Print

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

[NW_Kohaku]

Just merge the toilet break with eating and drinking, happening afterwards. That keeps the number of breaks the same, only making them slightly longer, and would make some sense too.

Yes, this was by and large my thought on the matter, as well.

In fact, I suggest going a step further, and making it so that players can optionally suggest to dwarves that they try to take care of all their needs at once, and possibly additionally altering the way in which dwarves track their hunger/thirst/sleep meters so that they can go up or down at different rates... 

Basically, part of the problem is that a dwarf will go down to the bottom of a mine, get hungry just as he's about to start mining, run back up, eat, go back down, then get thirsty, run back up, drink, run back down, then get tired, go back up, sleep, go back down, decide it's time for a break after all that hard work, and go back up to slack off, go back down, hear about a cool party...

Thing is, you can make it so that they have a lower threshold they check when testing to see if they need a different break so they will also get a drink and go to sleep whenever they go to eat.  Provided the player localizes all these things in a tight space, that saves time. 

Then, you can add the toilets to be right next to the dining halls or food depots, and they can just run off to the restroom right after they take their drink.

Even if we're still somehow too squeemish to have actual bodily waste items, though, I still think it should at least be possible to have a "refuse" item generated any time food is consumed, not entirely unlike the way that seeds currently tend to litter the dining halls when you haven't kicked cooking into top gear.  It may not require sewers, necessarily, but could still be used as fertilizer, and would at least be something to take its place in farming.  Mass generation of such items would tend to lead to someone trying to build, say, minecart paths that functionally replace the "sewers", as well...

[Urist Tilaturist]

Squeamishness has no place in DF, and filth is already in the game. Toady's problem is in the logistics, not the principle.

[Dirst]

Squeamishness has no place in DF, and filth is already in the game. Toady's problem is in the logistics, not the principle.

The infrastructure is as simple as designating a restroom from a pot and/or defication zones, with an option to empty the former into the latter or keep the stuff around as reaction ingredients.  Some kind of nutrient level for soil will likely come along with the agriculture update.

The tricky part is getting dwarves and other creatures to listen to the call of nature in a way that doesn't break the player's ability to get stuff done.  I like the suggestion that dwarves relieve themselves at the end of a (shortened) meal or drink break.  Keep that first dining hall near the surface, and make sure your eventual commode system dumps somewhere downstream of the wells.

[Corona688]

The ball has been in Toady's court for the last decade.  There is no reason to continually prod and demand poop.

[MDFification]

The ball has been in Toady's court for the last decade.  There is no reason to continually prod and demand poop.

Unless, you know, you happen to want it implemented? Toady originally planned to implement it and got cold feet when some of the community disagreed. Showing him that the community is in favour is the logical way to get the ball rolling again.

[BoredVirulence]

The ball has been in Toady's court for the last decade.  There is no reason to continually prod and demand poop.

Unless, you know, you happen to want it implemented? Toady originally planned to implement it and got cold feet when some of the community disagreed. Showing him that the community is in favour is the logical way to get the ball rolling again.

As is discussing it such that people can generally come to a consensus on a reasonable implementation. So yes, these discussions have merit.

[Corona688]

Unless, you know, you happen to want it implemented?

He's the one who actually has to do it.  The ball's been in his court for the last decade.  No point discussing this into the ground repeatedly.

You're not a genius for inventing the idea of crap.  This is not some great fantastic new idea nobody's thought of before.  This has been done before.  And before.  And before.  And before.  And before. 

Please stop -- please.

Toady originally planned to implement it and got cold feet when some of the community disagreed.

I don't recall anyone showing anything near that.  He mentioned in an offhand manner 10 years ago that he'd think about it, and hasn't done so in 10 years despite nobody shutting up about it for a day since then.  It's almost as if he's not particularly interested in doing it.

Showing him that the community is in favour is the logical way to get the ball rolling again.

