Print

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

[corvvs]

I suppose... but on the other hand I was writing a MUD at one point and instantaneous death being a possibility of combat was a strong feature that I thought made it much more exciting/fulfilling to play. Different strokes.

But death was not permanent. In a roguelike, it ordinarily is; and so having a mechanic where you can be oneshotted without making a mistake (this does assume that the game isn't one where being in combat in the first place means you've made a mistake) is inappropriate.

I guess... I mean, yes - I see your point. I even agree as far as the "gameplay" aspect goes... sort of.
But I find it entirely enjoyable with the possibility of receiving a critical hit to the spleen or the brain. Due to the gameplay aspect, I guess this is the only place where I can understand an "I have super moves but the rest of you chumps can only swing wildly" aspect. But if that's introduced I hope it would be an init option.

Nethack occasionally spawns gnome lords with wands of death/lightning/magic missile. Most characters in the Gnomish Mines don't have magic resistance. I don't find the possibility of that putting me off Nethack any more than I find the idea of a speargoblin putting his weapon into my brainpan via the eye a deterrment from adventure mode in DF.

Again, different strokes.
I'm not trying to say your experiences are illegitimate or anything, just making sure you're aware that many people enjoy the simulationist aspects.

I still don't understand your point, sorry.

I'm referring to the way rivers downstream from waterfalls have incorrectly high pressure and the water doesn't behave as you expect.

I haven't noticed that before - how is it incorrect? Not arguing - I'm actually curious.

I'm confused - what I was saying above was that the salient details of fortress #1 ARE saved for use in fortress #2.

What I'm trying to say is that that could be done without simulating the entire world.

To some extent, but what would be the point of taking away the world sim? Again, arguments against features seem odd. Also you wouldn't get engravings of past battles that occurred in the same location.

So I guess we're on the same page here?

I'm not sure. Let me try and explain what I'm really getting at more clearly.

I don't object to all that detail per se. It doesn't normally make the game worse for me (in the way that, say, the nightmare of micromanagement does). And I'm not soley concerned with statistics; that individual dwarves have personalities, or that engravings depict notable events (elephants on fire, say), is all perfectly jolly.

But I have three caveats about all that detail. The first is that it does make the game worse when suspension of disbelief suffers because of inconsistency. Brewing doesn't require water. An artifact pigtail sock, singular (and spiky to boot, so how does anyone wear it?) When I stop and think "what, that's obviously daft!", that doesn't help the game; and these oddities are amplified by the way things are so detailed. A stick figure with no nose looks normal; a lovingly detailed human face with no nose looks distinctly odd.

The second is that, while DF has got a lot of interesting gameplay from emergent properties of simulationism, simulationism can also work against gameplay. The way I can't just have an embark site with some of everything fun and I could beforehand strikes me an an example of this.  Another worry would be the upcoming Army Arc. If I establish a fortress of seven dwarves in striking range of goblins, the sensible thing for them to do would be to send a sufficient force to wipe me out immediately and take all my gear. For a fun game I want the AI to be stupid - to send attacks I can defeat; but from a simulationist POV the AI should surely do what real militaries do and try to fight battles it can win.

The third is that I think a lot of development effort is diverted into either quite arbitary detail (as mentioned upthread, do you care about dwarves' skincare routine? A difference between you and me may be that I don't care at all and you care a bit, but is that as important to either of us as, for example, having fire behave like fire?) or needlessly complex mechanics which don't really change the gameplay significantly (hospitals, treatment, and surgery - great! yet more injury minituae - not so good), and when there are a lot of long-known serious issues that impact the play of the game today, I personally would prefer to see those addressed.

Singular socks are a little odd, but I think it's on the bug list.

The "some of everything fun" is just foreign to my mind I guess. I obviously know what you mean but I see so much else as "fun." And to me, deciduous trees growing in a desert at the rim of an active volcano just so I can have glass and beds and infinite fuel without having to trade for anything outside of my 3x3 embark area -- and having that be the common state of affairs! I can walk 6 miles up the road and see the exact same setup! -- would make the game far less enjoyable. As I said before - it would make it "a game." As in, one of the things EA produces everytime a new Spider-Man movie comes out. Oh, I can't walk down this hallway even though I can walk down the one next to it. I guess the other one is where the boss is.

Before the AI sends a huge army they have to know about you - it destroys the living world illusion if their "goblin sense" tingles and they know seven dwarves just settled 80 miles to the south. So you'll still see scouts first, following the caravans to find you. Then raiding parties from nearby goblin villages. Then finally besieging armies from the capital as word spreads - remember, no telephone.

