Print

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

[Xangi]

snip

Honestly this is an alright idea, except for the implementation of mods. I think that a better idea is to sit down and say "How can we make modding easier, more stable and more flexible?". If there are going to be huge gaps between new versions, mods need to be plentiful and of good quality to keep the game alive. Nobody's going to agree on what mods to implement, so it's best to implement none.

[Evaris]

I have a VERY unpopular opinion:

I think we'd all like to see more frequent updates and polish,

I don't. Not at the expense of the living world, that is. There are many games where people can dick around with things in peace. Toady is trying to take computerized roleplaying somewhere it hasn't been before, and that's more important than some forumite's (all formumites) made-to-measure happy gratis fun time.

So very true, at the same time I have to partially disagree:  There should be more communication at some level, especially with the modding community.  Take graphics for instance, sure there are a few people who prefer ASCII, but can you honestly say that the majority would prefer it to a tileset, or isometric 3d?  The best thing is the modding community has given options - there is no reason such options couldn't be available to people in the core game. 

[Abalieno]

well first off I guess i have to be "that guy" to say that you don't have any more say in what happens to the game than anyone else.

I wrote this post not to "demand", but to motivate my points in the hope of convincing him to steer the way he does things.

If I can't convince him, then fine. I can only try.

[Severedicks]

Ultimately though, this is an exercise in futility, since it's likely that nothing said here will ever influence development.

Toady reads forum posts. Didn't you read one of his reports?

In other news, many of you know that I've always been far behind in my reading of the threads over in the suggestions forum, sometimes years behind with my comprehensive categorization, but over the last three months I've managed to catch up entirely.  It isn't possible to read every post in every thread, but I've checked every opening post out, scanned the reply posts, and taken notes (on over 12000 threads...).  I suspect that many of the faster usability ideas will make it in during the bug-fix period and during the job priorities work that'll follow this release.

Toady has been known to listen to the community at several occasions and I don't see why he would not listen this time also.

[Xangi]

Ultimately though, this is an exercise in futility, since it's likely that nothing said here will ever influence development.

Toady reads forum posts. Didn't you read one of his reports?

In other news, many of you know that I've always been far behind in my reading of the threads over in the suggestions forum, sometimes years behind with my comprehensive categorization, but over the last three months I've managed to catch up entirely.  It isn't possible to read every post in every thread, but I've checked every opening post out, scanned the reply posts, and taken notes (on over 12000 threads...).  I suspect that many of the faster usability ideas will make it in during the bug-fix period and during the job priorities work that'll follow this release.

Toady has been known to listen to the community at several occasions and I don't see why he would not listen this time also.

Reading is not the same as taking into major consideration. Besides, he'll do what he wants, and that's his right.

[Archereon]

I can understand your stance to a point; Dwarf Fortress is indeed horrendously complicated in many ways, and there's generally mountains of useless noise to sift through in order to find something that is in any way usefyl, interesting, or relevant to the game, and I typically find it quite hard to get a picture of what the context is for what I'm seeing on screen. Recently when playing adventure mode, I saw a swordsman in some random hamlet, start beating up a seemingly random siege operator; is this a town guard punishing a petty crime, a thug robbing a defenseless peasant, or just a brawl between lifelong rivals? What's the history behind what I'm seeing?

In order to get the slightest idea, you have to go digging through legends mode, and even then, the information you're given has way to many irrelevant details mixed in with it.

But at the same time, there's been so much progress towards making the emergent narrative players made for oddities like "Cacame the Immortal Onslaught, Elven King of Dwarves", "Catten and Eagle", and Asax the Cave Swallow Man Hero" part of the game rather than just player's explanations for oddities and bugs.

[Severedicks]

Well you can now play in stonesense, so isometric 3D gameplay is a thing already. And iso3d does work for z heights just fine.  Granted it took the modding community to come up with it, but still.

Honestly what toady needs to do is sit down with the modding community, (and community as a whole for input) as to what mods should be adapted into the core game.  I mean look at masterwork's popularity for example.  I'm sure a lot of people would like features found in it.  Or my work on Orichalcum, (bugtesting for new release in progress)  where I have materials and other objects which fit into the timeline and are distinct, as well as giving use to items already present.  Anyhow.

Stonesense isn't really a 3D renderer like, say, Fortress Overseer. As for integrating mods into the main game, perhaps he simply has his own vision of the lore and it doesn't fit mods. However he did include user-made raws when they proved to be objectively useful, like Uristocrat's real world density values. There is undoubtedly low-hanging fruit to be picked and a whole community ready to harvest it for him.

[Evaris]

Well you can now play in stonesense, so isometric 3D gameplay is a thing already. And iso3d does work for z heights just fine.  Granted it took the modding community to come up with it, but still.

Honestly what toady needs to do is sit down with the modding community, (and community as a whole for input) as to what mods should be adapted into the core game.  I mean look at masterwork's popularity for example.  I'm sure a lot of people would like features found in it.  Or my work on Orichalcum, (bugtesting for new release in progress)  where I have materials and other objects which fit into the timeline and are distinct, as well as giving use to items already present.  Anyhow.

Stonesense isn't really a 3D renderer like, say, Fortress Overseer. As for integrating mods into the main game, perhaps he simply has his own vision of the lore and it doesn't fit mods. However he did include user-made raws when they proved to be objectively useful, like Uristocrat's real world density values. There is undoubtedly low-hanging fruit to be picked and a whole community ready to harvest it for him.

