Print

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

[Criperum]

Last time i asked about army bugs but was too uncertain. The exact one I'm concerned about is frequent inability of soldiers to find their armor, weapon and equipment even if they were specifically designated to wear specific part of it. Will this be fixed in some near future?

[Eric Blank]

Last time i asked about army bugs but was too uncertain. The exact one I'm concerned about is frequent inability of soldiers to find their armor, weapon and equipment even if they were specifically designated to wear specific part of it. Will this be fixed in some near future?

If theres a recent or recently updated bug report on it, its as likely to be fixed after this next release as anything else, so make sure you report problems youre having.

[therahedwig]

There's actually a bug that has been open forever because it is quite a complicated issue.

Or, at the least, the base issue is that dwarves have always been terrible at getting dressed, but now it is compounded by rank, upgrades, 'civilian uniforms', needing to have multiple items for certain things like archery, storing equipment, etc. And that is not even touching the equipment confusion(and corruption) coming from dwarves going on raids.

[PatrikLundell]

Last time i asked about army bugs but was too uncertain. The exact one I'm concerned about is frequent inability of soldiers to find their armor, weapon and equipment even if they were specifically designated to wear specific part of it. Will this be fixed in some near future?

therahedwig mentioned the two main bugs I know of that match the (still too imprecise) description. The raid equipment corruption crash bug will most certainly be addressed, but it doesn't seem Toady is going to change to a current + next version parallel code base line development model until after the first Villains release has been made (and possibly not until the Commercial release is made as well), so it's most likely going to be fixed in the first few post Villain bug fix releases. The old standing equipment bug probably won't be addressed then (unless Toady feels it's time to deal with it when in the vicinity dealing with the corruption bug), but is a good candidate for fixing when Toady attacks the military UI to make it more user friendly as part of the Commercial release preparations. I'd be surprised if Toady made any promises, though...

It can be mentioned that attempts to fix the old bug has been made in the past, and I believe those attempts have improved the situation a little.

[clinodev]

I've been reading/watching people's DF let's plays lately, and I am noticing a lot of them aren't interacting with the civ screen much despite it being one of the most important screens when it comes to DF throwing dangers at you. And I am wondering if that's not because most of the dangers just kinda come at you out of nowhere.

I know it was just commentary, not lime green, but. . ..

I watch a lot of hours of DF Twitch streams, and I also notice people are staying out of the civ screen. I believe it's split pretty evenly between

a) experienced players aware of the aforementioned raid equipment corruption crash bug, and

b) people getting back into DF after not having played for some time who are unaware of it.

The second group are a little frustrating, because what to say? "Oh, there's this really neat thing! But, um, you probably shouldn't use most of the cool stuff, because you might crash on stream."

[Death Dragon]

The second group are a little frustrating, because what to say? "Oh, there's this really neat thing! But, um, you probably shouldn't use most of the cool stuff, because you might crash on stream."

Well, if they don't expect crashes then why are they playing DF?
Do we know how that equipment corruption raid crash is caused? I don't remember crashing during raids personally.

@Death Dragon: It's certainly possible for your dwarven civ to start out at war with other civs, and it happens from time to time that such civs happens to be the "neighbor" civs visible pre embark (where you can see that they're at war with your civ). This has been possible at least since 0.40.X, and probably much longer. One factor when selecting which civ to embark with is whether the neighbors at various sites are at war with that civ (some want them to be at war, and some want caravans instead).

Yeah I figured it was already possible, but I assume that it will now possibly be more common.

Given that the villains can now start wars, and that civs can now have a claim on artifacts, are you considering getting rid of the siege triggers?

Aren't the siege triggers still needed to prevent very early fortresses from being immediately overrun by invading armies?
I'm not entirely sure how it works, but when you start a fort and you're immediately at war with some civ, you still have to pass some triggering conditions before you can actually be a target of enemy raids, right?

[Telgin]

I'm pretty sure the triggers are much easier to hit, if there are any at that point.  I was under the impression it was like necromancer attacks, which don't require the usual triggers.  I seem to recall you couldn't be attacked during the first year, but I'm not even sure of that.

[EternalCaveDragon]

Given that the villains can now start wars, and that civs can now have a claim on artifacts, are you considering getting rid of the siege triggers?

Aren't the siege triggers still needed to prevent very early fortresses from being immediately overrun by invading armies?
I'm not entirely sure how it works, but when you start a fort and you're immediately at war with some civ, you still have to pass some triggering conditions before you can actually be a target of enemy raids, right?

As far as I can tell the triggers are still in the raws. And they will probably remain there in the next version to handle non-villain-related attacks unless Toady has come up with a new system in the meantime. Plus, as Telgin said, there's already ways to handle attackers that don't use the usual triggers, such as necromancers and bandits.

[PatrikLundell]

@Death Dragon: The crash bug is known in general terms, but not the details. Equipment used by dorfs when going on raids are probably removed from the fortress when the dorfs leave, but remain allocated to the squad positions. When the raiders return the equipment is probably returned to the fortress and marked as free, but remains allocated to the squad positions (making it possible for the same piece of equipment to be allocated to two different squad positions (unknown if they can be in the same squad) concurrently. Somewhere in that process completely unrelated items, frequently very early artifact "books", can show up in one or more specific item (such as e.g. specific armor pieces) militia member equipment lists. Somehow the source from which those lists draw their information has been corrupted, but it's not known what that source is. It's likely the crash happens when dorfs are trying to get new equipment, and the code tries to process one of these garbage items to determine which one is "best" and tries to evaluate fields that do not exist in the item.

