Print

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

[marcusbjol]

So we should never suggest anything again, so that we don't accidentally give Toady an idea that he likes, which he might then have to impliment?  Maybe you misunderstand the nature of a "Suggestions Forum"? 

Not at all.  These suggestions amount to a major redesign of the game, and will add on years to the development cycle. 

Yes, this is a big change, because this game needs a big change in this area for players to have the freedom to perform the actions they want to perform.  This game would be severely crippled if it was merely a place for dwarves to train between seiges, before quickly sluaghtering the seigers, then going back to training. 

To go beyond that should be the users choice.  If you want, by all means, go ahead and do it.  But please, dont force me to.

As for "society is too technologically advanced for this time frame", tell me when the notion of goblins kidnapping people of other cultures, and seeing which ones rose to the top was part of the historical timeline, or the elven hippy culture, for that matter.

I am not sure what you are referring to here.  As far "hippy" elves go, the "elf" archetype is very similar to hippies, so that fits.

This is a medieval game.  Please keep in the medieval mindset.  Social Mobility does not fit this.

There is nothing technological stopping such societies from forming, and further, while only a very small percentage of the population did live in cities, cities did attract what could be called a middle class of tradesmen and merchants.  Until we get the adventurer mode update where we get large zones of rural agrarian people, DF is almost totally focused upon cities.

I proposed the system as it is because it fulfills the purpose that is needed to be fulfilled - giving players a reason to avoid letting their dwarves live a purely hand-to-mouth existence.

This is not giving them a reason, it is forcing them to change their play style.  DF is largely about freedom, and this forces them to play the way you envision.  These would be great options to add to the game, as options only. 

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Hrrm.

I like some of this idea, but other parts seem like they'd just get in the way. Or, rather, it seems like some of the time everything would get in the way. Sometimes I want to build a realistic, grand fortress with all of the things dwarves would want and need, as you describe. Other times I want to build a monastery, or a glacial shrine to engineering brilliance, or a massive torture chamber, or any number of other things that added complication would render unfeasible.

Also, I know you dislike arguments like this, but we are talking about a *lot* of time and investment to make this happen- for that much programming and balancing work, we could get disease, better pathfinding, fresh forms of insanity, improved sieges, maybe even a start on world interactions or the magic system.

I do like the idea of dwarven riots, though... hrrm.

[marcusbjol]

Also, I know you dislike arguments like this, but we are talking about a *lot* of time and investment to make this happen- for that much programming and balancing work, we could get disease, better pathfinding, fresh forms of insanity, improved sieges, maybe even a start on world interactions or the magic system.

But this is the reality that we deal with.  Our coding team for the project consists of just 1.  He has a finite amount of time.  Case in point, I started playing .31.03 and have been waiting for 3 months for the crossbows to work (yay they do

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Also, I know you dislike arguments like this, but we are talking about a *lot* of time and investment to make this happen- for that much programming and balancing work, we could get disease, better pathfinding, fresh forms of insanity, improved sieges, maybe even a start on world interactions or the magic system.

But this is the reality that we deal with.  Our coding team for the project consists of just 1.  He has a finite amount of time.  Case in point, I started playing .31.03 and have been waiting for 3 months for the crossbows to work (yay they do

Yeah, I'm not saying "Nothing that takes time or resources should get done", I'm saying we should consider the time and resources necessary for a suggestion, compared to what it adds to play.

Value To Player/(Toady Effort * Learning Cliff Height * Hardware Burden)

[nuker w]

Yes its medieval. Is it the one WE know of in THIS world? Nope. It could be anything in that one. Dont let past human history cloud yer mind.

[NW_Kohaku]

Not at all.  These suggestions amount to a major redesign of the game, and will add on years to the development cycle. 

As will virtually every other worthwhile programming arc ever concieved for this game.  Once again, this argument is the all-purpose "because I don't like it" argument.

To go beyond that should be the users choice.  If you want, by all means, go ahead and do it.  But please, dont force me to.

...

This is not giving them a reason, it is forcing them to change their play style.  DF is largely about freedom, and this forces them to play the way you envision.  These would be great options to add to the game, as options only.

Fine, you want an init option?  Ask for an init option for this, like just about everything that will ever be put into the game from this point on...

