Print

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

[Simmura McCrea]

Code: [Select]

Do
call think_of_idea
IF can_i = 1 AND should_i = 0 then
     DOOO EEEEEET
     done = 1
end if
loop until done = 1

[Anu Necunoscut]

I'm sorry if this sounded too negative; that's not my intent.  This game as it is is already an awesome achievement, and I have no doubt that some of these concerns are already well-understood by Toady.  The new subterranean features and more random creatures will certainly add to the necessity for situational gameplay.

To clarify a bit, however, it's seems to me important not to pile on difficulty for a young fortress unless the player has some idea that his/her own choices have generated that difficulty--in terms of site choice, world particulars, digging too deep, etc.  For example, I wouldn't want to see farming become more complex for the early game, but wouldn't mind a bit to see extra challenges for it in the later game.  Some of those 10+ year forts with 3000 prepared meals, for instance, could attract some monstrous vermin!  Not to mention that nobles ought to be capable of more picky, luxurious culinary tastes than pioneering workaday dwarves.  As always, ignoring these challenges should be feasible albeit with penalties, and there should be multiple solutions available to the clever player.  (Which there usually are in DF!)

As far as "can I?" and "should I?", I'd be interested in seeing the creativity applied to the latter question generate situations that apply to the former.  Take fort style, for example--let's say you build a 30 z-level execution tower.  That manifests already in the code by the tracking of all those falling deaths, and that could have some influence on your dwarves' thoughts and behavior, subject to their personality.  It could have influence on how other races view your fort--a Jainist-style nonviolent fort shouldn't prompt the same reactions from the various races as a blood-temple for the blood god.    Depending on the personalities of rulers and diplomats, that execution tower (and the accompanying engravings representing its use) could eventually lead to fun cycles of war and peace, given the ETHIC tags.  It could even modify your site's biome, given all the out-and-out murder, and start attracting any nearby evil creatures to your fort.

Mostly I'm looking for the personal, creative uses of DF mechanics to generate core game problems of survival and fort happiness.  Ideally, surmounting such mature fort challenges would require personal and creative use of the game mechanics--not just a simple formulaic approach.  In one world a blood-soaked ziggurat of a fort might be necessary for intimidating a race's violent rulers into peace, whereas in another it might be counterproductive and -cause- wars.  In a site neighboring (but not containing) an evil chasm, it might alter your biome's EVIL to the extent whole herds of wild trolls come to settle there.

Does this make any sense to anyone?  :-P  So much text...

[Soadreqm]

Yeah, the game is a work in progress. I expect most of the problems with having nothing to do will be fixed eventually, but not with scripted attacks. The game is going more towards procedurally generated randomness. If a wizard attacks your fort with a legion of undead, it should not be because he was scripted to do so, but because there is a wizard in the world who has something to gain from attacking your fort. And if there's no wizard available, you'd get an attacking demigod with an army of giant eagles, or an antman breeding season, or a demon king causing an earthquake, or an ohmu stampede. Maybe the wizard will help you against the ohmus, if you've played your cards right.

And waiting that, the regular sieges should get a lot more interesting during the next few years. There should really be no single defence mechanism that could reliably stop a goblin invasion every time. The green-skinned buggers should be able to learn how your site is defended, and act accordingly. Remember back in the Lord of the Rings, when the ents were attacking Isengard? They took the place by surprise, and tore down the outer walls. Then Saruman hid in his indestructible tower, and turned his building-mounted wizard flame throwers on. So the ents diverted a river, flooded the presumably quite large underground section of the tower, and just stood around, while Saruman was stuck in his tower, unable to do anything about it.

[Anu Necunoscut]

I think the Can I vs Should I drives a lot more conflict than that.

The Should I ideal expects it's goals to be possible, and thus fights against things like digging invaders and other forms of 'but that would make it impossible to accomplish this goal that may or may not be reasonable but is possible now.

The Can I ideal... expects the crazy challenges you were just talking about that means building a fort in a haunted tundra may actually be impossible no matter what you do, but when you accomplish they mean something your lack of social life.


I think world gen will fix a lot of this.  Starting a world and a fort, and not necessarily knowing the politics, trade routes, what the dominent monsters are, random titans, and differing racial abilities/tech levels creates a crazy broad challenge that can't be simply pattern-memorized.

The same with the more complicated underground stuff.  You won't be able to plop down an ideal template farm or defense anymore, because of the 'stuff' density.

Very good point.  For the more artistic/creative focused players, it would be a shame to force arbitrary and irritating "challenges" upon them to the point it takes away from their enjoyment.  I think, however, that if the solutions to such challenges encourage the same kind of creative design skills, they may add to such a player's enjoyment rather than taking it away.  I probably fall somewhere in the middle on the issue, but yes, I think I would be miffed if my legendary dining room's OCD symmetry was blighted by a tunneling invader.    So long as I could patch it up, re-engrave it, and unreveal the invaders' dug-out path, I wouldn't mind it, though.  I'd even enjoy it!