Of course, if you embark on their doorstep you might have issues, but isn't the point of doing so to look for trouble?

The nice thing about the "skincare" details is that he's adding them side-handed. A diversion of six hours of development time to add something that helps complete the living world illusion, even if it doesn't affect gameplay greatly, isn't such a big deal. The wrinkles were a side-effect of having creatures that grow and mature as they age. The wrinkles and greying hair themselves took only a couple hours (I'm recalling this from one of the interviews or question responses) to do as he was already working in the area.

It would be nice if dwarves recognized that being on fire is a bad thing. I'm definitely not arguing against bug fixes.

Hospitals treatment and surgery don't change the gameplay interestingly? ("significantly" is hard to evaluate in terms of meaningfulness - a "significant" change would be to make goblins explode in a burst of blood when you click on them, but that wouldn't necessarily make the game better.) I disagree, but again, different style of play.

The current development version is all about adding the features that have been building up that will break save compatibility. Once this is out, the work will go toward bug fixes and more gameplay oriented features. And they will come out faster. And you won't have to regen the world every time a new version comes out - so you can continue to elaborate on the history you're currently engaged with. Until suddenly, in the Year of Our Urist 532, dwarves realize that fire is bad for their health.

EDIT: Re: your edit (attribute leveling)
Already fixed in the next version. There are now more attributes, split into mental and physical categories, and certain tasks exercise only certain attributes.

[Jiri Petru]

Another worry would be the upcoming Army Arc. If I establish a fortress of seven dwarves in striking range of goblins, the sensible thing for them to do would be to send a sufficient force to wipe me out immediately and take all my gear. For a fun game I want the AI to be stupid - to send attacks I can defeat; but from a simulationist POV the AI should surely do what real militaries do and try to fight battles it can win.

Just a note - these are almost exactly Toady's words, when he spoke about Army Arc in the last podcast. So rest assured, he does try to strike the fine line between simulation and fun.

[Footkerchief]

Just a note - these are almost exactly Toady's words, when he spoke about Army Arc in the last podcast. So rest assured, he does try to strike the fine line between simulation and fun.

Yeah, here's the quote:

Sieges have been in Dwarf Fortress since before it was released, I guess around 2004. There were originally underground ones that came from the 2D chasm type thing that was there, you'd have animals come out of there; you'd have these escalating goblin sieges and you'd also have the year 6 attack by undead where all the bodies in your fortress raise up and start killing you siege. When we moved away from having set sieges and more towards civilizations in the world that changed a little bit although there's still a lot of artificial stuff around sieges like the way that the goblins just kind of ramp up without respecting their civilizations. The main idea is at first just to add something for you to do in kind of a fantasy combat type of way, because there's the underground and then there's the outside and the idea with the siege is to give you some kind of challenges associated to that. As we improve the interactions with the outside world it'll be more just to drive the plot of whatever's going on while at the same time trying to respect the notion that it's still a computer game and you can't just get jumped by two hundred goblins right at the beginning or something like that because your fortress happens to be in the wrong place, although that wouldn't necessarily be off-limits as long as there's some other stuff to balance that out like your civilization helping you out or something like that.

[Braddles!?]

hi!

im new to dwarf fortress,

i am very into gameplay in games, and i have promised myself i will get used to the ascii art eventually. i believe that if this game was 3-D, it would be extremely successful.


i am in winter in my first year, one of my dwarves was attacked by fish while fishing and is now dead, so its down to my farming for food. I was VERY confused when starting out, if not for the "your first fortress" on the wiki thing, i would have given the game up.

For more players, either direct them to that guide, or make a tutorial, it would be useful to a lot of new players like me


When the trader comes again, will i get new dwarves as well? as my fishers little home is now empty , not too mention all the other rooms i made while i was bored.

and where do i find valuable minerals like gold?

i mined a bit, but found nothing of interest

[Timst]

and where do i find valuable minerals like gold?

Depend on where you embarked. DF generate regions according to real world data (well, probably a bit more generously, because platinum or gold seems to be abundant in the game), so you won't necessarily have every  metal or mineral on your map. It's quite possible to never have iron or gold for instance, and it might even be possible to have a really "empty" map without any metal or precious gem (I'm not sure if it already happened tough).

Dig more, you'll eventually find something, most of the time.

When the trader comes again, will i get new dwarves as well? as my fishers little home is now empty, not too mention all the other rooms i made while i was bored.

