Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bumber]

Clothing size limits for dwarves on List of creatures by adult size are wrong. Dwarves can't actually wear emu man (52,500) armor. I'm not sure where "Too small for dwarf-sized armor and clothes = 50,001" was even derived from.

Repost from another thread:

Toady's exact words:

It looks like 6/7 < size < 8/7 are the limits.

That means the size limits for dwarves should be 51429 to 68570 (not 50002 to 69998 as the size page implies.) Either there's a bug or something's misunderstood if 52500 is too small.

Does it work the other way where 52500*8/7 = 60000, and that would have to result in 60001 to be worn? That is, 52501 could be the minimum size for dwarves? Then the largest size would be like 69999 or 70002. Someone's going to have to mod creatures to test.

[Bumber]

Clarification from Toady on the armor sizes:

For small/large, the formula I see is
wearer creature size <= item creature size * 6/7 means the item is too large
and
wearer creature size >= item creature size * 8/7 means the item is too small

[PatrikLundell]

Clarification from Toady on the armor sizes:

For small/large, the formula I see is
wearer creature size <= item creature size * 6/7 means the item is too large
and
wearer creature size >= item creature size * 8/7 means the item is too small

Which translates to: Strictly greater than 7/8 * wearer creature size up to, but not including, 7/6 * wearer creature size when your focus is shifted to the potential wearer from the item worn (which is what Bumber suggested two posts back, with the clarification from Toady [in the text quoted, but outside of the snippet quoted] that the exact quotients belong to the "does not fit" side).

[BlueManedHawk]

[url txt=The page on wagon structures]https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Wagon_(embark)[/url] claims that it's possible for dwarves to embark into a volcano, but there isn't any source listed.

[Bumber]

The page on wagon structures claims that it's possible for dwarves to embark into a volcano, but there isn't any source listed.

Best source would probably be the acknowledged bug report: https://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=9598

Could throw in a known bug entry at the bottom of the wiki page while at it.

[Nopenope]

This is going to be yet another of those "Nopenope rants about the wiki and the dying community", but I can't help it if I encounter gems like this:

Traitor dwarves were added with the first villainy update. At the time of this edit, next to nothing is known about them except that the concept exists.

So, how long has it been since the "time of this edit"? Has anyone bothered to check what traitor dwarves are at all in that time?

[lethosor]

It was added in this edit, which basically merged in a separate "Traitor" page with less information than that.

The wording could stand to be improved. Maybe this would be a good opportunity for the {{stub}} template to draw attention to the fact that the topic needs more research. I imagine it's not a particularly easy topic to research, so it's understandable that it hasn't been documented (especially if people don't realize that content is missing).

[PatrikLundell]

The closest thing to Traitor I know of is corrupted citizens, and there's some knowledge about those (such as they not having any defense against corruption beyond an opposed roll against the corrupter based on essentially fixed factors, and that there are no repercussions at all for failing a corruption attempt: just try again later, for as many times as it takes, as the target never reports the attempt).

Corrupted citizens are legion and hand artifacts over to Villain agents en masse. Supposedly corruption should also allow Villains to engineer coups and the like, but I don't think that's been implemented in player fortresses (this appears in Legends Mode reports for other sites).

You also have non spy enemy spies in the form of (usually) goblin civ members that are also members of performance troupes that report the location of traps they've seen in the fortress as soon as they leave the map (and trying to kill those non spy spies often result in loyalty cascades, so you tend to have to use engineering to remove them).

It can be noted that I've failed to ever uncover any enemy spy who's the real deal, as every one of the ones I've seen have been Villain agents, with not a single enemy civ spy.

[Su]

is there a page listing what the default glyphs are for everything? most items have an example in their infobox or on their page, but as far as i can tell there's nothing along the lines of "list of things by glyph" or anything like that.

[voliol]

is there a page listing what the default glyphs are for everything? most items have an example in their infobox or on their page, but as far as i can tell there's nothing along the lines of "list of things by glyph" or anything like that.

