Print

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

[GreatWyrmGold]

Really? 90% of the time when I designate, I'm trying to either give orders to dwarves and don't want them screwing them up until I finish, or I'm making a design and want the game paused for that. Besides, imagine what would happen if a migrant wave arrived in the middle of your designation...

SimCity is still nothing like DF. You'll need a better reason than that to convince me.

Dwarf Fortress is not just a city-building game. It has many functions suggesting otherwise. How many city building games keep track of everything about every citizen, or don't have predefined buildings? DF can't be easily categorised, as you can tell by looking at the bottom of its TV Tropes page.

I have explained my problems with your analogy, and intend to do so at greater length when I get access to a real keyboard.

[Kipi]

SimCity worked well because it's totally different style of game. You don't usually get situations where you have to act quickly and with accuracy, situations which happens in DF all the time. So comparing SimCity and Dwarf Fortress is not valid, IMHO.

It's rather off-topic from multiplayer, but the problem here is that pausing is tied to designating rather than situations where you need to act quickly.  Sure it's useful to pause when you get sieged or breach a cavern, but why designating?  Better to leave it up to the player.  You can pause whenever you want by pressing space. 

If I'm under attack, I might pause the game and designate a bunch of stuff.  90% of the time when I'm designating, I don't need the game paused.

I think I should have worded my post a bit different. My response was aimed to the fact that you compared Dwarf Fortress and SimCity. In fact, if you can still pause any time you want, there really could be an option for forcing the game to run while designations. In forts with low FPS this could be very good since not much manage to happen. This could have saved several my older forts from boredom.

If you use comparison of two or more games just to show that a feature could work in one game then one can presume that the feature is talked in more specific manner instead as broad concept.

Qhy do people say, "It worked for X, it should work for DF!"?

Because examples of the mechanic helps illustrate how it's supposed to function.  You're misrepresenting me when you paraphrase me as, "It worked for X, it should work for DF!".  That implies I think that anything that worked in SimCity should work in DF, and consequentially, DF should take all the good features from SimCity.  A better paraphrasing would be, "I think this feature would be good for reasons X, and here is an example where it was used effectively."

The problem is that, to compare features, the games must be even remotely similar. And in which way is SimCity similar to Dwarf Fortress? And I don't mean something like "in both you create city" but concrete similarities. Instead there are lots of things that makes the two games totally different. For example, in DF you can affect to the life of every single dwarf in your fortress and even in some extent to control their movement. Can you do that in SimCity?

Dwarf Fortress is in its own league. I can think of no other game that has its level of detail, complexity, and breadth. It is not SimCity, or The Sims, or Civilization, or NetHack, or Starcraft, or WoW, or any of the other games available or, to my knowledge, being planned.

A rather dubious claim.  While DF is an amazing game, it's certainly not the most complex, detailed or broad game in existence.  Once you pass the initial learning curve, it's not that hard to learn all the concepts.

I think GreatWyrmGold doesn't mean difficulty when talking about complexity. How many games keep track of the details of how the bodies are made, up to nerves? Or how many game has such an array of stones and metals, each one having specific properties and behavior? How many games can create and simulate huge worlds without any player input? And even make those worlds logical?

Yes, there are games that can achieve the same in one or two specific aspect, but seriously, how many other games can do it all?

So no, I can't too think of any games that is as complex game as DF.

While no two games are identical, we can still compare features between games.  DF fortress mode is largely in the city-building genre.

Then you could say that guns will work in Forza Motorsport 4 because guns worked in death rally. Both are, after all, car racing games...
Want more examples like above?

[GreatWyrmGold]

SimCity worked well because it's totally different style of game. You don't usually get situations where you have to act quickly and with accuracy, situations which happens in DF all the time. So comparing SimCity and Dwarf Fortress is not valid, IMHO.

It's rather off-topic from multiplayer, but the problem here is that pausing is tied to designating rather than situations where you need to act quickly.  Sure it's useful to pause when you get sieged or breach a cavern, but why designating?  Better to leave it up to the player.  You can pause whenever you want by pressing space. 

If I'm under attack, I might pause the game and designate a bunch of stuff.  90% of the time when I'm designating, I don't need the game paused.

I think I should have worded my post a bit different. My response was aimed to the fact that you compared Dwarf Fortress and SimCity. In fact, if you can still pause any time you want, there really could be an option for forcing the game to run while designations. In forts with low FPS this could be very good since not much manage to happen. This could have saved several my older forts from boredom.

