Print

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

[thvaz]

I want DF to be as complex as it can be without hurting Toady income.

Of course, I want a better UI, but I understand how working in UI isn't effective in an unfinished software.

[Syff]

I find it highly entertaining that, despite your effects to rig the question to favor simplicity, the forums (so far) seem to be overwhelmingly favoring the complex.

Also, am I the only one that doesn't really mind the interface?

Nope!  The UI/interface really isn't that bad, it's just under heavy flak due to the unpopularity of the new military.

[Jordrake]

I find it highly entertaining that, despite your effects to rig the question to favor simplicity, the forums (so far) seem to be overwhelmingly favoring the complex.

I agree heartily with this.
Also, am I the only one that doesn't really mind the interface?

[Agamemnon]

The interface isn't the worst part that needs an overhaul. It is actually pretty fluent, once you get the hang of it. What it really needs is some context-help to describe every function and issue warnings and provide workarounds for common mistakes. On the other hand: Stupid miners and masons are a source of hilarity. A cave in crashing 20 something floors including the booze stockpile - not so much.

[SmileyMan]

Also, am I the only one that doesn't really mind the interface?

As someone who has to work with some unbelievably expensive bits of commercial software day in, day out, the DF UI isn't even in my top 100 of "worst interface.

Plus, if the product's unfinished, then developing a nice UI means that every new feature has to have a UI element to match the standard of the rest, so every new feature takes an additional N hours.  Unless the UI is completely unusable then it makes sense to keep it as quick and dirty as possible until the feature set is complete.

Perhaps the best approach would be for Toady to work on a DF API that allowed other people to develop plug-ins that could handle the stuff he doesn't have time for.  At the moment people do this anyway, through memory insertion hacks, so to offer them a supported interface might be a good tradeoff between programmer effort and customer satisfaction.

[Shrugging Khan]

As long as the interface works at all, it's fine. Those selfless utility developers can always produce external workarounds, while The Toady One works on the actual content.

So yea. Interface? A minor hassle. FPS? A game-breaker.

[ungulateman]

I'd prefer a complex DF, but for Armok's sake go back to the old (40d) farming system. Also eliminate aquifers.

(Genuine aspie here, btw.)

[Murphy]

An Aspergian nightmare of commands-within-commands, letting you trim individual dwarven nose hairs?

The key is, you don't have to trim individual dwarven nose hairs. As most complex mechanisms can still function without fine-tuning, so does the dwarven fortress. If you don't want to, or don't know, or don't care, they'll just have their noses untrimmed, no problem. And the possibility will still be there in case you ever change your mind, or for some other player who enjoys it. This way everyone's happy.

In other words, an ideal variant is when most of the complexity is hidden. While the game keeps tracks of many subtle details, it mostly shouldn't force you to deal with them. And even for more event-driving aspects of the game, there would be sane default settings and automatic decisions that make dwarves able to cope with their problems with some basic efficiency.

[Syff]

Also eliminate aquifers.

But that would get rid of undertakings like this!  Aquifers can be incredibly useful if you know what you're doing.

If you don't like aquifers, you can always remove the appropriate tags from your raws or simply not embark on them.  But asking Toady to remove other people's fun for your own personal preferences (especially when some very light modding can address them) is exactly what rubs me the wrong way about most cries for simplicity.

[Devast]

An Aspergian nightmare of commands-within-commands, letting you trim individual dwarven nose hairs?

In other words, an ideal variant is when most of the complexity is hidden. While the game keeps tracks of many subtle details, it mostly shouldn't force you to deal with them. And even for more event-driving aspects of the game, there would be sane default settings and automatic decisions that make dwarves able to cope with their problems with some basic efficiency.

This. I dont want to have to decorate every chair in my throne room with elf spine, but being able to is very nice.

[Phmcw]

I'm in favor of total realism and thus, mind numbing complexity. I'd love to have realistic limitation to building and digging for instance, and I'm all in favor of bodily functions that oblige you to build sewer in crowed fortress. Processor's the limit.

[Shrugging Khan]

As long as the realism is still playable - especially considering how top-down DF is - I'm for the greatest implementable extent. Individual nose hairs per dwarf? Alright in my book. Having to give trimming for every single one? Only if I want to.

[Levi]

Complex, but the UI could be easier to use. 

[expwnent]

I actually like aquifers. Not that hard to breach once you know how, and they're by far the fastest infinite source (and drain) of water.

[fanatic]

I actually liked 40d alot. Minus the FPS and hauling weirdnesses. The rest was just awesome IMHO. Dunno if it qualifies as simple of complicated...