Print

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

[IndigoFenix]

[...] Displaying the volume may be simple, but it's just not a useful or immersive solution. It doesn't add anything to the game. "Simple" is something mods can easily achieve (and probably already do).

Sizes are used for pressure plates, in increments of 1K. There's no in-game way to check creature sizes. (Clothing size is specified by the humanoid's name only.)

You need DFHack for adding stuff the GUI. That's not really a kosher solution, since it uses DLL injection to hack the game.

Yes, there's no in-game way to see sizes. That's the point of this suggestion, right?
I was objecting to the idea that the best way to show the player how massive the beast he's facing is, is to show it's size in volume. There are better (but more complicated) ways which trigger the imagination in a far more satisfying way than "750,000 cm3, now you'll know why you fear the night."

Yes, that's why you'd put the volume description in a different spot.  The text description would still be there for narrative immersion, but the numeric value is available for gameplay purposes (who is the most dangerous person in the room, and are we talking "large but beatable" or "can explode my head with one punch?")

[Shonai_Dweller]

[...] Displaying the volume may be simple, but it's just not a useful or immersive solution. It doesn't add anything to the game. "Simple" is something mods can easily achieve (and probably already do).

Sizes are used for pressure plates, in increments of 1K. There's no in-game way to check creature sizes. (Clothing size is specified by the humanoid's name only.)

You need DFHack for adding stuff the GUI. That's not really a kosher solution, since it uses DLL injection to hack the game.

Yes, there's no in-game way to see sizes. That's the point of this suggestion, right?
I was objecting to the idea that the best way to show the player how massive the beast he's facing is, is to show it's size in volume. There are better (but more complicated) ways which trigger the imagination in a far more satisfying way than "750,000 cm3, now you'll know why you fear the night."

Yes, that's why you'd put the volume description in a different spot.  The text description would still be there for narrative immersion, but the numeric value is available for gameplay purposes (who is the most dangerous person in the room, and are we talking "large but beatable" or "can explode my head with one punch?")

I can't think of any other text based game that would expect it's players to be able to judge how dangerous one creature is compared to another based on it's volume.

Yes, the information currently exists so it'd be nice to have on the screen somewhere, I agree with that. As a modder of creatures I've a fair idea of what one volume of humanoid looks like compared to another. But that's not a solution. If you're going to flash up statistics, how about adding height and weight to the game? You know, those numbers which actually mean something to normal people*. Dwarf Fortress may look obtuse to a lot of people, but I'm pretty sure that's not an end goal.

'Oh, but that's difficult' isn't an excuse. DF relies on people's imaginations based on simple text descriptions. They're going to get way more obscure post mythgen (the way "giant" animals are already), some kind of solution is needed and volume, nice as a placeholder for now, isn't good enough.

*Yes aware that 'normal' folk around the world have different ways of measuring height and weight.

[gnome]

I agree with this but I also would like to see some sort of spatial logic going on - like we don't need to know EXACTLY how big a tile is - but it might help make the world feel more real if say - a single tile could only hold up to a couple standing smaller creatures, while a larger creature would occupy that entire tile, forcing others to crawl under it (as they do already for everything). Just a little bit more consistency in the world's logic I think could go a long way.  (I suppose this is a suggestion for another thread tho)

[DG]

Displaying the volume may be simple, but it's just not a useful or immersive solution. It doesn't add anything to the game.

I did take mild exception to that, because I put some effort into trying to explain why I think it would be useful and what it could add to the game in my earlier post. I even made pictures so people wouldn't think I was suggesting something like "This is a dog. It is size 60125cm³. It's fur is brown." and failed.

Anyway, I don't think anyone would say that showing volume is a perfect solution, because there probably isn't one this side of VR immersion. It seems the main disadvantage (correct me if I'm unfairly glossing over others) is the question of immersion , which I agree is very important, but also very subjective. Personally, I find it more unbelievable that I don't have a good idea of how big something is when looking at it. But usually I'm too busy grinding my teeth over the fact that one of my dwarves has a preference for chicken teeth to dwell on it for too long. Everyone has their own hierarchy of immersion breaking things. It hadn't occurred to me earlier, but I now anticipate a suggestion thread entitled "Remove Γ unit display on item" which will argue that it should only be shown when an item is sitting on a set of scales recently calibrated by a certified metrologist. And there's a fair chance I could be swayed, but it'd probably need to be a better post than mine above.

