Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: more realistic pets?  (Read 2651 times)

monolar

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
more realistic pets?
« on: January 22, 2009, 07:28:54 am »

Hello there

It may be that this topic came up before but i searched to no avail.

It occured to me this morning when dealing with my 2 (real) cats that the cats in DF do not sleep - at least i have never seen them sleeping. Since cats sleep for about 2/3 of their live this in itself may already take the edge out of potential catsplosions.

It also seem that the reproduction of pets, cats are my focus here again as well is a little bit too generic. Cats and dogs do not, in fact cannot reproduce at every time of the year (mating season), but when they do more than one kitten is generally the result.

Even if those suggestions would not mitigate potential catsplosions, it would be slightly more realistic - esp. since the main impression i have of cats is, that they mainly sleep (in preferred spots) ;)
Logged

Pilsu

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: more realistic pets?
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2009, 09:17:24 am »

More realistic growth would help too. Kittens wouldn't be able to swim, walk or even see for some time after birth. Most importantly swim of course, drowning them is a chore as is
Logged

Tormy

  • Bay Watcher
  • I shall not pass?
    • View Profile
Re: more realistic pets?
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2009, 09:28:27 am »

Well right now pets/creatures/prisoners do not need to eat/drink/sleep in DF. This will be changed in the future, I am pretty sure about it. [Even tho, I don't remember that Toady has posted something about this "issue" so far...]
« Last Edit: January 22, 2009, 09:30:21 am by Tormy »
Logged

qoonpooka

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: more realistic pets?
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2009, 12:12:51 pm »

Really, just giving animals a 'mating' job that pops every spring and fades if unfilled by summer.  The result is pregnant females who were sucessfully tracked down by a male of the appropriate species. (This lets you have mules born on-site, too.)

More job-spam about male cats unable to find females for mating would be wholly appropriate as anyone who's ever owned an unfixed female can attest.  Toms make a god awful racket when they're horny.

Animals already have hauling jobs (cats), after all.

This would mean that locking your females up in the basement would prevent catsplosions.

Hell, give the Kennel (or the Butcher if you're mean) a 'Geld Animal' job which strips a cat of their sex.  Shouldn't be that hard to do, and it's even historical.
Logged

Safe-Keeper

  • Bay Watcher
  • "Situation normal; all ****ed up"
    • View Profile
    • FS Mod tester
Re: more realistic pets?
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2009, 12:18:11 pm »

Quote
More realistic growth would help too. Kittens wouldn't be able to swim, walk or even see for some time after birth. Most importantly swim of course, drowning them is a chore as is
Are there plans to put in different stages of life beyond just Baby, Child and Adult? It's fairly ridiculous that a newborn puppy can hurl itself right at goblins, Boatmurdered-style.
Logged
"Sieging humans brought some war polar bears, and one of them started a camp fire. Highly trained!" --Today One accidentally introduces the panserbjørn into Dwarf Fortress lore

Rowanas

  • Bay Watcher
  • I must be going senile.
    • View Profile
Re: more realistic pets?
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2009, 01:39:43 pm »

yep, I believe it's planned, but I can't find the dev notes right now. Footkerchief should be in here in a moment with the appropriate quotes :D
Logged
I agree with Urist. Steampunk is like Darth Vader winning Holland's Next Top Model. It would be awesome but not something I'd like in this game.
Unfortunately dying involves the amputation of the entire body from the dwarf.

Apegrape

  • Bay Watcher
  • Stop that, it's silly.
    • View Profile
Re: more realistic pets?
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2009, 02:43:38 pm »

I think it would be nice if dwarves kept some or all of their pets (depending on their preferences, or random from day to day) in their rooms. It's pretty strange how people drag several times their own weight in animals around as of now.
Logged
This is -ing good wood!

KenboCalrissian

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: more realistic pets?
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2009, 07:59:58 pm »

It occurs to me that cats sleeping 2/3rds of their life presents a very real problem, possibly worse than catsplosions.  Suppose your cat randomly decided to fall asleep on a pressure plate?

