Print

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

[Baro]

At first I loved this game, but with clockwork massive immigration I've come to find it frustraiting.

I know for some people the massive immigration is a fun challenge, but I don't want to build a huge city, I just want to build a little base for a dozen or two hard working friends.

In games like this it truely adds to the replay value and target audiance when there are more game play options, specially when they are pretty easy to include.

So why not in maybe the setting off options have a way to choose a tiny/low/medium/large immigration 'trickle'.  Or better yet, in general options/orders a way to accept/deny immigrants.  Just a simple little yes/no option would be fine.  

Perhaps there could even be a building that is an 'immigration office' or something that would allow you to set max number of immigrants per trip.

If people think this isn't challenging enough, then don't do it, or make it an option.  Options make everyone happy!  I've spread this game to all my friends and the impression is the same:  an awesome awesome game durring the first year or two, but boring and unmanageable after 20+ dwarves.  I know not everyone has the same interests, that's why options are so awesome, specially an easy option such as this, it would make so many of us happy, and not effect those who love immigration just how things are.

I love this game, but I just get so overwealmed with immigration.  It's not that I can't support them, it's just that I want to stay small sometimes.  It's my fortress, I wish I could run it how I want.

So this is my plea!  I hope it doesn't fall on deaf ears.

[ August 16, 2006: Message edited by: Baro ]

[genmac]

I don't think it should be a setting in options, but it should be controllable - you should be able to put off say stone engraving or building awesome rooms or something, and indirectly control the immigration that way.

[RPB]

I think it should be controllable, but have some in-game repercussions--if you don't have any more immigrants then no more nobles or administrators will show up, and that might make your dwarves unhappy. It should be possible to manage the problems from not having immigrants, but it should be just as difficult as managing the problems from having immigrants.

[bbb]

i suppose... soldiers acting like immigration officers? XD

hopefully without killing anyone

... mind you, one line of thinking would be... the king is the boss, not you! if he sends people in, you'll just have to take it.

[Baro]

If you don't think it should be in options, then don't do it.  That's whats great about options, they are optional.  You don't want control over immigration, but many do.  So make it an option, everyone is happy, target audiance is increased, replay value increased.

I don't want to put off engraving.  I want to lock my front door, put a sign out saying "no vacancy".  it's my fortress, why can't I do this???

[RPB]

It's pretty simple to kill off unwanted immigrants. If you had nice enough stuff you could probably even keep your original dwarves happy while they blissfully condemn the worse off to die of starvation (if they don't simply butcher them outright). For all you know, immigrants you turn away might not survive anyhow--clearly the dwarven homeland must be massively overcrowded for all these immigrants to keep coming, so they may not have anyplace else to live.

[Toady One]

Now, I personally get a kick out of reading all of the death stories and so on, and that's how I like to play, so the main line of the game will probably always be pretty rough, though you'll be able to do more and more.

On the other hand, are people arguing against options?  People can continue posting on this.  I don't currently understand why easy-to-implement optional settings (even if they placed are in init or in world gen) are bad.  I guess I'd be bugged by somebody on a super easy mode spoiling the deep down/late game stuff, but it won't be secret forever, and it's not much better to spoil it in a regular game anyway.  The game does presently have a theme of an inevitable march toward destruction, and I like that, but why exclude people who don't like getting wasted all the time?  There's this sort of permdeath nightmare roguelike philosophy, but a lot of those games have "wizard" type modes as well.

[Zonk]

One think I thought about - why not allow the fortress to request specializzed dwarves from the other stronghold, perhaps exchanging them? So, if you really needed a skilled armor crafter, for exmaple, you might send messages to other stronghold asking them to 'lend'him to you...and after some time he might choose to stay with you if he likes the place. you might have to 'lend'one of your dwarves, though...

[genmac]

It could be an option too, or something, but I think it flows better if the way you create your fortress has implications in regards to immigration.

If you've got the spare time to be engraving the whole place, you should be able to handle the immigrants - Personally I'd like to be able to, for instance, do no engraving at all in the early game, engrave some rooms in the mid game, and then start making moria halls in the late for massive influxes of immigrants.

Obviously there should be a lot of other variables like the safety of the area, your successes and failures so far, and so on.

[Toady One]

Immigration is influenced by all those things now (at least, floor space, wealth in all forms from the bookkeeper list, death, executions, and migrant type depends on work available) -- but I think they are fairly eager to come, because they think you have the potential to make them happy as long as there's floor space and wealth.  If you make a work camp from logs outside the cliff without digging, you'll find that you generate little interest.  There could be some numbers tweaked here and there, but that's not the main question behind the thread I think.  The main line of the game is a different issue.

[ August 16, 2006: Message edited by: Toady One ]

[Demon]

I think a manager should be able to control immigration to an extent.  Maybe he could just talk to the new people and turn them away.  Maybe some won't listen and will require a sheriff to escort them away.  For now, why not add a little option for slower immigration?  Seems to be no reason not to.  Besides, less dwarves just means each casuality induced by frogmen is that much worse.

