Print

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

[Calidovi]

Have you considered adding a 'Continue World Development' button in addition to the Legends Mode, Adventure Mode, and Fortress Mode tabs?

[TheFlame52]

Have you considered adding a 'Continue World Development' button in addition to the Legends Mode, Adventure Mode, and Fortress Mode tabs?

Even if it doesn't 'put everything back in the box', it just advances time like when you start a fort/adventurer?

[vjmdhzgr]

Have you considered adding a 'Continue World Development' button in addition to the Legends Mode, Adventure Mode, and Fortress Mode tabs?

Yes and the answer was there's so many things it's not going to work. Though I guess the question right after this is still unanswered.

[Calidovi]

Have you considered adding a 'Continue World Development' button in addition to the Legends Mode, Adventure Mode, and Fortress Mode tabs?

Yes and the answer was there's so many things it's not going to work. Though I guess the question right after this is still unanswered.

What was going on?

[Putnam]

Worldgen as a world state keeps a lot of information that's thrown out as soon as play starts, so it's not exactly trivial to put all that back together for.

[wierd]

i think most of us would accept just advancing the world by a user set ammount.

restarting worldgen after populations are finalized and unimportant histfigs are culled is unnecessary. we dont need to redefine region types, or do additional world geometry changes, like rivers, lakes, or erosion.

mostly, people seem to just want to intervene in the world, then let the politics resume for awhile. advancing time should be enough for that.

[Putnam]

The world geometry is not the problem, history is also calculated differently during worldgen.

[PatrikLundell]

Putting things back in the box would be non trivial Toady said (as Putnam pointed out), but it should be possible to create a fortress-less fortress mode with an uncapped FPS (it might even be possible to do that using DFHack). However, that would probably progress the world rather slowly anyway.

In addition to that, the world activation isn't actually working that well. During the two week embark period, the world becomes a mess of wars, site settlements, and site reclaims (which can mean the embark you selected carefully to get besieged by goblins gets a newly founded/reclaimed puny goblin site as the next door neighbor, rather than their big one => at most one or two pathetic sieges before the site runs out of bodies).
In addition to that, world activation civs seem to just fall apart over time. I had a 75+ year fortress, and by the end of it the strong goblin civ that originally attacked me (from a tiny site they lost after a few years, but still managed to send siegelets from after that) had fallen apart into consisting of only 2 goblins or something like that. Similarly, several of the other civs had fallen apart into the failed category, and the ones that remained were hanging by a thread. The sites remained with a lot of inhabitants, but most of them didn't belong to any civ anymore. My guess is that the sites had all freed themselves through revolts, but there's no mechanism to start new civs from them.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Putting things back in the box would be non trivial Toady said (as Putnam pointed out), but it should be possible to create a fortress-less fortress mode with an uncapped FPS (it might even be possible to do that using DFHack). However, that would probably progress the world rather slowly anyway.

In addition to that, the world activation isn't actually working that well. During the two week embark period, the world becomes a mess of wars, site settlements, and site reclaims (which can mean the embark you selected carefully to get besieged by goblins gets a newly founded/reclaimed puny goblin site as the next door neighbor, rather than their big one => at most one or two pathetic sieges before the site runs out of bodies).
In addition to that, world activation civs seem to just fall apart over time. I had a 75+ year fortress, and by the end of it the strong goblin civ that originally attacked me (from a tiny site they lost after a few years, but still managed to send siegelets from after that) had fallen apart into consisting of only 2 goblins or something like that. Similarly, several of the other civs had fallen apart into the failed category, and the ones that remained were hanging by a thread. The sites remained with a lot of inhabitants, but most of them didn't belong to any civ anymore. My guess is that the sites had all freed themselves through revolts, but there's no mechanism to start new civs from them.

Is that worldgen "not working"? Sounds like worldgen being interesting to me. Sure, fortress mode could use a little help getting sieges from further away (which artifacts release will give you). But for those of us who play lots of fortresses and adventurers in one world...wars, revolutions, occupation, changing political climate...sounds excellent, not at all what I'd call "broken".

[PatrikLundell]

@Shonai_Dweller: I said "not working that well" rather than "not working". Everything just breaking down gradually with nothing built up to fill the void isn't working that well in my book. You'll end up with a world without any civs and a lot of independent sites, which I suspect means all action above the level of individuals just go to a standstill. There can't be any wars if there are no entities to wage them, no settling if there are no entities to send out settlers (as I assume individuals won't organize that), and no reclaims for the same reason (although elves seem to lack the ability to reclaim their sites already during world gen). Sure, my fortress still received an elven caravan every year, even though the elven civ that presumably sent it ceased to exist a long time ago. The goblin site that send sieges became unowned, owned by another goblin civ, and then unowned again, but still managed to send meager sieges at me from the goblin civ that no longer controlled the site (and Legends Mode info claimed it was still that civ sending the siege, even when the site was controlled by a different goblin civ).

Wars, occupation, reclaim, revolution, etc. are fine when they happen at a normal time scale, rather than kicked off in one big mess for 14 days to screw up the world you embark in, only to peter out afterwards. Sure, something must have happened for one goblin civ to claim a site that another civ lost, but then they just sit there as civs' sites break away, without recapturing them or new entities forming from breakaway factions. Thus, there's a fair bit of room for improvement to make it interesting (obviously, the current fortress mode restriction of a single permanent civ per race as the civs you can have relations with doesn't work that well after the world has been activated. I assume that's one of the things that will eventually be updated).

[Max™]

Hmmm, from my various methods for getting to screw around with construction in sites that don't have the usual ambush interruptions I've advanced a few worlds across an entire game year in adventure mode which is much closer to the initial-two-weeks calendar progression world activation. Sites being founded, sites being sacked, conquered, pillaged, all sorts of stuff happening. How large are the worlds you're talking about and how many civs are involved?

[PatrikLundell]

My worlds are usually pocket, but sometimes "small" or "smaller". In that particular world I probably had about a dozen civs (only one dwarven one). I fail to understand the comparison of 70-80 years in a fortress with one year in adventure mode, though, or, alternatively, why the world events of a year in adventure mode should compare to the two week embark period?
I'm not saying things are not happening post embark, just that the civs gradually fall apart. It probably takes a fair number of years to notice the decay of civs, though, and Toady would probably not see it in his tests.

[FantasticDorf]

My worlds are usually pocket, but sometimes "small" or "smaller". In that particular world I probably had about a dozen civs (only one dwarven one). I fail to understand the comparison of 70-80 years in a fortress with one year in adventure mode, though, or, alternatively, why the world events of a year in adventure mode should compare to the two week embark period?
I'm not saying things are not happening post embark, just that the civs gradually fall apart. It probably takes a fair number of years to notice the decay of civs, though, and Toady would probably not see it in his tests.

Megabeasts and constant attacks from large predators put a lot of pressure on startup

Not to mention though you can't physically see it, there are always armies on the move usually fizzling out at stalemates exhausting populations, they usually clash midway and path through the same tiles towards the target destination to ransack.

[PatrikLundell]

The population counts remained about the same as they were on embark. The sites were full of sapients (except the one depleting itself by sending its 50 or so strong population against my fortress, of course, and there were probably other individual cases), they just ceased to belong to any civ.
Megabeast tolls had basically petered out when I embarked (I don't remember the age of the world, but probably 1050, and definitely not less than 250), with a Titan sitting in the mountainhome without going anywhere (until I reclaimed the mountainhome).

[exdeath]

Is the fact that you start with 7 dwarfs some inside joke?