Print

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

[Jiri Petru]

Custom-sized equipment might be fun in adventurer mode where you only have to care for one unit in detail (= you) and to a lesser extent for a couple of more (= your companions, who'll hopefully get some AI so they will be able to upgrade gear by themselves without you telling them).

It would get extremely frustrating in fortress mode, though. I can't even imagine the scope of annoying micromanagement that keeping track of all the armour you have available or that you need would require. No, thank you.

[LoSboccacc]

or, you could have a generic common fit and then custom armor and clothes that provides better bonus (or lesser penalties)

[Chthonic]

It would get extremely frustrating in fortress mode, though. I can't even imagine the scope of annoying micromanagement that keeping track of all the armour you have available or that you need would require. No, thank you.

Ideally, I guess, you'd have the option to issue an edict on the order of, say, "Okay, Dorfsmiths, listen up!  Forge for my elite squad, the Rivers of Biting, complete sets of fitted armor!"

And then they'd just do it, and the squad members would pick up their stuff.  And maybe it would be labeled with their names, and on their deaths would be either buried with them or go into a communal pile for the non-elite dwarves to pick through as they scrounge for the best a la carte armor sets available.

[monk12]

I have read in the past that between the interviews, DF Talks, bug fixes, active development, and little things like sleep, you have less time to go through the Suggestions forum. Is there a plan to revitalize or refocus that aspect of the forums?

I only ask because it seems that the FotF thread gets has less speculation and more suggestion as time goes on, as it feels like this is the only place you regularly and reliably frequent.

And yes, I am aware of the irony of making a suggestion to revamp the suggestion format.

[Quatch]

Maybe some sort of form, makes it easier to find and quickly grok a suggestion. Add in voting and cross linking, toss it all into a framework like the bugtracker, link up with the eternal suggestion voting.

[Footkerchief]

I have read in the past that between the interviews, DF Talks, bug fixes, active development, and little things like sleep, you have less time to go through the Suggestions forum. Is there a plan to revitalize or refocus that aspect of the forums?

This came up recently:

I'm already unable to reply to posts in the suggestion forum (I am still reading them, though I'm behind as usual) [...] Ideally I'd get to everything, but it's impossible now.

[monk12]

I have read in the past that between the interviews, DF Talks, bug fixes, active development, and little things like sleep, you have less time to go through the Suggestions forum. Is there a plan to revitalize or refocus that aspect of the forums?

This came up recently:

I'm already unable to reply to posts in the suggestion forum (I am still reading them, though I'm behind as usual) [...] Ideally I'd get to everything, but it's impossible now.

That is actually the quote I was looking for and couldn't find earlier. Assuming this has been an ongoing issue, I was wondering if he had had any thoughts on ways the community could do things to make it easier for him. Ways to group suggestions under arc, etc.

[Captain Mayday]

Hi Toady,

Today, my query relates to BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIERs whose values don't obviously relate to altering sizes.
For example, let's use [BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HIGH_CHEEKBONES:0:70:90:100:110:130:200]

Now, there are seven slots there, equating, basically, to Extremely Low:Very Low:Low:Average:High:Very High:Extremely High.
My first question is, roughly what are the chances of each item occurring? I've populated a lot of test subjects to check, and unsurprisingly Average seems to be pretty common, if I'm doing it right.
My second question is, what bearing on the results does the number associated with it have? Is it some likelihood of the result?

It's probable that the second question will answer this, but I'll ask anyway.
From testing, I've determined that I can do the following:
[BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HIGH_CHEEKBONES:70:70:90:100:110:130:130]
 which causes Very Low:Very Low:Low:Average:High:Very High:Very High
and
[BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HIGH_CHEEKBONES:0:70:70:100:100:110:200]
 which causes Extremely Low:Low:Low:Average:Average:Very High:Extremely High.
It also seems as though I can use NONE in some instances, but I haven't been able to figure out whether this is just a general thing, or whether it's just reading it as text. I've tried with alphabetical values as a test, and that didn't really work at all, but did not return an error in the errorlog.

While it's obvious that replicating the values of adjacent slots will cause the one closest to the Average to be the only one used, I'm not exactly sure on how it's doing that.

[Footkerchief]

Hi Toady,

Today, my query relates to BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIERs whose values don't obviously relate to altering sizes.
For example, let's use [BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HIGH_CHEEKBONES:0:70:90:100:110:130:200]

Now, there are seven slots there, equating, basically, to Extremely Low:Very Low:Low:Average:High:Very High:Extremely High.
My first question is, roughly what are the chances of each item occurring? I've populated a lot of test subjects to check, and unsurprisingly Average seems to be pretty common, if I'm doing it right.
My second question is, what bearing on the results does the number associated with it have? Is it some likelihood of the result?

It's probable that the second question will answer this, but I'll ask anyway.
From testing, I've determined that I can do the following:
[BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HIGH_CHEEKBONES:70:70:90:100:110:130:130]
 which causes Very Low:Very Low:Low:Average:High:Very High:Very High
and
[BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HIGH_CHEEKBONES:0:70:70:100:100:110:200]
 which causes Extremely Low:Low:Low:Average:Average:Very High:Extremely High.
It also seems as though I can use NONE in some instances, but I haven't been able to figure out whether this is just a general thing, or whether it's just reading it as text. I've tried with alphabetical values as a test, and that didn't really work at all, but did not return an error in the errorlog.

While it's obvious that replicating the values of adjacent slots will cause the one closest to the Average to be the only one used, I'm not exactly sure on how it's doing that.

Did you see this comment in the dwarf raws?

The seven numbers afterward give a distribution of ranges.  Each interval has an equal chance of occurring.

The wiki page on probability distributions may be illuminating.

In your example, [BP_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HIGH_CHEEKBONES:0:70:90:100:110:130:200], this means that the following intervals are equally likely "buckets" for the modifier to fall into: 0-70, 70-90, 90-100, etc.  Since the intervals near the average (100) are smaller (only spanning 10 rather than 20 or 70) but still equally likely, most of the creatures will be closer to the average than to the extremes.

[3]

On the subject, the appearance modifiers seem to work in a somewhat unusual way - it appears that the "average" is whatever value is inserted in the middle of the range, regardless of what that number actually is. BODY_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HEIGHT:75:95:98:100:102:105:125, for example, is, in terms of description given, essentially exactly the same thing as BODY_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HEIGHT:100:120:123:125:127:130:150 - it's entirely possible to get "short" individuals even when all of the values are above 100.

The only significance of this is that it's difficult to make castes that are obviously shorter or taller than each other - they'll still be different sizes, just described in the same way.

[Untelligent]

Just happened to start browsing the forums and noticed the December Report went up a few minutes ago.

New underground plants will be pressed for oil used for cooking and soap.

That's cool, I don't think we've had any new plants in a long time. Unless you count the underground fungitrees, I guess.

[Nistenf]

I wouldn't get my hopes up too high if I were you; the next release involves a major change to the architecture of the game, so it's probably gonna have the bare minimum of features required to lay the groundwork for future development, while allowing the community to help iron out the (likely numerous) bugs.

What is this architecture change you are talking about?

[MrWiggles]

I wonder if plant extracts like these will also get other uses beside cooking?

Like Olive Oil.

Actually...



Since we're getting some new plant extracts, will the jobs these extra be used for extend to just beyond cooking with these release, or ever?
Olive oil comes to mine, as a plant product that has multiple uses from cooking to cleaning.

Well we see other minable things, like salt anytime soon?

[Neonivek]

Did they even use Olive Oil for cooking? It seems pretty valuable

[Quatch]

We get pottery!! woooo