Post by: ThreeToe on April 18, 2009, 03:59:19 pm
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen? Or maybe its finding the right tile sets and setting them up. We are hoping at some point to build easier commands and tutorials to help bring in more players. We have to identify the main culprits first. So what is frustrating you the most about Dwarf Fortress?
Post by: Shaostoul on April 18, 2009, 04:11:34 pm
But if anything, it's becoming too easy. That's my main issue if anything. You get to a certain point and trying isn't really necessary any more. I've tried implementing a new creature, but it is giving me problems.
So ya... top 3 ASCII Graphics and finding a complete tile set to not have it bug people too much... Complexity at the beginning with no real tutorial on the basics or advanced tutorials to explain some of the further into the game stuff... and it being too easy once you have a grasp of what it is you're doing.
Post by: sonerohi on April 18, 2009, 04:18:13 pm
Post by: Slappy Moose on April 18, 2009, 04:18:44 pm
Whenever I play, I think "Well, I shouldn't get to addicted or the update will just make me have to restart EVERYTHING." Which is an annoying habit because I really want to play but I get so immersed that I hate to have to get the newest version.
Second, I wish there were much more goblin sieges, and there was some way to increase their frequency from within the game, so I could start having 24/7 sieges once my fort's defences are all set up.
Besides those two problems, I fucking LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVEVOEOVOBUNRINGOHGODAOJSIAAUUUUGH Dwarf Fortress.
Post by: Ampersand on April 18, 2009, 04:19:19 pm
Post by: Satatik on April 18, 2009, 04:19:27 pm
Next is the ASCII. This is easily solved by good graphics sets/tile sets. But we really need to add support for them 100% and make them more official because most people don't even know they exist or how to install them.
Once you solve the "What the hell am I supposed to do?!" + The ASCII turnoff problem (with tile sets) then all that is left is the interface.
Mouse support is already in for designations, but you need to expand mouse support. I know it goes against the feel of a rouge like but fortress mode is hardly a rogue like. Add more templates for stockpiles with submenus and types so we don't need to mess around with custom stockpiles as much. (with clever interface design this will be easy)
Adding more mouse support will easily take more burden off the interface which uses the keyboard too much for things it shouldn't (like moving the cursor to select something)
NEXT is probobly the most important for me. Embark profiles. I think if you shipped more profiles with the game it would make things more newbie friendly. Perhaps use some of the ones on the WIKI? Those are pretty decent.
Post by: Kardos on April 18, 2009, 04:21:47 pm
Also, legendary thread, because ThreeToe posted in it.
Edit: Upgrading to full Unicode would be a good step in my opinion. It would allow for the game to retain its ASCII feel, but diversify what symbols represent what objects, allowing the creation of full graphical tilesets by the players, instead of forcing today to spend a few weeks on art projects.
Post by: Siber on April 18, 2009, 04:28:50 pm
In fact, those three thoughts can be merged into one. You should pick out one of the community graphics packs and bundle it with the game. Have an interface in the game menus for switching graphics sets and include the ASCII look as an option for people who prefer it, but going with a real tile set will massively expand accessibility for most. Second, I think the game should come with a pre-generated world, selected for being interesting, or at least for having one or two interesting sites. This will enable third, a tutorial mode, where you embark on a pre-selected site and get tips on how to set up your first fort.
There are a lot of improvements that could be made to the interface, of course, and to the fun factor. Other people probably have much more coherent thoughts on that. One thing might be to include an options screen instead of making people edit a .ini file, maybe even have some pre-defined high-mid-low performance profiles so people with less know-how can get a better experience. But I think the things I outlined above would go a long way towards holding the average gamer's hand at the outset, instead of punching them in the gut.
Post by: Neonivek on April 18, 2009, 04:39:33 pm
Mind you that this is observations I made at the time and not currently. I also don't offer solutions.
Adventure Mode:
-The problem with adventure mode is that overall it is pretty much unfinished. So my comments on it arn't all warrented.
1) Adventure mode was nearly impossible: I always picked "Start Now" and didn't know it started me off naked without weapons and next to powerful enemies. So I always died. I even used random objects laying around as weapons thinking it would improve my chances. In fact I didn't even know I could wrestle until much later.
2) Equip screen in adventure mode is a fruitless exercise even now: I don't even pretend to know how to navigate the equipment screen in adventure mode...
3) Caves are mindless and random: There seems to be little rhyme or reason to caves. You could search forever and never find the boss while fighting random enemies laying around
4) Dark Fortresses are impossible: Dark Fortresses seemed impossible, Enraged goblins destroyed my early adventurers. (I actually never fought their archers) While I enjoyed fighting them it was more because there was nothing else to do.
5) No mid difficulty: It seems that everything either is easy to deal with or nearly impossible. So I could do the easy Caves or impossible Fortresses
6) Caves are sometimes impossible to find!: Yes I can't believe I forgot about this. My greatest peave is that sometimes it was nearly impossible to even find the cave your looking for.
7) How do I make money?: I tried desperately to get money so I can get better equipment. Unfortunately I found that missions gave nothing and Goblins didn't give me usable equipment (I am also a goody goody so I didn't kill my own people). Though it wouldn't matter even if I did find sources of money because:
8) Trade screen of missery: Trade is hopeless. How am I supposed to buy anything if he won't show me a price of give me an indication of what he wants? Even today I don't even bother.
9) Towns of Missery: Where am I going? What is this building here? I think I will go in it and go to the top! Ohh my goodness how do I get down? This is going to take forever! I just want to find the castle so I can speak to the king is that so much to ask? Ohh wait now I am at the castle... Now where is the king? He isn't at this throne? Is there a suicide button anywhere?
Fortress Mode
-Overall I had less problems with Fortress mode because I hugged the Wiki.
1) Information overload: There are so many things on the list but I have no idea what is essential. I pretty much had to use the Wiki.
2) I was supposed to be prepared already?: I was attacked by a Trog or Kobold ambushes rather early
3) *SNORE* Defense: Because I could never get my military up before I was attacked and killed I did perfect defenses. Which made the game rather boring. Goblins never became a challenge at any point of the game.
4) Mechanical devices...: Even today I don't bother with the mechanical devices (specifically things that give and produce power) they make little sense and the Wiki isn't as helpful as it could have been.
5) Barrels, Bags, ohh my!: I thought I had enough, I guess I should build even more!
6) What am I supposed to be doing?: I was aimless and building things not knowing what it is for. What is a Quern and why do I need it? How do I even advance?
7) Trade Depot of horror!: Ohh my I just remembered how much of a horror it was using the Trade Depot. I ain't going to lie, it took me a few months to even bother with it and a few more to put it down correctly. In fact a lot of my frustration with the game (and probably explaining my lack of military)
8) Mountains are for sissies!: I actually liked Non-mountains more then Mountains. Thus I often had to deal with aquifiers and lack of minerals even if I did manage (Though differing biomes) to get past them. So I had a unknowingly tougher time.
9) Fuel what is fuel? How do I get coal? Why can't I use Wood?: The fact that you need to burn wood to get fuel is against your instincts. I certainly didn't think that is how it worked and I ended up thinking that Fuel was some sort of endgame item.
Both:
1) Goblin, No Goat, No wait it is a Giant!: Ohh my goodness the second I got a Graphic pack I never went back. I was going out of my mind not knowing what I was fighting unless I specifically looked (and when your wondering if that is a Dog or a Dragon... sometimes the excitement makes you run without looking).
-Id personally would think this would turn most people off. Because not only do they have to learn ASCII but even if they did they could be murdered by mistaken identity.
This is overall all I can remember but even then I don't think my list is accurate or complete. I also doubt I am typical.
Ill think of more later.
Post by: Stele007 on April 18, 2009, 04:47:33 pm
Some other things that threw me off at the beginning was having to enable labor for dwarves to do jobs and later I'd find out that my initial design was kind of crappy, but you can't really fix it once you've dug it out (constructed walls just aren't the same...). Also, I had no idea what I should start making at the beginning (other than food, which I started making too late...). I started playing with the 2D version, but probably with the 3D version it's even harder to start out since you aren't guaranteed water, magma, trees, flux, or ore. The player has to know to find all these things.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 18, 2009, 04:53:06 pm
Post by: kutulu on April 18, 2009, 05:01:01 pm
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen? Or maybe its finding the right tile sets and setting them up. We are hoping at some point to build easier commands and tutorials to help bring in more players. We have to identify the main culprits first. So frustrating you the most about Dwarf Fortress?
The tile set install procedure was probably my second answer; having to copy over raw data files is intimidating if you don't already know it's going to be fine.
Before that, though, is the sheer amount of information you need to know just to get started and not have your dungeon fail immediately. This is probably a major undertaking, but I was just thinking yesterday how it would be nice if the game sort-of 'ramped up' in difficulty.
My thought process was basically this: DF is significantly more complex than most RTS games on the market. In a typical commercial RTS game, there are in-game tutorials or training missions where key aspects of the game are disabled while you learn the ropes. Just as two examples: in my first dungeon, my only mason dwarf went insane and claimed my only crasfts workshop and I had no clue what was going on, then a bunch of kobolds came in and stole a bunch of tools. I was still trying to work out how to get my dwarfs fed and boozed up, and hadn't even had time to get migrants in! I admit that once you get into the spirit of the game, losing a dungeon is fun, but if you lose your first one within two or three hours, its discouraging.
Third would have to be a more convenient or efficient way to manage bulk job setup for dwarves. This is super high on my list mostly because I'm having serious trouble porting DwarfManager to Linux due to the difference in cross-process memory accesses. Without dm I can literally spend hours trying to get a large influx of immigrants working the way I want.
--Mike
Post by: tomato on April 18, 2009, 05:02:19 pm
as i was playing in rougelikes before, lack of graphics wasn't any problem for me, now I prefer ASCII ;D
Post by: Duke 2.0 on April 18, 2009, 05:02:24 pm
I would say my greatest problem was the amount of micromanagement required. Sure your first housing block is nice to be seen dug out and filled, but after a while placing beds and such gets a tad odd. So really just better ways of managing large numbers of dwarves efficiently and making areas for them to live easily.
Also, related to this, seeing the stats of every dwarf. I found it interesting, but finding the one or two miserable dwarves amidst an ecstatic fortress is difficult. All I would suggest here is a system a lot like Roller Coaster Tycoons windows for guest happiness and thoughts, so you can gauge the happiness of your fortress.
I suppose I would be bad at this, as it has been nearly a year since I have had any real problems with DF.
Post by: Techhead on April 18, 2009, 05:20:27 pm
Post by: Maggarg - Eater of chicke on April 18, 2009, 05:22:57 pm
Post by: Gauphastus on April 18, 2009, 05:23:38 pm
There's a lot of fleshing out to be done, and I can wait. I can't say why other people might be turned off.
But yeah, I do tend to get bored. You start to lose interest when a release closes in.
There's not much you can do about that anyway.
Aside from that, I'd have to say that, like others have said here, it gets incredibly easy. Like you'll spend ages just sitting and waiting for something to happen (caravans, sieges, miners striking a map feature, etc.).
I've said before that I find the game most exciting when you're roughing it out with your starting seven dwarves, just barely getting by. But actually, it's still pretty dang easy.
In my case, it's easy because I know what to do. Though... eh, even when I first got into the game and had only a basic idea of what I was doing, it wasn't hard to survive. I'm not saying starting off should necessarily be assrapingly hard. Just more complex.
That's me though. I like complexity and depth.
We just have to wait for the game to be fleshed out more. Some areas of the game definitely need work, but their time will come.
I really don't think there's much you can do about hesitant potential players at this point. You might be better off asking down the line a bit.
Post by: bombcar on April 18, 2009, 05:25:25 pm
Make it so I can mass-select trade items, and cull based on mandates and WOOD.
Implement scroll wheel for changing levels.
And I do agree that making more graphic tileset support (and easier) would help.
Post by: Gothmog on April 18, 2009, 05:25:46 pm
The problem pretty much was that it was impossible for a beginner to understand certain concepts like... for me it was that fish needs to be processed (that bugged me for quite a while..), how to build stairs... how water works together with dug out edges and so on.
The Wiki helped a lot with that, and I guess a build in manual should do the same. Maybe include some info on how to propperly feed and shelter your dwarves, coming together with a tutorial map (so you don't try to tell someone to build farms and fell trees on to of a glacier or something)
Or go the lazy way and link to the wiki. Should work, too.
I love DF, it's rather addicting and a potential player gets sucked in an fascinated with it really fast, but... the problem for me (and I guess some others) is that you need a starting point to plung into the worlf of DF. Being extremely hopeless leads to abandoning the game instead.
Post by: Deon on April 18, 2009, 05:29:41 pm
Post by: Davion on April 18, 2009, 05:31:25 pm
Anyway, it'd be a lot easier on new people if descriptions of various workshops and objects were integrated into the game because 90% of my time on the Wiki was looking up what all of it did and why I'd need it to survive.
Givings a dwarf a job was a pain in the ass from a navigational standpoint in the beginning, and then realizing I have to do that for every dwarf individually. Generally the inconsistency in navigating various menus was a pain as well, but one that you get over with time.
When at the Site Finder it'd be nice if you could bring up a map legend (http://www.dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/Map_legend) as well as maybe a small tutorial or breakdown on how to pick an embark site.
Integrating a lot of the init options into some kind of in-game Options menu would be nice, especially stuff like changing the size of the window, and if that could be automated to some degree that would be even better.
Brought up quite a bit, but mouse support would go a long way too.
Also, as others have suggested, shipping the game with a bunch of ready-to-go embark profiles would be nice.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 18, 2009, 05:34:11 pm
What is killing my fun is that at bigger forts i have to set each dwarf i want for a task f.e. to Engraver if i just want 20 dwarfs from the list to smooth a room. I would like to group select them somehow and then turn them to engraver with one klick/keypress.
Also furnishing Rooms can be very funkilling. I would like to designate 5 rooms and then say furnish with a Chair, table, ghest. After this the dwarfes should furnish theyr rooms by themselfs.
Ingame tutorials would be very nice. i turned down the game 3 times before i got realy into it.
Post by: Rutilant on April 18, 2009, 05:46:57 pm
How nothing is convenient to perform, like building walls, floors, assigning jobs, and the fact that it's really hard to make a convincing looking set of wolf-men for fortress mode using 16x16 squares. The inability to confiscate dwarf items combined with the fact that certain dwarves get madly obsessive about hoarding my fortress's items and generally muck up the flow of things.
Edit: I'd like to say that the game has a strange mix of micromanaging mixed with a certain hands-offness. There's more micro than a city building game because you need to manage your dwarves as well, and more macro than an RTS because you've got the entire fortress to plan along with infrastructure and (basically) zoning, but you have much more direct control over your subjects than a god game..
So I don't know who to feel like - I don't really feel like a god guiding the little dwarves to their success, or a mayor leading his people, as much as I feel like a schizophrenic madman yelling at these stupid little people to STOP PARTYING GODDAMNIT.
Somehow, despite all this, I still love the hell out of the game so maybe it's a good thing. Without all these flaws I might turn into a gurgling, Uristing, fortress-playing vegetable.
Post by: bombcar on April 18, 2009, 05:48:51 pm
Quote
What is killing my fun is that at bigger forts i have to set each dwarf i want for a task f.e. to Engraver if i just want 20 dwarfs from the list to smooth a room. I would like to group select them somehow and then turn them to engraver with one klick/keypress.
Look into the addon program "Dwarf Manager"
Post by: jockmo42 on April 18, 2009, 06:01:32 pm
The ASCII graphics were, for me, easy enough to understand because of the invaluable "Look" key. And this is from someone who'd never played an ASCII game before in their lives. The graphics are not a problem for me, I still play with the vanilla characters, because after learning them, I find tile sets annoying.
The thing I really like, what really keeps me playing, is waiting for the next update. I don't get attached to a site because I'm constantly thinking of what I could do with the next arc. The development log is great too. It keeps us updated on what's coming up and keeps players excited.
As an afterthought, descriptions of buildings and objects, also jobs, would do wonders for accessibility as well.
Integration of some of the functionality that players find in third-party programs would definitely help as well. Regardless of the trepidation that comes with "borrowing" other people's ideas.
Post by: Greiger on April 18, 2009, 06:22:01 pm
Perhaps when navigating a side menu like the build menu or the designate menu, if the player presses "?" with something highlighted the game will bring up a basic description of the highlighted item, what it is for, and in case of a workshop what kind of objects are used as raw materiels and what kinda stuff it creates.
Something like "A mason's workshop is a bench with a number of stoneworking tools on it. It converts raw stone into large furniture items used for various buildings within the fortress.. The workshop requires the masonry labor to be built and function." or "This is a wall, it has little function other than to block movement. Using the designation screen it can have fortifications engraved in it, but it cannot be engraved like natural walls. It requires the masonry labor to be built and a worker can only build it from one of the 4 cardinal directions."
Post by: Stele007 on April 18, 2009, 06:35:30 pm
the amount of time devoted to getting my tile number and game resolution JUST right so everything isn't a garbled mess.
Is this really difficult? Multiply a tile's resolution by the grid and you're done.
I definitely agree with Kutulu. Making little tutorial missions where certain aspects of the game are disabled would help immensely.
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 18, 2009, 06:37:00 pm
1. No tutorial
2. No documentation. When I play a game, I need to know how it works - I don't want to hear all the specifics and spoilers, but I need to have basic Idea what is going on. Eg. I don't want to know copper deals 75% damage, while Iron deals 100%, but I need someone to tell me "iron makes better weapons than copper". As DF has no documentation, I had to use the wiki, which spoiled plenty of thing I'd rather be suprised by. Also, the wiki is an information overload.
Have you played Civilization? I fancy the idea of Civopaedia... or ingame Dwarfopaedia. Or a normal manual :)
The commands took a lot of time getting used to. Things that confused me most were:
4. The difference between "build", "construct", "designate", "make a zone", and "place a piece a furniture and make a room of it". The last one in particular - creating a room from a placed bed seems kinda weird. I wanted to click "build > barracks" like in other games! Also, even now I tend to search for farms and roads in the "designate" menu.
Now, that I'm a DF veteran 8), I'm over these things. The reason I don't play DF so much is (aside from the lack of things to do after a few years) micromanagment! I like to keep all my dwarves occupied and workshops busy, which means I need to issue new orders every couple of minutes. I hate ordering clothing, by the way. I dream of a magical "make a random item" button on every workshop. Then I'd simply activate it on "repeat" and forget about clothes industry.
DF immediatelly reminded me of Settlers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Settlers). In this game, all workshops were automated - you build them, they did their job, you stopped caring about them and went to do something more interesting. If you needed a specific item, there were sliders that adjusted the probability a certain item would be made - eg. saws 0%, axes 40%, bows 100%. Now I don't say DF should have exactly the same solution, only just that it would benefit of some way ouf automation.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 18, 2009, 06:47:07 pm
- Not knowing that the default controls require a numpad. I was playing on a laptop and it took me a while to figure out what to remap. Most people don't play on laptops so this isn't that important, but the game should probably have a way to save/load interface settings. So the game would include an interface_default and interface_laptop, and players would be able to load those ingame.
- Difficulty installing custom graphics. Had to convert the charset PNG to BMP (not necessary now), copy over the graphics folder, make a bunch of changes to init.txt, etc. Graphical prepacks like Mayday's make this somewhat easier, but for people who don't want prepacks, ideally a graphics set could be installed into vanilla DF with a single copy-paste. This would mean breaking init.txt into multiple init files, so that a copy-pasted graphics pack could overwrite the init settings relevant to its own operation without overwriting all the other init settings.
Turnoffs while playing:
- The usual interface inconsistencies (scrolling, etc).
- More graphics crap, like graphical tiles making text unreadable and corpses showing up as ASCII instead of using the creature graphics.
- Fish not getting auto prepared. I was enraged by having to create the job over and over again.
- Channeling. Digging made perfect sense to me, but I was confused by channeling, with its thing of designating a channel on the current level to create a channel in the level below.
- Constructed stairs vs. dug stairs. I think I was trying to construct an up stair in solid rock below a dug-out down stair or something.
Post by: Detrivus on April 18, 2009, 06:47:45 pm
As far as micromanaging goes, I feel like when a third-party program (in my case, DwarfManager) is necessary (or feels like it), something's wrong. Maybe if there were a "labor" screen with each of your fortress's dwarves represented graphically, which operated akin to a standard RTS: You can form groups which you assign to function keys, and then the labors themselves are represent in tree form, with each major category on a master list (i.e. "Woodworking" and then under that, "Carpentry," "Crossbow-Making," and "Woodcutting"), and you could activate a whole group of labors for a group of dwarves with a few keystrokes.
Something like that. I'm loving it so far, and mostly I get frustrated because of my own perfectionism (if something goes wrong, I tend to freak out).
Ah well. Losing is fun!
Also, save files should be sorted by date. It's annoying when a bunch of old saves I don't want to get rid of are on the top of the list.
Post by: Creamcorn on April 18, 2009, 07:02:36 pm
Besides that I could nit pick and say that it's nigh impossible to get a decent steel industry up, especially when merchants only bring two or three chunks of coal at a time. But eh, it's what helps create a challenge.
Post by: Warlord255 on April 18, 2009, 07:04:31 pm
I, myself, clung to the wiki, but loved every minute of it. Especially when there was a massive grass fire and I was panicking as OH GOD GET EVERYONE INSIDE AND LOCK THE DOOR
Post by: Lalandrathon on April 18, 2009, 07:07:53 pm
The interface issues that have bugged me mostly deal with the trade depot screen - many things don't get their own listing, and selecting everything individually is a doozy.
The other thing that would be really cool is maybe a sort of "guild screen" which allows you to see the skill levels of your dwarves in various fields and maybe a way to assign it so that certain jobs require a certain skill level. For example you could have a miners and engravers guild screen where you could see all the dwarves with mining ranked by skill and engraving ranked by skill, and also be able to assign, say smoothing jobs to low skill workers and leave your engravings for higher skilled workers. It would also be nice to be able to zoom to workshop profiles from that screen to, for trades that use workshops.
More danger for long-established forts would be nice too- flying enemies, siegers who can fill in moats and knock over walls, that sort of thing.
Post by: Sordid on April 18, 2009, 07:13:12 pm
1. Graphics, or rather lack thereof: For the love of Armok make or adopt an official tileset. I started my gaming career on the ZX Spectrum, so I'm not one of your typical teenage "teh graphics sux0rz, lol" gamers, but I still couldn't play the game until I installed Mayday's tileset. I don't really care how things look as long as they look like things. ASCII... not so much. I see a "d" and I have no idea what the hell it is. A dog, a deer, a dragon? I have to get the look tool and check. And since I have to do that for everything in the game other than a dwarf, it gets tiresome rather quickly.
2. Interface: The system of menus and submenus is downright byzantine, and to this day I still don't understand why I have to use different functions to access different aspects of the same thing in the game world. Why doesn't the look tool offer a menu of all the things that can be done with whatever it is highlighting at the moment? Much more intuitive that way.
3. Documentation: Seriously, potash? I don't even know what that is! I've never seen it in real life, but DF expects me to know how it's made and what it's used for. Ideally there ought to be a nice help system right in the game, where you hit "?" or some other such key and a little window pops up with a short description of whatever you have highlighted at the moment in the menu or the game world. Such as: "Potash is created from ashes or lye at the ashery by a dwarf with the potash maker skill. It is used for fertilizer on farm plots. Fertilized farm plots yield larger stacks of produce. Potash can also be baked in a kiln or magma kiln to make pearlash, which in turn is used to make clear and crystal glass."
Post by: Frogeyes on April 18, 2009, 07:30:59 pm
The main thing is that they focus less on presenting the information in the game in a systematic way than they do on presenting the first things that a player needs to know. So, for instance, digging--probably one of the most important parts of the game a new player will need to know--is buried in a section on Designations, in the "Many Menus" section. An encyclopedic database with information on all the parts of a fortress (all the construction materials, all types of manufactured goods, etc) would be great for mid-level players, but complete newbies typically wouldn't know where to start.
The tutorials avoid this kind of information overload by give step-by-step instructions on how to build a new fortress. Learning to Dig is thus one of the first game mechanics explained.
Thus, I think that there should be an in-game tutorial which should explain how to build a "newbie" fortress. It should emphasize the basic goals: get underground, get food production underway, build rooms, and some of the basic workshops. Advising new players which skills and equipment are important at the start would help as well.
Oh, and one more thing? Once I'd embarked at my first fortress, I had no idea what was going on. I think that time alone can really help a new player make intuitive sense of the ASCII graphics, but demonstrating how the z-level system works would help a lot. Teach players how to interpret the tiles representing solid stone, floor/ground, and the two types of tiles representing open space, and how to use them in combination with the z-levels to gain an understanding how Dwarf Fortress represents a 3D environment.
Post by: Celdur on April 18, 2009, 07:45:52 pm
and the fact that you are just trown in without any explanation
it really trew me off when i started...i saw 3 screens with smileys jumping around and i couldnt tell the map from the main screen :P
what turns me off is the lack of stuff going on after a while...you basicly have to entertain yourself
i guess to make things more fun is to make it more complex ...
like for example let traps be powered the same way as pumps...then you have to make some hefty power stations to get it all going :D
Post by: Randominality on April 18, 2009, 07:46:25 pm
I know that would have helped me loads.
Once I got a bit more used to the interface what I found most frustrating was the endless stone I had to get rid of. I remember my first fort where I didnt know about dumping and garbage pits. I literally filled about half the map with stone stockpiles to get them out of my fortress. but I started to get annoyed because of the masses of haulage needed whenever I wanted to make a new stockpile room which meant my dwarves couldnt do other stuff. So I think there needs to be a more manageable system (stonewise) for digging.
Also, I managed to come across the wiki whilst searching for this so called "graphics set" that someone told me about. Therefore I could understand the whole world generation stuff and embark and embark settings. In fact I think that was the most confusing thing for me - it almost made me give up even with the mayday pack. Luckily the my first fortress guide saved me when I remembered about the wiki and looked there.
After that, I was hooked! ;D
So yeah in summary better linkage / advertisment of tutorials
At the other end i suppose the fiddliness of the designations - like being able to make a stamp for repeat units or being able to designate in 3D. Although currently I keep starting to loose interest because of the rubbish framerate when the fortress gets big.
Post by: bombcar on April 18, 2009, 08:07:55 pm
Separate the init file parser to a separate piece of code, so others can help improve it and write init file creators and checkers. This could allow frontends similar to what DOSBox has that would make screen calculations, etc, very easy.
Post by: Impaler[WrG] on April 18, 2009, 08:51:15 pm
Include as simple but adequate tile set with the game (I recommend Dystopia Rhetoric), the set needs to be a square-graph set with the default screen resolution set for a reasonably shaped viewing window (3:4 aspect ratio). If your going to devote any programming effort to this then just separating text from graphics will do a lot. Just having one file for text and one for objects would resolve a ton of issues, the graphics sheet doesn't even need to be larger then the current 256 combinations the system currently uses.
Mouse support should be expanded to cover the functions of the [k] and [v] keys, a new player will be using those a lot and the first instinct is to click with the mouse. You should be able to recenter the screen with right click and get k-information with left click and v-info with double left click.
An in game tutorial system should walk the player through the basics of getting a fort to run. The resent fan-made fully illustrated tutorial would be an excellent basis from which to build upon. The tutorials should not try to be conducted all within one fort, rather each one loads up a fresh map and put the player into an existing fort which is ripe for the lesson to be learned.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 18, 2009, 08:51:46 pm
Separate the init file parser to a separate piece of code, so others can help improve it and write init file creators and checkers. This could allow frontends similar to what DOSBox has that would make screen calculations, etc, very easy.
Raws/init parsing is dirt simple and also already open-source, thanks to Battle Champs (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=23442.msg261144#msg261144). Here's a relevant snippet from the BC source for evidence:
Spoiler: BC init parser (click to show/hide)
There are also some people working on those kinds of frontends already -- Sean Mirrsen for one, I think.
Post by: Talhydras on April 18, 2009, 09:01:08 pm
I was shown Dwarfort by a friend of mine after reading the Saga of Boatmurdered and playing Nethack for a while, as my relevant background info.
In a nutshell: I had trouble getting into DF and my friends were scared away from DF because it's really, really hard to play the game (use the interface to get information, make decisions, and effect changes on the world). If it was easier to play, I think it'd be easier to get into. Rolling together logically related and similar jobs would simultaneously reduce the number of things to keep track of during play and the number of things to teach new players. I'm not advocating "zoning residential" ala SimCity over the current interface, but there's a lot of streamlining to be done; having a built in set of archetypal buildings a newbie could plonk down underground and aboveground would be great. The ability to edit these ingame to accomodate available materials would be wonderful too. I'm envisioning a building browser I could open up and then drag a set of meager quarters from that would simultaneously queue up the requisite furniture and designate their destinations once completed.
Linking this up to demands would be neat too. Instead of wondering what the cutoff is for a Grand Mausoleum, being able to find a sample one and place it would be fantastic.
Spoiler: "Big fat wall of little naggling complaints expounding on that" (click to show/hide)
Post by: Warlord255 on April 18, 2009, 09:07:53 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: G-Flex on April 18, 2009, 09:19:47 pm
For instance, long-term fortress viability is severely screwed over by the extremely fast rate at which dwarves gain skill, children becoming legendary socialites right away, lack of viable long-term goals, wilderness depopulation, etc.
Sparring accidents and wrestling experience being gained too fast are also issues, but it looks like those are being worked on by the next release.
In response to some prior posts: I really WOULDN'T want to see more stock "goals"/"scenarios" in the game. This looks like the type of game that would be much better served by having the world generate the ability to do those things as it does anything else. In other words, I would find it ridiculously arbitrary and artificial to have the game tell me "make 20,000,000 dwarfbucks of exported value within two years to win the prize" as some stock option. I'd rather find a civilization that could use a good trading post, set one up, and have the civilization reward me for a job well done, having affected the world in some organic fashion. And I honestly think the game will continue to reach the point where that is possible.
Of course, better (in-game?) documentation and stuff would also help. Being on IRC and the forums and having the wiki burnt into my brain helped me enough where I could get by just fine, and I guess some of the industrial practices are helped by having a decent knowledge of things like chemistry beforehand, although I've actually learned a lot about a lot of those real-world processes since I've started playing DF. Ideally, though, I shouldn't have needed access to any online resources in order to learn how to play, although the lack of documentation is probably par for the course for a game that's still under development... it would suck for Toady to have to update a ton of help files with every new version.
I also agree about the lack of difficulty. Some things can be unnecessarily tough at time (I remember trying to defend idiot caravans from three goblin ambushes at once), and other things, like actually maintaining the fortress, are way too easy. As it stands, you can just build a path to the outside of the map for a caravan, set up a rather small farm plot, and sell hideously-overpriced and overstacked leaf roasts (or worse, syrup roasts... syrup is insanely overpriced) to the caravans in exchange for absolutely anything they have. Dwarves are also notoriously easy to keep happy, barring any severe disaster.
Really, it's stuff that truly affects the gameplay, like that, that annoys me. Also on that list would be stuff like, say, the trade liaison being disabled once you get a king.
That being said, I can generally chalk these problems up to the game still being in development, and I really do like where it's going.
Post by: sweitx on April 18, 2009, 09:20:39 pm
I personally hate how fluids behave. Water takes forever to flow down a aqueduct and forms impossibly shallow gradients. This adds to my frustration in dealing with aquifers. Water from a lake should rush down a aqueduct like a big ol' wave. Perhaps the pressure system is the problem.Well... that's actually how water should behave, if there's no pressure behind it, water flow slowly and will form a shallow gradient (which is why Roman aqueduct is built with a slight incline, something that dwarf-fortress doesn't support).
The problem pretty much was that it was impossible for a beginner to understand certain concepts like... for me it was that fish needs to be processed (that bugged me for quite a while..), how to build stairs... how water works together with dug out edges and so on.Well, it makes sense the fish needs to be processed in order for it to become food (probably doesn't take that much effort thou). I would like for the fishery to auto generate the clean fish tasks so I don't have to constantly check for raw fish.
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 18, 2009, 09:27:53 pm
The worse thing was not knowing what things DO, and the fact the only way to figure it out is, as far as I could ever tell, to use a resource not only outside of the game but online (dwarfwiki). The only thing the game does tell you is the recipes for metals, I think, and I only know that because I stumbled across it once - I don't actually remember where it was, either, and couldnt get back to it if I needed it.
So figured out the basic stuff quick, but then I couldn't figure out how to do anything interesting until I found the wiki.
There was some basic stuff that really threw me though. They were, in order:
Remapping-Having to remap the controls to use DF on my laptop. This would have been worse if my first response to every game wasn't "Now lets remap all the controls I don't like!" instead of figuring out what the buttons do. Even then, the remapping page is terrible - it took me forever to get the useful buttons, and I still don't know what 90% of the keys on that page do or are - I've certainly never pressed them, as far as I can tell.
Channels-I got that they dug a hole in the floor the declaration to allow fluids to flow, but I didn't realise dwarfs couldn't cross them or that they actually emptied the space beneath. Actually, I thought they just created little ditches liquids would flow along.
Finally, graphics packs - I still need to find and follow the tutorial every time I want to use one of these. Ergh. Its not simple and straightforward, that is for sure. I never did figure out how to properly resize my game so the tiles were square.
also - More automated tasks would be so awesome. I hate having to queu up maintanence tasks, and I'd always forget when starting. At least tanning is automatic though!
Post by: Skelodwarf on April 18, 2009, 10:02:09 pm
So you get to the point where the game picks up: 80 Dwarves. Hell Yes.
Blood pumping, siege imminent, here we go!
And then once it DOES get here, the FPS is lowered to the point where it doesn't even get to my door step.
Also, I think it should be impossible to NOT have goblin accesibility.
This happened once, it pissed me off once I found out what happened.
Post by: Dasqoot on April 18, 2009, 10:06:11 pm
One of the things that slowed me down in the beginning was being confused by [v] and [k], and I think the fact that they're so easily confused yet are both very necessary is one of the biggest interface problems.
I agree with this a lot.
A lot of stuff just needs to be merged. It's all muscle memory now, but when I think about doing something, or trying to explain it, even I don't know what the buttons do. Categorizing the build menu would be amazing as well. Workshops, Construction, Machinery, that's it, lump everything in one of those. If I were new and thinking about building pillars, I'd go look under constructions, since building a pillar is like building a wall right? Why does Hatch Cover get as much prime real-estate as ALL workshops? The main build menu has almost every letter taken up too, so you have to memorize strange combos of buttons, but using broad subcategories, you could get everything down to the first or most significant letter.
Err, so interface turn offs and quick fixes for me, from since I was a beginner, up until now. These 4 changes all seem reasonable and wouldn't take much time to do:
1) Build Menu, completely reworked, option to self-sort would be almost as good.
2) V and K, much like T and Q, should be merged. Even better would be a left mouse click doing the job of both. (Example, I'm not in a menu and I left click on a ground tile with an anthill. It should bring up what is now the "k" screen for that tile. I click on a cat, standing on a dwarf, it should bring up the cat's V screen, I click again, same spot, bring up the dwarf's V screen. I click on a workshop and it brings up the relevant bits of T and Q.) I don't think I used the T button for months after I started playing, and while it's not essential to play, it's a very handy thing. I think it would be great to have it work at-a-glance, and just show job queue and the items in the workshop on the same screen.
3) D, I and P, these should be merged and some other stuff might be better as a submenu. "c" is rarely if ever used and only takes up space ATM. Let's make the main menu bar extremely concise. If you are thinking of doing something, there should be no doubt in your mind that 'X' button will let you do it.
4) I still don't know exactly how to install a tileset. I tried once and got totally lost while following the directions. If DF came with a very simple one, no bells and whistles, and just required one .png swap to switch to a shinier one that all the other kids liked, that would be fantastic. The grid size also goes along with this. I get lost trying to figure out the gridsize in the init.txt. There should be a couple options in game to switch the gridsize to something that works. Default, how it is now, double-height, so it's the same width as default, but double the height, and a couple more of whatever people think works with the different monitors and aspect-ratios out now. For example this is what I settled on after messing around with the grid for an hour or so:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
(err by merging, I don't mean just dumping all the current options into one submenu, I mean categorizing and reworking what doesn't mesh that well right now. Like, changing all resizing in the game to to be done with mouse and arrows, instead of "some arrows, some UKMH" I still don't know off the top of my head which things use UKMH. For simplicity's sake, I think everything resizable should be made to be like designating dig squares.)
Umm, thanks for humoring me, I have no idea why it took me that long to explain myself.
Post by: The Mad Engineer on April 18, 2009, 10:15:36 pm
With 15 factions, over 1000 years of history, and a bajillion historic figures (Without the culling -at first I didn't know that you could do that), it was very hard to "access" the world.
Post by: sweitx on April 18, 2009, 10:32:51 pm
It seems to me that most of these complaints are about personal annoyances (learning curve, difficulty in doing things, etc.), but the things that bug me more than that are things that I see as more game-breaking than that.I agree, the dwarf's skill progression should be much slower. Soemthing like,
For instance, long-term fortress viability is severely screwed over by the extremely fast rate at which dwarves gain skill, children becoming legendary socialites right away, lack of viable long-term goals, wilderness depopulation, etc.
(Skill level) - (Years since dwarf first start working during the profession)
Competent - 1 year
Expert - 4 years
Grand Master - 12 years
Legendary - Only mood (or a chance after a certain amount of years to create a legendary artifact item to reach legendary).
Of course, better (in-game?) documentation and stuff would also help. Being on IRC and the forums and having the wiki burnt into my brain helped me enough where I could get by just fine, and I guess some of the industrial practices are helped by having a decent knowledge of things like chemistry beforehand, although I've actually learned a lot about a lot of those real-world processes since I've started playing DF. Ideally, though, I shouldn't have needed access to any online resources in order to learn how to play, although the lack of documentation is probably par for the course for a game that's still under development... it would suck for Toady to have to update a ton of help files with every new version.
Well, how well does wiki converts to a window's style help file? If it can be done quickly, the Dwarf Fortress wiki can be made into a downloadable help file. Since having in-game help you need to access anyway can be done just as well with a separate file (wondering what does fishery do? search "fishery" in help file).
Post by: Lemnx on April 18, 2009, 10:44:03 pm
"WTF buttons commands WORKSHOPS? STONES? How do I build workshops!??!!? somebody puked random shit all over my screen... ASCII ARRRGGHHHHH!!?!?!?!"
The only reason I learned the ropes of DF was because I took it as a personal challenge and wouldn't stop until I felt as though I succeeded.
Post by: Volfram on April 18, 2009, 10:55:58 pm
Z-levels and changing the view therof was never aptly explained except in a single tutorial which was not found in the help files or the wiki, but took, as I recall, a link from another forum which was found via Google search to find. They're hardly even mentioned in the newbie materials. It's one of the things I always make sure to explain very carefully whenever I introduce someone else to the game.
Other than that, I don't play right now because it's a bigger time sink than I can afford currently.
The ASCII never really put me off much, but I'm a bit of an oldschool gamer.(Adventure 660 and The Caves of ZZT oldschool)
Post by: Kishmond on April 18, 2009, 10:59:47 pm
Another thing that confused me for a while was exactly how stairs worked. I didn't know I had to build two!
Post by: Jack_Bread on April 18, 2009, 11:18:30 pm
Next is the learning you need to do to play it. Maybe Toady can get someone(or ThreeToe) to help write the Help section, which I could barely understand.
Post by: Jakkarra on April 18, 2009, 11:48:01 pm
I am starting it today (sunday in england) but i would like to address a few issues.
1. can anyone reccomend a good, high quality video recording program for use with the XP operating system.
2. i have a fairly average quality mike, good enough for my purposes, can the said video recording software take sound from this and automatically have it in the video.
3. could someone please give me a list of things that NEED to be covered, i know basically everything ill need to cover, but im wanting to be sure, go into minute detail please.
4. all for now.
Love, jakkarra
Post by: Idiom on April 18, 2009, 11:50:36 pm
2) Inconsistent and clunky controls (Lots of fan suggestions already on how to streamline them).
3) Micromanagement and having to rely in 3rd Party programs to overcome that (IE Dwarf Manager/Foreman and Atuo-hot key scripts).
4) Complete lack of a challenge militarily (Legendaries trained in only a couple seasons. Simple invasions and sieges. Stupid invaders. Super-Traps. No digger enemies or siege towers or catapults or ballistas or wall destroyers.)
5) Complete lack of a challenge economically. (Legendary craftsman in half a year, non-dynamic economy, skip coins entirely and poor coin management and use. Abundant resources.)
6) Complete lack of a challenge socially. (Imbalanced emotions.)
7) Complete lack of a challenge engineering. (No waste, and though it's not planned to be implemented, sewers and waste management is HALF of civilization. No natural cave-ins. No more rivers of fire. No advantages to super projects. etc)
8) NO MAP EDITOR or IN GAME DEV TOOLS! THIS IS AN ALPHA!
I've actually stopped playing. I've hit the top of the learning curve and got bored because all there is right now is a really steep learning curve and horrible game balance. Need at least these and I'll play again:
-Less micromanagement
-Better and more seiges and seige related things
-Balanced economy
-Balanced psychologies/emotions
-Balanced farming
Post by: Jakkarra on April 19, 2009, 12:02:34 am
for example, C&C;
how to win:
build money factory (basically) build death factory, make unlikeable tosser, kill enemy, win.
id much rather have the system we do now, or even, a more elaborate system.
love, jakkarra
Post by: sonerohi on April 19, 2009, 12:13:28 am
Post by: G-Flex on April 19, 2009, 12:26:25 am
i dont know why people dont like the micromanagement, would you rather have a regular rts style game?
Well, I think the issue is the lack of automation. You should certainly be making the same kinds of decisions, but there should be better ways to make them.
For instance, the military schedules that are going to be included in the next release. Doesn't really let you do anything new, it just lets you make the same decisions easier and have to click fewer buttons.
Post by: Kishmond on April 19, 2009, 12:28:44 am
Post by: Fetus4188 on April 19, 2009, 01:33:36 am
Even after seeing the ASCII for a while, I wasn't comfortable with it. I could see what was going on but it was just not.. pleasing to my eyes. I use a custom tileset not so much because it's obvious what each icon is (which they often aren't) but because everything tends to mesh together better and it's easier on the eyes.
I think the biggest issue for me getting into the game was understanding the chain of resources for doing something like making bread, or a steel hammer. Even now, after having made probably 50+ 5-year fortresses (I always start with an ambitious idea then get bored and go to some new site, solving this issue is maybe just a question of my patience, or of a world gen with yet more options to get I site I'm really happy committing to), I don't really know what all the food relationships are, though I do know about the ores. So, I just end up making plump helmets and sweet pods because the only time I committed to doing wheat or rock nuts I found to be a drag and unrewarding.
Now that I've rambled about that, what I think would improve it would be more workplace automation. Things that need to be milled should be milled automatically, and the alcohols should be made from those products (particularly in the case with syrup, IMO), to streamline how food production works. Also, maybe introduce an optional noble/quartermaster type who handles foods and you could just tell him "stock 100 units of dwarven rum" and he'll automatically task some brew drink for that when necessary (additionally you'd be wanting to tell him to stockpile sugar pods as well). I don't go into DF looking to manage my food supplies, I'd like that when I get to the point where my fortress is stable and self-sustaining I could instead have the option of floating some do-nothing to tell others dwarves what to do instead of me having to do what I view at that point as a chore.
What makes me stop playing now is how easy the game is unless you specifically set out trying to do some ludicrous task. It's not a tall order to build a thriving fortress in any old mountain based only on the orthoclase mugs you pump out from it. Hopefully the improved sieges will change this. Though I'd actually look forward more to engineering challenges, earthquakes, caveins, floods, other disasters.
Oh, how could I forget. Fell moods and such, those are a total pain when you're starting out and you don't have the right materials.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 19, 2009, 01:38:27 am
Another thing is that several similar mechanics need to be grouped together (designations, rooms, stockpiles, and zones are a good example).
Also stairways definitely need to be explained more effectively, or they need to be simplified or something so new people actually know how to work things.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2009, 01:44:00 am
It is that people are against micromanaging being required as well as the often "Overload" methods the game goes about it.
For example if you want to send a dwarf you see infront of you into the military you can't just click on him (Though you may go to the Dwarf Selection screen instead)... You have to go to the military Screen and filter out a hundred or so dwarves plus dead dwarves and enemies. Now you don't just make him a soldier... No you have to select him then have the foresight to know you have to click something else. Then you have to place him in a squad, set where he patrols, then set them on break because otherwise they are pointless.
-Hmm I also forgot that you have to select their equipment as well and hope they use it.
There is quite a bit of hoops you have to jump through to even do basic actions where you feel like you would rather have the ability to select a dwarf and have them do it.
In fact a lot of Mass production starts to become that way. You want to make armor for your army? Well you better select their armor individually as well as their weapons. Hmm it lists "Boots" does it make one or two? Better assume they make only one. Not enough room? well I hope you remember exactly how much of this you need?
Hmm you need to get enough Barrels for your fortress or Beds? Well you could set it on infinate production but you could make too much. No you don't get an option to place bets to be placed in a room and expect the dwarves to build it afterwards, you also cannot expect Dwarves to realise how many barrels you need and plan ahead. No you have to select 10 beds at a time to build and hope you remember to check up on it.
I could go on (MELTING!!!)... but I feel the format of my post is more obnoxious then helpful and Id rather be in the second category. I am hoping people will realise I was just kinda on a tangent and not trying to be a snot.
Post by: wigwam on April 19, 2009, 02:02:48 am
1) I find it frustrating that you have to wait for furniture not only to be constructed, but to be moved to the appropriate stockpile before you can place it in your fortress. I don't know how possible it is (and if it's not, then I'm happy anyway), but maybe the ability to plan out room layouts, and when the furniture is finished they are moved to those locations. Also,
2) The direction dwarves choose to approach a job from. I've read up on the wiki where they prefer to dig/build/deconstruct/etc. from, in what order, which allows for pre-planning, but sometimes I just want to let that dwarf die who decided to wall himself into my channel. Or I scratch my head over the miner who has dug out a winding path into my soon-to-be-huge hall and backtracks half a mile around uncompleted work to dig out that square that was right originially next to him. I understand that he really wants to dig from the left, but it would be easier just to dig from the right, instead of wandering all about. Finally,
3) The complete and utter lack of urgency in my dwarves. Don't get me wrong, it's hilarious and half the fun most of the time, but it does get extremely frustrating when you've assigned a squad to protect your fortress at a strategic point during a siege, and one of your elite macedwarves gets torn to pieces because he was the only one out there, while the rest were wandering down to the farms to pick up a bite to eat. Similarly, instances (like earlier) where some dwarf decides to stand on the wrong side of the floodgate he's building. Because I can't hook up the mechanism to open it until it's built, now I have to scramble to get some mechanic to release him, but the mechanic suddenly decides that he'd rather be on break. That sort of thing.
Heh. Hopefully this wordy response made sense.
And the ASCII has never bothered me. Well, except for the fact that it wasn't square, but I got another set to fix that. Personally, I like the fact that my mind sort of fills in the blanks. Imagination is fun.
Post by: Phoenix_Kensai on April 19, 2009, 02:04:05 am
As for what could be done about this, if it was even something to worry about, I... don't know. Some kind of interaction and commentary on viewing the history of the world unfold might be interesting; maybe the player could switch between viewing the different civilizations and settlements as time passes, seeing information on their current ruler and population and such, as well as any significant events that occur. It should be completely optional, though, as I can see world generation taking quite a bit longer if you were watching everything that unfolds.
I'm sure there are far larger problems to address, though, and to be honest, I'm still not even sure how much is happening on the screen during the history stage of world generation. I just always felt like there was a lot going on, even if a good portion of it was in the background.
Another problem I had, and still have today, to a lesser extent, is understanding what all the buildings and menu options are for... while this can be solved by looking in the tutorial or on the wiki, it might make the game a lot easier to understand and learn if there was some sort of help text that was displayed as you select commands. A bit like in strategy games such as Age of Empires, where you can hover your mouse over a unit or building in any menu to get a brief description of what it does. Since Dwarf Fortress doesn't use a mouse, it would have to be somewhat different, though a simple line of text on the bottom of the screen that describes the currently selected menu command or building might work well.
...I apologize if I'm not making a whole lot of sense with this. It's... rather late.
Post by: Roundabout Lout on April 19, 2009, 03:40:09 am
Glad I took the time to eventually learn it.
Post by: ThreeToe on April 19, 2009, 04:15:42 am
Post by: Akroma on April 19, 2009, 04:26:34 am
what REALLY pisses me off is the insane amount of CPU this thing hogs
I only have that computer here and I can't afford a better one
and running the game at 7 FPS after the first migrant wave simply is not fun
I can play for 8 hours nonstop and still not make it through an entire season
Post by: MrWiggles on April 19, 2009, 04:34:01 am
The User Interface, in my opinion needs to be homogenize, streamlined and collapsed.
There are times with the Letter Associations make sense, and there at times, where it won't click with me. Like the stairs being U J & I. Seems to be obituary. It would be nice if grouped together actions were grouped together on the Keyboard, in rows or collums(sp) instead of being spastic. It also awkward to use the number pad for some selections, and the arrow keys for others.
If the commands could be kept in constance areas of the keyboard, so I can develop some muscle memory for certain actions, that would be very helpful.
The workshops are awesome neat in some very nice ways. However, they are an overload when first getting acclimated to it. It also doesn't sink in very well on how or why things are grouped together. Like for the craft shop, the individual items for wood are stored under wood, but shells and bones the individual items are displayed on the list. A suggestion on how to circumvent it, seems out of place on this thread.
The Ascii Graphics never really bother with me. But I don't judge a game based on how shiny it looks. I'll admire good graphics, but I won't play a bad game because of them. Just how the game restrictions itself seems odd. The game doesn't have to stick with just UNICODE Ascii scripts, it can use different fonts, and bold, italics, and different character sets as well. And the restriction of just 16 colors also seems strangely limiting.
Um. A lot of it is just overload. I had a game compile when I first got it, and I forced quit out of it, as I thought it frozed. Then I let it compile as I went grocery shopping where my first world I didn't know what to expect. I had no idea on how to seek help, until Sorid from SGU Forum pointed me out to the Wiki, and from there I found the IRC chat room, which really helped me out. BUt for a good long while, I was just plain lost.
I didnt know what I could do. There was a lack of direction.
Lack of direction I suppose is the main issue. I didn't know the parameters of what I could do, and should do. I didn't know what I need to keep my dwarfs alive. Would I need to have space in the levels for sewage pipes? COuld I build a tank and kill everything?
My two cents.
Post by: Aqizzar on April 19, 2009, 04:39:08 am
Since I came a little late to the party, I'll just list off some of my starting problems. I haven't read many other posts, and God help us if this isn't already a universal suggestion thread.
I don't understand why there's three or four different sets of menu navigation buttons. Even after more than a year of playing, it still trips me up going between trading, placing furniture, and the unit list.
As some people have said, just giving the dwarves a sense of priority and urgency would make especially very small and very large forts a lot less frustrating. Part of why my giving my friend a walk-through took so long was that his dwarves just didn't feel like doing anything at random (or at least it sounded that way on my end). Things like stockpiling vs workshopping just slows everything down, not to mention the classic problem of traders/mayors doing absolutely anything except trading/meeting when they need to.
Likewise, the way dwarves who're trying to haul something and meet an interrupting creature, run away, then twig to the same task and meet the creature again, etc ad nauseum. This has got to slow down a lot of first time players, when rhesus macaques raid the wagon after embark.
And as much as everyone hates to hear it, yes, CPU optimization is sorely needed. Not everyone can afford a beefy, single-core processor and 4Gb of RAM. DF being free, I'm sure it attracts a lot of budget gamers. I already have of both of those, and I get about 30FPS with 40 dwarves and a river. As DF gets more complicated, especially with the giant underground flows coming up, it's rapidly approaching the point where a normal person's computer just won't be able to run an entertaining fortress at a playable speed.
Post by: MrWiggles on April 19, 2009, 04:41:28 am
You all have many valid complaints, as should be expected. It seems like the thing that would keep the most players from giving up is a good tutorial, in addition to other fixes. I’d be interested in hearing how you think that should look. For instance, one long tutorial, or several guides aimed at different aspects of the game. What subjects are the most confusing? Should the tutorial map fit in the world itself as a mission from the Mountainhomes for example?
For myself, it should have some basic stuff, like navigation and embarkment screen, and preparation screen at first, so I know how to get about the menus. The tutorial should offer suggestion on how to proceed, (Now since you looked around, how about pressing D for the [D]esignation Screen to start digging into the very earth! )
After the basic are done, a meeting room/dining room, barracks, farm, craft dwarf, trade depot offered as suggestions it should only prompt itself when selecting a new item within the menus.
If I press U, to see my unit list it should ask me if I want an explanation of what this screen is used for, so forth for each new screen.
Each explanation should be written absent of using any other screen. As in, it shouldn't assume that just because your on the Building Cue list, that you understood what the Unit list was.
Post by: codezero on April 19, 2009, 05:13:45 am
Also the graphics didn't turn me off, but I'm sure it would for some, so I like the idea of shipping it with one of your favourites, and having some option to use it. Ala nethack (which I can't play in ASCII).
After I'd pretty much figured everything out, my biggest bugbear was every time you had to micromanage something, the fortress would come to a halt for you to do so, so it to this day I do things sparingly or I just can't progress. Toady has said that this is a hard thing to change now but I'd like you to bear it in mind with the presentation arc coming up, there must be some workarounds at least in some screens.
Now that I'm a veteran my biggest complaint is the framerate. The last time I got the king was years ago, and all my latest fortresses are efforts to that effect, trying to beat the pathfinding bottleneck with burrows, small rooms etc. I'd really like to see a release soon dedicated to optimisation.
Really I think you need to concentrate on the players already playing it, word of mouth will get new players over anything that might daunt them. I think the attrition rate may be overhyped.
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 19, 2009, 05:53:14 am
You all have many valid complaints, as should be expected. It seems like the thing that would keep the most players from giving up is a good tutorial, in addition to other fixes. I’d be interested in hearing how you think that should look. For instance, one long tutorial, or several guides aimed at different aspects of the game. What subjects are the most confusing? Should the tutorial map fit in the world itself as a mission from the Mountainhomes for example?
I like the idea of having a pregenerated world and save file with a prepared fortress, so you don't have to go through the world generating and embarking when you learn the basics. The fortress would be placed in a location ideal for a beginner - a brook (no deadly fish), nonhostile environment, plenty of wood, no aquifer probably a rock cliff to dig into. Hidden from the player would be valuable minerals and also interesting underground locations... if he decides to continue with the fortress after the tutorial.
Unfortunatelly, pregenerated worlds and savegames would make the download size much bigger and I understand you have to care about your bandwith. So how about:
(a) the tutorial would take place a tiny world, not a standard one
(b) releasing two game versions: DF core (small download) and DF with tutorials (large download). Most players would probably download the first one, as they already know the game. Also, it takes only a few minutes to create the version with tutorials - you only have to copy some files, no separate compilation or other stuff needed.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 19, 2009, 06:17:38 am
Should the tutorial map fit in the world itself as a mission from the Mountainhomes for example?
Having written orders from the Mountainhomes would be cool, even if it wasn't for a tutorial per se. It could help give new players a sense of direction by giving them specific information about the local biomes (what lives here, what can be farmed, what's the weather like, does the river freeze over in winter), geology (what's all this limestone good for), civilizations (are kobolds known to stalk the area), etc., as well a general overview of how to get a fortress up and running (dig out shelters, stockpile your goods, produce food and crafts).
It would be cheesy to actually have a true tutorial (press d for designations, etc.) in these "orders," though.
Post by: tomato on April 19, 2009, 06:51:49 am
You all have many valid complaints, as should be expected. It seems like the thing that would keep the most players from giving up is a good tutorial, in addition to other fixes. I’d be interested in hearing how you think that should look. For instance, one long tutorial, or several guides aimed at different aspects of the game. What subjects are the most confusing? Should the tutorial map fit in the world itself as a mission from the Mountainhomes for example?Tutorial mode (another option the start menu) with preselected world that learns player how to dig, make stairs, farm land (both under and above ground), make workshops, designate locations, make rooms, etc. in a step by step manner
all in a safe, predictable location (so there wouldn't be any disturbances from kobolds, wildlife, carp or sieges before player is prepered for this)
A letter from mountainhomes in a regular world would be nice too (eg. explaining that giant skeleton eagles are not so friendly and that "you won't be able to farm on glacier so you'd better make farmable land underground, fast")
Post by: SenorOcho on April 19, 2009, 07:27:47 am
Yeah... all from a passing mention of the game on Boardgamegeek. Crazy.
Post by: Impaler[WrG] on April 19, 2009, 07:52:59 am
Quote
I’d be interested in hearing how you think that should look. For instance, one long tutorial, or several guides aimed at different aspects of the game. What subjects are the most confusing? Should the tutorial map fit in the world itself as a mission from the Mountainhomes for example?
Tutorials should be short, completable in under 5 minutes each (assuming you do it right). Each tutorial should be a separate map files but very small even 1x1 maps and theirs no need for them to be part of a full world (not sure it that's even possible but it might help reduce package size). Tutorials should have a clear Title and introduction text that explains what your going to learn, player action triggered pop-ups that instruct the player on each step and a satisfying conclusion text with an option to immediately load the next tutorial. An overall story arc to the tutorials is a nice touch, for example the one in which we learn about mining would feature a hermit dwarf prospector rather then a full set of seven, then we transition to a normal group of seven and follow them for more tutorials, later when we learn about immigrants our prospector returns as one. The interface should be massively dis-able in the beginning tutorials and progressively unlocked as they progress. Also make the first tutorial about simply have to navigate around the world (particularly changing z-levels as lot of people miss the TERRIBLE default key combination for that) and how to gather information with [k] and how to pause the game, don't even give any dwarfs to control until the second tutorial.
Post by: kutulu on April 19, 2009, 09:06:06 am
You all have many valid complaints, as should be expected. It seems like the thing that would keep the most players from giving up is a good tutorial, in addition to other fixes. I’d be interested in hearing how you think that should look. For instance, one long tutorial, or several guides aimed at different aspects of the game. What subjects are the most confusing? Should the tutorial map fit in the world itself as a mission from the Mountainhomes for example?
If you have ever played the old "city building" games from Impressions, like Pharoah or Zeus, I think that style of in-game tutorial works best for DF. Its more common to see an Age of Empires style tutorial but those require a different map for every section; the Pharoah tutorial built up one city in stages, building on your previous efforts.
I think the idea of a tutorial mission from Mountainhome is perfect. In my mind I'm picturing that you'd get some kind of mission briefing via a full-screen set of orders from the king. The right-hand menu would be replace or augmented with one or more tasks that clearly describe, say "<d>esginate the highlighted areas for <d>igging. <d>esgiante some nearby <t>rees to be cut down and <p>plants to be harvested." etc. At certain pre-defined goals (# of square of farmland; # of bedrooms designated; # of workshops built, etc.) another full-screen message would move you forward -- more menu options would light up or appear, and more random actionss may be likely to occur.
If you are going to undertake this kind of effort, I think the key is that the game needs to support it fully. There are a ton of excellent tutorials and beginners guides that walk you through the early game as it is (though getting some of the authors of those to let you ship them would be cool too). But the tutorial missions should make it impossible for you to fail unless you suck at something you've already learned. That is, no goblin raids until you've learned about military; no starving until you've learned about farming; etc.
Post by: Moron on April 19, 2009, 09:37:50 am
1. The inability to have even basic prioritization of tasks. If I want my carpenter to make a bucket instead of doing endless 'store item in stockpile' jobs, I have to go into his profile and individually turn off ALL labors except carpentry. Then I have to do the same for several other dwarves if I want other specific important jobs done. Then when they've made that important item and they're just sitting around with 'no job' when there's lots of hauling to be done, I have to go back and turn all the hauling labors on again.
Surely it would be relatively easy to get a short-term fix, by having an option for each dwarf 'prioritize professional tasks' - ie they prioritize any tasks that they have skill above dabbling in, or any non-hauling job that they have the labor activated for, and do them before hauling jobs.
2. It seems like every menu uses different keys to navigate around, ie some use + and -, some use the arrow keys, and also, you need to use different keys to get back out of them - most use [space], but then sometimes you need to use F8 etc.
3. The fact that when you switch between [k], [v], [q] etc, the cursor always jumps back to the middle of the screen rather than staying where it was last placed.
These three are all things that I find most frustrating as a relatively experienced player; the thing I found most off-putting and difficult to understand as a beginner was the relationship between ramps, stairs and Z-levels - I guess it was largely down to the fact that building or digging stairs only builds 'half a staircase' so you have to build the corresponding stairs on the level below to make the stairs useable.
Post by: Fedor on April 19, 2009, 10:21:50 am
Let's divide this into two categories:
1) What got in the way of the fun when I was starting out
2) What gets in the way of the fun now.
What got in the way of the fun when I was starting out?
1. Interface. How visually crude (and ugly, and distorted) the curses-style ascii was, how many menus, commands, and keys I had to learn all at once to operate a beginner fort, and how tedious it quickly got to manage dwarves. See addendum at bottom of post.
2. Lack of information. Utterly inadequate and cumbersome in-game manual. Failure to warn about even obvious perils (like a flood, an approaching lion, a trapped dwarf, or a lack of food or drink). No tips on what any room does, how to set up workshops and establish material production chains. No interface or basic gameplay tutorial.
3. Complexity of making even very basic things happen, or be done semi-effectively. In order to get logs, you need a dwarf with the woodcutting labor activated, an available battleaxe, and designated trees. You must be careful about how you designate; your woodchopper might start with the ones furthest away or begin work right next to a magma pit. The battleaxe might not be available; good luck finding it if you haven't learnt how to take an inventory. Thw dwarf might not be doing the work; you'll need to check paths and see whether other assigned jobs are constantly distracting the little dude.
What gets in the way of the fun now?
1. Sites where you can't experience much of the game coolness; the difficulty of finding a site with enough features to have fun in. Sites without adequate fuel and no way to get it, without wood, without metal, without sand, without flux, without fresh water, without interesting wildlife or inhabitants, without civilizations to interact with. The continued inability of trade to get you things you need in bulk.
2. The lag monster. Every fortress I've ever gotten serious about has died to the lag monster. The more coolness I reach for, the sooner the game bogs down in growing frustration.
3. Lack of underground interest. So many of the neat things in the 2D version are gone. Seasonal floods. Gremlins nipping for your levers, antmen coming out of your wells, batmen raiding out of a chasm you had to cross instead of one you can simply tunnel around. Adamantine you really had to work hard and face terrible danger to get at. At present, you don't even know whether you can grow tower-caps or find underground plants. Also, boring rock formations, metal-poor environments, and entire screens where there's literally nothing there except ryolite and microcline.
Addendum: copy of my first post on these forums (August, 2007)
Inconsistent keybindings. I trip up over and over again when trying to navigate the menus; no sooner than my fingers get the idea that 9328 navigates than they must re-learn /*-+. No sooner than I get used to the 'd'esignate interface ('d' to mine, return to select a corner, navigate, and return again to select a box) then I must re-learn how to plot a field or bridge (use letters). Some interfaces actually combine these. It almost seems the game is determined to experiment with every single method of using the keyboard to control stuff; this drives me to distraction!
Excessive number of commands. It is unnecessary to require the player to use 'q', 't', 'v', and 'k'; these should be reduced to at most three: one to look at a grid, one to look at/manipulate stuff, and one to examine creatures. Better might be using shift and control (look, examine, manipulate). Certainly better would be single left click to select grid, left click again to get details, or right click to manipulate. And the other hand stays on the keyboard to navigate menus.
Excessive depth of menus. It is unnecessary to require five keystrokes to start editing a dwarf's profession; an example of an alternative method within the limited space is to list the major commands, and then lump everything else into a '*' option. So viewing a dwarf's opinions would require 'v', then '*', then "return". Better would be right-click, pick from list.
Utterly inadequate information display on dwarves (the subject of several player add-on programs such as [Dwarven Manager] that I find more and more necessary after the first year). Sorting for skills, for unhappiness, for lack of rooms, for lack of current employment, for married status - these are just some of what we need to fully wallow in the coolness of this underground version of The Sims.
Disorganized information display. For example, you cannot learn what your soldiers are up without delving into the 'v' interface, the 'm' interface, and the 'x' interface. Even if you run through all these, the game won't tell you if a soldier knows where his barracks are, where his bed is, whether he recognizes a place to shoot or spar, or whether he really is actively using a quiver, backpack, etc.
Post by: Rilder on April 19, 2009, 10:28:19 am
Whenever I play, I think "Well, I shouldn't get to addicted or the update will just make me have to restart EVERYTHING." Which is an annoying habit because I really want to play but I get so immersed that I hate to have to get the newest version.
Second, I wish there were much more goblin sieges, and there was some way to increase their frequency from within the game, so I could start having 24/7 sieges once my fort's defences are all set up.
For your first one. I thought, except for the next update all saves were compatible with newer versions? And its not that hard to transfer settings over.
Second, I don't agree with this, more goblin sieges wouldn't make it any harder, if your defenses can defeat one of the current goblin sieges they they can defeat another goblin siege, what we need is sieges that are actual sieges, with larger numbers of enemies, balista/catapults lobbing rocks at your and if you can't be assaulted directly the AI attempting to find alternative ways in.
Just increasing the amount of sieges would just make iron management impossible.
Post by: Sordid on April 19, 2009, 10:32:48 am
Of course, better (in-game?) documentation and stuff would also help. Being on IRC and the forums and having the wiki burnt into my brain helped me enough where I could get by just fine, and I guess some of the industrial practices are helped by having a decent knowledge of things like chemistry beforehand, although I've actually learned a lot about a lot of those real-world processes since I've started playing DF. Ideally, though, I shouldn't have needed access to any online resources in order to learn how to play, although the lack of documentation is probably par for the course for a game that's still under development... it would suck for Toady to have to update a ton of help files with every new version.
Well, how well does wiki converts to a window's style help file? If it can be done quickly, the Dwarf Fortress wiki can be made into a downloadable help file. Since having in-game help you need to access anyway can be done just as well with a separate file (wondering what does fishery do? search "fishery" in help file).
How about cutting out the middleman and incorporating a simple browser into DF so that you can view the relevant wiki articles directly from DF?
Post by: qwert on April 19, 2009, 10:40:49 am
Post by: Slackratchet on April 19, 2009, 10:44:37 am
3. The fact that when you switch between [k], [v], [q] etc, the cursor always jumps back to the middle of the screen rather than staying where it was last placed.
This. This is my #1 problem and its especially bad if you're working near the edge of the map.
Post by: Rhenaya on April 19, 2009, 11:06:15 am
one think i might add if i try to recruit new beardy leaders:
the manual is to loose, so it would be great to add some more info into the install package, like a pdf with a how to play tutorial... stolen from the wiki ^^ and maybe some kind of ingame browser like the wiki itself to look up information, like "how to make steel", "clothing industrie" and advanced concepts, even i have to look up sometimes, but not everyone know the wiki or have an inet connection all the time
next thing is the init file, some kind of executable to switch the values with a handy tool would be recommend, thats even something someone else could do, so toady can still focus on the game itself, maybe also ingame changing would be fine.. i would like to rise popcap turn on/off economcis, etc, step by step without save and restart all the time
and as last the ascii graphis, well there are lots of graphic packs to make it easier. for new users, its not easy to implent graphcis with all the little things you have to do (and lack of manual howtodo). maybe we should do a user voting to implement one of the graphic packs into the default zip file from the bay12 site, so if someone cant go with the ascii he turn on graphics and it is already there :)
Post by: Kardos on April 19, 2009, 11:19:45 am
For example, on the default page you might get a few tips that say:
Press 'd' to bring up mining, logging, plant gathering and item reclaim options.
Press '<' or '>' to shift z-levels.
Holding shift while scrolling across the map moves you 10 spaces at a time.
Then in submenues, such as the 'd' menue you might get random tips such as:
Channeling removes the floor tile and the sqaure tile below it.
Ramps follow one direction. There must be an open tile before and after a ramp for Dwarves to use it.
This doesn't completley remove the need for a tutorial, but for newer players, and even experienced players, it serves as a helpfull reminder, and hopefully removes the need for rampant wiki visits.
Post by: G-Flex on April 19, 2009, 12:10:24 pm
You all have many valid complaints, as should be expected. It seems like the thing that would keep the most players from giving up is a good tutorial, in addition to other fixes. I’d be interested in hearing how you think that should look. For instance, one long tutorial, or several guides aimed at different aspects of the game. What subjects are the most confusing? Should the tutorial map fit in the world itself as a mission from the Mountainhomes for example?
I don't personally think any "tutorial" style thing should really be a part of the gameworld, because I wouldn't like to see something so artificial being shoehorned into the procedurally-generated universe.
Aside from the interface, the most confusing things for newbies, I think, are the industrial processes. In other words, I think people would be a lot better off in learning the game if they had a way to, say, know all the uses for something like wood, or potash, or flux, or what-have-you. Granted, that's not really something a tutorial is necessary for, and I'm not really convinced a tutorial is what DF needs as compared to a decent in-game reference.
Post by: change name please on April 19, 2009, 12:24:53 pm
The most frustrating thing is Toady's development process. Slaves to Armok II is rapidly becoming the new Slaves to Armok I, in which feature bloat is given priority over core gameplay ideas. Consider this before tracking individual dwarf genealogy and beard hairs: Is the game fun to play? Is there a point to continue playing? Is the player ever challenged?
The thing that irritates me most is that all of the advances made to DF ever since it went 3D have been primarily focused around making a big mess of Mad Libs that you'll never pay any attention to. Dwarf religions, preferences, personalities, none of these influence gameplay. Now we are being treated to a six-month dev arc about making the already complicated wound system even more complicated. It does not make good sense to add all this fluff while the game itself is so boring compared to what it was in 2D.
Post by: change name please on April 19, 2009, 12:31:28 pm
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2009, 12:39:10 pm
Quote
I don't personally think any "tutorial" style thing should really be a part of the gameworld, because I wouldn't like to see something so artificial being shoehorned into the procedurally-generated universe
The tutorial world could be a pocket world that comes with the game or it even could be a seperate Dwarf Fortress if Space is an issue.
A good Tutorial in my mind would be heavily scripted to give the player a safe area to make mistakes and not lose because he took to long learning how to set up the military. It should also give players tips on playing somehow such as fortress design or food strategies... I am not quite sure how to do such though.
I think a Tutorial would be great for the less computer swavy players (Well in a Dwarf Fortress way. One of my friends is Computer Swavy but can't play it). I don't show Dwarf Fortress to any of my friends because I know they can't play it and I don't have enough freetime to teach them. I don't expect, however, a dramatic result in the playerbase.
Quote
Consider this before tracking individual dwarf genealogy and beard hairs: Is the game fun to play? Is there a point to continue playing? Is the player ever challenged?
It is an attempt to keep Save Compatability for a long period of time rather then Toady believing it is a vital aspect of gameplay that needs to be in the game NOW! Then there is the fact that often to get to the gameplay improvements you have to revamp the whole game at once rather then in a steady stream over long periods of time (because balance isn't one sided). This is a good reason why the "Combat Arc" likely exists rather then being part of the Army and Dungeon Arc.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 19, 2009, 01:12:58 pm
Another thing is that new players should have some way of finding out exactly what materials in what amounts are required to make everything at a workshop before assigning it to be built. Maybe by moving over it with + and - and then pressing ?, so a bed would have "Requires 1 wood" and bone grieves would have "Requires 3 stacks of bones" and obsidian swords would have "Requires 1 obsidian and 1 wood".
Post by: Aqizzar on April 19, 2009, 01:18:52 pm
Post by: Volfram on April 19, 2009, 01:25:55 pm
That aside, he makes some very valid points.
I did have an idea for a graphical representation that I don't really have time to outline immediately, but will get to once I do have time for it.
As for UI help, I would stress the explanation of Z-layers very early on, as well as linking to the Wiki more readily from the site.
Also, I don't really see the point of using "HFS" as a spoiler tag. DF has no fixed storyline, ergo there can be no spoilers, and any dwarf properly raised in the Mountainhomes would have been told stories as a child about things which come from the deep.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2009, 01:30:02 pm
Thinking about it, I guess the point to take from most of these comments, is that the game shouldn't be so obtuse that a player needs to keep the wiki tabbed open in the background in order to run an industry. Pertinent information should be visible in-game.
This is true of so many Roguelikes. Though don't get me wrong it is a flaw rather then a feature. I agree Dwarf Fortress should be capable of being learned in game within an hour (Though scientifically I think the actual time frame in which someone will chose if they will keep playing a game is 30 minutes)
-Though I guess the flaw is also a virtue. Because Roguelikes require wikis so much the community have to pull together to gather all the secrets of the game so people can start winning. I mean, how many players playing/hacking Nethack/IVAN/ADOM do you think it took before the knowledge base was large enough to allow people to win?
Post by: change name please on April 19, 2009, 01:34:53 pm
QuoteConsider this before tracking individual dwarf genealogy and beard hairs: Is the game fun to play? Is there a point to continue playing? Is the player ever challenged?
It is an attempt to keep Save Compatability for a long period of time rather then Toady believing it is a vital aspect of gameplay that needs to be in the game NOW! Then there is the fact that often to get to the gameplay improvements you have to revamp the whole game at once rather then in a steady stream over long periods of time (because balance isn't one sided). This is a good reason why the "Combat Arc" likely exists rather then being part of the Army and Dungeon Arc.
Consider this, though: The average fort will lose all interesting things to do after about 2 months tops of real-world gameplay, about 10 years in-game, and that's being generous. That being the case, is it really necessary that the bi-annual update preserve save compatibility? I know there are some of you out there building a titanic obsidian pyramid or something like that, but 1) what's the point? and 2) if your megaproject is that important to you, then you will abstain from the update until you lose interest in your project.
Can somebody explain to me the holy mandate of Save Compatibility? Because I remember when "losing was fun" and the average fort was supposed to collapse under its own weight and after two months real-time everyone was on fire or dead.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 19, 2009, 01:40:32 pm
The updates are far more than biannual, this one is just slow. Sometimes they come out every week or two, and breaking save compatibility that often is what Toady is trying to prevent now.
Post by: change name please on April 19, 2009, 01:43:27 pm
Community fortresses. Succession games. There's more going on than just normal player forts. And some people (myself included) don't like constantly restarting forts.
The updates are far more than biannual, this one is just slow. Sometimes they come out every week or two, and breaking save compatibility that often is what Toady is trying to prevent now.
If you're playing a succession game then you can sit out the particular patch or start a new fortress. It's not a big deal. Whenever I bring up DF's extremely convoluted dev process everybody always cries save compatibility at me, but gee guys its not like having an extra page of word salad about what [adjective] [noun] of [nouns] this particular dwarf worships is making the game any more interesting.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2009, 01:44:51 pm
Quote
Can somebody explain to me the holy mandate of Save Compatibility?
No freeken idea... but there is apperantly quite a few people who do like to keep it.
Whenever I want to keep my fortress when a new version comes out I just keep the old version. So I guess I am not a good person to ask when it comes to "Why is Save compatability so important" other then once reading a topic where most people did want to keep it.
Post by: Aqizzar on April 19, 2009, 01:49:09 pm
Sometimes they come out every week or two, and breaking save compatibility that often is what Toady is trying to prevent now.
"Sometimes" doesn't really apply when you've only got three iterations of a near-yearly cycle. DF was released, enjoyed weekly bugfixing updates for four months; nine months later the 3D version comes out, followed by weekly bug fixing for four months; five months later the "Army Arc" is released, then about a month of weekly bug fixing. Now it's been eight months since the last bugfix update, with the next release still nowhere in sight.
I know Toady commented once that even he acknowledges that stalwart preservation of save compatibility doesn't really mean all that much. I for another have to contend that it's just not important. Break saves every month, I don't care. If you're so attached to a fort that you don't want to lose it to an update, then don't update.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 19, 2009, 01:53:17 pm
I still don't agree with his argument that these appearance updates are useless, though.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2009, 02:02:24 pm
Quote
I still don't agree with his argument that these appearance updates are useless, though
It is a sorta lack of Foresight and well as an overestimations of the ability for Toady to immediately fix Sieges, Combat, and other aspects of the game. Tunnel Vision if you will.
"the next release still nowhere in sight"
My original guess was June... uhhh... I think I want to change it to November.
Ohh well I probably should get back on topic.
Post by: change name please on April 19, 2009, 02:02:48 pm
I still don't agree with his argument that these appearance updates are useless, though.
Why not? There are fewer interesting traps to build and less combat now then there was in DF2D literally two years ago. Conversely, there are now three or four pages of words words words attached to every dwarf, stuff you'd never notice unless you went three or four levels in to dwarf examination ([v], select dwarf, [p], [y], [space], i can't remember all the steps it takes to look at thoughts and preferences).
Meanwhile, forts are nigh-impervious, sieges happen once in a million years (and thank god with the way all those rat leather socks bog down my framerate), trade is broken, and the main pasttime of the community seems to be cranking out hundreds and hundreds of worldgen files trying to find a location with decent feature density.
Can you tell me why these appearance modifiers and beard length modules are more important than effective & challenging sieges, or a fort that can import sufficient flux to support smithing, or a farming system that doesn't drown your dwarves in food after one year? You say they're not useless, so tell me what the use is.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 19, 2009, 02:05:40 pm
The thing that irritates me most is that all of the advances made to DF ever since it went 3D have been primarily focused around making a big mess of Mad Libs that you'll never pay any attention to. Dwarf religions, preferences, personalities, none of these influence gameplay. Now we are being treated to a six-month dev arc about making the already complicated wound system even more complicated. It does not make good sense to add all this fluff while the game itself is so boring compared to what it was in 2D.
As usual, you are right about current gameplay lacking long-term interest. However, also as usual, you're choosing to ignore that current development isn't just hair and compound fractures but also reviving some of the better 2D features (rich underground, endless chasm attacks, both of which will be a lot more interesting and diverse than the hacked-up crap from the 2D version). You're also dismissing stuff like the new wound system as lacking gameplay value when the next version will have new producable items, new professions, new buildings, and new nobles all built up around it (for the health care system).
And you're not helping your case by claiming wounds took six months when they got worked on for... just over one month. A lot of the other time has been spent on stuff like the new material system, which enables crazy shit like creatures that spit blister agents at you, and the new announcement system which fixes several longstanding complaints like the lack of fortress mode combat reports and the neverending "You have struck Microcline!" messages. The new tissue system (in which the hair growth stuff was basically incidental, it took like two days or something) will make creatures, especially megabeasts, harder to kill in much more interesting ways than just increasing size and damblock. The military will be nearly unrecognizable after the squad rewrite, with a lot less tedious micro and a lot more actual tactics.
Finally, you still have this attitude is that you're the one who's finally telling it to Toady like it is. Yours is not the first or the most eloquent expression of those sentiments, and even if it was, he knows much better than you that Armok-style bottom-up development has major problems, and that the current game is seriously lacking in cool things to do. He AGREES with you there. So why the refusal to acknowledge that the next version is going to introduce at least as much, if not more, new stuff to do than the 2D -> 3D switch did?
Post by: Appelgren on April 19, 2009, 02:07:32 pm
But I do miss a lot of the stuff from the 2d version. I got into 2d quite easily but was quite turned off by the 3D release. Where starving to death in the winter was a real and exciting threat in 2d, in the 3d version farming was easy and when winter came it felt mostly cosmetic. And I didn't make much sense of the new mechanisms (windmills, axles etc). That, coupled with the dwarves dragging mud everywhere (which has since been remedied) made me give up fortress mode for a long while. The new underground features currently being worked on I think will bring back a lot of the 2d-feel. And late game challenges will most likely come with the other army arc changes planned.
And I can wait. All the odd details is what makes DF DF.
For a totally new player? I guess a tutorial and a less counter-intuitive interface would work wonders as many people here have already said.
Post by: bepo5 on April 19, 2009, 02:16:40 pm
What I think makes DF incredibly hard for newbies is that the hardest part of the game is generally the starting of the fortress, you need to quickly start farms and get booze production up and running before your dwarves start killing each other, yet once you have the beginning down, the game is too easy, trap yourself with a moat and you are safe from everything. What I personally would do to make DF more accessible to the average person would be to make the early game a bit easier and the later game a bit harder.
Whatever you do imo do not touch the complexity of it all, that is what makes DF awesome, you just need a few tutorials and maybe an updated interface and that alone would make it far more accessible.
Post by: Volfram on April 19, 2009, 02:25:30 pm
That display idea I promised earlier
I had thought for a while that a good way to make the display easier to approach, especially with the new graphical tweaks, would be to draw not one layer at a time, but to draw the layer the player is looking at as well as every layer below it(to a certain point. Ten to fifteen layers should be sufficient.
Things such as unmined stone and open areas would be rendered as transparent, so that the next layer is visible below them. The exact render depth should be an Init value.
Every layer is rendered at 80-90% scale of the one above it, with the top layer rendered at 10%. Every layer is centered on the XY cordinate of the tile the player is looking at.
This allows a clear way to show the 3D aspects of the world as well as allowing players to see into those massive pits they've dug out, and in my opinion allows multilayer monitoring better than an isometric viewpoint would allow. I also anticipate that it would lead to more interesting fort design, such as balconies and overpasses, since such structures would now have a visual impact on what the player sees, and it has a minimal impact on the rendering pipeline, because ultimately, it's only an expansion on the viewport settings currently in place.(Render the current layer, the 10-15 layers below them, and have them stacked and scaled in the draw thread, which is almost entirely desynchronized from the game thread)
Another idea I had for this layout was the idea of making the opaque stuff on the current layer semitransparent, with a value in the Init files to let the player set how semitransparent it is. This allows the player to monitor stuff on both the current level and the level immediately below. I wouldn't advise more than one layer of X-ray vision of this sort, as it would get visually confusing, but in my opinion, the DFMA already shows the effect off nicely, so it's been shown that it can work.
An additional idea would be to have fluid layers --that is, magma and water-- be highly(or completely) transparent below the surface, so that a player can see to the bottom of a pool of water or magma at a glance. Perhaps making the surface layer of a fluid normal(or perhaps 30% transparent. It would be another Init value), while the underlying layers are all 90% transparent(another Init value) would produce a nice "haze" effect.
The idea here is to compress as much useful information into the screen as a player can make sense of, in a way that the player can make sense of it.
A couple of ideas for late-game challenge
Have Adamantine occur in nearly all tiles of the world, but restrict it to very deep underground, like under 2 or 3 layers of caverns, occasionally with a spire bubbling up like a magma pipe. This makes it a challenge to get to, particularly owing to the new cavern system being implemented, but also reduces the desperation of players such as myself looking forward to the endgame challenges which it brings with it.
Actually, I would like to see this treatment for both Adamantine and Magma. This would re-ignite one of the features of the 2D version, namely having Adamantine and Magma on nearly every map, while still making them challenging to get to unless you stumble upon a convenient pipe bubbling up through the strata. I believe this would also make for a more realistic representation, as in the real world, there is a layer of magma under the ground at all times, but it's usually too deep to reach. Digging deep is what Dwarves do best.
A special nod to semi/megabeasts
Megabeasts, to me, implies the creatures which are the world-creation legends. Dragons the size of mountain ranges, and other things like that. These are deities. Deities shouldn't die but once in a thousand eons. I propose toughening up Megabeasts to such levels, and after a certain point in worldgen, have them all look for deep caverns to go to sleep in. If you embark on a square with a Megabeast sleeping in it, the Megabeast replaces the magma or adamantine usually found in the hidden depths, and is orders of magnitude more frightening than any horde of demons if awoken, but you would usually find it sleeping as part of the terrain itself.(This could be represented as stone which is impossible to dig out, but would be better represented once creature sizes are properly added, with the megabeast waking up if you try to mess around with it too much.)
Semimegabeasts would take the place of current Megabeasts, but they too should have lifecycles. They should be allowed to reproduce only once every hundred or so years(with some variance, naturally), with fairly small litter sizes. They should be fairly reclusive and highly territorial, so that if there are too many of them, they will force each other into the open and get killed until there are few enough to hide in caves for a while, mate, have offspring, and begin the cycle again.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2009, 02:33:25 pm
Quote
The game's problem for new players is also it's greatest strength imo, it is far too complex for newbies and most people in general
There is a difference between Complex and Convoluted (uhhh... Sorta... One definition of Convoluted is Complex). The problem isn't that the game is too complex for "Newbies" but that it is too convoluted for them. Things that are convoluted are more complicated then it should be connotatively.
The game should be approachable so that newbies can get right in there and be capable of playing after a short period of time (tutorials are good for this). It should also have enough depth that if explored it is extremely fulfilling.
I mean what did you just describe? Farming? Should farming be a real barrier to learning the game? Giving the players the ability to see what seeds they have available for farming when a farm is selected would be great. Could be worse though, I've seen people's suggestions on how to make Farming more complicated.
To sum up: We can keep the Complexity in Dwarf Fortress without making it more difficult then nessisary for new players to just learn how to play. (Thrive and play are different though)
Post by: Footkerchief on April 19, 2009, 02:35:04 pm
That display idea I promised earlier
I had thought for a while that a good way to make the display easier to approach, especially with the new graphical tweaks, would be to draw not one layer at a time, but to draw the layer the player is looking at as well as every layer below it(to a certain point. Ten to fifteen layers should be sufficient.
Things such as unmined stone and open areas would be rendered as transparent, so that the next layer is visible below them. The exact render depth should be an Init value.
Every layer is rendered at 80-90% scale of the one above it, with the top layer rendered at 10%. Every layer is centered on the XY cordinate of the tile the player is looking at.
This allows a clear way to show the 3D aspects of the world as well as allowing players to see into those massive pits they've dug out, and in my opinion allows multilayer monitoring better than an isometric viewpoint would allow. I also anticipate that it would lead to more interesting fort design, such as balconies and overpasses, since such structures would now have a visual impact on what the player sees, and it has a minimal impact on the rendering pipeline, because ultimately, it's only an expansion on the viewport settings currently in place.(Render the current layer, the 10-15 layers below them, and have them stacked and scaled in the draw thread, which is almost entirely desynchronized from the game thread)
Another idea I had for this layout was the idea of making the opaque stuff on the current layer semitransparent, with a value in the Init files to let the player set how semitransparent it is. This allows the player to monitor stuff on both the current level and the level immediately below. I wouldn't advise more than one layer of X-ray vision of this sort, as it would get visually confusing, but in my opinion, the DFMA already shows the effect off nicely, so it's been shown that it can work.
An additional idea would be to have fluid layers --that is, magma and water-- be highly(or completely) transparent below the surface, so that a player can see to the bottom of a pool of water or magma at a glance. Perhaps making the surface layer of a fluid normal(or perhaps 30% transparent. It would be another Init value), while the underlying layers are all 90% transparent(another Init value) would produce a nice "haze" effect.
The idea here is to compress as much useful information into the screen as a player can make sense of, in a way that the player can make sense of it.
There was a Suggestions thread about this, (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=30114.0) although your idea goes more in-depth in a lot of ways (you could paste your post in there and bump it). And yeah, I'd forgotten, but only being able to properly see things on the current z-level was one of my first (and lasting) peeves too.
Post by: change name please on April 19, 2009, 02:43:49 pm
Finally, you still have this attitude is that you're the one who's finally telling it to Toady like it is. Yours is not the first or the most eloquent expression of those sentiments, and even if it was, he knows much better than you that Armok-style bottom-up development has major problems, and that the current game is seriously lacking in cool things to do. He AGREES with you there. So why the refusal to acknowledge that the next version is going to introduce at least as much, if not more, new stuff to do than the 2D -> 3D switch did?
Considering the rate of the current dev-process and the features that take priority, we are liable to experience the heat death of the universe before 3D eclipses 2D in the amount of things to do. We've waited two years and the only major improvements since the move to 3D have been 1) the location finder and 2) multiple construction selection. The reason that complaints like mine have to be brought up is that Toady seems particularly dense about many complaints that ought to be nigh-intuitive - you mention that only now is he finally integrating solutions to "YOU HAVE STRUCK MICROCLINE!" after literally two years. The fixes to so many of these issues are so short and sweet there is no reason to not integrate them right away - location finder was almost an afterthought, just a little addendum to an update. It would be the work of five minutes to nerf crossbows out of being deadly chainguns but these things that are in the player's interest are largely orthogonal to the things the devs want to toy around with.
Applying tensile strength this and density that to every material in the game does not alter gameplay one bit - as far as these things are concerned, there are really only two or three hardnesses or temperatures that the player ever interacts with. You defend this as though establishing some kind of bottom-up universal constructor is somehow necessary to a solid game, when all that matters is the player's empirical experience.
I have to say, I'm also looking forward to blister-spitting critters being the new Fire Snake Venom and medicine becoming the new alchemy.
Post by: change name please on April 19, 2009, 02:45:12 pm
What I think makes DF incredibly hard for newbies is that the hardest part of the game is generally the starting of the fortress, you need to quickly start farms and get booze production up and running before your dwarves start killing each other, yet once you have the beginning down, the game is too easy, trap yourself with a moat and you are safe from everything. What I personally would do to make DF more accessible to the average person would be to make the early game a bit easier and the later game a bit harder.
This isn't even an essential idea of accessibility - it's just a primary gameplay flaw that effects every player from lowliest noob to highest pro.
Post by: Volfram on April 19, 2009, 03:01:19 pm
There was a Suggestions thread about this, (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=30114.0) although your idea goes more in-depth in a lot of ways (you could paste your post in there and bump it). And yeah, I'd forgotten, but only being able to properly see things on the current z-level was one of my first (and lasting) peeves too.Thanks. I checked it out(I like it, though I think my system's a slight improvement), and took your suggestion.
Post by: G-Flex on April 19, 2009, 03:02:13 pm
We've waited two years and the only major improvements since the move to 3D have been 1) the location finder and 2) multiple construction selection.
Pay more attention to development. We've also gotten a very much revamped worldgen/history system, for instance. Just because you don't see a change right away doesn't mean it isn't there, or that no work got put into it. Watch a world generate sometime and you'll see.
Post by: Aqizzar on April 19, 2009, 03:14:53 pm
I won't say he doesn't have a point, but he lost a lot of credibility tagging himself "Hitlers Cumrag" anyway.
Post by: Kardos on April 19, 2009, 03:20:43 pm
Never mind, I had a few good paragraphs of reasons why your name is equal to your intelligence, but every one of those points have already been stated.
Post by: Davion on April 19, 2009, 03:26:29 pm
Post by: DeadlyLintRoller on April 19, 2009, 03:38:28 pm
One thing might be to include an options screen instead of making people edit a .ini file
Seconded.
THE Biggest issue is the UI. I think a few redundencies in the controls may be a quick and easy immediate fix. It took me forever to figure out the easy way to slaughter animals (through the stocks screen after I spent a VERY long time staring at the butcher shop options. That is the example that sticks out in my mind other than the inconsistant way of scrolling through various screens.
The other issue of the what the heck am I supposed to be doing? perhaps can be solved by some sort of dwarf advisor, that can chime in and say "I see you have built a dining area, perhaps now is the time to build some bedrooms."
And I agree that the game needs a dwarfopaedia.
Post by: change name please on April 19, 2009, 03:39:26 pm
We've waited two years and the only major improvements since the move to 3D have been 1) the location finder and 2) multiple construction selection.
Pay more attention to development. We've also gotten a very much revamped worldgen/history system, for instance. Just because you don't see a change right away doesn't mean it isn't there, or that no work got put into it. Watch a world generate sometime and you'll see.
The problem with this is that the player is not invited to take part in this action at all. If the player were to make the history himself through his actions, that's one thing, sure, and then the history of his actions would be a neat summary a la a succession game write-up. However, the bulk of changes made to DF3D have been, as stated, worldgen, history and other appearance trackers, which happen completely independently of the player and are not the player's toys.
People have long been rationalizing these and other "improvements" as leading up to some grand vision, or that the later, actual gameplay updates will come easier once we have these modifiers in place, but I just don't see it. The player could have wars without any underlying religion worldgen process to supposedly motivate it, for example, and the wounds system was already quite thorough enough. While I admit that giving a beast a skin of iron or whatever will definitely make it more difficult, I don't see how these gameplay concerns couldn't have been handled through some careful tweaks to the existing system.
Post by: Sordid on April 19, 2009, 03:40:26 pm
He's saying that all those frills like worldgen and history really doesn't have a direct impact on gameplay itself. That while impressive, it could just as well not be there, and the game would control and react exactly the same.
I won't say he doesn't have a point, but he lost a lot of credibility tagging himself "Hitlers Cumrag" anyway.
Oh I will say that he doesn't have a point. It's basically like saying that the Lord of the Rings would read the same way without the Silmarillion. And while that is true to a certain extent, the latter does make the whole experience far more enjoyable if you take the time to delve into it. And DF isn't exactly what I'd call a casual game.
Post by: Mailbox on April 19, 2009, 03:46:22 pm
He's saying that all those frills like worldgen and history really doesn't have a direct impact on gameplay itself. That while impressive, it could just as well not be there, and the game would control and react exactly the same.
I won't say he doesn't have a point, but he lost a lot of credibility tagging himself "Hitlers Cumrag" anyway.
Oh I will say that he doesn't have a point. It's basically like saying that the Lord of the Rings would read the same way without the Silmarillion. And while that is true to a certain extent, the latter does make the whole experience far more enjoyable if you take the time to delve into it. And DF isn't exactly what I'd call a casual game.
Reading the World Generation history gets tiresome after the 3rd world and it's laughable to compare several novels to the generated history.
Dwaf Fortress may not be a causal game but it doesn't have to be obtuse in order to be enjoyable.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 19, 2009, 04:00:33 pm
We've waited two years and the only major improvements since the move to 3D have been 1) the location finder and 2) multiple construction selection. The reason that complaints like mine have to be brought up is that Toady seems particularly dense about many complaints that ought to be nigh-intuitive - you mention that only now is he finally integrating solutions to "YOU HAVE STRUCK MICROCLINE!" after literally two years. The fixes to so many of these issues are so short and sweet there is no reason to not integrate them right away - location finder was almost an afterthought, just a little addendum to an update. It would be the work of five minutes to nerf crossbows out of being deadly chainguns but these things that are in the player's interest are largely orthogonal to the things the devs want to toy around with.
Applying tensile strength this and density that to every material in the game does not alter gameplay one bit - as far as these things are concerned, there are really only two or three hardnesses or temperatures that the player ever interacts with. You defend this as though establishing some kind of bottom-up universal constructor is somehow necessary to a solid game, when all that matters is the player's empirical experience.
I have to say, I'm also looking forward to blister-spitting critters being the new Fire Snake Venom and medicine becoming the new alchemy.
I would include the expandable grid size thing as a third substantial improvement, but yes, you're correct that the last year and a half were thin on Real Gameplay.
Your mention of crossbow fire rate and material tensile strength is actually an illuminating comparison. They're both things that, by themselves, are relatively trivial to implement, but only one of them is incidental to the current development goals. Toady likes to have a definite focus for development, which means that some of the scattered small problems get fixed as a matter of course and others go unaddressed. This approach has definite upsides and downsides and there's nothing wrong with you stating them, although you should give him more credit for having recognized them already. I just take issue when you go on to say "and that's why we aren't getting any new gameplay," which just doesn't hold water now like it did when you started saying it six months ago.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2009, 04:02:19 pm
Quote
That while impressive, it could just as well not be there, and the game would control and react exactly the same
Yeah but isn't that one of the points of playing Dwarf Fortress as opposed to a strategy game of some sort? (Hmm I really should get my hands on Dungeon Keeper 2)
Is it really better to strip down Dwarf Fortress to its bare elements?
One problem Footkerchief is the game is still in Alpha and people are expecting gameplay improvements of a Beta game. If Dwarf Fortress was a human body it would be a Skeleton missing half its bones. You need the bones in place to support the meat or else you have to cut through the flesh. I am surprised there are any Game improvements (which there are because Toady would have got bored like he did with the first Armok). I probably shouldn't defend Dwarf fortress so much but I've kinda seen other Alpha games be torn up by the community as well for some of the same reasons (Not all mind you)
Post by: Warlord255 on April 19, 2009, 04:12:53 pm
QuoteThat while impressive, it could just as well not be there, and the game would control and react exactly the same
Yeah but isn't that one of the points of playing Dwarf Fortress as opposed to a strategy game of some sort? (Hmm I really should get my hands on Dungeon Keeper 2)
Is it really better to strip down Dwarf Fortress to its bare elements?
I think Dwarf Fortress is better for its world-generation; there's a sense of scale and persistence that, while not quite perfected yet, has amazing potential and for me already makes playing a game of Dwarf Fortress much more rewarding than a simple "build a base, win the game" civ or RTS game.
Post by: G-Flex on April 19, 2009, 04:33:04 pm
We've waited two years and the only major improvements since the move to 3D have been 1) the location finder and 2) multiple construction selection.
Pay more attention to development. We've also gotten a very much revamped worldgen/history system, for instance. Just because you don't see a change right away doesn't mean it isn't there, or that no work got put into it. Watch a world generate sometime and you'll see.
The problem with this is that the player is not invited to take part in this action at all. If the player were to make the history himself through his actions, that's one thing, sure, and then the history of his actions would be a neat summary a la a succession game write-up. However, the bulk of changes made to DF3D have been, as stated, worldgen, history and other appearance trackers, which happen completely independently of the player and are not the player's toys.
People have long been rationalizing these and other "improvements" as leading up to some grand vision, or that the later, actual gameplay updates will come easier once we have these modifiers in place, but I just don't see it.
How can you not see it? Eventually, Toady and Threetoe want the adventurer and dwarf fortress to be able to interact meaningfully with civilizations, creatures, and the world. This is hard to do if those meaningful interactions don't even exist. The framework for civilizations interacting, warring, developing, etc. is necessary to all that.
Quote
The player could have wars without any underlying religion worldgen process to supposedly motivate it, for example, and the wounds system was already quite thorough enough. While I admit that giving a beast a skin of iron or whatever will definitely make it more difficult, I don't see how these gameplay concerns couldn't have been handled through some careful tweaks to the existing system.
If the wars have no underlying motivation, they end up being incredibly artificial and stilted. The current wounds/body system also doesn't allow for things like actual material considerations, use for body parts, REAL wound-tracking and scarring, infections, etc. The game adopting a reasonable system for materials, bodies, and so forth opens the door for a ton of new stuff. Just read the dev lists and you'll see it.
I think you're just complaining about things the effects of which you aren't immediately seeing. A lot of people do that.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2009, 04:34:47 pm
Quote
I think you're just complaining about things the effects of which you aren't immediately seeing
We need a name for this... How about Alpha Shock?
Post by: G-Flex on April 19, 2009, 04:43:05 pm
They see no problem with something like pre-scripted wars (e.g. goblins always at war with dwarves) or a lack of civ interaction because it's what they're used to, when in reality, in a game like DF a lot of the fun comes from the surprising conclusions that procedurally-generated content creates.
And as far as the wounds/body systems go, I don't really think I need to say much more about the potential for those, even if only from the perspective of allowing the game to make reasonable sense of what industrial/food materials can come from what creatures and why.
Post by: Mailbox on April 19, 2009, 04:43:39 pm
I think you're just complaining about things the effects of which you aren't immediately seeing. A lot of people do that.
Or he could be raising valid points to consider about the way Toady is going about the project. Toady's "vision" for the game may be immutable but that doesn't mean that it is perfect. People like Hitler have a legitimate fear of the game becoming too bloated and filled with useless things that would been better off removed or, better yet, never been implemented in the first place.
Post by: change name please on April 19, 2009, 04:54:52 pm
If the wars have no underlying motivation, they end up being incredibly artificial and stilted. The current wounds/body system also doesn't allow for things like actual material considerations, use for body parts, REAL wound-tracking and scarring, infections, etc. The game adopting a reasonable system for materials, bodies, and so forth opens the door for a ton of new stuff. Just read the dev lists and you'll see it.
I think you're just complaining about things the effects of which you aren't immediately seeing. A lot of people do that.
I'll wait and see for the next version (whenever that may be) to tell you what I think of wound-tracking and scarring and etc etc but I think by and large it will be much like the existing "this dwarf has ruined arm, this dwarf has ruined leg, this dwarf has brain damage" system but again with even more description words. The poisons may end up with particular antidotes but this is far from a core gameplay feature.
With regard to warfare, though, it would be sufficient to allow the player to determine his own diplomatic status at his leisure without tracking a bunch of other ancillary variables that he doesn't get to actually do anything with. Religions would be neat with a system of altars or divine favors or etc. etc. but considering the current dev cycle and current dev priorities such a bloat as "the world beyond your fortress matters one iota" or "religions have any effect" are so far off that I hate to bring them up.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 19, 2009, 05:10:23 pm
We need a name for this... How about Alpha Shock?
I think it's a combination of myopia and (justifiable) frustration. It's also worth noting that this kind of frustration is unique to DF veterans who have played long enough to become jaded. You won't find many newbies complaining that farming is too easy, or that there's not enough to do in fortress mode. This thread was meant to be about more typical first-impression turn-offs, but the title was a bit ambiguous and there were axes to be ground.
With regard to warfare, though, it would be sufficient to allow the player to determine his own diplomatic status at his leisure without tracking a bunch of other ancillary variables that he doesn't get to actually do anything with. Religions would be neat with a system of altars or divine favors or etc. etc. but considering the current dev cycle and current dev priorities such a bloat as "the world beyond your fortress matters one iota" or "religions have any effect" are so far off that I hate to bring them up.
Current dev priorities like implementing those other features (constant neverending attacks from the underground) that you came into this thread complaining about and are now not mentioning for some reason? Or did you mean the squad revisions, which will finally lay some actual concrete groundwork for the Army Arc? Or the improved sieges and farming, which Toady has indicated will probably get worked on for the release after this one? At this point your complaint really looks like "Toady is spending only half his time working on features that will give me immediate gratification."
Or he could be raising valid points to consider about the way Toady is going about the project. Toady's "vision" for the game may be immutable but that doesn't mean that it is perfect. People like Hitler have a legitimate fear of the game becoming too bloated and filled with useless things that would been better off removed or, better yet, never been implemented in the first place.
I'm not convinced you and "change my name" are actually in agreement. He sees bloat as an obstacle to the implementation of more important features, but you're calling it a bad thing in and of itself. What's your vision for a minimalistic DF? Do you consider character individualization of any kind (personalities, distinguishing features, etc.) to be frippery?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 19, 2009, 05:12:17 pm
Ok to get back on topic. I would like to see a tutorial for the Adventuremode as well (also make the sleepingphase a bit shorter if possible). Some Story of Threetoe tailored to this might be a very nice framework to tell the players how to use the Adventure-mode stuff like the inventary or how to interact with the World. Maybe the fights could be prescripted somehow so you can tell the player too how the different fighting stiles work.
Post by: Fossaman on April 19, 2009, 05:49:48 pm
1: The varied ground tiles outside. The different colors and shapes for the grass were very, very confusing to me. I had a hard time identifying what was what outside. The way rock and stone were handled made sense, though.
2: Designations. I had to refer to the 'first fortress' tutorial in the wiki to figure it out.
3: Booze production, and how it was interchangeable with water. And the fact that I needed a water source. My first good fort died in it's first or second winter of thirst, because I didn't understand booze production well enough.
Post by: G-Flex on April 19, 2009, 05:52:14 pm
Hardest things about getting into DF?
1: The varied ground tiles outside. The different colors and shapes for the grass were very, very confusing to me. I had a hard time identifying what was what outside. The way rock and stone were handled made sense, though.
Then change it in the init file. The option is easy enough to find. Although I guess then the complaint turns into "the game should tell you about init.txt".
If the wars have no underlying motivation, they end up being incredibly artificial and stilted. The current wounds/body system also doesn't allow for things like actual material considerations, use for body parts, REAL wound-tracking and scarring, infections, etc. The game adopting a reasonable system for materials, bodies, and so forth opens the door for a ton of new stuff. Just read the dev lists and you'll see it.
I think you're just complaining about things the effects of which you aren't immediately seeing. A lot of people do that.QuoteI'll wait and see for the next version (whenever that may be) to tell you what I think of wound-tracking and scarring and etc etc but I think by and large it will be much like the existing "this dwarf has ruined arm, this dwarf has ruined leg, this dwarf has brain damage" system but again with even more description words. The poisons may end up with particular antidotes but this is far from a core gameplay feature.
If you think that's the case then you haven't been paying attention to the recent development notes, which I suggest you do before acting so presumptuous. Things like medical care and damage in general are getting serious overhauls.
Post by: Sordid on April 19, 2009, 05:58:55 pm
He's saying that all those frills like worldgen and history really doesn't have a direct impact on gameplay itself. That while impressive, it could just as well not be there, and the game would control and react exactly the same.
I won't say he doesn't have a point, but he lost a lot of credibility tagging himself "Hitlers Cumrag" anyway.
Oh I will say that he doesn't have a point. It's basically like saying that the Lord of the Rings would read the same way without the Silmarillion. And while that is true to a certain extent, the latter does make the whole experience far more enjoyable if you take the time to delve into it. And DF isn't exactly what I'd call a casual game.
Reading the World Generation history gets tiresome after the 3rd world and it's laughable to compare several novels to the generated history.
Dwaf Fortress may not be a causal game but it doesn't have to be obtuse in order to be enjoyable.
Oh come on, you're really being deliberately obtuse here. It's called an analogy, I didn't mean to say DF can generate a novel for you to read or anything of the sort. In fact I never even said you're supposed to read the history, just discovering it and piecing it together from engravings and the like adds a whole lot of depth to the game that IMO makes it immensely more enjoyable than if all the depictions were just generic.
Post by: tourettedog on April 19, 2009, 06:15:57 pm
The lack of interesting things to do for players with a "gamer" orientation rather than a "simulationist" orientation once you get comfortable with the game is a huge turnoff for me right now. Even using self-imposed limits -- my last fortress was completely open-air design with no walls, no traps, no farming, and no shields or armor -- once you get the hang of the game any given fort ends up being pretty damn dull after 5 or 6 years. Invaders seem to run out, chasm and lava critters get exterminated, dwarves become stupidly happy over trivial things, and generally it reaches a point where you can quite literally walk away from the keyboard, stop back in to undo the auto-pauses once in a while and order in some more booze production, and the fort will hum on merrily for years with almost zero intervention.
For those that like mega-projects and think that invasions are a distraction from building obsidian pyramids or whatever, that's a good thing. For people who like an externally-imposed challenge and risk of failure, it's not.
It's good that a lot of these things have either been tweaked already or are on the radar to be fixed, but until they are fixed, the appeal of the game is being limited. The fact that all the simulationist stuff is hidden away where I don't have to pay attention to it unless I get curious is great, but it also means that there's been very few changes that are visible to someone (like me) who doesn't leaf through every description and history entry as a matter of course, and even fewer that I actually care about. I mean, do you really care about the state of the teeth and beard of every one of your 100+ digital dwarves?
I'd love to see an "Arcade mode" where it just generates enough random terrain for a single fort, abstracts out the entire world past the fortress map borders, and just keeps throwing more and more crap at you faster and faster until your fort collapses.
I don't need to know -- and really kind of don't care -- that the goblins are attacking because the demon got attacked by an elf that was enslaved by a dwarf (who had a brown beard that was unevenly cut and was missing his right incisor) that was kidnapped but rescued by those sames goblins 300 years ago. We got dwarves (all of whom look dwarf-ish), we got goblins (all of whom look goblin-ish), goblins attack dwarves because that's what they do, and we can move on from there to seeing just how long I can hold out against ever-larger waves of successively more pissed off and better armed goblins + friends.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 19, 2009, 06:30:16 pm
That the enemys run out is a problem thought but toady works on it. And Religions etc can make the inner workings and problems of a fortress interresting later on.
Post by: Impaler[WrG] on April 19, 2009, 06:43:16 pm
I agree with 'change name please' that development is too oriented towards 'fluff' and not on core game play improving and blindingly obvious fixes/balance of already present features. Tourettedog puts it quite well in contrasting 'game' and 'simulation' the game aspect has gotten far too little attention as the simulation has gone off on its own tangents. Having a robust simulation is a good thing ONLY if it supports and vitalizes the game not when it exists for its own sake.
Post by: G-Flex on April 19, 2009, 06:46:36 pm
I'm sort of disappointed to see that the people who really, genuinely don't care what color Urist's left eye is are so off-handedly dismissed as being myopic by some of the posters here, but what the hell. Here's my two bits.
You're picking one of the most inconsequential parts of the new body system to criticize. There's a lot more to it than eye color, so you're telling us nothing.
Quote
The lack of interesting things to do for players with a "gamer" orientation rather than a "simulationist" orientation once you get comfortable with the game is a huge turnoff for me right now.
Of course it's annoying. Nobody's ever going to deny that. The problem is that, in order for more real gameplay aspects to get developed, the framework BEHIND them needs to be developed, or else Toady winds up just pulling things out his ass, which ends up wasting time because they'd just end up being placeholders for the real thing anyhow.
Quote
Even using self-imposed limits -- my last fortress was completely open-air design with no walls, no traps, no farming, and no shields or armor -- once you get the hang of the game any given fort ends up being pretty damn dull after 5 or 6 years. Invaders seem to run out, chasm and lava critters get exterminated, dwarves become stupidly happy over trivial things, and generally it reaches a point where you can quite literally walk away from the keyboard, stop back in to undo the auto-pauses once in a while and order in some more booze production, and the fort will hum on merrily for years with almost zero intervention.
No arguments there, from anyone as far as I know, and it's not like any of this is planned to STAY this way. The next version is going to see things like chasm/magma pipe critters entering the fortress map through those features, so you can no longer just clear out a chasm and be all set to do with it as you please, for example.
Quote
It's good that a lot of these things have either been tweaked already or are on the radar to be fixed, but until they are fixed, the appeal of the game is being limited.
Fair enough, and I agree. The thing is that, like I said, it's not as if Toady can just spend a single weekend plowing through all of those. "Make the game better" isn't on the dev list, and development for a game with the level of intended simulation of this one takes a long, long time, as I'm sure you've noticed.
Quote
The fact that all the simulationist stuff is hidden away where I don't have to pay attention to it unless I get curious is great, but it also means that there's been very few changes that are visible to someone (like me) who doesn't leaf through every description and history entry as a matter of course, and even fewer that I actually care about. I mean, do you really care about the state of the teeth and beard of every one of your 100+ digital dwarves?
Things like scars and missing teeth (aside from maybe some very minor functional effects) add flavor to dwarves. Yes, I personally do care if my battle-hardened general dwarf is full of scars and has a missing tooth and eye, even if the gameplay ramifications of it are rather minor.
Quote
I'd love to see an "Arcade mode" where it just generates enough random terrain for a single fort, abstracts out the entire world past the fortress map borders, and just keeps throwing more and more crap at you faster and faster until your fort collapses.
Honestly, then, you're asking for a different game. The objective of DF is to simulate a world. The reason that such an "arcade mode" seems so appealing is because you aren't looking far enough into the future, where, ideally, the game will have you actually DEALING with the foreign civilizations/sites, sending people there, etc.
Quote
I don't need to know -- and really kind of don't care -- that the goblins are attacking because the demon got attacked by an elf that was enslaved by a dwarf (who had a brown beard that was unevenly cut and was missing his right incisor) that was kidnapped but rescued by those sames goblins 300 years ago.
But, like I've been trying to say for a few posts now, you WILL need to care once this framework gets developed more and you're actually sending armies out TO those sites, are AFFECTING/starting those wars, dealing with those historical figures, etc. These things aren't even terribly far down the development line; the Army Arc is relatively close at hand.
Quote
We got dwarves (all of whom look dwarf-ish), we got goblins (all of whom look goblin-ish), goblins attack dwarves because that's what they do, and we can move on from there to seeing just how long I can hold out against ever-larger waves of successively more pissed off and better armed goblins + friends.
I think I've made a good case already for how the game is moving in a direction far more complicated than that, and why that's a good thing.
Again, the only reason you're clamoring about these features you don't care about is because you don't yet know why you would care about them. Read dev_next or something and look at the kind of stuff you'll be able to do with it once the army arc is done. You'll have your world interaction, wars and civs will actually matter substantially, and more long-term dangers/goals for a fortress will be present.
I agree with 'change name please' that development is too oriented towards 'fluff' and not on core game play improving and blindingly obvious fixes/balance of already present features.
You're committing the exact same fallacy that tourrettedog is. You're assuming the the "fluff" has no gameplay relevance due to short-sightedness. You have to keep in mind the kind of gameplay it's going to make possible in the near future.
In effect, it's as if someone built a pool in the backyard of your house, you're yelling at them for digging a pointless hole instead of building you a swingset or something else fun instead, and not realizing that hey, they needed to dig that hole because they're going to fill it with water soon and you're actually going to be able to swim in it.
Post by: Ragnar_Deerslayer on April 19, 2009, 06:54:22 pm
I love roguelikes, and I love turn-based strategy games like Civ II & III. When I heard about DF, I was stoked. So I downloaded it, but was so put off by it, I uninstalled it in disappointment.
My problems:
I. User Interface issues: Inconsistent and non-intuitive commands.
* Selection process: Sometimes you use +/- to scroll, sometimes 8/2. Sometimes ENTER selects, sometimes SPACE, and sometimes F9. For that matter, sometimes SPACE selects a choice, and sometimes it cancels a choice. ESCAPE never escapes the current menu, it escapes the *game*. Recommendation: SPACE and ENTER do the same thing (as in many other games) and ESCAPE goes back one choice. Unify scrolling where possible. (I think the requests for the next merchant caravan screen is the only place where it wouldn't work to unify it.)
* Viewing process: loo[k] views a square. But [t] views the contents of a workshop, [q] views the production queue of a workshop, and [v] views the status of a dwarf. I love roguelikes, so I wasn't put off by the ASCII graphics - but the basic tool for understanding what I was seeing, the "examine" command (as ZAngband calls it), wasn't doing what I needed it to do. The view command is the most basic tool for learning the game, and if there was a unified viewing command, I could have figured much more of the game out myself.
II. Gameplay issues: I had no idea what to do, or how. The in-game documentation was less than helpful. The only thing it taught me was that sometimes I use SPACE where I would expect to use ESCAPE.
What got me back in to play the game? I read Boatmurdered, which is currently the best marketing tool the game has, and I was pointed to the wiki, which contained a simple tutorial. Really, the tutorial was what did it. If you do nothing else, put a brief note on the title screen saying "Beginner tutorial available at:" and give the URL for the wiki's Your First Fortress.
Ragnar
Post by: Randominality on April 19, 2009, 06:55:41 pm
Having a robust simulation is a good thing ONLY if it supports and vitalizes the game not when it exists for its own sake.
You beat me to it. That is just what i wanted to say. I love the idea of having all the history behind events so you know that, as tourettedog put it : "that the goblins are attacking because the demon got attacked by an elf that was enslaved by a dwarf (who had a brown beard that was unevenly cut and was missing his right incisor) that was kidnapped but rescued by those sames goblins 300 years ago." However until this actually has an effect on gameplay, so that I DO get attacked because of this, the core game is not gonna hold my attention for very long.
I suppose what I would prefer is for Toady to do stuff in chunks that means that those small details would affect gameplay in the same release as opposed to the distant future. Especially since by the time he does come to something that relies on something he did ages ago he may have to rewrite that bit anyway.
That said, my no.1 turnoff is still the bad framerate.
Post by: thvaz on April 19, 2009, 06:58:45 pm
There are some here who are literally asking for a dumbing down of the game...I have said this before, and I will repeat: DF is all about pointless details. Take this from it, and we will have a Dungeon Keeper with worst graphics and an anemic nethack.
Post by: Pnx on April 19, 2009, 07:02:13 pm
Post by: G-Flex on April 19, 2009, 07:02:46 pm
Having a robust simulation is a good thing ONLY if it supports and vitalizes the game not when it exists for its own sake.
You beat me to it. That is just what i wanted to say. I love the idea of having all the history behind events so you know that, as tourettedog put it : "that the goblins are attacking because the demon got attacked by an elf that was enslaved by a dwarf (who had a brown beard that was unevenly cut and was missing his right incisor) that was kidnapped but rescued by those sames goblins 300 years ago." However until this actually has an effect on gameplay, so that I DO get attacked because of this, the core game is not gonna hold my attention for very long.
I suppose what I would prefer is for Toady to do stuff in chunks that means that those small details would affect gameplay in the same release as opposed to the distant future.
The problem is that I hardly think this is feasible. A lot of those simulation goals simply aren't able to be broken up into smaller units effectively, and considering how much time it takes to do those and implement actual gameplay incorporating them, it wouldn't even be worth it.
I believe Toady has said stuff to the effect of "a lot of this stuff has to be done all at once" before, anyhow.
So I see your point, but it's just something we have to live with, for the time being. The game will continue to get more interesting, of course... just not quickly. And that means stretches where things are being developed whose implications we don't see right away.
And you know what? That's probably what it's like for the development of ANY videogame like this. With DF, it's just easier to get pissed-off about it because we get to experience the game as it's being developed.
Quote
Especially since by the time he does come to something that relies on something he did ages ago he may have to rewrite that bit anyway.
No, the reason why he spends so much time on these bits of the simulation is so he WON'T have to rewrite the hell out of it later on. Tacking on bits of gameplay with smaller bits of simulation backdrop, like some people here seem to be suggesting, on the other hand, WOULD result in much wasted development time.
And like I said, the gameplay implications of things like the worldgen revamp are surprisingly close in terms of development, and the implications of the new body and material systems are showing up in the very version in which they're being introduced.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2009, 07:05:32 pm
Adding a big bold green link on the download page informing people of the existence of the wiki would help people a lot. Currently the official documentation leaves more than a little wanting, the wiki more than makes up for it.
Normally I would say no... but... it is kind of vital.
Quote
A lot of those simulation goals simply aren't able to be broken up into smaller units effectively
You have to wait for the Carrivan Arc! (The joke here is that there are a ton of features that can't be added until the carrivan arc)
Post by: Kardos on April 19, 2009, 07:10:47 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 19, 2009, 07:23:20 pm
I for one welcome my Toady One and ThreeToe overlords and their method of implementation.
Threetoe for President! Cuba needs a new Direction and he can give it! Yes we Can! :D
Seriously now: Development can be very slow especally in fields you dont know so we dont should be nitpicky on some things that just need time to be read up and worked out theoricly.
Also yes to A more prominent link to the Wiki on the download pages and a handbook for download.
Post by: Kazindir on April 19, 2009, 07:29:18 pm
[n]Short Term - what stops people from picking it up past a download and quick start:[/b]
Lack of a little in game tutorial.
It doesn't have to be complex or particularly indepth, just enough to show how to do a few basics like how to dig a tunnel. One of the first questions people seem to have is something along the lines of "how do I dig down?" - I know it was one of mine - as the way ramps and stairs work don't rally make a great deal of sense. (For example, how can you dig a set of down stairs without also creating matching up stairs? ;) )
Longer Term - what ends up pushing people away once they've got all the basics down and have built a few large fortresses:
Danger, Sieges and Performance.
Non-modded "danger" for your dwarves is near non-existant once you have the core of a fortress estabished.
