Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 325 326 [327] 328 329 ... 342

Author Topic: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page  (Read 1572716 times)

Deon

  • Bay Watcher
  • 💀 💀 💀 💀 💀
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4890 on: May 04, 2011, 10:50:02 am »

Quote from: 'Toady One'
Quote from: Orkel

    Toady, does this mean we can create zombie viruses in fortress mode?


Yeah, curses will be able to give rise to curses in various ways, and something relatively like some existing varieties of zombie apocalypse should be possible, even in vanilla DF.  In general with all this stuff, there is a danger with the world dying, which on its face increases as the dead come to outnumber the living more and more (although the game can place arbitrary controls on these things to prevent too much going on).  Could be up to world params, or chance, or be tightly controlled.  But from a mod perspective it should be possible to get something done.  In some broad way, it's going to be able to treat different sorts of curse behavior in all three modes (world gen, adv mode, dwarf mode), so it is hoped custom curses will at least somewhat work as expected.  Obviously there will be bugs and oversights and incomplete portions to revel in.
Hell yeah! So many new Total Conversion mod possibilities and DF tunings :). I am more than happy to hear that!
Logged
▬(ஜ۩۞۩ஜ)▬
✫ DF Wanderer ✫ - the adventure mode crafting and tweaks
✫ Cartographer's Lounge ✫ - a custom worldgen repository

Orkel

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4891 on: May 04, 2011, 11:53:02 am »

Thanks for the answers Toady!

New one that one of my friends (Goast) thought up, so I'm asking on his behalf:

A Zombie Goast: That makes me wonder
A Zombie Goast: Why isn't there a skill for fighting certain animals?
A Zombie Goast: It would certainly give using arenas added incentive

So basically, will there ever be small skills that increase per fought creature? Like, "novice at fighting goblins" or "competent at fighting hedgehogs".
Logged
Quote from: madjoe5
Dwarf Fortress: The game in which people place abducted children in a furnace to see what happens.

Knight Otu

  • Bay Watcher
  • ☺4[
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4892 on: May 04, 2011, 11:58:49 am »

Wait, crazy thought time - if non-night-creatures can spread curses/interactions transforming creatures into other creatures, then those new creatures can spread an entirely different curse. Depending on what spread types will be available... Dragons could spread a dragonborn curse, those spread a draconic creature curse (to their descendants?), and those then spread a dragon-touched curse. Sorry to go all D&D on you all, but if something like that could turn out possible...

Thanks for the answers Toady!

New one that one of my friends (Goast) thought up, so I'm asking on his behalf:

A Zombie Goast: That makes me wonder
A Zombie Goast: Why isn't there a skill for fighting certain animals?
A Zombie Goast: It would certainly give using arenas added incentive

So basically, will there ever be small skills that increase per fought creature? Like, "novice at fighting goblins" or "competent at fighting hedgehogs".

I think those things have been mentioned in conjunction with fighting styles, actually. These skills existed in Armok as well, I'm pretty sure.

Edit: From DF Talks:

Quote from: DF Talk 6:
Rainseeker:   ... Is there any plan to implement experiences with particular types of enemies.
Toady:   The original Armok had this unimplemented knowledge system for creatures, and I was definitely thinking about doing that in dwarf mode, you could be an excellent dragon fighter, that kind of thing, and the knowledge could be about their behaviour, it could be about how to butcher them in particular, and so on. So your dwarf mode guy might be excellent at butchering all the deer and cows and things that your guys bring to him, but then you bring him some kind of giant spider and he's supposed to do something with that and he's like 'What is this? I don't even know where anything is' and would spoil the thing even if he's pretty good at butchering in general. So I'm for that kind of thing, I don't think it would be unnecessarily complicated. There are some questions about what it means to be a goblin fighter versus an elf fighter if they're humanoids or whatever; is that more learning about a culture or a species or whatever, if their anatomy is roughly the same. There are questions to answer there but in general I think the more knowledge types and things that there are for fighters and the more different skills and so on that they learn the more they could be differentiated, and that's always good. I think it's good to have particulars like that, and that one in particular is something that's planned. Not planned as in completely planned out, but something we definitely want to do.
Quote from: DF Talk 9:
Rainseeker:   Let's talk about martial arts. So I see that you have specific skills for fighting monsters, you have a skill for hand-on-hand combat against a dragon ...
Toady:   I'm not sure how specific it's going to be, but once we put in things like if you're fighting a giant who's way taller than you then it would make sense that if people have been doing that for centuries then they'd have strategies. I'm not sure what those are going to be specifically, if it just gives you a knowledge against a monster and a bonus then that would be the easiest way to do it, but it would be way more fun to have particular things that you can do, to jump up on them, or attack them when they're swinging down at you, people practicing strikes to hack a dragon in the head when it comes down to bite them or whatever. There might be stereotyped ways of doing that, although I don't think enough people fight dragons and survive to really learn that stuff ... it'd be kind of weird to see the training facilities with the giant cardboard dragons, people practicing against them ...
Rainseeker:   Well you never know when a dragon's going to show up ...
« Last Edit: May 04, 2011, 12:59:41 pm by Knight Otu »
Logged
Direforged Original
Random Raw Scripts - Randomly generated Beasts , Vermin, Hags, Vampires, and Civilizations
Castle Otu

Miko19

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4893 on: May 04, 2011, 12:09:12 pm »

Quote from: 'Toady One'
Quote from: Orkel

    Toady, does this mean we can create zombie viruses in fortress mode?


Yeah, curses will be able to give rise to curses in various ways, and something relatively like some existing varieties of zombie apocalypse should be possible, even in vanilla DF.  In general with all this stuff, there is a danger with the world dying, which on its face increases as the dead come to outnumber the living more and more (although the game can place arbitrary controls on these things to prevent too much going on).  Could be up to world params, or chance, or be tightly controlled.  But from a mod perspective it should be possible to get something done.  In some broad way, it's going to be able to treat different sorts of curse behavior in all three modes (world gen, adv mode, dwarf mode), so it is hoped custom curses will at least somewhat work as expected.  Obviously there will be bugs and oversights and incomplete portions to revel in.
Hell yeah! So many new Total Conversion mod possibilities and DF tunings :). I am more than happy to hear that!
Deonapocalypse in DF, fuck yeah.
I always wanted to have my own zombieland fort with extremely sharp humour, very realistic injury system and hilarious incidents happening.
Logged

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4894 on: May 04, 2011, 12:31:27 pm »


... I get the impression that the game is going to look a lot like Final Fantasy X in the new version...

The monsters are all undead/ghosts, the global church conspiracy is run by ghosts, the villains are all undead, Bruce Willis was a ghost all along, and the total global population of actually living people shrank down to about 50 while nobody was looking.

Somehow, it seems like "Adventurer Role: Slayer of Night Creatures" might need to look more like this:

Adventurer Role: Exorcist
  • Waki miko ofuda throwing?

In fact, I have to ask some questions about this...

With night creatures, you mentioned that you might need to do some questing to find a weakness to a night creature.  Will it actually be impossible to kill night creatures without exploiting their weaknesses?  (As in, is there no way to simply chop them into a fine enough paste faster than they regenerate, or just drag them away from whatever magical power source they have to kill them "the hard way", so that we must rely upon finding a weakness, no matter the difference in strength or skill our characters have with our enemies?)

Likewise, if some sort of religious practice to divine weaknesses or to exorcise undead must happen to kill certain creatures, will we, as players, (at least some point in the future, perhaps having to wait on general magic system) have the ability to become one of those religious figures, capable of divining or performing exorcisms of ghosts or reversals of curses on our own, and can our fortresses train exorcists or the like to combat un-slabbable ghosts? Or do we have no power to fight these things on our own?


If we have no way of making our fortress completely safe from having an undead uprising, that's all well and good, so long as we have some way of actually dealing with them. Anything like a zombie you killed the first time you can probably kill again.

