Print

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

[Beag]

1.One of the pre myth and magic adventure mode candidates: gaining a civ level position through reputation or intrigue- is marked as partially done. Has it been added to the game to some extent? I know there is a bug/exploit to have rulers inexplicably give you their title if you hang on the make make demands menu.
2. Pre the the myth and magic update would holding this position actually do anything besides giving the player adventurer a prestigious title? Could they command the city's local soldiers or hold some other form of power?
3. How would the player adventurer go about go about acquiring this title through reputation? And like wise how could they go about acquiring it through intrigue?

[clinodev]

In the spirit of early werebeast attacks being a surprise to the dev team after many years:

Will undead sieges, which can come even before the first migration wave, get user-definable triggers to avoid early attacks?

Towers are indicated on the embark map. No need to change anything there. Embark with undead risk, embark without undead risk.

Yes, and sophisticated players could turn off werebeast curses in advanced worldgen for years before the recent changes.

Likewise, you can certainly go through and comment "You're doing it wrong!" on all of negative reviews from people who will inevitably embark their first time between 4 towers, or Tarn could rationalize it a little bit as was done with werebeasts.

It seems likely to me that the latter option would be more effective.

[Shonai_Dweller]

In the spirit of early werebeast attacks being a surprise to the dev team after many years:

Will undead sieges, which can come even before the first migration wave, get user-definable triggers to avoid early attacks?

Towers are indicated on the embark map. No need to change anything there. Embark with undead risk, embark without undead risk.

Yes, and sophisticated players could turn off werebeast curses in advanced worldgen for years before the recent changes.

Likewise, you can certainly go through and comment "You're doing it wrong!" on all of negative reviews from people who will inevitably embark their first time between 4 towers, or Tarn could rationalize it a little bit as was done with werebeasts.

It seems likely to me that the latter option would be more effective.

I'm not talking about advanced worldgen. I'm talking about the opening screen. The one which every single player is presented with where they choose where to embark. You choose an evil region for evil things, you choose goblins for sieges. Make this screen better for new people, yes. More obvious what the info means, yes, give an explanation yes. Add a tutorial yes. But this is not a hidden feature. It's right there in front of you. Do you want undead sieges yes/no?

How many people do you seriously think would rage quit, screaming "impossible obtuse game" when they receive an undead siege after choosing to have undead sieges?

But, sure, options are good. Mainly for more advanced players who want to mix up their games though, as it's not something which makes the game more accessible for new people.

[PatrikLundell]

I agree with Shonai_Dweller that those who embark near necro towers and then get shocked by getting an early siege their way and rage quit are likely among the people who don't bother reading manuals or anything else, and so wouldn't know about an option to turn these surprises off even if it was presented in block letters right before their noses. The more intelligent people surprised by early sieges would probably seek information about why that happened (sadly, though, they'd probably not do it here, but on the Steam forum, which may or may not be overrun by trolls or guessing newbies at that time).

[FantasticDorf]

In the spirit of early werebeast attacks being a surprise to the dev team after many years:

Will undead sieges, which can come even before the first migration wave, get user-definable triggers to avoid early attacks?

Towers are indicated on the embark map. No need to change anything there. Embark with undead risk, embark without undead risk.

Yes, and sophisticated players could turn off werebeast curses in advanced worldgen for years before the recent changes.

Likewise, you can certainly go through and comment "You're doing it wrong!" on all of negative reviews from people who will inevitably embark their first time between 4 towers, or Tarn could rationalize it a little bit as was done with werebeasts.

It seems likely to me that the latter option would be more effective.

Reading about it, i personally still like the idea of the 2d fort's version of the nightmare warning precluding a necromancer tower taking a interest in you, even if the forcing over a dwarf as a apprentice or pay the consequences part isn't really too suitable anymore narratively when we have things like prophets that are meant to build up crackpot fake prophesies alongside true ones that haven't landed in fortress mode yet.

The coding part of the steam release is what im looking forward to, and wondering what retrospective balancing (more than core hard features) might be put in. A use finally for die & altars in fort mode is on my new-years wishlist.

