Print

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

[Noble Digger]

I haven't read all of this thread. The first few pages were such an ugly mire. So I'm only responding to the OP here, mainly.

I agree with what you're trying to accomplish here and I am in the same boat with you. I've developed 20-30 mature fortresses since I started playing this game, and I love the living crap out of it. I love Zack and Tarn for their unusual way of life and for the game they give us by living it. But no matter how much I love DF and how much I want to play it even now, I am just burned out on the bad UI for placing constructions.

Edit: I recall now that Putnam mentions the DFHack plugin that someone suggested it to me last time I was bitching about this, I even downloaded it, I just got busy with work and didn't give it a try yet. I'll do that before I worry about it any more.

[Putnam]

You know that there's a DFHack plugin that fixes that exact problem?

[wierd]

[Especially since we mentioned it in this very thread...]

[Thundercraft]

...{lots of stuff}...

You do have some good points. Granted, there's a lot about coding the game that we do not know. It may be more difficult or complicated than we imagine to have INIT options for certain things. However, I get the distinct impression that Toady tends to resist the idea of adding more INIT options for some reason. Maybe it's my imagination, though.

Dumping the FoTF into the change log, would probably be more noise then anything.

There is a very important difference between what one would like to do, and what one actually does, (and the reasons for the differences.)

I really don't see a benefit to combining the two...

FWIW: I was not suggesting that Toady dump the entire FoTF list into the change log! And I'm not saying he needs to explain all such issues in the release notes.

What I was suggesting is that it would be helpful if he mentioned a few of the more important details about a new release that directly impact gameplay. Something along the lines of,

New stuff

* evil regions where the dead and pieces of the dead can come alive, with evil mists and rain (Note: May be a bit overkill for now. The plan is to implement Pulping in a future release to make them more killable.)

Or, perhaps release notes should have a "Known issues (do not report on bug tracker)" section?

Making such clear to the playerbase would, for example, prevent many of them from confusing such issues with bugs and reporting them as such. Putting this info in the release notes is one way to ensure most players have access to it. (Some of the posts in this thread were complaining about the playerbase confusion between actual bugs and the issues resulting from as-yet-implement features.) And the playerbase might be a little more tolerant of both bugs and issues if they knew such things.

You can not really blame the average DF player for confusing some of these things as bugs when you consider most of the playerbase are not programmers and how certain details about the game (such as I mentioned) are not made widely known. I'm just saying that we need some sort of heads-up if we are expected to understand. We should not be expected to follow every post in the FotF thread or read every comment in every bug report on the bug tracker to know these things!

But I have to disagree with some of your above concerning where you draw the line on what is a bug.  A non-closed parenthesis, or missing a semicolon is a simple typographical bug-- and yes, it's easy to squash. However, a logic bug that makes a function improperly terminate is also a bug, as is a bug where a race condition happens, etc...

Indeed. Those really are bugs.

[Putnam]

Typographical bugs would be caught in general by MSVC anyway.

[wierd]

Indeed.

The nastiest ones are the ones introduced by compiler optimizations.
These are admittedly very rare these days; however, when they turn up "frustrating" barely begins to scratch the surface of how bastardly they can be to squash.

I somehow doubt that the beekeeper bug I mentioned is a compiler optimization based bug; it shows all the signs of just being rushed logic strung together on object types that previously had never even been contemplated as being usable for reactions. (Specifically, wild hives.) As such, establishing proper task locking and tracking would have required adding a whole lot of support code to elevate the randomly spawned hive objects into taskable objects that can be properly tracked and locked for task completion checking.  --code that was either not completed, does not function the way it is intended, or was never implemented. (#TODO: Write object locking code here!)

It's entirely possible that toady simply didn't think that locking would be so noticably necessary as well, and may have been thinking in a "1 beekeeper, takes nearest hive, no problems!" Train of thought. I'm not clairvoyant, so I just don't know. If he has comments in his source code about that, I could never know unless he says something, because the compiler strips that stuff out when the executable gets built, and the best I would have would be a disassembly of the executable portion of the stack. So, it beats the hell out of me, and there is no way I COULD know unless he says something about it. For all I know, there could be dozens of lines of object locking code with comment headers in front of it in toady's source folder.

The point was that this is a known bug, the cause of the bug is known, the mechanics of the bug are well understood, the cause of the bug is well documented, the bug is "famous", and friendly suggestions on how to resolve the bug in a clean fashion are in Mantis already.

It has been 2 releases since the bug was introduced; no love for that bug.
Fixing the bug would make a very large number of users very very happy, and may well be one that a bounty could be attached to. There are other bugs that are equally famous, and vexing.

Trying to say that these are the result of "placeholder" bandaid code can get pretty tortured in some of the circumstances involved. I could sorta see that being the case with tracking wild beehives; toady may well want to roll tracking wild random features like that in with tracking wild features in his expanded elven site code, for instance, to have a more comprehensive framework, but if that's the case, he could save a good deal of kvetching from the player base and bug reporting members of the community by putting a single one-liner to that effect in the bug report, and changing the status from open to pending.

