Print

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

[Footkerchief]

I'm going to be busy with personal stuff for the next couple weeks.  I'll still be working on some bony fish orders (I'm currently bogged down in the annoyingly species-rich Tetraodontiformes), but I won't be around as much.

Ok a bit questions regarding genetics to footers, toady and everyone else who knows more.

To get all those "just different colors" variations down into the game wouldn't it be sufficient enough to have the different patterns around and then let the game upon WG pop groups down instead of individuals? If in said groups all members have the same colour-pattern we would get our "just different colors"-variations by the genetics pretty easily.

Yes, that should work okay.  We'd been discussing this as a way of handling groups of creatures that only vary in color.

Sorry to double post, but I was wondering how vermin are defined in the next version...there are lots of vermin tags, but it is not clear which one identifies a vermin.  There could also be a size cutoff, since vermin will have size.  Does anyone know?

As far as I know, if a creature has any tag that starts with VERMIN, it's a vermin.  I haven't heard about any size cutoff either.

Yeah, Igfig is correct as far as I know.

Wait, why would that be part of the Ark Project?  I thought having a sphere meant that you represented the concept so well you were worshipped for it...what does that have to do with mundane creatures?  Is toady now letting us define in the raws what is governed by each sphere?

I may be wrong, but I don't believe there are any non-[POWER] creatures in vanilla that have the [SPHERE] token.  As far as I can tell, [SPHERE] only deals with worship, name generation, and some HFS-related stuff

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

specifically, what kind of things you'll find in a demon's chamber.

 
It's weird that mundane creatures don't have spheres, because we've all seen gods that are depicted as a bat or a mussel or something.  If I had to guess, I'd say the choices of animal are based on biome (water creatures automatically get [SPHERE:WATER]) or certain other tags ([FLIER]s automatically get [SPHERE:AIR]).  If that's the case, we won't need to supply any of the obvious tags; the game will do it for us.

That said, I see no reason why we shouldn't add the unobvious tags.  If we want to relate, say, butterflies with beauty or mongeese with trickery, we should definitely mark those down.  Even if the tags don't do anything now, they might in the future.  Better to be prepared.

EDIT: Come to think of it, they do do something now.  If the creature gets hit with Zantan's megabeast template, its predefined spheres will determine how it's named and who might worship it.

Yeah, I was thinking that spheres are what causes a deity "most often takes the form of a bat" or whatever, but that isn't the case.  I don't know what sphere links would do if we put them on ordinary vermin.  In any case, they're extremely subjective, and I doubt the benefits of adding them will outweigh the effort of discussing which animals get which spheres.

[Igfig]

I tried putting sphere links and the MEGABEAST tag on a fluffy wambler and the only effect I saw had to do with naming conventions.  Evidently they don't do that much right now.  I did get some interesting legends, though:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

As subjective as sphere tags might be, I think there are some that we could add safely.  SPHERE:HUNTING on the Carnivora template and SPHERE:FISH on the fish, to name two.  Anything immediately suggested by a prefstring--dogs and SPHERE:LOYALTY, for instance--would also be reasonable.  Of course we should err on the side of caution, but that shouldn't stop us from adding more useful data to our creatures.

[Zantan]

We can also make the inclusion of sphere tags in the raws optional.  We could comment it out in the raws (without brackets; I'm not sure how to comment out items in brackets in the raws), or we could have them in a separate file.  At some point, I'm sure all the Ark creatures will go into a database, and that database could be used to create raws with and without sphere tags.

[Neonivek]

Do we have Precident? Are there natural animals with sphere tags in the game as it is?

[Footkerchief]

As subjective as sphere tags might be, I think there are some that we could add safely.  SPHERE:HUNTING on the Carnivora template and SPHERE:FISH on the fish, to name two.  Anything immediately suggested by a prefstring--dogs and SPHERE:LOYALTY, for instance--would also be reasonable.  Of course we should err on the side of caution, but that shouldn't stop us from adding more useful data to our creatures.

There are some animals where the sphere links are obvious, yes, but for most of them we'll have nothing.  It'll be a wildly inconsistent level of detail, and that's something we should avoid.

Do we have Precident? Are there natural animals with sphere tags in the game as it is?

No, there's no precedent for putting them on natural creatures.  In vanilla DF, it's just megabeasts and semimegabeasts that have them.  That places it well beyond the scope of this mod.

We can also make the inclusion of sphere tags in the raws optional.  We could comment it out in the raws (without brackets; I'm not sure how to comment out items in brackets in the raws), or we could have them in a separate file.  At some point, I'm sure all the Ark creatures will go into a database, and that database could be used to create raws with and without sphere tags.

