Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 22

Author Topic: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.13 Released  (Read 115987 times)

cameron

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.13 Released
« Reply #270 on: September 18, 2010, 09:16:18 pm »


stuff about world gen
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

MaDeR Levap i hope you can tell the difference between yourself and others who were making realism claims of a max of 10% of land, to which i meant that there actually wasn't as much farm land as there appeared to be at embark.

but yeah the bounding box should probably be smaller around the sprawl, as this would make the sprawl seem more unobtrusive and maybe the default "create world now" gen should encourage a bit less sprawl.
Logged

SombreNote

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.13 Released
« Reply #271 on: September 18, 2010, 10:54:32 pm »

Has anything been changed with the military in this patch?

I was having a bunch of problems getting the military working in my game, and nothing on the forum seemed to be helping. Was there any changes to improve that?
Logged

HammerDave

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.13 Released
« Reply #272 on: September 19, 2010, 01:11:39 am »

Update on my extremely deep fort -- my magma forges are at level -11, 152 levels below the entrance.  No signs of bad memory references, so apparently the code can handle negative numbers in the z axis.  Not sure such a deep fortress is sustainable due to FPS effects and the long trip between the mines and ore stockpiles, but I'm sticking with it at least until it reaches the point a baron should get appointed, to see how that group of bugs is doing.
Logged

gralcio

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.13 Released
« Reply #273 on: September 19, 2010, 01:20:34 am »

I personally wait for 0.31.14. Or even 0.31.15. Anyway I cannot play without Dwarf TheRapist and I except finding needed offsets will take some time (new complier = starting hacking from scrath).

Therapist is out for a while already.
Logged

forsaken1111

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • TTB Twitch
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.13 Released
« Reply #274 on: September 19, 2010, 01:22:15 am »

Update on my extremely deep fort -- my magma forges are at level -11, 152 levels below the entrance.  No signs of bad memory references, so apparently the code can handle negative numbers in the z axis.  Not sure such a deep fortress is sustainable due to FPS effects and the long trip between the mines and ore stockpiles, but I'm sticking with it at least until it reaches the point a baron should get appointed, to see how that group of bugs is doing.
So put the stocks down at the bottom, then move the living quarters down too. Make the traders and gobbos come to YOU.  8)
Logged

MaDeR Levap

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.13 Released
« Reply #275 on: September 19, 2010, 04:19:38 am »

MaDeR Levap i hope you can tell the difference between yourself and others who were making realism claims of a max of 10% of land, to which i meant that there actually wasn't as much farm land as there appeared to be at embark.
but yeah the bounding box should probably be smaller around the sprawl, as this would make the sprawl seem more unobtrusive and maybe the default "create world now" gen should encourage a bit less sprawl.
Thia was exactly what I was talking about. So what if sprawl take only 10%, when with bounding box taken in account you get 30% or whatever? Add to this mountaint, oceans and other unembarkable area (big lakes?)... and this starts to get annoying.

Update on my extremely deep fort -- my magma forges are at level -11, 152 levels below the entrance.  No signs of bad memory references, so apparently the code can handle negative numbers in the z axis.
I think this is offset from real internal z-level index. Your -11 is just shown value. Real value is different.

Therapist is out for a while already.
Wow, faster than I excepted. So not that big difference in generated code after all, huh.
Logged

Deathworks

  • Bay Watcher
  • There be no fortress without its feline rulers!
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.13 Released
« Reply #276 on: September 19, 2010, 06:03:29 am »

Hi!

Greycat: There have been quite a few posts pointing out how horribly unrealistic and game breaking the large sprawl areas are. Then there are the complaints about the broken migrants. The following is the first clear example I found going backwards, but there are more discussing the percentage of land taken up and the reasoning of cities claiming the entire river they are built at. In other threads, I have even seen people calling 31.13 buggier than the first 31.01 release:

I wouldn't really call DF updates patches (for one thing, they don't overwrite the old version), but in any case nothing good happened to fortress mode (aside from a few bug fixes), it's harder to find a spot to embark on, worldgen takes longer, and it's even harder to find quests in adventure mode now that the human towns got replaced with an experimental update. Personally I'd stick to 3.12 until all the kinks get worked out.

There has been quite a bit of discussion here.

Rexfelum: First of all, I recommend that you mess around with world gen using the editor within the game until you got used to (except when copying world gen information from others). This way, you get more information about what the settings mean and also what their limits are.

