Print

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

[Sapidus3]

I think that the Init file could definitely allow more customize. Rather than just On or Off for sieges there could be levels as Zombie mentioned.

The thing that I wonder about though, is I think Toady said he didn't like the idea of DF being forked. If there is too much customizability we could see people essentially considering certain init loads and graphic sets to be "separate versions."

That being said, I still agree with Zombie. Hopefully the option will always be there to turn things we don't like of, or even better, perhaps the ideas we don't like will be integrated well enough that we end up appreciating and enjoying what they bring any way.

I think dwarven society is a great way to not only make the game deeper, but more difficult in some ways as well. Not only could we have cults (which alone could deserve their own thread, though many of the ideas thrown around are thread worthy), we can have other groups of dwarfs. Our masons, and other workers, should be able to form a guild. The guild could offer some protection from mandates, help improve wages, and maybe even somehow oversee the training of new dwarfs. Late game I would like to see more dwarf family units. Once your pop gets up there and your fortress is fairly stable, I would like to think there would be more children. Of course we would need better child management. There would need to be some way to keep the dwarf tots from falling into your magma forges.

I absolutely love the relationship screen. I like being able to see what friends the dwarf has, or seeing that they have a lover. It would be great to in addition to seeing things like friend, or acquaintance, seeing things like "currently not talking to", "currently very happy with", "haven't seen in a while."

Of course, I just realized one problem with adding to the social sphere of DF. Our dwarfs don't really have much free time. When they do take time off, even to eat or sleep, it can be highly problematic. I'm not really sure what the answer to that is, but am throwing it out for us to think about.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

It makes sense that DF has only loss conditions. It's not a fairy tale simulator, it's a virtual world simulator. You're not trying to get to a happy ending. In reality, if you reach an unhappy ending and everyone dies, that's an end point. But if things go well it just continues. Tomorrow is also good? Then you'll have a day after that.
Eventually disasters or mismanagement will result in a failed fort. For example, you'll eventually have nobles start demanding stuff you don't have or can't make for whatever reason. Kill the noble, and more will come. Eventually you'll kill a noble who has a friend who tantrums, who kills a cat and causes the owner to tantrum, who releases a trapped bronze colossus in the dining room which kills fifteen haulers before the wrestlers take it down.
Eventually we can predict that you'll mine out the entire embark zone, leaving a single stairway leading up from the bottom of the hollow cube where your dwarves live to the surface. All your crafts will have gone, and you simply make plump helmets to make meals to export. The civilization just kind of runs perfectly until you get bored of it.

And if you never fire that save up again because you were too good at it, I'd say that's a nice end condition too.

Try making a 1x1 fort on a haunted volcano with an "Embark Now!" party. Test your excellent skills by playing hard mode.

[Jamuk]

I don't think we need more init options personally.  The only reason I might agree with them right now is because it would be faster than implementing a reason for a fortress to be a certain way.  If you settle somewhere within the protecting borders of your civilization, the other cities will draw most of the sieges, as delving deeper into dwarven territory would be dangerous, and allow supply lines to be cut off more easily, and expose themselves to more fanatical defenders.

[PenguinSeph]

What we need is a way to leave the fort without killing it, and more interesting things to do during the middle and late fortress phases.

Maybe dwarfs could riot when very unhappy? I wonder how this would work? Maybe if a certain percentage of dwarfs are unhappy, there is a chance that the unhappy dwarfs will all become berserk at once, with the intent of killing nobles and rebelling?

[Sapidus3]

When a dwarf becomes angry, maybe there are two different possible outcomes. One could be he tantrums. the other possibility could be, if there are many other dwarfs that are also unhappy. The dwarf in question will throw a "party." Depending on certain checks all the upset dwarfs attending may get riled up and decide to riot. If a upset dwarf sees another dwarf rioting there may be a chance they will join.

As for the init options. In regards to turning things off, I only ever shut off temp and weather. That's only when I get fed up with frame rates, otherwise I prefer them on. I like playing the game as is, as I am sure are many others. However more options probably couldn't hurt (I say probably because there are of course ways it could hurt the community) but it could make it easier for some people to swallow certain features at least when they are first introduced. I think while alot of features are still in early stages, having options for them is a good thing. Eventually as they become more fully realized and bugs are worked out I could see the options being phased out.

