Print

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

[Meph]

Just posting a random idea I had:

Has anyone ever made a succession fort that doubles after each year? So player1 plays year 1, and player 2 and player 3 get the save... both play year 2. Then player 4 and 5 get the save from player 2, both play year 3. At the same time player 6 and 7 get the save from player 3, both playing year 3 as well.

Like this:


If a fortress dies, no problem... no savescumming, just a dead end in the tree, while the rest plays on. Would require quite the amount of players of course, but the same people could play several turns, on different branches. Posts could be color-coded for easier reading.

I guess player numbers would have to be massive, but 4-5-6 turns should be possible. I mainly find this interesting from a spectators point of view... how different will the forts be in the end?

[Krevsin]

If such a fort were to exist, i would pitch in.

It might get a bit confusing, though.

[AoshimaMichio]

I believe it would become very quickly unmanageable mess. I think it would be better to limit number of branches to four at beginning and expand later if it seems reasonable. But intresting idea anyway.
I wonder if ambushes and sieges could be detected in one timeline/reality and be prepared for in others...

[Meph]

well, maybe the amount could be limited...

but ambushes and sieges can not be foreseen that way, they are procedually generated.

[Meph]

Generally yes, but that would be a horrible idea.

Turn 4: 8 new topics.
Turn 6: 32 new topics. WTF.

I think starting with year 1, then splitting realities into 2, then 4, that should be enough. It needs enough players then. Red, Blue, Orange, Yellow. 4 Fortresses. I think I like the idea.

Being me, I would start the fort with MasterworkDF... V.3c, using a new tileset I want to try out.

[Matoro]

Sounds like a good idea, at least if you make only four splits. Splitting this infinitely would be just a giant mess. I'm in if we have vanilla or Masterwork with nearly-vanilla settings (I don't mind new races and simple materials and better caverns, but tree farming and golem making and stuff - so undwarven).

[Krevsin]

I'd like to see this in Vanilla first, as a proof of concept.

[sackhead]

Being me, I would start the fort with MasterworkDF... V.3c, using a new tileset I want to try out.

i am guesing Obsidian's because that would be cool

also someones working on a similar systym
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=127497.0

[Octobomb]

You could name the saves phonetically - Alpha, then Alpha's offspring are Beta and Charlie, then Beta's offspring Delta and Echo, then Charlie's Foxtrot and so on. I might try and organise this actually. Would be fun. Gimme some time and ill comeup with a layout. If I do execute the plan, vanilla, would you do me the honor of taking turn Alpha Meph?
Edit: Or we could do Masterwork

[sculleywr]

Here's an idea, have 4-6 active splits, and then split off the most successful branch if one fails. In this way, you prevent the people from spamming the board with two thousand new threads, and you have places for players to go if the fort branch they signed onto had too much !fun!. Now that I have the hang of running Masterwork, I could do it in MW or vanilla DF.

[Meph]

Greek letters are fine as well, I just thought colors would be easier to represent in the forum. Make all the posts about blue.. well, blue, and it will stand out directly.

It would be Masterwork, with MY new tileset, not Obsidian Souls. It uses the same walls, but the rest is different.

I myself would either play the first turn or not at all, probably not at all... but I see that quite a few people posted here already, so lets see. Once I make the next release I will give this a go. But of course I cant stop anyone from doing a binary vanilla DF fortress Its not a copyrighted idea, if anyone likes it and wants to use th unmodded game, go ahead, just open a new thread.

[Krevsin]

For extra !!FUN!!, Kobold Camp should be used 


Also, I think that having 4 separate fortresses running in a single thread could be manageable.

[Meph]

Yeah, that shouldnt be a big problem. Just compress every year from a player to a single post.

[Krevsin]

And properly marked discussion, of course.

[Di]

It has been attempted a couple of times (here and here for example), but the games died due to mysterious lack of players.
It appears to me that in order to success such a game needs to start off some already popular fortress. And the problem is that most fortresses that have already become famous have become unplayable for the most as well.