After the initial settings about world size, you get the variance and range settings for the individual factors. Each is a set of four numbers: The lowest number the characteristic can have on your world map, the highest number it can have, how much it may vary between two tiles along the x-axis and how much it may vary between two tiles along the y-axis. In general, unless you want to create an extreme world for experiments (like a world so hot that all living things evaporate on it), you should not touch the minimum and maximum values in those initial sets. They are the normal ranges you want to have.

For the variance between neighboring tiles, values somewhere between 200 and 500 are usually save and non-complicated. Once you get below 100 with the variance, it means that you have very little chance for difference between neighboring tiles, resulting in lots of rejects as there is not enough variance on the map.

The rule of thumb for the variance settings is: The smaller the values (=little difference between neighboring tiles), the bigger the subregions (forests, plains,...). Think about it. If two neighboring tiles differ only slightly in their height, for instance, a mountain chain is quite likely to exist. But if two neighboring tiles could differ drastically in height, there can be steep cliff faces, resulting in things like the lone mountain.

There is one very important and useful exception to the rule about subregions, though: Volcanism. While volcanism influences what stone layers can be there and of course allows the presence of volcanoes, volcanism does NOT disrupt subregions. Therefore, unless you have any special preferences about volcanism, I recommend maxing out the variance for volcanism as you can then have volcanism influences in many different types of terrain, allowing for a greater variety of terrains to experiment with.

After those sets, you get the mesh sets, a feature I have not experimented with. So, no information from me on that.

Next comes the setting for the features. Their influence on the rejects and the maps differs:
Minimum mountain peak number is a rejection condition: mountain peaks require great height AND great difference between the peak and the surrounding tiles. If you set the elevation variance too low in the initial sets I have explained, you will not get a single mountain peak and if you have minimum peaks set to more than 0, you will only get rejects as there are not enough mountain peaks.

The next two settings for oceans basically influence the start of the generation, I think. If you pick 1 one or more partial edge oceans, I think any map generated will have one ocean tile placed at its edge in the beginning. I don't think I ever saw a rejection because of that. Likewise, complete edge oceans also never created rejects for me, so I assume that it causes one (or more if you select more than one) entire edge to be automatically set to ocean tiles at the beginning of world gen.

Minimum volcano number is actually a misnomer: The game will place exactly as many volcanoes on the map as you state there - provided areas of high volcanism are available.

I skip explaining the titan and demon settings as they are more a flavor thing, although a higher number of titans will probably increase the risk of civs getting extinct.

Next come the good and evil squares. Once the general map is generated, some tiles are turned good and some are turned evil and these settings let you specify how many. There are three settings for each to allow you to specify what kind of areas you want. For instance if you have many desired evil squares in small subregions, then you should get a lot of small groves or single mountains that are haunted/terrifying or whatnot. If you have many desired evil squares in large subregions, then you don't get those small groves spread across the map but rather a large forest spanning many tiles filled to the brim with evil. Note, however, that a large subregion has more tiles than a small one, which is why the values increase over the settings.

As good and evil squares restrict settlements of races, you can think about whether to increase their number in order to increase the locations where races can't settle or you can decrease them so as to have more space for races to expand.

The next settings are the terrain count settings which I was talking about referring to the forest, oceans, unusables and so on. Basically, these are rejection settings. That is, the game generates a map and then checks whether there are as many tiles of each region as you specify there. These values do not cause such regions to be generated (that is the job of the variance settings), so if you set the maximum height to be nearly identical to the minimum height and the require more than 0 mountain region tiles, you will never get a world as no mountain tiles are generated and the check fails.

These settings are among the most useful for you as they allow you to clearly tell the program that you want to have at least so and so many tiles of desert or forest or whatever. However, as each of these parameters is checked, you should nullify all things you do not particularly care about (after all, let's say you want a world with lots of forests and mountains; then you don't want to have a perfect candidate rejected because it has 999 desert tiles instead of 1,000 ).

Erosion cycle and the two river settings are fun settings for landscaping. Genning rivers, the game does the following: First, it selects as many springs as you specify with the pre-erosion setting (if there are not enough potential locations, you get a reject). Then, these springs are connected to the edge of the map or an ocean by a river following the rules of height, of course. Then, for each erosion cycle count, the rivers dig themselves deeper into the terrain - think of the grand canyon as an example of a very high erosion cycle and the local creek that is basically level ground as an example for a low erosion cycle. Finally, if the post-erosion river starting location number is lower than the pre-erosion one, the excess springs and the rivers they have created are removed again, leaving behind the dry canyons of their riverbeds.

