v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
  • v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
  • Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.

Difference between revisions of "40d Talk:How to safely start fortress mode"

From Dwarf Fortress Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(correct)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
== Correctness ==
 +
There is no "correct" way to start fortress mode except from not picking Adventure Mode or Legends or Create New World on the main menu screen. It's entirely proper to embark with no skills and absolutely no supplies and watch your seven dwarves go crazy and die in the terrifying glacier. --[[User:Rkyeun|Rkyeun]] 12:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 +
 
''Farm size: 10x10 of plump helmets without fertilizing will feed 500 dwarves. A 5x5 field WITH fertilizing will feed about 500 dwarves. Do the math. (Rough estimates. Untested.) -Yanlin ''
 
''Farm size: 10x10 of plump helmets without fertilizing will feed 500 dwarves. A 5x5 field WITH fertilizing will feed about 500 dwarves. Do the math. (Rough estimates. Untested.) -Yanlin ''
  

Revision as of 17:03, 18 November 2008

Correctness

There is no "correct" way to start fortress mode except from not picking Adventure Mode or Legends or Create New World on the main menu screen. It's entirely proper to embark with no skills and absolutely no supplies and watch your seven dwarves go crazy and die in the terrifying glacier. --Rkyeun 12:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Farm size: 10x10 of plump helmets without fertilizing will feed 500 dwarves. A 5x5 field WITH fertilizing will feed about 500 dwarves. Do the math. (Rough estimates. Untested.) -Yanlin

Is this with or without boozecooking? Random832 23:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Reformatting this page

This page breaks from the style used on the rest of the wiki -- it's a dump of opinions and suggestions instead of a collaborative, well-organized article. The problem with this is evident in how people are just arguing with each other on the page (that's what talk pages are for) instead of putting their heads together to offer readers streamlined, practical advice.

Can we do some discussion here of what its general advice and structure should be, then rewrite it?--Maximus 21:38, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Having a bunch of different viewpoints in the page is fine to me as long as it doesn't look like a big argument :P --Xonara 01:48, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I was thinking about this too, but the unfortunate hurdle is that there's no good way to put in a 'generally agreed upon' sort of structure, and there's a lot of strong feelings that run both ways with many things. Perhaps the better way to do this would merely be to take the names out of it. Just put a heading and a couple of equally-bulleted points with the various views, possibly with the dates these views were last updated. A large part of my issue is that most of the advice on the page is clearly from many moons ago (the cats comments being the most noticable). The anvil discussion, for example, could then just be broken down into three bullets, one which suggests crafts, a second which suggests mechanisms, and a third which suggests meals.
A reformat does need to happen, though. This wiki is really shortwinded on useful, coherant gameplay advice (MANY of the Beginners FAQ pages need total rewrites that I'll probably get to sooner rather than later) and I'd really like to see that change. --ThunderClaw 02:09, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Removing the signatures is definitely the starting point -- it will allow us to treat what's on the page as "our words" instead of "my words".
I don't think "general agreement" is out of reach -- for any subject, there will be obviously bad advice, obviously good advice, and stuff that will largely depend on how you like to play the game. Our current dispute over trade goods is like that: crafts, mechanisms, meals, and clothes can all be effective trade goods; we can list their respective advantages and disadvantages and leave it for the player to decide what approach he or she wants to take. We just need to avoid the "One True Approach" mentality, except where everyone agrees that a given idea is Very Good or Very Bad.
While we're at it, the page title needs to be changed -- though we can do that after it becomes clear what direction the rewrite is taking it in.--Maximus 03:38, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
I'll give the page a once-over tomorrow and give my initial thoughts on what should be changed then.--Maximus 03:42, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
It shouldn't take too long. Click Edit, hit Ctrl-A, and type {{Del}}. Profit. --Juckto 04:40, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Reformat is done. Someone else can deal with the nomenclature. --ThunderClaw 13:14, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

You did an excellent job with the rewrite. I made various changes and expansions, and there's other stuff I want to add over the next several days.--Maximus 04:04, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I really think that a better name for this page would be "General Advice," since that's all it really is, and "Correctly" starting a fortress is mostly a matter of opinion and we're trying to make the page look less opinionated. The page could be very helpful and I think that once it's worked on a bit it could go on the main page. --Xonara 21:00, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, "general advice" is a little too general. At this point, I want to see what kind of changes we make to other related pages, such as your first fortress. Once we define the role of each better, it should be clear what this page should be named.--Maximus 04:04, 31 October 2008 (EDT)