Urist McUnlucky Full-named Champion has been crushed by a bridge!

Now, multiply that times the power of catsplosion.
Logged
I've never tried it and there's a good chance it could make them freak out.
Do it.
Severedcoils - the Baron Consort accumulation challenge
Severedcoils II: The Reckoning - a DnD 5e Adventure set in the world of Severedcoils

LegoLord

  • Bay Watcher
  • Can you see it now?
    • View Profile
Re: more realistic pets?
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2009, 09:19:57 pm »

Creatures already won't go to sleep on traps unless the are knocked unconscious.  With the next version eliminating the ghost-limb narcolepsy, that probably won't be too much trouble.
More job-spam about male cats unable to find females for mating would be wholly appropriate as anyone who's ever owned an unfixed female can attest.  Toms make a god awful racket when they're horny.
For the love of pete, please no.  The dwarves can be bothered by that, but there's no reason to dump it on the player in that way.
Logged
"Oh look there is a dragon my clothes might burn let me take them off and only wear steel plate."
And this is how tinned food was invented.
Alternately: The Brick Testament. It's a really fun look at what the bible would look like if interpreted literally. With Legos.
Just so I remember

Amalgam

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: more realistic pets?
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2009, 06:26:18 am »

(Whoops, wall o' text! I tried to divide it, anyway.)

It could work and would make animals seem less static. In particular, I think breeding needs to be redone. Some kind of mating season could be added to creatures through the raws (if they have one); when it's the right time of year females could periodically attempt to find a mate by assessing the distance of any uncaged males (if they are any), starting with the nearest ones and doing the farthest ones last and having the males attempt to calculate a path to the female. You can think of this as "pheromones," if you want. The distance check is important - ideally males should not have to calculate a long path to a female, which could lower framerate. If a male can successfully path to the female, it will move to the female's position, stand on it's tile for a short moment, impregnate the female, and then do whatever after that. If the male can't path to the female the female can flag it as "checked" by that female and have a farther male attempt to path to it, until it eventually finds a mate, if it still hasn't found a mate after checking all the males it could retry 7-14 days later. If there aren't any unimpregnated, uncaged females or there aren't any uncaged males, or the mating season ends the pathing would cease altogether. It's unobtrusive enough you probably won't notice it and hopefully wouldn't eat up too much cpu, but would require actual contact between the animals.

The role of water is downplayed in DF and I wonder how pets would survive in a booze-only fort. Besides, you know, getting boozed up. But since Toady has promised much more underground features in the next version water could be more plentiful in dry areas. Tamed animals should require water to survive like your dwarves and could periodically path to your designated water source (unless it's completely covered by a well...) and drink from there. Simple. Requiring wild animals to drink might not be necessary, we can assume they're getting water somewhere on dry maps, but it could be interesting to have them gather around water sources far away from your dwarves and pretend to drink. If you're keeping your animals in pens you could build a trough, which would function to hold several units of water for the animals to drink (abstracted, though you certainly could dig a channel and have an actual pool) and your dwarves could periodically refill it if it got low. If the animals are caged dwarves could fill up a bucket and stuff it in the cage for any animals inside to drink, otherwise it would work much the same. Could possibly have a dish item specifically for this that could be built out of rock.

Food would work pretty much the same way as water, but there'd be a few extra things. For one, carnivores should eat meat and herbivores should eat plant matter. You know all those elephant organs a few people were getting grossed out about in the screenshot toady posted in the dev log? The inedible (to dwarves, anyway, though I'm not sure what they consider appetizing) bits could be turned into a sort of mash not unlike wet dog food and fed to any carnivores. I'm not sure if large carnivores (lions, for example) should eat mash, but whatever. They could also eat plain old meat if there wasn't any mash though. Large herbivores could be fed hay gathered outside, or could be fed straw made from threshing cave wheat or longland grass. Smaller herbivores (certain rodents in particular, a guinea pig is a familiar example) could likewise be fed hay as well, but could also be sustained with fruit. Like with water, there could be troughs or dishes to serve the purpose of feeding, though dwarves could just as easily throw food on the ground for dogs or hand-feed vermin.

