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 - NW_Kohaku

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 555
121
DF Suggestions / Re: Shields and Wear
« on: August 17, 2017, 08:07:17 pm »
In Mount and Blade, armor has no wear, but shields do, which makes it kind of odd. 

There's also currently little reason not to take a wooden shield - you can even block dragonfire with one!  (Although the insane heat of dragonfire is so intense, it would even melt steel and sear itself into your arm just trying to block it...)

The shield user skill could also affect the amount of damage that the shield actually takes, since a more skilled user can take blows at more oblique angles.

122
DF General Discussion / Re: Terrifying
« on: August 13, 2017, 04:44:59 pm »
My first experience with thralling clouds involved a fort where I built walls as soon as possible. Unfortunately, I didn't properly seal it and then all my dwarves were thralled/murdered by zombified dwarves.

My shortest fort ever was an attempt to reclaim the same fort. A thralling cloud appeared about 2 steps of time in, right on top of my starting spot. I immediately lost.

Heh.  Thralling cloud probably didn't actually leave, the dwarves just didn't notice it in the first tick.

My shortest fort ever was when I accidentally helped isolate the cause of the adamantine spire bug, (abandoning a world and genning a new one - the old world's landmark data wasn't cleaned up properly, causing garbage data to be loaded into the terrain), which caused my wagon and dwarves to spawn inside a cave-in of the magma sea.  They didn't actually get to have a tick before being instantly combust-ploded.

123
DF Suggestions / Re: Custom noble positions
« on: August 13, 2017, 03:53:21 pm »
Technically, this exists already, although A) it requires you go to the raws, and that means B) you have to set it before you start and it's entity-wide, and C) the functionality is essentially limited to only doing things current nobles can already do. 

Outside of some sort of dynamic mid-game changes, though, this is planned to be put in gradually as more noble functions are put into the game.

124
DF General Discussion / Re: Terrifying
« on: August 12, 2017, 04:05:56 pm »
I remember embarking several versions/years ago, back before the changes to the undead system, and I immediately started off with an undead skate in the nearby stream leaping out and scaring off my starting dwarves, until the yaks that pulled the wagon stomped it to death.  I generally avoided evil biomes after the changes, just because they caused so much FPS decay, especially the earlier clouds and their never-disappearing contaminants, and I don't generally go "for the challenge" (which is kind of an unbalanced random farce), anyway.

Generally, I wouldn't bother bringing a full hammer - those are pretty expensive - just bring an anvil (granted, also kind of expensive), and some copper and wood/coal.  You MIGHT need to fight immediately, but that's something where I'll just force-quit, reload, and embark elsewhere if I actually needed a weapon in hand at the start of the game to survive (that is, the yaks couldn't kill it), because it's not like you can really do much about it, anyway.

With evil biomes, you absolutely need to get underground immediately, so do bring one or maybe two picks, and maybe even give some mining experience to at least one dwarf.  Dig a tunnel right next to the wagon, dig out a storage space, move everything indoors (including any animals you want to keep), then wall it off as quickly as possible, because sometimes, you'll have fortress-ending thralling dust come pretty quickly. 

125
How, exactly, is this different from a vampire without the actual chance of killing anyone?

126
DF Suggestions / Re: Chemical interactions
« on: August 12, 2017, 12:05:28 am »
Should such reactions be limited to alchemy laboratories?

Those would be workshop reactions - those are already in the game.

Likewise, things like gasses or contaminants having syndromes that have chemical reaction-type effects are already in the game.

Flowing liquids are limited to water and magma as a data management concern.  The game can only handle exactly two types of actual flowing fluid at the moment, and it can't handle mixing of fluids at all (which is sidestepped by just making any tile where it would be a problem an obsidian wall, instead).

In short, without restructuring some of the data types in the game, there isn't really much you can ask for that you couldn't already get from modding.  You'd be better off asking for more flexible reaction types than general reactions to occur.

127
Period appropriate:
[...]
Toy for the wealthy:
The point I'm trying to make is that the exclusivity of most of this to the wealthy for that same reason of economy of scale is why it shouldn't be an assumed part of every worldgen human civilization.