If the rate at which wars happen changes the DF worlds run the risk of descending into smoldering ruins where everyone is at war with everyone else (and the number of necromancers explode if the secret cap allows it and there are sufficiently many survivors to recruit from), unless there is something that compensates by increasing the rate at which civs make peace.

@Telgin:
The attack triggers are based on pop, wealth, and exported wealth, not on time. However, you usually won't get a pop over 80 (the default civ pop trigger) within a single year. If you raid early you forfeit the pop trigger protection (at least with regards to that civ: I don't know if it's removed completely, but it wouldn't be unreasonable). Note that wars are between civs, so starting at war just means your parent civ is at war, but your site is removed from the potential targets list until the siege trigger protection is lifted.

[therahedwig]

I didn't know siege triggers themselves gave protection? This might also be because it is really easy to trigger them, and if it is protection, it is also an enforcement of sieges. Once you git the Goblin siege trigger(80 Dwarves), the Goblins will go to war with the Dwarves for no reason(legends say 'unknown' reasons) and you get sieges. And that's the part I am thinking villains might actually be a proper replacement mechanic for now.

If only, because, as far as I can tell, if background worldgen has it's way, Dwarf civs are mostly at peace with Goblins and always at war with the Elves, because Elves are creeps who make trophies out of their enemies. Or at the least, this is what legends mode tells me.

[Shonai_Dweller]

I didn't know siege triggers themselves gave protection? This might also be because it is really easy to trigger them, and if it is protection, it is also an enforcement of sieges. Once you git the Goblin siege trigger(80 Dwarves), the Goblins will go to war with the Dwarves for no reason(legends say 'unknown' reasons) and you get sieges. And that's the part I am thinking villains might actually be a proper replacement mechanic for now.

If only, because, as far as I can tell, if background worldgen has it's way, Dwarf civs are mostly at peace with Goblins and always at war with the Elves, because Elves are creeps who make trophies out of their enemies. Or at the least, this is what legends mode tells me.

After the interface improvement arc, when hopefully it's more obvious what the embark screen is trying to tell you, might be a good time to get rid of triggers for civs we're already at war with.

It already gives you warnings about salt water, aquifers and being almost extinct. It could easily add "the civ you've selected is at war, you might get roflstomped early". You usually get a choice of a couple of civs, and a chance to not embark as neighbours to the civ you're at war with.

[falcc]

1.What are the middle-term plans for parrying and shielding?
2.Is it possible to modify together an item that works both as a shield and as something equivalent to a crutch?
3. For adventurer medical improvements, how much will be hardcoded?

Specifically I'm thinking about the fact that some of these rock bracelets ought to be very heavy. And in theory a stone splint, something meant to keep you immobile or minimize movement when you heal, would be pretty cool as a variation on splints. But learning to move with something like that puts me in the mind of crutch-walking taking a lot of time to master. But since I'm not suggesting any of it, I'm curious how moddable something like that could be before the big wait. Either with planned additions or what's in the raws now.

4. Once adventurer medical improvements are in, can you get a reputation for treating people's injuries? Any possibility of being treated like a physician (since the skill exists in a scholarly way already) that is welcome in enemy lands because you're so well known for treating anyone you come across? How about treating someone unconscious from a kill on sight faction in order to build personal/entity trust?

5. Can you get hired to take care of these people being tortured in towers, giving you the chance to free them?

6. Will this mean caring for your pets injuries as well?

7. Could you treat the dead's wounds indefinitely to improve your skills provided you were the necromancer that summoned them? Just getting that out of the way now.

[therahedwig]

For 4, while they're cool ideas, I don't know if the AI is smart enough to identify adventurers that'd be from an enemy army. Right now you get attacked in adventure mode by a) goblins who have special ethics for attacking one another randomly, b) bandits, c) bugged cave dragon/alligrator recruits, d) opportunistic animals and megabeasts. If a character is none of those, you won't get attacked by them without doing something attack worthy first, so hence why I think the AI isn't able to identify you as an enemy soldier. So I think that'd be a prerequisite?
5. seems to require the ability of histfigs to hire one another for non-stabby purposes... Which does seem like a missing 'linking' thing in general...
6. Was sorta asked before, and the response was something along the lines of 'not right now'.

Hm... now I am also curious on what the notes for the general medical improvements look like. I don't recall any big medical threads in suggestions since it was introduced? But I am also not on the forum all year long

EDIT: This seems to be it, but it is definitely from before the hospitals got introduced, so a lot of it got in there already. Though apparantly noone was interested in plain old influenza

[PatrikLundell]

:
7. Could you treat the dead's wounds indefinitely to improve your skills provided you were the necromancer that summoned them? Just getting that out of the way now.

Normal undead ought to provide the same treatment benefits as regular dead (i.e. none) given that they shouldn't heal. Unusual undead (i.e. necromancers and vampires currently) ought to provide the same benefit as any regular sapient.
If you want unrestricted training you should go for weres instead (with the associated monthly risk of not locking them up properly before they turn).

[therahedwig]

I think Falcc was trying a bug prediction there :p