Print

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

[Abalieno]

Not seeing how those support your argument.  Abalieno says "Toady should work more with them" and "Toady needs to work more directly with those who are developing graphic modes" (emphasis mine).  Abalieno knows that Toady already does those things to some extent.  S/he's just saying that Toady should do it more.

Clarifying, I'm mostly saying that there was a push at some point in the past that lead to the opening toward SDL. So I'm asking Toady to do another significant push now, because now is the time after two+ years of work on deeper stuff, and a new push is needed on those other fronts.

That said, I don't know if Toady helped very much making things like DFhack or Dwarf Therapist happen. They seem to have hacked in without an actual support. The point would be integrate them better and include some of the things DFhack does right in the code.

Abalieno also explicitly said "make branches" in relation to Dwarf Fortress, which certainly isn't being misrepresented.

And NOPE.

I didn't say DF need branches. I replied "make branches" when someone said hypothetical open source leads to people disagreeing on the direction of the game. Hence: make branches. DCSS is better than DC. It was a branch. Angband spawned all kinds of games. People disagreeing isn't the end of the world.

But none of this applies to DF. DF isn't going open source and that's fine. I'm simply saying that open source would fix very quickly all the problems that DF currently has on the client size. Game logic, game design are different matters.

So the conclusion of all this, again, is about the hope that Toady at least opens up more of the client side code, because that's the aspect where the community can help making BIG strides forward, and that Toady likely won't fix on his own.

[palu]

What pressure is there if he clearly states ahead of time that he's not going to help them, prior to anybody making GUIs in the first place? Or clearly outlining the limits to which he will sort of help them, such as by making graphics-relevant changelogs prior to releases (is a form of help that does not require collaboration).

"OMIGOD hurry up and help them!"
"There's nothing to hurry, because I don't help with code that isn't mine, for sake of my sanity. This was made clear from before the GUI was made. A default GUI is available for anybody wishing to experience zero downtime after a release [link]."

People who legitimately want to continue whining and actually resenting Toady even after such an explanation are morons and they're going to give him a heart attack if he tries to cater to them no matter what business model he chooses, IMO *shrug*

What pressure is there if he clearly states ahead of time that he's not going to work with other people, or do a lot of work on the UI, or create an API for making custom interfaces, right? Oh wait...

[Jackboot]

There should only be three types of chairs in The Sims: one shitty but cheap chair, one mediocre chair and one decadent chair. Anything else is just detracting from gameplay.

Oh, that furthers MY point.

I've always hated that in The Sims what you wear is completely ignored and makes no difference mechanically. You could go around in underwear but no one would show any kind of reaction. An example of variation that is merely cosmetic when you instead expect actual depth.

And then I do think chairs can have different stats on them? I don't know how much granularity, but I guess it's variation that DF doesn't have.

This thread is winding down because everything that can be said has already been said, but I thought I'd throw my two cents in because the dogpile isn't big enough.

Cosmetics doesn't have to have a concrete mechanical purpose. It's cosmetic. That's the point of a simulator: It simulates and throws in all the cosmetics and fancy fluff. If you want a game where every single object is necessary and no fluff is permitted go play one of the Dwarf Fortress spiritual successors like Gnomeria. If you took out all the extra couches from the Sims it would strip the player of choices and the ability to customize his house. If you stripped all the clothing options (Even though you get bare bones stuff to begin with unless you inject money into their simpoints...) and made "YOU MUST WEAR SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE CLOTHING OR BE SHUNNED" mandatory the game would be terrible. I WANT my sim to have a wedding in his tighty-whities with his bright purple and pink mohawk and no one bats an eye. It's funny and I enjoy it.

The same can be said of Dwarf Fortress. It's got all these cool geological features that make it seem like these are actual mountains with geological history. I don't just dig into "stone" and "dirt" until I hit "ore" like this is Minecraft. I dig through a mountain that was simulated to be an actual mountain, and I can colour-coordinate my fort with the rich dwarves getting marble doors and statues while the plebs get mudstone doors and rickety wooden chests. I utilize what's in the fort and have enjoyment in all the variation. (My only dissent to this is when I have a lovely brown fort then suddenly strike this huge bright yellow mass in the mountain and my OCD makes me abandon.)

Heck, I even enjoy doing it without DF therapist; the only utilities I used in .34 were soundsense and DF hack for mass-obliterating rotten clothes. I find equal enjoyment in ASCII and tiles, and equal enjoyment from vanilla and mods. I'd rather these mods not become mandatory parts of the game, but I don't have to worry about that because this thread isn't going to change the way Toady has been developing the game.

[GavJ]

What pressure is there if he clearly states ahead of time that he's not going to work with other people, or do a lot of work on the UI, or create an API for making custom interfaces, right? Oh wait...

What you're implying was my point, as clarified in a subsequent post. It should have read "what new pressure" or "what additional pressure" or something like that. Sorry.
It does already exist, which is why it existing later in a different form doesn't seem like a significant cost in exchange for a much better game.

[Mipe]

This is terri.. nevermind, I'm hopping off the minecart here.

[mnjiman]

Rabble rabble rabble rabble!