[Granite26]

I'm very much a can I player... once I know I CAN do it, I don't see much point in going to all the trouble to actually do it...

[Anu Necunoscut]

Yeah, the game is a work in progress. I expect most of the problems with having nothing to do will be fixed eventually, but not with scripted attacks. The game is going more towards procedurally generated randomness. If a wizard attacks your fort with a legion of undead, it should not be because he was scripted to do so, but because there is a wizard in the world who has something to gain from attacking your fort. And if there's no wizard available, you'd get an attacking demigod with an army of giant eagles, or an antman breeding season, or a demon king causing an earthquake, or an ohmu stampede. Maybe the wizard will help you against the ohmus, if you've played your cards right.

And waiting that, the regular sieges should get a lot more interesting during the next few years. There should really be no single defence mechanism that could reliably stop a goblin invasion every time. The green-skinned buggers should be able to learn how your site is defended, and act accordingly. Remember back in the Lord of the Rings, when the ents were attacking Isengard? They took the place by surprise, and tore down the outer walls. Then Saruman hid in his indestructible tower, and turned his building-mounted wizard flame throwers on. So the ents diverted a river, flooded the presumably quite large underground section of the tower, and just stood around, while Saruman was stuck in his tower, unable to do anything about it.

The only problem is, with DF's complex mechanics, it's relatively easy to see ways in which eventually all threats can be stymied.  Magma defenses + a hermetically sealed fort, with guarded security checkpoints within and a patrolled perimeter without, would seem to defeat almost any plausible invasion.  Having to do all that, however, at least the first few times, would be enormously fun!    Doubtless players would come up with more creative and personal solutions than the above as well.

Requiring flexibility in your soldier equipment and design would vastly improve the game--say certain enemies are resistant to certain weapons, sapient invaders bring along equipment to mitigate your current defensive/offensive equipment from last time, etc.  None of this requires nerfing, and all of it would add variety based on your site and the personalities/history of the entities involved.  Even the most OCD static defense system would at least require variation, and new invasions of a fresh character would elicit more trepidation and situational responses from the player.  DF is perfect for that kind of challenge given how personal your solutions can be!

I'm very much a can I player... once I know I CAN do it, I don't see much point in going to all the trouble to actually do it...

I think that's because the situations confronting the player are relatively static at present.  The elements are varied enough to generate more complex combinations of creature to fort, fort to site, site to world/history, etc.  It's not there yet, but it seems Toady definitely has plans along those lines. 

For example, defending against a goblin siege is simple when you know they'll always have to approach a certain way, will always bring x type of weapons, etc.  Also it's simplified by knowing your dwarves will always respond to an invasion of any size/character in basically the same way, no matter their personalities or experiences.  All the elements are there to inform such a system, insofar as the code tracks much of the specifics necessary for more emergent representation of conflict, unique to a particular world/site/fort, so I'm very hopeful.

I think an above poster made an excellent point about the "middle way" Toady's going with constantly adding new features while balancing them only as necessary/feasible.  It's amazing the game is still eminently playable with all the upheavals that go on.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Should I build a 30 z-level execution tower?
...
Make it out of POURED OBSIDIAN?  YES.

What do I do in the week or two it takes to build the pumping towers? Claw my eyes out from boredom? YES.

[Hawkfrost]

Take fort style, for example--let's say you build a 30 z-level execution tower.  That manifests already in the code by the tracking of all those falling deaths, and that could have some influence on your dwarves' thoughts and behavior, subject to their personality.  It could have influence on how other races view your fort--a Jainist-style nonviolent fort shouldn't prompt the same reactions from the various races as a blood-temple for the blood god.    Depending on the personalities of rulers and diplomats, that execution tower (and the accompanying engravings representing its use) could eventually lead to fun cycles of war and peace, given the ETHIC tags.  It could even modify your site's biome, given all the out-and-out murder, and start attracting any nearby evil creatures to your fort.

I would find it interesting if creating a violent blood-utopia attracted grim, bloodthirsty dwarves.
Your fort should influence your citizens, and the types of immigrants that come to it.

Imagine it; A group of vicious, battlehardened warriors hear of your fortress and it's roadway made from goblin bones.
The thought of escaping to a more dangerous place where they can kill things without mercy and with praise inspires them to pull up stake and travel to your site.

[Soadreqm]

The only problem is, with DF's complex mechanics, it's relatively easy to see ways in which eventually all threats can be stymied.  Magma defenses + a hermetically sealed fort, with guarded security checkpoints within and a patrolled perimeter without, would seem to defeat almost any plausible invasion.  Having to do all that, however, at least the first few times, would be enormously fun!    Doubtless players would come up with more creative and personal solutions than the above as well.

Actually, there's nothing inherently wrong about a sufficiently defended fort keeping goblins out forever, as long as the goblins also keep your dwarves in. Suppose we do have a hermetically sealed fort, that the goblins can neither overwhelm nor drown. They could do an actual siege, and build a temporary city outside (or on top of) your city, and pepper any dwarf who dares go outside with a thousand arrows. Maybe the goblin site could grow, and even prosper with time.

