fortress, will the goblins be able to kidnap the vampire?
They'd be able to capture a child vampire, although you might to homegrow it through some creative spatter, since lone children don't migrate to the fort, and though it supports the lack of aging, vampire children don't yet come about in world gen.
Quote from: Areyar
This made me wonder: in the case of a ruler being a vampire. What happens when it is exposed? Will the justice system apply to the ruler or will the ruler be immune. (say by inherent immunity to justice or mandating vampyrism to be allowed)
To avoid complications for now, if you call out a ruler vampire, it'll get all angry and its cultists nearby will get angry if there are any, and you get to fight. In world gen, if a ruler vampire becomes suspected, it'll go into tyrant mode. It's all very simple for now.
Quote from: rex mortis
Will a vampire be able to drink from their sleeping travel rations...I mean companions?
If you are a vampire and you catch them sleeping somehow, then you can do it, but it's not something there's a specific interface or automatic action for.
Post by: Toady One on January 21, 2012, 09:22:43 pm
Quote from: freeformschooler
In what situation would we encounter these mists? Spreading from a creature? Just sprawled about underground?
The mists move around the environment, entering from the edge (or rarely springing up), and they move like a cloud say 40 tiles across. They can be outrun by a healthy individual.
Quote from: monk12
Are the mists a visible thing like miasma?
Yeah.
Quote from: Doomshifter
With these randomly generated materials, what sort of things will we see? Will they just have random names/hardnesses/etc. or will there also be ores of their own random metals (or even ores that have to be combine with other random ores to make even more random metal)?
Do you think it would be possible at all (even if just through modding) to entirely randomly generate every single material in the game for each world?
I haven't done any of the non-flowy ones yet, and I'm not sure how the rest will work. Although it would be hard to avoid mush in the complete case, it is a goal to make full randomization possible as a setting. I think I've talked a bit about the exposition we'd want to include with that, although the ideas are all unformed right now. Good exposition would be difficult if absolutely everything is random. You'd either have to plunge through without knowing what's up or just settle in for a lot of reading of bad mechanical prose.
Quote from: Monkeyfacedprickleback
Come on think how awesome it'd be to have a nice fledgling fort going strong and then a wave of faint yellow fog comes creeping in from the east. You don't know what it does so you send a dwarf in toinvestigate. His eyeballs melt his skin rots off and bleeds to death little more then a skeleton. And the he starts to move. So you have to quickly build a hacth cover to seal off your fort to stop the zombie gas from coming in the stair well. or if you are building above ground you have to lock all the doors an make sure the walls a high enough and that no one goes outside into the lethal murk, and a lone crossbowdwarf is stuck atop the highest tower unable to descend as the fatal gloom has penetrated the very fortification meant to protct him. Can you honestly say that isn't worth a week or two of added waiting. Good thing come to those who wait.
-Edit, And what if there were good interactions as well? Like if there was a mist which increased healing by a thousand, and made lost limbs and severed nerves grow back? Imagineif the fog rolled in so you sent your whole population out to get healed. And then A vile force of darkness comes! So you send in the militia and there's a battlefield coated in blood as the everhealing dwarfs and goblins fight and fight severing limbs only to grow them back again.
So i must ask OH Great Toady One will this crazed fever dream of mine ever be a reality?
The first paragraph kind of happens now, although it probably doesn't flow around as nicely as you'd like when it hits obstacles. I don't have any interactions for good regions, but they are supported.
Quote from: LoSboccacc
will this 'randomized material' system be tied within the reactions and within the job manager for reactionless workshops?
...
depending on what will be available and how, random metals and stone may affect the fortress jobs.
without considering the availability of random stuff for digging:
bronze colossus leave a stone statue, will 'random metal colossus' leave an usable statue? that is, usable in rooms and in workshop.
magma man leaves obsidian, will 'random molten man' leave usable stone? that is, selectable for use in the stone menu and available in mason/trap/etc workshops
considering the availability of random stuff in layers where it can be dug out:
will those dug stone be available for jobs? will random ores be available for smelting? what will be the use of those smelt ores within the forges? right now, metal using jobs (weapons, armors, anvils, bins) are strictly defined in raws and the job manager allows to create specific metal jobs ("seven iron dagger", but also "smelt copper ore" and alloys)
Once random materials do go in, I think the main obstacle along those lines would be any job that would need to be listed in the entity raws. I'm not sure what the examples are. I think smelting would work, since you don't need to add every new ore to the entity raws. Alloys are in the entity raws. We could do something like adding permitted classes which cover a variety of jobs, etc., but it wouldn't work out of the box if we just added random metals and expected the alloys to function. Since the random stones/metals would be "inorganic", I'd expect the furniture placement to all work.
Quote from: Cruxador
if burning and melting things isn't intended behavior for the mist, what is it supposed to be doing?
Aside from the husk zombie thingy, they can also be various poisons. The rain has a limit on how bad the poison can be, while the mist can do pretty much anything supported, like making the eyes rot or whatever.
Quote from: Heph
Actually couldnt sand be handled via the new "gaseous stuff in regions" addition? I dont mean a full fledged Dust-storm (which would still be cool) but small clouds of wind driven sand that literally sand you down if you dont have clothing/protection?
Also how do those gases work in the game? Like smoke/miasma/steam?
You could probably have dust storms to some extent with the new interactions, but you wouldn't be able to get a specific material match with the region's soil, and they'd be small. The mists are like smoke/miasma/steam, maybe slower.
Quote from: GreatWyrmGold
Hm...if it rains blood from actual creatures...would it rain potentially toxic blood from procedurally generated/modded-in/etc critters? That could be Fun really fast...
It rains the blood from civilized creatures, but if you mod in a civilized creature with strange blood, that kind of blood would occur in the blood rains.
Quote from: CaptainArchmage
Is the regional mist omnipresent or does it show up periodically, like rain?
It pops up every once in a while from the edge (or if you are unlucky, it springs up).
Quote from: Dae
Is it intended for the vampire to only feed on living, fresh, same specie creature, even in the hypothetical version 1 ? In short, what is the final plan ?
I don't have strong feelings about it. The sleeping condition is a convenience for me, and I'd hope to at least get rid of that. After that, having some random wiggle is fine, I think, although I suppose forcing feeding on the living keeps things active. Some kind of ghoulish thing that feeds on the dead is also cool. Having a vampire hang around with barrels of ox blood is odd, but once we use blood in cooking etc., maybe it'll come up.
Quote from: EmeraldWind
Will the regional emission that causes the blood rain still be able to do solid materials or was that removed after the "dandruff snow" thing?
The vanilla ones are all blood or liquid slime, but mods can use powder as well. I don't have regular hail yet, and there aren't solid glob regional emissions either.
Quote from: Anatoli
How do the dwarves react to [mists]? Do they get bad negative emotions and try to run away?
Do mists happen underground in caverns? That, would be really, really, terrifying. On the same note, bloody rivers (Nile)?
The mists are bad news, and I haven't done more than the major effects.
Nope, nothing new happens down there yet.
Quote from: caknuck
Because some of us will embark in "hell-on-earth" sites, will there be an announcement when zombifying/face-melting/vomit-inducing weather conditions start?
Yeah, it gives you an announcement when a mist enters the screen, and it gives a message when the rain starts.
Quote from: Heph
I wonder if the "evil weather" respects the weather simulation so that there is more nasty stuff happening in wet places.
It only respects the interaction timing. We'll need to do something later that relates more to the water cycle and less with magical blood/slime. It would be cool to change the properties of the rain in one way or another, rather than just adding a new freak weather event.
Quote
Quote from: Monkeyfacedpricklebackwill mist sink down mineshafts if they are uncovered?
will different mists/weathers hit the same region, or will it be specific to each region?
If mist is specific to region? and how will it act in regards to moving across a multi-biome map. Will it just disappear as it crosses the boundary for it's biome?Quote from: CruxadorHow many of these new region effects can happen in the same location as other region effects? How many varieties can we get at once? Does the regional undead thing function differently than material emissions for these purposes?
The mists will probably plop right down there as they move, even a bit oddly if the shaft connects straight up to the sky. I think the random generator only adds one form of freak weather at most per region now, on top of whatever it decides to do with the undead. When the mist gets out of its region, it'll drop off quickly. Due to a quirk I haven't handled with region populations, the husk style undead don't get represented in world gen populations.
Quote from: Cruxador
Do dwarves try to avoid at least the worst of the stuff (like turning into a bloodless husk) or will he have to either manually block those areas out somehow or accept resulting losses?
Dwarves are still stupid. I can probably work on this and fire a bit during the bug-fixing cycle if I remember. Scanning around in 3D for a flow event is a little expensive, but I think it can be dealt with.
Quote from: ayoriceball
Will there be special mists or rain in relatively "good" areas?
I didn't get to that for the generated ones. It is supported in the format.
Quote from: Hummingbird
How does the evil rain interact with the Adventure Mode character?
The evil rain will poison you however it poisons everybody else (these are the evil material rains, not the blood rains). Dizziness/nausea/etc. screw up your various rolls/skills. Evil mists can husk you if that's what the mist does. As far as I understand it, if you are husked as an adventurer, you'll still be playing but everybody will attack you.
Quote from: Mr Frog
Will every Terrifying region have evil weather (assuming that Terrifying surroundings are what you meant by "hell-on-earth")?
No, but it's fairly common. It'll also happen in the other kinds of evil regions. The text just refers to the savagery rating, and I didn't link the effects to the savagery. Whenever I do the sphere region/planey stuff, the material events will have to be refined to fit with the expanded themes, and that would carry over to the embark interface.
Quote from: Monkeyfacedprickleback
Will Dwarves have resistance to fog/rain? As in one dwarf who is susceptible to disease would die quickly from Fog/rain while one who rarely gets sick would die slowly.
If I recollect, the poisonous effects from the rain can be resisted, while the more localized mists are not resistable.
Quote from: Dwarfu
has the hammerer's [PRECEDENCE] value changed?
It is still 150 (which is less important than the sheriff and the expedition leader, so I think it is fine), but I did remove all the room requirements etc.
Quote from: monk12
Quote from: dev logThe last world I tested had a vampire that managed to get abducted by a gloom troll and turned into a "spouse of the gloom troll vampire"So, in the quoted case, would the quest to kill such a creature be considered on par with killing a Gloom Troll Spouse, or on par with killing a vampire?
The heroism increase depends on the creature's skill, difficulty rating and whether it is a semi/megabeast. Vampires can have high skills, but it doesn't currently try to rate the difficulty imparted by syndrome changes. So it'll be at least as good as killing a gloom troll, and possibly better, but it doesn't properly measure the total challenge that comes from the material resistance etc.
Quote from: Heph
If this vamp were to propagate would he make normal Humans to his "basic" vampire type or to his new mixed type? What about his weaknesses? Would the powers stack? Would be the child out of this unhealthy combination be also a vampire and troll? How would the behavior change? Will you take this stuff out? I hope not!
The vampirism syndrome and the race are independent, so the basic vampire status passes around in its own vanillaish way. If you have racial material resistances/weakenesses and a series of syndrome-based material resistances/weaknesses, I think they all stack (or work against each other as the case may be). The child would be a pure troll, if the spouse can have a child -- vampirism should render the spouse sterile, but I don't know if it actually worked for that weird troll event, since I didn't check.
Whenever we handle general vampire "half-breeds" and all that (that is, when the sterility tag is removed), then we'll handle the troll.
Quote from: Lord Dakoth
Will night creatures ever abduct player-controlled adventurers and turn them into night creature spouses? If so, would you maintain control of your adventurer after the transformation, or would this be considered a "Game Over?"
When abductions go into adventure mode, the adventurer will by default be as fair a target as anybody else, unless I run into some messy problem that forces me to add a special exception. Without a special exception, you are just another historical figure. Adding the whole transformation process is something of a project, and we'd have to consider what it means for you as an adventurer to even see it happen to somebody else before we consider you going through it yourself. Once we have a process in place for a generic historical figure to be converted in place while you are on the map, putting you through that is pretty straightforward (being dragged somewhere would require some kind of interface/travel change as well). I'm not sure whether you'd get to keep playing. You get to keep playing as a mist-husked zombie right now, which is the default position, but it is unsatisfying in the same way that allowing you to assume the role of a historical ruler would be, because you don't have the relationships/reactions from others/etc. associated to the role (aside from the very basic result of being attacked).
Quote from: hermes
I'm curious, does this diaspora of dwarven families arise from children or parents actually migrating from fortress to fortress in worldgen, or is this movement abstracted?
It doesn't form a path and have them on the road, but they do move from site to site in terms of living in one place and then living in another. The exception is populations displaced by war, which have a period of time living in the wilds before resettling (if they can). More generally, every historical figure has a concrete location for every week in world gen (in some cases this location can be the forest they are wandering, rather than a site).
Quote from: finka
What are the obstacles to just assembling the starting seven dwarves as if they were a migrant wave (and possibly replacing their skills)?
From a design perspective, location and skill replacements are pretty much the only obstacles. Roughly, you're either going to be drawing dwarves from all over the world, which is weird, or you'll have a limited selection of skills available from your area, or you'll be mind-wiping people that have histories (which makes choosing historical figures half-pointless and strange). Personally speaking, I'd prefer to choose dwarves from some locality with some start scenario explaining what's going on and dealing with having a non-perfect skill mix, with the option to elevate non-historical dwarves to fill gaps.
In the end, it's not exactly a huge problem, if people don't mind wiping skills it's not a hard thing to do, and now that we have historical migrants in general, this is an avenue that has opened up.
Quote from: Spish
will trading something to the mountainhomes allow you to request it from the outpost liaison later on?
We haven't gotten into that sort of tracking yet (it tracks the items, but doesn't place them in the proper resource categories), but theoretically that sort of thing would begin to happen when there are resources moving around in play more regularly, and when trade agreements are improved.
Quote from: Dae
Not sure if it's too technical to be asked, but Toady : how can a necromancer line of sight affect a non-necromancer targetting something ? Do you mean targetting as in chosing which body part to attack or the "fire crossbow"-type targetting ? And finally, what do werewolves have to do with any targetting at all ?
Targeting as in determining friend-or-foe status (so whether or not to target in the first place). There's a lot of information to check, and one part of it wasn't being cached properly, so it ended up being calculated repeatedly.
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady do the sponsorship animals means that soon we will have giant and person versions of all the animals currently in the game? Are we that far from a Monarch Butterflyman?
I haven't done it yet, but now that I have these animals in, I think I'm not going to add in many new types of animals until we've done some justice to what we already have. That justice might include a monarch butterflyman and giant monarch butterflies. It might count as an unhealthy obsession, but it is part of the game.
Quote from: hermes
Are there any plans for city structures, of any race, to reach into the sky?
The little keeps can be several tiles tall, and they have crappy maps now. Similarly for the pyramids and things, which can be quite tall. In the future, there will be the giant trees and whatever else. Once we have cliffs and canyons, we can start getting into some cool settlements there as well. I think there's something like 10 or 15 sky tiles that are allocated now, which is enough for most purposes, but you might have had something else in mind. When we start to get a bit more weirdly planar, cloud kingdoms or really tall towers might be called for. I'm not sure if the really tall things would always be associated to a civilization.
Quote from: Anatoli
Toady, what is your stance on SOPA and the like. I reckon (from Dwarf Talk) you are pretty paranoid about such things.
There's a General Discussion thread on this topic, and I don't want to get into much of a derail in here, but we're against SOPA/PIPA. I have no expertise here, but it seems that also holds for the people that wrote and sponsored these bills, given the amount of flailing and backpedaling which happened after the blackout.
Quote from: Gamerlord
Will armour ever have a noticeable effect on speed and dodging? I mean, will leather armour have a concrete advantage over steel when it comes to fast response to attacks and a dodging boost?
EmeraldWind brought up the combat/move speed split, the lack of which has caused a lot of the delay in implementing a lot of things like this. There are effects based on armor weight/armor user skill, but it doesn't cover much. There's a "clunkiness" penalty to rolls and an overall speed penalty, I think. I'm not sure what the overall deal should be with armor weights. We're missing things like padding under metal armor, and I don't know anything at all about how leather armors work with that or how much they should weigh or encumber compared to other armors. There's kind of an RPG tradition there, but I'm not sure how it should actually work.
Quote from: werechicken
will titans, forgotten beasts and mega beasts automatically rise from the dead in regions were normal creatures would? Also would this only apply above ground, or all the way down to the circus?
I think the regional targeting goes all the way down, at least when you are in play. Layer population creatures aren't altered in world gen if I remember, because they can overlap regions. That should be resolved one way or the other.
The regional animation effect targets critters that are in the GENERAL_POISON class, and among randomly generated creatures, I think that's all of the ones with blood. So those corpses will rise (or be generated as zombies if they start in a bad place in world gen).
Post by: monk12 on January 21, 2012, 10:12:12 pm
Post by: Jacob/Lee on January 21, 2012, 10:18:38 pm
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 21, 2012, 10:19:54 pm
Post by: Tiruin on January 21, 2012, 10:26:33 pm
Post by: Beardless on January 21, 2012, 10:36:31 pm
Not sure why I didn't see it this way when it first came up, but I'm now envisioning monarch butterflymen as the rulers over all butterflymankind. It's an odd image.
Post by: EmeraldWind on January 21, 2012, 11:52:44 pm
Post by: Doomshifter on January 22, 2012, 12:04:11 am
100% Randomfortress is a possibility (however distant)! Hurrah! It'd be the most insane of challenge modes. No one would know what to expect, what to do, what will work. Excellent. EXCELLENT.
Post by: bombzero on January 22, 2012, 12:16:29 am
what if you simply 'hired' dwarfs with your embark points, instead of assigning points to their skills? you could have a list of 20-30 aspiring dwarfs and pick from the list based on how many points you wanted to spend.
also, maybe along those lines the ability to hire temporary soldiers, that would stick around until the fall caravan and leave with it, it would have to be implemented after mt previous idea but it would help with evil biome embarks.
i dont really know how well this would work, but it seems to me like this, or a variation of it, would be pretty nice. but likely wouldn't be implemented till 2045 :P
Post by: Zander J on January 22, 2012, 12:46:14 am
Dwarves are still stupid.
:D
Post by: Putnam on January 22, 2012, 01:35:20 am
Quote from: GreatWyrmGold
Hm...if it rains blood from actual creatures...would it rain potentially toxic blood from procedurally generated/modded-in/etc critters? That could be Fun really fast...
It rains the blood from civilized creatures, but if you mod in a civilized creature with strange blood, that kind of blood would occur in the blood rains.
[/quote]
This is absolutely perfect. Actually, that brings up an interesting hypothetical situation...
If you have a creature that has caste-based blood, will the blood rain be chosen randomly from each caste or will it be all from one caste?
Also, an idea.
How about "Play now" simply randomly takes the dwarves from a nearby site? It would be a good placeholder implementation for the "situation" that is going to be in eventually.
Post by: Caldfir on January 22, 2012, 01:57:02 am
Dwarves are still stupid. I can probably work on this and fire a bit during the bug-fixing cycle if I remember. Scanning around in 3D for a flow event is a little expensive, but I think it can be dealt with.FIRE AI OMG
Post by: Thundercraft on January 22, 2012, 02:43:20 am
Quote from: FootkerchiefThe devlog indicates concern about having interesting items -- the kind that would be deliberately taken down there by criminals and adventurers. If you want to pick through garbage, you can still go to a craft shop.
He he he, well, garbage would be cool. And there are still crafts shops. I think the sewers do need to have more character, which would involve garbage. As I said above it doesn't track the garbage. I'm not sure I want to do it numerically as specifically as I track the regular items, because there's be a memory/speed hit there, but something will happen there. I'm not sure what though.
How about something like searchable "piles" of refuse or debris?
By that I mean tiles which are identified as refuse or debris and, when searched, an adventurer would find one or more random items. That way, the game would not have to track any additional items until after an adventurer searches through a pile, so no memory/speed hit would occur. Although, after searching through a pile one or more times, I suppose the pile would either have to be removed or flagged so that it can not be searched infinitely for infinite items. Similarly, I could imagine an adventurer coming across a chest or box in which criminals or other adventurers might have stashed something. Again, items could be randomly genterated after a container is searched.
Post by: Ebergar on January 22, 2012, 03:36:12 am
Will it be possible in upcoming update to choose material from which the dwarves will make items in shops like Mason or Carpenter? Just to order dwarves - make only marble doors! Not doors from all material types.
Post by: Neonivek on January 22, 2012, 03:39:06 am
Post by: trees on January 22, 2012, 03:55:27 am
Dear Toady One,
Will it be possible in upcoming update to choose material from which the dwarves will make items in shops like Mason or Carpenter? Just to order dwarves - make only marble doors! Not doors from all material types.
from the dev page (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html) -
Quote
Workshop Material Use and Specific Object Construction
Ability to specify material used in jobs
Ability to order the construction of a specific item or decoration of item in complete detail
Not now, but eventually.
Post by: EmperorJon on January 22, 2012, 05:13:43 am
Post by: Disreputable_Dog on January 22, 2012, 06:21:03 am
The seed of magic slowly growing, the interactions between cities and civs becoming more complicated, trading happening on a grander scale. it feels like (to me) that the world as a whole is going through the process of history itself, which seems very fitting for a game like this.
obviously this is just because the developement is going from simple to more complex, but i can already feel like there is history behind it, as if all these changes and updates were part of one seamless timeline in a world, going from a world that was barren and simplistic to one that is complicated and interconnected. I can't wait to see where it goes next!
Post by: Shadowscales on January 22, 2012, 06:55:31 am
If so, we have the possibility of a mutation system!
Post by: Cruxador on January 22, 2012, 07:06:42 am
I've obviously missed something here. The deadly mists and rains, they are "evil" regions only right? Because Toady's choice of words makes it sound like there's a chance of being slaughtered by your own melting zombie dwarves no matter where you live. :PHe's said the mists are only in evil places, but as far as we know nothing keeps the husks from migrating to other regions.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 22, 2012, 07:12:43 am
Don't Goblins love evil biomes?I've obviously missed something here. The deadly mists and rains, they are "evil" regions only right? Because Toady's choice of words makes it sound like there's a chance of being slaughtered by your own melting zombie dwarves no matter where you live. :PHe's said the mists are only in evil places, but as far as we know nothing keeps the husks from migrating to other regions.
Post by: Knight Otu on January 22, 2012, 07:46:43 am
So Toady, will it be possible to mod in mutations that physically change the body of the victim through curses?Not yet, no. He said previously (in the context of frankensteinian monsters, but the same things apply) that actual body changes would require a potentially long-ish rewrite of the body system.
If so, we have the possibility of a mutation system!
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 22, 2012, 07:55:06 am
So Toady, will it be possible to mod in mutations that physically change the body of the victim through curses?Not yet, no. He said previously (in the context of frankensteinian monsters, but the same things apply) that actual body changes would require a potentially long-ish rewrite of the body system.
If so, we have the possibility of a mutation system!
But isn't that what we have now with stuff like the were-wolves? I thought the major issue lay in correctly transcribing wounds. Since Shadowscales doesn't seemed concerned with that, we can just do what we currently do and make it go from one complete body to another.
Post by: smirk on January 22, 2012, 08:03:11 am
Don't Goblins love evil biomes?I've obviously missed something here. The deadly mists and rains, they are "evil" regions only right? Because Toady's choice of words makes it sound like there's a chance of being slaughtered by your own melting zombie dwarves no matter where you live. :PHe's said the mists are only in evil places, but as far as we know nothing keeps the husks from migrating to other regions.
I think Toady has said somewhere before (can't remember where though; devlog maybe?) that mists arise in evil regions exclusively, but can drift outside of them. And he also said above:
Quote from: Toady One
When the mist gets out of its region, it'll drop off quickly.
So hopefully if you embark right next to an evil region but not in one, you'll have a (very?) small chance of still getting fun stuff.
Post by: Knight Otu on January 22, 2012, 08:31:16 am
But isn't that what we have now with stuff like the were-wolves? I thought the major issue lay in correctly transcribing wounds. Since Shadowscales doesn't seemed concerned with that, we can just do what we currently do and make it go from one complete body to another.No, werebeasts don't change the body, they get a whole new body for their werebeast form, with no relation to the actual human(oid) body. I suppose you could get a mutation system out of it, having a new creature definition for a third eye, one for a sixth digit, one for a third and and a sixth digit... for each race, but, well....
That said, I forgot one thing that probably counts as body changes as Shadowscales means them, which is changing non-color appearance modifiers (length, etc).
Post by: Karakzon on January 22, 2012, 08:59:21 am
I wonderWill, in future when we can drain animals blood into barrels, get the option for things like werebeasts etc to 'donate' some of their blood so you can safely convert your dwarves to a selected class?
I just imagine having all your warriors be able to turn into ware tigermen or warepolarbearmen or hell, ware giant badgermen in a safe way would be hugely convinient and useful. Along with allowing your dwarves to drink blood to sake their thirst mind.
Post by: werechicken on January 22, 2012, 09:28:04 am
Toady answered my question which means that I won't have to worry about metal fb's coming back to life in the evil regions.
These regions also seem to offer great ways of disposing if captured goblins. Let a new era of dwarvern war crimes commence!
Post by: Greiger on January 22, 2012, 09:38:19 am
The giant badgers won't know what hit them.
Post by: hermes on January 22, 2012, 09:58:17 am
Post by: Poonyen on January 22, 2012, 10:19:34 am
Just want to say I love DF and I'm as giddy as a schoolgirl about the next release.
Best game ever. That is all.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 22, 2012, 10:56:18 am
Dwarves are still stupid. I can probably work on this and fire a bit during the bug-fixing cycle if I remember. Scanning around in 3D for a flow event is a little expensive, but I think it can be dealt with.FIRE AI OMG
Yeah, fire AI and fire bug fixes (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=307) are way overdue, in addition to other basic stuff like extinguishing fires. Fire doesn't get nearly enough respect considering its huge role in human history and fantasy worlds.
So Toady, will it be possible to mod in mutations that physically change the body of the victim through curses?Not yet, no. He said previously (in the context of frankensteinian monsters, but the same things apply) that actual body changes would require a potentially long-ish rewrite of the body system.
If so, we have the possibility of a mutation system!
But isn't that what we have now with stuff like the were-wolves? I thought the major issue lay in correctly transcribing wounds. Since Shadowscales doesn't seemed concerned with that, we can just do what we currently do and make it go from one complete body to another.
No, werebeasts don't change the body, they get a whole new body for their werebeast form, with no relation to the actual human(oid) body. I suppose you could get a mutation system out of it, having a new creature definition for a third eye, one for a sixth digit, one for a third and and a sixth digit... for each race, but, well....
That said, I forgot one thing that probably counts as body changes as Shadowscales means them, which is changing non-color appearance modifiers (length, etc).
Here's a post I made that discusses the app modifiers:
You can change the appearance modifiers (and thereby the ingame size) of any body part, but that's it short of a full transformation to a different creature type:Code: [Select][CE_BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:START:0:BP:BY_CATEGORY:TOOTH:APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:LENGTH:150]
[CE:COUNTER_TRIGGER:DRINKING_BLOOD:1:NONE:REQUIRED]
So you could make a creature's eyes become huge, bulging and red, or transform a creature into twice its normal size, but you couldn't make it sprout extra limbs.
Post by: ZeroGravitas on January 22, 2012, 12:52:07 pm
QuoteQuote from: EmeraldWindNO_PHYS_ATT_GAIN - I noticed this tag in a couple of the entries in the new interaction based nightcreatures. Does it prevent future Attribute gains for the creature?Quote from: Knight OtuIt certainly sounds like it does that. It does seem a bit weird that necromancers and vampires would have that tag, but the presence of that tag could be randomized.
Yeah, it locks attributes in place. For some reason, I didn't imagine vampires being able to lift weights and load themselves out. I dunno if that'll be randomized in the future. As a general note, you can zero out the number of random vampires and use the example vampire to make your own work how you want. I'm not sure when we're going to have parameters for how the randomization actually works. I think the current plan was to do that first with random dragons, but I'm not sure what the format is going to be.
In almost every interpretation of vampires in every mythology, vampires gain power over time. The older a vampire is, the more powerful it is - including being stronger and faster. The more blood a vampire drinks, the more powerful a vampire is.
Why did you decide to abandon this fundamental aspect of vampire lore? It has nothing to do with working out, granted, but vampires being stuck at particular attribute levels for all time is absolutely bizarre.
Post by: Yobgod on January 22, 2012, 01:37:08 pm
Quote
There's a "clunkiness" penalty to rolls and an overall speed penalty, I think. I'm not sure what the overall deal should be with armor weights. We're missing things like padding under metal armor, and I don't know anything at all about how leather armours work with that or how much they should weigh or encumber compared to other armors. There's kind of an RPG tradition there, but I'm not sure how it should actually work.
You've been pretty simulationist about things so far, so it would seem reasonable to continue in this instance.
Simple case: total weight carried reduces speed, metal armours add an appropriate amount of "noise" when moved.