First off, the default state of the designations screen should be paused. I'm not saying that having the option to unpause while designating is bad; I'm saying not having the option to pause during designation s bad. Funny, that's what'd need to happen if multiplayer was in...

If you use comparison of two or more games just to show that a feature could work in one game then one can presume that the feature is talked in more specific manner instead as broad concept.

Well, it wasn't. At least, not in your post, and in a debate you shouldn't leave your research to your opponent...especially if my point is not invalidating your claim about how well multiplayer stuff works in SimCity, but how it wouldn't apply to DF.

Dwarf Fortress is in its own league. I can think of no other game that has its level of detail, complexity, and breadth. It is not SimCity, or The Sims, or Civilization, or NetHack, or Starcraft, or WoW, or any of the other games available or, to my knowledge, being planned.

A rather dubious claim.  While DF is an amazing game, it's certainly not the most complex, detailed or broad game in existence.  Once you pass the initial learning curve, it's not that hard to learn all the concepts.

I think GreatWyrmGold doesn't mean difficulty when talking about complexity. How many games keep track of the details of how the bodies are made, up to nerves? Or how many game has such an array of stones and metals, each one having specific properties and behavior? How many games can create and simulate huge worlds without any player input? And even make those worlds logical?

Yes, there are games that can achieve the same in one or two specific aspect, but seriously, how many other games can do it all?

So no, I can't too think of any games that is as complex game as DF.

Indeed. I'm not saying I think DF is an insanely good and difficult game, made by gods and only playable by such. I'm saying that it's harder to classify DF than platypi were in the 18th century.

While no two games are identical, we can still compare features between games.  DF fortress mode is largely in the city-building genre.

Then you could say that guns will work in Forza Motorsport 4 because guns worked in death rally. Both are, after all, car racing games...
Want more examples like above?

You could say that cyberware and drain would fit perfectly well into Dungeons and Dragons, because of how well it works to enhance the game in Shadowrun. Never mind that the genres are different, or that D&D's Vancian magic is well-established (and don't bring up 4th edition, this isn't a good time for that).
You know what I love about Spore? The way you can make EVERYTHING. Let's apply that to Super Mario World! Sure, it misses the point of Mario, requires an additional unneeded layer of complexity, and wouldn't be all that useful, but who cares?
That fulfills the Rule of Three, which in a moment of mercy I will not link to.

[Kipi]

SimCity worked well because it's totally different style of game. You don't usually get situations where you have to act quickly and with accuracy, situations which happens in DF all the time. So comparing SimCity and Dwarf Fortress is not valid, IMHO.

It's rather off-topic from multiplayer, but the problem here is that pausing is tied to designating rather than situations where you need to act quickly.  Sure it's useful to pause when you get sieged or breach a cavern, but why designating?  Better to leave it up to the player.  You can pause whenever you want by pressing space. 

If I'm under attack, I might pause the game and designate a bunch of stuff.  90% of the time when I'm designating, I don't need the game paused.

I think I should have worded my post a bit different. My response was aimed to the fact that you compared Dwarf Fortress and SimCity. In fact, if you can still pause any time you want, there really could be an option for forcing the game to run while designations. In forts with low FPS this could be very good since not much manage to happen. This could have saved several my older forts from boredom.

First off, the default state of the designations screen should be paused. I'm not saying that having the option to unpause while designating is bad; I'm saying not having the option to pause during designation s bad. Funny, that's what'd need to happen if multiplayer was in...

The difference was that in MP you would not be able to pause even if you wanted, while in SP you could pause at will.
And all of it could be controlled by settings in inits (new file?) so that all players could set it to their tastes. Or disable completely.

But we are derailing here, perhaps I could make new suggestion about this idea (for SP use of course).

[GreatWyrmGold]

SimCity worked well because it's totally different style of game. You don't usually get situations where you have to act quickly and with accuracy, situations which happens in DF all the time. So comparing SimCity and Dwarf Fortress is not valid, IMHO.

It's rather off-topic from multiplayer, but the problem here is that pausing is tied to designating rather than situations where you need to act quickly.  Sure it's useful to pause when you get sieged or breach a cavern, but why designating?  Better to leave it up to the player.  You can pause whenever you want by pressing space. 

If I'm under attack, I might pause the game and designate a bunch of stuff.  90% of the time when I'm designating, I don't need the game paused.

I think I should have worded my post a bit different. My response was aimed to the fact that you compared Dwarf Fortress and SimCity. In fact, if you can still pause any time you want, there really could be an option for forcing the game to run while designations. In forts with low FPS this could be very good since not much manage to happen. This could have saved several my older forts from boredom.

