Print

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

[GavJ]

World gen seems 90% focused at the moment on realism and worldwide maps and consistency, but fortress mode players don't have any great reason to care about that when they're playing on 0.1% of that world map. So I end up spending like 50% of my time trying to generate worlds, and not having much fun.

As a fortress player, I want a specific map, and don't want to generate 75 worlds on the off chance of maybe finding something kind of like it.  For example, let's say I want:
* A volcano, with a high magma level
* Steel making ores and flux
* a coast
* steep interesting cliffs
* elves humans and goblins, at war with humans and elves.
* An aquifer
* some sand and some trees

This is almost completely if not literally impossible right now. Even with world painter, your brush only goes down to a resolution several times the size of a fort, which doesn't help ensure any sort of diversity like I am looking for, or to make the shape map I want. It's like trying to paint a picture with an 8 foot wide paintbrush only.

Instead, I'd envision a process something like current world painter, but for one fortress embark, instead of a whole world. I.e. world painting individual embark tiles in a single world square. The rest of the world doesn't even really need to be genned at all, although it could be if it's easier to just leave that code there and not have to solve all the problems with where migrants come from etc. that would result. In order of desired value:

1) Make the resolution of the worldpainter tool be able to go down to a single EMBARK square, not a world gen square. This solves most issues. It might require smoothing algorithms etc. to change, and be more computer intensive for the same size world, but you don't NEED the world, so who cares? You would always be doing this in a pocket world or even a smaller option, so the algorithm using much finer grained nodes is fine.
2) Include layer type (or whatever it is called - metamorphic, igneous extrusive, etc.) as one of the painting brush options on world painter.
3) Instead of 1-100 volcanism, just be able to paint volcanoes, and the number of the parameter can be height of the lava instead, which would be more useful/convenient (the actual worldgen can then smooth from that height more or less, to make it not stupid looking. I.e. the volcano height basically = the height of the node on that embark tile)
4) Ideally, be able to just force whatever combination of civs and war statuses directly (harder probably), without having to have them be part of some long story. But this would probably require a lot more under the hood changes than #1-3. #1-3 could still be part of a world, but you're just simply only micro-designing the small area you plan to embark in, and you don't care if there happens to be a world outside still, but more of the same code would work.

[Morcaster]

I think I'd like that.

[Manveru Taurënér]

Don't really have much of an opinion on the general idea. If it wouldn't take much work then sure, why not. It feels like a lot of this goes quite counter to the long-term goals of the game though. Especially saying we don't "NEED" the world is a bit short-sighted. The world is only going to matter more and more and more with each release to come. The world getting fleshed out more should also help with several of these points eventually, such as improved trading making sure you don't need every single resource on the map (flux, ores, sand etc). Being at war with other civs won't be an issue soon enough either when we get to the point of being able to declare wars and sending our own soldiers out to siege other sites.

Regarding cliffs, that's something that'll get fixed when we get to adding/improving map features:

Bloat338, MORE OUTDOOR MAP FEATURES, (Future): Various additional outside and inside features, like mesas, canyons, hill tops and so on.

Cliffs aren't even in the game properly yet other than appearing near river intersections and particularly large mountains (and possibly other placeholdery/buggy map features). We're a good step closer to that though with climbing coming back in the next release:

When cliffs come back - when we get a notion of a cliff as an external feature - the problem with cliffs coming back was that you didn't have a way to climb, they were everywhere and you didn't have a way to climb in adventure mode. But cliffs can start to come back first probably as external features, just like the lava and so on, like lava and bottomless pits used to be these features underground, there are going to be special features above ground where you have a bit more interesting things that it also can have a handle on so it doesn't just put them everywhere and at that time you can start to think about a cave entrance that looks more interesting. The problem was that there's no real sheer faces to make a cave entrance look more like you'd expect a cave entrance to look like, so it just has to dig down, right? It has to dig in the dirt until it gets a cave entrance for you, which is really disappointing because you go and they all look like these little pits. So it's something we want to change but it's something that has an intermediate step that needs to go in first and I'm not sure when the aboveground thing ... when we put in things like canyons and mesas and other interesting constructions aboveground.

Some things on that list will probably always be hard to find together thogh, especially all together, since a lot of those features don't really go together naturally that often. Having more reasonable demands on the map is probably a better idea than demanding an easy fix to have-it-all maps (and yeah, I can be the same with regenning a thousand times for the "right map" at times, but that's the price one has to pay for being picky. Having the world fleshed out will thankfully help with a lot of my issues going forward) ^^

[GavJ]

Manveru, that game model makes a bunch of often wrong assumptions about gameplay.

"Oh you can just trade for everything!" Well that's nice, but what if I most enjoy traps and military and I want to be at WAR with as many nations as possible, so as to get the most invasions where the fun is for me? This game model is directly counterproductive to me, because I now have to choose between keeping human caravans alive, versus slaughtering all of them in order to provoke sieges, etc.

Being able to send soldiers out to make wars happen more is nice, but doesn't fix that inherent conundrum -- if I go to war, now I can't build anything I want to build, because I don't have all my resources on my own map.

a lot of those features don't really go together naturally that often.

This assumes I give two hoots about natural realism. Same goes for having all resources, that's not realistic either. So what? I'm playing the game because awesome crap happens like a badger being thrown 2 football fields off a bridge, exploding, and its arm bone killing a nearby dwarf. Or babies punching dragons to death.

Not because I was jonesing for one bad*** geology simulator...

