Print

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

[Eric Blank]

Looking more closely at the world, the cold areas seem to be overpowering the warm a bit. Looks like there's glaciers in the northern half.

I noticed that too. I'm correcting it as I go.

Mineral Scarsity poll: [2]

Vote tallied.

As for more or less civs, it might not actually be a problem, because with the default 5 races the civs are usually divied up fairly evenly, and a large world initially has 30 civs.

Will the DFHack idea work on the next version of DF?  That might require an early testing.

It probably will. It's worked on every previous version.

[Oliolli]

How common will aquifers be in the world? I know there are some who will want aquifers, but also those who don't, and aquifers, in general, seem a bit too common to me...

[Pranz]

i want in

Mineral Scarcity poll: 4 (default right?)

EDIT: you should get the average of the votes and the mineral scarcity closest to that average. if for example the votes looked like this:
1: 6 votes
2: 1 vote
3: 0 votes
4: 4 votes
5: 5 votes

it would be unfair if it would be the 1st option even though more people wanted a generally lower amount of minerals.

[DS]

Eric, those maps look fantastic. I really like the fact that there are a handful of secluded mountain valleys and lakes that are inaccessible in travel mode, as well as narrow strips of land between mountains or bodies of water. There are many possibilities for garrison-type fortresses, which intentionally block fast travel through narrow passes, as well as for deep fortresses that connect these mountain valleys to the mainland. If I could make one request however, there seems to be an abundance of mountain lakes (as opposed to non-lake valleys) - what are the chances we could get a few tiny alpine meadows?

How common will aquifers be in the world? I know there are some who will want aquifers, but also those who don't, and aquifers, in general, seem a bit too common to me...

I'm not sure if there's a variable setting for aquifers, or if it's just a toggle. If we can somehow reduce the amount of aquifer layers, I'd be for it. If, however, the only way to reduce aquifers are to get rid of them completely, I'd rather have them in.

[Oliolli]

Maybe remove the aquifer tags from certain soils, leave it in others? That way aquifer amounts will be reduced, but there will still be some for those who want them.

[DS]

Maybe remove the aquifer tags from certain soils, leave it in others? That way aquifer amounts will be reduced, but there will still be some for those who want them.

That sounds like a great solution.

[Spish]

Bear in mind that humans can't settle in areas without rivers/aquifers in the next release. Isn't there a way to temporarily turn off the aquifers before you embark?

Edit: Yeah, by removing the [AQUIFER] tag from whatever kind of soil you're embarking on in the inorganic_stone txts.

[Oliolli]

Will we still need Girlinhat's approval for this, or can we just mass-force it through?

[Pranz]

Bear in mind that humans can't settle in areas without rivers/aquifers in the next release. Isn't there a way to temporarily turn off the aquifers before you embark?

Edit: Yeah, by removing the [AQUIFER] tag from whatever kind of soil you're embarking on in the inorganic_stone txts.

anyone who does this must remember to restore everything before they pass on the save. the raws should be as unchanged as possible.

[clockout1]

Here's a set of rules, potential rules, and notions that have been mentioned earlier. It's unorganized, but I'll try to keep this up to date.

Discuss as needed (we can discuss rules more heavily once the world gen is finalized and we are about ready to begin).

people have mentioned how these ideas often die when someone takes the save, then drops off the face of the earth.
how's bout a rule along the lines of "If ya miss the deadline by more than 2 days, the next guy just grabs a copy of the save you got and you get skipped"

eh?

That was discussed earlier but didn't come to a conclusion. Hmm... We could wait 2 before you're skipped, but if you show up within 4 you can have the next turn after the player(s) who took their turn(s) in your stead. It's still fair for everyone that comes after you, I suppose, since in the end they wouldn't have their turns bumped forward or backward. You'd just be switching the order around a bit.

So the max turn length? I would think 10 days is a fair length of time. If your fort isn't dead by then it might as well become a permanent world power through use of DFhack.

I can think of a few rules:
-No killing civilization leaders, ever (goblin leaders being a possible exception), they can never be replaced. May need to ban mountainhome-ing, to prevent the dwarf royalty from inevitably dying as a result.
-Avoid killing goblin generals if you can help it. The moment they die is the moment their cronies stop sending mounted sieges, which means less fun for future players should they settle on the same turf.
-No tampering with RAWs unless specifically authorized by the community council. And if you do, make sure all changes are undone by the end of your turn.

...I think it would be pretty cool if people running the fortresses would write up some sort of local lore surrounding the fortress, surrounding area, etc. I'll probably end up doing that even if anyone else doesn't.

