Print

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

[Zantan]

I'm a little bummed that we won't see giant hairy purple versions of random beetles, but at least that's one less naming problem.

I was really excited by that prospect as well, but we could make our own workaround, since the creatures would be in the raws.  We could bundle the Ark raws with a text editing program that will create a new set of raws with new giant semi-megabeast versions of a few creatures added. 

I know that this doesn't match the theme of the project (only real-world creatures), but I think it would be reasonable to add as an option since a lot of us thought this was going to be a feature in the next version.  What does everyone else think of this?

[Footkerchief]

One possibility is to separate them into their own file. In Template:Ark_creature there could be a parameter to specify what file to put the creature in, so we could put larvae in creature_larvae.txt and mammoths in creature_extinct_cenozoic.txt. That way, creatures that are not the main focus of the Ark Project could still be included, but would be easy to take out.

That would help, yeah.  The main issue is that manually implementing a larval form as a separate creature for each insect, amphibian, etc. would be insane.

The best option I see is to implement them as separate castes, which would allow us to put the larvae in the taxon-level variations.  This would make it straightforward to handle cases like inchworms, which is a generic term for the caterpillars of a certain family of moths.  All we'd have to do is add a variation to the Geometridae section (currently it's Geometridea, it would have to be further split) that customizes the names of the larval castes declared in Insecta or wherever.

Also, there has to be a more intuitive and organized way to manage this than Wiki lists.

Actually, our wiki lists are intuitive, organized, and (importantly) easy to edit.

They aren't perfect, but yeah, we mulled over a bunch of alternatives (including making our own database-backed web app), and they all just seemed awkward compared to the wiki.  We're open to ideas, although a new system would have to be a big improvement for us to switch at this stage.

I'm interested in contributing and I'll try to get people from Something Awful to help too, but every animal I find has already been listed. The list is MASSIVE [...]

A lot of animals have already been listed, yeah.  You'll have more luck if you start by looking for gaps in our list, like sections marked "UNFINISHED."  You're most likely to find these gaps in the pages listed in the OP -- bony fish, insects, birds, and snakes.

I think we should at least start writing prefstrings for each animal soon.

I'm still not sure what we should do about prefstrings.  As many as possible should probably go in taxon-level creature variations ("creature templates"), so that if we want [PREFSTRING:rough skin] for sharks, we can just put that in the shark template instead of adding it to each individual shark.  What do other people think about this approach?

I was really excited by that prospect as well, but we could make our own workaround, since the creatures would be in the raws.  We could bundle the Ark raws with a text editing program that will create a new set of raws with new giant semi-megabeast versions of a few creatures added. 

I know that this doesn't match the theme of the project (only real-world creatures), but I think it would be reasonable to add as an option since a lot of us thought this was going to be a feature in the next version.  What does everyone else think of this?

That's an awesome idea.  I don't think it would be possible to force worldgen to include those as totally unique creatures, so they wouldn't be exactly like the new titans, but they'd be a really good substitute.  It definitely deserves its own project, though, since it would come in handy even for people who aren't using the Ark Project.

[Zantan]

I was really excited by that prospect as well, but we could make our own workaround, since the creatures would be in the raws.  We could bundle the Ark raws with a text editing program that will create a new set of raws with new giant semi-megabeast versions of a few creatures added. 

I know that this doesn't match the theme of the project (only real-world creatures), but I think it would be reasonable to add as an option since a lot of us thought this was going to be a feature in the next version.  What does everyone else think of this?

That's an awesome idea.  I don't think it would be possible to force worldgen to include those as totally unique creatures, so they wouldn't be exactly like the new titans, but they'd be a really good substitute.  It definitely deserves its own project, though, since it would come in handy even for people who aren't using the Ark Project.

Great!  I'm currently snowed in in DC, so I'll spend some time fiddling around with this today.  I'm not the most proficient programmer, but messing with .txt files isn't that complicated. 

As for the uniqueness of the giants...I never thought that was necessary, though that really depends on the origins of the creatures.  If dragons are big and can breed, why can't titanic wamblers be the same way? 

Making the generator will be lots of fun because I can add all kinds of variability to the giant template (20% chance to breathe fire, 5% chance to have plated hides, colony based creatures like a wasps have a 30% chance to be bear-sized savage non-megabeasts which spawn in swarms)

[Greedish]

If you can manage to make it so that every kind of animal has a chance to randomly become a semi-megabeast or even a megabeast, that would be amazing for adventure mode.

[Zantan]

The raws are used to define species as a whole, so I don't think you could use them to say 'every creature spawned has a 1/1000 chance of using the giant template,' which I think is what you meant.  You could use creature variation to say that every creature has a small chance to be massive, but since that would not change the name of the creature, it would be bad Fun (Fun which can only be countered by checking the description of every squirrel individually to make sure that it can't rip your head off).

What I'm proposing is to make a program which randomly selects a few creatures and makes semi-megabeast giant versions of them.  The only really difficult part of this will be figuring out how to weight the random choice of creatures so each category of creatures has an equal chance of being chosen, so for instance ants aren't favored just because the Ark Project included 100 different species.

[Lancensis]

What I'm proposing is to make a program which randomly selects a few creatures and makes semi-megabeast giant versions of them.  The only really difficult part of this will be figuring out how to weight the random choice of creatures so each category of creatures has an equal chance of being chosen, so for instance ants aren't favored just because the Ark Project included 100 different species.

Heh. "First, young adventurer, you must go to the forest of gloom and slay Bodiceburp, the giant crazy rasberry ant who guards the tunnel to the iron mountains. There you will find Marriageface, the terrifying giant wood ant. Tear the mandible from her corpse, and use it to defeat Gladhammer, the driver ant who guards the chamber of the dread giant army ant...."

