Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 187

Author Topic: Future of the Fortress  (Read 614299 times)

Toady One

  • The Great
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #720 on: August 01, 2018, 05:43:46 pm »

Quote from: Criperum
I have a question about FotF itself. If there was an answer on the question from one of the guys from forum and Toady just adds some thoughts about it but not answering from the beginning can the original answer be posted in FotF along with Toady's answer or at least postlinked?

Hmm.  Well, I can try this, but I'm finding this takes more of my time than I can manage.  If the previous method hasn't been working, I'm not sure what to do.

Quote from: zakarum
1. As your fort get more integrated in the world, how do hillocks interact with the surrounding biome right now (and in the future)? Will settling in an evil biome cause the hillocks that grow around your fort to have an undead/syndrome problem? Could they be overrun by the undead and end up with an invasion of your fort? Will you be able to send troops there to guard/fend off undead, beasts and such? Do sending troops there right now do anything?

2. Tying to the previous question, will we be able to "refuse" hillocks settlements? And if that's the case, I imagine the system would work as charts, with migrants (or citizens of your fort) asking for a chart to settle a land nearby. You could deny them because it's too dangerous, for example. How would the current count/barony system tie with the fact that hillock might not pop up because you denied them/place is too remote?

3. Conversely, how do/will hillocks interact with invaders? Could a necromancer rampage through the hillocks to try and raise a larger army to invade you? Would you be able to send patrols to try and intercept the necromancer before it snowballs in a huge army of the undead?

4. You are now moving to the "villain role", though I'm not sure this is "individual" (as in adventurer is a bad guy) or generic (goblins, "large scale bad guys"). Tied into that is slavery in the dev page, though only mentioned 3 times. Slaves right now are a rare occasion and only happen during site destruction in world gen. Since we have more assets now (hillocks) than just the fort itself, will that shift the paradigm of invaders to relate to all that? Let me give a few examples. Right now all invaders want your complete destruction, but it would make more sense for them to want your partial destruction just for their own gain.

4.1 It's pretty easy to lock yourself right now and wait for a siege to pass (ignoring future tunneling units), but wouldn't the invading army raid/plunder the hillocks while you hide (which would also make the invasion last longer, since they have supplies)? Could a siege be done for specifically to gather slaves/undead without losing a lot of lives from the invading force while they force the army (you) to be shut in your fort or occasionally harass you if you try to stray too far away from the fort?

4.2 Tying to 4.1, what kind of problems would this cause for the player? Refugees you can't deny/or deny with consequences? The need to divert resources to reconstruct hillocks? Demotion from duke/barony status (can that even happen?)? Overall anger and sadness in your fort population by the destruction caused in their neighbors or isolation of being locked in the fort?

4.3 Will invaders ever attack you not only aiming for your total destruction? Could it be that they just want to carry off the riches they can and set out? Would some slavers drive by and just take your citizens then go off?

4.4 With the upcoming villain stuff, will invaders use hillocks citizens to try and get to you? Could they occupy a site and hold it for ransom and convince a citizen to come to your fort to, let's say, pull the bridge lever when they come?

5. Will the role of "raider" get in this release? (In the sense of temporary forces, either outlaws or enemies, that come to take people or valuables, causing death and destruction but not enough to end the game)

6. Finally, are there respective plans for the stuff I asked in any arc, if it's not coming in the current cycle of hillock/villains?

1, PatrikLundell:

2. You can't do that now, and I'm not really sure you should ever be able to refuse hillocks cleanly.  If there is a danger, you'd somehow need to convince them, but I'm not sure how that'd work.  You don't currently get to be a baron without a demonstrable barony, though certainly there should be various considerations and perhaps baronies without outside sites.

3, 6, FantasticDorf:

4.1. This does randomly happen on occasion, but they do need to be more aggressive about their siege strategy.

4.2. Those sound like fine ideas; we haven't really set up a lot of the important economic connections involving hillocks, so you won't feel the most important losses for a while.  Refugees are hard to do because of population limits.

4.3, 5. Kobold thieves already do this with their archer distraction, but certainly more groups could afford to do that kind of thing in more ways.

4.4. Villains should involve hillocks, yeah, and you'll potential have problem migrants.

Quote from: Mel_Vixen
1. Will villain level behaviours carry over to more legimate characters? After all Religions are not that much different then cults. Kindoms or Groups of Guards work in a way like gangs on a grander scale too or with different goals.

2. Will Players be an active part of those things. Say a cult officialy wanting to etablish a temple at your fort, Rulers demanding (not just requesting) gear or Warriors. Quests to steal/retrieve certain artefacts where your Adventurer or Fort are approached from a third party (even under false pretenses). Down to a thievesguild using your messhall as meetingplace.

3. Will you be able to enact your own devious plots? Paying people to do "evil" action like assasinating certain people or sending out some of your adventurergroups to recover certain things for you or set stuff in motion.

4. Will there be interaction between the various villian groups and persons? One cult undermining another, certain banditgroups working together and sharing information etc. ?

1. It is the hope that these systems won't end up being so specialized over time, and they'll be written with that in mind.  But we'll be starting with the villains.

2. Your examples sound more like subgroups than the individual villains we'll be starting me; frameworks for entity subgroups (such as guilds, etc.) will be coming in after magic.

3. For the fort, it remains to be seen which actions will be available for your agents.  Up on dev, we have assassinations as an option, for instance, so you'll be in the mix.  It wouldn't be a huge step to give you access to the agreements, but we'll see which ones feel relevant for the fort when we are sure which ones we'll have.

4. They'll certainly be interacting, as they'll be operating in the same spaces with the same targets and potential agents, but I'm not sure if they'll be able to recognize each other enough at first to collaborate effectively.

Quote from: Tobihaze
The whole concept of 'demon' will float as the sliders move; we've made some semantic charts for 'demon', 'fairy', 'angel', 'titan', 'god', 'force', 'spirit', etc., and we're trying not to be beholden to English entirely when assigning categories to supernatural creatures, as that can be really limiting.

1. If I'm not mistaken, does this mean that we could generally predict the behavior of a creature based on its tag?

2. Additionally, is the category system intended to generate creatures with certain characteristics based on the tag assigned to the entity? As in, "fairies are generally cute flying things" while "angels are divine entities". That sort of thing.

3. Lastly, if the semantic charts do influence the creature's generation, does "trying not to be beholden to English" mean new creature types? Basically, if you were to create a tag for hellenic creatures, would they conform to what we'd expect from Greek mythology? Would a youkai sit in the mountains yelling at people rather than attacking like a normal night creature? Does this create the possibility for a world to generate with sub-classes of specific creature types? For example, dividing the fairies (or anything, really) into two "courts" that don't get along and have certain traits associated with the type.

1. In a very general demons are bad sort of way?  Yeah, probably.  If that becomes a real problem, we might end up with a partial id/description system, which would be pretty cool for proc animals etc. anyway, when you can start to meet those.  Any future language system will also consider where these names come from in the first place, and there might be multiple names.

2. I'm not sure if it's mostly reversed; sometimes we want something with a name that's evocative and has certain traits, and sometimes all of the traits come first and we are just going for a best-fit name.  This might depend on the text structures guiding the process, or whether we are at the beginning of the myth or in the middle (where we have more context and guiding info generated.)

3. This is related to the "procedural dragons" issue, which we've been holding off on for a while, but which is now closer; creating mid-level guiding structures is something we're going to be attempting, and when the sliders are cranked over to proc-land, it's going to be trying to create new classes on its own, where any English naming is going to get very vague or broken, we'll see.  I'm not sure how much I'll go into the various real-world cultures for names in the low-to-mid level settings; I do a bad enough job with what I have now, and doubt I can set the parameters at all correctly for other named groups farther from my experience, even if a variety of influences suggest the traits of the generated.

