Print

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

[pisskop]

My experiments aren't about making everyone hostile to everyone, but  about :

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

1 - making enemy factions being hostile to each other, unlike what is currently happening in which hostility nearly never happens and murderers stand next to their victims relatives that witnessed the murder without a problem.
2 - battles being battles, not after only a couple of turns even the most bloodthirsty opponents running away in terror like it happens nearly everytime now.
3 - bandits not being best friends to everyone , even to you when you're tasked with destroying them, it breaks so much of the atmosphere when your lord/lady tell you about bandits harrassing your town, and after you kill them he will spit at your face telling you're a murderer and he hates you.
4 - true evil creature not being best friends "long live the cause" with their numerous time targets and victims.

1 - i have not made yet extended test, but i think the solutio could be to change the [ETHIC:KILL_ENEMY:ACCEPTABLE] into [ETHIC:KILL_ENEMY:REQUIRED] , in the raws only the goblins/kobolods/cavepeople entities have it to required , maybe it's having it to acceptable that does not make enemies being enemies.

2 - NOFEAR helped to get battles being closer to actual battles like in 34.11 instead of the running away contest they are in 40.x, but unfortunately it's too extreme as while blodthirsty warriors may not run away from battles, one would expect civilians to do so after they get wounded, unfortunately NOFEAR does not allow that, i had read about the Discipline skill , but similarly to NOFEAR it would affects both civilians and warriors the same, so high discipline would lead civilians to react to war differently than warriors. Would be the solution if it was possible to assign in the raw a different discipline/nofear to civilians job and warrior job

3 - for this one i hoped CRAZED would help, but it was too much, as that token is basically "specism" , it make everyone from a specie hostile to anyone from another specie, regardless of them being bandit or of neutral civs, and for when bandits are of the same specie of bandits hunters , they just don't fight, so can't find a good solution to make it like in 34.11 there

4 - for this , i think the best way is to remove the TOLERATES_SITE and LIKES_SITE that target non-evil entities from true evil entities in the entity_default.txt, so their members will not go to live there as if the game was all about "we murder you but we're happy friends" in sites that are populated by their targets and victims, so no of those [EVIL] Goblins going to tell you "long live the cause" when you're a dwarf in a dwarf hamlet.
Another good side of it is that it fixes a bit of the lack of civ/entity bel

onging recognition (by example when in a human town you have a group of goblin bandit, and next to them a few goblins warriors serving the human lord, no way to tell which ones are the bandits and which ones are the town defenders) but unfortunately does not do much when bandits are human in a town with human warriors serving the town

Give spit a syndrome that ramps up aggression in the target and the spitter.
And give tears the same, but mind the causes.

Instead of trying to everyone into the Raging Guido Hulk, make the tangible product of negative interaction the catalysts.

[Rumrusher]

3 - bandits not being best friends to everyone , even to you when you're tasked with destroying them, it breaks so much of the atmosphere when your lord/lady tell you about bandits harrassing your town, and after you kill them he will spit at your face telling you're a murderer and he hates you.

uhh I think that's tied to Civ_id (which you can't notice or tell unless you have Dfhack to check the unit's data) when you attack someone. I guess bandit's don't form personal civs of their own, or now have ties to their birth group.
older versions of DF had quests asking you to kill some noble from another town and doing so will piss off the entire kingdoms.
so uhh yeah would love to have a way to passively piss someone off enough to the point where they get run out of town.

[Robsoie]

Give spit a syndrome that ramps up aggression in the target and the spitter.
And give tears the same, but mind the causes.

Instead of trying to everyone into the Raging Guido Hulk, make the tangible product of negative interaction the catalysts.

Interesting idea, could lead into a lot of fun, i never played with modding syndromes, i'll have to read about this to see how to make it work

uhh I think that's tied to Civ_id (which you can't notice or tell unless you have Dfhack to check the unit's data) when you attack someone. I guess bandit's don't form personal civs of their own, or now have ties to their birth group.
older versions of DF had quests asking you to kill some noble from another town and doing so will piss off the entire kingdoms.
so uhh yeah would love to have a way to passively piss someone off enough to the point where they get run out of town.

in older version (34.11) bandits had civs, and after a while of you fighting that civ, you were becoming an enemy of that civ, leading into them sometime hunting for you and ambushing you, leading in sometime great stories emerging from those clashes[ .
It was lots of fun, i wonder if that mechanic is now completely lost in 40.x and you're not becoming progressively enemy of a civilisation anymore, it could explain all those passive bandits despite you destroyed many of their fellow bandits.

[smjjames]

I'm encountering more of that broken relationship wierdness.