Advanced: Leg armours primarily effect movement. Arm armours primarily effect craft skills and attacks. Head armours effect perception. Overall encumbrance also effects movement speed.
Post by: Neonivek on January 22, 2012, 01:38:13 pm
They just tend to develop additional powers and abilities over time and sometimes it is just from mundane old magic they learned over the centuries they lived rarther then pure vampiric power. Which Toady has considered (a Vampire only secret system).
It can actually play a dark picture if you think about an Immortal creature learning plenty of skills, secrets, and arcane arts over the years as a villain.
Post by: ZeroGravitas on January 22, 2012, 02:08:24 pm
Older vampires tend not to get faster or stronger in most Lore I've read.
They just tend to develop additional powers and abilities over time and sometimes it is just from mundane old magic they learned over the centuries they lived rarther then pure vampiric power. Which Toady has considered (a Vampire only secret system).
It can actually play a dark picture if you think about an Immortal creature learning plenty of skills, secrets, and arcane arts over the years as a villain.
Certainly you can find examples of every sort. But the overwhelming majority of vampire fiction points to "stronger with age" - http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrongerWithAge
The only real exception I can think of to the "stronger with age" rule for vampires is.... Twilight.
Post by: Neonivek on January 22, 2012, 02:15:14 pm
Older vampires tend not to get faster or stronger in most Lore I've read.
They just tend to develop additional powers and abilities over time and sometimes it is just from mundane old magic they learned over the centuries they lived rarther then pure vampiric power. Which Toady has considered (a Vampire only secret system).
It can actually play a dark picture if you think about an Immortal creature learning plenty of skills, secrets, and arcane arts over the years as a villain.
Certainly you can find examples of every sort. But the overwhelming majority of vampire fiction points to "stronger with age" - http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrongerWithAge
The only real exception I can think of to the "stronger with age" rule for vampires is.... Twilight.
Actually Twilight doesn't subvert this either. (Mind you Twilight is one of the few Vampire mythologies that support it)
But there is a difference between "Stronger" as in more powerful and "Stronger" as in Bench pressing.
I am only suggesting that a lot of vampire lore the vampires don't actually get physically stronger or faster (unless they enhanced it through NOT physical means)
As well remember Toady's problem is only that he doesn't feel vampires should be able to "lift weights" to build up strength. Which the vast majority of vampire lore supports. For example in World of Darkness a vampire CAN increase their strength, but they don't do it through lifting weights. He isn't against them improving or getting stronger.
Post by: bombzero on January 22, 2012, 02:19:51 pm
Post by: ZeroGravitas on January 22, 2012, 03:06:16 pm
Older vampires tend not to get faster or stronger in most Lore I've read.
They just tend to develop additional powers and abilities over time and sometimes it is just from mundane old magic they learned over the centuries they lived rarther then pure vampiric power. Which Toady has considered (a Vampire only secret system).
It can actually play a dark picture if you think about an Immortal creature learning plenty of skills, secrets, and arcane arts over the years as a villain.
Certainly you can find examples of every sort. But the overwhelming majority of vampire fiction points to "stronger with age" - http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrongerWithAge
The only real exception I can think of to the "stronger with age" rule for vampires is.... Twilight.
Actually Twilight doesn't subvert this either. (Mind you Twilight is one of the few Vampire mythologies that support it)
But there is a difference between "Stronger" as in more powerful and "Stronger" as in Bench pressing.
I am only suggesting that a lot of vampire lore the vampires don't actually get physically stronger or faster (unless they enhanced it through NOT physical means)
As well remember Toady's problem is only that he doesn't feel vampires should be able to "lift weights" to build up strength. Which the vast majority of vampire lore supports. For example in World of Darkness a vampire CAN increase their strength, but they don't do it through lifting weights. He isn't against them improving or getting stronger.
In Twilight, "newborns" are stronger than older vampires because they have the most human blood in them and strength is normally a function of how recently they've fed (in that it determines the quantity of human blood.)
I understand that Toady doesn't feel vampires should be able to "lift weights" but since there's no "lifting weights" in the game as it is, I'm not sure why this would be a concern at all. As it is now, vampires have their attributes locked. Can't improve whether by "weight lifting" but also by things you'd expect from other lore - drinking blood, growing stronger with age, or simply learning.
The disconnect, I think, is that Toady seems to take for granted that if a vampire is improving his stats with practice, it's the same as "weight lifting". That's not the case at all. It seems entirely plausible that if a vampire becomes more powerful as he practices stats/skills (which is what "weight lifting" is about) it could be entirely due to his own honing of skills and and supernatural focusing. The assumption that it's weight lifting is sort of bizarre.
Post by: Knight Otu on January 22, 2012, 03:09:57 pm
Here's a post I made that discusses the app modifiers:Yeah, I meant to say that this sort of "body change" is something that can be done (though it's not a body change in the sense that the body definition changes).You can change the appearance modifiers (and thereby the ingame size) of any body part, but that's it short of a full transformation to a different creature type:Code: [Select][CE_BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:START:0:BP:BY_CATEGORY:TOOTH:APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:LENGTH:150]
[CE:COUNTER_TRIGGER:DRINKING_BLOOD:1:NONE:REQUIRED]
So you could make a creature's eyes become huge, bulging and red, or transform a creature into twice its normal size, but you couldn't make it sprout extra limbs.
yeah i kind of got the vibe that he planned some other form of improvement for them, not sure why.Toady mentioned a generation counter for vampires for power dilution and similar things (which would be the inverse, weaker with youth, but pretty much the same end result), but he didn't get around to it for this release (much like the monstrous vampires will have to wait).
In any case, vampires are probably the closest-to-living undead in most myths and fiction (and in some rare fiction, technically are alive), and as such it seems that at least a few vampire types could improve in strength if they wanted. Similarly the necromancers, who seem to be mostly still alive, than some kind of undead lich (for liches again it would depend, but they are usually less close to the living).
Quote from: Moonshadow101Any plans for hereditary curses? "Your family shall suffer for seven generations" seems like a pretty common tropes, and it would be funny to see babies spontaneously combust because their parents had a nasty run-in with a mummy two years ago.
Also, and I know this isn't the question anyone wants to read, but is there are roadmap to the next release? Like, right after the mummies and tombs? Or is there another thing after the Mummies before release?
We don't have any specific plans, but it's a reasonable thing. I think we were thinking of doing some kind of generation counter for vampires so that you could do things like power dilution etc., and that might be related, but it wasn't done either, so it doesn't matter yet.
Post by: Urist Da Vinci on January 22, 2012, 03:10:10 pm
Creatures that have "CRAZED" will attack anybody that isn't their race, and all of the werebeasts are generated with it. There isn't currently a way to make them attack everybody or analyze syndromes.
I suspect modders will have fun with this token, probably making hostile wildlife even more hostile.
Post by: Cerol Lenslens on January 22, 2012, 03:25:19 pm
Post by: CharlesPeter on January 22, 2012, 03:27:21 pm
Post by: werechicken on January 22, 2012, 03:58:14 pm
P.S. I refuse to accept twilight as a vampiric reference, it's almost a bad a using Anne Rice (the one who wrote interview with a vampire)
Bram Stoker would be spinning in his grave!
Post by: Fieari on January 22, 2012, 04:18:49 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 22, 2012, 05:35:01 pm
Twilight Vampires aren't even Vampires. They're unseelie. Poorly written unseelie, but unseelie all the same.
I always think of a reverse Francis, and think of them as more being zombies.
Post by: Kadzar on January 22, 2012, 05:52:32 pm
Thanks for the answers, Toady! Sounds like it's going to be a very interesting release.It makes me think someone should make a fortress known as the "Compound of Venture". It would be especially good if you could get a friendly necromancer named "Orpheus" living with you somehow.
Not sure why I didn't see it this way when it first came up, but I'm now envisioning monarch butterflymen as the rulers over all butterflymankind. It's an odd image.
Post by: EnigmaticHat on January 22, 2012, 09:01:16 pm
Random and unintentionally deadly. Wierd how that worked out.
Post by: greenwatering on January 22, 2012, 09:49:08 pm
Post by: Fieari on January 22, 2012, 10:44:23 pm
Toady, i find the stone management function screen to be tedious. Could we ever designated stone use per workshop instead of fortress wide?
This is not the place for suggestions.
Post by: greenwatering on January 22, 2012, 11:41:45 pm
Post by: Quatch on January 23, 2012, 12:30:29 am
Toady, i find the stone management function screen to be tedious. Could we ever designated stone use per workshop instead of fortress wide?
This is not the place for suggestions.
More importantly, you should be aware of the ESV list, a votable compilation of the most common suggestions. It is here: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/eternal_voting.php
Post by: Urist Da Vinci on January 23, 2012, 12:49:54 am
Thanks to Footkerchief, MrWiggles, Knight Otu and anybody I missed for helping with questions this time.Quote from: KogutSo it is possible to find vampires by creating bedrooms, without assigning. Wait. Dwarves without claimed ones are vampires. Is it a intended behaviour? Maybe vampire also should claim bedrooms? Or maybe it is somehow predicted but not mentioned.
I don't think I handled that. Keep 'em coming, he he he. It'll be an arms race for a while as we patch up stuff I didn't cover.
What does the vampire job say when they are heading to a sleeping victim or in the process of feeding? I hope we don't get "Shem Dedukbomrek, Engraver cancels Suck Blood: Interrupted by Goblin Hammerman" or "Iden Tathuroltar, Furnace Operator cancels Attend Party: Thirsty for blood". Do you think they need to lie to the player a bit about what they are/were doing?
Post by: Toady One on January 23, 2012, 01:14:22 am
What does the vampire job say when they are heading to a sleeping victim or in the process of feeding? I hope we don't get "Shem Dedukbomrek, Engraver cancels Suck Blood: Interrupted by Goblin Hammerman" or "Iden Tathuroltar, Furnace Operator cancels Attend Party: Thirsty for blood". Do you think they need to lie to the player a bit about what they are/were doing?
There's a whole new category of jobs (of one job as it stands) that counts as being on break. So the vampire will be listed as "On Break", and it never announces cancellations for these jobs. I figured "On Break" would cause less trouble on the bug tracker and questions sections than "No Job", but we'll have to see if there's a better way to stop needless confusion. The thirst can cancel jobs, but it doesn't announce those either. I suppose confusion might arise if you saw the vampire was starting a job and then you find that the job wasn't finished and there was no announcement, but hopefully that won't be much of a problem either.
Post by: Toady One on January 23, 2012, 01:44:06 am
Quote from: Putnam
If you have a creature that has caste-based blood, will the blood rain be chosen randomly from each caste or will it be all from one caste?
Also, an idea.
How about "Play now" simply randomly takes the dwarves from a nearby site? It would be a good placeholder implementation for the "situation" that is going to be in eventually.
It enumerates all the valid blood types from each caste, but it doesn't take caste frequency into consideration.
"Play now" is supposed to be slightly easier to use, because it has a lot of the professions selected within the seven dwarves. A random collection of historical dwarves would mostly be from a few professions and not necessarily useful ones.
Quote from: Thundercraft
How about something like searchable "piles" of refuse or debris?
By that I mean tiles which are identified as refuse or debris and, when searched, an adventurer would find one or more random items. That way, the game would not have to track any additional items until after an adventurer searches through a pile, so no memory/speed hit would occur. Although, after searching through a pile one or more times, I suppose the pile would either have to be removed or flagged so that it can not be searched infinitely for infinite items. Similarly, I could imagine an adventurer coming across a chest or box in which criminals or other adventurers might have stashed something. Again, items could be randomly genterated after a container is searched.
The issue is world gen tracking, rather than the tracking of items during play (though play tracking has some general problems independent of garbage). We have chests/bags/etc. filled with stolen objects, and those are all tracked during the weeks in world gen numerically as site stockpiles are raided, and then placed on site for you to find. There'd just be a higher volume of garbage with more diverse types to track. When I get around to it, I'll probably try to find some sort of middle ground between random generation and complete tracking. The easiest would probably be to allow garbage of any type of good that is currently present at the site, without respecting historical-but-not-present trade goods.
Quote from: Karakzon
Will, in future when we can drain animals blood into barrels, get the option for things like werebeasts etc to 'donate' some of their blood so you can safely convert your dwarves to a selected class?
I think the main issue with something like vampire blood sausages might be the historical material tracking, probably, although theoretically that information could survive all the way to the finished product if the blood is pure. It needs to know where the blood came from to give it the proper cursing powers. Once the food has the right material, everything else would be automatic as the code currently stands with ingested syndromes... although come to think of it, I'm not sure it goes through each food ingredient. I know it goes through the spatter on the item. Yeah, it only looks at the spatter and the main material of the item. I guess item improvements and ingredient triggers will be for later.
Post by: MrWiggles on January 23, 2012, 03:00:58 am
Vampires are not real, therefore, an author, can define them however, they choose. Thusly, the vampires in Twlight are vampires, because, thats what vampires in Twilight are.Twilight Vampires aren't even Vampires. They're unseelie. Poorly written unseelie, but unseelie all the same.
I always think of a reverse Francis, and think of them as more being zombies.
This kind of thing annoys me. Its like, saying the Hobbits in The Hobbit, aren't Hobbits. They're closer to large brownies.
Post by: Jheral on January 23, 2012, 03:18:11 am
This kind of thing annoys me. Its like, saying the Hobbits in The Hobbit, aren't Hobbits. They're closer to large brownies.
Of course, the problem with that logic is that Twilight in no way invented or defined the word "Vampire".
A better analogy would be that saying that the Dwemer of Elder Scrolls lore are not dwarves despire being called dwarves. Which, incidentally, is also true - they aren't.
Post by: Dae on January 23, 2012, 03:25:02 am
Look, all that argument already happened, ok ? Let's not get back to it.
Was I the only one interpreting the somewhat later report as "OMGOMGOMG it's taking time because he's uploading the release" ?
Post by: Jheral on January 23, 2012, 03:39:10 am
I was critizising the logic, not the designation of vampire for the Twilight-vampires. Vampires, to me at least, is defined as a humanoid, sapient being that feeds on other sapient humanoids by drinking their blood. No more, no less. By that definition yes, Twilight does indeed have vampires - albeit ones that deviate from established tropes - but that doesn't mean that Twilight has some sort of monopoly on the term or it's definition, unlike The Hobbit and hobbits.
And yes, it does look like it's getting really close. Can't wait! :D
Post by: O11O1 on January 23, 2012, 08:32:38 am
Following that line of thought, is a mosqito a vampire?
Clearly, DF needs to uncover what happens when a mosquito contracts vamprism. And Lycanthropy. Which reminds me, Are there plans to simulate insect transmitted diseases and syndromes?
Post by: werechicken on January 23, 2012, 08:40:31 am
Also vampires originated from a combination of Vlad the impaler (a syphaltic psychopath with a penchant for horrific slaughter), the fact that the first few days after death the gums recede making the teeth look longer and finally porphyria, a hereditary blood disease which can make the sufferer very sensitive to sunlight.
P.S. I would love to see a weremosquito
Edit: I meant Vlad the impaler, stupid predictive text phone.
Post by: Rose on January 23, 2012, 08:46:45 am
Post by: Knight Otu on January 23, 2012, 08:55:36 am
This was mentioned in DF Talk 12.Following that line of thought, is a mosqito a vampire?
Clearly, DF needs to uncover what happens when a mosquito contracts vamprism. And Lycanthropy. Which reminds me, Are there plans to simulate insect transmitted diseases and syndromes?
Quote
Toady: ... Leeches and mosquitoes are going to be fun.
Rainseeker: Ah, will they spread disease?
Toady: Well, that's the question right? When you get to the mosquito you can be satisfied in a way just making a creature that bites you that doesn't really suck an appreciable amount of blood necessarily - unless it's a giant mosquitoman, which is disgusting - but it give you this really annoying itchy thing ... If we did all that then mosquitomen would be considered a success for the swamps and so on, probably. But really you want to get to ... you know, do you add diseases and blood borne illnesses and that kind of thing? I don't know, I don't know. It's a question with all of these, really. Bees won so I spent a lot of time on them, and I just don't have time to spend a month on every animal.
Rainseeker: Please do not.
Toady: Yeah, that would be five years. It would be a great animal game at that point, but it'd be a long time. It's hard to say with any given animal exactly how much time I'm going to spend on that, because diseases is something we were going to put in in the big nineteen month release - I think it was one of the few items that got redded out on that list, along with formations and brain death and a few other things - so it didn't make it in and so it's fair to say that the game is ready for it and if you want to have world generation and then after that experiencing diseases and plagues and stuff, it's a really important force in world history and if the mosquitoes are the vector for that then that'll be great for them, that addition to the game. I don't know, they're coming though, at some point...
Post by: Neonivek on January 23, 2012, 09:06:08 am
This kind of thing annoys me. Its like, saying the Hobbits in The Hobbit, aren't Hobbits. They're closer to large brownies.
Of course, the problem with that logic is that Twilight in no way invented or defined the word "Vampire".
A better analogy would be that saying that the Dwemer of Elder Scrolls lore are not dwarves despire being called dwarves. Which, incidentally, is also true - they aren't.
Look the thing isn't that Twilight Vampires arn't exactly any less vampires. The issue people have with them is that they are very much constructed as some sort of wish fulfilment turning some of the very defining traits of a vampire into screaming fangirl bait. (that and Twilight itself doesn't even know whats its own vampires are.)
To get the EXACT same effect. Take a werewolf... Now imagine that instead of transforming at a fullmoon they instead became extremely sexy and toned by the invigoration because wolves have a lot more muscles then a human. They can still turn into wolves but it has nothing to do with the moon.
Post by: werechicken on January 23, 2012, 09:54:38 am
(I had my arm twisted by a friend to watch the new moon one)
To be fair most fairy tale monsters are just extensions if some part of the human psyche, only when they originally were conceived civilisation was much darker and allot less self absorbed.
Post by: Miuramir on January 23, 2012, 10:30:02 am
QuoteQuote from: EmeraldWindNO_PHYS_ATT_GAIN - I noticed this tag in a couple of the entries in the new interaction based nightcreatures. Does it prevent future Attribute gains for the creature?Quote from: Knight OtuIt certainly sounds like it does that. It does seem a bit weird that necromancers and vampires would have that tag, but the presence of that tag could be randomized.
Yeah, it locks attributes in place. For some reason, I didn't imagine vampires being able to lift weights and load themselves out. I dunno if that'll be randomized in the future. As a general note, you can zero out the number of random vampires and use the example vampire to make your own work how you want. I'm not sure when we're going to have parameters for how the randomization actually works. I think the current plan was to do that first with random dragons, but I'm not sure what the format is going to be.
In almost every interpretation of vampires in every mythology, vampires gain power over time. The older a vampire is, the more powerful it is - including being stronger and faster. The more blood a vampire drinks, the more powerful a vampire is.
Why did you decide to abandon this fundamental aspect of vampire lore? It has nothing to do with working out, granted, but vampires being stuck at particular attribute levels for all time is absolutely bizarre.
Citation needed; I don't think it's even that common, and certainly not the general case. In particularly, it sounds like you're talking about vampire *fiction*, not vampire *mythology*. Remember, DF is set generally pre-1400; and my impression is that the sort of tale you're talking about is generally Victorian or more recent. I'm doubtful you can come up with references that even a majority of, let alone "almost every" example of, of pre-1400 myths about vampires work that way.
In the most general terms, tales of vampires were originally about the horrors of *death* (and death gone wrong), with a lesser component of being about disease (particularly plagues). Then the Victorians (in general) with their particular world view picked up an old set of tropes and rebuilt them as being about the horrors of *romance* (and romance gone wrong), with a lesser component of being about disease (particularly sexually-transmitted diseases). Then modern writers have picked up the tropes again, and rebuilt them again as what amount to fetish fantasy, with the "disagreement" between types having at the core what (set of) fetish(es) the authors are implicitly or explicitly using their vampires to represent / explore (bondage, ageplay, bloodplay, consequence-free satyrism / nymphomania, and so on).
From a more specifically DF standpoint, my take would be that IF (some) vampires can gain additional power from blood (as opposed to a more traditional take where it merely slows their decline), that should be a "magical" interaction, and probably handled by the same sort of framework that would be needed for an adventurer to gain strange magical powers from the blood of a powerful beast (e.g. spear-resistant skin, the ability to understand the language of birds, or other mythological standards). Said interactions would presumably override ordinary limitations by their magical nature. The currently implemented tags prevent a vampire assigned as, say, a miner or pump operator or other task that can buff physical stats from getting more ripped due to their job, which IMO is as it should be.
A related question is how vampires and necromancers interact with the skill decay system; if there's not some care taken, they could end up as ageless incompetents.
Toady, do vampires, necromancers, mummies, and other "atypically old" variant creatures have any special handling for skill decay? It seems like that agelessness should provide at least some protection, otherwise they may end up as unusually incompetent in old worlds.
Post by: Quatch on January 23, 2012, 11:26:18 am
The whole flambe thing came later.
That said, I believe toady indicated the vampires were a random amalgam of many many mythological aspects. Your world might end up with dracula, or twilight.
Post by: Kogut on January 23, 2012, 01:03:20 pm
Done by Deon.Following that line of thought, is a mosqito a vampire?
Clearly, DF needs to uncover what happens when a mosquito contracts vamprism. And Lycanthropy. Which reminds me, Are there plans to simulate insect transmitted diseases and syndromes?
Post by: Caldfir on January 23, 2012, 01:13:54 pm
From what I can tell, the DF vampires as they currently stand are vampires - they suck blood, and they are immortal. Everything else is flavor. Vampires are tricky because the mythos we have surrounding them in popular culture is extremely varied. They are the equivalent of how old fairy tales describe "trolls" or "fairies" - which is to say completely inconsistently. I think Toady's vision for the randomized trolls did a pretty good job of supporting this notion, and see no reason to think his treatment of vampires will not do the same.
...
Oh my lord... will I be able to add mists to good-aligned regions that temporarily add the [FLYER] tag? Peter-Pan RP game, here I come! (although the occasional giant flying badger might become a nuisance...)
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 23, 2012, 03:37:12 pm
Oh just a thought: is it possible to generate mists over/on special map-tiles? (Sulphur)gasses and compounds on Volcanos and Swamps would be a nice touch ... hehe including self-igniting stuff.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 23, 2012, 04:08:00 pm
Oh just a thought: is it possible to generate mists over/on special map-tiles? (Sulphur)gasses and compounds on Volcanos and Swamps would be a nice touch ... hehe including self-igniting stuff.
A mist is associated with a particular region on the aboveground map. So you could have mists that only appear in swampy regions, but not ones that only appear over volcanos.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 23, 2012, 05:54:31 pm
Post by: Putnam on January 23, 2012, 06:31:14 pm
Post by: Sunday on January 23, 2012, 09:04:44 pm
If the weather events ever get tied to wetness, etc., then that might be 1 way to hack in wildfires during droughts.
Edit: and even now, you'd be able to tie it to some of the hotter, dryer biomes (assuming it's possible) such as savannas and possibly deserts (though the latter would be more obviously supernatural).
Post by: Urist Da Vinci on January 23, 2012, 09:39:50 pm
Following that line of thought, is a mosqito a vampire?
Clearly, DF needs to uncover what happens when a mosquito contracts vamprism. And Lycanthropy. ...
Sea lampreys, nightwings, leechmen, and some procedural creatures currently have blood sucking attacks. Do those respect blood ingestion syndromes?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 23, 2012, 10:48:51 pm
Following that line of thought, is a mosqito a vampire?
Clearly, DF needs to uncover what happens when a mosquito contracts vamprism. And Lycanthropy. ...
Sea lampreys, nightwings, leechmen, and some procedural creatures currently have blood sucking attacks. Do those respect blood ingestion syndromes?
Toady had an aswer for that:
QuoteQuote from: HephToady after reading the latest devlog entry i was wondering if only the blood of intelligent creatures work or if you could suck out a bunny or a boar. Secondly i wonder what would happen if you suck the blood of a creature that has an interaction linked to its blood?Quote from: LordNagashWhy do they have to be unconscious? I mean if you're fighting someone one-on-one, seems likely that you'd be able to grapple them and then bite into them.
You'd be able to drain an unconscious animal, if you want to strangle one or something. Any ingestion syndrome from the blood would be triggered.
As far as i understand it that counts for all bloodsucking attacks thus leeches, Nightwings etc. will be poisoned if they can be affected by the poison.
Post by: Urist Da Vinci on January 24, 2012, 12:51:51 am
...
As far as i understand it that counts for all bloodsucking attacks thus leeches, Nightwings etc. will be poisoned if they can be affected by the poison.
The quote you used referred to vampires attacking unconscious animals. The vampire sucking code seems to be different from the old leechman/nightwing/lamprey code in that it happens to helpless opponents, not as a combat move. IF the old code now respects blood ingestion syndromes, then perhaps we can have Vampiric Sea Lampreys (who sucked blood from a human vampire).
Wait,
Quote
[I_TARGET:A:CREATURE]
[IT_LOCATION:CONTEXT_CREATURE]
[IT_REQUIRES:CAN_LEARN]
[IT_REQUIRES:HAS_BLOOD]
[IT_FORBIDDEN:NOT_LIVING]
[IT_FORBIDDEN:SUPERNATURAL]
[IT_CANNOT_HAVE_SYNDROME_CLASS:WERECURSE]
[IT_CANNOT_HAVE_SYNDROME_CLASS:VAMPCURSE]
[IT_CANNOT_HAVE_SYNDROME_CLASS:DISTURBANCE_CURSE]
Because of the CAN_LEARN requirement, it appears that only nightwings or leechmen would be eligible for vampirification.
Post by: Fieari on January 24, 2012, 01:16:36 am
Post by: Anatoli on January 24, 2012, 01:29:27 am
Toady, is there a reason you know of why it is so common for middle fingers to get damaged? The SA "Gemclod" fortress in particular showed dozens of combatents getting their middle fingers mangled, and now it's showing up in your dev log. Is this a bug, a bizarre statistical fluke, or is there a good reason the simulation tends to pick middle fingers to bust up?Improper behavior. Elbows are next.
Loved the devlog. It's a good horror movies material.
Post by: Areyar on January 24, 2012, 06:12:51 am
Post by: O11O1 on January 24, 2012, 09:14:57 am
Toady, is there a reason you know of why it is so common for middle fingers to get damaged? The SA "Gemclod" fortress in particular showed dozens of combatents getting their middle fingers mangled, and now it's showing up in your dev log. Is this a bug, a bizarre statistical fluke, or is there a good reason the simulation tends to pick middle fingers to bust up?
No idea for sure, but middle fingers tend to be longer, and thus easier to hit in combat. That seems only a partial explanation, however.
Post by: Greiger on January 24, 2012, 09:24:00 am
Post by: Sphalerite on January 24, 2012, 09:48:42 am
Post by: darkflagrance on January 24, 2012, 12:07:35 pm
Toady, is there a reason you know of why it is so common for middle fingers to get damaged? The SA "Gemclod" fortress in particular showed dozens of combatents getting their middle fingers mangled, and now it's showing up in your dev log. Is this a bug, a bizarre statistical fluke, or is there a good reason the simulation tends to pick middle fingers to bust up?
Most likely confirmation bias.
Post by: Fieari on January 24, 2012, 12:17:56 pm
Most likely confirmation bias.
I don't know. When middle fingers get mangled on both hands, repeatedly, without injury to any other fingers, it seems like something more is going on. It's not just that middle fingers keep getting busted up, but that NO OTHER FINGERS SEEM TO. At least, I haven't seen any other fingers get hurt.
Post by: Funburns on January 24, 2012, 02:07:16 pm
When I read that mists are supposed to work like miasma, it sounded like the arrival of a mist would create the center of a mist cloud on the side of the map, surrounded by miasma-like mist
Or build a city over it and let it roam the streets at night. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mashadar&oldid=360758414)
Post by: Footkerchief on January 24, 2012, 02:46:16 pm
Most likely confirmation bias.
I don't know. When middle fingers get mangled on both hands, repeatedly, without injury to any other fingers, it seems like something more is going on. It's not just that middle fingers keep getting busted up, but that NO OTHER FINGERS SEEM TO. At least, I haven't seen any other fingers get hurt.
You could make some dwarves with giant hands and throw them in the arena. Might get a good bug report out of it.
Post by: Name Lips on January 24, 2012, 03:19:11 pm
Every fictional universe that includes vampires seems to feel a strong urge to explain how their vampires (i.e., in their universe, "real" vampires) are different from "fictional" or "mythological" vampires.
See the TV Tropes page "Our Vampires are Different" here (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurVampiresAreDifferent).
I took a class on vampirism in college. Best class ever. Counted as either a literature, film, or German Language class depending on how you signed up for it. Not nearly as easy a course as you'd think... (Instructor was a little bit batty as well. She hated margins, line spacing, and paragraph breaks, so all your papers had to be printed out as a single block of text from the upper left to the bottom right corners of the page...)