[Urist McSadist]

To what extent are powers going to get used in world gen after the magic update?

[PatrikLundell]

To what extent are powers going to get used in world gen after the magic update?

I don't understand exactly what you mean by "powers", so you may want to clarify that if you can before Toady has recovered from the yearly lutefisk overdose and is ready to answer this FotF...

Do you mean the spheres generated during the myth part of world gen, the gods (or whatever powerful at least somewhat sentient forces at play), or something else? A fully mundane world would presumably be shaped by fully mundane forces (or spheres) in a process not involving any supernatural entities.

[Bumber]

In the spirit of early werebeast attacks being a surprise to the dev team after many years:

Will undead sieges, which can come even before the first migration wave, get user-definable triggers to avoid early attacks?

Towers are indicated on the embark map. No need to change anything there. Embark with undead risk, embark without undead risk.

Do they still come only from towers? Necromancers conquer other sites now.

[FantasticDorf]

I was searching over the raws when i made a abrupt realization that there's a elephant in the room, regarding that humans have [USE_NON_EXOTIC_PET_RACE] that freezes them out from using them. But appear in the steamrelease-teaser-screenshots gallery of a apparently natural human siege.

Is this a sneaky hint that elephants or humans will recieve a RAW change in the next version respective to each other, or is this a subtle bit of editing to appeal more interesting for the devlog?

Do they still come only from towers? Necromancers conquer other sites now.

To borrow a word from another game (total warhammer) "Order-Tide" is pretty strong in terms that many threats, goblins included don't often actually get off the ground once the necromancer starts to mobilize and attack targets to draw attention to itself, and my personal favorite subject, sympathetic antagonists occasionally whimsying with goblins as well as dubious humans time to time balances it out with some good modification input, but vanilla coalitions tend to stomp hard.

Most alliances will also fall apart due to disagreement, elves are particularly fickle alliance members because they and humans oft take offense at each other and the dwarves ultimately end up cleaning up the mess however which way their alliegance falls without much of a personal vested interest.

In short, i doubt it has very much to do with it because such necromancer pillagings are rare and often quite explosively noticable events, and all of my early necro-sieges have occured purely through adjacency to towers and their armies clumsily scouting my site.

[Toady One]

1. Any chance we get a GOG release?

2. Will it be visually perceptible if a creature is hurt or will it be shown what body parts are injured/missing?

clinodev: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8219380#msg8219380
LordL: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8219397#msg8219397
Showbiz (op): http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8221387#msg8221387
Shonai_Dweller: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8221397#msg8221397
Egan_BW: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8221400#msg8221400
PatrikLundell: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8221443#msg8221443
Rose: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8221450#msg8221450
Putnam: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8221837#msg8221837

1. Yeah, as the commenters say, we're going with itch for our DRM-free option, so that should be covered anyway.  No idea how/if we'll expand to other places aside from Steam/itch after the launch.  I'm not sure how Steam links up their launcher with the DF files I upload - those also just sit in a folder the way it currently works (though you only see that if you open it up yourself.)  I'm not sure how they modify stuff.

2. We don't have all the animals chopped up into little pieces, so we won't be removing their limbs etc.  Dwarves and the other main civ creatures built from layers are a different story - I haven't done it yet, but it would be pretty straightforward.  In the future we might do more creatures, but not for the first Steam release.

1)What are the bounds between creation myth and actual world history? Will there be a strict bound where the world "has been created" and the year 1 begins? Will we be able to affect it for example by playing adventure mode while gods do their active job?
2)I've heard that creation myth will do explanations for the afterlife. How will afterlife be incorporated into the game? Is it gonna track what happens to historical figures in their afterlife? Maybe they even do some celestial carrier and then will be able to interact with gods? Or maybe going to hell and be able to become demons somehow?
3)If things from previous really happen in some form, how will it affect the adventure mode? Does this mean that death of your adventurer is no longer a gameover?

