Print

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

[Max™]

Cathelms was 19 years old, it was only a 1x2 but it was something stupid like 300...maybe 350 z from the height where the eagles spawned, like 100~150 z to the glacier where they hit and exploded when the constant rain of pretty blue ruphie juice knocked them out.

That sentence sounds completely insane out of context. Just thought I'd point it out.

Just as insane with context.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Billy Jack]

Yikes!
All the talk about age earlier in the thread got me dreaming of our TRS-80. Dad saw I was itching to get my hands on it, handed me the stack of manuals and said I could use it after I had read it all.

three days later I taught him how to use his computer. (I'm 46)

On a side note, when Microsoft came out with Multiplan in '82, he was thinking to either invest in it or his own construction business. 20:20 hindsight is a bitch.


Anyway, LONG LIVE THE FORTRESS!!!

[MobRules]

That sentence sounds completely insane out of context. Just thought I'd point it out.

How many sentences about Dwarf Fortress games don't sound completely insane out of context?

[Bumber]

Cathelms was 19 years old, it was only a 1x2 but it was something stupid like 300...maybe 350 z from the height where the eagles spawned, like 100~150 z to the glacier where they hit and exploded when the constant rain of pretty blue ruphie juice knocked them out.

That sentence sounds completely insane out of context. Just thought I'd point it out.

Just as insane with context.

Well, not quite. There are details only overseers/gamers would pick up on:

Cathelms (presumably a fort named Cat-Helms, not a person) was 19 years old, it was only a 1x2 (this is the size of the embark, not an unrelated wooden plank) but it was something stupid like 300...maybe 350 (350 could be the sequel to 300) z from the height where the eagles spawned (entered the map, not like fish eggs), like 100~150 z to the glacier where they hit and exploded (they splattered, the eagles were probably not strapped with explosives) when the constant rain of pretty blue ruphie juice knocked them out (somebody's on drugs, and it's not just the eagles).

[TheBiggerFish]

PTW.

[Salmeuk]

Here's my current DF cycle: I view the devlog each day. After a release I just intrinsically "know" the game is completely unplayable for 2+ months because, well, it just is.

I don't think I'm alone. I'd go so far as to say this is 'the norm'.

This is 2016. The idea of a solo dev just doing his thing and coding out a game isn't a novel idea anymore. DF runs the risk of being left behind. It's ok to acknowledge that fear.

I snipped your quote down to the points I disagree with. DF can't be left behind because it's not in the running. There's no compulsion to make a profit, meaning there's no real issue if playerbase dwindles (which it won't). The devs survive of donations, sure, but thats way different from a corporate project's need for projected profit.

I find the new updates playable because they just are.

And it's alright to be afraid but projecting that fear onto the entire playerbase seems a bit silly.

I was also the guy who said those things about the "mythology" of df's gameplay, but I said them for a different reason than you thought. The "correct" way to play DF is to generate these myths on the fly while you play, using your own imagination to construct additional narrative. A side effect of this style of play is that people misinterpret DF-based stories as entirely game-derived. To see this in action, go read Boatmurdered or some equally famous story and list out the things that actually happened in game, vs. those things that were made up for the story. That fortress was great not because of the DF game engine but because of the awesome writers and their narrative tone. The catch is that without DF they would have nothing to write about.

It's pretty much a personal opinion, but I doubt DF will ever reach the point where it can completely replace that human creativity. If you play this game for it's simulation aspects you will probably be disappointed by the interface, the bugs, and the incomplete gameplay.  If you play as if it was some magical, infinitely devourable fact-fractal from which to glean inspiration then there's not much to complain about.

[KillzEmAllGod]

7 years is a long time for a computer, time for a new one had my last one for 5. replaced mine at the start of the year, it was AMD 3.2 GHZ 6 core (was running at a unstable 3.72) and the motherboard pretty much died. So went with an i7 6700k. gained about 40 fps around on the forts I had about a 50% improvement running, it at 4.4 GHZ now.

I wouldn't really say DF is going to die from the lack of multi threading anytime soon, lets just wait and see what 64 bit brings in terms of performance. 42.0x really feels like its running a lot better then 40.24, I was able to play one fortress in 40.24 till 15 fps when a undead siege of 100s showed up and pretty much murdered everyone. Last time I was playing was 34.11 and that got down to 20 fps like 6 or 5 years in on a 6x6 map. Mainly just play at a cap of 100 fps and with the graphics set to 30.

It would be great to be able to play larger map areas once more, geographical features you get at 6x6 can make the location of the fort awesome.

