Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 259 260 [261] 262 263 ... 284

Author Topic: Future of the Fortress  (Read 1583421 times)

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3900 on: March 09, 2021, 06:34:52 am »

Would be great to see, but I think that's a much bigger rewrite. I mean, a bedroom is a bedroom regardless of how you draw it. A 10x10 room which is now a designated "carpenter's zone" is a whole paradigm shift. Multiple workers, assistants, tools, what do you do with the space if you can designate a 5 z-level ultra-sized butchers workshop?

Of course, but it'd also really tidy up the whole building menu and unify two otherwise kind of clashing ideas, so I thought I'd ask if it was in the cards for now or later, since the motivation for the change was motivated by new players ability to grabble with it.
It's in the cards for later. Has been mentioned a few times previously.
Logged

FantasticDorf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3901 on: March 09, 2021, 01:31:18 pm »

With barracks and archery ranges being within the room zone changes (barracks not explicitly said), will the function of armor and weapon stands as a place for storage be planned to be somewhat salvaged or rebuilt from the ground up?

Fingers crossed for stashing away stuff in bedrooms and armories, with less juggling of item ownership of having it loose in a pile or stack of bins.
Logged

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3902 on: March 09, 2021, 03:05:11 pm »

The tile set thread recently showed weapon rack and armor stand tiles, so it's rather unlikely they'll be removed. It certainly makes sense to fix these objects so they work as most everyone would expect, so it's probably more a matter of "when" than "if".

Chests and bags (I assume: I've never used them as constructed items) work for storing private items currently (and work horribly when shared between overlapping bedrooms and dorms [again assumed as I haven't even tried them there]), so storage of stuff there is not really a problem. Storage of squad equipment in barracks would be neat, especially if you don't have to disconnect the squads from the barracks when the militia is off duty to get them to engage in R&R (or civilian tasks) rather than individual training.
Logged

Immortal-D

  • Bay Watcher
  • [Not_A_Tree]
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3903 on: March 09, 2021, 05:13:32 pm »

Regarding 'Bedroom Zones' in the March 8 update; Could this mechanic theoretically be applied to critters?  Specifically, a 'Nest Box Zone' for the purpose of allowing underwater nest boxes to work, so we can finally breed the mythical Sea Serpent.

FantasticDorf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3904 on: March 09, 2021, 06:36:54 pm »

The tile set thread recently showed weapon rack and armor stand tiles, so it's rather unlikely they'll be removed. It certainly makes sense to fix these objects so they work as most everyone would expect, so it's probably more a matter of "when" than "if".

Chests and bags (I assume: I've never used them as constructed items) work for storing private items currently (and work horribly when shared between overlapping bedrooms and dorms [again assumed as I haven't even tried them there]), so storage of stuff there is not really a problem. Storage of squad equipment in barracks would be neat, especially if you don't have to disconnect the squads from the barracks when the militia is off duty to get them to engage in R&R (or civilian tasks) rather than individual training.

(Yeah bags work just fine, normally if i have a valid cloth & dye industry i replace most of my boxes with high value bags en-mass outright)

Im calling back to a time before they got bugged up and stopped working, but id still remain optimistic that the expansive use of personal rooms could help make things perhaps slightly better or just how they used to be purportedly working fine when the game was 2d and freshly becoming 3d. Little quirky things like ration & arrow storing in boxes for future use.

Much in a similar vein to my previous question: "Where would a dwarf who's made a particular attachment to a object or a preference (oft a slayer artifact with its own rules) want to store their objects out of duty?" i've had buggy arrow hoarders before, but with fluidform there could be a more expansive choice of objects for them to interact with.

I know for certain that with a bit of clever engineering and room design, i could least make personal bathroom basins (a grille over water) per dwarf-home with the new zoning tools easier for more complex room design shapes, not to mention also save a significant amount of space with in-room corner offices.



Regarding 'Bedroom Zones' in the March 8 update; Could this mechanic theoretically be applied to critters?  Specifically, a 'Nest Box Zone' for the purpose of allowing underwater nest boxes to work, so we can finally breed the mythical Sea Serpent.

