Print

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

[sal880612m]

If you guys are still looking for someone who enjoys DF with no mods, I'm right here.

DF 2014 is a modded DF 2012

What.

I am pretty sure you fully understand what Evaris is saying.  DF 2014 is Df 2012 with Toady modifying the code to add and change stuff to be more fun.
Mods made by players from the last version are also DF 2012 with those players modifying the code to add and change stuff to be more fun.

If you enjoy version releases, it doesn't make much sense to say you don't enjoy mods on principle. Perhaps you don't enjoy those specific mods, but it stands to logic that the main reason for that is the extent to which modders' hands are tied. So... untie them. Although I'm suggesting a more moderate route for doing so than open source.

Part of the reason I don't want to get into Masterwork is that I feel there is no clear vision for what it will become and that I feel it complicates and bloats an already complicated game. So as far as logic dictating that the main reason for that being the extent to which the modders hands are tied being the main reason for not enjoying mods seems silly to me. There are things they have done that still make me actually want to try despite not liking tons of what has been added and tons of what has been removed/changed.

I don't want mods wholesale incorporated into the game. I would like to see some specific bits of mods incorporated into the game but most of these are basically simple additions to fix limitations that don't make sense. ie the lack of adventure mode crafting options or the ability to make an anvil without one.

I also don't know that something like an API for modding makes any sense at this point. While ideally nothing would need to be reworked as Toady adds and/or changes things I can only assume the API would need to be updated eventually. So instead of getting what you want now and having to deal with it breaking or changing every update or every other update or every major update it seems to me like Toady has decided that the game isn't at a point where making an API is worth the effort or headaches it will cause in the long run. Either that or he is against the idea of an API in general in which case this topic becomes totally pointless.

As to community specific input on raws, he has done something like that in the past but I think Toady is already curving his impulses towards super realism and while the community does great things with modding I think most of us are no where near concerned with the details as we are the outcome. But this can sometimes be directly contrary to what Toady wants the game to be.

[GavJ]

The trees thing was just an offhand idea of a place to maybe earn some extra spare time. I'm not sure that researching whether flax sprouts are edible is necessary to test the crops framework, but admittedly, that sort of thing might have only taken like a week, in which case whatever.

Main points remain the same:
1) "Core changes" aren't necessarily more fun than mods.
2) Toady's code isn't necessarily more fun than, say, Meph's code.
3) #1 and #2 both become more true the more fleshed out the mod framework is.
4) Since there are a lot more man-hours available from the sum of all modders than Toady, #1-3 imply greater efficiency in getting mod frameworks (for GUI most of all, also gameplay though) out of the way as early as possible.

I also don't know that something like an API for modding makes any sense at this point.

I actually agree and do NOT think that a traditional, full on API is a good idea at this point. Only talking about RAWs, which are a much more scaled back version of what a true, full fledged API would be. RAWs do not limit or trad on Toady's toes to nearly the same extent, so they aren't inefficient for moving forward with structural changes still to be made.

Well, one exception being the GUI where I do think a traditional API is needed - but since Toady obviously doesn't want to work on the GUI himself anyway, the constraining nature of an API shouldn't bother him here, because he's not doing any GUI work for it to get in the way of (except progress bars, I guess)

[Footkerchief]

If we're going to talk about mods until the cows come home, let's at least distinguish between 1) content mods and 2) utilities.  Content mods are doing fine as they are.  It would be a much bigger deal if Toady incorporated/facilitated utilities like Stonesense, Text Will Be Text, or Dwarf Therapist. 

[Putnam]

1) "Core changes" aren't necessarily more fun than mods.
2) Toady's code isn't necessarily more fun than, say, Meph's code.
3) #1 and #2 both become more true the more fleshed out the mod framework is.
4) Since there are a lot more man-hours available from the sum of all modders than Toady, #1-3 imply greater efficiency in getting mod frameworks (for GUI most of all, also gameplay though) out of the way as early as possible.

1) Core changes allow more mod changes.
2) Meph doesn't write code. Also, Meph's raws rely entirely on Toady's code.
3) The mod framework is Toady's code, so anything mods do must be considered in Toady's code.
4. Since there are a lot more man-hours available from nine women than one, this implies that nine women can give birth to a child in one month.

[palu]

It was inevitable.

