Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23

Author Topic: 90% of fortress-born dwarves & animals are 1/10th normal size (fixed in LNP)  (Read 54788 times)

VerdantSF

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

Lazy Newb Pack r18 includes the fix: http://dffd.wimbli.com/file.php?id=7622

Updated 5/31, title changed by request of other community members to draw attention to this widespread bug discovered independently in this thread and this one.

In dwarves, dwarven dwarfism, while considerably dwarfy, make combat rolls less favorable. This is hardly noticeable with edged attacks, but considerably so with blunt weapons. It oddly doesn't affect punching/kicking that badly according to VerdantSF.
For animals it means 2 things. 1. Makes them butcher for less bones, meat, organs, and fat. 2. Considerably weakens their combat capabilities, since damage is directly linked to size.
For everyone it also reduces amount of fall damage taken. If you're landing on someone/something though you kinda wanna be bigger for extra damage.
For players the affects range anywhere from indifference, amazement, and even to frothing at the mouth from rage that a bug this big could exist this long.

It doesn't appear to affect the dwarf's ability to wear Dwarf sized armor interestingly enough.

Updated 6/11, a cure has been found!

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=126558.msg4310469#msg4310469

Quote from: Quietust
In summary, it appears that unit growth is intended to be recalculated once per day (and offset by the time of day the creature was born), but there's a further restriction that it only does that check once every 10 ticks, so if the creature's birth time is not a multiple of 10 ticks, its size does not properly get updated.

***

Original Thread start:

I have 5 legendary blunt weapon users: 4 hammerdwarves and one macedwarf.  From the weapon research thread, I always thought maces were like nerfed war hammers, but you'd never know it looking at the combat text for this macedwarf.  She keeps right up with the three best hammerdwarves, busting kneecaps and cracking skulls left and right.  Strangely enough, the soldier who gets left far behind is one of the hammerdwarves.  While he's busy with 5-6 pages of combat text featuring mostly bruising blows and deflections off of COPPER helms >:(, the macedwarf and other hammerdwarves break limbs, disarm goblins, and headshot them within 2-3 pages.  I've gone through 4 sieges now and the difference in performance is huge.  He's "unbelievably strong" and wields a masterful silver war hammer, so I'm not sure what is going on.       
« Last Edit: July 06, 2013, 10:40:15 am by VerdantSF »
Logged

CognitiveDissonance

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The unluckiest hammerdwarf?
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2013, 12:06:24 pm »

I just can't say no to talking about weapons...

Code: [Select]
Type Size Attack Attack type Contact Area Penetration Velocity
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Mace 800 Bash Blunt 20 -200 2.0x
War Hammer 400 Bash Blunt 10 -200 2.0x
Whip 100 Lash Blunt 1 -10 5.0x

Mace vs War Hammer vs Whip (for comparison, given to whip being overpowered)
So the differences are size, and contact area.

From my experience, "Size" affects damage as based on the material. Contact area affects how the damage is distributed, specifically as to how it interacts with armor and how the actual injury is distributed. Looking at this, I interprete that the Mace is able to deal SIGNIFICANTLY more damage, while the War Hammer is a more specialized weapon that will be better vs heavier armor.

For your dwarf, how is his dexterity? How are his skill matched up? Maybe his Fighter or Hammerdwarf isn't high enough. Maybe he is too busy dodging and parrying to attack properly.

Or maybe Armok laughs at him, cursing him with continuously low rolls.
Logged
Come and be amazed by this wonderful menagerie! Draw your own! Bring your favorite! The [Forgotten Beast Art Contest] is open for business!
Now also available - [The Legendary Artifact Art Contest]! It menaces! It has rings! It has craftsdwarfship!
I have a [YouTube] channel! It has Let's Plays and other stuff.

VerdantSF

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The unluckiest hammerdwarf?
« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2013, 12:46:05 pm »

Looking at this, I interprete that the Mace is able to deal SIGNIFICANTLY more damage, while the War Hammer is a more specialized weapon that will be better vs heavier armor.

