Print

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

[Mikademus]

I have talked to Toady about pinning important threads and creating subfora, but this board supports no good solutions for housekeeping. Therefore I recommend that we post links to all the most relevant (and best) threads here and keep bumping this thread to keep it close to the top. I will update it with suggestions as they come. Please also provide suggestions to sorting categories, and you who have been here longer than me, submit old gold threads.

------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED RULES
------------------------------------------------

* First check these threads before posting
* Prefer posting in these threads, if suitable, rather than making new ones
* Use the search function before making new threads
* Check the development goals before posting obvious suggestions

------------------------------------------------
REFERENCE
------------------------------------------------

(1) GENERAL THREADS

Top three suggestions - The continuously updated voting list

The biggest gameplay issues of Dwarf Fortress - Catalogue over what is considered the most severe obstacles to enjoying Dwarf Fortress.

(2) MAGIC

Magic: By dwarves for dwarves - The most complete and in-depth discussion in the forum of how magic could work in Dwarf Fortress.

Occam's Razor: Dwarven Magic

Occams Razor: Elven Magic - Started out as a suggestion about how elven magic might work, but turned into systematically differences and similarities of different races' magic.

(3) ENTERTAINMENT

Death and Glory! - The most popular means of entertainment since sliced kitten tallow!  Grab a seat and place your bets!

The Woodsman - A dark and uncertain tale in the deep woods.  One dwarf against the elements, the wild beasts, and more dangerous foes who lurk in the shadows...

Nist Akath - Highly popular community fortress thread. Longer than an ancient dwarf's beard.

------------------

Edit history:

2008-03-28: Added links to devpages, added "entertainment" section

2008-04-02 (Toad): Changed title, don't bump unless making a proper response.  Changed "Rules" to "Recommended Rules".  Modify the wiki entry in the forum header to add threads.

[ March 28, 2008: Message edited by: Mikademus ]

[ March 29, 2008: Message edited by: Mikademus ]

[ April 02, 2008: Message edited by: Mikademus ]

[ April 02, 2008: Message edited by: Toady One ]

[Mikademus]

Beep bumping, and submitting threads for inclusion.

[nunix]

The MAIN link should be to the devplans and arcs, bloats, power goals, et cetera.

I was just thinking about this, and then realised there were no stickies anywhere on the board.. which likely meant it wasn't possible on this software (foo).

Just getting people to check what's already planned and listed out would be good. Way more important than the popular-at-the-moment threads on random subjects (most of which have been hashed out before, at that).

[Kagus]

quote:Originally posted by Mikademus:
<STRONG>Beep bumping, and submitting threads for inclusion.</STRONG>

*Beep beep*

(3) ENTERTAINMENT

Death and Glory! - The most popular means of entertainment since sliced kitten tallow!  Grab a seat and place your bets!

The Woodsman - A dark and uncertain tale in the deep woods.  One dwarf against the elements, the wild beasts, and more dangerous foes who lurk in the shadows...

[Mikademus]

Added per above. And bump  

[Draco18s]

quote:Originally posted by nunix:
<STRONG>Just getting people to check what's already planned and listed out would be good. Way more important than the popular-at-the-moment threads on random subjects (most of which have been hashed out before, at that).</STRONG>

Which is why I've stopped reading all the Magic threads.  I'll get interested when the Magic Arc is the next one up and when I have a better idea of what Toady wants.

[nunix]

Yeah, nothing wrong with folk talking about those arcs, but every time I poke my head in it seems there's overtones of "why isn't this already in, can you code this in tomorrow" kind of thing. =p

[Mikademus]

quote:Originally posted by Draco18s:
<STRONG>

Which is why I've stopped reading all the Magic threads.  I'll get interested when the Magic Arc is the next one up and when I have a better idea of what Toady wants.</STRONG>

Thing is, people want to talk about magic. Keeping interest up is good for the game, and some suggestions have been really good. But me neither want to see millions of magic threads, therefore it is better to keep the debates confined to a few. Partly for ease of access, partly to keep up the signal-to-noise ratio in the forum, and partly to improve the discussion.

[Draco18s]

quote:Originally posted by Mikademus:
<STRONG>But me neither want to see millions of magic threads, therefore it is better to keep the debates confined to a few. Partly for ease of access, partly to keep up the signal-to-noise ratio in the forum, and partly to improve the discussion.</STRONG>

That's fine, I was pointing to one reason why this was being done and said "I agree!"

[Capntastic]

I reserve the right to link this thread at anyone who breaks da rules, now that da rules are made more obvious.   Requesting thread title have "PLEASE READ" included in it.

