Print

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

[Zwergner]

Anyway, if you're willing to berate a game in alpha after playing one fort for a couple days, especially in a way that provides no real constructive feedback or suggestions...I'm just going to hope for some ADHD or something.  [This is more in response to the first half o' the thread]

I don't understand what you mean by that?

If someone's being caustic I hope they find something more interesting and wander off.  Sorry if I offended.

[winner]

ah ok, I just mean I literally didn't get what you meant.

[Mikademus]

If people would remember to chill out it would be helpful for everybody.  codezero and Torak, that is.

I was only hostile because he presented himself as a troll. I'd apologize if he showed anything to prove that he wasn't here just to try and piss people off.

Thing is, in this thread you actually behaved as "bad" as he, only less entertainingly so. Given his crisper sense of irony and your boorish attempt at grammatical nit-picking I'd only rate your input at 3/10 while I'd award his at about 5-6 out of 10.

[Othob Rithol]

Will you people quit feeding the goddamn troll! This dumb ass thread has been on the front page for a day or more while each knucklehead chimes in with their witty banter.


Edit: changed "been awake 5 minutes" there/their mistake

[Puzzlemaker]

Witty?

[Sapidus3]

I'm kinda of tired of the comment "The game is as hard as you make it."

I appreciate that the game can be both very easy or very hard, or both at the same time. But the idea of handicapping yourself for the purpose of handicapping yourself to make it harder, seems absurd to me. When I play a fortress, I want to play it as best I can. This includes selecting good starting locations (Though I will select non-ideal locations if they seem interesting), bringing with you the equipment that you fill will best help you survive, and making full and best use of the defensive capabilities that the game has.

I know that the game is still in alpha, and that's why I'm ok with the issues that the game has with difficulty. However, in the sense that Toady reads our posts, we have some input into the creation of the game. And saying that there is nothing wrong with the difficulty is deliberately sabotaging it.

It's one thing to forgive the flaws of a game still  in its Alpha phase. To not do so would be foolish and would result in missing out on a great game. However, its another thing to ignore those flaws. We are playing the role of Alpha testers, and to rationalize away the problems that exist with the difficulty means that we are failing im our duties. Far too often, whenever someone comments on the dificulty, I see waves of comments along the line of "You can embark without anything", "Go to a evil glacier with no equipment", "Try not having any military equipment." I can try to play a FPS without shooting my gun, or picking up any health or ammo. I can play an RTS without building any extra construction units (for the games that have them), the list could go on. And while such things can be good for an additional challenge, the difficulty of the game should not depend on it.

Of course, the other side can be equally criticized. There are too many posts that just go, "The game is too easy, sieges are easy to beat, farming is too easy." Suggestions need to be made on how to improve this. That doesn't mean saying "Sieges should be harder" or even "Goblins need siege equipment." If we want to be helpful, rather than just saying the same things over and over again, concrete suggestions need to be made, like, "Include goblin engineers, they can lay down constructed floors over pits, and moats, when such obstacles break pathfinding." Of course even with such a suggestion there is even more room for discussion.

I guesses I am done ranting. If people are interested at all I made a post awhile back ago about ways to add more challenges though it didn't get much discussion: http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=21630.0

[Zombie]

I agree, somewhat, with the phrase "the game is as hard as you make it" in the case of handicapping yourself. You don't need to handicap yourself at all. Although, with your remarks about sabotaging DF by not saying that certain things are "too easy" is sort ludicrous in my opinion.

Personally, I like to have a leisurely time while playing DF. I, however, would like to point out that I am not against difficulty or complexity. I think what we have is an opportunity to help Toady make a wonderful game... Right now, even though it is in alpha, DF has remarkable potential to be as difficult or as easy as you want it. Sure, not everything is modifiable as we don't have as much RAW access as we'd like, but it's getting there.

The point isn't that you are going to be handicapped one way or another. Either you decide to embark with <item>, you don't, or the game doesn't present one to you. Saying that it's as "hard as you make it" is somehow contrived or inapplicable is a flawed way to look at it. Increasing the standard difficulty would only result in people complaining that it's too hard.

The entire concept of a game is that we ALL can have fun with it. Trying different things and saying, "Well maybe I can try this without doing this" is the point. Some of us have sieges on. Some don't. We can argue that having the sieges on counts as choosing to handicap yourself. You are CHOOSING to be attacked.

