1
DF Suggestions / Re: Change "Save" in the menu to "Save & Exit"
« on: July 29, 2011, 11:54:46 am »
Make a backup sounds nice, as it implies save-scumming is a work around, not a feature, which is the way I like it.
Bay 12 Games Forum
- April 12, 2024, 09:47:35 pm
- Welcome, Guest
News:
March 6, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.12 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
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
DF Suggestions / Re: Dig and fill
« on: July 11, 2011, 05:27:36 pm »
All I'm going to say is, "Meh." I like it, but it's not all that great of a suggestion.
This idea relies on a lot of additional changes, most importantly in resource management, stockpile control, production, and labor. Let's start, however, on viewing the tasks in the game as game components to figure out how difficult of an idea this is.
Consider that every activity in the game is a process with the outcome as a product. Mining is a process through which one dwarf moves adjacent to a designated square that is beneath a surface layer, and "digs" it out. The product is an open space underground and, if rock is present, a chance that a stone of the appropriate type will appear, based on the skill of the miner. To alter this mechanic to your suggestion, mining is no longer creating an empty space beneath the surface, but converting one block of subterranean material into impassible material of the appropriate type (clay, sand, rock, whatever) that can be hauled. Once these stacks have been moved, they convert to another type of impassible material, coordinating with adjacent stacks of the same type, which uses a brute force calculation that attempts to simulate the piling method, but does not correlate to any existing mechanic within the game.
I won't recant the complaints, but I will say this: As is, it will take too damn long to dig out even the entrance of a fort, long after something bad might happen on an embark. Which, undoubtedly, might lead to some good ol' fashioned, frustrating fun. My complaint, however,
My complaint, however, is how vague the implementation is. It doesn't deal with the ramifications of production, how veins of ore and clusters of gemstones can be better accommodated, channeling etc. If we want realism, we'll get it. Somehow.
Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd rather make the following assumptions to get us where we need to be:
1). A square is an abstract volume. A dragon and a butterfly occupies one space, as does one unit of any material, such as wood, gems, or stones. The only factor that exists, for the purpose of production of underground materials, is weight and value--dimensions aren't important. This will have to be slightly changed:
2). A square is converted into a stack of materials by a miner. A full stack is impassible, but we might want to consider the possibility that smaller creatures can squeeze through x-1 or x-2 (where x is the total size of the stack) stacks, and a dwarf can squeeze through x/2 tall space (or some other arbitrary number, if we assume 7 stacks, then 3 high is the mobile limit for dwarves). This is an abstraction, of course. However, there is a problem: How to deal with ores, large rocks, and gems (for rock layers, should they automatically be crushed into pebbles? Cut into blocks? I think that should be a new designation--I'll explain why later). Or should they occupy space up as one layer? We won't worry about that right now.
3). Movement of stacks will be abstracted for the time being: I see no reason having anything other than bags, perhaps, but not wheelbarrows, draft animals, or mine carts implemented until the time comes that they will be implemented. This suggestion needs to be realistic about that, and cannot have them as a contingency.
4). Mining is therefore a two-part process: A miner's job is to break apart earth or stone, and a hauler moves it. This seems like okay correlation, but it has a problem with task management: Mining will inevitably slow down if there are no haulers, and will find another task to do. That can eat up time. Better yet: These stacks are pushed into adjacent squares until the miner can comfortably reach the next one, and rinse and repeat. This will scatter the stacks, but who cares?
5). Zones will be better suited than stockpiles, as dug up material layers shouldn't count as accountable items, unless it's something worth accounting (gemstones, ores, and large rocks). These stack up to x/2 material layers create a ramp, and up to x to create an earthen wall. Which is good news, because it now allows us to make walls in a much faster capacity: Pack in dirt and other material, which seems more realistic. You can also use soil layers one stack high to create underground farmland or reshape the terrain without actually putting in a construction. It also means that building destroyers can scatter those, which makes siege engines far more realistic.
