Print

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

[Putnam]

it's doable, but bizarre, like, if you make a 1x1 tunnel can that keep giants out?

[Capntastic]

Any time you try to make sense of relative sizes in DF you're going to run into more problems that can't be elegantly solved within tile-level granularity

Edit:  This goes for pretty much any ASCII tile based game, unless it's build around it from the ground up (I'm sure there's some, but I can't think of any)

[Putnam]

Yeah, the current system's pretty bizarre too, with, like, just the very concept of a 12 m³ tile containing a dragon with a volume of 25 m³.

Actually, wait, the physics tile and the tree tile and the item tile and the creature tile are all very different sizes, aren't they? Just weird all around.

[DeKaFu]

it's doable, but bizarre, like, if you make a 1x1 tunnel can that keep giants out?

That sounds like an intended consequence, though, right? If you duck into a little hole, a huge monster shouldn't be able to follow you...
I think you'd need to introduce this alongside destructable terrain, though. If you ducked into a little hole, a huge monster would probably try to make it bigger.

And I suppose the flip side would have to be that digging 1x1 tunnels would also prevent the passage of certain things you want into your fortress. Kinda like wagons, but more generalized. Not sure what those would be though.

I'm pretty iffy towards multi-tile critters in general, anyway. It'd mean major changes to the entire game, I think, both visually and in terms of gameplay and design logic. A lot would have to be done to accommodate it. I think it'd be really cool, but maybe not the right direction for DF specifically.

Also it would probably look like hell for graphics-users.

[The Ensorceler]

You also have to account for multiple 'tiles' of the same creature being in the same volumetric tile, which... might look a lot better? I kind of think you would want to avoid 'tile-ness' being raw defined, because literally anything could end up multitile with a magical growth effect. And then that brings up an additional kettle of fish involving a bunch more tags for bodyparts if you want it to look good. And then that much information would actually be enough to make wrestling make sense, so... multitile could show up sometime after the next combat arc?

[Random_Dragon]

Also it would probably look like hell for graphics-users.

If we had more graphics options, it would probably be LESS of a clusterfuck if a creature had multi-tile sprites as an option. Just add a sprite large enough to cover the expected area. Though ideally, if multi-tile creatures wind up needing different sizes for younger/smaller versions, we'd ALSO need an also to change sprite based on size and/or age. Whereas I think babies/children MIGHT be an option, but only via unit type being a spriting option.

While that sounds complex, in contrast I have no clue how we're going to depict this is default mode, unless we further overused different-colored wagon tiles. :V

[SimRobert2001]

What is the plan to deal with the oceans?

What about poisons, or different syndromes?

[vjmdhzgr]

What would "bleak and horrifying" entail? Would this include some of the things that have traditionally been avoided in Dwarf Fortress for various reasons, such as sex and (lack of) consent and whatnot? (There were, I think, some other similar things that I don't remember off the top of my head.)

Oh, and at the other side of the spectrum, is "No death [...]" to be taken literally? Will there be no death at all in this setting (and what would that mean for the demographics and such of the worlds)? Or just no death due to fights and wars and the like?

Nah, we weren't thinking of going that way.

Yeah, no death at all.  Use of the attack button in adventure mode removed, etc.  We were thinking of intermediate setting(s) where wars and attacks against intelligent critters would be off, but e.g. hunting and butchery would be permitted, so you could still do the ranch-fort thing without worrying about wars or extortion or whatever.

Slightly disappointing, but not a surprise. Perhaps eventually I will have to move away from vanilla after all (for some play sessions at least). I'm still curious, however, about the following aspect of my earlier question: How would world demographics/population dynamics work in a setting where there is no death at all (of intelligent races)?

Also, the dev page said there would be a spectrum from "No death or violence to regular settings to bleak and horrifying", but as you described it in your answer to my previous question, it sounds like you consider the regular settings to already be the bleak and horrifying end of the spectrum. Is that indeed the case, or did you just not go into the other side of things? If it's the latter, could you elaborate on what would be different on that side of the spectrum relative to the regular settings as we know them now? Perhaps just quantitatively more violence by changing some numbers around? Or would it be a qualitative difference somehow?

Why is it disappointing that Toady wants to introduce extreme options for absolutely no violence? You can just select a different setting. I think it'd be somewhat interesting to try and could help people get into the game by allowing the option to eliminate some dangers.

[FantasticDorf]

Also it would probably look like hell for graphics-users.