There were water clocks in atiquity, too, but they're only in the game as emergent gameplay because they're exceptional things that only a few people have ever done, and hence, they're unique selling points of individual player fortresses, rather than seeing giant pump-and-pressure-plate-based mechanical systems in every random fort or human town. 

Keeping ice houses strictly in the realm of emergent gameplay from player actions is where I think ice houses should go.  (Same with qanats, actually...)

To avoid bogging down the thread any more than I already have,

I wouldn't worry about bogging the thread down.  This thread is from years ago, and hasn't moved much since then, so it's not like it was going anywhere else for you to interrupt it, and you're bringing some vitality back to it.

Prepared Meals
Prepared meals would need a much more detailed interface to work properly.  However, the majority of prepared meals can be collapsed into three main categories: Stews & related, Sandwiches, and Salads.

Well, the rest of this thread covers this in pretty heavy detail, and I participated in it back then, too, so...

I think that's a rather gross oversimplification, as unless you count a roasted game animal as a "stew & related", it's not covered, and I know there were plenty of times people just had a shank of mutton.  Similarly, various forms of baked goods outside of (the somewhat anachronistic) sandwiches were very common foods.  That's not even starting on any culture that ate rice as their starch... Is pickled vegetables, a slice of grilled fish, some miso soup, and some rice, all separated into different dishes (the classic Japanese breakfast) a sandwich? A stew? A salad? Even if you say the soup is a separate stew, and the pickles are a separate salad, the rice is what, a sandwich? And some simply grilled fish is a stew?

Likewise, I'm not sure you would really want to go into the details on this, as it may require a vast amount of micromanagement on the player's account if it did.  I already don't ranch cows because they take up too much micromanagement needing to remember to milk them, and needing grazing pasture micromanagement, while just designating some land for farming and having the seeds to start growing is all I need to have an indefinite stream of food getting cooked.  The system should be designed with an eye towards how it will impact the player.

I'd rather see something more like the "mead hall" setup I mentioned earlier in this thread, where players set up several workshops in the back room of their tavern that have some broad guideline for what sort of food they are meant to produce, and then set it out as options for the dwarves (or other tavern guests) to choose from.  I'd also want to tie this in with ideas like flavor profiles (or alternately, nutrition systems), so that they work in conjunction to give players an idea of what to aim for.  I.E. you have players set up a workshop serving a spicy dish, one serving a sweet dish, one serving a salty dish, etc.  That way, you basically just set up however many workshops as it takes to satisfy the flavor categories, and just keep them stocked with ingredients to throw in their meals. 

> Most of the liquids listed in the Pickling section would probably work as the broth for a stew (lye is questionable, and oil requires different procedures). 

Remind me not to try your lye corn chowder if I ever come over to eat at your place.  :P

10. Cheese: I am not personally familiar with any stew recipes that call for cheese, although that might just be my own small reference pool.

Especially if you're throwing basically any sort of curry or roast with a sauce into the "stew" bin, there are tons of uses for cheese, mostly as a sauce.  You might want to look up, for example, alfredo sauce (and a ton of French or Northern Italian cooking), or pretty much anything paneer is used for.

Also, yogurt is used in a lot of similar ways, including as a marinade, at least in India.

Many types of sandwich use sliced cheese. 

Again, this is really anachronistic.  Sliced deli meats and cheeses are a modern invention.  The entire concept of a sandwich was invented in the 19th century.

Historically, people ate pies.  Chicken pot pie is a decent example of a "main meal" pie, it has some meat and some vegetables.  Fruit pies existed back then too, of course. 

Pies also make a lot more sense as a means of storage and serving to large numbers of people in a dining hall, as you can just set out a pie on a table, people take a slice, and the pie is replaced as it is consumed.

11. Eggs: Eggs are liquid in the raw state (not counting the shell, which is usually discarded), but most bird eggs “set up” during cooking, and are relatively solid afterward.  This gives them distinct culinary properties. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Two words: Egg noodles. 