Ghosts, however, are invulnerable right now, and if slabs don't stop them...

Making ghosts undefeatable and having the dead goblin siegers just come back as vengeful ghosts to pick off your dwarves one-by-one at their leisure like after-dinner mints because you have no recourse against them doesn't sound fun at all, it sounds like the game just forces you to abandon a perfectly good fort for no reason. 
« Last Edit: May 04, 2011, 01:23:59 pm by NW_Kohaku »
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare

Asmageddon

  • Bay Watcher
  • [PREFSTRING: anime anime anime anime anime]
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4895 on: May 04, 2011, 12:42:53 pm »

While I think it's partially covered by NW_Kohaku question, let me explicitly ask:

Will regeneration of any sort be possible as a syndrom of a curse/"disease"/something.
Logged
I don't need a signature.

tps12

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4896 on: May 04, 2011, 12:45:40 pm »

Making ghosts undefeatable and having the dead goblin siegers just come back as vengeful ghosts to pick off your dwarves one-by-one at their leisure like after-dinner mints because you have no recourse against them doesn't sound fun at all, it sounds like the game just forces you to abandon a perfectly good fort for no reason.

The phrasing preferred by the Trolling Promotion Society of Bay12 is as follows: "that isn't fun; it isn't even Fun."
Logged

monk12

  • Bay Watcher
  • Sorry, I AM a coyote
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4897 on: May 04, 2011, 01:08:52 pm »

I am excite

Footkerchief

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Juffo-Wup is strong in this place.
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4898 on: May 04, 2011, 01:13:39 pm »

[giant Toad-quote]

If you have to quote that much of a post, please move it into a spoiler tag.
Logged

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4899 on: May 04, 2011, 01:56:23 pm »

Thanks for answering our questions as always.

I never thought I'd be referenced. I guess my observations on the ineffectual nature of the current megabeasts was spot on.

I think I'll drop the goblin thing. Unfortunately I cannot think of equally evil and freightening alternatives unless Goblins harvest large fleshlike creatures that they forever rip open and devour or they have the ability to grant their prisoners eternal life at which they can constantly eat their limbs and organs forever (or demons...). So yeah no ideas.
Logged

Armok

  • Bay Watcher
  • God of Blood
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4900 on: May 04, 2011, 01:59:29 pm »

Quote from: Armok
Once caravans and such get tracked on the local map, will things be flexible enough that you can do things like... go in with a flying adventurer, wall up the entrances to a city, wait for them to starve because food caravans cant get it, then buy the food from those caravans, fly over with it, and sell it on the black market for insane amounts of money?

There was already a discussion about the pathfinding component, and that's the main obstacle in this case, if you aren't there babysitting the gate.  If we simplify it to say, waylaying the caravan as it travels then yeah, people will have a high demand for food eventually, and it'll probably take a much longer time for their suspicion of you to be put in the game, unless they are your enemies automatically due to some magical factional thing from the caravan murder.
Awesome! ^_^


Thought of another thing reading this:
Will there ever be "benign" undead or cursed people who do not automatically enemies of the entity they came from? Like for example, undead from an [undeath][good] sphere land or somehting that just go back to their old life?
Logged
So says Armok, God of blood.
Sszsszssoo...
Sszsszssaaayysss...
III...

Footkerchief

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Juffo-Wup is strong in this place.
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4901 on: May 04, 2011, 02:09:18 pm »

I think I'll drop the goblin thing. Unfortunately I cannot think of equally evil and freightening alternatives unless Goblins harvest large fleshlike creatures that they forever rip open and devour or they have the ability to grant their prisoners eternal life at which they can constantly eat their limbs and organs forever (or demons...). So yeah no ideas.

It would be cool if goblins raised ogres/trolls for meat, or maybe giant cave spiders for eggs.  I understand Toady's stance against goblin ranchhands, but if the "cattle" are sufficiently hardcore and dangerous, I think it works thematically.

Will there ever be "benign" undead or cursed people who do not automatically enemies of the entity they came from? Like for example, undead from an [undeath][good] sphere land or somehting that just go back to their old life?