First off, the default state of the designations screen should be paused. I'm not saying that having the option to unpause while designating is bad; I'm saying not having the option to pause during designation s bad. Funny, that's what'd need to happen if multiplayer was in...

The difference was that in MP you would not be able to pause even if you wanted, while in SP you could pause at will.
And all of it could be controlled by settings in inits (new file?) so that all players could set it to their tastes. Or disable completely.

But we are derailing here, perhaps I could make new suggestion about this idea (for SP use of course).

That's...actually almost exactly what I said.

[Kipi]

Sorry, can't understand how in Armok's Beard I was able to read your post that wrong... 

So, carry on, nothing to see here...

[thisisjimmy]

Well, it wasn't. At least, not in your post, and in a debate you shouldn't leave your research to your opponent...especially if my point is not invalidating your claim about how well multiplayer stuff works in SimCity, but how it wouldn't apply to DF.

I have no idea what you mean here or if you're referring to me or Kipi.  There is no multiplayer in SimCity as far as I know.

My response was aimed to the fact that you compared Dwarf Fortress and SimCity.

Did I?  I said being able to designate stuff with the game unpaused works well in SimCity.

The problem is that, to compare features, the games must be even remotely similar. And in which way is SimCity similar to Dwarf Fortress? And I don't mean something like "in both you create city" but concrete similarities. Instead there are lots of things that makes the two games totally different.

The designating is rather similar.  In both games you designate rectangular plots of land and then wait for the work to be done.  In both, it can take significant time to plan out and designate a large area.  In both, your current focus can be interrupted by any number of problems or disasters that require quick action.  The mechanic is similar enough to warrant an off-hand comment about how I liked it in SimCity.

For example, in DF you can affect to the life of every single dwarf in your fortress and even in some extent to control their movement. Can you do that in SimCity?

How is that relevant to pausing while designating?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Well, it wasn't. At least, not in your post, and in a debate you shouldn't leave your research to your opponent...especially if my point is not invalidating your claim about how well multiplayer stuff works in SimCity, but how it wouldn't apply to DF.

I have no idea what you mean here or if you're referring to me or Kipi.  There is no multiplayer in SimCity as far as I know.

Oops, I was mixing the original proposal with the argument I was arguing against. Replace "multiplayer" with "unpaused designation."

My response was aimed to the fact that you compared Dwarf Fortress and SimCity.

Did I?  I said being able to designate stuff with the game unpaused works well in SimCity.

Same idea.

The problem is that, to compare features, the games must be even remotely similar. And in which way is SimCity similar to Dwarf Fortress? And I don't mean something like "in both you create city" but concrete similarities. Instead there are lots of things that makes the two games totally different.

The designating is rather similar.  In both games you designate rectangular plots of land and then wait for the work to be done.  In both, it can take significant time to plan out and designate a large area.  In both, your current focus can be interrupted by any number of problems or disasters that require quick action.  The mechanic is similar enough to warrant an off-hand comment about how I liked it in SimCity.

That's like saying that Feudal Japan and Medieval Europe were very similar, because both used a feudal system of government and used soldier-nobles. Dwarf Fortress has many, many more things that can go wrong, without the game even "realizing" that something's off. Also, there's a lot of autopause and autozoom, which would mess with stuff.

For example, in DF you can affect to the life of every single dwarf in your fortress and even in some extent to control their movement. Can you do that in SimCity?

How is that relevant to pausing while designating?

Simple. DF and SC have completely different scales. In SimCity, if you tell someone to build a house, the house will start bring built. In DF, it's a lot more complex, and you'll probably be interrupting people. Also, if a disaster interrupts you in SimCity, you're a building behind on your designations. If one hits you in DF, you lose your spot in a potentially complex digging designation.

Again, I'm not against unpausing while designating, I just think it should always pause by default.

[xRDVx]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Not really - i mean if there is ambush and such the game will stop by itself - so everyone can order dwarves around.

That would require all players playing the same embark location, in similar way as Dfterm works. And that brings a host of other problems. Basically that there are two options: all players share the control of all the dwarves and there is only one "fortress" or there are several separate fortresses in the same embark site.

Shared control of all dwarves is quite chaotic, just like those who have tried Dfterm can confirm. It's quite easy to mess out things when the orders contradict or the players can't come to agreement how the fortress should be run. What if one player wants to send the squad out to deal with goblins while other one doesn't? Or who should make the decisions about trading? Or choosing the baron?