This, of course, realizes a much more complex game: The question comes, is this worth Toady spending a shitload of time to redo material like this? Can this help in creating multitile trees and affect other areas of production? Right now, the 1:1 material transfer of rocks, wood, and gems is alright, efficient, and useful. The cost of metal is ramped up by requiring more metal bars. With a designation to cut blocks of stone right out of the wall, it returns back to the 1:1 demand from previous, so you can have marble chairs and obsidian doors that aren't made up of smaller rocks, which would otherwise be turned into fill. But again, we create too demand that too much is added into the game, which is exciting, at the expense of managing better hauling teams and coordinating intelligent fill zones. We have to account for what is dug up. Sure, we can create walls, create dams, artificial hills and mounds, and pack it all (either through a [C][v] selection or zone dumping), but it's something else to watch out for. Something that, frankly, I'm not sure is worth the effort.
This idea relies on a lot of additional changes, most importantly in resource management, stockpile control, production, and labor. Let's start, however, on viewing the tasks in the game as game components to figure out how difficult of an idea this is.
Consider that every activity in the game is a process with the outcome as a product. Mining is a process through which one dwarf moves adjacent to a designated square that is beneath a surface layer, and "digs" it out. The product is an open space underground and, if rock is present, a chance that a stone of the appropriate type will appear, based on the skill of the miner. To alter this mechanic to your suggestion, mining is no longer creating an empty space beneath the surface, but converting one block of subterranean material into impassible material of the appropriate type (clay, sand, rock, whatever) that can be hauled. Once these stacks have been moved, they convert to another type of impassible material, coordinating with adjacent stacks of the same type, which uses a brute force calculation that attempts to simulate the piling method, but does not correlate to any existing mechanic within the game.
I won't recant the complaints, but I will say this: As is, it will take too damn long to dig out even the entrance of a fort, long after something bad might happen on an embark. Which, undoubtedly, might lead to some good ol' fashioned, frustrating fun. My complaint, however,
My complaint, however, is how vague the implementation is. It doesn't deal with the ramifications of production, how veins of ore and clusters of gemstones can be better accommodated, channeling etc. If we want realism, we'll get it. Somehow.
Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd rather make the following assumptions to get us where we need to be:
1). A square is an abstract volume. A dragon and a butterfly occupies one space, as does one unit of any material, such as wood, gems, or stones. The only factor that exists, for the purpose of production of underground materials, is weight and value--dimensions aren't important. This will have to be slightly changed:
2). A square is converted into a stack of materials by a miner. A full stack is impassible, but we might want to consider the possibility that smaller creatures can squeeze through x-1 or x-2 (where x is the total size of the stack) stacks, and a dwarf can squeeze through x/2 tall space (or some other arbitrary number, if we assume 7 stacks, then 3 high is the mobile limit for dwarves). This is an abstraction, of course. However, there is a problem: How to deal with ores, large rocks, and gems (for rock layers, should they automatically be crushed into pebbles? Cut into blocks? I think that should be a new designation--I'll explain why later). Or should they occupy space up as one layer? We won't worry about that right now.
3). Movement of stacks will be abstracted for the time being: I see no reason having anything other than bags, perhaps, but not wheelbarrows, draft animals, or mine carts implemented until the time comes that they will be implemented. This suggestion needs to be realistic about that, and cannot have them as a contingency.
4). Mining is therefore a two-part process: A miner's job is to break apart earth or stone, and a hauler moves it. This seems like okay correlation, but it has a problem with task management: Mining will inevitably slow down if there are no haulers, and will find another task to do. That can eat up time. Better yet: These stacks are pushed into adjacent squares until the miner can comfortably reach the next one, and rinse and repeat. This will scatter the stacks, but who cares?
5). Zones will be better suited than stockpiles, as dug up material layers shouldn't count as accountable items, unless it's something worth accounting (gemstones, ores, and large rocks). These stack up to x/2 material layers create a ramp, and up to x to create an earthen wall. Which is good news, because it now allows us to make walls in a much faster capacity: Pack in dirt and other material, which seems more realistic. You can also use soil layers one stack high to create underground farmland or reshape the terrain without actually putting in a construction. It also means that building destroyers can scatter those, which makes siege engines far more realistic.
This, of course, realizes a much more complex game: The question comes, is this worth Toady spending a shitload of time to redo material like this? Can this help in creating multitile trees and affect other areas of production? Right now, the 1:1 material transfer of rocks, wood, and gems is alright, efficient, and useful. The cost of metal is ramped up by requiring more metal bars. With a designation to cut blocks of stone right out of the wall, it returns back to the 1:1 demand from previous, so you can have marble chairs and obsidian doors that aren't made up of smaller rocks, which would otherwise be turned into fill. But again, we create too demand that too much is added into the game, which is exciting, at the expense of managing better hauling teams and coordinating intelligent fill zones. We have to account for what is dug up. Sure, we can create walls, create dams, artificial hills and mounds, and pack it all (either through a [C][v] selection or zone dumping), but it's something else to watch out for. Something that, frankly, I'm not sure is worth the effort.
