Print

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

[Neruz]

Most of the work Toady has done so far that doesn't make sense had to be done at this stage as it would be almost impossible to do at a later stage.

Just curious... but what were you referring to?

Specifically the currently 'useless' aspects of the world simulation, such as animal populations. But potentially most of the non-placeholder content.

Impossible was the wrong word; incredibly annoying and time-wasting would be more accurate.

[Granite26]

When responding to people you need to pick your battles. If someone has complaints about the game you should leave them be. If that complaint however is because of something they overlooked and more importantly by telling them this they could seek more enjoyment out of the game, then you could respond.

Yay Sanity...  Good Post, Neonivek

[dyze]

this topic could really use a new thread (one where people sticks to the topic).

[Andir]

Most of the work Toady has done so far that doesn't make sense had to be done at this stage as it would be almost impossible to do at a later stage.

Just curious... but what were you referring to?

Specifically the currently 'useless' aspects of the world simulation, such as animal populations. But potentially most of the non-placeholder content.

Impossible was the wrong word; incredibly annoying and time-wasting would be more accurate.

Thanks.  I was mainly curious about the aspect of it being impossible.  Any good design with proper planning should be expandable.  As a developer I see people assume their scope and code around that.  I tend to work in the opposite direction.  I assume no scope and work from the minutiae upward to the bounds of the data objects I choose.  So I don't see any aspect of enhancing the engine having any really difficult or adverse effects on the simulation if it were moved to a larger scale.  You might have to generalize some of the simulations (like water levels) when looking at the world from a multi-region perspective, but it's basically the same calculation on a different scale.  (yes, armies, caravan groups, et al fall into this pattern as well) I've been meaning to put together my own fortress simulation using this technique, but starting from the smallest intrinsic level (a tile/a group of tiles) and working upward with threading, pathing, and all that in mind.  It's likely to be a little more intensive to the lower end processors, but it should scale better.  I just have to set aside some time when I'm not gaming, or slacking off to begin this pet project.  I really have to begin regimenting my time off in a couple hours a night just to get the ball rolling, but I've been wanting to do this for some time now (amazingly, well before DF came into my life... I ran into DF doing my standard research.)

[corvvs]

Most of the work Toady has done so far that doesn't make sense had to be done at this stage as it would be almost impossible to do at a later stage.

Just curious... but what were you referring to?

Specifically the currently 'useless' aspects of the world simulation, such as animal populations. But potentially most of the non-placeholder content.

Impossible was the wrong word; incredibly annoying and time-wasting would be more accurate.

Thanks.  I was mainly curious about the aspect of it being impossible.  Any good design with proper planning should be expandable.  As a developer I see people assume their scope and code around that.  I tend to work in the opposite direction.  I assume no scope and work from the minutiae upward to the bounds of the data objects I choose.  So I don't see any aspect of enhancing the engine having any really difficult or adverse effects on the simulation if it were moved to a larger scale.  You might have to generalize some of the simulations (like water levels) when looking at the world from a multi-region perspective, but it's basically the same calculation on a different scale.  (yes, armies, caravan groups, et al fall into this pattern as well) I've been meaning to put together my own fortress simulation using this technique, but starting from the smallest intrinsic level (a tile/a group of tiles) and working upward with threading, pathing, and all that in mind.  It's likely to be a little more intensive to the lower end processors, but it should scale better.  I just have to set aside some time when I'm not gaming, or slacking off to begin this pet project.  I really have to begin regimenting my time off in a couple hours a night just to get the ball rolling, but I've been wanting to do this for some time now (amazingly, well before DF came into my life... I ran into DF doing my standard research.)

So basically you're doing it the way Toady is doing it.

What Neruz was saying is that it's much harder to take Galaga and turn it into a flight simulator than it is to take a flight simulator and add game elements such as enemies and machine guns.

[Andir]

So basically you're doing it the way Toady is doing it.

No... not at all.

[Neruz]

You're doing it in a very similar manner; 2D DF was basically 'worldless', it was just your fortress. Adventure mode had a bunch of 'floating points' you could travel between, but not walk between.

3D DF introduced the world as a cohesive simulated whole, as opposed to the previous abstraction.

The Army Arc will introduce the ability to navigate the world as a cohesive whole in Fortress Mode, as opposed to it simply being a cohesive whole. With the Army Arc will also come the removal of the current 'Pocket Dimension' placeholders. And so on.

[Andir]

You're doing it in a very similar manner; 2D DF was basically 'worldless', it was just your fortress. Adventure mode had a bunch of 'floating points' you could travel between, but not walk between.

3D DF introduced the world as a cohesive simulated whole, as opposed to the previous abstraction.

The Army Arc will introduce the ability to navigate the world as a cohesive whole in Fortress Mode, as opposed to it simply being a cohesive whole. With the Army Arc will also come the removal of the current 'Pocket Dimension' placeholders. And so on.

It's still very much a top down approach though.  There's nothing wrong with it.  It probably produces more up front playable results.  However, what I'm getting at is that you should be able to concentrate on the thought of groups in a generic sense instead of defining them individually.  I don't know how to explain it any better than I have, but it basically wouldn't even label the structures Armies or Fortresses.  It would naturally flow toward that situation.  Currently under Toady's design dwarfs and other races are individual people.  Nothing really works as a team or together.  They complete a specific job without regard to others.  I'm talking about creating semi-intelligent groupings serving a common purpose.  You could essentially see "gangs" of dwarfs out mining an area of forest working together.

