Print

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

[Footkerchief]

I think maybe he is refraining himself from posting updates, as people are calling the new cities stupid and gamey.

Yeah, I suspect it might put a damper on his eagerness to post updates, if the most visible reaction to updates is people sperging out over a few pixels and demanding that every unimplemented feature (in an explicitly WIP screenshot, no less) be acknowledged as a flaw/bug.

The laughably naive implementation of Bridge Economic Theory will pale in comparison to the actual bugs in the next release, I guarantee everyone.

Being as Toady is trying to build a complex and realistic world, I am sure he would want to know about any flaws as soon as possible.

No good programmer has their feelings hurt if someone sees a small problem in an otherwise great step forward and suggests ways to correct it, especially early on, when it is still early enough to plan out how to fix it.  The earlier a bug is caught, the less things that are dependent upon the functions that are in that code, the easier it is to correct the problems.

It is only a bad programmer who responds to criticism by refusing to admit mistakes or allowing others to see those mistakes, rather than trying to find and correct them.

I have confidence that Toady is not a bad programmer.  Someone who manages a bug tracker, especially, should know about this.

Bridges are not yet meant to have realistic construction costs yet, just like every other world gen structure in the game, such as the giant stone super-expensive-IRL castles.  It's not as if Toady's going to read your WOTs and say "Well golly gee, I forgot to write a whole separate part of the city generation code!  I guess things do cost money after all!"  They're in the game because they look cool and make the Adv Mode environment more interesting -- other considerations are being postponed by design.

Here's an example of a possible bug in the economics of world gen constructions: 0003725: Walls of human castles/fortresses made from implausible stones (e.g. platinum).  Hypothetically, if civilizations without the masonry profession create stone castles, that might be a bug as well.  These are possible bugs because Toady has worked on site resource tracking and site professions, respectively.  He has not (that he's disclosed) worked on world gen tax collection, the costs of paying large labor forces, the existence of traveling laborers, or any of the other steps between the raw resource and finished product, as relates to world gen structures.

So it goes without saying, for Toady and almost everyone else, that these aspects of the simulation are not yet realistic.  By harping on those aspects, and especially by singling out the teensy bridges that are next to literal castles, you are missing the forest for the trees in a spectacular way, which, I mean, is totally your perogative, man.  But if you opened a bug report about this, it would be "no change required" for sure, just like if you were pointing out that brain death / pollination / cave formation / projectile trajectories aren't realistic yet either.

[Meta]

Arguing about a possible lack of realism in an heroic-fantasy game is like arguing about a lack of sorcerers in the White House.

[Deon]

Yeah but a one-paragraph "maybe the bridge should actually have a reason to be there" is better than a several-pages dissertation on economics and war vis a vis bridges in medieval europe...

This. While complexity is one of DF's main characteristics, getting bogged down on an argument that will ultimately bring very little to the game is not exactly a display of knowledge on what an alpha game's development should adress. Actual bugs that the new version will bring are much more important.

Going crazy on discussions over the economic aspect of bridges and its effects on society is pretty alright, but expecting any of it to be applied to a game that has no real working economy yet is a bit silly.

Huh, did anyone actually make such stupid argument? The game should be developed from the "game mechanics" into "realism" and not backwards. I know a lot of games which were developed backwards and became major fails because they were simply not fun to play or didn't work as a game at all. Well, too bad many people do not understand this, but I think Toady had such kind of talk from many people, so I am sure it's NOT something that would "stop him from posting updates", that phrase alone sounds silly .

[NW_Kohaku]

Yeah but a one-paragraph "maybe the bridge should actually have a reason to be there" is better than a several-pages dissertation on economics and war vis a vis bridges in medieval europe...

This. While complexity is one of DF's main characteristics, getting bogged down on an argument that will ultimately bring very little to the game is not exactly a display of knowledge on what an alpha game's development should adress. Actual bugs that the new version will bring are much more important.

Going crazy on discussions over the economic aspect of bridges and its effects on society is pretty alright, but expecting any of it to be applied to a game that has no real working economy yet is a bit silly.

Actually, when I noticed that bridge, what I did pretty much was to just point it out in a couple of sentences.

It's only when people argued that there was nothing at all wrong with bridges that go nowhere that I had to step up the argument to explain why it was wrong.

The argument was not "this may be something that should be held off," but "there is nothing wrong with this at all," and that is an entirely different argument. 

