Quote from: FantasticDorf

So... if i flooded my civilization with elven propaganda redistributed by a trained scribe id probably have a lot of animal people turn up into the civ (not nessecarily fort, unless somehow it prompts a lot of sanctuary petitions) within 200 years? Neat. Elsewise its just something to configure with in modding in mind.



Doesn't seem to affect generated animalpeople all that much, you often have (suprisingly often carnivorous, i wonder if there's a connection) -people like saltwater crocodile men appear around dark towers, though that might be due to goblins being free to settle and border those regions.



Quote from: prawn

Any plans to implement martial arts/body enhancing magical tags? I.e. bone enhancing, skin hardening, super speed? If so, would these spells be passed down in monasteries or kept down on paper?



Quote

Quote from: Shonai_Dweller While conversation may be a safer option than beating someone into submission, will excessive enquiring raise suspicion and eventual retaliation from villains too?

Quote from: ZM5 Will adventurers get a negative reputation for accosting people too much with intimidation for no reason?



On that subject, will villains and their agents also get suspicious if they catch wind of the player questioning people around town?



Quote from: therahedwig

Will it be possible for Villains to trick someone into performing tasks for them? So for example, a villain histfig asking the player to bring artifact a to point b, without the player knowing the whole thing is sorta illegal? Or do you think that's going to have to wait till a later release?



Quote from: Asi Kom, Legendary Scribe

Will we be able to send out our own spies to neighboring civilizations in order to gather information about other civs and their intentions in fortress mode? Not in an aggressive manner I mean, but in a "I like to know what's going on to keep the peace" kind of way



Quote from: Death Dragon

"Bribes, reputation, presented evidence and the new relationship variables 'loyalty', 'trust/distrust', 'fear', 'love/hate', and 'respect' are all in the mix."

1 Does the player have any way to change the 'loyalty', 'trust/distrust', 'fear', 'love/hate', 'respect' values an NPC has to them or are we stuck with the default values? I could see it be possible to increase the fear and maybe respect values, but what about the other stuff?

2 Would reciting a poem exceptionally well make an NPC respect us more and thus more likely to share secret information with us?

3 Will we be able to use coins to bribe people even though there is no economy?

4 If we are able to bribe people with money, will this money then be added to that hist fig's "account" or are the accounts still just world gen only for now?



Quote from: squamous

1. Given that vampires will be getting such an overhaul come next update, can we expect something like being able to ask for/demand blood and gain it in a non-violent/non-lethal fashion, or will NPCs continue to be murderous? On that note, is there a way to create vampires which need to feed on blood, but don't have the BLOODSUCKER tag? I've tried experimenting with just using [CE:COUNTER_TRIGGER:DRINKING_BLOOD:1:NONE:REQUIRED] but it didn't seem to work.

2. I've noticed that sometimes when I put an adventurer in cities, they'll run into asterisks which will turn out to be things like crocodiles and cave dragons in the streets. Are these LARGE_PREDATOR type animals conducting raids on the town or do they live in the sewers or something and come out to cause mischief?



Quote

Quote from: Enemy post What happens if a necromancer tries to incorporate a modded creature with custom bodyparts into one of their hybrid creatures?

Quote from: voliol I guess it is interesting that the word "humanoid" is used. Are the "humanoid" necromancer experiments actually humanoids, made from any captured creature with the right body plan (uses one of the HUMANOID body tokens, or has the right amount of stance/grasp parts), including livestock that do? Or is it just a shorthand for an INTELLIGENT/CAN_LEARN creature, in which case "humanoid" experiments from snakeman and centaur civilizations would not end up truly humanoid?



Quote from: Bydth

Will the activities of a player fort influence its post-retire activities, such as a fort with a powerhouse glass industry continuing to export glass objects? Will forts that produced lots of high-quality weapons and armor give equipment level bonuses to armies/mercenary groups recruited/based in that fort?



Quote from: Buttery_Mess

For the Myth & Magic arc, would I be correct in thinking that spheres will be the underlying general mechanic behind magic under which procedurally generated world-specific systems operate, rather than being an esoteric world-specific system in its own right?