If we had more graphics options, it would probably be LESS of a clusterfuck if a creature had multi-tile sprites as an option. Just add a sprite large enough to cover the expected area. Though ideally, if multi-tile creatures wind up needing different sizes for younger/smaller versions, we'd ALSO need an also to change sprite based on size and/or age. Whereas I think babies/children MIGHT be an option, but only via unit type being a spriting option.

While that sounds complex, in contrast I have no clue how we're going to depict this is default mode, unless we further overused different-colored wagon tiles. :V

Wouldn't it make sense that after a certain amount of growth from a single tile creature (unless its some thing like a VERY large primordial octopus or something else outlandish with explicit multiple parts) as dictated by a combination of strict game growth targets at a certain age, it could trigger a raw requirement to activate that body part's expansion onto double tiles or do it relative to the relative size (as seen on vermin being maxed to larger proportions)

Say if you had a baby giraffe, all's fine for the first 5 or so years being single tile until 1 day at year 6 it is forced to engage itself in a crouching position because the neck, body and legs just reached its growth requirement and now extends onto z level 2, carrying the head along with it as a connecting joint. Carve out a little hole for the giraffe to stick its neck in or it'll end up crawling everywhere as a reflection of space constraints.

Predictably dragons and other creatures with never-ending growth under that model would likely become huge massive multi-tile monstrosities, if left for say a thousand years plus to grow to full or spawned in already very big. Raising the problem of whether the lair system would be able to limit/trap a creature there depending on its size. Coming down to enormous roaming dragons that are evicted from their caves because they are too fat to wriggle inside the entrance ready cooked to wreck civilisations, or deeply nested dragons that fit comfortably using hermit crab logic to grow only as large as required (talking of hermit crabs, if we could define a shell as a limiter, we could have creatures that individually grow larger based on what they are accommodating and fix BP variables, as to say a literal giant dragon skull 'Shen Gaoren' is a very scary prospect in DF)

All that being said. I disagree with some concepts of multi tile creatures in being able to hide in 1x1 passageways where it cannot pass, its a very dwarfy thing to do but its also cheese to the max and not fun.

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

Why is it disappointing that Toady wants to introduce extreme options for absolutely no violence? You can just select a different setting. I think it'd be somewhat interesting to try and could help people get into the game by allowing the option to eliminate some dangers.

What I found disappointing (although again, not unexpected) was that some of those other elements I had in mind (including sexuality/consent) were not the direction they were thinking with regards to the "bleak and horrifying" thing mentioned on the development page. Obviously it's cool to have options for violence and the lack of it; options are always nice and as you say, people can always choose not to use them if they don't like them. I however, as I said in an earlier post, will be excited to try both extremes, and probably also places in the middle. It's just that I would have also liked to see those other elements included.

I disagree with some concepts of multi tile creatures in being able to hide in 1x1 passageways where it cannot pass, its a very dwarfy thing to do but its also cheese to the max and not fun.

That is why DeKaFu suggested it would have to be implemented alongside something like destructible terrain, so that a monster might try to dig its prey out of such a small hole. Or, if the creature is more intelligent, otherwise lure or force them out. And I think in some cases, it might just be okay to escape certain creatures this way. With proper balancing and possibilities, I think it should be possible to allow for realism here; it need not be a case where one has to choose either realism or gaminess.

[Vattic]

Quite like the idea of a massive creature clawing at the tiny cave opening you've hid yourself in. It would be best if it wasn't a tactic that completely eliminated the threat of large creatures like walling in already does.

Also it would probably look like hell for graphics-users.

That boat is going to sail with or without mutli-tile creatures. See how the graphics sets for Cataclysm DDA struggle with the vehicles to see what I mean, though it's admittedly trickier there as they have full rotation.

[Egan_BW]

Shouldn't ships and boats eventually have full rotation? How will we deal with that?

[Vattic]

In the Dwarfmoot stream Toady said he plans to have them able to move in any direction, but have it visually rotate 90 degrees at a time to avoid the holes it'd leave otherwise.

[Chaoseed]

The current geology layering would pretty easily support having a biome whose ground is made out of mineable "cosmic egg shell", I think.  It would make a nice home for your dwarves.

That is AWESOME.

[TheFlame52]

Right now, jobs are set in a fixed "priority list." Will we be able to change those priorities someday? It seems like dwarves hardly ever dump items any more.