I hate to harp on this one bloody-nosed example, but it pretty cleary sums up a good deal of the frustration that bug reporters have when they report bugs, steps to reproduce the bugs, code analysis of the bugs, and steps to mitigate the effects of bugs--- in the bug tracking system, then basically get a cold shoulder after the bug is accepted as being real.

*shrug*

Rather than a "bug hunt drive", I'd rather see an incentives feature added to mantis, where people can donate a paypal payment, payable upon bug squashing, and add that to bugs they particularly despise.

The money can just sit there until toady gets around to it, and if toady finds he needs money in a hurry (he DOES live in the real world like the rest of us after all), it gives him a place to turn. It wouldn't be a replacement for general donations, but I think it would help incentivise the bug squashing situation a little without being offensive, like a kickstarter would.

The only issue is that toady has openly stated, REPEATEDLY, that money is not what motivates him. As such, I think that there should be a limit on the payout size on any such system, and that toady should get to impose/control those limits.

Eg, "famous bug X is caused by obvious defect, resulting from more hidden but much more difficult and less well known bug Y, and payout for X being greater than payout for Y is illogical." Situation exists, So, Today limits max contributor amount for X, puts a "bug related to bug #XXXXX" link in bold, and sets an appropriate value for fixing Y there.

It wouldn't be because toady thinks fixing Y demands that size payment, it's just a mechanism to prevent highly noticable bugs that would just go away after fixing far more pernicious and less well known ones from having huge payouts, while the latter, being much more work, gets no love at all from the community.  If anything, I would endorse that kind of thing just for the added transparency in development it offers.  It would give a direct value asseement into the work needed to properly address an arbitrary issue in the bug tracker.

And it would be a quick and easy means for toady to get some pocket money every once in a while, should a need arise.

I'm not advocating bribery or extortion here, just a means for value to be conveyed in both directions.

I'd gladly chip 10$ toward the beekeeper bug myself, for instance. I'd greatly like to know if the reason why its gone unaddressed is because of a pending feature enhancing rewrite, or just because it has low priority in toady's mind. As of right now, I don't know either way, and that's kinda demotivating. (Since I helped with the initial bug report on that one personally, and dug into the causes and steps to reproduce portion of the report, as well as instructions on how to mitigate in gameplay.-- I have a personal interest in why it isn't fixed.) It makes me less willing to file additional reports, and to me, that's a bad thing.

[Putnam]

Remember that it's been a year and a half since the last update. We've learned of an incredibly huge amount of bugs in that time that weren't known before and there hasn't exactly been an opportunity to fix them.

[Noble Digger]

You know that there's a DFHack plugin that fixes that exact problem?

I gave this a try last night. It wasn't exactly 100% what I'm looking for, but it definitely improves the issue back to playable levels. As such, I withdraw from this thread, Toady can keep on with simulating goblin babies spitting their pacifiers out and I'll continue to support him

[Leonidus]

So, years ago I stated the obvious, which is that Toady should halt feature addition and work on UI+graphics improvement to help raise enough money for him to have healthcare and retirement.

And of course the giant mass of a-holes obsessed with the idea that the game was fine as it is decided to endlessly deride this.

Well now DF is released on steam in exactly this fashion and for exactly that reason.  And it could have happened ages ago, changing the donations growth curve sooner by getting more players way back then.  But that was, in the view of this board, heretical.

I certainly hope people actually give a damn about the welfare of the creator now.  Thank god he eventually came around to the same conclusion I did.  Looking forward to enjoying the new UI.

he obvious issues are graphics, user interface, and to a lesser extent some features left quasi-functional or vestigial bugs.

The thing is, he prefers to add features (which is great), but doesn't like to change user interface and such because he is going to hate going back and changing it later.  But, people are going to play the game for 10-20 more years before it is released, with the current bad interface and related issues.

So, the solution is: start a kickstarter, raise a ton of money, and essentially hire Toady as a code mercenary for a just 1 year to make things better for the next 20.

If any of you actually give a damn about the game and Toady, you need to see past your own insanity and start living in reality. 

The UI is not a problem? 

Acting like the UI is the only problem? 

You think Toady doesn't care about his retirement?  You think he doesn't care about his healthcare?  He mentioned it in an interview already, that his healthcare plan is don't have one.

No, you'd rather get your extra 6 month or year worth of features.  That's what you really care about?  Did ruling over dwarves destroy your humanity?

I can't even breathe right now. Too much laugh.

Thank you for making my day.

I seriously hope this is sarcasm. If it's not, well, you are obviously new here. Try learning about the game, community, and most importantly Toady before spending your time pondering something like this.

ZOMG!! QUICK, WE HAVE TO SAVE DWARF FORTRESS FROM TOADY!! 

