Print

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

[Shonai_Dweller]

Shonai, as in a group of dwarves seizing power by occupying the noble positions? I think that seams fairly out of the question, seeing as nobles are basically appointed by the player right now. Maybe there could be done something with the monarch or the baron, but unless its a game-ender, i doubt it.

Unless of course your talking about gaining control of another site in Fort mode by arranging a coup, that seems plausible.

It's already planned and been talked about by Toady as a solution for bad management beyond stressed dorfs and tantrums. Just wondering if it was coming with this release.

But yeah, sending out agents to topple other site's regeims would be fun too. And of course, villains causing a coup at one of your your holdings could easily be worked on (if the other issues with revolutions at holdings can be figured out).

[Grand Sage]

Well, of the two of us, you seam to remember these things best, but IIRC the only issue in insurrections was that they were happening to often and Toady ran out of time to fix it. I dont know the underlying issue of course, so it might not be as simple as i make it sound

[Shonai_Dweller]

Well, of the two of us, you seam to remember these things best, but IIRC the only issue in insurrections was that they were happening to often and Toady ran out of time to fix it. I dont know the underlying issue of course, so it might not be as simple as i make it sound

Yeah, that was pretty much it. Seems easy enough to tweak. Maybe. 

[Death Dragon]

It's already planned and been talked about by Toady as a solution for bad management beyond stressed dorfs and tantrums. Just wondering if it was coming with this release.

What would it actually be like? A game over state or just some "so and so has seized the position of mayor"?

[Shonai_Dweller]

It's already planned and been talked about by Toady as a solution for bad management beyond stressed dorfs and tantrums. Just wondering if it was coming with this release.

What would it actually be like? A game over state or just some "so and so has seized the position of mayor"?

No idea, it's still in the 'musing' stage as far as I know. I suppose it might be a game over. With magical accidents and eath-shattering events on the way, the opportunity for game-over levels of Fun is increasing, so this might be one. There would have to be early warning signs and ways to make it preventable if addressed early enough of course.

[Death Dragon]

It's already planned and been talked about by Toady as a solution for bad management beyond stressed dorfs and tantrums. Just wondering if it was coming with this release.

What would it actually be like? A game over state or just some "so and so has seized the position of mayor"?

No idea, it's still in the 'musing' stage as far as I know. I suppose it might be a game over. With magical accidents and eath-shattering events on the way, the opportunity for game-over levels of Fun is increasing, so this might be one. There would have to be early warning signs and ways to make it preventable if addressed early enough of course.

I don't know. It doesn't really sound nice as a game over condition to me. Every other game over state happens when you completely run out of citizens and then lets you reclaim the fort again afterwards, but this one would end with there still being population. Would that then prevent you from reclaiming the fort? If you could just resume control over the fort right afterwards with no real change besides the position of mayor or whatever, then what would really be the point of sending you back to the menu? And like you said there would have to be some warning signs in some way to prevent people from being cought off guard by a sudden coup related game over.

Maybe it could be more interesting if you lose access to some features for X years after the coup, like aren't able to appoint any nobles (they get appointed randomly or whatever) and things like that. Maybe the new mayor sends out manager orders you can't cancel or sends out your military squads on random raids. But that would all be extra coding work to implement.

Actually, why can the player appoint the mayor position anyway?

[Grand Sage]

I think the in-game explaination is that the mayor apoints his successor, until a new one is elected. since the player has all the real power of the mayor and baron, he can "make" the mayor do that.

[Egan_BW]

If you could just resume control over the fort right afterwards with no real change besides the position of mayor or whatever, then what would really be the point of sending you back to the menu?

Same reason why you get booted to the menu when you die as an adventurer, even though you can just create or unretire another adventurer right after. What you were playing as before died, and if you want to keep playing you have to play as a new entity.

[Shonai_Dweller]

I don't know. It doesn't really sound nice as a game over condition to me. Every other game over state happens when you completely run out of citizens and then lets you reclaim the fort again afterwards, but this one would end with there still being population. Would that then prevent you from reclaiming the fort?

You would start a new fortress nearby, send a squad to kill the new rabble and take over it again. Or start a revolution there with agents, or kill everyone with an adventurer...
In a persistent world "Game Over" really isn't.

[Egan_BW]

If you have enough quarters, the game is never over.

[feelotraveller]

Or maybe a coup could end up with the game informing you that a different group has taken over the fortress with the implications for military/nobles/etc.

Personally I reckon it would be pretty cool if a coup was an event where the player gets locked out of control while the 'civil' war plays out.  Only being able to issue orders again once one side or the other comes out victorious.  But that might not be to everyone's taste.

[eerr]

So there have been attempts, in the past, to host Dwarf Fortress on a server.
In other words, one server, and many clients. One of which is the current player.

Would you ever support multiplayer of this kind?

It's one of those things, that would revolutionize the making of Dwarf Fortresses.
But on the other hand it could be considered heavy bloat,be too complex to integrate,
 or force the building of the client around a specific structure, slowing dev time.

Moreover, abstraction of the interface, if thorough enough, would also allow this.

[Shonai_Dweller]

So there have been attempts, in the past, to host Dwarf Fortress on a server.
In other words, one server, and many clients. One of which is the current player.

Would you ever support multiplayer of this kind?

It's one of those things, that would revolutionize the making of Dwarf Fortresses.
But on the other hand it could be considered heavy bloat,be too complex to integrate,
 or force the building of the client around a specific structure, slowing dev time.

Moreover, abstraction of the interface, if thorough enough, would also allow this.

You should probably define what you mean to get a more concrete answer. Dwarf Fortress already supports multiplayer through making save files sharable and having it's own dedicated file server.

And of course, there are lots of interpretations of what multi-player DF is/should be. Beyond the current version of  sharing fortresses, some want to see a game variation involving many people try to manage a single site together (seems a bit odd to me, but I guess it's fun). Or there's actually having Dwarf Fortress as a multiplayer game with many people playing in one world. Something like Paradox Interactive does with games like Crusader Kings II. That would be much further down the road, but might actually be less "extra" work as the various parts of the simulation integrate more smoothly with each other.

[Inarius]

I suppose many people thinks of a sort of MMORPG in adventure mode, or, even, a STR game with several fortress game, or, even a MMORPG-RTS with both. But it's not possible. We/You just have to accept that. And it's maybe for the best.

[PlumpHelmetMan]

Hate to be blunt, but making adventure mode into an MMORPG would ruin it for me utterly. Hope it never happens.