Print

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

[axus]

http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_future.html

There are a lot of scenario type ideas here.  Unfortunately they are not scheduled until after version 1.

The essential idea, of a User Defined Scoring System, is a good one.  I'm thinking it's a long way out, but Toady is very good about Adding Things To The List, so why not add it.

[Lightman]

quote:Originally posted by Neonivek:
<STRONG>
To my knowledge is has to do with the fact that for some people you always have to try your best.
---
Think of it this way... If you made your house on the side of a hill that had mudslides...
---
Lets take Fable...
</STRONG>

I appreciate what you are saying and I understand the basic gripe, but I still think it's approaching the game from the wrong perspective.

You can't compare a game like Fable to DF. Fable has a linear line of gameplay. You described it yourself: Fable is easy to win. You don't win DF. So, perhaps someone chooses a place in the world that makes it easy for them to survive. Fine. If they wanted a challenge, then they made a poor decision. "Playing smartly" means choosing a place that offers the right level of challenge.

Here is an analogy (that I already mentioned): compare this to a traditional role-playing game:

"A role-playing game has no winners, the main purpose of the game is to have fun playing it."
(Wikipedia)

In role-playing you can make up the rules yourself and people who participate in role-playing games generally have fun. The same applies to DF, except that there is a stricter world. It's not about crippling how well you play. It's about defining the game.

[Neonivek]

Rejecting my analogy based on the fact that it is not like Dwarf Fortress!?! And a Win Scenario!?! ACK!!!

 

quote: In role-playing you can make up the rules yourself and people who participate in role-playing games generally have fun.

This is much more removed from the game then Fable in so many ways. but judging by the fact that you most likely actually played a roleplaying game (BTW: RPG and Role-playing game are different). This most likely either refers to Makebelieve or Pen and Paper RPGs... I am going to assume you mean Pen and Paper RPGs.

 

quote: It's not about crippling how well you play. It's about defining the game.

Alright... now... here is the thing...

In a roleplaying game you define the characters, the rules, the story, the events, the future events, and usually the end result of said events. In Dwarf Fortress none of these are under your control. Meaning this becomes a "One-shot" since you are given your role. However it has no ending... meaning it is an endless oneshot unless you die.

Are you saying Dwarf Fortress is a bad game? No

All you did was sidestep the issue by saying that the people's feelings weren't valid. That Dwarf Fortress is a game defined by flexability.

Dwarf Fortress can be as flexable as it needs to be but at the end of the day it is still a videogame and it cannot expand outside this area. It is not a Pen and Paper RPG where at the end of the day it is a glorious tale you woven with your GM/DM/ST/Weaver/Referee/SM.

Even that being said Dwarf Fortress when being compared to a roleplaying game has NO flexability whatsoever and cannot adjust itself to the wants and needs of the player on its own... in fact no game really can to any effect that matches a roleplaying game.

Even Roleplaying games have endings. They are just so planned far in ahead that players almost never reach them. Even the one I am running has a ending.

 

quote: You don't win DF

I am going to tell you a secret no one wants you to know: "Yes you can". The fact of the matter is that the Win Scenario becomes defined by the user. What other games are like this? Simcity, The Sims, Creatures (a non-maxis game), and many others. In all those games, just like Dwarf Fortress, you can play to infinity (adventure mode not so much) and there is no "Win" screen at any point of those games.

There is however a point where you are satisfied over what you have done enough to stop playing... and maybe return to your save (which you cannot do in this...). No game except that which can disconnect itself with the user and his input or that has no true advancement can truely ever say it has no Win Scenario. Something Dwarf Fortress cannot boast.

For these people obviously their Win Scenario is to have a established mountainhome but they are finding it too easy unless they play in their mind dumber.

If this was a Roleplaying game. a Good GM would make the game more difficult for the player and would not require the player to play badly. Though I will admit this often presents the mood of "GM Vs. Player" in a lot of games because it is the GMs specific job to challenge the players who wish to be challenged, but to do so they must trump the player's best efforts.

Woosh, No idea what I just wrote... lets hope it makes sense.

Large coincidence that today is the day I run a game of Exalted.

Note: Modding a game doesn't count as "Under your control"

[ May 23, 2008: Message edited by: Neonivek ]

[Lightman]

Sorry, several things in your reply don't make sense to me and I'd prefer not to get into a big discussion here to clarify. Let's use pm, if you care to help me follow your meaning.

I wouldn't compare "Sim Ant" to "Halo 3" because they are vastly different games. Similarly, I think Fable is a poor choice to compare with DF.