The UI is functional. It works. It might be butt-ugly and a bit convoluted but it does its job. If you've played DF as much as you say you have then surely you've grown past worrying about the UI. I (and most other players) would much prefer new game features than reworking of things that already work exactly as intended and really wouldn't contribute to expanding the game in ay way.

This is awesome sauce.

The OP is the original 'bad girlfriend' - "No, baby, I love you, I just want to help you by getting you to change everything about yourself to make you better!"

Contrary to passive-aggressive canon, the solution to someone else working in a way you don't like is NOT to find a "gift" to give them that freaking enslaves them to your will.  Go back to your hole, shade of Sauron.

LOL

As for the UI, please for the love of Armok understand, that this game cannot be controlled efficiently with a mouse and some colourful icons.

TL;DR: Go play starcraft and stop trying to understand commited gaming. You obviously can't.

[Shonai_Dweller]

So, years ago I stated the obvious, which is that Toady should halt feature addition and work on UI+graphics improvement to help raise enough money for him to have healthcare and retirement.

And of course the giant mass of a-holes obsessed with the idea that the game was fine as it is decided to endlessly deride this.

Well now DF is released on steam in exactly this fashion and for exactly that reason.  And it could have happened ages ago, changing the donations growth curve sooner by getting more players way back then.  But that was, in the view of this board, heretical.

I certainly hope people actually give a damn about the welfare of the creator now.  Thank god he eventually came around to the same conclusion I did.  Looking forward to enjoying the new UI.

he obvious issues are graphics, user interface, and to a lesser extent some features left quasi-functional or vestigial bugs.

The thing is, he prefers to add features (which is great), but doesn't like to change user interface and such because he is going to hate going back and changing it later.  But, people are going to play the game for 10-20 more years before it is released, with the current bad interface and related issues.

So, the solution is: start a kickstarter, raise a ton of money, and essentially hire Toady as a code mercenary for a just 1 year to make things better for the next 20.

If any of you actually give a damn about the game and Toady, you need to see past your own insanity and start living in reality. 

The UI is not a problem? 

Acting like the UI is the only problem? 

You think Toady doesn't care about his retirement?  You think he doesn't care about his healthcare?  He mentioned it in an interview already, that his healthcare plan is don't have one.

No, you'd rather get your extra 6 month or year worth of features.  That's what you really care about?  Did ruling over dwarves destroy your humanity?

I can't even breathe right now. Too much laugh.

Thank you for making my day.

I seriously hope this is sarcasm. If it's not, well, you are obviously new here. Try learning about the game, community, and most importantly Toady before spending your time pondering something like this.

ZOMG!! QUICK, WE HAVE TO SAVE DWARF FORTRESS FROM TOADY!! 

The UI is functional. It works. It might be butt-ugly and a bit convoluted but it does its job. If you've played DF as much as you say you have then surely you've grown past worrying about the UI. I (and most other players) would much prefer new game features than reworking of things that already work exactly as intended and really wouldn't contribute to expanding the game in ay way.

This is awesome sauce.

The OP is the original 'bad girlfriend' - "No, baby, I love you, I just want to help you by getting you to change everything about yourself to make you better!"

Contrary to passive-aggressive canon, the solution to someone else working in a way you don't like is NOT to find a "gift" to give them that freaking enslaves them to your will.  Go back to your hole, shade of Sauron.

LOL

As for the UI, please for the love of Armok understand, that this game cannot be controlled efficiently with a mouse and some colourful icons.

TL;DR: Go play starcraft and stop trying to understand commited gaming. You obviously can't.

It would not have happened a long time ago. It happened because Tarn wanted it to happen as opposed to 10 years ago when he didn't.
Not because someone on the Internet happened to predict the reason.

[Great Order]

Got to say that I do admire the commitment here. You dug up a 9 year old thread (And account, I assume a throwaway?) to complain about something you wanted to happen happening.

[brewer bob]

Got to say that I do admire the commitment here. You dug up a 9 year old thread (And account, I assume a throwaway?) to complain about something you wanted to happen happening.

Not to mention cherry picking comments and calling those people 'a-holes'...

[Strife26]

Got to say that I do admire the commitment here. You dug up a 9 year old thread (And account, I assume a throwaway?) to complain about something you wanted to happen happening.

Not to mention cherry picking comments and calling those people 'a-holes'...

I mean, in his defense, those are pretty dick-ish comments and the underlying thesis that "if Toady wanted to invest a bunch of time and effort into the UI, there would be more financial stability" was also correct. Still, bad look all around.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Should also point out that likely the only people arguing against you were those who didn't bother to read the development notes which (since way before 2013) included:

PRESENTATION ARC: A cleaner interface and more interface and display options will make the game more accessible. Better support for translations.

Core52, INTERFACE OVERHAUL, (Future): A coherent interface, additional options and mouse support.

It was never a case of Toady being told by internet people that he didn't need to make a clean interface with a mouse and icons. Just a matter of when (2022).