Print

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

[Dragonslayerelf]

Are there any plans for us to be able to play races other than dwarves in fort mode, such as a fully fleshed out structure for goblins, humans, etc?
Are there any plans to allow us to optionally manually control raids/pillages/invasions and be transported to the battlefield instead of only seeing a report after-the-fact?
Are there any plans to make roads actually traversed? I was thinking of making a fort on the roads and halting anyone passing by, but no one ever came unless they were specifically coming to my fort.

[Untrustedlife]

Are there any plans for us to be able to play races other than dwarves, such as a fully fleshed out structure for goblins, humans, etc?
Are there any plans to allow us to optionally manually control raids/pillages/invasions and be transported to the battlefield instead of only seeing a report after-the-fact?
Are there any plans to make roads actually traversed? I was thinking of making a fort on the roads and halting anyone passing by, but no one ever came unless they were specifically coming to my fort.

1. You can already play as them in adventure mode and explore their sites and such in adventure mode and see their political structure also in adventure mode . But presumably you mean fort mode. He has talked before about that. It’s planned.
2.yes that is planned
3. Presumably yes. People already travel around they just don’t tend to use the roads directly (tough they may stay near them?) and they are useful in adventure mode. (I think they speed you up on the world map a bit but that may not even be the case)

[PatrikLundell]

Are there any plans for us to be able to play races other than dwarves in fort mode, such as a fully fleshed out structure for goblins, humans, etc?
Are there any plans to allow us to optionally manually control raids/pillages/invasions and be transported to the battlefield instead of only seeing a report after-the-fact?
Are there any plans to make roads actually traversed? I was thinking of making a fort on the roads and halting anyone passing by, but no one ever came unless they were specifically coming to my fort.

Adding to Untrustedlife's answer to the first question: One of the things planned for Myth & Magic is the introduction of generated races, as well as fully mundane worlds where fantasy races don't exist (i.e. only boring old humies, no cavern critters, and probably no magma sea). In order for fully mundane worlds to be playable at all in fortress mode, humans will have to be playable (it's possible to play them now with with minor raw changes, but they'll just essentially be human looking dwarves). Making generated races playable is probably harder than making generic elven/human/goblin type races playable (i.e. races generated close to the current location of DF worlds on the future magic/bizarre/... slider scales), although all of it may not make it into the first Myth & Magic arc.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Are there any plans for us to be able to play races other than dwarves in fort mode, such as a fully fleshed out structure for goblins, humans, etc?
Are there any plans to allow us to optionally manually control raids/pillages/invasions and be transported to the battlefield instead of only seeing a report after-the-fact?
Are there any plans to make roads actually traversed? I was thinking of making a fort on the roads and halting anyone passing by, but no one ever came unless they were specifically coming to my fort.

And, one more. Check out the Dev notes (older version, but it all still applies). Humans, elves, goblins for site play.

http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html

Somewhere in an fotf he said he didn't want to just turn on humans (indeed modding can simply manage that) but make sure it was done properly. So not "tall dwarves" or "building towns with an interface geared towards tunnel digging". So, might take a while before it hits vanilla.

Might come with Mythgen, but that's still unclear. The new races will be there, but site play could still be limited to civs who live in dwarf-like underground sites. Mythgen is so huge, who knows what will be in the first release!

[therahedwig]

It might be too much work to support them, and it would be pretty simple to ensure that one of the procgen'd races ticks enough of the fort mode necessities.  Mainly the digging part, since outdoor constructions are still clunky.  If we get to a point where an outdoor race would be fun to play, and has enough of its other bells and whistles respected, I'd be fine with that.  It just doesn't feel like we are quite there.  Overall though, I think procedural fort races will build a bit of that development pressure, the way things often work, since supporting their other quirks will be something that can be done more piecemeal without it feeling utterly broken...  and then suddenly I might realize or be reminded, "oh, human castle mode is basically ready" or something like that.  (naturally, the 17x17 sites wouldn't be supported due to memory concerns** -- another road into this is the scenario-related smaller work sites that everybody will have; "human lumber camp" is another possible path to playable humans.)

