Bay 12 Games Forum
Dwarf Fortress => DF Suggestions => Topic started by: Relapse on February 03, 2012, 10:20:27 pm
-
I think the suggestion is simple enough... Dwarves could get happy thoughts from seeing danger, or dangerous things from a safe vantage point. An example being a combat area built into the middle of the legendary dining hall, either a pit or a windowed area. When the dwarves see combat or captured enemies in there they get a happy thought.
Urist McDwarfy is ecstatic today, she saw a captured enemy, she saw a captured enemy in one sided combat.
Another one could be seeing enemies from the castle walls who have no ranged weapons, or dangerous animals from up high (alligators in the river below).
... she realized she was in the safety of the castle.
Thoughts ?
-
On one hand, the Gladiator thing sounds pretty... Sound.
But when you see enemies charging your fort, you might be happy for a second before you realize "Oh piss, they're coming after US!"
Sorta mixed reviews here.
-
Fair enough, what situations might be permissible ?
Happy thoughts coming from seeing invaders does sound a bit odd.
-
Fair enough, what situations might be permissible ?
Happy thoughts coming from seeing invaders does sound a bit odd.
Maybe the dwarves admire their very nice looking copper swords and armors?
Not to mention the exotic animals they use for mounts.
-
Hrrmmm... nice addition there Ultimuh.
-
Just an attempt at humor. :P
But yes, I kinda agree with that they should have happy thoughts for being safe.
-
I'd agree to this, if the SAFE thought was generated, as a thought generated as result of a dwarf being carried to the Hospital, after being injured in some mobility hampering way. And just the opposite, if the dwarf was not carried to the Hospital, but left there in the field of battle, feeling UNSAFE.(This is already in the game. However it would be nice if it were magnified by individual dwarf attributes, instead of being a constant tic)
I'd include a SAFE thought for a dwarf who stored a personal item.
That SAFE thought should go to a female dwarf, who is in labor, who isn't on active duty. And UNSAFE, who is on active duty. A pregnant women can't feel too SAFE doing high impact PT, can she? I can't see her climbing or repelling off a ROTC wall, can you? She should be in the bedroom, nesting! LOL.
As for just feeling safe for the sake of feeling safe. Or seeing dangerous stuff from a distance, nah. I oppose that, on principle. It'd cause too many mood swings, in non ranged activities. They already get lots of mastercrap happy thoughts, as it is, from seeing stuff.
Something needs to be given to Hunters to compensate for their grass beds. Maybe a one shot, one kill, thought. HEH! Sniper Glee!
Sincerely, Knutor
-
How would you define safe so a dwarf would know its safe?
How would you define illusionary safety?
-
How would you define illusionary safety?
Dwarves hiding in a building with no roof. :P
-
How would you define illusionary safety?
Dwarves hiding in a building with no roof. :P
Thats an empty definition. Whats a building? There is no roof, there only outside, and not outside. What if there a hostile creature in their with the dorf?
-
How would you define illusionary safety?
Dwarves hiding in a building with no roof. :P
Thats an empty definition. Whats a building? There is no roof, there only outside, and not outside.
That just ruins my joke.. ::)
-
The suggestion is very wrong.
No one is safe in dwarf fortress, unless sealed in 1x1 enclosure.
On the second thought, there could be some triggers to account for dwaf's illusion of being safe like:
"no civilian died this year"
"a goblin siege defeated with 10/1 kill/death ratio"
or even "that purple guy sounded true when he told we have nothing to fear"
This however brings us to slightly different suggestion of dwarves reacting to not so immediate happenings in the fort, like unsolved vampire crimes bringing panic and fear to the fort and so on.
-
And just the opposite, if the dwarf was not carried to the Hospital, but left there in the field of battle, feeling UNSAFE.
Injured dwarves left in the field have a tendency to go into tantrums anyhow, seeing as they'll be starving and dehydrating.
(Just had this happen to an axdorf with a spinal injury. Jerks left him out there to die. :( )
But I guess "no ludicrous dwarf gibs for X days" could justify a happy Thought.
-
I suggested happy thoughts from defeating siege/ambush some time ago, this seems to relate to that.
Also, dwarf can consider his safety/nonsafety based on labors he has done (woodcutter/herbalist should feel unsafe if he is doing his job and no military is nearby, but stonecrafter who never left inner burrows should feel much safer.)
-
Sus,
Your right. It is kinda pointless to have the opposite.
