v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.
Difference between revisions of "v0.31 Talk:Thought"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:Also, there are some ''very strange'' unhappy thoughts in that string dump. Gems such as: "has been attacked by a dead and still annoying acquaintance lately" and "had a terrifying nightmare about an army of the dead." I've never seen these, even in some terrifying fortresses. I don't think theres an reason to include everything in the string dump in these lists.[[User:Garanis|Garanis]] 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | :Also, there are some ''very strange'' unhappy thoughts in that string dump. Gems such as: "has been attacked by a dead and still annoying acquaintance lately" and "had a terrifying nightmare about an army of the dead." I've never seen these, even in some terrifying fortresses. I don't think theres an reason to include everything in the string dump in these lists.[[User:Garanis|Garanis]] 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
::"By observation" is not a recommended nor perfectly reliable approach, especially not without independent confirmation. Adding "something" to a blank page is, actually, ''not'' better than if it's flawed and misleading, not for the newbie who's relying on it for their information. And I did fix it - I deleted it. And just now I fixed what you put in its place. <br />As for unusual thoughts, the wiki doesn't care so much what one individual has or hasn't seen, it only cares about what is useful to the community - and that's up to the users. I was just tossing it out as a suggestion. (And how many "terrifying fortresses" have you had so far in the new version? nm - rhetorical question - but one that leads us back to "independent confirmation", or the lack of it.) --[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | ::"By observation" is not a recommended nor perfectly reliable approach, especially not without independent confirmation. Adding "something" to a blank page is, actually, ''not'' better than if it's flawed and misleading, not for the newbie who's relying on it for their information. And I did fix it - I deleted it. And just now I fixed what you put in its place. <br />As for unusual thoughts, the wiki doesn't care so much what one individual has or hasn't seen, it only cares about what is useful to the community - and that's up to the users. I was just tossing it out as a suggestion. (And how many "terrifying fortresses" have you had so far in the new version? nm - rhetorical question - but one that leads us back to "independent confirmation", or the lack of it.) --[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::Regardless of the semantic issues, the way dwarves handle thirst, hunger, and fatigue has changed. Unlike 40d, dwarves now wait to fulfill their needs. This fact should be represented somewhere. Maybe [[Thought]] isn't the best place for it. Should I wait for someone to independently verify that dwarves need food before I go start that article? Where is the best place to ask for independent verification? | ||
Well I do remember something in the dev plans about bringing back the old zombie attacks from the 2D version, I think that will be part of whatever he has planned, and that first thought was hilarious [[Special:Contributions/24.255.86.193|24.255.86.193]] | Well I do remember something in the dev plans about bringing back the old zombie attacks from the 2D version, I think that will be part of whatever he has planned, and that first thought was hilarious [[Special:Contributions/24.255.86.193|24.255.86.193]] | ||
Revision as of 21:53, 6 April 2010
Effects of Thoughts
As of DF2010, some negative thoughts make the dwarf work much more slowly. The dwarf will continue to work for a time, presumably until the negative thought becomes unbearable, and then will go attempt to resolve the thought by eating, sleeping, drinking, or some other action.
Um... no. The thoughts do not cause the dwarf to slow down - the thoughts are a result of the pre-existing status, which is what both slows them down and causes the thought. That is, they get hungry or tired or whatever, and then they both slow down and have the bad thought about the cause. This is like saying that if a dwarf has a bad thought about losing their foot to magma, the bad thought is what burned their foot off.--Albedo 20:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm. I was just going by observation... I hadn't even seen this string dump business. I saw there was no new article, and sought to get one started. Also, why not fix the mistake instead of making nice big comments detailing the error on the talk pages for both me and the article? Garanis 21:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also, there are some very strange unhappy thoughts in that string dump. Gems such as: "has been attacked by a dead and still annoying acquaintance lately" and "had a terrifying nightmare about an army of the dead." I've never seen these, even in some terrifying fortresses. I don't think theres an reason to include everything in the string dump in these lists.Garanis 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- "By observation" is not a recommended nor perfectly reliable approach, especially not without independent confirmation. Adding "something" to a blank page is, actually, not better than if it's flawed and misleading, not for the newbie who's relying on it for their information. And I did fix it - I deleted it. And just now I fixed what you put in its place.
As for unusual thoughts, the wiki doesn't care so much what one individual has or hasn't seen, it only cares about what is useful to the community - and that's up to the users. I was just tossing it out as a suggestion. (And how many "terrifying fortresses" have you had so far in the new version? nm - rhetorical question - but one that leads us back to "independent confirmation", or the lack of it.) --Albedo 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- "By observation" is not a recommended nor perfectly reliable approach, especially not without independent confirmation. Adding "something" to a blank page is, actually, not better than if it's flawed and misleading, not for the newbie who's relying on it for their information. And I did fix it - I deleted it. And just now I fixed what you put in its place.
- Regardless of the semantic issues, the way dwarves handle thirst, hunger, and fatigue has changed. Unlike 40d, dwarves now wait to fulfill their needs. This fact should be represented somewhere. Maybe Thought isn't the best place for it. Should I wait for someone to independently verify that dwarves need food before I go start that article? Where is the best place to ask for independent verification?
Well I do remember something in the dev plans about bringing back the old zombie attacks from the 2D version, I think that will be part of whatever he has planned, and that first thought was hilarious 24.255.86.193