Entire goblin sieges can be slain by a couple of champions, provided they're not cut down by marksdwarves first or exploded by traps.
Wandering dangerous animals are much the same, although in some cases (carp) actually prove more dangerous than actual sieges which only adds to the oddness.
"Points of Interest" don't have respawning dangers. One you've cleared your chasm/underground river/magma vent of the few generally low danger baddies that lurk, thats it. Even the HFS doesn't respawn, although at least they can be nasty before they're put down.
Coupled with that, even with the new code performance on large forts tends to collapse in flames onces you've got your 200 dwarves and their usual huge stockpiles and all the associated pathing. So the net result tends to be a lack of potential unplanned fun coupled with very slow motion progress.
Short version:
Need a basic tutorial and then more challenge you don't have to go out of your way to create yourself. (EG modding evil races, using no traps/crossbows etc.)
Post by: Rift on April 19, 2009, 07:49:58 pm
Its generally expected for games to have atleast basic tutorials and/or guides provided with the game. Most of the exceptions i can think of have very small player bases. When you find there is no tutorial and no guide, you basically hit the "What the hell do i do?". Even if you just cut and paste the "your first fortress" into a txt file, bundle it with the the game, and label it "Tutorial", people would probably get it. It would be even better just to throw it ingame as some missions or some tooltips or something, but ANYTHING would be a step in the right direction.
I think the "danger/challange" will be greater increased in the next release, so it's not a major concern that needs to be yelled about, but it shouldn't be ignored either... Even after this release we still need new challanges to keep it freash [Hello army arc!]
And yes, the thing that stops me from playing almost any fort i create is the FPS hit i get... Sure, i can limit the dwarves but that also means effectively stopping growth for my culture. Further, a lot of the features require atleast 80 dwarves [economy] ect.. Which on most computers is significantly slower then when you start with 7, to the point the game just feels like its dragging along and you have to wait for everything.
Honestly, what really concerns me is that a tutorial, and more challanges are promised to come before version 1.0, while improving the performance in pathfinding seems to take a back seat. While it might not be nearly as fun to program it would make us desperatly happy to have. Please toady, Suffer through it for us!
Edit: i refer to the ADVANCED HELP ARC for the planned tutorial, as well as pretty much all the other arcs for more challanges, while there is indeed a BURROWS, TRANSPORTION AND AUTOMATION ARC, it doesn't really say there will be pathfinding improvements, just generally organizing the society better... not making the actual algorithm run faster in the same situation.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2009, 07:54:20 pm
Quote
Most of the exceptions i can think of have very small player bases
Well that or they are just so instinctual they don't need guides. Though that doesn't apply to Dwarf Fortress...
Post by: Rift on April 19, 2009, 08:00:05 pm
Post by: Volfram on April 19, 2009, 08:07:18 pm
I would like to see a simpler military implementation. Part of the reason my forts rarely last long is because the military is so hard to manage that I usually just line my entryway with several layers of cage traps and forget about it. Instead, I try to make breding stocks of naked goblins to train gladiators on.
Perhaps I should play more of Adventure mode as an explorer.
Post by: Capntastic on April 19, 2009, 08:13:59 pm
In essence, I agree with CHANGE NAME PLEASE in pretty much every way. There's a lot of stuff going on in a DF world, with religions and battles, etc, but there's very little the player can do to interact with any of it. As it is, it's a bunch of mad libs, as was aptly stated. Obviously, a lot of things in the game are placeholders right now. The issue is that while these elaborate frameworks are built, the 'core game' itself is more or less stagnant. While dwarves have personalities and hairstyles and elaborate geneologies, there is literally nothing the player can do to have fun with this other than reading the text dumps. They provide no gameplay options, or anything 'tangible'.
I likewise see no reason why save compatibility is a big issue at this point. There's almost no reason to keep a world for more than one fort, for the most part, since there's very very very little interaction between things at this point. Save compatibility was awesome when new releases were happening every week or so.
Essentially, DF's development is entirely one-tracked, which would be fine if there was more 'game' to experience while new things were added. To symbolize it, it's like the oldschool 2D game, wherein you hold the right button and eventually get the message that your dwarves are dying while you're taking your trip to the center of the world.
So yeah, while I see that development appears slow as molasses because Toady's uprooting all these things and planting a new crop of content, I eagerly await a return to the old days when new stuff was added regularly. And, past that, a lot of us hunger for more things to do in the world with the new stuff. I think that's the bottom line.
Post by: Neruz on April 19, 2009, 08:33:56 pm
Interface is kinda clunky and unintuitive; but i've seen and used worse and i got used to it fairly quickly.
Apart from that; keeping in mind that the game is basically an Alpha release, it's doing damn well.
Post by: G-Flex on April 19, 2009, 08:36:47 pm
The only thing that got me was the ASCII graphics; i'm fine with low graphic games, but i need something to work off. There's plenty of graphic sets though; so that problem is solved for me.
To me, there's still a problem. DF could do a lot more with graphics.
For instance, it needn't be restricted to 16 colors, but that goes without saying.
I like what IVAN does with roguelike-style graphics. Transparency, multiple objects per tile, graphical overlay (so you can SEE the helm on your had), etc. Eventually, it would be nice if DF had that kind of thing, although I can understand it being very low-priority considering all the content that needs to go in.
Post by: bombcar on April 19, 2009, 08:37:15 pm
Support simple script-based things, like this:
Code: [Select]
DISPLAY "Press [d]esignation [d]ig and dig a hole in the mountainside"
WAITFOR HOLE SIZE 10
DISPLAY "Press [b]uilding [w]orkshop [m]ason and build one - you may need to dig more"
WAITFOR MASON
And so on. Such a language could be used to make simple interactive tutorials, but also be used to make "scenarios" like the original SimCity had.
Post by: tourettedog on April 19, 2009, 08:41:31 pm
I think I've made a good case already for how the game is moving in a direction far more complicated than that, and why that's a good thing.
I think you've restated the conventional wisdom on the part of all the people who like the text-based facial feature simulation that you have faith that this will all converge into something that has deep and interesting ramifications on gameplay. My point is that huge amounts of detail are being added at an extremely intricate level that -- assuming it can all be integrated -- may still not end up having a noticeable impact on gameplay.
Even if we do have it impact gameplay, I'd rather not dig through four levels of keypresses to finally figure out that -- for instance -- the reason I'm getting bad deals from the caravan is that my broker is hideously deformed. That would be cool exactly once: the first time I realized that that was what was going on. Then it would quickly become annoying to have to sort through all my dwarfs to find a good-looking broker from that point forward. I realize that may be right up some people's alley -- and bully for you if it is, I don't get the fascination, but if it's your thing then great -- but fact remains, it's a turn off for me.
Quote
You're committing the exact same fallacy that tourrettedog is. You're assuming the the "fluff" has no gameplay relevance due to short-sightedness. You have to keep in mind the kind of gameplay it's going to make possible in the near future.
Could we leave the "shortsighted" thing out of it? We're raising practical, immediate concerns that respond to the question "what turns you off about DF?" I imagine anyone reading this forum has, at some point, read the dev pages and knows what Toady has planned. Acting like you're transmitting some sort of revelation when you write "Oh, this will all pull together into a glorious confluence" misses the point that a) we know that that's the plan, and b) right now, today, what's turning us off about DF is the fact that there are major gameplay issues that are being 90% ignored while we get fine-tuned text-based beard growth hidden away under four keypresses.
Post by: change name please on April 19, 2009, 08:42:53 pm
I think the problem we are facing here is not unlike that Will Wright suffered while Spore was in the works...and we all know how that turned out.
There are some here who are literally asking for a dumbing down of the game...I have said this before, and I will repeat: DF is all about pointless details. Take this from it, and we will have a Dungeon Keeper with worst graphics and an anemic nethack.
Is this some kind of troll? Are you trying to make me scream? The reason Spore was so bad was not a lack of pages of text describing a creature's physical features and religion and personality, it was because of a lack of challenging and compelling gameplay, as well as a dearth of meaningful player interactions. I am asking for this gameplay and this idea of player agency. If you'll read my posts with an open mind, you might discover that "obtuse and obscure" is not the same as "intelligent". It's hard to say that Dwarf Fortress is "all about pointless details" when none of these details contribute directly to the player's experience and, historically, the game did not provide quite so many "details" a year or two or three ago.
God, do you remember how long we went with dwarves that would willfully pick up & wear burning items? How about even now how dragons will burn themselves to death on their own flames? "All about the details" indeed.
Post by: Neruz on April 19, 2009, 08:49:06 pm
God, do you remember how long we went with dwarves that would willfully pick up & wear burning items? How about even now how dragons will burn themselves to death on their own flames? "All about the details" indeed.
Features, not bugs. The difference being that these events are hilarious.
I have two friends who started playing DF entirely because of things like this.
Post by: G-Flex on April 19, 2009, 08:49:59 pm
I think I've made a good case already for how the game is moving in a direction far more complicated than that, and why that's a good thing.
I think you've restated the conventional wisdom on the part of all the people who like the text-based facial feature simulation that you have faith that this will all converge into something that has deep and interesting ramifications on gameplay. My point is that huge amounts of detail are being added at an extremely intricate level that -- assuming it can all be integrated -- may still not end up having a noticeable impact on gameplay.
Look, now you're just intentionally misrepresenting my argument. Please don't do that.
I've already said how the new body systems and such can have an impact on gameplay. Creatures' bodies will respond realistically to combat, material/part choice for things will make sense, and health care/injury considerations will make more sense as well. Things like facial features are only a very, very small part of it. Please at least understand that before you start saying this stuff.
Quote
Even if we do have it impact gameplay, I'd rather not dig through four levels of keypresses to finally figure out that -- for instance -- the reason I'm getting bad deals from the caravan is that my broker is hideously deformed. That would be cool exactly once: the first time I realized that that was what was going on. Then it would quickly become annoying to have to sort through all my dwarfs to find a good-looking broker from that point forward.
Of course. I definitely agree that things that seriously affect gameplay need to be put at the forefront of the information that's displayed to the player. Nobody's going to disagree with that.
Quote
QuoteYou're committing the exact same fallacy that tourrettedog is. You're assuming the the "fluff" has no gameplay relevance due to short-sightedness. You have to keep in mind the kind of gameplay it's going to make possible in the near future.
Could we leave the "shortsighted" thing out of it? We're raising practical, immediate concerns that respond to the question "what turns you off about DF?" I imagine anyone reading this forum has, at some point, read the dev pages and knows what Toady has planned. Acting like you're transmitting some sort of revelation when you write "Oh, this will all pull together into a glorious confluence" misses the point that a) we know that that's the plan, and b) right now, today, what's turning us off about DF is the fact that there are major gameplay issues that are being 90% ignored while we get fine-tuned text-based beard growth hidden away under four keypresses.
The major gameplay issues are only being "ignored" because the development paradigm of DF simply doesn't allow Toady to jump around like an idiot doing a hack-job patching up every single system the game has. If he did that, he'd be up the creek NEXT year when he has to do those systems properly.
And thanks again, with the "fine-tuned text-based beard growth" you again find the most insignificant example of what I'm talking about and using that as the basis of your argument.
Look, I understand that it's annoying that a lot of irritating (and sometimes nearly game-breaking) things about DF stand while other things continue to get updated. I'm just trying to make the case that, for the game to be developed in any reasonable fashion, a lot of this is bound to happen. These annoyances about the game will go away slowly because the systems which RESULT in them take so long to work on.
Post by: Capntastic on April 19, 2009, 08:50:26 pm
Edit:
Features, not bugs. The difference being that these events are hilarious.
No. They are things that are clearly not working as intended, and while funny in an ironic sort of way, they're pretty much the opposite of the realistic cause and effect illustrated by the power goals, etc.
Post by: The Mad Engineer on April 19, 2009, 09:05:29 pm
Case in point: Elephant.
We will miss your glorious rampages :'(
Post by: Guy Montag on April 19, 2009, 09:06:06 pm
Graphics/interface I don't give a shit about. Once you learn it, you learn it, its not big deal for me. If you don't know what that symbol means, push the "k" key, drag the cursor over the tile, and drag your eyes over the text on the right.
One thing I'd like is the .int file be accessible from the DF menu like the key bindings are. That way you can change the settings without killing DF, opening the file and manually typing in what you want, and restarting. Thats just a minor suggestion of mine.
What turns me off is a lack of incentive for anything you do in DF. A big part of the game is amassing wealth, but to what ends? You can buy everything you need from a trader's caravan with a single decent stonecrafter making mugs.
Mature fortresses get boring, and there isn't a reward system for the "progress" you do besides your own satisfaction, besides making tons of neat shit for your adventurer to wear/ throw at people once you abandon.
Also, and maybe most importantly, the FPS killers. Pathfinding, Flows, temperature and weather. They take up WAY too much CPU power and they are a HUGE part of the game. All these things need to be optimized or something. Yeah, I'm aware you can turn them off, but you should'nt have to. Something as simple as "magma burns the kitten, its raining outside" should be able to be modeled without making my computer melt.
I realize the game is an alpha, and there is tons of awesome stuff on the way, and some of my complaints (15 years into my fort, bored) will be fixed with new content.
But something has to be done to improve the strain temperature, pathfinding, weather and flows put on a CPU. optimizing the code or, instead of EVERYTHING generating heat, which is neat, simulating body heat and all, but its ultimately useless because it doesn't effect anything at all, and eats up CPU cycles for nothing.
Otherwise, I don't have much to complain about, really.
Post by: Gertack on April 19, 2009, 09:09:09 pm
You often say that donations are better in release months. People like releases. Is there a compelling reason there cannot be a Dwarf Fortress release when the underground features are finalized? Why couldn't there have been one before that section of work started? Especially 7 months since the last release there should be another release before the save compatibility is broken. Is the gain of not releasing sufficient?
2. Include a few community graphics packs in the official download.
The largest problem I had with the game when starting was figuring out what was what. I almost immediately switched to the Mayday graphics pack and have not stopped since.
Keep the official graphics as ASCII, but also provide a popular selection of other graphics packs in the official release. There should also be an in-game way to switch between these sets so people have easy access to that.
3. The lag monster, as someone in the thread termed it.
I'm not talking about multi-threading. Once your fortress reaches a certain size in dwarves or items the frame-rate takes a nose dive. I have a 1x1 fortress with 128 dwarves running at 7 FPS on an Athlon 64 X2 4200 and it even has a magma pipe in the center taking up most of the space. Algorithms that work great with 10 dwarves in the beginning break down horribly later.
Let us supply game saves that you can profile to find the spots making even the most powerful computers crawl. This isn't a total optimization of the game but finding and eliminating the top 2 or 3 worst abuses of time to give us a little relief. (Ever tried viewing "stones" in the Stocks screen with 238,000 of them? Or even waiting 10 minutes for "Cleaning game objects" with that many?)
4. Tasking
I once had two doors that refused to budge from the ground in my fortress. It took me weeks to realize that the doors wouldn't move (or dump) because they were tasked for building but it was suspended because some dwarf was walking through the door square when another dwarf tried to hang the door. In fact, there's no way to know how many things are currently suspended except by remembering what you have tried to do and noticing. The announcement message is nice, except that you can miss it or forget, plus the message doesn't give any hint as to where the building was suspended so you have to go figure out which one. Even a blinking red background on the items tasked and the building spot suspended would help some, especially if the item tasked could Zoom to the building spot. Also, tasked items should be allowed to be moved for other buildings on that spot, otherwise that square is off-limits for any future building until the other one finishes.
5. Jobs
Dwarf Manager is essential. Toady may not want to be subject to third party needs or breaking essential tools but it is already too late for me due to the job interface.
6. Stockpiles
I wish there was a Stockpile Manager too, but alas. Ever tried to figure out how many of your stockpiles accept armor? Or how many squares of stockpile are left for weapons? Or how many plump helmets are decaying because you're out of stockpile space? Ever needed to disable seeds from all stockpiles except the current one? Ever had to increase the size of a custom (not the custom template) stockpile and be faced with either wiping it and recreating or trying to duplicate the settings in a tiny adjacent stockpile?
7. Trading
I dread the trade depot. Once your fortress gets larger you're stuck with 100 times <down><enter> or using a third party utility like AutoHotkey. The categories are insufficient so things like prepared food and mechanisms can only be found via the Search mechanism, which re-filters (and thus lags) on every keystroke instead of waiting until I hit Enter or pause typing. Having a mandate knocks out entire bins of goods by default even if only a single item in the bin is forbidden, so turning off culling is essential.
The trade depot move goods screen should use a screen similar to building weapon traps. Key differences would be the items are not sorted by distance, but instead should be sorted by category, then item type then item value. This would be similar to how the actual trade screen apppears, although it isn't quite as neatly sorted. We could mark goods to go to the trade depot screen by hitting + a few times, each time it picking the nearest of that type ("* dolomite grate" or "-=*=- dolomite grate" being separate types, as well as from "- dolomite grate"), or with > letting us increase by 10 items, or < reduce by 10 items, or shift+enter to mark all of that type. Bins should be transparent and not traded to the merchants since we rarely wish to rid ourselves of actual containers.
8. Building materials
Almost always I want to use a specific stone (or block) type when I'm building something. Almost always I have to hunt through 5 to 8 pages of materials to find the one I want because they're sorted by distance rather than alphabetically.
On a related note, I'd really, really like to be able to pick a specific rock to make crafts and buildings out of, an eternal suggestion. If I'm trying to make my bridge out of pure dolomite there's no way I can reliably ensure only dolomite blocks are used, especially if I have active mining going on and thus can't even mass-forbid everything else.
9. Job Manager
Not being able to designate more than 30 of any item or clone an existing request for more of the same item is a real pain. As it stands if you want to collect a lot of sand, without repeat, then you have to repeat the item search multiple times to make a bunch of 30-item jobs.
10. Replace liaisons
It is really tough on trading to lose a liaison because you can no longer request any specific needs. Also a pain to lose a liaison when you become a Mountainhome -- you should be able to make requests still, with it presented as your requests of the lesser forts to provide to the home.
10. Running out of seeds
I once accidentally cooked all my plump helmets because I didn't have enough barrels to brew anymore and I didn't have any seeds until the next dwarven caravan arrived. If I had been a Mountainhome then I would've been in real trouble. Ideally I could set an absolute floor of seeds that must never be cooked/planted/etc. just in case I do lose all the other seeds. At that point I'd drop the limit to let the reserve be used to restart the process.
11. Running out of wildlife
Really makes fishing and hunting not worth it because it cannot last for more than a few seasons. That cuts out a lot of jobs and activities that would otherwise be considered staples of civilization.
12. Wrestlers disrobing each other and then unable to train because of holding armor
Frustrating for litter and productivity.
13. Nobles
Dwarf Manager eliminated my burning hatred for their non-working, space-wasting, useful-dwarf-killing sacks of flesh since I give them hauling jobs now.
14. Dwarves fleeing into enemies
When you are faced with an enemy in front of you and the fort behind you, do not run straight ahead! Or into more enemies to the side! This was especially bad in my 1x1 fort as all the dwarves in the above ground tower would freak out and run out of the building into the unprotected grass instead of heading down the same steps into the fortress proper.
15. Interface
Many people have commented on this so it is redundant. I didn't even know about 'T' for the longest time. When using the unit list, it needs to return to the unit list at the dwarf you viewed when you hit space on that dwarf. Preferably also divide the unit list into separate categories to avoid carpal tunnel page down activity, such as: Dwarves, Animals, Friendly, Wildlife, Hostile, Deceased.
... that should do for now.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 19, 2009, 09:22:20 pm
1. Release early, release often.
You often say that donations are better in release months. People like releases. Is there a compelling reason there cannot be a Dwarf Fortress release when the underground features are finalized? Why couldn't there have been one before that section of work started? Especially 7 months since the last release there should be another release before the save compatibility is broken. Is the gain of not releasing sufficient?
In this particular case, an early release won't be possible because there's gutted code all over the place from Toady's first pass at the beginning of this release cycle. But yeah, in general it would be nice if new features got released as they were implemented, although it'll be cool when this version finally does get released and there's a massive amount of new stuff everywhere.
Post by: Neruz on April 19, 2009, 09:28:41 pm
Post by: codezero on April 19, 2009, 09:57:37 pm
The best thing to do IMO is just to expand the help already in the game, it's quite old. And as I mentioned link it in to the game screens.
And a graphics pack might lure more people into actually downloading it instead of dismissing it as ASCII trash. (As there'll be better screenshots floating around)
One of the greatest things of getting a new game is exploring it, don't sacrafice that for a marketing gimmick. A far better marketing approach would be putting it on linux repos, those guys are strapped for games and it would be like the next nethack for 'em. Eternal followers.
Post by: The13thRonin on April 19, 2009, 10:03:15 pm
If you're worried about drowning the new players you could perhaps include options in the INIT file to turn these functions on and off much like weather and cave-ins?
Post by: Rockphed on April 19, 2009, 10:12:11 pm
Even if we do have it impact gameplay, I'd rather not dig through four levels of keypresses to finally figure out that -- for instance -- the reason I'm getting bad deals from the caravan is that my broker is hideously deformed. That would be cool exactly once: the first time I realized that that was what was going on. Then it would quickly become annoying to have to sort through all my dwarfs to find a good-looking broker from that point forward. I realize that may be right up some people's alley -- and bully for you if it is, I don't get the fascination, but if it's your thing then great -- but fact remains, it's a turn off for me.
But what if the elves, in their fascination with your freakdwarf give you incredibly good deals on some diverse and useful animals? Or, even more bizarre, offer to trade you several useful animals for your hideously deformed dwarf? Not saying that they would, but what if?
Also, in response to Gertack's #13, I have my current batch of nobles trained to clean my traps. Nobles also cage creatures and fill ponds.
Back to Three Toe's original question:
The biggest obstacle I had when starting to play was that I couldn't figure out how to go up and down Z levels. After that was that I couldn't figure out how to farm so my people kept starving. I once got a dungeon master before I figured out how to farm. I miss that fort. :(
Post by: change name please on April 19, 2009, 11:36:23 pm
But what if the elves, in their fascination with your freakdwarf give you incredibly good deals on some diverse and useful animals? Or, even more bizarre, offer to trade you several useful animals for your hideously deformed dwarf? Not saying that they would, but what if?
This kind of thing never happens and never will happen so I don't see why people love to post "what-ifs" like these.
Post by: G-Flex on April 19, 2009, 11:38:20 pm
Post by: ThreeToe on April 19, 2009, 11:57:19 pm
I think the problem we are facing here is not unlike that Will Wright suffered while Spore was in the works...and we all know how that turned out.
There are some here who are literally asking for a dumbing down of the game...I have said this before, and I will repeat: DF is all about pointless details. Take this from it, and we will have a Dungeon Keeper with worst graphics and an anemic nethack.
Is this some kind of troll? Are you trying to make me scream?
I realize this is a contentious topic, but there is no need for pointless abuse. Everyone try to stay on topic and discuss things calmly.
Post by: Capntastic on April 20, 2009, 12:53:07 am
A: 'The attention to strange bits of detail as opposed to other bits of detail that might be more useful or interesting.'
B: ' Very little in-game help. DF is a super complex game, and while it doesn't need to hold my hand, I would really appreciate an in game help guide, or maybe even a tutorial mode. Secondly [I'd enjoy] A more streamlined interface. The joy of roguelikes are the fact that every key on a keyboard is used in some way, and I love that. But with a game as gosh dern complex as DF, I'm dying trying to figure out exactly what everything does. '
Post by: Vattic on April 20, 2009, 01:04:57 am
What made me come back to the game was that while reading LotR I read a blog post about DF again that mentioned the wiki and I decided to give it another go, the descriptions of Moria made the whole idea of DF all the more epic.However I didn't get over the ascii barrier until recently, I was playing using maydays set but got fed up with things looking like other things and made my own character set inspired by others and play with ascii now.
I have to say the game seems quite intimidating at first.
Now though the only thing that turns me off is that its a little too easy, I hear stories about the 2D games and want the best from those versions and the z-axis. More modding control would be nice too as I've been enjoying making my own creatures but get fed up that certain things aren't possible.
[edit]
I forgot to mention that I use DwarfManager and DwarfCompanion to fill certain gaps when it comes to the interface like quickly finding problem dwarves when it comes to moods. Without these utilities things like this would drive me nuts.
[/edit]
Post by: Keiseth on April 20, 2009, 02:41:20 am
Other than that I would have complained about poor performance, but the OpenGL upgrades seriously help there, so no worries.
Those two aside all that's left on my plate is "feature x that I can't wait to enjoy isn't implemented yet!" Which is a lot like saying "well, thanks for the free car, but why isn't it gold plated and run on enthusiasm instead of gasoline?"
Post by: JohnLukeG on April 20, 2009, 03:24:26 am
Originally, a few months ago, I loaded it up, saw the little symbols and couldn't figure out what anything at all was, so I quit. I couldn't even figure out how to mine. Later, I saw the uh, Mayday tile pack, I think it's called, downloaded it, and it was like night and day. I saw trees... and raccoons... and fish...
Anyway, that's what got me to actually learn how to play, and I'm ecstatic that I did. I just ordered captured goblins to be executed via lava pit for the first time, how do you think I feel?
Post by: Shadowgandor on April 20, 2009, 04:04:30 am
What are my biggest complains now? Carps, oh uhm, I mean, somtimes, it takes too long for hostiles to visit your fortress. It might be fun to be able to change a few settings at the start of the game like amount of sieges and the strength of said sieges.
Post by: Keilden on April 20, 2009, 04:10:19 am
Post by: ThtblovesDF on April 20, 2009, 06:51:43 am
"You struck Microlines"
... nothing that would in any...
"The sun is shining"
... annoy me in Dwarf Fortress, its ---
"Dwarf McBored channels game progress, no pause for 5 secounds"
really the perfect Game.
"You struck microline"
Post by: Neruz on April 20, 2009, 07:23:14 am
I'm thinking the difficulty will come back with the next update; we'll be seeing 'respawning' monsters coming in from off-map caves and whatnot, which should replicate the chasm of old.
Post by: dreiche2 on April 20, 2009, 07:37:03 am
Post by: JimiD on April 20, 2009, 07:46:44 am
I think it was my fourth fortress when I knew how to play. Not well, but I could get the things done I wanted.
Graphics - I knew what I was getting myself in for, and it took a while to get you use ASCII, but now I wouldnt go back. But Boatmurdered had convinced me this was a worthwhile effort. I havent yet seen a tileset that really captures the feel of the game, as I see it, so I havent changed. So wasnt an issue for me.
Digging, designating and buidling:
The game has the freedom to allow players to do a lot, but it seems to be access from different menus. It took me a couple of restarts to be able to dig a stair between two Z levels.
Some thoughts:
1. I dont understand why up and down stairs are needed to construct a single stair. I thought to begin with they were 'one-way' traffic items, to control which stairs dwarfs used to change levels. I dont know what we couldnt do, if 'up stair' created a stair up from the current level, and a stair down from the level above at the same time. ie a fully functioning stair (then 'down stair' creates a working stair down, and 'up/down' a pair of working stairs up and down to the levels above and below the current).
2. "I just want to build, there are two many questions just to get things built!" I didnt understand that i had to keep selecting items, just to get a workshop built. One option would be to simplify building at the begining, by automating the selection of rocks and blocks to build items. A first time player is not going to be interested in colour co-ordinated workshop layouts forming the image of a giant carp, they just want it built.
Have a set of options:
Intially building an item automatically selects a random non-economic stone to build and workshop/wall etc.
First option, use blocks rather than raw stone.
Final option, select any stone/block/ metal as now.
3.Put all 'construction' items on one menu:
digging, channelling, building stairs and walls. And stairs should be one action, whether digging or building. The only option is whether you need a stone to build it or not (and see above for automating this) (I thought this was heresy the first time I read it, but now I am converted).
Then we can have 'buildings' including stockpiles (ie 'warehouse' building), roads. Put garbage in stockpiles, not zones? Its just stockpile for things marked 'D'. (and why are some workshops under 'e'?)
Then have a zones menu: fishing, movement/traffic
Then furniture?
4. Consistancy through the menu:
Scrolling menus sometimes arrow keys and page up/down, and the next menu numpad.
Exiting menus: sometimes F9, sometimes Space, sometimes Enter.
Rationalise 'q', 'k', 'r' and 'v'. They all examine an object, person or room, and allow you to interact, passively or actively. Perhaps have one key to select something for further study, then allow it to be viewed or interacted with (is this context dependant?)
And perhaps have ingame links to the wiki. Saves re-writing it and packaging it up for download.
Might mean we all have to keep the wiki up to date, precise and accurate.
But I got through despite, so I hope this doesnt come acrros as too critical.
And thanks for the game, I am thoroughly hooked.
Post by: tomato on April 20, 2009, 08:53:54 am
Tomato has gained friend recently.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Neurovore on April 20, 2009, 08:58:00 am
The ASCII graphics would have been by far the bigest stumbling block had it not been for pre-packaged sets like Mayday's. I don't even let my friends atempt to download DF, I just send them the pack like this. They get a little confused if they have to check the wiki or forum for question, but that level of confusion is much smaller.
The second biggest block is the interface, specificly 1) menu items aren't in any particular order, and 2) [/], {*}, [-], {+}, [PAGE_UP], [PAGE_DOWN], [*_ARROW] are used without any consistency.
I've had several people really complain about the job queueing as well. For example, if you have a messy stone hallway, and you tell your dwarves to "build a floor out of it", any stone queued up for being used to make a floor can't get moved out of the way to build a floor where the stone is, thus causing a flood of job cancellations. Also, that a dwarf will cart a stone for a week to try to make a door out of it, then get thirsty on the way and drop the stone to grab a beer, then grab a different stone from the ass end of the map to make a door out of it (only to take a nap before making it to the workshop), when all the while there is already a stone stockpile a few paces away from the workshop. Many many times jobs and materials should be selected by the workshop, not the dwarf. Dawrves stranding themselves on ledges and channeling themselves onto islands is simply infuriating as well. (On a personal note, "store owned item" should be a WAY WAY WAY higher priority task.)
One of my friends got extremely frustrated my the inability to train up specialized dwarves (like armorsmiths) and use the job manager as well. For example, if you try to use the manager to "make 20 iron shields", the jobs will be spread out evenly over all forges, even if some forges are reserved for specific dwarves, or others are intended as weapon shops, etc. Extreme micromanagement is the only way to achieve this goal. (I've tried explaining numerous workarounds, but all my explanations end up sounding over-engineered and convoluted. Yes, I'm a dwarf at heart.)
As far as the economy goes, once you've fended off a siege you're set for life because of all the GCS silk loincloths. GCS items should be extremely rare.
As far as fortress defense goes, there is a rather sudden tipping point between getting slaughtered without any level of understanding as to what went wrong and *snore*. Without mods, once there is a basic level of understanding about traps and militaries the threat level quickly changes from overwhelming to insignificant. Environmental threats need to have a better ramp-up in difficulty. The biggest suggestions I have for improvements:
- Small scale visible attacks early on, less dangerous than a full-scale siege. "Scouting parties" or "Raiding parties" for example.
- Full sieges should be able to bypass, albeit slowly, constructed fortifications. Tunneling units have been considered. Another option could be specialized trap-disarming units. Invaders should be able to remove construction (since this is time consuming, it would give the player plenty of time to mount an appropriate response). Catapults should destroy constructions, and siegers should bring them.
I know DF is a sandbox game at heart, but without the external threats it's really just a management of booze, food, and booze.
There really should be a screen (linked to a noble maybe) just listing the happiness of the dwarves and the fortress as a whole. It would be nice to have some indicator of how close you're running to the emo-implosion fortress death. also, the more well-developed a fortress is, the more 'needy' dwarves should be. For example a dwarf should be ecstatic just to have a bed (any bed) and any table to eat at the first year or so, but once you have a Mountainhome he/she should really be expecting grand architecture and amenities to feel like things are in order.
I would also like to see some arbitrary ranking of difficulty for starting terrain, based on availability of raw materials, fresh water, magma, flux, hostile neighbors, farmable soil, etc. An early player won't have the understanding of why some starting locations are easier than others. Also, a search based on this arbitrary difficulty might be handy. Bragging rights on forums might be handy too.
Post by: DJ on April 20, 2009, 09:59:51 am
I think it's time for a complete interface overhaul, and I suggest something like this:
(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8676/dfinterface.png)
I think it's all pretty self-explanatory, but if there's any confusion just ask what I meant with a particular item.
This, of course, is merely a rough sketch and is meant to portray the general style of the interface only. Specifics like what tabs will be used and what will be put in which tab should be given a lot of thought to make everything as intuitive as possible.
Post by: Mr Tk on April 20, 2009, 10:04:14 am
1) Tuts. This by far seems to be the most common problem for all the new players coming into the game. What do I do, how do I do this, why isn't this working, WHAT I AM DOING WRONG/RIGHT?
I agree that tuts are important. While I've know about DF for ages, and have roamed the forums for over a year, it wasn't until TinyPirate's tuts come out when I finally was able to get in and start playing (TinyPirate's are worth checking out (http://afteractionreporter.com/2009/02/09/the-complete-and-utter-newby-tutorial-for-dwarf-fortress-part-1-wtf) along with Captnduck's videos).
However the problem with getting Toady to put in actual tuts into the game is that the more time he spends doing these the less time there is dedicated to actual programming of the game itself. Then when the next major change comes out they may all have to change. Even with minor releases a lot may change in the tut.
Solution: As some people have pointed out, having links on the title page, or on the help pages would be a good place to start. Us as the community can help Toady with documentation while he works on the actual game. Another option (if anybody in the forum is willing to work on it) would be an document which has a index of all the commands in the game (See the index for the Java API to get a rough idea of what I mean). As much as I like the DF wiki you don't see a single list of all the different commands in one place. E.g. if you looked at the entry for Dig it would show what menus and keys presses you would need to get to it and what it would do. You would then bundle this help file in with the DF zip or place it as a alternative download.
2) Ascii, and tilesets. There seems to be split ideas about this. Some like ascii, some don't, and some just don't care. Ignoring the aesthetics of the ascii art it gets reduced down to these ideas:
Some people don't know they can change it.
Some will never be able get used to the ascii characters. For some people it's not that they dislike the look, its just that they can't comprehend all the information in that form. But how many people would give up because they take one look and simply go "ugh".
The problem for these people is that don't know they can change it. Some people who get told about DF will never visit this site, they'll never know. Again if there was some sort of first time screen which told you about the tiles it may change some peoples ideas. Having just a link to Bay12 games on the title screen isn't enough to make people come and research.
It's hard to change.
Its not always easy to install a new tileset. Even more so when things start going wrong like the tiles not tiling correctly, or it displaying the wrong tile. Worse you often copy across init/graphics files and lets face it, most people don't take the time, remember or even know to back a copy of DF just in case anything goes wrong.
There should be at least another one included by default.
There are two ways would could do this. First would be to include a fairly complete tileset with instructions on how to switch between the two. Second would be to program DF to be able to recognise different tile sets in the DF folder.
3) UI. Ah the user interface. Where to begin?
Layout
I would like to point that I too play DF on a laptop and that its different from the default layout. This also happens to include international keyboards (and different keyboard layouts such as DVORAK.) Having the ability to change swap between a full keyboard layout and a laptop layout without having to remap the keys (which again involves the editing of raw text files) would be extremely useful. I do know that included with the OpenGL versions (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=28841.0) Baughn and others are currently working on trying to get input working constantly across all types of keyboards.
Consistency
This is something I've struck and I'll fight through it but having keys which navigate through some menus one way and then another way in another menu is very frustrating. I've been put off not just games, but programs because menus were not consistent in the way they acted and responded.
In fact I cannot stress this point enough. The average player isn't go to stick around if they get frustrated by menus. Just having to over come the ascii and figuring out what to do is hard enough as it is. The Angry Video Game Nerd (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47749.html) as a small section in his Metal Gear video which sums up frustrations with inconsistencies.
Lists
Some people have pointed out that it is incredibly hard to pin point things sometimes, and that you have to go scrolling through lists and lists and lists.
Solution: Filters which sort list after selecting all criteria. Custom lists which you can define yourself. The ability to re-order lists (by alphabet, by distance, by quantity, etc.)
Buried by sub-meuns
Where is that command that I want? Damn that's not it. I don't remember.
There is no easy around this but DF has a lot of menus. And a lot of sub-menus. This is a spin of having a complex game and there is no easy fix for this.
SOLUTION FOR ALL: Mock-ups. I know this sounds weird but make mock-ups. Show us how you would want the menu to be laid out. Tree diagrams, pictures, description, mock-ups are a cheap and easy way to refine a menu or interface system WITHOUT having to re-program the game. Best of all it allows two things to be done at once because you don't have to do the extra programming and it gives you a head start on the UI arc.
Also peoples of the community mock-ups you make are an easy way for you to help Toady. You think that you could do a better UI. Draw us a picture, don't hesitate to incorporate other people's ideas. Every refinement is a step towards a better UI.
Example:
I think it's time for a complete interface overhaul, and I suggest something like this:
(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8676/dfinterface.png)
I think it's all pretty self-explanatory, but if there's any confusion just ask what I meant with a particular item.
This, of course, is merely a rough sketch and is meant to portray the general style of the interface only. Specifics like what tabs will be used and what will be put in which tab should be given a lot of thought to make everything as intuitive as possible.
The easier the UI the more people will play.
Final Point - Observations
From this list I can see a few place to start with helping new players.
1) A first time users screen. Links to tuts and some about tile sets, or again something point to information about tile sets.
2) I don't believe that the UI will be changed anytime soon. I think the best bet would be a manual. Something different from the wiki format, and without tuts or story or anything like that. Just list menus, commands, buildings, professions etc.
3) A printable quick command sheet! Something they can plonk on their desk or however they would want to do it.
I haven't covered everything, but these three things stuck out as the main points.
There are other issues which have been rasied in this thread. Framerate (some of these are being address by Baughn with the OpenGL), the toughness of later years, the very direction which Toady is working on. In regards to these it's an alpha release. You shouldn't except anything to work correctly, and you shouldn't except bugs to be fixed quickly.
The main point everybody seems to agree on in this regards is screw save compatibility and bring on shorter releases.
Just remember for the most part it's one man working on his. He only has so much time to work on everything, but he does have a plan. Lets trust in that plan.
Post by: Shurikane on April 20, 2009, 11:35:43 am
It's been hammered before, it's annoying, I'm repeating what a ton of people spammed the suggestion forum with - well, here it is again: DF needs multithreading and optimised pathfinding.
I have no clue just how good or bad the current pathing code is. Though if any improvements to it can be made, it'll be most welcome. For multicore support, despite the difficulty of it, I suggest it anyway. DF is simply too CPU-intensive not to consider this eventually, and I feel that the sooner it's done, the better.
Most of my larger-scaled projects take several weeks of play, mostly consisting of leaving the computer idle and coming in to unpause every now and then. My average FPS count is between 0 and 4 - that is without a siege in progress or traders going to the depot (or worse, both at once!). Saving my game with roughly 250,000 units of loose stone on the map takes upwards of thirty minutes. It's really too bad, because I enjoy dealing with fairly large populations, sieges, nobility, big projects and all that jazz... but the average computer simply cannot take that load. So if I want a quicker FPS, I need to take down the pop, which means I can no longer enjoy "endgame" elements.
UI, I don't care. I got used to it. It's got its flaws here and there but the look and feel is currently the least of my worries. It gets the job done okay. Not great, but it's not a plague on the face of the earth, so I'm cool with that (although I wish I could tell if a map was windy without having to build a dummy windmill...)
So yeah. Performance performance performance.
Post by: Lippy on April 20, 2009, 12:50:28 pm
As background, I tried Dwarf Fortress for the first time last September. I played Adventure mode for about 15 minutes before quitting. I knew I didn't have enough time to devote to learning the UI, and then learning the game's nuances as well. It wasn't the graphics, since I happily played Nethack and Rouge on unix systems back in the day. It was the UI that turned me off.
I picked it up again about a month and a half ago determined to learn. I played through a few times in Adventure mode until I got accustomed to the controls and look of the game and went on to Dwarf Fortress when I realized there really wasn't all that much to do.
It has been said before, and everyone knows it, but it does bear repeating until we don't have to repeat it anymore. The UI is atrocious. It's not a subjective thing, it's objectively bad. I've learned the keypresses to get to most of the necessary menus, but everything is so disconnected, that I spend a lot of my time menu surfing. Some screens use /,* to page up and down, others use 9,3. Some use enter to turn on and off options, others use -,+. It's too unintuitive.
Consolidate as best as you can. Combine and link menus and objects. I should be able to click (mouse or keyboard click) on a dwarf or object and have access to everything about it right there. Clicking on an object/creature brings up the look information, which also gives the option to change to that object/creatures q or v menu, and the q or v menus gives you the options to go back to the k menu, etc.
So the UI was the biggest turnoff as a newbie. I know that people learn to deal with it, and it's bearable and they don't have much of a problem anymore, but I think they just need something better to make them look at the current iteration and vomit.
My second problem is that it's been about 6 weeks since I stared playing Dwarf Fortress and I'm pretty much done with it. I've made two fortresses and got them into the economy stage. On the frist one, once the framerate dropped to 10, I stopped and started another one and got it up and running faster, and had a bit more fun since I knew what to plan for, but had to stop again when the framerate became unbearable. It became too much of a waiting game. I tried starting a few more times, but just got bored with it. I did have fun, but I was easily turned off by the drop in playability towards the end.
I see the potential, but I can see how long I'll have to wait for these problems to be tackled. I'll probably wait for the next few versions to be released before jumping back in, not wanting to become accustomed to the way the game is, and then waiting for several months/years for fixes. A lot of the reasons 90% of the people run away are because the game is still in Alpha and does have a long way to go with optimization, gameplay, tweaks, bugfixes, etc. When the game is finally where Toady wants it to be and the only changes will be to simple gameplay tweaks, balancing, and bugfixes, I think I'll come back to give it another go. But I do have a strange feeling that is going to be quite a long way off.
Post by: Sowelu on April 20, 2009, 01:26:27 pm
Having no real sense of how well I'm doing is kind of a turn-off. It would be nice to have more to measure against.
The ease and arbitracity (is that a word?) of food gathering and fortress design is starting to turn into a turnoff; it's too hard if you don't have water and don't know how to irrigate, but it's ridiculously simple if you have soil. It was Fun in 2d, and worth figuring out, but it seems a lot less interesting now. Figuring out how to survive the first winter used to be a major part of the early game, but now there's no big first 'push' to make where you can say "Oh I get it now".
The lack of any real drive like there was in 2d is also disheartening. No push to go deeper for better metals. Heck, no guarantees you'll have any metals worth finding at all. I think it would REALLY help to bring back the 'ideal site' list from 2d...a list of places that have good metals, or at least good layers for them. Give the player a list of 20 sites that have at least four different metals, some form of water, and some form of magma. Tell the player what they can expect in each of those sites (IE "This site has copper and iron, and you can find a river underground on the north side"). That would REALLY help.
It seems like there's no big challenges that are involuntarily foisted upon you. That might be a good thing but I'm not sure. Invasions through wells and stuff...chasm invasions...River flooding was annoying but I kind of miss it...Having to bridge the chasm, having to build a road instead of just doing a little smoothing...And always having to go deeper to get better stuff! Those drove the player, and they don't anymore. So I kind of have this general malaise that's stuck around since the start of 3d. I can build megaconstructions now, but that's almost the only thing I feel like I can do!
Post by: Guilliman on April 20, 2009, 01:59:01 pm
Going to format this in small bullet points, I think everyone will know what I mean by each point.
-Construction sites, if only that could be done like designating. Huge pain to build a multilevel wall /tower /castle.
-Constructed walls/buildings- corners. Oh god the time waist.
-Dinning hall considered Legendary way to easy
-Tantrum/depression spiral, once it start it wont stop. /abandon fortress and loose weeks of gametime because some dwarf decided it would be fun to fish in magma (not really, you get the idea)
-Traps
-Boring wildlife
-Boring invasions (orc mod added fun again, traps ruin it tho :( )
There's two things I want above all others
-Multi-thread all path finding code. The biggest drops in fps for me are stairs, corners and high z levels (so the more fun the map, the more it is slowed down)
-Ability to assign a unique graphic to every single item. With this I mean, every dwarf profession and sex can be assigned a unique art, as well as animals and items. So Swords look like sword, spears like spears etc. Providing we make the art our selfs. People can even make "newbie" friendly art pack then. Ascii is fun, it's part of the game, but It would be nice if we had the full choice ;)
Post by: MrWiggles on April 20, 2009, 04:39:12 pm
As a veteran Dwarf Fortress player, the most distressing thing about DF is the dearth of late-game content or challenge. An entire fortress can survive on two 5x5 plots of plump helmets, and goblins show up once in a blue moon to damage your framerate much more than your dwarves or fortress.
The most frustrating thing is Toady's development process. Slaves to Armok II is rapidly becoming the new Slaves to Armok I, in which feature bloat is given priority over core gameplay ideas. Consider this before tracking individual dwarf genealogy and beard hairs: Is the game fun to play? Is there a point to continue playing? Is the player ever challenged?
The thing that irritates me most is that all of the advances made to DF ever since it went 3D have been primarily focused around making a big mess of Mad Libs that you'll never pay any attention to. Dwarf religions, preferences, personalities, none of these influence gameplay. Now we are being treated to a six-month dev arc about making the already complicated wound system even more complicated. It does not make good sense to add all this fluff while the game itself is so boring compared to what it was in 2D.
How many threads are there about 'seeing the dwarfs make, or do odd things?' A decent slice of the fun seem to be watching the dwarfs do odd stuff. And this odd stuff throws a monkey wrench into the whole of the operation.
Post by: G-Flex on April 20, 2009, 05:01:33 pm
Post by: Sowelu on April 20, 2009, 05:24:35 pm
Saving my game with roughly 250,000 units of loose stone on the map takes upwards of thirty minutes.
I just gotta say. 250,000 units of loose stone? You could only get that much if you mined out seven WHOLE z-levels in their entirety on a 4x4 map. Not saying you shouldn't do that, but, geez. If it's just the endgame stuff you want, you are still Doing It Wrong because you do not need to mine that much stone to get there! Let the game get optimized, yes, but seriously...
Post by: jaked122 on April 20, 2009, 05:26:21 pm
Post by: Rysith on April 20, 2009, 05:29:40 pm
Multithread, multithread, multithread. It's going to be a pain, I know. Even if you can only do it for the most processing-intensive tasks (flows? pathfinding? Both of those should be fairly easy to multithread, since it's a lot of independant things figuring out where to go), you'd see a huge performance boost. More performance means less time between interesting events, and less time waiting as the 30,000th masterwork limestone idol is produced.
More siege options. The siege AI is really mind-numbingly dumb, and (particularly late-game) consists mostly of throwing untrained opponents with inferior equipment into a finely-honed killing machine.
- Having sieges of more than 80 + mounts would be great.
- Having the quality of sieges go up, rather than down, with time, would be great. When I hit 200 dwarves, having the average sieger be proficient with weapon/shield/wrestling would make it much harder to just mow through them with champions. Given the training times that dwarves exhibit, it doesn't seem that unreasonable for the goblins to spend a bit of time making sure that their army knows more than just which end of a sword to hold.
- Having the squads gather and attack en mass, or even just all spawn in the same place, would be great. Having them wander in one squad at a time isn't great, and it makes the largest challenge of fending them off timing the slaughter so that half the squads don't just flee before I can get dwarves to them.
- Having goblins able to deal with walls, bridges, moats, and traps would be great, even if it was by chopping down available trees to build floors/ramps/whatever. Bonus points if they could recognize the single-tile twisting paths of death and avoid them somehow.
All of that said, I love the amount of detail that is present, and I can (mostly) solve my issues with end-game by starting a new fortress.
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 20, 2009, 05:29:50 pm
While I agree that link to wiki is much better than nothing (and it would help the game in its present form), I'd prefer to have Toady or Three Toe-written help.
Here's why:
Wiki spoils too much information. Not only on pages labeled with the "spoilers" tag, but everywhele. Take goblins, for example. If I were a new player, this is what I'd need to know:
- goblins are green and evil
- they are known to steal babies and adopt them. Sometimes you can meet a dwarf that shaves (!) and acts like a goblin.
- after a few months, you can expect small goblin ambushes and thieves. When your fortress grows bigger, they will eventually besiege you with an army. Be prepared!
- you can't wear their stuff
Aside of this, the wiki also mentions that:
- there are master thieves who can avoid traps
- goblins can ride beak dogs
- if you start on top of a goblin fort, don't bring an anvil
- is it good to chain dogs at the entrance, they will catch thieves
- (if you clink at some link, you can read that the sieges start once you have population of 80, etc.)
There are all spoilers that ruin the enjoyment of a game. Experiencing these things by yourself is a great thing. Coming with your own strategies to deal with ploblems (the dog&chain thing) is essential. Don't ruin the game by including wiki in it or by preferring it over less specific help.
When I started playing DF, I had to use wiki because I didn't understand a thing. Also, I am the type of player who needs to understand game mechanics. Having some kind of "save to read" help would make my playing experience much more enjoyable.
Post by: tourettedog on April 20, 2009, 05:32:34 pm
I've said it before and I'm saying it again now: Anyone who doesn't think that civilization entity definitions, dwarven personality, religion, etc. have anything to do with the development of the actual gameplay has absolutely no idea where the game is going in the first place.
They may have something to do with the gameplay, but it's not gameplay at a level of detail that a lot of people here are interested in. I've got no interest in a game where I have to pick just the cutest little dwarf with the sweetest personality to be the captain of the guard and dressing him up in a lovely *Pig tail dress* that's dyed his very most favorite of all colors because it'll give some tiny bonus to the mood of my fort. I want a game to play, not a game that half plays itself based on thousands of behind-the-scenes variables and waits for me to catch up with how clever it's being.
Sending out war parties to sack goblin forts? Megafauna that I can capture and send along with the war parties? Actual diplomacy options, like asking the goblins to join up and kick the shit out of the elves? Being able to embargo a city and have them cave to my demands because they want stone trumpets just that much? Slave trading and exchanging prisoners of war? I can get solidly behind every one of those, because they let me interact with the game, as opposed to reading pages of DF mad libs to find the one entry that lets me figure out -- five minutes after the fact -- why some otherwise inexplicable event happened.
As a side note, if even one of those things popped up in a future release -- assuming I'm still following development by then -- I'll probably kick another $50+ into the kitty.
Now explain to me why teeth, beard layers and the hyper-detailed physical properties of the haft of the sword of the third '@' from the left are critical to any of those? Many of these details are probably going to have to turn into init options so that computers don't get choked on all the calculations anyway, why not pick the ones that are headed that way, put in the placeholder code now, add some fun stuff to lure back the people on the non-simulationist side of the fence, and then go back and add the detailed stuff later?
Post by: Sowelu on April 20, 2009, 05:44:31 pm
Besides, remember that devs have to have fun too, and that means writing the code THEY want sometimes...
flows? pathfinding? Both of those should be fairly easy to multithread, since it's a lot of independant things figuring out where to go
fairly easy to multithread
*gets out the beating stick* Not that multithreading isn't necessary, but those words BOTHER me.
Post by: Shurikane on April 20, 2009, 05:57:03 pm
Saving my game with roughly 250,000 units of loose stone on the map takes upwards of thirty minutes.
I just gotta say. 250,000 units of loose stone? You could only get that much if you mined out seven WHOLE z-levels in their entirety on a 4x4 map. Not saying you shouldn't do that, but, geez. If it's just the endgame stuff you want, you are still Doing It Wrong because you do not need to mine that much stone to get there! Let the game get optimized, yes, but seriously...
Mountain Audit challenge on a 5x5.
6 levels done. 7 levels to go.
Computer overheated twice since I've begun this crazy quest.
Post by: Siber on April 20, 2009, 06:00:22 pm
Saying it'd be easy, though... that's a whole other kettle of fish.
More in line with the topic, I'd say that the paragraphs of description are probably not going to be a huge boon to dwarf mode, but that they sound like something that can really benefit adventure mode down the line. Hell, you could be told to search for someone with a certain appearance, or maybe there can be cases of mistaken identity, or so forth. Dwarf mode isn't the only thing that this game aims to make good.
Still, I think it's really easy to get off track here. I don't think Threetoe is really asking what problems you have now with the game, or what needs to be done to bring it into line with your perfect vision of the future. I think that instead of asking what turns you off in hour five of playing, he's looking for what turns most people off in minute five. Endgame fun, eventual framerate crawl, unrealized features... none of these are issues that are going to smack a new player in the face and make them give up. They might eventually drive that player away in frustration, but only after they've given the game a real fair shake. They're not problems that stop someone from even having a chance at getting hooked.
I've asked people who were turned off in those first five minutes, and the answer is always the UI being unintuitive, not knowing what to do or how to do it, and not being able to figure it out. These aren't dumb people, these aren't people that are driven away by complexity. This is why I suggested tutorials and graphics tiles before. ASCII graphics may be suitable for those that are already familiar with them, but for the uninitiated, you have to learn what everything is. With a good tile set, you don't have to learn that one symbol is a dwarf and one is a door and one is a bed, because they look like dwarves and doors and beds already.
Post by: Capntastic on April 20, 2009, 06:11:56 pm
Just a word on the multithreading note, from my spectating on the computer industry, it seems like raw processing power hasn't really been going up for a long time, but rather the focus is on adding new cores.
False.
A 3ghz core made today is far more powerful than one from a few years ago. Clockspeed isn't the only factor.
Post by: Sowelu on April 20, 2009, 06:44:17 pm
Okay, it's been like ten years since I had any clue at ALL about hardware, but I don't understand that. How are two chips with the same clockspeed and number of cores different in terms of performance? Is it because some have better optimizations, because I thought those had to be compiled in...or is it because they have a cache on the chip itself or something...or better pipelining, I didn't think that was that big of an improvement?
Post by: G-Flex on April 20, 2009, 07:22:07 pm
..........?
Okay, it's been like ten years since I had any clue at ALL about hardware, but I don't understand that. How are two chips with the same clockspeed and number of cores different in terms of performance?
The clock speed isn't a measure of how many of a given operation is done per second. It's just a measure of the amount of clock cycles used to time it. Obviously, the same chip will perform much better if it's timed faster, but two 3GHz CPUs might still process things at different rates, since one might be able to do more in a single clock cycle than the other.
Post by: father_alexander on April 20, 2009, 08:06:30 pm
Second the graphics, while i dont mind the ascii, i do mind understanding whats going on , a decent solution to this would be making the graphic easier to apply, and maybe even attaching a simple graphic set to it, nothing big, just you know, something really simple, that would also make it a lot easier to control dwarves, and even feel attached to them!
After a while either the lack of something new or the difficulty to get a good map! see unless you start close to gobos you will eventually find it hard to get sieges or ambushes (though this will probably get solved in the next update) and its also solved wen you learn that you should always use science* , as for a good map, well , let me say i HATE aquifers , they have this tendency to appear in the most AWESOME maps and just ruin, them, and i am really obbsessive so sometimes i really need a perfect map.
*testing and trying shit while killing living things in the process
Some improvement in the interface would rock too, but its not thaaaat needed (from my point of view at least) if you do the tutorial , still some decent mouse interface would rock, also some things are really boring, like having to make 200 bedrooms, or a whole dining room, or even giving the correct jobs to everyone.
Post by: Davion on April 20, 2009, 08:11:11 pm
Now explain to me why teeth, beard layers and the hyper-detailed physical properties of the haft of the sword of the third '@' from the left are critical to any of those? Many of these details are probably going to have to turn into init options so that computers don't get choked on all the calculations anyway, why not pick the ones that are headed that way, put in the placeholder code now, add some fun stuff to lure back the people on the non-simulationist side of the fence, and then go back and add the detailed stuff later?
Yeah, doing twice the amount of work for items that are already coming up in the near future sounds productive.
Spend months putting in placeholder code and then a year down the line gut all of that and make the "real version", all to gain a couple hundred more downloads and keep peoples interest for a couple of months before they figure out how to abuse it and get bored again. Then when he starts gutting the placeholder stuff you will probably return and complain about him gutting it and redoing it when he could be spending his time implementing other stuff you'd rather see and use the same argument: "Why don't you just keep the placeholder stuff and make more placeholder stuff bloo bloo blah blah mad libs teeth and beard simulation"
Post by: Aquillion on April 20, 2009, 08:13:48 pm
You all have many valid complaints, as should be expected. It seems like the thing that would keep the most players from giving up is a good tutorial, in addition to other fixes. I’d be interested in hearing how you think that should look. For instance, one long tutorial, or several guides aimed at different aspects of the game. What subjects are the most confusing? Should the tutorial map fit in the world itself as a mission from the Mountainhomes for example?I think a tutorial fit into the world itself would be the most fun for players -- basically a scripted "campaign mode" that is really a tutorial. Give the players sequential requests to build and use certain structures (a farm with farming instructions, a dining hall, some bedrooms, and so forth.)
Oh, also. The "Start now" setup should probably be improved; it's pretty un-optimal, I think. Give players some of every seed, say, which is just common sense when starting out. No animals aside from dogs -- they're not useful enough to a starting fort, and players get them automatically from immigrants anyway. A good common-sense skill-assignment with one or two miners, one or two farmers, a chef, a fisherdwarf, a brewer, someone with decent social skills and so on -- players shouldn't have to read the wiki to determine what a good starting setup is; when they hit "start now" the game should provide something decent for them.
Oh, also! Another option would be to make a 'scenario builder' that players could use to make their own scripted scenarios -- where they could set certain events to happen at certain times, or require that the player produce / do certain things first. This could be used for all sorts of things, but it could also be used to let users create and update their own in-game tutorials. You could then link to the best of those on the download page.
Post by: G-Flex on April 20, 2009, 08:20:44 pm
Yeah, doing twice the amount of work for items that are already coming up in the near future sounds productive.
Spend months putting in placeholder code and then a year down the line gut all of that and make the "real version", all to gain a couple hundred more downloads and keep peoples interest for a couple of months before they figure out how to abuse it and get bored again. Then when he starts gutting the placeholder stuff you will probably return and complain about him gutting it and redoing it when he could be spending his time implementing other stuff you'd rather see and use the same argument: "Why don't you just keep the placeholder stuff and make more placeholder stuff bloo bloo blah blah mad libs teeth and beard simulation"
Tell me about it.
I know Toady has to rely on donations, but I hope he doesn't ever end up making too many concessions in order to drum up downloads or a bigger player base.
Granted, I don't honestly think he will, but I've seen it from commercial developers so much that it seems like it's damn near the default. :P
I think some people just don't understand how much more work it would be to do all this piecemeal placeholder junk they seem to be suggesting, rather than actually designing the whole system (whichever we're talking about) at once. Take bodies, for instance. Yeah, beards aren't the most important things in the world, but did adding them really take much time out of development? If you look at how things have been going, you can tell the answer is no: He was already working on new body definitions and how they work, and the less-important bits were just a small part of all that.
I think one sort of user-help the game needs is a sort of live help system. Right now, when you view a flux stone or piece of ore, it says what reactions it's a part of. I can see it helping if the game did that for just about EVERYTHING: Telling you what uses something has when viewing it if you want, and telling you what's necessary for any given job at a shop.
Although, personally, the game-affecting issues I had mentioned previously have more bearing on what bugs me, although that's from the perspective of someone who had relatively little trouble getting into the game at first (although I had the wiki and a graphics pack available).
Speaking of graphics, I think one problem is how inefficient they are. The game could easily use 24-bit color instead of the limited palette it has now, and could use arbitrarily-sized tilesets. Right now, by default, it basically uses an ASCII tileset some of which isn't even used for anything. I know this is all obvious and everything, but I thought I'd throw it in instead of just yelling "TILESET SUPPORT >:(".
Post by: tourettedog on April 20, 2009, 08:52:10 pm
Yeah, doing twice the amount of work for items that are already coming up in the near future sounds productive.
Spend months putting in placeholder code and then a year down the line gut all of that and make the "real version"...
There'd be no more gutting involved than there is for the temperature init option right now. Hell, he could have set most of this up through empty functions a while ago; and for all I know that's what he did.
You write something like this:
function calculate_weapon_damage(weapon_data, victim):
if weapon_data has super_complex_materials_data then:
// calculate it based on tensile strength and victim tissue information
else:
return dieroll(2d6+1)
end
And until you're ready to start implementing all that fun stuff you just never attach materials data to any weapon data. Once you decide to start dealing with the tensile/shear strength of someone's armor versus the weapon being used, you go and fill in the code in the comment, write up and link your material data to the weapons and armor, and go from there.
There's some functional equivalent of this code implemented already, as evidenced by the fact that you can turn off things like the economy, weather, and temperature effects; all of which are pretty pervasive.
Meanwhile, huge amounts of detail is being added to stuff that could easily be abstracted out in a way that code for it could be dropped in later, while major gameplay issues are left unaddressed for months.
Quote
I know Toady has to rely on donations, but I hope he doesn't ever end up making too many concessions in order to drum up downloads or a bigger player base.
Unless the "I love playing Dwarven-dress-up" brigade is ready to stand up and support Toady all by themselves, they should accept the fact that he might actually have to turn his attention to immediate gameplay concerns to retain sufficient fans to support himself, rather than laying ever-more-elaborate foundations for a hugely ambitious and complex vision that may or may not ever actually be realizable.
Post by: G-Flex on April 20, 2009, 08:55:53 pm
Unless the "I love playing Dwarven-dress-up" brigade
If you're going to act like that, people aren't even going to read the rest of your posts, much less take them seriously. Realize that you're being a dismissive jerk not only to the people who like where the game is headed, but also to the person who decided to do it that way in the first place.
Post by: tourettedog on April 20, 2009, 09:10:50 pm
If you're going to act like that, people aren't even going to read the rest of your posts, much less take them seriously. Realize that you're being a dismissive jerk not only to the people who like where the game is headed, but also to the person who decided to do it that way in the first place.
So "myopic myopic can't read the design docs you're so short-sighted you enemy of art and I pity your ignorace" condescension is cool, but I finally take a dig at you and suddenly that's a foul? Seriously, for someone so concerned with being "dismissive", have you actually re-read any of your own posts?
But whatever. If I really did hurt your feelings, then I apologize. I thought that it was pretty obvious that that line was hyperbole, and I assumed that it could be read in the context of your 'oh god please not too many concessions to the gameplay-oriented plebs' comment as a response in similar vein.
Now would you like to respond to any of the other points? Specifically the one where I said the thing that turns me off about DF is that it has major gameplay issues (not only bugs but lack of content) that have languished for months, and that they're probably driving away players and potential sponsors? And that there are small things that could be done now to improve gameplay that would not necessarily involve sacrificing long-term plans?
Post by: Davion on April 20, 2009, 09:13:30 pm
You write something like this:
function calculate_weapon_damage(weapon_data, victim):
if weapon_data has super_complex_materials_data then:
// calculate it based on tensile strength and victim tissue information
else:
return dieroll(2d6+1)
end
And making placeholder junk to implement sending out war parties to sack goblin forts, megafauna that can be captured and sent along with war parties, actual diplomacy options, being able to embargo a city and have them cave to demands, and slave trading/exchanging prisoners of war could probably be implemented in about five minutes right? Probably just a couple of dice rolls or something. ::)
Post by: PMantix on April 20, 2009, 09:19:06 pm
Here are her suggestions as an 'outsider' who hadn't been sucked in:
1. A quick help. She was completely overwhelmed by the massive amount of things that can be done. What she would have liked to see was the ability to click a word or object and have some kind of helpful hint pop up to briefly explain the word. For example, she was making her starting 7 and wasn't familiar with what a thresher was or did. I wasn't around to explain it or show her the wiki, so she just skipped it.. what would have made the difference was a quick pop up text bubble stating what the job is, inputs/outputs, and associated buildings/areas. Same goes for objects.. "this is a throne. It is needed as seating adjacent to tables in dining rooms. It can be designated as an office for administrative purposes or as a throne room for nobles." That way you can be quickly informed about what something is, instead of the default "what the hell is that" or "how the hell do I make this"
2. Direction. I think the reason she quit was because she just didn't know what to do anymore. She liked gathering wood, and building beds, and digging out bedrooms and making every little dwarf their own private room. But once she had done that she asked me, "ok, now what?" And I, of course, said, "well, you can do basically whatever you want. Build a grand dining hall. Make some crafts. Train some warriors and beat the hell out of some goblins. Trade with the damn tree huggers. Anything really." So she then goes and figured out how to gather, cut, and encrust some gems on things she had made. But without any real direction to go, or some concrete objective dictated by the game, she just lost interest. I think the nobles demands are the right kind of idea to give this kind of motivation, they are just implemented in such a way that makes you want to kill them instead of fulfill their request. I think it really boils down to the fact that nobles are being complete selfish pricks and only asking for things that they want when they should actually be demanding things like, "Too many lives were lost last season to the siege. Build defensive marksdwarf towers at the main entrance to protect our hoard!" Easier said than done I know.. but giving an objective that isn't based on the fact that your duke likes pigtail socks would be a massive improvement in my opinion. Bonus points for the demands being based on the history of the fort (siege aftermath (like in the example above), food stockpiles, work availability, lack of beds/wells/soldiers, etc) and it gives useful objectives to guide new players when they aren't sure what they should be doing.
Those were her two big ideas for what could have made DF work for her, fleshed out by yours truely.
Post by: tourettedog on April 20, 2009, 09:20:21 pm
And making placeholder junk to implement sending out war parties to sack goblin forts, megafauna that can be captured and sent along with war parties, actual diplomacy options, being able to embargo a city and have them cave to demands, and slave trading/exchanging prisoners of war could probably be implemented in about five minutes right? Probably just a couple of dice rolls or something. ::)
Excellent point. Because that totally wasn't just a 6-line pseudocode example written to indicate how he could do it without setting up a hack he'd have to pull out later.
And anyway, he clearly hasn't already done something similar with an init option for sieges. Or temperature. Or cave-ins.
Post by: Aquillion on April 20, 2009, 09:23:07 pm
1. A quick help. She was completely overwhelmed by the massive amount of things that can be done. What she would have liked to see was the ability to click a word or object and have some kind of helpful hint pop up to briefly explain the word. For example, she was making her starting 7 and wasn't familiar with what a thresher was or did. I wasn't around to explain it or show her the wiki, so she just skipped it.. what would have made the difference was a quick pop up text bubble stating what the job is, inputs/outputs, and associated buildings/areas. Same goes for objects.. "this is a throne. It is needed as seating adjacent to tables in dining rooms. It can be designated as an office for administrative purposes or as a throne room for nobles." That way you can be quickly informed about what something is, instead of the default "what the hell is that" or "how the hell do I make this"This is a good idea. The '?' help would be much more useful if it was context-sensitive and brought up information about whatever your cursor is over at the moment. It would especially be nice to be able to get information about workshop tasks, too, learning what each task requires and produces.
Post by: Lalandrathon on April 20, 2009, 09:30:23 pm
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 20, 2009, 09:48:51 pm
*sigh*
Look toady did implement some cardboard-code for us so we get a "feeling" and he can do some "Basics" which can thanks to the "Cardboard-code", be tested until the real code is worked out.
The new fight system is higly entangled with the new Body-code which is needed because without it fights just wouldnt work propper . To have the proper "über-Awesome-fist-of dragon-fights" we need the "toothbrushing and dwarf dressup" stuff first. From my view as programmer and rp-player i can say that abstracting here is a bit very tricky.
There is an old saying "First the work then the fun". Here does it mean that toad has to do the bodysystem - and doing it in one go minimizes the failurerate and the chance to forget something later - before we can go all "bruce lee". Also it enables more fun fights and dirty wrestling moves :P .
To get back to Threetoes last questions.
I think a world only for the Tutorials would be good. To cut out the need for a entire world to be downloaded you could just create a well defined Seed which gets some scripts. Since you know what you get after W-gen the scripts would work every time right. The scripts itself would be some 100 kilobytes - at max if you do a realy big tutorial. Done right toady could even implemet some kind of "story-writing/play story" mode which the community could use. But that goes to far for now i guess.
On the UI side i would add more mouse-support. Also the ? (question mark) should tell you can do with the selected stuff (These are logs. logs can be used to ....)
the UI mockup some post before this was by the way very interresting.
Post by: PMantix on April 20, 2009, 10:01:24 pm
1. A quick help. She was completely overwhelmed by the massive amount of things that can be done. What she would have liked to see was the ability to click a word or object and have some kind of helpful hint pop up to briefly explain the word. For example, she was making her starting 7 and wasn't familiar with what a thresher was or did. I wasn't around to explain it or show her the wiki, so she just skipped it.. what would have made the difference was a quick pop up text bubble stating what the job is, inputs/outputs, and associated buildings/areas. Same goes for objects.. "this is a throne. It is needed as seating adjacent to tables in dining rooms. It can be designated as an office for administrative purposes or as a throne room for nobles." That way you can be quickly informed about what something is, instead of the default "what the hell is that" or "how the hell do I make this"This is a good idea. The '?' help would be much more useful if it was context-sensitive and brought up information about whatever your cursor is over at the moment. It would especially be nice to be able to get information about workshop tasks, too, learning what each task requires and produces.
That's what I thought too. I wouldn't want it to be just the wiki imported into the game, just the basic ins and outs of what the word or object is. I think that would make a world of difference just to have that very basic level of info available in game rather than relying on the player to figure out every single thing on their own or from outside sources.
Post by: Kishmond on April 20, 2009, 10:21:15 pm
So just relax. We're getting there.
(And this is going to be a huge update. Everyone is likely to find something they'll like.)
Post by: Rockphed on April 21, 2009, 12:46:40 am
Code: [Select]
Raw Adamantine is a stone.
Adamantine Strands can be extracted from it at the craftsdwarf workshop.
Legends speak of horrible fates befalling those who, in their greed, delved too deep in search of Adamantine.Now, there are three parts to this listing that can each be generated by the game instead of being hard-coded in:
First, there is what type of object you are dealing with. It could probably get even more specific, but I don't think it needs to. Second, there is a description of its use. In this case it could probably include other things that can be done with raw Adamantine, but extracting adamantine strands is probably the most important thing. For normal stone, it should probably say that it isn't used in reactions, while flux stones should make mention of that property.
Thirdly is a special case for things found around HFS, like Adamantine. There should, in my opinion, be a warning against digging too deep inherent in the game itself.
Post by: Capntastic on April 21, 2009, 01:27:14 am
Okay, to run with the context sensitive use of '?', what would it show when a piece of Raw Adamantine was selected. Here is my idea:Code: [Select]Raw Adamantine is a stone.
Adamantine Strands can be extracted from it at the craftsdwarf workshop.
Legends speak of horrible fates befalling those who, in their greed, delved too deep in search of Adamantine.
The thing here is that it's very hard to implement this stuff easily, I think. Especially since A: The game should, I feel, only tell you what has been discovered about some object- like Adamantine. Likewise, there's like a zillion objects in the game, and I'd rather have Toady working on the game then in-game descriptions for 'em right now. For the time being, at least.
I really think that a lot of the tutorials and wiki stuff are fine the way they are now- a product of the community.
Post by: MrWiggles on April 21, 2009, 05:08:12 am
Okay, to run with the context sensitive use of '?', what would it show when a piece of Raw Adamantine was selected. Here is my idea:Code: [Select]Raw Adamantine is a stone.
Adamantine Strands can be extracted from it at the craftsdwarf workshop.
Legends speak of horrible fates befalling those who, in their greed, delved too deep in search of Adamantine.
The thing here is that it's very hard to implement this stuff easily, I think. Especially since A: The game should, I feel, only tell you what has been discovered about some object- like Adamantine. Likewise, there's like a zillion objects in the game, and I'd rather have Toady working on the game then in-game descriptions for 'em right now. For the time being, at least.
I really think that a lot of the tutorials and wiki stuff are fine the way they are now- a product of the community.
I think a tutorial like this would be best, in the end. Before 1V gets out, since until then things will get added, modded and dropped making the tutorials always out of date, if they are in game.
The wiki for now, is the best solution. I didn't really start getting the game until I followed the first fortress guide on the wiki. That really let me grow acustom to how the menus, and various are worked as well as teaching the basic of the ASCII diction that the game uses.
Post by: PMantix on April 21, 2009, 06:03:01 am
I really think that a lot of the tutorials and wiki stuff are fine the way they are now- a product of the community.
I agree, because it would definitely take a long time to add these quick helps for every single object in the game. But I think having the help and tutorials outside the game is what turns away a good portion of the 90% who play fortress for a few minutes and then never come back. All of us who have struggled through are the exception to that rule I think.
A link to the wiki in game may give the most benefit for the least amount of work.
Post by: SirPenguin on April 21, 2009, 07:47:14 am
Anyways, I'm going to split this up like a previous poster did into "What turned me off in the beginning" and "What turns me off now", as I think the distinction is important.
Beginning:
*ASCII graphics coupled with the low color amount. One or the other I could probably deal with, but both made it very difficult to understand ANYTHING going on. I remember the first time I noticed vermin, as I kept wondering what the fuck these weird colored commas and apostrophes were doing blinking in and out of existence. Finally I was able to pause just in time to see it was a fairy flying around. Cute.
I understand the difficulties Toady has to overcome when it comes to graphics. On the one hand to stop and focus on them would eat up a lot of his time. However, to simply open it up to the community would also wrestle some pretty important control over the game away from him, something he clearly does not want (nor should he).
And yet despite all of this, the ASCII graphics and limited colors are the #1 reason people are being turned away from the game. It's mentioned in the first line of any description of the game ("...and if you can get past the Matrix-like quality of DF...") and is definitely both a turn off for people who DO know what they're doing and downright scary for people who DON'T know what they're doing.
*Beyond that? A clunky interface that seems to change its mind far too often (Wanna close this screen? Try Space. NO WAIT I MEANT F9!) and that overcomplicates an already overcomplicated game.
*Finally, the lack of any meaningful description as to what is what in the world. When I first started out I had the Wiki open in another tab constantly searching info about every stone I found because I had absolutely no idea what was important and what was not. Repeat this process for damn near every item, building, and character. Also, as someone who hasn't taken a geology course in his entire life, it surprised the hell out of me when I wasn't striking any "iron veins". Little did I know that shit came from ores that sound like Pokemon.
Now, as a "seasoned" DFer:
*No goal or incentive to do anything most of the time. Hard to fault the ALPHA of a game for this, but if you're asking what turns me off, this is a big one.
*Clunky Legends mode. I LOVE Legends, but in its current form it's almost impossible to follow even one character around without getting lost. And what kills me is that it is SO OBVIOUS how AMAZING it would be if it followed a "Wiki" style formatting. Oh, Soandso moved to Placething? Awesome! Click on Placething to see what it was like and where it was. Oh the battle of Squeezingthighs took place here? Click on that to get a detailed view of the battle. Oh hey, there's Soandso leading the battle!
*90% of all locations are "boring" or, in some cases, entirely stupid to settle on. Without magma your metal production will crawl, and your glass production probably won't exist. No flux? No steel. No sand? No glass. Lack of adamantine = lack of awesome weapons/armor/items and also lack of some pretty important "end game" difficulties. Found an awesome place nestled in the mountains or on an island? Get ready to play Dwarf Fortress: Survivor, as if others can't "reach" you, then you may as well be all along in this world. No traders. No sieges. Nothing.
So people spend countless hours trying to get the planets to align and find the one suitable place where a lot of those features cross. And as I and many others have noticed, it's quite rare for all of this to occur in a playing space less than 3x3...which leads me to...
*FPS problems. Number one complaint as a DF veteran. It is THE reason I quit fortresses basically 9 times out of 10. I have two rigs, neither one of them bad. The laptop has a speedy processor and lots of memory to go around, and the desktop, though old, has plenty of decent parts. My desktop can play L4D on medium settings, it can run Fallout 3 on the low ones, and basically any game released before 2008 it can run high.
And yet god forbid I have a fortress larger than 50 dwarves, else my FPS is cut down into the 40s on a good day, and into the single digits when a trader comes.
Anyways, this post is long, but hey, a developer of the game asked me an honest question, and I think I owe it to you guys to give you an honest answer.
Post by: change name please on April 21, 2009, 08:03:48 am
Might I point out that were missing some things here. Maybe some of you are frustrated by the lack of tangible progress but you're letting it get to your heads. Take a look at the list of remaining items (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=30026.0). There are 188 bullets on that list and only 8 of them relate to teeth, wrinkles, beards and whatnot, that you claim Toady has been working on for the last six months. And get this, they're mostly finished already. My point is we seem to be selectively observing things. I can see plenty of items on that list that will affect gameplay.
So just relax. We're getting there.
(And this is going to be a huge update. Everyone is likely to find something they'll like.)
This happens to be an inconvenient time to argue what TouretteDog and I have seen to be the problem with dwarf fortress since there is this big, nebulous update that's coming out "soon" (read: in the next 1-6 months) that will purpotedly incorporate the layers system and the military and a rich-content underworld and serve you a cold beer. Me, I'm banking on there being far less to this patch than most people are expecting, and I'm not expecting the changes to enrich gameplay that much. Unfortunately, there's not really much I can do while this looms somewhere off in the distance other than to ask "why not sooner?" and promise to return to say "I told you so" when we end up with one or two extra little features and five pages of dwarven hair and scar and tooth descriptions
Post by: thvaz on April 21, 2009, 09:13:39 am
This happens to be an inconvenient time to argue what TouretteDog and I have seen to be the problem with dwarf fortress since there is this big, nebulous update that's coming out "soon" (read: in the next 1-6 months) that will purpotedly incorporate the layers system and the military and a rich-content underworld and serve you a cold beer. Me, I'm banking on there being far less to this patch than most people are expecting, and I'm not expecting the changes to enrich gameplay that much. Unfortunately, there's not really much I can do while this looms somewhere off in the distance other than to ask "why not sooner?" and promise to return to say "I told you so" when we end up with one or two extra little features and five pages of dwarven hair and scar and tooth descriptions
Now, who's trolling? Your agressive tone in every post you make let this very clear. You are here not to answer a question Threetoe asked, or to help the development of the game, but just to let everyone and their dog know how and why this game and Toady's way of working sucks.
About what turns me off about the game, I can tell just as a veteran DF player, as when I started nothing turned me off. What brought me into the game was a post in another forum, a good tale about what happened in a fort of another player It was so interesting it made me have the necessary committing to learn the game and ignore its obvious flaws, flaws that are obvious even to Toady (interface, ASCII graphics, and everything everyone and this thread correctly remarked).
The fact is, without the necessary committing, everyone will be turned off by this game. And most people won't have this committing. This is why we need more stories like Boatmurdered or the post that got into the game, they are the game most effective publicity.
What turns me off of the game nowadays are the problems other veterans remarked: the crawling FPS of late-game fortresses, the lack of challenges, and the closing in of a new release. There are about some months I don't play the game, and even when I have the will to play, I just can't, in antecipation of the new features of the next release. Always there is a new significant release, I play the game for weeks.
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 21, 2009, 09:44:15 am
Post by: macdonellba on April 21, 2009, 10:12:36 am
The thing here is that it's very hard to implement this stuff easily, I think.Not really, especially not compared to the ridiculous assertions being made about optimization in this thread. Heck, since the data has to be loaded from a file anyway, just getting the community to provide context-sensitive information that balances help against spoilers would be one way to get this done with little more than some refactoring and the addition of a hook to several parts of the raws (plus creating placeholder doc files for anything hardcoded.)
Anyway, returning to the weird optimization assertions being made here: be aware that you're discussing potential constant-time subsystem improvements, not magic pixie dust. Even if Toady were to implement a route caching and thread pool system so efficient that it could quadruple the average pathfinding speed on high-end processors (and do far less on commodity hardware), the improvement would still increase your FPS by less than a factor of four. You'll likely be hard-pressed to find any other game using a tile map larger than one which represents a 4x4 map in DF, and DF's pathfinding frequency is ridiculous by any standards I've ever seen. While you might eventually reap some constant rewards from time-consuming and aggressive optimization, you need to realize that there will never be a magic bullet that makes large maps with hundreds of dwarfs as viable as more modest undertakings.
In reality, most games avoid this sort of problem by disguising coarser tilemaps under cleverly-blended terrain which bleeds into surrounding tiles and by using steering to navigate within and between tiles. Unfortunately, this sort of approach is generally only viable when you have some form of isometric / 3D terrain representation, and is effectively impossible to accomplish in roguelikes. The only other way to avoid the inevitable endgame slowdown is to reduce the number of dwarves which constitutes an 'endgame state' by reducing migrant waves and increasing specialization, akin to the abstraction found in many RTS titles. I seriously doubt we will ever have our cake and eat (all of) it too.
Post by: Shurikane on April 21, 2009, 11:01:48 am
In reality, most games avoid this sort of problem by disguising coarser tilemaps under cleverly-blended terrain which bleeds into surrounding tiles and by using steering to navigate within and between tiles. Unfortunately, this sort of approach is generally only viable when you have some form of isometric / 3D terrain representation, and is effectively impossible to accomplish in roguelikes.
Can you re-explain that in other words? I'm not sure I fully understand that part.
Post by: G-Flex on April 21, 2009, 11:12:28 am
since there is this big, nebulous update that's coming out "soon" (read: in the next 1-6 months) that will purpotedly incorporate the layers system and the military and a rich-content underworld and serve you a cold beer. Me, I'm banking on there being far less to this patch than most people are expecting, and I'm not expecting the changes to enrich gameplay that much.
What, do you think the developer is lying or something?
The gameplay changes are pretty clearly listed in the next-version dev list (the one toady is colorizing as he finishes them), and more are alluded to in the daily dev reports. Reading Toady's answer posts helps, too.
The military changes and underground critter changes ALONE are going to solve two very serious and immediate gameplay concerns: hard-to-deal-with military and lack of persistent challenge from special features. HFS is getting an update too, but Toady's been keeping the details to himself, understandably.
I understand hype being not necessarily a good thing and all, but this isn't like a normal commercial game's development where promises are broken constantly and you have no idea what's actually going to happen, or what's going on. We pretty much know what Toady has planned. It's itemized and he tells us what's going on almost every day.
And when people DO assume something false about what's going to be included in the next version, they're usually corrected by other members of the forums.
[edit]
For the record (and I'm not sure this'll matter to you), Toady has said that after this release, he might try working on some of the top suggestions he's seen here, particularly on the Eternal Suggestions list. Obviously it probably won't be a totally-democratic/populistic thing, but he does pay a lot of attention to what people want.
Post by: Rysith on April 21, 2009, 11:27:39 am
Now, who's trolling?Look at his avatar. Of course he's trolling. Just ignore him.
Post by: thvaz on April 21, 2009, 11:45:48 am
Now, who's trolling?Look at his avatar. Of course he's trolling. Just ignore him.
Heh, I had user's avatars turned off. But you can't judge someone by the looks only.
Post by: Rockphed on April 21, 2009, 11:49:46 am
The thing here is that it's very hard to implement this stuff easily, I think. Especially since A: The game should, I feel, only tell you what has been discovered about some object- like Adamantine. Likewise, there's like a zillion objects in the game, and I'd rather have Toady working on the game then in-game descriptions for 'em right now. For the time being, at least.
The thing is, I wasn't suggesting writing all of that stuff out more than once each. I was thinking that DwarfFort would look at the item type and put up a statement about it. Things like, "Stone is used to make furniture and blocks at the mason's workshop, build crude walls and buildings, and make Crafts at the Craftsdwarf's Workshop," would be inserted into the '?' screen brought up by selecting any stone. If the stone is used in a reaction, then it would be mentioned in the next paragraph. Currently pressing [enter] while selecting a stone with the 'k' command brings up exactly that list of reactions that use the stone or bar. In fact, you can then look at what else is required for the reaction by pressing [enter] while selecting the specific reaction. The problem is that none of this is currently easy to figure out for newbies. If every screen had a '?' with "help" next to it at the lower right corner of the screen, it would be much easier for new players to think, "I have no idea what is going on, but there is a friendly help command, so I can possibly get some more information."
On the other hand, just including a text-file with my suggested description for every item type would allow somebody to quickly go find a simple description of whatever they are looking at. They would just need to know that it was there. Good descriptions of all the screens and what to do with them would also be nice. The great thing about the text file is that Toady just needs to put, "For more information, see Help.doc in the Dwarf Fortress folder," in the help system in game. The other great thing is that we, being the community, can write it instead of burdening Toady with it.
Post by: PMantix on April 21, 2009, 12:08:29 pm
The other great thing is that we, being the community, can write it instead of burdening Toady with it.
I think that is a great idea. Instead of having to burden Toady away from 'real' development, all he would do is just put the ground work in for a more robust help system that can be editted in game by the player. Then dozens of players can contribute to the help file which could then be downloaded later just like the graphical tilesets.
I disagree that there should not be some sort of in game tutorial or help system. The community based stuff is great when you are part of the community, but those players that have gotten that far aren't the concern of this thread. The real point is to try and find ways to catch as many of the people that aren't staying as possible. It's improving DF first impression that will get the most new players playing and staying, and that means having the instructions more closely associated with the software. You can't expect most players to put in the extra effort just to figure out what they are looking at and doing.
Post by: codezero on April 21, 2009, 12:18:26 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: tourettedog on April 21, 2009, 12:21:41 pm
I was thinking that DwarfFort would look at the item type and put up a statement about it....
What about cleaning up the movie interface -- or establishing a link between the current in-game help system and movie files -- and having some DF-movie based tutorials for major features? Use the note feature to display tutorial text, and you could have some decent in-game video help using pretty much existing tools (and requiring little coding).
Linking the help files to the movies might take a little effort, but again the movies could come from volunteers.
<ObGripe>and add more late-game content to keep them interested once they've gotten a handle on the early part.</ObGripe>
Quote
Of course he's trolling.
Even trolls can make good points.
Post by: thvaz on April 21, 2009, 12:25:34 pm
Quote
Even trolls can make good points.
He has some good points; his attitude just isn't helping.
Post by: Sowelu on April 21, 2009, 12:49:10 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on April 21, 2009, 01:07:26 pm
This is the irony of your viewpoint, instead of taking '5 minutes' to change how deadly a bow is, he's (at least potentially) based it on the tensile strength of the bow. And not only that, it's been applied consistently throughout the entire world. Imagine if he'd taken your idea and said bowdamage = 5 , crossbowdamage = 7 , TreeSnapsinaHurricane = 231... The idea of programming is to get the computer to do the work.
Why would you go to the lengths of making 'beards' be wrestleable against dwarves when you can actually give the dwarf a beard and hence it will be wrestleable (among other things). That's how these basic building blocks can interact to form something a lot more vivid.
The discussing-in-spoilers thing isn't considered kosher anymore.
I'm going to have to disagree. The current ranged weapons are probably the least defensible placeholder in the game. Like farming, they're hopelessly broken, but unlike farming, they can't even be modded properly (unless you mod them out entirely, which I often do). Even the quickest and dirtiest of updates -- changing the rate-of-fire cap or skill multiplier or exponential constant or whatever to, what, 1/5 of its current value? -- would improve Fortress Mode combat by an embarrassingly disproportionate amount.
I can't wait for crossbows that properly take their base material and quality (and raws numbers) into account for accuracy, projectile speed, rate of fire, and so on. And I understand the principle of not wasting time on elaborate placeholders. But this is situation where there's a single integer constant somewhere in the source, and it's the wrong integer and it just needs 5 seconds of TLC. Or you know, a day's worth of basic overhaul for projectile weapons, even if that means one additional day before release.
Post by: thvaz on April 21, 2009, 01:25:24 pm
The discussing-in-spoilers thing isn't considered kosher anymore.
I'm going to have to disagree. The current ranged weapons are probably the least defensible placeholder in the game. Like farming, they're hopelessly broken, but unlike farming, they can't even be modded properly (unless you mod them out entirely, which I often do). Even the quickest and dirtiest of updates -- changing the rate-of-fire cap or skill multiplier or exponential constant or whatever to, what, 1/5 of its current value? -- would improve Fortress Mode combat by an embarrassingly disproportionate amount.
I can't wait for crossbows that properly take their base material and quality (and raws numbers) into account for accuracy, projectile speed, rate of fire, and so on. And I understand the principle of not wasting time on elaborate placeholders. But this is situation where there's a single integer constant somewhere in the source, and it's the wrong integer and it just needs 5 seconds of TLC. Or you know, a day's worth of basic overhaul for projectile weapons, even if that means one additional day before release.
Won't something about ranged combat change in the next updade anyway? AFAIK, bone bolts won't break through iron armor anymore, for example.
Post by: Neonivek on April 21, 2009, 01:39:58 pm
Quote
I really think that a lot of the tutorials and wiki stuff are fine the way they are now- a product of the community.
Uhhh... Well I have yet to check the Tutorial you play (Which so far is alright, it just takes quite a bit of work)... The Tutorial you watch however is sporatic and often requires a new player to watch them all with repeat of information comming constantly making its use for a new player somewhat limited and offputting (Though it does a much MUCH better job then the wiki at explaining Machines and any new player who watches it all will get a lot of the information they need to play)
A Playable Tutorial within Dwarf Fortress would be more prefered for the basics while Player Tutorials could be more focused on deeper elements of strategy to bring that player to the next level.
Or rather... If it was Adventure mode the Game Tutorial will teach you how to fight, the Player Tutorial will teach you how to take down a Megabeast.
Post by: ToonyMan on April 21, 2009, 01:46:06 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on April 21, 2009, 01:47:15 pm
Won't something about ranged combat change in the next updade anyway? AFAIK, bone bolts won't break through iron armor anymore, for example.
Yeah, and the new body system will prevent bolts from piercing every organ in your chest at once, etc. So they'll be nerfed to some extent. They'll still look really goofy in action though.
Post by: change name please on April 21, 2009, 01:51:41 pm
Somewhat offtopic stuff concerning the placeholder debateSpoiler (click to show/hide)
The problem is that with an application as resource-hungry as Dwarf Fortress it becomes important to know at what point the idea of programming is not to get the computer to do the work. Again, we're seeing the tragedy of the Universal Constructor idea - the idea that, once every in-game item being affected by every possible in-game variable, the rest of the guts are just cake and will write themselves. You mention bow damage being "at least potentially" based on tensile strength - the UC idea is all potential and no results, and for the player's empirical experience, not really any different from the manual shortcut (which is also likely to be much less CPU-taxing).
When will there be enough groundwork? How is a tensile strength 300 sword against a shearing resistance 100 iron plate empirically any different from a +2 sword vs base iron plate? Will layers eventually have to be replaced by voxels?
Post by: Footkerchief on April 21, 2009, 02:07:22 pm
Again, we're seeing the tragedy of the Universal Constructor idea - the idea that, once every in-game item being affected by every possible in-game variable, the rest of the guts are just cake and will write themselves.
This would have been an extremely relevant and timely criticism maybe 7 years ago before Toady caught on that Armok was floundering for more or less this reason.
resource-hungry, CPU-taxing
Could you provide some more details about the comparative memory footprints of whatever data structures you have in mind (leaving aside the fact that DF rarely uses more than 500 MB), or how the new tissue interactions are going to affect CPU usage?
Post by: change name please on April 21, 2009, 02:27:27 pm
This would have been an extremely relevant and timely criticism maybe 7 years ago before Toady caught on that Armok was floundering for more or less this reason.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Slaves to Armok II is fast becoming the new Slaves to Armok I. :P
Quote
Could you provide some more details about the comparative memory footprints of whatever data structures you have in mind (leaving aside the fact that DF rarely uses more than 500 MB), or how the new tissue interactions are going to affect CPU usage?
The poster above me seemed to think that the game will steadily apply rigorous calculations based on these variables to every object for every interaction. The new tissue interactions, intuitively, are going to affect CPU usage by being more complex and numerous than the old ones or any simplified system of efficient shortcuts - they're also going to leave a broad swath of even more meticulously described & tracked lost teeth, severed hairs, and flecks of blood.
Now, I'm no computer scientist, but alls I know is that the framerate beast seems to grow with every single stupid sock that a goblin invader drags in, every second of every flow, and every year of every fort. It doesn't seem to me to be any kind of step forward to keep piling on more robust interactions and more mad libs to yield what are essentially the same outcomes.
Post by: father_alexander on April 21, 2009, 02:29:21 pm
Second, while the tutorials, wiki and all are great, i think some ingame tutorial or even just a simple guide, like the wiki in side the game, would make life a LOT more simple for new players.
Third, the whole challenge thing, sure it happens to all of us, but there are tons of ways to defeat that, i mean we have the succession games, the mega projects, the mods, the challenges, and hell the next update is even going to include some pretty damn good new challenges right?, i think that issue shouldnt be such a big problem at the moment, ESCPECIALLY taking in count a regular game for wich you pay a decent quantity can last a really short time.
Fourth, i think the main issue for those that have beated the learning problem is the speed thing, many of us have problems in having a really big fortress, and that gets in the progress of the game, if i could build a gigantic palace with 200 dwarves without killing my computer, i would play a lot longer, but since it starts lagging, i stop playing.
Post by: Neonivek on April 21, 2009, 02:35:50 pm
Quote
Slaves to Armok II is fast becoming the new Slaves to Armok I
Except you know... playable and with gameplay elements being put in once in a while.
Though nothing was wrong with Armok 1, it just was unplayable and thus boring for a community to track. (And Toady to make)
Lets not go overboard with the Armok 1 and 2 references.
Post by: ToonyMan on April 21, 2009, 02:36:32 pm
[SIEGE:80]
Or something similar. That way I can get crushed hopelessly as the difficulty rises up.
Post by: G-Flex on April 21, 2009, 03:24:21 pm
I mean, material interactions are still probably going to boil down to relatively simple formulas as far as computers are concerned, and they're going to be calculated far, far less commonly than something like flows, which are a hell of a lot MORE complex.
Post by: Capntastic on April 21, 2009, 08:30:06 pm
Quote
Hmmm.
My fortresses end up being identical. I can address basic needs pretty easily. I can ignore most of the shops completely. It's hard to control a military. Dwarves being stupid is often a problem, but I have learned to get around it. But really, it's hard to come up with good fortress designs. It'd be nice if there were ways to reward variance in that.
Oh: and keeping an economy running. Employment is hard.
Post by: azrael4h on April 21, 2009, 08:38:32 pm
I kept hearing about DF, and ignored it for about a year. Then I finally broke down and downloaded it, well into the 3D era. Spent more time reading Boatmurdered, Nist Akath, and the other huge stories, and that's what got me interested in it.
Even so, it took me 6 months off and on to get to playing it, because I had trouble with the interface. Something I never had a problem with even in other Rouge-likes (pretty much only had to look up the obscure commands in those, like 'w'ipe face).
I think the biggest issue is the UI for me. The ASCII is fine, and actually a bit better than most similar games (though I saw one that used highlighting in different colors as well as the stock 16 color ASCII character set, which was neat. Never could get it to work though).
Why do I need space to exit some menus, F9 for others?
Some automation would be nice as well. We already have an auto-tanning job brought up. It would be nice to set a minimum animal limit, and have auto-butchering jobs for any non-pets non-cages animals we get. Automate fish cleaning, cooking of raw, freshly butchered meat, and dumping of vermin left by cats.
It would be nice to be able to read notes via 'k' as well, or even when you use 'q' to access a given building (like levers!).
The troubles with micromanaging dwarves is another issue, one that kills most of my forts (or dwarves. I've taken to keeping maybe 20-25 dwarves civilian, and activating the rest. Most of whom die horribly, because I treat them like the US Army treats their soldiers. Actually, since my military dwarves get free coffins in a nice hallway, I treat them better (but I'm not bitter about what they did to my grandfather with 2 Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and 36 years of service, no!).
Post by: codezero on April 21, 2009, 10:11:10 pm
If you were a removalist you wouldn't take small things out one at a time, you'd pack 'em in a box first. The customer might ask why waste time packing it? Why not just take it out? Because it'll save you a lot of time.
And changenameplease, explain to me how beards being wrestleable, just by giving a dwarf a beard, hasn't written itself? Not only that but they'll be cleanable, cutable and all the rest of it.
You have a point about calcs versus constants, but even normal flows, temp. and weather combined have nothing on pathfinding. A tensile calc or body organ hit calc occaisonally is insignificant.
Post by: change name please on April 21, 2009, 11:55:58 pm
And changenameplease, explain to me how beards being wrestleable, just by giving a dwarf a beard, hasn't written itself? Not only that but they'll be cleanable, cutable and all the rest of it.
THank god. After putting in code for beard growth, beard coloration, beard tangibility & tensility & durability and printing up a few paragraphs of descriptors, finally the beard achieves sentience and can be grasped in the impossible-to-use wrestling interface. Well, I'm packing it up folks; it only took two years, but the Universal Constructor approach has given us sentient beards - the rest from here is just gravy.
Post by: Ampersand on April 22, 2009, 12:15:11 am
Post by: ephrion on April 22, 2009, 12:18:33 am
Post by: kcwong on April 22, 2009, 12:30:28 am
I'm going to mod in a Beard race. Eventually, in some version of Dwarf Fortress, they'll form symbiotic relationships with Dwarfs.
That reminds me of lichens living on cactus, surviving on dew formed in the morning. In DF's case, since dwarfs drink booze from barrels, they tend to spill a lot - and beards survive on that. In the symbiotic relationship, the beards gain locomotion and food, while dwarfs gain a helper in wrestling - "the beard entangles the bronze colossus's lower left leg!" as in Nethack's "the lichen touches you!".
Post by: G-Flex on April 22, 2009, 02:06:03 am
And changenameplease, explain to me how beards being wrestleable, just by giving a dwarf a beard, hasn't written itself? Not only that but they'll be cleanable, cutable and all the rest of it.
THank god. After putting in code for beard growth, beard coloration, beard tangibility & tensility & durability and printing up a few paragraphs of descriptors, finally the beard achieves sentience and can be grasped in the impossible-to-use wrestling interface.
Yes, because all of that stuff was written exclusively for beards and isn't applied elsewhere as well.
Something being used for a trivial purpose doesn't make it worthless to have created if it's being used in a hell of a lot of other, more important places. And that applies to pretty much everything you just mentioned.
Also, the wrestling interface being cludgy is not really the issue. If there weren't enough wrestling moves, you'd argue that making a better interface for it is worthless and unnecessary, and now you're arguing that more wrestling moves are worthless and unnecessary because the interface is bad. Yeah, the interface needs work, but that doesn't mean making more content for it is bad, especially when the content more or less writes itself as a side-effect of what's being done to begin with.
Post by: AbuDhabi on April 22, 2009, 05:53:19 am
Post by: Areyar on April 22, 2009, 01:33:29 pm
Quote
What turns you off about DF?
non-functional parts (such as soap or milking) and irrelevant material destinctions (stone is stone),
they are minor irritants though. :)
Post by: pokute on April 22, 2009, 01:38:07 pm
Post by: Rilder on April 22, 2009, 03:32:44 pm
Post by: ephrion on April 22, 2009, 05:03:49 pm
Meh screw multicores. :(
You don't see the advantages? Temperature, pressure, AI, and path finding could really use separate threads.
Post by: Gertack on April 22, 2009, 06:05:27 pm
Meh screw multicores. :(
You don't see the advantages? Temperature, pressure, AI, and path finding could really use separate threads.
You can't fix a slow algorithm by throwing more cores at it. All that does is slightly delay the real problem.
Post by: Kardos on April 22, 2009, 07:13:03 pm
Old Jim Programmer: "Why, back in my day, we actually optimized our codes. No siree, we didn't have a bajillion cores to throw at a game."Meh screw multicores. :(
You don't see the advantages? Temperature, pressure, AI, and path finding could really use separate threads.
You can't fix a slow algorithm by throwing more cores at it. All that does is slightly delay the real problem.
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 22, 2009, 07:23:50 pm
Post by: Sourlout on April 22, 2009, 09:21:57 pm
I remembered becoming first interested about Dwarf Fortress from big download's freeware-friday post. However, the ASCII graphics presented too much of a learning curve for me, even though I had previous experience with some ASCII games (doomrl, which is roguelike-lite). However, after being pointed to the tileset and graphics, the graphics, interface and gameplay were no longer a problem for me as I relied heavy upon the wikipedia.
What turned me off, or why have I stopped playing, is the lack of being able to handle a large fortress effectively. This could be a personal thing, but after just talking to my wife who also plays, both of us struggle with keeping interest after the size of the fortress prevents micromanaging. (For her, she actually cares about assigning each dwarf a job that they like doing... crazy imo) also, getting a fighting squad ready is difficult to do without many dwarves dieing from training problems (which is being fixed)
Also, for me, I also struggled with not being able to plan the fortress to be the most effective/optimized for travel distance and effective movement of things. Basically, I want to game the system to have the best results possible.
I've tried a bit to use mechanics to move water and lava, to have giant construction projects however with the decrease in FPS, I find the game becomes too slow for my interest. (I use to play at 250-300fps...)
Thanks for asking the question. It looks like you have lots of feedback already, but I just wanted to make a comment beyond graphics.
Sourlout
Post by: mithra on April 22, 2009, 10:46:59 pm
Biggest turnoffs later: same as everyone else, no challenge. Like others, I've started modding as a way to stay interested (and trying to contribute to the wiki as another way to stay interested). Also, the fps issues.
Dev issues: I have to agree with those that feel the direction of development is a bit off. The focus does appear to be mainly on things that won't really improve gameplay that much, at least in the near future. Maybe these things will someday converge to make a better game, but merely cleaning up the bug list would also make a better game, and probably much more quickly.
The dev issue is really that Toady likes to code on what interests him. That's all well and good to some extent, but if he wants to keep the money flowing, he's going to have to focus on the needs of the user base at some point.
Post by: uberubert on April 23, 2009, 01:36:07 am
It's weird, how the only people ever to complain about the graphics, are the people NOT PLAYING THE GAME. One should think that the actual players of the game would be the ones to complain.. I really don't get it... Graphics don't make games, it's gameplay/fun/etc that make games. I read that this game was supposed to be awesome, so I just happened to give it a try, which is what got me hooked about 2 years ago. (after I started reading up on the wiki-tutorials...)
The learning curve is a bit unforgiving. It's easy to get lost in the vastness that is this incredible game. Even with the wiki handy, it takes a while to get a grip around what this game is.
For me however, once I realized that many things in this game actually is similar to other games, it got all easier. (placing workshops = red alert, designating stuff to do = dungeon keeper or Evil genius, etc) Once I got past that "weird ascii-game" feeling, and realized this, then it was all fun and games. (well... "game"..)
Would be nice for new players to try an ingame tutorial-mode which is really dumbed down, in campaign-style play with goals:
-Starting with a small map with one miner, one small mountain on 2 z-levels, and all you can do is designate mining. No hunger, thirst, wildlife etc...)
-Next map: Underground room with part sand/soil, part stone floor. You have one farmer, and all you can do is designate a farm plot and choose which seeds to plant. When plants are getting ready, you are allowed to designate a stockpile for food.
-next map: learn about brewing drink
-etc
Post by: Rilder on April 23, 2009, 01:43:41 am
Meh screw multicores. :(
You don't see the advantages? Temperature, pressure, AI, and path finding could really use separate threads.
No, I just can't afford a multi-core processor.
Also for a problem I have with df:
Immigrants.
I understand the need for having them, but the game really does them poorly, You just get settled in to a new fort, preparing to line up stuff and BOOM 20-30 dwarves come crashing your party, you now have to abandon what you were doing to screw with them, you have to build quarters, make sure you have enough food, and mostly they are just a pain with the only solution being Nazi style death rooms, or messing with the init every time you want to allow more dwarves to join your fort.
There really just needs to be a way to control them, like having migrant group leaders coming to you to request joining your fort, and leaving when you say no. I know eventually migrants will be the migrant groups you see on the world map so that should help a bit, especially if that 20-30 dwarf group that wants to join you gets attacked by goblins and ends up around 5 when they get to your fort.
Post by: Tallefred on April 23, 2009, 02:01:42 am
Post by: Neruz on April 23, 2009, 02:12:38 am
you have to build quarters,
No you don't *grin*
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 23, 2009, 03:24:16 am
Meh screw multicores. :(
You don't see the advantages? Temperature, pressure, AI, and path finding could really use separate threads.
No, I just can't afford a multi-core processor.
Not that you would notice it if a program is multithreaded on a single-core CPU. You simply won't have the benefits. (Well, one downside is that the CPU has to do more context switching due to more multi-tasking, but you won't notice. You never have, so you won't start to notice it with DF. ;))
Post by: Jirou on April 23, 2009, 03:31:06 am
Post by: Rilder on April 23, 2009, 03:58:59 am
Meh screw multicores. :(
You don't see the advantages? Temperature, pressure, AI, and path finding could really use separate threads.
No, I just can't afford a multi-core processor.
Not that you would notice it if a program is multithreaded on a single-core CPU. You simply won't have the benefits. (Well, one downside is that the CPU has to do more context switching due to more multi-tasking, but you won't notice. You never have, so you won't start to notice it with DF. ;))
Isn't there a performance loss of a Multicore game forced to use a single core processor?
Post by: Footkerchief on April 23, 2009, 04:01:15 am
Isn't there a performance loss of a Multicore game forced to use a single core processor?
Yes, as he said, a truly insignificant one (unless the program was specifically written to do certain tasks unusually badly).
Post by: MrWiggles on April 23, 2009, 05:26:20 am
Meh screw multicores. :(
You don't see the advantages? Temperature, pressure, AI, and path finding could really use separate threads.
No, I just can't afford a multi-core processor.
Also for a problem I have with df:
Immigrants.
I understand the need for having them, but the game really does them poorly, You just get settled in to a new fort, preparing to line up stuff and BOOM 20-30 dwarves come crashing your party, you now have to abandon what you were doing to screw with them, you have to build quarters, make sure you have enough food, and mostly they are just a pain with the only solution being Nazi style death rooms, or messing with the init every time you want to allow more dwarves to join your fort.
There really just needs to be a way to control them, like having migrant group leaders coming to you to request joining your fort, and leaving when you say no. I know eventually migrants will be the migrant groups you see on the world map so that should help a bit, especially if that 20-30 dwarf group that wants to join you gets attacked by goblins and ends up around 5 when they get to your fort.
How weird, that there out cry for challenge, but when a challenge presented in the game (the immigrants), is asked to be removed, or downgraded.
It make sense, that the player can only indirectly affect immigrants. And there more to be done with this, sure. Like promoting for certain profession of possibly certain skill level, with privileges, like a nice room.
Though I don't think its outlandish to turn down dwarfs, as it doesn't feel out of turn, but in certain light it seems inappropriate for it to happen. The dorfs, don't seem to be a 'only for me' type, (cept for the nobles, oddly), it would seem odd that a dwarven leader would admit that his fortress, isn't able to handle another 20 dorfs.
Its the thrown monkey wrenches that provide contrast for the game, the conflict. That test your mgm. skills and multitasking skills.
Do I need more apartments for the dorf, or getting that fortification up more important? A partially unexpected immigrant wave is neat. I wish there were similar challenges. Like bad crop seasons, or serve inclement weather. Imagine, the dorfs getting heat stroke from heat waves in the desert, and having to order them inside until it passes. Or a tornado. Tornado that happens during a siege. I got side tracked.
Post by: Rilder on April 23, 2009, 06:08:05 am
How weird, that there out cry for challenge, but when a challenge presented in the game (the immigrants), is asked to be removed, or downgraded.
Well I prefer to turtle, and when I'm moseying around with a few dwarves and suddenly I'm having to deal with 30 some dwarves when I've not even adapted to 7 it just ruins that fort for me, makes me want to just abandon that fort, no matter how much I liked it.
Post by: Hydra on April 23, 2009, 06:38:59 am
The dev issue is really that Toady likes to code on what interests him. That's all well and good to some extent, but if he wants to keep the money flowing, he's going to have to focus on the needs of the user base at some point.
Yup, and I think that's kind of where the frustrations I see with some posters come from. DF is a truly brilliant game, I can't remember having seen this depth in a game anywhere. But there are also HUGE gaps in usability which really should not take long solve. A few examples:
- Farming: at the moment you either have no plump helmets, or you have too many of them. I personally would like to be able set orders to my dwarves that they can store a max number of 900 plant items. That they can auto-brew up to 900 drinks. And auto-cook up to 900 lavish meals. The job manager could be easily extended to do this. Manually managing the amount of plump helmets so they don't fill up all available barrels is annoying. Sure, you can limit stockpiles (I've done this myself) but then you end up with millions of rotting plump helmets untill you turn the farms off. It's the type of micromanagement I don't like.
- Training soldiers. At the moment there's basically a 'cheat' with wrestlers training super fast, but sparring should not be 'dangerous'. In sparring you don't hurt each other. Maybe some bruises, but no chopped off limbs.
- Immigrants: I like immigrants, but I would really prefer them all to be peasants really. give me the option to have all labors turned off by default for them. And/or give me a dwarven brainwash machine that lets me reset his "Soapmaking" skill to -1.
- Partying/sleeping: I want to be able to turn it off. The moment I define a statue garder or whatever, dwarves with no current task start to party. I am happy to allow them some fun, but they should stop partying the moment I have a task for them. ESPECIALLY if there is a siege or ambush and the dwarf in question is in the military. Same goes for sleep and sieges. I don't care if a dwarf wants to nap, we're under siege. Most annoying thing is that if the squad leader is sleeping, the whole squad is useless.
- More influence in world/embark generation. To be honest, I don't care that much about an entire world being generated when it's impossible for me to find a site with HFS, water, trees, magma, sand, flux and an abyss. I'd rather have the option to just generate the 'perfect' 6x6 embark.
- Saving. It's all fine and dandy that Toady doesn't like save-scrumming, but different people play the game for different reasons. If I want to be able to auto-save every 10 minutes and go back to a previous save when I screwed up for some reason, why not let me? I've spend days playing my current fortress. If I screw up and unleash a torrent of lava at the fortress, I don't go "Okay, losing is fun, let's start over". No, I go "Screw this retarded game" and go play something else. Losing is fun? No, disasters are fun, as long as you can go back to a previous save.
These are just a few annoyances, but I think the focus should now be with improving some of these big gaps there are instead of more bodyparts and stuff. I'm a programmer myself, and I totally understand why he prefers to do fun stuff, and interface work isn't 'fun', but currently there are still some issues with the game that prevent it from becoming a huge hit.
Post by: codezero on April 23, 2009, 08:23:26 am
You'll like the next release then, 'cause Toady just so happens to be working on most of the stuff you just mentioned.
-Training soldiers. I think that cheat is being handled, with the new attribute system going in.
-Sleeping. It will no longer matter if the leader is sleeping or not with a more individual based squad.
-More influence on world, embark - The underground layers are getting a big ramp up in diversity, so they'll be feature rich. This I believe was strongly influenced by the eternal suggestions voting.
It's all mentioned in the dev notes and the 'list of remaining items' thread in this subforum.
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 23, 2009, 08:33:15 am
Isn't there a performance loss of a Multicore game forced to use a single core processor?
First, a clarification: There is no such thing as a "multicore game". There can be, however, such a thing as a multi-*threaded game*. To explain: A program can, in theory, be broken down into multiple parts, that can do stuff independently. In the example of Dwarf Fortress: You could have a thread drawing the UI, another thread doing the AI, another thread doing world stuff (like the migrations, or armies in the background).
My apologies for my anal-retentiveness in this regard, but it is an important difference. :)
Now to answer your question:
Short answer: No.
Optional, long answer: It depends.
Multi-threaded applications, and in particular games, require a lot of concurrency (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrency_(computer_science)") (meaning that the threads do stuff on their own, while using data from other threads). If you do that wrong, you get all sorts of interesting effects, mostly manifesting in crashes. Concurrency is *hard*. It is even harder in languages like C/++, which, IIRC, is used to write Dwarf Fortress.
Then, there is the problem of scheduling. Let's say each CPU (let's count each core as its own CPU, for simplicity's sake), can do n+1 threads, where "n" is the number of cores, without performance loss. If you start to execute n+m threads, where "m" is the number of threads a program has, you get more cache misses (meaning that data has to be gotten from a slower memory, which takes longer), more page faults (data isn't in memory, but paged to disk, taking very long to load, even multiple seconds, which is *ages* for even a Pentium II CPU), and of course scheduling conflicts (i.e. the OS can't assign all threads the time they actually need, and they get thrown out of the CPU, and another thread gets the CPU for a time, needing access to the cache, and so on).
Of course, *any* and *all* modern operating systems are able to do multi-tasking, and can thus handle many threads at once. So, as long as the programs are half-way decently written, there should be no noticable effect in performance, while a computer with a multi-core CPU enjoys the benefits of more performance.
Now, here is the really strange issue: Even if you have a single-core CPU, the lack of threads can actually seem like the application is actually slower. You can notice that with Dwarf Fortress: During saving and loading, sometimes the screen stops updating: That makes it *seem* like the application is slower, when in effect it just means that an application is very busy.
Whence the advice to application developers to use two threads when they write their spreadsheet application: An UI thread, and a so-called worker thread. The UI thread keeps the screen updated and semi-responsive, while the worker=thread is, well, working.
Clear as mud, innit? ;)
Edit: Clarity and an apology for possible perceived rudeness/condescending attitude.
Post by: Volfram on April 23, 2009, 08:52:59 am
How weird, that there out cry for challenge, but when a challenge presented in the game (the immigrants), is asked to be removed, or downgraded.
Well I prefer to turtle, and when I'm moseying around with a few dwarves and suddenly I'm having to deal with 30 some dwarves when I've not even adapted to 7 it just ruins that fort for me, makes me want to just abandon that fort, no matter how much I liked it.
Then don't let 'em in. Nobody knows them yet, so you won't get any tantruming when they starve to death.
Post by: Shurikane on April 23, 2009, 09:19:32 am
Telling people to deal with what they are given goes against the semi-sandbox principle that Dwarf Fortress embodies in the first place.
Post by: Kazindir on April 23, 2009, 09:32:03 am
A DF player out to choose his own challenge, and some will want more in one area and less than another.
Telling people to deal with what they are given goes against the semi-sandbox principle that Dwarf Fortress embodies in the first place.
I disagree and take an almost diametrically opposed view. Dealing with what you are given is an essential part of DF and any sandbox style game. What is left up to you is exactly how you deal with what your given.
To use the sandbox analogy, what you are given is the sand in the box. What you do with the sand with the tools you have available is up to you, as the last few posts have ably demonstrated, coming up with all sorts of approproaches to dealing with the immigrant "sand". :)
Post by: Neonivek on April 23, 2009, 10:20:20 am
It more or less refers to the freedom to chose the orders of your actions within an unconstrained system (uhh I think my definition is off) usually without a explicit goals.
Sandboxes can have goals, difficulty, and challenges outside the player's control.
Post by: Shurikane on April 23, 2009, 11:25:52 am
I disagree and take an almost diametrically opposed view. Dealing with what you are given is an essential part of DF and any sandbox style game. What is left up to you is exactly how you deal with what your given.
To use the sandbox analogy, what you are given is the sand in the box. What you do with the sand with the tools you have available is up to you, as the last few posts have ably demonstrated, coming up with all sorts of approproaches to dealing with the immigrant "sand". :)
But isn't it more useful to let the user have the option rather than not?
In other words: I can let the player choose to have sieges or not. If I make the choice available, it doesn't mean that I disable sieges outright, but that I allow the player to turn them off if he wishes so. It does not affect siege-lovers in any way whatsoever.
That sort of thing happens in several civ/strategy games. You can choose whether resources are abundant or scarce, if the economy is simplified or complex, etc. You choose your own game parameters to suit your playstyle and your goals. If you don't want to get bogged down by food management, you set it to its simplest form so you don't have to worry about it. If you want a gritty challenge, you kick every difficulty variables to the maximum levels. Take it a step further: world building already does that job to a certain extent, allowing the player to make the environment full of water, or magma or what have you.
Otherwise, if you set absolutely everything in stone, then you're filling a niche of only those people who like that playstyle - and if there's a single turnoff in the parameters that the devs have set, then that player is lost, lacking the option to change that parameter to suit his playstyle.
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 23, 2009, 12:12:33 pm
But isn't it more useful to let the user have the option rather than not?No.
Quote
In other words: I can let the player choose to have sieges or not. If I make the choice available, it doesn't mean that I disable sieges outright, but that I allow the player to turn them off if he wishes so. It does not affect siege-lovers in any way whatsoever.
I sure like to play Warcraft II. But I'd like to remove the Orcs, because their attacks wreck my nice bases all the time.
Quote
That sort of thing happens in several civ/strategy games. You can choose whether resources are abundant or scarce, if the economy is simplified or complex, etc. You choose your own game parameters to suit your playstyle and your goals. If you don't want to get bogged down by food management, you set it to its simplest form so you don't have to worry about it.
I dimly remember one or two that did that. Compared to other God/Civ games which I *do* remember, and have set rules, they are in the minority. Like Populous, Warmonger, Black & White, the Civ series, Colonization, Pocket God.
Quote
If you want a gritty challenge, you kick every difficulty variables to the maximum levels.Easier enemies != no enemies.
Quote
Otherwise, if you set absolutely everything in stone, then you're filling a niche of only those people who like that playstyle - and if there's a single turnoff in the parameters that the devs have set, then that player is lost, lacking the option to change that parameter to suit his playstyle.
Didn't seem to hurt Valve, Blizzard or Westwood in the least. However, I have no trouble with easy moddability of a game. If you don't like how the game works, change the rules to your liking. But for that to work, you actually need the rule- and framework of the game in the first place.
Post by: SuperWalrus on April 23, 2009, 02:43:44 pm
Post by: Aqizzar on April 23, 2009, 03:00:35 pm
But isn't it more useful to let the user have the option rather than not?No.
You obviously won't be convinced by anybody then. But I'll point out that there's already options to disable sieges, moods, the economy, and bedroom rent. A lot of players turn the economy off so they don't have to deal with all their haulers suddenly turning homeless and little unmovable piles of coins dropping everywhere. Why not have a similar option for immigrants, or at least some measure of control over them beyond just locking the door?
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 23, 2009, 03:07:46 pm
You obviously won't be convinced by anybody then. But I'll point out that there's already options to disable sieges, moods, the economy, and bedroom rent. A lot of players turn the economy off so they don't have to deal with all their haulers suddenly turning homeless and little unmovable piles of coins dropping everywhere. Why not have a similar option for immigrants, or at least some measure of control over them beyond just locking the door?
Nope, I won't be. The designer of the software gets to do the hard decisions, not me. :P
However, there is no inherent problem with the option being there. Nobody's forced to use it, after all, and given that DF will be more than a game once it has grown up, the option has its place.
However, I'm distinctly of the opinion that there are more pressing needs (and if you can't handle immigrants after a few days of play, I question your ability of rational thought), than the whining of a handful.
Otherwise I want DF to have the option to make my coffee for me. ;)
Post by: G-Flex on April 23, 2009, 03:13:16 pm
But isn't it more useful to let the user have the option rather than not?No.
You obviously won't be convinced by anybody then. But I'll point out that there's already options to disable sieges, moods, the economy, and bedroom rent. A lot of players turn the economy off so they don't have to deal with all their haulers suddenly turning homeless and little unmovable piles of coins dropping everywhere. Why not have a similar option for immigrants, or at least some measure of control over them beyond just locking the door?
The main reason I see for things like sieges and the economy being optional is because the mechanics of them are currently extremely flawed, especially the economy. And for invaders in particular, it's optional because the game doesn't have LEGITIMATE means by which to measure whether or not you should ever be invaded (even ambushes happen fairly early on and without real reason), so it's left up to the player.
