Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Possible Cage trap re-design  (Read 1935 times)

DeMoNsLaYeR575

  • Escaped Lunatic
    • View Profile
Possible Cage trap re-design
« on: June 06, 2016, 06:05:14 am »

Since everyone knows cage traps are very over-powered this possible re-design would balance them to a Fun! level

there will be two main parts of this re-design, effective size and material usage. First the cage size (3 to 5 different sizes) which, at a minimum, would be 3 sizes (small, medium and large) with 2 possible additional sizes (tiny and gigantic). Body size of the creature would determine which cage works on them. Smaller cages don't work on larger creatures (it just bounces off their back) and larger cages are ineffective on smaller creatures. it captures them but each time the creature can move it has a chance to escape, 10% per cage size larger than that creature doubling each size larger) A tiny creature captured in a gigantic cage has a 160% chance to escape per movement. while a large creature stuck in a gigantic cage only has a 10% per movement turn to escape.

Tiny - 1 to 999
Small - 1,000 to 9,999
Medium - 10,000 to 400,000
Large - 400,001 to 20,000,000
Gigantic - 20,000,001+

Materials will also play a key role
Glass - only used for capturing aquatic creatures (ground creatures captured in glass cages have a 15% chance per movement tick for that creature to destroy the cage and escape)
Wood - only useful for the tiny and small cages. Medium, large and gigantic will have a 30% chance per movement tick for that creature to destroy the cage and escape
Non-weapon grade metals work for all but gigantic sizes, with a 5% chance to escape per movement tick
Weapon grade materials work for all cages
Non-fire/magma safe cages have a risk of melting/burning if they contain a creature that can produce heat above the burning/melting point

each cage size will utilize a different number of materials.
Tiny - 2 cages for 1 log/bar
Small - 1 cage for 1 log/bar
Medium - 1 cage for 2 log/bar
Large - 1 cage for 3 log/bar
Gigantic - 1 cage for 4 log/bar

Logged

FantasticDorf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Possible Cage trap re-design
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2016, 07:09:21 am »

This is a good idea for replacing the mechanics we have surrounding cages (being infinite space cheat animal containers)

The biggest flaw i find however in categorising it is that right now, determining how 'large' a animal is (getting past the bugs detailing all animals are gigantic) its going to be diffcult without direct raw reference and needs to be clearly or at least partially displayed what kind of animal is suitable for a cage (unless you are going off trial and error) for its body size. Cage traps are not selective about which cages they use (so some UI modifications would be needed) besides being forbidden/unforbidden.

Your suggestion of differing sizes is entirely feasable to add into the 'details' section of the menu along with anything else toady feels subjectively putting in. You could just press D over the command, specify the material, then specify the cage size etc etc and hey presto its ready. Because also gigantic cages consume more materials, there needs to be some thought put into the feasability of such a object weight wise (with the creature inside it) and value wise if its just going to get broken/become a object on the floor all the while with animals escaping every tick.

Eitherway. Nice work, i hope toady catches wind of this.
Logged

Bumber

  • Bay Watcher
  • REMOVE KOBOLD
    • View Profile
Re: Possible Cage trap re-design
« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2016, 08:25:50 am »

I don't like it. Percentages are too gamey (not to mention way too large for the movement rate.) What if all the creature's limbs are broken? Should it still have the same ability to escape? If I'm understanding your materials correctly, copper cages (weapons grade metal) would still be as broken as the current cages.

I think that creatures in a cage should simply attack the durability (taking into account material) of the cage if they are inclined (i.e., not docile) and able to. Long term capture of powerful hostiles may require subduing (non-lethal combat) and binding limbs (using chains) of the captive. Non-solid powerful foes (e.g., steam FB) probably need artifact glass cage. Cage sizes are a sensible addition, although artifacts would probably need to ignore this based on rarity.
Logged
Reading his name would trigger it. Thinking of him would trigger it. No other circumstances would trigger it- it was strictly related to the concept of Bill Clinton entering the conscious mind.

THE xTROLL FUR SOCKx RUSE WAS A........... DISTACTION        the carp HAVE the wagon

A wizard has turned you into a wagon. This was inevitable (Y/y)?

