Print

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

[schm0]

Yeah, there will be settings for this, and I haven't done vertical connections yet, which should yield some traversable chasm-style structures.  This was just an example, and one that showed that features can be less "missable" this time around.  It's currently quite difficult to find cave features without using a utility like reveal, and especially hard without even using the site finder, because you could very well select an area with nothing.

One of my biggest pet peeves is that I do not use reveal, and then end up running into an existing feature (chasm, river, etc.) when planning out a very specific design for my fortress. I also understand that part of the fun of building a fortress is running into these features and rising to meet any challenges they pose. It's not much fun to build your fortress up for a couple seasons and start digging into the mountain only to have a nest of giant cave spiders eat your dwarven population whole.

I feel somewhat bad for the players that already get upset when they hit a vein of copper when carving out their fortresses. I sense many OCD tantrum spirals coming...

I'm not that bad. And even in the case of a chasm, river or any other feature, you can always, always, always build around it or alter your plans to include it.

Are there going to be additional layers dedicated to this, below the standard 15 Z-levels down? For instance, cave features start at Z-level 16 and go down to 20? And then perhaps layer HFS down a bit further, say Z-levels 21-25? Or are the number of layers and range of these features going to be completely random?

The reason I ask is to keep existing features viable (chasms still stretch infinitely downwards, etc.) but still allow the current features to interact with the new. In other words, maybe an underground river waterfall stops now at the lowest natural cave level, and runs across the cave floor and disappears off the edge of the map?

With proper parameters, the presence of features can now be a foregone conclusion, and you won't have to spoil the types you are getting and just play as if you are going to confidently bump into one eventually while at the same time maintaining exact control of your overland embark location, if that's how you want to play it.

I am very interested in learning how these parameters play out and how they will affect cave generation on worldgen.

Looks like we got finally a way to cross a ocean and visiting Islands without swiming.

It would be very interesting if a "not tunneling" civ could use 2 connected caves for traveling, Storage and/or war.

Next stop "Project: underground tower"!

I would hope that the "not tunneling" civ would only be restricted from using tunneling as a method of seiging, not building underground roads.

[Neonivek]

One of my biggest pet peeves is that I do not use reveal, and then end up running into an existing feature (chasm, river, etc.) when planning out a very specific design for my fortress

Well if you absolutely need to have no features you should be using reveal or adjusting the world parameters so that it doesn't show up (New feature)

Otherwise it is a good frustration as part of the game is going with the flow and working around barriers.

[Footkerchief]

One of my biggest pet peeves is that I do not use reveal, and then end up running into an existing feature (chasm, river, etc.) when planning out a very specific design for my fortress. I also understand that part of the fun of building a fortress is running into these features and rising to meet any challenges they pose. It's not much fun to build your fortress up for a couple seasons and start digging into the mountain only to have a nest of giant cave spiders eat your dwarven population whole.

Your playing style will be accomodated.

Yeah, it's easier to cram things in when you are free of the one-per-(x,y)-coordinate restriction.  I was worried a bit about the limited Z levels, but I think the recent 15-or-so-deep HFS releases have alleviated that somewhat.  I can make things lower, a bit, but there's plenty of room within several slices that boxing you in on several sides and given you several large layers of wholesome mystery below shouldn't be too restrictive.

That said, this was also one of those world gen param thingies...  some people wanted hidden out-of-place civilizations at every turn, some people wanted something that felt like 2D, some people wanted *something* as long as there was something, and I'm sure there are a few quiet people out there that just want to dig in the rock and not be bothered by weird crap at all with the possible exception of a few outside threats.  I'm going to try to keep it versatile.

[Hoborobo234]

What are theses underground "layers" are they, Z-levels ore something bigger, or smaller.

[Aqizzar]

You didn't see the pictures?  The big honking pictures in the latest devlog?  Future of the Fortress?

[Alfador]

For example, after a tunnel is completed, it can be breached by nastiness.  Could it then be considered too dangerous and another would be tried to go around it while that would be walled off?  It would be an interesting problem once the player has some control over a moving army or two to investigate why no caravans are coming to your fortress any more, and then to discover it's because your civ couldn't reach you due to HFS and that you were declared a lost cause.

We don't go to Toltotbom any more. (It was invaded by serozsits.)

[Zironic]

Urist McFailure cancels rest,

ENTRANCED BY MORIA SIZED CAVES!!!!!!

[BloodBeard]

Awesome caves are awesome. But all that poor missing rock

I love the randomness of it.

[Hectonkhyres]

I... am not particularly impressed with these caves. As it stands, they would make carving out a fortress hell and wouldn't add very much depth at all. But, as Toady says with giant flaming letters of doom carved into the retinas of all those who behold his terrible beauty, this is barely even stage one of stage one.