Not everything in a game should be left up to the player, or else the game loses its definition.
Post by: Aqizzar on April 23, 2009, 03:22:34 pm
The main reason I see for things like sieges and the economy being optional is because the mechanics of them are currently extremely flawed, especially the economy. And for invaders in particular, it's optional because the game doesn't have LEGITIMATE means by which to measure whether or not you should ever be invaded (even ambushes happen fairly early on and without real reason), so it's left up to the player.
Could the same not be said about immigrants? The game judges whether and how many immigrants you receive (on seemingly random seasons) by the number of deaths (recent or total or isn't clear, but even one can scare everybody off) and just the digging, growing, and furniture needed for the embark group can be "worth" enough to attract 25-30 immigrants in your first winter.
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 23, 2009, 03:25:47 pm
Could the same not be said about immigrants? The game judges whether and how many immigrants you receive (on seemingly random seasons) by the number of deaths (recent or total or isn't clear, but even one can scare everybody off) and just the digging, growing, and furniture needed for the embark group can be "worth" enough to attract 25-30 immigrants in your first winter.
(Perceived) wealth always was one of *the* driving factors in migration. Just look at US colonies and how Manifest Destiny played out, and what the Mexicans do to get a slice of the US wealth, or Africans to reach Italy and the EU.
Though, a wave of immigrants just after (or even before) the trade caravan from the mountainhomes visited your fortress is.. odd, to say the least.
Post by: mithra on April 23, 2009, 08:26:18 pm
You obviously won't be convinced by anybody then. But I'll point out that there's already options to disable sieges, moods, the economy, and bedroom rent. A lot of players turn the economy off so they don't have to deal with all their haulers suddenly turning homeless and little unmovable piles of coins dropping everywhere. Why not have a similar option for immigrants, or at least some measure of control over them beyond just locking the door?
Nope, I won't be. The designer of the software gets to do the hard decisions, not me. :P
I know, you won't be convinced, but that's just a silly attitude. It's silly because there is most likely something currently built into DF that you like being able to control, and that using your argument should have been a designers hard decision.
Quote
However, there is no inherent problem with the option being there. Nobody's forced to use it, after all, and given that DF will be more than a game once it has grown up, the option has its place.
However, I'm distinctly of the opinion that there are more pressing needs (and if you can't handle immigrants after a few days of play, I question your ability of rational thought), than the whining of a handful.
As I read the post that started this, it isn't about an inability to handle immigrants, it's about a desire not to have to deal with them. It's about enjoying game play in a manner different than you do.
What I really think you're missing is that if options are given to make the game "easier," those same options can most likely be used to make the game "harder," which would seemingly increase your enjoyment. So I think you should support more player control, because it will benefit you as well, not just the "whiners."
Post by: Rilder on April 24, 2009, 12:22:51 am
However, I'm distinctly of the opinion that there are more pressing needs (and if you can't handle immigrants after a few days of play, I question your ability of rational thought), than the whining of a handful.
So basicly if I don't play the game your way then I'm not a rational person?
Look I have nothing against migration to my fort, its just there's no control, If I get 20 some Migrants to my fort and I don't want them, I have to kill them, some way or another they have to die for me to get back to my original numbers. It just sort of ruins it for me. I can't turn them away, I can't send an Emissary to basicly tell everybody to stay the hell away from my fort or be killed. Nope they come whether I will it or not, and they either have to join my fort, or die.
Post by: Jakkarra on April 24, 2009, 01:40:23 am
apart from the framerate issues some people has.
Love, jakkarra
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 24, 2009, 02:30:25 am
I know, you won't be convinced, but that's just a silly attitude. It's silly because there is most likely something currently built into DF that you like being able to control, and that using your argument should have been a designers hard decision.
No, it isn't silly. I pay (for some value of pay, since DF is at the moment donationware) a designer to actually do the hard stuff of figuring out how the game world works, and what its rules are.
An example: What would you think if you had, every single time, to adjust the kerning of a heading in your favorite word processor? Any graphic designer will tell you that kerning is 100% necessary. Yet, I doubt you give a crap. So, your word processor makes the decision on how to display the heading, and apply necessary adjustments.
Quote
As I read the post that started this, it isn't about an inability to handle immigrants, it's about a desire not to have to deal with them. It's about enjoying game play in a manner different than you do.
Tough. I want to play Warcraft III without Orcs, too.
Quote
What I really think you're missing is that if options are given to make the game "easier," those same options can most likely be used to make the game "harder," which would seemingly increase your enjoyment. So I think you should support more player control, because it will benefit you as well, not just the "whiners."
No problem with adjustable difficulties, at all. In fact, I'd prefer it if I could manage immigration as I can in Colonization: I get to chose who and when I get immigrants into my colonies, within the boundaries of the game's rules.
That's what apparently everybody is missing here: The game has rules, they are there, and you have to operate within these rules. DF is no different in that regard than any other game.
I'd go nuts over options to tweak my game exactly to the way I like it, from dragons to the size of raindrops. Until I'd have to reinstall it or my computer. Then I wouldn't bother, but rely on the designer to provide me with sensible defaults for the settings, and any rough difficulty I set.
Look at Railroad Tycoon II for an example regarding difficulty: If you don't want to bother with short selling and buying on margin, you keep the difficulty of the economy low. But if you want to buy industries, you'll have to deal with the increased difficulty of a much harder stock trading system. That's how the game works, and is one of the challenges.
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 24, 2009, 02:34:46 am
So basicly if I don't play the game your way then I'm not a rational person?
No. Read the sentence again.
Quote
Look I have nothing against migration to my fort, its just there's no control, If I get 20 some Migrants to my fort and I don't want them, I have to kill them, some way or another they have to die for me to get back to my original numbers. It just sort of ruins it for me. I can't turn them away, I can't send an Emissary to basicly tell everybody to stay the hell away from my fort or be killed. Nope they come whether I will it or not, and they either have to join my fort, or die.
Deal with it. You knew that the game includes immigrants, and either you take it, or you leave it. If I don't like the combat system of, say Crystal Caliburn, I don't play the game, instead of complaining about the combat system during play.
Not to mention that DF is still an early Alpha. It is no-where near feature complete.
Post by: Hydra on April 24, 2009, 03:53:08 am
Deal with it. You knew that the game includes immigrants, and either you take it, or you leave it. If I don't like the combat system of, say Crystal Caliburn, I don't play the game, instead of complaining about the combat system during play.
Not to mention that DF is still an early Alpha. It is no-where near feature complete.
I thought this topic was about what is currently considered as "needing improvement". If people want to have more control about stuff, who are you to tell them they cannot have it? That you enjoy being forced to take in 200 dwarves, fine, but a lot of people use the population limit ini settings for a reason.
That DF is "alpha" is a non-argument. The whole point of this topic is to point out stuff that COULD be improved.
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 24, 2009, 04:22:57 am
I thought this topic was about what is currently considered as "needing improvement".
No, it's about what turns people off of Dwarf Fortress in the first place. That's not immigration waves, but the horrible UI.
Quote
If people want to have more control about stuff, who are you to tell them they cannot have it?
Somebody with a healthy ego.
Quote
That you enjoy being forced to take in 200 dwarves, fine, but a lot of people use the population limit ini settings for a reason.
No, I absolutely don't enjoy it. Just now, I had a wave of about 20 immigrants, and no idea what to do with the half-dozen Siege Operators. But it is one of the challenges DF throws at me. And it is made worse by the abysmal UI I have to contend with. Streamlining *that* is more important than additional options in init.txt. By far more important, since it affects all of us. DF is unsuited to deal with large fortresses and large populations. At some point, DF turns into work, and for work I prefer to be paid.
Quote
That DF is "alpha" is a non-argument. The whole point of this topic is to point out stuff that COULD be improved.
It's very much an argument. You cannot add more and more features and options, without the code having gelled enough that it is easy and quick to do. You can't add features and options if there is no way to test it in a reliable fashion (no, "playing" it is not a reliable fashion. You need a full test process, from teh code, to the UI, to the game mechanics).
What if Toady would implement greater control over immigration, and the world arc has to be revamped? The army arc has to be revamped. Civilisations and their interactions have to revamped. What then?
The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.
Post by: vanarbulax on April 24, 2009, 05:13:28 am
It's very much an argument. You cannot add more and more features and options, without the code having gelled enough that it is easy and quick to do.
I think you have entirely missed the point of an alpha, it's all about adding new things and making drastic changes before too much time has been invested and everything is set in its way. Things "gelling" together is what you do during the beta stage otherwise if you start "gelling" in an alpha you might add something which wrecks something you've spent a lot of time on.
Alpha is all about making modifications before it causes too much trouble and while I do agree that immigration waves don't turn people off at first (even then it can be one of the most overwhelming things for a new player to go from 7 to 27 dwarves) it can still turn many a player off after a while, losing player base further down the line.
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 24, 2009, 05:19:17 am
I think you have entirely missed the point of an alpha, it's all about adding new things and making drastic changes before too much time has been invested and everything is set in its way. Things "gelling" together is what you do during the beta stage otherwise if you start "gelling" in an alpha you might add something which wrecks something you've spent a lot of time on.
You haven't done a lot of software development (no, I don't mean writing a script here and there, or something that has only a thousand lines of code, or so), have you?
Quote
Alpha is all about making modifications before it causes too much trouble and while I do agree that immigration waves don't turn people off at first (even then it can be one of the most overwhelming things for a new player to go from 7 to 27 dwarves) it can still turn many a player off after a while, losing player base further down the line.
Actually, and Alpha is a work in progress. However, you cannot add features here and there. You *have* to have a plan, and clean, clear code with everything absolutely necessary in place first, before you can do lots of other stuff, like creating a graphics engine, or optimizing algorithms.
Otherwise you end up with something called Spaghetti Code (that's a technical term). Browse over to The Daily WTF (http://"http://thedailywtf.com/"), to get an idea what happens if you don't do it right the first time (in short: there are no second chances).
Post by: DavesWorld on April 24, 2009, 05:50:07 am
So I started reading and searching for DF optimizations with a vengence; turn this off, turn that off, reduce Z levels, eliminate water. That last was particularly annoying; the engineering features seem quite fun, and I really enjoyed figuring out how to build a successful water system that pulled from an underground river ~12 Z below ground, pumping it into my trial and error water tower, then over a long constructed 'pipe' to pass over my wall and empty into my moat.
Then I realized my two days of work had been like shooting myself in the head, because now the fortress I was happy with before, was now unplayable because frames had dropped to about 4. Perhaps flow calculations should only be done when something's changed about the flow channel (i.e., it calcs the pumps pulling the water up into the tower, down the drain channel, and falling into the moat; and 'locks in' that as a simple routine that just knows where the water comes from and where it's going. And it would only recalc if I dig or construct or deconstruct to alter the physical areas.)
Along the same lines, after I figured out how to build a successful fortress that attracts immigrants, I realized that too was the same as firing the loaded gun into my left temple; past about 60 dwarves, frames drop dramatically. 'Play' became loading a text file on my second screen and reading, looking over every ~15mins to take a few clicks at this or that, then returning to reading while I waited for DF to chug along for, literally, another couple of days.
I was willing, grudgingly, to forgo engineering projects if I was allowed to play the game otherwise. But I couldn't see how to build a fun fort that worked well with less than at least 70 or 80 dwarves. And that's more than my computer can apparently handle. This from a computer that can run GTA4 (which is also a huge pile of unoptimization; I name it in this instance because it has an IMMENSE physics calculation engine in it, all running off the CPU, to calc the game world, the cars, and all the humans based on physics not preset animation loops).
The single thing DF needs more than anything else is code optimization. Sorry if this is 'uncool' or 'unfun' as a suggestion, but that's really the huge stumbling block. I spent about a month after I quit playing DF checking the Pathfinding thread daily hoping someone had figured out how to streamline the CPU requirements and give those of us not blessed with an overabundance of cycles the ability to play DF again; so far I haven't seen any hope. Now I check the thread every week or two. This thread gives me a small amount of hope DF might take a turn for the better.
I know it's not just me. Several of the popular "story forts" in the succession fort forum show the same complaints from successful forts. People were mentioning it in most of their posts; either they'd back out when their turn came up because they'd load the fort and realize it was going to take a month to generate a season, or they'd say "sorry I haven't updated my turn yet, game's still running". From my reading, the only complaint these folks had, in and around the TONS of fun they were having playing and handing the fort off to each other, was the CPU limitation.
Some programming excellence needs to go into streamlining how the code goes about the tasks. When I check the DevLog, I just sigh and despair, because all I see are yet MORE features being inserted I know are going to consume even more cycles.
Perhaps a user tool could be added to let us setup paths; I think most DFers use the concept of main hallways with directly connecting rooms. Such a play tool would require/allow the user to paint the main path(s), then connect from those to the required dwarf stops (food stockpile, bedroom block, water source, etc...). At worst, the pathfinding calcs could then be reduced to a dwarf simply having to make it to the nearest main path; and from there the calcs basically stop as (s)he follows the user set guide.
Please 3T! Take a month or two and apply your excellent programing skills to tightening and speeding your code! Please. Think of the unplayed dwarves suffering in virtual limbo hard drives the world over. :(
Assuming the game's playable, the biggest quirk I found was the incredible difficulty in having *any* sort of control over materials used for constructions. Trying to place entry bridges and traps was like attempting to buy the world a Coke(tm) all because the dwarves seem almost completely unable to simply move rocks that are in the way. The lack of a simple setting in the workshops to tell them "no, I want you to build Granite (x)". I found I was spending most of my dwarves' time having them clear rooms and hallways of unwanted materials, carrying them to far corners of the map, just to prevent masons and crafters from using the crap when what I wanted them was to use the nice, pretty, or valuable rocks.
World construction problems; namely, finding the needed features that allow a fort to actually survive. Water being a pretty big one, especially when any sort of river made the site unplayable. Also, Wood. Maybe this was related to my CPU limitations (using 2x2 or 3x3 areas), but I never found enough wood to have any hope of an actual metal industry without the use of magma. Then, still without industrially useful amounts of wood, I figured out I needed a site that was small (for frames), with an underground pool (for frames and survival), magma (for the fun of industry), AND with coal-like rocks. I think it took me almost a day of world gens to find a 2x2 site that met those criteria. !!! :( !!!
Nobles and moods. I turned the later off almost immediately, when I realised they were randomly picking the requirements. It wasn't a challenge to obtain something I hadn't gotten to yet; it was a dice game where I might, or might not, have the items needed. So I turned them off. Nobles, almost the same thing. Their demands have no basis in what the fort can actually obtain. (Yes oh Duke, I know you greatly desire Platinum tables and Granite chairs; however, as it has been for the past 15 months, we still lack both Platinum and Granite, and the caravans do not bring them to us). And the noble penalties were the death of dwarves! My CPU limitations prevented me from building the engineering death systems many others seem to use to kill off nobles; but I did figure out that simply not naming a Sheriff prevented the killing of poor dwarves whose sole offenses were the inability to conjure materials out of thin air.
Dwarf economy; I ruined one fort with that and had to start over, when everything I'd been happy building became unavailable because all of my gainfully employed dwarves were priced out of the bedroom market. Entirely. I feel the economy, if it's implemented, should be a luxury layer, not a requirements layer. It seemed silly; the COOKS and BREWERS, who were the ones *making* the stuff, were unable to buy good food or drink! So where were the prices dwarves were supposed to pay for expensive food and drink going if not at least partly into the makers' hands?
I feel DF is one of the top ten best ideas in the history of gaming. For it to actually to become one of the top ten games, it needs to be polished and optimized. At that point, it'll easily rank up amidst Civilization, Mule, SimCity, Master of Magic, etc..
Post by: Neonivek on April 24, 2009, 07:05:35 am
Quote
That's what apparently everybody is missing here: The game has rules, they are there, and you have to operate within these rules. DF is no different in that regard than any other game.
Not everyone but yes some people have complaints that can summed up as "They don't like Dwarf Fortress". However something people forget is that Dwarf Fortress doesn't need to appeal to everyone and that just because a game has a wide scope it doesn't mean it will appeal to a wide audiance.
If someone doesn't want to play Dwarf Fortress with Immigrants, Sieges, Megabeasts, Tantrums, and the like at once... then they probably don't want to play the game in general. Keep the options in the RAWs but the point of developing Dwarf Fortress is not to make it everything and appeal to everyone because that will make it infinately insignificant (the wrong word for it... It is supposed to be a term for things that are infinate but have no real significance in it) but rather to make Dwarf Fortress itself as great as it can be as Dwarf Fortress.
-Note: I am not hinting at anyone. Coincidences are unintended.
Though this is also a game that isn't finished yet and is early in development so it can still change so it can cover a wider audiance. It is up to Toady to decide where these areas areas are.
Though some people need to ease up on the counter points in some areas (In fact I do too) since fighting in this topic isn't conducive to the point.
Post by: Shurikane on April 24, 2009, 07:54:31 am
You haven't done a lot of software development (no, I don't mean writing a script here and there, or something that has only a thousand lines of code, or so), have you?
Actually, and Alpha is a work in progress. However, you cannot add features here and there. You *have* to have a plan, and clean, clear code with everything absolutely necessary in place first, before you can do lots of other stuff, like creating a graphics engine, or optimizing algorithms.
Otherwise you end up with something called Spaghetti Code (that's a technical term). Browse over to The Daily WTF (http://"http://thedailywtf.com/"), to get an idea what happens if you don't do it right the first time (in short: there are no second chances).
Devs have the option to let an alpha pass or to reject it. If it's satisfactory, it goes into beta stage. If it is not, it's called back to the drawing board and try something else. DF is in a very, very, very long cycle of alpha re-releasing. The game, understandably, does not have all the features Toady is planning for it, for it to move on to beta stage. He constantly refines his alpha from personal experience and user feedback, and although it's not the entire program that gets re-written, several of the modules do go through an overhaul once in a while to conform to ideas he has developed. Furthermore, I do not believe it's something to be interpreted literally, but rather as Today's way of saying "look, this isn't a finished product, so it can and will screw up in places. Thanks for understanding."
I will also remind that no one is "paying" for the game. The game itself is free. We, the players, send donations as a reward to Toady if we find that the game is good enough. Pay for the good work that has been done so far. Do not pay with the expectation that you've suddenly become a shareholder of Toady's soul.
That's Satan's job anyway.
Post by: Aquillion on April 24, 2009, 08:43:37 am
The current rules for immigration are... something of a placeholder, I think. Like most things dealing with other nations and so on, they let the game be played as it is now, but don't really represent the player as a nation, or the larger circumstances around immigration and emigration.
In any case, the people who like the current "totally unexpected" immigrants have to realize that it's not going to be like that forever. Look up Core28, "control of territory"; eventually, the Fortress will be able to keep track of what's going around it, which will let you see migration groups moving through your surrounding territory -- or, say, to send your army and turn them away if you feel you've got enough people right now.
As far as customization goes, it has always been the plan to let users customize their game experience using data files, to the extent that it is feasible. Saying that a particular thing is part of THE RULES and should not be modifiable is silly, because Dwarf Fortress was always intended to be a general framework to represent a wide variety of possible fantasy worlds and scenarios, not one fixed set of challenges. It is as much a simulation as it is a game, and it is meant to be 'played' in many different ways. Want to play without goblins? Edit them out of the data files. Want your dwarves to be twenty feet tall, breathe fire, and immune to pain? Easy. Want the goblins to be twenty feet tall and breathe fire? Easy!
The actual difficulty or disruption involved in implementing a particular suggestion is pretty much only something Toady can know, outside of vague guesses on our part; I think we can safely leave any necessary triage based on that up to him. But disabling or fiddling with immigration parameters seems like it would be a comparatively easy config setting to implement, and would allow for a wide variety of alternate challenges or gameplay styles at relatively little effort. I am confused why it seems to have engendered such vicious hostility in a game where, with a few data-file tweaks, you can make your dwarves breathe fire.
Post by: kutulu on April 24, 2009, 09:12:34 am
Deal with it. You knew that the game includes immigrants, and either you take it, or you leave it. If I don't like the combat system of, say Crystal Caliburn, I don't play the game, instead of complaining about the combat system during play.
Not to mention that DF is still an early Alpha. It is no-where near feature complete.
Those are all incredibly silly arguments to make in a thread that started with one of the developers asking what people wanted to see changed about the game.
Post by: Neonivek on April 24, 2009, 09:19:41 am
Quote
that started with one of the developers asking what people wanted to see changed about the game
That isn't exactly it. He is asking what frustrating people and turning them away from the game.
Post by: Hydra on April 24, 2009, 09:25:12 am
That isn't exactly it. He is asking what frustrating people and turning them away from the game.
Yeah, indeed. He wants to make those items worse so even more people are turned away!
Post by: Neonivek on April 24, 2009, 09:35:04 am
Quote
Yeah, indeed. He wants to make those items worse so even more people are turned away!
Well the difference is that change/improvement can be made to a system without flaws/frustration.
This topic is only dealing with frustrations.
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 24, 2009, 10:07:31 am
Devs have the option to let an alpha pass or to reject it. If it's satisfactory, it goes into beta stage.
The devs have no say about whether or not an application is okay. Q&A has.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 24, 2009, 10:12:28 am
The devs have no say about whether or not an application is okay. Q&A has.
Could you at least try to pretend that this conversation is still about DF development?
Post by: FistsOfTinsel on April 24, 2009, 10:15:40 am
That said, when I started last week, I did so with the "Utter Newby Guide" I found here: http://afteractionreporter.com/2009/02/09/the-complete-and-utter-newby-tutorial-for-dwarf-fortress-part-1-wtf/ .
I cannot stress how useful something like this is. For a game like DF, a step-by-step set of instructions on creating your first fort is absolutely mandatory if you want to attract anything beyond the most rabid gamers. The guide is not perfect; it digresses a little too much, but it allowed me to play the game without feeling like I had to take a college course to do so.
Now that I've been playing a week, and still haven't been attacked yet, here are my beefs:
1. MICROMANAGEMENT. It's been repeated by many others, but here's this n00bs views. DF is basically a Simcity game with RTS elements. What it's missing is a high-level view of what's going on. The Status screen is a start, but I need reports on demographics as well. In fact, that should be my starting point for running my fort - see everything from a global view, and drill down when necessary. DF takes the opposite approach - everything is bottom up.
A big confusing factor for DF is in figuring out what "my" role is in the game; am I a leader, directing minions? A god? The distributed consciousness of all the individual dwarves? The fact that the dwarves self-organize makes me think it's along the lines of SimCity, but too often I need to intervene in the most trivial details of their lives (e.g., determining whether their left mitten matches their right one). An example: I want some digging done, I don't have enough miners. I designate some peasants as miners, but I see that they show up with "No Job" in the roster. Why? They have no picks. How am I supposed to know this? Nothing in the game tells me (that I can see), and it is unclear where in the wiki I would start. At the very least, I would like to see notifications or reports when tasks are blocked due to some resource constraint, with an explanation on what needs to be done. Same goes for workshops & such - I don't want to have to visit each empty workshop to see what the problem is - I want a global view.
This confusion about the role leaks into the rest of the interface/gameplay. Why do I have to move a bed into a room, then tell it to make the room a bedroom? Why can't I specify the space as a bedroom and let the dwarves furnish it with beds? If I build a forge and it needs metal, and there are empty smelters and idle dwarves with appropriate skills, why can't they just go do it? Again, the disconnect between levels of control; I can't tell the dwarves what to do, yet I seem to have to tell them exactly what to do. A consistent level of autonomy would go a long way.
4. INTERFACE: Not so much the ASCII stuff, but why is managing lists of stuff so damn cumbersome? DF desparately needs sorting features in the lists. Sort dwarf rosters by profession, or health, or stats; sort bin contents by item type or quality; same with trading screens - sort by whether the item is up for trade, it's value, weight, etc. Also, requiring an "F9" to exit the screen where we're moving goods to the depot (which is a relatively painless process, if you're using bins), but exiting the trading screen with "space" is disasterous - after setting up a trade for several minutes, to have it all thrown away by accidentally hitting space one too many times.
3. SAVING THE GAME: Maybe i'm just a dummy, but I am super confused about the save-game process. Why is it different from pretty much every other application or game I've ever used? I can never figure out which save game file is the one where I left off? I have the seasonal autosave turned on, and I quit the game by choosing ESC-Save Game-Quit, but when I restart, I can never load up the game from where I left off; even if I choose the save game file that is the most recent (from looking in Windows Explorer), I still seem to be getting the N-1 file. What gives?
Post by: Neonivek on April 24, 2009, 10:27:50 am
Quote
3. SAVING THE GAME: Maybe i'm just a dummy, but I am super confused about the save-game process. Why is it different from pretty much every other application or game I've ever used?
The Roguelike curse ("We can't let you cheat so we will just make saving as horrible as possible")... I personally wouldn't mind Dwarf Fortress differing from Roguelikes in this department.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 24, 2009, 10:40:50 am
Again, the disconnect between levels of control; I can't tell the dwarves what to do, yet I seem to have to tell them exactly what to do. A consistent level of autonomy would go a long way.
While I wouldn't call it one of my own major frustrations, yeah, this is important. Good analysis.
Post by: Caz on April 24, 2009, 10:45:19 am
The interface really bugs me sometimes, but I got used to it. :)
Making the viewport resizeable was definitely a step in the right direction. It was TINY before.
Also, better graphic tile support would be great. And more colours. Yay.
Post by: FistsOfTinsel on April 24, 2009, 12:03:07 pm
Quote3. SAVING THE GAME: Maybe i'm just a dummy, but I am super confused about the save-game process. Why is it different from pretty much every other application or game I've ever used?
The Roguelike curse ("We can't let you cheat so we will just make saving as horrible as possible")... I personally wouldn't mind Dwarf Fortress differing from Roguelikes in this department.
So, what is the answer? All I want to do is have the game save when I quit, and continue from where I left off when I start it again. Am I doing something wrong? Can you point me to a link or wiki page that explains how this works and what to do? I can't imagine it is really this hard - it has to be operator error on my part.
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 24, 2009, 12:06:08 pm
So, what is the answer? All I want to do is have the game save when I quit, and continue from where I left off when I start it again. Am I doing something wrong? Can you point me to a link or wiki page that explains how this works and what to do? I can't imagine it is really this hard - it has to be operator error on my part.Half of one:
Hit the Escape-key, choose the option "Save Game", and the game will save, and dump you to DF's main menu, from where you can quit the game completely.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 24, 2009, 12:10:24 pm
Post by: bjlong on April 24, 2009, 12:37:52 pm
Second: There's no macroscopic picture. I understand things by looking at both the big picture and the details, and seeing how things line up that way before I can really understand a system. If there was a big picture, I could make a lot more informed decisions. The status screen helps, but things like thus-and-such immigrant has training in this job, which you have x of would help immensely.
E: Another screen that could help is "show dwarves that have had x amount of non-hauling jobs in y amount of time." This would help us see the dwarves that are being overworked and the dwarves that are "unemployed." Bonus if we can hit a key to see what kinds of jobs the dwarves are doing, and how many of each.
As a note, tools like these would require some UI design stuff in the debugging, or else they'd be practically unusable.
Post by: Shoku on April 24, 2009, 04:28:44 pm
Entry: As far as I can tell the fanbase seems to be people happy to look up stuff on a wiki or forum and we all seem to explain things to each other with side view MSPaint illustrations (if we're not being lazy and just trying to type a diagram,) so it seems like reducing this requirement would be the most practical way to extend the fan base.
Maybe bundling the side illustrations of some important stuff with a bit of a starter guide pointing out crucial menus and convenience menus in a tutorial folder would go a long way.
Persistence: A few more convenience menus (or revision of existing menus) that show certain bits of information like how content or impoverished the populace is along with less slowdown (maybe give us a forbidden designation so areas could actually be eliminated from pathfinding as if they were walls?)
And it would be nice if I could scroll through lists via mouse wheel.
Post by: Xinael on April 24, 2009, 05:35:05 pm
The interface isn't really a problem. TinyPirate and CapnDuck's guides do an excellent job of introducing you to the game. Proof of that comes from a friend of mine who isn't very computer literate. She has a habit of IMing me saying she's bored, which annoys me no end - I sent her a link to TinyPirate's guide to make her go away for a bit, and it worked. She plays all the time now :D
The trouble, I think, is when someone boots up the game for the first time and has to navigate through world gen, finding a site and embarking before they get to the GAME part of the game. There needs to be a more gradual introduction of that stuff.
Personally, I still can't work the damn world gen. I never seem to get what I'm looking for.
Post by: Sowelu on April 24, 2009, 06:23:58 pm
So, what is the answer? All I want to do is have the game save when I quit, and continue from where I left off when I start it again. Am I doing something wrong? Can you point me to a link or wiki page that explains how this works and what to do? I can't imagine it is really this hard - it has to be operator error on my part.The saves that have seasons and years and stuff after them are backups. Don't load from those. If you want to use one of those, delete your region1 (or whatever) and copy a backup folder, renaming that folder to region1 (or whatever). That's the easiest way to keep track of which one you are playing from.
Devs have the option to let an alpha pass or to reject it. If it's satisfactory, it goes into beta stage.
The devs have no say about whether or not an application is okay. Q&A has.
If you were really as much of a coder as you're putting on, or even much of a Daily WTF reader, you'd know that "Quality Assurance" doesn't have an ampersand in it... ::)
Post by: mithra on April 24, 2009, 08:19:01 pm
I know, you won't be convinced, but that's just a silly attitude. It's silly because there is most likely something currently built into DF that you like being able to control, and that using your argument should have been a designers hard decision.
No, it isn't silly. I pay (for some value of pay, since DF is at the moment donationware) a designer to actually do the hard stuff of figuring out how the game world works, and what its rules are.
An example: What would you think if you had, every single time, to adjust the kerning of a heading in your favorite word processor? Any graphic designer will tell you that kerning is 100% necessary. Yet, I doubt you give a crap. So, your word processor makes the decision on how to display the heading, and apply necessary adjustments.
Oh, c'mon. Are you trying to compare apples and oranges on purpose? Sure, I don't want to have to adjust my kerning every single time, but maybe I'd like to be able to adjust it some of the time. That's what we're talking about here.
Quote
QuoteAs I read the post that started this, it isn't about an inability to handle immigrants, it's about a desire not to have to deal with them. It's about enjoying game play in a manner different than you do.
Tough. I want to play Warcraft III without Orcs, too.
Tough? What kind of response is that?
You're Warcraft III experience is less than it could be because you cannot. That's the point.
Quote
QuoteWhat I really think you're missing is that if options are given to make the game "easier," those same options can most likely be used to make the game "harder," which would seemingly increase your enjoyment. So I think you should support more player control, because it will benefit you as well, not just the "whiners."
No problem with adjustable difficulties, at all. In fact, I'd prefer it if I could manage immigration as I can in Colonization: I get to chose who and when I get immigrants into my colonies, within the boundaries of the game's rules.
That's what apparently everybody is missing here: The game has rules, they are there, and you have to operate within these rules. DF is no different in that regard than any other game.
No, you're missing your own point in the first paragraph of this quote. What people are talking about is things like getting to choose your immigrants, if they want to do so.
Quote
I'd go nuts over options to tweak my game exactly to the way I like it, from dragons to the size of raindrops. Until I'd have to reinstall it or my computer. Then I wouldn't bother, but rely on the designer to provide me with sensible defaults for the settings, and any rough difficulty I set.
Now I just don't understand your position. You seem to argue that things shouldn't be able to be changed, and then you argue for defaults. All people are talking about is the ability to alter more things. I don't care if you'd go nuts over it. Don't use it. But it is silly to argue that the ability to change things shouldn't exist.
Quote
Look at Railroad Tycoon II for an example regarding difficulty: If you don't want to bother with short selling and buying on margin, you keep the difficulty of the economy low. But if you want to buy industries, you'll have to deal with the increased difficulty of a much harder stock trading system. That's how the game works, and is one of the challenges.
And it would take nothing away from the challenge of the game if a player had the ability to fine tune some of these levels. That's the issue here.
Post by: *Poster* on April 24, 2009, 11:46:34 pm
Short Term/Initial Attention keeping
What turned me off the very first time I came across DF was the graphics. I'd like to boast about what a hardcore gamer I am and stuff, but ASCII has never done it for me, even when I was a wee bairn who could barely see the monitor over the keyboard. Using Mayday is a big help - not just because it's visually more pleasing to me, but because there's more information, more easily and readily available. Having listened to Toady's recent interview I appreciate the rationale for not 'contracting' graphics out to others, but I would certainly encourage including either a tileset direct, or links to them, included in the game.
Having happened across graphics that worked for me, the next stumbling block was the sheer complexity of the game. More accurately the obtuse nature of it all. It's inevitable that, specialized tutorials aside, DF is going to be highly complex from the word go. There's nothing to be done about that; it is the nature of the beast. However, the wealth of options before me, combined with a near-total lack of understanding of how everything worked together, was a huge obstacle. I did have the wiki but even so it was fairly tough going until I came across captnduck's videos via Rock Paper Shotgun. I started to get the hang of things much better after that, but I still followed through TinyPirate's tutorial (The provision of a save, which you can play along with, is pretty much as good a tut as you're going to get). Using both tuts AND the wiki, I've learnt enough about the game to get things done fairly fast. People who don't automatically assume that there will BE a wiki and seek one out out of habit might not do so well.
Even so, there's a lot that could be done in-game. A line of help/info text for things would be a great start, along the lines of the aforesaid suggestions like "This is a Carpenter's workshop. Wooden logs are turned into furniture and other items here. Using it requires the Carpentry skill". "To place a bed, you need to have a Carpenter make one from wooden logs at the Carpenter's Workship." etc. etc. I feel that this would help significantly - these things don't have to be long. Just "This is X. It does Y. It needs Z to do it." would be a hugely helpful step for newbies to start getting their bearings.
The UI is the bane of all DF player's existence. Despite having played the game a lot (more than I ought to have thank you very much Toady One it's not like I have a degree to earn or anything >:() it's still fairly difficult to navigate through. The major failing here is that not only are things often counterintuitive, but that they change from menu to menu. Now, obviously DF is no twitch game, and orders pause the game so there's no time pressure at all there, but establishing a simple, intuitive, or at least learnable system would be a major help. Scrolling through menus should be the same everywhere. Exiting screens should be the same everywhere. There are some convoluted things which I understand the reasoning behind. If your Dwarf's in a workshop, it's probably easier having different keys to select each than to be fiddly and try to choose between them. Nevertheless, much streamlining and refinine could be done.
A good example of where things could be made easier is when you 'V' over a Dwarf. There's no good reason that all the options aren't available. I shouldn't have to hit 'l' then 'e' to get to assigning dogs. I should just be able to hit 'r' right away. Basically, the UI needs to be streamlined along two broad axes - the first is to make it as unified and homogenous as possible, so that as little thought as possible needs to be devoted to figuring out how to actually get something done. The second is to reduce as far as is feasable the number of mouse clicks and button presses needed to get from any one menu in the game to any other.
Longer-term attention keeping
The astute amongst you may have put magma and kittens together, and come up with four! Yes, the fact that I learned so much about DF from captnduck and TinyPirate means I'm quite the newbie myself. Nevertheless, I'm already encountering some of the things mentioned by veterans as long-term problems, and I think if I'm coming across them within such a short time of getting into the game it probably bears mentioning in this thread.
The greatest problem, by far, is slowdown once the fortress gets large. From the figures others have given, I seem to be doing marginally better than most, but there's a very definite wall which makes the game not worth playing, and that wall comes long before I'm done with most fortresses. I'm no computer expert. I'm better than your average joe, and I can fix most basic problems, but I have little clue about this multi-threading business or anything else like that. All I know is - the slowdown needs to go, through some mechanism or another.
The second problem is that DF is, surprisingly, a very easy game. Once you actually know what's going on, know how to get food production going, know how to lay down a few traps and get a small military going, it's not that hard a game. Aside from HFS or unforseen magma, as long as you've paid attention to things and not deliberately created problems, it's not a particularly difficult game. (That said, it may be more that complete disasters are usually hilarious and highly enjoyable to watch, and so don't feel like failures because they're pretty much as fun as success.) Further, much of the 'difficulty' is arbitrary stuff that can't be fixed. Someone gets taken by a mood, and starts demanding glass on a map with no sand, or whatever. That sort of thing needs to be ironed out - moods should begin later and probably shouldn't ask for the entirely impossible (same goes for mandates.)
I'm confident that in time the second of those two major issues will be resolved. The Army, Caravan, and Diplomacy Arcs should all add significantly to what can be done off your own back, and it looks like stuff coming up in the next few months should help things a lot in the shorter term. I would also suggest a revamp of how quickly skills are gained. Make it take significantly longer, reduce how much a mood gives, and so forth. 'Legendary' implies, well, that the Dwarf is a legend. That his mere ability deserves engravings. This should not be attainable without years or decades of toil.
In order to attract more players, keep players, and to maintain the game's growth, I would suggest a medium-term two-pronged undertaking. The first is streamlining the UI, making it more intuitive and more unified in terms of what buttons do. On top of that, at least provide a page the first time the game is loaded which says "Hi there, thanks for playing Dwarf Fortress! DF is a fairly complicated game and can take some getting used to. To help you get started, check out the DF Wiki at URL, and there are popular tutorials for new players at URL and URL. Strike the earth!" The second major task is to streamline pretty much everything it is possible to streamline, do any multi-threading whatever, absolutely anything that can help improve late-game performance should be done. I realize that such detracts from implementing the stuff that Toady really wants to get in, but if we're not going to stick with a fortress long enough to see half of it, then there is a problem there, you know?
Post by: Rilder on April 25, 2009, 01:33:25 am
Deal with it. You knew that the game includes immigrants, and either you take it, or you leave it. If I don't like the combat system of, say Crystal Caliburn, I don't play the game, instead of complaining about the combat system during play.
You seem to be forgetting that this thread is where we are supposed to vent our problems with dwarf fortress.
I do deal with it, I Set up an atom-smasher early on in new forts and just smash imigrants and the crap they bring in for 5 or so years then I start letting in a few choice individuals. I just wish there was a way in game that wasn't exploitive to get rid of them.
Post by: Foa on April 25, 2009, 01:56:30 am
There are no intrinsic abilities, nor are there any extrinsic abilities.
No boats, no basic** steam engines.
And the interest levels, are too low.
*- Goblins and Kobolds deserve better, for kobolds give you special trade items, and goblins, they are a zerg horde to be reckoned with.
**- I said basic because you will bitch about steam engines.
Post by: PMantix on April 25, 2009, 07:01:50 am
Hi people, I joined the forums in order to post my thoughts in this thread
...
Short Term/Initial Attention keeping
...
Longer-term attention keeping
That's one hell of a first post, *Poster*. I think you have a lot of well thought out ideas there. Welcome to the forums!
Post by: Lesconrads on April 25, 2009, 08:05:43 am
Reason was, that I just could not get how to do stuff. There needs to be a giant hint to go to the forums and look up those tutorials.
Otherwise, DF needs some kind of basic tutorial, that introduces you to basic concepts of the game. (This is prefered in one of the more final versions)
Like:
You mine that way, you chop down trees that way.
Now you Dwarfs need food, so go farming or fishing or gathering or hunting.
ZOMG your dorfs need to sleep, so build your first workshops - a mason and a carpenter. You produce beds etc by doing this and that.
Now dig rooms and place furniture and make rooms.
...
..
...
This is the military screen. You can make a military command-chain in here and change the general type of equipment.
You get, what I am saying. Just some tut is needed, as this game is too complex to get it all by yourself. When you are into it a bit, you can start to explore all the stuff on your own, you don't have to go over everything specifically. Some "pop-ups" for bigger events you cannot know about are all you need later on. "This is a noble. He is an annoying dipshit who needs room, demands stuff and hammers you people senseless". "This is magma. It is hot, you can power furnaces on it, if it is BELOW one tile of where that special furnace is build".
When you are into the game some more and actually get to a point, where your first booze is all gone, so you need a working fortress, all the interface-stuff comes to my mind.
Biggest problem for me is the way, the unit-list works. I need to be able to group my dwarfs in categories AND have the possibility to group them by specific criteria.
The idea is already implemented, despite all my cheesemakers are no cheesemakers but masons. The game can not know that they are, but also there is no way to tell it they are -> change!
General job-controlling is also appreciated. Running on linux, I can't be arsed to get any of those external programs to work. We just need a big window, where we can, just like with weapons in military screen, turn jobs on and off for all the dwarfs at once.
Hope that helps a bit, even though it was mentioned quite a few times ;)
Post by: codezero on April 25, 2009, 09:59:08 am
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 25, 2009, 10:46:17 am
I'm curious why a lot of people mention tutorials and wikis but never the in game help? I got into the 2d version, when the help was still pretty relevent, is it hopelessly out of date now or did no one even read it? I remember it being quite helpful.
Dunno about the 2D version, but the help of current incarnations is a) difficult to navigate, b) impossible to search, and c) not indexed, so you can't easily look up a topic.
If it were, say, like the Civilopedia, I'd be all over the ingame help. ;)
Post by: dyze on April 25, 2009, 07:31:37 pm
the UI.. no way around it really. yeah that giant wall of text on the right side of the screen..
generally they complain about:
a) you cant use the mouse to click on anything, and trying to memorise all the keyboard shortcuts while at the same time trying to learn the game is just too much.
b) the graphics which, even with a tileset takes time to learn what is what, and that any one tile can have multiple 'meanings'
and seriously, until the ui has been fixed, and tileset support has been expanded, 90% of the players (excluding the hardcore community here) *will* leave pretty soon.
i really dont think its the complexity of the game itself, rather its the complexity of the information presented to you once you've embarked and landed on your site for the first time.
now, if like you said, you're still gonna wait with the presentation arc, you could spend a little time cleaning up the main in game menu.
right now, its soo unorganised, as a new player you have no idea which 'buttons' are the important ones. the menu names are either too long, or too vagely/confusingly named.
take '(b) site a building'.
once you enter this menu, you see a screen with lots of options to build, of which ONE is actually a building (kennels). you have to press - or + to scroll to the next screen too see a few more. so renaming this menu item to simply (b)uild would seem logical, no?
or take (d) designate. having english as a second language, i actually had to look this word up before i understood what i meant.
(m)odify could be an alternative here. and while on the designate topic, removing stuff really shouldnt require several different commands..
'view units', 'look around' ..i mean, there shouldnt even need for UI buttons for this, clicking a tile should be enough really.
removing some buttons and creating more proper secondary menus, like (x) squads, should go under a military screen etc.
you could also create an "advanced" button, and tuck away stuff like Visualise, Movies, Notes there.
all this would obviously be best with clickable buttons in all menus. tool tips would be an immense time saver too.
TLDR: simplify & use similar naming as other similar games. maybe take some time to play civ or city building games for inspiration..
oh, one more thing ..still, after playing this game for years, i really, REALLY hate that you cant close/go back in menus with the escape key, like in any other game.
..and one last thing. beds, and tables. these should when built, automaticly turn into ownerless bedrooms and diningrooms.
Post by: azazel on April 25, 2009, 08:03:23 pm
Anyway, after taking a look at the screenshots and downloading the game, I almost immediately gave up. I'm serious - I consider myself a hardcore gamer, and I've had no problems playing ASCII games before, but... information overload, anyone? You get 7 dwarves. Okay. What the hell do I do now?
So, I gave TinyPirate a chance. Then things started making sense. I still don't know how glass making works (I have a clue, but have never actually _made_ glass), and there are other areas where I have problems as well (buildable stairs was a major one for a while - very counter-intuitive; it would be better that if you built a down stairs, the game would automatically "build" (that is, put in the order for) an up stairs for you. Just sayin'). No matter.
Totally fragmented post this, sorry.
Right. So TinyPirate's guide helped a whole ***tload. That leads me to say: Tutorial. It's necessary.
The graphics... let's just say that ASCII is hard to start with. I'm comfortable playing with it now, but while learning the Mayday pack was a lifesaver, and I still prefer it. A friend of mine went through the same thing - I recommended the game, and he tried it, but gave up because of the ASCII/not knowing what the hell he was doing.
Streamlining stuff. The interface for one - countless others have already said it, but I'll repeat it: it's not good. It's working, but it's not good. Some work orders as well - I had to go u-m-Assemble Ballista Arrow. I'm not sure that's how you usually do it, but it's really not a very smooth way to go. Would be better if they assembled the arrow themselves, you know, when they finish the arrowhead. Maybe they do - didn't for me.
The economy needs an overhaul - minting 30,000 coins? Fine, that's only what, 60 bars, but still. Oh, that's for one coin type. 180 bars total then? Right. Of course, the economy is a major long-time goal, not a short-term one.
To keep players interested, fix the interface and some form of tutorial. You might also want to consider a tileset, since that does make a major difference for a lot of (would-be) players.
Post by: Neonivek on April 25, 2009, 09:09:08 pm
Quote
I almost immediately gave up. I'm serious
Don't worry I figure it would be the standard reaction to Dwarf Fortress
Post by: G-Flex on April 26, 2009, 01:02:47 am
or take (d) designate. having english as a second language, i actually had to look this word up before i understood what i meant.
(m)odify could be an alternative here. and while on the designate topic, removing stuff really shouldnt require several different commands..
"Designation" is a much better term than... what would you use, "modification zone"? That's just clunky, especially since designations aren't necessarily meant to modify anything in the first place. I know English is your second language, but it's honestly not a very obscure word, and I can't think of a more fitting one at all.
Quote
..and one last thing. beds, and tables. these should when built, automaticly turn into ownerless bedrooms and diningrooms.
And then, if you ever want a bed or table in a room that you DON'T want to be a dining room or bedroom, you're screwed. You can probably see the problem there.
Post by: Aquillion on April 26, 2009, 01:28:48 am
And then, if you ever want a bed or table in a room that you DON'T want to be a dining room or bedroom, you're screwed. You can probably see the problem there.That could be fixed, though, by having them default to being a dining room or bedroom (unless placed inside another room -- it's rare for players to want to have a room inside a room, so that'd be a logical check that could make for 'useful defaults'.)
Post by: G-Flex on April 26, 2009, 04:07:46 am
Post by: dyze on April 26, 2009, 07:56:02 am
And then, if you ever want a bed or table in a room that you DON'T want to be a dining room or bedroom, you're screwed. You can probably see the problem there.That could be fixed, though, by having them default to being a dining room or bedroom (unless placed inside another room -- it's rare for players to want to have a room inside a room, so that'd be a logical check that could make for 'useful defaults'.)
yeah this was exactly what i was thinking.
Quote
But if the player's going to successfully play the game, they need to know how to designate rooms from buildings/furniture anyway. So it just ends up being a hassle
imo the hassle really is that you have to manually make every table a dining room, on top of actually building it.
i didnt mean removing the option to resize, or to remove the dining room 'status' all together.
a bed that is placed in an enclosed room should by default become a bedroom the same size of the room, would really speed things up also.
no to mention simplifying the process for new players, which is what this thread is about, so i really cant see where the hassle is..
Post by: Vucar Fikodastesh on April 26, 2009, 09:45:00 am
imo the hassle really is that you have to manually make every table a dining room, on top of actually building it.
But you don't have to make every table a dining room. In a communal dining room you only have to designate one table for all the tables to be used.
Post by: ThtblovesDF on April 26, 2009, 11:12:51 am
Post by: Gertack on April 26, 2009, 03:20:24 pm
Quote
Really brining the enlarging on the x-y axis (like when building a bridge, floor or wall) to every single item (traps, tables, cairs, doors, beds) would speed most things up.
Yes! I have around 40 caged animals right now and trying to place all those cages (especially since there's no good way to limit the display to cages with stuff in them) would be a nightmare. Fortunately I can go about that a different way.
Post by: Kishmond on April 26, 2009, 03:28:33 pm
Post by: Aqizzar on April 26, 2009, 04:40:22 pm
imo the hassle really is that you have to manually make every table a dining room, on top of actually building it.
But you don't have to make every table a dining room. In a communal dining room you only have to designate one table for all the tables to be used.
That right there is something that needs to be simplified. Dining rooms and overlapping room designations confused the hell out of me when I started playing, because I didn't know how rooms worked. I thought you did have to designate every table, and the only indication the game gives that you're not supposed to do that is turn it's entry in the Room List red. And that list is so useless with no searching or differentiation that I still don't use it for anything.
Post by: ThreeToe on April 26, 2009, 05:26:37 pm
Post by: Guy Montag on April 26, 2009, 05:50:01 pm
The screen is distorted, everything is screwed up, your downloaded graphics are not working and it takes 2 hours on the internet to figure out that you need to go into the .int file and change 70% of the setting just to play the game.
Then you need to look at your key-bindings, write down what everything does, and edit things things to make them work. Adventure Mode is especially counter-intuitive like this.
Also, UI things like designationing mulitiple things for trade, You are mashing the enter key untill your wrist aches just to buy anything, or to designate things to be dumped. Or managing dwarves. You have to memorize the name of the exact dwarf you need to work in a shop or sleep in a bed. It would be so much nicer if you could just click on a dwarf, click on a bed or something.
The screen/resolution/ aspect ratios and everything else baffles me to this day.
Post by: Aquillion on April 26, 2009, 05:58:34 pm
Your input has been really useful so far. The things that really confused/annoyed you from the start, that's what I want to hear about. Keep it coming!From the start? Huh.
The embark screen is very unintuitive to a new player; there's no real indication of what the various things and skills mean, which items are important, and so on. Perhaps giving players a list of standard 'prefab' setups to pick from and then the option to customize those further for advanced players would be better. "Start now" gives a pretty bad setup IIRC, which ought to be easy to fix... but giving the player a list of a few specific setups and an explanation of each would be even better.
Likewise world generation and choosing a start location can be barriers to new players, although I don't think they're quite as bad as setting up your initial dwarves. A bad start location can really limit a player's options, and a new player often won't know that (although there's some warnings now, which do help.)
I seem to recall that the first time I stopped playing for a while was when an important Legendary dwarf died and I just said "screw it!", but I don't know if anything can be done about that.
Some things are impossible to handle correctly unless you know about them in advance. For example, every new player is going to miss the first merchant wagons, because they won't know to expect it and they get no warning. I would suggest, instead of just making "the wagons have bypassed your inaccessible fortress", have the wagons wait a short while, giving the player time to build a road + depot (and tell them how to do it.) Often, on a flat map, the player doesn't really need a road -- the wagons only bypass them because they didn't realize they had to build a depot.
Of course, a tutorial might do better at helping with this.
The interface is certainly intimidating to a new player. Huge lists of buildings and buttons, without any real indicator of which things are important or essential, and which can be delayed or neglected. Several things are given top-layer single-button access despite not really being that important or anything that a player will use regularly (the artifact list, say, or the depot access display -- do those really have to be single-button commands?)
There's also many conflicting interfaces. Some things are done with dig-type designations, some things are done with depot menus, some things are done with zones, and some things are done with rooms/constructions. Often there's considerable overlap between them -- digging a staircase vs. building a staircase, say.
Items are oddly-placed inside of submenus, often because of when the submenu was made. Levers are listed under traps and not machine parts, for instance. Bridges are a top-level construction item, but floors are under the 'C' menu. Forges are under the 'furnace' menu instead of the 'workshop' menu, despite acting like workshops. It isn't obvious to a new player why the submenus are set up the way they are, making it hard to guess where to look for something if you don't already know where it is.
Adjusting a dwarf's tasks is a hugely important part of the game, but it's really kind of tucked away in the V-P-L menu, in a place that at first glance looks like it's just for getting information about a dwarf and not for entering vital commands.
There's no way to review or change the labor settings on large numbers of dwarves at once. There's no way to see who the top X dwarves in your fortress with a particular skill are. These are major issues to a new player, because if they screw up the VPL settings or an important dwarf dies, they'll often be forced to go over all their dwarves by hand to fix things and assign new labors. A centralized labor-management screen would help a huge amount with this.
Job suspensions and cancellations are easy to miss and can cause confusion or headaches to people who don't know about them; I think more jobs should be 'delayed' and attempt to continue later when the situation that is obstructing them is potentially temporary.
The game spams you with a lot of information, some of which (births, striking unimportant stone, dwarves organizing parties, masterwork notices for a legendary dwarf that is churning out masterworks regularly) is useless, and some of which (job cancellations, say) is hugely important. Players have no indication of what's important; while it can be customized to an extent, new players won't know how to do that. (Births and striking unimportant stone are the worst, because they actually pause the game and move the screen for something that, usually, won't require any action on the player's part. Masterwork notifications are the biggest spam-generators on a large fortress at the default settings, though.) Of course, IIRC much of this is going to be fixed in the next version, but it still bears mentioning.
Post by: azazel on April 26, 2009, 06:48:35 pm
Quote
There's no way to review or change the labor settings on large numbers of dwarves at once. There's no way to see who the top X dwarves in your fortress with a particular skill are. These are major issues to a new player, because if they screw up the VPL settings or an important dwarf dies, they'll often be forced to go over all their dwarves by hand to fix things and assign new labors. A centralized labor-management screen would help a huge amount with this.Dear god, yes - I still absolutely hate the system, even with Dwarf Manager. At least with DM you get a better view of the situation.
Post by: Guy Montag on April 26, 2009, 06:50:45 pm
I don't know if its the number of items produced or dwarves or what, but every fortress eventiually slows to a crawl and the game becomes unplayable.
After the time and effort invested to learn how the play the game and configure the .int and learn how to keep a fortress running is wasted because 4 years into a fortress, you will want to abandon due to the FPS and CPU strain.
Post by: Daft on April 26, 2009, 07:02:54 pm
Now I've mastered the controls, and made pretty self-sustaining fortresses, and tried a bunch of megaprojects, and now I'm a bit bored, really. :c It's gotten... too easy. Needs more learning curve.
Post by: Andir on April 26, 2009, 07:03:13 pm
We figure we are losing 90% of the players because of the UI and other barriers, and that doesn’t even count the ones scared away by the ASCII graphics.Everything you said... IS the interface. with the mainly text based interface and keyboard inputs, it's hard to designate areas, place buildings, embark, etc. As a professional e-Learning developer, I see it day in and day out in the stats we collect on every course. Courses with poor, confusing, or less than intuitive interfaces score lower, generally return less than favorable comments, and garner the most "resistance" to learning. I spend nearly 90% of my time developing and fixing features in the interfaces to make it better and more intuitive so our students can learn more without the application getting in the way.
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen? Or maybe its finding the right tile sets and setting them up. We are hoping at some point to build easier commands and tutorials to help bring in more players. We have to identify the main culprits first. So what is frustrating you the most about Dwarf Fortress?
This is what I see going on with DF. The interface makes it hard to do EVERYTHING in the game and it makes it hard to pick up.
Post by: Andir on April 26, 2009, 07:07:11 pm
I think a better tutorial for how to designate things. I, personally, figured out how to build things, but for the life of me digging seemd to make no sense. It took a tutorial that I find on the wiki to educate my of digging, and even then it took me awhile to understand ramps and channeling.Tutorials to teach users how to use your program are a HUGE problem. If you have to teach someone how to use it... it's not intuitive. Tons of people fall into this trap. They think people just need to learn the right way to do something and everything will be peachy. In fact, it's the opposite. If people have to do a tutorial to learn how to play, they'll likely not do the tutorial and get upset at the game.
Edit: I'm on page 5 now and I'm afraid you are going the tutorial route... such a shame that this is being listed as a valid complaint and is being persued... still reading, but I hope this isn't top priority.
Post by: KilgoreTrout on April 26, 2009, 07:17:18 pm
One thing that always annoys me is the seas of menus you have to navigate to get to a single units properties.
Like to, for instance, slaughter a large collection of animals I have to go into the unit menu, scroll down past my hundred or so dwarves, then go through the hundred or so pets, while keeping an eye out for strays.
Basically, an improved unit interface that allows you to filter the menu with a key press. Like if I want to only display the Wild Animals of my area, I press the corresponding button.
Post by: azazel on April 26, 2009, 07:33:29 pm
Like to, for instance, slaughter a large collection of animals I have to go into the unit menu, scroll down past my hundred or so dwarves, then go through the hundred or so pets, while keeping an eye out for strays.You could go through stocks->animals; much quicker.
Post by: Andir on April 26, 2009, 08:24:49 pm
Replace every item name in game with something else. Pick random words if you like. If you can still play the game, then it's doing something right. Rename Walls to Gerps. If you don't come into the game with any idea what a Gerp is, you should be able to figure out how to build it and what it does. How do you do this? when a player "clicks" or selects a tile, they are doing it for a reason. Give them a menu of all the available options that can be done on that tile (including building a Gwod.) When you highlight the Gwod in the list, you are given information as to what it does and what it needs. ("A Gwod is a barrier that can be open or closed. It permits creatures to pass if it is open.") The user should be able to designate that tile as a Gwod and the interface should prompt them for the resources needed. When they are given a resource list, highlighting a resource on the list should show them how that affects the construction. (Think of this like some RPGs that show the affect of stats on a player. This metal will add 50 to the defense of this structure. This material will add 200 hitpoints... etc.) These options can/should be dropdown or combination lists (like treeviews) that list the resource types and beneath that is all the resources available. If the resources are not available, they should be told what resource type is needed and how they can get it. (Stone Type -> None Available. This can be obtained via mining.)
Post by: Neonivek on April 26, 2009, 08:52:43 pm
Quote
Tutorials to teach users how to use your program are a HUGE problem. If you have to teach someone how to use it... it's not intuitive. Tons of people fall into this trap. They think people just need to learn the right way to do something and everything will be peachy. In fact, it's the opposite. If people have to do a tutorial to learn how to play, they'll likely not do the tutorial and get upset at the game
The problem is that Dwarf Fortress is likely to never reach the point where it can become intuitive enough to learn without a manual or tutorial with an appropriate amount of trial and error.
Though that isn't to say we shouldn't push to remove much of the counter-intuitive and redundent sections of the game. Just that a Tutorial will always be nessisary.
Post by: Hakar on April 27, 2009, 12:29:29 am
I just lost a fortress because I tried to go back to an older savegame, but being unable to find it again after I saved it.
Post by: Kishmond on April 27, 2009, 06:48:23 am
I like the satisfaction of having created something. Also, throwing animals off towers is fun too.
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 27, 2009, 07:21:34 am
You could go through stocks->animals; much quicker.In a perfect world, the game itself shows me what the most efficient way to accomplish a task is.
An example:
Instead of deciding before hand what I want my miners do with a designated spot, I designate the spot, and the game shows me the options that are most likely to accomplish what is generally done. I.e. Hollow out, Hollow out with no roof (using the Ramp trick, for example), Make a Moat, Channel down, Channel down with no roof.
To find that out, Toady could use a trick employed by Microsoft: An opt-in to send telemetry data on how we actually play the game, and iterate the UI appropriately, so that we, the players can go about our business of smashing nobles and caging goblins that much more efficient.
The benefit is that we, as players, have to only do what we do anyway: Play the game. Toady then can analyze the data he recieves to his heart's content.
Post by: Davion on April 27, 2009, 07:33:04 am
In fact, it's the opposite. If people have to do a tutorial to learn how to play, they'll likely not do the tutorial and get upset at the game.
That's why you make the tutorials optional and separate. There is nothing wrong with having tutorials AND a more intuitive interface, as long as you aren't forced into tutorials in order to progress.
Tutorials would serve a dual purpose: Teaching users the basics, as well as giving them some short term goals that will keep them interested in the game before they start experimenting. I know there are quite a few people out there that have probably dropped Dwarf Fortress on their first play through simply because they didn't know where to start in terms of goals/what to do. Even if you had all the menus fleshed out and informative people would still ask, "Where the hell do I start?"
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 27, 2009, 08:08:15 am
That's why you make the tutorials optional and separate. There is nothing wrong with having tutorials AND a more intuitive interface, as long as you aren't forced into tutorials in order to progress.
Longterm goals != tutorials.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 27, 2009, 08:18:25 am
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 27, 2009, 08:54:35 am
He said short-term goals...?
Same difference.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 27, 2009, 09:46:13 am
Post by: dyze on April 27, 2009, 10:28:34 am
Well, no, for this purpose they aren't the same at all. A basic tutorial would be good for giving players very short-term goals, like digging out a shelter, building a trade depot or getting a farm up to survive the winter. This is what the "Your first fortress"-type guides on the wiki do. It would not be good at giving players long-term goals like what to do when your fortress automatically produces more food than it can consume and slaughters 80-goblin sieges without your help.
digging, building a depot or farm. these are the most basic gameplay elements, and shouldnt really need more than a few quick in game hints, not a fullblown tutorial on a wiki..
just thought of something else. for new players, the esc menu could be slightly confusing, considering there is no 'exit game' button, if you dont count 'abandon the fortress', which really isnt what you want to use most of the time.
either rename the 'save game' option to 'save & exit game', or like someone else suggested, implement a classic save game system where you can load any version of the fortress. and then use a simple 'exit game' button (which should present the option to save, if you didnt just do that).
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 27, 2009, 10:34:49 am
Well, no, for this purpose they aren't the same at all. A basic tutorial would be good for giving players very short-term goals, like digging out a shelter, building a trade depot or getting a farm up to survive the winter. This is what the "Your first fortress"-type guides on the wiki do. It would not be good at giving players long-term goals like what to do when your fortress automatically produces more food than it can consume and slaughters 80-goblin sieges without your help.
Game functions aren't goals. They are teh basics of getting the game to do what you want it to do. Goals would be actual "mission objectives".
Neither of these things are part of a tutorial. And if they are, the game's UI is broken.
The moment I start a game that is new to me, I want to be able to actually accomplish things. Not to read a wall-of-text. A tutorial on complex things, like complicated supply lines (a meat industry, a steel industry, a glass industry), makes sense. One for designating tiles to dig out, doesn't.
Post by: Kazindir on April 27, 2009, 10:44:16 am
Game functions aren't goals. They are teh basics of getting the game to do what you want it to do. Goals would be actual "mission objectives".
Neither of these things are part of a tutorial. And if they are, the game's UI is broken.
The moment I start a game that is new to me, I want to be able to actually accomplish things. Not to read a wall-of-text. A tutorial on complex things, like complicated supply lines (a meat industry, a steel industry, a glass industry), makes sense. One for designating tiles to dig out, doesn't.
So what you're trying to say is absolutely no effort should be made to help people trying pick up the alpha release before the presentation arc has even been started?
Because thats what you *are* saying, intentional or not.
Post by: dyze on April 27, 2009, 11:00:41 am
So what you're trying to say is absolutely no effort should be made to help people trying pick up the alpha release before the presentation arc has even been started?
Because thats what you *are* saying, intentional or not.
did you actually read the first post, or even the topic title?
Post by: SmileyMan on April 27, 2009, 12:12:08 pm
Perhaps as a stop-gap, you could create a sot of "starter fortress" which is installed with the game, along with a basic world, so a complete beginner could load up a game with the essentials (farms, stills, dining rooms, bedrooms) already built, so they could understand the basic relationships and get started quicker.
On the other hand, the "losing is fun" mantra means that there is a cadre of gamers who will never "get it". One of my early fortresses I had no idea that dwarves would go mad without booze. The resulting destruction of the fortress was a lesson learned, but it was also hilarious, and those poor souls have stuck in my memory long after more "successful" fortresses have been and gone.
My main bugbear is the micromanagement - I'd much rather that the Manager could be told to keep booze levels between 100-200 (ie when it drops below 100, queue up 100 brew drink jobs) than having to remember it myself while I'm busy planning my extravagant anti-gobbo defense grid.
Post by: Andir on April 27, 2009, 12:48:57 pm
My main bugbear is the micromanagement - I'd much rather that the Manager could be told to keep booze levels between 100-200 (ie when it drops below 100, queue up 100 brew drink jobs) than having to remember it myself while I'm busy planning my extravagant anti-gobbo defense grid.Agree. Settable inventory limits should be considered. Especially if the lower limit is smart enough to queue jobs:
ie: My minimum/auto-queue bed stock is 7, my preferred inventory is 10. I hit 7 beds in storage. Auto-queue 3 more to meet my target of 10 bed stock. It would be nice to be able to make the lower limit a hard cap. If set, dwarfs would be denied access to the items until stock is replenished. You would need a bookkeeper/quartermaster to enable said feature though.
Post by: Angellus on April 27, 2009, 03:03:58 pm
One played the game eventually, but he got demotivated after his first fort died to smithereens by food disaster.
Maybe a Rookie mod to start out with? with food to make dwarves happy but not being a necessity, so that people can learn the controlls without having to learn everything at once?
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 27, 2009, 03:19:20 pm
So what you're trying to say is absolutely no effort should be made to help people trying pick up the alpha release before the presentation arc has even been started?
Because thats what you *are* saying, intentional or not.
Actually, quite the contrary. The UI needs to be reworked somewhat fierce so that new players cna pick it up without getting a shock, and never coming back.
The goal is to make tutorials redundant, not to make the game opaque to the newby (it doesn't need help in that regard, anyway). I, for one, play DF *despite* its UI.
Post by: Jakkarra on April 27, 2009, 03:19:44 pm
what dont you want in? and ill use Maydays graphics for ease and Pulling-in-friends power.
Love, jakkarra
(after this, no derailment)
Post by: azazel on April 27, 2009, 03:34:08 pm
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=34743.0
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 27, 2009, 03:42:04 pm
ill mod you an "easy mode" if you want...
what dont you want in? and ill use Maydays graphics for ease and Pulling-in-friends power.
You missed the point so very completely.
It isn't about the difficulty of the game. It's that the UI is next to useless. No tileset or modded gobbo is gonna change that.
Post by: Aquillion on April 27, 2009, 03:47:03 pm
The biggest turn-off for me is the lack of a simple save-game system, instead of this rogue-like system we have right now.I kinda agree; there's no question that the audience of 'roguelike' fans is limited, and things like this (and the ASCII) make it hard for DF to move beyond that (though certainly not impossible.)
I just lost a fortress because I tried to go back to an older savegame, but being unable to find it again after I saved it.
But, with that said, DF just doesn't work that well with a simple "list of saved games"-style save system. That would give players the impression that they can, for instance, save their game during a fortress and then go adventure -- which would prevent the fortress and adventure from overlapping. Basically, the big consistent world doesn't play well with the 'branching' that you get from a large number of saves.
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 27, 2009, 04:02:06 pm
But, with that said, DF just doesn't work that well with a simple "list of saved games"-style save system. That would give players the impression that they can, for instance, save their game during a fortress and then go adventure -- which would prevent the fortress and adventure from overlapping. Basically, the big consistent world doesn't play well with the 'branching' that you get from a large number of saves.
Actually, it does. As long as there is an active fortress on a map, it can be blocked from Adventure mode. If you activate seasonal saves with auto backup in the init.txt, you get an old fashioned save game list (you jsut can't revert to a previous save that easily if you "quick save").
Post by: Jakkarra on April 27, 2009, 04:03:08 pm
only for training purposes however...
love, jakkarra
Post by: Chaingun on April 27, 2009, 10:33:59 pm
Make a tutorial (accessable from main menu & using a preloaded map) where one command at a time is introduced (everything else hidden until it appears for first time), in the order you'd use these commands to make a simple functioning fortress...
Examples of order of introduction:
1. Teach how to look around in 3D with the default view and with the with v, u views.
2. Teach how to dig. (Including stairs.)
3. Teach how to designate food stockpile indoors.
4. Teach how to designate meeting hall inside.
5. Teach how to set up mason and carpentry workshops.
6. Teach how to manage labour.
etc.
My other major inital hurdle was (surprise surprise), the lack of mouse support. A complex micromanagement strategy game is NOT cool without it...
-----------
I find the biggest long term obstacle for my enjoyment of the game to be the fact it's ridiculously easy after a certain point. Enemies aren't equipped to deal with hitech dwarven defences; traps are overpowered. Economy is endless; just trade those worthless rock crafts with the caravans; the merchants will not adjust the price according to the laws of economics. There aren't enough design considerations for a fort (having to deal with ventilation & proper cave in risk for poorly unsupported sections would be start). As it is right now you can just dig out a big square space and place most of your buildings there, with some exceptions.
Post by: FistsOfTinsel on April 28, 2009, 12:35:37 pm
1. Again, micromanagement. The way DF plays, I should be managing things from the top down almost always, with the option to dig down into details when necessary. The whole menu/command interface needs to be rethought with this in mind: The top level entry point, conceptually, should be based on goals, not on details. For example, I need to build an army - the "military" menu is a good start, but from there, I need to drill down to all the minutia, to the point where I need to be mining magnetite, if necessary, to get ore for my equipment. This leads to...
2. An interface that is more "browser" like, in that I can follow links. The current interface consists almost entirely of dead ends, but the game itself is a web of dependencies. Taking the example above, I want an army; I start by designating some dwarves, then I want to equip them. The game should let me know that there is not enough equipment (and show me what is available); if I want to make swords and armor, the link in the equipment screen should take me to a list of forges and smithies; I shouldn't have to hunt for them around my map, or have to figure out which build menu they live under. Once built, or in the "add" menu, it should do me the same favor for raw materials. And once I'm done with these menus, backing out should work like "back" in a browser, and bring me to where I was, not just bomb me out to the main menu. Same thing with inspecting dwarves; when I'm looking at a dwarf, I shouldn't have to exit that view, remembering the dwarf's name, then go into another menu and find the dwarf's name again to get to some other aspect (e.g., I see a bedroom he owns, I have to exit, "u", find his name in the list, and go from there).
3. It is not useful to distinguish tasks from one another by category - (d)esignate, (b)uild, (p)ile, (z)one, etc. All of these things are modifying a square, either by function or construction; After playing a week, I still have to go back to the tutorial page when I need to create a farm, since I can never remember what menu it lives under. Similarly loo(k), (v)iew and others are similarly confusing. We already have the ability/requirement to navigate through multiple items in a square, so there is no intersection between these two commands.
4. Consistency - menu navigation, consistent methods for marking areas - either the umkh expando-square, or the "mark the corners" technique, but we don't need both. I'm sure there are others.
5. Management of production buildings should be able to be done via a main list, not navigating around the map with your cursor using the "q" command. Doing this would also allow you to set up supply queues that go from one workshop to the next, with rules about what to do when you hit a resource block.
6. Better notification. Every dwarf that I've had die on me so far (other than the one that went crazy because I didn't know about moodiness), died from thirst, or being killed by a carp while trying to drink from the river, all because I missed the notification that I couldn't brew any more booze for lack of barrels. Since "job cancelled" notices are fairly common for me (and non-fatal), there needs to be notices that are raised when there are fortress-wide crises looming (like no food or drink).
7. Lists, lists lists. For the love of Armok, sort those damn lists, and menu choices too. I should also be able to group and sort by type or attributes (value, weight, value/weight, etc.), and collapse sections. duplicate items in a container could just be indicated with a (quantity) to the right. Given the limited screen real estate, the names should be formatted as (size) (name) (material); having material first is pretty useless - I don't care whether my leather helm is made out of carp leather or rhesus monkey leather when I'm selling tons of junk.
8. Explanations of roadblocks: This goes back to the browser link/drill down issue. I have ordered a building built, but nobody is building it. It says it needs "Architecture", and I have architects, so why no action? When presented with roadblock, there should be a link that takes me to a decision screen where I can reallocate jobs/resources/whatever to get that construction moving. Looking at questions online, there is a lot of "I have done X, why isn't it working". I still can't figure out why one of my champions (who's carrying a baby in her arms) refuses to drop her artifact hammer even though I've flagged her as "unarmed" in the weapons screen.
9. The general rule of software interface design should be, "Make the common thing easy, and the difficult things possible". There are some tasks that I think should be easy (like emptying my cages of the kobolds I caught, or sending a squad of soldiers to a spot to fight bad guys), that I still haven't figured out how to do; for both tasks there seems to be a whole series of commands I have to execute in order to get this done right, but these tasks seem like they are relatively "obvious" - why isn't the method for executing them obvous?
=======
Finally, only tangentially related to this thread:
People have complained about lag once you get a lot of dwarves; I'm seeing it now with around 100 little guys. I read in an interview that you're using an A* algorithm for pathfinding, since you can't lay down "cheater paths" that other devs might do on maps that are not dynamic. If the amount of cpu that's being used for A* is a significant factor in the lag, this could help:
Could you implement something similar to how ants navigate? Basically, the way it works is that ants leave a pheremone trail behind them (that gradually fades) depending on what task they are on, and they follow these trails also depending on their task.
For example, an ant is on "forage"; it leaves the hill, and is leaving behind "forage" scent. It randomly wanders until it finds food. Once it does, it follows the gradient of decreasing "forage" pheremone back to the hill, only this time it's leaving behind "food" scent. When it reaches the hill, the other ants can detect the food trail and follow it back. They all do the same thing, so the more traffic, the heavier the scent. Once the food is gone, the scent gradually evaporates.
Now, the dwarves in DF are not as dumb as ants - they know where they need to go, using A*, but you could have them leave behind the virtual "scent" that subsequent dwarves could follow to simplify the A* search they need to perform. You could also have a number of "pathfinder" dwarves that don't follow the trails but do use the straight A* path in order to "update" trails in cases where changes in the environment has opened up new trails or closed off old ones. You would have lots of virtual "pheremone trails" all over the map that would act as highways for common dwarf tasks.
Post by: Phenixmirage on April 28, 2009, 01:01:21 pm
Post by: dyze on April 28, 2009, 02:55:59 pm
a noob mode where immigrants came at lower numbers, and maybe less 'useless' dwarves (soapmakers etc), gem-makers and other 'advanced' workers could start to immigrate once the player had built up the general base of farms, workshops etc.
Post by: Angellus on April 28, 2009, 05:06:36 pm
People have complained about lag once you get a lot of dwarves; I'm seeing it now with around 100 little guys. I read in an interview that you're using an A* algorithm for pathfinding, since you can't lay down "cheater paths" that other devs might do on maps that are not dynamic. If the amount of cpu that's being used for A* is a significant factor in the lag, this could help:I do not think this will help much with decreasing lag, though I do not know much of programming. It would though, make everything more realistic. A dwarf does not know whether the door it came trough would be closed once it has reached its destination, they now seem to magically know this.
Could you implement something similar to how ants navigate? Basically, the way it works is that ants leave a pheremone trail behind them (that gradually fades) depending on what task they are on, and they follow these trails also depending on their task.
For example, an ant is on "forage"; it leaves the hill, and is leaving behind "forage" scent. It randomly wanders until it finds food. Once it does, it follows the gradient of decreasing "forage" pheremone back to the hill, only this time it's leaving behind "food" scent. When it reaches the hill, the other ants can detect the food trail and follow it back. They all do the same thing, so the more traffic, the heavier the scent. Once the food is gone, the scent gradually evaporates.
Now, the dwarves in DF are not as dumb as ants - they know where they need to go, using A*, but you could have them leave behind the virtual "scent" that subsequent dwarves could follow to simplify the A* search they need to perform. You could also have a number of "pathfinder" dwarves that don't follow the trails but do use the straight A* path in order to "update" trails in cases where changes in the environment has opened up new trails or closed off old ones. You would have lots of virtual "pheremone trails" all over the map that would act as highways for common dwarf tasks.
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 28, 2009, 05:32:31 pm
I do not think this will help much with decreasing lag, though I do not know much of programming. It would though, make everything more realistic. A dwarf does not know whether the door it came trough would be closed once it has reached its destination, they now seem to magically know this.
Actually, it would. At the cost of DF using more RAM, though.
Let me explain by way of example:
Pathing is like writing a book.
Currently, every time a dwarf goes somewhere, a new book is written, containing the instructions where to go. At worst, every dwarf that goes to the same tile (think picking up the gifts the goblins left after their last siege), gets his own book of instruction.
Now, instead of writing a new book for everything, Dwarf Fortress stuffs books in a library. That way, the game can simply look up the book, and give it to the dwarf, instead of writing a new one.
This is obviously faster, even though it isn't as customizable as a personal book for every dwarf.
However, you could store lots of books, and discard the ones that are least used, before storage space runs out.
And if you turn books into an ecyclopedia of paths dwarfs take, the game can look up the encyclopedia (the ant trails: A specific area, for example the one where you fell the most trees, gather the most sand, fish the most fish, etc.), then the game only has to calculate the end of the path, since the dwarfs are already close to where they actually need to be.
It's quite possible that dwarfs won't use the most efficient path anymore, but that is sooo rarely needed, anyway, that I wouldn't be too concerned.
On another note, I've noticed that grass tiles that get pathed often (i.e. lots of dwarfs running around) "lose" the grass, creating a dirt path of sorts. That could be used to calculate common path ways already, I guess.
Post by: PTTG?? on April 28, 2009, 05:54:13 pm
...
This is obviously faster, even though it isn't as customizable as a personal book for every dwarf.
...
Not at all; the game has to find which "book" is the correct one to give. In order to do this, it has to, basically, write a new book. At the very least, your idea would require cashing a connection from every point to every other point, and recalculate this whenever the map changes- an absurdity.
Post by: peterix on April 28, 2009, 06:35:40 pm
DF really needs to employ dependency trees for managing labor. Let's say I order the dwarwes to build a road out of green glass blocks. I don't have any yet. I don't even have a glass furnace and there's no sand gathering spot designated. The game (in my head) goes through all the pre-requisites for making roads out of green glass blocks and tries to make them. It fails (and announces that it failed) - there's no glass furnace, bags, fuel and no designated glassmaker. I then go to the jobs screen, where my order for building the road is listed as 'blocked'. I can view it's details - a list of prerequisites.
From this list, I can
* order dwarves to build those buildings (select 'glass furnace needed', map apperas, I put it where I want it, cancelling or placing the building returns me to the requirements list)
* assign the glassmaking profession to a dwarf (select 'glassmaker needed', *enter*, list of dwarves appears - on the left their names, on the right their professions. I select a dwarf and press *enter*,)
* same thing with the sand gathering spot and fuel. When there's no sand, it lists 'find sand', etc.
* I have no bags! The game list this as a prerequisite. I can order some bags made from the list. If it can't be done, it's added to the list and processed the same way as the build road order.
* Noble mandates go here - essentialy, nobles order the dwarves to make stuff just like you. You can't cancel their mandates, just look them up and do what's needed. If all the requirements are met, dwarves make stuff for the nobles without player intervention.
* Complex orders - like 'keep alcohol stocks at 500', etc.
Now I can go and tell dwarves to build my nice glass tower (put designations all over the place) and just watch them gather sand, make glass blocks and build walls wihout any intervention or mucking with every task. My attention is only needed when there's a real problem. I don't have to tell them to brew alcohol all the time, they do it themselves. I focus on designing glass towers, military tactics, high-level planning and digging (digging is fun and requires a brain).
The annoncement list - entries should be linked to what caused them and I should be able to see it ... Going to the list, selecting a 'Horrors! Demons in the deep!' line and hitting *enter* should show me the demon. Same with all the other announcements.
Graphics separation - don't reuse same graphics for different things if possible. A nice raw file with all the fixed game objects and graphics assigned to them would be fine. This would go nice with themes. A theme coul be something like a linux package - it would contain all the images and the file which links them to game objects (like [GRAPHIC:CREATURE:SPIDER_CAVE_GIANT:LIVING:spidey.png] [GRAPHIC:CREATURE:SPIDER_CAVE_GIANT:DEAD:ded_spidey.png]).
Also the path caching already mentioned here. Using waypoints and caching should speed things up a lot.
The in-game manual: it needs a major overhaul, linkage to the rest of the game.
* peterix cancels writing wall of text, too tired.
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 28, 2009, 06:37:59 pm
...
This is obviously faster, even though it isn't as customizable as a personal book for every dwarf.
...
Not at all; the game has to find which "book" is the correct one to give. In order to do this, it has to, basically, write a new book. At the very least, your idea would require cashing a connection from every point to every other point, and recalculate this whenever the map changes- an absurdity.
Hash table (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashtable"). This is, basically, a solved problem in computer science. And a look up in RAM is faster than calculating the whole path again and again and again and again and again and again.
Nor do you have to cache every possible route. Just the most used routes. That should speed up pathing quite a bit, since you don't have to calculate the path from workshop to stockpile every single time.
Post by: G-Flex on April 28, 2009, 07:03:24 pm
Say the game caches a path from point A to point B. If anything on the map changes, like water entering or leaving an area to some degree, or dwarves moving around, or any architectural changes or other dangerous terrain problems, it has to calculate the entire path again anyway, since in such a case, the cached path may be inaccessible, or more difficult to traverse (and thus not necessarily the best anymore), or another path may have come up which is simply better. And considering how often this stuff, especially fluids, move around...
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 28, 2009, 07:09:57 pm
I think I've read that the problem with caching routes is that the map in DF changes damn near constantly.
Say the game caches a path from point A to point B. If anything on the map changes, like water entering or leaving an area to some degree, or dwarves moving around, or any architectural changes or other dangerous terrain problems, it has to calculate the entire path again anyway, since in such a case, the cached path may be inaccessible, or more difficult to traverse (and thus not necessarily the best anymore), or another path may have come up which is simply better. And considering how often this stuff, especially fluids, move around...
So you do a check every 5 seconds if the paths are still valid. If they aren't, they are discarded, and the game builds a new list of paths.
Besides, the game actually knows what happens on the map. What's more difficult to handle is user input, but compared to the speed of the average CPU out there, we are slower than molasses in what we do.
For example, when siting a building, during the pause mode where there is no pathing, and while you designate the the needed material, paths can be recalculated that either touch the area, or cover the fortress.
The lag results from too much happening at once. If you shift the work around a bit, that can help a lot already.
The question is, however, how difficult all of this is to implement, while keeping DF modular enough for the anticipated growth of the program.
Post by: G-Flex on April 28, 2009, 08:08:02 pm
I think I've read that the problem with caching routes is that the map in DF changes damn near constantly.
Say the game caches a path from point A to point B. If anything on the map changes, like water entering or leaving an area to some degree, or dwarves moving around, or any architectural changes or other dangerous terrain problems, it has to calculate the entire path again anyway, since in such a case, the cached path may be inaccessible, or more difficult to traverse (and thus not necessarily the best anymore), or another path may have come up which is simply better. And considering how often this stuff, especially fluids, move around...
So you do a check every 5 seconds if the paths are still valid. If they aren't, they are discarded, and the game builds a new list of paths.
And if somebody has to path to a now-invalidate-but-still-considered-valid path during that five-second-interval, then what happens?
Post by: Andir on April 28, 2009, 08:21:42 pm
They hit a wall where a wall wasn't before and they check for a new path.I think I've read that the problem with caching routes is that the map in DF changes damn near constantly.
Say the game caches a path from point A to point B. If anything on the map changes, like water entering or leaving an area to some degree, or dwarves moving around, or any architectural changes or other dangerous terrain problems, it has to calculate the entire path again anyway, since in such a case, the cached path may be inaccessible, or more difficult to traverse (and thus not necessarily the best anymore), or another path may have come up which is simply better. And considering how often this stuff, especially fluids, move around...
So you do a check every 5 seconds if the paths are still valid. If they aren't, they are discarded, and the game builds a new list of paths.
And if somebody has to path to a now-invalidate-but-still-considered-valid path during that five-second-interval, then what happens?
Post by: Neruz on April 28, 2009, 08:24:17 pm
I think I've read that the problem with caching routes is that the map in DF changes damn near constantly.
Say the game caches a path from point A to point B. If anything on the map changes, like water entering or leaving an area to some degree, or dwarves moving around, or any architectural changes or other dangerous terrain problems, it has to calculate the entire path again anyway, since in such a case, the cached path may be inaccessible, or more difficult to traverse (and thus not necessarily the best anymore), or another path may have come up which is simply better. And considering how often this stuff, especially fluids, move around...
So you do a check every 5 seconds if the paths are still valid. If they aren't, they are discarded, and the game builds a new list of paths.
And if somebody has to path to a now-invalidate-but-still-considered-valid path during that five-second-interval, then what happens?
They do that anyway; Dorfs pick a path at a given point and then follow that path until they hit an obstacle, at which point they recalculate. This can be seen in the goblin repeater room.
Post by: Aquillion on April 28, 2009, 08:36:21 pm
Quote from: Neruz
They do that anyway; Dorfs pick a path at a given point and then follow that path until they hit an obstacle, at which point they recalculate. This can be seen in the goblin repeater room.That is actually not quite right. They don't recalculate the whole path -- they recalculate how they can get to the next available step on their old path. The difference may seem small but can cause catastrophic results.
I discovered this, for instance, when I had a long, complicated snaking trap corridor with an easy access channel that lets you bypass the twisty corridor, which I opened for my dwarves when the place was otherwise sealed off. If a dwarf is approaching the long, twisty corridor, I can forbid the long-twisty-corridor door, and then open the easy access corridor. The dwarf will walk up to the now forbidden door, pause for a second to think, and then you know what he does?
He walks all the way around in through the easy access corridor, but then immediately walks into the long twisted corridor from the wrong direction until he gets to the door from the other side, then immediately turns around and goes through the whole long twisty corridor instead, wasting a huge amount of time.
Post by: Jetman123 on April 28, 2009, 08:38:25 pm
A better organization of the build menu would certainly help (putting the workshops at the top, for instance), as well as an explanation of some of the error messages players might get upon trying to build furniture.
"Bed - needs a bed (Constructable from Carpenter's Workshop)"
Post by: varkarrus on April 28, 2009, 08:39:43 pm
I have not ever kept a fort until my first ambush even. Thieves, yes, but not ambushes.
Post by: Mechanoid on April 28, 2009, 09:01:48 pm
It's too slow paced for me.
This.
Dwarf Fortress needs a "fast forward" button. 2x, 4x, and 8x speeds.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 28, 2009, 09:03:56 pm
This.
Dwarf Fortress needs a "fast forward" button. 2x, 4x, and 8x speeds.
You can achieve this by increasing the FPS cap, at least in young forts that aren't murdering your CPU yet.
Post by: Aqizzar on April 28, 2009, 09:16:21 pm
This.
Dwarf Fortress needs a "fast forward" button. 2x, 4x, and 8x speeds.
You can achieve this by increasing the FPS cap, at least in young forts that aren't murdering your CPU yet.
Then that isn't much of a solution is it?
Post by: Footkerchief on April 28, 2009, 09:31:24 pm
Then that isn't much of a solution is it?
It depends what you're trying to fast-forward to. If you just want to fight off invasions with your original 7, it'll work nicely. If you're trying to fast-forward through the endgame, not so much.
A real fast-forward would have to be something more drastic like temporarily giving up control of the fortress (like in those end-the-game-but-don't-abandon-the-fortress suggestions).
Post by: L0rd_ZOD on April 28, 2009, 10:55:40 pm
I managed to get 20+ dwarves, fend off a siege, find the HFS area. Now there's nothing left to do. Its takes ages to learn the game, then you run out of things to do very very quickly. Its like learning to speak Chinese only to find out all Chinese people now speak Spanish.
2.Lack of events
You play a game because you want to escape from real life for a while. Dwarf fortress tends to have lapses where nothing happens at all making the fun factor fall. This could be fixed by inserting random events into the game, Im not saying like a message apears saying "12 dwarves have died" but more like having trolls set up shop just outside your fort etc.
3. Dwarfs do everything but what you tell them to do. ( yes I have turned off everything but what I want them to do, somehow they still find excuses not to do it)
Post by: Neonivek on April 28, 2009, 11:19:00 pm
Though even at 10x speed (if it was possible) the years do pass by slowly... I kinda wish there was a Timeskip ability somehow.
Post by: MrWiggles on April 28, 2009, 11:48:08 pm
1.Lack of achievements/goals/objectivesEven the standing orders?
I managed to get 20+ dwarves, fend off a siege, find the HFS area. Now there's nothing left to do. Its takes ages to learn the game, then you run out of things to do very very quickly. Its like learning to speak Chinese only to find out all Chinese people now speak Spanish.
2.Lack of events
You play a game because you want to escape from real life for a while. Dwarf fortress tends to have lapses where nothing happens at all making the fun factor fall. This could be fixed by inserting random events into the game, Im not saying like a message apears saying "12 dwarves have died" but more like having trolls set up shop just outside your fort etc.
3. Dwarfs do everything but what you tell them to do. ( yes I have turned off everything but what I want them to do, somehow they still find excuses not to do it)
Post by: magikarcher on April 29, 2009, 12:19:13 am
Post by: G-Flex on April 29, 2009, 12:28:53 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 29, 2009, 03:14:02 am
In answer to CynicalRyan and the Pathingdiscusion (Wall of text ahead):
Spoiler: Tech=>pathing (click to show/hide)
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 29, 2009, 04:03:34 am
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 29, 2009, 04:29:29 am
Post by: Capntastic on April 29, 2009, 05:47:19 am
Post by: CoyoteTheClever on April 29, 2009, 06:53:07 am
Post by: Andir on April 29, 2009, 06:58:26 am
Post by: FistsOfTinsel on April 29, 2009, 09:51:39 am
Multi-threaded applications, and in particular games, require a lot of concurrency (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrency_(computer_science)") (meaning that the threads do stuff on their own, while using data from other threads). If you do that wrong, you get all sorts of interesting effects, mostly manifesting in crashes. Concurrency is *hard*. It is even harder in languages like C/++, which, IIRC, is used to write Dwarf Fortress.
I'd like to add a bit to this:
I've been writing multithreaded apps in C++ (on Solaris and Windows) for about 10 years now, and I think you may be overstating the untenability of the problem. Yes, it does take more thought and a new mindset to write parallelized apps, but it's not a deal breaker. If DF has followed relatively sound programming practices (encapsulation, using data accessors when possible, avoiding globals, etc.), it would be quite conceivable to scale it up to using multiple threads.
From what I can see, DF wouldn't benefit that much, performance-wise, in its current ASCII glory, from dedicating a thread to presentation, although it would probably be necessary to keep yourself sane in terms of managing the display resources (it would probably be a pain to keep track screen updates if every worker thread was painting the screen). The big issue would be whether the simulation engine behind the scenes is ripe for parallelization. The game is obviously "turn based", and I'm guessing that each cycle visits the different entities needing attention and updates their state, and to keep things simple, the states are being being updated based on what has happened immeidately before.
In other words, during Cycle N, each entity is not updated based on what the state of the universe was at Cycle N-1 (call it the "consistent" method), but instead based on what the universe is on the current state of Cycle N (call it the "dirty" method). In the dirty method, the order that the entities are visited would subtly change the outcome if it were scrambled. The consistent method would involve keeping copies around for all the state information from the previous cycle (possibly using copy-on-write to avoid unnecessary memory & cpu consumption in maintaing identical copies) until you were done processing cycle N.
With a scheme like that, you could probably parallelize the simulation engine pretty easily - just divvy up the entities across worker threads. The consistent method would mean that the simulation would always have the same outcome from cycle N-1 to N (barring intentional randomization), whereas the dirty method might result in cycles playing out differently (due to race conditions). The dirty method would also entail putting in a lot of mutexes to protect memory; the consistent method would always be reading from a read-consistent view and would only need a mutex to protect the occasional copy-on-write operation.
The dirty method would be faster in a single-threaded environment, but as you'd scale up the number of cpus, the consistent method would probably be better, as you'd have fewer mutex collisions. With a simpler locking model, the consistent method would probably also be better in terms of avoiding programming errors due to deadlocks.
Also, I'd be interested to hear why you think that C++ is more difficult for multithreaded apps than other languages. Sure, there are issues with memory managment, but that can be resolved pretty easily with counted pointers and a good class library; the big problems you face with parallel programming has a lot more to do with concurrency and resource management, something you need to use brainpower on, regardless of the language used.
Post by: dyze on April 29, 2009, 09:57:47 am
Post by: Volfram on April 29, 2009, 10:08:50 am
I find it fascinating that you transformed the concept of how DF is run into a finite state machine. I was thinking more hardware than software while reading your post.
But then, I suppose all computer programs are one sort of FSM or another.
Post by: Andir on April 29, 2009, 10:11:52 am
I believe the experimental versions of DF(40d11, for example) do have a separate graphics thread, and there's actually a significant performance increase. It was the first time I'd seen framerates above 100 on my system, which previously ran about 50 FPS(pre-Partial Print) to 75 FPS(with Partial Print)I believe the FPS increase was not mainly due to the separate thread but mainly toward the optimization of what is displayed, when it is displayed and proper usage of buffers.
I find it fascinating that you transformed the concept of how DF is run into a finite state machine. I was thinking more hardware than software while reading your post.
But then, I suppose all computer programs are one sort of FSM or another.
Post by: Volfram on April 29, 2009, 10:14:01 am
Post by: Sowelu on April 29, 2009, 12:55:30 pm
This is not the right thread for that stuff! Take it to its own threads!
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 29, 2009, 12:56:59 pm
MULTITHREADING AND PATH CACHING DISCUSSION OUT!!!
This is not the right thread for that stuff! Take it to its own threads!
CynicalRyan cancels going meta: Interrupted by irony.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 29, 2009, 02:17:29 pm
Post by: Neonivek on April 29, 2009, 06:04:02 pm
Post by: CynicalRyan on April 29, 2009, 06:16:11 pm
Especially since multithreading isn't frustrating anyone... it is how slow the game plays that is doing it. (Which is why I find it hillarious when people say "Lack of Multithreading")
Joke's on you. Dwarf Fortress doesn't use multiple threads.
Post by: Neonivek on April 29, 2009, 06:25:16 pm
Especially since multithreading isn't frustrating anyone... it is how slow the game plays that is doing it. (Which is why I find it hillarious when people say "Lack of Multithreading")
Joke's on you. Dwarf Fortress doesn't use multiple threads.
Are you saying that intentionally? I may be killing your joke but I know there are no multithreads. The hillarity is that people are listing "Lack of Multithreading" as a frustration but it wouldn't even be an issue if the game ran smoothly.
Post by: bombcar on April 29, 2009, 09:37:43 pm
Post by: Hectonkhyres on April 29, 2009, 09:46:39 pm
Thread moves on.
Post by: Neonivek on April 29, 2009, 09:50:37 pm
Quote
In fact the word multithreading is now the official term for the genitals on a starfish
Ehhh trying not to say something that relates to genitals SOMEHOW is a game of not speaking at all.
Post by: Shurikane on April 30, 2009, 07:51:40 am
Did someone just say "Multithreading"?
'Cause I think I just heard someone say "Multithreading".
Post by: Volfram on April 30, 2009, 09:12:59 am
Post by: Guilliman on April 30, 2009, 10:32:47 am
Post by: Andir on April 30, 2009, 10:57:02 am
This is masterful cooked starfish genital soup mixed with exceptionally minced weed and exceptionally minced plump helmets. In the soup are images of starfish in exceptionally cooked pasta, the starfish are screaming in agony.agony or pleasure?
Post by: Mel_Vixen on April 30, 2009, 11:55:00 am
As said before some moire tips at embark might be neat. For example a warning in a destert that growing food might be a porblem.
Also if more playable races then dwarfes exist it would be neat to get some kind of easy to identificate indicator that tells me what civ has which race(s). Its annoying if i want to embark somewhere and i then discover that i accidently did choose adwarves over a modded race.
Post by: dyze on April 30, 2009, 12:41:07 pm
As said before some moire tips at embark might be neat. For example a warning in a destert that growing food might be a porblem.
yeah, i really think that the option to embark without preparing, should be removed entirely.
it only confuses noob players, since they might think this is a good option to start quickly, only to discover (once embarked) that their dwarves wont even obey their commands, since no one has any job roles enabled.
instantly beeing taken to the prepare screen with a default load out, something along the lines of the one described in the "surviving your first winter" tut on the wiki, seems more sane.
Post by: Indra on April 30, 2009, 01:33:41 pm
My only serious whine is the world+embarking part, everything else has a workaround. Pretty sure I'm the only one who feels this way:
1. Trying to find a place that has obsidian+flux+sand
2. Trying to find embarking dwarves that do not have a negative personality traits. E.g. procras, panic, indulge, etc.
Post by: PTTG?? on April 30, 2009, 02:23:21 pm
Though I agree about the first one, I suppose a better world searcher should exist.
That said, it's already planned for the future.
Post by: Neonivek on April 30, 2009, 04:28:31 pm
Heck I can't even identify Flux at all as it is.
Post by: Andir on April 30, 2009, 05:12:28 pm
Also, I have no idea how a new player is supposed to know what "Flux" is.Flux is that gooey stuff you use when you solder...
Heck I can't even identify Flux at all as it is.
Post by: ToonyMan on April 30, 2009, 05:26:36 pm
Post by: Fikes on April 30, 2009, 05:45:55 pm
Lack of mouse support. That is the #1 problem.
Let me click and drag designations, zones, mining, tree cutting. Let me right click and select "build a mason workshop".
Look, for example, at Evil Genius. That game had some of the features of DF but a way better base building system.
Post by: MrWiggles on April 30, 2009, 05:56:06 pm
Post by: ToonyMan on April 30, 2009, 06:53:47 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on April 30, 2009, 06:54:12 pm
You can use the mouse for designations.
Not click-and-drag as in creating large rectangles, though.
Post by: ToonyMan on April 30, 2009, 06:57:20 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Protactinium on April 30, 2009, 07:41:48 pm
Also, I have no idea how a new player is supposed to know what "Flux" is.
Heck I can't even identify Flux at all as it is.
Not knowing what flux is will not make or break the DF experience for a player.
Post by: MrWiggles on April 30, 2009, 09:42:21 pm
Also, I have no idea how a new player is supposed to know what "Flux" is.
Heck I can't even identify Flux at all as it is.
Not knowing what flux is will not make or break the DF experience for a player.
Only because the game doesn't preclude you from ever finding out. Though eventually, an in game explanation wouldn't hurt.
Post by: Neonivek on April 30, 2009, 10:09:35 pm
Post by: jeffb on May 01, 2009, 12:01:32 am
Production, a move away from batch production to event based would be nice. It can be frustrating having to micro industry to keep production rolling, eg, playing on a map without wood will leave you with low numbers of barrels, meaning you constantly have to manually juggle farms, butchering, cooking, milling so you have enough free barrels to brew drinks. What about managers for each industry to oversee production levels?
Tutorial, include a prebuilt world with DF, including a functional Mountainhome. Instead of the current embarkation screen let players wander around Mountainhome and see how a working fort works, what various tasks do, etc, then ship them off to a map with notes built in about its features. Also change nobles from random mandates to helpful goals such as creating rooms for all dwarves, improving the food industry or army, etc.
End game, as the game wears on you have less and less things to do other than repel invaders. More diplomacy, trading, crises, etc, maybe even something as simple as allowing me to order my legendary dwarves to spend 10 years creating some magical artifact. Whatever, more to do outside combat please.
Im sure people have mentioned the UI and basic tiles implementation enough by now.
Post by: Fikes on May 01, 2009, 02:30:35 am
Dwarf AI needs a look at, they do some really stupid things that new players have no idea how to stop. Perhaps flag items dropped from battle not to be picked up until all fighting is finished? Maybe add the option to designate where a dwarf stands when he constructs/deconstructs something? Make dwarves smarter concerning large building projects so they don't construct the nearest preventing them from completing other connected buildings (eg, large walling or channeling projects). Why don't dwarves swim out of water it looks like they should be able to? Why don't they clean up after themselves or break? etc.
Production, a move away from batch production to event based would be nice. It can be frustrating having to micro industry to keep production rolling, eg, playing on a map without wood will leave you with low numbers of barrels, meaning you constantly have to manually juggle farms, butchering, cooking, milling so you have enough free barrels to brew drinks. What about managers for each industry to oversee production levels?
...
End game, as the game wears on you have less and less things to do other than repel invaders. More diplomacy, trading, crises, etc, maybe even something as simple as allowing me to order my legendary dwarves to spend 10 years creating some magical artifact. Whatever, more to do outside combat please.
Im sure people have mentioned the UI and basic tiles implementation enough by now.
First off, all of these issues annoy me as well and the address the topic title quite nicely. But they don't address this line (except for the tutorial suggestion):
What do you think is scaring people away?
Most people who read about the game never make it to the point of having dwarves die to stupid things, having issues with producing, and the vast vast majority don't make it to economy, let alone some other form of end game. "we" "loose" people long before those issues, and many of the other issues listed, even become a problem, primarly, I believe, because you spend the first 15 minuets of the game pressing d, m, enter, shift + left, shift + left, right, right, shift down, up, up, up, up, enter, just making the entrance!
Do you realize that it takes SIXTY key presses to make a vertical shaft of 3x3 up/down stairways 10 z levels deep?
Where DF looses the most of its potential fan base, people who already made peace with the graphics and complexity of the game, is when they download the game, build their first fortress, watch it fail, abandon, build a new fortress and suddenly realize "Ahh fuck. I have to do all that (fortress design), all over"
Post by: JimiD on May 01, 2009, 03:06:05 am
My thoughts, on my second or third successful fortress.
Without trying to 'game' the system and produce an obscene amout of wealth, I am up to 100 dwarves by year 5 (unless producing meals and stone crafts delivers that much wealth, at year 5 its still only 800,000 dwarf bucks). Which means I have a baron, the ecomony etc in a real rush. I am also down to 15-30FPS by year 5 too, with weather and temp off. Ive had two ambushes and two sieges. The last two games I have jumped over Counts, and gone from no nobles to Barons in one go.
The jump from 7 dwarves to 30 odd in one wave means I go from know what each dwarf is up to, and worrying about labour allocations (and heaven forbid one dies!), to being swamped. I have learnt a way of dealing with immigrants, by reassigning labour and renaming if necessary when they arrive, but I loose touch we who they are, and dont really mind if one dies anymore. I can also run a number of craft/economy systems instantly, rather than slowly building up my farming from plump helmet to the more intensive Quarry Bushes and Sweet Pods.
A very gradual increase of 2-3 each wave would mean I felt more in touch with each dwarf. Each dwarf would be valued, and I would have to decide carefully whether to allocate them to the military, or to expand an industry. It would mean that having a large population survive was meaningful. And it would push the end game further away.
So I would suggest reducing* the immigration rate, but not cap.
Some issues:
- Of course with less dwarves potentially there is less 'to-do', but with less dwarves the game plays quicker anyway.
- Immigration seems to happen once a year for me, so perhaps it could happen more often. Again to keep things interesting, but still slower than the current rate.
- Perhaps more frequent ambushes, to keep things interesting? Although this will depend on local civs etc.
- Retain the ability for experienced players to 'game' the system by targeting wealth and then triggering a mass immigration. Megaprojects need hands.
Post by: Techhead on May 01, 2009, 06:43:05 am
Actually, excepted from this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_(metallurgy)):Also, I have no idea how a new player is supposed to know what "Flux" is.Flux is that gooey stuff you use when you solder...
Heck I can't even identify Flux at all as it is.
Quote from: Wikipedia
A related use of the term flux is to designate the material added to the contents of a smelting furnace or a cupola for the purpose of purging the metal of impurities, and of rendering the slag more liquid. The flux most commonly used in iron and steel furnaces is limestone, which is charged in the proper proportions with the iron and fuel. The slag is a liquid mixture of ash, flux, and other impurities.See also: Article on Steelmaking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steelmaking)
Post by: Orkel on May 01, 2009, 07:31:18 am
Sum-up:
Year 1-2: rraaaggeeeeee
Year 2+: Fun as hell
Post by: Captain Xenon on May 01, 2009, 09:00:41 am
Post by: dyze on May 01, 2009, 05:33:11 pm
this isnt a general complain about every little thing 'that turns you off nowadays' thread.
from the original post:
Quote
More specifically, what problems did you have before learning the ropes of the game?
..
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen? Or maybe its finding the right tile sets and setting them up.
Post by: DarkCloud on May 01, 2009, 07:03:19 pm
Also, a semi-automated tutorial would be nice.
I played for 6-8 hours over a week and gave up after losing 4-5 fortresses before doing anything more than hollowing out a cavern and placing one shop. It is very difficult to figure out what to do and It takes a long time to regenerate fortresses or even locate good places to place fortresses (I would spend far too long searching for a place that would have water.) I just got frustrated since when I play a game I want to relax. And DF's UI made it impossible to relax.
Post by: DarkCloud on May 01, 2009, 07:05:31 pm
Quote
Where DF looses the most of its potential fan base, people who already made peace with the graphics and complexity of the game, is when they download the game, build their first fortress, watch it fail, abandon, build a new fortress and suddenly realize "Ahh fuck. I have to do all that (fortress design), all overYes.
Post by: Neonivek on May 01, 2009, 07:28:35 pm
Quote
Actually, excepted from this page
You make me laugh. Have you checked that page Metalhead?
Unless the player has an intricate knowledge of the chemical formula of several types of stone they will be helpless.
Marble wasn't listed on the Wikipedia page and neither was Limestone. The only way to find out what stones are flux capable is to find a very obscure material list in the game itself which doesn't exactly tell you anyhow (It only lists Economic stones which are stones that have uses other then what stone is usually...)
Post by: Teiwaz on May 01, 2009, 07:40:27 pm
The graphics and UI are the biggest issues by far, though. It's really hard to get people to even give DF a second look because it's so hard to learn the controls and figure out what you're seeing. Personally, what I would like to see, is a DF "SDK" - I know Toady doesn't like working on graphics and interfaces, but there's a thriving community of people out here who try to do it all the time, but lack the tools. I'd love to be able to write my own interface for DF - a graphical, mouse-driven type thing, but have DF go on being developed/running under the hood. It seems like this wouldn't be all that hard to do, as DF's interface is mostly just modifying data anyway. (Queing up jobs, etc.)
At the *very least* I'd like to see the font and world graphic sets get separated, so people can mod in graphic sets without it turning all the "h"s in the text of the game into little pictures of chairs and whatnot.
Post by: Nivim on May 01, 2009, 08:26:00 pm
Other notes:
It isn't hard to find out what flux is, and any metallurgy handbook will tell you the rest. I thought that things like this weren't in the manual so people would go learn something. However, I think it would be good to organize the manual a bit better, I find that reading some parts of it make one more confused than if one just tested it out.
It would be nice to split some of the picture designations so more can be modded. Such as having different links for "h" and a chair. However, I want none of the graphics with the game to be changed, just make them able to be changed individually.
Also, being as there are so many different ways to start a fortress, I don't think something that skips the first two years would be very effective until the A.I.'s fortress generation is fixed. As they would use the same system (remember to make sure the player has done a couple successful fortress before giving them this option). Also, how successful your fortress will be is determined by those first two years. I wouldn't let anyone or anything run my fortress for me, but apparently others would.
A tutorial fortress would be accomplished by fixing the A.I. fortress generation and just recommending the player to take an adventurer to one.
I actually agree about industry needing some help when it gets large. Perhaps after you have a successful couple of seasons with a large enough type of industry, you can name a dwarf to manage it, the give that dwarf a few commands on what you want to go where. He will then regulate it.
Finally, dwarves in Dwarf Fortress are better with stupid A.I.. Protecting them from that stupidity is one of the main challenges of the game, and the source of anything interesting happening. Dwarf fortress wouldn't be half as funny if they dwarves stopped doing stupid things. New players need to die, then invent things to stop their dwarves' stupidity.
On topic (how bout that...):
The only thing that slightly jostled my interest in Dwarf fortress is getting confused about the designation/jobs right at the beginning. The manual was worded just wrong for me.
Post by: PTTG?? on May 01, 2009, 08:52:27 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 01, 2009, 09:04:06 pm
Quote
I find this thread saddening. So far everything in the game, other than the amount of time it takes to do certain tasks through the U.I., seems to be things that keep away the foolish. I thought that was one reason why this game was prized so, because it is constructed to put off all of the jerks, trolls, fools, and others that degrade a community. And yet some people want to remove these protections.
It doesn't keep away Jerks, Trolls, and Fools... only a strong community can do that.
It just keeps away people who would have trouble learning the ropes. Meaning it puts a hard-cap on the community size and makes it more managable. (Just look at how many active members we have Vs. Members... Id personally would take that as the size of the community who has given up on the game)
Keeping these barriers to intentionally keep people out so the community won't have to deal with the common-folk is almost elitist... but it isn't elitist because that implies a sense of supperiority. So I guess the correct word would be snobby maybe, goodness the correct word is hard to find. Exclusivity is considered less of a positive feature of a group in today's society then it was in the 1800s.
Though the best reason for removing these barriers that you could accept is because they pose a real barrier to the current community as well. The community is already frustrated by things such as placing mass constructions and built tools to overcome it to certain extents.
Quote
Protecting them from that stupidity is one of the main challenges of the game
There is an extent this is true. Dwarves need your guidance to thrive 100% and a few odd deaths here and there is alright since you have more insight then your dwarves do.
However there is a point where Dwarves are too frustratingly stupid. Remember Lemmings? Yes they will walk to their death, but imagine if they also could ignore your commands. I dare you to play it like that (it would be impossible on some levels).
You shouldn't need to tell your dwarves not to collect dead Goblin gear while there is a siege as it makes no sense to. Your supposed to be leading your dwarves in the right dirrection not holding them by the hand.
Quote
New players need to die
They should be capable of dying (especially if they chose a hard set up) however it shouldn't be a requirement of the learning curve. A lot of players like to start on easier modes until they find that they have the skills to tackle harder difficulty settings. (I usually play games like this).
Don't get me wrong or anything... Trial and Error is a important step to learning. It just shouldn't be a focus to ensure that new players will die (Especially without a standard save system). Rather to make tough sections of the game, actually tough.
Quote
It isn't hard to find out what flux is, and any metallurgy handbook will tell you the rest
I HAVE TO GET A BOOK!?! Are books on metallurgy one of those things people have around the house that I am not aware of? Am I missing out?
Quote
I think it would be good to organize the manual a bit better
An out of game Manual would be a lifesaver especially since it is rather hard to navigate inside the game. I realise there is a Wiki but I more or less mean a copy of the ingame manual. It should also have visuals.
Post by: thvaz on May 01, 2009, 10:27:26 pm
Post by: Nivim on May 01, 2009, 11:47:01 pm
But isn't Fun to have a lemming rush out to the battle?
Please don't hack apart my sentence, the rest is meant to dull the sharp meaning. It isn't just a learning curve, it is the player developing systems to solve problems.
Well, all of the friends I have right now (12, 4 active), have at least a metallurgy handbook in their bookshelf, along with handbooks on assorted life forms (2 plant, 2 animal, 1 bug...), rocks (I still think it is wonderful I can use this one to aid my DF play), carpentry, wiring, basic chemistry (the stuff you use readily), astronomy...
I thought everyone with sense got the handbooks on for such things...you have what your saying worded like sarcasm, you are in an area where such things never come to mind?
Perhaps make it a section of the wiki. Add it near the top of the main page in large letters "upgraded in-game manual". Or do you want it in the game download with the read-me referencing it? A text document wouldn't work for this...there's so much text.
@ thvaz: Which it is depends upon how long it took you to figure it out.
Post by: Neonivek on May 02, 2009, 12:06:16 am
Quote
It isn't just a learning curve, it is the player developing systems to solve problems
Yes but it is cruel to make someone build a sandcastle against the tide.
It is like teaching someone to swim by throwing them in the ocean. They will eventually learn to swim but it won't be a pleasant experience until that happens. While some people will marvel at the challenge others will be traumatised.
Quote
Please don't hack apart my sentence, the rest is meant to dull the sharp meaning.
Ehh I am just commenting based off of inspiration given to me by what you write. Besides the only person who matters while I am typing is you.
Quote
isn't Fun to have a lemming rush out to the battle?
Willingly yes (I know when I was a child the only thing I liked to do in lemmings was blow them up. I never got past the 5th level). When you need to finish an objective it can be a pain.
Quote
I find there is a direct correlation between a person being impatient to learn and being one you would not want to talk to
A Dirrect co-relation between someone being patient enough to learn and being patient enough to be a decent person.
Quote
see how the strength of the community helps if you get a flood of them, they will still get into arguments where the target is the each other instead of the conversation
(Warning I had troubles copy and pasting... so this is a misquote somewhat)
If the community is weak it will fold on itself making trolls superfluous. If a community is strong it can stead a flood as Trolls easily get bored when dealing with a good community.
Post by: Muz on May 02, 2009, 12:09:29 am
No proper tutorial. It's very, very hard to learn. I have a friend who read Boatmurdered, wants to play with all the deaths, but can't get arsed to figure out how the game works. He thinks the UI is one of the toughest in the world.
My sister wants to learn it. She loves roguelikes, but can't figure out what all the buttons mean. Also, she doesn't want to get over the learning curve, worried that she'd get hooked on the game.
One of the smartest engineers I know thinks it's cool, but even with tiles, he can't figure out what everything means.
I think the biggest problem is that you have a whole OMFG amount of buttons to the right, an ugly ASCII map, and little smiley faces trotting around, apparently not doing anything.
My suggestions:
- Graphics. When you start, it sucks trying to figure out what E, what ,."^0- mean.
- Quickstart. Let players click one button which instantly picks out a very easy spot, with lots of water, no carp, lots of stone and metal ore. Also include proper equipment. When you first start, you don't know what spot is best or what skills you want or which items are useful.
- Step-by-step in-game tutorial with a pregenerated tut map. NOT a video! In something as intimidating as DF, I'd appreciate someone holding my hand and telling me how to build stairs, how to farm, how to dig out walls, how to manufacture weapons, fishing, trading, trap setting, reservoir building (give them undos in case they flood ;)).
Post by: Solifuge on May 02, 2009, 12:13:48 am
While on the note of Graphics and Accessibility:
I was running an idea around in my head for a 3D Isometric DF GUI in this thread (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=35050.0;topicseen). I'm invisioning something that would work between the DF program and the user, accepting more advanced input types (and providing mouse controls) as well as a rotatable Pseudo-3D display:
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a226/Figgin/Dwarf%20Fortress/DFIsometricGUI.png?t=1241235708) (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=35050.0;topicseen)
Post by: Archaeologist on May 02, 2009, 03:27:11 am
- some things were not fully clear. Such as that a scarcity of guards and jail cells = HAMMER TIME.
- Nobles are a hassle and provide no clear benefit.
- It can become almost paralyzing when you try to look for a good spot. A easy sort of "quick-start" would be nice.
Post by: Ampersand on May 02, 2009, 03:33:17 am
Post by: Neonivek on May 02, 2009, 03:44:51 am
Quote
- Nobles are a hassle and provide no clear benefit.
You know that made me think. Many things in the game are obviously not in yet and provide frustration because the lead ins and effects are already in. Nobles for example will likely have a great role once country dynamics make it into the game but until then they only serve as a quick population boost.
Should the game take the time to refer to aspects of the game that are not implimented yet? Should Toady phase out half-finished projects that don't provide good gameplay segments?
One problem with Tutorials and Manuals is that the game isn't finished... though I don't think the basics would change TOO much. (Though the Army Arc and some of the Carrivan Arc would add quite a bit to the basics)
-On a side note: I find Nobles to be a challenge and a barrier to "Winning" which is getting the King. The King is pretty much the only real "Build up to the final upgrade" the current game has. So Id prefer Nobles, however annoying, stay in... but I am also willing to conceed this point if many people find nobles as they currently are to be detrimental.
-Holy cow... Nobles in 2d are definately horrible! an ALL Noble migration? I hope Toady works on guilds a bit before putting them back.
Post by: Footkerchief on May 02, 2009, 03:10:51 pm
Post by: Aquillion on May 02, 2009, 05:45:59 pm
That would help users figure out if they need to butcher their kittens, make a smaller fortress, turn off temperature, whatever, and give them a general sense of the gains they'd get from each.
Post by: kaiosyne on May 03, 2009, 12:58:09 am
1: no (real) mouse support. i think that tooltips, context menus and scrolling the map with the mouse (X, Y and Z) would add quite a bit of playability to the game.
2: not ENOUGH complexity. the game has a hell of a lot more complexity than virtually every other game i have played except dungeons and dragons (tabletop, mind you), yet i still crave MORE!!! dunno about anyone else, but i have done things like writing up rules for radiation sickness and expanded wand of wonder tables for my d&d games in the past, and enjoyed it. i understand of course that this is a niche gripe, few people actually enjoy delving into the minutiae of rule sets and seeing for themselves that yes, all these game world things are indeed connected behind the scenes.
3: the interface... it has been said before, and it bears repeating. the UI is not very intuitive nor is it efficient, given what has been done with mouse and keyboard in other games.
Post by: PTTG?? on May 03, 2009, 01:09:55 am
Post by: kaiosyne on May 03, 2009, 08:03:08 am
hell, anyway... mr adams is brilliant... someone at gamestop, a customer... ANY customer who asks me "whats a good game out right now?" gets the answer "well, it might be JUST an alpha, but.... "
toady, you malevolent amphibian drug-pusher!!! love the game, hurry up with the next iteration... you need money or something? you holding the next release hostage, aint'ya? well, like any beloved of a ransomee, i will pay ANYTHING for what i want. damnit.
kidding yall, im drunk. hell, i actually DO want you to put out the next game, but i understand that just like blizzard entertainmen, you want to wait and release something GOOD, instead of what those assholes at EA games shove down our throats.. played spore? i REST my CASE...
Post by: Kazindir on May 03, 2009, 09:15:43 am
QuoteI think it would be good to organize the manual a bit better
An out of game Manual would be a lifesaver especially since it is rather hard to navigate inside the game. I realise there is a Wiki but I more or less mean a copy of the ingame manual. It should also have visuals.
A nicely formatted .txt version of the in gam manual would be a nice start actually and should be amongst the easier of things to do. That way people can have DF up in windowed mode and the manual in notepad (or whatever) and look things up a lot easier than they can in the actual in game version. As the default graphics is ASCII you can have ASCII pictures of everything as well for easier looking up and for diagrams on how to do basic things, like set up a farm. :)
Post by: Jakkarra on May 03, 2009, 09:47:50 am
anywho, what exact level of detail do we want to delve down to? myself, i dont see a hard-cap on how minute the detail could, Theoretically, go.
Love, jakkarra
Post by: HonkyPunch on May 03, 2009, 11:10:51 am
The main thing that turned me off was my own incompetence.
I suppose I got over that, but I just remember dwarf mode seeming to be miles over my head. This isn't a problem, per-say, challenge is a wonderful thing, but it is also a double-edged sword.
On one hand, it will keep more competent people playing, but it may also drive away people who are less than keen on the steep learning curve. (I didn't actually try dwarf mode until the latest update, been playing since 3 ago)
I eventually overcame the difficulty i had by modding the dwarves to not need sleep, food, or water, and slowly re-integrating them until i learned how to meet their needs for each of these obstacles.
Perhaps, if you really want to keep people from leaving because of the difficulty, place difficulty levels?
Although i'm not exactly sure how to, and i think that the problem is more the complexity than actual difficulty.
Maybe a more streamlined UI? It's fine how it is, personally, but yeah.
Post by: george144 on May 03, 2009, 05:53:22 pm
Post by: Nerserus on May 03, 2009, 06:48:43 pm
Shame it can't be helped. If you ask me, it sorts the rabble from the intelligent gamers. :)
It takes alot of brain power to survive for ten minutes without going insane, though, when i picked it up again...I liked it. Didn't understand it much. But i liked it. It's like certain music, don't get it, probably never will, but you like it none-the-less.
Post by: Jakkarra on May 03, 2009, 07:01:19 pm
am i doing it wrong?
love, jakkarra
Post by: Vilien on May 03, 2009, 07:34:40 pm
Post by: SirPenguin on May 03, 2009, 10:55:45 pm
The reason the learning curve is steep is due to the fact the interface makes even the simplest of actions a pain in the ass.
