- 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.
Difference between revisions of "v0.31 Talk:Release information"
(→new.df/wagn?: new section) |
|||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
: I think that's a great idea. I think the best thing to do though is take this article after release and have some brief "overview" information about the version. Some details about the major features (ex: "[[Burrows]] allow you to group dwarves into particular areas"), and then we can have a list of changes afterwords. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 19:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | : I think that's a great idea. I think the best thing to do though is take this article after release and have some brief "overview" information about the version. Some details about the major features (ex: "[[Burrows]] allow you to group dwarves into particular areas"), and then we can have a list of changes afterwords. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 19:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Well, what I'd rather ''not'' see is a quick and dirty "explanation" of a subject - like "burrows", which is then fully explained elsewhere - that breaks the "no redundancy" rule, and accomplishes little that the main article wouldn't (in theory). Rather, these would act as a clearing house, trying to give players a rough overview of what articles they ''should'' read and what are less important. For "burrows", a simple line like ''"Burrows allow you to group your dwarves by area - read [[burrows]]"''. Each user can then decide if they want to read that or not. But for game-''critical'' changes, like how a dwarf heals, these articles would emphasize that "You should read how it works now". And the flipside, for those that are completely behind the scenes, the user is told they can safely ignore them if they choose and their fortress won't fail because of the changes.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 20:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) | ::Well, what I'd rather ''not'' see is a quick and dirty "explanation" of a subject - like "burrows", which is then fully explained elsewhere - that breaks the "no redundancy" rule, and accomplishes little that the main article wouldn't (in theory). Rather, these would act as a clearing house, trying to give players a rough overview of what articles they ''should'' read and what are less important. For "burrows", a simple line like ''"Burrows allow you to group your dwarves by area - read [[burrows]]"''. Each user can then decide if they want to read that or not. But for game-''critical'' changes, like how a dwarf heals, these articles would emphasize that "You should read how it works now". And the flipside, for those that are completely behind the scenes, the user is told they can safely ignore them if they choose and their fortress won't fail because of the changes.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 20:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == new.df/wagn? == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The links to new.df.magmawiki.net/wagn/Burrows aren't working. What was that pointing to? --[[User:Bombcar|Bombcar]] 21:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:33, 27 March 2010
50-100 layers? That’s so sweetdwarfish! Looking forward!– unsigned comment by WFrag
- Looking forward to a lot of game lag! Can you say 1 frame/second? Urgh... (and remember to sign your comments, pls!)--Albedo 05:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
"The material system has been rewritten, and just about everything is made from a material now." Does this potentially mean that constructions can burn and melt now with the 2010 version?--Jargo 2:48 PST, March 02 2010
- I think I remember hearing Toady say that constructions *wouldn't* burn or melt yet, but I could be imagining that. --Doomchild 20:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Will dwarfs realize fire is bad? - anon
This page is in dire need of material links.
how about armor for wardogs? Wunksta 21:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Overview of "2010" once it's released?
Once the new version is released, the new articles will start being written (as "fact", rather than guesswork) - cool. Then this page will be... what? I'm wondering... Mason posted this:
I had actually originally intended to take the DF2010 article and split it into a bunch of articles so people can read about each of the new features in a full article that would later develop into the details when they were available after release.
Well, that's not practical for a number of reasons, as we're finding out.
But would it be an idea to break this article into a very few "What has changed?" articles, to help players know what they should read up on? Some stuff won't change, a LOT of stuff won't matter in game play (raw changes, "hair", some combat, etc), some will be optional/advanced (for example, you either use Burrows, or you don't - but if you don't, the game won't kill you for your oversight. I hope.) But some will be IMPORTANT to know and be aware of - and while we don't want redundant articles explaining those changes, an article pointing to the important, critical changes that players "should read" might be a good thing, and a natural development from this article.
~IF~ users want to go there, this should be broken up into a series of several categories, linked from the top of this page - perhaps each titled "Ver1234: What has changed with _______". In those, one will not see the changes, merely a list of what has changed, and links to those articles. I see "What has changed with: Combat (inc Arenas, which is a "combat sandbox"), Healing, the World (inc creatures, materials, the map, underground features, world gen)... and I think that might cover it. If someone wanted to do Modding, I could certainly see that too, even if it overlapped with some of the above.
Again - these would not be overview - the idea is that not much detail whatsoever will be on these pages, rather to simply point to those articles that will explain the important changes in that category, and be tighter and more relevant to "important changes" than this beast. Thoughts?--Albedo 16:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think that's a great idea. I think the best thing to do though is take this article after release and have some brief "overview" information about the version. Some details about the major features (ex: "Burrows allow you to group dwarves into particular areas"), and then we can have a list of changes afterwords. Mason (T-C) 19:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, what I'd rather not see is a quick and dirty "explanation" of a subject - like "burrows", which is then fully explained elsewhere - that breaks the "no redundancy" rule, and accomplishes little that the main article wouldn't (in theory). Rather, these would act as a clearing house, trying to give players a rough overview of what articles they should read and what are less important. For "burrows", a simple line like "Burrows allow you to group your dwarves by area - read burrows". Each user can then decide if they want to read that or not. But for game-critical changes, like how a dwarf heals, these articles would emphasize that "You should read how it works now". And the flipside, for those that are completely behind the scenes, the user is told they can safely ignore them if they choose and their fortress won't fail because of the changes.--Albedo 20:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
new.df/wagn?
The links to new.df.magmawiki.net/wagn/Burrows aren't working. What was that pointing to? --Bombcar 21:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)