Print

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

[Makbeth]

Been playing 31.16 since it came out, only just started playing 31.2x, and only as an adventurer, and now I've moved to 31.23 and started trying to find a site for my first fort.

You probably know what comes next.

I don't understand the decision to omit the rock layer names completely, in hard code no less.  The geology aspect of embarkation was one of the things I really enjoyed, and it's gone now.  I was really looking forward to the new build, but I just can't imagine finding a site I'm comfortable spending hours and hours on this way.  It would have been really nice to have an init option to use rock layers, but not even that concession is in there.

I'm reminded of my feelings towards the original Assassin's Creed and Far Cry 2.  It seemed like the makers of those games were making something groundbreaking and fantastic, something the game industry never had before but desperately needed, and actually surmounted the technical challenges of pulling it off.  Then, for some inexplicable reason, they said:  OK, now that we've constructed something completely awesome, what unnecessary things can we do to compensate for all the win we just put in, and bring the game back down to average?  In AC's case, it was repetitive missions and brainless combat.  In FarCry 2, they took one of the first true open-world FPS engines and then made the world a series of canyons just like every other linear FPS before it, with AI that didn't recognize friend or foe.  These acts were needless backsteps that negated much of the progress made by the immediately preceding forward leaps, and they robbed the world of the games that those titles and others like them could and should have been.

Something similar has happened here.  This change did not need to happen, and it has made parts of DF less than what they were before.  Part of the wonderful detail and arcana that makes DF what it is has been removed.  Before, it felt like you were conducting a geological survey on the embark screen to make a guess as to what you would find there.  Now there's no way to know.

Thankfully, unlike Ubisoft's acts of self-sabotage, the addition of fail or the removal of win to DF is reversible.  31.16 is still there, with all the save files and custom settings of the last few months, so I still have that.  I hope Toady will see fit to restore rock layers in embark in the future, like we continue to hope he'll restore other things we've lamented the loss of.

I understand I may be in the minority here, but there do appear to be those who agree with some of what I've said.  I know that many of you do not consider this a problem.  Before you tell me that you don't care about the changes, I know.  And I would remind you that the fact that you don't care does not change the fact that some of us do.  You are perfectly free to continue not caring, and I would assume that if the feature does get restored it will not affect you because you will likely continue to not care.

[zephyr_hound]

I hate it too, and it's making me very reluctant to upgrade past .18. Mineral scarcity is fine, I don't mind that - I just want to know what I'm embarking on! For me it's not even about "oh noes can't get steel industry", I am genuinely interested to know before I embark whether I'm on gabbro or diorite, basalt or andesite, because I liked looking at the geological make-up of the world. I like to know these things. I don't understand why this functionality was removed.

[3]

As far as I can tell, it was removed precisely so you couldn't see what you were embarking on. Being able to pick a sedimentary site with flux, sand and/or whatever else every time with 100% accuracy isn't exactly in the Roguelike spirit. You're not supposed to know what's coming. You're supposed to make choices, and face the appropriate consequences, and if it just so happens that you don't get exactly what you want, then you're going to have to find some way of dealing with it.

Additionally, this sets up the stuff in later arcs where you might be running more than one site at a time (you'll only have a general idea about what minerals are in the area until you send somebody to check).

[thvaz]

Dwarf fortress is a game in development.  A lot of features we have are in fact placeholders that will get improved in time. Most of the time to improve a certain feature a old will be removed or broken. I do not agree with comparisons with Assassins Creed or Far Cry 2, as they were released in a finished state.

I don't now if this is the case with this feature. Maybe it is some kind of test. Maybe we will need to visit a location with a adventurer in the future to prospect it! Or do you find realistic for your dwarves to know every mineral in every place in the world?

[Jeoshua]

The biggest difference between this game and Assasin's Creed (which I agree about btw) is that Dwarf Fortress wasn't subject to alot of hype and promises before it was released.  That's what made AC seem so cool then be such a disappointment.  Whereas DF is being released to you AS IT IS BEING CREATED.

That said, I like the new embark method.  I get all tingly when I embark now, wondering if I'm going to get something good...

or if it's just Microcline a-freaking-gain.

[Deon]

It would be nice as an option. DF is a sandbox-type game, and removing "sandboxiness" is not a good idea. If it was optional, it would be cool, but now it's just very uncomfortable... We could have the same stuff with embark points... Why do we get to pick "copper swords"? What if we could only pick "swords" and the game assigned materials at random?

So yeah, also I don't like it because it's hard to test geology changing mods now :/.

[3]

Why do we get to pick "copper swords"? What if we could only pick "swords" and the game assigned materials at random?

Essentially, it does. Well, it doesn't. Not "at random", the same way that when you pick an embark location you're not getting things "at random". You have a general idea as to what you'll find. The same applies to the materials your civ has access to (remember all that bother about not getting iron anvils?).

But yeah, I'll concur that this is the sort of thing we need a init/worldgen setting for, at least as a placeholder.

[Ethicalfive]

I'd love to know the surface geology atleast. I enjoyed sites that had the kinds of stone I found pleasing to look at and making things out of.

On the bright side, the pick of the draw thing has shown me some beautiful embarks I may not have considered exploring before..

[Urist Imiknorris]

One thing that I'd like to note is that you should at least be able to tell what the topmost stone layer is, due to the fact that you can see that incredibly easily (pebbles, boulders, etc.) without having to dig at all.

[Dutchling]

I think it is good. Before it was removed I never embakred on sites with stupid stone names like saltstone because I wanted 'cool' rocks . Now I just play with whatever layer rock I end up with. except puddingstone ofc, puddingstone is just stupid.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Puddingstone isn't a layer.

[Tcei]

Puddingstone isn't a layer.

Could have fooled me with my last embark. I was hitting pudding stone with what seemed almost like veins of  conglomerate.. or whatever that other brown stone was. I was tempted to build a gaint turd mozaic. ugh..

[Urist Imiknorris]

Yeah. Conglomerate is the layer, puddingstone is the brown microcline.

[freeformschooler]

Man, I don't know, I don't honestly mind not knowing what I'm embarking on. All that's important to me is that I have "shallow rock" or whatever and no aquifier, and then maybe deep or shallow metals. It's nice to try out the different kinds.

[Sutremaine]

I'd like an init option, like there is with invaders and moods. Sometimes you just want to build a fort out of a particular stone.