DeMoNsLaYeR575

  • Escaped Lunatic
    • View Profile
Re: Possible Cage trap re-design
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2016, 10:02:11 am »

The biggest flaw i find however in categorising it is that right now, determining how 'large' a animal is
Any fully domesticated in the animal menu (z - animal - overall ) would show fully accurate size, meaning the less you know about a creature the less accurate the "known" size is.
take the cat. adult size would be about 5,000
if no facts are known then the size is blank
A few facts - and then "larger than" or "smaller than" a randomly chosen domesticated animal is displayed in the size ( such as "smaller than a Porcupine   ") this would be very inaccurate  as "smaller than a whale" would also be a possible size (if your civilization domesticated whales during world gen)
General familiarity - Same as a few facts but its more accurate, only choosing animals 2-4 times the size (or 50 to 25% the size)
Knowledgeable - Displays a number for the size of the animal but would have a chance to "jump" cage sizes. so a mink could possibly display as needing a small cage not a tiny one.
Expert - same as knowledgeable but the jump chance would be half as high.

or something similar to that

I don't like it. Percentages are too gamey (not to mention way too large for the movement rate.) What if all the creature's limbs are broken? Should it still have the same ability to escape? If I'm understanding your materials correctly, copper cages (weapons grade metal) would still be as broken as the current cages.

I think that creatures in a cage should simply attack the durability (taking into account material) of the cage if they are inclined (i.e., not docile) and able to. Long term capture of powerful hostiles may require subduing (non-lethal combat) and binding limbs (using chains) of the captive. Non-solid powerful foes (e.g., steam FB) probably need artifact glass cage. Cage sizes are a sensible addition, although artifacts would probably need to ignore this based on rarity.
For the issue with the percentages, they are just placeholder values to show how it would work. Also broken limbs almost always slow a creature down, this means the more broken limbs the longer it would take to "break out" of the cage.

I did not include any subduing/cage interactions/binding as well as non-solid FB as to not get off topic. But glass cages for non-solid creatures are a good idea
Logged

Dirst

  • Bay Watcher
  • [EASILY_DISTRA
    • View Profile
Re: Possible Cage trap re-design
« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2016, 10:58:39 am »

If you assume that a square foot of cage wall weighs about the same regardless of size (thicker bars being more widely spaced), then material would ideally scale with (creature size)^(2/3).  With a bit of favorable rounding, call it 4x times the material for 10x the creature size.

Tiny (up to 2000): 4 per bar
Small (up to 20,000): 1 per bar
Medium (up to 200,000): 4 bars
Large (up to 2,000,000): 16 bars
Huge (as if up to 20,000,000): 64 bars

I agree that creatures should have to "attack" the cage, but don't forget vermin penetration power and building destroyers.  As for wriggling out, something along the lines of (MAX(0,(CageSize - 10*CreatureSize))/(CageSize))^2.  For a medium cage that would mean:

Size 200,000: 0% escape (upper limit of design)
Size 20,000: 0% escape (lower limit of design)
Size 18,000: 1% escape
Size 15,000: 6.25% escape
Size 10,000: 25% escape
Size 5,000: 56.25% escape
Size 2,000: 81% escape (lower limit of next cage size down)
Size 1,000: 90.25% escape

The question becomes how often these escape attemps can be made.

For extra completity (because this is Dwarf Fortress), there could be an option for a "tightly spaced bars" cage that has the same capacity, but for N times the material and weight, multiplies the escaping creature's effective size by N.  A double-weight medium cage could then hold creatures from 10,000 to 200,000 flawlessly (though they can still attack the material).

Edit: Slight change to the escape formula so that negative numbers don't get squared into positive ones.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2016, 10:10:53 am by Dirst »
Logged
Just got back, updating:
(0.42 & 0.43) The Earth Strikes Back! v2.15 - Pay attention...  It's a mine!  It's-a not yours!
(0.42 & 0.43) Appearance Tweaks v1.03 - Tease those hippies about their pointy ears.
(0.42 & 0.43) Accessibility Utility v1.04 - Console tools to navigate the map

SixOfSpades

  • Bay Watcher
  • likes flesh balls for their calming roundness
    • View Profile
Re: Possible Cage trap re-design
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2016, 12:59:12 am »

I, for one, would like to see traps of (nearly) all kinds become more complex, multitile constructions, which would a) make them somewhat more balanced in terms of material investment, b) make it a lot more difficult to carpet literally every single tile of your entrance hallway with traps, c) add a new wrinkle of creativity to fortress design, as each type of trap would have a different "shape" & therefore implementation, and d) be more realistic.

For cage traps in particular, I see the redesigned cage trap as occupying (at least) three tiles: 1) The trap itself, which triggers the spring-loaded trapdoor on the same tile. 2) The cage, directly below the trap tile. Creatures falling through the trapdoor land here. 3) The service tile, directly adjacent to the cage tile. While not strictly part of the trap itself, there needs to be walkable space next to the cage tile in order for workers to haul the cage (and its occupant) away, possibly push the trapdoor shut again, and load in a new cage. 4) There may be additional z-levels of empty space between the trap & cage tiles, to discourage goblins from reaching down & helping their friend back up, or even deliberately hopping down to the cage tile as an easy way to bypass your defenses.
Logged
Dwarf Fortress -- kind of like Minecraft, but for people who hate themselves.

