Print

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

[G-Flex]

It's less about "you can't have this because you got unlucky"; I like being able to see roughly what I'm going to get upon embark.

It's more about your choice in a site actually mattering, which means features varying significantly between them.

Like stone was ever in short supply.

Stone hasn't, but particular stones are. For instance, you don't have a never-ending supply of ore.

[Dabi]

It's less about "you can't have this because you got unlucky"; I like being able to see roughly what I'm going to get upon embark.

It's more about your choice in a site actually mattering, which means features varying significantly between them.

Like stone was ever in short supply.

Stone hasn't, but particular stones are. For instance, you don't have a never-ending supply of ore.

Now if at a later stage you can send out researchers protected by groups of soldiers that will be good...they could try find you the material you want and you can setup a base camp there.

[Innominate]

I like having magma be a bit rare. It's nowhere near as hard to find as it once was, and if it were everywhere as long as you dug deep enough, it would always be used.

As it is, it's hard to get everything you might want in one place, and that makes for more fun. Often you have to choose between magma and flux, for example.

Make the magma-at-a-certain-depth controllable from the world generation or embark interface.

It is, you can choose how deep the layers are and what layers show up and so forth. Also, the magma is real deep down, if you don't want to go for it, you don't have to. Odds are you'll really have to fight for it however.

Also, i disagree with bombcar's assertation that not having everything in one place is more fun. I find it distinctly less fun. Having to fight for resources or making them difficult to find is fine, but flat out saying "you can never have this ever because you got unlucky, har har" is no fun at all for me.


When we get the ability to set up multiple fortresses in the world and trade between them, then magma can become rare and prized again. Until then, having it always available is a huge positive as it means i don't need to hack the iron ores to appear in igneous rock.

--EDIT--

Ninjaed by Footkerchief.

I agree. It's a nice feature to have all options available to some extent from embark, where the main difference is difficulty. In the current version, it is impossible to get glass on a map without sand short of modding creature corpse items or reactions. Toady has fortunately fixed that (we can now import even just sand I believe), along with other "impossible" things. This creates a level of freedom I find refreshing, which I refer to as "freedom to die in the attempt". Want magma? Be prepared to dig until you reach it. Watch out for the teenage mutant ninja turtlemen though.

It allows the player to have challenges that aren't all or nothing, and it aids in a sense of accomplishment. That the mountainhome, populated by 200 dwarves of legendary skill and wealth, would be just as incapable of getting sand as your starting seven were is demoralising (unless it's a self-imposed challenge). Ideally, the player would be able to choose an environment of incomprehensible hostility and, by fortune or skill (or 80 reclaims), conquer it. They may never master it, always under siege by goblins from above and batmen from below, but at least they would be in a more capable position than when they started.

[Chandrasekhar]

I like having magma be a bit rare. It's nowhere near as hard to find as it once was, and if it were everywhere as long as you dug deep enough, it would always be used.

As it is, it's hard to get everything you might want in one place, and that makes for more fun. Often you have to choose between magma and flux, for example.

You might call it a choice in theory, but in reality people are just going to keep genning worlds until they find a site that they like, meaning that there's actually less choice, because the number of places that are "smart" to embark upon are more limited.

[jpwrunyan]

when will we be able to forge non-dwarf size weapons and armor?
I want to make adamantine longswords and large platemail and then find them with my adventurer.  Presumably in the ruins of a fortress that was destroyed by hfs because they were not properly equipped with usable weaons and armor.

[Doomshifter]

when will we be able to forge non-dwarf size weapons and armor?
I want to make adamantine longswords and large platemail and then find them with my adventurer.  Presumably in the ruins of a fortress that was destroyed by hfs because they were not properly equipped with usable weaons and armor.

This brings up a question, but it's not worthy of being green'd.

Where does everyone think the hidden fun metal will be hiding this time?

[G-Flex]

I like having magma be a bit rare. It's nowhere near as hard to find as it once was, and if it were everywhere as long as you dug deep enough, it would always be used.

As it is, it's hard to get everything you might want in one place, and that makes for more fun. Often you have to choose between magma and flux, for example.

You might call it a choice in theory, but in reality people are just going to keep genning worlds until they find a site that they like, meaning that there's actually less choice, because the number of places that are "smart" to embark upon are more limited.