Joking (or am I...? ) aside, it's true that Toady prefers to steer clear of imperfect placeholders, but he's also a practical man. I think this FOTF thread can't be quoted from directly because it's locked, or it might be its age, so have a couple search links and cut-pastes instead.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.msg610799#msg610799

Toady, will the player be able to assign animals to a burrow?

This would be an elegant way to allow the player to set up pastures and meadows for specific animals rather than have all strays congregate in meeting zones. I imagine designating a 20x20 burrow area outside on some grass, label it "Horse Pasture", and assign only horses to it. The horses would then (obediantly and rather unrealistically for now) trot over to the area and mill around there, which I think would be more atmospheric than horses dawdling about underground in a stone dining room. I'd imagine that they'd be eating the grass as they trample it to dirt and I think it would be a great touch.

That was some blatant suggestion-questioning in a FOTF thread by a shameless forumite at the time Toady was mulling the introduction of the revolutionary burrow system.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30026.2670   (4th question answered if you're bothering to go there)

They can't be assigned to them, as it's supposed to reflect something thinky things think about.  Burrows would be useful for the later livestock updates, although in the end I'm not sure between burrows, zones, rooms, fluid workshops and piles and whatever else what the settled dust will have for us when I get there.  You should have control over where they are.  I just don't like the idea of them following orders on their own, even as a placeholder.

That's an example of Toady not liking a suggested place holder and preferring not to implement it, but in the end deciding that it was better to go with it than without. In that case fodder requirements forced his hand, while for this thread it may be random creatures that land us a volume size placeholder. I'm sure Toady agrees that cm³ in the view screen isn't a perfect solution and doesn't need to be convinced of that. He may decide to do it anyway if he agrees that knowledge of creature size by volume (while a better solution remains unavailable) is important to the player, and useful. He may also agree that checking it with DF hack is placeholder enough. I mostly bumped this thread so that he would have a good amount of time to mull his options if the question hadn't already occurred to him.

[voliol]

I agree with this but I also would like to see some sort of spatial logic going on - like we don't need to know EXACTLY how big a tile is - but it might help make the world feel more real if say - a single tile could only hold up to a couple standing smaller creatures, while a larger creature would occupy that entire tile, forcing others to crawl under it (as they do already for everything). Just a little bit more consistency in the world's logic I think could go a long way.  (I suppose this is a suggestion for another thread tho)

I feel like a lot of this will be expanded upon whenever multi-tile creatures arrive (the boat/trade/moving wall update?), as then not only will the above happen, but too big creatures (say, blind cave ogres) won't fit in a single tile at all and will have to make use of multiple tile-spaces. But as that is a few years into the future, and a volume display would probably be relatively simple to implement, I still vouch for it as a placeholder until then.

[Miles_Umbrae]

Displaying the volume of a creature tells you diddly-squat about the size of a creature.
Is 50.000cm^3 a tall muscular humanoid? Or is it a short plump mushroom-man? Or is it a cave-crocodile?
My point is that by only getting volume you can't tell height, width, girth, or fitness.

[Dorsidwarf]

Displaying the volume of a creature tells you diddly-squat about the size of a creature.
Is 50.000cm^3 a tall muscular humanoid? Or is it a short plump mushroom-man? Or is it a cave-crocodile?
My point is that by only getting volume you can't tell height, width, girth, or fitness.

None of which actually matter (or exist) except the last in dwarf fortress. The point of this is to get a rough approximation of threat levels based on big = scary, which will become increasingly important as RNG creature content becomes more prevalent. Everyone knows that dragons are typically big and scary, but what is an Umquidot (A huge antelope-like creature with long tusks. Its eyes are gold. its fur is cerulean.)? There's no way to get even a rough idea of how worried you should be when seeing one without a system like this, and volume has always been a rough approximation of danger (since big things hit much harder and are harder to hurt in a fight).

[Shonai_Dweller]

Displaying the volume of a creature tells you diddly-squat about the size of a creature.
Is 50.000cm^3 a tall muscular humanoid? Or is it a short plump mushroom-man? Or is it a cave-crocodile?
My point is that by only getting volume you can't tell height, width, girth, or fitness.