Silverwing235: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8219396#msg8219396
PatrikLundell: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8219400#msg8219400
LordL (op): http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8219883#msg8219883

1) The boundary is about the fineness and consistency of events in time and space.  When there are enough little agents running around, and scheduling starts to become an issue, we need to switch to something like the current history generation.  But it's possible that could end up sort of smeared out - we haven't had to negotiate this at all yet, and what it really means for the civilized creatures to be created and act in the early myths, and how that transitions to settlements.  It could somehow end up having a significant in-between period where different mechanics kick in, maybe even in different orders depending on how mythgen goes.  But those ages won't be playable until everything has kicked in.  You'll be able to play in very active times, but being able to play when the world hasn't precisely formed wouldn't be a first release thing - as our ability to change the map etc. comes in, we can start playing around with games that feel like earlier and earlier starts (whether that's how it is actually realized or not.)

2+3) It's all on the table.  We had been planning earlier to do a playable afterlife even before the myth/magic release was a thing, where you suddenly appear when you die and could interact with others that have died - we thought it'd be funny to make it kind of disorienting, like puff, here we are in the fields again, though that has to be balanced with being able to see and understand how you died.  Now the whole afterlife idea will end up being even more integrated, though we can't make too much happen there, in most settings, since the living are more important generally for the CPU cycles and memory.

In fortress mode, I can see a meticulous and detailed description of the physical appearance and psychological state of each of my dwarves. They are all unique in terms of their way of being, preferences, memories, etc ... The same can also be observed in residents of different races, such as an elf who lives in my fortress.
At the level of physical appearance, dwarves and elves clearly differ from each other, but at a psychological level there are no elements that allow me to differentiate them (perhaps I have overlooked some detail that may currently be present).

Looking to the future:
- How do you consider differentiating the personalities between two or several races / species to the point that they may have some incompatibilities between them? For example, that a race thinks in a certain way due to its genetics.
- Or, on the contrary, do you think it is better to have a common psychological framework for each intelligent creature and let external elements (culture, religion, professions, civilizations...) shape and define the psychology of each one?

PatrikLundell: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8219578#msg8219578

There are some biases in the raw files, and for the goblins, the lack of altruism I think does count as reasonably stark species difference, since they can't break 50%, though for two individuals you couldn't pick the goblin out every time.  For the elves, despite how it works now, we never really decided whether the cannibalism bit was entirely cultural.  With dwarves though, we've intentionally made them a bit closer to humans than they might normally be on the theory that it helps story formation somewhat.  I'm not sure if we'll ever change that part in the default setup, though the myth release is likely to make more variability possible or even commonplace. 

There's some tension here, as I think came up in DND and various other places, involving racism and roleplaying and etc.  It's safest to completely homogenize the minds, not to vary them at all in a way linked to creature type, but our current thinking is that we can allow some variability, including stuff that's more stark than what we're doing now.

1: With the magic arc, how disgustingly powerful do you expect super soldier programs to get? Are there going to be any restrictions or drawbacks that prevent or dissuade players from giving their dwarves most/every power/curse that is generated in their world? If so, have you thought of any yet?

2:Secondarily, in the magic arc, how much could dead dwarves effect fort mode? Right now we have ghosts, but how much bigger is it going to get on that front?

3:Thirdly in them magic arc, (Someone's probably asked this, but I'll ask anyway): what level of magic would you be able to pull off in fort mode without "special preparation" (eg: use of dump piles or pitting or something, as opposed to just setting a dwarf to a task)

4:I know that we'll probably eventually be able to play as other races, once you flesh them out enough, so, once you can, if you get conquered by an enemy force, would you have the option to play them controlling the fortress? (or alternatively, just as your conquered dwarves, but oppressed)

Shonai_Dweller: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8219714#msg8219714
voliol: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8219722#msg8219722

1: Mostly it just involves costs and side effects now.  We haven't set up more global punishments for overuse of powers/favors/etc., but there's certainly a lot of literature there to draw from.  As Shonai_Dweller and voliol replied, how powerful the dwarves can get will depend on the parameters and procgen as much as anything, and this'll often create counterbalances out in the world.

