Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Thundercraft

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 45
1
Tilesets and Graphics / Re: ☼Meph Tileset☼ V5.2 (32x32) - 44.12 - updated 3rd August - Training Rooms!
« on: September 03, 2019, 06:04:05 am »
Quote from: Meph on September 03, 2019, 12:28:49 am
What about some foreign weapons? I always wanted to add a few RL cultures to DF, but using actual RL location/country names feels out of place. So instead of Japanese, Viking, Germanic and Egyptian, how about...

Looks good, except... I'd prefer to see one or two more 2H spear-like weapons for Men of the North (or West).

Also, I find rare or unusual weapons to be particularly interesting, such as the Goedendag or "spear club". That weapon is merely a hefty wood staff with a very pointy, but small, metal spear tip. "Good day sir... I said good day sir!" [WHAM!] [STAB!]

Quote from: Meph on September 02, 2019, 07:46:11 am
Quote from: Novaris on August 19, 2019, 08:48:06 am
@Meph will you make a new release once the latest DF Revised is ready?
Maybe? ^^ Is it ready?

Checking the Revised topic OP, it seems it hasn't officially been updated since July 31. However, as has been pointed out several times, the version of Revised currently used by Meph Tileset is much older than what is officially available. And Taffer, himself, posted here that quote, "current release is IMO a (comparably) good time to update things." So, technically, it's been ready for a while now.

Unofficially, Darkond2100 has already merged the updated Revised with your Meph Tileset. There were some errors that cropped up. However, these error messages mostly had to do with language issues, word token typos (e.g., should have used TAUPE_GRAY instead of TAUPE_GREY) or missing punctuation in a few places. (See page 26 of the Revised topic.)

Since then, Darkond2100 has taken another stab at trying to fix these errors. This is the result:

DFFD - File: MephFortress ReRevised

Quote from: Thundercraft on June 01, 2019, 09:06:22 pm
Quote from: Meph on March 12, 2019, 02:17:20 pm
Quote from: Taffer on March 12, 2019, 02:13:33 pm
I don't know how old your Revised option is, but my current release is IMO a (comparably) good time to update things. I'm mostly done with the descriptions and I'm avoiding editing the comments, so the diff between this version and whatever my next version is should be comparably small.
Oh yeah, that's something I could do. :) Thanks for the heads up.

Quote from: Meph on March 14, 2019, 07:53:33 pm
Revised was requested a couple of times and Taffer was kind enough to allow me to put it in. As splint said, you can toggle it on in the launcher. It's not the most up to date version of Revised, since I haven't touched that part for a while.

Quote from: Meph on April 29, 2019, 01:29:43 pm
Hey, it's been a while since the last update on this set. Any requests by now, ideas for the future, bugs? (apart from the adv mode stuff that I couldn't fix)
Since you're asking for requests... Would you consider updating the Revised portion of your package to the latest version (v2.1.0)? Please? The Revised thread still indicates that the mod's status is on "hiatus", so it should not get a new update any time soon.

2
DF General Discussion / Re: Future of the Fortress
« on: September 01, 2019, 10:08:10 am »
Quote from: Shonai_Dweller on August 30, 2019, 12:01:30 am
Quote from: Thundercraft on August 29, 2019, 10:00:18 pm
Now that we have the ability to retire and unretire a Fortress,
Also, in fort mode, will players eventually be able to trade artifacts, at least between sites within our fort's civilization?
Trading artifacts has been a thing since...last version? Maybe a bit before that. Selling them (or giving them away) anyhow. Do you mean buying them from other forts? Can't do that yet (at least I've never seen the merchants turn up with any besides books and I don't think you can request them).
Thanks for the reply. I was primarily thinking of literally trading - i.e., swapping one for one - between forts within our own civilization. But the buying/selling was implied. And I must have forgotten that recent versions now allows selling.

Quote from: Shonai_Dweller on August 30, 2019, 12:01:30 am
Yellowgreen. Nice. Easy on the eyes.
Argh. I see that I've forgotten that, in Toady's example on how to ask questions, we were supposed to ask in limegreen. But I can agree that yellowgreen seems a bit more pleasant.