Still, just turn that argument around - why should there be hostile creatures in this game at all?  That's just forcing me to have military dwarves, and that's forcing me to play the game in the way that someone else envisioned.  Hey, why should the new version have underground caverns? That's just forcing me to play with someone else's vision of an underground world with fantastic underground biodiversity.

I am not sure what you are referring to here.  As far "hippy" elves go, the "elf" archetype is very similar to hippies, so that fits.

This is a medieval game.  Please keep in the medieval mindset.  Social Mobility does not fit this.

This is a game with vomit demons lying 150 feet below the planet's surface behind narrow slivers of unobtainium bridges straight into Hell.  Goblin civilizations are built around the leadership of demons, who lead them to torture for fun.  Goblins do not really fit any "realistic" Medieval world, now do they?

For that matter, we have a dwarven civilization that is capable of living indefinitely underground, which is completely beyond the means of Medieval society.

Suddenly, the society dwarves builds has to conform exactly to not just "Medieval society", but the specific form of medieval society you envision.

As I've said, there actually were divisions of social class, even among the peasantry, and among city-dwellers (when fortresses are, effectively, cities) there was such a thing as a middle class, and people could rise up to it by taking on the more prestigious jobs as apprentices.

The entire argument that the society of underground urban centers based around mining and smelting metal must be modeled exactly upon the social mores of a surface subsistance agrarian society is, frankly, pretty flimsy.

[marcusbjol]

Fair enough, I do like historical bent to my fantasy. 

So the choice becomes to use modern economic theory instead?  Then use a relativistic comparison of owned wealth, because "class" distinctions are no longer the norm.

Still, just turn that argument around - why should there be hostile creatures in this game at all?  That's just forcing me to have military dwarves, and that's forcing me to play the game in the way that someone else envisioned.  Hey, why should the new version have underground caverns? That's just forcing me to play with someone else's vision of an underground world with fantastic underground biodiversity.

That's the game Toady gave us.

Suddenly, the society dwarves builds has to conform exactly to not just "Medieval society", but the specific form of medieval society you envision.

Or yours.

As I've said, there actually were divisions of social class, even among the peasantry, and among city-dwellers (when fortresses are, effectively, cities) there was such a thing as a middle class, and people could rise up to it by taking on the more prestigious jobs as apprentices.

My issue here is the idea of any society based on class, other than inherited (kings, nobility).  What we look at as middle class, lower, etc are not clear distinctions IRL, but a generalization so we can analyze it after the fact. A relativistic comparison of wealth would more realistic as most micro economic decisions are based on "keeping up with the Jones'".

The entire argument that the society of underground urban centers based around mining and smelting metal must be modeled exactly upon the social mores of a surface subsistance agrarian society is, frankly, pretty flimsy.

But that is what it is.  And that is the basis for most fantasy based games.

[NW_Kohaku]

Still, just turn that argument around - why should there be hostile creatures in this game at all?  That's just forcing me to have military dwarves, and that's forcing me to play the game in the way that someone else envisioned.  Hey, why should the new version have underground caverns? That's just forcing me to play with someone else's vision of an underground world with fantastic underground biodiversity.

That's the game Toady gave us.

Yes, that's exactly my point: Toady gave us a game which forces people to play in certain ways.  For example, you have to train a military to not get killed by wild creatures or invaders.  This military probably should have weapons and armor.

Toady made liquid mechanics such that you should really, really stop and double check everything before you start opening the floodgates, because the way liquid mechanics and your control over individual dwarves work, you will likely not be able to evacuate your fortress before the flood hits, and it will be extremely difficult to undo the damage after it has been done.

Heck, Toady made the game construct things in LIFO order, with a preference for standing on the left side of a construction.  That forces you to consider what order you are going to build your walls in, and possibly use tricks to avoid dwarves walling themselves in.

Toady forces you to at least once muddy any tiles you are going to use for farming (with one exception), forcing you to use at least a little of the fluid system before your fortress really gets going.

Toady made this game have various aspects that you really have no choice but to react, because that's what games do.  This suggestion forces you to use the things I want people to use because that is the only way that people will see a use for them.  Forcing people to react to the game mechanics is not a bad thing - it is essentially required to make people even care that they exist.  That's why I used those parts of the game that Toady gave us as examples - you can't possibly make a game that doesn't force you to avoid negative consequences of careless actions without the game being little more than a physics simulator at best.

