Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61 62 ... 211

Author Topic: Future of the Fortress  (Read 1425439 times)

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #885 on: November 04, 2016, 09:30:55 pm »

Likely, the game does not check the flag before setting it on a terminated unit. Why would it?
Logged

Max™

  • Bay Watcher
  • [CULL:SQUARE]
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #886 on: November 04, 2016, 11:06:46 pm »

I didn't say it was superfluous, just that the corpse item having the dead_dwarf flag set was the main block preventing ethics-allowed cannibalism, and the most likely cause of the old "adventurers can just straight up eat friends and family" behavior, but I don't have an old version to test if it was always set or not, though I don't recall it being active until recently.
Logged

FantasticDorf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #887 on: November 05, 2016, 05:35:45 am »

I didn't say it was superfluous, just that the corpse item having the dead_dwarf flag set was the main block preventing ethics-allowed cannibalism, and the most likely cause of the old "adventurers can just straight up eat friends and family" behavior, but I don't have an old version to test if it was always set or not, though I don't recall it being active until recently.

I hate to point it out, but it has nothing to do with ethics, since with modified raws you can still use, wear and eat ethically appropriate abnormal material (sentient meat/objects/earrings made of elf nail etc) and there isn't one rule for your fortress and another rule for worldgen because surely your new citizens would refuse to use those imported items on site. The relation is the terminated unit being required for the materials and rendering them void.

For all function besides being a little funky with behaviour overlaps, the ethical system is actually working. If it was really a forcefully butchered forbidden object it would be {forbidden} as nishes story details but as you can totally evidence by modding your raw folder to [ETHIC EAT SENTIENT OTHER:ACCEPTABLE] DFhack unit spawning in a troll pet factional member and slaughtering it from the (V) < (P) screen, the meat is just posessed by the terminated unit and subject to different rules, its not forbidden, just unusuable as everything rejects using it and moves it to refuse perfectly fresh


I'm going to avoid replying to most of your reply to my reply to clear up one very important thing.

The ID creature is turned into a corpse before the ID is dispelled

Nothing is "turning into a corpse". A new corpse item is generated on the point where the unit died and the unit continues to exist. There is no transformation going on anywhere.

Negative, though you're using the right frame of mind as you've took up my definition of the problem i've been trying to get across, that corpse is still responsive to unorthadox method testing of its state (the relationship screen exploit), as to say either by the terminated unit ID still taking force as posession of its body, it will read out further BP developments that are taking place as it rots (which only really applies to the corpse state).

After a fresh corpse of lets say a drowning incident where the body is otherwise BP immaculate, death has symptoms, but specific rotting symptoms most notably the eyes causing them to "lose ability to see" is important. Ok maybe non literally it may or may not be the corpse but the two are definitely linked as it's status updates.

You two are arguing semantics over what toady calls " a soul".  The "soul data" is separate from the corpse item, which is why zombies work the way they do, and mummies work the way they do.  Mummification is more a transformation as far as I can tell, while zombies are entirely new units created from corpse items.

Regardless, please discontinue. Somebody being wrong on the internet is not the end of the world.

Very good point, there is no dishonor in being wrong.

Soul data is held by DF.unit which is very wrong right now as i've mentioned before evidenced by this bug report (10059) taking hold and messing up a lot of behaviour and functions. Because all 'animals' have a "soul" (so all units essentially since beside vermin which are separate class of animal, they are fed back into other systems like entity code through creature raw) typified in game terms with (V) functions and (Z) allowing them to intentionally have skills etc, which at base should only work to be basic but currently i believe gives all creatures the same UI (dwarf therapist has examples of reading non full sentient life to determine desires when the player can't interface) for the mind & health screen, as well as copying behaviors and stresses.

This gains a extra bit of credibility, when associated with stresses like loneliness, and wanting to talk to people which happen across entity sites everywhere, and if animals are counted (even wild) as entity members too they will be afflicted with the same thought outlet and values. A jump of logic but secretly sharing a system with dwarves because since early code, its been unconfigured to differentiate animals (the really old animals wear clothes bug) from sentient creatures may have caused more problems and wasted time than the bugfixes to amend.

