Print

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

[cowofdoom78963]

The Hydra test doesnt sound like something very difficult to do.

What is it?

[Fault]

a couple things

make sure a hydra has as many skulls as it has heads
make sure the hydra can survive one or two decapitations
(HOPEFULLY?) make the hyrdra regrow more heads when one is cut off??

[Protactinium]

Don't forget that time spent taking screenshots is time not spent bugfixing

That's a fairly exaggerated problem. Taking screenshots is not a significant amount of time, and it can mollify us temporarily, buying him more time.

But really, the mollification is almost as equally inconsequential as the time lost on bugfixing by taking the screenshots. It'd be silly to say that he shouldn't give us a few screenshots because it'll significantly delay the release.

[Qloos]

Are you insinuating that Toady has to buy time?

[Dante]

A troubled boy. I'm kind of afraid of his next plan.

Scamps, pet cat has toppled a computer!
Toady One, Developer has lost a masterpeice!
Toady One, Developer is throwing a tantrum!
Three Toe has been struck down!
 

And then DF fans EVERYWHERE. STOP. EVERYTHING.
And then the end of the world.

New Zealand, Galapagos and Madagaskar will live.

I resent the implication that there are no DFans in New Zealand. I could take out a fair chunk of the west coast, and Auckland as well if everyone there goes melancholy instead of berserk.

[zwei]

if someone comes along and supports json then it will be the new hotness, until then it is just for the pie in the sky dreamers, in reality there is no serious functional difference between the two.

There's lots of support for it.  MIT's Simile uses JSON for its data, and all the nerds who love Drupal seem to think JSON is sweet like a Jaguar XKE (Try breeding one of those...).

so your example of support is someone using it?  the differences between the two are moot for the purposes of DF.  in a nutshell xml is a robust version of html, and json is a stripped down version of java.  since json is leaner than xml it can run faster, however since it uses java as its primary tool it won't run faster in the long run.  if that changes then it will run faster in the long run, but that is a big if.  now since we are using it for exporting information, which is done on a computer rather than over the net we don't have to worry about bandwith issues, or how well a tool can process the stuff inside of an open browser, nor how it affects other pages/tabs.  once that stuff is removed the only functional difference is that json reads closer to that of text, which is what it is now, thus changing it to something that reads worse (xml or json) is a step backwards.  you have the same info in the document, thus converting is trivial, and since converting a document rarely takes a noticeable amount of time when being run right before some sort of application it becomes pointless what format is used in regards of app compatibility other than whether or not the information is there.  in the end text is slightly better than json, which is slightly better than xml, at least for our purposes (and thus text is the clear winner since it is already in that format).

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I would disagree with some things:

1) xml is not just "more robust version of html", it is more of just general data format of which is xhtml is subset, but that is not important.
2) we should care about "how well a tool can process the stuff" because there are more tools than just browsers.

Your outlook on xml is quite web-centric, there is more about that format than just ajax calls (on which json wins) and browsers.

I have to point out one major point for xml and that data format is not as pointless pointless: XML takes least amount of work to covert to another format because of XSLT, for any other format you'd have to write your own tool.

[derigo]

Do onmap creatures still breed via "spores?"  If so, doesn't this kinda garble/render useless a lot of the cool stuff you've done with genetics, at least on the active fortress level?

[Rowanas]

Nope. so far only dwarves have genes, so they still mate-pair for life.

[Footkerchief]

The one thing I really want, aside from all the goodies we're getting already, is to be able to remove certain dwarves from the "idle" display.  It drives me crazy to have dwarves showing as idle, even though there are some that I don't mind chattering away - probably because I tend to trap a lot of dwarves accidentally, and it makes it hard to notice.

Anyone know if we're going to get that someday?

It's not coming in the next version, but there's a suggestion for it.

Can things burn hot enough that there is no smoke in DF?  There seems to be a lot of future fun with enhancements to fire and smoke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashover

No, they can't burn hot enough that there's no smoke.  Flashover could probably be simulated once DF has combustible gases, but I'm not sure what that has to do with smokeless fires.