** (though without digging and with the map-rewrite, loading a 17x17 human embark suddenly becomes totally feasible, as the deep elevations which would normally blow-out memory and create an underground-life pathing nightmare could simply be ignored; though citizen path-finding would probably be slightly more costly as the map would be less compact -- that doesn't mean we'd be able to have all 10000 citizens of one of those human capitals loaded, but it does mean you could play a 200 person human 'town' with a small market and have the usual FPS problems, but no more than that)

Source: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg7724610;topicseen#msg7724610



... Will there still be a sort of 'Wizard tower' mode for wizards(as per old dev notes), or will our interaction with wizards be primarily adventure mode shenanigans with occasionally a wizard histfig messing things up in fortmode? Or is everything just gonna melt together and we'll see prison-colony-on-a-magical-mountain-run-by-wizards-that-are-an-offshoot-of-a-dwarven-civ-and-they-are-also-a-mercenary-band-mode?

[Egan_BW]

prison-colony-on-a-magical-mountain-run-by-wizards-that-are-an-offshoot-of-a-dwarven-civ-and-they-are-also-a-mercenary-band-mode

I'd play it.

[EternalCaveDragon]

Loved the answers this time around, getting so hyped for villains!  :D Here's a question I forgot to post for said FoTF post.

With the expansion to relationships between historical figures that's been discussed for this pass, are there any plans to do the same (in the background of course) for player adventurers? I remember reading somewhere that currently adventurers don't have any romantic/sexual orientation which results in them not doing things like taking lovers or getting married and having children. The fact they will stay with their previous traveling companions where they retired is pretty nice. But for a player like myself, where being able to get an adventurer to retirement is something of a rarity, it'd be kind of nice to know my former adventurer became more of a part of the world aside from whatever accomplishments they achieved after I take my focus away from them.

[Untrustedlife]

It might be too much work to support them, and it would be pretty simple to ensure that one of the procgen'd races ticks enough of the fort mode necessities.  Mainly the digging part, since outdoor constructions are still clunky.  If we get to a point where an outdoor race would be fun to play, and has enough of its other bells and whistles respected, I'd be fine with that.  It just doesn't feel like we are quite there.  Overall though, I think procedural fort races will build a bit of that development pressure, the way things often work, since supporting their other quirks will be something that can be done more piecemeal without it feeling utterly broken...  and then suddenly I might realize or be reminded, "oh, human castle mode is basically ready" or something like that.  (naturally, the 17x17 sites wouldn't be supported due to memory concerns** -- another road into this is the scenario-related smaller work sites that everybody will have; "human lumber camp" is another possible path to playable humans.)

** (though without digging and with the map-rewrite, loading a 17x17 human embark suddenly becomes totally feasible, as the deep elevations which would normally blow-out memory and create an underground-life pathing nightmare could simply be ignored; though citizen path-finding would probably be slightly more costly as the map would be less compact -- that doesn't mean we'd be able to have all 10000 citizens of one of those human capitals loaded, but it does mean you could play a 200 person human 'town' with a small market and have the usual FPS problems, but no more than that)

Source: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg7724610;topicseen#msg7724610



... Will there still be a sort of 'Wizard tower' mode for wizards(as per old dev notes), or will our interaction with wizards be primarily adventure mode shenanigans with occasionally a wizard histfig messing things up in fortmode? Or is everything just gonna melt together and we'll see prison-colony-on-a-magical-mountain-run-by-wizards-that-are-an-offshoot-of-a-dwarven-civ-and-they-are-also-a-mercenary-band-mode?

Adventure mode shenanigans CAN include managing your wizards tower if you have one. He has talked about running sites in adventure mode  in the df talks many times before, you would give orders and all that stuff, much like fort mode,  just, more directly. And your underlings will then run off and do the work while you do your wizard stuff. Just imagine running around, giving your workers orders. And them doing them. Or you giving your underlings orders, who then tell their underlings to do orders, who then do them.

