Print

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

[Taffer]

Oh. Oh, well, let me think...

First of all I'd like to say that, playing Revised from the days when it was overwhelmingly bugfixes with just a bunch of modular quality-of-life reactions, I don't mind a more frugal approach to the changes. Even though some do enhance gameplay, imo, it is understandable that it's just not the core idea of this mod.

I've probably been too miserly. I'll make bugfixing and propping up bad gameplay more of a focus. I'll take my time with the next version. I'm still on the fence about combat: I'll probably need to roll up my sleeves and just start testing. I'm not sure how well your material changes fare when they're removed from your armor and weapons, and I'm not sure how much testing Coherent Weapons had.

However, some features that might appear as excessive oftentimes serve as crutches for various things that are broken or shaky in the vanilla game, and those I'll always speak in favor of.

I love criticism: I'm definitely not perfect. Please keep it up and feel free to disagree with me (applies to everyone reading this).

• Goblins and subterranean creatures now have KILL_NEUTRAL:REQUIRED again, like vanilla. I think it's stupid, but I'll defer to the next version.

Think it's better to keep it until the actual game update comes out. It prevents a ton of adventure mode lag and loyalty troubles, and it's hard to say yet how long until the next DF release.

Good point. I'll wait on this one.

I'd say you can't go wrong with keeping the force transfer related changes at least 
Without them the mechanic is really absurd.

I'll keep (at least) those. Thanks!

I'll be reverting all changes to PET, PET_EXOTIC, and mount changes (with the exception of the removal of amphibious mounts and possibly the change below).

I don't precisely recall what changes these are, could you elaborate?
Other than the water buffalo one, which is not great, as it causes horse-like overpopulation in non-player sites. While we are at it, I'd also like to propose making horses not COMMON_DOMESTIC for this very reason.

Things like taking bears, worms, and other creatures with inappropriate PET tags and giving them PET_EXOTIC instead. Also it adds a few mounts (like reindeer). From memory the only mounts I've removed are amphibious, slow, or curl up when threatened.

Like most of the things I revert, I just haven't had anyone say they like or appreciate this and I don't personally care enough to keep it. If you like the changes I don't mind keeping them, I'll just document them better. I can post a complete list of changes if desired.

I'll do some reading about horses and COMMON_DOMESTIC.

• Elves don't use greatarrows anymore, only regular arrows. They still wield wooden maces and wooden mauls instead of wooden swords. I might revert that too. Wooden blunt weapons make more sense than wooden edged weapons, but wooden swords have a "rule of cool" sort of feel to them.

This is a different take, as it is very subjective, of course, but I would advice to pick a direction with elves that is one way or the other: true to vanilla or boosted to be actually effective in combat. The main problem with elven wood equipment isn't just its poor hitting power - mainly it's the fact that it breaks from few strikes, both ways. To boost the elves they'd need not only better weapons, but a material template change for wood to accompany that: and it would only be a safe boost if you go with edged weapons and properties, because stronger impact properties on wood would lead to unbreakable wooden shields.
The current weapon change doesn't really do much for elves, unless the goal is more about flavor (e.g. more sensible wooden weapons).

The more I read about elves the more of a headache fixing this becomes. I don't really like leaving them weak.
  * I can't buff their skills without making Adventure mode inconsistent.
  * I can't buff wood without buffing training weapons.
  * I can have an elf-only wood like spellwood or ironwood. From what I'm reading it sounds like it might require quite a few raw entries, though. I'm not even sure how well it would propagate and be used, if it was just a reaction.
  * I can give up and bring back elf-only weapons. To be honest maybe this is the best option after all. Tridents, anyone?
My vision of Today's elves is to emphasize their savage, cannibalizing side. I think my current mod does a poor job at that. The changes to give them wooden clubs and mauls was in keeping with that vision, but it probably doesn't come across well. I'll be sure to change their description a little while I'm at it.

It'll require some thinking.

[Shonai_Dweller]

It's not confirmed, but hopefully the amphibious mounts pathing into water bug has been fixed by the new mount mechanics in the next release. Now, riders directly command their mount's souls (or something) so the rider chooses where to go (and therefore, presumably, won't path into a river). The mount only takes over if the rider is inactive for a while.

[Taffer]

It's not confirmed, but hopefully the amphibious mounts pathing into water bug has been fixed by the new mount mechanics in the next release. Now, riders directly command their mount's souls (or something) so the rider chooses where to go (and therefore, presumably, won't path into a river). The mount only takes over if the rider is inactive for a while.

Sweet. The best changes Toady makes are the ones that fix things I'm already trying to fix.

[Sver]

I'm not sure how well your material changes fare when they're removed from your armor and weapons

Material changes, aside from cloth (thread plant, silk, hair), chitin and wood, are all about the force transfer mechanic and work just as well with vanilla weapon velocities.
There are also temperature changes, but those stand on their own: makes it slightly harder to settle freezing/scorching biomes (but also slightly easier to wait out sieges there) and makes creatures catch on fire more realistically (in contrast with how fat is the only thing that burns in vanilla, and fatless creatures become immune to fire). Whether to keep it or not is a matter of taste.

