Print

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

[G-Flex]

every story I'd dig through a list of 500 stone types that meant nothing other than a name. NOTHING. If I wanted to use wood I'd dig through 20 wood types that meant nothing other than a name.

Why? Why not just have "Disguishious tree" "Tropical tree" or "iginoius stone" or what ever.

In theory it seems awesome, in pratice it seems silly.

If it seems silly, that's only because a lot of its function just isn't there yet, or you aren't noticing it.

There are differences between most layer-forming stones are different in terms of what ores they can contain and where they show up, even within the same basic categories.

And as far as the useless stone is concerned, not all of them have to always be useless. Gypsum, for instance, is getting useful due to plaster in the next version. Cinnabar could be used for mercury. Value can be made more granular/variable/complex, and stones can have more fleshed-out physical properties (bauxite is already useful in being magma-safe).

And really, if a stone isn't particularly special right now, so what? It's not as if the brimstone cluster you find is actually going to be worth less than the felsite you found it it; it's just a different color, which might be useful to you anyway, in a sense.


Same deal with wood. Right now, trees don't produce fruit, or grow at different times, or have different wood values or sizes. The only thing right now that varies between them is density of the material, and this should also change.

[zwei]

every story I'd dig through a list of 500 stone types that meant nothing other than a name. NOTHING. If I wanted to use wood I'd dig through 20 wood types that meant nothing other than a name.

Why? Why not just have "Disguishious tree" "Tropical tree" or "iginoius stone" or what ever.

In theory it seems awesome, in pratice it seems silly.

If it seems silly, that's only because a lot of its function just isn't there yet, or you aren't noticing it.

Might be, but your material list gets insanely cluttered eventually.

26 layer stone types
40 cluster stone types
17 ores
24 tree types.

107 items.

each can be also made to bars

214 items. Add soaps, metal bars and alloy bars and blocks... 250 building materials?

Depending on maturity of fortress, you can end up with huge percentage of those laying around.

Ever tried to hunt for bauxite in list of hundrerds of items? Or specific block type from which you are building your construction? You are pretty much guarantted to go insane or at least give in to melancholy.

Those lists do not even grow vertically if you resize window, you have no type as you find feature.

And worst thing? If you designate it different spot, list is in different order. It is guarantted to change order randomly. You have to find whatever you want to use every single time.

You end up making and following one rule religiously: Never, Ever, buy bars/blocks from caravan. Ever. Do Not Make Soap. Never Ever Let Human or Dwarf Caravan Be Attacked.

You have to resort to making stockpiles and locking rooms to filter out specific material types. And that does not help much since some stockpiles do not have fine controll to permit/forbid some materials.

[Urist McDepravity]

214 items. Add soaps, metal bars and alloy bars and blocks... 250 building materials?

We just need workshop material selection. So blocks would be made of /right/ stone, and same for mugs.
Besides, you usually get only few of stones on each region, so overall count on the map is about 20 types of stone. Diversity is good thing, and we actually need more diversity, with each stone type being actually /different/. For example, with proper sieges, we could have building value separated from "preciousness", so you would prefer granite over gypsum for outer walls for example.

[Fikes]

every story I'd dig through a list of 500 stone types that meant nothing other than a name. NOTHING. If I wanted to use wood I'd dig through 20 wood types that meant nothing other than a name.

Why? Why not just have "Disguishious tree" "Tropical tree" or "iginoius stone" or what ever.

In theory it seems awesome, in pratice it seems silly.

If it seems silly, that's only because a lot of its function just isn't there yet, or you aren't noticing it.

There are differences between most layer-forming stones are different in terms of what ores they can contain and where they show up, even within the same basic categories.

And as far as the useless stone is concerned, not all of them have to always be useless. Gypsum, for instance, is getting useful due to plaster in the next version. Cinnabar could be used for mercury. Value can be made more granular/variable/complex, and stones can have more fleshed-out physical properties (bauxite is already useful in being magma-safe).

And really, if a stone isn't particularly special right now, so what? It's not as if the brimstone cluster you find is actually going to be worth less than the felsite you found it it; it's just a different color, which might be useful to you anyway, in a sense.


Same deal with wood. Right now, trees don't produce fruit, or grow at different times, or have different wood values or sizes. The only thing right now that varies between them is density of the material, and this should also change.

You kind of made my point for me. It is as if people want the game to have so many options and so many features that basic functions become impossible, and it is just going to get worse!