And here are some roles suggested.

I've got a list in mind myself:

      roles:

            -The tour guide writer:
                   current possible candidates: DS
            -The players (self explanitory)
            -The negotiator:
                (for changes in rules, accepting excuses for tardiness etc. also keeps up with peoples turns)
                   current possible candidates: Girlinhat
            -The list updater
                (keeps track of peoples turns and edits the lists of rules and turns to keep them all up to date.)
                (overlaps heavily with negotiator.)
                   current possible candidates: clockout1, Cellmonk (maybe)

Am I missing some roles? And can a forum post be made editable by multiple people? That would allow for the lists to be updated by multiple people, as to avoid backlag.

And finally, let me know if:
-I missed any
-This massive wall of a post doesn't actually help anyone; I'll edit it down so it doesn't take up so much space.

[DS]

Looks good, clockout. I've gone through and boiled down the salient points so that they can be further discussed, refined, and expanded. So far, we seem to have 4 hard rules:

1. A single turn is 10 days.
  a) If you don't check in and download the save within 2 days of the beginning of your turn, or you fail to upload a save within 2 days of the end of your turn, you are skipped.
  b) In the event that you are skipped, but you still report for duty within 4 days of the deadline (either the beginning or end of turn), you are allowed to take your turn after the next active player in line.
2. Avoid killing historical goblin civ leaders - killing of non-goblin civ leaders is banned completely.
3. RAW tampering and use of 3rd party utilities is forbidden, except when explicitly allowed by the community.
4. Upon finishing your turn, you're encouraged to write a blurb about your fort.

My thoughts on the four:
1. If we allow people who lag past the 2 day deadline at the end of their turn, but create a large fortress, they will be essentially out of luck. As long as we are clear about this up front, I don't think it will be a problem. As well, if people are having IRL issues and need to delay their turn, we (the administrative staff) should be lenient and flexible, within reason.
2. Are we going to allow official adventurers at all? As in, will people be able to use their turn to play as an adventurer instead of a fortress? If so, we run the risk of adventurers slaying important historical figures, as well as already existing fortresses. That said, adventurers also allow bad-ass immigrant dwarves, which would make for good stories. Thoughts?
3. We've already discussed earlier in the thread situations where this would be acceptable. We should develop a list of these situations so that people know up front what options they have (and don't have).
4. This seems like it should be optional - or, at least, the amount of information you provide about your fort should be highly variable. If someone wants to write what is, in effect, a scrawled journal detailing the downfall of their doomed fortress, they should be able to - while, at the same time, another player should be allowed to leave their fortress shrouded in extreme mystery if they so desire. Every fort would be different.

As for administrative roles, once things get going, I doubt there will be an incredible amount of management to be done. Besides, Girlinhat hasn't checked into the thread since we've begun discussing this, and things seem to be going at a fine pace as it is, so let's hold off until everyone can cast their opinions. As I've said before, if anyone wants to step forward and volunteer, they are encouraged to do so.

[TomIrony]

I would like to join in on this. I don't have much any experience with mods and still have a blast using the vanilla version.

Regarding rule #1, how would the date limit be affected in the event that someone ends their turn earlier? The next player may not think to check the thread again until the 10th day.

[Babylon]

I'd be pretty sweet at managing and enforcing the turn/fortress list, seeing as I already have the OCD habit of checking the forums every two hours and prodding quiet hosts. I also regularly check the saves of community forts I'm involved with. I'm too lazy to handle the threadmaking and write-up myself, though.

I can think of a few rules:
-No killing civilization leaders, ever (goblin leaders being a possible exception), they can never be replaced. May need to ban mountainhome-ing, to prevent the dwarf royalty from inevitably dying as a result.
-Avoid killing goblin generals if you can help it. The moment they die is the moment their cronies stop sending mounted sieges, which means less fun for future players should they settle on the same turf.
-No tampering with RAWs unless specifically authorized by the community council. And if you do, make sure all changes are undone by the end of your turn.

Unless the bug where a leader that leaves the map is considered dead is fixed this isn't really possible.

[Gizogin]

I think this is an interesting idea, so count me in.

Also, regarding the civ leaders and the killing/not killing of them, wasn't there something about the new version being better about keeping track of historical figures?

[Babylon]

I vote for a scarcity number of 750.  No preference as far as amounts of beasts and so forth is concerned.  I don't think the threshold for them showing up should be lowered though, That makes it more likely that they'll all get wiped out.