Quote from: Vivalas
With improvements to sieges include some sort of look at balancing the cage trap. Right now it's a very icky thing that pops up when I play, whether or not to use them or not. While of course players can just use restraint, it's nicer to have mechanical reasons. The dev page mentioned somewhere about multi-tile traps, but is there perhaps a few short-term tweaks that could make cage traps a bit less powerful? Right now if you build enough of them to match the invader cap, you really don't have to do much but open the gates and capture everyone.

Granted, I noticed in an older fort after 34.11 that invaders seem more cautious towards traps, and I can't tell if this is noted anywhere, but I noticed that attacking goblins very slowly creeped down my main trap hallway, as if suspiciously, and immediately ran out and refused to enter my fort once one got trapped. I don't know if this is a feature or bug or some other behavior, but it's in the same realm of trap balance improvements.

These address the question -

Regarding invaders becoming shy once they see some traps...  I don't believe I did anything with that.

Quote from: arcaneArtist
A question that i thought of today: are there any plans to expand gender within the game?

currently, all characters seem to be cisgender and dyadic, with some inherently genderless beings like sponge men mixed in, so expanding on this would add in more representation and variety to the game. i could also see it slotting in with the laws and customs expansion mentioned in the Fortress Starting Scenarios framework, since some of the customs and laws (not necessarily ones added in the initial update, but maybe sometime later) could revolve around the roles and definitions of genders within a society, stuff like what it means in this society to "be a man/woman/whatever other genders this society has"

Yeah, that's along the lines of where we were thinking of trying to address gender as robustly as we can manage.  I'm not sure we'll go so far as different gender roles as far as restricting rights and so forth, as I didn't want to particularly dwell on certain systemic miseries and crappy systems would inevitably be generated.  We can probably have certain constructs and distinctions generated and also allow various individuals to escape easy categorization within a given system as well, or for two systems to not cross-categorize easily, though it's difficult to say how that'll turn out from here.

Quote from: Buttery_Mess
With the map rewrite, can we expect floating islands and castles in the sky? If so, will they move over the map? That would suggest the possibility of a segue into mobile forts and ships.

If you were going to start making DF from scratch again, what would you do differently?

These address most everything of the first part -

There are the lessons of the map certainly, and that'll be ongoing I'm sure.  Having multiple cameras/loaded areas is another big one.  The centaur issue is also something that we're not supporting well now, and I'd much prefer to have a system where I can cut-and-paste critter sections easily while still respecting all the materials, though I can't say that fits in the question exactly since I'm not sure on the best way to do it; there are many competing concerns.

Quote from: Bimbus
1. What can we expect for medical options with the upcoming Adventure mode medical improvements? Will there be doctors like in fortress mode, and/or will it be up to the player character to diagnose and heal their injuries?

2. Will the Semi/Megabeasts become more unique with the myth/magic update? Will they be procedurally generated similarly to forgotten beasts, just with more limitations so that they can still be recognized as hydras, dragons, cyclops, etc?

3. Is there any future plans for a manual way to progress time in a world, without going into/out of a fortress/adventure mode save?

Death Dragon:

2. I'm not sure it'll be exactly the same system as forgotten beasts, and there might be some that aren't proceduralized at all (and it's important to keep that ability for editor reasons if nothing else), but we have had long-standing plans to have, yeah, as above, like a "procedural dragon generator" that lands in the dragon ballpark each time.

3. As far as non-wg stuff, I'm not opposed to changing that over from the two week version, or having the calendar advance available from legends.

Quote from: UristMcEngineer
How do you protect the DF code from getting lost?


Quote from: FantasticDorf
Will this villian arc centre on whichever 'villian' has the most interesting solution/improvement, or do you have a specific heirarchy/plan of which goals you want to follow up and improve upon from the proposed candidates?

Will you continue to improve the messengers you introduced in this version onwards for this Arc? Or are they going to be temporarily postponed until villians get a little bit more attention?
Quote from: Tinnucorch
Are we going to see some kind of expansion of diplomacy now that we have messengers? Or will that wait until things like status, law, etc. are adressed? In the latter case, what would be the reasons?

I think a lot of the initial plans will be villain-type-agnostic, and the particular plots that might only involve necromancers and vampires would be a bonus, some of which we are hoping to attain.  It's important to get everybody involved, or some worlds won't have a lot of action.

Messengers are just like everything else.  There's a lot more to do with them, and we can see ways they relate to the current work.  But maybe nothing will happen in the near-term.  There is a lot to do everywhere.

Quote from: Lumpy
1. Can we expect some improvements regarding hostilities in adventure mode to be part of the villain arc? Banditry, in particular. I've read various comments on this forum about how in a time before time, bandits were actually aggressive and attacked you when walking straight into their encampment. Currently, they tend to ignore you, unless they are on a specific mission to rob someone, in which case they might try to rob the player, but only after nonchalantly chatting about the weather and inquiring about why one is travelling. Any chance things will get a bit more dynamic in this regard before the long wait?

2. I noticed that if bandits actually try to rob you, they start a non-lethal conflict should you refuse to submit, which is a very nice touch! Is there any chance non-lethal victories over bandits or entities in general will be kept track of by the game and tied into the reputation system, eventually? I imagine something like being able to accuse someone of banditry, then beating them up to the point where they yield, and then being able to "summarize the conflict in which you subdued Stealy McBandit", resulting in a reputation gain without being considered a killer.

3. As you probably noticed by now, I am especially fond of the adventure mode part of the game. I am aware that this would probably fall into the economy arc and is not a priority, but is there any chance coins will become stackable before the long wait, and paying tavern keepers with currency will become an option? This is admittedly a minor issue, but I just have to ask, for I seemingly have a coin fetish going and tend to carry ridiculously large quantities of them with me.

Death Dragon:

In particular, the nonchalant chatting of the robbers is part of the 'interview' process, where the other bandits are getting into position around you, at which point they drop the topic and switch over to demands.  I suppose this should have better exposition, where they explain what they just did or something, along the lines of "ha ha you're surrounded" or whatever, with the demand.

We do have some dev plans about better id checks and alarms and so forth, when we improve 'hideouts' for the villains (which includes the bandit camps.)

It would be reasonable if it could properly credit the end of a non-lethal conflict, yeah.

Stackability is non-trivial and will very likely not be handled for a good long while.  I'm not sure why tavern keepers can't be paid, on the other hand; that seems more like a bug, though I'm likely forgetting something about the process.

Quote from: scourge728
Is the Golden Salve intended to be given some use during the magic stuff?

I'm really not sure about vanilla in general; there's this idea of having editors and building up a pack-in vanilla universe alongside DF as a kind of tutorial, or something, but the part of that where Zach and I are coming up with a fixed universe is also a very non-DF way of doing things (editors for modders are awesome, of course.)  It seems like ultimately I shouldn't be focusing on that sort of thing, but will probably still be doing something with it.

Quote from: iceball3
As you implement magical mechanics, how do you think you will do with mundane engineered equivalents? Will they come along later with the functional reworks to their overarching systems, done before, or as we go along?
For a couple of examples, based on what I've heard is going to come when mythgen has come to pass (That is to say: mythgen is something I've heard that is likely already planned to do what I'm listing, I'm just listing the mundane counterparts we don't have yet):
-Magic that immobilizes and moves the targets vs mundane restraints and dragging units, which would likely come with the justice rework.
-Magic that treats and cures ailments vs functional mundane apothecaries and knowledge-system implemented medicine.
-Magic that bends the mind vs functional coercion, interrogation and mechanical feedback on social situations from the character's social skills.

