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 "User talk:N9103"

From Dwarf Fortress Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Clean slate)
 
(53 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__
−
== Persona Grata ==
+
== Comments/Opinions/Rants Welcome Here ==
−
[[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] - Bad Edit Finder<br>
 
−
[[User:GarrieIrons|GarrieIrons]] - Formatting Helper<br>
 
−
<br>
 
−
== Test Space ==
 
−
<br>
 
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
−
== Comments/Opinions/Rants Welcome Here ==
 
−
 
−
 
−
 
−
===Archive that's still relevant===
 
−
The reason for deleting old pre-generated worlds is that mineral types and abundances changed several times in recent versions, rendering the old worlds (especially ones pre-33f) outdated and inconsistent with those the game currently produces.  Pre-generated worlds are "independent of version" only in the limited sense that they will still load.
 
−
 
−
I propose to re-do my edit.  I also request that you modify the claim of version independence. Please let me know if you have a problem with either of these things.  [[User:Fedor|Fedor]] 15:21, 15 January 2008 (EST)
 
−
 
−
RE: PreGen Worlds<br>
 
−
I don't see why inconsistencies with new worlds is a reason to remove them, as most everything outside mineral layering/concentration is still identical, and those changes are irrelevant to a particular world still being usable.
 
−
If, on the other hand, layers are changed when loading the world, then that would indeed cause the sites (if any) associated with the world to become invalid.<br>
 
−
One primary function of the PreGen is simply to avoid having to use the time to generate the world, and if no other reason is valid, then this alone should be considered good enough reason to keep them around unless there are far too many, which I don't believe there are, yet.<br>
 
−
I would propose that a topic on the discussion page calling for a cleaning of the older PreGens exist for a week to receive any opposition, before the actual removal.<br>
 
−
 
−
If you still believe they should be removed now, (as opposed to the proposed week,) then feel free to revert my change.<br>
 
−
Sincerely,<br>
 
−
[[User:N9103|Edward]] 16:32, 15 January 2008 (EST)
 
−
 
−
 
−
Have read your message.  I will cheerfully go along with a week's delay for further community input.  Let's move all our existing commentary into the new section (you can do this yourself or you can give me permission to include your text).
 
−
 
−
Another argument for the discussion:  I quite agree that the older pre-generated worlds are still perfectly playable.  But a person downloading a pre-generated world can safely be assumed to want something created with the current rules, and should not be given a world made with significantly different material abundances (especially since lot of minerals and gems were simply missing before).  This is especially true for worlds made in 33e and earlier, but honestly I think everything pre-33g ought to go.  If a particular world is especially unique, we could consider adding it to the seed archive page, but I really don't think any of the old pre-gen worlds qualify.  I certainly know my old pre-gen world didn't! :) [[User:Fedor|Fedor]] 01:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)
 
  
−
== Problems/Mistakes/Corrections ==
+
== Problems/mistakes/corrections ==
−
<small>Forgive me for the occasional slip up. Just make a note here of where I managed to screw up, so that I may endeavor to learn from my mistakes.--[[User:N9103|N9103]] 15:54, 23 December 2007 (EST)</small><br>
+
<sup>Forgive me for the occasional slip up. Just make a note here of where I managed to screw up, so that I may endeavor to learn from my mistakes.</sup>
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
−
 
−
== Re: unknown version ==
 
−
 
−
Try to ctrl+f for the string '?' on that page and you'll see it :)
 
−
 
−
Any page that uses [[template:version]] gets a category; it just gets thrown into the unknown category if there isnt already a category for that particular version. SL uses <nowiki>{{version|33g}}</nowiki> on that userpage (which isnt categorized&mdash;0.27.169.33g is), which is why it gets thrown into the "unknown" category. I mostly made that change because having that stuff on userpages is pretty harmless (and not really worth hunting imho), but I still don't want [[special:wantedcategories]] to get cluttered with them. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 19:17, 23 January 2008 (EST)
 
−
:Weird, cause I did that while editing the whole page and never got anything calling for a template... Just weird. -Ed
 

Latest revision as of 19:07, 21 May 2015

Comments/Opinions/Rants Welcome Here[edit]



Problems/mistakes/corrections[edit]

Forgive me for the occasional slip up. Just make a note here of where I managed to screw up, so that I may endeavor to learn from my mistakes.

Retrieved from "https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:N9103&oldid=219069"