Print

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

[k33n]

I have no ignorance about programming, at least on the level of C++. I don't know quite what you're talking about either, and he's right about bald assertions. Write a mock-up if you have to.

Believe it or not, Toady doesn't have much experience with SDL. Baughn is the one who does all that.

I was just sick of his jerk attitude.

Basically most games - and I am assuming DF does this - have a function ( a self contained block of code that is called on ) running in constantly looking for "events" ( key presses, mouse movements, etc ). So the program goes:

If the event is the key press of d
then open the designate menu.

You can set up a button fairly easily, and without changing hardly any code, plug it in to the existing framework:

If the event is left mouse down in the area of designate button
then open the designate menu.

The SDL library is very good at dealing with player input so that's what I am familiar with.

[se5a]

wooooow...
All this talk about the UI, and hardly anyone points out that most of the OP's list of problems(OP's 2nd post) are not UI related at all, and some may even be improved/fixed/completely different in the new release (non fatal combat should do interesting things to capital punishment and brawling in general)

[reality.auditor]

I can't argue with this because I literally cannot understand what is being said here.

Sorry, english is not my native language.

What does "he would left it for at least a few years and use new UI" mean?

Let me try again.
Toady uses now UI that we all know and (don't) love. Let's call it Current UI.
When he adds new features that need interfacing with user, he uses various already existing Current UI components, or maybe modifying them slightly for less typical needs. There is no "constant overhaul" (whatever that means).

Now let's say at some moment Toady says  "Let's do better UI!"* And he does as he said. Let's call it New UI.

After that one-time overhaul, Toady uses New UI.
When he adds new features that need interfacing with user, he uses various already existing New UI components, or maybe modifying them slightly for less typical needs. There is no "constant overhaul" (whatever that means).

I hope I am understandable now. "Constant overhaul" is made up concern.

...Maybe he means he would create a new UI after a few years? But wouldn't that just waste the work that would be put into creating a new UI?

"Waste"? You would have few years of better user experience already.

I do not see problem with that because everything in DF is in this state of flux already. Basically everything you see and have will be rewritten more than once in next 20 years. For that reason criticising UI changes on this basis is very unfair.

* Yes, will not happen. Entire discussion is academic excercise.

[Putnam]

Here's the issue: the low level of the UI is great. It's perfectly responsive. The controls do exactly what you expect them to at all times if you know what they do.

The New UI is not about components. The components are fine as they are. Maybe a bit of extra mouse support, but they're pretty much perfect.

The problem is organization and conveyance.

These are the problems with Dwarf Fortress's UI and these are things that will require constant attention. The UI is not in any way, shape or form a programming limitation, it's a design limitation, and adding any feature would require close attention to UI design--constant attention. It is not a made-up concern.

[zacen299]

Here's the issue: the low level of the UI is great. It's perfectly responsive. The controls do exactly what you expect them to at all times if you know what they do.

The New UI is not about components. The components are fine as they are. Maybe a bit of extra mouse support, but they're pretty much perfect.

The problem is organization and conveyance.

These are the problems with Dwarf Fortress's UI and these are things that will require constant attention. The UI is not in any way, shape or form a programming limitation, it's a design limitation, and adding any feature would require close attention to UI design--constant attention. It is not a made-up concern.

Add to that, that the UI is always ALWAYS dead last in the making of a game and if any of these idiots knew anything about game design they'd know that. Toady will get to it when the game is done whether that takes 30 years so be it. If you don't like the Alpha don't play it. The UI is not important and won't be until the game is done. Now end this argument it's never going to go anywhere because people on the internet are stubborn morons.

[Talvieno]

Java/VB/C++ programmer here - thought I'd throw in my two cents.

Putnam is right. Making any changes to the game that require the UI to be changed (added to or otherwise) would result in having to rework a good deal of the UI. This would happen absolutely every time he added a new UI-access/UI-controlled/UI-viewed feature. I'm not going to throw out any arbitrary numbers or anything, but really - UI is a lot more of a pain to work with than most people realize. It's not so much rocket science as it is repetitive and time-consuming.

Organization is a big issue too, because it's incredibly likely that things will need to be reorganized pretty often - if you want the game to always maintain as organized a UI as possible. It's why professional programmers leave UI alone until closer to when they've finished adding everything.


fakeedit: ninja'd.

realedit: Yeah, really, as Zacen said: Nothing will come of this. As much as I'd like to see a myriad of little bugs fixed, Toady will get to it when he wants to, and not before. There's no hope of a kickstarter either, because Toady doesn't like feeling that sort of pressure. Voting might tweak things in our favor, but even that ultimately depends on the number of people who vote for it.