Egg drop soup, for example, is made with chicken broth brought to a boil, and then drizzling egg into the boiling soup so that they set into a solid as a train of thin noodles. 

Plenty of Chinese soups involve eggs.

12. Oil: Stews don’t usually call for oil, but a lot of other recipe types do, and it offers unique features and benefits.  As I am using the term here, “oil” includes vegetable oils, tallow, and butter.  Some recipes may accept only a subset of this. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You can't have French cooking without tons of butter.  Likewise, stir-fries and fried chicken are apparently "stew" now, so you're definitely using plenty of fat or oil for that.

A. Perpetual stew: While this method of cooking is not familiar to modern players, it definitely deserves a mention, since it fits the time period that DF is intended to emulate; a discussion of foods in a medieval fantasy setting would not be complete without covering it. 

This would definitely be period-appropriate, but it would be nightmarish to code.  We're dealing with dwarves reacting to foods of different quantities dissolving into one another, plus we're dealing with various things that rot, and the rates at which they rot.  Plus, if I have, say, a gallon of chicken soup, eat half that soup, fill it up with half a gallon of pea soup, eat half that chicken-pea soup, then fill in half a gallon of onion soup, then eat half that 1/4 chicken-1/4 pea-1/2 onion soup, then fill it with beef soup... at what point of dilution does the chicken soup stop counting as relevant, both for tracking purposes, and also for whether it triggers preferences for chicken because there was a drop of chicken soup in that everything soup?  What if it's a chunky stew, how do you differentiate between eating the last chunk of beef from a chunky beef soup versus a pea versus the broth, itself?  Do we need grain sizes for these things? 

It would make far more sense mechanically to have a system where a kitchen is tied to two or more tureens or cauldrons of soup, and when one is emptied, they cook another batch to fill it up, while cycling the next batch of stew to the front. (Which would be more like what a modern buffet does.)

128
DF Suggestions / Re: Change food preferences based on experience
« on: August 11, 2017, 10:55:09 pm »
For the same reason that preferred foods already exist. Nobody needs food preferences, forts & individual dwarves would run just fine without them. But, every once in a while, we pick a special dwarf. Maybe it's a weaponsmith who just cranked out an artifact adamantine pick. Maybe it's the Axelord who singlehandedly beat back a goblin siege. Maybe it's a child whose parents were killed in front of her. Maybe it's the all-too-rare noble with actually good skills & traits, and useful preferences. Maybe it's a crippled veteran, burned and maimed, with no eyes and only half a hand, whose sole remaining pleasure in this world is the kind of soup his father used to make. And for those players who want to do something kind for those dwarves, it'd be nice to have the ability to do so.

The thing is, though, preferences do have mechanical reasons to exist outside of raw player sentimentality.

Preferences heavily guide moods.  Preferences are what determines mandates, and are therefore critically important on nobles.  Preferences give serious happy thoughts if fulfilled.  If someone has a preference for something like doors, I'm much more likely to give them masonry, because they'll be giving themselves happy thoughts constantly admiring their own work. 

Food preferences aren't used in most of those systems, but exist for the same reason as those other systems. 

In fact, originally, they were meant to be mandatory, but they were nerfed because it made the game grossly unfair to have unmeetable needs.  They were dropped down to near-irrelevance as a system as a fast kludge solution to the problem, but you're supposed to always fulfill them.  (Which is why the suggestions are to find ways that preferences can at least hypothetically be satisfied at some point.)

Dismissing it as purely fluff is missing a large part of the point of the system, and I think that if the system is made more possible to be regularly fulfilled, it can also be brought back up to reasonable levels of importance again.
 
I'm not saying "nobody will care about it," I'm saying "nobody will have to care about it" . . . but we should at least have the option of caring. Under the current system, being able to meet a food preference is entirely hit or miss--and because it's mostly miss, ("Why the hell did you migrate to a fort built on a glacier if you liked ostrich meat, dumbass?!?") most players ignore it as a generally unattainable goal. But if dwarves can be pleased by things that taste similar to a preferred food, and/or they have a "favorite so far" food which is pretty much guaranteed to be available, then gourmet dining suddenly becomes a viable option.

