Print

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

[FantasticDorf]

I was meaning more the

"Hi, I'm Urist from the mountain home! I came here, leaving mom, dad and my 20 siblings behind!"

Hopefully to just quip this quickly, the new divorce and re-marriage mechanics will mean that everyone on people's relationship lists won't be related, and probably more viable to have step parents and less of a onslaught of 20 cousins that even for a long lived dwarf is absurd tied into the issue of family and presumably extended family they might actually meet.

[PatrikLundell]

I was meaning more the

"Hi, I'm Urist from the mountain home! I came here, leaving mom, dad and my 20 siblings behind!"

Hopefully to just quip this quickly, the new divorce and re-marriage mechanics will mean that everyone on people's relationship lists won't be related, and probably more viable to have step parents and less of a onslaught of 20 cousins that even for a long lived dwarf is absurd tied into the issue of family and presumably extended family they might actually meet.

The new mechanism means essentially nothing in a fortress unless dorfs are able to make friends and get (re)married on their own. However, it seems there's a good chance they're going to address this as part of the game ending stress/needs rebalancing activities, but don't expect anything useful to happen in the Villains release in this regard, at least not the first one. I expect Toady would want to get that out the door as soon as possible, which means these things will come later, possibly as late as the Premium release, although I hope it will be pushed out before that to get feedback beyond what a closed beta can provide (and time to address the worst issues indicated by that feedback).

[Shonai_Dweller]

I was meaning more the

"Hi, I'm Urist from the mountain home! I came here, leaving mom, dad and my 20 siblings behind!"

Hopefully to just quip this quickly, the new divorce and re-marriage mechanics will mean that everyone on people's relationship lists won't be related, and probably more viable to have step parents and less of a onslaught of 20 cousins that even for a long lived dwarf is absurd tied into the issue of family and presumably extended family they might actually meet.

The new mechanism means essentially nothing in a fortress unless dorfs are able to make friends and get (re)married on their own. However, it seems there's a good chance they're going to address this as part of the game ending stress/needs rebalancing activities, but don't expect anything useful to happen in the Villains release in this regard, at least not the first one. I expect Toady would want to get that out the door as soon as possible, which means these things will come later, possibly as late as the Premium release, although I hope it will be pushed out before that to get feedback beyond what a closed beta can provide (and time to address the worst issues indicated by that feedback).

He already added all of the new values that go into friendship and relationship forming now and said he would have to bring fortress relationships up to date as part of this release too.
So he's going to be working very closely with the bugged code. Seems like a good chance he'll take a stab at it just to check any of it works.

[feelotraveller]

I was meaning more the

"Hi, I'm Urist from the mountain home! I came here, leaving mom, dad and my 20 siblings behind!"

Hopefully to just quip this quickly, the new divorce and re-marriage mechanics will mean that everyone on people's relationship lists won't be related, and probably more viable to have step parents and less of a onslaught of 20 cousins that even for a long lived dwarf is absurd tied into the issue of family and presumably extended family they might actually meet.

The new mechanism means essentially nothing in a fortress unless dorfs are able to make friends and get (re)married on their own. However, it seems there's a good chance they're going to address this as part of the game ending stress/needs rebalancing activities, but don't expect anything useful to happen in the Villains release in this regard, at least not the first one. I expect Toady would want to get that out the door as soon as possible, which means these things will come later, possibly as late as the Premium release, although I hope it will be pushed out before that to get feedback beyond what a closed beta can provide (and time to address the worst issues indicated by that feedback).

He already added all of the new values that go into friendship and relationship forming now and said he would have to bring fortress relationships up to date as part of this release too.
So he's going to be working very closely with the bugged code. Seems like a good chance he'll take a stab at it just to check any of it works.

I think you are misunderstanding where the problem lies.  There is no 'bugged code' in the sense that the relevant sections of code can function - the fact that 'Honeymoon Suites' work is proof of that.  What is 'broken' is the emergent property of 'making friends' in fortress gameplay.  That is not as a result of the 'relationship evaluation' code (is married, divorced, lover, friend, etc. ?) but rather of the 'Socialise' code where dwarfs actually build said relationships.  Or to put it in another way it is not the 'level' code that has problems (the one where multi-lover will soon be a possible evaluation) but the relationship xp gathering code, and the problem with the latter is that it is not called often enough.  So if there is (loosely) a 'bug' it lies in the 'socialise' code; we can only hope that he will be also working closely with that code... more closely than when the activities were originally introduced...

(Things are probably more complex since there could be several possible routines for pathing to relationship building events, and since ToadyOne squats on the code we can only speculate as to how the various systems are implemented/fit together, but as a rough guesstimate I suspect that the above is not inaccurate.)

[PatrikLundell]

I was meaning more the

"Hi, I'm Urist from the mountain home! I came here, leaving mom, dad and my 20 siblings behind!"

