Print

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

[genmac]

Actually tying it in to the trade system might be neat, but in a different way - make it a result of how much wealth you are exporting (or add it as a factor).  If you are selling tons of neato crafts and buying lots of stuff, hey, thriving community.  If the traders never get past your front door and you send them packing, who exactly is telling all these immigrants how cool your fort is?

[UncleSporky]

quote: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.

The main thing is letting players know they're gimping the game right off the bat.  Make immigrants the default and let them know that they're opting for "easy mode" if they turn them off.  If it becomes boring then at least they'll remember that it's their own fault.

Perhaps the most important thing about options such as this is that it broadens the game immensely and sends helpful messages to the game's creator.  If nothing else he could see that people are running the game in a different direction than he'd intended and try to ease them back to his original vision with small balances.

[Toady One]

It's actually the dwarf caravan report that conveys the information.  If none of them make it out alive, the migrants rely on the last report (or nobody will come if no report).  If one of them escapes, they might mention that half the caravan died, but they'll still talk about all the shiny stuff.

[Baro]

Well then why not be able to actually TELL the caravan if it's ok for new dwarves to come or not?

something like "As the caravan leaves, the traders ask if they should spread the word back home that you are looking for more dwarves to work the mountain."
a No, we currently have all the dwarves we need
b Yes, but we can only handle a few more.
c Spread the word that all will be welcomed!

with options a,  0-2 randomly would show up over the year

with option b, 6-12 or so would come

with option c, up to the maxiumum would come.

And perhaps for those who like to only play hardcore, this entire screen could be tied to an ini file with a
immigrationchoice=y/n

n could be the default if the hardcore want to make sure the 'stupid newbs' can get frustraited and not enojoy the game and then read your stories of fun and success and swoon over your greatness.

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

[RPB]

quote:Originally posted by Baro:
<STRONG>So you're worried that people who play the game the way they enjoy it rather than the way you enjoy it?</STRONG>

Hey, I admitted I was being petty.

 

quote:Originally posted by Baro:
<STRONG>I know we could work out a way to make this happen and have everyone be happy.</STRONG>

I certainly have nothing against other people playing the game differently, but I enjoy the game not just for its own sake but also for the ability to discuss it with others, which becomes difficult if no one else is playing the same game. Essentially this is an overreaction on my part, though, as I imagine there's going to be quite enough popularity to go around; even if "low immigrants" becomes the overwhelming popular preference and overtakes the default mode as the de facto standard game, I don't realistically think there's much danger of the regular-immigration game "dying".

Also, realize that asking for less immigrants is asking for an easier game mode. The pressure of immigration is what defines the challenge of the game (well, that and the interface); without it, it's more simulation than game. As I said at first, I think it would be great if there were ways to reduce immigration in game (other than just making your fortress so crappy no one wants to move in), because that would add strategic depth and diversity--but only if there are problems that come from not allowing immigrants that match the problems from allowing them.

And, of course, if you want to have an easy mode that turns of all negative repercussions of suppressing immigration, that's OK too.

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

[Solara]

quote:Also, realize that asking for less immigrants is asking for an easier game mode. The pressure of immigration is what defines the challenge of the game (well, that and the interface); without it, it's more simulation than game. As I said at first, I think it would be great if there were ways to reduce immigration in game (other than just making your fortress so crappy no one wants to move in), because that would add strategic depth and diversity--but only if there are problems that come from not allowing immigrants that match the problems from allowing them.

I think it's been made pretty clear already that it is an easy mode. And I don't see a problem with that - sure, you might be sacrificing the long term playability of the game, but the people who are going to be using that option don't stick with the same fortress very long the way it is now. They're not going to get to see the really deep hidden things anyway, because they're going to get fed up and quit long before that.  

IMHO it's better to be able to play the game (which is a simulation, btw...much closer to that than a typical roguelike, anyway) as long as you want to play it, not until you're forced to quit. It's not like I'm trying to compete with anyone, so I also tend to abandon them when the stress factor begins to outweigh the fun factor.    

I'm another one that likes knowing my dwarves by name, and when more features are added and the dwarves get more intelligence and personality, running a small fortress is going to be even more rewarding, since I'll have time to pay attention to the details.

