Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 307 308 [309] 310 311 ... 389

Author Topic: Future of the Fortress  (Read 2850377 times)

FantasticDorf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #4620 on: June 20, 2022, 02:39:06 am »

None of the megabeasts are intelligent, so there is no way to negotiate with them.

Semi-megabeasts likes cyclops's are intelligent, but we don't know if it branches to them through the [POWER] token getting its proper long neglected recognition.
Logged

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #4621 on: June 20, 2022, 07:57:31 am »

Yes, (some?) semi megabeasts are intelligent (and I think some of them are even fully intelligent), but they're not megabeasts.
Logged

Rumrusher

  • Bay Watcher
  • current project : searching...
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #4622 on: June 21, 2022, 03:34:43 pm »

Yes, (some?) semi megabeasts are intelligent (and I think some of them are even fully intelligent), but they're not megabeasts.
I think all 4(unless there's another semi-megabeast I'm forgetting) semi-megabeasts are fully intelligent and with persuasion in adv mode you could get them to join a site, even a player's fort (with a bunch of luck depending on how you tackle this task).

so far I think Dragons, Rocs, and maybe the Hydra are exotic pet tamable. Minotaur, Ettins, Cyclops, and Giants can be convinced to join your fort and become part of the community of dwarves+ the other folks you convince to join along the way.
Logged
I thought I would I had never hear my daughter's escapades from some boy...
DAMN YOU RUMRUSHER!!!!!!!!
"body swapping and YOU!"
Adventure in baby making!Adv Homes

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #4623 on: June 22, 2022, 02:45:11 am »

Removed, as this is an unsuitable thread for it.
Logged

SammyLiimex

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #4624 on: June 22, 2022, 10:46:16 am »

Probably has been addressed before, but:

Does this new version address the super annoying issue of all military dwarves losing their assigned rooms every time you send them on a mission?
Logged

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #4625 on: June 23, 2022, 03:51:54 am »

The dump zone is far to valuable to be wasted on dumping garbage, when it's needed for e.g. the stripping of prisoners.


Suggestions for the improvement of the Dump functionality:
- Allow dump zones to use stockpile filters so they only receive certain types of items. That would allow you to have more than one zone active at a time and still get items dumped in the intended location.
- Display of the number of items marked for dumping (you can't use the task list, as dumping tasks are added and removed dynamically without regard for how many items actually remain). It would be preferred if there was a grand total as well as the number remaining for each zone (to know when the prisoner stripping is done, for instance).

Suggestion for an improvement of the Corpse stockpile functionality:
Add a setting to allow you to dedicate the stockpile for corpses that can be buried vs. corpses that can't. Invader corpses need to be disposed of, while you want to ensure your citizens aren't dumped into the incinerator/garbage compactor. Optionally a category for corpses that can be buried but won't be raised as ghosts if they aren't.


@SammyLiimex: As far as I understand that's the result of dwarves on assignment being removed from the fortress and re-introduced when they return rather than remain as fortress members while away (like inbound caravan members are in the data structures but not visible until they actually enter the map). Past reports have not indicated the approach has been changed when bugs have been addressed.
Logged

FantasticDorf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #4626 on: June 23, 2022, 07:45:39 am »

The dump zone is far to valuable to be wasted on dumping garbage, when it's needed for e.g. the stripping of prisoners.

Suggestions for the improvement of the Dump functionality:
- Allow dump zones to use stockpile filters so they only receive certain types of items. That would allow you to have more than one zone active at a time and still get items dumped in the intended location.

In fairness, this is categorically true amongst new and old players alike, i never use dumping zones for actually disposing of rubbish, but rather a direct command to move a object. If the entire thing was distinguished into a "fetch" designation without the forbidding, it'd probably work all the same, but the zone adds the convenience to automating the desired landing place and logic of how it should be set down (thrown down the chute to the caverns or gently laid down in general space)

Im only elaborating on it here like patriklundell is, because it's a mean of use suggestion in the most simplistic sense probably doesnt warrant a thread, not that we'd usually breach suggestions anyway.



@SammyLiimex: As far as I understand that's the result of dwarves on assignment being removed from the fortress and re-introduced when they return rather than remain as fortress members while away (like inbound caravan members are in the data structures but not visible until they actually enter the map). Past reports have not indicated the approach has been changed when bugs have been addressed.

Its still a player inconvenience though, its hard to percieve from our end if its actually nessecary to do, there are other times where the disconnect between the military and the fortress is very apparent, like the schedule breaks in military screen that cause dwarves who unassign from active military service by not having a schedule task that month to switch to becoming citizens, then inundate the details screen with fresh historically carried reports of them being assigned back into the squad when used by the player or signing back in to training according to schedule of that year. (when they never actually left the squad, being on active call to mobilize at all times)

Most bugs like that aren't reported to mantis and live entirely in the public conciousness, either by players being unable to describe or assertain whether the GUI or gameplay is just quirky or broken.