3
DF Suggestions / Re: The growth and development of Dwarven children
« on: July 08, 2011, 10:01:52 am »
Well, this looks interesting, so I'll contribute.
A better child development would be more interesting, if only because it makes more realistic and more desirable to have a fort populated with children. So, here goes:
1). Apprenticeship seems more realistic than organized schools, especially for a medieval-world setting. The populations that we're dealing with as well makes having schools seem rather... unimportant. If there are schools, then they are dedicated to higher education, not basic education. I don't think we should deal with such schools just yet. Realistically, apprenticeship lasts for upwards to 6 or 7 years, and oftentimes relies on hereditary practices or some sort of familial or social interaction: An apprentice doesn't just join with any mentor, but there has to be a relationship before. I think this latter one is very important.
2). Apprenticeship should be defined, in-game, as a relationship status between the two (I'd say that a mentor cannot teach more than one person at a time). This should be viewed in the [z][r] screen. The tasks assigned are dependent: A mentor does his job as usual (using whatever available tasks), while the apprentice has the task "apprenticing." In down time, there might be a "teaching" task assigned to the mentor. This means there are no scheduling options, nor is there any drawback to having this relationship in terms of micromanagement (except for giving your dwarves work to do). As stated before, the effectiveness of teaching is dependent on the teacher/learner skill. A poor teacher or a poor learner will not get far, or lose interest fast. These can dampen social relationships, creating much more interesting interdwarven social situations, as seen in point 3.
3). Selection should be... interesting. The mentor could be randomly selected, or rather, it could be a parent, a relative of the parent, or a friend of the parent to determine the apprenticing: This makes it a little more realistic than a random sample or battling the dissonance of free economy and choice and Dwarven economics (that is: There is no congruence between the two. If you don't like the skills the child has acquired, you can always turn off those labors and assign him something else once he grows up).
4). This level of social checking and interaction through relationship can be expanded to nobles: A noble's child will probably be trained in his parents' noble position (a good noble, after all, will train their child to be a good leader as well. The poor learner/teacher will probably make a bad noble out of the child.) This can also mean that a noble's child might end up with a different profession and branch off from his parents (if a mentor can only have one apprentice, and those two are parent and child, then other children will have to find other work). This can create resentment between siblings as one will indubitably be selected to gain those skills, making them more likely to take over their parent's role if left unchecked by the player when something bad happens to the parent (voluntary retirement is not coded in, nor do I think it should be--well, nevermind, it should. That sounds like Fun. Embarking with 7 dwarves, 6 retire in the Summer of the embark. Huzzah!)
5). There are some loose ends: What if the child is adopted by an apprentice for the military? By a militia captain, that sounds alright, after all leadership training is fine. But by a common soldier? That sounds iffy and dangerous. That needs to be mitigated properly in mostly armor and weapons training, but a knight/squire relationship could be created, if handled properly. I can probably think of others, but I'm pressed for time.
Schools, however, remain a bit of a mystery to me for Dwarf Fortress. You need to dedicate a dwarf to be a teacher, you need to create adequate room and space for them... or designate a zone. Then you need qualifiable, general skills to pass down to kids. The idea of a liberal education isn't exactly one that's right for Dwarf Fortress, and there are no cultural aspects to pass down, like dance or song, nor is there a general idea of literacy (or a skill regarding that.) Without those, then such schools might be similar to the apprentice/mentor system, just on a larger scale. But to do that, we'd need visiting dwarves attending such institutions of higher learning, and that sounds like an idea for another time.
A better child development would be more interesting, if only because it makes more realistic and more desirable to have a fort populated with children. So, here goes:
1). Apprenticeship seems more realistic than organized schools, especially for a medieval-world setting. The populations that we're dealing with as well makes having schools seem rather... unimportant. If there are schools, then they are dedicated to higher education, not basic education. I don't think we should deal with such schools just yet. Realistically, apprenticeship lasts for upwards to 6 or 7 years, and oftentimes relies on hereditary practices or some sort of familial or social interaction: An apprentice doesn't just join with any mentor, but there has to be a relationship before. I think this latter one is very important.
