User talk:Shardok

You are making some silly assumptions about me. VengefulDonut 03:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Pick any stone article. Look at the history. There are only some missing because of the opposition. If you are not part of this opposition, maybe you should help sway it. VengefulDonut 03:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Those are always going to be among most unclean pages on the wiki. They are in desperate need of triage, but nobody is able to overcome the backlash that would certainly result.VengefulDonut 03:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize this, unfortunantly it's a kind of OCD with me to make the whole word blue. --Frandude 21:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because game data says so, doesn't mean it is so. There are quite a few tags that aren't linked to actual working code, or were depecrated and are non-functioning anymore in favor of another tag or system. Ultimately what I mean is it'd need experimental verification, going up to a strangler with your adventurer I think would be a simple test for this situation. --Nexii Malthus 01:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Other Stone

(There!)

LOL! Well done! (On several levels.) Thanks!--Albedo 19:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

2 seconds (at 100 FPS)

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Oh, you is funny man! In my dreams. More like 2 minutes on my dino. :P ;D --Albedo 09:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Im not quite sure, but isn't this bit independent of frame rate? I had fortresses with speeds between 20 and 200 FPS and it always looked like 2 seconds exactly. Moreso since the game is paused when you look at the demands. --Birthright 09:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - might be. I guess that would make some sense - if someone had it turned up super-sonic it would be lame if messages zipped by in a blink. I usually just kneejerk whenever anyone gives a "time estimate" for how long things take to do - pretty useless. But announcements and messages may be the exception (if T did it right.)

That would mean your framerate would not be 100 FPS

Um.... yeah, you could say that with some confidence.

Actually, I have a theory - that players with slower computers tend to see their individual dwarves work, and so value them more, and get into the "story" - where faster boxes invite an "overview" approach, and the player sees the fortress more as a whole, rarely stopping to see (or care about) the individual dwarves. Faster computer users don't tend to want to stop to consider individual personalities or preferences when choosing professions for a new wave of immigrants - first half into military, second half into haulers - forward! They are heading for the mega project, and that's the important part. Me... I have time to get to know my dwarves on quite the individual basis, whether I want to or not. :\ --Albedo 10:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

More confidence? It's obvious. That's *all* that needed said.

Hmmm? not following you. "Confidence"? - where's that from? Anyway, it's not more of a "game" one way or the other, it's just a different view of/approach to the same game. My theory, anyway. Btw - I think I should delete most of that blather in stone management - it was all based on an illusion, after all, and adds nothing of interest except that I screwed up.--Albedo 18:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I know this topic is more or less dead by now, but I want to point out that your theory has some merit to it, Albedo. I have a computer that can keep DF reasonably speedy (if my screen's overflowing with cats or something, sure, there is a bit of a slowdown). I wasn't even aware you could experience the game so that each dwarf really ... well, matters. Sure, they do if I zoom over em' individually, get to know em' and what they're about, but otherwise my fortress resembles a beehive or swarming colony of ants rather than a complex, genuine community of unique individuals. Don't get me wrong, that's what it inescapably appears to be in the beginning -- seven dwarves, each with their own strengths, weaknesses, sets of tasks, personalities and memorable, user-given nicknames -- but by the time immigrants start swarming in, all of that disappears. The numbers grow and grow, and it becomes inevitable that I treat it as one, huge dwarven super-organism. After getting use to this, playing the game at a rate that would actually allow me to acquaint myself with each one of my dwarves (albeit appreciate them more) sounds... well, dreadful. However, I suppose it'd have a huge upside; battles would be battles! Blow-by-blow blood-fests, not speedy skirmishes that sever tens of dwarves and goblins from the mortal plane in all but the blink of an eye... ¬.¬ --Bronzebeard 03:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

re: 2 secs

That doesn't quite make sense - the framerate depends on the processing ability of the CPU and when paused there is not much to process. The FPS should always cycle up to the max then unless you put the limit pointlessly high. If it was 2 secs at 100 it should be 1 sec at 200, which it clearly isn't. --Birthright 12:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be 1 sec at 50 fps if it was 2 sec at 100? Frandude

So i just did some testing and no matter what the FPS is, unpaused or with q menu, thers no diff at all between 10FPS and 200. Yes, i happen to have a moody dwarf right now. --Birthright 12:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Both actually. I tested this with fortresses that actually run at those speeds unpaused as well as with limiting the cap to the according FPS. --Birthright 15:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)