Print

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

[martinuzz]

1) Thou shalt not close thine fortress.

Except, when you want to build a megaproject undisturbed without turning off invaders altogether.

2) Thou shalt not use magma workshops.

Except, when you actually think they are a valid part of the game and make excellent sense.

3) Thou shalt not use HFS metal.

Unless, you are willing to take the risk of breaching into the circus.

4) Thou shalt not abuse traps.

Except, for killing elves

5) Thou shalt not exploit the game for easy gains.

Except, when you're an elf

6) Thou shalt not conduct dishonest commerce.

Except, with the elves

7) Thou shalt not deceive dwarves into happiness.

Except, when you actually like your fort and want to keep it

8] All dwarves are expendable.
Except, some are more expendable than others

9) All players are equal
Except, some play the game to build megaprojects, others play for   fortress survival. Don't judge a megaproject by it's player turning off   invasions/walling in the fortess. Don't judge a player who made an open   fortress that survives genesis mod without using traps or danger rooms   by the lack of a megaproject for that matter either. Meaning, your   introductionary conversation with Urist Mcforumuser does not really make   sense. Also, a code of honour does not really make sense for a sandbox game that has no 'winning condition'.

[penco]

You know, immediately calling anyone who tries to talk about what you are doing in anything other than glowing terms "sarcastic/trollish" and utterly ignoring their opinions or why they have them is hardly a good way to get most people to be anything other than "trollish" if that's what you call it.

If you want to make the game more based on "skill", then many of the things ZetaX was talking about also involve making things harder.

I still ask why it's "an exploit" to put a waterfall in a room I have specifically designed to try to make dwarves happy, simply because it makes dwarves really happy.  Toady specifically went out of his way to code in the way that waterfalls make dwarves happy, just the same as he coded in making very high quality food make dwarves happy, so why is one an exploit, and the other not?

Or am I just a "troll" for daring to ask?

After all, you're pretty much declaring that if we don't follow what you consider to be an exploit, and ignore anything that other people consider to be an exploit, then you're a more "skilled" player, and we're just the rank scrubs.  That sounds pretty "trollish" to me...

I only called the first guy a troll because he immediately replied to my first post by saying that the rules are all boring and dumb without giving any real response.

No, you are not a troll.

Not everything I listed is an exploit. Obviously, building a wall or a waterfall isn't an exploit. It's just that they allow you to completely overlook certain facets of the game that were put there by the designer for a reason.


Walls: no need to worry about invades/sieges

Toady has made it known in interviews that he eventually wants to give enemies the ability to tunnel through walls in a balanced way. That should be evidence that sealing off your fort does not match with the games original design.

Waterfalls/Trap-filled dining rooms: no need to worry about keeping dwarves happy

The stuff about befriending goblins not only makes the game harder but puts in a completely new set of goals that are unrelated to the original goal of DF, which is really just to survive and thrive. That doesn't mean anything is wrong if you want to befriend goblins.


@martinuzz

There is no "winning condition" per se, but certain stuff was put into the vanilla game for a reason. There are sieges. There are weapons. There are tantrum spirals. Using unbalanced game mechanics like spamming legendary traps to increase room value or sealing off a fort is more or less an in-game way to mod those aspects out of the game.

If you are going to perma-seal your fort, you are basically just playing a modded game with no invaders.

If you are going to abuse happiness mechanics, you are basically just playing a modded game with no unhappiness penalties.

If you are going to embark with 1 of each meat for extra barrels or sand for extra bags, you are basically just playing a modded game with extra embark points.



See, the purpose here is to play the game for what it is. That doesn't mean you can't play a modded game or that it's wrong to play a modded game. Mods are great. However, that doesn't mean that people who want to play the game in its vanilla form, the way Toady made it, are some sort of Dwarf Nazis.

[Deadly Lamarr]

If you are going to perma-seal your fort, you are basically just playing a modded game with no invaders.