2: As usual, it's hard to say what comes in on the first pass, but there's certainly room to move there.  Entire forms of magic based on ghosts/ancestors/etc. are possible.  We were going to use ghosts w/ the undead lieutenants, and the aborted attempt proved that there are various issues to work through there, but it's a direction we wanted to go.

3: This'll be totally dependent on the universe it cooks up, and what things we get to on the first pass.  It'll certainly be varied.  Having all the stuff that's already in fort mode will allow us to try a bunch of systems out.

4: We'd entertained being able to play the occupied dwarves, yeah, and perhaps organizing a resistance - once you can play more than dwarves, then there's more potential for sure, although we haven't considered that particular flip I think.

What do the evil villains do in their off-time?

PatrikLundell: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8220099#msg8220099

I mean, most people don't do anything right now.  They just sit in their spots.  But the stuff that other people can do, the villains can do too, like visiting taverns, or (in world gen) running trade companies and being mercenaries and doing religious stuff etc.

Probably been asked before but will magic be able to use components? so the 50 barrels of dragonfly blood that the traders keep trying to pawn off on me will have some real (non Armok-related, of course) use?

voliol: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8220210#msg8220210
Murr2 (op): http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8220218#msg8220218

To respond to the comments, we're certainly hoping to incorporate non-procedural objects.  The main question we had here was how to do symbolism/etc., linking them to the myths and stuff, and not knowing yet how weird that'll play when it bumps up against real-world ideas about what materials/animals/plants/etc. represent.  We can strengthen our own procedural symbolism using the myths, etc., but we'll have to mindful of the feel.

how much are we, as players, going to be able to influence myth gen? will it have its own section in advanced world generation to determine things? E.g if i really want a world which is bound to fall during an apocalypse, is that something i will be able to generate on purpose?

Shonai_Dweller: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8221066#msg8221066

Yeah, Shonai_Dweller covered it - it's meant to be highly customizable, and that's how the current prototype works.

Will myth generator make "Adam and Eve" for each civ (or maybe even each species)? That would be very logical. It's strange to see some historical figures born on like year -80 in current version

Shonai_Dweller: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8221544#msg8221544
PatrikLundell: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8221572#msg8221572
Egan_BW: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8221634#msg8221634
LordL (op): http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8221674#msg8221674
voliol: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8221676#msg8221676
PatrikLundell: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8221701#msg8221701
LordL (op): http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8221709#msg8221709
Shonai_Dweller: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8221885#msg8221885

The current setup just comes from the initial collection of people made.  There are about 200 of each (if I remember) and they can be various ages (and most are abstract at first anyway.)  I don't have any problems with this (it could create 2 people, or a whole civ - once gods are involved, it doesn't matter), but it's likely to become more varied as we go.  Any place it shows a negative year is an eyesore and I did adjust for that in places (time before time, 'has the appearance of' that kind of thing.)

This has probably been asked before, but will the existence of the Steam build and the accompanying graphics indefinitely add overhead to development, since it needs to be updated?

Shonai_Dweller: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8221996#msg8221996
PatrikLundell: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8222002#msg8222002
VineFynn (op): http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8222184#msg8222184

I think the comments are more or less correct in how it'll play out.  The graphics stuff seems like it can mostly be done concurrently, especially in longer releases.  The overall question of what having a Steam community and all of that is going to be like is less clear!  This is certainly a large change, and there'll be adjustments of various kinds that last various amounts of time.  We'll also get better at dealing with it.

No way this hasn't come up some time before given the abundance of other formulas, but what exactly determines a successful dodge/block/parry? Is it skill vs skill alongside whatever debuffs a creature might have plus their attributes, and then that's it? Does size play a factor?

No, size isn't included for those, which is a little odd of course.  It has gotten complicated in terms of wound status and additional situational awareness rolls and that sort of thing, but it's still essentially in the old Dragslay system of using opposed modified skill rolls.  I'm not opposed to trying out some changes that incorporate size, but it'll make e.g. shields far far less useful in those situations.  Which might be a good thing, but it'll certainly be a surprised to be suddenly squashed where you were getting a % invincibility before.

