Print

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

[Shoku]

If there's one thing I take issue with, though, it's the note on "Quoll" which suggests that it would be a good stand in for the Tasmanian Devil. I don't think it would be. The devil is highly distinctive, and to call it a quoll is a bit like calling a goat a gazelle.

I didn't say anything about it being a good stand-in.  It was just the closest species I could find, and not very close at that.  Anyway, I looked around and apparently the Aboriginal word for the Tasmanian devil is "purinina."  Using that name is probably the best option, although I'm not sure people would make the connection, even with a detailed creature description.

I don't see any reason the creature descriptions need to avoid breaking the fourth wall. It's not like the dwarves are going over and reading them off of a tag to us.

I'd probably go for "devil" above the other ones, but I remain mystified as to why Tasmanian Devil is so problematic.

And what's wrong with the California Condor? It's fine for them to know what California is and to stick it in species names because... um...

If all these animals use the default PET_VALUE and MOD_VALUE tags, then if one embarks as humans belonging to a large entity, one will be able to buy tons different varieties of 2 value meat, essentially a massive discount on barrels.

This might be a concern worth considering.

I already use some mods that give me access to enough 2 meat that I almost can't add each type. After the crap I don't want to do without.

i reckon don't worry about it;  its a fantasy game, why not have fantasy eco-systems, simulating what might happen if a "marsupial devil" shared a habitat with dodo's and dwarfs.  war mammoths?  yes please.


also does anyone know any good dinosaur raws i can chuck into my game?

Use the search feature. I've found a few threads over in modding the grab them from.

You know, if when you remove the geographic eponym and there's nothing left to distinguish the animal, maybe it doesn't deserve to have its own unique entry for Dwarf Fortress?

It's not that they don't have distinguishing features, it's that without the name we could never tell from the features which animal it corresponds to irl.

Tasmanian Devils obviously have a lot of uniqueness but if you just give a list of details about it to someone do you think they could name it?

[Footkerchief]

I've been trying to prune down some of the larger shark genera, but meanwhile, we've been talking about creature templates (as pertains to the Ark Project) in the FotF thread.  So, may as well discuss it here.  I think we all know by this point that the creature templates will be absolutely essential for this project.  Points of discussion:

• How many templates should we have?  There are obvious problems with having far too many templates, or far too few.  The general goal here is Don't Repeat Yourself, but it's sometimes hard to tell which choice will create more repetition.
  • I'm personally leaning toward more specific templates, i.e. having a template for felids, a template for rodents, a template for primates, and so on.
  
  
• How many tags should each template contain?  Should the templates have only the most important tags, or set lots of default tags that the creature can override as necessary?
  • I'd prefer to pack as much detail into the templates as possible, so that most creatures (the "average" ones, anyway) can get by with a bare minimum of customization, i.e. very short raw entries.  People might have difficulty agreeing on what defaults the template should set, though.  Also, over-reliance on template defaults would make it awkward to change those templates in the future.
  
  
• Are we ready to start making a list of templates for, say, mammals?

[Aqizzar]

The issue is between lets say (because I checked this out) The Japanese Horseshoe Crab and The Horseshoe Crab. Where the noticable differences between all 4 species is just its location.

Nothing has been excluded yet. In fact the project isn't even close to the point where even including is happening. We are just mostly debating (unfortunately there is no where to really debate this other then this thread) about issues that will come up before we even get to them.

I would say that whatever arrangement makes it clear to the player what's being talked about is all that matters.  Real world geography has absolutely no bearing on Dwarf Fortress.  For instance, in my list of crabs, I have one member called Fiddler Crabs.  "Fiddler crab" would be more appropriately the title of the genus or even family, because the scientific community recognizes 97 distinct species of Fiddlers, the only real difference between any of them being where they live.  Is that worth even mentioning in-game?  Let alone conveying with different creature entries?  Absolutely not.

[Shoku]

I've been trying to prune down some of the larger shark genera, but meanwhile, we've been talking about creature templates (as pertains to the Ark Project) in the FotF thread.  So, may as well discuss it here.  I think we all know by this point that the creature templates will be absolutely essential for this project.  Points of discussion:

• How many templates should we have?  There are obvious problems with having far too many templates, or far too few.  The general goal here is Don't Repeat Yourself, but it's sometimes hard to tell which choice will create more repetition.
  • I'm personally leaning toward more specific templates, i.e. having a template for felids, a template for rodents, a template for primates, and so on.

I think we could mostly get away with having them at the order level just making exceptions when it felt like it would be useful.

• How many tags should each template contain?  Should the templates have only the most important tags, or set lots of default tags that the creature can override as necessary?
  • I'd prefer to pack as much detail into the templates as possible, so that most creatures (the "average" ones, anyway) can get by with a bare minimum of customization, i.e. very short raw entries.  People might have difficulty agreeing on what defaults the template should set, though.  Also, over-reliance on template defaults would make it awkward to change those templates in the future.

I think it's worth it for the ability to have ten line creatures.
Plus is you go and add up how much work it is changing the templates later won't create more work than there would have been initially creating the entries. So the options are simple now but maybe work later or just work now. I get that motivationally it's not quite that simple but just by the numbers it seems fine.

And if we do end up with a reason to change templates (other than them being totally broken by updates somehow) we can keep the old ones around as we go converting entries away from them only really having to delete it once nothing uses it.

The issue is between lets say (because I checked this out) The Japanese Horseshoe Crab and The Horseshoe Crab. Where the noticable differences between all 4 species is just its location.

