Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21

Author Topic: On Rubble: Treading on Unstable Ground...  (Read 53562 times)

xeniorn

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: On Rubble: Treading on Unstable Ground...
« Reply #285 on: May 20, 2012, 12:55:11 pm »

Hell, while we are at it why not make it so that the dwarves have to wash all the dishes from the meals? I mean in the real world you can't just eat and have nothing to account for right?

Also how come they don't make their beds after sleeping? it makes no sense since I have to make my bed everyday in here, and how come I don't see them going to the bathroom? in the real world people go to the bathroom, so clearly we have a problem here, and after bathrooms are added they will have to be cleaned of course, since in the real world we can't just leave the bathrooms unattended now can we?

I say there should be a new job for servants which would require it's own set of skills and also the manufacturing of specific cleaning products, after all in the real world washing a toilet with soap just wouldn't be enough, I can't wait to train my legendary dishwasher.

Instead of contributing, you decided to simply mock.

In the real world, fortunately you can eat and not leave anything behind. Think of every dwarf as carrying a small wooden or leathery dish, which he uses to carry his food from the stockpile to the table. He then proceeds to omnomnom the food, leaving nothing behind except some grime maybe, which is decided not to be implemented just like dwarven excrement in general isn't. Dwarven beds needn't be made since they are just wooden frames, not your modern bed covered in white sheets and with a blanket... Not that you'd have to make your bed ever anyway in the real life if you didn't want to. Dwarves are obviously unconcerned by untidiness.

People in 1400s didn't really wash their dishes or their "toilets" anyway. Even when they did, they definitely didn't use soap. They used mechanical scrubbing and water only.

DF is not The Sims. It revolves much more about digging than tending to individual dwarves' needs. You generally tend to the needs to your fort's people as a whole, not dwarf-by-dwarf. Rubble is something that's a problem of the whole fort. Taking a leak or a dump definitely isn't, it's just some more random dirt lying around, a lot of which you already have from all that digging. You can even imagine dwarves don't ever need to go to a toilet, that they just leak their excrement through sweating and breathing. There's nothing especially unbelievable in that, unlike digging leaving huge amounts of material at some times, but leaving only empty space at others... And being able to dig straight down with same ease as you can dig horizontally. If you ever tried digging a larger hole, you'd know how quick it becomes much easier to widen a hole than to deepen it, which is one of the things rubble should be able to help simulate.
Logged
This Wine tastes like schist!
Shut your mouth and admire some gneiss furniture.

Buttery_Mess

  • Bay Watcher
  • 11x11
    • View Profile
Re: On Rubble: Treading on Unstable Ground...
« Reply #286 on: May 20, 2012, 02:33:21 pm »

I'd still like sewage in the game, along with some other fluids, like perhaps oil.
Logged
But .... It's so small!
It's not the size of the pick that counts... it's the size of the man with the pick.
Quote from: Toady One
Naturally, we'd like to make life miserable for everybody, randomly, but that'll take some doing.

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: On Rubble: Treading on Unstable Ground...
« Reply #287 on: May 20, 2012, 03:02:53 pm »

I've made a rather extensive case for bodily waste to be added into the game for the purpose of making farming more meaningful, actually. 

Historically, humanity has made great use of the chemical properties of urine and feces.  They're one of humanity's great, easily replinished resources, so it makes perfect sense for them to have used them to their utmost.  Lant (distilled urine) was so valuable in some communities that not giving up your pee to the community industry was a crime. 

From the Improved Farming thread:
Urine and Feces  (or more specifically, decomposition and rot):
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Fertilizers
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare

onarum

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: On Rubble: Treading on Unstable Ground...
« Reply #288 on: May 20, 2012, 06:00:42 pm »

Hell, while we are at it why not make it so that the dwarves have to wash all the dishes from the meals? I mean in the real world you can't just eat and have nothing to account for right?

