Print

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

[PatrikLundell]

How does the visitor cap interact with visiting groups (performance troupes and questers currently)? I can see three alternatives:
1. Current #visitors + group size > cap => Block the group from entering.
2. Cut the group entering at the point where the visitor cap is reached (which would explain why performance troupes typically arrive with only a few members, even when Legends info claims there are more members alive).
3. Lenient: If the first member of the group makes it in the whole group does (which can be problematic with infiltrator group armies [I had a 127 member army and a 120 member army {largely same members} before questers and monster hunters were made to respect the visitor cap]).
Terminology: "Infiltrator" = member of quester group who all go loyalty hostile when a group member leaves and returns attacking the fortress to get the artifact sought.

[Shonai_Dweller]

So, tell us something of hill dwarves. I've read all you've said about them and their deep cousins in the past, but now that they're upcoming, how will they work exactly? They are dwarves from the surrounding abstract population near your fortress? Or are they the populations from the world's dwarf hillocks (presumably if any exist)? Which we'll be able to send into war, right?
Will that Just Fit with modded worlds? If we're playing elves (as some people are want to do, apparently) will we be able to call up the surrounding pops of animal people (which often flock to elf sites) to fight? Or will it just be a selection of elves? And indeed, in vanilla games will the surrounding non-dwarf pops also be eligible as "hill dwarves" ready for cannon fodder duty?

[Buttery_Mess]

With the magic release, I expect the code for strange moods will be revised. I think we can expect magical effects tied to artifacts. But;

1. Can we expect artifacts to be de-hardcoded, so that, for instance newer skills like Pottery and Waxworking will be moodable, along with potentially nodded new skills and workshops?
2. Can we look forward to a general revision of workshops since this is tied to moods?
3. Will item type constrain the sort of spheres to which the artifact is attached, so that we are, for example, more likely to generate a golden sarcophagus of resurrection than a pig iron bucket that summons fluffy wambler remains?
4. Traditionally, wizard magic is a big no no for dwarves. Do you think we'll be able to make dwarf wizards anyway on our forts, if we want to?

[Manveru Taurënér]

With the magic release, I expect the code for strange moods will be revised. I think we can expect magical effects tied to artifacts. But;

1. Can we expect artifacts to be de-hardcoded, so that, for instance newer skills like Pottery and Waxworking will be moodable, along with potentially nodded new skills and workshops?
2. Can we look forward to a general revision of workshops since this is tied to moods?
3. Will item type constrain the sort of spheres to which the artifact is attached, so that we are, for example, more likely to generate a golden sarcophagus of resurrection than a pig iron bucket that summons fluffy wambler remains?
4. Traditionally, wizard magic is a big no no for dwarves. Do you think we'll be able to make dwarf wizards anyway on our forts, if we want to?

Some of that is touched on in the updated dev notes (not gonna link it all tho), and point 4 from my interpretation is outright confirmed as yes:

Magic in the fortress
   Artifact powers that matter for the fort
   Generalize artifact moods, respecting myths
   Various magic types available in fort mode in high-magic worlds
   Invasions by magical beings beyond necromancers, creating new challenges
   Diplomacy with magical beings
      Expanded elf/nature spirit diplomacy
      Long-term magical residents and other sorts of integration
      Send a dwarf off as a wizard's apprentice
   Magical research incorporated into library system
   Fortresses meaningfully built around magical landforms
   Impact of simple divine law and other deity/religion interaction

[eerr]

I've seen projects like this before add choices. The choice between a prison colony and say, founding a powerful religious site or a new central mountainhome.
I can't remember the details, but people tended to choose things like the latter two. I am not saying a prison colony can't become almost the same thing, but people choose the latter two because it's more gratifying.
Starting a prison colony has a negative stigma.

1. How will starting scenarios enable people to fulfill their power fantasy?
2. One problem I found with embarking anywhere, is lack of access to hard metals, like iron, silver and copper. Will a retired mining colony be able to, indefinitely/for a very long time, supply these resources? It doesn't particularly matter to me if the mines are properly depleted, or just there for flavor. This is the main reason embarking anywhere is a problem.
3. How far off is a trade upgrade?
4. How far off is hill dwarf recruitment?

[Shonai_Dweller]

I've seen projects like this before add choices. The choice between a prison colony and say, founding a powerful religious site or a new central mountainhome.
I can't remember the details, but people tended to choose things like the latter two. I am not saying a prison colony can't become almost the same thing, but people choose the latter two because it's more gratifying.
Starting a prison colony has a negative stigma.

1. How will starting scenarios enable people to fulfill their power fantasy?
2. One problem I found with embarking anywhere, is lack of access to hard metals, like iron, silver and copper. Will a retired mining colony be able to, indefinitely/for a very long time, supply these resources? It doesn't particularly matter to me if the mines are properly depleted, or just there for flavor. This is the main reason embarking anywhere is a problem.
3. How far off is a trade upgrade?
4. How far off is hill dwarf recruitment?

4. Hill dwarves next 6 months (dev notes - it's included in this current update cycle).
3. Trade, probably Economy. About 10-15 years from now.

[KittyTac]

4. Hill dwarves next 6 months (dev notes - it's included in this current update cycle).
3. Trade, probably Economy. About 10-15 years from now.

Not 15, 20-ish

[Shonai_Dweller]

4. Hill dwarves next 6 months (dev notes - it's included in this current update cycle).
3. Trade, probably Economy. About 10-15 years from now.

Not 15, 20-ish

I'm optimistic:
6 months updates now
24 months Big Wait for Mythgen
6 months updates
18 months on Mythgen part 2
6 months updates
18 months on Scenarios (politics/law)
6 months updates
12 months super-fast politics part 2
6 months updates
18 months moving fortress parts re-write (Boats)
6 months updates
24 months mega-economy update.
=12-13 years. Plus some extra just because.

[Egan_BW]

I hope that we'll get some maybe simple little boats during this next big cycle. Because I like boats.

[Shonai_Dweller]

I'm really loving this extended bug-fix/updates period actually. More of these would only add, what, 2 years to the schedule?

Again, above schedule is totally optimistic based on wishful thinking, mostly. Might want to add an extended 2 year, "re-write most of the code from scratch" update in there too. Maybe we can get to Economy before that's necessary though.

[KittyTac]

I hope that we'll get some maybe simple little boats during this next big cycle. Because I like boats.

No. Toady likes to release a big feature all at once. Not in little simple chunks, because one player wants it.

[PatrikLundell]

I hope that we'll get some maybe simple little boats during this next big cycle. Because I like boats.

No. Toady likes to release a big feature all at once. Not in little simple chunks, because one player wants it.

It's been stated before that boats are dependent on the advanced machinery update, and Toady can't decide whether the economy should go first (so there's a reason to use boats) or machinery should go first. The important advance machinery foundation for boats is multi tile sized machinery that can change shape (I think, like a current drawbridge) and move (an elevator type contraption would move vertically, but boats will obviously move across the X/Y plane, while a wagon would have to negotiate slopes as well [I believe the wagon "creatures" are slated to be replaced by "machinery"]).

Simple early little boats don't fit into this picture...Even if you were to eventually get single tile rafts, they'd still be built using the larger framework.

[gnome]

Do you eventually intend to implement the effects of starvation/dehydration into npcs for Adventure Mode? If so what arc would that be expected in (if any)? I imagine this sort of thing will have interesting effects on gameplay especially when the economy is reactivated, maybe even disputes between different civs could be about resources, or maybe questlines to fetch things for people as they are treated as necessary for survival. I could see the complexity of relations could be further elaborated on as "helping others" as a value becomes more important or more immediately relevant to some.

[Random_Dragon]

I don't recall if this has been answered, nor if I've asked it yet. I have expressed concerns related tp it if I recall, but that got derailed because people started arguing after misreading what that concern was about.

Suppose you have a mod that changes entities to behave in a specific way that is required for some other aspect of the mod to function. Moreover, suppose that the future myth generator would potentially completely break this entity by forcing it to use hardcoded generated critters, entity tokens and such.

Is there going to be any way for a raw mod to restrict how mythgen is handled, so that if you want to FORCE the game to use certain civs it'll do so, regardless of mythgen settings?

The reason I ask this is because if this option does not exist, the myth arc is almost guaranteed to break pretty much every civ-focused raw mod in existence, and counting on the user to advanced-worldgen more "vanilla" worlds is not an optimal solution.

[KittyTac]

I don't recall if this has been answered, nor if I've asked it yet. I have expressed concerns related tp it if I recall, but that got derailed because people started arguing after misreading what that concern was about.

Suppose you have a mod that changes entities to behave in a specific way that is required for some other aspect of the mod to function. Moreover, suppose that the future myth generator would potentially completely break this entity by forcing it to use hardcoded generated critters, entity tokens and such.

Is there going to be any way for a raw mod to restrict how mythgen is handled, so that if you want to FORCE the game to use certain civs it'll do so, regardless of mythgen settings?

The reason I ask this is because if this option does not exist, the myth arc is almost guaranteed to break pretty much every civ-focused raw mod in existence, and counting on the user to advanced-worldgen more "vanilla" worlds is not an optimal solution.

Sounds pretty obvious. Toady does not want to disappoint modders here.