After I spread the rumor of my kills of three night creatures, most of my home fort gives a 'yay hero!' and 'it's an honor!' reaction, but theres a few who are giving a 'murderer!*spits*' reaction. Those (two so far) who have given that reaction have 'no family to speak of' and are thus, non-historical, which is confusing me because they shouldn't have any historical ties and that 'murderer!' reaction is expected if there were family ties and none of the night creatures I killed were transformed dwarves.

*is confuzzled*

Not sure whether I'll post up a bug report, but then again, theres so many things broken with relationships and plus I'm confused as to why they're acting that way.

Edit: Okay, I checked with two other dwarves who are praising me and those don't have any family to speak of either. I'm even more confused.

Edit2: Okay, they're acting like they knew the night creatures?.......

[Rumrusher]

Uhh family is a bad indicator on checking history. you need to dive into legends mode for that.
40.xx might be more sensitive now that history is constantly changing. like one tick this band of adventurers acting like guards are not harrassing folks for cash but did nothing wrong or killed 50 people like said beasts.
wonder if bandits get "they killed 50 to for their lust of murder" like vampires and other kill quests?

[smjjames]

Still confusing though.

[Robsoie]

I'm wondering if one of the source of those broken relationships isn't linked to the the entities not anymore considering you positively or negatively.
I mean in 34.11 , if i managed to defeat a bandit entire camp , relationships with entities is impacted : the civs that were harrassed by the bandits are going to be favorable to me (some even treating me as a hero) while bandits civs (and related) will start to see me as an enemy.

By example here i defeated in 34.11 a bandit boss in a camp (and how much i forgot how stronger those guys are in comparison to the pushovers bandit leaders of 40.x) with my companions , as a result , see the civs/entities relationship changing accordingly :


And if i look at at the bandit boss, as you see some civs/entities were having him as enemy :


You see relationships with civs/entities are making sense

But in 40.x , there's no more such relationships update, and i think that's the source of all those broken stuff regarding passivity/reactions not making sense/overfriendly enemies etc...
I destroyed a bandit camp and managed to kill their warlord (incredibly easily, those guys are insanely weaker than in 34.11) and see how my civs/entities aren't regarding me better and how the bandit civ/entity isn't even considering me as an enemy despite i killed their current warlord and many of their members :



And worse, the bandit warlord that was killed :


He has no civ/entity considering him as an enemy, and he's the bandit warlord since several decades !

If those positive/negative reactions of civs/entities to individual actions aren't working anymore, it's no wonder some reactions aren't making sense in 40.x.

[smjjames]

Which could very well explain the strange reaction of calling me a murderer for killing a night troll.

[Rumrusher]

Still confusing though.

this is true it's hella confusing but also on a semantic level since Robsoie keeps using the word relationships and it's making me want to double check via dfhack if any of the units are tied via Relationships(they aren't having dads warlords).

that said I guess it's more of toady remove bandits from being enemies of civs on worldgen and well more a band of rifraf troublemakers that get into trouble ala Dennis the Mennis meaning killing him will lead to a neutral to negative effect.  well then it could be that peasants don't like folks bragging about killing makes you look like a serial killer, that or you murder a celebrity. also looks like the bandit warlord didn't kill a soul so.
that guy going to heaven while you're character bound to hell. I guess killing bandits aren't counted as heroic acts(makes sense given you could be killing street urchins and kids.) or the whole people know about your acts isn't automatically in 31.xx thus no one knows how bad/good this warlord is, or how bad/good your character is, all they know is this guy rules over a piece of land and was doing so for set amount of years before you came along and murder him. from that proof it makes you the badguy when you bring it up.

like maybe they change their tune if you explain to the few folks about how horrible the guy was that you need to kill him, then explain how you killed him afterwards,
also make sure it's the same group of people also or you might spawn in a guy who miss out the first bit and just learns you graphically murder a leader.

Also figure towns folks would just straight out send you to kill anyone who label: megabeast, semimegabeast, undead, sulking, armies and those people could be all harmless passive folks who did nothing wrong like say you stuck a modded race that has the megabeast token on, this causes the megabeast towns folk to while peacefully suggest others to go kill billy McBeast next door for .... killing 0 folks for the lust of murder.

though this makes playing the game more muddy and having to keep your eye out on everyone since they could be lying. It makes up for some funny stories of gullible adventurers.

recap this is confusing but going to say toady messed with the rumor mill not the alliance issue that or because they don't kill they don't get dub murderers.

[Robsoie]

I'm not english and english is not my language, so sorry if i don't use the correct semantics for what i try to describe : the relations between entities/factions in my head is called a "relationship", if that's not the correct word, i'm sure you can see what i am trying to say when i think the "relationship" between entities/civs is broken and does not seem to update anymore according to what's going on at both worldgen and gameplay time and impact then on member of those entities/civs own reactions

[pisskop]

I'm not english and english is not my language, so sorry if i don't use the correct semantics for what i try to describe : the relations between entities/factions in my head is called a "relationship", if that's not the correct word, i'm sure you can see what i am trying to say.

relationship isnt wrong.  They do share relationships.

