Print

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

[zchris13]

The option to abandon your fortress to an NPC. So it becomes a standard dwarven fortress, like all NPC filled and all. And you can visit it it in adventure mode, and everything won't have self destructed.  Only available after a certain population.

I am very sorry if I missed a topic that suggested this already, the search function isn't all that great. I did search.

[Duke 2.0]

 Been suggested a million times! Why didn't you search! SEARCHSEARCHBLAGLAGHAGAGAGAGGGG!

 *Vein pop*

 Nah, no problem.

 But yes, it has been suggested and we all support it. Of course, then you will have to deal with how reclaims will work.

[LegoLord]

It's actually on the develpment list, I believe.  Remember to check that as well when making a suggestion; ctrl + f is very helpful there.  I never actively checked for this myself, but people talk as though it has already planned.

[thobal]

I thought that if you got the king and became a mountainhome then you could abandon without the place going to waste

[Aquillion]

Nope.  The problem is, fortresses can be complicated.  Your dwarves aren't going to know how to operate levers or things like that, or deal with other things that come up.  It could be abstracted out by having the fortress magically survive, of course, but it's not so easy to just take a complicated fortress and crunch it down to the abstract numbers.

Of course, I'm sure it'll be done eventually, just because it's such a core idea to the way the game is set up.  But it's not something that can be done easily.

[Draco18s]

Shouldn't the title be "non-lose end condition"?

[Fossaman]

Your dwarves aren't going to know how to operate levers or things like that

Which is why we should be able to tell them how to operate levers. Designate them as a gate control or whatever and have the dwarves use them logically. Probably a pipe-dream on my part, though.

[Keldor]

Just putting the fort into a "stasis" and abstracting away all the changes that would be expected to happen would be a good start.  The fort then becomes a stable community, which, as stable communities do, doesn't change very much as the years roll by.

[Sowelu]

A lot of the abstraction is really nontrivial.  And anyway, please consider that the existing NPC towns don't even DO anything yet.  They don't have workshops even!

A lot of yearly tasks that players do would be pretty hard to automate...and while you can easily say "just don't make the dwarves starve" that's kind of a copout.  And what happens if they run out of crafts to trade for food, how do they know where to mine?  Likewise if more immigrants come, where do the bedrooms go?

Lever issues ARE the worst ones though. 

[LegoLord]

A lot of yearly tasks that players do would be pretty hard to automate...and while you can easily say "just don't make the dwarves starve" that's kind of a copout. 

He said it would be a start.  We kind of have to wait until NPC towns start doing stuff before player made forts handed to the NPC can start acting on their own.

And I really want to be able to have my forts end without losing before towns get AI.

[zchris13]

Umm... I meant survive the same way the towns and such "survive" now. Like, totally abstracted and magical. It wouldn't have to be fancy.

[LegoLord]

Umm... I meant survive the same way the towns and such "survive" now. Like, totally abstracted and magical. It wouldn't have to be fancy.

Yeah, that's what most of us are saying.  Some people seem to think that it should jump to fully automated the moment Toady implements it, though.

[Warlord255]

A "retire fortress" option sounds quite sound. However, it should only be available after a certain point; economy, etc.

[Draco18s]

A-hem.

Shouldn't the title be "non-lose end condition"?

[Granite26]

nah, can't use that, that thread titles been used already for some completely different thread