Print

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

[jseah]

Kohaku is probably going for more complex effects than that.  Permanent environmental damage, biome terraforming, that kind of thing. 

speed vs value isn't enough, from the post, Kohaku is going for 8 or more variables to juggle in the most complex farm. 

And instead of weighing between each variable to differentiate plants, the difference between plants is in the number of variables they require you to handle. 
Early game simplicity, late game complexity.  The bigger your farm, and the more food you need (IE. the later the game), the more variables you have to juggle. 

So, it's more like yield vs complexity than anything else. 

[penco]

When all is said and done, the only things you can choose between are speed and value. I guess you can throw safety into the equation, too.

Yield vs complexity is not much of a choice when you state it that way. Why would you choose complexity? Only if that choice produces more valuable results. In that case, complexity is just a time restraint. Again, speed vs value.

I know he mentions a whole bunch of abstract game mechanics, but when you present the choice to the player, it ultimately boils to a very small handful of actual player priorities:

-Speed
-Value
-Safety

The player can rank these priorities, and once they are ranked, the "choice" process is over, and the analytical process begins to determine which actual in-game actions will best match those priorities. The game mechanics are nothing more than a hurdle the player needs to clear in order to determine the best course of action.

If the goal of this project is just to introduce complexity, that's just silly. Complexity does not necessarily add anything good to a game.

From what I understand, the goal of this project is just to make a player's choices and priorities have more in-game consequences. Currently, it doesn't matter if I want value more than speed because there is no real conflict between those two priorities, and the same course of action will give you the most value at the highest speed (in most cases). The decision is not manifest at all in how the game plays out.

[jseah]

Complexity is not just a time restraint.  Complexity allows you to have many diverse impacts, that all follow logically from some previous action. 

Forget to crop rotate = crops fail to grow
Plant monocultures = pests move in
Use wrong fertilizers = soil ruined and/or biome change
Slash-and-burn = exposed farms outside walls & requires huge amount of space + soil erosion

Even repeats of the same situations will have it's nuances and will require a different approach to deal with. 
You could solve lack of crop rotations with fertilizers but that could change the soil pH.  The next time you run into the problem, doing the fertilizer trick again could push the pH too far for your wheat.  Or make a weed grow. 


Complexity gives the game the ability to present many different challenges, each of which will have a solution and create a different challenge (whether it is to obtain the fertilizer or building floodbanks or create a section that supports natural predators of a pest)

Also, by making plants depend on a more fundamental system, you get the ability to change the plants dynamically, rather than having to pre-script them (biome and weather).  You can make a desert garden with enough effort or turn a lush rainforest into a rocky badland. 

[NW_Kohaku]

Uh-oh, these things are being added on before I can read them...  I'll try to answer in order.

Just because it's a simple system doesn't mean you can't have complicated effects or requirements from it.

Of course not.  I try to use simple or abstracted mechanics wherever I can, as I consider a "philosophical shift" in the game's design to be the most cost-effective means of producing a more compelling gameplay experience.

The thing is that, if there were parts of my original set of posts you did not read, I would encourage you to go back and read those, as I find several of the suggested ideas you have actually reflect many ideas already included in the suggestion.  I think that perhaps you latched onto a specific part of my idea a little too strongly, and aren't seeing the full bredth of this topic.  To an extent, however, I will admit this is a problem of the simple incompleteness of the topics thus far.

