Bay 12 Games Forum

I seem to remember reading somewhere that carnivores don't make very good meat though, but I can't remember where.

Also, instead of using just the tags, new ones could be made, or maybe it could also be based on global counts of animals, since we already have those, so some critically endangered animal would be really tasty as compared to a common one.

In fact, animal value and tastiness should be based on these factors, and then prefs should be some common food. Because how is a dwarf meant to like something they have never tasted?

We could make it so that the manure that the animals make doesn't actually show up on the map and instead is saved as a value in the zone itself. There would be a limit to the amount of manure on a field, but there'd be no disadvantages to going over that limit, it just wouldn't accumulate more feces. Every once in a while, a dwarf would come and collect the manure by walking to a few random spots on the zone. This would then go through industry to become fuel, or it might be usable straight as fuel.

The principal of evaporation is the same for ethanol as it is for water. Anyway, beer is mostly water.

Why would Toady remove something that currently half works when he has no immediate plans to fix it?

Why has this degenerated into an argument as to whether using an exploit is cheating or not?
Exploits are cheating, RAW hacking is cheating, savescumming is cheating.

I read the first two points on your suggestion before giving up because of your sadly lacking grammar skills.

MP has been discussed to the point of death by so many people. There are 3 pages of stuff about it if I search "multiplayer".

Point 1:
Multiplayer/networking coding is horrible and difficult to do. It is definitely one of the harder things to do in programming. This is especially true when someone has no formal training in programming, let alone in multiplayer programming.

Point 2:
If the game was to be multiplayer, the players would have to synchronize with each other. This means that your frame rate would be as bad as the hosts. You wouldn't be able to pause either, since the games would have to stay synced with each other. You might then say that they could be at different fortresses, then you don't have to synchronize, that is true, but when it's winter in your fort, it might then be summer in the other fort.

I can however think of one way that fortress mode multiplayer could work, but it's rather gamey.
You would have your fort, running in your own time, other peoples forts would run in their own time too. Everyone would use their own map. You would then send out an envoy to a central trade exchange off map with a list of things you want to buy and sell. You would have prices too. Everyone would do that and you'd then start a trade with someone and then they'd send a trade caravan.

I know it's a suck idea, but it's the only way you could possibly do MP in DF.

Also, if we were to have a more conventional MP, to stop RAW "hacking", only the hosts RAWs would be used.

I think that it should be changed so that the power varies in game. You would then get on the embark screen a thing saying how windy it usually is (windy, very windy, calm etc.), this would be based on how close you are to mountains, the coast and trees among other things. Maybe we could have the amount of power generated by windmills vary around the map as well.

I think the best option is to desyncronise. By that, I mean doing path finding on the fly, or at least to an extent, instead of slaving it to the framerate.

Temperature could also be done once every 2 ticks, which would theoretically half the amount of time spend on temperature checking. In fact, the entire temperature thing needs a rewrite into something more efficient, where it uses sets and subsets of heat as compared to each tile having it's own temperature.

Isn't that what the save game conversion tool is for?