Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[part of children bugs squashed] Bug #535: Equipping weapons/armor on military is erratic

73 (10%)

Bug #1582: Injured dwarf in bed in stocked hospital ignored by idle doctors and #94: Injured dwarves not recovered

63 (8.6%)

Bug #2712: weapons, especially whips, cut through steel armor like butter

35 (4.8%)

Bug #1451: Military equipment interferes with civilian equipment (picks/axes/crossbows/quivers)

34 (4.7%)

Bug #5097:  Names overwriting text with TrueType

24 (3.3%)

[FIXED] Bug #5232: Streams/brooks/rivers getting turned stagnant by nearby pools/ponds

48 (6.6%)

Bug #296: Pools/smears/spatters of blood, dust and other materials multiply themselves, get tracked around too much

22 (3%)

Bug #2922: Population Cap not working

39 (5.3%)

Bug #5312: Undead reanimate too quickly (and forever)

62 (8.5%)

Bug #2780: Turtles went extinct on my map (applies to all aquatic vermin)

26 (3.6%)

Bug #33: Bronze colossus, skeletal creatures, fleshballs, and others are impossible to kill

13 (1.8%)

Bug #3898: Entire Bone Stacks are used in Reactions instead of a single Bone

12 (1.6%)

Bug #5611: Cities overwhelmingly build textile industry shops, almost never wood, stone, or metal-related shops - results in nearly no weapons/armor for sale.

22 (3%)

Bug #5263: Abandoned shops not reclaimed - Older towns are almost entirely abandoned in spite of Legends listing population in thousands

17 (2.3%)

Bug #2327: Blunt weapons extremely ineffective, extended single combat with groundhog

12 (1.6%)

Bug #4552: Siegers waiting by bodies of dead leaders

16 (2.2%)

Bug #136 When embarking on large area, DF hits 2GB memory limit and crashes

16 (2.2%)

Bug #412: Nobles job priority is weird (trading, diagnose, talking with liaison and attend meeting jobs have extremely low priority)

32 (4.4%)

bug #4230 - bucket with water inside becomes unusable

5 (0.7%)

Bug #4550: Dodging into river/lava/from cliff etc

2 (0.3%)

Bug #4590: Unarmored creatures give in to pain too easily - Elephant killed by three hoary marmots when elephant gives in to pain from nibbling

7 (1%)

Bug #5106: Slain bandits/companions respawn/duplicate in their original location

7 (1%)

Bug #425: Dwarves Not Cleaning Blood

25 (3.4%)

[FIXED] Bug #1376: Presence of saltwater marsh causes mountain brooks/pools to become salty

4 (0.5%)

Bug #3685: Goblin squads invading a fortress will kill their non-goblin squadmates, sparking loyalty cascade

6 (0.8%)

Bugs #287 & #3147: Medical Dwarfs prefer using non-hospital stockpiles than hospital stocks

7 (1%)

Bug #5598: Town shops/cabinets contain human-sized clothes regardless of size of actual residents

6 (0.8%)

Bug #3015: Invader/sieger mounts flee combat, preventing their riders from fighting (worse with [FLIER] tag)

5 (0.7%)

Bug #1346: Adamantine thread used for suturing.

11 (1.5%)

Bug #3169: Bone carvers suffer art defacement when somebody leaves the map with stuck-in masterpiece bolts

6 (0.8%)

Bug #874: Dwarves refuse to butcher some corpses (buzzards in particular)

3 (0.4%)

Bug #4430: Large gems not moved to stockpile

9 (1.2%)

Bug #3981: Dwarf with "Installing Colony in Hive" Job stuck in middle of nowhere.

18 (2.5%)

Bug #5102: Sewers inhabitants hanging out underwater near outflows (some of them stuck to walls)

4 (0.5%)

Bug #4299: Some events can't be zoomed to (from announcements menu) even though they have a definite location

23 (3.2%)

Bug #3190: Long Patrol Negative Thoughts seem to escalate, even with long break.

15 (2.1%)

Bug #434: Reaction jobs (unlike other jobs) don't look outside burrow for workers and raw materials (works through manager)

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 725

[kaijyuu]

IMO zombies made of parts that cannot be broken down further (skin, bones, etc) should crumble to dust when defeated. Zombies that are made of multiple parts (corpses, skeletons, etc) should just break down into smaller ones.

[WillowLuman]

Why should they get back up in the first place? Shouldn't whatever damage that rendered it unable to move make it, y'know, unable to move?

[Garath]

noble demands warthog hoof armor stand, right.