[Neruz]

You're doing it in a very similar manner; 2D DF was basically 'worldless', it was just your fortress. Adventure mode had a bunch of 'floating points' you could travel between, but not walk between.

3D DF introduced the world as a cohesive simulated whole, as opposed to the previous abstraction.

The Army Arc will introduce the ability to navigate the world as a cohesive whole in Fortress Mode, as opposed to it simply being a cohesive whole. With the Army Arc will also come the removal of the current 'Pocket Dimension' placeholders. And so on.

It's still very much a top down approach though.  There's nothing wrong with it.  It probably produces more up front playable results.  However, what I'm getting at is that you should be able to concentrate on the thought of groups in a generic sense instead of defining them individually.  I don't know how to explain it any better than I have, but it basically wouldn't even label the structures Armies or Fortresses.  It would naturally flow toward that situation.  Currently under Toady's design dwarfs and other races are individual people.  Nothing really works as a team or together.  They complete a specific job without regard to others.  I'm talking about creating semi-intelligent groupings serving a common purpose.  You could essentially see "gangs" of dwarfs out mining an area of forest working together.

So basically you're talking about AI development; one of the hardest and most complicated realms of game design.

[Andir]

You're doing it in a very similar manner; 2D DF was basically 'worldless', it was just your fortress. Adventure mode had a bunch of 'floating points' you could travel between, but not walk between.

3D DF introduced the world as a cohesive simulated whole, as opposed to the previous abstraction.

The Army Arc will introduce the ability to navigate the world as a cohesive whole in Fortress Mode, as opposed to it simply being a cohesive whole. With the Army Arc will also come the removal of the current 'Pocket Dimension' placeholders. And so on.

It's still very much a top down approach though.  There's nothing wrong with it.  It probably produces more up front playable results.  However, what I'm getting at is that you should be able to concentrate on the thought of groups in a generic sense instead of defining them individually.  I don't know how to explain it any better than I have, but it basically wouldn't even label the structures Armies or Fortresses.  It would naturally flow toward that situation.  Currently under Toady's design dwarfs and other races are individual people.  Nothing really works as a team or together.  They complete a specific job without regard to others.  I'm talking about creating semi-intelligent groupings serving a common purpose.  You could essentially see "gangs" of dwarfs out mining an area of forest working together.

So basically you're talking about AI development; one of the hardest and most complicated realms of game design.

Yes and no.... I'm talking about method, not a specific implementations.  AI happens to be one part of that, but it all falls into general design.  It could be groups of creatures, groupings of fluids (ie: rivers/lakes as a "mutable" object as opposed to individual tiles, but an individual tile could be a body of water.)  You are still thinking of things as a definable/individual entity.  I still intend on having a "list of demands" that need to be done to keep the "player" (me) entertained.  Otherwise I'd be developing an entire individual set of AI (which for the most part needs to be mostly implemented anyway for computer played races.)

[Neruz]

But how do you intend to have the player interact with anything if individual entities are not defined?

[Toady One]

I've been trying to avoid posting in this thread since I've liked how it is going overall, and I'm not sure if the recent argument is ongoing, but please try to treat each other respectfully.  Please try to stay on topic as well.  Creative projects or Other Games would be a good place for the current discussion if it is going to continue in depth.

[Braddles!?]

What turns me off about DF ?

hmm, catsplosion is unpleasant, but, wouldnt be the same without it.

im gonna have to say...

not finding enough gold to make a solid gold fortress.

but thats a rather superficial problem, just, go toady!

[Muz]

IMHO...
1. UI. But it's a known problem
2. Slow pace. By this, I mean both FPS and the way things go. It takes a while for anything interesting to happen. Sieges take about a RL week to start. Or maybe I'm just unlucky
3. Exploratory mining... this is pretty 'grind-ish'. You have to slooowly lay out line by line and hope you hit something interesting. Would be nice if this was improved.
4. Imbalance. Uber-powerful traps, crossbows, that sort of thing.

[Fikes]

Wow, I am amazed this thread is still alive.

What turns me off about DF, and I've posted this elsewhere, maybe here... is...

Well, it is unpopular, but I'll lay it out anyway.

found a lot of things wrong with the groundhog bite today. First, a groundhog ripped a lion in half and bit off a dwarf's arms... and it was using every part of its head (eyes, nose, etc.), not just its teeth, for the biting. After I fixed that up, it was still using its teeth like little needles and piercing brains and so on. I eventually got that sorted out.

Some systems in the game are WAY too simple, like farming. While some systems in the game are way to complicated, like the health/layers system.

I think the game is simply too complicated on a level few players will really understand. You have individual layers of flesh, bones and tendons. Why? Why make it that complicated. A system which allows the loss of limbs would be just as effective, almost as cool, and take a fraction of the time to develop.

It seems incredibly awesome, but now you have to spend time checking pointy-ness of the teeth of the groundhogs! And when all is said and done, the average player isn't going to look that deeply at how their guys lost his arms anyways.

If you are talking only about what turns new players off, I am going to stick to mouse support.

Click and drag mining baby!