I also think this notion of "complicated keeps of the riff raff!" is self serving bullshit, as if you're special or even intelligent for learning a needlessly complicated game. Besides, who cares who plays a game? It has no effect on you if even the dumbest person on Earth is a DFer.
Thank god the Tarn brothers don't share that dangerous thinking
Post by: Neonivek on May 04, 2009, 05:11:07 am
Quote
Thank god the Tarn brothers don't share that dangerous thinking
Judging by some of their earlier work they may have once believed in the exact opposite :D *Joke*
Am I the only one surprised that this thread isn't shut down by Toady for fighting or derailing? (Well Somewhat derailing)
-----------------------------------------------------
Anyhow.... hmmmm...
A "Starting Package" in Dwarf Fortress could help newer players in picking equipment. It gets all the essentials and trained dwarves from the get go.
On the other hand that may be "Playing the game for them" which is a bad thing.
The only reason it didn't bother me when I played was because I was basically married to the Wiki for starting equipment.
Post by: Nerserus on May 04, 2009, 06:01:49 am
The learning curve is steep, but not for the right reasons. The game has some pretty indepth or complicated stuff, but it's not THAT hard to learn.*Hides behind the sofa as he turns into: THE HULK!*
The reason the learning curve is steep is due to the fact the interface makes even the simplest of actions a pain in the ass.
I also think this notion of "complicated keeps of the riff raff!" is self serving bullshit, as if you're special or even intelligent for learning a needlessly complicated game. Besides, who cares who plays a game? It has no effect on you if even the dumbest person on Earth is a DFer.
Thank god the Tarn brothers don't share that dangerous thinking
Also, dude no need to go insane, i was just saying it's great that we don't get random 4Channers coming in shouting over-used memes and posting (ARMOK FORBID) Hentai all over Bay 12. And i do think only intelligent people play Dwarf Fortress. Simply due to the fact anyone who sees the ASCII art gets turned off instantly, and whether you can cope or not is a test in itself if you ask me. You HAVE to admit:
The graphics are terrible, and that is why the game ultimately fails to draw large amounts of players.
I reckon that things are fine the way it is. Some people CAN handle bad graphics. Some can. Also Penguin chill out dude, the game IS complicated, and that is why i like it. It's not one of those games that you pick up, play a minute and go"OH WOOT! I WON...". Dwarf Fortress gets rid of all that and says HEY, YOU WANNA PLAY? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE A GLUTTON FOR PUNISHMENT!
You will die from carp, you will die from hunger, you will die from goblins, you die die die die-die-die, DIE!!!...Though the great reason you come back, is because losing. Is. FUN!
I rest my case.
Post by: Aqizzar on May 04, 2009, 06:21:12 am
I also think this notion of "complicated keeps of the riff raff!" is self serving bullshit, as if you're special or even intelligent for learning a needlessly complicated game. Besides, who cares who plays a game? It has no effect on you if even the dumbest person on Earth is a DFer.
Also, dude no need to go insane, i was just saying it's great that we don't get random 4Channers coming in shouting over-used memes and posting (ARMOK FORBID) Hentai all over Bay 12. And i do think only intelligent people play Dwarf Fortress. Simply due to the fact anyone who sees the ASCII art gets turned off instantly, and whether you can cope or not is a test in itself if you ask me. You HAVE to admit:
The graphics are terrible, and that is why the game ultimately fails to draw large amounts of players.
I don't know what forum you've been haning around on, but this one does have 4channers coming in and mucking around (and others acting like rational people) because DF has loads of fans on /tg/.
Really, this faux-elitism that the game's interface and presentation being obtuse and uninviting is some how a net plus or admirable in itself has to stop. It does no one, not you or anyone, any good to leave a game hard to get in to. Not least because Toady's income relies on donations - I know you're going to respond with something like "oh right dumb everything down to attract money lol stupid", but no. I'm saying that means there's nothing wrong with making DF more approachable, and is an incentive to do so.
And I hate to burst your bubble but being willing to climb the UI learning curve does not elevate you a superior level of nerddom.
It's the interface, not the gameplay, that wards off the vast majority of people, and there is no way to argue that an unwieldy interface improves the game or Toady's position in developing it. Whether that trait improves the "community" of players is your own decision alone, but it says nothing positive about you to support that interpretation.
Post by: codezero on May 04, 2009, 06:43:42 am
Post by: Nerserus on May 04, 2009, 06:52:31 am
I also think this notion of "complicated keeps of the riff raff!" is self serving bullshit, as if you're special or even intelligent for learning a needlessly complicated game. Besides, who cares who plays a game? It has no effect on you if even the dumbest person on Earth is a DFer.
Also, dude no need to go insane, i was just saying it's great that we don't get random 4Channers coming in shouting over-used memes and posting (ARMOK FORBID) Hentai all over Bay 12. And i do think only intelligent people play Dwarf Fortress. Simply due to the fact anyone who sees the ASCII art gets turned off instantly, and whether you can cope or not is a test in itself if you ask me. You HAVE to admit:
The graphics are terrible, and that is why the game ultimately fails to draw large amounts of players.
I don't know what forum you've been haning around on, but this one does have 4channers coming in and mucking around (and others acting like rational people) because DF has loads of fans on /tg/.
Really, this faux-elitism that the game's interface and presentation being obtuse and uninviting is some how a net plus or admirable in itself has to stop. It does no one, not you or anyone, any good to leave a game hard to get in to. Not least because Toady's income relies on donations - I know you're going to respond with something like "oh right dumb everything down to attract money lol stupid", but no. I'm saying that means there's nothing wrong with making DF more approachable, and is an incentive to do so.
And I hate to burst your bubble but being willing to climb the UI learning curve does not elevate you a superior level of nerddom.
It's the interface, not the gameplay, that wards off the vast majority of people, and there is no way to argue that an unwieldy interface improves the game or Toady's position in developing it. Whether that trait improves the "community" of players is your own decision alone, but it says nothing positive about you to support that interpretation.
Y'know, i've retried writing this post six times to make sure this wouldn't turn into a flame war or taken as a trolling.
The learning curve is steep, but not for the right reasons. The game has some pretty indepth or complicated stuff, but it's not THAT hard to learn.All that from one sentence. Now, don't get me wrong. But what is the problem with what i said? I wasn't trolling anyone. I wasn't saying anything. I was complimenting that the game was attracting intelligent people to the game. Why is it, if i say a SINGLE word out of line. The next post is dedicated to saying how wrong i am? If i'm wrong. Just say.
The reason the learning curve is steep is due to the fact the interface makes even the simplest of actions a pain in the ass.
I also think this notion of "complicated keeps of the riff raff!" is self serving bullshit, as if you're special or even intelligent for learning a needlessly complicated game. Besides, who cares who plays a game? It has no effect on you if even the dumbest person on Earth is a DFer.
Thank god the Tarn brothers don't share that dangerous thinking
On a constructive note:
I came back to the game ( And it wasn't appealing at first, that is my opinion ) if you can't accept at first i didn't like it. Simply don't speak to me if you hate me that much, but please don't interupt a thread to tell me how much you did not like the statement, for the sake of everyone else, not me. I do not intend to be an ass-hole, if that is the way i appear, ignore me.
Let's get back to topic...
Post by: ToonyMan on May 04, 2009, 06:56:53 am
Post by: Aqizzar on May 04, 2009, 07:19:18 am
Shame it can't be helped. If you ask me, it sorts the rabble from the intelligent gamers. :)
Okay, I'll say it. Are you wrong? Yes, you're wrong. You called people who are turned away by interface problems "rabble", which is an insult any way you slice it. You're qualifying people as intelligent by whether they're willing to surmount that, I would argue needlessly, high learning curve.
Remember this always, for future discussion of the sort. There is no element of gameplay whose acceptance by a person can mark them as intelligent or not. Trying to extrapolate that fallacious principle to include yourself and exclude others in a group considered desirous is bigotry of interest. And even if a trait is demonstrably true (to the extent that something as nebulous and emotionally charged as 'intelligence' can be), pointing out a lack of such desirable traits is still an insult.
I'm willing to concede that this response is needless fighting, but I'm saying this to everyone who has held or espoused such a view about game design.
Post by: Hydra on May 04, 2009, 07:20:31 am
Really, this faux-elitism that the game's interface and presentation being obtuse and uninviting is some how a net plus or admirable in itself has to stop. It does no one, not you or anyone, any good to leave a game hard to get in to. Not least because Toady's income relies on donations - I know you're going to respond with something like "oh right dumb everything down to attract money lol stupid", but no. I'm saying that means there's nothing wrong with making DF more approachable, and is an incentive to do so.
Well, I guess if the UI was excellent and the graphics were a retro-but-cute 2D, toady would become so insanely rich he'd just pack up and head off to live on some tropical island ;)
Post by: Aqizzar on May 04, 2009, 07:28:02 am
Really, this faux-elitism that the game's interface and presentation being obtuse and uninviting is some how a net plus or admirable in itself has to stop. It does no one, not you or anyone, any good to leave a game hard to get in to. Not least because Toady's income relies on donations - I know you're going to respond with something like "oh right dumb everything down to attract money lol stupid", but no. I'm saying that means there's nothing wrong with making DF more approachable, and is an incentive to do so.
Well, I guess if the UI was excellent and the graphics were a retro-but-cute 2D, toady would become so insanely rich he'd just pack up and head off to live on some tropical island ;)
Thank you for proving my point by missing it completely and responding with exactly what I wanted to head off. I'm saying there is nothing to lose by making the frontend more approachable. The other side to that argument is that the playerbase is somehow worsened by being enlarged. I counter that there is only something to gain, including financial incentive, however small.
Post by: Hydra on May 04, 2009, 08:40:33 am
Thank you for proving my point by missing it completely and responding with exactly what I wanted to head off. I'm saying there is nothing to lose by making the frontend more approachable. The other side to that argument is that the playerbase is somehow worsened by being enlarged. I counter that there is only something to gain, including financial incentive, however small.
Seems you missed the wink-eye-smiley.
Post by: Tiler on May 04, 2009, 03:16:14 pm
I never had too big of an issue with the interface, tbqh. The wiki tutorial helped immensely, though, so that negated things. An in game tutorial map would be great, though. :I
I'd say the thing that irks me most is the lack of realistic economics, which I know will be coming in the caravan arc, but still irks me. Just because I think DF would be a totally awesome economic simulator. And without good economics, there isn't much incentive to do anything, really, except get bigger and bigger numbers in 'created wealth' during late game. Proper economics would both add meaning to a fortress (being able to specialize your fortress and have the world respond accordingly) and could also reduce micromanagement (by having rich dwarves do things like hire out-of-work dwarves, or the out-of-work dwarves could start doing things on their own like painting, writing, or you could privatize a workshop and have them take orders from other dwarfs, stuff like that.)
And skill gains happen way, way too fast. Legendaries should be singular people that are on par with people like Michelangelo, glowing with talent. Not Urist McFishdissector who got reassigned to engraving last year.
Post by: Nerserus on May 04, 2009, 03:51:46 pm
No, not everyone who doesn't like the graphics are "Rabble". Also i assume that in your quote:Shame it can't be helped. If you ask me, it sorts the rabble from the intelligent gamers. :)
Okay, I'll say it. Are you wrong? Yes, you're wrong. You called people who are turned away by interface problems "rabble", which is an insult any way you slice it. You're qualifying people as intelligent by whether they're willing to surmount that, I would argue needlessly, high learning curve.
Remember this always, for future discussion of the sort. There is no element of gameplay whose acceptance by a person can mark them as intelligent or not. Trying to extrapolate that fallacious principle to include yourself and exclude others in a group considered desirous is bigotry of interest. And even if a trait is demonstrably true (to the extent that something as nebulous and emotionally charged as 'intelligence' can be), pointing out a lack of such desirable traits is still an insult.
I'm willing to concede that this response is needless fighting, but I'm saying this to everyone who has held or espoused such a view about game design.
"oh right dumb everything down to attract money lol stupid" The lol and stupid are meant to represent...That i insult people and i do not talk very well? That offended me. That was part of the reason i was pissed. Since it felt like a personal attack on me. It seemed like you were trying to say that i'm an idiot who doesn't talk very well. How would you feel if i responded to you, in what looked like a concealed insult towards the way i feel you act. For example: "No, you're wrong. So, you should never insult anyone, regardless of whether you know someone or not, since i'm RIGHT, and you're WRONG " You would be annoyed as hell that i believed you were being aggressive. As was i when you made the impersonation.
It truly got on my nerves that that was your vision of me, i'm just some random retard that insults people when i feel i'm not getting anywhere. This is the last i'm speaking of the argument. I shall no longer respond to replies regarding it. Respect my decision. Thanks.
Post by: Erk on May 04, 2009, 03:58:34 pm
There are two things that turn me off about DF at current.
1) too much sandbox. I love sandboxing, but there is no option for goal-oriented gaming yet besides setting your own goals. As more HFS etc gets included this will change.
2) not enough customisability. I want to be able to change most of what is hardcoded, alter graphics, redefine symbols used, remap keys... you know most of it I think.
Both of these are being addressed. I honestly can't think of a single thing that I would like included that Toady isn't already working on.
Post by: PTTG?? on May 04, 2009, 05:29:04 pm
It's in the ESC menu.
Post by: Footkerchief on May 04, 2009, 06:05:41 pm
Um... you can remap keys.
It's in the ESC menu.
I assume he meant something more along the lines of changing what keys are used to scroll in a specific menu. There are really two levels of mapping here -- the mapping of interface functions to abstract keys, and the mapping of abstract keys to actual keys.
Post by: Fikes on May 04, 2009, 09:12:50 pm
Another thing to keep in mind, while waging grand battles in this thread, is that ThreeToe's original question was:
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen? Or maybe its finding the right tile sets and setting them up. We are hoping at some point to build easier commands and tutorials to help bring in more players. We have to identify the main culprits first. So what is frustrating you the most about Dwarf Fortress?
It isn't "Would it be the end of the world if we had more fans" or "Are we smarter players because we can deal with the lack of interface?" The question is, "What do you think is scaring people away?"
Again, I am going to throw my money in for mouse control. Let me play more and type less. Imagine, you click and drag a 5x5 square and a menu pops up with a list "Actions/Zones/Stockpiles". You mouse over actions and select dig.
You just saved yourself 12 key presses.
Post by: Baughn on May 05, 2009, 01:56:46 am
I *like* having keyboard control - I'm about ten times faster on the keyboard than on a mouse - but the menus are *ugly*, blocky, and hard to navigate if you don't know exactly what you're doing.
Of course, I do know exactly what I'm doing, but I remember finding stuff being a major challenge.
I'd suggest the menus should be categorized differently, too. Put "dig stairs" and "construct stairs" in the same menu, that sort of thing - or better yet, have the same command do both, depending on what you use it on.
On the prettiness side, using a graphics set by default would be good.. also, you're using opengl; you could make nice, pretty, partially transparent menus without too much trouble.
Oh, I realize this would take a major rewriting, but.. *shrug*
I'm not the one who wrote an UI completely ignoring everything history has shown on how to make them maintainable. :/
Post by: Fikes on May 05, 2009, 12:43:28 pm
*I* like having keyboard control - I'm about ten times faster on the keyboard than on a mouse - but the menus are *ugly*, blocky, and hard to navigate if you don't know exactly what you're doing.
I changed your emphasis.
I also like having keyboard control. I use the keyboard more than the mouse to navigate Office, Windows.... pretty much everything. I remember how awesome it was that in Master of Orion II you could access all the menus by pressing the associated key. Saved me tons of time.
The reason I changed your emphasis though, was because I think most people aren't comfortable enough with keyboards to try and play a game using that extensively. For example, I am sure no mid to high game StarCraft players use the mouse to build buildings. They know all the hot keys. But the vast majority of people who bought StarCraft were never comfortable enough to make it to that point.
I think Interface and Mouse support go into the same exact idea of making the game easier to use. Not easier to play, not less challenging, just more intuitive and user friendly.
Cut down on how much time it takes to give orders and you will greatly extend the fan base.
Post by: ToonyMan on May 05, 2009, 01:37:55 pm
Post by: Baughn on May 05, 2009, 01:49:31 pm
Post by: Pseudointellectual on May 05, 2009, 03:02:11 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on May 05, 2009, 04:37:47 pm
The thing that frustrates me the most about DF is the weird inverse reward mechanism of Adventurer mode. In order to become an effective adventurer you have to do tedious, not-fun things like throw rocks for hours or swim in circles in a puddle. I'm not sure what to suggest in terms of changes to Adventurer mode, but right now it's a mode I want to enjoy but just can't because I have to engage in tedium in order to get effective enough to actually be an adventurer, or I have to wander around in circles killing wolves in random encounters because I sure as hell can't kill any quest monsters.
It's not really supposed to be fun yet. It's a placeholder in almost all regards, even more than Fortress Mode. In future versions, you'll be able to get lots of "quests" that don't involve killing the local megabeast, so there'll be much better options than just grinding your way to Legendary and waiting for that fatal arrow to come along.
Post by: Neonivek on May 05, 2009, 06:05:02 pm
Oh, I fully agree. Keyboard control is nice to have, but it's not for everyone - so games need to be fully controllable using both keyboard and mouse.
It is the only reason why PCs have a HUGE edge on consoles when it comes to strategy games (and quite a few simulations as well)
Post by: bhelyer on May 05, 2009, 06:26:44 pm
The in-game help is really bad, too. I remember having no idea of the wiki when I started (it is mentioned somewhere though, I do recall) and trying to use the '?' menu and just not getting all the information needed. A nice in-game tutorial would be a very good thing. The most vivid thing I remember from my first time starting the game was 'what is that square bit of brown (the wagon)? Are they standing on a mat?'. This is from someone who had played roguelikes previously, so starting with an explanation of what something is would be good; or perhaps starting with a tileset, but there would still be bits of ASCII in that case.
All that said, even in its current state DF is in my top-five. If I take its potential into account, it easily is number one. Taken on the release available today, the balance is just too broken and the game too unfinished for me to realistically give it that spot. But it's a really good game as is, a game which will get better as these blemishes are removed, and the game becomes more finished.
Post by: Hydra on May 06, 2009, 06:28:01 am
It is the only reason why PCs have a HUGE edge on consoles when it comes to strategy games (and quite a few simulations as well)
Well, resolution is another issue. You want to be able to get a lot of information on your screen. But yes, mouse controls are pretty much the #1 reason.
Post by: flap on May 06, 2009, 06:58:35 am
Post by: Andir on May 06, 2009, 07:02:38 am
Regarding the manual, what I would If i were Toady, is publish/create an editor, and let the player update it. If on good enough sprouts (and it will), then toady will simply have to add it in the package...People read manuals? (rhetorical question... no... they don't)
Post by: Aqizzar on May 06, 2009, 07:03:28 am
Regarding the manual, what I would If i were Toady, is publish/create an editor, and let the player update it. If on good enough sprouts (and it will), then toady will simply have to add it in the package...
That's called the wiki. This carries over all the problems associated with a reader-editable database, namely erroneous information. Nonetheless, this is exactly the logic behind all the other suggestions to somehow integrate the wiki into the program, which only effective cuts out a few mouse clicks over just keeping a browser open.
Basically, it's a question of whether and why the player should have to rely on an external, third-party database for critical information on how to play the game, instead of the game (and maker) providing the information first hand.
Post by: hermes on May 06, 2009, 07:52:18 am
Basically, it's a question of whether and why the player should have to rely on an external, third-party database for critical information on how to play the game, instead of the game (and maker) providing the information first hand.
I think the latter, the game providing information, is a must. The game is unplayable without the wiki telling you what items you need to construct others, what ores are required for what metals and so on, not to mention the specific positioning of objects like pumps.
And as everyone else said, the interface... standardise scrolling, selection, context sensitive menus etc...
I'd play the game much more if I didn't have to stare at my laptop keyboard trying to find the right key combinations to set a zone up :P
Post by: Jakkarra on May 06, 2009, 09:43:14 am
Regarding the manual, what I would If i were Toady, is publish/create an editor, and let the player update it. If on good enough sprouts (and it will), then toady will simply have to add it in the package...People read manuals? (rhetorical question... no... they don't)
well, i for one do.
any game i get has the manual read, even the large ones that came in older games, such as Eye Of the Beholder, or the old Warhammer:dark Omen.
sorry, jakkarra
Post by: Rockphed on May 06, 2009, 10:46:22 am
People read manuals? (rhetorical question... no... they don't)I read manuals from time to time. For something as complex as DF, I looked at the in game help extensively.
As for finding information in game: there is currently a list of economic stones. In the right hand sidebar there is a list of all the reactions that the stone is used in. If you select one of the reactions, you can see what else is used in it. If you select a stone with k, you are shown all of its uses and, except for stones for making sharp blades, you can then select any of the uses. Unfortunately, you can't really go about it the other way with starting at the product and figuring out the ingredients. It would rock if the system were complete in both directions.
Post by: Fikes on May 06, 2009, 02:56:48 pm
I recently got Tropico 1 and jumped right in. I had no idea what I was doing the first few times and restarted after a couple of years.
When I gave into the fact that I wasn't going to be able to figure it out on my own, I went to www.gamefaqs.com first, manual second, and tutorial third.
The last two options were totally useless. This is how you zoom in, this is how you move the camera, this is how you build a building. The End. Well how the hell do I build an economy!?!
It is sad, but I think this is typical. Tutorials and manuals suck. It is easier to find information online than look it up in a book and I believe lots of gamers know where to look. This is ESPICALLY true of a game as rapidly changing as DF.
However, the manual would be something that is easy enough for the fan base (us) to create with a little direction and organization. Toady could put someone in charge and that person could ask the rest of the community to submit specific documents, like workshops, the skills they use, the items they produce, and the stockpile those items are stored in.
I think this would be a fairly straight forward project for the community to take over. It could be added to the DF install as a standard Windows help file (or as a locally hosted web page with links).
Obligatory on topic comment: I think mouse support is the feature that will add the most fans with the least amount of work.
Post by: Ltheb on May 06, 2009, 03:21:16 pm
I think either a tutorial segment (like the game coming with a pre-gened fort in a psuedo world with scripted hazards and events and a walkthrough dialog), or a more improved UI, would do wonders toward helping new players tackle Z-Levels, Farming, Creatures/Sieges, and Trade.
DF is a massively complex game, and any improvements that make the game more intuitive make the game better for new players. (For example, when I started, I hated navigating the labyrinthine build menu, so I memorized most of the hotkeys. Build a bed? B-B. A Butcher's Shop? B-W-U, which I memorized as standing for for "bUtcher")
Aside from that, a way to 'win' might help new players who want to work toward a goal. I know a lot of requests have been made for a way for your fort to be 'saveable' so that once it reaches a certain point, it counts as self-sustaining and you could abandon it, run around in adventure mode, and then even resume the fort without reclaiming. Having a win condition like that does not mean the player has nothing more to work toward (there is still the need for a magma-waterfall, or in the upcoming versions, to conquer the other races), merely that they can earn a bit more freedom to explore the game.
Post by: Mr. Boh on May 06, 2009, 08:02:37 pm
Actually, the only thing that keeps me from playing 24/7 is the lack of sieges and the updates.
Whenever I play, I think "Well, I shouldn't get to addicted or the update will just make me have to restart EVERYTHING." Which is an annoying habit because I really want to play but I get so immersed that I hate to have to get the newest version.
Second, I wish there were much more goblin sieges, and there was some way to increase their frequency from within the game, so I could start having 24/7 sieges once my fort's defences are all set up.
Besides those two problems, I fucking LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVEVOEOVOBUNRINGOHGODAOJSIAAUUUUGH Dwarf Fortress.
This speaks to the main reason why I get turned off to DF for months at a time. I've been playing for years and one thing I've found is that you are dependent on the game to provide excitement after a while in that when you solve the basic problems for survival and get yourself set up properly, all there is to do is wait for a siege or megabeast. I'd like to be able to start some trouble. Give the player the option to initiate things or allow for settings to be manipulated to allow for more excitement, please!
I have a feeling that a lot of this is under development or at least planned, though. I guess I'm in that minority where I find the ASCII pleasant and the UI to be fine.
Also, 6+month gaps between updates are painful (even if they've all been great).
Post by: MrWiggles on May 06, 2009, 08:09:31 pm
Post by: Indra on May 07, 2009, 02:30:45 pm
Gamers that don't read manuals, are basically casual gamers lacking any form of intelligence. Any serious strategy gamer would eat up a manual just for that certain "edge". The complexity of a strategy game to a certain extent can be seen from the manual, as there are many elements to understand gameplay.Regarding the manual, what I would If i were Toady, is publish/create an editor, and let the player update it. If on good enough sprouts (and it will), then toady will simply have to add it in the package...People read manuals? (rhetorical question... no... they don't)
Post by: ToonyMan on May 07, 2009, 02:34:21 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on May 07, 2009, 02:51:41 pm
Gamers that don't read manuals, are basically casual gamers lacking any form of intelligence.
No. And reading manuals or playing strategy games doesn't make you smart either.
Post by: ToonyMan on May 07, 2009, 03:02:02 pm
Gamers that don't read manuals, are basically casual gamers lacking any form of intelligence.
No. And reading manuals or playing strategy games doesn't make you smart either.
Playing strategy games makes you good at playing strategy games. Practice makes better.
Post by: Neonivek on May 07, 2009, 03:13:24 pm
Dwarf Fortress however would probably force even some of the more "I never read manual" hearty people to reading it.
Post by: Jakkarra on May 07, 2009, 03:22:58 pm
what exactly do people find HARD about DF? ive been doing it for ages and neverlost a fort.
almost did once, but that was just me forgetting to make a farm, very quickly fixed...
damn raccoons stole some gems though, it took me a whole second to
love, jakkarra
Post by: Indra on May 07, 2009, 04:40:56 pm
Depends on the strategy game. Historical-based strategy games provides immense historical knoweldge in a fun way.Gamers that don't read manuals, are basically casual gamers lacking any form of intelligence.
No. And reading manuals or playing strategy games doesn't make you smart either.
Post by: Neonivek on May 07, 2009, 04:43:33 pm
Quote
what exactly do people find HARD about DF?
Learning the ropes.
Keeping a fortress currently, if you know what you are doing, is too easy but that will change later anyhow.
Post by: Hectonkhyres on May 07, 2009, 07:09:45 pm
Hey! You offend me. I read the manuals before I play. Even Dwarf Fortress.You heard it here first, folks.
~ToonyMan can see through time~
Post by: ToonyMan on May 07, 2009, 07:12:58 pm
Hey! You offend me. I read the manuals before I play. Even Dwarf Fortress.You heard it here first, folks.
~ToonyMan can see through time~
Ah, sweet! What do I win?
Post by: bhelyer on May 07, 2009, 08:18:55 pm
Post by: Fikes on May 07, 2009, 10:38:52 pm
Depends on the strategy game. Historical-based strategy games provides immense historical knoweldge in a fun way.Gamers that don't read manuals, are basically casual gamers lacking any form of intelligence.
No. And reading manuals or playing strategy games doesn't make you smart either.
Hilarious. I guess I lack any form of intelligence.
Manuals are out of date almost before the game hits the shelf. This is espically true of an MMO or a game in development, such as this game I found called Dwarf Fortress. The X-Com 1 manual stated you could hit aliens with your weapon, which you never could and that was way before the era of patches!
But I digress. To answer another question, what peope find hard about DF, or where a manual would help ease people into the game, is basic functions of the game like "How do you make steel?" or "What is needed to turn pig tails into cloth" or "What the fuck is a pig tail!?" or "What stockpile do the cups go into?". There are a lot of things about DF you wouldn't be able to find out without the wiki. How, through trial and error, could you figure out the cloth industry process?
While I do agree that it is a problem to have such sparse in game documentation, I don't view it as a barrier to entry for potential fans. What indy game have you played that has GOOD documentation? If you are wanting to play and learn the game, you'll take the time to look online.
That is why I feel that manuals are important, but not as important as other potential features.
Next time a strat game goes out, Indra you grab the manual, I'll hit YouTube. We'll meet back here in 20 minutes.
Post by: MrWiggles on May 07, 2009, 10:42:50 pm
The manual for Outpost, is horribly misleading.
Post by: SirPenguin on May 07, 2009, 11:07:01 pm
Indeed, I'd say DF is DAMN lucky it came out around the time Wikis were all the rage. The database of knowledge that is required to learn DF fits perfectly into a Wiki style. Want to know how to build a bed? Go to the Wiki page, and click the links that take you to Carpentry and Woodcutting and etc. etc.
Post by: Baughn on May 08, 2009, 01:08:06 am
Post by: DG on May 08, 2009, 01:20:28 am
I started in 2D and I can't remember any major stumbling blocks because I devoured the wiki before play (I would likely have stopped playing without the wiki, but with it I had no issues). I had little problem with the ascii graphics once I turned off varied ground tiles. I prefer the ascii graphics but I always turn off varied ground tiles because in my opinion it looks too busy that way (I also turn off visible engravings for the same reason). I'd suggest that the default for varied ground tiles be set to no as it might help to lessen the ascii hate.
With the switch to 3D I was confused by the seperation of up and down stairs, because in my mind a staircase was a staircase and was only up or down depending on whether you wanted to ascend or descend. I now understand why it was implemented that way but I've noticed that stairs have also confused others so it looks like a prime topic for comprehensive ingame help or tutorial if we don't want people to rely on the wiki.
I think little tutorials that can be completed in less than five minutes each and progressively introduce more concepts would be best. Strip back the display to nothing but the bare bones required to explain the current idea or goal to avoid sensory overload and confusion.
Starting out I never had a problem with "Ok. What do I do?" because I approached the game with the goal of making my dwarves safe and happy and from reading the wiki I knew how to aim for that. If the tutorial taught the player the basics of moving around and selecting things (the "how"s) in context of making the dwarves safe and happy (the "why"s or "what do I do"s) I think it'd be an effective way of helping people passed the initial wtf stage.
Post by: Neonivek on May 08, 2009, 03:17:19 am
It isn't THAT complex... Besides it doesn't need to explain every inch and detail of the game. It just needs enough info presented in a userfriendly manner to allow someone who has never played the game before to jump in and not make a fool out of themselves ATLEAST on the second attempt.
Post by: codezero on May 08, 2009, 05:14:30 am
Post by: dyze on May 08, 2009, 06:53:49 am
Post by: macdonellba on May 08, 2009, 11:04:03 am
What indy game have you played that has GOOD documentation? If you are wanting to play and learn the game, you'll take the time to look online.It's probably increased recently, but Eternal Lands had ~50KLOC of documentation when I was dealing with it. For those who don't know, EL uses an in-game hypertext help/encyclopedia system, the entirety of which is maintained by a team of volunteers who reverse engineer game updates as they are released. It's a system with very low overhead and high confidentiality for the game developer, while being highly visible and appreciated by the players.
Post by: Indra on May 08, 2009, 12:37:18 pm
The manual for Outpost, is horribly misleading.Heh. The game itself is horribly misleading.
[click next turn, 10.000 times]
Post by: Indra on May 08, 2009, 12:43:12 pm
DF just isn't a game where a manual would supply any sort of help. It's too complex.That depends on one's writing skills. If not for whomever participated in updating the DF wiki and gamers providing invaluable insight on gameplay in the forums, most DF gamers would have been lost, probably with the exception of the most hardcore gamers...but not everyone can be hardcore gamers all the time.
Post by: SirPenguin on May 13, 2009, 04:29:03 pm
I definitely wouldn't underestimate the power of graphics.
Post by: ToonyMan on May 13, 2009, 05:01:21 pm
Post by: Jetman123 on May 16, 2009, 08:14:41 am
I was finally able to get a buddy of mine hooked to the game recently. All it took was him using a graphic set.
I definitely wouldn't underestimate the power of graphics.
No, definitely not. Graphics help, but it's not a question of things looking pretty, it's more a question of accessibility. Some folks have trouble getting into a game that uses text as graphics because it's so unorthodox, and it's difficult to tell what things are and keep track of them without practice. A tileset helps.
I probably wouldn't be able to play the game without a tileset had I not had several years under my belt playing ADOM, which slowly got me used to everything being in colored letters. :P
Post by: alway on May 16, 2009, 11:03:57 am
The lack of endgame challenge is what annoys me the most. Supposedly these will be worked on in the future, so I haven't given up on that point yet. For now if we want endgame challenge/fun the only real option is to build a megaproject or elaborate fun trap.
Post by: BurnedToast on May 17, 2009, 05:15:43 am
I know it's not finished, and I know it's more of a sandbox game anyway but... it's all so trivial unless you purposely handicap yourself.
I never had that much trouble with the interface, or the graphics, or anything like that. I like ASCII and the interface is not so bad once you get used to it.
Edit: actually that's not true, the other thing that really turns me off is hauling. There is so much of it to be done, and the dwarves only carry 1 item at a time, it all just goes so slowly it's rather frustrating at times.
Post by: ToonyMan on May 19, 2009, 05:38:15 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on May 25, 2009, 09:39:25 am
Apart from the most obvious graphics and interface, one of the things that turns me off most about DF is making bedrooms. The process should be made much quicker.
A pre planned, rotateble order-template that would tell the dwarves to dig out a proper room, place a bed (or even other furniture) there AND designate it as a bedroom would be sweet. Obviously, any player should be able to create his own template.
Post by: jaked122 on May 25, 2009, 05:19:48 pm
So I just wanted to get this off my chest:there is one, AHK scripts can do just this.
Apart from the most obvious graphics and interface, one of the things that turns me off most about DF is making bedrooms. The process should be made much quicker.
A pre planned, rotateble order-template that would tell the dwarves to dig out a proper room, place a bed (or even other furniture) there AND designate it as a bedroom would be sweet. Obviously, any player should be able to create his own template.
Post by: Taritus on May 25, 2009, 05:36:55 pm
Post by: Atanamis on May 26, 2009, 03:15:45 pm
Site finding was the second major frustration when I first started, but that has largely improved since then. Still, having a set of pre-located "novice" sites recommended would make things easier for new players.
The biggest irritation after my first couple games was the lack of long term challenge. In a "safe" area, once you have food production and a basic military there often are no other long term challenges. This should be addressed by the army arc, as larger and more powerful forces begin to attack.
The game should definitely include a tutorial for creating a fort and surviving the first year, with an explanation of all steps needed. There are several excellent tutorials around for this, but one should probably be packaged with the game. I persevered though these and now like the game, but these were the main early irritations.
Post by: NFossil on May 26, 2009, 05:53:08 pm
Turned out just fine. :)
Post by: Hakazaba on May 26, 2009, 07:26:04 pm
Post by: Okenido on May 26, 2009, 07:36:30 pm
Clearly they aren't meant to play.
Post by: Narmio on May 26, 2009, 08:14:10 pm
Im not sure if this has been mentioned allready but i find that the name can be a turn off to new players. Cant exactly change it now though.
Do you mean the "Slaves to Armok, God of Blood II: " bit? I guess that might seem weird, cultish or over-the-top to some people, particularly the "simulation" type of player. Sure, we all love stories of throwing kittens off towers and cutting limbs off unicorns, but plenty of people who might enjoy the game could (I suppose) be turned off by that. Not necessarily by the violence or gore itself, but by the idea that the game is some kind of simulator for unending varieties of grisly demise. We know it can be if you play it that way, but a sandbox is a sandbox. Some people use the sand to build castles, other people use it to soak up the blood.
So I'd support changing the name from "Slaves to Armok, God of Blood II: Dwarf Fortress" to just "Dwarf Fortress", because DF has now outgrown its heritage and far overshadows the original Slave to Armok. Plus, neither Armok nor Slavery feature in the game, and while it's possible to have a God of Blood, I don't believe Dwarves will adopt deities of the right spheres without modding. Also, that's what everybody calls it anyway.
It comes down to a marketing decision: what image do Toady and Threetoe want the game to have? But whether we like it or not, marketing decisions are important. I doubt a name change would make a huge impact, but it could make some impact.
Post by: IndonesiaWarMinister on May 26, 2009, 08:44:25 pm
Im not sure if this has been mentioned allready but i find that the name can be a turn off to new players. Cant exactly change it now though.
Do you mean the "Slaves to Armok, God of Blood II: " bit? I guess that might seem weird, cultish or over-the-top to some people, particularly the "simulation" type of player. Sure, we all love stories of throwing kittens off towers and cutting limbs off unicorns, but plenty of people who might enjoy the game could (I suppose) be turned off by that. Not necessarily by the violence or gore itself, but by the idea that the game is some kind of simulator for unending varieties of grisly demise. We know it can be if you play it that way, but a sandbox is a sandbox. Some people use the sand to build castles, other people use it to soak up the blood.
So I'd support changing the name from "Slaves to Armok, God of Blood II: Dwarf Fortress" to just "Dwarf Fortress", because DF has now outgrown its heritage and far overshadows the original Slave to Armok. Plus, neither Armok nor Slavery feature in the game, and while it's possible to have a God of Blood, I don't believe Dwarves will adopt deities of the right spheres without modding. Also, that's what everybody calls it anyway.
It comes down to a marketing decision: what image do Toady and Threetoe want the game to have? But whether we like it or not, marketing decisions are important. I doubt a name change would make a huge impact, but it could make some impact.
Slavery is featured.
At least in the world-gen, for now.
Post by: Eris on May 26, 2009, 10:12:00 pm
Here's the thing about the UI: sure it's bizarre and unintuitive, but I can live with all of it except that I will never get used to the fact that left/right/up/down (et-freaking-cetera) are not always left/right/up/down in every menu. Current menu navigation consists of at least the following:
left/right/up/down This is the worst by far because sometimes it works, sometimes it shifts you to another target square and cancels whatever you were just doing. l/r/u/d should always do fortress navigation and never do anything else [or pick your key combination]
UMKH
umkh
er
ER
/*-+
9371
8462(whatever, the number ones are impossible to remember)
and all the other bizarre byzantine combinations I can't even think of at the moment.
Throw in that sometimes ENTER selects, sometimes it does something else.
Sometimes SPACE selects. Sometimes it cancels.
Sometimes F9 cancels. Sometimes it doesn't.
sometimes left/right switches between adjacent text columns (such as the trade menu of my stuff vs. their stuff). Sometimes it doesn't. Instead I have to use a separate input to go up and down that list. But it's not the same key/input in every situation. Huh?
CONSISTENCY IS IMPERATIVE
If you can't have consistency, then at least allow full KEYBINDING. I have no problem spending the time configuring all the wacky [that's the kindest word I can use, by far] menu navigations for myself.
Frankly, I don't care what the coding hurdles are; that excuse is a non-starter. Up/Down/Left/Right and/or menu-navigation is older than ASCII. We're talking fire- and wheel- computing technology here.
I'm not asking for mouse support or even shift/control select of multiple objects, or even pageup/page down features (although they exist now, I'd rather lose those and get consistent l/r/u/d). I'm just asking for them to be the same in every freaking menu. However crazy they are, I can deal with it.
One recommendation I have is that when you have multiple columns like in trading, you can use L/R to switch between columns. But in others you need to add some silly combination of keys to do one column, and another set of keys to navigate the other.
Instead, just use the same combination of keys (such as L/R/U/D, but whatever, it doesn't matter) but for the second column, use SHIFT + L/R/U/D.
This means that your L/R/U/D (or whatever) keys are the same, all the time, every time, in every situation, for the first column on the left.
Then those exact same keys (gasp!) are used on the next column, except that you have to hit SHIFT.
This is assuming that it's impossible (hah!) to make it so that you can't just switch back and forth between columns as necessary with Left/Right keys.
Again, if you can't do any of this, just put all this crap in the keybind menu and I'll take care of it myself.
Sorry if this post is convoluted and confusing. This is a reflection of the subject matter, not the author's grasp of language and sentence structure.
P.S. I don't play first person shooters, but you might consider a WASD option. Think about it:
up/down is standard (thank god for small favors)
left/right can then be used for increasing/decreasing quantities [ENTER to select/deselect]
and sidestep left/right for shifting between menu columns.
That would make a lot of sense to a lot of gamers. I swear to god, if you sold a Z-Board for this game, I would buy it. (Too bad, because that's $50 you could have, instead.)
Post by: Noble Digger on May 27, 2009, 05:16:46 am
If anything turned me off as a newer player, it was spending large amounts of time paused and designating things, but that seems inevitable. This isn't simcity where the day-to-day actions of units are abstracted out. DF operates in 2 separate time scales. On one hand, days and weeks go by very quickly, but on the other hand, dwarves walk around and work in real-time, ostensibly taking days to walk across the map or perform a simple task, and in the same stride, having a real-time battle with an enemy.
Post by: Jay on May 27, 2009, 09:57:55 am
Other than adding more mouse support, I just don't see how much of this can be used without getting some portion of the current playerbase angry.
I play ASCII, and I certainly don't want to see a tileset implemented by default until it can be done properly, as in the Presentation Arc..
I know this thread is asking what turns me off about DF, but that's the inherent problem: The idea of changing the presentation of the game that I'm used to before it should be (Presentation Arc..) is what turns me off.
Post by: Footkerchief on May 27, 2009, 10:31:21 am
The problem with asking people what turns them off, is that if you change any of the basic mechanics like controls/starting graphics, etc, you'll cheese off the long-standing players that have learned to use them as they are.
Other than adding more mouse support, I just don't see how much of this can be used without getting some portion of the current playerbase angry.
I personally don't care about having to relearn the interface. The changes will be mostly incremental and they'll make things easier for me in the long run. Besides, no long-standing player is going to quit over interface concerns like a newbie would. They'll whine, but this is one case where I feel safe saying that they can suck it up and deal with the utter horror of improvements. I mean, this is a community that gets nostalgic about bugs.
Also, a decently moddable interface will make it very easy to revert to classic-style controls.
Post by: Andir on May 27, 2009, 11:29:11 am
And as Autocad and several other apps has pretty much proven, you can still have your keyboard commands and make a mouser interface. ;)The problem with asking people what turns them off, is that if you change any of the basic mechanics like controls/starting graphics, etc, you'll cheese off the long-standing players that have learned to use them as they are.
Other than adding more mouse support, I just don't see how much of this can be used without getting some portion of the current playerbase angry.
I personally don't care about having to relearn the interface. The changes will be mostly incremental and they'll make things easier for me in the long run. Besides, no long-standing player is going to quit over interface concerns like a newbie would. They'll whine, but this is one case where I feel safe saying that they can suck it up and deal with the utter horror of improvements. I mean, this is a community that gets nostalgic about bugs.
Also, a decently moddable interface will make it very easy to revert to classic-style controls.
Post by: Noble Digger on May 27, 2009, 02:45:45 pm
I love having a huge, bloated INI file to edit and make things as I want them. I love the back-end of the game being accessible to me so I can make balance and gameplay changes for myself that Toady wouldn't necessarily make. He leaves us a lot of freedom to play DF how we want, and yet maintains a great base game such that DF isn't *only* a sandbox game. There are ostensibly a handful of goals that are 'built in' and given to you, and adding more of those will give the game some appeal to less-creative players. I hope he doesn't go buck-wild with punishments for circumventing some or all of these goals (for example, if your home civ lays siege to you for drowning nobles. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT I SWEAAARRRR)
Post by: Fourth Triad on May 28, 2009, 01:06:12 am
Post by: Jakkarra on May 28, 2009, 05:22:53 am
I think df needs tutorials most of all. I mean shit, I've been playing for years and I still can't figure out how to train xbow dwarves or how to setup a wind powered water pump.
Xbowdorfs;
give some dwarves Xbows, build archery targets, make archery targets into rooms (facing the correct direction) put dorfs off-duty.
most importantly DO NOT TRAIN WRESTLING theres a bug that if they know how to wrestle they cannot train with an xbow.
oh, and make sure they have wooden or bone bolts. they wll not use metal ones.
Wind powered water pump;
heres a diagram, much easier.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
P pump
G gear assembly
W Windmill
- horizontal axle
make sure the horizontal axles are facing in the correct direction (choose when building) vertical axles go up/down zlevels, not upwards on the map.
an axle takes 1 power to use, so dont build too many
gears take 5, as do pumps.
make sure the winmill is creating enough power to make everything work.
check the wiki for more information :D
Post by: Neonivek on May 28, 2009, 05:24:41 am
I have seen a video tutorial that helped me learn somewhat... but the Tutorial itself is injured by the fact that I think it was made by the person just filming what he was doing at the time making the whole thing rather sporatic.
Post by: Andir on May 28, 2009, 05:32:06 am
I think df needs tutorials most of all. I mean shit, I've been playing for years and I still can't figure out how to train xbow dwarves or how to setup a wind powered water pump.First, make them military with weapons of crossbows, put them off duty from the military screen ("V" if I remember) and erect an archery target in the build menu and designate it's room (an indoor range of sorts) by building the archery target, then designating to the room. Only off duty bowmen will practice, and they need practice ammo. Put a stockpile near the range with cheap ammo.
Edit: heh, Jakkarra beat me to it.
Post by: Kalphoenix on May 28, 2009, 09:45:14 am
I'd say the BIGGEST issue for me isn't the graphics or how complicated the game is, it's the save-game deal:
The game has a HUGE learning curve (Try it and die, and start over again), and while I don't mind that, coupled with the current way saves work in the game, it's a huge turnoff.
So, that leaves me manually creating a backup of my work and alt-tab-deleting out of the game to close it if I don't want to save.
And I'm told I'm NOT supposed to alt-tab-delete out of the game, because it can cause issues with corruption? Ick. Not being able to exit without saving or abandoning is a huge turnoff.
I had to give the game up initially until I got one of the tilesets that had a built-in embark profile saver, it was just too time-consuming to build embark profiles over and over again as I learned how to play the game.
Post by: Footkerchief on May 28, 2009, 10:16:56 am
And I'm told I'm NOT supposed to alt-tab-delete out of the game, because it can cause issues with corruption? Ick. Not being able to exit without saving or abandoning is a huge turnoff.
That turned out to be obsolete information. It should be perfectly safe to kill DF with Task Manager as long as you don't do it while your game is being saved:
The current folder is meant to prevent these kinds of errors. Your main saves are never touched except at the moment it says it is synchronizing the folders when you are done, at which point it copies all the current stuff back into the main folder. If you shut off during that point, you'll corrupt your game. I'm not sure of the source of these latest corruptions, but in the newer versions, quitting out of the game during play using the OS should be fine.
Post by: MagicGuigz on May 29, 2009, 02:08:08 pm
Of all the annoying things in the game, the thing that bugs me the most is known bug 41 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_bugs.html#Bug41 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_bugs.html#Bug41)), which is the one that causes caged animals to escape when brought to the caravan (exactly always in my case). It completely breaks the spell for me every time I have goblin prisoners. It should be the one most important bug to fix imo, because it's the only one that is actually very noticeable (and a nuisance to gameplay) (except the cat thing, but that is fixable with a simple edit).
I really, really hope that bug is fixed very soon because building arenas is tedious and target practice gets old fast.
Post by: ShadowDragon8685 on May 30, 2009, 03:02:50 am
1: It's so BLOODY HARD to get all the things you need in one area that you can literally generate several worlds just trying to find a zone with your Hidden Fun Stuff, a nice old magma pipe, a river/subterranian river (dear Armok, hope you're not looking for both,) Flux and Bauxite (or a civilization which can bring these to you) for making steel and working with magma, respectively.
I wish there was a way to force Dwarf Fortress to put certain elements in a map if they're not already present - bottomless pits, chasms, magma pipes, underground rivers, etcetera.
The other thing that annoys me is how hard it is to start up. This is probably my fault since I insist on starting with seven Superdwarves and the Mountainhome's yearly production run of excess food/drink, arms/armor, construction materials, bauxite and steel, so I'll give you a pass on that. :P
Post by: Neonivek on May 30, 2009, 02:59:32 pm
Quote
to get all the things you need in one area
You mean all the things you WANT in one area.
River + Mountain Side + Trees is all you really need (even less depending on your skill) and the game generates several of those everytime.
I am starting to think the community actually makes the game less fun for others by building some features such as magma up to a "Must have" basis.
Post by: Craftling on May 30, 2009, 08:20:45 pm
Post by: Kohou on May 31, 2009, 12:14:08 pm
For myself, I actually find the ASCII graphics far MORE pleasing. I really dislike most of the graphic sets. (Mayday's is good, but he has that weird O in his, so I refuse to use it.) I grew up on ASCII games, though, (and still play a lot of rogue-likes) so maybe that's part of it.
Personally, my biggest issue with getting started was how dense the UI is. More specifically, things like... "Why can't + and - work on all screens? or PgUp and PgDwn, or Spacebar/F9." It took me two tries to even figure out how to scroll most menus.
Next is that a lot of the things are hard to read, and/or naturally intuit, at least for me. Why do I need an Ashery? How do I make clear glass? How on earth do I make a well? (Not to mention that, esp. on the glass menu, a lot of the words are cut off, unless you tab the menu wider, something I always used to forget you could do.)
(At the time, I didn't have an internet connection, so the wiki was out.)
Thirdly, for me, is the lack of any real... characteristics to the dwarfs. I know they all have personality screens, and you can listen to their thoughts. But with 100, or even 20 or so, that gets unwieldy. I tend to play the game much more like an RTS than a lot of people seem to, simply because I just started to view it as "4 miners, 2 stonecutters, a glassblower and 7 hammerers. Send hammerers to attack, retreat my cutters, send miners to build X, Require more Vespene Gas".
*Having some in game representation of various things about dwarves, even just one sentence when you page over them "Aleph Mineypants, likes fish." Then next time it'll pull something else from their bio, so "Aleph Mineypants, worships Armok", etc.* (This would be BIG, at least for me.)
And most of all... 90% of the cool stuff you hear about is really rare and/or really hard. I rarely get to do any megaprojects. I've never seen nor heard about a mega-beast. And so forth. In my mind, that was the biggest turn-off at the beginning. I was hearing stories about carp attacks, and huge goblin sieges, and building giant glass pyramids. Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out how to build a well, spending 2 hours of reading to figure out how to grow more plump helmets, and getting killed by a single raid of three kobolds.
And lastly... Dwarves are too stupid. This is the one that still majorly turns me off. I tell them to go inside... 10 dwarves go running around the countryside, until a goblin siege shoots them down mid-frolic.
That being said, I love the game. It's deep, and appeals to most of the things I've always wanted to find in a game. I find adventure mode really boring compared to most rogue-likes, but Fortress mode is like Crack Concentrate for me, so whatever.
Post by: cibbuano on May 31, 2009, 05:21:35 pm
I think the only 'problem' I have is that there's a lot of information in DF, but there doesn't seem to be an easy way to see it. I mean, once my fortress goes over 50 dwarves, they stop seeming like individuals, and the new migrants get ignored by me.
Perhaps there's no easy way to fix it, but I'd love to see a page with chronology for every dwarf. You could browse and see their accomplishments - better yet, it could tell you how they died! Finding mysterious corpses is a little frustrating!
Post by: The Orange Mage on May 31, 2009, 07:48:32 pm
Post by: eerr on June 14, 2009, 03:52:50 am
My first 5 or so forts died of complete inability to follow how the game plays.
This game was so hard to play, I had to stop playing, remember I liked the idea, and return several month later.
edit: most of my friends would find this unacceptable from a videogame.
Post by: Fourth Triad on June 14, 2009, 05:01:47 am
When I first downloaded the game, I found playing impossible.
My first 5 or so forts died of complete inability to follow how the game plays.
This game was so hard to play, I had to stop playing, remember I liked the idea, and return several month later.
edit: most of my friends would find this unacceptable from a videogame.
I totally agree with this and this as well:
Personally, my biggest issue with getting started was how dense the UI is. More specifically, things like... "Why can't + and - work on all screens? or PgUp and PgDwn, or Spacebar/F9."
Thirdly, for me, is the lack of any real... characteristics to the dwarfs. I know they all have personality screens, and you can listen to their thoughts. But with 100, or even 20 or so, that gets unwieldy. I tend to play the game much more like an RTS than a lot of people seem to, simply because I just started to view it as "4 miners, 2 stonecutters, a glassblower and 7 hammerers. Send hammerers to attack, retreat my cutters, send miners to build X, Require more Vespene Gas".
*Having some in game representation of various things about dwarves, even just one sentence when you page over them "Aleph Mineypants, likes fish." Then next time it'll pull something else from their bio, so "Aleph Mineypants, worships Armok", etc.* (This would be BIG, at least for me.)
And most of all... 90% of the cool stuff you hear about is really rare and/or really hard. I rarely get to do any megaprojects. I've never seen nor heard about a mega-beast. And so forth. In my mind, that was the biggest turn-off at the beginning. I was hearing stories about carp attacks, and huge goblin sieges, and building giant glass pyramids. Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out how to build a well, spending 2 hours of reading to figure out how to grow more plump helmets, and getting killed by a single raid of three kobolds.
Post by: alway on June 14, 2009, 12:53:18 pm
I personally learned most of the game and how to play it very quickly. Then again, I scored high enough on the PSAT to qualify for NMS semifinalist...When I first downloaded the game, I found playing impossible.
My first 5 or so forts died of complete inability to follow how the game plays.
This game was so hard to play, I had to stop playing, remember I liked the idea, and return several month later.
edit: most of my friends would find this unacceptable from a videogame.
I totally agree with this and this as well:
Personally, my biggest issue with getting started was how dense the UI is. More specifically, things like... "Why can't + and - work on all screens? or PgUp and PgDwn, or Spacebar/F9."
Thirdly, for me, is the lack of any real... characteristics to the dwarfs. I know they all have personality screens, and you can listen to their thoughts. But with 100, or even 20 or so, that gets unwieldy. I tend to play the game much more like an RTS than a lot of people seem to, simply because I just started to view it as "4 miners, 2 stonecutters, a glassblower and 7 hammerers. Send hammerers to attack, retreat my cutters, send miners to build X, Require more Vespene Gas".
*Having some in game representation of various things about dwarves, even just one sentence when you page over them "Aleph Mineypants, likes fish." Then next time it'll pull something else from their bio, so "Aleph Mineypants, worships Armok", etc.* (This would be BIG, at least for me.)
And most of all... 90% of the cool stuff you hear about is really rare and/or really hard. I rarely get to do any megaprojects. I've never seen nor heard about a mega-beast. And so forth. In my mind, that was the biggest turn-off at the beginning. I was hearing stories about carp attacks, and huge goblin sieges, and building giant glass pyramids. Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out how to build a well, spending 2 hours of reading to figure out how to grow more plump helmets, and getting killed by a single raid of three kobolds.
The second part though, I must totally agree with. "I tend to play the game much more like an RTS than a lot of people seem to, simply because I just started to view it as "4 miners, 2 stonecutters, a glassblower and 7 hammerers." though is a bit off for me. After about 20, I don't even keep track of how many of each I have! That last part about megabeasts/megaprojects I must also agree with. The way they are talked about on the forums, you would think there is a dragon invasion ever 2 months, everyone has 15 cast obsidian statues of themselves AND a few magma cannons to boot. The problem is, there is almost more theory crafting than actual playing. Heck, just last night I got an awesome idea for a mega-magma cannon (50 or so pumps pumping magma into a single tube for HUGE squirts of magma) but I probably will never get around to actually building it.
Post by: Leafsnail on June 14, 2009, 01:48:58 pm
+,-,/,* vs up, down, pg up, pg down. It should be the same for every menu. F9 vs spacebar is also annoying.
Items have different designations. Cages, for instance, are sometimes c and sometimes j. Blocks are sometimes b and sometimes o.
Workshops, constructions, traps and furnaces are each in one menu, but everything else is in a massive clump that makes it difficult to find the thing you want.
q, t, k, v. q and t should be fused, as should k and v.
Dwarf information is a bit all over the place. For instance, I can zoom to a dwarf from the m screen, but not from the n screen. I can see a dwarves items from his inventory, but I need to go to the item to dump it. Dwarven labours are in a very long list. I can assign a dwarf's weapon and armour from the dwarf, but for a champion I need to use the m screen. The manager screen is useful but causes endless cancellations.
Post by: AtomicPaperclip on June 14, 2009, 02:44:31 pm
I scrolled over it with k and saw "giant cave spider silk chi"
My friend had introduced me to dwarf heaven for my first fort and warned me about the infamous GCS, so seeing this I thought it was children.
So yeah, I had completely walled in a kobolds underwear and checked on it every few minutes to make sure it was still there for a couple hours before I discovered the tab key.
Post by: Thendash on June 14, 2009, 02:52:44 pm
A few things, but I'll try to stay specific:This is exactly what I think as well.
+,-,/,* vs up, down, pg up, pg down. It should be the same for every menu. F9 vs spacebar is also annoying.
Items have different designations. Cages, for instance, are sometimes c and sometimes j. Blocks are sometimes b and sometimes o.
Workshops, constructions, traps and furnaces are each in one menu, but everything else is in a massive clump that makes it difficult to find the thing you want.
q, t, k, v. q and t should be fused, as should k and v.
Dwarf information is a bit all over the place. For instance, I can zoom to a dwarf from the m screen, but not from the n screen. I can see a dwarves items from his inventory, but I need to go to the item to dump it. Dwarven labours are in a very long list. I can assign a dwarf's weapon and armour from the dwarf, but for a champion I need to use the m screen. The manager screen is useful but causes endless cancellations.
Post by: Footkerchief on June 14, 2009, 03:18:40 pm
Dwarven labours are in a very long list. I can assign a dwarf's weapon and armour from the dwarf, but for a champion I need to use the m screen.
As an aside, the labors thing will be improved in the next version:
[...] there are currently 7 new labor settings, 5 unit types, and 6 skills. I've grouped the entire vpl list into 15 sections to make it easier to mess with (I'm aware of further changes people want there, but I can't do it all now). [...]
Military equipment assignment should be improved as well -- a good portion of the Squads section of the List (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=30026) is dedicated to that kind of thing.
Good, concise objections overall though.
Post by: a.random.persona on June 14, 2009, 09:42:38 pm
I think if there were some pre-made in game scenario tutorials, it would really help the growth of the game. I think the lack of coherent goals is what makes it difficult to pick up and play for many people. Even if they were player created tutorials, using the notes system to provide tips on how to accomplish things like farming and building a military, I think it would help tremendously.
This is a great Idea.
I had no Idea how to play when I first got in.
I didnt read everything (like most people) and didnt know about the ? key.
A pre genned, semi-built fortress to begin with would be really good. Preferably a flat plain, with plenty of trees and a river. Not a place for mega-projects but a learning place.
Also a pre-chosen embarking set. What turned me off was when I first went in and didnt prepare for my journey carefully. It wasnt the fact that I didnt want to, but I hit enter twice and embarked before I read the stuff on the screen.
Post by: Eidalac on June 17, 2009, 09:26:52 am
Before I learned the ropes, it was the interface. The menu system isn't very intuitive for me, and even with my fort in it's 5th year it can still take me a few tries to recall which menu option that, say, building stairs, is under.
However, I found DF via the tale of Boatmurder, so I knew about the ASCII, and I found Boatmurder via TVtropes, so I new about the wiki and the existence of graphic sets, so I was well armed from the get-go on those fronts.
My best advise, given that, would be to include a link to the wiki either with the game or in the in-game help itself.
IIRC, DF was once described (on TVTropes I think) as a game with many ways to fail, but with no victory that you don't make for yourself. This is not like most games (and is why I love it), but is going to confuse many people who don't know what they are in for.
Best thing you can do for that is tutorials and/or scenarios, maybe in the form of a pre-built fort in which you are promoted for certain things to be done in a certain order.
Lastly, even now, I have trouble managing jobs in my fort. Part of this is related to the interface (it's hard to figure out just what exactly is the issue in any given case), and part of is me not having had the time yet to learn about using the manager screen.
Post by: Teranar on June 17, 2009, 10:16:43 pm
1. Learning curve - user friendlyness is a complaint.
2. Graphics - People complain the graphics are frightening, because its ascii for the most part.
3. ZOMGZ MY DORFS ARE IDIOTS!
Me? I don't mind 1, I learned Linux before I learned Windows, and before them I used a Commodore 64 before I went to kindergarden, 2 doesn't bother me either, and 3 is part of the fun!
Post by: Jakkarra on June 18, 2009, 01:26:51 am
Post by: Psyringe on June 18, 2009, 04:20:40 am
More specifically, what problems did you have before learning the ropes of the game? We figure we are losing 90% of the players because of the UI and other barriers, and that doesn’t even count the ones scared away by the ASCII graphics.
(...)
What do you think is scaring people away?
You may want to ask this question in a forum where you meet more people that actually *have* been scared away. :) The Bay12 forum consists mostly of people who haven't. We're probably still a decent source for the feedback you want, but I'd consider asking the same question at a bigger games community, like IGN, Gamespot, or perhaps Qt3. Chances will be higher to meet people who actually have been scared away there, and even if you don't get many answers, you can write it off as a subliminal advertisement. ;)
To answer your question: What frustrated me the most in the beginning were the following two things:
========================================
1. The UI, and specifically, the inconsistency of it. I have absolutely no problem with an ASCII UI, and I can live (teeth-gnashingly ;) ) with an inefficient UI, but it's the inconsistency that really made me cry out in frustration when I was learnig this game.
Example: In the "u"nit list, I see the current jobs of all my dwarves, but I can't change their labor allowances from there. To do this, I have to zoom to the "c"reature, go to its "p"references, and choose "l"abor. That's inefficient, but here's the point I'm getting at: During this process, the scrolling mechanism changes twice - and what's worse, if I hit the key that *does* scroll the unit list while looking at a dwarf's labor assignments, then it doesn't only fail to scroll the list of labor asignments. It also moves the cursor on the map *away* from the dwarf in question, possibly activating a totally different dwarf, and I have to find the previous one again to correct that.
Another example is the space key - it's sometimes used for confirmation, sometimes for cancellation, and sometimes for selection ("m"ilitary screen). This makes it very easy to accidentally do exactly the opposite of what you want. What's worse, sometimes the action is labeled as a cancellation, but it actually does confirm the action and just closes the menu (e.g. when assigning animals to cages). As a result, a new player never reaches a stage where he intuitively hits space to perform a given action, because doing things intuitively in the current UI is ususally a recipe for disaster. The player has to constantly re-evaluate whether the key he wants to press is the right one for the action he wants to perform *in the current context*.
A third example is the mechanism of marking an area. In some menus it's done by moving the cursor to two diagonal corners of the rectangle to be marked, and pressing "Enter" on each. In other menus, you have to press the "uhkm" keys to shape the rectangle. And if you mistakenly choose the wrong mechanism (which will happen often to new players), then you may end up having to re-enter your command al over again - if you want to build a drawbridge, and mistakenly press enter on one corner of the area where you want to build it, then you end up with a one-square drawbridge and have to cancel and redo the command. Again, this inconsistency is confusing the players - instead of learning one method of marking areas, or perhaps two alternative methods that can be used in each menu, they have to learn both methods *and* have to learn which method works in which menu. In terms of how much time and effort you have to invest to learn to navigate through a game's UI, the latter is just a totally unnecessary overhead.
A fourth example is the differentiation between things like like "d"esignations, act"i"vity zones, "b"uildings, and stock"p"iles. There may be in-game reasons for treating each of those differently, but for a player who starts learning DF, all four are very similar - they are just commands that specify what you want to do with a given area. The fact that there are four distinct mechanisms to do that, each with its own set of menus and commands, and each of them *necessary* to learn, is highly confusing. New players will often (for example) type "i" when they want to define a traffic zone, mark the zone, then find out they can't specify a traffic zone in this menu, then search around in which menu they can, probably just entering all other menus until they find the right one. Again, it's not the presentation of the UI that frustrates people, or how many keystrokes you need to perform a given action, it's the seemingly (for the player) arbitrary split of one function into four distinct and very different menus that does.
The same goes for the mechanisms of gaining information about the things on the map - "q"uery, con"t"ent, "v"iew, and loo"k" are very similar, and the player has to remember which one to use in which situation. Choosing the wrong one means you have to cancel out and look for the right command.
The problem (imho) is not that the UI is complicated or not nice enough to look at. Players of massive simulation games expect the UI to have a bit of a learning curve - if a game allows you to do many different things, then it'll take a bit longer to figure out all these things in the UI, nobody expects DF to have a UI as sleek as "Doom". However, as laid out in the previous paragraphs, DF's UI is not only complicated, it is complicated and inconsistent. And imho that's what's causing unnecessary frustration and what throws many people off. It's like telling your players "Here's a complex game, and we'll make it extra hard for you to learn it by confusing you with lots of different and even contradicting UI mechanisms."
So, when the UI is concerned, I don't think it's a specific menu that's scaring people away. It's the inconsistency of the whole UI that causes input mistakes, so that people have to redo their input and/or try to repair any damaged caused by the mistake, which causes frustration and scares people away.
Suggestion: Redesign the UI in way that there is *one* confirmation key, *one* cancellation key, *one* "select" key, *one* method of marking areas that works in every context (having a second one as an alternative isn't bad, but at least one should function independently of context), and *one* method of scrolling. That would go a *long* way in preventing people from getting frustrated over the UI.
========================================
2. The AI. Apart from the UI, it's the *A*I that's most frustrating, and in a way the two effects exacerbate each other.
Example: It's easy enough to order dwarves to stay inside, but then they do the famous entry dance. One solution to this is to draft all your civilians into the military and station them somewhere safe. However, doing so is a convoluted and error-prone procedure for the starting player because the "m"ilitary screen works different than most others. Hence, he feels that the lacking AI forces him to deal more with the inconsistent UI. Feeling this way is an easy method to become frustrated and eventually be scared away.
Another very common example: The AI currently cannot evaluate whether building something would cut a dwarf off from the rest of the fortress. This leads to the well-known problem of dwarves starving behind the walls or floodgates they just constructed. There are workarounds, but each of these requires the player to spend even more time with a convoluted and inconsistent UI just to prevent a stupid action that *could* be prevented by a smarter AI in the first place.
A third example would be dwarves building a multi-storied tower and inevitably crashing down with their freshly constructed, unsupported floors and walls, because they can't figure out that their construction will cause a cave-in. Again, there are workarounds, but these require intense micro-management of building jobs assigned through a complicated and inconsistent UI.
I know that the AI is going to be improved, but I suggest to raise the priority of fixing AI stupidities that cause such stupid dwarf deaths. The reason is that especially these deaths are extremely frustrating for a new player. Think about it: You invested a lot of time to learn the UI, you finally managed to find your way around all these different menus. You learned how to direct your dwarves' actions and you've grown attached to them (the ease of growing attached to one's dwarves due to the wealth of information that DF offers about them is one of DF's best mechanisms to keep the player interested *despite* all the frustration). You finally learned how to design a drowning trap, or a two-story tower with fortifications, and then you see that one of the dwarves you've grown attached to has died, because he couldn't see that sealing himself in a one-square room behind a wall might be a bad idea. I suspect that this is a *major* factor in scaring new players away because it gives them the impression that even if they do learn the whole UI, they still won't be able to enjoy the game because the AI will kill their dwarves anyway, even in situations which a three-year old kid could master. Losing dwarves in a goblin siege is frustrating too, but it's an expected part of the challenge, even by new players. Losing dwarves who stupidly walled themselves in is *much* worse for a new player's motivation.
Suggestion: Upon starting a construction that makes a tile inaccessible (like a wall, or a floodgate), have a dwarf perform the following check: Start at the NW corner and, circling around the construction, determine how many different areas the immediately adjacent tiles would form. Then, check whether these different areas will still be accessible for a each other after buolding the construction (simple pathfinding check). If they aren't, then have the dwarf construct the building from the side where he has access to the largest area afterwards (DF already keeps track of pathing zones, so the framework for such a check might aleady be there). Alternatively (if there's no function to determine the size of a zone), have him construct the building from the side that allows access to the biggest number of other zones afterwards.
These are, imho, the two best improvements that could be done for new players: Have a consistent UI, and prevent the most stupid dwarf death through AI blunders.
Thanks for listening, and thanks for asking our opinion. :)
Post by: Folly on June 18, 2009, 08:18:34 am
Many of the systems are intuitive enough...but to access them, you have to dig through a dozen layers within each of two-dozen categories listed on the main menu, with many of the options for controlling finer details of the game being in sub-menu's one wouldn't naturally expect them to be in. And then there are a few control mechanisms which simply require the use of a certain hotkey which isn't listed anywhere on the interface, so you have to dig through the wiki just to learn that hotkey even exists.
Once I got used to the menu however, the only remaining major turnoff was the lack of conflict. I settled in a highly hostile areas, built up my defenses, set my crafters to work making piles of wealth, and then had to play for 2-3 real life days between each siege. Sometimes not even a smaller attack will come for years at a time.
Post by: lordnincompoop on June 19, 2009, 03:14:24 pm
Anyway, quite a bit of the computer gaming population seems to lean towards not reading the manual, setting the difficulty level to Very Easy and instant gratification. Dwarf fortress has none of these. The manual (read: the wiki) is necessary for proper survival and it is recommended to constantly consult it, there is no difficulty slider and if there was, it would be set to Very Hard and rewarding fortresses are rare and long term. Now this forum and and the BethSoft forums (being the only two I've been in) have these "short attention span, instant gratification" people as either a minority or non-existent. Probably because we scared them off. The game being in Alpha doesn't help either, as many people would rather just bookmark this site, maybe check every coupe of months, and play it when if comes out for real, and have numerous reasons for that, such as not wanting to handle the billion-and-one bugs usually in Alphas (trust me, I was one of them). I was almost scared away, because of the overwhelming amount of Dwarf Fortress "fans" screaming in every direction about death, destruction, pestilence, drowning, dying the moment you began, constant losing, spawning in magma, extreme amounts of planning for just the apartments, and not doing so leading to yet another loss. Later on, I tried it and it wasn't that bad. This is probably another reason for people being scared away: fear. fear creadted by all the DF death prophets. But it's night here, and I'll just continue tomorrow with a fresh head. And if I exaggerated, made stuff up, got carried away bent the truth and etc, sorry. It's a habit of mine that I'm trying to kick, but can't.
Post by: Jakkarra on June 19, 2009, 05:51:07 pm
how many others here read the shit out of game manuals, and crank the difficulty up to eleven?
and still win.
please post which flavour of game you do this with.
Post by: Shurikane on June 19, 2009, 07:04:06 pm
Post by: Agnostic Paladin on June 19, 2009, 11:37:10 pm
So what is frustrating you the most about Dwarf Fortress?
Odd choices of UI. The custom stockpile is the best/worst example. I scroll up and down the list to the broad category I want, then I have to allow or block that category, then I have to permit or forbid a group, then I can use the enter key to turn on or off specific items, plus a random letter for some other oddball items (sand bags, prepared food). More generally, trying to remember which set of scroll keys to use on which screen. These don't seem like massive fixes to me; simply scrap the BAPF keys and let me use arrows + Enter to select on all menus. If there are side by side menus, then left and right are used to change menus and up and down scroll on that menu. Fast scroll should be page up and page down. That's what the keys are called for a reason; people expect things to scroll pagewise when they use them.
I'd love a way to save custom stockpiles. I always want to remove bone, skulls, shells, and fresh hides from my main refuse pile. I want to have a dye stockpile, a thread stockpile, a cloth stockpile, a seed stockpile, etc etc, and I'd like to not have to go through the same long menu sequence every time I set one up. (plant stockpiles for the mill/still/farmer workshop are the worst for this, as I haven't memorized which plants can be processed at which shop, so I have to alt tab to the wiki five times for each stockpile I set up.)
In the same "repetition is hell" vein, many more first level workshops need to have the auto jobs like the loom, butcher & tanner. I swear at the fish cleaners every single time I play. I tell them to clean fish every time I notice that the raw fish stockpile is overflowing. They go clean a couple, cancel because the rest are already rotten, and then I notice twenty minutes later that the stockpile is filling up with raw fish again. Raw fish = automatic fish cleaning job. Brewable plant = automatic brewing job. Ditto milling. Ditto bagging leaves. Maybe instead of a Repeat option, many jobs should have an auto option?
Generally, my problem isn't that the interface makes the game hard to learn, my problem is that the interface makes the game tedious to play; between the inconsistencies (What, exactly is the purpose of the F9 to exit screens?) & the forced repetition, the UI is going to frustrate some potential long term players to the point of quitting.
There could be some better documentation on how to do things as well (frex how to get the dwarves to store artifact craftwork in a 1 tile stockpile to simulate putting it on display in the dining hall or even what the difference between core and overall quality is), and what different creatures in the game are (is that slugman something my 4 wrestlers can take out? Damned if I know!) but that's a back seat imo.
Post by: buman on June 20, 2009, 12:14:23 am
The first two are due to having used a community tileset and playing my own music for variety. After having experienced the improvement you loose intrest in vanilla.
I have not tried d11 yet but a performance increase is always welcome.
Post by: Atanamis on June 20, 2009, 01:27:17 am
how many others here read the shit out of game manuals, and crank the difficulty up to eleven?
I mostly play strategy games of various types, and if I can beat the first level on my first try I am unlikely to play further. A game that requires no learning to beat isn't worth playing. "Too easy" is one of my main complaints against DF. The other is the inconsistent and unintuitive menus. Fix the problems mentioned by Psyringe, make the game harder to survive, and I'd be ready to buy a boxed set.
Post by: jamoecw on June 20, 2009, 02:15:48 am
I think if there were some pre-made in game scenario tutorials, it would really help the growth of the game. I think the lack of coherent goals is what makes it difficult to pick up and play for many people. Even if they were player created tutorials, using the notes system to provide tips on how to accomplish things like farming and building a military, I think it would help tremendously.start with any process that is mentioned in the in game help (farming, smelting, brewing, etc.).
Post by: Idiom on June 20, 2009, 02:18:12 am
Post by: peterix on June 20, 2009, 03:44:06 am
Is it a bad thing this thread is nearly 40 pages and still kicking considering the subject?Not at all. There's a lot of overlap in the posts, but there's also some diversity. Feedback is good.
Post by: alway on June 20, 2009, 06:51:34 am
Post by: LordZorintrhox on June 20, 2009, 08:38:43 am
1. The UI, and specifically, the inconsistency of it. I have absolutely no problem with an ASCII UI, and I can live (teeth-gnashingly ;) ) with an inefficient UI, but it's the inconsistency that really made me cry out in frustration when I was learnig this game...
I totally agree with Psyringe, here. I myself have NO problem with a keyboard driven, ASCII interface; it is the ONLY way at school we can develop effective C code ( Linux mainframe and such ). Well, you COULD use MS Visual Studio I suppose, if you hate yourself.
Considering the current demographic ( ultra nerds, I think we can all agree ), the type of interface is not an issue and adds a lot to the appeal of the game. Also, once you get it, it really makes it faster. There is a reason WoW has a macro system, RTSs have hot key assignment systems, and OSs have a command line: they are powerful. In the words of Interface Design class, "they are targeted at expert users."
But inconsistency is indeed the problem with the current setup. Just scrolling menus is a bitch. I mean:
Status Screen: Selecting a tabbed section uses the arrow keys, as do the Kitchen and Stocks tabs, even tough elsewhere it is almost explicit that [tab] changes a menus mode/tab section (prepare carefully screen).
Unit menu uses the arrow keys
"Select component" screens use the +/- keys
Trading screen uses the arrows
"Select job" menus use +/-.
Stockpile settings are just weird and anomalous in the context of the rest of the menus.
This isn't so bad if one is using the num-pad as the arrow pad, since it is all there and that is what is intended, but most people don't. Furthermore, on a laptop, the numpad isn't even useful as it is a function key layout on top of the letter keys.
I DO support the resize building vs. designate area differences, because those ARE different. HOWEVER, it would be more reasonable if it is a "stamp" setting. As in, you select "build wall," set the brush size, and stamp it around the map using [enter] without leaving "wall" mode until you hit [space], or more consistently, place with [p] and finish with [enter]. Since we rarely build just one section of wall 9 tiles long, this would speed things up and rationalize the way the k/h/u/m setup functions: as a stamp.
Post by: Mugros on July 23, 2009, 09:29:33 am
Considering the current demographic ( ultra nerds, I think we can all agree ), the type of interface is not an issue and adds a lot to the appeal of the game. Also, once you get it, it really makes it faster.Come again?
Adds appeal? A lot? Sure if you want to stay an elitist nerd. I'd rather prefer a good ui and risk some non-nerds in the fanbase.
The UI is awful, yes. Particularly awful is the navigating through lists, aka as up and down. It is inconsistent. There are at least three different keys for what is practically the same action. Sometimes i have to use the arrow keys, sometimes plus and minus on the keypad and to enlarge e.g. farms i have to use u and m.
This should be the same key, just use the arrow keys for all these actions.
Also sometimes i can use PGUP and PGDOWN in alist and sometimes not. I would make shift work in lists to jump pages. or generally use PGUP/DOWN where possible.
And again, lists. Sometimes i have to use multiple directional keys. one for the main level, another for the sublevel. On other screens i can go left and right to go down the tree.
Very stupid design decisions.
Post by: jamoecw on July 23, 2009, 11:10:32 am
Considering the current demographic ( ultra nerds, I think we can all agree ), the type of interface is not an issue and adds a lot to the appeal of the game. Also, once you get it, it really makes it faster.Come again?
Adds appeal? A lot? Sure if you want to stay an elitist nerd. I'd rather prefer a good ui and risk some non-nerds in the fanbase.
The UI is awful, yes. Particularly awful is the navigating through lists, aka as up and down. It is inconsistent. There are at least three different keys for what is practically the same action. Sometimes i have to use the arrow keys, sometimes plus and minus on the keypad and to enlarge e.g. farms i have to use u and m.
This should be the same key, just use the arrow keys for all these actions.
Also sometimes i can use PGUP and PGDOWN in alist and sometimes not. I would make shift work in lists to jump pages. or generally use PGUP/DOWN where possible.
And again, lists. Sometimes i have to use multiple directional keys. one for the main level, another for the sublevel. On other screens i can go left and right to go down the tree.
Very stupid design decisions.
has anyone tried to rebind the keys in the new test versions? if it is possible then i think the default configuration might need to be changed in the full downloads, not patches mind you (wouldn't want to have to learn a new interface, even if it is more intuitive, while i do think that i would have preferred a more standard set of keys to be used when i started out the second time). i haven't tried to rebind the keys to see if they work, if i get some time off this weekend i might just try that, unless someone beats me to it.
Post by: Granite26 on July 23, 2009, 12:10:26 pm
What turns me off is the nature of the challenge curve. When you start a new game for the first time, you know nothing and are extremely vulnerable. It's accepted knowledge that you need to immediately dig into the ground and put your food in stockpiles in order to not get killed by the wildlife and not have your stores rot.
In the first few minutes of the game, your are at your most vulnerable, but also at your least knowledgable. Not only do you now know how best to do things, you also have no idea what it's even possible to do!
Suggestions:
1: The wagon should count as a food stockpile and as inside. Bringing your food inside right away is not an intuitive task, and you shouldn't need to worry about starving because you were learning the controls and exploring the area or even learning to see in Ascii while not paused.
2: New player option to start with a clear map. Players don't want no monsters or wolves, but the ability to 'scare off' all critters off the map and have them spawn normally would help flatten the difficulty curve. It's also way less onerous with the new feature attacker code.
3: Option to start with a graphics pack on. I play with Ascii and I like it. If I hadn't been able to use a graphics pack while I learned though, the process would have been a lot less fun. Face it, the people who like ascii are also the type who can figure out how to adjust the raws to turn it on. Offer a download with a simple graphics pack and 'new player accessibility options' turned on.
As soon as you dig into the ground and get your stores moved in, you are significantly safer, and the game actually begins. Your next challenge is setting up farming. Farming is an excellent challenge for the game, because it's a discrete task. You set it up once, but then it takes little work to keep it going. Yay accomplishment!!!
I'm also all for shipping the game with a tutorial fort... a generated world with an established fort and lots of notes. Possibly one of the ones that already has an existing tutorial online (play along!). Players today expect their games to teach them how to play. Not excell, but at least survive. Starting DF, you can't experiment too much without dying.
Post by: Taisuru on July 23, 2009, 12:21:43 pm
Due to the complexity of the game, I'd say the latter is the best choice.
Also, I suggested this to someone else, but they didn't like it very much due to how confusing it was. After telling them about some of the awesome stuff that was happening, I piqued his interest and he began having fun, once he learned how to use the controls correctly. So it might be a good idea to put in tutorials for the more interesting stuff (Various Trap ideas and such)
Post by: Andir on July 23, 2009, 12:42:13 pm
I think a proper interface would go a long way toward doing this. I'm constantly reminded of Sim City's "news" section that would tell the player, "Urist McDwarfen is upset that he hasn't had a proper meal. He suggests making wheat." We kind of have that now with the alerts on the bottom of the screen, but it's clunky. Personally, I think a well done graphic UI would go a long way. You could throw tips in there as well. I think you should have a screen dedicated to dwarf mood. List the dwarfs and in another column in red/green text list the most major hate item that the player could improve and if they are fulfilled, list green items that they recently enjoyed. "Urist McDwarf / enjoyed a great meal." "Urist McDwarf / wants a mason workshop" When selecting it, you are told how to build one (or better yet, you are automatically put in build/workshop/ mason mode and the screen vanishes.) This could also work for dwarfs that feel unsafe due to the lack of defensive structures. You could drop them into a build screen for traps.
Of course, you'll want them to be able to get back to that screen later, so I suggest you change the menus to a hierarchy system. When you select Build, it places build at the top of the screen with an indented list of build options. Selecting Workshop would put Workshop under the Build item and list the workshops indented below that.
Post by: Beanchubbs on July 24, 2009, 03:53:37 am
In short, this game needs better manuals and tutorials either in the starting screen or in the "Manuals" section on the website. There are also some minor things that I don't completely understand but I learn as I go.
Post by: zarmazarma on July 24, 2009, 05:42:36 am
Meh... It wasn't very appealing until I had someone give me a good start.
Post by: Granite26 on July 24, 2009, 08:22:28 am
In short, this game needs better manuals and tutorials either in the starting screen or in the "Manuals" section on the website. There are also some minor things that I don't completely understand but I learn as I go.
I know you to don't like linking your living to things you don't control, but the wiki would be a cheap way to do this.
Post by: Mugros on July 24, 2009, 09:48:37 am
It would be nice if the game would have some nice advisors, which tell you that you, e.g. run low on booze or which estimates how long your food lasts. Something nice on a screen and not like it is now where you have to search for every bit of information.
Post by: mattie2009 on July 24, 2009, 09:50:34 am
Post by: Mugros on July 24, 2009, 09:54:16 am
My main turnoff is that useless "you have struck *stone/gem*!" message that PAUSES THE GAME.No big deal. What's worse is that it automatically zooms to the miner and i have to find where i was before.
Other games handle it that way that you get the message but you have to press space to get to the place.
Post by: Wardo on July 24, 2009, 11:01:06 am
So, as long as there are tilesets, I don't have a turn off.
If you asked about "bad thoughts", however, I wouldn't want to play DF without Dwarf Manager since first using it, as it makes managing that much easier. And I also don't like impossible strange moods/mandates early on; later on they add madness, which might be fun, but early on it kills my favourite dwarfs, and that makes me, the player, tantrum. But that's all, and I usually overcome the latter by playing in the shower and thus feeling refreshed by the mist.
Post by: Footkerchief on July 24, 2009, 11:49:34 am
My main turnoff is that useless "you have struck *stone/gem*!" message that PAUSES THE GAME.
That one's getting addressed for the next version. You'll be able to choose how each announcement is displayed, whether it pauses the game, whether it recenters, etc.
Post by: Sizik on July 24, 2009, 01:20:11 pm
But inconsistency is indeed the problem with the current setup. Just scrolling menus is a bitch. I mean:
Status Screen: Selecting a tabbed section uses the arrow keys, as do the Kitchen and Stocks tabs, even tough elsewhere it is almost explicit that [tab] changes a menus mode/tab section (prepare carefully screen).
Unit menu uses the arrow keys
"Select component" screens use the +/- keys
Trading screen uses the arrows
"Select job" menus use +/-.
Stockpile settings are just weird and anomalous in the context of the rest of the menus.
It isn't inconsistent if you notice that the arrow keys only are used for menus where there is no cursor to move around.
Post by: Mugros on July 24, 2009, 01:30:02 pm
It isn't inconsistent if you notice that the arrow keys only are used for menus where there is no cursor to move around.Fine but in the context of interface design it still doesn't make any sense.
You don't need to change the scrolling keys to tell the user that you can't go left or right from this list. He will notice this as soon as he tries to do it.
Post by: Lord Shonus on July 26, 2009, 09:28:27 am
Personally, I'd stop playing if the ASCII was removed as an option. It is, to me, THE most efficient way of displaying the information.
Post by: Mugros on July 26, 2009, 09:44:11 am
Personally, I'd stop playing if the ASCII was removed as an option. It is, to me, THE most efficient way of displaying the information.That is just stupid.
First, it is not ASCII. Second, if everything would be made of tiles, just make a tileset that looks characters.
Post by: Neonivek on July 26, 2009, 12:27:28 pm
Quote
It is, to me, THE most efficient way of displaying the information
What do you mean? This statement is a bit weird especially since Roguelikes have long since had a "Look" command.
Post by: Ellie on July 26, 2009, 12:36:36 pm
And despite the controversy surrounding it, I would like to see more flavor in the world. Descriptions of a dwarves features, paragraphs on the details of how various engravings are done on the jug your master craftsdwarf made. How the ground, soil, walls and plants are.
Blarg, most of this stuff is already planned XP. But those are my gripes. The Interface became second nature to me almost creepily easily.
Post by: Rowanas on July 26, 2009, 04:32:44 pm
I think keeping a community clean of retards is a good thing.
Post by: Tenebrais on July 26, 2009, 04:40:28 pm
I think keeping a community clean of retards is a good thing.
...why? It's a single-player game. Does it actually affect you if 12-year-olds and much older 12-year-olds can play it?
Post by: Rowanas on July 26, 2009, 04:53:24 pm
P.S. Chronic retards shouldn't be allowed to play such an awesome game, there's no logic behind it, I'm just a bastard)
Post by: Tenebrais on July 26, 2009, 04:57:11 pm
Post by: cibbuano on July 26, 2009, 05:32:59 pm
As for a starting build, it seems to me that it would be easy to have a 'Tutorial' selection on the startup menu, which could generate a pocket world from a defined seed.
Post by: Kusgnos on July 26, 2009, 05:54:33 pm
Yes, because they get onto the forums and demand stupid features which Toady (armok be with him) puts in because he's good to his players (putting in hotly demanded features early) which ruin my enjoyment of the game and require heavy modification (or unfixable if it's hardcoded) to fix up.
Whoa there. Toady One codes for his own vision. The "retards" either get smarter or leave in idiotic frustration. You make it sound like your enjoyment has already been ruined.
Currently, DF's lowest point is its interface, but it's not that bad. DF doesn't really turn me off at all. I remember the first time I heard about Toady One making a sequel to that old Armok game back in...was it 2005? I stared at the information and prototype screenshots confusedly, with interest rapidly growing, and the lack of "graphics" only sucked me in further. Heheh. I can't believe it's come so far.
Post by: ToonyMan on July 26, 2009, 06:06:35 pm
Post by: Rowanas on July 26, 2009, 07:12:07 pm
But seriously, given what happens everywhere else, the retards and griefers appear and then a good game goes to shit because the sensible and visionary developers start pandering to a bunch of retards.
Post by: jamoecw on July 26, 2009, 07:49:23 pm
Rowan is in a constant state of internal rage.
But seriously, given what happens everywhere else, the retards and griefers appear and then a good game goes to shit because the sensible and visionary developers start pandering to a bunch of retards.
doubtful, a sensible developer would pander to such a thing, after all they will sell less in the long run. a visionary developer also wouldn't due to the fact that he is catering towards a future demographic and not the current one. either way you cut it, a game that panders to mmorpg players is developed from someone who is being neither sensible or visionary, and if it has any success then it is due to good marketing.
Post by: Im_Sparks on July 26, 2009, 08:01:06 pm
I saw a picture of a dwarven city, and went "Sauce?"
Yeah. That was around just before christmas.
Post by: Rowanas on July 26, 2009, 08:08:39 pm
Rowan is in a constant state of internal rage.
But seriously, given what happens everywhere else, the retards and griefers appear and then a good game goes to shit because the sensible and visionary developers start pandering to a bunch of retards.
doubtful, a sensible developer would pander to such a thing, after all they will sell less in the long run. a visionary developer also wouldn't due to the fact that he is catering towards a future demographic and not the current one. either way you cut it, a game that panders to mmorpg players is developed from someone who is being neither sensible or visionary, and if it has any success then it is due to good marketing.
*cough* WoW *cough*
Post by: Tenebrais on July 26, 2009, 08:15:43 pm
Rowan is in a constant state of internal rage.
But seriously, given what happens everywhere else, the retards and griefers appear and then a good game goes to shit because the sensible and visionary developers start pandering to a bunch of retards.
doubtful, a sensible developer would pander to such a thing, after all they will sell less in the long run. a visionary developer also wouldn't due to the fact that he is catering towards a future demographic and not the current one. either way you cut it, a game that panders to mmorpg players is developed from someone who is being neither sensible or visionary, and if it has any success then it is due to good marketing.
*cough* WoW *cough*
Perhaps "A sensible, self-employed developer" would be more accurate.
Post by: Rowanas on July 26, 2009, 08:17:28 pm
Post by: Tenebrais on July 26, 2009, 08:33:07 pm
But this is sort of drifting off the topic.
Post by: jamoecw on July 26, 2009, 10:18:23 pm
in the end when producer takes charge we see a game that isn't as good as it should be, if a producer doesn't take charge when there is money concerns then the development stalls and dies. diablo had its issues, due to money problems, same with diablo 2, but both are good games because the producer side of blizzard yielded more than normal for a producer. just look at The Dreamland Chronicles: Freedom Ridge for a game that had good developers, but with money problems and a typical producer.
Post by: Footkerchief on July 27, 2009, 01:00:00 am
P.S. Chronic retards shouldn't be allowed to play such an awesome game, there's no logic behind it, I'm just a bastard)
Come on now. I want people to play my game. When you guys get all exclusive, it's bad for me.
Post by: G-Flex on July 27, 2009, 08:06:31 am
Post by: Granite26 on July 27, 2009, 09:31:24 am
In doing so, they've alienated a lot of elitists by designing the game to be approachable and playable by casual players.
Post by: Rowanas on July 27, 2009, 09:37:58 am
I'll stand up for WoW... It's the most successful MMORPG for a reason. They took all the existing complaints about MMO's, fixed them, and made a solid game.
In doing so, they've alienated a lot of elitists by designing the game to be approachable and playable by casual players.
So, a crap class/race based system, shoddy skill systems and the grind of a lifetime are all solid game mechanics, eh? Plus the endless walking, the bland quests, the fact that no matter what you do, nothing has ever actually changed... Anyway, this isn't a Why Is WoW So Crap forum. back to topic.
Post by: Granite26 on July 27, 2009, 10:27:14 am
Post by: Rowanas on July 27, 2009, 10:37:56 am
P.S. Back to topic isn't a defense, it's a statement to keep the thread in check.
Post by: Im_Sparks on July 27, 2009, 11:01:25 am
If they've made millions upon millions of dollars doing all that, they must have been doing something right. They've made a solid(and quite fun) game.
One thing I just can't understand is what's so damn bad about casuals. Honestly, they play the same game you do, do the same stuff you do, but still maintain a healthy active lifestyle and aren't "Hardcore". Honestly, the casual hate is one of the dumbest generalizations to date. Mention the word "Casual" on /v/, and you're flamed to death. It's quite stupid.
Anyways, I think the majority of you are hating WoW because it's so successful, not because of the actual game. When you play the game and get to the endgame, where the majority of the content is you can express your opinions.
Now quit fucking criticizing WoW and its' flaws, and tell me what the hell turns you off about DF.
Post by: Rowanas on July 27, 2009, 11:07:46 am
Remember, kids: Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 27, 2009, 11:18:59 am
Remember, kids: Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.I find this statement offensive, to be honest. It seems deeply unfair to the people who've worked hard to become paralympian gold medallists.
Anyway, the money that WoW makes is pretty much irrelevant to this topic and how good the actual game is. Microsoft make millions, so their computers must be flawless, right? EA make millions, so they must be the most popular games company, right? It's not relevant to the quality of the game. Personally I think WoW is a fairly well made and fairly fun games, although it certainly isn't without flaws (high cost being one of them).
Post by: Im_Sparks on July 27, 2009, 11:19:38 am
Uh.. I don't hate casual gamers. I don't even dislike them. They're people with lives and friends and stuff, much respect to them. What I dislike are morons and retards, both casual and hardcore, because they often bring down otherwise good gaming experiences by demanding crap. As someone said earlier, Toady (armok be with him) won't be pandering to the failscapers, so I've got no issue here. I had accepted the good points made by Tenebrais and Jam, but when Granite mentioned WoW we got into this argument.
Remember, kids: Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.
I wasn't speaking to you, crumbnuts. I was speaking about the majority of the idiots who rip on people who dress a certain way who play a game that they also play. Slapping the ancient joke on the end of the post wasn't comical in any way what so ever, and adding the fact that you were..
Forget it. Now stop arguing and tell me what the hell turns you off about DF
Remember, kids: Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.I find this statement offensive, to be honest. It seems deeply unfair to the people who've worked hard to become paralympian gold medallists.
Anyway, the money that WoW makes is pretty much irrelevant to this topic and how good the actual game is. Microsoft make millions, so their computers must be flawless, right? EA make millions, so they must be the most popular games company, right? It's not relevant to the quality of the game. Personally I think WoW is a fairly well made and fairly fun games, although it certainly isn't without flaws (high cost being one of them).
I never said it was flawless, I said it must be good if it can appeal to so many people, and such different types of people.
Post by: Rowanas on July 27, 2009, 11:20:29 am
Post by: Granite26 on July 27, 2009, 12:07:17 pm
*cough* WoW *cough*
but when Granite mentioned WoW we got into this argument.
Post by: Andir on July 27, 2009, 01:16:34 pm
Nice Granite. ;)
Also, you guys forgot that the Big Mac is the best hamburger in the world! I mean, billions and billions!
Post by: G-Flex on July 27, 2009, 04:23:35 pm
Post by: Granite26 on July 27, 2009, 04:37:57 pm
Something doesn't have to be good to appeal to millions. It just has to strike some very base nerve that keeps them going to it. Popularity can exist without great quality.
Actually, I think both McDonald's and WoW are very high quality for their niche markets. It's just that their niche market is mass appeal. You could make a hamburger that people would like better, but then fewer people would like it at all and/or it would be more expensive.
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 27, 2009, 05:01:46 pm
Of course, universality is very much something dwarf fortress doesn't have much of. Its very much a niche game, but there's a place for it there, and Toady is happy with it there, so I'll keep my complaints within the boundary of "What issues about the game turn me off, aside from it being the type of game it is." Most people I know are turned off because its just not their type of game. Most of the rest, honestly - the graphics. But what turns me off about DF? One of the problems I do have with it is one of the same problems I have with WoW - its a horrible time sink, a lot of which involves things happening that don't require you to actually play, but do you require you to be present. The low FPS doesn't help that problem, but isn't the main issue - announcements that pause are.
Hopefully, with the ability to turn off pause announcements in the next version, that major gripe will be addressed. Once work quotas and standing orders are added in, I don't think it will be a problem.
Other than that - lack of difficulty in things that should be hard (fighting off sieges, farming) and great difficulty in things that should be easy (trying to figure out the menus, building a flute of a given material, installing a graphics pack).
I can use the ASCII, but I don't like it, and its a much bigger turn off for other people. Some packaged tilesets and a way to switch between them (especially in game) would be greatly appreciated.
So what turns me off about the game the most? The fact that its not finished yet. :)
Post by: Techhead on July 27, 2009, 06:49:56 pm
Post by: Rowanas on July 27, 2009, 08:38:18 pm
*cough* WoW *cough*but when Granite mentioned WoW we got into this argument.
Ok, when granite mentioned it the second time. After the first mention people pointed out a flaw in my thinking, and twas all good.
Post by: Im_Sparks on July 27, 2009, 10:21:30 pm
*cough* WoW *cough*but when Granite mentioned WoW we got into this argument.
Ok, when granite mentioned it the second time. After the first mention people pointed out a flaw in my thinking, and twas all good.
Oh shush. Both of you.
God, you both are now arguing about who was arguing. It's horrendous. You're going to come back with a reply like "WE WERENT ARGUING WE WERE JUST yada yada" or point out how..
How the interface kind of turns me off, really. I mean, the whole B-W-Z FOR KITCHEN, B-T-L FOR LEVER. I understand that it gets easier that way over time, but W-T-F. In a world where the main market is now drawn in by some simple flashy pictures, gunshots and a tit or two, ASCII (.Y.) and U U U g g g g g's just can't have the same effect on advertising, even if the players know how great it looks with an imagination.
Post by: Teldin on July 27, 2009, 11:13:24 pm
However, if I were Toady the first thing I would do is completely simplify everything, make it isometric with pixel graphics, and sell it to, say, Maxis for a percentage of the profits and make millions.
Then I would use that money to make the game I REALLY wanted to make, an aspergian nightmare of ascii blobs and 10-button commands just to tell a dwarf to take a shit.
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 28, 2009, 03:34:38 am
Some people complained about the learning curve. I think the main problem with this is that you can do so many things in Dwarf Fortress, that you easily become overwhelmed. This is especially true for first time players beggining their first fort. So many options at once! I suggest we should have only limited options in the beggining, and that they would expand as the fortress grows.
DF already has a nice way to expand options in time - immigrants, nobles and things tied to population size. Some functions are disabled at the beggining and become available only when you get a certain dwarf or population size (economy, justice, sieges, etc.). This is a great idea that deserved to be build upon.
For example - I think one of the biggest problems at the beggining is the huge variety of workshops and building you can build. There's dozens of them and there's no indication which are the most important ones. What if you could only build some - "basic" - buildings at the beggining, and other would unlock unly with immigrants? Imagine you can't build mechanic's workshop until you get a mechanic in a immigration wave. The same goes for smelting, furnace operating, alchemy, cheese making, clothing industry, etc... That way beggining players could easily build what's available and slowly learn new things as they come. (But even experienced playes like me could love this. I do).
Of course the immigrants would be randomised, so you'd never know what you'd get next time. Experts could customize their starting options in the embark screen (by taking a mechanic you'd ensure you'll have mechanic's workshop since the beggining). And perhaps you could "order" specific immigrants with the outpost liaison.
Post by: the Dregs on July 28, 2009, 06:10:11 am
A mouse-over interface with pull down menus would make this game infinitely better. The day I get that, I am sending Toady a big fat (for me anyway) check in gratitude.
Post by: Rowanas on July 28, 2009, 09:10:49 am
The WoW debate deserves to be split to a separate topic... or deleted. Anyway, I'm going back to topic, though I'll probably be ignored.
Some people complained about the learning curve. I think the main problem with this is that you can do so many things in Dwarf Fortress, that you easily become overwhelmed. This is especially true for first time players beggining their first fort. So many options at once! I suggest we should have only limited options in the beggining, and that they would expand as the fortress grows.
This is fine as an option, but I would want it turned off by default.
DF already has a nice way to expand options in time - immigrants, nobles and things tied to population size. Some functions are disabled at the beggining and become available only when you get a certain dwarf or population size (economy, justice, sieges, etc.). This is a great idea that deserved to be build upon.
For example - I think one of the biggest problems at the beggining is the huge variety of workshops and building you can build. There's dozens of them and there's no indication which are the most important ones. What if you could only build some - "basic" - buildings at the beggining, and other would unlock unly with immigrants? Imagine you can't build mechanic's workshop until you get a mechanic in a immigration wave. The same goes for smelting, furnace operating, alchemy, cheese making, clothing industry, etc... That way beggining players could easily build what's available and slowly learn new things as they come. (But even experienced playes like me could love this. I do).
Of course the immigrants would be randomised, so you'd never know what you'd get next time. Experts could customize their starting options in the embark screen (by taking a mechanic you'd ensure you'll have mechanic's workshop since the beggining). And perhaps you could "order" specific immigrants with the outpost liaison.
I want this disabled by default. It would irritate the hell out of me and make me want to break things.
P.S. When I get a job I think I'll send Toady (armok be with him) a cheque so large it will make him weep with joy :D I'll also send threetoe one because he's half the team, after all.
Post by: Granite26 on July 28, 2009, 09:14:06 am
Perhaps enforce something of a tech tree... Mechanics guild and Forging ops require blocks to be built rather than raw stone? It's practically free, but limits the first instant options.
Post by: Andir on July 28, 2009, 11:58:58 am
Jiri:It also alleviates the possibility of embarking without a farmer. Talk about confusing newbs. (What I mean of course is not limiting the building to the type of immigrants you get) Could you imagine not starting with a fisher, farmer, or butcher? I'd much prefer the ability to start with naked dwarfs (skillwise) and have jobs in the queue to build beds, doors, and food with prompts to guide a new player to build a mason shop, carpenter, etc. A message marquee area would be used to hint them to what they need: "Need Miner to retrieve Stone . . . . . . . . . . Need Woodcutter to retrieve Wood . . . . . . . . . ." and "Need Carpenter Workshop to build Bed . . . . . . . . . . Need Mason Workshop to build Door . . . . . . . . . ."
Perhaps enforce something of a tech tree... Mechanics guild and Forging ops require blocks to be built rather than raw stone? It's practically free, but limits the first instant options.
...or something along those lines.
Post by: Ghavrel on July 28, 2009, 01:13:41 pm
I want magma and an underground river and HFS. I don't particularly care that it's very unlikely to find these things in close proximity to each other. It's very unlikely that a group of alcoholic psychopaths is going to elect me despot and carry me off to fantasy land, and yet I spend hours playing.
In short: it's silly that I have to go through planets like Galactus on a post-diet binge just to find an area with what I want. Let players specify what they want, and then generate a world with at least one area that meets their requirements.
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 28, 2009, 04:06:55 pm
My point was to bypass the starting game clutter, where there's too many possibilities to build. By putting it off to later game, you not only make the start less overwhelming, you also make the late game more interesting - there's always something to look for.
Post by: G-Flex on July 28, 2009, 04:08:57 pm
Quote
Let players specify what they want, and then generate a world with at least one area that meets their requirements.
Doing this specifically as stated would be extraordinarily difficult unless you just brute-force the generation of worlds and search each one until it finds one with a site having the given parameters, which... is fine, but would take forever.
What's really necessary is more control over worldgen, and even there you can still mostly do what you want. Want more magma pipes? Up the minimum volcanism or its weighted ranges, and you'll have more magma pipes. Then find a spot with both those mountain features you mentioned, which isn't too hard since they tend to be in proximity to each other anyway.
Besides, underground features are changing next version anyway. Toady has specifically mentioned, I think, that it's going to be easier for the player to find what they want of the features available. Too much of it is really changing to make a lot of assumptions, though.
Post by: Granite26 on July 28, 2009, 04:15:59 pm
Andir, Granite, etc.:No worries... I like your gist, I've just seen too many people flip out at the idea of starting a new fort without being able to do everything from scratch to think that needing to wait for immigrants will fly, and was trying to push it in a more publically acceptable direction.
Post by: Footkerchief on July 28, 2009, 04:20:46 pm
Besides, underground features are changing next version anyway. Toady has specifically mentioned, I think, that it's going to be easier for the player to find what they want of the features available. Too much of it is really changing to make a lot of assumptions, though.
Yeah. I think the players who want every single map feature are going to be increasingly disappointed, since map features are only going to increase in variety, probably to the point where it's not possible to have them all on a map.
Post by: G-Flex on July 28, 2009, 04:52:02 pm
HFS is changing as well, but he's holding back on the details. If anything, I bet it'll be easier to find.
The problem is that right now, people expect to find "perfect" sites. I personally find this a bit silly and think this attitude will change a bit once site features become varied enough that there are more choices to be made, more options to take, and these options and choices are more consequential.
Post by: Tenebrais on July 28, 2009, 04:53:40 pm
I also like the idea of having a growing tech tree (or something similar) that would presumably be an init option, default on. It would definitely be useful to help new players figure out what to do in lieu of a built-in tutorial.
Post by: Footkerchief on July 28, 2009, 05:05:47 pm
The problem is that right now, people expect to find "perfect" sites. I personally find this a bit silly and think this attitude will change a bit once site features become varied enough that there are more choices to be made, more options to take, and these options and choices are more consequential.
That's what I'm hoping too -- that this attitude isn't so much about perfection per se, but more about being bored with the current map features.
Post by: Granite26 on July 28, 2009, 05:17:12 pm
The problem is that right now, people expect to find "perfect" sites. I personally find this a bit silly and think this attitude will change a bit once site features become varied enough that there are more choices to be made, more options to take, and these options and choices are more consequential.
That's what I'm hoping too -- that this attitude isn't so much about perfection per se, but more about being bored with the current map features.
I concur... Once you master the basics, there's no reason NOT to insist on a site with everything.
Post by: Areyar on July 28, 2009, 07:05:45 pm
want: tavern-shop attracting/creating adventurers who can then be taken out of fortress and into the world without losing the fortress.
Post by: Andir on July 28, 2009, 07:07:43 pm
What annoys me most at the moment is the inabiliy to play an adventure game in a region without having to abandon the fortress.... and multiple fortresses...
want: tavern-shop attracting/creating adventurers who can then be taken out of fortress and into the world without losing the fortress.
Post by: Rowanas on July 28, 2009, 07:10:59 pm
Perhaps a better option would be to specify features and have the game generate one specific site that fits the parameters. This, of course, has the disadvantage of not being accessible in Adventure mode and maybe future disadvantages regarding politics and trading and the like. It doesn't seem too hard to do. That said, nothing in programming is as easy as it looks.
I also like the idea of having a growing tech tree (or something similar) that would presumably be an init option, default on. It would definitely be useful to help new players figure out what to do in lieu of a built-in tutorial.
I thought it should be default: pick (like screen size). Every starting fortress will be asked whether you want the tech tree or the full thing, and newbies can always select yes, while everyone else can choose depending on their preference. I would go straight to the init and turn the damn thing off, but that's the joy of inits, I can.
Post by: Areyar on July 28, 2009, 07:18:43 pm
yes. obviously. :)What annoys me most at the moment is the inabiliy to play an adventure game in a region without having to abandon the fortress.... and multiple fortresses...
want: tavern-shop attracting/creating adventurers who can then be taken out of fortress and into the world without losing the fortress.
Post by: RandomNumberGenerator on July 28, 2009, 07:33:07 pm
As a new player the biggest problem is an excess of micromanagement. It's fun at first because you can control every aspect of your fortress to make it exactly how you want, but after a while it just gets tiring. I'm sure some enjoy it still, but I for one would like to see more macromanagement to streamline everything and make it easier. Some things in particular I can name:
1) Cutting Trees/Gathering Plants. As it stands, you have to designate certain plants for this. When your harvesters run out of designated plants/trees to gather, they stop working. On countless occasions I have gotten so involved with other projects I will forget all about woodcutting until I get the message "can not construct bin: no wood:, which grinds any wood-related industries to a halt, including glass and metal. It would be nice to tell your dwarves to just go chop wood, and they would chop it from anywhere they can find.
2) Quantitative Stockpiles. In DF2 I seem to have a problem with either having too much or not enough. Lets take the wood example again. I want to keep my workers supplied with wood, but I don't want him cutting wood when I have more then enough already and my cutter could be doing something else(like hunting). It would be much easier if you could tell him to "keep this stockpile at 40-80% full". Say the stockpile is 30 squares. When there is less than 12 wood in the stockpile, he will go cut wood. When it reaches 28 wood, he will stop cutting and go do something else. This could eb used for everything; stone, food, booze, metals, etc.
3) Too much, too soon. One problem I had at the start was immigrant floods, though I suppose this could happen with other things as well. I would spend a year or two with my basic 7 dwarves, getting everything going, then all of a sudden I end up with 40 and no idea what to do with them all. It would be nice if you could place limits on immigration from within the game, say getting 2-4 at a time up until a max
Post by: Rowanas on July 28, 2009, 07:40:41 pm
Post by: Andir on July 28, 2009, 09:08:18 pm
1) Cutting Trees/Gathering Plants. As it stands, you have to designate certain plants for this. When your harvesters run out of designated plants/trees to gather, they stop working. On countless occasions I have gotten so involved with other projects I will forget all about woodcutting until I get the message "can not construct bin: no wood:, which grinds any wood-related industries to a halt, including glass and metal. It would be nice to tell your dwarves to just go chop wood, and they would chop it from anywhere they can find.I'd actually prefer designated wood chopping areas that the Dwarfs keep clear. It would be nice if they planted seeds from fell trees to maintain a tree farm of sorts as well.
r
2) Quantitative Stockpiles. In DF2 I seem to have a problem with either having too much or not enough. Lets take the wood example again. I want to keep my workers supplied with wood, but I don't want him cutting wood when I have more then enough already and my cutter could be doing something else(like hunting). It would be much easier if you could tell him to "keep this stockpile at 40-80% full". Say the stockpile is 30 squares. When there is less than 12 wood in the stockpile, he will go cut wood. When it reaches 28 wood, he will stop cutting and go do something else. This could eb used for everything; stone, food, booze, metals, etc.
Post by: G-Flex on July 28, 2009, 09:08:54 pm
It's annoying that you can't have sparring areas and separate barracks for beds.
Reading the recent dev notes would solve your qualms about that. :P
And those of some other posts in here, actually.
Post by: Rowanas on July 28, 2009, 09:35:54 pm
Post by: smokingwreckage on July 28, 2009, 09:37:42 pm
So, min 50 barrels for booze, 4 barrels for syrup, 6 bags for quarry bush leaves. Maybe set maximums, too.
Also, I'd like the Farmer's Workshop and Quern to be able to automatically trigger to process nearby candidates, so I don't have to either buggerise about with Quarry Bushes or have a massive bag industry to ensure a mass of surplus bags at all times.
Post by: Areyar on July 29, 2009, 09:35:47 am
Post by: Khyron on July 29, 2009, 01:08:03 pm
1) Forts getting bogged down with little hauling tasks. Solution : Have a dwarf pick up several items (Based on weight) before storing them.
2) When I customize an immigrant to a different job because I didn't need a fifth Cheese Maker, it becomes a bit of a nightmare going through the unit list to find him. I've got brown-colored masons grouped in with my planters, I've got my Glassmakers listed right there with my Jewelers, it's a mess. Some sort of custom sorting on the unit list would be so nice.
3) Catsplosions. I love cats and I love forts full of cats but I really wish they'd eat some of the vermin they kill, and the pathing kills my work PC :(
4) Nobles. I like the idea, I hate the implementation. There should be SOME kind of benefit you get for having them around.
Things that WERE on the list but I removed because they're coming next version :
1) Wounded dwarves being useless and cannot be treated.
2) Sparring produced more casualties than raids
3) Burrows reduce a LOT of the annoyances I had.
There's more but those were the biggest things.
Post by: Slogo on July 29, 2009, 02:08:21 pm
I find it annoying to have to queue up Process Plant R, Process Plant (Bag) R, Process Plant (Barrel) R, Mill Plant R every harvest.
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on July 29, 2009, 02:49:20 pm
I went through the problems of Learning how to dig, discovering picks are nessary for digging and dwarves die with their equipment, learning that dwarves need water and food, and finally learning that farms cannot be built anywhere but the ground has to meet certain situations.
How I would fix my problems is a "Pre-Made Tutorial fortress"
Something a player can load up and run through help menus to understand how to make a fortress work. If a player had a step a-b-c thing to follow with an already established fortress, it would resolve some of the people who quit from difficulty. Graphics cannot be helped unless a graphics pack is included in the first game.
A save game with seven dwarves in a tiny dug-out fortress with a simple door, a bed for half of them, a ready farm plot that needs to be prepared to expand it, and most important, a step by step detailed instruction on how to deal with it.
That is how to get players past the initial barrier. MOST IMPORTANTLY-- It has to be independent of any searching, and all accessible and clear in the game.
Post by: Ghavrel on July 29, 2009, 06:12:13 pm
Doing this specifically as stated would be extraordinarily difficult unless you just brute-force the generation of worlds and search each one until it finds one with a site having the given parameters, which... is fine, but would take forever.
Only if you keep the world generation exactly as it is... which would be silly if you intended to change it. :P
I realize the world generation utilizes relatively complex geographic features, but perhaps it would be better to allow for some fudging in order to accommodate players? For instance, have worldgen as is, and then when a player specifies a combination which doesn't exist in the world, the option to create/modify an area to fit said specifications could pop up.
By way of example. Let's say I'm looking for a site with an aquifer, HFS, flux stone, and a magma pipe. I search for it, and the game gives me a partial match; it has everything but the magma pipe. A box could pop up asking if I want the game to modify the playing area to match my specifications. If I say no, nothing happens; if I say yes, it adds a magma pipe to the area.
Maybe it's impossible, programming-wise, but it makes more sense to me than brute forcing it. ;D
Post by: rarx on August 27, 2009, 06:53:59 am
TeamViewer is a free remote assistance program.
Post by: Neruz on August 27, 2009, 07:59:11 am
Doing this specifically as stated would be extraordinarily difficult unless you just brute-force the generation of worlds and search each one until it finds one with a site having the given parameters, which... is fine, but would take forever.
Only if you keep the world generation exactly as it is... which would be silly if you intended to change it. :P
I realize the world generation utilizes relatively complex geographic features, but perhaps it would be better to allow for some fudging in order to accommodate players? For instance, have worldgen as is, and then when a player specifies a combination which doesn't exist in the world, the option to create/modify an area to fit said specifications could pop up.
By way of example. Let's say I'm looking for a site with an aquifer, HFS, flux stone, and a magma pipe. I search for it, and the game gives me a partial match; it has everything but the magma pipe. A box could pop up asking if I want the game to modify the playing area to match my specifications. If I say no, nothing happens; if I say yes, it adds a magma pipe to the area.
Maybe it's impossible, programming-wise, but it makes more sense to me than brute forcing it. ;D
Just better documentation of the world painter would be nice; it's possible to get some incredibly fine detail with that thing, but it's impossible to work out how to use it.
The ability to 'place' features in specific locations would be verah nice though.
Post by: Anu Necunoscut on August 27, 2009, 10:06:01 am
Performance, accessibility and lack of a challenge curve seem to be the main points made here. Taking into account how people apply terms of praise or blame differently and do so in different tones, I think there is near universal agreement on those main points, and most of the bickering is simply over how people are expressing those points individually, whereas actual content remains nearly the same.
I'd like to address a different point entirely: the formula player.
All this remarkable randomized simulation needs a gameplay purpose, eventual or otherwise. The major gameplay purpose for robust simulation, as I see it, is to preclude the triumph of the formula player.
The formula player is the guy who sits his ass down and fiddles with enough shit in enough ways for enough time that he uncovers some rote sequence of actions that always beats the game's challenges dead, barring only the most peripheral elements of variance.
Once the formula is learned, the mystery and danger of the gameworld is utterly gone. It becomes like solving the same crossword puzzle over and over again. The player will lose the feeling of exploration and awe, and take meager refuge in the following:
-any randomized peripheral challenges that cannot be utterly planned for (such as combat)
-attempts to produce new challenges by self-crippling (which always feels somehow empty)
-focus on creative aspects of the game over the main challenge (often to excess!)
-mods, which are usually slapdash, quirky, and unbalanced (often in tedious ways)
None of these are -bad- things in their way, but when they're all that's left, the game will only be fired up when the player is in a certain "mood," which can occur as seldom as once a year, and then only for a few days' time. Frequent replayability in a general sense is dead. For a game dependent on donations, that's a problem.
Those who argue for hard-coded monster spawnings are missing the point--almost immediately the formula will be modified for these challenges, and the novelty will again be gone, requiring yet more antagonists that are disembodied from the proper game, without ever solving the complaint. Most of the ballyhooed challenges of 2D were only challenges due to errors in the interface or in dwarf AI. The elephants of Boatmurdered would have been a non-issue if forbid-on-death or stay-indoors were working properly.
DF's random simulation elements are a perfect means to upset and topple the formula player's supremacy. The key lies in their usage. Simulation elements can be employed to require situational, fresh thinking from the player; yet it can also lead to a mechanical and joyless world that is essentially a long uneventful drizzle dotted by moments of extreme frustration and damnable tedium.
Two representative examples (from the same company!) might help:
Master of Orion--
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Master of Magic--
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
DF needs more of the good kind of simulation and randomness. The kind that allows for a meaningfully different experience on each playthrough, requires situational thinking, and above all punishes those smug and complacent formula players!
I don't -want- to be able to simply plop down the same building plan, train the same military, plan the same food/workshop system, and make the same preparations for the same challenges. It's too much like solving the same crossword puzzle again and again. Achieving supremacy in DF should require a meaningfully different path on every playthrough, grounded by the world's unique and volatile elements.
After a marksdwarf massacre of gobbos, I want to see them packing big and effective shields. After a failed siege due to a moat and walled-in entrance, I want to see a shovel brigade and mines, or evil pet critters that can burrow through walls. I want factions/religions and personalities to cause meaningful disturbances within the fort and between races, subject to limited (and situational) player response. I want the specific type of site/goods of a fort to attract specific critters (sentient and otherwise) from -outside- the 6x6 area. I want ambushers to suborn another civ's caravan, hide themselves within the wagons, and then be revealed well inside my triple redundant OCD fortifications.
These are all random musings, but the reason we bang on about this and can get testy is because we care about the game quite a lot. To me the main gameplay element missing (aside from the above technical concerns) is the ease the formula player has of dominating any map. Challenges to this rote gameplay should be logical and robust as opposed to arbitrary and disconnected (read: hardcoded random spawnings, arbitrary cripplings), but they should exist!
Post by: sweitx on August 27, 2009, 10:51:42 am
...lack of a challenge curve...Just to be picky, Dwarf Fortress does have a challenge curve. It's a step function smoothed with a low variance gaussian. The difficulty went from easy ("Oh look, my little dwarfs are walking around") to holy crap hard ("OMG! Why are those little blue c turning my dwarfs red?") in the matter of three minutes.
Post by: Rowanas on August 27, 2009, 10:58:12 am
Post by: Magua on August 27, 2009, 11:11:53 am
#2: To answer the original question, my original problems with DF before learning all the ropes was the complexity. It went something like this:
1. Generate a world. Well, ok, that was easy. The default world generation actually worked quite well.
2. Locate an embarkation spot. Problem. What do all these symbols mean? Where's a good spot? What's all this information on the right? What *should* I be looking for?
3. Preparing the group. My, that's a lot of skills. What *should* I buy? I mean, ok, mining and masonry seem like they would be useful and dwarfy...but woodcutting? Carpentry? And let's not forget that some other important ones (Brewing, anyone?) are waaaaaay down the list. This doesn't even get into the buying of items. Obviously I need food, but how much? Why can't I afford to buy an axe for every one of my dwarves? Etc.
(Of course, Play Now! bypasses this screen, but unlike the default world generation, it doesn't fix the problem that the new player doesn't *know* what's important, and it can leave them high and dry if it doesn't give them some important thing.)
