Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 250 251 [252] 253 254 ... 406

Author Topic: Future of the Fortress  (Read 3125582 times)

recon1o6

  • Bay Watcher
  • Developing a race, explosive booze and death traps
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3765 on: January 04, 2021, 06:11:49 am »

Thanks for the replies Toady, but id be sure to answer your question for a change based on what i know of the subject topic with this new info.
Quote from: ToadyOne
I didn't change anything directly here, and I didn't edit anything for the dev log.  When I was testing, I ran the attack code so I could get some humans, and there were elephants, which was a bonus since we wanted to show their tile at some point.  Does PET or TRAINABLE put them in the regular non-exotic pool for 'monster' races?  Elephants have MOUNT_EXOTIC, but these weren't mounted - they came in the troll way, a whole bunch of them.  The lone elephant there was the result of a bug (making it the leader of the whole army), but it was followed by about 20 more that I figured were legitimate 'monster' units.  Or could a general have tamed them in world gen?  I'm not sure, ha ha.

Filtering, the [POSITION:CAPTAIN] noble or overlapping any variable position of creatures outside the defined scope fixes this kind of thing, as that's mainly the w.g nonhistorical and no-equipment fodder the AI throws virtually unlimited amounts at you for. If it was a inaccessible class of creature and that the civ couldn't fufill to find that creature (sentient or otherwise) inside itself it'd omit them entirely and as i remember it working the once after i made a faulty RAW definition, sending out site militia's making historical site population trickle down after being unable to reach its reliable captains.

Example made for humans being similar to the dwarven template under the mountain civ, with the creature clause.

From what you say, that elephant is just controlling the smallest branch of the army onto your site technically underneath the lieutenant/general hierarchy, and animals have been noted, as per bug report ( #6708: Human civilization's soldier is an Alligator Recruit. ) as recruits themselves so maybe the elephant brought its own squad by chance?

A additional note, that creature-feature monster squads vanish from goblins (trolls in armor etc) if this is also filled out with trolls appearing in the correct capacity.


The elephants being tamed for their [MOUNT_EXOTIC] is quite likely the result of a general going out of their way to travel the wilds for animals now that i think about it since [USE_NON_EXOTIC_PET_RACE] and elephant [PET] is compatible on the surface while [MOUNT_EXOTIC] is not, i was just wondering if there was more to it personally but this is a satisfiable result.


this is terrifying, elephants having squads behind them, now imagine if that got scaled up to say, tamed roc's if monster units can suddenly be generated on the map
Logged
Urist McRecon cancels make exploding booze: Interrupted by bad idea
Urist McRecon cancels bad idea: missing raw files
Urist McRecon cancels add raw files: Interrupted by fortress mode
Urist McRecon cancels play fortress mode: Needs exploding booze
Urist McRecon cancels acquire exploding booze: No materials

FantasticDorf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3766 on: January 04, 2021, 07:54:13 am »

this is terrifying, elephants having squads behind them, now imagine if that got scaled up to say, tamed roc's if monster units can suddenly be generated on the map

Well its actually mostly the case when beak-dogs make a appearance in sieges on their own with their little historical named titles rather than mounts or warbeasts (they dont have the capability to do so in native raws without editing), so this has been trapsed around for a number of years now. So much goblinite wasted on improper goblin recruitment; tut, tut.
Logged

Libertine Angel

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3767 on: January 05, 2021, 01:54:59 pm »



Quote from: FrankVill
In fortress mode, I can see a meticulous and detailed description of the physical appearance and psychological state of each of my dwarves. They are all unique in terms of their way of being, preferences, memories, etc ... The same can also be observed in residents of different races, such as an elf who lives in my fortress.
At the level of physical appearance, dwarves and elves clearly differ from each other, but at a psychological level there are no elements that allow me to differentiate them (perhaps I have overlooked some detail that may currently be present).

Looking to the future:
- How do you consider differentiating the personalities between two or several races / species to the point that they may have some incompatibilities between them? For example, that a race thinks in a certain way due to its genetics.
- Or, on the contrary, do you think it is better to have a common psychological framework for each intelligent creature and let external elements (culture, religion, professions, civilizations...) shape and define the psychology of each one?

