Print

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

Me

16 (22.9%)

Me!

54 (77.1%)

Total Members Voted: 69

[DVNO]

okay, so far I have gathered (correct me if this is wrong)

Yes on starting a new DF from scratch series after the new release.

Yes on collaborating using Google drive and no more single modding turns. ( not a lot of replies about it, but also there was zero pushback on the topic so i'll chalk it up to on of those 'yeah, duh' sort of ideas )

Yes to porting creations from the old version and only the old version.

Here's some more ideas to stir up some  discussion.

No halfling race - and to take it even a step further ...

No copyrighted works of fantasy fiction in general as a rule. As in, if it can be found in J.R.R Tolkien's Similarion, or World of Warcraft, or a D&D book, it should be rejected, or at least be given a more unique flavor that fits the tone of the game that we'll eventually sculpt out.

I like this rule because Fantasy is, by it's very characteristic, limitless with ideas. If somebody wants to play with Dwarves & Orcs in a fleshed out stock fantasy setting, there will always be Forlorn Realms and Masterwork DF and of course Vanilla. So, Why do we have to be constrained in the generic fantasy pulp of elves and goblins? This project always shined most when a unique, crazy little  idea took center stage or some strange piece of lore entered the mix, so why not always strive for and enforce a unique fantasy universe with lots a cool little things over the already well trodden and established?

Expanding on Lord_Lemonpie's idea

I agree, only one all inclusive race is too small to have fun with, But what about three multiple race inclusive civilizations?

Let distill what typically happens when somebody embarks in vanilla, right? Usually the situation is this; You are allied with your civ, the goblins are hostile to you, and either the elves or humans want to trade or siege you, rarely both at the same time.

Would that experience change much, other than in more variety in trade and sieges, if instead of a dwarf civ and a goblin civ constantly butting heads, There was (stealing some Warcraft here) an 'Alliance' civ and a 'Horde' civ constantly opposed to each other? And for trade, perhaps there could be a third, neutral group that agrees with exactly half of the 'Alliance' civs ethics, and half of the 'Horde' civs ethics, making the neutral civ constantly flip flop between the two with trade deals and pledges of war support at the beginning and during every world gen like an indecisive girlfriend?

This would likely help newer modders, because if they make a cool race creature file but don't really know what to put into the entity file that would be balanced, they can just hook their creature into the coalition that suits their flavor and not have to worry about it.

streamlining the raws

Do we still want to keep the format 'item_username' in the raws? This creates a lot of individual little raw snippets and can be messy to edit, especially if something is game crippling and needs to be bug fixed.
         
Maybe it would be a better system to just have one file for entities, objects, creatures, ect, but inside the files, segment the token like this;

Code: [Select]

c_variation

[OBJECT:CREATURE_VARIATION]

### contributor 1 ###

[TOKEN]
[TOKEN]
[TOKEN]

### contributor 2 ###

[TOKEN]
[TOKEN]
[TOKEN]




 

[WillowLuman]

I think separating based on contributor is a good idea. It makes mistakes easier to find and keeps files somewhat shorter and more navigable. Also, it makes it easier to change small parts rather than having to overwrite the master raws for a single section change.

[Gnorm]

I don't think that creatures that happen to be found in the works of Tolkien should be straight-up banned, though there certainly should be restrictions, as there were when this project began. Sentient creatures that exist in ordinary Dwarf Fortress aren't normally allowed, unless they are drastically changed, in the case of the treelords. I agree that one should use his imagination and try to create something other than an orc, though one should be able to take inspiration from mythologies and literature.

[StLeibowitz]

Keeping files separate based on who made them is a good idea - as Hugo said, it improves navigability.

I agree on the originality bit, but maybe it should be more of a strong guideline rather than a hard rule. And for what creatures that are made purely original, they should probably have good lines on their physical appearance in the description, to help people envision the world. I mean, everyone knows what a dwarf looks like, so you can get away with "A short, sturdy creature fond of drink and industry." Odds are good that people who know what a Segmented Pentapod or a Golden Arravis look like are significantly rarer, so giving the rest a bit more to work with might be a good idea.

