Print

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

[Inarius]

I hope the same

[Bumber]

Hate to be blunt, but making adventure mode into an MMORPG would ruin it for me utterly. Hope it never happens.

It's not like you'd be forced to play with other players.

That said, there are significant challenges to getting Adv Mode to work with multiple players. It was designed for one creature to be controlled at a time, in only one location.

Warmist's multiplayer is limited to a single map in arena mode, and the NPC AI seizes control once an enemy is spotted. (Actually, I just got an idea about possibly loading parts of other maps onto a large retired fortress. We'll see how the upcoming adv party system affects control.)

[PlumpHelmetMan]

Honestly I was a bit grumpy from lack of sleep when I posted the above comment, it's true that no one would be forcing me to go multiplayer.

And yeah the difficulties adventure mode mechanics present for a multiplayer scenario were my other main concern.

[PatrikLundell]

While it is true nobody is forcing anyone to PLAY multi player, every game that has multi player in it has sacrificed single player functionality on the multi player altar, resulting in a worse single player experience. Thus, the presence of a multi player mode is a warning sign that the single player functionality is probably lacking. It's not only that resources were spent on the multi player mode rather than on the single player one (possibly partially compensated for by a slightly larger budget), but also that features that don't work in or detract from multi player get cut out. Pausing? No, can't have others waiting! Thinking? No, can't have others waiting...

I definitely hope that Toady never wastes efforts on multi player (as I think the single player work will never be completed anyway).

I'm perfectly fine with community efforts trying to bend vanilla DF into various forms of multi player, as I'll just ignore them and they won't harm DF itself.

[Rubik]

I don't want to derail the thread too much, and I don't know if this has been posted before but...

Now that we are gonna have adventure mode parties and swapping between members, what's stoping the players from creation sucession games, but with adventurers?
You know, Someone decides to make a game, people from the forums designs the players, and equips them. Then someone plays a season(three in-game months, can be swapped to just one month) with his persona, passes the save to the next guy, who'll play another season with his

To make it NOT a snorefest, the community that hears the tales of travel and war from the players give them objectives at random each turn to achieve(random is prefered so one particular player doesnt get bombarded with tasks, but it's up to the members of each game), but leaving up to the player how to achieve them

You are not allowed to swap in your turn, unless it's completely clear you are gonna die, because you lose then. If you lose, obviously, you are out of the wheel play, but the others can keep playing

Aside from that general rule, the members of each play can make handicaps or specific rules (no eating plump helmets, kill atleast a person each three days) you know stuff like that

Again, only something that I just thought, I won't comment on it anymore

[iceball3]

Hey Toady, concerning the ever shifting balance of stress mechanics, have you considered or made use of simulative models to identify whether dwarven stress can be managed at all, or is too easily managed given various time (time spent walking, sleeping, entertaining, etc), and quality of life (death of loved ones, isolation or existence of loved ones, wealth, fed levels, etc) budgets? If not, how do you establish estimates of whether dwarves can or shouldnt be able to furnish their unmet needs based on the situation?

[Shonai_Dweller]

Hey Toady, concerning the ever shifting balance of stress mechanics, have you considered or made use of simulative models to identify whether dwarven stress can be managed at all, or is too easily managed given various time (time spent walking, sleeping, entertaining, etc), and quality of life (death of loved ones, isolation or existence of loved ones, wealth, fed levels, etc) budgets? If not, how do you establish estimates of whether dwarves can or shouldnt be able to furnish their unmet needs based on the situation?

Don't forget that Toady wouldn't have taken into account the bugs (relationship forming not working as expected, stress still stacking despite thinking that was addressed) since if he knew about them they wouldn't exist, and not yet implemented features (adventurers need for romance, family, etc, dorfs need to wander/be with off site family without there being currently a way to leave sites voluntarily yet).

[FantasticDorf]

Ah good, another week, another devlog, interesting content as always presented with some questions.

It's still yet a but a glimmer in your eye as we can all tell and have been told, but will the fortress's (in fortress mode) own presence as a plot actor to hire a assassin on payroll, could fufill a purpose of 'evening the field' versus very strong and at the moment difficult to take down opponents like immortal tacticians and supernaturally strong defenders? (elves are huge tactics cheaters conquering wide swathes of land and usually beating on humans to extinction with with tactic boosted beasts, and demons really tank the worst of fortress lead tower raids making them very difficult to do unless they meet a accidental demise to pass along leadership) - hopefully without presuming too much with how, but it felt fair to ask since its on development goals.
Bit less of a opened up but still i guess complex question, How much different would deliberately targeting a historical individual be compared to targeting a historical beast/megabeast in terms of a monster hunter versus what the coming assassins will do?, or is it too premature a question with everything still being built up with w.g to comment?