Maybe we'll cross that bridge when the Army arc comes around, with notable goals such as having a army controller bit of logic of our own that isn't attached to the site help retrospectively smooth over the role of the militia as front-maining every hostile action the fortress has to partake in.
Logged

Quietust

  • Bay Watcher
  • Does not suffer fools gladly
    • View Profile
    • QMT Productions
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #4627 on: June 24, 2022, 09:13:08 am »


Suggestion for an improvement of the Corpse stockpile functionality:
Add a setting to allow you to dedicate the stockpile for corpses that can be buried vs. corpses that can't. Invader corpses need to be disposed of, while you want to ensure your citizens aren't dumped into the incinerator/garbage compactor. Optionally a category for corpses that can be buried but won't be raised as ghosts if they aren't.

I'm curious - wasn't the original purpose of Corpse stockpiles (originally Graveyard stockpiles) to only accept buriable corpses while everything else would go to Refuse stockpiles? It looks like that changed at some point, and I'm not sure I understand why.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2022, 10:54:31 am by Quietust »
Logged
P.S. If you don't get this note, let me know and I'll write you another.
It's amazing how dwarves can make a stack of bones completely waterproof and magmaproof.
It's amazing how they can make an entire floodgate out of the bones of 2 cats.

FantasticDorf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #4628 on: June 24, 2022, 01:11:14 pm »


Suggestion for an improvement of the Corpse stockpile functionality:
Add a setting to allow you to dedicate the stockpile for corpses that can be buried vs. corpses that can't. Invader corpses need to be disposed of, while you want to ensure your citizens aren't dumped into the incinerator/garbage compactor. Optionally a category for corpses that can be buried but won't be raised as ghosts if they aren't.

I'm curious - wasn't the original purpose of Corpse stockpiles (originally Graveyard stockpiles) to only accept buriable corpses while everything else would go to Refuse stockpiles? It looks like that changed at some point, and I'm not sure I understand why.

They're filtered by dead_dwarf=true (for graveyard/refuse if false) which keep watch of maintaining intellgent bodies stay out of butchery since the mermaid-bones incident. I do believe the coffins individually have faction checks though, as a citizen or pet body of your fort can have its flags manually turned off in gui-editor (over the whole corpse or just pieces of it) and be interred and exhumed again to be chucked into the butcher-shop at leisure.

So all in all im not sure exactly what patrik is talking about, as its much more mechanically rooted. Finalizing the broken ethics that should release/optimize the control of eating/tropyhizing sentients (thus far only being done by scripting support) would be a nice treat for the buglist though. Maybe they are QSP'ing graveyard victims en-masse and can't partition them effectively when casualties/kills are thick and fast?
  • Its relatable, i only have small graveyard rooms for anti-horror reasons and a 100 strong siege which is half the strength of the default 200 settings usually takes me 15 minutes to gather individual chopped off fingers etc, a mass grave that didn't leave pernament FPS-Hog bone-pits of a dump zone would be easier, i could least burrow dwarves to finish the job
Logged

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #4629 on: June 24, 2022, 02:24:21 pm »

Corpse stockpile:
Before visitors were introduced, the Corpse stockpile was reserved for dorfs, with everything else being sent to the Refuse stockpile, thus leading to caravans bolting as they approached the refuse stockpile, with dorfs suffering trauma, due to all the corpses of of sapients in the stockpile. That could be worked around by filtering the Corpse setting of the Refuse stockpiles on species, to get sapients into one stockpile and the rest into the regular one (you also had to deal with other Refuse stockpile sub categories, in particular teeth, as half a tooth was all it took for panic to set in.

Current implementation:
Corpses of all sapients are sent to the Corpse stockpile, and there is no sub settings, so troglodytes go there together with invaders and citizens. My suggestion was to allow you to send the "good" ones to one stockpile and the "trash" to another. Also note that corpses of undead of former sapients are treated as refuse, not Corpses.

It's true that only some creatures can be buried, and coffins check for that. However, it's rather difficult to bury the body of a defender when it's already been incinerated together with the bodies of the killed invaders (mine cart taking from the Corpse stockpile and dumping into magma, i.e. basically a quantum stockpile, but without the stocking and piling [I usually use a drawbridge at the bottom of a shaft to eliminate the corpses, but the effect is the same])...
Apart from the mechanics, I'd want those to be buried to be sent to a respectful morgue close to the burial grounds, while dead invaders are sent elsewhere and just disposed of using the method of your choice.