It would be interesting (and more in line with the whole simulation thing) if some of the gameplay init options were actually world gen options. For example, if you have sieges off during world gen, then it would just make sure to throw out histories where civs end at war, and would favor worlds where the civs are pretty peaceful. Don't want economies. The generator favors a world where global civilization has never really progressed past a primitive barter system. Of course this would keep people from being able to change the settings "on the fly." However, people might feel better/more-justified knowing that the reason they aren't having sieges is not just because there is some flag marked false in a config file, but because they are in a very peaceful world. 

[Zombie]

I don't think we need more init options personally.  The only reason I might agree with them right now is because it would be faster than implementing a reason for a fortress to be a certain way.

More init options allow for a more flexible game. The idea being that if you don't like a feature, you don't stop playing... You just turn it off.

The other way to deal with it is that when we have more RAW access, we'll likely be able to manually fashion a "toggle" or "slider" sort of function. Mods that change the way you run your fortress, perhaps.

The idea isn't to cause forking... As a "forked" game would mean that Toady would need to make separate ways for things to be handled. The init configs that I'm suggesting are merely to stop things that happen in a vanilla game from happening, perhaps resulting in an overall harder game or an overall easier game. Or just a different style of play. Having configurable options is different from having a "change this to this" style of toggle.

For example, let's say the vanilla game has a full economy as detailed above... Shops and whatnot. An economy toggle would simply control the "purchase price" of items. Simple would be as it is now. No purchase price, just get it and go. Normal would be a flat rate for like items. Complex would be flat rate for item type with variable rate for item materials.

The result isn't three separate games. It's simply a complexity slider for an in-game feature. Changing the slider doesn't require a new game mechanic to be created, it just causes the game to refer to a different formula for calculating in-fortress purchase prices.

"Forking" more implies the init configs being able to completely alter the game, not toggle features (that mainly control if an event occurs or not). I do not think we should have toggles that require Toady to create an entirely new feature just for a small group of players... More just having toggles that run alongside what he already intends to do, enabling those of us that wish it (or people who want to try playing a little differently without having to resort to handicapping themselves) to play the way we decide.

Point and case: Some of us resort to building elaborate migrant deathtraps because migrants ignore the popcap we've set for some reason. A simple fix would simply being able to turn the migrants off completely. This does not introduce a new game mechanic, it simply removes one already in play. The same would go for a caravan toggle and does go for the weather toggle, the temperature toggle, the economy toggle, the invader toggle, the cavein toggle, the artifact toggle, and the zero_rent toggle.

There are no new features added, which removes the "forking" aspect that I think Toady wants to avoid. Instead we are simply retaining and either choosing to use or not choosing to use the toggles as an impromptu "game options" setting. Think of toggles like options. Some of us don't fiddle with them, some of us do. You aren't required to in order to have fun. They don't add anything to your game, they just modify the default settings a little to provide a slightly different gameplay experience.

As for the init options. In regards to turning things off, I only ever shut off temp and weather. That's only when I get fed up with frame rates, otherwise I prefer them on. I like playing the game as is, as I am sure are many others. However more options probably couldn't hurt (I say probably because there are of course ways it could hurt the community) but it could make it easier for some people to swallow certain features at least when they are first introduced. I think while alot of features are still in early stages, having options for them is a good thing. Eventually as they become more fully realized and bugs are worked out I could see the options being phased out.

That's good! I'm not saying you have to use toggles or even want to use them! The idea is, though, that we have a bunch of options for people who want to play different ways. It's an easy way to implement things like no-trading or no-migrant forts (via the caravan/migrant toggle) without having to massacre the migrants or caravans or have them go mad because you have no depot.

Personally, I don't really see how toggles akin to the ones we have currently could hurt the community. They provide gameplay diversity that doesn't require us to handicap ourselves. If you want to try getting your dwarves to legendary stonecrafting without artifacts, just turn artifacts off. It's simple. Being able to turn artifacts off doesn't harm the community, at least not that I can see.

In regards to phasing out options I simply ask: Why? Unless the options break the game... "Breaking the game," of course, meaning that it somehow unintendedly stops a core mechanic of the game from functioning... Unless it breaks the game, why should it be taken out? Artifacts really have no game-breaking bugs, yet the artifacts toggle remains.

