Print

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

[Chromasphere]

.

[Asmageddon]

I think that, in the future, it would be best if there were no separate modes.

If you want to govern a mountainhome - become a respected dwarf, take people with you and embark.
Want legends mode? Go to a library and open an interface for browsing everything.
Want to be adventurer again? Retire from your position as for overseer and wander the world.

For those who don't want to have to do this for the start there should be different presets - adventurer(as peasant, hero or demigod), overseer(as, depending on race - village chief, king, princess, etc.), economy-oriented person(trader, diplomat, guild head, etc.), information-oriented(librarian, archeologist, expedition leader) or even something else(like a wizard or necromancer)

[G-Flex]

If you want to govern a mountainhome - become a respected dwarf, take people with you and embark.
Want legends mode? Go to a library and open an interface for browsing everything.
Want to be adventurer again? Retire from your position as for overseer and wander the world.

But then there's no way to enjoy Fortress Mode as it exists today, as no matter what, your perspective is that of an individual dwarf. Playing a mayor or captain of the guard isn't quite the same as playing a fortress.



I'd still rather see tying up of loose ends and fixing of current features before new features are implemented. I love the new stuff we're getting, but shouldn't the old stuff be made to work as intended first? Just seems like the clear choice to me, from a software development perspective. I'm not trying to be selfish here, but it's harder to enjoy new features when some of the main draws of 0.31 in general (like the new body/combat/butchering systems) still need work and have problems both relatively small and relatively fundamental, when lag issues are bad enough that few people can enjoy an established fortress very well, and other various bugs, quirks, interface problems, and implementation flaws. These things are certainly inevitable in a product that is in development, but I have to wonder why there seems to be more and more of an emphasis on new, complex features when evidently the game doesn't properly support the features implemented within the past few months; why start with necromancy and sewers and knowledge systems when there's so much other work to be done on making existing features work, especially the really basic stuff like animals being able to eat without starving or going ultraviolent on a moment's notice, combat has some conceptual and particular problems that have been pointed out time after time, body tissue properties are out of whack enough to have contributed to bugs as major as the acid-rain fat-melting problem, and there are other things to contend with first that have been sitting around and see no sign of really being acknowledged?

[tfaal]

Regarding zombies ripping off the dog's head.  Did they claw or bite it until it came off, or is there actual dismemberment in wrestling now?

There's dismemberment in wrestling already, but it generally only works for adventurers that are very strong and/or aim for small body parts like fingers and teeth.

I'll be honest, Dwarf mode now bores me.  Adventure mode got interesting lately (and by lately, I mean ever since night creatures showed up in the first place), and it's all that keeps me interested in DF these days.  So I'm ecstatic that there are more of them.  I do look forwards to more to do besides kill though... being able to be a merchant lord will be fun. Trading games can be great.

Fortress Mode has its enjoyable aspects but the interface ruins it for me.  I'd love to see all the cool new features, but playing that mode gives me more stress than enjoyment.  And I think it's dragging down development overall since it fits so badly into the world generation model (time dilation, site autonomy, etc).

Agreed. It'll take some big changes to get me to want to play it. In particular, the military screen needs to be scrapped and replaced with a much simpler alternative, with reasonable default settings in place and the scheduling and alert systems pushed aside; they are too confusing to force anyone to deal with them.

[Asmageddon]

No, I meant that while you would still be a single dwarf, but you would not control him directly, and instead be presented with Dwarf Mode-style interface.

[Chromasphere]

.

[PTTG??]

I agree, but the military screen is far harder to use than some of the most obtuse industrial software I have ever seen, including media switching firmware built in DOS.

[nil]

Someone with programing skills (i.e., not me) really needs to step up and make a DF Therapist for the military screen.

[monk12]

I'm always surprised when I find out how much trouble people have with the military interface- I've found that the basic premises behind it were rather intuitive, and a little dedicated work irons out most of the quirks with the system. I've always had more trouble with farming and maintaining the clothing industry- I can never quite balance it right.

No, I meant that while you would still be a single dwarf, but you would not control him directly, and instead be presented with Dwarf Mode-style interface.

The plan is to keep adventure mode and dwarf mode separate- dwarf mode is more of a "spirit of the fortress" type deal, while the management aspect of adventure mode will be more a "King Conan the Barbarian" thing, where the whole thing is much more personal.

-bugfix rant-

I should probably just ignore this since its sure to inspire a derail, but I'm gonna respond to it anyway. From a software development perspective, bugfixing is boring and often frustrating, and spending months and months bugfixing after every release would likely suck the joy straight out of the project for Toady. Coupled with that, many of the bugs are (at least tangentially) placeholders that will be addressed later on in development. And of course, there is the whole issue with defining something as a bug when it is really more of a balance issue- the materials system and grazers spring to mind.

