Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 79 80 [81] 82 83 ... 342

Author Topic: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page  (Read 1573257 times)

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #1200 on: September 19, 2010, 02:22:42 am »

Well I finally generated a full sized world and I have to say... I am having the exact opposite of the problems other people are having.

The World generation is going great and consistantly... Sure it isn't instantly done but at least it doesn't suffer super slowdown.

What is going right?

Also I still dislike that Evil and Good lands still tend to orient themselves to the top and bottom of the map... likely because poles tend to have a unified terrain so the generator puts them there because there is no where else for them to go.

(Also whoa... One human group attacked elves... honestly I thought they were attacking the forest for the majority of the report. It is the first time I've seen Elves win without overwhelming numbers)
« Last Edit: September 19, 2010, 02:51:48 am by Neonivek »
Logged

Toady One

  • The Great
    • View Profile
    • http://www.bay12games.com
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #1201 on: September 19, 2010, 09:44:15 am »

Quote
Quote from: Lemunde
So after this release can we expect any more updates to the adventurer stuff in the next release?  Like more crafting/construction stuff?
Quote
Hey Toady, do you think we'll have some proper towns to visit in the release after this upcoming one?

Next up, in October, we want to focus on bringing something fun to adventure mode.  Exactly what gets released there is just going to depend on repeated additions and playthroughs until we're satisfied that there's something to it, even if it's just a little bit.  We think heroism is going to be involved there as a starting point, but continuations of the crafting baby steps we took before and adding more to the towns are possible to the extent that they buoy that up.  I don't want to tie myself to any given feature though, since I feel like after the entity population/sprawl sloggy release delay, the flexibility to avoid getting bogged down by a specific feature goal is important to my well-being for this release.  That's not to say I'm deviating from the dev page goals this time.

Quote
Quote from: Caldfir
Is the current insane abundance of minerals a feature, testing tool, or bug?  Are there any plans on moving back to those in 40d / make them somehow changeable by the player?
Quote from: G-Flex
I know all this is bordering on suggestion (and directly involves it), but I'd like to know the answer to that question too. I mean, especially with the much higher z-level count, the absurd abundance really isn't necessary, and honestly gets kind of boring/weird after a while, since you're constantly running into things that should be rare/valuable (along with everything else).

Zach and I actually ended up with a different impression during testing at the beginning of the year, not from the higher z-level count but from the open layers which split them apart.  When the top stone levels above the first underground cavern were empty, it was really frustrating.  Still, there are lots of things that should probably be addressed that might clean it all up, like veins moving between z-levels, making the "rare" inclusions more interesting or at least rarer (there definitely seems to be a problem there), vein quality, etc.  If it's easy to throw something together to make minerals moddably scarce, then I'll do that, but I didn't like it that way in vanilla without something else.

Rarity with depth rather than with location on the world map seems a little strange and gamey so I doubt I'll end up going that way outside of non-real minerals or minerals where it makes sense.  It added a fun progression to 2D, but ultimately I don't want to rely on that.  In the end, starting your fortress on a valuable surface deposit should be perfectly reasonable and lead to an interesting game both militarily and economically -- in the game's current state, there are no military repercussions from having a valuable resource from the start (except maybe the attacks coming a little earlier due to higher trade/wealth numbers), and economically it's just worth more as a simple absolute number and so seems like cheating.  It shouldn't turn out that way though.  Even in a more highly developed DF, a valuable surface find does lead to a little less excitement in the mining discovery department.  Throwing more exotic stuff down there, even outside the strict mineral department, should help with that.

Quote
Quote from: Mephansteras
Demons and Devils are probably safe to assume are evil powermongers. What about the other forgotten beasts that end up taking important positions in Human Civs? Are they necessarily an evil influence on the civ? Are we going to see benign Lizard monsters and the like? How do you see these creatures ultimately influencing how the human civs act?
Quote from: Quatch
Are there non-violent/evil ways for an entity to assume/use control?

As far as I know, it is only the evil creatures from the underworld that take over civilizations at this point.  It might make sense at some point for a non-evil critter to take up an important position in a human civ, but there aren't any candidates right now, between regional titans and megabeasts.  That's vanilla anyway.  I don't remember the modding situation with megabeasts and human civ takeovers, and there are non-violent means that the humans use when they create the civ-wide positions such as "force of argument" and so on.  Of course, it's not like there's much going on now, so it's just flavor text or whatever.