Periodically eroding extreme cliffs is a setting which I recommend to set to "No". It is meant to make sure that you only have slopes and never steep cliffs, but usually, the game does not create much terrain that is problematic anyway, so having the occasional cliff is a good option.

Orographic Precipitation is a factor of reality. Unless you are designing and extreme world, I recommend you set it to yes, but in the end, it is just a matter of taste.

Maximum Number of Subregions is an important rejection setting. Unless you want to filter out worlds with small subregions, I recommend you ALWAYS max out that value. Basically, it says how many different mountain ranges and forests and plains there can be in the world. If your terrain is very diverse, you may have too many physical subregions and then this will cause a reject.

This is followed by the cavern layer settings. If you want to experiment with all the cavern layers, you should keep the cavern layer number to three. The min/max settings afterwards are important for setting what the caves look like and the magma and bottom layer are the "bonus layers".

The z-level settings that follow are again important for performance and difficulty: The more z-levels in total, the slower the game will probably be in the end game when you have cleared all those tiles. However, the more z-levels you have above layer 1, the more digging and building you can do before encountering the first cavern layer and thus the first mandatory battle.

The minimum/maximum natural cave size, mountain cave and non-mountain cave and cave visibility settings are about the additional caverns where kobolds, legendary beasts and the like settle. For the minimum/maximum, I recommend minimum 100 and maximum 500 so that the kobolds have enough space to retreat to. The number of caves influences how difficult it is for civs to survive the first years - if you increase the number of caves, the chances of civs meeting monsters early on increases resulting in civs that get butchered before they get enough population to survive.

Number of Civilizations is problematic in the current version. You should set it to 16 to 20, I think, for medium regions and adjust it accordingly for other map sizes.

Playable civilization required should always be set to yes as it means that at least one dwarven civ is generated (though it need not survive).

Below that, there is a number of minimum values: Set all of them to 0! They are rejection conditions that are not needed for 99% of your world designs. They only cause otherwise perfect worlds to be rejected because of some minor issue, so get rid of them. All the things you want to influence are usually already set by the other settings.

I hope this kind of helps you a little bit in your attempts to mess around with world gen.

Deathworks
Logged

Jiri Petru

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.13 Released
« Reply #277 on: September 19, 2010, 08:40:04 am »

I like the sprawl. For me it adds to the believability and richness of the world. I don't understand why is it a problem that the sprawl blocks embark squares - but I never understood the urge to seek "perfect locations" in the first place. I think the way DF is heading it will slowly be less and less possible to find the exact location you want. Instead you'll have to accommodate and, for example, play without flux. I call it challenge.

The notion that it's possible to embark anywhere in the world was flawed in the first place. It's hard getting used to losing it, but it was inevitable. By default, you should be able to build a fortress only in your kingdom or on the borders to extend the kingdom's influence. Anything else is weird, breaks the suspension of disbelief, and wouldn't work with the upcoming changes that will slowly put more and more emphasis on kingdoms, politics, etc. So yeah, it had to come sooner and later.

Also, I don't think it's user unfriendly in any way. Each new player will understand why it's possible to only embark in your sphere of influence. It makes sense. Or it would make sense but DF still doesn't work this way - you can embark a thousand miles away as long as the place isn't claimed yet.

The actual user unfriendly part is the absence of a clever site finder system that would seek and recommend fun locations by itself (with some good default criteria for fun location), and would be able to find more than one. Without a good site finder, any change that limits your embark options will be hated.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2010, 08:44:27 am by Jiri Petru »
Logged
Yours,
Markus Cz. Clasplashes

Eugenitor

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.13 Released
« Reply #278 on: September 19, 2010, 10:35:03 am »

Isn't the whole point of embarking supposed to be to live in *unclaimed* territory, where no dwarf has gone before?
Logged

Untelligent

  • Bay Watcher
  • I eat flesh!
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.13 Released
« Reply #279 on: September 19, 2010, 11:34:38 am »

I don't understand how to find minimums.  Here is every entry I could see with "min" in the name, other than those related to caves:

Deathworks was probably referring to the in-game parameter menu rather than the text file. You can get to this menu by pressing 'e' on the "Design New World with Parameters" menu (after highlighting which world parameter set you want to edit (large region, medium island, etc.)).
Logged
The World Without Knifebear — A much safer world indeed.
regardless, the slime shooter will be completed, come hell or high water, which are both entirely plausible setbacks at this point.

