Print

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

[RiderofDark]

I do not think anyone in 15 th century would have detailed core samples for every county in the world. The estimates like "there was some fulx found in the area", or "some surface ores were spotted "are much more realistic.

This has been discussed at length in other threads. Basically, you have two sides to the discussion. One argues that dwarves are miners by nature and have been striking the earth and making their living underground for untold generations. So they would have a much more intimate knowledge of geology, minerals and metals than 15th century humans. (Their kinship with the earth is so close one could almost call it supernatural.) Also, they're the only race to make steel. Considering the stats of steel in the raws and how long they've been making it, dwarven steel is probably nearly equivalent to modern steel.

To expand on that, dwarves could exchange maps with other kingdoms, get ideas of what's around where, and send expeditions to explore regions that might have rich deposits.

Edit: Oops, fixed quote.

[G-Flex]

Also the abuntance of mineral has been FINALLY toned down. Keep in mind that this is first of the long chain of releases that upgrades the trading system. I am sure we will get a way to order large amounts of specific stones and ores in time. I really don't understand people who would want to find marble on every fort they found. What is the point of building more than 1 fort then, if they are all going to be same, build from same materials. We will have to work with local materials and trade for the rest.

I agree, and I've basically been waiting for this for a while. I've always been a fan of things that make different sites more unique, and that remove the bizarre level of self-sufficiency that fortresses are capable of.

That being said, I think the game could be a little more specific about what ores are in an area; if the dwarves know metal is likely to be in an area, couldn't they also know where sources of specific metals might be? Especially since they can apparently detect "deep metal" anyway.

[Crazy Cow]

I will try the new version, but wait for some wiki articles and bugfixes before fully switching to .19.
I also notice many people using the "it's realistic and therefore better" argument. While I agree that realistic simulation is at the heart of Dwarf Fortress, choosing realism over gameplay is a poor choice. Knowing what you are embarking with is practically a need for many players, as they look for very specific combinations of features for their embarks. Having to worry about whether there is iron and flux on your embark as well as finding a volcano on the edge of the ocean in the process is an extremely trying task even when players know what is waiting for them when they embark. I think that we should go back to detailed embark information, or at least have an init setting to allow that, like has been mentioned.
But I am loving the many new editions, and eggs are a godsend for modders.I love this game, Toady, and want you to know that. Keep up the amazing work!

[G-Flex]

This isn't an example of realism being chosen over gameplay. Gameplay itself is moving away from every fortress being self-sufficient and having everything it could ever possibly want, and moving towards a greater focus on trade and interaction between your site and others.

The thing is, we're so used to being able to find basically anything we want that it's a little jarring that we can't, especially since the features that are intended to make up for it (like greater trade) are still in their infancy.

[thvaz]

This isn't an example of realism being chosen over gameplay. Gameplay itself is moving away from every fortress being self-sufficient and having everything it could ever possibly want, and moving towards a greater focus on trade and interaction between your site and others.

The thing is, we're so used to being able to find basically anything we want that it's a little jarring that we can't, especially since the features that are intended to make up for it (like greater trade) are still in their infancy.

Agreed. If anything, Toady will have to think twice which features he will put as placeholders as people obviously take them as granted after a while.

[G-Flex]

I think, if anything, it would just be nice to have the game say "hey, there's iron here" instead of "hey, there's unspecified metal here". It's not really that unrealistic, and saves a lot of hassle/disappointment.

[Ledi]

This isn't an example of realism being chosen over gameplay. Gameplay itself is moving away from every fortress being self-sufficient and having everything it could ever possibly want, and moving towards a greater focus on trade and interaction between your site and others.

The thing is, we're so used to being able to find basically anything we want that it's a little jarring that we can't, especially since the features that are intended to make up for it (like greater trade) are still in their infancy.

The problem I'm having is that I do want to know exactly what I'm getting into. What stones (and therefore what ores), the soil types, the sand, whether there is a mix of sedimentary and igneous rock (especially important for when I want sedimentary flux and obsidian crossing over a volcanic biome near a major river with trees and a neutralish biome/savagery (my current fort took 4 days of genning 5ish hours a day to get) so that I don't take an area, dig, find out hours in that what I want isn't there, and feel frustrated by having to gen all over again. It's enough to make me stick with .18 unless it gets added in as a INIT option.

I know that there are people who prefer it both ways, so the option to toggle it (and possibly something in the worldgen that could affect scarcity of ores) would be the ideal way to go if it could be implemented. People should be able to play the way they want, and both of these (specific embark info and plentiful ore) have been present in the game's prior versions, so I would hope that they could be kept for those who wish it.

I don't see why a fort being self-sufficient is a bad thing. Most of my fort deaths come far after they've hit that self-sufficient mark, which makes them all the more amusing. Fort death on the first ambush due to no metal due to not knowing that the place had nothing but marble isn't fun. Fort death due to the military trying to take on a siege after 15 years of somewhat peaceful habitation and the resulting tantrum spiral is closer to it.

I imagine that this will affect people who wish to make mega-constructs even more than it would a player like myself. Want a wall of gold that spans the entire map? Sorry, you'll have to gen world after world and embark each time because the site doesn't say it has gold-bearing stone in it.

[Panthera Leo]

... I really don't understand people who would want to find marble on every fort they found. What is the point of building more than 1 fort then, if they are all going to be same, build from same materials...

Pardon me if I chuckle a bit, I don't mean it maliciously.

You answered your own 'question'. You don't understand that little bit of information that makes the difference in the choice; So, of course you make your choice and someone else makes their because they do "understand that little bit of information". Trying to argue with a point you don't understand when that understanding is the crux of the argument is like trying to walk with no legs. Your going no where ... fast!