That's what I find so odd about this whole thing.  I always expected the macedwarf to be the odd dwarf out among the blunt legendaries, but her performance is pretty much the same as three of the hammerdwarves, no better or worse.  I don't have my stick drive with me, so I can't check the unlucky dwarf's dex, but his skills are nearly identical, with 20 in Hammer and 20 in Fighter. The only big difference I can think of is age.  He was 12 when he joined the military, and I think he's 20 or 21 now.  The other legendary dwarves are all 80-120 years old.  Do dwarves continue to grow after childhood?  If so, does that have any combat effect, like larger size giving more leverage for stronger blows?  The difference is so stark when he's fighting next to the other dwarves.  Bruise after bruise, while nearly all hits from the others shatter bone.  I'm really glad I didn't start off with him as the only hammerdwarf.  I would have had such a skewed impression of the weapon's performance!
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 12:47:51 pm by VerdantSF »
Logged

Urist McDwarfFortress

  • Bay Watcher
  • Suspected elephant sympathizer
    • View Profile
Re: The unluckiest hammerdwarf?
« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2013, 04:45:19 pm »

Do dwarves continue to grow after childhood?
No. I'm pretty sure when dwarves reach adulthood at age 12 they get the body size they're stuck with for the rest of their life.
Logged
Sorry, for a moment there I forgot we were all psychopaths.
Someone who has random urges to make mog juice isn't exactly going to care about the cost effectiveness of obtaining it.

Umune

  • Bay Watcher
  • Not all who wander are lost.
    • View Profile
Re: The unluckiest hammerdwarf?
« Reply #4 on: May 28, 2013, 08:12:23 pm »

Do all of them have the same material? As in, does he have a silver warhammer while the others have steel or something else?
Logged

VerdantSF

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The unluckiest hammerdwarf?
« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2013, 09:49:50 pm »

The rest have steel weapons, but I thought silver was better for armor penetration, while steel had slightly more critical hits, with the overall nod to silver.  I decided to try steel out with this fort, since I've only used silver for blunt weapons in forts past.  I gave the trailing hammerdwarf a masterful steel hammer for a few fights, and he was still hitting things like a hammerer with a featherwood crossbow.  Looking at his strength, there's definitely a difference.

Urist McWhifflehammer: 2346
Other Hammerdwarves: 3613, 3738, 4131
Mace Legendary: 2302

I'm really surprised that he's actually stronger than the macedwarf.  She cleans house with her steel mace. 

Here's some combat text comparing him with the 2nd strongest hammerdwarf:

2346 STR Hammerdwarf
3738 STR Hammerdwarf

Number of attacks resulting in only bruises vs. serious wounds (bruises + fractures/shatters):

2346 STR, 12 weapon strikes, 9 bruises vs. 3 serious wounds (25% serious wounds)
3738 STR, 14 weapon strikes, 5 bruises vs. 9 serious wounds (64% serious wounds)

I think I need to send someone to the screw pump gym.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 10:30:10 pm by VerdantSF »
Logged

Cobbler89

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cobbler cancels celebrate Caesar: mending soles
    • View Profile
Re: The unluckiest hammerdwarf?
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2013, 10:20:21 pm »

So it sounds like the hunch that the macedwarf would be better off is true, since she keeps up with the excellent hammerdwarves despite having the strength of the wimpy one?

And while the overall body size is chosen once, I'm under the impression that muscle built up with exercising strength (which you can do, continue building up strength itself through practice) does carry weight -- but that's probably irrelevant here, completely secondary to the strength itself. (I recall this from a discussion of vampire bugs. Er, bugged vampires, not mosquitoes. The story goes that because a vampire gets a buff to his strength regardless of muscle size the increased strength from exercise was negligible or nonexistant [they were already near max or something, or maybe it was a relative thing] whereas the increased muscle size was not, and increased muscle size meant increased weight, and increased weight without proportionally increased stength meant that the vampires slowed down as they should have been getting even stronger. I don't know if this was ever fixed... should probably dig up the discussion and/or bug report and find out.)
Logged
Quote from: Mr S
You've struck embedded links. Praise the data miners!
Quote from: Strong Bad
The magma is seeping under the door.

Quote from: offspring
Quote from: Cobbler89
I have an idea. Let's play a game where you win by being as quiet as possible.
I get it, it's one of those games where losing is fun!
I spend most of your dimension's time outside of your dimension. I can't guarantee followup or followthrough on any comments, ideas, or plans.