Site management doesn't need to be limited to fort mode. You can run a site from your characters perspective by giving orders.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Loved the answers this time around, getting so hyped for villains!  Here's a question I forgot to post for said FoTF post.

With the expansion to relationships between historical figures that's been discussed for this pass, are there any plans to do the same (in the background of course) for player adventurers? I remember reading somewhere that currently adventurers don't have any romantic/sexual orientation which results in them not doing things like taking lovers or getting married and having children. The fact they will stay with their previous traveling companions where they retired is pretty nice. But for a player like myself, where being able to get an adventurer to retirement is something of a rarity, it'd be kind of nice to know my former adventurer became more of a part of the world aside from whatever accomplishments they achieved after I take my focus away from them.

Retired adventurers become regular historical figures right now.
They don't do an awful lot, but in the big scheme of things neither do many others. Perhaps there will be more for them to do with the new update.

What would be interesting to know is:
Is there anything you've hard-coded into retired adventurers to prevent them from certain activities (besides relationships which I think you've mentioned before). So things like joining merc bands, becoming a goblin poet master's apprentice, etc?

[EternalCaveDragon]

Retired adventurers become regular historical figures right now.
They don't do an awful lot, but in the big scheme of things neither do many others. Perhaps there will be more for them to do with the new update.

What would be interesting to know is:
Is there anything you've hard-coded into retired adventurers to prevent them from certain activities (besides relationships which I think you've mentioned before). So things like joining merc bands, becoming a goblin poet master's apprentice, etc?

I'm aware they become regular historical figures, though I'm glad to know it wasn't just that one adventurer's crippling spine injury (lower spine I think) that was preventing her from doing things as a historical figure.  And I also second that question.

[therahedwig]

I've had a retired adventurer die because they were in a town attacked by goblins(and they fought against the goblins, killing a few before succumbing).

The primary reason adventurers don't get married is because they're asexual, and they are asexual because the guys didn't want to force the sexuality of the character on the player(so, if you wanted to play a homosexual, you don't have to cope with the character being hardcoded to bisexual, etc.) but it's going to take until a relationship-interaction overhaul before adventurers can actually do anything. Hopefully they can get friends when retired next version, even if they could only be war buddies(fairs don't happen post-worlgen)...

[Shonai_Dweller]

I've had a retired adventurer die because they were in a town attacked by goblins(and they fought against the goblins, killing a few before succumbing).

The primary reason adventurers don't get married is because they're asexual, and they are asexual because the guys didn't want to force the sexuality of the character on the player(so, if you wanted to play a homosexual, you don't have to cope with the character being hardcoded to bisexual, etc.) but it's going to take until a relationship-interaction overhaul before adventurers can actually do anything. Hopefully they can get friends when retired next version, even if they could only be war buddies(fairs don't happen post-worlgen)...

It's also, from a technical point of view, simply because if you retire a heterosexual adventurer, get married and have kids, then unretire, Toady has to write dialogue and basic behaviour for interactions with spouse and kids.

The intention is to allow adventurers to have relationships at some point.

[Egan_BW]

I wonder how new players will react when eventually you can set your character's sexual orientation in a very fine-tuned way as soon as you start adventurer mode.

(As currently in character generation you already have fine grain control over all your personality facets, and under the hood sexual orientation is represented by a bunch of different values rather than just a switch between homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, etc. I'd expect that once the player adventurer can have romantic relationships the player will have full control over that rather than just a list of options.)

[Untrustedlife]

I wonder how new players will react when eventually you can set your character's sexual orientation in a very fine-tuned way as soon as you start adventurer mode.

(As currently in character generation you already have fine grain control over all your personality facets, and under the hood sexual orientation is represented by a bunch of different values rather than just a switch between homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, etc. I'd expect that once the player adventurer can have romantic relationships the player will have full control over that rather than just a list of options.)

You will need to set it so the player adventure acts correctly when retired.He talked about this on the df talk about legacies of adventurers.

[Egan_BW]

Hm? Yeah, that's why it can't be like most games where we just assume that all PCs are bisexual. Here characters can end up making decisions without the player's direct input.