PatrikLundell: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8219578#msg8219578

There are some biases in the raw files, and for the goblins, the lack of altruism I think does count as reasonably stark species difference, since they can't break 50%, though for two individuals you couldn't pick the goblin out every time.  For the elves, despite how it works now, we never really decided whether the cannibalism bit was entirely cultural.  With dwarves though, we've intentionally made them a bit closer to humans than they might normally be on the theory that it helps story formation somewhat.  I'm not sure if we'll ever change that part in the default setup, though the myth release is likely to make more variability possible or even commonplace. 

There's some tension here, as I think came up in DND and various other places, involving racism and roleplaying and etc.  It's safest to completely homogenize the minds, not to vary them at all in a way linked to creature type, but our current thinking is that we can allow some variability, including stuff that's more stark than what we're doing now.
Yeah I think intrinsic species traits would be sketchy, I don't see any reason why background alone wouldn't be enough (for one thing it gives us the chance to have our own Carrot Ironfoundersson types) and giving any group an "inherent nature" is a rather bioessentialist view.
It's just a normal fantasy thing in regards to innate traits, I don't see why it's "sketchy" or why it should be removed or changed. Even dwarves have a similar thing going on where they're more greedy on average and slightly less prone to stress, amongst other traits - I don't think anyone really sees that as an issue.

If we kept things just because they were normal nothing would ever improve, a while ago there was actually a big discussion about the latest D&D edition where plenty of people saw the issue, because "this race has inherently bad traits" is a concept that's led to a lot of awful things in the world, is a kind of lazy way to develop personalities and is arbitrarily limiting. Even Tolkien regretted making orcs predisposed to evil in his later writings.
Logged

Egan_BW

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3768 on: January 05, 2021, 04:10:58 pm »

I feel like it would be appropriate to give radically different personalities to creatures which clearly aren't just reskinned humans. Dwarves, elves, and goblins could plausibly be seen as being different races of human, or closely related species. But animal people or demons or whatever kind of generated sapient we wind up getting could think drastically differently from humans. IMO it would be a wasted opportunity if solitary carnivore cat people had exactly the same outlook as humans, and demons aren't really even animals, so it would be expected for them to have different priorities from anything living.

It does have to be approached mindfully, but "truly alien beings" are some of my favorite things in fiction.
Logged
Not true, cannot be proven, true but misrepresented.

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3769 on: January 05, 2021, 04:57:50 pm »

I feel like it would be appropriate to give radically different personalities to creatures which clearly aren't just reskinned humans. Dwarves, elves, and goblins could plausibly be seen as being different races of human, or closely related species. But animal people or demons or whatever kind of generated sapient we wind up getting could think drastically differently from humans. IMO it would be a wasted opportunity if solitary carnivore cat people had exactly the same outlook as humans, and demons aren't really even animals, so it would be expected for them to have different priorities from anything living.

It does have to be approached mindfully, but "truly alien beings" are some of my favorite things in fiction.
But would a solitaire carnivore cat creature who was born and raised in a human town really have a completely different personality and outlook on life than the humans around him?

And would a human raised by a (nearly) solitaire carnivore cat creature have the same personality as those in the town?

The system needs to be flexible enough to deal with those cases. Assigning a "cat creature" personality in a world as complex as a typical Dwarf Fortress world seems way too simple.
Logged

Rose

  • Bay Watcher
  • Resident Elf
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3770 on: January 05, 2021, 05:36:44 pm »

Yeah, I get uncomfortable reminded of Redwall, that notably had a rat that was raised from a baby by a bunch of very kind mouse monks, but his inherent evil from being a rat inevitably showed through.
Logged

Urlance Woolsbane

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3771 on: January 05, 2021, 06:20:12 pm »

If we kept things just because they were normal nothing would ever improve, a while ago there was actually a big discussion about the latest D&D edition where plenty of people saw the issue, because "this race has inherently bad traits" is a concept that's led to a lot of awful things in the world, is a kind of lazy way to develop personalities and is arbitrarily limiting.
I think that the sort of person who looks at something like DF's goblins and analogizes them with a real ethnic group is probably quite prejudiced to begin with. Assuming that the existence of monstrous humanoids in a fantasy world is tantamount to racists caricaturing other people as monsters strikes me as ceding ground to bigots. Of course, optics are a legitimate concern, but I resent the notion that DF, as it exists, might be inculcating hatred in its players.

That said, the obvious out with goblins is to make their evil a result of their demon master's corrupting influence, such that those who spend prolonged amounts of time out its reach become more benign.

Even Tolkien regretted making orcs predisposed to evil in his later writings.
Wasn't this because of the theological implications? An innately evil race would seem to lack the opportunity for salvation, for one. Dwarf Fortress, however, is not made with an eye towards conforming with Christian beliefs.

At any rate, it's unpleasingly simplistic from a literary perspective, though I'm not sure how much that concern applies to this game.

I feel like it would be appropriate to give radically different personalities to creatures which clearly aren't just reskinned humans. Dwarves, elves, and goblins could plausibly be seen as being different races of human, or closely related species. But animal people or demons or whatever kind of generated sapient we wind up getting could think drastically differently from humans. IMO it would be a wasted opportunity if solitary carnivore cat people had exactly the same outlook as humans, and demons aren't really even animals, so it would be expected for them to have different priorities from anything living.

It does have to be approached mindfully, but "truly alien beings" are some of my favorite things in fiction.
But would a solitaire carnivore cat creature who was born and raised in a human town really have a completely different personality and outlook on life than the humans around him?

And would a human raised by a (nearly) solitaire carnivore cat creature have the same personality as those in the town?

The system needs to be flexible enough to deal with those cases. Assigning a "cat creature" personality in a world as complex as a typical Dwarf Fortress world seems way too simple.
I would expect the human-raised cat-creature to be culturally human, but still to have feline inclinations, and vice-versa. This is consistent with how the game works at present, with civilization-raws defining cultural values and creature-raws defining personality parameters. Having a uniform felinid-personality would obviously be silly, but DF is at no risk of being that simplistic.

I feel like it would be appropriate to give radically different personalities to creatures which clearly aren't just reskinned humans. Dwarves, elves, and goblins could plausibly be seen as being different races of human, or closely related species.
Right, and once interbreeding is introduced (as I believe is planned) they will be, in effect, members of the same species.
Logged
"Hey papa, your dandruff is melting my skin. Is that normal?"
"SKREEEONK!!!"
"Yes, daddy."

LordBaal

  • Bay Watcher
  • System Lord and Hanslanda lees evil twin.
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3772 on: January 06, 2021, 06:23:42 am »

Ohh please... how anyone could see df goblings and think that is a jab of any real life human ethnicity or group? Whoever does that must have a real problem. I would apreciate if you do not pollute this thread/forum/game with any of that crap.

Fantastic racism makes for some interesting plots and argumental lines. To draw paralels or connections to real life racism? No, please no. Racism in real life is stupid and one of the main reasons lots of people suffer.
Logged
I'm curious as to how a tank would evolve. Would it climb out of the primordial ooze wiggling it's track-nubs, feeding on smaller jeeps before crawling onto the shore having evolved proper treds?
My ship exploded midflight, but all the shrapnel totally landed on Alpha Centauri before anyone else did.  Bow before me world leaders!

Hartsteen

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3773 on: January 06, 2021, 08:13:46 am »

Will recipes be procedural generated to produce recognisable dishes with interesting ingrediences (outside "normal " dishes like "roasted xxx")?

Will unprepared food get bad after some time in stock?

« Last Edit: January 11, 2021, 04:15:35 pm by Hartsteen »
Logged

Silverwing235

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3774 on: January 06, 2021, 09:47:22 am »

Ohh please... how anyone could see DF goblins and think that is a jab of any real life human ethnicity or group? Whoever does that must have a real problem. I would apreciate if you do not pollute this thread/forum/game with any of that crap.

Fantastic racism makes for some interesting plots and argumental lines. To draw paralels or connections to real life racism? No, please no. Racism in real life is stupid and one of the main reasons lots of people suffer.

Agreed.
Logged

FantasticDorf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3775 on: January 06, 2021, 12:22:18 pm »

I dont want to turn the turf over on this too much but my only view on the matter is that as it is, goblin, dwarf and elven brains simply work differently to one another, and the general theme appears to be that each race has a particular 'vice' (i could for instance definitely code humans to go forth and spread 'love' through propensity & laze about to complete the circle), its simplistic but it works meshed in with different things to stop creating overly generic citizens when mismatched by entities.

Besides, they have their uses in their own unique ways. Throwing back to the primary example of goblin cruelty, it appeals to so many base desires that its easy enough to stack with the correct kind of stimulus and doing activities that dwarves would usually never enjoy as a refreshing break from the predictable nature of dwarves you can build around. You never know when you need a torturer around (though not presently with the half complete state of espionage and how little jail content we have) who's not going to become haggard or sombre, but rather sings and dances at the prospect of coming into work being important to the fort's security & their own mental wellbeing.
Logged

LordBaal

  • Bay Watcher
  • System Lord and Hanslanda lees evil twin.
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3776 on: January 06, 2021, 01:28:06 pm »

You can make any race as evil, good natured or mixmatch of it. Whole races universally evil or otherwise. You can also have fantastic racism between them as plot devices like the dwarves and elves and so on as (sadly) a parallelism of real world. Specially when some, most of all of that racism is found out to be baseless as the plot advances in the case of books and such.

What should be avoided by anyone is seeing a fantasy race, specially a generic one like goblins and think/say/write: "It's offensive to X group of real life people", without any kind of support beyond their own predisposition and prejudgment.

Now, evil necromancers do are a jab at most politicians hehehehee
Logged
I'm curious as to how a tank would evolve. Would it climb out of the primordial ooze wiggling it's track-nubs, feeding on smaller jeeps before crawling onto the shore having evolved proper treds?
My ship exploded midflight, but all the shrapnel totally landed on Alpha Centauri before anyone else did.  Bow before me world leaders!

LilyInTheWater

  • Bay Watcher
  • Me want bite. Me want plant corn dog delight.
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3777 on: January 06, 2021, 02:37:47 pm »

I feel like it would be appropriate to give radically different personalities to creatures which clearly aren't just reskinned humans. Dwarves, elves, and goblins could plausibly be seen as being different races of human, or closely related species. But animal people or demons or whatever kind of generated sapient we wind up getting could think drastically differently from humans. IMO it would be a wasted opportunity if solitary carnivore cat people had exactly the same outlook as humans, and demons aren't really even animals, so it would be expected for them to have different priorities from anything living.

It does have to be approached mindfully, but "truly alien beings" are some of my favorite things in fiction.

You could just mod in a civ that has weird morality if you want your fix and put in the carnivorous cat people as the race for that. Fairly easily too, there's a lot of flexibility in the raw entity files for morality and values. (I mean this is a game where the elves by default are down with eating killed sapients but will violently slaughter your fort if you chop down too many trees) But you probably already knew that. I made a civ of animal people that treated trespassing and vandalism like it was a personal matter because the concept of private property wasn't a huge deal to them.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2021, 02:42:38 pm by LilyInTheWater »
Logged
Whatchu gonna do when I'm fucking small
Like one inch tall
You won't see me coming at all

He or They pronouns

Silverwing235

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3778 on: January 07, 2021, 01:58:56 pm »


There appear to be some issues with dice effects (and the bane for overuse) that I, at least, can't quite make out? Such as:
Quote
Grants the user a week of good luck/bad luck (unknown effect, assumed to be similar-but-opposite to the mummy's curse, or temporary in the case of bad luck)".... Using the same dice under the same deity's blessing more than twice in an uncertain period of time, known to be between 24 hours - 1 week...


Edit: Nearly forgot. Is 'time before time' references in legends any sort of placeholder for mythgen connections coming in, or do my eyes deceive me?

Here in particular, I speak for those who are also drawing a blank on whatever a 'fixed world' might be, some kind of post-worldgen thing?


Quote from: devlog
Editors for fixed worlds
 
« Last Edit: January 10, 2021, 11:42:07 am by Silverwing235 »
Logged

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #3779 on: January 07, 2021, 05:48:39 pm »

The UI is mostly a rework of graphics (or "graphics" in the character case) and UI mechanics, with some isolated rework of some things that aren't working too well on the technical level (e.g. "armor" vs "clothing", as a possible candidate). It's not a rework of the information of the data presented on the UI outside of the problem spots.

While broken grammar is annoying, there are far more serious issues piled on the overly full table of things to do before the Premium release, so the only reason text generation would be reworked is if it somehow had to be reworked for technical reasons to work with enhanced UI functionality (hyperlinks have been mentioned as a candidate for Legends Mode), but I'm hard pressed to think of why grammatical incorrectness would be linked to something requiring rework on technical grounds.

Minor grammatical issues are more likely to be (low priority) candidates for periodic minor releases during the Big Wait.

Toady/Threetoe aren't maintaining the wiki: it's a community issue, so you're better of asking your question directly rather than beat around the bush (and once you've received the answer, you could update the wiki page yourself). Note that you can update your post rather than create a new one.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 250 251 [252] 253 254 ... 406