Nest boxes were never zones to start with so i dont initially think such a thing would be likely addressed and your question kind of rings out as a well meaning suggestion for it, zoos are though somewhat related to animals if you don't compound it strictly with a "statue garden" as "decorative" which umberellas museums and slab memorial halls currently for being variations of the same zone.

Any kind of desperately required change can probably happen through free-form pastures and animal training zones (if the animal laying in question is easily distracted being called for training) but clocking in better egglayers / expansive and attentive dwarf animal-caretakers would still be a nice touch. About aquatics it'd be nicer if it could all get swept up and fixed on the map re-write if water is made to be less pathing obtusive in which serpents would probably have 0 problem pathing to and using the nestbox, if you're going to bother to change some of the properties of water, you ought to properly address all large water habitats right?
  • Thinking of it, would dwarves just come to a empty zone and observe any animals around if there were no cages/restraints to enforce looking at animals or would they be bored and shuffle off to look at a statue or something, it makes some interesting ideas for petting zoos or observation areas around pits and ponds if that's the case.
Speaking of zoos, jails also beg thinking about how free-drawn jails can lock prisoners in indivdual rooms for instance with a lot less space wastage or even max size expiration to wrap the jail around all the same-plane dimensions.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2021, 06:59:47 pm by FantasticDorf »
Logged

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3905 on: March 10, 2021, 04:35:19 am »

Regarding 'Bedroom Zones' in the March 8 update; Could this mechanic theoretically be applied to critters?  Specifically, a 'Nest Box Zone' for the purpose of allowing underwater nest boxes to work, so we can finally breed the mythical Sea Serpent.
You may, in fact, argue that the relationship between nest boxes and animal zones already is at the place where DF is heading, i.e. zones where you place appropriate furniture for use within it. The working of submerged nest boxes is a completely different issue that has nothing to do with zones as such.
Logged

Silverwing235

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3906 on: March 11, 2021, 09:14:27 am »

Regarding kobolds and certain of their currently bizarre impulses - bizarre for a "context-based sublanguage",that is, to give a summary:

According to legends mode, kobolds may construct a market and a dungeon in their cave. As there is no evidence of any structures resembling such in kobold caves, they are probably either an error or serve an unknown purpose during world generation.

...which do you think it is? Thanks, anyway.


edit: formatting for extra clarity
« Last Edit: March 11, 2021, 01:11:31 pm by Silverwing235 »
Logged

Urlance Woolsbane

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3907 on: March 11, 2021, 02:19:20 pm »

Regarding kobolds and certain of their currently bizarre impulses - bizarre for a "context-based sublanguage",that is, to give a summary:

According to legends mode, kobolds may construct a market and a dungeon in their cave. As there is no evidence of any structures resembling such in kobold caves, they are probably either an error or serve an unknown purpose during world generation.

...which do you think it is? Thanks, anyway.


edit: formatting for extra clarity
I think it's an unfinished feature, rather than an error; the structures exist abstractly, but the game has no routines for generating them in kobold caves. In a similar vein, I have never been able to locate the taverns that supposedly reside in dark fortresses. A kobolds' library, now, would be incongruent, but think they might reasonably have markets or dungeons.
Logged
"Hey papa, your dandruff is melting my skin. Is that normal?"
"SKREEEONK!!!"
"Yes, daddy."

xaritscin

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3908 on: March 13, 2021, 12:10:06 pm »

Do you think we could expand further on the government and site control mechanics? I know DF is more of a world simulation than a strategy game and that we already have stuff like holdings, tribute and occupying sites mechanics, but after playing Crusader Kings for a while it seems there's a lot of mechanics that could be implemented to further flesh out both Adventure and Fortress gameplay:

-adding government types for civilizations instead of static feudal templates based on race. so we could have stuff like Dwarven Merchant Republics, Elven Theocracies, or Tribal Human civilizations.

