Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 127 128 [129] 130 131 ... 141

Author Topic: Future of the Fortress  (Read 338891 times)

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1920 on: April 22, 2019, 04:10:20 am »

We can now request people from our holdings and all, so:
Will we see anytime soon the mountainhome request military aid in the form of soldiers or attack orders?
I could see conscription being pretty easy to implement as it can simply be the liaison telling you to "expel" this or that dwarf or some number of able bodied dwarves back to wherever, but that would probably be too annoying if you couldn't refuse.
Given that civs are currently unable to muster armies, but rather send whatever warm bodies they can round up in the site selected to perform an attack, the logical basis for such a request is currently missing, and doesn't seem to be even in the vicinity of the already horrendously bloated To-Do list before the Big Wait, I'd say there's no chance for it in the near term.
If a soldier request feature was implemented, I'd expect the soldiers' exploits to be visible in Legends Mode, i.e. that they participated in this attack and that one, kills (or getting killed), etc. Another important question is whether the feature would be desirable for players. If you just get a request to sacrifice citizens, I'd expect it to be an annoyance to most players (although it might be another opportunity beyond sending away to get rid of stressed ones). Sending mercs and monster slayers (if you've got any surviving ones), might sting less. However, if there was a reward attached, such as the survivors returning with experience and possibly some useful/interesting items (medals?), it might even things out. This is deep in the Suggestion territory, however.

A request to attack a site could be interesting, but apart from being outside the short term scope, it wouldn't be trivial to implement it in a reasonable way. For such an order/request to be reasonable, the target strength has to somehow be compared to the military might of the player fortress so an attack makes some kind of sense (yes, there are real world leaders without any sense...). This is something that might fit better with a starting scenario where the fortress is some kind of military facility.
1) There's no reward for fulfilling daft noble demands, why would annoying Mountain home requests be any different? Experience would be good, but only when training gets nerfed some. Punishment on the other hand might be interesting.

2) Army Vs army battles is part of the bloated to-do list. That involves sites other than your own raising armies to fight each other. So I'd say "no chance" is pretty harsh. An army development arc post-Steam, if it happens, would very likely include worldgen army raising work. Would be strange if it didn't.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2019, 04:17:23 am by Shonai_Dweller »
Logged

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1921 on: April 22, 2019, 07:59:19 am »

There's no need to refine the army raising process to achieve army vs army battles, as armies are raised currently, although in a fairly simplistic fashion that will need to be improved eventually. The item on the list is for those armies to engage one another rather than pass right through each other. Anyway, Toady will provide his answer at the end of the month.
Logged

Criperum

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1922 on: April 22, 2019, 08:17:22 am »

Last time i asked about army bugs but was too uncertain. The exact one I'm concerned about is frequent inability of soldiers to find their armor, weapon and equipment even if they were specifically designated to wear specific part of it. Will this be fixed in some near future?
Logged

Eric Blank

  • Bay Watcher
  • Never stabs friends, promise!
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1923 on: April 22, 2019, 09:22:07 am »

Last time i asked about army bugs but was too uncertain. The exact one I'm concerned about is frequent inability of soldiers to find their armor, weapon and equipment even if they were specifically designated to wear specific part of it. Will this be fixed in some near future?

If theres a recent or recently updated bug report on it, its as likely to be fixed after this next release as anything else, so make sure you report problems youre having.
Logged
"THEN CAME TOBNOM, ASS-GOD".
I have no idea where anything is. I have no idea what anything does. This is not merely a madhouse designed by a madman, but a madhouse designed by many madmen, each with an intense hatred for the previous madman's unique flavour of madness.

therahedwig

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • wolthera.info
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1924 on: April 22, 2019, 11:13:36 am »

There's actually a bug that has been open forever because it is quite a complicated issue.

Or, at the least, the base issue is that dwarves have always been terrible at getting dressed, but now it is compounded by rank, upgrades, 'civilian uniforms', needing to have multiple items for certain things like archery, storing equipment, etc. And that is not even touching the equipment confusion(and corruption) coming from dwarves going on raids.
Logged
Stonesense Grim Dark 0.2 Alternate detailed and darker tiles for stonesense. Now with all ores!

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1925 on: April 22, 2019, 12:03:59 pm »

Last time i asked about army bugs but was too uncertain. The exact one I'm concerned about is frequent inability of soldiers to find their armor, weapon and equipment even if they were specifically designated to wear specific part of it. Will this be fixed in some near future?
therahedwig mentioned the two main bugs I know of that match the (still too imprecise) description. The raid equipment corruption crash bug will most certainly be addressed, but it doesn't seem Toady is going to change to a current + next version parallel code base line development model until after the first Villains release has been made (and possibly not until the Commercial release is made as well), so it's most likely going to be fixed in the first few post Villain bug fix releases. The old standing equipment bug probably won't be addressed then (unless Toady feels it's time to deal with it when in the vicinity dealing with the corruption bug), but is a good candidate for fixing when Toady attacks the military UI to make it more user friendly as part of the Commercial release preparations. I'd be surprised if Toady made any promises, though...

