Print

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

[Babylon]

I think healing rain that heals goblins is going to up the challenge level quite a bit

Dwarf Fortress is sort of a game of killing blows. Goblins tend to be killed or crippled in single strikes.

I dunno, they don't wear armor on their arms and legs a fair amount of the time, and weapon traps tend to take advantage of that and cut off their limbs.  healing rain could make weapon traps much less effective.

Hunters also often just wound the animals they are hunting.

[Starver]

I don't think this is relevant to the suggestion.  If the complaint is that so-called "Easy" good regions are actually made hard to play, by such a change, then the true "Easy" embarks are actually in neutral regions with hard/harder embarks (or equally, although differently, hard ones) to be found in good ones and evil ones.  It all comes out in the wash.

But although there has been some talk about Easy and Hard equating to region-alignment, given that an Evil embark is terribly easy to play if you do <foo> while being terribly hard to play if you do <bar>, I'm afraid I can only see this as a red-herring argument, or possibly a misguided one in the first-place.

[Babylon]

I don't think this is relevant to the suggestion.  If the complaint is that so-called "Easy" good regions are actually made hard to play, by such a change, then the true "Easy" embarks are actually in neutral regions with hard/harder embarks (or equally, although differently, hard ones) to be found in good ones and evil ones.  It all comes out in the wash.

But although there has been some talk about Easy and Hard equating to region-alignment, given that an Evil embark is terribly easy to play if you do <foo> while being terribly hard to play if you do <bar>, I'm afraid I can only see this as a red-herring argument, or possibly a misguided one in the first-place.

the easy region is supposed to be the neutral ones.

Good should be challenging in a different way than evil, but still more challenging than neutral.

[NW_Kohaku]

I don't think this is relevant to the suggestion.  If the complaint is that so-called "Easy" good regions are actually made hard to play, by such a change, then the true "Easy" embarks are actually in neutral regions with hard/harder embarks (or equally, although differently, hard ones) to be found in good ones and evil ones.  It all comes out in the wash.

But although there has been some talk about Easy and Hard equating to region-alignment, given that an Evil embark is terribly easy to play if you do <foo> while being terribly hard to play if you do <bar>, I'm afraid I can only see this as a red-herring argument, or possibly a misguided one in the first-place.

the easy region is supposed to be the neutral ones.

Good should be challenging in a different way than evil, but still more challenging than neutral.

Once again, I have to ask, "why?"

I don't think Good should be more challenging than Neutral.  I think it should just be more strange/interesting.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I agree with HugoLuman. Good areas should be nice, not vengeful. If you're afraid of nice == easy, don't worry; they'd be nice to goblins, too.

Protecting is not being vengeful. Are we vengeful when we cut a tumor out of a patient? As stated before, there has to be a reason why only elves live there. Otherwise, everyone would want to live in the land of happiness and healing rains. Its not that I'm afraid of nice being easy, I'm afraid of nice being stupid and gamey. Not that there's anything wrong with healing rains and everything else. That should all go in, but there should be a cost associated with it, and that cost should be protecting the land. I feel that savagery should only alter how soon you hit the cut off of how much despoiling the land is willing to take, and maybe the response, where in benign lands you just get cut off from all the good effects. In mirthful you'll occasionally get a small amount of unicorns ambushing you in addition to losing the effects. And in Joyous Wilds you get a never-ending siege of unicorns and walking trees and what not, plus losing the effects.

Protecting from what? Having holes dug in the ground? How is a land killing people trying to make a living in the only way they know how good, at all?
Seriously, I'm sick of the argument of "Good lands are obviously supposed to be a place where the land kills people who do stuff the land doesn't like!" That's not good. That's mean, at the very least.

-snip-

Once again, I have to ask, "why?"

I don't think Good should be more challenging than Neutral.  I think it should just be more strange/interesting.

I think that, ideally, each type of land should offer its own challenges. For instance, evil areas have you fighting the undead and such, but goblins really don't survive long enough in this area to be dangerous. Good areas are easy to live in, and might (for instance) give hungry dwarves fruit and heal them, but enemies are also going to get those benifets, and dwarves would be less motivated to work.

[King Mir]

Any kind of buff to everyone is still an advantage to the residents. That doesn't count as a new challenge; it makes things easier.

[dizzyelk]

I agree with HugoLuman. Good areas should be nice, not vengeful. If you're afraid of nice == easy, don't worry; they'd be nice to goblins, too.

Protecting is not being vengeful. Are we vengeful when we cut a tumor out of a patient? As stated before, there has to be a reason why only elves live there. Otherwise, everyone would want to live in the land of happiness and healing rains. Its not that I'm afraid of nice being easy, I'm afraid of nice being stupid and gamey. Not that there's anything wrong with healing rains and everything else. That should all go in, but there should be a cost associated with it, and that cost should be protecting the land. I feel that savagery should only alter how soon you hit the cut off of how much despoiling the land is willing to take, and maybe the response, where in benign lands you just get cut off from all the good effects. In mirthful you'll occasionally get a small amount of unicorns ambushing you in addition to losing the effects. And in Joyous Wilds you get a never-ending siege of unicorns and walking trees and what not, plus losing the effects.

Protecting from what? Having holes dug in the ground? How is a land killing people trying to make a living in the only way they know how good, at all?
Seriously, I'm sick of the argument of "Good lands are obviously supposed to be a place where the land kills people who do stuff the land doesn't like!" That's not good. That's mean, at the very least.