Vampire mythology (and literature) is SO varied it's almost impossible to really define them. Some stories don't even have the vampires drinking blood. The best common characterizing definition seems to be "a creature that prolongs its life -- potentially indefinitely -- by feeding off the 'life energy' of other creatures."
Post by: kaenneth on January 24, 2012, 03:24:55 pm
Instructor was a little bit batty as well.
I see what you did there.
I was wondering if the 'mists' are implemented as an invisible wandering creature that spews vapors continually. The seems to me to be the easiest way.
Post by: tfaal on January 24, 2012, 04:10:04 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on January 24, 2012, 04:13:19 pm
Post by: cephalo on January 24, 2012, 04:56:11 pm
I can't wait to make a cloud of molten gold mist...
gold covering 4th toe, right foot... ad nauseum. :)
Post by: O11O1 on January 24, 2012, 05:13:25 pm
I can't wait to make a cloud of molten gold mist...
gold covering 4th toe, right foot... ad nauseum. :)
Which reminds me, is the inventory screen at some point going to display such coverings under shorter, more generalized headings? if their hand is covered, it seems safe to imply that all five fingers are also covered. If it seems important to be able to double check, perhaps we could open up the covering, in the same manner we might open up and look inside a quiver or carried bin?
Post by: Livonya on January 24, 2012, 06:39:41 pm
I took a class on vampirism in college. Best class ever. Counted as either a literature, film, or German Language class depending on how you signed up for it. Not nearly as easy a course as you'd think... (Instructor was a little bit batty as well. She hated margins, line spacing, and paragraph breaks, so all your papers had to be printed out as a single block of text from the upper left to the bottom right corners of the page...)
I also took that class at University of California Santa Barbara in 1988 or so.
The professor wore a black leather trench coat with purple lining. He was a funny fellow.
I believe the class was called Vampirism in German Literature, though it covered plenty of vampirism that wasn't part of German Literature. A great class.
Never-the-less, with my training in vampirism, I will stay out of this argument over vampiric powers as I tend to find arguments about fictional creatures to be a bit of a dead end... though fun.
Post by: NobodyPro on January 24, 2012, 07:12:05 pm
Taking a stab in the dark here:
Will it be possible to make a creature emit a 'mist' via modding?
Post by: Megaman3321 on January 24, 2012, 07:35:09 pm
Will it be possible for certain things (like the aforementioned yellow mist) to be disabled during worldgen?
Post by: MrWiggles on January 24, 2012, 07:54:14 pm
I don't know if this has been covered, butThey're easy to avoid.
Will it be possible for certain things (like the aforementioned yellow mist) to be disabled during worldgen?
Dont embark or adventure in evil regions.
Post by: Neonivek on January 24, 2012, 07:58:28 pm
I don't know if this has been covered, butThey're easy to avoid.
Will it be possible for certain things (like the aforementioned yellow mist) to be disabled during worldgen?
Dont embark or adventure in evil regions.
Oddly enough for any feature that sets any amount of difficulty towards the player but doesn't have an obvious off switch... You get people asking for the ability to shut it off.
There was already entire threads on outright disabling the threat of reviving undead, digging creatures (and no, not JUST for their ability to create tunnels but their ability to actually land blows), and even just random death.
Mind you, it isn't like there arn't features I don't want toned down, but your going to get this constantly.
Also Mists are very harmless in Dwarf Fortress given the amount of time dwarves spend outdoors (may I add that "Cave adaption" is a thing). If anything it is a benefit to your fortress and can be used to take down siegers if your lucky.
Post by: EnigmaticHat on January 24, 2012, 08:53:18 pm
I don't know if this has been covered, butThey're easy to avoid.
Will it be possible for certain things (like the aforementioned yellow mist) to be disabled during worldgen?
Dont embark or adventure in evil regions.
Oddly enough for any feature that sets any amount of difficulty towards the player but doesn't have an obvious off switch... You get people asking for the ability to shut it off.
There was already entire threads on outright disabling the threat of reviving undead, digging creatures (and no, not JUST for their ability to create tunnels but their ability to actually land blows), and even just random death.
Mind you, it isn't like there arn't features I don't want toned down, but your going to get this constantly.
Also Mists are very harmless in Dwarf Fortress given the amount of time dwarves spend outdoors (may I add that "Cave adaption" is a thing). If anything it is a benefit to your fortress and can be used to take down siegers if your lucky.
What if you want to play a mod that strongly discourages digging? Or you're a modder with something specific in mind for evil regions? Or you just plain want to play an evil region and be able to go outside? Considering this is a game that is eventually supposed to let you an entirely underwater world, or start as a dragon, its a bit strange you're complaining about something that would give the player control over the setting of their game.
Not that I care specifically, the mists sound crazy entertaining. But if I were trying to make a mod set in a specific fictional universe or setting, it would be obnoxious to have mandatory syndrome clouds.
Post by: Greiger on January 24, 2012, 09:15:34 pm
Post by: Urist Da Vinci on January 24, 2012, 09:40:06 pm
To each their own vampires. (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Genestealer_Cult#.Tx9JXickqc0)
Taking a stab in the dark here:
Will it be possible to make a creature emit a 'mist' via modding?
This can already be done using the creature token [SECRETION:LOCAL_CREATURE_MAT:FLUID:GAS:BY_CATEGORY:ALL:SKIN] where FLUID is the material that you want to emit as a gas (refer to the cave blob raws).
Post by: NobodyPro on January 24, 2012, 10:39:13 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on January 24, 2012, 11:48:25 pm
That unfortunately causes a weird pulsing effect instead of the smoke/miasma look I'm thinking of.
It still does in fact make creatures emit clouds of whatever material -- it just needs more options, like a frequency parameter. Toady isn't going to tack on another system to do the same thing.
Post by: monk12 on January 24, 2012, 11:57:39 pm
Oooh, apparently when adventurers get ganked out in the middle of the woods, the game remembers where that happened so you can find it with a subsequent adventurer OR dwarves that will later embark there! That means we could have adventurers survey sites for future embarks, and leave presents and markers for those dwarves!
Post by: Kadzar on January 25, 2012, 12:10:42 am
Post by: Anatoli on January 25, 2012, 12:50:51 am
Step 1: Create a fort. Make a giant artificial "cave". Abandon.
Step 2: Mod yourself as a dragon.
Step 3: Steal stuff, and put it in a now abandoned fort. (bonus for making it hereditary.)
Step 4: Embark with an adventure party and fight yourself. (or reclaim)
Post by: hermes on January 25, 2012, 02:43:46 am
That means we could have adventurers survey sites for future embarks, and leave presents and markers for those dwarves!
Sweet idea. If my adventurer survives his initial assault on the city, he's going to immediately take on the role of lead scout for the dwarves. It's going to be like a fantasy Blood Meridian, the industrial dwarven revolution following a one-posse crime wave. Say, is scalping possible in DF?
Post by: Mechanoid on January 25, 2012, 04:04:22 am
Quote from: Toady One
01/24/2012
Lots of drop the spear, come back, get the spear today. And drop the backpack, leave, come back, see if there are still objects contained inside. You can now place a dagger, say, out in the woods far from any site and find it later on. Your adventurers that get jumped out in the wilderness will also have findable remains/objects that you can go grab in your next game or embark upon with your dwarves.
If items you drop in adventure mode stay where they're dropped even if you're killed, does this mean that items which are dropped in fortress mode stay EXACTLY where they're dropped if/when they're dropped at all? Does this mean that items being strewn over every tile of the embark area is now GONE from the fortress mode game?
Please, say yes.
I can't stand to think that you've done all this wonderful work improving items, getting them to stay put properly in adventure mode; but every time you abandon a fort it's like a giant robo-maid hit your fortress entry dead-on and vacuum-cleaner'd up the whole contents onto the surface, caves, and everywhere. :o
Post by: Caldfir on January 25, 2012, 05:20:44 am
If items you drop in adventure mode stay where they're dropped even if you're killed, does this mean that items which are dropped in fortress mode stay EXACTLY where they're dropped if/when they're dropped at all? Does this mean that items being strewn over every tile of the embark area is now GONE from the fortress mode game?That was never a bug or a limitation on tracking items. Items being strewn about was originally a feature to simulate your site being ransacked. Toady has admitted it sucks and needs improvement, but if he hasn't explicitly stated that it has been turned off then my money is that it hasn't.
Post by: MrWiggles on January 25, 2012, 05:35:19 am
I'm going to say the answer is a big ole no. I had the same thought too, but storing items in sites never seem to be a real issue, and your fort, is a site. The reason why item placement became Dev worthy, is because there /so/ many new items to keep track of that the old means to store this info were failing, and that apparently spilled into just remember where everything is, everywhere. Or there about.Quote from: Toady One01/24/2012
Lots of drop the spear, come back, get the spear today. And drop the backpack, leave, come back, see if there are still objects contained inside. You can now place a dagger, say, out in the woods far from any site and find it later on. Your adventurers that get jumped out in the wilderness will also have findable remains/objects that you can go grab in your next game or embark upon with your dwarves.
If items you drop in adventure mode stay where they're dropped even if you're killed, does this mean that items which are dropped in fortress mode stay EXACTLY where they're dropped if/when they're dropped at all? Does this mean that items being strewn over every tile of the embark area is now GONE from the fortress mode game?
Please, say yes.
I can't stand to think that you've done all this wonderful work improving items, getting them to stay put properly in adventure mode; but every time you abandon a fort it's like a giant robo-maid hit your fortress entry dead-on and vacuum-cleaner'd up the whole contents onto the surface, caves, and everywhere. :o
The Fort Mode reclaiming item scatter, is totally on purposeful, and has probably nothing to do with remembering where they're placed. As Toady said on a DF Talk, the item scatter was meant to mimic site degradation. Animals, and the weather moving crap around. I recall, Toady stating that he wasn't to happy with what it does. But it's here to stay, for now.
Post by: Neonivek on January 25, 2012, 05:37:07 am
What if
If that was ever the reason. It isn't.
I was simply saying that you are going to get that everytime.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 25, 2012, 09:28:39 am
If items you drop in adventure mode stay where they're dropped even if you're killed, does this mean that items which are dropped in fortress mode stay EXACTLY where they're dropped if/when they're dropped at all? Does this mean that items being strewn over every tile of the embark area is now GONE from the fortress mode game?That was never a bug or a limitation on tracking items. Items being strewn about was originally a feature to simulate your site being ransacked. Toady has admitted it sucks and needs improvement, but if he hasn't explicitly stated that it has been turned off then my money is that it hasn't.
Yup. Note that heavy items get moved little or at all -- despite being annoying, it's intended behavior.
Post by: MaskedMiner on January 25, 2012, 02:46:17 pm
Post by: Mechanoid on January 25, 2012, 03:56:52 pm
Yup. Note that heavy items get moved little or at all -- despite being annoying, it's intended behavior.
I know it's intended behavour for items at present to fly to the far corners of the embark site when you lose a fortress. I want to know if that feature is now gone, because here's this new feature that opens the possibility for actual adventure mode NPCs to do the moving-the-items-around bit ( 8) ) and do it more accurately/realistically then the current item-fling code does. It'd just be nice to taste the item location persistence that towns will get in abandoned fortresses; if you play a modded kobold adventurer and move all the nice items into a collection in a bedroom, the moment you lose a reclaim on that site it's going to go everywhere.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 25, 2012, 04:09:08 pm
I know it's intended behavour for items at present to fly to the far corners of the embark site when you lose a fortress. I want to know if that feature is now gone, because here's this new feature that opens the possibility for actual adventure mode NPCs to do the moving-the-items-around bit ( 8) ) and do it more accurately/realistically then the current item-fling code does.
That would be cool and all, but a new procedural scattering system is not something Toady's going to add to this release in the 11th hour. He could disable the current scattering by tweaking a single number -- that's what you should request if your target is the next version.
Incidentally scattering came up a while back: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.msg1377634#msg1377634)
Quote from: Toady One
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: Cabbagetroll on January 25, 2012, 09:42:03 pm
Post by: Anatoli on January 26, 2012, 12:27:40 am
I fixed a problem where the soldiers had become difficult to get into your party because of their high skills... conversation skills. It's odd when a high flattery skill leads to somebody talking down to you.
To be fair, it is not that odd that high conversation skills can lead to them refusing you.
One, a person with a high conversation should be able to see right through your nice words that you only want to lead them on a murderous rampage to use as a cannon meat.
Two, a person with high self-esteem (I can assume high conversation = higher self esteem) might want not to go with the first stranger they see. They might want to wait until someone better comes along, confident that they will be able to convince them that they will be allowed to join.
Post by: Dae on January 26, 2012, 01:06:28 am
By the way, nice shoes. You have feet built for kicking asses !"
Post by: Urist Da Vinci on January 26, 2012, 01:20:36 am
...
One, a person with a high conversation should be able to see right through your nice words that you only want to lead them on a murderous rampage to use as a cannon meat.
Two, a person with high self-esteem (I can assume high conversation = higher self esteem) might want not to go with the first stranger they see. They might want to wait until someone better comes along, confident that they will be able to convince them that they will be allowed to join.
See http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Personality_trait and http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Conversationalist
Post by: EddyP on January 26, 2012, 01:32:27 am
Post by: Putnam on January 26, 2012, 01:44:39 am
Toady, I'm glad that you're testing thoroughly, butreleasethenewversionalreadypleaseIbegyou.
Trust me, you don't want him to do that.
The big releases are nearly unplayable even with all the rigorous testing that Toady and ThreeToe do; after all, they are just two men testing the mammoth of interconnecting frameworks and stuff that this game is. Expect at least 6 bugfix releases soon after the first release of the new version.
Post by: Spish on January 26, 2012, 02:27:50 am
Post by: EddyP on January 26, 2012, 02:50:12 am
Toady, I'm glad that you're testing thoroughly, butreleasethenewversionalreadypleaseIbegyou.
Trust me, you don't want him to do that.
The big releases are nearly unplayable even with all the rigorous testing that Toady and ThreeToe do; after all, they are just two men testing the mammoth of interconnecting frameworks and stuff that this game is. Expect at least 6 bugfix releases soon after the first release of the new version.
Yeah, I was around for DF2010. But as I see it, whatever he does there will be bugs galore; when he releases it, rather than two men testing the game, there'll be hundreds.
Post by: Johuotar on January 26, 2012, 03:33:12 am
Post by: MrWiggles on January 26, 2012, 04:32:28 am
Does this mean fortress item scattering will be toned down in the next release? Just curious.Asked on the previous page.
Answer, no. Expanded answer, on the previous page.
Post by: Rafal99 on January 26, 2012, 06:41:46 am
Toady, I'm glad that you're testing thoroughly, butreleasethenewversionalreadypleaseIbegyou.
Patience.
Let Toady finish the planned map maintenance issues. He has to do them eventually and since it affects how game remembers placed items, I bet it also breaks save compatibility. So it is better to have it done now than later.
Post by: Kogut on January 26, 2012, 08:56:08 am
Question: are there any plans to implement a feature that will allow mass "Trade" designations, similar to the "Dump" and "Forbid" functions (d->b->T, perhaps)? This would sure make moving all those +green glass goblets+ a much less monotonous task.No.
Post by: werechicken on January 26, 2012, 09:27:31 am
Should be fun!
Post by: Doomshifter on January 26, 2012, 11:18:53 am
super powdered fish
A forgotten beast has arrived! An enormous fish, composed entirely of powder! Beware its texture!
Post by: werechicken on January 26, 2012, 01:37:23 pm
I was actually talking about carp, in the older games they had the can learn tag and all became legendary swimmers and as such slaughtered dwarfs like they were pottery lawn ornaments.super powdered fish
A forgotten beast has arrived! An enormous fish, composed entirely of powder! Beware its texture!
Post by: Anatoli on January 26, 2012, 04:51:12 pm
Don't see your point....See http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Personality_trait and http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Conversationalist
One, a person with a high conversation should be able to see right through your nice words that you only want to lead them on a murderous rampage to use as a cannon meat.
Two, a person with high self-esteem (I can assume high conversation = higher self esteem) might want not to go with the first stranger they see. They might want to wait until someone better comes along, confident that they will be able to convince them that they will be allowed to join.
Here's my guess: The stuff I said somehow goes outside the current established framework. But DF is going for something more realistic. Also, Toady himself said that current personality system sucks.
What I wanted to say, is that I don't see a problem with a high NPC trait reflecting negatively on you. Probably the way Toady encountered it, it sucks, but the concept is interesting.
Post by: Caldfir on January 26, 2012, 05:29:05 pm
...I think the change was done more because it made recruiting soldiers much harder than it should be as a game mechanic. If the simulation is accurately tracking conversation skills, then invariably you're going to be running into heaps of worldgen individuals who are "legendary consolers" or whatever, and that just makes it arbitrary and hard to understand from the player's perspective. If there was some way to tell who had great social skills and who didn't it would make sense, but without that you just have potential party members turning you down with no observable cause.
What I wanted to say, is that I don't see a problem with a high NPC trait reflecting negatively on you. Probably the way Toady encountered it, it sucks, but the concept is interesting.
In any case, this sort of thing is doubtless going to get revisited in the personality rewrite.
Post by: Lord Shonus on January 26, 2012, 05:48:46 pm
Then you should have used the phrase "super-powered," not "super-powdered".I was actually talking about carp, in the older games they had the can learn tag and all became legendary swimmers and as such slaughtered dwarfs like they were pottery lawn ornaments.super powdered fish
A forgotten beast has arrived! An enormous fish, composed entirely of powder! Beware its texture!
Post by: empfan on January 26, 2012, 05:55:50 pm
Post by: G-Flex on January 26, 2012, 06:08:51 pm
EDIT: Oh, wait, you mean the Dungeon Master. I have no idea.
Post by: trees on January 26, 2012, 06:20:47 pm
Quote from: FootkerchiefDoes the Justice revamping mean that the bug with baron-appointed nobles e.g. the hammerer will be fixed?
The hammerer was fixed. The dungeon master is still in limbo.
Post by: monk12 on January 26, 2012, 07:39:37 pm
Post by: thvaz on January 26, 2012, 07:49:01 pm
Post by: Quatch on January 26, 2012, 08:29:22 pm
Question: are there any plans to implement a feature that will allow mass "Trade" designations, similar to the "Dump" and "Forbid" functions (d->b->T, perhaps)? This would sure make moving all those +green glass goblets+ a much less monotonous task.
You can make trading easier on yourself with a macro. Try recording a macro of <enter>, <down>. Then assign that to one key, which you can now hold down to keep selecting more things in the trade screen. You could also have a macro which does multiple down+enter, for say 10 items at a time.
Post by: O11O1 on January 26, 2012, 11:51:23 pm
Question: are there any plans to implement a feature that will allow mass "Trade" designations, similar to the "Dump" and "Forbid" functions (d->b->T, perhaps)? This would sure make moving all those +green glass goblets+ a much less monotonous task.
You can make trading easier on yourself with a macro. Try recording a macro of <enter>, <down>. Then assign that to one key, which you can now hold down to keep selecting more things in the trade screen. You could also have a macro which does multiple down+enter, for say 10 items at a time.
Handy as that trick is, Bins are also massively helpful.
He does have a point though, being able to just mass select my craft goods warehouse and have my swarms of haulers just decend on them in about 5-6 keystrokes.... would be very nice.
Post by: MrWiggles on January 26, 2012, 11:53:11 pm
Well, we probably wont see this get touched until all the world gen trade stuff is incorporated into Fort Mode.Question: are there any plans to implement a feature that will allow mass "Trade" designations, similar to the "Dump" and "Forbid" functions (d->b->T, perhaps)? This would sure make moving all those +green glass goblets+ a much less monotonous task.
You can make trading easier on yourself with a macro. Try recording a macro of <enter>, <down>. Then assign that to one key, which you can now hold down to keep selecting more things in the trade screen. You could also have a macro which does multiple down+enter, for say 10 items at a time.
Handy as that trick is, Bins are also massively helpful.
He does have a point though, being able to just mass select my craft goods warehouse and have my swarms of haulers just decend on them in about 5-6 keystrokes.... would be very nice.
Post by: zwei on January 27, 2012, 02:23:08 am
Question: are there any plans to implement a feature that will allow mass "Trade" designations, similar to the "Dump" and "Forbid" functions (d->b->T, perhaps)? This would sure make moving all those +green glass goblets+ a much less monotonous task.
You can make trading easier on yourself with a macro. Try recording a macro of <enter>, <down>. Then assign that to one key, which you can now hold down to keep selecting more things in the trade screen. You could also have a macro which does multiple down+enter, for say 10 items at a time.
Handy as that trick is, Bins are also massively helpful.
He does have a point though, being able to just mass select my craft goods warehouse and have my swarms of haulers just decend on them in about 5-6 keystrokes.... would be very nice.
Picking goods for sale is not problem - easily macroed; bins are indeed very helpfull, select goods to trade screen allows you to search by string and filter by type.
But picking goods for purchase is. You have look carefully through list of available items instead of blindly selecting everything which can be real pain in the ass. There is no way to sort or search goods list. Anyone who traded for steel items to melt can attest to that.
Post by: Caldfir on January 27, 2012, 03:47:05 am
Post by: Areyar on January 27, 2012, 08:33:23 am
Post by: Rafal99 on January 27, 2012, 08:42:00 am
<quote pyramid>
Picking goods for sale is not problem - easily macroed; bins are indeed very helpfull, select goods to trade screen allows you to search by string and filter by type.
But picking goods for purchase is. You have look carefully through list of available items instead of blindly selecting everything which can be real pain in the ass. There is no way to sort or search goods list. Anyone who traded for steel items to melt can attest to that.
Yeah it is big problem for me too, takes so much careful looking to find the items you want.
Even worse for items with long names because you need to (v)iew each of them so see exactly what kind of item it is.
A filter option like in "Bring items to depot" screen would be great help. Hopefully Toady will get to it one day...
I even added related item to Eternal Suggestions Vote but it seems that idea is mostly discontinued.
Post by: Putnam on January 27, 2012, 06:37:26 pm
I've been having some trouble with dwarves not seing what is inside bins though. :(
I think that's fixed next version, along with only being able to buy whole stacks.
Post by: m4davis on January 27, 2012, 07:48:32 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on January 27, 2012, 08:47:53 pm
With necromancy in the next release can we expect it to be built upon more in future releases such as being able to reanimate your hand and reattach it
Necromancy , and the other new proto magic stuff will get expanded upon, when the need arises in future updates.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 27, 2012, 09:45:53 pm
I am getting IRL mocked for how often I'm refreshing /dwarves
Post by: tfaal on January 27, 2012, 09:52:51 pm
Post by: Putnam on January 27, 2012, 10:01:39 pm
God damnit I've got a serious feeling that the release is nigh but for all I know there are dozens of misc issues left.
I am getting IRL mocked for how often I'm refreshing /dwarves
You know it's coming when Footkerchief is getting worked up about it :P
Post by: G-Flex on January 27, 2012, 10:13:52 pm
God damnit I've got a serious feeling that the release is nigh but for all I know there are dozens of misc issues left.
You make it sound like these are mutually exclusive possibilities.
Post by: Malt_Hitman on January 27, 2012, 10:33:45 pm
Quote from: ThreeToe
I caught a vampire too. A fisher-dwarf accused the expedition leader, who I knew was innocent of course. So I had my sheriff drag the fisher-dwarf to the dungeon. I had no hammer, so he had to wait to be executed while we forged one. After 50 hammer strikes I knew I was right, because he lived.
Did anyone else get a "We're going to execute you because God will protect you if you're innocent." vibe from this? It just struck me as funny that Dwarven justice is about proving that someone is guilty if they can take an obscene punishment and survive it.
Post by: Dae on January 27, 2012, 11:13:41 pm
Will it be out tonight ? Will it be out tomorrow ? I can't take the wait any longer !
Post by: NobodyPro on January 27, 2012, 11:57:20 pm
Did anyone else get a "We're going to execute you because God will protect you if you're innocent." vibe from this? It just struck me as funny that Dwarven justice is about proving that someone is guilty if they can take an obscene punishment and survive it.I thought that surviving the hammer proved that he was guilty?
Post by: 612DwarfAvenue on January 28, 2012, 12:07:05 am
Did anyone else get a "We're going to execute you because God will protect you if you're innocent." vibe from this? It just struck me as funny that Dwarven justice is about proving that someone is guilty if they can take an obscene punishment and survive it.I thought that surviving the hammer proved that he was guilty?
He survived even after 50 strikes, he's gotta be a Vampire. That's what i thought it meant.
Damnit, i'm getting all giddy now, thinking of the modding possibilites that the new release will open up...
Post by: EmeraldWind on January 28, 2012, 02:16:24 am
If they sink and drown, they beDid anyone else get a "We're going to execute you because God will protect you if you're innocent." vibe from this? It just struck me as funny that Dwarven justice is about proving that someone is guilty if they can take an obscene punishment and survive it.I thought that surviving the hammer proved that he was guilty?
He survived even after 50 strikes, he's gotta be a Vampire. That's what i thought it meant.
Damnit, i'm getting all giddy now, thinking of the modding possibilites that the new release will open up...
If they float and live, they be
Post by: rhesusmacabre on January 28, 2012, 02:28:40 am
And let's not forget:
A hammering is difficult to survive, but should it happen, then the punishment is served and the community naively assumes the convict is reformed. It's reasonably silly as things stand, and we'll have to do more in the future.
Post by: Organum on January 28, 2012, 02:49:24 am
Post by: drvoke on January 28, 2012, 03:42:12 am
Post by: Keldane on January 28, 2012, 04:50:23 am
With enough creative social engineering, could we end up with a Vampire Fortress?
I'm pretty sure it's been said that it's possible. A repeating spike trap in the middle of a food stockpile set to only accept prepared meals and no barrels with the vampire burrowed on the spike might spatter blood all over your food, which has been confirmed (I believe) to spread vampirism among your dwarves. Alternatively, drop vampires from great heights into your food stockpile so they explode on impact. You lose the dwarf, but when the food gets eaten, you get more.
Post by: FoiledFencer on January 28, 2012, 05:18:05 am
Post by: Glanzor on January 28, 2012, 06:29:27 am
Post by: NobodyPro on January 28, 2012, 06:51:30 am
Post by: Capntastic on January 28, 2012, 06:54:39 am
God damnit I've got a serious feeling that the release is nigh but for all I know there are dozens of misc issues left.
I am getting IRL mocked for how often I'm refreshing /dwarves
Just get some graph paper and make plans. Every time you fill a page, and not a square before, refresh.
Post by: MasterMorality on January 28, 2012, 07:01:55 am
Post by: BinaryBeast1010011010 on January 28, 2012, 07:28:51 am
Please great toady make it one week, in Paris I have no way to download it... If I can get it before going back to this
Hellish city I"ll bless the 1z level fall in the stairs that kept me stuck at home...
Post by: Dae on January 28, 2012, 10:11:02 am
If I can get it before going back to this Hellish city I"ll bless the 1z level fall in the stairs that kept me stuck at home...
Ah, I see you too have lived there for a while. My condolences.
Finding a wifi hotspot shouldn't be too hard though, just enter a McDonalds or something.
Post by: BinaryBeast1010011010 on January 28, 2012, 12:20:18 pm
Post by: Niveras on January 28, 2012, 12:23:57 pm
With enough creative social engineering, could we end up with a Vampire Fortress?
I'm pretty sure it's been said that it's possible. A repeating spike trap in the middle of a food stockpile set to only accept prepared meals and no barrels with the vampire burrowed on the spike might spatter blood all over your food...
Can you even have a stockpile over a building? I don't think you could stick a trap immediately under a stockpile.
However, you could have a repeating spike trap just prior to the stockpile and maybe vampires will bleed over the food. Maybe also with high traffic zones that are spiked alternating with the food stockpiles.
Post by: Greiger on January 28, 2012, 12:38:46 pm
So close I can taste it!, Here's hoping for tonight so I can use my whole day off to play with it. I'll probably play it for maybe 20 minutes before my modding urge kicks in. I predict the modding forum will become very very busy soon.
Post by: Keldane on January 28, 2012, 02:17:31 pm
I'm pretty sure it's been said that it's possible. A repeating spike trap in the middle of a food stockpile set to only accept prepared meals and no barrels with the vampire burrowed on the spike might spatter blood all over your food...
Can you even have a stockpile over a building? I don't think you could stick a trap immediately under a stockpile.
However, you could have a repeating spike trap just prior to the stockpile and maybe vampires will bleed over the food. Maybe also with high traffic zones that are spiked alternating with the food stockpiles.
I was picturing designating a small food stockpile, then removing the center and building the spike trap there. The hope was you'd get some spatter, and that bleeding creatures that moved away would spread their blood over the food they walked across.
Post by: Spish on January 28, 2012, 04:35:48 pm
Post by: Neonivek on January 28, 2012, 04:45:13 pm
Now that everyone is a historical figure, will worldgen beasts target low-life peasants when rampaging? (As opposed to singling out famous people and ignoring everyone else)
Not answering your question but I think that will change once Rampages are Rampages involving many people and objects.