Will there be a slider for us to determine if magic items exist or not and if so can we determine how powerful they are and how common they are?

For example can I make the following scenario happen?:

Urist Weavercave is weaver and a former wizard. He keeps an enchanted ring on him that he found in a random stockpile. Many rings with the same spell litter the fortress as it is a cheap (Only costs a little bit of stamina on the caster's part), but still price-raising enchantment. Goes out into the caves to collect webs. Runs into a giant cave spider, he snaps his fingers and knocks the thing back. The giant cave spider smacks a wall and Urist goes about the rest of his day.

Generally I'm wondering if it's possible to build a fortress economy based off of selling magic items if the created magic system allows it? I like the idea of running a magic fortress and creating the most obnoxiously powerful magic items I can create for fun

Shonai_Dweller: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8222475#msg8222475
PatrikLundell: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8222481#msg8222481

Yeah, I think PatrikLundell's estimation here is correct - that's the sort of thing that'll happen, even on the first release, and you'd be able to set parameters that determine whether stuff like the fingersnap spell (related to the ring or not) or common enchantables exist.

I remember you saying that adding the ability to give custom names to Adventurer Camps was doable, so could this also apply to entire regions as well?

This question isn't as consequential, but can you eat vermin if your adventurer is hungry enough?

Bumber: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8223879#msg8223879
Urlance Woolsbane: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8229338#msg8229338

Urlance addressed the first question - the naming system is consistent with the rest, but it would have to be added of course, and there'd need to be some context for it.

I don't recall how eating works - my vague recollection is that the "no, that's disgusting"-type message is mostly removed as a barrier if you are a starving, but that might not be the case.

In the latest Kitfox video (made available to this forum thanks to clinodev), you said (and Fiona repeated in writing) that the interface was different compared to Classic. I hope you really meant different compared to the current version, rather than the Premium version of the Premium release would have a new UI logic while the Classic version of the Premium release would retain the current UI (not only would it be a pain to maintain two gradually diverging UIs, but it would also result in a disincentive to shift from the Premium release Classic version to the Premium release Premium version if it comes a the cost of learning a new UI [if anything, forcing the current Classic version users to relearn the UI would lower the threshold for also moving to the Premium version for current players]).

Shonai_Dweller: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8224627#msg8224627
clinodev: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8224649#msg8224649

Ah, yeah, I sloppily say Classic sometimes when talking about what will be the old version that doesn't have a name at all, when comparing new features I'm adding.  The Classic version (which is the new version with ASCII graphics) will have the new features as I've described in previous posts in here.  Still, we'd like to stick with the terminology rather than trying something else.

In the 21 December 2020 DevLog, you write in part: " Dwarven cheese/milk are properly available at embark (came up in art testing, as all of the cheeses have different pictures and dwarven cheese was being elusive.)"

Did you fix the various bugs with dwarven cheese/milk, or just force them on the embark list?

According to the wiki, purring maggots don't appear on cavern level one anymore (with multiple other bugs listed in the report), which is the basic reason caravans and the embark menu don't show dwarven cheese/milk since 40d. Additionally, "Tamed purring maggots can't be milked.", and "After being milked, purring maggots are left inside the workshop as an item."

FantasticDorf: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8225897#msg8225897

I changed how materials are selected by sites in world gen that can access the deeper levels, so the purring maggots and others are used properly in world gen and embark, and in trade.  I haven't addressed fort issues.

Has your recent work on the Stockpile interface caused you examine the myriad bugs involving Bins?  Can you say if it would be easier to effectively write a new Bin on top of existing code instead of trying to retro-fix the existing Bin?

I haven't changed anything yet.  Fixes are almost always easier than rewriting things from scratch.

I've heard you say in a couple interviews that the difference between a cow and an alligator in DF is pretty negligible. So I was wondering, in your opinion, what needs to be done to fix this?  You are clearly thinking about it, so when do you think you'll make those changes?

I have no idea when I'll take a look at it.  They are different in terms of the predator flag, and the gait data, which is something, but the bite strength and the overall behavior/temperament need to be addressed.  Stuff like proportion of body parts isn't crucial, but it would also be nice since it would impact wounds and also butchery results.  But mostly it's the combat damage and, say, the difference between how alligators and cheetahs should act, despite both being tagged as predators.

