Print

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

[Sizik]

Why is there a 2x2 minimum embark size limit?

I didn't want to work out whatever problems might have come from having a map smaller than the display width.  I'm still not sure what the problems might be, though if the nanofort people haven't had trouble they might not be serious.

It's possible for 2x2 embarks to be smaller than the screen width as well, which doesn't seem to be causing problems. There do seem to be problems with underground wildlife on 1x1 maps, however.

The restriction was probably put in place when the game was limited to 80x25 tiles.

[Knight Otu]

Thanks, Toady!

[xaritscin]

would be possible to make cavern creatures to appear with less frequency? right now its coming to a moment when you kill a hostile creature and automatically another appears at the other site of the map. now add that there's 3 caverns in the map. in most cases there are 2 hostiles. each one in one cavern and they get constantly replaced by another one.

its not like it isnt good for militia training but makes it complicated to keep an eye in the rest of the fort because you have to keep checking the units menu looking at the possible menaces.

adding a set(or even a random) time between creature appearance would be good. right now cavern creatures appear more frequently than aboveground creatures. life in a cavern should be a rare appearance, just saying.

[Urist Tilaturist]

You should spend some time researching the professions in DF and how they were done. Building especially feels too simple at the moment. I could help you with this.

[Dirst]

Do you envision a task system where more than one Dwarf can be assigned to work together on the same job?

I'm not really sure how things like the apprentice system are going to work, or things like teaching job-related skills.  It would be cool to have certain larger scale jobs that can involve several skilled dwarves as well, but I haven't thought about it at all.

Thanks Toady for the answers and your untiring work on this fantastic game.

There are a few Suggestions threads concerning apprentices, and without delving too deeply I'm pretty sure the suggested systems are approximately 100% incompatible with each other... which will keep everyone guessing about what will actually happen.

As for multiple critters on the same task, the simplest solution is for completion time to equal 1 / ( 1/a + 1/b + 1/c + ... ) where a, b, c, etc. are the times it would take individuals to complete the task.  The secret sauce will be deciding how many help on the job and the quality level of the combined work.

[Catharsis]

Yeah, I know it's no fun, but all of the stuff that is broken I just want fixed before any more new features get added...

Oh, and better animal (and farming in general) automation. Auto-milking, butchering, shearing, spinning, dyeing, weaving, cooking etc. It's really zero fun micromanaging most of these. Just throw a breeding pair/thread/cookorbrew limit on there and work out the kinks.

[Putnam]

Yeah, I know it's no fun, but all of the stuff that is broken I just want fixed before any more new features get added...

Oh, and better animal (and farming in general) automation. Auto-milking, butchering, shearing, spinning, dyeing, weaving, cooking etc. It's really zero fun micromanaging most of these. Just throw a breeding pair/thread/cookorbrew limit on there and work out the kinks.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?board=5.0

[Catharsis]

Eh, I already know it's been requested a bunch of times. My main point was please just don't add a bunch more half broken stuff on top of what's already broken.

[Putnam]

Eh, I already know it's been requested a bunch of times. My main point was please just don't add a bunch more half broken stuff on top of what's already broken.

The purpose of the thread is to discuss current developments.  Specific bugs should be reported on the bug tracker, and specific suggestions belong for the most part in the suggestion forum.

If you have specific questions, I'll try to answer them all, although it is difficult to respond to everything when it is busy.  I'll lean toward questions that involve current developments to avoid pulling the entire suggestion forum in here.  In the past, we've all found the practice of making questions limegreen works pretty well.  You do that like this:

Code: [Select]

[color=limegreen]making questions limegreen[/color]


[Whatsifsowhatsit]

I'm curious how dynamic the starting scenarios will be. Will military outposts/taverns still be able to grow in to traditional forts?

Yeah, I probably should have been careful with the wording, since the word scenario in games brings some baggage with it.  It might be difficult for something like a prison colony's administration to change its remit to something more general, but even if everything starts stacked up in a certain way, we'd like it all to be mutable eventually.  Each fort will exist in the same framework, even if the circumstances are different, though since the changes have to be coded, they probably won't all be possible at first.

