Print

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

[Audioworm333]

My idea is an "assume control" thing like in Arena mode. Like, for example Urist McStupid is hauling socks when he's supposed to be chopping trees. Thus, you can assume control of him and cut the tree for him. Or assume control of Urist McMayor and talk to Dwarves, asking them things like "How do you think the fortress could be improved?" Or take control of Urist McChampion and slaughter that Elf caravan.

[ungulateman]

Doesn't this sort of defeat the purpose of playing Dwarf Fortress? Half the fun is that you give out orders and the dwarves bumble around to complete them, not you directly controlling them.

[Ø]

I think this could be most useful in combat, however, this would be MUCH slower than automated dwarves as it would run STEP BY STEP for your input like adventure mode.

Issuing direct orders to individual dwarves I would prefer over direct control, but then there's the whole 'does that break the spirit of the game?'

[ungulateman]

Step-by-step Adventure mode runs significantly slower than Dwarf Fortress, though, by a factor of several hundred (I don't have the specifics on me). You could end up with some serious temporal shit going down.

[Rowanas]

I'm pretty sure this has been suggested a thousand times, but my weak search fu is turning up nothing.

[ZebioLizard2]

So you would be like harbringer in dwaASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL!

Would be interesting, but there should be a limit. Maybe instead of possessing random dwarves at will. You could only possess a certain one. Maybe the "champion" that the baron picks. Or a dwarf specifically bred to be blind/deaf/dumb until the "god" chooses to enter. Could be tied to religion.

[Shade-o]

Well, Fort Mode is Armok influencing a city and Adventure is Armok influencing an individual, so it would be neat if you could switch between the two in Fort Mode.

[Riversand]

If i recall correctly, Dwarf mode and Adventure mode will at some point mesh into each-other, with a fluid transition. But it's only what I'm remembering at the moment, could be totally bogus for all i know.

[Audioworm333]

Well thanks for the constructive criticism and maybe not-so-constructive criticism. Of course, yes, this WOULD have limits. Like, you couldn't assume control of insane Dwarves or Dwarves in a strange mood, for example.

[KaguroDraven]

So you would be like harbringer in dwaASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL!

Would be interesting, but there should be a limit. Maybe instead of possessing random dwarves at will. You could only possess a certain one. Maybe the "champion" that the baron picks. Or a dwarf specifically bred to be blind/deaf/dumb until the "god" chooses to enter. Could be tied to religion.

I know this hurts you elves

[Yaddy1]

So you would be like harbringer in dwaASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL!

Would be interesting, but there should be a limit. Maybe instead of possessing random dwarves at will. You could only possess a certain one. Maybe the "champion" that the baron picks. Or a dwarf specifically bred to be blind/deaf/dumb until the "god" chooses to enter. Could be tied to religion.

I like this idea. Would make nobles useful and be interesting.

[Max White]

Dungeon Keeper 3, now with ASCII Graphics.

[Riversand]

Dungeon Keeper 3, now with ASCII Graphics.

there is actually a mod that is dungeon keeper style. not sure where though at the moment, but it is in 'Genesis mod' i think. playable civ even

[i2amroy]

Not to burst anybody's bubble, but after searching for a while I managed to find some of Toady's responses to questions similar to this one and I managed to piece together a sort of "don't really like this idea maybe something else like it might work" from his other answers.

To quote him, "Manually ordering a dwarf to perform a specific series of actions that can't be presaged in the raws/code might be the only way to save your fort and might be a reasonably orderable action made by some official, but that kind of power can degrade the atmosphere we want to build.  It's going to depend on the specific cases, but for the sake of guiding discussion on a wide range of future topics, I think it's best that the player feels that a dwarf's autonomy is being respected.  The thing that makes dwarf mode not strictly a hands-off simulation is that you are allowed to compromise dwarves' autonomy if they hold fortress positions, to the extent that you are selecting actions that fall within their position's purview.  If an order typically makes it feel like the dwarves are being controlled like marionettes, forced to do things against their will, etc., the order should probably be altered or removed.  Presently, there are a ton of things that dwarves don't care about that they should care about, but this is the overall idea."

Now I don't want to speak for him, and if anyone else is getting a different message, then feel free to correct me. But that is the message that I'm getting out of it.

[ZebioLizard2]

That is why I spoke of a dwarf specifically bred to be blind/deaf/dumb. Rather like how the "oracles" Work in Dominions 3 (for those that do not know, they are fountains that possess young girls specifically blinded and muted for them, then they are killed at a certain age and can use them to forge and the like)

Instead of a specific dwarven autonomy being compromised, it would be one possibly tied through religion who would make the child unable to work by blinding/deafening/dumbing/muting him, and that child would be the host for you, till his eventual death. He would be essentially be a prospect of the "gods" voice (you)