[GavJ]

Stonesense, Text Will Be Text

These two are both covered by a modular GUI API, which the OP suggested, and seemingly every poster after him has agreed with as highest priority for modding, IF they agree with modding efforts of any sort.

1) Core changes allow more mod changes.

Yes, more core changes allow a higher theoretical ceiling on the number of raws that could be included. But until the actual raws are included, theoretical ceilings don't help with mods at all.

Right now, there are, let's say 500 possible raw tags you could add, or whatever, for existing features. And maybe 200 exist.
If you add more core code, the total possible number might jump up to 700. But if you still actually only have 200, the modding power is the same as before.
And if you make the ceiling go up to 700 and then the number of implemented raws go to 300, you're still just as well off as you would have been making them go to 300 also when the ceiling as back at 500.

Hopefully I'm making some sort of sense. In short: ceilings on the possible number of RAWs don't matter until one of the ceiling has actually been hit and is actually limiting things. Which is not currently the case. It's sort of like making the bottom of a narrow-necked bottle larger and then hoping it will make it pour faster... You have to widen the bottleneck where the bottleneck is for maximum efficiency.

points 2-3: I don't care whose code you call it.

4. Since there are a lot more man-hours available from nine women than one, this implies that nine women can give birth to a child in one month.

A valid point, but this is just a distinction between: efficiency of meeting Toady's eventual goal versus efficiency of generating the most fun for players.
These are different goals. But since Toady's can't be finished for another 20 years, it seems necessary to cater to the more short term goals in the meantime, to keep people's interest and donations coming in to make the Toady goal feasible.

At least in my opinion. It's not NECESSARILY true. Toady could go get part time jobs and fund himself that way if he deems it to be a faster route to his end goal, and if he cares about that more than community enjoyment in the meantime. Which he might, I have no idea.

[Putnam]

Not really. Collaboration doesn't actually make programming go much faster, especially when everyone is working on a single system.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

points 2-3: I don't care whose code you call it.

You really think that raw modding is the same as coding?

[Arbinire]

4. Since there are a lot more man-hours available from nine women than one, this implies that nine women can give birth to a child in one month.

mind if I siggy that?  Made me genuinely giggle

[GavJ]

Not talking about collaboration. Toady is and should remain the primary architect of the main thread of the game's structure. Which is why I personally don't advocate open source, unlike the OP.

Mods are just a way of much more efficiently catering to every small minority group of people with different tastes about exactly what gameplay is most fun to them, along the way, so that people are happier and presumably more donation-happy.

Toady should focus on the trunk of the tree and on a system that allows twigs to easy be made. Modders can fill out the leaves so that it's a pleasant place to play while it is still a young sapling. 

You really think that raw modding is the same as coding?

This is not relevant to an argument of more time spent on modding frameworks.
(although incidentally, I do program in "real" languages all the time, and I think it is indeed pretty much the same as a very high level language. But would prefer to discuss this interesting topic in PMs or whatever if you want since, again, I don't see it as relevant here)

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Toady should focus on the trunk of the tree and on a system that allows twigs to easy be made. Modders can fill out the leaves so that it's a pleasant place to play while it is still a young sapling. 

Yeah, that's sorta been what we've seen for about ~8 years. Building a foundation and letting modders do what they want and can do while Toady is working on the game.

[Footkerchief]

A valid point, but this is just a distinction between: efficiency of meeting Toady's eventual goal versus efficiency of generating the most fun for players.
These are different goals. But since Toady's can't be finished for another 20 years, it seems necessary to cater to the more short term goals in the meantime, to keep people's interest and donations coming in to make the Toady goal feasible.

At least in my opinion. It's not NECESSARILY true. Toady could go get part time jobs and fund himself that way if he deems it to be a faster route to his end goal, and if he cares about that more than community enjoyment in the meantime. Which he might, I have no idea.

This is always relevant, both to your post and the thread as a whole.  It's basically required reading for anyone who wants to understand Toady's perspective on open-source and other forms of collaboration.

[...] I'm being asked to assume risk.  I don't accept assessments of the risk as extraordinarily slight -- I've seen no sound basis for those assessments here.  I also don't think the currently proposed licensing/obfuscation method of putting the cat back into the bag would work -- with a principal downside being that it requires me to turn into an asshole who, after initially sanctioning the process, breaks everything that people have been working on.  Publishing an API and then trying to reel it back in just seems completely unworkable and irresponsible to me.  So the point is to assess risk upfront and then make a decision I can live with.

