Print

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

[Sunday]

I don't think it's worth greening, because it obviously isn't happening anytime soon, but I'm curious about whether Toady's going to expand the "site claims" idea to personal property.

Right now it's clear that the system is limited to land. However, it sounds like a pretty flexible system, and I wonder how hard it would be to port over. So that, for instance, muggers could end up holding a "claim" on the coins in your pocket, and assault you for them.

It just seems like it would be possible to do, and it would add a lot of fun and excitement to adventure mode, and also end up making for a lot of theft, bad blood, and general fun in Fortress mode.

You could even add a sort of rudimentary bona fide purchaser system without much difficulty. Thus, if a thug beats you up (nonlethally, with the new system), and steals your gold or your blade, then under all non-goblin civilizations your claim would be better than his, and you could reclaim your property without violence against you from groups unaffiliated with the thug. However, if he resold your sword to a weapons shop, or used the cash he stole to buy food, then the merchant's claim would take precedence over yours (and obviously over the thug's), because the merchant is a bona fide purchaser for value. All you'd need is a claim priority system (that could even be modifiable!).

A claim priority system could also make for more diversified civilizations even without getting into land-use law. For example, goblin civilizations could basically have the strongest able to lay claim on whatever they want. Despotic human civilizations could have it so that higher ranking humans can lay claims on any property owned by a lower caste. Elves could not really have much of a claims system at all. Dwarves could have a super complicated system with lots of usury, loans of property (a claim limited in time), and interests secured on personal property (e.g. "I'll give you food today, but if you don't pay me back in a month I get your sword").

Anyway, obviously only artifacts would keep track of a ton of claims on any given item (which would in turn facilitate fun wars over artifacts), but during play it seems like it would be possible to keep some claims on some important items (e.g. anything the adventurer owns or tries to steal, or in dwarf mode property that has been claimed as personal property by a dwarf, since most property isn't claimed, so the system wouldn't be too resource-intensive hopefully, particularly if the claim just became a property of the time for a time).

Welp, that was longer than I intended. Ah well.

[CaptainArchmage]

It hasn't been greened yet, so Do tents provide protection from bogeymen at night?

[10terrapin01]

Now that civs will begin claiming sites, is there a possibility that there might be new world constructions like great walls to keep out enemy factions?  Or possibly Towers to help defend smaller areas?  In adventure mode it would be great to know that you are passing into a new kingdom by going through large gates, and sneaking past guards into an enemy kingdom seems like a great bit of Fun.

[Phlum]

Ok so a fort is made at the border of another factions land, they make a claim on your site. (a player made fort is a site, right) and destroy you with an army, will you be able to reclaim that fort, will it become a part of that entity, will individuals live at your now dwarfless fort.

Basically, how will forts be affected, if at all, by site claiming?

[MrWiggles]

Ok so a fort is made at the border of another factions land, they make a claim on your site. (a player made fort is a site, right) and destroy you with an army, will you be able to reclaim that fort, will it become a part of that entity, will individuals live at your now dwarfless fort.

Basically, how will forts be affected, if at all, by site claiming?

Thats a very interesting question.

More broadly are player created Sites under the normal rules for Site Claiming? So lets say you lose a fort through Not Invasion, and you spend a year or two in adventure mode. Will the Site be up for grabs like normal?

[Owlbread]

Characters that are among the first of their kind will often say "I have no family to speak of" when asked in adventure mode. Will the creation of these characters be explained in the future? Could we see procedurally generated creation myths, and how would that impact on gameplay?

It might get a bit weird when you ask the local plump helmet merchant if he has any family and he says "I was among the first Dwarves forged in the fires of Armok's smithy!"

[Cruxador]

Characters that are among the first of their kind will often say "I have no family to speak of" when asked in adventure mode. Will the creation of these characters be explained in the future? Could we see procedurally generated creation myths, and how would that impact on gameplay?

It might get a bit weird when you ask the local plump helmet merchant if he has any family and he says "I was among the first Dwarves forged in the fires of Armok's smithy!"

You aren't likely to see dwarves who were the first of their kind in a normal world. Characters with no relatives are more likely to be non-historical figures taken from the entity population and made historical when you speak to them. If the game generated more historical figures to fill spaces when you asked about family, that would solve this problem fine.

[Owlbread]

Characters that are among the first of their kind will often say "I have no family to speak of" when asked in adventure mode. Will the creation of these characters be explained in the future? Could we see procedurally generated creation myths, and how would that impact on gameplay?

It might get a bit weird when you ask the local plump helmet merchant if he has any family and he says "I was among the first Dwarves forged in the fires of Armok's smithy!"

You aren't likely to see dwarves who were the first of their kind in a normal world. Characters with no relatives are more likely to be non-historical figures taken from the entity population and made historical when you speak to them. If the game generated more historical figures to fill spaces when you asked about family, that would solve this problem fine.

I see them quite regularly though because I usually play one or two years after the end of the age of myth.

[Untelligent]

Are those cones of vision? I guess Toady changed his mind about them, I could swear I remember him saying he didn't like them.

[Footkerchief]

Are those cones of vision? I guess Toady changed his mind about them, I could swear I remember him saying he didn't like them.

Yes they are.  They were discussed in the DF Talk 9 bonus section:

Then there's the whole thief mechanics, I haven't played a lot of those Thief games so I'm not up on the technology there ... a lot of it is about which way are they looking, like vision arcs, and that's something that I'm not comfortable with as a concept in general, I don't like it when you're walking around and you can only see half the screen, because that's not how it works, or at least if you were paranoid enough in a fantasy game you have to worry about getting attacked you'd be like 'step forward, look over my shoulder, step forward, look over my shoulder, step forward, look over my shoulder, step forward, look over my shoulder' so it should just show you everything. But when you're sneaking you shouldn't be able to ... when someone's sneaking at least if it's you or if the target of the sneaking is not the player, then there should be things like vision arcs so that you can have a guard walking down a hallway and then you can run down the hallway behind him ... There are going to be visions arcs then, but they just don't apply to you, I don't want to put them in for you ... Someone should be able to do that to you too theoretically, like you're walking down a hallway and then they can run up behind and either attack you or run down the hallway, but if we put in vision arcs strictly then you'll constantly have to stop and be paranoid about looking over your shoulder, and as realistic as that might be it would not be fun.

[orius]

I'm guessing then that the brown/yellow parts of the cone represent the guard's peripheral vision, and the red is more directly in line of sight.  Because it didn't seem like the character was much in trouble until he entered the red part of one of the cones.

Toady's comments in that DF Talk quote is one of the things I don't like much about first-person games, the field of veiw feels very restricted.  Some people might think it's realistic, but I've never cared for it much.  IRL, you might have a sinilar field of view, but you're also relying on your other senses as well, and games don't provide the full sensory experience when they go into first person.

[Putnam]

I'm guessing then that the brown/yellow parts of the cone represent the guard's peripheral vision, and the red is more directly in line of sight.  Because it didn't seem like the character was much in trouble until he entered the red part of one of the cones.

The guards don't actually care if you are there yet, so in the first video, I get spotted, drop my spear, and continue wandering around.

[Neonivek]

Well not to mention you can look left and right so fast and see everything in them that your "effective field of view" is actually greater then your field of vision.

[EnigmaticHat]

Damn, I knew adventure mode stealth needed an update, but I didn't expect it so soon or in such detail.

[BinaryBeast1010011010]

I wonder how power levelling ambusher will impact the new system. Currently you can kill a whole army without being noticed if you are legendary...