Print

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

[Freddybear]

As far as I'm concerned, aquifer layers are not adding to my enjoyment of the game. I do not in the least relish starting out on an aquifer spot, nor do I find it enjoyable trying to find a spot with a decent mix of mineral layers that *don't* include an aquifer. Toady, could you please add in an option to LOSE THE AQUIFER LAYERS?

[TheTerminator97]

pick a spot without an aquifier, or with an aquifier on only like a small portion of the map.

[Freddybear]

Easier said than done, if you're also looking for certain types of mineral layers. Most of the flux layers and all of the sand types have the {AQUIFER] tag. The chance of finding both sand for glassmaking, and flux for steel-making on the same map WITHOUT an aquifer layer are effectively nil.

So I just modded the raws to get rid of the [AQUIFER] tags.

[RPB]

quote:Originally posted by Freddybear:
<STRONG>Easier said than done, if you're also looking for certain types of mineral layers. Most of the flux layers and all of the sand types have the {AQUIFER] tag. The chance of finding both sand for glassmaking, and flux for steel-making on the same map WITHOUT an aquifer layer are effectively nil.</STRONG>

Uh... you know that mountain tiles 1. practically never have aquifers, 2. often have flux layers, and 3. frequently border sand tiles, right?

[Olix]

Aquifiers provide cool and interesting challenge to the game - otherwise it is too easy. Also, the it seems Toady's goal with world gen is to make a world that is as realistic as possible - thats why he has such a large number of rock types. I think having aquifers is a pretty key part of making a realistic world - I used to be in the construction industry, and when we used to work underground, we always seemed to be pumping out water.

If someone doesn't want that challenge and realism they can just mod it out, like you have done. I don't think the option should be a generic option, though.

[Freddybear]

I was just frustrated after spending an entire game-year digging out one square at a time and then a carp eats my mechanics who were installing the waterwheel to power the mine pump.

Too easy? Yeah, I can see where the totally realistic skeletal elk just aren't enough of a challenge without having to deal with accurately simulated ground water that can drown a miner in an instant when his partner digs the floor out from under him.

[Capntastic]

quote:Originally posted by Freddybear:
<STRONG>I was just frustrated after spending an entire game-year digging out one square at a time and then a carp eats my mechanics who were installing the waterwheel to power the mine pump.

Too easy? Yeah, I can see where the totally realistic skeletal elk just aren't enough of a challenge without having to deal with accurately simulated ground water that can drown a miner in an instant when his partner digs the floor out from under him.</STRONG>

Losing is fun, though.    :confused:

Seriously, try playing smarter rather than harder.   DF doesn't seem to be going in a direction where the player can just do as they please while ignoring pressures from their environment (Sieges, terrain stuff, diplomacy.)  While some people may dislike that you can't put 'win' from a sliver of effort, I find that the challenges are never 'unfair' if you know what you're getting into.

If you keep losing to skeletal creatures, stop embarking to areas where they thrive.   It's not that complicated.

No one is forcing you to build in haunted or aquiferous areas.   Also, I note that your post relies mainly on gripes from the view of "your enjoyment".   I hereby enjoy starting in dangerous aquiferous environments, effectively cancelling out this thread's premise.

QED.

[AlanL]

Personally I find aquifers to be a boon, and recently did a hermit fort that, after a little trial and error, successfully got through with only one dwarf. Aquifers are excellent resources and in the right hands allow for a control of fluids to a degree unavailable anywhere else. There are many water machines that are impractical on any tile that doesn't have an aquifer. For instance, I tried making an artificial waterfall in another fort and it was a pain in the butt and still flooded everywhere. An aquifer would've made it easy as pie. Don't forget that aquifers soak up water just as fast as they make it.

The only time I'd shy away would be if the topmost layer had an aquifer. If that happens, you hopefully have a means of living entirely above ground until you could punch through.

[ November 18, 2007: Message edited by: AlanL ]

[Freddybear]

Oh, I don't have a problem with skeletal elk or even aquifers. I thought it was amusing that someone would argue "realism" in a game that includes skeletal elk and elves and dragons and bronze colossususes.

I was just suggesting that maybe aquifers could be made optional so that people who haven't quite got the hang of them could have an easier time finding an easy site with a good selection of resources.

[ November 18, 2007: Message edited by: Freddybear ]

[Disruptive Idiot]

Oh for God's sake. I'll try to keep the discussion of semantics to a minimum but it's frustrating that some people fail to see the distinction between "Real" and "Realistic".

"Real" means it's part of reality.

"Realistic" means it shares some qualities with reality. It's not some stupid black and white designation. Dwarf Fortress is a realistic game in that real processes are modelled in the game.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T HAVE FANTASY ELEMENTS.

Anyway. This is a bad suggestion. If you don't like aquifers, just spend a little more time looking for an area with sedimentary layers and no aquifer. Seriously, they aren't hard to find.