Print

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

[thvaz]

3.In the end, because neither of us really know about how the inner workings of the game, so it's probably better to trust toady's scheduling.

I find this one a fair argument. However, I still consider that requesting bugs to be fixed is just as fair as requesting certain new features. Toady may accept, Toady may decline, Toady may not even notice, but heck, at least I got to have my voice heard.

The problem with your argument is that Toady does both, so you really have no reason to complain. What do you want is a finished game now for what looks like selfish reasons (do you want to play it now without bugs).
And by bringing this old argument back you wake up sleeping beasts like G-Flex, that won't leave the matter settle, ever.

-rant-

What do you really fail to consider is that Toady is working alone (only he does the code) on this project for nine years already. Dwarf Fortress isn't a standard software project that could use fundamental development practices because it is a very singular project. You won't find many examples of someone doing what Toady does.

There is a lot of problems, everyone knows it, but bugs are being fixed (over 150 reports last time, on six releases) and as I played recently, there are no gamebreaking bugs left, the game is really stable (didn't crashed once), military is working fine (I couldn't go back to old system now), health care is mostly working... so what are you complaining? Are you really playing the game at all?

[G-Flex]

What do you really fail to consider is that Toady is working alone (only he codes) on this project for nine years already. Dwarf Fortress isn't a standard software project that could use stand fundamental development practices.

I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything. Spending more time on properly fixing/implementing things and hunting bugs instead of implementing features doesn't really have much to do with him working alone. You're making an assertion without really even attempting to back it up, here. I know it's a lone-developer project, but I'm speaking from a perspective regarding this project to begin with, not "standard practices". If this were a standard software project, a whole lot of things would be different; I'm well aware of that.

There is a lot of problems, everyone knows it, but bugs are being fixed (over 150 reports last time, on six releases) and as I played recently, there are no gamebreaking bugs left, the game is really stable (didn't crashed once), military is working fine (I couldn't go back to old system now) so what are you complaining?

Bugs don't have to be "game-breaking" to be important. DF is the kind of game that prides itself in its detail, and for something like that to work, those details have to work right. For instance, there's no sense in having such complex body and combat systems if they're still quirky enough that they often-enough don't provide sensible results.

Again, I'm aware bugs are being fixed, but what I question is whether or not the problems with recently-implemented systems will get fixed in the near future at all.

The problem with your argument is that Toady does both, so you really have no reason to complain. What do you want is a finished game now for what looks like selfish reasons(do you want to plaiy it now without bugs).
And by bringing this old argument back you wake up sleeping beasts like G-Flex, that won't leave the matter settle, ever.

Of course he does both. The point of contention is over how much of each is done, when, and in what order, and that all does still matter. I don't really see this as any more selfish than any other request or commentary anybody makes; requesting new features can certainly be selfish, too. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm more concerned about the project than my own interests here, and I've spoken to plenty of people who have been frustrated by the issues I'm talking about. It's not that I don't respect Toady's work or anything, but critical commentary is kind of a necessary part of any community revolving around a project, especially when said community acts as its testers as well as its users. The only reason I'm so adamant about stuff like this is because I love the project enough to want to see it do well and be what it can be, and because it's a perspective that needs a part in discussion as much as the people cheering on new features or suggesting things.

And I know I'm kind of rehashing things I've said before, but the topic came up, so I responded.

[thvaz]

Again, I'm aware bugs are being fixed, but what I question is whether or not the problems with recently-implemented systems will get fixed in the near future at all.

Well, most of the bugs introduced with 31.17 and 31.19 were fixed. Beekeeping, Clay industry, Night Creatures, ghosts, targeted attacks, castles, are all introduced then and are working well.

[Kay12]

3.In the end, because neither of us really know about how the inner workings of the game, so it's probably better to trust toady's scheduling.

I find this one a fair argument. However, I still consider that requesting bugs to be fixed is just as fair as requesting certain new features. Toady may accept, Toady may decline, Toady may not even notice, but heck, at least I got to have my voice heard.

The problem with your argument is that Toady does both, so you really have no reason to complain. What do you want is a finished game now for what looks like selfish reasons (do you want to play it now without bugs).

I'm not following your logic. If I prefer bug fixes to new feature additions, I'm supposedly "selfish". What about the people who wish for new features? How are they less selfish? And in any case, leave out the ad hominem - why I prefer bug fixes to features is a matter of taste, not that I'm some horrible monster.