Immigrants come every year, or even several time per year, given the merchants were able to return to the mountainhomes to report about your fortress.

[Braddles!?]

thanks timst

[Timst]

My pleasure. Don't be afraid to ask, people here are usually friendly and open to questions.

[Andir]

My pleasure. Don't be afraid to ask, people here are usually friendly and open to questions.

... but um... keep it in the proper threads.  This one is more about stating turn-offs about the game, not answering questions.

(I'm not jumping on you, but you'll go a long way keeping on topic around here, and people will be much cooler with you.  I understand it may have been rhetorical, and it is a valid concern for starting off [making money.]  BTW, I also agree that the interface could use a lot of work, but I understand it's a one man team, for the most part, and developing all that is an undertaking.)

[Particleman]

I was aware of the game for a while before I actually played it. I tried a couple times, but the sheer complexity of the game kept turning me off. Eventuallly I found a beginner's guide online and followed that, and now I understand how the game works.

The complexity was a huge factor at first, but now that I'm familiar with the game, I can see why most of it is neccesary.

Another big thing is the fact that NOTHING is explained in-game. It took me a while to figure out just how the hell to build a functioning waterwheel, for instance. The wiki helped a lot here. A tutorial scenario or something would help new players understand the game and make the complexity of it less daunting.

[Durin]

The system requirements.   

I've got a 6 month old middle of the line laptop.  It seems to do a good job with the game, but today it overheated, and just in general DF churns the processor from the moment you start it up to the moment you shut it down.

Why is this exactly?  I think ultimately it is going to have to be addressed.  My understanding so far is that a lot of stuff that you cannot even see is nevertheless being tracked, which is probably not a great idea. 

Game play wise, while it is all well and good not to make graphics a focus on a game that is basically about rts and social development, interface should have been at least a moderate focus from the get go.  Now you are going to need to play catch up.  Graphics comparable to the original sim city back in the 80's should not have been that hard to manage, nor should a simple windows interface of some sort.  I could not even begin to critique the flow of the menus until this step is taken. 

Well, I guess I could begin...

Menus that serve similar purposes should have some sort of cross connect.  I should not have to totally quit out of the "view" to go get a close up of the exact same dwarf to check his labors.  Also, when going to close up from units, for whatever reason DF takes you just to the top unit on the square you are on, which is infuriating in and of itself, and damn well mindblowing when you first do it and can't for the life of you figure out why when you go to mark a newborn kitten for the slaughter you end up staring at Unib Farterfurnace's labor preferences instead. 

Whine and complain, complain and whine, I know I know... but I adore the game and its general concept. 

Why is it not open source?  I think you risk having someone see it and develop something like it for mass consumption doing it the way you're doing now.  Development would be faster open sourced, you already have a massive community of support here, and I doubt seriously someone is going to come along and offer you the cash for what you have developed over 6 years that they can probably do in 1 year themselves with better graphics support, assuming any of them get the attraction of the game and decide to do something like it.  I'm not an open source junkie and in fact am playing it on Vista, but it just seems something of this sort is more or less exactly what Open Source is all about, and you can still accept donations.  Once you get to the point where you think it is marketable, sell the prepackaged version.  Most users do not have the tech saavy to use the freely available source to begin with, and would be more than happy to simply download the thing from an easy to find and use web page, assuming the objection you have to Open Source is you do not get to copyright and hence make money off of it.

Just my two cents.

[G-Flex]

The system requirements.   

I've got a 6 month old middle of the line laptop.  It seems to do a good job with the game, but today it overheated, and just in general DF churns the processor from the moment you start it up to the moment you shut it down.

Why is this exactly?  I think ultimately it is going to have to be addressed.  My understanding so far is that a lot of stuff that you cannot even see is nevertheless being tracked, which is probably not a great idea.

Tracking stuff that isn't currently being "used" or visible isn't really the problem. For one, that stuff is bound to be used in the future anyhow, plus the most significant problems with FPS are things like pathfinding and fluid flows.

Those things can be made more efficient, of course, but it's hard with a game as complicated as this, really. It's a good goal, though, and I know pathfinding is going to get some sort of rewrite at some point, and will probably be more efficient.

Then again, if your laptop is ever actually overheating, that sounds more like a problem with its design. A computer shouldn't overheat due to normal work like that unless it's poorly-designed or subjected to bad conditions, especially when it's new.

[Durin]

The system requirements.   

