Print

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

[Wannazzaki]

I perhaps may be interested...also

I have discovered mineral scarcity set at 100 will generate absolutely miniscule amounts of flux. However at 300 and above, where metals are still common but not as common, Flux sites skyrocket. As such i suggest even for 'abundant' minerals the number be between 300 and 500. If people WANT flux anyway, point is moot for metal scarcity as it will just mean loads of flux anway.

This may or may not be useful information

[DwarvenScience]

This sounds cool I would totally be in for making a fortress!

IMO I think it is good to have a reasonable amount of minerals, it would be nice to see other peoples creativity without restriction because they only have one small vein of tetrahedrite and whatever small amounts of iron etc they can trade. Though there is nothing really to be gained by having excessively abundant amounts peeking out from every rock face

DFLair sounds like a good idea, it will make the dungeons neater and stop the atomic-bomb-scatter of every pigtail sock which kinda detracts from a majestic castle. Could we leave it up to individual choice whether people want to abandon or use DFLair?

[Spish]

I'd say the default mineral scarcity is fine. Too high and our gem cutters will be out of work

Regarding the cave layers... I just tested an embark on a mountain with 1 layer... and the HFS zone was 23 Z-levels from the surface
Further testing may be required.

What's our policy on integrating adventurers into the save? It'd be cool if at some point there was a recruit-able badass from each of the main races available (it'd certainly make HFS fortresses more fun/manageable). Personally, as long as they don't have too much of an impact on the world, I'm fine with it (no killing civ leaders, massacring civilians, titan genocide, etc.). Like, say, your fort gets conquered by goblins, then you send in an adventurer to clear out the goblins so you can continue the fortress for another 3 or 4 years, and retire him/her in the capital.

[Ghills]

I vote for lots of metals, since otherwise we might run into a problem with enough interesting embarks. On the other hand, these aren't going to be long-term fortresses, so it matters much less if we get wiped out because of a lack of metal.

[Girlinhat]

If your fort is lost to goblins and you want to reclaim, you better do it the old fashioned way.

There will be one fort dedicated to danger-room and full steel equipment, for those of us who want to explore but not take it seriously.  This is likely to be a microfort (1x1) with exactly enough space to make a danger room and a collection of items.

[Loud Whispers]

If we were able to connect the forts with cavern roads.... Would require a lot of communication and planning.

[DS]

What's our policy on integrating adventurers into the save? It'd be cool if at some point there was a recruit-able badass from each of the main races available (it'd certainly make HFS fortresses more fun/manageable). Personally, as long as they don't have too much of an impact on the world, I'm fine with it (no killing civ leaders, massacring civilians, titan genocide, etc.). Like, say, your fort gets conquered by goblins, then you send in an adventurer to clear out the goblins so you can continue the fortress for another 3 or 4 years, and retire him/her in the capital.

What if participants are allowed to play as an adventurer instead of founding a fortress? Adventure-mode turns would pass far more quickly, and allow badass immigrants using legendary equipment from previous participants' fortress.

If your fort is lost to goblins and you want to reclaim, you better do it the old fashioned way.

There will be one fort dedicated to danger-room and full steel equipment, for those of us who want to explore but not take it seriously.  This is likely to be a microfort (1x1) with exactly enough space to make a danger room and a collection of items.

In this case, players who decide to adventure on their turn with the save would be forbidden from using that fortress. The danger room fort would only be there for the convenience of non-canon (is canon the right word?) adventurers.

And I suspect that many forts will fall to things far more terrible than goblins in this next release...

[DwarvenScience]

If we were able to connect the forts with cavern roads.... Would require a lot of communication and planning.

...thats awesome, community megaproject?

would need a handful of overseers who really knew their stuff to coordinate the average joes like myself. If you were going to use cavern roads wouldnt that involve embarking on every tile between the forts in question to make sure the path is intact? I guess you could embark on a square which is 9x1 or something so that you are only embarking over where the road will be. Also i have heard that adventuring in caverns is usuall an exercise in frustration and failure trying to get back out

[clockout1]

I vote lots of minerals, but I think the answer depends on your interpretation of what we're doing.

My interpretation is that we all build a fort that is fun to explore as an adventurer. Like, what I planned to do is make a fortress with quite a bit of atmospheric (albeit useless to the fortress) parts, like jail cells and such, then wall off the functional bits when I abandon so the only part left is the parts that are fun to explore.