Do you conceive of magical effects combining spheres, or will reach magical effect require only one sphere to use? For instance, would you need to or be able to combine a fire and a telekinetic sphere 8n order to cast a fireball spell (i.e one sphere to make the fire, another to move it)?



Will every game object be attached to a sphere and vice versa, for mechanical purposes? I'm thinking of elemental rock-paper-scissors, so you could smash a stone forgotten beast with a water effect but not a lightning effect, for instance. With so many spheres and game objects/actors, would this be impractical or would it simplify working out how magical effects interact with the world?



To what extent do you already have satisfactory physical processes implemented in the game for marrying up to spell effects? For example, fire, heat, etc.



Is there a possibility that the Myth and Magic release will lead to the inclusion of ambient light levels in fort mode? Light and darkness are such important fantasy staples that it would seem like a missed opportunity for them to not be included.



Quote from: Buttery_Mess

What if you want to raise a dismembered corpse as a lieutenant? Can you raise an intelligent undead from both a severed head and its headless body? Would they share a soul or have two separate new souls, or is this just not possible?



For that matter, could you raise your own severed hand, for instance, as an intelligent undead? If your original body was then decapitated, could your severed hand then raise your body and head? This is assuming that the raised parts retain knowledge of life and death.



Is there already a mechanism in place for different bodies sharing a soul, and if not, do you plan to implement it? Either in the short term, or as part of Myth and Magic, do you intend to implement a mechanism whereby souls can be copied or cloned, so that they retain the original's memories and personality but thereafter grow and change as individuals?



Quote from: Shonai_Dweller

I forget if it was asked before, but if you play your adventurer as a villain and indulge in bribary, kidnapping and general intimidation, what happens on retire? Does the adventurer revert to whatever their standard values and goals were (and therefore possibly quit being villainous altogether), or will they remember that they have a gang and carry on being bad, possibly even expanding their networks?



Is it possible to end up having to track down your ex-adventurers and will they start leaving evidence all over the place for you to follow? Or is the system not going to be that robust just yet



Quote from: Buttery_Mess

Will we be able to use physical coercion and fear in lieu of intimidation checks? Such as, say, breaking fingers, or slaughtering all their mates in front of them? Does reputation count in intimidation checks? What about physical size and brawniness?



Quote from: Shonai_Dweller

Another question about alliances, as I realised the second part of my question on them back in May wasn't clarified (answer focused on who people would form alliances against).



Which civs will form alliances with each other? And, for modding reference, how is this determined? Does it take into account Babysnatcher/Item_Thief tags, current states of war, ethics?

I play with a mod which uses these tags to divide up the many different civs in my world so would be nice to know who's likely to be teaming up when the zombie apocalypse strikes.



Quote from: Broms

A question about these "accounts" historical figures and mercenary groups and the like have now. Are there any plans to incorporate those into fortress mode? If so, would there be an option to "pay coin" to a mercenary company to assassinate or capture someone?