It can be mentioned that attempts to fix the old bug has been made in the past, and I believe those attempts have improved the situation a little.
Logged

clinodev

  • Bay Watcher
  • Embark Profile Enthusiast
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1926 on: April 23, 2019, 02:14:59 am »


I've been reading/watching people's DF let's plays lately, and I am noticing a lot of them aren't interacting with the civ screen much despite it being one of the most important screens when it comes to DF throwing dangers at you. And I am wondering if that's not because most of the dangers just kinda come at you out of nowhere.


I know it was just commentary, not lime green, but. . ..

I watch a lot of hours of DF Twitch streams, and I also notice people are staying out of the civ screen. I believe it's split pretty evenly between

a) experienced players aware of the aforementioned raid equipment corruption crash bug, and

b) people getting back into DF after not having played for some time who are unaware of it.

The second group are a little frustrating, because what to say? "Oh, there's this really neat thing! But, um, you probably shouldn't use most of the cool stuff, because you might crash on stream."
Logged

Death Dragon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1927 on: April 23, 2019, 09:59:13 am »

The second group are a little frustrating, because what to say? "Oh, there's this really neat thing! But, um, you probably shouldn't use most of the cool stuff, because you might crash on stream."
Well, if they don't expect crashes then why are they playing DF? :P
Do we know how that equipment corruption raid crash is caused? I don't remember crashing during raids personally.

@Death Dragon: It's certainly possible for your dwarven civ to start out at war with other civs, and it happens from time to time that such civs happens to be the "neighbor" civs visible pre embark (where you can see that they're at war with your civ). This has been possible at least since 0.40.X, and probably much longer. One factor when selecting which civ to embark with is whether the neighbors at various sites are at war with that civ (some want them to be at war, and some want caravans instead).
Yeah I figured it was already possible, but I assume that it will now possibly be more common.

Given that the villains can now start wars, and that civs can now have a claim on artifacts, are you considering getting rid of the siege triggers?
Aren't the siege triggers still needed to prevent very early fortresses from being immediately overrun by invading armies?
I'm not entirely sure how it works, but when you start a fort and you're immediately at war with some civ, you still have to pass some triggering conditions before you can actually be a target of enemy raids, right?
Logged

Telgin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Professional Programmer
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1928 on: April 23, 2019, 10:05:43 am »

I'm pretty sure the triggers are much easier to hit, if there are any at that point.  I was under the impression it was like necromancer attacks, which don't require the usual triggers.  I seem to recall you couldn't be attacked during the first year, but I'm not even sure of that.
Logged
Success requires no explanation.  Failure allows none.

EternalCaveDragon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1929 on: April 23, 2019, 10:13:08 am »

Given that the villains can now start wars, and that civs can now have a claim on artifacts, are you considering getting rid of the siege triggers?
Aren't the siege triggers still needed to prevent very early fortresses from being immediately overrun by invading armies?
I'm not entirely sure how it works, but when you start a fort and you're immediately at war with some civ, you still have to pass some triggering conditions before you can actually be a target of enemy raids, right?

As far as I can tell the triggers are still in the raws. And they will probably remain there in the next version to handle non-villain-related attacks unless Toady has come up with a new system in the meantime. Plus, as Telgin said, there's already ways to handle attackers that don't use the usual triggers, such as necromancers and bandits.
Logged

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1930 on: April 23, 2019, 11:18:38 am »

@Death Dragon: The crash bug is known in general terms, but not the details. Equipment used by dorfs when going on raids are probably removed from the fortress when the dorfs leave, but remain allocated to the squad positions. When the raiders return the equipment is probably returned to the fortress and marked as free, but remains allocated to the squad positions (making it possible for the same piece of equipment to be allocated to two different squad positions (unknown if they can be in the same squad) concurrently. Somewhere in that process completely unrelated items, frequently very early artifact "books", can show up in one or more specific item (such as e.g. specific armor pieces) militia member equipment lists. Somehow the source from which those lists draw their information has been corrupted, but it's not known what that source is. It's likely the crash happens when dorfs are trying to get new equipment, and the code tries to process one of these garbage items to determine which one is "best" and tries to evaluate fields that do not exist in the item.

If the rate at which wars happen changes the DF worlds run the risk of descending into smoldering ruins where everyone is at war with everyone else (and the number of necromancers explode if the secret cap allows it and there are sufficiently many survivors to recruit from), unless there is something that compensates by increasing the rate at which civs make peace.