The slang and more popular use fo the word relationship implies a more personal connection however.  Most people tend to think family/lover/close friends before considering that all communication establishes and shapes a relationship.

[Rumrusher]

I'm not english and english is not my language, so sorry if i don't use the correct semantics for what i try to describe : the relations between entities/factions in my head is called a "relationship", if that's not the correct word, i'm sure you can see what i am trying to say.

relationship isnt wrong.  They do share relationships.

The slang and more popular use fo the word relationship implies a more personal connection however.  Most people tend to think family/lover/close friends before considering that all communication establishes and shapes a relationship.

yeah it's more on my end thinking since dfhack found a section of unit coding that holds all their 'relationship' vectors that we label Relationship from spouses to even the companions knowing who to follow
and none of the stuff that effects how they think seem to tie to that even the bandits aren't using the follow, like their using fort mode military squads.
what I guess is happening is their Dreams or souls having a effect. they also seem to have a culture identity as well a civil identity so it could be all these people are tied to the same culture and killing someone in that culture is a big no no. then comes the part where their unit body doesn't list a culture id but their unit souls do.

like I wouldn't pass toadyone for making every unit have some kind of 'trait' or values that makes them spit at you for killing anyone.

that said this whole discussion feels like a weird scenario caused by world gen, and I kinda want to get the full picture of what's happening before toady one tweak something leading to even more bugs.

wait what if those bandits become part of the civ when you visit and leave the site?
what if those bandits are really the town's army that the lord gets, and their 'harrassment' is them collecting taxes?

edit: what if murder is a crime, and anyone witnessing you committing the act makes you guilty of the crime, even if you're killing someone doing another crime.
   [ETHIC:KILL_ENTITY_MEMBER:JUSTIFIED_IF_GOOD_REASON]
   [ETHIC:KILL_NEUTRAL:JUSTIFIED_IF_NO_REPERCUSSIONS]
   [ETHIC:KILL_ENEMY:ACCEPTABLE]
Well found this in the plains so I guess since bandits aren't classed as enemies of a civ they fall into the neutral or entity sections which means adventurers have to debate over their right to kill someone neutral or even a Civ member. so I guess we have to witness a crime, tell others then get everyone in town to agree to kill this guy, and only then can you get away with murder.

[ptb_ptb]

I have recruited the mayor of a dwarf hillocks site in an insurrection against its ruler! (namely, the mayor)

I'm not quite sure what to do next.

... OK, I've gone to another dwarf hillocks site and recruited another mayor! I shall recruit ALL THE MAYORS!

[Robsoie]

If the way it works now is really what Toady intend it to work in df2014, i still can't see a reason your lord basically task you to get rid of bandits because our people are "harrassed/cowering in fear" , you go and kill them (because there's no possibility to arrest them) to put an end to that threat on your people, and back home, your lord spit at you and call you a murderer like it happens sometime and has been reported.

At that point everything you or other individuals figures do is mostly pointless, the same as you read about minotaur rampages , destroying people left and right but when you meet them, they run away as fast as they can from your party, that's why i think it's really not what Toady had in mind but most likely bugs.

On the bug tracker, Mopsy suggested the possibility of the rumors update being is too slow, and after retiring/unretiring/retiring my character to make time move a lot more, it seems that could be a part of the problem.
Because after more weeks spent with retire/unretire, i checked the legends and my character has now a couple of civs that has him considered as "rumored killer" .

The problem popping up now is that those civs are unfortunately not related to the bandit group, they're not the founders of it
(while in the worldgen in 25 years of being a bandit warlord, there's no civ that considered that guy as an enemy)

In my opinion there's something buggy happening there and it impacts a lot on how people react to you/your party/other individuals.

[smjjames]

Yeah, the semantics of it isn't important, what's important is that there is SOMETHING badly broken, maybe multiple somethings that all have an affect on each other.

As far as the rumors go, in a previous save (which I dumped because I kept running into midmap coordinate effective check out of bounds' error crash), I overheard someone say that someone became mayor of a group (which I believe was a reclaimation group) only a few minutes ago, like they were right there. Sounded like the rumor got there almost instantaneously, though I could take it as the news having just arrived. They'll also comment on me having killed someone at a bandit site despite me never telling anybody or leaving alive witnesses.

So, there are a whole slew of things broken and possibly even interactions between broken things are themselves broken.

Edit: We should split this discussion off of this thread.

I've also noticed that while rumors spread either instantaneously or near instantaneously within a site, they don't seem to spread beyond the site on their own, at least the ones you are spreading.