Also how come they don't make their beds after sleeping? it makes no sense since I have to make my bed everyday in here, and how come I don't see them going to the bathroom? in the real world people go to the bathroom, so clearly we have a problem here, and after bathrooms are added they will have to be cleaned of course, since in the real world we can't just leave the bathrooms unattended now can we?

I say there should be a new job for servants which would require it's own set of skills and also the manufacturing of specific cleaning products, after all in the real world washing a toilet with soap just wouldn't be enough, I can't wait to train my legendary dishwasher.

Instead of contributing, you decided to simply mock.

In the real world, fortunately you can eat and not leave anything behind. Think of every dwarf as carrying a small wooden or leathery dish, which he uses to carry his food from the stockpile to the table. He then proceeds to omnomnom the food, leaving nothing behind except some grime maybe, which is decided not to be implemented just like dwarven excrement in general isn't. Dwarven beds needn't be made since they are just wooden frames, not your modern bed covered in white sheets and with a blanket... Not that you'd have to make your bed ever anyway in the real life if you didn't want to. Dwarves are obviously unconcerned by untidiness.

People in 1400s didn't really wash their dishes or their "toilets" anyway. Even when they did, they definitely didn't use soap. They used mechanical scrubbing and water only.

DF is not The Sims. It revolves much more about digging than tending to individual dwarves' needs. You generally tend to the needs to your fort's people as a whole, not dwarf-by-dwarf. Rubble is something that's a problem of the whole fort. Taking a leak or a dump definitely isn't, it's just some more random dirt lying around, a lot of which you already have from all that digging. You can even imagine dwarves don't ever need to go to a toilet, that they just leak their excrement through sweating and breathing. There's nothing especially unbelievable in that, unlike digging leaving huge amounts of material at some times, but leaving only empty space at others... And being able to dig straight down with same ease as you can dig horizontally. If you ever tried digging a larger hole, you'd know how quick it becomes much easier to widen a hole than to deepen it, which is one of the things rubble should be able to help simulate.

My point is that people often forget that this is supposed to be a game, and games are supposed to be fun(I mean real fun, not "Fun"), digging is only 1 aspect of DF, if I have to keep nursing the dwarfs every little step they take in the depths because of rubble it will be a major pain in the ass.

Again this is a game, its not supposed to be realistic it's supposed to be fun, if Toady was to simulate every little aspect to every common actions taken into the game it stops being a game and starts felling like a job.

But whatever if this ever gets added I hope he adds a switch to turn it off because it's just ridiculously stupid, you people are crazy...
Logged

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: On Rubble: Treading on Unstable Ground...
« Reply #289 on: May 20, 2012, 06:19:08 pm »

My point is that people often forget that this is supposed to be a game, and games are supposed to be fun(I mean real fun, not "Fun"), digging is only 1 aspect of DF, if I have to keep nursing the dwarfs every little step they take in the depths because of rubble it will be a major pain in the ass.

Again this is a game, its not supposed to be realistic it's supposed to be fun, if Toady was to simulate every little aspect to every common actions taken into the game it stops being a game and starts felling like a job.

But whatever if this ever gets added I hope he adds a switch to turn it off because it's just ridiculously stupid, you people are crazy...

The thing you're forgetting is that for many players, the simulation IS the fun. 

See the playstyles discussion thread or DF Talk 17.

The people who want the game to be harder are the people who want a better game. Further, there are people who are pretty content as "observers" of the simulation. 

Much of these arguments seem to come from the "constructionists" who only want DF to ever be lego sets to build with, and constantly declare any sort of gameplay challenges or simulation experiences to be "not a game anymore". 

In fact, there was someone in this thread out-and-out saying they didn't want Toady to do any more work because they didn't want DF to become any more complex.