@Telgin:
The attack triggers are based on pop, wealth, and exported wealth, not on time. However, you usually won't get a pop over 80 (the default civ pop trigger) within a single year. If you raid early you forfeit the pop trigger protection (at least with regards to that civ: I don't know if it's removed completely, but it wouldn't be unreasonable). Note that wars are between civs, so starting at war just means your parent civ is at war, but your site is removed from the potential targets list until the siege trigger protection is lifted.
Logged

therahedwig

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • wolthera.info
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1931 on: April 23, 2019, 12:16:06 pm »

I didn't know siege triggers themselves gave protection? This might also be because it is really easy to trigger them, and if it is protection, it is also an enforcement of sieges. Once you git the Goblin siege trigger(80 Dwarves), the Goblins will go to war with the Dwarves for no reason(legends say 'unknown' reasons) and you get sieges. And that's the part I am thinking villains might actually be a proper replacement mechanic for now.

If only, because, as far as I can tell, if background worldgen has it's way, Dwarf civs are mostly at peace with Goblins and always at war with the Elves, because Elves are creeps who make trophies out of their enemies. Or at the least, this is what legends mode tells me.
Logged
Stonesense Grim Dark 0.2 Alternate detailed and darker tiles for stonesense. Now with all ores!

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1932 on: April 23, 2019, 04:24:23 pm »

I didn't know siege triggers themselves gave protection? This might also be because it is really easy to trigger them, and if it is protection, it is also an enforcement of sieges. Once you git the Goblin siege trigger(80 Dwarves), the Goblins will go to war with the Dwarves for no reason(legends say 'unknown' reasons) and you get sieges. And that's the part I am thinking villains might actually be a proper replacement mechanic for now.

If only, because, as far as I can tell, if background worldgen has it's way, Dwarf civs are mostly at peace with Goblins and always at war with the Elves, because Elves are creeps who make trophies out of their enemies. Or at the least, this is what legends mode tells me.
After the interface improvement arc, when hopefully it's more obvious what the embark screen is trying to tell you, might be a good time to get rid of triggers for civs we're already at war with.

It already gives you warnings about salt water, aquifers and being almost extinct. It could easily add "the civ you've selected is at war, you might get roflstomped early". You usually get a choice of a couple of civs, and a chance to not embark as neighbours to the civ you're at war with.
Logged

falcc

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1933 on: April 25, 2019, 09:35:20 am »

1.What are the middle-term plans for parrying and shielding?
2.Is it possible to modify together an item that works both as a shield and as something equivalent to a crutch?
3. For adventurer medical improvements, how much will be hardcoded?


Specifically I'm thinking about the fact that some of these rock bracelets ought to be very heavy. And in theory a stone splint, something meant to keep you immobile or minimize movement when you heal, would be pretty cool as a variation on splints. But learning to move with something like that puts me in the mind of crutch-walking taking a lot of time to master. But since I'm not suggesting any of it, I'm curious how moddable something like that could be before the big wait. Either with planned additions or what's in the raws now.

4. Once adventurer medical improvements are in, can you get a reputation for treating people's injuries? Any possibility of being treated like a physician (since the skill exists in a scholarly way already) that is welcome in enemy lands because you're so well known for treating anyone you come across? How about treating someone unconscious from a kill on sight faction in order to build personal/entity trust?

5. Can you get hired to take care of these people being tortured in towers, giving you the chance to free them?

6. Will this mean caring for your pets injuries as well?

7. Could you treat the dead's wounds indefinitely to improve your skills provided you were the necromancer that summoned them? Just getting that out of the way now.
Logged

therahedwig

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • wolthera.info
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1934 on: April 25, 2019, 10:09:52 am »

For 4, while they're cool ideas, I don't know if the AI is smart enough to identify adventurers that'd be from an enemy army. Right now you get attacked in adventure mode by a) goblins who have special ethics for attacking one another randomly, b) bandits, c) bugged cave dragon/alligrator recruits, d) opportunistic animals and megabeasts. If a character is none of those, you won't get attacked by them without doing something attack worthy first, so hence why I think the AI isn't able to identify you as an enemy soldier. So I think that'd be a prerequisite?
5. seems to require the ability of histfigs to hire one another for non-stabby purposes... Which does seem like a missing 'linking' thing in general...
6. Was sorta asked before, and the response was something along the lines of 'not right now'.

Hm... now I am also curious on what the notes for the general medical improvements look like. I don't recall any big medical threads in suggestions since it was introduced? But I am also not on the forum all year long :)

EDIT: This seems to be it, but it is definitely from before the hospitals got introduced, so a lot of it got in there already. Though apparantly noone was interested in plain old influenza ;)
« Last Edit: April 25, 2019, 10:48:49 am by therahedwig »
Logged
Stonesense Grim Dark 0.2 Alternate detailed and darker tiles for stonesense. Now with all ores!
Pages: 1 ... 127 128 [129] 130 131 ... 141