Print

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

[loose nut]

Perhaps a retired fortress could use past performance during sieges (when the player was controlling the fort, say, over the last five or ten years) as a metric for how well it does in subsequent attacks as the world progresses. I don't need the game to simulate every siege on every fort the player isn't playing with that much granularity. Ballpark it, add plus or minus to how well the siege is defended, and that ought to be good enough for game purposes.

[metime00]

Other than the obvious problems with complex machinery that the dwarves wouldn't be able to use and other logistical problems, I think that retiring a fortress sort of defeats the whole "losing is fun and you will lose" mission statement. You're watching a fortress through its rise and fall, it doesn't get to live forever. Just my two cents.

[zwei]

Other than the obvious problems with complex machinery that the dwarves wouldn't be able to use and other logistical problems, I think that retiring a fortress sort of defeats the whole "losing is fun and you will lose" mission statement. You're watching a fortress through its rise and fall, it doesn't get to live forever. Just my two cents.

Think "losing is fun and you will lose" applied to whole kingdoms.

[thvaz]

Other than the obvious problems with complex machinery that the dwarves wouldn't be able to use and other logistical problems, I think that retiring a fortress sort of defeats the whole "losing is fun and you will lose" mission statement. You're watching a fortress through its rise and fall, it doesn't get to live forever. Just my two cents.

"Losing is fun" never was an official motto. And retiring a fortress is not "winning" either. Toady visions plans for a living world. Your impact on this world would be diminished if your greater contribution were abandoned mountain halls.

[Dsarker]

Other than the obvious problems with complex machinery that the dwarves wouldn't be able to use and other logistical problems, I think that retiring a fortress sort of defeats the whole "losing is fun and you will lose" mission statement. You're watching a fortress through its rise and fall, it doesn't get to live forever. Just my two cents.

"Losing is fun" never was an official motto. And retiring a fortress is not "winning" either. Toady visions plans for a living world. Your impact on this world would be diminished if your bigger contribution were abandoned mountain halls.

You call them abandoned mountain halls, I call them a great habitat for monsters.

[stolide]

you would have to have a defence AI that recognised pathing, levers and their functions and the implacations of said functions and so on. something very complex. Know how drawbridges work, were and when to deploy the infantry, deploying marksdorfs, handling the injured. release of pets or war animals and the resetting of said trap. considering, it would take a wile to code and take up some cpu to run, but it is conceivable to get a defence AI for a fortress that wouldnt kill everyone in said fort sometime in future. Only problem is that someone could take such an AI and use it in fortress mode or some such.

Toady could put in some very basic instructions that you could give a dwarf, perhaps just any dwarf through the manager.

Something like "On siege, wait 50 steps, pull lever 11." Lever 11 being the level that seals the fort.

I don't know how hard that would be, but it sounds like it would not be too complicated. If the game allowed said instructions to last after you leave the fort without abandoning it, you could have a fort that would be able to make rudimentary use of whatever nonsense the player builds.

Personally, I would like something like that for the sole purpose of removing some micromanagement. If it were extended with a large list of events to trigger it, and potential actions, you could have a mostly automated fortress.

There are several problems with relying on instructions like that.  First, that requires that the player is very smart and can anticipate every outcome.  For example, the above command would seal the farmers and hunters outside, something the player would know to avoid but the AI wouldn't.  And what if a random tantrum killed the lever?  Or the dwarf that was supposed to pull the lever died?  A fort run by predetermined instructions would be doomed, because even if the instructions were really thoughtful as the situation changed they would make less and less sense.

Likewise, that sort of control lends itself to a lot of exploits and unrealistic behavior.  For example, the player could put all the fort's valuables in a vault, set the dwarves to open the vault to the outside when a bunch of obscure conditions were met, then come back as an adventurer, trigger the conditions, and get rich for nothing.  Or, using a similar trick, get the dwarves to stockpile their equipiment and then seal themselves in small rooms, then come in and get a bunch of experience beating them to death.

If you ask me, a better idea is simply to wait.  Players forts right now rely on a lot of defenses that shouldn't work; literally unstoppable automated defenses, unbreakable walls, magma that never cools and can be easily pumped, small farms that provide infinite food from inside the fortress, ect.  As these things are made more realistic and the siege AI gets smarter, actual fights between soldiers should matter more, and the AI's job becomes easier; it just needs to know where to put the soldiers, a much easier task then knowing when to pull the lever.  And, it won't matter quite so much if the AI screws up the trap portion of the defenses.

I thought about that an hour after I posted. All you need is to have "On siege, activate alert 'indoors'." Which is then followed by what I posted before.

Your principle point still stands though. It would eventually degenerate into uselessness, and have the potential for abuse for adventurers. On that last point though, I do not really see a problem. If the player is going to use out of character knowledge, then they are already exploiting the game. If the player actually wants to build a fort whose sole purpose is to store valuables for an adventurer, that should be their decision.

