Bay 12 Games Forum

Not really, ran out of marble blocks halfway through. Though the magma forge level is slightly more finished... I should be done by tomorrow, hopefully. What do I need to upload, how, ect.

You'll need to upload a save to DDFD.  Be sure to zip the save folder before you upload it.

It's also cool if you can upload a map.  Go to DFMA and click on the + Add a new map link on the right about halfway down.  Instructions for uploading maps is here.  Add some points of interest for extra win.

Additionally, you can hit (o)rders --> (F)orbid, and set whether corpses and death items (clothes, weapons etc...) will automatically be forbidden or not.  Really handy if your dorfs tend to rush to their doom every time a sock hits the ground.

Like I said, though, there isn't as strong a dichotomy between users and editors as you seem to think, and you seem to want to encourage there to be one.

I neither presume nor advocate a clear distinction between users and editors.  I'm not sure why you think I would.

I do, however, recognize the fact that editors will likely have some baseline understanding of game concepts, including the concept of quality.  If someone doesn't understand what quality means in DF I doubt they'd try to edit articles.

I largely agree with your statement regarding the desirability of turning users into editors, but I think it's more accurate to say that the purpose of the wiki is (1) to educate and inform new players of game mechanics and concepts, and (2) to consolidate game information from the forums and other sources for the use of all DF players.  Obviously, I think the primary purpose of the wiki is to serve new players.

The question, then, is how do we do that?  Questions regarding what form the quality labels should take should always start by asking what role they serve in furthering the greater purposes of the wiki.  I believe that quality labels have little direct relevance for new players and primarily (not exclusively, but primarily) serve the second purpose.

You say we need to warn new players about unreliable/incomplete information on the wiki.  I think the other mechanisms we have in place (D for Dwarf, disclaimer on the front page, discussion pages) sufficiently address this concern.  I also think the quality of the articles is self evident, even for new players.  I refer you to the examples in my prior post.

The only way I see quality labels being directly relevant to a new player, so new that they aren't familiar with DF's quality hierarchy, is if they see it, say "I wonder what that is", and click on it.  Of course, if they do that, they will not only clear up any confusion regarding the article's quality but also have a chance to learn about the game concept "quality". 

The current labels are defective.

I disagree for the reasons I gave in my last post.  The quality labels are not defective because they convey the required information to the intended audience: editors.  I have difficulty imagining a new player, unfamiliar with the labels, being confused because they think "Fine" means the article is somehow better than "Exceptional" or "Masterwork".  Even if they were confused and didn't understand the label, they could just click on it for a description of the different labels.  Furthermore, the new players that do notice the quality labels are introduced to (or reminded of) the game concept "quality".

I really think Vengeful Donut and G-Flex are overstating the potential for confusion. The quality of each article is largely self evident.  When anyone sees articles like Tree and Biome side by side there's no question that the articles are of different quality.  I just don't think that anyone who reads the Biome article would want/need a reminder that the page sucks.

That said, I'm open to the possibility of replacing the existing quality modifiers if there's a consensus that the current system is misleading.  Here are my thoughts on VD's  suggestions.

• Tattered | Fine | Masterwork.  This is the best of these suggestions.  It importantly retains the reference to DF gameplay, but does not express any "positive" evaluation of the article content.  Has the disadvantage of expressing negativity, to the extent that expressing negativity is a disadvantage.
• Article | Good article | Featured article.  Who, exactly, is featuring articles?  Also, the rating "Article" doesn't serve to warn readers about the quality of the article as it expresses nothing about the quality.
• Bronze | Silver | Gold.  This is the second-best suggestion.  Has some relation to DF game play and the advantage of widely recognized and accepted ordinal ranking, but, again, seems to fall prey to the criticisms leveled at "fine" inasmuch as it seems like a system of awards, all of which have positive connotations.
• Lead | Iron | Platinum.  How do these metals correspond to quality?  Weight, real world value, in game utility, or what?  Would a DF newbie have any idea what they meant?.
• Stub | Article | Featured article.  Again, who exactly is featuring articles?  Additionally, I'd hate to see the DF wiki whitewashed of DF references to look like Wikipedia.  It's not Wikipedia, and we shouldn't want to turn it into Wikipedia.
• 1 | 2 | 3.  Is 1 the first best, or the lowest score?  Additionally, I fail to see how putting an unexplained string of numbers at the top of the page helps anyone.  The current system is at leas descriptive enough to indicate it's talking about quality.

Quote from: Graebeard on April 29, 2010, 10:06:17 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on April 29, 2010, 04:09:53 pm

For the main one, were you flipping the lever labeled "Main Entrance Control" or somesuch? Because it worked when I set it up.

No, I was flipping the one labeled "bridge lock."  Sounds like the one Sizik set up.  I tried it a bunch of times before I redid everything.

How long did you wait between lever pulls? And was the power generator empty?

The power supply was running fine (there was over 2k power to the water pump stack), and I don't remember exactly how long I waited, but I think it was several days.

Indeed it is, thanks for the correction.

Your forge floor is a work of art.

Thanks!  It was a lot of fun to put together.

I can see that you've removed the nickel floodgate that would have allowed the first floor to be flooded.

I saw the lever, but couldn't find the floodgate for the longest time.  Flipping the switch didn't do anything.  Finally I noticed a hole in the pump stack wall and saw that the floodgate was stuck open with peat, blood, and other filth.  I decided to just play it safe and wall it up.  The thought of flooding the first floor with magma never crossed my mind, but now I can see how it was set up to be totally awesome.  I'd have tried to execute your set up if I had another shot at it.

I think the next player could still do it, if they didn't mind having a casualty.  If you killed the power to the magma stack and deconstructed that wall, you could totally still do it.  Make sure it's some useless kid doing the dirty work and you come out with a magma lake and slightly less lag.

That magma industry is way further above ground than I would like normally. I can see a LOT of Fun going into this... =P

I'm hoping this fort keeps going long enough that the magma works ends up in the middle of the tower.  There's still a lot more room to expand upward.

Quote

The bridge system for the main entrance needed to be fixed, so I built this side entrance for access during repair.

Fixed how?

It may have been something I was doing wrong, but neither the large main bridge nor the the thin side bridge were flipping when I hit their switches.  I decided to deconstruct and reconstruct the large main one, and I eliminated the thin side one.  I figured there wouldn't be a lot of times we'd want to keep wagons out and let invaders in.

Wow, that's what I get for paying attention.  Oh well, I may as well run with it now that I've started.

Also, the water level in the power generator is starting to run low.  Does anyone know how I refill it?