The problem with the argument you make at the start of that paragraph is that you rebut it in the next sentence.  If it's something you don't have to care about, "but have the option of caring about", but then it's based upon things completely out of your control and are often a "miss", anyway, then caring about it is pointless, now isn't it? There's no point in caring about an "actual favorite" if you already get the best you can get from a "favorite so far", so why bother even having a "secret true favorite" at all, if you can just cut out the middle man and set up a system that finds "favorites so far", and leave the rest behind? 

Unless it actually leads to real player interactions and actual player decisions and choices somewhere (or at least, interesting stories that players can watch play out), it's not worth doing.  It would be one thing if players could have a choice between getting a caravan that gets one rare food from among four or five other rare foods, and then have to choose which dwarves you bring their favorite foods and get a happy thought for, but in the current game, there's no reason not to buy out everything of any value in a caravan, and you're making the true favorites hidden, so the player couldn't even make an informed choice, anyway.  (You wouldn't even know whether those rare foods were favorites of anyone at all until after you had them.) From a player perspective, this just exacerbates the problems with a "hit or miss - and mostly miss when it's completely not your fault" system.

In an ideal DF, both systems would be used: every ingredient would have a flavor profile AND nutrition specs. The player would try to provide foods that support a balanced diet, while the dwarves would try to choose foods that fit their individual palate. (Should dwarves even need Vitamin D?)

Vitamin D is obtainable through milk and some vegetables, by the way. 

Anyway, I'd be cautious about considering that "ideal".  After all, unless you're going to institute a system whereby the player actively controls what's on the menu (which is opening up a whole new can of worms, and can make it even harder to satisfy preferences if you have to remember to constantly change what's being cooked...), then the player only really interacts with this system (outside of its results) through what foods are available, which is, as already gone over, oftentimes not really within the player's control. (At least, not mid-game.)

It's again something similar to the eyelashes system: You have to ask what actual gameplay value is being created for the player/how it impacts the decisions the player will make for the amount of complexity you're adding.  Not just for Toady's coding time, or the fact that it can introduce bugs, but also for the players, themselves, who now have another large table of data to track with little intuitive way to understand how to actually fulfill the goal of feeding your dwarves a balanced diet of purely organic kale salads with cranberries to satisfy their fiber and vitamin C needs.

Or, put more simply, it's adding a lot of complexity both for the player and the game, and it would take some real work to integrate both and make them actually add any depth that could possibly justify all that added complexity.

129
DF General Discussion / Re: How the outside world sees us
« on: August 08, 2017, 01:58:02 am »
What management games have ever featured direct control of your subjects? That's kind of the point of these games, you manage people, as opposed to playing as them (although in Dwarf Fortress you can actually do both). That's been the case since Sim City and Populous and probably earlier.

RTS games are notorious for players taking direct control over every tiny thing units do, including the "Command and Conquer Economy", where the whole economy only moves when you tell the miners to mine, the lumberjacks to cut trees, and the moms to give birth to more recruits. 

Even if you want to limit it to management games, it's a rare breed that doesn't involve direct control over something like a company and all its employees directly.  My ships only sail when I say to sail, trade what I say to trade, and move where I tell them to move. 

Populous and Majesty and Dwarf Fortress are of a different breed in that they expect players to have to indirectly control their assets.

130
DF General Discussion / Re: I Made a DF Language Translator
« on: August 08, 2017, 01:04:51 am »
I don't suppose you could make this a downloadable program?  Especially if it runs dynamically loaded languages, so it could work with modded language files, (including player-created languages from mods), this would be something I'd really like to see. 

It might also be worth getting worked into DF Hack, now that I think about it...

131
DF General Discussion / Re: How do you dwarf the fortress?
« on: August 08, 2017, 01:00:35 am »
See, I always just envisioned it as the < key is further away from my hand, and the sky is farther away from me, therefore, < is up and > is down  :P

It's not that I can't memorize them, it's that I have my hand on the numpad for navigation nearly all the time, but I have to go back to the right homekeys to find < and >.  If I'm moving around my fortress using the numpad to navigate along the X and Y axis, why should I reposition my hand (taking a good second every time I do so) to find the up and down? 

