Print

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

[i2amroy]

This would be a cool tag to have instead of just [SWIMS_LEARNED] and [SWIMS_INNATE]. The reasoning is that certain things, like fire elementals, might never be able to swim, but they might still be smart enough to learn over time. The current system, however, allows only two choices, have the creature never learn anything, or have the creature be able to learn how to swim over time. This would allow the creation of creatures that would never learn how to swim, regardless of how often they are thrown into water.

[Neonivek]

This would be a cool tag to have instead of just [SWIMS_LEARNED] and [SWIMS_INNATE]. The reasoning is that certain things, like fire elementals, might never be able to swim, but they might still be smart enough to learn over time. The current system, however, allows only two choices, have the creature never learn anything, or have the creature be able to learn how to swim over time. This would allow the creation of creatures that would never learn how to swim, regardless of how often they are thrown into water.

You mean like [NoLearn] or however that tag works.

[i2amroy]

Now that I think of it, I personally think it would be better if there was a tag that could prevent a certain creature from learning a certain skill. Something like [NOLEARN:SWIMMING] or [NOLEARN:BUTCHERY]. You could then have a pacifist race be able to learn armor crafting, but never learn how to forge weapons, and other things like that. Or how about a race that could learn how to craft wood and bone, but never learn how to craft stone?

[Silverionmox]

Something similar is in the Eternal Voting list, as "Allow learning rates to be defined for separate species, castes/creatures and skills". So basically you have the option to set a percentage of the normal advancement, setting it to zero would be possible as well.

[i2amroy]

Awesome! (Goes to transfer one of his votes)

[Neonivek]

You could then have a pacifist race be able to learn armor crafting, but never learn how to forge weapons, and other things like that

I really wish people would define that as a personality thing rather then a racial/species physical or mental disability.

I'd never shoot someone in real life... but I am sure I could learn how to make a gun.

Likewise some Apes cannot swim at all... but I don't think that would prevent them from earning a Swimming skill (if they could learn within the Dwarf Fortress context... hmm maybe Slow Learner should be expanded... then again... I think those are going to disapear eventually once we get mental stats)

[Granite26]

You could then have a pacifist race be able to learn armor crafting, but never learn how to forge weapons, and other things like that

I really wish people would define that as a personality thing rather then a racial/species physical or mental disability.

I'd never shoot someone in real life... but I am sure I could learn how to make a gun.

Likewise some Apes cannot swim at all... but I don't think that would prevent them from earning a Swimming skill (if they could learn within the Dwarf Fortress context... hmm maybe Slow Learner should be expanded... then again... I think those are going to disapear eventually once we get mental stats)

Well, to be honest, it should be all ways.  Culture, Biology and personality.

[Neonivek]

Yeah but he is defining Pacivism as a mental disability.

What I mean is that people should be relying on personality / environmental factors to define it rather then physical/Mental.

If a race is pacivist... make them abhor violence and have no real weapons in their culture.

If a race physically (due to lacking that area of the brain) cannot learn to make weapons, THEN you disable it from being learned.

a "Cannot learn" should have a stronger excuse.

[DJ]

How about a skill gain coefficient for every skill. It could be any number, and it'd multiply with the skill experience gain. So, if you have [SWIMMING:0.5] your swimming skill would progress at half the normal rate. Setting the coefficient to 0 would prevent training of that skill, and setting it to a negative number would cause you to actually get worse at a skill when you use it. This last case wouldn't be commonly used, but I think some modders could find a use for negative skill gain.

[Neonivek]

Instead of decimals... lets just say 100 is normal... so .5 would instead be 50.

Which of course is further adjusted by the character's intelligence / learning ability.

Which is further adjusted by the character's personality.

Which is further adjusted by the character's ethics.

[SirHoneyBadger]

I second the No Swim as a species biological thing, rather than a learning question. I was going to add it to my rock giants in my mod, but it wasn't there, which surprised me.

Some critters just should never be able to swim, even if they're geniuses. Iron men for instance.

They'd sink, and then they'd rust.

That said, some critters could just entirely ignore water, rather than being affected by entering it, or have the ability to "fly" under water, rather than swim.

Others might be slowly damaged by water, treating it as acid.

Ofcourse, there's the question of salt water vs fresh water.

[Granite26]

Let me rephrase:

I think that we should have a 1-100 aptitude and range for every race, culture, and caste (and culturebycaste) for every single skill.  (the ranges would combine to form the personal component, whereas the base aptitudes would combine to form the socialization and nature components))

Aptitudes would default to 50+-10 for race, 75+-5 for everything else.  Numbers treated as percentages and multiplied together to get a final value.

The tags would be EXACTLY THE SAME for every component of a creatures makeup.  (Since a being IS it's culture and it IS it's race, and it IS it's caste).  Defaults are used to establish a baseline and to reduce clutter.  If you want the race to be more inclined to mining?  add 5-10 points to it's race.  The dwarven culture encourages mining?  5-10 points there.   (.55 * .80 = .44 vs .50 * 75 = .38).  Kinda spreads out more at the high ends, but hey.

[SirHoneyBadger]

It's a very good idea, which deserves it's own thread, so that it stops disrupting this one.

[Granite26]

ORLY?

[SirHoneyBadger]

Sho'nuff.