I don't like danger rooms or putting legendary traps in a dining room to build happiness in concept -- and I'm hardly hardcore -- but I have to take issue with this one example. You can turn off invaders as an init option. It's not modding if there's a switch built into the game to turn something off. Walling in is not even de facto modding since you don't have to mod to remove invasions. Walling in also entails some hindrance which turning invaders off altogether does not.

It might be better to rephrase this as an Iron Dwarf Challenge rather than a code of honor, which, while you have stated that this is not your intent, implies that any other way of playing is wrong. I'd also stay away from backing up your style of play by suggesting it's the way Toady means for the game to be played; that's like argument by appeal to divine law or such.

Regardless, it looks like this is derailing, or at least not going smoothly, simply because it was phrased as a code of honor, not helped by associations with dwarfiness. I don't think anyone minds another player's self imposed restrictions, but clearly no one on Bay 12 relishes implicit accusations that their beards might be inadequate.

[Shrapull]

Not seeing how keeping yourself open is part of a 'code' - most ancient warrior cultures and even modern ones try to defend themselves instinctively by placing barriers between the enemy and their citizens, and trying to outlast attacks.  Traps are used offensively and defensively, though in a game where survival against waves of enemies is paramount, I can't see a truly offensive way to use them at the moment.  You made a challenge list, not a 'code' - you basically insinuate that anyone who disobeys your rules is not a true player of DF, or doesn't grasp the game.  There is nothing unrealistic about closing doors, using traps to defend yourself and using any and all advantages built into the game in terms of armor and power sources.

My two cents..

[penco]

Fine, I will just let this die because people disagree with it purely on semantic grounds.

[Maklak]

Well, I'm nowhere near player skill level to survive all these rules, and generally don't like them, and like cheese, so perhabs I shouldn't speak in this thread, but I still think I have something constructive to say.

I don't wall off, but use traps instead. Still, completly walling off would actually increase the game difficulty for me. I need wood and water (before I make invader proof water intake with fortifications and floodgates, plus a big inside tree farm, but thats beside the point). I also want migrants, and to trade with caravans.

Waterfalls would still be a challenge *IF* made with actual plumbing (recycling water or disposing of it), not mist generators powered by water reactors. Actually I wouldn't sneer at someone who managed to put a waterfall or a well in hundreds of bedrooms, if they were made with actual plumbing taking up whole Z-levels.

Oh, and one last thing about walling off. There is the "raised bridge at the edge of the map" exploit that in combination with walls makes an almoust safe path for traders. That is just to "wrong" for my tastes (and I do enjoy magma workshops, DR training, and water reactors). I even think Toady wrote sth about "removing remaining edge of map exploits". Anyway you might want to write that explicitly in OP.

Trash compression should be at least borderline. There will inevitably be some things, that you want to get rid of. I don't mean stone, but goblin trash, low quality furniture, and such. They can be traded to caravans or dissolved in magma, but DAS is a viable alternative. What you might want to disallow instead is abusing quantum stockpiles, especially putting hundreds of raw materials right next to a workhsop.
Another reasonable limit to DAS would be: It is ok to destroy trash, but not living beings, and definietly not invaders (Elves are not trash, btw).

About big dining rooms, prepared meals and good booze:
Pretty much everyone uses these, and I disagree with this constraint.  Well, maybe a dining room totally pimped out with jewel encrusted furniture worth 2k+ each is an overkill, but other than that dining rooms are pretty integral part of any fort. Plus when set as a meeting zone, it may somewhat increase potential for tantrum spirals.
Booze is simply a necessity, and brewers *will* skill up. The only reasonable constraint here would be "only use chaep stuff, like plump helmets to make alcohol", but even that is a stretch IMO.
Prepared meals, especially after cooks skill up are quite ridiculously expensive, and they spoil slower and save barrels. Maybe consider allowing 2 ingredient meals only? They are still somewhat "not hardcore", but at least less cheesy than lavish meals.