3
DF General Discussion / Re: Future of the Fortress
« on: August 29, 2019, 10:00:18 pm »
Now that we have the ability to retire and unretire a Fortress, will we eventually gain the ability to pick and choose a selection of dwarves, animals, resources, weapons and tools from our current fort in order to chain-embark to go found a new site somewhere else? Will we eventually be able to bring certain animals on embark from our breeding programs that have been painstakingly bred to be, e.g., larger or taller than average or with certain color traits? Could we, one day, even embark with an artifact from our old fort?

Also, in fort mode, will players eventually be able to trade artifacts, at least between sites within our fort's civilization?

4
DF Modding / Re: [MODDING] 0.44.x GENERAL MODDING QUESTIONS THREAD - NOW IN ALLCAPS EDITION
« on: August 29, 2019, 02:19:10 pm »
Quote from: TomiTapio on August 28, 2019, 04:03:06 am
I guess WOOD_TEMPLATE's WOOD tag makes the mushroom trees count as logging. I would try setting those trees to STONE_TEMPLATE material.
Or if it is the TREE tag, then I think the issue can't be helped.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Thank you for the reply and advice!

A question, though: If I change the material to STONE_TEMPLATE, wouldn't that have some significant implications or side effects? For example, wouldn't this re-categorize Tree-Cap "wood" as stone? Would this change make the material mostly only usable by a Mason in a Mason's workshop?

5
DF Modding / Re: [MODDING] 0.44.x GENERAL MODDING QUESTIONS THREAD - NOW IN ALLCAPS EDITION
« on: August 27, 2019, 11:41:34 pm »
Could someone give me some hints on how to alter tower-caps and nether-caps such that they would no longer count towards Elven tree quotas without doing away with tree quotas entirely and while still allowing tower-caps and nether-caps to be chopped down for their respective wood types?

Or, is what I'm asking for likely impossible (outside of DFHack) due to being hard-coded somewhere?

6
DF Modding / Re: [MODDING] CREATURE & ENTITY QUESTIONS THREAD
« on: August 27, 2019, 11:33:15 pm »
Is there a tutorial specifically on modding Entities or the entity_default.txt file? I've been thinking of adding some new civilizations to my game, but there are some things about this which I feel unsure of.

For one thing: While entity_default specifies a lot of important details about each civilization, the [ENTITY] token seems to be used such that only one civilization is defined per biome or type (with the possible exception of SUBTERRANEAN_ANIMAL_PEOPLES):

[ENTITY:MOUNTAIN] : Dwarves
[ENTITY:PLAINS] : Humans
[ENTITY:FOREST] : Elves
[ENTITY:EVIL] : Goblins
[ENTITY:SKULKING] : Kobolds

Is the fact that vanilla mostly defines only one civ per category above little more than a coincidence? Is it possible to define more than one civilization per biome or type (i.e., EVIL or SKULKing)? And if it is, would doing so cause issues?

For example, let's say that I wanted to add a new civilization of, say, "Wendigos" and define them as [ENTITY:EVIL] while still keeping the vanilla Goblin civilization. Would I just copy/paste the entire [ENTITY:EVIL] section for Goblins, change [CREATURE:GOBLIN] to [CREATURE:WENDIGO], and then alter it to reflect the changes I want?

7
Tilesets and Graphics / Re: ☼Meph Tileset☼ V5.1 (32x32) - 44.12 - updated 12th March - Do you like dogs?
« on: June 12, 2019, 05:01:52 am »
Quote from: HumanScholar on May 29, 2019, 09:35:22 pm
Has anyone had any luck merging Sver's armor and weapons mod into this one?
Quote from: Meph on May 30, 2019, 05:27:29 am
humanscholar, Merging Svers mod into this should be fairly simple, but the new items would lack sprites. Maybe ask Svers what he thinks about this, and I can expand the tileset by a few items. :D

As Meph said, it should be pretty simple or straightforward. For a moment, I had wondered about compatibility, since the full Meph Tileset pack incorporates the Revised mod. However, I remembered that Revised has incorporated certain part's of Sver's mod and visa versa. Here's a relevant post from the Revised topic:

Quote from: Sver on June 05, 2018, 03:01:52 pm
Currently, my mod incorporates all of the Revised features from the files that overlap. They are fully compatible, as long as you install my mod after Revised and simply overwrite everything.