I've tried to make my point clear and simple. I'll try one more time:

The "you-can-win secret" is no secret. That is my point - players can invent their own goals.

<STRONG>For these people obviously their Win Scenario is to have a established mountainhome but they are finding it too easy unless they play in their mind dumber.</STRONG>

Yes... and that comes back to my point: They can make challenges without being "dumb".

Cheers    

[ May 23, 2008: Message edited by: Lightman ]

[Align]

quote:Originally posted by Neonivek:
<STRONG>BTW: RPG and Role-playing game are different</STRONG>

what

[Neskiairti]

I think my brain just broke ;.;

[Neonivek]

quote: I wouldn't compare "Sim Ant" to "Halo 3" because they are vastly different games. Similarly, I think Fable is a poor choice to compare with DF

The context in which the comparison is made is important.

For example saying "Sim Ant is better then Halo" is stupid because the qualities for one to be better then the other is different.

If you said something like "As Sim Ant shows it is important to have some sort of graphic based interface so someone knows what is going on. Just like Halo does" I don't think they are stretching it.

In a similar way I used Fable as an example because it was a game... the type didn't matter and its differences didn't matter for the example. The Example didn't break appart because of genre differences.

Also on the other question...

Videogame RPGs have mountains of difference when compared to Pen and Paper RPGs.

They are two things refered to by the same name but are drastically different but stemmed from the same source.

Almost like the difference between the color orange and the fruit orange. A Less drastic example I guess would be by the term diet, where one refers to changing your eating habits to achieve an effect and the other refers to what you eat... The second example I think is better...

Basically it is equivocating to use RPG in the Pen and Paper sense and in the videogame sense in the same arguement as if they were the same. (Which he did... thus in a sense breaking down his own arguement... but I am still on the basis that he can understand what I am saying and I don't need to explain things in full)

[ May 24, 2008: Message edited by: Neonivek ]

Alright to unbreak people's brains

RPG 1: A Videogame Genre noted by having number based increase of stats
-Note: A videogame RPG does not require story, a set role, or combat

RPG 2: A freeform game often with a set of rules which people act out

Unlike the above... RPG 2 (which is what light was refering to) does require a story and roles. Or else it is called Monopoly

[ May 24, 2008: Message edited by: Neonivek ]

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

RPG = Role Playing Game
Plz PM me, I find your idea about RPG differences interesting.  Also, as a GM, i would like to hear your ideas on challenging players.

end of line.

edit:
(ok so its not the end of the line  sue me)
(no wait, dont)

Playing SMARTLY (as everyone seems to like to call it) means playing the game in such a way as to ENJOY it the most.  If for someone playing SMARTLY mean having the biggest best most min/maxed uber fort ever, then fine, play for that and start in a easy area.  This kind of gaming makes our forts 'competitive', and some people just have to try to out do other people.  They arent bad or arrogant, just that is how they enjoy the challenge.  Others enjoy the solitary 'lets see if i can survive in this frozen haunted wasteland without any supplies but a single pick (etc)...'.  This game/constructor kit/sim/(fill in your blank) called DF draws both types of gamers, and many (most?) who enjoy both aspects.  This I believe is also the fundamental breaking point when you look at the things like the DF MMO threads.  The sheer raging vehemence people respond with dictate their chosen styles of play.  It is natural for anyone who enjoys playing something to resist change within the structure (case in point, look at recent 3d suggestion threads).  It is also natural for people to become posessive over things they enjoy (read just about any thread with more than 10 replies and this becomes obvious).  I think everybody needs to remember that this is Toady's baby, not ours.  He wants to create a game FOR US.  He wants us to play nicely.  He wants us to tell him what we would like to see in the game.  He then tells us yeah/nay based on his forseeable abilities to accomplish said suggestions.  I would think a suggestions forum would be a place where you would only post if you agree to an idea.  Then Toady can read those opinions, see how many actually responded and agreed and reply accordingly.  If something being suggested is a repeat of another thread or something allready covered in the development files (I havent read all of them, have u?) then please kindly refer that person to that thread and dont READ that thread anymore.  Some people may wish to resurrect the suggestion because of new implementation ideas or modifications to the original stated suggestion.  That is why it is ok for some threads to get repeated.  If it bothers you, please dont read the thread.  Why would you/me/'internet user in timbuktoo' read the thread and flame it anyway if they dont care about it?  Please allow the suggestions forum to be a place of contructive goals for DF.  It is perfectly reasonable to start a thread like "plz NO _______ in DF".  Then Toady can read those and balance them against the "plz add __________ in DF" and make intelligent and competent decisions on what he believes is best for his baby.  We should all strive to avoid flaming others posts and trying to hijack threads (like i think i just did....*sigh*).