Of course that entire paragraph presupposes you have a question without a question mark or objection without stating an objection and are not just moaning over someone else's choice.  (Ok, granted that is a bit snide ... but I'm not noted for the indirect socially. )

If you want a question? Why play a game for 'realism'? IF you want real ... step out side. I for one like the old layer information better. I'd rather spend a hour finding the 'perfect' or at least near perfect embark location then spend hours working on a "master peace" only to find out a few days in I'm missing one element, and have to start over somewhere else ...

... again ...

... when I don't have to. "Failure is fun" only works for so long when you enjoy building, only to get cut off at the knees for the 30th time in a row.

[Thundercraft]

I don't see why a fort being self-sufficient is a bad thing. Most of my fort deaths come far after they've hit that self-sufficient mark, which makes them all the more amusing. Fort death on the first ambush due to no metal due to not knowing that the place had nothing but marble isn't fun. Fort death due to the military trying to take on a siege after 15 years of somewhat peaceful habitation and the resulting tantrum spiral is closer to it.

I imagine that this will affect people who wish to make mega-constructs even more than it would a player like myself. Want a wall of gold that spans the entire map? Sorry, you'll have to gen world after world and embark each time because the site doesn't say it has gold-bearing stone in it.

Well put! I couldn't have said it better.

Clearly, there are two sides to this issue and not everyone will agree on what's better. As the saying goes: To each his (or her) own. Different people play DF differently and some expect different things out of it. The only way to satisfy both sides, then, is via INIT options.

[dieffenbachj]

To me, it's not that 'not having metal' isn't fun. It's that when the game spits in my face with the "That metal we told you about? Yeah, it's like a single vein of iron." I will glare at it, stand up, take off my glove, and slap it across the cheek, accepting its challenge.

I look forward to taking a fortress made of clay, defended with wooden sticks and glass traps, and rising to a capitol city that in spite of its disability conquers all sieges and rules over the very depths of Hell with a carefully-mined adamantine fist.

To me, Dwarf Fortress has indeed added a level of vicious disadvantage for each player with this loss of metal... but when I overcome that hurdle, that's what I'm looking forward to in this patch.

Though I agree, an optional 'old mineral distribution' switch would be ideal for people who DON'T want to build a fireclay demesne.

[G-Flex]

I don't see why a fort being self-sufficient is a bad thing.

Because this is a fantasy world simulator, and the game is starting to focus more on actually interacting with that world, including trade. Single fortresses having local access to everything they could possibly desire flies in the face of having complex trade and economy in the first place. The point is that different sites have different things available, so you can trade back and forth for the things you don't have.

I imagine that this will affect people who wish to make mega-constructs even more than it would a player like myself. Want a wall of gold that spans the entire map? Sorry, you'll have to gen world after world and embark each time because the site doesn't say it has gold-bearing stone in it.

Or trade for gold. Or realize that building a wall of gold that spans the entire map is the sort of completely ludicrous thing you cannot expect the game to perpetually support, and that even then, you can still trade for gold.


I agree it would probably be best for the embark screen to show any major deposits that make sense to know about, but I can understand the relative lack of minerals now and think that actually interacting with the world around you will be a lot more interesting than what we've had, which amounts to cloistering yourself into a pit and not caring what other civilizations/sites exist or what they have (with few exceptions).

[Ledi]

Or trade for gold. Or realize that building a wall of gold that spans the entire map is the sort of completely ludicrous thing you cannot expect the game to perpetually support, and that even then, you can still trade for gold.

So you are advocating the death of the mega-construction then? People who build those often build them because that's what they enjoy doing. At least some of them will not appreciate being told that they have to wait for the single caravan of the year hauling six bars of metal so that they can continue doing what they enjoy in this game.

Single fortresses having local access to everything they could possibly desire flies in the face of having complex trade and economy in the first place.

I never said everything that they could desire. Even in my current fort, I need to import much metal, pets, gypsum powder, etc. But there's enough random metal lying around that I can outfit my military, and what's more I knew what it would probably be and that it would exist when I embarked there.

We are not going to agree because it appears we have vastly different play styles. I like to try and make a self-sufficient fort. I don't like having to depend on a caravan getting through a potential ambush and NOT having only 3 cow cages and some seeds (yes, that's happened before) when I also asked for some iron.

And THAT is why I'm asking for options.

[Cassicotca]

Having some instability at the embark screen, seems kinda random.

[Flaede]

I think once we have adventurer skills fleshed out a bit more we will see folks going out "prospecting" sites in adventure mode. At least, that's what I hope happens. Heck, the Depot could have worlds uploaded that adventurer-playing folks have 'prospected' for you. That would be cool. Playing a world and finding all these little huts with exploratory shafts dug out.

[Panthera Leo]

Normally I'd bite someone's head off for taking such a relativistic and hopelessly without base open view.

... The point is that different sites have different things available, so you can trade back and forth for the things you don't have ...

Exactly, I 'can'. It should be possible to do so, or completely ignore it. Not that I must do so or be shot! Repeatably until dead. 

...  interacting with the world around you will be a lot more interesting than what we've had ...

'a lot more interesting' to whom?

... which amounts to cloistering yourself into a pit and not caring what other civilizations/sites exist or what they have (with few exceptions).

And the problem with that is?

(The sub-text of that question and the comments so far? What I suspect you have missed up to now ( ) is that not everyone shares that view and your taking a stance that 'this' is "obviously the correct view and only a idiot would disagree".)