Print

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

[ab9rf]

two months on and I'm playing more and more 47.05 because it simply flows better. the premium version just kinda hurts to play (literally, the forced mouse interactions are killing me... ) The new game content is honestly great but not worth the switch in UI atm.

tbh I have yet to spend any significant time playing v50; while I have to load forts occasionally to test things for DFHack development, between the interactions I've had with the new interface and the reports I've read from the community, I've come to the conclusion that if I find myself wanting a DF fix I'll probably be better served playing 47.05. Unfortunately I accidentally broke my 47.05 installation by inadvertently installing a 50.0x DFHack development build over it, so I can't even play 47.05 right now.

So I've been playing DSP, Satisfactory, and Minecraft instead.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Every major release is followed by a long series of bug fixes. This isn't new.

Sort of. On Steam, it isn't common to have major bugs lasting one revolution around the sun. Which is why I thought a Steam release might be a good thing. Turns out...

Turns out, releasing on Steam didn't magically duplicate Toady into a company full of programmers dedicated to fixing bugs. Well, funny that....

[Shonai_Dweller]

Unfortunately I accidentally broke my 47.05 installation by inadvertently installing a 50.0x DFHack development build over it, so I can't even play 47.05 right now.

Just download and play it....
Every version of dwarf fortress ever made is free to download right here. Always has been, always will be. You can't somehow "break" that...

[Thorfinn]

Every major release is followed by a long series of bug fixes. This isn't new.

Sort of. On Steam, it isn't common to have major bugs lasting one revolution around the sun. Which is why I thought a Steam release might be a good thing. Turns out...

Turns out, releasing on Steam didn't magically duplicate Toady into a company full of programmers dedicated to fixing bugs. Well, funny that....

I get that. Releasing on Steam entails a lot of obligations on the programmer, not the least of which is Workshop integration. Compare the difficulty of modding on the Steam platform vs. modding in classic. Anything beyond reactions, raws and tilesets? "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave."

The "one man show" doesn't really cut it, particularly when DF has had a following loyal enough to dedicate scads of time to reverse-engineering data files, the executable, and even RAM, which, arguably, might have been of more use finding bugs and producing the kind of content we already see on Steam.

Stardew Valley is not remotely close to the level of detail that is DF, (and not in a genre I enjoy anyway), yet one-man show. Gnomoria, too, for that matter. Do I care that there are forty-eleven non-fruit-bearing trees in DF vs. the two in Gnomoria? Not really, particularly when there is no difference in appearance, anway. A subtle difference in shading of the ASCII symbol at most, but usually the only way to distinguish betwixt them is a single word in the "loo(k)" command.

As an example, I'd much prefer QoL changes like an easier method of poultry farming. When a hen is ready to lay an egg, she tries to path to an empty nest box, ideally one where she is pastured. Seems to me anything beyond that is complication for complication's sake.

[Ten_Tacles]

As an example, I'd much prefer QoL changes like an easier method of poultry farming. When a hen is ready to lay an egg, she tries to path to an empty nest box, ideally one where she is pastured. Seems to me anything beyond that is complication for complication's sake.

Complication for complication's sake is the whole deal of this game. There is so much simulation that would be completely superfluous in another game, but the extreme (and sometimes perhaps pointless) depth I feel is the whole point. This is a simulation first, and a game second.

[Thorfinn]

As an example, I'd much prefer QoL changes like an easier method of poultry farming. When a hen is ready to lay an egg, she tries to path to an empty nest box, ideally one where she is pastured. Seems to me anything beyond that is complication for complication's sake.

Complication for complication's sake is the whole deal of this game. There is so much simulation that would be completely superfluous in another game, but the extreme (and sometimes perhaps pointless) depth I feel is the whole point. This is a simulation first, and a game second.

Maybe. The complication level is quite varied. For example, I know of no way to tell the brewer to make blackberry wine other than to forbid all other fruits, while I give the jeweler explicit instructions of not only what kinds of gems to encrust a certain quiver with, but also the quality of those gems. It's not complication for complication's sake, at least not consistently.

[Panando]

For example, I know of no way to tell the brewer to make blackberry wine other than to forbid all other fruits

You can just make a food stockpile which only allows blackberries which is fractionally closer to the Still than any other stockpile containing brewables. I can't remember if brewing takes the barrel first and then the brewable or vice-verca, but in any case when the dwarf first decides to brew they'll grab the nearest relevant item and carry it to the Still, so with repeat orders what mats they use the first time they start working is unpredictable, but for subsequent jobs which they initiate while standing in the center tile of the workshop it's very predictable. So you probably can't guarantee they'll only make blackberry wine, but if you issue an order for 10 drink, you'll probably get 8 or 9 of those as blackberry wine. I do this to make Sunshine and it at least ensures the sunberries are cleared out much faster than any other brewables.

And honestly this seems to me to be a pretty reasonable solution, basically leveraging the simple principle that dwarves are lazy and prefer to grab the closest item.

But it is kind of annoying how different but functionally equivilant ways to specify things have accreted over the years, like at this point now that we can be specify materials for tasks/orders via the magnifying glass, I don't think forges really need the submenus for material since we would be able to achieve the exact same thing via the magnifying glass. Now I'm not saying that system is perfect yet, but give a hotkey to the magnifying glass for the most recently added task/order and make search boxes automatically focused and we could swiftly specify an item and its material without needing the nested submenus.

[Putnam]

Yeah, I have encountered a lot of bugs so far.

