631
Other Games / Re: A text RPG based on Worm
« on: April 21, 2014, 04:16:50 am »Am... am I supposed to know what Worm is? I thought this would be text-based Wyrm, which sounded neat.
I thought the same thing.
Bay 12 Games Forum
- April 29, 2024, 09:18:08 am
- Welcome, Guest
News:
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
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.
I thought the same thing.
632
DF General Discussion / Re: Be envioromental friendly, as in Dwarf fortress!
« on: April 20, 2014, 07:20:12 am »
I think the issue with food is that a lot of the meat produce more greenhouse gasses than most plants.
e.g. 1 week of steak is worse than 1 week of veg from an enviromental POV.
Both of which are greenhouse gasses.
e.g. 1 week of steak is worse than 1 week of veg from an enviromental POV.
and will turn into CO2 and H2O in a few years.
Both of which are greenhouse gasses.
633
General Discussion / Re: How obligated do you feel you are you to help others?
« on: April 19, 2014, 07:59:23 pm »So if a pregnant women was knocked over, you wouldn't help her up because you pay taxes?
634
General Discussion / Re: Socialism
« on: April 18, 2014, 08:40:30 pm »
I think happiness beats both economic growth and living standards. Someone who has high living standards and is depressed is probably worse off than someone who has lower living standards and is happy.
I think both economic growth and living standards are both means of achieving happiness and not ends themselves.
I think both economic growth and living standards are both means of achieving happiness and not ends themselves.
635
DF General Discussion / Re: Monster Size Scales?
« on: April 16, 2014, 11:33:32 pm »I think the raws contain enough data to work out the dimensions of each body part, but it'd be extremely tedious to do.
They contain enough data to work out their volume, but not each dimension.
636
Other Games / Re: Looking For: Humans are not Default
« on: April 15, 2014, 09:36:19 am »
Well, hunting is on the "see also" list, so yeah. Oxford Dictionary is also much close to what I meant "Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something". Either way, my point remains valid and the interpretation of the definition of violence doesn't really change the fact that a race is probably going to have to have some capacity to kill and cause damage to things in its surroundings, and probably would not meet our criteria for an all peaceful race.
5.1) Take a computer for example. We invented it and are still figuring out new ways to use the same computers more efficiently. If a civ were to invent a computer but couldn't work out how to get past using a Selection Sort to sort everything they probably won't be using them to control spaceships any time soon.
5.1) Take a computer for example. We invented it and are still figuring out new ways to use the same computers more efficiently. If a civ were to invent a computer but couldn't work out how to get past using a Selection Sort to sort everything they probably won't be using them to control spaceships any time soon.
637
Other Games / Re: Looking For: Humans are not Default
« on: April 15, 2014, 08:02:40 am »4. I'm trying to say entirely non-violent. To this hypothetical "space lion" hunting something is the same as picking a berry is to you (herding something is, in turn, agriculture). Humans don't get the urge to kill other humans with hoes just because they've been digging up roots all day and neither do "space lions".
5. Efficiency is a quality of the tool, not of the species (the more "advanced" civilization gets the more efficient it's tools. The only way to fail criteria 5, while meeting 1 is through insufficient time)
5.1 Are you saying that stone (indeed iron and early steel) age civilizations can't get off a planet? In that case I agree.
4) What you have given here is an example of a species that is not violent enough to destroy itself (there are limits to what they kill), but still violent enough to not be above feeding themselves and actually survive. This seems to be more of an issue with the semantics of the word violence - it may not seem like violence to them, but its still violence.
5.1) This doesn't really make sense. Give an ape a gun and they will probably try to bash their prey to death with it.
5.2) Any species has the potential to use tools efficiently, given time.
When they are given time, they can use the tools efficiently enough to get into space.
And as such, the new space faring race is reasonably efficient at using tools, there is no reason to assume that efficiency/productivity is an intrinsic human trait, and giving humans a +20% productivity boost solely because humans are humans isn't really justified.
638
Other Games / Re: Looking For: Humans are not Default
« on: April 14, 2014, 09:09:44 am »1) Intelligence and creativity, to invent required technology an have the desire to do so in the first place.Not necessarily any of those.
