Print

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

[Shonai_Dweller]

I've been following that thread - albeit at some distance.

Dwarfs now do individual socialising (that occasionally coincides).  They are poorer at forming relationships.

Mass gatherings though, are something else altogether.  We used to have them.  We don't have them now.  We might have them in the future of our fortresses.  It seems reasonable to ask about them, now.

What's happening in your taverns? Mine are full of dorfs dancing, singing, fighting, dying, wishing they could play proc gen gambling games.

[Shonai_Dweller]

When we tab to a party member, will we be able to control them directly, or simply give them general orders? Will we be able to "switch" to them?

Assuming we are still concerned about the player abusing their ability to switch to historical characters by taking control of an enemy leader and committing suicide, making the player "unlock" historical figures by gaining their loyalty as an earlier adventurer could be a way of balancing that.[/color]

When was the last time you hired an important leader to come adventuring with you? Is it even possible?

(Current sysyem as explained in last month's fotf is to allow direct control of starting party members and not so much of histfigs who join later)

[Putnam]

a lot of htem have the DUTY_BOUND token which makes them unable to follow you

[KittyTac]

a lot of htem have the DUTY_BOUND token which makes them unable to follow you

You could mod it out.

[IndigoFenix]

This is more for other historical figures, although I have found former civ rulers wandering the wilds and got them to join up, basically an Aragorn situation.  I expect that such a character would find it much easier to return to a position of leadership than a random peasant.

For playing as most existing rulers, some other limitation would be necessary, maybe being respected enough by the leader.  Assuming the plan isn't to just "let the player take control of whoever they want whenever they want".

[Shonai_Dweller]

a lot of htem have the DUTY_BOUND token which makes them unable to follow you

You could mod it out.

Yes, you could, but the option to mod something doesn't obligate Toady to add the mechanics to deal with it. Modded adventuring leaders would just be those who 'wander off' one day. Actual leaders (beyond 'bandit camp boss') need mechanics which don't yet exist, if not a whole new 'kingdom mode' to make them actually playable.

[feelotraveller]

I've been following that thread - albeit at some distance.

Dwarfs now do individual socialising (that occasionally coincides).  They are poorer at forming relationships.

Mass gatherings though, are something else altogether.  We used to have them.  We don't have them now.  We might have them in the future of our fortresses.  It seems reasonable to ask about them, now.

What's happening in your taverns? Mine are full of dorfs dancing, singing, fighting, dying, wishing they could play proc gen gambling games.

At any given time there are only a few dwarfs in there.  Basically they go there to eat (note to self: stop putting of moving the drink pile  ) and might stick around for a day or two if someone is telling a story or something.

[Enemy post]

Will angels ever behave benevolently in the game world, or are they meant to remain antagonistic?

[KittyTac]

Will angels ever behave benevolently in the game world, or are they meant to remain antagonistic?

Of course. Procgen magic and all. Vaults will be most likely removed and replaced with procgen magical dungeons.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

By the way, the old mechanic you're thinking of is parties. (There may have been others, but I can't remember them.) They'd happen at dining rooms and statue gardens.

I've been following that thread - albeit at some distance.

Dwarfs now do individual socialising (that occasionally coincides).  They are poorer at forming relationships.

Mass gatherings though, are something else altogether.  We used to have them.  We don't have them now.  We might have them in the future of our fortresses.  It seems reasonable to ask about them, now.

What's happening in your taverns? Mine are full of dorfs dancing, singing, fighting, dying, wishing they could play proc gen gambling games.

At any given time there are only a few dwarfs in there.  Basically they go there to eat (note to self: stop putting of moving the drink pile  ) and might stick around for a day or two if someone is telling a story or something.

Try reducing the labor requirements of your fortress or manually disabling a few dwarves' labors. They should hang around the tavern and socialize. As it is, dwarves no longer automatically take breaks. I'm thinking of seeing if there's a way to automatically disable/reenable labors with DFHack.

[Death Dragon]

When we tab to a party member, will we be able to control them directly, or simply give them general orders? Will we be able to "switch" to them?

Assuming we are still concerned about the player abusing their ability to switch to historical characters by taking control of an enemy leader and committing suicide, making the player "unlock" historical figures by gaining their loyalty as an earlier adventurer could be a way of balancing that.

If powerful historical figures are playable by default, will there be any method of preventing players from taking control of an enemy leader and committing suicide, or is that just not a concern?

With tabbing you will be able to control party members directly, yes.
There was an answer about this stuff already in last month's Q&A:

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.

[KittyTac]

When we tab to a party member, will we be able to control them directly, or simply give them general orders? Will we be able to "switch" to them?

Assuming we are still concerned about the player abusing their ability to switch to historical characters by taking control of an enemy leader and committing suicide, making the player "unlock" historical figures by gaining their loyalty as an earlier adventurer could be a way of balancing that.

If powerful historical figures are playable by default, will there be any method of preventing players from taking control of an enemy leader and committing suicide, or is that just not a concern?

With tabbing you will be able to control party members directly, yes.
There was an answer about this stuff already in last month's Q&A:

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.

He meant civ leaders.

[IndigoFenix]

Also, it's not just about suicide; any abuse of the metagame to remove major obstacles without challenge is probably something to be avoided if possible. Granted there is only so much you can do to prevent this (besides simply making powerful individuals unplayable), but making the player put in effort before they can just possess a world leader would at least discourage its overuse.

Edited original question to clarify.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Do you think it would effect the schedule /donations if you just took an extended holiday every August?
I know the forums would cope.
Hope everything gets a little more bearable soon!

[Rockphed]

If dwarf fortress has taught me anything, it is that by studiously lighting yourself on fire you can become immune to any ailment.

Have you looked into getting a proper AC?  If you only use it during the smoke season, it shouldn't cost that much to run and should make life much more bearable.