Print

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

[Omath Erius]

TL;DR version: Grudges are more intense and can form against species. Fighters quickly dispatch enemies they knock unconcious instead of chopping off fingers.

Despite the thread's name, i'm going to start with,

Hatred.

The main idea behind hatred is that people who encounter an extremly powerful negative event with an entity will begin to hate the entity. For example,

Urist is in the military, all his friends are in the military with him. in a brutal fight, all of his friends are killed by goblins except for him, and he grows to have a hatred for all of goblinkind. This would be reflected in Urist's profile.

quote:
He enjoys helping others... ...He has an intense hatred for goblins.

In addition, Urist would fly into a miniature beserk rage when he encounters a goblin in almost any situation, making him more ferocious.

This isn't limited to goblins and kobolds. If say, a child named... Urist sees his parents killed by batmen, he would make it a personal goal to one day dive into the chasm the beasts live in and end their pathetic lives.

This idea should also apply to individuals, say Urist is a hunter. On one of his excursions around the bay, he is attacked by a named wolf, Nexxmahked. Urist loses his eye, his dignity and most of his blood. One year later, Urist tracks down the wolf, and an epic battle ensues.

Despite my examples, the hatred doesn't NEED to form from killing, thats just easier. Speeking of killing...

Intelligent Warfare.

DF's combat system is currently great, but it does need a few improvements, namely in how combatanents fight.

Lets say Lou the goblin knocks Urist the dwarf unconcious, Lou now spends valuble time otherwise used in aiding comrades in poking the limp dwarf in the arm, or on his toes. We all know that almost every time a dwarf is knocked unconcious hes about to die, as he/she/it should, but the event should be less tedious and more dramatic. Mightaswell be context-based aswell.

Case 1: 1v1 fight, 'civilized' (Dwarves Elves Humans) wins.
Victorious unit raises his weapon above him, and plunges it down into the brain or heart, swiftly ending the enemy's life.

Case 2: 1v1 Fight, 'Bloodthirsty' (Goblins) wins
Victorious unit begins mutilating the fallen foe, may not even end enemy's life, just wait for it to wake up and torture it.

Case 3: Group v Group fight 'Civilized' kills enemy
Quickly dispose of the enemy, don't take too long, just make sure the enemy won't be waking up till the bodies can be checked.

Case 4: Group v Group fight 'Bloodthirsty' kills enemy
There is more blood to be had! Jam something down the loser's throat and continue the fight.

Obviously this is just a thin skeleton of the idea, personality of the individual and a bunch of other factors should be taken into account, but you get the idea.

[Deon]

I see the main use of it: when the dwarf knocks his enemy unconcious he switches to another one instead of beating the lying corpse. But if he hates that victim, he continues to attack him despite of other enemies around.

P.S. As long as we'll have different peace/war in the future and some gobbos will be peaceful to your entity...

1) year 1050. The family of Urist Dumbledorf is killed by wild goblins.

2) year 1072. The dwarven fortress "Riverbells"
"The caravan of goblins from Nzuk Dudun has arrived!"
"The merchants are unloading their goods!"
"Urist Dumbledorf, woodcutter, is throwing tantrum!"
"The goblin merchant is struck down!"
"The goblin merchant is drown!"
"The goblin merchant collides with obstacle and explodes in gore!"
"The goblin merchant is suffocated!"
"The goblin merchant is impaled on <<<Cat>>>!"
"Urist Dumbledorf, woodcutter, latches on firmly!"

[ May 11, 2008: Message edited by: Deon ]

[Omath Erius]

quote:Originally posted by Deon:
<STRONG>I see the main use of it: when the dwarf knocks his enemy unconcious he switches to another one instead of beating the lying corpse. But if he hates that victim, he continues to attack him despite of other enemies around.

[ May 11, 2008: Message edited by: Deon ]</STRONG>

I would actually consider that a bad idea, killing the enemy not only prevents him from getting up after the battle, it keeps the enemy from risig unexpectedly during the fight and flanking your forces.