Tissue changes are a different matter. It's probably best not to go as far with pain and bleeding increase on organs as my mod does while keeping vanilla weapons. On the other hand, changes that increase the durability of creatures (such as layer changes in b_detail_plan_default.txt) would work alright.

Things like taking bears, worms, and other creatures with inappropriate PET tags and giving them PET_EXOTIC instead. Also it adds a few mounts (like reindeer). From memory the only mounts I've removed are amphibious, slow, or curl up when threatened.

I've never did much taming in DF, to be honest, so the only impact I can think of is that these creatures (which seem fairly unreasonable to be domesticated, from a realistic standpoint) would be harded to tame for  non-elven civs in worldgen. Just as with ineffectual mounts, it boils down to whether or not you prefer to make invading armies a bit more sensible/practical or to keep the vanilla gimmickness.

I can't buff wood without buffing training weapons.

It is possible if you stick to only buffing the shear (edge) values, as all training weapons are blunt. That said, it will affect wooden trap components with edged attacks.

I've yet to test out the elves with "fake stone" weapons, but that is on the list. Might be a more elegant alternative to new wood types.

It's not confirmed, but hopefully the amphibious mounts pathing into water bug has been fixed by the new mount mechanics in the next release. Now, riders directly command their mount's souls (or something) so the rider chooses where to go (and therefore, presumably, won't path into a river). The mount only takes over if the rider is inactive for a while.

There was a question about it in FOTF, and Toady clarified that the changes will most likely only apply to adventure mode for now, so it's probably best not to defer to.

[Shonai_Dweller]

There was a question about it in FOTF, and Toady clarified that the changes will most likely only apply to adventure mode for now, so it's probably best not to defer to.

No, in that Q&A he says quite clearly that the commands are limited to movement right now (as opposed to armadillo rolling and other mount abilities).
Movement is what's killing amphibious mount riders right now because the mount is choosing where to path. Now it's controlled by riders (who don't want to drown).

And also, dwarves won't get mounts. But then, whether dwarves should ever get mounts is still an open question.

Where are you seeing "Fortress mode mount mechanics will be different to Adventurer mechanics"? Not sure that's even possible.

[Sver]

There was a question about it in FOTF, and Toady clarified that the changes will most likely only apply to adventure mode for now, so it's probably best not to defer to.

No, in that Q&A he says quite clearly that the commands are limited to movement right now (as opposed to armadillo rolling and other mount abilities).
Movement is what's killing amphibious mount riders right now because the mount is choosing where to path. Now it's controlled by riders (who don't want to drown).

And also, dwarves won't get mounts. But then, whether dwarves should ever get mounts is still an open question.

Where are you seeing "Fortress mode mount mechanics will be different to Adventurer mechanics"? Not sure that's even possible.

4. Will there be any changes to mounted unit AI in battle? Will someone on horseback with a bow try to stay away from melee soldiers, if they don't already? Will flying units do the same?

4. I doubt it, unless a mounted party feels super broken, which is possible.

E.g. it will only affect the player-adventurer, unless Toady finds out that mounted companions behave badly. Which is possible, due to the whole morale thing, but that's a speculation.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Let's wait for Fotf to find out the answer to that one. But companion mounts use the new mount/rider relationship to control their mount's, all by AI. No reason at all fortress would be made to use the old version. DF just doesn't work like that, it's all the same game.

[Warlord255]

I went ahead and bashed together a compatibility fix for 4.7/Villains. No content changes, did diff checks to narrow down additions to vanilla entity_default and language files.

http://dffd.bay12games.com/file.php?id=14691

[Orkel]

I went ahead and bashed together a compatibility fix for 4.7/Villains. No content changes, did diff checks to narrow down additions to vanilla entity_default and language files.

http://dffd.bay12games.com/file.php?id=14691

Thanks! I'll try this out later.

[Taras]

Could I suggest more weapons for goblin civ? This weapons are usable by trolls or even bigger goblin's servants.

[Vattic]

Why is it that when opening the .txt files in notepad it's like there are no linebreaks and the whole file is a single long line?

I'm interested in introducing some of these changes into my own raws, but Winmerge treats each file as one single difference. I've tried reintroducing linebreaks with regular expressions without it helping. Any advice?

[Taffer]

Why is it that when opening the .txt files in notepad it's like there are no linebreaks and the whole file is a single long line?

I'm interested in introducing some of these changes into my own raws, but Winmerge treats each file as one single difference. I've tried reintroducing linebreaks with regular expressions without it helping. Any advice?

Linux line endings.

You need a better text editor to edit these files in Windows.

[Vattic]

Thank you Taffer.

That's what I get for not reading thoroughly.

[Lady_Sinful]

Hope you get back to it soon, enjoyed this mod the most!

[jecowa]

I use NotePad++ with a difference plugin when I'm on Windows.