4. Starting out, some tasks are pretty easy -- digging was easy and intuitive. But others were much harder; I got lucky and had soil to plant farms on, but I can't imagine the hardship that a new user would have trying to irrigate an area for farming. Setting up stockpiles was also difficult -- do I need one of each stockpile? How big do they need to be? With a bit of toying around, workshops were easy to figure out, but the sheer number of them again overwhelms -- *obviously* my dwarves have to have a kitchen, right?
5. Dwarven labor takes a lot of getting used to. You figure out you need wood for beds, fine, and you figure out how to designate trees to be cut down, but no one cuts and you don't know why. It can be awhile before you figure out it's because no one has the woodcutting labor enabled. It can be even *longer* to figure out if you don't have an axe.
What helped me through my first fortress was following the "Your First Fortress" guide on the wiki -- although now I see it's been heavily edited, the version I followed was essentially a "step by step" or a tutorial. What I would've loved is some sort of "more info" about any given item that would give the information that the wiki gives. Or, could even just link to the wiki, that'd be fine too. I want to know that soapmaking and alchemy are highly ignorable, but that brewing is not. I want to know that microcline is just a rock, but that hematite is used to make iron.
That is, as an experienced player, I enjoy the complexity and diversity, and look for ways to make the complexity more and more manageable (see Anu's post), but as a newbie, I found it overwhelming and confusing. That was my hangup.
Post by: Pie on August 27, 2009, 11:15:05 am
Post by: skipdog172 on August 27, 2009, 11:20:24 am
Post by: Footkerchief on August 27, 2009, 11:27:40 am
the solution is to use the wiki and read/watch a tutorial
I think he does know that. It's still a shortcoming of the game.
Also, Anu's analysis of turnoffs for experienced players is excellent.
Post by: skipdog172 on August 27, 2009, 11:41:28 am
the solution is to use the wiki and read/watch a tutorial
I think he does know that. It's still a shortcoming of the game.
Also, Anu's analysis of turnoffs for experienced players is excellent.
Yeah, I realize that. I'm just not sure how you can change this without dumbing down the game or creating a very elaborate in-game tutorial.
Anu makes very very good points. I completely agree.
Post by: Anu Necunoscut on August 27, 2009, 11:52:42 am
While much of what you say is true, I argue with your point on MOO. I play MOO2, and there are formulas for it. It doesn't matter who you play against, a telepathic race whose ships are outfitted with as many assault pods as possible will always win. It's because unless you lag behind severely in technological progress, you can always fit more assault pods than your foes can fit PD weapons, and you need never bother with a rounded military, because the conquered ships of your foes will provide all the muscle that you don't. Fucking amazing game though.
I was talking about MOO1, which is quite different in my view:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
When there is an optimal path that needs little to no changes no matter the situation, the player never feels like he is required to make the utmost use of his abilities and the game mechanics to meet varied, unique challenges except for the first process of uncovering that path. Often he will instead intentionally handicap himself in an attempt to generate fresh challenges from the game, or create self-imposed tasks. Both usually are fairly empty-feeling, although the latter is pretty expansive given how creative DF allows you can be.
I agree with you (Anu), good sir! However, I am unsure as to how you could make the initial set up different each time (or at least requiring some sort of decision to be made). Perhaps seeds could only be planted in certain types of soil, meaning that the location of you farm plots (and so your fortress) has to be carefully dictated. And then perhaps certain types of soil is extremely dangerous to dig through (due to collapses) and thus must be navigated carefully.
The key is to avoid making the situational challenges tedious, arbitrary or crippling. That way meeting the challenge isn't a frustrating annoyance, but an enjoyable experience.
I think one important thing to remember is that piling on challenges that aren't fun to meet (or are always solved in the same way) is not desirable. Plus, we don't want to limit player creativity in any artificial way, or remove any depth from the game that can any way provide for those fun emergent challenges. What do I mean by tedious, arbitrary and crippling challenges? Some examples in recent DF:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I think your farming example might not be too bad--the problem is that it generates variety by removing abilities. I would rather retain all the features, and instead see varied challenges arise from the player's use of those features, modified by specific fortress environment and civ relations.
Different fortresses compositions (in terms of site, style, dwarves, leaders/nobles, neighbors, relations, and production) should lead to different challenges, antagonists and antagonist behavior. If they don't, then DF's robust mechanics (as with MOM's magic system) simply allow the player to figure out an ultimate strategy, that will meet all threats almost without regard to where, when or how it is employed. This kills the game.
Post by: Magua on August 27, 2009, 11:59:22 am
If a tutorial is required for understanding how to play the game, it should be available within the game.
A lot of the "What does foo do?" could be mitigated by either having in game links to the wiki, or perhaps including a snapshot of the wiki with the game.
I mean, I'm a fairly good player at this game, and just yesterday I had to consult the wiki to see how the cloth industry worked (what buildings took what inputs and gave what outputs). I pretty much find >
A tutorial could be done just by presenting prompts at certain early points in the fortress. "You've arrived! Now you should do X, Y, and Z." Link to the wiki / wiki snapshot for more information.
Post by: Anu Necunoscut on August 27, 2009, 12:45:52 pm
Learning -how- to mine or develop an industry would ideally take place via an in-game, optional tutorial. Learning what -objects- are modified or required by actions like mining or woodcutting (or what a creature is, does and can be used for) would ideally be shown on an (i)nformation page, always accessible from the menus in-game.
Like Magua, I've often had to comb the wiki for a specific tidbit of information (such as what plants and such immediately edible/cookable, or where and in what receptacle they are processed). Also, if I see a creature I've never encountered, I'd like to be able to hit "i" from the "v" menu and get a generalized description of what kind of creature it is and what it does. Same goes for stone, tools, etc. For example the information screen for workshops would show requirements, inputs and outputs--with the ability to access the information screen of any of the related items.
If we are to have randomized creatures to some extent here (which would be great!), we'll need an information screen of some sort to let us know how big it is, what it seems capable of, and what dwarfish uses it might have, if any.
Post by: Lehawk on August 27, 2009, 12:50:41 pm
* Make it easier to select an individual dwarf when several animals/dwarves are in the same spot.
* Need a way to deal with animals early on without needing rope/cage, instead of them hanging out at the meeting areas. Stop trainers from getting a hoard of war dogs following them. Dog should be faster and able to keep up with legendary masters.
* Make it easier to go back to the location picker and a way to pull up the location picker after embarking to see the geology/elevation/etc of your spot.
* Choose where to spawn wagon instead of random, or movable wagons and spawn at a border.
* Site finder next-prev keys or stop searching after first find.
* Ship with decent starter map, small and large pls, and a very fast quick start.
* No up/down stair and make digging down/up automatically create the other stair. Building up stair would require the 2 material and auto build the stairs down (then you don't need the build down stair option).
* Notify/pause when dwarves are first attacked or stuck.
* Crazy mandates that can't possibly be fulfilled.
* Stop sudden population explosion in winter of first year. Should get 2-4 each for summer/fall/winter of first year to help prepare.
* I'd like to be able to read the names of items. Giant Spider Clo... over and over in a dwarf's inventory doesn't help much. (maybe they should start poorer)
* Stop the dwarves from starting a job, walking to the job and then after they start working they stop to go back and drink/eat/break/sleep/party. This has happened 3 times in a row on a quick job.
* Stop the dwarves from going outside to drink from a river when I have plenty of booze. This happens when a large amount of dwarves are drinking at the same time (they ignore drinking zones sometimes too). In fact, why can't they get get a mug/goblet some food and then eat/drink in the dining room.
* Stop the constant parties.
* Make it easier to select areas for designation. Mouse used in all places not just in the one place.
* Stop the dwarfs from mining out 98% and then starting on a new area.
* Automatic cleaning of stockpiles of stone.
* When dwarfs drink/eat/sleep keep their job active so you can see that they are actually doing it and not going to start something different.
* Seed collection with bags please and not dozens of jobs when people eat or brew plants. In fact, there should be a policy option to stop dwarves from eating raw food.
* Make more things automated without harassing players. Like the cook should be able to be set to cook a lavish meal when possible and not alert the player when he runs out and not require the player to add another cook lavish meal order. Also the brewer, smelter, farmer workshop etc.
* A display how much total alcohol and food on the side of the screen, with a warning that it's dropping so fast that in 3 months you'll run out.
* Irrigation with a bucket pls. Better pond filling AI would be nice.
* More mouse support (did you hear me first time haha). Click on a stairs/ramp to change z. Hold right click to view (like 'k') left click to select.
* Harvest job activate/deactivate, along with pond filling and any other jobs that can't be turned off. Ability to set Trade at Depot and Meeting to a higher priority.
* Eat, Drink and On Break together! Grab some food, a goblet, fill it and then go to the dining room to take a break and eat/drink on break. Also let them socialize at the same time. Ability to grant vacation time to help morale.
* A good thought for arriving at the fortress.
* Matching pair of wagon pullers, though same gender to be more realistic. Ability to choose type at embark.
* Less panicky mothers. Or at least kill the notification for it.
* Be able to hire mercenaries or pay for immigrant of chosen type, but at a high price.
* Bookkeeper can issue special jobs for cleaning/sorting stockpiles (bins, barrels, bags). This would be the price of more precision instead of just more time spent updating. This would also be good for combining the same type items into better stacks.
* In general, portable containers should be used to gather multiple objects of the same type before delivering them to the final destination.
* Less dancing around while digging. Designate channel one horizontal line and see then another 50 tiles away and watch the stupidity. Better yet, try to channel a 3 wide horizontal line, starting at the center line then both top and bottom lines at the same time.
* An in-depth guide in world builder parameters and the ability to see every reason a for failure so I could choose to forgo on certain items. A sound should be played once a minute after it finishes.
* In-game options that contain as many options in the init file as possible.
* Merge 'q' and 't' functionality. It would be nice to see why [CLR] is on the 'q' view and not have to reselect the workshop with 't'.
* Artifact stockpile.
* Stockpile's "take from a pile" persists until cancelled. Should also handle swapping barrels in the case of a 1x1 drink only stockpile.
* Setting priorities on jobs! A miner who needs to get a place started always seems to want to move items. So then I turn off the moving jobs. Then later when he runs out of things to do, he is useless until I remember to re-enable moving stuff or give him more to mine. It's the same with pretty much everything else. My woodcutting/carpenter mayor never wants to meet or trade until turn off those jobs or they run out for example.
* Small patch of sand on every map so you can make some glass, even if the only patch is on the other side of the map.
* Persistent drought conditions on most maps I've played. Why would lakes dry up only after arriving?
* Protect from getting ambushed by archers in the first year and having them invade your fortress killing everyone in the first winter.
Some of these turned into just feature requests, but most of them are reasons why I get tired of playing a single map for over 2 game years. Why I keep restarting and ultimately just stop playing altogether. Occasionally I pop back in hoping for change, but these reasons pop back up again. I really like the game concept alot though.
Post by: Timst on August 27, 2009, 02:27:52 pm
But yeah, the redundancy of up down left right / * + - umkhUMKH pgup pgdown is awful. The num keypad can help a bit (in adventurer mode for instance), but that doesn't cut it.
I, like everyone, had a hard time to figure how to get started. But I must be one of the rare dudes who actually managed to get started with the online manual, so it's not totally useless. Of course, for advanced features, the wiki was really helpful.
A few random things now :
- Someone on the forums said something that I liked a lot : "Make surviving the winter an accomplishment again". That's SO true. The only fort I had a problem with was my first one... I didn't managed well my resources and effectively got a food shortage during winter, with dwarves hunting vermin and all. It was FUN. Now the main threats to my forts are the goblin ambushes, who manage to kill a hauler or a woodcutter from time to time.
Food is overabundant,
Weather or temperature has no effect whatsoever on the dwarves,
Stuffing 2 or 3 golden statues in a dining room is enough to keep the whole fort happy,
Goblins sieges are a joke,
Traps are overpowered,
A simple moat can drive anything off, from a goblin army to a dragon,
There is perpetual motion wheels and magma proof wooden walls,
Marksdwarves act like they're wielding a machine gun, etc.
Surviving the first winter isn't any harder than surviving the 15th summer actually.
* Also, the AI. It's pretty good right now, but the pathfinding drain computer resources like there's no tomorrow, the dwarves have arbitrary ideas about which side of a wall they should be in front of when it come to mining / engraving / building / etc., they also have this strange North-West priority (IIRC, but it may be SW or something else), meaning than anything in the NW of the map will be prioritized, even if there's work in the south of the fort and the NW job is at the other end of the map.
* Dwarves have also the lower sense of duty and accomplishment I ever saw. Even dwarves that have the related personality traits will drop work as soon as they feel a bit hungry / thirsty / drowsy. It's especially annoying if you consider that :
- They will do that for every task, regardless of the importance. IIRC, dwarves endeavor a bit more at rescuing people or following military orders, but that's won't stop them to stop working at the worst time possible.
- Even if they had to travel across the whole map to fulfill the job, they will happily return to the fortress every time they feel some need, including when they didn't actually began the task and were just approaching. It's like you're travelling by car to a city 200 km away, and at 15 km of it you would say "hm, I'm a bit hungry. Let's return home".
- Of course, after eating / drinking / sleeping, they will never take the task again (excepted if they have nothing else to do of course). But even if they did, the task would have been reinitialized to zero (apart from jobs like building), so yeah...
* Livestock. They're killing framerate, and the techniques used to effectively raise and breed them without destroying your FPS are pretty counterintuitive. The whole "impregnated by spore" thing is silly, they should at the very least need a contact even for 1 frame. Even with the "animal" screen, it's hard to keep record of the animals, especially when there's a lot of them, and the whole ownership think don't help either. Maybe a sum-up screen with the different species present in the fortress, number of animals of each kind, male/female ratio, number of stray animals, etc., could be useful ? Also, they seem to eat pebbles and drink air.
There's also other things, but that the biggest points I can see right now. Oh, and it'll be nice to fix some of them (at least the easier one to fix) before adding new feature, but that's just my advice.
Post by: lastofthelight on August 27, 2009, 08:39:34 pm
Post by: Timst on August 28, 2009, 12:07:33 am
Post by: Kavalion on August 28, 2009, 06:54:06 am
More specifically, what problems did you have before learning the ropes of the game?
What problems didn't I have? :) It would just always be difficult to accomplish what I thought was a modest starter project for my fortress. I needed to read up on how to do everything and often I still couldn't get it to work the way I wanted it to. Sometimes it just couldn't work the way I wanted it to, like getting a competent military. Legendary or killed-in-training-accident seem to be the only two options.
I think that a major, major benefit to the game, especially in the eyes of a newcomer, would be eliminating a lot of the tedious parts. I think a lot of that is planned already, though. Stuff like making it take less time to set labor options, having an intuitive interface that's easy to navigate, making dwarves do stuff more sensibly like clean raw fish before catching more fish.
And also just make newbie goals easier. Let's say I'm a newbie and I'm thinking of what to do next after setting up bedrooms, a dining room, and a storage room full of food and booze. So, I decide to make a lookout tower above ground for defense, so an invading force would have to enter the tower before getting into my fortress.
I decide to build the tower walls out of gabbro rock blocks, the tower floors and roof out of pine wood blocks, and make it large enough to have a barracks and armory for ten marksdwarves. The roof will be lined with gabbro fortifications and statues that I pretend are fearsome stone gargoyles, which will be decorated with whatever gems I happened to find in my mining.
I'll have all kinds of problems making this tower as a newbie. I'll probably end up encrusting the beds instead of the statues with gems because of how the decorate item tasks work (very annoying, have to do a lot of work setting up stockpiles properly). Using only pine wood is very impractical and difficult to set up. Just building all the blocks and laying them down will take huge manpower and a lot of time. My dwarves will probably get stuck or I'll fall victim to the corner constructions becoming inaccessible a few times.
So, yeah, very hard to make anything nice in Dwarf Fortress, and making nice things is what it's all about, so it can turn off new players. :)
P.S. I also wanted the tower to be circular!
Post by: Granite26 on August 28, 2009, 11:04:24 am
Well, the topic's title is "What turns you off about DF ?".
Yes, but if you read the actual post underneath it, it's targeted at new players and retention problems
Post by: Timst on August 28, 2009, 11:13:48 am
Post by: Lehawk on August 28, 2009, 03:05:53 pm
Honestly I think most of these concerns are, while perhaps valid, missing the point. In order to have most of these concerns you need to be familiar with the game. I have friends who adore the story of Boarmurdered and are well acquainted with DF from listening to people talk about it, but whom will never, ever play it due to the absolute lack of an interface. I can get past that. And it says in the start of the thing that...they realize that. But I'd underline that and put some circles around it. I tried showing them screenshots of Mayday's graphics set, and even that didn't help.
There are lots of hair pulling ragequit situations though _only_ because of stupid game moments. In the beginning you only have 7 dwarves. It's hard not to watch them work and do a little micro management. But when that game actually seems to work against you and take 3-5x longer for any task to be completed sometimes you can't help but feel that this game still needs lots of work. At that point, why waste time playing and waiting?
Hauling one seed at a time? Ahhh. Haul 3 seeds individually when a plant is ate or brewed? Ahhhhhhhh.
I'm sure later when you have a dozen dwarves dedicated to hauling, this problem doesn't frustrate as much. But the 1st-2nd year people that give up (like me) have to deal with this everytime they try to play again.
That's the biggest point. The game is too frustrating in the beginning of each fortress when you can watch individual dwarves do their stupid crap over and over again.
New random idea! A notepad-like log so if I save I can remember what I was doing on that save since I may stop playing for a few weeks before returning.
Post by: Zruku on August 29, 2009, 12:50:54 am
Post by: Johnny Chthonic on August 29, 2009, 03:58:45 am
I think this game's primary downfall, and one of the reasons it drives many potential players away, is that it is not enough like other games. This is, however, the thing that many players (myself included) like most about it. It takes some getting used to, but the ways in which Toady has deviated from classical video games are what make DF great.
Can you imagine what DF would be like with HP? :<
Post by: Timst on August 29, 2009, 05:09:49 am
+turtle bone bolts [5]+
This is a stack of finely-crafted turtle bone bolts.
Usage :
A bolt is the ammunition of a crossbow.
Maybe with a link to the "crossbow" description, à la wiki.
Post by: jamoecw on August 29, 2009, 05:15:19 am
Post by: KaziArmada on August 29, 2009, 04:07:02 pm
Know what finally got me into this?
Thank Boatmurdered..after reading that I had no choice but to play...And Im glad I did..
Post by: orbcontrolled on August 30, 2009, 07:36:50 am
I started with the mayday package downloaded from the Complete and Utter Newbie tutorial so I had absolutely no problem with ASCII or learning curve, what I did have though was a 1920x1200 screen that makes the game appear tiny, and the information in the wiki informed me that I had to solve complex math equations and alter sections of the init files in order to change the size of the game screen.
Now that I know what everything is, I can play it at it's default size, but for a while the only solution I could come up with was using ResToy to change my screen resolution while I was playing.
I didn't even want fancy vector graphics or anything, I would have been perfectly happy with the bitmaps being stretched, even MSpaint can do that.
=======
Also on a similar note: I tried out the vanilla non-mayday version of the game recently, and the first thing to turn me off about that was the fact that the 80:25 grid is far too small to see what is going on. And of course if I want to change it, I need to do a bunch of math to find out exactly how wide the window should be, and then change a dozen or so setting in the init to make it all consistent... Why can't the game just take arguments for Font, Grid Size, and Default Window Size, and then just stretch things as necessary to fit the window?
Post by: Timst on August 30, 2009, 08:05:47 am
Then if you want to enlarge the grid, you don't have to solve complex equations or change a dozen options, just put your screen size in the "WindowedX / WindowedY" (or fullscreenX / FullscreenY) of your init file, then divide your screen abscissa (X) by 8 and your ordinate (Y) by 12, and put that info in the "grid" or "full grid" settings.
That's 3 options to change and a basic division to accomplish. But maybe I didn't understood something, in which case I'd like to see a screenshot to make it clearer.
Post by: corvvs on August 30, 2009, 08:24:27 am
What very nearly drove me away was the grayed-out "maximize" button in the top-right.
I started with the mayday package downloaded from the Complete and Utter Newbie tutorial so I had absolutely no problem with ASCII or learning curve, what I did have though was a 1920x1200 screen that makes the game appear tiny, and the information in the wiki informed me that I had to solve complex math equations and alter sections of the init files in order to change the size of the game screen.
Now that I know what everything is, I can play it at it's default size, but for a while the only solution I could come up with was using ResToy to change my screen resolution while I was playing.
I didn't even want fancy vector graphics or anything, I would have been perfectly happy with the bitmaps being stretched, even MSpaint can do that.
=======
Also on a similar note: I tried out the vanilla non-mayday version of the game recently, and the first thing to turn me off about that was the fact that the 80:25 grid is far too small to see what is going on. And of course if I want to change it, I need to do a bunch of math to find out exactly how wide the window should be, and then change a dozen or so setting in the init to make it all consistent... Why can't the game just take arguments for Font, Grid Size, and Default Window Size, and then just stretch things as necessary to fit the window?
Use the new SDL versions - they zoom in and out with the mouse wheel. (link at top of page under "News")
Post by: jamoecw on August 30, 2009, 01:21:55 pm
Huh, first, I don't understand why didn't you tried, I don't know, to answer "yes" when the game prompt you to choose between fullscreen and windowed ?
Then if you want to enlarge the grid, you don't have to solve complex equations or change a dozen options, just put your screen size in the "WindowedX / WindowedY" (or fullscreenX / FullscreenY) of your init file, then divide your screen abscissa (X) by 8 and your ordinate (Y) by 12, and put that info in the "grid" or "full grid" settings.
That's 3 options to change and a basic division to accomplish. But maybe I didn't understood something, in which case I'd like to see a screenshot to make it clearer.
i believe he wanted to consult the wiki easily, without using alt-tab, so full screen is out. i have found that simply doing a mathematical function with more than one number that is over a hundred scares people. then there is the whole editing a file with code or even suedo code that makes some people nervous. all in all i do find it silly, but entirely understandable, i highly doubt he is the only one like that.
Post by: Jack A T on August 30, 2009, 01:28:51 pm
Post by: Timst on August 30, 2009, 02:44:29 pm
Post by: Deandet on August 30, 2009, 03:01:25 pm
Post by: Pato2747 on August 30, 2009, 03:50:44 pm
Post by: TheDJ17 on August 30, 2009, 07:05:13 pm
Full is just plain broke.
Post by: jamoecw on September 01, 2009, 12:56:34 am
Hm, if he hadn't any help it will be alright, but there is an entire wiki page about that, with step-by-step instructions and even some examples with the most common resolutions (but I didn't checked if his resolution is in the samples).
do you change the oil on your car? do you know people that pay others to change their oil, and can't fathom why the would? if you didn't answer yes to both of these then maybe you should realize that maybe everyone doesn't have your mind and upbringing, and that maybe it is like changing oil on a car. if you did answer yes to both of these then i am surprised that you have internet access.
Post by: Guilliman on September 01, 2009, 02:24:30 am
I also don't like the way food works. Farming is somewhat broken imo, even with changing the growth durations to several seasons.
Post by: Timst on September 01, 2009, 04:13:51 am
Hm, if he hadn't any help it will be alright, but there is an entire wiki page about that, with step-by-step instructions and even some examples with the most common resolutions (but I didn't checked if his resolution is in the samples).
do you change the oil on your car? do you know people that pay others to change their oil, and can't fathom why the would? if you didn't answer yes to both of these then maybe you should realize that maybe everyone doesn't have your mind and upbringing, and that maybe it is like changing oil on a car. if you did answer yes to both of these then i am surprised that you have internet access.
Huh... I don't get it. You're implying that changing these options in the raw is too complicated / tiresome for the non-initiated ?
Also, the example is somewhat broken... first of all, like I said, there's a whole page dedicated to help people with these options. There's no way you could do a mistake if you follow the steps, even if you don't know anything at that kind of "code". And I think that most people don't change their oil themselves because they don't want to put their hand in the dirt, not because they really don't know how to do it (especially with a step-by-step guide provided).
But maybe you implied that he won't change it because it's not his work and it should work normally on the first place... well, remember that DF is an alpha, and the Dxx stuff are mostly an experimentation about OpenGl. People should be ready to work a bit to make the game work, especially when their's guides and FAQs available.
Post by: ventuz on September 01, 2009, 05:44:50 am
When I got hang of controls on interface but I got confused why there was "downward staircase" and "upward staircase" on designation screen. I got stuck at that point, gave up... then some time later, wanted to try again because game seem so big (and it is) compare to all other roguelike. I found out < and > by accident, then I were able to keep rolling, learning more of this game. Last thing I got around learning was windmill and pump.
Post by: jamoecw on September 01, 2009, 04:29:03 pm
Hm, if he hadn't any help it will be alright, but there is an entire wiki page about that, with step-by-step instructions and even some examples with the most common resolutions (but I didn't checked if his resolution is in the samples).
do you change the oil on your car? do you know people that pay others to change their oil, and can't fathom why the would? if you didn't answer yes to both of these then maybe you should realize that maybe everyone doesn't have your mind and upbringing, and that maybe it is like changing oil on a car. if you did answer yes to both of these then i am surprised that you have internet access.
Huh... I don't get it. You're implying that changing these options in the raw is too complicated / tiresome for the non-initiated ?
Also, the example is somewhat broken... first of all, like I said, there's a whole page dedicated to help people with these options. There's no way you could do a mistake if you follow the steps, even if you don't know anything at that kind of "code". And I think that most people don't change their oil themselves because they don't want to put their hand in the dirt, not because they really don't know how to do it (especially with a step-by-step guide provided).
But maybe you implied that he won't change it because it's not his work and it should work normally on the first place... well, remember that DF is an alpha, and the Dxx stuff are mostly an experimentation about OpenGl. People should be ready to work a bit to make the game work, especially when their's guides and FAQs available.
this is the last I am going to do in order to explain this to you.
there is a mental hurdle in one's mind for doing certain things. one for jumping off the back of a boat in the middle of the ocean, one for changing one's own automotive oil, one for writing anything in a suedo code file, and others.
one has to overcome this mental hurdle before they can perform these tasks, irregardless of difficulty or time involved.
the use of changing one's own oil is a fairly universal analogy to this issue, since there are many how to guides out there to help you do this. when one does change their own oil they probably won't get more dirty than taking out the trash, and it will take less time and money than taking your car out to someone to have it done, even if they do it while you wait. owning a car means that you should expect to take care of it, changing a tire when needed, pumping one's own gas if allowed (some states don't allow this), and changing one's own oil every so often.
the question that was posed was why not have the program adapt manually? which is fairly similar to asking if one can pay someone else to change their oil, or change their tire, or pump their gas.
i should have not put the last line 'if you did answer yes to both of these then i am surprised that you have internet access.' because i realized that kids would have internet access and very well could have answered no to both of those questions, which if you are then i am sorry for that last little bit, it sorta makes me sound sorta condescending.
Post by: Footkerchief on September 01, 2009, 04:42:09 pm
Post by: Karnewarrior on September 05, 2009, 10:27:06 am
YOU HAVE FOUND MICA!!!!!
Sometimes I get this imagined scene of a dwarf walking into a microcline room, with a microcline throne and a microcline floor, looking at the king who is sitting in front of a microcline statue, and shouting happily at the top of his lungs, "WE FOUND MICROCLINE!!!"
microcline makes me sad.
Post by: tefalo on September 05, 2009, 05:12:06 pm
Other than that... it's great to play with someone else at the start, preferably with someone who has played at least a bit before. Getting to know the basics like setting up zones, stockpiles and getting food makes the rest
Post by: Rowanas on September 05, 2009, 06:08:05 pm
I Always have problems with
YOU HAVE FOUND MICA!!!!!
Sometimes I get this imagined scene of a dwarf walking into a microcline room, with a microcline throne and a microcline floor, looking at the king who is sitting in front of a microcline statue, and shouting happily at the top of his lungs, "WE FOUND MICROCLINE!!!"
microcline makes me sad.
Thanks for the mental image. You've made my day, and given that it's 13 past 1 am over here, that'll be a pretty long time.
Post by: ToonyMan on September 05, 2009, 06:12:27 pm
I Always have problems with
YOU HAVE FOUND MICA!!!!!
Sometimes I get this imagined scene of a dwarf walking into a microcline room, with a microcline throne and a microcline floor, looking at the king who is sitting in front of a microcline statue, and shouting happily at the top of his lungs, "WE FOUND MICROCLINE!!!"
microcline makes me sad.
:-D
Post by: Karnewarrior on September 05, 2009, 07:07:32 pm
(I'm not jewish, so if I'm wrong or offensive in any way, Sorry.)
Post by: kilakan on September 05, 2009, 07:10:59 pm
Post by: GoldenH on September 07, 2009, 04:37:47 am
I definately prefered the 2d version, and kept playing it for a while.
Getting started in DF wasn't a problem for me, it was challenging to figure out how much food I needed to last the winter, and also it was difficult to know how to use space effectively. Building a early fort, for example, you want to build bedrooms for your dwarves but if you do that, you will have those holes forever. So you need to both thing practically (what rooms do i need) and long term (how do I plan to do this in the future?) which was exciting.
However, this problem could have been resolved completely with the ability to /fill in/ a tile. This has never appeared in DF, save by collapsing an area which doesn't really work. You can build walls in 3D version, but you can't smooth them and its difficult to fill in entire rooms so this is a feature that still doesn't exist.
Then there are strange moods. I love them, however it produces the very annoying behavior of having to keep 'one of everything'. And there's no really easy way to do it. For example, if you want to make bone crafts, you need to make a stockpile of one of every kind of bone, then you are screwed because you can't tell people not to take from the stockpile unless they have a fey mood. This is possible but it takes WAY too much micromanageing.
There ought to be a 'strange mood' warehouse where rare items can be kept. This isn't just practical, it's also nice for people who like to collect rare items. Think of it as a museum. Sure I can make my OWN museum, but it means being very careful to mine around rare items and to have huge stockpiles and not do certain things until i get to the point where i can have megaprojects, which isn't fun.
There also needs to be a dwarf prospector job which can reveal undug locations so you can plan your mining routes without needing to babysit. [[ Actually, a lot of Dwarf Fortress is babysitting. This isn't fun. I like micromanagement and macromanagement, but not babysitting. ]]
Surprisingly, enemies in DF still don't know to dig into your fortress, which is dissapointing, i was hoping for it for the 2D fortress but its still not there :(
3D fortress takes away a lot of the fun of 2D fortress while introducing a buttload of problems.
- no longer do you have to overcome the challenges of the river, chasm, magma, and demon pits. I understand that it doesn't really work in 3D since you could in theory just dig straight down to the bottom layer, but there could be a 2.5D mode where you have say, 3-5 levels but with different challenges on each level.
- Most maps in 3D mode don't allow you to do every industry. Which is fine since maybe i want to 'challenge' myself, but the site finder doesn't help since most worlds don't have even a single site with every feature on it. It should be easy to play on a site with whatever features you want.
- Terrible 3D pathing. I'm sure we've all seen this: for some reason dwarf always has to go find the piece of stone a million miles away just because it is 'closest' in a straight line... on different z levels. UGH. Please put in an option to 'prefer' items on your own Z level (or even just adjacent Z levels) if you don't want to actually tell the dwarf which is the closest with a pathfinding app. Same thing happens with stockpiles too. This might be acceptable if we had decent framerates, but poor framerates AND terrible pathfinding together makes it insane.
- Dwarfs don't sleep enough. I really liked it in the 2D version how often the dwarfs slept. They probably don't sleep as much because if they did, they wouldn't get anything done with their terrible AI, but that doesn't make me feel any better.
- Dwarven Farming. I also prefered farming in the 2D version. In the 3D version it just isn't interesting at all. The addition of outdoor farming is neat but it doesn't add anything to the game IMO.
- Too many kinds of things! 2D had 'dark stone' and 'light stone', 3D has a million kinds of things, and it's not possible to distinguish by color or value. Made worse by dwarf's tendancy to want one certain kind of stone when they get strange moods, UGH. Each object should belong to a category, and you should be able to order constructions based on the category or individual type of material. The economic menu, and the ability to create jobs of different metal types needs to be universal for everything in the game and available also at the worshops.
- Lack of collapsing rooms, flooding, earthquakes, etc that all made DF 2D exciting.
- Industries that are too complicated. Now I can understand metalworking being complicated, but it should be the only complicated industry. Like how with farming there a optional improvements (like fertilizer, cooking, breweries). On the other hand, there is pretty much no reason to use quarry bushes, for example. Yet it is still impossible to milk a cow?
- It is impossible to order my guys around. I use Dwarf Foreman to make my life much easier, but there are still too many jobs and it's impossible to know what job is for what task without looking it up. Plus there is no way to give the dwarfs a sense of urgency, they are equally interested in organizing my craftsdwarf's workshop and getting my goods off of the trade depot before the racoons steal everything.
Basically I am happy with the dwarf fortress 'bloat' but think it needs to take a back seat to things like z-level pathing, prospectors, prioritizing jobs and organizing materials.
I lke how my dwarfs occasionally do stupid things (like get caught on fire or fall into wells) but I don't like babysitting. I like how dwarfs have so many personality traits but i don't think that actually makes the game any more fun. I think that things like religion should determine what kind of army attacks you, but the fact that you get attacks and have animals roaming your lands should make the game fun even if it makes no sense (eg you've killed everyone in the world). It is hard to read engravings, but it mostly is cool when it comes to the artifact descriptions. But then i've just had 4 artifacts made where the only thing on the artifact is 'dwarfs are labouring' which is boring :(
As far as it being an alpha, i have played many games in alpha, and also coded my own. Playability of 'the game' always comes first over shiney features. I think most of 3D mode is only fun for dwarf adventure and i don't care about adventure mode really.
Post by: asper on September 07, 2009, 05:29:49 am
I know a lot of the 2d features will be coming back, and challenging gameplay is in the works. I'm waiting anxiously for that.
Other than that, nothing has turned me off about DF. As a roguelike player, I enjoy the graphics, and the awkward interface has its own charm :)
Post by: Andir on September 07, 2009, 06:01:56 am
Surprisingly, enemies in DF still don't know to dig into your fortress, which is dissapointing, i was hoping for it for the 2D fortress but its still not there :(I play it for the "coolness" factor. I enjoy that creatures can't dig into my fort and screw it all up. If tunneling was an option, and only if, I would say go for it. The more options, the better.
Post by: GoldenH on September 07, 2009, 07:02:26 am
As is , they don't even try to knock on your door :(
Post by: Neruz on September 07, 2009, 07:13:54 am
As is , they don't even try to knock on your door :(
Unless they can knock it down, in which case they just walk right through it like it's made of paper.
Post by: GoldenH on September 07, 2009, 08:15:52 am
- dwarfs told to 'stay inside' will run around all over a hollowed out cliff face and can't figure out how to actually get inside, even if you demolish the ceiling.
- dwarfs won't empty out random bins if the stuff inside them belongs in a different stockpile.
Post by: Andir on September 07, 2009, 03:26:40 pm
I can think of a dozen nasty traps to pull on tunneling invaders. It'd even give you a reason to dig beneath an aquafier... but wouldn't it be awesome if a army sealed you inside your subterranean dwarven lair and then set up some pumps so tehy could follow you down???How will you know which way they are coming? You'd have to encase your entire fort in layers of magma and water to truly protect it. You'd spend more time doing that than actually building a prosperous city.
As is , they don't even try to knock on your door :(
Post by: eighty-one on September 07, 2009, 06:05:29 pm
When I was first learning, the UI was a major turnoff. I almost gave up but so many people loved the game so much, I decided to sit through a few hours, and it grew on me. Once I got the basics down, however, immigration really screwed me, and still does.
Immigration seems to happen at a pace that's far too rapid for my tastes. I've begun editing the pop cap, starting at 30, and moving up as I feel more comfortable, to slow the game down a bit.
I finally have a nice fortress, 40 years old, that I built by slowly upping the pop cap from 30 to 60 to 80, and then turning it off. The pace, while maybe a bit slow, was much more comfortable for me doing that.
Post by: GoldenH on September 07, 2009, 06:28:53 pm
I can think of a dozen nasty traps to pull on tunneling invaders. It'd even give you a reason to dig beneath an aquafier... but wouldn't it be awesome if a army sealed you inside your subterranean dwarven lair and then set up some pumps so tehy could follow you down???How will you know which way they are coming? You'd have to encase your entire fort in layers of magma and water to truly protect it. You'd spend more time doing that than actually building a prosperous city.
As is , they don't even try to knock on your door :(
Hardly, it'd add about a day of digging to do that. Plus you might choose to start on an aquaduct to make things easier. I'd spend more time with stone stockpiles. If that's too much for you, there are dozens of options. For instance you might actually decide to take the offense.
Post by: Andir on September 07, 2009, 08:57:12 pm
Digging out an area totally surrounding your fort is not a "one day" task. We are in 3D here. You have to dig down, under, above, and on each side of your planned fort... and remember to keep at least one spot as a support structure and hope to hell that invaders don't destroy that as well.I can think of a dozen nasty traps to pull on tunneling invaders. It'd even give you a reason to dig beneath an aquafier... but wouldn't it be awesome if a army sealed you inside your subterranean dwarven lair and then set up some pumps so tehy could follow you down???How will you know which way they are coming? You'd have to encase your entire fort in layers of magma and water to truly protect it. You'd spend more time doing that than actually building a prosperous city.
As is , they don't even try to knock on your door :(
Hardly, it'd add about a day of digging to do that. Plus you might choose to start on an aquaduct to make things easier. I'd spend more time with stone stockpiles. If that's too much for you, there are dozens of options. For instance you might actually decide to take the offense.
Post by: jamoecw on September 07, 2009, 10:48:40 pm
Post by: GoldenH on September 08, 2009, 05:26:45 am
The space you have to work with is obscenely huge in 3D DF.
Post by: Granite26 on September 08, 2009, 09:22:38 am
Post by: GoldenH on September 08, 2009, 02:16:23 pm
Post by: Granite26 on September 08, 2009, 03:15:08 pm
If this thread is going to be continued, should we enshrine the 'if you've got a reply to the OP, make it lime green, if you're just discussing stuff, leave it white' rule in the OP?
Should 'we' (Threetoe) change the OP to say 'please put initial responses in lime green'.
Post by: jamoecw on September 08, 2009, 05:39:29 pm
try 4 fortresses each one for each season, with a water clock that control flood gates to allow passage a the correct time of year, and a system that forces the dwarves to migrate to the appropriate fortress at the proper time, with each fortress protected by surrounding it by magma with only a single water 'pipe' getting into the fortress. it can be done by lowering floodgates and flooding each just enough to get the dwarves to run to where you want them to got to, a single chamber. that chamber when ready will seal off and use water to wash the dwarves into a a series of water pipes which will rapidly bring them to their new fortress, caught by a grate as the water falls through it from a short water fall.
see what i mean by 2D payer and 3D? it doesn't mean you aren't any good, just that a 3D player uses that space for needless and highly convoluted systems that are a bit delicate. being able to drop a flood gate in place would help with repair work quite a bit when you need to close up a hole in a magma pipe, and can't afford any slop space when the job is done (not to mention needing to precisely refill the container as well).
Post by: Andir on September 08, 2009, 06:37:23 pm
Post by: GoldenH on September 09, 2009, 10:23:00 am
see what i mean by 2D payer and 3D? it doesn't mean you aren't any good, just that a 3D player uses that space for needless and highly convoluted systems that are a bit delicate. being able to drop a flood gate in place would help with repair work quite a bit when you need to close up a hole in a magma pipe, and can't afford any slop space when the job is done (not to mention needing to precisely refill the container as well).
I certainly appreciate the sandbox potential, but from my perspective even a simple 1x1 area has more building space than the 2D version. You had, what... 1.5 screens of outside, 1 screen before the river, 2 screens between river and chasm, 1.5 screens between chasm and river and the final nigh-unavoidable stretch to the adamantine... that's like 6 1x1 z-layers and you can easily have 30-40 z-layers. So with a minimum 2x2 fortress you already have 4 times as much space to build as you did in 2D, 36x more with a 6x6 fortress (at which I can still empty out an entire Z layer in a day) and 256 times as much with a 16x16 ... this is really obscene huge to me :P
From a game aspect (not a sandbox POV) I think burrowing would be a nice bonus to those players who like the challenge of using space efficently.
When I say they should have digging in sieges I don't mean like dozens of crazy Legendary Miner/Macemen giving your fortress cancer. I mean maybe they just have like, one civilian miner with the raid who is programmed to find a path into your fortress. And even if they succeed (instead of just naively tunneling to your Rooms of Death you had the foresight to build around your fortress) you can always just fill it in again.
Post by: jamoecw on September 09, 2009, 12:44:26 pm
Post by: GoldenH on September 09, 2009, 02:05:39 pm
But yeah an in-game day is pretty short, I think it takes longer even to hollow out a new dining room, but it doesn't take a real time day to clear a whole Z level, about an hour at 30 FPS is right. It takes longer to bust through an aquafier (I busted through a two level one for the first time last night, yay) The reason I do things like this is because i hate the Z-level pathfinding algorithms so I like to dig down and find an empty layer for me to play in.
It helps that I don't bother to haul stone. I will make a dump zone in an area to clear stockpiles, but that's it.
Post by: G-Flex on September 09, 2009, 05:04:40 pm
Post by: bloodnok on September 11, 2009, 03:25:04 am
[FWIW, I play NetHack, Crawl, POWDER, etc. I don't care about graphics, and a modicum of interface perversity is par for the course.]
As I see it, a few things get in the way.
First is the sheer mass of micromanagement. Someone upthread mentioned MOO1, which to me (although it gets it wrong in some places) is, in places, the perfect example of how a 4X game should work. Let the player control policy, not implementation. Job priorities are a hardy perennial wishlist item; another one would be using the job manager to define desired stocks of certain items. Don't make me order batches of doors; let me say "maintain a stock of twenty doors with priority n" and never think about door manufacture again.
[FAOD, this isn't my sole micromanagement gripe. The game is absolutely riddled with places the player ends up doing implementation repeatedly when they should just set a policy and only come back to it when the policy needs changed. A good look at the way the Settlers 2 economy gets on with the job without human intervention wouldn't hurt.]
The second thing on my list is rampant simulationism. This may seem a strange gripe, rather like complaining about water's rampant wetness, but I'm going to run with it. My first subgripe is the diversion of development effort into pointless detail. For example, from the actual point of view of fortress management, a dwarf might be in one of at most six states of health; healthy, with a temporary injury and fighting on, with a temporary injury and seeking or receiving medical treatment, permanently crippled but still able to work, permanently crippled and a dependent of the fortress, or dead. So why model thirteen kinds of suture in exposed guts? The history of the world is modelled, but when a bronze colossus turns up, who cares if it killed Arnar Bibbleface in 524 with a slightly rusty steel mace? Not I - it presents the same challenge either way.
My second subgripe is cognitive dissonance from inconsistent simulationism. There are umpteen kinds of plant each of which brews its own booze with the specific characteristics of each booze modelled... but brewing does not require water. There's a complete model of hydrostatic pressure, but tap into a river below a waterfall and comedy ensues. The lovingly detailed "strange mood" subgame can produce an artifact pigtail sock, but no-one has reflected on the quantity in which socks are ordinarily produced and used.
Third is simulationism versus gameplay. DF has done surprisingly - incredibly - well with gameplay through emergent properties, but gameplay does seem to be losing out. There's a reason there's a hardcore that still plays the 2D version, where the river/chasm/magma gameplay was explicitly scripted in.
Post by: Anu Necunoscut on September 11, 2009, 06:24:23 am
I am posting, newly registered, as someone who is fascinated by the idea of DF but finds that about four hours of play leads to keyboard-snapping frustration. What I find most frustrating about DF is the way there's clearly a good game in there trying to get out.
[FWIW, I play NetHack, Crawl, POWDER, etc. I don't care about graphics, and a modicum of interface perversity is par for the course.]
As I see it, a few things get in the way.
Welcome to the forum. :) I differ from you a bit on a few of these criticisms and agree on some others, but it's all down to taste, so take the following with a huge grain of salt:
First is the sheer mass of micromanagement. Someone upthread mentioned MOO1, which to me (although it gets it wrong in some places) is, in places, the perfect example of how a 4X game should work. Let the player control policy, not implementation. Job priorities are a hardy perennial wishlist item; another one would be using the job manager to define desired stocks of certain items. Don't make me order batches of doors; let me say "maintain a stock of twenty doors with priority n" and never think about door manufacture again.
It's a fine line, though, no? And the two are obviously different sorts of games--DF is inherently more personal in scope than MOO1, where you throw hundreds of millions of people around on any given game turn. Keeping that in mind, many standard 4x features just wouldn't feel right for the game. Cutting down micromanagement for mature forts, however, would be great--"Maintain x stock of y" would be a great feature. The game shouldn't too easily "play itself," however, and happily many mechanics are in place to upset your policy decisions with individual implementation problems, like unhappy dwarves, the necessity of having an experienced bookkeeper/manager, etc.
The second thing on my list is rampant simulationism. This may seem a strange gripe, rather like complaining about water's rampant wetness, but I'm going to run with it. My first subgripe is the diversion of development effort into pointless detail. For example, from the actual point of view of fortress management, a dwarf might be in one of at most six states of health; healthy, with a temporary injury and fighting on, with a temporary injury and seeking or receiving medical treatment, permanently crippled but still able to work, permanently crippled and a dependent of the fortress, or dead. So why model thirteen kinds of suture in exposed guts? The history of the world is modelled, but when a bronze colossus turns up, who cares if it killed Arnar Bibbleface in 524 with a slightly rusty steel mace? Not I - it presents the same challenge either way.
To a point that's true, but the same style of argument could be used to justify removing a lot of great flavor from the game. The hilariously violent current combat system could be replaced with hitpoints, groups of similarly employed dwarves with abstracted "units," free bedroom/workshop/entrance design with a few templates, etc. They wouldn't be that functionally different, but something valuable (to me anyway) would be lost. For surprising and delighting the player, amputations and unexpected weapon-monster interactions, the fluid mechanics, etc., seem to me very useful. A lot more of DF's "flavor" should eventually go to improving replayability and having an impact on how you play a unique fort/site/world, which all currently play much the same. To use MOO1 as an example, the random range of a race's personality in that game actually determines how you should respond to them diplomatically rather than being only window dressing. Ideally that's what should happen in DF.
My second subgripe is cognitive dissonance from inconsistent simulationism. There are umpteen kinds of plant each of which brews its own booze with the specific characteristics of each booze modelled... but brewing does not require water. There's a complete model of hydrostatic pressure, but tap into a river below a waterfall and comedy ensues. The lovingly detailed "strange mood" subgame can produce an artifact pigtail sock, but no-one has reflected on the quantity in which socks are ordinarily produced and used.
This comes down, I think, to features being added as Toady feels like adding them, and them being balanced as necessary/feasible. While complexity without overall consistency in sims can seem a bit wacky, you don't want the player to be forced into learning arcane real-world mechanics for mundane aspects of the game. Imagine having to micromanage forge/smelter temperatures precisely based on what sort of metal you want worked. If sim complexity adds to variety and potential for player creativity, it's good. If it provides only tedium, it's bad. Still, it's a hard balance to strike.
Third is simulationism versus gameplay. DF has done surprisingly - incredibly - well with gameplay through emergent properties, but gameplay does seem to be losing out. There's a reason there's a hardcore that still plays the 2D version, where the river/chasm/magma gameplay was explicitly scripted in.
The easy answer to this is that replacing scripted antagonists with procedurally generated antagonists is difficult and can't be effected easily all at once. A lot of the challenge in 2D comes down to bugs (+pig tail sock+ chasing, malevolent pachyderms) and a lack of effective player control. There's also the fact that scripted challenges tend to be exciting only once or twice, before a formula is learned that forever beats them dead. Once that happens, they become simply tedious. A lot of 2D's value, I think, is that you are guaranteed interesting stuff in your site, and each new breached feature adds some new potential antagonists. I think 3D could potentially reclaim and surpass a lot of what makes 2D fun.
Post by: zwei on September 11, 2009, 07:09:26 am
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen? Or maybe its finding the right tile sets and setting them up. We are hoping at some point to build easier commands and tutorials to help bring in more players. We have to identify the main culprits first. So what is frustrating you the most about Dwarf Fortress?
Lack of tutorial.
Lack of common interface/'verb' to do stuff.
I.E. There are quite few command trees to do some tasks. For example, in order to build something, I can 'd'esignate area, i can 'b' uild something, i can make stock'p'ile, and there is some stuff like 'i' zones, i can 'q'uerry existing object to 'build' room.
Digging stairs and constructing stairs uses different keys for each stair type.
Some workshops working automatically (butcher) with no aparent way to make use of them (A-HA, i can set animal to be slaughtered and someone will take care of it!)
That kind of stuff. It really takes some serious research and wiki in order to figure out how to do, well, anything interesting.
I just wish there was 'w'iki or 'h'elp command in all menus, object queries and such which would launch browser pointing to relevant page on some wiki.
Post by: GoldenH on September 11, 2009, 09:10:21 am
"Okay, I've got the caravan open... i see fisher berry wine, I can drink that... gnomeblight? Uhm, guess not... What, what's this Sunshine stuff? It sounds like it would be inedible like gnomeblight, but oh look my dwarves are drinking it, neat!"
the same with the large/small/narrow etc. "Dwarves have no use for this' in all the descriptions of things you can't use would be nice.
There is a lot about dwarf fortress that automation would not reduce choices but would reduce babysitting. For instance you could decide to always have 20 Doors for instance but you probably don't want x amount of everything lying around, it would waste a huge amount of stockpile space and you'd have to manage it based on your prospective immigration opportunities. If dwarves had decent z-level pathing (or even if it just counted 1 z level = 10 spaces or if it added x+y to find the distance instead of finding the distance between two points. A toggle would be nice. Both these would take about ten seconds to implement) then they wouldn't insist on running down ten flights of z levels when they have stones literally right next to them and then you wouldn't have to be careful do forbid anything below them. etc. If you could copy room Designations then you'd still have to change the rooms when you want to but at least you wouldn't have to get a repetitive stress injury first. If you could designate diagonally you wouldn't have to build a million things. And why build a bridge when constructing floor tiles works so much better? (unless you want a drawbridge of course) And so on.
Post by: bloodnok on September 11, 2009, 10:48:43 am
It's a fine line, though, no? And the two are obviously different sorts of games--DF is inherently more personal in scope than MOO1, where you throw hundreds of millions of people around on any given game turn. Keeping that in mind, many standard 4x features just wouldn't feel right for the game.
I think you misunderstand me slightly. I don't want DF to be like MOO1 and I certainly don't want it to be like a normal 4X: I want to look at the way MOO1 is not like normal 4X games. Instead of this nonsense of ordering individual buildings built on colonies of millions of people - and having no real idea what the effect of changing the build order is - you say "build factories" and they go and build factories. Policy, not implementation.
Cutting down micromanagement for mature forts, however, would be great--"Maintain x stock of y" would be a great feature. The game shouldn't too easily "play itself," however
I think the fear of "playing itself" is misplaced. I don't want the game to make decisions for me (albeit that some sensible defaults might help the process along a bit - for example, a job priority system would probably default to doing Clean Fish before Fishing), but I do want to automate away anything I can do which is repetitive and requires no thought. For example (once I can check fortress stock at all) I could maintain x stock of y by checking the fortress stock every fifteen minutes or by manually tracking whenever I use a y, and ordering new ones built immediately. Boring, repetitive, requires no skill on my part - automate it. But I don't expect to be able to say "build me a farm" (that said, a macro language for standard constructions wouldn't hurt, but that really is wishlist stuff).
To a point that's true, but the same style of argument could be used to justify removing a lot of great flavor from the game. The hilariously violent current combat system could be replaced with hitpoints,
Well, quite. As I mention, dwarfs only have about half a dozen distinct states. A dwarf is healthy, hurt, or dead; if hurt, they will or will not make an eventual recovery. Now the modelling of injuries in hideous detail is amusing once, and thereafter it contributes basically nothing, and represents a vast diversion of development effort. Furthermore the current system is very hard to balance compared to a simpler one - to write a creature that will, say, provide a reasonable challenge to well-trained dwarves is tricky at best without copying an existing one. Look at the way totally random creatures have become King of the Beasts. Carp?
This comes down, I think, to features being added as Toady feels like adding them
Well, quite, rather than being added where they are most needed to paper over known gaps in the game. (Blah, blah, yes, it's his game, he can work on what he likes. But the question was what _I_ don't like). For how many years, now, have dwarfs been incapable of responding sensibly to being on fire, and fire itself a slow-burning but irresistible contagion which isn't actually very like fire?
While complexity without overall consistency in sims can seem a bit wacky, you don't want the player to be forced into learning arcane real-world mechanics for mundane aspects of the game. Imagine having to micromanage forge/smelter temperatures precisely based on what sort of metal you want worked. If sim complexity adds to variety and potential for player creativity, it's good. If it provides only tedium, it's bad. Still, it's a hard balance to strike.
But I don't think there is any effort to strike a balance there at all; sim complexity is added without any real consideration of the gameplay effects.
The easy answer to this is that replacing scripted antagonists with procedurally generated antagonists is difficult and can't be effected easily all at once.
But, again, is there ever going to be a real effort to ensure the procedurally generated antagonists are equally varied and interesting? Procedural content can go too far. Consider a roguelike; the individual levels and monsters therein are procedurally generated, even the depth and branching of the dungeon may vary, but you never turn up to find the dungeon consists of two rooms, three asthmatic goblins, one cheese ration, and the Amulet of Yendor.
The current - and even the projected future - situation where interesting terrain features are scattered all over the world and a given site has only a small proportion of them strikes me as analogous to that. So what's the answer? Use Site Finder to find the spot in the world with them all. Why not just _generate_ a spot with them all and have done with it? The terrain in the rest of the world is basically irrelevant either way.
Sure, eventually there might be _so many_ fascinating terrain features that any site will have a good selection and a site with them all would be obviously mad. That strikes me as being a very long way off, though, and right now a reversion to the 2D model where you just get a site with all the good stuff wouldn't hurt.
Post by: Granite26 on September 11, 2009, 11:10:47 am
Edit:
Or, to belabor the MoO analogy, adventure mode is the space cobat sim and fortress mode is managing a single planet.
To me, complaints that some planets are rich or poor or radiated, and you've got to pick the perfect one doesn't make any sense, nor does worrying about the excessive modeling of the fleets and space monsters that show up at your door.
Post by: bloodnok on September 11, 2009, 11:47:27 am
To me, complaints that some planets are rich or poor or radiated, and you've got to pick the perfect one doesn't make any sense, nor does worrying about the excessive modeling of the fleets and space monsters that show up at your door.
In this analogy, that's not quite the complaint. The complaint is that there are lots of planet features which individually make for a more interesting game. In the 2D version, you just got a planet with all of them. Now you can either search the galaxy for a planet with most of them, or have a less interesting game; and for all that now every planet is generated in agonising detail, once I'm playing, I'm on one planet and the contents of the others are largely irrelevant.
The excessive modelling is an issue if it diverts development effort from things that actually would make playing the game more pleasant; if the depth of modelling is jarringly inconsistent (like the examples above; brewing does not require water, a master sock-maker does not know that socks are made and used in pairs); or if the modelling is not actually a very good model and produces silly results (fire acts more like a slow disease than like, well, fire) in spite of enormous effort.
Post by: Granite26 on September 11, 2009, 11:51:21 am
Post by: G-Flex on September 11, 2009, 12:13:25 pm
a dwarf might be in one of at most six states of health; healthy, with a temporary injury and fighting on, with a temporary injury and seeking or receiving medical treatment, permanently crippled but still able to work, permanently crippled and a dependent of the fortress, or dead. So why model thirteen kinds of suture in exposed guts?
Because those are all broad categories and not actual states. A dwarf with one leg has a different handicap from a dwarf with one eye.
Quote
The history of the world is modelled, but when a bronze colossus turns up, who cares if it killed Arnar Bibbleface in 524 with a slightly rusty steel mace? Not I - it presents the same challenge either way.
Keep in mind how unfinished the game is here. You don't care because right now, nothing outside your fortress really matters at all when it comes to fortress mode. Changing this appears to be a rather high-priority development goal. In the future, if a bronze colossus has been terrorizing some civilization from day one, that civilization should care if you decide to kill it. Even in adventure mode, stuff like that does sort of matter and will more in the future; a mayor might decide to enact judicious revenge on a creature for killing his grandfather.
Quote
My second subgripe is cognitive dissonance from inconsistent simulationism. There are umpteen kinds of plant each of which brews its own booze with the specific characteristics of each booze modelled... but brewing does not require water. There's a complete model of hydrostatic pressure, but tap into a river below a waterfall and comedy ensues. The lovingly detailed "strange mood" subgame can produce an artifact pigtail sock, but no-one has reflected on the quantity in which socks are ordinarily produced and used.
Fair enough, but again, I feel like you're judging it without enough regard for its current development status. "Brewing should require water", for instance, is a rather commonly talked-about thing and will likely occur. Water pressure quirks are a little more difficult, since modeling flows more accurately (although they really aren't THAT bad right now) would probably incur a serious cost in computational complexity.
Quote
Third is simulationism versus gameplay. DF has done surprisingly - incredibly - well with gameplay through emergent properties, but gameplay does seem to be losing out. There's a reason there's a hardcore that still plays the 2D version, where the river/chasm/magma gameplay was explicitly scripted in.
Most of the advantages of having those features in the 2D version are coming back anyway, what with the continuous attacks from the underground and more common (universal, really) underground features.
I guess what I'm saying here is that your points seem well-made enough concerning DF as-is, but not DF as-planned. Keep in mind that the game is supposed to simulate an entire fantasy world, essentially. It's easy for you to say things like "why bother generating the world beyond my embark square" right now for Fortress Mode, because it currently doesn't matter so much, but that foundation is necessary for how it will work in the future, which will be quite different. Things that seem irrelevant right now won't be forever. This is bound to happen with a product in early development; you have to keep in mind what the game is actually striving for before complaining about features you deem useless. It's like complaining that the pipes in a house are useless before the water's turned on.
And quite frankly, I like the ridiculous detail going into stuff like creature bodies and injuries. It adds detail that, in addition to being flavorful, actually adds depth to the game. High levels of abstraction work fine for some games; DF is not one of those games. It's interesting to see how a battle plays out in actual, quasi-realistic terms and have to deal with the consequences on those same terms. It makes a much more interesting story when a warrior has an arm mangled, and has to drop his shield and use only his weapon hand for the rest of the battle and succeed anyway, than it does for him to become "crippled" in some generic fashion. Realistic detail in a game like this is good, and will likely be more consequential and interesting in the future. It's hard to create an interesting emergent story out of "he lost half his hit points" compared to "he got his arm muscle torn with an axe and almost bled out before the battle ended, but was saved by getting emergency medical attention".
Post by: Anu Necunoscut on September 11, 2009, 12:35:34 pm
I think you misunderstand me slightly. I don't want DF to be like MOO1 and I certainly don't want it to be like a normal 4X: I want to look at the way MOO1 is not like normal 4X games. Instead of this nonsense of ordering individual buildings built on colonies of millions of people - and having no real idea what the effect of changing the build order is - you say "build factories" and they go and build factories. Policy, not implementation.
Yeah, that pissed me off in MOO2, or Master of Magic--I'm the galactic emperor, FFS! I'm not going to waste my time selecting every farm building on every world in a multi-parsec empire! It is more adequate in DF however, to spend a little time with each individual dwarf. Scrolling through each dwarf's labor screen constantly is not at all fun, however. Optimizations are necessary in other areas--for example, a placed bed should default to making the enclosed space containing it a bedroom, with the standard ability to (q)uery it into something else if need be. As is, laying out living quarters absorbs a prohibitive amount of game time.
I think the fear of "playing itself" is misplaced. I don't want the game to make decisions for me (albeit that some sensible defaults might help the process along a bit - for example, a job priority system would probably default to doing Clean Fish before Fishing), but I do want to automate away anything I can do which is repetitive and requires no thought. For example (once I can check fortress stock at all) I could maintain x stock of y by checking the fortress stock every fifteen minutes or by manually tracking whenever I use a y, and ordering new ones built immediately. Boring, repetitive, requires no skill on my part - automate it. But I don't expect to be able to say "build me a farm" (that said, a macro language for standard constructions wouldn't hurt, but that really is wishlist stuff).
Here I completely agree. Macros are present in the d# versions, and the fan utility Quickfort (found somewhere in General Discussion) allows you to build, mine and place items from a spreadsheet template, which is great for modular forts. But yes, this stuff should be in-game, eventually. I think Toady has some conception of these problems, given the auto-loom and auto-butcher features, it just needs extension as you say to more tedious maintenance aspects of the game.
Well, quite. As I mention, dwarfs only have about half a dozen distinct states. A dwarf is healthy, hurt, or dead; if hurt, they will or will not make an eventual recovery. Now the modelling of injuries in hideous detail is amusing once, and thereafter it contributes basically nothing, and represents a vast diversion of development effort. Furthermore the current system is very hard to balance compared to a simpler one - to write a creature that will, say, provide a reasonable challenge to well-trained dwarves is tricky at best without copying an existing one. Look at the way totally random creatures have become King of the Beasts. Carp?
I don't agree here. It's amusing more than once for me, to begin with, to see limbs and heads fly everywhere in a heated battle. I can see why some don't care if Urist McConscript lost his fourth finger, right hand, but I like the organ system, spine injuries, eye gouging and severs very much as they are. More than this, having weapon/armor/skin materials interact will provide a lot more complexity and flexibility in combat--your corps of uber marksdwarves isn't going to be too effective against magma men, for example. Your sword-wielding adventurer isn't going to slice up a colossus. This could be coded in with standard rock-paper-scissors balancing, but it'd be nice to have something more. As for buggy critters, that's to be expected I think, and enjoyed or not as the case goes. :)
Well, quite, rather than being added where they are most needed to paper over known gaps in the game. (Blah, blah, yes, it's his game, he can work on what he likes. But the question was what _I_ don't like). For how many years, now, have dwarfs been incapable of responding sensibly to being on fire, and fire itself a slow-burning but irresistible contagion which isn't actually very like fire?
Fire looks pretty good spreading on a grassland (or blowing up booze), but your point here stands. I'm sure we all have our ideas of where Toady -should- be working on the game. Given my experience with these sorts of indie projects, it's amazing he's still working on it at all. That doesn't mitigate the criticisms, which often hit home, but it does provide some context I think,
But I don't think there is any effort to strike a balance there at all; sim complexity is added without any real consideration of the gameplay effects.
Well, the fluid mechanics have quite celebrated game effects and several utterly practical uses. What aspects are bothering you? The preponderance of plants? This comes mostly down to flavor and happy dwarves, no? Do engravings of fort history feel as worthless to you? I agree they aren't core mechanics that deeply influence your play, but they're not awful to have around.
But, again, is there ever going to be a real effort to ensure the procedurally generated antagonists are equally varied and interesting? Procedural content can go too far. Consider a roguelike; the individual levels and monsters therein are procedurally generated, even the depth and branching of the dungeon may vary, but you never turn up to find the dungeon consists of two rooms, three asthmatic goblins, one cheese ration, and the Amulet of Yendor.
It will seem like it will never happen until it happens. :P But what you say is true--challenges must be heavily sought out by the player, as opposed to being provided in a balanced way by the game in a way that they are present in most areas. That is a problem. Who hasn't wandered into a Nethack level that consists of mostly Leprechauns and Nymphs, though? :D
The current - and even the projected future - situation where interesting terrain features are scattered all over the world and a given site has only a small proportion of them strikes me as analogous to that. So what's the answer? Use Site Finder to find the spot in the world with them all. Why not just _generate_ a spot with them all and have done with it? The terrain in the rest of the world is basically irrelevant either way.
The idea would be to have enough diversity of elements and enough varied challenges that result from their unique combination in a given site/world, such that there is no "boring" site, though there may be easier/harder sites. Right now you have a choice of laughably easy or moderately tough sites. This needs work. Certainly a mature fort even in a peaceful area should attract many dangers and powers from the outside world.
Sure, eventually there might be _so many_ fascinating terrain features that any site will have a good selection and a site with them all would be obviously mad. That strikes me as being a very long way off, though, and right now a reversion to the 2D model where you just get a site with all the good stuff wouldn't hurt.
I note, however, that very few people seem happy with sticking to the 2D version, which is readily available. Since that good stuff is static, its dangers are static, and the formulas for dealing with them remain the same. If DF allowed for more and more interesting and challenging features to be accessed by digging deeper, unique to a site/biome/world/whatever, that to me would be more satisfying than a scripted site where everything is expected after one solid playthrough.
Post by: bloodnok on September 11, 2009, 01:00:47 pm
2D versus 3D - I'm not trying to say the 2D fixed-layout was a bed of roses, far from it. However, I think - if you were trying to optimise playability of the game as is - there'd be a happy medium where the embark site itself is procedurally generated with a view to an interesting game not to being a coherent part of a world that presently doesn't matter much. Most of the useful-but-dangerous features would be guaranteed to exist somewhere, but exactly where and how would be an open question (apropos of which, some means to have skilled dwarves infer the geology without digging up the entire map would be nice); the resources on the map would be ordinarily artifically weighted towards self-sufficiency (unless you ordered up a challenge game) so you wouldn't find you had no flux or anything annoying like that.
Incidentally, I do totally agree with your contention that the nature of the embark site could more strongly inform the kind of gameplay you have.
Post by: Footkerchief on September 11, 2009, 01:14:27 pm
(and frankly the thrust of development, which appears to be adding an endless series of minituae picked at random, doesn't inspire confidence)
Which minutiae are you thinking of here? There's a ton of minutiae in the upcoming version but I can't think of any that weren't motivated by an upcoming major feature (the Army Arc, in most cases).
Post by: Rashilul on September 11, 2009, 01:37:00 pm
Post by: Andir on September 11, 2009, 01:40:32 pm
The one thing that's turns me off is that it's not hard enough."Hard" is subjective. Hard, to you, could mean throwing fire beasts over the walls to rampage all your dwarfs. This could be impossible and/or downright frustrating for someone else.
Post by: bloodnok on September 11, 2009, 01:46:47 pm
Which minutiae are you thinking of here? There's a ton of minutiae in the upcoming version but I can't think of any that weren't motivated by an upcoming major feature (the Army Arc, in most cases).
Wrinkles? (Not the only thing, just the first to spring to mind).
... looking a bit further I find "Styling of cosmetic tissue layers" and "Make dwarves clean themselves up and groom/trim their cosmetic tissue layers".
Whether you suppose DF should be trying to become more playable now or strive towards the grand vision, I really don't see dwarves using moisturiser as a vital part of the process.
To stretch another analogy upthread to the breaking point, the foundations of the skyscraper may take a while to build, but why on Earth are we agonising about the carpet, wallpaper, and light fittings to be installed in the offices on floor 107 when the building isn't even up yet?
Post by: Anu Necunoscut on September 11, 2009, 02:16:49 pm
To stretch another analogy upthread to the breaking point, the foundations of the skyscraper may take a while to build, but why on Earth are we agonising about the carpet, wallpaper, and light fittings to be installed in the offices on floor 107 when the building isn't even up yet?
Considering we have a two man design team and a one man building team for our skyscraper, working on nothing but girders for this long would likely drive said team completely insane? :)
I think as the ambition of the game rises, the gaps between feature implementation and efforts to balance them will also rise. I imagine if the game had been frozen at where it was four years or so ago in terms of core features, the bugs would have been quashed, the scripted challenges would have been balanced, and Toady would have more or less moved on to something new. Possibly we would all be bored with a static DF and not posting about it / playing it, as well.
Post by: corvvs on September 12, 2009, 08:24:30 pm
To a point that's true, but the same style of argument could be used to justify removing a lot of great flavor from the game. The hilariously violent current combat system could be replaced with hitpoints,
Well, quite. As I mention, dwarfs only have about half a dozen distinct states. A dwarf is healthy, hurt, or dead; if hurt, they will or will not make an eventual recovery. Now the modelling of injuries in hideous detail is amusing once, and thereafter it contributes basically nothing, and represents a vast diversion of development effort. Furthermore the current system is very hard to balance compared to a simpler one - to write a creature that will, say, provide a reasonable challenge to well-trained dwarves is tricky at best without copying an existing one. Look at the way totally random creatures have become King of the Beasts. Carp?
Carp killing dwarves is a bug - they look scary and the dwarves fall into the water dodging. :P
And it's already fixed in the upcoming version.
Different injuries don't affect gameplay? I belive Lightning (http://mkv25.net/dfma/movie-24-lightningtheblindcrossbowchampion) would beg to differ. To say nothing of goblins who have been shot in the leg hobbling slowly toward the edge of the map while their brother who had his left hand severed has already fled.
While complexity without overall consistency in sims can seem a bit wacky, you don't want the player to be forced into learning arcane real-world mechanics for mundane aspects of the game. Imagine having to micromanage forge/smelter temperatures precisely based on what sort of metal you want worked. If sim complexity adds to variety and potential for player creativity, it's good. If it provides only tedium, it's bad. Still, it's a hard balance to strike.
But I don't think there is any effort to strike a balance there at all; sim complexity is added without any real consideration of the gameplay effects.
Really? Being able to grab the sutures on a recently injured and treated combatant and rip them out isn't a useful gameplay effect? Having a spear get stuck in an enemy's ribcage and having to choose between attempting to pull it out and dropping it to wrestle the guy coming up behind you isn't interesting? Having a poorly thought-out floor plan which ends up with you evacuating the dining hall because it's filling with water from the lake you accidentally tapped into isn't exciting? It doesn't make you think "wow, that's so cool - I've never played a game where you could cause that to happen?"
The current - and even the projected future - situation where interesting terrain features are scattered all over the world and a given site has only a small proportion of them strikes me as analogous to that. So what's the answer? Use Site Finder to find the spot in the world with them all. Why not just _generate_ a spot with them all and have done with it? The terrain in the rest of the world is basically irrelevant either way.
Sure, eventually there might be _so many_ fascinating terrain features that any site will have a good selection and a site with them all would be obviously mad. That strikes me as being a very long way off, though, and right now a reversion to the 2D model where you just get a site with all the good stuff wouldn't hurt.
You're not the only one to make this complaint, I'm just singling out you for quoting because yours is quite lucidly written and your post had a lot of points I wanted to respond to.
But I don't understand it at all. :P
From a gameplay perspective, sure... IF each site wasn't part of a world.
But it is. You can't walk from place to place in a continuous world and see volcanos, rivers, marble, magnetite, sand, and trees all within one square mile of each other, EVERY square mile. Hell, I don't even know of ONE place in the real world where you can find all of those things so close together.
If you "fix" that by making fortresses standalone pocket dimensions then your actions in the fortress can't ever affect the rest of the world. And future actions can't ever affect the site of your abandoned fortress. Which makes the whole thing meaningless.
You say the terrain in the rest of the world is irrelevant, the history of the world is irrelevant, but you're playing a different game than I am. In the DF I play, there is a continuous story - the world's events flow. You can walk for miles and see the terrain change from lush countryside to dismal swamp to barren badlands to rocky mountains to evergreen forests. You can speak to a man and find that his great-grandfather was a legendary warrior who slew a hydra. That hydra had defeated seventy warriors of various races. It had killed the wife of the warrior who eventually slew it. The warrior had his arm bitten off in the battle and died of bloodloss, but was triumphant. This man, his descendant, proudly remembers his ancestor's victory and boasts of it. Flushed with pride, yearning for victories of his own, he agrees when you ask him to join you in your travels. Having heard the tale of a dwarven mine which was abandoned mysteriously, you set forth on a quest to uncover the treasure of the ancients. The dwarves had dug "too greedily and too deep," and had awoken ancient monstrosities that were their undoing. But you arrive at the site, as yet unknowing, staring in awe at the towers guarding the broad mountain road. Once shining, the silver blocks from which the towers are built are now tarnished and the site has fallen into disrepair...
If you ruin the simulation, you're not playing Dwarf Fortress anymore. You're playing Warcraft 2 with a graphical mod to make the Orcs look like smiley faces and say "We've struck native gold!" instead of "Zug zug."
Post by: Neruz on September 12, 2009, 08:55:20 pm
But i also think that by default not all sites should have everything. If i recall correctly some of the dev objectives relate to building multiple fortresses; having the features spread out randomly feels kind of stupid right now because you only get the one fortress, but it will make alot more sense once we have several fortresses up and running, and we're ferrying iron and flux from a lowlands sedimentary fortress to a mountain magma fortress for smelting and forging, and then ferrying the steel items to our frontline badlands fortress that is serving as a staging area for our armies forays into the hostile Human lands.
Remember that DF is intended to be much bigger than it actually is at the moment. A number of features do not make sense right now, but will make sense once DF achieves a larger scale.
Post by: bloodnok on September 12, 2009, 09:23:51 pm
$
Different injuries don't affect gameplay? I belive Lightning (http://mkv25.net/dfma/movie-24-lightningtheblindcrossbowchampion) would beg to differ.
There's a neat example of rampant simulationism mixed with a sudden amusing lack of sense. We know he's blind, but nowhere does that discourage him from using a crossbow.
Quote
To say nothing of goblins who have been shot in the leg hobbling slowly toward the edge of the map while their brother who had his left hand severed has already fled.
Either one's a mission kill. Sure, you might get the stuff from the former, but again a straight up "some flee, some die" model would give you that.
I think this has been a bit misunderstood. I'm not saying it's bad to represent distinct states of temporary or permanent incapacitation - as long as they _are_ distinct - but that the existing model is far too complex given that the number of really distinguishable outcomes is small. It's like modelling the exact state of someone's digestive bacteria when all you care about is whether they are hungry. Sure, if your game is about 18th century navies, add scurvy - but don't try and get scurvy as an emergent effect of the digestive bacteria simulator. It can be done but it's a waste of time.
Quote
Being able to grab the sutures on a recently injured and treated combatant and rip them out isn't a useful gameplay effect?
It's not a distinct gameplay effect. The real effect from the fortress command POV is that someone who has not healed up fully is easier to defeat. A hitpoint system could do _that_.
Quote
Having a poorly thought-out floor plan which ends up with you evacuating the dining hall because it's filling with water from the lake you accidentally tapped into isn't exciting?
Hang on, I _don't_ regard the water flow and pressure system as unnecessary detail. It's quite important for a grand-scale terraforming game like DF.
Quote
You can't walk from place to place in a continuous world and see volcanos, rivers, marble, magnetite, sand, and trees all within one square mile of each other, EVERY square mile.
Nor can I see a place where dwarves are digging into the earth. When realism trumps gameplay, something's gone wrong - and it's always a danger with an overly simulationist approach. People confuse realism with ability to suspend disbelief; but, of course, no-one seriously worried about the convenient juxtaposition of features in 2D. In that respect the generated world may be doing us a disservice by making us think harder about the plausibility of the embark site.
Quote
If you "fix" that by making fortresses standalone pocket dimensions then your actions in the fortress can't ever affect the rest of the world.$
Right now, the effect is very limited either way. Once I embark the game consists of my embark site and some numerical properties of the adjacent civilisations. If you didn't know, how could you ever tell that the whole world had been generated in detail and then effectively thrown away?
Quote
You can speak to a man and find that his great-grandfather was a legendary warrior who slew a hydra.
Et cetera. But with the current limitations of procedural content, it's just the same blocks stacked in a different order every time. Real historical figures are interesting because they did different and memorable things; in the DF history the names of who killed who may change but the nature of the interactions does not. It's cute enough to produce an image of Urist HomicidalManiac striking down Bob McOrc, but reading one page of it is just like reading every other page.
Post by: bluephoenix on September 12, 2009, 09:51:45 pm
text
wall of text
Everybody has got different likes and dislikes, you might not care about those features while other people would die for them.
Post by: corvvs on September 12, 2009, 10:45:43 pm
$
Different injuries don't affect gameplay? I belive Lightning (http://mkv25.net/dfma/movie-24-lightningtheblindcrossbowchampion) would beg to differ.
There's a neat example of rampant simulationism mixed with a sudden amusing lack of sense. We know he's blind, but nowhere does that discourage him from using a crossbow.QuoteTo say nothing of goblins who have been shot in the leg hobbling slowly toward the edge of the map while their brother who had his left hand severed has already fled.
Either one's a mission kill. Sure, you might get the stuff from the former, but again a straight up "some flee, some die" model would give you that.
I understand your point from a min-max kind of gamer perspective, but if all you want are statistics you might as well be playing Battle Champs. The main "selling point" of Dwarf Fortress is its individuality, as least as far as I'm concerned.
Quote
I think this has been a bit misunderstood. I'm not saying it's bad to represent distinct states of temporary or permanent incapacitation - as long as they _are_ distinct - but that the existing model is far too complex given that the number of really distinguishable outcomes is small. It's like modelling the exact state of someone's digestive bacteria when all you care about is whether they are hungry. Sure, if your game is about 18th century navies, add scurvy - but don't try and get scurvy as an emergent effect of the digestive bacteria simulator. It can be done but it's a waste of time.
Nitpick: I think scurvy is an effect of vitamin deficiency, not technically a disease. But yeah. It comes down to gamer types. You like statistics - X casualties, Y fatalities, Z gold pieces. I like personality. *This* dwarf saw his lover killed in battle and went into a fit of rage, flung himself at the oncoming horde and killed the Master Lasher, demoralizing them. Sadly, after the battle his leg had to be amputated. But that still wasn't enough to save him, internal bleeding and organ damage caused his lungs to slowly fill with fluid until he drowned. He and his lover were given a joint tomb with platinum sarcophagi.
Quote
QuoteBeing able to grab the sutures on a recently injured and treated combatant and rip them out isn't a useful gameplay effect?
It's not a distinct gameplay effect. The real effect from the fortress command POV is that someone who has not healed up fully is easier to defeat. A hitpoint system could do _that_.
Not in adventure mode (which is what I was talking about). Fortress mode and Adventure mode use the same system for combat (and everything else). This is a GOOD THING. 1) Development time - get the world to work correctly once and it works for all gameplay modes. 2) Individualism/Detail - It would be less interesting if the dwarves in fortress mode COULDN'T do everything you can do as an adventurer. It would make it more of a "game" where you have scripted elements that ruin the fun (for me, at least) because they make it obvious that "somebody designed this, the team was only given six months to get it out the door by Christmas, you have awesome special moves but everybody else is a generic enemy with a palette-swapped costume, and you can't walk any further down this road because the designer said so."
Quote
QuoteHaving a poorly thought-out floor plan which ends up with you evacuating the dining hall because it's filling with water from the lake you accidentally tapped into isn't exciting?
Hang on, I _don't_ regard the water flow and pressure system as unnecessary detail. It's quite important for a grand-scale terraforming game like DF.
Sorry, that part was really responding to:
Quote
There's a complete model of hydrostatic pressure, but tap into a river below a waterfall and comedy ensues.
I guess I didn't understand what you meant there, so feel free to correct me. :)
Quote
I know *I'm* not worried about the juxtaposition of features in 2d... that's because I don't play 2d. :)QuoteYou can't walk from place to place in a continuous world and see volcanos, rivers, marble, magnetite, sand, and trees all within one square mile of each other, EVERY square mile.
Nor can I see a place where dwarves are digging into the earth. When realism trumps gameplay, something's gone wrong - and it's always a danger with an overly simulationist approach. People confuse realism with ability to suspend disbelief; but, of course, no-one seriously worried about the convenient juxtaposition of features in 2D. In that respect the generated world may be doing us a disservice by making us think harder about the plausibility of the embark site.
But seriously -- you sort of glossed over my point -- you can walk from place to place. If every step you take you trip over a volcano, that doesn't ruin the effect of them being interesting? How do you explain a deciduous forest growing out of sand? Because deserts are convenient to make glass from and trees are convenient for beds and charcoal? I wish my life had everything I ever wanted available to me within a few yards of my house. :P
It's different because the 2d version didn't have a WORLD to wander. You couldn't walk from the edge of your abandoned fortress to the human town 8 miles away. The 2d version really is more comparable to Warcraft 2 in that sense. Individual maps with no coherency. That's one reason 3d was such a huge improvement.
Quote
QuoteIf you "fix" that by making fortresses standalone pocket dimensions then your actions in the fortress can't ever affect the rest of the world.$
Right now, the effect is very limited either way. Once I embark the game consists of my embark site and some numerical properties of the adjacent civilisations. If you didn't know, how could you ever tell that the whole world had been generated in detail and then effectively thrown away?
You never play more than one game in the same world, do you? Nor do you ever play adventure mode. Even if you only play dwarf mode and make a second fort in the same world, you'll find that the engravers in your second fort will know about the artifacts made in your first fort - they are now part of the world's history, and can be referred to in art and in conversation ("My mother was Urist so-and-so. In the year 282 Urist made AwesomeArtifact the Dawn of Reckoning.").
Quote
QuoteYou can speak to a man and find that his great-grandfather was a legendary warrior who slew a hydra.
Et cetera. But with the current limitations of procedural content, it's just the same blocks stacked in a different order every time. Real historical figures are interesting because they did different and memorable things; in the DF history the names of who killed who may change but the nature of the interactions does not. It's cute enough to produce an image of Urist HomicidalManiac striking down Bob McOrc, but reading one page of it is just like reading every other page.
Well, sure, but the same would be true if you had access to knowledge about myriad alternate histories of Earth. "Oh, Roger Krugenfeld was this world's version of Einstein. Yawn." Again, if all you're looking for is statistics, OF COURSE the personal histories won't be interesting. But that certainly doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.
EDIT: I do however see an obvious improvement to Legends mode now that you've got me thinking about it - make notable characters stand out in the list so you know who to look at to find interesting things. It would suck to learn about World War II by going through a list of 8000 notable, semi-notable, and not-so-notable Germans and their life stories until you finally found Hitler.
EDIT 2: The above suggestion will be more useful once diplomacy and rulers are more detailed. Then wars may be said to be caused by the policies of the leaders, rather than merely "a conflict over the mutilation of dead bodies," which makes it sound like the entire society is to blame.
Post by: jamoecw on September 12, 2009, 11:09:01 pm
text
wall of text
Everybody has got different likes and dislikes, you might not care about those features while other people would die for them.
i think the walls of text are good examples of why walls of text are good, they contain a good amount of relevant information, and the shear mass of information hasn't caused one side or the other to start disregarding the other or start name calling. i would call this a good example of how to have an argument on a forum.
[edit]
How do you explain a deciduous forest growing out of sand? Because deserts are convenient to make glass from and trees are convenient for beds and charcoal? I wish my life had everything I ever wanted available to me within a few yards of my house.actually i'd explain it as the "volcanoes erupting from the sea floor from a magma source described in geological theory as a hotspot." which would cause isolated land to form for these single map fortresses with magma, sand, forest, flux, and fresh water all in close proximity to each other.
"A sand volcano or sand blow is a cone of sand formed by the ejection of sand onto a surface from a central point. The sand builds up as a cone with slopes at the sand's angle of repose. A crater is commonly seen at the summit. The cone looks like a small volcanic cone and can range in size from millimetres to metres in diameter.
The process is often associated with earthquake liquefaction and the ejection of fluidized sand that can occur in water saturated sediments during an earthquake. The New Madrid Seismic Zone exhibited many such features during the 1811-1812 series of earthquakes. [1] Linear sand blows are just as common, and can still be seen in the New Madrid area.
In the past few years, much effort has gone into the mapping of liquefaction features to study ancient earthquakes [2]. The basic idea is to map zones that are susceptible to the process and then go in for a closer look. The presence or absence of earthquake liquefaction features is strong evidence of past earthquake activity, or lack thereof.
These are to be contrasted with mud volcanoes which occur in areas of geyser or subsurface gas venting."
thus magma areas would have sand at least sometimes, so magma and sand isn't unheard of.
"Sandy soils are ideal for crops such as watermelons, peaches, and peanuts and their excellent drainage characteristics make them suitable for intensive dairy farming."
so magma and forest isn't a big stretch to be close together either.
rather than provide all the quotes i'll let you look up where limestone comes from, i'll give you a hint raising the seafloor will give you access to this type of rock.
and there you have it all that it takes to have all that you mentioned in close proximity is a sea volcano that creates an island, like hawaii, or many other tropical islands.[/edit]
Post by: bloodnok on September 12, 2009, 11:21:47 pm
I understand your point from a min-max kind of gamer perspective, but if all you want are statistics you might as well be playing Battle Champs or MOO1. The main "selling point" of Dwarf Fortress is its individuality, as least as far as I'm concerned.
Mmm, but I think you must acknowledge as well that there are people (like me) looking for the detailed management game buried in DF but not really too worried about _gratuitous_ detail, by which I mean detail that has no consequences. A goblin sieger dies or they do not; I get their gear or I do not. The rest can't come back to bite me.
... of course, it would be _nice_ if you could let a lot of horribly wounded gobbos escape pour encourager les autres, kind of thing.
Quote
Nitpick: I think scurvy is an effect of vitamin deficiency, not technically a disease.
Did I say it was a disease?
Quote
Not in adventure mode (which is what I was talking about). Fortress mode and Adventure mode use the same system for combat (and everything else). This is a GOOD THING.
Let me go out on a limb here and say; no, it isn't, and furthermore the current system is appropriate for neither.
A basic characteristic a combat system may have is that any opponent has a chance, albeit potentially an extremely slender one, to kill you in one shot. This is a fine mechanic for fortress mode. You have lots of dwarves, and losing one unexpectedly is just the sort of hiccup you need to be able to deal with. What sort of a mechanic is it for a combat-focussed permadeath roguelike? Terrible; every time you get into combat you may get "game over" in spite of having made no mistakes.
For fortress mode, the current system is overly complex; for adventure mode, it's impossible to balance.
Quote
1) Development time - get the world to work correctly once and it works for all gameplay modes.
That assumes that the same behaviour is appropriate for different gameplay modes.
Quote
Sorry, that part was really responding to:QuoteThere's a complete model of hydrostatic pressure, but tap into a river below a waterfall and comedy ensues.I guess I didn't understand what you meant there, so feel free to correct me. :)
That's an example of a different gripe - woefully inconsistent levels of detail. Having a complete model of hydrostatic pressure that doesn't actually work properly and requires you to memorise a few arbitary tricks isn't going to make _anyone_ happy.
Quote
But seriously -- you sort of glossed over my point -- you can walk from place to place. (...)
It's different because the 2d version didn't have a WORLD to wander.
In fortress mode (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is all I'm talking about) you can't do that either. Sure, you can in adventurer mode, but that doesn't mean that individual embark sites can't be dollied up for a better fortress mode game. (FWIW, the 2D version did have an adventurer mode, and you could walk the world).
Quote
QuoteRight now, the effect is very limited either way. Once I embark the game consists of my embark site and some numerical properties of the adjacent civilisations. If you didn't know, how could you ever tell that the whole world had been generated in detail and then effectively thrown away?You never play more than one game in the same world, do you?
No reason why the salient details of fortress #1 can't be saved for use in fortress #2.
Quote
QuoteEt cetera. But with the current limitations of procedural content, it's just the same blocks stacked in a different order every time. Real historical figures are interesting because they did different and memorable things; in the DF history the names of who killed who may change but the nature of the interactions does not. It's cute enough to produce an image of Urist HomicidalManiac striking down Bob McOrc, but reading one page of it is just like reading every other page.Well, sure, but the same would be true if you had access to knowledge about myriad alternate histories of Earth. "Oh, Roger Krugenfeld was this world's version of Einstein. Yawn."
Well, quite. I'm not sure "this would be dealthy boring if it was a clone of Earth's history" means it's not deathly boring when it's a DF world history made out of the same bits as every other DF world history.
Post by: corvvs on September 12, 2009, 11:57:39 pm
And this is what the next few versions of DF will introduce - casualties will reduce the active, combat-ready population of the attacking civ (and I'm sure demoralization will be thrown in as well, although I don't think I've seen it specified). Not there yet, but on the other hand I'd rather incremental improvements than have to wait 20 years to play the finished game. :)I understand your point from a min-max kind of gamer perspective, but if all you want are statistics you might as well be playing Battle Champs or MOO1. The main "selling point" of Dwarf Fortress is its individuality, as least as far as I'm concerned.
Mmm, but I think you must acknowledge as well that there are people (like me) looking for the detailed management game buried in DF but not really too worried about _gratuitous_ detail, by which I mean detail that has no consequences. A goblin sieger dies or they do not; I get their gear or I do not. The rest can't come back to bite me.
... of course, it would be _nice_ if you could let a lot of horribly wounded gobbos escape pour encourager les autres, kind of thing.
Quote
QuoteNitpick: I think scurvy is an effect of vitamin deficiency, not technically a disease.
Did I say it was a disease?
"Sure, if your game is about 18th century navies, add scurvy - but don't try and get scurvy as an emergent effect of the digestive bacteria simulator. It can be done but it's a waste of time."
Although re-reading that, I guess you mean the bacteria that break down food into its nutrient components. I probably misunderstood.
Quote
QuoteNot in adventure mode (which is what I was talking about). Fortress mode and Adventure mode use the same system for combat (and everything else). This is a GOOD THING.
Let me go out on a limb here and say; no, it isn't, and furthermore the current system is appropriate for neither.
A basic characteristic a combat system may have is that any opponent has a chance, albeit potentially an extremely slender one, to kill you in one shot. This is a fine mechanic for fortress mode. You have lots of dwarves, and losing one unexpectedly is just the sort of hiccup you need to be able to deal with. What sort of a mechanic is it for a combat-focussed permadeath roguelike? Terrible; every time you get into combat you may get "game over" in spite of having made no mistakes.
For fortress mode, the current system is overly complex; for adventure mode, it's impossible to balance.Quote1) Development time - get the world to work correctly once and it works for all gameplay modes.
That assumes that the same behaviour is appropriate for different gameplay modes.
I suppose... but on the other hand I was writing a MUD at one point and instantaneous death being a possibility of combat was a strong feature that I thought made it much more exciting/fulfilling to play. Different strokes. :)
(If you're interested, the idea was that a goblin with an axe is a FREAKIN' GOBLIN WITH AN AXE! Sure, if you're seven levels higher in experience, you've got a strong advantage, but he's got an edged weapon and bad things can happen. I was a little thrilled and also a little miffed when I found out that WoW had "stolen" my idea for death - in my MUD you became a ghost, unable to interact with the physical world. If you tried to talk characters in the room would "hear the wind moaning." You'd have to find a cleric and get him/her to come back to your body with you [they could cast a spell to see/hear dead people] to revive. I understand WoW does something pretty similar.)
Quote
QuoteSorry, that part was really responding to:QuoteThere's a complete model of hydrostatic pressure, but tap into a river below a waterfall and comedy ensues.I guess I didn't understand what you meant there, so feel free to correct me. :)
That's an example of a different gripe - woefully inconsistent levels of detail. Having a complete model of hydrostatic pressure that doesn't actually work properly and requires you to memorise a few arbitary tricks isn't going to make _anyone_ happy.
I still don't understand your point, sorry. Are you talking about how a sudden influx of water into an existing channel will cause it to flash flood? That happens in real life too. Or are you talking about the infinite water bug? Hasn't that been fixed? I'm not sure - I haven't done any fluid engineering that was too complex.
Quote
QuoteBut seriously -- you sort of glossed over my point -- you can walk from place to place. (...)
It's different because the 2d version didn't have a WORLD to wander.
In fortress mode (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is all I'm talking about) you can't do that either. Sure, you can in adventurer mode, but that doesn't mean that individual embark sites can't be dollied up for a better fortress mode game. (FWIW, the 2D version did have an adventurer mode, and you could walk the world).
I know it did have adventurer mode, but could you literally walk from place to place? I thought you could only 'T'ravel. I guess it could work anyway due to the fact that, not being able to climb any mountains, you never knew if you were walking next to a mountain or a volcano (in reality they were all volcanos, but you couldn't tell, not being able to look up). Except you couldn't choose your embark location right? How did that work?
Quote
QuoteQuoteRight now, the effect is very limited either way. Once I embark the game consists of my embark site and some numerical properties of the adjacent civilisations. If you didn't know, how could you ever tell that the whole world had been generated in detail and then effectively thrown away?You never play more than one game in the same world, do you?
No reason why the salient details of fortress #1 can't be saved for use in fortress #2.
I'm confused - what I was saying above was that the salient details of fortress #1 ARE saved for use in fortress #2. :)
Quote
QuoteQuoteEt cetera. But with the current limitations of procedural content, it's just the same blocks stacked in a different order every time. Real historical figures are interesting because they did different and memorable things; in the DF history the names of who killed who may change but the nature of the interactions does not. It's cute enough to produce an image of Urist HomicidalManiac striking down Bob McOrc, but reading one page of it is just like reading every other page.Well, sure, but the same would be true if you had access to knowledge about myriad alternate histories of Earth. "Oh, Roger Krugenfeld was this world's version of Einstein. Yawn."
Well, quite. I'm not sure "this would be dealthy boring if it was a clone of Earth's history" means it's not deathly boring when it's a DF world history made out of the same bits as every other DF world history.
So I guess we're on the same page here?
Post by: bloodnok on September 13, 2009, 12:41:23 am
I suppose... but on the other hand I was writing a MUD at one point and instantaneous death being a possibility of combat was a strong feature that I thought made it much more exciting/fulfilling to play. Different strokes. :)
But death was not permanent. In a roguelike, it ordinarily is; and so having a mechanic where you can be oneshotted without making a mistake (this does assume that the game isn't one where being in combat in the first place means you've made a mistake) is inappropriate.
Quote
I still don't understand your point, sorry.
I'm referring to the way rivers downstream from waterfalls have incorrectly high pressure and the water doesn't behave as you expect.
Quote
I know it did have adventurer mode, but could you literally walk from place to place? I thought you could only 'T'ravel.
Oh, I see what you mean. No, you couldn't walk it tile by tile. My misunderstanding.
Quote
I'm confused - what I was saying above was that the salient details of fortress #1 ARE saved for use in fortress #2. :)
What I'm trying to say is that that could be done without simulating the entire world.
Quote
So I guess we're on the same page here?
I'm not sure. Let me try and explain what I'm really getting at more clearly.
I don't object to all that detail per se. It doesn't normally make the game worse for me (in the way that, say, the nightmare of micromanagement does). And I'm not soley concerned with statistics; that individual dwarves have personalities, or that engravings depict notable events (elephants on fire, say), is all perfectly jolly.
But I have three caveats about all that detail. The first is that it does make the game worse when suspension of disbelief suffers because of inconsistency. Brewing doesn't require water. An artifact pigtail sock, singular (and spiky to boot, so how does anyone wear it?) When I stop and think "what, that's obviously daft!", that doesn't help the game; and these oddities are amplified by the way things are so detailed. A stick figure with no nose looks normal; a lovingly detailed human face with no nose looks distinctly odd.
The second is that, while DF has got a lot of interesting gameplay from emergent properties of simulationism, simulationism can also work against gameplay. The way I can't just have an embark site with some of everything fun and I could beforehand strikes me an an example of this. Another worry would be the upcoming Army Arc. If I establish a fortress of seven dwarves in striking range of goblins, the sensible thing for them to do would be to send a sufficient force to wipe me out immediately and take all my gear. For a fun game I want the AI to be stupid - to send attacks I can defeat; but from a simulationist POV the AI should surely do what real militaries do and try to fight battles it can win.
The third is that I think a lot of development effort is diverted into either quite arbitary detail (as mentioned upthread, do you care about dwarves' skincare routine? A difference between you and me may be that I don't care at all and you care a bit, but is that as important to either of us as, for example, having fire behave like fire?) or needlessly complex mechanics which don't really change the gameplay significantly (hospitals, treatment, and surgery - great! yet more injury minituae - not so good), and when there are a lot of long-known serious issues that impact the play of the game today, I personally would prefer to see those addressed.
ETA another pet hate. Gaining experience in umpteen jobs improves attributes. Hooray! So doing fine jewel work all day makes you stronger whereas hauling blocks of stone up stairs for your entire working life does not. That's another incongruity case - "if they simulate everything, why on earth is _this_ missing?"
Post by: smokingwreckage on September 13, 2009, 01:09:22 am
NERDGASM!!!
Post by: Neruz on September 13, 2009, 01:24:15 am
Until then though, i'll have to content myself with Dawn of Discovery.
Post by: corvvs on September 13, 2009, 01:27:38 am
I suppose... but on the other hand I was writing a MUD at one point and instantaneous death being a possibility of combat was a strong feature that I thought made it much more exciting/fulfilling to play. Different strokes. :)
But death was not permanent. In a roguelike, it ordinarily is; and so having a mechanic where you can be oneshotted without making a mistake (this does assume that the game isn't one where being in combat in the first place means you've made a mistake) is inappropriate.
I guess... I mean, yes - I see your point. I even agree as far as the "gameplay" aspect goes... sort of. :)
But I find it entirely enjoyable with the possibility of receiving a critical hit to the spleen or the brain. Due to the gameplay aspect, I guess this is the only place where I can understand an "I have super moves but the rest of you chumps can only swing wildly" aspect. But if that's introduced I hope it would be an init option.
Nethack occasionally spawns gnome lords with wands of death/lightning/magic missile. Most characters in the Gnomish Mines don't have magic resistance. I don't find the possibility of that putting me off Nethack any more than I find the idea of a speargoblin putting his weapon into my brainpan via the eye a deterrment from adventure mode in DF.
Again, different strokes. :)
I'm not trying to say your experiences are illegitimate or anything, just making sure you're aware that many people enjoy the simulationist aspects.
Quote
QuoteI still don't understand your point, sorry.
I'm referring to the way rivers downstream from waterfalls have incorrectly high pressure and the water doesn't behave as you expect.
I haven't noticed that before - how is it incorrect? Not arguing - I'm actually curious.
Quote
QuoteI'm confused - what I was saying above was that the salient details of fortress #1 ARE saved for use in fortress #2. :)
What I'm trying to say is that that could be done without simulating the entire world.
To some extent, but what would be the point of taking away the world sim? Again, arguments against features seem odd. Also you wouldn't get engravings of past battles that occurred in the same location.
Quote
QuoteSo I guess we're on the same page here?
I'm not sure. Let me try and explain what I'm really getting at more clearly.
I don't object to all that detail per se. It doesn't normally make the game worse for me (in the way that, say, the nightmare of micromanagement does). And I'm not soley concerned with statistics; that individual dwarves have personalities, or that engravings depict notable events (elephants on fire, say), is all perfectly jolly.
But I have three caveats about all that detail. The first is that it does make the game worse when suspension of disbelief suffers because of inconsistency. Brewing doesn't require water. An artifact pigtail sock, singular (and spiky to boot, so how does anyone wear it?) When I stop and think "what, that's obviously daft!", that doesn't help the game; and these oddities are amplified by the way things are so detailed. A stick figure with no nose looks normal; a lovingly detailed human face with no nose looks distinctly odd.
The second is that, while DF has got a lot of interesting gameplay from emergent properties of simulationism, simulationism can also work against gameplay. The way I can't just have an embark site with some of everything fun and I could beforehand strikes me an an example of this. Another worry would be the upcoming Army Arc. If I establish a fortress of seven dwarves in striking range of goblins, the sensible thing for them to do would be to send a sufficient force to wipe me out immediately and take all my gear. For a fun game I want the AI to be stupid - to send attacks I can defeat; but from a simulationist POV the AI should surely do what real militaries do and try to fight battles it can win.
The third is that I think a lot of development effort is diverted into either quite arbitary detail (as mentioned upthread, do you care about dwarves' skincare routine? A difference between you and me may be that I don't care at all and you care a bit, but is that as important to either of us as, for example, having fire behave like fire?) or needlessly complex mechanics which don't really change the gameplay significantly (hospitals, treatment, and surgery - great! yet more injury minituae - not so good), and when there are a lot of long-known serious issues that impact the play of the game today, I personally would prefer to see those addressed.
Singular socks are a little odd, but I think it's on the bug list. :)
The "some of everything fun" is just foreign to my mind I guess. I obviously know what you mean but I see so much else as "fun." And to me, deciduous trees growing in a desert at the rim of an active volcano just so I can have glass and beds and infinite fuel without having to trade for anything outside of my 3x3 embark area -- and having that be the common state of affairs! I can walk 6 miles up the road and see the exact same setup! -- would make the game far less enjoyable. As I said before - it would make it "a game." As in, one of the things EA produces everytime a new Spider-Man movie comes out. Oh, I can't walk down this hallway even though I can walk down the one next to it. I guess the other one is where the boss is.
Before the AI sends a huge army they have to know about you - it destroys the living world illusion if their "goblin sense" tingles and they know seven dwarves just settled 80 miles to the south. So you'll still see scouts first, following the caravans to find you. Then raiding parties from nearby goblin villages. Then finally besieging armies from the capital as word spreads - remember, no telephone.
Of course, if you embark on their doorstep you might have issues, but isn't the point of doing so to look for trouble?
The nice thing about the "skincare" details is that he's adding them side-handed. A diversion of six hours of development time to add something that helps complete the living world illusion, even if it doesn't affect gameplay greatly, isn't such a big deal. The wrinkles were a side-effect of having creatures that grow and mature as they age. The wrinkles and greying hair themselves took only a couple hours (I'm recalling this from one of the interviews or question responses) to do as he was already working in the area.
It would be nice if dwarves recognized that being on fire is a bad thing. I'm definitely not arguing against bug fixes. :)
Hospitals treatment and surgery don't change the gameplay interestingly? ("significantly" is hard to evaluate in terms of meaningfulness - a "significant" change would be to make goblins explode in a burst of blood when you click on them, but that wouldn't necessarily make the game better.) I disagree, but again, different style of play.
The current development version is all about adding the features that have been building up that will break save compatibility. Once this is out, the work will go toward bug fixes and more gameplay oriented features. And they will come out faster. And you won't have to regen the world every time a new version comes out - so you can continue to elaborate on the history you're currently engaged with. Until suddenly, in the Year of Our Urist 532, dwarves realize that fire is bad for their health. :)
EDIT: Re: your edit (attribute leveling)
Already fixed in the next version. There are now more attributes, split into mental and physical categories, and certain tasks exercise only certain attributes.
Post by: Jiri Petru on September 13, 2009, 04:28:48 am
Quote from: Bloodnok
Another worry would be the upcoming Army Arc. If I establish a fortress of seven dwarves in striking range of goblins, the sensible thing for them to do would be to send a sufficient force to wipe me out immediately and take all my gear. For a fun game I want the AI to be stupid - to send attacks I can defeat; but from a simulationist POV the AI should surely do what real militaries do and try to fight battles it can win.
Just a note - these are almost exactly Toady's words, when he spoke about Army Arc in the last podcast. So rest assured, he does try to strike the fine line between simulation and fun.
Post by: Footkerchief on September 13, 2009, 04:45:10 am
Just a note - these are almost exactly Toady's words, when he spoke about Army Arc in the last podcast. So rest assured, he does try to strike the fine line between simulation and fun.
Yeah, here's the quote:
Quote from: DF Talk 2 transcript
Sieges have been in Dwarf Fortress since before it was released, I guess around 2004. There were originally underground ones that came from the 2D chasm type thing that was there, you'd have animals come out of there; you'd have these escalating goblin sieges and you'd also have the year 6 attack by undead where all the bodies in your fortress raise up and start killing you siege. When we moved away from having set sieges and more towards civilizations in the world that changed a little bit although there's still a lot of artificial stuff around sieges like the way that the goblins just kind of ramp up without respecting their civilizations. The main idea is at first just to add something for you to do in kind of a fantasy combat type of way, because there's the underground and then there's the outside and the idea with the siege is to give you some kind of challenges associated to that. As we improve the interactions with the outside world it'll be more just to drive the plot of whatever's going on while at the same time trying to respect the notion that it's still a computer game and you can't just get jumped by two hundred goblins right at the beginning or something like that because your fortress happens to be in the wrong place, although that wouldn't necessarily be off-limits as long as there's some other stuff to balance that out like your civilization helping you out or something like that.
Post by: Braddles!? on September 13, 2009, 05:21:57 am
im new to dwarf fortress,
i am very into gameplay in games, and i have promised myself i will get used to the ascii art eventually. i believe that if this game was 3-D, it would be extremely successful.
i am in winter in my first year, one of my dwarves was attacked by fish while fishing and is now dead, so its down to my farming for food. I was VERY confused when starting out, if not for the "your first fortress" on the wiki thing, i would have given the game up.
For more players, either direct them to that guide, or make a tutorial, it would be useful to a lot of new players like me
When the trader comes again, will i get new dwarves as well? as my fishers little home is now empty :(, not too mention all the other rooms i made while i was bored.
and where do i find valuable minerals like gold?
i mined a bit, but found nothing of interest
Post by: Timst on September 13, 2009, 08:14:33 am
Quote
and where do i find valuable minerals like gold?
Depend on where you embarked. DF generate regions according to real world data (well, probably a bit more generously, because platinum or gold seems to be abundant in the game), so you won't necessarily have every metal or mineral on your map. It's quite possible to never have iron or gold for instance, and it might even be possible to have a really "empty" map without any metal or precious gem (I'm not sure if it already happened tough).
Dig more, you'll eventually find something, most of the time.
Quote
When the trader comes again, will i get new dwarves as well? as my fishers little home is now empty, not too mention all the other rooms i made while i was bored.
Immigrants come every year, or even several time per year, given the merchants were able to return to the mountainhomes to report about your fortress.
Post by: Braddles!? on September 13, 2009, 08:41:07 am
Post by: Timst on September 13, 2009, 08:49:20 am
Post by: Andir on September 13, 2009, 11:38:09 am
My pleasure. Don't be afraid to ask, people here are usually friendly and open to questions.... but um... keep it in the proper threads. This one is more about stating turn-offs about the game, not answering questions.
(I'm not jumping on you, but you'll go a long way keeping on topic around here, and people will be much cooler with you. I understand it may have been rhetorical, and it is a valid concern for starting off [making money.] BTW, I also agree that the interface could use a lot of work, but I understand it's a one man team, for the most part, and developing all that is an undertaking.)
Post by: Particleman on September 13, 2009, 12:00:50 pm
The complexity was a huge factor at first, but now that I'm familiar with the game, I can see why most of it is neccesary.
Another big thing is the fact that NOTHING is explained in-game. It took me a while to figure out just how the hell to build a functioning waterwheel, for instance. The wiki helped a lot here. A tutorial scenario or something would help new players understand the game and make the complexity of it less daunting.
Post by: Durin on September 13, 2009, 02:45:50 pm
I've got a 6 month old middle of the line laptop. It seems to do a good job with the game, but today it overheated, and just in general DF churns the processor from the moment you start it up to the moment you shut it down.
Why is this exactly? I think ultimately it is going to have to be addressed. My understanding so far is that a lot of stuff that you cannot even see is nevertheless being tracked, which is probably not a great idea.
Game play wise, while it is all well and good not to make graphics a focus on a game that is basically about rts and social development, interface should have been at least a moderate focus from the get go. Now you are going to need to play catch up. Graphics comparable to the original sim city back in the 80's should not have been that hard to manage, nor should a simple windows interface of some sort. I could not even begin to critique the flow of the menus until this step is taken.
Well, I guess I could begin...
Menus that serve similar purposes should have some sort of cross connect. I should not have to totally quit out of the "view" to go get a close up of the exact same dwarf to check his labors. Also, when going to close up from units, for whatever reason DF takes you just to the top unit on the square you are on, which is infuriating in and of itself, and damn well mindblowing when you first do it and can't for the life of you figure out why when you go to mark a newborn kitten for the slaughter you end up staring at Unib Farterfurnace's labor preferences instead.
Whine and complain, complain and whine, I know I know... but I adore the game and its general concept.
Why is it not open source? I think you risk having someone see it and develop something like it for mass consumption doing it the way you're doing now. Development would be faster open sourced, you already have a massive community of support here, and I doubt seriously someone is going to come along and offer you the cash for what you have developed over 6 years that they can probably do in 1 year themselves with better graphics support, assuming any of them get the attraction of the game and decide to do something like it. I'm not an open source junkie and in fact am playing it on Vista, but it just seems something of this sort is more or less exactly what Open Source is all about, and you can still accept donations. Once you get to the point where you think it is marketable, sell the prepackaged version. Most users do not have the tech saavy to use the freely available source to begin with, and would be more than happy to simply download the thing from an easy to find and use web page, assuming the objection you have to Open Source is you do not get to copyright and hence make money off of it.
Just my two cents.
Post by: G-Flex on September 13, 2009, 03:03:48 pm
The system requirements. :'(
I've got a 6 month old middle of the line laptop. It seems to do a good job with the game, but today it overheated, and just in general DF churns the processor from the moment you start it up to the moment you shut it down.
Why is this exactly? I think ultimately it is going to have to be addressed. My understanding so far is that a lot of stuff that you cannot even see is nevertheless being tracked, which is probably not a great idea.
Tracking stuff that isn't currently being "used" or visible isn't really the problem. For one, that stuff is bound to be used in the future anyhow, plus the most significant problems with FPS are things like pathfinding and fluid flows.
Those things can be made more efficient, of course, but it's hard with a game as complicated as this, really. It's a good goal, though, and I know pathfinding is going to get some sort of rewrite at some point, and will probably be more efficient.
Then again, if your laptop is ever actually overheating, that sounds more like a problem with its design. A computer shouldn't overheat due to normal work like that unless it's poorly-designed or subjected to bad conditions, especially when it's new.
Post by: Durin on September 13, 2009, 03:21:42 pm
The system requirements. :'(
I've got a 6 month old middle of the line laptop. It seems to do a good job with the game, but today it overheated, and just in general DF churns the processor from the moment you start it up to the moment you shut it down.
Why is this exactly? I think ultimately it is going to have to be addressed. My understanding so far is that a lot of stuff that you cannot even see is nevertheless being tracked, which is probably not a great idea.
Then again, if your laptop is ever actually overheating, that sounds more like a problem with its design. A computer shouldn't overheat due to normal work like that unless it's poorly-designed or subjected to bad conditions, especially when it's new.
"Poorly designed" is in the eye of the beholder. The main thrust I am getting at is I can see from watching the processor either through Task Manager or through a little add on gadget Vista offers, even when the program is just sitting there asking whether you want to start or not, it begins churning the processor to what seems to me to be an inordinate degree. As far as when a computer ought or ought not to overheat, gaming rigs come kitted out with liquid cooled processors for a reason. A laptop is not designed, for better or worse, to have its processor sit at the 55-70% utilization range for hours on end.
So yes, I think some basic design philosophy issues are going to have to be addressed soon, because few and far between are the people that are going to want to spend $5000 bucks for a computer capable of comfortably running a game without graphics to speak of. If the goal is actually to simulate the entirety of reality on a home computer, down to the emotions of everyone within say 2-3 square miles of some arbitrary point, I think the we have set ourselves an impossible task.
Warcraft and the like all involve pathing. I can plop an old Warcraft III on here if you like to make my point, but I think the bottom line is that something is going to have to give on the system requirements soon, and the solution is going to be a decision to be made on the philosophy used as to how to simulate all the cool things we want simulated here.
Just for the record, I fall amongst that tiny pecentage who would buy a mega system just to be able to play this game. Maybe that is going to end up being a defining quality of this game... people whose entertainment is found less in the graphics and more in the details. But currently that's my beef... I am straining the capacity of this computer with a 60-something odd dwarf colony, and that is depressing me somewhat. :D
Post by: G-Flex on September 13, 2009, 03:41:22 pm
Also, if a gaming rig requires that sort of ridiculous cooling, sure. You design a system with the cooling it needs. A laptop is a contiguous unit and should be designed with the cooling it needs as well. The rush to make them thinner as well as more powerful gives you laptops that cannot maintain a decent operating temperature when given a decent workload. Personally, I'm sitting here with a junky Acer laptop from 2004, with fans that probably have needed lubrication for years, and it never overheats no matter what I do unless it's in the 90's in my room and I'm playing games or something.
Simply put, a computer is poorly-designed if it can't actually sustain itself at 50% operating capacity for a few hours.
I'm not really sure why pathfinding is so much harsher on this game than others. It might be due to how often it happens and the number of units, plus the fact that the map is in three dimensions, and how little you can assume about the map since it constantly changes. Of course, like I said, there are probably a lot of inefficiencies in the way it's implemented that can be figured out.
I really hope that $5000 figure is an extreme exaggeration. Really, the only serious limiting factor for DF is the processor; it's not like you need a ridiculous videocard or anything. And it's not even multithreaded (which is one thing that could use work, although the amount of work involved in doing this would be tremendous, and is oft-discussed here), so throwing twelve of the newest line into the computer wouldn't do anything for you anyhow. So yes, having a powerhouse of a computer can help, but only in a couple select areas.
Post by: Durin on September 13, 2009, 04:52:01 pm
Simply put, a computer is poorly-designed if it can't actually sustain itself at 50% operating capacity for a few hours.
I think you are preaching to the choir. My point is I doubt I am getting anywhere taking it back to the store at this point when the only application I can find that overheats it is this one.
Sorry, but I find these discussions tedious. I think you know what I mean and have already acknowledged that it is an issue, and is being worked on. Thanks.
Yeah, the $5000 comment was an exageration.
Post by: Neruz on September 13, 2009, 06:24:30 pm
In DF though, it's entirely possible i'll have 20 or 30 pathfinding maps (one per z level). As opposed to the usual one-with-exceptions. That's a gargantuan increase.
That and the fact that designing an efficient pathing engine for a modern game takes up an inordinately disproportionate amount of time and money.
Post by: Andir on September 13, 2009, 06:31:10 pm
... for a modern game takes up an inordinately disproportionate amount of time and money.I always found this a funny statement when referring to Software development because in 99% of all cases, Time is Money. Now, if you were to buy a third party solution then it's a different matter, but for all intents and purposes, programming time and money are one in the same. ;D
Post by: Neruz on September 13, 2009, 06:44:58 pm
... for a modern game takes up an inordinately disproportionate amount of time and money.I always found this a funny statement when referring to Software development because in 99% of all cases, Time is Money. Now, if you were to buy a third party solution then it's a different matter, but for all intents and purposes, programming time and money are one in the same. ;D
Technically yes, but the translation of time into money is a bit iffy; time isn't worth much at the start of the project, but is worth a huge amount at the end of the project. So it's usually easier to just keep a money budget and a time budget and reference them seperately rather than trying to translate it all into money.
Post by: bloodnok on September 13, 2009, 07:27:11 pm
Nethack occasionally spawns gnome lords with wands of death/lightning/magic missile.
I'm not sure I would hold up NetHack as a perfect example of well-designed balance in a roguelike game, but... nethack.alt.org lists a 29-game winning streak, a 25-game winning streak, and a 23-game winning streak. The actual number of unavoidable deaths in NetHack is extremely small, much smaller than the casual player supposes is the case.
Also, hm. I think a roguelike can't avoid the occasional unfair death without becoming either too easy or too repetitive. But that doesn't make it a good idea to write in a game mechanic that causes unavoidable deaths without any benefits, and "any monster can potentially oneshot you in combat" is such a mechanic.
Quote
QuoteI'm referring to the way rivers downstream from waterfalls have incorrectly high pressure and the water doesn't behave as you expect.I haven't noticed that before - how is it incorrect?
It's a lot easier to set up a test case in Fortress mode, but briefly, water taken from the river below a waterfall can seek a z-level higher than the river, and this can cause unexpected flooding.
Quote
QuoteWhat I'm trying to say is that that could be done without simulating the entire world.To some extent, but what would be the point of taking away the world sim?
I'm not saying "take it away", but I am saying it represents a lot of "jam tomorrow" work that hasn't really changed the (fortress mode) game we play now, because an embark site _is_ a pocket dimension. If you were trying to improve fortress mode starting from a game without the world simulator, you probably wouldn't write the world simulator first.
Also I'm saying it shouldn't be allowed to compromise the game we play now, and to a degree, the exercise where one furtles around with Site Finder to find a site with lots of interesting features is not really a very helpful one.
Quote
And to me, deciduous trees growing in a desert at the rim of an active volcano just so I can have glass and beds and infinite fuel without having to trade for anything outside of my 3x3 embark area -- and having that be the common state of affairs! I can walk 6 miles up the road and see the exact same setup!
Well, again, it doesn't have to be the common state of affairs, because an embark site only wants to be dollied up at the point you actually embark. The rest of the world could stay as it is, because it's only relevant to adventurer mode.
"3x3" embark site is an interesting point. The current state of DF actively encourages you to take a large embark site in order to encompass more biomes... in a game notorious for crippling CPU demands. Here's a radical proposal; throw any idea of the "real" scale out the window, and shrink each embark tile to the desired size, so I can lay out a 12x12 embark area and use CPU for a 3x3, with each embark tile occupying 1/16 of the space it does now. That's an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about - recognise that once you have embarked the rest of the world is reduced to a few numbers, and don't compromise the play value of the embark site for the sake of the "real" state of the rest of the world.
Quote
It would be nice if dwarves recognized that being on fire is a bad thing. I'm definitely not arguing against bug fixes. :)
And if fire acted like fire, not some slow-acting contagion! The trouble is, development effort is limited; the more wrinkles that are added, the less chance there is fire ever works.
Quote
Hospitals treatment and surgery don't change the gameplay interestingly?
I think you misunderstood me. I _like_ the idea of hospitals and dwarves with medical skills. It seems entirely appropriate to extend the medical care simulation beyond the current, rather unsatisfying one. I just don't think it needs to be done by simulating individual stitches!
Quote
Already fixed in the next version. There are now more attributes, split into mental and physical categories, and certain tasks exercise only certain attributes.
So I gather, but really, how long has it been like that?
Another oddity is what materials can construct what. Stone (but not metal, oddly) can be used to make mechanisms, which not only are completely modular (can be used for any purpose) but can exert action at any distance. However, it is impossible to construct a bed from the stuff!
... sure, the demand for wood doesn't hurt the game, but in practice the demand for inflammables is going to send you out in search of wood. The bed thing is just arbitary.
Post by: Neruz on September 13, 2009, 09:04:12 pm
It's a lot easier to set up a test case in Fortress mode, but briefly, water taken from the river below a waterfall can seek a z-level higher than the river, and this can cause unexpected flooding.
Shouldn't be able to unless you block the river, as once the water has risen to the level of the river it will preferentially path off the edge of the map where the river exits rather than to a higher level.
Also, bloodnok, you appear to have forgotten that DF is an alpha. Alot of your arguments make sense in the current context of the game, but will cause major problems later on. Not simulating the entirity of the world for example, makes sense at the moment because the fortress mode is a 'pocket dimension', but once the army arc is implimented that will no longer be the case, at which point the game suddenly does need to simulate the entire world.
If, however, you have previously not been simulating the entire world, you need to add all that simulation code in, and you need the fortress mode to suddenly start using that code. Effectively, you need to rewrite the game from scratch.
The vast majority of DF's features are either incomplete, or foundations for future features. DF is a work in progress, not a finished product, which is why there are lots of placeholders and bits and pieces that don't make sense yet, but will make sense in the context of the final product.
This is also why professional game devs don't release their alpha builds to the general public; they do exactly the same thing, they just don't show you, so you never know about all the strange mismatched dog-ends that hung around for two-thirds of the dev cycle until they were finished.
Post by: bloodnok on September 13, 2009, 11:10:01 pm
It's a lot easier to set up a test case in Fortress mode, but briefly, water taken from the river below a waterfall can seek a z-level higher than the river, and this can cause unexpected flooding.Shouldn't be able to unless you block the river
http://dwarf.lendemaindeveille.com/index.php/Waterfall
Quote
Also, bloodnok, you appear to have forgotten that DF is an alpha.
