Print

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

[PenguinBuddha]

I'm happy to see the views here. Good to know the DF community is approachable.

[Socializator]

lot of text

I agree that interface is complex because the game is complex. And the interface is designed for experienced players. There are some long outstanding aches, like non-consitent scrolling (arrows, vs +- etc...), but once you get used to it, it seems fine bearable.
However for newcomer, like probably OP here, the menus make no sense E.g. why the hospital is zone and barracks are room, or why pool/pit is the same zone but they have to be switched. Why is the civilian alert set in different column than squad alert? This list could go on and on and while each individual issue is no big deal, it is the great mess they create together which makes newcomers want to tear their hairs off. And some commonly used features are logically but inconviniently burried deeply withing the menus. Jobs-Manager. Building-Construction-Wall, machinery, traps, etc...

After all, when new military was introduced this forum full of mostly experienced players was full of posts how to do this and how to do that and help and I give up. Or how many people around are not aware of mass dumping of objects? (d-b-d, you are welcome).

I am not sure how to make it better as the underlaying cause is the complexity of the game. I kinda like the idea which is being thrown around here time to time - just expose the interface to modders/community and lets see if someone can come up with something better   As a starter I would appreciate alphabetical sorting of the buildings menu - Instead of historically items being added to the bottom.

[Starver]

lot of text

I agree that interface is complex because the game is complex.

You didn't read my "lot of text" how I thought I'd written it, then.  I don't think it is a complex interface.  It's as complex as a menu bar system (which very few programs don't have, in some form or another), but with the simplicity of it being activated by keys instead of having to shuffle a mouse around.  (Though there is mouse control too, for aspects where it's particularly useful.)

aches, like non-consitent scrolling

Mostly it isn't inconsistent.  Scrolling on the map is different from scrolling on menus (and, in turn paging up/down menus), which is different from resizing of construction areas (which is in turn handled differently with zones/designations that work on the 'corner to corner' principle), and each of these are pretty much internally consistent.  There's a basic logic that applies to most cases of any particular kind.

The worst scroll-controls (IMO) is maybe where there are the "more than two separate scrolls" menus.  e.g. the "liaison's preferred goods for next caravan" one, where it's so easy to scroll categories when you mean to scroll items within it (but if they changed the keys round, I'd get it wrong at least as much while adjusting to the new method), where perhaps it might be better as implemented in the pre-embark dwarf-skills menu, with left/right between whether the up/down will dwarf-scroll or skill-scroll.

[...]why the hospital is zone and barracks are room, or why pool/pit is the same zone but they have to be switched. Why is the civilian alert set in different column than squad alert?

My take on these (and I know you have others, as indeed I could think of some that I think you might have) are:

• Barracks needs an object to be built from (as with all rooms), that is intended to be a permanent feature, whereas Hospitals are open to having beds, traction benches, bags, etc built, not built, removed, replaced with something else, replaced somewhere else in the same zone, etc.  It is arguable that a Hospital Zone is what new 'advanced rooms' will eventually look like (set down three mason's workbenches in a room-zone-thing and have one workshop with a single configurable job/permission list but with room for three workmen at once), to replace the 3x3 (or, in some cases 5x5 or 1x1) 'template' buildings.
• Pools and pits have the same requirements.  Channelled-away floors.  And obviously it can only be either intended to have water or not intended to have water in it, unlike other zones that can share (water source with (currently pit or) pond, dumping zone with meeting area, that sort of thing).  I see other problems with it, but so far as this answer goes it's pretty intuitively combined.
• Civilian activities and squad activities are almost always kept separate.  Why would alerts do likewise?  Although, to be honest, I never actually use Alerts, and so I might be missing something given that they currently appear to me to be superfluous to my orderly running fortress.  However, don't civvie alerts have a a need to be directly associated with a burrow and military ones do not, or something?

but inconviniently burried deeply withing the menus

Three levels is deep?  I can think of something that's four levels deep (I think, if I'm counting it right).  I don't think even that is excessive.  Obviously if we were using every single alphabetic character for a top level and every single one of those had a further two or three full branches of alphabetic characters (not even counting case-changed ones) it could contain a massive amount of objects, and 26^2 leafs does have enough space to contain (probably) every single sub-leaf we currently have... but logically?  It's 'deep' where it's complex, such as the (b)uild stuff, the (d)esignate (b)lock stuff; it's immediate (or at least the entry point to a different flat system) where it doesn't need the additional menu layer, like the dwarf (v)iew one.