[irdsm]

I haven't seen mention of any of these bugs. The few that are there make perfect sense within the working system (whips and flails act oddly because they are heavy, attack fast and have a small hit radius, for example) and almost all of them can easily be fixed with modding. Grazing tags are in the RAW I believe and grazer pasturing works much more efficiently now (due to a bugfix toady did). Elephants eat a lot of grass, but if we keep moving forward and adding new features (as is planned) then we should soon be able to make bails of hay.  So what's so gamebreaking, that crutches don't work yet? That seems like it'd be pretty hard to code from my perspective. Toady has made his plans, follows them well, adds more and more modding support (the new flexibility of the syndromes will be a huge boon for modders, which excites me the most). Anyways, enough ranting, my point is that everything is going smoothly and the few bugs there are will be ironed out soon. Chill out, be patient and enjoy what comes.

[Dae]

Objectively, building on top of buggy features is generally bad. Buggy placeholders are still a problem, but very much less so. My rational side tells me that as many bugs should be fixed so there are less problems in the future. My selfish side wants moar awesome feature creep.

But that is applyable to normal projects. DF is not a normal project. DF is special because :

• Its sheer ambition raise placeholder to the level of what would be final release features in other projects, and its final version features would be more at their place in a dedicated simulator. That makes the cost of working on placeholder really significant, up to several months for a one-man team.
• We are playing an alpha version. In normal projects, the public has access to a version that has to be fully working. A work in progress is not supposed to. It's a work in progress. Things are missing, some are buggy, but the team is working on it. DF is not supposed to be perfect until at least beta, and the fact that we're playing it means we have to acknowledge that. Toady is listening very closely to its public and he pays attention to us more than every other developer I've seen out there : we should be grateful for that.
• Toady has not been hired to do it. He's dedicating his life to it. As such, the project dies as soon as his interest in the project dies. For the people here who are not coders, bugfixing is frustrating, to say the least. Sometimes you notice the door creaks, so you oil it up and as a consequence the wall crumbles into dust. Implementing features is more fun, and we should see the last period of feature creep as a treat Toady gave to himself, and as soon as the next release is out, a treat he gave us.
  

I'm not saying you are wrong. As it was said, requesting bug fixes is as acceptable as requesting features, and as long as there will be requests of one there should be requests of the other, because Toady is reading most of this and listening to his fan base. The most recent proof is the most wonderful daily updates.
BUT we have to keep in mind how unorthodox this project is, and as far as requesting goes, ranting or expecting Toady to act exactly as we say looks awfully ungrateful to me. It's more a question of how you say it than what you say.

[Kay12]

It's mainly a difference in design philosophy, not that the bugs are game-breaking. Personally, I'm fine with the current features of DF, and have no problem with any additions. I'd just prefer bug fixes to new features for the time being. A matter of taste, and of course Toady isn't obliged to design the game according to my desires.

However, I do have something of a reason for fixing bugs instead of adding features, the MoSCoW method. I know Toady has a lot more ambitious view than I do, so he'd probably group stuff differently than I do, but I consider that bugs *should* be removed, and features *could* be added. Of the people I've introduced DF to and who got past the initial difficulty of learning the interface, three decided to leave the game until it's more stable. None left because they felt the game lacked a feature they wanted. Eventually though, it's useless to argue this because Toady probably has a roadmap that's thought-out well enough.


EDIT: Oh, and a question that has been rolling around in my mind for a while now and hopefully allows us to concentrate on something else than this useless arguing. DF is a bigger-than-life project, and it's admirable that a single coder is carrying it on. However, I'm a bit concerned about the long-term (hopefully not short-term) Future of the Fortress - who will carry on the development in the unfortunate event that Toady is, for any reason, unable to?

[Cruxador]

It's mainly a difference in design philosophy, not that the bugs are game-breaking. Personally, I'm fine with the current features of DF, and have no problem with any additions. I'd just prefer bug fixes to new features for the time being. A matter of taste, and of course Toady isn't obliged to design the game according to my desires.

However, I do have something of a reason for fixing bugs instead of adding features, the MoSCoW method. I know Toady has a lot more ambitious view than I do, so he'd probably group stuff differently than I do, but I consider that bugs *should* be removed, and features *could* be added. Of the people I've introduced DF to and who got past the initial difficulty of learning the interface, three decided to leave the game until it's more stable. None left because they felt the game lacked a feature they wanted. Eventually though, it's useless to argue this because Toady probably has a roadmap that's thought-out well enough.