What about having several forts in same location? Well, that means the size of the embark location must be big enough to host both (or more than two, depending on the limit of players). I usually need 3*3 embark location and I know lots of players need even larger area to contain their forts. But even if I use the 3*3, the minimum size of the embark location needs to be something like 6*3 for two players and 6*6 for four players. After few years the game will get very slow, as the size of map is very big and the amount of dwarves in the map is multiplied by the number of players versus the normal number of dwarves in singleplayer map. Have you ever been able to run a fort with over 300 dwarves even in 3*3 map? I haven't, it's way too laggy (last time I tried the FPS was somewhere between 10 and 15).

But lets assume that none of the problems I mentioned above are the issue. So, a attack (I combine thieves, ambushes, sieges, megabeasts and FBs under the same category as all of those in theory requires an action from player) comes and the game pauses. The players give orders and the game resumes. But what if something goes wrong? The squads get annihilated, there is a cap in walls or something like that? If the game can't be paused it means the player(s) are in hurry to solve the problem, for example by blocking the entrance with bridge. For me, depending on the development and size of my fortress, it takes around 8 seconds to find the lever and order it to be pulled. Eight seconds, which with 100 FPS means 800 frames. Average creature moves one square every 10 FPS, which converts to 80 squares in eight seconds. That's a lot, especially since it doesn't include the time it requires a dwarf to get to the lever, pull it and affect the bridge. During that time a whole squad (most probably entire force) of invaders can get inside and slaughter your dwarves. And thus you need to be able to pause in case of emergency.

Another problem comes in the form of hostile cavern creatures. Most of those path straight to your fortress if there is a route and the game doesn't inform you when one enters the map. So what if two blind ogres arrive and gets inside? Tracking those down while moving will be difficult if you don't happen to see them immediately. Zooming to announcements doesn't work since the attacker has most probably moved already and thus giving the kill command is very difficult. Again you must be able to pause just to locate the offender and give the command to kill it. Unless you like to see your fortress to fall due the slaughter or tantrum spiral.

If the forts aren't in same embark location then automatic pause for all players doesn't work since attacks may be discovered at different times and attack in one site doesn't mean it will happen everywhere else at the same moment.

To tell You the truth - most designations of the fortress would be given by the month period with only slightest adjustments on the go

YES... - it would be harder than normal, but NO - You wouldnt die on sieges while designating digging site

How about breaching the caverns the first time? Without pause you may not have enough time to seal it before something nasty gets inside, again due the time it takes to manually locate the site and designate required constructions and/or cancel the mining designations. Or what about safe tapping to magma sea/volcano? There are tons of such situations where pausing is more or less necessary to ensure everything goes as planned. Situations which you may not be able to take in account during monthly pause.

And what about the screen which force you make decisions? Choosing baron, trading and making trading requests are such situations. And then there are those liaison screen you may want to actually read instead of skipping (trading requests from mountain home for example). Would the game pause for all players when one player has such screen? And not everybody can have the meetings with liaison exactly at the same moment (same as trading) just because it depends on your own dwarves as well (are they eating, sleeping, tantruming...). And since it's possible to have three liaisons in total, one per season except winter, just those screens would make the game slow. And if the game is remains going, there is a big chance that something happens which the player has no idea. Attack, tantrum and accidents are good example of that.

So no, it doesn't work, unless the whole game and interface is heavily altered.

Even without multiplayer, it would be nice if there was an option to keep the game unpaused while you designate stuff.  Usually there's no reason I need it paused and I'd rather have my dwarves start working.  SimCity worked this way and I found it worked quite well.

SimCity worked well because it's totally different style of game. You don't usually get situations where you have to act quickly and with accuracy, situations which happens in DF all the time. So comparing SimCity and Dwarf Fortress is not valid, IMHO.

I finally get a chance to arrive at one of these threads while they are alive!

First, I'm assuming a shared fortress.
I do not believe pausing would be a problem if you're playing with, say, a friend (you shouldn't be playing dwarf fortress with an stranger, in my opinion. Just the nature of the game). All you would have to do is say you need to pause (or just pause). You'd tell the other what you need to do, you'd do it, then both would agree that you *can* go forward. Even, you can reduce the FPS so that managing the fortress and dealing with pausing is easier, or is needed less. If you're having disagreements over pause in a game like dwarf fortress, I believe you should set up some rules, or find somebody else to play with.

Many of the issues you mention could easily be solved by simply talking with your partner. And even then it's probably best you talk about what you're doing too. I admit, it could be very chaotic for a group that doesn't work well together, but a wonderful experience for those that do.