For that, all I can say is, "If you want nothing but legos, you can turn sieges off, you can turn eating off," etc. etc. because that's not what the game is meant to be, and that's not what most of the players of the game want out of the game. 
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare

Mudcrab

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: On Rubble: Treading on Unstable Ground...
« Reply #290 on: May 20, 2012, 06:54:27 pm »

Earlier on I disagreed with the idea (albeit stupidly and pointlessly) Since then I have actually come round to it more after reading the thread and the ideas posted. However you guys immediately made me out to be a "constructionist" assuming all I cared about was building and killing stuff.

In fact, I really enjoy the simulationanist aspects of the game, keeping my dwarves fed with awesome meals is one of my favourite parts of the game (I know its very simple, please don't jump down my throat.... Kohaku...). On the other hand, I turn off aquifers, mainly because I have never even attempted to deal with them, I am an incredibly lazy person. I want to master all the gameplay aspects of DF, but find it hard to get the motivation.

Basically just because someone doesn't want to see certain things implemented it doesn't mean you can then categorize them, obviously players of DF enjoy it for various reasons. You can't have a massive go at people for not going with the idea that youve proposed, it is important to keep DF fun in ways that all those who play it can enjoy. However I accept that posters such as myself have put forward our opinions quite unneccesarily, but DF is a lovely game and people tend to get quite emotional over it!  :P

This is a game for hardcore gamers only, you can't argue that. Yes there are varying levels of that 'hardcoreness' but can't we all just get along? Either way such a feature is highly likely to be toggleable so there is no need for posters like onarum (and earlier myself) to have a massive rant.

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: On Rubble: Treading on Unstable Ground...
« Reply #291 on: May 20, 2012, 07:16:51 pm »

Earlier on I disagreed with the idea (albeit stupidly and pointlessly) Since then I have actually come round to it more after reading the thread and the ideas posted. However you guys immediately made me out to be a "constructionist" assuming all I cared about was building and killing stuff.

In fact, I really enjoy the simulationanist aspects of the game, keeping my dwarves fed with awesome meals is one of my favourite parts of the game (I know its very simple, please don't jump down my throat.... Kohaku...). On the other hand, I turn off aquifers, mainly because I have never even attempted to deal with them, I am an incredibly lazy person. I want to master all the gameplay aspects of DF, but find it hard to get the motivation.

Basically just because someone doesn't want to see certain things implemented it doesn't mean you can then categorize them, obviously players of DF enjoy it for various reasons. You can't have a massive go at people for not going with the idea that youve proposed, it is important to keep DF fun in ways that all those who play it can enjoy. However I accept that posters such as myself have put forward our opinions quite unneccesarily, but DF is a lovely game and people tend to get quite emotional over it!  :P

This is a game for hardcore gamers only, you can't argue that. Yes there are varying levels of that 'hardcoreness' but can't we all just get along? Either way such a feature is highly likely to be toggleable so there is no need for posters like onarum (and earlier myself) to have a massive rant.

But that is what I'm arguing for - that all the playstyles should be respected. 

I said in that post, and have always said that those who don't like gameplay or simulationist aspects can turn off sieges or turn off food or turn off the things that add to the gameplay. 

The problem is, this respect doesn't seem to be returned - if you want simulationist more advanced farming or more detailed food, then we have to ask Toady to put this in the game, and it draws cries of people who only want DF to be a building game (and oh, boy, if you saw some of the cave-in mechanics that have been proposed...) that DF shouldn't be more simulationist, even with an init option to turn it off, that people are trying to make DF "not a game anymore". 

And it's not as if I don't play the game for its constructionist aspects, either.  But I play the game with every option turned on.  I play for all three.  Adding to any of the three makes the other two more challenging and fun - I like having to not only build crazy complex fortresses in the shape of a giant serpent or something, but to then also have to defend it from sieges, and build extremely complex logistics systems inside them. 

