Print

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

Yes

No

Needs some work

[Camper2490]

We all know that things can get dull when there's no expansion to be done, or if jobs are taking to long to get done. So the ability to select a dwarf and personally perform a task would be an excellent way to get things done or simply pass the time. I'm sure that we've all thought this at one point or another and I apologize if this idea has already been posted and shot down. Now as well as being able to simply perform tasks around the fort here are some other features that should be considered:
-The ability to choose the design crafts, down to embellishment and the type of craft itself.
-Being able to choose elements of an engraving (images and events) or even carve lines of text (which would be of great use in a succession game)
-Socialization and possibly social minigames/conversation strings for consoling angry dwarves or haggling with merchants (Maybe even convince an elf to take wood if you're that good)

Concerning balance, the ability to jump from dwarf to dwarf would be quite overpowered as bouncing from legendary dwarf to legendary dwarf would make achieving normally difficult goals easy. The solution to this would be to make it only possible to control one dwarf, and only be able to switch to another dwarf after a set amount of time (Say a year). Considering that most succession games take year turns and that some games like to name a dwarf in their honor, a yearly switch capability would be fitting. Selecting your dwarf for the year could be assigned in nobles and administrators, perhaps under the title of overseer or minister of growth or some title as such.

The switch between direct control mode and overview mode (Standard Fort mode screen) would be accomplished by interacting with the chair in your overseer's office, while just taking control should be possible through V selection. The loss of the overseer should also hold some sort of consequence to gameplay as follows:
-The requirement for all tasks and designations to be validated by the overseer
-Random crafting orders from the mayor or other nobles being put into production
-The inability to revoke production orders once they have begun

The loss of the overseer should however make it possible to appoint an emergency overseer until the end of the year, at which point a new one can be chosen.

I really hope you guys like my idea, and thank you for your time reading this.

[Dae]

The thing was discussed already, with countless allusions to the link between DF and Dungeon Keeper.

I don't think the main interest of dwarf controlling would be speeding things up. If it was, the gane would reward you to play one single dwarf. For code homogeneity, it would probably use the adventurer system framework, so it'd be turn-by-turn. That would mean a whole new level of frustrating micromanaging.
Plus you'd have an unfair advantage over other dwarves concerning hauling. A fortress dwarf can carry one object for one hauling job at a time, whereas an adventurer would be able to at least TRY to haul more than that.
Also, minigames aren't really in the DF spirit... I mean, a poem generator has been talked about, a conversation overhaul is bound to happen.

What I think is interesting in this suggestion is the ability to choose what to engrave and precisely what to craft. But with that said, controlling a dwarf isn't the only way to do this, there would be a simpler one : make a more precise production order.
That leaves us with the ability to control a dwarf in battle or in emergency situation, which would still be nice. But there are other design considerations : in fortress mode, we're supposed to be a sort of collective mind, whose suggestion ultimately manifest in orders being given by some dwarf. Controlling a dwarf means he won't have any individuality during that time, and I'm not sure that makes sense.

On another page, I highly support the idea of negative consequences to the loss of any ranked or noble dwarf and your sub-suggestion is in that very good.

[Camper2490]

Your point on using a direct control dwarf as a pack mule is a good point, this would have give this dwarf an advantage among other dwarves. However I have noted that in game each dwarf has a "Hauled" inventory slot, which is what limits their hauling capacity. If the controlled dwarf were to have a backpack they could use, the putting of an object in their backpack would assign ownership as I've noticed (at least in previous versions) on the rations of military dwarves. So a haul option rather than a pick up option would solve this first problem you've stated. As for the issue of time passage, a slowed but constantly flowing time in this option (unless paused) would probably be possible. Also, when I said minigame I really meant something along the lines of a conversation tree where various replies and statements led to different results, and higher social skills allowing more options (Think fallout's conversation system). Your individuality statement also is an excellent point but I believe that a dwarves physical stats and preferences would have an effect on his or her mood none the less, which would still affect gameplay.

My base idea in itself is very incomplete and has holes I realize, and I hope that you and the other readers can help refine this into something worthy of being looked at by the dev team. Also thank you for your input Dae.

[Wimopy]

Well, Dae said almost the things I wanted to say, so I'll just skip those.