And so forth. I'm not suggesting these particular mechanics get implemented, just asking where they sit in relation to release priority their likely-magical-counterparts that'll come during the mythgen releases.
That aside though, thanks for the new update, Toady! It's been a world of fun keeping up with the dramatic new changes you're doing! That makes me think of one more question.
How does it feel now that the sphere of influence of the player's fortresses are now really starting to stick their fingers to the local world? I understand that the "bringing the world alive" updates were both more ambitious, and basically necessary before these new changes came to exist, but seeing those foundations come together in really cool player-usable mechanics must be pretty exciting, yeah?

For magic vs. mundane counterparts, it's really a case-by-case situation, since some of the mundane counterparts are complicated and some of them are already in the game.

Player influence on the world.  Oh, yeah, certainly.  It's nice to finally get to some of the player-facing sides of the mostly invisible work we've been doing, and the 'c' screen keeps calling us back for more.

Quote from: Random_Dragon
So, given it seems you can encounter non-questors taking the identity of criminal, and it seems they might not always actually have a criminal record, what even is the justification for them being labelled criminals?

I'm immediately thinking up the mental image of them calling themselves that a being basically some sort of fantasy-realm punk subculture thing.


Quote from: iceball3
Civilizations have an effective distance before they're not considered contacts for you in dwarf fortress mode. Does sending raiding parties extend their sights a bit when considering retaliation, or are you effectively immune to their influence at such distances?


Quote from: iceball3
Is formation-specific AI something that will be included in this pass with the party-scale adventure mode situation, or is that fiddling for another arc? That is to say, in the general sense of players and NPC commanders issuing orders to have their squads stand with them in combat in some particular manner.
Party based systems would be glorious to have formation-style combat with, but I can see reasons why it might not be presently considered.

I suspect I won't get to that, but this is another pressure point for it as we continue to not do combat changes more generally.

Quote from: thvaz
Will characters in a party created by the player have the same needs as a single character has currently, like food and water needs?

They don't at this very moment, but that's just because I haven't decide what to do yet and that's the default behavior.  I'd rather have them use food and water, probably, and use it automatically when you aren't controlling them, but I'm a bit worried that if they can't obtain food and water on their own, it'll be a little too annoying and lead to micromanagement until we get them, say, operating in the market independently when you wander through it.

Quote from: Kadzar
With the ability to make multiple starting characters in adventure mode, will we still get a game over when our designated party leader dies, or can we continue playing with others in the party?

Right now you can TAB into one of your other party members or follow the quit prompt (leaving your party in the same limbo your companions normally end up in when you die.)

Quote from: ZM5
Regarding the creation of adventurer parties, will the other created adventurers have the same restrictions in terms of available race?
What I mean is, if a civ only has dwarves available as adventurers, will we only be able to start dwarves from there, or will the "main" adventurer have the dwarf-only restriction, but other party members will be able to be humans, elves, etc. as mercs or friends of the main adventurer?

It's the same separate process for each character, then you choose which town they start in from the collection of starting towns available between all the characters you make.  It doesn't really try to explain why they are there -- presumably if you make a bunch of hearth people from different sites, the two weeks which passed on the calendar was them all deciding to get together some place.  We'll flesh out the nature of the party's start situation over time.

Quote from: Beag
1. In the monthly report you said you would be adding more to what villains do in the game such as vampire cults. In this villain fleshing out update will player adventurers be able to join vampire cults and do missions for them with the possible reward of getting to drink a vampire in the cult's blood?
2. Will player vampires be able to start their own vampire cults and recruit NPCs to serve them? Will they be able to promote their cultists to full vampires by offering them their blood in this villain fleshing out update?
3. Will bandit groups give player lieutenants quest types different than what a hearth person would get in this villain fleshing out update?
4. Finally will criminal groups finally do more than just hang out underground in this villain fleshing out update? Maybe steal some stuff at night?

1,2. That would be reasonable, but it remains to be seen which exact aspects of the special-case villains are highlighted.  I'm not going to commit to anything on this score until I can see what can be pulled off.
3. We're hoping so, yeah.
4. There's not much to steal, but the leaders of those groups are in the villain lists now, and they generally have several underlings available in the towns where they live.  Hopefully they can be differentiated from bandits somewhat.

Quote from: falcc
Will your adventurer be able to talk about how much they love their pets? How much can you interact with a pet? Can I show off my cool pet to someone I think will like it, and will vermin haters be like "ack, gross! get that outta my face?" Can I give my vermin pet stuff to chew on, put it in barrels, or put it down? Will we be able to put animals in wooden cages on our property now? If you made an animal whose younger forms were shoulder pet sized but as an adult is bigger than you, which of those sizes is it going to think about in terms of its mechanics? Can you tag a pet for both vermin and mounts?

Unrelated, what about pits and dark fortresses make them unsleepable?

I've modded my goblins to be more sociable but their new taverns still don't sound very inviting since you have to stumble through the trenches drunk to sleep. Although that is a very Dwarf Fortress experience.

On small/large animals, Rockphed:

He he he, they can't yet talk about their pets or do...  much of anything social with them.  However, if you drop a hateable pet, and it wanders over near somebody, that likely will trigger the vermin thought, which is a negative thought people can mention.  They can't be fed, but again, once they are on the ground, they will likely be able to eat items (using the dwarf mode vermin code.)  I haven't done anything with cages or chains, as they aren't common in adv mode.

The sleep/travel restriction is some older vanilla-linked hard coding on site type.  We'll root all of that out over time.

Quote from: Orangefriedegg
Will you add fireworks, cannons, hand cannons, rocket arrows or other gun powder based inventions at any point?

I'm not particularly opposed to it, though I think that stuff holds a special place when it comes to what people would want to be able to turn on and off.

Quote from: ArmokGoB
In the upcoming adventure mode update can you throw vermin pets as weapons like you can with the normal vermin you find with 'L'ook?


Quote from: DwarfToys
These ended up being questions with random braindumps attached.  Don't mind that, I enjoy rambling.

1.  After magic, etc, are there plans for technological advancement over time?

I'm not really thinking of the time period the typical fortress / adventure starts or ends in, but after many ages of the world pass.  Maybe the age of the dwarves comes, and with the forgotten beasts and mythical style creatures dead we end up with more complex machinery, digging machinery, composite materials, etc.  You can spend more time on research when you're not dealing with insane fire breathing winged snails, I've been told.
Humans have the shortest life spans and might advance medicine due to that, tactics in war, weapons like everyone else, energy generation because the dwarves are no longer around to teach their now-mythical free-energy machines nor would they have anyway...
The elves might dominate and refine their love of trees into a potentially dangerous genetic engineering type scenario...  grow trees harder than slade and nobody can cut them down easily, but the plant life itself starts becoming a threat to normally treeless biomes, water supply, etc in exchange for practically indestructible grown items.
Maybe one race doesn't end up dominating, but partners with another.
Clowns (if they're still around) might "civilize" and invent an intentionally obfuscated legal system and fast food. Or they might have sat around watching for long enough to realize that if the dwarves all need alcohol to get through the working day, they might eventually need far worse things to get through the day.
Maybe it isn't new technology at all...   ever wonder where everything from the dwarven atom smasher ends up?  Well, it's approaching critical mass in 3 other dimensions long forgotten about.  The inhabitants are very angry about this lump of neutron-degenerate matter about a year away from collapsing into a singularity and are doing something about it...  Welcome to the age of myth 2, electric boogaloo.
Those are just random examples.  Half the technology invented might be useless in a given world, or developed in response to a problem that stopped existing by the time it was complete.  Maybe it's still magic fueled, and magic is scientifically proven.