I do respect people who want to just stop at building a big statue, but at the same time, those are the people saying that we can't have the things that make the game fun for us, and call us "crazy" for wanting a game that is hard.  The thing is, the only way that all the camps can be satisfied is with including the rubble mechanics, but having init options to turn them off for people who don't want them, just like how there's no way you can have a siege that will please people who aren't going to want any sieges.
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare

Mudcrab

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: On Rubble: Treading on Unstable Ground...
« Reply #292 on: May 20, 2012, 07:24:47 pm »

Yeah man, I get ya! I play for all three aspects as well, its just I find certain aspects of DF very confusing as I've always been a tard when it comes to... I dunno... Can you class this as maths? shapes? lol

For example building a pump stack just seems... difficult... But I haven't actually tried so there's still time!!

Kohaku you have turned me round, my earlier posts were quite stupid (I didn't really read the thread) and I'm sorry man! You are truly a pioneer of DF and wish to see everyone's hopes for the game realised! :)
« Last Edit: May 20, 2012, 07:31:37 pm by Mudcrab »
Logged

Sabreur

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: On Rubble: Treading on Unstable Ground...
« Reply #293 on: May 20, 2012, 08:17:33 pm »

The thing you're forgetting is that for many players, the simulation IS the fun. 

Many but not all.

The problem here is that people (on both sides) are taking arguments to false extremes - "I don't want to deal with rubble" becomes "I want the game to be dwarf-flavored legos" and "I want a more realistic simulation" becomes "I hate anything that is accessible and fun".  Neither extreme is true.

The people against rubble feel like it adds little to the game.  From our perspective, it looks like a mindless chore at best.  We worry about the impact of rubble of FPS.  To us, it seems like a form of fake difficulty - a micromanaging task that will punish you if you don't deal with it, but requires no real intelligence or foresight to handle.  We look at the list of features yet to be added and worry that time Toady spends on rubble is time that won't be spent on features we'd like to see added first.  I'll take the army arc over rubble any day.

The people in favor of rubble feel like it adds a lot to the game.  It bothers them that we can currently excavate entire cities without creating so much as a handful of dirt.  They have ideas about earthwork fortifications, semi-fluid mechanics, artificial landslides, and the technical challenge of figuring out where to store the mountains of backfill from megaprojects.  To them, the fun comes from taking a situation that is as real as possible and dealing with it intelligently.  They see the anti-rubble faction and worry that the game will get dumbed-down instead of requiring players to wise up.

I'm against rubble for the reasons I mentioned above - I like realism, but I'd prefer more realism in the form of caravans that actually obey Supply And Demand, the ability to lay siege to the goblins for a change, an economy that actually makes sense, etc.  Rubble seems less like a feature and more like a chore to me.  That being said, I won't ragequit if rubble makes it into the game.  As has been mentioned before, in the worst-case scenario we can always turn it off or mod it out.  I'd just like to see the other stuff Toady is planning get added first.

Cellmonk

  • Bay Watcher
  • You might find it, whatever it is.
    • View Profile
Re: On Rubble: Treading on Unstable Ground...
« Reply #294 on: May 20, 2012, 08:54:38 pm »

The thing you're forgetting is that for many players, the simulation IS the fun. 

Many but not all.

The problem here is that people (on both sides) are taking arguments to false extremes - "I don't want to deal with rubble" becomes "I want the game to be dwarf-flavored legos" and "I want a more realistic simulation" becomes "I hate anything that is accessible and fun".  Neither extreme is true.

The people against rubble feel like it adds little to the game.  From our perspective, it looks like a mindless chore at best.  We worry about the impact of rubble of FPS.  To us, it seems like a form of fake difficulty - a micromanaging task that will punish you if you don't deal with it, but requires no real intelligence or foresight to handle.  We look at the list of features yet to be added and worry that time Toady spends on rubble is time that won't be spent on features we'd like to see added first.  I'll take the army arc over rubble any day.

