Print

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

[SimRobert2001]

for all you people saying that dwarves shouldn't know the right names to all of the stones, i honestly believe that that would be the step in the wrong direction.

There is simply no reason why the dwarves would not know the names of all the stones and ore around them. they live in stone, and therefore, should know the names of any stone they could run into.

In addition, it would make the game MUCH easier and funner on the player, since we're not having to guess at what kind of stone we're currently in.

[Name Lips]

for all you people saying that dwarves shouldn't know the right names to all of the stones, i honestly believe that that would be the step in the wrong direction.

There is simply no reason why the dwarves would not know the names of all the stones and ore around them. they live in stone, and therefore, should know the names of any stone they could run into.

In addition, it would make the game MUCH easier and funner on the player, since we're not having to guess at what kind of stone we're currently in.

I agree but for different reasons.

Everything we read in the game is translated to English - and even when it's a dwarf-language proper name, we're still given an English translation.

So I have no problem thinking that Dwarves call Orthoclase "Tringegottishbothitat" or some other fantasy gobbledeegook name, but why bother subjecting the poor players to even more bad fantasy nonsense words? Just translate it to English, call it Orthoclase, and move on.

I think this XKCD comic sums up my feelings on "made up fantasy names:"



It's the same reason I don't think Toady needs to rename "Slugmen" and "Batmen" and "Antmen." Really, that's what they are. If we really want to we could name them "Slithinaks" and "Fuzzifliers" and "Krytenars" but really what's the point? Making up a fantasy name doesn't make them any more interesting, really, and a descriptive name lets us know exactly what we're looking at.

[smjjames]

I was wondering,
      Can there be partial-map aquifers with any of the new work on underground or regions/biomes/etc?
As it is now if your map covers two biomes, one with an aquifer, one without, then it will either have an aquifer across the whole map or no aquifer at all.  I think it'd be really useful(fun,interesting) and be more realistic if the partial aquifer followed the biomes on your map.

If aquifers still behave as they do now, all it takes is one damp stone to FLOOD THE ENTIRE UNDERGROUND.

All the more reason to remove the aquifer tag from the raws?

Still, you have a HUGE point there, and given that the game tends to use aquifers rather obsessively. Maybe if there is an aquifer present, they would take the form of pools and/or rivers which act as an infinite source in the underground itself? That could keep aquifers from completely flooding the underground.

Hopefully Toady is taking this into account or has already taken care of it and the behavior of aquifers is different.

Which brings us to a question that may or may not have been answered yet:

Is the aquifer behavior the same as it is now? If so, how do you prevent an aquifer from completely flooding the underground on the embark site? Let alone possibly most of the underground in the world.

Edit:

We were planning to run rivers this time around, but it's something of a hassle, so there aren't actually any flowing underground rivers yet.  They aren't essential for most things, as the giant lakes will provide infinite water from edges, but it'll be nice to put them in.  Not sure I'll have time.  Regarding the rivers appearing out of nothingness, it's kind of a tricky question, as rivers can be sourced by many different tiny water flows slowly building up as things go downhill, many of them just absorbed water in the ground.  Nothingness isn't all that different from that, especially if we don't want to put slight aquifer water everywhere that kind of forms into neglible trickles or something, as mining would then be a great hassle any time you also wanted to have a river starting up.  Real world examples of underground rivers sources (sources as in the beginning of a river, not a reference, though I guess that's an inadvertent pun) that are more interesting or modellable are welcome.

Actually, this was sort of answered back in May, so giant lakes could stand in as aqifers. Still, things could have changed since then.

[Neonivek]

I don't know Namelips

Shakespear made up words like he was speaking old english.

[Outcast Orange]

I figure there will be underground lakes, which drain most of the incoming water. Or maybe a lot of bottomless tiles.

[smjjames]

I thought the bottomless pits, chasms and the bottomless tiles were bieng done away with?

I don't know whether there will be bottomless tiles in some form though.

[Realmfighter]

I don't know Namelips

Shakespear made up words like he was speaking old english.

But he was freaking SHAKESPEARE.

Rules do not apply to him.

[IHateOutside]

I don't know Namelips

Shakespeare made up words like he was speaking old english.

I'm no expert, but wasn't inventing words for things that there wasn't a word for already?
And Tolkein is an exception to that graph. (Didn't he make up whole languages?)

About aquifers- I think mining an aquifer layer should result in water+stone (at a lower chance) and then a floor which has little trickles of water along the floor rendering the area hard to use. The trickles should all be going in the same direction too.

[umiman]

Sigh... Shakespeare. At least get his name right.

[Neonivek]

Sigh... Shakespeare. At least get his name right.

What? I wasn't refering to Shakespeare, I was refering to Shakespear.

At least get his name right.

[Realmfighter]

what are you talking about?

[smjjames]

Sigh... Shakespeare. At least get his name right.

What? I wasn't refering to Shakespeare, I was refering to Shakespear.

At least get his name right.

Umiman DID spell it right

Plus he was living in the late 16th century, english was slightly different back then.

[Neonivek]

No I was speaking of Shakespear, Poet in the 18th century

[Shurikane]

Mini-request: is it possible to quickfix coins into being smaller and lighter than they are now, thus stifling the problem of dorfs needing ever more boxes to store the coins in?  Sounds silly but it's been eating at me for months now! 

[smjjames]

Do you mean Olivia Shakespear? I tried doing a wiki search and I came up with a 19th century explorer, some music stuff, and her daughter Dorothy Shakespear. The search also came up with several that seem to be mispellings and are actually about William Shakespeare.

Where the heck are we going with this conversation anyway??