Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sunday]

Admittedly, Toady did (at one point) say that he wanted DF to be a sort of 'cheap fantasy story simulator.'  (his words were similar to that - I didn't insert the 'cheap,' before someone wants to flame me to death).

I, personally, would like adventure mode to be a more proactive (on the player's part), sandboxy sort of situation.  Leading a band of bandits the way Capntastic talked about would be awesome.  But that's pretty much personal preference.  Still, I'd like to see what the game's like before a protagonist spotlight gets placed on the adventurer.  It may very well be that people are able to make up pretty cool stories without events being forced to happen near the PC.

The reason (as I understood it, at least) that you don't get sieged at 7 dwarfs is because why would anyone spend all the time and resources needed to muster, feed, and transport an army hundreds of kilometers just to attack a few dwarfs grubbing in the soil for mushrooms?  From an in-game perspective, it doesn't make any sense.  It isn't just for game balance.  That's why there has to be a certain amount of resources before you get ambushed/robbed/sieged.  If, in the future when the army arc is implemented, your fortress is on the way from a goblin fortress to the city they want to sack, it would maybe make sense if they decided to do a little pillaging on the way.  And quite frankly, I think that'd be awesome.

[Neonivek]

When playing adventure mode, the fun is that the 'plot' for the player will be what the player does within the setting.   Not what the setting arbitrarily throws at them

That isn't desirable but for a logical reason.

If the plot of the world never presents itself then it effectively doesn't exist unless the player deems it so. The world effectively either ignores the player as a whole or effectively stops altogether.

It also means that the player's actions do not affect the player. If the world won't interfere with you that means killing the leader of a powerful nation will have NO effect over you. So it also means that the player will be harmed if the plot cannot interfere with the player.

From an in-game perspective, it doesn't make any sense.  It isn't just for game balance

Defending against scouting parties is an essential aspect of defense. They also don't seem to up the ante once they realise your a threat until it is much too late and you become more powerful then they are.

It may very well be that people are able to make up pretty cool stories without events being forced to happen near the PC.

The limitations in the simulation pretty much dictate that there will need to be some forcing whether it is player activated or not.

Having things not happen to the player in Adventure mode unless they deep it to is effectively like playing Fortress mode with a switch that activates seiges. Which I am sure it isn't what you mean but you need to chose your words more carefully.

[Vester]

Wouldn't the adventuresome types either be adventuring or hanging out in the pub in the first place, even without a special trigger?

Who spends all their time at the tavern?  They need day jobs, and saving money and stuff...

Then they go there when they have time to drink. I never said they would be there 24/7. It stands to reason that adventurers aren't in the tavern because the PC is in town, the PC goes to the tavern because that's where the adventurers are.

[de5me7]

in open world games i hate feeling like the centre of the universe. The immersion comes from feeling like a small part of a huge dynamic world. Most games arnt really living or dynamic in most ways. Bethsaida games tend to have a few random events and people milling around but the main story is totally dependant on your actions.

Since df has real time, and since it has different entities groups and peoples with different agendas i expect storys to develope even if you have nothing do with them. The game should start messing with you when you start messing with it, rahter than being driven by you.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/07/15/some-stuff-about-open-world-games/

heres a little rant ablout this kinda on rps.

hopefully as more arcs and parts of df a coded by the toady there will be a diverse enough world that storys will unfold in a unscripted fashion. All you will need is teh will sto survive and an idea of what you find fun rather than game set objectives

[Neonivek]

The game should start messing with you when you start messing with it

To add to this thought: The setting should mess with you from the start.

in open world games i hate feeling like the centre of the universe.

Yeah it kinda feels like your in some sort of static world that only exists so that you have something to do. Rarely do they step out and make you feel like something else is going on.

Though particially this is for a good reason both on the technical and practical side.

[Granite26]

The reason (as I understood it, at least) that you don't get sieged at 7 dwarfs is because why would anyone spend all the time and resources needed to muster, feed, and transport an army hundreds of kilometers just to attack a few dwarfs grubbing in the soil for mushrooms?  From an in-game perspective, it doesn't make any sense.  It isn't just for game balance. 

That'd be true, but the point in question wasn't whether they'd pack up and come attack you, it was whether they'd attack you if you were 2-3 world squares away.  Looking at it through an RTS lens, would you let the enemy start an outpost just outside your base, or would you stomp them while they're still young?

[alfie275]

Sort of a bad point to argue over, seeing how that is a temporary solution whilst the army arc is developed.

[Granite26]

Sort of a bad point to argue over, seeing how that is a temporary solution whilst the army arc is developed.

Nah, the specific point in contention there is the Dev's stated desire to STOP goblins from bum rushing new forts after the army arc allows them to show up in whatever rational numbers they want.

Personally I think it's a bad use of PC favoratism and think that players should be 'limited' to embarks that are properly protected (with an option to ignore all wisdom and strike out if you want to), but it's a good counter-example to 'it's a per sim and the player will never get special treatment'

[Rowanas]

If I were a goblin (or in the future, if small goblin villages are nearby) I would allow dwarves to set up camp and do some mining because then I could sweep in later and steal lots of fine items at no personal cost.

Also, think of it like the goose that laid the golden egg. At the moment, goblins just wanna kill the goose, but I hope later they will just steal some stuff and kill a few dwarves before buggering off. This would alleviate the need for pointless restrictions because if 200 goblins come and visit your starting seven they might be quite happy to ignore the dwarves huddled up in a back cave and just loot a load of stuff from out front before making away with it.