BoredVirulence

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The unluckiest hammerdwarf?
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2013, 10:24:14 pm »

I'm really surprised that he's actually stronger than the macedwarf.  She cleans house with her steel mace. 
Perhaps that's the difference between a mace and a hammer on unarmored (most goblins are pretty much unarmored) foes?
Otherwise, I've got no clue. Unless there is another skill / attribute that makes a difference we are neglecting, which I doubt.
Logged

duckman

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The unluckiest hammerdwarf?
« Reply #8 on: May 29, 2013, 01:00:33 am »

It's probably the low impact yield/fracture of silver. The goblin's clothing, muscle and fat are probably just about enough to keep the hammer strikes from getting at the bones. Steel, meanwhile, has nearly five times the value in both impact yield and fracture, so it just smashes right through all the intermediate layers without any trouble.
Logged

Larix

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The unluckiest hammerdwarf?
« Reply #9 on: May 29, 2013, 02:04:57 am »

I find the differences in the compared combat logs are mainly due to luck - the weaker hammerdwarf was tackling a kobold fighter who was actually fighting back, while the stronger one was merely bashing up a prone and disabled kobold civilian. The stronger one got _one_ meaningful hit - the spine-smasher - which didn't cause the kobold to lose hold of equipment or fall down (i.e., the kobold was already disarmed and on the ground).

The one hit of the stronger hammerdwarf's list that hit an 'upper leg' only caused muscle bruising, like similar hits of the weaker one. The fractured bones from the left lower arm hit can be attributed to the fact that it was an attack on a prone opponent.

Added strength should at least make a dwarf less susceptible to being knocked to the ground by charging kobolds. If they don't normally get in danger in fights, you might want to give them different material weapons and look through combat logs to see if this makes a difference - keeping in mind that especially for blunt weapons, the extremely luck-dependent hit location plays a large role. Getting them into an outfit that allows them to reliably break arms and legs would be highly desirable: getting opponents on the ground is one of the main usage doctrines of blunt-melee dwarfs (along with generally occupying stuff and doing damage through heavy armour).
Logged

Urist McDwarfFortress

  • Bay Watcher
  • Suspected elephant sympathizer
    • View Profile
Re: The unluckiest hammerdwarf?
« Reply #10 on: May 29, 2013, 11:55:29 am »

And while the overall body size is chosen once, I'm under the impression that muscle built up with exercising strength (which you can do, continue building up strength itself through practice) does carry weight -- but that's probably irrelevant here, completely secondary to the strength itself. (I recall this from a discussion of vampire bugs. Er, bugged vampires, not mosquitoes. The story goes that because a vampire gets a buff to his strength regardless of muscle size the increased strength from exercise was negligible or nonexistant [they were already near max or something, or maybe it was a relative thing] whereas the increased muscle size was not, and increased muscle size meant increased weight, and increased weight without proportionally increased stength meant that the vampires slowed down as they should have been getting even stronger. I don't know if this was ever fixed... should probably dig up the discussion and/or bug report and find out.)
You might be right about that. I remember a thread about somebody intentionally zombifying pigs in order to give them more muscles so he could harvest more meat from them. I don't remember if it worked or not. The overall conclusion was buried under a whole lot of dead dwarves...
Logged
Sorry, for a moment there I forgot we were all psychopaths.
Someone who has random urges to make mog juice isn't exactly going to care about the cost effectiveness of obtaining it.

BoredVirulence

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The unluckiest hammerdwarf?
« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2013, 12:26:17 pm »

You might be right about that. I remember a thread about somebody intentionally zombifying pigs in order to give them more muscles so he could harvest more meat from them. I don't remember if it worked or not. The overall conclusion was buried under a whole lot of dead dwarves...
That was Loud Whispers I think, and I believe it was successful.
Except I think he had a "design flaw" that caused a lot of death. But the concept worked (I think).
Logged

Mr S

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The unluckiest hammerdwarf?
« Reply #12 on: May 29, 2013, 01:00:08 pm »

Yes, Loud Whispers.  And, as you said, the 80'something Dwarven Research Scientists involved in the Proof of Concept experiment did sate Armok's thirst for SCIENCE that day.  The process has since been refined.

See: Bacon Like a Pro
Logged

Urist McDwarfFortress

  • Bay Watcher
  • Suspected elephant sympathizer
    • View Profile
Re: The unluckiest hammerdwarf?
« Reply #13 on: May 29, 2013, 01:05:09 pm »

Logged
Sorry, for a moment there I forgot we were all psychopaths.
Someone who has random urges to make mog juice isn't exactly going to care about the cost effectiveness of obtaining it.

joeclark77

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The unluckiest hammerdwarf?
« Reply #14 on: May 29, 2013, 01:11:14 pm »

Why don't you post the unlucky hammerdwarf's personal description?  I wonder if there's something in his personality or physical characteristics that's a problem.  Muscles can be trained, but some dwarves are simply very tiny or short and can never attain the size of the bigger guys.  I believe that puts a hard upper bound on their abilities.  It could also be a personality thing, like he's too easily stressed out.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23