Print

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

[Overman]

I'm changing dwarf attributes and for one example, as many more are not being followed, I have toughness set to: [PHYS_ATT_RANGE:TOUGHNESS:1201:1301:1401:1501:1651:1801:2001], yet I am still getting flimsy characterized dwarves, which of course should not be possible considering the copy-paste of my code above. Has anyone else had problems with the code ignoring changes? Don't suggest fresh world-gen as I'm completely aware of that, it isn't the case here.

[nogoodnames]

There's no problem, you moved the range for toughness up so the dwarves with toughness scores at the lower end of the range are relatively flimsy compared to the rest of the population, even though they would be tougher than unmodded dwarves.

[Overman]

http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Attribute#Toughness

Doesn't this prove that I should have no flimsy dwarves? My lowest possible value for toughness is 1201, so all dwarves should at least be considered average, thus I should never see red text in a dwarf's description concerning toughness. Is the wiki incorrect?

EDIT:

As far as I have heard, the attribute range works as such, the six numbers represent an equal chance of 1/6 of all total dwarves spawned to start out with one of those six attribute values. If that is the case, I should definitely never see flimsy dwarves on embark or of immigrants.

[nogoodnames]

From the Wiki page you linked to:

The attribute values given in the tables correspond to default racial averages for dwarves only. Modded dwarves or any other creature will report the same phrases, but the underlying numbers may be very different.

Let me be more clear. The problem is not that your dwarves have a low toughness, but that for the purpose of descriptions, the game still considers the lowest value in the toughness range to be "flimsy", no matter if that number is two or two billion.

[Overman]

I have edited my previous post if you haven't noticed.

Then this is merely a quirk of the programming? It merely names spawned dwarves according to a 1/6th chance dependant on their spawn values? So, what descriptors may I see for dwarves if 1201 is to be named flimsy and the others are well past average?

[Overman]

Nice sig by the way. That human showed some measure of accidental wisdom. Can't wait for the finished product of DF when it comes out in ten years.

[Kweri]

I have edited my previous post if you haven't noticed.

Then this is merely a quirk of the programming? It merely names spawned dwarves according to a 1/6th chance dependant on their spawn values? So, what descriptors may I see for dwarves if 1201 is to be named flimsy and the others are well past average?

Yes - if your range is 4995-5000, the dwarves with 4995 will be considered flimsy. I wouldn't quite call it a quirk of the programming - just think of the descriptors as comparing dwarves to each other, not comparing dwarves to some grand scale of toughness (or other stats). I'm not sure where the actual cutoffs are for the ranges, but know that even your weakest dwarf will still have at least 1201 toughness.

[Overman]

I was hoping that I could more accurately observe the effects of my coding, but thank you anyways for explaining this.

[h3lblad3]

I know what you mean, but...

You are accurately seeing the effects of your coding.
After all, in that world those are the only kinds of those dwarfs that exist!

[Overman]

Yes.

[drilltooth]

you know,there is always the OTHER solution... if you simply cannot abide the presense of "flimsy" dwarves.