EDIT: It just occurred to me that a gestation period in the raws would be very appropriate, and females could pass a simple check before attracting males to simulate how actively the creature mates, or simulate the pregnancy rate.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2009, 06:29:54 am by Amalgam »
Logged

qoonpooka

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: more realistic pets?
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2009, 09:47:22 am »

Creatures already won't go to sleep on traps unless the are knocked unconscious.  With the next version eliminating the ghost-limb narcolepsy, that probably won't be too much trouble.
More job-spam about male cats unable to find females for mating would be wholly appropriate as anyone who's ever owned an unfixed female can attest.  Toms make a god awful racket when they're horny.
For the love of pete, please no.  The dwarves can be bothered by that, but there's no reason to dump it on the player in that way.

Relax, I was (mostly) joking. :)
Logged

Shades

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: more realistic pets?
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2009, 09:53:00 am »

Creatures already won't go to sleep on traps unless the are knocked unconscious.  With the next version eliminating the ghost-limb narcolepsy, that probably won't be too much trouble.
More job-spam about male cats unable to find females for mating would be wholly appropriate as anyone who's ever owned an unfixed female can attest.  Toms make a god awful racket when they're horny.
For the love of pete, please no.  The dwarves can be bothered by that, but there's no reason to dump it on the player in that way.

Relax, I was (mostly) joking. :) expecting the game to pause with a popup not just dump it on the player.

Fixed
Logged
Its like playing god with sentient legos. - They Got Leader
[Dwarf Fortress] plays like a dizzyingly complex hybrid of Dungeon Keeper and The Sims, if all your little people were manic-depressive alcoholics. - tv tropes
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right. - xkcd

Grendus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: more realistic pets?
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2009, 04:21:40 pm »

Hell, give the Kennel (or the Butcher if you're mean) a 'Geld Animal' job which strips a cat of their sex.  Shouldn't be that hard to do, and it's even historical.

Yes and no. Spaying a female is trickier, in the 1400's they may or may not have had the technology to do that safely, it's fairly invasive. Neutering males is very easy, either cut off the nads or bind them tightly so blood stops flowing and they die. It's historically accurate enough.
Logged
A quick guide to surviving your first few days in CataclysmDDA:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=121194.msg4796325;topicseen#msg4796325

qoonpooka

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: more realistic pets?
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2009, 07:57:10 pm »

Hell, give the Kennel (or the Butcher if you're mean) a 'Geld Animal' job which strips a cat of their sex.  Shouldn't be that hard to do, and it's even historical.

Yes and no. Spaying a female is trickier, in the 1400's they may or may not have had the technology to do that safely, it's fairly invasive. Neutering males is very easy, either cut off the nads or bind them tightly so blood stops flowing and they die. It's historically accurate enough.

Losing a cat to a botched neutering is fine by me. They'd go into the butcher's shop otherwise. :P
Logged

Fanghorn

  • Escaped Lunatic
    • View Profile
Re: more realistic pets?
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2010, 11:19:04 am »

What if pets would have attributes, skills and even different qualities of materials they give after butchering. Being able to breed them to get better hunting/war-creatures with interesting skills (for example flying scorpion mounts that are able to spit acid) could be awesome. This could all go along with the implemention of eggs, dwarven maturity (general maturity process) and mounts. There are still more additions possible like breeding vermins and even breeding captured enemies in mad scientists expriments ( ah ah ah ah ah ahahahaha). Carps should beware to not get into the way of your creations!

Also interesting would be the ability to use necromancy or just plain magic to create magic powered organic/hybrid/artifical beeings made out of whatever you want. thats a bit far away and even further away from the topic but that was just a thought anyway
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 02:57:36 pm by Fanghorn »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2