Print

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

[Truean]

Scroll back through these pages. Most of the threads don't go past 10 pages. Why?

I think it's good for us to consider what makes a long lasting community fort thread and also what does not. The idea being that we can have more fun if we figure this out and implement what we learn.

Suggestions?

[plisskin]

Buncha reasons, I guess? I know I'm most interested in following community games where the author has character, posts consistently and use screenshots. Humor helps. A nice concept helps. Lots of Fun really helps.

Forumites are flaky, too, it's not always easy to get a lot of commentary. Succession games usually generate more interest because of the multiple parties invested in the fort's development.

Probably also easy to get discouraged when a person is busy in their IRL, which many forumites seem to be often.

[Aramco]

Buncha reasons, I guess? I know I'm most interested in following community games where the author has character, posts consistently and use screenshots. Humor helps. A nice concept helps. Lots of Fun really helps.

Forumites are flaky, too, it's not always easy to get a lot of commentary. Succession games usually generate more interest because of the multiple parties invested in the fort's development.

Probably also easy to get discouraged when a person is busy in their IRL, which many forumites seem to be often.

It seems like nobody around here ever does anything with their life, until it's their turn for a succession fort, then they are suddenly busy.

[varnish]

Time and interest. That includes the creator's interest as well. Sometimes you just get bored with what has turned out to be a rather boring idea.

[mrbobbyg]

Some forts are just boring.  If not enough happens, then people fall off.

I think that it's also important to make sure that turns pass quickly and regularly.  If someone drops for a few days, then you need to make sure you find the next person.

[Urist_McArathos]

Unfortunately it's hard to tell what makes a fort boring because, as mentioned, people simply drift away when it starts to lose their interest.  I'd say that if we, as a community, want to encourage more forts to survive longer, we need to be more vocal and give out more constructive criticism and feedback to Community Fort and Succession Fort authors and players, let them know what's interesting and exciting us.

More than that, it's hard to say.  Some people are just naturally funnier, wittier, or better at certain kinds of writing than others, while others are better at the game and able to provide interesting/unique forts.

Let's not forget that the random nature of the game (which governs how Fun a fort is) can greatly impact the interest level.  Would Boatmurdered be considered a classic if it was written by the same people, but didn't have endless hordes of bloodthirsty animals or a dwarf that beat half the place to death while on fire?  You just can't script things like that, and unfortunately some of the best things about DF stories are the unexpected gems Toady's random coding throws at players, and how they react.   

[Lovechild]

How the player reacts to the random stuff is a very important part indeed. For example, the story of Cacame Awemedinade wouldn't have been nearly as interesting if the elven king had just been dumped in magma, which was a common suggestion in the replies.

[plisskin]

This question is mining dangerously close to the vein of "What makes celebrity?" But anyway, I think the solution to the problem is for people to make more community forts and continuing to practice their writing, wit, commentary, fortress building and lack of a social life IRL except when it's their damn turn.

[Valrandir]

To make it last
- The host is active, updating the first post, sending PM for turns and keep showing interest
- Players are posting detailled updates thought their turn
- Constructing random constructions and projects all over the map ruin it for the OCD type player
- Too many dwarves and items makes low FPS, which makes the fort not interesting to play
- Generic fortress with no goals are not interesting

TL;DR;
- Host must be active
- Fort must have rules and goals
- FPS must be preserved

[Zifnab]

I've had bad luck with community/story forts I've done in the past.  Every one has ended because of either save corruption or equipment failure (lightning struck house).

Some community forts that I have followed in the past have failed because to be quite honest, their creators bit off more than they could chew.  A fort where all the dwarves are claimed, have personalities, and are only allowed to do what the person who claimed them said they could do is a nice idea, until you get 50 dwarves and all of a sudden its not fun anymore.  But it could be, if audience participation was better.  Sometimes people just give up when the only person posting is them.

With succession forts I've been involved in, it helps to have a couple of people who are active, because real life issues can take someone away from the forums for a while.  If you have someone to step in and take over hosting duties, even temporarily it can help keep the fort alive.

Succession/community forts that are good seem to have a few things in common.  They aren't overscripted.  Those playing the game take a little time to create a story that readers find interesting.  Things go wrong.

Not many people want to read a story about how you built a giant pyramid temple to the blood god on your calm island with no other civilizations.  They might want to look at pictures of the temple if they are interesting, but another day of:  moved the scaffolding, carved some blocks, made some booze doesn't have much action.  But if you were to embark on the beach of a haunted ocean beside a dark tower and try the same thing...

[Valrandir]

Some forts starts with a great idea, good story telling and development from the host.
But then after too many players had their years, their ways, the fort is no longer under the same quality as before and playing is no longer interesting. Some of the times the host also stop posting, and then it becomes just another random fortress with no reason to play.

When too players have their turns, the focus becomes foggy.

A solution to try would be to let the host play the first turn, pass along the fortress to the next player, but then play the next turn after that. Every odd turn would be played by the host, and every even turn by a player. During his turns the host can keep the fortress on focus and provide good story telling, as well as set goals for the next turn.

[Valrandir]

Adding specific winning and losing conditions should also help to keep the fortress interesting for everyone.

It is not entertaining to see save scumming being and/or modding being used to fix mistakes or make the game easier.

There need to be a risk of losing the game, and the goal of winning the game.
Simply playing forever with no winning conditions, and with cheating our ways out of losing conditions, ensure that sooner or later no more players will be posting and playing.

This is what happens to most fortress in these forums.

[AngleWyrm]

Savescumming isn't a real problem; it involves a huge sacrifice of play time, wiping out an evening's work. The penalty is so high that people would rather claim their computer crashed, or that they've suddenly become too busy to take their turn.

The games that I've been involved in peter out when the FPS becomes too bad to play (10-20fps), which basically defines the end of the game.

The games that have ended before that have done so because players claim a turn and then can't be bothered to play. It's a wierd situation that someone wants to join but then can't bring themselves to play the game. What drives this failure is not apparent to me, and I think it may be a combination of psychological issues. Wanting to play but not really knowing how to constructively contribute.

Also, saw a game fail to thrive because the players had different skill levels. The first three players were committed to designing a first-rate fort, and were good at it. But then the next player didn't understand pathing distances, or that a dining room's size is related to the number of tables in the dining room, or that there's such a thing as too much food production and a balance should be achieved, or that the soldiers have skill and equipment requirements in order to be successful.

With these skill level differences, the more experienced players no longer wanted to play in a fort that had collapsed to a lower quality. So it seems that something useful might be to declare an expected experience level for the players.

tl;dr: A significant contributer to community fort failure is the difference in skill levels between players, and the resulting differences in the quality of the fort.

[Valrandir]

tl;dr: A significant contributer to community fort failure is the difference in skill levels between players, and the resulting differences in the quality of the fort.

Yes

[Zifnab]

It depends on what kind of a fort you are going for.  Some of the Sparkgears were fun because of the wild variation in ability, even if it did lead to their death.