Actually, Darkond2100 talked about not only updating Meph's pack with the latest Revised, but also plans to incorporate Sver's mod.

8
Tilesets and Graphics / Re: ☼Meph Tileset☼ V5 (32x32) - 44.12 - updated 12th March - Furniture/Carpets
« on: June 01, 2019, 09:06:22 pm »
Quote from: Meph on March 12, 2019, 02:17:20 pm
Quote from: Taffer on March 12, 2019, 02:13:33 pm
I don't know how old your Revised option is, but my current release is IMO a (comparably) good time to update things. I'm mostly done with the descriptions and I'm avoiding editing the comments, so the diff between this version and whatever my next version is should be comparably small.
Oh yeah, that's something I could do. :) Thanks for the heads up.
Quote from: Thundercraft on March 14, 2019, 07:01:01 pm
[snip]...just to clarify: I would assume that the "Meph Tileset Launcher + Utilities" package has not yet been updated with the latest Revised changes? DFFD says it was last updated "Mar 12, 2019, 03:23:29 pm", whereas Meph's reply above was time stamped March 12, 2019, 01:17:20 pm. But that does not seem like enough time. And the version is still 5.
Quote from: Meph on March 14, 2019, 07:53:33 pm
Revised was requested a couple of times and Taffer was kind enough to allow me to put it in. As splint said, you can toggle it on in the launcher. It's not the most up to date version of Revised, since I haven't touched that part for a while.
Quote from: Meph on April 29, 2019, 01:29:43 pm
Hey, it's been a while since the last update on this set. Any requests by now, ideas for the future, bugs? (apart from the adv mode stuff that I couldn't fix)
Since you're asking for requests... Would you consider updating the Revised portion of your package to the latest version (v2.1.0)? Please? The Revised thread still indicates that the mod's status is on "hiatus", so it should not get a new update any time soon.

Quote from: Meph on May 27, 2019, 06:05:48 am
The only thing I changed last update was adding the dogs, which have a tale-wagging greeting interaction. I guess brolol.404 didn't catch that bug before release.
If adding the dogs was the only change in the last version, then is it safe to assume that you haven't yet updated Revised?

9
Tilesets and Graphics / Re: ☼Meph Tileset☼ V5 (32x32) - 44.12 - updated 12th March - Furniture/Carpets
« on: March 14, 2019, 07:47:31 pm »
Quote from: Splint on March 14, 2019, 07:13:51 pm
Revised is under "additions," already baked in and toggleable with the launcher.

This is a surprise to me. Like I said, there is no mention of "Revised" in the description, either on the DFFD page or the forum OP.

Is there some place in the package files where I can find the Revised files so that I could either update them or modify them myself? The only other set of raws that I could find are located in \Dwarf Fortress\hack\Utilities\MWE\raws\ ... What does "MWE" stand for?

P.S.: I noticed that there are dozens of "thumb.db" files (Explorer's image cache files, technically a system file, some hidden and some not) wasting space in the package. In total, they waste over 8 MB.

10
Tilesets and Graphics / Re: ☼Meph Tileset☼ V5 (32x32) - 44.12 - updated 12th March - Furniture/Carpets
« on: March 14, 2019, 07:01:01 pm »
Quote from: Meph on March 12, 2019, 02:17:20 pm
Quote from: Taffer on March 12, 2019, 02:13:33 pm
I don't know how old your Revised option is, but my current release is IMO a (comparably) good time to update things. I'm mostly done with the descriptions and I'm avoiding editing the comments, so the diff between this version and whatever my next version is should be comparably small.
Oh yeah, that's something I could do. :) Thanks for the heads up.

