Print

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

[Squanto]

Let us instead talk about the possibility of possible Megabeast Mummies with curses that transform people into their half-breed children/kin.

Oooh! or possibly Megabeasts that instead of dying come back as some sort of corrupted version of themselves (I can imagine Titans doing that)

Though I believe right now... Powers cannot be mummies and there are no "sentient" Megabeasts and no "social" semimegabeast.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of weremegabeasts that happen to also be necromancers while transformed and spread their disease through secreted gasses and blood...

[G-Flex]

Let's not talk about a person who's been banned and can't defend themselves.
It's over now.

I'm just sad that someone like him can start off with a coherent enough argument (at least in part), then completely devolve into feeling ripped off because he made a voluntary donation to someone with extremely transparent development practices and pretty much nothing at all to hide. Christ, donating to DF isn't exactly an uninformed decision unless you really, really try hard not to try.

[Neonivek]

Let's not talk about a person who's been banned and can't defend themselves.
It's over now.

I'm just sad that someone like him can start off with a coherent enough argument (at least in part), then completely devolve into feeling ripped off because he made a voluntary donation to someone with extremely transparent development practices and pretty much nothing at all to hide. Christ, donating to DF isn't exactly an uninformed decision unless you really, really try hard not to try.

I have to agree... At first I didn't mind his alternative oppinions to the almost sardonic chants of the board (Is sardonic the correct word?).

[sambojin]

From a slightly humorous perspective, it'll be funny the day Toadyone says "That's it. Dwarf Fortress is finished. I finally managed to code in all the things I wanted in the game."

"But what about the bugs? The horrible user interface? The fact that it runs slowly sometimes?".

For many of us, we'll be laughing pretty hard if his answer is "That's exactly how I wanted the game to be. It's finished. Have fun!"

We can only hope he never does, as long as the donations are enough to keep him coding.

[Funk]

is that an out of town market i see in SirPenguin overlays?

[Capntastic]

I'm just mad Toady still hasn't used all the money I've funneled to him to put in tac nukes.

[Mr Frog]

I have to agree... At first I didn't mind his alternative oppinions to the almost sardonic chants of the board (Is sardonic the correct word?).

I think the word you're looking for is 'sycophantic'. However, though I think this forum goes a bit overboard with the Toad-Worship at times, it's a lot better than some forums I've seen in that you're actually allowed to express dissenting opinions so long as you aren't an idiot about it. The community as a whole seems to value maturity, not conformity. [/sycophantic gushing]

Is it/will it be possible for a single interaction to have multiple targets/means of selecting targets? For example, could I mod in an interaction that paralyzes a target on line-of-sight, but makes the caster dizzy/drowsy as a sort of backlash?

[astaldaran]

I'm just mad Toady still hasn't used all the money I've funneled to him to put in tac nukes.

well actually...if you edit the raws you can get the game to go all the way to 'The Age of Starcraft" and tac nukes are right  beside tanks in the B screen....

[Footkerchief]

Is it/will it be possible for a single interaction to have multiple targets/means of selecting targets? For example, could I mod in an interaction that paralyzes a target on line-of-sight, but makes the caster dizzy/drowsy as a sort of backlash?

It looks like interactions are set up to allow multiple targets with different effects for each.  However, I'm not sure how an interaction would be made self-targeting.  Shot in the dark, but maybe SELF instead of LINE_OF_SIGHT in the CDI:TARGET tag?

It's sort of weird how the interaction def is split between the INTERACTION block and the CE_CAN_DO_INTERACTION.  I guess the idea is that certain interaction attributes only make sense when the interaction is being performed by a creature.

I also can't tell from those raws how "native" interactions are handled, i.e. a native ability to perform an interaction without getting the ability from a syndrome.  Maybe creature effect (CE) stuff can just be included in a creature def as well as a syndrome def?

[Capntastic]

I'm just mad Toady still hasn't used all the money I've funneled to him to put in tac nukes.

well actually...if you edit the raws you can get the game to go all the way to 'The Age of Starcraft" and tac nukes are right  beside tanks in the B screen....

Don't toy with me, I'm this close to revoking my donations!! You'll regret this!!

[EmeraldWind]

Is it/will it be possible for a single interaction to have multiple targets/means of selecting targets? For example, could I mod in an interaction that paralyzes a target on line-of-sight, but makes the caster dizzy/drowsy as a sort of backlash?

It looks like interactions are set up to allow multiple targets with different effects for each.  However, I'm not sure how an interaction would be made self-targeting.  Shot in the dark, but maybe SELF instead of LINE_OF_SIGHT in the CDI:TARGET tag?

It's sort of weird how the interaction def is split between the INTERACTION block and the CE_CAN_DO_INTERACTION.  I guess the idea is that certain interaction attributes only make sense when the interaction is being performed by a creature.