That's only true if things are hard to find in one place. If it's impossible to get everything in one place (as it obviously should be, unless you somehow want your map to have the Grand Canyon, Mt. Fuji, a polar ice cap, and a tropical rainforest all in one, on top of The Lost World), then that doesn't apply.

[Neruz]

when will we be able to forge non-dwarf size weapons and armor?
I want to make adamantine longswords and large platemail and then find them with my adventurer.  Presumably in the ruins of a fortress that was destroyed by hfs because they were not properly equipped with usable weaons and armor.

This brings up a question, but it's not worthy of being green'd.

Where does everyone think the hidden fun metal will be hiding this time?

It's right at the bottom of the map. Toady has stated that as you dig deeper things will get more and more corrupt until eventually you'll break into the funhouse.

That's only true if things are hard to find in one place. If it's impossible to get everything in one place (as it obviously should be, unless you somehow want your map to have the Grand Canyon, Mt. Fuji, a polar ice cap, and a tropical rainforest all in one, on top of The Lost World), then that doesn't apply.

Due to the way the Worldgen works, it will always be possible to generate rediculous worlds where you have the Grand Canyon next to Mt. Everest with a polar ice cap at one end and a tropical rainforest at the other. Perhaps not in the default Worldgen, but with customisation, most certainly.

It's more about your choice in a site actually mattering, which means features varying significantly between them.

Of course the site choice matters, if i choose a site with a Magma Pipe then i'll have easy early-game access to Magma. If not, then getting to the stuff is going to be a late-game prospect. That alone will substantially change how i build my fort, as access to Magma is a key gameplay componant.


Once we get the ability to access multiple sites, then i'll fully support making features more dispersed. But until then i will thougherly object to it, simply because there is no reason to force players to have to use crazy worldgens just to get the world they like.

If you don't want to play on a site with everything, you don't have to. If you do, you can. It's a wonderful thing.

[G-Flex]

Due to the way the Worldgen works, it will always be possible to generate rediculous worlds where you have the Grand Canyon next to Mt. Everest with a polar ice cap at one end and a tropical rainforest at the other. Perhaps not in the default Worldgen, but with customisation, most certainly.

This is not necessarily true. There will likely be a point where there are enough biome/region-specific features that it's simply impossible to fit all of them into one site.

In fact, this is already true to some degree: It's currently impossible (or so infeasible as to be considered impossible) to embark on a site where every single possible animal and plant in the game can exist naturally on the same map.

Once we get the ability to access multiple sites, then i'll fully support making features more dispersed. But until then i will thougherly object to it, simply because there is no reason to force players to have to use crazy worldgens just to get the world they like.

If you don't want to play on a site with everything, you don't have to. If you do, you can. It's a wonderful thing.

Do you say this about every game where you can't have absolutely every single piece of content at once? If so, I really have no freaking clue how you manage. Most games involving any sort of player choice have the player choose between options. That's what choice is.

You should, in fact, have to use crazy worldgen parameters if you want to get a world that makes absolutely no sense at all. If you want a crazy world, use crazy parameters. Personally, I consider an embark area with both a glacier and the Sahara Desert to be pretty damn crazy, and that's not even considering features that don't exist yet.

If there is a "perfect site" available, but choice is meaningless, because there's no actual strategy involved. The only reason, in that case, to choose an "imperfect" site is if you intentionally want to cripple yourself.

Choice should be meaningful, and choice is not meaningful if there's a single perfect option that you're an idiot not to take.

[Neruz]

Due to the way the Worldgen works, it will always be possible to generate rediculous worlds where you have the Grand Canyon next to Mt. Everest with a polar ice cap at one end and a tropical rainforest at the other. Perhaps not in the default Worldgen, but with customisation, most certainly.

This is not necessarily true. There will likely be a point where there are enough biome/region-specific features that it's simply impossible to fit all of them into one site.

In fact, this is already true to some degree: It's currently impossible (or so infeasible as to be considered impossible) to embark on a site where every single possible animal and plant in the game can exist naturally on the same map.