Quote
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
Are there any plans to fix/plant a sanity check on the elven society-wide infertility problem?
Quote from: Mephansteras
When are we going to see difference marriage customs come into play? I don't really see goblins as the marriage sort, and human civs could easily include polygamy and the like. Kings with a harem of a thousand, perhaps? There are certainly some interesting Adventurer quests to be had with that kind of set-up. Elves seem like the sort to bond with one person for a while and eventually move on to someone else. You know, after a few centuries and the relationship has run its course.

As of this last version, historical figures are no longer limited to ten children.  If I'm understanding the infertility problem, that should sort out part of it.  Remarriage (or whatever fits) would still be necessary to finish it off I guess.

The main barrier to expansion is just the typical thing with the original code supporting one specific id number/relationship for the spouse.  The current system is a convenient starting point for fort mode drama and reproduction generally, but I imagine every entity will end up different and it's the proper outcome.  I have no idea on a timeline though.

Quote from: DalGren
will world entities have the capability to claim ownership over a structure or territory, and use that information to identify trespassers or have a sense of "home" which they can defend or use as a trading good?

Would it be possible to find isolated huts or cabins of some world entity living on its own? Perhaps outcasts, hermits, or sociopaths who refuse living in populated areas?

There are already zones defined that they nominally claim, at least for building interiors, and those were used for theft detection in the shops, but we haven't used them much.  They also have an idea of what each space is for in the new villages, like the fields and homes etc.  They just need to come up more as we do things.

Bandit/marauding critters are probably going to be the first entity-associated guys living off on their own, but we definitely don't want them all to be hostiles.  Before we get to hermits and things, I imagine we might do things like resource-based settlements (lumber/stone etc), and perhaps the combat/religion/night creature etc. related structures (things like monasteries etc.), depending on the order we do the dev page, but we're definitely going to branch out from villages and towns.

Quote
Quote from: monk12
How do you plan to change how world gen battles are fought? Will terrain and/or tactics play a role? Will civs, or even just races that are faced with a war of extinction that they cannot win attempt to flee and establish new cities elsewhere?
Quote from: Areyar
How far down the pipeline are worldgen battles with actual AI tactics that can be viewed afterwards in histories like a movie of a classical board and chips wargame?
Quote from: Neonivek
Toady in the future will we see Armies taking other towns without the total destruction of the opposition? Right now as long as one person is barely defending the town an army no matter how large cannot take it.

There's a token terrain/site bonus for defenders now.  Having more tactical information in the legends readout is something I've neglected to add three major releases in a row now -- something always comes up, but I definitely want more variety.  We usually imagine those bars and so on from shows like that American Civil War and other documentaries and so on, but we'll have to see how it turns out.  Hopefully it'll be something that carries over in part to the post-world-gen fighting on the world map.

There's a tactics/leadership/organization roll as of this last version, and it's what causes the outcomes to vary at times from the center of the bell curve on the combat duel outcomes.  Refugees go into the wilds now and resettle, but it's on a site by site basis.  Continuing on in that way, and allowing refugees to merge with or displace a third group should be pretty important for the overall shape of world gen later on, since it needs to be less static.  Disease and famine will help a lot too, but I need to handle the resource tracking first for famine at least.

Some of the current battles are definitely goofy.

Quote from: Neonivek
Toady when armies, adventurer groups, and other such organisations finally can attack single units in unison (Megabeasts for example) do you forsee Megabeasts getting stronger, weaker, the same, or will they have the ability to out manuver them so to speak?

I can't say specifically which way it'll go until we see how much it affects the kill rate.  If a bunch of peasants bounce off of a dragon the same as a single peasant, then it won't require as much of an adjustment.  We'd generally like to emphasize heroic or specialized/weakness-based kills rather than random overwhelming of a beast.  This might require megabeasts to be more manueverable or at least not get caught sleeping out in the open by large groups of regular soldiers -- beasts that are neither intelligent nor powerful enough to defend themselves from that kind of thing don't generally deserve to be megabeasts.  Having a megabeast-killing hero/heroes emerging from obscurity during a regular town defense is fine, but having it be the norm from the combat mechanics would lead to larger problems, I think, so that sort of thing might end up being a kind of specifically chosen outcome in world gen or something.  It's sort of unavoidable in the information-scarce time-crunched environment of world gen -- sometimes things happen all at once instead of step by step.

Quote from: Mephansteras
On the maps you just posed it looks like the goblins have expanded out to swamps and rivers. Are they moving out from the mountains now? Or did you just add more start biomes for them?

We decided to soften biomes up greatly for goblins, so that there'd be a broader range of areas under threat.