The idea is, obviously, something worth thinking over, although I'm sure it has been mentioned thousands of times.
In itself, it could be done and that isn't the main problem, but the time frame. A slowed real time frame does sound optimal, but even so, if you take control of that one dwarf during a siege, you could only read the usual "material bolt misses you" over and over against rangers, with an even lower chance of thinking which way to move, compared to the turn-based version. I know 'a'ttacking would pause the game, so I think that isn't a problem, also, pulling the defence lever yourself could become easier to time.

About moody dwarves: No control, just like trying to order them around in normal fortress mode, for obvious reasons. If Armok, a force or something else controls it, the player can't have more power.

I'd vote for combat-only and maybe argument-settling like you said it, otherwise I see no potential use. (Except for intelligence when hauling or building, but where's the !!FUN!! in that?)

[Camper2490]

No control of moody dwarves goes without saying, and the whole heckticness of no time to think in combat might appeal to a player who want's to lead a charge. Your point on projectile messages is a good point as well, and message filtering would be useful in adventure mode and in my purposed direct control. This of course raises the problem of knowing your squadmates status, so some sort of squad leader side bar would be a good idea for adventure and this mode again. As for your point on fun, I would like to bring up the incident at Boatmurdered where one of the legendary dwarves went on a killing spree on fire. Wouldn't doing that be double fun?

[Robosaur]

This idea is PERFECT and sounds exactly like the kind of thing Toady would implement.

[Camper2490]

I wouldn't say it's perfect, lets refine this people.

[Robosaur]

I'm not really sure how "overpowered" it would be to instantly switch to a dwarf. If it does come up that it makes the game too easy being able to control a legendary dwarf, perhaps we'd need more monsters!

[peskyninja]

-The ability to choose the design crafts, down to embellishment and the type of craft itself.
-Being able to choose elements of an engraving (images and events) or even carve lines of text (which would be of great use in a succession game)
-Socialization and possibly social minigames/conversation strings for consoling angry dwarves or haggling with merchants (Maybe even convince an elf to take wood if you're that good)

i support the idea but the quoted part will present the players with an gamebreaking feature :HUGE MOTHAFUCKING LISTS!

[Camper2490]

Then to avoid the potential to make something more complex then planepacked, some sort of limit depending on the dwarves skill would be a good idea.

[Kattaroten]

I think i heard toady say somewhere, probably in a podcast, that he wont be adding this... It kinda sucks thought.

[Camper2490]

I think i heard toady say somewhere, probably in a podcast, that he wont be adding this... It kinda sucks thought.

Yet he plans digging and building and farming and other fort activities in adventure mode. Sure digging a hole for the night minecraft style would be useful, but I almost get the feeling that he's laying the groundwork for something like this as well.

[Dae]

It could be used as this, but that doesn't mean it will. IIRC, Toady's take on fortress is that every dwarf has his personnality and his life going on. It's part of the design to let them have individuality. What will happen to them once you control them ? How will it make sense regarding their normal behaviour ?

I'm not saying it's impossible that it gets in at some point. Maybe Toady will change his mind about controlling someone who had a life before when, for example, your adventurer is taken from the population and not just spawned. But switching from dwarf to dwarf, how do you explain it ? Perhaps when you try to do something, the dwarf has the possibility to deny you the possibility because he wouldn't do that, doesn't know how, is too afraid, hasn't got the right job on. Perhaps at the first thing you try to do that the dwarf wouldn't do, you'd be rejected out of his body.

[Camper2490]

It could be used as this, but that doesn't mean it will. IIRC, Toady's take on fortress is that every dwarf has his personnality and his life going on. It's part of the design to let them have individuality. What will happen to them once you control them ? How will it make sense regarding their normal behaviour ?

I'm not saying it's impossible that it gets in at some point. Maybe Toady will change his mind about controlling someone who had a life before when, for example, your adventurer is taken from the population and not just spawned. But switching from dwarf to dwarf, how do you explain it ? Perhaps when you try to do something, the dwarf has the possibility to deny you the possibility because he wouldn't do that, doesn't know how, is too afraid, hasn't got the right job on. Perhaps at the first thing you try to do that the dwarf wouldn't do, you'd be rejected out of his body.

It'd kinda be like the sims.