(I would also like to pre-empt any argument that it might somehow be OK for Toady to set up the game to force you to play a certain way, but that it is not OK for me to suggest ways that do the same thing - underground caverns are not "just the game Toady gave us", it was also the subject of the massive Underground Diversity thread that Toady took and ran with.)

My issue here is the idea of any society based on class, other than inherited (kings, nobility).  What we look at as middle class, lower, etc are not clear distinctions IRL, but a generalization so we can analyze it after the fact. A relativistic comparison of wealth would more realistic as most micro economic decisions are based on "keeping up with the Jones'".

I remember once watching an episode of Terry Jones's Medieval Lives where he was talking about the actual lifestyles of medieval peasants.  In one part, he went talking about how much they were involved in learning Latin (so that they could argue in court to try to settle land disputes or who owned livestock that crossed farms in the middle of the night), and especially that the wife of the more important peasants in the village (since villages had to exercise some autonomy just by nature of being so distant from the lords, this was essentially the mayor) would have shelves constructed so that when you came into the house of the peasant, they would be immediately confronted with her ceramic jug collection, as a way of showing off (as Terry Pratchett put it,) "how nice and big her jugs were".

So yes, there is a desire, even in fairly impoverished times, to show that you are of at least a little higher standing than the other poor sods around you.  Likewise, the artisans, tradesmen, guildsmen, and other higher-paid, often city-dwelling people would often be considered of a higher social standing, even if there was always a wall between them and those of noble birth, which this suggestion doesn't even attempt to challenge.

But that is what it is.  And that is the basis for most fantasy based games.

So what?  If other fantasy games jumped off a cliff, would we jump off a cliff too?

Dwarf Fortress shouldn't do things because other people did it that way, Dwarf Fortress should do whatever makes it a better game.  This system is the simplest, most realistic and intuitive way to accomplish the goals that I set out to accomplish, which is to give a gradiated level of difficulty based upon the size of the fortress, re-invent the happiness system so that it is not so utterly ignorable, and give people the space for the many, many "creature comfort" suggestions that have been proliferating in the suggestions forum.

Whether that conforms to fantasy stereotypes or not is irrelevant.  Whether or not that conforms to the notion that dwarves are actually Western-European Christian farmers in disguise or not is irrelevant.  What matters is that it satisfies the goals that I believe (and apparently, at least some other people believe) need to be satisfied to make DF a better game.

[Deteramot]

Fair enough, I do like historical bent to my fantasy. 

So the choice becomes to use modern economic theory instead?  Then use a relativistic comparison of owned wealth, because "class" distinctions are no longer the norm.

Just wanted to nitpick this: The class system still exists, and is still decidedly distinct. The lines may have blurred slightly, and Social Mobility exists, but a class system does exist.

The richest 10% is the High Class, the next highest bracket (say the upper 20 or 30%) is High-Middle class, the above-average group is the Middle Class, the median group is the middle-low class, and then we have the people even lower on the bracket, the bottom 10-20%, who are Low Class to Sustenance class to even lower.

Don't try to pretend that they don't get treated differently, either. I guarantee you, if you did half the things people in Hollywood get away with, you'd be in prison before you knew it. It's because the richest people can afford the best lawyers, while you or I could afford a lawyer maybe, and people lower than us would be getting a public defender. And people like Prostitutes, Hobos and people in ghettos are basically "the usual suspects."

So, yes, there is a class system. It sucks, but it's what we have to work with.

Perhaps you were thinking of a caste system? That has mostly died out by now, because governments with a strict caste system tend to get unbalanced after a long time.

[NW_Kohaku]

Don't try to pretend that they don't get treated differently, either. I guarantee you, if you did half the things people in Hollywood get away with, you'd be in prison before you knew it. It's because the richest people can afford the best lawyers, while you or I could afford a lawyer maybe, and people lower than us would be getting a public defender. And people like Prostitutes, Hobos and people in ghettos are basically "the usual suspects."

Actually, it's more than that.  People just plain respect the wealthy and the powerful more, and expect them to get away with it.

Consider the trial of Martha Stewart, it was just shocking that she could even be put on trial, period, and that discomfort with even accusing her of a crime is something no wealthy lawyer could buy.

[marcusbjol]

The problem is the edges of any predefined bracket.

Just wanted to nitpick this: The class system still exists, and is still decidedly distinct. The lines may have blurred slightly, and Social Mobility exists, but a class system does exist.

