Print

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

[lucusLoC]

you do know there is a road map for the 1.0 release right? and while not all the features are known or planned the major ideas are all laid out. and yes, this is a public alpha, being developed by one man, so the standard conventions do not apply. Toady goes to great lengths to make sure all of us testes enjoy doing the testing, so it takes him longer to get us the material. this last cycle was one of the longer ones, since so much was being rewritten. there are a crapton of features in 40d that are sorta/kinda there but not really, like the economy, and there are a crapton of features in this release that are also sorta/kinda there but not really.

and you cant really say that "you should finalize one feature at a time" or whatever, because all the feature interact with each other. we cant really fix the economy, for example, because it will rely on the diplomatic and trade stuff to a large extent, and that does not even exist yet. it is the same for almost every other feature. so much for this release is brand spanking new. and all of us are the testers, finding out what is broken and what is not, what works with the other features and what does not, and what is just a place holder for future interactions with stuff that does not exist yet. we relay that info to Toady so he can take a look at it, find out what works and how it should be refined.

we as a community have a massive amount of say in what goes on and how df is developed. but we have to understand that things are going to be broken, things are going to be ugly, and things are not always going to be done that suite playability first. at some point new things will be added that completely screw up the status quo, like this release. this will all be true clean up to the official 1.0 release, and perhaps beyond. we have to be wiling to accept that and work with Toady to fix things up in preparation for the next big addition of content. only as we get closer to 1.0 and as the final feature set is getting closer to being achieved can we expect things to start falling into place and work in a more consistent manner.

we as individuals have to decide where we fit into all this. are we one of the hardcore that pick up the latest release the moment it goes live so that we can be the first to find out it will not even run? its important that someone is, or Toady will never know. are we one of the people who keep playing even though the fort is guaranteed not to survive because of some major bug, just so we can help isolate the problem? some of us need to be, since it is obvious Toady cannot test it all himself. maybe we are the type of person who waits *patiently >_>* for the release to become more stable so we can explore the new features and provide insight and direction to future development? we need those kind of people too.

what we do not need is people who gripe that the game is not finished and therefore not fun and blah blah blah. but that is just my 2 cents.

[Hyndis]

See, maybe this is the fact that I'm a programmer at heart, but I look at this release, I don't see a slightly improved, highly buggy version- I see a systemic rewrite with incredibly, barely-developed potential.

Well, as a programmer you would know that it's generally not wise to bite off more than you can chew, and I think that is something Toady typically does. Don't get me wrong; I'm a HUGE fan of his and if Dwarf Fortress would be a flawless game I'd probably die because I would not go outside anymore, but I think stuff would go a lot more smoother if he released in smaller increments, finished the stuff he was working on (first military, then cave systems, etc.), and then moved on he would probably have more fun developing and we would have more fun playing.

I agree with this.

I think it was a mistake for Toady to go so long without a release, trying to get everything done rather than do one thing, finish it, and then release it. More frequent releases means the bug list for each release is smaller and more manageable because the scope of the changes are much smaller.

But really I think this is Toady's only fault. He's just too ambitious! Thats not all that bad of a fault to have. 


Yes the new military system is very complicated, but it works. Yes there are bugs with it, mostly relating to arsenal dwarves vanishing due to dead nobles, ammo for ranged weapons, and dwarves getting stuck training. Aside from those bugs the new military system is amazingly powerful and flexible. You can get your dwarves to do almost anything you want them to, you just need to set up schedules/burrows/points/routes/barracks for whatever combination of things you want.

I've taken to stationing a squad of dwarves at my main gate to detect any ambushes of thieves, with two other squads on search and destroy orders for the entire map. The defense squad holds down the fort and make sure nothing gets by. The offense squads hunt down any hostiles. Any wounded dwarves are patched up in the hospital, and if they get tired they take a break, and one of the replacement dwarves heads on out into the field of battle. Keeps all of my military dwarves fresh, happy, and busy hacking things apart with their steel axes.

Can this be done with the old system? Not a chance.

[lucusLoC]

more frequent releases mean more frequent save compat breaks, something that apparently Toady wants to avoid.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

you do know there is a road map for the 1.0 release right? and while not all the features are known or planned the major ideas are all laid out. and yes, this is a public alpha, being developed by one man, so the standard conventions do not apply. Toady goes to great lengths to make sure all of us testes enjoy doing the testing, so it takes him longer to get us the material. this last cycle was one of the longer ones, since so much was being rewritten. there are a crapton of features in 40d that are sorta/kinda there but not really, like the economy, and there are a crapton of features in this release that are also sorta/kinda there but not really.

and you cant really say that "you should finalize one feature at a time" or whatever, because all the feature interact with each other. we cant really fix the economy, for example, because it will rely on the diplomatic and trade stuff to a large extent, and that does not even exist yet. it is the same for almost every other feature. so much for this release is brand spanking new. and all of us are the testers, finding out what is broken and what is not, what works with the other features and what does not, and what is just a place holder for future interactions with stuff that does not exist yet. we relay that info to Toady so he can take a look at it, find out what works and how it should be refined.

we as a community have a massive amount of say in what goes on and how df is developed. but we have to understand that things are going to be broken, things are going to be ugly, and things are not always going to be done that suite playability first. at some point new things will be added that completely screw up the status quo, like this release. this will all be true clean up to the official 1.0 release, and perhaps beyond. we have to be wiling to accept that and work with Toady to fix things up in preparation for the next big addition of content. only as we get closer to 1.0 and as the final feature set is getting closer to being achieved can we expect things to start falling into place and work in a more consistent manner.

we as individuals have to decide where we fit into all this. are we one of the hardcore that pick up the latest release the moment it goes live so that we can be the first to find out it will not even run? its important that someone is, or Toady will never know. are we one of the people who keep playing even though the fort is guaranteed not to survive because of some major bug, just so we can help isolate the problem? some of us need to be, since it is obvious Toady cannot test it all himself. maybe we are the type of person who waits *patiently >_>* for the release to become more stable so we can explore the new features and provide insight and direction to future development? we need those kind of people too.

what we do not need is people who gripe that the game is not finished and therefore not fun and blah blah blah. but that is just my 2 cents.

