Print

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

[HammerHand]

Not odd at all. In almost every language on earth, the term for the native speakers of it is something along the lines of "the people". From the dwarf standpoint, they're normal. It's everyone else who is too tall. So from that standpoint, probably:

Code: [Select]

[T_WORD:MAN:udos]

Shukarudos (tall man) might be a collective term for humans and elves.

Now, here I run into some confusion because of the way English uses the word "Man."  In the Dwarven language, does "udos" mean "the human species," "adult male" or, as you suggest, "the People/Dwarf species?"

In the first case, it would be strange that there is no word for Dwarf.  In the second, it would be strange that there is no word for Dwarf or one for Human, and in the third, it would not be strange at all.

Silly English and its occasionally-unnecessary homonyms.

[Chthonic]

The only real exception to the naming I know that's in DF is "werewolf".

except, at some point, Toady will probably implement code for form changing and making them proper form shifting weres, and then we might have both werewolves (and maybe other weres) and wolf men

I can't imagine that it would take long now for Toady to have shapechangers change shape.  We already have critters swap forms based on age.

[zchris13]

I'd rather they simply be called [animal]men. Keep-It-Simple-Stupid and whatnot.

Yes, I know, this is Dwarf Fortress, KISS is not necessarily found elsewhere in the game, etc., but really, it would be much less confusing if we refrain from calling animalmen fancy-schmancy names.

KISS applies to the ideas behind the mechanics.  Mechanics are an entirely different situation.

[Shoku]

Oh, uh, no no. I was meaning if raksha in some form as tigerpersonlike <magical> demons were in, as well as tigerpeople.

Besides, no extra tag should be necessary once DF gets to that point, for people to recognize (in error or not) that one creature looks like another.

The game is going to need some way of recognizing that things look alike in your "power comes back with a bunch of doubles" example.

But if we let that ugly anthro topic back in for just a split second: I'm saying no extra entities should be necessary once DF gets to that point.

It's not just that their palms are backwards; their entire hands are attached upside down, with the fingers curling upwards.

I doubt the average person is familiar enough with tiger-man anatomy to tell if they have upside down hands or if they've just turned their whole arm.

They'd be displayed in Dwarf Mode as "Tigerman" or "Tigerman (Riget)" depending on circumstances.

i agree, i was just about to write this but you did it better . Wouldn't be hard to implement would it? 

This is what i meant by placing more tags in an entity. Giving every single bit of wildlife it's own language file to pick names from would probably be a bit much but you could handle it that way too.

[Lemunde]

Are there any plans to extend the number of colors beyond the 16 we have now?  It would be nice to see a visible difference between gold and orthoclase for example.  And as a suggestion, would it be possible to have glass items and constructions flash between dark and light shades?  Dark green and light green for example.

[lordcooper]

I'd say animalmen should eventually have names for themselves (raksha, thri-kreen, et cetera) but that these should be entity names, not species names.  We assume a group of tigermen call themselves the "Riget."  All elves and other animalmen would refer to them as such, as would most educated humans and dwarves (especially diplomats), unless actively seeking to antagonize them.  Dwarvern and human peasants, save perhaps those used to living in close proximity to the Riget, would simply refer to them as tigermen.  (The response from a given tigerman would range from polite correction to mauling; given tigermen, the latter seems more likely.)  They'd be displayed in Dwarf Mode as "Tigerman" or "Tigerman (Riget)" depending on circumstances.

i agree, i was just about to write this but you did it better . Wouldn't be hard to implement would it? 

*checks the language files*

   

Code: [Select]

[T_WORD:MAN:abo]

Odd, there isn't a word in LANGUAGE_DWARF for dwarf.

Dwarfs jusr ARE.

[Dakk]

Searching didn't answer this question for me:
Will it be possible to dig in adventure mode in the next release?

That comes with Adventurer mode skills, which, if I'm not mistaken, may be included on the release after the upcomming one.

[smjjames]

Are there any plans to extend the number of colors beyond the 16 we have now?  It would be nice to see a visible difference between gold and orthoclase for example.  And as a suggestion, would it be possible to have glass items and constructions flash between dark and light shades?  Dark green and light green for example.

Well, with the Mayday graphics pack at least, theres sometimes different shades. For example, when I was using different colored rocks to check something out with ramps, I noticed that kaolinite was a deeper red while petrified wood came out as an orange color.

I guess orthoclase could be considered the 'poor dwarfs gold'.

[Neonivek]

Edit addition: I was informed that I needed a spoiler

Toady questions in spoiler

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Toady will the technology from the underground animalmen always be rather static? can they, lets say, defeat a Dwarf Fortress and have a chance to incorperate their technology?

Is there a plan for Civilisations to "accidently" discover underground sites either in their own forts/roads or will it be as it always is and only the player can find them?