None of which actually matter (or exist) except the last in dwarf fortress. The point of this is to get a rough approximation of threat levels based on big = scary, which will become increasingly important as RNG creature content becomes more prevalent. Everyone knows that dragons are typically big and scary, but what is an Umquidot (A huge antelope-like creature with long tusks. Its eyes are gold. its fur is cerulean.)? There's no way to get even a rough idea of how worried you should be when seeing one without a system like this, and volume has always been a rough approximation of danger (since big things hit much harder and are harder to hurt in a fight).

Height, weight and any other statistic would exist if Toady implemented them based on the feedback from this thread. That's the point of suggestions threads. Who cares what doesn't exist in an incomplete game?

Still, I think some effort into comparative descriptions based on what you are and what exists in your world is the way to go.

Plus maybe an overhaul of height/weight/volume statistics in creature creation when multi-tile creatures start to become a thing. Not sure procedurally generated multi-tilers would be possible without it. Giant snake, or menancing were-giraffe, hmm?

[Miles_Umbrae]

Getting either exact indication or objective comparative indication of height, width, girth, and fitness is far superior to simply getting more displays showing volume.
And like I said, simply seeing the volume of a creature tells you little if anything about how dangerous it is that name only doesn't already tell you.

[Dorsidwarf]

Getting either exact indication or objective comparative indication of height, width, girth, and fitness is far superior to simply getting more displays showing volume.
And like I said, simply seeing the volume of a creature tells you little if anything about how dangerous it is that name only doesn't already tell you.

This is abjectly false. Large creatures are always more deadly than smaller versions of the same creature unless the smaller creature has innate skills. And you cannot just demand “an exact indication of height width girth and fitness” because again, three of your criteria do not exist.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Getting either exact indication or objective comparative indication of height, width, girth, and fitness is far superior to simply getting more displays showing volume.
And like I said, simply seeing the volume of a creature tells you little if anything about how dangerous it is that name only doesn't already tell you.

This is abjectly false. Large creatures are always more deadly than smaller versions of the same creature unless the smaller creature has innate skills. And you cannot just demand “an exact indication of height width girth and fitness” because again, three of your criteria do not exist.

Suggestions thread. Toady reads. Implements. Because, you know, he is a programmer, who programs dwarf fortress, in whatever way he wants. Including, shock, creating things that don't yet exist!

Not sure what's hard to understand about that. Please stop saying "that feature doesn't exist in this incomplete pre-alpha game and therefore never will".

--edit to add something on-topic...
If I encounter a single proc-gen giant woozle while out exploring, volume will tell me nothing. I have only it's description, which is in dire need of size details right now.

If I encounter two humans, I'd look at what they're wearing first to determine which is more dangerous, because honestly I don't know the potential difference in lethality between a 67,000 cm3 human and a 73,000 cm3 human. Is that a big difference?

If I were charged by two wild predators I would assume they're both equally dangerous. Heck, the smaller one might be twice as fast for all I know.

There aren't all that many situations where volume would be useful. First encounter with a gorlak and a blind cave ogre perhaps? Ok, ignore the gorlak for now, focus on the massive guy. But again, description is better, height and weight more useful. Volume? Would just send me to the wiki to recall what the comparative volumes of similar shaped animals are.

No reason not to have it, sure. The info exists. But really only useful if I'm a modder who's already thinking in volume and so can tell that the creature in front of me is twice as big as it should be.

[voliol]

Well, instead of arguing whether a placeholder should be used now, later or not at all, or Toady's work schedule, why not talk about how to implement the height/width/girth system I think we all agree should be added sooner or later?

I think what you would want to do to solve this problem, with getting correct measurements of a creature, is to describe the proportions of the creature. That way the game can figure out the measurements by itself, by modeling the volume that's already in the game into some kind of a cuboid or ovoid. This way we can avoid having to add new specific data for each and every creature, and any changes in creature size could automatically be accounted for.