"Revised option"? I'm confused... Does the "Meph Tileset Launcher + Utilities" package include Revised as an option that can be turned on or off? Is Revised included in this package, but integrated in a way we can't disable? Is there a separate download for a version of Meph Tileset combined with Revised?

On the DFFD download page, the description does say that it includes "a few minor mods" (among other things). But it did not mention Revised by name. Nor can I find mention of Revised in the forum's OP.

I've looked inside and searched the package files, but I can not find a folder named "Revised" or a Revised readme. Though, I did notice some extra files in the \raws\, such as body_default_revised.txt and body_revised.txt. And I noticed references to "revised" in various files, including overrides.txt.

(I'm asking as someone who would appreciate a package with Meph Tileset + Revised combined.)

Also, just to clarify: I would assume that the "Meph Tileset Launcher + Utilities" package has not yet been updated with the latest Revised changes? DFFD says it was last updated "Mar 12, 2019, 03:23:29 pm", whereas Meph's reply above was time stamped March 12, 2019, 01:17:20 pm. But that does not seem like enough time. And the version is still 5.

11
Mod Releases / Re: Peasant and Forester's Mod for 0.44.12 Adventure Mode
« on: March 13, 2019, 05:50:41 pm »
Quote from: peasant cretin on November 21, 2018, 06:17:22 am
Been working on giving more detail to armor crafting. Before you just went with lump of metal = armor item. But now we have a process by which you'd make mail, scale, plate, etc. And this means it's not as monty haul to repair/resize armor.
Quote from: peasant cretin on November 21, 2018, 06:17:22 am
Smelting underwent similar overhaul, so there are different returns for how you smelt something. Smelt "any" options have lower rate of return, while the more specific smelt will yield better return in terms of % and # of metal globs.
Quote from: peasant cretin on March 01, 2019, 11:24:37 pm
03.01.2019 - Weapon Set Cleaning Update 0.7.0 (requires new world regen)
03.01.2019 - Reduced item sprawl and simplified pairings for NPC ranged units. Added ability to un-pair weapon sets.
Quote from: peasant cretin on March 01, 2019, 11:24:37 pm
One of the big Adventure Mode item stash population issues is higher item variety reduces item occurrence. And that posed a problem for when you found a weapon pairing, but only needed one and not both. Now besides being able to pair, you can break a found set apart.
Quote from: peasant cretin on March 01, 2019, 11:24:37 pm
Downside is qualify and description modifiers will be stripped from the items.

It sounds like P&F makes a whole lot of changes to a variety of different reactions and various items. A question comes to mind:

Generally speaking, do these changes only affect Adventure Mode? Or, alternatively, do these changes tend to affect both Adventure Mode and Fortress Mode?

12
Utilities and 3rd Party Applications / Re: LegendsBrowser 1.17.1 (Windows, Mac OS and Linux legends viewer for df 0.44)
« on: March 13, 2019, 02:01:28 pm »
Posting to watch...

13
Utilities and 3rd Party Applications / Re: Legends Viewer (Maintained Branch) 1.19.09 | DF 0.44.XX
« on: March 13, 2019, 01:59:56 pm »
Posting to watch...

14
Mod Releases / Re: Revised v2.1.0 for v0.44.12 (a poll is up)
« on: March 12, 2019, 06:46:33 pm »
Quote from: Splint on March 12, 2019, 04:24:00 pm
My vote is leave the names on a singular basis as they are (coyote man, coyote woman for example,) but perhaps use -folk suffix as a better plural, at least for the ones that are less of a mouthful - coyote folk, mantis folk, and so on seems like a more natural sounding plural to differentiate them from the other variations of the animal they're based in.

Actually... I... could get behind this idea. As long as the singular name is left as it is in vanilla DF (allowing us to still search them in the wiki), having a "-folk" or some other plural name should not pose as much of an issue.

Quote from: Vordak on March 12, 2019, 05:20:00 pm
Alternatively, more archaic constructions can be used. For coyote man - coyotecephalus, coyote woman -coyotecephales.