If it does its all based on relative wealth.  A lottery winner goes from any class to the upper.

The richest 10% is the High Class, the next highest bracket (say the upper 20 or 30%) is High-Middle class, the above-average group is the Middle Class, the median group is the middle-low class, and then we have the people even lower on the bracket, the bottom 10-20%, who are Low Class to Sustenance class to even lower.

Don't try to pretend that they don't get treated differently, either. I guarantee you, if you did half the things people in Hollywood get away with, you'd be in prison before you knew it. It's because the richest people can afford the best lawyers, while you or I could afford a lawyer maybe, and people lower than us would be getting a public defender. And people like Prostitutes, Hobos and people in ghettos are basically "the usual suspects."

I could do what I wanted in Hollywood, if I had enough money.  Its wealth based, not on ones profession. 

If we are talking about happiness, then it should be benchmarked on the wealth of the individual compared to the wealth of the richest individual, not to the wealth of the fortress as a whole.  Designating classes with arbitrary needs seems unnecessary unwieldy.

This suggestion forces you to use the things I want people to use because that is the only way that people will see a use for them. 

That is my problem here.  You play your way, I will play mine.

Forcing people to react to the game mechanics is not a bad thing - it is essentially required to make people even care that they exist.  That's why I used those parts of the game that Toady gave us as examples - you can't possibly make a game that doesn't force you to avoid negative consequences of careless actions without the game being little more than a physics simulator at best.

(I would also like to pre-empt any argument that it might somehow be OK for Toady to set up the game to force you to play a certain way, but that it is not OK for me to suggest ways that do the same thing - underground caverns are not "just the game Toady gave us", it was also the subject of the meassive Underground Diversity thread that Toady took and ran with.)

Its is OK for Toady to setup the game and force people to play it his way.  He wrote the damn game.  If you want all this, write yours.

Toady did it because he saw value in the suggestion (assaulting hell sounds really fun).  Its hard to see value in a suggestion that amounts to a rewrite of 8 years of work.  Yes, your ideas would make an interesting game.  Please tell us, line by line, code wise, how to implement it, balance it, and make sure it remains fun.  And how one person can do these recommendations in a timely fashion.

Do realize your suggestions have more in them than Toady's outline for the entire game.  This is a one man show.

Happiness is found in many different ways, limiting it to just "dwarven consumerism" would be worse than leaving it alone.

[NW_Kohaku]

Happiness is found in many different ways, limiting it to just "dwarven consumerism" would be worse than leaving it alone.

Unfortunately, that isn't the sort of system I was talking about at all.

[Deteramot]

Lotto winners go from their bracket to a higher one, but they usually end up spending all their money and falling down into an even lower bracket, because they don't learn how to earn and keep money when they win the lotto. They think "Oh, I won! I'm a millionaire! I'm going to go buy a porsche, and a mansion, and a double wide trailer for Cousin Bob*." Then in four months, when they get hit with the bills, they soundly find everything they own repossessed and all their money audited because they treated the money they won like it was chump change.

*Note: This is obviously a caricature. Not everybody who wins the lotto is a hillbilly, although they do tend to play more often than anyone else.**

**This is based on speculation and no actual proof. Hillbillies may not play the lotto more often than anyone else.

[NW_Kohaku]

Lotto winners go from their bracket to a higher one, but they usually end up spending all their money and falling down into an even lower bracket, because they don't learn how to earn and keep money when they win the lotto. They think "Oh, I won! I'm a millionaire! I'm going to go buy a porsche, and a mansion, and a double wide trailer for Cousin Bob*." Then in four months, when they get hit with the bills, they soundly find everything they own repossessed and all their money audited because they treated the money they won like it was chump change.

*Note: This is obviously a caricature. Not everybody who wins the lotto is a hillbilly, although they do tend to play more often than anyone else.**

**This is based on speculation and no actual proof. Hillbillies may not play the lotto more often than anyone else.

If you're going to backtrack and qualify your statments that much, maybe you should just say something you're comfortable with saying in the first place?

Anyway, this is part of why I don't want money alone to determine how high a dwarf rises in their social class.  I really do think that a very major factor should be a part of socialization, where a dwarf has to convince others that he/she really has made it, and needs to be capable of "walking the walk" of being a higher-class dwarf.  (Of course, we're still talking about dividing dwarves who just barely subsist from lower-class dwarves, so the distinction at points may just be "is not naked and covered in blood and vomit while muttering to themselves".)