And now that you know it's not -- that it's extremely divided at best -- what will you do, continue clamoring for your fringe idea which 50% of the community despises and 10% doesn't care, or wait for actual acceptance?

[BoredVirulence]

The poll I remember was undecided with 344 (44.2%) voting yes, 352 (45.2%) no, and 83 (10.7%) yes with an init option to disable.

This literally translates into 54.9% in favor that it should exist, whether they plan on using its features or not. That's the majority.
Just because some people don't care for it, and some actively despise it does not make it the as controversial as you seem to think. On the contrary, while not everyone agrees, this thread has been overwhelmingly positive.

Just because a group of people despises something doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. You remind me of the people trying to convince Bethesda to remove giant spiders from Skyrim.

Toady has a lot planned. A better interface is planned, but he hasn't done anything with it. To conclude that, because Toady hasn't done anything with it, he has no interest in implementing it is simply false. Improvements happen at their logical place, this particular feature would logically coincide with an agriculture overhaul that the game sorely needs.

And yes, people interested in this feature should consider discussing it. People who oppose it should openly discuss how it could be implemented in a way they don't disagree with. DF has a history of deep simulation, generally anything that is realistic for the world Toady is trying to create gets added. I refuse to believe that this world Toady is creating doesn't involve pooping when poop exists in the game. I'll give you goblins not pooping, they don't eat, but why else do humans keep building sewers?...

Just because you disagree doesn't mean the idea is wrong. A better approach is to discuss how to make it, in your view, right. So I do suggest people keep talking about poop and pooping, and more importantly, how it should fit with the game.

[catoblepas]

Unless, you know, you happen to want it implemented?

He's the one who actually has to do it.  The ball's been in his court for the last decade.  No point discussing this into the ground repeatedly.

You're not a genius for inventing the idea of crap.  This is not some great fantastic new idea nobody's thought of before.  This has been done before.  And before.  And before.  And before.  And before. 

Please stop -- please.

Lot's of things have been in 'Toady's court' for years and haven't come out yet. they doesn't mean they won't.

I imagine that as DF becomes more and more detailed, dung will naturally be one of many things that will get handled. Not a primary concern for Toady at the moment, yet definitely something I can see being included in the future.

Sewers already exist, there's the 'filth' material, and one of ThreeToe's stories mentions 'nightsoil' (excrement) if I remember correctly. So I don't think there's reason to believe that Toady is dead-set against the idea of waste being included in the game-it's just taking a backseat  to other features Toady is tackling at the moment-things like fleshing out multi-species entities and multi-material items.

[MDFification]

Unless, you know, you happen to want it implemented?

He's the one who actually has to do it.  The ball's been in his court for the last decade.  No point discussing this into the ground repeatedly.

You're not a genius for inventing the idea of crap.  This is not some great fantastic new idea nobody's thought of before.  This has been done before.  And before.  And before.  And before.  And before. 

Please stop -- please.

Toady originally planned to implement it and got cold feet when some of the community disagreed.

I don't recall anyone showing anything near that.  He mentioned in an offhand manner 10 years ago that he'd think about it, and hasn't done so in 10 years despite nobody shutting up about it for a day since then.  It's almost as if he's not particularly interested in doing it.

Showing him that the community is in favour is the logical way to get the ball rolling again.

And now that you know it's not -- that it's extremely divided at best -- what will you do, continue clamoring for your fringe idea which 50% of the community despises and 10% doesn't care, or wait for actual acceptance?

Ok, wow.

First of all, you explicitly don't want to see it implemented. So forgive me for saying this, but your trying to shut down conversation on it really looks like you just being utterly intolerant of differences of opinion. There's no need for this vitrol. This is a suggestions forum. Toady decides what goes in, not us. There's no reason for us not to discuss it except that you'd rather not see it be a feature.
60% of the community reported that they'd like it to be a feature, although 10% said they wouldn't use it if there was an option to turn it off. That is not a fringe idea. That is a majority of the community supporting the idea being a part of the game. Even if the majority was against it - are you seriously suggesting that the idea can be refined, and more people decide to support it, if we don't talk about it?