• Easy-to-grow early plants that are unsustainable in the long haul covers the "Plump Helmets on logs" discussions I had.  (These may not be in my original posts yet.)
• The same with the weaker-to-vermin plants - one of the things I want is some sort of procedural method for certain crops to have been "domesticated" and "unnaturally selected" into being much more ideal food crops, but at the expense of being much more vulnerable to disease.
• Weeds I'm pretty sure I've directly covered in the pests and weeds section.  In fact, an advantage of the current system is that a "weed" may be beneficial under other circumstances.  You could even go for "elven farming" of simply using herbalism and trying to gently entice the soil to grow weeds you favor more than weeds you cannot use as well.
• "Something like clover" is an integral part of the Crop Rotation system.  I have yet to write this section, but it is a high priority.
• Magic effect plants are amusing, and I haven't really explored them too well, and definitely try posting about it in the xenosynthesis thread as well.  I'll try to include this in the underground plants and magic plants section when I write it, although it is probably going to be one of my last sections.
• Orchards are definitely going to be a part of this suggestion.  It will be covered in the "Alternative Farming" section, which is a moderate priority, but a fun one, so maybe I'll let it skip ahead.
• You know, seeing the bee thread made me think exactly of requiring bee pollenation.  I haven't sketched up any plans for how this would really work, yet, however, so maybe you could try to extrapolate on the idea?
• Space vs. labor efficiency is a choice I did, indeed, try to incorporate.  Orchards would be not only time-intensive, but also space-intensive. 
• Ethical choices are... well, not really choices to most DF players.  The problem with "ethical choice" is that for choice to be meaningful, there must be conflict.  Conflict means that they are not choosing "should I be good or be evil?" it means asking someone to be moral, but to force them to choose which of two conflicting moral values they value more.  I'm practically going to become a spokesman for this site at this rate, but there's a good extra credits clip that really explores the notion of what a very tough ethical choice looks like.  I actually did another long shpeel in another forum on the ethical choice of "Leave No Man Behind" as a policy when it means that attempting rescue of a couple men left behind will almost certainly mean killing thirty or more men to save two.  What is a more important value?  Your duty as a commander, and the burden to ensure as many of those men, whose lives are your responsibility to bear, will be able to live as you possibly can?  Or the notion of comaraderie, and that you will never abandon your fellow soldier in need?  Both of these are valid ethical imperitives, and that is the basis of a real conflict in choice.  Asking a typical DF player if they want to kill their own men for profit as the "EEEEEEVIL" choice will have very, very predictable results, because DF players revel in the amorality of their choices.

Sorry kids, break time, I'll respond to the rest of these posts in order.[/list]

[NW_Kohaku]

Ahhhh.  jseah is doing a wonderful job of selling the idea, as well.  I've been such a motive force behind this topic that sometimes I feel more like I'm a salesman making a marketing pitch than a contributor in a collaborative idea.

Let me take this back up a level of abstraction for a moment, however, and talk about complexity and player control.

One of the real problems of the "complex but easy" nature of this game is that players generally have far too much direct, precise control over their problems.  Need a steel battleaxe?  Order one smithed.  Need steel?  Order it made.  Need fuel or iron ore?  Go designate something to be mined or deforested.

All of these "problems" are not real problems because their solutions are so utterly direct and simple.  The player has the ability to solve the problems they face with pinpoint precision, and no fear of any sort of unintended consequences for sloppy behavior.

Consider instead trying to get mechanical automation of some sort of function in a fortress, however.  Repeaters are elegant, indirect solutions to a problem of trying to automate a simple action of pressing a switch on and off over and over again.  What makes these systems neat and interesting is that you do not directly control them.  Even more advanced, see Computing - an orgy of using simple tools in obscenely complex ways to solve fairly simple problems, but in extremely indirect ways.

You see, giving players indirect means of solving their problems (or rather, taking away the easy, direct means) makes the problems much more compelling and interesting even without making there be some sort of conflict of choice in the solution to the problem itself.  The enjoyment of the problem comes from the simple ability of the player to react in a plethora of new and creative ways to try to find a better, more efficient way to solve the same fairly simple problem, because the problem cannot any longer be as simple to solve as just pushing the "solve this problem" button. 

If we have a multitude of factors which all conflict with one another in an unstable equillibrium, and trying to manipulate any one factor of this equillibrium will inherently have unintended consequences with a half dozen other factors, then the entire act of solving a fairly simple problem can potentially become a much more dramatic and compelling problem.  Forcing someone to choose between two conflicting desires is the start of a decent choice.  Forcing a player to chose how they balance a dozen competing desires, and how they can prioritize the spending of limited resources to satisfy multiple different conflicting needs creates a real source of difficulty to the player.

This is partially why I'm trying to throw not just one system, but a giant jumbled mess of systems that involve all aspects of industry related to food, fuel, textiles, medicine, trade, domestic happiness, and the sheer labor management of the fortress so that everything competes for the same limited resources you can divide between them.

And then I've got my other suggestions, such as Class Warfare which proposes how to increase the complexity of social dynamics in the fortress, so that dwarves demand access to luxury goods, finer meals and foodstuffs, entertainment, and social justice.  This means that you'll need to address these problems indirectly using the same materials and taking away some of the resources used for the initial problem of farming.

