Print

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

Survival Challenge

29 (43.3%)

Military Challenge

10 (14.9%)

Construction Challenge

25 (37.3%)

Other Challenge

3 (4.5%)

Total Members Voted: 67

[zooeyglass]

i'd just note from the point of view of adjudication, it is worth having something that can be seen on a map or 'z' screen to be actually judged. that could mean posting a 'z' screen of when one only has one dwarf left in the case of survival, but for the river-cross challenge the bridge was something that could be evaluated and scored. a survival challenge will be lotsafun but it's worth having clearly 'judgable' goals. 

[Martin]

i'd just note from the point of view of adjudication, it is worth having something that can be seen on a map or 'z' screen to be actually judged. that could mean posting a 'z' screen of when one only has one dwarf left in the case of survival, but for the river-cross challenge the bridge was something that could be evaluated and scored. a survival challenge will be lotsafun but it's worth having clearly 'judgable' goals. 

Yeah, that's why I said the HFS challenge would need to have clear rules. In a survival challenge, I still want to see how a community overcomes survival and prospers, even within a set of artificial guidelines. I'll also say that relying solely on a z screen for judging is not fun. We did that with the wealth challenge a while back where everyone embarked on the same map with nothing but a wagon and had to have the greatest wealth after 2 years. It was a fun survival in the first year (creating enough wealth from 3 logs, berries and spider webs to buy a pick, axe, etc.), but there was only one path to greatest wealth. Either you optimized that path (fastest route to HFS, best means to convert adamantine to wealth), or you didn't. There really wasn't much else to the challenge. It was a good idea, but the players needed more avenues to pursue to be fun.

Ensuring that there is judging for creativity, aesthetics, epicness, etc. is important, IMO. It ensures a diversity of results.

[abculatter_2]

I have an idea for some categories to score by;

Wealth: Who said that life is the most precious thing in the world? Prove them wrong by amassing as much wealth in any way, shape, or form as you can before the fortress crumbles to its inevitable end.

Happiness: Well, on one hand my wife was brutally mauled to death and eaten by skeletal carp, but on the other I just ate in a REALLY NICE dining room.

Longevity: How long can you survive?

Projects: So what if there's a horde of murderous elite crossbowgoblins charging through our front gate? This 20 z-level monument to my glory is more important!

And that's all I can think of right now.

[Eagle]

How about town adoption? Settle on a human town, and see how many of the original inhabitants remain after 5 years, with the orc mod. You lose points for building giant obstructions (like curtain walls), and have to figure out clever ways of killing enemy siegers.

[zooeyglass]

Yeah, that's why I said the HFS challenge would need to have clear rules. In a survival challenge, I still want to see how a community overcomes survival and prospers, even within a set of artificial guidelines. I'll also say that relying solely on a z screen for judging is not fun. We did that with the wealth challenge a while back where everyone embarked on the same map with nothing but a wagon and had to have the greatest wealth after 2 years. It was a fun survival in the first year (creating enough wealth from 3 logs, berries and spider webs to buy a pick, axe, etc.), but there was only one path to greatest wealth. Either you optimized that path (fastest route to HFS, best means to convert adamantine to wealth), or you didn't. There really wasn't much else to the challenge. It was a good idea, but the players needed more avenues to pursue to be fun.

Ensuring that there is judging for creativity, aesthetics, epicness, etc. is important, IMO. It ensures a diversity of results.

ah yes, let me clarify - i didn't mean solely using a z screen, but using a z screen plus map, plus selected screen shots etc.... that way things like creativity, aesthetics, epicness can be evaluated.

Happiness: Well, on one hand my wife was brutally mauled to death and eaten by skeletal carp, but on the other I just ate in a REALLY NICE dining room.

Longevity: How long can you survive?

on these two, two points. 1 - hard to evaluate happiness unless each and every judge can access each save and scroll through each dwarf's thoughts and preferences - unless i'm missing an easier way of gauging happines?
2 - longevity, while a great challenge, might be difficult for this competition, by virtue of the fact some people have far more time to play than others, and part of adding a time frame (5 game years, for example) was to provide a framework within which fortresses could be fairly judged.
don't mean to sound overly negative, keep the ideas flowing i say! (also, am tempted to go start a fortress in as hard a location as possible just to test out that longevity idea....)

[Neyvn]

on these two, two points. 1 - hard to evaluate happiness unless each and every judge can access each save and scroll through each dwarf's thoughts and preferences - unless i'm missing an easier way of gauging happines?

There is a Utility called Dwarf Therapist, its a more advanced Dwarf Manager kinda way, you can actually see in an amount on how 'happy' a dwarf is, but this is a numerical way, you won't know whats making them happy, like is it that Dinning hall or not kinda way...

