Print

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

[leafbarrett]

"Minesigns" (to use the Discworld phrase)...  A dwarf trap obviously has "warning signs" in dwarfish set around it.  This is how dwarf traders know about this.  There's also got to be some explanation how friendly humans/elves are also warned, yet attacking humans/elves (crossing traps built only after prior trading missions, isn't it?) don't get trapped, and that might be human/elven-language sections on the signs, that are no longer integrated when war-conditions occur.  (Kidnapped humans/elves in other races' invasion forces may not know their home language, or have been briefed as to the common-tongue representation of "don't(/only!) step on the blue stones aspect of trap navigation.)

Well if they're marked, then again, the dwarves should easily be able to tell which parts are trapped and which aren't, and avoid sleeping on the ones that are.

There's a lot of distance the AI could possibly go, but some things are possible and some things are not.  And however much you complain about assuming (and exploiting) that the dwarves are dumb, surely you can treat them the same as with Lemmings, or just about any other 'directed, not controlled' creature in every other game that has such...

I AM treating them the same. Do everything I can to avoid deaths (the sadism of the average DF player be damned), and spew profanities at the AI when it inevitably does something stupid. It's just that in this setting, I actually have a chance to make a difference with my input.
And if we're going for a semblance of realism (or as much as can be had in a game like this), then the AI is going to need some improvement in all sorts of areas (which, thankfully, is being planned regardless of my or other people's input). Dwarves are not lemmings. Dwarves are supposed to be intelligent creatures, at least as intelligent as other sentient civilizations. And thus, the game's AI should aspire to emulate that. At least, as best as AI can.

Then again, my mindset of "survival above all else" may come from a specific type of challenge I participate in for pokemon games, called the Nuzlocke challenge. If a pokemon's HP reaches 0, they're dead, period. And only the first pokemon in any route can be caught. Most people tend to get attached to the critters (myself included), and even if not, the fact remains that in such a challenge, you have a very limited number of pokemon, and reckless playing will cause more casualties than you can afford. If you run out of pokemon, you lose and have to start the game from scratch.
This conservative mindset seems to have pervaded my playstyle for all games.

[Starver]

In case you read otherwise into my post, I'm attached to my dwarves.  I use all the methods I can to ensure I don't lose any, including accounting for their individual and hive-mind 'stupidities', or natural and instinctual behaviours.  Unlike Lemmings, they don't just keep walking until dead or bounced into walking in the other direction, when left unattended (or, when given a duty, whether building or blocking, excavating or exploding, or the capability to scale cliffs and/or softly descend)... They've got a whole different set of (in many ways far less predictable and partly self-deterministic) single-minded objectives.

At the upper extreme of "automatic common sense" programming, you're talking about something that might as well be ProgressQuest for its uninvolvement with the user.  At the other end, you have Minecraft's non-Survival building mode, whatever that's called again.  I think the balance could be argued either way, from the point on the line it currently is, depending on what aspect you're talking about.  I mean, you get very little absolute say about the marriages (and thus resulting families) that occur, although you can nudge things, and yet the military organisation is almost entirely your decision.

I'm not entirely sure how the dwarf mentality as exhibited in a fortress has managed to create a civilisation (and, to be honest, they don't even make those "Big Dumb, Empty-Of-Workshop Holes In The Ground" forts of their own, any more, AFAICT) and perhaps some linkage would be welcome between the (eventually-reinstated) civilisation of self-sustaining settlement founders and what they do when you're not poking and prodding them every microsecond of every dwarfminute of dwarfday, all dwarfyear round.  But I think just sitting and staring at a self-organising group of dwarves sorting themselves out into craftsmen and hunters and cooks, and the swordmaster-wannabees once the self-proclaimed weaponsmiths and armoursmiths get their act together, would be a completely different game (a kind of "Legends++ Mode"...?  It might be interesting, especially if it's available as a screensaver-style option.)  I know that's not what is being asked for, just adding perspective and/or employing undue hyperbole.  (Which of those it is may depend on how much you understand what I'm trying to point out... )

[leafbarrett]

The way you suggested lemmings, combined with the general sadism of many a DF player, did indeed lead me to come to a different conclusion.

And in no way to I want the game to play itself for you. I just want it so that dwarves don't suddenly, well, act like lemmings. If I'm to lose someone, I want it to be either my fault or at least the fault of the RNG, not the fault of the AI derping big-time. I mean, losing may be fun, but it isn't nearly as fun when it's from a completely arbitrary reason that throws off a major project and results in a decidedly non-spectacular end to the fortress. If a gobbo gets a lucky shot on my master swordsdwarf and kills him, then okay, thats the RNG's fault. If the goblins start sieging and I don't have a military at all yet, that's very much my fault. But if the swordsdwarf decides that right now is a great time to take a break right in front of the siege, that's something else entirely. (I don't know if that still happens, but the example remains valid to illustrate my point.)
Even in the case of tantrum spirals, I find it incredibly frustrating to lose complete control of my fort just because dwarves are bipolar. And when that's caused by the dwarves refusing to put on perfectly good clothing and then being embarrassed that they're naked in front of 30 other dwarves (most of whom are also naked), then that's just a silly way for a fortress to implode itself. (Ironically, despite losing a few dwarves from insanity, I managed to turn that particular situation around and lead that fort to relative prosperity. I can't for the life of me remember how, though.)

[MrWiggles]

Spoiler: Fur and Nakies (click to show/hide)

Fortress: Fur for sentient creatures counting as clothing in regards to thoughts
If there's ever a entity whose members get unhappy thoughts from being naked, but which has at least one caste that has fur covering their bodies, the fur should count as covering them. Depending on how easy or hard that would be to implement, that could just be added in for the sake of modders and/or for the sake of making sense. (After all, fur DOES cover the body, doesn't it?) If they were to lose that fur in some way, they would get unhappy thoughts from being exposed.

Fortress: An entity token that allows for clothing to be worn, but prevents unhappy thoughts when naked
Um... I don't really have anything to add to that.