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Possible Cage trap re-design
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2016, 05:01:35 am »

Not attempting to derail the thread with this but I figured it might be useful to post what's already planned (I doubt that any of it has been thought through in much detail though, so carry on).
Quote from: DevNotes
Better traps

Stone traps should require the stone be placed above the tile that is targeted

Stones should be able to roll (perhaps if they are started from or land on a ramp tile)

Weapon traps should be multi-tile and require a spring or other potential energy source -- automatic resetting should require some explicit establishment of a feasible mechanism
« Last Edit: June 07, 2016, 05:03:25 am by Shonai_Dweller »
Logged

DeMoNsLaYeR575

  • Escaped Lunatic
    • View Profile
Re: Possible Cage trap re-design
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2016, 10:03:08 am »

I like the direction dirst pulled it in (good algorithm for escape chance)
Cage durability is the only thing that should be addressed

I for one believe there should be 2 limits on the cages (like armor) a deform limit (bending the bars to free the creature) and stress limit (where the cage fails)

if the deform limit was reached the cage is rendered useless (but can be repaired at a metalsmith's forge) which is the yield strength of the material
if the stress limit is reached the cage fails and is destroyed (possibly leaving some metal parts behind to be reforged) which would be the Fracture strength of the material

some materials like wood would have a rather high deform limit but a low stress limit (they never bend to the point where they stay bent but instead break)
others would have a very high deform limit and a very high break limit (adamantine)


quality would directly add to the limit, artifact cages would be close to indestructible while standard no-quality cages are much easier to break. (keeps the usefulness of those otherwise useless artifact cages)



Logged

Fleeting Frames

  • Bay Watcher
  • Spooky cart at distance
    • View Profile
Re: Possible Cage trap re-design
« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2016, 11:57:22 am »

Legend: Suggestions Ignorable natter

Well, all traps I've seen all have a general thing I've seen considered a problem: Even in the case of complete failure, no dwarves are hurt by the failure itself. For those who want dwarves to have a chance to die (in combat, typically), this safety is not acceptable.

Now, you could, say, hurt the mechanic who set up a simple trap when the trap fails, but what dwarf should be punished when the drowning trap is found to not work on the troll? When some goblins manage to survive 10z fall to a featureless pit?

Besides, it seems rather gamist when the visitors don't have capability for voodoo - in fact, I'd go so far to say to suggest a dwarf should either see their masterwork being destroyed or gone from it's permanent place to suffer the travesty of an art defacement, or at least get some more information than a bad thought from it if they are to have telepathy with objects.

Yet, I can't see simulationist way to have random wolfs hurt dwarves through walls, so for those players I'd guess only good traps would be non-existent, nigh-useless (at 10% chance to escape per movement the creature would have ~2/3 to escape before a dwarf from 10 tiles away can reach it - but it could stagger out the siege a bit, I guess) or prohibitively expensive (see non-existent) ones.

On the trap buildings as they currently are, though, second factor in their considered overpoweredness is their ability to deal with threats:
First, they'll hit anything not smart enough to avoid them - for all but repeating spikes, this means knowledge to not step on the well-hidden plate. Liasons can give that knowledge, but I'd suggest that individual units smart enough* should learn that too if they see someone being hit by one for that particular trap.

Stone-fall trap: Simple to set up and can injure any slow and relatively stupid being that passes over them, but require resetting after each use.
Cage trap: Deals with any single animal, requiring a new cage for each threat (or emptying the cage and killing the threat in another way, but that is far more complicated). Is the only way for dwarves to tame wild animals.
Weapon Trap: Can injure and sometimes kill multiple animals, but will eventually jam.
Spear trap: Deals with any number of threats that are over it when triggered, but requires some sort of repeater and the 40 step delay makes catching of a moving target more difficult. Additionally, can't be avoided by knowledge.

Here, to me it appears that while Stone-Fall trap appears weak compared to everything else, every other trap is somewhat balanced with each other for your usual fleshy targets.

However, the big advantages cage trap has is ability to catch something hardly hurtable, like a modded-in adamantine wolf, certainty that at least single animal will be stopped instead of showing miraculous dodging ability, and ability to both have controlled live training and controlled training of life.

Here, I'd suggest splitting these roles: Have the stone fall trap be capable of holding up far more stones, a floor or a wall - making it the "single-shot but very deadly trap", while the cage traps could be made to work like upright spears are currently.

This would allow for the capture of wild animals for the determined and attentive overseers while also giving stone-fall traps an use.