As a side note certain conditions could mean the victor will out of respect not kill the foe he knocks unconcious, maybe even helping his adversary to his feet or getting him medical aid. Most obviously during a sparring match, where finishing off your comrades is probobly a bad idea.

[Willfor]

If hatred is implimented, it should at least come in flavours like the rest of DF, instead of being simply an instant berserk rage. Perhaps if enough atrocities are commited against the entity in question, yes, but it should follow along a due process based on the entity's personality. More reserved creatures shouldn't just fly off the handle at the sight of their hated enemy, but could wait until they see the thing in question doing something suspitious. Highly political creatures could engineer the destruction of the things they hate, and going into berserk rages tends to disuade people from thinking you are a rational being.

I want to see dwarves go towards more stable social situations with exceptions not being the rule as they are now, but this would make a nice example of one of those exceptions.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Willfor]

I don't count the stock world as the only DF. I eventually want to be able to actually have civilizations capable of high politics launching complicated plots, of which my fortress could be a part. I realise it is years away, but until then, my two cents will always lie towards whatever has to be gutted the least in order to make that possible.

[Bricktop]

For the intelligent combat thing, I certainly think it would help a lot if, when you knocked an opponent unconscious, you were guaranteed to hit their chest or head. I mean, it just makes far more sence.

About the hatred thing, I think this would be a great idea. I agree with the comments that depending on the individuals personality and the offences committed it should be split into different levels of hate.

For example, a dwarf who merely dislikes goblins would get a bad thought from seeing one. It would take a lot to make a dwarf really hate goblins enough to go into a berserk rage against the goblin whenever one is in sight.

Also, maybe a state of war between two civilisations could lead to a low level of hate between the members of those two civs, with this civ-level hate becoming more intense depending on what has happened in the war.

For example, if the goblins attack a dwarf fort, win and then mercilessly slaughter the populace (and the mounting them on +Ash Pikes+) then this would add an automatic level of hate for dwarves of that civ against goblins of the offending civ.

If enough offences were committed, then it would mean all of those dwarves would go berserk upon the moment of seeing a goblin from the specific civ (it could also build up distrust of other goblins, but at a slower rate).

[Sevrun]

you're talking about instituting a coup d'grace (pardon the spelling)  and I really have to say I like the idea.  I've had a couple large creatures wake up and nearly kill me after I'd knocked em out because my adventurer was too busy chopping off fingers instead of just killing them  :p

Now to the Hatred....  sounds like target preference, which I think is another fine idea, and something that would be nice for everyone, hatred would merely bump that creature/race farther up the scale than it would be ordinarily.

[Draco18s]

quote:Originally posted by Sevrun:
<STRONG>coup d'grace (pardon the spelling)</STRONG>

You got it right, I believe that is a proper contraction of "coup de grace"

[Kusgnos]

Yeah, the intelligent fighting part I definitely agree with. Unless a creature aims to torture the other, it shouldn't waste time lopping toes off and grabbing noses. But even with a higher chance of hitting the chest or head, it might still glance off really, really good armor. Maybe it would encourage strange battle situations in which an attacker tries to take off the unconscious enemy's armor, then stab them in the chest. Or spend time looking for chinks or holes in the chestplate, or helmet. Wait, helmets are easy to remove. O.o Hm.

But I still think that allowing for an immediate coup de grace (it's coup de grace, not coup d'grace--there's no vowel for the contraction d') is very painful to the unconscious, so why not have a chance that the person appears to be dead? If you knock a bloodied, mangled person out, and their shins are cracked and their arms are snapped, and their armor is dented and scarred everywhere, sometimes they seem dead enough. So we could add the intelligent fighting in, along with taking away the "unconscious from pain" messages and giving a chance for messages to be more dubious and ambiguous. That way, it's like giving the unconscious person a chance to play dead and live. Slim chances, but interesting, no?

[Sevrun]

it'd definately be more realistic, course, then you get guys like me that'd pull the helm and slit the throat once the fighting died down just to be sure