Ehh.... just because you are furry doesnt mean that it should actually count as clothing. Needing and wanting to wear clothing comes from utility and social norms. I dont see why this has to be restricted to just things which are furry, when a more general and opened system offer more possibilities.

Perhaps I worded these poorly.
First, the fur thing. This is assuming that animal people are ever programmed into more organized civilizations instead of living in caves/rivers and being adventurers' punching bags. The second tag could probably be applied to this effect, I guess.
Second, the part about wearing clothing but no unhappy thoughts if naked. Perhaps I'm not entirely clear on which unhappy thoughts affect creatures other than the dwarves of the fortress, but since I've seen dragons go insane in Arena after losing about half an army of them, I know for a fact that unhappy thoughts do play a role outside of the fortress's inhabitants. Now, can you honestly say you can imagine a goblin being embarrassed about being naked? I mean really, with how ass-backwards their society is, do you really think a little thing like rotting clothes would have any impact on their mental state (or lack thereof)?

Is this suggestion about clothing happy thoughts or the happiness system in general? If the later, then its moot.

Spoiler: Trapped Dorfs (click to show/hide)

Fortress: Giving an alert when a dwarf is trapped behind walls, in a pit, etc.
There have been multiple times where I've been unaware that a dwarf (or in one case, several dwarves) were blocked from reaching any food or water/booze (in the case of multiple dwarves, none of the ramps leading up out of the bottom floor worked, so they were trapped) until it was nearly too late. If a dwarf that's trying to path to food or drink is unable to find any path for an extended period of time, the game should give an alert that they can't get to it and will die if they're left in that situation.

This mechanic is diametrically opposed with the concept of 'Hidden/lost' Dorfs, and with Toady overall goal that information the player has come from Nobility/Administrative positions. Also whats the definition of a trapped dwarf? How is that different from an idle dwarf but cant access jobs due to injury or burrow restriction?  And there also the fact, that 'trapped' dorfs can also be done on purpose, and everyone /loves/ alert spam. There various Danger Room Designs where the dorf is essentially trapped, and there also various Quarantine set up to weed out vampires and were animals, where they're all trapped too.

Again, I think I may have poorly worded this one, though in regards to the part about instant information, how can the entire fortress instantly know when migrants have arrived, or trade caravans?
First, I didn't say they would constantly spam messages regarding it, and I didn't say it would happen for being trapped at all. I meant that if a hungry/thirsty dwarf was unable to path to any food or water for a considerable amount of time, the game would let you know. A single message, nothing more.
And regarding dwarves being trapped behind a wall or in a pit and being starved, I'd assume they wouldn't sit there quietly, twiddling their thumbs. They'd probably call for help, at the very least.
Maybe I'm overestimating how much a dwarf starving to death because he trapped himself behind a wall matters to most players, though, but it seems to me that intentionally sticking random dwarves in inescapable pits for them to starve themselves to death (NOT trapping them in a room for training purposes or the like, or locking a bookkeeper in a room with food and alcohol - this is only for dwarves who are starving to death because they can't path to an available source of food) is a very boring way to cause fun, and not very efficient either. Nobles or insane dwarves, maybe. But just some random dwarf, or worse, your best legendary mason who built a wall that sealed him in a little hole? Seems like kind of a waste.[/quote]

You dont have to say that it would give alert spam, because it would give alert spam, in how DF alter system works. On every failure state, it'd give an alter. Ergo, alter spam.

And you're giving the game /way/ to much credit to know your intention. There no real way to define an accidental trapped dorf to a purposefully trapped dorf.

your best legendary mason who built a wall that sealed him in a little hole

This kind of scenario, would be better handle by making dorfs smarter in how construct and mine things. Which happen recently.
As for dorfs yelling out, thats not that bad of a suggestion.

Spoiler: Suicide Levers(levels) (click to show/hide)

AI: The dwarf/dwarves that set up a mechanism that will kill whoever triggers it will refuse to trigger it themselves
"Urist McMechanic cancels pull lever: Not that (stupid/suicidal)." The same would apply to idling dwarves who were in direct eyesight of the mechanism when it was set up, along with any mechanics of lv5 or higher (presuming they would be able to figure out its function upon seeing it). Untrusting dwarves would hesitate or refuse to pull suspicious levers (for example, a lever that's within a couple of tiles of a support holding up a ceiling, if the lever's beneath that ceiling) However, if one of those dwarves were to be stricken with melancholy, that mechanism would be the first thing the dwarf goes for.

This'll get more annoying then adding anything meaningful to the game. There are plenty of situations where activating a level, and it happening to be suicidal is important to the fortress, and more importantly goes again playing styles that have been around for years.
And for this suggestion to actually work, will require every dwarf who attempts to pull the level, be granted magical knowledge of what the level does. And the game doesnt want knowledge to be instantly know or magically known, and has been making steps to get away from that.

I'll grant you part of that, but I still think that at the very least, the dwarf who set up the mechanism to collapse a roof on whoever triggered it would be smart enough not to trigger it himself. If there are playing styles that rely on the dwarves being braindead, then there's something very wrong.[/quote]

Its not about dorfs being brain dead. Its about a balance between dorf autonomy and player actions.

[spoiler=Trap Tiles and Napping Spots]

AI: Dwarves will refuse to go to sleep on trap tiles
Nothing short of literally passing out from exhaustion would cause a dwarf to sleep on a trapped tile. Even if they hadn't slept in days and there was no bed, they would at least move to the nearest untrapped tile before falling asleep.

Again, granting dorfs magical knowledge.

I thought dwarves already knew where their own traps were, which is how they avoid triggering them? If not, then how DO they avoid triggering them, since they don't have TRAPAVOID?[/spoier]
[/quote]The magical sensing apparatus that pressure plates use to tell the diff between a dorf or water. 

