April 23, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.13 has been released.
News: February 3, 2024: The February '24 Report is up.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
Better get on it, boys.
For reference, each point of Essence or two points of Power put into the Star-Seed nets you one vote. I get one extra vote to be used only in case of a tie, since I was the one who made it first.
I've already put a list of everyone's character sheet here.Also, newbies would have trouble finding that post.
You could probably use that. That's what I do.
That's actually a good point. Stirk, would you mind linking my list to the op? That might be useful for others.
I did that a while ago, in the OP of this thread.
And now I am a hundred posts behind.
I've already put a list of everyone's character sheet here.Also, newbies would have trouble finding that post.
You could probably use that. That's what I do.
Could you put our spheres next to our names inside parentheses? It would be helpful in knowing what spheres our gods have at a glance at least until we get used to them.Spoiler (click to show/hide)Spoiler: Example (click to show/hide)
At what age will the mortal races start off? Medieval stasis? Bronze age? Neolithic age?I'm thinking Neolithic sounds right.
"Acknowledged."
___
Torus World: Izgamlo, Luthus
Sphere System: Nilva, Gai-gen
___
"Correct. A day-night cycle would cost more essence for a torus world than a sphere."
We already went over this point too, you should pay more attention to the discussion, considering it concerns the creation of everything. The consensus was that we can easily create lifeforms that can survive in these environments, and even if you choose not to, the northern and southern portions of this world would be temperate, allowing standard life. Space will also not be an issue, as the planet will be the size of an orbit."Less boring than one sun. Seemingly the only reason for Torus is because a standard system is boring. Therefore judged as more likely to acquire support than a single star. Single star would be preferable. Less waste.""I oppose a Torus. The lack of day and night will result in the sunned side liquefying. Uninhabitable and excessively expensive."While I am interested in multiple planets linked by portals, this would seem to be a flagrant waste of resources, considering the high costs to create multiple planets, and two suns. Why two suns?
"I propose a pair of spherical suns many planets orbiting each, with several Layline Portals naturally connecting them. A mortal would be capable of using a portal to transit between worlds."'Without a day/night cycle, one side will freeze and the other will liquify. Uninhabitable deathworld."My counter-argument to Nilva also applies to what you said. As for your question, the idea was that since not everyone was interested in a day/night cycle, those who wanted it could add moons like the one I proposed over the areas they plan to occupy without bothering those who don't have a need for them with additional costs. So no, they would not move horizontally, only around a specific portion of the planet, and I fail to see how this would make them worthless, considering the arguments I brought up earlier."That is very much acceptable. Considering the basic idea stays the same, I see no reason not to prefer this idea or mine over one another."
"Counter proposal...rather than second body to falsify a growth/shadow cycle...many moons...Orbit in spiral shape around planet...disc shaped, to cast shadow more effectively...but not completely...growth must continue...Here, This is what I propose."I presume the moons are also to move along the toroid? If they don't, this is a terrible idea, as it leaves places without the day-night cycle. If they do, the concept remains the same as in my or Teburshe's suggestions, and I still fail to see which one is superior.""I oppose a Torus. The lack of day and night will result in the sunned side liquefying. Uninhabitable and excessively expensive.""Indeed. Having to devise further constructs, such as the moons here outlined, just to make an idea work at a similar effectiveness to a simpler option, is inefficient and avoidable."
My counter-argument to Nilva also applies to what you said. As for your question, the idea was that since not everyone was interested in a day/night cycle, those who wanted it could add moons like the one I proposed over the areas they plan to occupy without bothering those who don't have a need for them with additional costs. So no, they would not move horizontally, only around a specific portion of the planet, and I fail to see how this would make them worthless, considering the arguments I brought up earlier."That is very much acceptable. Considering the basic idea stays the same, I see no reason not to prefer this idea or mine over one another."
"Counter proposal...rather than second body to falsify a growth/shadow cycle...many moons...Orbit in spiral shape around planet...disc shaped, to cast shadow more effectively...but not completely...growth must continue...Here, This is what I propose."I presume the moons are also to move along the toroid? If they don't, this is a terrible idea, as it leaves places without the day-night cycle. If they do, the concept remains the same as in my or Teburshe's suggestions, and I still fail to see which one is superior.""I oppose a Torus. The lack of day and night will result in the sunned side liquefying. Uninhabitable and excessively expensive.""Indeed. Having to devise further constructs, such as the moons here outlined, just to make an idea work at a similar effectiveness to a simpler option, is inefficient and avoidable."
"I oppose a Torus. The lack of day and night will result in the sunned side liquefying. Uninhabitable and excessively expensive."
"I propose a pair of spherical suns many planets orbiting each, with several Layline Portals naturally connecting them. A mortal would be capable of using a portal to transit between worlds."