I honestly think there's a large value in the malleability that DF has. Even in alpha it has replay value that dwarfs (excuse the pun) even the largest publisher or developer's game. Part of that malleability is the init options and the modability. You can go in and make your own race of sixteen-armed spider that spits acid, then face off against it in adventure mode. The init options allow you to tweak how your dwarves act and how the game handles certain things like temperature and weather.

Certain important features, I feel, should ALWAYS have options available to them. Someone will say, "Why can't we have a toggle to tone down the economy?" or "Where did turning sieges off go? D:" and we'll be at a loss. Yes, new features are fun to play with, but some people won't like it when a huge goblin army with tunnelers comes and carves holes in their fortresses. Some people will want a simpler economy with hand-picked nobles so they can pretend they're running a communist dictatorship. People will want to play around with the init options simply to try silly things or to try things they've never tried before.

DF is part "toyware," part game, part simulator, and part god-game. Putting the power in the player's hands to smack Urist McLazypants in the face with a hammer by assigning them to be beat is half the fun of DF. Being able to turn sieges off, build a mighty aboveground fortress, then turn them back on when you're done to see how long you can last is part of the fun.

[Sapidus3]

I did not mean to imply that having many init options would cause forking. I apologize if I came off that way. I agree that I think more options generally does not hurt and in fact would like more than just On/Off for some things. Being able to set sieges at 200% would make me happy.

I can't claim to know what Toady thinks on this option. But I could imagine, as someone who has developed software in the past, wanting to limit certain options that players have. If it was felt that the economy was a core part of the game and without it, DF wasn't DF, I could see the option to turn it off disappear. All I know is what I have read in interviews and what not, and that there is a reason it isn't open source. My comments were more of along the lines of "Has Toady said for a fact anywhere how he feels about the init options," and "If he plans to eventually phase them out, we should not become too dependent on them."

The way I could see init options hurting the community would be if they had a large impact on the game. At this point having temperature or weather, more even economy on or off does not matter too much. The game is more or less the same. However, my fear was, that if the init options allowed too much change, the shared experience that is DF would begin to diverge.

That being said, I like that the options are there. And even though I may not use them, I would support more being added. Furthermore increasing their flexibility (making some things more than just on/off) would definitely be useful to a lot of people.

Back to the more pressing issue:

I was thinking more on the social issues. There is more to society than what religions we practice, and if we eat our neighbors. A lot of society is "tradition based." Example we shake one another's hands to say hello (at least where I am from).

Cannibalism in elves is one of these traditions. Perhaps civs should have more of these and we should be able to view them. For example, maybe my dwarven civ has the following traditions:
-Each dwarf gets own tomb (as opposed to mass grave.)
-Dwarfs sleep communally.
-Dwarfs only like to eat at parties
-Dwarfs expect statues overlooking them in dinning rooms
-ect
Essentially these would effect your dwarfs preferences. However, if you don't like the idea of giving your dwarfs tombs, you could just make mass graves. There might be a lot o unhappy thoughts about this, but eventually people would adjust. Perhaps, if your fortress had enough influence in the civ, you could eventually change the traditions.

This is going back to my comments of more social things for the dwarfs, and also plays into the "play the world, not the fort" idea.

[Langdon]

In regards to Langdon's comments. That would all definitely go along way towards making the game harder. However, not all sites have lava or chasms anymore so they shouldn't be relied on to increase difficulty. I'm 75% sure I have seen it mentioned somewhere that you will eventually need to re-irrigate. Though I do not know how top soil is going to be handled.

I had completely forgotten about all the deaths due to river flooding. I always lost my fisherdwarves that way.  I loved that . However, once again that's (the river) a specific map feature and is not guaranteed to be around. Not saying the ideas aren't good. I definitely think adding more to these already cool map features is worthwhile, but I think its a good idea to also work on map independent ideas.

Even if not all maps have these features, most players actively look for flowing water or magma on embarkation. Implementing these features so that their utility is balanced by associated risks should go a long way to making the game harder (in fact, increasing risks over time may be used to adjust the difficulty level) and must be countered through substantial effort from the player.

For example - rivers and brooks periodically flood, unless you build dams/floodplains/drainage ditches. Running water is useful, but not really a necessity, so flooding is easily avoided by building away from the river (with the corresponding need to run plumbing over longer distances or make longer trips for water).

