Print

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

[catoblepas]

You guys are all wrong. In order to make caverna a more nastier place, we need to make caverns HAVE something that the player doesnt have. Id say that the most deadly thing in the game is the candy and most people just go and mine it up. WHY? Cause its useful. To me, caverns are useful just cause they may have water in them. but if not, then screw them. The only other thing I might want would be that the caverns are less like a sponge with their stupid formations and more like "surreal" open spaces with all sorts of stuff in them. Like, perhaps the small collums should be destroyed completely.

I can understand your point-- the reason people wall off the caverns is because the high risk (noxious secretions) isn't worth the low reward (yawn, trees).  If you change that ratio, people won't wall them off.

But just doing that doesn't address kaijyuu's concerns, which are that it's trivial to dig deep.  Things that should be big "Woots!" are just "Blah."  Things like magma workshops and adamantine access.  Making the caverns more useful won't address that.

I think there needs to be balance. There should be higher stakes in general the farther you dig, and more rewards. underground trading partners, exotic animals and plants that could be useful and or dangerous. Pockets of poisonous gas, Ruins of underground cities with powerful artifacts within or possibly ancient texts revealing powerful magics or forgotten recipes for unique alloys (as well as possible guardians), strange and bizarre metals and minerals unavailable near the surface, strange magical curses from close proximity to the underworld. etc etc. Perhaps dwarven caravans should only come with wagons when you reach the caverns and establish a road going off-map? The key is to make the underground both more difficult and grants even greater opportunity-not just in a way that makes the game too hard or too easy-both is the key.

[bombzero]

i would say make the world massively deeper and adding extreme hazards that couldn't be detected beforehand easily. a dragon nest or a huge den of bogeymen. put brutal stuff like that deep underground. also HFS ruined my first successful fort. damn was i surprised.

[irmo]

I think there needs to be balance. There should be higher stakes in general the farther you dig, and more rewards. underground trading partners, exotic animals and plants that could be useful and or dangerous. Pockets of poisonous gas, Ruins of underground cities with powerful artifacts within or possibly ancient texts revealing powerful magics or forgotten recipes for unique alloys (as well as possible guardians), strange and bizarre metals and minerals unavailable near the surface, strange magical curses from close proximity to the underworld. etc etc. Perhaps dwarven caravans should only come with wagons when you reach the caverns and establish a road going off-map? The key is to make the underground both more difficult and grants even greater opportunity-not just in a way that makes the game too hard or too easy-both is the key.

This requires world generation, or at least site generation, to arrange things according to metagame concerns: how rewarding and/or challenging is this feature for the player? Which is fine--roguelikes have been doing that for ages, putting shinier loot and tougher monsters at deeper levels of the dungeon. But around here, that suggestion will be met with a lot of snorting about how "gamey" and unrealistic and lacking in Procedural Generation Magic it is*.

Everyone needs to stop whining about that and get behind the idea of an explicit difficulty curve associated with depth. Yes, like the 2d version.

I note with minor amusement that we've just recapitulated the gamist/simulationist debate in RPG design. So think of it in those terms. If this were a tabletop RPG, the GM could draw a map of the world and randomly choose a location that has a portal to hell. Then you'd point to a spot on the map to build your fortress, and most likely not hit the portal to hell. But that's bad GMing. A good GM will have you pick a location, and then decide that that's where the Hellmouth is.**

So I'd say what we need is a procedural gamemaster: an algorithm that manages the world, or the corner of it where the player is operating, to present challenges and rewards. It doesn't have to be a Hellmouth--I'm all for lost civilizations, forgotten beasts, exotic minerals, and secret networks of dwarven roads. But the game can't just pregenerate a world and then expect me to prospect around for a site that's not boring.


* even though it would still be procedurally generated--just not as a simulation of some physical process.

** Or he'll announce that "Five years ago, a portal to hell opened up in Bronzehammer. Everything within a hundred miles is now a demon-haunted wasteland. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to close that portal." That's a different kind of story, and a good sequel to the game where you built Bronzehammer and discovered that, against all luck, you're on top of the Hellmouth. Which is to say that if the GM algorithm decides to put a portal to hell under your site, then once the portal opens it's part of the persistent world.

[peskyninja]

What if there is something in the caves that dwarves need,like if underground plants could only be planted near the caverns or inside then,this kind of stuff.