Quote from: NW_Kohaku
Toady, where do you see the ability of players to affect AI behavior?  Will we see something that goes more towards having the ability to directly script dwarven AI to use certain items or take certain actions using some logic operations or a rudimentary scripting ability?  Or do you see this as being more a matter of dwarves having to somehow learn how and when to properly perform actions or use items from the properties they have in the raws alone?  While I'm obviously interested in the effects this can have, I'm also interested in what sort of game design philosophy you have about what level of control you want players to be exerting over their dwarves.

At the extreme end of the potion/material discussion, out beyond what maybe anybody was asking for, I'm absolutely against having to master some sort of scripting language just to get dwarves to poison their weapons.  At the same time, it'll be difficult to get dwarves to use certain exotic syndrome-causing materials in a reasonable way that satisfies a player, especially one using potion mods.  Maybe it'll end up being usage hints in the raws and classifications in-play for use in the military etc. with some sensible defaults.  Ideally they'd be able to handle it like food, water and alcohol (to the extent those aren't broken), and perhaps those would be brought into the same system.  For more exotic actions and random weirdness, maybe there are cases in the mods where you'd really want to write some kind of script down, especially for a non-dwarven mod race that does something or other, but that level of support is pretty hard to prioritize when I don't really need or want it for dwarves.

On the other hand, writing from the perspective that every command the player gives will be credited to fortress position holders, if an appropriate official were to order that a liquid, with usage hints/whatever in the raws, will now be used for something entirely outside those bounds (like coating a weapon with syrup), that action might be anything from brilliant to quirky to wasteful to tyrannical to suicidal, depending on the situation.  The dwarves aren't currently capable of judging their officials and it's a very difficult problem most of the time.  If a randomly-generated creature has a weakness to syrup, maybe coating the weapons with syrup is simply a practical strategy, and in that case syrup wouldn't have the "weapon coating" usage hint in the raws.  That coating action is entirely up to player ingenuity, much like ordering the creation of a complicated machine, and it's a reasonable thing to allow.

Manually ordering a dwarf to perform a specific series of actions that can't be presaged in the raws/code might be the only way to save your fort and might be a reasonably orderable action made by some official, but that kind of power can degrade the atmosphere we want to build.  It's going to depend on the specific cases, but for the sake of guiding discussion on a wide range of future topics, I think it's best that the player feels that a dwarf's autonomy is being respected.  The thing that makes dwarf mode not strictly a hands-off simulation is that you are allowed to compromise dwarves' autonomy if they hold fortress positions, to the extent that you are selecting actions that fall within their position's purview.  If an order typically makes it feel like the dwarves are being controlled like marionettes, forced to do things against their will, etc., the order should probably be altered or removed.  Presently, there are a ton of things that dwarves don't care about that they should care about, but this is the overall idea.

Quote from: Heph
Toady what is your opinion on this issue and how long would it take to get drugs and ethics for them? It would be nice for fleshing out thetribals and theyr more animistic religions and worldviews.

Like a lot of non-crucial suggestions that expand the game in interesting ways, I'm all for it and don't have a timeline, he he he.  Alcohol will probably get more work done on it in terms of drunkenness and cultural conventions first, and that might force a framework for the larger picture.

Quote from: Heph
Can we get Overground tribes?

We used to have nomadic groups, and now we've got the underground entity pops that don't really do anything outside of making camps and staging attacks.  I'd like to diversify what's going on with humans and others up there, and it might start more with the bandit/roving baddies more than anything.

Quote from: Areyar
Were the pathing problems with (locked) doors, climbing and digging solved? (for invaders)

Nothing has changed there.

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris
Toady, adamantine's impact/compression/shear/torsion/bending/tensile yield/fracture values have been changed to 5000000 from their original 4000000. This makes adamantine impossible to mine. Was this intended and if so, was there going to be another tag to make slade unminable?

It was an oversight, and I'll take care of it one way or another for next time.
Logged
The Toad, a Natural Resource:  Preserve yours today!

Miko19

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #1202 on: September 19, 2010, 01:08:37 pm »

Two words...and sentences: Aimed. Attacks. Come on, Great Toad, I finally want to chew on somebody's face while slashing an other person in half with an axe WHILE roundhouse kicking some biatches
Logged

James

  • Escaped Lunatic
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #1203 on: September 19, 2010, 02:14:28 pm »

Two words...and sentences: Aimed. Attacks. Come on, Great Toad, I finally want to chew on somebody's face while slashing an other person in half with an axe WHILE roundhouse kicking some biatches

It's on the development page which means it's already brought to his attention and he'll get to it sooner or later. It sounds like there's a whole lot of other things he's got to do first though, so be patient.

