Print

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

[Hyndis]

You can always adjust your announcements file so that you have the game pause and recenter upon the death of any dwarf. This alerts you as well as stops the game should any dwarf die for any reason, allowing new orders to be given which may then resolve the problem with the minimum of death.

But do remember that the player has no direct control over dwarves, so even if you somehow figure out a way to go into bullet time, what good would that do?

You can give orders to your dwarves, such as military squad go to X location, but your dwarves can and do ignore the orders if there is something more pressing going on.

So lets say that the bullet time thing is in the game. How does that help you? Your influence and control over events is the same as it is now. It just takes longer for things to play out. If in the case of a losing battle or lost fortress, you have to wait for much longer for the same end result to happen.

[GreatWyrmGold]

You can always adjust your announcements file so that you have the game pause and recenter upon the death of any dwarf. This alerts you as well as stops the game should any dwarf die for any reason, allowing new orders to be given which may then resolve the problem with the minimum of death.

In what way does this relate to my arguments?
The closest is the one which pointed out that it would be bad if the first thing telling you that, say, a forgotten beast previously marked as "nonthreatening" found a way into your fortress was a combat report, but even that...if you don't hear about the FB until it kills someone, you're likely too late.

But do remember that the player has no direct control over dwarves, so even if you somehow figure out a way to go into bullet time, what good would that do?
You can give orders to your dwarves, such as military squad go to X location, but your dwarves can and do ignore the orders if there is something more pressing going on.

Not sure what this is referring to, either.

So lets say that the bullet time thing is in the game. How does that help you? Your influence and control over events is the same as it is now. It just takes longer for things to play out. If in the case of a losing battle or lost fortress, you have to wait for much longer for the same end result to happen.

This I understand, and incidentally agree with.

[Silverionmox]

Explain a difference between a flood and a cistern filling.

As I said, optional and the definition depends on the required fluids rewrite.

"Optional?" And no, there isn't any technical difference between filling a cistern and a flood.

Yes, optional, as in not essential for the suggestion and just a possible beneficial extension. It gives the option.

But they require combat, which would have to be done in non-crisis mode...

As I said, it's more or less "when dwarves panic". They don't panic for tantrums.

You're not responding to the point I said that for. I was pointing out that you would need non-Crisis-Mode combat for myriad situations.

I'm happy to address each of them. Shoot.

Again, we meet the issue of dangerous creatures being ignored until it's too late.

As I said, it's up to the player to decide whether to apply that mark or zone. Caveat emptor.

Problem is, precisely zero creatures can be trusted to not figure out a way into your fortress if they're capable of frightening dwarves. If the dwarves don't panic, the combat reports are the player's first sign that something's wrong...

Feel free to kill off everything that moves on your map to be on the safe side instead.

On the other hand, it also makes corrective methods (like putting up walls between groups and the like) effectively impossible.

Well, ask the police what they can do keep opposing groups of hooligans out of each other's hair: building a wall between them is not an option. It's a good thing that such gamey solutions become impossible.

What solutions become possible, then?

If your dwarves are already tantruming, it's too late already for a solution, just the cleanup is left... But we do need a "capture/restrain" combat option for soldiers.

Anyways, it's more "keep angry people from ruining others' days" than dealing with hooligans. Walls make sense for that, and have been used to keep the happy happy before. The House of the Spirits has a good example that comes to mind instantly--the people pleased with the current administration were shielded from the others by a big wall to keep them safe from the less-happy masses. Replace the governmental issues with the things that make dwarves tantrum, and you have a DF situation.

Sure, but it's more of a long-term prevention measure.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Explain a difference between a flood and a cistern filling.

As I said, optional and the definition depends on the required fluids rewrite.

"Optional?" And no, there isn't any technical difference between filling a cistern and a flood.

Yes, optional, as in not essential for the suggestion and just a possible beneficial extension. It gives the option.

It gives who what option?

But they require combat, which would have to be done in non-crisis mode...

As I said, it's more or less "when dwarves panic". They don't panic for tantrums.

You're not responding to the point I said that for. I was pointing out that you would need non-Crisis-Mode combat for myriad situations.

I'm happy to address each of them. Shoot.

That statement was aimed at the point that some combat would need to be done without the player knowing. This means that combat would need to be possible in the "normal" time scale.

Again, we meet the issue of dangerous creatures being ignored until it's too late.

As I said, it's up to the player to decide whether to apply that mark or zone. Caveat emptor.

Problem is, precisely zero creatures can be trusted to not figure out a way into your fortress if they're capable of frightening dwarves. If the dwarves don't panic, the combat reports are the player's first sign that something's wrong...

Feel free to kill off everything that moves on your map to be on the safe side instead.

...
You can't be serious.

On the other hand, it also makes corrective methods (like putting up walls between groups and the like) effectively impossible.

Well, ask the police what they can do keep opposing groups of hooligans out of each other's hair: building a wall between them is not an option. It's a good thing that such gamey solutions become impossible.

What solutions become possible, then?

If your dwarves are already tantruming, it's too late already for a solution, just the cleanup is left... But we do need a "capture/restrain" combat option for soldiers.

"If your dwarves are already tantruming..." Wrong. It's entirely possible to stop a tantrum spiral without killing every unhappy dwarf, and it should be,
The capture/restrain option is a good idea, but not relevant.

Anyways, it's more "keep angry people from ruining others' days" than dealing with hooligans. Walls make sense for that, and have been used to keep the happy happy before. The House of the Spirits has a good example that comes to mind instantly--the people pleased with the current administration were shielded from the others by a big wall to keep them safe from the less-happy masses. Replace the governmental issues with the things that make dwarves tantrum, and you have a DF situation.

Sure, but it's more of a long-term prevention measure.

Not so much. Those walls were erected as quickly as they could be to deal with the problems in the city.