Print

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

[NEANDERTHAL]

Item descriptions are incredibly underutilized. Creature corpses should include descriptions of the live creatures, their injuries, and perhaps their souls (?): right now a dead Rutherer just says "this is a rutherer corpse". This is frustratung to a noob who doesnt know what a rutherer is.
Also, non-sentients killed by the military/in conflict shouod be butcherable. It makes no sense otherwise.

[Untrustedlife]

Would be nice to have a way to view the descriptions of vermin, i dont think that's possible in vanilla right now. 9At least not in fort mode(i dont even think its doable in adventure mode without the bestiary in the Q screen))

[Quarque]

As a noob, I would be really happy if something was done about the werebeasts. I see it as the #1 problem.

The problem with werebeasts is that their existence makes it almost impossible to spend a few years experimenting in peace to figure out the  basics.

Without werebeasts, a beginner can embark on a non-evil biome, set up a couple of traps for defense and would have some time to learn. Your forts would still meet horrible fates, but at least you would learn something. But now, quite soon a werebeast comes in and destroys your fort before you have any chance to do it yourself. The problem is in the pacing. It is an extreme threat that comes too early and leaves you not enough options.

All other things the game have a good pacing:
- goblin baby snatchers are not nearly as dangerous
- thieving animals are annoying but not nearly as dangerous
- even goblin sieges are much less dangerous, because traps work against them and they don't sneak into your tavern
- forgotten beasts are about equally dangerous, but you can control when to face them (by breaching the caverns)

So all of the above leaves you a chance to ruin the fort yourself by, say, never making any new clothes. And that is what is needed.

[darkhog]

I personally heard from multiple people that they would definitely play DF if only it has better graphics like in Rimworld and more intuitive and friendly interface.

I was like that for a while, then found the Meph tileset. Playing on it is such a delight, all DF videos on my YT channel (Jagielski Gaming, if you are interested) or at least all recent ones (not sure if I made any vids on other tilesets before) are using it.

Anyway, I've thought about making aiming in Adventure Mode a little bit easier. Instead of selecting a body part from a list, how about a mannequing-type figure where you could visually select what part you want to attack (with body parts that were cut off missing on the mannequin).

The most basic version would display it for humanoids, but we could probably figure it out for other body types. This would make fighting system much more approachable for beginners as they could not only target the body parts they want. Not everyone has memorized all body part names, especially if they're not native English speaker, but many can say that they want to roughly attack upper chest area (even if they don't know it's called "upper chest area"). Also, this could also help to visualize damage done to the creature (and maybe similar "damage mannequins" for dwarfs in fortress mode?).

One other game I play. Wurm, with similarly advanced body damage system (though maybe not to the level of DF, AFAIK mobs are using traditional hitpoints there) has similar method of showing damage on player character.

[JesterHell696]

Anyway, I've thought about making aiming in Adventure Mode a little bit easier. Instead of selecting a body part from a list, how about a mannequing-type figure where you could visually select what part you want to attack (with body parts that were cut off missing on the mannequin).

A mannequin you say, a kind of dress up doll if you will, almost like, dare I say it, a Paper Doll system?

Personally? I like the idea for obvious reasons but I do think that it is unfortunately unlikely to get implemented and I don't intend to keep up with the suggestion anymore, I just thought it was an amusing coinkydink.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Anyway, I've thought about making aiming in Adventure Mode a little bit easier. Instead of selecting a body part from a list, how about a mannequing-type figure where you could visually select what part you want to attack (with body parts that were cut off missing on the mannequin).

A mannequin you say, a kind of dress up doll if you will, almost like, dare I say it, a Paper Doll system?

Personally? I like the idea for obvious reasons but I do think that it is unfortunately unlikely to get implemented and I don't intend to keep up with the suggestion anymore, I just thought it was an amusing coinkydink.

Since Toady already suggested a paperdoll system for inventory management, there's no reason it couldn't be implemented for aiming too. Seems perfectly reasonable.

[JesterHell696]

Anyway, I've thought about making aiming in Adventure Mode a little bit easier. Instead of selecting a body part from a list, how about a mannequing-type figure where you could visually select what part you want to attack (with body parts that were cut off missing on the mannequin).

A mannequin you say, a kind of dress up doll if you will, almost like, dare I say it, a Paper Doll system?

Personally? I like the idea for obvious reasons but I do think that it is unfortunately unlikely to get implemented and I don't intend to keep up with the suggestion anymore, I just thought it was an amusing coinkydink.

Since Toady already suggested a paperdoll system for inventory management, there's no reason it couldn't be implemented for aiming too. Seems perfectly reasonable.

Wait... Really? Huh I missed that, was it in FotF? a dev log? interview?

I just though it was amusing since a mannequin system is the very first step to a wider paper doll system, doing one lays the foundations for the other and it doth amuse me so to see it suggested in a limited capacity in the "help the noobs" thread, my basic argument for paper dolls was that it would appeal to "noobs" and help them get into and enjoy the game more.

I must admit I feel a tiny bit vindicated now that I know Toady himself suggested a limited paper doll system.

[Criperum]

Soooo...did you guys come to any conclusion on how to save noobs? Just curious

[Pvt. Pirate]

using the paperdoll system to apply inventory to dorfs in dorf mode would be awesome.
i imagine inventory slots much like in D&D games like Baldur's gate, but with many more slots for items and a little lock symbol next to each, allowing the player to select whether the dorf may or may not exchange that item.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Anyway, I've thought about making aiming in Adventure Mode a little bit easier. Instead of selecting a body part from a list, how about a mannequing-type figure where you could visually select what part you want to attack (with body parts that were cut off missing on the mannequin).