Wronk. I have a worldgen that results in biomes ranging from around 2x2 to 6x6 in size scattered randomly around the map. It requires you telling the game to shut up and stop whinging at you about not being able to place all the civs (iirc, it has real problems placing Elves, this is also probably because masses of the map are evil, due to extra fun, if i turn that off it might fix that). I'm sure if i spent some more time on it i could iron out most of the bugs. But anyway, a 16x16 embark on one of those could pick up over 9 different biomes, if you got lucky you might be able to get all possible animals.

Do you say this about every game where you can't have absolutely every single piece of content at once? If so, I really have no freaking clue how you manage. Most games involving any sort of player choice have the player choose between options. That's what choice is.

Perhaps, but i don't consider "Do you want Magma" to be a choice at all.

You should, in fact, have to use crazy worldgen parameters if you want to get a world that makes absolutely no sense at all. If you want a crazy world, use crazy parameters. Personally, I consider an embark area with both a glacier and the Sahara Desert to be pretty damn crazy, and that's not even considering features that don't exist yet.

Indeed, and that is what i do. If you don't want to use crazy worldgen parameters, you don't have to. That's the wonder that is Dwarf Fortress; it's highly customizable to each user's individual preferences.

If there is a "perfect site" available, but choice is meaningless, because there's no actual strategy involved. The only reason, in that case, to choose an "imperfect" site is if you intentionally want to cripple yourself.

No such perfect site exists. Even if i were to somehow find a perfect site, regenning it would actually result in different mineral contents, as the specific minerals vary from embark to embark and computer to computer.

Choice should be meaningful, and choice is not meaningful if there's a single perfect option that you're an idiot not to take.

At the moment "Do you want Magma" is that choice. The cost for not having Magma in a Fortress is so incredibly high that unless you are deliberately trying to create a challenge for yourself, it's not worth anything. This is even more egrarious when you realise that Steel is entirely unneccessary and Iron (of which Hematite can be located in magma areas almost all the time) is more than sufficient from a gameplay perspective.


But again, that's the best part about DF: if i want to, i can embark on a site that has absolutely everything and enjoy a clusterfuck of unimaginable proportions. Or i can embark on a featureless glacier with nothing but ice and stone. It's my choice, stop trying to take my choice away from me.




I feel i should also add that your comments about choices should be meaningful is only relevant if the game can be won. Dwarf Fortress, by it's very nature. Can never be won. It is not a competetive experience and each player chooses the experience he himself wants to have. Thus, all choices have meaning depending on what the player is after.

[G-Flex]

Wronk. I have a worldgen that results in biomes ranging from around 2x2 to 6x6 in size scattered randomly around the map. It requires you telling the game to shut up and stop whinging at you about not being able to place all the civs (iirc, it has real problems placing Elves, this is also probably because masses of the map are evil, due to extra fun, if i turn that off it might fix that). I'm sure if i spent some more time on it i could iron out most of the bugs. But anyway, a 16x16 embark on one of those could pick up over 9 different biomes, if you got lucky you might be able to get all possible animals.

You would have to get pretty lucky, especially when you consider all the possible alignments into account (you'd want basically all of them to be Terrifying).

Perhaps, but i don't consider "Do you want Magma" to be a choice at all.

You're right. The choice is (in the next version) "Do you want easier access to magma, or do you prefer sites with other features instead, and perhaps more sedimentary stone?"

Keep in mind that a choice is between options. At least it should be.

You should, in fact, have to use crazy worldgen parameters if you want to get a world that makes absolutely no sense at all. If you want a crazy world, use crazy parameters. Personally, I consider an embark area with both a glacier and the Sahara Desert to be pretty damn crazy, and that's not even considering features that don't exist yet.

Indeed, and that is what i do. If you don't want to use crazy worldgen parameters, you don't have to. That's the wonder that is Dwarf Fortress; it's highly customizable to each user's individual preferences.

Yet you were just saying that you shouldn't have to use crazy parameters to get those worlds. You're contradicting yourself. First you say that it's a terrible thing for features to be dispersed, and that this simply shouldn't be the case, and that you shouldn't have to use weird worldgen settings in order to get your own personal Dwarf Heaven with every single feature in the game, and now you're agreeing that it is reasonable to expect people to use crazy worldgen settings in order to get maps like that. I don't get it.

No such perfect site exists. Even if i were to somehow find a perfect site, regenning it would actually result in different mineral contents, as the specific minerals vary from embark to embark and computer to computer.