Major KUDOS (couldnt think of a better word off the top of my head) to those people working on the voting threads.

The DISCUSSION forum is the place for differing opinion discourse on common themes.

Now, that said, i will now go jump my hypocritical self into the proverbial lake.

GMcG

[ May 24, 2008: Message edited by: Gorjo MacGrymm of Clan MacGrymm ]

[ May 24, 2008: Message edited by: Gorjo MacGrymm of Clan MacGrymm ]

[ May 24, 2008: Message edited by: Gorjo MacGrymm of Clan MacGrymm ]

[Neskiairti]

thank you very much... that was a well thought out response..

back to the topic.. (what was the topic again?... oh yeah easy/hard mode)

generally DF seems to be a game, that if its wanted by a majority, its added in one way shape or form..b ut not everyone has to use it.. weather its potential in the raws, or an advanced feature.. or simply something to add to realism..

what exactly is the 'problem' with adding an optional feature for those people who are either just beginning, like guidelines, or just plain feel lazy.. you dont have to use it, it wouldnt even intrude upon your gameplay..

one person suggested one method, another suggested a different one..

personally i like the idea that the machine determines optimal (easiest to survive) locations and horrid (impossible to survive locations) and throws out the most prominent ones in a list...

so where exactly is the problem here that makes everyone go off the wall?

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

I agree that a generic "difficulty" index would be useful.  Even though all that information is there for the user anyway (for the most part), all interfaces should strive for an ease of use that benefits all players, not just the ones who like digging into the research of what kinda metals/flux are in a certian rock layers etc etc.

A thought (probably a repeat -warning):  Instead of that on the embark screen, how about in the world gen phase (give me a sinister WORLD, etc).  I know Toady is doing alot with world gen stuff now along with the army arc, so it may be a pointless suggestion.

Sooooooooooo, long story short, 1 vote yay for more info/filters on embark screen.

*******************
Dyslexic Procastinators - Untie Morrowto!

GMcG

[Neskiairti]

from the way ive seen it.. the world gen is rather precarious.. and doesnt take that many variables very easily without throwing errors.. maybe I'm wrong.

I would like to be able to choose a 'commontype' world. like.. request maybe a higher % of haunted/sinister or higher % of voucano.. or higher % of dangerous monsters.

[Lightman]

quote:Originally posted by Gorjo MacGrymm of Clan MacGrymm:
<STRONG>Playing SMARTLY (as everyone seems to like to call it) means playing the game in such a way as to ENJOY it the most.</STRONG>

Precisely the idea. And, well, I, for one, chose to call it "playing smartly"  

Cheers, MacGrymm & Neonivek, for keeping in constructive mindsets. I hope nothing I wrote was misconstrued as being hostile, in any way.

I wanted to go back to the original topic:

Of course, there are already many mechanisms for difficulty in the game. It works, even though it requires players to manage so much themselves. So, I can understand people saying, "what's the point?" because the game is planned to change a lot and it's possible now (in a way). A quick fix could just as quickly be invalidated by the next version and they're concerned it's a waste of time.

However, as my first post suggested, I agree it would be possible, and probably beneficial, to set up some kind of quick-start interface that automates some starting conditions etc.

I wonder if this isn't something people could do as a third-party tool?

[Neonivek]

quote: I hope nothing I wrote was misconstrued as being hostile

Nope none... in fact I was also worried I was comming off as hostile. (I probably was too without knowing)

"I wonder if this isn't something people could do as a third-party tool?"

I suspect it is fully possible... though I wouldn't really bother with it until much later seeing as so many things would dramatically change until that time.  For example, once alcohol production (and very likely farming) requires water, Id highly suspect that deserts will turn from "I can't get many trees" into "I can't get enough water... and trees".

[ May 25, 2008: Message edited by: Neonivek ]

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

I have a question that i think starys on target a bit, does the "joyous wilds" or "sinister" tags actually have anything to do with world creation, or is it an overlay on top of random landscape after world gen?  Does the age of myth and events determine what is haunted or wahtever?

Someone smarter than me concerning programming in general (and probably anything else) would probably know the anser to this.

I have a few other ideas, but I think it would be yelling into the wind when I look at how much world gen stuff has been dealth with allready by Toady in his current project, so i doubt it would all get scrapped and redone to suit some generic wants.  But to put my 2 cents in on generaic wants, how about not generating a whole world, but my starting place (ie sinister, gold, adamantine, desert, lava etc) and then generating the world around it afterwards.

oh well,
Im starting to think i should stop whipping this dead horse........

GMcG