Print

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

[Jiri Petru]

But we're not talking about tanks and airplanes, not even about interface in general. We're talking about Dwarf Fortress and its four separate ways of doing the same thing (ie. selecting a 2D shape).

[Lord Shonus]

It doesn't matter what the specific task is. The point is that you can't automatically assume that it's better to have the same interface for everything. The F-16 has four different ways to drop the same kind of bomb. You going to tell the Air Force to simplify it so it's cheaper to train pilots?

[Jiri Petru]

I'm not assuming it automatically. I'm assuming it for this specific case.

I know I said streamlining is a good thing but please don't take my opinions to the extreme. What you say is absolutely right. There's no simple rules like: "simplicity is always better". At the same time, complex controls aren't always an improvement. There's needs to be balance. Anyway, I believe we understand each other now, right? This philosophing leads nowhere.

[Draco18s]

It doesn't matter what the specific task is. The point is that you can't automatically assume that it's better to have the same interface for everything. The F-16 has four different ways to drop the same kind of bomb. You going to tell the Air Force to simplify it so it's cheaper to train pilots?

This reminds me of shadowrun's Matrix rules problem.  Everything's situated such that the character pushes a giant red "GO!" button and thereby hacks a larger corporation's network with a single action.  And it doesn't work in reverse, because there are ways of making an unhackable computer (and cheap too) that corporations (with millions of dollars) don't do.

[Davion]

I disagree with your second point. Unification is NOT automatically better, and some of the biggest flaws in commercial games in my experience come from assuming that it is. (The best example I can think of off the top of my head is aircraft in the first Empire Earth game or in the first two Civilization games.)

So can you think of any instances in Dwarf Fortress where unifying the interface wouldn't be an improvement and would hinder gameplay? Or did you just want to get it off your chest that some of the interface design decisions in Empire Earth and Civilization frustrated you? Because it's looking like the latter.

[RAM]

It was sort of generalised that a unified system would be better. Going into the specifics of hypothetical cases requires a bit more effort.

Maybe you would want one highly automated system for training domestic animals and a more dangerous system for training wild animals.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

So can you think of any instances in Dwarf Fortress where unifying the interface wouldn't be an improvement and would hinder gameplay? Or did you just want to get it off your chest that some of the interface design decisions in Empire Earth and Civilization frustrated you? Because it's looking like the latter.

Actually, thinking about it, stockpiles and beds are the perfect example: A bed room derives its function from its name giver, the bed. No bed, no bed room. Thus it makes sense to have the bed as an integral part of the bed room - a bed room without a bed makes no sense.

A stockpile, on the other hand, allows using bins or barrels, but they are not an essential part of it, but can leave it at a moment's notice. Even without any furniture, a stockpile is still a logic thing as it really just means the space open for it.

As I said, the bed turns into bed room is easy to use AND also quite logical. So, I think switching that to the stockpile approach would actually be making things more difficult to do and also remove a safety mechanism that prevents the meaningless possibility of a bed room without a bed.

If we wanted to unify things and say the bed->bed room stays, then we would have to make the bin/barrel spawn the stockpile, just as a bed spawns the bed room. This, however, makes changing the type of stockpile a tad more complicated AND makes one bin or barrel unmovable, thus countering the benefit of being able to move several goods combined inside a barrel or bin.

Deathworks

[Jiri Petru]

Deathworks, if you want to keep creating bedrooms from beds, how about barracks from armor stands? And what would you do with hospitals? In my head, bedrooms, barracks and hospitals are very similar concepts that deserve a unified approach.

[RAM]

Unfortunately some people have different heads, and what makes sense to you will baffle them. Really isn't any good way around it...

[MMad]

Actually, thinking about it, stockpiles and beds are the perfect example: A bed room derives its function from its name giver, the bed. No bed, no bed room. Thus it makes sense to have the bed as an integral part of the bed room - a bed room without a bed makes no sense.

A stockpile, on the other hand, allows using bins or barrels, but they are not an essential part of it, but can leave it at a moment's notice. Even without any furniture, a stockpile is still a logic thing as it really just means the space open for it.

This sounds logical according to the way bedrooms currently works in DF. However, I agree with Jiri Petru that DF would be easier to to play and make more sense if some parts of the game (like bedrooms) worked differently.

For example, there could be many benefits from being able to assign an empty room to a dwarf. Even if they have no bed in there, they could still go there to sleep - sleeping on the floor in a private room of their own should be preferable to sleeping on the floor in a hallway somewhere. They could also store personal items in their room, with or without chests or cabinets, and conduct private meetings or discussions when that kind of things becomes more common and interesting.

Right now the bedroom is basically the home of an individual dwarf and many activities takes place there. I don't see it as necessarily obvious that it *has* to emanate from a bed. If you happen to settle somewhere without wood and can't make beds, I think it would make perfect sense to still be able to give each dwarf a room of their own.

You could argue that this kind of reworking of existing systems wanders outside of the topic of interface and presentation - but if it's impossible to make a consistent and sensible interface to describe and control the way the game works, the game should be reworked as well.