We don't need a right and a left glove, we need "gloves" and "shoes". Think of how many fewer items would be scattered across the map if we had that. We don't need 150 types of stone, we need 1 of each color and one of each layer type. And really, who is going to pay attention to when trees become harvest-able rather than just clear cutting? Who is going to care if some dwarf child buys an iron drum or an iron toy anvil? Just have toys.

All of these features add to development time, all of them create oppurtunity costs and then when it comes time to add another feature, all of these (at least the ones with raws) have to be reexamined and debugged.

08/26/2009: I'm back to combat text, which still involves some retooling of things as the text illuminates further problems, but I'm closer to being done with the combat revision, anyway. I 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.

A day debugging GROUNDHOGS!? BOGGLE.

Here is another favorite of mine:

http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/statues.png

Granted this didn't take much time.... But look how long those names are. On a standard configuration you won't even be able to see the whole description. Also, statues are either A) created randomly, so when you go to place them you have to build 500 and open that you get enough dwarf statues or B) manually created, so when you want dwarf statues you have to scroll through 30 different types to get the right one built.

If we can envision the little smiley faces on the map as dwarfs, we'll use are imagination for what statue or toy or tropical tree can mean.

Rant complete, and I still love this game.

[Footkerchief]

08/26/2009: I'm back to combat text, which still involves some retooling of things as the text illuminates further problems, but I'm closer to being done with the combat revision, anyway. I 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.

A day debugging GROUNDHOGS!? BOGGLE.

A day debugging the CHILD_BODYPART_GROUND subtype of creature attacks, which is used by almost every creature in the game. 

[Innominate]

That reminds me of one thing I would dearly love to see some time after the next version: better control on the stocks menu. We can search the "bring to [trade] depot" menu for specific strings, so it's clearly possible to do it - why hasn't Toady allowed us to search the stocks menu?

Sigh, one day I'll be able to search for "large" and "iron" and then just spam "m" to set them all for melting, rather than having to hunt the expanded list of hundreds of items because the unexpanded list collapses "large iron chain mail" and "iron chain mail" to "X suits of iron chain mail" 

[MrWiggles]

Spoiler: Fikes Rant (click to show/hide)

every story I'd dig through a list of 500 stone types that meant nothing other than a name. NOTHING. If I wanted to use wood I'd dig through 20 wood types that meant nothing other than a name.

Why? Why not just have "Disguishious tree" "Tropical tree" or "iginoius stone" or what ever.

In theory it seems awesome, in pratice it seems silly.

If it seems silly, that's only because a lot of its function just isn't there yet, or you aren't noticing it.

There are differences between most layer-forming stones are different in terms of what ores they can contain and where they show up, even within the same basic categories.

And as far as the useless stone is concerned, not all of them have to always be useless. Gypsum, for instance, is getting useful due to plaster in the next version. Cinnabar could be used for mercury. Value can be made more granular/variable/complex, and stones can have more fleshed-out physical properties (bauxite is already useful in being magma-safe).

And really, if a stone isn't particularly special right now, so what? It's not as if the brimstone cluster you find is actually going to be worth less than the felsite you found it it; it's just a different color, which might be useful to you anyway, in a sense.


Same deal with wood. Right now, trees don't produce fruit, or grow at different times, or have different wood values or sizes. The only thing right now that varies between them is density of the material, and this should also change.

You kind of made my point for me. It is as if people want the game to have so many options and so many features that basic functions become impossible, and it is just going to get worse!

We don't need a right and a left glove, we need "gloves" and "shoes". Think of how many fewer items would be scattered across the map if we had that. We don't need 150 types of stone, we need 1 of each color and one of each layer type. And really, who is going to pay attention to when trees become harvest-able rather than just clear cutting? Who is going to care if some dwarf child buys an iron drum or an iron toy anvil? Just have toys.

All of these features add to development time, all of them create oppurtunity costs and then when it comes time to add another feature, all of these (at least the ones with raws) have to be reexamined and debugged.

08/26/2009: I'm back to combat text, which still involves some retooling of things as the text illuminates further problems, but I'm closer to being done with the combat revision, anyway. I 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.

A day debugging GROUNDHOGS!? BOGGLE.

Here is another favorite of mine:

http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/statues.png

Granted this didn't take much time.... But look how long those names are. On a standard configuration you won't even be able to see the whole description. Also, statues are either A) created randomly, so when you go to place them you have to build 500 and open that you get enough dwarf statues or B) manually created, so when you want dwarf statues you have to scroll through 30 different types to get the right one built.

If we can envision the little smiley faces on the map as dwarfs, we'll use are imagination for what statue or toy or tropical tree can mean.

Rant complete, and I still love this game.

