Print

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

[darklord92]

I've noticed alot of times in updates that each side of the game needs to be tweaked between fort time and adventure time. However i see this as becoming a major issue when it ultimately comes to having dwarfs running your fortresses after retirement. There is an absolutely massive gap between fortress and adventure mode time, a dwarf mode time unity is about 72 times that of a adventure mode unit.


Proposed solution:
Remove fortress time all together, Dwarf fortress is ultimately a simulation game aiming for realism( though sometimes allowing stuff to break so it can be more fun of course ) , fort time is compressing that simulation in an un-needed way. dwarf mode can be tweaked in several ways to run in adventure time. some of the changes to include and their possible impacts on dwarf mode as a whole are listed:


crop growth - This is probably one of the largest issues with changing from fort time to a global adventure time. However it has an easy solution. allow some crops to take longer than others and allow short easy to harvest crops( such as raspberries or prickle berries ) to be harvested within a short time. and leave more bountiful but longer growing time crops to take seasons as per normal.

movement - as far as i can see dwarf time mainly controls day and night cycles as well as some other things possibly seiges as well as caravans. but as far as the actual ticks used to calculate the distance a creature moves, it can remain unchanged, adventure mode is a turn based simulation of the df world where as fort mode is simply running those 1 second frames at a set frame rate. so movement is largly unaffected by a move to adventure time.

traps and machines - machines are already planning a rewrite and would probably not require much tweaking if this is considered to be implemented. It would merely take 100 ticks for something to activate, or 100 in game seconds. to the player this would be sped up as with movement. but to creatures and adventurers it would be 100 turns.

day and night - one of the major things lacking in dwarf mode is a true night time, currently df goes from day to day instantly with things like werewolf interactions occurring weekly. instead with the new time weekly interactions would take place daily at night( however it would still be the exact same reallife time gap as it is now in fort mode)


- if there are any issues you all feel i missed feel free to tell me



conclusion:
the ultimate plan of this proposal is to change fort time into adventure time while still leaving many of fort modes elements including movement to remain unaffected

creatures will move at the same speed they do now as that is the games frames per second, so if a dwarf now takes 3 seconds to move down a 10 tile hallway, when moved to adventure time the frame speed would allow the dwarf to travel the same distance in the same time. however the actual ingame fundamentals would be different because in fort mode currently going 10 tiles is about 12 ingame minutes. where as in adventure time it would take 10 ingame seconds.


day and night will take the place of weekly interactions such as were beasts, as the game is already moving at the speed of the old fort mode it would take 86400 ingame seconds to rotate 24 hours, as such weekly interactions would take 43200 ingame seconds to toggle on and off day and night.

[DG]

This thread may interest you if you haven't already seen it. I think it's the most recent dealing with time differences.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=111046.0

[GreatWyrmGold]

Suggested before, as mentioned. Big problems, notably getting through a decent amount of time before your haiar turns gray.

Adventure mode runs what, 72 times faster than Fortress Mode? This means that it would take about 72 times as long to get through as much time. This means that, if you can play DF for four hours straight a day, 7 days a week, 52+1/7 weeks a year, it would take more than two weeks to get through a single year at 100 FPS. As FPS drops significantly over a fort's lifetime and on weaker computers, it could easily take years to get through a decent-length fortress. Of nothing else would prove it, check the Community Games and Stories subforum and measure how long those games took to get "somewhere." In real time, mind you, not dwarf time. Now multiply that by 72...

[darklord92]

the only thing i could think of besides that is a time control. fortress mode would run on the 1 tick per second. but would default at normal fort speed of 72 times that so you can run a fort at 1 tile a second if you wished or run it at the full 72 as it is now. the matter is the time difference between the modes has constantly been brought up as an issue and allowing fort mode to run at it's core on adventure time would solve at least some difficulties putting in features. sorta like when mojang put it's client and server code together so they only had to release one code base, however in df it'll be df mode features synching up with adventure features easier.

[goblolo]

I'd suggest running history simulation during fortress mide (adventurer mode is too slow to have a huge impact on history). It would be cool if you embark in good biome and after 2-3 years a necromancer builds tower near you and start sieges!
There vill be issues with terrain evolution (erosion, alignment change etc.), but it could be turned off for your region (some of them, such as alignment, can be applied after your fortress has been abandoned).

[Di]

1 tick per second. but would default at normal fort speed of 72 times

Did I get it correct: you want the game to recalculate 72 frames instead of 1?