UGH AHH! too many questions... Ill stop

[Warlord255]

Well, with the Mayday graphics pack at least, theres sometimes different shades. For example, when I was using different colored rocks to check something out with ramps, I noticed that kaolinite was a deeper red while petrified wood came out as an orange color.

I guess orthoclase could be considered the 'poor dwarfs gold'.

In default colors, kaolinite is dark red while petrified wood is bright red. So you're not seeing any difference due to the Mayday pack in particular.

[smjjames]

Oh, I didn't realize that. Petrified wood looks more of an orange-red than bright red though.

Mostly working down below in mystery land today, but it was nice to see it teeming with fun times. I worked out various busted population issues as well.

Does this also mean that it won't be possible or at least much harder to completely extinct wildlife/fish stocks anymore? I'm sure we can severely deplete it or make it 'locally extinct', but they will repopulate with time?

[Footkerchief]

Are there any plans to extend the number of colors beyond the 16 we have now?  It would be nice to see a visible difference between gold and orthoclase for example.  And as a suggestion, would it be possible to have glass items and constructions flash between dark and light shades?  Dark green and light green for example.

Materials in the next version have 24-bit color, but the game will still display in 16 colors:

Will the next version display proper material colors for all items?  In last year's raws preview, mineral raws still had a DISPLAY_COLOR tag, but that seems seriously obsolete.  I did find a dev log reference (several weeks before the preview) to "color/symbol stuff for items/buildings made from materials," so I'm not sure what the deal is.

I don't get "proper" here.  Do you mean RGB colors?  The stuff being fed through the grid system rather than the creature tile system is still heavily constrained.  I don't expect that to be handled until item display gets decoupled from the font tiles.  If you mean using the 16 color approximation to the RGB material color, then it should use that for items.  Minerals can still be weird because when they are a wall, you can't rely on the material's color, as background colors come up.

The "item display gets decoupled from the font tiles" thing should probably be coming along fairly soon, since "Full graphics support" is #4 on Eternal Suggestion Voting.

Well, with the Mayday graphics pack at least, theres sometimes different shades. For example, when I was using different colored rocks to check something out with ramps, I noticed that kaolinite was a deeper red while petrified wood came out as an orange color.

The Mayday pack still uses 16 colors, but the RGB values of those colors have been tweaked in init.txt.

Toady will the technology from the underground animalmen always be rather static? can they, lets say, defeat a Dwarf Fortress and have a chance to incorperate their technology?

Entity tech advancement won't be in this release, though I think Toady has said he's not opposed to it. 

What are the Kobold's relationship with the animalmen? They were always out of the way but now they are pretty much a buffer between the surface and ground.

That's such a spoiler.  Wait and see.

Does this also mean that it won't be possible or at least much harder to completely extinct wildlife/fish stocks anymore? I'm sure we can severely deplete it or make it 'locally extinct', but they will repopulate with time?

Probably not.  That's a dev_next item that isn't being worked on yet:

#  I.B: Wilderness population/megabeast reproduction and improved population tracking (Core78)
# Core78, WILDERNESS POPULATION TRACKING, (Future): Wilderness population is quite limited, and worse in a few ways than it was back before the Z coordinate. This should be fixed in world gen and in regular play in all modes for all categories of wilderness or subterranean creature.

[Neonivek]

Fine Ill get rid of that question.

Though given what I have to do to find out I am not so opposed to having it spoiled.

I have a hard enough time finding Kobolds yet alone studying their culture first hand.

[smjjames]

Kobolds generally have no trouble finding you, unless you're isolated on an island or by a mountain range. It can be possible for them to be in said island or isolated mountain range though.

[RedKing]

Not odd at all. In almost every language on earth, the term for the native speakers of it is something along the lines of "the people". From the dwarf standpoint, they're normal. It's everyone else who is too tall. So from that standpoint, probably:

Code: [Select]

[T_WORD:MAN:udos]

Shukarudos (tall man) might be a collective term for humans and elves.

Now, here I run into some confusion because of the way English uses the word "Man."  In the Dwarven language, does "udos" mean "the human species," "adult male" or, as you suggest, "the People/Dwarf species?"

In the first case, it would be strange that there is no word for Dwarf.  In the second, it would be strange that there is no word for Dwarf or one for Human, and in the third, it would not be strange at all.

Silly English and its occasionally-unnecessary homonyms.

Good question. Since there's no corresponding word for "woman" or "female", i'd say that it's not a male descriptor. But then there's no word for "elf", "human", "goblin" or "kobold" either. My instinct was that it's used like 人 (Ch. "ren", Jp. "hito" or "jin") in that it can mean "adult male", "person" or "mankind" (in this case, dwarfkind) depending on context.