Print

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

[Pillbo]

Pretty basic suggestion, I just think it would be cool if starving dwarves started eating their shoes and stuff before dropping dead.  It obviously should have negative effects on mood.

[IndigoFenix]

It would be nice to have a "food quality" rating for materials. Edible isn't an either-or thing, you can eat a lot of things that we don't usually think of as food, leather being one of them.

[GoblinCookie]

Starving dwarves should also ignore forbidden status of food items.  Starving miners should dig their own paths into the food supplies should we brick them away.

[Azerty]

Starving dwarves should also ignore forbidden status of food items.  Starving miners should dig their own paths into the food supplies should we brick them away.

It could provide motives for thefts: someone might steal food from another, or steal items to sell to get money for food.

[Aquillion]

Starving dwarves should also ignore forbidden status of food items.  Starving miners should dig their own paths into the food supplies should we brick them away.

I think this is going too far (also, I'm not sure the AI can even path that effectively.)

Although perhaps dwarves who are near starving to death could sometimes enter a temporary madness where they smash constructions, allowing them to escape enclosed areas without the complexity or problematic effects of mining.

[GoblinCookie]

It could provide motives for thefts: someone might steal food from another, or steal items to sell to get money for food.

Indeed, I also think the using of forbidden items would count as theft against the fortress itself.

I think this is going too far (also, I'm not sure the AI can even path that effectively.)

Although perhaps dwarves who are near starving to death could sometimes enter a temporary madness where they smash constructions, allowing them to escape enclosed areas without the complexity or problematic effects of mining.

It is really not much different from invaders pathing into your fortress.  The problematic effects are one of the advantages of this mechanic and illegal digging could also be a crime to be prosecuted. 

On a positive note, dwarves should also gather plants without authorisation if they are starving, leaving the fortress potentially to do it and ignoring burrows.  That can also be a crime. 

[Ninjabread]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the trespassing ethic is somehow related to burrows, and I'd class unsanctioned digging as some pretty extreme vandalism, especially if it's an ☼engraved☼ smooth stone wall, so we could just have these ethic definitions expanded rather than have entirely new ones. That said, there would probably have to be an .ini option to disable unsanctioned digging without messing with ethics, just cause not everyone will like their fortress symmetry being ruined by hunger, and vandalism also dictates punishment for smashing stuff during tantrums, so making it unthinkable would probably have dire consequences for stressed out dwarves.

[GoblinCookie]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the trespassing ethic is somehow related to burrows, and I'd class unsanctioned digging as some pretty extreme vandalism, especially if it's an ☼engraved☼ smooth stone wall, so we could just have these ethic definitions expanded rather than have entirely new ones. That said, there would probably have to be an .ini option to disable unsanctioned digging without messing with ethics, just cause not everyone will like their fortress symmetry being ruined by hunger, and vandalism also dictates punishment for smashing stuff during tantrums, so making it unthinkable would probably have dire consequences for stressed out dwarves.

Your not supposed to like the consequences of not feeding your dwarves. 

The example you are using should really class as two crimes seperately.  Dwarves should normally aim to commit the fewest number of crimes to achieve their illicit goals, so the dwarf will dig through the non-engraved wall if it can. 

[Ninjabread]

You're not supposed to like the consequences of not feeding your dwarves. 

The consequence of not feeding your dwarves is that your dwarves starve. It is possible to prevent this by giving them the [NO_EAT] tag in their raws. Dwarf fortress is pretty good at giving you the ability to avoid dealing with things things that don't fit your playstyle, why should this feature be any different?

The example you are using should really class as two crimes separately.  Dwarves should normally aim to commit the fewest number of crimes to achieve their illicit goals, so the dwarf will dig through the non-engraved wall if it can. 

I didn't use an example, I suggested that unsanctioned digging of engraved walls should be a more severe crime than the unsanctioned digging of natural/smoothed stone, though I probably could've been clearer about the word "especially" meaning that the vandalism would be especially extreme if it were an engraved wall that was dug out. Not sure why one act would need to be listed as two separate crimes caused by the same ethic, it's hard enough for dwarves to survive a single beating. I do agree that if dwarves value the law, as most do, and are coerced into criminal activities by any means, including hunger, they should definitely try to keep their sentence minimal.