You want to make animal men names that complicated to pronounce and remember?  :o Please no! Those are real tongue twisters. How can anyone other than a biologist or major science nerd appreciate them?

Quote from: Vordak on March 12, 2019, 05:20:00 pm
But in principle the suffix "-folk" is great, and the fact that it is impossible to apply gender distinction for him is good, because for civilized races do not care what about talking toad sex. All these dog -man and -woman have a negative association with comics.

I'm willing to admit this:
In principle, I have no major objection to the use of "-folk" or "-kin" instead of "-man" or "-men" for animal people... That is, unless the motivation to do so is to push some social agenda or avoid sounding politically incorrect. Otherwise (in principle), it doesn't bother me what term is used.

However, I do not like deviating from vanilla DF too much, especially if it makes the official wiki rather useless as a game reference.

Why make the idea exclusively a Revised thing? If using "-folk" or "-kin" really is such a better way of naming them, then why not post it in a separate suggestion thread or otherwise try to bring the idea to Toady's attention? At least, if Toady decides to do this, then the wiki would get updated with the new names and it would still remain highly relevant to Revised users.

Edit:

Also, have you considered how, the more Revised deviates from vanilla DF, the more unlikely it is to get another mod to work with Revised without a lot of work? If not even the names of various creatures and races are the same, then getting it to work with another mod would probably be a chore.

15
Mod Releases / Re: Revised v2.1.0 for v0.44.12 (a poll is up)
« on: March 12, 2019, 03:05:30 pm »
Taffer, first of all, I want to express my gratitude for sharing this mod and admiration for the continued work and keeping it updated.

Something I wanted to ask about: I've noticed there are a few differences (a few features that seem missing by way of omission/mention) between the readme for v2.1.0 and v1.7.0.
  • missing brackets have been added to the raws where they were missing. (Taffer)
  • swan, duck, and goose bites aren't edged. Giant tortoise bites are. (Button)
  • bayberry trees are tropical, not temperate. (Scam Tank)
  • moon snails also live in tropical oceans. (Button)
  • chitin and shells are used for crafts. (Button)
  • warthogs and hippos aren't benign. (Button)
  • owls sleep at night now. (Button)

Your new readme does mention "hippos and orcas aren't benign", but says nothing of warthogs.

I have a suspicion that most of these are no longer mentioned because Toady got around to fixing them. But I wanted to ask.

Quote from: Taffer on March 12, 2019, 02:09:47 pm
Quote from: Teneb on March 12, 2019, 02:03:24 pm
While I voted for the second option, I think a better solution is to rename <Animal>man to <Animal>folk. Much like the standard fantasy Lizardfolk.

I liked this so much that I built it into the poll as part of the first option. Thanks for the suggestion! It'd be a little odd looking at a "masked lovebird folk" (singular), but it works IMO.

For dilemmas on what Revised should or should not change, I think we should consider: What is the primary goal or aim of Revised? Is it to more-or-less fill the role that Modest Mod used to serve: To fix some bugs and make very minor changes that virtually nobody would object to? Is it to change things for the sake of realism, convenience or to better fit traditional fantasy tropes? Or, perhaps, is it something in between?

Of course, since this is Taffer's mod, he would have to answer that. But I would point out that more and more controversial changes would, inevitably, lead some to decide to avoid using Revised.

If the purpose of Revised is the former - to fix things and make changes that are not controversial - then I don't think a change such as this is wise. For one thing, changing the names of various things in Dwarf Fortress - particularly the names of animal people or other races - will confuse new players.

It is especially confusing or inconvenient in how such radically-altered names would not align with the names used in the official wiki. If we, for example, type in "Lizardfolk" in the search form and click, we get "There were no results matching the query." However, if we type in "Lizardman", the wiki redirects to "Reptile man" and it gives us the relevant info.

EDIT:
This push to rename animal people from using the "-man" suffix to using the "-folk" suffix is not motivated by a desire for the game to be made more PC... is it...?  :-\

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 45