Hur hur. You said "testes".

[Apolloin]

Apolloin, just wanted to clarify two points: specifically 1a and 2a.

On 1a, you may be correct in that the terms Alpha and Beta, when referring to game development, have little in common with what Dwarf Fortress has become over the last several years. However, Dwarf Fortress is still a game and should be treated as such.

I agree that it IS still a game, yes, but the current technical jargon created by the games industry is used to describe processes that are entirely different from those that Toady is using to create his game. His game could not be created using the same models and processes used in the mainstream games industry - it not only would never be released, it would never get greenlit as a concept.

2a:
Evidently the Great Toad disagrees 

I should care, why? The Great Toad could say that the sun will rise in the West in the morning and he would be wrong, you know. I humbly submit that in this case the Great Toad is wrong. I worked in the games industry for 13 years and I know the difference between Production, Pre-Alpha, Alpha, Beta, Closed Beta, Limited Open Beta, Open Beta, Demo and Release.

To the complainers of the new features: They'll probably stick around for a while. They even might begin working as intended soon, so we may as well start getting used to using them

Well, we're not likely to have much option as they aren't going to get changed.

[Apolloin]

more frequent releases mean more frequent save compat breaks, something that apparently Toady wants to avoid.

Whilst I agree that save compatibility breaches are a bad thing (tm) they are far from the worst evil that can befall a project.

[Hyndis]

more frequent releases mean more frequent save compat breaks, something that apparently Toady wants to avoid.

Yes, but how often do you regen worlds? Very frequently I imagine. And how long does a fortress really last? Unless you're going for some absurdly gigantic megaproject, most fortresses have relatively short lifespans due to a variety of FUN.

[lucusLoC]

don't read into that like i care about save compat breaks. i did not mean to sound like i did. i would not mind save compat breaks ever release if it meant speedier development, but apparently it caused problems in the past so Toady wants to avoid it.

[Lord Darkstar]

People do get attached to their forts, but want to bring them into the latest version to get the advantanges of the new features. And sometimes, if the new stuff is really useful, I expect it is hard to step back to an older version, even though it is the home of your favorite fortresses.

[Corona688]

I'm not surprised people feel cheated.  Some people have been paying, for one thing, albeit on a wholly voluntary basis with no guarantees of anything.  And it's hard to enjoy the fantastic new caverns when we daren't set foot in them until military and health is fixed.

But that's just how these things go.  It's easy to forget the original 3D release only became the stable and playable(if quirky) 40D after a year of continuous fixing.  Comparing v31 to 32A would be more fair than v31 to 40D I think.  I never played 32A, how does it compare to 40D?

[KaelGotDwarves]

32A was just as or more filled with crippling bugs than the new .31. As for balancing issues - don't we all at least remember carp and other fish getting a default bite attack up to 3 times stronger than dwarves?

Reading the bug reports the first few days of that release was a comedy goldmine, similar to how I feel about the acid rain bug now.

[kopout]

Every time I reed the title I see " Not Exactly a Lovecraft for Fans" and I wounder what cthule and friend have to do with dwarf fort. And then I remember.

[G-Flex]

As for balancing issues - don't we all at least remember carp and other fish getting a default bite attack up to 3 times stronger than dwarves?

To play devil's advocate here, yes, we remember, and we also remember that it was never actually fixed until creatures themselves wound up being rewritten years later. So I think that's a pretty bad example, unless you're saying that the current problems hanging around for the next couple years or so would be okay. Of course, carp having a strong bite attack isn't quite as ubiquitous as some of the new problems, so I don't really think they're comparable, and I think the current issues stand a pretty good chance of getting fixed in the near future.

[lucusLoC]

the fish bite issue was a game balance bug, not a function bug (well, actually a forgotten tag, but same difference). as such it was not even worth fixing, since, as you stated, the structure of creatures was bound to change. it would be like toady spending time to balance the price of good in the current version despite the fact that the economy is going to radically change in the future. things like melting rain are a function bug, as parameters are not propagating appropriately, so it need to be fix to make sure it works properly, and then new things can be added on top of it.

if a balance issue does not actually prevent the game from being played there is no need for toady to wast time fixing it. it will get shuffled around the next time that function is updated. i am sure there are many balance oddities that are going to be around until the next version change, and we will come to accept them as they are, with the understanding that fixing them is, quite literally, wasting toady's time.

[Robsoie]

I believe when the military system that is not working due to the  various already reported bugs will be fixed, (especially the weapon/armor assignation that just work only 1% of the time when you're lucky and use some bizarre process like overlapping multiple barracks, dumping items and reclaiming them, deleting your military and reselecting them...) , the game will certainly regain the interest of those that went back to the working .40d.

I think those military problems are truly the main fun breaking bugs for this new military system that would be very good if it worked correctly every time. Personnally that's the reason i continue to run my "play" fortress in 40d19 and only experiment with 31.x to see if i can discover and report bugs.

Because the new features and content added into this DF2010 are really making the game more fun than 40d was.