Sapient part crafting:
It's still possible, but you can't butcher the corpses. Instead, you have to have the corpses "butchered" naturally and let the arms/legs decay to release the bones that will then happily be used by dorfs for crafting (and if you don't monitor them they'll grab bones of undead of former sapients from the refuse stockpile if you happen to run out of bone elsewhere). It's even possible to use traps to do the "butchering", and with reanimation you can try repeatedly until the desired bits are severed. It's very inefficient, though, with most attempts failing.
Logged

FantasticDorf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #4630 on: June 24, 2022, 05:14:11 pm »

With all respect i think you could have put your energy into writing a suggestion thread with the content here. Im not familiar with pre 40_24 behaviour, so i guess that's Quietusts field of expertise with the work they've been doing looking at much older versions for comparative data.

Q for Toady: Sorry if its relatively out of left field, but would it be possible within the next version to define megabeast worshipping religions on entity.txt? Or are they entirely by design w.g circumstantial?
Logged

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #4631 on: June 25, 2022, 01:49:16 am »

Two years ago (or whatever the time is) I wouldn't have written any suggestions here. Then things were changes so that next release suggestions were invited here. However, it's possible things should be changed back to the old ways.

It can be noted that the "old" Corpse stockpile behavior was present in 0.40.24. Visitors were introduced later than that, and that's when it became necessary to deal with non dwarven citizens.
Logged

clinodev

  • Bay Watcher
  • Embark Profile Enthusiast, Kitfox & reddit mod.
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #4632 on: June 26, 2022, 06:14:17 am »

In the 22 June 2022 Steam Community Update, you note:

Quote
Farm plots aren't as easy to misplace, since there are usually only a few layers where they can logically be set down, but it's nice to have an overview of what's currently growing and ready to harvest.

That struck me at the time as interesting and odd, as I've long been an advocate for bending the embark to dwarven will, and not letting the embark drive fortress design. I've taught the building of small, local, irrigated and sometimes fertilized farm plots where they're most convenient to industry, pigtail and dimple cup plots adjacent to farmers workshops, looms, and clothier's workshops, for instance, and distributed small food plots in the cellars of kitchens, because centralized food production and distribution is one of the bigger causes of pathing in mature forts. I'm on the verge of actually convincing people that they can build fortresses like those in fantasy literature, instead of pancake stack/Foxconn-style dormitory factories with nets on the windows and guards to keep the workers in. Anyway.

This was all just curious, until I remembered that you'd also said in the 30 May 2022 DevLog:

Quote
Also played around with farming to shake up some patterns. Farming in the shallow soil layers far above the caverns is now no longer as viable, and farming in the cavern layers is as rich as usual.

which now has me concerned.

Are the changes to farming depth based, or specifically surface soil and cavern based?

Have there been changes to farming that make irrigated stone plots on arbitrary levels less effective?

Encouraging players to dig a little deeper is lovely, but not at the expense of the Deep Plots that provide for the Dwarven Wine drank by the master smiths working at magma forges just above the lowest levels, when they take their rest.

In this general context, I've also been asked by dirty hill dwarves:

Will the changes will make actual outdoor plant surface farming less effective?
Logged
Team Bug Fix!

eerr

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #4633 on: June 26, 2022, 01:43:32 pm »

Since 47.05, I have been unable to generate worlds with the classic evil biomes.

don't get me wrong, goo rain and dust are both deserving of an evil embark.
but I miss the challenge of dealing with all the nasties that came with certain biomes.
Stuff like roaming undead animals and flying hungry heads that scour the earth hunting anything living.

did you remove standard evil areas intentionally?

Logged

FantasticDorf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #4634 on: June 27, 2022, 05:49:04 am »

Since 47.05, I have been unable to generate worlds with the classic evil biomes.

don't get me wrong, goo rain and dust are both deserving of an evil embark.
but I miss the challenge of dealing with all the nasties that came with certain biomes.
Stuff like roaming undead animals and flying hungry heads that scour the earth hunting anything living.

did you remove standard evil areas intentionally?


Toady did. It was a nessecary step to tie the spheres and the biomes together for 47.01 so that evil creatures like HFS clowns in their dark-fortresses & necromancers (raising corpses around themselves that spill out and gather at the tower) could spread their related influences.

The most moderate form of 'Classically Evil' embark would probably be with the "Nightmares" sphere residing with the new isolated home of the boogeymen. Underground is untouched however at the moment with evil and good creatures (including hungry heads) being able to appear out of any cavern system and thus far always has been like that regarding that site effects like re-animation travel horizontally all the way down have some noticable flair of impact.

Question for Toady: On the topic; with the changes being made to sustainability away from shallower layers to "more rich" farmland beneath what are your thoughts on the current state of cavern wildlife, and are we likely to see any biome alterations/isolated spheres in the caverns for the next version?

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 307 308 [309] 310 311 ... 389