If you don't want to play the game that Toady is making, you are free to add in metal-producing reactions and change your creatures with modding. Nobody is stopping you from changing the frequency of metals, either. It is entirely unreasonable to demand that placeholder gameplay be retained because you have gotten used to it.
So, if we don't like playing 0.31.19 exactly the way it is, if we don't like every aspect of it, then we have no right to disagree or leave feedback about it? Are you saying that Toady is not only God, but perfect in every way, so questioning the wisdom of how this version of DF turns out is blasphemy?
Seriously, though, you expect us to completely rework the mineral system through modding, simply because you are satisfied with the way it is (or are 100% confident that things will work itself out soon). Changing a few creatures through modding is one thing, but I suspect modding the minerals and metals to suit the rest of us is much more complicated. Besides, no amount of modding will return the details on geology and metal availability prior to embarking. If I'm not mistaken, that is hard-coded.
Complaining about the way that the mineral veins works as if it's being permanently thrust upon us is going too far, but when something is going outside of the bounds of where you want to see the game going, it's certainly worth speaking up alongside others who feel the same to let Toady know that maybe he over-corrected in his steering, and needs to pull it back a little.
Exactly.
I'm not "advocating the death of the mega-construction". I'm saying that it's a bit silly to complain that it might actually be difficult to build gigantic statues made out of platinum, or the Great Wall of China made out of gold.
Actually, by
insisting that everyone be forced to do things the hard way, you
are advocating the death of mega-construction. There is nothing silly about complaining that the game difficulty (or time consumption and micromanagement required to do something) has been made too extreme in a new release.
I believe most people do mega-construction projects for the
construction and
creative solution part and most of them could care less about the "realism" of how they achieved the resources necessary to complete it. If it suddenly requires 12 or more game years to achieve the resources needed to do any serious mega-construction, you can bet the number of such projects will greatly diminish.
There is nothing wrong with something that amazing requiring amazing effort. Keep in mind that we're talking about a game here, not, as I said, a set of Legos.
I do not believe anyone is saying that there is something wrong with hardcore survivalism or "amazing effort" in Dwarf Fortress... if that is the type of thing you like. But we
are saying that it is
wrong to tell us that we
must accept the new mineral system as is and play by
your rules. Ultimately, this is Toady's game and he can make it however he sees fit. However, he at least seems open to listening to (although not necessarily agreeing with) feedback of all players, no matter their play style.
Keep in mind that we're talking about a game here, not, as I said, a set of Legos.
Yes, and games are intended - first and foremost - to be fun and/or entertaining. For a great many gamers, realism taken to the extreme and requiring "amazing effort" is just not fun. You may say something like, "Well, if you don't like amazing effort, then Dwarf Fortress is not the game for you!" But consider that we had no problem with the level of effort or realism in the last release (0.31.18). It's the extremes of the mineral scarcity and difficulty in finding specific geologic features in new release (the first in an arc) that we have a problem with.
Why must it be 'your way or the highway'? What is so frightening about allowing a bit of additional options for those of us who are not so hardcore?
I'm just saying, I'd rather discuss what could make the feature better (which is good for everyone), rather than automatically jump to the conclusion that it should just be made optional instead (which isn't really good for much of anyone, especially not the people who actually like where the features are headed and what they're trying to accomplish).
So, you're willing to discuss the finer details of improving this scarce-mineral-distribution-with-the-promise-of-eventually-making-up-for-scarcity-with-better-trade-options, "discuss" implying a
willingness to openly consider more than one's own viewpoint, but you're not willing to consider the point of view of those of us (who are more than a
few) who want the
OPTION to return to a more plentiful distribution via an optional INIT option? IMO, that's quite narrow-minded.
For the record, I believe we are NOT asking to make this new extreme scarcity of minerals optional and only turned on via an INIT option. Just the opposite. Unlike
you, we are not asking that the opposite camp be
forced into our play style! Instead, we are asking that the default of scarce minerals be left as-is and the rest of us have the
option to get more minerals and see more geology/mineral details.
The people who want info on where they embark shouldn't play this really. I like it better this way, and if you dont then here's an option for you. Play this one, or play another.
Just because you guys want something doesn't mean others do, and no, OPTIONALITY is not an option.
This isn't a very helpful attitude, as you're basically implying, whether you mean to or not, "play the way I play, or don't play at all" or "stop having fun any way I don't condone you having fun".
Well put!
Things that drastically and fundamentally change the game are often least suitable for options, because it's that much more difficult for the game to support all options involved if they change the game that much.
We're discussing the rarity of minerals and metals map-wide and getting more details about geology and metals before embark. That would require one or two INIT options. And it shouldn't require much extra coding because it's (with the INIT changed from default) basically making certain aspects of it similar to the last version.
Going from extreme abundance of minerals to almost none at all is
extreme. Unless some sort of compromise is offered, more than a few players will be quite upset. Some of us will either stick with 0.31.18 forever (until we get tired of the same features, being left out of future releases) or we may stop playing altogether.
I think it's reasonable to at least know what kind of site we're embarking on. Surely that could be an init option at least. I like making megaprojects myself but at a fairly limited level and I can certainly live without making a "giant gold cock" in every fort, but I do want to know if I've got gabbro, because stone types are important to me. It feels like a huge amount of individual choice has been removed from the game.
My brother's saying he won't play the new version at all now, for the above reason, so there is definitely going to be some degree of player exodus if it's kept this way. Hardcore survivalism is a great, fun way to play Dwarf Fortress, but it didn't used to be the only method, and I don't think it should be the only method.
Exactly. What is so unreasonable with asking that we get
init options for something so extreme? You think new players are intimidated
now with trying out Dwarf Fortress? Just wait until they see how hardcore survivalist minerals are in 0.31.19! I'm sure more than a few will be so frustrated in finding certain minerals or having enough metal to keep their fortress defended from invading hordes that they will quickly give up on DF.
Besides, everyone seems to be forgetting that this is a
single-player game. It's not like a multi-player game where everyone has to be forced to play by the same rules!
"It's typically worth checking before you irrevocably commit yourself to spending the rest of your life mining that worthless ore vein." This reminds me of my visit to a 16 th century Hematite mining site last year. The foreman was showing us the tools of the trade and some exploration shatfs. He said that this one shaft was started by one bloke, he was working on it for 20 years, died and his son picked up the chisel and hammer and continued on the shaft. After ten more years they did eventually find a vein, but they had no way to tell if there ever will be anything there.
This may be fine with some of you. But for some of us this level of "realism" would
really suck the fun out of the game.
... which amounts to cloistering yourself into a pit and not caring what other civilizations/sites exist or what they have (with few exceptions).
And the problem with that is?
(The sub-text of that question and the comments so far? What I suspect you have missed up to now ( 
) is that not everyone shares that view and your taking a stance that 'this' is "obviously the correct view and only a idiot would disagree".)
Again, well put.
IMO, it seems one side of this argument is taking an elitist stance about it. Clearly, there are
two sides to this issue and not everyone will agree on what's better. As the saying goes: To each his (or her) own. Different people play DF differently and some expect different things out of it. There's nothing wrong with that. But the only way to satisfy both sides on this is via INIT options.
Author
Topic: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.19 Released (Read 169602 times)