Where these parallel lines cross are domestic pet creatures like trolls with active labours. Now i can vouch very heavily that trolls being modded in livestock are fiddly but workable creatures, but they are perfect case for what's going wrong in semi-sapients (animals intentionally with just intelligent protection and a ability to open doors is all they are, not literally intelligent) since trolls in play will act with simultaneous intelligent and non-intelligent desires rather than being a 'dumb animal' as their base coding suggests, claiming rooms to sleep in, drinking, singing (while mute) and socialising and it becomes a case of where does the line of what it can do and can't do really stop? The only way to pin trolls down are with burrows, and even so because none of them have names as animals this causes havoc with UI trying to differentiate them.

I mentioned this with all my troglodyte examples, especially in regards to off site population being affected by the global cavern features causing confrontations of rampaging named animals vs hunters to shape further interactions, giving them emotional states and reactions, that might be running through unseen UI but without definite testing all we can do is observe the advanced emotions they exhibit.

> A test you can do at home, on cavern layer 2 & 3, edit out the raws for all of the creatures with [LARGE_PREDATOR], if they are non-intelligent and everything as to say nothing will ever attack you down there passively without aggrovation by you first because they are not affected by historical unit intervention. (or a unseen dimension of conflict between animal populations in worldgen caused by adjacency)


Zombies as i've mentioned in my musing and observation before, return the class of creature into a un-intelligent huntable state (purging flags and keeping some) allowing butchering, but the terminated ID even so still holds power ('not- zombie #____ meat' but instead original class of creature '#_____ meat') over the original products so while its butcherable, its a pointless exercise to exploit the system if its not already a butcherable non intelligent 'huntable' class creature.

From the terminated ID, technically you can make a infinite source of zombies on evil embarks.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2016, 09:34:35 am by FantasticDorf »
Logged

Max™

  • Bay Watcher
  • [CULL:SQUARE]
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #888 on: November 05, 2016, 01:33:28 pm »

Having [CAN_LEARN] prevents any creature which should be able to eat sapients from doing so. A corpse which dies with [CAN_LEARN] has the item.flags1.dead_dwarf flag set. Removing one before, or one after death is sufficient to change this.

As an outsider goblin you can not butcher and eat a dwarf.

As a freaking giant lion with a name I took control of via dfhack I could not butcher and eat a dwarf without removing [CAN_LEARN] or untoggling dead_dwarf.

Trolls have [SLOW_LEARNER] which I think prevents the flag from being toggled on death, I haven't checked specifically.

It should be an issue of ethics instead of 'all adventurers can eat any creature, including their own friends and family' as it was or 'no adventurers can eat sapients, not even goblins or elves who defeat their foe and canonically should be able to do this, not even wild animals which have been taken control of and have no ethics' as it is.
Logged

Untrustedlife

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My Website
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #889 on: November 05, 2016, 02:33:09 pm »

deleted by me
« Last Edit: November 06, 2016, 01:26:23 pm by Untrustedlife »
Logged
I am an indie game dev!
My Roguelike! With randomly generated creatures Roguelegends: Dark Realms
My Turn Based Strategy game! Which you can buy on steam now!DR4X
My website untrustedlife.com

Random_Dragon

  • Bay Watcher
  • Psycho Bored Dragon
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #890 on: November 05, 2016, 02:37:04 pm »

None of this bickering provides anything in the way of conclusively, 100% demonstrating what bugs here are related.
Logged
On DF Wiki · On DFFD

"Hey idiots, someone hacked my account to call you all idiots! Wasn't me you idiots!" seems to stretch credulity a bit.

TheBiggerFish

  • Bay Watcher
  • Somewhere around here.
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #891 on: November 05, 2016, 02:43:05 pm »

Toady have you ever read a Terry Pratchett novel such as any novel from the Discworld series? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld and if so will it influence how you go about myth generation for your worlds?

This question has been bugging me for awhile.
Yes, I think he's read Pyramids, or maybe Guards! Guards! IIRC the last time I asked.
Logged
Sigtext

It has been determined that Trump is an average unladen swallow travelling northbound at his maximum sustainable speed of -3 Obama-cubits per second in the middle of a class 3 hurricane.