Still, I take most of those bugs in stride, but I just had a bone carver nearly throw a tantrum because someone left the map with 5 of his MW bone bolts in him. I can imagine someone upset about something that is meant to last, but bone bolts will never last more than a few shots anyway.

[FearfulJesuit]

2922, I remind you again, is Not a Bug.

[Garath]

whoops, checked the list, weren't talking to me

[HiEv]

2922, I remind you again, is Not a Bug.

And I'll remind you that he already responded to you on that point:

And #2922 is not, in fact, a bug.

It is open on the bugtracker + IMHO it is a bug.

Not to mention the fact that it already has three votes.

[Flying Dice]

2922, I remind you again, is Not a Bug.

And I'll remind you that he already responded to you on that point:

And #2922 is not, in fact, a bug.

It is open on the bugtracker + IMHO it is a bug.

Not to mention the fact that it already has three votes.

So 3 people thinking something is a bug and Toady not having the time to close an obvious non-bug report (instead of, say, working on bugfixes) make something a bug? The population cap operates in a predictable way that also makes sense in-universe. You can argue that there should be an alternate hard cap if you want, sure, but there really isn't any water behind "I don't understand/like how this mechanic works, so I'll call it a bug!".


Unrelated: Still the stagnancy spread, so much. Zombies close behind that.

[Kogut]

2922, I remind you again, is Not a Bug.

And I'll remind you that he already responded to you on that point:

And #2922 is not, in fact, a bug.

It is open on the bugtracker + IMHO it is a bug.

Not to mention the fact that it already has three votes.

So 3 people thinking something is a bug and Toady not having the time to close an obvious non-bug report (instead of, say, working on bugfixes) make something a bug? The population cap operates in a predictable way that also makes sense in-universe. You can argue that there should be an alternate hard cap if you want, sure, but there really isn't any water behind "I don't understand/like how this mechanic works, so I'll call it a bug!".


Unrelated: Still the stagnancy spread, so much. Zombies close behind that.

You can set the maximum population of your fortress here.  Keep in mind that your population must be at least 80 to get a king and 100 to obtain the current game features.

[POPULATION_CAP:100]

"maximum population of your fortress" not "maximal population after last visit of surviving caravan that will qualify you to unlimited migrant wave"

[Musaab]

#5097 drives me INSANE!!!

[Flying Dice]

2922, I remind you again, is Not a Bug.

And I'll remind you that he already responded to you on that point:

And #2922 is not, in fact, a bug.

It is open on the bugtracker + IMHO it is a bug.

Not to mention the fact that it already has three votes.

So 3 people thinking something is a bug and Toady not having the time to close an obvious non-bug report (instead of, say, working on bugfixes) make something a bug? The population cap operates in a predictable way that also makes sense in-universe. You can argue that there should be an alternate hard cap if you want, sure, but there really isn't any water behind "I don't understand/like how this mechanic works, so I'll call it a bug!".


Unrelated: Still the stagnancy spread, so much. Zombies close behind that.

You can set the maximum population of your fortress here.  Keep in mind that your population must be at least 80 to get a king and 100 to obtain the current game features.

[POPULATION_CAP:100]

"maximum population of your fortress" not "maximal population after last visit of surviving caravan that will qualify you to unlimited migrant wave"

Thing is, it's talking about your maximum population as observed by your civilization. In other words, the liason visits, leaves, and reports back "Hey, guys, they're at 53 dwarves, and they don't want any more than 60. Y'all are free to migrate on over!". Actually, I find it rather dwarfy for them to (in essence) assume that a large chunk of your population will probably die before the next visit, but that is a whole 'nother topic.

I guess where I'm coming from is that
1. It isn't a bug, it's a feature (and for once, not in a joking way).
2. There is readily identifiable behavior.
3. It is fairly simple to get it to do what you want.

I take the same view on things like this as I do on, say, getting Aurora to a playable resolution, in that while it is a bit frustrating if you have no idea what you're doing, the "problem" as such is solvable with about ten seconds of work (or however long it takes you to open up the init file and change to popcap to something ~20 below your desired population), and yet people insist on complaining about it and demanding that it be changed, when work on practically anything else would be a much bigger improvement to the game.

As a related note, there are plenty of other mechanics that are imprecise and often lead to undesireable results (and which also have fairly simple workarounds), such as dwarves preferring to build walls from North and West, yet I don't see any of those up there.

[HiEv]

You can set the maximum population of your fortress here.  Keep in mind that your population must be at least 80 to get a king and 100 to obtain the current game features.