By the inclusion of genetics to the dwarves next version, will it be possible to breed super dwarves?

Im pretty sure that the genetics are just for how a dwarf looks.

No, genetics also control factors like height, and greater height -> greater body size -> more effective in combat.  So yes, it's theoretically possible to breed super-dwarves, but it would require tight control over their social lives and a lot of patience (since it takes 12 years for a dwarf to mature).

What will you work on next? I vote for taking a break.

After this release, the next series of shorter releases will be made up of, in no set order:
1) Improved sieges against your fortress
2) Adventurer skills/entity stuff, per the dev next stuff
3) Eternal suggestions voting stuff

What made me think were the crashes. Could it be that in the next version the worlds will not be identical anymore if we gen them with the same seeds?

The worlds shape and outline would be the same. I fear more the history-changes that could happen. Some genes could be crucial for the history. For example someone could marry someone because of the eye or hair-color ("Olon likes the color blue. Olon likes brunette dwarven womans."). If the Gene-seed isnt as "stable" as the other seeds which can lead to some very interresting but unwanted changes. In our example Olon could for example never marry because he never found a brunette blue-eyed dwarfen woman thus he could never had children that would conquer the throne.

Anyway, in response to the worried speculation will the same world gen seeds still result in the exact same world, or will there a be more random factors with the new features?

For any given version of DF, same seeds + same world gen params + same raws = same world.  There are no random factors in world gen that aren't controlled by the seeds.  As somebody mentioned, it would make seeds pretty pointless if they weren't consistent.

Will floating (such as floor tiles or objects) be implemented in the next version?

Nope.  It's a dev item though: Req433.

Will arrows or bolts ever shoot all the way through a creature, or do they go to the deepest layer and get stuck?

This came up:

Toady, with the new material system, can bolts pass straight through flesh/similar and out the other side again? Possibly into another creature behind them?

I think if there is actual wounding/deflection, the bolt is considered stopped as a projectile object.  On the other hand, it tracks the velocity more closely now, so feeding that back in probably wouldn't be a huge issue.

How are stuck ins handled now? Does removal cause extra bleeding? Is removal handled by surgeons?

They cause extra bleeding, yes.  Dwarves and other creatures will still pull them out on their own, but doctors will handle removal if they're treating a wound with something stuck in it.

Do ballistae still obliterate everything in their path, or do they actually do damage now?

Ballistas have always caused injuries.  The injuries are often the kind that produce instant death (decapitation, cut in half, etc.), but if you shoot a lot of goblins, you'll notice that many of them just get arms or legs torn off.

Do onmap creatures still breed via "spores?"  If so, doesn't this kinda garble/render useless a lot of the cool stuff you've done with genetics, at least on the active fortress level?

Yes, it still uses spores.  It'll be difficult to run a breeding program for animals that are common in the local wilderness (or frequently brought by merchants), but you'll still be able to run breeding programs for rare animals, see the effects of genetics in dwarves' offspring, etc.

Nope. so far only dwarves have genes, so they still mate-pair for life.

Dwarves do mate for life, but they aren't the only ones with genes.  Every creature with appearance/color modifiers has genes, and that means pretty much all of them.

[piecewise]

A troubled boy. I'm kind of afraid of his next plan.

Scamps, pet cat has toppled a computer!
Toady One, Developer has lost a masterpeice!
Toady One, Developer is throwing a tantrum!
Three Toe has been struck down!
 

And then DF fans EVERYWHERE. STOP. EVERYTHING.
And then the end of the world.

New Zealand, Galapagos and Madagaskar will live.

I resent the implication that there are no DFans in New Zealand. I could take out a fair chunk of the west coast, and Auckland as well if everyone there goes melancholy instead of berserk.

I really hope toady keeps backups of everything on a thumb drive or something.

[SmileyMan]

If a magmaman falls into a lake do they turn into obsidian golems?