2). Apprenticeship should be defined, in-game, as a relationship status between the two (I'd say that a mentor cannot teach more than one person at a time). This should be viewed in the [z][r] screen. The tasks assigned are dependent: A mentor does his job as usual (using whatever available tasks), while the apprentice has the task "apprenticing." In down time, there might be a "teaching" task assigned to the mentor. This means there are no scheduling options, nor is there any drawback to having this relationship in terms of micromanagement (except for giving your dwarves work to do). As stated before, the effectiveness of teaching is dependent on the teacher/learner skill. A poor teacher or a poor learner will not get far, or lose interest fast. These can dampen social relationships, creating much more interesting interdwarven social situations, as seen in point 3.
3). Selection should be... interesting. The mentor could be randomly selected, or rather, it could be a parent, a relative of the parent, or a friend of the parent to determine the apprenticing: This makes it a little more realistic than a random sample or battling the dissonance of free economy and choice and Dwarven economics (that is: There is no congruence between the two. If you don't like the skills the child has acquired, you can always turn off those labors and assign him something else once he grows up).
4). This level of social checking and interaction through relationship can be expanded to nobles: A noble's child will probably be trained in his parents' noble position (a good noble, after all, will train their child to be a good leader as well. The poor learner/teacher will probably make a bad noble out of the child.) This can also mean that a noble's child might end up with a different profession and branch off from his parents (if a mentor can only have one apprentice, and those two are parent and child, then other children will have to find other work). This can create resentment between siblings as one will indubitably be selected to gain those skills, making them more likely to take over their parent's role if left unchecked by the player when something bad happens to the parent (voluntary retirement is not coded in, nor do I think it should be--well, nevermind, it should. That sounds like Fun. Embarking with 7 dwarves, 6 retire in the Summer of the embark. Huzzah!)
5). There are some loose ends: What if the child is adopted by an apprentice for the military? By a militia captain, that sounds alright, after all leadership training is fine. But by a common soldier? That sounds iffy and dangerous. That needs to be mitigated properly in mostly armor and weapons training, but a knight/squire relationship could be created, if handled properly. I can probably think of others, but I'm pressed for time.
Schools, however, remain a bit of a mystery to me for Dwarf Fortress. You need to dedicate a dwarf to be a teacher, you need to create adequate room and space for them... or designate a zone. Then you need qualifiable, general skills to pass down to kids. The idea of a liberal education isn't exactly one that's right for Dwarf Fortress, and there are no cultural aspects to pass down, like dance or song, nor is there a general idea of literacy (or a skill regarding that.) Without those, then such schools might be similar to the apprentice/mentor system, just on a larger scale. But to do that, we'd need visiting dwarves attending such institutions of higher learning, and that sounds like an idea for another time.
4
DF Suggestions / Re: Waste, sewers and all the other dirty things.
« on: June 24, 2011, 08:37:59 am »Also, I third "nightsoil".
This. I fourth it.
As to the squick factor, I think this thread is less immature on the notion that we aren't concerning ourselves with how the nightsoil is produced, just how to deal with it. I'm more for sewage management anyway, and so far this thread has stuck to that.
5
DF Suggestions / Re: Waste, sewers and all the other dirty things.
« on: June 15, 2011, 01:32:17 pm »Thing is, moving water would be something that is used to remove waste. Waste would'nt become a liquid in and of itself. Waste would just be a substance layer, like vomit or blood, which would contaminate/ propagate in water, which ultimately removes it. The alternative is waste just getting piled up to be removed with the cleaning labor or removed by rain/ weather after a bit. The stuff decomposes, after all.
Or turns to soil; or critters eat it; or whatever. What I'm getting out of this discussion is that if it is simplified too much, it's unrealistic and therefore shouldn't be added, but if it's too realistic, it's too complicated worth doing. There's a lot that needs to be added to make Dwarf Fortress more "realistic."
Quote
Making an even more elaborate system for modelling waste is an even worse idea. I think this is probably one of those things that can be abstracted a bit, if represented at all.
