Print

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

[Neonivek]

Wel it looks like this is the new future of the fort thread.

So it has been upgraded!

[Javis]

Toady, will squads be completely seperate from their members, e.g. will my "Gate Guards" squad still exist even if it is completely wiped out?

Yeah, you should only need to define that gate squad once during your game, though on a reclaim you'd probably have to define it again (I can probably keep station points and patrol routes between games, which would be part of it).

Since squad are becoming permanent things separate from the individual dwarf leading them, it would be nice to be able to give the squad a custom nickname, to help the player remember what its role is, and to help with organization (i.e. The 5th Baron's Speardwarves, Quixote's Windmill Defenders, etc).

As it is now, the squads get cool names, but they're not very descriptive.  The only way to pick them out is by the individual dwarf members, or by what equipment they're using.

[bjlong]

Kind of a sillier question, but, as I understand it, the interface gets upgraded in increments. With that in mind, I understand that the squad interface is going to have to get a major overhaul to add a bunch more functionality, but what interface elements, besides the military/squad screens, have you upgraded (if any), and could you give a brief overview of what kind of changes we can expect?

I ask mostly for a friend that won't play until there's a better frontend. Yes, I've directed him to Mayday's Graphics pack, but he still gets irked at the menus.

[Brendan]

It makes me sad whenever the "cosmetic" features are disparaged as "useless".

My Dwarf Fortress experience is not enhanced by one of my fortress's population having blue eyes, or one of my migrants liking to consume turtle, or one of my farmers likes to style his beard in a certain way. I rarely look at these pages anyway (I only go there to check thoughts of unhappy dwarves, if anything) so more details on the character sheet are, to me, useless.

Things like military schedules, improved underground, endless attacks, and an expanded medical system do enhance my gaming experience, and that is why the cosmetics are useless by comparison.

[Baughn]

Speaking as a graphics guy, I'd like to state that it should be possible to add (some sort of) menu to the game that lets you switch grid size/tilesets at runtime, through using the same mechanism that works when switching between fullscreen/windowed mode.

I'd never considered this before, though, and didn't give it any thought when looking at the code before. Also, there might be code inside DF proper that would protest. So, Toady, any comments on this?

Besides that, it should be relatively simple to simplify the init.txt setup - give a tileset size and resolution, let it figure out the grid size on its own. That should help. We could still allow an override for those few who want squashed tiles.

[bjlong]

Baughn, every time I see the tag under your avatar, I get the Meatloaf song stuck in my head.

Every time.

[Baughn]

It's not a Meatloaf reference, though.

It's a Miari Nikki reference. Go look it up.

[Mephansteras]

It makes me sad whenever the "cosmetic" features are disparaged as "useless".

My Dwarf Fortress experience is not enhanced by one of my fortress's population having blue eyes, or one of my migrants liking to consume turtle, or one of my farmers likes to style his beard in a certain way. I rarely look at these pages anyway (I only go there to check thoughts of unhappy dwarves, if anything) so more details on the character sheet are, to me, useless.

To me, it greatly enhances the game, so I find it quite worthwhile.

Any feature like this is going to appeal to some people and not others. If Toady has fun putting it in and it keeps his job interesting and engaging, he should do it. The last thing we want is for Toady to get burned out because he's only working on useful stuff and never the fun little additions.

[Jakkarra]

i wonder if we will ever get dwarves with personalities that affect gameplay.

say, Urist McOne dosent like doing things from the north-west corner, and does it in a spiraly pattern instead, or Bromek mcTwo likes gouging out goblins' eyes rather than breaking their necks.

Discuss.

[Brendan]

It makes me sad whenever the "cosmetic" features are disparaged as "useless".

My Dwarf Fortress experience is not enhanced by one of my fortress's population having blue eyes, or one of my migrants liking to consume turtle, or one of my farmers likes to style his beard in a certain way. I rarely look at these pages anyway (I only go there to check thoughts of unhappy dwarves, if anything) so more details on the character sheet are, to me, useless.