2) The ability to spread across a good deal of the planet (adaptability/enviromental adaption), to get to the wide range of resources they would need.
3) Strength enough to interact with the environment and defend from local fauna, equipment etc. But not too much muscle as to take away brain power from 1.
4) Reasonably peaceful, so as to not annihilate each other, but not so peaceful that they get eaten by the local fauna.
5) Reasonable productivity, so they can get into space in the first place.
1.Aliens could evolve in asteroid fields, where their natural way of travel would be a kind of long jump between planetoids. Granted these aliens wouldn't be interested in planets, like Earth, but isn't different exactly what we're going for here?
2. Obvious for steroid dwellers (it's all one big rock), but even on large planetary bodies, it's possible to have reasonably homogenous conditions, at least on the same latitude. Conversely, we're not using ~70% of our planet either (We do, a bit, but not like we do the fertile 10%).
3.1 It's hard to justify intelligence for these creatures, but there could be a world of almost still organisms (think plants).
3.2 Or you could have strong intra-sepcies differentiation, with strong individuals doing all the defending/contruuction, while the resource intensive brainy types do all the planing (think ants, but with the additional thinker-ant class).
4. Would you call lions warlike? It's possible to be the apex predator, while not grasping the concept of killing another member of your own species (Why would you ever try to decrease your own gene-spread? Preposterous!)
5 is meaningless- tool use is already covered under 1 and the ability to work under 3.
1) Its unlikely sufficiently complex aliens could evolve on an asteroid. Also,the points were a somewhat off topic response to the idea that we can determine humans position in the universe by comparing us with other animals.
2) It is possible, but still, a sentient space faring species would probably have this trait. There is still no reasont o assume humans are particularly good at it.
3.1) No intelligence? Not really relevant then.
3.2) Possible, diddn't think of that.
4). A species too violent could very well cause its own extinction. A species described by 3.2 would probably have to err on the more peaceful side of things to avoid having their thinkers eaten.
5) Not at all, its possible they can invent tools and have the strength to use it, but not efficiently enough to get into space. Again, there is no reason to assume humans kick ass here.
None of those points are "requirements", but rather "probabilities", to demonstrate that being (for example) "adaptable" in comparison to animals is hardly a good reason to assume we are adaptable compared to space faring aliens. Its not supposed to prove that its impossible.
Humans should be different and not the default, but there should be a good explanation as to why and I don't think "because thats how animals are" is one of them.
639
General Discussion / Re: Shit, let's be FEET
« on: April 13, 2014, 11:12:23 pm »EDIT: Where's the privelege test you guys are taking? I don't recall seeing a link
My privilege level is SHITLORD with a score of 160Here you go.
640
Other Games / Re: Games with Ants/ where you can play ants?
« on: April 13, 2014, 02:33:08 am »the SNES version won't have a mouse interface.
I believe (from memory) it was actually one of the few games to support the SNES mouse peripheral, which should work on any decent SNES emulator.
EDIT: The WC3 map doesn't have AI does it? It looked like fun...
641
Other Games / Re: ZCP First Game
« on: April 13, 2014, 02:27:19 am »
Do you have a website, or any more information on your unnamed, unreleased game? There not really much to discuss here without more information...
642
Other Games / Re: Looking For: Humans are not Default
« on: April 12, 2014, 09:13:46 pm »
Lets think what aliens would probably need in order to get to space:
1) Intelligence and creativity, to invent required technology an have the desire to do so in the first place.
2) The ability to spread across a good deal of the planet (adaptability/enviromental adaption), to get to the wide range of resources they would need.
3) Strength enough to interact with the enviroment and defend from local fauna, equiptment etc. But not too much muscle as to take away brain power from 1.
4) Reasonably peaceful, so as to not annihilate each other, but not so peaceful that they get eaten by the local fauna.
5) Reasonable productivity, so they can get into space in the first place.
There are probably others. The common human traits compared to aliens are not really justified and are usually the reuslt of blind comparisons with animals, which are done without considering what a space faring species would actually probably need to be space faring.