Don't think for a second that you aren't in control of at least a FEW important variables to your Dwarf Fortress experience. You are. It's designed that way. It's designed to be accessible and easy or torturous and hard. Complaining it's too hard or too easy gets you nowhere. Complaining that you're tired of the "It's as hard as you make it" comments gets you nowhere.

Whether you like it or not, your DF game is as hard as you make it. Unless you use the embark site picker thing, YOU choose your site. YOU decide what skills to start with. YOU pick what to bring with. YOU decide where to dig, what to put there, and how to develop your fortress. It's that simple. The difficulty level is and should be fluid. Yes, it doesn't have as much of a high range as many of us would like, but it will in due time. The army arc is being worked on now and many aspects of it should make sieges be possible fortress-killers.

Difficulty POTENTIAL is the most important factor for DF, I think. Of course, Toady is working hard to ensure DF has as much potential as possible and, frankly, I think that's all we need. The builders can build in peace and the fighters can happily massacre armies. We'll have our happy medium, our "holy grail" (so to speak) of difficulty malleability. We just need to be patient and help the developers any way we can.

[codezero]

I agree sapidus. The best games I've played are games where you have to exploit the code just to get anywhere.

That said I'm giving a mountain with no water a go now, pretty challenging so far, lost all my drink but 5 to dark gnomes before I'd even mined out a square. Guess I spoke too soon.

FWIW I've played a lot of fortresses, was playing before 3d. Some people have gotten it into their heads to think I'm a newcomer. That always seems to happen when someone has a complaint about a game. I also mentioned I always leave a path to my fort open with sieges the way they are, and I've never even tried traps, to whoever seems to think he has my strategy worked out, I'm not going to look up your bloody name.

"I think the food production is nerfed, I always end up with too many plants and drink"

"Did you try PLACING a plot on some SAND? (not stone floor lol), also i think you mean drinks with an S.
btw. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Period"

[Lode]

All things considered this was an interesting topic and I'd like to turn it into an actual suggestion. Though I am pretty new to DF and it's probably already been considered.

One, increase attacks by dangerous animals in areas with high savagery.

Two, add the ability to decide an aggression level for your dwarves. Peaceful dwarves would do things just about the way they do now. They can pick an easy spot if they want and have a leisurely time. But maybe warlike dwarves have histories of actively ticking off goblins or other civs. That would allow the player to optimize their fortress location, supplies and such without handicapping and expect more frequent severe sieges from their old enemies. There are endless possibilities of more complicated features along that line, but that's the idea.

[Sapidus3]

Increasing the standard difficulty would only result in people complaining that it's too hard.

Difficulty POTENTIAL is the most important factor for DF, I think.

I think that is a very good way to put it. As I said, I like that the game can be easy, and I agree that the game should not just unilaterally made harder. I like being able to build my fortresses in relative peace before having alot to worry about. However the problem with the difficulty potential right now is that its not the game itself making things hard, its people making it hard by playing the game with self imposed handicaps.

I know army arc some things will get better. However, we shouldn't all just say, "Well the army arc will make things more difficult." The only difficulty in the game should not just come from war and trade. If that was the only "challenge" in the game, I would find it boring. There are plenty of other ways in which the game could be "potentially" harder. Some of them I am sure Toady already has planned or is even working on. However, the far end of the spectrum can definitely be kicked up a notch, and that should be acknowledged.

The biggest difficulty problem (in my opinion), is that the difficulty is tied so much to the site/embark options. There is not enough of a difficulty growth from starting a site, to several years in its future. A player should be able to start a fortress on a good site with a good selection of equipment without the worry that the fortress will not offer enough of a challenge.

With the idea of "playing the world not the fortress" perhaps you can then look at the difficulty curve as being between sites and not so much within a specific fortress. By that I mean you could look at each fortress as a plateau. Ideally the difficulty curve would perhaps then work with a player graduating to more and more difficult fortresses.  However, if that is the case, there still needs to be something to kill off the easy fortresses, or some way to "graduate" or complete them.