What about adding "Do not manipulate strange moods" Especially do not have everyone make one weapon and one armor item, and don't keep small steel stockpiles close to metal workshops. A mooded dwarf can make anything out of anything he likes.   

Your list also lacks "no savescumming", just keep playing.

What about "don't kill pets" "don't kill dwarfs" "don't kill nobles" "don't kill caravans (wall maybe elfs if you really want to)"?

I had one last thing to add, but I forgot.
EDIT: I remember now. Don't tinker with creature speed. Especially don't set Dwarf speed to 0 or 1 or something like that.

Oh, and change the title of the thread to sth. like "Common ground for a challenging playstyle for veterans", or people *will* complain, that you call them dishonorable.

[martinuzz]

...but certain stuff was put into the vanilla game for a reason. There are sieges. There are weapons. There are tantrum spirals.

There are magma forges. There is the option in the trade screen to seize the trade goods off a caravan. Legendary dining rooms are coded in for a reason.

Using unbalanced game mechanics like spamming legendary traps to   increase room value or sealing off a fort is more or less an in-game way   to mod those aspects out of the game.

One could argue, that it's not the creation of legendary dining rooms that is unbalanced, but rather the ease with which a tantrum spiral can start, and then, vanilla game mechanics like spamming legendary traps to increase room value become more or less an in-game way to counter the imbalance.
Although personally, I've never seen the need of going through the trouble of training up a legendary mechanic/weaponsmith to improve room value of whatever room. A few low-quality native platinum statues get room value up high enough to have happy dwarves

See, the purpose here is to play the game for what it is.

The point I tried to make in my previous post; the 'game for what it is' is a very subjective term. For you, obviously, this means "a game that is about surviving the challenges that it throws at you without using any methods that you personally think to be cheesy, while trying to build a megastructure".
For other people, it might mean "an amazing sandbox that allows me to build beautifully complex megastructures that please the eye of the beholder".
For yet someone else it might mean "A great game to set up devious impenetrable alleys of various nefarious traps, to snigger about",
or "a marvellous simulated universe to draw inspiration from for awesome stories."
All of these are equally valid means of playing the game, and I wouldn't say any of them is more, or less 'Dwarfly' then another.
So, while I'm not disrespecting your conduct (in fact, I tend to follow quite a few of your rules myself), the thread's name, and implication of 'honour' seems not to be the correct way to promote your playing style, to me.

[cog disso]

Fine, I will just let this die because people disagree with it purely on semantic grounds.

Don't worry, I'll continue to wall up the caverns to remember you by.

[martinuzz]

Oh, and one last thing about walling off. There is the "raised bridge at the edge of the map" exploit that in combination with walls makes an almoust safe path for traders. That is just to "wrong" for my tastes (and I do enjoy magma workshops, DR training, and water reactors). I even think Toady wrote sth about "removing remaining edge of map exploits". Anyway you might want to write that explicitly in OP.

I tend to disagree on this subject. I regard walling off the entire edge of the map with raised bridges, to ensure safe passage for traders, as a very dwarfly megaproject, with quite a bit of risk involved during it's construction (unless invaders are turned off). Go try and do it yourself, and you might gain some respect for it.

 

Trash compression should be at least borderline. There will inevitably be some things, that you want to get rid of. I don't mean stone, but goblin trash, low quality furniture, and such. They can be traded to caravans or dissolved in magma, but DAS is a viable alternative. What you might want to disallow instead is abusing quantum stockpiles, especially putting hundreds of raw materials right next to a workhsop.
Another reasonable limit to DAS would be: It is ok to destroy trash, but not living beings, and definietly not invaders (Elves are not trash, btw).

Actually, I do believe most people use atomsmashing mostly to save their fortress from FPS death. It's not an exploit, it sheer nescessity, to keep the game playable for those of us not rich enough to afford supercomputers.