Also, one entity per sentient playable race is best. More variety is best. And it could very well end up different, if two different playable races had wildly divergent morals - if you play as the Dwarves, say, you're probably in conflict with goblins, maybe with elves, will be raided by 'bolds, and will have good trade relations with humans...but if you play as goblins, you'll have to deal with sieges of steel-clad, crossbow-armed dwarves, probably skirmish with elves and humans, and will look forward to the kobold trade caravan every winter. As dwarves, you look at goblinite as a rich source of iron for your industry, though it can be passed up - but as goblins, dwarfite will be the sole source of steel, and likely indispensable for that purpose. Dwarves will have to lay traps to catch kobold thieves, but goblins wouldn't have to worry. And this is only considering vanilla races, which truthfully aren't too hugely different from each other. With Scratch races, things could get intricate.

It could get especially fun if each entity had a particular trade good it produced, like the pipes Halflings make. You'd have to play halflings or be friendly to Halflings to access pipes, which are then used in alchemy for incense and stuff. Enemies of halflings would be locked out of aspects of alchemy, but could trade with foes of the halflings for, say, some kind of reinforced magical glass for use in really good cutting weapons. Something to consider, perhaps.

[DVNO]

Alright, I'm making a note here to keep the format as is.

I agree that one should use his imagination and try to create something other than an orc, though one should be able to take inspiration from mythologies and literature.

And yes, if someone takes a vague, obscure myth from the 14th century like the Cockatrice to create? Sure, that would be perfectly valid. A Tauren is not. That is exactly what I meant by copyrighted work. 

[Gnorm]

With the new version out, will we begin assembling a new DF from Scratch?

[WillowLuman]

Yes. A new thread may be in order, though I'm unsure who's account should post it. We should probably wait a week or two for stability.

[Gnorm]

I can't imagine that the raws would change that[ much for the next release. While it might not be possible to begin the new game immediately, one could begin to assemble the raws for our use.

[DrKillPatient]

Ooh, I'm all for a new DFFS. I'd be willing to participate. I like the idea of a Google drive repository for the raws, too. (Though git's nice, it's a lot harder to use.)

Yeah, it sticks to grid view for reasons beyond me. It looks much nicer if you switch it over to list view. I'll see if there's a setting around to keep it in a list.

Add #list to the end of the URL and it will go to listview automatically, as in this link.

[WillowLuman]

I would recommend getting a headstart on any raws you want to convert. As we use our original bodyplan, we don't have to worry about the neck problem vanilla-derived raws face (we already added necks!), but we do need to worry about vision arcs and sense of smell.

[Gnorm]

I would recommend getting a headstart on any raws you want to convert. As we use our original bodyplan, we don't have to worry about the neck problem vanilla-derived raws face (we already added necks!), but we do need to worry about vision arcs and sense of smell.

How much of our raws are we converting to the new game?

[DrKillPatient]

I would recommend getting a headstart on any raws you want to convert. As we use our original bodyplan, we don't have to worry about the neck problem vanilla-derived raws face (we already added necks!), but we do need to worry about vision arcs and sense of smell.

How much of our raws are we converting to the new game?

Do we know precisely what parts of the raws need to changed? If it's just additions of things like the tracking stuff, one could easily have a script insert those items (with sane defaults) into the current raws as a placeholder so that they at least function properly

[WillowLuman]

There are some new body part tokens, such as PREVENTS_PARENT_COLLAPSE, and smell tokens actually matter now.

[Dwarf4Explosives]

What does "[PREVENTS_PARENTS_COLLAPSE]" do?
I'll try to convert my raws to the current version, at any rate.

[DVNO]

Ah, thanks for that DrKillPatient!

@Hugo

Yup, had the same thought about stability.  I'm writing up the introduction for the first post now, and I plan on starting the new thread on the 15th. That cool with everyone?   

@ Gnorm

If the original author wants to convert their original DFFS v1 work and wants to keep up the commitment of continually updating them as the new v 40.X versions roll out, then it'll be accepted. So, for how much is converted, it really depends on how many original contributors jump back on the project and want to continue their ideas.

I'd like to remind everyone, though, The material files will be from scratch, so keep checking for dependencies that may not still exist or need to be re-created in mind as you update.

I'm excited about this you guys