Print

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

[Random_Dragon]

Now that 42.05 is a thing, are giant desert scorpions back yet?

[Shonai_Dweller]

Now that 42.05 is a thing, are giant desert scorpions back yet?

Doesn't look like it.

[Random_Dragon]

*cue the failhorn*

Well, wound up re-adding them to Adventurecraft at least.

[Urlance Woolsbane]

1) At present, while the raws encompass a great deal, a number of elements remain either hardcoded (e.g. randomized creatures and Vanilla workshops) or placed elsewhere (e.g. boasts). Might we see any of these (with the obvious exception of clowns) moved to the raws in the near future?

2) And speaking of randomized creatures, I did a little test recently: I genned a world with 1000 types of werebeasts, and searched the uncompressed save with a hex-editor. I found that werereptile-curses are considerably more common (28 was the least amount I saw for a given animal, and it seemed common for them to be in the 40's) than weremammal or weremarsupial-ones (both of which seem to have between 8 and 15 of a given animal). And that's not counting werelizard-curses, which are in a league of their own with a whopping 138 instances. What gives?

[PatrikLundell]

@Urlance Woolsbane:

2) I'd retry the world generation a number of times before trying to draw conclusions. Firstly, (pseudo)random chances being what they are, with a large enough set you'll get outliers. Also, I suspect some deities are more curse prone than others, and it wouldn't be strange if these deities had were curse preferences. Thus, I'd not just count the raw number of weres of each type, but also who cursed them into what. Multiple worlds would generate multiple sets of gods to offend.

[Knight Otu]

1) At present, while the raws encompass a great deal, a number of elements remain either hardcoded (e.g. randomized creatures and Vanilla workshops) or placed elsewhere (e.g. boasts). Might we see any of these (with the obvious exception of clowns) moved to the raws in the near future?

Probably not near future, though I imagine there's some small chance to get something out into the raws during the myth generation. But over time, more and more hardcoded elements should find their way into the raws, since that's an explicit goal (Including the randomized critters and thus the demons).

[Urlance Woolsbane]

@Urlance Woolsbane:

2) I'd retry the world generation a number of times before trying to draw conclusions. Firstly, (pseudo)random chances being what they are, with a large enough set you'll get outliers. Also, I suspect some deities are more curse prone than others, and it wouldn't be strange if these deities had were curse preferences. Thus, I'd not just count the raw number of weres of each type, but also who cursed them into what. Multiple worlds would generate multiple sets of gods to offend.

I should clarify: I was referring to the number of curse interactions and corresponding werebeast-types in the .DAT file, not the werecreature populations. Deities shouldn't come into it.

As for outliers, sure, that's a possibility, but the patterns I noticed were rather too consistent, methinks. And I don't think that werelizard-curses being more than three times as common as anything else I noticed is a statistical fluke (not to mention I'd noticed their frequency in the Arena.)

EDIT: I generated two more worlds, and the results were quite similar. Werelizard-curses were in the 130's in both, and the lowest amount for a reptile-curse I saw was 24. The lowest I saw for a mammal-curse was 5.

[vjmdhzgr]

How exactly do the skill levels past legendary work? I believe it's generally recognized that legendary+5 is the highest meaningful skill level, but is there an actual decrease in how much each skill level gained does past that? A few years ago when the shaft of enlightenment bug was discovered, it was found that using it could bring skill levels above legendary+70, and that there was indeed a notable difference at that point. What was intended to happen with these incredibly high experience levels?

[malvado]

Any chances Workshops could get to use Wheelbarrows for picking up items?

[Dirst]

Any chances Workshops could get to use Wheelbarrows for picking up items?

There's a blurry line between development questions and game suggestions, but this has veered pretty cleanly onto the suggestion side.  Toady does read at least the first couple posts of each suggestion thread.

This means that thread owners over there really ought to make an effort to summarize the state of the debate in your OP.

[Bumber]

2) And speaking of randomized creatures, I did a little test recently: I genned a world with 1000 types of werebeasts, and searched the uncompressed save with a hex-editor. I found that werereptile-curses are considerably more common (28 was the least amount I saw for a given animal, and it seemed common for them to be in the 40's) than weremammal or weremarsupial-ones (both of which seem to have between 8 and 15 of a given animal). And that's not counting werelizard-curses, which are in a league of their own with a whopping 138 instances. What gives?

New stuff
   (*) A few lizards

(I suspect by recently you didn't mean 42.05, though.)

[Urlance Woolsbane]

2) And speaking of randomized creatures, I did a little test recently: I genned a world with 1000 types of werebeasts, and searched the uncompressed save with a hex-editor. I found that werereptile-curses are considerably more common (28 was the least amount I saw for a given animal, and it seemed common for them to be in the 40's) than weremammal or weremarsupial-ones (both of which seem to have between 8 and 15 of a given animal). And that's not counting werelizard-curses, which are in a league of their own with a whopping 138 instances. What gives?