[leafbarrett]

Combat: Obsidian > Steel, except against good armor
"Obsidian has been used for blades in surgery, as well-crafted obsidian blades have a cutting edge many times sharper than high-quality steel surgical scalpels, the cutting edge of the blade being only about 3 nanometers thick. Even the sharpest metal knife has a jagged, irregular blade when viewed under a strong enough microscope; when examined even under an electron microscope an obsidian blade is still smooth and even." However, obsidian is still technically a glass, so when pitted against armor made of a decent material, let's say anything stronger than copper, it would be close to useless.

[Starver]

Some jaggedness/serration is probably advantageous, though, depending on how you wish to use the sharp edge.

Also, how brittle is obsidian compared to metal?  Metal may blunt or nick (not always to its disadvantage, see above) when it hits armour of various kinds, but I suspect obsidian weapon would shatter in similar circumstances.

(Depends on the metal and perhaps the type of obsidian.)

[leafbarrett]

By jagged, it means under a really strong microscope, not the normal kind of jagged. I'll grant you the second part, though. How about good against anything up to wood/copper armor, then pretty much useless above that? (And pure, concentrated murder vs unarmored flesh. It'd pretty much be guaranteed to sever any body part it slashed, provided that body part was organic and not made of iron or some such.)

[GreatWyrmGold]

Hm, new ideas. Let's dissect them and figure out which ones are the best!

Combat: Using multiple body parts/weapons at once
Stuff like an overhead smash using both hands held together, smashing two war hammers together on an opponent like a pincer, etc. Attacks that would not only allow but require all involved body parts to perform. (On a related note, why is punching/kicking determined by grasp/stance instead of hand/foot?)

First off, hands/feet ARE the grasp/stance on everything that punches and kicks. Second off, probably planned, possibly underrealistic, quite certainly another layer of detail to be added for the noobs.

Combat: Attacks linking together
Similar to the above idea, having attacks that could only be performed immediately after a specific attack (preferably being performed within the same action as the other attack). I don't quite know how to explain this one well, sadly. :<

Like...um...stabbing someone in the gut with a halberd, and then hitting someone else with his friend? (Okay, would require troll or kobold or something, but still.) I'd like some less-ludicrous examples.

Combat/Movement: Attacks disrupting flight without needing to break wings
An attack that hits an airborne enemy (such as a roc) with sufficient force would cause it to lose its balance and start falling, and crash into the ground unless it managed to right itself first.

The roc's a bad example--even a ballista bolt would be like firing a splinter at a robin. Ravens could probably be thrown off-balance by a crossbow bolt, and come to think of it airborne creatures should probably be more suseptible to knockback. Combine that with a tendancy for knocked-back or stunned airborne creatures to start falling and we've got this idea.

Combat/General: Separating body size from wielding capabilities
Shouldn't the ability to use a weapon be based more on strength than size? I mean, I dunno about you, but I'm a fairly large man, and I know people much smaller than me who can pick up bigger things.

I don't like this. Putting aside its modding uses, kobolds should NOT be able to pick up big dwarven waraxes and use them as weapons, and dwarves should have trouble with the larger human weapons as well. Strength should factor in, but you shouldn't be able to wield a sword meant for someone twice your size! (Except maybe through magical means.)

Adventure: Retaining map knowledge when traveling
I've never quite understood why an adventurer spontaneously forgets everything about a map just because he travels 10 feet on the quicktravel, or why he/she forgets areas they were just in less than 10 minutes ago just because they moved farther away. Maybe give memory a more prominent role in this?

Makes sense.

Fortress: Make mandates and/or demands have some rhyme and reason to them
No, nobles do not need and should not be allowed to ask for windows in their underground tombs. No, nobles do not need and should not be allowed to ask for platinum goods when there's not a single civilization in the entirety of the worldgen that has access to platinum, least of all the player. NO, NOBLES DO NOT NEED AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ASK FOR TOY HAMMERS WHEN I CAN'T EVEN TELL MY CRAFTSDWARVES TO MAKE TOY HAMMERS. No, the soapmaker had nothing to do with production of a native gold armor stand or whatever, and nobles should not be allowed to arbitrarily punish someone completely unrelated to a mandate. No, a dwarf does not deserve 50 hammerings for butchering a cat. I honestly cannot for the life of me figure out how anyone can stand nobles' horribly retarded demands and punishments, let alone find them enjoyable to have as a game element. Frankly, I just removed demands from the raws altogether because of how infuriating they were.

Dwarves don't get hammered for butchering cats, don't exaggerate! They also don't mandate materials anymore, and they won't until nobles know to make more reasonable mandates. Demands can be material-based, but they just result in unhappy thoughts for the noble if failed, not justice. Present the problem properly, and then suggest a solution. Personally, I think that dwarves should show some independant thought, especially the nobles.

AI: Canceling digging to avoid a cave-in
Similar to how dwarves cancel digging if they find damp or warm rock, dwarves should cancel digging if digging in that spot would cause a cave-in, especially right on top of them.

Sensible, I guess. Same with suspending constructions if it'll cause a cave-in.

Combat: Dragging/carrying targets
Being able to literally drag your opponents along with you seems like a basic idea, but it would open up so many possibilities.

Planned, but bear in mind that few angry goblins are going to be LESS angry if you drag them around.

Combat/Movement: Giving a better sense of directional facing
Is there any indication as to what direction a given creature is facing? And is there anything specifying if a tail, nose, etc. is on the front or back of the body?

Not really, and yes, I believe so.

Combat/Movement: Utilizing said directional facing
For example, being behind a dragon would give you better access to its hind legs, but would also leave you far more open to a direct smack from the dragon's tail. (If alligators are anything to go by, tail attacks are no joke, and one from a dragon could probably snap both legs like twigs.)

Try "snap your spinal column like a toothpick." This would be good, along with various considerations from size (e.g. I can't stab the giant's eye, and he can't bite my head).

Interface: More detailed information on size, weight, etc. in-game
Such as saying if a dwarf is large enough (or strong enough, if that gets changed) to wield a certain weapon, saying if they're carrying too much and are being significantly slowed down as a result, how effective a weapon's attacks are, how good they are at piercing armor, stuff like that.