Toady didn't just mention it off-hand; he planned it and went so far as to hard-code in 2 specific materials. Since then, he hasn't put in any work on it (that we know of) or stated that he's still considering it.

I recommend you take a minute to chill out, man. Some times people like things you hate. You've told them why you think they're wrong, and that's great. Thanks for contributing to the process. Now you're just trying to badger people into not expressing opinions other than yours, and that's completely detrimental to both this thread and the purpose of this subforum.

[Corona688]

60% of the community reported that they'd like it to be a feature, although 10% said they wouldn't use it if there was an option to turn it off.

That's a pretty odd definition of 'like'.  Wonder of wonders, I consider the 10% who demand the ability to turn it off to not actually want it.

That is not a fringe idea.

Fair enough -- it's pretty heavily divided down the middle.  This is not the mark of a good idea.  This is the mark of something which will annoy a lot of people no matter how it's implemented, if it is.

Even if the majority was against it - are you seriously suggesting that the idea can be refined, and more people decide to support it, if we don't talk about it?

By this point there's not much to be said or done unless you're either A) a modder, or B) Toady.

[Dirst]

60% of the community reported that they'd like it to be a feature, although 10% said they wouldn't use it if there was an option to turn it off.

That's a pretty odd definition of 'like'.  Wonder of wonders, I consider the 10% who demand the ability to turn it off to not actually want it.

Demand and Suggestion Forum don't really go together.

You can turn off temperature.  And artifacts.  And cave-ins.  And several other parts of the game with nothing more than a d_init setting.  Suggesting that something be a toggle is not suggesting it shouldn't be in the game.  I disable aquifers because I just find them annoying with no play value.  Other people relish the engineering challenge of defeating them, and I wouldn't presume to tell them that they're playing the game wrong.

Making night soil a toggle does add a complication: Toady would need to make an alternative poop-free method of soil replenishment in the agriculture overhaul, though it doesn't necessarily need to be easy.

[Vattic]

The poll I remember was undecided with 344 (44.2%) voting yes, 352 (45.2%) no, and 83 (10.7%) yes with an init option to disable.

This literally translates into 54.9% in favor that it should exist, whether they plan on using its features or not. That's the majority.
Just because some people don't care for it, and some actively despise it does not make it the as controversial as you seem to think. On the contrary, while not everyone agrees, this thread has been overwhelmingly positive.

Just because a group of people despises something doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. You remind me of the people trying to convince Bethesda to remove giant spiders from Skyrim.

-snip as I don't think this was aimed at me-

I was and always have argued in favour of it being added. I suspect you are mistaking my intent in the post you quote and possibly attributing to me the posts of others. Most of my posts in this thread have been to direct people to the older discussions, quote Toady on the matter, and refute people making claims that Toady refused completely. Still 54.9% to 45.1% doesn't show a clear majority and it's not like all, or most, players even took part in the vote.

Though claims of almost daily requests are at best hyperbole, the final post in the previous dedicated thread is from 2011, I do agree with Corona688 about the repeated debates in one way: Toady specifically asks us to limit the number of similar suggestions and to bump old threads if new ideas come to mind; Unless mistaken I've not seen much that warrants a new thread. I can't imagine Toady wants to read through the same points being made again by many of the same people. At the same time he could just ignore them and potentially miss any new ideas buried in the repeat suggestions.

[Corona688]

Making night soil a toggle does add a complication: Toady would need to make an alternative poop-free method of soil replenishment in the agriculture overhaul, though it doesn't necessarily need to be easy.

Don't we already have one?

[Corona688]

Suggesting that something be a toggle is not suggesting it shouldn't be in the game.

Neither does demanding the ability to  turn it off imply they want it by any stretch of the imagination.