New stuff
   (*) A few lizards

(I suspect by recently you didn't mean 42.05, though.)

Actually, I did mean 42.05, though I doubt the presence of a few new lizard-species has anything to do with this. Certainly, werelizards were already absurdly common in the Arena, in prior versions.

[Abadrausar]

RFC:  generic variations

Procedural generation in Dwarf Fortress (DF) and modding possibilities are both leading in their respective categories, this makes DF deep and immersive.

We should have generic variations for each one of the DF objects (Ammo, Armor, Building, Body, Body_detail_plan, Bodygloss, Creature, Variation, Entity, Item, Interaction, Language, Material, Plant, Position, Syndrome, Tissue, Tool, Trap, Unit, Weapon, World, ...)
Why? better reuse of prototypes in modding, and almost all the necessary code is already there because nothing in the contextual lexical substitutions done by the variations is specifically and inherently vinculated to the creature prototypes.
If we are going this way, a syntax modification for the variations to indicate the kind of object that is being variated is also proposed.

Some examples of what we could do implementing this proposal:

Code: [Select]

[OBJECT:VARIATION]
[VARIATION:PLANT:SPROUTING]
[REMOVE_TAG:NAME]
[REMOVE_TAG:NAME_PLURAL]
[REMOVE_TAG:ADJ]
[CONVERT_TAG]
[MASTER:GROWDUR]
[TARGET:300]
[REPLACEMENT:60]
[CONVERT_TAG]
[MASTER:GROWDUR]
[TARGET:500]
[REPLACEMENT:100]
[CONVERT_TAG]
[MASTER:CLUSTERSIZE]
[TARGET:5]
[REPLACEMENT:1]
This could be used as:

Code: [Select]

[PLANT:SPROUTING_MUSHROOM_HELMET_PLUMP]
[COPY_TAGS_FROM:PLANT:MUSHROOM_HELMET_PLUMP]
[APPLY_VARIATION:PLANT:SPROUTING]
[REMOVE_TAG:SEED]
[APPLY_CURRENT_VARIATION]
[GO_TO_END]
[SELECT_NESTED:ALL]
[GO_TO_START]
        [SEED:plump helmet sproutings spawn:plump helmet sproutings spawn:4:0:1:LOCAL_PLANT_MAT:SEED]
[ALL_NAMES:plump helmet sproutings]


[Daniel the Finlander]

Procedural generation in Dwarf Fortress (DF) and modding possibilities are both leading in their respective categories, this makes DF deep and immersive.

We should have generic variations for each one of the DF objects (Ammo, Armor, Building, Body, Body_detail_plan, Bodygloss, Creature, Variation, Entity, Item, Interaction, Language, Material, Plant, Position, Syndrome, Tissue, Tool, Trap, Unit, Weapon, World, ...)
Why? better reuse of prototypes in modding, and almost all the necessary code is already there because nothing in the contextual lexical substitutions done by the variations is specifically and inherently vinculated to the creature prototypes.
If we are going this way, a syntax modification for the variations to indicate the kind of object that is being variated is also proposed.

Some examples of what we could do:

Code: [Select]

[OBJECT:VARIATION]
[VARIATION:PLANT:SPROUTING]
[REMOVE_TAG:NAME]
[REMOVE_TAG:NAME_PLURAL]
[REMOVE_TAG:ADJ]
[CONVERT_TAG]
[MASTER:GROWDUR]
[TARGET:300]
[REPLACEMENT:60]
[CONVERT_TAG]
[MASTER:GROWDUR]
[TARGET:500]
[REPLACEMENT:100]
[CONVERT_TAG]
[MASTER:CLUSTERSIZE]
[TARGET:5]
[REPLACEMENT:1]
This could be used as:

Code: [Select]

[PLANT:SPROUTING_MUSHROOM_HELMET_PLUMP]
[COPY_TAGS_FROM:PLANT:MUSHROOM_HELMET_PLUMP]
[APPLY_VARIATION:PLANT:SPROUTING]
[REMOVE_TAG:SEED]
[APPLY_CURRENT_VARIATION]
[GO_TO_END]
[SELECT_NESTED:ALL]
[GO_TO_START]
        [SEED:plump helmet sproutings spawn:plump helmet sproutings spawn:4:0:1:LOCAL_PLANT_MAT:SEED]
[ALL_NAMES:plump helmet sproutings]


Shouldn't this go to the suggestions forum?

[Dirst]

Might fit well into this particular corner of the Suggestions forum.