I also can't tell from those raws how "native" interactions are handled, i.e. a native ability to perform an interaction without getting the ability from a syndrome.  Maybe creature effect (CE) stuff can just be included in a creature def as well as a syndrome def?

From the look of the werebeast, the werebeast's bite attack (in the creature def) needs a line telling it to use an interaction. "Native" interactions are probably handled similarly (technically in the werebeast's case the bite is a "native" interaction because it isn't caused by the syndrome, but instead a part of creature def).

As for the CE_CAN_DO_INTERACTION, it seems to add the interaction to the creature similar to how adding SPECIALATTACK_INTERACTION:WEREBEAST_BITE to the creature's bite attack gives the bite attack an associated interaction. As a result it needs to define more specifically how the interaction is done.

As for why part of the interaction is in the interaction definition and the other half is under the CE_CAN_DO_INTERACTION tag is sort of clever.

I would assume this is because the interaction can be used in more that one way. For example, say there is a creature that can raise zombies like a necromancer, but instead of line of sight it is an area effect. Instead of rewriting the interaction a second time you just link CE_CAN_DO to the same interaction, but define the attack differently. This way the interaction is more user friendly to other creatures and modders. IIRC this is called the Adapter Pattern. HUZZAH FOR DESIGN PATTERNS!

[Mr Frog]

Is it/will it be possible for a single interaction to have multiple targets/means of selecting targets? For example, could I mod in an interaction that paralyzes a target on line-of-sight, but makes the caster dizzy/drowsy as a sort of backlash?

It looks like interactions are set up to allow multiple targets with different effects for each.  However, I'm not sure how an interaction would be made self-targeting.  Shot in the dark, but maybe SELF instead of LINE_OF_SIGHT in the CDI:TARGET tag?

It's sort of weird how the interaction def is split between the INTERACTION block and the CE_CAN_DO_INTERACTION.  I guess the idea is that certain interaction attributes only make sense when the interaction is being performed by a creature.

I also can't tell from those raws how "native" interactions are handled, i.e. a native ability to perform an interaction without getting the ability from a syndrome.  Maybe creature effect (CE) stuff can just be included in a creature def as well as a syndrome def?

From what I can tell, the CE specifically stands for "Creature Effect" or some such, so [CE_CAN_DO_INTERACTION:Blah] specifically means that the creature can perform Interaction Blah while under the effect of Interaction Blargle. I'm willing to guess that a "native" interaction would just be straight-up [CAN_DO_INTERACTION:blah]. But I guess you've already figured that...

EDIT: Ninja'd, though in an attempt to save face I must point out that Footie prolly was referring to non-attack/substance-based interactions, such as turtles retracting into their shells.

EDIT The Second, Because Why Bother Making A New Post: I see that the secret-based interactions have a hint as to what would motivate units to search them out in worldgen. Are there any others besides a fear of dying (as in necromancers) and if so, what are they?
Relatedly, for vampire- and werewolf-style divine-punishment thingies, are there any hint tags besides MAJOR_CURSE and, if so, what do they do?

[EmeraldWind]

EDIT: Ninja'd, though in an attempt to save face I must point out that Footie prolly was referring to non-attack/substance-based interactions, such as turtles retracting into their shells.

I forgot about those. I thought he was talking about stuff like a werewolf's bite where it was linked to an attack. But in my defense there is quite a chunk of cool stuff in the next version so keeping it all straight is becoming hard. Heck, I think once this version is released people will be busy for quite a while in the modding forums.

Also, though I think my initial idea for the reason the interactions are broken up is correct, I am wondering why the mummy entry has "Example D Raise" when it is tag for tag the same as the necromancer's "Example Raise". Is it to make things less confusing for the purpose of showing the interaction in the same spoiler? It's weird because like I said earlier the Mummy can easily use the Necromancer's raise without the second definition since they are the same, it is as simple a deleting that one 'D' from the tag. Maybe the mummy's is there in case someone copies and pastes it and accidentally creates duplicate entries...

[monk12]

The rivers have ramps now, so you can get in and out of them, and the water is generally a bit more accessible.

YES! Oh, so very nice. I hope this applies to murky pools as well. I'm also curious to see if goblin invaders on amphibious mounts will be able to path back out of the water now.

adventurers traveling can get thirsty and hungry now and can last 5 and 30 days without, respectively, as things stand

Also cool! Now my random animal murderings can have slightly more purpose than before.

The wiki is bugging out for me right now, otherwise I'd check- is DF still on the "one food unit fills you up completely" plan? That's how I remember it, and although the abstraction works well enough in Fort mode I'm not sure how it'll hold up in adventure mode.

[Dae]

Now if only we could make really wearable armor by using the adventurer reaction system, there would be sense in a survivor challenge ! It is so much more satisfying to get to being a hero when you started as a lowly peasant, working your way up by making weapons and clothes from the bones and skin of your enemies... Now we'll have to eat their guts too ! Lovely time !