A mannequin you say, a kind of dress up doll if you will, almost like, dare I say it, a Paper Doll system?

Personally? I like the idea for obvious reasons but I do think that it is unfortunately unlikely to get implemented and I don't intend to keep up with the suggestion anymore, I just thought it was an amusing coinkydink.

Since Toady already suggested a paperdoll system for inventory management, there's no reason it couldn't be implemented for aiming too. Seems perfectly reasonable.

Wait... Really? Huh I missed that, was it in FotF? a dev log? interview?

I just though it was amusing since a mannequin system is the very first step to a wider paper doll system, doing one lays the foundations for the other and it doth amuse me so to see it suggested in a limited capacity in the "help the noobs" thread, my basic argument for paper dolls was that it would appeal to "noobs" and help them get into and enjoy the game more.

I must admit I feel a tiny bit vindicated now that I know Toady himself suggested a limited paper doll system.

I'm not sure if it's entirely as you imagined. But I dug around, and this is what was said:
(Of course, I maybe completely misunderstanding what's meant by "paper doll inventories" here too).

Fotf question:

Completely unrelated to anything you're working on now, what are your ideal plans for carrying items? Will there ever be volume restrictions? Physical encumbrance from anything besides armor/pure weight? Will "strapped to your body" items require string, sinew, or leather straps at some point in order to actually strap them on? Will adventurer item hauling (which sort of buggily exists) ever be more of a dragging across the ground thing, or a shoving to the next tile thing? What are your pie in the sky kind of hopes for it and what do you think are the big hurdles?

Toady:

We had a side project some years back that had little paper doll inventories and required absolutely everything you'd need to carry stuff; adhesives, knots, all of whatever.  It was marginally annoying, but also sort of cool.  Adventure mode has been slowly leaning that way.  So I'm tempted to go all the way over in that mode, as long as the controls don't get more nested and annoying (so there'd need to be some automated steps to the related actions by default.)  I don't think dwarf mode could support it easily, all the junk items especially.

[PatrikLundell]

Like Criperum, I'd enjoy to see any conclusions ThreeToe and Toady have drawn. On the other hand, I'd understand if that would have to wait for implementation for the usual reasons:
- The cutting table floor will inevitably have a huge pile of stuff on it even after the Premium arc tail releases have been made.
- Solutions will have to be tested out to some extent, and some good ideas won't pan out, or the idea on how to implement them won't.

However, a high level summary would be appreciated (although that will probably result in an immediate flood of posts pointing out that peoples pet changes aren't listed, and how those are so much more important than some that are indicated).

[JesterHell696]

I'm not sure if it's entirely as you imagined. But I dug around, and this is what was said:
(Of course, I maybe completely misunderstanding what's meant by "paper doll inventories" here too).

Fotf question:

Completely unrelated to anything you're working on now, what are your ideal plans for carrying items? Will there ever be volume restrictions? Physical encumbrance from anything besides armor/pure weight? Will "strapped to your body" items require string, sinew, or leather straps at some point in order to actually strap them on? Will adventurer item hauling (which sort of buggily exists) ever be more of a dragging across the ground thing, or a shoving to the next tile thing? What are your pie in the sky kind of hopes for it and what do you think are the big hurdles?

Toady:

We had a side project some years back that had little paper doll inventories and required absolutely everything you'd need to carry stuff; adhesives, knots, all of whatever.  It was marginally annoying, but also sort of cool.  Adventure mode has been slowly leaning that way.  So I'm tempted to go all the way over in that mode, as long as the controls don't get more nested and annoying (so there'd need to be some automated steps to the related actions by default.)  I don't think dwarf mode could support it easily, all the junk items especially.

I did a ctrl+f on the dev log and last few FotF but got only two returns for paper and neither were paper doll, there has been a lot of FotF so I called the search quits, but thanks for doing some real digging on my behalf, it is appreciated.

As for the Toady quote itself, its seems the paper doll was more complex then I originally thought with the need to tie equipment with knots and use adhesives, but it not that surprising given DFs overall design, still its interesting to see it was tested at one point, maybe the Steam release will see such a feature getting another look? guess we'll see.

[Pvt. Pirate]

what i meant was an inventory screen with a paperdoll representation of the char in the center and inventory slots for each kind of equipment/clothes/armor around
in Baldur's Gate 2:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

in Siege of Avalon:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

the latter has an armor system with layers, closer to that of DF than other games.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Yeah, that's basically what I imagine it would look like.
You might need a bit more info in the raws to define body shapes correctly. While you can manually add what a gorlak looks like, can Dwarf Fortress actually come up with the right shape based on it's raws alone? You'd maybe need to define a few more shapes and dimensions beyond "size" to get realistically shaped random characters.

[therahedwig]

Yeah, that's basically what I imagine it would look like.
You might need a bit more info in the raws to define body shapes correctly. While you can manually add what a gorlak looks like, can Dwarf Fortress actually come up with the right shape based on it's raws alone? You'd maybe need to define a few more shapes and dimensions beyond "size" to get realistically shaped random characters.

Yes, Mala did a creature viewer thing that managed to give something sufficient enough for a paper doll based on raws alone, this is an example of a dragon: https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/File:Dragon_Size.png