Print

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

[Kassil]

I usually embark on either 2x2 or 3x3, so I'm fine with it.

[Poindexterity]

no problem restricting the embark size.

[Graebeard]

I rarely do anything more than 3x3, frequently 2x2.  I'd support a 16 tile cap with smaller embarks strongly encouraged.  I don't know if there's a way to incentiveize that.  Thoughts?

[orius]

I think limiting players to a maximum area of 16 square units (4x4, 3x5, or 2x8 max) would be acceptable to most people. Opinions?

Yeah, that's a good idea.  We don't really need to make huge sprawling forts here since they're only meant to be explored later.  Actually smaller embarks like 3x3 or 2x2 might even be more ideal with this project than something else.

[Poindexterity]

I rarely do anything more than 3x3, frequently 2x2.  I'd support a 16 tile cap with smaller embarks strongly encouraged.  I don't know if there's a way to incentiveize that.  Thoughts?

perhaps an extra day on one's turn?

[Kofthefens]

Smaller embarks are definitely a good idea- and might not even need an incentive. Smaller embark = higher FPS = more in-game years.

What about oddly shaped embarks though? I sometimes do 2x4 or 2x5.

[Eric Blank]

I think DS' explanation works best for that; maximum total area of 16 units. So 2x5 would be only 10 tiles, and well under that limit. That should work very well.
I actually prefer 5x5 embarks for that little bit of extra space, but as testing indicated smaller will be better. We can sacrifice for the greater !!FUN!!

However... I just went into my primary DF folder and found my personal favored save, an ungodly 2gb (no wonder my harddrive is full!)
Once compressed into a .rar file, it registers as 83.6mb. Is there hope yet?

[miauw62]

I think DS' explanation works best for that; maximum total area of 16 units. So 2x5 would be only 10 tiles, and well under that limit. That should work very well.
I actually prefer 5x5 embarks for that little bit of extra space, but as testing indicated smaller will be better. We can sacrifice for the greater !!FUN!!

However... I just went into my primary DF folder and found my personal favored save, an ungodly 2gb (no wonder my harddrive is full!)
Once compressed into a .rar file, it registers as 83.6mb. Is there hope yet?

Thou shalt explore zis save to find zee fortz!

[DS]

I think DS' explanation works best for that; maximum total area of 16 units. So 2x5 would be only 10 tiles, and well under that limit. That should work very well.
I actually prefer 5x5 embarks for that little bit of extra space, but as testing indicated smaller will be better. We can sacrifice for the greater !!FUN!!

However... I just went into my primary DF folder and found my personal favored save, an ungodly 2gb (no wonder my harddrive is full!)
Once compressed into a .rar file, it registers as 83.6mb. Is there hope yet?

Not for the DFFD. I suspect that, very quickly, we will have to find another website to host the save. That's unfortunate, but not crippling.

The sixteen square units seems rather large, considering that there's no way for an adventurer to discern the "front door" of a fort, especially if the site is in the open (without any mountains or ocean at the site). For the sake of keeping things simple and navigateable for adventurers, should we further restrict the embark size?

[Phantom of The Library]

Doesn't the DFFD consider larger sizes upon request?

[Babylon]

heh, theoretically we could turn it into a torrent...

[Rose]

Wouldn't work well. Some sort of drop box would be better.

[Eric Blank]

I think DS' explanation works best for that; maximum total area of 16 units. So 2x5 would be only 10 tiles, and well under that limit. That should work very well.
I actually prefer 5x5 embarks for that little bit of extra space, but as testing indicated smaller will be better. We can sacrifice for the greater !!FUN!!

However... I just went into my primary DF folder and found my personal favored save, an ungodly 2gb (no wonder my harddrive is full!)
Once compressed into a .rar file, it registers as 83.6mb. Is there hope yet?

Not for the DFFD. I suspect that, very quickly, we will have to find another website to host the save. That's unfortunate, but not crippling.

The sixteen square units seems rather large, considering that there's no way for an adventurer to discern the "front door" of a fort, especially if the site is in the open (without any mountains or ocean at the site). For the sake of keeping things simple and navigateable for adventurers, should we further restrict the embark size?

Damn. I thought the DFFD had a limit of 1gb, not just 100mb.

I don't see anything in particular wrong with having 4x4 embarks; it's the default size, and won't contribute much to file growth. That 'favored save' of mine consists of 20-30 abandoned forts of varying sizes, mostly 4x4-7x7, and currently hosts a decades-old living fort, which can swell the save dramatically, such as what happened to the test world when I embarked on those mountains (lost 200mb when I abandoned.) Most forum goers seem to complain about FPS death anyway and wouldn't go big, but those that have a megaproject or whatnot in mind that demands a little more space, and think their system can handle it, ought have it available. I'd wager that we'd strike 100mb after about 35-40 turns, which is a vast portion of the current turn list and a long run for an individual community game.

[Spish]

The sixteen square units seems rather large, considering that there's no way for an adventurer to discern the "front door" of a fort, especially if the site is in the open (without any mountains or ocean at the site). For the sake of keeping things simple and navigateable for adventurers, should we further restrict the embark size?

Ditto, the compass always leads you to the wagon's original spot. It took me forever to find the entrances of Minegrip and Shadyportal (both of which had tiny entrances built way out towards the edge of the map). In the case of Minegrip, I had to leave the site and go up the other side of the volcano because I could not find a way to scale the cliffside.

Of course, this can be avoided by simply using an infrastructure and building roads across the site, connecting the outdoor assets and giving the adventurer a clear path to the entrance. Yeah, I know these were just silly little test embarks, but isn't the whole point of the test world to test for issues like this?

Perhaps we should include a list of adventurer-friendly guidelines in the OP? Things like encouraging players to plan out their embarks, and only make the site as big as it needs to be to suit their vision.

[Poindexterity]

The sixteen square units seems rather large, considering that there's no way for an adventurer to discern the "front door" of a fort, especially if the site is in the open (without any mountains or ocean at the site). For the sake of keeping things simple and navigateable for adventurers, should we further restrict the embark size?

Ditto, the compass always leads you to the wagon's original spot. It took me forever to find the entrances of Minegrip and Shadyportal (both of which had tiny entrances built way out towards the edge of the map). In the case of Minegrip, I had to leave the site and go up the other side of the volcano because I could not find a way to scale the cliffside.

Of course, this can be avoided by simply using an infrastructure and building roads across the site, connecting the outdoor assets and giving the adventurer a clear path to the entrance. Yeah, I know these were just silly little test embarks, but isn't the whole point of the test world to test for issues like this?

Perhaps we should include a list of adventurer-friendly guidelines in the OP? Encourage players to plan out their embarks, and only make the site as big as it needs to be.

good ideas, all.