I found this funny in a sense, as one of the goals of DF is to be a detailed fantasy world generator. The detail garnering dwarf fortress is to detailed.

The anal detail, is where a fair amount of fun for the game comes from. In the dwarf fortress master competition there was a female nobel that loved scepters! Demanded scepters to be made, took plenty of scepters. That was a fun story to here, and probably a little fruastrating to deal with the issue that got a poetic solution of making her abode be the specter stockpile.

The antics just arent in yet to make these details worthwhile, nor is the  tools needed to make it easier to deal with.

You are right Fike we don't need left and right gloves, but its more interesting read out that he lost his left glove in the struggle with the troll then to read he lost his gloves, or its neater to see the kid dorf playing with a toy furnace and one playing with a toy stone drum (somehow), even though they currently don't. The soap dorf was useless for a long while until the next release, he was added long before his utilization was added.

The antics for the fluff will be there. Eventually dorfs will want to have their mug and eat on a plate instead with their bear hands.

I personally love the statues. That just means more character for the  fortress, a better way to personalized a fortress. Thats a bonus alone, but included with matching statues with engravings would be very neat.

[Jiri Petru]

I'm with Fikes... at least partly.

Fikes, most of the "useless" features contribute heavily to DF's popularity. The game doesn't have that much of a gameplay, what makes it rich are the mindbogling details. And people actually do care about different stones, different trees and varied animals. It gives the game texture, deepens the immersion. I remember how happy I was that the game has real tree species in appropriate biomes, not just generic "trees". The other stuff, like paired clothes, different kinds of toys, etc. contribute to the stories and general craziness. I guess a huge part of DF's popularity comes from fun stories and hilarious situation it produces - these wouldn't be so great if it weren't for the detail.

BUT, and here I agree with you, the current implementation of "fluff" features is rather bad. Deeper level of detail should never hinder gameplay, never lead to much micromanagement, etc - and having to choose from hundreds of different stones/logs/blocks is just an example of bad implementation. Features like these should always be optional. The player should be able just to "build a workshop", without having to care about specific materials. Only if he wanted to, he'd say it has to be made of green glass blocks.

A plenty of people want material selection when producing items in workshop. I am very, very afraid that Toady implements it and makes it obligatory. I like being able to produce "stone throne", I don't want to be forced to select a specific stone, neither do I want the interface to be cluttered by dozens of "alunite thrones", "limestone thrones", "bauxite thrones", etc (wrestling interface, anyone?). I'd love material selection, but only if it's cleverly implemented.

The same goes for many features Toady adds. For example, the new military system sounds fascinating, the ability to set uniforms will surely be fun. But I'm afraid I'll have to set uniforms now, otherwise my soldiers won't wear anything. Actually, even the old military interface was a bit too detailed for my taste - I always wanted to be able just to "recruit a soldier and stop caring". You know... so he would select a weapon and gather the best equipment available by himself. The ability to create an army made only of buckler-wielding speardwarves was fun, but I didn't like that it was also obligatory.

[Jiri Petru]

Yeah... quote modify... sorry...

[kcwong]

And worst thing? If you designate it different spot, list is in different order. It is guarantted to change order randomly. You have to find whatever you want to use every single time.

It is not random; the list is made in order of increasing distance to the location of the task you are assigning. So if you don't care what material it is, you can just pick from the top of the list.

Unfortunately most players do care...

[Fikes]

I'm with Fikes... at least partly.

Fikes, most of the "useless" features contribute heavily to DF's popularity. The game doesn't have that much of a gameplay, what makes it rich are the mindbogling details. And people actually do care about different stones, different trees and varied animals. It gives the game texture, deepens the immersion. I remember how happy I was that the game has real tree species in appropriate biomes, not just generic "trees". The other stuff, like paired clothes, different kinds of toys, etc. contribute to the stories and general craziness. I guess a huge part of DF's popularity comes from fun stories and hilarious situation it produces - these wouldn't be so great if it weren't for the detail.

BUT, and here I agree with you, the current implementation of "fluff" features is rather bad. Deeper level of detail should never hinder gameplay, never lead to much micromanagement, etc - and having to choose from hundreds of different stones/logs/blocks is just an example of bad implementation. Features like these should always be optional. The player should be able just to "build a workshop", without having to care about specific materials. Only if he wanted to, he'd say it has to be made of green glass blocks.

A plenty of people want material selection when producing items in workshop. I am very, very afraid that Toady implements it and makes it obligatory. I like being able to produce "stone throne", I don't want to be forced to select a specific stone, neither do I want the interface to be cluttered by dozens of "alunite thrones", "limestone thrones", "bauxite thrones", etc (wrestling interface, anyone?). I'd love material selection, but only if it's cleverly implemented.