Right now Rampages seem to be Godzilla quietly walking into Tokyo, biting the leg off of one reporter... then creeping off again without a sound.
Post by: Sunday on January 28, 2012, 06:06:29 pm
Now that everyone is a historical figure, will worldgen beasts target low-life peasants when rampaging? (As opposed to singling out famous people and ignoring everyone else)
Not answering your question but I think that will change once Rampages are Rampages involving many people and objects.
Right now Rampages seem to be Godzilla quietly walking into Tokyo, biting the leg off of one reporter... then creeping off again without a sound.
Ha ha. Classic.
I always imagined rampages as being more the Grendel sort of attack (particularly as modeled in the book, rather than Beowulf, where it's a bit more ambiguous exactly what a Grendel-attack entails). And Grendel himself seems to map on almost perfectly to night creatures. . .
Post by: Neonivek on January 28, 2012, 06:59:27 pm
Post by: Sunday on January 28, 2012, 07:16:45 pm
Anyway, I'm sure you're right and it'll get changed eventually to make a little more sense.
Oh my god, I've been refreshing way too often today. I'm guessing I'm overly excited about this, since probably it won't be released for a week or three (that's what I'm going to tell myself, at least, so I don't get too excited). But jeez, I want to play the new version. I really hope ThreeToe's speed increases translate to my computer as well—my forts usually slow to 40-60 FPS after 4 or 5 years at 100 popcap, and I'd love to be able to keep a fort for 10-15 years at a reasonable FPS.
Post by: tfaal on January 28, 2012, 09:21:04 pm
Post by: Urist Da Vinci on January 29, 2012, 01:03:35 am
Quote
More sponsorship tests -- retracted into my giant tortoise shell and let a tapir kick at me for a while and various other silliness. Fixed another crash bug that Zach found when he was being attacked by his animated refuse stockpile. More generally, he's got an issue list that is growing while I chip away at it. It's a process.
Tortoisemen, if they occur, should be hilarious to encounter. I wonder if they would stuff their arms, legs, and head into a shell?
Post by: Rose on January 29, 2012, 01:11:48 am
Post by: FoiledFencer on January 29, 2012, 04:01:44 am
Do toirtoisemen wear colored bandanas?
Are they perhaps 'cool but rude'?
Post by: NobodyPro on January 29, 2012, 04:45:07 am
A quick inspection of other civilizations in that world shows a similar pattern.
EDIT: Question removed for two reasons:
1. No one can kill hags/trolls outside of duels right now.
2. Kings were mentioned as overly-common candidates for necromancer training in the devlog. Similar problem.
Post by: JamCat on January 29, 2012, 05:11:09 am
Post by: abadidea on January 29, 2012, 01:14:17 pm
my forts usually slow to 40-60 FPS after 4 or 5 years at 100 popcap
My 3 FPS
Let me show you it :-X
Okay so I realized the other day that I have actually been running the SAME FORT for the nearly-a-year since the last release. I haven't had as much time to play as I used to, pesky growing up, but it has many years into it. Fortunately I upgraded to a machine with a bit more oomph and I have been meticulously avoiding things I have found to be FPS drains in the past so it's still up around 19FPS during normal circumstances.
When the new version comes out, I will respectfully retire Obeyrang as equal in fame and glory to my long-running 40d Paddlecolumns which was ended by the Great April Fools Launch of 2010. :D
Post by: Neonivek on January 29, 2012, 02:37:47 pm
Will the frequency of beast rampages ever be nerfed. My current world's Dwarven civilisation has had 248 leaders over 250 years. Two of which starved to death. The rest were killed by night hags and gloom trolls.
A quick inspection of other civilizations in that world shows a similar pattern.
You kidding? Sometimes It feels like Rampages should occur more often then once every 4 years. What do they do in the mean time?
The issues with Important people are as follows.
A) The game doesn't project how "defended" or "unobtainable" a character would be. While a king COULD be taken (there are certainly stories of kings being ambushed by thugs) it should be very unlikely and the King's entourage should scare attackers away or even injure/slay them.
B) The Non-historical figures are not a valid target. Inspite of the fact that they should consist of the majority of the casualties.
-I think it is just somewhat of a placeholder. So during a dragon rampage it will kill dozens of unimportant peasants but the important part would be the historical figure.
Hmm can't think of a C.
Post by: SirPenguin on January 29, 2012, 03:11:32 pm
god damnit.
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 29, 2012, 04:10:30 pm
Post by: Owlbread on January 29, 2012, 04:17:31 pm
Post by: Organum on January 29, 2012, 06:26:21 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on January 29, 2012, 06:48:17 pm
Post by: Niccolo on January 29, 2012, 07:27:28 pm
I predict the new version will come out within the first few days of February. Possibly 1/2/12.
I predict that by saying that, you have doomed us all.
Although I sincerely hope you are correct.
Post by: orius on January 29, 2012, 09:00:01 pm
I predict the new version will come out within the first few days of February. Possibly 1/2/12.
Groundhog Day, eh? If it doesn't come out, will we have to wait six more weeks? ;)
Post by: EmeraldWind on January 29, 2012, 09:26:57 pm
I predict the new version will come out within the first few days of February. Possibly 1/2/12.
Groundhog Day, eh? If it doesn't come out, will we have to wait six more weeks? ;)
Groundhog's Day is Feb 2.
Post by: Putnam on January 29, 2012, 09:28:40 pm
I predict the new version will come out within the first few days of February. Possibly 1/2/12.
Groundhog Day, eh? If it doesn't come out, will we have to wait six more weeks? ;)
Groundhog's Day is Feb 2.
Which is 2/2/12, but americans go by the weird MM/DD/YYYY system.
Post by: bombzero on January 29, 2012, 09:31:18 pm
I predict the new version will come out within the first few days of February. Possibly 1/2/12.
Groundhog Day, eh? If it doesn't come out, will we have to wait six more weeks? ;)
Groundhog's Day is Feb 2.
Which is 2/2/12, but americans go by the weird MM/DD/YYYY system.
i believe that comes from say... January 1st 2012. aka MM/DD/YYYY.
however, much to the annoyance looking over anything i wrote in the past, i alternate between the two popular systems sometimes.
Post by: PTTG?? on January 29, 2012, 09:46:36 pm
I predict the new version will come out within the first few days of February. Possibly 1/2/12.
Groundhog Day, eh? If it doesn't come out, will we have to wait six more weeks? ;)
No, but he'll re-release the same version thousands of times.
Post by: Greiger on January 29, 2012, 10:08:13 pm
Post by: veok on January 29, 2012, 11:18:20 pm
Quote from: ToadyOne
Generally, a body part can be assigned any number of extra items in the creature definition to drop upon being butchered.
And suddenly, we can have Genesis Balrogs dropping their actual weapons when their arms get butchered.
Among other things. ;D
Post by: Jacob/Lee on January 29, 2012, 11:20:28 pm
Post by: monk12 on January 29, 2012, 11:21:08 pm
Quote from: ToadyOneGenerally, a body part can be assigned any number of extra items in the creature definition to drop upon being butchered.
And suddenly, we can have Genesis Balrogs dropping their actual weapons when their arms get butchered.
Among other things. ;D
Yeah, that should be interesting. I bet this'll come in handy when he gets around to the "swords for arms" constructed night creatures, too.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 29, 2012, 11:33:28 pm
Quote from: devlog
Various animals root around in the dirt and eat bugs for your viewing pleasure.
The fact that this was specifically noted, along with it being just bugs and not vermin in general, makes me wonder if it's done via HUNTS_VERMIN (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Creature_tokens) or something new.
Post by: monk12 on January 29, 2012, 11:44:48 pm
Quote from: devlogVarious animals root around in the dirt and eat bugs for your viewing pleasure.
The fact that this was specifically noted, along with it being just bugs and not vermin in general, makes me wonder if it's done via HUNTS_VERMIN (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Creature_tokens) or something new.
Good question- my personal bet is that it is a new thing, maybe an interaction of some sort. This is based solely on the fact that he mentioned "your viewing pleasure," which leads me to imagine, say, chickens scratching up the grass in a tile. Should be exciting.
In other news, another day of sponsorship stuff, and then... well, I suppose it depends how many horrible crashes and terrible things Threetoe found/is finding. 2-2 is looking like a good bet, which would make me happy since that would be perfectly timed for my days off. My luck, it'll get put off until the 5th, at which point I'll have to choose between DF and adequate sleep.
Post by: orius on January 30, 2012, 12:26:23 am
I predict the new version will come out within the first few days of February. Possibly 1/2/12.
Groundhog Day, eh? If it doesn't come out, will we have to wait six more weeks? ;)
Groundhog's Day is Feb 2.
Ah, in my haste to make yet another clever remark I misread that. That looks like January 1, but since January is almost over, my brain skipped to the next month.
Post by: bombzero on January 30, 2012, 12:28:21 am
I predict the new version will come out within the first few days of February. Possibly 1/2/12.
Groundhog Day, eh? If it doesn't come out, will we have to wait six more weeks? ;)
Groundhog's Day is Feb 2.
Ah, in my haste to make yet another clever remark I misread that. That looks like January 1, but since January is almost over, my brain skipped to the next month.
i got severe Deja vu about this post for some reason... wtf.
Post by: EddyP on January 30, 2012, 12:37:31 am
Post by: Sizik on January 30, 2012, 02:09:07 am
Post by: orius on January 30, 2012, 02:24:34 am
Post by: Cruxador on January 30, 2012, 04:28:19 am
No real need. There's already a ton of cash in adventure mode and not much to spend it on. At least needing food will help drain off some of that cash.The new shops will give us better a better ability to spend money too. Probably not enough that we'll covet coinage, but it should help a bit. Once we get sites and livestock become available we'll have a boundless cash-sink to boot. We can be ranchers.
*first two weeks
Post by: Doomshifter on January 30, 2012, 04:51:50 am
On that note...
Are there any plans to have 'custom order' type stores, where you supply the materials and money and receive an item made from it, like, say, a tooth amulet kept as a trophy, or a dragon hide armour?
I know you can do this stuff with reactions already, but, puh-leese, it's not legit till it's vanilla.
Post by: DG on January 30, 2012, 05:37:25 am
Quote from: devlogVarious animals root around in the dirt and eat bugs for your viewing pleasure.
The fact that this was specifically noted, along with it being just bugs and not vermin in general, makes me wonder if it's done via HUNTS_VERMIN (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Creature_tokens) or something new.
Good question- my personal bet is that it is a new thing, maybe an interaction of some sort. This is based solely on the fact that he mentioned "your viewing pleasure," which leads me to imagine, say, chickens scratching up the grass in a tile. Should be exciting.
I interpreted it as meaning that if you cut open a creatures gizzard you could see what was inside and undigested. The average adventurer on these forums is more likely to derive viewing pleasure from that.
Post by: Knight Otu on January 30, 2012, 06:18:36 am
Post by: KillerClowns on January 30, 2012, 08:34:04 am
"Gastrolith obligation"? Mang, now I feel guilty mentioning them.
Also, I think that Toady One was the first person in human history to put those two words together in a sentence.
Post by: nenjin on January 30, 2012, 08:35:44 am
But with Mike Mayday switching over to an ASCII-based tileset because:
Quote
Toady keeps adding new items, objects etc. without support for more symbols for them. Unfortunately, this was making DFG more and more of a mess.
Is there anything reasonable that could be done to help those making graphical tilesets keep up with Toady's development? I know that spending time supporting 3rd party applications, graphics least of all, isn't a road Toady wants to walk down. I'm just trying to get a handle on the issue. Because some tile set makers will be willing to put in the effort, some won't, some things might be out of their reach due to limitations....but anything small that could make their lives easier would be excellent.
Post by: zwei on January 30, 2012, 08:53:07 am
Is there anything reasonable that could be done to help those making graphical tilesets keep up with Toady's development? I know that spending time supporting 3rd party applications, graphics least of all, isn't a road Toady wants to walk down. I'm just trying to get a handle on the issue. Because some tile set makers will be willing to put in the effort, some won't, some things might be out of their reach due to limitations....but anything small that could make their lives easier would be excellent.
Other than ability to have more than 256 tiles for enviroment and items, nothing.
Mayday and others are running into problems because they rain into inherent issue of tilesets: some symbols are shared between different object (stair - bin - archery target - status mark - for example). As Toady adds more things that need symbols, it will be more and more problematic to make realistic looking tileset.
He could make those symbols all rawable the same way as creatues graphics are are rawable:
[ITEM:BIN:items.png:25]
Post by: Neonivek on January 30, 2012, 08:55:56 am
For now.
Mind you I can't think of many money sinks that could exist in Dwarf Fortress.
Post by: hermes on January 30, 2012, 09:09:23 am
Is there anything reasonable that could be done to help those making graphical tilesets keep up with Toady's development? I know that spending time supporting 3rd party applications, graphics least of all, isn't a road Toady wants to walk down. I'm just trying to get a handle on the issue. Because some tile set makers will be willing to put in the effort, some won't, some things might be out of their reach due to limitations....but anything small that could make their lives easier would be excellent.
Other than ability to have more than 256 tiles for enviroment and items, nothing.
Mayday and others are running into problems because they rain into inherent issue of tilesets: some symbols are shared between different object (stair - bin - archery target - status mark - for example). As Toady adds more things that need symbols, it will be more and more problematic to make realistic looking tileset.
He could make those symbols all rawable the same way as creatues graphics are are rawable:
[ITEM:BIN:items.png:25]
This would all be totally reasonable to expect provided there were no procedurally generated objects or creatures. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that with the new release we might see the beginnings of both these - materials and night creatures. I think the night creatures might be drawn from a set pattern, as Toady already described the set colourings of each type, but I guess it's possible to expect further randomization in the future?
i.e. If Toady ever wants to have creatures or materials with random names and appearances, the very idea of a specific graphical tileset becomes quite a tricky thing to handle.
Man the wait is killing me. I'm considering starting Adventuring in the current release just to get warmed up and reacquainted with the controls.
Post by: nenjin on January 30, 2012, 09:31:55 am
Post by: Knight Otu on January 30, 2012, 09:50:55 am
Quote
Rainseeker: Because your game is ASCII, and ASCII is probably the most fun graphical representation of a game I've ever played. It's definitely old school ... but I think that the complexity of your game totally overwhelms even noticing it's ASCII after a while. Macbeth asked this interesting question; 'As the project gets more complex do you expect that these ASCII character sets won't be able to support the detail you're adding? What are your plans for displaying that information?'
Toady: It's already at that point, if you've seen the elves versus elephants or goblins versus goats or whatever issues come up ...
Rainseeker: 'Why are those elephants shooting arrows at me? I don't understand!'
Toady: And there are methods of getting around that to some extent, but eventually you hit a wall. You saw with world generation recently the human sprawl I went with lines and whatever the letter is called (ć) when you put an 'a' and an 'e' together for the hill farms, and eventually your bag runs out of ... bag stuff ...
Rainseeker: Tricks.
Toady: There's no more tricks in the bags, no more little characters in the bag. And so then you hit that point where you're like 'do you just go over to a tileset at that point? Do you experiment with Unicode stuff? If you add just a new IBM codepage r256 grid characters or whatever ...' If we add another grid of characters that look promising and just stick with that, that's kind of counterproductive in a way, because once you jump up beyond 256 you're free to move about the country at that point and go up to 65'000 or millions or whatever the rewrite entails. At the same time there's something to be said for the ASCII mode of the game, which I like because I can develop it quickly and I don't have to ... Zach and I drawing is not the same as other people drawing ... or maybe the problem is it's the same as other people drawing who aren't artists. And we can't use other people's tilesets without worrying about legal business, and more so not just legal business but ongoing development; if we've got a tileset then are there release delays when we wait for new pictures, or if a person drawing a tileset bails do we try and find somebody that can draw in the same style as they do, or does it become some kind of hellish hybrid of different art styles. It's difficult when we don't have an employee that we can employ for several years, or a person who will stick with the project. People stick with the project, like Baughn's been helping us for quite a long time, but what happens? If Baughn leaves, I do have some trouble with linux and mac support and so on, and other people can help with that, and I'm not sure graphics is the same way where someone can just step in and do the exact same thing, although artists are talented and there's probably someone who can do that, but I don't know if I can count on that or not. Then there's the legal question, I don't know how to do that properly; I have to make sure I can find someone I can trust who isn't going to lift a glyph from Nintendo without me noticing. So there're a lot of questions, it's not completely ruled out, but there're a lot of questions. The other method would be just to add another 256 characters if I don't just go with some Unicode font or something. And in a sense there's a charm at least with the vanilla, of adding just another 256 characters, because it's an extension that's required, but it still sticks within the same kind of poetic form. But there's going to be like seven people that agree with that assessment and a whole crapload of people that are like 'what the hell are you thinking?' So we're kind of there in a sense ... not super pressing at least, not anymore pressing than adding graphics to the game always was with running out of characters to display the information. But it's certainly already hit that wall in several places, and it's only filling it out more as time goes on.
Post by: nenjin on January 30, 2012, 10:11:56 am
Post by: Footkerchief on January 30, 2012, 10:38:54 am
Quote from: Toady One
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.
Both Knight Otu's quote and mine are from 2010. It's way overdue to get some attention.
He could make those symbols all rawable the same way as creatues graphics are are rawable:
[ITEM:BIN:items.png:25]
That is roughly what it'd look like, yeah. It doesn't need anything qualitatively different from the creature graphics support.
This would all be totally reasonable to expect provided there were no procedurally generated objects or creatures. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that with the new release we might see the beginnings of both these - materials and night creatures. I think the night creatures might be drawn from a set pattern, as Toady already described the set colourings of each type, but I guess it's possible to expect further randomization in the future?
i.e. If Toady ever wants to have creatures or materials with random names and appearances, the very idea of a specific graphical tileset becomes quite a tricky thing to handle.
The procedural creatures definitely don't lend themselves to simple graphics support, but vanilla DF will always have stock creatures, probably as a solid majority of the creatures in the game.
Procedurally generated item types would have similar problems, but AFAIK the game doesn't have any yet. Procedural materials are fine since the only material attribute that really matters for graphical purposes is the color, which random materials will always have. That color can be applied to grayscale item graphics (just like the current item glyphs).
Post by: zwei on January 30, 2012, 12:20:42 pm
The procedural creatures definitely don't lend themselves to simple graphics support, but vanilla DF will always have stock creatures, probably as a solid majority of the creatures in the game.
Procedurally generated item types would have similar problems, but AFAIK the game doesn't have any yet. Procedural materials are fine since the only material attribute that really matters for graphical purposes is the color, which random materials will always have. That color can be applied to grayscale item graphics (just like the current item glyphs).
However, proceduraly generated creatures and items have designated meta-tile anyway, so something like this is possible:
[CREATURE_SPECIAL:NIGHT:creatures.png.... etc...
I think people are willing to put up with all of them being ń or ň or ń or whatever anyway if pipes can look like pipes and beehives look like beehives.
And materials can ideed be shown by just color. Any of 256^3 colors in fact.
Post by: Neonivek on January 30, 2012, 12:34:09 pm
Well... There goes a few of my friends... Dang!
Ohh well. It may take a few months or years but eventually we will get graphical support
Though even Toady is getting close to the point where he is going to have to find new ways to represent things on screen outside of straight up ASCII.
Post by: Sizik on January 30, 2012, 12:54:07 pm
And materials can ideed be shown by just color. Any of 256^3 colors in fact.
Although due to the way the game works, you can only show 265^0.5 colors.
Post by: Neonivek on January 30, 2012, 12:57:27 pm
And materials can ideed be shown by just color. Any of 256^3 colors in fact.
Although due to the way the game works, you can only show 265^0.5 colors.
16 colors huh? Not that much
Post by: Footkerchief on January 30, 2012, 01:09:59 pm
Although due to the way the game works, you can only show 265^0.5 colors.
16 colors huh? Not that much
Yeah: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg871132#msg871132)
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: FootkerchiefWill the next version display proper material colors for all items? In last year's raws preview, mineral raws still had a DISPLAY_COLOR tag, but that seems seriously obsolete. I did find a dev log reference (several weeks before the preview) to "color/symbol stuff for items/buildings made from materials," so I'm not sure what the deal is.
I don't get "proper" here. Do you mean RGB colors? The stuff being fed through the grid system rather than the creature tile system is still heavily constrained. I don't expect that to be handled until item display gets decoupled from the font tiles. If you mean using the 16 color approximation to the RGB material color, then it should use that for items. Minerals can still be weird because when they are a wall, you can't rely on the material's color, as background colors come up.
Post by: nenjin on January 30, 2012, 01:43:45 pm
Post by: Owlbread on January 30, 2012, 01:54:32 pm
I guess I'm just kind of shaken by Mike Mayday's decision, along with thinking about the wheelbarrows full of new content in this release that tilesets would like to represent. I started DF with Mayday and his is one of the pillars of the Tileset scene. So when he's reached the point where he feels like he can't keep working around the problem, it makes us graphical folks all angsty.
I don't really enjoy DF without the graphical mods. I'm shameless in admitting that to me, vanilla DF looks like someone has vomited alphabet soup everywhere. Has Mr. Mayday completely given up or is he just shifting his format to something slightly different?
Post by: Footkerchief on January 30, 2012, 02:06:33 pm
So when he's reached the point where he feels like he can't keep working around the problem, it makes us graphical folks all angsty.
I think he's partly doing it to draw awareness to the fact that graphics support is long overdue. All of the ESV items have been slipping for years:
Jan 2009: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg399954;topicseen#msg399954)
Quote from: Toady One
In any case, the idea for the release *after* this next release is going to be to tackle one of the main army issues (improved sieges or sending out armies) as well as to take honest stabs at the top 10 or so entries from eternal suggestions (farming is currently among them), and there will probably be another item or two from dev_next that isn't from the Army Arc, though what we want to do from among those constantly shifts.
Sept 2009: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg789913#msg789913)
Quote from: Toady One
After this release, the next series of shorter releases will be made up of, in no set order:
1) Improved sieges against your fortress
2) Adventurer skills/entity stuff, per the dev next stuff
3) Eternal suggestions voting stuff
Post by: nenjin on January 30, 2012, 02:13:50 pm
Quote
Has Mr. Mayday completely given up or is he just shifting his format to something slightly different?
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=99660.0
I don't have the original, I believe it's on his blog. Basically a tiles lite version, with only creatures and a few key note tiles like walls remaining, the rest in ASCII.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on January 30, 2012, 02:15:10 pm
About his cite, I do not see any problem. Toady do not have to support thrid-party tileset.
For example, gender symbol versus bag. In ASCII they are represent by same symbol. In vanilia DF just have tileset where there are two places, both with picture of same graphical symbol. Thrid party tileset artist will draw different things in these two places, but ASCII folks will see what they know and love - ♂ symbol.
Post by: Comatose on January 30, 2012, 03:00:38 pm
I found Dwarf Fortress in December 2010, and I am really glad to have found the Bay 12.
I am anticipating the new release, and especially the remainder of the Caravan Arc.
The Bay 12 is a great collective people, and I am happy to be a member.
Keep up the great work Toady, I enjoy the daily devlogs!
Post by: Zahariel on January 30, 2012, 03:19:01 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on January 30, 2012, 03:27:36 pm
Proper handling of graphical tiles would be nice. Very nice. Of course, this would require at least partial RAW-ification of currently hardcoded equipment and other things.
Equipment already has the first step -- some item types are hardcoded and some are in the raws, but they all have item tokens (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Item_token). However, map tiles (on the main Fort/Adv display, the embark map, travel maps etc.) and random ASII interface elements (==== dividers) are totally hardcoded with no tokens.
Post by: orius on January 30, 2012, 03:28:25 pm
No real need. There's already a ton of cash in adventure mode and not much to spend it on. At least needing food will help drain off some of that cash.The new shops will give us better a better ability to spend money too. Probably not enough that we'll covet coinage, but it should help a bit. Once we get sites and livestock become available we'll have a boundless cash-sink to boot. We can be ranchers.
Money changers would be a good addition to the cities. I have an adventurer loaded down with loose change and big stacks of all sorts of random coinage. A money changer could be useful in say taking those big stacks of copper coins [3000] and giving you back an equvalent amount of gold which takes up less space and weight. Or exchanging coinage from other civiliaztions at a better rate than the shops.
Post by: Cruxador on January 30, 2012, 05:11:19 pm
Sept 2009: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg789913#msg789913)He said "in no particular order". Apparently the order is gonna be 2-1-3.Quote from: Toady OneAfter this release, the next series of shorter releases will be made up of, in no set order:
1) Improved sieges against your fortress
2) Adventurer skills/entity stuff, per the dev next stuff
3) Eternal suggestions voting stuff
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on January 30, 2012, 05:15:33 pm
Post by: rex mortis on January 30, 2012, 06:01:39 pm
However, as previously linked, Toady has run out of characters. Adding more will remove one of the biggest advantages ASCII display has, the limited number of characters to remember and recognise. I am not too thrilled about the alternative though.
Graphics sets have huge issues with tile size. With too small tiles one cannot convey even as much information as the ASCII set does. But not all of us have wide screen full HD televisions to display the game on. And the two overlap. A 16^2 tile is both too small and too large at the same time. Some of the monitor area could be recovered if the map display was disassociated from the menus which are fine with the default curses font.
Post by: Neonivek on January 30, 2012, 07:05:10 pm
Plus with some randomised creatures it would be interesting to have a randomised tile too.
Post by: tps12 on January 30, 2012, 08:34:24 pm
Well... There goes a few of my friends... Dang!
Kind of harsh dumping your friends just because they give up Dwarf Fortress.
Post by: Sunday on January 30, 2012, 08:46:50 pm
Well... There goes a few of my friends... Dang!
Kind of harsh dumping your friends just because they give up Dwarf Fortress.
I could be wrong (& don't want to speak for Neonivek), but I think he was saying that without Mayday's excellent graphical support, a few of his friends would stop playing DF. Thus, "there go a few of his friends," not from being his friends, but from being religious players of DF.
Post by: Duntada Man on January 30, 2012, 08:51:07 pm
Traditionally, I am a big supporter of the extended ASCII display. It looks good, the tiles are small enough and characters look different enough. The three critical features no graphics set to date has. Examining an unknown object is a minor issue. And anything frequent or important will be memorised quickly.A few weeks ago, a friend of mine bought a 1080p, 63' TV screen. It is a massive monstrosity of amazing clarity. I immediately hooked up my computer to play Dwarf Fortress with the original ASCII graphics just to watch him cry.
However, as previously linked, Toady has run out of characters. Adding more will remove one of the biggest advantages ASCII display has, the limited number of characters to remember and recognise. I am not too thrilled about the alternative though.
Graphics sets have huge issues with tile size. With too small tiles one cannot convey even as much information as the ASCII set does. But not all of us have wide screen full HD televisions to display the game on. And the two overlap. A 16^2 tile is both too small and too large at the same time. Some of the monitor area could be recovered if the map display was disassociated from the menus which are fine with the default curses font.
Post by: Footkerchief on January 30, 2012, 09:48:32 pm
Sept 2009: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg789913#msg789913)He said "in no particular order". Apparently the order is gonna be 2-1-3.Quote from: Toady OneAfter this release, the next series of shorter releases will be made up of, in no set order:
1) Improved sieges against your fortress
2) Adventurer skills/entity stuff, per the dev next stuff
3) Eternal suggestions voting stuff
The series of shorter releases following 31.01 has come and gone, as you may have noticed.
Post by: Neonivek on January 30, 2012, 10:21:19 pm
Well... There goes a few of my friends... Dang!
Kind of harsh dumping your friends just because they give up Dwarf Fortress.
I could be wrong (& don't want to speak for Neonivek), but I think he was saying that without Mayday's excellent graphical support, a few of his friends would stop playing DF. Thus, "there go a few of his friends," not from being his friends, but from being religious players of DF.
Yes this is exactly it.
Post by: m4davis on January 30, 2012, 10:36:11 pm
Traditionally, I am a big supporter of the extended ASCII display. It looks good, the tiles are small enough and characters look different enough. The three critical features no graphics set to date has. Examining an unknown object is a minor issue. And anything frequent or important will be memorised quickly.A few weeks ago, a friend of mine bought a 1080p, 63' TV screen. It is a massive monstrosity of amazing clarity. I immediately hooked up my computer to play Dwarf Fortress with the original ASCII graphics just to watch him cry.
However, as previously linked, Toady has run out of characters. Adding more will remove one of the biggest advantages ASCII display has, the limited number of characters to remember and recognise. I am not too thrilled about the alternative though.
Graphics sets have huge issues with tile size. With too small tiles one cannot convey even as much information as the ASCII set does. But not all of us have wide screen full HD televisions to display the game on. And the two overlap. A 16^2 tile is both too small and too large at the same time. Some of the monitor area could be recovered if the map display was disassociated from the menus which are fine with the default curses font.
that would be amazing
Post by: Jheral on January 30, 2012, 11:49:17 pm
At this rate, unsurprisingly no eternal suggestion voting stuff will be done, like, ever.