The pop joining has never worked post w.g. generally, as far as I remember, so it wouldn't work yet.Shonai_Dweller: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8032986#msg8032986 Ha, yeah, we're not sure timeline-wise, but it might just be another spell-casting method as far as the generator is concerned, and some of our earlier examples worked that way, so I wouldn't be surprised. Once stuff like that goes in, the options for how it is passed down would cover the same breadth as other types.MrWiggles: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8034157#msg8034157 Shonai_Dweller (op): http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8034401#msg8034401 Yeah, even non-violent options can lead back to you, but it might be slower, or not happen at all, if you are effective. It all depends on the kind of rumor that is generated - if you learn something, and no rumor is generated, it won't go up the chain, but non-intimidation can still generate rumors sometimes. For instance, if you ask a question and fail a persuasion check, you are now, possibly, "asking questions."And for negative reputation, yeah, being a bully is a thing, though we want to be a little careful about context if we can. As you say, the "no reason" cases are worse, and we need to catch those (similar to arresting anybody you want in fort mode.)I don't think that sort of thing will happen yet. All of the villain asks are pretty clear-cut in terms of whether they'd be illegal or not.PatrikLundell: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8034831#msg8034831 Yeah, it's not 100% settled even at this point where the investigation infrastructure will end up, and how extensive off-site investigations will need to be. But in order to get up the villain chains, you'll need to have some non-hostile off-site options, and allowing mid-level figures like barons to have "keeper of the seal" position-led espionage/counter-espionage operations is also becoming more proper, given the world gen structures we have. So we have some options, and it'll be led by what ends up being the most core and fun and doable for countering what the villains do in the forts.For adventure mode, yeah, these values are all subject to change, between the NPC and your adventurer, and it is important to change them to advance an interrogation/etc. Actions like flattery can increase trust but decrease respect, for example, depending on the personality of the NPC. Coins are on the table, though yeah, the relationship between "account" and real coins is an iffy one currently and will likely be very weird -- accounts *do* work post w.g., for the various villainly plots, but they don't automatically get turned into a giant coin sack. I'm not sure about poems, ha ha -- of course they should be, for certain NPCs, but it'll take us a while to hit all the rep change points/etc.For fort mode of course, it's more complicated since there are all sorts of people running around, and we're still seeing how that'll turn out.Untrustedlife: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8037842#msg8037842 squamous (op): http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8037904#msg8037904 Untrustedlife: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8038288#msg8038288 Like, vampires in the fort? I'm not sure we'll get to immortality pacts etc. happening right in your fort, though they are still on the table and we have the framework for it now because of the w.g. work on them. The BLOODSUCKER tag is one of those annoying tags that has bundled in too much logic. I'm not sure when I'll get a chance, but it should be broken up.Ha ha, I have no idea about these predators... there are the named historical animals, and it might not be putting them back in their sewer homes correctly, because of their historical status? That seems possible, but bugs can do all sorts of things, and yeah, as Untrustedlife says, depending on exactly what it was doing, it might have wandered from a nearby predator lair - this would be the least buggy option; it's only somewhat inappropriate because the game doesn't yet recognize that the predator being in a town would be more of an event.Shonai_Dweller: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8038410#msg8038410 voliol: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8038465#msg8038465 Yeah, generally people should not get too enthusiastic about the exact composition of the experiments -- we have not remotely attempted the "centaur" or other problems yet. Those will require much more dedicated work than what we threw together here. So the system can handle whatever, but it won't be super reflective of what you give it.'Humanoids' require two stance points and also learns, I think? It allows wiggle room on the number of graspers and legs in the input, but the output is humanoid in shape, for the smart ones. So there's some leaning on 'learns' and the body plan, in the most boring possible way. It won't generally try to make intelligent creatures with interesting body plans. DF has been bad at dealing with fliers and those without grasps etc., when trying to incorporate them into civs and especially forts. We'll have to tackle that later when it comes up as a more core issue (the weird myth slider worlds seems like a good candidate time, but we'll have to see.)Bumber: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8039058#msg8039058 Yeah, as Bumber says, the later economy additions will help. We just don't have enough infrastructure to quantify that stuff now -- post w.g. sites of all kinds don't have economies/production at all, so there's nothing to do yet.PatrikLundell: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8039627#msg8039627 voliol: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8039701#msg8039701 Yeah, the spheres are basically just a recognition that there are real world or real worldish concepts the game needs to understand as primitives, and that these can be mashed up with myths in various satisfying ways (a more advanced version of the way that spheres are used for the deities' domains currently.) They aren't their own esoteric magic system.Combinations/attachments are complicated, because, as concept place-holders, a sphere could be introduced to cover any case, and we already see this -- some existing systems in other games see magma for instance as a "fire + earth" effect, where we could do that or just use the existing volcano sphere, or even add a new magma sphere (that's certainly a fair enough domain for a deity - specificity has never been an issue with the real world deity domains, but we do want to keep a somewhat manageable list of concepts.) We'll likely have to deal with multiple cases that produce the same effects. This is good in the end, because it allows us to have more diverse underpinnings to our systems. 