Or how many people around are not aware of mass dumping of objects? (d-b-d, you are welcome).

Yes, useful to know.  Not vital.  Easy to get wrong when you do know, but that's not a problem with the interface (although an "undo whatever I just designated" option would be nice[2]).  But, honestly, easy to discover (and it's compatriots of de-dump, forbid/unforbid, melt/no-melt) if you ever wonder what the "b" option under (d)esignate is for.  What's the worst that can happen?  You lose all your dwarves to an FB that you let them wander into the midst of and have to start a new fort.  Which is in what way different from the typical fate of a fortress..?

As a starter I would appreciate alphabetical sorting of the buildings menu

Noting that alphabetically by building name isn't necessarily alphabetically by key-stroke.  Maybe in a future revamp it'll all be re-keyed, anyway.  (You can, change it all anyway, can't you, in the INITs?  You could even set wall, up/stair/downstair/whatever (in whatever order they appear) to 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd' under that menu.  Not what you meant, but some might considered it more logical in some way that the current system!)


Yes, still loadsatext.  Sorry.  Loadsofopinion, you see.  (Opinion.  With all the implied "BICBW" and "YMMV", only it works for me.)  Yeah, there's improvements available.  Although most of the ones I've seen suggested seem to add to the complexity, that's also a matter of my opinion, so add the same caveats to that statement too.


[1] (footnote removed, because original text was...  nothing to see here)

[2] Similar for the Z-stocks menu, when you accidentally (de-)designated dump or something similar upon an entire item-type when you actually meant to use finer control (unforbidding and setting to not dump the logs of a certain type, but leaving forbidden and still-to-be-dumped all those logs of other kinds that are currently set as forbidden or to-be-dumped.  Because one slip at the non-specific level means you turn "this type is partially marked for dumping" into "this type is not at all marked for dumping" then "...is completely marked for dumping" and then back to "...not at all", when you might wish that when not moving away from this screen and item it might possibly give you the opportunity to triple-toggle back to the partially-set state, and then when <tab>bing to the item-by-item

[Caz]

DwarfTherapist makes most of my interface sadness go away. Whenever I get raged at designating another circle or staircase to the deeps, I just think of the times when constructing even a wall was impossible, or when multiple designations were pure fantasy. Life is good.

[Loud Whispers]

You heard him! Make the interface more clunky and complex

[Derydlus]

I've always felt that people over-exaggerate the complexity of the interface, and for that matter, Dwarf Fortress itself. First impressions are confusing, but I was up and running perfectly within a little time, and it felt natural in a surprisingly short amount of time given the "dire warnings" I'd heard uttered over and over again regarding the interface. The ridiculous jokes that describe the learning curve as a "cliff" and the interface as "abysmal" are exaggerations at best.

I understand the interface is clunky and confusing at times, but nonsense like this only serves to perpetuate the exaggerated, largely unfair reputation Dwarf Fortress already has. There's definitely room for improvement with the interface. This is hyperbole though, and undermines legitimate criticism of the UI.

[lordnincompoop]

Welcome. You'll soon find that sincerity is often more approachable than sarcasm.

I think the distinction I was trying to make was between a game being difficult, like super meat boy being insanely hard, and the controls being difficult, like dwarf fortress. The argument I often see is that the controls are difficult because the game is supposed to be hard (which I was mocking), but they are too separate things. Games should always try to optimize the interface. This doesn't make the game easier or harder, it simply makes communication between the player and the game more fluid.

Think of it this way, playing Dwarf fortress is like solving a Rubik's cube while wearing boxing gloves. Your mind may know what it wants to do to the Rubik's cube, but the gloves are making it difficult. Removing the gloves doesn't make the cube any more or less complex, it simply allows the person solving it to more directly control the cube.