To explain this better, let me show some examples of how it could look:

Code: [Select]

Human:
[PROPORTIONS:HEIGHT:120]
[PROPORTIONS:BROADNESS:50]
[PROPORTIONS:LENGTH:12]

Dwarf:
[PROPORTIONS:HEIGHT:90]
[PROPORTIONS:WIDTH:70]
[PROPORTIONS:LENGTH:25]

Cave Blob:
[PROPORTIONS:HEIGHT:100]
[PROPORTIONS:BROADNESS:100]
[PROPORTIONS:LENGTH:100]

Alligator:
[PROPORTIONS:HEIGHT:20]
[PROPORTIONS:BROADNESS:40]
[PROPORTIONS:LENGTH:350]

Anaconda:
[PROPORTIONS:HEIGHT:20]
[PROPORTIONS:BROADNESS:20]
[PROPORTIONS:LENGTH:1500]
The "HEIGHT", is how tall a creature is, in the z-axis.
The "BROADNESS" is how long is it in the direction perpendicular to the way it is facing,
and "LENGTH" how long or thick it is in the direction it is facing. (bad English probably, correct me if it's impossible to read)
[BODY_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER] on any of these attributes affects the relative proportion of that attribute and the creatures volume equally, so that a dwarf of broadness 120 still has 120% of the standard dwarf volume, but it's all shoved into the width instead of the dwarf growing evenly everywhere.

[Miles_Umbrae]

Well, instead of arguing whether a placeholder should be used now, later or not at all, or Toady's work schedule, why not talk about how to implement the height/width/girth system I think we all agree should be added sooner or later?

I think what you would want to do to solve this problem, with getting correct measurements of a creature, is to describe the proportions of the creature. That way the game can figure out the measurements by itself, by modeling the volume that's already in the game into some kind of a cuboid or ovoid. This way we can avoid having to add new specific data for each and every creature, and any changes in creature size could automatically be accounted for.

To explain this better, let me show some examples of how it could look:

Code: [Select]

Human:
[PROPORTIONS:HEIGHT:120]
[PROPORTIONS:BROADNESS:50]
[PROPORTIONS:LENGTH:12]

Dwarf:
[PROPORTIONS:HEIGHT:90]
[PROPORTIONS:WIDTH:70]
[PROPORTIONS:LENGTH:25]

Cave Blob:
[PROPORTIONS:HEIGHT:100]
[PROPORTIONS:BROADNESS:100]
[PROPORTIONS:LENGTH:100]

Alligator:
[PROPORTIONS:HEIGHT:20]
[PROPORTIONS:BROADNESS:40]
[PROPORTIONS:LENGTH:350]

Anaconda:
[PROPORTIONS:HEIGHT:20]
[PROPORTIONS:BROADNESS:20]
[PROPORTIONS:LENGTH:1500]
The "HEIGHT", is how tall a creature is, in the z-axis.
The "BROADNESS" is how long is it in the direction perpendicular to the way it is facing,
and "LENGTH" how long or thick it is in the direction it is facing. (bad English probably, correct me if it's impossible to read)
[BODY_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER] on any of these attributes affects the relative proportion of that attribute and the creatures volume equally, so that a dwarf of broadness 120 still has 120% of the standard dwarf volume, but it's all shoved into the width instead of the dwarf growing evenly everywhere.

+1

[Dorsidwarf]

@ Shona where did that random attack of the straw men come from, that was thoroughly hostile and uncalled for. Your argument was that a volume indicator was a bad idea because you can’t figure out how broad someone is from that, to which I rightly responded that your objection had no basis because it didn’t yet exist in the game.
Saying “This proposed feature is BAD AND TERRIBLE because it doesn’t help this theoretical much more complicated distant future suggestion I have which I will now proceed to take over the thread to tell you about” is bad form, and lashing out when you get called on it even more so

[Shonai_Dweller]

@ Shona where did that random attack of the straw men come from, that was thoroughly hostile and uncalled for. Your argument was that a volume indicator was a bad idea because you can’t figure out how broad someone is from that, to which I rightly responded that your objection had no basis because it didn’t yet exist in the game.
Saying “This proposed feature is BAD AND TERRIBLE because it doesn’t help this theoretical much more complicated distant future suggestion I have which I will now proceed to take over the thread to tell you about” is bad form, and lashing out when you get called on it even more so

You said (to someone who wasn't me): height doesn't exist
I said: That's no reason not to suggest it.
You said (to someone else, again): height doesn't exist
I repeated myself (probably too harshly, you did just ignore me after all).

And I never mentioned breadth? Or anything about volume being a Bad and Terrible thing? I said it'd be nice to have volume on screen but added some counter reservations to keep on topic as to how useful it would actually be to judge dangerous situations.

My hope is that the suggestion in the opening post to this thread which suggests comparative descriptions is looked into.