As dwarves get into upper classes, they might perhaps need to rely upon the social skills as a means of "convincing" others they deserve their high social standing.  Dwarves may gain status, for example, by impressing nobles with their social skills, and having that publicly recognized.

Of course, this all relies upon dwarves actually being able to take time out to socialize, and that is part of why I say we need to have a "Socialization" desire so that letting dwarves talk to one another isn't seen as something that only brings negative consequences of making dwarves more vulnerable to tantrum spirals.

[NW_Kohaku]

I updated the Pursuit of Happiness section in the OP, which I had previously left somewhat sparse, expecting people to just read the other two threads.

If you read it already, here's what I added (although it might be good to just re-read the whole Pursuit of Happiness section):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Another good idea is a "Job Satisfaction" desire.  Dwarves already feel satisfied with doing their job, but this could become a much more fleshed out mechanic.  In a sense, a person's job is one of the most important definitions of who a person is (especially for males, psychologically speaking, whereas females tend to define themselves more by relationships with others), especially in a game where, after all, job title is the biggest, most commonly seen thing about a dwarf besides name, and which is the only thing visible about the dwarf when you aren't looking in a menu (as it determines token color).  Job Satisfaction is about more than just liking what you do, though.  It's also one of the key measures of how much control one thinks they have over their life.  Someone will be happy with horrible pay or conditions if they think that they are the masters of their own destiny, and so will stick with being a "small business owner" (or just an outright freelancer) and be happier than having an easy, good-paying desk job that makes them feel insignificant.

The difficult part here is translating this into game terms.  I think that what we already have might work in some degree - that giving dwarves the ability to work in jobs with a material they like is a good idea, but that it needs to be expanded with a general personality type matching between how a job is done, and whether it suits them.  I.E. creative types like engraving, and uncreative types hate it.  Strong, agressive, or impatient dwarves prefer things like woodcutting and would be bored with delicate gemsetting.

Another dimension I would put as a "Standard of Living" desire, which is largely related to the expectations of their class.  This is the desire to live in a nice home, in a relatively mud-free, decent-looking neighborhood.  They would want to eat well and drink well in a nice environment (it would be nice if they didn't have to drink in the booze stockpiles, but in some kind of salon or lounge area), and have beautified hallways, free of naked, vomit-and-blood-soaked hobos.  They would want the ability to bathe if/when they get dirty.  They generally want to know that where they live, in their dwarven way of life, is a superior way of life to those filthy humans and elves, and even other dwarven cities. 

To turn Dwarf Psychology's Frustration and Stress around, "Leisure" should be a desire for dwarves.  As dwarves get stressed out by finding their paths frequently blocked by heavy traffic, having to path great distances to get logs from outside instead of at the nearby stockpile because there aren't enough haulers, or get tired of eating plump helmets every day, or being threatened by a wild beast, or generally just the monotony of doing the same effin' job in the same tiny burrow day in day out with no hope of advancement, they will turn to your fortress's leisure halls for relief.  Leisure is all those wonderful things like music or art or gambling or zoos and parks or tame animal races that distract dwarves when they are stressed and frustrated, and make them feel more at home in their fort.

Dwarf Psychology's Greed, I will rebrand as the desire for "Ego Appeasement".  Dwarves want other dwarves to recognize just where the belong in life (which is, quite obviously, a higher status than they are in, as they have earned everything they have, and everyone else is just a freeloader), so they would prefer to put out their own works on display.  SEE the magnificence of Urist McEngraver's masterpiece work of himself carving out another masterpiece of himself carving something else!  If high-quality work of theirs is on display (even better, if SOMEONE STOPS AND APPRECIATES THEIR FINE DOOR!) they get bonuses to their pride.  Alternately, if they OWN the fine door, they get bonuses to their pride.  If the artwork (like a statue or engraving) is OF a dwarf (like the mayor), then they get pride if people admire their likeness in statue form.  This desire, however, takes hits as dwarves with senses of entitlement find out that someone of lesser rank than them DARES have a nicer facade for their home (what? TWO windows facing the pitch-black wall?  How DARE they flaunt their ability to get pointless windows installed!) then this desire takes a massive turn for the ugly.