Print

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

[voliol]

Sorry for multiple questions but will we will be able to make larger worlds? Like as in worlds so large they dwarf Earth since that has happened a few times in fiction albeit rarely. HunterXHunter and Toriko specifically had worlds so ridiculously big that the areas in which humans other sentients lived in amounted to a few small islands in middle of a lake. Not an inland ocean but a lake.

I believe there is a computational issue to making the worlds too large, without making them largely empty. You see this already with a large world (as in the setting "large") which slows down quite a bit compared to a pocket world, as they have to compute everything happening outside of your fort, even if that simulation is lower fidelity. Large worlds are iirc somewhere around the size of New Zealand, so you could see how going to truly Earth-sized worlds and beyond pose an issue... as long as they have things going on in them. Toady has mentioned the possibility of infinite (!) realms, so arbitrarily large wilderness areas might not be too far out.

[BlackAion]

Sorry for multiple questions but will we will be able to make larger worlds? Like as in worlds so large they dwarf Earth since that has happened a few times in fiction albeit rarely. HunterXHunter and Toriko specifically had worlds so ridiculously big that the areas in which humans other sentients lived in amounted to a few small islands in middle of a lake. Not an inland ocean but a lake.

I believe there is a computational issue to making the worlds too large, without making them largely empty. You see this already with a large world (as in the setting "large") which slows down quite a bit compared to a pocket world, as they have to compute everything happening outside of your fort, even if that simulation is lower fidelity. Large worlds are iirc somewhere around the size of New Zealand, so you could see how going to truly Earth-sized worlds and beyond pose an issue... as long as they have things going on in them. Toady has mentioned the possibility of infinite (!) realms, so arbitrarily large wilderness areas might not be too far out.

So you mean like how in Minecraft, its technically infinite and but only computes the immediate area around you.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Sorry for multiple questions but will we will be able to make larger worlds? Like as in worlds so large they dwarf Earth since that has happened a few times in fiction albeit rarely. HunterXHunter and Toriko specifically had worlds so ridiculously big that the areas in which humans other sentients lived in amounted to a few small islands in middle of a lake. Not an inland ocean but a lake.

I believe there is a computational issue to making the worlds too large, without making them largely empty. You see this already with a large world (as in the setting "large") which slows down quite a bit compared to a pocket world, as they have to compute everything happening outside of your fort, even if that simulation is lower fidelity. Large worlds are iirc somewhere around the size of New Zealand, so you could see how going to truly Earth-sized worlds and beyond pose an issue... as long as they have things going on in them. Toady has mentioned the possibility of infinite (!) realms, so arbitrarily large wilderness areas might not be too far out.

Hmm. I don't see much slow down, if any, in playing on larger worlds. Much longer save/load times, sure. But actually during a game it starts off at the same speed as an embark in any other world, and slows down around the same time when the fortress becomes complex. There was an issue once with off-site births, but that was solved.

[kontako]

This may be an unnecessary throwback to a now defunct mechanic, and I may have misinterpreted what was said (as tends to happen), but I've been listening to old DF Talk recordings:
In DF Talk 4 you mention that when placing civilisations you begin with 20 individuals to ensure genetic diversity and also limit incestuous couplings.
Does this mean that the family trees of all (non-historical) individuals is tracked through world generation, and a family tree could theoretically be drawn between a descendant and two of the founding 20?
It was always an assumption of mine that population numbers and growth was simulated through some sort of equation.

[PatrikLundell]

Only historical figures have information about their parents, and even in that case, this information may be missing because the parent(s) isn't itself a historical figure.
However, a historical figure has to be generated with some genes, so I would assume some kind of algorithm is used to generate the genes based on some pool (which presumably would be the genes of those 20 individuals), rather than actually generating a family tree for however many generations have passed since the start of time. The difference would be that a first generation hist fig might somehow get genes from more than two of the founders (but was the civ really founded in year 1, or was it just recorded at that time?).

[kontako]

Only historical figures have information about their parents, and even in that case, this information may be missing because the parent(s) isn't itself a historical figure.

...

Ah, that's what I initially expected. Thanks for the clarification.
I was somewhat thrown off by these comments, taken from the transcript, referring to civilisations in world gen:

It's like 'pick a bunch of spots that are kind of good for say a goblin or a human and then pop twenty of them down and then just let them breed and build cities and spread at that point'.  ... the game avoids certain inbreeding; you should never have brothers with brothers - I'm sorry, that's not even going to lead to a long line - I meant brothers and sisters, and half-brothers and half-sisters. It should avoid those, it should avoid parents and children

I thought to myself "What? Does the game really simulate every generation! (In the way of creating a lineage of genes for every family, rather than say, names and personalities for every individual)"

However, a historical figure has to be generated with some genes, so I would assume some kind of algorithm is used to generate the genes based on some pool (which presumably would be the genes of those 20 individuals), rather than actually generating a family tree for however many generations have passed since the start of time. The difference would be that a first generation hist fig might somehow get genes from more than two of the founders (but was the civ really founded in year 1, or was it just recorded at that time?).

This is the part I'm interested in, really. At the risk of having asked too many questions:
What determines what genes an individual can have? Is there a single gene pool available for members of a civilisation, or many? Or are gene pools more granular and differ based on site/ other entities?

[PatrikLundell]

Actually, thinking a bit and trying to do a quick check, I think the genes only exist in the unit info, in which case gene inheritance would only apply to units (relations are stored in the historical figure data), with some uncertainty to what happens when a historical figure becomes a unit (possibly newly born) when at least one of the parents has unit data, but that information is offloaded (such as for the case where a child is born by a visitor (a unit) and the father has visited at some earlier point in time (and thus has unit information that's probably offloaded)).
Well, that's not really what you asked anyway...

[TheFlame52]

I know from using Dwarf Fortress to generate worlds for tabletop games that there is a sort of "gene pool" that the game keeps track of for each civilization. When a unit is generated, it pulls traits from that pool. That's why your starting 7, who got pulled from the ether, look the same as your migrants.

[dikbutdagrate]

In the event that this 'feature' isn't intentional, can we keep it?

Evidently, when an artifact is either created or named out in the rain, even if the precipitation happens to be some kind of freakish weather, the artifact is liable to be permanently covered in whatever its reagents or pre-artifact item was coated in.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

For my money, this is freakin' sweet!

[TheFlame52]

That's honestly incredible.

[dikbutdagrate]

That's honestly incredible.

Indeed it is.

[Vanzetti]

In the event that this 'feature' isn't intentional, can we keep it?

Evidently, when an artifact is either created or named out in the rain, even if the precipitation happens to be some kind of freakish weather, the artifact is liable to be permanently covered in whatever its reagents or pre-artifact item was coated in.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

For my money, this is freakin' sweet!

By Armok, this is amazing. Can we use it to create a permanent coating of deadly poison?

[delphonso]

I suppose only if it were raining poison on the artifact creator.

[Shonai_Dweller]

I suppose only if it were raining poison on the artifact creator.

If you managed to grab a poisoned coated dagger from a kobold and then name it, I guess the poison would last forever.

[delphonso]

Remind me to experiment on this when Adventure mode comes around.