Just to clarify, there is no way in which two forts will be different if you start them from different starting scenarios but then change them such that they are identical (if you could do such a thing)? I ask (again) because on the development page, there are quotes like,

We're also holding off on "work crew" approaches for similar reasons, and it's quite possible these might arise with guilds and other features when the nature of the fortress is understood through the scenario.

that make it sound like the scenario really does determine (via hard-coding at the start) some things about how "the nature of the fortress is understood". It would be cool if that sort of thing was also dynamic, such that the game would understand at some point that you're making a fortress of a certain nature (e.g., a wayside tavern(-fortress)) based on how you're building it, and then perhaps manipulate certain features and behaviors based on that as necessary (and would hopefully not get that wrong too often).

Sorry about the slightly repeated question; it's just an appeal for clarification as stated.

[Toady One]

We're also holding off on "work crew" approaches for similar reasons, and it's quite possible these might arise with guilds and other features when the nature of the fortress is understood through the scenario.

[makes] it sound like the scenario really does determine (via hard-coding at the start) some things about how "the nature of the fortress is understood". It would be cool if that sort of thing was also dynamic, such that the game would understand at some point that you're making a fortress of a certain nature (e.g., a wayside tavern(-fortress)) based on how you're building it, and then perhaps manipulate certain features and behaviors based on that as necessary (and would hopefully not get that wrong too often).

I didn't mean nature as an intrinsic and unchanging thing, but just "how it is now".  I don't plan to have anything set as a permanent trait of the fort, but if mechanisms of change aren't added, the related variables/etc. are effectively constant.  So it's just a matter of doing the work, like anything else.  Our goal is to have the starting state be fully mutable, so that, for instance, you could become a focal point for a religion or a destination for prisoners later on in your game, even if you started as a roadside inn, assuming the transitions make some kind of sense.  The mechanics for these transitions/additions/subtractions are up in the air -- detection can be hard, and manual selection can be immersion-breaking/clunky, so we're going to have to see what happens.  I think the only example we have now is that choice to become a barony, which isn't that interesting since we didn't add negative consequences.  It seems like become a popular destination relies on your work on your tavern zones and then waiting for rumors/rep to build, pilgrimage stuff can depend on the quality of your temple and chance, and stuff like receiving prisoners would be a more explicitly decided thing.

So yeah, this isn't related to "missions" or "scenarios" that you might select in, say, a strategy game.  We're simply adding some background for why your fortress is being founded, and that by necessity puts some initial structure in place.  Just as the entity positions and historical links etc. are all stored in a dynamic fashion, these new data structures will all be alterable as mechanics go in.  The currently released fort's relationship to its parent society already has many assumptions in place that are more hard-coded than anything we'll be adding, and these current facts will also be encoded in a more free-form fashion (the way the caravan works, the way the liaison works, the number of starting dwarves, the law, property and labor, etc.).

[bigmac3003]

I know this may sound a little odd but is it possible for non-lethal/fighting type grappling to ever become a thing, or even a planned feature?
It sounds strange the way I'm putting it so let me give you some examples.

I've felt like a jerk for a while because my companion got his foot cut off by a gobbo a while back, and he has no family or anyone to leave with, so I just let him crawl and follow me around. I want to be able to throw his arm over me and help him walk, or drag him away from dangerious situations.
That also brings up a few other things, like when a companion decides to take a dip in the river I jumped across, I really wish I could grab their arm and pull them out before they drown, or grab them as they jump for the less athletic ones.

Or even pick up a person and carry them, or just grab someone by the arm, like maybe someone put a bounty on you, or the guards need you to leave, maybe they can drag you out by the upper arm or even throat.

And lastly, but not least. Hugs. With the emotion system in right now people tend to cry alot, what they need are hugs. lots of hugs really bad.

Especially when I bring a chunk of my dead companion to their family to prove their death, as to say your sorry but they died fighting beside you.

I guess you could also add hand holding (for married couples only! )

[Putnam]

Hugs are already in the game.

[Eric Blank]

They are? I honestly haven't noticed. I should hug people before hacking their limbs off.

Dragging people away from their own stupidity would be an awesome feature to throw in the suggestions forum.

[GreenScape]

Have you switched to c++11/14? How much did it make a coding easier?