"Perfect sites" definitely exist in the sense of having all interesting features on the same map (not to mention important resources), and special features is mostly what I was talking about, although hopefully, at some point, those features will seem less "special" and more organic.

Choice should be meaningful, and choice is not meaningful if there's a single perfect option that you're an idiot not to take.

At the moment "Do you want Magma" is that choice. The cost for not having Magma in a Fortress is so incredibly high that unless you are deliberately trying to create a challenge for yourself, it's not worth anything.

This is even more egrarious when you realise that Steel is entirely unneccessary and Iron (of which Hematite can be located in magma areas almost all the time) is more than sufficient from a gameplay perspective.

Magnetite is much more common in areas without magma, though, which is an advantage to going without; sedimentary stones in general are quite nice.

And wait a second, you're talking about hematite being common, yet in a previous post you were talking about how you feel the need to hack iron ores into igneous stone in order to feel like you have enough?

Besides, I've played a fortress without magma before, as have other people I know, and the disadvantage isn't as great as you make it sound, unless you're smelting the entire universe around you. Not every fortress has to revolve around metalwork, and imported/found fuel/wood can certainly be enough to sustain the military. Not every fortress has to do all of the same stuff. Hell, you can import all of this, too.

But again, that's the best part about DF: if i want to, i can embark on a site that has absolutely everything and enjoy a clusterfuck of unimaginable proportions. Or i can embark on a featureless glacier with nothing but ice and stone. It's my choice, stop trying to take my choice away from me.

That choice is good, sure, but at some point it just might not be feasible at all to fit everything the game has to offer in a single regional tile. As game content increases, this gets less and less possible, and I don't think the game as a whole should suffer just because you can't stand not having a perfect site.

I feel i should also add that your comments about choices should be meaningful is only relevant if the game can be won. Dwarf Fortress, by it's very nature. Can never be won. It is not a competetive experience and each player chooses the experience he himself wants to have. Thus, all choices have meaning depending on what the player is after.

I don't care that it's "not a competitive experience". It's still a challenging experience. Choice is meaningful in any game where challenge and diversity of content are expected. You can't "win" at Dwarf Fortress, but you can still succeed more or less at what you set out to do.

I'm okay with being able to screw with worldgen parameters or init options away from the defaults in order to create nonsensical worlds, but there's almost certainly going to come a point where no matter what you do there's going to be some trade-offs involved due to site choice, for the reasons I mentioned. DF will probably eventually have enough stuff all over the place that trying to squeeze it all in one site just won't be possible.

What I'm not okay with is this being the default, at all, or even what you're necessarily intended to do. In general, site features should wind up dispersed enough that there's some sort of strategy involved in choosing one. Players should not have to intentionally cripple themselves in order to have a challenge or choose between options.

[Vince]

My question remained unanswered the last time, so here I go again:

In the next version dwarfs clean and groom themselves. But what about brushing teeth?
Will the dwarfs be able to get caries in the future?
Is something planned?

[AbacusWizard]

when will we be able to forge non-dwarf size weapons and armor?
I want to make adamantine longswords and large platemail and then find them with my adventurer.  Presumably in the ruins of a fortress that was destroyed by hfs because they were not properly equipped with usable weaons and armor.

Well, you could always mod Humans or Elves to be a playable race.

[Neruz]

You would have to get pretty lucky, especially when you consider all the possible alignments into account (you'd want basically all of them to be Terrifying).

Oh yeah, it would be hard, but i suspect it would be possible.

You're right. The choice is (in the next version) "Do you want easier access to magma, or do you prefer sites with other features instead, and perhaps more sedimentary stone?"

Keep in mind that a choice is between options. At least it should be.

Indeed, but note that choosing one does not remove the other entirely. You don't choose Magma OR other features. You get Magma AND other features, you choose when each feature is accessible.

Yet you were just saying that you shouldn't have to use crazy parameters to get those worlds. You're contradicting yourself. First you say that it's a terrible thing for features to be dispersed, and that this simply shouldn't be the case, and that you shouldn't have to use weird worldgen settings in order to get your own personal Dwarf Heaven with every single feature in the game, and now you're agreeing that it is reasonable to expect people to use crazy worldgen settings in order to get maps like that. I don't get it.

Sorry, it sounded like you were trying to say that the game should enforce limitations and make it flat out impossible to get 'full feature' maps, that's what i was disagreeing with.