50 different ways to produce a fireball would be a great thing, among different generated settings (and many settings without fireballs, naturally.) Some of our systems in side projects/planning notes have been very fiddly, where the fire + telekinetic etc. component was specified down to a ~5 step process requiring multiple skills (we set up Tales Foretold this way intentionally, with the typical spells being the hardest to pull off, with some odder effects as the base ones), etc., whereas others were just like "fireball." This is all fine as long as it fits with the myths etc., and works with a friendly enough interface/implementation etc.The players can judge as well as I where we already have satisfactory processes. Obviously we are farther along with heat and fire and water than we are with, say, electricity. Or light/darkness, as you mention. There are enough missing basic systems that I'm not going to be able to promise one over the other at this point.Untrustedlife: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8041302#msg8041302 Shonai_Dweller: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8041346#msg8041346 Untrustedlife: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8041348#msg8041348 The lieutenants require the 'fit for resurrection' style bodies, so they need to be more intact, and there shouldn't be issues with having shared souls. Though we start to get into weird situations at some point with limb regrowth and all that, perhaps, at some point. We might still be safe unless two central body parts (like the upper body) can be created. And once we recognize the head as somehow being 'more' important than the body (due to brains, etc.), then we'll be back in trouble again, ha ha. But at least it is harder to do by accident.We haven't done anything for the short term, but copying souls would be fairly straightforward. Doing a shared soul in two different bodies is more difficult, in terms of how goals and things work. This is something that needs to be tackled in the deity-avatar sense, for those kinds of situations, and there are various ways to go about it. Sometimes the multiple avatars don't know they are both aspects of the same deity (or whatever), but that's not the hard case. Actually having goal structures etc. that are cohabitating with a shared skill/etc. set probably requires splitting the soul into pieces. Which we were more-or-less planning to do, for metaphysical reasons as much as anything - even without the multi/sharing setups, having spells that can pop out and move about soul chunks is fun. However, there isn't a canonical way to systematize soul chunks. The best we can probably do is break them into the smallest coherent pieces we can think of, and then have an artificial structure living on top of that that groups them this way one time, this way another. So in one universe you might have (personality-skills) + (memories), and another might have (personality-memories) + (skills), in two different "two soul chunk" setups. But we'll see. This might not happen on the first pass if we don't have good mileage to get out of it, compared to some of the big ticket items.I haven't gotten there yet, but given how the data structures work, I think the default behavior is that it will continue. They'll have plots and subordinates (just to get those plots to work), and that'll lead to more activity. The specific plots hang under umbrella plots that encompass larger goals, and once these exist, they aren't eliminated based on value/goal checks or anything. In the longer run, it'd be nice for things to be coherent, and for the game to understand what kind of 'villain' you intend to be (especially since a plot could just be the means to an end in a very specific situation), but currently, I think it assumes you are a lifelong participant in scheming.And then... yeah, i guess investigations of ex-advs might work? All around? That'd be nice. The plots you do yourself, while playing, might not leave the same sort of data (I'm not sure yet, but there will be a lot of overlap), but anything that happens after would be subject to all the same systems.The physical attributes matter, as modifiers for the skill check, but it doesn't use creature-based sizes currently. We'd considered it, and it's mostly appropriate, though it's such a weirdly skill-based game still, in terms of who would win, that it's not entirely proper to do it based on physicality. Hopefully it'll be transparent enough, in any case.There are many types of fear in the game now. We haven't merged them all yet, but we're hoping to get it behaving consistently, in which case, yeah, purely action-based intimidation would work.PlumpHelmetMan: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8044283#msg8044283 Shonai_Dweller (op): http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8044336#msg8044336 voliol: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8044548#msg8044548 Shonai_Dweller (op): http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8044783#msg8044783 EternalCaveDragon: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg8044943#msg8044943 They don't use the babysnatcher etc. tags. They use the kill neutral "required" response, as this is meant to preclude diplomacy. We'd like to get beyond that at some point (they already trade, even if it's supposed to be kinda under the table), but it didn't come up as the alliances were working well already. Only people that don't kill neutrals will ally, and those can all ally, provided they can communicate with each other (intelligent/speaks, not 'utterances'), and they aren't currently warring. I'm not sure if that last bit will stay - it seems to work well enough now, and it's nice to allow war-causing villains to shake things up even in the face of gobs/undead, but the undead snowball is also worth stopping an elf-dwarf war over. I might need to smear that out to some halfway point. But currently, they must be at peace to ally.Not currently. We aren't to the mercenary company vs. fort part yet, and we don't have the fort hiring anybody either, when they can just use squads. Of course, there are reasons you'd want to use somebody else, especially if your fort is wealthy, but we haven't gotten into the economy issues again there.