Magma pipes occasionally erupt (digging too close to the pipe may weaken the mountain's structural strength, causing blowouts, or cave-ins may crack the pipe, causing eruptions). Working with magma should be a high-risk activity, which is countered by its high usefulness.

Magma pockets might cool down over time, if not replenished. They are easier to work with (no eruptions) but also of lesser utility, as you'll run out of magma some years down the line.

I'd like to see this balance between usefulness/risk as a way to increase or tweak difficulty. Don't want the risk of magma, then don't build on maps with it.

I don't have a problem with the presence of low-risk, low-resource areas. It's ok if sites without rivers, magmas or chasms are "safer". Some people just like to build quiet, peaceful settlements, and the player should always have that option. Of course, those dwarves that go for the riskier areas should also have greater rewards.

[Rawl]

Gentlemen, I had several visions today at work and I would like to share one with you know, the ideas behind it are some I've seen here and in some recent threads like breath weapons. It also takes some of the 2d version "rules" into account.

After the fortress has been around for awhile and the dwarves had made many beautiful weapons and armor they wanted to show the world their power. They began destroying Elven retreats, burning villages, bringing Goblin towers to their knees. No one could stop them, or so they thought. Allying themselves against the bearded menace the Elves, Goblins, and Men raised a mighty army to thwart the dwarves. Elves brought eagles that harrased the Marksdwarves on the battlements, Human engineers disabled traps while Goblins brought in trolls to destroy doors and fortifications. Once inside they made it inside they began destroying farms, Goblins began taking loot back to their towers, the seige was so fierce it would continue for years. Slowly, slowly the dwarves were forced ever deeper into the ground. They had ample supplies of food and beer that they had horded over the years so they thought to themselves that they would wait them out. Disaster struck. An elven sabatoure made it to the storage room and burned most of the food and all the booze, he paid dearly for it, though for the Allied armies on the surface it was a major victory. Only 20 dwarves remained, 10 percent of the original numbers, they had retreated all the way down to the thrown room only the bottomless pit behind them could keep them company, then the dwarves thought the worst had been realized. Creatures came from the Pit, but Dwarven death was not their intent, no, help they offered at the price of 10 souls. 9 captured enemies they sent and one invalid, the deep dweller promised in 10 days they would get their reward. 9 days passed and 20 dwellers mounted on Giant spiders tore past and challenged the siegers, 10 more came out and dragged any fallen soldiers they could get down the pit, the 10 day arrived and the howl of a thousand nightmares arouse from the pit a beast that was clearly sown together from the ten offered arouse from the pit and single handedly killed 100 before it was taken out. The Ally was broken, the goblins in their awe of the fell beast swore fealty to the dwarves. The humans and elves however only saw how evil and accursed the bearded ones had become, and withdrew to prepare again....

Big block of text and next time I'll have the one for the more Build over Destroy kinda players.

[Langdon]

I want a succession war. I want to have my fort split into two factions as part of an empire-wide schism over which of the two possible successors is the new king. I want to have to choose a side and command them to win the battle and fight for control of the fortress against the other guys.

This would be a good idea as long as it comes from actions the player takes, but I don't want a civil war just happening because some world-gen leader outside the player's control rolled low on his noble personality check that year. Also, there has to be some way for good players to reduce the risk of rebellion/civil war.

I.E. if the player ignores signs of rebellion, or enforces noble demands at the expense of the peasantry, sure... but have some time before everything blows up, some time for the player to notice what's happening and take steps to head off the problem. This could be anything from jailing (or even executing) the rebel leaders, increasing happiness, replacing nobles (sending them off back to the mountainhomes, under threat of death) and so forth.

If the player is very good, the entire fortress would unanimously elect to join one side or the other in a succession war, thus avoiding infighting (still, the enemy faction may send ambushers/siegers in an effort to change the fortress allegiance).

[Sapidus3]

I don't have a problem with the presence of low-risk, low-resource areas. It's ok if sites without rivers, magmas or chasms are "safer". Some people just like to build quiet, peaceful settlements, and the player should always have that option. Of course, those dwarves that go for the riskier areas should also have greater rewards.