I just saw the parallels in agency that pushing a wad of cash into a monster hunter's (or adventurer within perspective of being that NPC) palm to kill and bring back the corpse or assure a beast is dead would be more useful than having them endlessly wandering our caverns looking for famous monsters (usally made when they as fodder fall prey to something mundane) to come to them. But that's just my opinion.

[PlumpHelmetMan]

Very interesting story, Toady. I get more and more excited for this release with every new devlog.

[therahedwig]

ah, legends is going to be pretty wild seeing this.

I am getting a little worried we'll see a ton of goblin kings everywhere due the combo of eternal life+villain personalities. Do you have any kind of mechanisms in mind to avoid every single ruler being an immortal scumbag?

Also, future DF games will proly have a ton more kids if Nushrat's 7 children are any indication. Kinda cool a figure can really specialize in cloak and dagger though.

EDIT:

I just realized that the immortal scumbag kings would actually fit in a dystopian world. Will the mythgen happy-vs-terrible tone slider only affect the types of things and creatures in the world or do you think it might also affect how game mechanics operate?

[Death Dragon]

but will the fortress's (in fortress mode) own presence as a plot actor to hire a assassin on payroll, could fufill a purpose of 'evening the field' versus very strong and at the moment difficult to take down opponents like immortal tacticians and supernaturally strong defenders?

I'm guessing we won't be able to hire assassins in fort mode as long as there's no post worldgen economy, but military squads sent out on assassination missions will hopefully be able to do that.
I was also wondering about assassinations:
Will we be able to target ANY historical figure in the world with assassinations/ kidnappings or are we limited to the ones who hold some kind of position like site ruler or the dean of the cheesemaker's guild? I was wondering what the interface for that menu would have to look like to not be too overwhelming.

Some other random questions:
Adjacent sites of the same civilisation can sometimes get into border disputes which lead to arguments and possibly armed combat. Do the new friendship/ rivalry/ villainy systems in some way interact with border disputes or is there no change to them?

In the roguelike celebration talk you gave the example of a necromancer who wants to take revenge on the town that initially banished him and who is able to start a war between humans and elves by sending someone to influence the human law giver. Is this all possible by now or is there still something missing for this to be possible?

Oh, just thought of another one because of the latest devlog:
Do you plan on making NPC assassin do their deeds secretly in a fort mode fort, like vampires do? What I mean is, will they be able to kill someone and leave the fort, passing by other dwarves without anyone noticing that they are a/ were the murderer?
It would be a bummer if they automatically just turned into "invader" status after the murder because that would mean no assassin would ever leave a player fort alive, like the guys who try to steal artifacts.

[Inarius]

"Snang still carries it."
Does this mean that, now, artifact armors or weapons are actually used and "seen" by people, and considered as armors or weapons, and not just "treasures to be stored/displayed" ?

[therahedwig]

Ah, I've seen visitors with artifacts and named weapons running around? Did you not have such luck, or was I confused?

[Inarius]

Well, there are two types of named weapons. Named weapons because they killed, and named weapons because they were crafted. I thought that only the first could be carried. The second...well...i've never seen any artefact shields, or armors, or adamantine artifacts. They are generally stored, displayed, stolen, stolen again, but never used as such.

I asked about this on the 25th November 2017, Toady replied
"It certainly makes sense that items should be used for their purpose.  I think we've been slow to do this partially because magic had been in and out of the game early on, and magical powers for many artifacts are now near-term, so it didn't make sense to mess with it this time either.  But they shouldn't be leaving all these objects on pedestals."

So, well, let's wait his reply.

[Grand Sage]

Great to hear that Zach is through his surgery!

I really like how your writhing up the story as you read it, it was very funny. However, the devlog stirred up a couple of questions:

It seems all major position holders (kings, druids ect.) are also villains. Is this intended behaviour or just the effect of something, that isn't implemented yet, and will it stay that way in the release?

Are villains and there groups going to fight about there respective agents ect, or can any given person work for/be extorted by any given number of criminal organizations? in other words, will there be "turf wars" in any sense of the word?

I am not sure if this was asked before, but how many of these new noble positions will we see/be able to appoint in Fort mode?

thx in advance, and thx for an awesome devlog!