Print

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

[Rose]

Have you given thought to upgrading to SDL 2.0?

Ah, I don't know anything about it, or why it might be necessary vs. the issues/annoyances in doing so.  Generally messing with the SDL code is beyond me to do on my own.

It supports multiple windows that mods could use.

[Putnam]

Have you given thought to upgrading to SDL 2.0?

Ah, I don't know anything about it, or why it might be necessary vs. the issues/annoyances in doing so.  Generally messing with the SDL code is beyond me to do on my own.

It supports multiple windows that mods could use.

I think the matter-of-fact way you're presenting that is understating how big that could be, lol

[Rose]

Yes, it's actually probably a pretty huge undertaking with very little benefit.

[Putnam]

no, i meant in the opposite direction, the benefit could be huge i think

[Robosaur]

I've been waiting for a while now for more modding options with syndromes and divine interactions. Right now, the only way to make a custom divine curse or secret to appear more than once (I think?) is to copy the raws for it multiple times... so would the upcoming Magic release add more control for modded secret frequency?

Furthermore, there's not many tags that can be applied using syndromes. For instance, I really want to be able to apply creature variations in this way. Would this be possible? If so, would it be in the magic release, or later?

[ZM5]

Thanks for the answers, Toady.

Also yeah, I agree - I guess when the magic update comes out we'll have more control over it, but being able to dynamically add additional body parts and the like (or swap existing body parts for other ones) would be awesome. I'd have so many sadistic applications for that, hee hee. Even more mundane stuff like temporary fire immunity would be awesome and incredibly useful.

Regarding the tags, IIRC it was mentioned in an earler FoTF reply that support for more tokens that can be added via the ADD_TAG syndrome was considered.

[burned]

is it intentional that criminals and mercenaries cannot have creature tiles specified for them?

CRIMINAL is in the list of supported unit types.  If PEDDLER, PROPHET, PILGRIM and MONK are working, I have no idea why CRIMINAL isn't.  Mercenary and monster slayer are a bit weird since they are tied to occupations now, and sometimes it uses the occupation rather than unit type; I'd have to poke around with that, and a bug report would be warranted if it is acting weird.

Oh! Not the answer I expected. I was almost certain you did it on purpose! Heh.
Thanks for the clarification! I went ahead and submitted a bug report.

[PatrikLundell]

@Japa & Putnam: I would suggest you start a technical suggestion thread where you try to describe the what effects an SDL version change would have, such as:
- What new/upgraded capabilities it would provide.
- What changes are required for existing capabilities due to changes.
- What the upgrade would require in terms of efforts and possibly secondary requirements such as version upgrades of other things.
:

If Toady expresses interest it could then evolve into an implementation help thread with more details. I know nothing about it, so I can't provide anything to such a thread.

I'd try to keep the thread focused on the technical side, with sufficient descriptions to indicate what type of enhancements it might provide, but keep detailed functionality implementation suggestions out of it (Those ought to go into other threads).

[FantasticDorf]

I don't have specific plans in the near-term, but I imagine it'll keep coming up.  These are the 'structures' from legends; so theoretically stuff like dungeons would already be supportable (not that they really mean anything), and when new things are added throughout the world, they can be considered for the fort, much like the taverns and libraries.

Huh thats interesting, i see what you mean by way of adapting the world-generation static buildings to a more natural player built contribution of 'how pretty can you make this tavern?' etc. interchangably as to say that in a human fortress i built a castle location construction and it showed up in legends but functions in and outside of world-generation. In a funny way important constructions of our own in real life are like the invisible hand of a DF player wanted to sculpt something beautiful out of a mundane church worship zone to make a grand cathedral of great significance.

Would this be the case for specific location structures indicated for scenarios, like a dungeon/central jail to keep a prison colony functional and under control? (not meaning exactly a Australia format wherein just being very far away on a strange continent is detainment with nowhere to run to) - rather than just a jail & justice system we have currently.

[TheFlame52]

When gods are generated, they get a sphere and some spheres related to that. Any chance I could get a list of which spheres are related?

[Knight Otu]

When gods are generated, they get a sphere and some spheres related to that. Any chance I could get a list of which spheres are related?

As far as I'm aware, the spere relations have not changed since their introduction, and those are given in the 0.28.181.40d version of the Sphere wiki page.

[TheFlame52]

As far as I'm aware, the spere relations have not changed since their introduction, and those are given in the 0.28.181.40d version of the Sphere wiki page.

Thanks! I never would have found that.

[Knight Otu]

As far as I'm aware, the spere relations have not changed since their introduction, and those are given in the 0.28.181.40d version of the Sphere wiki page.

Thanks! I never would have found that.

Yeah, it is quite hidden away.

[iceball3]

Thanks for the responses Toady! It's always a pleasure.

[iceball3]

I did actually think about a question just now, though.
Have you or threetoe considered constructing an written full psychological profile for dwarves, or other races, as part of development aims and Slaves to Armok canon, or will species psychology take a "feature first" implementation?
By feature first, I mean that the behaviors ingame stand to be canonical for the time being, and (both emergent and intentional) behaviors that come in later version serve largely to supplement this model.
Our dwarves and other species do have a general cultural and behavioral context portrayed by the game's features and snippets combined with the general consensus of what a "dwarf" is, though there are currently quite a few quirks as a result of bugs, limits of current implementation, etc where they seem to differ and vary dramatically in these contexts (for instance, noted complaints that dwarves seem somehow stress-proof to a lot of people as a result of the systems or morales changing, though whether it was aimed at making dwarves more resilient to stressful situations, or as resilient is a bit unclear.) Similar goes for things like the implementation of the currently somewhat implemented engagement level system.