To me, it greatly enhances the game, so I find it quite worthwhile.

Really? Greatly enhances the game? More so than actual game features?

[Jakkarra]

he isn't saying that Brendan, its his point of view. every person will have their own thoughts on the matter, for example, myself.

i do not particularly mind in what order things are updated, if toadyOne wished to update something like what corner a dwarf goes to first in a meeting zone rather than something larger, say, implementing fire, thats HIS choice, we have no right to bemoan him for this, its HIS project, he may do as he will.

i don't mean to sound preachy, BTW.

[Mephansteras]

It makes me sad whenever the "cosmetic" features are disparaged as "useless".

My Dwarf Fortress experience is not enhanced by one of my fortress's population having blue eyes, or one of my migrants liking to consume turtle, or one of my farmers likes to style his beard in a certain way. I rarely look at these pages anyway (I only go there to check thoughts of unhappy dwarves, if anything) so more details on the character sheet are, to me, useless.

To me, it greatly enhances the game, so I find it quite worthwhile.

Really? Greatly enhances the game? More so than actual game features?

For me? Yes. The simple genetics and descriptive paragraphs for the dwarves is going to provide me with great entertainment. I can try out all sorts of breeding programs for stuff, do a 'last dwarves' fortress and see how things looks after a few generations. Plus, the modding potential is fascinating.

But, yes, that's just me. The point I'm trying to make is that we're all going to have different opinions on what is fun and what's a worthwhile addition to the game. We're all free to give Toady our opinions on what we want to see and what doesn't matter to us.

Personally, I don't care about Adventure mode, so changes there don't matter to me at all. For other people, that's what's going to get them excited about the game. But if Toady decides that he really wants to focus on Adventure mode stuff for a release I won't complain. It's his project and the work he's doing will appeal to some of his audience. So why should I say they can't have their part of the game just so I can have the parts I'm interested in?

[Brendan]

I get that everybody has their own thoughts about what is interesting or not, but it just seems sometimes like there are too many people who think that DF is impossible to criticize and that anything Toady makes is automatically an improvement. I am very appreciative of the game and Toady's efforts, particularly as he does it for free and with no expectation of repayment, but a common factor I notice on this forum is people who believe no feature made by Toady can be anything except 100% brilliant.

It grates on me mostly because I think a policy of 'no criticism ever' could detract from the game in the long run, particularly as Toady is aware of and willing to listen to user opinions.

[Jakkarra]

damn, i knew i sounded like i was saying that, i wasn't discouraging criticism.

far from it, criticism keeps the game alive! at least a few features present in the current version are from Player-brand ideas.

what i meant was that in the end, its toady's decision what goes into the game, and when.

[Scarpa]

I get that everybody has their own thoughts about what is interesting or not, but it just seems sometimes like there are too many people who think that DF is impossible to criticize and that anything Toady makes is automatically an improvement. I am very appreciative of the game and Toady's efforts, particularly as he does it for free and with no expectation of repayment, but a common factor I notice on this forum is people who believe no feature made by Toady can be anything except 100% brilliant.

It grates on me mostly because I think a policy of 'no criticism ever' could detract from the game in the long run, particularly as Toady is aware of and willing to listen to user opinions.

I hear what you are saying, but overall I agree with Mephansteras. The big appeal to me in DF is the depth of the world, and that it feels like I am playing my own personal version of the Silmarillion. I don't really see it as an RTS game, and in fact lately I've been turning off invaders to get a more city building gameplay feel out of it.

I also think you're overstating the impact of 'cosmetic' changes. He did a bit material re-write which directly supports military gameplay and I think some of the minor cosmetic things (as in eye color) were just thrown in at that time because it was easy to do along with the rest of the 'important' stuff.

That said, I'm certainly not going to say it's impossible to criticize Toady and in fact I see a ton of constructive criticism on this board and it appears the most valid critical suggestions eventually get addressed.