This is why I consider it the groundwork of all future expansion of what Dwarf Fortress can be - it has to start moving away from simple, binary solutions of "push this button to solve this problem" before it can start to really add depth to its complexity.

[Andeerz]

Agreed!

And I have sort of an idea that is sort of applicable.  In essence it involves revamping the entire psychology of sentient entities in the game, giving them more autonomy through better modeling of motivation (reward vs. punishment, perception of value and ownership), as well as having the player interacting through delegation and through government (or lack thereof) rather than through direct orders.  Here are some posts that detail exactly what I mean: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=74616.msg1897161#msg1897161

This would affect all aspects of the game, including farming, and set up a framework for a whole host of things.  I really need to start my own mega thread like this one concerning better modeling individual and group psychology to have more believable economics and governments and behavior in general emerge with as little hard-coding as possible (i.e. procedurally generated).

[NW_Kohaku]

Damnit, Andeerz, stop giving me more economics threads to read!  I'll never finish my thesis paper on Physiocracy suggestion thread at this rate! 

[Andeerz]

X3

[Solace]

Well, that's a bit too much to quote directly, so I guess I'm just going to have to reply indirectly as much as I can. First off, I'd like to mention I'm also an Extra Credits fan, as well as a general fan of design and philosophy. I've also found your opinions around here tend to be pretty interesting, so I hope I'm not being too much a bother.

As far as ethical choices go: Well, yeah, you're not ever going to give someone a "real" moral choice in a game, for two... three reasons.
*For one, as you mentioned, there's no reason not to go evil just for the heck of it. No matter how badly you torture something ingame, it's just a piece of code.
*I'll also have wildly different views on how moral a choice is depending on what I read into it. For example, either Extra Credits or a similar group railed against a moral choice in Mass Effect 2, where the choice designated "good" actually seemed fairly evil too. While they where right in their interpretation... they where only right if they didn't check out all the backstory for the setup: the choice really did have a glaringly obvious "right" and "wrong" option; it was a cop-out, not a general desire to attach good and bad to a situation with only bad.
*And last, well, you can of course disagree with what the game (the game's designers or writers) felt about what was good or bad, or how good or bad it was. Although that's not so bad in and of itself, since if you read a book on morals, you're obviously only hearing the author's point of view.

Now, for a while there, I actually didn't really understood what about my idea you didn't like, and was pretty much arguing on reflex. But, I think I got it, and also where we genuinely disagree:

I'm trying to throw not just one system, but a giant jumbled mess of systems that involve all aspects of industry related to food, fuel, textiles, medicine, trade, domestic happiness, and the sheer labor management of the fortress so that everything competes for the same limited resources you can divide between them.

The issue I have with that is (and I'm saying this while being totally in love with environmental simulators), the farming is just one part of dwarf fortress. It's already a jumbled mess! I have to dig out fortress areas, farm, mine ores, produce things, hunt, lay traps, equip and train up an army, fight stuff with the army, negotiate sales, and run whatever side projects (currently tending to revolve around water) I might need. On top of that, there's going to be magic and alchemy, the economy in the fortress, the economy in the world in general, and also somehow dealing with other nearby areas, and maybe running several forts at once, eventually. If I remember, the game's officially only about a third done, so I think it's a bit early to say we need to add more complexity in just to keep people on their toes.

That said, I would like the environment to be a lot more dynamic, and I really hope that the magic or alchemy will involve a way to create rain, or other sources of water.

[NW_Kohaku]

OOOOOOOKAY, KIDDOS!

It's not technically complete, but this thing has been sitting open for almost a week, now, and I've kind of hit the "fuck it, just post SOMETHING" phase of my emotional wellbeing, so with THAT wonderful enticement, I am proud to announce...

(drumroll, please)

Dun-dun-da-DUUUNNNN!

The Interface section is now up!

So, this is probably the most controversial thing I'm going to put up, since it's easier to argue with implementation than theory, so obviously, it's the thing I only do most of the way, but what the Hell.  Rip into it, and tell me what parts are tastiest.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drown my frustrations in a bag of Valentine's Day chocolate that I opened early.

(Sorry, Solace, will respond to you in a bit.)

[NW_Kohaku]

stuff about not liking complexity for just adding in more complex systems

Excuse the sloppy semantics, then.