"Perfect sites" definitely exist in the sense of having all interesting features on the same map (not to mention important resources), and special features is mostly what I was talking about, although hopefully, at some point, those features will seem less "special" and more organic.

They're not 'Perfect' though, they just have all the features.

Magnetite is much more common in areas without magma, though, which is an advantage to going without; sedimentary stones in general are quite nice.

Magnetite is actually really silly atm, why it comes in gigantic clusters i have no idea. Also, even with the default worldgen settings it's not that hard to get a map with a magma feature next to a sedimentary biome. Tweaking the settings just makes it more likely.

And wait a second, you're talking about hematite being common, yet in a previous post you were talking about how you feel the need to hack iron ores into igneous stone in order to feel like you have enough?

That's more an engine bug than a player thing.

IF the engine chooses Hematite as one of the minerals it will put on the map, then Hematite is everywhere. If it doesn't, then you won't see any at all. This is completely random and intensely frustrating, so i usually hack out alot of the useless minerals and make the useful ones more widespread, helps cut down on the maps that are really awesome except for the part where they don't have any useful minerals on them (SEVEN LOCAL SQUARES OF DOLOMITE SIX LAYERS DEEP AND NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF COAL OR IRON ORE!)

Besides, I've played a fortress without magma before, as have other people I know, and the disadvantage isn't as great as you make it sound, unless you're smelting the entire universe around you. Not every fortress has to revolve around metalwork, and imported/found fuel/wood can certainly be enough to sustain the military. Not every fortress has to do all of the same stuff. Hell, you can import all of this, too.

I never said it was impossible, merely that there were substantial disadvantages. It's entirely possible to build a successful fort on a Glacier, i know, i've done it.

The main disadvantage with Magma is running the whole coal industry. Unless you're lucky enough to find heavy forest, odds are wood will be too precious for bins, barrels and beds to be expendable in coal, and unless you find yourself some bituminous or lignite then you're reduced to importing it, which puts a serious cramp on any large scale militarization you might want to employ.

Now, of course, none of this is neccessary, but simply the fact that it's not neccessary does not in any way change the fact that not having Magma is a serious disadvantage. One that can be overcome certainly, but a disadvantage none the less.

That choice is good, sure, but at some point it just might not be feasible at all to fit everything the game has to offer in a single regional tile. As game content increases, this gets less and less possible, and I don't think the game as a whole should suffer just because you can't stand not having a perfect site.

I don't recall future states of the game being part of the discussion. Especially since it's likely that by then we'll be able to have multiple sites, making the argument moot.

I don't care that it's "not a competitive experience". It's still a challenging experience

Only if the player wants it to be.

And i can assure you that even with maps with all features, there's still plenty of challenge. Actually i might say especially, since the presence of an open magma pipe or surface-breaking chasm substantially increases the danger of the site.

I'm okay with being able to screw with worldgen parameters or init options away from the defaults in order to create nonsensical worlds, but there's almost certainly going to come a point where no matter what you do there's going to be some trade-offs involved due to site choice, for the reasons I mentioned. DF will probably eventually have enough stuff all over the place that trying to squeeze it all in one site just won't be possible.

These trade-offs exist right now. Even with the 'perfect' site as you put it, there are still trade-offs. Features are but one small part of the game.

What I'm not okay with is this being the default, at all, or even what you're necessarily intended to do. In general, site features should wind up dispersed enough that there's some sort of strategy involved in choosing one. Players should not have to intentionally cripple themselves in order to have a challenge or choose between options.

Well by default there's no strategy at all as by default you cannot see the site features, and thus it is purely chance and luck, unless you use the Site Finder.

[MrWiggles]

My question remained unanswered the last time, so here I go again:

In the next version dwarfs clean and groom themselves. But what about brushing teeth?
Will the dwarfs be able to get caries in the future?
Is something planned?

Dental Care isn't on the dev list to my knowledge, but since the teeth are individually tracked, Possibly, though I dont think it high on toady or the community at large want list.

Currently food don't contian the elements to help wear down enamel, and rot teeth. Even though they exist in the game. Maybe we'll see something when farming & cooking gets overhauled.

With metabolism being a dorf aspect, food calories and fats may become important. I think right now all foods feed dorf equally.