2.  A much simpler one...  Gunpowder brings a lot of other kinds of fun, but just reading about history, what about these, not necessarily with the poison?

They're not a massive technological leap from the complex mechanisms + crossbows the dwarves already have, and don't really do much except make citizens either more or less of a liability during a siege.  Hand them out and hope they help and don't start shooting other dwarves for fun, or just let the military use them as a shorter distance but faster-firing crossbow...

The 1400 cut-off keeps it all reasonably simple for me.  Not worrying about genetic engineering or neutrons, stuff within the timeframe is on the very large table.

Quote from: FantasticDorf
Toady, will this upcoming version have much more inclusion of pets for other NPC's to be using? ((like soldiers & groups dispatched from sites riding upon horses, or people's personal pets becoming involved in fights with their masters))

<Followup post> about histfigures already being mounted upon animals or surrounded by war animals like bandits in the world already with a clear relation of ownership more than a question about mounted raiding, which toady has replied to answers to in the past in respects for being mounted upon animals having certain advantages over difficult terrain etc.

We'll have more supporting variables in place but I haven't committed to more broad use of pets and mounts yet.  There are a few book-keeping complications in sites that aren't experienced by your party.  It might all get sorted out when I handle adventurer-with-pet retirement or villain pets, not sure.  If we do take the villain pet route, there'll be that.  Mounted raiders/etc. is an additional matter.

Quote from: Dame de la Licorne
In fort mode, I've noticed that the legendary blue of a peasant and legendary magenta of a noble aren't used as non-legendary "base" colors for any other civilian profession (though they are used for high level sword- and hammerdwarves).  Do you have plans for these colors for new or improved civilian classes in the future?


So yeah, these are old reserved colors that have become less and less useful for those purposes as those uses predate everybody important flashing.  It would make a lot of sense now to use the civilian (light) magenta and the (light) cyan for new purposes.

Quote from: Shonai_Dweller
You mention that only members of your starting party will be directly controllable in the upcoming adventurer additions (besides in turn based combat, presumably). What's stopping you from allowing direct control of histfigs who join your party later? Is it just the interactions you'd have to add ('Hi Dad!'), or is there something complex you need to do before we can take control of the destinies of 'real people'?

Oh, just noticed "equipment pages". That's gorlak sized helmets without the need to make them in a fortress first, right? Woot!
Quote from: Fatace
After creating the party and adventuring out, will we be able to switch between newly recruited members?

I could be missing something obvious, but no, there's nothing stopping us except the existing relationships and positions, as you suggest.  The position part is pretty big; taking over a civ-ruler would just be silly now, like they were possessed and became a wanderer.  I mean, not that that's a bad thing for game-game fun-time, but it cuts against what we are trying to do enough that it hasn't been a priority.  That will continue to change as we go.  Certainly doing something like taking over an existing bandit gang is well within reach now, and might be pretty fun.

In particular, control over your later-added companions is more of a roleplaying thing; they aren't meant to be as loyal and we wanted to leave some room there.  Once we quantify loyalty a bit (part of this release!), we might have them cross a threshold where you can induct them into party status, and then you'd be able to TAB over to them freely.  You might not want to do this if you are trying to roleplay a villain and don't care to have your loyal subordinates as part of a party, or otherwise want to maintain the integrity of your original group.

Quote from: Fatace
With the introduction of better adventure mode party mechanics, has the idea of the possibility to spar with a party member to help gain levels in combat skills come around, and will this be possible even if you recruit someone after making the party?

It's a reasonable idea.

Quote from: KittyTac
Would you consider releasing a version of your standalone myth generator prototype, like you showed off at GDC? I imagine that people would appreciate something to check out during the Big Wait.

I'd prefer not to do this.  I think it both has the bar too high in some places (effect lists, at least for release one, probably) and too low in others (most everything else.)  It's not reflective enough of what I want to do, and I don't want expectations to coalesce around it overmuch.
The Toad, a Natural Resource:  Preserve yours today!

Toady One

  • The Great
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #721 on: August 01, 2018, 05:44:05 pm »

Quote from: DudeeDew
1) Better lineage system and name generation. So that families will be more distinguishable, family members in the world trying to live in the same buildings, and, of course, all of them having same last name. Haven't seen this in planned updates, will it be implemented at some point?
2) Will it be possible to have some expanded family-level interaction? For example, greedy heirs giving you quests to assassinate the head of the family (as a subgroup of assassination quests mentioned in /dev), or possibility to gain influence with some people by helping their relatives (since losing it so that relatives seek revenge is already mentioned in /dev). Or even having a wife (or one-night stay) in adventure mode, birthing your adventurer's kid who is playable after growing up?

Manveru Taurënér:
Knight Otu:

Families will possibly begin to matter with the villain stuff.  It is an angle we are looking at, but I can't commit to anything for this arc until I get it done, as there'll be lots of complications.

Quote from: GenericUser
With the addition of parties, will we be able to start as a performance troupe from setup or will we have to do so after the adventure starts?

It would be really cool to have a sort of traveling band spreading dwarves music across the world.
Quote from: DG
When creating multiple characters for Adventure mode will they have initial relationships between themselves similar to a Fortress mode starting 7? If so, will it be random, fixed, or customizable*?
Quote from: Slozgo Luzma
Will we be able to define interpersonal relationships between adventurers? For instance can our party consist of sibling, parent and child, spouses, or distant cousins? By extension will adventurers have to belong to the same entity?

Both of these are in the possible-for-this-release notes (starting entity, starting relationship grid), but I don't know if the time will be there.  Definitely things we are looking forward to doing as we make party starts more and more interesting.

Quote from: squamous
1. Will more than one person be able to sit on a single mount if the mount is big enough?

2. Will riders of mounts be able to control the abilities of the mounts? For example, would a rider of a giant armadillo, for example, be able to have the creature retract into its shell at will, or would the creature only do that on its own?

3. Will we see mounted soldiers in adventure mode if we stumble across a travelling army?

4. Will there be any changes to mounted unit AI in battle? Will someone on horseback with a bow try to stay away from melee soldiers, if they don't already? Will flying units do the same?

1. That's not supported right now, though the wagon has three 'riders' (this includes the horses!), so it isn't way out of the realm of possibility.

2. I don't currently have commands aside from movement, but these are possibilities; it would be cool if the breadth of the pet's powers became accessible by command, either through training/skill or by default, whether they are being ridden or not.

3. It isn't a high priority for this time, but it'll be more possible once this is done, as it'll understand specifically what's going on in the army mount-wise, at least for historical figures.

4. I doubt it, unless a mounted party feels super broken, which is possible.

Quote from: Dr. Melon
With regards to agents/conspiracy/intrigue in the recent devblog, will players in Adventure mode be susceptible to being "turned" by plotters? E.g, the usual "troubles" dialogue could have falsified information if you ask an agent, to get you to unwittingly attack a target of the plot by describing them as a "bandit" or similar?

It's not likely to happen in this fashion, as false information isn't something we can do yet (outside of identities.)  That said, it might be possible to influence the greedy player, for instance, though money doesn't matter nearly enough yet.  An ideologically sympathetic player probably wouldn't consider themselves a villain, but that's how that works.  It remains to be seen which conversations we attempt, as that would be the additional effort needing to be spent here.

Quote from: FantasticDorf
Will ethics bound torture methods have any further development on the basis of helping uncover conspiratorial villian plots in the latest development log or are you putting them aside for later use?


