Print

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

[angelious]

that would be highly difficult to actually implement into the game.


not to mention the profit from it would be miniscule. like what would it give you? more trade caravans? more migrants??

It's much less complicated than making new alternate dimensions.  In fact, it's not really all that much more complicated than making dining halls where the game recognizes the value of the contents of the dining hall.  (This is just 3d.)

And for profit to the player, it can be anywhere between trade caravans, tavern patrons, migrants, in-game recognition of your fortress as a mighty fortress, to luring in more rocs and dragons to exploit.  Notably, the last one has been argued as "too profitable", which means it's at once too profitable and not profitable enough for people who wanted something else. 

i suppose...tho if that trap patch we talked about becomes reality then it would lose a lot of its value since trapping would become a lot harder to do...

[NW_Kohaku]

i suppose...tho if that trap patch we talked about becomes reality then it would lose a lot of its value since trapping would become a lot harder to do...

"Hard" means something very different in DF than in most games.  Few people use a magma piston because it is hard to understand, but when you get its principles down, it is simple in practice. 

A slightly more complex cage-building procedure is merely something that takes more time to set up, not "harder" in play.

[angelious]

i suppose...tho if that trap patch we talked about becomes reality then it would lose a lot of its value since trapping would become a lot harder to do...

"Hard" means something very different in DF than in most games.  Few people use a magma piston because it is hard to understand, but when you get its principles down, it is simple in practice. 

A slightly more complex cage-building procedure is merely something that takes more time to set up, not "harder" in play.

if the traps would function the way it was discussed in that other topic(wth was it about anyway) trapping rocs and dragons would get significantly harder since most traps and mechanism wouldnt be good enough to trap them

[NW_Kohaku]

if the traps would function the way it was discussed in that other topic(wth was it about anyway) trapping rocs and dragons would get significantly harder since most traps and mechanism wouldnt be good enough to trap them

The "masterwork steel cages" thing is an idea I specifically reject because it simply replaces "easiness" with "tedious micromanagement before the same easiness in practice".  It doesn't solve the problem.

Rather, there needs to be a change in how traps are handled such that they are actual physical space problems that involve actual player engineering and in-gamespace physics such that creature movement patterns and abilities can come into play.  (Basically, the difference between stone-fall traps that simply make stones attack if a creature doesn't have TRAP_AVOID, and having deadfall traps triggered by a lever or pressure plate.)

[Alfrodo]

So... having a lead cage atop a retracting bridge, so you can drop cages on an occupied dragon, roc or forgotten beast?

[NW_Kohaku]

So... having a lead cage atop a retracting bridge, so you can drop cages on an occupied dragon, roc or forgotten beast?

Well, considering as the alternative to a stonefall trap is a hatch with a boulder triggered to open, the alternative to a cage is something like a bait-and-drawbridge trap, but where you can move the trap afterwards, somehow.

[angelious]

if the traps would function the way it was discussed in that other topic(wth was it about anyway) trapping rocs and dragons would get significantly harder since most traps and mechanism wouldnt be good enough to trap them

The "masterwork steel cages" thing is an idea I specifically reject because it simply replaces "easiness" with "tedious micromanagement before the same easiness in practice".  It doesn't solve the problem.

Rather, there needs to be a change in how traps are handled such that they are actual physical space problems that involve actual player engineering and in-gamespace physics such that creature movement patterns and abilities can come into play.  (Basically, the difference between stone-fall traps that simply make stones attack if a creature doesn't have TRAP_AVOID, and having deadfall traps triggered by a lever or pressure plate.)

but it does make a lot more sense than trapping a hundred meter tall firebreathing monstrocity into a cubic meter wide cage made out of sticks.

[NW_Kohaku]

but it does make a lot more sense than trapping a hundred meter tall firebreathing monstrocity into a cubic meter wide cage made out of sticks.

Technically, dragons, by volume, take up only 25 cubic meters, even when fully grown at 1000 years, and most are not fully grown, being as small as a cat with a hatchling. The only way a dragon could be "a hundred meter tall firebreathing monstrosity" is if they were shaped like a flagpole only a quarter meter thick with a fire spigot at the top. 

A cage is also carved straight from a tree trunk, rather than being sticks, and occupies as much as a whole tile.  If tiles are 3 meters to a side, like I'd been suggesting, that's 27 cubic meters of space, which neatly sidesteps the need for multi-tile creatures, and cages a dragon in a fairly cramped space.  The people arguing for 2 meter horizontal dimensions with a 3 meter vertical dimension (which would require rebalancing vertical distance) would have 12 cubic meters of space.

That said, as long as a dragon occupies a single tile, the suggestion I just gave forth would still be cramming "a hundred meter tall firebreathing monstrosity" in just a few meters of clearance to the roof. 

[NJW2000]

This seems like the other thread's discussion, spilled over. I just imagined it as a nebulous, if-you-build-at-zlvl-x, counter-y-is-increased-by-x or something like that, with the higher counter y, the higher the frequeny of unexpected giant birds, rocs, dragons, flying FBs, other crazy stuff.

Is there a thread for nerfing cages? Also, how about some form of not-too-valuable stuff: like increased likelihood of fun, just like the caverns, or something new but not as OP as free dragons, like St Elmo's fire or whatever?

[angelious]

but it does make a lot more sense than trapping a hundred meter tall firebreathing monstrocity into a cubic meter wide cage made out of sticks.

Technically, dragons, by volume, take up only 25 cubic meters, even when fully grown at 1000 years, and most are not fully grown, being as small as a cat with a hatchling. The only way a dragon could be "a hundred meter tall firebreathing monstrosity" is if they were shaped like a flagpole only a quarter meter thick with a fire spigot at the top. 

A cage is also carved straight from a tree trunk, rather than being sticks, and occupies as much as a whole tile.  If tiles are 3 meters to a side, like I'd been suggesting, that's 27 cubic meters of space, which neatly sidesteps the need for multi-tile creatures, and cages a dragon in a fairly cramped space.  The people arguing for 2 meter horizontal dimensions with a 3 meter vertical dimension (which would require rebalancing vertical distance) would have 12 cubic meters of space.

That said, as long as a dragon occupies a single tile, the suggestion I just gave forth would still be cramming "a hundred meter tall firebreathing monstrosity" in just a few meters of clearance to the roof.

it was more of a metamorph. not to be taken seriously.

i trust the point of it wasnt lost for you despite me not being all too factual with mine example?