1. After the steam release, what if anything is left before the big wait for the myth and magic update?
2. Will procedurally generated humanoids like escaped necromancer experiments have their equipment show up on their sprites?
3. Will there be any attempt made before the big wait to make necromancers less world ending? Maybe either less powerful or friendly enough to have joinable civs of experiments.
4. In the myth and magic update will generated experiments such as what the necromancers currently do be playable in game as a magic user adventerer, to clarify will we be able to experiment on people?
5. Also in the myth and magic update will it be possible for our adventurers to be captured and experimented on potentially changing their race?

voliol: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8229866#msg8229866

1. voliol covered this.
2. I don't think we've entirely settled this yet - they have one or two sets of bodies, so it's within the realm of possibility, the same way it is for animal people.
3. It's possible.  It's pretty annoying the way it almost always ends up now.
4. I couldn't tell if this was two different questions.  The escaped experiments are currently playable, and I'm not sure why there would be any restrictions on them (other than any that make sense based on their experiment status.)  As for whether you'll be able to perform experiments (that is, being able to do what necromancers already do in worldgen), I'm not sure generally how we are going to approach player-led research (or bad behavior.)  The options will expand, and that stuff is there, but the logistics for it are potentially more involved than what we already have for dwarf jobs, so it might not be in first.
5. We haven't brought the new necromancer stuff up into play, and we haven't done it with the night trolls either.  I'm not sure how that'll play out - capturing adventurers in general brings up a lot of pacing issues that need to be sorted out, before we even get to the darker stuff.

In the spirit of early werebeast attacks being a surprise to the dev team after many years:

Will undead sieges, which can come even before the first migration wave, get user-definable triggers to avoid early attacks?

Shonai_Dweller: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8229927#msg8229927
clinodev (op): http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8229960#msg8229960
Shonai_Dweller: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8229988#msg8229988
PatrikLundell: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8230040#msg8230040
FantasticDorf: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8230072#msg8230072

Customization is nice, and certainly a warning window would be friendly.  And super-early attacks are a little silly unless the area is really infested - the triggers are supposed to approximate the likelihood of being found based on the activity in the fort, and that should still apply to necros to some extent, especially if they're just hanging out with seven zombies and don't have any roving hordes or lieutenants scouting.  Ultimately we'd like to improve how discovery works, etc.

1.One of the pre myth and magic adventure mode candidates: gaining a civ level position through reputation or intrigue- is marked as partially done. Has it been added to the game to some extent? I know there is a bug/exploit to have rulers inexplicably give you their title if you hang on the make make demands menu.
2. Pre the the myth and magic update would holding this position actually do anything besides giving the player adventurer a prestigious title? Could they command the city's local soldiers or hold some other form of power?
3. How would the player adventurer go about go about acquiring this title through reputation? And like wise how could they go about acquiring it through intrigue?

1. There's nothing like that intentionally in adventure mode that I recall.  Villains do the plot in world gen, including co-conspirators and some other bells and whistles, and it might be that framework that made it a partial.  There's nothing at all for rep I think.

2. The use of these positions is on the table for the post-Steam/pre-magic army stuff.

3. Bragging and asking would be the most straightforward way.  The intrigue methods involve blackmail or using planted subordinates to replace position holders (this is abstracted in world gen) - since the adventurer-as-villains stuff is up for being done before or along with the army stuff, you'll have these tools at your disposal.

To what extent are powers going to get used in world gen after the magic update?

PatrikLundell: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8230146#msg8230146

e.g. Necromancers use powers in world gen now, and I'd expect that trend to continue, though it requires various special cases and some don't get used.  Since situations are abstracted to various degrees, it'll be easier with some powers than others.

I was searching over the raws when i made a abrupt realization that there's a elephant in the room, regarding that humans have [USE_NON_EXOTIC_PET_RACE] that freezes them out from using them. But appear in the steamrelease-teaser-screenshots gallery of a apparently natural human siege.