Hopefully in stage fifteen of Toady's nefarious five-billion stage plan caves will be graceful, tiered things cut by streams of water, magma, and Arrakeen Sandworms who are too tough and dwarvenly to bother with swimming through mere sand. Its solid rock all the way, baby!

I'm personally hoping for the erosion function of worldgen to turn into the erosion/sedimentation function.

[ctrlfrk]

Why would you want to carve out a fortress in pure rock when you can lay it out on the inside of a massive cave network?
A few artificial magma falls here and there, some water dripping down from the ceiling, tame hunting dogs frolicking around a pond, darting in amongst the towercaps on an ledge outcropping over a sprawling city of dwarven goodness...

Even in its current state this would be an awesome addition to gameplay.

[BloodBeard]

Here's an idea:

Step 1. Find a map with pretty much everything
Step 2. Mod dwarves to have godlike stats and speed:1
Step 3. Take Toadys exported images and duplicate the cave system exactly on said map with your super fast dwarves
Step 4. Chasm everything, including the stones (you have a fortress full of Flashes)
Step 5. Abandon
Step 6. Return dwarf stats to normal
Step 7. Upload the map for public use
Step 8. 
Step 9. Profit!

[Impaler[WrG]]

Nice cave shots, I think this feature will be well received.  From the look of the caves I'd say they needed more thin narrow passages both as connections and as dead-ends.  Also some stalagmite/stalactite generator as a final step should be added with the potential to connect the two into floor-2-ceiling pillars, this will add a very strong cave feel.

[Hectonkhyres]

Why would you want to carve out a fortress in pure rock when you can lay it out on the inside of a massive cave network?
A few artificial magma falls here and there, some water dripping down from the ceiling, tame hunting dogs frolicking around a pond, darting in amongst the towercaps on an ledge outcropping over a sprawling city of dwarven goodness...

Even in its current state this would be an awesome addition to gameplay.

Well, at least partially because you would have less of a fortress and more of a den of hobo dwarven squatters sitting around oil barrels of burning rubbish. Yes, its fun to think about seven dwarves in cardboard boxes roasting still-living-cat-on-a-stick and drinking bad homebrew... but you run out of fresh possibilities real fast.

I can imagine a tunnel 3-7 tiles wide being smoothed and used as a main corridor with secondary tunnels and rooms splintering off. I can imagine the entrence to a fortress being attached to or combined with one of these godzilla caverns. I can imagine a fortress being constructed half in and half out of one of these caverns... as long as the rock isn't so swiss-cheezy that you hit a cavern every ten tiles. I could imagine (smallish) freestanding buildings.

[SirPenguin]

Underground goodies is always a welcome addition, but what do you think of the performance hurdles you may have to leap, Toady? Path finding is a notorious CPU hog, and to introduce large, open expanses with multiple paths and covering many z-levels would cause a lot of headaches for most computers.

Not to mention the current pathfinding code doesn't factor in z-levels. We could have a mason thinking a rock 5 z-levels into that giant cave with an antmen and gremlins and lord knows what else is closer than the rock 6 spaces to his left...

Are these things a big enough problem to "warrant" time/energy on optimization?

[SirHoneyBadger]

Underground goodies is always a welcome addition, but what do you think of the performance hurdles you may have to leap, Toady? Path finding is a notorious CPU hog, and to introduce large, open expanses with multiple paths and covering many z-levels would cause a lot of headaches for most computers.

Not to mention the current pathfinding code doesn't factor in z-levels. We could have a mason thinking a rock 5 z-levels into that giant cave with an antmen and gremlins and lord knows what else is closer than the rock 6 spaces to his left...

Are these things a big enough problem to "warrant" time/energy on optimization?

I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound harsh, but I'm sick to death of this argument.

The computer requirements are always going to be an issue. But the fact is, modern computers are fast. I know there's a strong desire to provide a place for people trying to play DF with a Commodore 64 or an Amiga, but Toady's already done away with graphic requirement issues, which is a big deal by itself.

I think it would be great if there'd be tools to lower system requirements, but how much more does the game have to be compromised for people who have crap computers? The game's already free! Decent mid-range processors aren't hideously expensive anymore, and there's always the Classifieds for used computers.

I haven't had a brand new computer since the 90's, and I've been saving up for a great one for years (almost $1800 at $12.50 a paycheck, when I could afford it.). I want DF to live up to it's potential, and to the investment that I'm making. I also don't want Toady's vision of the game to be compromised.

I know people can't afford new computers (I'm one of them, it's a computer or a new bed, and I'm pretty tired of sleeping at a 45 degree angle on broken box-springs), and I don't want to sound mercenary, but people with higher end computers are more likely to have more money to donate, so I think our needs should be considered, too.

I say, if you're playing DF on a Tandy or some shit, then stop. Just stop. Save up, collect cans, sell blood, do what you need to do, and get a stripped down computer with a good processor, a lot of ram, a high-end heat sink, and absolutely no frills. It will free your life.