I've got a 6 month old middle of the line laptop.  It seems to do a good job with the game, but today it overheated, and just in general DF churns the processor from the moment you start it up to the moment you shut it down.

Why is this exactly?  I think ultimately it is going to have to be addressed.  My understanding so far is that a lot of stuff that you cannot even see is nevertheless being tracked, which is probably not a great idea.

Then again, if your laptop is ever actually overheating, that sounds more like a problem with its design. A computer shouldn't overheat due to normal work like that unless it's poorly-designed or subjected to bad conditions, especially when it's new.

"Poorly designed" is in the eye of the beholder.  The main thrust I am getting at is I can see from watching the processor either through Task Manager or through a little add on gadget Vista offers, even when the program is just sitting there asking whether you want to start or not, it begins churning the processor to what seems to me to be an inordinate degree.  As far as when a computer ought or ought not to overheat, gaming rigs come kitted out with liquid cooled processors for a reason.  A laptop is not designed, for better or worse, to have its processor sit at the 55-70% utilization range for hours on end. 

So yes, I think some basic design philosophy issues are going to have to be addressed soon, because few and far between are the people that are going to want to spend $5000 bucks for a computer capable of comfortably running a game without graphics to speak of.  If the goal is actually to simulate the entirety of reality on a home computer, down to the emotions of everyone within say 2-3 square miles of some arbitrary point, I think the we have set ourselves an impossible task. 

Warcraft and the like all involve pathing.  I can plop an old Warcraft III on here if you like to make my point, but I think the bottom line is that something is going to have to give on the system requirements soon, and the solution is going to be a decision to be made on the philosophy used as to how to simulate all the cool things we want simulated here.

Just for the record, I fall amongst that tiny pecentage who would buy a mega system just to be able to play this game.  Maybe that is going to end up being a defining quality of this game... people whose entertainment is found less in the graphics and more in the details.  But currently that's my beef...  I am straining the capacity of this computer with a 60-something odd dwarf colony, and that is depressing me somewhat.   

[G-Flex]

Gaming rigs come kitted out with ridiculous cooling systems because video cards are hideously overengineered and produce way too much heat and people don't necessarily know how to place them, and because people like to overclock, plus conspicuous consumption.

Also, if a gaming rig requires that sort of ridiculous cooling, sure. You design a system with the cooling it needs. A laptop is a contiguous unit and should be designed with the cooling it needs as well. The rush to make them thinner as well as more powerful gives you laptops that cannot maintain a decent operating temperature when given a decent workload. Personally, I'm sitting here with a junky Acer laptop from 2004, with fans that probably have needed lubrication for years, and it never overheats no matter what I do unless it's in the 90's in my room and I'm playing games or something.

Simply put, a computer is poorly-designed if it can't actually sustain itself at 50% operating capacity for a few hours.


I'm not really sure why pathfinding is so much harsher on this game than others. It might be due to how often it happens and the number of units, plus the fact that the map is in three dimensions, and how little you can assume about the map since it constantly changes. Of course, like I said, there are probably a lot of inefficiencies in the way it's implemented that can be figured out.


I really hope that $5000 figure is an extreme exaggeration. Really, the only serious limiting factor for DF is the processor; it's not like you need a ridiculous videocard or anything. And it's not even multithreaded (which is one thing that could use work, although the amount of work involved in doing this would be tremendous, and is oft-discussed here), so throwing twelve of the newest line into the computer wouldn't do anything for you anyhow. So yes, having a powerhouse of a computer can help, but only in a couple select areas.

[Durin]

Simply put, a computer is poorly-designed if it can't actually sustain itself at 50% operating capacity for a few hours.

I think you are preaching to the choir.  My point is I doubt I am getting anywhere taking it back to the store at this point when the only application I can find that overheats it is this one.

Sorry, but I find these discussions tedious.  I think you know what I mean and have already acknowledged that it is an issue, and is being worked on.  Thanks.

Yeah, the $5000 comment was an exageration.

[Neruz]

The 3rd dimension is a big one. Most RTS's have only a single dimension of pathfinding (it's usually a 2d pathing map painted onto the landscape), if the RTS features bridges that units can both go under and over at the same time, then the bridge is treated as 'special' to save on pathfinding.

In DF though, it's entirely possible i'll have 20 or 30 pathfinding maps (one per z level). As opposed to the usual one-with-exceptions. That's a gargantuan increase.

That and the fact that designing an efficient pathing engine for a modern game takes up an inordinately disproportionate amount of time and money.