Hopefully to just quip this quickly, the new divorce and re-marriage mechanics will mean that everyone on people's relationship lists won't be related, and probably more viable to have step parents and less of a onslaught of 20 cousins that even for a long lived dwarf is absurd tied into the issue of family and presumably extended family they might actually meet.

The new mechanism means essentially nothing in a fortress unless dorfs are able to make friends and get (re)married on their own. However, it seems there's a good chance they're going to address this as part of the game ending stress/needs rebalancing activities, but don't expect anything useful to happen in the Villains release in this regard, at least not the first one. I expect Toady would want to get that out the door as soon as possible, which means these things will come later, possibly as late as the Premium release, although I hope it will be pushed out before that to get feedback beyond what a closed beta can provide (and time to address the worst issues indicated by that feedback).

He already added all of the new values that go into friendship and relationship forming now and said he would have to bring fortress relationships up to date as part of this release too.
So he's going to be working very closely with the bugged code. Seems like a good chance he'll take a stab at it just to check any of it works.

Yes, as feelotraveller pointed out (and I tried to get across), there are no apparent major bugs in the relationship structures, which are the ones Toady has changed, with the associated code of managing it. That's all that's needed for world gen and world activation to work. The part that's not working in player fortresses and which isn't needed at all outside fortress mode is that there's no logic present for dorfs to seek out partners to socialize with once the overall logic has brought them to the tavern. They're essentially sent to the tavern (which works, as far as I can tell), but then just get dropped in a random tile with random movement until socializing time is up. Once in the tavern, they ought to look for someone(s) to interact with based on their socializing priorities (family for family needs, friends for friends needs, strangers for novelty seekers when the basic needs are met [or can't be met given the current tavern patrons], performances, etc.), move there and do their socializing, select a new target either based on a timeout or when the partner leaves.
There may well be other issues with relationship building such as quick exchanges when meeting in a corridor, chat with work mates, sparring with the same 9 dorfs for years, etc. not resulting in any visible relationship building in addition to the tavern issue.

[wierd]

So...

Ideal tavern size is 2 tiles then?

/s


(Joking-- This means every dwarf is either occupying the same tile, or has direct proximity with all other dwarfs in the tavern. Beware fistfights!)

[FantasticDorf]

So...
Ideal tavern size is 2 tiles then?
/s
(Joking-- This means every dwarf is either occupying the same tile, or has direct proximity with all other dwarfs in the tavern. Beware fistfights!)

Actually this is exactly the case and not a joke at all, i run a 1x10 strip for my fortress with chairs and tables adjacent for them to talk, i hate how its turned out because id actually be much happier as my previous comments laid out with a system to populate large rooms.

• Dwarves are now incredibly inattentive for any matter besides spotting enemies in combat, they hardly acknowledge beautiful decoration unless they are standing right beside it, unless some bad/regressive code is there for checking adjacent tiles. In the same way there's a bug which means that dwarves need additional partners to strike up a conversation in NESW directions. Said dwarves could also be immobilized (some people suggested shooting their legs off with ballistae) to strike conversation with

Everything beside, taverns dont work, i never build inefficient 10x10 ones because they fit 200 dwarves packed into the squares and massive voids of space when using anything less than that amount of patrons. I've already offered suggestions like special code for spacing them out. Temples never require more than 1x3/1x5 on the logic that a small shrine fits 12-20 worshippers because they stand on the same tiles.

Libraries are the most succesuful becuase they dont have a floor activity and are just modified meeting area's with a activity to fufill within them if it is a bit repetitive because of possible dwarf code, which should ideally be the archetype like we have in the previous definition of statue garden modifiers to art, or meeting halls all being one big dining room.

There's not a lot of decoration i can pile into 1x10, though i can put down a road for them to stand on and casually gaze, and force people into adjacent dining room seats so that the socializers can actually talk to someone seated for the duration of their meal, but that's pretty much the scope of having it work 'okayish'. Even still its gradual.

[Atarlost]

On socialization, ToadyOne needs to admit that he can't simulate everything and a lot of socialization happens during things he can't simulate.  People socialize in bath houses and communal toilets.  They all go to the bar at the same hour.  If they're religious they socialize after church/temple/mosque/syangogue/whatever services.  They chat to shopkeepers/customers.  They chat with coworkers.  They chat between wrestling bouts and in the locker room.  Watchmen chat when they pass each other on patrol. 

Some of that could be simulated with short socialize actions appended to every job that brings residents into proximity, but the DF time scale is a severe abstraction that doesn't leave room for everyone to attend temple services or go to the bar after work at the same time.  Monte Carlo simulation of social dynamics cannot work while people aren't interacting on a realistic schedule.  These shortcomings have to be covered up by some sort of amorphous or asynchronous socializing.  If for instance the tavern logged everyone who came in and let residents socialize with people who weren't in the tavern but had been in the last month and the temple did the same and the well on top of people automatically socializing with their squads if in the military things would work a lot more realistically. 