[zooeyglass]

me wantee!

[Neyvn]

me wantee!

http://code.google.com/p/dwarftherapist/
Here, the current one has a bit of a bug, the siege operating is locking under Pump Operating, but I noticed a post report on the thread, can't remember where though... Sigh...

[Martin]

I don't think we want to make things harder for the judges, though. I'd prefer to keep it to the map and z screen, if possible, with the save upload optional for the judges to need to access.

[eerr]

what do you grade in a survival challenge? the first to survive?

[Albedo]

Good question!  With the unfortunate potential of savescumming, many purely "survival" based judgements are arbitrary at best, and flawed at worst.

The judging criteria should be ones that do not invite savescumming, or that profit little from it.  "Last one standing" would not work well for obvious reasons, and "longest duration" could be a question of who has the best computer and most time to burn.  (Also, asking for seasonal saves might ensure that some savescum tactics would not be used.  Don't all have to be looked at, just submitted - and the judges can look at which they want!)

I think that "survival" must then be based, partly at least, on "creativity under duress" - what you can achieve while surviving, as opposed to simple beating the odds.  That, and/or adding additional restrictions (the "no perfect barriers" restriction in the initial challenge was a good one, but there are others.)

Therefore, "survival" must be based on who looks like they've addressed survivability best, and not completely on the luck of the actual events.  Military (both skill and equipment), constructed fortress defenses, overall security of design, and maybe death count (for/against) might all be considered. 

Also, will this contest be strictly vanilla DF or will there be some rounds with mods? If so, I also stand by my previous suggestion of Raptors and Orcs.

I strongly believe that no mods should be used unless all competitors agree, and then they should be commonly used ones, and/or not radical changes.  "Cats with mouths" is fine, but raptors and orcs changes a LOT.  However, if everyone is up for it, and/or it's just a "ok, this time only" sort of thing, that could work.  But you'll take many potentials out of the running simply because they've never seen it.

Can we pretty please pick our embarks this time around? I don't want to be stuck with a fisherdwarf when I don't need one, for example, and I don't want to know what I'm supposed to do with four pieces of graphite.

I'm cool with the embark we're handed, especially on a survival challenge. Survival challenges are never a place you *want* to be, so presumably it's not a place you were prepared to be. It's a matter of making do with whatever motley assortment of dwarves and supplies you have in a place you never expected to wind up in.

Two sides of the coin. 

Many players have playstyles that rely from the start (from Embark) on certain choices, on skills and decisions that are critical and synergetic.  Others don't - they play whatever.  Neither is perfectly fair to all, but it strikes me that choosing allows everyone to choose, and non-choice only favors a few.

Alternates could be...

* Players choose - which starts the competition before embark, but is the least unfair.

* The dreaded "Play Now" mix, which NO one will really like, but everyone has seen - and thus be approp for a master challenge.

*The only other way to go would be to try to create some "averaged" mix from requests of all the applicants.  If the starting 7 were limited in some ways (maybe 2 miner/military, 1 leader/military or leader/craft, 1 cook/brewer/grower and 3 professions*), then it's possible that everyone could get a little of what they want without getting everything - but again, here "luck" would be a big factor, if they got craft-combos that they would have chosen anyway.

(* probably limited to 1 Proficient skill)

There are (somewhat complex but fair) methods of making sure that everyone gets something close to what they want to minimize the negative, but any pre-determined mix echoes of a poker tournament where only 1 hand is dealt - if you don't like that hand, you start at a huge disadvantage, and vice versa.  And that sucks.

[nil]

I agree completely with Albedo.  It should be just like bridge challenge.  There, it wasn't a question of whether you could win the basic challenge.  Anyone can bridge a river.  The question was how awesomely players could complete the task at hand.

Similarly, you're simply not going to find an embark that experienced players will have trouble not losing on.  You might bore them by taking away useful map features.  You might exploit unimplimented features by taking away water.  Ultimately, though, the question won't be who can survive, but who can do it with style.


Of course what I'd really like to do is play with a modded civ that attacks with extreme force after a long delay, say 4 or 5 as civ triggers.  But I understand people's wariness of mods, to say nothing of one made on the fly.

[Albedo]

Afterthought - Another way to approach it is to ask for a (general?) embark list before the players can examine the actual map - they get the basic biomes and layers, the environment descriptors from the embark maps, but no close examination (especially none using utilities.)  (Key items listed re availablity.)

Then they stick to their proposal and embark w/ those items and skills.

[deathstar175]

My thoughts on a survival challenge. Ender goblins, mixed with a demon civ. And to top it all off no walling or channeling off the fortress from the outside world. The best and most creative above world projects gain extra points and if you can survive to year five some bonus points.

[Heron TSG]

nice plan, deathstar, but it needs raptors.