Print

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

[Shoruke]

So I'm thinking for the site finder... for some of the values, wouldn't it be more useful to have a permissible range instead of a single value? like instead of Evil being N/A, low, medium, or high, it would have a lowest permissible value and a highest permissible value. So that you could do, for three examples...

Evil  High:High          for it to insist that high have high evilness
Evil  N/A:Medium       don't care how evil, just not high
Evil  N/A:N/A            evilness or not evilness doesn't matter at all


And also it would be cool to have a feature that includes ANY magma... it kills me to have to try twice, once for magma pipes and once for magma pools...

[Footkerchief]

Agreed.  I like your max/min system, that seems like the simplest way of handling it.

However, depending how thoroughly the underground features get worked over, the magma pool/pipe dichotomy might become obsolete in the next version.  Likewise chasm/pit.

Come to think of it, good/evil areas are slated to get removed in the semi-near future too...

[Warlord255]

Embark site finder needs many, many changes, such as filtering for trees, sand, and removing the confounding "drainage/rainfall" bullshit and just flat-out saying "SWAMP", "JUNGLE", "GLACIER".

Also, multiple site references we can scroll through.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Returning ALL valid results rather then just the best would be great, especially if we could start examining it immediately while waiting for the rest of the search to complete.  I'm most in favor of Tree cover parameters as find them indispensables.

[Neonivek]

I guess the Evil / Good thing could be replaced with Sphered

Though... Lands heavily influences by their sphere arn't nessisarily more dangerous (though so far it seems to be the case)

[Hawklaser]

I agree that the site finder could use some work, the min-max idea is good, along with the clearer biome setting, as there is some overlap in what biomes can fall where. Being able to search for sand, trees, and plants would also be nice. Also giving a list of suitable, or partial matches for sites.

Though something that I would find nice would also being able to specify what kind of rock and soil layers are in the site. Would either need a way to select the layers, or have a small menu just for them. with options like, N/A, No, single biome, whole site. Also the distinction between whole site, or single biome could also apply to aquifers. I know I would use it as I like having Gabro in my sites, and I have seen others that really dislike some layers.

[Sowelu]

Agreed on magma pool/pipe.  I'll also add river/undergroundriver/undergroundpool, and undergroundriver/undergroundpool.

Oh yeah, and make it stop the first time it finds a perfect match.  Painful to wait while it steps through the rest of the map.

[Dame de la Licorne]

Something I've been thinking of also, maybe have a priority system included, so that someone who wants an underground water source and magma can say that the magma is required, but the water isn't as important, or vice versa.  So they might end up having the magma at highest priority and the water at secondary priority, or something.

[sdp0et]

I support the idea of returning multiple results that can be navigated, or at the very least being able to "reject" a site so that the same site undesirable doesn't keep coming up after changing the parameters.  This might be easily implemented by being able to "block out" the current site rectangle as invalid, like previous fortress sites are.

[profit]

I support the idea of returning multiple results that can be navigated, or at the very least being able to "reject" a site so that the same site undesirable doesn't keep coming up after changing the parameters.  This might be easily implemented by being able to "block out" the current site rectangle as invalid, like previous fortress sites are.

I think you can embark on a site, abandon it and the next time it will not "find" that site.... Not 100% sure though