[Toady One]

I could just release it with the debug menu, but with some of those options, there would be a lot of nonsense bug reports.

Edit:  on the other hand, probably more legitimate ones too...

[ August 16, 2006: Message edited by: Toady One ]

[Baro]

Maybe in an ini file have a bunch of starting options.

Number of starting dwarves
number of starting points
immigration rates

stuff like that.  That way people who want it a little easier can make it so, people who want it harder can make it so.  Letting the user change options does HUGE amounts of help for replay value.

For my self, it's not about hard/easy, it's about what type of fortress I invision.

I'm not interested in going too deep, or even crossing the river.  For me I just like making a little settlemtn for 10-20 dwarves and being content with that, and just watching and tweeking.  I like to micro-manage and detail everything.  I like to be able to know the names of all my dwarves rather than faceless masses.  This is all posible with some simple options.

I don't want immigration OFF, I just wish I could control it more.  I've never had nobles or book keepers or any of that advanced stuff.  I just like mining and crafting.  I wouldn't want to be totally cut-off from immigration, but I really don't like my population doubling every year.  Like I said before, I can handle it, I can put them to work, but I stop having fun at this point.  Maybe my friends are all similar in interests to me too, as they all express they stop having fun after about 1.5 years.

If you love nobles and 50+ populations, that's great.  But there's no reason a game like this couldn't be flexible.  I really really love this game so much.  The ONLY thing holding me back from not starting over and over and over is immigration.  I've never played past the 2nd spring because I just get overwealmed.  Not litteraly as in I can't feed everyone, but just from a management perspective.  Maybe if the interface and labour stuff was easier (like an at a glance list of every dwarf and all their current skills/work assignments rather than just a list of their main skill).  But even so, I love this game because it lets me create a cool initial group of dwarves.  I want to see how rich and happy I can make those initial dwarves.

Maybe adding 2-3 dwarves a year I could handle, as it would give me time to get to know them.

For me the best solution would to have immigration tied to the trade screen.  Every time the yearly trader comes, you tell him how many immigrants you would like.  This is realistic as the traders are the ones who spread word of your settlement back home.  So you tell the trader how many immigrants you want, and some time that year, a number close to that many arrive.

This way you have to plan for the whole year in advance.  If you think you can handle a lot and select "maximum" or what ever, but find you can't, you're still committed to that number.

If you select 'none' or 'few' then you're stuck with that amount untill the trader visits you again.

The trader is your only contact with the outside world, so it would make sense they were who you told if you needed/could handle/want more dwarves.

[RPB]

I know it's rather petty of me, but I just worry that when you implement an option that changes the whole focus of the game that the new style of play will "crowd out" the old one, and that might not necessarily be good for the long-term health of the game. Yes, swaying with popular opinion can draw more people in, but will it keep them? Without immigrants there's really not so much in terms of new things to do, so the game might not hold interest as long. And if playing with no/low immigrants becomes the dominant style of play, new players might not bother with other game modes, particularly if they're harder on the surface.

Then again, I suppose at this point there's really no question anymore about whether the game will successfully sustain interest. Option away! (Not that you needed permission.)

[Baro]

So you're worried that people who play the game the way they enjoy it rather than the way you enjoy it?

I don't understand.  No one is stopping you from playing it the way you want.  This isn't a multiplayer game, there's no competitive scores.  Are upset that the game won't seem 'hardcore' or indy enough since the stupid masses like me might actually set some options so that the game holds enjoyment for them in a way that effects your game in no way what so ever?

Please don't tell other people how to play the game.  You like playing it one way, that's great, that's awesome, no one will ever take that away from you.  We're not asking for the core gameplay to be different, just some slightly different play OPTIONS, as in optional (heck you could even make the options optional via an optional ini option, perhaps an options.ini, optionally of course).

All options do is increase replay value and allow people with slightly different ideas of fun to all enjoy the game.  Or does the idea of someone out there playing in a calm location, never briding the river and never getting more than 1-2 immigrants a year keep you up at night?

If we miss a challenge, that's our loss.  If we miss what ever horrors lurk deep inside the mountain, that's our loss and choice.

Some people like to play aggressively, trying to see how big a population and deep a mine they can get.  Some people almost prefer a sort of simcity path, where it's more about just building a cute little village that looks pretty.

To be able to do the later would require very very little code.

Debug mode? That sounds fun.  I'd love a sort of 'sandbox mode' where I can control or challenge as much as I want.  For many the temptation to outright cheat would be too great though.  it's an acceptable option for me as I can limit my self,  but I too love the fact that you can't save in these games, I love that they are hard.

I love a challenge, I just like to be able to set what the challenge is.  Some want to be challenged to make the biggest most populated rich city, while me, I just want to make a pretty happy place for a dozen or so.

I know we could work out a way to make this happen and have everyone be happy.

[ August 16, 2006: Message edited by: Baro ]