That's just me though. I think if we all do different things, we'll have a much more interesting world.

[Kassil]

My votes are as follows:

Higher-than-usual volcanism, because I /like/ cliffs and magma.
Mineral scarcity somewhere in the middle btween the default and the maximum mineral density.
Waiting for the new release to come out, because otherwise we'll be left with only a tiny handful of people doing this while everyone else runs off and finds new and exciting ways to lose.
I'm not particularly interested in display cases or temp-sensitive materials - I fully intend for my fort to go down in a fiery blaze, with wreckage all over to speak of the havoc that resulted, so there'll be rubble strewn about anyway, even if it means deliberately letting in a siege at the end of my turn.
Common rules I'd suggest: no hacking, unless it's for a magma blot for one of the previously-mentioned temp-sensitive cases. I, personally, see no need to do the DFMode swap-and-escape abandon - the mysterious wreckage is part of the nature of DF - but I won't go so far as demanding no one does it. Turns should be kept to one week, to ensure that things keep rolling smoothly while giving enough time to potentially Get Stuff Done. We should keep a list of save files in the opening post, so people can pick any one of them up and experience the world from that point as an adventurer - and, if someone finds a truly lovely site that someone else has _got_ to play, it'll be available via access to an earlier save.

I'd also like to suggest that participants get dorfed in each fort, with the traditional chronicle of how we all lived and hilariously died.

[DS]

If we were able to connect the forts with cavern roads.... Would require a lot of communication and planning.

...thats awesome, community megaproject?

would need a handful of overseers Qwho really knew their stuff to coordinate the average joes like myself. If you were going to use cavern roads wouldnt that involve embarking on every tile between the forts in question to make sure the path is intact? I guess you could embark on a square which is 9x1 or something so that you are only embarking over where the road will be. Also i have heard that adventuring in caverns is usuall an exercise in frustration and failure trying to get back out

Connecting each fortress with in-game roads is a daunting task no matter how you cut it.

If you were able to use DFHack to adventure into the world as a legendary miner, you might be able to switch back into fortress mode away from your fortress and dig tunnels or pave roads that way. Otherwise, having very long roads with "gatehouses" (the temporary fortress you embarked as) isn't unreasonable. Except it would show up on the map as a fortress, not a road... messy. 

Consider: using the process for 'retiring' a fortress, we could have a handful of highly successful, living forts, connected by subterranean roads - the mountainhome - as well as countless fortress ruins or outlying bastions of dwarfdom away from the core mountain range. Much longer roads, connecting to these outlying forts, would have to be done by someone who knows what they're doing, for sure.

The great part about all of this is that we have the opportunity not only to create a large world that has many different sites to explore, but also to create a realistic network of fortresses that can provide a much more immersive gameplay that is currently absent from adventure mode (as far as the dwarves are concerned).

[ayoriceball]

well, in my tomb I plan on having something at the end similar to skyrim's world of power walls except with no use.

also, how do you remove carvings so you can redo them? is it possible? I want epic battles on the engravings, not bloated tubers or gnomes melting in some gnomeblight.

Build a wall on top of the floor. Then remove the wall. You can't engrave constructed walls, so you can't really redo wall carvings.

I agree with high volcanism and minerals. But not too high as to be easy.

[Girlinhat]

Doing a road network would be impossible, as you can only build within 5 tiles of edge, and if you used Embark Anywhere to get it done you'd have a HUGE mess of a map, covered in mountainhomes that don't do anything except make fast travel impossible.

While a neat idea, it's just not doable...

[clockout1]

Anyone up for maybe trying this on a pocket world while we wait for the new version to come out?

Might give us an idea of how well this will work.

[Spish]

Yeah, connecting all the mainland fortresses would be, for all intents and purposes, impossible (not to mention unnecessary). But what about using underground tunnels to connect a fort on the mainland to a fort on an island? That way, we can cross the ocean without having to resort to swimming. (our very own Chunnel, so to speak)

I agree with high volcanism and minerals. But not too high as to be easy.

High volcanism wouldn't necessarily be easier, it'd also mean we'd have a slightly harder time finding non-igneous materials. Flux, for instance.