Rexfelum

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.13 Released
« Reply #280 on: September 19, 2010, 01:23:05 pm »

I will now engage in the ancient twin arts of understatement and gratitude.

I hope this kind of helps you a little bit in your attempts to mess around with world gen.

Yes.  Thank you.

--Rexfelum
Logged

DDR

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • Frogatto
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.13 Released
« Reply #281 on: September 19, 2010, 01:51:24 pm »

Just a little note on 0.31.13:
I like the site sprawl - I have always sort of thought that picking a site has been an absurdity of riches. ::)
Logged
Il Palazzo: "Urist, quick, grab your ax! There's a troll rampaging through the decimal conversion chambers!"
melomel: DF is like OCD candy, isn't it? existent: No, DF is like the stranger in the trench coat offering the candy.

hvlkn

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.13 Released
« Reply #282 on: September 19, 2010, 02:32:39 pm »

just a small problem. I'm running on Lucid, but Dwarf fortress won't load, something about a missing library

Code: [Select]
john@euclid:~/df_linux$ sh df
./libs/Dwarf_Fortress: error while loading shared libraries: libSDL_ttf-2.0.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
john@euclid:~/df_linux$

Any thing I can do about it?
Logged

jei

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.13 Released
« Reply #283 on: September 19, 2010, 05:52:23 pm »

The notion that it's possible to embark anywhere in the world was flawed in the first place. It's hard getting used to losing it, but it was inevitable. By default, you should be able to build a fortress only in your kingdom or on the borders to extend the kingdom's influence. Anything else is weird, breaks the suspension of disbelief, and wouldn't work with the upcoming changes that will slowly put more and more emphasis on kingdoms, politics, etc. So yeah, it had to come sooner and later.

And therein lies one dilemma. For I am one who is not interested in kingdoms or randomly generated history or stuff that I can influence in it,
I play single forts and "perfect" locations only. After there are no more interesting locations, I just generate a new world where there
is exactly what I want. I hardly ever play 2 forts in a single world. If I don't get what I want, I just lose interest in the game and the world.

I don't see what's so fun about playing "no flux" places and such challenges when I don't want them pushed on me, though I have played them.
I don't see the attraction of playing multiple forts in the same world when one game takes weeks and usually ends up in FPS death now.

I play forts for keeps and to colonize hell, not for a year or two until inevitable abandon or doom to create a history or a legacy story,
I also don't play adventurer, nor do I like it. Legends and world events don't interest me. Only strategy and fortress building.

Also, I suspect that not that many people are interested in having dozens of week long games to "play the world," which is what your style requires.
 
Politics and other stuff could be had with simple scripting too. Limiting embark locations seems stupid, nothing ever stopped occupying enemy territory IRL, except guts and weapons perhaps.
Logged
Engraved on the monitor is an exceptionally designed image of FPS in Dwarf Fortress and it's multicore support by Toady. Toady is raising the multicore. The artwork relates to the masterful multicore support by Toady for the Dwarf Fortress in midwinter of 2010. Toady is surrounded by dwarves. The dwarves are rejoicing.

Soralin

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.13 Released
« Reply #284 on: September 19, 2010, 07:34:39 pm »

I got a migrant labeled as a "Master Thief".  He had a modest assortment of military and civilian skills, but I couldn't give him any labors.  He had novice record keeper skill, so I made him my bookkeeper.  He performed that without complaint, since it doesn't require the labor preferences screen.
Wait, you made a master thief your records keeper? :)

greycat: Ok, so we'll place the Ten gold statues in a pair of lines down the entryway here
records keeper::  Ten gold statues?  My records show that we only had seven gold statues made.
greycat: What? I'm sure I had ten ordered.. hmm, well then, place those seven gold statues in a line in the hall after the entryway then.
records keeper:  You mean four gold statues.
greycat: Four?  Didn't you say seven?
records keeper: No, see, my records clearly say four.
greycat:  So they do, hmm.. well, set a gold statue in each corner then.
records keeper: A splendid idea, but how are we going to do it with just 3 gold statues?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 22