If you go into talking about how something like how this is something that can take just a quick nod in the direction that this is something that needs to be dealt with somewhere down the road, and that other things require more attention, I'll agree with you. 

However, I will not agree that it is simply not a problem if a single farmer constructs a 162-foot-long, 15-foot-wide bridge just because the game doesn't recognize the costs involved. 

[finka]

It was also Toady's birthday not so long ago; he might've just been engaged in birthday festivities rather than DF work for part of the week.

[NW_Kohaku]

Bridges are not yet meant to have realistic construction costs yet, just like every other world gen structure in the game, such as the giant stone super-expensive-IRL castles.  It's not as if Toady's going to read your WOTs and say "Well golly gee, I forgot to write a whole separate part of the city generation code!  I guess things do cost money after all!"  They're in the game because they look cool and make the Adv Mode environment more interesting -- other considerations are being postponed by design.

Here's an example of a possible bug in the economics of world gen constructions: 0003725: Walls of human castles/fortresses made from implausible stones (e.g. platinum).  Hypothetically, if civilizations without the masonry profession create stone castles, that might be a bug as well.  These are possible bugs because Toady has worked on site resource tracking and site professions, respectively.  He has not (that he's disclosed) worked on world gen tax collection, the costs of paying large labor forces, the existence of traveling laborers, or any of the other steps between the raw resource and finished product, as relates to world gen structures.

So it goes without saying, for Toady and almost everyone else, that these aspects of the simulation are not yet realistic.  By harping on those aspects, and especially by singling out the teensy bridges that are next to literal castles, you are missing the forest for the trees in a spectacular way, which, I mean, is totally your perogative, man.  But if you opened a bug report about this, it would be "no change required" for sure, just like if you were pointing out that brain death / pollination / cave formation / projectile trajectories aren't realistic yet either.

And those aren't realistic.  Those are things that should be fixed, eventually.

The difference here, however, is that not only does Toady recognize all those things are bugs, but nobody is arguing that projectile trajectories being flat or solid platinum castles are things that shouldn't be changed. 

People are arguing that bridges that make no sense aren't even bugs at all, however, and that is why I took the time to explain why it is nonsensical to compare making a bridge from one log to building a bridge that crosses a river. 

If someone took the time to try to talk about how solid platinum castles were completely realistic, I assure you, I'd be telling them why they are wrong then, too.

[NW_Kohaku]

It was also Toady's birthday not so long ago; he might've just been engaged in birthday festivities rather than DF work for part of the week.

Seriously...

People flip out and start blaming others over Toady not posting for a week.

It may also just be that Toady hasn't been doing changes to particularly glamorous pieces of code.  Construction of or alterations to the way that peasants pick what houses they live in, or working on the mechanics of when the cities expand, or trying to test out what point in the growth of a city they decide to start enclosing storm grates, aren't things that show up in pictures very well, and aren't terribly exciting or worth telling everyone about.

[Footkerchief]

not only does Toady recognize all those things are bugs

I doubt it.  Toady's comments on "no change required" bugs might be illuminating.  He is very clear that not all undesirable behaviors are bugs, and that's a pretty normal stance.

[Meta]

People are arguing that bridges that make no sense aren't even bugs at all, however, and that is why I took the time to explain why it is nonsensical to compare making a bridge from one log to building a bridge that crosses a river. 

I must point out that nonsensical things exits in reality.

[NW_Kohaku]

People are arguing that bridges that make no sense aren't even bugs at all, however, and that is why I took the time to explain why it is nonsensical to compare making a bridge from one log to building a bridge that crosses a river. 

I must point out that nonsensical things exits in reality.

And it exists for real-life reasons, as well.  It is noted as abnormal behavior, and a relic of a government system that generates an awful lot of waste and corruption.  It isn't treated as normal behavior.

If you want to have government waste and corruption, as I said at the time, that's fine, but make that an actual event that happens on purpose, something that people can look into, and recognize is not right, not something the game can't tell apart from normal behavior.

[NW_Kohaku]

not only does Toady recognize all those things are bugs

I doubt it.  Toady's comments on "no change required" bugs might be illuminating.  He is very clear that not all undesirable behaviors are bugs, and that's a pretty normal stance.

Well, going through the list, it seems like most of these were legitimate not-problems, and many didn't have Toady make a comment at all.

Most were things like not starting out with iron armor, which Toady says you're not supposed to start out with armor, or how bumblebees don't provide enough honey for mead the way honeybees do.  (Something that perusing the Buzzin Beard thread has enlightened me on.) 