Just to wrap up, Toady is already devoting significant time to bugfixing- after this release he'll be spending time addressing new bugs introduced by it, and then he'll spend time on the bugs from former versions. I myself love this model, since it keeps me excited about new features while also periodically fixing old issues.

[James.Denholm]

Just postin' to follow. You know how it is.

[Asmageddon]

No, I meant that while you would still be a single dwarf, but you would not control him directly, and instead be presented with Dwarf Mode-style interface.

The plan is to keep adventure mode and dwarf mode separate- dwarf mode is more of a "spirit of the fortress" type deal, while the management aspect of adventure mode will be more a "King Conan the Barbarian" thing, where the whole thing is much more personal.

Yeah, but why not enable adventurer to become such "spirit of the fortress" ?

[Dutchling]

No, I meant that while you would still be a single dwarf, but you would not control him directly, and instead be presented with Dwarf Mode-style interface.

The plan is to keep adventure mode and dwarf mode separate- dwarf mode is more of a "spirit of the fortress" type deal, while the management aspect of adventure mode will be more a "King Conan the Barbarian" thing, where the whole thing is much more personal.

Yeah, but why not enable adventurer to become such "spirit of the fortress" ?

Adventure mode forts will be controlled by direct orders only. I don't know where Toady said that but someone here probably knows.
When you could get a fortress like thing in adventure mode everything you want to be done should be directly told to either the ones who will do the work, or to someone lower in the hierarchy.

[James.Denholm]

If you want to govern a mountainhome - become a respected dwarf, take people with you and embark.
Want legends mode? Go to a library and open an interface for browsing everything.
Want to be adventurer again? Retire from your position as for overseer and wander the world.

But then there's no way to enjoy Fortress Mode as it exists today, as no matter what, your perspective is that of an individual dwarf. Playing a mayor or captain of the guard isn't quite the same as playing a fortress.

What if, instead of maintaining control over Urist McMayor, the player experienced a definite "promotion" to the spirit-of-the-site control level? So you'd gather your troupe, set off into the wild, and once you arrived the adventurer would have his puppet strings cut free. If you decided that a particularly awesome character deserved his own run around the country side, seeking fame, fortune, and the personal delivery of a pair of socks to his granny back at the mountain home, you would merely have to release the fortress and dust off your metaphorical marionette control bar and away you would go. Of course, there should be consequences of said action that would mean the player can't jump between the modes freely - perhaps insanity if the new adventurer doesn't feel he made enough of his one opportunity at fame, or other things to stop the player from abusing adventurers as free supply runs to a starving fortress.

Honestly, that's how I've always seen the player - Not tied down to a site or individual, but rather some strange deity, some fluid, gaseous being, capable of flowing and concentrating itself in the mind of an individual, or expanding to exist as a haze over a location, army, or similar. The player does not "die" when his fortress crumbles from within, or his adventurer takes his last breath staring at the rapidly approaching hoof of a Minotaur, oh no! He merely looses his host, and begins the process of seeking out a new one.

[thvaz]

Just to wrap up, Toady is already devoting significant time to bugfixing- after this release he'll be spending time addressing new bugs introduced by it, and then he'll spend time on the bugs from former versions. I myself love this model, since it keeps me excited about new features while also periodically fixing old issues.

G-Flex clearly knows that. He knows Toady spent over a month fixing a hundred issues with the game. 31.25 is probably the most stable and bug-free DF version ever. It has issues? It clearly does. And Toady knows it.

However, what G-Flex clearly doesn't understand, is that as Toady stated many times he must have fun with his project. This is what moves the project forward - our donated money only speeds the process, by giving Toady the means to work only on DF. And like you said, bug-fixing is not fun. It is necessary, and Toady continues to fix bugs.

DF isn't a standard software project. It is not funded by a company. It is not written by a team. It has its very specific needs to be succesful - and these needs are still fulfilled after almost five years of public release.

 

[Aquillion]

Yeah, but why not enable adventurer to become such "spirit of the fortress" ?

Adventure mode forts will be controlled by direct orders only. I don't know where Toady said that but someone here probably knows.
When you could get a fortress like thing in adventure mode everything you want to be done should be directly told to either the ones who will do the work, or to someone lower in the hierarchy.

One thing I could see is allowing you to retire a hero who has risen to control some social group, then start a new game, Dwarf Mode-style, where you play as that group.

It'd be nice to be able to take Dwarf Mode control of existing groups, cities, etc in some fashion.  And I like the idea of playing Adventure Mode to 'unlock' them by gaining control of them in that, then saving and quitting and switching to a new-but-connected game in Dwarf Mode.

Doing it as "retire and start a new game" or some such puts some separation between the two, so they don't step on each other's toes so much.

(And, in the other direction, you should be able to take any dwarf from an abandoned fort you had and switch to controlling them.)