Apparently humans in adventure mode have become sentient and started talking to players about the current bugs in the game.

[Abalieno]

Cosmetics doesn't have to have a concrete mechanical purpose. It's cosmetic. That's the point of a simulator: It simulates and throws in all the cosmetics and fancy fluff.

The stone types aren't "cosmetic". The ASCII characters and color don't give you the texture of the stone. They convey information. And this information is mostly useless.

I'll repeat the example that when I first carved a tunnel in a sand material I was worried that, being sand, it probably produced more easily cave ins. When instead I read that cave ins do not take into account the material type I was rather disappointed.

The problem isn't that nothing should exist in the game that isn't functionally different, but that stuff that you EXPECT being functionally different isn't, yet you find in the game in absurd amounts.

I'm not criticizing the specific case, but a style of development when first the variation goes in, and only later there's a worry to actually develop mechanics (if ever).

I ask you, what would entail have DF hide all types of "pointless variation" from the UI. Like: it shows you the relevant minerals, it show you the different materials you use, but otherwise the equal materials don't show any kind of color variation.

All the stone types would be still there, only their display would be altered. But on screen you wouldn't have all those rainbow colored rooms and objects. Because a bed made of stone is the same of a bed made of wood, and so give me a bed tile without coloring it fancy. Because this UI isn't about graphical fidelity, but abstraction since we are dealing with ASCII SYMBOLS.

And when you make symbols you also make sure to retain only the worthwhile kind of information, not the useless, cosmetic kind. For the cosmetic you use graphic.

AND, a good hint things are wrong in this specific case is how, in graphic tiles, a stone bed looks identical to a wood bed, whereas in ASCII you have all the garish color variations.

[Hetairos]

You can tell when a thread is starting to break down when people are arguing over the semantics that they said ten posts ago.

I brought up the "learning curves" thread, but no one listened.

[Mipe]

You can tell when a thread is starting to break down when people are arguing over the semantics that they said ten posts ago.

I brought up the "learning curves" thread, but no one listened.

It is difficult to read with ears, after all.

[dennislp3]

Cosmetics doesn't have to have a concrete mechanical purpose. It's cosmetic. That's the point of a simulator: It simulates and throws in all the cosmetics and fancy fluff.

The stone types aren't "cosmetic". The ASCII characters and color don't give you the texture of the stone. They convey information. And this information is mostly useless.

I'll repeat the example that when I first carved a tunnel in a sand material I was worried that, being sand, it probably produced more easily cave ins. When instead I read that cave ins do not take into account the material type I was rather disappointed.

The problem isn't that nothing should exist in the game that isn't functionally different, but that stuff that you EXPECT being functionally different isn't, yet you find in the game in absurd amounts.

I'm not criticizing the specific case, but a style of development when first the variation goes in, and only later there's a worry to actually develop mechanics (if ever).

I ask you, what would entail have DF hide all types of "pointless variation" from the UI. Like: it shows you the relevant minerals, it show you the different materials you use, but otherwise the equal materials don't show any kind of color variation.

All the stone types would be still there, only their display would be altered. But on screen you wouldn't have all those rainbow colored rooms and objects. Because a bed made of stone is the same of a bed made of wood, and so give me a bed tile without coloring it fancy. Because this UI isn't about graphical fidelity, but abstraction since we are dealing with ASCII SYMBOLS.

And when you make symbols you also make sure to retain only the worthwhile kind of information, not the useless, cosmetic kind. For the cosmetic you use graphic.

AND, a good hint things are wrong in this specific case is how, in graphic tiles, a stone bed looks identical to a wood bed, whereas in ASCII you have all the garish color variations.

You can mod out all the variety and excess...thats pretty much the same thing as an open source branch...have at it. In fact I think there is a mod out there that does EXACTLY that

But I would say your view is a bit ridiculous...you seem to be labeling it all "wrong" and how it "shouldn't" be based on opinion...not everyone thinks the way you do or agrees with it...not sure why the world should be warped to fit your particular view

[ShadowHammer]

You can tell when a thread is starting to break down when people are arguing over the semantics that they said ten posts ago.

I brought up the "learning curves" thread, but no one listened.

Yeah, I have to agree. I think everything productive that's going to be said has been said, and most of them have been said a few times. Anytime someone wants to lock this thread, it would be fine by me.

With that being said, watching the arguments on the "learning curves" thread was quite entertaining, for a while at least.

[GavJ]

It's not nearly as ridiculous as that one got. But yes, resisting any more contentful posts...

[Symmetry]

Apparently humans in adventure mode have become sentient and started talking to players about the current bugs in the game.

It was inevitable.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Apparently humans in adventure mode have become sentient and started talking to players about the current bugs in the game.

I wonder if it is possible to add forum posts into the game as dialogue...

[sal880612m]

You can tell when a thread is starting to break down when people are arguing over the semantics that they said ten posts ago.

I brought up the "learning curves" thread, but no one listened.

I remember that post both of them. I heard and understand and chose to ignore. The way I see it people are trying to pressure Toady into doing what they want and while there are things brought up that we all agree with I think it probably helps ease the sense of pressure he gets if people of the viewpoint that it is his game and he should develop it as he sees fit speak up.