FantasticDorf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #892 on: November 05, 2016, 03:44:41 pm »

Having [CAN_LEARN] prevents any creature which should be able to eat sapients from doing so. A corpse which dies with [CAN_LEARN] has the item.flags1.dead_dwarf flag set. Removing one before, or one after death is sufficient to change this.

As an outsider goblin you can not butcher and eat a dwarf. (Outsiders still adhere to dwarven ethic rules, you require REAL evil entity/alternative by modding as its dealt by a entity not creature basis)

As a freaking giant lion with a name I took control of via dfhack I could not butcher and eat a dwarf without removing [CAN_LEARN] or untoggling dead_dwarf.

Trolls have [SLOW_LEARNER] which I think prevents the flag from being toggled on death, I haven't checked specifically.

It should be an issue of ethics instead of 'all adventurers can eat any creature, including their own friends and family' as it was or 'no adventurers can eat sapients, not even goblins or elves who defeat their foe and canonically should be able to do this, not even wild animals which have been taken control of and have no ethics' as it is.

I can't discredit the role that dead_dwarf might be playing but i have already covered that transformatively turning a unit into a zombie purges the intelligence tags and allows it to be butchered. However because the BP is not converted to the new zombie class of creature, the old terminated unit ID is still in place and therefore its unusable and parts commited to the corpse pile (being the corpse of the unit BP's converted)

Your ethics arguement coincides that all the ethics is wrong and at fault, when in all actuality its just the corpse that is the largest problem and a failure to recognise the body of the terminated unit as egible to butcher because its still active. All the ethics revolve around huntable classes of creatures only corresponding to [KILL ANIMAL] and everything else handled by [EAT SENTIENT] and my logic explains in good detail how even as a giant lion cant do nothing, because the game wide system is broken nothing will happen. A lion is not part of a faction so ethics wouldn't be in force so why does a lion care about what it can and can't do? (strange example but that's the logic), elves have specific rules on combat and goblins can eat and butcher pretty much anything intentionally and would be better for trying with your dead_dwarf experiments.

My other bug reports also connects how wild animals are covert site units and follow all those ethics (brawling engagements etc), so that might be infringing on your giant lion examples credibility anyway if its a dwarven lion. I also highlighted in bold the fact that you were using dwarf raised goblin to try and execute ethics, which is a oversight.

> Recommendation - Set your entity folder like this to quickly access the goblin civ, then try your workaround if its the same in your super old version or apply the archaic terms. From the embark screen with [TAB] you'll be able to view your civilisation, then manually switch between goblins and dwarves in addition to freedom of choice for goblins in  adventure-mode, and ensure that you start out inside the goblin civ before testing butchering again.

Code: [Select]
[ENTITY:EVIL]
        [SITE_CONTROLLABLE]
        [ALL_MAIN_POPS_CONTROLLABLE]


Example: Huntable classes of creature - Hunters only pursue unintelligent wildlife and have to get it (with on their end the hunter gurantees death) into the butcher workshop by hauling it back. This screen is on ((O) < (F) < (o)) and all units who are non huntable will be automatically forbidden, including your intellgent life forms that should be butcherable under your ethics. Hunters will pursue zombies because they join this field, including former sentients.


If its not forbidden (as my trolls show) its not counted for being living in use BP by the terminated unit

Animals are read off site pop's and turned into goods = Citizens wear/eat/use outsourced goods = Butchery obviously requires a unit to die actively = Gets bugged because the terminated unit still holds onto the goods as a body.

Ethics is working completely as intended as evidenced by the rest of the worlds interactions in using those materials, your site is not a exception because its a player fortress, but because of the butchered BP materials needed to make the goods.



Above is the same materials from the slaughtered troll in my spoilered detailed log of a modded game as a ethically correct evil goblin faction. All the stuff is untouchable for still being the BP corpse (much of the meat has since rotted away) but the fat and bones are moved to the corpses (not refuse) stockpile along with another sentient (items are not meant to be stored on a strict corpse pile). If this was handled in a second hand nature and sold directly to me without having to slaughter the troll (I did slaughter it successfully, it was killed and harvested a semi-sapient pet as it should on those ethics) then all the goods would be workable, but because the terminated unit is intermittently connected to the parts it can't be undone.



