Print

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

[Sirbug]

Perhaps if we'd be allowed to build forges without anvils (Call them "Makeshift forges" with no quality possible and slower working) - that would fix some of the issues about lack of iron.

You can smith against hard rock.

[Knight Otu]

If this was "fixed" we'd need the opportunity to preview an empires material lists before embarking.  Thus we can avoid exiting the game (or starting/abandoning a fort immediately) if we choose an embark site and realize our civ doesn't have anvils.  Or we can knowningly choose a civ without anvils for added !FUN! Think of it like settling on a treeless, evil, freezing, and/or aquifer embark- the game readily lets you know the !FUN! beforehand.

Nah. Just add a world Gen rejection popup if any dwarven civs don't have iron or steel.

So, automatically rejecting any world made in a total conversion mod? Automatic rejection after world gen already ran a hundred years or more, when all other rejections happen before the years start counting up?

[GavJ]

The issue is a world with multiple Dwarven civs.  The Rainy Anvil-Bracelets has access to iron/steel but the Purple Oily Frost-Tunnel has access to iron but no flux (steel) and the Battle-Rock of Rainbows has neither.  It's annoying to find a lack of iron and have to go back to the very beginning of the embark process.

That would throw a world gen rejection popup, I'm saying. ALL dwarves have to have iron for a vanilla world gen passing score.

So, automatically rejecting any world made in a total conversion mod? Automatic rejection after world gen already ran a hundred years or more, when all other rejections happen before the years start counting up?

Yup.

I think you might be misinterpreting "worldgen rejection popup" to mean "all of those things would be impossible." Maybe you don't do a lot of world gen customizing, but basically what it means is that it tries and rejects worlds that don't qualify some number of times, then brings up a popup window that tells you what's wrong.

You then have the option of saying "Abort and try to fix the parameters, OR IGNORE it and keep going."

So you can still play any of those mods... you just have to click ignore. And it's on your head if your dwarves don't have anvils, cause you're playing a weird mod. It's not Toady's job to accommodate that down to the level of making sure you have all the resources you personally want in your custom mod by default, etc...

For people in vanilla, there'd be little reason to ever click ignore / it wouldn't come up very often anyway. So they'd be guaranteed their anvils unless they explicitly agreed not to be, and then that's on them.

[Dirst]

This would dovetail nicely with economic starting scenarios.  The Mountainhome has iron but no flux.  Go put a fort on a flux deposit and send back X boulders of it per year.

[Rogue Yun]

This would dovetail nicely with economic starting scenarios.  The Mountainhome has iron but no flux.  Go put a fort on a flux deposit and send back X boulders of it per year.

Recently all the worlds I've been generating have had marble available from the Mountainhomes. If they always had Iron then they would always have steel. But I wish there was a supply and demand curve on trading. Mountainhomes seem to willing to spend big bucks on 100 wooden spike balls when really, I'm sure, they need other objects.

[Knight Otu]

but basically what it means is that it tries and rejects worlds that don't qualify some number of times, then brings up a popup window that tells you what's wrong.

That "number of times" is pretty high, 86 according to the wiki, though I'm doubting it's that high. And I mostly use custom parameters, to make sure to keep rejections at a minimum, because world gen takes long enough without them already. Unless you're doing nothing but 5-year worlds, having a rejection right at the end of history generation will cause nothing but frustration, vanilla or not. There's a reason that rejections don't happen after the years start counting. Of course, since your post-world-gen rejections would be a new thing anyway, maybe we could look at reducing the needed number of those rejections down to three or so, so you only have to wait for 375 in-game years before getting the option to wait for another 125 in-game years before you finally get your world.

Or we could have user-friendly solutions, like more anvil materials, improved mineral distribution, or trade affecting resources, some of which are planned.

[GavJ]

That "number of times" is pretty high, 86 according to the wiki

1) The number changes depending on what it is and how late it is checked in worldgen. Dunno where the wiki is getting 86 from, but they probably counted one thing and then lazily stopped and wrote it in. It goes anywhere from like half a dozen to hundreds, depending on the variable.

There's nothing stopping Toady from making it ONE attempt before it prompts, if at the end of worldgen, it's just informing you of the problem and you can decide whether to redo it or not.

2) It seems rather unlikely that any dwarven civ wouldn't have iron in the first place, probably only 10-15% of the time I'd guess.

3) If you ARE getting it a lot, most of the popup windows suggest how to fix it. In this case, it would suggest to you to lower the mineral scarcity value if you want to fix it. Which would actually fix it.

[Knight Otu]

As I already said, I doubt that's the real number either, but that's not really important. What's important to me is that I don't see any positive impact that adding that kind of world gen rejection has. All I see is a kludge to sidestep a problem that should be solved instead. Which doesn't improve gameplay, doesn't provide enough information to be useful, and does not seem gainfully extensible. If all you want is a pop-up, wouldn't an embark warning ('You have selected a civilization without access to iron.') be more valuable?

[GavJ]

Embark warning amounts to exactly the same solution, really. That's fine too. It ultimately makes no difference whether you warn people at point A or at point B. Both are a "warn when it happens rather than trying to change the world generation to make it not happen" approach.

And both are sufficient and much easier to do than the "change the whole world gen" solution is.

[Knight Otu]

The "change the whole world gen" solution (well, the distributing minerals step) is one of the things Toady is already planning to do anyway, though. I doubt you're suggesting Toady should toss out his plans. Anyway, an embark warning is something I can get behind, and it should be less intrusive to implement than a worldgen reject.

[GavJ]

The "change the whole world gen" solution (well, the distributing minerals step) is one of the things Toady is already planning to do anyway, though.

How so? What is he planning?

A more realistic geology or economy or whatever would almost certainly isolated minerals MORE than they are now, not the other way around. So I'm not sure what you're referring to, exactly. Or do you mean them trading for it with humans or something?

[Knight Otu]

Trade is definitely planned to impact resources, and, while more realistic geology may have a negative impact availability, it'll be an incentive for civs to spread more, trade more, and fight more for those resources. It's by no means a quick thing, and unlikely to occur any time soon, which makes it important to have some kind of ability to see your resources earlier (even if only an embark warning), of course. Here's a Toady post from before he added the mineral scarcity option.