He is large enough to use a crossbow. He is large enough to use a bow. He is large enough to use a hammer. He is large enough to use a battleaxe...
Meh. A couple of these are good ideas, but some are common sense and some are bad. (Mostly the one deconstructed above.)

Combat: Weapons having range
For example, a whip would be able to hit enemies up to two tiles away, and a two-handed sword would be able to hit enemies from 1 tile away (treating 0 tiles away as being directly next to the target).

Seems good. We also need a REACH token when this comes in. I'm not sure how weapon and creature reach should interact--should they stack? Should only the largest be used? Should the largest plus half of the smallest be used?
Pikes would be neater then.

Combat: Unarmed civilians automatically grabbing a nearby weapon if attacked and cornered
This is, of course, assuming they can't just run away in the first place. If they get chased into a dead end by, say, a goblin, and there's a spare sword or cabinet or rock nearby, they would grab it and throw it/use it to defend themselves, unless specifically instructed not to.

This is going in in the next version, or at least the ability to do so.

General: Simplifying all the identical leather types and wood types into single wood materials/leather materials
If there's twenty different animal leathers that are all identical in every way except for the animal they came from, all that does is clog up the menus. Unless there's something special about a type of leather or wood, they should just be compressed down into a single wood/leather item. I have no desire to scroll through thirty different types of identical leather just to get to the next item type.

I like the detail. Reason for the detail might be nice, but it isn't needed IMHO. Toady can work on new features and bugfixes before making cow leather more valuable, elephant and whale leather tougher, etc.

Fortress: Happiness caps, and tragic events reducing the cap
I've had a dwarf whose happiness was up at 5000-something. Perhaps the cap could be at 200? And when a dwarf experiences a truly traumatic event (such as the death of a spouse), the cap would be permanently reduced for that dwarf. Enough trauma and the dwarf's mood would never climb back above miserable. This is to prevent the silly event where an unhappy thought from the dwarf's spouse getting eaten by an elephant is offset by eating in a really nice dining room, and stuff of that sort.

I dunno...
The issue mentioned is better solved by having happiness be more than a simple sliding scale (planned) than by going "Oh, my spouse died, I will be miserable for the rest of my life!"

Fortress/Combat: Happy thoughts from protecting others, even if it results in an injury
A dwarf who helped to protect an ally in combat or the fortress in general would receive a happy thought if their personality values were lined up right for it ("likes helping others" comes to mind). Bonus points if the dwarf being protected is a loved one. Also depending on personality, any unhappy thought from an injury could be lessened or outright nullified if the dwarf was happy to defend or save another person or the fortress, and even in some cases be happier for it, i.e. "was proud/honored to take the hit for a friend/spouse/hero". This particular idea was spawned by an incident from a goblin siege where one girl lost her arm and received several other injuries (among them a broken leg and a gash to the chest) while holding off several goblins until the rest of the military came to her aid (which was a few in-game days). After she was brought in and treated, I checked her mood in Dwarf Therapist, and not only was she not unhappy from losing an arm and having her leg broken, she was actually happier than she had been before the attack (in fact, she had gone from content to borderline ecstatic).

Do you remember what thoughts brought her up? Probably being rescued and such.
Good idea. It'd help deal with the various "long patrol duty" (i.e. fighting through a whole battle) and "drafting" (i.e. "Our whole militia died already; here, take this axe and fight!") thoughts.

Fortress: Specifying an area of water as a bath/swimming pool
I've seen several fortresses where the player created a public bath of sorts, but to my knowledge, there's no way to actually designate a body of water as an area specifically for dwarves to clean themselves off. Being able to specify a place for dwarves to train swimming would be nice as well.

Bath sounds better. Dwarves don't sound like creatures who would enjoy swimming much, even without taking cultural traits (i.e. living where the water is usually cold, grimy, and full of cave crocodiles); their limbs are short.

Fortress: Placing a cap on the number of cats a single dwarf can be adopted by
This would also place a hard limit on the number of cats that can be considered pets, so that any excess cats could be slaughtered with no negative consequences.

Well, having dwarves only want to adopt so many pets at one time would make sense, if it was a sliding scale from 0 ("Who needs a pet?") to some upper bound ("I LOVE animals!") based on personality.
(Catsplosions aren't usually as bad as they once were--cats only adopt cat lovers.)

Combat: Why can socks be used as weapons
It doesn't matter how hard you hit someone with a sock, you are NEVER going to do any damage to them. Period.

...?

General: Nerve damage healing
It has been scientifically proven that nerve damage (and brain damage) can and does heal. It would be nice to see the "ability to grasp impaired" due to nerve damage go away, given time. And related to that...
General: Physical therapy
A workshop, zone, or something of some type that would allow doctors to increase the healing speed of an injured dwarf's broken bones, nerve damage, muscle damage, and so on, as well as letting doctors train injured dwarves in crutch-walking much faster.

Both of these sound pretty good.

Is there something wrong with suggesting fixes? Did I miss something in the rules for this board?

Perhaps he wasn't critisising? (Also, suggesting Toady fix outright bugs is generally not a suggestion.)

Combat: Why can socks be used as weapons
It doesn't matter how hard you hit someone with a sock, you are NEVER going to do any damage to them. Period.

Because they're items, and items can be weapons. The problem is mostly that they actually work, and that should be fixed.

However, once that has been fixed, there's the matter of things still trying to use them as weapons. If an item won't do any damage whatsoever if used as a weapon, it should have a tag that prevents creatures from trying to use it as such.

I fail to see why a sock, a leather one, at least, could do NO damage when wielded by a sufficiently strong being. Putting that aside, it seems that BCs and the like are too enthusiastic to use any clothes they rip off a dwarf as weapons. Maybe they just want to prolong the torment, but still.