And right now, I have no idea what would happen.  This isn't the same as leaving my math job or adding the Z coordinate.  The first was a decision I had to make personally for my quality of life, and the second was a calculated risk which I didn't really have strong misgivings about (though some people are still pro-2D version, I think I can get most of them what they want over time in terms of gameplay difficulty, etc., though it'll never feel like it's quite on that rail again most likely).  Do I accept that third parties could improve the interface?  Of course.  Do I think I could do better than a third party myself, even over time?  No, not at all, though I can certainly improve on what I've got now to a large degree even without external input (which I, of course, love to receive).  So, initially, there's some attraction to the third party interface idea.

However, reflecting on the position I'd be in, there are things not to like about it.  How many threads were there about broken utilities when this version came out?  If more than half the player base comes in off a third party interface (and given how much the current interface sucks, and how much it is a source of first time downloaders dropping the game, this is not only imaginable, it is very, very likely), how would it be if it broke at each release?  There's no way to mitigate that without my direct involvement -- imagine a release down the line where you can suddenly move dwarven armies around on the world map, with a tactical view and various options.  That interface can't write itself, and it wouldn't be a quick patch, though certainly dedicated people, assuming that about whoever is maintaining the front-end at that time, can pull things together rapidly.  The pressure on me to work directly with them to get the interface out at the same time as the game itself would likely be immense and disruptive, given what little evidence we have from broken utilities.  That's not to say that I often get requests to work with utility writers (other than from the writers themselves, who I generally accommodate), but this would be at a different order of magnitude.

So what's the exact risk there then?  First, I don't want to work with other people.  So, assuming I don't do that, there's now a constant amount of pressure on me and a general disruption in the forums.  The latter could be mitigated with some announcements/guidelines, etc., but the pressure wouldn't go away.  Monetarily, it's impossible to say what on earth would happen, but if I supported the third party interface directly pre-release, I'd likely make more money, but I'd be unhappy.  If I didn't support it directly, but it was there, I'd still likely make more money, but I'd be unhappy.  That's not to say that I don't want to grow the audience and allow more people play the game, but I want to do it in a way with which I feel satisfied, even if that ends up being slower or just plain worse than a hypothetical third party alternative.  If someone, as a potential donor, thinks that's unreasonably selfish, that person shouldn't send me any more money than he or she thinks I've deserved for his or her enjoyment, just like everybody else.  Despite my dedication to this project, I'm unwilling to sacrifice my enjoyment of working on it for anything, including its quality or even its future release if it comes down to that.  That should be plainly obvious.  I'm not a slave.  Of course I do some things I don't like working on, with the interface and more.  I fulfill requests for features I'm not going to use myself.  However, again, the current proposal is of a different order of magnitude, with the potential of ruining it for me, and the end result is completely uncertain.

Given what I've seen here and there, it seems like a full third party interface might develop even without my involvement (rather than the various utilities we have now), but in that case, despite the same issues that might come up, at least it won't be a situation of my own creation that I feel a strong obligation to deal with, although the pressure would still be there.

[GavJ]

Toady should focus on the trunk of the tree and on a system that allows twigs to easy be made. Modders can fill out the leaves so that it's a pleasant place to play while it is still a young sapling. 

Yeah, that's sorta been what we've seen for about ~8 years. Building a foundation and letting modders do what they want and can do while Toady is working on the game.

No, the modders can't actually do very much at all, because the GUI is impossible to meaningfully change without memory address "hacking" which is unsupported and changes every release, and the like 1/3 of the raw tags are bugged and there aren't very many of them compared to features.

[Putnam]

At least in my opinion. It's not NECESSARILY true. Toady could go get part time jobs and fund himself that way if he deems it to be a faster route to his end goal, and if he cares about that more than community enjoyment in the meantime. Which he might, I have no idea.

This is always relevant, both to your post and the thread as a whole.  It's basically required reading for anyone who wants to understand Toady's perspective on open-source and other forms of collaboration.

How'd you mix up your quote like that?

Correct post by GavJ supposed to be linked that was instead attributed to me

[Mictlantecuhtli]

No, the modders can't actually do very much at all, because the GUI is impossible to meaningfully change without memory address "hacking" which is unsupported and changes every release, and the like 1/3 of the raw tags are bugged and there aren't very many of them compared to features.

Okay then