There's a reason they're called "eternal" suggestions. ;)
Post by: Jacob/Lee on January 31, 2012, 12:38:32 am
Quote
The squid/octo ink clouds and cuttlefish sepia ink clouds and a new hide effect finish off the work on sponsorship creatures, at least for this release. We'll add more critter properties in the future as it comes up. We've got crayon art to draw tomorrow, and the usual month endiness.
Post by: Cruxador on January 31, 2012, 02:47:21 am
I think they're supposed to still be going on, but just became non-short accidentally.Sept 2009: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg789913#msg789913)He said "in no particular order". Apparently the order is gonna be 2-1-3.Quote from: Toady OneAfter this release, the next series of shorter releases will be made up of, in no set order:
1) Improved sieges against your fortress
2) Adventurer skills/entity stuff, per the dev next stuff
3) Eternal suggestions voting stuff
The series of shorter releases following 31.01 has come and gone, as you may have noticed.
But yeah, the eternal suggestions deserve some love.
Post by: MaskedMiner on January 31, 2012, 03:10:34 am
Post by: Knight Otu on January 31, 2012, 07:57:46 am
So is release coming on second day?(which because of timezone is 3th day of february to me D:)At the earliest. It's quite possible to come out a few days later still. We still have the SDL stuff and probably some optimization work, at least.
Post by: MaskedMiner on January 31, 2012, 08:38:01 am
Post by: Demonic Gophers on January 31, 2012, 06:30:47 pm
Will vampires seek out sleeping victims that are not being observed by anyone awake at the time, either exclusively or by preference? If so, will pets count as observers?
It might become more useful in the new version to assign pets to all important dwarves, to fend off vampire attacks, or else to make them sleep in a communal bedroom that's open to a meeting hall on one side. The latter case will either protect them, or ensure plenty of witnesses to the attack. Naturally, less useful citizens get small private bedrooms to appease the vampires.
You mentioned that vampire adventurers will drink more blood if they go longer without feeding, and are more likely to kill their victims. Will Fortress Mode vampires be less likely to actually kill if they have frequent feeding opportunities than if isolated, sleeping victims are rare?
Post by: darklord92 on January 31, 2012, 07:04:40 pm
I can't recall any zombie lower halfs from any other games/movies I've seen. On many, MANY occasions in other games you'll strike down a zombie only to have the top half come crawling after you, but I've never seen a lower half hop up and run into things. I guess that's the big reason, what in the world would a lower half actually DO? I can't imagine they'd kick too hard since they have little to no weight behind em so unless they'd... throw their innards or something the only other possible attacks would require immediate brain bleach.
Google "dead alive lawnmower scene". practically everything from intestines to single limbs go at him. Though it is comedy,it proves the point ,anything could be animated.
Post by: Niccolo on January 31, 2012, 07:10:03 pm
I can't recall any zombie lower halfs from any other games/movies I've seen. On many, MANY occasions in other games you'll strike down a zombie only to have the top half come crawling after you, but I've never seen a lower half hop up and run into things. I guess that's the big reason, what in the world would a lower half actually DO? I can't imagine they'd kick too hard since they have little to no weight behind em so unless they'd... throw their innards or something the only other possible attacks would require immediate brain bleach.
Google "dead alive lawnmower scene". practically everything from intestines to single limbs go at him. Though it is comedy,it proves the point ,anything could be animated.
Also recall Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance. I remember many a time an undead creature being cut in half only for the legs to start stumbling after me.
Post by: kaenneth on January 31, 2012, 07:16:42 pm
Post by: Jacob/Lee on January 31, 2012, 08:20:34 pm
Beware the Zombie Teeth; they are like stepping on a lego brick on the way to the bathroom at 3 am.Jacob/Lee has given into pain!
Post by: NobodyPro on January 31, 2012, 10:46:20 pm
Post by: MaskedMiner on February 01, 2012, 12:35:03 am
Post by: werechicken on February 01, 2012, 02:49:09 am
Post by: Murphy on February 01, 2012, 03:39:53 am
I can't recall any zombie lower halfs from any other games/movies I've seen. On many, MANY occasions in other games you'll strike down a zombie only to have the top half come crawling after you, but I've never seen a lower half hop up and run into things. I guess that's the big reason, what in the world would a lower half actually DO? I can't imagine they'd kick too hard since they have little to no weight behind em so unless they'd... throw their innards or something the only other possible attacks would require immediate brain bleach.Footstomp. It hurts. Less so with only the weight of a half-person, but still.
Post by: FoiledFencer on February 01, 2012, 03:53:32 am
I wonder how many people will start building their refuse stockpile next to a magma source. I mean in most games I've usually got around 50 rotting goblin and troll corpses stored there.
I was thinking of making a drawbridge system so you can seal the stockpile off and release the contents when a siege comes around. Of course, that might not strictly speaking solve the problem of zombiefied body parts, but boy, it sounds like it might be fun.
Post by: daishi5 on February 01, 2012, 07:13:03 am
I wonder how many people will start building their refuse stockpile next to a magma source. I mean in most games I've usually got around 50 rotting goblin and troll corpses stored there.
I just learned that if I set it so that corpses are not kept, my dwarves will dump goblin corpses and won't dump dwarven corpses. Since I already set my garbage dumps to go into magma, I should be set. I learned this because I was trying to build completely underground fortresses, and this solved my problem with huge piles of rotting goblin corpses that I was needing to constantly atom smash. I would guess something similar will be setup in most fortresses in the future. I have a couple ideas in mind that don't require magma, like an automatically flushing sewer system that automatically dumps all the corpses in a deep pit.
I have also been trying to use teachers to train up new military dwarves, and even with grand master teachers, the learning speed is abysmally slow. Do we know if Toady is planning to change how the teacher skill works? And in the future, do we know if dwarves will be able to use the teacher skill to pass on skills other than military ones?
Post by: MrWiggles on February 01, 2012, 07:20:28 am
I have also been trying to use teachers to train up new military dwarves, and even with grand master teachers, the learning speed is abysmally slow. Do we know if Toady is planning to change how the teacher skill works? And in the future, do we know if dwarves will be able to use the teacher skill to pass on skills other than military ones?
No word on changing the teaching skill. Though it'll probably get changed indirectly when the Dorfs personalities are rewritten.
As for teach being used for other skills, nothing stated directly, more like general yes.
Post by: Caldfir on February 01, 2012, 01:00:37 pm
I have also been trying to use teachers to train up new military dwarves, and even with grand master teachers, the learning speed is abysmally slow. Do we know if Toady is planning to change how the teacher skill works?To my recollection, the teaching skill is fairly effective, but the dwarves doing the teaching also need to have a high skill to teach, and need to be dutiful. Dwarves without a sense of duty just never bother to organize training. In my experience there isn't a faster way to train weapon skills than teachers (danger rooms and sparring don't seem to do as well), though armor and defensive skills seem quite slow.
Also, how on earth did you get grand master teachers?
Post by: Neonivek on February 01, 2012, 01:17:54 pm
For example a difference between "Casual" and "Hard" effort. That way you don't get a fortress of Legendary Comedians just because someone attends a lot of parties (we all know there are some pretty poorly socialised people who go to all the parties)
Talent and Plateuing: Even though EXP required to level up increases... in the end it isn't sufficient. While this is a "Epic" world where even talentless hacks can become truely talented if they put enough work into it... it doesn't seem to reflect the amount of hard work it can take to push past barriers... nor does it make a blacksmith who "Spent 40 years mastering his technique" sound impressive... just lazy.
Post by: daishi5 on February 01, 2012, 03:29:32 pm
Post by: Untelligent on February 01, 2012, 04:10:39 pm
Post by: scriver on February 01, 2012, 04:45:28 pm
Post by: Untelligent on February 01, 2012, 05:50:15 pm
In any case, there's precedent for it. Toady's restarted the thread at least twice in the time I've been here.
Post by: Rockphed on February 01, 2012, 05:58:21 pm
Yeah, but I like going to the page I was on last first.Oh, didn't know that about the New button
In any case, there's precedent for it. Toady's restarted the thread at least twice in the time I've been here.
During the time it took to make DF2010 there was at least one FotF thread created, possibly 2. I think this is the 2nd since that thread. So I have seen 4 of them, plus or minus 1. Probably a third of posts in this thread are to follow it(some are cleverly disguised as legitimate posts. he he he)
Post by: PTTG?? on February 01, 2012, 09:01:20 pm
Post by: Keldane on February 01, 2012, 09:17:38 pm
I embarked with two fifth level teachers, with one level in fighting skills like axe dodge and shield. They sparred till they were legends then I gave each one a squad of skill-less dwarves. After the squad skills up, rotate in a new group of newbies. I was trying to see if a legendary teacher was a viable training option compared to sparring. They really didn't even seem close.
The key here is the Student skill. The Teaching skill is effective on its own, but nowhere near as effective as when it's used in combination with Student. That said, immigrants with the Student skill seem few and far between. Perhaps a new custom workshop - a Study? - with a reaction designed to improve the Student skill would be useful.
Post by: MrWiggles on February 01, 2012, 11:24:37 pm
I embarked with two fifth level teachers, with one level in fighting skills like axe dodge and shield. They sparred till they were legends then I gave each one a squad of skill-less dwarves. After the squad skills up, rotate in a new group of newbies. I was trying to see if a legendary teacher was a viable training option compared to sparring. They really didn't even seem close.
The key here is the Student skill. The Teaching skill is effective on its own, but nowhere near as effective as when it's used in combination with Student. That said, immigrants with the Student skill seem few and far between. Perhaps a new custom workshop - a Study? - with a reaction designed to improve the Student skill would be useful.
The main issue here, is a poor feedback as to why training isn't goin well, or why it is going well. There's personality conflicts. The Dorfs needs the right personality traits to be a good teacher, and have a teaching skill + the weapon/armor skill or activity skill. Then you also need the Student dorf to have the right mix of personality traits and the student skill.
It does work, but we dont have good feed back to make it work.
Post by: darkflagrance on February 02, 2012, 12:39:00 am
The main issue here, is a poor feedback as to why training isn't goin well, or why it is going well. There's personality conflicts. The Dorfs needs the right personality traits to be a good teacher, and have a teaching skill + the weapon/armor skill or activity skill. Then you also need the Student dorf to have the right mix of personality traits and the student skill.
It does work, but we dont have good feed back to make it work.
Argh, training via the traditional method is more complicated than I thought, and so easy to render ineffective. It wouldn't be half as bad, even without the feedback, if student skill was easier to come by, or if acquiring student and teacher skill were essentially minor speedbumps to simulate the slowness of starting an army from scratch before you quickly built up effective drill sergeants. The effectiveness of teaching is nullified by the fact that the most effective teachers can't drill multiple dwarves at once.
Although, the current system that makes it quite hard to train up melee dwarves DOES encourage the tactic of mass green civilians with crossbows deployed against enemy sieges. Isn't mass conscripts with effective and deadly ranged weapons that don't require much training a common real life tactic? ;P
Post by: Areyar on February 02, 2012, 04:31:30 am
Post by: darklord92 on February 02, 2012, 11:54:04 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_scythe
Post by: orius on February 02, 2012, 04:43:08 pm
Although, the current system that makes it quite hard to train up melee dwarves DOES encourage the tactic of mass green civilians with crossbows deployed against enemy sieges. Isn't mass conscripts with effective and deadly ranged weapons that don't require much training a common real life tactic? ;P
Cannon fodder is probably about the most useful way of utilizing all those damn cheese makers and potash makers, dissectors and animal caretakers.
Post by: Dae on February 02, 2012, 05:32:21 pm
Although, the current system that makes it quite hard to train up melee dwarves DOES encourage the tactic of mass green civilians with crossbows deployed against enemy sieges. Isn't mass conscripts with effective and deadly ranged weapons that don't require much training a common real life tactic? ;P
Cannon fodder is probably about the most useful way of utilizing all those damn cheese makers and potash makers, dissectors and animal caretakers.
Plus it generates training for the surgeons.
Post by: Cruxador on February 02, 2012, 07:25:31 pm
"mass conscripts?" Do you mean the cheese makers and farmers? There have been a a lot of angry farmers through history why do you think I brought the war scythe back in my sergal mod :PWhy would you add a war scythe when the game doesn't even include peace scythes? The whole point of then was that they were really easy to make from a normal farm tool, but we don't actually have that farm tool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_scythe
Post by: darklord92 on February 02, 2012, 08:08:16 pm
Post by: Niveras on February 02, 2012, 08:34:33 pm
"mass conscripts?" Do you mean the cheese makers and farmers? There have been a a lot of angry farmers through history why do you think I brought the war scythe back in my sergal mod :PWhy would you add a war scythe when the game doesn't even include peace scythes? The whole point of then was that they were really easy to make from a normal farm tool, but we don't actually have that farm tool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_scythe
For the same reason that anvils exist, but an anvil is required to create a forge to cast an anvil.
Also, the dwarf's 'peace' scythe is, like so many tools, his beard.
Post by: darklord92 on February 02, 2012, 09:01:24 pm
Post by: isitanos on February 02, 2012, 10:20:53 pm
Argh, training via the traditional method is more complicated than I thought, and so easy to render ineffective. It wouldn't be half as bad, even without the feedback, if student skill was easier to come by, or if acquiring student and teacher skill were essentially minor speedbumps to simulate the slowness of starting an army from scratch before you quickly built up effective drill sergeants. The effectiveness of teaching is nullified by the fact that the most effective teachers can't drill multiple dwarves at once.I've mastered pretty much everything else to the point of finding DF pretty easy (unless I unleash the HFS of course), but THIS "revamp" of the military got me to stop playing. Managing a military (both training and reliably equipping them) is SO incredibly frustrating now that I doubt all the recent additions will bring me back to the game (and donating), unless it's fixed.
Edit: I'm not asking for a dumbing down, far from it. But streamlining the interface a bit, giving more feedback to the player and maybe putting a better sense of military discipline in those idiots (with military justice if they don't obey) is really essential.
Post by: Rockphed on February 03, 2012, 01:32:14 am
Edit: I'm not asking for a dumbing down, far from it. But streamlining the interface a bit, giving more feedback to the player and maybe putting a better sense of military discipline in those idiots (with military justice if they don't obey) is really essential.
And then we would just need to find a single duty bound dwarf to be the commander, rather than a duty bound dwarf for every leadership position.
Post by: zwei on February 03, 2012, 03:31:25 am
Post by: Caz on February 03, 2012, 06:58:44 am
Post by: MrWiggles on February 03, 2012, 07:20:25 am
Will the new version allow us to remove dead creatures and dwarves from the unit list?Nope.
They're in their own tab now.
Post by: monk12 on February 03, 2012, 01:07:23 pm
Post by: O11O1 on February 03, 2012, 06:39:40 pm
Will the new version allow us to remove dead creatures and dwarves from the unit list?Nope.
They're in their own tab now.
Oh thank Armok, that'll be nice.
Does the same go for livestock and invaders?
Post by: MrWiggles on February 03, 2012, 07:00:31 pm
Animals Yes.Will the new version allow us to remove dead creatures and dwarves from the unit list?Nope.
They're in their own tab now.
Oh thank Armok, that'll be nice.
Does the same go for livestock and invaders?
Invaders, I dont remember. I dont think so.
Post by: Demonic Gophers on February 03, 2012, 09:42:27 pm
Quote from: Toady One
I split the unit screen into 4 categories (citizens, pets/livestock, others, dead/missing).So invaders and merchants are probably both in the "others" category. And also wildlife.
Post by: Lumix on February 03, 2012, 10:53:16 pm
Post by: monk12 on February 03, 2012, 10:59:28 pm
Quote from: FootkerchiefDoes the Justice revamping mean that the bug with baron-appointed nobles e.g. the hammerer will be fixed?
The hammerer was fixed. The dungeon master is still in limbo.
Post by: Lumix on February 03, 2012, 11:33:15 pm
I hope Toady can Hammer out this issue.
Post by: bombzero on February 03, 2012, 11:56:09 pm
Ah! Tis a shame.
I hope Toady can Hammer out this issue.
In toady's fortress, bugs are a capital crime, punishable by 9000 hammer strokes. but the justice system is quite slow due to new developments on the deeper floors.
Post by: Name Lips on February 04, 2012, 12:27:04 am
What is the status of the dwarven economy? Any hints when it will come back? Any word on the re-stackablity of coins?
Post by: Caldfir on February 04, 2012, 12:39:22 am
As always, the official development page (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html) has the current goals and their intended order of completion. A listing of new features expected for this release can be found here (https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1u8jibE1TV7BAwAI2b4TzRkWFlBboLiXMrVBhYmDYPhI&pli=1).
Post by: Putnam on February 04, 2012, 01:11:45 am
Post by: Taxus on February 04, 2012, 01:14:31 am
Hm, intriguing! Any guesses how slime rain would be messing up werewolves?
Post by: Putnam on February 04, 2012, 01:30:32 am
Post by: Kogut on February 04, 2012, 01:33:48 am
Post by: Lac on February 04, 2012, 04:30:34 am
Hm, intriguing! Any guesses how slime rain would be messing up werewolves?My guess is that it's when the rain has been induced using silver iodide.
Post by: Kriby on February 04, 2012, 09:51:12 am
1a. Wailing on someone's extremities with blunt force in the current release has basically no chance of killing them (adventurer mode). Will combat wounds be changed anything at all in this release? Specifically, will blunt trauma be able to cause hematomas and by extension relatively quick death through blood loss (internally)?
1b. Will blunt trauma be modified in any other way to make it a bit more realistic, such as wearing away tissue gradually (a solid hour of striker practice to the gut!), expelling air from lungs when that applies or destroying blood flow further out to extremities (temporarily disabling them and possibly leading to further complications if untreated such as necrotizing tissue requiring amputation)?
(It -IS- an adventurer mode update to a large degree and I feel that blunt weapons aren't as strong as they should be!)
2. How is the movement speed of reanimated bodyparts calculated? I wouldn't put much stock in a decapitated hand's ability to chase down an able-bodied dwarf any time soon!
More of a future question/suggestion almost:
As the magic system is gradually expanded, will there be secrets tied to the cycles of stars/moons/the sun? Essentially spells that have different effects, no effect, stronger/weaker effect or a global effect that takes place automatically based on the position of orbiting bodies (in the real world or connected planes).
Post by: thvaz on February 04, 2012, 10:05:32 am
I got a couple of questions for the new release!
1a. Wailing on someone's extremities with blunt force in the current release has basically no chance of killing them (adventurer mode). Will combat wounds be changed anything at all in this release? Specifically, will blunt trauma be able to cause hematomas and by extension relatively quick death through blood loss (internally)?
1b. Will blunt trauma be modified in any other way to make it a bit more realistic, such as wearing away tissue gradually (a solid hour of striker practice to the gut!), expelling air from lungs when that applies or destroying blood flow further out to extremities (temporarily disabling them and possibly leading to further complications if untreated such as necrotizing tissue requiring amputation)?
(It -IS- an adventurer mode update to a large degree and I feel that blunt weapons aren't as strong as they should be!)
Nothing will change about combat in this release. However, Toady plans to do a combat overhaul in the future. And blunt weapons are very useful against armored opponents.
You should color your questions in limegreen to catch Toady's attention.
Post by: Footkerchief on February 04, 2012, 10:39:39 am
I got a couple of questions for the new release!
1a. Wailing on someone's extremities with blunt force in the current release has basically no chance of killing them (adventurer mode). Will combat wounds be changed anything at all in this release? Specifically, will blunt trauma be able to cause hematomas and by extension relatively quick death through blood loss (internally)?
1b. Will blunt trauma be modified in any other way to make it a bit more realistic, such as wearing away tissue gradually (a solid hour of striker practice to the gut!), expelling air from lungs when that applies or destroying blood flow further out to extremities (temporarily disabling them and possibly leading to further complications if untreated such as necrotizing tissue requiring amputation)?
(It -IS- an adventurer mode update to a large degree and I feel that blunt weapons aren't as strong as they should be!)
As thvaz said, this hasn't changed for the upcoming release. This largely falls under the concept of "pulping", which has not been slated for a particular release but might make it in soon:
DF Talk 14: (http://www.bay12games.com/media/df_talk_14_transcript.html#14.3)
Quote
Rainseeker: So the more wounds a creature has the easier it is to kill, or, how do you kill one of these creatures?
Toady: Well if it's already wounded then it has a lesser attack capacity, especially if things are missing and chopped off, and you can hack off their heads and arms ... If a zombie has no grasping portions and it has no head then it collapses; so that's one way to go, is to hack it to pieces. Otherwise we've still got this system in where it just takes the amount of force that has been applied to it and you're kind of shaking loose the animation effect and then it just collapses, which is kind of like saying hit points, there's just a little bit more to it than that but not much, it's basically hit points, and that is until we get combat pulping, like really so that you can take a mace or a baseball bat or whatever and beat it into a pulp, an actual pulp. Then we won't need that system anymore, but we require pulping and there's no pulping so there's still a kind of crude damage that it just keeps track of in an abstract way for the animation effect.
2. How is the movement speed of reanimated bodyparts calculated? I wouldn't put much stock in a decapitated hand's ability to chase down an able-bodied dwarf any time soon!
Zombification means an overall speed decrease of 40% for the creature, so the body parts will be at least that slow (assuming it doesn't go all Addams Family). Not sure if they'll get an additional speed penalty.
Regional ZombiesSpoiler (click to show/hide)
As the magic system is gradually expanded, will there be secrets tied to the cycles of stars/moons/the sun? Essentially spells that have different effects, no effect, stronger/weaker effect or a global effect that takes place automatically based on the position of orbiting bodies (in the real world or connected planes).
Moon phases are already supported for werewolf transformations, so you could set up various abilities that are only active during the full moon or whatever. Toady does plan to keep expanding the interaction system, and other celestial stuff (especially day-night cycles) would be an obvious route.
Post by: Keldane on February 04, 2012, 11:37:49 am
Post by: thvaz on February 04, 2012, 11:51:49 am
I'm not sure if it's been asked, but Will there be a chance of Forgotten Beasts showing up and infecting dwarves with a syndrome that periodically turns them into a clone of the Forgotten Beast?
Well, this would surely be interesting to watch. Forgotten beasts with zombie diseases would be cool too!
Post by: MaskedMiner on February 04, 2012, 12:21:02 pm
Post by: Kriby on February 04, 2012, 12:35:57 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on February 04, 2012, 01:57:45 pm
I'm not sure if it's been asked, but Will there be a chance of Forgotten Beasts showing up and infecting dwarves with a syndrome that periodically turns them into a clone of the Forgotten Beast?
Toady has not mentioned any changes to forgotten beasts for this release, so no.
Will you add at some point ability to turn FB off without having to turn of caverns? Or at least some way to control their numbers?
Reminder that suggestions go in the Suggestions forum (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?board=5.0).
There appears to be an inclination towards spell "research" in one of ThreeToe's stories. Are there any plans for research & development aspects of fortress mode once random materials come into play more? Static or possibly even dynamic "devices" designed bearing the name of the dwarf who engineered it that for example automate production of an item from base materials, convert matter into energy or that move blocks/liquid in new ways? Mixing crops to create new plants with special properties such as surviving underground, using lava instead of water, absorbing gas etc? I could go on all day! In short, are there any plans to include research as part of fortress gameplay?
Toady has discussed technological progression before: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg470592#msg470592)
Quote from: Toady One
Something like that. I wouldn't say strictly physical for skills. The main goal is to split out things that a creature shouldn't just be able to stumble upon with a little tinkering. It perhaps falls in line with "technology" and would probably be stored at both the individual and civilization level. It should also be able to capture notions like misinformation, so each of the most finely-grained concepts could say, have 32 bits worth of unspecified "facts" and a book could carry both information and misinformation for each bit, if things need to be kept concise. I haven't sorted it out yet, but those are some of the things that need to be captured.
Post by: MaskedMiner on February 04, 2012, 02:03:57 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on February 04, 2012, 02:15:09 pm
I meant it as question not suggestion ._.;
The idea is a good one -- it's technically straightforward, useful, and doesn't have any flavor issues. Generally, for good ideas that aren't already on the development page (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html), Toady's answer to "will it ever be in the game" is "it's a reasonable thing to add, but I don't know when I'll get to it." That's all the information there is to be had on the topic, even from Toady, which is why question-suggestions aren't worth asking.
Post by: MaskedMiner on February 04, 2012, 02:30:44 pm
Post by: Lumix on February 04, 2012, 07:16:12 pm
I'm not sure if it's been asked, but Will there be a chance of Forgotten Beasts showing up and infecting dwarves with a syndrome that periodically turns them into a clone of the Forgotten Beast?
That would actually be amazing
Post by: MrWiggles on February 04, 2012, 08:14:06 pm
I disagree with this answer.I'm not sure if it's been asked, but Will there be a chance of Forgotten Beasts showing up and infecting dwarves with a syndrome that periodically turns them into a clone of the Forgotten Beast?
Toady has not mentioned any changes to forgotten beasts for this release, so no.
Quote from: ToadyOne on 09/13/2011
The player-controlled dragonfire worked on all those elves in the arena, and things will actually catch on fire now instead of just melting. Forgotten beast webbers work properly (they are broken in the version you have now, as many of you know). Various cleanup on the interaction interfaces. I still have a page of issues for each of the new night creatures, and six and a half pages for the cities/markets/underground, in addition to the animal stuff. At least things are moving along again.
It seems like that Forgotten Beast are now using the interaction system. It might *just* be for their breath weapons, but I dont think its unreasonable to say that the other possible interactions could also be tossed in with Forgotten Beast generation.
Post by: Footkerchief on February 04, 2012, 08:51:47 pm
It seems like that Forgotten Beast are now using the interaction system. It might *just* be for their breath weapons, but I dont think its unreasonable to say that the other possible interactions could also be tossed in with Forgotten Beast generation.
Fair point, although I still doubt that Toady added werewolf-like transformation stuff for them.
Post by: EmeraldWind on February 04, 2012, 10:21:50 pm
It seems like that Forgotten Beast are now using the interaction system. It might *just* be for their breath weapons, but I dont think its unreasonable to say that the other possible interactions could also be tossed in with Forgotten Beast generation.
Fair point, although I still doubt that Toady added werewolf-like transformation stuff for them.
Werewolf curses are passed as a syndrome (An interaction doesn't appear to be necessary if the syndrome is passed through a way already established for passing syndromes, like poisons.). FB syndromes are randomized. So it depends on if the RNG can draw on the creature transformation effect and then what the RNG picks for the transformed state. Though the dwarfs are unlikely to transform into an FB, but don't be surprised if an FB with poisonous gas turns all nearby dwarves into carp (which then air-drown).
Post by: Caldfir on February 05, 2012, 01:38:00 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 05, 2012, 11:36:01 am
Is it possiblke to link a generic creature definition to a interaction to transform someone? Secondly is it possible to create a second interaction that would transform a thing/person back?
Post by: Caldfir on February 05, 2012, 07:34:26 pm
I... I think that's actually possible. You would need to make the "kiss" available to be performed somehow, but it seems wholly doable. The "turn people to frogs" could be given to some creature and... hmm...
I'm not certain but it seems like something within the bounds of the interaction system as described currently. I'll have to add it to my !!SCIENCE!! list to check in the upcoming release...
Post by: Putnam on February 05, 2012, 07:35:28 pm
Post by: Neonivek on February 05, 2012, 08:37:58 pm
You could make a "kiss" interaction that does a syndrome that "un-transforms" a transformed creature.
You would need a mouth and lips (sorta)
Post by: Putnam on February 05, 2012, 09:07:48 pm
You could make a "kiss" interaction that does a syndrome that "un-transforms" a transformed creature.
You would need a mouth and lips (sorta)
[CDI:BP_REQUIRED:BY_CATEGORY:MOUTH]
Post by: Jacob/Lee on February 05, 2012, 09:09:15 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 05, 2012, 09:09:30 pm
Do you mean turning someone into a frog, then having them change back when kissed?
I... I think that's actually possible. You would need to make the "kiss" available to be performed somehow, but it seems wholly doable. The "turn people to frogs" could be given to some creature and... hmm...
I'm not certain but it seems like something within the bounds of the interaction system as described currently. I'll have to add it to my !!SCIENCE!! list to check in the upcoming release...
Actually i was thinking about making a material (powder) that does the transformation to spike some food with it and leave that out for children hehehe.
I am sure the basic transformation would work but i wonder if it is possible to have a interaction that turns off the effects of a specific other interaction. I guess you could go with the basic were-animal transformation and leave the timing stuff out to get a (supposed to be) permanent solution.
Hehe it could be, thought, a Gamebreaker if you just turn your pals into mice to carry around or into [mount]s. Worse yet, turn gobbos into sheep and sell them to the next village XD .
You could make a "kiss" interaction that does a syndrome that "un-transforms" a transformed creature.
