Print

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

[PTTG??]

There are no words to describe my state of euphoria right now...

euphoric?

[BradUffner]

euphoric?

Hmmm, I think that might work.

[Meistermoxx]

How will the game handle preventing fort retirement exploits?  Essentially, if a fort is full of goblins or a syndrome sweeping the populace, what will stop a player from retiring the fort and preserving it as an NPC fort?  Will there be some means of ensuring that forts with !!Fun!! stay !!Fun!!?

I can see retiring forts as an easy out to preventing fort death and possibly even saving doomed dwarves for immigration to later forts.

My guess would be you can't retire a fort in the middle of a megabeast, force of darkness and/or the dead walk event for starters. As for how much beyond that it'll go is hard to say.

Exactly
Just like you cant retire your adventurer unless you are safe in a friendly town.

[Ribs]

Sweet God almighty, this is exciting news. Couple questions:

Say you manage to make your fortress the capital of a dwarven civilization and then retire said fortress, starting a new fortress with the same civilization somewhere else. Will it be just as easy to make this new fortress into the capital? Because with the standards we have right now it would be easy to make a new fortress every three or four game years or so and make it into the civilization capital. And if you could retire every one of them you'd see the king just hoping from place to place every couple of years. So, will each successful fortress raise the standards for making the upgrade?

and

What if you refused to be "baroned" and still retired a very sucessful fortress? How would that fortress work? Would it then be treated as something of an independent city-state or realm, maybe even becoming it's own entity sparking a new civilization of it's own?

[RedWick]

How will the game handle preventing fort retirement exploits?  Essentially, if a fort is full of goblins or a syndrome sweeping the populace, what will stop a player from retiring the fort and preserving it as an NPC fort?  Will there be some means of ensuring that forts with !!Fun!! stay !!Fun!!?

I can see retiring forts as an easy out to preventing fort death and possibly even saving doomed dwarves for immigration to later forts.

People had the same sort of questions when buildable walls were still being bandied about.  "What will stop players from just walling up their fortress and stopping sieges from attacking?"  I suspect that abandoing a dying fort to save it is something that won't be prevented from happening and that people will argue about whether it's a game exploit/cheating/going against the spirit of the game or if it's a legitimate tactic for gameplay.

[adasdad]

There are no words to describe my state of euphoria right now...

euphoric?

sig'd

[CaptainArchmage]

So we're getting retire-able settlements? Hill dwarves? We will be able to reclaim abandoned worldgen settlements? We will be getting dwarf fortresses that reasonably follow player fortresses?

FUCK YES

Does this mean if we play as humans, we will be able to reclaim cities that have fallen into ruin? If so, how will we get around the 16x16 limit on the map size, given some cities are 17x17?

Even if our computers can't run that kind of map, it pays to be prepared.

Will dwarves have pastures aboveground in the mountain areas? If so will grass now regrow in mountain biomes?

That grass bug is really annoying on mountain maps. Before 0.31.19, we could settle on a mountain biome and engrave the surface, but now we have soil with grass that doesn't regrow.

The great thing about retiring forts is there's now a way to say "Mission Accomplished!" and "win" the game under those conditions. Of course, you'll start a new game, but that world will be changed by the stuff you've done in it.

Is the new stuff in this version going to make the saves from 0.34.11 incomptable? If not, what will happen with the "non-existant" settlements in that world?

[CLA]

Not necessarily related to technical development, but related to the Nov. report and development in general:


Do you think the (visible) focus in the recent development of Dwarf Fortress on world interaction - that is, including features that make people realize more easily that DF is generating a persistent world to interact with, with fortress, adventure, and legends mode being tools to interact with that world - rather than DF just being another city building/management sim and roguelike by itself is important for how you understand/envision Dwarf Fortress? Not only to differentiate DF from "clones" like Gnomoria, A game of Dwarves, Castle something something, and whatever they're all called, but more importantly in terms of a coherent "vision" you have for DF?
In other words: Do you see DF as city building/management sim and roguelike game with the whole world generation thing around it as "gimmick", or do you think, possibly contrary to what DF might have started out as, persistent and continuous interaction with the World that is generated is now the core game mechanic of DF, with the three modes being various facets of that mechanic?

[EmeraldWind]

Not necessarily related to technical development, but related to the Nov. report and development in general:


Do you think the (visible) focus in the recent development of Dwarf Fortress on world interaction - that is, including features that make people realize more easily that DF is generating a persistent world to interact with, with fortress, adventure, and legends mode being tools to interact with that world - rather than DF just being another city building/management sim and roguelike by itself is important for how you understand/envision Dwarf Fortress? Not only to differentiate DF from "clones" like Gnomoria, A game of Dwarves, Castle something something, and whatever they're all called, but more importantly in terms of a coherent "vision" you have for DF?
In other words: Do you see DF as city building/management sim and roguelike game with the whole world generation thing around it as "gimmick", or do you think, possibly contrary to what DF might have started out as, persistent and continuous interaction with the World that is generated is now the core game mechanic of DF, with the three modes being various facets of that mechanic?