- Rocs only give birth to male offspring
- War dragons are nearly impossible to use in battle because their fire causes FPS to drop like a rock
- War dragons sometimes have trouble claiming a nest box. They get stuck in a loop walking back and forth from a nest box to a random spot.
- Assigning trained megabeasts to a squad and sending that squad to conquer other sites will sometimes result in those megabeasts coming back because the game doesn't differentiate between tame and wild megabeasts
- Half my fort believes they are biologically related to a hydra

I don't think it feels excessive at all, you can spent years improving the usability of this game, simply due to the fact of how much there just is. They have to release at some point.
Though the QoL journey is far from over, all the points you make are great. I just disagree on the "excessive".

Also, tombs being only for one dwarf isn't all that awful? I can imagine them desiring their own private place of rest. Probably aren't fond of being buried in mass burial chamber, and thus would not prevent ghosts. Though perhaps something like family tombs would be a good idea, I wouldn't put that under QoL.

It's not awful in theory but in practice, manually assigning a tomb to every dwarf is tedious. It's like gay animals-- it sounds good in theory but in practice homosexuals ruin breeding plans.

Your first four points are all old, if they're even real (the rocs one is likely a coincidence). They were a thing in 0.47.05.

in practice homosexuals ruin breeding plans.

This is not true, has never been true, and I strongly suspect that everyone who was saying it had an ulterior motive. Yes, I'm sure you regularly ran into issues with the 1/4000 chance¹ that all of the males or females in your 3 breeding pairs are uninterested in the opposite sex... or maybe people were just making shit up to get certain others riled up. Who knows.

¹Briefly 1/32, but this was fixed relatively quickly in the grand scheme of things.

[Ten_Tacles]

Complication for complication's sake is the whole deal of this game. There is so much simulation that would be completely superfluous in another game, but the extreme (and sometimes perhaps pointless) depth I feel is the whole point. This is a simulation first, and a game second.

Maybe. The complication level is quite varied. For example, I know of no way to tell the brewer to make blackberry wine other than to forbid all other fruits, while I give the jeweler explicit instructions of not only what kinds of gems to encrust a certain quiver with, but also the quality of those gems. It's not complication for complication's sake, at least not consistently.

Aye, true. Some parts are super detailed, like the instrument crafting, but others are not, like the whole alcohol brewing system.
Personally I think that's backwards, but I do not control what Toady One is interested in programming, and I wouldn't want to.

[Putnam]

instruments are newer than alcohol brewing

[Hans Lemurson]

Dwarf Fortress is layers upon layers of New laid on top of Old, with the Old rarely changing unless replaced entirely by the New.

The philosophy seems to be "Every feature is a temporary stand-in for the true final form.  Why refine something that will be replaced in the future?"

[Moeteru]

Your first four points are all old, if they're even real (the rocs one is likely a coincidence). They were a thing in 0.47.05.

That would make them more likely to get fixed, not less, wouldn't it?

in practice homosexuals ruin breeding plans.

This is not true, has never been true, and I strongly suspect that everyone who was saying it had an ulterior motive. Yes, I'm sure you regularly ran into issues with the 1/4000 chance¹ that all of the males or females in your 3 breeding pairs are uninterested in the opposite sex... or maybe people were just making shit up to get certain others riled up. Who knows.

¹Briefly 1/32, but this was fixed relatively quickly in the grand scheme of things.

It's a good thing nobody ever tried to start a breeding program with a single male-female pair.
Personally the 1/10 chance of such a pair being infertile doesn't really bother me, but to imply that nobody could ever complain about it in good faith seems a little extreme. Or hell, maybe all animals always come in groups of 3 and anyone claiming otherwise is just making shit up.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Your first four points are all old, if they're even real (the rocs one is likely a coincidence). They were a thing in 0.47.05.

That would make them more likely to get fixed, not less, wouldn't it?

in practice homosexuals ruin breeding plans.

This is not true, has never been true, and I strongly suspect that everyone who was saying it had an ulterior motive. Yes, I'm sure you regularly ran into issues with the 1/4000 chance¹ that all of the males or females in your 3 breeding pairs are uninterested in the opposite sex... or maybe people were just making shit up to get certain others riled up. Who knows.

¹Briefly 1/32, but this was fixed relatively quickly in the grand scheme of things.

It's a good thing nobody ever tried to start a breeding program with a single male-female pair.
Personally the 1/10 chance of such a pair being infertile doesn't really bother me, but to imply that nobody could ever complain about it in good faith seems a little extreme. Or hell, maybe all animals always come in groups of 3 and anyone claiming otherwise is just making shit up.

I think any game anywhere that you could bring just one male and one female animal and assume they will 100% have children is pretty flawed. People might complain, sure, I suppose. Bit of a stretch.

[PlumpHelmetMan]

While QoL improvements are important, I can also understand why Toady prioritized arena mode, given that it's been an invaluable tool for modders throughout DF's history and they'd definitely start to miss it before long.

Easy for me to see how it was a tossup over which should be addressed first, and ultimately can't fault Toady for making the call he did. Hopefully a few dedicated QoL patches are on the near horizon.

[Dwarf_Fever]

Funny thing is the 47.05 method of "Build a coffin, wait for it to be placed, select it, turn it to burial=yes" is basically the same amount of effort as the new "place 1x1 tomb zone, build coffin on it." Except you don't have to wait for any coffins to be built. With the added benefit of being able to build funny single room burial chambers for everyone if you really want to with the multi function.

It could be better, sure. Hopefully will be at some point. But it's closer towards a unified system that the scattered "everything works differently" system we had before.

I can record a macro to do 10 at once in 47.05, however, and then just do 100 more with 10 clicks instead of like 500 or whatever. I wouldn't say it's "basically the same."