Print

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

[DeathOfRats]

Logically you'd expect the end year to have no impact on the actual makeup of the world; i certainly expected the checking stuff to be seperate from the actual generation parameters.

This is clearly not the case, what appears to be happening is the 'watcher' is contaminating the 'experiment' by dint of existing, which is interesting and somewhat unexpected. Such contamination is expected in real life, but generally not in computer programs.

Yes and no. You wouldn't expect the end year to have an effect, unless the change makes the world gen last differently. If you put an earlier end year, you should logically have the world as it had been at that point in time, which might be quite different as to how you had it n years later. If you input a later end year, and that lets worldgen go past the date you had before (because it was genning up to limit), likewise.

If that's not the case (I haven't tested it) then yes, worldgen is doing some spurious RNG calculations, and that might mess stuff up.

[Nilik]

O.O


Did... did my offhand comment actually spawn all this?

[Sensei]

Obviously SOMETHING changed, okay?

Remember, it draws from the seed as well as numbers in world param.

Anyway, if you're not seeing Cacame at ALL in legends, it's probably because he didn't do anything to make himself worth of legends. It probably happened whilst your fortress was running.

[Holy Mittens]

I'm using the exact same start parameters, except for either MegaBeast % or Year to Begin Checking MegaBeast %. Altering those has no effect on the START of the world. All the same MegaBeasts are there, the same civs are there, and the same civ founders are there. However, past that starting point, the worlds rapidly diverge. The MegaBeasts get different titles (I assume for having fought and killed different people), the events change, and people born after the starting point sometimes are not there.

My fortress running has nothing to do with it, as I'm generating a completely new world with no fortresses. I can regenerate a world with Cacame, as long as I follow very strict parameters. Also, it's not that he doesn't do anything to exist, as I did turn off "Cull historical figures" and he's still not there. He's just never born.

I would have not originally suspected that the MegaBeast % or Year to Begin Checking would have actually had an effect, as I can't readily see any reason for those to use random numbers at all. However, they obviously influence the random number list or selection in some manner.

[Shima]

The only effective way to actually see how Cacame plays out, may very well involve regenning the world strictly, and then starting up a fort, and just letting it survive for XX amount of years, without hitting neither the King Pop limit, nor HFS.

[Neruz]

Logically you'd expect the end year to have no impact on the actual makeup of the world; i certainly expected the checking stuff to be seperate from the actual generation parameters.

This is clearly not the case, what appears to be happening is the 'watcher' is contaminating the 'experiment' by dint of existing, which is interesting and somewhat unexpected. Such contamination is expected in real life, but generally not in computer programs.

Yes and no. You wouldn't expect the end year to have an effect, unless the change makes the world gen last differently. If you put an earlier end year, you should logically have the world as it had been at that point in time, which might be quite different as to how you had it n years later. If you input a later end year, and that lets worldgen go past the date you had before (because it was genning up to limit), likewise.

If that's not the case (I haven't tested it) then yes, worldgen is doing some spurious RNG calculations, and that might mess stuff up.

That is exactly what is happening; if Mittens changes the end year, Cacame never exists. The only time and place he ever exists is with this exact world gen, simply changing the year at which the world gen ends erases Cacame from existence and generates a subtly different world.

[Holy Mittens]

The only effective way to actually see how Cacame plays out, may very well involve regenning the world strictly, and then starting up a fort, and just letting it survive for XX amount of years, without hitting neither the King Pop limit, nor HFS.

From what I understand, world gen stops once you start a fort. So he'd just sit there doing nothing.

[Fault]

you know, if you do manage to perfectly recreate the world-gen that spawned him, and then everyone can get their own copy of Cacame, don't you think it would kind of take away from the whole uniqueness of the character?

this whole discussion is turning into mad-scientist esque theories to clone or recreate the character.. It's kind of unnerving.

[Holy Mittens]

I already have managed to recreate the original world perfectly. Giving the world out for others to play was never the plan, though I wouldn't mind if people wanted it. I don't particularly think it'd be exceptionally interesting for others to have. Much of the amusement with him has come from the random stuff people have posted and the utterly random events that have occurred in my fort, such as the run of artifacts I had that featured him.

[Vester]

I already have managed to recreate the original world perfectly. Giving the world out for others to play was never the plan, though I wouldn't mind if people wanted it. I don't particularly think it'd be exceptionally interesting for others to have. Much of the amusement with him has come from the random stuff people have posted and the utterly random events that have occurred in my fort, such as the run of artifacts I had that featured him.

I agree. Things are much more fun when they happen by accident.

[Holy Mittens]

I just discovered Cacame's new best friend:



Now, to find him something less lame than being an animal caretaker.

[Firnagzen]

... Elven... corpses...?

I didn't even know that was a 'likable' object...

I mean, ok, all dwarves inherently like elven corpses, but I never thought they'd actually have it on the 'likes' list.

[Sensei]

Maybe that's modded? In-game it says 'elf corpse', but I think 'elven' is in there as the elf adjective, so I gueessssss it's used for plurals?

It's also possible there's a modded corpse item involved.

[Holy Mittens]

I think it's part of the Dig Deeper mod, which adds in a couple of new things to the likables/engravables list.

[The13thRonin]

I think it's part of the Dig Deeper mod, which adds in a couple of new things to the likables/engravables list.

That it is. What sounds better:

Elf Corpses?

OR

Elven Corpses?