So you're actually thinking of creating a utility for this purpose?

[Igfig]

One possibility is to separate them into their own file. In Template:Ark_creature there could be a parameter to specify what file to put the creature in, so we could put larvae in creature_larvae.txt and mammoths in creature_extinct_cenozoic.txt. That way, creatures that are not the main focus of the Ark Project could still be included, but would be easy to take out.

That would help, yeah.  The main issue is that manually implementing a larval form as a separate creature for each insect, amphibian, etc. would be insane.

Yeah, there's a reason I only included a few really iconic or interesting caterpillars.

The best option I see is to implement them as separate castes, which would allow us to put the larvae in the taxon-level variations.  This would make it straightforward to handle cases like inchworms, which is a generic term for the caterpillars of a certain family of moths.  All we'd have to do is add a variation to the Geometridae section (currently it's Geometridea, it would have to be further split) that customizes the names of the larval castes declared in Insecta or wherever.

I could have sworn I saw something about vermin not having castes, so I skipped that idea right off the bat.  A second look at the Fluffy Wambler raws tells me that I was mistaken, so yes, making caterpillars a templated caste is probably the best idea.

I'm still not sure what we should do about prefstrings.  As many as possible should probably go in taxon-level creature variations ("creature templates"), so that if we want [PREFSTRING:rough skin] for sharks, we can just put that in the shark template instead of adding it to each individual shark.  What do other people think about this approach?

Sounds good as a default for if we can't think of any specific distinguishing features for a creature; that said, I hope that most of our creatures are interesting enough that we can give each of them a unique prefstring.

I was really excited by that prospect as well, but we could make our own workaround, since the creatures would be in the raws.  We could bundle the Ark raws with a text editing program that will create a new set of raws with new giant semi-megabeast versions of a few creatures added. 

I know that this doesn't match the theme of the project (only real-world creatures), but I think it would be reasonable to add as an option since a lot of us thought this was going to be a feature in the next version.  What does everyone else think of this?

I'd just like to chime in here with a "Hell, yes!"

[Zantan]

Thank's for the enthusiasm!  I'll be starting a new thread for suggestions on the process, but I wanted to quick ask a couple questions here to those who presumably know the most about tags and raws:

Firstly, do we have an incomplete list of tags that will be used in the new version?  And secondly, do we have any idea of how the Ark's raw .txt files will be organized and differentiated from the vanilla .txt files?  I'd like to be able to make the differentiation so I don't end up creating giant HFS or anything else inappropriate.

[Lancensis]

Anyone got a preferance for what name this should go by? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darter

The choices are Snakebird, Anhinga and Darter. Darter seems too generic to me. Snakebird is descriptive, but blander than Anhinga.

[Zantan]

I'd say snakebird; I think it's best if players have some idea of what a creature is without reading its description.

[Lancensis]

That's certainly something to aim for, I guess.

There's some taxonomic wierdness with the storks. Wiki page for order Ciconiiformes says that it now only includes the storks, and not herons, egrets, spoonbills and the like, wheras the pages for the other families all claim to be members of Ciconiiformes nonetheless. Should I just go with the old order and include a note to that effect?

[Greedish]

Thank's for the enthusiasm!  I'll be starting a new thread for suggestions on the process, but I wanted to quick ask a couple questions here to those who presumably know the most about tags and raws:

Firstly, do we have an incomplete list of tags that will be used in the new version?  And secondly, do we have any idea of how the Ark's raw .txt files will be organized and differentiated from the vanilla .txt files?  I'd like to be able to make the differentiation so I don't end up creating giant HFS or anything else inappropriate.

I am of the opinion all the creatures should be contained (let's use the manatee as an example) in a text file like this:

ark_creature_mammalia_aphroteria.txt

[mendonca]

I'm still not sure what we should do about prefstrings.  As many as possible should probably go in taxon-level creature variations ("creature templates"), so that if we want [PREFSTRING:rough skin] for sharks, we can just put that in the shark template instead of adding it to each individual shark.  What do other people think about this approach?

Sounds good as a default for if we can't think of any specific distinguishing features for a creature; that said, I hope that most of our creatures are interesting enough that we can give each of them a unique prefstring.

This seems to make sense. Uninteresting sharks will be liked for there 'rough skin'. A hammerhead shark will have an over-ride prefstring, which will lead to dwarves liking them for there 'unusual heads'.

Could you take this back a level, for instance all vertebrates are liked for their 'back-bones'. An uninteresting group of vertebrates would then merely be admired for there row of vertebrae (however unlikely this is) although I'm not sure if the raw templates will be useful to have the many nested templates as this infers? (vertebrate raw [prefstring=backbone], over-ridden by sauropsid raw [prefstring=lizard face], over-ridden by bird raw [prefstring=feathers], over-ridden by new world vulture raw [prefstring=lust for carrion], over-ridden by Turkey Vulture? no prefstring?)

[Pizdzius]

So that means every spider has a possibility to become a megabeast? :p Dwarfs are so dead

[Footkerchief]

I am of the opinion all the creatures should be contained (let's use the manatee as an example) in a text file like this:

ark_creature_mammalia_aphroteria.txt

If you mean that we should have a separate text file for every single subsection, that would give us like 500 files, which is definitely not a good balance.  If you meant we should have a section for each superorder, that won't work either, since not everything is divided into superorders.

I think the most simple and intuitive solution is to generate one text file per wiki page.  The whole point of having separate pages was to reduce each page to a sane number of creatures, so we shouldn't have to do any additional reorganizing for the text files.  Also it'll be easier to check the files against the wiki pages if they match up.