[Pillbo]

I like a lot of these ideas. Personally I kind of wish the dwarves did more things for themselves when necessary, like secretely digging into the caverns to forage while starving or deconstructing a wall, picking a lock, or pulling a door off it's hinges to steal forbidden food, it would be super annoying but pretty interesting.  Just like it would be super annoying but funny if you ran out of shoes because starving dwarves ate them all to stay alive.  I think having some ability to stop this would be important, like a "Strictly Observe Forbidden Items" option but in general I like the ideas.

+digging around in the dirt like chickens eating bugs and worms

Although perhaps dwarves who are near starving to death could sometimes enter a temporary madness where they smash constructions, allowing them to escape enclosed areas without the complexity or problematic effects of mining.

I like it, it introduces more criminal acts, and reasonable ones with moral ambiguity. They already flip out and break things, why not something similar involving food theft and destruction, for a whole group you could have equivalent of food riots, all the dwarves tearing down walls to get to closed stockpiles, maybe turning on the military if they try to intervene, etc.  If the dwarves are going to die I think they should act really unreasonably in their own favor, for instance a dwarf locked in a room to die breaking down locked doors or deconstructing walls to escape.

[GoblinCookie]

The consequence of not feeding your dwarves is that your dwarves starve. It is possible to prevent this by giving them the [NO_EAT] tag in their raws. Dwarf fortress is pretty good at giving you the ability to avoid dealing with things things that don't fit your playstyle, why should this feature be any different?

You said that it was possible to mod out the need of dwarves to eat and then argue against starving dwarves logically doing unsanctioned things to meet their needs rather than simply passively starving because it 'messes up your playstyle'.  That isn't a very good argument, if you don't want to worry about the effects of starving just mod out the need to eat and your playstyle can be as you wish. 

The fact that starving messes up your playstyle is why we make sure feeding our dwarves is part of our playstyle; they should mess up your playstyle. 

I didn't use an example, I suggested that unsanctioned digging of engraved walls should be a more severe crime than the unsanctioned digging of natural/smoothed stone, though I probably could've been clearer about the word "especially" meaning that the vandalism would be especially extreme if it were an engraved wall that was dug out. Not sure why one act would need to be listed as two separate crimes caused by the same ethic, it's hard enough for dwarves to survive a single beating. I do agree that if dwarves value the law, as most do, and are coerced into criminal activities by any means, including hunger, they should definitely try to keep their sentence minimal.

Because of the AI.  The AI needs to be able to logically distinguish between three different situations.

1. A forbidden food item lying in the middle of the dining hall.  [CRIME:THEFT]
2. A forbidden food item bricked up behind a wall. [CRIME:THEFT]+[CRIME:FORBIDDEN_DIGGING]
3. A forbidden food item bricked up behind an engraved wall. [CRIME:THEFT]+[CRIME:FORBIDDEN_DIGGING]+[CRIME:VANDALISM].

In all circumstances the dwarf will go for item 1 first, then item 2, then item 3.  That is because the crime value of the former item is the least of the three.  However consider if item 2 was not in fact forbidden, in that case the only crime would be forbidden digging, under that circumstance the dwarf would weigh up the relative severity with which your civilisation treats both crimes, they will go for whichever crime is least severe. 

Crime severity would be determined by a mixture of the ethical badness of the crime according to the ethics of the creature and how severely punished it is according to your own civilisation's laws. 

[Ninjabread]

You said that it was possible to mod out the need of dwarves to eat and then argue against starving dwarves logically doing unsanctioned things to meet their needs rather than simply passively starving because it 'messes up your playstyle'.  That isn't a very good argument, if you don't want to worry about the effects of starving just mod out the need to eat and your playstyle can be as you wish. 

The fact that starving messes up your playstyle is why we make sure feeding our dwarves is part of our playstyle; they should mess up your playstyle. 

Maybe you still want dwarves to eat, but don't want them to dig through your walls though. That was what I was suggesting the .ini option be, not disallowing any unsanctioned action, specifically the digging.