With my next fortress I'm going to try and get into more advanced features like traps and floodgates so I can play in the long term, but I agree with the OP that there should be some way to control immigration other than mass murder.

I'm aware this isn't exactly a roleplaying game, but if you were ever to stop and consider it that way, and think about what kind of dwarven community would welcome immigrants into their homes, assign them beds, and then seal the doors and starve or drown them all, it would be...well, pretty hilarious.   But still, that shouldn't be the only way to play.

I haven't gotten any nobles yet, so I'm not sure what function they all serve, but maybe something you could have one of them do (the Sheriff? Is there some kind of diplomat?) is control immigration. Either by setting an option (non, few, many, etc.) or by manually going up to each one and telling them to get lost.

Or, it could be tied into the trade depot too, but from reading posts here I've gotten the impression most of the nobles are expensive parasites, and it would be nice to give one of them an important function like that.

And for game balance, maybe there could even be repercussions - turn away too many immigrants, and the huddled masses have no choice but to resort to banditry?

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

[genmac]

Ok I have the perfect solution and it is just a single word:

Slavery!

[Solara]

Great idea - except your dwarves are already pretty much slaves. None of mine have ever asked for a paycheck, anyway...  

(Though it would be nice if you could have slave dwarves and tell the DO THIS NOW or MOVE THAT TO THERE, instead of toggling through all those menus checking and unchecking things and hoping they feel like listening...)

[Toady One]

I was thinking of the nobles as well -- I always want to give them more to do, since many of them are worthless.  But a lot of the immigrants people are complaining about are probably pre-nobles.  That said, for the main game, I like the ideas relating to controls with repercussions.  I'm obviously into repercussions...  now, since the caravan does reports already, the refused immigrants could too (if they don't decide to stay against your wishes and clog up your justice system).  If you get a harsh reputation, you might not get immigrants until you get word through on a subsequent caravan.  And then that might not help unless your wealth report rocks, in which case you'd probably get immigrants anyway.

edit:  if I ever do automatons, maybe they could play like that, but they'd probably be even stupider than the hunter too.  unless they were high quality or something.

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

[gimlet]

I kind of like the crazed immigration,  it's a definite motivator to keep expanding.  Although without the advanced management screens, when I get over about 50-60 dwarves it does get to be a real job to manage them, and oh soooo tempting to start a new fort and fix up a few things I could have done better/try a different tack.

But I am also thinking ahead to future features, when I will want to use my mighty dwarvern hordes to smite the neighbors, then for sure I will want lots of the little buggers, to be tooling up for the smiting and stuff    So to me it's important to practice now how to support and equip the lads while they train up to be my Stick of Pain.

Although it sure is fun to torment them now and again with a sort of Twisted SimDwarf City too, hehe.

[Baro]

All I want to be able to do is make a tiny fort of a dozen or two dwarves and more or less keep it that size.

You ask what the fun in that is? Well, i don't know.  I just like trying to make my tiny fort as nice and self sufficient as posible.  It's actually a challenge.

[JT]

I'd also like this.  I recently suggested a game setting which allows you to tone down the immigration to a certain percentage of your existing population, with a minimum of one possible immigrant if the game decides you are supposed to receive immigrants that season.

It would be a simple, logical step to add an option to the fortress that allows you to declare a maximum population census.

To balance it out a bit, maybe your dwarves should get a little pissed about not being allowed to have children.  Somehow I doubt dwarves have good prophylactics, which means they'd have to abstain with those kinds of laws... ;-)

[Toady One]

Dwarves use rocks.

[Aquillion]

I want to take the small fortress trick to its logical extreme.  The name of the game is "dwarf fortress", not "dwarves' fortress", right?  I wonder how long you could last with only one dwarf.

...actually, he'd eventually fall into a fay mood and then go mad because there are no other dwarves to supply his needs.  But oh well.

[Toady One]

Nah, those start at 20+ dwarves.

Edit:  Well, they should anyway.  Bug reports welcome.

[ August 17, 2006: Message edited by: Toady One ]