Print

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

[dfTruF]

What would we gain from this, gameplay-wise?

Gameplay-wise says that a game doesn't have to be simulator to be playable. But DF is more simulator than a game. Simulators tend to be more realistic over time.

[NW_Kohaku]

As far as I can tell, it doesn't really do anything, except be more technically accurate when talking about a climate (which really means "temperature" in-game right now). However, biomes are more relevant to the game, and if we already have temperature and rainfall meters, the only thing that might possibly be helped by this is the notion of how seasonal the rainy season is... and we could probably do that by just having another variable for seasonalness of the rain.

Essentially, "Climate" just doesn't fit into this game. 

We don't need another organizing classification system into a game where we already measure all the constituent parts of what goes into climate, and already have a much more specific biome system to do the organizing.  We already have a measurable rainfall, we already have a measurable temperature, we already have salinity, we already have distance from oceans and rainshadows from mountains. 

Having a more distinct mechanic where the closer you are to an ocean, the more stabilizing the effect upon the climate becomes (especially if DF were to model oceanic currents, so that, for example, ocean currents form clockwise in "northern hemisphere" regions, carrying warm water up east-facing coasts, and cold water down west-facing coasts), and the seasonality of rain (which may simply be related to being near a equator-facing oceanic coast in more tropical temperatures) would naturally be an improvement, if a minor one that only appears for those who truly look for it (or if certain crops are monsoon-dependent).  This wouldn't need to include "climates", however, merely more specific world generation mechanics and weather controls.

Simply let this form into making the notion of the biomes, and it will be a more technically accurate system than a "climate" system, which is really just an organizational construct, not an actual phenomenon.

[FearfulJesuit]

Well, yes, I mean, it's true that climate resists being pigeonholed. New York City, for example, is on the boundary between humid continental and subtropical and could go either way.

The point is that this allows better modding of climates, for one. It also combines some of the intersection of biome and climate.

tl;dr: I'm not really sure the current climate/biome system- especially considering the insane numbers of biomes- is actually the best way to model things.

[irmo]

What would we gain from this, gameplay-wise?

Gameplay-wise says that a game doesn't have to be simulator to be playable. But DF is more simulator than a game. Simulators tend to be more realistic over time.

So nothing, then?

[NW_Kohaku]

Well, yes, I mean, it's true that climate resists being pigeonholed. New York City, for example, is on the boundary between humid continental and subtropical and could go either way.

The point is that this allows better modding of climates, for one. It also combines some of the intersection of biome and climate.

tl;dr: I'm not really sure the current climate/biome system- especially considering the insane numbers of biomes- is actually the best way to model things.

In most cases, the game doesn't actually get that specific - you often find willows in both the mangrove swamps and the purely freshwater ones. 

Still, I don't think that having a particular notion of how much of a "Monsoon Season" a region gets is a bad thing, or the notion of how much an inland region has its temperatures vary compared to a coastal region is a bad thing - it's just that I don't see any real benefit from tearing down the existing biome structure, or remodeling it heavily to include a "climate" system to do so. 

I also don't get why or how you'd go around trying to mod these things, for that matter.  I would expect that if you wanted to mod things, you can just use the worldgen parameters to do so - hot desert worlds are easily made with alterations to the overall rainfall and the bounds you place on temperatures, as well as raising the general elevation to prevent overmuch ocean from forming.  (You can also smooth down the variances in order to create large tracts of desert.)  I'm not sure what modding would give you, outside of what the game looks like in the map, since you can already mod the important things relative to that - what plants and animals live there.

[Inarius]

Even the largest maps have a landmass roughly equivalent with Belgium.

Are you sure ?
It depends mainly on the size of a tile...

Dragon = rat = dwarf. Which is bigger ?

More seriously, i think that the climate is quite fine for now.
We all agree that nearly EVERY part of the game is not perfect for now. But i think that there are things more important to fix/improve than climate.
Of course an geological history of the place, with erosion, moutains, deltas, gigantic estuary, eruptions earthquake and hurricane would be fantastic. But before that, many things are to be done.

[Phlum]

I think it's funny when people have ideas that have most likely been on the developers agendas for years. Don't worry this will probably happen. Keep In mind this is 0.34.10 alpha, Nothing is final. I think people sometimes forget that this is an open source, free game, in early development. While they take for granted how complex this game is already.

[King Mir]

DF is not open source, no further improvements to climates are planned.

[NW_Kohaku]

Even the largest maps have a landmass roughly equivalent with Belgium.

Are you sure ?
It depends mainly on the size of a tile...

Dragon = rat = dwarf. Which is bigger ?

I'm assuming 2 meters, which is what Toady was going by when talking about minecarts, and is what Toady has used in the past as an example idea of the dimensions of a tile. 

I'd personally prefer 3 meters, which would be more the size of Ireland, but 2 meters is the most solid answer so far as Word of Toad is concerned.

I think it's funny when people have ideas that have most likely been on the developers agendas for years. Don't worry this will probably happen. Keep In mind this is 0.34.10 alpha, Nothing is final. I think people sometimes forget that this is an open source, free game, in early development. While they take for granted how complex this game is already.

You should probably save statements like those for after you've been on these forums for more than a week...

Not only is this game not open source, it's hardly in "early development" - this game has been worked on for 8 years, and people have been playing through most of that.  "Alpha" is a completely meaningless term on a game where paying players have been playing the game for six years. 

Likewise, you can see what's on Toady's agenda in the development pages... and while there are plenty of things that get suggested that are already there, this really isn't one of them, since it is talking about changing one of the few systems that probably isn't going to be scrapped and overhauled sometime later.

[Inarius]

You should probably save statements like those for after you've been on these forums for more than a week...

This kind of statement (despising people based on age) is nor intelligent either honorable. You don't know since when this one has been on the forum without posting, and you don't know for how long he has played...

Not only is this game not open source, it's hardly in "early development" - this game has been worked on for 8 years, and people have been playing through most of that.  "Alpha" is a completely meaningless term on a game where paying players have been playing the game for six years.

Considering that Toady has said that the game will be developped until 2030, we can say he is somewhere right...the game is still alpha because large parts of it are still to make. But of course, as he is working alone, development is VERY slow compared to a "normal" game.

Likewise, you can see what's on Toady's agenda in the development pages... and while there are plenty of things that get suggested that are already there, this really isn't one of them, since it is talking about changing one of the few systems that probably isn't going to be scrapped and overhauled sometime later.

I agree, climate revamp isn't programmed for now. But there are other priorities. Let's talk again about it around 2022 !