-those government archetypes would have base mechanics but many of its rules could be procedurally generated, so for example, Civilization A could be your current fort's home civilization and they are a Theocracy ruled by a female and a set of arch bishops which are taken as consorts to the holy ruler, this is due to their god head being a deity with spheres of Fertility, Womanhood or stuff like that. while Civilization B is a Human Merchant Republic ruled by a group of barons, each one of different races because their culture has spheres regarding diversity and diplomacy or some stuff like that.

-Fortress mode not being limited to just Dwarven civilizations but instead being able to select from the current, living civilizations instead. (different race fortresses can be done with modding but i mean changing the fortress mode selection to make players able to create settlements different than a Fortress by basing the system on civilizations instead of race).

-Tribal races can form villages in the map, they are very basic sites with huts and other important buildings like worship circles or wells.

-Tribal civilizations can form in the world if a tribe or group of them occupies a territory of certain size

-Nomadic civilizations could exist with single static sites as trading/diplomatic/pilgrimae centers while the rest of the race moves around their territories. (could work like constantly marching armies or groups of traders)

-Tribal and Nomadic civilizations may raid or occupy other civilizations

-Faith, Wealth, Prestige, Holding Size, Culture, Government Type and Knowledge are now used to calculate diplomatic relations and the chance of certain events happening on fortress mode. so for example Fortress A has a huge library with a substantial amount of settlers writing and copying books from all over the world, this fortress doesnt do much outside of that so its wealth, faith and prestige may be below average but certain factions like Necromancers may be interested on raiding the site for knowledge, meanwhile Fortress B is built from a Merchant Republic and as such its citizens are very keen on making a profit so its a highly sought target from raiding based cultures both feudal, tribal or nomadic.

-Megabeast attacks could be out of this equation and instead be random happenings due to close proximity to their lairs (no more Titans crossing continent and a half to destroy your fort....)

-Evil civilization rulers may raid other civilizations based on their spheres. like raiding nearby Merchant Republics for wealth or nearby settlements from other civilizations for slaves

-Good biome civilizations may exist too, with the same kind of interactions as Evil ones based on their leader's cultural spheres. (perhaps a SPOILER related entity controls this civilization or they are usually led by a religious figure instead)

-Adventurers can form civilizations if they control a sizeable amount of sites. (would probably be like declaring the title and then retiring your adventurer, with that civilization appearing on the list when making a new fortress, or playing the main site directly)

-different types of Casus Belli may exist for limiting civilization attacks on each other. theocracies may declare holy wars to reclaim a site, nobles or rules may fabricate claims on nearby settlements. tribal/nomadic/evil civilizations may declare invasions and so on

-Economy focused civilizations may form trade routes on their territory and with other civilizations creating a path of wealth along the map. their capital settlements being the main nodes along the routes.

-Dead civilizations may be forgotten overtime, only their ruins and artifacts stating in the game but characters in the world wouldnt be able to trace their origin (they would basically be erased from the civilization records and legends after a while, their sites, historical figures and artifacts being marked as hailing from a "mysterious civilization" or something like that)

-sailing update could add merchant fleets, which move around wealth between trading ports

-Civilizations may create colonies on distant unexplored territories via sailing (once implemented).

-Colonies may have different ruling systems based on their parent civilization, unrest or lack of development may force them to rebel an declare independent civilizations.

there's a lot more but i think the list is getting too long. just wanted to get the most essential stuff in.
Logged

Silverwing235

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3909 on: March 13, 2021, 12:33:14 pm »

Do you think we could expand further on the government and site control mechanics? I know DF is more of a world simulation than a strategy game and that we already have stuff like holdings, tribute and occupying sites mechanics, but after playing Crusader Kings for a while it seems there's a lot of mechanics that could be implemented to further flesh out both Adventure and Fortress gameplay:

-adding government types for civilizations instead of static feudal templates based on race. so we could have stuff like Dwarven Merchant Republics, Elven Theocracies, or Tribal Human civilizations.

-those government archetypes would have base mechanics but many of its rules could be procedurally generated, so for example, Civilization A could be your current fort's home civilization and they are a Theocracy ruled by a female and a set of arch bishops which are taken as consorts to the holy ruler, this is due to their god head being a deity with spheres of Fertility, Womanhood or stuff like that. while Civilization B is a Human Merchant Republic ruled by a group of barons, each one of different races because their culture has spheres regarding diversity and diplomacy or some stuff like that.