How is protecting yourself not good? It would only be mean if it was unwarranted. And dwarves do more than dig in the ground, 2 years after embarking my dwarves have clear cut the whole embark area and slaughtered every animal in the region. The ground and stream is awash with blood, the whole shape of the land has been changed as I decide this slope would make a great cliff for the entrance of my fortress. And stopping that is what I mean by protecting. We're unwanted invaders in the area. I'm sick of the argument that "good lands passively sit back and be destroyed while helping those that are ruining it." The whole point is that it is a great and fertile land, but it has protectors. And those protectors should be the unicorns and satyrs. It should have creatures that don't understand mortals and hurt them in tricks like fairies. Gnomes should just be curious and pull levers and drink your booze. If you play by their rules and only dig a hole in the ground, and don't cut down too many trees, and don't massively change the landscape, you should get rewards, but you shouldn't get the benefits if you're there to destroy the natural beauty of the place. Otherwise what are the purpose of the good biome creatures?

I think healing rain that heals goblins is going to up the challenge level quite a bit.  Animals that are being hunted getting healed does as well.

And those healing rains should be there, although I don't see how it ups the challenge if your dwarves are being healed at the same rate at the same time.

Any kind of buff to everyone is still an advantage to the residents. That doesn't count as a new challenge; it makes things easier.

This, and that's why, at the very least, you should be able to lose that buff. Although it would be better, if in the more savage areas, you also have to answer for your actions.

[Neonivek]

How is protecting yourself not good?

They are going with the passifism version and are also going Dwarf Centric.

In otherwords a "Good" land is a land that is "good for them". It isn't a hard line of thought to hear. The problem is often that they are so diehard that good lands can only be this way that you are not sure if they mean "should" or if they mean "It only makes sense this way".

Or to sum up: "Evil will always win because good is dumb".

Once again, I have to ask, "why?"

I don't think Good should be more challenging than Neutral.  I think it should just be more strange/interesting

A good neutral area has a lot of natural resources and a calm wilderness with few-no preditors or strong creatures and lots of game that can easily be taken care of. This is perfect the ideal location.

A good area may not have a lot of natural resources and its wilderness actually can be full of strong creatures. It at least is tougher.

Now what makes it tougher depends on the kind of good interpretation we are going for.

-Benevolent Lands are dangerous because it aids friend and foe alike and are valuable
--A Goblin raids occurs, the wind seems to be on their back and they are exceptionally tough to wound. As if the land itself was helping them that day.
-Easy Lands / Paradise lands are dangerous because they are so absolutely contested.
--Dragons fighting hard to try to earn a home to live in a land where their young can grow strong. Even working together with other creatures just to ensure the victory.
-Alien Lands are dangerous because they are made for the survival of their own animals that they are incompatable with dwarves.
--Candyland where everything is made of Candy and thus nothing grows and there is nothing healthy to eat.
-Nature Lands are dangerous because the land protects itself and Dwarves are very harmful to the surroundings.
--A land where all the trees have Dryads living inside them, or where the ground is in fact the flesh of the land itself.
-Bleach Lands are dangerous because your dwarves are the evil invaders that need to be espunged.
--A Land where even the mildest bad thought causes crippling pain to the wilderness, making the Paladin Boars mad.
-Too Good lands are dangerous because Dwarves are not equipped to remain productive in such a place.
--Fruits so delicious a dwarf just stops working.
-Whimsy lands are dangerous because they are just good themed but in fact can be just as malicious as anywhere else.
--Fairies who are just as likely to leave a tack on your chair as they are to push you off a fortification.
-Strengthening Lands are dangerous simply because all the inhabitants are empowered.
--A massive titan, the genus loci, of the land stomps through destroying all in its blindness.

The thing is... Neutral lands is all benefits and no drawback. There is nothing strange or exceptional in them to alter how they are played unless a new element is introduced.

A Good land may have benefits (like healing rain that everyone gives as an example... which I wish people would come up with a better example of a good effect and not a "lets reverse what evil lands do") but it also has many detriments.

And yes IMO perfectly neutral forests with mountains should be the lowest point of easy the game should provide unless something fantastic happens in world gen (and I mean... not even "in every game" fantastic)

Also I love how people forget that "Good lands" can be deserts and Glaciers... For some that would mean that they should be hot and water deprived.. or cold and equally water deprived.

[WillowLuman]

Still, as long as no one is suggesting that good lands should raise the dead as zombies, drip horrible poisons from the sky, and be full of husking mists. Having them just be evil under a different name, as has already been said, would be very disappointing.

[UHaulDwarf]

I think the crux of the problem is that there are no holy lands.
I don't think we would be having this talk if the lands you were digging in where gods backyard.

I think that dwarves also regard the craft of constant alchoholism in much higher regards than anything else. This seems reflected in many of their works. Like engravings of engravings of cheese, or their diet of two meals and four drinks per season, or the fact that a newborn (dwarven) baby's first meal is probably alcohol. They need alchohol mentally.

Sunberry's make the best alcohol so good regions would be the best lands for them.

[Manveru Taurënér]

Quote from the new updated dev page: "Scrap good/evil lands for lands with more variety"

I guess much of this thread was just nullified ^^

[Neonivek]

Quote from the new updated dev page: "Scrap good/evil lands for lands with more variety"

I guess much of this thread was just nullified ^^

Believe it or not Toady had taking out good and evil lands and replacing them with sphere lands for ages. Years ago in fact.

[Manveru Taurënér]

Yeah, I know, but it wasn't listed as a current development note until now ^^ (I think?)

[obolisk0430]

What does sphere land imply?

[Manveru Taurënér]

What does sphere land imply?

Sort of that instead of having generic Good/evil lands of different degrees, we'll have lands associated to the different deities and their spheres. For example lands of fertility, lands of murder, lands of wealth etc.