I don't foresee particularly diving into fortress mode modding here, especially because it shouldn't generally provide useful information and we can't do the real-life thing of it providing various nonsense they think you want to hear (because we don't yet support false information outside of identities.)

Quote from: Shonai_Dweller
So, to expand on what you said in the devblog, if your mayor, your Captain of the Guard your bookkeeper and all your temple dancers are secretly plotting the downfall of civilization, what kind of Fun can we expect? Or is this 'hidden fun stuff' on a social level that we'll just have to discover for ourselves?

There may be some details in the logs as I do it, but this does seem like a rare opportunity to withhold some details, heh.

Quote from: Harpadarpa.
So when you mention a network, does that imply that each agent can have multiple agents of their own? Ie  Urist McMastermind might have three lieutenants, and each of those might have two underlings. If so, or even if the mastermind gets caught in old or unrelated charges what does this mean when the Mastermind is caught? What happens to the remaining agents? Do they continue with the plot on their own terms, or do they abandon the quest out of self preservation?

Yeah, that's right; as for what happens to decapitated plots, it really depends on what the plot and motive are, and whether it makes sense for the agent to either obtain the benefits as if they were the higher-up or whether their master is replaced (as might happen in an organization.)  The default would likely be abandonment, as the data structure would be hanging, but network repair is also part of the update, and that'll be taken as far as we can go with the time we have.

Quote from: GenericUser
Will we have the option join an existing villainous plot, say if we proved our loyaty to a villain?

This seems quite possible but not guaranteed.  We're going to start with companions-as-agents (that is, you are the top villain), but with a few conversation options and the existing villainous tasks you'd be able to become a low/mid-tier agent as well.

Quote from: Witty
As a followup to my previous question on underground cave rivers, will the terrain rewrite hypothetically allow for subterranean civilizations? The current iteration of subterranean animal people don't work too well as of the latest version, but they were pretty bare bones to begin with. Could this allow for them to be a little closer to normal civs if only in terms of being able to build sites underground?


So yeah, the closer you make them to regular civs, the more likely they are to happen with the map rewrite, and I'll be striving to remove the differentiation between above and below ground in terms of supporting robust sites and army pathing and so forth.

Quote from: Beag
1. What do you think will be the full extend of possible rewards a villainous player could get for working for villains as their agent in their schemes in the upcoming villain fleshing out update? Like how many possible rewards can you list off the top of your head, please tell me.
2. If you are an agent of someone else can you still continue the branching chain of command by enticing with money or positions some subordinate agents to work for you to continue your master's plans?
3. Could being an agent for someone be a possible way to gain a civ level position as stated as one of the pre myth and magic release candidates?
4. Can you give me some examples of what agent missions would be like?

We don't know that you can be a mid-tier villain, as stated above, so the notion of adventurer rewards is not necessarily in play at all.  But in all cases you'd be able to create your own networks, and that doesn't immediately depend on what is going on above you (or to the sides/etc.; the networks don't need to be simple directed trees.)

If we do get to player rewards, the potential to gain a position is here, as that'll be one of the possible inducements for others; as is often the problem, the position's responsibilities might not be accessible to you (e.g. bookkeeping.)  The problem with the abstract tribute rewards is that without the economic stockpiles, the items don't actually exist.  There is some potential for items to be brought to your adventurer site, but that is by no means guaranteed.

We've talked about assassinations, kidnappings, smuggling out artifacts, acquiring subordinates, acquiring animals, building gangs, and abuses of various authority once a position holder is compromised (whether that's diplomatic responsibilities or some sort of bookkeeping issue; unclear in some cases what we can do), as well as more specialized tasks like acquiring corpses for raising and non-corpses for vampire matters.  From closer up, especially as somebody actually doing these things, there'll need to be several new conversation options, especially as they relate to particular relationships and pressure points.  That said, until it's mentioned as done in the dev log, I wouldn't count on a given mission type.  There's going to be some practical limitations based on what I can do over the next stretch of time.

Quote from: pink_belt_dan_52
You mention that you're using agreements instead of an entity for villain networks; I wondered if there was any mechanism planned for switching between the two?

For example, if a villainous group keeps adding layers to its network, it could end up with enough influence that the player might naturally think of it more like a civ they were at war with.
Perhaps a bit too suggestion-y, but maybe it could also work the other way: the leaders of a dying civ plotting to get revenge?

We had considered that at the very least they might step up to the level of having a name like a bandit gang, yeah, but there's a lot of overhead there so we wanted to make sure we had a lightweight option for a lot of the petty crap going on throughout the world.  I'm not sure what we'll get to.

Quote from: Shonai_Dweller
So, there's a bug, or perhaps unintended 'feature' right now in which hist-fig citizens of your civ are out working as spies when they get migrated to your fortress (often dragged along by a family member). They retain their fake name and profession (dead give away as no other migrants have visitor types like peddler, criminal, etc) but otherwise act normally (but annoyingly retain their fake profession name even when in the military).

So, I'm just wondering what exactly is the "correct" behavior for these guys. Are they not meant to migrate in? Or should they revert to their original names? Or are they being cautious and are actually meant to retain their fake identities?

These poor dorfs are already highly suspicious and have no doubt succumbed to magma accidents by the hundreds so far. It's only going to get worse for them when villains start plotting and you have to chain someone up for interrogation.

If they are being dragged in from an assignment, they should stay out.  If they aren't turning their identities off after returning home, and then migrating in, the bug would be the identity remaining.

Quote from: Immortal-D
Have you been able to do any long-term testing on stress effects in 44.12?  I haven't seen a lot of bug reports on Mantis, but negative effects are still vastly overpowering positive ones, in addition to friendship-forming being exceedingly difficult.  The most specific bug I know of is a Dorf's favorite food must be that specific cut (pig heart vs. pig meat).  The 'lack of decent meals' thought occurs regardless of food quality, depending entirely on favorite ingredient.

On food -

Long-term stress testing is more practically player-based; and we can continue to see what people are experiencing.  I've seen a lot of reports that generally the situation is better, overall.  The friend issue is still there, and we have various ways forward on that which we'll get to before the magic wait.  I haven't seen a specific formulation of the current state of negative effects; there are categories which should help (since a lot of negative memories are now grouped and leave space for positive ones), but perhaps the negative categories are still winning out?

Quote from: GenericUser
1) If a spy were to say, have an ‘unfourtunate accident’, would there be any ramifications, i.e. someone being sent to find out what happened or friends trying to get revenge on the fort?

2) Will you be able to send spies to find news about the fate of your squads, if they don’t return?

3) Would a spy (or network) be able to influence an election, or the choosing of a monarch, if they hold enough sway?

4) Would spies be able to sabotage relations, or ‘convince’ two cives to fight each other?

5) Will the punishment for spies be subject to civ ethics on Treason if the crime were severe enough?

1) The current idea is that they need to keep an enemies list (which might just be rep, though we don't have this for forts outside of taverns and 'death trap' status and war +/- calcs), at the very least so they know if a fort or adventurer is 'pesky' or 'meddlesome' and needs to be dealt with.  I'm not sure if this'll involve the same sort of tracking you get with merchants, where their safety and integrity of belongings is sort of tracked against the baseline when they entered, or through some other means.

2) The rumor process there isn't very robust yet.  Once it can actually tell you properly, I'm not sure you'll need a spy.  Right now it doesn't know outside of historical events, which aren't the same as rumors.