[POPULATION_CAP:100]

"maximum population of your fortress" not "maximal population after last visit of surviving caravan that will qualify you to unlimited migrant wave"

Thing is, it's talking about your maximum population as observed by your civilization.
[snip]

The thing is, "maximum population of your fortress" should mean what it says, and not something else entirely.  That's why it's a bug.  Yes, there are workarounds, but there are workarounds for lots of things up there, that doesn't make them not-bugs.

As a related note, there are plenty of other mechanics that are imprecise and often lead to undesireable results (and which also have fairly simple workarounds), such as dwarves preferring to build walls from North and West, yet I don't see any of those up there.

Personally, I think "Bug #4550: Dodging into river/lava/from cliff etc", "Bug #425: Dwarves Not Cleaning Blood", and "Bugs #287 & #3147: Medical Dwarfs prefer using non-hospital stockpiles than hospital stocks" all fit the criteria of "imprecise mechanics that often lead to undesirable results".  But honestly, whether it meets that criteria or not is irrelevant to how it gets put on the list.

Basically, bugs get added to the list because people request them specifically, and if nobody votes for them for a while they will get replaced with other suggestions.  It's up to Kogut if he wants to list stuff here.  If you disagree, you're free to start your own "worst bug" thread.

[Flying Dice]

You can set the maximum population of your fortress here.  Keep in mind that your population must be at least 80 to get a king and 100 to obtain the current game features.

[POPULATION_CAP:100]

"maximum population of your fortress" not "maximal population after last visit of surviving caravan that will qualify you to unlimited migrant wave"

Thing is, it's talking about your maximum population as observed by your civilization.
[snip]

The thing is, "maximum population of your fortress" should mean what it says, and not something else entirely.  That's why it's a bug.  Yes, there are workarounds, but there are workarounds for lots of things up there, that doesn't make them not-bugs.

As a related note, there are plenty of other mechanics that are imprecise and often lead to undesireable results (and which also have fairly simple workarounds), such as dwarves preferring to build walls from North and West, yet I don't see any of those up there.

Personally, I think "Bug #4550: Dodging into river/lava/from cliff etc", "Bug #425: Dwarves Not Cleaning Blood", and "Bugs #287 & #3147: Medical Dwarfs prefer using non-hospital stockpiles than hospital stocks" all fit the criteria of "imprecise mechanics that often lead to undesirable results".  But honestly, whether it meets that criteria or not is irrelevant to how it gets put on the list.

Basically, bugs get added to the list because people request them specifically, and if nobody votes for them for a while they will get replaced with other suggestions.  It's up to Kogut if he wants to list stuff here.  If you disagree, you're free to start your own "worst bug" thread.

1. So it is a bug because the description is inaccurate? 
2. Use your common sense. Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles. (Read: Not all flawed/imprecise mechanics are bugs, but all bugs are flawed mechanics [of some sort])
3. Please note that my argument isn't that it is not a problem, per se, but that it is not a bug, in that the population cap is working as intended, even if the commented description of it isn't accurate, and hence should not be included in a list of bugs. Call it a bad feature, fine. Ask for it to be changed, fine. But be accurate about it. Of course, if word of god comes down that it is, in fact, not supposed to work the way it does, then yes, it is a bug. But the population cap has worked like this for as long as I can remember, and there has (AFAIK) never been an official mention of it as a bug.

[thvaz]

The population cap, bad worded as is, and as stated by Toady many times (I don't want to do a thoroughly search) IS NOT a bug. Toady doesn't like hard caps.

[Kogut]

The best way to close open bug is to PM Foot with explanation why this should be closed, it is quite effective (100% for duplicates, 95% for "AFAIK fixed", 20% for IMHO not a bug)

[Grumbledwarfskin]

3. It is fairly simple to get it to do what you want.

You're right on points 1 and 2, but you're way off on 3. It depends greatly on where you want population to stop. You can low-ball so that overshoot will take you roughly to the population that you want, but it's still a huge gamble, given the number of dwarves that can come in a single year.

If you want your population to stop at or over 100 dwarves, then it sort of works, you'll never go north of 200 if you set the cap at 100, and probably won't go north of 150 (assuming your baby cap is set reasonably). I've seen a lot of reports from people who want to cap their population at 20 or 50 for FPS reasons, however, and given that if you fall below the cap, you'll get up to 100 dwarves in a single year of migration if your fort is wealthy (and the death rate isn't scaring the migrants), the population cap as implemented is not working.