Print

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

[KittyTac]

I searched, and there is no link on the collective versus individual thing. Fanon.

[Nahere]

Also, link?

Here:

In adventure mode your own character can cry.  But we do not notice unless we closely examine our inventories, and it does not stop them from doing horrible things.

It is confirmed, we are uncaring gods/goddesses taking complete control over some poor sap.  They see everything we make them do, they feel everything.  They watch under no control as we mercilessly butcher their neighbors and friends.  They cannot scream, all they can do is silently weep as the puppetmaster makes their arm swing the sword.

Greiger's is actually correct...  sadly enough.  The emotional circumstance processor is still turned on, with a randomly rolled up personality, but they can't express themselves or take control...  they can only cry.

[KittyTac]

My reaction towards the adventurer thing is: "Meh. They're letters on a screen."

[GoblinCookie]

I searched, and there is no link on the collective versus individual thing. Fanon.

Can basic game mechanics be fanon?  In adventure mode we play as an individual, in fortress mode we play a collective entity.  We cannot play both adventure mode AND fortress mode at the same time. 

What about when you have them build your camp?

The individual you control is controlling the other individuals.  Same as how the collective you control controls the individual dwarf citizens in fortress mode. 

[KittyTac]

I searched, and there is no link on the collective versus individual thing. Fanon.

Can basic game mechanics be fanon?  In adventure mode we play as an individual, in fortress mode we play a collective entity.  We cannot play both adventure mode AND fortress mode at the same time.

Why can't Toady just change that to implement this suggestion? Why not? He doesn't even have to add adv mode-like control, he can just add the ability to make the player make the monarch issue orders. It's the opinion that the player is an actual spirit that has to obey by the rules of either controlling a collective or controlling an individual that is fanon. The player is abstract.

[GoblinCookie]

Why can't Toady just change that to implement this suggestion? Why not? He doesn't even have to add adv mode-like control, he can just add the ability to make the player make the monarch issue orders. It's the opinion that the player is an actual spirit that has to obey by the rules of either controlling a collective or controlling an individual that is fanon. The player is abstract.

As I understand it Toady One deliberately chose not to allow us to control historical characters because that would allow us to cause too much damage too easily.  A similar problem is created here, if we can control both the civilization and the site then the former cannot bring us under control if we decide to create diplomatic mayhem. 

[KittyTac]

Why can't Toady just change that to implement this suggestion? Why not? He doesn't even have to add adv mode-like control, he can just add the ability to make the player make the monarch issue orders. It's the opinion that the player is an actual spirit that has to obey by the rules of either controlling a collective or controlling an individual that is fanon. The player is abstract.

As I understand it Toady One deliberately chose not to allow us to control historical characters because that would allow us to cause too much damage too easily.  A similar problem is created here, if we can control both the civilization and the site then the former cannot bring us under control if we decide to create diplomatic mayhem.

Okay, give me a link to the DFTalk or the FOTF reply.

[Manveru Taurënér]

Why can't Toady just change that to implement this suggestion? Why not? He doesn't even have to add adv mode-like control, he can just add the ability to make the player make the monarch issue orders. It's the opinion that the player is an actual spirit that has to obey by the rules of either controlling a collective or controlling an individual that is fanon. The player is abstract.

As I understand it Toady One deliberately chose not to allow us to control historical characters because that would allow us to cause too much damage too easily.  A similar problem is created here, if we can control both the civilization and the site then the former cannot bring us under control if we decide to create diplomatic mayhem.

Okay, give me a link to the DFTalk or the FOTF reply.

It's more the case that he's decided to not just toggle it on right now, until he's had time to implement the features to actually make controlling a historical figure matter (as well as some sort of settings to limit abuse).

