Print

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

[Neonivek]

I think they are refering to me Greatwyrmgold.

At least that would make the most sense given that I pretty much left the topic pouting.

[Damiac]

Yeah, pretty sure they were talking about Neon. 

So your stance, Neon, is that it's find to just add features at random, and considering balance is a bad thing.  Ok, well, we will just have to agree to disagree here then, because I want the game to be fairly balanced (in this context, meaning new features don't make an easy game even easier).  You seem to want the game to just get easier and easier as features are added.

[Neonivek]

So your stance, Neon, is that it's find to just add features at random, and considering balance is a bad thing. You seem to want the game to just get easier and easier as features are added.

No, that is very far from my actual stance.

[GreatWyrmGold]

(Pst, Neonivek, this is where you explain what your stance really is.)

[Neonivek]

My stance is that Dwarf Fortress is first and foremost a simulation and that balance is a secondary objective that is always secondary to it being a simulation while at the same time cannot be ignored completely. Thus elements that are there for balance but that go against the fact that it is a simulation are a bad thing.

My stance on healing magic (and artifacts) is that combat in dwarf fortress is a very deadly and dangerous thing, such that healing magic is not as much of an imposition on balance as one would make it out since it will not save dead dwarves, nor will it turn a siege where you lose into one you win as most of the game is about prep. My stance is also that healing magic for enemy armies would be useless for the enemy armies (as they tend to easily outright die and not get away injured).

As well I don't see the loss of doctors as a "Useful" profession as a true loss to the game. It is more or less the concequence of the game being a simulation. In the same way that maps can entirely eliminate entire professions or how some professions are just not inherantly useful for fortresses on their own. The flow will always point towards one profession being more useful then another or some being entirely useless.

As well I think the balance deviance to be tollerable as well. Dwarf Fortress isn't a game of advantage versus disadvantage like a large game of rock sissor paper or a game of go. The game many a time gives you advantages far outstripping any disadvantage, outright free advantages, and intentional disadvantages with no pay off. Thus finding something that makes the game significantly easier or more difficult are not inherantly a negative thing. If you have a distinct advantage then it is your job to take advantage of it, if you have a distinct disadvantage it is your job to minimise it. There will be more in the game then just your fortress and you cannot rely on healing magic to hand you victory.

Also I don't think the inclusion of the existance of healing magic (either by spells or artifacts or simply by magical fruit that grows in the grove you settled in) means that you will always have access to healing magic. I picture the generation process to be largely random with the spread of magic with many of the most powerful and useful spells being in the hand of powerful creatures or sagely immortals. Thus if you happened to get someone who knew healing magic you deserve whatever ease it gives you simply from winning the lottery.

[pisskop]

(Pst, Neonivek, this is where you explain what your stance really is.)

AHEM: This is the part where you fall down!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Darn, took too long to find.

[assasin]

I like the idea of all magic to having a semirandom side effect. throw a fireball and maybe half the ice [or whatever is balanced] melts, several dwarves are immune to cold for a season or two or some booze explodes. healing a dwarf might heal other dwarves near that dwarf, or it might send a syndrome epidemic across your fortress. So every time you heal a dwarf its a risk. But it might be worth the gamble for a valuable dwarf. I don't think it would be that hard to do. Maybe a bit timeconsuming though. Just associate each type of spell with a sphere and the more ralalted the sphere is to the spell you cast, the bigger the chance of a spell linked to that sphere happening. Of course this is just a generalisation, I would like a much more indepth system with things like more powerful spells having more powerful side effects and possibly rare requirements like dragon eggs or candy. etc etc. etc.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Neonivek: Tell me, how does healing magic work IRL? Frauds take your money and leave town before you wise up.

In DF, we can and probably should make healing magic balanced against not having it, ie mundane healing. This is low fantasy, and having a few dwarves who can easily patch up any dwarves who didn't die within minutes of getting injured(and, if deployed into the field, many or most of those) would ruin both the low fantasy and the grittiness of DF, IMHO. Want that stuff? Make a high fantasy mod, once this stuff gets added it'll be easy enough. You disagree with my points? Fine, if I can't convince you here, I'm not going to make any ground. Let's move on.

If there's only one good choice, there's less of a game. There are many good choices among all parts of DF. While wax crafts aren't a viable export, stone, metal, and possibly even wood, bone, cloth, or leather crafts are, and with the right work a beekeeping industry can be useful. If healing magic is overly easy, say if it just takes a day of dorftime, it would make doctors less useful than beekeepers. After all, doctoring requires everything from time to lye to thread to potential labor, and has chances of failure, AND requires four or five skills, AND is rather limited in what it cures.

The problem isn't an issue of "easier vs. harder," it's about a single thing having the power to save your fort if used and to kill it if not. Imagine if every injured dwarf, from the legendary axedwarf with his arms amputated by a dragon to a hauler whose finger got broken by a flying boot,  could be made very quickly good as new--not crippled, no loss of productivity, no chance of later death from infection or neglect. If you don't see the difference this would make, I'm not sure that we're playing the same game. For me, lots of useful dwarves would have been saved. Now, since we're Bay12, imagine what happens WHEN we give four or five clerics defensive training and steel armor before sending them into battle alongside the militia. The soldiers would be healed as they're harmed, and unless healers are given a conspicuous immunity to healing magic, they'll heal each other. Imagine an evil biome, but the corpses have metal arms and armor, quite possibly superior to your own.

You're saying that it's balanced if only one in a thousand can get the opportunity to throw their game off-balance? That's luck-based balance, and there's a reason it's not listed under the "Good Balance" trope. It just means munchkinney people will spend a thousand times as long generating worlds and everyone else will be ecstatic when they get a healer, because it's rarer and more useful than even the king. That doesn't solve anything.