-Fortress mode not being limited to just Dwarven civilizations but instead being able to select from the current, living civilizations instead. (different race fortresses can be done with modding but i mean changing the fortress mode selection to make players able to create settlements different than a Fortress by basing the system on civilizations instead of race).

-Tribal races can form villages in the map, they are very basic sites with huts and other important buildings like worship circles or wells.

-Tribal civilizations can form in the world if a tribe or group of them occupies a territory of certain size

-Nomadic civilizations could exist with single static sites as trading/diplomatic/pilgrimae centers while the rest of the race moves around their territories. (could work like constantly marching armies or groups of traders)

-Tribal and Nomadic civilizations may raid or occupy other civilizations

-Faith, Wealth, Prestige, Holding Size, Culture, Government Type and Knowledge are now used to calculate diplomatic relations and the chance of certain events happening on fortress mode. so for example Fortress A has a huge library with a substantial amount of settlers writing and copying books from all over the world, this fortress doesnt do much outside of that so its wealth, faith and prestige may be below average but certain factions like Necromancers may be interested on raiding the site for knowledge, meanwhile Fortress B is built from a Merchant Republic and as such its citizens are very keen on making a profit so its a highly sought target from raiding based cultures both feudal, tribal or nomadic.

-Megabeast attacks could be out of this equation and instead be random happenings due to close proximity to their lairs (no more Titans crossing continent and a half to destroy your fort....)

-Evil civilization rulers may raid other civilizations based on their spheres. like raiding nearby Merchant Republics for wealth or nearby settlements from other civilizations for slaves

-Good biome civilizations may exist too, with the same kind of interactions as Evil ones based on their leader's cultural spheres. (perhaps a SPOILER related entity controls this civilization or they are usually led by a religious figure instead)

-Adventurers can form civilizations if they control a sizeable amount of sites. (would probably be like declaring the title and then retiring your adventurer, with that civilization appearing on the list when making a new fortress, or playing the main site directly)

-different types of Casus Belli may exist for limiting civilization attacks on each other. theocracies may declare holy wars to reclaim a site, nobles or rules may fabricate claims on nearby settlements. tribal/nomadic/evil civilizations may declare invasions and so on

-Economy focused civilizations may form trade routes on their territory and with other civilizations creating a path of wealth along the map. their capital settlements being the main nodes along the routes.

-Dead civilizations may be forgotten overtime, only their ruins and artifacts stating in the game but characters in the world wouldnt be able to trace their origin (they would basically be erased from the civilization records and legends after a while, their sites, historical figures and artifacts being marked as hailing from a "mysterious civilization" or something like that)

-sailing update could add merchant fleets, which move around wealth between trading ports

-Civilizations may create colonies on distant unexplored territories via sailing (once implemented).

-Colonies may have different ruling systems based on their parent civilization, unrest or lack of development may force them to rebel an declare independent civilizations.

there's a lot more but i think the list is getting too long. just wanted to get the most essential stuff in.


Oh dear, pardon me, but this sounds like a bunch of... somethings that should be going here instead, i.e. suggestions: (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?board=5.0)
Logged

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3910 on: March 13, 2021, 01:58:01 pm »

:
-Fortress mode not being limited to just Dwarven civilizations but instead being able to select from the current, living civilizations instead. (different race fortresses can be done with modding but i mean changing the fortress mode selection to make players able to create settlements different than a Fortress by basing the system on civilizations instead of race).

-Tribal races can form villages in the map, they are very basic sites with huts and other important buildings like worship circles or wells.