This is, IMHO, exactly what causes so many people to have the terrible habit of making a "flat" and central staircase fortress, because they don't visualize outside of what they can see on a single floor, because they find it too much of a pain to look up and down floors.  It directly detracts from the experience of Dwarf Fortress to make an interface that fights against the better playstyles. 

132
DF General Discussion / Re: How do you dwarf the fortress?
« on: August 07, 2017, 04:37:53 pm »
I change the default controls. (5 and 0 for up and down.  < and > are madness.  I do some other changes, as well.)
I change default colors (blue is too dark).
I change name display.
I have my own custom tileset.
I have my own modded races and jobs and workshops and various other things.
I also have my own custom world parameters, of course.
I also play with DFHack a lot, especially for all the third party information tools that let me better understand and manage my fortress.  I'll also use some of the isometric visualizers to get good views of monuments.

In a nutshell, if it's possible to customize, I customize it.

Basically, it takes me several hours of updating to make a new version run, so I don't usually upgrade right away, and will wait for a stable version.

133
DF General Discussion / Re: Future of the Fortress
« on: August 07, 2017, 04:32:49 pm »
As someone over in Texas, I can attest that sometimes even if you have a good AC, a hard enough heatwave will still make the house uncomfortable all day long even with it running full blast.

I can confirm that Random_Dragon is not lying. It doesn't help that the air is normally pretty dry as well, so it just sucks the moisture out of everything like a sponge.

Washington state is generally at around 110% humidity, so when it gets hot, the usual method of humans to cool off by sweat and evaporation is ineffective. 

134
DF Suggestions / Re: Chemical interactions
« on: August 07, 2017, 04:28:15 pm »
This is, broadly speaking, planned, but has some serious problems.  As Toady has mentioned, if you make it possible for any random thing to create chemical reactions with any other random thing (including the floor), then you force the game to start checking every single object in the game for an interation with the materials of the map or the other objects in the tile every single tick, which would result in an instantly tanked FPS.  (As Toady put it, every single time a dwarf made a step, you'd have to check for whether their boots were made of something that would react with whatever the floor was made of.)

This is why the chemical reactions that exist within the game are limited to contaminants, which are relatively limited in how common they are (but in evil biomes where contaminants are everywhere, it's a major FPS bomb), and things that touch contaminants.  The functions for syndromes are basically the same as for any chemical interaction, so in a way, this in the game, already.

If you want to provide a suggestion that would actually advance the idea, you'd probably be better off coming up with ways to make this sanely checkable without significantly overloading the system.

135
The infamous Gnome with a Wand of Death is sort of the obvious next answer; in more general terms, anything on the Instadeath page that doesn't make logical sense.  By that I mean that falling into lava without some sort of defense *should* kill you, etc. 

At a more meta level, fixed quests and fixed time limits.  I prefer the more open-ended and/or procedurally generated roguelikes (haven't played actual NetHack in years), and DF is sort of the ultimate expression of that.  NetHack is a bit too much "puzzle game" for my personal taste.  Everything in the world should have some internally consistent reason it is there, or at least *seem* to.  ("Mad dungeon-obsessed trickster god" is a valid take, mind you, but that should have other ripple effects on the world.) 

There's always Elona, which is my favorite for it's utter lack of sanity checks.  It technically has a main quest, but you can feel free to ignore it forever, and it's basically just a dungeon you have to go a certain number of levels down, visit some quest characters for the plot, then return and beat a boss, while all the levels are still procedural.  There are also some static instance maps with quests, but they're optional side quests.  (Although defeating at least the first one is a good idea, since it provides a map that will never be altered, thus forming a safe "warehouse" for your excess wands/scrolls/whatever you don't want to either sell or carry everywhere.)

So far as the OP goes... It's a good thing NetHack lacks syndrome-bearing titans/forgotten beasts even on the first floor of the cavern dungeon.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 555