[davesoft]

Love the game, have played well over 200 hours ... blah blah blah ... issues with kickstarter.

TL;DR
Volunteer Toady for 1 year development of playability patch using kickstarter money

lol spacebase df9 already exists. Go make money off an original idea instead

[Elephant Parade]

Love the game, have played well over 200 hours ... blah blah blah ... issues with kickstarter.

TL;DR
Volunteer Toady for 1 year development of playability patch using kickstarter money

lol spacebase df9 already exists. Go make money off an original idea instead

I'm not quite sure that I understand your post. Though I don't think that spending time improving the UI would be a good idea, I'm also pretty sure it wouldn't be ripping off another game.

[davesoft]

Love the game, have played well over 200 hours ... blah blah blah ... issues with kickstarter.

TL;DR
Volunteer Toady for 1 year development of playability patch using kickstarter money

lol spacebase df9 already exists. Go make money off an original idea instead

I'm not quite sure that I understand your post. Though I don't think that spending time improving the UI would be a good idea, I'm also pretty sure it wouldn't be ripping off another game.

To me the original post reads 'Dwarf fortress is popular... how can we use money to amplify that??'

Doublefine already decided dwarf fortress was a winning formula and are about 30% through their own space-themed version:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=spacebase+df9


DF's current interface is all part of the game, one day it may change, but until then try and think of an interface that's as powerful but more intuitive.
Anyone who remembers what Microsoft Excel used to look like will agree that 'better interfaces are not always better'


If money is to be fired at this game, I'd rather it goes to the careful and loving creator, who so far has created something we love to play with very little outside help.

Just imagine what would happen to our beloved DF if it was randomly sold to EA one day and Toady went to live on mars. Those soulless, market-driven husks would overhaul it into worthless mush like A Game of Dwarves, throw a few 'mil' at an advertising campaign and the thing fades from public memory within 3 months.

Not to be overly sentimental, but some of us will still be interested in this game when our hair starts goin grey. Let's not ruin it over a quick buck ;P

[Elephant Parade]

I agree that the interface is fine the way it is. I just don't see how it would be ripping off other games, which is what you originally said.

Also, LMGTFY links are only funny when somebody actually asks what the thing is. Otherwise, they're just kind of annoying.

[MrWiggles]

The last conversation about this...

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=130710.msg4727652#msg4727652

[davesoft]

The last conversation about this...

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=130710.msg4727652#msg4727652

Case closed... till next time/thread!

[reality.auditor]

The UI is not in any way, shape or form a programming limitation, it's a design limitation, and adding any feature would require close attention to UI design--constant attention.

You seem to claim that any New UI would somehow always have design limitations that would require "constant overhaul". Did I understand it right?

Add to that, that the UI is always ALWAYS dead last in the making of a game

Problem with this kind of argument: AAA game lifecycle is, um, slightly different than lifecycle of indie perpetual alpha. Just a bit. Especially when development of this particular game will end only with death of creator.

[Putnam]

The UI is not in any way, shape or form a programming limitation, it's a design limitation, and adding any feature would require close attention to UI design--constant attention.

You seem to claim that any New UI would somehow always have design limitations that would require "constant overhaul". Did I understand it right?

You did not. A new UI would not have design limitations. Toady will not freeze the game's features when he makes a new UI. Any UI made afterward would have to either be up to the standard of the new UI (I.E difficult and time-consuming to make) or made as Toady wants to (not up to snuff). A new UI can't just be made then sit there forever unless Toady stops making Dwarf Fortress.

[krenshala]

Add to that, that the UI is always ALWAYS dead last in the making of a game

Problem with this kind of argument: AAA game lifecycle is, um, slightly different than lifecycle of indie perpetual alpha. Just a bit. Especially when development of this particular game will end only with death of creator.

Dwarf Fortress isn't an "indie perpetual alpha".  It just has a very (very) large requirements document, and Toady has only gotten about 30% of the way through that list.  I'm sure Toady will rework the UI once enough of the game is completed that the chances of major UI reworking are minimal.  Doing the UI rework before that point is, at best, wasted effort on his part.