Well, that was always the goal with DF. DF isn't meant to be a game about building a fort or a game about an adventurer exploring the world. It's meant to be a simulation that can create settings for players to explore, experience, and effect.

What we're seeing now are the first visages of Toady's original vision coming to life. This was why he was so eager to get to bringing the world to life. It was the point of all the work up to this point and this upcoming version is going to be our first look at the concept behind the whole project.

Granted even then we're still looking at a sapling that has only begun to grow.

[Putnam]

Not necessarily related to technical development, but related to the Nov. report and development in general:


Do you think the (visible) focus in the recent development of Dwarf Fortress on world interaction - that is, including features that make people realize more easily that DF is generating a persistent world to interact with, with fortress, adventure, and legends mode being tools to interact with that world - rather than DF just being another city building/management sim and roguelike by itself is important for how you understand/envision Dwarf Fortress? Not only to differentiate DF from "clones" like Gnomoria, A game of Dwarves, Castle something something, and whatever they're all called, but more importantly in terms of a coherent "vision" you have for DF?
In other words: Do you see DF as city building/management sim and roguelike game with the whole world generation thing around it as "gimmick", or do you think, possibly contrary to what DF might have started out as, persistent and continuous interaction with the World that is generated is now the core game mechanic of DF, with the three modes being various facets of that mechanic?

Well, that was always the goal with DF. DF isn't meant to be a game about building a fort or a game about an adventurer exploring the world. It's meant to be a simulation that can create settings for players to explore, experience, and effect.

What we're seeing now are the first visages of Toady's original vision coming to life. This was why he was so eager to get to bringing the world to life. It was the point of all the work up to this point and this upcoming version is going to be our first look at the concept behind the whole project.

Granted even then we're still looking at a sapling that has only begun to grow.

DF actually was meant to be a game about building a fort. It was meant to be a game about building a fort, then going into that fort as an adventurer and finding all the loot, reading all the stocks, etc. as a kind of "scoring system". It switched to what you see today before its first release in 2006, when he just started adding more and more things to it and decided to start working on it instead of Armok 1.

[EnigmaticHat]

W-we're getting retired forts?  And activating the world?  And getting NPC non-human sites?  And activating the world?

This release is a bundle of things I thought we weren't even going to start for a few years, much less NOW.  This is awesome.

[Putnam]

W-we're getting retired forts?  And activating the world?  And getting NPC non-human sites?  And activating the world?

This release is a bundle of things I thought we weren't even going to start for a few years, much less NOW.  This is awesome.

We've known about world activation was coming since June, IIRC...

[Lolfail0009]

With the fort retirement thing, will we be able to simulate the world a la worldgen, but after we leave a fort? And will adventurers gain in status over time?

[EnigmaticHat]

W-we're getting retired forts?  And activating the world?  And getting NPC non-human sites?  And activating the world?

This release is a bundle of things I thought we weren't even going to start for a few years, much less NOW.  This is awesome.

We've known about world activation was coming since June, IIRC...

Yeah, but at the time I wasn't expecting that one till we'd worked through inns and other economy stuff.  Ditto for non-human sites, although I've been modding my game so other races have human sites, so I'm not AS excited for that one.  The heroic, goblin fighting, child liberating adventures dark fortresses open up are going to be awesome though.

[thvaz]

Not necessarily related to technical development, but related to the Nov. report and development in general:


Do you think the (visible) focus in the recent development of Dwarf Fortress on world interaction - that is, including features that make people realize more easily that DF is generating a persistent world to interact with, with fortress, adventure, and legends mode being tools to interact with that world - rather than DF just being another city building/management sim and roguelike by itself is important for how you understand/envision Dwarf Fortress? Not only to differentiate DF from "clones" like Gnomoria, A game of Dwarves, Castle something something, and whatever they're all called, but more importantly in terms of a coherent "vision" you have for DF?
In other words: Do you see DF as city building/management sim and roguelike game with the whole world generation thing around it as "gimmick", or do you think, possibly contrary to what DF might have started out as, persistent and continuous interaction with the World that is generated is now the core game mechanic of DF, with the three modes being various facets of that mechanic?

Well, that was always the goal with DF. DF isn't meant to be a game about building a fort or a game about an adventurer exploring the world. It's meant to be a simulation that can create settings for players to explore, experience, and effect.

What we're seeing now are the first visages of Toady's original vision coming to life. This was why he was so eager to get to bringing the world to life. It was the point of all the work up to this point and this upcoming version is going to be our first look at the concept behind the whole project.

Granted even then we're still looking at a sapling that has only begun to grow.

DF actually was meant to be a game about building a fort. It was meant to be a game about building a fort, then going into that fort as an adventurer and finding all the loot, reading all the stocks, etc. as a kind of "scoring system". It switched to what you see today before its first release in 2006, when he just started adding more and more things to it and decided to start working on it instead of Armok 1.

Indeed, DF originally was a city building with very "gamey" mechanics, but then it was fused with the ideas Toady had originally since his older fantasy game I forgot the name now.

And DF is still different and original because of this ambition. Soon there won't be a genre of "DF-likes" anymore because DF would have become so much more than what it is today.