There is: https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Tilesets
What terms did you search for? It can be practical info to set up redirects.

[Su]

oh, whoops. that's embarrasing. i thought about looking at the tilesets page but figured it would just be for the graphical tilesets. thank you!

i searched for "tile" and "glyph" before looking at individual pages to see if they had a link to a list.

[Silverwing235]

Apologies if this isn't the right place for it, or if its already being addressed, but it turns out the wiki is in somewhat desperate need for art pieces for its sole use, as the result of a copyright kerfuffle started by Meph's recent take down of their tileset.

[jecowa]

Are you talking about taking down the crayon art from the devs?

[voliol]

Are you talking about taking down the crayon art from the devs?

Nope, I don’t even think anyone considered that considering it’s as close to official art we have (yet).

The issues are related to a certain user (Zippy) uploading loads and loads of images without getting the licenses (from what we’ve found as of yet), meaning we will have to remove them. The ”started with Meph’s recent takedown” means it is what prompted the work to start, but it’s otherwise not related at all, just that ”copyright” and ”Dwarf Fortress” are common topics. I personally wouldn’t say the wiki is in desperate need without them, but especially the animal man and giant animal articles will become more desolate, so if that could be prevented by custom-made art that would be cool.

[BlueManedHawk]

Hi.  I was looking through my previous ideas in this thread, and damn were they not great.  I have some more thoughts, and I promise that I've thought through these ones this time.

First off:  tutorial unification.  Currently, tutorials exist on the wiki as a scattered collection of pages without much connection, which is not as useful as it could be.  What I propose is the creation of a pair of user manuals for Fortress mode and Adventurer mode intended to be read from front to back (the old tutorials could be merged into these manuals, or just archived).  Maybe the Fortress mode manual could take someone from embark to breaching hell, and the Adventurer mode manual could take someone from character creation to defeating a vault.  The rest of the wiki would continue to function as a reference manual to be dipped into on an as-needed basis.  (I'm stealing the idea of a separate user manual and reference manual from Vim, by the way.)  Now, I realize that this would obviously be kinda a fucknormous project, perhaps unrealistically so, and in some part due to the fact that neither mode is particularly linear.  This may not be possible.

Second thing:  I don't really think that having a separately-maintained namespace for each major version of the game is the best way to solve the problem of older versions.  Instead, what I feel would be better is to have the null namespace (is that the correct name?) be used for whatever the current version is, and have guides be available on the main page for using older versions.  I don't think this on its own is enough, though, so I think that to improve this, each page documenting a game feature should have a history section detailing the history of that feature.  Now, I realize that this would be a complete overhaul to the way that the wiki works, and it could definitely be completely impractical.  There's also the fact that something would need to be done about the old pages, and I'm not sure what the best method would be.  This may not be possible.

Third thing:  I don't really see what the point is to having a separate page for each and every stone/gem/tree/creature/etc. when it seems to me that it would be better to unify them into a single list page with subpages for particularly notable examples.  With how many similarities there are between a lot of these pages, compressing them seems like it wouldn't be too difficult, just tedious.  Of course, we'd then need to figure out what to do with the old pages.

Final thing, and this is kinda what ties all these suggestions together, because this assumes that they all got implemented:  I don't think the main page is as good as it can be.  However, unlike the previous time I complained about the main page, I now have a kinda-sorta fleshed-out idea of what I think an improved main page would look like.  At the top, in an extremely conspicuous box, would be links to the user manuals for Fortress and Adventurer mode.  Under than would be the quote and picture of the day side-by-side, and then several boxes for things like core gameplay mechanics, lists of things like stone and gems and trees and whatever, guides to previous versions, external links, and probably some other things that I haven't thought of yet.  I do, however, realize that this would probably be a very controversial change.

One last thing:  It appears that <ref></ref> tags don't work on the wiki, which seems rather inconvenient.