Slaughtered with [ETHIC:EAT_SAPIENT_OTHER:ACCEPTABLE] as a genuine goblin civ by embarking with it, signing up a butcher and slaughtering it with the (S) key even though there was no prompt to be turned into delicious non huntable creature class gibbets which were left to rot in the open air and whatever else was moved to the corpse pile because its still the same troll that exists in nullspace.


Butchering a loved one or a cherished member of the community does not matter because different butchers who are indisposed can do the job instead (like butchering pet cats), without first knowing the ins and outs of how sentient killing your own kind works by seeing it in action that comment about butchering your relatives 'should be wrong' is a suggestion rather than a constructive comment. (etc - Someone not related to you can do the job, its a personal matter/acceptable/required matter so people wont care or give a hoot about eating their own children's sweetbreads.)

The bodies of those trolls are being sent to the corpses pile because they are still the troll's corpses BP wise (especially with the clothes popping off seemingly after the meat rotted but still attached to the body when it was being butchered). Additionally with sentient ethics its highly rumoured that you can eat invaders when it works right (which is made harder with less sieges now but probably a first priotity thing to try when we think of a workaround to this bug or a eventual fix)


Question for toady - Have you ever thought in the development process for the museum displays about perhaps using mannequins for BP representative clothing displays or training targets?
« Last Edit: November 05, 2016, 05:10:08 pm by FantasticDorf »
Logged

Rubik

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #893 on: November 05, 2016, 05:33:50 pm »

Question for toady - Have you ever thought in the development process for the museum displays about perhaps using mannequins for BP representative clothing displays or training targets?

I mean, armor stands are not working for now, but thats theoretically their purpose, to store and show equipment, so we already have that
I would be more interested if you could use statues for armor stands, and have the gold statue of your civ's king hold the relic hammer of chaos, that would be pretty neat
Logged

Max™

  • Bay Watcher
  • [CULL:SQUARE]
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #894 on: November 05, 2016, 06:38:14 pm »

Tossing this into spoilers because it's gotta be annoying folks.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged

FantasticDorf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #895 on: November 05, 2016, 07:02:40 pm »

Yeah this is getting a slog, I don't envy anybody having to go through pages of this. I've put my response in spoilers too

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
« Last Edit: November 05, 2016, 07:05:31 pm by FantasticDorf »
Logged

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #896 on: November 05, 2016, 07:13:21 pm »

Toady have you ever read a Terry Pratchett novel such as any novel from the Discworld series? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld and if so will it influence how you go about myth generation for your worlds?

This question has been bugging me for awhile.
So much so that you already asked it...
Quote
Quote from: Untrustedlife
Toady have you ever read discworld?

I think I read one of the books many years ago.  Something Egyptish.

Quote from: TheBiggerFish
Have you considered reading more Discworld books?

I had a few more from when I read the pyramids one (Guards something I think and whatever came next), but that was ~a decade ago and I didn't read them.  Then I didn't circle back around and don't really plan on it.  It's hard to find time.
Logged

Putnam

  • Bay Watcher
  • DAT WIZARD
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #897 on: November 05, 2016, 07:22:20 pm »

Soul data is held by DF.unit which is very wrong right now as i've mentioned before evidenced by this bug report (10059) taking hold and messing up a lot of behaviour and functions.

No.

I am saying no because this is wrong.

This statement itself is wrong. It's wrong in many ways. I can't begin to go into how wrong it is.

Unit soul data for individual units is stored in unit.status.current_soul. There is also a souls vector that may hold multiple souls, but that is as of yet unused.

Zombies do not have souls.

Units having souls is not "very wrong" by any means.

I'm incredibly loathe to say this, but: please do not try to determine the cause of issues if you have absolutely no idea how things actually work under the hood, as you are repeatedly demonstrating is the case.

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #898 on: November 05, 2016, 07:32:26 pm »

Would it seem awfully obnoxious to request a mod to move all this tech stuff to a new thread?
It's great to have dialogue on the inner workings of the game, and surely bugs need to be fixed, but it's hard enough as it is to locate concrete info on future plans in the Future of the Fortress thread without wading through pages of technical jargon that makes no sense to a lot of people.
Logged

Max™

  • Bay Watcher
  • [CULL:SQUARE]
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #899 on: November 05, 2016, 09:46:35 pm »

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61 62 ... 211