Fortress: Fur for sentient creatures counting as clothing in regards to thoughts
If there's ever a entity whose members get unhappy thoughts from being naked, but which has at least one caste that has fur covering their bodies, the fur should count as covering them. Depending on how easy or hard that would be to implement, that could just be added in for the sake of modders and/or for the sake of making sense. (After all, fur DOES cover the body, doesn't it?) If they were to lose that fur in some way, they would get unhappy thoughts from being exposed.

How about a general tag for "This creature/entity does not mind being naked?" Simpler, no? After all, dwarves do have hair...

Fortress: Giving an alert when a dwarf is trapped behind walls, in a pit, etc.
There have been multiple times where I've been unaware that a dwarf (or in one case, several dwarves) were blocked from reaching any food or water/booze (in the case of multiple dwarves, none of the ramps leading up out of the bottom floor worked, so they were trapped) until it was nearly too late. If a dwarf that's trying to path to food or drink is unable to find any path for an extended period of time, the game should give an alert that they can't get to it and will die if they're left in that situation.

Something like "Urist McStupid cancels Drink: Cannot find beverage" might work, or "Urist McStupid cancels Eat: No food" for hunger. Of course, water sources and hunting for vermin exist, but this would still help.

AI: The dwarf/dwarves that set up a mechanism that will kill whoever triggers it will refuse to trigger it themselves
"Urist McMechanic cancels pull lever: Not that (stupid/suicidal)." The same would apply to idling dwarves who were in direct eyesight of the mechanism when it was set up, along with any mechanics of lv5 or higher (presuming they would be able to figure out its function upon seeing it). Untrusting dwarves would hesitate or refuse to pull suspicious levers (for example, a lever that's within a couple of tiles of a support holding up a ceiling, if the lever's beneath that ceiling) However, if one of those dwarves were to be stricken with melancholy, that mechanism would be the first thing the dwarf goes for.

How do you define a mechanism that kills whoever triggers it? Once you figure that out, oh so many AI quirks could be fixed and justice features could be added.

AI: Dwarves, humans, elves trapped in a room that's filling with lava or that's drowning in a flooded room will break down locked doors and open floodgates to escape if possible
I'm going to assume that sentient creatures (are meant to) have some sense of self-preservation, and since we know that dwarves, elves, and humans can bash down locked doors in Adventure mode, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch for them to do it in Fortress mode, would it?

Goblins, kobolds, and everything else, too. Of course, it's not easy to break down stone doors, even when not drowning and when you have your full strength to apply to a problem...

Fortress/AI: If a dwarf goes missing, friends of the dwarf will search for him while idling/on break, and loved ones will sometimes cancel jobs to search
Friends will take breaks more often to search for the dwarf, but wouldn't outright cancel what they're doing. If they can't find the dwarf after five separate attempts, they will stop searching. Obviously, dwarves doing important jobs (being on active duty, treating wounded, cooking/hunting/fishing/brewing if food/drink is low, taking shelter from a siege, etc.) wouldn't cancel them to search, but they would get progressively worse unhappy thoughts based on how long they've been unable to search (with the thoughts escalating faster if nobody at all is looking). "Dwarf is (concerned about/worried about/anxious to find/fraught with worry about/desperate to find) a (friend/child/spouse)."

Sensible, if we can figure out a way to stop them from searching long-abandoned mines, monster-infested caverns, or the dining room (unless, of course, there's a reason to think they might be alive down there).

AI: Dwarves will refuse to go to sleep on trap tiles
Nothing short of literally passing out from exhaustion would cause a dwarf to sleep on a trapped tile. Even if they hadn't slept in days and there was no bed, they would at least move to the nearest untrapped tile before falling asleep.

Heck, dwarves not going to sleep underwater would be nice. Or at least waking up before they drown. Also, dwarves shouldn't sleep if they cancelled their last job due to giant badgers. Dwarves are dumb in bed, or rather when they need a bed.

Fortress/AI: An idling expedition leader/mayor with the right personality values and/or high enough consoler/pacifier stats will actively seek out and converse with unhappy dwarves
The unhappier the dwarf in question was, the higher priority the leader/mayor would place on talking to them, with miserable dwarves or dwarves on the verge of going insane taking high enough priority for the leader/mayor to cancel low priority jobs to talk with them.

Agree. Especially if the dwarf in question has been trailing the EL for months. ESPECIALLY if the dwarf in question is something vital, like a mason or farmer.

Combat: Obsidian > Steel, except against good armor
"Obsidian has been used for blades in surgery, as well-crafted obsidian blades have a cutting edge many times sharper than high-quality steel surgical scalpels, the cutting edge of the blade being only about 3 nanometers thick. Even the sharpest metal knife has a jagged, irregular blade when viewed under a strong enough microscope; when examined even under an electron microscope an obsidian blade is still smooth and even." However, obsidian is still technically a glass, so when pitted against armor made of a decent material, let's say anything stronger than copper, it would be close to useless.

Once weapon damage is implemented, obsidian should be sharper but more brittle than steel.

[leafbarrett]

Note that the crossed out ones are scrapped suggestions.

Hm, new ideas. Let's dissect them and figure out which ones are the best!

Combat: Using multiple body parts/weapons at once
Stuff like an overhead smash using both hands held together, smashing two war hammers together on an opponent like a pincer, etc. Attacks that would not only allow but require all involved body parts to perform. (On a related note, why is punching/kicking determined by grasp/stance instead of hand/foot?)

First off, hands/feet ARE the grasp/stance on everything that punches and kicks. Second off, probably planned, possibly underrealistic, quite certainly another layer of detail to be added for the noobs.

I've run into instances where that's not the case. There's modding too, but that's not as important (though being able to "punch" with a grasping tail or even a grasping MOUTH is a bit silly anyhow).

Combat: Attacks linking together
Similar to the above idea, having attacks that could only be performed immediately after a specific attack (preferably being performed within the same action as the other attack). I don't quite know how to explain this one well, sadly. :<

Like...um...stabbing someone in the gut with a halberd, and then hitting someone else with his friend? (Okay, would require troll or kobold or something, but still.) I'd like some less-ludicrous examples.