No, and I think I've discussed the "jam tomorrow" position about eight thousand times already.
Post by: Neruz on September 13, 2009, 11:49:04 pm
It's a lot easier to set up a test case in Fortress mode, but briefly, water taken from the river below a waterfall can seek a z-level higher than the river, and this can cause unexpected flooding.Shouldn't be able to unless you block the river
http://dwarf.lendemaindeveille.com/index.php/Waterfall
I know the Wiki says that, but i've never actually seen it happen. Yes, water at the bottom of the waterfall retains the pressure it had at the top of the waterfall, but because the edge of the map counts as a valid location for water to path to it will never flood higher than the river, as any water higher than the river will path off the map first.
If you block the river, then it will flood, which is entirely what you would expect to happen.
No, and I think I've discussed the "jam tomorrow" position about eight thousand times already.
You've discussed it, which shows you are aware that DF is an alpha, but apparantly you still fail to understand that DF is an alpha.
Most of the work Toady has done so far that doesn't make sense had to be done at this stage as it would be almost impossible to do at a later stage.
Post by: bloodnok on September 13, 2009, 11:56:25 pm
You've discussed it, which shows you are aware that DF is an alpha, but apparantly you still fail to understand that DF is an alpha.
And I was just thinking how nice it was to get this far into a discussion on a Web forum without anyone being patronising for no readily apparent reason, too. Spare me it.
Post by: Neruz on September 13, 2009, 11:58:05 pm
I could be wrong and you could just be obtuse, but i like to assume ignorance rather than malevolance unless i have reason to suspect otherwise.
Post by: nickbii on September 14, 2009, 01:16:18 am
I have to second the folks who say the big turn-off to this game is how complex the economy is. Just think of all the steps you need to do to turn iron into steel.
If you want typical gamers to play a game this complex you're gonna need much better in-game help. I liked the idea of merging most of the information keys, and displaying a one-sentence explanation of what each thing is used for. A tutorial is probably called for as well.
Better graphics would also be good. Telling gnomes from goblins should be a lot easier.
One major reason I stopped playing DF the first time I tried it was that I had trouble getting my broker to trade. When I was a newbie I'd screw up my initial embark, desperately need something (usually booze or food), and watch my broker do irrelevant things for weeks while his buddies literally starved to death. There are fun ways to lose. This is not one of them.
Now that I've played awhile I know to turn off his labors, and then repeatedly draft/un-draft him until he does his dang job.
Nick
Post by: Neruz on September 14, 2009, 01:21:15 am
Post by: Typoman on September 14, 2009, 03:05:20 am
Actually the steel problem could be solved by adding a new reaction (that i myself added aaages ago), "Make Steel from Ore". It takes 2 Iron Ore, 2 Flux, 2 Coke and creates 2 Steel. Ideally you'd have it so this reaction took 4x as long as a normal reaction so as not to save time, but that's not possible atm, which makes it a bit cheaty, but it's better than the whole 'smelt iron, smelt another iron, smelt pig iron, smelt steel' process you need to go through atm.especially since a similar thing has been done at the ashery. or whatever it is that makes lye. (i haver never used lye or anything like that so i am not 100% sure of the workshop)
Post by: Neruz on September 14, 2009, 03:26:14 am
--EDIT--
Also, apparantly Pearlash should actually be called Pearl Ash. Interesting.
Post by: Typoman on September 14, 2009, 05:06:16 am
Post by: Neonivek on September 14, 2009, 07:24:34 am
When responding to people you need to pick your battles. If someone has complaints about the game you should leave them be. If that complaint however is because of something they overlooked and more importantly by telling them this they could seek more enjoyment out of the game, then you could respond.
For example
Fake Person: "I think Dwarf Fortress is entirely unoriginal and it is horrible. Toady doesn't even improve the gameplay. I think this game should die off because it is horrible"
-Leave him alone.
Fake Person 2: "I dislike Dwarf Fortress there isn't even a way to make weapons and the lack a tutorial is just terrible"
-Now this is something you could respond to. You could inform them that there is a Wiki.
It isn't your job to judge people so any response should be purely informative in nature. Just keeping things civil since the point of this thread is to see what people are complaining about, shooting them down because they said something you don't agree with is the antithesis of this thread.
Post by: Andir on September 14, 2009, 07:46:39 am
Most of the work Toady has done so far that doesn't make sense had to be done at this stage as it would be almost impossible to do at a later stage.Just curious... but what were you referring to?
Post by: Neruz on September 14, 2009, 08:06:40 am
Most of the work Toady has done so far that doesn't make sense had to be done at this stage as it would be almost impossible to do at a later stage.Just curious... but what were you referring to?
Specifically the currently 'useless' aspects of the world simulation, such as animal populations. But potentially most of the non-placeholder content.
Impossible was the wrong word; incredibly annoying and time-wasting would be more accurate.
Post by: Granite26 on September 14, 2009, 10:05:34 am
When responding to people you need to pick your battles. If someone has complaints about the game you should leave them be. If that complaint however is because of something they overlooked and more importantly by telling them this they could seek more enjoyment out of the game, then you could respond.
Yay Sanity... Good Post, Neonivek
Post by: dyze on September 14, 2009, 10:13:00 am
Post by: Andir on September 14, 2009, 02:26:49 pm
Thanks. I was mainly curious about the aspect of it being impossible. Any good design with proper planning should be expandable. As a developer I see people assume their scope and code around that. I tend to work in the opposite direction. I assume no scope and work from the minutiae upward to the bounds of the data objects I choose. So I don't see any aspect of enhancing the engine having any really difficult or adverse effects on the simulation if it were moved to a larger scale. You might have to generalize some of the simulations (like water levels) when looking at the world from a multi-region perspective, but it's basically the same calculation on a different scale. (yes, armies, caravan groups, et al fall into this pattern as well) I've been meaning to put together my own fortress simulation using this technique, but starting from the smallest intrinsic level (a tile/a group of tiles) and working upward with threading, pathing, and all that in mind. It's likely to be a little more intensive to the lower end processors, but it should scale better. I just have to set aside some time when I'm not gaming, or slacking off to begin this pet project. I really have to begin regimenting my time off in a couple hours a night just to get the ball rolling, but I've been wanting to do this for some time now (amazingly, well before DF came into my life... I ran into DF doing my standard research.)Most of the work Toady has done so far that doesn't make sense had to be done at this stage as it would be almost impossible to do at a later stage.Just curious... but what were you referring to?
Specifically the currently 'useless' aspects of the world simulation, such as animal populations. But potentially most of the non-placeholder content.
Impossible was the wrong word; incredibly annoying and time-wasting would be more accurate.
Post by: corvvs on September 14, 2009, 04:46:19 pm
Thanks. I was mainly curious about the aspect of it being impossible. Any good design with proper planning should be expandable. As a developer I see people assume their scope and code around that. I tend to work in the opposite direction. I assume no scope and work from the minutiae upward to the bounds of the data objects I choose. So I don't see any aspect of enhancing the engine having any really difficult or adverse effects on the simulation if it were moved to a larger scale. You might have to generalize some of the simulations (like water levels) when looking at the world from a multi-region perspective, but it's basically the same calculation on a different scale. (yes, armies, caravan groups, et al fall into this pattern as well) I've been meaning to put together my own fortress simulation using this technique, but starting from the smallest intrinsic level (a tile/a group of tiles) and working upward with threading, pathing, and all that in mind. It's likely to be a little more intensive to the lower end processors, but it should scale better. I just have to set aside some time when I'm not gaming, or slacking off to begin this pet project. I really have to begin regimenting my time off in a couple hours a night just to get the ball rolling, but I've been wanting to do this for some time now (amazingly, well before DF came into my life... I ran into DF doing my standard research.)Most of the work Toady has done so far that doesn't make sense had to be done at this stage as it would be almost impossible to do at a later stage.Just curious... but what were you referring to?
Specifically the currently 'useless' aspects of the world simulation, such as animal populations. But potentially most of the non-placeholder content.
Impossible was the wrong word; incredibly annoying and time-wasting would be more accurate.
So basically you're doing it the way Toady is doing it.
What Neruz was saying is that it's much harder to take Galaga and turn it into a flight simulator than it is to take a flight simulator and add game elements such as enemies and machine guns.
Post by: Andir on September 14, 2009, 05:47:10 pm
So basically you're doing it the way Toady is doing it.No... not at all.
Post by: Neruz on September 14, 2009, 07:48:26 pm
3D DF introduced the world as a cohesive simulated whole, as opposed to the previous abstraction.
The Army Arc will introduce the ability to navigate the world as a cohesive whole in Fortress Mode, as opposed to it simply being a cohesive whole. With the Army Arc will also come the removal of the current 'Pocket Dimension' placeholders. And so on.
Post by: Andir on September 14, 2009, 10:19:24 pm
You're doing it in a very similar manner; 2D DF was basically 'worldless', it was just your fortress. Adventure mode had a bunch of 'floating points' you could travel between, but not walk between.It's still very much a top down approach though. There's nothing wrong with it. It probably produces more up front playable results. However, what I'm getting at is that you should be able to concentrate on the thought of groups in a generic sense instead of defining them individually. I don't know how to explain it any better than I have, but it basically wouldn't even label the structures Armies or Fortresses. It would naturally flow toward that situation. Currently under Toady's design dwarfs and other races are individual people. Nothing really works as a team or together. They complete a specific job without regard to others. I'm talking about creating semi-intelligent groupings serving a common purpose. You could essentially see "gangs" of dwarfs out mining an area of forest working together.
3D DF introduced the world as a cohesive simulated whole, as opposed to the previous abstraction.
The Army Arc will introduce the ability to navigate the world as a cohesive whole in Fortress Mode, as opposed to it simply being a cohesive whole. With the Army Arc will also come the removal of the current 'Pocket Dimension' placeholders. And so on.
Post by: Neruz on September 14, 2009, 10:26:33 pm
You're doing it in a very similar manner; 2D DF was basically 'worldless', it was just your fortress. Adventure mode had a bunch of 'floating points' you could travel between, but not walk between.It's still very much a top down approach though. There's nothing wrong with it. It probably produces more up front playable results. However, what I'm getting at is that you should be able to concentrate on the thought of groups in a generic sense instead of defining them individually. I don't know how to explain it any better than I have, but it basically wouldn't even label the structures Armies or Fortresses. It would naturally flow toward that situation. Currently under Toady's design dwarfs and other races are individual people. Nothing really works as a team or together. They complete a specific job without regard to others. I'm talking about creating semi-intelligent groupings serving a common purpose. You could essentially see "gangs" of dwarfs out mining an area of forest working together.
3D DF introduced the world as a cohesive simulated whole, as opposed to the previous abstraction.
The Army Arc will introduce the ability to navigate the world as a cohesive whole in Fortress Mode, as opposed to it simply being a cohesive whole. With the Army Arc will also come the removal of the current 'Pocket Dimension' placeholders. And so on.
So basically you're talking about AI development; one of the hardest and most complicated realms of game design.
Post by: Andir on September 14, 2009, 10:59:34 pm
Yes and no.... I'm talking about method, not a specific implementations. AI happens to be one part of that, but it all falls into general design. It could be groups of creatures, groupings of fluids (ie: rivers/lakes as a "mutable" object as opposed to individual tiles, but an individual tile could be a body of water.) You are still thinking of things as a definable/individual entity. I still intend on having a "list of demands" that need to be done to keep the "player" (me) entertained. Otherwise I'd be developing an entire individual set of AI (which for the most part needs to be mostly implemented anyway for computer played races.)You're doing it in a very similar manner; 2D DF was basically 'worldless', it was just your fortress. Adventure mode had a bunch of 'floating points' you could travel between, but not walk between.It's still very much a top down approach though. There's nothing wrong with it. It probably produces more up front playable results. However, what I'm getting at is that you should be able to concentrate on the thought of groups in a generic sense instead of defining them individually. I don't know how to explain it any better than I have, but it basically wouldn't even label the structures Armies or Fortresses. It would naturally flow toward that situation. Currently under Toady's design dwarfs and other races are individual people. Nothing really works as a team or together. They complete a specific job without regard to others. I'm talking about creating semi-intelligent groupings serving a common purpose. You could essentially see "gangs" of dwarfs out mining an area of forest working together.
3D DF introduced the world as a cohesive simulated whole, as opposed to the previous abstraction.
The Army Arc will introduce the ability to navigate the world as a cohesive whole in Fortress Mode, as opposed to it simply being a cohesive whole. With the Army Arc will also come the removal of the current 'Pocket Dimension' placeholders. And so on.
So basically you're talking about AI development; one of the hardest and most complicated realms of game design.
Post by: Neruz on September 15, 2009, 01:00:29 am
Post by: Toady One on September 15, 2009, 04:52:53 am
Post by: Braddles!? on September 15, 2009, 06:30:00 am
hmm, catsplosion is unpleasant, but, wouldnt be the same without it.
im gonna have to say...
not finding enough gold to make a solid gold fortress.
but thats a rather superficial problem, just, go toady!
Post by: Muz on September 15, 2009, 09:00:52 am
1. UI. But it's a known problem :P
2. Slow pace. By this, I mean both FPS and the way things go. It takes a while for anything interesting to happen. Sieges take about a RL week to start. Or maybe I'm just unlucky :P
3. Exploratory mining... this is pretty 'grind-ish'. You have to slooowly lay out line by line and hope you hit something interesting. Would be nice if this was improved.
4. Imbalance. Uber-powerful traps, crossbows, that sort of thing.
Post by: Fikes on September 15, 2009, 08:44:03 pm
What turns me off about DF, and I've posted this elsewhere, maybe here... is...
Well, it is unpopular, but I'll lay it out anyway.
Quote from: Dev Now
found a lot of things wrong with the groundhog bite today. First, a groundhog ripped a lion in half and bit off a dwarf's arms... and it was using every part of its head (eyes, nose, etc.), not just its teeth, for the biting. After I fixed that up, it was still using its teeth like little needles and piercing brains and so on. I eventually got that sorted out.
Some systems in the game are WAY too simple, like farming. While some systems in the game are way to complicated, like the health/layers system.
I think the game is simply too complicated on a level few players will really understand. You have individual layers of flesh, bones and tendons. Why? Why make it that complicated. A system which allows the loss of limbs would be just as effective, almost as cool, and take a fraction of the time to develop.
It seems incredibly awesome, but now you have to spend time checking pointy-ness of the teeth of the groundhogs! And when all is said and done, the average player isn't going to look that deeply at how their guys lost his arms anyways.
If you are talking only about what turns new players off, I am going to stick to mouse support.
Click and drag mining baby!
Post by: corvvs on September 15, 2009, 10:29:16 pm
Wow, I am amazed this thread is still alive.
What turns me off about DF, and I've posted this elsewhere, maybe here... is...
Well, it is unpopular, but I'll lay it out anyway.Quote from: Dev Nowfound a lot of things wrong with the groundhog bite today. First, a groundhog ripped a lion in half and bit off a dwarf's arms... and it was using every part of its head (eyes, nose, etc.), not just its teeth, for the biting. After I fixed that up, it was still using its teeth like little needles and piercing brains and so on. I eventually got that sorted out.
Some systems in the game are WAY too simple, like farming. While some systems in the game are way to complicated, like the health/layers system.
I think the game is simply too complicated on a level few players will really understand. You have individual layers of flesh, bones and tendons. Why? Why make it that complicated. A system which allows the loss of limbs would be just as effective, almost as cool, and take a fraction of the time to develop.
It seems incredibly awesome, but now you have to spend time checking pointy-ness of the teeth of the groundhogs! And when all is said and done, the average player isn't going to look that deeply at how their guys lost his arms anyways.
If you are talking only about what turns new players off, I am going to stick to mouse support.
Click and drag mining baby!
Well, the problem comes in when you have tentacle demons or crazy monsters modders have made - the modders need ways to define limbs... and there's a "slippery slope" thing there except it's not a race to the bottom, it's a race to expose as much functionality as possible in the raws. I'd like to stress that I don't think this is a bad thing despite my use of the phrase "slippery slope" :)
By the way, you can use the mouse to designate now - I do it all the time when I need a tunnel that looks more natural as opposed to a 5-tile wide underground "highway."
Post by: joquarky on September 16, 2009, 01:41:29 am
I think most of my initial frustrations with DF were with the UI. There are so many things that are strewn about without any order to them.
Biggest one: losing my cursor position. Every time I reset and perform a new action, my cursor recenters. This is especially frustrating when I want to switch between k, v, t, and q modes on the same object.
For that matter, why can't k, v, t and q be combined in some way? Perhaps k could be the default, with the v, t, and q being "tabbed" modes you switch between like how gen inv pref and wnd are when viewing a dwarf, without requiring you to space back (leave screen) and re-position your cursor to the same object.
The information shown at the top of the k panel should be shown for the current tile while doing designations.
How exactly is the Stocks portion of the Status window organized? It's not alphabetical or any pattern that I can discern. I notice some related things seem lumped together, but as a newbie, I find it takes a lot of time to find things.
It's very frustrating setting up dwarf preferences and labors. Maybe I'm missing something, but I find it enormously frustrating to go down the unit list one-by-one and "zoom cre" to go to each dwarf, set their labor, then space back only to find that it doesn't bring me back to the unit list, like it does with viewcre. Instead, I have to re-open the unit list and then page/arrow down to the next dwarf (hopefully I remember the name of the last one I was configuring to know the next one to arrow down to).
When there is too much stuff blinking, I often can't find my X cursor. Perhaps the cursor should have a unique tile that easily distinguishes it from the stairs, bins, etc.
I am unable to prioritize jobs. There are critical times when this is extremely frustrating.
Please make a way to configure which types of stone are important enough to justify pausing and recentering my view when they are discovered. I find it nearly impossible to do anything while doing exploration mining.
And here are some lesser issues:
Can we make some way to condense stone that doesn't seem hackish like the 1-tile garbage zone? Perhaps we could build pallets that act like bins (but only for stone) so that we can stack stone on them to save perhaps 10x space in stone stockpiles.
It's very unrealistic that I can carve out huge rooms without any consequences (e.g., some risk of cave-in, especially in sandy soil). This makes the game kind of boring in that I have no reason to make individual stockpile rooms. I might as well just lump everything into one super-sized stockpile room and set up workshops scattered about in the middle of it.
It's very frustrating that I can't designate a bed (or other furniture) to be built in a certain tile whenever a bed becomes available. When I move to a new house, I can designate that I will place my bed somewhere without having to currently own a bed.
Please let there be a way to have more than one line of announcements (optimally, let us configure the number of lines that can be used for announcements) on the main screen. Sometimes things just go by so fast I feel like I have to constantly keep hitting a to catch everything since there is constantly [MORE].
I have no idea what most of the symbols mean on the embark map. I don't even see a reference on the wiki.
I wish that each object in the game could get its own graphical tile in the same way that there is an option to give creatures their own graphical tileset. There are too many characters that have multiple uses and newbies don't have enough experience to determine what something is from context.
Post by: h45hc0d3 on September 16, 2009, 04:00:54 am
For that matter, why can't k, v, t and q be combined in some way? Perhaps k could be the default, with the v, t, and q being "tabbed" modes you switch between like how gen inv pref and wnd are when viewing a dwarf, without requiring you to space back (leave screen) and re-position your cursor to the same object.
I like that. Toggles for the cursor inside ANOTHER submenu! You're brilliant
How exactly is the Stocks portion of the Status window organized? It's not alphabetical or any pattern that I can discern. I notice some related things seem lumped together, but as a newbie, I find it takes a lot of time to find things.
It's in the same order every other big list is in, if I recall correctly. I might be crazy - I play dwarf fortress, after all! - but I think they're the same order?
It's very frustrating setting up dwarf preferences and labors. Maybe I'm missing something, but I find it enormously frustrating to go down the unit list one-by-one and "zoom cre" to go to each dwarf, set their labor, then space back only to find that it doesn't bring me back to the unit list, like it does with viewcre. Instead, I have to re-open the unit list and then page/arrow down to the next dwarf (hopefully I remember the name of the last one I was configuring to know the next one to arrow down to).
Heh, yeah. I really need to either start using nicknames more, or remembering first AND last names.
When there is too much stuff blinking, I often can't find my X cursor. Perhaps the cursor should have a unique tile that easily distinguishes it from the stairs, bins, etc.
Shouldn't be too hard for you to change its COLOR.
Please make a way to configure which types of stone are important enough to justify pausing and recentering my view when they are discovered. I find it nearly impossible to do anything while doing exploration mining.
Isn't that already available in the init file?
Can we make some way to condense stone that doesn't seem hackish like the 1-tile garbage zone? Perhaps we could build pallets that act like bins (but only for stone) so that we can stack stone on them to save perhaps 10x space in stone stockpiles.
But how do we get the stone to keep from rolling around on the pallet? I know, we'll cut it into blocks and sort it out into bins! GENIUS
It's very unrealistic that I can carve out huge rooms without any consequences (e.g., some risk of cave-in, especially in sandy soil). This makes the game kind of boring in that I have no reason to make individual stockpile rooms. I might as well just lump everything into one super-sized stockpile room and set up workshops scattered about in the middle of it.
Define huge. Unless I'm wrong, I thought any 7x7 unsupported area was fair game for a cavein, just that they didn't necessarily happen instantly.
Please let there be a way to have more than one line of announcements (optimally, let us configure the number of lines that can be used for announcements) on the main screen. Sometimes things just go by so fast I feel like I have to constantly keep hitting a to catch everything since there is constantly [MORE].
So pause the game and hit a. Spacebar is pause, you know, and I don't think most players consider spacebar an exploit.
I have no idea what most of the symbols mean on the embark map. I don't even see a reference on the wiki.
They're mostly meaningless. If you quint, you can tell they're symbols... on a map. Where they change is probably where something on the MAP changes.
I wish that each object in the game could get its own graphical tile in the same way that there is an option to give creatures their own graphical tileset. There are too many characters that have multiple uses and newbies don't have enough experience to determine what something is from context.
Isn't that why we all use your new and improved loo(K) tool?
Post by: MrWiggles on September 16, 2009, 04:19:12 am
And here are some lesser issues:Blocks, lots and lots of blocks. And mass dumping, with localized garbage zones for short drag times.
Can we make some way to condense stone that doesn't seem hackish like the 1-tile garbage zone? Perhaps we could build pallets that act like bins (but only for stone) so that we can stack stone on them to save perhaps 10x space in stone stockpiles.
It's very unrealistic that I can carve out huge rooms without any consequences (e.g., some risk of cave-in, especially in sandy soil). This makes the game kind of boring in that I have no reason to make individual stockpile rooms. I might as well just lump everything into one super-sized stockpile room and set up workshops scattered about in the middle of it.
Cave-in mechanic is a place holder for the actual cave in mechanics, which the next release will have the ground for, with all thew raw information for tiles. LIke tension strength, I think was added. The community doesn't consider this a high priority thing right now, but you can vote to help influence that. But yea, you're right. It is broke.
It's very frustrating that I can't designate a bed (or other furniture) to be built in a certain tile whenever a bed becomes available. When I move to a new house, I can designate that I will place my bed somewhere without having to currently own a bed.You can actually, what happen is that the bed is getting marked for stockpile storage, and consider in use as soon as its built. You could influence this by setting small number of dorf with furniture hauling, or babysit the workshop.
Please let there be a way to have more than one line of announcements (optimally, let us configure the number of lines that can be used for announcements) on the main screen. Sometimes things just go by so fast I feel like I have to constantly keep hitting a to catch everything since there is constantly [MORE].You can! IN in the init file, lots of neat stuff to set options for your liking.
I have no idea what most of the symbols mean on the embark map. I don't even see a reference on the wiki.
I wish that each object in the game could get its own graphical tile in the same way that there is an option to give creatures their own graphical tileset. There are too many characters that have multiple uses and newbies don't have enough experience to determine what something is from context.
I am annoyed by this as well, since there is no actual reason for this to be case, that it was a game design descion. However, this is generally a weakness of ASCII text game in general.
If you make liable use of the loo(k), command you begin to recognize the difference animals based on context, and color of the tile. Occasionally I do confuse grounds with goblins when they come to siege me.
I apologist for hardcode snarkiness.
Post by: Neruz on September 16, 2009, 04:27:07 am
Post by: Typoman on September 16, 2009, 05:19:20 am
I have to say, if Toady does fix Atom Smashing and Quantum Dump Zones, he'd better add some way to deal with the giant masses of stone lying around; a stone garbage disposal or something.
it's called a megaproject. another common name is bottomless pit or chasm :D
but yeah if you don't have the latter and don't want to do the former there does need to be something. currently the "exploits (currently not so much because there is not really another viable option in the described circumstances)" do it but take them away and people who like clean forts and the stocks screen not getting stuck if you forget to pgdwn at the right moment will most likely be very annoyed
Post by: Neruz on September 16, 2009, 05:51:28 am
Post by: Andir on September 16, 2009, 07:34:46 am
Megaprojects don't actually get rid of the stone though; it can still be accessed in the stone menu.It does if you build something out of the stone.
Post by: Neruz on September 16, 2009, 08:01:27 am
Megaprojects don't actually get rid of the stone though; it can still be accessed in the stone menu.It does if you build something out of the stone.
No-oo, i'm pretty sure the stone in walls remains in the stone menu.
Post by: Typoman on September 16, 2009, 08:12:08 am
Megaprojects don't actually get rid of the stone though; it can still be accessed in the stone menu.It does if you build something out of the stone.
No-oo, i'm pretty sure the stone in walls remains in the stone menu.
if that is the case, add that to the list of things that need fixing.
it's just silly.
mangager: "why haven't you built the 25th floor yet?"
mason: "no stone"
manager: "what we have 10's of thousands of units what are you talking about?"
mason:"yeah, those are in the other 24 floors"
manager: *rage*
manager: where's that clerk i'm gonna rip his arm off and shove it down his throat! then put him in the drowning chamber!
Post by: Neonivek on September 16, 2009, 08:16:31 am
Quote
Perhaps we could build pallets that act like bins (but only for stone) so that we can stack stone on them to save perhaps 10x space in stone stockpiles.
The problem is that effectively one stone could be all that is required to fill an entire square (and indeed it is) so a Pallet could only fit one MAYBE 2 stone.
Though it does say something about storing things off site. Which would be a more logical fix (and what sort of enemy is even capable or willing to steal large quantities of stone?) for the distant future.
Post by: Granite26 on September 16, 2009, 08:27:18 am
QuotePerhaps we could build pallets that act like bins (but only for stone) so that we can stack stone on them to save perhaps 10x space in stone stockpiles.
The problem is that effectively one stone could be all that is required to fill an entire square (and indeed it is) so a Pallet could only fit one MAYBE 2 stone.
Though it does say something about storing things off site. Which would be a more logical fix (and what sort of enemy is even capable or willing to steal large quantities of stone?) for the distant future.
I don't think I like the idea of saying 1 ANYTHING 'fills' a magic square...
I always have 3-4 stonecrafters near the fort entrance working full speed on crafts. Dump everything they make on any trade caravan that comes by (taking whatever seems useful off of it and leaving them with a 300-400% profit)
Post by: asper on September 16, 2009, 08:36:39 am
3. Exploratory mining... this is pretty 'grind-ish'. You have to slooowly lay out line by line and hope you hit something interesting. Would be nice if this was improved.
How would you propose to "improve" this without dumbing the game down? Mining should be realistic, and this involves what you called "grinding".
Post by: Neruz on September 16, 2009, 08:46:32 am
Post by: Granite26 on September 16, 2009, 10:49:08 am
What we could definitely use is a 'mine out this vein' command. Once i find a vein i don't want to babysit my dwarves telling them to mine it out properly.
apathy cures all ills...
Post by: Andir on September 16, 2009, 12:57:17 pm
It most definitely removes the stone from the selection list when it's not available (ie: in a construction.) This is easy enough to test. Dig a hole in a new embark. When you hit stone, stop. Then build a wall. Try to build another. You can't. Dig some more until you hit a different type. Then try to build a wall of that type. You can't. It's not listed.Megaprojects don't actually get rid of the stone though; it can still be accessed in the stone menu.It does if you build something out of the stone.
No-oo, i'm pretty sure the stone in walls remains in the stone menu.
if that is the case, add that to the list of things that need fixing.
it's just silly.
mangager: "why haven't you built the 25th floor yet?"
mason: "no stone"
manager: "what we have 10's of thousands of units what are you talking about?"
mason:"yeah, those are in the other 24 floors"
manager: *rage*
manager: where's that clerk i'm gonna rip his arm off and shove it down his throat! then put him in the drowning chamber!
Post by: Andir on September 16, 2009, 01:01:58 pm
What we could definitely use is a 'mine out this vein' command. Once i find a vein i don't want to babysit my dwarves telling them to mine it out properly.The problem with this is, how? Does the dwarf dig up (not possible) until they find the top then dig down so they don't have a cave-in? (in the case of large egg shape deposits.) Do you limit them to one level even if the material is multi-level?
Post by: kilakan on September 16, 2009, 02:58:20 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on September 16, 2009, 03:07:24 pm
I've never seen multi-level material before.
Yeah, the only mineral that spans z-layers is... uh, HFS. (Do people still care about the oldest spoiler ever?) That'll probably change at some point, but for now it's fine to just follow veins on a single layer.
Post by: Andir on September 16, 2009, 04:31:28 pm
I've never seen multi-level material before.You can have veins of same material cross on multiple levels. I've cleared a few veins of copper that crossed over each other. If you wanted to clear out an entire "blob" of Microcline because you don't want blue in the middle of your fortress, you can do the same as well. They may not line up perfect, but they do sometimes intersect. I've cleared out Microcline and written it off as a geodesic dome. Sometimes even clearing the material above it into a dome and building inside of the hollowed area (after dumping all that Microcline into the convenient pit.)
Needless to say, crossing materials does happen. Other situations you could run across are things like damp/warm stone which will currently cancel a dig order.
Post by: MrWiggles on September 17, 2009, 12:17:31 am
I've never seen multi-level material before.
Yeah, the only mineral that spans z-layers is... uh, HFS. (Do people still care about the oldest spoiler ever?) That'll probably change at some point, but for now it's fine to just follow veins on a single layer.
Its been spiced up by using clowns.
Post by: Neruz on September 17, 2009, 01:47:45 am
I've never seen multi-level material before.You can have veins of same material cross on multiple levels. I've cleared a few veins of copper that crossed over each other. If you wanted to clear out an entire "blob" of Microcline because you don't want blue in the middle of your fortress, you can do the same as well. They may not line up perfect, but they do sometimes intersect. I've cleared out Microcline and written it off as a geodesic dome. Sometimes even clearing the material above it into a dome and building inside of the hollowed area (after dumping all that Microcline into the convenient pit.)
Needless to say, crossing materials does happen. Other situations you could run across are things like damp/warm stone which will currently cancel a dig order.
Damp and Warm stone would still cancel the 'dig out vein' order, and the dig out vein order wouldn't cross Z levels.
Post by: Andir on September 17, 2009, 07:11:34 am
Damp and Warm stone would still cancel the 'dig out vein' order, and the dig out vein order wouldn't cross Z levels.What happens if/when Toady adds logic to the world gen to allow material to transition levels?
Post by: Neruz on September 17, 2009, 07:24:48 am
Or, of course, Toady could impliment some basic pathfinding in the dig orders to avoid cave-ins if possible. It's not hard.
Post by: LordNagash on September 17, 2009, 05:43:27 pm
Damp and Warm stone would still cancel the 'dig out vein' order, and the dig out vein order wouldn't cross Z levels.What happens if/when Toady adds logic to the world gen to allow material to transition levels?
Uh...that's already in for the next version. It went in a while ago
Post by: Andir on September 17, 2009, 06:15:34 pm
;)Damp and Warm stone would still cancel the 'dig out vein' order, and the dig out vein order wouldn't cross Z levels.What happens if/when Toady adds logic to the world gen to allow material to transition levels?
Uh...that's already in for the next version. It went in a while ago
Post by: Albedo on September 17, 2009, 06:22:18 pm
Quote
What turns you off about DF?
Three things. None are high-concept, they're all interface related, things that make the game harder for me to enjoy, to play as designed. (I have a looooong list of "How I would have designed this or that game", and I usually just don't go there.*)
(And if these have been mentioned, sorry - I didn't feel like reading 56 pages of posts - must be I just have a bad attitude.)
They are: 1) Lack of default and complete inability to go "back" to a previous screen or menu you were using/viewing, and b) Lack of consistency and intuition in controls, and iii) announcements.
re 1)
You want to compare some pump operators. So you use < u >, scroll down and find the one, then <c> - and when you're done, you have to start again. Even worse when locating something thru the z-stocks menu - trying to visually locate all items so you know which to forbid - hellishly repetitive. Similarly with canceling some other menus - if you don't choose the right submenu, start all over again from zero.
Similarly, inability to go back to a previous map view when the game re-centers the map for you, and/or "undo" any designations. Should be simple, should be a basic option.
re b)
Generally, each menu and submenu is fine, but there is no consistency between them, and nothing from one necessarily carries over to another. More, some of the shortcut keys seem drawn from a scrabble set. (I'm sure we all have our favorites, but...)
4 different keys to look at something? <k>, <v>, <t> and <q>? Really, four? Why not one with a submenu?
And carving a downstair is < i >, but building one is <x>? (Or is it the other way around?)
Sometimes <spacebar> gets you out of a menu, sometimes it's <F9>.
Sometimes you use number keys to scroll up/down a list, and sometimes <+/->. (And at least once choosing the wrong one screws you.)
"z" for a kitchen?...
I've learned the game controls, but I could have learned them a LOT faster if some of these weren't in the way.
re iii)
Rather than changing it according to some mystery priority ("all", "some", "a few but not very many", whatever), there should be a submenu that allows you to toggle which announcements appear, which appear highlighted in what color, which ones pause the game, and which recenter the map. A simple list with a grid of off/on buttons, done, perfect custom control, perfectly happy consumers.
Regardless of how DF as a game works, those changes would make it easier to play the game.
Post by: Footkerchief on September 17, 2009, 07:21:00 pm
What happens if/when Toady adds logic to the world gen to allow material to transition levels?
Uh...that's already in for the next version. It went in a while ago
Doesn't sound like it:
Quote from: FootkerchiefAre those big quasi-circular deposits normal? I've never noticed them in that pattern before, but in the screenshots it's pretty apparent that you get a single big circular splash of Other_Stone in each tile of your n-by-n embark site, and that you get different ones between layers. So the upper left corner of my embark site could have MICROCLINE on one layer and ORPIMENT on the next layer down, and then alternating layers of cyan and yellow, with little regard for how a sandwiched cylinder of such godawful colors came to exist.
Yeah, that's how the big deposits have always been placed and yeah, it looks terrible. Hopefully deposits will be made more interesting and unpredictable, but I wouldn't be surprised if that didn't make it into this release, since it's not strictly necessary for the slated underground stuff.
The pattern generally isn't noticed unless a map is fully revealed, which is why I haven't been quick to change it, since it is suiting its purpose without being too obstructive. At some point I'd like to do more with it, and do things like veins over multiple z levels and so on, but it hasn't been pressing.
Post by: dyze on September 17, 2009, 08:14:58 pm
Quote
4 different keys to look at something? <k>, <v>, <t> and <q>? Really, four? Why not one with a submenu?
imagine just right clicking on a tile and selecting 'inspect' :)
Post by: Lord Dakoth on September 17, 2009, 08:43:14 pm
Something helpful would be to include a tutorial in the game, selectable from the menu.
Don't make it too easy, of course, then we get the Runescape-type kids on the forum. :D
Post by: Andir on September 17, 2009, 10:09:42 pm
Or hovering over it and leaving right clicks for special instructions (ie: mine, build, restrict..)Quote4 different keys to look at something? <k>, <v>, <t> and <q>? Really, four? Why not one with a submenu?
imagine just right clicking on a tile and selecting 'inspect' :)
Post by: Durin on September 19, 2009, 07:34:18 pm
Not news to anyone though, and you learn by doing.
I try to explain to myself why I find this game so entertaining. It is just really interesting to go back and forth between the macro and micro levels. So like, someone people do not like the meticulous programming of layers of flesh, but I look forward to that, and how it will interact, and even look forward to encountering the BUGS because, why?
Because then you get to see the story that unfolds around these things. The more details there are, the more happy and sad thoughts there are to review, the more stories to uncover in adventure or legends mode, etc.
It's an ant-farm gamer's dream, DF is.
Post by: dyze on September 19, 2009, 09:19:52 pm
I don't so much mind the stone lying around as I find it difficult to get the stone out of a SPECIFIC room. Possibly there is a work around for this I am not aware of. And ultimately that is DF's current Achiles heal. The interface is just way sloppy.
mark it for dumping? ..its quite tedious when doing large rooms, but it works.
Post by: Exponent on September 19, 2009, 09:45:11 pm
mark it for dumping? ..its quite tedious when doing large rooms, but it works.
If you're saying it's tedious watching the dwarves take their time to dump it, then ignore me, because yeah, it is. Otherwise, you'll probably be very glad to know that you can now (since last summer) use the designation menu (d-b-d) to mark an entire area of stone for dumping all at once.
Post by: Lord Dakoth on September 19, 2009, 09:46:09 pm
Designations -> Building/Item Properties -> Dump
EDIT: ninja'd
Post by: Phyroks on September 19, 2009, 09:53:10 pm
I don't so much mind the stone lying around as I find it difficult to get the stone out of a SPECIFIC room. Possibly there is a work around for this I am not aware of. And ultimately that is DF's current Achiles heal. The interface is just way sloppy.
mark it for dumping? ..its quite tedious when doing large rooms, but it works.
(i)mark area with edge(channel something or build wall) and then make it garbage dump. (i)and find the marked zone(g)
(d) (b) (d) mark the stones you want moved. they will all be dropped from the edge and fit in 1 tile.
EDIT: was i really that slow? :(
And yes the starting part was really hard, i had to find some good tutorial to get it done, then took few games to understand how to mark labors and discover what iron was..... "OH this was iron??? i had it all along!"
I gues it would help alot to have a savegame with a fort in some safe place with the basic embark items and small tutorial to tell you how to get food, booze, beds, labor jobs, recruits and "a happy dwarf". after that its the fun part of discover yourself what happens!
Post by: Durin on September 19, 2009, 11:14:45 pm
I know it is supposed to be fun to piss off the elves, for example, but I'd like to be able to do it on my own terns rather than not be able to get things out of bins and barrels, then fall into the habit of just selling things bin, barrel and all, then forget one day and try to sell the elves a barrel of food.
Grrrrr.....
Post by: G-Flex on September 19, 2009, 11:31:35 pm
Post by: KruskDaMangled on September 20, 2009, 12:07:00 am
Another thing for me is that in general, fortress mode is kind of dull right now. I know the next update will fix that, but it just seems less eventful these days. I would like to see Cave Ins, and flooding. I liked how eventful 2D was..
Post by: Muz on September 20, 2009, 04:58:56 am
3. Exploratory mining... this is pretty 'grind-ish'. You have to slooowly lay out line by line and hope you hit something interesting. Would be nice if this was improved.
How would you propose to "improve" this without dumbing the game down? Mining should be realistic, and this involves what you called "grinding".
I meant something like digging out several tiles at once. A tool that selects a row at once instead of having to click-click-click-click (x417). Or something that allows you to set down a mining template. Or even those ideas about having a geologist.
Post by: Neruz on September 20, 2009, 05:01:19 am
3. Exploratory mining... this is pretty 'grind-ish'. You have to slooowly lay out line by line and hope you hit something interesting. Would be nice if this was improved.
How would you propose to "improve" this without dumbing the game down? Mining should be realistic, and this involves what you called "grinding".
I meant something like digging out several tiles at once. A tool that selects a row at once instead of having to click-click-click-click (x417). Or something that allows you to set down a mining template. Or even those ideas about having a geologist.
It's called Macro's, we just got them in fact, grab yerself D16.
Post by: Muz on September 20, 2009, 05:10:04 am
Post by: Durin on September 20, 2009, 08:59:53 pm
You can get things out of bins and barrels just fine to sell to elves. Either mark the items themselves to be brought to the depot instead of the bins, or bring the bins and just sell the items in them instead of the bins themselves.
This totally does not seem to work. In fact, I have a steel battle axe right now in a bin I would like to get out of the bin to sell, and even if I go and search for "axe" nada. I have bins full of turtle at the depot and no way I can see to get them out.
If anyone has a clue as to why I am so clueless, please let me know...? :-\
Post by: G-Flex on September 20, 2009, 09:15:30 pm
But if you just want to trade the items and not the bin, it's easy. Mark the items and not the bin! They should show up on the trade list under the bin.
Post by: Durin on September 21, 2009, 02:48:34 am
Well, they don't. Far as I can remember they never have. I ended up forbidding the junk in two stockpiles and opening a stockpile specifically for the forbidden junk. Crazy but it worked.
Post by: Granite26 on September 21, 2009, 09:56:16 am
Only problem is, you can't select just the contents of a bin... It's either select the bin and all it's contents or deselect the bin and all it's contents.
That said, if you select the individual items IN the bin, you can move them one by one.
Post by: Durin on September 21, 2009, 11:34:09 am
nononononono they don't show up under the bin in the 'take to depot' screen (which is good, you WANT them to carry the bin to the depot), but they do show up in the 'select what you want the elves to cart of the map for you' screen at the depot.
Check
Only problem is, you can't select just the contents of a bin... It's either select the bin and all it's contents or deselect the bin and all it's contents.
Check
That said, if you select the individual items IN the bin, you can move them one by one.
Not working. I have literally TONS of food and wine I would like to trade, but when I do a search and type (plump) for example, the only plump helmet items that show up are the ones not stored in the barrel, or the barrels themselves if they happen to contain plump helmets. I have yet to find a way to get them out and bring them to the depot.
This is important mostly with food because I do not want to sell the barrels. I want to sell the STUFF and then re-use the barrels.
So if you have the process for getting the stuff out of the barrel and to the trading post, that would be great. I thought I had it figured out once, as I took the stuff I wanted out of my food stockpile permissions, then created a stockpile close to the trading post WITH the same permissions, THEN went and had it take from the previous food stockpiles. Worked like a charm the one time. When I tried to do the same to get my bone crossbows over to the trading post without dragging along the good ones I wanted my crossbowdwarves to use, no dice.
Finecky -- maybe even buggy. Just updated to d16. Or else I am missing something easy.
Post by: corvvs on September 21, 2009, 11:52:02 am
nononononono they don't show up under the bin in the 'take to depot' screen (which is good, you WANT them to carry the bin to the depot), but they do show up in the 'select what you want the elves to cart of the map for you' screen at the depot.
CheckOnly problem is, you can't select just the contents of a bin... It's either select the bin and all it's contents or deselect the bin and all it's contents.
CheckThat said, if you select the individual items IN the bin, you can move them one by one.
Not working. I have literally TONS of food and wine I would like to trade, but when I do a search and type (plump) for example, the only plump helmet items that show up are the ones not stored in the barrel, or the barrels themselves if they happen to contain plump helmets. I have yet to find a way to get them out and bring them to the depot.
This is important mostly with food because I do not want to sell the barrels. I want to sell the STUFF and then re-use the barrels.
So if you have the process for getting the stuff out of the barrel and to the trading post, that would be great. I thought I had it figured out once, as I took the stuff I wanted out of my food stockpile permissions, then created a stockpile close to the trading post WITH the same permissions, THEN went and had it take from the previous food stockpiles. Worked like a charm the one time. When I tried to do the same to get my bone crossbows over to the trading post without dragging along the good ones I wanted my crossbowdwarves to use, no dice.
Finecky -- maybe even buggy. Just updated to d16. Or else I am missing something easy.
It's a misunderstanding of the process, it sounds like.
You can't get them to take stuff out of barrels to bring to the depot (not easily anyway). BUT you can bring the barrels/bins to the trade depot. THEN when you actually do the trading, only select what you want to trade (i.e. not the barrel, the stuff inside it).
Granite26 tried to explain above, but I think it probably just wasn't concise enough.
Post by: Granite26 on September 21, 2009, 12:08:49 pm
Quote
g: This command becomes active when a caravan arrives on your map. This screen menu is similar to the stocks menu (z - Stocks). This is where you select what items you want to trade with the caravan. If you have particular items you want to sell to the caravan, you can search for it. This is convenient if you want to export all your prepared meals or finished goods. Also shown is the culling on mandate option. The move to depot screen will not show things that violate an export mandate. By pressing m, it will change to Ignoring mandates, and you can select banned items for export. For example, if your mayor has a mandate banning the export of iron, this screen will hide bins that contain iron items. By changing this option, all iron items will be shown.
So you search and bring all items to the Trade Depot (Still in their containers)
THEN:
Quote
After entering the trade menu, select the items to offer from the right, and the desired items from the left. All caravans have a weight limit which cannot be exceeded, and the allowed additional weight is displayed in the lower right corner. If the acting broker has at least Novice or better Appraisal skill, the value of all items will be displayed. Once the proposal is ready, press t to make an offer, but merchants will not agree unless they make adequate profit. Be sure to use trade, not offer o, as this will make a gift of the selected items. The amount of acceptable profit is determined by the broker's skills and the merchant's mood, described below. Merchants may attempt to propose counteroffers if they do not accept the proposal, which can then be accepted, rejected, or further amended by the broker.
Which is where you can select into the bins
Post by: Durin on September 21, 2009, 01:27:35 pm
But if you just want to trade the items and not the bin, it's easy. Mark the items and not the bin! They should show up on the trade list under the bin.
Then I have a bug. When all my bins are at the depot, they are just bins. There is no option to trade the things in the bins separately. If I view the bin itself in the trade depot, I can see stuff inside just as if I were in the "bring to depot" menu, but I cannot trade them as far as I know. I just got through with the human caravan for the year. Will look again when the dwarfs come.
I should do a save right during the trading and yank it so I can look at it over and over I suppose.
Post by: Granite26 on September 21, 2009, 02:03:59 pm
Post by: Durin on September 21, 2009, 02:20:52 pm
Post by: jamoecw on September 23, 2009, 02:09:51 pm
Fill out a bug report over on the bugreports forum... prolly screenshots too. This is about as far off topic as we should get :-D
it sorta is off topic and sorta isn't. this is exactly what a good help system helps out with, simply linking off to somewhere gets generic responses that usually isn't specific to your question. exactly why i think the help menu shouldn't simply be a link to a wiki, of course any help feature is better than none at all. something like hitting the help button while in the trade menu and clicking on the bin would open up the info about trading the bin and possible options and how to do them. when the traders aren't in town (and thus can't get into the trade menu) hitting the help button, then clicking the depot would bring up info on the depot and possible options and how to do them, of course since trading stuff inside a bin without trading the bin might be a level down from that due to it being a bit specific, easily getting to exactly what he wants to do would be very helpful. and if it is a bug then he would pretty much know before he even exits the game.
once the ground work for this type of help searching is done, players just note when an inappropriate answer is listed, then toady or someone else changes where the pages goes to in that instance, and if there isn't a page for it yet then writing up an appropriate page. it seems like the ground work for this should be done when interface is done, however just making it so that the help key makes it so that the next command given, or object clicked (now that DF has decent mouse support) bring up a help page is basically all that is needed for ground work and would allow for any change to the interface that i can think of.
Post by: Granite26 on September 23, 2009, 02:28:06 pm
Post by: Durin on September 23, 2009, 06:03:38 pm
Hey, I am back on topic! :o
Post by: Durin on September 23, 2009, 10:13:23 pm
Mouse works in 40d16... sweet! ;D
Post by: GoldenH on September 24, 2009, 12:32:09 am
However, there is no way that I know of to get the food out of barrels or animals out of cages at the depot.
Post by: Durin on September 24, 2009, 05:46:05 pm
For the guy trying to bring bins to his Depot, make sure you search for a certain kind of bin, like a Finished Goods Bin. A simple bin, like a Maple Bin, is empty.
However, there is no way that I know of to get the food out of barrels or animals out of cages at the depot.
Thanks. Someone made that comment earlier finally. It has been a long and winding road, but I now have my finished meal stockpile set up and pulling from all the other food stockpiles. I've taken to buying tons of wood, which is quite cheap and keeps my legendary carpenter busy making barrels while the wood burners crank out the charcoal.
Now suddenly I am out of smeltable ferrous materials. Bummer.
Post by: jamoecw on September 24, 2009, 06:11:48 pm
For the guy trying to bring bins to his Depot, make sure you search for a certain kind of bin, like a Finished Goods Bin. A simple bin, like a Maple Bin, is empty.
However, there is no way that I know of to get the food out of barrels or animals out of cages at the depot.
Thanks. Someone made that comment earlier finally. It has been a long and winding road, but I now have my finished meal stockpile set up and pulling from all the other food stockpiles. I've taken to buying tons of wood, which is quite cheap and keeps my legendary carpenter busy making barrels while the wood burners crank out the charcoal.
Now suddenly I am out of smeltable ferrous materials. Bummer.
sounds to me that now you have to loot the corpses of some goblins.
Post by: Durin on September 24, 2009, 09:19:34 pm
.... Now suddenly I am out of smeltable ferrous materials. Bummer.
sounds to me that now you have to loot the corpses of some goblins.
As it so happens I had my first invasion just before this. =) Lots of dead goblins. Zero dead dwarves.
Then my Captain of the Guard beat one of my Masons to within an inch of her life and I had to demote him.
Apparently dwarves are more dangerous to dwarves than pretty much everything else.
Post by: kilakan on September 26, 2009, 09:22:26 pm
Post by: Durin on September 26, 2009, 10:19:41 pm
try dig deeper's orcs, their the only things I've ever lost a siege too... damn lock-picking, trap avoiding, pain resisting bastards.
Waiting for the new arc to get much deeper into warfare. Pounding hapless Goblins is currently one of the few victories I can claim!
Back on topic, Things that are common sense should eventually become default settings. For example, marksdwarves should automagically use bone or wood arrows for practice, and switch to the best when going out to do battle. You should only have to set it specifically to use wood, bone, etc if you WANT to take the cheap stuff out to battle.
If you want dwarves to be able to use both chain and plate, create a setting that is chain and plate. do not force people to do this little dance of setting them to chain, hoping they have all switched, then chainge to plate, hoping they are not wearing too many clothes underneath to prevent it.
Clothes just in general are a read drag currently. I imaging this has been brought up. I know making sure lost items are picked up is something folks have made mention of in the past.
Please don't get me wrong. Game is AWESOME! Keep up the good work.
Post by: Footkerchief on September 27, 2009, 01:17:51 am
Post by: jamoecw on September 27, 2009, 03:14:22 am
Apparently dwarves are more dangerous to dwarves than pretty much everything else.they don't even have to kill each other to be a danger to each other, they can help others kill them or simply commit suicide. of course most cases i am aware of will be gone in a few months.
Post by: darkflagrance on September 27, 2009, 11:21:54 am
try dig deeper's orcs, their the only things I've ever lost a siege too... damn lock-picking, trap avoiding, pain resisting bastards.
Ha, today I was playing Dig Deeper, trying as desperately as possibly to rig up my windmills to a pumps to clear out the flooded lower levels of my fortress, when an Orc siege of 50+ orcs descended upon me. Luckily I had precautions: the passageway leading to the surface had a narrow corridor, with not one, but TWO doors! I pulled all my dwarves back behind the doors and locked them both, thereby ganking the orc pathfinding in the cheesiest way possible.
In other words, enemy pathfinding could use improvement. Doesn't turn me off, but would turn many others off.
In other news, they broke in through the trade depot and committed bloody slaughter anyway under the cover of smoke produced by a flaming artifact that was impossible to find because artifacts don't list their flaming status and burn infinitely.
Hope this isn't too off-topic, but I did list legitimate concerns in there.
Post by: Solarn on September 27, 2009, 03:38:03 pm
What bothers me about this game is the incredible stupidity of dwarves. And I'm not talking about the fire problem either. The way they handle pathfinding, job queues, contact with other creatures and just about anything else is horrible.
Post by: Jiri Petru on September 28, 2009, 09:06:29 am
Don't take me wrong. I love that I can set things like individual weapons, safe zones, etc. But I shouldn't be required to. There should always be a default option that works without the need of player intervention.
Take military, for example. Right now, when I draft a dwarf, I must set his weapon and armor preferences manually. That is micromanagement. It would be better if the game automatically equipped him with someting (depending on material, item quality and personal preferences). I should only set the weapons manually if I want to do something special, I shouldn't be required to do that.
Or a different thing - labour settings. In the current version, dwarves have only one job by default. I recently tried to play the 2D version and was surprised that the dwarves always came with all the jobs in a single group enabled. That actually worked better - the fortress worked and I had no idlers even if I didn't change the settings. With a whole group enabled, the dwarf could easily find something to do. If I wanted to specialize my dwarves, I could open the labour preferences and change them - but I wasn't required to (and in the end, I didn't change most of my dwarves... while in the new version, I tend to change all of them). Newer versions have this the other way around, which feels kinda contraproductive and makes the game needlesly more complicated.
These were just two examples, but they illustrate my worries about the user-unfriendliness, which seems to be getting worse.
EDIT: The 2D version as a whole feels more streamlined and user friendly.
Post by: Solarn on September 28, 2009, 09:26:50 am
What I want is the ability to stop micromanaging at some point. Let's say that I've set up some burrows, all of them self-reliant with food and booze and producing something valuable, and with specific inter-burrow hauling set up as well. At that point, I want to be able to leave those burrows alone unless I want to change something or something drastic happens (like a dwarf essential to production dies or something), except for maybe an occassional reaffirming of orders or to set the exact amount of production. Of course, that would require better dwarven AI and more detailed management options, which means more micromanagement at first, but with the payoff of being able to stop micromanaging that particular area in the future.
Post by: Footkerchief on September 28, 2009, 12:52:55 pm
I'm terrified by the ammount of micromanagement required to play DF. What's worse, it seems the situation is getting worse with each update. I can only guess how will the next version work [...]
Take military, for example. Right now, when I draft a dwarf, I must set his weapon and armor preferences manually. That is micromanagement. It would be better if the game automatically equipped him with someting (depending on material, item quality and personal preferences). I should only set the weapons manually if I want to do something special, I shouldn't be required to do that.
You don't often have to guess about how the next version will work, because Toady maintains a thorough dev log. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_now.html) In particular, setting custom individual equipment is now a special case, not a requirement. Toady isn't just gutting all existing squad code for the hell of it -- it's obvious that the current implementation sucks hard.
Spoiler: long (click to show/hide)
That's just an at-a-glance sampling of some of the incoming changes that aim to both reduce the need for micromanaging and to increase the player's ability to micromanage effectively when desired.
Post by: Jiri Petru on September 28, 2009, 03:54:42 pm
Quote from: Solarn
I was always under the impression that DF was never supposed to be a simple game. The user wasn't meant to have the option of not caring about any particular detail. That's why it's, in my opinion, a level above the dull commercial strategy and management games. If you only want to care about building placement and battle tactics, then why don't you get Age of Empires or something like that?
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to make the game simpler. It's just some aspects get tedious, while not adding anything to the gameplay. Another guessxample could be the upcoming healthcare stuff. Digging rooms, building hospitals, choosing the main physician, that is gameplay, fun. But ordering more wooden crutches"in the carpenter's shop every time my crutch stock is depleted isn't gameplay, it's boring micromanagement. That's why I hope the crutches, etc. would be handled automatically, not manually. The same could be said about tools, more diverse items and other stuff that is coming someday. (I hate ordering clothings, BTW, and would kill to have automated clothier's workshop.)
Again, it's just an example of my greater hate of micromanagement, no need to prove me it won't actually be like that.
Post by: Rockphed on September 28, 2009, 04:23:56 pm
Footkerchief, thanks for the quote. I read the devlog regularly but I tend to forget stuff.Quote from: SolarnI was always under the impression that DF was never supposed to be a simple game. The user wasn't meant to have the option of not caring about any particular detail. That's why it's, in my opinion, a level above the dull commercial strategy and management games. If you only want to care about building placement and battle tactics, then why don't you get Age of Empires or something like that?
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to make the game simpler. It's just some aspects get tedious, while not adding anything to the gameplay. Another guessxample could be the upcoming healthcare stuff. Digging rooms, building hospitals, choosing the main physician, that is gameplay, fun. But ordering more wooden crutches"in the carpenter's shop every time my crutch stock is depleted isn't gameplay, it's boring micromanagement. That's why I hope the crutches, etc. would be handled automatically, not manually. The same could be said about tools, more diverse items and other stuff that is coming someday. (I hate ordering clothings, BTW, and would kill to have automated clothier's workshop.)
Again, it's just an example of my greater hate of micromanagement, no need to prove me it won't actually be like that.
Personally, if the information is in a easily accessible location, then I find it better to have the micromanagement than having to figure out what settings will get the results I want.
Take food for an example. It is incredibly easy to find out how much drink is lying around, though edible food is a bit harder to determine. If the number of crutches in storage is listed on the main medical page, that will make the decision of when to make more easier. Also, I have found the built in manager very useful for adding jobs to lists.
Post by: G-Flex on September 28, 2009, 04:40:11 pm
Post by: jamoecw on September 28, 2009, 09:17:01 pm
Post by: Solarn on September 29, 2009, 08:37:12 am
Footkerchief, thanks for the quote. I read the devlog regularly but I tend to forget stuff.But then, see, the carpenter's workshop would be clogged down by automated crutch orders and nobody would get those sorely needed beds done for the new immigrants. Or the hospital would only order one crutch at a time, meaning that every single broken-legged or disabled dwarf would have to wait months for his crutch. Not to mention the other disabled dwarves queuing up behind him, slowing health care to a crawl. All of these options leading quickly to tantrum spirals.Quote from: SolarnI was always under the impression that DF was never supposed to be a simple game. The user wasn't meant to have the option of not caring about any particular detail. That's why it's, in my opinion, a level above the dull commercial strategy and management games. If you only want to care about building placement and battle tactics, then why don't you get Age of Empires or something like that?
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to make the game simpler. It's just some aspects get tedious, while not adding anything to the gameplay. Another guessxample could be the upcoming healthcare stuff. Digging rooms, building hospitals, choosing the main physician, that is gameplay, fun. But ordering more wooden crutches"in the carpenter's shop every time my crutch stock is depleted isn't gameplay, it's boring micromanagement. That's why I hope the crutches, etc. would be handled automatically, not manually. The same could be said about tools, more diverse items and other stuff that is coming someday. (I hate ordering clothings, BTW, and would kill to have automated clothier's workshop.)
Again, it's just an example of my greater hate of micromanagement, no need to prove me it won't actually be like that.
See, you have to micromanage, otherwise you'd lose your fort pretty quickly. I even turn off existing micromanagement-easing options, like auto-collection of webs and auto-weaving of thread because the first leads to dwarven deaths at the pincers of a GCS and the second leads to my weaver (who is usually the same person as my thresher for the first few immigrant waves until I get a dedicated weaver) not being able to do anything else.
Post by: atomfullerene on September 29, 2009, 08:46:44 am
Post by: Neruz on September 29, 2009, 09:06:30 am
I'd like to have the option to set a workshop to make automatically requested items, and then assign one of my underused dwarfs to it. But it's not always what you want. Still, it would be neat if, say, when you had a workshop set up to generate beds as needed, you could place beds and the workshop would build them and send them to the indicated location.
THIS. It would be so useful if we could tell a workshop to be automated to immediately meet any needs. Combine this with the ability to set orders like "Ensure we have at least 10 cruches in stockpiles at all times" and a massive amount of the baby sitting in DF would be cut.
Micromanagement is good, baby sitting is not.
Post by: Jiri Petru on September 29, 2009, 11:37:20 am
Solarn, all your issues can be solved either by a well implemented automation, or by turning off what you don't want to have automated, or by changing the default setup. Automation isn't meant to play the game instead of you. Players like you could even have ini option to have nothing automated! But there's no point speaking against automation when it doesn't make you any harm and others would kill for it.
Post by: Solarn on September 29, 2009, 04:42:24 pm
It's just that I've never met a computer smart enough not to screw up automated tasks in even much simpler games than Dwarf Fortress. Whether it's bad prioritizing, using up precious resources or organizational problems, something always goes wrong.
For example, in Dwarf Fortress items that are currently being carried do not show up as available. Depending on how far the stockpile is from the workshops, an automated order could produce two, three or even four times as much items as needed as workshops check for the number of items of that type and find none because the ones they just produced are currently being carried. This would use up both resources and production time.
Or how would you determine which workshops would meet a particular order? Let's say you have six carpenter's workshops. That's not even an unrealistic number. One of them is for producing beds when needed, so it's close to the sleeping quarters. Another one is producing barrels for the farming industry, which constantly needs them. Yet another one is producing, let's say bins. And so on. And suddenly an automated order arrives for twenty crutches (because they're so convenient as an example). How do you control which workshop takes the order and which doesn't? After all, bin production could stop for a while and maybe bed or door production too, but stopping the barrel production would mean rotting plump helmets everywhere because they can't be put into barrels and a stopped brewing industry until the order is met. You could micromanage the workshops to ensure important production does not get stopped, but then the automation loses its point.
Post by: Chronas on September 29, 2009, 08:47:17 pm
What you are saying is that the automation will be stopped by an emergency -put in the same category as running out of trees or your legendary carpenter tantrums and smashes his workshop because his fisherdwarf wife just got carp'd. it is unreasonable to expect an automated system will run like clockwork when its crafted with dwarvern mechanisms.
Post by: Neruz on September 29, 2009, 09:14:26 pm
For example, in Dwarf Fortress items that are currently being carried do not show up as available. Depending on how far the stockpile is from the workshops, an automated order could produce two, three or even four times as much items as needed as workshops check for the number of items of that type and find none because the ones they just produced are currently being carried. This would use up both resources and production time.
Ovbiously this is a problem with the way the game checks items, not a conceptual automation system.
Or how would you determine which workshops would meet a particular order? Let's say you have six carpenter's workshops. That's not even an unrealistic number. One of them is for producing beds when needed, so it's close to the sleeping quarters. Another one is producing barrels for the farming industry, which constantly needs them. Yet another one is producing, let's say bins. And so on. And suddenly an automated order arrives for twenty crutches (because they're so convenient as an example). How do you control which workshop takes the order and which doesn't? After all, bin production could stop for a while and maybe bed or door production too, but stopping the barrel production would mean rotting plump helmets everywhere because they can't be put into barrels and a stopped brewing industry until the order is met. You could micromanage the workshops to ensure important production does not get stopped, but then the automation loses its point.
That's why you declare specific workshops as 'automated' workshops, able to accept automated orders. Your important bed, barrel and bin workshops do not accept automated orders, but that one up there that doesn't do anything vital does.
Post by: jamoecw on September 29, 2009, 11:45:21 pm
another example with multiple types would be if you had: 4 farms, 2 kitchens, 2 brewerys, 1 millstone; and you had a shortfall of 6 wine, 2 simple meals; you have in stock 1 flour, 1 plump helmet, 60 wheat seeds, 0 helmet spawn; your kitchen orders are to not cook seeds; 1 farm, 2 kitchens, 1 brewery, 1 millstone are idle; 3 farms are set for weat, 1 brewery is making rum.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
very simple, and allows one to do his own micromanaging if one wishes to, operating off of a shortfall list which can be set to auto fulfill similar to workshop jobs being set to repeat. won't tie up workshops if you are using them and no need to set workshops to accept auto commands.
Post by: nodule on October 01, 2009, 10:57:13 pm
There are two relevant concerns here: first, what turns off newbie players? Lots of people have focused on this to good effect. Second, what prevents someone who has learned the ropes from really getting into this game? As someone who overcame the first hurdle, played obsessively for a week, then lost interest, I think I can speak to both concerns.
tutorial/tilesets: I started playing dwarf fortress using an excellent tutorial that provided a pre-packaged version with the mayday tileset preinstalled. I don't think I would have gotten into this fabulous game were it not for that. Pre-packaging that tileset with an easy way to enable it (first time loading df="would you like to use ascii graphics or a tileset? you can change this later") would be huge. As for an in-game tutorial, that isn't strictly necessary since there are excellent third-party ones available. But I strongly encourage linking to one prominently on the download page, and perhaps also in-game. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the complexity of the game, but it is almost impossible to figure out without a careful tutorial.
game saving: many many people, including myself, loaded the latest season auto-save the second time they started df, which caused them to think that they had lost progress (and once they have done that, they have!). Perhaps I'm dense, but I did this many times, each time being incredibly frustrated, and my main save game ended up being the one marked year 03 even into year 10. something as simple as naming these save games "backup-xxxx" would be a huge help (preferably also warning the user before loading one of them!)
UI/framerate: enough has been said about this so far, I think. After making a fort of 60 dwarves, it is sad to see the framerate drop precipitously and know that it will only get worse. It is a serious blow to one's creativity to constantly think about the framerate implications of the cool things you want to do.
labour micromanagement: as several other people have said, it is fun to set up new industries, but maintaining them is incredibly frustrating. Putting a workshop on auto-build works well, until one of the source resources dries up, which causes all the tasks to be cancelled. It is also too easy to either run out of an item, or over-produce it. I felt that I was constantly in a seesaw between having no wood and having too much, having no alcohol and having gallons, etc. In an attempt to clear out stone, I let my mechanics produce thousands of mechanisms which I had to find storage space for. Having systems like "build 15 beds if there are none" would be so so huge. Generally, I found it difficult to keep dwarves busy without making them over-produce (thus causing problems with storage and hauling).
game balance: This is what ultimately why I don't play anymore, and has been mentioned by others. The game as it stands doesn't do a very good job carefully delivering challenges to the player in a way to maximize "fun".
This view has been expressed by others saying "the game is too easy", and by others saying "the game is too simulationist", and by other still in saying "the game is too hard". People saying these things have generally been attacked in this thread, the usual vein being "if you don't like it, don't play" or, for systems that are too easy "you don't have to play using X". The problem is that (in my mind) Dwarf Fortress is first and foremost not a simulation, but a game that uses simulation to produce varied and emergent game play. The reason why people are (somewhat) saddened about the current developmental arc isn't that they wouldn't like some of the new simulation components, but that the existing components haven't had their "fun factor" refined yet.
One good example is immigrants. Starting a new fort is incredibly exciting: you have so many new systems to set up and you're constantly balancing the work output of your very limited labour. You feel attached to each dwarf. Just as you're making a bit of progress, 12-20 immigrants show up. It is very easy to be overwhelmed. Your connection with each dwarf is severed. You often don't have enough for everyone to do. It is discouraging. People have been criticized in this thread for not being able to "handle" the immigrant influx, saying that it is an expected challenge of the game. Sure, but what happens is that you've replaced the challenge of doing what you can with limited labour with the challenge of having to micromanage three times as many dwarves. I think that this is objectively bad, and immigration should only be a certain % of your current population (max 50% at the beginning, less as your fort grows). As for those who complain that you can manage this yourself through init.ini tweaking: this is true. Tweaking should be for power players who want to go beyond the designers original intent, not be necessary to fix a game design problem that is commonly run into.
Were I in the position of developing df, I would try very hard to make the currently-available game as much of a "game" as possible, to ensure continued interest in its development. This would mean spending a few months working on balance issues in fortress mode, and consider gameplay balance fixes as important as bug fixes even while developing the next component of nifty simulation. Not everything can be fixed to satisfaction before developing more architecture (something several people have argued, and it makes sense). But as some people have pointed out, there are several things that should be able to be fixed by tweaking some constants (range attack, farming, immigration, perhaps trap trigger %, etc.). It feels like the current approach is to wait until a more robust/realistic simulation engine "fixes" the problem, which is unsatisfying.
Several people have commented that a lot of new features that _are_ being developed will have cool gameplay consequences. This is true (underground sites, poison, etc. do sound cool). But, will the necessary (imo) several months of making these things balanced and useful in-game be done next, or will another simulation system be done next? If the answer is the former, it is tempting to be excited about the future of df. If the latter, I'll try to forget about df and hope I stumble across it in five years.
I am a software developer and so I realize the tensions and tradeoffs involved. I hope I don't sound too critical of Toady: I have immense respect for his work and this game in particular.
It is truly an inspirational concept and game, and I hope it continued to be as it is further developed.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on October 02, 2009, 01:17:52 am
Were I in the position of developing df, I would try very hard to make the currently-available game as much of a "game" as possible, to ensure continued interest in its development. This would mean spending a few months working on balance issues in fortress mode, and consider gameplay balance fixes as important as bug fixes even while developing the next component of nifty simulation. Not everything can be fixed to satisfaction before developing more architecture (something several people have argued, and it makes sense). But as some people have pointed out, there are several things that should be able to be fixed by tweaking some constants (range attack, farming, immigration, perhaps trap trigger %, etc.). It feels like the current approach is to wait until a more robust/realistic simulation engine "fixes" the problem, which is unsatisfying.
Toady has, to my knowledge, deliberately avoided working on many game balance issues. The game is very much unfinished at the moment. Some aspects of the game are placeholders, to be more thoroughly developed in the future. Others simply cannot be (semi-)permanently fixed/improved in the game's current state because a long-term fix will rely on an incomplete or untouched development arc (read the development pages if you want some idea what the final game should look like). Why should Toady spend several months of development on temporary solutions when he already plans to rewrite the underlying systems later on?
So, yeah. Fixing existing problems for the benefit of new or current players would be great, but much of that effort would go to waste as the game develops. On the other hand, leaving the game poorly balanced in the interim has a detrimental effect on the fan base. For Toady, that means fewer potential donations. For some of the fans, it keeps the riffraff away from the forums. :P
Post by: Aaaamory on October 02, 2009, 03:25:54 am
Post by: Neruz on October 02, 2009, 03:40:26 am
Post by: darkflagrance on October 02, 2009, 04:03:08 am
Post by: Neruz on October 02, 2009, 04:33:55 am
Additionally, it's pretty ovbious that Toady is doing this because he wants to, so the fanbase is substantially less important than it is for a major commercial company that would be doing it to make money.
Dwarf Fortress is very much an aberration of game production, i wouldn't try to apply mainstream techniques to it.
Post by: zwei on October 02, 2009, 06:20:46 am
Dwarf Fortress only appeals to a small hardcore\elitist demographic, so alienating the fanbase is less of an issue.
Additionally, it's pretty ovbious that Toady is doing this because he wants to, so the fanbase is substantially less important than it is for a major commercial company that would be doing it to make money.
Dwarf Fortress is very much an aberration of game production, i wouldn't try to apply mainstream techniques to it.
I'd call bullshit on this.
First, it hardly caters to "leet hardcores". It has steep learning curve and controls that require dedication to master, but that is not a point of this game. Point is to have fun in sandbox world, which is by design game for casual people with anyone going hardcore being ... weird person.
It has steep learning curve only because there is no way to lean how to play it without reading detailed tutorial and wiki. Its controls are just way too messy. But that is not by design, but rather by accident and result of it being one-man-dev show.
Seccond, Fanbase is actually quite important: Creator is doing this instead of/as full time job, so he does need money to keep on going, and, well, the more fans the merrier.
Last, dwarf fortress is not aberation at all. It is Spore or Sims or GTA type game that happens to have more detail and is harder to play. Give it decent graphics coat and controll, Make good tutorial, Make several fortress mode missions with storyline in premade world and you get game with solid potential.
And, chicken-and-egg, if game gets enough fans/supoport, Creator could actually hire designer to figure out good gui for him, graphics guy to make it 'nice' and put DF:2010 edition on steam.
Post by: Neruz on October 02, 2009, 07:51:46 am
Dwarf Fortress most certainly is an aberration. It's an exceedingly complex one and a half man roguelike game. All the standard game design models say that DF should have died by now, and indeed in 99% of the time it would. The original Armok being a good example, DF has managed to cheat the odds.
And finally, DF is a Roguelike, Roguelikes have small fanbases, compare the DF fanbase (which numbers maybe a thousand at most, and more like a few hundred) to the fanbase of a mainstream game, which will often number in the ten thousands, or, in the case of a certain MMO, over 11 million.
Finally, the fact that it has a steep learning curve for a good reason does not in any way change the fact that it has a steep learning curve.
Post by: Aqizzar on October 02, 2009, 08:27:19 am
Post by: Neruz on October 02, 2009, 08:46:04 am
Post by: IndonesiaWarMinister on October 02, 2009, 09:03:36 am
How about the fact that DF is basically a roguelike/rts hybrid? Even if it wasn't, my point about the small fanbase still stands.Yeah, it's roguelike/rts hybrid.
That, and by the way Toady deliberately sacrifice grafixxx for GAMEPLAY and DETAIL is what making it a roguelike, at least... in ideology. Also, we make dungeons ('fortress'), and explore them ('adventure mode').
(offtopic, but I have recently found out that both of the indie designer sacrifice graphic, for gameplay, and depth (Toady), and FUN (the other one))
Post by: SirPenguin on October 02, 2009, 09:04:47 am
How is a Real Time Strategy town management sim a "roguelike" in any way except that by default it uses ASCI for graphics? Adventure Mode yes, but Adventure Mode barely exists yet. Roguelike is not a synonym for any game that's hard to play and has crappy/no graphics.
Why do people feel such a need to nitpick on this point? I mean, what defines a roguelike? Randomization, no ability to save scum (death = permanent), the minimal focus on graphics, etc. etc. DF is a Roguelike in literally every aspect except one: city builder mode. That doesn't stop it from having the same pros and cons of every other roguelike out there as suggested by Neruz
Post by: zwei on October 02, 2009, 09:27:13 am
I call bullshit on you reading my post. I said that the fanbase for Toady is less important than it is for a major commercial company as Toady is far less interested in the bottom line.
Dwarf Fortress most certainly is an aberration. It's an exceedingly complex one and a half man roguelike game. All the standard game design models say that DF should have died by now, and indeed in 99% of the time it would. The original Armok being a good example, DF has managed to cheat the odds.
And finally, DF is a Roguelike, Roguelikes have small fanbases, compare the DF fanbase (which numbers maybe a thousand at most, and more like a few hundred) to the fanbase of a mainstream game, which will often number in the ten thousands, or, in the case of a certain MMO, over 11 million.
Finally, the fact that it has a steep learning curve for a good reason does not in any way change the fact that it has a steep learning curve.
1) He has interest in maintaining and growing fanbase. It it whole point of this thread, get list of items that slutters banbse growth. Toady is one man "Commercial Company" (hint: he needs new fans because older ones eventually get bored, go away and stop donating, which will likely end up in dead project)
2) As said, it is not roguelike. It has ascii graphics and can be played as one in one mode but that is fairly minor part of whole game (that, from what i have read, people are not really that interested in compared to dwarf mode.), it does not bring new players, it does not keep em playing, it is nothing special anyway, and it is not what development is about.
It is simcity without graphics, not a roguelike.
And as far as game design, goes, well, bs call again :). It is sandbox sim. It does not play by "standart design rules" rules; little story:
Developer of Elite (a open world space sim) was being rejected left and right by publishers. Why? Because his game lacked score display and player did not have "three lives". By all conventional wisdom of game design of that time, it was unplayable game that lacked most important features. It was destined to die. Err, no, it was destined to be played for 25+ years, to have numerous clones,to define whole genre and end up with mmo adaptation to boot.
Sandboxes break tons of rules for game are supposed to be players. That is because there is only one rule: Is game fun to play? That is all that matters.
DF did not manage to cheat odds, it simply works and is of popular genre. And it is genre that has huge audience, because at heart it is Sims in fantasy settings. Sims sold 100 000 000 copies, btw. Success of DF is pretty much guaranteed, really.
Last: game does not have steep curve for good reasons. It has steep curve for bad reasons (lack of time to fix it) or no reasons at all. There is no "good" reason to have steep learning curve.
Post by: Chronas on October 02, 2009, 12:38:42 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on October 02, 2009, 01:04:58 pm
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
That's really the worst thing about DF at the moment- getting showed the new version but NOT BEING ALLOWED to play it... Argh.
Post by: dyze on October 02, 2009, 02:40:36 pm
Post by: Andir on October 02, 2009, 03:15:35 pm
why is everyone discussing all matters EXCEPT what the topic is actually about in here?Because... just when it's about to get back on topic, someone asks why it's off topic. ;D
Post by: John Hopoate on October 02, 2009, 08:57:21 pm
Post by: Neruz on October 02, 2009, 09:48:34 pm
It's nothing personal Toady but please don't talk about your cat so much, many of us see them as cold, loveless creatures that destroy our natural environment one bird at a time.
If you don't like cats, then with all due respect you're in the wrong internet.
Post by: Neonivek on October 02, 2009, 10:56:07 pm
It's nothing personal Toady but please don't talk about your cat so much, many of us see them as cold, loveless creatures that destroy our natural environment one bird at a time.
Damn those humans! I mean Cats... No wait I mean humans with cats!
Post by: kilakan on October 03, 2009, 10:36:01 am
Post by: G-Flex on October 03, 2009, 02:28:28 pm
It's nothing personal Toady but please don't talk about your cat so much, many of us see them as cold, loveless creatures that destroy our natural environment one bird at a time.
Translation:
Quote
You're not allowed to talk about any part of your personal life that involves something I don't personally enjoy. This includes cats, hot dogs, and the color mauve. Thank you. Your cooperation has been noted.
Post by: Rowanas on October 03, 2009, 07:25:20 pm
It's nothing personal Toady but please don't talk about your cat so much, many of us see them as warm, clever creatures that destroy our irritating 6 am wake-up call one bird at a time.
Fix'd
Post by: Tarbourite on October 03, 2009, 08:32:30 pm
Post by: Grendus on October 03, 2009, 10:24:43 pm
1. Menus are painful to sort through. Once players get over the initial shock and into the management, they may find themselves digging through, say, the animal menu where animals are thrown in seemingly at random or trying to forbid/unforbid certain stones in the stones menu. Compared to even the rough organization of the kitchen menu (which seems to be arranged in meat->seeds->plants->drinks->processed cookables). Arranging stones by use and animals by species and gender would be great.
2. Army is a pita to work with. Much of this is being addressed in the next version, but a better interface for dwarves switching to training weapons between sieges or ambushes would be a godsend. Currently, if I let my dwarves spar with unmodified iron warhammers I usually end up with internal injuries, but I don't dare have them try to switch to silver in the event of an orc siege. Granted I'm playing with the military difficulty ramped up, but even then, for mature fortresses in vanilla this is the same problem.
3. Traps. Traps are too damn good, to me this is actually a turn off. There's no real incentive to build an army if you can line an entrance corridor with 50 rows of weapon traps, but at the same time building armies is so much fun. To go along with military improvements, a change to traps would, I think, go a long way toward improving the game for newbies.
4. Ambushes suck. If you aren't reading a walkthrough and pre-warned about them, they can really wreck your day. Something smaller than a single squad siege but visible unlike an ambush would be a good way to introduce new players to combat. The attacks from underground creatures might help with this.
Post by: Neonivek on October 03, 2009, 10:34:58 pm
Quote
Army is a pita to work with
This just perplexes me. While I would have put "Pain" there, "Pita" just seems very intentional. Which is sorta awesome to me.
Is it Pita?
Post by: Footkerchief on October 03, 2009, 11:29:30 pm
Post by: Andir on October 03, 2009, 11:56:31 pm
1. Menus are painful to sort through. Once players get over the initial shock and into the management, they may find themselves digging through, say, the animal menu where animals are thrown in seemingly at random or trying to forbid/unforbid certain stones in the stones menu. Compared to even the rough organization of the kitchen menu (which seems to be arranged in meat->seeds->plants->drinks->processed cookables). Arranging stones by use and animals by species and gender would be great.This is mainly interface, IMHO. Objects (including empty tiles) should be contextually controlled as I've mentioned before. If you "activate" an empty tile above a ground tile, it should give you the option to dig (stairs), build(workshop, wall, statue [if available], etc), or designate (room, area -> food, stone...). If it has a dwarf in it, you should be able to assign it a job (miner, farmer, militia...) and if it's a underground tile you get the only options available there as well (excavate, etc.)
Post by: Neruz on October 04, 2009, 01:32:27 am
Post by: Neonivek on October 04, 2009, 01:40:12 am
The menus just need a little more consistency to them, rather than swapping which keys do what seemingly arbitrarily.
But it keeps you on your toes. It is like your not only battling goblins but the menu as well!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: John Hopoate on October 04, 2009, 07:27:29 am
Toady, you're obviously a fascinating person, just the kind of guy I'd love to share a beer with, after all you created Dwarf Fortress, the most mesmerising game since Hearts of Iron came out over half a decade ago. Your problem is that you're not used to fanboys telling you that your turds are made out of 24 carat gold, this is why you're acting like a barren 40-something sexually ambiguous spinster who thinks that people want to hear about her cats, it's not your fault, when you ramble on about your cat everyone's telling you that it's fucking Shakespere and you're not used to fame so how are you to know the difference? In my country (Australia) we're well aware of the damage cats do to the environment and red blooded Aussies only interact with cats at 900 metres per second. The best thing I can say about cats is that they taste a little like veal if you gut and skin them thoroughly before dousing their meaty remains in a stew sufficient amount of Gochugaru (Korean chilli flakes) and rice wine vinegar in order to make them taste sufficiently authentic.
Call me a barbarian if you must but apparently raccoons taste good too, the main difference is that cats are a destructive feral animal and by shooting and eating cats I'm making a positive contribution towards the restoration of Australia's pre-European ecosystem.
Post by: darkflagrance on October 04, 2009, 07:51:23 am
It seems like I've offended some people so let me clarify what I was saying
Toady, you're obviously a fascinating person, just the kind of guy I'd love to share a beer with, after all you created Dwarf Fortress, the most mesmerising game since Hearts of Iron came out over half a decade ago. Your problem is that you're not used to fanboys telling you that your turds are made out of 24 carat gold, this is why you're acting like a barren 40-something sexually ambiguous spinster who thinks that people want to hear about her cats, it's not your fault, when you ramble on about your cat everyone's telling you that it's fucking Shakespere and you're not used to fame so how are you to know the difference? In my country (Australia) we're well aware of the damage cats do to the environment and red blooded Aussies only interact with cats at 900 metres per second. The best thing I can say about cats is that they taste a little like veal if you gut and skin them thoroughly before dousing their meaty remains in a stew sufficient amount of Gochugaru (Korean chilli flakes) and rice wine vinegar in order to make them taste sufficiently authentic.
Call me a barbarian if you must but apparently raccoons taste good too, the main difference is that cats are a destructive feral animal and by shooting and eating cats I'm making a positive contribution towards the restoration of Australia's pre-European ecosystem.
Veal? Really? Calf fed on nothing but milk until it's so fat the meat turns white? I would have thought a feral cat would taste more like say, coney. After all, they didn't call it "roof rabbit" during famines for nothing.
Although Australia's rabbit problems rivaled the cat problem, so there's a good chance you'll have tasted some.
***
What I've discovered recently is that ever since I realized that mining out rocks caused severe fps drain, I've been forced to check my digging projects, and so every time I embark on a megaproject to dig out a great 100-square tile hall I feel reluctant to start for fear of lag.
It's like the "dug too deep" timer on 2d Dwarf Fortress except more insidious and inevitable over the course of normal play.
If a solution could be come up with to solve the problem of stone lag other than assigning your haulers to dump it into holes, it would certainly make things much less stressful - it really detracts from the feelings of grandeur when you have to solve the problem of putting the rubble somewhere, which only increases the more skilled miners you have. (I recently dug out a stone city 6 levels deep and assigned the stone to be dumped. 10 in-game years later two levels haven't even been started yet)
Post by: Angellus on October 04, 2009, 09:59:35 am
I never forbid, unless absolutely nessecairy, but every reclaim I find myself needing to reclaim EVERY SINGLE OBJECT spread out over 20 z-levels of a 6x6 embark. Not to speak of the fps horror it brings along with the hauling ^^ but that pathfinding has been discussed more than enough.
I would like an option to reclaim everything on the map instantly, this would spare half an hour or designating for reclaim.
Also, I keep on finding friendly orcs in my base after reclaim, then when an invasion starts, they start killing everything around them (including the new invaders!).
I work around this with traps, but it still annoys me and gives several problems with tauntrum spirals XD
Post by: kilakan on October 04, 2009, 10:07:02 am
Post by: The Mad Engineer on October 04, 2009, 10:22:34 am
It's nothing personal Toady but please don't talk about your cat so much, many of us see them as cold, loveless creatures that destroy our natural environment one bird at a time.
Translation:QuoteYou're not allowed to talk about any part of your personal life that involves something I don't personally enjoy. This includes cats, hot dogs, and the color mauve. Thank you. Your cooperation has been noted.
Post by: nil on October 04, 2009, 01:12:37 pm
there is a command to reclaim large areas of loot it's under the (d)esignate command, you can select an entire area to be reclaimed, you can also tell dwarves to not forbid used ammo/corpses/dropped loot from sieges.Also the stocks menu, although I think you need to do some bookkeeping for that to work.
Toady doesn't live in Australia, but rather a continent with an ecosystem robust enough to handle house cats :)
Post by: Footkerchief on October 04, 2009, 03:12:58 pm
Your problem is that you're not used to fanboys telling you that your turds are made out of 24 carat gold, this is why you're acting like a barren 40-something sexually ambiguous spinster who thinks that people want to hear about her cats, it's not your fault, when you ramble on about your cat everyone's telling you that it's fucking Shakespere and you're not used to fame so how are you to know the difference? In my country (Australia) we're well aware of the damage cats do to the environment and red blooded Aussies only interact with cats at 900 metres per second. The best thing I can say about cats is that they taste a little like veal if you gut and skin them thoroughly before dousing their meaty remains in a stew sufficient amount of Gochugaru (Korean chilli flakes) and rice wine vinegar in order to make them taste sufficiently authentic.
Conversely, kangaroos don't even exist. It's true! The biggest hoax in history! I scoured all of these United States and didn't find a single one, and obviously the rest of the world is no different.
Post by: Solarn on October 04, 2009, 04:19:15 pm
That would be excruciatingly tedious. I like the menus as they are right now.1. Menus are painful to sort through. Once players get over the initial shock and into the management, they may find themselves digging through, say, the animal menu where animals are thrown in seemingly at random or trying to forbid/unforbid certain stones in the stones menu. Compared to even the rough organization of the kitchen menu (which seems to be arranged in meat->seeds->plants->drinks->processed cookables). Arranging stones by use and animals by species and gender would be great.This is mainly interface, IMHO. Objects (including empty tiles) should be contextually controlled as I've mentioned before. If you "activate" an empty tile above a ground tile, it should give you the option to dig (stairs), build(workshop, wall, statue [if available], etc), or designate (room, area -> food, stone...). If it has a dwarf in it, you should be able to assign it a job (miner, farmer, militia...) and if it's a underground tile you get the only options available there as well (excavate, etc.)
Post by: Andir on October 04, 2009, 08:46:38 pm
You can keep your menus... this would be in addition.That would be excruciatingly tedious. I like the menus as they are right now.1. Menus are painful to sort through. Once players get over the initial shock and into the management, they may find themselves digging through, say, the animal menu where animals are thrown in seemingly at random or trying to forbid/unforbid certain stones in the stones menu. Compared to even the rough organization of the kitchen menu (which seems to be arranged in meat->seeds->plants->drinks->processed cookables). Arranging stones by use and animals by species and gender would be great.This is mainly interface, IMHO. Objects (including empty tiles) should be contextually controlled as I've mentioned before. If you "activate" an empty tile above a ground tile, it should give you the option to dig (stairs), build(workshop, wall, statue [if available], etc), or designate (room, area -> food, stone...). If it has a dwarf in it, you should be able to assign it a job (miner, farmer, militia...) and if it's a underground tile you get the only options available there as well (excavate, etc.)
Post by: Neruz on October 04, 2009, 08:57:38 pm
It seems like I've offended some people so let me clarify what I was saying
Toady, you're obviously a fascinating person, just the kind of guy I'd love to share a beer with, after all you created Dwarf Fortress, the most mesmerising game since Hearts of Iron came out over half a decade ago. Your problem is that you're not used to fanboys telling you that your turds are made out of 24 carat gold, this is why you're acting like a barren 40-something sexually ambiguous spinster who thinks that people want to hear about her cats, it's not your fault, when you ramble on about your cat everyone's telling you that it's fucking Shakespere and you're not used to fame so how are you to know the difference? In my country (Australia) we're well aware of the damage cats do to the environment and red blooded Aussies only interact with cats at 900 metres per second. The best thing I can say about cats is that they taste a little like veal if you gut and skin them thoroughly before dousing their meaty remains in a stew sufficient amount of Gochugaru (Korean chilli flakes) and rice wine vinegar in order to make them taste sufficiently authentic.
Call me a barbarian if you must but apparently raccoons taste good too, the main difference is that cats are a destructive feral animal and by shooting and eating cats I'm making a positive contribution towards the restoration of Australia's pre-European ecosystem.
OH NOES WE MUST RESTORE AUSTRALIA'S PRE-EUROPEAN ECOSYSTEM!
Except of course that the Abbos fucked it up long before we got here.
Seriously, you sound so far up yourself at the moment that i must reccomend an excellent surgeon who is quite practiced at removing one's head from one's ass.
Post by: PermanentInk on October 05, 2009, 01:43:28 am
Post by: Neonivek on October 05, 2009, 01:46:50 am
My gripe is that in Adventurer mode it's too hard to tell which race owns a site and whether they're friendly or hostile (without actually going in and seeing what's up). I guess it would be nice to have a "look" mode when traveling, which could display this information.
There Sorta is... but it is overcomplicated to the point of uselessness. Also I could be thinking of quick travel.
Post by: JohnLukeG on October 05, 2009, 02:43:19 am
I'd say the main thing that turns me off about the game is that as your fortress becomes more and more powerful, the surrounding land becomes more and more dead.
After only a few years, there is rarely any wildlife to be found anywhere on the map. I'm not sure how the current world gen system works, but perhaps non-civ creatures should be able to just spawn from nothing at any time. (I'm just speculating that it doesn't already work like that)
Anyway, my current saved game (http://mkv25.net/dfma/map-7125-taperedtrample (http://mkv25.net/dfma/map-7125-taperedtrample)) had lots of goats in the beginning, but after my hunters chased them down and strangled them to death (because they're just hardcore like that) no new animals would ever enter the map. The goblin sieges seem to have stopped after I killed their dwarf one armed, one legged leader who was carrying 24 pages of crafts as well.
Anyway, there should be a constant flow of new enemies and animals into your realm. I recall that this may have been planned for an upcoming update though, so if that's the case, the game is pretty much perfect to me.
I also hate how injuries take years to heal, but I know that's being included in the next update.
Post by: Cheeetar on October 05, 2009, 02:53:58 am
*stuff*
I am Australian, and love cats, as do all other Australians I know personally. Except that one guy who likes dogs.
Also: You're not important.
Post by: Neruz on October 05, 2009, 02:54:54 am
My first post in this thread.
I'd say the main thing that turns me off about the game is that as your fortress becomes more and more powerful, the surrounding land becomes more and more dead.
After only a few years, there is rarely any wildlife to be found anywhere on the map. I'm not sure how the current world gen system works, but perhaps non-civ creatures should be able to just spawn from nothing at any time. (I'm just speculating that it doesn't already work like that)
Anyway, my current saved game (http://mkv25.net/dfma/map-7125-taperedtrample (http://mkv25.net/dfma/map-7125-taperedtrample)) had lots of goats in the beginning, but after my hunters chased them down and strangled them to death (because they're just hardcore like that) no new animals would ever enter the map. The goblin sieges seem to have stopped after I killed their dwarf one armed, one legged leader who was carrying 24 pages of crafts as well.
Anyway, there should be a constant flow of new enemies and animals into your realm. I recall that this may have been planned for an upcoming update though, so if that's the case, the game is pretty much perfect to me.
I also hate how injuries take years to heal, but I know that's being included in the next update.
Good news! The next update has an option to have endless recurring 'invasions' from underground creatures entering the caverns. It may or may not also apply to above-ground creatures.
Post by: G-Flex on October 05, 2009, 02:55:12 am
Post by: Makrond on October 05, 2009, 03:16:06 am
I'm not a red-blooded Australian? Heh. Sounds like some poppy is getting too tall for his own good. Might be time for a good docking there mate.
What turns me off about DF is that I rarely if ever see many of the awesome things people talk about from time to time, either because fortresses disappear due to my own carelessness with storage media or because I get bored waiting for the dungeon master and decide to restart better next time.
Of course these are both just a lack of commitment on my part. I could blame Toady for bad pacing but I'm not going to because that's hardly the point of DF here, is it?
Post by: Andir on October 05, 2009, 04:33:02 am
Might be time for a good docking there mate.I sure hope that you're not referring to the type of 'docking' that you can find on the first Google link... :-[
Post by: IndonesiaWarMinister on October 05, 2009, 06:11:31 am
Oh, he isMight be time for a good docking there mate.I sure hope that you're not referring to the type of 'docking' that you can find on the first Google link... :-[
I don't expect much other from Makrond ;D
Post by: Neruz on October 05, 2009, 08:44:41 am
Oh, he isMight be time for a good docking there mate.I sure hope that you're not referring to the type of 'docking' that you can find on the first Google link... :-[
I don't expect much other from Makrond ;D
Considering the first hit for 'docking' is the Urban Dictionary one and has to do with penises, i don't think so actually.
Interestingly, the first thing that came to mind for me is the term 'docking' when used in relation to sheep.
Post by: Angellus on October 05, 2009, 11:18:28 am
there is a command to reclaim large areas of loot it's under the (d)esignate command, you can select an entire area to be reclaimed, you can also tell dwarves to not forbid used ammo/corpses/dropped loot from sieges.I know, and I also use that (Cannot inmagine the Freaking HELL it would be without!), but it is really a pita to scroll trough every single z-level on your map (My fortresses always stretch out everywhere, just like an ant-hole.).
Post by: Angellus on October 05, 2009, 11:23:31 am
Post by: Typoman on October 06, 2009, 06:58:05 am
It most definitely removes the stone from the selection list when it's not available (ie: in a construction.) This is easy enough to test. Dig a hole in a new embark. When you hit stone, stop. Then build a wall. Try to build another. You can't. Dig some more until you hit a different type. Then try to build a wall of that type. You can't. It's not listed.Megaprojects don't actually get rid of the stone though; it can still be accessed in the stone menu.It does if you build something out of the stone.
No-oo, i'm pretty sure the stone in walls remains in the stone menu.
if that is the case, add that to the list of things that need fixing.
it's just silly.
mangager: "why haven't you built the 25th floor yet?"
mason: "no stone"
manager: "what we have 10's of thousands of units what are you talking about?"
mason:"yeah, those are in the other 24 floors"
manager: *rage*
manager: where's that clerk i'm gonna rip his arm off and shove it down his throat! then put him in the drowning chamber!
sorry late reply i stopped watching the tread for a while.
yeah but in character the manager wouldn't designate a tower level by level he's have the whole thing done in blueprints (or engraved in microline, whatever :P) and hand it to the masons and say, build this. (simplification)
Post by: Andir on October 06, 2009, 07:15:17 am
sorry late reply i stopped watching the tread for a while.I'd love if I could designate an entire structure to be built and they would go about building it without me babysitting. Don't get me wrong. But how do you know what stone is available on the map? Let's say I don't have any Microcline on the map... fat chance on that, I know. How could you designate a Microcline tower be made? (or could you and it would never be made?) If you could, the list of stone would HAVE to include every type available and that might be a nightmare. You'd want some way to sort, select, or filter by color, quality, etc.
yeah but in character the manager wouldn't designate a tower level by level he's have the whole thing done in blueprints (or engraved in microline, whatever :P) and hand it to the masons and say, build this. (simplification)
Post by: Typoman on October 06, 2009, 07:45:00 am
sorry late reply i stopped watching the tread for a while.I'd love if I could designate an entire structure to be built and they would go about building it without me babysitting. Don't get me wrong. But how do you know what stone is available on the map? Let's say I don't have any Microcline on the map... fat chance on that, I know. How could you designate a Microcline tower be made? (or could you and it would never be made?) If you could, the list of stone would HAVE to include every type available and that might be a nightmare. You'd want some way to sort, select, or filter by color, quality, etc.
yeah but in character the manager wouldn't designate a tower level by level he's have the whole thing done in blueprints (or engraved in microline, whatever :P) and hand it to the masons and say, build this. (simplification)
you missed my point entierly but carry on
Post by: Andir on October 06, 2009, 08:03:28 am
Then please explain... because I'm sure I'm not the only one to be utterly confused right now.sorry late reply i stopped watching the tread for a while.I'd love if I could designate an entire structure to be built and they would go about building it without me babysitting. Don't get me wrong. But how do you know what stone is available on the map? Let's say I don't have any Microcline on the map... fat chance on that, I know. How could you designate a Microcline tower be made? (or could you and it would never be made?) If you could, the list of stone would HAVE to include every type available and that might be a nightmare. You'd want some way to sort, select, or filter by color, quality, etc.
yeah but in character the manager wouldn't designate a tower level by level he's have the whole thing done in blueprints (or engraved in microline, whatever :P) and hand it to the masons and say, build this. (simplification)
you missed my point entierly but carry on
Post by: Jiri Petru on October 06, 2009, 08:15:08 am
Post by: Jiri Petru on October 06, 2009, 08:16:59 am
Quote from: Andir
I'd love if I could designate an entire structure to be built and they would go about building it without me babysitting. Don't get me wrong. But how do you know what stone is available on the map? Let's say I don't have any Microcline on the map... fat chance on that, I know. How could you designate a Microcline tower be made? (or could you and it would never be made?) If you could, the list of stone would HAVE to include every type available and that might be a nightmare. You'd want some way to sort, select, or filter by color, quality, etc.
These are only technicalities that can be changed. But yes, with the current system of building stuff and choosing materials, it's impossible to design a tower without specifying materials and let the dwarves choose whatever they want. It doesn't invalidate the point, though. Technicalities should never be more important than gameplay (or user-friendliness), and when in conflict with these, they should be changed.
Dwarf Fortress has a lot of technicalities like these. For example, I'd like to be able to design bedrooms without having the necessary furniture - when I'd make it later, the dwarves would automatically bring it to the designed bedroom. Better yet, the manager could actually order the furniture by himself. Again, the current state of technicalities makes this impossible, which - for me, at least - means they have to be changed.
EDIT: To answer your question, imagine you could build wall with on option enabled that says: "Build from any stone block."
Post by: zwei on October 06, 2009, 10:11:35 am
Quote from: AndirI'd love if I could designate an entire structure to be built and they would go about building it without me babysitting. Don't get me wrong. But how do you know what stone is available on the map? Let's say I don't have any Microcline on the map... fat chance on that, I know. How could you designate a Microcline tower be made? (or could you and it would never be made?) If you could, the list of stone would HAVE to include every type available and that might be a nightmare. You'd want some way to sort, select, or filter by color, quality, etc.
These are only technicalities that can be changed. But yes, with the current system of building stuff and choosing materials, it's impossible to design a tower without specifying materials and let the dwarves choose whatever they want. It doesn't invalidate the point, though. Technicalities should never be more important than gameplay (or user-friendliness), and when in conflict with these, they should be changed.
Dwarf Fortress has a lot of technicalities like these. For example, I'd like to be able to design bedrooms without having the necessary furniture - when I'd make it later, the dwarves would automatically bring it to the designed bedroom. Better yet, the manager could actually order the furniture by himself. Again, the current state of technicalities makes this impossible, which - for me, at least - means they have to be changed.
EDIT: To answer your question, imagine you could build wall with on option enabled that says: "Build from any stone block."
I would imagine 'any wood' 'any oak', 'any non-economic stone', 'any gold bar' being valid material options. As for beds/built items, I would imagine 'any x' valid option too. At best, right on top or relevant lists. And while we are at it, being able to micromanage bed to be 'any bed, masterpiece' would have its uses too.
Post by: Jiri Petru on October 10, 2009, 02:36:42 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on October 10, 2009, 03:02:45 pm
Post by: Hummingbird on October 10, 2009, 10:55:36 pm
There's no reason that it should be harder to get a quest from elves or dwarves than from humans.
Post by: cephalo on October 10, 2009, 11:39:06 pm
Post by: Hummingbird on October 11, 2009, 01:23:24 am
Post by: Exponent on October 12, 2009, 01:11:49 pm
That's a carryover from the roguelike tradition. Other esoteric movement keys in such games include u, i, n, and m for the diagonals, h and l for left and right, and (if I haven't got them mixed up) k and j for up and down.That actually sounds like it was directly influenced by vi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vi), a common text editor for Unix. I can't believe I actually remember that from my college days. I never could get use to that text editor.
Post by: JonathanCR on October 12, 2009, 02:27:30 pm
I have only just started playing Dwarf Fortress, so I am still wrestling with the problems that face new players. I tried to get into it for the first time a few months ago, found it utterly baffling and impenetrable, and gave up. I'm doing better now with the help of TinyPirate's tutorial, but even so, it is an uphill slog.
Here are my main problems so far. Let me say first that I am enjoying the game so far (above all the almost surreal use of language, names, art descriptions, and that sort of thing, which give it incredible character). So these are meant to be constructive criticisms, not complaints.
(1) The graphics, as I'm sure everyone has commented. I have played roguelike games before (I still believe Moria to be the greatest game ever made), but never with a pure ASCII tileset - only with a graphical tileset. A graphical tileset I can handle, and I should think that most new players will be prepared to handle too. A screen that is made up of nothing but letters and punctuation marks is too much of a challenge for me and for everyone but a small niche group of players. One of the biggest helps I've found with TinyPirate's tutorial is that he includes a graphical tileset in his download, so it looks at least vaguely comprehensible "out of the box". I cannot emphasise enough how much of a help that is. If Dwarf Fortress came with a good graphical tileset as standard (still retaining the ability to use others, of course, including pure ASCII for those who really like it) then that would make it so much more attractive to new players. And that would surely be dead easy for the developers to implement, too.
(2) The interface. My God but this is a slog. I think the real problem here is actually twofold rather than a single "interface difficulty". The first is availability of information. When I played Moria on my Amiga back in the day, it was almost - but not quite - entirely keyboard-based. That "not quite" made the difference. I could press a certain key and then click on something with the mouse, and be told what it was. All the information about that thing would be readily available. With Dwarf Fortress, you can forget the mouse (except for drawing designations, it seems - but sometimes the game registers not the tile I clicked on but one a couple of spaces north, so that's not so handy) - you have to navigate purely with keys. That's annoying. More annoying is the fact that it's just so hard to find anything out. Is there a way to know how happy, overall, my dwarves are? If there is I've yet to find it, other than just randomly cursoring my way over to individuals, hitting K, and reading their little diaries. How can I know how much food and drink I have stocked up, or how much charcoal there is? There seems to be a Stock screen that ought to be telling me these things, but it's full of question marks and it gives me no information about the stuff in the stockpiles. I'm just telling my dwarves to brew alcohol and make charcoal in the vague sense that I'm probably going to need these things, but I simply cannot tell whether I do need them or if the fortress is about to explode in a wave of unneeded strawberry wine and coke. No doubt this information is available somewhere, but if so, it's hardly obvious. But surely in any resource management sort of game this is vital and should be one of the most straightforward screens.
A lot of this information should be accessible at point of use. I want to tell the dwarves what to plant in the vegetable plot. I'm given a list of crops that are available - great. Do I have enough seeds for each of these crops? I haven't the faintest idea how I would go about finding this out - but I shouldn't have to. This information should appear right on this screen, or there should at least be a link to a screen that holds this information. As it is I'm just telling the dwarves to plant random stuff and hoping it works.
Again, take the dwarf information. It's scattered all over the place. I can get one set of information about a dwarf by going to him and pressing K. I get different information if I use V. U, alternatively, gives me access to yet more information screens. Some of these different screens seem to be linked to each other, but not others. I seem to be unable to find out what a dwarf is doing right now from the K screen, for example. To learn that I have to remember his name and then go to the U screen and look for him in the list. This seems just deliberately obstructive. I should be able to click on a dwarf and be taken to a basic screen for that dwarf, which will contain all the available information on the little sod, or links to screens that will give me that information.
This goes for other things too. It's hard to remember which screens have which information even after you've discovered them. If I Q over a tomb it tells me who is buried there (I think. Or was it B?). If I K over it, it doesn't. Why?
I think this is possibly the biggest obstacle to new players who have got past the graphics hurdle: the fact that it's just impossible to know what's going on and how to find information. This is a game that is all about information - which, as far as I can tell, processes more details about a world than any other game in existence. But if players can't get to that information easily and pleasantly then there's not much point in its doing it.
(3) The second problem with the interface is that it's equally hard to know how to do stuff. This is closely linked to the first problem. If I'm not sure which screen has the option of assigning a bedroom to a dwarf then I won't know how to do it. A particular problem, though, is the inconsistency of controls. When placing designations, I have to press ENTER at one corner and ENTER at the other corner of the area I want to designate (a pretty clunky system to start with). When placing plots and walls, I have to change the size of the area with some odd keys (H, K, U, M, is it? something like that, and I can't follow the logic which determines which key does what) and then press ENTER to plonk it down. Why the different system? I've already placed a lot of one-tile plots by mistake, expecting it to work like the designation system.
Or again: to designate a bedroom, I need to create a bedroom from the menu that I get from pressing Q on a bed (oh joy! *another* set of controls for changing the size of something!). Having done that, there is a key I can press for saying whose bedroom it is. Great - nice and simple. How about tombs? It seems to be exactly the same process. Except that this only works for live dwarfs - I suppose I'm saying where they will be buried when they die. It doesn't seem to work for that dead dwarf who's blossoming miasma all over the dining hall. No, to bury him I have to get rid of the tomb room, and I have to use the B key on the coffin and designate it as a coffin that corpses can be put in. Great, and off he gets dragged there. Now if only the dwarves would take the chunks of dwarf that are also lying around, and put them in the refuse area, that would be great. Why aren't they doing that? I've designated them to be disposed of.
At other times it's just not obvious what you've got to do at all. A sort of liaison dwarf from the Old Country turns up and wants to discuss the situation. I instinctively press SPACE to move to the next screen, because SPACE seems to do that elsewhere in the game. Ah - looks like I've cancelled by mistake. Can I still talk to him? Doesn't look like it. What should I have done? What would have happened next? There is nothing to tell me.
Similarly, I *think* I've traded with a bunch of traders who turned up. I ordered my dwarves to move goods to the trading post. My trader dwarf refused to come no matter what I told him - he was too happy engraving stuff - so I got some other random dwarf to do it. I went to a trading screen with the traders. I negotiated a price and the trader seemed happy. Then off he went. Can I find the goods that I think I bought off him? Can I arse. Does that mean I pressed the wrong key at some point and it all went wrong? Or just that they're hidden somewhere?
Or take object manipulation. I read a comment somewhere saying that it's a bad idea to put bones and shells in the normal refuse pit, because these might be useful. Great. How do I do anything about it, then? Using Q over the refuse pit I find what seem to be options to determine what objects get put there. But playing with these doesn't seem to make any difference. Another problem: a dwarf went mad and muttered about how he wanted leather. Right - I don't have any leather. But I have a dromedary walking about, and a butcher. So I ordered that the dromedary be slaughtered. It happened (eventually). Right, I thought, I see that the Butcher Shop has an option for "butcher dead animal", so I'll hit that, since that dromedary has been slaughtered and now needs to be cut up. The butcher cancelled the order since there were no dead animals to cut up. What happened to my dromedary? Can't it be butchered at all? I repeated the process with an ox. Eventually I realised that when an animal is slaughtered, it is butchered at the same time, and I don't need to order it to be butchered as well. So I had a skin to turn into some leather. Of course my tanner was cancelling his order on the grounds that no skins were available. Why not? I still don't know. Did the dwarves take those skins off to the refuse pile? When that happens, does it mean that other dwarves can't take them back again? Who knows?
A similar problem: some goblin thieves sprang my cage traps. Huzzah! Now what do I do with them? I've found information in the Wiki about taking their stuff off them. It seems incredibly complicated and also doesn't seem to work, at least so far. In fact I'm baffled by this. I've now got three goblin thieves sitting in wooden cages at the entrance to my fortress, slowly starving to death. They may or may not be naked - I'm not sure. No wonder the U page lists them as hostile. I hope this doesn't put off the next trade caravan.
So that's my summary of the sort of difficulties that I've faced so far. This is a game that I very much want to like, and so far I do like it, but I don't feel like it's being made easy for me. I'm starting to feel like I need alcohol to get through this working day. As I say, it's a combination of eccentric and inconsistent controls with great difficulty in finding information or understanding the information that is presented. Either one of these problems by itself might be surmountable, but taken together, I think they are devastating to most new players - more so than the more obvious graphics issue, which I've suggested is quite easily solvable for most purposes. I think this is going to be a fantastic game. Indeed I think it is already a fantastic game, but so much of the game is currently hidden away! Bring it out into the open and allow people to interact with it intuitively and easily, and we'll be able to appreciate how great it is.
Post by: Neonivek on October 12, 2009, 04:57:26 pm
The problem apperantly is that Toady is no artist.
Post by: Andir on October 12, 2009, 06:46:20 pm
I think Toady needs an official Tileset that can be turned on or off without going into the raws.Doesn't matter. He can create a tile set switcher and package a few different options with it. We could open a community poll on which ones should be included or something along those lines. The only thing he would have to do it code the tile switching code and include the winner(s) in the download.
The problem apperantly is that Toady is no artist.
Post by: Flaede on October 12, 2009, 09:56:33 pm
I didn't know anything about the plants - there was no "herbarium" - "why is this bog-plant never giving me seeds?" or "why is this mushroom spore not growing above ground?"; same for animals, though I think surprses work a bit better here; I did not know anything about the abilities/strong-points/weaknesses of the various weapons, and couldn't tell even after using them; I did not know what could be made of what (the "uses" info that appears in various places is great, but sporadic and hard to find) - figuring out how to make the different glass types was a real trial; What workshop to build to get what?
This didn't all have to be handed to me on a platter. In fact, I'd rather it wasn't, but to not know the differences between weapons even after I'd seen both in action was a bit frustrating. To not know whether a sword was equippable or not, for instance. Or which one was arguably "better", and have no way to really test to find out, that's the frustrating part.
This doesn't take a tutorial. I'm not sure the best way to handle it, but it looks like in the next release creatures will be more "descriptive" of themselves once they walk on-map. For everything else, the Wiki seems the only source of knowledge, and the way it's laid out is mostly designed for those of us who are already at the cusp of overcoming the learning curve. Learning to read the wiki is basically learning how to follow what happens in-game. Once you can read it, you don't need most of the content, except for some numbers and modding instructions.
Post by: JonathanCR on October 13, 2009, 02:53:21 am
Quote
Doesn't matter. He can create a tile set switcher and package a few different options with it. We could open a community poll on which ones should be included or something along those lines. The only thing he would have to do it code the tile switching code and include the winner(s) in the download.
Right. Do that and the game will instantly become vastly more attractive to many more people. Think of all the screenshots in blogs or online reviews that will look vaguely meaningful to casual readers, who might be prepared to play a game with simple graphics, but who won't even consider a game with no graphics at all. It looks like there are lots of good tile sets already out there. Choose one, perhaps with a forum poll, customise it if necessary, and include it, already installed, with the game download so that a first-time user, starting the game, will see simple but clear and attractive graphics rather than a bunch of letters and commas. That will greatly increase the numbers of people trying out the game for a start.
One thing I want to add to my unnecessarily lengthy post before is that I think I am pretty much the ideal target audience for this game. I grew up in the 8-bit era of simple, homegrown games. I am familiar with roguelike games and their conventions. I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice elaborate graphics for good gameplay. I like management and city/civilisation building games. I love games that model a believable world in great detail and realism. I like fantasy games. I like games with subtle, quirky humour. One of my favourite games was Dungeon Keeper II - which had many of the same concepts as this one, although with vastly less detail and complexity. And I'm pretty good at working out what's going on in computer programs even when they're poorly documented. But even someone like me, who ticks all those boxes, needs at least a reasonable graphical tile set to be prepared to put the work in to understand this game. Moreover, even someone like me, provided with a tile set and a tutorial, struggles to comprehend the interface and the sheer complexity of the game. It is just so difficult. My point is that the OP says that 90% of new players give up because of all this stuff - but it's important to be aware that those aren't just kids who expect it to be GTA or who can't comprehend any game control system beyond an Xbox controller. Many - perhaps most - of them are people who probably would enjoy this sort of game, but who simply aren't prepared to struggle against an intrusive and at times seemingly hostile interface to get at the game.
I notice that some people have said that the game needs an in-game tutorial. This is right, because normally in games you get introduced to the concepts and the range of buildings or whatever gradually. In Dwarf Fortress you're thrown into it right from the start and you must master everything to get anywhere. However, I can see that this isn't a priority at alpha stage. Moreover, providing a tutorial is kind of an add-on to the game as it stands - it's not a basic feature of the game itself. I think changing the UI so that it is more intuitive and - above all - makes information that you need very easy to find and understand is more important and more urgent if the game is going to attract and retain new players.
Post by: zwei on October 13, 2009, 03:33:43 am
I notice that some people have said that the game needs an in-game tutorial. This is right, because normally in games you get introduced to the concepts and the range of buildings or whatever gradually. In Dwarf Fortress you're thrown into it right from the start and you must master everything to get anywhere. However, I can see that this isn't a priority at alpha stage. Moreover, providing a tutorial is kind of an add-on to the game as it stands - it's not a basic feature of the game itself. I think changing the UI so that it is more intuitive and - above all - makes information that you need very easy to find and understand is more important and more urgent if the game is going to attract and retain new players.
I would consider it very basic feature on par with documentation of game in ingame help screens or in offgame documents. Since tutorial is required to get new player to play game comfortably, I would consider it a must-have. Especially when the most common phrase that new df players google is 'dwarf fortress tutorial'
Tutorial in fact would encompass severall core features that would be beneficial: Premade maps with triggers, text dialogs and objectives. A campaign engine if you would.
When basic campaign structure in in place, tutorial would be very easy to do (just another campaign) community could (should) create some even.
Not only will players get to know game easier, more usuall 'map with goals' speaks to large audience that is lost without clear game given goals and context.
Post by: Granite26 on October 13, 2009, 08:47:35 am
I think Toady needs an official Tileset that can be turned on or off without going into the raws.Doesn't matter. He can create a tile set switcher and package a few different options with it. We could open a community poll on which ones should be included or something along those lines. The only thing he would have to do it code the tile switching code and include the winner(s) in the download.
The problem apperantly is that Toady is no artist.
Assuming this was completed last year, and the winner had moved on to other things, who would add the tiles for the new HFS going in this edition? The next release would be dependant on a third party.
(not sure I agree 100% with that being a show stopper, but it's a viable concern)
Post by: zwei on October 13, 2009, 09:03:59 am
I think Toady needs an official Tileset that can be turned on or off without going into the raws.Doesn't matter. He can create a tile set switcher and package a few different options with it. We could open a community poll on which ones should be included or something along those lines. The only thing he would have to do it code the tile switching code and include the winner(s) in the download.
The problem apperantly is that Toady is no artist.
Assuming this was completed last year, and the winner had moved on to other things, who would add the tiles for the new HFS going in this edition? The next release would be dependant on a third party.
(not sure I agree 100% with that being a show stopper, but it's a viable concern)
I am sure community has enough artistic talent to supply new tiles. And Creator could always fallback on using letters.
I guess winning would be more of about setting 'mood' and 'feeling' or 'spirit' of tiles than graphics itself. Something that someone even with less talent can follow and continue.
Post by: snelg on October 14, 2009, 12:44:28 am
Post by: Chronas on October 14, 2009, 12:53:25 am
Post by: JonathanCR on October 14, 2009, 02:48:56 am
Quote
Well, in the spirit of roguelikes, graphics are neglected in favor of gameplay. personally i think graphics are irrelevant unless there is absolutely nothing else left to improve, which in this game is quite impossible.
Right, but there are two points to make about that. The first is that you and probably most of the other people who currently play Dwarf Fortress may take that view, but most people don't take that view, including very many who would enjoy Dwarf Fortress. And that is why not many people play it, as mentioned in the OP.
The second and perhaps more fundamental is that in the case of a simple game like Rogue, you can make a clear distinction between graphics and gameplay. It is not hard for a new player to work out what's going on even when the screen shows only letters and punctuation marks, because it is a simple game. Dwarf Fortress, by contrast, is a staggeringly complex game. It is extremely hard for a new player to play it and have any inkling of what is going on. Simple but functional graphics, of the kind exemplified by the best tile sets, make it much easier for a new player to understand what he or she is seeing on the screen. It's not just about eye candy - it's about minimising the incomprehension of the new player.
Starting to play a game this complex is rather like learning a new language. Playing it without a good tutorial system, documentation, or reasonable UI is like learning a new language without any teacher or introductory material, and just being plunged into a foreign country and expected to pick it up. Playing it without a decent tile set is like learning a new language entirely from books which are written in an unfamiliar alphabet. Greek is a difficult language to learn; the fact that it's all written in strange characters just makes it that much harder. Much the same thing can be said of Dwarf Fortress. The difference is that Dwarf Fortress doesn't have to be.
Post by: Neonivek on October 14, 2009, 07:00:26 am
g is mountain goat
g is goblin
g is gibbon
g is gibbon (another kind)
g is gibbon
g is gibbon (O_O Honestly toady a bit of overkill... unless the wiki is playing a prank)
g is mountain Gnome
g white gibbon (who looks exactly like a goblin)
Best part of all is all these gs look very similar to eachother. so unless your looking at them side by side (and even then) they look exactly alike.
In most other roguelikes the letters make either logical sense, can be guessed on by location, or have a unique letter/number/symbol. Dwarf Fortress can only get more creatures.
Post by: Neruz on October 14, 2009, 07:24:04 am
Post by: Neonivek on October 14, 2009, 07:28:39 am
There are at least 5 different kinds of Gibbons if i recall, possibly more.
More I stopped counting them after a while.
Though I really shouldn't list the gibbons since it is really the mountain goats that will surprise you and make you think your being attacked.
Post by: Chronas on October 15, 2009, 01:07:11 am
Post by: darkflagrance on October 15, 2009, 04:08:22 am
There are at least 5 different kinds of Gibbons if i recall, possibly more.
More I stopped counting them after a while.
Though I really shouldn't list the gibbons since it is really the mountain goats that will surprise you and make you think your being attacked.
I was a victim of this.
Post by: Urist McDepravity on October 15, 2009, 06:53:47 am
Biggest problems for me are:
1) Boredom and lack of challenge. Once you learn everything, you got nothing to do. Game should have either some objective or make you really struggle for survive, with ever-increasing complexity as fortress grow and inevitable doom in the end. Sure you always can go with self-imposed challenges or mega-projects, but here comes 2nd problem:
2) Rapid slow-down with area/material/pop increase. I'm programmer myself and even tried to write some my own roguelikes, so i do understand why it is like that, but there's always a way to optimize.
a) With path-finding you can make optional caches for example. Its definitely preferrable for us, who have 4GB+ memory.
b) Modern pc's are multi-core and threading for such CPU-consuming application is a must. At least have interface running its own thread so it wouldn't lag so much.
Getting just 2x increase in fps would make game MUCH more playable.
3) Too much micromanagement and some unrealistic concepts.