Besides the "Alternate content and bugfixing", I think there's no relevant roadmap. There's certainly nothing as formalized as MoSCoW, because although I don't know what that is, I know Toady almost never uses stuff so formalized that it has a name. The problem with the notion of fixing bugs in lieu of adding content is that then you get no content. DF is far from finished, and polishing the placeholders is ultimately a waste of time, even if it might be nice in the immediate term.

[Kay12]

MoSCoW is merely grouping stuff between

* Must have
* Should have
* Could have
* Would have (or in some cases, Want to have or Won't have now)

Personally, I consider DF has everything that it *Must have* to be an enjoyable game. Toady, I read somewhere, intends DF to be a full-fledged fantasy world simulation, but I'm not sure how high he'd rank the yet unimplemented elements of the game. In any case, I would personally rank bug fixes in the *Should have* as many bugs are annoying, but there is currently no bug that makes the game impossible to enjoy. There are no glaringly obvious missing features by my experiences, so I would personally rank any feature requests on the *Could have* level. The only feature so far I have expected to be in this game but it turned out not to exist (yet) is mining and building in adventure mode.

But again, I know nothing of Toady's plans for the next months so it's hard for me to express anything than my personal opinion.

[Dae]

No missing features compared to a mere game. Just have a look at the development goals and you'll understand how massive DF aims to be. It takes litterally hours just to read the list of features.

[Sunday]

Well, I'd prefer to have new features over more time spent bugfixing.

Toady has fixed all the bugs that were bothering me (mostly the hospital ones, along with laggy ghosts), and he's already spent a ton of time fixing bugs that could have been spent working on new features. And I'd rather have necromancers attacking my fortress with an army of zombies than, say, the correct values for the various materials in the raws. Because I don't really care whether copper has the right tensile strength (I seriously doubt that will change my playstyle at all), but I do care about fighting a desperate last stand against heaving hordes of ravening undead.

[Kay12]

I know how massive DF aims to be. In my opinion that's a good reason to fix bugs quickly, because building on bad foundations may result in unwanted consequences and unfortunate accidents. But yeah, I trust Toady knows the best and will stabilize stuff soon enough.

[zwei]

Well, I'd prefer to have new features over more time spent bugfixing.

Toady has fixed all the bugs that were bothering me (mostly the hospital ones, along with laggy ghosts), and he's already spent a ton of time fixing bugs that could have been spent working on new features. And I'd rather have necromancers attacking my fortress with an army of zombies than, say, the correct values for the various materials in the raws. Because I don't really care whether copper has the right tensile strength (I seriously doubt that will change my playstyle at all), but I do care about fighting a desperate last stand against heaving hordes of ravening undead.

Well, while we are being selfish here, I would prefer fixes to bugs that bother me over features you would want.

Or, what about this: He could work on features I want to have but leave any undead bugs unfixed because I could not care less about that stuff working properly, that would be your problem.

Either works for me :-)

[Sunday]

Well, I'd prefer to have new features over more time spent bugfixing.

Toady has fixed all the bugs that were bothering me (mostly the hospital ones, along with laggy ghosts), and he's already spent a ton of time fixing bugs that could have been spent working on new features. And I'd rather have necromancers attacking my fortress with an army of zombies than, say, the correct values for the various materials in the raws. Because I don't really care whether copper has the right tensile strength (I seriously doubt that will change my playstyle at all), but I do care about fighting a desperate last stand against heaving hordes of ravening undead.

Well, while we are being selfish here, I would prefer fixes to bugs that bother me over features you would want.

Or, what about this: He could work on features I want to have but leave any undead bugs unfixed because I could not care less about that stuff working properly, that would be your problem.

Either works for me :-)

Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make. 

For every person that wants more bugfixing, someone else (well, me, at least) wants more features.

So if someone else can criticize Toady for not working on bug-fixes, then I get to praise him for working on the stuff I like. If someone else is just saying that in their opinion they want more bug-fixes, then I get to say that in my opinion, I want more features.

Of course, since Toady's development style doesn't seem to be built on a survey of what people are saying in FotF threads, it seems kind of pointless to me to spend pages talking about whether he should be fixing more bugs or not, when we could be talking about cool stuff like towns and dungeons. The point is moot. Though that doesn't seem to stop people from continually bringing up and criticizing Toady for not fixing as many bugs as they'd like.

Ah well.

[Untelligent]

MoSCoW is merely grouping stuff between

* Must have
* Should have
* Could have
* Would have (or in some cases, Want to have or Won't have now)

Huh. The old core/req/bloat/powergoal development plan system sounds remarkably similar to that.