An uppercut followed by bringing the same fist down in an overhead blow?

Combat/Movement: Attacks disrupting flight without needing to break wings
An attack that hits an airborne enemy (such as a roc) with sufficient force would cause it to lose its balance and start falling, and crash into the ground unless it managed to right itself first.

The roc's a bad example--even a ballista bolt would be like firing a splinter at a robin. Ravens could probably be thrown off-balance by a crossbow bolt, and come to think of it airborne creatures should probably be more suseptible to knockback. Combine that with a tendancy for knocked-back or stunned airborne creatures to start falling and we've got this idea.

Combat/General: Separating body size from wielding capabilities
Shouldn't the ability to use a weapon be based more on strength than size? I mean, I dunno about you, but I'm a fairly large man, and I know people much smaller than me who can pick up bigger things.

I don't like this. Putting aside its modding uses, kobolds should NOT be able to pick up big dwarven waraxes and use them as weapons, and dwarves should have trouble with the larger human weapons as well. Strength should factor in, but you shouldn't be able to wield a sword meant for someone twice your size! (Except maybe through magical means.)

If a real-life person of, say, 6 feet can wield a 6-foot sword or a 7-foot spear, I think a dwarf should be able to wield the biggest weapons if they were strong enough. Considering dwarves can already technically get large enough to wield them, shouldn't strength play as much of a role as size?

Fortress: Make mandates and/or demands have some rhyme and reason to them
No, nobles do not need and should not be allowed to ask for windows in their underground tombs. No, nobles do not need and should not be allowed to ask for platinum goods when there's not a single civilization in the entirety of the worldgen that has access to platinum, least of all the player. NO, NOBLES DO NOT NEED AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ASK FOR TOY HAMMERS WHEN I CAN'T EVEN TELL MY CRAFTSDWARVES TO MAKE TOY HAMMERS. No, the soapmaker had nothing to do with production of a native gold armor stand or whatever, and nobles should not be allowed to arbitrarily punish someone completely unrelated to a mandate. No, a dwarf does not deserve 50 hammerings for butchering a cat. I honestly cannot for the life of me figure out how anyone can stand nobles' horribly retarded demands and punishments, let alone find them enjoyable to have as a game element. Frankly, I just removed demands from the raws altogether because of how infuriating they were.

Dwarves don't get hammered for butchering cats, don't exaggerate! They also don't mandate materials anymore, and they won't until nobles know to make more reasonable mandates. Demands can be material-based, but they just result in unhappy thoughts for the noble if failed, not justice. Present the problem properly, and then suggest a solution. Personally, I think that dwarves should show some independant thought, especially the nobles.

I have seen and/or had all of the problems listed above, so trust me, they're not baseless. Maybe I was playing an outdated version at the time or something, I dunno.

Combat: Dragging/carrying targets
Being able to literally drag your opponents along with you seems like a basic idea, but it would open up so many possibilities.

Planned, but bear in mind that few angry goblins are going to be LESS angry if you drag them around.

Trust me, they'll be far less angry when they're a puddle at the bottom of a 50-foot drop.

Interface: More detailed information on size, weight, etc. in-game
Such as saying if a dwarf is large enough (or strong enough, if that gets changed) to wield a certain weapon, saying if they're carrying too much and are being significantly slowed down as a result, how effective a weapon's attacks are, how good they are at piercing armor, stuff like that.

He is large enough to use a crossbow. He is large enough to use a bow. He is large enough to use a hammer. He is large enough to use a battleaxe...
Meh. A couple of these are good ideas, but some are common sense and some are bad. (Mostly the one deconstructed above.)

Hey, it would save a lot of trouble in determining if a dwarf could actually use a weapon. Perhaps, when adding a dwarf to a military squad and checking the squad's assigned equipment, a red X would appear next to any weapon the dwarf couldn't use.

Combat: Why can socks be used as weapons
It doesn't matter how hard you hit someone with a sock, you are NEVER going to do any damage to them. Period.

Because they're items, and items can be weapons. The problem is mostly that they actually work, and that should be fixed.

However, once that has been fixed, there's the matter of things still trying to use them as weapons. If an item won't do any damage whatsoever if used as a weapon, it should have a tag that prevents creatures from trying to use it as such.

I fail to see why a sock, a leather one, at least, could do NO damage when wielded by a sufficiently strong being. Putting that aside, it seems that BCs and the like are too enthusiastic to use any clothes they rip off a dwarf as weapons. Maybe they just want to prolong the torment, but still.[/quote]The sock would probably tear apart if it hit hard enough to break a bone. Bruising, MAYBE. But tearing the skin and breaking bones? Nope.

AI: Dwarves will refuse to go to sleep on trap tiles
Nothing short of literally passing out from exhaustion would cause a dwarf to sleep on a trapped tile. Even if they hadn't slept in days and there was no bed, they would at least move to the nearest untrapped tile before falling asleep.

Heck, dwarves not going to sleep underwater would be nice. Or at least waking up before they drown. Also, dwarves shouldn't sleep if they cancelled their last job due to giant badgers. Dwarves are dumb in bed, or rather when they need a bed.

They go to sleep if interrupted by angry animals that want to eat them?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Next time, mind deleting my quotings of your quotes that you don't have anything to say about for me to reply to?

Hm, new ideas. Let's dissect them and figure out which ones are the best!

Combat: Using multiple body parts/weapons at once
Stuff like an overhead smash using both hands held together, smashing two war hammers together on an opponent like a pincer, etc. Attacks that would not only allow but require all involved body parts to perform. (On a related note, why is punching/kicking determined by grasp/stance instead of hand/foot?)

First off, hands/feet ARE the grasp/stance on everything that punches and kicks. Second off, probably planned, possibly underrealistic, quite certainly another layer of detail to be added for the noobs.

I've run into instances where that's not the case. There's modding too, but that's not as important (though being able to "punch" with a grasping tail or even a grasping MOUTH is a bit silly anyhow).