For the record, it's also the feature I am most looking forward to myself, so I know how you feel.
Logged

Lemunde

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #1204 on: September 19, 2010, 02:28:50 pm »

Sweet. So long as adventure mode keeps getting some love I'm not too concerned about which specific features are focused on.
Logged

kuketski

  • Bay Watcher
  • If we are paranoid, then are we paranoid enough???
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #1205 on: September 19, 2010, 03:58:14 pm »

Do you plan to enable wedding in adventurer mode?

AND

"Ability to make rough stone constructions" is on dev list. Do you plan to merge Fortess mode and Adventurer mode?

Like building your stronghold with your followers and/or descendants in Adventurer mode?
With ability to "zoom out" and switch to Fortess mode to build complicated constructions, manage joblist, set labours and so on.
And if your adventurer have died, you could continue playing as adventurer`s heir.
And if all heirs have died, you cannot switch back to adventurer mode and can only watch over your fortress as "guardian ancestors spirit".
« Last Edit: September 19, 2010, 04:17:14 pm by kuketski »
Logged
God, please, take asp.net give second python!

Knight Otu

  • Bay Watcher
  • ☺4[
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #1206 on: September 19, 2010, 04:22:07 pm »

Do you plan on enabling wedding in adventurer mode?
Adventure mode marriage came up a few times on the old consolidated dev page, mostly in power goals, as part of the Relationships and Affiliation arcs. As such, it's probably not on the short list, but Toady sees it as relevant.

"Ability to make rough stone constructions" is on dev list. Do you plan on merging Fortess mode and Adventurer mode?

Like building your stronghold with your followers in Adventurer mode?
With ability to "zoom out" and switch to Fortess mode to build complicated constructions, manage joblist, set labours and so on.
And if your adventurer have died, you could continue playing as adventurer`s heir.
And if all heirs have died, you cannot switch back to adventurer mode and can only watch over your fortress as "guardian ancestors spirit".

Toady has described the intended function earlier in this thread, I believe. It's not meant to be a merger of the two modes in that way.

Ah, here is one quote:

Quote from: Osmosis Jones
Toady, what degree of finesse are you planning on giving orders to followers? I.e. would it be possible to order a group of followers to dig *this* location or collect fruit from *that* specific tree? Also, any plans on being able to force loyalty beyond acting as a guide? Oooh, and can we get other people to enforce said loyalty for us?

I want to be able to order a slave gang to excavate those ruins, while I lounge about with a platter of fresh, slave-picked, strawberries, and if anyone thinks about shirking off or running away, having my well paid slave drivers chase them down.

I wanted to stay away from getting into having the adv mode stuff be just like dwarf mode, and ease more slowly into the group/job abilities there, to keep things varied for myself as much as anything.  I don't understand the forcing loyalty part -- for the people you've interrogated?  Ideally, though, you'd be able to give more and more orders, so that they'd be able to guard or work or build up your place for you, even if they end up being kind of dumb about it.  It would be cool to have one of your followers be able to run their own villain-style network somewhere, so that you can be a kind of criminal overlord.  Once the villains are in and working, that should actually be well within range.
Logged
Direforged Original
Random Raw Scripts - Randomly generated Beasts , Vermin, Hags, Vampires, and Civilizations
Castle Otu

Hunterdew

  • Escaped Lunatic
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #1207 on: September 19, 2010, 08:06:55 pm »

Quote
will now be used for something entirely outside those bounds (like coating a weapon with syrup), that action might be anything from brilliant to quirky to wasteful to tyrannical to suicidal, depending on the situation.

The forgotten beast rÜsh onlçl has come!
A great troglodyte with skin made of waffle. Beware it's enrapturing fumes!
Logged
Hunterdew cancels having a life: Playing Dwarf Fortress

Cruxador

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #1208 on: September 20, 2010, 12:29:24 am »

"Ability to make rough stone constructions" is on dev list. Do you plan to merge Fortess mode and Adventurer mode?
He does not.
Quote
Like building your stronghold with your followers and/or descendants in Adventurer mode?
This will be possible.
Quote
With ability to "zoom out" and switch to Fortess mode to build complicated constructions, manage joblist, set labours and so on.
Nope.
Quote
And if your adventurer have died, you could continue playing as adventurer`s heir.
No word on this, so far as I know. I'd like it for sure, I'm a sucker for dynastic stuff.
Quote
And if all heirs have died, you cannot switch back to adventurer mode and can only watch over your fortress as "guardian ancestors spirit".
Nothing like that's going in.
Logged

Doombell

  • Escaped Lunatic
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #1209 on: September 20, 2010, 10:04:21 am »