You would need a mouth and lips (sorta)
Heh and it would need to be a obtainable secret which is written into a tome/book along with a couple of other spells and mixtures. To bad if "some pages regarding secret xyz are missing " is part of the books description, well if we ever get to that point. I am faithful though.
Post by: Putnam on February 05, 2012, 09:58:51 pm
DFMM should be something everyone uses, really >_>
Post by: Kriby on February 06, 2012, 04:48:57 am
In what ways would magic be invoked in such worlds? (Your blood, the blood of others, animals? Remote blood manipulation?)
Will weapons gain boons or afflictions innately? Consider any weapon used for so much slaughter that it earns its own name. Would it gain sentience D&D style over time? Violent magical powers based on blood directed at the wielder and his enemies? (Martial trance easier/constantly, enraged easier/constantly, accuracy, speed (exhausting low endurance wielders), life draining, poisons, syndromes (WIELDER NEEDS MORE ARMS))
Post by: MrWiggles on February 06, 2012, 05:41:55 am
Will there be worlds generated with blood as the primal source of magical energy?No clue. Magic is still post v1. The interaction system, just happens to allow magical effects.
Quote
In what ways would magic be invoked in such worlds? (Your blood, the blood of others, animals? Remote blood manipulation?)Unknown. You're asking questions on another question thats unknowable.
Quote
Will weapons gain boons or afflictions innately? Consider any weapon used for so much slaughter that it earns its own name. Would it gain sentience D&D style over time? Violent magical powers based on blood directed at the wielder and his enemies? (Martial trance easier/constantly, enraged easier/constantly, accuracy, speed (exhausting low endurance wielders), life draining, poisons, syndromes (WIELDER NEEDS MORE ARMS))[/color]Beside the blood thing, Artifacts are on the docket for a revision. Its unknown what ToadyOne and ThreeToes wants for Artifacts in particular. The podcast indicates they want Artifacts to have a lot more personality, and interaction with the world, there certainly tons of talking weapons.
Semi/Lesser Aftifact Objects, historical named weapons, I dont believe are planned to be promoted to full artifact status. Though they do get bonuses for becoming one.
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on February 06, 2012, 07:02:15 am
Semi/Lesser Aftifact Objects, historical named weapons, I dont believe are planned to be promoted to full artifact status. Though they do get bonuses for becoming one.
[/quote]
I seem to remember a DF talk bringing up named weapons and armour as gaining artifact like powers depending on how it got named. As in if a sword was used to kill 20 demons it would become more effective against other demons, It sounded like toady was of the opinion that weapon that got promoted to semi Artifact were just as deserving for magic bonuses as mood artifacts. So it might be that semi artifacts are just as powerful as mooded artifacts but have a much more limited range of effects.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on February 06, 2012, 05:17:37 pm
Will there be worlds generated with blood as the primal source of magical energy?Um, maybe you should check first if there is any "magical energy" at all? Hint: no, there is not.
In other words, currently necromancer is capable to spam interaction to raise everything in your refuse stockpile, provided it is sufficiently close to necromancer. !!Fun!!
Post by: Kriby on February 06, 2012, 06:46:08 pm
Post by: NobodyPro on February 06, 2012, 06:59:23 pm
Uh, maybe you should refrain from making snide comments in a thread about discussing the future development of DF instead of remarking on what isn't in the upcoming build. Thanks.To be fair, it does sound pseudo-suggestiony. Like asking if lying will invove facial muscles being intact.
Post by: Cerol Lenslens on February 06, 2012, 07:48:34 pm
Consider any weapon used for so much slaughter that it earns its own name. Would it gain sentience D&D style over time?
Dunno, but IIRC, Toady discussed sentient artifacts a while back, as part of the revisions to the Dwarven Soul system. This allowed for souls to exist outside their body, and presumably for the transfer of souls into other objects.
Whether they can be spontaneously generated by objects might be a different matter, but I believe it was mentioned as a possibility for the random magic effects an artifact could have generated when it was created. It seems likely that the same would occur for name-earned artifacts as well. In either case, however, you'd likely just see the personality appear whole-cloth, instead of the gradual effect you mention.
Post by: Dae on February 06, 2012, 10:10:01 pm
Uh, maybe you should refrain from making snide comments in a thread about discussing the future development of DF instead of remarking on what isn't in the upcoming build. Thanks.To be fair, it does sound pseudo-suggestiony. Like asking if lying will invove facial muscles being intact.
Well, every question asking precision about how things work or will work imply that you see the things working that way. So they're suggestions if it happens that things don't or are not planned as working this way.
The only way to refrain yourself from going there is by asking "how do you plan on..." which are usually not precise enough to generate a correct answer. Plus, most questions have been asked and it's such a long and ongoing process that Toady himself can't be sure. Asking an open question requires him to put time and thought into that subject when most of the time it's too early to know. On the other hand, if you ask him about a particular implementation he can say "nah, don't quite feel like I'll do it this way."
Post by: Neonivek on February 06, 2012, 10:21:06 pm
Post by: Cruxador on February 07, 2012, 02:32:39 am
Not sure if this information is known to the general forum population, so I'll leave it un-green now and change it if nobody knows.
Post by: Footkerchief on February 07, 2012, 09:13:59 am
Do we know how extensive the SDL fixes are? Should we expect TrueType fonts to work perfectly in all situations now?
Not sure if this information is known to the general forum population, so I'll leave it un-green now and change it if nobody knows.
By "work perfectly in all situations" do you mean "be usable for all text in the game," or "not cause the game to crash"?
Post by: Rose on February 07, 2012, 11:54:04 am
Post by: MrWiggles on February 07, 2012, 05:42:44 pm
Are you also making more text use sdl than before?Gonna go with No on this. The Dev log suggests, that he's just included the SDL fixes, and that Braugn or ToadyOne have yet to expand upon it.
Post by: Jacob/Lee on February 07, 2012, 11:28:10 pm
Can someone tell me what SDL is? :P
Post by: Putnam on February 07, 2012, 11:35:12 pm
...
Can someone tell me what SDL is? :P
http://www.libsdl.org/
Footkerchief would smite you for your inability to google search :P
Post by: monk12 on February 07, 2012, 11:40:16 pm
...
Can someone tell me what SDL is? :P
Or Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_DirectMedia_Layer) :P
Short answer, it abstracts aspects of the code so that people can play DF on Linux and Mac, and I gather it is necessary for some fancy things like the TrueType stuff.
Post by: Cruxador on February 08, 2012, 12:34:27 am
Well, "perfectly" would entail both of those. I'm somewhat hoping that tilesets won't need to support text rendering in the nearish future.Do we know how extensive the SDL fixes are? Should we expect TrueType fonts to work perfectly in all situations now?
Not sure if this information is known to the general forum population, so I'll leave it un-green now and change it if nobody knows.
By "work perfectly in all situations" do you mean "be usable for all text in the game," or "not cause the game to crash"?
Post by: Putnam on February 08, 2012, 12:36:30 am
Well, "perfectly" would entail both of those. I'm somewhat hoping that tilesets won't need to support text rendering in the nearish future.Do we know how extensive the SDL fixes are? Should we expect TrueType fonts to work perfectly in all situations now?
Not sure if this information is known to the general forum population, so I'll leave it un-green now and change it if nobody knows.
By "work perfectly in all situations" do you mean "be usable for all text in the game," or "not cause the game to crash"?
That should be what it means, yes.
Praise Baughn The Haruhiist!
Post by: Doomshifter on February 08, 2012, 04:32:15 am
:O Is he uploading it? Right now? It's not just down for me. I asked the internet, guys. I asked the internet. It told me it was down, guys. IS IT HAPPENING?
I'm going mad here.
Is the new version being posted, or am I just freaking out over server issues?
Post by: Totaku on February 08, 2012, 04:50:48 am
Post by: Genoraven on February 08, 2012, 05:27:04 am
Can't seem to get onto the devlog/download page
:O Is he uploading it? Right now? It's not just down for me. I asked the internet, guys. I asked the internet. It told me it was down, guys. IS IT HAPPENING?
I'm going mad here.
Is the new version being posted, or am I just freaking out over server issues?
No, i was freaking out too. And came here to check.
Post by: G-Flex on February 08, 2012, 05:28:33 am
Can't seem to get onto the devlog/download page
:O Is he uploading it? Right now? It's not just down for me. I asked the internet, guys. I asked the internet. It told me it was down, guys. IS IT HAPPENING?
I'm going mad here.
Is the new version being posted, or am I just freaking out over server issues?
If he had uploaded a new version, I don't see any good reason why traffic would take the site down without us hearing about it. Unless the traffic exclusively came from a small enclave a very devoted fans who don't talk to anyone. Monks, maybe.
Post by: MrWiggles on February 08, 2012, 05:29:47 am
Post by: thvaz on February 08, 2012, 05:35:03 am
edit: It is back. Another false positive. :-\
Post by: Totaku on February 08, 2012, 05:40:03 am
Edit: scratch that, I remember now there was mirrors.
Post by: Toady One on February 08, 2012, 05:40:57 am
Post by: Doomshifter on February 08, 2012, 05:47:34 am
Sorry about that -- no clue what it was. Just rebooted the server and it works again, as usual, but it's usually the forums that have that problem.
Oh Toady! You've broken the hearts of forumites board-wide! In the nicest possible manner, of course, that being neurotic anticipation quietly denied.
Post by: DG on February 08, 2012, 06:54:06 am
Post by: ShinWalks on February 08, 2012, 10:01:12 am
Post by: Footkerchief on February 08, 2012, 10:20:07 am
Will weapons gain boons or afflictions innately? Consider any weapon used for so much slaughter that it earns its own name. Would it gain sentience D&D style over time? Violent magical powers based on blood directed at the wielder and his enemies? (Martial trance easier/constantly, enraged easier/constantly, accuracy, speed (exhausting low endurance wielders), life draining, poisons, syndromes (WIELDER NEEDS MORE ARMS))[/color]
Magical powers are planned for artifacts (Ctrl+F for "artifact" on dev_single (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html)). Since named weapons are handled similarly to artifacts, they might also get magical powers at some point, although probably not via sheer mundane usage per se. Also, this gets suggested a lot (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?action=search2;params=eJwtzEsOgCAMRdGtGCeOHbgeUkpVDB9TqsaExVsMs_vO4IG7ISG5OtW5jtVyq0Wr7PkxmOMZSEit0WUPQjE5hbdLZjHOsy5HBbvoYgr0HzciYNwVgcWvgDJE2Dx-iRMwOw..).
With all the new content in the imminent release, will the main version number change with this release (i.e. from 0.31 to, say, 0.32)?
Yes. This came up in DF Talk (http://bay12games.com/media/df_talk_14_transcript.html#14.16) (emphasis mine):
Quote from: DF Talk 14
Toady: Yeah, I probably shouldn't say that. Nineteen months is my record and that's a record I don't even want to approach again, but since we're about half way through the night creatures we ever really planned to do I think we're in good shape. There is going to be a time where I still have to do markets and furnishings, but furnishings ... I might as well do those when I do haunted houses, so that's all going to go nicely, and then the market will be the only thing that's kind of left behind that needs to be finished after the night creatures, so I feel pretty good about where we're at. I mean, it's obviously taking a little longer than I thought it would but we're also going to be jacking up the version number an extra point or two because of this. Because this is all stuff, this is not just a random flight of fancy, this was all on our version one list anyway, so ...
I have a big list that has the point value for a bunch of things, because it was like ... when we went to version 0.31 and then we started making all those changes and then we did all the stuff like the first night creatures for adventure mode, and the version number just kept going 31.18, 31.19, 31.20, and we never increased it because we had moved away from that core one hundred system and didn't really replace it with something else so the version number was stagnant for a while. But now I've written down a list of all the things for version 1 with I think about .02 or a little more - maybe .05 - worth of wiggle room for whatever we might want to throw in there, but basically the whole version number with night creatures ... I think night creatures are worth like .005 or something and they all have various degrees and so on. I didn't want to put it up because we've had bad luck with dev systems changing. It's really nothing new, it's just trying to systematize the version number so I can think about it.
But yeah, if we're at 0.33 or 0.34 that sounds about right for next time. And that's significant, because we'd be crossing a third of the way through after nine years, so we'd be able to say in 18 years I'm going to be 51 years old and we're going to be at Dwarf Fortress version 1. That'll be great. Then I'll retire or something ... or just start version 2. And various other projects and stuff, it's going to be great. So let's see here, yeah, so it's cool, there's all kinds of things going on.
Post by: Jacob/Lee on February 08, 2012, 11:10:02 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on February 08, 2012, 12:05:49 pm
Post by: Untelligent on February 08, 2012, 03:15:57 pm
Post by: Kriby on February 08, 2012, 03:44:08 pm
Post by: O11O1 on February 08, 2012, 07:03:45 pm
Post by: Putnam on February 08, 2012, 07:04:22 pm
Post by: Dae on February 09, 2012, 12:36:46 am
Quote from: devlog
and the growing/shrinking list still manages to maintain itself at ten issues.
Dear ThreeToe,
Please take a few days of vacation. Go somewhere nice, for example, somewhere without telephone or internet.
Sincerely,
All the eager DF players.
Post by: monk12 on February 09, 2012, 12:49:24 am
Post by: JimiD on February 09, 2012, 03:47:16 am
Quote from: devlogand the growing/shrinking list still manages to maintain itself at ten issues.
Dear ThreeToe,
Please take a few days of vacation. Go somewhere nice, for example, somewhere without telephone or internet.
Sincerely,
All the eager DF players.
A release with basic bugs still in it will be more frustrating than enjoyable.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 09, 2012, 06:20:53 am
I will donate later in this evening :D
Post by: Untelligent on February 09, 2012, 08:44:58 am
A release with basic bugs still in it will be more frustrating than enjoyable.
Depends on the bugs, really. A bug that makes the game crash every time you press 'k' would certainly be frustrating, but I think I could live with zombies having backwards names for a week.
Post by: Greiger on February 09, 2012, 09:25:49 am
I'll bet that ball somehow escapes the track within a week, with no discernible reason how it happened.
Post by: Tov01 on February 09, 2012, 11:07:57 am
Quote
made it stop ignoring restrictions on gender/caste for entity positions for people elevated from entity populations
So no more male elven princesses? I'm not sure if that makes me happy or sad.
Post by: Putnam on February 09, 2012, 11:22:04 am
Quotemade it stop ignoring restrictions on gender/caste for entity positions for people elevated from entity populations
So no more male elven princesses? I'm not sure if that makes me happy of sad.
I, for one, am really happy about this.
Post by: Baughn on February 09, 2012, 11:35:28 am
I haven't found a font that fits well into the default 8x12 textbox; the text gets too small to be easy to see.Well, "perfectly" would entail both of those. I'm somewhat hoping that tilesets won't need to support text rendering in the nearish future.Do we know how extensive the SDL fixes are? Should we expect TrueType fonts to work perfectly in all situations now?
Not sure if this information is known to the general forum population, so I'll leave it un-green now and change it if nobody knows.
By "work perfectly in all situations" do you mean "be usable for all text in the game," or "not cause the game to crash"?
So, status: The TTF support isn't flawless yet, but it's a lot closer than it used to be.
Unfortunately I can do a strictly limited number of improvements between DF versions, since I don't have the source code to DF as such and it starts crashing if it gets too much out of sync, so this release will also mark the point where I can start working again.
I don't really remember everything I did, but going by the commit list..
- Some improvements/bugfixes to macro functionality. Meh.
- The TTF code has been.. rewritten? That's terribly vague.. well, never mind. I'm sure it's good.
- TTF has acquired a notion of tab-stops, otherwise known as colons, which makes the menus look much better.
- You can toggle TTF on and off in-game with F12.
- Strings are abbreviated in a TTF-aware manner, so they don't get truncated when the TTF usage would leave a big blank space on the right.
- TTF has acquired an 'auto' mode in addition to on/off, where it'll turn itself on if the tileset is large enough. 14 vertical pixels, by default.
Tileset creators can of course ignore the text if they want and request that users set TRUETYPE:YES.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on February 09, 2012, 12:00:21 pm
Please take a few days of vacation. Go somewhere nice, for example, somewhere without telephone or internet.Do you really think that covering ears and singing "LALA I can't hear you" will cause bugs to vanish?
Post by: Footkerchief on February 09, 2012, 01:14:40 pm
Please take a few days of vacation. Go somewhere nice, for example, somewhere without telephone or internet.Do you really think that covering ears and singing "LALA I can't hear you" will cause bugs to vanish?
Yes, Dae literally thinks that. Also, this is literally you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8IHMctrKCg&feature=related).
Post by: Caldfir on February 09, 2012, 01:32:55 pm
The Toad moves in mysterious ways.
Post by: monk12 on February 09, 2012, 01:34:16 pm
The Toad hops in mysterious ways.
FTFY
Post by: Jacob/Lee on February 09, 2012, 01:36:02 pm
Lol, this has got to be the weirdest thing I've ever heard someone say about Toady.The Toad hops in mysterious ways.
FTFY
Post by: Dae on February 09, 2012, 02:47:16 pm
Please take a few days of vacation. Go somewhere nice, for example, somewhere without telephone or internet.Do you really think that covering ears and singing "LALA I can't hear you" will cause bugs to vanish?
Yes, Dae literally thinks that. Also, this is literally you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8IHMctrKCg&feature=related).
Well, not THAT litterally. But I assume Toady has fixed the most severe bugs already, and I can cope with finding the tomb of a ruler near to the tomb of his doppelganger.
Point is, we KNOW there will be bugs. The release won't be perfect, and the aim is not for it to be perfect but to be releasable. And my craving makes me think it is.
Now, I understand why Toady wants to fix the bugs he already knows are there beforehand, if only not to have them reported uselessly.
HOWEVER, if ThreeToe stops reporting bugs, Toady will fill confident enough in the version he has that he can release it.
Then we'll all be happy.
I'm doing this for all of you !
But mostly for me.
Post by: Caldfir on February 09, 2012, 03:13:41 pm
If I'm not mistaken, that's the first word from Baughn in like, a year. I guess that makes sense if updates to the SDL can only been done near to a (major?) release.
OR
Baughn is only summonable once a year, on Scamps' birthday.
Post by: monk12 on February 09, 2012, 03:19:15 pm
ohwaitwhat?
If I'm not mistaken, that's the first word from Baughn in like, a year. I guess that makes sense if updates to the SDL can only been done near to a (major?) release.
OR
Baughn is only summonable once a year, on Scamps' birthday.
OR
Baughn IS Scamps!
Post by: Totaku on February 09, 2012, 03:32:25 pm
ohwaitwhat?
If I'm not mistaken, that's the first word from Baughn in like, a year. I guess that makes sense if updates to the SDL can only been done near to a (major?) release.
OR
Baughn is only summonable once a year, on Scamps' birthday.
OR
Baughn IS Scamps!
And if that's so, how on earth does a cat learn to do SDL to the extent that it does it good enough for Toady to depend upon? And in 3 years no doubt?
The mysteries of the universe are always amazing.
(and remember this: scamps would of been coding SDL since a few month old to make things even MORE interesting.)
Post by: Kriby on February 09, 2012, 04:24:28 pm
Post by: scriver on February 09, 2012, 05:16:42 pm
Post by: Cruxador on February 09, 2012, 07:11:35 pm
Thanks for letting us know what the deal is! Sounds like it should work decently in most cases, and the F12 thing is sure to be extremely handy.I haven't found a font that fits well into the default 8x12 textbox; the text gets too small to be easy to see.Well, "perfectly" would entail both of those. I'm somewhat hoping that tilesets won't need to support text rendering in the nearish future.Do we know how extensive the SDL fixes are? Should we expect TrueType fonts to work perfectly in all situations now?
Not sure if this information is known to the general forum population, so I'll leave it un-green now and change it if nobody knows.
By "work perfectly in all situations" do you mean "be usable for all text in the game," or "not cause the game to crash"?
So, status: The TTF support isn't flawless yet, but it's a lot closer than it used to be.
Unfortunately I can do a strictly limited number of improvements between DF versions, since I don't have the source code to DF as such and it starts crashing if it gets too much out of sync, so this release will also mark the point where I can start working again.
I don't really remember everything I did, but going by the commit list..
- Some improvements/bugfixes to macro functionality. Meh.
- The TTF code has been.. rewritten? That's terribly vague.. well, never mind. I'm sure it's good.
- TTF has acquired a notion of tab-stops, otherwise known as colons, which makes the menus look much better.
- You can toggle TTF on and off in-game with F12.
- Strings are abbreviated in a TTF-aware manner, so they don't get truncated when the TTF usage would leave a big blank space on the right.
- TTF has acquired an 'auto' mode in addition to on/off, where it'll turn itself on if the tileset is large enough. 14 vertical pixels, by default.
Tileset creators can of course ignore the text if they want and request that users set TRUETYPE:YES.
Wanting the game even while some bugs remain isn't the same thing as saying that all bugs should be ignored forever. He just said that ThreeToe need not find more bugs to fix before release, because it would be nice to have that release soon, even if it still has some flaws.Please take a few days of vacation. Go somewhere nice, for example, somewhere without telephone or internet.Do you really think that covering ears and singing "LALA I can't hear you" will cause bugs to vanish?
Post by: Niccolo on February 09, 2012, 07:14:15 pm
And if that's so, how on earth does a cat learn to do SDL to the extent that it does it good enough for Toady to depend upon? And in 3 years no doubt?
It's simple: Open up the RAWs and add [CAN_LEARN] and [PERMITTED_JOB:CODER] to Scamps' entry.
Post by: bombzero on February 09, 2012, 11:21:47 pm
Also, why not implement some of the player made fixes for certain bugs? some are as simple as small changes to the raws.
specifically referring to the ones that are sufficiently gamebreaking or render an entire feature section unusable.
i know these is a rather pointless questions, but for a while the worse long standing bugs have been communal jokes of sorts, but its been years since some of the bugs started.
also am i correct that we may actually expect more regular, small dwarf fortress updates from now on?
Post by: Footkerchief on February 09, 2012, 11:27:48 pm
Is there any chance of several of the worst long standing bugs getting fixed in the update storm that will follow the new release?
Yes, those types of bugs will get looked at.
Also, why not implement some of the player made fixes for certain bugs? some are as simple as small changes to the raws.
Simple raws fixes have been specially tagged for Toady's benefit, and he has historically tended include batches of those in bugfix releases. Quietust's binary patches will also get some special attention.
also am i correct that we may actually expect more regular, small dwarf fortress updates from now on?
At least for a while, yes.
Post by: Untelligent on February 09, 2012, 11:39:01 pm
-Huge release with lots of new features
-Series of small releases to fix new bugs
-One or more medium-sized releases mostly focused on fixing long-standing bugs, each followed by more quick-fixes
-Soap, drown, and repeat
Post by: bombzero on February 10, 2012, 12:02:31 am
Yeah, the current release cycle for a while is:
-Huge release with lots of new features
-Series of small releases to fix new bugs
-One or more medium-sized releases mostly focused on fixing long-standing bugs, each followed by more quick-fixes
-Soap, drown, and repeat
I more meant that i had heard that with the new style of splitting the 'arcs' into smaller releases that we may actually expect major releases on a more frequent basis, but they wont be as huge of changes.
Post by: MrWiggles on February 10, 2012, 12:35:02 am
That was the goal. The release for the caravan arc were suppose to be short term release... Part one of release One, was a short term release. Part, the larger bulk of release one, ballon into the lovely thing we're going to get.
I more meant that i had heard that with the new style of splitting the 'arcs' into smaller releases that we may actually expect major releases on a more frequent basis, but they wont be as huge of changes.
We're then probablying going to get about 4-6 months of bug fixes and move onto Release 2. In where, Toady might try to go back to the shorter release cycle.
Post by: O11O1 on February 10, 2012, 01:24:57 am
Post by: Caldfir on February 10, 2012, 02:59:43 am
I would personally chalk the length of this cycle up to the creature drive. Toady has stated he felt compelled to do an extra good job on these creatures. This meant that he was looking at ways to make the creatures unique, so he started the interaction system. Then he added squids and so material breaths got merged into the interaction system, so there were interaction attacks. Then he noticed that he had just made all these cool catacombs and stuff, but there was nothing in them, because undead were super lame, so he added undead to the interaction system, and if undead are created through an interaction then why not add necromancers? At this point Toady pretty much just decided that, since he was already on a roll, he may as well flesh out the night creatures completely. That brings us to today, after werewolves and vampires and mummies and catacomb-dwellers have all been loaded in.
(note: this is not speculation; this is all just what I remember from devlog entries)
So yeah. Cities (what was actually on the dev page for this release) were mostly done around July or so, and since then has been night creatures and interactions, all spurred by the new animals. What is somewhat funny about all this is that the animal sponsorship drive was envisioned (as I understand it) as "an easy way to encourage donation without slowing down development significantly" since, had Toady just made RAW entries for the described creatures, it would have taken no time at all. What ended up happening though is that he wanted to "do [each creature] justice" because people had paid for them.
Anyway, there's your year-long release explained.
Post by: Baughn on February 10, 2012, 04:37:32 am
I mean, sure, it makes my own work harder. But at the same time, it means that whenever there is a release, it's something really worth looking forward to.
Also, DF is really starting to live up to its billing, don't you think? I can't imagine what 1.0 will be like. :D
Post by: Rose on February 10, 2012, 04:56:03 am
Post by: Cruxador on February 10, 2012, 05:12:58 am
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on February 10, 2012, 07:10:30 am
Quote from: Toady
made swimmers able to move up and out of rivers without using the alt keyI am almost certain this applies only to adventurer mode, but I want to be sure. Does this mean that dorfs drowning due to dogde in pond will be now a little rarer?
I more meant that i had heard that with the new style of splitting the 'arcs' into smaller releases that we may actually expect major releases on a more frequent basis, but they wont be as huge of changes.Toady tried that, yes. And failed spectacularly. Just get used to it, because release 2 will be no different.
BTW nice to see Baughn back.
Post by: MrWiggles on February 10, 2012, 07:23:20 am
That's an unrelated and entirely different issue.Quote from: Toadymade swimmers able to move up and out of rivers without using the alt keyI am almost certain this applies only to adventurer mode, but I want to be sure. Does this mean that dorfs drowning due to dogde in pond will be now a little rarer?
With the answer, being no.
Post by: Lumix on February 10, 2012, 07:54:40 am
That's an unrelated and entirely different issue.Quote from: Toadymade swimmers able to move up and out of rivers without using the alt keyI am almost certain this applies only to adventurer mode, but I want to be sure. Does this mean that dorfs drowning due to dogde in pond will be now a little rarer?
With the answer, being no.
At first i was like
"Does this even happen, i have never seen it"
Then i realised, It explains why half of my military was dead in a puddle.
Post by: MrWiggles on February 10, 2012, 08:15:18 am
That's an unrelated and entirely different issue.Quote from: Toadymade swimmers able to move up and out of rivers without using the alt keyI am almost certain this applies only to adventurer mode, but I want to be sure. Does this mean that dorfs drowning due to dogde in pond will be now a little rarer?
With the answer, being no.
At first i was like
"Does this even happen, i have never seen it"
Then i realised, It explains why half of my military was dead in a puddle.
Yea, when the AI is in combat, and it tries to dodge, it doesn't do a sanity check to where it's dodging. Which makes sense on some levels. Sometimes you're going to dodge, and not look to where your dodging. But on the other hand, it doesnt seem like the personality facets impact this. Dorfs with high spatial reasoning, as an example seem to jump off of cliffs just as often.
Post by: Footkerchief on February 10, 2012, 08:30:37 am
Yea, when the AI is in combat, and it tries to dodge, it doesn't do a sanity check to where it's dodging. Which makes sense on some levels. Sometimes you're going to dodge, and not look to where your dodging. But on the other hand, it doesnt seem like the personality facets impact this. Dorfs with high spatial reasoning, as an example seem to jump off of cliffs just as often.
For those interested in this topic, there's a collection of dodging bugs at this report (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=1600).
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on February 10, 2012, 09:13:05 am
Post by: Footkerchief on February 10, 2012, 09:22:04 am
i think the fact they can't swim out of a meager pool is the buggy part, and if i remember right, those will have ramps leading down to them in the future, so it's fixed enough for me. adding a chance of making better dodge choices based on spatial sense and cool headedness would make sense
Ramps have been confirmed for rivers/brooks but not for ponds/pools. I'd green it for clarification, but it seems like we're only a few days away.
There are really three separate issues here:
- dodging off ledges, even at high skill levels
- lack of ramps around bodies of water
- unskilled swimmers having no chance to climb out of the water
Post by: Greiger on February 10, 2012, 10:39:05 am
Seems that way with invaders on amphibious mounts at least. Long after the greenskin drowns the cave croc just sits in the pool while all the others retreated. Until something gets close enough to trigger the whole "hey look it's an enemy I'll try to move straight at/away from it" type stuff.
Of course this is all part speculation part observation. I don know the code.
Post by: monk12 on February 10, 2012, 12:03:24 pm
Post by: Kriby on February 10, 2012, 12:18:50 pm
For that matter does the game take density into account in regards to water and floating?