Stonesense is isometric 3d, as stated, not a 3d renderer.  But it does in it's latest version for DF 2012 allow direct gameplay through the isometric interface, so... yeah.  http://www.wired.com/2014/07/dwarf-fortress-3d/

Regardless, the RAWs could see an update at any time, and on that side of things it comes down to what toady sees and wants to add, I suppose.

[Abalieno]

Do you think stones must be color-coded for our convenience?

I'll make an example so that we agree on the philosophy behind this:

If I carve a room out of sand I expect it to be mechanically different than if I carve it out of granite. Ok? If so, then it makes sense to display these variations, if the variations are relevant. I want to see at a glance ores, because I deal with ores differently.

But if cave-ins happens regardless of the material you dig into (and as far as I know DF works like this), then it makes no sense to have sand and granite. If you cared to add this variation, then I expect you also model the variation.

If I make a bed out of wood, I expect it makes SOME difference from a bed that is made of stone. And so on.

DF offers a much bigger fluff variety than it offers variety that is justified.

[Dyret]

I have a VERY unpopular opinion:

I think we'd all like to see more frequent updates and polish,

I don't. Not at the expense of the living world, that is. There are many games where people can dick around with things in peace. Toady is trying to take computerized roleplaying somewhere it hasn't been before, and that's more important than some forumite's (all formumites) made-to-measure happy gratis fun time.

I don't think you read that the way I wrote it. I meant as much as he'd like to be OP isn't Jesus in Gethsemane for wanting to see a cleaned up game (which we'll see in the next few weeks anyway,) I wasn't agreeing with colour-coded rocks or whatever.

[Abalieno]

I can understand your stance to a point; Dwarf Fortress is indeed horrendously complicated in many ways, and there's generally mountains of useless noise to sift through in order to find something that is in any way usefyl, interesting, or relevant to the game, and I typically find it quite hard to get a picture of what the context is for what I'm seeing on screen. Recently when playing adventure mode, I saw a swordsman in some random hamlet, start beating up a seemingly random siege operator; is this a town guard punishing a petty crime, a thug robbing a defenseless peasant, or just a brawl between lifelong rivals? What's the history behind what I'm seeing?

Or is it just a bug?

That's my point. I'm simply saying: please, this is a right moment to stop and focus polishing what we already have.

[Mopsy]

So very true, at the same time I have to partially disagree:  There should be more communication at some level, especially with the modding community.  Take graphics for instance, sure there are a few people who prefer ASCII, but can you honestly say that the majority would prefer it to a tileset, or isometric 3d?  The best thing is the modding community has given options - there is no reason such options couldn't be available to people in the core game.

It's a matter of cost-to-benefit. All else equal, I would love to have a convenient DF API that let everyone view and control the game as they pleased. I think Toady would, too. The problem is that such an API requires significant developer effort to create and maintain, and Toady is already overburdened with work. Furthermore, there are issues with third-party components being seen as integral to the game, creating even more tension between the creator's vision and player expectations. This has been discussed extensively in the past, and my impression was that an API with official support isn't any more likely than the whole game being open-sourced. For the foreseeable future, at least.

[sickboy]

wether you make an item out of wood or stone doesn't have to be different, it's mostly about what material you feel you want to spend to make it out of it.

as far as stone variety, first thing is each stone has a different value so items made out of it may be worth more or less, some are magma-safe and some are not but honestly, I'm much happier with that than 1 magma-safe stone, 1 non-safe stone, 1 type of dirt, 1 type of iron ore, 1 type of copper etc...

It creates variety so you can build things out of different materials and they look different/ are more/less pleasing to your dwarves. You may not care about that kind of stuff, but many of us like it and don't see it as a useless part of the game

[Sergarr]

Do you think stones must be color-coded for our convenience?

I'll make an example so that we agree on the philosophy behind this:

If I carve a room out of sand I expect it to be mechanically different than if I carve it out of granite. Ok? If so, then it makes sense to display these variations, if the variations are relevant. I want to see at a glance ores, because I deal with ores differently.

But if cave-ins happens regardless of the material you dig into (and as far as I know DF works like this), then it makes no sense to have sand and granite. If you cared to add this variation, then I expect you also model the variation.

If I make a bed out of wood, I expect it makes SOME difference from a bed that is made of stone. And so on.

DF offers a much bigger fluff variety than it offers variety that is justified.

It is simpler to add material first and then make them behave differently.

Because the world needs to be generated.

And the world must be geologically at least close to our world.

If you think that everything must have a purpose and be different, then guess what: the real world doesn't work that way, and DF is trying to imitate the real world on these topics.

Hell I even wager you don't care about the world generation at all!

[Xangi]

So very true, at the same time I have to partially disagree:  There should be more communication at some level, especially with the modding community.  Take graphics for instance, sure there are a few people who prefer ASCII, but can you honestly say that the majority would prefer it to a tileset, or isometric 3d?  The best thing is the modding community has given options - there is no reason such options couldn't be available to people in the core game.

It's a matter of cost-to-benefit. All else equal, I would love to have a convenient DF API that let everyone view and control the game as they pleased. I think Toady would, too. The problem is that such an API requires significant developer effort to create and maintain, and Toady is already overburdened with work. Furthermore, there are issues with third-party components being seen as integral to the game, creating even more tension between the creator's vision and player expectations. This has been discussed extensively in the past, and my impression was that an API with official support isn't any more likely than the whole game being open-sourced. For the foreseeable future, at least.

Yes let's not make DF go the route of Minecraft or god forbid STARBOUND when it comes to mods. Implementing user mods into the core game should be done rarely, if ever.