I also recognize that there is alot of fun coming up with your own challenges. I love making huge burial halls multiple Z-levels high and elaborate water and magma systems as much as the next person. However, if the fortress does not have many other concerns, the construction projects usually just become a matter of time. I often find my biggest challenge in completing these things is the dropping FPS as more dwarfs come (I don't like disposing of immigrants, heresy I know. Though once I get my good computer fixed the frame rate won't be as bad).

The game DOES have difficulty issues. Claiming that it doesn't, or just trotting out "It's as hard as you make it," is nipping a potentially constructive conversation in the bud. That's not to say that it is not a good thing that players can make the game harder. There should be a spectrum of difficulty and its a good thing that the players have some control over it. However, it is a problem if the way to move up in the difficulty spectrum is to self handicap. Some ways of making the game harder, may have ultimately the same effect as some forms of self handicapping, but by making it a build in part of the game, the feel will be significantly different.

As I was witting this Lode posted. On his second suggestion, perhaps the different dwarven civilizations may differ in aggression. Allready some of them differ in who they are at war at, and they may already have some aggression tag; I don't really know. But this could carry over to your dwarfs in Fortress mode. Maybe random immigrants may also be more aggressive, or perhaps adventurous, giving you a legit reason to be concerned about immigrants. It would be interesting if dwarfs could choose to "explore" in their free time as a job. They would wander around, perhaps putting themselves in danger. Eventually when we can send out armies into the world, perhaps they could even become adventures (if their personality was so inclined) and come back with riches and tales of adventures, or return wounded and with the bad news that they have angered some sleeping mega-beast that is now following his trail back to your fortress.

[irmo]

Either you decide to embark with <item>, you don't, or the game doesn't present one to you.

You're seeing difficulty as "what items you embark with". That's a large part of the problem--currently the major options for adjusting difficulty are starting items and starting location, both of which hit you with the difficulty up front. There's no way to get a gentle start and then have the game incrementally crack down on you, which is exactly how the 2D version worked.

Increasing the standard difficulty would only result in people complaining that it's too hard.

There are always people who complain that games are too hard. That's because they're noobs and haven't learned the skills yet. Learning skills is fun, though.

It's designed to be accessible and easy or torturous and hard.

This is precisely the problem. On the scale you're describing, "accessible" = "the game basically plays itself" and "hard" = "this will be a painful experience from start to finish". The other option is to design it to be accessible but hard: that is, it's easy and forgiving at the beginning (when you're learning the game) and then throws more challenges at you as you progress.

Yes, it doesn't have as much of a high range as many of us would like, but it will in due time. The army arc is being worked on now and many aspects of it should make sieges be possible fortress-killers.

We don't lack for fortress-killing. You can always choose a start site that's just lethal if you want that. What we lack are threats that are difficult to handle well, and cause setbacks if handled poorly.

[ChairmanPoo]

Start in areas with high evil, high savagery, as recommended.

I had two starting teams torn to pieces by fell creatures. In one particular map which I was taking seriously (as opposed to ditching it too soon due to latency/low resources/whatever), my first seven dwarves got torn apart by ogres.

I have now sent a reclamation team with markdwarves and a wagonload of war dogs (which have dwindled in number since my glorious cleansing of the underground magma pipe), and am hurrying a fortification of the entrance to my warrens, in case the ogres return.

[Impaler[WrG]]

The game has a steep learning curve due primarily to lack of internal documentation (The wiki is good but all that info should be IN the game some ware), ambiguous graphics, lack of mouse support, obtuse menus and incomplete features.  Thus I my first two holds died due simply to the leaning curve but from three and on the fate of the hold was never in question.  I haven't dealt with any attacks more severe then a group of 6 goblins ambushing a fisher dwarf before being slaughtered in a rain of bolts.  I want to see my internal resource production having at least potential to bring me down.  Currently food production and production of just about everything else is so high its impossible to be brought down by shortages. 

People talk about 'making the game harder' and I'm all for that, people love making the game harder once its not a challenge, thats why practically every game since the early 80's has had DIFFICULTY LEVELS, all this BS about making the game harder by crippling yourself in some way is never going to appeal to most people because it tedious (to create and remember all those rules) and just feels dumb.  Some basic implementation of difficulty levels would go a long way to satisfying by new players and veterans.  I think the difficulty should be a properly of the world selected right after the "Create New World" Button is pressed.  Higher difficulty makes dwarfs grumpier, attacks on the fort escalate more rapidly.  On all difficulty levels productivity should be reduced and possibly their would be additional reductions.