This kinda came up back in the last FotF thread.  Note that you wouldn't have an "[undeath][good] sphere" -- the spheres are a replacement for the good/evil system.
Quote from: Toady One
Quote from: Neonivek
I know your removing Good and Evil in the not so distant future... but what would be your guess of the Spheres which would be closest to good and evil? Actually undertaking all the Sphere related Spherical Land conversion of the Evil/good lands seems like a lot. I am guessing the dev item refers to you taking the first steps? What exactly does that entail if I am allowed to ask.

You mean not close to good in the moral/whatever sense but in the close to good in terms of having unicorns and fairies and fluffy wamblers occur as they do now?  If a unicorn is associated to particular spheres (luck, say) then it would be luck-lands that get them, rather than anything else (unless luck is linked to other spheres, then there's some chance of pulling them over to those as well).  The evil lands either get the "evil" creatures or the undead curses, so when those are sphered out, it would be handled that way.  Of course, since there are like 100 spheres (and will be many more no doubt), yeah, this is a large project overall, especially when you get away from the stock raw monsters and ask which random creature/veg/etc. traits should be linked to spheres and try to do every sphere justice.  If it also gets deity links at that time, you have the local civilizations associated to the deities to consider as well, so an "evil" god sphere-related land near a human civ might take the human body definition and then sphere-twist it into something that is meant to be a mockery of human form (good ones do the same thing but the twists would not be seen as a negative thing, though they could still be terrifying).  In real-world mythological examples, a lot of this depends on the cultural values associated to certain animals, though simple things like stripping off the outer layer (ie skin) or adding fire breath or making the skin a different color etc. all work as well, and I've got the tools to do all of that now with this revision.  As long as the sphere/cultural links are reasonably maintained, I think it won't devolve into a sea of garbage slush (as a more trivial but current example, take god names vs. some of the other names -- sphere-links tend to make the god names "better", in one sense at least, though clearly it all needs work).
Logged

Mel_Vixen

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hobby: accidently thread derailment
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4902 on: May 04, 2011, 02:25:41 pm »

^^ well why not making goblins feast on people that, thanks to a curse, became (stanionary) spacewhales/ meat-trees that regenerate theyr meat and get bigger after some chunks got ripped out of theyr bodys.

Thanks for answers toady.

A question on curses: Will curses be able to just alter certain attributes or do they turn anything in the same "nightcreature"? For example could we make a curse that makes the victims skin fall off, turns the the nails/claws and teeth to iron and replaces eyes with fire so that a dog and human both affected by said curse are similiar but still different creatures? Or does the "turning" curse make anything it hits into same beasty, say a 5 meter tall head-crap? Both options would actually be neat.

edit: Also footkerchief thank for digging that quote up. The new curses could lend themselfs very well t the spherical places.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2011, 02:41:08 pm by Heph »
Logged
[sarcasm] You know what? I love grammar Nazis! They give me that warm and fuzzy feeling. I am so ashamed of my bad english and that my first language is German. [/sarcasm]

Proud to be a Furry.

Orkel

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4903 on: May 04, 2011, 02:48:47 pm »

Will cursed areas have physical effects on dwarves? Like randomly bursting in hives, starting to vomit from nausea, bleeding from the mouth, or something more serious like a dwarf suddenly going blind in one eye or both? These would be rare events, maybe similar in frequency as artifacts.
Logged
Quote from: madjoe5
Dwarf Fortress: The game in which people place abducted children in a furnace to see what happens.

tps12

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4904 on: May 04, 2011, 02:57:21 pm »

It would be cool if goblins raised ogres/trolls for meat, or maybe giant cave spiders for eggs.  I understand Toady's stance against goblin ranchhands, but if the "cattle" are sufficiently hardcore and dangerous, I think it works thematically.

Or the best of both worlds: goblins are magical monsters that don't need food to survive, but they'll feast on trollflesh once in a while just because they feel like it.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 325 326 [327] 328 329 ... 342