Again, why are we good at this, and aliens not so good?
1) Intelligence and creativity, to invent required technology an have the desire to do so in the first place.
2) The ability to spread across a good deal of the planet (adaptability/enviromental adaption), to get to the wide range of resources they would need.
3) Strength enough to interact with the enviroment and defend from local fauna, equiptment etc. But not too much muscle as to take away brain power from 1.
4) Reasonably peaceful, so as to not annihilate each other, but not so peaceful that they get eaten by the local fauna.
5) Reasonable productivity, so they can get into space in the first place.
There are probably others. The common human traits compared to aliens are not really justified and are usually the reuslt of blind comparisons with animals, which are done without considering what a space faring species would actually probably need to be space faring.
Quote
Outposts,colonies, those kinds of things should be very easy for us.
Again, why are we good at this, and aliens not so good?
643
Other Games / Re: Looking For: Humans are not Default
« on: April 12, 2014, 08:48:51 am »What if the enire planet biosphere was made out of slow animals similar to turtles and the local sentients live 300 years but act really slow... or in reverse a short lived rodent like sentient that lives for 20 years at most percieveing us as VERY slow witted.
This seems to come from the idea that fast metabolisms can supply energy to larger brains, but burn out quicker. Which is totally reasonable, and the sort of explanation I would be looking for to justify an aliens unique characteristics. Its a much better explanation than just assuming "Human - Animal = Human - Alien".
644
Other Games / Re: Looking For: Humans are not Default
« on: April 12, 2014, 07:19:27 am »
They would be different, to a degree.
However, there are certain traits which humans posess that other animals do not which would be necessary for space travel, to the point where basing human advantages/disadvantages off of terrestrial animals doesn't really make sense.
There is absolutely no reason to make humans slow and weak physically, or particularly social, relative to other intelligent species just because lions are faster and gorillas are stronger.
You can give humans these traits, but personally I would want a decent explanation as to why these aliens are different in whatever ways they are, rather than just assuming that by default aliens are terrestrial animals.
But I'm a hard-scifi nut
However, there are certain traits which humans posess that other animals do not which would be necessary for space travel, to the point where basing human advantages/disadvantages off of terrestrial animals doesn't really make sense.
There is absolutely no reason to make humans slow and weak physically, or particularly social, relative to other intelligent species just because lions are faster and gorillas are stronger.
You can give humans these traits, but personally I would want a decent explanation as to why these aliens are different in whatever ways they are, rather than just assuming that by default aliens are terrestrial animals.
But I'm a hard-scifi nut
645
Other Games / Re: Looking For: Humans are not Default
« on: April 11, 2014, 07:53:20 pm »I mean, in the animal kingdom, humans as a species have the following pros/cons (At least in my opinion):
-Slower Max Speed
-Less Max Strength
+Huge amount of endurance
+Capable of moving over any terrain (Including the ability to climb and swim)
+Good vision (Color and depth perception!)
+Instinctive spacial awareness (We can throw stones and hit targets at a very young age)
+Naturally social animals (Good at group work)
+Omnivorous (Compared to most animals, we can eat ANYTHING.)
So if humanity was a group in some sort of turn based strategy game, I would give them
+Huge stamina bonus
+Much easier supply lines
+Large bonus to ranged combat
+Leaders give extra bonuses
+Capable of climbing over any terrain
=Normal Health
-Lower Speed
-Not as good at hand to hand combat
Which would make us great scout/snipers/infiltrators.
Just my opinion, hehe. We are pretty fucking awesome at getting into places. I mean, we spread across the entire globe even before civilization arose. We can literally chase down gazelle given enough time.
This would probably work if the other spacefaring species were literal lions, gorillas etc.
But given they can build spaceships they are probably are not.
Its likely any species that has advanced that far would have to have most of those traits too. They would have to spread across their world to harvest resources, they would have to have good eyesight (or similar sensor), they would need good spacial awarenes to construct all those machines, and they would most certainly need to co-operate with one another in order to build them too.