* Mouse traps always catch several critters if a pack tries to make home in my house, despite the OPness of killing mouses by just spending a minute to lay out or reset a trap.
Glass - only used for capturing aquatic creatures (ground creatures captured in glass cages have a 15% chance per movement tick for that creature to destroy the cage and escape)
...You'd start hitting glass cage you're in with your bare fists? Brave =D

But the above idea of using the material strength, like it is planned for armor...I like this a lot.

How about this: Instead of Building Destroyer tag, have someone who has reason to destroy building get an option to attack buildings - including cage they're inside of - with success determined by combat system and likelihood of doing it determined by their personality.

So, using myself as an example I would almost never try to break out of a glass cage without armor, but if I had some clothing on me I might try breaking out of wood one, and should I have even a single metal item I'd try to break out of a metal one.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2016, 12:09:07 pm by Fleeting Frames »
Logged

DeMoNsLaYeR575

  • Escaped Lunatic
    • View Profile
Re: Possible Cage trap re-design
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2016, 09:17:23 pm »

Legend: Suggestions Ignorable natter

Well, all traps I've seen all have a general thing I've seen considered a problem: Even in the case of complete failure, no dwarves are hurt by the failure itself. For those who want dwarves to have a chance to die (in combat, typically), this safety is not acceptable.

Now, you could, say, hurt the mechanic who set up a simple trap when the trap fails, but what dwarf should be punished when the drowning trap is found to not work on the troll? When some goblins manage to survive 10z fall to a featureless pit?

Besides, it seems rather gamist when the visitors don't have capability for voodoo - in fact, I'd go so far to say to suggest a dwarf should either see their masterwork being destroyed or gone from it's permanent place to suffer the travesty of an art defacement, or at least get some more information than a bad thought from it if they are to have telepathy with objects.

Yet, I can't see simulationist way to have random wolfs hurt dwarves through walls, so for those players I'd guess only good traps would be non-existent, nigh-useless (at 10% chance to escape per movement the creature would have ~2/3 to escape before a dwarf from 10 tiles away can reach it - but it could stagger out the siege a bit, I guess) or prohibitively expensive (see non-existent) ones.

On the trap buildings as they currently are, though, second factor in their considered overpoweredness is their ability to deal with threats:
First, they'll hit anything not smart enough to avoid them - for all but repeating spikes, this means knowledge to not step on the well-hidden plate. Liasons can give that knowledge, but I'd suggest that individual units smart enough* should learn that too if they see someone being hit by one for that particular trap.

Stone-fall trap: Simple to set up and can injure any slow and relatively stupid being that passes over them, but require resetting after each use.
Cage trap: Deals with any single animal, requiring a new cage for each threat (or emptying the cage and killing the threat in another way, but that is far more complicated). Is the only way for dwarves to tame wild animals.
Weapon Trap: Can injure and sometimes kill multiple animals, but will eventually jam.
Spear trap: Deals with any number of threats that are over it when triggered, but requires some sort of repeater and the 40 step delay makes catching of a moving target more difficult. Additionally, can't be avoided by knowledge.

Here, to me it appears that while Stone-Fall trap appears weak compared to everything else, every other trap is somewhat balanced with each other for your usual fleshy targets.

However, the big advantages cage trap has is ability to catch something hardly hurtable, like a modded-in adamantine wolf, certainty that at least single animal will be stopped instead of showing miraculous dodging ability, and ability to both have controlled live training and controlled training of life.

Here, I'd suggest splitting these roles: Have the stone fall trap be capable of holding up far more stones, a floor or a wall - making it the "single-shot but very deadly trap", while the cage traps could be made to work like upright spears are currently.

This would allow for the capture of wild animals for the determined and attentive overseers while also giving stone-fall traps an use.

* Mouse traps always catch several critters if a pack tries to make home in my house, despite the OPness of killing mouses by just spending a minute to lay out or reset a trap.
Glass - only used for capturing aquatic creatures (ground creatures captured in glass cages have a 15% chance per movement tick for that creature to destroy the cage and escape)
...You'd start hitting glass cage you're in with your bare fists? Brave =D

But the above idea of using the material strength, like it is planned for armor...I like this a lot.

How about this: Instead of Building Destroyer tag, have someone who has reason to destroy building get an option to attack buildings - including cage they're inside of - with success determined by combat system and likelihood of doing it determined by their personality.

So, using myself as an example I would almost never try to break out of a glass cage without armor, but if I had some clothing on me I might try breaking out of wood one, and should I have even a single metal item I'd try to break out of a metal one.

Sounds like you are mainly talking about when a sentient creature is in a cage... yeah it would be dumb to punch glass but if it was life or atom smasher anyone would atleast try (although armor/clothing would reduce the chance of damage) also anyone trapped in the cage has a reason to try and break out... and that is to get freedom...

also you kind of went off topic, this is specifically a cage/cage trap redesign post... all of your suggestions are good tho
Logged