The same goes for many features Toady adds. For example, the new military system sounds fascinating, the ability to set uniforms will surely be fun. But I'm afraid I'll have to set uniforms now, otherwise my soldiers won't wear anything. Actually, even the old military interface was a bit too detailed for my taste - I always wanted to be able just to "recruit a soldier and stop caring". You know... so he would select a weapon and gather the best equipment available by himself. The ability to create an army made only of buckler-wielding speardwarves was fun, but I didn't like that it was also obligatory.

I would agree that most people who are active in this community like the mindboggling level of detail, but I think in general, most people who have grabbed DF and tried it, and maybe even enjoyed their first few forts, don't even notice it.

Those people just don't stay active in the community.

There are easier ways to fake most of the fluff anyways. Instead of a hydra actually having a bunch of heads, say it does, give it extra attacks, and take away those attacks as it gets beaten down. No ultra complicated raws, no massive debuging, just a pretty straight forward combat system.

That is all most additions to the community will see anyways. Spend a day or two faking a good heathcare system rather than a year developing an over complicated one most people won't care to understand.


We can use our minds to fill in the blanks between the graphics, we can use our minds to fill in the blanks between the stones.

[G-Flex]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

If hydras don't actually have multiple heads, how the hell is damage to them supposed to work?

There's a reason why this much detail is being put into the game: It's interesting, and actually affects gameplay in interesting ways.


Also, who cares if most people won't care? Of course they won't; DF is very, very, very much a niche product. You can't expect it to appeal to most people, and there's a good chance it won't in the foreseeable future. Of course, there are things to make it more accessible that could be done, like mucking about with changing the user interface, slightly better graphics support, better documentation, more long-term goals, and further improvements to the game in general, but turning the game's mechanical systems into cookie-cutter "You lost 15 HP! You die!" stuff is the exact antithesis of why most people stick with this game in the first place.

To me (and a lot of other people), what makes this game great is that Toady is trying to make it extremely complex, and that this is actually working out.


I'm not saying a more simplistic DF-like game is a terrible idea, or wouldn't work. I'm saying that it simply wouldn't be Dwarf Fortress. It wouldn't satisfy the same niche or appeal to people in the same way at all. The most amazing DF stories that I hear are the ones that involve the more complex and detailed mechanics of the game. Hell, even relatively-mundane things benefit from it, like my jeweler having a bad neck and a missing eye due to a crossbow bolt, as well as a severe head injury that took a long time to heal, still cutting gems and decorating items with them. It's not like it's just fluff, it's actual game mechanics here.



As far as things like material selection at workshops, and military uniforms are concerned, I don't think Toady has ever intended for them to be mandatory. An "any stone" (or selecting just a color, or what have you) selection makes perfect sense and has been mentioned before, for instance, and even if it were mandatory, so what? You just click through the next menu without looking. No big deal having to head a single button once, but you probably won't have to anyway when the time comes.

We can use our minds to fill in the blanks between the graphics, we can use our minds to fill in the blanks between the stones.

This is a non-argument. What you're saying here could easily be applied to any detail in any game, ever.

The reason we're playing a game is so that we don't have to make everything up: Things happen, according to rules, in an interactive fashion that we can't necessarily predict all the time. That is the essence of a game. If you want to fill in every detail yourself, that's what writing a story yourself is for. If you want things to happen in an organic and interactive manner, you play a game. One of the main draws of DF, as I've mentioned, is the fact that you can do this to a degree of detail that isn't possible in virtually any other game on the market. I mean, haven't you been reading the dev log? Simple things like dwarves being too lazy to attend training on time, or getting attached to their weapons, or whatever other minor behaviorisms are (or will be) added are one of the most endearing things in the game to me, and I think others will agree.


Honestly, when people complain about detail in DF, I feel like they're just complaining about detail that'll bog down actual gameplay. I don't think this is a necessary result of complexity, though.

Of course, they also might be complaining about development time they think is being "wasted", but I'll say this: If it weren't for the amount of detail this game has in it already, it wouldn't have the kind of dedicated fanbase that it does. The most popular stories, Let's Plays, etc. that have happened probably never would have, and one of its most compelling and important marketing hooks would be vacant.

[Andir]

And worst thing? If you designate it different spot, list is in different order. It is guarantted to change order randomly. You have to find whatever you want to use every single time.

It is not random; the list is made in order of increasing distance to the location of the task you are assigning. So if you don't care what material it is, you can just pick from the top of the list.

Unfortunately most players do care...