I'm sure everyone knows the pain of skill management, esp in migrants-arrive time. Or building and furnituring rooms for these migrants. While there are external tools to make it easier, they are 'cheating' and do not run on linux.
Even worse is production management. Plants/free barrels/stockpile space/drinks for example. It would definitely help to have some simple in-game scripting for such, like scheduling some job when some kind of stock reaches some point, and cancelling it when it reaches another point.
Ex. "Plant plump helmets when theres less than 500 till theres 800", "Brew drinks when theres less than 500 till theres 800", etc.
Also, would like to point that i DID enjoy learning the game, and 'simplier' DF just would not be DF anymore.
Same goes for ASCII graphics. It does what it is intended to - displays the world to player in a non-obtrusive way and lets his imagination do the rest. Having _optional_ official tilesets could increase amount of players, but myself i would definitely prefer ASCII to be default, and not suffer any regressions for the tilesets.
Oh, and wtf happened with old accounts? I see my old posts marked as 'guest' for some reason.
Post by: Quatch on October 15, 2009, 10:50:48 am
Biggest problem: Shape of the difficulty curve. From hard/easy based on player knowledge, or randomly starting next to a fire imp. What I see in the dev log indicates that this is being addressed with better sieges and HFS for military, but what about non-violent challenge?
Other thoughts:
Graphics/Init/Mods: in game options screen to configure/select.
v/k/q/t: merge these query modes. Have one key to enter query mode, and then allow to change which query you are using (buildings, jobs, dwaves, etc), or just report for whatever is under the cursor, and allow tabbing between the different available options (ie: building contents, jobs).
Filters/autocomplete: rather than navigate through a large tree of options, use the same interface as the job manager (j-m-q). This assumes you know the name of what you want, so probably best to make it optional (as in the trading screen).
Post by: John Hopoate on October 17, 2009, 07:37:29 am
EDIT: He does it again at 35 minutes in, "it was the cat by the way"
No-one could care if you had a fucking Chupacabra jumping on your lap
You've written the most innovative computer game of the past decade and yet you think people would rather hear about your stupid cat, why? WHY?!?!?!!
This is what cats in Australia do:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/cat/pubs/cat.pdf
They are like the Terminator, they cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be bargained with and unless you're really ruthless they cannot be stopped. Every second weekend I find myself out in the bush, sleeping in the dirt, eating sausages, kimchi and cans of pineapple, occasionally getting a chance to make 5.56mm wide holes in these vicious animals. Even by conservative estimates every feline dispatched to kitty-heaven saves hundreds of beautiful native birds. Since I was a child I've seen our native wildlife brutally slaughtered by your precious little kitty cats and I felt obliged to make a difference, I'm proud to say I'm doing just that.
Post by: Neruz on October 17, 2009, 07:43:43 am
Post by: cerapa on October 17, 2009, 07:58:00 am
Cat hatred.Dude, your the only one not liking the cat. Stop saying you arent.
Anyway, the difficulty curve just like everyone else. And the fact that you dont know what anything is at the start(like rocks and stuff).
Post by: DG on October 17, 2009, 09:19:09 am
No-one could care if you had a fucking Chupacabra jumping on your lap
I like hearing about his cat, it interests me. Now that we've established that there is at least one person who enjoys hearing about Scamps you can stop making the argument or at the very least lose the hostility.
Post by: PsychoBuck on October 17, 2009, 09:34:34 am
As for what turns me off about DF. It is the limited challenge of an area. Once you tied all your loose ends, there is no reason to keep a fortress up except to torment its inhabitants. Local spawns and invasions ending is a main one for me as what am I suppose to do with my army of champions if there is not to fight. Hopefully, the army arc should fix this.
Post by: Name Lips on October 17, 2009, 09:58:22 am
-----
On-topic, when I first played DF back in the 2d days, I had to overcome the learning curve, but I never saw it as a problem. I really enjoy hard-to-play games, so long as there's a good payoff for all that work -- and the depth and complexity of DF is a huge payoff for me. I like digging my teeth into something that's difficult to learn. I understand that from a mass-appeal perspective, deliberately making a game obfuscated and difficult isn't likely to win over new players, but I'd be lying if I said that I personally didn't really enjoy the difficulty. Just learning to play is a game, a challenge unto itself, and to me that's not a bad thing.
The main thing that irritates me are things like pathing issues, like a mason choosing to go up to the surface and back down into my separate "mining" shaft to get a rock that's technically "closer" than the nearby stockpile on the same level. The upcoming "burrows" should help fix this. Also not being able to specify which items are being worked with -- I'd like to be able to make an obsidion table and throne for my noble who likes those things, but I don't like the tedium of setting up an obsidian-only stockpile and queuing up a bunch of tables/thrones until he finally makes the ones I want. The same thing with jewelry or other decorations - I want to stick that wonderfully cut diamond onto my masterpiece platinum crown - not some random gneiss ring that happens to be closer.
I want to be able to queue up "make iron bars" in the job manager, instead of "smelt hematite" and "smelt magnetite" and "smelt limonite." It's annoying having to count up my raw ores before queuing up my smelting orders. Also, if I want brass, and I have magma, I don't much care if they're making them out of bars or ore, so a "make brass bars from whatever is available" type option would be good.
An advanced option which probably can't be put in would be to queue up a "make suit of steel armor from raw materials" type order, and the appropriate orders would filter down to smelting the correct number of iron bars, steel bars, pieces of armor, and so on until the complete suit was constructed. A pure luxury would involve things like "make 20 suits of steel armor enlayed with milk opals and silver, with menacing spikes in char bone" and have it be done, totally automatically. And then designate these special suits to only be worn by, say, the Royal Guard.
Post by: ManaUser on October 17, 2009, 12:14:49 pm
Quote
Waiting for Carpenter:or
Urist McCarpenter Drink
Cog McCarpenter Sleep
Bëmule McCarpenter Store item in stockpile
Quote
Waiting for Carpenter:
No Carpenters Present.
Come to think of it, this is used in one place already, the trade depo tells you what the broker is currently doing. I would love to see this extended to other workshops and constructions.
On a related note, you know how when you look at ore, it tells you what you can use it for? It would be great to have that kind of quick-reference information attached to other objects. It wold help with the learning curve significantly.
Post by: Name Lips on October 17, 2009, 12:56:23 pm
But I'd like an additional option for virtually all workshops to create individual, special, custom orders. Have this dwarf use these materials to make this item -- which would be queued up along with the regular orders.
Post by: darkflagrance on October 17, 2009, 10:41:00 pm
For me it's the amount of micro-management, and trying to keep track of a million things at once in general. Of course I realize some degree of that that's an inherent part of this kind of game. But it could be made less painful. Building in something like Dwarf Therapist/Manager/Foreman would go along way to help. Perhaps even better, would be to list who (if anyone) can do each job. For example instead of "Construction inactive, needs Carpentry" it would say:QuoteWaiting for Carpenter:or
Urist McCarpenter Drink
Cog McCarpenter Sleep
Bëmule McCarpenter Store item in stockpileQuoteWaiting for Carpenter:
No Carpenters Present.
Come to think of it, this is used in one place already, the trade depo tells you what the broker is currently doing. I would love to see this extended to other workshops and constructions.
On a related note, you know how when you look at ore, it tells you what you can use it for? It would be great to have that kind of quick-reference information attached to other objects. It wold help with the learning curve significantly.
And also, when the workshop is built, it continues to list the activities of construction enabled workers.
I see the most use for this when you've finished your megaproject and are trying to get your legions of former-migrant-peasants-turned-mason-conscripts into something useful - figure out who they are just by viewing the Mason's workshop.
Post by: zwei on October 18, 2009, 07:41:38 am
Just to clarify my desire for more specific workshop orders -- I don't want to remove the way they are now. Sure, leave in the option to just endlessly encrust the closest furniture or make rock tables out of whatever is closest. When you need to crank out a hundred rock coffins or something it would be a pain to have to individually select a separate rock for each one.
But I'd like an additional option for virtually all workshops to create individual, special, custom orders. Have this dwarf use these materials to make this item -- which would be queued up along with the regular orders.
I would love this.
You can do this already with locking dwarf in room with workshop and material stockpile, but that is quite a micromanagement feat.
Workshop orders could be imporved a lot.
My pet problem is amount of orders: you can either set order to repeat ad infinitum or you can put several items of same kind in queue, which maxes at ten item. I would love to be able to say to workshop "produce X of this".
And then we are back at standing orders: Keep producing X if stockpile Y is not full. Keep producing X if there is less than 500 of X...
But that is not something that makes people quit because microing production happens quite late in fortress lifecycle.
Post by: Rozenbuddy on October 18, 2009, 08:06:15 am
Later on, I revisited dwarf fortress to figure out the wonders, and succeeded. (with the help of hours on the wiki, of course.)
But what bugs me now is, why can't you make beds from stone/metal/cloth? Or maybe stone/cloth metal/cloth? because i have a fortress in a place where there are scarce trees, forgetting about beds... I am armed with only stone and metal. Against the world.
Post by: darkflagrance on October 18, 2009, 08:52:34 am
Well, a long long time ago my bro showed me this game. I looked at it and thought it was the matrix or something.
Later on, I revisited dwarf fortress to figure out the wonders, and succeeded. (with the help of hours on the wiki, of course.)
But what bugs me now is, why can't you make beds from stone/metal/cloth? Or maybe stone/cloth metal/cloth? because i have a fortress in a place where there are scarce trees, forgetting about beds... I am armed with only stone and metal. Against the world.
I also don't really understand why this is. I've assumed it was somehow a balancing issue, but I can't really imagine how.
Post by: zwei on October 18, 2009, 09:16:55 am
Well, a long long time ago my bro showed me this game. I looked at it and thought it was the matrix or something.
Later on, I revisited dwarf fortress to figure out the wonders, and succeeded. (with the help of hours on the wiki, of course.)
But what bugs me now is, why can't you make beds from stone/metal/cloth? Or maybe stone/cloth metal/cloth? because i have a fortress in a place where there are scarce trees, forgetting about beds... I am armed with only stone and metal. Against the world.
I also don't really understand why this is. I've assumed it was somehow a balancing issue, but I can't really imagine how.
It forces you to access sufrace on maps with forests or for trade on maps without them. Otherwise you would be able to turtle without any issue.
It is no much different fro not being able to create mechanisms from something else than stone.
Post by: Rozenbuddy on October 18, 2009, 10:15:52 am
metal/wood/bone/shell mechanisms,
metal and cloth/stone and cloth/stone/metal beds,
ECT..??
Post by: Quantum Toast on October 18, 2009, 10:16:13 am
Post by: UseBees on October 18, 2009, 12:15:24 pm
the only problem i ran into when i started up was, well, starting. it's so difficult to figure out what you're supposed to do from the post-embark. luckily, i had a friend who taught me how to play, and i have, in turn, taught three other people how to play.
we love you guys, and you're amazing game!
keep it up
Post by: nil on October 18, 2009, 04:26:54 pm
i ♥ the ascii graphics. the only problem i have with the game graphics-wise is that the tiles aren't square by default.Very good point. I know there's plenty of people out there who play with ASCII, but is there anyone who doesn't switch to a square tileset as soon as possible? The rectangular default is awful
Post by: DJ on October 18, 2009, 04:35:48 pm
Post by: G-Flex on October 18, 2009, 04:52:56 pm
I really don't like rectangular tilesets either. I understand they probably have their roots in the old, old curses DF or something like that, but goddamn, I don't expect all my angles and lengths to be skewed like that.
Post by: John Hopoate on October 21, 2009, 04:21:52 am
I like hearing about his cat, it interests me. Now that we've established that there is at least one person who enjoys hearing about Scamps you can stop making the argument or at the very least lose the hostility.
No because I don't have fucking Aspergers and I have more than enough social skills to tell that Today has a very dedicated fanbase and that a subset of that fanbase does in fact praise everything he says and does. I've spoken to RUSSELL CROWE himself about this very subject, he's a down to earth sort of bloke, he knows that fame is immaterial and that praise from strangers is worthless unless it has objective value, for example appraisal of Crowe's acting skill or Toady's game development ability. It means nothing to praise the nature or lifestyle of a stranger, if you do know know them personally how can you truly come to understand who they are? Your perverse interest in Toady's cat is not only worthless but exploitative, when celebrities appeal to such interests they debase both themselves and their works. This game has made Toady famous and I think he'd be far more happy being game development's Russell Crowe than game development's Paris Hilton.
Post by: LordNagash on October 21, 2009, 04:27:31 am
Also, congratulations for managing to whine and big note yourself by your magnificent association with RUSSELL CROWE OMG at the same time. Truly an accomplishment.
Post by: Footkerchief on October 21, 2009, 04:32:28 am
Are you aware that we have a DF Talk feedback thread? (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=43398) Cause we do. Make sure to also tell everyone over there that they have Aspergers, in contrast to your obviously mentally healthy self.
Post by: John Hopoate on October 21, 2009, 04:53:49 am
You want him to be Russell Crowe? The biggest tool in showbiz? Why the hell would anyone want that?
Russell Crowe doesn't care what the public thinks about anything but his acting ability, all I'm saying is that Toady should take the same attitude and want nothing more than for the DF community to bow down to his game development prowess and leave it at that. It would be both the sensible and the emotionally mature thing to do.
Quote
Also, congratulations for managing to whine and big note yourself by your magnificent association with RUSSELL CROWE OMG at the same time. Truly an accomplishment.
Russell Crowe doesn't chat with any old wanker
Post by: Chronas on October 21, 2009, 05:40:14 am
Russell Crowe doesn't chat with any old wankerThen he won't want to talk to you! *baddum-tsh*
Post by: Neruz on October 21, 2009, 05:52:05 am
You want him to be Russell Crowe? The biggest tool in showbiz? Why the hell would anyone want that?
Russell Crowe doesn't care what the public thinks about anything but his acting ability, all I'm saying is that Toady should take the same attitude and want nothing more than for the DF community to bow down to his game development prowess and leave it at that. It would be both the sensible and the emotionally mature thing to do.
Congratulations, Toady doesn't give a wooden nickle if we like Scamps or not, he talks about Scamps because he likes Scamps.
Ooh, look at that, your demands were met before you even made them, remarkable!
Post by: Jimmy on October 21, 2009, 06:18:59 am
...blah... RUSSELL CROWE ...blah...Whatever you say Stink Fist.
Post by: Neonivek on October 21, 2009, 06:58:13 am
Post by: John Hopoate on October 21, 2009, 07:17:18 am
Back on topic everyone! Unless Russel Crow happens to be a creature in the game I don't think this is an area of discussion that applies to the topic.
How many people have wrestled in adventure mode without the soundtrack from Gladiator humming through their mind?
EDIT: Ohh and there's a new movie coming out next year directed by Ridley Scott (the director of Gladiator) and starring Russell Crowe (the star of Gladiator). Like Gladiator it's sure to be a big budget extravaganza that everyone will see (including you) so be prepared to think of Russell Crowe whenever Dwarves shoot arrows at things.
Post by: Innominate on October 21, 2009, 07:33:10 am
[UTTERANCES]
[ALCOHOL_DEPENDENT]
[CURIOUSBEAST_GUZZLER]
[liKES_FIGHTING]
[MALE]
[NOTHOUGHT]
[SAVAGE]
Post by: Yolan on October 21, 2009, 08:02:27 am
Back on topic everyone! Unless Russel Crow happens to be a creature in the game I don't think this is an area of discussion that applies to the topic.
How many people have wrestled in adventure mode without the soundtrack from Gladiator humming through their mind?
EDIT: Ohh and there's a new movie coming out next year directed by Ridley Scott (the director of Gladiator) and starring Russell Crowe (the star of Gladiator). Like Gladiator it's sure to be a big budget extravaganza that everyone will see (including you) so be prepared to think of Russell Crowe whenever Dwarves shoot arrows at things.
Lol. Goons.
Post by: dnabios on October 21, 2009, 10:45:55 pm
I guess the biggest problem I have right now is the large amount of processing power it takes to handle busy-work in a mature fortress. My FPS can drop from the 900's to the 40's with the same video settings when you take the 100 dwarf minimum to "obtain the current game features" (which I think are mainly nobles) and the economy hits. When every dwarf scampers back and forth grabbing a single coin it's a pathfinding nightmare on top of an already burdened system. This is the biggest personal barrier I'm having. I usually abandon at that point.
As far as new users go I can see how the learning curve would be a little steep...an in game tutorial (as has been suggested)would take care of all of this in an instant...even if it's just: "Hit d twice to dig. Hit < and > to navigate Z levels. Hit B to build." The rest seems to follow logically.
Other than that, it seems like Mr. Adams has his finger on the pulse of what needs work. The underground followed by sieges seems like an excellent development path.
Post by: G-Flex on October 21, 2009, 10:53:00 pm
But yeah, the pathfinding is probably the biggest killer there is. Certainly the one that's talked about most.
Post by: Lord Dakoth on October 21, 2009, 10:58:06 pm
What really sinks my boat is that you cannot perform "complex" wrestling moves on wild animals, and that there is no "Break Neck" move.
I can't tell you how many times I was pissed off enough to want to snap that one wolf's tail.
Post by: dnabios on October 21, 2009, 11:17:49 pm
You know you can disable the economy, right? Toady pretty much knows it's broken. You can also have the economy without coins at all.
But yeah, the pathfinding is probably the biggest killer there is. Certainly the one that's talked about most.
Yeah, taking out the economy and/or fluid dynamics makes my FPS :) er , but then I feel like I'm losing out on a big chunk of what Toady wants the game to be. There are a bunch of people kicking around pathfinder improvements here:
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=43265.0
that may or may not go anywhere. But if anyone wants to take a look they've got a lot of brainstorming going on. I have a lot of faith Toady will get to it in good time...40d16 is already mountains better than 40d.
Post by: Camkitsune on October 22, 2009, 12:00:38 am
My own personal hang-ups would all more or less be resolved by the army arc.
Also, in keeping with the grand tradition, Dwarf Fortress is awesome, and Toady One really deserves to be some sort of memetic badass for creating it.
Post by: Chronas on October 22, 2009, 01:28:29 am
Post by: Innominate on October 22, 2009, 03:46:13 am
Adventure mode, anyone?It's actually fairly easy to mod in these abilities, and doesn't require a regen as far as I remember (could easily be wrong).
What really sinks my boat is that you cannot perform "complex" wrestling moves on wild animals, and that there is no "Break Neck" move.
I can't tell you how many times I was pissed off enough to want to snap that one wolf's tail.
I made the spine a joint, along with the neck and added joints for most non-humanoids. It made wrestling overpowered if you used it yourself, or totally deadly if you found a titan before you had legendary strength and wrestling yourself.
Now if only spinal damage affected movement beyond causing unconsciousness. Sigh, we can dream.
Post by: G-Flex on October 22, 2009, 04:18:22 am
memes aren't invented -they just happen to catch on
Of course a meme can be invented. Whether or not it's intentionally invented is irrelevant. Also, an unpopular meme is still a meme. Also, I'm pretty sure you aren't sure what "meme" really means. Wikipedia will tell you.
Adventure mode, anyone?
Toady has mentioned, I think in the recent podcast, that Adventure Mode is in fact barely playable right now and that this largely has to do with it getting the shaft in recent updates, and that he's going to try to work on it a bit in the near future, possibly for this release.
Yeah, taking out the economy and/or fluid dynamics makes my FPS :) er , but then I feel like I'm losing out on a big chunk of what Toady wants the game to be.
Honestly, I don't consider the economy as it is to be representative of what Toady wants the game to be at all. It's sort of a broken barely-implemented system that needs an overhaul, but can do without for the moment because it's not as essential as other thing.
Post by: Chronas on October 22, 2009, 04:40:33 am
hmm, my recent posts are quite a derail -i should probably leave this topic until something about DF actually annoys me enough to complain about.
Post by: Neruz on October 22, 2009, 05:45:39 am
people don't just go "HAY, i invented this meme, lets spread it around!".
Actually sometimes they do. Some of the most successful memes were basically started by someone on 4chan going "Hay, i invented this meme, lets spread it around!"
LOLcats being the ultimate example in fact.
Post by: Neonivek on October 22, 2009, 07:28:32 am
Frankly I agree.
Post by: Neruz on October 22, 2009, 07:31:45 am
Post by: G-Flex on October 22, 2009, 07:34:36 am
I know what a meme is, Dawkins wrote the book on memes and described their characteristics as likened to a virus: its a phrase, image or concept that you see/hear and due to its catchiness, remember. Then in mentioning it it spreads to other people -more easily via the internet. people don't just go "HAY, i invented this meme, lets spread it around!". Toady's legendary program skills could be described as slightly memetic, but not on the scale of free mugs and catsplosions.
hmm, my recent posts are quite a derail -i should probably leave this topic until something about DF actually annoys me enough to complain about.
Memes are more likened to genes; it's where the word comes from. They're units of culturally-transmitted information. Whether or not it's intentionally invented to be spread around doesn't affect this fact at all. A lot of wide-spreading ideas are invented with that in mind, from dumb internet jokes to political talking points to advertisements.
"Memes" (the internet pop culture version) aren't really anti-comedy, although they make being anti-comedy easy. Clever use of them is still funny.
Post by: Neonivek on October 22, 2009, 07:36:41 am
Hense why Memes tend to last much longer then they are funny, because of course they are funny, that is why they are a meme :D
Frankly I am tired of the "Awsomeness of Dwarf Fortress" jokes a long time ago. That turns me off about dwarf fortress...
Post by: Neruz on October 22, 2009, 07:41:54 am
Alot of the ones that have been 'decided were funny' were funny in the specific circumstances of their conception, but unless you happen to be in on the joke you won't get it. "A Cat is Fine Too" being an excellent example; if you know what i'm talking about it's actually pretty funny, if you don't it won't make any sense at all.
Alot of memes do end up as in-jokes, often because in-jokes are usually more funny.
Post by: de5me7 on October 22, 2009, 07:49:27 am
I didnt find learning the game to difficult having already played nethack, and having had to learn to use software like Arc GIS. The main things that shook me were.
Building a well, it didnt occur to me that I the player would have to channel water to under neath the well and actually dig the well. I just assumed i got the stuff and the rest was automated like a typical rts game.
It took me a while to get the hang of assigning tasks to dwarfs. Theres a job manager and other screens (i dont use these now, ever). i tried to use them to get the dorfs to do stuff rather than pressing D or Q and initiating tasks at the workshop or resource.
I found the wiki very helpful, i used the 1st year fortress tutorial alot.
I think the issue was the initial shock of the complexity level. In most strategy or management games most of the activity is automated for you. You build a farm and it produces resource by its self for the rest of the game (or its life). in df you build a farm on the right surface type, under ground (or above ground), plant seeds in the right seasons, make sure theres a farmer and gatherers, store em, cook em etc. This complexity isnt a problem but it would be better if the rules or way the game works was communicated very early in the game
Post by: Erax on October 22, 2009, 08:54:14 am
I just started DF. Once again. I stumbled over it the first time in the beginning of 2008, IIRC. Back then I created a world, started the game, didn't know what to do in the first screens and went straight to the game or maybe I started directly without further preparations, I'm not sure.
Then I saw that mess of ASCII on my screen and tried to find out what it is that I see. Blue is for water, green is for trees and grass, grey should be rocks - no problem so far. But where are my dwarfs? There are symbols hovering around the centre of the screen and when I give orders in that menu they move, so that should be them. Still I can't tell what they are doing.
And what should I do first? Let's start digging - the area changes slightly, looks like I did something which had an effect.
I gave up eventually because in all that ASCII-symbols I just couldn't figure out, what was going on and the menus are somewhat of an enigma.
Yesterday I suddenly was reminded of DF by another Fantasy RPG and thought, I could give it another try. After I found the tutorials in the Wiki, I think I get the hang of it - slowly though.
My first problem again was the interpretation of the symbols. I installed one of those tilesets and all of a sudden I can see what is going on in my world. I think this is the biggest obstacle for most users today.
The second important problem is definitely the menus. Their layout should be slighty rearranged to give a better oversight. And I think controlling the game completely by mousepointer would be necessary, if you want to reach a larger number of people.
I can't say anything about adventure-mode, I have only built my first outpost - thrice until now. Yeah I know - losing is fun. Oh yeah: perhaps many people who play games on the screen today wouldn't agree to that. So, maybe it would be a good idea to offer a mode, where beginners can reduce the complexity, or where they get more hints in the beginning as to how to feed their dwarfs properly and suchlike. In other words: a decent tutorial mode would help a lot. (I think that was already mentioned somewhere... Oh well...)
Sorry, if I only repeated stuff others already wrote.
Post by: zwei on October 22, 2009, 09:43:53 am
* Graphical tileset in default package which is default. That is very easy to do
* Tutorial. That is harder to do, but certainly doable. I would imagine that game could dispense usefull information when certain events happen in way not unlike tutorial (i.e., when your dwarf first falls asleep, game would tip you off to build bed. When your food items rots, game would tip you off to make food stockpile, When your food stockpile fills, game would tip you off to make barrels, when your non-food stockpile fills, game would tip you off to make bins.). This would take some moderate work, but it not that hard.
* 'Arcade' mode with heavily simplified game mechanics. Very hard, basically rewrite of game.
Post by: 131 on October 22, 2009, 03:06:12 pm
Post by: Rozenbuddy on October 22, 2009, 03:36:00 pm
Post by: Lord Dakoth on October 22, 2009, 10:50:52 pm
Have you started an army yet? ;D
Not the best idea, unless you want to deal with the Department of Dwarven Veterans' Affairs.
I suggest a laboratory instead of an army.
Post by: zwei on October 23, 2009, 01:37:13 am
To be honest the only thing that really annoys me about DF is having to sort through all your dwarves when you get a ton of migrants. I never know what job to assign them.
It is fairly easy for me -
Migrant peasant gets drafted to army immediately and become career military.
Skilled migrants get enabled moodable skills (Carpentry, Masonry mostly, I like artifact furniture :) ) to get some training, Pumping to boost stats and whatever else is needed - like hunting or woodcutting to make backup army.
I have several workshops profiled that only dabbling dwarves can use then and set to produce goods that are not really that much affected by skill level on repeat (bins, blocks ...).
That way, migrant is generally useful (high stats, can help with constructions), guaranteed to give me interesting artifact from mood and is always available when specialist is needed.
Post by: PermanentInk on October 23, 2009, 03:41:12 am
i got stuck at the embark screen because being on a laptop if hav different +/- keys than a PC keyboard.
Oh god, don't get me started on this. I briefly put up with hitting the little function key combo to go in and out of num pad mode before it drove me crazy and I just bought a USB numpad. And now I'm concerned because my numpad doesn't work quite right in 40d16! Hopefully that gets resolved before Toady integrates that branch into the mainline. At the meetup he sounded like he was in favor of doing the next release without the 40d16 stuff first to make sure it worked for everyone before messing around with it.
Post by: eerr on October 23, 2009, 10:10:35 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
You just don't have enough keys, or the patience to rebind all the keys you lost!
Post by: Footkerchief on October 23, 2009, 12:15:53 pm
Post by: Quatch on October 25, 2009, 10:51:48 pm
Post by: Nexii Malthus on October 26, 2009, 02:38:08 am
I think the game should first and foremost point to the DF wiki. It is an invaluable reference and documentation resource for new and old players. I really couldn't live without it for months when I began my affair with DF.
Just can't stress the importance of the wiki enough here.
Post by: Rozenbuddy on October 26, 2009, 05:49:58 pm
Post by: Urist McDepravity on October 26, 2009, 05:54:48 pm
I think adventure mode is bland... it has nothing too it. It's basically, Make a dude, Run around killing wolves, get a quest, kill the dude, get money, explore boring empty towns and past forts, yea... I just don't find it fun.It's expected for alpha version, isn't it?
Once you get full set of skills and abilities there, it should be far more fun.
Post by: Grimic on October 26, 2009, 07:31:00 pm
Personally, I think hauling should be a skill that works as a sort of threshold for dwarves to carry bigger, heavier, and multiple objects (depending on size/weight and possibly a grip factor of each one, with a single object of any size/weight being the minimum). Of course, in order to determine when to haul more than one item at once, the pathfinding would need to be updated for sure. Optimally, one dwarf would be able to get the most items they can to their respective delivery points within the least amount of time possible.
Post by: LesBrisant on October 27, 2009, 02:43:49 am
After starting with the CAUNT tutorial and using the textures DF become more enjoyable, particularly now I start reading the epic lulziness of some of other peoples adventures and achievements. Haven't had the effort to get back into it in a while because a lot of things were frustrating me but otherwise it's pr good.
Post by: PermanentInk on October 28, 2009, 01:12:19 am
Post by: Kishmond on October 28, 2009, 11:50:15 am
Post by: smjjames on October 28, 2009, 11:57:09 am
Although, if you have multiple miners and you move quickly, it can go fast, but still....
I do have a semi-gripe about them not bieng able to do outside corner walls from the inside as I've seen them build floors in a diagional way (when there is a connection at any orthogonal direction) and also the dwarves not recognizing that there is no way out and they will get trapped.
Maybe there should be a 'precognitive' pathing check to make sure there is a way out before they build something.
Post by: nil on October 28, 2009, 12:23:57 pm
I dread having to channel out rooms, designating one row at a time.Dig ramps instead of channels, dude. It'll change your life.
Post by: smjjames on October 28, 2009, 01:57:29 pm
I dread having to channel out rooms, designating one row at a time.Dig ramps instead of channels, dude. It'll change your life.
It depends on what you are doing and whether you have already mined out the space below.
Post by: Lord Dakoth on October 28, 2009, 06:17:12 pm
Post by: HAMMERMILL on October 28, 2009, 06:46:10 pm
Probably my only complaint. The game is awesome, it just needs to be optimized so I don't need to rent out a Cray super computer bank at Cape Canaveral, FL just to play with 400 dwarves on a 6x6 embark site thats 20 years old.
Post by: PermanentInk on October 28, 2009, 09:23:03 pm
The game is awesome, it just needs to be optimized so I don't need to rent out a Cray super computer bank at Cape Canaveral, FL just to play with 400 dwarves on a 6x6 embark site thats 20 years old.
I've always found Livermore's rates to be so much more reasonable. :D
Post by: Viroath on October 29, 2009, 02:24:16 am
But the first and biggest obstacle I had was the default for tile size not being square. Aside from that, setting that could help plan out designations and buildings more easily (Outline, so instead of a full box you get just the outside lines) and being able to partially mark tiles (like putting a blue line over it in one direction or another without blocking site of what is on the tile) could really help keep starting players and make lifers much happier.
And just speaking from personal experience here, but I'd like a way to designate things on the fly, knowing that if something serious happens the game will either announce it or pause the game. And for many, many things that aren't serious. It is a drawback for me even now, spending so much time in pause doing grunt clicking or running scripts.
But as many people have said, a short introduction to the controls that give a set embark and has you learn some basic things would be a good option. I still don't have my mind all the way around ramps, as simple as they should be I have trouble getting them to face the way I want.
Post by: jellyman on October 29, 2009, 03:27:45 am
Post by: smjjames on October 29, 2009, 07:26:42 am
The interface turned me off at first. Now I'm used to the interface, and the biggest turnoff is what I consider poor balance - traps are too good, training is too fast, food a bit too easy, noble mandates too hard to meet. Not enough escalation of sieges. Mods help with some of that but I have the impression that not enough of the game is moddable to fix all the issues.
I think thou complaineth too much..eth. Except for the part about the interface, that does take some getting used to.
Seriously, its an ALPHA! Of course its unbalanced somewhat, you can just not use traps, there are mods and tags which can deal with the food stuff and even traps, training speed seems okay to me. As for the nobles, make them have an 'accident'.
Post by: Footkerchief on October 29, 2009, 01:31:33 pm
Post by: smjjames on October 29, 2009, 01:44:45 pm
Um, on topic, my gripe is that there is no way to simply drop a wall into a river to dam it, but eh, wheres the fun in that :)
Post by: Lord Dakoth on October 29, 2009, 11:58:12 pm
The first is that dwarves' eating and drinking breaks often seem to take place consecutively, but only once the dwarf has returned to his worksite. I think that if a dwarf finishes eating, and he is reasonably thirsty (but not thirsty enough to get the job "drink") he should just drink. It would save a lot of time and frustration in my forts.
Also, after a few years of ambushes, all of the narrow clothing and goblin jewelry tends to cause a massive slowdown and clutter up the stocks menu. I propose that craft/clothing items should gain wear when left outside, and eventually degrade into nothing.
Post by: Flaede on October 30, 2009, 04:20:00 am
I think that if a dwarf finishes eating, and he is reasonably thirsty (but not thirsty enough to get the job "drink") he should just drink. It would save a lot of time and frustration in my forts.
Hear hear! Seconded!
Also, after a few years of ambushes, all of the narrow clothing and goblin jewelry tends to cause a massive slowdown and clutter up the stocks menu. I propose that craft/clothing items should gain wear when left outside, and eventually degrade into nothing.
It does gain wear. Depending. It just takes frikkin' forever. I'm not sure if it ever degrades to nothing, though. my fps reaches the limiting point of 19fps before I find out.
Post by: nil on October 31, 2009, 11:04:31 pm
But it doesn't happen any faster outside than in.
It does gain wear. Depending. It just takes frikkin' forever. I'm not sure if it ever degrades to nothing, though. my fps reaches the limiting point of 19fps before I find out.
Post by: darkflagrance on November 01, 2009, 02:32:39 am
Proof:
I modded ambushers to fly in my most recent game. As a result, the guards that lead squads are glitched and don't move from the edge of the map. The other day, I took my military around and hunted them down, and revealed invaders with all varieties of frayed and worn clothing from years ago. Some were even naked because they had been sitting at the edge of the map from when I started the fort 16 years ago.
However, the clothes left behind by my hunter who was killed by goblins in the 2nd year were still there, in the same XconditionX from what I could tell (and still listed as owned by him, annoyingly).
Post by: nil on November 01, 2009, 04:23:06 am
Post by: Squirrelloid on November 01, 2009, 10:30:26 am
That said, it would help if it used something closer to one of the standard rogue-like ascii-associations. Having goblin and mountain goat being the same letter is bad design. Specifically, designate each letter to a class of creatures which the letter represents. So Giant Eagles could be Bs for (B)ird, and Beak Dogs should be (C) for Canine (as should dogs, wolves, werewolves, etc...). Cougars and cats should be fs for (f)eline along with lions and tigers. Given giant dragonflies are unlikely to make an appearance, they could even be Fs.
There's a reason this sort of system is better with ASCII graphics - its because such a classification provides a lot more information without having to loo(k) at the creature by telling you what class of creature it is at a glance. And since the creature is going to be represented by a symbol anyway, it might as well be a symbol which conveys as much unique information as possible.
If that became default, the game would be more marketable to people who already play rogue-likes, because they wouldn't have to relearn the wheel.
Speaking of which - in terms of getting more players, advertise specifically to those people who already play ASCII graphics games. Since the game's player base growth is mostly by word of mouth, what you need is more mouths, so target the audience with the lowest barrier to entry.
The other key, of course, is to keep players once they've started.
(1) Unify the UI. I'm not convinced the UI components that exist are bad. But the fact that sometimes you do it way #1, and other times you do it way #2 is annoying. Stop using multiple parallel systems. Also, retain letter designations for given items across menus. Carving floodgates with (l), building them with (x), and linking them with (f) is really confusing, as is sometimes using the arrow keys and sometimes using (+)(-) to navigate menus, or using (space) or (f9) to exit screens.
(2) A 'help' mode for playing the game with more informative error messages. For example, instead of just telling you 'you don't have enough mechanisms' when you try to connect a lever to something, also tell you 'you can build mechanisms at a mechanics workshop'. This way, when a player is told he can't do something, a remedy is also suggested to get them moving in the right direction.
(3) Overhaul/Add to mechanics. This is an important area for advanced play, and doing anything mildly interesting is currently horribly complicated, and easily confuses even advanced players.
-Make levers/pressure plates more intuitive. Honestly, mechanical stuff has the potential for awesome, but these should be toggles, not 'on' and 'off' position items. Or make similar objects which act as toggles, and leave these as is.
-More ways to use power in interesting ways. The capability to turn power into the controlled movement of objects on the map would be really awesome. Fortresses with giant 5x5x5 tile hammer-heads constructed of stone walls that swing down at the flick of a lever and then retract at another flick, or fortresses with working 'railroad' systems, would be truly awesome, if possible. Even just conveyor-belt style movement of objects could let players use mechanics to perform basic labor.
-Some constructible devices to simplify dwarfputer logic. In particular, a construction which functions as a repeater signal and constructions for logical operators that take two inputs and give an output could save a lot of building time (and space!) for complex computation constructions, opening playing with such things up to a lot more players. (Not to mention reducing the frustration of making errors in building, and having basic components fail). A repeater construction could also have a controllable frequency in game time (current buildable designs seem to have some slop because they depend on fluid flow).
-Possibly introducing a new workshop requiring metal parts for 'advanced mechanisms' (or enumerate a specific list of interesting parts) (a machine shop perhaps? Requires power and a 'lathe' which is buildable as metal furniture)
(4) At the end of each Winter, advance the outside world one year as per world-gen mechanics. This will cause the outside world to be more dynamic, and means the actions of the player have an effect on the world around it. (Goblin deaths -> weaker goblin civ. Player can provoke a war with the elves or humans, preferably with more robust diplomatic engine for mountainhome interactions with fortress. Ie, mountainhome favors war and tells you to keep doing it. Or opposes war and chastises you, eventually severing ties with fortress if you continue to aggravate the other race against the mountainhome's wishes. Diplomatic missions between elf/human and mountainhome have an effect on diplomacy at fortress and vice-versa).
Basically, a living world is a more interesting one, but the world stops being 'living' the moment a fortress is started.
Post by: profit on November 01, 2009, 06:48:47 pm
Post by: HAMMERMILL on November 01, 2009, 07:03:58 pm
The overall slowness of late game fortress grind me horridly... no other game would I accept running this slow.. if it wasn't DF the game would be in the trashcan. As it is, I tolerate it because it is so different from any other game out there... but it really wears on my patience to leave a game running for days at a time on my computer.
My suggestion is to set your population cap to 50 in the .int, you'll have plenty of labor available, the game runs reasonably fast and you still have a mayor, fortress guard and a dungeon master at 50 dorfs.
You really don't need more then that in any fortress considering that well-trained dwarves are worth a dozen less er dwarves.
Post by: zwei on November 02, 2009, 05:23:37 am
You know, I see all these complaints about the default ascii, but every time i see a graphical tileset image I scratch my head and go 'what the hell is that morass of colored blobs?' There is too much information in this game for anything but ASCII as the default tileset.
I would disagree.
Graphical tilesets always have this issue but work in stages and end up working out just fine:
1) You look at tileset screenshot, or image of some construction in that tileset. You know what is going on there because you know context and it is pretty to boot. Weee!
2) You actually try to play with it. It is terrible. You can not see a thing, it are just globs of meaningless pixels instead what you are used to! You are strangely reminded of how it was when you played DF for first time.
3) You learn it and get used to it. You can play as comfortably as before.
Tileset issue is mostly about learning curve and expectations: if you are veteran roguelike player, graphical tileset will add to learning curve and be annoying because you have different expectations, but for everyone else it will reduce it because they can see something.
---
Graphical tilesets, however, are currently NOT really good choice because game is built in way that makes graphical tilesets going to be sucky because each ascii glyph is being used in several different contexts so graphics has to take them into account. That means it is quite constrained.
Trying to make graphical piece that both represents bag, amulet and plant is near impossible.
Other examples: coal, gem, value icon and currency icon share tile. So do statues and jellyfish ...
Post by: Neruz on November 02, 2009, 05:31:31 am
Post by: JohnLukeG on November 02, 2009, 05:40:44 am
If a giant four-armed monster is represented by an appropriate picture rather than a C, the player could tell right away that it's a giant monster chasing their citizens and not a cat following someone around.
Post by: Andir on November 02, 2009, 05:53:27 am
You didn't touch the fact that under his system, a cat and a lion would both be "f" for feline. Talk about one confused dwarf: "Aww, look at the little kitten! OMG!" Also a horse and unicorn would both be "e" for Equine (Equidae)? There's just too many types of animals and "e" would be too easily confused for elephant.You know, I see all these complaints about the default ascii, but every time i see a graphical tileset image I scratch my head and go 'what the hell is that morass of colored blobs?' There is too much information in this game for anything but ASCII as the default tileset.
I would disagree.
Post by: zwei on November 02, 2009, 06:57:04 am
You didn't touch the fact that under his system, a cat and a lion would both be "f" for feline. Talk about one confused dwarf: "Aww, look at the little kitten! OMG!" Also a horse and unicorn would both be "e" for Equine (Equidae)? There's just too many types of animals and "e" would be too easily confused for elephant.You know, I see all these complaints about the default ascii, but every time i see a graphical tileset image I scratch my head and go 'what the hell is that morass of colored blobs?' There is too much information in this game for anything but ASCII as the default tileset.
I would disagree.
It is much bigger issue than this.
In order to get distinctive enough tiles with huge amount of creatures, you need higher resolution.
Higher resolution means that there is much less screen estate left and so you see much small map section at once, so you are sacrificing your field of vision for more detail. Not only that, text become way too huge to be readable too, which is big problem because at 16x16 simple menu takes way too much screen space already without any benefit. (And ignoring the fact that game does not used higher vertical resolution to display more vertical items in menus.)
8x8 tilesets are popular because they allow one to see huge part of map at once, but it is near impossible to make distinctive enough fully graphical set for them. In that case, 'f' or 'c' for cat is good enough.
---
First step would be to get game using two sets: text/menu set and map set, and get rid of ascii-ties in map set.
Post by: Squirrelloid on November 02, 2009, 07:13:14 am
You know, I see all these complaints about the default ascii, but every time i see a graphical tileset image I scratch my head and go 'what the hell is that morass of colored blobs?' There is too much information in this game for anything but ASCII as the default tileset.
I would disagree.
Graphical tilesets always have this issue but work in stages and end up working out just fine:
1) You look at tileset screenshot, or image of some construction in that tileset. You know what is going on there because you know context and it is pretty to boot. Weee!
Actually, I utterly fail here. The problem is resolution. At DF resolutions i can glance at a screen and see a 'g' and go 'there's the goblin'. Its large enough and distinct enough that it can easily be spotted quickly. I see a graphical tileset image with goblins in it somewhere and i'm left going 'wait, where's the goblin? I just see a field of green crap.' Generally made worse by graphical tilesets blending the squares into each other by making them more substantial than a period. (iirc, even tilesets for angband don't tend to change the floor graphic because its *fricking annoying* and leads to *not being able to see anything*).
Quote
2) You actually try to play with it. It is terrible. You can not see a thing, it are just globs of meaningless pixels instead what you are used to! You are strangely reminded of how it was when you played DF for first time.
Well, as a rogue-like player, I had no issue with the ASCII the first time, except that creatures are bound to symbols strangely. Like elves not being 'h's and humans not being 'p's, etc...
Quote
3) You learn it and get used to it. You can play as comfortably as before.
Tileset issue is mostly about learning curve and expectations: if you are veteran roguelike player, graphical tileset will add to learning curve and be annoying because you have different expectations, but for everyone else it will reduce it because they can see something.
Or you could just get used to ASCII and not worry about wasting development time on a graphical tileset. Both are going to take getting used to. And isometric graphics are, imo, no better than ASCII. True 3D would be awesome, but something like Visual Fortress fulfills all my need for 3D - i don't need to play in 3D, I just want to be able to look in 3D. (And since playing in 3D has a lot of UI issues that 2D doesn't, bundling something like Visual Fortress with the final game would be the superior option).
Post by: Neruz on November 02, 2009, 07:17:21 am
Higher resolution means that there is much less screen estate left and so you see much small map section at once, so you are sacrificing your field of vision for more detail. Not only that, text become way too huge to be readable too, which is big problem because at 16x16 simple menu takes way too much screen space already without any benefit. (And ignoring the fact that game does not used higher vertical resolution to display more vertical items in menus.)
8x8 tilesets are popular because they allow one to see huge part of map at once, but it is near impossible to make distinctive enough fully graphical set for them. In that case, 'f' or 'c' for cat is good enough.
40d16 handles this problem nicely by being able to zoom in and out.
Post by: Squirrelloid on November 02, 2009, 08:35:43 am
I have a question Squirrelloid, how does having Lions, Housecats, Leopards, Cougars and so forth all be f's convey more information than giving each of those creatures a unique icon for their norma living stages and any undead stages, as well as potential war and hunting stages?
Ok, if we went with a rogue-like symbol-mapping, living cats would be 'f'. This instantly tells you its a cat, as opposed to seeing a 'C' and not knowing if its a Camel, Cow, or Cougar. Different cats would have different color 'f's, and eventually, you'd be able to distinguish them immediately based on color. (DF even fails at this - Camels and Cows are the same color, and when those Camels are rather violent migratory animals moving on your map, that difference is a big deal!) Basically, seeing 'f' and knowing "feline" is a lot better than seeing 'E' and not knowing if its an Elephant, a Giant Eagle, or an Elf. There's a big difference between those three things, the difference between felines is a lot smaller.
Typically, rogue-likes make all skeletal creatures 's's, and all zombie creatures 'z's, which is one way of handling this.
Now, DF cares about different creature types overall than rogue-likes do, so we probably don't want to use the same mapping. (There aren't going to be any giant (c)entipedes, so 'c' is actually free, as is 'd' because afaik DF doesn't discriminate between small and large Dragons). Further, some creatures are sufficiently common that they may warrant unique letter assignations.
So, in particular, housecats could probably keep 'c', although if they were given a distinctive 'f' color it would be trivially easy to tell them apart. Dogs could probably keep 'd', although the same applies.
Skeletal or zombie creatures could be bound to 'z' and 's', or bound to the normal group letter with a distinctive color. Ie, define a zombie color and a skeletal color, and if you see that you know its a skeletal or zombie version of something in that group. (This runs into problems if sentient creatures start appearing as skeletons or zombies, since professions span the color map pretty well already, but we could reserve 's' and 'z' for that). War training could be handled similarly. (I doubt there'll be a hunting version of anything except dogs, so that's a moot point).
A general point here is that we'll never eliminate the need to use 'k', but by ensuring similar creatures have similar letter binds we maximize the information you can get before you use 'k', and good use of color will limit the absolute need to use 'k' to distinguish skeletal, zombie, and war creature types within a group.
What other groups we want to define depends on how critical it is we can tell which specific group its a member of, and how many creatures of a given type there is. For example, Equine is a waste of a bind, because there are a mere 2 under Andir's proposal, and the color map is much larger. Ungulate might be too broad, and the Horse itself might be sufficiently common to warrant a unique bind (although doubtful). That said, Mules, Donkeys, Zebra, etc... would all qualify, and could even keep H as (H)ippomorpha, or we could expand to try to identify all Perissodactyla with one symbol. (Relevantly, this would add Rhinoceras to the same letter, and that's about it unless we also have Tapirs some day).
Probable categories: Suggested Character Bind
-Vermin-
non-aquatic Vermin: . (period)
Fish: alpha
Turtle: (keep current, whatever you call that)
-Civs-
Human: p (person)
Elf: e
Goblin: g
Kobold: k
Skeletal Civ Race: s
Zombie Civ Race: z
-Mega and Semi-Mega-
Dragon: incl. in (R)eptile?*
Giant: P (incl. Colossus, Titan, Ettin, Cyclops, possibly Ogres and Trolls)**
Hydra: incl. in (M)onster?
-Animal-
Reptile: R (also bundle amphibians here if there are any non-vermin ones)
Giant Bird: b
Aggressive Fish: F (ie, sturgeon, carp, gar, etc...)
Eel: ~
Shark: S
Marine Mammal: W (for whale, but incl. dolphins/manatees/etc... here)
Pinniped: w (mostly by analogy with W above - walrus, seal, sea lion)
Canines: c (incl. werewolf)
Bears: U (Ursidae)
Feliforma: f (ends up being Felidae, unless someone decides we really need hyenas or something).
Perissodactyla: H (Horse-like. Rhinos will just have to live with it)
Xenartha: X (because Giant Tree Sloths are a good idea!)
Rodentia: r (generally giant versions only. If relevant, include giant lagomorpha here)
Primate: m, A (monkey, Ape)
Pecora: B, D (Bovine, others as 'D'eer - Giraffes can live with it)***.
Pig: Q (it looks like a pig. Also, stick Hippos here - its bad molecular taxonomy, but they look similar morphologically)
Camelid: C
Probiscidians: L (eLephants, could also use M, for 'M'ammoth)
Giant Arachnid: S**** (Spider/Scorpion)
-Other Sentient-
Humanoid: h (snailman, frogman, etc... plus gnomes, and so forth)
Demon: &
Lesser Demon: u (notably fire imp, although fire imp could be assigned to Elemental)
Elemental: E (magma man, blizzard man, fireman, etc...)
-Not (obviously) covered-
foul blendec
giant olm (O is available)
harpy
Iron Man (i suppose it could be a steel grey 'p' or treated as an elemental)
naked mole dog (ok, i don't actually know what this is... i suppose it could be a 'c')
Sasquatch: A
satyr
Sea Monster: M(onster)?
Sea Serpent: M(onster)?
Treant: existing graphic is fine
Satyr, harpy, and foul blendec should share the same letter because they are chimeras. I'd say M, but then it can't be used for M(onster), or some other letter would need to be chosen for those. There are lots of letters left, however, so this shouldn't be a problem to find one for one of these groups.
T is still available for Troll. O could be available for Ogre, or it could be given G (big Goblin). Assuming we think they'd overload P.
*There is only one type of Dragon in DF, so it hardly needs a unique letter
**Giants are P in *bands because humans are p, and giants are large humans.
***Recommend antelopes be treated as 'D'eer and not 'B'ovine despite technically being bovine.
****I realize i'm using S for GCS and Shark, but they're highly unlikely to occur on the same map.
Post by: nil on November 02, 2009, 12:42:17 pm
I think graphics support should be default, not necessarily because I think graphics are better (although I do) but because it's much much easier to turn graphics off (just go in the init) than on. The default tileset should be one that changes as much as possible without garbling menu text (like Mayday_MIN).
Post by: Footkerchief on November 02, 2009, 01:06:42 pm
Post by: Squirrelloid on November 02, 2009, 01:43:38 pm
Is it really so much easier to open an executable that loads a GUI with clickable buttons with the same categories as the .ini has, rather than just opening a text file and typing? Because the way the game architecture is handled these settings have to be changed before loading the game, so your only options are a secondary program that allows you to change settings, or a text file where you can change settings. And the text file is the same amount of difficulty for the user and a whole lot simpler for the programmer...
Edit: I suppose the game could go to a pre-loader first, with menu options: start DF and Change Options. Also a lot more work for the programmer.
Seriously, anyone who can't be bothered to open a txt file isn't going to stick around to figure out how to play the game.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 02, 2009, 02:13:02 pm
Is it really so much easier to open an executable that loads a GUI with clickable buttons with the same categories as the .ini has, rather than just opening a text file and typing?
It is psychologically easier for many people, yes. And it's not really a question of ability, it's a question of how many hoops you have to jump through before you can even start trying to have fun. It is, in the parlance of this thread, a turnoff.
A config GUI is better, but as I said, the emphasis should be on flexible default options that require minimal configuration to add near-ubiquitous extras like graphics packs. I know DF's init/raws inside out and I still hate having to go into init to activate a new graphics pack, and not being able to change fonts from within the program, and so on.
Seriously, anyone who can't be bothered to open a txt file isn't going to stick around to figure out how to play the game.
You could apply this argument to literally any of the horrible crap that DF forces newbies to adapt to.
Post by: Squirrelloid on November 02, 2009, 03:05:02 pm
Even if you fixed the actually bad UI instances, the game is still complicated. Anyone willing to put up with the *necessary* complication of the game is trivially capable of opening a txt file.
I mean, is opening the readme for some basic information too complicated as well?
Post by: JohnLukeG on November 02, 2009, 03:38:58 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on November 02, 2009, 03:41:12 pm
except typing in a txt file that will be read by the program is not awful, unlike say the multiple parallel systems used to designate areas.
This thread is not about things that are awful per se. It's about "things that really confused/annoyed you from the start." (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=34311.msg529873#msg529873)
The first time I downloaded DF, it was totally on impulse. I discovered that installing graphics required more than drag-and-drop, and thought "Fuck this" and decided it wasn't worth it. The second time, I found the Mayday pack and got to world generation, at which point I decided the game was cool enough to warrant editing text files. (although I gave up AGAIN after that because you can't navigate the embark menu with a laptop keyboard, and there was no way to tell what binds I should change)
You have to understand that many new users of the game have (justifiably) little motivation to push through even the most minor annoyances.
So, what are you arguing exactly? That I'm not capable of playing DF because I was turned off by the initial configuration process?
Post by: Neruz on November 02, 2009, 06:47:38 pm
Additionally of course there are 'Giant' versions of numerous creatures (Vermin Rats, Large Rats, Giant Rats. Lions and Giant Lions, etc) as well as half a dozen different monkey derivitives and well over a dozen different fish, and we can only expect the number of creatures to grow with each additional release, especially as Toady starts adding randomising systems.I suspect we would very rapidly run out of letters and distinguishable colours (since there aren't that many distinguishable colours.)
Furthermore of course, the concept of Lions being F's is not exactly intuitive; sure it's familiar with Roguelike players, but that's a real good way to decrease the size of your potential fanbase; the more intuitive you make the graphics, the larger your fanbase, and if you use graphics then i don't need to look at a yellow F and go "Wats that?" the first couple of times, because i'll look at it and see a Lion and go "Hey, it's a Lion!" and won't even need to use k.
In fact, with a proper graphics pack, you'd never need to use k at all.
Post by: Squirrelloid on November 03, 2009, 12:37:21 am
Ok Squirrelloid, i can see how that would work, but again i repeat my question; How does having things that way convey more information than graphics?
Additionally of course there are 'Giant' versions of numerous creatures (Vermin Rats, Large Rats, Giant Rats. Lions and Giant Lions, etc) as well as half a dozen different monkey derivitives and well over a dozen different fish, and we can only expect the number of creatures to grow with each additional release, especially as Toady starts adding randomising systems.I suspect we would very rapidly run out of letters and distinguishable colours (since there aren't that many distinguishable colours.)
Furthermore of course, the concept of Lions being F's is not exactly intuitive; sure it's familiar with Roguelike players, but that's a real good way to decrease the size of your potential fanbase; the more intuitive you make the graphics, the larger your fanbase, and if you use graphics then i don't need to look at a yellow F and go "Wats that?" the first couple of times, because i'll look at it and see a Lion and go "Hey, it's a Lion!" and won't even need to use k.
In fact, with a proper graphics pack, you'd never need to use k at all.
How big is a given creature image in pixels? How many creatures are there? How many creatures might there eventually be?
Basically, colored ascii characters actually gives you more easily discernible characters than graphics ever will. And those characters are quite easily discernible even at a glance. The key is to convey as much unique information as possible as quickly as possible.
Expanding the colors recognized by the game is trivial to the point of obvious if the creature set expands that much. Of course, there are unlikely to be many additional cats, for instance, and the difference between two species of gibbon is trivial to the point of uselessness. (why are there like 15 different gibbon species anyway? Seriously.)
This is the full non-vermin creature map at present (minus a couple of large Fish that were fine with their existing characters), with my initial suggestion on character representation. If large fish were made (i), the chimera category could be called h(Y)brid, and giant cats could use F, which is something i'm considering. The color designation follows the creature. Anyway, the full list:
=Civilizations=
dwarf (default)
human (p)
elf (e)
goblin (o)
kobold (k)
=(c)anine=
Dog [6:0:0] (Domest)
Fox [4:0:0] (Lg Temp)
wolf [7:0:0] (Lg Temp)
ice wolf [7:0:1] (stnd)
beak dog [4:0:0] (stnd)
werewolf [0:0:1] (stnd)
naked mole dog [4:0:1] (Subt)
=(U)rsine=
Grizzly Bear [6:0:0] (Lg Temp)
Black Bear [0:0:1] (Lg Temp)
Polar Bear [7:0:1] (Lg Tundra)
=(f)eliform=
cat [0:0:1] (Domest)
Cougar [6:0:1] (Lg Temp)
Lion [6:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Leopard [6:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Jaguar [6:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Tiger [6:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Cheetah [6:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Giant Lion [6:0:1] (Svg Trop)
Giant Leopard [6:0:1] (Svg Trop)
Giant Jaguar [6:0:1] (Svg Trop)
Giant Tiger [6:0:1] (Svg Trop)
Giant Cheetah [6:0:1] (Svg Trop)
=(B)ovine=
Cow [6:0:0] (Domest)
Mountain Goat [7:0:1] (Lg Mtn)
Muskox [7:0:0] (Lg Tundra)
=Ruminants '(D)eer'=
Deer [6:0:0] (Lg Temp)
Gazelle [6:0:0] (Lg Trop)
Elk [6:0:0] (Lg Tundra)
=(H)orse-like (Perissodactyl)=
Horse [7:0:0] (Domest)
Mule [6:0:0] (Domest)
Donkey [6:0:0] (Domest)
Unicorn [7:0:1] (stnd)
=(r)odent=
Hoary Marmot [7:0:0] (Lg Mtn)
Groundhog [6:0:0] (Lg Temp)
Ratman [0:0:1] (stnd)
Giant Rat [0:0:1] (Subt)
Large Rat [0:0:1] (Subt)
Giant Mole [6:0:0] (Subt)
=Oceanic Mammals=
==(W)hales (cetaceans)==
Whale [7:0:0] (Lg Ocean)
==Pinnipeds: (w)==
Walrus [6:0:0] (Lg Ocean)
=Pig + Hippo (Q)=
Hippo [7:0:0] (Lg Riv/Lk)
Warthog [6:0:0] (Lg Trop)
=(m)onkey=
Rhesus Macaque [7:0:0] (Lg Temp)
Mandrill [1:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Bonobo [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Siamang Gibbon [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
White Handed Gibbon [6:0:0] (Lg Trop)
Black-Handed Gibbon [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Gray Gibbon [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Silvery Gibbon [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Pileated Gibbon [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Bilou [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
White-Browed Gibbon [7:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Black-Crested Gibbon [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
=(A)pe=
Chimpanzee [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Gorilla [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Orangutan [6:0:0] (Lg Trop)
Sasquatch [7:0:1] (stnd)
=Probiscidia(N)s=
Elephant [7:0:0] (Lg Trop)
=(C)amelid=
One-Humped Camel [6:0:0] (Lg Trop)
Two-Humped Camel [6:0:0] (Lg Trop)
=Mustellid + Procyonid (q)=
raccoon [7:0:0] (Lg Temp)
=(R)eptile=
Alligator [2:0:0]
Saltwater Crocodile [2:0:0] (Lg Trop)
Dragon [2:0:0] (stnd)
Hydra [2:0:0] (stnd)
Sea Serpent [3:0:1] (stnd)
Sea Monster [2:0:1] (stnd)
Cave Crocodile [7:0:0] (Subt)
Giant Toad [2:0:0] (Subt)
=(b)ird=
Giant Eagle [6:0:0] (Lg Mtn)
Giant Bat [0:0:1] (Subt)
Giant Cave Swallow [0:0:1] (Subt)
=Arachnid (S)=
Giant Desert Scorpion [6:0:0] (Svg Trop)
Giant Cave Spider [7:0:0] (Subt)
=(h)umanoid=
Mountain Gnome [0:0:1] (Lg Mtn)
Dark Gnome [3:0:0] (Lg Mtn)
Leechman [0:0:1] (other)
Slugman [6:0:0] (other)
Snailman [7:0:0] (other)
Tigerman [6:0:1] (Svg Trop)
Gremlin [2:0:1] (stnd)
Frogman [2:0:0] (stnd)
Lizardman [2:0:0] (stnd)
Snakeman [2:0:0] (stnd)
Batman [0:0:1] (stnd)
Antman [0:0:1] (stnd)
Grimeling [2:0:0] (stnd)
Nightwing [0:0:1] (stnd)
Merperson [3:0:1] (stnd)
Troglodyte [6:0:0] (stnd)
Olmman [7:0:1] (Subt)
Cave Swallowman [0:0:1] (Subt)
=Giant (P)=
Troll [0:0:1] (stnd)
Ogre [7:0:0] (stnd)
Titan [3:0:0] (stnd)
Giant [3:0:0] (stnd)
Cyclops [4:0:1] (stnd)
Ettin [6:0:1] (stnd)
=(O)lm=
Giant Olm [7:0:1] (Subt)
=(g)olem=
Bronze Colossus [6:0:1] (stnd)
Iron Man [0:0:1] (Subt)
Mud Man [6:0:0] (Subt)
=Clown (&)= (stnd)
Clown
Spirit of Fun
Bouncy Clown
Naughty Clown
=(E)lemental=
Blizzard Man [3:0:1] (Lg Tundr)
Fire Imp [6:0:1] (Subt)
Fire Man [4:0:1] (Subt)
Magma Man [4:0:1] (Subt)
=ch(i)mera=
satyr [6:0:0] (stnd)
Minotaur [6:0:0] (stnd)
Foul Blendec [0:0:1] (stnd)
Strangler [0:0:1] (stnd) (grouping?)
harpy [6:0:0] (stnd)
Centaur [6:0:0] (fanc)
Griffon [7:0:1] (fanc)
Chimera [2:0:1] (fanc)
=(F)ish=
Coelacanth [1:0:1] (Lg Ocean)
Sturgeon [6:0:0] (Lg Ocean)
Giant Grouper [1:0:0] (Lg Ocean)
Swordfish [3:0:1] (Lg Ocean)
Marlin [1:0:1] (Lg Ocean)
Great Barracuda [2:0:0] (Lg Ocean)
Longnose Gar [6:0:0] (Lg Riv/Lk)
Carp [3:0:0] (Lg Riv/Lk)
Pike [2:0:0] (Lg Riv/Lk)
=Eel (~)=
Sea Lamprey [0:0:1] (Lg Ocean)
Conger Eel [7:0:0] (Lg Ocean)
=(S)hark= (Lg Ocean)
Great White [7:0:1]
Frill Shark [3:0:0]
Spiny Dogfish [6:0:0]
Spotted Wobbegong [6:0:0]
Whale Shark [6:0:0]
Basking Shark [7:0:0]
Nurse Shark [6:0:0]
Mako Shortfin [3:0:1]
Mako Longfin [3:0:1]
Tiger Shark [7:0:0]
Bull Shark [7:0:1]
Blacktip Reef Shark [0:0:1]
Whitetip Reef Shark [7:0:1]
Blue Shark [1:0:1]
Hammerhead Shark [6:0:0]
Angel Shark [6:0:0]
And there are plenty of letters left. Further, the full Unicode set could be used (if necessary). And some of these groups are ridiculously specified. Gibbons and Sharks being the most ridiculous. Cat also includes virtually every cat you'd ever want in the game (ie, housecats and the large cats). The current color designations cause some overlap, and i'd need to play with color output to see what the changing the numbers does, but there's a lot of unused color space for a lot of groups.
It doesn't need to be initially intuitive (although it sort of is. All fs are more similar to each other morphologically than to any other letter, etc...), it needs to be *learnably* intuitive. Something the current system lacks.
And it needs to be reasonably implementable. Toady is never going to designate an official graphics pack because he is not going to make one, and is not going to be held hostage by someone who does whenever he wants to introduce new content. So there isn't even a real discussion to be had on graphics vs. ascii, the only discussion to be had is 'what version of ASCII'.
Post by: Neonivek on November 03, 2009, 12:51:58 am
Post by: Squirrelloid on November 03, 2009, 01:12:50 am
I thought Gibbons were Apes...
Bats aren't actually birds either =p
More relevantly, i'm using (A)pes for great apes, which means the only thing missing from that list at this point is the Yeti... (Unless you agree with the phylogenetic paper on the matter and think it should be a Bovine because its most closely related to the Yak =p Great paper. )
Post by: Neruz on November 03, 2009, 01:31:39 am
Basically, colored ascii characters actually gives you more easily discernible characters than graphics ever will.
If this is the case, then why are Roguelikes the only game type to use ascii characters?
If coloured ascii characters are so superior, logically all games should be using them.
I'm not saying that you can't have sensible and legible graphics with ascii, i'm contesting your claim that you can convey more information with ascii than you can with image-based graphics; a claim which seems, quite simply, rediculous.
And so far you havn't actually supported your claim; the big list you just gave shows how one can convey a lot of information via coloured ascii, but it also shows how a graphical tileset can convey more.
Post by: Squirrelloid on November 03, 2009, 02:09:02 am
Basically, colored ascii characters actually gives you more easily discernible characters than graphics ever will.
If this is the case, then why are Roguelikes the only game type to use ascii characters?
If coloured ascii characters are so superior, logically all games should be using them.
I'm not saying that you can't have sensible and legible graphics with ascii, i'm contesting your claim that you can convey more information with ascii than you can with image-based graphics; a claim which seems, quite simply, rediculous.
And so far you havn't actually supported your claim; the big list you just gave shows how one can convey a lot of information via coloured ascii, but it also shows how a graphical tileset can convey more.
Ok, if we allow totally arbitrary arrangements of colored pixels, there's some minimally differentiable changes needed (ie, differentiability), but otherwise there's a lot of image space. The more noticeable differences between two most similar arrangements of pixels allowed, the more differentiable it is.
If all we mean by graphics is 'allow any reasonably differentiable combination of colored pixels', sure, there are more possible 'graphics'. That's not what people mean by 'graphics' however. They want something to look like the thing being represented.
Issues:
(1) Resolution. Sprites in the game are small. They are going to remain small. This limits the amount of detail on any possible graphics
(2) Differentiability. Can you tell the difference between a Leopard and a Jaguar at ~10 pixels length? 20 different species of monkey? An elf and a human?
(3) Comparative differentiability. An elf and a human swordsman probably look remarkably similar graphically at DF resolutions. A p and an e are instantly differentiable (as are the current U and E). Solid colors are easier to see than an image with multiple colors on it, so your axedwarves and macedwarves having different color shields isn't nearly as obviously different as the whole sprite being a different color. Colored symbols are vastly easier to graphically discriminate between at a glance.
This is aided by letters having been selected to be quickly discriminated between by millenia of reading. (modern letters have minimized the number of strokes while maximizing the perceivable differences between characters because it maximizes reading comprehension while minimizing writing effort).
(4) Communicability
Colored letters can be uniquely described in text. "That teal G is a Giant" conveys everything you need to know. Images require screenshots. Given any manual ever made for DF is going to probably be pure text, this is a major advantage for people learning the game from a manual.
----------
(5) New Content
Toady One does not make graphics. He will add new content. He will want to implement said content immediately. He should not be held hostage to a graphic designer.
Roguelikes are one of the few games who (1) desire to maximize information content, (2) desire ease of modification of content (most rogue-like developers also do not do graphics), and (3) maximize viewable area and thus minimize tile display size.
Going to a graphics engine cause similar games to reduce the viewable area (eg, Diablo), and often to sacrifice realistic coloring in favor of color-coded monsters (eg, Diablo). Basically, your symbols are now graphical instead of ASCII, but they're still colored symbols. And you sacrificed viewable area to achieve that so you had enough resolution to see anything with those graphics.
Viewable area is even more important in DF than it is in a rogue-like. As such, the need to keep tile size small is very large, and the resolution demands of going to a graphics standard cannot be met.
------
I would dispute rogue-likes are the only game to use symbolic rather than representative 'pieces'. Many table-top board games use symbolic pieces because they are easier to produce and convey more useful in-game information. Consider AH's Gettysburg, which has cardboard tiles printed with unit information rather than plastic pieces of army men.
Casual gamers require a high toy value. They do not buy games like Gettysburg, and they would not buy DF. DF, like Gettysburg, has a high level of strategic play, and has already closed itself to the market that is sold by toy value. (Compare to FPS games where the 'toy' value is very high but the strategic depth is very small). Perfunctory graphics are perfectly acceptable in the specific market DF is targetting by making that choice to be a highly strategic game.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 03, 2009, 02:20:24 am
2) Leopard and jaguar, or 20 species of monkey, no. Which is kind of the point -- most people couldn't identify them in real life either. Elves and humans are easy to tell apart in every current graphics set I've used, though, so the essentials are there.
3) First, comparative differentiability is only helpful if you first memorize several hundred mostly arbitrary symbols. Secondly, I wouldn't count on everyone's brains working like yours.
4) It would be trivially simple for an integrated manual to pull tiles from the creature graphics.
5) You're probably correct that he won't ever include a real graphics pack in the official download, but there's a lot more graphics support coming, as evidenced by the above quote and the fact that it's a Core item: (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html)
# Core50, TILESET SUPPORT, (Future): Allow graphical tiles to be used for all game objects.
Add in the facts that "Full graphics support" is high on Eternal Suggestion Voting (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/eternal_voting.php) and that Toady is going to be working through the top 10 entries after the upcoming release, and it looks like we'll be getting greatly expanded graphics support in the near future, no matter what you consider superior.
Anyway, I have to once again ask you to clarify what you're trying to accomplish here, since posting on topic clearly isn't it. As far as I can tell, you came in here to complain that people's turnoffs were somehow not legitimate, as if people's turnoffs had to pass your test of rationality before belonging in this thread. What's the deal?
Post by: Squirrelloid on November 03, 2009, 02:33:31 am
I fully support anything that makes modding easier.
I would oppose making a graphical tileset the default standard
I could care less about whether they're prepackaged with the game so long as they aren't default, but since Toady is not making such a tileset I doubt it will happen.
Edit:
Posted here because:
(A) I do have a legitimate gripe with the character/color mapping used by the game at present
(B) There should be a counterpoint to the common 'graphics please' post. Besides, people whining about ASCII is one of my turn-offs about the DF community (that and being totally unable to interpret the screenshots of people who use a tileset). And despite being a SP game, this is very much a game that depends on the existence of a community.
My first post was fully on topic - it was Zwei's challenge of my point which led to the current discussion, which you may or may not consider on-topic.
Post by: zwei on November 03, 2009, 03:15:30 am
What's so hard about an .ini? Heck, its even well-documented, unlike the game itself!
...
Seriously, anyone who can't be bothered to open a txt file isn't going to stick around to figure out how to play the game.
Seriously, editing text file IS hard. Majority of people who use computer nowadays never had to toy with configuration in text form. It is something new and different and thus scary and hard. Game iteself already looks scary enough, there is no point to make it worse.
Hell, even for techhie, it is not ideal. Plain text file lacks sanity/range checks. Plain text file will not tell you if what you typed in will not work or if it will do what you want.
Not everyone in potential audience is going to be linux geek familiar and comfy with config files or ex-roguelike player. Dismissing players on that grounds as unfit to play df is not heartwinner.
Poor game setup is making sure people will not stick. First impression is IMPORTANT. If players abandons game before he can experience actual gameplay, it is games fault, not his, Poor first impression.
This is whole point of stuff like intro movies and whatnot: to make player stick long enough to get feel of game.
We have no idea how may players stick only because there is nice music in first menu and actual music ingame. And we can have no idea how much more players would stick if there was actual [options] item in main menu, or if default looked better (even small thing like square ascii set ingame would be huge improvement because map would not be dissortred).
That is actually point of this thread: To discover what gives DF poor first impressions and how to fix it.
I fully support anything that makes modding easier.
I would oppose making a graphical tileset the default standard
I could care less about whether they're prepackaged with the game so long as they aren't default, but since Toady is not making such a tileset I doubt it will happen.
Prepackaged tilesets invite one important feature: Choice.
What if game gave you choice on first run: Use default ascii or default graphical set. Condensing all the tileset choosing/downloading/editing config files/whatever to one simple [yes] [no] choice.
Post by: Neruz on November 03, 2009, 04:51:55 am
Quote
(1) Resolution. Sprites in the game are small. They are going to remain small. This limits the amount of detail on any possible graphics
Not an issue; with the zoom functionality that was added recently sprites can be as large as you like. I'm currently running a modded Mayday tileset with 128x128 tiles, most are just scaled up 16x16 tiles, but i'm slowly replacing them with higher detail ones.
Quote
(2) Differentiability. Can you tell the difference between a Leopard and a Jaguar at ~10 pixels length? 20 different species of monkey? An elf and a human?
You can if the sprite is designed well, but see above point as to why this is moot.
Quote
(3) Comparative differentiability. An elf and a human swordsman probably look remarkably similar graphically at DF resolutions. A p and an e are instantly differentiable (as are the current U and E). Solid colors are easier to see than an image with multiple colors on it, so your axedwarves and macedwarves having different color shields isn't nearly as obviously different as the whole sprite being a different color. Colored symbols are vastly easier to graphically discriminate between at a glance.
Even with 16x16 pixels, elves and humans look markedly different; especially if you design the set so that this is the case. The Beefmo set for example has individual roles very easy to discern, in fact i don't think i've used k to find out what a creature was ever since i started using Beefmo's set, i've only ever used v to check inventory and wounds.
Quote
(4) Communicability
Colored letters can be uniquely described in text. "That teal G is a Giant" conveys everything you need to know. Images require screenshots. Given any manual ever made for DF is going to probably be pure text, this is a major advantage for people learning the game from a manual.
People read manuals now?
Anyway; DF already has a 'manual', it's called the Wiki, and it has pictures of the ascii graphics already.
Quote
(5) New Content
Toady One does not make graphics. He will add new content. He will want to implement said content immediately. He should not be held hostage to a graphic designer.
This is the reason why a graphical tileset will never be 'default', but Toady has made several comments about adding improved tileset support and some way to select tilesets, so i wouldn't be surprised to find that a graphical set or two might be bundled into the download or at least linked on the site in the not too distant future.
Quote
Roguelikes are one of the few games who (1) desire to maximize information content, (2) desire ease of modification of content (most rogue-like developers also do not do graphics), and (3) maximize viewable area and thus minimize tile display size.
If you absolutely want to maximise information content, you do 3D graphics, end of discussion.
Quote
Going to a graphics engine cause similar games to reduce the viewable area (eg, Diablo), and often to sacrifice realistic coloring in favor of color-coded monsters (eg, Diablo). Basically, your symbols are now graphical instead of ASCII, but they're still colored symbols. And you sacrificed viewable area to achieve that so you had enough resolution to see anything with those graphics.
Viewable area is even more important in DF than it is in a rogue-like. As such, the need to keep tile size small is very large, and the resolution demands of going to a graphics standard cannot be met.
See; Zoom.
Quote
Casual gamers require a high toy value. They do not buy games like Gettysburg, and they would not buy DF. DF, like Gettysburg, has a high level of strategic play, and has already closed itself to the market that is sold by toy value. (Compare to FPS games where the 'toy' value is very high but the strategic depth is very small). Perfunctory graphics are perfectly acceptable in the specific market DF is targetting by making that choice to be a highly strategic game.
While i doubt you'd ever get DF into the casual market, adding easily accessible graphics would definitively increase DF's fanbase; i only started playing DF when i discovered the MayDay pack where it was all set up, i've since upgraded to modding, but i would not be playing this game if i had not found a version of DF that came with a graphics pack already installed.
Post by: Squirrelloid on November 03, 2009, 06:45:19 am
Quote from: Neruz
If you absolutely want to maximise information content, you do 3D graphics, end of discussion.
Absolutely not true, because 3D graphics limits the maximum amount of information your processor can handle per time, since the graphic rendering is a major processor drain.
One of the points of minimalist graphics is freeing up processor power for other more important tasks. DF is the only game I can think of right now where this is an issue, but its a major issue. Going to 3D graphics would make 20FPS look good.
Post by: Neruz on November 03, 2009, 06:46:14 am
Quote from: NeruzIf you absolutely want to maximise information content, you do 3D graphics, end of discussion.
Absolutely not true, because 3D graphics limits the maximum amount of information your processor can handle per time, since the graphic rendering is a major processor drain.
You may want to reread that sentance.
Post by: Squirrelloid on November 03, 2009, 06:55:00 am
Quote from: NeruzIf you absolutely want to maximise information content, you do 3D graphics, end of discussion.
Absolutely not true, because 3D graphics limits the maximum amount of information your processor can handle per time, since the graphic rendering is a major processor drain.
You may want to reread that sentance.
... that is in fact how you spell processor.
But don't take my word for it, trust wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processor
Or Intel, who makes the things: http://www.intel.com/products/processor/index.htm
Post by: Neruz on November 03, 2009, 06:57:36 am
Quote from: NeruzIf you absolutely want to maximise information content, you do 3D graphics, end of discussion.
Absolutely not true, because 3D graphics limits the maximum amount of information your processor can handle per time, since the graphic rendering is a major processor drain.
You may want to reread that sentance.
... that is in fact how you spell processor.
But don't take my word for it, trust wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processor
Or Intel, who makes the things: http://www.intel.com/products/processor/index.htm
That's not what i meant.
I assume by processor you mean CPU, to which i have to ask what the CPU is doing getting involved in 3D graphics?
Additionally, you seem to be vastly overestimating how much GPU power is required to do basic 3D graphics.
Post by: Andir on November 03, 2009, 07:36:41 am
Personally, I'd love to see DF go tile default, ASCII mod-able. Ideally, as I've posted before, DF would be coded in a client/server fashion with the interface as a client process so you COULD have isometric, 3D, and PURE ASCII interface opportunities available. Of course, Toady wouldn't be able to maintain them all, but he could maintain the "interface" code and update third parties on what changes were made and let the interface designers update their clients. Minimally, he can maintain a vanilla ASCII interface as a stand in until the third party clients are updated. I don't see it happening because he thinks that somehow he will lose control of the project, but IMHO it will leave him time to do what he does best: the server engine.
I'm not arguing about this again though, so this is my last post here on that subject. Needless to say, ASCII is most definitely not the best way to do it... no matter how retro you want to feel.
Post by: IndonesiaWarMinister on November 03, 2009, 07:42:50 am
Hell, I don't need to differentiate between lions and tigers (use k for that).
However, I do need to differentiate between goblins and mountain goats.
So... :D
Post by: Jimmy on November 03, 2009, 07:49:01 am
Post by: Puck on November 03, 2009, 08:11:46 am
I'm not colourblind (I THINK ;D) and I wouldnt know if those certain shades are in fact discernable for folks who are, but it's definetly worth considering the whole thing. The first game I noticed that discussion was Eve Online, and I think WoW followed. Before that, it never even occured to me. I wouldnt be surprised there are a lot of publishers and developers who still havent informed themselves about the different kinds of colourblindness, if it's just to be able to consider what can be easy to implement in certain design choices.
In Eve, somebody posted his problem on the forums, and shortly thereafter 1 little green square has become a green checkmark and 1 litte red square became an x.
Post by: zwei on November 03, 2009, 01:13:21 pm
... Ideally, as I've posted before, DF would be coded in a client/server fashion with the interface as a client process so you COULD have isometric, 3D, and PURE ASCII interface opportunities available. Of course, Toady wouldn't be able to maintain them all, but he could maintain the "interface" code and update third parties on what changes were made and let the interface designers update their clients. Minimally, he can maintain a vanilla ASCII interface as a stand in until the third party clients are updated. I don't see it happening because he thinks that somehow he will lose control of the project, but IMHO it will leave him time to do what he does best: the server engine....
My DF-resilient friend saw this: http://tigsource.com/articles/2009/11/03/stonesense-dwarf-fortress-visualizer and immediately warmed up to idea of playing DF.
So, you have a point in there.
Post by: Petra on November 03, 2009, 03:09:03 pm
I'vve been playing roguelikes for some years now. DF didn't turn me off at first sight -- rather I saw it and went : OMFG I've got to try it.
Interface with military units needs to be updated, definitely. Worlds could be prettier with interface graphics update.
Also, need moar buildings. Like temples. Altars. Sacrificial pits. designatable arena areas, so champions can fight to the death.
Post by: PermanentInk on November 03, 2009, 04:57:30 pm
I strongly agree with the fact that was (finally) pointed out, that character glyphs have had many centuries to evolve, and a strong force in that evolution has been easy distinguishability. In comparison to a graphical tileset, particularly a naively implemented one, this is a strong advantage.
What's a naively implemented graphical tileset? I'd say it's one that's too strongly representational, rather than being designed in a more schematic/iconic manner. There's a whole continuum of possibility between monochrome line art (characters) and an every-pixel-is-different polychromatic blur. One terrible way to design a graphical tileset, for instance, would be to take photos of everything (pretending for the moment that you have dwarfs and gibbons and tentacle demons available to photograph) and scale all those photos down to 16x16 or whatever. Obviously, the result would be an unintelligible smear.
But it would be unfair to criticize all graphical tilesets as if they were this bad. If you start (conceptually) from character glyphs and move gradually and conservatively toward the other end of the continuum, there are very many reasonable comprimises along the way that would achieve both distinguishability and representationality.
With ASCII, it's easy to know what you're looking at ("that's a light gray lower-case 'g'"), but you can get caught up in disambiguation ("is that a goblin? a gibbon? a goose?"). Graphical tiles address this by introducing more differentiation, but can easily go wrong by including way more differentiation than you need. This results in an overall massive increase in visual noise, a detriment that for some outweighs the benefit of additional differentiation.
Personally, I'll continue to use ASCII because I'm accustomed to it from long roguelike experience. However, I believe there's an opportunity to serve a large in-between population that's not crazy about ASCII but gets lost in the noise of overly-representational tilesets. More simplified, iconic tilesets would be a boon for these folks. Iconic tilesets should have icons that are different from each other in obvious ways, and have an obvious enough representational connection that if it's not immediately obvious what an icon is, once you learn it it's easy to remember.
P.S. None of this should be considered an indictment of any particular graphical tilesets that are out there now; I haven't tried them, so my exposure is just from screenshots and stuff.
Post by: nil on November 03, 2009, 05:55:56 pm
PermanentInk is on the right track generally in that a balance between being able to tell what you are looking at vs. what that means, but in my opinion Dwarf Fortress is already way, way on the fringes of that spectrum. Even with a good graphics set, a person not familiar with DF has absolutely no idea what's going on in a screenshot--despite being able to recognize a number of shapes and symbols. If the question is "how to not turn off players," then the answer is move closer to the mainstream in this respect, which means more and better graphics.
Fortunately, the best solution from all perspectives would be a loader. Bundle the 1-3 most popular graphics sets, then have the loader allow the user to simply and easily choose between them, standard ASCII, square ASCII, and anything else they've chosen to download on their own. I'm no programmer, but seems to me this would require nothing more than writing the existing text file and launching df.exe... which should be easy, right? Hell, Toady wouldn't even have to necessarily write it.
Post by: Neonivek on November 03, 2009, 06:02:59 pm
Filtering through pointless information in Legends mode
I wish there was a better format for Legends mode especially for sites, locations, heros, and civilisations.
Post by: Sysice on November 03, 2009, 06:27:33 pm
Probably the only thing that could be improved is that that the game has so much, but most of it cannot be modded. I love the background music, and the sandbox feeling is amazing, but that kind of ends when you go into the raws. I can't make sniper rifles that are extremely accurate, I can't make a creature have no attacks (Pushing is still and attack, people), and even though I know it's changing in the next release, I can't make custom workshops, I can only add in new reactions in the smelter, and the tags have no explanation, so for some of the features it's like not even knowing. Even the wiki doesn't have them all. It's actually a really small gripe which shouldn't be a big priority, but it's still something.
Love the game, Toady! Keep it up!
EDIT: Oh yeah, and the arrow keys being tied to number keys really messed me up. I had right and secondary down be the same key for weeks, which was horrible. I didn't even know I could change it to + for the longest time, because I thought "Oh, it's already assigned to +, and it still doesn't work. Darn, looks like it'll have to stay."
Post by: James.Denholm on November 03, 2009, 06:37:46 pm
It's been said before, and we are no doubt all aware of it, but I'll say it again anyway: The initial experience of the player more or less defines if he is going to keep playing or not. If he finds the game confusing, he's almost certainly going to put the game in his mental "Too-hard basket" and move along to something else.
With this in mind, I've decided to write about what I believe the initial experience of the player should be. Some ideas shown here have already been posted on the thread, and I'll admit that these have been more-or-less stolen from those posts. I'd love to give credit to the creators of these ideas, but I can't remember who they are. That all got mixed-up during my sleep. Anyway, on with it all.
Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that this all needs to be in the game immediately, this release. This post is all about the long-term. And it's only my opinion, I'm not trying to say that this the only way to do things.
First of all, we must remember that quite a few people that download DF won't be computer literate. At all. These are the kind of people that have never seen a compressed file before, and have no idea what to do with a zip or rar file, or even an exe file. Now, what I'm about to say is probably going to be met with extreme prejudice, and it won't be appropriate to implement before the 1.0 release, but I'll say it anyway: The game will need an installer. With shortcuts on the desktop and in start menus. For some people, that's the only thing that they've seen before. You give them an un-zipped copy of DF as it is now, and they won't know what to do with it. So it's essential that we get people actually into the game first off.
Of course, I'm not saying that these people are the majority, but there are a fair few of them. And we have to accommodate for everyone.
Anyway, the player starts up the game, but the first thing that they see isn't the into movie. As this is the first time the game has been started, the game first asks if the player would like to go with the default ASCII, or an included, official tileset, possibly even recommending the tileset for new users. The game should also inform the player that they can switch between the two, or even install another tileset, at a later date.
Yes, I am an advocate of having an official, included, non-ASCII tileset. This may be a shock for some of you. But most people probably don't care. The points for and against an official tileset have already been stated by others, so I won't bore you by parroting them.
Then the user is hit by the awesomeness of the intro movie. Which is good, because it helps them see a little of what it's all about. Holes in mountains, dwarves, industry, war, and hidden fun stuff! Anyway, main menu appears, and half a second later so does a pop-up, welcoming the player, recommending the tutorial, which is pre-highlighted. Player presses enter, a little menu listing progressive parts of the tutorial. Perhaps the player cannot access part two without going through part one, but that's an idea for another discussion. Player chooses the first part, and a little pre-generated fort starts up. Someone suggested that most of the things (like everything from the chance of sieges down to dwarves needing food and booze) should be disabled, another said that most of the menus should be disabled and inaccessible, and yet someone else suggested only having one dwarf (I believe he suggested someone called a "prospector"). Let's discuss this.
First of all, the disabling of game features. If the player is trying to follow the tutorial, it's going to become very confusing and annoying if he is continually hampered by dwarves taking breaks, or even eating and sleeping, until such things are actually introduced by the tutorial. Until the tutorial introduces it, even things as basic as dwarven emotions should be disabled, so the fort can't possibly collapse into a tantrum spiral. Or even (especially very early on) disabling attacks On this note, perhaps introducing things through scripted events are a good idea. Like fey moods - Somewhere late in the overall tutorial, perhaps after crafts and trades, the game announces that a peasant has been taken by a classical, garden variety fey mood, which itself is actually. The tutorial pop-ups then babies the player through the process of ensuring the dwarf has the materials he needs ("Oh, it looks like he wants metal. Remember that hematite vein we saw before? Go mine some of it out, and smelt it into iron bars."), and once the artefact has been made, start covering artefacts and their use, and possibly keeping them safe from thieves.
Secondly, the disabling of menus. There's nothing worse for a new player than to be deserted by the tutorial after accidently going into some menu or mode that you don't know get out of, screaming at the screen "WHAT THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO DO!" I've been there, and it's incredibly aggravating, and every time it's happened to me in any game that I've just started learning I've tended to just kill the process and move on to something else. It has happened to me while playing DF, but usually it tended to happen after I had gotten over the learning curve, and fortunately most of the menus already tell you how to get out of them. Still, there's no point letting a new player get lost in military squad screens before that's all introduced from him.
Thirdly is the idea of cutting down the number of dwarves early in the tutorial. The main point behind this, I think, is to give the player less to think about, and less to keep track of. I mean, when you go through the first tutorial of Age of Empires, you aren't given a fifty-man army to go from point to point with. You're given four or five guys, max. You only start to see large numbers of people later, when things like formations are introduced.
Eventually, after the player has learnt most of the essentials, the game should run through genning a world, choosing an embark site, perhaps even creating an embark profile. There's no point in a player going through the entire tutorial and then getting lost on the embark screen.
Finally, after all that, it would probably be a good idea to point the player to the wiki, in case they want to know something specific (like the material value of granite), or another perspective, or even just to be part of the community.
I'm sure there are other ideas out there regarding the possibility of tutorials, and I'm sure that some of them are probably as good or even better, but this is just my interpretation of the ideas of other's and my own personal "vision".
Post by: N3X15 on November 03, 2009, 09:50:40 pm
- Goblin kills dwarf during seige
- Dwarves repel goblins
- Dwarves begin going crazy DESPITE ABUNDANCE OF WELLS, STATUE GARDENS, FOOD, AND DRINK
- Dwarves all kill each other or go crazy.
- Lose fort
This is counter-intuitive, as dwarves are usually portrayed as tough-as-nails warriors, not
Another problem is the tileset, or lackthereof. I am personally used to the ASCII tileset, but it would sure make it easier for new players to get involved.
Post by: Skooma on November 04, 2009, 01:44:24 am
Also that 80 dwarves or so make the game's time keeping slow to a crawl. It seems like I've played as long as I have for 4 in game years and I have for 1 once I got a lot of migrants. That doesn't leave a lot of frame rate for projects with running water.
Post by: Poojawa on November 04, 2009, 08:07:05 am
My first reactions was: 'Uhh.... what?' as I saw a blue thingy zoom off and start pulling green thingies out of this blue moving thingy...
I tried, tried so hard >.>
Put it down, left it on my harddrive for a year or so, then decided to crack at it again, this time with the wiki! (Thank you people who made that <3 ) And I began the painful learning of ASCII. I find myself adapting to that language better than any other important real life one I've tried to learn so far
I assume that I only get bored with fortresses because it seems that the goblins are *never* at war with the dwarves, seriously. Though I think one of these days I'll throw in the Ork mod.
Post by: Rozenbuddy on November 09, 2009, 10:22:58 am
Post by: PermanentInk on November 09, 2009, 11:48:21 am
I don't like the fact above-ground forts are nearly impossible to build, mostly because, it takes about 30 something wooden logs to build a compressed 5x5 house with a roof, not including furniture. You'd have to flatten a mountain just to get decent walls. This restricts you to the under-ground wasteland. Of course, unless you feel like elfing it. I just get so tired of being bound to the ground... I want to be free!
And you call yourself a dwarf.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 09, 2009, 11:58:07 am
I don't like the fact above-ground forts are nearly impossible to build, mostly because, it takes about 30 something wooden logs to build a compressed 5x5 house with a roof, not including furniture. You'd have to flatten a mountain just to get decent walls. This restricts you to the under-ground wasteland. Of course, unless you feel like elfing it. I just get so tired of being bound to the ground... I want to be free!
Uh, people do it all the time. You don't need to "flatten a mountain," you just need a quarry nearby.
Post by: Andir on November 09, 2009, 01:26:53 pm
Or use the underground for your resource. You could start up one of them... oh, what do they call that... mining operations... to get stone from the ground.I don't like the fact above-ground forts are nearly impossible to build, mostly because, it takes about 30 something wooden logs to build a compressed 5x5 house with a roof, not including furniture. You'd have to flatten a mountain just to get decent walls. This restricts you to the under-ground wasteland. Of course, unless you feel like elfing it. I just get so tired of being bound to the ground... I want to be free!
Uh, people do it all the time. You don't need to "flatten a mountain," you just need a quarry nearby.
Now, I'll admit that it takes 3-10 times as long to built up than it does to dig down, but that's do to the nature that mining isn't slow or laborious and constructions can take at least 2 professions where digging takes one.
Post by: Durin on November 09, 2009, 03:01:53 pm
It is unrealistic that they make it easier to dig than to build, but then, this is about dwarves after all. Just pretend they have an innate skill with the underground and ummmm... lobby for different build vs. mine speeds for above ground races?
Post by: PermanentInk on November 09, 2009, 03:53:05 pm
Post by: kjhvsadf on November 09, 2009, 06:20:29 pm
Why isn't there an actual warning that when you abandon fortress, you can never reload it again?
adsfhgsdfhgedfjmnbg adsfjkhbasdkjnhbsadhjfkbsadhkjnb fajf ajflbgsadfjlhbasdhjfkhsajfkbg
Post by: Footkerchief on November 09, 2009, 06:29:14 pm
Post by: Durin on November 09, 2009, 06:39:29 pm
I was going to post a new topic but this will do...
Why isn't there an actual warning that when you abandon fortress, you can never reload it again?
adsfhgsdfhgedfjmnbg adsfjkhbasdkjnhbsadhjfkbsadhkjnb fajf ajflbgsadfjlhbasdhjfkhsajfkbg
?
Thought there was... Anyhow, for future reference (sorry, too little too late I am sure) you can copy the save to a different folder beforehand, load it into an entirely separate file tree of DF, open it from that separate file tree and abandon it there. The original will still work on your original DF file tree.
That's how I go about getting a detailed look at my fort history. Engravings are awesome and all, but after having to read the same ones 20 times to get to the new ones, it gets BOOO-riiiiing.
My own personal gripe is tied to the interface. There are just too many things that have little tiny exceptions that break the normal flow of the game. For instance, I have a lot of stuff set to dump now. No one is dumping it. I will now proceed to search the wiki and ask on the forums, but the bottom line is that the difference between a dump ZONE and a refuse STOCKPILE is rather arbitrary, and the function of each, and the interplay between the two is downright arcane. Add to that the fact that a properly formatted dump zone can preserve infinite amounts of stuff forever, and what you have basically is a very old bug no one ever got around to fixing because it helps fix yet another annoying aspect of the game -- clutter. It's entirely too difficult to organize.
Why in God's name is a rock bin not allowed??? That would 99% fix the whole issue.
Also, water is entirely too rare and hard to find. If you are going to make it as important as it is to the healing process, make it importable and or easy to find. Real aquifers tend to be deep and more or less accessible from anywhere, not just below the immediate surface and only in specific biomes if they exist at all. It's a challenge, yes, but it is also dumb.
Also, since you can cheat and make your whole world volcanic etc for the purposes of making it more likely to find running water, lava, and adamantine all on one map, why not just have a screen at world gen that automatically makes a plot of the size and with the qualities that someone wants, plant it randomly on the map, then build around it. That way you do not have to either make your entire planet into Vulcan or go through 3-8 world gens to be sure you get a map you want.
Just silly stuff like that.
My tone always comes out more angry than I actually am... sowwies! Um.. Good work guys!!!!
Post by: G-Flex on November 09, 2009, 06:47:50 pm
Post by: Neonivek on November 09, 2009, 06:50:00 pm
But arn't they poisonous? And technically hard to get to unless you put a well ontop of them?
Aquifiers unless you use tricks are useless and inhibiting.
Post by: Durin on November 09, 2009, 06:54:35 pm
But I have two large fortresses now that have ground into horrid emo spirals for lack of water to give to wounded dwarves after getting attacked before I had a properly prepared defense.
Possibly my newbiness at defense is what is making this a larger issue for me than for most people, but no... refilling pools do not cut it once you get beyond a certain fort size. Even non-ill dwarves start sucking down water occasionally for reasons not entirely clear to me.
Also, once a murky pool tile has been dried, it rarely rains enough to fill it back up to 7, so it is essentially permanently useless after that.
Post by: Durin on November 09, 2009, 06:59:10 pm
Well, sure Murky Pools!
But arn't they poisonous? And technically hard to get to unless you put a well ontop of them?
Aquifiers unless you use tricks are useless and inhibiting.
Dwarves will only drink from the dregs of a murky pool if they are out of any other option. Wells do not make murky water drinkable. Wells cease functioning when the water level drops below 3 or some such.
Post by: Squirrelloid on November 09, 2009, 07:01:04 pm
Possibly my newbiness at defense is what is making this a larger issue for me than for most people, but no... refilling pools do not cut it once you get beyond a certain fort size. Even non-ill dwarves start sucking down water occasionally for reasons not entirely clear to me.
You ran out of alcohol.
Yes, your stocks may say you have alcohol left, but remember dwarves drink from the barrel, and any drinks in that barrel they *aren't* consuming also aren't available for anyone else. So when Urist McThirsty goes to get a drink, and notices all the barrels of booze currently have dwarves doing kegstands on them, he can't simply wait his turn, he wanders over to the nearest water to sate his thirst.
Post by: Durin on November 09, 2009, 07:11:06 pm
Possibly my newbiness at defense is what is making this a larger issue for me than for most people, but no... refilling pools do not cut it once you get beyond a certain fort size. Even non-ill dwarves start sucking down water occasionally for reasons not entirely clear to me.
You ran out of alcohol.
Yes, your stocks may say you have alcohol left, but remember dwarves drink from the barrel, and any drinks in that barrel they *aren't* consuming also aren't available for anyone else. So when Urist McThirsty goes to get a drink, and notices all the barrels of booze currently have dwarves doing kegstands on them, he can't simply wait his turn, he wanders over to the nearest water to sate his thirst.
Heh heh. Uh, no...
I had some several hundred booze barrels and food as well. My first fortress was kind of funny. I was down to one dwarf left in the spring of '02 when immigrants showed up to save the fortress, and most of them died too. All of this due to mismanaged food. Since then, I always err on the side of too much. Besides, really good prepared meals make happy dwarves and hella fine trade goods.
So no, I was not out of booze... interesting insight though.
Post by: Neonivek on November 09, 2009, 07:15:31 pm
Post by: Urist McDepravity on November 09, 2009, 09:32:25 pm
I will now proceed to search the wiki and ask on the forums, but the bottom line is that the difference between a dump ZONE and a refuse STOCKPILE is rather arbitrary, and the function of each, and the interplay between the two is downright arcane. Add to that the fact that a properly formatted dump zone can preserve infinite amounts of stuff forever, and what you have basically is a very old bug no one ever got around to fixing because it helps fix yet another annoying aspect of the game -- clutter. It's entirely too difficult to organize.Actually you are wrong here. Dump zones and refuse are completely different concepts. You will see it yourself if you try to make dump zone over magma moot or chasm. It's a good way for actual never-see-it-again disposal of anything burnable for the first case, and anything carryable for second.
Post by: Durin on November 09, 2009, 10:38:24 pm
I will now proceed to search the wiki and ask on the forums, but the bottom line is that the difference between a dump ZONE and a refuse STOCKPILE is rather arbitrary, and the function of each, and the interplay between the two is downright arcane. Add to that the fact that a properly formatted dump zone can preserve infinite amounts of stuff forever, and what you have basically is a very old bug no one ever got around to fixing because it helps fix yet another annoying aspect of the game -- clutter. It's entirely too difficult to organize.Actually you are wrong here. Dump zones and refuse are completely different concepts. You will see it yourself if you try to make dump zone over magma moot or chasm. It's a good way for actual never-see-it-again disposal of anything burnable for the first case, and anything carryable for second.
And yet if you merely stick skeletons in the refuse pile outside, they disappear for good as well...
I understand the difference in DF, and I get the connotations of the words that this difference is supposed to stem from. I am saying the difference in those words' usages in reality is pretty similar, their function in DF relatively arbitrary, and the difference in DF also obscurely technical and dependent on a lot of variables.
Post by: Durin on November 09, 2009, 10:43:35 pm
The problem with alcohol and some objects (like Bolts) is that they are used up SOOO FAST and require constant diligence to restocking.
Power cranking food and booze is a constant battle. If you grow food too rapidly, the spare barrels get filled up with food as the dwarves drink them dry, then there is no space to make more booze....
That in itself is the main reason my first fortress eventually became a food production monstrosity. I just kept cranking barrels. I had a decent number of trees, and after a while I would order trees from the humans AND the dwarves and buy all of them plus all the empty barrels I could as well.
This methodology is sustainable only because there is also a cap on the number of dwarves. LOL! Otherwise I swear you could devote a map to growing and boozing and eventually they would drink it dry.
I eventually learned to just stop planting for a few seasons if the situation gets too out of hand. I guess the rule of thumb is keep plenty of food and twice the booze, and let off the accelerator when you note your booze count diving toward your food count.
Post by: Squirrelloid on November 09, 2009, 11:00:52 pm
The problem with alcohol and some objects (like Bolts) is that they are used up SOOO FAST and require constant diligence to restocking.
Power cranking food and booze is a constant battle. If you grow food too rapidly, the spare barrels get filled up with food as the dwarves drink them dry, then there is no space to make more booze....
That in itself is the main reason my first fortress eventually became a food production monstrosity. I just kept cranking barrels. I had a decent number of trees, and after a while I would order trees from the humans AND the dwarves and buy all of them plus all the empty barrels I could as well.
This methodology is sustainable only because there is also a cap on the number of dwarves. LOL! Otherwise I swear you could devote a map to growing and boozing and eventually they would drink it dry.
I eventually learned to just stop planting for a few seasons if the situation gets too out of hand. I guess the rule of thumb is keep plenty of food and twice the booze, and let off the accelerator when you note your booze count diving toward your food count.
I just tell my prepared meals stockpile to not accept barrels - that way I can clear the food out of my barrels by cooking it. (Also, makes it much easier to trade if i want/need to).
Post by: Durin on November 09, 2009, 11:27:51 pm
The problem with alcohol and some objects (like Bolts) is that they are used up SOOO FAST and require constant diligence to restocking.
Power cranking food and booze is a constant battle. If you grow food too rapidly, the spare barrels get filled up with food as the dwarves drink them dry, then there is no space to make more booze....
That in itself is the main reason my first fortress eventually became a food production monstrosity. I just kept cranking barrels. I had a decent number of trees, and after a while I would order trees from the humans AND the dwarves and buy all of them plus all the empty barrels I could as well.
This methodology is sustainable only because there is also a cap on the number of dwarves. LOL! Otherwise I swear you could devote a map to growing and boozing and eventually they would drink it dry.
I eventually learned to just stop planting for a few seasons if the situation gets too out of hand. I guess the rule of thumb is keep plenty of food and twice the booze, and let off the accelerator when you note your booze count diving toward your food count.
I just tell my prepared meals stockpile to not accept barrels - that way I can clear the food out of my barrels by cooking it. (Also, makes it much easier to trade if i want/need to).
I did that on my first fortress and it was very helpful. I can't figure what I did wrong on my second one, but the dwarves refused to use the prepared food stockpile and I eventually just deleted it and put a regular one there in its place.
Probably will try it again sooner or later. I know from experience it SHOULD work...
Post by: Rozenbuddy on November 10, 2009, 09:15:24 am
Post by: Squirrelloid on November 10, 2009, 10:30:31 am
Those long times where like, nothing is happening... No raids, sieges, thieves, snatches, nothing... food and water is available at all times... nobody is insane or in jail... everyone has a job and is doing it happily... Unicorns aren't acting up... it's... so... boring... Zz.z.zz...
Someone hasn't learned the joy of megaprojects.
See, i get a goblin siege and my first thought is 'crap, another metric buttload of narrow armor and clothing to move/dispose of again,' - it takes my dwarves away from important tasks, like building a magma cannon or working on my 20 z-level megastructure.
Post by: NWTreeOctopus on November 10, 2009, 11:44:54 am
... I think the lack of coherent goals is what makes it difficult to pick up and play for many people...
I think that this is the big thing that underlies most of the other problems. I know the people that I've shown the game to really appreciate the insane depth/complexity of the game mechanic itself. However, not everybody enjoys just trying to scratch out a subsistence from the rock. Because the learning curve is so steep, I think that not at least having some simple tutorial goals, or something of that nature, really turns some people away from the game.
I too have fallen into the "Now what?" scenario several times. I'm absolutely not advocating that there should be some undeniable, unwavering "end game" that you're striving for while playing (short of Fun). If there is some way to "win," I think that it should be completely optional. However, sometimes I think it would be enjoyable to play a game with a set of goals monitored by the computer instead of being self-inflicted. However, with the new update, I can imagine there will be countless more hours for me to enjoy the current "goal-less" setup.
One last thing that I think would help keep a large number of early players from quitting is a little bit tighter control of your dwarfs. I've seen people advocate for the "Dungeon Keeper" level of control (though, I tend to think of this as more of a "Sim Ant" level of control). In that, I mean the ability to possess a single dwarf and fully command it.
As I've taught some of my friends to play, I've found that they become frustrated when the need for a really important job suddenly comes up (pull that lever.... NOW). The ability to grab a single dwarf and guide it along would be enormously useful and help mitigate some of the frustration that comes from the current way jobs are handled. This is especially true when the dwarf on its way to pull the fortress-saving lever suddenly decides that eating can not wait any longer. Given the current strange-moods and the like that dwarfs go through, I wouldn't see exerting your direct control over one as far outside the game's spirit anyway.
While I'd enjoy these changes; I feel that they'd have to be options set in the init.txt or something. Keep the updates coming guys; the game becomes immeasurably greater with each new release.
Post by: Quantum Toast on November 10, 2009, 02:48:39 pm
True, I ran into that problem a while back. Took me a while to even realise where all my barrels were disappearing to.The problem with alcohol and some objects (like Bolts) is that they are used up SOOO FAST and require constant diligence to restocking.
Power cranking food and booze is a constant battle. If you grow food too rapidly, the spare barrels get filled up with food as the dwarves drink them dry, then there is no space to make more booze....
Post by: Innominate on November 10, 2009, 05:56:21 pm
Every year your food count increases (excluding trade) set one or more fields to go fallow for one or more seasons - use your discretion. If your food count decreases over a year then build more fields, trade for more, or use fertiliser (in order of increasing Fun). Remember that your growers will naturally increase in skill, so a small deficit can turn into a huge surplus after a few years. Likewise, the death of your legendary+5 grower might mean you need to supplement your food production.
Post by: zwei on November 11, 2009, 07:32:22 am
You need to tweak your food production down slightly. With enough small fields (say twelve 2x2 instead of one 6x8) you increase the number of fields you can set to fallow or fertilise to slightly modify production.
Every year your food count increases (excluding trade) set one or more fields to go fallow for one or more seasons - use your discretion. If your food count decreases over a year then build more fields, trade for more, or use fertiliser (in order of increasing Fun). Remember that your growers will naturally increase in skill, so a small deficit can turn into a huge surplus after a few years. Likewise, the death of your legendary+5 grower might mean you need to supplement your food production.
You can also just have special stockpile for finisehd food, booze pile and cooking/brewing supplies pile.
If you manage to fill one of them, it ends up okay if you set up production with surplus:
Full Food stockpile will clutter kitchens, slowing down production. It will not use up additional barrels. And if surplus rots, who cares, as long as your dwarves are well fed.
Full Booze stockpile, ditto. It will consume barrels, but again, clutter to the rescue! Eventually, dwarves consumption speed and clutter level in still will result in even balanced system with no additional barrels needed.
And far as source food: Well, plants will rot. Yawn, you have surplus, it will be okay.
---
Workshop Clutter: One of Best features in game.
Post by: Durin on November 11, 2009, 09:22:09 pm
You need to tweak your food production down slightly. With enough small fields (say twelve 2x2 instead of one 6x8) you increase the number of fields you can set to fallow or fertilise to slightly modify production.
Every year your food count increases (excluding trade) set one or more fields to go fallow for one or more seasons - use your discretion. If your food count decreases over a year then build more fields, trade for more, or use fertiliser (in order of increasing Fun). Remember that your growers will naturally increase in skill, so a small deficit can turn into a huge surplus after a few years. Likewise, the death of your legendary+5 grower might mean you need to supplement your food production.
You can also just have special stockpile for finisehd food, booze pile and cooking/brewing supplies pile.
If you manage to fill one of them, it ends up okay if you set up production with surplus:
Full Food stockpile will clutter kitchens, slowing down production. It will not use up additional barrels. And if surplus rots, who cares, as long as your dwarves are well fed.
Full Booze stockpile, ditto. It will consume barrels, but again, clutter to the rescue! Eventually, dwarves consumption speed and clutter level in still will result in even balanced system with no additional barrels needed.
And far as source food: Well, plants will rot. Yawn, you have surplus, it will be okay.
---
Workshop Clutter: One of Best features in game.
That is AWESOME. I did not realize this... how in the world did you work that out?
Post by: Rozenbuddy on November 11, 2009, 10:50:53 pm
Post by: Neonivek on November 11, 2009, 11:04:14 pm
I could feed the world! MWAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
Post by: Durin on November 11, 2009, 11:58:29 pm
I just make an unfathomable amount of barrels and food storage spaces.
I could feed the world! MWAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
Hehe, that was largely my plan of action.... I just kept falling behind on the barrel part.
Hey, if Threetoe is still monitoring this at all for its original purpose, I'd like an option to shut down graphics entirely until some defined announcements take place, if this would tend to make the game go faster. There are times when I have df going in the background because it's just really nothing but a wait for something to happen I have predetermined, and short of invasion notifications or the like, I just want to fast forward.
Post by: GoldenH on November 12, 2009, 12:17:53 am
I just make an unfathomable amount of barrels and food storage spaces.
I could feed the world! MWAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
Hehe, that was largely my plan of action.... I just kept falling behind on the barrel part.
Hey, if Threetoe is still monitoring this at all for its original purpose, I'd like an option to shut down graphics entirely until some defined announcements take place, if this would tend to make the game go faster. There are times when I have df going in the background because it's just really nothing but a wait for something to happen I have predetermined, and short of invasion notifications or the like, I just want to fast forward.
Unfortunately that won't really help.. setting graphics FPS to 1 in the init file should be essentially the same thing, which doesn't do much of anything.
Post by: Durin on November 12, 2009, 08:41:23 pm
I just make an unfathomable amount of barrels and food storage spaces.
I could feed the world! MWAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
Hehe, that was largely my plan of action.... I just kept falling behind on the barrel part.
Hey, if Threetoe is still monitoring this at all for its original purpose, I'd like an option to shut down graphics entirely until some defined announcements take place, if this would tend to make the game go faster. There are times when I have df going in the background because it's just really nothing but a wait for something to happen I have predetermined, and short of invasion notifications or the like, I just want to fast forward.
Unfortunately that won't really help.. setting graphics FPS to 1 in the init file should be essentially the same thing, which doesn't do much of anything.
Hrm. Still calculating paths and flow and such I guess... Thanks for the tip tho.
Post by: Damn It on November 25, 2009, 12:46:21 am
I put up with a lot from DF, because I am so enamored of the idea that I am a part of an organic, evolving world and I feel that I am having an influence on history as a mortal hero. That's awesome. I also really liked the detailed combat/wound mechanics (outside of the imbalances which I'll cover below).
The learning curve is steep mostly because of the interface... it could not be less intuitive. The first time I played, it took me 15 minutes to figure out how to get my dwarves to dig a bloody hole in the ground. Even learning basic tasks in DF was too much to handle. It wasn't easy even with the wiki. After 2 attempts, I gave up on Fortress Mode at first, and switched to Adventurer mode in the hopes that it would be more similar to what I'm used to.
Adventurer mode is great, but unbalanced as hell. It doesn't matter how well developed my character is... any stooge with a bow is capable of taking me out. Starting characters are also too powerful in relation to developed characters. What I mean is, since there are no stores except for human (which only sell shitty iron items in any event), you can't upgrade your equipment to any significant extent unless you built it yourself with an earlier fortress game. Also, with only an hours play time, my characters are able to defeat legendary creatures like giants, who were around since the beginning of time and might have 15 kills to their credit. That shouldn't happen. The top melee creatures should be much tougher to beat, and a typical archer should not be so difficult. I would weaken bows a little, lower the starting character talents a bit, and have more powerful weapons/items readily available in stores.
Oh, and blundering around towns looking for stuff is excruciating. Make the towns smaller!
Anyway, after learning the mechanics of adventuring I tried fortress mode again and did quite well. I then found that the game is too easy once you know how to play. Once my fortress had external defensive walls, fortifications, traps, and a population of about 50 dwarves, I never felt like I was in any danger at all from external threats.
Attackers should be more numerous and more direct. The vast majority of enemy encounters were thieves and ambushers... I'd have liked more sieges with higher numbers of troops. I don't agree with the previously mentioned ideas of weakening traps or adding wall destroyers unless the dwarven AI is also improved, because traps/walls are a known quantity and you can never be sure what your military is going to give you. Do your archers have 25 bolts or only 1? Are your melee troops where they're supposed to be?
Once my fortress population reached a certain point, all of the micromanagement bored me to tears. The last 6-7 hours of my fortress time were spent killing off hammerers (who by the way, killed more of my dwarves than the goblins did), building 850,000 barrels, getting annoyed at the whole concept of nobles, and building new bedrooms to hold migrants. I'd have liked the chance to send an assault force against the goblin or kobold civ. Something.
So after about 5 years I abandoned the fortress and started playing another adventurer. An hour later, I got the Nemesis Unit Load fail error. That was the deal breaker for me. For a game which offers as much as DF, I can learn complicated rules and a weird interface. I can tolerate imbalance. I can work around annoying things like nobles (I had planned to reduce my max pop to 50), but I can't deal with game destroying bugs. In a game as immersive as this, where a main part of play is the evolution of your region, nothing sucks the joy out of you like having everything suddenly get destroyed by a bug. As soon as I read that nothing could be done to restore my game and that the bug was not that uncommon, I erased DF from my machine and likely won't touch it again for several years - if I ever come back at all. Whatever other changes get made to DF, bugs like that have got to be eradicated. Roguelikes have steep learning curves and ASCII graphics, too... but all of the ones I've played are reliable.
I'd make bug resolutions the top priority, then fix the interface, then add the ability to perform routine tasks, (like cooking and brewing) automatically, and finally work on the dwarven AI. Most people will put in the necessary work to overcome anything else, because the game concept is one of the best I've ever seen.
Just my two cents... well, more like 200 cents with the length of this post :-/
Post by: Footkerchief on November 25, 2009, 01:03:28 am
You can sometimes find high-quality iron plate in shops and on town rulers. Not reliably, but if you raid a couple towns' armor and weapon shops, you'll get some good gear, good enough that you won't have to worry as much about archers (who you shouldn't confront head-on in any case, (S)neaking around is the way to go).
Projectiles won't be nearly as ridiculous in the next version (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=30026.0) (due out in a month or so). They'll still kill you sometimes, but they won't destroy every organ in your chest at once.
Sieges are getting a massive overhaul soon after the upcoming release, with an emphasis on increased difficulty and smarter, meaner tactics -- that's one of the shortlisted goals, along with fleshing out Adventure Mode and working through the top 10 suggestions. (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/eternal_voting.php) The ability to "send an assault force" against enemies should follow soon after those -- you can read about near-future development here. (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_next.html)
The Nemesis Unit Load error is horrible, yeah. It's definitely the worst unfixed bug in DF, and is uniquely hard to track down because nobody has ever been able to catch it happening (your world files get mysteriously erased and THEN you get the crash a couple hours later, with no way to identify the cause of the erasure). For what it's worth, you could have used autosave/autobackup (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=34936.0) to recover from this bug by copying over the missing files from the backup to the trashed save, if you had enabled it ahead of time. Doesn't help now, I know.
Post by: Neruz on November 25, 2009, 05:23:55 am
Basically; it's exactly what it says on the tin; Dwarf Fortress's Nemesis, and it's a good Nemesis too; it knows exactly when and where to strike for maximum effect, and then slip away before anyone can track it down.
Post by: LeoLeonardoIII on November 25, 2009, 12:47:47 pm
Post by: Lemunde on November 25, 2009, 02:42:47 pm
True, I ran into that problem a while back. Took me a while to even realise where all my barrels were disappearing to.The problem with alcohol and some objects (like Bolts) is that they are used up SOOO FAST and require constant diligence to restocking.
Power cranking food and booze is a constant battle. If you grow food too rapidly, the spare barrels get filled up with food as the dwarves drink them dry, then there is no space to make more booze....
What I do is make separate stockpiles for my booze and food. When the food stockpile is full they will stop putting food in new barrels and the same goes for the booze.
What would help is a feature where you can set an order to keep producing stuff but only while there is room in a stockpile. This would keep me from constantly having to put in new orders for booze and such.
Post by: Rozenbuddy on November 27, 2009, 09:08:00 am
Post by: Knez on December 14, 2009, 06:25:28 am
The interface looks pretty old. I'm sure it worked great when the game had 5 workshops and 6 types of stone, but now it needs an overhaul. I want my mason's stone storage to automatically not have ores included, I want my booze stockpile to reserve some barrels (I'm not talking about min/max, I want DF to not give barrels to anyone else, even if booze doesn't need them right now), more consistency with hotkeys (Statues, coffins have different create-place keys)...
The dwarf psyche is beyond words, it's probably that same music going on and on and on. There are so few things to directly affect it. Right now there are parties (no control), statue gardens, pets (can't assign owners) and a few more things. I would like some leisure rooms (public bath, concert hall, library, whatever), tax cuts, prize giveaways or something to help them remain sane more directly.
Why is the game punishing me with nobles? I give the dwarfs food, bedrooms and pets, even though there's more and more of them. And in return I get pompous assholes that make pointless demands and use up workshop hours with their unskilled labor. A good book-keeper let's me see detailed stock; a good manager should maintain the stock I designate (like 200 booze, a legendary manager could break it down to 50 beer, 50 wine and 100 jack daniels) and make the cooks, brewers, farmers as automated as the butchers/tanners; a good broker would automatically trade non-melt-able narrow items and crafts for cheese and spears, and filter out large pieces of armor; the Hammerer should punish criminals, not ruthlessly murder dwarves and send them into manic depression... Nobles could therefore be split into assholes and management.
For future development I suggest the devs focus on optimizing old features before adding new ones. Cows can't be milked; soap can't be used; workers are stronger and tougher than soldiers, no (work) animals can haul...
Also the game has very little replay-ability(?), should have more "new game +" features and keep players interested. You got a fortress with 500 dwarves? - you can start with 8 folks from now on. You survived for 10 years in freezing/scorching climate? - you get the option do adjust the overall temperature in world creator. You killed 50 elf caravans? - you get to adjust the elf population in world creator... This would also allow goal-oriented scenarios (export over 9000 ores, provide X power to your dwarf kingdom, secure an outpost in hostile territory) or playing in challenge mode (like the ones on DFwiki).
Don't worry about tutorials: there are forums, the wiki, you tube (Thank you whoever made DemonButter). Don't worry about graphics, just let the modders do their thing (I'm sure that's how most FPSs and RPGs remain popular).
And please don't focus on adding new things right now, no point in having any more trade-only items or micro-management intensive workshops.
Post by: Asmodeous on December 14, 2009, 08:39:56 am
Quote
I've been playing DF for about a month now and the 1. problem for me is that this game hates me. Most new games now give you a reward for successfully zooming in and out; DF punishes you for every single mistake and laughs in your face: "You forgot about water pressure didn't you moron? Haha, you dwarfs can't swim and they never will. Good luck making a new fort with you plant gatherer and paraplegic hunter, bitch."
Funny, this is the #1 reason I can't stop playing the game.
Post by: Flaede on December 14, 2009, 09:01:31 am
QuoteI've been playing DF for about a month now and the 1. problem for me is that this game hates me. Most new games now give you a reward for successfully zooming in and out; DF punishes you for every single mistake and laughs in your face: "You forgot about water pressure didn't you moron? Haha, you dwarfs can't swim and they never will. Good luck making a new fort with you plant gatherer and paraplegic hunter, bitch."
Funny, this is the #1 reason I can't stop playing the game.
Me too. I mean, that fort with 26 children and one adult.. on a glacier... EPIC.