If you pick seven dwarves that happen to be important to a different city then that's going to be really weird. Like the mayor and half the guard of the town just decide to pick up [because] they were getting tired of this giant attacking the town all the time, so the mayor and all the guards left to go found a new fortress and then a week later the giant destroys the city. That would be the kind of thing ... Of course that'd kind of a funny story, so I think there's something to be said for allowing that, like allowing you to make the mayor go wanderlust crazy and decide to found a new fortress for fun. And the same thing goes for adventure mode, like starting as a guy - being able to assume control of any character in the universe - is something that's reasonable, especially if you've got the parameters set for it. It's one of those things where you'd want to set up parameters so you wouldn't be tempted. It's like 'allow control of any historical figure as an adventurer: yes', because if you put yes there if you're losing a war or something then you might be like 'well I want to play the enemy's general as my next adventurer' and then you could just go jump into a canyon or something. So to remove that kind of temptation ... There are a lot of people, more people than I expected so it kind of surprised me, on various aspects of the game have said 'Well I really want this to be an option that I have to set in advance so that I don't feel tempted to spoil things.' So having that as a world generation parameter works the best for that, but that'd be cool as well, just being able to play whoever you wanted. It goes in with those post version one arcs about being able to play a dragon, you know that kind of thing. So you could just assume control of a megabeast that already exists in the world and so on.

Rainseeker:   So we're still not at a place yet where we can take over historical figures, right?
Toady:   Yeah, that's correct. We're not at a place where we can do that. I mean, there's nothing stopping it, right? Because when you unretire an adventurer you're just taking control of a historical figure. So there's nothing technical about stopping it. There are just conceptual problems about, what happens when you take over the king of this or the king of that. It's just silly, I guess, 'cause they don't recognize your authority or anything. So it's kind of goofy that you can do that. But, yeah. It's one of those things where - I mean, I'm sure we've talked about this in the past, where it's like there's paying somewhat service to that. There's doing some kind of worldgen parameter where you can set it that it can't be done, so you don't feel tempted to sort of spoil your game by making all the bad things in the world jump off cliffs and then go hit play, or whatever. So there's some small concerns and missing swathes of content, but there aren't huge barriers to doing that.
Rainseeker:   I suppose an easy way out would be to suddenly, if you're the king, have your advisors declare that you're possessed and that you're no longer acting like the king and you are now dethroned, so you could leave and people would recognize you as the former king of such-and-such.
Toady:   I guess it would be one of those things where there's also, even if you choose to take control of a peasant there'd also have to be a thing where it's like, 'And your family doesn't recognize you and they think of you as a stranger now,' or something because you'd be possessed, because you would talk to them like strangers or whatever. Or not strangers, 'cause the people in your starting town, at least, know your name and know who you are and they greet you a little differently already, but they wouldn't recognize you as a family member, because the traditional adventurers don't have family members so I didn't have a reason to put that in. So, it stacks up, and it becomes a non-priority item until we add something, you know? Something that makes it matter, 'cause what is the point of taking over a historical figure, if all of the historical things about it don't matter yet?

Threetoe:   The next question is from Baffle Jack and he asked "If the two main modes are heading in a similar direction, will they be combined so that you have the option to skip to where you're the leader of the fort or will a line be drawn between the modes or what?"
Toady:   So it's one of those things, again, that we've been thinking about for years... lots of suggestions... The original game has this idea of being able to have your reclaim party be formed during adventure mode and that kind of thing. And that's all still on the table. The tricky parts are kind of, we don't have any real framework for adventure mode administration yet. You can take over sites in adventure mode now, at least the human ones you can form your own little entity and become the leader of a site. But it doesn't really mean anything. And when you're in fort mode, we didn't want to allow kind of cheap stuff that would allow you to take a dwarf and jump him off a cliff if they're being annoying, by controlling them directly. We want to kind of respect their autonomy.
And we've continued to think of ways that we could merge them together. We were talking the other day about having... when you abandon your fortress, being able to control some of the dwarves that leave by being one of them as an adventurer with the other ones following you. That kind of thing. But we haven't really decided which ways we're going to go with. We do hope to have these different merges and connections with the modes, though.