Is this a sneaky hint that elephants or humans will recieve a RAW change in the next version respective to each other, or is this a subtle bit of editing to appeal more interesting for the devlog?

I didn't change anything directly here, and I didn't edit anything for the dev log.  When I was testing, I ran the attack code so I could get some humans, and there were elephants, which was a bonus since we wanted to show their tile at some point.  Does PET or TRAINABLE put them in the regular non-exotic pool for 'monster' races?  Elephants have MOUNT_EXOTIC, but these weren't mounted - they came in the troll way, a whole bunch of them.  The lone elephant there was the result of a bug (making it the leader of the whole army), but it was followed by about 20 more that I figured were legitimate 'monster' units.  Or could a general have tamed them in world gen?  I'm not sure, ha ha.

[FantasticDorf]

Thanks for the replies Toady, but id be sure to answer your question for a change based on what i know of the subject topic with this new info.

I didn't change anything directly here, and I didn't edit anything for the dev log.  When I was testing, I ran the attack code so I could get some humans, and there were elephants, which was a bonus since we wanted to show their tile at some point.  Does PET or TRAINABLE put them in the regular non-exotic pool for 'monster' races?  Elephants have MOUNT_EXOTIC, but these weren't mounted - they came in the troll way, a whole bunch of them.  The lone elephant there was the result of a bug (making it the leader of the whole army), but it was followed by about 20 more that I figured were legitimate 'monster' units.  Or could a general have tamed them in world gen?  I'm not sure, ha ha.

Filtering, the [POSITION:CAPTAIN] noble or overlapping any variable position of creatures outside the defined scope fixes this kind of thing, as that's mainly the w.g nonhistorical and no-equipment fodder the AI throws virtually unlimited amounts at you for. If it was a inaccessible class of creature and that the civ couldn't fufill to find that creature (sentient or otherwise) inside itself it'd omit them entirely and as i remember it working the once after i made a faulty RAW definition, sending out site militia's making historical site population trickle down after being unable to reach its reliable captains.

Example made for humans being similar to the dwarven template under the mountain civ, with the creature clause.

Spoiler: "Captain code enclosed" (click to show/hide)

Code: [Select]

[POSITION:CAPTAIN] <- Just to note, this is hardcoded
[NAME:captain:captains]
[NUMBER:AS_NEEDED]
[SQUAD:10:soldier:soldiers]
[ALLOWED_CREATURE:HUMAN:ALL] <- Or [ALLOWED_CLASS] for a wider definition.
[APPOINTED_BY:GENERAL]
[PRECEDENCE:190]
[DO_NOT_CULL]
[DUTY_BOUND]
[REQUIRED_BOXES:1]
[REQUIRED_CABINETS:1]
[REQUIRED_RACKS:1]
[REQUIRED_STANDS:1]
[REQUIRED_OFFICE:1]
[REQUIRED_BEDROOM:1]
[REQUIRED_DINING:1]
[MILITARY_SCREEN_ONLY]

From what you say, that elephant is just controlling the smallest branch of the army onto your site technically underneath the lieutenant/general hierarchy, and animals have been noted, as per bug report ( #6708: Human civilization's soldier is an Alligator Recruit. ) as recruits themselves so maybe the elephant brought its own squad by chance?

A additional note, that creature-feature monster squads vanish from goblins (trolls in armor etc) if this is also filled out with trolls appearing in the correct capacity.

The elephants being tamed for their [MOUNT_EXOTIC] is quite likely the result of a general going out of their way to travel the wilds for animals now that i think about it since [USE_NON_EXOTIC_PET_RACE] and elephant [PET] is compatible on the surface while [MOUNT_EXOTIC] is not, i was just wondering if there was more to it personally but this is a satisfiable result.

[Ziusudra]

I don't recall how eating works - my vague recollection is that the "no, that's disgusting"-type message is mostly removed as a barrier if you are a starving, but that might not be the case.

Your recollection is correct. Of course, once you do eat the vermin, you'll no longer be starving. So it's not like you can fill up on them.