Now of course the game would be too hard if all those things were done without correcting the learning curve issues so those things need to come first then other difficulty factors can increase across the board, though difficulty levels could be implemented immediately so long as the 'easy' level is equivalent to what we have now.

[Zombie]

Sapidus has some great perspectives on this and I seem to be much in agreement with him.

However, Irmo, calling people "noobs" because they realize a potential difficulty problem is exactly the problem Sapidus is talking about. However, Irmo is quite correct that I was wrong to compare the difficulty level to "what you start off with" as that is rather limiting.

We're getting to complacent with saying, "Oh, you can just embark in an x land with no y and no z." Either that or, "You just need to play more and get better, you noob you."

DF can be very difficult in its current incarnation, or it can be very easy. Both without requiring you to employ self-imposed handicaps. But the difficulty, as it is right now, is a very tempered beast. It's not going to rampage. There aren't many variables that can affect your fortress majorly, barring a possessed dwarf going on a murderous rampage or that masterwork engraving being somehow destroyed, resulting in a legendary tantrum.

I very much like my saying (not just because I said it, however) that difficulty POTENTIAL is important. Right now we're in alpha. The slider is small. We're pretty much on the easier side of things. We WANT to be able to make it more difficult WITHOUT having to self-impose handicaps though.

For example, I want to be able to embark with what I normally do (anvil, picks, food, drink, two dogs, and a pocket full of seeds) and not have it be the difficulty setting. I want that to just be "the supplies" and not "how hard a time we have" or something like that.

The main concern we should have is not, "How can we make starting up harder?" It should be more, "How can we make surviving mid to late fortress harder?"

Wild animals and monsters that breed and replenish their numbers... Perhaps migratory bands of bandits... Things like that. Bandit caravans? Xenophobic humans? There are many things we can think of that could simply be toggled on or off at the player's discretion, yet would provide more challenge to players who wish it.

[Sapidus3]

I was going to post a reply that once disease and better injury handling is added in there could be alot of interesting options. I was going to suggest more common minor injuries, the occasional sprained ankle, occasional just randomly breaking an arm, a minor illness that makes dwarfs grumpier and slow.

However, I then realized a problem with these. There aren't enough internal consequences. Unless a dwarf rampages there isn't much consequence to your dwarfs being unhappy. Similarly, even if you don't have booze, your workers get pretty slow, but that just means things take more time for the most part. 

Unhappy dwarfs, or dwarfs that feel they are being treated unfairly, perhaps should refuse to work. Maybe if you have too many angry dwarfs they will throw "Angry Parties." These could perhaps turn into dwarven riots. Perhaps once you hit the economy section dwarfs could go on strike. If a majority of your metalworkers were upset, well maybe you don't get any more metal goods.

If something like that would going to be in the game of course, it might be good to add a phase in between the economy and non-economy phase. It wouldn't effect gameplay too much but mainly dwaven thought processes. For example, while you only have 7 dwarfs, all struggling to survive, a dwarf would probably be much more willing to put up with the lack of a real bedroom or food variety. However, in a stable fortress with say 45 dwarfs, I could see a dwarf being much more likely to say, "I don't get a bed? Screw this, I'm going to the statue garden to laze about. It's not like we are all going to die if I don't do my job."

Of course, there still needs to be some significant consequence for having a slow manufacturing chain. Perhaps in addition to seeing our fortress wealth we could "compare wealth" when the liaison comes. Maybe this would give us an idea of how our fortress is doing against other abstracted dwarven halls. Perhaps a good treasure could even give access to a graph of wealth vs time. With the graphics it would probably be best as a scatter plot. But that could be significant to the player. You could be looking at the graph and see a big slump in production and be like "yep, that's when I screwed up and they started starving."

I would like to talk more about the idea of graphs, but its a bit off topic, and I think I might start up a new thread about it.

But in summary, to repeat Zombie there aren't  a whole lot of internal variables that can impact your fortress. (Really there are a whole lot of variables, but for the most part they aren't going to affect your fortress unless you want them too). It might not be necessary to introduce many new variables, but make the consequences of the current variables more noticeable.