As for getting some control over your civilization when the monarch arrives, that's explicitly listed in the dev notes, so yeah ^^

KINGDOM, (Future): If you manage to get the monarch of the dwarves to arrive, you should obtain at least indirect control over the entire corresponding dwarven civilization. This includes the movement of all dwarven armies on the map and the ability to make the most important diplomatic decisions.

[FantasticDorf]

Ow. while i understand its is relevant to some raised point its not particularly useful to use this thread as a staging point to debate state vs noble individuals in regards to who the player's interactions really concern.

Who it represents is sort of irrelevant besides from how to utilise the suggestions, im not particularly keen on the flame/discussion war's that go on in other threads over such hotly contested points so id like to politely ask for a cease on that particular strand of thoughts. Toadys comments for the time being are canon for the official line.

Does anybody have any particular ideas to expand upon the OP? At the moment the ongoing conversation outlines a relationship system and the ability to send out messengers to interact with it in a number of different ways positively and negatively for a recap.

[GoblinCookie]

Ow. while i understand its is relevant to some raised point its not particularly useful to use this thread as a staging point to debate state vs noble individuals in regards to who the player's interactions really concern.

Who it represents is sort of irrelevant besides from how to utilise the suggestions, im not particularly keen on the flame/discussion war's that go on in other threads over such hotly contested points so id like to politely ask for a cease on that particular strand of thoughts. Toadys comments for the time being are canon for the official line.

Does anybody have any particular ideas to expand upon the OP? At the moment the ongoing conversation outlines a relationship system and the ability to send out messengers to interact with it in a number of different ways positively and negatively for a recap.

Well alliances are something that is quite notably lacking from the game.  The ability of two weaker powers in worldgen to gang up against a stronger power. 

[Ninjabread]

How about using messengers to affect trade & tourism? So making trade agreements for the next caravan from that civ (bonus: continued dwarven trade agreements even after you're in control of the mountainhome if you target sites from your own civ), requesting more/less/no visitors from that civ come to your site (possibly affecting relations), requesting certain items/materials never be brought to your fortress by caravan (Why are elves allowed to be picky but I gotta take what I can get? Also possibly affects relations)

[GoblinCookie]

How about using messengers to affect trade & tourism? So making trade agreements for the next caravan from that civ (bonus: continued dwarven trade agreements even after you're in control of the mountainhome if you target sites from your own civ), requesting more/less/no visitors from that civ come to your site (possibly affecting relations), requesting certain items/materials never be brought to your fortress by caravan (Why are elves allowed to be picky but I gotta take what I can get? Also possibly affects relations)

Presently we can just request items from caravans in advance, since the caravans arrive with the relevant civ-level position.  You really should continue to be able to form trade agreements with outpost liasons once you are the mountainhome, the site-level government can negotiate with the civ-level one even if the latter is situation in the former.

[FantasticDorf]

Outpost liasons just migrate with the monarch when they eventually arrive GoblinCookie, but i share Ninjabread's sentiment of repuation of your establishment & relations to other civs by either drumming up positive interactions or passively spreading rumors of your taverns, libraries & temples when they depart into the world so that you in turn get better coverage and know where you stand with others.

> a big stats screen of reputations would be fine, at least have things like migratory danger level, civ relationships & location notoriety be shown.

Simply adding trade responsibility tags onto outpost liasons of other races makes them proposition you with trade agreements, even in such cases as hand picking how many giant tigers you want the elves to export for next season in modding, so adding a special function to civilization function to enable a dormant trading tag might achieve the same effect.

[GoblinCookie]

Outpost liasons just migrate with the monarch when they eventually arrive GoblinCookie, but i share Ninjabread's sentiment of repuation of your establishment & relations to other civs by either drumming up positive interactions or passively spreading rumors of your taverns, libraries & temples when they depart into the world so that you in turn get better coverage and know where you stand with others.

So what you are saying is that you can still form a trade agreement with an outpost liaison even if he is resident in your fortress?

[FantasticDorf]

Well im not really sure since he isn't really supposed to be there, a diplomat was never formally assigned so the liason came as baggage with no further real explanation and some demands for a fancy room, not even a noble messenger.