After thinking about it I completely agree with you. The link between risk and reward needs to be tweaked, and some small things can fix that. My comments about needing universal things to make the game harder is so that people can build up fortresses in nice peaceful places, and then be able to see how it stands against some challenges once it is ready. I've had forts where I wouldn't want alot of the traditional threats (carp, goblins, old school starvation) being focused on making a giant statue of my face, but would like some type of conflict to spice the seasons up.

In regards to a succession war, I think there are a lot of ways in which the player could influence, some of which have already been stated.  Another example is, if your fortress was large enough, you could offer to host a meeting of lords. Nobles from other fortresses would come to hope to resolve it, with your mayor as mediator. The success would depend on the skill of your mayor, or of course, you could just slaughter the lords that you do not favor.

Perhaps you could also declare your fort in favor of one candidate or another. If your fortress was powerful that could decide things. It could be a matter of, "well the fortress of bloodydwarfmoon supports lord mcDwarf, I suppose I no longer have a chance to support mcDwarf's claim."

Of course if your fort was smaller, it might not even be affected by such a civil war other than seeing its caravan's disrupted. Or maybe if the civ split into two, your fort would just end up on one side or another.

Similarly, it might be nice if you could declare independence. Your highest ranking noble would declare himself king of the new dwarven empire you have formed.

Man I am really liking this thread. From the ashes of a brewing flame war, something interesting has emerged. Let's keep the ideas flowing.

[Rawl]

I would also love to see more HFS type stuff. An underground burial chamber with lots of goodies inside like massive treasures, artifacts, and legendary statues? Sounds great! That is until you start "re-claiming" it. At which point the statues come to life as a mess of Ironmen and Bronze colossi  and such. A thing I have noticed is sure we play as dwarves, but who said HFS should be souly linked to digging down? People love to also build huge towers, so how about HFS that triggers after building a tower so high over the base land area? When magic is implemented how about huge towers attracting magic users. They might be benevolent or malevolent and depending on how the player acts they could be hostile or "beneficial". "Beneficial" in the sense that if you get a Necromancer type mage he might demand bodies for the sacrifice and make uber powerful creatures to protect (or destroy) your fortress, and going with a comment made earlier about noble deaths if the necro would die his creation would immediatly attack the fort. The same idea could be extended to say a demon caller or such. How about a Floating Castle? Maybe vassals of the Gods? Gods might not like it if you build a tower tall, or perhaps they might enjoy your enthusiasm. I also enjoyed the suggestions about how dwarves would mourn the death of Nobles more (perhaps tantrums amongst the Royal Guard for not being able to do their job and defend their lords and ladies). Perhaps if you get sieged or siege alot your nobles might even request a certain amount of Military beyond Fortress Guard and Royal guard. Maybe even use Royal Guard to collect tribute from the surrounding Country side or nabbing recruits for your siege army would be neat (and give them use). Building off the ideas I had in my last post, perhaps you could entice other races to move into your fort as more or less Peasantry and they might be more inclined to break laws. Kobolds? they might move in and if they feel they aren't being treated fairly start pilfering objects. Maybe a Human Lord wants his son to be trained my a Master of Legendary Craftsdwarf and rewards you richly for training him, however if he dies during his training their will be a blooddebt to pay.

Ah stream of consciousness brainstorming how I love thee.

[Gantolandon]

One thing that could be reworked to increase difficulty is happiness. Now either all the dwarves are happy, or rioting and destroying the fortress. Death of a friend or a loved one can be balanced out by a nice bedroom. But when the situation spiral out of control, it's almost impossible to overcome.

Some random suggestions:

• Lessen the happiness growth from nice environment. It should be also more subjective - floor paved with gold is nice, unless all your neighbours decorate their houses with platinum and aluminium.
• There should be more friendship and grudge levels, the highest ones capped and hard to achieve. I know that some dwarves can be very social, but I can't imagine how can they have only close, true friends, whom they love and care about. It doesn't have to be mutual. Urist McGuildleader can think Bomrek McAbouttobemayor is his close friend, but the former doesn't have to give a shit about the latter and only use him to support his campaign. Or even harboring a secret grudge towards him.
• Repeating positive and negative thought should have a chance to alleviate itself. Especially the dwarf whose friend dies could randomly achieve a level of "He does not care about anything anymore." It should also lower his chance to make new friends.
• Instead of tantrumming when very unhappy, dwarf should try to eliminate sources of his negative thoughts first. There are many things to do this. Riots were suggested before. But there are also other crimes the dwarf could resort to. Murder and theft are the most obvious options.
• More reasons to be unhappy. If becoming a mayor is a reason to be happy, why doesn't being relieved from this duty cause unhappiness? For a dwarf used to live in luxury, return to his standard 1x3 bedroom with a siltstone chest and a meager bed can be a very painful experience. But it could be worse. What's with the very ambitious dwarf who's been leading his people about ten years, only to be replaced by his archenemy who had stolen his wife before?