3) We want position-based shenanigans, but since there are no actual time-taking systems in place right now (the election and succession are instantaneous), it's unclear what we'll actually get.  As with all things, having future stuff like the status/etc. release would be nice, but soooomething has to be put in first.  So it might be very abstract how it works.

4) This is a reasonable possibility.

5) For a dwarf that has been very bad?  It seems to fit the bill, though just as in real-life, the definition and conditions of treason are subject to debate.  It isn't clear in the game what the ethic means since we haven't had to deal with it yet.

Quote from: Shonai_Dweller
With mounted adventurers, are we close to seeing fortress dwarves mount up on whatever's handy to meet their mounted invaders in a glorious clash? Or is that still a way off?

We haven't given it any particular consideration for this time.  Fantasy dwarves never seemed like avid horse riders and I'm still not sure what we'll end up with there.  Zach's stories often involve donkeys.

Quote from: kontako
Are you considering using the 'mount control' mechanics in possessions by poltergeists / deities or even charm spells?
Perhaps a comparison between willpowers to determine whether a command is followed or not.

The system will be waiting when we get there, anyway.  I'm not sure what'll end up being most convenient.  It depends on the type of command.

Quote from: Fatace
If pets are possible.. will there be a update to let adventure mode players tame creatures?
Quote from: Death Dragon
"So if the mount is having an important issue of some kind, like being terrified, it won't necessarily follow your command, though they are pretty good about obeying."
Does how good the mount is at obeying depend on the rider's and/or the mount's skill, or is it more simple than that? Are there rider/mount skills or trust levels or anything?
Quote from: 5crownik007
Will riding a mount give any combat advantages? In the Mount & Blade games, riding your mount gives speed to your weapon swing and bonuses to your attack damage, as well as making yourself difficult to hit by infantry. Will there be a mount-riding skill where if your skill is too low, your mount may turn tail and run in combat?
Quote from: Buttery_Mess
Speaking of which, will you be adding adventure mode taming alongside the ability to ride mounts?

There aren't any skills like riding at this point, though I agree there should be.  We do have the level at which a pet is tamed, from the fort mode animal system, but since your pets all start fully tamed in adv mode and you can't tame new ones yet, I haven't integrated that stuff.

On speed -

It doesn't currently help you evade except in that you have a higher chance of being completely out of range of an attack when it gets to its attack frame if you are moving quickly.

Quote from: FantasticDorf
Q: Will mounts be required to be assigned war animals, pets or (in fortress mode) will they be able to be used interchangebly with any fortress member rather than a specific individual?

I haven't done anything with fortress mode mounts.

Quote from: thvaz
Will flying mounts be supported?

Will mounts in combat attack enemies indepedently of its rider?

Will bears be riddable by dwarves ?

Flying mounts shoooould work.  I haven't tried one yet, but they are available (to elves, generally), and the commands don't restrict to land-based movement, especially if you use the shift/control altitude controls.

Mounts will attack adjacent enemies, but they won't approach without a command.

There would need to be bears tamed by the civ for a dwarven adventurer to have access to them.  I haven't done anything with fort mode.

Quote from: HarpaDarpa.
Since you've mentioned that mounts will wander around without direct input from the player, will we get the ability to tie them to trees and buildings and such so that we don't lose them?

All of your pets follow you around like companions when you aren't riding them, so it hasn't been necessary.  They can wander a bit when you ride them without controlling them, but that isn't very common.

Quote from: Valtam
1. Are mounts going to be chosen from the pool of a specific civ during adventurer creation? Say, an elf from a human civ can only access horses while an elf from an actual elven civ will get access to the whole zoo. Same with dwarves and whatever they have tamed so far.

2. Horses are known for being rather shy and skittish, so is proper war training going to be taken into account when leading them into battle?

3. Do horses or pets in general count as companions for purposes of bogeyman appearance?
Quote from: Buttery_Mess
Will mounts act like buddies, protecting us from bogeymen?

1. Yeah, it uses the civilization in question.

2. Not yet, though all of these considerations are important and will be good guidance over on suggestions as we go.

3. Hmm, I think so, unless I particularly checked the pet flag.  I don't recall if that's the case.  Probably didn't do that.

Quote from: KingEdwarf3890
So with the new adventurer starting party system, I have to wonder how things that force hostility between party members would work between members of the starting party. For example, party member A is a werelion and party member B is a vampire. If A in human form walked in on B during a feeding, would they be hostile to one another? And if so, could you still switch control between them? Same goes if they were out adventuring together and the full moon rose causing A to lion out on B. Or, alternatively, what if the player(playing as one of the two) decided to attack the other? I'm just throwing this out there cause I really like the idea for the new system but want to make sure it won't bug out at times like this.

Ha, I guess it depends what you mean by bug-out here, since at some point it's up to you to roleplay conflicts you create yourself if you switch control.  Your created party members won't just take anything and willingly allow you to hack them to pieces, but you can also swap into their bodies.  I don't think this is a problem particularly.  It's odd, but so is controlling multiple people directly, and that doesn't mean it won't be fun to do.  If you get into a situation where everybody hates each other, you'll probably just have to fight it out until only one remains
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
, or have somebody yield if you aren't at a non-lethal state.  I'm sure there'll be real issues to fix, and over time ways to make long-term peace, but it'll also probably always be somewhat strange at times.

Quote from: Mel_Vixen
Would a mountlike system work for Guarddoggos and such too? I mean you put a thought into theyr head anyway and their training (Skill) could augment these thoughts. So a trained Warhorse could be less fearfull then a basic working horse - a war or guard dog more cautious towards starngers etc.

Also with working mounts would it be possible to get a 3 item chain to utilize the strength of those Animals in fort? A horse being guided by a dworf while pulling a lorry?

Yeah, there's no reason why party tactical commands wouldn't eventually work on trained animals.  I don't even have them for party members yet, but I'm hoping to get there and maybe everybody gets to come along for the ride.

I don't have any particular plans for changing how the dwarf mode leading works, but we don't even have pulled carts there.

Quote from: Nahere
Will all members of a starting party have to come from the same entity or will multicultural starting parties be possible?
If I recruit one of my former adventurers will I be able to switch control to them without retiring?

You can start your party from all over.  I haven't integrated old retired adventurers into new parties when they join, but that might happen as an option before the release.

Quote from: Slozgo Luzma
You mentioned that the player's velocity while riding a mount will be added to their attacks: will an equal bonus be applied by enemies who are, say, stabbing their pike at the horseman?

Currently, firing a bow or xbow prevents a player from doing anything for several rounds (usually resulting in them getting chopped to pieces). Will our new steeds continue to move while their riders shoot from horseback? Or will they also pause and get chopped to pieces?
Quote from: Shonai_Dweller
And indeed, if I gallop full speed up to an enemy and take a swipe at them, will my horse just stop suddenly, or will it carry on moving past the enemy?

Death Dragon:

So there's the multiple attack interface, which is very clunky but allows continuous commands in the case of melee attacks.  Both to get around that, and to allow a broader range of actions, we've been considering another form of command which urges your mount on at a speed in their current direction.  Hopefully that'll be enough to solve initial issues without needing larger rewrites of other features (not that archery doesn't need a larger rewrite.)

Quote from: Buttery_Mess
Will we be able to ride animated undead animals, even if they haven't been tamed?

Can mounts jump? IIRC, animal men can't, so not sure if mounts can.
Quote from: Demonic Gophers
Similarly, could a rider use a mount with climbing abilities to get through terrain they couldn't easily traverse on their own?  While riding a giant cave spider, could you get through webs safely?

Does size matter, or can any mount carry any rider?