For the record, it doesn't mess up my playstyle, I don't really care if I have to replace natural stone with blocks, I already do that plenty when I run into ores and gems, and I don't really ever have starving dwarves either, I just actually consider the preferences of others.

Because of the AI.  The AI needs to be able to logically distinguish between three different situations.

1. A forbidden food item lying in the middle of the dining hall.  [CRIME:THEFT]
2. A forbidden food item bricked up behind a wall. [CRIME:THEFT]+[CRIME:FORBIDDEN_DIGGING]
3. A forbidden food item bricked up behind an engraved wall. [CRIME:THEFT]+[CRIME:FORBIDDEN_DIGGING]+[CRIME:VANDALISM].

In all circumstances the dwarf will go for item 1 first, then item 2, then item 3.  That is because the crime value of the former item is the least of the three.  However consider if item 2 was not in fact forbidden, in that case the only crime would be forbidden digging, under that circumstance the dwarf would weigh up the relative severity with which your civilisation treats both crimes, they will go for whichever crime is least severe. 

Crime severity would be determined by a mixture of the ethical badness of the crime according to the ethics of the creature and how severely punished it is according to your own civilisation's laws. 

Fun fact: I'm a computer scientist

Fun fact number two: This is a load of bull

AI doesn't need more severe crimes to be displayed as multiple crimes in order to distinguish them, it can track severity just fine. It also tracks changes in values just fine too, so no need to worry about the fluid nature of the raws.

[GoblinCookie]

Maybe you still want dwarves to eat, but don't want them to dig through your walls though. That was what I was suggesting the .ini option be, not disallowing any unsanctioned action, specifically the digging.

For the record, it doesn't mess up my playstyle, I don't really care if I have to replace natural stone with blocks, I already do that plenty when I run into ores and gems, and I don't really ever have starving dwarves either, I just actually consider the preferences of others.

The preferences of others are irrelevant.  They have been playing the game badly, things they don't prefer should thus happen. 

Fun fact: I'm a computer scientist

Fun fact number two: This is a load of bull

AI doesn't need more severe crimes to be displayed as multiple crimes in order to distinguish them, it can track severity just fine. It also tracks changes in values just fine too, so no need to worry about the fluid nature of the raws.

The first may be a fact, but the second is your opinion. 

It does need to be displayed separately when the crimes severity is being modified over time by things that the player and AI governments are doing.  The player needs to know the severity of the crimes themselves. 

The creatures acts on the total severity of all the crimes they are about to commit, added together.  So in some cases they will commit more crimes than less. 

[Ninjabread]

The preferences of others are irrelevant.

Nice game design advice.

They have been playing the game badly, things they don't prefer should thus happen. 

If someone doesn't prepare for invaders you could also argue that they've been playing the game badly, but they still have the .ini option to turn invaders off.

the second is your opinion. 

No, your claim that the AI needs this one act to be considered two separate crimes, from a totally objective standpoint, is a load of bull. I know this because of my background as a computer scientist, who does indeed have experience working with AI.

My opinion is that your proposed method of handling the crime of unsanctioned digging of engraved walls isn't a good one. I'd prefer it if digging engraved walls received the same modifiers to crime severity as vandalising items and buildings that have quality levels.

It does need to be displayed separately when the crimes severity is being modified over time by things that the player and AI governments are doing.

Not entirely sure what you're trying to get at here. Do you mean to say that AI won't be able to keep track of in-game law changes without separating this one act into two separate crimes?

If you are, then you're wrong, and I honestly don't know how you made it to that conclusion.

The player needs to know the severity of the crimes themselves. 

Players could be shown crime severity through the justice screen when highlighting said crime, there is still no need for it to be displayed as, or treated by the code as, multiple crimes at once.

The creatures acts on the total severity of all the crimes they are about to commit, added together.  So in some cases they will commit more crimes than less. 

Seems reasonable, though creatures that have a neutral opinion on law should have a cap on the severity calculations equal to the severity required to be given the death sentence, since any more severity is largely irrelevant if the law is unimportant to you.

[scourge728]

ptw