[kaijyuu]

Few things, irmo.

This requires world generation, or at least site generation, to arrange things according to metagame concerns: how rewarding and/or challenging is this feature for the player? Which is fine--roguelikes have been doing that for ages, putting shinier loot and tougher monsters at deeper levels of the dungeon. But around here, that suggestion will be met with a lot of snorting about how "gamey" and unrealistic and lacking in Procedural Generation Magic it is*.

Everyone needs to stop whining about that and get behind the idea of an explicit difficulty curve associated with depth. Yes, like the 2d version.

These things don't have to be mutually exclusive. For example, I don't think iron and flux (mainly found in sedimentary layers, near the surface) should be moved further underground simply because steel is the second best metal. All the "real life" stuff can stay simulation. There's room however for "gamey" things with the exotic and fantastical parts of dwarf fortress. Exotic metals have been suggested, which could be found on lower map layers. Another source of valuable material could be from cavern monsters themselves; why couldn't a strange and weird monster's hide from the hidden depths be as strong as steel? Why not make their bones create very strong weapons? Things other than metal are underutilized in DF, I think, so making risks and rewards to flesh out the leatherworking/bone carving/etc industries would be quite interesting.

I note with minor amusement that we've just recapitulated the gamist/simulationist debate in RPG design. So think of it in those terms. If this were a tabletop RPG, the GM could draw a map of the world and randomly choose a location that has a portal to hell. Then you'd point to a spot on the map to build your fortress, and most likely not hit the portal to hell. But that's bad GMing. A good GM will have you pick a location, and then decide that that's where the Hellmouth is.**

So I'd say what we need is a procedural gamemaster: an algorithm that manages the world, or the corner of it where the player is operating, to present challenges and rewards. It doesn't have to be a Hellmouth--I'm all for lost civilizations, forgotten beasts, exotic minerals, and secret networks of dwarven roads. But the game can't just pregenerate a world and then expect me to prospect around for a site that's not boring.

I'm not sure that's the goal with dwarf fortress. From what I've gathered, it's meant to be a world simulator where you make the story. Not a game master (real or procedural).

You're right that you shouldn't have to prospect for a site that's not boring, but if every site has everything you want then every site is boring. Ideally no site should be dull and empty, nor should any site have everything you'd ever want. Digging down should be a venture into the unknown. Yes, portals to hell should be randomly placed and stumbled upon, but the world should be populated with enough of these random whatsits that finding a "normal" site should be anything but normal.

There's always room for both "simulation" and "game."

[blue sam3]

I am fan of tunelling creatures myself.

Make it very slow and you will basically force player to create passage for military that would deal with them.

Other than that, I would rather see underground being more important to breach for its benefits - right now, you have:

 * Wood - which is on surface.
 * Plants and their seeds - nothing you can't find on surface.
 * Revealed mineral veins of cluster - this saves some exploratory mining, but is not vital. You can easily ignore gem indistry and veins are not that hard to find.
 * Live combat xp, Meat and other spoils of killed creatures.
 * Water.
 * Cloth (silk).

This is all avaiable without breaching caverns.

Costs: Breaching carverns turns on FB spawning which can range from nuisance to reclaiming fort. And that is not really worth it for something that you can usually find on surface.

If the only underground thing of real value (magma) is not part of caverns, forcing people to breach caverns is not really proper answer.

How about buffing deep woods/plants/animal products/nerfing the surface equivalents (or at least those surface equivalents that you can easily make yourself. Perhaps disallow access to most underground plants until you actually gather them from the caverns? (So none on embark). Then make some animals that live in the caverns, are a lot more difficult to kill and give some new, very useful products.

[Mckee]

Once we get a slightly more fleshed out agricultural model, perhaps make the caverns a MUCH better place to grow underground crops? Either make underground plants produce more/mature quicker the further down they are, or if the complexity of soil types is expanded upon, make the cavern contain lots of very fertile and very rich soil. Perhaps from all the mulched up dead stuff and naturally occuring moisture. This presuposes that feeding a fortress is increased in difficulty, something we'll hopefully see in the future.

[Nil Eyeglazed]

Wouldn't enhanced fertility just lead to people walling off a slightly larger area of the caverns?

[Bohandas]

What if there were also some kind of slime or plant based creatures that could spawn in unpaved tiles in the middle of the map the way trees and shrubs do, that way walling stuff off would only be effective if you paved the whole area too.