[mikekchar]

Probably the wrong thread to talk about this, but I'm currently experimenting with different tavern sizes and configurations.  There are actually a lot of configurations that work.  One of the best is 3x3 with a table in the middle and chairs in the cardinal directions.  There are probably no good socialisation configurations that support dancing, though.  One other thing I realised is that limiting the number of visitors is really, really handy (in the d_init.txt file).  If you have too many, then your dwarfs make friends with the visitors, but having a few is handy to trigger the "next to in a cardinal direction" that enables socialisation in all 8 directions.  Potentially gaming that figure could allow bigger taverns, but I haven't really gotten that far yet.  Of course, wrt to this thread, this is the kind of experimentation that should *not* be necessary ;-)

[Bumber]

One of the best is 3x3 with a table in the middle and chairs in the cardinal directions.

They'll get negative thoughts for sharing a table.

[Conor891]

I don't think there's a problem with the stress system, there's a problem with the needs system.

I feel like fulfilling dwarves needs is the key to fixing stress and providing good thoughts while preventing bad thoughts from unfulfilled needs.

The problem is that dwarves don't prioritize needs and don't seek out the solutions to those needs despite them being provided in the fortress.

I think it'd be best if we could have some more options for micromanaging individual dwarves. Sort of like the military scheduling but for individual civilians.

This way we can have dwarves take breaks in certain areas to fulfill that specific need, or have families gather in places at certain time so they can socialize.

Basically anything that allows us to guide dwarves to the need fulfillment they need without having to do weird half-working workarounds with existing mechanics.

[wierd]

You kinda can, to an extent.

Create a generalized worship zone.

Inside that zone, build a table, and create a tavern on top, overlapping the worship zone.

Make sure the area is small (3x3 or so).

Dwarves should be able to get religious fulfillment and socialization in the same area. In theory.  There a tradeoffs for this of course--


A newb wont know to do this, and this will cause problems-- So I agree with your premise.  Dwarves should be willing to path to a suitable locality to mee their needs, and socialization needs an overhaul.

[Worblehat]

Apologies for the late feedback, I don't check the forums all that often at the moment...

With DT and a low population cap fort I was able to keep stress under control. It's still a troublesome mechanic though. My embark is a mountain jungle with continuous year-round rain. Is it worth letting dwarves go out to chop wood, harvest fruit, or haul zombite (the undead form of goblinite)? Probably not. Everyone already has some bad thoughts about rain from when they migrated (there might be a couple of toddlers who have never been rained on, not sure), but why give them more. I'd suggest some sort of forgetting time for stressful events, such that a dwarf will forget being rained on very quickly but remember serious stress for many years, and will never forget the most seriously stressful events.

The other stress-related annoyance was the impossible food preferences. Of the 30 dwarves in the fort as of when I put it on hold this summer, only one had a satisfiable food preference. They like perry, there are lots of pear trees on the surface, and in principle I could harvest some, brew it, booze-cook it, and hope that someday that particular dwarf would eat from that stack of meals. Everyone else liked some combination of meats from animals not present on the embark (usually fish of various kinds) and booze from surface plants not present on the embark. So I had to give up on even attempting to satisfy food needs. It would be nice if food needs could be biased toward foods that are actually available within the home civilization, so that at least the annual caravan can help out, and unless the embark is unusually distant there'd be a decent chance of some being in the embark.

Not game-ending problems by any means, but they do negatively impact the game, and I think I play a more cautious, turtling, micromanaging style than most. Not to mention relying heavily on DT and editing the population cap to keep a fairly small and manageable fort.

[wierd]

I would like to see a change in food prefs too.

Instead of "All or nothing!" on food prefs, I would like to see a weighted list.

EG,

"Greatly prefers prepared Draltha meat"
"Enjoys blueberries"
"Is content with Plump Helmet"
"Hates rocknuts"

Where any one of the 3 positive prefs will satisfy the "desired food" need, but with a different level of boost.  The "Content with" selection should be in the statistically median availability standard deviation.  (EG, nearly all forts should have access to it.)

 

[Splint]

Honestly I prefer how it used to be - getting favorite foods for people wasn't required (or at least it didn't seem to be,) but rather a luxury that gave a good boost to morale for those dwarves whose preferences you could meet somehow (usually via trade or unintentionally good embark choice.)

Nobody should ever become insanely depressed just because they can't get giant hamster products or rye beer used to glaze everything they eat for every meal. They should be getting depressed about not having any food or drink at all, or from only eating and drinking the same 3-4 things all day, every day, with almost no variance in their diet.