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 - EmeraldWind

Pages: 1 ... 56 57 [58] 59 60 ... 66
856
It is generally said that Battlefailed and Failcannon are relatively close to one another. They share the same biomes thus must be really close. I was curious about what the world of Aluonra. First I decided to take a general look at the in-game historical map and find the famous forts.

The forts were easy enough to find. The giant ocean of puke in the center of the map is the Blueness or parts of it is anyway. From there were needed to find some Evil land and there's some right on the northern area. They stick out like a sore thumbs because its not often you see two dwarven forts one the ocean in such close proximity.


Here's a crop of the northern area of the Blueness. Forts Battlefailed and Failcannon are in the bottom right-hand side of the image. The purple area they are in are the Plains of Ooze. The south fort is Battlefailed and the north fort is Failcannon.

They area to be quite close, but this is actually a rather inaccurate map. So now I go and look at the detailed graphical map of biomes and sites. Now I couldn't upload the full graphical map. It's huge. You see, on these detailed maps the game exports one embark square per pixel. Thus the map supplies the same level of detail as the embark map and the current travel map. I have got a cropped portion though. This is roughly the same area as the above cropped map.


If you look for the forts, I've recolored them red. To make them stand out.

Here's a 400% blown-up crop more centered on the forts:

The two forts are apparently 3x3 embarks. And there is quite a distance between them. Remember that each square you see (which is one pixel on the true sized map, but a 4x4 pixel square here) is equal to one embark square or travel square and if I recal correctly each one of these squares is 48x48 fort mode tiles.

I was just interested in how close they were to each other. As I was looking at the maps, I decided to share that for other who might be curious.

I also ran these maps through Isoworld. It gave me a heck of a lot of trouble. Aluonra has a lot of data on just its maps alone. In fact, I couldn't even use all the maps I had to scale back and just use the necessary ones.

The forts are fully displayed as they intersect the ocean and beach. I'm pretty sure the fort on the left is Battlefailed.

I wanted to go through and look at some of the other interesting terrain with Isoworld, but Aluonra is pretty flat. Not a whole lot to look at. I did run across one interesting feature of the world map I thought I should point out.

There this odd star-shaped mountain range in the south-west corner of the world map far from the forts. It's kind of interesting to me because of the big lake (or small sea) imbedded in the mountains. On top of that there is a rather big piece of land in the lake/sea. I haven't seen an odd formation like that in any of the worlds I've generated so far.


Well, that's my research for the day. I though it would be an interesting distraction for a bit.


857
This is pretty cool. Maybe I'll download this and give it a shot after I finish my current fort.

Too bad Spouse_Converter only works with Night Creatures. Gerudo's kidnapping men and forcing them to be their spouses would fit them. (A Gossip Stone in OoT does mention this.)

Hey, can you make a Gossip Stone creature? Immobile, Immortal, and Intelligent enough to speak. That way you can get leads and quests from the Gossip Stones. :P J/K

Seriously though, I'd like to see how this mod evolves.

Edit:
Finally, under the hope that they get traded in world gen in the next version, zoras get the animal part furniture workshops and the associated reactions. If it does work, you might see the occasional fishbone table or shell chair in hyrulean towns.

Fishbone Guitars FTW!

858
DF Modding / Re: Game graphics...
« on: October 03, 2011, 12:48:26 am »
This looks really neat. A very imaginative approach to DF tiles.

They've each got their own little cartoon-ish charm to them. I look at them and half expect them to move.
Very nice.

859
DF General Discussion / Re: Future of the Fortress
« 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?

860
DF Dwarf Mode Discussion / Re: Face Palm moments you had
« on: September 25, 2011, 12:24:28 am »
Here I got one. It is from a while back, but I forgot about it.

I had made a statue garden outside to fight cave adaption and it worked.
Imagine my surprise during a siege a butch of dwarfs are walking outside despite an alert.
I quickly notice they are all going to the statue garden. I look at the statue garden and
there's already a party going on! I double check the alert. It's set to the right one.

Did you know that statue gardens trump alerts?

I didn't. Naturally, the dwarves kind of stood there looking confused when I freed the statue
from the garden.

Dwarf 1: Hey, let's go to the statue garden.
Dwarf 2: Err... the statue garden is outside and we can't go there's a siege.
Dwarf 1: No, its a statue garden and according to the Dwarven Book of Laws: "Statue Gardens are meeting halls. Meeting Halls are considered to be inside regardless of location or lack of ceiling."
Dwarf 2: I don't know about that...
Dwarf 1: Come on, Urist is having a party out there.
Dwarf 2: Why didn't you say so!? Let's go!