What do you think about the Headshot thought? Sniper Glee or something like it, maybe from a ceiling trap? I certainly would feel a SAFE thought trespassing or traversing or traveling past a trap, and not having the trap spring.
I was playing another Roguelike, and whenever the ceiling rock trap went off, the adventurer would lose the explored region, and fog of war would reappear, as a result of the knock on the head, as a result of tripping the trap. I thought that was a neat application.
Sincerely, Knutor
-
an arena or gladiator zone could make it easy to define what is safe. or a room. every one outside of that definition witnessing the event could recieve a happy thought if: all the goblins in the zone die without a dwarf casualty, and no goblin escapes the zone. viola an arena for dwarves to enjoy.
at least you would be responsible for all the dwarf downtime, instead of stupid parties.
-
First of all, dwarfs don't even consider the place where they usually rang out a fortress. It is just the place where they perform most of their functions. So how you define safe? How do you a define fortress?
-
Maybe they could get minor happy thoughts from seeing dangerous (currently any, eventually any they interrupt work for) animals without being attacked, a bigger one for an ambush being discovered and defeated without them being hurt, an even bigger one for the same thing with a siege, and a bigger one still from surviving a fight with a superior foe mostly unscathed ("Urist McRandom was glad to be favored by Lady Luck recently.")
-
I feel that dwarves should be happy if they feel safe and at home. Being underground in solid or constructed rock/metal should make them feel at home and safe. If on the surface, high walls surrounding them (preferably made of stone or metal, wood is weak and burns) a roof over their heads would be best. (Dwarves don't like looking at the sky too much, it gives them vertigo.)
Attacks make them feel the fortress is in danger. Unless there are traps, walls, menacing spikes, fortifications, draw bridges, few entrances, doors, soldiers, guard animals, large tame animals, and a moat.
Thieves, snatchers, hostile monsters, strange monsters, Elves, large wild animals in close proximity, sieges, enemies, dead bodies, fire, megabeasts, titans, forgotten beasts, provision shortages, dwarf blood, severed limbs, large bodies of water (most dwarves don't swim), recent deaths not caused by old age, crazy dwarves, and nobles.
-
Safety due to the presence of something, like a fortress, castle, elaborate and highly idiosyncratic ice-and-magma trap or insane asylum is very difficult to define due to the vast variation in playstyles Dwarf Fortress can allow.
The absence of harm coming to a dwarf during a set period of time, however, seems to me to be a more sensible option. All the dwarves in player #523661's map-spanning pillar-city of ash and bone that echoes with the screams of ten thousand elves and exports pain and death around the world may walk over twenty narrow grates spanning rivers of burning stone every day to get to their bedrooms, but as long as neither they nor anyone they're acquainted with has fallen in that river, they can sleep soundly in their apparently safe routine. An exception might be needed for those dwarves' acquaintances in the military.
Think of it this way; trying to figure out something as nebulous as safety from the point of view of architecture or individual attackers is both too processor intensive and loaded with assumptions about potential playstyles -- but defining safety as a dwarf's own appraisal of their lot in life as shown by their (and maybe their friends') recent history of getting hurt can translate to any environment a sentient creature might live in. It also has the bonus of being more pragmatic due to trusting the player to know what's best for their creatures, whether true or not.
Gladiator fights might be best solved by making an Arena zone which tells $player's_citizens not to worry if something is in the arena boundary unless it's actively harming them, maybe with a happiness bonus if they witness a non-dwarf die in that zone as well. I think that has been suggested Footkerchief-many times before, though.
-
Safe could be defined as: when said dwarf sees an enemy, but due to internal game pathing (which the enemy cannot directly attack except for ranged enemies) it will not advance. In short, enemies just loitering about and easily observed from...3 squares away? To do away with any glitches with LoS.
-
I think dwarves should not get happy thoughts from being safe. Instead I think they should get negative thought (claustrophoby) from being locked in. ( can't find path to outside world)
This way the game would punish from sealing yourself in.
-
They are dwarfs... They live in a 1x1 hole. They don't have claustrophoby! They vomit when they see light!
-
They are dwarfs... They live in a 1x1 hole. They don't have claustrophoby! They vomit when they see light!
True, Dwarfs should be unhappy if they can see the sky. Like how every human has a small, natural fear of heights, all dwarfs should fear falling into the sky.
Armok preserve us if Toady implements astronomy...
This prevents people from making Space Fortress 13 and orbital magma cannons, or just ensures they are more FUN!