[cochramd]

I was also the guy who said those things about the "mythology" of df's gameplay, but I said them for a different reason than you thought. The "correct" way to play DF is to generate these myths on the fly while you play, using your own imagination to construct additional narrative. A side effect of this style of play is that people misinterpret DF-based stories as entirely game-derived. To see this in action, go read Boatmurdered or some equally famous story and list out the things that actually happened in game, vs. those things that were made up for the story. That fortress was great not because of the DF game engine but because of the awesome writers and their narrative tone. The catch is that without DF they would have nothing to write about.

It's pretty much a personal opinion, but I doubt DF will ever reach the point where it can completely replace that human creativity. If you play this game for it's simulation aspects you will probably be disappointed by the interface, the bugs, and the incomplete gameplay.  If you play as if it was some magical, infinitely devourable fact-fractal from which to glean inspiration then there's not much to complain about.

I'd still say that DF's engine has gotten much better at providing inspiration for storytelling, even if it's mostly limited to combat and injuries.

[DG]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'd like to think I fall in the category of longterm fan - I have been playing and following the game since I graduated high school in 2006.

I find this thread - and the attitude it represents - very frustrating

You can love the game and love Toady and still think the game is going down the wrong path. In fact, would say that by any objective metric Dwarf Fortress is not doing things "correctly" or even "very well"

Here's my current DF cycle: I view the devlog each day. After a release I just intrinsically "know" the game is completely unplayable for 2+ months because, well, it just is. After those 2 months are up I boot it up and toy around with it until I hit one of the many (years-old) game-breaking bugs. This repeats until my patience wears thin and I drop the game until the new release

I don't think I'm alone. I'd go so far as to say this is 'the norm'

This is "fine"; Toady doesn't owe me anything. I'm well off enough that I can afford a monthly donation, and I feel good about it, and I don't expect anything in return.

But how long can this cycle actually last? A previous poster did a great job describing the "myth" that is Dwarf Fortress. We tell each other stories and twist and distort the truth to fit our narratives. Readers get intrigued and maybe try to check it out themselves and then...well, it's a complete fucking mess, right?

Technical debt is called that for a reason. It's not going to go away on its own just because we want it to. It slows Toady down, it prevents new users from picking it up, and it causes old users to give up

This is 2016. The idea of a solo dev just doing his thing and coding out a game isn't a novel idea anymore. DF runs the risk of being left behind. It's ok to acknowledge that fear. That fear is not unfounded.

You seem conflicted. At least it seems that you could be if you're happy about donating to an effectively unplayable complete fucking mess that won't go away. Have you thought about it much? Are you rewarding Toady for what he has already made? Maybe you're still hopeful that things will change. But you've made it clear that you don't think Toady's approach will change on its own, so if it's hope, about the only hope left for you is that the fans will encourage Toady to change. Which I understand would make threads like this one very frustrating.

Anyway, it's unlikely to change while fans keep donating, even disgruntled ones who may or may not be the norm.

[SirPenguin]

I wouldn't say I'm conflicted. I like the game a lot, and I like Toady a lot, so I donate

It could be so much more, and I wish it was. But to get there we'd need Toady to make radical changes to himself. That's crazy to expect or to even ask for.

[quekwoambojish]

I wouldn't say I'm conflicted. I like the game a lot, and I like Toady a lot, so I donate

It could be so much more, and I wish it was. But to get there we'd need Toady to make radical changes to himself. That's crazy to expect or to even ask for.

Just curious, have you played much adventure mode? I know a lot of players who've played for a while started to feel 'meh' about the direction of things, but failed to realize there's a TON of content being pumped out into adventure mode on a regular basis (since a lot of vets have adventure mode stigma for reason).

I understand that didn't address your specific points, it's just something I was wondering.

[Max™]

^Basically this. I build forts to accomplish a specific thing and/or advance time more rapidly. I adventure to see crazy shit happen, find neat sites to build forts at, watch people go about their ever more interesting little lives, and try out new stupid dorf tricks. The 42.xx bump feels like a lot more than 2 percentage bumps in adventurer mode involvement/world activity/interaction/fun/!!Fun!! from my perspective, but I started with 40.24 and only did a bit of 34.11 and earlier versions experimentally a little.

[Robsoie]

42.x is a great improvement over 40.x

I had ceased to play 40.x adventure mode once i saw all what was new in comparison to 34.11, because i couldn't find any more fun after that due to several of 40.x specific problems, and i even went back to 34.11 for my adventure mode needs, it simply was more entertaining.

But with 42.x, several of my annoyances with 40.x adventure mode are no more, and i found myself having fun again.

For fortress mode, out of the fps death problem that has plagued the game since so many releases, i didn't had much to complain, and the library/temple/tavern fixed the moral -> massive depression with enough years my forts had with 40.x, so all in all DF moving forward in an interesting way again to me.