The unhappy dwarves should be a problem all the time, not only after a goblin ambush. Some citizens could be a problem itself, especially those more violent or with more anarchical tendencies. And they'd better be happy... or quickly dispatched by the Fortress Guard.

[Granite26]

I think long term balance will fix some of this.  People already pick different starting locations for challenges, it's just that right now, there's no in-game reason to settle in a horrific zone.

We're playing the world, so what if the super savage zones were the results of HFS deep underground? 
You could then play 'easy mode' within the walls of your civ, safe, but with poor access to minerals (good sites are already taken).  Additionally, your trade goods would be going into a saturated market. 

The 'normal' mode would be somewhere out in the wilderness.  Goblins find it easier to get to you, more animals, but it's easier to find a good site with clean water and magma and decent minerals.   

If you are closer to other civs, the caravans would find trading with you more profitable.  The disadvantage is that you would have to play the politics games as your own city state.  Sure the king says he wants to fight the humans, but if you back the king, you lose your trading partner and become the first target on the humans rampage.

All three of these 'challenges' seem like they are coming with the army arc.  They create a way to increase danger without artificially handicapping yourself for no good in-game reason.

Anyway, long term, I'd like to see a cost/benefit reason to settle in the rougher (savage) regions.  Whoever earlier mentioned adding small costs (magmamen, cave swallowmen and frogmen) to the features that give advantages (magma, chasm, and rivers) had it right, I think.  There's a cost and a benefit.

When regions get their tags for reasons, hopefully exploiting those reasons will provide dwarves a reason to settle there.

[irmo]

I think long term balance will fix some of this.  People already pick different starting locations for challenges, it's just that right now, there's no in-game reason to settle in a horrific zone.

I'm not so optimistic about "long term balance", because the balance was seriously screwed up in the 3D version, and Toady has not really addressed it since then, instead focusing on adding more features. Extrapolating from that, it's likely to get worse in the long run.

(Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Toady won't fix it in the future, or I wouldn't bother making this argument. I'll believe it when I see it, though.)

I think you're right about the need for some in-game incentive to settle in more difficult locations (something other than "I'm here because I'm bored!"), and in the "playing the world" concept[1] it does make sense--you get access to strategically valuable resource X/a new area of the map if you can just get that savage wilderness under control, so go build an outpost! Risk/reward is a very cool dynamic--it was central to the 2D version, where there was pressure to expand and to hold back on expanding until you were ready to deal with the consequences. This creates interesting tension.

On the subject of init options: they're a band-aid. We started with temperature and weather init options for performance reasons, and then population cap for sort-of performance reasons, and now we're talking about adding options to disable challenges for the perpetual noobs.[2] I'm fine with that, as long as it doesn't become an excuse for the basic unmodified game to remain unbalanced.

Specifically, turning stuff off should only make the game easier. Many discussions on this subject involve the argument that, if it's too easy, you should go to a site without (water/magma/stone/sand...) and/or play without building certain things (traps, farms). This is exactly backwards--it means that if I want a challenge, I don't get to play with most of the features of the game. The risk/reward curve slopes the wrong way.

[1] A concept I distrust, BTW, as "the world" is a setting, not a character, and it smacks of software-toyism along the lines of SimCity, a game so boring that it included the option to call down disasters on your own city just to liven things up. I'm still interested to see what Toady does with the idea--it might be like what you're describing, playing a civilization within the world rather than the world itself.

[2] "Noob" is not a term of abuse. Noobhood is the first step on the road to mastery. However, when people ask for the level of challenge to flex infinitely according to the player's whims, they are trying to abolish the entire concept of mastery so that they can remain noobs forever. We need a label for these people so we can avoid getting their weaksauce on us. Hence "perpetual noob".