This is an abstraction. If you want it to be more realistic, Dwarves can have their moods affected by their bowel movements, which is dependent on the quality and type of food they eat, and the quality of the butcher and cook. We could be discussing implementing diseases based on lack of waste management, etc.
When dealing with suggestions such as these, I always ask myself a few things (in no particular order): 1). Can the suggestion operate uniquely? Is there another element within the game that can be used for this suggestion? 2). Will this be forced to change other properties in the game? 3). Can this suggestion make old ideas or new ideas work easier? 4). Does this suggestion enhance gameplay?
Well, let's review the facts: This is an abstraction of life's waste management system, in that it only focuses on that waste is produced and must be managed on a fortress-level. This means that cat's burial practice is ignored, and that texture and consistency and gastro-efficiency of a creature is ignored. Waste is waste, it can be composted and turned into fertilizer.
So, 1). This suggest does operate uniquely, with the exception of crossing into water, which has everyone up in a snag (and in other threads about this, as well). 2). Some people want to argue that better flow properties are demanded for this to work properly. I'd say it's not, but we'll go into that later. Nothing needs to be changed otherwise, other than implementing new labors (composting and prioritization of waste cleaning); dwarves who deal with compost probably won't have to wash their hands with soap, because we aren't interested (yet) with the health risks of handling waste (I'd talk about wounds getting infected, but wounds get infected without soap nearly all the time, so I don't think there's much a reason to discuss it any further); the reason why a player should handle waste is because of miasma, which already has its own mechanics. 3). This suggested mechanic, if done properly, can also deal with other semi-solids: By introducing semi-solid waste, you can also introduce semi-solid soil which can cause people to get stuck. Quicksand and mud, for instance. This also introduces a new fertilizer mechanic, which is great because it adds new elements into the farming system. 4). This suggestion allows for a few things in gameplay that wasn't there before: Specifically, fortress design is going to have to account for waste storage and disposal; it allows for idiotically immature things to happen in Adventure mode (The spinning XXXX hits the Goblin in the head and bruises the muscle!"). So why not?
For the water-problem, here is what I have:
1). Flowing water. A pile in flowing water moves one or two units to the next adjacent tile, to the direction of flow; if the square already has waste in it, it stacks or pushes it down one, until there's only 1/1 per available tile, or until it can no longer flow. It cannot block water, so it just moves aside. Such a mechanic can also be applied to causing light objects to be pushed around by water flow. Contaminate is not cumulative, and it dissipates slowly over time at a rate of the amount per square. Therefore, more waste in a body of water means it takes longer to purify itself with flow. This isn't entirely realistic, as quantity of waste actually impacts duration and severity; for the purposes of gameplay, however, that's not necessary. Once water is contaminated, dwarves won't use it for cleaning wounds or drinking, so there's no reason to track it anymore than that. It should all dissipate evenly so the game doesn't have to track a population of waste and try to figure out which one is the most upstream or downstream. A river filled with 1/5 waste all around cleans out faster than a river with one square at 5/5 caught at the edge of a bend. Flowing water over waste does not produce miasma, but dwarves working near it might have unhappy thoughts.
2). Standing water. Waste dissipates evenly outward from where it stands until it can either move no longer, or each square has 1/5 waste. All water is instantly contaminated until all waste dissipates as above. Waste-saturated water does not produce miasma, but dwarves working near it might have unhappy thoughts.
3). Waste on the ground in rain paths to the next adjacent square; this could be accomplished by just tracking the direction of the next z-level drop, and just moving it to the next square there. Why this? Because it can also be used for mudflows. Be !!FUN!! to have a whole hill with trees and all move that way over your fort, forcing you to clean everything out or build around it. This might produce miasma, but outside, miasma doesn't do anything.
This sort, though, shouldn't have more mechanics that what I've just described: Waste produces miasma, therefore it's important to deal with miasma. Standing water diffuses waste, flowing water pushes it downstream. It goes away on a set period of time (at the end of the season if it's in the first half of the season, or if it's in the second half of the season, to the end of the next season? Something like that). Flow mechanics of semi-solids, which is just simple one-square at a time pathing, could be used for sand or mud. The raws that define semi-solid waste can also be used for semi-solid substances, which are too granular or too moist to be considered true solids.