The people in favor of rubble feel like it adds a lot to the game.  It bothers them that we can currently excavate entire cities without creating so much as a handful of dirt.  They have ideas about earthwork fortifications, semi-fluid mechanics, artificial landslides, and the technical challenge of figuring out where to store the mountains of backfill from megaprojects.  To them, the fun comes from taking a situation that is as real as possible and dealing with it intelligently.  They see the anti-rubble faction and worry that the game will get dumbed-down instead of requiring players to wise up.

I'm against rubble for the reasons I mentioned above - I like realism, but I'd prefer more realism in the form of caravans that actually obey Supply And Demand, the ability to lay siege to the goblins for a change, an economy that actually makes sense, etc.  Rubble seems less like a feature and more like a chore to me.  That being said, I won't ragequit if rubble makes it into the game.  As has been mentioned before, in the worst-case scenario we can always turn it off or mod it out.  I'd just like to see the other stuff Toady is planning get added first.

Very intelligently put. However, this seems pretty important to the army arc to me.

I'm interested in this as something to come with the planned realistic sieges. I think that sieges just eating away at the landscape would be both ugly and irritating to watch, and for me this is rather a question of how to make digging such that it can be done on a large scale by the dwarves in a way that is efficient, yet hard enough to set up that sieges have difficulty undermining, and can be countered.
Logged

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: On Rubble: Treading on Unstable Ground...
« Reply #295 on: May 20, 2012, 09:09:40 pm »

I will admit I'm speaking in pretty broad generalizations here, but it really is a problem with most things many people are looking for: There's going to be some people who just don't want them. 

In an extreme case, forumites like NTJedi will come into almost any random subject and say that we shouldn't discuss anything except sieges or bugfixing until Toady does those two things because those are the only things important to him. 

And even then, there are people who want more features more than more bugfixes, and there are people who don't look forward to more advance sieges. 

It doesn't matter what Toady does, it's not going to make everyone happy. 

The best that can be done is to try to make rubble as non-micromanagey as possible, and I've tried to outline ways that that can be done (with automated hauling so as to make only the decisions of how many dwarves to assign the labor and where it all goes the important parts), and to offer options to turn the thing off.

Yes, I realize that init options to turn things off can be said about anything and everything, but frankly, DF is a game with such a diverse playerbase that they are, again, not going to agree on anything. 

In fact, for all the very noisy complaints about the change in mining drop rates, the poll in that thread showed that most players were generally happy with the change, and that there was simply a rather vocal minority. 

Even with that, if you polled people on how much they'd like to see Toady dedicate what probably would amount to two or three years on nothing but Adventure Mode updates that are on the devpages now if he went down them in order, I seriously doubt you'd see many of the current players happy, and the Adventure Mode players are a serious minority in the community... but that's just because the playerbase we have reflects the game we have now - an expanded Adventure Mode would bring new players into the game who want different things from the game than what is currently offered. 

The problem I'm seeing, however, is that many people (and no, I don't mean "everyone who disagrees with me", and for that matter, "dwarf legos" is not meant to be an insult,) just don't see past their own playtsyles.  They see any time Toady isn't spending on improving sieges as a waste of time because they only care about sieges when they play. 

The problem, specifically, with the constructionist mindset is that they see any sort of realism or challenge that the simulationists or gamists want as some sort of imposition on their game.  When we had the mineral scarcity put into 0.31.19, one of the people was literally complaining about how he could no longer build a wall of solid gold in successive embarks around the world without modding.  When people pointed out that maybe gold shouldn't be that common, it was brushed aside as that was just intruding on the way he wanted to play his game.

Which is why there simply is no way to have a game that most people want to play without having to just concede some people init options or modding to turn these things off. 

If we ever get cave-in mechanics again, even ones that rely upon just having some sort of supporting wall within three tiles (much less the system in this post, where you have to keep in mind the compressive stress fracture point of every stone and the mass of the whole load it is bearing), then you know these same people are going to get up in arms about imposing realism on their ability to make tremendous monoliths that rest upon a single soap support. 