Given the drawbacks mentioned above, and the likelihood that spheres will draw an undue amount of effort compared to details that are within the scope of this mod (body relsizes, color patterns, etc.), I'm leaning against including them even as an option.

[Igfig]

Aright, cool.  Maybe I'll make a separate project to add those someday.

[Greendogo]

Any updates?

[Rainseeker]

This has slowed down a little, but don't worry.  Once the new update is out we'll ramp up again.

[Footkerchief]

I've been working on a couple of top-level creature templates to make sure that whole approach actually works.  If they work well, then I'll post them so that people can start implementing creatures.  It'll be a couple more days at least, though, and unfortunately I still won't have much time for Ark stuff until after this release.

[Greendogo]

Cool, I can't wait to combine this with some form of Dig Deeper!

[TeDDD]

I've been idly considering the possibility of a future spin-off project to The Ark Project.  The spin-off would attempt to maintain the level of quality and detail of the creatures in Ark, but focus instead on Cryptozoological animals-- creatures of both ancient and modern myth.  This would include various legendary creatures from around the world, such as the Jackalope, Yeti, Skunk Ape... but avoid outright fictional fantasy creatures, like the Jabberwock, or high fantasy creatures that have no basis in myths and legends.  The spin-off could be called 'Missed the Boat' or 'No Boarding Pass' or something.  It would act as an additional content pack, usable independent-of or in conjunction with the Ark Project.

It's just a thought.  I've no concrete plans, myself, but I was just wondering if it tickled the fancy of the ark-stockers.

[Lancensis]

Heh, yeah, I could probably contribute a few creatures. You might have be very clear about defining what is too fantastical, and what counts as a seperate creatures (there are at least three competing descriptions of the chupacabra that I know of).
Also, you are going to have a lot of ape-men and lake monsters.

[TeDDD]

That is true.  Yeti, Skunk Ape, Abominable Snowman... etc.  There would have to be debate about what version of some creatures, too, since the Chupacabra could be a reptile/canine/alien/ghost. 

I've no desire to start work on the project, myself, until DF2010 is out and Ark is mostly done, since in theory I/we would copy the more polished format and conventions.  Once that time comes, though, I'd love to give DF players the opportunity to hunt the Jackalope for meat and trophies, or cower in fear as the Krakken hauls itself out of the sea.

[Rainseeker]

I would like to see a "Dinosaur Extension Pak" occur after the Ark Project.

[Darbuk.Ubildolush]

First post to the forums here.. I saw this project and immediately got interested in helping out.  I'm still looking at what can be done, and am referencing the first post for areas that need work.  Below are some comments and questions regarding this project:


Generated World appropriate Name Tags
I've been looking at the issue presented with not using 'real world' references, such as 'Northern' or 'Komodo' or the like.  I'm wondering what the possibility is with the upcoming expansion that we could have species that reference the world gen file and dig up things like "The Smooth Spires of Pride" and generate the "Pride Cardinal", or the "Swamps of Regret" and create the "Crocodiles of Regret".  Neither are spectacular examples, but I think you get the idea.  These would allow us to have the critters named in a way that references the world in which they exist.  Additionally names would be referenced by Biome, so the names would only be applied to those from the appropriate Biome.  Part of the basis of this idea is the sheer amount of information generated during the world gen process.

@Fieari re: Komodo Dragons 
Might I suggest "Ora Lizard" or "Ora Dragon" for the Komodo dragon?  Kinda combining the best of both worlds, and the first one conveniently leaves out Dragon as well.

Vermin and Grubs/Maggots/etc
One possible justification has occurred to me regarding including things like larval stages.  Can vermin eat your food?  If so, can we alter them to eat other stuff? If so then having maggots in your food supply, moth larvae in your silk bins, and termites in your lumber pile could all be reasons to include these kinds of critters.  (I realize Termites step away from the grub concept, but I had to include them conceptually)

"Footkerchief:  I think we should at least start writing prefstrings for each animal soon.

(Unsure who this was, failed to note it)I'm still not sure what we should do about prefstrings.  As many as possible should probably go in taxon-level creature variations ("creature templates"), so that if we want [PREFSTRING:rough skin] for sharks, we can just put that in the shark template instead of adding it to each individual shark.  What do other people think about this approach?"


Well, there's an argument to be made for liking a particular beetle for it's 'color of shell', kinda like enjoying a particular parrot for it's 'color of plumage'.  I just wish there was a way to tie a dwarf's preference in color to their selection of favorite animal.  (Like's Blue Macaws for their blue plumage.  He likes Blue, Dwarven Ale, and Purring Maggot meat when he can get it.)

I read through the entire thread (both of them) before posting here. I'm sorry if I referenced something that's already been addressed; There was a lot of information to assimilate.