By handling waste as an "activity" that a dwarf has to perform, like period cleaning or trimming of hairs, eating, sleeping, whatever, you add in another layer of daily dwarven life. You can leave it in the halls and have your peasants clean it up, or you can build elaborate dwarvenly sewer systems to wash it away and keep miasma from forming. The flow of semi-solids might not be a hindrance on FPS, as it the calculation cycles don't have be done every frame (instead one could calculate the flow of semisolids piecemeal and draw it piecemeal).
Either way, this level of abstraction is perfect for such a system and it doesn't get into too much of the ridiculous or the vulgar.
6
DF Suggestions / Re: [NEEDS_POWER] and [GENERATES_POWER:x]
« on: April 18, 2011, 10:37:03 pm »
I think this is a good idea, if the idea is for pushing windmills and watermills to raws, and allowing players to define their own power sources and power-based workshops. On the surface, this just creates new mechanisms for fortresses that Toady doesn't have to implement himself, such as steam engines (so we won't need to worry about the programmer's fiat about such things--modding, of course, does pull a lot of allure toward the gamer's base), and it also implies that additional power sources (such as draft-animals pulling a gearbox for a millstone) can become more a possibility.
But never assume that anything is that easy--Mills are probably hard-coded into the game, to the point that transferring them to the raws might be a more difficult venture.
But never assume that anything is that easy--Mills are probably hard-coded into the game, to the point that transferring them to the raws might be a more difficult venture.
7
DF Suggestions / Re: Watter barrels.
« on: April 18, 2011, 12:06:02 am »7 units of water would mean that they would have to have the same volume as a square in game. They should hold the same amount as booze barrels do.
Which does, in some way, make it seem odd. A barrel of alcohol can have upwards to 25 units of alcohol (one unit per drink); water in a tile is 7-drinks deep (we know this because a flask or a skin holds up to 3 drinks of water or booze, and I believe is subtracted equally from the water source). We'd either have to redefine alcohol units or water units, or leave the two be; if we go for the lattermost, then a barrel should store the same amount of water as it stores booze with no quality on it (i.e., 5 units).
Of course, water has few intrinsic properties that makes it a commodity, especially a traded one (the assumed technology implies that stored water will go stagnant, requiring it to be cut with booze to keep it "fresh", i.e., grog--but doing this all the time to stretch out your booze reserves some seems like a pointlessly frustrating endeavor). The only in-game aspect I can think of is for centralizing water for farming, especially early on if you don't have an available water source and don't farm above ground (it's much easier to farm above ground, because most ground plants can be easily collected at first, processed into booze, and the repeat with seeds on plots, and then you have a stable above-ground farming system. Unless, of course, you embark into a place with no surface plants whatsoever).
In the end, though, you replace pit/pond dumping with stockpiling. But is that really necessary for this game?
8
DF Suggestions / Re: More options when "Abandoning Fortress"
« on: April 17, 2011, 11:55:43 pm »Basically I'd like to see a few more options there , after all you are expanding the Dwarven wealth :This is the best idea thus far for tweaking fort abandonment. It allows players who have long term goals (i.e., covering every square inch of the world with Dwarven fortresses across the map), and can also generate a number of fort-specific missions that don't undermine existing arcs (occupying a goblin outpost, which to you means that your civilization can expand outward without infringing on the military arc). Moreover, this decreases the gap between world generation and gameplay, which right now there is a huge gap (civilizations only expand during worldgen; this is being handled, of course, but this idea fits finely with those ideas.)
*Retire : Gives over the administration of the fortress to your Kingdom and expands the dwarven area of influence on the world map.
Quote
*Found outpost : Randomly takes a few of the current forts Dwarves and sends them to the desired area , lose control of the current fort (also area of influence expands as above)
This right here could go along with the top one. I somehow would like it better if you didn't have that much control over the fate of the fortress when you abandon it (you did, afterall, relinquish control).
Quote
*Roadbuilding : Your goal is to link roads between Dwarven fortresses with some of the supplies from your last Fort.
This one right here I'm somewhat opposed to: It would be better if you could commission a road to be built from an existing fortress, rather than having to start a fort, weather it out, build a road or dig a tunnel, then abandon it (one embark at a time, no less!). If you could commission it, you'd need whatever the closest occupation to a surveyor is (architect, I'd assume, as the skill is needed in building roads), raw materials, and masons and porters to ensures it gets built. It'd be a rather huge undertaking, so the rewards should be plentiful.