I don't think undead mounts will work currently.  Soulless creatures cannot accept commands, even without the issue of non-tame creatures not being mountable.  It'll require a better understanding of magic to get that sort of thing working when it should.

Jumping, Inarius:

As with the armadillo retraction above, it's reasonable to extend the command set beyond simple movement, and it would be cool to have both jump and climb options.  I don't have that yet.  It has been a decade, so I don't recall how webs work vs. giant spiders...  it's possible that part will actually work.

Size doesn't currently matter, I think, though it's possible riders are added to weight (maybe not though, if carried dwarves don't slow people down, as that also uses the rider system.)

Quote from: KingEdwarf3890
1. Will the "command your allies" feature allow you to properly equip companions without exploiting the trade screen? (IE "Hey Urist, equip that steel short sword I gave you!")
2. Will the ability to command allies extend to zombies created with Necromancy?

1. I haven't done anything like that yet.
2. It isn't part of the spell, no, and souls are currently required.

Quote from: Unknown72
1. Will it be possible to designate certain body parts to be where magic originates on a person/creature via modding? So say, for instance, an earthbender dwarf with the magic originating from their hands and feet.

2. Also are the gods/deities/primordials/titans/ect going to be generated as physical beings too? Like, an actual being moving around physically in the world or on one of the plains and is capable of being killed and can switch between planes, ect.

3. Will Divine Metals actually have any divine properties and will they be able to be found in their related sphere Biome (if Biomes related on Spheres is actually happening)?

To what extent will we be able to Mod the Magic and Myth systems?

1: It's a fine enough way of doing things; it's unclear when that axis of detail will be going in though, and there's a lot that needs to be supported specifically bit by bit, so it's just an issue of time.  Given the size of the release and how much we're going to have to adapt to circumstances as we go, I would assume 'no' on any given unpromised feature just to be safe, but there will be many, many features that do make it in.  Once the dev logs start rolling in, we'll have more information.

2,3, KittyTac:
followup, Shonai_Dweller:

Quote from: GenericUser
1. If you try to hop onto a untamed mount, will they throw you off?
2. Will we be able to tame/train wild animals in the near future, for the purpose of pets or mounts?
3. Will we be able to do “Hang on and try to calm” moves on spooked mounts?
4. Will we be able to knock others off a mount, or otherwise steal one?
5. If we get thrown off a mount, will we just magically appear unharmed on the ground, or will we actually be thrown?

1+5. Just not an option currently.
2. Near future?  Probably not.
3. Nope.
4. I don't recall what happens currently with mounted people and ground charging; perhaps they are disallowed.  I haven't changed anything.  You'd have to find somebody mounted first anyway, which won't necessarily be easy.

Quote from: Eric Blank
With riding, do we get intentionally jumping on and holding onto other, larger creatures? Can i grab a dragon and hold on for dear life while trying to stab it?
Like, you can ride a creature as a mount, but can i pounce on wild horses and shiv them? Would they be able to shake me off or attack me?

Additionally, is it possible to attack your mount while making a targetted attack? If i accidentally shank my horse, will it immediately become hostile? Is there any way i can calm down an unintelligent mount?

No; that feels more like wrestling should be involved, but there's an area in between we haven't explored.

I think you can probably attack your own tame horse, since it just checks proximity for targeting, though I haven't tried it.  If do start a fight for some reason, I don't think there's anything you can do to mend relations.

Quote from: Urist McSadist
Do reactions like shooting fireballs, for example have any effect on off-site battles?


Regarding Putnam:

Way back when there was a simple 'fire breath' tag, it provided a strength bonus and even checked against fire immunity, but as interactions became more complicated, the calculation switched over to a perpetual to-do comment in the strength calc.  This'll probably have to be tackled for the magic release to make much sense.

Quote from: Hapchazzard
Are there plans to ever implement a sort of an "Interesting start date" feature? To clarify - if, during worldgen, the game detects that some kind of interesting, massive upheaval is going to happen in the world (or at least, in some specific part of the world) the player would get the choice to stop worldgen there and start in a region of the world defined as most important for said scenario. This would allow for players to start playing a few years before stuff like huge extraplanar invasions, a large change in the magic system of the world (with it's accompanying effects), huge wars, the unleashing of an ancient evil, etc. Hence, players would actually be able to play the stereotypical D&D band of heroes out to save the world, or just to merely watch history unfold from the front seat.


Yeah - when it comes to magical stuff, things where we can look at important dates or cycles or long-term rituals that are coming to fruition, we've said we'd like to give that a shot.  More mundane stuff is more difficult, though it could detect, say, the starts of wars or first contact situations, which'll matter when those are more interesting.

Quote from: Ispil
When it comes to dwarven friendships, why not use some modern research into the topic?

I'm open to changes; suggestions are a good place for specific ideas!

Quote from: Descan
Are there any near-term plans to add in 'friendly' missions? Right now, you can either explore abandoned ruins, or raid an occupied site. Are there any, again near-term, plans to, say, send a diplomat to another site to say "Yo!" or to send your own trading caravans out to nearby retreats, towns, and fortresses?

I know there are plans to flesh out diplomacy properly, so this kind of thing will probably wait until then. I was just wondering if there might be an interim period, especially with the player-created trading caravan thing.

Not particular near-term plans no.  As stated above with messengers, it's not entirely off the table, but the table is also quite full.  Sending off trading caravans will almost certainly wait, though there's an off-chance some sort of villain demand might yield that ability.  We don't have any number of missing elements required to make that work as a peaceful feature, though we could wing it somehow using the new abstract tribute percentages (which you'd be trading for, somehow.)
The Toad, a Natural Resource:  Preserve yours today!


  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #722 on: August 01, 2018, 09:11:21 pm »

Quote from: Shonai_Dweller
So, to expand on what you said in the devblog, if your mayor, your Captain of the Guard your bookkeeper and all your temple dancers are secretly plotting the downfall of civilization, what kind of Fun can we expect? Or is this 'hidden fun stuff' on a social level that we'll just have to discover for ourselves?

There may be some details in the logs as I do it, but this does seem like a rare opportunity to withhold some details, heh.

I can't help but to press a little more on the matter above:

1- Can we expect from agents/inflitrators, at any point of the developement, to act as if they had knowledge of the consequences of their actions? Or asked in another way: what tools will these characters have to identify appropriate ways of acting? Will we see things like some traitor opening our gates to an invading army, trying to pull whatever lever that should not be touched or realeasing dangereous creatures from cages? What about all at the same time (like, aiming to create a diversion)?

2- Leaving aside practical examples, what limits do you expect these tools actually will have for this next release?

Even if you decide to keep things for discovering by ourselves, thanks in advance for taking the time to read this.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2018, 11:24:11 am by Tinnucorch »


  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #723 on: August 02, 2018, 12:19:38 am »

Quote from: Ispil
When it comes to dwarven friendships, why not use some modern research into the topic?

I'm open to changes; suggestions are a good place for specific ideas!

Thank you for the reply; will do.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."- Voltaire

I transcribe things, too.


  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #724 on: August 02, 2018, 01:46:25 am »

Thanks for the answers Toady.

Death Dragon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #725 on: August 02, 2018, 06:37:04 am »

Hmm.  Well, I can try this, but I'm finding this takes more of my time than I can manage.  If the previous method hasn't been working, I'm not sure what to do.
Do what you prefer, Toady. If you think it takes too much time, it's not necessary to do cause people can just look through the thread on their own if they really care about it.


  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #726 on: August 02, 2018, 09:51:48 am »

Thank you for the answers, Toady.