I knw it's a workaround, but if you know what resource you want to work with, place a stockpile nearby and limit the contents to only that type.  Forbid it from the "main" stockpiles and let the extra dwarfs ferry the goods to where they are needed.  I tend to do the same thing for workshops.  I make two rooms.  One for the workshop and another for the resources for that shop.  Sometimes I get creative and make the storage room surround the workshop which can also help with the noise factor.

Yes, it means having people that can shuffle resources around, but your builders don't have far to go and can keep busy.

[G-Flex]

Honestly, that's barely even a "workaround". Keeping materials where they're likely to be used often is pretty much a standard thing you should do whenever possible. In real life, it's kind of silly if the pantry is on the other end of the house from the kitchen, or if you keep your clothes in an armoire in the basement instead of your room.

[MrWiggles]

Spoiler: G-Flex Post (click to show/hide)

I wholeheartedly disagree.

If hydras don't actually have multiple heads, how the hell is damage to them supposed to work?

There's a reason why this much detail is being put into the game: It's interesting, and actually affects gameplay in interesting ways.


Also, who cares if most people won't care? Of course they won't; DF is very, very, very much a niche product. You can't expect it to appeal to most people, and there's a good chance it won't in the foreseeable future. Of course, there are things to make it more accessible that could be done, like mucking about with changing the user interface, slightly better graphics support, better documentation, more long-term goals, and further improvements to the game in general, but turning the game's mechanical systems into cookie-cutter "You lost 15 HP! You die!" stuff is the exact antithesis of why most people stick with this game in the first place.

To me (and a lot of other people), what makes this game great is that Toady is trying to make it extremely complex, and that this is actually working out.


I'm not saying a more simplistic DF-like game is a terrible idea, or wouldn't work. I'm saying that it simply wouldn't be Dwarf Fortress. It wouldn't satisfy the same niche or appeal to people in the same way at all. The most amazing DF stories that I hear are the ones that involve the more complex and detailed mechanics of the game. Hell, even relatively-mundane things benefit from it, like my jeweler having a bad neck and a missing eye due to a crossbow bolt, as well as a severe head injury that took a long time to heal, still cutting gems and decorating items with them. It's not like it's just fluff, it's actual game mechanics here.



As far as things like material selection at workshops, and military uniforms are concerned, I don't think Toady has ever intended for them to be mandatory. An "any stone" (or selecting just a color, or what have you) selection makes perfect sense and has been mentioned before, for instance, and even if it were mandatory, so what? You just click through the next menu without looking. No big deal having to head a single button once, but you probably won't have to anyway when the time comes.

We can use our minds to fill in the blanks between the graphics, we can use our minds to fill in the blanks between the stones.

This is a non-argument. What you're saying here could easily be applied to any detail in any game, ever.

The reason we're playing a game is so that we don't have to make everything up: Things happen, according to rules, in an interactive fashion that we can't necessarily predict all the time. That is the essence of a game. If you want to fill in every detail yourself, that's what writing a story yourself is for. If you want things to happen in an organic and interactive manner, you play a game. One of the main draws of DF, as I've mentioned, is the fact that you can do this to a degree of detail that isn't possible in virtually any other game on the market. I mean, haven't you been reading the dev log? Simple things like dwarves being too lazy to attend training on time, or getting attached to their weapons, or whatever other minor behaviorisms are (or will be) added are one of the most endearing things in the game to me, and I think others will agree.


Honestly, when people complain about detail in DF, I feel like they're just complaining about detail that'll bog down actual gameplay. I don't think this is a necessary result of complexity, though.

Of course, they also might be complaining about development time they think is being "wasted", but I'll say this: If it weren't for the amount of detail this game has in it already, it wouldn't have the kind of dedicated fanbase that it does. The most popular stories, Let's Plays, etc. that have happened probably never would have, and one of its most compelling and important marketing hooks would be vacant.

Exactly right, I feel that the detail that DF has is what makes this game as it is, and what makes it great.

I think that because DF doesn't abstract events, is what allow the unique stories that get posted here on a regular basis.

Yes, the combat, and healing (read any gameplay elements for DF) can all be abstracted and dumb down, but then why are you playing DF? There plenty of games that do that, and do them well. That not what DF is trying to do, because the as Toady has stated it, he see it doesn't like.

The tissue layer combat system is wonderful, you know why the limb was hacked, you know  whats gone down. Because of this new complicated system a more varied combat experience that different from other games.

Would it make the development process faster if more was abstracted? Of course, but so what? What is Bay12 motto? Beyond Quality.

There is much more to be loss by abstraction for DF then there is to gain.