[Libertine Angel]

In fortress mode, I can see a meticulous and detailed description of the physical appearance and psychological state of each of my dwarves. They are all unique in terms of their way of being, preferences, memories, etc ... The same can also be observed in residents of different races, such as an elf who lives in my fortress.
At the level of physical appearance, dwarves and elves clearly differ from each other, but at a psychological level there are no elements that allow me to differentiate them (perhaps I have overlooked some detail that may currently be present).

Looking to the future:
- How do you consider differentiating the personalities between two or several races / species to the point that they may have some incompatibilities between them? For example, that a race thinks in a certain way due to its genetics.
- Or, on the contrary, do you think it is better to have a common psychological framework for each intelligent creature and let external elements (culture, religion, professions, civilizations...) shape and define the psychology of each one?

PatrikLundell: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8219578#msg8219578

There are some biases in the raw files, and for the goblins, the lack of altruism I think does count as reasonably stark species difference, since they can't break 50%, though for two individuals you couldn't pick the goblin out every time.  For the elves, despite how it works now, we never really decided whether the cannibalism bit was entirely cultural.  With dwarves though, we've intentionally made them a bit closer to humans than they might normally be on the theory that it helps story formation somewhat.  I'm not sure if we'll ever change that part in the default setup, though the myth release is likely to make more variability possible or even commonplace. 

There's some tension here, as I think came up in DND and various other places, involving racism and roleplaying and etc.  It's safest to completely homogenize the minds, not to vary them at all in a way linked to creature type, but our current thinking is that we can allow some variability, including stuff that's more stark than what we're doing now.

Yeah I think intrinsic species traits would be sketchy, I don't see any reason why background alone wouldn't be enough (for one thing it gives us the chance to have our own Carrot Ironfoundersson types) and giving any group an "inherent nature" is a rather bioessentialist view.

[ZM5]

In fortress mode, I can see a meticulous and detailed description of the physical appearance and psychological state of each of my dwarves. They are all unique in terms of their way of being, preferences, memories, etc ... The same can also be observed in residents of different races, such as an elf who lives in my fortress.
At the level of physical appearance, dwarves and elves clearly differ from each other, but at a psychological level there are no elements that allow me to differentiate them (perhaps I have overlooked some detail that may currently be present).

Looking to the future:
- How do you consider differentiating the personalities between two or several races / species to the point that they may have some incompatibilities between them? For example, that a race thinks in a certain way due to its genetics.
- Or, on the contrary, do you think it is better to have a common psychological framework for each intelligent creature and let external elements (culture, religion, professions, civilizations...) shape and define the psychology of each one?

PatrikLundell: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8219578#msg8219578

There are some biases in the raw files, and for the goblins, the lack of altruism I think does count as reasonably stark species difference, since they can't break 50%, though for two individuals you couldn't pick the goblin out every time.  For the elves, despite how it works now, we never really decided whether the cannibalism bit was entirely cultural.  With dwarves though, we've intentionally made them a bit closer to humans than they might normally be on the theory that it helps story formation somewhat.  I'm not sure if we'll ever change that part in the default setup, though the myth release is likely to make more variability possible or even commonplace. 

There's some tension here, as I think came up in DND and various other places, involving racism and roleplaying and etc.  It's safest to completely homogenize the minds, not to vary them at all in a way linked to creature type, but our current thinking is that we can allow some variability, including stuff that's more stark than what we're doing now.

Yeah I think intrinsic species traits would be sketchy, I don't see any reason why background alone wouldn't be enough (for one thing it gives us the chance to have our own Carrot Ironfoundersson types) and giving any group an "inherent nature" is a rather bioessentialist view.

It's just a normal fantasy thing in regards to innate traits, I don't see why it's "sketchy" or why it should be removed or changed. Even dwarves have a similar thing going on where they're more greedy on average and slightly less prone to stress, amongst other traits - I don't think anyone really sees that as an issue.

[FantasticDorf]

You can take the goblin out of the dark-fortress, but you can't take the dark fortress out of the goblin with their cruelty, it'll carry through regardless of how homogenized they are.