Nothing has been excluded yet. In fact the project isn't even close to the point where even including is happening. We are just mostly debating (unfortunately there is no where to really debate this other then this thread) about issues that will come up before we even get to them.

I would say that whatever arrangement makes it clear to the player what's being talked about is all that matters.  Real world geography has absolutely no bearing on Dwarf Fortress.  For instance, in my list of crabs, I have one member called Fiddler Crabs.  "Fiddler crab" would be more appropriately the title of the genus or even family, because the scientific community recognizes 97 distinct species of Fiddlers, the only real difference between any of them being where they live.  Is that worth even mentioning in-game?  Let alone conveying with different creature entries?  Absolutely not.

Ya, I definitely say it's not worth having those but there are lots of cases where the location-name actually describes something unique.

[Footkerchief]

And if we do end up with a reason to change templates (other than them being totally broken by updates somehow) we can keep the old ones around as we go converting entries away from them only really having to delete it once nothing uses it.

Yeah, "legacy templates" will probably end up being necessary in some situations.

[Footkerchief]

Sharks are finished, although one genus might need further representation:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Carcharhiniformes, Ground Sharks

Requiem shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcharhinus (I'm flubbing on this genus for now because it has a lot of very similar species)

Tiger shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_shark

River shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_shark

Daggernose shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daggernose_shark

Lemon shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_shark

Blue shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_shark (very wide range, economic importance)

Sharpnose shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhizoprionodon

Spadenose shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spadenose_shark

Whitetip reef shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitetip_reef_shark

Weasel shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemigaleidae

Finback catshark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscylliidae (this family seems poorly understood, could be omitted entirely)

False catshark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudotriakis_microdon

Coral catshark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_catshark

Swellshark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swell_shark

Skyshark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haploblepharus

Leopard catshark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_catshark

Chain catshark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_catshark

Nursehound shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursehound

Cloudy catshark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudy_catshark

Winghead shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winghead_shark

Hammerhead shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphyrna

Smoothhound shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustelus

Leopard shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_shark
[edit] Lamniformes, Mackerel Sharks

Thresher shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thresher_shark

Basking shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basking_shark

Great white shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_white_shark

Mako shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isurus

Salmon shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon_shark (a homeotherm!)

Porbeagle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porbeagle (interesting playful behaviors)

Megamouth shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megamouth_shark

Goblin shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goblin_shark

Gray nurse shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_nurse_shark

Sand tiger shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_tiger

Crocodile shark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile_shark

No more nicely formatted lists since I'm just pasting them in from the wiki page now.

[Footkerchief]

Could IP address 151.203.246.40 identify themselves, please?

[Lancensis]

I'm 212.183.140.20 apparantly (forgot to log in, one time)

I'm doing spiders at the minute. I feel incredibly anal for asking this, but is "Goliath" acceptable as an adjective for creatures, given the origin of the word?

[Neonivek]

Who does Footkerchief need that IP Address?

I don't think my IP is that but I am unsure how to check.

[Gorobay]

I am 151.203.246.40. Why do you ask?

[Footkerchief]

I am 151.203.246.40. Why do you ask?

Wanted to give you credit for the awesome job with the reorganization.  Also it's just good to know who's working on the project.

[Gorobay]

Is there a reason why some already included animals (e.g. elephants) have a place on the list and others (e.g. carp) don't?

[Footkerchief]

They should probably all be on our list for completeness' sake.  I left out a few from sections I did (dogs, cats and wolves at least), but I'll go back and add those in at some point.

[Nobbins]

Disregarding the fact that one probably already exists in this thread, I decided to make an armadillo creature.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Code: [Select]

[CREATURE:ARMADILLO]
[NAME:armadillo:armadillos:armadillo]
[TILE:'a'][COLOR:6:0:0]
[MODVALUE:2]
[POPULATION_NUMBER:50:75]
[CLUSTER_NUMBER:2:6]
[FREQUENCY:95]
[CURIOUSBEAST_EATER][NOT_BUTCHERABLE][NOCTURNAL]
[BENIGN][NATURAL][PET][CAN_LEARN]
[PETVALUE:10]
[GRASSTRAMPLE:0][SPEED:1000]
[BODY:QUADRUPED:TAIL:2EYES:2EARS:NOSE:2LUNGS:HEART:GUTS:ORGANS:NECK:THROAT:SPINE:BRAIN:MOUTH]
[SIZE:2]
[MAXAGE:35:45]
[ATTACK:MAIN:BYTYPE:GRASP:scratch:scratches:1:3:SLASH][ATTACKFLAG_CANLATCH]
[PREFSTRING:ability to roll into balls]
[CHILD:1][CHILDNAME:baby armadillo:baby armadillos]
[BIOME:DESERT_BADLAND]
[BIOME:DESERT_SAND]
[BIOME:ANY_TEMPERATE_FOREST]
[BIOME:GRASSLAND_TEMPERATE]
[BIOME:SAVANNA_TEMPERATE]
[BIOME:ANY_SHRUBLAND]
[STANDARD_FLESH]
[HOMEOTHERM:10067]
[SWIMS_LEARNED][SWIM_SPEED:1500]
[MUNDANE]

Oh, and I could never actually find the armadillos in any of their specified biomes. I put the code in creatures_small_mammals.txt in /raw, am I doing something wrong?

[Footkerchief]

Disregarding the fact that one probably already exists in this thread, I decided to make an armadillo creature.

Nobbins, the point of this mod is to make creatures for the upcoming version.  And we're not to the making-creatures stage yet.