9
DF Gameplay Questions / Re: Entrance to dwarven cities???
« on: December 01, 2010, 05:05:16 pm »I read the title as 'Entrance to dwarven cheese'...
Through the nose?
10
DF Dwarf Mode Discussion / Re: DF gets a tip-o-the-hat in World of Warcraft
« on: December 01, 2010, 02:46:19 pm »None of it makes any sense. Grind so you can grind so you can grind? I mean, it's a millstone set on repeat. Alas. Funny in-game reference, though.Most games are, ultimately, like this, though; unless you play once and discard. Even for the vast number of things you can attempt in DF there's a metric ton of repetitive action. I don't want to know how many times I've designated the same basic layout for a starting fort.
This, and to the others like it:
Most games are repetitive motions; Pong is move the paddle up, or down. Mario is move right, jump (with some left, up, down in there for mix). WoW, I'd say, has taken it to the absurd. Games generally have a context in addition to a backdrop (aquatic level, mountain level, leather bondage sex shop level, etc.)--the context of all the dungeons and quests are lost or ignored in favor of the loots at the end. The wonder of design is lost in a lobotomaniacally mechanical repetition, timing, and tactics all for the goal to do it again, just with a different skin.
In Mario 3, you didn't have to grind the tank level ten times to get a t2 leaf drop. In Dwarf Fortress, there is no goal, and the reward isn't a randomized drop--it's losing. And that is the best of fun.
I won't say that Cataclysm is going to ruin WoW--just that WoW isn't the game for me. I think it's good they do a total content overhaul that affects everyone from first level up. BC touched on this with the addition of two races; WotlK didn't even. I'm glad to see it happen. I might pick it up. I doubt I will, though.
11
DF Modding / Re: Reaction generated handwear, left/right
« on: December 01, 2010, 02:32:56 pm »
You might want to disable BBCODE on your post. It's interpreting left and right tags as alignment tags. 'Sides that, I don't know how you would resolve this. I've yet to touch clothing.
12
DF Dwarf Mode Discussion / Above ground fortress? Time to try it the Dwarven way.
« on: December 01, 2010, 12:23:57 pm »
I think some of us, most of us, (or a good many number of us--doesn't matter) have all tried to build an above ground fortress, or at least partially above ground. I find it boring. Embark with two miners, a bunch of carpenters and masons, spend the first year hunkering down in a hole waiting for some semblance of a home to be built. This can all be done in a season if we just dig, can't it?
So, it's high time I built my above ground fortress in the only way I know how: By digging it out. Build all the houses, workshops, storehouses, and offices by digging them out. Just cut into the ground, channel out roads. A whole lot easier, and classier? And maybe, if I have the gumption and the patience... I could just cast the entire city out of obsidian (which is to say, inb4 obsidian casting).
Now... I just need to find the right embark point.
So, it's high time I built my above ground fortress in the only way I know how: By digging it out. Build all the houses, workshops, storehouses, and offices by digging them out. Just cut into the ground, channel out roads. A whole lot easier, and classier? And maybe, if I have the gumption and the patience... I could just cast the entire city out of obsidian (which is to say, inb4 obsidian casting).
Now... I just need to find the right embark point.
13
DF Dwarf Mode Discussion / Re: What to do with mayors?
« on: December 01, 2010, 11:23:06 am »
I don't expect you to make demands, Urist Bond. I expect you to die.
Or, rather, is it important at this point?
Or, rather, is it important at this point?
14
DF Dwarf Mode Discussion / Re: DF gets a tip-o-the-hat in World of Warcraft
« on: November 30, 2010, 09:57:08 pm »
None of it makes any sense. Grind so you can grind so you can grind? I mean, it's a millstone set on repeat. Alas. Funny in-game reference, though.
15
DF Modding / Re: 0.31. MODDERS WORKSHOP (NEWCOMERS WELCOME!)
« on: November 30, 2010, 08:52:26 pm »
That... actually breaks it. I get nothing; switching to BOULDER:NO_SUBTYPE + POWDER_MISC:NONE:INORGANIC:GRAVEL (which is what I meant to post, but I was using STONE:NO_SUBTYPE). Apparently, there is a difference! One where materials aren't always transfered. Well, that's fine and good then.
Now, time to work on the reaction that can convert it into concrete.
Now, time to work on the reaction that can convert it into concrete.