861
DF Suggestions / Re: Reaction Templates
« on: September 25, 2011, 12:05:57 am »
Wait... you mean, that power can't be used in buildings?

I assumed it was in there already due to the mills. Dang.

At least I didn't start trying to mod that then.
I was going to mod it in for my next fort, I thought it would be fun to make it require
a lot of power just to make it so the magma is still the better option.

Oh well. I simply assumed all the stuff that other buildings could do would be available to use as tokens.

As for the main part of my idea, I thought it would be a decent idea. It probably still needs a bit of polishing and pounding out and it wouldn't be very useful in the short run. Though as the game gets bigger and interactions become more complex, it will help keep the reactions down to just the lines that change. Ultimately, it is kind of like how other objects are already handled and it simplifies things a bit .

Of course there are still cons to my idea, by taking some of the stuff out of the main reaction you can't see the entire reaction.  Part of my idea is to take some of the clutter out of the reaction, so you can see what makes the reaction unique. At the same time you can't see what makes it the same as the others without looking at the template.

It also becomes useless if there are tons of reactions that are completely unrelated to one another. My idea would still be used along side the current one, so you can still use reactions without using a template but it simply wouldn't be of use in a situation like that.

Another problem is how often will someone want to make a workshop that serves a similar purpose to one that already exists. I mean, besides my weird idea of a smelter I came up with I have trouble thinking of a similar example. In this case, the interface-like design of the template would be useless unless there were more reasons to make custom workshops that do similar things in only a slightly different way. Most of the time when people do make custom workshops, it is to produce things using reactions completely different from the others and there is no reason to use a reaction template, because they don't care about what was going in the original reaction or it is something unrelated.

It honestly needs so fixing, but I haven't done much modding to the game and therefore I'm not sure how helpful it would be. I put it here, because I saw there was nothing like this that I could find by searching. I know what I put here isn't an original idea, far from it in fact. It is a common programming design pattern and it is used in several different places already in the raws. My big thing about this though was also using it like an interface as well as a template, but like I said other than my odd grind-smelter, what else would use that?

862
DF General Discussion / Re: Future of the Fortress
« on: September 24, 2011, 10:50:54 pm »
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.

863
DF General Discussion / Re: Future of the Fortress
« 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.

864
DF General Discussion / Re: Future of the Fortress
« 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.

865
DF General Discussion / Re: Future of the Fortress
« on: September 21, 2011, 11:02:02 pm »
Man, by the time this is released there will be so much new content to enjoy.
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.

866
DF General Discussion / Re: Future of the Fortress
« 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

867
DF Suggestions / Reaction Templates
« on: September 16, 2011, 05:09:51 pm »
I was thinking of an idea.

I thought it would be neat to mod in a workshop that acted like a smelter, but instead of using a fuel (like magma or coke) it would use power. The idea was it used two grindstones to heat up a boulder into magma and use that to smelt. It would require Power and an extra stone, but gives a slightly different way of smelting.

This idea is actually pretty simple to implement (the stone turning to magma wouldn't actually happen in-game, but is simply the theory behind the thing), except when it comes to the reactions. I would need to copy and paste every single reaction and edit them to work with my new smelter.

I would need to make this:
Code: [Select]
[REACTION:BRASS_MAKING]
[NAME:make brass bars (use ore)]
[BUILDING:SMELTER:NONE]
[REAGENT:A:1:METAL_ORE:ZINC]
[REAGENT:B:1:METAL_ORE:COPPER]
[PRODUCT:100:2:BAR:NO_SUBTYPE:METAL:BRASS][PRODUCT_DIMENSION:150]
[FUEL]
[SKILL:SMELT]
Into this:
Code: [Select]
[REACTION:BRASS_MAKING_GRIND]
[NAME:make brass bars (use ore)]
[BUILDING:GRIND_SMELTER:NONE]
[REAGENT:A:1:METAL_ORE:ZINC]
[REAGENT:B:1:METAL_ORE:COPPER]
[REAGENT:F:1:BOULDER:NO_SUBTYPE:INORGANIC]
[PRODUCT:100:2:BAR:NO_SUBTYPE:METAL:BRASS][PRODUCT_DIMENSION:150]
[SKILL:SMELT]

Now what if, I could simplify this a bit. Now notice these two key points:
First: All the regular smelter reactions share certain lines of info. All my reactions share certain lines of info.
Second: All my reactions are nearly identical to the original smelter reactions except for the lines that the first point mentions.