[darkflagrance]

you would have to have a defence AI that recognised pathing, levers and their functions and the implacations of said functions and so on. something very complex. Know how drawbridges work, were and when to deploy the infantry, deploying marksdorfs, handling the injured. release of pets or war animals and the resetting of said trap. considering, it would take a wile to code and take up some cpu to run, but it is conceivable to get a defence AI for a fortress that wouldnt kill everyone in said fort sometime in future. Only problem is that someone could take such an AI and use it in fortress mode or some such.

Toady could put in some very basic instructions that you could give a dwarf, perhaps just any dwarf through the manager.

Something like "On siege, wait 50 steps, pull lever 11." Lever 11 being the level that seals the fort.

I don't know how hard that would be, but it sounds like it would not be too complicated. If the game allowed said instructions to last after you leave the fort without abandoning it, you could have a fort that would be able to make rudimentary use of whatever nonsense the player builds.

Personally, I would like something like that for the sole purpose of removing some micromanagement. If it were extended with a large list of events to trigger it, and potential actions, you could have a mostly automated fortress.

There are several problems with relying on instructions like that.  First, that requires that the player is very smart and can anticipate every outcome.  For example, the above command would seal the farmers and hunters outside, something the player would know to avoid but the AI wouldn't.  And what if a random tantrum killed the lever?  Or the dwarf that was supposed to pull the lever died?  A fort run by predetermined instructions would be doomed, because even if the instructions were really thoughtful as the situation changed they would make less and less sense.

Likewise, that sort of control lends itself to a lot of exploits and unrealistic behavior.  For example, the player could put all the fort's valuables in a vault, set the dwarves to open the vault to the outside when a bunch of obscure conditions were met, then come back as an adventurer, trigger the conditions, and get rich for nothing.  Or, using a similar trick, get the dwarves to stockpile their equipiment and then seal themselves in small rooms, then come in and get a bunch of experience beating them to death.

If you ask me, a better idea is simply to wait.  Players forts right now rely on a lot of defenses that shouldn't work; literally unstoppable automated defenses, unbreakable walls, magma that never cools and can be easily pumped, small farms that provide infinite food from inside the fortress, ect.  As these things are made more realistic and the siege AI gets smarter, actual fights between soldiers should matter more, and the AI's job becomes easier; it just needs to know where to put the soldiers, a much easier task then knowing when to pull the lever.  And, it won't matter quite so much if the AI screws up the trap portion of the defenses.

I thought about that an hour after I posted. All you need is to have "On siege, activate alert 'indoors'." Which is then followed by what I posted before.

Your principle point still stands though. It would eventually degenerate into uselessness, and have the potential for abuse for adventurers. On that last point though, I do not really see a problem. If the player is going to use out of character knowledge, then they are already exploiting the game. If the player actually wants to build a fort whose sole purpose is to store valuables for an adventurer, that should be their decision.

The adventurer can fulfill the obscure conditions required to access the loot because he is a "chosen one" selected by the gods to receive the riches of the kingdom.

I don't see the need for a complex fortress defense AI except when a battle actually takes place on a fortress that a player does not currently rule, such as an enemy or npc dwarf fortress.

[Neonivek]

Dang it Toady!

We get that sometimes a release takes longer, it only means that more went into it.

Don't be so hard on yourself (or appologetic to the fanbase)

[G-Flex]

He'd probably feel less a need to be apologetic if people didn't freak out whenever he goes two days without an update.

[Neonivek]

He'd probably feel less a need to be apologetic if people didn't freak out whenever he goes two days without an update.

WHAT!?! two more days?

Ok, just kidding. Yeah I guess yeah that is a problem.

[Dae]

He'd probably feel less a need to be apologetic if people didn't freak out whenever he goes two days without an update.

I'm not freaking out ! I just need my fix ! My good, so good fix of goodly dev log goodies...

[Dradym]

i have to admit i was a lil worried about what was going on, but i realize its because i care about this game, and want to see it develop.  like this is toady's baby and we all are the grandparents...yeah that metaphor isnt really perfect, but im tired, its late.

anyways, keep up the good work, and cant wait til the new version is up, no matter how long it takes.

also, i dunno it this is answered somewhere: any chance a fully customizable dwarf description is in the works? basically for adventure mode, but maybe for special dwarfs in dwarf mode? it would be nice to model a dwarf after my looks and/or personality, or others that "sponsor" a dwarf in my fortress.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

i don't expect to see that in fortress mode... in adventure mode it might make more sense, though

[DG]

it would be nice to model a dwarf after my looks and/or personality, or others that "sponsor" a dwarf in my fortress.

You're approaching this from the wrong angle. Don't remake the dwarves in your image, remake yourself in theirs. Save on razors.

[zwei]

it would be nice to model a dwarf after my looks and/or personality, or others that "sponsor" a dwarf in my fortress.

You're approaching this from the wrong angle. Don't remake the dwarves in your image, remake yourself in theirs. Save on razors.

Also, make sure your model dwarf never, ever, ever gets into combat.

Missing extremities may require razors on your part anyway.