-Tribal civilizations can form in the world if a tribe or group of them occupies a territory of certain size

-Nomadic civilizations could exist with single static sites as trading/diplomatic/pilgrimae centers while the rest of the race moves around their territories. (could work like constantly marching armies or groups of traders)
:
-Evil civilization rulers may raid other civilizations based on their spheres. like raiding nearby Merchant Republics for wealth or nearby settlements from other civilizations for slaves

-Good biome civilizations may exist too, with the same kind of interactions as Evil ones based on their leader's cultural spheres. (perhaps a SPOILER related entity controls this civilization or they are usually led by a religious figure instead)
:
-Civilizations may create colonies on distant unexplored territories via sailing (once implemented).
:
[/color]
As Silverwing235 said, these aren't really questions but rather suggestions.

- Fortress mode races: Myth & Magic will eventually allow for procedurally generated races (with a slider setting allowing for more or less the current situation). Part of that work will probably include the work needed to play any of the generated races. The problem currently is that you sort of can play other races by adding the proper token to the entity defaults raw file, but they essentially play like dwarves, typically with additional restrictions, but without the special features the race should have (such as enslaved trees forced to grow as their masters orders them to). There's a fair bit of work to make races actually playable with their own styles.
  The fantasy slider will include a fully mundane one, which means there would only be humans in the world, and for that to work in Fortress Mode, humans have to be playable, so there's a definite starting requirement for that as a second race (although I'd expect Toady to go directly to make non dwarves playable, rather than just add humans).

- Tribal races are intended, but just hasn't materialized yet. The underground races are a sort of failed first attempt. Nomadic, static, and expanding are sort of expansions on that base.

- When civs get tied to spheres they should gradually get implemented to align more and more along the sphere lines, but I'd expect many worlds, probably most, to have civs that are only weakly tied to spheres (a fully non magic world would obviously not have any inherent sphere influence, but it's of course possible for civs to adhere more or less nominally to ideals, such as might, martial prowess, kindness etc.).

- Spheres will replace good/evil, although many spheres may be considered predominantly good or evil. This also means "good" and "evil" civs will become more complicated (although there will probably almost always be bad guys, as you usually want someone to serve as opponents).

- Once (air) ships are implemented using them to expand civs to other land masses should be a natural usage of the ability. There may be complications in implementing it, though, as you'd logically need a suitable location to sail from (i.e. a coastal or major river site). There may also be technical limitations, such as the inability to navigate far from land (it took humanity a lot of time to become able to not hug the coastline [maybe an opportunity to actually make use of some scientific progress in the game]), and you may also add sea monsters, divine mandates, and non cooperative spheres as obstacles that aren't present in the real world.
Logged

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3911 on: March 13, 2021, 08:10:03 pm »

I'm impressed by how customisable the graphics are going to be. Are you thinking of trying something similar for the music? While vanilla may only have seasonal and maybe "siege" music, for modders being able to assign a unique soundtrack for each invading force/megabeast attack would be great.

Also, are you planning sound effects for Steam release too?
Logged

vlademir1

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3912 on: March 14, 2021, 11:01:25 pm »

With the zone style rooms, will we now be able to assign multiple individuals to a single room (as some other zone designations allow) or will it remain as it currently is with either just a single owner or else no particular owner?
Logged

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3913 on: March 15, 2021, 03:35:31 am »

With the zone style rooms, will we now be able to assign multiple individuals to a single room (as some other zone designations allow) or will it remain as it currently is with either just a single owner or else no particular owner?
If you'd be able to explicitly assign multiple dorfs to the same room (the current system automatically assigns the spouse to the same room), there would need to be a warning about usage of storage furniture until such a time such furniture can either be shared or assigned to individuals (the latter being a worse alternative).
Logged

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3914 on: March 15, 2021, 04:17:54 am »

With the zone style rooms, will we now be able to assign multiple individuals to a single room (as some other zone designations allow) or will it remain as it currently is with either just a single owner or else no particular owner?
If you'd be able to explicitly assign multiple dorfs to the same room (the current system automatically assigns the spouse to the same room), there would need to be a warning about usage of storage furniture until such a time such furniture can either be shared or assigned to individuals (the latter being a worse alternative).
What actual in-game cases are people wanting to assign multiple people to a bedroom, besides enforced honeymoon suites (shouldn't be a vanilla thing in my opinion) of course, where a dormitory wouldn't suffice?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 259 260 [261] 262 263 ... 284