I can see attacks with a tail. I'd like to see a vanilla, non-limb grasper or stance on a creature with unches or kicks.

Combat: Attacks linking together
Similar to the above idea, having attacks that could only be performed immediately after a specific attack (preferably being performed within the same action as the other attack). I don't quite know how to explain this one well, sadly. :<

Like...um...stabbing someone in the gut with a halberd, and then hitting someone else with his friend? (Okay, would require troll or kobold or something, but still.) I'd like some less-ludicrous examples.

An uppercut followed by bringing the same fist down in an overhead blow?

Sounds like punching the head twice, in interface/game terms.

Combat/General: Separating body size from wielding capabilities
Shouldn't the ability to use a weapon be based more on strength than size? I mean, I dunno about you, but I'm a fairly large man, and I know people much smaller than me who can pick up bigger things.

I don't like this. Putting aside its modding uses, kobolds should NOT be able to pick up big dwarven waraxes and use them as weapons, and dwarves should have trouble with the larger human weapons as well. Strength should factor in, but you shouldn't be able to wield a sword meant for someone twice your size! (Except maybe through magical means.)

If a real-life person of, say, 6 feet can wield a 6-foot sword or a 7-foot spear, I think a dwarf should be able to wield the biggest weapons if they were strong enough. Considering dwarves can already technically get large enough to wield them, shouldn't strength play as much of a role as size?

I SAID strength should play a role. I never said it shouldn't, I just said that dwarves shouldn't be able to wield ludicrously oversized weapons. Especially considering their short limbs...
Besides, I interpreted "Separating body size from wielding capabilities" to mean "Body size would be separated from wielding capabilites," or phrased differently "Body size shouldn't matter for wielding capabilites."

Fortress: Make mandates and/or demands have some rhyme and reason to them
No, nobles do not need and should not be allowed to ask for windows in their underground tombs. No, nobles do not need and should not be allowed to ask for platinum goods when there's not a single civilization in the entirety of the worldgen that has access to platinum, least of all the player. NO, NOBLES DO NOT NEED AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ASK FOR TOY HAMMERS WHEN I CAN'T EVEN TELL MY CRAFTSDWARVES TO MAKE TOY HAMMERS. No, the soapmaker had nothing to do with production of a native gold armor stand or whatever, and nobles should not be allowed to arbitrarily punish someone completely unrelated to a mandate. No, a dwarf does not deserve 50 hammerings for butchering a cat. I honestly cannot for the life of me figure out how anyone can stand nobles' horribly retarded demands and punishments, let alone find them enjoyable to have as a game element. Frankly, I just removed demands from the raws altogether because of how infuriating they were.

Dwarves don't get hammered for butchering cats, don't exaggerate! They also don't mandate materials anymore, and they won't until nobles know to make more reasonable mandates. Demands can be material-based, but they just result in unhappy thoughts for the noble if failed, not justice. Present the problem properly, and then suggest a solution. Personally, I think that dwarves should show some independant thought, especially the nobles.

I have seen and/or had all of the problems listed above, so trust me, they're not baseless. Maybe I was playing an outdated version at the time or something, I dunno.

Dwarves have NEVER been beaten for butchering cats. Maybe killing cats in a tantrum, but never butchery.

Combat: Dragging/carrying targets
Being able to literally drag your opponents along with you seems like a basic idea, but it would open up so many possibilities.

Planned, but bear in mind that few angry goblins are going to be LESS angry if you drag them around.

Trust me, they'll be far less angry when they're a puddle at the bottom of a 50-foot drop.

Good luck getting there...I think we can agree that this should be possible, but not easy, to do on someone around your size.

Combat: Why can socks be used as weapons
It doesn't matter how hard you hit someone with a sock, you are NEVER going to do any damage to them. Period.

Because they're items, and items can be weapons. The problem is mostly that they actually work, and that should be fixed.

However, once that has been fixed, there's the matter of things still trying to use them as weapons. If an item won't do any damage whatsoever if used as a weapon, it should have a tag that prevents creatures from trying to use it as such.

I fail to see why a sock, a leather one, at least, could do NO damage when wielded by a sufficiently strong being. Putting that aside, it seems that BCs and the like are too enthusiastic to use any clothes they rip off a dwarf as weapons. Maybe they just want to prolong the torment, but still.

The sock would probably tear apart if it hit hard enough to break a bone. Bruising, MAYBE. But tearing the skin and breaking bones? Nope.

You'd be surprised at what objects can do to hurt people. Sure, harming someone with a sock should be less efficient that a sword, club, or fist, but it's possible.

AI: Dwarves will refuse to go to sleep on trap tiles
Nothing short of literally passing out from exhaustion would cause a dwarf to sleep on a trapped tile. Even if they hadn't slept in days and there was no bed, they would at least move to the nearest untrapped tile before falling asleep.

Heck, dwarves not going to sleep underwater would be nice. Or at least waking up before they drown. Also, dwarves shouldn't sleep if they cancelled their last job due to giant badgers. Dwarves are dumb in bed, or rather when they need a bed.

They go to sleep if interrupted by angry animals that want to eat them?

Yup. I had a miner who decided he couldn't go inside to mine because of a nearby giant badger, and then realised he was drowsy. The badger got angry. Thankfully, I had a backup.

[leafbarrett]

Fortress/Interface: New cancel messages
Dwarf cancels Retrieve Wounded: No available hospital bed.
Dwarf cancels job: Retrieving wounded.
Doctor cancels Suture: No thread.
Doctor cancels Dress Wound: No cloth.
Doctor cancels (etc.)
Bookkeeper cancels Update Records: No office.

Fortress: Option to have dwarves drop hauling item when running to burrow
In case they need to get back to the fortress quickly to avoid getting caught outside in a siege, there should be an option to have dwarves drop an item they're hauling to increase speed.

Next time, mind deleting my quotings of your quotes that you don't have anything to say about for me to reply to?