What I see as a problem is that many of these systems are fairly isolated.  Bees and ceramics are being added in, for example, as solutions to problems you might have... without adding in any more problems that they would actually solve.  They're just one more way to solve the same problems you used to have.  And to solve the problem of wanting those things, they have their own simple, isolated solutions, which never touch anything else.

What I'm trying to do is tie as many systems as possible in together that would have to do with the same general set of problems, and make them work with or against one another as competing ideas in one massive, interdepedent system, rather than as completely isolated simple systems that are just piled on in a disorganized jumble.

The point of this is to make everything related to biological resources all get tied into springing from just two major resources - the soil and the water.  Your herds of livestock, your crops, your lumber, your cloth, all your non-mineral (mined) materials are all tied in under the umbrella of the soil. 

This is why I talked way back at the beginning of the thread about focusing on just three major resources: Soil, Stone, and Dwarves.  This is Soil.  Class Warfare is to make Dwarves a more complex base resource from which all your other resources flow.  Suggestions which make mining more complex and difficult will also make the Stone a more complex resource (especially if they slow the rate of progress down and cause you to perform serious archetecture challenges to keep the ceiling from caving in). 

If everything is made to tie into these three base resources, then feeding any one system takes away resources from all the other systems that are fed by the same base resource.  This is one of the core delimmas I am trying to build up - that everything has an opportunity cost of everything else you could do with that resource.

[Solace]

Ah, well, I guess I don't know what I'm arguing then, so I guess I'll concede the point here. XD I like your ideas, just not sure how my system kills them.

[zwei]

Just coding heads up:

You could simply do the farming calculations every day/week/month.

Also there is "schedulle silmulation" approach: Your compute next "tick" when when numbers are required and simply do not do any computations inbetween.

With this approach, you could only track tiles that are important and only do it when it is necesary. It is very lightweight approach.

[NW_Kohaku]

Zwei - this is functionally already what is going on.


Solace/Penco -
You should keep in mind that this idea's roots in the NPK system wasn't even mine.  I found the boulder and tried to push it up the mountain after others had abandoned it.  And kept trying and kept trying and kept trying until I became a master of boulder-mountain-mechanics. 

This current iteration of the thread didn't spring from my head fully-formed, but is the fruit of putting up an idea, watching people fire at will upon it, seeing what burned, and figuring out whether or not the jerks had a point.  It's the evolution of an idea after many generations of development over what a very broad group of people did or didn't want to see in their game.  Because of this, it's sort of taken on a sentience of its own, and has a pretty massive number of suggestions added into it. 

To respond to this, I've had to re-evaluate where I wanted this entire concept to go, and what it was that I really had a problem with in the game, and how I thought it can be solved (hence the starting out with "The Problem" section), trying to refine it to get past my personal biases and into the broadest, most widely-applicable problems that people have in this game, to try to reformat the game to build a game that better engages the player.

This sort of has the unfortunate side-effect, however, of meaning that just about every one of the first questions or comments that come from most people's minds when they only read the first parts of this thread are typically the same questions I've already heard from about five generations of thread participants in a row.  That doesn't mean your questions are unwelcome by a longshot, but it does mean that really building the idea upwards means going beyond the participation levels of some of the previous generations of participants, and working on some of the more advanced concepts, and really being introspective, and analysing what it is you really want out of the game, and what aspects of gameplay have really annoyed you, and trying to figure out how the aspects of gameplay you liked can be fit into the game while avoiding the annoying. 

Perhaps the best place to start would be to try to ask yourself, not "what would be neat", or "what would be a good historic farming thing to add on", but "what sort of play experience do I really want to have from a perfect, ideal DF five years down the road?" or "What sorts of games really made me stop, set the keyboard down, and think about how I wanted to proceed onwards in a way that didn't involve just trying to calculate the best way to get the one thing I wanted?"


Okay, I beat my head out trying to write that Interface section and make pictures, so someone had damn well better appreciate it, or I'm breaking out the chainsaw...

[AngleWyrm]

This sort of has the unfortunate side-effect, however, of meaning that just about every one of the first questions or comments that come from most people's minds when they only read the first parts of this thread are typically the same questions I've already heard from about five generations of thread participants in a row.

There's a simple and elegant solution to this dilemma that has been used to good effect for years: Put up a FAQ in the first part of the thread, answering questions that come up a lot.