Post by: Footkerchief on February 10, 2012, 12:39:26 pm
Are dwarves denser than water?
For that matter does the game take density into account in regards to water and floating?
Nope, buoyancy is not simulated yet.
Post by: Neonivek on February 10, 2012, 01:07:55 pm
It just has to calculate the weight of water per square inch
and the average weight of a creature per square inch.
Dwarves are also likely not bouyant if they are mostly muscle mass.
Post by: Footkerchief on February 10, 2012, 01:40:33 pm
I will admit that this is probably a good system to simulate it.
It just has to calculate the weight of water per square inch
and the average weight of a creature per square inch.
Dwarves are also likely not bouyant if they are mostly muscle mass.
There are some other complications: (http://www.bay12games.com/media/df_talk_8_transcript.html)
Quote from: DF Talk 8
Rainseeker: How is the fluid model going to change?
Toady: We have hopes there. I guess there are two things ... one of them has a couple of sections ... but two things that are important are floating objects and additional fluid types. So for floating objects right now all the material have densities and they also have sizes and whatever other physical properties you might need, so it can tell, you know 'is this object going to float?' in water or magma. There are some issues there but it's not an impossible problem, you kind of worry when people use quantum stockpiles if they take a bunch of logs and drop five thousand of them in the same square and then that square suddenly gets wet is the CPU going to die? Maybe. But it's not like there needs to be a super lot of calculation going on because if it knows the density of the object to begin with ... I don't know if we're going to have to worry about shapes as well, like if an object has a concave shape the density isn't the only variable that's important ... but getting an object to float, especially for water which is so important, is just something that can be known about the object, it could just be a flag on the object so it doesn't have to do any calculation at all except for the actual floatation. As for that it just depends how you want it to work. There's some other trickiness; if your tile is two out of seven water with a seven out of seven below it, so it's actually bone fide water, it's not just a puddle, does the item float in the two out of seven square? Does it float in the seven out of seven square? What if you have a one of seven, what if you have a zero out of seven with a seven out of seven below it? Which square does it sit in is part of the problem of having this quantized space where you have a tile here and then a tile here and then a tile here, you want to decide where your item rests. Then there's the matter of having currents - the water has a direction that it's supposed to be flowing in even if the tiles aren't actually changing - the objects then can move and that's not really a big process or problem or anything, depending on how many objects you're actually monitoring, or how many squares you're monitoring if you want to monitor it by object or tile, there's a lot of different ways you can look at the problem. Just basically it's not a super hard problem, and then it would be really cool to flood a room and have everything either - depending on how heavy it is - just to get pushed along or float up and float out and go wherever you want it to go, I'm sure there'd be a lot of applications that would come out of that, for people that are doing all kinds of strange things.
Post by: Neonivek on February 10, 2012, 02:19:35 pm
In theory even a Bronze collosus could "Swim" by "Walking on the bottom of the water" (actually the Bronze collosus I wonder if he would be affected at all by the water)
Post by: Kriby on February 10, 2012, 04:46:16 pm
Plus there is the idea that Bouyancy isn't anti-swimming skill. It is anti-floating skill.
In theory even a Bronze collosus could "Swim" by "Walking on the bottom of the water" (actually the Bronze collosus I wonder if he would be affected at all by the water)
Not sure I follow. If you're denser than water you use Swimming to swim up, if you're lighter than water you use Swimming to go down. What's this Bouyancy skill?
Also I figure a bronze colossus would literally walk on the bottom of the water, he doesnt need to breathe afaik so whatever.
Edit: Can't this be done simply by calculating average density at all times? If an item is concave it is partly "made up of" air which lowers its density. Whether or not that empty pocket of air will be replaced with water seems like a matter of chance entirely. A dwarf wearing nothing has a lower density than a dwarf wearing steel plate, floats/sinks accordingly. Has the added benefit of you being able to dress your dwarves in corkwood "life-savers" that reduce their average density and make them float.
There's no clear cut answer for which tile an item should occupy.. but assuming a flooded fort should move items inside it the items would have to stay in a tile with water and only float up to the above tile if it has at least 1/7 water, wouldn't they?
Considering most rooms (I assume) end up being 1 tile in height, a gap in the roof would "catch" items otherwise making them fall perpetually, right? 7/7, floats up to 0/7, nothing there, falls down, floats up, falls down.. whereas if the tile is 1/7 it would be "floating" in that tile for the duration.
I suppose in this case a dwarf who is "floating" in a 7/7 tile with air above it would need special treatment not to drown.
Post by: orius on February 10, 2012, 06:42:53 pm
had Toady just made RAW entries for the described creatures, it would have taken no time at all. What ended up happening though is that he wanted to "do [each creature] justice" because people had paid for them.
At least that shows some real dedication to your playerbase.
Post by: Neonivek on February 10, 2012, 06:44:30 pm
Swiming isn't just the ability to swim up and down but move forward as well.
It is the skill that determines how well you move through the water.
In theory even the Bronze collosus would use swimming ability to walk along the bottom of the water more effectively. Even though he would be unable to rise in the water.
In the future I am looking forward to "Flying" skill, "Swimming" skill for swimmers, and "Running" skill.
Post by: MaskedMiner on February 10, 2012, 11:19:03 pm
Does Toady release updates on same day hes ready or day after that? Its been so long that I don't remember anymore.
Post by: bombzero on February 10, 2012, 11:27:58 pm
Post by: MasterMorality on February 11, 2012, 05:14:32 am
Can anybody even remember all the content in it? It's gargantuan!
Post by: MrWiggles on February 11, 2012, 07:56:25 am
I think Toady is going to have to take an entire day just to write up all the changes and content in this one update to post.Assuming that Toady isn't making the change log as he goes.
Can anybody even remember all the content in it? It's gargantuan!
Much like this dedicated fan as done: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1u8jibE1TV7BAwAI2b4TzRkWFlBboLiXMrVBhYmDYPhI&pli=1
Post by: Untelligent on February 11, 2012, 11:24:38 am
I think Toady is going to have to take an entire day just to write up all the changes and content in this one update to post.
Can anybody even remember all the content in it? It's gargantuan!
Yeah, he probably just makes a note of something each time he changes something, and at the end he cleans it up a bit and sticks it in the releasenotes.txt.
Also after 31.01 the update was so big he didn't post the changes on the devlog OR the release notes file. Best stick to that google doc.
Post by: Kriby on February 11, 2012, 01:01:31 pm
Post by: Neonivek on February 11, 2012, 01:05:47 pm
Once human civs become playable how will you avoid pissing off the elves insanely building a massive wooden town? Where will you get materials for keeps? If humans will dig down for rocks, why not for metals? Are there racial drawbacks planned that will keep humans from digging deep underground?
Well there is technology, society, and in some ways yeah race too.
Though I assume it will be because not only are humans less adept at digging but they prefer homes above ground.
Post by: SirPenguin on February 11, 2012, 01:07:58 pm
I think Toady is going to have to take an entire day just to write up all the changes and content in this one update to post.Assuming that Toady isn't making the change log as he goes.
Can anybody even remember all the content in it? It's gargantuan!
Much like this dedicated fan as done: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1u8jibE1TV7BAwAI2b4TzRkWFlBboLiXMrVBhYmDYPhI&pli=1
For DF2010, which contained many more fundamental and game-changing features than this release, Toady made a very bare bones list. I still linked people to the google doc version if they had questions about the feature list.
So, I don't mean to play backseat coder, and I know I'm just saying this because I'm impatient, but can't Toady prioritize bugs as "gamebreaking" and "not gamebreaking"? Some of the bugs we're being told are fixed seem to be the very definition of inconsequential, something which has no affect on the gameplay and could be fixed in any number of patches after
Post by: Taxus on February 11, 2012, 01:09:18 pm
I don't fully understand the current worldgen historical event process, but it seems pretty simple: Something like once a year there's a random chance for each historical figure to do one or two things, and some of those things consist of a series of smaller actions, like a war or a rampage.
Post by: Rockphed on February 11, 2012, 04:03:33 pm
So, I don't mean to play backseat coder, and I know I'm just saying this because I'm impatient, but can't Toady prioritize bugs as "gamebreaking" and "not gamebreaking"? Some of the bugs we're being told are fixed seem to be the very definition of inconsequential, something which has no affect on the gameplay and could be fixed in any number of patches after
I think sometimes we hear his description of bugs, and don't realize how annoying they would be. Yeah, you could still play the game with some of the bugs that he has been fixing, but it wouldn't work the way he wants it to. One of the big goals of this release was to get cities and towns to be consistent between visits so we could actually find our way around a town. If you have ever gone to sleep inside and gotten woken up by bogeymen attacking, you know how annoying having maps not be consistent between visits it. Also, it is good coding practice to not release something with bugs you know how to fix. Some of the "game breaking bugs" are really hard to track down. Sometimes they go away entirely when Toady removes a place-holder chunk of code and puts in the "final" version of that code. Normally, fixing something like that takes grinding away all the other bugs in the area until the final bug can be seen clearly. Which is not fun for anyone.
Post by: Aquillion on February 11, 2012, 04:13:25 pm
Post by: Jacob/Lee on February 11, 2012, 04:13:34 pm
Post by: Kriby on February 11, 2012, 06:49:17 pm
Post by: NobodyPro on February 11, 2012, 07:29:20 pm
Does/will biting monsters automatically ingest their blood?IIRC, Unless you have [SUCKS_BLOOD:x] (or whatever) in the attack definition the blood will just splatter across your teeth.
Post by: Quatch on February 11, 2012, 11:53:50 pm
Post by: bombzero on February 12, 2012, 01:42:40 am
Post by: Yoink on February 12, 2012, 06:35:22 am
Post by: bombzero on February 12, 2012, 07:13:24 am
Post by: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 08:37:49 am
Yeah, that's odd. :-\ In fact I'm hoping it's possible to turn that off... I often cycle through z-levels whilst designating to make sure different levels measure up to the one above, I don't want to end up designating the everything for mining!
This is effectively impossible to do accidentally unless you either hold the mouse button down while looking at different z-levels (which you have no reason to do anyhow), or press "enter" again while on a different level (which, again, you wouldn't be doing in the first place).
Post by: Baughn on February 12, 2012, 09:11:52 am
It's a pity that so many don't know about these.
Post by: Footkerchief on February 12, 2012, 09:44:46 am
You could already do multi z-level designations using macros, effectively speaking.
It's a pity that so many don't know about these.
I'd just rather not use them. They make the game feel like I'm at work writing vim scripts.
edit: not to imply that macros aren't a useful feature for other players.
Post by: Greiger on February 12, 2012, 10:43:46 am
You could already do multi z-level designations using macros, effectively speaking.
It's a pity that so many don't know about these.
Don't worry your macros are extremely useful to the folks that use them. A macro that just does down and enter is awesome for buying tons of stuff from caravans because it only counts as one key and triggers the key entry speedup too when held. 50 pages of delicious meat purchased in 10 seconds. Muahaha!
Post by: Myr0ku on February 12, 2012, 12:06:16 pm
And, will the bug with the starecase in the glaciers be fixed ?
Post by: Johuotar on February 12, 2012, 12:23:37 pm
So, i don't understand, what will be the major implementation in the next release of DF ?
And, will the bug with the starecase in the glaciers be fixed ?
Cities
-Cities have gone through a major change, both in their size and function.
Interactions
-In general, interactions refer to the notion of one creature somehow affecting another. This has opened up a whole range of gameplay possibilities
Creatures
-A great many new types of creatures now inhabit the game, ranging from “boss” enemies like the necromancer, hoards of new undead and night creatures, and of course mundane “donation” animals
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1u8jibE1TV7BAwAI2b4TzRkWFlBboLiXMrVBhYmDYPhI&pli=1
I know absolutely nothing about macros in df despite extensive playing. I should probably check the wiki article about them. ->
Post by: Footkerchief on February 12, 2012, 12:25:23 pm
So, i don't understand, what will be the major implementation in the next release of DF ?
And, will the bug with the starecase in the glaciers be fixed ?
Here is a community-made list of features: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1u8jibE1TV7BAwAI2b4TzRkWFlBboLiXMrVBhYmDYPhI
Toady mentioned that he "fixed a couple ancient problems with frozen ramps" (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/#2011-12-19), which might include stairs in glaciers, but probably not.
Post by: Myr0ku on February 12, 2012, 12:37:58 pm
Why do i feel something in DF that i don't feel with any other game ?
Something like a feeling of hugeness, when i start a new fortress, it's like it's me starting a new era of the dwarfkind !
Post by: Myr0ku on February 12, 2012, 01:15:39 pm
I know all it's shapes, and i'll have to get used with another civilisations, and another heroes.
sniff...
Post by: Untelligent on February 12, 2012, 01:59:40 pm
Post by: Myr0ku on February 12, 2012, 02:19:23 pm
Except the fact that the North pole is on the East side, it's quite similar...
Post by: Vichan on February 12, 2012, 03:12:58 pm
Don't you think my world (http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/758428EcamoEtha.png) looks like the Earth ?
Except the fact that the North pole is on the East side, it's quite similar...
God, can you just imagine what it'd be like to command an army on a world like that? I can't wait until 1.0 comes around!
Post by: Myr0ku on February 12, 2012, 03:25:55 pm
God, can you just imagine what it'd be like to command an army on a world like that? I can't wait until 1.0 comes around!
I don't understand what do you want to say.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 12, 2012, 03:27:21 pm
Don't you think my world (http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/758428EcamoEtha.png) looks like the Earth ?
Except the fact that the North pole is on the East side, it's quite similar...
Not quite, but it's the closest I've seen ;)
Post by: Rafal99 on February 12, 2012, 03:32:08 pm
Post by: Baughn on February 12, 2012, 03:40:42 pm
Indeed. Not requiring people to name macros was a good decision, I think. :PYou could already do multi z-level designations using macros, effectively speaking.
It's a pity that so many don't know about these.
Don't worry your macros are extremely useful to the folks that use them. A macro that just does down and enter is awesome for buying tons of stuff from caravans because it only counts as one key and triggers the key entry speedup too when held. 50 pages of delicious meat purchased in 10 seconds. Muahaha!
Don't suppose you have a wishlist for macro features?
Post by: Kriby on February 12, 2012, 04:04:52 pm
Indeed. Not requiring people to name macros was a good decision, I think. :PYou could already do multi z-level designations using macros, effectively speaking.
It's a pity that so many don't know about these.
Don't worry your macros are extremely useful to the folks that use them. A macro that just does down and enter is awesome for buying tons of stuff from caravans because it only counts as one key and triggers the key entry speedup too when held. 50 pages of delicious meat purchased in 10 seconds. Muahaha!
Don't suppose you have a wishlist for macro features?
Auto-repeat macros, or a hard sequential mode for just holding down ctrl-p with long macros!
Post by: Name Lips on February 12, 2012, 05:49:04 pm
Post by: Baughn on February 12, 2012, 06:01:06 pm
Auto-repeat macros, or a hard sequential mode for just holding down ctrl-p with long macros!Wait, you can already hold down ctrl-p. What more are you asking for?
Auto-repeat.. oh, hang on. How about prefix commands?
I.e. you'd say C-u 20 C-p, and it would run the macro 20 times
..this would work for *every* command, mind you, not just C-p. Not sure how useful you'll find that, but there's no reason it shouldn't.
Post by: Baughn on February 12, 2012, 06:04:45 pm
Ability to rotate macros by a set amount, then repeat sections of the macro, rotate again, etc. So you can generate a large section of fractal symmetry by describing only part of the pattern, and putting in a few clever repeats.Do you think getting the ability to rotate the arrow key functions will do, or do you want something more advanced?
Post by: Baughn on February 12, 2012, 07:54:56 pm
I've implemented prefix commands, which is to say.. let's give an example. Writing C-x for control+x:
C-r <left> <left> <down> C-r
C-u 12 C-p
This will first record a macro hitting left twice and then down. It will then play that macro back twelve times.
Alternately you can say C-u 40 <left> to just scroll a bit on the worldmap, for example.
Post by: Anatoli on February 12, 2012, 09:33:32 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on February 12, 2012, 09:48:36 pm
Post by: Greiger on February 12, 2012, 09:50:02 pm
Post by: SirPenguin on February 12, 2012, 10:15:59 pm
Post by: Urist McDepravity on February 12, 2012, 10:40:41 pm
C-r <left> <left> <down> C-rNow, since you are already implementing emacs in DF, we should have Dwarf-LISP interpreter there too.
C-u 12 C-p
Post by: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 10:42:50 pm
Baughn, I'm not sure I'm the right person to say this, with me being new here, and not active in the community, but could you NOT triple post? Especially, if your posts are 3 minutes of each other.
Yeah, it's a little ridiculous, especially in a thread that's active enough you know your edits won't be missed.
Post by: Willfor on February 12, 2012, 10:48:06 pm
Amount of explicit complaint posts (unless I missed some sarcasm) about the triple post since he implemented new macro functionality: 3
Hmm...
Post by: Hummingbird on February 12, 2012, 10:56:05 pm
Baughn, I'm not sure I'm the right person to say this, with me being new here, and not active in the community, but could you NOT triple post? Especially, if your posts are 3 minutes of each other.
Quote
Posted by: Baughn
« on: Today at 06:04:45 pm »
Quote
Posted by: Baughn
« on: Today at 07:54:56 pm »
Welp, sorry, this thing that was said by you, it seems like it is not true, but rather the opposite of true, maybe even false
Post by: monk12 on February 12, 2012, 10:59:31 pm
Props to Baughn for the new macro functionality- that'll be way cool when it gets in one of these upcoming releases. Thank you!
Post by: Niccolo on February 12, 2012, 11:36:49 pm
Amount of explicit thanks posts for Baughn since he implemented new macro functionality: 0
Amount of explicit complaint posts (unless I missed some sarcasm) about the triple post since he implemented new macro functionality: 3
Hmm...
xD I think you might have missed a little sarcasm.
Post by: Willfor on February 12, 2012, 11:38:54 pm
Post by: Dae on February 12, 2012, 11:41:15 pm
Post by: Name Lips on February 12, 2012, 11:53:55 pm
Well, I doubt you need to build in a fully-fledged DF macro scripting language with repeatable subroutines and if/then loops. Though it would be fun. :P
Do you think getting the ability to rotate the arrow key functions will do, or do you want something more advanced?
But the idea is that if you have a fortress design that simply needs to be rotated 90 degrees, designated dig, rotated 90 degrees, designated dig, etc., it would be nice to macro it as "Dig, Dig, Dig, rotate 90, repeat(x4)" instead of having a macro 4 times as long.
And if your floorplan is identical for each z-level, and you want 5 z-levels designated, it could be like this:
(Dig, Dig, Dig, rotate 90, repeat(x4) down one z-level), repeat(x5)
And then with a single keystroke, you could designate 5 z-levels of full fortress construction, but only have to spend the time to macro out one quarter of one floor.
Post by: Anatoli on February 13, 2012, 12:12:20 am
Yes, I suppose I AM guilty of starting a ridiculous and obnoxious bunch of posts about triple posting and my comment. In my defense, I was first, meaning, I would NOT talk post about it, if someone mentioned it before me. Also, my comment was addressed to Baughn, and I would hugely prefer if he was the only one to reply to this.
Now, a couple words to other commenters: Yes, there IS a two hour distance between the second and third post. When I said there was a three minute difference, I meant the first and second posts, and I don't see why it has to be so confusing. And I may be missing some important part of internet etiquette, but I don't consider my comment to be rude. When Toady starts triple posting, I'll be sure to remind him ;D(It doesn't count when he runs out of space.)
And thanks to Baughn for implementing all he implemented so far, and all he's going to implement in the future.
Post by: Kriby on February 13, 2012, 02:23:32 am
Edit: Oh and since you asked, the reason I wanted a more defined repeat function than simply holding Ctrl-p is that for longer macros holding Ctrl-P, at least on my computer, causes macros to run inside of each other (sometimes with !!FUN!! side-effects).
Post by: hermes on February 13, 2012, 04:04:10 am
Post by: Cruxador on February 13, 2012, 04:11:55 am
I've two really basic questions but they are related to recent dev... first it's great that Baughn is adding more functionality, do those macros work in adventurer mode?Haven't tested, but I don't see why they wouldn't.
Quote
Second, campfires! Very nice addition, does temperature affect adventurers in any way? Thanks in advance :)Well too much temperature makes adventurers burn up and die. I don't know if too little does anything. It would make sense for really extreme temperatures to freeze your blood, but I don't think anything really gets that cold in the game right now. An ice breath equivalent to the extant fire breath, and ice magic as part of the eventual magic system and spheres are reasonable things to expect eventually but nothing like that's explicitly in the timeline.
Post by: Baughn on February 13, 2012, 04:19:38 am
Thanks Baughn that is exactly what I was hoping for ^^ You rule!Oh, right. Now that I think about it, I fixed that particular bug back in.. May 2011? ..which means it's not part of the current release. Not to worry, it's fixed too.
Edit: Oh and since you asked, the reason I wanted a more defined repeat function than simply holding Ctrl-p is that for longer macros holding Ctrl-P, at least on my computer, causes macros to run inside of each other (sometimes with !!FUN!! side-effects).
The reason I multi-posted in order to quote two separate posts is that I was doing it from my phone. Trying to copy and paste becomes a bit inconvenient. ???
And yes, the macros certainly do work in adventure mode. They're less useful there, but they're part of the basic input layer; they work everywhere. I usually test new features on the main menu first.
Post by: Deon on February 13, 2012, 05:54:24 am
@Baughn improving macros: you rule x3.
Do we EVER get in the future that thing you were talking about long time ago... Multi-tile creatures, caste-specific graphics etc?
Post by: Baughn on February 13, 2012, 06:11:46 am
Best I can do is make the framework, and hope Toady takes me up on it. :P
But things have diverged too far for me to do much development right now. I'll have another look after the next release, instead. Probably won't be long. (Incidentally, that release won't have the macro repeat key; the one after will.)
Post by: Cruxador on February 13, 2012, 06:41:00 am
Never say never. Though I can't exactly implement multi-tile creatures; what I was talking about was multi-tile graphics, for creatures that are already multi-tile. Caste-specific creatures would be even harder.One after will probably drop pretty quick though, seeing as bugfixes are next up on the schedule.
Best I can do is make the framework, and hope Toady takes me up on it. :P
But things have diverged too far for me to do much development right now. I'll have another look after the next release, instead. Probably won't be long. (Incidentally, that release won't have the macro repeat key; the one after will.)
Post by: Owlbread on February 13, 2012, 09:17:28 am
Post by: MrWiggles on February 13, 2012, 09:26:29 am
Will the militia be able to leave the fortress and attack other sites in the future, or will that be completely restricted to the army?Yes, you'll be able to send dwarfs from your fort, off map. You'll be able to recreat dorfs off map to send to other places off map.
Post by: Footkerchief on February 13, 2012, 10:17:22 am
Never say never. Though I can't exactly implement multi-tile creatures; what I was talking about was multi-tile graphics, for creatures that are already multi-tile. Caste-specific creatures would be even harder.
Best I can do is make the framework, and hope Toady takes me up on it. :P
Can you comment on the feasibility of item/map graphics? As of July 2010 (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.0), it sounded like Toady's main concern was the size of the texture atlas, but given how many creatures have been added since then (300+?), it doesn't seem crazy to add several hundred item/map tiles.
Will the militia be able to leave the fortress and attack other sites in the future, or will that be completely restricted to the army?
Does this question presuppose that the Army Arc will split the current military into a militia and a regular army? Because I don't think that's guaranteed. If it did, you'll probably still be able to use the militia for off-site attacks.
Post by: Baughn on February 13, 2012, 10:38:36 am
Can you comment on the feasibility of item/map graphics? As of July 2010 (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60554.0), it sounded like Toady's main concern was the size of the texture atlas, but given how many creatures have been added since then (300+?), it doesn't seem crazy to add several hundred item/map tiles.This is still a going concern, with the texture atlas working as it does now. I'd need to do some fairly hefty surgery to make it possible.
However, quite frankly it is not reasonable to maintain five separate renderers. The most likely path from here is to cut it down to three: One text-mode (curses) 'renderer', one SDL-based using only 2D graphics, and one OpenGL-based that will only attempt to work on up-to-date hardware that supports <significant parts of OpenGL 3> but will also support shaded/animated tilesets.
With a restriction like that, I'd be able to write clean code that avoids the limitations of the current OpenGL output, and with only two graphical renderers to maintain it'd be reasonable to support everything we want to support (TTF, etc.) on both of them.
Unfortunately the Intel drivers do not currently support OpenGL 3, at least on Linux, which means that implementing this would cut quite a few people out of the loop, notably including me. They claimed they'd fix that by the end of 2011; they haven't yet.
EDIT: Eating my words. This was posted three days ago:
Quote
Mesa 8.0 is released. This is the first version of Mesa to support OpenGL 3.0 and GLSL 1.30 (with the i965 driver). See the release notes for more information about the release.
Post by: Knight Otu on February 13, 2012, 10:47:03 am
The split already exists, though - a civ-wide army, and site-based militia, at least in terms of entity positions. Not that we see much of that.Will the militia be able to leave the fortress and attack other sites in the future, or will that be completely restricted to the army?
Does this question presuppose that the Army Arc will split the current military into a militia and a regular army? Because I don't think that's guaranteed. If it did, you'll probably still be able to use the militia for off-site attacks.
Post by: Footkerchief on February 13, 2012, 10:56:08 am
The split already exists, though - a civ-wide army, and site-based militia, at least in terms of entity positions. Not that we see much of that.Will the militia be able to leave the fortress and attack other sites in the future, or will that be completely restricted to the army?
Does this question presuppose that the Army Arc will split the current military into a militia and a regular army? Because I don't think that's guaranteed. If it did, you'll probably still be able to use the militia for off-site attacks.
Oh right, those entity positions. My hiatus is showing.
Post by: Orkel on February 13, 2012, 11:18:49 am
Post by: Urist McCheeseMaker on February 13, 2012, 11:23:59 am
Baughn. You deserve praise for the SDL and the macros and the everything. So, thanks. Thanks a lot. Because you're awesome. (Just not quite as awesome as the great Toady one, obviously)
Post by: Knight Otu on February 13, 2012, 11:28:35 am
Will overly weak skulls/brains (fights always end in a jammed skull into brain) be fixed in the upcoming version?We haven't heard anything about that for the next version. Improved nonlethal fistfighting were mentioned in regards to taverns and inns, though.
Post by: Myr0ku on February 13, 2012, 01:36:09 pm
So, will i be forced to recreate a whole world at each new patches ? Or simply the new game and keep my save...
Not sure of the righteousness of my langage, but the fact is i'm not English Speaker
Post by: Baughn on February 13, 2012, 01:54:44 pm
Anyway, no, you will almost certainly not need to create new games between patches.
Post by: Footkerchief on February 13, 2012, 01:55:21 pm
When the next release will be unleashed, i suppose theire will be a lot of bugs, and many updates will be released in the next months.
So, will i be forced to recreate a whole world at each new patches ? Or simply the new game and keep my save...
Not sure of the righousness of my langage, but the fact is i'm not English Speaker
It depends. Saves from the upcoming release will be compatible with following releases, but occasionally certain bug fixes (or new features) can't be applied to a preexisting world/fortress, and if you want to use the changes, you'll have to generate a new world.
You may even be able to keep using your current save, though you'll be missing out on a lot of new features if you do that.
Nope, it was confirmed that current saves will not be compatible with the upcoming release:
There was a bit of a discussion about save compatibility. I think in this release we've been moving slowly in the direction of it being practically impossible... and crossed that line a while ago. Between the map changes and all the interaction stuff, it's not going to be feasible time-wise to keep things operating smoothly in old saves.
Post by: Myr0ku on February 13, 2012, 01:59:04 pm
Yes, i'll surely create a new world, because i don't want to miss citys and ruins (if i well understood, there will be ruins, no ?)
Post by: Footkerchief on February 13, 2012, 02:21:05 pm
OK, thanks, i searched a bit, and i fugured righteousness was not the good term...
Yes, i'll surely create a new world, because i don't want to miss citys and ruins (if i well understood, there will be ruins, no ?)
Yes, ruins are confirmed:
Quote from: magmaholicAre we going to have ghost towns/ruins?
There are ruins with ruined buildings at times now, though they tend to resettle the old sites if they can. Many towns can be in a bust state at this point, in which case a lot of the buildings are in bad shape if they aren't occupied.
The next version will also have pyramids, catacombs, tombs, and other creepy places to adventure in.
Post by: Owlbread on February 13, 2012, 02:58:52 pm
The split already exists, though - a civ-wide army, and site-based militia, at least in terms of entity positions. Not that we see much of that.Will the militia be able to leave the fortress and attack other sites in the future, or will that be completely restricted to the army?
Does this question presuppose that the Army Arc will split the current military into a militia and a regular army? Because I don't think that's guaranteed. If it did, you'll probably still be able to use the militia for off-site attacks.
