Print

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

[Putnam]

We had a game client that allowed us to remotely play the game on someone elses' computer. That was pretty damn fun. When we werent all fighting for control at the same time

when i ran it i always had control

but that's because i could use dfhack to do stuff while other people were doing things properly lol

[Colev0]

On the topic of the new worldgen system in the works: are certain creatures in the game slated to be removed in order to better suit this system? I understand that mundane creatures like cats and dogs will probably be kept so that completely mundane worlds can be more easily created, but what of creatures like gorlaks, satyrs, etc? Will they be replaced with randomized creatures when fantasy worlds are created, or will they remain to some extent?

[Mel_Vixen]

On the topic of the new worldgen system in the works: are certain creatures in the game slated to be removed in order to better suit this system? I understand that mundane creatures like cats and dogs will probably be kept so that completely mundane worlds can be more easily created, but what of creatures like gorlaks, satyrs, etc? Will they be replaced with randomized creatures when fantasy worlds are created, or will they remain to some extent?

I realy dont see the need to remove them. With plants it was different since you had a few generic placeholders but with gorlaks and such its a different thing. They are original creations and having non-mundane non stereotypical critters as Stock-options is in my mind good.

You can still have all te random things you like after all.

[Eric Blank]

Doubt we'll lose a whole bunch of critters.
I imagine there would probably have to be new raw tags to define how mundane a creature is, like a value with a range identical to what the worldgen setting has, so you can define "this creature should only appear if the world fantasy value is between 10 and 99."

We'd still have all the creatures we have now, I mean why would we not? but they'd probably become subject to tags like that, where gorlaks won't appear in perfectly mundane or entirely fantastical worlds.
There was also talk of raw tags that can be randomized according to worldgen settings, and I imagine that in highly fantastical worlds you might still have gorlaks, but it'd be probable that they have an association with the love and cavern spheres and magics, and be hot pink with lidless eyes and a curling tail.

[Asin]

Can somebody link me the mythgen video?

[Putnam]

I imagine there would probably have to be new raw tags to define how mundane a creature is, like a value with a range identical to what the worldgen setting has, so you can define "this creature should only appear if the world fantasy value is between 10 and 99."

Toady posted some example raws from the standalone myth generator test that had explicitly-defined minimum:maximum fantasy level tokens in the various creatures.

[Asin]

Where are those raws? Also, could somebody link me the mythgen video? I haven't seen it and I am highly curious.

[Dirst]

I imagine there would probably have to be new raw tags to define how mundane a creature is, like a value with a range identical to what the worldgen setting has, so you can define "this creature should only appear if the world fantasy value is between 10 and 99."

Toady posted some example raws from the standalone myth generator test that had explicitly-defined minimum:maximum fantasy level tokens in the various creatures.

It would be entertaining to limit Grenlins to low fantasy levels (though maybe excluding zero) to properly reflect their role as Unexplained Phenomena in a "rational" world.

[DG]

But DF gremlins are way beyond real life myth gremlins. In the same way that DF ghosts are.

[FantasticDorf]

Even better, gremlins on mundane settings become nigh on un-seeable even at lose range.

(though taming a creature and summarily freaking people out with a creature that shouldn't exist is a bit odd)

[golemgunk]

Can somebody link me the mythgen video?

Here, Tarn's part starts at 9:20.

He also shows a little more of it toward the end of this interview.

[Asin]

Thanks.

[OluapPlayer]

I got a couple of questions for The Toad.


1) Are there any plans to expand on interaction with intelligent wild creatures in Fortress Mode? Right now, whenever you encounter something like a merperson, a plump helmet man, a troglodyte, a kea man etc, your only option is to kill them and have them stay in your refuse forever. Are there any plans for us to be able to perhaps communicate with these intelligent beings, perhaps teach them to leave the fort alone or even invite them to join the fortress as citizens? Since animal people joining civilizations is something that already happens in worldgen, this kind of interaction could serve as an extension which can be directly controlled by the player.

2) Related to the above, are there any plans on expanding on intelligent wild creature behaviour? Currently, they all act like unbutcherable useless animals, despite being able to speak and equip items. I mean things like animal men wearing clothes and carrying weapons, or troglodytes arriving to the fortress wearing loincloths and carrying wooden clubs for that authentic caveman feel.

3) Will we see the (semi)megabeasts receiving any buffs with the introduction of magic? Currently, they are rather non-threatening compared to forgotten beasts. And speaking of which, how will they fit into mythology? Can we assume they'll have larger roles in more magical settings?

4) Speaking of magical settings, after watching your GDC 2016 presentation, you commented on magic-less worlds not possessing dwarves, elves or goblins, which we could also see in the raw files you presented. Does that mean these magic-less human-only worlds will only be playable in adventure mode? Or are we *gasp* getting official playable humans in fortress mode, if only in this kind of world?

5) Final question; you mentioned the HFS is gonna be more integrated to the world with the introduction of magic. Any chance we'll be able to create custom demons with modding? The tokens exist but they do nothing on user-defined raws.


Keep up the great work!

[FantasticDorf]

Even better, gremlins on mundane settings become nigh on un-seeable even at close range.

(though taming a creature and summarily freaking people out with a creature that shouldn't exist is a bit odd)

[gchristopher]

The volunteers that produce essential 3rd party tools (Dwarf Therapist, DFHack) are having a harder-than-usual time finding the memory offsets for the 64-bit versions of DF. This means that a lot of players are stuck on earlier versions until those tools catch up. (Especially Therapist, without which I wouldn't show the game to a new player.)

I know when DF was first created, mod APIs were not as common, but now they're fairly standard. (Though DF was solidly ahead of the curve in allowing for RAW-based modding.)

Would you consider making the lives of the DFHack and other tool creators easier somehow? It seems like if Dwarf Fortress had an init or command line option where it would print out the memory address/offsets of all the key structures, then the community would be on much easier footing to quickly catch up to DF releases. That wouldn't expose any proprietary code or be nearly the effort of implementing a full mod API, since all you'd need to add is print statements for requested structure memory addresses, right?