[peskyninja]

or just a HUGE number of poisonous flying,climbing vermins. (they don't need to be poisonous, just more dangerous,we have few poisonous things here this makes me sad..)

[OwlEpicurus]

I agree with IT 000's idea of having SMR extend above the magma sea.  Perhaps it starts appearing in the lower layers of the third cavern and then gradually increases in density as you go lower?  Also, the closer to the magma sea you are, the hotter it should get, and dwarves should get a negative thought for staying down there too long.  They would become thirsty much more quickly, and could even die from heat stroke. Valuable gems and metal ores could be hidden inside the SMR maze.  If adamantine only rarely reached into the 3rd cavern, and the area revealed by breaching the magma sea was reduced, it could make finding the blue metal much more challenging, since you would have to wind your way through the maze first.

I would also like to second Mckee's suggestion of making cavern soil more fertile than normal soil.  It's a bit ridiculous than within a couple seasons of breaching the caverns I can have a room so filled with the cavern "grass" that I can set up a viable pasture for my grazers. 

[IT 000]

I suppose you could make a maze of SMR with diggable rock in between, that would at least throw a few loops into the players plans.

I've given that idea a little more thought. I like Owl's idea of dwarves receiving a negative thought from being within 5 or so tiles around SMR. There should be a giant 5+ level maze that you need to navigate through to get down there. However, magma will always be available on the 3rd cavern tier via lava pits or such. Thus it is more convenient to venture out to get to the lava pits and into the open jaws of a Giant Cave Spider then dig down and suffer from a tantrum spiral. Plus the Fun Stuff will be harder to get.

[irmo]

These things don't have to be mutually exclusive. For example, I don't think iron and flux (mainly found in sedimentary layers, near the surface) should be moved further underground simply because steel is the second best metal.

I suppose. When I mention the 2d version I don't mean the progression of minerals specifically, but the fact that there are more options, and harder challenges, and (slightly) cooler stuff as you go deeper into the mountain. The story has a geographic direction to it: east. Sort of like in Lord of the Rings, where the further east and south you go, the stranger and more terrible things you find.

Now that we're 3d, the direction should be down. More down = more fun, in every sense.

I'm not sure that's the goal with dwarf fortress. From what I've gathered, it's meant to be a world simulator where you make the story. Not a game master (real or procedural).

The simulator needs to support making a story, though. If you just want a blank canvas to create a fortress and then write stories about it, you can use Sketchup or something. The simulation currently is not much better than that. You are playing a character: the fortress. To make a story, your character needs goals to work toward and obstacles to overcome, and the simulation doesn't really provide those.

You're right that you shouldn't have to prospect for a site that's not boring, but if every site has everything you want then every site is boring. Ideally no site should be dull and empty, nor should any site have everything you'd ever want.

Oh, I agree. The point isn't that every site should turn out to have a portal to hell underneath it, but that there should always be something down there to find, and it shouldn't rely on getting lucky on site selection. The journey into the unknown isn't very interesting when all that's down there is rock and empty caverns that you'll wall up right away.

By the way, thank you for starting this thread. I'd given up talking about this issue because nobody seemed to be listening, but maybe it's not completely hopeless.

[GreatWyrmGold]

A start would be having big, open caverns with pillars and such rarely more than 2 tiles in any dimension, requiring at least a little masonry to breach. Better still would be having tapering stalagmites and stalactites instead of even pillars. However, the main issue as I see it is that players can easily block off whatever, so burrowing creatures and wall-destroyers would also be useful. Magma creatures should actually do more than ba magma crabs swimming about and eating up framerate, they should spit basalt or breathe flames or whatever at me. Magma pressure is also a good idea.

As to adamantine? I have never found it.

[Ghills]

You know, there are a lot of people who like the fact that DF is a simulator, and they can build a fort and write stories about it.

I don't play DF so that I can have an epic adventure full of hair-raising moments.  Everything that has been suggested in this thread, with the exception of more intricate agriculture, is something that would lower the amount of fun I have with DF.  The suggestions here are all about forcing players into a particular playstyle, one that I don't find appealing and one that I suspect many other players also dislike.

The current treatment of (stone) walls is fairly realistic. Critters, of whatever size and stuff, simply can't tear down stone walls effectively, or at all.