  • Bay Watcher
  • Impending Catsplosion. [PREFSTRING:aloofness]
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #727 on: August 02, 2018, 10:08:08 am »

Don't trust this toaster that much, it could be a villain in disguise.
Did you know that cats that have mysteriously disappeared from home can come back after a few months without warning?


  • Bay Watcher
  • Psycho Bored Dragon
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #728 on: August 02, 2018, 11:05:41 am »

Quote from: Random_Dragon
So, given it seems you can encounter non-questors taking the identity of criminal, and it seems they might not always actually have a criminal record, what even is the justification for them being labelled criminals?

I'm immediately thinking up the mental image of them calling themselves that a being basically some sort of fantasy-realm punk subculture thing.


That...doesn't really do anything to answer the question. My point is that I have encountered NPCs who don't APPEAR to be artifact hunters, but have nonetheless assumed an identity as a self-labelled criminal, nor do they end up with an association with local criminal gangs.

The two responses you linked to basically amounted to "nah they're definitely questing, either that or herp derp we don't know what the fuck you're on about'" so citing them kinda does nothing useful.

EDIT: To clarify, I was referring specifically to adventure mode by the way. Though admittedly it is hard as hell in adventure to get an artifact hunter to reveal their objective, so it may be that all "criminals" in adventure mode and the ability to oust them is just lacking.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2018, 11:10:34 am by Random_Dragon »
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.


  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #729 on: August 02, 2018, 01:19:40 pm »

With future world generation changes making it more fantastic - less Earthlike - will things such as randomized biomes be possible? e.g. could you have a more erratic world that has fiery swamps -associated with Fire, Muck, and Peace- full of unicorns and satyrs, or a forest -associated with Healing, Darkness, and Defomority- that periodically has healing rain in addition to ogres and procgenned monsters?

Manveru Taurënér

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #730 on: August 02, 2018, 01:39:52 pm »

With future world generation changes making it more fantastic - less Earthlike - will things such as randomized biomes be possible? e.g. could you have a more erratic world that has fiery swamps -associated with Fire, Muck, and Peace- full of unicorns and satyrs, or a forest -associated with Healing, Darkness, and Defomority- that periodically has healing rain in addition to ogres and procgenned monsters?

That is pretty much the plan yes, unless you mean something more specific about it that I'm missing. Some bits from the dev notes and dftalk on the subject:

Core94, RANDOMIZED REGIONS AND THEIR FLORA/FAUNA, (Future): The current good/evil regions should be scrapped and replaced by a system that aligns a region to varying degrees with a set of spheres. In this way you could end up with a desert where the stones sing or a forest where the trees bleed, with all sorts of randomly generated creatures and plants that are appropriate to the sphere settings. It's important that randomly generated objects be introduced to the player carefully during play rather than just being thrown one after another to allow for immersion, though there's also something to be said for cold dumping the player in a world with completely random settings, provided they can access enough information by looking/listening and having conversations, etc. Requires Core92.

Rainseeker:   [3]Let's talk about spheres for a second. Are the zombies, skeletons, undead and such; are they going to appear only in the undead region sphere now? Or will they come in other areas too.
Toady:   It depends on one of those things we were talking about, like do undead have souls, and what is the undead? If it's somebody combing partially back to life then it could be any sphere that's related to death or rebirth even; it's kind of weird to have the sphere of rebirth have undead things but it's possible.
Rainseeker:   They're good zombies, maybe.
Toady:   Yeah, they're good zombies, with little fairy hats and stuff ... whatever a fairy hat is. But then there's the notion of just animating a corpse, and that's the purview of death or if brooms and stuff are also moving around then it's more of a regular magical thing. But there's also the notion of having some kind of spirits from the underworld populate the body, then that could be any kind of evil.
Ampersand:   There's also another concept of it being a disease that is passed between individuals.
Toady:   Yeah, there's the viral zombie model ... [and] there's also the radiation zombie model I guess. So the viral thing, I don't know ... are they dead? Or are they ...
Capntastic:   Their brain's just messed up by like ...
Toady:   Yeah, viruses. I guess what the 28 Days Later model is it's just sort of a viral rage thing, but they aren't actually dead; is that correct? And then they starve to death. So any of those is fair game as they come up. Now, the undead that'll come in at first; I still have evil regions in this release so things will probably be the same as they were before, and then as I move over to sphere-based regions then at first it's going to be just kind of a death thing I guess, and to make them fairly common those will just be common areas. The whole idea of undead in general is going to be generalised to the notion of a curse, and that could just be some random sphere thing: there could just be a bunch of fire dear, and fire elk, and fire chipmunks and the fire man; that's kind of the cheesy thing that you'd expect out of the game after a while. Of course we can get more sophisticated but you don't start there.

Threetoe:   Okay, so the second question comes from King Mir: 'You've stated previously how the good and evil regions are ultimately going to be replaced by sphere-aligned regions. Recently you added a lot to the evil regions; how have these changes affected your future plans? Are you going to put as much work into every sphere? Will some spheres be much more distinct than others, or will you just stick with good and evil?'
Toady:   We did add a lot of undead and blood rain and mists and things floating around in the evil regions because we were just on our continuing night creatures drive, to get through those. It hasn't really affected the long-term plans. We still plan to diversify what the regions look like. The spheres ... talking about them specifically, like sphere-regions, is ... when you say, 'Will some be more distinct than others?' there are spheres like 'trade', or something like that, where because that's such a civilized concept ... there are probably going to be some spheres that simply aren't appropriate for regions, and a sphere is really just an idea, or a concept, so if you want to make one region more musical, or fiery, or evil, or torture-based, or darker, these different concepts ... that's really what we're getting at, that we wanted to have a strong sense of flavoring to the regions that sets the atmosphere but doesn't just go along this linear scale of good or evil, that allows things to be more diverse. So in a sense just adding stuff to the regions moves us along the way there. We haven't really started that project yet, but I it's still something that I think we're planning to do.


  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #731 on: August 02, 2018, 01:55:30 pm »

Thanks.. That is what I meant, yeah.


  • Bay Watcher
  • Undead Enthusiast, at your service.
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #732 on: August 02, 2018, 02:00:16 pm »

So on the case of these deities/titans/ect being physical, would it be possible for one to migrate/petition to join a fort or integrate itself into a civ in some form phsyically (like becoming king/queen of the dwarves) or even start up their own civ with themselves at the head of it?

You guys ought to fix Unknown72's turn to some point later in the order. Maybe after Sanctume. Normally that's what happens when someone fesses up to having real life going up like a storm of explosive diarrhoea blasted into a fan.

@me on Discord: Multi#0897


  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #733 on: August 02, 2018, 02:05:38 pm »

So on the case of these deities/titans/ect being physical, would it be possible for one to migrate/petition to join a fort or integrate itself into a civ in some form phsyically (like becoming king/queen of the dwarves) or even start up their own civ with themselves at the head of it?
That last part about supernatural beings as civ leaders is already in play with goblin civs. So I guess it should be only a matter of expanding that feature.


  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #734 on: August 02, 2018, 02:45:57 pm »

So on the case of these deities/titans/ect being physical, would it be possible for one to migrate/petition to join a fort or integrate itself into a civ in some form phsyically (like becoming king/queen of the dwarves) or even start up their own civ with themselves at the head of it?
That last part about supernatural beings as civ leaders is already in play with goblin civs. So I guess it should be only a matter of expanding that feature.

For a while there were supernatural leaders of human civs.  I don't know if they ever managed to become leaders of dwarf or elf civs, but we have seen Elf dwarven queens, so it might be doable.
Only vaguely. Made of the same substance and put to the same use, but a bit like comparing a castle and a doublewide trailer.
Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 187