[10ebbor10]

I'd suggest running history simulation during fortress mide (adventurer mode is too slow to have a huge impact on history). It would be cool if you embark in good biome and after 2-3 years a necromancer builds tower near you and start sieges!
There vill be issues with terrain evolution (erosion, alignment change etc.), but it could be turned off for your region (some of them, such as alignment, can be applied after your fortress has been abandoned).

While it's no real history simulation, this is already in the works. Armies move around and raze towns in the next update, and maybe construction happens too. Most of this is adventure mode stuff, since that's easier to implement. (You can do things off screen)

[XXSockXX]

While I think some change with this is going to be necessary, I find it really problematic, most issues are already mentioned in the thread linked above.
My current playstyle would not work anymore, as it already takes me several real-life months to get a fort that is a few decades old, instead of only playing 2 years and starting over.
Everything would take MUCH much longer.
Food is a huge issue, if you keep it realistic. There are no crops or berries that can be harvested often enough to provide 2 or 3 meals a day for 100 dwarfs, not to speak of 400. That's why farms tend to be so big in real life. Getting animals to breed would be harder too.
Also construction and mining would have to be revamped. Many things players build would take years to build in real life, if you want to keep it realistic you can't have your dwarfs build a defensive wall or a bedroom complex in a few weeks.

I'd suggest running history simulation during fortress mide (adventurer mode is too slow to have a huge impact on history). It would be cool if you embark in good biome and after 2-3 years a necromancer builds tower near you and start sieges!
There vill be issues with terrain evolution (erosion, alignment change etc.), but it could be turned off for your region (some of them, such as alignment, can be applied after your fortress has been abandoned).

History takes much longer than that. Armies take weeks or months to move, towers take years to be build. Erosion is barely noticeable after centuries in most environments. Spontanous allignment changes are just goofy. All these suggestions sound rather like you get bored with your forts after 2 years, for me they could possibly break the game.

It all depends on how interaction with the world is handled and how trade is going to change. Currently the dwarven caravan needs a year to get to you, no matter if you embark right next to the mountainhome or on the other side of the world, while an adventurer can cross a small world in a matter of days. This has to be balanced somehow obviously, but you would not want a caravan coming only once every year, if you had to play a real-life month to get to that.

[GreatWyrmGold]

the only thing i could think of besides that is a time control. fortress mode would run on the 1 tick per second. but would default at normal fort speed of 72 times that so you can run a fort at 1 tile a second if you wished or run it at the full 72 as it is now. the matter is the time difference between the modes has constantly been brought up as an issue and allowing fort mode to run at it's core on adventure time would solve at least some difficulties putting in features. sorta like when mojang put it's client and server code together so they only had to release one code base, however in df it'll be df mode features synching up with adventure features easier.

You can already do that, just change the FPS cap. It is, of course, probable that I have no idea what you are talking about.

History generation during play is planned and underway.

[darklord92]

the only thing i could think of besides that is a time control. fortress mode would run on the 1 tick per second. but would default at normal fort speed of 72 times that so you can run a fort at 1 tile a second if you wished or run it at the full 72 as it is now. the matter is the time difference between the modes has constantly been brought up as an issue and allowing fort mode to run at it's core on adventure time would solve at least some difficulties putting in features. sorta like when mojang put it's client and server code together so they only had to release one code base, however in df it'll be df mode features synching up with adventure features easier.

You can already do that, just change the FPS cap. It is, of course, probable that I have no idea what you are talking about.

History generation during play is planned and underway.

it's probably best i come up with some way of drawing than explaining. I've always been weak explaining things without visuals. I'll post back when i've put together something proper.

[Waparius]

Food is a huge issue, if you keep it realistic.
...
Also construction and mining would have to be revamped. Many things players build would take years to build in real life, if you want to keep it realistic you can't have your dwarfs build a defensive wall or a bedroom complex in a few weeks.

I'm sure it's been suggested before but food-as-an-issue is a feature, not a bug, as long as trading gets rejiggered - goblin sieges actually become a thing that has to be dealt with. The "lock the door" method is too easy.

The time problem becomes less so if it's possible to speed up the passage of time. Speed up to focus on production and construction, slow down for defence and trade - but from what more program-savvy sorts have said that'd sort of require less focus on the individual dwarves in production-time unless you wanted to melt your processors.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Food is a huge issue, if you keep it realistic.
...
Also construction and mining would have to be revamped. Many things players build would take years to build in real life, if you want to keep it realistic you can't have your dwarfs build a defensive wall or a bedroom complex in a few weeks.

I'm sure it's been suggested before but food-as-an-issue is a feature, not a bug, as long as trading gets rejiggered - goblin sieges actually become a thing that has to be dealt with. The "lock the door" method is too easy.