There's also a couple things like fluffy wamblers (who are explicitly magical creatures) being rationalized as magical creatures, and hence having magical anatomy.  I have yet to see someone rationalize the cities are supposed to be explicitly magically constructed, however.

This one has Toady saying, "I need to rework how actions/timing work in general, which'll happen at some point, after I separate out move/attack speed."  That sure sounds like he's acknowledging the problem to me.

Another few, having to do with horses with shells, seems like he's just trying to wash his hands of unintended behavior relating to modifying bodies mid-save, rather than at worldgen.  That seems closest to what you are talking about.

Still, I don't see anything where Toady says "Platinum castles are intended behavior, and will always remain that way."

[Footkerchief]

This one has Toady saying, "I need to rework how actions/timing work in general, which'll happen at some point, after I separate out move/attack speed."  That sure sounds like he's acknowledging the problem to me.

Yes, he's acknowledging it's a problem and then marking it "no change required," which means it is not a bug and did not need to be reported on the tracker.  Not all unfinished features are bugs.  If you can't accept that statement, there is a fundamental semantic problem, but these are the working semantics of the DF bug tracker (and the software field in general).

Still, I don't see anything where Toady says "Platinum castles are intended behavior, and will always remain that way."

Please reread the part of my post explaining why the platinum castles issue is a bug, and what makes it different from your complaints:

Here's an example of a possible bug in the economics of world gen constructions: 0003725: Walls of human castles/fortresses made from implausible stones (e.g. platinum).  Hypothetically, if civilizations without the masonry profession create stone castles, that might be a bug as well.  These are possible bugs because Toady has worked on site resource tracking and site professions, respectively.  He has not (that he's disclosed) worked on world gen tax collection, the costs of paying large labor forces, the existence of traveling laborers, or any of the other steps between the raw resource and finished product, as relates to world gen structures.

[NW_Kohaku]

This one has Toady saying, "I need to rework how actions/timing work in general, which'll happen at some point, after I separate out move/attack speed."  That sure sounds like he's acknowledging the problem to me.

Yes, he's acknowledging it's a problem and then marking it "no change required," which means it is not a bug and did not need to be reported on the tracker.  Not all unfinished features are bugs!

Still, I don't see anything where Toady says "Platinum castles are intended behavior, and will always remain that way."

Please reread the part of my post explaining why the platinum castles issue is a bug, and what makes it different from your complaints:

Here's an example of a possible bug in the economics of world gen constructions: 0003725: Walls of human castles/fortresses made from implausible stones (e.g. platinum).  Hypothetically, if civilizations without the masonry profession create stone castles, that might be a bug as well.  These are possible bugs because Toady has worked on site resource tracking and site professions, respectively.  He has not (that he's disclosed) worked on world gen tax collection, the costs of paying large labor forces, the existence of traveling laborers, or any of the other steps between the raw resource and finished product, as relates to world gen structures.

Once again, let me repeat this -

...
when I noticed that bridge, what I did pretty much was to just point it out in a couple of sentences.

It's only when people argued that there was nothing at all wrong with bridges that go nowhere that I had to step up the argument to explain why it was wrong.

The argument was not "this may be something that should be held off," but "there is nothing wrong with this at all," and that is an entirely different argument. 

If you go into talking about how something like how this is something that can take just a quick nod in the direction that this is something that needs to be dealt with somewhere down the road, and that other things require more attention, I'll agree with you. 

However, I will not agree that it is simply not a problem if a single farmer constructs a 162-foot-long, 15-foot-wide bridge just because the game doesn't recognize the costs involved. 

If Toady recognizes that this is something that is a problem (not a bug but something that has yet to be implemented if you want to get caught up in the semantics of the issue), then that was the whole purpose of my pointing it out.

[ArKFallen]

As far as I can tell we're a bit off topic, but while we are I'll just point out that no bridge is pointless if it could even possibly accomplish a goal. Like the bridge discussion from the Future of the Fortress discussion, it fullfills its use to get people across an unwalkable body, in truth it's the potential road design thats a bit buggy. If there had been any road connecting that bridge to the rest of the side it'd be more plausible, while right now we'd have to assume that that house's owner goes to work on the other side of the river and so needed quick transport. These features being pre-alpha and all, wonky roads/bridges are to be expected.
{Bridge discussion here}
PS: Kohaku I see the point you're making but reiterating it until it is obviously understood won't help terribly much (I have the same issue).

[tgizak]

Here we are, arguing about a bridge again.