I've been rereading the Death Gate Cycle series the last week, and can't help but compare it to Dwarf Fortress at every turn.
Now, I've mainly been thinking of Pryan, the world entirely covered in gigantic trees. One of the main things that got me thinking was probably that they used wooden weapons (and possibly the somewhat communist/hivemind dwarves).
Well, on to the actual question:

As I believe one of the goals you have mentioned was multi-tile/z-level trees, what is the chance that such trees could be major geographical features, such as (elven?) sites, or even entire biomes, if you go with Pryan's mountain-high trees?
Logged

turgidtoupee

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #1210 on: September 20, 2010, 04:03:57 pm »

I'd really like to see a feature where one can choose what race one plays as in fortress mode, similar to adventurer mode. Playing as other races is really interesting, and as long as dwarves are the default (like humans are in adventurer mode) I think it'd stay true to being dwarf fortress. Plus, you could even have a quick start function like in adventurer, where the player's given a site and a team and can just get on with it.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2010, 04:12:35 pm by turgidtoupee »
Logged

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #1211 on: September 20, 2010, 04:36:57 pm »

Thanks again Toady for answering our questions!

Toady right now the game doesn't handle variety well. Both in variety in Civilisations and especially in variety in animals (Probably one of the major contributors to the collapse of the Arc project). Is there any plans/ideas to rectify this problem so Dwarf Fortress can handle expansive lists of creatures, races, and civilisation types in a way that is pleasing and functional?

Ok I SWEAR I asked these questions before... but I have no idea if I did.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2010, 04:45:59 pm by Neonivek »
Logged

Untelligent

  • Bay Watcher
  • I eat flesh!
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #1212 on: September 20, 2010, 06:15:23 pm »

I'd really like to see a feature where one can choose what race one plays as in fortress mode, similar to adventurer mode. Playing as other races is really interesting, and as long as dwarves are the default (like humans are in adventurer mode) I think it'd stay true to being dwarf fortress. Plus, you could even have a quick start function like in adventurer, where the player's given a site and a team and can just get on with it.


Technically you can already do this; the other races aren't fundamentally different from dwarves, though, even if you mod the hell out of them.

However, not only are other races in fort mode planned to be in the vanilla game at some point, but at that point they should be more different than dwarves and possibly even have unique game mechanics along with them. Excerpts from the old dev page:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Among other things.
Logged
The World Without Knifebear — A much safer world indeed.
regardless, the slime shooter will be completed, come hell or high water, which are both entirely plausible setbacks at this point.

wallish

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #1213 on: September 20, 2010, 06:31:08 pm »

Quote
Manually ordering a dwarf to perform a specific series of actions that can't be presaged in the raws/code might be the only way to save your fort and might be a reasonably orderable action made by some official, but that kind of power can degrade the atmosphere we want to build.  It's going to depend on the specific cases, but for the sake of guiding discussion on a wide range of future topics, I think it's best that the player feels that a dwarf's autonomy is being respected.  The thing that makes dwarf mode not strictly a hands-off simulation is that you are allowed to compromise dwarves' autonomy if they hold fortress positions, to the extent that you are selecting actions that fall within their position's purview.  If an order typically makes it feel like the dwarves are being controlled like marionettes, forced to do things against their will, etc., the order should probably be altered or removed.  Presently, there are a ton of things that dwarves don't care about that they should care about, but this is the overall idea.

The first thing that pops into my mind that can both solve the issue and not involve the "direct command" idea is to look at the problem from a "realistic" perspective.  Just as the question: How would the dwarves figure that out?

So for the syrup/megabeast example, have something in the raws/AI that allow a dwarf to see the poisonous effect of syrup on said waffle-beast.  The raws would define types of mixtures (caustic, salve, cleansing agent, etc) with the dwarves figuring out what ingredients to use for that potion.  If Urist McAlchemist sees that syrup is caustic to the waffle-beast then he'll make a caustic solution using syrup.


So the player/raws would define the types of mixtures but let the dwarves figure out what to use in them.  If it needs to be more advanced than that, you could define certain attributes for the mixture, such as "disinfectant = x % alcohol" or "[creature] acid must be > x caustic to [creature:skin]"
Logged

Untelligent

  • Bay Watcher
  • I eat flesh!
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #1214 on: September 20, 2010, 06:42:45 pm »

Or you could just assign weapons to be coated in whatever via the military menu.

Mind you I wasn't following the discussion awhile back because I hit my head on a wall of text so this may or may not have already come up.
Logged
The World Without Knifebear — A much safer world indeed.
regardless, the slime shooter will be completed, come hell or high water, which are both entirely plausible setbacks at this point.
Pages: 1 ... 79 80 [81] 82 83 ... 342