Right now, it'd be pretty easy to survive indefinitely in a situation like that, but I trust that will change. Farming will doubtlessly require some kind of watering in the future, so you can't just have a 5*5 plot of plump helmets feeding your fort forever. And goblins will poison any water sources they can reach, probably including things like aquifers, depending on goblin poison technology. You could, of course, have a cave river, in which case you should really be able to completely isolate yourself from the surface forever, but then you'd have to worry about snakemen and giant toads. Not a threat on par with a goblin invasion, but you can't just be safe forever. And the river might connect to surface somewhere, in which case the goblins just have to buy or torture a map out of some adventurer who knows about it, and they can get back to gleefully poisoning your dwarves. Or send ambush parties through the river. That would be interesting.

And having access to the surface and the other civilizations could be rewarding in itself in the future. Sending soldiers out is coming relatively soon, and you couldn't do that if there was a thousand goblins between you and the rest of the world. Proper diplomacy should be interesting as well, whenever it comes.

[Granite26]

goblin poison technology.

[Anu Necunoscut]

Actually, there's nothing inherently wrong about a sufficiently defended fort keeping goblins out forever, as long as the goblins also keep your dwarves in. Suppose we do have a hermetically sealed fort, that the goblins can neither overwhelm nor drown. They could do an actual siege, and build a temporary city outside (or on top of) your city, and pepper any dwarf who dares go outside with a thousand arrows. Maybe the goblin site could grow, and even prosper with time.

Right now, it'd be pretty easy to survive indefinitely in a situation like that, but I trust that will change. Farming will doubtlessly require some kind of watering in the future, so you can't just have a 5*5 plot of plump helmets feeding your fort forever. And goblins will poison any water sources they can reach, probably including things like aquifers, depending on goblin poison technology. You could, of course, have a cave river, in which case you should really be able to completely isolate yourself from the surface forever, but then you'd have to worry about snakemen and giant toads. Not a threat on par with a goblin invasion, but you can't just be safe forever. And the river might connect to surface somewhere, in which case the goblins just have to buy or torture a map out of some adventurer who knows about it, and they can get back to gleefully poisoning your dwarves. Or send ambush parties through the river. That would be interesting.

And having access to the surface and the other civilizations could be rewarding in itself in the future. Sending soldiers out is coming relatively soon, and you couldn't do that if there was a thousand goblins between you and the rest of the world. Proper diplomacy should be interesting as well, whenever it comes.

Those are all great ideas--you're right that it shouldn't be arbitrarily impossible for the player to OCD himself into relative safety.  Such behavior should have consequences though, as you say.

For something simpler to challenge the turtle gambit, maybe a sort of Trojan Beak-Dog approach?  If your site is near or in goblin territory such that carvans have to pass through it, I could easily see an ambusher group hijacking the caravan bound for your site, springing from the barrels and bins right in the heart of your fortress, or at least past your triple-redundant front gate.

'Twould be fun!

[Timst]

Digging enemies will be pretty much needed at some time or another, because even if the goblins were able to build bridged, climb up walls, disarm traps etc, there will still be the possibility of having only one entry to your fortress, and literally wall it off. Given you have a indoor reservoir without connection to the surface (and since the water isn't actually consumed), you can pretty much keep them out for ever.

Well then again, there could be way to fight against that. Maybe goblins / trolls will be able to destroy built walls, or the water will evaporate / be consumed over time. I hope there will alway be a "spear VS shield" fight in the game : when a defense is put in place, a counter-measure is found, etc.

[Pie]

Probably the simplest way (from Toady's view) to introduce these sort of late-stage challenges would be a combination of lowering immigration rates, making a legendary dwarf harder to get (and so more valuable) and some (possibly initially contrived) siege system. I'm talking something along the lines of this:

Anything using (non artifact) mechanisms rusts and then eventually fails (with some randomisation thrown in).
The more of a certain civ that a trap has killed, the more likely they are to dodge it next time.

Those 2 simple things would mean that traps and bridges etc would need to be replaced fairly regularly, meaning the (now more valuable dwarves) would be vulnerable more often (might lead to interesting ideas such as having a few soldiers guard them etc). This would mean that there are some disadvantages to having huge numbers of traps and ingenious defences and more advantages to the more risky, 'fun' approach of soldiers as defence.

Basically, to create a game that is eternally a challenge, have a system that is more complex than what people can think about and then throw in randomisation, so that no one solution ever works forever.

[Draco18s]

I can only imagine the fun of trying to replace a magma-holding-back floodgate.

[Ciber_Ninja]

My thought processes:

- Random idea

- Can I do it?  Y/N

- If N, Do it anyway untuil I get bored.

- If YorN, would it be awesome in some way?  Y/N

- If N, think of another random idea.

- If Y, do it.



Awsome can be defined as anything from a self replicating robot to a simulation of a mars hab/base