Alright, that seems to be everything, so I'll just repeat my case:
Healing magic shouldn't be the core of your medicine when you get it, but it shouldn't be worthless either. There should be situations where it's useful and situations where it's wasteful or even harmful. Maybe healing injuries requires inflicting harm on the healer or another. Maybe it requires valuable (to the player, not high-priced) reagents. Maybe it has harmful side effects, like stimulating pathogens as well as the healthy cells. Maybe it requires bargaining with a dark power. Maybe it varies from healer to healer. Whatever the solution, it must be done.

[Neonivek]

That's luck-based balance, and there's a reason it's not listed under the "Good Balance" trope.

There is a reason why "Tropes are not good or bad" there are many great games that have luck based balance.

Hurray for TVtropes based arguements.

[GreatWyrmGold]

That's luck-based balance, and there's a reason it's not listed under the "Good Balance" trope.

There is a reason why "Tropes are not good or bad" there are many great games that have luck based balance.
Hurray for TVtropes based arguements.

And there are many evil regimes that were patriotic. Does that make patriotism evil?
And does improving some games make it not fake, or good for DF?

And what about my other points? I too the time to write a paragraph in response to each of yours, and you attack one of my weaker arguments?

[Neonivek]

And there are many evil regimes that were patriotic. Does that make patriotism evil?

You used that arguement I don't know why you are applying it to me.

"You will notice TVtropes didn't put it in the good balance category"

And does improving some games make it not fake, or good for DF?

It invalidates your arguement that "Because this feature seems bad it is inherantly bad for dwarf fortress" which weakens your overall arguement.

This is low fantasy

It is currently low fantasy with a desire to allow worlds to generate from low to high fantasy with "High Fantasy" being the medium.

Edit Addition: Actually it is currently "High fantasy" my mistake.

[GreatWyrmGold]

And there are many evil regimes that were patriotic. Does that make patriotism evil?

You used that arguement I don't know why you are applying it to me.

"You will notice TVtropes didn't put it in the good balance category"

You were arguing that luck-based balance was balanced; I pointed out that a rather respected source provided good reasons as to why it's not.
You say that good games used luck-based balance; I pointed out that the luck-based balance did not necessarily make the games good and that it wasn't necessarily good for DF.
Exactly the same. Oh, and if I hadn't reached my maximum quota for TV Tropes links, I would have linked that to a neat TV Tropes page on sarcasm.

And does improving some games make it not fake, or good for DF?

It invalidates your arguement that "Because this feature seems bad it is inherantly bad for dwarf fortress" which weakens your overall arguement.

I said it was bad for DF, and still fake. Was I being too subtle?
The feature is bad for DF because it's bad for DF. Is that clear for you? It's bad for DF because it doesn't work for DF. I'd be interested to hear examples of games that, in your opinion, used luck-based balance in a good way.

This is low fantasy

It is currently low fantasy with a desire to allow worlds to generate from low to high fantasy with "High Fantasy" being the medium.

Edit Addition: Actually it is currently "High fantasy" my mistake.

We are using different definitions of the term. Where are the wizards? Rare and trapped in their towers. Where are the priests? In their temples, trying nit to draw their gods' ires. Where is magic? Almost entirely out of sight, even more out of reach of mortals. I call that low fantasy. What do you consider low fantasy?
And where has Toady said he wants to move DF to high fantasy?

[Neonivek]

Where are the wizards? Rare and trapped in their towers

They are creating armies of the dead in order to take over the world.

The way I do it is that Low Fantasy has "Magic" and stuff but the movers and shakers are strictly non-magical in nature (Like Song of Fire and Ice. Yes there is magic and shapeshifting, but the mundane is what drives the plot... while in Lord of the Rings for example the movers and shakers are magic)

When Demons, Dragons, Vampires, and Necromancers actively affect the course of nations... it is high fantasy.

And where has Toady said he wants to move DF to high fantasy?

Read the devs and Threetoe stories.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Where are the wizards? Rare and trapped in their towers

They are creating armies of the dead in order to take over the world.

I suppose that might be their intent, even if not yet realized, but I doubt that a few hundred zombies (who collapse, however temporarily, with a strong blow) could protect a few mages (notable for not being rotten or mindless) from arrows forever. Also, they're mostly building towers and sitting in them, plus sieging the occasional fortress.

The way I do it is that Low Fantasy has "Magic" and stuff but the movers and shakers are strictly non-magical in nature (Like Song of Fire and Ice. Yes there is magic and shapeshifting, but the mundane is what drives the plot... while in Lord of the Rings for example the movers and shakers are magic)

When Demons, Dragons, Vampires, and Necromancers actively affect the course of nations... it is high fantasy.

Demons run a few nations (several goblin and a handful of human), but they're basically like immortal mortal rulers. Necromancers don't do much compared to the potentially thousands-strong armies of mortals, vampires mostly kill people and eventually get driven out, and dragons basically attack and loot places.
Also, I was right when I said we were using different definitions. My definition was based on the availability of magic, your on its effect on the world. Let's try to stick to apples or oranges from now on, please?

And where has Toady said he wants to move DF to high fantasy?

Read the devs and Threetoe stories.

I've read them. Where does it suggest that magic is supposed to be anything but a powerful but a dangerous, harmful, and/or impractical tool? That's what I'm imagining here.

[Neonivek]

Ok, I guess I can just categorically tear down your entire basis for an arguement... I didn't because it is a lot of work, but I am ready now.