I thought I did...

Combat: Attacks linking together
Similar to the above idea, having attacks that could only be performed immediately after a specific attack (preferably being performed within the same action as the other attack). I don't quite know how to explain this one well, sadly. :<

Like...um...stabbing someone in the gut with a halberd, and then hitting someone else with his friend? (Okay, would require troll or kobold or something, but still.) I'd like some less-ludicrous examples.

An uppercut followed by bringing the same fist down in an overhead blow?

Sounds like punching the head twice, in interface/game terms.

Well, yes, sorta. But the difference is that both attacks would happen in the same action. Two distinct attacks, but only one action needed, with no pause in between. Maybe the chance of pulling it off would be related to the melee combat skill, or the striker/kicker skill?

Combat: Dragging/carrying targets
Being able to literally drag your opponents along with you seems like a basic idea, but it would open up so many possibilities.

Planned, but bear in mind that few angry goblins are going to be LESS angry if you drag them around.

Trust me, they'll be far less angry when they're a puddle at the bottom of a 50-foot drop.

Good luck getting there...I think we can agree that this should be possible, but not easy, to do on someone around your size.

Depends on whether or not the target is unconscious, stunned, crippled, or what have you.

[crazysheep]

Fortress/Interface: New cancel messages
Dwarf cancels Retrieve Wounded: No available hospital bed.

Pretty sure stacking wounded patients on a single hospital bed works for both the doctors and the patients in terms of medical care, so this message wouldn't be needed.

[leafbarrett]

What, seriously? O_o;

[GreatWyrmGold]

Ah, another list of little ideas...

Fortress/Interface: New cancel messages
Dwarf cancels Retrieve Wounded: No available hospital bed.
Dwarf cancels job: Retrieving wounded.
Doctor cancels Suture: No thread.
Doctor cancels Dress Wound: No cloth.
Doctor cancels (etc.)
Bookkeeper cancels Update Records: No office.

The first isn't needed; if no hospital bed is available, the dwarf will be deposited on the floor or in his own bed. I forget which is preferred. Dwarves don't cancel jobs to retrieve wounded--do you think they should? If so, say so and don't hint it. The other medical ones are sensible. The bookkeeper one seems sorta redundant; how often do you NOT know that your bookkeeper doesn't have an office?

Fortress: Option to have dwarves drop hauling item when running to burrow
In case they need to get back to the fortress quickly to avoid getting caught outside in a siege, there should be an option to have dwarves drop an item they're hauling to increase speed.

I've seen varied behavior. Normally they do drop stuff they're hauling when interrupted (including once in the bottom of a river I was slowly draining), but apparently not always. Obviously, when the thing they're hauling is something like an artifact axe, or a big stack of meat and the pursuer is a vulture, you want the dwarf to keep hold of it. Either greater intelligence or some kind of menu (maybe under 'o'rders, maybe under 'h'auling) where dwarves are told what to hold onto and what to drop when interrupted would be needed.

Next time, mind deleting my quotings of your quotes that you don't have anything to say about for me to reply to?

I thought I did...

Ah. I see, nevermind. Everyone makes mistakes.

Combat: Attacks linking together
Similar to the above idea, having attacks that could only be performed immediately after a specific attack (preferably being performed within the same action as the other attack). I don't quite know how to explain this one well, sadly. :<

Like...um...stabbing someone in the gut with a halberd, and then hitting someone else with his friend? (Okay, would require troll or kobold or something, but still.) I'd like some less-ludicrous examples.

An uppercut followed by bringing the same fist down in an overhead blow?

Sounds like punching the head twice, in interface/game terms.

Well, yes, sorta. But the difference is that both attacks would happen in the same action. Two distinct attacks, but only one action needed, with no pause in between. Maybe the chance of pulling it off would be related to the melee combat skill, or the striker/kicker skill?

So, let's see how this could work. Maybe an extra option under the 'A'ttack menu, aside from attack or wrestle, called something like "Perform Linked Move," where you could choose from a seiries of moves after selecting the body part you were attacking? Or maybe using something like whatever interface Toady set up for reactions and punch-catching and stuff.

Combat: Dragging/carrying targets
Being able to literally drag your opponents along with you seems like a basic idea, but it would open up so many possibilities.

Planned, but bear in mind that few angry goblins are going to be LESS angry if you drag them around.

Trust me, they'll be far less angry when they're a puddle at the bottom of a 50-foot drop.

Good luck getting there...I think we can agree that this should be possible, but not easy, to do on someone around your size.

Depends on whether or not the target is unconscious, stunned, crippled, or what have you.

Ah, I see. There's other ways to dispose of unconscious enemies, ways which don't require time and make you vulnerable to attack, but ways that aren't nearly as cool.

What, seriously? O_o;

Oh, yeah, this too. Dwarves have no concept of personal space. They lack a bunch of our cultural concepts and taboos, which is part of why their babies don't even wear diapers or kobold loincloths (somewhat cleaner than diapers).

[leafbarrett]

Ah, another list of little ideas...

Fortress/Interface: New cancel messages
Dwarf cancels job: Retrieving wounded.

Dwarves don't cancel jobs to retrieve wounded--do you think they should?

They don't?

Fortress: Option to have dwarves drop hauling item when running to burrow
In case they need to get back to the fortress quickly to avoid getting caught outside in a siege, there should be an option to have dwarves drop an item they're hauling to increase speed.

I've seen varied behavior. Normally they do drop stuff they're hauling when interrupted (including once in the bottom of a river I was slowly draining), but apparently not always. Obviously, when the thing they're hauling is something like an artifact axe, or a big stack of meat and the pursuer is a vulture, you want the dwarf to keep hold of it. Either greater intelligence or some kind of menu (maybe under 'o'rders, maybe under 'h'auling) where dwarves are told what to hold onto and what to drop when interrupted would be needed.

I've never seen them actually drop something when fleeing from a siege. And as for the menu thing, that's why I specified "have an OPTION to".