Print

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

[PlumpHelmetMan]

Thanks for the answers, Toady.

[Knight Otu]

Thanks Toady!

Especially for opening up those tags.

[Eric Blank]

If you really did open up those tags for the next version, that is incredible and I love it! Been making demons for players to summon/transform into anyway, but now they can actually be treated as such by the game.

I wonder if demon is like crazed and makes them hostile to everything. Hmm, maybe not smart to summon those...

[FrankVill]

If I understood it well, Dwarf Fortress is currently "three-games-in-one", because each one of them has different mechanisms. For implementing the new villain features, you begun to modify worldgen in first place, after that you'll change some adventure mode things and in last place you'll do the same in fortress mode.
However, I suppose in th future "three games" could melt in one and you could modify anything in worldgen that would make changes directly into adventure and fortress modes (it would be ideal).
So, these are my cuestions:
In what degree are the three games currently connected at the development level?
What elements of the world generation could be reflected in both modes automatically after their modification?
And is it possible to achieve a definitive fusion that could in a way facilitate your work?

[PatrikLundell]

If I understood it well, Dwarf Fortress is currently "three-games-in-one", because each one of them has different mechanisms. For implementing the new villain features, you begun to modify worldgen in first place, after that you'll change some adventure mode things and in last place you'll do the same in fortress mode.
However, I suppose in th future "three games" could melt in one and you could modify anything in worldgen that would make changes directly into adventure and fortress modes (it would be ideal).
So, these are my cuestions:
In what degree are the three games currently connected at the development level?
What elements of the world generation could be reflected in both modes automatically after their modification?
And is it possible to achieve a definitive fusion that could in a way facilitate your work?

The main reason World Gen, Fortress Mode, and Adventure Mode require different coding is because of their scales. World Gen is on the global scale and typically spans centuries of history that has to actually get done in a somewhat reasonable time, meaning the mechanics have to be somewhat simplified and abstracted. As far as I understand, the activated world (i.e. what's happening in the world outside of the vicinity of the adventurer or fortress) is similar to the world gen history, but has to take more complicated data structures generated during play into consideration, and can also afford to have a higher level of detail/complexity because of the slower rate (rather than spending 5 minutes generating each year of history, a year's worth of history in game play is generated in the background over the course of hours).
Differences between Adventure Mode and Fortress Mode are required both because they operate on different time scales and as well as with different focus (a single adventurer -> party versus a fortress entity), although some mechanics can be and have been merged to some extent, and I believe it's a goal to make much of those mechanics (such as crafting) essentially the same in both modes so that introduction of something new can apply to both modes more or less as a result of being introduced and then following the standard template. It can also be noted that the third mode, Legends Mode, isn't the same as World Gen, but rather World Gen PLUS whatever happens during the period fortresses and adventurers are played in the world, both in the background and as a result of player actions.

[FantasticDorf]

If you really did open up those tags for the next version, that is incredible and I love it! Been making demons for players to summon/transform into anyway, but now they can actually be treated as such by the game.

I wonder if demon is like crazed and makes them hostile to everything. Hmm, maybe not smart to summon those...

That was kind of the direction my question was going towards, differences between on-file entities and usual demons, as incase we don't recieve a fire imp (I mean if the tag can be applied, why not?) tower lord without supporting tags in the usual context of "Oh this creature has [POWER]" rather than the sole arguement of being demonic.

[voliol]

If you really did open up those tags for the next version, that is incredible and I love it! Been making demons for players to summon/transform into anyway, but now they can actually be treated as such by the game.

I wonder if demon is like crazed and makes them hostile to everything. Hmm, maybe not smart to summon those...

That was kind of the direction my question was going towards, differences between on-file entities and usual demons, as incase we don't recieve a fire imp (I mean if the tag can be applied, why not?) tower lord without supporting tags in the usual context of "Oh this creature has [POWER]" rather than the sole arguement of being demonic.

The question is whether the goblins currently care whether their demon overlords have [POWER] or not, or if they simply form their civs around whatever [UNIQUE_DEMON] has struck up a deal with a deity and fled the underworld. If the [POWER] token is irrelevant, then what matters is whether the game picks a random existing [UNIQUE_DEMON] creature for elevation, or if it generates* a new one on-spot, in which case adding it to a creature won’t do much. [UNIQUE_DEMON] is relevant, as not just any underworld-dwelling demon can become an overlord. In fact, the overlord demons can’t be found in the underworld.

The normal [DEMON] token I would suppose is for the initial wave of demons, and possibly to prevent demons from attacking each other.

I also suppose slightly different routines could be used for the original goblin-civs, and the new ones created as a byproduct of dwarves digging too deep.

*From the June reply we know that the demons (in the new demon-civs) are ”created on the spot”. We don’t know whether the leader is generated then though, as ”created” can simply mean that they didn’t have histfigs before that.

[FrankVill]

It can also be noted that the third mode, Legends Mode, isn't the same as World Gen, but rather World Gen PLUS whatever happens during the period fortresses and adventurers are played in the world, both in the background and as a result of player actions.

Yes, I made a mistake when I said worlgen, I was really thinking in Legends mode.
Thanks for your answer, you're right about this topic. Unless Toady says otherwise, now I am begining to see clearly that is not possible any fusion of the three modes. In any case, after each of them has been completed they will be united like puzzle pieces, I suppose.

[PlumpHelmetMan]

They're already connected to a considerable extent, changes made to the world in fortress mode will carry on into adventure mode and vice versa, and of course you can read about those changes in legends mode. But yeah, still a lot of weird stuff and incompleteness that needs fleshing out.

[Felblood]

If you really want to explore the connections between the 3 modes in one world, you can generate one with hidden legends and try to reveal the legends. An adventurer can uncover some legends by chatting with people about people, artifacts and problems, but exploring a retired/dead player fortress and reading the engravings is generally faster.

This leads me to some new questions:

1.Is unlocking hidden legends still going to be one of the ways that you expect players to measure progression?

2. Is there ever going to be an option to hide only part of the legends?

Currently, I have to choose between knowing where every secret artifact was stashed, versus not even knowing if my native civ is at war with anyone.

I can see a number of ways to come at this, from hiding any secret legends and those over 100 years old, to just randomly hiding 50% of all legends data, so players have something to unlock, while still being able to somewhat get their bearings.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Surely information available in-game (like who is at war with whom and where all your artifacts were last seen) should (eventually) depend on what civ you're playing, not "player 100%, player 50%, player in the dark".

Legends Mode on the other hand should only really cut info optionally for cpu reasons (cull histfigs). Since you're playing God there (as there's no way for the game to know who you may or may not play during the life of a world).

[ZM5]

That new devlog is hype. Petting animals is a nice touch - I'm really excited for what comes next.

This brings to mind a question - will non-animal zombies be able to take commands now as well? In order for them to grab and use weapons, armor, etc.

[Real_bang]

Nice devlog! This brings me one important question to ask:
Can we pet the intelligent undead that we raise aswell?

[voliol]

Hmm, it seems like riding zombie dragons will be the most accessible way of riding dragons in vanilla. Sounds dwarfy enough to me.

Will random (possibly recruitable) NPCs have mounts/pets now, or is that just for the adventurer party members? Will it be possible to assign/give mounts to your party members?

[Eric Blank]

Can intelligent undead raised by necromancers end up in romantic or friendly relationships with other people around them?

It would be hilarious if a mortal npc attempted to flirt with the undead, only to realize their mistake too late, or the undead got outed because someone tried to grab their hand and realized they're dead cold

is the petting interaction just a bp_bump interaction available to humanoids by default? Or is there something new or special about it, like an emotional response from either the petter or the pettee?