Now, I don't think not having pause in MP would be useful. Unless you're running at 10 fps or something (and yes, unpausing while designating could be a very good addition). If anything, simply have the host (the one that makes all the computation) be the one that pauses having the others be left working with whatever the host decides.

While I'm at it, since I probably won't get another chance: you could very well have multiplayer if you had: a server that runs the game, a way of applying designations/changes on the run without having to pause nor use in-game hotkeys, a dummy client and something that transmits the game data from host to client.
It might be too resource heavy, though, working only for LANs. However, then you could have your friend see your fortress and help you manage it. Perhaps he could focus on keeping those miners working while you use the manager (ie item production) or even assign jobs to those new migrants.

And with that last bit I can address the screens that force you to make a decision: you either have the clients paused (they should still be able to designate, and make changes on almost anywhere else. Or you can have them watch how the host conducts (or the client, if the host chooses) decides so that they can be better informed.

I admit my vision of multiplayer would rarely work with strangers. It'd be an issue to play with friends if you can't agree or trust that the other knows what he's doing. Hell, it assumes you are communicating while you play, because otherwise things will quickly fall apart. I have no idea what kind of bandwidth it would require to even function in a playable way, let alone dealing with connection problems. It would be like playing Cooperative (yes, you can be the same civ) in Age of Empires 2, except you would pause a LOT more, and it would be completely different. And no, I don't expect that toady makes it (it'd be faster for me to do it myself, and since I rarely get anything done...).

Though, if you look at it, it would be both a good thing and bad thing to play with your life partner.

*is now ecstatic that he managed to contribute his two cents*

[GreatWyrmGold]

I'm a bit fuzzy on how well the "I need to pause it now" thing would work. Personally, something like the hotseat method someone's figured out seems like the best way to do it.

Again, multiplayer isn't really needed, and what happens if two players run at cross-purposes?

[dizzyelk]

Pausing is vital with how I designate. I'll spend a good 45 minutes to an hour, paused, designating areas to be dug, looking at it, figuring out if I should change how I'm designating it, modifying it, and finally, unpausing with a huge chunk of a year or two of digging designated, without a single block dug. Why? Because, what if my first designation isn't going to work right, but gets dug anyways? I could build a new wall. But then I can't carve it. And every square inch eventually gets decorated. Plus that way I can decide if I'm happy with the visual aspect of my design. I don't want to be interrupted during this designing, and I wouldn't want to wait that long for someone else to design their area before starting the game.

[KillzEmAllGod]

only if we could trust the dwarfs to not get themselves killed or not doing something right while the game isn't paused then Multiplayer might be fun.

[Starver]

Now, if only we could develop our own Meta-Macro Management Languge[1] code that can handle that bit.

if discover.vein && discovered.vein.metal.value > 50 && discovered.vein.metal != spoiler.value then repeat.persistent for all discovered.vein.revealed set that.mine unless that.hot || that.wet || that.location.distance(each stored.room.designation) < 2;
if discover.vein && discovered.vein.metal.value == spoiler.value then repeat.persistent for all discovered.vein.revealed if that.location.neighbours(each neighbour.metal.value == spoiler) <3[2] that.mine;

(Of course, we'll make mistakes.  But we make mistakes when playing 'live', and learn.  So we can 'learn' in the above situations by refining the code for next time!)


Not totally serious, but consider the possibility of a DF version of corewars, 'multiplayer' run entirely by code submitted to the engine pre-embark.


[1] Not meant to be alliterative, so the "L" doesn't worry me...  But replace with the erroneous term "Markup" if you like the idea of something you can call "4M".

[2] That's wrong, and would breach a tube.  There'd be better ways of doing it, but I'm designing the syntax on the fly and would spend more time designing a real "don't risk breaching a tube" test, and the way to represent it.

[Sprin]

stop sugesting multi player!!
Its stupid,
1- The game is paused 90% of play...
actuly thats it but its all I need
multi player just wont work!

[mastahcheese]

stop sugesting multi player!!
Its stupid,
1- The game is paused 90% of play...
actuly thats it but its all I need
multi player just wont work!

Thank you! Multiplayer would be no fun, anyway.
The only way I would suggest any type of multiplayer, is if all it was was a simple way to send out a succesion fort save folder, so you would have a message in the main screen saying, "Succesion Fort" that would automatically be sent to the next player after it saves a movie of all you did in your turn, so you could post it or write stories about it; BUT IT WOULD STILL BE SINGLE-PLAYER!