I love the Jiri Petru's idea of redesigning room construction in general to follow the hospital model - designating each room or work zone first, then placing furniture as needed. It makes a lot more intuitive sense to decide "This should be the dining room! Let's get some chairs and tables!" than to decide "Here's a table! Let's all eat our dinner in this general area". It would also improve workflow when carving new spaces - you could designate rooms of different kinds even if you haven't yet built the furniture required to make them function, making it easier to remember which was supposed to be which later on.

Anyway, awesome cool discussions in this thread so far. I hope Toady reads it and some of this makes it into the game.

[HebaruSan]

Actually, thinking about it, stockpiles and beds are the perfect example: A bed room derives its function from its name giver, the bed. No bed, no bed room. Thus it makes sense to have the bed as an integral part of the bed room - a bed room without a bed makes no sense.

It's very easy for experienced players to forget how obtuse some parts of DF are at first. I remember commanding a bed to be created in my first map (I won't even dignify it with the term "fort"), and then wondering why no one would use it. After all, it's a bed, and it's sitting right there on the ground (in a stockpile). Surely they see it, and they obviously feel the need to sleep. Oh, you mean I have to press 'b' and place the bed somewhere else and then they'll sleep on it? This is a non-trivial conceptual hurdle to get over, given that in real life there's no observable difference between a bed that's been "constructed" and one that hasn't.

It's just as baffling in the other direction. Suppose a new player notices dwarves sleeping on the ground. "Oh, I should make them some beds." Check the menu; I need to build some beds, so 'b: Building" looks good, and hey, Bed is listed right there! (Presses B) ... "wait, 'Bed ... Needs bed'? What the hell does that mean?? I know they need beds, that's why I'm trying to build them!"

Finally, it's clear that no bed does not mean no bedroom. Dwarves can sleep on the ground! It makes perfect sense to designate a bedroom without a bed; it would mean that instead of sleeping wherever they drop at random, dwarves (or a specific assigned dwarf) would only sleep on these particular areas of ground. Once bedroom furniture gets built, it could be claimed, placed, and used in the same way that clothing and trinkets are today.

I think the most straightforward approach is to designate "quarters" in the style of zones or burrows, optionally assign them out, and then have dwarves claim beds and move them there automatically as they're built.

(Ninja'd! -- MMad is correct on all counts. )

[Jiri Petru]

It's just as baffling in the other direction. Suppose a new player notices dwarves sleeping on the ground. "Oh, I should make them some beds." Check the menu; I need to build some beds, so 'b: Building" looks good, and hey, Bed is listed right there! (Presses B) ... "wait, 'Bed ... Needs bed'? What the hell does that mean?? I know they need beds, that's why I'm trying to build them!"

Along similar lines... and this is very important...

Notice that Bedrooms are nowhere to be found in the game menu. Nor are barracks nor dining rooms. All of these are vital gameplay elements and yet the player isn't told they exist... unless he tries to randomly build furniture and then click Q on said furniture (but why would he do that?) and then notice there's a new option there. And even if he notices this, he has no way to know what other kinds of furnire-rooms there are. There's no list! The player actually has to place every one of the insane number of furniture types and look for hidden options. It took me ages to notice I can build jails! Or zoos!

These buildings are very well hidden - which is so very, very wrong! Considering how important they are, they should be easily visible in a very prominent menu or submenu. And there's no way to do that unless you say goodbye to the "flowing-out-of-furniture" approach.

[Draco18s]

This is a non-trivial conceptual hurdle to get over, given that in real life there's no observable difference between a bed that's been "constructed" and one that hasn't.

You've obviously never purchased a brand new bed, or ever moved, have you?

Having recently had my bed fall apart on me, I am very aware that an "unbuilt bed" is in fact different.

A pic or two of an unbuilt bed.

[HebaruSan]

This is a non-trivial conceptual hurdle to get over, given that in real life there's no observable difference between a bed that's been "constructed" and one that hasn't.

You've obviously never purchased a brand new bed, or ever moved, have you?

Having recently had my bed fall apart on me, I am very aware that an "unbuilt bed" is in fact different.

A pic or two of an unbuilt bed.

So when I told my carpenter to "construct bed", he instead decided to "construct bed pieces"? I guess I wouldn't have a problem with that in principle, but that's not what the game says right now.

[HideousBeing]

So when I told my carpenter to "construct bed", he instead decided to "construct bed pieces"? I guess I wouldn't have a problem with that in principle, but that's not what the game says right now.

And simply renaming it would fix this specific problem. Interface overhaul is a good idea; especially the tool tips. Everything needs to be visible to the player and tell them a guideline of what they can do with it (wtf is a burrow! OH! TOOLTIPS FTW), otherwise it's going to take a week of looking at the wiki to do anything. Also bedrooms suck now, I can't give them a certain shape without abusing doors and walls. If they were simply designated by selecting where you want the room it would simplify everything AND allow for us to do cooler stuff with it.

While I could certainly do fine with the current interface, I want my friends to play DF to and thats only going to happen if it doesn't suck to learn how to play. I'm not asking for integrated graphics or anything silly; I'm asking for an interface that a normal human can understand.