I can be the same with regenning a thousand times for the "right map" at times, but that's the price one has to pay for being picky.

It's only the price one HAS to pay currently because of the world gen system. Hence the point of the thread to make it no longer necessary to pay yes?

[GavJ]

Note that I'm all for having DEFAULT options be realistic. But pretty much every player wants to customize after just a couple of games, to some degree. Whether it be world gen picking, or making a race made out of copper that doesn't breathe or sleep or have emotions to play.

I'm only asking for more powerful optional tools.  It's a sandbox game, and the topography of the metaphorical sandboxes don't have to follow realistic wind-erosion patterns when 3 year olds are playing in them, right?

[Zammer990]

There are a few modding options available to solve the problem of wanting to be at war with everyone (assuming you exclude dwarves), eg. giving dwarves the ability to summon metals in worldgen, or yourself for that matter. This just doesn't seem like it would be of high priority, since the game is woefully unfinished, keeping an option like this up to date with each release seems like a lot of work if any major changes to world generation happen.
If you want sieges, there is a DFhack command to summon them, and killing sieges doesn't seem to stop trading.

[GavJ]

If you want sieges, there is a DFhack command to summon them, and killing sieges doesn't seem to stop trading.

That is good to know, thanks! I swear I look over that list of commands like every day and still always miss these things

[Nostrolo]

I think that there should be some preset options so if you want you can have an entirely desert/jungle/forest/whatever region. I've tried to do it by tweaking the settings but im nubkins and i just wind up getting an infinite rejection loop

[Zammer990]

If you want sieges, there is a DFhack command to summon them, and killing sieges doesn't seem to stop trading.

That is good to know, thanks! I swear I look over that list of commands like every day and still always miss these things

You'll need to download the "force" command I think, then it's just force siege EVIL/PLAINS/SKULKING/FOREST etc

[Xazo-Tak]

No, this suggestion undermines concepts behind Dwarf Fortress.
1: You aren't supposed to be given everything you'll need for a site, otherwise all forts would play out the same way.
2: This is supposed to be a generator, not a canvas. Dwarf Fortress will eventually be greater than almost any person at making fantasy worlds, so why should a mere human influence anything beyond blunt topology?

[Wirevix]

Ehn, denying a suggestion based on "the ideal of Dwarf Fortress" would be a little silly.

Yes Dwarf Fortress is meant to be a simulation and story generator more than a classical game, but it is also meant to be incredibly customizable.  Thus why Toady makes so much effort to export as much of the game as possible, over time, into the RAWs so that the average player can modify them.

So if someone wants to be able to just paint their own world, I wouldn't say it's against the spirit of the game.  The spirit of the game is that it's constantly changing, really.  And it could have amazing results on the ongoing story--paint a world and put your races in, and then see how history evolves from having such a strange universe.  If you need a story explanation, it's already there in the canon--Armok wished it, and it was so, seeing as Armok (the player, for those who haven't put two and two together on that particular bit of lore) ultimately decides the fate of everything in Dwarf Fortress.

Of course if this method of generation ever comes in it'll be much, much later in the game's development, since it would require a whole new line of effort over the route Toady is currently taking.

[GavJ]

No, this suggestion undermines concepts behind Dwarf Fortress.
1: You aren't supposed to be given everything you'll need for a site, otherwise all forts would play out the same way.
2: This is supposed to be a generator, not a canvas.

What do you care if I use non-default options to make forts that tend to play out too similarly for your tastes? They're my forts, not yours.

Dwarf Fortress will eventually be greater than almost any person at making fantasy worlds, so why should a mere human influence anything beyond blunt topology?

I don't WANT a fantasy WORLD that's perfect. I want a fantasy **embark site** that's perfect, because that's all I actually significantly interact with.

You may be entirely correct that it will be better than humans at making entire worlds, which is great for adventures and legends. Pointless for fortress mode. Unless dwarf fortress ushers in the singularity (I don't count that out!), it's not going to be better than me at imagining a merely fort sized area that I most desire.  Even the humble minecraft VASTLY outperforms DF currently at making small scale interesting/quality landscape features (although no, not world-sized landscape).

[Dirst]

I don't WANT a fantasy WORLD that's perfect. I want a fantasy **embark site** that's perfect, because that's all I actually significantly interact with.

But this bubble-of-reality version of the embark site is temporary.  The plan is for each successive release to integrate the embark site further into a living world around it.  One possibility later is a Kingdom mode where you manage several embark sites, allowing you to set up industries far more complex than could be done in a single fortress.

[GavJ]

I understand that, but I don't think this has to at all be inconsistent with that framework.

First of all, 3/4 of the idea CLEARLY isn't inconsistent, as simply having a finer grained terrain customizer has nothing to do with whether the world has a greater context or not. You might say that the manicured embark site is "unrealistic to occur in a world," but be that as it may, it can still just exist anyway and function just like any other embark site in world context. The dwarves just happened to stumble upon a garden of Eden (or a garden of Pain, depending how you designed it...), simple as that. The only complaints you could have here are role-playing ones, not code inconsistency or feature-limiting ones. And roleplay is in the eye of the individual player.

The other 1/4 of the idea (control over invasions and wars), either:
a) Can be ignored. It's much less important IMO than the terrain customizing fine grain control.
b) May become moot with sufficient numbers of future features that allow control anyway (being able to easily provoke wars like by sending invasions, etc.)
c) Unlike the terrain issue, is more easily addressed by modding scripts and things anyway.

[GavJ]