Print

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

[jockmo42]

What a terribly boring turn this thread has taken. :p

[KennySheep]

Will players in fortress mode ever be able to bring curses upon their dwarves by building a temple to one of the gods, then profaning it themselves by taking out the alter to put in a refuse stockpile or something? Will we even be able to build temples in fortress mode?

Will workshops ever require tools to work? Like, deboning knives for the fishery, hammers and tongs for the forges, stuff like that. 

[Dae]

Will workshops ever require tools to work? Like, deboning knives for the fishery, hammers and tongs for the forges, stuff like that.  [/color]

Toady has stated multiple times that the tools used are part of the workshops made. If I Recall Correctly, he said that if tools were made a requirement for workshops, building one would be too much of a hassle. So overall, no. I don't know his plans for adventure tools though. The workshop system would work as well I think.

[zwei]

Well, if all workshops were rawified, construction of worshops with tools required would be matter of simple mod...

[G-Flex]

Will workshops ever require tools to work? Like, deboning knives for the fishery, hammers and tongs for the forges, stuff like that.  [/color]

Toady has stated multiple times that the tools used are part of the workshops made. If I Recall Correctly, he said that if tools were made a requirement for workshops, building one would be too much of a hassle. So overall, no. I don't know his plans for adventure tools though. The workshop system would work as well I think.

Yeah, it's a question of abstraction. Obviously, you don't want to be forcing the player to micromanage every hammer and nail and screw and plank of wood. I think I've heard him mention that less abstraction is okay in Adventure Mode, but I can't think of any quotes in particular.

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.

I was referring more to the body, creature, combat, and other major subsystems introduced in 0.31 in general. A lot of the problems aren't obvious, but are still consequential, and some of the obvious ones, like the melting-dwarf-acid-rain bug, were never entirely fixed (in that case, one culprit was/is a couple raw values for body tissue that don't make sense).

But yeah, all this talk of what's "selfish" is pretty weird to me. I'm trying to talk about what I think would work best for the project, not what I personally desire.

[Cruxador]

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.

Yeah, Toady doesn't use anything that formalized any more. He scrapped the old system with cores and bloats and what-not. And due to the unbouded dev cycle that DF enjoys, things are basically are:
*should have soon
*won't have soon
The current list of "should have soon" is on the dev page: http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html
Note that this lists just content, bugfixes come between content releases. And it doesn't include the donation animals, which are the product of weekends now.

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.

That only matters if
1. the bugs have far-reaching consequences, and
2. the bugs are in the foundation of systems he's currently working on.
Since this caravan arc stuff is basically all being built mostly from scratch, that's not an issue because the latter case is not satisfied.

[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.

I was referring more to the body, creature, combat, and other major subsystems introduced in 0.31 in general. A lot of the problems aren't obvious, but are still consequential, and some of the obvious ones, like the melting-dwarf-acid-rain bug, were never entirely fixed (in that case, one culprit was/is a couple raw values for body tissue that don't make sense).

These problems aren't obvious and are mostly working. It needs more work and Toady knows that. I have not the time to search for a quote, but he plans to tackle these issues
after he deal with the split of movement and combat speeds.
I don't like everything Toady does - for instance, I would like he would attain more for the plans he sets for himself (if not for the night creatures we should already be entering
Release 2!). But I trust he knows what he is doing. He is doing this already for years.

[piecewise]

Got a few questions not really related to the next release but here we go.

1. On of the things that always kinda annoys me with Adventure mode is that you can never really tell what someone is wearing. You have to dig through their inventory menu and then mentally piece what they look like together. Is it possible that, in the future, when you select someone and press "d" to look at their description, it could say not only what they look like physically but also what they're wearing? It could just say whatever they're wearing in the "top" layer of each body part and say nothing if they're not wearing anything. something like "He has a [whatever] on his upper body, [another whatever] on the his lower body, [yet another whatever] on his left hand, etc."

2.Another problem I tend to have in adventure mode, in mods especially, is knowing what skill a specific weapon uses. Would it be possible to have some way of finding out what skill a weapon uses in game (without checking raws or using it to see what skill increases)?

3.Right now, injury in adventure mode is kinda...sporadic in its effects. I managed to shatter the bones of the upper and lower legs and upper and lower arms of some merchant and he continued to attack seemingly unabated and without any real negative effects. Similarly, damaging organs seems to be completely ineffective except in the case of heart, lungs and brain (and spine, if you consider that an organ). Tendons also don't seem to effect much, if anything, from what I've seen. Is this sort of thing more of a side effect of a personality strangeness (ie "all my limbs are shattered but I'll still cut the eyes out of that guy who stole a spoon because the hivemind desires it") or just that body structures and actual physical actions don't quite correlate yet?

[Askot Bokbondeler]

this is not a suggestions thread, those are not even remotely concealed.

[G-Flex]

These problems aren't obvious and are mostly working. It needs more work and Toady knows that. I have not the time to search for a quote, but he plans to tackle these issues
after he deal with the split of movement and combat speeds.
I don't like everything Toady does - for instance, I would like he would attain more for the plans he sets for himself (if not for the night creatures we should already be entering
Release 2!). But I trust he knows what he is doing. He is doing this already for years.

I'm not sure what movement and combat speed have to do with any of that. Anyway, I wish we could have a conversation about this without cop-outs like "he knows what he's doing" or, conversely, the implication that criticism implies a lack of faith or anything like that.

[Untelligent]

None of the current bugs and issues really bother me at all.

[Kay12]

None of the current bugs and issues really bother me at all.

Yeah, and I'm not bothered at all if <feature x> is postponed a bit. Matter of preference. And the choice is ultimately Toady's so I see very little point in discussing this.

<open source argument>
Of course, if the source was opened I could try to patch any bugs that annoy me myself.
</open source argument>

[PTTG??]

More advice from Janus: "By the way, an issue to expect: if people have any problems such as textboxes running off the page, BBCode buttons missing, or anything else like that, the solution is for that person to clear their browser cache or do a full page refresh (not just a normal page refresh). In Firefox for example, the way to do a full page refresh is to hold the Shift key on your keyboard and click the Reload button."

Three cheers for Janus! Once again I shall type in bountiful word wrappage!

[Askot Bokbondeler]

<open source argument>Of course, if the source was opened I could try to patch any bugs that annoy me myself.</open source argument>

that's not even on the table, just suggesting it on the forums basically amounts to treason. you do know df is toady's sole mean of sustenance?

[Kay12]

<open source argument>Of course, if the source was opened I could try to patch any bugs that annoy me myself.</open source argument>

that's not even on the table, just suggesting it on the forums basically amounts to treason. you do know df is toady's sole mean of sustenance?

Err, what's your problem? I was just saying that I could do the bug fixes myself if the code was freely available. If you want to dispute this, go ahead.