What I propose is a template system similar to what is used for other objects. If you separate, all the lines that stay the same between the two reactions, but differ between similar reactions I get:
Code: [Select]
[REACTION:BRASS_MAKING]
[NAME:make brass bars (use ore)]
[REAGENT:A:1:METAL_ORE:ZINC]
[REAGENT:B:1:METAL_ORE:COPPER]
[PRODUCT:100:2:BAR:NO_SUBTYPE:METAL:BRASS][PRODUCT_DIMENSION:150]
So I end up with just the formula minus some components. Now I take the parts that differ between the two reactions, but stay that same with-in similar reactions I get:
Code: [Select]
[REACTION:SMELT]
[BUILDING:SMELTER:NONE]
[FUEL]
[SKILL:SMELT]
Code: [Select]
[REACTION:GRIND_SMELT]
[BUILDING:GRIND_SMELTER:NONE]
[REAGENT:F:1:BOULDER:NO_SUBTYPE:INORGANIC]
[SKILL:SMELT]

Now I have all the reaction code from the two building separated. Next I would add two lines to the REACTION_BRASS_MAKING:
Code: [Select]
[USE_TEMPLATE_REACTION:SMELT]
[USE_TEMPLATE_REACTION:GRIND_SMELT]

Doing this would allow reactions to be used at multiple workshops with slightly differing requirements.

The recipe part of the reaction is reusable if someone wanted to add a fourth smelter type for whatever reason. There is also the added bonus of being able to make it so certain reactions can only be done at one building (like in this case I would make it so coke couldn't be produced from a grind smelter) simply by leaving out the template line for the undesirable building.

It also adds some flexibility for modding in general. If someone wants to use my grind smelter with metals from another mod they would have to only add one line to each metal, instead of coping and pasting, adding two lines, editing another line, and deleting another. And the reaction itself wouldn't need to be added to the civilization either (the building would still need permitted though). Overall it would greatly reduce the number of changes a modder would need to make when involved with reactions.

Also reactions would still work they way they currently do, because the current system is still versatile in other ways. You can have one building do a bunch of unrelated reactions without templates. Templates are there to add more versatility not take away from what is there.

Granted, my system isn't perfect and could probably use some other thoughts. Like I wonder if linking the concrete reactions to the templates the way I did is the best way of doing that. I would guess since the game would have to check the templates to find the building types the reaction is linked to it might cause some problems. There would also need to be a way for the reaction to ignore anything in a template linked to a different building (IE: We wouldn't want it asking for the fuel and the extra rock.). Though, most of what I put here would be superficial. It wouldn't change how the game sees things, it just makes it easier for the modders to deal with.

I imagine this has already been put up here somewhere, but I'm not so good at searching since I tend to think in off-the-wall terms. I went through three subject titles for this topic, Polymorphic Reactions and Virtual Reactions were up there before I settled on Reaction Templates.

If this has already been suggested could you point me in the right direction, as I would like to see what others might have come up with. Plus I'd really like to see what they called it so I could find the info easier.  :P

 

868
DF Dwarf Mode Discussion / Re: Pet Ghosts
« on: September 15, 2011, 12:06:45 pm »
Also 3 dimensional pathfinding that ignores all phsyical boundaries sounds like it may have FPS ramifications.

Actually, I think it would have less of a hit on FPS. A lot of what causes path finding causes problems because it has to find a traversal-able path. By allowing the path finding algorithm to skip the part where it checks if the path is walkable, you actually skip half of that pass of the algorithm. You will also probably cut the number of passes through the algorithm down as well.

The reason flying normally lowers FPS is because it has more possibilities, but the same number of restrictions as walking to check. Ghosts, however have lots of possibilities, but no restrictions.

Granted, this is based on what I know about pathing and I have no idea how Toady did it in his code.

869
I've re-read this a couple of times but I'm still confused.  Which part(s) exactly were the lie, and which were truth?

Everything above the line.

And Mekboy, overlooking the tragedy, weeps for her fallen friends as blood starts falling from the heavens...

"Mek, what are you doing there?"
"I'm engraving, can't you see that?"
"Yes but... ew, that's gross. I didn't know that engravings could be so gory." I frowned. She has made an engraving depicting a battle of horrifying scale and detail.
"I call it 'The Fall of Failcannon'. It's my depiction of how this place will eventually-"

The story also implies that everything above the line was a description of Mekboy's engraving.

It should be noted, I am still not sure the rest actually happened in-game either. Mostly because I am not 100% sure what was going on. It sounded like either he seized goods from the caravan or the depot got destroyed. So I think this was just a update to the story, not an update to the progress of the fort.

870
Good to see the fort itself isn't dead. Too bad the thread is.
:'( Uncle Charlie! NOOOOOO!

Well you can't make an omelette without killing almost an entire fort can you?

Seriously though, it has only been four days since the overseer last posted. It is a bit quick to say the thread is dead as this thread has gone longer periods of silence.

Pages: 1 ... 56 57 [58] 59 60 ... 66