Oh right, those entity positions. My hiatus is showing.
My understanding of the situation with the military is that there is a civ-wide army (as Knight Otu has said) that you can gain control of if you get a Monarch. That would allow you to create generals, captains and so on. As Knight Otu has said, militias would be confined to sites, which means that when "retiring fortresses" and so on is implemented, you could create a fortress, create a militia, develop it to the status of a capital city (or something like that) then create new outposts throughout your empire. Although your capital has the original army and can attack sites, your new little outposts would have their own militias too that they could raise. I was just wondering whether or not those militias in the outposts could leave the site and attack a neighbouring goblin fortress that's giving them hassle just the same way as the civ-wide army can. So you think that would be possible? It might be important in the future - if you've embarked on another continent to your home civilisation, that might leave your dwarves isolated.
Post by: ragman le bon on February 13, 2012, 03:57:10 pm
Post by: Putnam on February 13, 2012, 03:59:11 pm
If playing a dwarf in Adventure mode, will you need alcohol to get through the working day?
If this release doesn't have it, a future one most certainly will :P
It'll probably come around the same time that you can buy alcohol at stores
Post by: darkflagrance on February 13, 2012, 04:41:48 pm
I envision custom workshops where Dwarven War Chemists produce vile fumes to overwhelm goblin attackers from recessed grills next to entrance walkways, or stained distillery rooms filled with noxious gasses that suffocate their workers over time, infect them with incurable degenerative disorders, and, left uncontained, spell the doom of a fortress and the sterilization of the embark for reclaim efforts.
Post by: Kriby on February 13, 2012, 05:34:51 pm
Post by: Scarpa on February 13, 2012, 05:42:30 pm
Post by: Cruxador on February 13, 2012, 05:58:13 pm
When the next release will be unleashed, i suppose theire will be a lot of bugs, and many updates will be released in the next months.
So, will i be forced to recreate a whole world at each new patches ? Or simply the new game and keep my save...
Not sure of the righteousness of my langage, but the fact is i'm not English Speaker
OK, thanks, i searched a bit, and i fugured righteousness was not the good term...You'll get cities and ruins, as well as new undead and monsters (vampires, werewolves) and mummy tombs.
Yes, i'll surely create a new world, because i don't want to miss citys and ruins (if i well understood, there will be ruins, no ?)
Your English is understandable just fine, but the grammar is not very good. "Righteousness" doesn't mean that, as people said. You could use "rightness", but it's not exactly a normal way to phrase it anyway. It would be more normal to say "not sure if my language is right".
You say "i" as a word, that should always be capitalized as "I".
You should not have a space before the "?".
"Theire" isn't a word, there are two words, "there" and "their". The one to use that time would be "there". "their" means something owned by "them". There's also "they're" which is short for "they are".
"fugured" is spelled wrong, should be "figured".
Otherwise you are using English well. Since you use it well enough that everyone can understand, you only need to keep using it and reading in English and your grammar will get better until nobody could tell you're not a native speaker.
Post by: bombzero on February 13, 2012, 07:00:53 pm
When the next release will be unleashed, i suppose theire will be a lot of bugs, and many updates will be released in the next months.
So, will i be forced to recreate a whole world at each new patches ? Or simply the new game and keep my save...
Not sure of the righteousness of my langage, but the fact is i'm not English SpeakerOK, thanks, i searched a bit, and i fugured righteousness was not the good term...You'll get cities and ruins, as well as new undead and monsters (vampires, werewolves) and mummy tombs.
Yes, i'll surely create a new world, because i don't want to miss citys and ruins (if i well understood, there will be ruins, no ?)
Your English is understandable just fine, but the grammar is not very good. "Righteousness" doesn't mean that, as people said. You could use "rightness", but it's not exactly a normal way to phrase it anyway. It would be more normal to say "not sure if my language is right".
You say "i" as a word, that should always be capitalized as "I".
You should not have a space before the "?".
"Theire" isn't a word, there are two words, "there" and "their". The one to use that time would be "there". "their" means something owned by "them". There's also "they're" which is short for "they are".
"fugured" is spelled wrong, should be "figured".
Otherwise you are using English well. Since you use it well enough that everyone can understand, you only need to keep using it and reading in English and your grammar will get better until nobody could tell you're not a native speaker.
i often forget to capItalIze i even though i know i should as It is Important to capItalIze your i's.
Post by: Niccolo on February 13, 2012, 07:21:51 pm
i often forget to capItalIze i even though i know i should as It is Important to capItalIze your i's.
Now that's just plain cruel. Don't confuse the poor guy.
Post by: KillHour on February 13, 2012, 08:35:32 pm
Your English is understandable just fine, but the grammar is not very good. "Righteousness" doesn't mean that, as people said. You could use "rightness", but it's not exactly a normal way to phrase it
...
"Rightness" refers to a state of being, so it wouldn't be appropriate.
A better word would probably be "correct" or "correctly", as in "Am I correct in the usage of my grammar?" (which is a passive sentence) or "Am I using my grammar correctly?" (which is an active sentence, and more common).
Post by: Myr0ku on February 14, 2012, 01:39:30 am
"fugure" was just a typing mistake !
I'm getting better and better in english !
Post by: orius on February 14, 2012, 01:45:02 am
It's also used in surfer dude talk: "Yo, Urist McGnarly is like, totally righteous, dood!" :D
Post by: zwei on February 14, 2012, 02:39:25 am
Yeah, righteous ususally means morally proper.
as in righteous spelling?
Post by: Kriby on February 14, 2012, 02:50:40 am
Post by: MrWiggles on February 14, 2012, 03:04:58 am
Will the new mists that occasionally waft over the landscape be creatable with reactions? Will they still work if temperature is turned off in the init file?
I envision custom workshops where Dwarven War Chemists produce vile fumes to overwhelm goblin attackers from recessed grills next to entrance walkways, or stained distillery rooms filled with noxious gasses that suffocate their workers over time, infect them with incurable degenerative disorders, and, left uncontained, spell the doom of a fortress and the sterilization of the embark for reclaim efforts.
My bet is that the new weather effects are hard coded to be produced by the Biomes alignment. So you might be able to get good biomes to have positive mists.
Post by: hermes on February 14, 2012, 04:33:05 am
Post by: NobodyPro on February 14, 2012, 04:36:34 am
- made vision work through floor grates and bars properly
- demons masquerading as gods will try a little harder
- restricted mandates so they'll be more reasonable
Post by: Cruxador on February 14, 2012, 04:39:25 am
Happy Valentines by the way.
Wahoo! Congratulations on the release Bay12 :DI checked the forum before checking the dev log, and it just occurred to me what an awesome troll post this would have been if it had been made yesterday.
Post by: FallingWhale on February 14, 2012, 04:47:58 am
Post by: darkflagrance on February 14, 2012, 04:52:31 am
Also, it looks like Toady added ALL the snakes :D
I love snakes
Also
Code: [Select]
[CREATURE:GIANT_BEAVER]
[COPY_TAGS_FROM:BEAVER]
[APPLY_CREATURE_VARIATION:GIANT]
[CV_REMOVE_TAG:CHANGE_BODY_SIZE_PERC]
[APPLY_CURRENT_CREATURE_VARIATION]
[GO_TO_END]
[SELECT_CASTE:ALL]
[CHANGE_BODY_SIZE_PERC:1709]
[GO_TO_START]
[NAME:giant beaver:giant beavers:giant beaver]
[CASTE_NAME:giant beaver:giant beavers:giant beaver]
[GENERAL_CHILD_NAME:giant beaver kit:giant beaver kits]
[DESCRIPTION:A large river monster, known for building huge wooden fortresses.]
[POPULATION_NUMBER:15:30]
[CLUSTER_NUMBER:3:10]
[CREATURE_TILE:'B']
[COLOR:6:0:0]
[PET_EXOTIC]
[PETVALUE:500]
[MOUNT_EXOTIC]
[GO_TO_END]
[PREFSTRING:dams]
[PREFSTRING:tree-felling habits]But alas no actual dam-building like the ASCII reward someone once posted...something to look forward to in the future ;D
Post by: Jheral on February 14, 2012, 05:04:25 am
<goes off to donate again>
Post by: jellsprout on February 14, 2012, 05:29:12 am
Now with tombs, zombies and rains of blood and pus.
Post by: irdsm on February 14, 2012, 05:30:08 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on February 14, 2012, 06:13:26 am
Also new FOTF please?
Post by: Owlbread on February 14, 2012, 06:59:10 am
Post by: Torchy on February 14, 2012, 07:27:31 am
You're beautiful.
Post by: Kriby on February 14, 2012, 07:31:42 am
Post by: de5me7 on February 14, 2012, 07:35:59 am
"You have been struck down"
Post by: smirk on February 14, 2012, 07:52:54 am
Dwarf Fortress: Valentine's Day Version
Now with tombs, zombies and rains of blood and pus.
I vote that, rather than DF2012, we call this one "DF: VD Edition". But then, not everyone appreciates gutter humour 0_o
Toady, my thanks is beyond words. Donating.
Post by: Untelligent on February 14, 2012, 08:10:48 am
Down from the heavens descended Dwarf Fortress
And with balls wrought from brass and swords made of rocks
Before long the dwarves all wore angelhide socks
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2012, 10:06:57 am
10/10
Post by: thvaz on February 14, 2012, 10:12:21 am
I killed one without any problems.
Post by: Toady One on February 14, 2012, 10:43:12 am
Also new FOTF please?
The current plan is to answer the green questions in here that should still be answered next time I get a chance, and then lock/restart right when I do that. It's impossible to say when it'll happen, but I hope this week sometime.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on February 14, 2012, 10:45:48 am
Vampires have random atributtes or are all the same for now? I killed one without any problems.Maybe you had bad luck and in this world vampires are pansies.
Post by: Quatch on February 14, 2012, 10:48:55 am
Donation shipped! I seem to have missed where I put in for a crayon drawing. I shall email I guess. I didn't see a button or textbox in my haste to send cash :)
Post by: Greiger on February 14, 2012, 10:53:56 am
But with him busy it might take bit to send off the email. :)
Post by: thvaz on February 14, 2012, 11:51:20 am
Vampires have random atributtes or are all the same for now? I killed one without any problems.Maybe you had bad luck and in this world vampires are pansies.
Well, a legendary vampire maceman proved me wrogn. But the fact is that is very easy to spot them on adventure mode. They brag about killing humans!
Post by: EmeraldWind on February 14, 2012, 11:57:19 am
I genning a world right now. This is going to be fun!
Post by: tfaal on February 14, 2012, 12:20:09 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on February 14, 2012, 12:37:52 pm
the askot regains consciousness.
the askot stands up.
the askot gives in to temptation.
the askot sits back down.
askot cancels having a life: playing dwarf fortress
Post by: Untelligent on February 14, 2012, 01:03:15 pm
First Age of Legends -- Year 48
Second Age of Myth -- Years 49-51
Second Age of Legends -- Years 52-92
Age of Heroes -- Years 93-134
Golden Age -- Years 135-200 (present)
Holy goddamn, I can't remember the last time I had a Golden Age. Probably back when every world ran to 1050 and ages were based strictly on what year it was.
Also that bit where it went into the Age of Legends for a single year and went right back to Myth is kind of weird.
Post by: Putnam on February 14, 2012, 01:08:11 pm
Holy goddamn, I can't remember the last time I had a Golden Age. Probably back when every world ran to 1050 and ages were based strictly on what year it was.
I'm not sure if they ever were.
Anyway, yeah, it seems to actually happen now, which I like.
Post by: Mike Mayday on February 14, 2012, 01:09:10 pm
Are there plans to remove the remaining non-truetype pieces of text in the game? (certain symbols in the (V)iew menu, diplomacy and thoughts etc...).
Post by: Untelligent on February 14, 2012, 01:11:18 pm
Holy goddamn, I can't remember the last time I had a Golden Age. Probably back when every world ran to 1050 and ages were based strictly on what year it was.
I'm not sure if they ever were.
Anyway, yeah, it seems to actually happen now, which I like.
They were; that's how ages worked years back.
1-500: Age of Myth
501-1000: Age of Legends
1001-1050: Golden Age
Then the age names got overhauled.
Post by: Organum on February 14, 2012, 01:35:17 pm
Post by: Myr0ku on February 14, 2012, 01:43:22 pm
OMFG
Post by: Rockphed on February 14, 2012, 02:03:01 pm
Necromancers are interesting. I haven't met one yet, but they're prolific authors; some of their books are about the secrets of life and death, but most of them are biographical essays of other necromancers, with occasional short stories thrown in. One autobiographical essay by necromancer Reloth Crowdseize, entitled "Give me Reloth Crowdseize", apparently attracted a bit of literary criticism, because about 80 years later, "To 'Give me Reloth Crowdseize' and Glory!" was written about it. Upon further examination, this later text was also written by Reloth Crowdseize.
Obviously it was a reminiscence about his earlier book. Perhaps an update.
I have downloaded the new version, but haven't found time to play yet. Will play soon.
Post by: EmeraldWind on February 14, 2012, 02:38:41 pm
"It had to be the dwarf"
"Extinction: My Only Mistake" (Pretty big mistake...)
"The Human For the Beginning Practitioner" (This is a must read for any necromancer just starting up.)
"The Axe and The Dwarf Explained" (This one is a short essay about a 250 page autobiography. A review perhaps? "Hi, I'm the Necrocritic. I read it, now you don't have to.)
"The Human: The Definitive Guide"
"The Bald Human" (A green glass book about the author written in a viscous tone. Immortal Life without Hair)
"The Minotaur Questioned" (Does the minotaur really like elves for their grace? Aspiring minds want to know!)
This is awesome. I'm having fun just imagining what the books are about.
Post by: monk12 on February 14, 2012, 02:52:07 pm
I really want to play with just the book title generator.
Post by: EmeraldWind on February 14, 2012, 03:19:03 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Jheral on February 14, 2012, 03:25:04 pm
I have had several of my adventurers nearly dying from starvation already because they couldn't use those wild strawberries in any way other than indulging their pyromania. ;)
Post by: Eric Blank on February 14, 2012, 03:30:10 pm
20-30 is a big number when you're trying to sleep or even ARRIVE at your destination. I can't travel even twelve hours from the city before my 6-10 guard companions have been wiped out by the onslaught of kobolds, dingos, and various other banditos and wildlife. I've become a master axeman in under a week's time, but only managed to complete a few quests because I'll get halfway to the destination before having to turn back or risk bogeymen. It's become more of a slog than adventure mode in 40d.
Post by: Rip0k on February 14, 2012, 03:56:19 pm
First Age of Myth -- Years 1-47Lucky. Mine after Age of Heroes has now the Age of Elves... it's a lot of work but I have to change it ;P
First Age of Legends -- Year 48
Second Age of Myth -- Years 49-51
Second Age of Legends -- Years 52-92
Age of Heroes -- Years 93-134
Golden Age -- Years 135-200 (present)
First Adventurer got encased in ice in a middle of a river ;/
Anyway back to Adventuring...
Post by: trees on February 14, 2012, 03:57:35 pm
Ignoring the risk of looking like a coward/non-armok worshipper; is there any chance that the ambush rates will be toned back to a chance of maybe 3-4 a day?
20-30 is a big number when you're trying to sleep or even ARRIVE at your destination. I can't travel even twelve hours from the city before my 6-10 guard companions have been wiped out by the onslaught of kobolds, dingos, and various other banditos and wildlife. I've become a master axeman in under a week's time, but only managed to complete a few quests because I'll get halfway to the destination before having to turn back or risk bogeymen. It's become more of a slog than adventure mode in 40d.
Yeah, bandits are a bit overboard right now - just got ambushed starting out of my home town by a mixed group of spearmasters, axe lords and mace lords decked out in masterwork stuff. I'd assume it's because of the general world population increase and nothing really intentional gameplay-wise.
Post by: Jacob/Lee on February 14, 2012, 04:57:49 pm
YEEEEEEEEEESSSSS
Post by: Untelligent on February 14, 2012, 05:29:36 pm
Post by: Neonivek on February 14, 2012, 05:32:58 pm
I got a quest to kill a bandit chief. The fish dissector who gave me the quest mentioned he had one kill. I looked up the bandit in Legends and the thing he killed was a troll. Didn't steal anything yet either. What a crappy bandit.
It would be interesting if in the future the game would seperate the losers from the masters and give different dialog depending.
Post by: monk12 on February 14, 2012, 05:41:32 pm
I got a quest to kill a bandit chief. The fish dissector who gave me the quest mentioned he had one kill. I looked up the bandit in Legends and the thing he killed was a troll. Didn't steal anything yet either. What a crappy bandit.
Bandit, adventurer... you say toe-may-toe I say toe-mah-toe
Post by: Jacob/Lee on February 14, 2012, 05:43:18 pm
EDIT:
(http://i.imgur.com/Erswn.png)
Post by: Neonivek on February 14, 2012, 05:46:01 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Ohh gawd! Humans have mall technology! we are powerless against their low low prices!
Post by: thvaz on February 14, 2012, 06:00:41 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 14, 2012, 06:12:14 pm
JUST LOOK AT THE SOXOh my god, I saw literally dozens upon dozens upon dozens of humans crammed into a single shop and other connecting rooms.
EDIT:
(http://i.imgur.com/Erswn.png)
Ohh gawd! Humans have mall technology! we are powerless against their low low prices!
Post by: Jacob/Lee on February 14, 2012, 06:35:14 pm
Post by: Myr0ku on February 14, 2012, 06:44:16 pm
Post by: Jacob/Lee on February 14, 2012, 07:06:35 pm
Spoiler: Necromancer Spoilers (click to show/hide)
EDIT: a vampire killed 2376 people in his "lust for murder" in one of the largest "human" towns (which oddly enough is largely populated by elves)
Post by: Neonivek on February 14, 2012, 08:23:44 pm
Fixing up certain enemies and allowing certain others to survive world generation once more.
I will admit that swimming has never been more useful.
To be specific
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: O11O1 on February 14, 2012, 09:15:46 pm
That make sense for the murky pool, but not really for a running brook. It does freeze in winter, but... it's all liquid now.
Post by: bombzero on February 14, 2012, 09:25:04 pm
Post by: caknuck on February 14, 2012, 09:28:34 pm
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk19/zojii13/emot%20gifs/fuuuuuu.jpg)
(Crusader Kings 2 is the other culprit.)
Post by: Mr S on February 14, 2012, 09:34:11 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on February 14, 2012, 09:37:46 pm
Are there plans to let us harvest plants in adventure mode anytime soon? (Or am I just being thicker than usual and missed how to do it?)
I have had several of my adventurers nearly dying from starvation already because they couldn't use those wild strawberries in any way other than indulging their pyromania. ;)
Yes there are plans.
Post by: Jacob/Lee on February 14, 2012, 09:42:45 pm
Post by: bombzero on February 14, 2012, 09:43:55 pm
Post by: Ghills on February 14, 2012, 10:13:14 pm
Cats can clean nearby creatures. No need for bath tubs no more! Send in the mobile dwarven cleaning units.
I genning a world right now. This is going to be fun!
:D :D :D :D :D Kittiiiiieeeees
Shoot, I'm going to have, like, hours of overtime tomorrow. Gah!
I must get an SSH client on my tablet.
Post by: hoveringdog on February 14, 2012, 11:05:35 pm
Post by: Mr S on February 14, 2012, 11:09:47 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on February 14, 2012, 11:10:39 pm
I'm having no luck with this release. So far, started adventure mode hungry and killed an alpaca for sustenance. Cue every alpaca within miles to converge on my location and attack. After having pulled myself free from a pile of alpaca corpses, wandered into the nearest town. Every villager there attacked without provocation. I'd love to explore the new content, but does that mean having to defend myself constantly from angry blood-avenging alpacas and their human sympathizers?
The alpaca was a member of their civilization, so you made yourself an enemy by killing it. Make sure that the animals you kill are wild, and you should be okay.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on February 14, 2012, 11:11:35 pm
I'm having no luck with this release. So far, started adventure mode hungry and killed an alpaca for sustenance. Cue every alpaca within miles to converge on my location and attack. After having pulled myself free from a pile of alpaca corpses, wandered into the nearest town. Every villager there attacked without provocation. I'd love to explore the new content, but does that mean having to defend myself constantly from angry blood-avenging alpacas and their human sympathizers?the alpaca you attacked was probably a domestic animal belonging to the town
Post by: Jacob/Lee on February 14, 2012, 11:16:04 pm
Post by: hoveringdog on February 14, 2012, 11:25:20 pm
The alpaca was a member of their civilization, so you made yourself an enemy by killing it. Make sure that the animals you kill are wild, and you should be okay.
I figured that was the explanation for the villagers. But still, alpacas and their ilk are prey animals. Kill one of them, and the rest should flee, not go all red in tooth and claw.
Post by: Putnam on February 14, 2012, 11:28:06 pm
(sort of)
Post by: Keldane on February 14, 2012, 11:44:51 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on February 14, 2012, 11:46:53 pm
It appears there's a slight glitch with the naming of zombies. I had a necromancer reanimate a zombie that had previously been a historical figure. The name now appears as "Mebzuth Earthhelpful's corpsepeasant corpse".
Reported here. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=5078)
Post by: Keldane on February 15, 2012, 12:04:20 am
Oh, and a tip for other adventurers: Be very aware of what you take as a trophy from the creatures you kill. I foolishly carried the head of a night creature I killed with me as I charged into the necromancer's tower. Guess what killed me?
Post by: Jacob/Lee on February 15, 2012, 12:11:18 am
Post by: SP2 on February 15, 2012, 12:14:48 am
*nods* Thank you, Footkerchief. For my part, I love that the necromancers can keep reraising zombies and the parts you hack off - the necromancers themselves aren't very formidable, so having to deal with the rolling tide of death makes them a real threat.Getting killed by your own trophy? That's just awesome. I love the scope of this game. :)
Oh, and a tip for other adventurers: Be very aware of what you take as a trophy from the creatures you kill. I foolishly carried the head of a night creature I killed with me as I charged into the necromancer's tower. Guess what killed me?
Post by: Dae on February 15, 2012, 01:16:06 am
Post by: runiq on February 15, 2012, 01:22:40 am
Am I the only one to have no luck whatsoever ? it might be because it's been a while that I've played, but I'm at my seventh demigod adventurer, usually dying to bandits ambushes...
Nope, same here. Started out with a hero, didn't cut it *at all*, and the demigods I made after that usually didn't fare any better… I sincerely hope the ambush frequency is just a bug. I usually start out with observer at a fairly high level (15 or 16 or so), and I still get ambushed at least thrice for a four-hour trip from town to town.
Post by: Cruxador on February 15, 2012, 01:27:56 am
Been talking about the game elsewhere, I'm far from the only one having trouble with excessively powerful bandits but nobody else has mentioned as dramatic a case.
I'm not actually having trouble with ambush frequency though.
Post by: Toady One on February 15, 2012, 01:47:22 am
Quote from: Miuramir
Toady, do vampires, necromancers, mummies, and other "atypically old" variant creatures have any special handling for skill decay? It seems like that agelessness should provide at least some protection, otherwise they may end up as unusually incompetent in old worlds.
Vamps are protected from attribute decay, but they have skill decay. Vampires don't exactly settle down, so I'm not sure if it'll be a problem. Necromancers have become bookish and powerful, so I'm not worried about them. Mummies might be the strangest... but I don't think it penalizes them for their dead years. Not 100% sure though.
Quote from: Fieari
Toady, is there a reason you know of why it is so common for middle fingers to get damaged? The SA "Gemclod" fortress in particular showed dozens of combatents getting their middle fingers mangled, and now it's showing up in your dev log. Is this a bug, a bizarre statistical fluke, or is there a good reason the simulation tends to pick middle fingers to bust up?
Nope, this is the first I've heard of it. If there's some reproducible problem, I can try to fix it.
Quote from: Funburns
Will mist behavior allow it to become trapped on a map by crafty players?
I think it'll just die off and then pop out on the other side. The mist itself isn't wafting along nicely -- I don't have a fluid handler that can do that yet. It generates mist that spreads out, and the generator moves over the elevation.
Quote from: NobodyPro
Will it be possible to make a creature emit a 'mist' via modding?
You can make it emit a material cloud that has all the same syndrome properties (including the ability to turn things besides itself into custom zombies), but it won't move across the map like a regional mist.
Quote from: Megaman3321
Will it be possible for certain things (like the aforementioned yellow mist) to be disabled during worldgen?
Yeah, you can turn them off individually in the world gen parameters.
Quote from: Spish
Now that everyone is a historical figure, will worldgen beasts target low-life peasants when rampaging? (As opposed to singling out famous people and ignoring everyone else)
There are more historical figures, but there are still a lot of entity pop people. So it hasn't really changed, but there will be some unimportant dead people.
Quote from: JamCat
If an Elf eats a vampire will it become a vampire?
I don't remember if I handled this case... I'd lean toward no, but I'm not sure.
Quote from: Zahariel
Now that the bodies of dead adventurers remain as objects in the world, ThreeToe mentioned that you can do a dwarf-mode embark over your adventurer's shallow grave and take his stuff. Given this, will dead adventurers rise as ghosts and hassle your dwarves? And if so, can the dwarves carve the adventurer a slab to make him knock it off?
I don't think it does that for non-citizens. If your dwarven adventurer migrates to the fort, then they can become a ghost.
Quote from: Demonic Gophers
Will vampires seek out sleeping victims that are not being observed by anyone awake at the time, either exclusively or by preference? If so, will pets count as observers?
It might become more useful in the new version to assign pets to all important dwarves, to fend off vampire attacks, or else to make them sleep in a communal bedroom that's open to a meeting hall on one side. The latter case will either protect them, or ensure plenty of witnesses to the attack. Naturally, less useful citizens get small private bedrooms to appease the vampires.
You mentioned that vampire adventurers will drink more blood if they go longer without feeding, and are more likely to kill their victims. Will Fortress Mode vampires be less likely to actually kill if they have frequent feeding opportunities than if isolated, sleeping victims are rare?
I thought they cared about being watched, but I've seen some stupid things happen in Zach's fort, so they might not care at all.
Yeah, fortress mode vampires will drink less blood if they are well-fed, although I think a dwarf on the smaller side will still die. If they feed on a nice big dwarf with more blood, the victim will probably make it.
Quote from: Keldane
Will there be a chance of Forgotten Beasts showing up and infecting dwarves with a syndrome that periodically turns them into a clone of the Forgotten Beast?
I didn't add anything interesting to them, but it'll certainly be a possibility to give them all sorts of surprising powers now.
Quote from: Heph
Is it possiblke to link a generic creature definition to a interaction to transform someone? Secondly is it possible to create a second interaction that would transform a thing/person back?
A creature definition can transform critters through a syndrome, either in their venom syndrome/etc. or directly through a CAN_DO_INTERACTION which has an ADD_SYNDROME effect. Syndromes can't currently be cured, so there's no way to turn somebody back to their original form, unless the syndrome has a duration and runs out.
Quote from: Kriby
Does/will biting monsters automatically ingest their blood?
Only if they suck it. If it gets all over their face, it still doesn't go down. I guess they are very careful.
Quote from: darkflagrance
Will the new mists that occasionally waft over the landscape be creatable with reactions? Will they still work if temperature is turned off in the init file?
I envision custom workshops where Dwarven War Chemists produce vile fumes to overwhelm goblin attackers from recessed grills next to entrance walkways, or stained distillery rooms filled with noxious gasses that suffocate their workers over time, infect them with incurable degenerative disorders, and, left uncontained, spell the doom of a fortress and the sterilization of the embark for reclaim efforts.
I'm not sure how people have been creating gases -- if it with low boiling point rock products or something, then you'd need temperature, I think. Once you've got a gas, then you can do all manner of syndrome mist effects.
Quote from: Cruxador
Toady, do you intentionally put big releases on holidays where viable? How much effort goes into that?
When it happens, it's just because a given holiday is adjacent to what looks like the release day. Then the release day might tend to move. I think the April 1st one might have been decided a few weeks in advance, since that release needed to come out and it was such a mess anyway.
Quote from: thvaz
Vampires have random atributtes or are all the same for now?
If I remember, they are the same right now, since I didn't get to interesting things like voluntary transformations and sun stuff. The difficulty of a given vampire will depend more on its skill set. All of them take half physical force from blows.
Quote from: Mike Mayday
Are there plans to remove the remaining non-truetype pieces of text in the game? (certain symbols in the (V)iew menu, diplomacy and thoughts etc...).
Yeah, I should get to some cleanup there within this bugfix cycle. The large paragraphs rendered in the non-truetype font take the most work, since they'd need to be reformatted to whatever length Truetype wants, but most of the other problems should be easy to deal with, once they are located.
Quote from: Eric Blank
Ignoring the risk of looking like a coward/non-armok worshipper; is there any chance that the ambush rates will be toned back to a chance of maybe 3-4 a day?
The current rate could be a bug, due to all the travel changes. The next release will see ambush rates restored around to where they were at before if I find something, which I probably will.