Very not true.
If we had to make three meals a day per dwarf, as opposed to one every two weeks, we'd just need 42 times the farms, farmers, and fowl--still underground, just more. It'd still be possible to lock the door.

The time problem becomes less so if it's possible to speed up the passage of time. Speed up to focus on production and construction, slow down for defence and trade - but from what more program-savvy sorts have said that'd sort of require less focus on the individual dwarves in production-time unless you wanted to melt your processors.

Problem is, you lose either plausibility or smoothness if you do that. Time speeding was discussed there, too. I'd imagine that, since we kinda like having our Fun losses before Hell freezes over, many of us would just keep it on fast-forward all the time. I know I would.

[Hyndis]

A fortress going in adventure time seems to fast. Years would progress too quickly, and not enough work could get done in that time frame for it to seem like years should be passing.

On the flipside, I don't think having a fortress running in real time would be all that practical either. There must be abstractions made for the sake of gameplay. A perfectly accurate simulation would also make for a terrible game. If you want a perfectly accurate simulation of life, just go outside.

Consider that a dwarf would need to eat and drink multiple times per day. Growing a crop will take months to finish. I'm not talking in-game months, which is fine, but real life months. That would be silly if I start a fortress right now, I'm playing 24/7, and I don't get in my first plump helmet harvest until March. And this isn't even getting into other dwarven needs, such as sanitation. I agree with Toady on this one, in that adding in sanitation to the game would be horrific. While engineering sewers would be fun, weaponized sewage and other filth would be all kinds of ick.

Also consider dwarven children. Its already very generous with a 12 year old being considered an adult in a fortress. I'm not waiting through 4 presidential administrations before Urist McBaby is old enough to be given an axe and go chopping goblins.

I think the current balance of time compression in fortress mode gets it about right. Things are abstracted, yes, but time also progresses quickly enough that a player can build things and have generations of dwarves living in a long term fortress, yet time is also slow enough that there is a sense of the passage of time and seasons.

Sometimes things can get silly, such as it taking half a year to clean up from a single goblin siege, depending on how many giblets are created, or hauling nightmares created by reorganizing your stockpiles, causing everything needing to be resorted, but all in all, I think Toady got the balance of realism vs playability right when it comes to time.

[Silverionmox]

The game needs abstraction because real time pace isn't a game. What it does now is two things: first, reduce the amount of natural cycles (hunger, sleep, etc.) in a year; second, reduce the amount of time needed for certain tasks (sleep, eat, stationary labor) in favor of moving around (so the player can look at an active fortress).

This works marvelously for normal economic activity, construction and skirmishes, but really has limitations for sieges and longer battles. Ordering your soldiers to run out the front gates takes days, if not weeks. It's impossible to eg. make tactical use of nightfall, because it lasts only two player time seconds.

A solution I proposed some time ago was to change to crisis mode whenever something dangerous happens. Civilians would get the same number of actions per year, but there would be much more days; soldiers and anyone involved in the danger would get more actions, while keeping their food requirements per year stable. This would effectively put civilians in slow motion, allowing the player to pay attention to the invasion, the soldiers to leave their barracks and do some fighting before a week has passed, and have an overall more interesting combat without making it abusable in an economic way. thread: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=113068.msg3445346#msg3445346

[Hyndis]

Its common for games to divide up building time and fighting time. Pretty much any turn based strategy game will do this. The Total War series games all take place in hugely sped up time, so that a single turn can be weeks or months of time. However once a battle occurs, it goes straight to real time, where soldiers all move at realistic speeds. Ever play the old siege game, Lords of the Realm? Same idea. A turn was a season, but battle was real time. (Lords of the Realm 3 was made of epic fail and suck, as it had everything in real time, all happening simultaneously. Including battles. Meaning it took a soldier the same amount of time to walk from one castle tower to another in the very same castle as it took an army to march all the way across England.)

I just don't think DF is really suited to splitting up time into building time and battle time. There are many problems with giving soldiers bullet time as if they were in the matrix while keeping civilians slow. But I'll point out one severe problem:

Levers.

Soldiers do not pull levers. Only civilians do. If you are relying on machines for your defense then you're doomed, as soldiers will be zooming around while civilians are frozen, so goblins will be able to walk right in while your lever pullers are stuck in slow motion.

Also in a way, soldiers already can move much faster than civilians. A legendary armor user who is super strong and super agile will be vastly faster than a peasant, allowing the soldier to perform many more jobs in the same amount of time, be it hauling boulders around or chopping goblins. Soldiers tend to have extremely high physical stats due to them doing all kinds of physical jobs involved in combat.