I think at the end of the day we agree, but I wish the community as a whole would push for a better interface so it would get done, instead of simply accepting it as it is and looking down on those who would like it to be so.

Yeah, this is an issue that has been discussed at least several times already - it dates back quite far. Some very excellent and very thorough suggestions have been put out before yours (and with much less obtuse theatrics, by the way), and you'll do good from searching in the DF Suggestions board (since this is a suggestion, after all) for them. I think there's even an entire UI structuring plan in there.

There is also a reason that this has not been addressed in a significant way, despite much larger and much more constructive pushes for it: Toady doesn't want to at this point. He acknowledges this issue and he has planned to address it, but he won't yet. There are also a number of secondary issues that make such a UI change more difficult, but the core of the issue is this.


I hate to be that guy, but this is an issue that has been known, pushed for, and prioritised by the community for a very long time. We do not "look down on" people who want a better UI - in fact, you'll find many here who agree that it needs improvement. Instead of repeating the same basic request again, perhaps your energies would be better spent refining the plans already being created for what you are suggesting.

[carabide]

Personally, I like the interface. It makes me feel boss that I know how to use it.

[Derydlus]

Personally, I like the interface. It makes me feel boss that I know how to use it.

That's exactly the problem, though. The interface is complex and clumsy, but this feeling of superiority causes players to exaggerate matters, as if the DF community was masochistic in nature. Familiarity with the Dwarf Fortress interface is hardly an accomplishment.

[Jelle]

Why make a snappy interface if a lot of game features still need to be implemented.

I mean I agree this game needs something better, and maybe it'll help get more people interested an donating, but I don't see the need from a design perspective.

[Starver]

That's exactly the problem, though. The interface is complex and clumsy,

But I still say that it isn't and it isn't, given what it's driving.

but this feeling of superiority causes players to exaggerate matters, as if the DF community was masochistic in nature. Familiarity with the Dwarf Fortress interface is hardly an accomplishment.

IMO, the complications, as hyped or not as they may be, are with the world you control.  Not how you control it.  However much the rest of your post mismatches my own opinion, though, I totally agree with the your last sentence.

Really, you just mash the right keys at roughly the right time, and it works.

You ought to watch me play Halo with my nephews (currently 10 and 13, but this has been the case since they were, ooh, probably 5 and 8... basically as long as they've been allowed to play) and their dad.  A walk out behind a building and... headshot from halfway across the map.  I manage to get into a tank, I get hijacked.  I manage to get into a flyer, I get hijacked.  In mid air.  By one of nephews having jumped off a building onto my flyer.  I'm rubbish at it, and have been a long way behind them.  The beauty of DF is that you can consider, be precise (precision is of course lost when it comes to the vagaries of dwarves, but that's world complexity, not interface complexity).  Watch me play DF and you'll see my virtually "90% on pause" playing technique, as I micromanage everything.  But you don't have to do it that way, either, and it will still work.

[Whitefoxsniper]

The interface is hard to learn when your just starting out. But i'm with Starver, it's not that bad all things considered.

When you load up Dwarf Fortress for the first time you might have no idea of what a designation is, or you might spend 20 minutes looking for a wood cutter in the buildings menu. I think the problem is that there is no way to figure any of this out without just diving in and playing with the interface.

I think that's where the learning cliff comes from, you go from starting out to having to deal with setting up all of the different types of workshops, wondering what those blue flashing arrows on your dwarfs are, and why those line of b's are running into your entrance, all at the same time.

If you stick with it though you eventually learn the way things are grouped together.

[Callista]

The UI is the first obstacle, but the real difficulty of the game is multi-tasking a hundred or more dwarves in a dangerous, unpredictable environment.

But, you know, if you really hate that UI, maybe it would be a better idea to stop complaining about it and start figuring out how to create a UI that works better.

[smakemupagus]

my only problem with the interface is that "d" is usually for "d"esignate, but also is for "d"elete your whole burrows

[Chaos Armor]

I personally like the current interface. After a while you start to see why Toady has designated this key instead of this key. I now know just about all of the keys and don't have to have the menu up at all.

I'm going to agree with Whitefoxsniper. It's almost exactly what I would say.