[ZetaX]

I would also suggest not taking this rules to absolute or too serious. I for example tend to turn off invasions somewhere between year 10 and 20 into the fortress: At that time, I normally got my traps (cave ins, for strong [read: blooding, etc.] FBs) and military set up, so they are no serious danger anyway (there are enough animals [often bears] chained everywhere to attract and see them right away), but an annoyance that get a single kill every few years at best. Also, caravans got completely unneccessary at that time, too. In total, it's not for having an easier life, but for having higher FPS; they just produce garbage (well, after my military is fully equipped, more iron [->steel] has stilistic value at best, or would go to traps, making defense even easier in the future), do pathing, and produce blood. All this just costs FPS but doesn't create any effect on my fortress.
I would like to be able to turn ambushes off only, and maybe make the sieges even bigger to compensate, as only sieges have any chance to do something at that time (well, often not, but sometimes they get some kills). Sieges don't appear so frequently and in higher numbers (as said above, the stealth of ambushes helps them near to nothing), thus they make up some interesting episodic events instead of FPSkills.
But in my newest fortress (pop. cap at 60, again for FPS), I forgot to lower the requirement for sieges, only to see this after eleven years (wondering where they are) :-(

Well, I'm more the "lets build some completely insane structure"-type anyway, I use the military (and traps) primarily just to deal with these annoyances or to survive the years where they are a danger after all.

[rephikul]

Oh, and one last thing about walling off. There is the "raised bridge at the edge of the map" exploit that in combination with walls makes an almoust safe path for traders. That is just to "wrong" for my tastes (and I do enjoy magma workshops, DR training, and water reactors). I even think Toady wrote sth about "removing remaining edge of map exploits". Anyway you might want to write that explicitly in OP.

I tend to disagree on this subject. I regard walling off the entire edge of the map with raised bridges, to ensure safe passage for traders, as a very dwarfly megaproject, with quite a bit of risk involved during it's construction (unless invaders are turned off). Go try and do it yourself, and you might gain some respect for it.

I do this and it always finish before first winter. Fort protection I dont need, but i want safe traders.

[Maklak]

Oh, and one last thing about walling off. There is the "raised bridge at the edge of the map" exploit that in combination with walls makes an almoust safe path for traders. That is just to "wrong" for my tastes (and I do enjoy magma workshops, DR training, and water reactors). I even think Toady wrote sth about "removing remaining edge of map exploits". Anyway you might want to write that explicitly in OP.

I tend to disagree on this subject. I regard walling off the entire edge of the map with raised bridges, to ensure safe passage for traders, as a very dwarfly megaproject, with quite a bit of risk involved during it's construction (unless invaders are turned off). Go try and do it yourself, and you might gain some respect for it.

Well, I was planning to build a road around my map, then a wall, and several lever-operated entrances with traps, but never got around to it, and my FPS is getting low, so maybe next fort. 

What I was reffering to was walling off a few screens of land for fortress, and making a 3 wide path to the edge, finished with some raised bridges, so that the only path to depot and inside fort is through there, and sieges will just stand outside. It is not as much as I disrespect people who do this (some of them may pull of megaprojects, and are much more cometent than me) It is "WTF?" factor. Why won't the stupid goblins just go 1 tile beyound map, and enter the fort? Also, walls cannot be build too close to edge for a reason. I form me building walls a few tiles from the edge, and walling off most of the map is acceptable. If somebody wants to wall off entire map edge with bridges, or turn invaders off or something, thats how they play, I don't care.

Now, walling off entire cavern system or HFS would be quite a project IMO

If there is a way to pull this off such that ambushes, sieges, migrants and traders appear in the same spot, then disregard what I wrote.

[KhazâdAimênu]

I agree with the sentiment, though not all the particulars; I do have one major objection, though:

1) Thou shalt not close thine fortress.

To which I reply: Thou shalt use thy archaic english grammar correctly, villein.


1) Thou shalt not close thy fortress.

It's like my and mine, and you and yours, unless the possessed object begins with a vowel or an "h", in which case "thine" would be correct. If we can't get this right, who can?