These same people aren't going to want better farming, they aren't going to want seigers that sap, they aren't going to want complex taverns, they aren't going to want detailed economics or the caravans, they're not going to want adventure mode, etc. etc. etc.  So yes, the only thing I can say to those people is "init option to turn everything but building off".  However, I suspect that much of the arguments against these features will turn out overblown, the way that people are used to mineral scarcity and are already getting pretty used to ore drop rates. 
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare

Buttery_Mess

  • Bay Watcher
  • 11x11
    • View Profile
Re: On Rubble: Treading on Unstable Ground...
« Reply #296 on: May 20, 2012, 09:20:58 pm »

It doesn't matter what Toady does, it's not going to make everyone happy. 

IDK, people seem to be jubilant with every release and I've seen people rarely complain about new features. Hell, people are even jubilant about the bugs.
Logged
But .... It's so small!
It's not the size of the pick that counts... it's the size of the man with the pick.
Quote from: Toady One
Naturally, we'd like to make life miserable for everybody, randomly, but that'll take some doing.

onarum

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: On Rubble: Treading on Unstable Ground...
« Reply #297 on: May 20, 2012, 09:32:59 pm »

My point is that people often forget that this is supposed to be a game, and games are supposed to be fun(I mean real fun, not "Fun"), digging is only 1 aspect of DF, if I have to keep nursing the dwarfs every little step they take in the depths because of rubble it will be a major pain in the ass.

Again this is a game, its not supposed to be realistic it's supposed to be fun, if Toady was to simulate every little aspect to every common actions taken into the game it stops being a game and starts felling like a job.

But whatever if this ever gets added I hope he adds a switch to turn it off because it's just ridiculously stupid, you people are crazy...

The thing you're forgetting is that for many players, the simulation IS the fun. 

See the playstyles discussion thread or DF Talk 17.

The people who want the game to be harder are the people who want a better game. Further, there are people who are pretty content as "observers" of the simulation. 

Much of these arguments seem to come from the "constructionists" who only want DF to ever be lego sets to build with, and constantly declare any sort of gameplay challenges or simulation experiences to be "not a game anymore". 

In fact, there was someone in this thread out-and-out saying they didn't want Toady to do any more work because they didn't want DF to become any more complex.

For that, all I can say is, "If you want nothing but legos, you can turn sieges off, you can turn eating off," etc. etc. because that's not what the game is meant to be, and that's not what most of the players of the game want out of the game.

You shouldn't rush to conclusions like that, I'm by no means a "constructionist" as you put it, I see no point on building crazy stuff just for the heck of it, I enjoy embarking on hard places and face a lot of combat mainly.

think about it, what will this add to the game? toady himself made this inquiry, the answer is absolutely nothing, it will be just a boring task that you gonna have to get through for no good reason.
Logged

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: On Rubble: Treading on Unstable Ground...
« Reply #298 on: May 20, 2012, 09:35:39 pm »

It doesn't matter what Toady does, it's not going to make everyone happy. 

IDK, people seem to be jubilant with every release and I've seen people rarely complain about new features. Hell, people are even jubilant about the bugs.

That's just the other side of the same coin - we're also diverse enough a group that there's going to be at least a few people to like almost anything, although there are several bugs I doubt anyone was happy to see.

As I said, the drop rates were pretty well received by most, but that didn't mean there weren't some people who are very much against them.
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: On Rubble: Treading on Unstable Ground...
« Reply #299 on: May 20, 2012, 09:37:56 pm »

You shouldn't rush to conclusions like that, I'm by no means a "constructionist" as you put it, I see no point on building crazy stuff just for the heck of it, I enjoy embarking on hard places and face a lot of combat mainly.

think about it, what will this add to the game? toady himself made this inquiry, the answer is absolutely nothing, it will be just a boring task that you gonna have to get through for no good reason.

You know, for someone who is complaining in one sentence about "rushing to conclusions", you just jump into hyperbolic and unfounded extremes in the other...
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21