Edit:  I am wondering what Toady's stance is on the people who do nothing but post "I agree" without actually adding any real comments or ideas or anything to the thread.   It is my belief that feedback, positive OR negative should be more than "this sucks" or "this rules".   From this, thoughtful discussion can grow.

[ March 28, 2008: Message edited by: Capntastic ]

[nunix]

Re: rules: how "official" are these rules, by the way? Before anyone goes about citing them I'd like to know they have actual backing.

Capn, Re: constructive conversation: (and I hope that wasn't aimed at Draco, I mean it's no worse than just typing "bump" in this thread) I used to be active at a place called The Forge, a board for the development and discussion of indie tabletop roleplaying games. The site had a pretty hard-line stance about this: new topics begin in new threads (threadjacking is strictly verboten), keep the thread on topic (that is, whatever the subject line states), don't post a reply unless you've got something to add, be sure to read the site literature and use the search function so you're not rehashing old posts..

It worked beautifully. I loved talking there. Most useful internet discussions I've ever seen take place happened there, thanks to the organisation and willingness of the participants to abide by it.

The trouble with applying that kind of model to something like the bay12 forums is that The Forge was essentially a workshop. People came there to discuss real nitty-gritty game design bits, they were serious folk, and many of them had money invested in their games. The atmosphere was relaxed but it isn't what I'd call casual. They had moderators who would split off threads, and pop in and warn folk if they got off topic. And people respected that because, again, they were coming there to get shit done.

DF is one game, there's one programmer, and everyone else around here just wants to chat about the game. You MIGHT be able to pull off that kind of structure in one or two sections, but with the exceptionally wide fanbase that DF has it's just not reasonable to impose that kind of structure on the whole board. And since none of us has access to code and the ability to actually physically DO anything, it also seems pointless. I know the kind of thing you're talking about, and I've noticed it a lot more around here (and a lot more nigh-trollish posts, as well), but.. that's just part of bein' on the internet and having open registration. -.-

If it was going to be tried anywhere - and this is assuming the board software can even handle this kind of constant mucking about - I'd say suggestions and gameplay questions, and possibly have moderators work on-request to split off threadjacks in other areas if they became a problem.

[Capntastic]

It wasn't directed at anyone.   The bottom line is that if you really 'agree' or 'disagree' with a suggestion, then you should actually have something to say about it, rather than just posting for the sake of posting. It lowers the quality of the forums when half of an otherwise groovy suggestion thread is "i agree" and "seconded" with nothing added.   Forums are for discussion (regardless if it's on topic or casual stuff) and I'd like to keep the signal to noise ratio as high as possible.

[I3erent]

quote:Originally posted by Capntastic:
<STRONG>It wasn't directed at anyone.   The bottom line is that if you really 'agree' or 'disagree' with a suggestion, then you should actually have something to say about it, rather than just posting for the sake of posting. It lowers the quality of the forums when half of an otherwise groovy suggestion thread is "i agree" and "seconded" with nothing added.   Forums are for discussion (regardless if it's on topic or casual stuff) and I'd like to keep the signal to noise ratio as high as possible.</STRONG>

I agree.

[Kagus]

HAHAHA!  Cool, my threads got added as the official sticky-threads of entertainment.  Tee hee hee.

Apparently, a well-placed joke can get you access to great fame and fortune...  I'll have to try it more often.

[Toady One]

quote:Originally posted by nunix:
<STRONG>Re: rules: how "official" are these rules, by the way? Before anyone goes about citing them I'd like to know they have actual backing.
</STRONG>

I didn't know about this thread until I saw it here.  The rules seem reasonable enough, but in the long term I'm not sure how well this system will work, since it relies on a single forum member handling edits to this thread, etc., and handing off that responsibility should the need arise isn't exactly a clearcut process.

quote:Originally posted by Capntastic:
<STRONG>I am wondering what Toady's stance is on the people who do nothing but post "I agree" without actually adding any real comments or ideas or anything to the thread. It is my belief that feedback, positive OR negative should be more than "this sucks" or "this rules".
</STRONG>

I don't really like them, though I think the negatives are far worse, since they only serve to create arguments.  If want to disagree with somebody, you should be clear about why you are doing so, even if it's just a gut feeling or whatever.  As for agreement posts, they nominally serve to indicate the numbers behind a suggestion, but I don't think they are a very good way of assessing that, and the numbers are only important for interface/usability suggestions as far as the influence they have on development.  The vote thread that's going on now is better than all the seconding that goes on, but it has the same problem as this thread in that it's maintained by a single forum member.  The best option ideally would be to set up further infrastructure, but I don't really have time for that.

Rather than bumping this topic repeatedly, it might be best to create a link up just above in that space I can type in, rules could also be added there rather than in this topic, since they'd be more official looking that way.