Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: A somewhat more modular way of defining animals?  (Read 1827 times)

jeturcotte

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
A somewhat more modular way of defining animals?
« on: July 14, 2014, 06:27:39 pm »
re: v.34.x

So, here I will detail an off-the-top-of-my-head attempt to redefine animals in my games; this will eventually (I hope) lead to defining my own animals in a fantasy-verse I've had kicking around in my head for some 15-20 years now, but that's a lot of work for later.  In the meantime I wanted to try something.  Allow me to subject you to it:

Here, I thought I'd begin by defining a KIND of animal (in this case, a thrush.)  There are many hundreds of variants on the specie, and I began by thinking that I could just assemble ye olde RANDOM thrush... but eventually decided against it because if a population of them spawn, then every individual would be completely unique from each other, and they wouldn't form an 'undiscovered' but persistent specie, per se...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Note, the [DOES_NOT_EXIST] tag... this should keep a thrush from ever spawning in the world... but this might simultaneously allow, perhaps, for references to the mythical generic thrush in artworks and mythology?  Let's hope.

Next, I can specify a SPECIFIC variety of thrush using a custom CREATURE_VARIATION:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Employed via:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

PLEASE NOTE, there is a bug in the robin definition insofar as the [SET_TL_GROUP:BY_CATEGORY:BEAK:BEAK] fails to work... I've tried BEAK:ALL, ALL:BEAK and just BEAK.  No complaints, just no results either.  If anyone instantly knows why I'd like to hear about it. =)

In any case, this creates a mundane little robin successfully so far as I can tell.  If you see any glaring omissions, I'd also like to hear about that, too!

Next, I use a few more CVs...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Again... any glaring omissions?  I only have the faintest clue of what I am doing here, so be patient. =)  For one, I am insecure in the use of GRAVITATE_BODY_SIZE vs. CHANGE_BODY_SIZE_PERC.  The former seems more accurate but harder to quantify, if the wiki description is anything to go by.

With these, I've done:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

All in all, these SEEM to work... 4 to 6 dread robins seem to be able to take down a dwarf, which isn't terribly unreasonable.

In any case, what I like about this (potentially) is that I could flesh out any number of additional thrushes without a huge amount of extra work... define some names, line up the right colors, and presto.  Does anyone thing this is a terrible way to go?  Why or why not?  Thanks!
Logged

Putnam

  • Bay Watcher
  • DAT WIZARD
    • View Profile
Re: A somewhat more modular way of defining animals?
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2014, 07:54:56 pm »
Nope, creature variations are a very valid way of making variations on creatures.

...that sounded way less tautological in my head.
Logged

palu

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A somewhat more modular way of defining animals?
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2014, 10:41:01 am »
This looks really great, and very useful. Heve you considered using the creature variation arguments? They really add a lot of flexibility.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 12:32:05 pm by palu »
Logged
Quote from: Dirst on December 08, 2015, 06:06:45 am
Hmph, palu showing off that reading-the-instructions superpower.
Quote from: penguinofhonor on December 14, 2015, 10:29:52 pm
The internet encourages thoughtful, intelligent discussion and if you disagree I hate you.

Nathail

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dabbling Modder
    • View Profile
Re: A somewhat more modular way of defining animals?
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2014, 12:13:00 pm »
The thing with the beak came up in the .40 modding questions thread earlier, the format you want is BEAK:BONE.
Logged

Meph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • worldbicyclist
Re: A somewhat more modular way of defining animals?
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2014, 02:41:21 pm »
I tried that a while ago, the only issue I had with it is that the animal groups that arrive on the map area always of one type. You get a group of "dread something" or a group of "holy something", but you dont get a mixed group. Appart from that it works well. I had the idea of making tiny, small, normal, large, giant, men, mischivious, hungry, thirsty, aggressive, etc versions of animals.
Logged
::: ☼Meph Tileset☼ & ☼Map Tileset☼- 32x graphic sets with TWBT :::
::: ☼MASTERWORK DF☼ - A comprehensive mod pack now on Patreon - 250.000+ downloads and counting :::
::: WorldBicyclist.com - Follow my bike tours around the world - 148 countries visited :::

Roses

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A somewhat more modular way of defining animals?
« Reply #5 on: July 17, 2014, 04:59:50 pm »
I wrote a small python script awhile back that allowed adding more castes to creatures automatically. It would have a different effect (as you could have groups of mixed species instead of single group species), but you might find it interesting. Topic can be found here.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged