Print

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

[SpeardwarfErith]

In the army arc, if an off-map army is sent to defend against an invader and loses, will they retreat to your fortress, any nearby settlement, or just sort of disappear?

[KittyTac]

What is your opinion on balancing DF?

[Tinnucorch]

What is your opinion on balancing DF?

Despite being a simulation, I think we can guess that Toady wants the players to have challenges... at least if they wish so (because what fun would have fantasy worlds without the epic struggles of the peoples that inhabit them?). Also, in the recent devlog post about the new party creation system he explicitily talks about the possibility of setting "sensible limits" to avoid players abusing it so it seems pretty clear that he doesn't ignore game balance as it has been said elsewhere.

[KittyTac]

What is your opinion on balancing DF?

Despite being a simulation, I think we can guess that Toady wants the players to have challenges... at least if they wish so (because what fun would have fantasy worlds without the epic struggles of the peoples that inhabit them?). Also, in the recent devlog post about the new party creation system he explicitily talks about the possibility of setting "sensible limits" to avoid players abusing it so it seems pretty clear that he doesn't ignore game balance as it has been said elsewhere.

Waiting for Toady himself to say something.

[Death Dragon]

What is your opinion on balancing DF?

You might wanna elaborate on that question, otherwise Toady is probably just gonna give a general answer like that he does care about balancing in some ways, but cares less about it in others.
In one of the last Q&As I asked him about the stress balance and he said something about how he tries to find a good middle ground, so it's not like he doesn't care about balance totally.

[KittyTac]

What is your opinion on playing (and starting as) important historical figures such as rulers and priests? Should there be a setting for that? Will the setting default to OFF?

[Shonai_Dweller]

What is your opinion on playing historic figures? Should there be a setting for that?

Wasn't that covered last month?

--edit
Well, only in part, it seems. But I'm pretty sure there are Dftalks and other fotf replies on the subject too.

Quote from: Shonai_Dweller
You mention that only members of your starting party will be directly controllable in the upcoming adventurer additions (besides in turn based combat, presumably). What's stopping you from allowing direct control of histfigs who join your party later? Is it just the interactions you'd have to add ('Hi Dad!'), or is there something complex you need to do before we can take control of the destinies of 'real people'?

Toady:
I could be missing something obvious, but no, there's nothing stopping us except the existing relationships and positions, as you suggest.  The position part is pretty big; taking over a civ-ruler would just be silly now, like they were possessed and became a wanderer.  I mean, not that that's a bad thing for game-game fun-time, but it cuts against what we are trying to do enough that it hasn't been a priority.  That will continue to change as we go.  Certainly doing something like taking over an existing bandit gang is well within reach now, and might be pretty fun.

In particular, control over your later-added companions is more of a roleplaying thing; they aren't meant to be as loyal and we wanted to leave some room there.  Once we quantify loyalty a bit (part of this release!), we might have them cross a threshold where you can induct them into party status, and then you'd be able to TAB over to them freely.  You might not want to do this if you are trying to roleplay a villain and don't care to have your loyal subordinates as part of a party, or otherwise want to maintain the integrity of your original group.

[FantasticDorf]

(Under 'Trader' development goals:) Should depend on trade/tribute relationships as well as available professions and sprawl sites

Is this currently realised in the applicable loot tables for active historical/ahistorical crafts-people on site, or is the production of tribute & resources simulated by site type or other behind the scenes mechanics?
Im aware that locality to resources via sprawl heading 'upstream' as it were to the nearest linked settlement occurs, but directly to the context to the question with a example would the player be able to influence the 'exports' of a occupied (directly) tributary by artificially boosting the economy by sending more craftsmen from the fortress of a particular trade to not only increase site population density but also productivity. (other factors like possibly bugged occupation migration & appealing/unappealing site types to your entity restraining growth otherwise to non-histfigs sent there) 10+ skilled furnace operators & weaponsmiths to recieve scheduled annual tribute shipments of weapons & metal bars from local ores.

The fact that pressers don't economically contribute by giving press-cakes to traders is another issue entirely but with every dwarf worker adding in a contribution to the pool of a site holding's resources maybe one day it might be relevant.

[Fleeting Frames]

There was pretty good list of traits important for recall in this post. However, it didn't mention what memory categories there are, per se (other than maybe for anxiety) and the 14 traits are almost, but not quite, 8*2.

What are the current 8 short and long-term memory categories?

Social embrassment and violence are two, I guess.

[Beag]

1. If a creature dies on an afterlife plane what are the possibilities for what can happen to them?
2. Can you give us some examples of how a player adventurer would go about rooting out or joining an evil plot?
3. If player adventurers will be able to lead armies will they be able to gather their civilization's army at any time or only when they are at war with another group?
4. Will player adventurers ever be given quests by their lords/ladies to be part of an army led by someone else and if so how will traveling as part of an army work?

[KittyTac]

What is your opinion on playing historic figures? Should there be a setting for that?

Wasn't that covered last month?

--edit
Well, only in part, it seems. But I'm pretty sure there are Dftalks and other fotf replies on the subject too.

Quote from: Shonai_Dweller
You mention that only members of your starting party will be directly controllable in the upcoming adventurer additions (besides in turn based combat, presumably). What's stopping you from allowing direct control of histfigs who join your party later? Is it just the interactions you'd have to add ('Hi Dad!'), or is there something complex you need to do before we can take control of the destinies of 'real people'?

Toady:
I could be missing something obvious, but no, there's nothing stopping us except the existing relationships and positions, as you suggest.  The position part is pretty big; taking over a civ-ruler would just be silly now, like they were possessed and became a wanderer.  I mean, not that that's a bad thing for game-game fun-time, but it cuts against what we are trying to do enough that it hasn't been a priority.  That will continue to change as we go.  Certainly doing something like taking over an existing bandit gang is well within reach now, and might be pretty fun.

In particular, control over your later-added companions is more of a roleplaying thing; they aren't meant to be as loyal and we wanted to leave some room there.  Once we quantify loyalty a bit (part of this release!), we might have them cross a threshold where you can induct them into party status, and then you'd be able to TAB over to them freely.  You might not want to do this if you are trying to roleplay a villain and don't care to have your loyal subordinates as part of a party, or otherwise want to maintain the integrity of your original group.

I want a more in-depth reply about rulers and priests and such, rather than just a few sentences.

[Shonai_Dweller]

What is your opinion on playing historic figures? Should there be a setting for that?

Wasn't that covered last month?

--edit
Well, only in part, it seems. But I'm pretty sure there are Dftalks and other fotf replies on the subject too.

Quote from: Shonai_Dweller
You mention that only members of your starting party will be directly controllable in the upcoming adventurer additions (besides in turn based combat, presumably). What's stopping you from allowing direct control of histfigs who join your party later? Is it just the interactions you'd have to add ('Hi Dad!'), or is there something complex you need to do before we can take control of the destinies of 'real people'?

Toady:
I could be missing something obvious, but no, there's nothing stopping us except the existing relationships and positions, as you suggest.  The position part is pretty big; taking over a civ-ruler would just be silly now, like they were possessed and became a wanderer.  I mean, not that that's a bad thing for game-game fun-time, but it cuts against what we are trying to do enough that it hasn't been a priority.  That will continue to change as we go.  Certainly doing something like taking over an existing bandit gang is well within reach now, and might be pretty fun.

In particular, control over your later-added companions is more of a roleplaying thing; they aren't meant to be as loyal and we wanted to leave some room there.  Once we quantify loyalty a bit (part of this release!), we might have them cross a threshold where you can induct them into party status, and then you'd be able to TAB over to them freely.  You might not want to do this if you are trying to roleplay a villain and don't care to have your loyal subordinates as part of a party, or otherwise want to maintain the integrity of your original group.

I want a more in-depth reply about rulers and priests and such, rather than just a few sentences.

Then you should probably update your question a little.

[Mel_Vixen]

So friendships, raltionships and groups in WG

Will this cause changes in Adventure-mode? I know the current push is for Fortress mode but friendships and such would be a big addition in ADV mode.

I mean being friends with say a kings consort could get you into better standing. Heck with friendships alone it might be easyer to find people and shops you are looking for.

[Hapchazzard]

1. How will adapting the creation myth to different cultures work? It would be odd if goblins, elves and humans all had the exact same creation myth.

2. Will the myth generator be able to generate extremely advanced/magically potent 'precursor' races (I know, it's a sci-fi term, but I feel like it fits here too) and how would they be balanced? While it would be cool to have a race of basically omnipotent reality-bending lizards in the myth story, if they persisted in 'recorded history' (the playable time) in significant numbers it would probably be obscenely unbalanced and they'd be able to curbstomp everyone else.

3. If said races are planned, just how powerful would they be able to be? As much as literal deities (building pocket planes, creating new deities from scratch, etc.)?

4. I saw that in the current version of the myth generator, one can have mortals rise up in rebellion against deities, though they seem to always lose. Will it be possible to have a more generalized war system for the myth generator, enabling war in heaven style conflicts between deities, groups of deities, precursors, etc. where any of the combatants can get eliminated, transformed, etc.?

[thvaz]

(Regarding 08/18 devlog) Will the role of families also be expanded both in wg and fortress mode? Family ties are stronger than friendship and are underdeveloped in the game.