They have a fixed temperature, so no. If you removed that tag though, they would start solidifying into basalt with a thin crust of obsidian. This will kill them, leaving behind an obsidian stone as a corpse, thanks to their ITEMCORPSE tag. If they didn't  have that tag, they would leave a "magma man corpse." I'm afraid I can't tell you what the physical properties of the corpse would be; I don't think toady has told us yet. If you gave the magma man a cold damage point lower than basalt's freezing point, you might be able to create a solid magma man. I'm not sure on that though. If you can get it to phase change without dying, then it will behave like a big block of moving basalt, with all the durability that implies.

You'd think that immersion in water would kill a magma-based creature, as a homology of a water-based lifeform being immersed in magma or at least fire.  Even though the creature's core temperature is maintained by some magical means, wouldn't the skin suffer some form of "burn" effect?

If not, then I guess magma men are the new carp...

[derigo]

Do onmap creatures still breed via "spores?"  If so, doesn't this kinda garble/render useless a lot of the cool stuff you've done with genetics, at least on the active fortress level?

Yes, it still uses spores.  It'll be difficult to run a breeding program for animals that are common in the local wilderness (or frequently brought by merchants), but you'll still be able to run breeding programs for rare animals, see the effects of genetics in dwarves' offspring, etc.

qq, thats kind of disappointing.  No breeding superdogs (or superkittens), unless I cull all the ones with unwanted traits.  I don't know, this doesn't seem workable to me.  Sure you can breed "rare creatures," assuming you manage to get a mating pair.  But that's sometimes hard to do (currently).  And even then you have a very small gene pool to work with unless you're able to expand beyond that single mating pair.  But without being able to really control which dog is giving a bone to which, you can't even track which pairs are breeding, let alone control it.  So it again boils down to culling all offspring with unwanted traits. 

Assuming your breeders DON'T die of old age before producing some favorable offspring, this would eventually work.  But the timeframe involved is off the wall huge.  It'd be a helluva lot easier (and more interesting) if animals in the same cage(or something!) could breed with each other, but were otherwise protected from the "spores" of animals elsewhere on the map.

Also, I was under the impression that dwarves mated via spores as well.  Are all husbands their baby's daddy?  Is this new or has it always been this way?  I'm not talking about infidelity (an interesting subject in itself!) but rather about rogue dwarf spores floating around inpregnating other people's wives!  Do unmarried dwarf women get impregnated, or is marriage a prerequisite?  I think a couple of those questions can be answered on the wiki, but its down atm.

[Cruxador]

In addition to height, I believe weight contributes to size. So the optimal warriors, from a genetic point of view, would be freakishly tall and morbidly obese. This will likely change in the future, when metabolism gets more solidly implemented, but for now that's your best bet.

Of course, you could just draft only the biggest dwarves instead.

[monkeyfetus]

Dwarves only have children with their spouses. I don't know why you'd think it would be any other way.

[Innominate]

Also, I was under the impression that dwarves mated via spores as well.  Are all husbands their baby's daddy?  Is this new or has it always been this way?  I'm not talking about infidelity (an interesting subject in itself!) but rather about rogue dwarf spores floating around inpregnating other people's wives!  Do unmarried dwarf women get impregnated, or is marriage a prerequisite?  I think a couple of those questions can be answered on the wiki, but its down atm.

"Spores" isn't really the most accurate term for how breeding seems to work in DF. It's just a player-base term for how things can breed over long distances.

Essentially, every so often (per season? Toadykerchief - the amalgamation of Toady One and Footkerchief - might know) a female is selected to breed. It chooses from among a list of available males and is instantly, by "spooky action over distance", impregnated. This is the "spore" behaviour. For civilisation creatures, the list of available males is confined to ones to which they are married. For now, this means just one male per female and vice versa.

Though I really wish polygamy and infidelity were entity ethics options, and one day fodder for procedural culture: it would be awesome to have two dwarf civilisations/guilds at odds because one group thought the other were "skanks" and they were in turn thought of as "prudes". It would be especially Fun for the player having to deal with a fortress where dozens of babies were produced each year because birth control doesn't exist and the dwarves had non-stop polygamous sex.

On the other hand, you get a new batch of recruits every time your children mature. A fortress with new babies every year will eventually have a constant supply of goblin fodder.