Post by: CaptainNitpick on December 14, 2009, 09:52:49 am
Also the game has very little replay-ability(?), should have more "new game +" features and keep players interested. You got a fortress with 500 dwarves? - you can start with 8 folks from now on. You survived for 10 years in freezing/scorching climate? - you get the option do adjust the overall temperature in world creator. You killed 50 elf caravans? - you get to adjust the elf population in world creator... This would also allow goal-oriented scenarios (export over 9000 ores, provide X power to your dwarf kingdom, secure an outpost in hostile territory) or playing in challenge mode (like the ones on DFwiki).
If this was in the game, I would be here complaining about how it turns me off. It's a mechanic that says "you're playing a game, score points". Dwarf Fortress is a sandbox, points are unnecessary and detrimental.
Interesting challenges are beyond the computer's ability to understand anyway. You could never program in an achievement for something like The Underworld Challenge (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=17345.0).
Post by: Andir on December 14, 2009, 10:36:10 am
This suggestion rubbed me completely the wrong way.Don't you understand? This is the generation of achievements. We need a way to show off our e-peen gaming prowess!! rawwr!Also the game has very little replay-ability(?), should have more "new game +" features and keep players interested. You got a fortress with 500 dwarves? - you can start with 8 folks from now on. You survived for 10 years in freezing/scorching climate? - you get the option do adjust the overall temperature in world creator. You killed 50 elf caravans? - you get to adjust the elf population in world creator... This would also allow goal-oriented scenarios (export over 9000 ores, provide X power to your dwarf kingdom, secure an outpost in hostile territory) or playing in challenge mode (like the ones on DFwiki).
If this was in the game, I would be here complaining about how it turns me off. It's a mechanic that says "you're playing a game, score points". Dwarf Fortress is a sandbox, points are unnecessary and detrimental.
Interesting challenges are beyond the computer's ability to understand anyway. You could never program in an achievement for something like The Underworld Challenge (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=17345.0).
Post by: Rowanas on December 14, 2009, 10:41:58 am
Post by: Footkerchief on December 14, 2009, 11:20:17 am
Don't you understand? This is the generation of achievements. We need a way to show off our e-peen gaming prowess!! rawwr!
Please try to argue in good faith rather than misrepresenting your opponent's position. It's widely acknowledged, by Toady as much as anyone else, that both game modes have a severe lack of challenges and scenarios.
For future development I suggest the devs focus on optimizing old features before adding new ones. Cows can't be milked; soap can't be used; workers are stronger and tougher than soldiers, no (work) animals can haul...
The upcoming version (due out in a month or so) has useful soap (dwarves wash with it, it makes them happy and prevents infections) and has a new skill/attribute system that increases attributes (like strong, tough, etc.) with usage rather than with overall XP, meaning the worker/soldier issue is fixed. So that's two out of those four. It also has a ton of other new features. (http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AT8EQVUjrv96ZGc5cnBwOHZfMjgyY3FzZHFtanA&hl=en)
Post by: Neonivek on December 14, 2009, 11:28:04 am
Quote
Why is the game punishing me with nobles?
In some ways it is a way to add some additional challenge.
Though in others it is a placeholder for the future where Nobles will be tied with genuin power.
Post by: HideousBeing on December 14, 2009, 01:24:07 pm
This is an engraving of Urist McEngraver engraving about engraving!
If we could get some real engravings in our fortress it would make them sooo much more interesting.
Post by: Lost Requiem on December 14, 2009, 06:52:33 pm
Granted, these are minor nitbitchings, but the one that takes the cake is the inability to identify who or what killed who in the universe where, and it involves me searching around for a long time looking for Urist McDorf who got eaten by the local fauna while Hunting or Chopping Wood.
Urist McDorf has been stricken down by the Cock Goblin in 221 Late Spring.
It'd be nice if the view-location option in their menu in the unit selection screen is changed so you can view where they got killed.
Post by: Footkerchief on December 14, 2009, 07:04:00 pm
unexplainably huge recovery times for a Superhumanly Tough Dwarf *A year and ongoing to mend a broken leg*
The next version's massive revisions to wounds/healthcare should handle this.
the one that takes the cake is the inability to identify who or what killed who in the universe where, and it involves me searching around for a long time looking for Urist McDorf who got eaten by the local fauna while Hunting or Chopping Wood.
Urist McDorf has been stricken down by the Cock Goblin in 221 Late Spring.
This is Req104. It may or may not have been handled as part of the combat announcement revisions below:
# Req104, SLAYER ANNOUNCEMENT, (Future): In dwarf mode, it could include the slayer in some of the death announcements if it is warranted.
It'd be nice if the view-location option in their menu in the unit selection screen is changed so you can view where they got killed.
This one is handled too: "You can view adv mode style messages by creature and category (comb/hunt/spar) now and all of the announcements have associated dates. Those that have associated locations are zoomable from the announcement/report screens." (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_now.html#2009-02-21)
Post by: Lost Requiem on December 14, 2009, 07:37:20 pm
I missed one more, and I was reminded of it when my Dungeon Master arrived with his entourage.
I've had a massive issue with migrant-splosions in all of my fortresses, larger than the catsplosion *Both conventional and thermonuclear* could ever hope to become. All of my migrant waves have been well over 20 *My first migrant wave in one fortress was 35!!!*, which, even with huge surpluses I enjoy, cause the entire economy to nearly implode unto itself. Would there be a way to limit the number of migrants that arrive at one time? I mean, for Armok's sake, they're dwarves, not Mexicans.
Post by: cooz on December 14, 2009, 07:39:25 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on December 14, 2009, 07:46:35 pm
Hey, Footkerchief, how long it took you to memorize all those core components, requests, bloats and power goals from development pages? lol
Not very long. As long as you remember a few key words, it's easy to Ctrl+F dev_single. (http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html) Keeping up with current development can take longer, though.
Post by: Andir on December 14, 2009, 09:48:58 pm
I was... it was brought up that we should have to complete some objectives to unlock certain aspects of the game. That's lame IMHO. It's a sandbox, not some kind of unlock fest full of achievements for showing off.Don't you understand? This is the generation of achievements. We need a way to show off our e-peen gaming prowess!! rawwr!
Please try to argue in good faith rather than misrepresenting your opponent's position. It's widely acknowledged, by Toady as much as anyone else, that both game modes have a severe lack of challenges and scenarios.
Post by: Sysice on December 14, 2009, 10:00:48 pm
Would there be a way to limit the number of migrants that arrive at one time? I mean, for Armok's sake, they're dwarves, not Mexicans.There is now. Change the pop cap in the init file. It shouldn't go above that in multiple waves, and a single wave will take you at most a few dwarves beyond the cap.
Post by: atomfullerene on December 15, 2009, 01:21:08 am
*ahem* sorry had a bit of a moment there...
Post by: Neonivek on December 15, 2009, 01:25:38 am
As annoying, frustrating, insane, and nonsense as the Nobility are in Dwarf Fortress... We know from history that real Nobility often wasn't much better and could even become worse then even the most demanding DF Noble.
Post by: Rowanas on December 15, 2009, 03:10:10 am
Or even better...
Let them eat !!+Kitten stew+!!
Post by: darkflagrance on December 15, 2009, 09:33:18 am
Bitchin'.
I missed one more, and I was reminded of it when my Dungeon Master arrived with his entourage.
I've had a massive issue with migrant-splosions in all of my fortresses, larger than the catsplosion *Both conventional and thermonuclear* could ever hope to become. All of my migrant waves have been well over 20 *My first migrant wave in one fortress was 35!!!*, which, even with huge surpluses I enjoy, cause the entire economy to nearly implode unto itself. Would there be a way to limit the number of migrants that arrive at one time? I mean, for Armok's sake, they're dwarves, not Mexicans.
You actually can already limit population by changing the appropriate option in the Init file.
Post by: JimiD on December 15, 2009, 10:41:23 am
Post by: Flaede on December 15, 2009, 12:21:09 pm
For me the issue is not the absolute pop limit, but the rate of growth. To the best of my knowledge this cannot be controlled in the init, only by limiting the wealth of your fortress.
this. yes. If I am being attacked by ambush parties, I'd rather not have to babysit a whole 35 incoming migrants and their kittens. And yet, I don't want to limit my maxpop. Just rate incoming.
...And it's really hard to limit fortress wealth when your dwarves like to up and create artifact querns encrusted with rhinestones and plush silk spikes.
Post by: Graebeard on December 15, 2009, 09:43:17 pm
Things that bothered me when I started playing:
(1) No mouse functionality. I had been hard coded to have one hand on the keyboard and one on the mouse. While I've come to
(2) Other interface issues. Particularly the confusing k/v/q menus. I could go on and on. I eventually got over my objections and don't mind the system any more now that I have it memorized, but that took me probably 50+ game hours.
(3) The music. I don't have any complaints about the song. Actually, I think it's great. But playing as much DF as anyone who actually surmounts the learning curve would need to... listening to the same song on repeat got really frustrating really fast. I just turned the sound off after about 6 hours of gameplay and I've never turned it back on.
Things that bothered me once I got hooked:
(1) FPS. I cannot overemphasize how much this kills it for me. Many times I've given up when FPS drops through the floor. Sometimes I'd start a new fort, sometimes I'd just walk away in frustration for several weeks. This remains the single biggest turnoff for me by a large margin, particularly since many features of the game don't trigger until after the game becomes un-fun to play.
(2) Extinguishing the local wildlife. After a few years (a relatively short time in a developed fort) my hunters become useless. That sucks. It's also unrealistic to depopulate a whole region from one single embark location.
(3) All or nothing traps. As they exist now, traps are either a perfect defense or perfectly useless. Having a 27% chance that an enemy would trigger some traps would complicate defense design and be a welcome challenge.
(4) Relatively easy enemies. Orcs are popular for a reason, and I'm glad that we're able to mod them in, but the game would be better if it hostiles became more challenging over time, or if there were a way to ratchet up the difficulty in-game.
(5) The relatively sparse maps produced by the world generator default. The sheer amount of time dedicated to world generation on the forums is a testament to how much players want a map incorporating many (or all) of the features DF provides, and even with all the work people have done I still can't find maps with all the features I'm looking for. I'm not saying every embark location should have every feature, but it should be easier to find some locations that allow you to play with everything the game has to offer.
(6) Useless items/workshops. Alchemy? Toy hammers? Golden Salve? I can't really complain about this in an alpha release, but I will anyway since it's true.
Regarding new players, I plan on trying to get a few of my friends hooked on the game as soon as finals are over. I'm going to give them copies of 40d16 with tilesets, modify the init file to make things easier on them (fluid depth, pop cap, economy off), modify the cat raw, write a quick FAQ for them, and tattoo the Wiki URL on the back of their hands. I think there's a good chance they'll stick with it. :)
Finally, props to you and Toady for this awesome game!
-Graebeard
Post by: Foa on December 15, 2009, 09:51:37 pm
The interface is going to be improved.
Musical programming will come later.
Get 40d##
Animals will become able to enter from the edges of the map, and breed, after update.
Traps will be nerfed.
Damaging will be fixed, so killing will become harder.
Useless shit will become more useful.
Post by: darkflagrance on December 15, 2009, 11:02:44 pm
Get 40d##
For me, and most likely many others, 40d## represents a gain of 5 fps, if at all. Turning off temperature, rain, partial print, etc. works, but I'd like to see pathfinding addressed soon...
Post by: o_O[WTFace] on December 15, 2009, 11:12:06 pm
Controlling your dorfs is very indirect and subtle. There are lots things you need to do to ensure that stuff happens, and lots of tricks, sploits and subtle suggestions are required to make specific things happen (IE encrusting this table and only this table). Also it should be possible to set priorities like: Plant until the fields are full, and only then go and make bolts until bones are used up and only then go haul. This is really important for time critical things like tanning and LEVERS. Trade especially took me half a dozen forts before I got to work, even looking at the wiki.
Second, the difficulty in managing a continuous flow of resources. It should be possible (with whatever bookkeeping and paperwork requirements) to tell my cook to keep my stocks of prepared meals around 100 and make more as neccisary but don't make extra because I don't need them.
The various buildings, constructions, designations, zones and what not are confusing. They make perfect sense to me now, but it took a while to figure out what sorts of things I needed to designate and what sorts of things need a building.
A tutorial, or example fort would be great. Just something basic that shows how to embark, dig, farm, make stuff and trade.
FPS is fine for me, but other people must be suffering. There should be an option to abstract things, like water falling from a river into a chasm becomes "watefall" tiles that eat all the water they touch and emit mist sometimes, but otherwise don't need any falling/pressure calculations unless you mess with them.
Post by: Foa on December 15, 2009, 11:22:02 pm
First, obviously the graphics. Some basic tileset needs to be the default because 90% of computer users are just not ever going to go in and change the init, even if its easy.There are like 45 points of delaggifying options in the init, primarily focused on easing graphic rendering.
Controlling your dorfs is very indirect and subtle. There are lots things you need to do to ensure that stuff happens, and lots of tricks, sploits and subtle suggestions are required to make specific things happen (IE encrusting this table and only this table). Also it should be possible to set priorities like: Plant until the fields are full, and only then go and make bolts until bones are used up and only then go haul. This is really important for time critical things like tanning and LEVERS. Trade especially took me half a dozen forts before I got to work, even looking at the wiki.
Second, the difficulty in managing a continuous flow of resources. It should be possible (with whatever bookkeeping and paperwork requirements) to tell my cook to keep my stocks of prepared meals around 100 and make more as neccisary but don't make extra because I don't need them.
The various buildings, constructions, designations, zones and what not are confusing. They make perfect sense to me now, but it took a while to figure out what sorts of things I needed to designate and what sorts of things need a building.
A tutorial, or example fort would be great. Just something basic that shows how to embark, dig, farm, make stuff and trade.
FPS is fine for me, but other people must be suffering. There should be an option to abstract things, like water falling from a river into a chasm becomes "watefall" tiles that eat all the water they touch and emit mist sometimes, but otherwise don't need any falling/pressure calculations unless you mess with them.
Indirect? INDIRECT? You set 1,2,3 to haul, and then designate stocpiles, they haul, you are basically telling them what they should do, but not select what they'll do, the way you counteract this is by dis/enabling some labors.
You can send military to do what and where, and what to bring.
There is a merit to the repeat task button, and the manager mandates ( which you mandate ) .
Hey, ever try leading a civilization of 7 to a civilization of 100+ ?
People have made like a billion tutorials, and VIDEO tutorials.
Post by: Keevu on December 15, 2009, 11:45:07 pm
Post by: Lost Requiem on December 16, 2009, 06:38:37 pm
Post by: Blacken on December 16, 2009, 11:38:12 pm
Yeah, I know it can't be fixed easily. But I have learned to adapt to pretty much everything else. It's just that there is a not-all-that-hard-to-hit limit after which I can't play anymore because the framerate implodes. Then I stop playing DF for a couple weeks.
Post by: Cheddarius on December 16, 2009, 11:45:05 pm
Post by: Durin on December 16, 2009, 11:55:35 pm
Performance.
Yeah, I know it can't be fixed easily. But I have learned to adapt to pretty much everything else. It's just that there is a not-all-that-hard-to-hit limit after which I can't play anymore because the framerate implodes. Then I stop playing DF for a couple weeks.
It's kinda funny. My first week or so playing this I made the comment that it was rather ridiculous to need a $5000+ computer to play a game with hardly any graphics. I thought I was exagerating at the time.... Someone even made fun of me for saying it. I think in retrospect this appears to be a very, very common and serious drawback to the game.
Post by: Reasonableman on December 17, 2009, 12:19:51 am
Post by: Blacken on December 17, 2009, 12:21:47 am
I play on an $800 laptop and can swing pretty big fortresses, usually 5x5 or 6x6 with mountains. I intentionally limit myself to 100 dwarves and kill off any extras, but I mean, seriously, all the cool stuff tanks performance. Rivers? Ow. Waterfalls? OW. Sieges? OH GOD OW. Clowns? AAAAAAAAAAH MAKE THE SINGLE FRAMES STOP (well, flaming clowns anyway). I love the detail, and as a programmer myself I know how much of a cast-iron bitch it can be to make complex stuff run at a reasonable pace, but it still really is what throws me out of playing.Performance.
Yeah, I know it can't be fixed easily. But I have learned to adapt to pretty much everything else. It's just that there is a not-all-that-hard-to-hit limit after which I can't play anymore because the framerate implodes. Then I stop playing DF for a couple weeks.
It's kinda funny. My first week or so playing this I made the comment that it was rather ridiculous to need a $5000+ computer to play a game with hardly any graphics. I thought I was exagerating at the time.... Someone even made fun of me for saying it. I think in retrospect this appears to be a very, very common and serious drawback to the game.
Post by: Roxorius on December 17, 2009, 12:34:49 am
The real problem with DF? Interface issues and three different keys (like F9, Enter, and Space) often doing the same function in different contexts. The controls need far more uniformity and logic.
Post by: Halmie on December 17, 2009, 12:53:10 am
I just didn't understand how to do anything. A simple guide that says: -> that is the designations menu, press d then d again if you want to dig would of helped immensly.
Post by: Graebeard on December 17, 2009, 12:55:41 am
Idiot dwarves.
Actually, this is one of the things I love about the game. It frustrated me to no end when I started, but now I (gladly) view it as a challenge and play accordingly. Don't want to wall in your dorfs? Designate walls in the proper order and they won't get stuck. Don't want them to go halfway across the world to get raw materials for workshops? Learn the custom stockpile system.
If it were any easier, or if the dorfs were any smarter I think I'd have gotten bored already.
Post by: Cheddarius on December 17, 2009, 01:12:34 am
Actually, this is one of the things I love about the game.To each his own, I guess. But for my part, I think I'd rather make a challenge for myself (glass tower, etc.) than have the challenge be that all your dwarves are compulsively trying to kill themselves.
But hey - again, to each his own; let every player find fun his or her own way.
Post by: Asmodeous on December 17, 2009, 09:56:43 am
Post by: Andir on December 17, 2009, 01:10:53 pm
It would be nice to be able to select a dwarfs, right click and have a menu open with context sensitive options for what you have selected. Also, right hold drawing: Right button hold, draw a box, release button, menu pops up, select dump, hide, harvest or whatever is possible with said items.
Post by: Halmie on December 17, 2009, 07:52:33 pm
There is mouse functionality for designations, but it's not very good. You should be able to use it as if you were using a mouse in MSPaint when it's zoomed all the way in. Drawing boxes, fills, circles, etc.
It would be nice to be able to select a dwarfs, right click and have a menu open with context sensitive options for what you have selected. Also, right hold drawing: Right button hold, draw a box, release button, menu pops up, select dump, hide, harvest or whatever is possible with said items.
Not enough mouse control. You got my vote.
Post by: Flaede on December 18, 2009, 07:05:31 am
On a similar note, I don't like having to go rescue dwarves that accidentally strand themselves on top of a perch or behind a wall during construction. I nearly lost 5 dorfs that way.
Bahaha! They're idiots, it's why you're in charge.
I LOVE that part. It reminds me of Lemmings.
Post by: Cheddarius on December 18, 2009, 12:34:36 pm
On a similar note, I don't like having to go rescue dwarves that accidentally strand themselves on top of a perch or behind a wall during construction. I nearly lost 5 dorfs that way.I heard there's a fix for that: Suppose you want to wall up a room. Build one wall inside the room, adjacent to your "real" wall, and suspend it. Build the "real" wall. Your dwarf will go to build the real wall, but he can't do it while standing on a suspended construction, so he'll do it from the other, safe side - from outside the room. When you're done, remove the order for construction on the fake wall.
However, if you're building an actual long wall with 10 tiles, you'd have to build each tile individually which would be annoying.
Post by: Graebeard on December 18, 2009, 05:24:51 pm
However, if you're building an actual long wall with 10 tiles, you'd have to build each tile individually which would be annoying.
Actually, I just build 9 at once, and then go back for the last one when they're done and all my dorfs are safe. It also works really well to just build corners either first or last, depending on whether you're on the inside or outside of the walls.
Post by: numerobis on December 18, 2009, 08:08:23 pm
There are some excellent tutorials out there, and there's the wiki. They're all third-party, but I think it's low priority for DF itself to incorporate any. If you want to avoid linking directly to somebody's website, link to a google search for dwarf fortress wiki and dwarf fortress tutorial.
Better speed would be nice, too, especially faster pathfinding. I feel dirty whenever I figure out there's an ambush because suddenly the world stopped. But that's not what gets me annoyed at the game, and it's not what drives my friends away: the UI is.
Post by: Devast on December 19, 2009, 04:08:16 am
Idiot dwarves.
This.
Dwarf walling himself in=kinda frustrating but nothing serious
Dwarfmarksman wondering aimlessly by himself outside the fort AFTER I tell the squad to stand down=WTF arhhhh.
Post by: CanadianWolverine on December 19, 2009, 07:03:31 pm
There is mouse functionality for designations, but it's not very good. You should be able to use it as if you were using a mouse in MSPaint when it's zoomed all the way in. Drawing boxes, fills, circles, etc.
It would be nice to be able to select a dwarfs, right click and have a menu open with context sensitive options for what you have selected. Also, right hold drawing: Right button hold, draw a box, release button, menu pops up, select dump, hide, harvest or whatever is possible with said items.
Not enough mouse control. You got my vote.
Agreed, between not having the above mouse selections (which seems odd considering all the functionality seems to be there, just with a vast list of keys to be memorized instead), ASCII, and no in game tutorial for beginners, those were what first stumped me big time. Er, what am I saying, it still stumps me, I just boot up DF and watch the original party go crazy and die of neglect or the wildlife and then read stories about other people's amazing forts, like Boatmurdered and stuff. Still love DF though - I know, I am crazy.
Post by: Cheddarius on December 19, 2009, 08:05:00 pm
Actually, I just build 9 at once, and then go back for the last one when they're done and all my dorfs are safe.Er, I mean if you have a wall outside, and then want to build a wall on top of it - do you see what I mean? Then you have to build every tile in a specific order, outmost to innermost.
Post by: darkflagrance on December 19, 2009, 08:37:16 pm
Actually, I just build 9 at once, and then go back for the last one when they're done and all my dorfs are safe.Er, I mean if you have a wall outside, and then want to build a wall on top of it - do you see what I mean? Then you have to build every tile in a specific order, outmost to innermost.
What I do is build stairs adjacent to the entire wall as scaffolding, and tear that done when.
Or, you can also build a narrow allure (wall walk) behind the wall where your dwarves can stand to build the wall.
Edit: I must have been really sleepy making this post...
Post by: Cheddarius on December 19, 2009, 09:18:47 pm
Post by: Andir on December 20, 2009, 12:57:49 am
Ah, scaffolding... I always cringe when I hear that in meetings concerning new code projects...Actually, I just build 9 at once, and then go back for the last one when they're done and all my dorfs are safe.Er, I mean if you have a wall outside, and then want to build a wall on top of it - do you see what I mean? Then you have to build every tile in a specific order, outmost to innermost.
What I do is build stairs adjacent to the entire wall as scaffolding, and tear that done when.
Or, you can also build a narrow allure (wall walk) behind the wall where your dwarfs can stand to build the wall.
I build the corners, then the walls after. It helps to define the boundary. I've not built a double high wall without a floor though so you got me there. I guess I'd probably end up building a scaffolding then, but I wouldn't like it! It violates my coder nature to build something that's just going to be deleted later.
Post by: PermanentInk on December 21, 2009, 05:27:45 pm
It violates my coder nature to build something that's just going to be deleted later.
If you don't mind hearing my own opinion as a software engineer, I think this is a counterproductive habit of thought. Being too attached to not deleting your code can lead you to make poor decisions, because quite often deleting code is exactly the right thing to do (my most productive days are ones where I delete tons of code).
One of the most important programming skills I know of is being able to look at what's going on with fresh eyes and say, okay, what are we really doing here, and do we need all this? Could we be doing it in a different way?
The important thing to acknowledge is that you will understand your problem better over time, so it's not necessarily right to front-load a bunch of analysis effort and try to get it exactly right the first time. Often it's far better to build something quick and basic that works, and in the course of using and integrating that piece into the whole, you learn more about how it should be. You gain more information for less effort this way, and you can afford more iterations to get it rock-solid.
Rather than me typing up a long tirade on it and derail the thread, though, I recommend that you google the phrase "build one to throw away" and see what others have had to say about it.
Post by: Andir on December 21, 2009, 06:01:49 pm
Err, I think you read too much into what I said and maybe took it too far. I delete lots of code (most of it the other people in the office that are doing it wrong ;)) but I tend to dislike creating my own throw away code unless it's necessary. There's a difference between re-factoring, and just simply throwing up code to make something work for the boss. I tend to plan out my program and create it "the old fashioned way" instead of the new "agile development" ways where you barf up something then go back and fix all it's problems. Yes, barf coding leads to faster demonstrable items, but it also leads to some of the particularly fun sites like DailyWTF. Have I done it... Yes. Have I hated to do it? Yes. Have I learned from it? Yes. But jumping the gun by saying I NEVER do something because I said I hated to do something just is taking what I said WAY too seriously.It violates my coder nature to build something that's just going to be deleted later.Being too attached to not deleting your code can lead you to make poor decisions, because quite often deleting code is exactly the right thing to do (my most productive days are ones where I delete tons of code).
One of the most important programming skills I know of is being able to look at what's going on with fresh eyes and say, okay, what are we really doing here, and do we need all this? Could we be doing it in a different way?
Like Fortress development, I tend to plan out a layout scheme (and sometimes graph it out on paper) before I get started instead of some of the other folks who just throw rooms wherever it suits them. I'll have a small tunnel running off into somewhere that looks totally random, but in reality it was an already planned location for a housing tower and I just wasn't ready to dig out the stuff around it yet... but I needed the rooms. So I quickly dig out a single tunnel that follows predetermined halls counting the squares I need to get into that tower structure and slowly start working my way there. It means less starting my fortresses over "aka deleting code" because I didn't think about the problem ahead of time. I know how many rooms I need. I know that I'm going to put them in stacks. I know I need to keep them X units from workshops and that needs to be around resources... if you go in like you state you just get a cluster of garbage layouts. Sure, you get a fort built up fast, but it's not very efficient.
It's not counterproductive unless your productivity doesn't care about quality... and I know a lot of coders that don't care about doing it right. I don't know how many times I've had to correct some of my coworkers classes that use public variables as parameters, non-thread-safe static vars that worked for their test, but caused all kinds of garbage in production data and cleaning up after them countless times... but they got commended by the boss for getting in early and decried later for the code I showed him later that caused X problem that lost the company three times their salaries worth. Yeah... I'll stick to a well planned development cycle and enjoy the commendation pointing out how they screwed up by coding once and not throwing away because they got pulled to another project and ran out of time to go back and fix it.
Post by: PermanentInk on December 21, 2009, 11:24:10 pm
Post by: Cheddarius on December 21, 2009, 11:56:30 pm
Post by: Neruz on December 22, 2009, 03:54:44 am
Post by: Neonivek on December 22, 2009, 09:37:22 am
Usually it is to allow the game to function before the pernament features are put in place.
Placeholders?
Post by: Cheddarius on December 22, 2009, 09:55:50 am
Post by: Neonivek on December 22, 2009, 09:59:56 am
Well, yeah, but they are not really scaffolding in the same sense, I think. The scaffolding in construction is absolutely required because you can't build otherwise. The game scaffolding isn't really necessary; you could theoretically program it the right way the first time.
Well you don't need Scaffholding to build buildings either. It just becomes obscenely complicated and absurd (And you would have to change your design significantly)
Without code scaffholding you effectively have to bug test everything at once since you cannot isolate (Well somewhat, you can test code onto itself but not how it works if it works fine code wise.). It is the equivilant of skipping Alpha and Beta.
Post by: Googolplexed on December 22, 2009, 10:19:07 am
Toady has said that its a bit of a place holder, later he wants to actually get a proper cave-in simulation.
Scaffolding is useful, it allows you to develop a working version faster, instead of taking years to develop the entire program and then release it at once. Not to mention that it allows you to tell if the program is actually good/fun(Very important in games :) ) before spending years finishing it.
at the rate at which toady is developing DF it will take many years to complete, is it better to be able to play it now, or would you wait and play the entire game at once, which without feedback might not even be good.
The current invasions are a current placeholder to test larger scale combat, the armies are generated out of thin air, later in the army arc today will strip this and add in proper invasion forces and armies
Post by: Andir on December 22, 2009, 11:25:05 am
Post by: Rozen on January 28, 2010, 03:58:02 pm
Post by: zwei on January 28, 2010, 04:21:25 pm
And if you can not write something to be testable, you have huge problems in design.
Post by: Supercharazad on January 30, 2010, 03:43:13 pm
!"£$%^&*()_+
1234567890-=
Post by: Malrin on January 30, 2010, 07:16:51 pm
If I get a fortress going without one of those features, I'm stuck without it unless I want to restart with a measly 7 dwarves and a wagon. This means that either I suck it up and don't use Adamantine/magma, or I spend hours genning worlds and failing to find anything using the site finder.
If Dwarf Fortress could be adapted so that a Fortress mode game could overcome lack of resources, lag due to large sites, aquifer frustration, lack of good neighbors, or other problems from having a fixed site, that would be great.
I made a thread in Suggestions about Mass fortress migrations. Mass migrations, though somewhat unrealistic and un-fortresslike, would solve every problem I've ever had with this game. Check it out:
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=47674.msg963178#msg963178
Post by: MrWiggles on January 30, 2010, 08:40:50 pm
My biggest problem is that I have to find a site with everything. It must be 4x4 (to avoid lags) and must have/be HFS, Magma Pipe, Underground river, Aboveground river, Cold climate, Terrifying, flux, and a chasm.
If I get a fortress going without one of those features, I'm stuck without it unless I want to restart with a measly 7 dwarves and a wagon. This means that either I suck it up and don't use Adamantine/magma, or I spend hours genning worlds and failing to find anything using the site finder.
If Dwarf Fortress could be adapted so that a Fortress mode game could overcome lack of resources, lag due to large sites, aquifer frustration, lack of good neighbors, or other problems from having a fixed site, that would be great.
I made a thread in Suggestions about Mass fortress migrations. Mass migrations, though somewhat unrealistic and un-fortresslike, would solve every problem I've ever had with this game. Check it out:
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=47674.msg963178#msg963178
What turns you off are the sites you choose to play on and choose not to play on? oO
Post by: Cheddarius on January 30, 2010, 08:54:08 pm
For example, if you want dolomite veins, you could just get any old site, find some random stone that is in veins (say, microcline), and pretend that microcline is dolomite. Then replace an existing reaction (something dumb like fine pewter) with 100 microcline > 100 dolomite.
Post by: nenjin on January 30, 2010, 09:00:30 pm
For example, the last three caravans to my map have gotten ambushed the second they've reached the map, and I'm need of some supplies. The magnitude of what it will take to ensure the caravan's survival from now on is....daunting. Maybe I'll just do it the lazy way, and stake 20 war dogs out in the middle of no where as goblin bait, and buy myself at least one caravan trade.
It's still enjoyable, but DF definitely appeals to people with a masochistic sense of gaming sometimes.
I'd say graphics, but Mayday helps a lot with that. Sometimes the tinyness of the tiles wears my eyes out too.
Post by: darkflagrance on January 30, 2010, 10:13:44 pm
Malrin, you could try ignoring flux and just building in a reaction for any rare stone to become flux.
For example, if you want dolomite veins, you could just get any old site, find some random stone that is in veins (say, microcline), and pretend that microcline is dolomite. Then replace an existing reaction (something dumb like fine pewter) with 100 microcline > 100 dolomite.
Or just give microcline the [FLUX] tag.
I suppose there's a point where the amount of decisions and repercussions you have to deal with starts becoming a turn off for me. I know that's the core of "fun," but as a new player who still has dreams of things just the way they want them...at times I find myself staring at the game on pause going "ugh, I know where I need to start, I just don't want to."
For example, the last three caravans to my map have gotten ambushed the second they've reached the map, and I'm need of some supplies. The magnitude of what it will take to ensure the caravan's survival from now on is....daunting. Maybe I'll just do it the lazy way, and stake 20 war dogs out in the middle of no where as goblin bait, and buy myself at least one caravan trade.
It's still enjoyable, but DF definitely appeals to people with a masochistic sense of gaming sometimes.
Luckily, a lot of the "Fun" can be avoided by strategic turning-off of things in the init file such as temperature, invasions, artifacts/moods, the economy, cave-ins, and so on. Furthermore, changing a few easy things in the creature raws can make it so that you never need to farm, brew, or even make beds, and that your dwarves give birth to 10 children at once who grow up in a year and regularly replace lost workforce.
If you know how to go about it, Dwarf Fortress can be an infinitely open sandbox. My current project is recreating an above-ground city out of stone made by custom reactions in my smelter in groups of 10,000 (to see if built blocks cause lag). My dwarves haven't built any farms or beds yet, nor do they need them while they zip around at twice the speed of elves.
Post by: nenjin on January 30, 2010, 10:28:26 pm
Still, pretty ambiguous turn off at worst. I guess I've just gotten soft after a steady diet of softcore games. Did anyone here play Ragnarok, the DOS game? DF reminds a lot of that in so many ways. Great fun to play, but draining sometimes.
Post by: Percival on January 30, 2010, 11:28:02 pm
My current gripes with the game, that often make me tired of playing it and put it aside for a while (ignoring graphics, difficulty level, obvious bugs, and other eternal issues):
1. Except for fps rate (an eternal issue). The game is just too unwieldy, and it really sucks that there is very little I can do about it. It makes playing later-stage fortresses really painful.
2. It can often be a drag assigning certain workshop jobs. The one that comes to mind is the jeweler's workshop. There should be a generic "cut a rough gem" job and a generic "encrust x with a cut gem" job. I find it to be a major chore to have to go to my stocks screen, write down how much of each gem I have, and then translate it into work assignments. I am equally frustrated with other jobs, but for different reasons, of course. The main reason being that I don't initially know how much of a resource a certain product requires. Some sort of Stocks - Work Manager coordination would be primo. This could be considered nitpicking, but it does take up a lot of my time.
3. Fluids. I find that water behaves more like a gel or goop than a liquid. This is an issue where the loss of immersion in the experience due to dealing with weird game mechanics is frustrating enough to overbalance the notion that I need to just adapt and move on.
4. Pathfinding / Dwarven stupidity. I'd like the guys to be a little smarter, a little snappier when I make decisions. It seems like a drain to have to build and then suspend building walls behind the walls I actually want to build so my masons don't trap themselves.
Of course, none of these problems have been bad enough to actually turn me off, but they stand out as major points of criticism.
Keep up the good work!
Post by: Deneidez on January 31, 2010, 08:33:14 am
- Clutter & ambushes. If you don't care about stuff outside your fortress, your fps will drop. If you care, your dorfs will be killed in ambush for sure and clutter even more.
- Game is getting way too easy.
Post by: Malrin on January 31, 2010, 09:31:04 pm
I want to be able to access all features of Dwarf Fortress with one fortress game. Am I cursed with an aquifer? Do I want to destroy a chasm but there are none in my site? Is the lag unbearable because my map is too large for 300+ creatures? Did I just use up the last of my Adamantine? No problem! Just move to a different site and I don't lose my population, history, artifacts, 999999+ barrels of Dwarven Wine, etc. No more restarting with 7 (relatively) unskilled dwarves and a wagon. No more waiting for migrant waves, building up wealth, or designing infrastructure to build a base in which to do more crazy shit in a different location. (well, i'd have to make another fort, but it'll be much faster with my army of 30 miners from my old fort.)
Nomadic dwarves for the win.
Post by: Garth on February 01, 2010, 02:39:29 am
When I first discovered the game from /v/ I was determined to learn it from just knowing how incredible it was.
I go to the game, and only thing I could say was, "WHAT THE FUCK".
I had no idea what ANYTHING was, all of those curls and lines made no sense.
So perhaps an option at the embark/worldgen/first-time startup screen do this:
Simply display a few options such as
"Which graphics pack would you prefer to use?"
And below list popular ones, such as MayDay or others. Then allow a brief preview pic to pop up at selection.
I honestly don't think this would be to hard to code in.
Also the fact that some menus allow the arrow keys for scrolling, like trading or custom stockpiles, while everything else requires + and -.
And for laptops users like myself who lack a numpad, the [shift] + [=] combination can get a bit annoying.
Just a few things being pointed out from a new player :^D
Post by: Qloos on February 01, 2010, 08:47:19 am
Post by: zwei on February 01, 2010, 08:58:52 am
Also the fact that some menus allow the arrow keys for scrolling, like trading or custom stockpiles, while everything else requires + and -.
Or the joy that is direction keys.
arrows or uhkm or wasd. In some constructions you end up using all three at same time (position bridge by arrows, resize by uhkm, set raise direction by wasd).
Post by: random51 on February 01, 2010, 09:36:39 am
I think having a built-in tileset that isn't just ASCII would help new people as well. I got by without a tileset for months but when I finally got around to trying one I switched immediately and never even thought of going back. I can tell what is going on with a tileset, without one I might as well be staring at The Matrix.
Add a link to the main menu the fires up the default system browser and takes them to the main page of the Dwarf Fortress Wiki, or at least mention it prominently somewhere first time players will see it.
Nowadays there are only two things that turn me off:
1. Slowdown. Even on a good computer I had problems with maps larger than 3x3. On the POS I'm using now Nano Fortress is saving the day by allowing me to go smaller than 2x2.
2. Finding a good embark. While one way to have fun is to make do with whatever fate hands you there is also fun to be had by trying to make a fortress with everything. It would be nice if world generation could be modded in such a way that part of the worldgen was a requirement for a specific site type. Perhaps something like Finder with a bit more granularity that is used before worldgen, not after, to set site parameters.
Post by: Thundrim on February 01, 2010, 10:54:59 am
When starting out, it was somewhat confusing to have to expand let's say farms through one set of keys, when you could set up other areas just by dragging the cursor and make almost instant squares. I guess navigating through the different interface modes required a bit of study. Found the Wiki though, and then things proceeded rather well.
To say the Wiki was and is helpful, is an understatement. To look up what the different workshops did, and how they related to the other ones, was a great help. I'm sadly one of those graphic-huggers, and as such require a set of composed pixels in a rudimentary shape illustrating the action, to carry on without a tantrum.
Finding a site with the proper resources can be a pain in the Gluteus Maximus this very day, but quite frankly, you tend to be more picky as time marches on, it's a pain to generate a map in let's say Civ 4 with the desired shape and form, so it's perhaps as much a problem with the player as with the game. ;-)
---
Post by: Omegastick on February 01, 2010, 11:32:43 am
Post by: Deon on February 01, 2010, 01:37:42 pm
Also, I still look in the wiki to check the values of stones and other minor things. It's really 200% useful.
Post by: Puzzlemaker on February 01, 2010, 02:43:19 pm
:( :-\ :'(
Post by: Deon on February 01, 2010, 03:41:16 pm
:( :-\ :'( :( :) :D ;D
Post by: G-Flex on February 01, 2010, 03:50:52 pm
Thundrim: I think it will become even worse in the new version :). Yes, we will get more different new features everywhere, but now we will want not only magma and underground rivers, but these features as well :). => Tons of regens
How does that result in "tons of regens" when all or most of those features, including magma, will be on essentially every embark area?
Oh, and there won't be any underground rivers at all.
I think you're just a bit confused about how the new underground system works.
Making custom reactions or editing microcline to be a flux material solves the flux problem, but I still want a map with everything on it.
I don't think DF should ever allow this, personally.
Giving you everything no matter where you are makes site choice effectively meaningless, and if that happens, civs can never have conflicts over resources, and all the detail put into the geographical/geological features will be moot, not to mention the basic strategy involved in choosing a site that best fits what you want to do and adapting to it.
Post by: Durin on February 01, 2010, 06:25:07 pm
Thundrim: I think it will become even worse in the new version :). Yes, we will get more different new features everywhere, but now we will want not only magma and underground rivers, but these features as well :). => Tons of regens
How does that result in "tons of regens" when all or most of those features, including magma, will be on essentially every embark area?
Oh, and there won't be any underground rivers at all.
I think you're just a bit confused about how the new underground system works.Making custom reactions or editing microcline to be a flux material solves the flux problem, but I still want a map with everything on it.
I don't think DF should ever allow this, personally.
Giving you everything no matter where you are makes site choice effectively meaningless, and if that happens, civs can never have conflicts over resources, and all the detail put into the geographical/geological features will be moot, not to mention the basic strategy involved in choosing a site that best fits what you want to do and adapting to it.
That's all well and good, but you can't even buy the stuff from other regions at an exorbitant price. I am only just now hearing that the new underground is totally different, so I guess I will suspend judgment, but to my way of thinking, yes... You should be able to find a site with everything the game has to offer without having to regen worlds continually.
My new pet peeve is balance. Dogs are not as fast as dwarfs. I don't care how frightfully experienced a dwarf is, it does not outrun a dog. Now, I've never seen a kobold, but in my humble opinion same concept applies.
Also, trapped dwarfs due to pathing. I don't find it "fun". I find it annoying and emblematic of what happens when one person tries to do what a team of people ought to be doing. This should have been fixed like... when it was first noted to occur. It's just dumb. It is not a challenge; it does not add to the character of the game; it is not a particularly hard nut to crack code wise. It is infuriating and I hates it my precious. KILLS THE BAGGINSES!!!!
Er.. ahem. Sorry.
Those are the two highest at this point.
Post by: nenjin on February 01, 2010, 07:31:22 pm
So I try not to take balance too seriously, because the lack of balance is what makes DF fun in the end. It's what lets you do all sorts of broken and ultimately pointless things.
My biggest objection to the speed difference between your average dwarves and dogs isn't that its unrealistic...it's that my dogs assigned to protect important dwarves are never there when I need them.
The pathing AI just needs another pass, like half of the game. If you choose to let one particular problem annoy you, it's a crap shoot when it will actually get development time back into it.
Although yeah, this particular one has been bugging me too lately. Trying to finish off an expansion to my fortress gates (again) and constructing one critical block results in a trapped worker.
After racing to get the worker out of the spot by breaking a hole in my defenses, no one will clear the rubble so I can plug the gap. So my defenses are open and the goblins can side-step my trap field, and the trader just showed up with their customary 17 goblins. Lovely. It made me put the game down last night (that and the time) because I just didn't want to deal with the hassle of it.
I guess a real pet peeve of mine is that dwarves tend to go after objects on z-levels above them rather than actually evaluating what's underground vs above ground, what's in a stockpile, what's not in a stockpile....I'm sure it saves on processing....but I have soldiers during siege conditions leaving my fortress to grab a shield that's been there since the start of the game. That's just bloody infuriating, especially when I have 15 shields SITTING IN THE ARMORY NEXT TO THE MAIN ARTERIAL OF THE WHOLE FORTRESS, TWO STEPS FROM WHERE I ACTIVATED THEM. I've screamed at dwarves more than once for that, and is the primary reason I scumsave, usually because I don't know about until I get the notice they're bleeding to death.
I know I should be using orders and forbidding/claiming left and right...but juggling all that for a yearly siege is just another set of tedious labors the player has to handle. Hopefully that gets addressed in full by the whole "dwarves sorting out their own equipment."
Post by: Durin on February 02, 2010, 01:12:22 am
Balance, as broad as that term is, is just another symptom of how big the development load is for DF. "Animals" from a true balance perspective, are broke in more ways that one. Let them breed uncontrolled for 5 years and you can have a brainless military 10x the size of your fortress. I don't care how bad ass that troll is, throw 50 warhounds just at him and he's dead.
So I try not to take balance too seriously, because the lack of balance is what makes DF fun in the end. It's what lets you do all sorts of broken and ultimately pointless things.
My biggest objection to the speed difference between your average dwarves and dogs isn't that its unrealistic...it's that my dogs assigned to protect important dwarves are never there when I need them.
The pathing AI just needs another pass, like half of the game. If you choose to let one particular problem annoy you, it's a crap shoot when it will actually get development time back into it.
Although yeah, this particular one has been bugging me too lately. Trying to finish off an expansion to my fortress gates (again) and constructing one critical block results in a trapped worker.
After racing to get the worker out of the spot by breaking a hole in my defenses, no one will clear the rubble so I can plug the gap. So my defenses are open and the goblins can side-step my trap field, and the trader just showed up with their customary 17 goblins. Lovely. It made me put the game down last night (that and the time) because I just didn't want to deal with the hassle of it.
I guess a real pet peeve of mine is that dwarves tend to go after objects on z-levels above them rather than actually evaluating what's underground vs above ground, what's in a stockpile, what's not in a stockpile....I'm sure it saves on processing....but I have soldiers during siege conditions leaving my fortress to grab a shield that's been there since the start of the game. That's just bloody infuriating, especially when I have 15 shields SITTING IN THE ARMORY NEXT TO THE MAIN ARTERIAL OF THE WHOLE FORTRESS, TWO STEPS FROM WHERE I ACTIVATED THEM. I've screamed at dwarves more than once for that, and is the primary reason I scumsave, usually because I don't know about until I get the notice they're bleeding to death.
I know I should be using orders and forbidding/claiming left and right...but juggling all that for a yearly siege is just another set of tedious labors the player has to handle. Hopefully that gets addressed in full by the whole "dwarves sorting out their own equipment."
I believe in my heart of hearts that proper balance does not lead to more problems, but less. In the aforementioned example, a troll should be able to squash a half dozen dogs at a time. I had a dragon invasion for the first time today... very anticlimactic. He belched flame once, and I can't even tell who at, supposedly. No one appears to have even been singed. Then three legendary wrestlers killed him without incident.
Wrestlers.
Is there some reason the dragon is smaller than a wagon?
Anyhow... we'll see. I have some pet construction projects I want to do before DF will be a complete loss to me, and I cannot complain at all given the entertainment I have gotten out of it, but my involvement will likely slack off considerable after that if some of the really basic stuff is not handled. This stuff gets more and more important the further you try to expand the arcs.
And the single best thing about this game is how it generates stories, and there's barely anything to make sure you can actually FIND all the stories you generate. I can't count on my fingers and toes all the times someone has died and I have to shut down the whole game, save, restart, abandon fortress, go slogging through the history in legends mode, just to get an idea WHO killed the person to beg in with...???
I respect the vision and abilities of the folks here, but there is a reason undertakings like this tend to be done by teams... I dunno. We will see what it looks like when the next version is out. But unless the army arc is more challenging than I imagine, it will just be redundant. All the combat is busted due to lack of realism, hence a lack of the feeling of immersion.
I have left off playing online games of various types on much the same lines. It gets to a point where for whatever reason, no one wants to listen anymore. Dogs being faster than dwarfs is BASIC. Dragons not being kill-able by a handful of wrestlers is BASIC.
Along the lines of your shield, I had a chamber I had dug out too openly for my magma supply to full, so I made it a little maze that channeled the magma back and forth to maximize the number of magma driven forges etc I could have in one spot. In the process, I used some doors so my dwarfs did not have to walk in and out of the maze I was creating following the whole route. I began backing the doors out and replacing them with walls. The dwarfs refused to remove the doors. I built an extra furniture storage. They still refused. I built a furniture storage specifically FOR doors. They removed all but one door and put them all in the non-door-specific furniture storage...?
I'll never know why they left the last door. The storage spot for doors remains entirely empty. The door melted in the lava.
Yeah, stuff like that.
Post by: Footkerchief on February 02, 2010, 01:48:58 am
I believe in my heart of hearts that proper balance does not lead to more problems, but less. In the aforementioned example, a troll should be able to squash a half dozen dogs at a time. I had a dragon invasion for the first time today... very anticlimactic. He belched flame once, and I can't even tell who at, supposedly. No one appears to have even been singed. Then three legendary wrestlers killed him without incident.
Wrestlers.
[...]
We will see what it looks like when the next version is out. But unless the army arc is more challenging than I imagine, it will just be redundant. All the combat is busted due to lack of realism, hence a lack of the feeling of immersion.
I don't know whether you've been following development closely, but combat and the wounding system in particular have been largely reworked in the upcoming version. SirPenguin compiled a list of the new features (http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AT8EQVUjrv96ZGc5cnBwOHZfMjgyY3FzZHFtanA&hl=en) -- look for the "Combat" section in particular. The entire skill/attribute system has also been replaced. Toady has done a lot of balance testing with the new combat system. The net effect is that yeah, it'll probably be a lot harder for your wrestlers to take down a dragon.
I can't count on my fingers and toes all the times someone has died and I have to shut down the whole game, save, restart, abandon fortress, go slogging through the history in legends mode, just to get an idea WHO killed the person to beg in with...???
The next version provides full Adv. Mode-style combat reports in Fortress Mode, so you won't have to go poking through legends for that.
The dwarfs refused to remove the doors. I built an extra furniture storage. They still refused. I built a furniture storage specifically FOR doors. They removed all but one door and put them all in the non-door-specific furniture storage...?
I'll never know why they left the last door. The storage spot for doors remains entirely empty. The door melted in the lava.
This is the kind of thing you should submit a bug report (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?board=6.0) on. DF is a team effort in the sense that they rely on the community to find many of the smaller bugs.
Dogs being faster than dwarfs is BASIC.
Toady's aware of this problem and has confirmed that it'll be fixed at some point:
QuoteQuote from: RockphedQuote from: Topace3kQuestion for toady & friends. Are there any plans to give creatures more accurate stats? I'm talking about all creatures, above and below ground. For example, movement speed. Cheetahs are currently the same speed as cats. Wolves and such should really be able to outrun unskilled dwarves. Is any of the raw update dealing with this kind of thing, or is that for another day?
Toady One has mentioned a desire to separate movement speed from speed at other actions, though I beleive he also said it was not going to happen this release. My search fu is weak, so I can't get a betrer reference for you.Quote from: AqizzarWas the very first part of this cycle breaking creatures down into 6 physical stats and 11 mental ones? Though I recall that he had some trouble regarding separating Agility and Movement Speed.
Yeah, that's right. I can't just change the speed variable because it also influences the number of attacks (and everything else). These are going to be teased apart at some point in the combat arc, when it really starts to matter (in the sense that the current situation is untenable for "version 1" combat). When that work begins I have no idea.
In terms of attribute effects, it currently uses agility and strength to determine the change in speed from the raw value. There have been some ideas floated for how to change agility into more variables to differentiate the dancers from the surgeons and crafters, but there's something aggravating down there that is similar to the question of breaking strength up by body part (which is a bit excessive/memory hoggish), so I'm not sure what's going to happen.
Post by: MrWiggles on February 02, 2010, 03:07:09 am
Post by: Footkerchief on February 02, 2010, 03:21:51 am
Why do so many people just throw out ease of this and that, they can't possibly know all the in and out that toady does in order to really judge the difficulty of the vague idea.
What are you referring to? If you mean Durin's statement that "Dogs being faster than dwarfs is BASIC," then I don't think he meant "basic" as in "easy to implement." He meant "basic" as in "this is a basic necessity for the game to make sense." And he's right.
Post by: G-Flex on February 02, 2010, 04:46:41 am
That's all well and good, but you can't even buy the stuff from other regions at an exorbitant price.
Then the problem is that you can't buy it. The ability to, say, buy glass blocks and melt them down for your own glass items is reasonable and should exist.
Quote
but to my way of thinking, yes... You should be able to find a site with everything the game has to offer without having to regen worlds continually.
But... why? The game simulates a world full of diverse geography, geology, and biology. There's just no way you can expect all that content on a given site. You should certainly be able to import whatever's reasonable, and act on offsite matters in some ways, and these are certainly planned things for development. But really, I don't want to see elephants and ice wolves and penguins on the same map (unless something REALLY bizarre is going on), and how do you expect a map to have all possible geographical or geological features? It just wouldn't make any sense.
I think the main problem is the lack of variety of features, and the inability to import things you should be able to import, like glassmaking material. If there were a dozen or two more special features people could find on their sites, and they were all useful and interesting, people would clamor less over finding the "perfect" site.
Quote
My new pet peeve is balance. Dogs are not as fast as dwarfs. I don't care how frightfully experienced a dwarf is, it does not outrun a dog. Now, I've never seen a kobold, but in my humble opinion same concept applies.
Yeah, there are currently way too many similarities between creatures.
This will change to some degree in the next version, but I'm not sure how much or in what ways. I do know that dwarves' (and other creatures') attributes will be capped to twice their starting value, so at the least, dwarves won't get quite as fast as they do now.
Quote
I find it annoying and emblematic of what happens when one person tries to do what a team of people ought to be doing.
The complaint is legitimate, but don't assume this would be done better if more people were working on the project. Toady has stated before that he just doesn't enjoy working on stuff like this with other people, to the extent that even working with his own brother on the code wouldn't be preferable to him. That's just how he works, and while it definitely is detrimental in terms of how things get done, there's a definite trade-off in his obvious devotion to the project. And even regardless of the benefits, you can't really expect him to change how he does things that drastically.
Post by: Thanshin on February 02, 2010, 05:16:55 am
The new underground plus improved sieges (hopefully not so far in the future) will make this game not turn me off again.
The moment you build metal fortified walls with marksdwarves behind them all around your fort and it doesn't protect you because the goblins have channeled a river right into them, this game will be perfect.
Post by: Deon on February 02, 2010, 05:25:33 am
Post by: Andir on February 02, 2010, 10:54:22 am
Personally, I'd love to see the economy of the world take off a little better. If you need flux material, you should be able to tell your tradesman you want to buy flux at XXX per unit and caravans will automatically send word to who they visit and possibly buy/sell goods to profit. It would be like what like X did with bases. You could set prices on goods and trade ships would buy/sell goods from/to you. If you needed any resource, you could "post" a request on the trade board and caravans would attempt to find you goods.That's all well and good, but you can't even buy the stuff from other regions at an exorbitant price.
Then the problem is that you can't buy it. The ability to, say, buy glass blocks and melt them down for your own glass items is reasonable and should exist.
Post by: nenjin on February 02, 2010, 04:35:31 pm
Post by: nenjin on February 02, 2010, 04:55:14 pm
Quote
"I had a dragon fight some lions, and after a little bit of dragonfire and close combat, I ended up with a dragon covered with the gramatically-in-progress "lion melted fat spatter"."
Awesome.
Also..
Quote
# Small creatures are now able to take on larger creatures by pecking away at their bodies, something which was impossible in the old version.
* Thanks to the material rewrite, though, a well armored knight will fare without many problems against 20 groundhogs.
* Multiple small attacks will have a cumulative effect
In some ways, 20 wardogs bringing down a badass troll sounds even more likely now. Assuming troll skin isn't the equivalent of chainmail.
Also, wrestlers exchanging heat values. Lulz.
Oh my sweet jebus. The new attributes are exactly what I was hoping for. I could keep posting stuff out of that list all day, it's all just so amazing. The new appearances that change over time, the new interplay between body size, weight and performance.....my brain can barely handle all the awesomeness. We can now flay creatures! Does this mean we can stop butchering, and just start flaying our livestock, and have skinless animals walking around our fortress? (Those that survive the bleeding, anyways.)
Shouldn't that 'doc list be in a sticky somewhere? I know it demystified a lot of what Toady has on his own update list. I didn't really understand the scope of the materials changes until I read the second one.
Quote
The standard amount of layers (around 15) has been scrapped and increased dramatically, upwards of 50-100 layers.
Well shave my beard and call me an elf.......50 to 100?!?!?!?!?! Does this mean z-levels or something else? Because 100 z-levels in a map....the mind boggles at how much data this adds to each individual game.
Post by: LostEnder on February 02, 2010, 08:33:14 pm
For me the ASCII was a bit of a problem, mostly because DF was my first game with that sort of interface style. I was able to work through it, but I still prefer to use graphics packs. It's not really the looks that are the issue, but it adds another layer of complexity to an already overwhelming game. I realize that this is being looked at as part of the presentation arc, so I won't harp on it too much, but I do think that it would be a good idea to prepackage an official version with a tileset of Toady's choosing or design. Ideally it would be something like Crawl does, with a ASCII exe and a tiles exe. This wouldn't take a lot of Toady's time, as I'm sure that most graphics makers would be thrilled to have their work included, and would yield significant increases to the incoming player base.
Another thing that turned me off was the complexity of setting up your game options in general. Most people are unwilling to reach into the game folders, crack open a text file, and start swapping values. Even a simple "Setup" main menu option that opens the init.txt file over DF would be a significant improvement, but a proper ingame menu would be optimal. I think that the d17 version is going to do a lot to help this as well.
Another thing that I would like to see is more mouse use. The mouse input code is already in the game as part of the designation tool, but I would like to see the mouse used on the main map as well, to select tiles for the k and v views as well. This could be a step towards adding a mouse driven menu system, which really ought to be part of the game already. I don't imagine that it would be significantly difficult to define boxes over the current menu, so that you can click to select the options. Combining these two to allow you to define activity areas, constructions, and place workshops with the mouse would make the game more accessible to the people still starting out, while still keeping the speed of keyboard shortcuts for advanced users.
Also, while this wasn't much of a problem for me personally, many people can be put off by the sheer complexity of starting your first few fortresses. Genning a world, picking your site, picking your starting gear all become easier once you know what you are doing, but in the beginning, it's pretty easy to screw yourself over. A simple play-through tutorial scenario would be a great help to get people into the game. It'd be difficult to do this with the (hopefully) frequent version updates, but I think it could be done if you made it sufficiently broad in scope. Ideally, I'd like to see some/all of the youtube tutorial topics translated into in-game scenarios, but that would probably have to be a dev item of its own.
There are a number of things that I would like to see content-wise, like balancing and various features, but the dev list covers much of it. I think that the points above would significantly increase player retention and help expand the DF playerbase, with minimal development time committed. This would bring more cash in, and make it more likely that we will see V1.0 at some point.
Post by: nenjin on February 02, 2010, 08:46:38 pm
The mouse interface especially would make many things (trading, dumping stone scattered in your work areas and more) a lot less tedious to undertake.
Post by: valcon on February 02, 2010, 10:44:00 pm
I can light them on fire somehow with my nonexistant flint and tinder, but, I can't pick them and eat them? GRR.
Post by: darkflagrance on February 03, 2010, 03:53:39 am
My new pet peeve is balance. Dogs are not as fast as dwarfs. I don't care how frightfully experienced a dwarf is, it does not outrun a dog. Now, I've never seen a kobold, but in my humble opinion same concept applies.
You could help get this fixed by suggesting in the Arc mod thread (or whatever it's called in the Mod section) that contributors make an effect to find the relative speeds of their animals translated into DF numbers.
Post by: zwei on February 03, 2010, 04:00:52 am
...Another thing that turned me off was the complexity of setting up your game options in general. Most people are unwilling to reach into the game folders, crack open a text file, and start swapping values.
...
Also, while this wasn't much of a problem for me personally, many people can be put off by the sheer complexity of starting your first few fortresses. Genning a world, picking your site, picking your starting gear all become easier once you know what you are doing, but in the beginning, it's pretty easy to screw yourself over. A simple play-through tutorial scenario would be a great help to get people into the game.
It is easy to fix this for tutorial authors: You can generate world and embark (save on embark), maybe fiddle with options.
This gets rid of complexity of genning world, picking embark location and seting up embark. For new players, it is reduced to just loading game.
It also allows tutorial authors to know what players are going to face.
Post by: Thanshin on February 03, 2010, 05:07:25 am
Then I will just make "fake moats" which are filled with lava once goblins channel in :). Ah, lots of fun in future.
I meant goblins stay in the surface but dig a channel to redirect a river into your fortifications, to drown all dwarves. Exactly how I would do if I had to kill a fortress.
They could also bring in some terrariums with carps, to throw in the channels.
Post by: Dr. Hieronymous Alloy on February 03, 2010, 11:04:48 am
I like big polished engraved forts and if the digging goes wrong and I can't fix, have to start over from scratch, and sometimes I've invested too much time to do that, so I stop for a while.
Post by: nenjin on February 03, 2010, 03:34:26 pm
Post by: Dr. Hieronymous Alloy on February 03, 2010, 03:43:17 pm
That's why I plot the guts of my fortress out before anyone starts digging, and expand it a pre-planned section at a time. Doesn't stop me from making mistakes, but I make fewer.
Yeah, I do the same thing. Still, though. Last time it happened it was actually a physics mistake -- I was trying to put together a dual magma/water fountain that would make obsidian in midair above my entrance, but I misaligned the spouts, it made a drizzle castle instead, and I didn't have the heart to re-do.
Post by: Shadowfury333 on February 03, 2010, 06:16:43 pm
Post by: nenjin on February 03, 2010, 06:33:12 pm
The build menu should be reordered, with sub-menus at the top, and should be identified as such, like "Furnaces Menu" "Constructions Menu" ect...
Post by: Puzzlemaker on February 03, 2010, 10:39:06 pm
The User Interface.
:( :-\ :'(
The right order:
:( :-\ :'( :( :) :D ;D
Most of the complaints here stem from the user interface. I don't mind the ASCII as much as the horrible un-intuitive user interface.
Post by: Durin on February 04, 2010, 01:33:11 am
THis may sound weird or trivial, but for me, it's messing up dig projects and being unable to "fix" the problems because you can't engrave constructed walls.
I like big polished engraved forts and if the digging goes wrong and I can't fix, have to start over from scratch, and sometimes I've invested too much time to do that, so I stop for a while.
I have to concur. Nothing in the entire world today would be engraved if you had to do it in living stone, except a handful of stone age cave sculpts.
I have NO idea where the idea came from that constructed walls should not be engraved.
Post by: nenjin on February 04, 2010, 01:57:39 am
Post by: Footkerchief on February 04, 2010, 01:58:02 am
Nothing in the entire world today would be engraved if you had to do it in living stone, except a handful of stone age cave sculpts.
That's a bit of an oversimplification. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_cut_architecture)
Post by: Grimshot on February 04, 2010, 02:00:20 am
Not being able to remove stairs from the bottom to the top (so I can dig a pit without leaving a staircase).
Game is to easy.
Can't manage my military dwarves inventory enough to make them let go of items they wrestle away from other dwarfs. If they happen to own the item they wrestled away you can't even make them drop it with the dump command (should be fixed in the next version I think).
Deciding they are to thirsty to complete a task while almost there/almost done (Taken care of in the next version).
Not being able to engrave constructed walls/floors.
Dwarves running off into the wilderness when threatened rather then running toward saftey when they have a direct and safe path to it. Should be personality based IMO, calm ones will choose a safe route to a safe place while the less cool headed ones run in a random direction.
The reply box is starting to harrass me so I'll just leave it at that for now.
Post by: Gnoll Fortress on February 04, 2010, 09:49:55 am
Most of the interface I can work with now that I learned it but the problem I have the most with the interface is the trading screen. Selecting every item I want on the list and everything I need to sell to get it is as fun as getting poked in the eye.
Post by: DFPongo on February 04, 2010, 04:45:02 pm
Anything you want to do to a cage, you should be able to do by selecting it.
If you want to do something to all cages, that should be an option there by selecting one as well.
When ever an item is selected, the right menu should populate with the first level of all things that can be done to that item. If an list of objects contained in the outer object is relevent, there should be a selection to see that list of items, select them and bring up their menu.
If you see a sword on the floor, or see it in a body, or see it in the possesion of your hero, you should always have the option to have it melted, to upgrade it to store it or to give it to someone else.
New users would more intuitively learn what the game is about, and then graduate to the more abstract and powerful concepts in the game.
Post by: Iban on February 05, 2010, 12:15:39 am
- Dwarves are incredibly superficial. A high-quality hangout and access to a variety of beer and food will easily compensate for the loss of an entire family.
- Dwarves have Borderline Personality Disorder and will either be seemingly content and functional, or disruptive and damaging.
- Tantrum chains are far too common in my fortresses. I don't know if I'm not building enough statues or if the idle state from being unproductive (I find keeping dwarves occupied challenging) allows them to all be close friends, but I have lost every fortress thus far from self-destruction, never outside influences. There needs to be some sort of kickback mechanism that keeps dwarves from going batshit insane. If Urist McBadGuy dies, they might note the loss of a friend, but the fact that the died in jail after suffering major injuries in a brawl with the Sheriff after murdering 5 babies should somewhat ease that stress.
The Stocks Menu
- The stocks menu is just terrible. There really should be much more complex filtering settings so that I don't need to look at every tab doing things like remove dumping and foreboding item by item.
- There needs to be a way to mass-manage all "unusable" objects. I have stockpiles (11x11 blocks) of finished goods filled with "Small," "Large," and "Narrow" clothes that I want to be melted down into Crucible Steel or dumped off the god damn chasm at this point.
Production
- I have gone through about 5 very complex fortresses and have hit 200+ dwarves once now without summoning the Dwarvern Economy. I make ample use of the Job Manager when I actually need product. However, unless I just ordered a mined out slab of the mountain to be dumped into magma, my idlers hit about 75% of total population on average. I should be able to allocate "free use" items so that Dwarves may choose what crafts to build on their own. Not only does this make contributive output piles, but it keeps Dwarves busy and happy.
EDIT 1: An expansion on the superficiality aspect.
Instead of just int happiness, there should be something like:
int familyStability
int possessions
int outlook
familyStability can exist without the possessions (and vice versa) for awhile. If a dwarf loses his entire family familyStability will come crashing down. However, if he retains security monetarily and lives in a fabulous lifestyle, he will quickly meet new friends (raising familyStability) and return outlook to a stable level.
If a dwarf keeps his close friends and family but lives the slum dog millionare's lifestyle, then he can cope with this, too. Many people do.
It's not until both familyStability and possessions take a hit does outlook begin to decline. Once it hits 0 or so, he'll either rage or jump off my chasm.
HOWEVER: the hidden 4th option is that in either of the first two scenarios, things never improve. They continue to live in squalor or completely alone and outlook gradually declines. This means that a single dwarf in an expansive cave will no longer be possible. Dwarves need both shiny things and other people.
Post by: Cheddarius on February 05, 2010, 12:33:18 am
Post by: Urist McOverlord on February 05, 2010, 12:37:55 am
The complexity and interface weren't so bad for me, chiefly because of tinypirate's tutorial. I didand still do have problems with managing idle dwarves, however. I like the idea of having some dwarves just auto-do certain tasks, but I digress.
The other issue I have is the "when is something going to happen?" Problem. Often I run df in the background because until more migrants or traders or goblin Christmas, I just don't have anything to do.
There's also some bugs with the "stay outside " order, and I wish some of the job cancel spam would stop, but now I'm just nitpicking.
Post by: Spong on February 05, 2010, 09:05:36 am
Item number one as a new player was definitely the ASCII. I just couldn't follow it. I discovered the mayday tileset, and will not be going back for a long while.
The complexity and interface weren't so bad for me, chiefly because of tinypirate's tutorial. I didand still do have problems with managing idle dwarves, however. I like the idea of having some dwarves just auto-do certain tasks, but I digress.
The other issue I have is the "when is something going to happen?" Problem. Often I run df in the background because until more migrants or traders or goblin Christmas, I just don't have anything to do.
There's also some bugs with the "stay outside " order, and I wish some of the job cancel spam would stop, but now I'm just nitpicking.
Weird that you have this problem, I am the total opposite, I always have so many projects going on simultaneously and never enough dorfs to get them done.
Post by: Iban on February 05, 2010, 10:40:39 am
You name means "they were going" in Spanish.Vamanos!
Post by: nenjin on February 05, 2010, 01:08:39 pm
Quote
The other issue I have is the "when is something going to happen?" Problem. Often I run df in the background because until more migrants or traders or goblin Christmas, I just don't have anything to do.
I'm the total opposite. I think this comes down to player types. I'm a micro-whore. I get nervous when the game is running and I'm not there to watch it, even when it pauses. I don't like knowing that dwarves are standing around when they could be doing something I need...and the way jobs are structured currently, there's always at least two dwarves who need to be reassigned/managed every few minutes.
That said, it's ok to have idle dwarves too. They do socialize while they're idle, which is something we often forget in the rush to make them work. If you've got the resources to soak up their slacking, let them slack for a year or two.
Post by: James.Denholm on February 05, 2010, 03:58:42 pm
Magma.
Post by: Jiri Petru on February 05, 2010, 06:33:41 pm
Does really nobody care about the stocks menu? :(
We do. But there's just so many things like this we usually just say "interface" ;)
Also: I can't stand the idlers and always have to keep everyone busy. That means a lot of micromanagement. Some kind of labour automation is my dream.
Post by: Durin on February 05, 2010, 10:05:01 pm
Does really nobody care about the stocks menu? :(
We do. But there's just so many things like this we usually just say "interface" ;)
Also: I can't stand the idlers and always have to keep everyone busy. That means a lot of micromanagement. Some kind of labour automation is my dream.
This ties into economy, which is broke broke broke broke broke. The goal is for you to manage the idlers, because when the economy kicks in they will be quite underhappy with you if they have no jobs, hence no place to sleep and nothing to eat.
Sadly, one of the core necessities for the economy is coins, and apparently the minute you make them dwarves spend all their time getting them, putting them in bags, taking them home, putting them in chests, taking them back out, taking them to the store, etc etc etc.
I have heard that if you manage to store the coins in a locked chamber of some sort it works ok, but I have yet to get to the point where I wanted to undertake that as a project.
That's my understanding.
So no, I really don't want labor automation, I want coin issues straightened out. Then the poor dwarves will rise up against their king and much Fun will ensue.
Post by: Iban on February 05, 2010, 10:11:30 pm
Post by: James.Denholm on February 06, 2010, 01:30:44 am
(but they still try and path to these coins, so that takes a toll on your system).
Urist McAccountholder: Is the bank open?
Urist McBanker: No.
Urist McAccountholder: Is the bank open?
Urist McBanker: No.
Urist McAccountholder: Is the bank open?
Urist McBanker: No.
Post by: Joakim on February 06, 2010, 05:44:55 am
Sadly, one of the core necessities for the economy is coins, and apparently the minute you make them dwarves spend all their time getting them, putting them in bags, taking them home, putting them in chests, taking them back out, taking them to the store, etc etc etc.
You have to admit that sounds very dwarven though.
Post by: Antioch on February 06, 2010, 08:21:35 am
I also find it extremely annoying that miners carve out an entire fortress in 3 minutes. I want mining to be an labour intensive task, so I need to use my space logically before beeing able to increase my ammount of workshops, which take no space at all. I would really appreciate it if workshops were 4*4 or 5*5. It would also increase the value of metal. Legendary dwarfes also produce stuff way to fast, with one dwarf producing 100 mugs every minute, I think that the speed of production should only increase slightly with higher skill, but the quality improvement should stay the same. bazaar prices are generally too low, one dabbling stonecrafter can produce enough crafts in a month to buy the entire caravan.
Of course we all talked enough about graphics and interface, but I would like to say that it is really time to improve these parts of the game, in my opinion it was more important then the current underground and combat improvements, as it will REALLY expand the DF player base. Turning it from a game where only us select core of hardcore gamers play it to something that everyone would enjoy.
Perhaps more a suggestion and I know that DF is mostly a sandbox game but scripted mission support would really add another layer of challange to the game. Beeing able to create scripted mission events and objectives, such as gain 1,000,000 fortress worth before year X, produce 200 cat leather socks or survive the scripted attacks for X years in the fort given to you.
Post by: Durin on February 06, 2010, 10:03:28 am
That's actually wrong. The dwarvern economy runs very well with "credit." The need for coins is merely a fabrication. If you don't make them, the system works. If you lock them all away in a "vault," the system works (but they still try and path to these coins, so that takes a toll on your system).
Well, I appear to have all the groundwork laid for the economy then, and yet it is still not happening. So... not sure what to say. Will have to look more closely at it. I know all my dwarfs how have their credits showing on their information, but I have not seen anyone yet pissed about not having a room.
Strange strange.
I also have 5 shops that no one will buy.
Post by: Jiri Petru on February 06, 2010, 10:56:41 am
Quote from: Antioch
Perhaps more a suggestion and I know that DF is mostly a sandbox game but scripted mission support would really add another layer of challange to the game. Beeing able to create scripted mission events and objectives, such as gain 1,000,000 fortress worth before year X, produce 200 cat leather socks or survive the scripted attacks for X years in the fort given to you.
To make it more "immersive", these could be mandates by mountainhomes. You know... the outpost liaison comes, saying: "The King wants you to send him 200 cat leather socks in the next year's caravan. Don't ask why!"
Though I'm quite sure people would hate it.
Post by: Iban on February 06, 2010, 11:38:20 am
Post by: MrWiggles on February 07, 2010, 12:55:28 am
Post by: Urist McDepravity on February 07, 2010, 07:12:43 am
bazaar prices are generally too low, one dabbling stonecrafter can produce enough crafts in a month to buy the entire caravan.I believe only correct and DFish way is to simulate world market, with caravans being actual entries traveling around and trying to make profit. So prices would be demand-driven, and mugs soon reaching near-zero value due to overproduction.
Although this approach makes it nessesary to make stuff like mugs be actually useful so someone would need them. And to be breakable, so there always would be some demand.
This is covered by Caravan arc, so its not defect, but just not-finished-yet.
Post by: Antioch on February 07, 2010, 11:44:46 am
I agree that the interface could use a fair amount of streamline, but I see little point in graphic update since the items needing graphics is growing and or changing, a time sink between releases.
Toady wouldn't have to create the sprites, only the SUPPORT for sprites, we have enough people on the forums willing to make graphic packs.
Post by: Jiri Petru on February 07, 2010, 12:00:44 pm
I believe only correct and DFish way is to simulate world market, with caravans being actual entries traveling around and trying to make profit. So prices would be demand-driven, and mugs soon reaching near-zero value due to overproduction.
Although this approach makes it nessesary to make stuff like mugs be actually useful so someone would need them. And to be breakable, so there always would be some demand.
This is covered by Caravan arc, so its not defect, but just not-finished-yet.
Yeah, I can't wait to have Caravan Arc. What joy will it be!
Though I guess the number of things you are able to produce would have to be drastically reduced. Right now, in a single year your fort can produce a supply of steel weapons to keep all the world killing each other indefinitely.
Post by: Lord Shonus on February 07, 2010, 01:19:20 pm
Post by: Darkphyre on February 07, 2010, 03:04:23 pm
First off I want to say that I've only been playing for a few months and haven’t come close to playing around with every feature yet (in fact, I usually start a new fortress around the fourth year no matter how I'm doing) so there's likely a good bit I can't comment on.
1. The ascii graphics were one of the largest obstacles for me to overcome. I don’t have any particular dislike for ascii/text-mode games but until you get used to what every character is supposed to represent it's extremely confusing. Including a tileset/graphics pack with the game, even as just an option, would help a ton here.
2. There is a severe lack of highly visible documentation outside of the wiki. It's great that there's a link to the wiki in the game's "hi, this is an alpha release" screen before you start playing, but it's really just not visible enough (maybe move it to the title screen and put it in a highly visible color or something). Also, tabbing out of the game or looking at another monitor every time you need to look something up (which is often when you start) causes a sort of mental disconnect from the game, never a good thing.
3. Tons of items, no in-game -useful- description (especially when embarking). "Potash? What the heck is potash..." *insert wiki search here* "Oh, its fertilizer.". That was essentially my thought process for most of my first few gaming sessions. The ability to get some basic information on items, especially when embarking, would go a long way towards relieving some confusion.
4. Menu's - There's only really two menu's in game that I have issue with, so I'll just look at those.
Unit Menu - Putting it bluntly, it's clunky and barely usable. Hitting "u" brings up the list of units on the map, easy enough. Now scroll through the list to find the unit... then hit appropriate key for next menu... then appropriate key again... depending on the option you have to then scroll through more options... etc etc. This is an issue which becomes even worse as the game progresses and more units show up.
Splitting into sub-menu's for player units, animals, hostiles, deceased, etc would help reduce the clutter, full mouse support for point&click selection would help as well.
Trade Depot Menu - Again, clunky and barely usable. Only through using bins/bags is this even remotely functional. The sheer number of items that you (or at least, I) have to trade after the first year or so is huge. And yet we have to select each individual item (or bin of items) to be moved to the depot. And then we have to go through yet another list of undwarfly length to select them again to offer them for trade...and THEN a third list to see if the traders brought anything of value.
Splitting the screen of available goods to be moved to the depot into categories was a good start, but this really needs to be cleaned up further. I actually timed myself a few nights ago, it took me 12 minutes just to select all the goods I wanted to trade... that’s a LOT of key presses!
5. Difficulty - I guess this is something being addressed in the upcoming version, but I'll mention it anyway. The game is simply too easy. Yes, there are many ways to lose your fortress; Sieges, floods, magma, tantrum spirals, hunger/thirst, dragon's looking for a quick snack... But none of these seems to present any real threat at the moment.
-Sieges are easily neutralized by a single locked wooden door (seriously, 40 goblins and not one thought to bring a battering ram or something?).
-Flooding and Magma incidents only really occur through poor planning on the player's behalf (do they give out Darwin awards for dwarf fortress?).
-Again, Hunger/thirst is easily avoided by either acquiring food on your own through the available skills or simply trading for it (1000+ food for 12 minutes of pushing + then enter!).
-The only megabeast I've had experience with so far is the dragon, but it died fairly easily to a small group of trained wrestlers (dwarven clothesline of doom!).
-This leaves tantrum spirals, which (for me) seem to be the most problematic. Last map a kobold snuck off with a scepter I crafted, which made someone's wife miserable... then she fell in a chasm, which made the husband miserable... so he drowned himself, which made his friends miserable, who threw tantrums which... well, you get the idea...
Now, I'm not really complaining about my having lost the fort to a tantrum spiral (it was -epic- to watch), but it just seems odd to me that a kobold thief stealing a scepter (that I was going to trade away anyway) is more dangerous than a goblin army.
Overall this game is full of win of dwarfiness, but there's a bunch of rough spots left. Can't wait to see the next version :O
Post by: Iban on February 07, 2010, 03:31:53 pm
2. The wiki itself is pretty consuming. The "YOUR FIRST FORTRESS" guide made me not want to play. I try to pitch in with the dumbing down of articles (my specialty).
3. potash is fertilizer wat? I thought it was fuel. This is why I only use magma forges.
4. Agreed entirely.
5. Dwarf Fortress needs a L4D-styled "Armork" director that gets really pissed off and sends you a legion of titans if you're doing too well.
Post by: Caledonian on February 07, 2010, 04:11:57 pm
It's too expensive, resource-wise, to train certain skills, but skills increase so rapidly that people can be come masters of their craft after less than a year.
I dislike losing access to resources because of lack of skill (example: mining), and I dislike that certain tasks are completed so quickly (most especially: mining).
Post by: Iban on February 07, 2010, 04:15:03 pm
I dislike that certain tasks are completed so quickly (most especially: mining).The only reason I modified Dwarves to have speed:0 is so I do not need to wait a fortnight to begin working on anything. And that's not even considering you want them to work even slower.
Post by: Darkphyre on February 07, 2010, 04:20:29 pm
Quote
and I dislike that certain tasks are completed so quickly
....wat?
Post by: riznar on February 07, 2010, 06:28:52 pm
Quoteand I dislike that certain tasks are completed so quickly
....wat?
Some people desire things to be as boring as real life
Post by: Iban on February 07, 2010, 07:33:00 pm
Yeah, I agree that rocking chairs should take a dwarf a month to chip together.Quoteand I dislike that certain tasks are completed so quickly
....wat?
Some people desire things to be as boring as real life
Post by: Andir on February 08, 2010, 12:50:54 pm
You have to wonder when a miner can clear a solid rock room in the same amount of time it takes to make a fine meal.Yeah, I agree that rocking chairs should take a dwarf a month to chip together.Quoteand I dislike that certain tasks are completed so quickly
....wat?
Some people desire things to be as boring as real life
Post by: zwei on February 08, 2010, 03:08:34 pm
The fact that resources are so limited - and acquisition of resources through trade is extremely difficult. I don't mind a huge chunk of stone being required to make a wall, or even a stone chair. But when a giant heap of marble produces only one stone earring, then the game's simplification has been taken too far.
It's too expensive, resource-wise, to train certain skills, but skills increase so rapidly that people can be come masters of their craft after less than a year.
I dislike losing access to resources because of lack of skill (example: mining), and I dislike that certain tasks are completed so quickly (most especially: mining).
Yes, there are basically two types of resources:
Infinite
Finite
Infinite resources are just going to accumulate over time. You always have ready source of raw materials. This means several things:
1) You can overproduce on grand scale You have infinite raw material at your disposal, and you can buy out whole caravans with them over and over again.
2) Since you have free material, you can train every single peasant to be legendary on them. This means that your skilled workers are quite easily replaceable.
You can have as many legendary weavers/dyers/threshers/clothiers as you want. Theese industrues work as perpetum mobile engine basically: no input, huge output.
This is especially pronounced when you can train your dwarf on items that are essentially having no quality but are quite usefull: Bonecarvers for example can obtain legendary by creating bone bolts (bone bolts being always usefull regardless of quality).
This of course contrasts with:
Finite resources. They will eventually run out and/or have rate of acquisition capped harshly. They, of course have some implications too:
1) You will run out of them eventually. There is little you can do to get more raw materials.
2) Training is expensive. Skilled laborer is irreplaceable.
For example: Smoothing. You will eventually run out of stone to smooth, and to engrave. If you loose engraver, you will have to smooth certain amount of tiles too get new one to state where you can give him skill-requiring job (engraving) - roughly two fully dug 2x2 zlevels.
This, as you can imagine, leads to problems if loose several engravers in succession. Eventually you run out of room to train in and it is game over - no more materpiece engravings for you, ever.
Mining works like this too: It is even harsher since most maps have very limited soil z-layers to train miners without destroying stone, when you are done with them, every lost miner means that you are going to loose ~100 stones as he trains.
Even if you can import, you are going to obtain materials much slower than your dwarves die of old age.
---
If you would try clothesmaking industry you will see the other coin: You simply stop caring about resources and you are going to be annoyed by masterpiece spam from weaver/dyer/tailor.
Eventually, moment will come when you will simply stop caring and just stuff everything you can onto caravans to get rid of that damn stuff, having caravans leave with profits measured in hunderds of thousands.
Ballance is simply off.
Post by: Urist McDepravity on February 08, 2010, 05:17:42 pm
Mining works like this too: It is even harsher since most maps have very limited soil z-layers to train miners without destroying stone, when you are done with them, every lost miner means that you are going to loose ~100 stones as he trains.This makes me wonder. Did anyone EVER run out of free stone?
Most players bother with how to get rid of it, not to 'save' it, utilizing atom-smashers, catapults, magma, etc.
Post by: Innominate on February 08, 2010, 07:20:28 pm
I imagine that a long-running fort on a small embark would run out, especially if the area was relatively flat and lacked underground features. In such a situation (particularly if you have half a dozen soil layers/aquifers like my current fort), you never make stone crafts. Even wood crafts are more useful, as I can at least grow trees.Mining works like this too: It is even harsher since most maps have very limited soil z-layers to train miners without destroying stone, when you are done with them, every lost miner means that you are going to loose ~100 stones as he trains.This makes me wonder. Did anyone EVER run out of free stone?
Most players bother with how to get rid of it, not to 'save' it, utilizing atom-smashers, catapults, magma, etc.
Post by: Fikes on February 08, 2010, 08:39:34 pm
I had a Great Project planned, basiaclly a huge dwarf standing over the entrance to my fort. I really really wanted to make him have a pipe that smoked with combined lava and water but didn't even get close.
I wanted him to be colored with blue shoes and pig tail shirt and all that... anyways...
every story I'd dig through a list of 500 stone types that meant nothing other than a name. NOTHING. If I wanted to use wood I'd dig through 20 wood types that meant nothing other than a name.
Why? Why not just have "Disguishious tree" "Tropical tree" or "iginoius stone" or what ever.
In theory it seems awesome, in pratice it seems silly.
Also still need click and drag mouse support. No more "enter, shift + right, shift + right, down, down, down, enter" to make a simple hallway.
Post by: Rockphed on February 08, 2010, 10:51:30 pm
Also still need click and drag mouse support. No more "enter, shift + right, shift + right, down, down, down, enter" to make a simple hallway.
Depending on the size of the DF window and the size of the desired designation, that could be simplified to "right click, enter, right click, enter," to designate a rectangle with corners where the right clicks happened. On the other hand, for designating the entire map, shift + direction is much more effective(as it moves 10 every time it is pressed as opposed to the ~ 7 every time the cursor is moved to the edge of the screen.)
Post by: zwei on February 09, 2010, 02:29:17 am
I imagine that a long-running fort on a small embark would run out, especially if the area was relatively flat and lacked underground features. In such a situation (particularly if you have half a dozen soil layers/aquifers like my current fort), you never make stone crafts. Even wood crafts are more useful, as I can at least grow trees.Mining works like this too: It is even harsher since most maps have very limited soil z-layers to train miners without destroying stone, when you are done with them, every lost miner means that you are going to loose ~100 stones as he trains.This makes me wonder. Did anyone EVER run out of free stone?
Most players bother with how to get rid of it, not to 'save' it, utilizing atom-smashers, catapults, magma, etc.
Indeed, you can easily run out of stones on 2x2 map or on 1x1 mano fortress embark. Flat, no-magma map. Quite constrained resource-wise.
Post by: Flaede on February 09, 2010, 02:33:31 am
Indeed, you can easily run out of stones on 2x2 map or on 1x1 mano fortress embark. Flat, no-magma map. Quite constrained resource-wise.I imagine that a long-running fort on a small embark would run out, especially if the area was relatively flat and lacked underground features. In such a situation (particularly if you have half a dozen soil layers/aquifers like my current fort), you never make stone crafts. Even wood crafts are more useful, as I can at least grow trees.Mining works like this too: It is even harsher since most maps have very limited soil z-layers to train miners without destroying stone, when you are done with them, every lost miner means that you are going to loose ~100 stones as he trains.This makes me wonder. Did anyone EVER run out of free stone?
Most players bother with how to get rid of it, not to 'save' it, utilizing atom-smashers, catapults, magma, etc.
I quite agree. This is why I always embark where there's magma. Obsidian Farming really can be as important as all the other farming.
Post by: Solara on February 09, 2010, 02:42:31 am
This makes me wonder. Did anyone EVER run out of free stone?
Most players bother with how to get rid of it, not to 'save' it, utilizing atom-smashers, catapults, magma, etc.
I've never run out of stone entirely (aquifer maps don't count) but there are times when a certain type of stone is rare. On my current map I'm trying to build a castle out of alunite and even after compromising with wooden floors there's a chance I may run out.
Which reminds me, the main thing turning me off of DF right now is the fact that you can't build walls on top of floors. I'm having to set up tons of little rooms and it is absolutely maddening.
Post by: Muz on February 09, 2010, 02:43:04 am
Post by: Innominate on February 09, 2010, 05:26:39 am
One thing that *might* help - it helped me build a fort over the ocean. If you build a bridge over the floor you can deconstruct the floor through the bridge. This conserves stone, trains your architect (a tiny bit), and is just generally cool. Interestingly, you can even get rid of the "anchor" floor for a raising bridge, with no consequences.This makes me wonder. Did anyone EVER run out of free stone?
Most players bother with how to get rid of it, not to 'save' it, utilizing atom-smashers, catapults, magma, etc.
I've never run out of stone entirely (aquifer maps don't count) but there are times when a certain type of stone is rare. On my current map I'm trying to build a castle out of alunite and even after compromising with wooden floors there's a chance I may run out.
Which reminds me, the main thing turning me off of DF right now is the fact that you can't build walls on top of floors. I'm having to set up tons of little rooms and it is absolutely maddening.
A fun thing I learned during that process is that you have to be very careful, as it isn't always apparent what will cause a cave-in. But, since you have a bridge under you, it's a relatively harmless dust cloud most of the time.
Although when you're above dangling precariously above an ocean filled with skeletal whales, relatively harmless is still pretty damaging.
Post by: G-Flex on February 09, 2010, 11:55:52 am
every story I'd dig through a list of 500 stone types that meant nothing other than a name. NOTHING. If I wanted to use wood I'd dig through 20 wood types that meant nothing other than a name.
Why? Why not just have "Disguishious tree" "Tropical tree" or "iginoius stone" or what ever.
In theory it seems awesome, in pratice it seems silly.
If it seems silly, that's only because a lot of its function just isn't there yet, or you aren't noticing it.
There are differences between most layer-forming stones are different in terms of what ores they can contain and where they show up, even within the same basic categories.
And as far as the useless stone is concerned, not all of them have to always be useless. Gypsum, for instance, is getting useful due to plaster in the next version. Cinnabar could be used for mercury. Value can be made more granular/variable/complex, and stones can have more fleshed-out physical properties (bauxite is already useful in being magma-safe).
And really, if a stone isn't particularly special right now, so what? It's not as if the brimstone cluster you find is actually going to be worth less than the felsite you found it it; it's just a different color, which might be useful to you anyway, in a sense.
Same deal with wood. Right now, trees don't produce fruit, or grow at different times, or have different wood values or sizes. The only thing right now that varies between them is density of the material, and this should also change.
Post by: zwei on February 09, 2010, 01:08:23 pm
every story I'd dig through a list of 500 stone types that meant nothing other than a name. NOTHING. If I wanted to use wood I'd dig through 20 wood types that meant nothing other than a name.
Why? Why not just have "Disguishious tree" "Tropical tree" or "iginoius stone" or what ever.
In theory it seems awesome, in pratice it seems silly.
If it seems silly, that's only because a lot of its function just isn't there yet, or you aren't noticing it.
Might be, but your material list gets insanely cluttered eventually.
26 layer stone types
40 cluster stone types
17 ores
24 tree types.
107 items.
each can be also made to bars
214 items. Add soaps, metal bars and alloy bars and blocks... 250 building materials?
Depending on maturity of fortress, you can end up with huge percentage of those laying around.
Ever tried to hunt for bauxite in list of hundrerds of items? Or specific block type from which you are building your construction? You are pretty much guarantted to go insane or at least give in to melancholy.
Those lists do not even grow vertically if you resize window, you have no type as you find feature.
And worst thing? If you designate it different spot, list is in different order. It is guarantted to change order randomly. You have to find whatever you want to use every single time.
You end up making and following one rule religiously: Never, Ever, buy bars/blocks from caravan. Ever. Do Not Make Soap. Never Ever Let Human or Dwarf Caravan Be Attacked.
You have to resort to making stockpiles and locking rooms to filter out specific material types. And that does not help much since some stockpiles do not have fine controll to permit/forbid some materials.
Post by: Urist McDepravity on February 09, 2010, 01:40:52 pm
214 items. Add soaps, metal bars and alloy bars and blocks... 250 building materials?We just need workshop material selection. So blocks would be made of /right/ stone, and same for mugs.
Besides, you usually get only few of stones on each region, so overall count on the map is about 20 types of stone. Diversity is good thing, and we actually need more diversity, with each stone type being actually /different/. For example, with proper sieges, we could have building value separated from "preciousness", so you would prefer granite over gypsum for outer walls for example.
Post by: Fikes on February 09, 2010, 02:00:54 pm
every story I'd dig through a list of 500 stone types that meant nothing other than a name. NOTHING. If I wanted to use wood I'd dig through 20 wood types that meant nothing other than a name.
Why? Why not just have "Disguishious tree" "Tropical tree" or "iginoius stone" or what ever.
In theory it seems awesome, in pratice it seems silly.
If it seems silly, that's only because a lot of its function just isn't there yet, or you aren't noticing it.
There are differences between most layer-forming stones are different in terms of what ores they can contain and where they show up, even within the same basic categories.
And as far as the useless stone is concerned, not all of them have to always be useless. Gypsum, for instance, is getting useful due to plaster in the next version. Cinnabar could be used for mercury. Value can be made more granular/variable/complex, and stones can have more fleshed-out physical properties (bauxite is already useful in being magma-safe).
And really, if a stone isn't particularly special right now, so what? It's not as if the brimstone cluster you find is actually going to be worth less than the felsite you found it it; it's just a different color, which might be useful to you anyway, in a sense.
Same deal with wood. Right now, trees don't produce fruit, or grow at different times, or have different wood values or sizes. The only thing right now that varies between them is density of the material, and this should also change.
You kind of made my point for me. It is as if people want the game to have so many options and so many features that basic functions become impossible, and it is just going to get worse!
We don't need a right and a left glove, we need "gloves" and "shoes". Think of how many fewer items would be scattered across the map if we had that. We don't need 150 types of stone, we need 1 of each color and one of each layer type. And really, who is going to pay attention to when trees become harvest-able rather than just clear cutting? Who is going to care if some dwarf child buys an iron drum or an iron toy anvil? Just have toys.
All of these features add to development time, all of them create oppurtunity costs and then when it comes time to add another feature, all of these (at least the ones with raws) have to be reexamined and debugged.
Quote
08/26/2009: I'm back to combat text, which still involves some retooling of things as the text illuminates further problems, but I'm closer to being done with the combat revision, anyway. I found a lot of things wrong with the groundhog bite today. First, a groundhog ripped a lion in half and bit off a dwarf's arms... and it was using every part of its head (eyes, nose, etc.), not just its teeth, for the biting. After I fixed that up, it was still using its teeth like little needles and piercing brains and so on. I eventually got that sorted out.
A day debugging GROUNDHOGS!? BOGGLE.
Here is another favorite of mine:
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/statues.png
Granted this didn't take much time.... But look how long those names are. On a standard configuration you won't even be able to see the whole description. Also, statues are either A) created randomly, so when you go to place them you have to build 500 and open that you get enough dwarf statues or B) manually created, so when you want dwarf statues you have to scroll through 30 different types to get the right one built.
If we can envision the little smiley faces on the map as dwarfs, we'll use are imagination for what statue or toy or tropical tree can mean.
Rant complete, and I still love this game.
Post by: Footkerchief on February 09, 2010, 02:19:01 pm
Quote08/26/2009: I'm back to combat text, which still involves some retooling of things as the text illuminates further problems, but I'm closer to being done with the combat revision, anyway. I found a lot of things wrong with the groundhog bite today. First, a groundhog ripped a lion in half and bit off a dwarf's arms... and it was using every part of its head (eyes, nose, etc.), not just its teeth, for the biting. After I fixed that up, it was still using its teeth like little needles and piercing brains and so on. I eventually got that sorted out.
A day debugging GROUNDHOGS!? BOGGLE.
A day debugging the CHILD_BODYPART_GROUND subtype of creature attacks, which is used by almost every creature in the game.
Post by: Innominate on February 09, 2010, 07:25:13 pm
Sigh, one day I'll be able to search for "large" and "iron" and then just spam "m" to set them all for melting, rather than having to hunt the expanded list of hundreds of items because the unexpanded list collapses "large iron chain mail" and "iron chain mail" to "X suits of iron chain mail" :'(
Post by: MrWiggles on February 09, 2010, 07:27:47 pm
Spoiler: Fikes Rant (click to show/hide)
I found this funny in a sense, as one of the goals of DF is to be a detailed fantasy world generator. The detail garnering dwarf fortress is to detailed.
The anal detail, is where a fair amount of fun for the game comes from. In the dwarf fortress master competition there was a female nobel that loved scepters! Demanded scepters to be made, took plenty of scepters. That was a fun story to here, and probably a little fruastrating to deal with the issue that got a poetic solution of making her abode be the specter stockpile.
The antics just arent in yet to make these details worthwhile, nor is the tools needed to make it easier to deal with.
You are right Fike we don't need left and right gloves, but its more interesting read out that he lost his left glove in the struggle with the troll then to read he lost his gloves, or its neater to see the kid dorf playing with a toy furnace and one playing with a toy stone drum (somehow), even though they currently don't. The soap dorf was useless for a long while until the next release, he was added long before his utilization was added.
The antics for the fluff will be there. Eventually dorfs will want to have their mug and eat on a plate instead with their bear hands.
I personally love the statues. That just means more character for the fortress, a better way to personalized a fortress. Thats a bonus alone, but included with matching statues with engravings would be very neat.
Post by: Jiri Petru on February 09, 2010, 09:01:26 pm
Fikes, most of the "useless" features contribute heavily to DF's popularity. The game doesn't have that much of a gameplay, what makes it rich are the mindbogling details. And people actually do care about different stones, different trees and varied animals. It gives the game texture, deepens the immersion. I remember how happy I was that the game has real tree species in appropriate biomes, not just generic "trees". The other stuff, like paired clothes, different kinds of toys, etc. contribute to the stories and general craziness. I guess a huge part of DF's popularity comes from fun stories and hilarious situation it produces - these wouldn't be so great if it weren't for the detail.
BUT, and here I agree with you, the current implementation of "fluff" features is rather bad. Deeper level of detail should never hinder gameplay, never lead to much micromanagement, etc - and having to choose from hundreds of different stones/logs/blocks is just an example of bad implementation. Features like these should always be optional. The player should be able just to "build a workshop", without having to care about specific materials. Only if he wanted to, he'd say it has to be made of green glass blocks.
A plenty of people want material selection when producing items in workshop. I am very, very afraid that Toady implements it and makes it obligatory. I like being able to produce "stone throne", I don't want to be forced to select a specific stone, neither do I want the interface to be cluttered by dozens of "alunite thrones", "limestone thrones", "bauxite thrones", etc (wrestling interface, anyone?). I'd love material selection, but only if it's cleverly implemented.
The same goes for many features Toady adds. For example, the new military system sounds fascinating, the ability to set uniforms will surely be fun. But I'm afraid I'll have to set uniforms now, otherwise my soldiers won't wear anything. Actually, even the old military interface was a bit too detailed for my taste - I always wanted to be able just to "recruit a soldier and stop caring". You know... so he would select a weapon and gather the best equipment available by himself. The ability to create an army made only of buckler-wielding speardwarves was fun, but I didn't like that it was also obligatory.
Post by: Jiri Petru on February 09, 2010, 09:04:31 pm
Post by: kcwong on February 09, 2010, 09:05:47 pm
And worst thing? If you designate it different spot, list is in different order. It is guarantted to change order randomly. You have to find whatever you want to use every single time.
It is not random; the list is made in order of increasing distance to the location of the task you are assigning. So if you don't care what material it is, you can just pick from the top of the list.
Unfortunately most players do care...
Post by: Fikes on February 09, 2010, 09:41:48 pm
I'm with Fikes... at least partly.
Fikes, most of the "useless" features contribute heavily to DF's popularity. The game doesn't have that much of a gameplay, what makes it rich are the mindbogling details. And people actually do care about different stones, different trees and varied animals. It gives the game texture, deepens the immersion. I remember how happy I was that the game has real tree species in appropriate biomes, not just generic "trees". The other stuff, like paired clothes, different kinds of toys, etc. contribute to the stories and general craziness. I guess a huge part of DF's popularity comes from fun stories and hilarious situation it produces - these wouldn't be so great if it weren't for the detail.
BUT, and here I agree with you, the current implementation of "fluff" features is rather bad. Deeper level of detail should never hinder gameplay, never lead to much micromanagement, etc - and having to choose from hundreds of different stones/logs/blocks is just an example of bad implementation. Features like these should always be optional. The player should be able just to "build a workshop", without having to care about specific materials. Only if he wanted to, he'd say it has to be made of green glass blocks.
A plenty of people want material selection when producing items in workshop. I am very, very afraid that Toady implements it and makes it obligatory. I like being able to produce "stone throne", I don't want to be forced to select a specific stone, neither do I want the interface to be cluttered by dozens of "alunite thrones", "limestone thrones", "bauxite thrones", etc (wrestling interface, anyone?). I'd love material selection, but only if it's cleverly implemented.
The same goes for many features Toady adds. For example, the new military system sounds fascinating, the ability to set uniforms will surely be fun. But I'm afraid I'll have to set uniforms now, otherwise my soldiers won't wear anything. Actually, even the old military interface was a bit too detailed for my taste - I always wanted to be able just to "recruit a soldier and stop caring". You know... so he would select a weapon and gather the best equipment available by himself. The ability to create an army made only of buckler-wielding speardwarves was fun, but I didn't like that it was also obligatory.
I would agree that most people who are active in this community like the mindboggling level of detail, but I think in general, most people who have grabbed DF and tried it, and maybe even enjoyed their first few forts, don't even notice it.
Those people just don't stay active in the community.
There are easier ways to fake most of the fluff anyways. Instead of a hydra actually having a bunch of heads, say it does, give it extra attacks, and take away those attacks as it gets beaten down. No ultra complicated raws, no massive debuging, just a pretty straight forward combat system.
That is all most additions to the community will see anyways. Spend a day or two faking a good heathcare system rather than a year developing an over complicated one most people won't care to understand.
We can use our minds to fill in the blanks between the graphics, we can use our minds to fill in the blanks between the stones.
Post by: G-Flex on February 09, 2010, 10:08:16 pm
If hydras don't actually have multiple heads, how the hell is damage to them supposed to work?
There's a reason why this much detail is being put into the game: It's interesting, and actually affects gameplay in interesting ways.
Also, who cares if most people won't care? Of course they won't; DF is very, very, very much a niche product. You can't expect it to appeal to most people, and there's a good chance it won't in the foreseeable future. Of course, there are things to make it more accessible that could be done, like mucking about with changing the user interface, slightly better graphics support, better documentation, more long-term goals, and further improvements to the game in general, but turning the game's mechanical systems into cookie-cutter "You lost 15 HP! You die!" stuff is the exact antithesis of why most people stick with this game in the first place.
To me (and a lot of other people), what makes this game great is that Toady is trying to make it extremely complex, and that this is actually working out.
I'm not saying a more simplistic DF-like game is a terrible idea, or wouldn't work. I'm saying that it simply wouldn't be Dwarf Fortress. It wouldn't satisfy the same niche or appeal to people in the same way at all. The most amazing DF stories that I hear are the ones that involve the more complex and detailed mechanics of the game. Hell, even relatively-mundane things benefit from it, like my jeweler having a bad neck and a missing eye due to a crossbow bolt, as well as a severe head injury that took a long time to heal, still cutting gems and decorating items with them. It's not like it's just fluff, it's actual game mechanics here.
As far as things like material selection at workshops, and military uniforms are concerned, I don't think Toady has ever intended for them to be mandatory. An "any stone" (or selecting just a color, or what have you) selection makes perfect sense and has been mentioned before, for instance, and even if it were mandatory, so what? You just click through the next menu without looking. No big deal having to head a single button once, but you probably won't have to anyway when the time comes.
We can use our minds to fill in the blanks between the graphics, we can use our minds to fill in the blanks between the stones.
This is a non-argument. What you're saying here could easily be applied to any detail in any game, ever.
The reason we're playing a game is so that we don't have to make everything up: Things happen, according to rules, in an interactive fashion that we can't necessarily predict all the time. That is the essence of a game. If you want to fill in every detail yourself, that's what writing a story yourself is for. If you want things to happen in an organic and interactive manner, you play a game. One of the main draws of DF, as I've mentioned, is the fact that you can do this to a degree of detail that isn't possible in virtually any other game on the market. I mean, haven't you been reading the dev log? Simple things like dwarves being too lazy to attend training on time, or getting attached to their weapons, or whatever other minor behaviorisms are (or will be) added are one of the most endearing things in the game to me, and I think others will agree.
Honestly, when people complain about detail in DF, I feel like they're just complaining about detail that'll bog down actual gameplay. I don't think this is a necessary result of complexity, though.
Of course, they also might be complaining about development time they think is being "wasted", but I'll say this: If it weren't for the amount of detail this game has in it already, it wouldn't have the kind of dedicated fanbase that it does. The most popular stories, Let's Plays, etc. that have happened probably never would have, and one of its most compelling and important marketing hooks would be vacant.
Post by: Andir on February 09, 2010, 10:54:56 pm
I knw it's a workaround, but if you know what resource you want to work with, place a stockpile nearby and limit the contents to only that type. Forbid it from the "main" stockpiles and let the extra dwarfs ferry the goods to where they are needed. I tend to do the same thing for workshops. I make two rooms. One for the workshop and another for the resources for that shop. Sometimes I get creative and make the storage room surround the workshop which can also help with the noise factor.And worst thing? If you designate it different spot, list is in different order. It is guarantted to change order randomly. You have to find whatever you want to use every single time.
It is not random; the list is made in order of increasing distance to the location of the task you are assigning. So if you don't care what material it is, you can just pick from the top of the list.
Unfortunately most players do care...
Yes, it means having people that can shuffle resources around, but your builders don't have far to go and can keep busy.
Post by: G-Flex on February 09, 2010, 11:02:17 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on February 09, 2010, 11:16:37 pm
Spoiler: G-Flex Post (click to show/hide)
Exactly right, I feel that the detail that DF has is what makes this game as it is, and what makes it great.
I think that because DF doesn't abstract events, is what allow the unique stories that get posted here on a regular basis.
Yes, the combat, and healing (read any gameplay elements for DF) can all be abstracted and dumb down, but then why are you playing DF? There plenty of games that do that, and do them well. That not what DF is trying to do, because the as Toady has stated it, he see it doesn't like.
The tissue layer combat system is wonderful, you know why the limb was hacked, you know whats gone down. Because of this new complicated system a more varied combat experience that different from other games.
Would it make the development process faster if more was abstracted? Of course, but so what? What is Bay12 motto? Beyond Quality.
There is much more to be loss by abstraction for DF then there is to gain.
Post by: Wang Commander on February 10, 2010, 12:22:34 am
Post by: zwei on February 10, 2010, 03:06:13 am
I knw it's a workaround, but if you know what resource you want to work with, place a stockpile nearby and limit the contents to only that type. Forbid it from the "main" stockpiles and let the extra dwarfs ferry the goods to where they are needed. I tend to do the same thing for workshops. I make two rooms. One for the workshop and another for the resources for that shop. Sometimes I get creative and make the storage room surround the workshop which can also help with the noise factor.And worst thing? If you designate it different spot, list is in different order. It is guarantted to change order randomly. You have to find whatever you want to use every single time.
It is not random; the list is made in order of increasing distance to the location of the task you are assigning. So if you don't care what material it is, you can just pick from the top of the list.
Unfortunately most players do care...
Yes, it means having people that can shuffle resources around, but your builders don't have far to go and can keep busy.
...
Honestly, that's barely even a "workaround". Keeping materials where they're likely to be used often is pretty much a standard thing you should do whenever possible. In real life, it's kind of silly if the pantry is on the other end of the house from the kitchen, or if you keep your clothes in an armoire in the basement instead of your room.
It is different from worshops: Workshop product/raw material stockpiles are going to be static and are worth it to set up: tinker with it once, it is go for rest of fortress lifespan.
If you set up nearby stockpile for each construction you have to select item type (sometimes stockpiles like bar/block one do not have enough controll to set up specific material), possibly set up 'take' from other stockpile. Then wait for hauling job, then you just designate your construction and destroy stockpiles And if you want to build somewhere else, repeat. That is hardly convenient.
I used to make it that way, but waiting for stockpile to fill is not really that good. You could use 1x1 stockpile to just get your chosen material to top (again, not always possible), but then overhead of setting it up is ... awfull.
Post by: Deon on February 10, 2010, 06:58:54 am
Post by: Karnewarrior on February 10, 2010, 03:04:11 pm
Urist McFisherman stands by a tiny river. he is dangling his beard in the water, pulling out hundreds upon hundreds of turtles. all of the sudden, the water begins to bubble, and a mass of medium sized fish drag McFisherman into the water, where he is torn apart. Karnewarrior McGod looks on as the last source of food for his fortress is torn apart by "benign" fish.
On a happier note, I havn't struck microcline in a month! :)
Post by: Iban on February 10, 2010, 03:11:16 pm
Post by: Rykah on February 10, 2010, 05:07:36 pm
Let me start by saying I have only been really playing about a week. I have been trying to get into this game for about a year because everything I read about it is awesome but I was so confused when starting out I couldn't get the hang of it and just didn't put the effort in. After doing a bit more searching I found a tile set that made everything easier to understand, but I still didn't know what to do or how to use the controls properly. I looked at the wiki which was helpful but it involved a lot of effort on my part which a lot of people are not willing to put in when starting a game. Then I found captainducks youtube tutorials... they were amazingly helpful. I haven't finished them but I use them as a reference and figured out how to go ahead on my own a bit from the first 10 or so.
What I suggest as a solution to some of your problems is maybe directing players to popular tilesets and in depth tutorials at the start. As far as interface goes, you have such a complex game it isn't easy to make the interface more user friendly. I think if people just started out with the right amount of help they would bend to the harder things to pick up on.
Oh and you should totally let me make you a website... pretty websites always draw in the gaming crowd! :]
Post by: Zalminen on February 10, 2010, 06:18:55 pm
The first time was maybe two years ago, don't remember exactly. I found the whole game a bit confusing then, failed miserably in creating a well and ended up playing something else and forgot about DF soon.
A month ago I ended up reading the Boatmurdered saga and decided to give the game a new go.
And this time i'm pretty much hooked.
I've read the tutorials, most of the other stuff on the wiki and found the facepalm thread more than helpful ;D
I don't mind the ASCII too much as I've played nethack but using a tileset does make the whole game a lot more clear.
Currently my biggest gripes with the game are:
- Hard to create what I want - I need to fiddle with custom stockpiles, locked doors etc. to make sure the mason uses the correct type of stone, jewelers encrust the right stuff and so on.
- All the info is too widely distributed. I'm constantly having to think whether I should start from v, u or m to check something about a single dwarf or k,q or t to check on material stuff. Why can't there be a single 'look' key with submenus for the various types of info?
- Wiki structure - Even when I know exactly what page i'm looking for, it often takes a while to find it.
Still, none of these are dealbreakers for me and i'm more than willing to wait, especially having read the future development plans.
Post by: James.Denholm on February 10, 2010, 06:49:42 pm
- Hard to create what I want - I need to fiddle with custom stockpiles, locked doors etc. to make sure the mason uses the correct type of stone, jewelers encrust the right stuff and so on.
I think Toady said something about this in one of the DF Talks, something about being able to "commission" things. Sadly, I don't remember which one it was, but it was during the questions. I think he used the example that the player should be able to commission a bunch of goblets and have an engraver engrave the king's face on them or something. And then there was a little bit of a discussion of the engraver involved in the process becoming unhappy after a while of the constant repetition, due to him not being able to express himself or anything. This won't be in the next version, certainly, but I'm expecting this to be in before the 1.0 release.
So, don't be too worried. Someday, we'll be able to have our graveyards filled with granite statues of each individual dwarf, each one with rubies in place of their eyes.
Post by: Fikes on February 10, 2010, 07:24:14 pm
Of course, they also might be complaining about development time they think is being "wasted", but I'll say this: If it weren't for the amount of detail this game has in it already, it wouldn't have the kind of dedicated fanbase that it does. The most popular stories, Let's Plays, etc. that have happened probably never would have, and one of its most compelling and important marketing hooks would be vacant.
#1 If DF was less complicated, it could have the same number of fans (I would bet more), they just might be different people. Battle for Wesnoth, Mount and Blade, Spelunky, ect are all indy games, with pretty low levels of detail (and pretty bad graphics). It would also have a hell of a lot more releases
#2 Boatmurdered happened in 2D DF. In 2D you always had magma, you always had HFS, you always had a river, you always had the makings for steel (I hope all that is accurate). 2D was no where near the complex beast that the current version is and way way way way way less complicated than the next version, yet it is the most famous story of DF.
I am not saying the systems aren't awesome, I am just saying they are far more complicated than they need to be, far more "realistic". I am not going to understand when my legendary armor smith gets poisoned by some vermin and dies. But I am going to get very angry and probably turn the game off for a while.
And I am going to get really tired of going through 4 pages of stone just to find Microcline because I want the statue to have blue shoes.
Post by: James.Denholm on February 10, 2010, 08:22:37 pm
And I am going to get really tired of going through 4 pages of stone just to find Microcline because I want the statue to have blue shoes.
Wait. Let me get this strait: You don't want complicated, but you want to specify not only a statue of a dwarf, but a multi-coloured statue, and the ability to specify which colour goes where?
Post by: Noble Digger on February 10, 2010, 08:37:59 pm
What we need next is a much more consistent underground such that finding water and magma are more reliably located, and to my knowledge the next release has these things. 2 other things valuable in 2D are also returning: endless attacks from underground caverns, water sources, magma, and the map edges, and fuckers like the gremlin and the roaming megabeast. 3D df runs out of steam pretty quickly and devolves into more of a "make whatever you want forever" state cuz you can't really lose beyond a certain point barring a few major events, and in this case your map is BORING.
I think people may start losing again soon ;) that can make any map interesting, right?
To me, the grammar rules necessary to get statue customization working to sufficient depth for everyone to be happy would take a lot of time to develop, code, and test. That seems like high-hanging fruit to me when we're closer than we've ever been to sending armies out to attack other civs... (That's in dev_next after this release) Which is a much more interesting and interactive gameplay element than having a huge clunky workshop ui for adding the line "Its shoes are made of microcline" to the text description of a statue. :|
Post by: Durin on February 10, 2010, 11:01:15 pm
I love the details. The game can have tons of details. The memory and processor load on the details is minimal. The pathing and sim portions are the parts that need an overhaul, and someone needs into this thing that understands how to code for multi-core processors as well, assuming that is not already done for next release.
Just repeat after me... it's not realistic water flow. It's not realistic water flow. It's not realistic water flow.
I wish I knew enough to be able to tell you how to go about fixing it, but I don't. I just know the current process is not working and is a processor killer to boot.
Post by: MrWiggles on February 11, 2010, 12:04:19 am
Spoiler: Fikes Post (click to show/hide)
#1 Less detail, and less complication wouldn't be DF, it would be some other fantasy game. A good deal of fun comes from the details of DF that it has, the issue in understanding them, the triumph of mastering them.
#2 G-Flex didn't bring up Boatmurder, and there are plethora of game play stories that are not boatmurder that have been on the current more complicated 3d version. I dont see this as a rebuttal. Yes, it is the most well known, even then DF was a rather complicated game and the events that happen Boatmurder arose due to DF complexity.
A lot of the complication could be managed better with a better ability to display the information and a rebalance of marco and micro management. Its a good thing the game is in active devilment, so these issue can be addressed at later time.
Dwarf Fortress is a cool game because of the detail, because of the what it portray. There are many games that have several game play that DF, but they dont have it it combined as DF does nor the level of details.
Your turn off of DF is DF.
The game is with issues, its not perfect and due to itself, may never be, but it suppose to be a detailed fantasy world generator. The more details in the more that can be done with it. No, we dont need to know that those statues are of dwarfs spiked with microline, we dont need to know that the engraving is of a dwarf surrounded by goblins and the goblin is striking down the dwarf. We dont need to know that the oak bed is well made and banded in gold. You're right, we don't. We don't need to make make plumbing systems for wells or irrigation systems for farms. We need to know that the goblin left soak is of poor quality.
The assertion that less detail would be better, is nearly insulting to Toady, who seems to be a fairly capable game designer. If he so wanted to, he seems to be perfectly capable of making a game that a larger audience would play and makes DF in the way he does knowing that it will have a niche audience.
All the mountain of detail, and options the none restrictiveness of its implementation is what makes Slave to Armok: God of Blood II: Dwarf Fortress, Slave to Armok: God of Blood II: Dwarf Fortress.
Post by: zwei on February 11, 2010, 02:42:22 am
And I am going to get really tired of going through 4 pages of stone just to find Microcline because I want the statue to have blue shoes.
Wait. Let me get this strait: You don't want complicated, but you want to specify not only a statue of a dwarf, but a multi-coloured statue, and the ability to specify which colour goes where?
Ya, why not? I mean, there is not reason why such selection has to be complicated.
'u'-'m' menu allows 'find as you type' interface. It holds thousands of orders, but I can always find the one i want in few seconds, just start typing part of order name ...
Majority of interface calls for such simple filter option.
And once you filter on string, little effort can be expended to make filter more awesome.
Code: [Select]
select stone from stockpile where material=microliteCode: [Select]
forbid wood from ground where material!=oak and distance> 200Code: [Select]
melt armor where size=narrow
Post by: MrWiggles on February 11, 2010, 04:01:17 am
As it it might be hard right now to topple the current top ten. Interface is like number 45 or so.
Post by: Noble Digger on February 11, 2010, 01:59:03 pm
The way I wish it would work is if I could turn my cursor into a gun that shoots out buildings with their material pre-chosen and loaded into the gun. If I have 30 ☼Obsidian Door☼ i should be able to draw with those 30, click (placed) click (placed) click (placed) ...27 remaining...3...0... sorry you ran out, pick a different material. No pathing enumeration should happen during this case. I agree that having to hit b (build) d (door) plus plus plus *infinity (selecting objects) enter (select) and repeat, each time, for 300+ furniture items is absolutely unnecessary tedium and can and should be improved, this might take a solid 2-3 days' work but the man-hours saved for DF players would skyrocket into infinity within a week, people wouldn't shy away from megaconstructions so fearfully, etc...
Post by: zwei on February 11, 2010, 02:57:40 pm
The manager screen only has to sort and filter through a static list of a finite number of options which are impossible to change except during world gen: all the possible jobs that can be manager-queued. The build menus must scan out from the building point and locate all economically-allowed, accessible, unforbidden stone and this presumably involves a MASSIVE pathing check from the point of use. Once this list is enumerated it should work like the manager screen as far as distance\value\quality\string filtering but it's always going to need to be populated which will cause an FPS drag, that stuff changes in real time and must be thought of each time.
This list would only need to be enumerated/accessed while selecting materials (paused mode, no fps drag), which it does anyway whenever you get to material selection screen.
Simply put, game already pulls item list, filters it and paths every time are ording something to be built. Making that list sortable/filterable is not any more difficult (both code wise and performace wise) than filtering manager screen.
Post by: Muz on February 13, 2010, 05:02:51 am
Post by: PsyberianHusky on February 13, 2010, 05:12:22 am
- Hard to create what I want - I need to fiddle with custom stockpiles, locked doors etc. to make sure the mason uses the correct type of stone, jewelers encrust the right stuff and so on.
I think Toady said something about this in one of the DF Talks, something about being able to "commission" things. Sadly, I don't remember which one it was, but it was during the questions. I think he used the example that the player should be able to commission a bunch of goblets and have an engraver engrave the king's face on them or something. And then there was a little bit of a discussion of the engraver involved in the process becoming unhappy after a while of the constant repetition, due to him not being able to express himself or anything. This won't be in the next version, certainly, but I'm expecting this to be in before the 1.0 release.
So, don't be too worried. Someday, we'll be able to have our graveyards filled with granite statues of each individual dwarf, each one with rubies in place of their eyes.
Someday will I be able to enchant them to kill graverobers, and will they be able to shoot lazers made of magic from the eyes ?
Post by: James.Denholm on February 13, 2010, 05:26:01 am
- Hard to create what I want - I need to fiddle with custom stockpiles, locked doors etc. to make sure the mason uses the correct type of stone, jewelers encrust the right stuff and so on.
I think Toady said something about this in one of the DF Talks, something about being able to "commission" things. Sadly, I don't remember which one it was, but it was during the questions. I think he used the example that the player should be able to commission a bunch of goblets and have an engraver engrave the king's face on them or something. And then there was a little bit of a discussion of the engraver involved in the process becoming unhappy after a while of the constant repetition, due to him not being able to express himself or anything. This won't be in the next version, certainly, but I'm expecting this to be in before the 1.0 release.
So, don't be too worried. Someday, we'll be able to have our graveyards filled with granite statues of each individual dwarf, each one with rubies in place of their eyes.
Someday will I be able to enchant them to kill graverobers, and will they be able to shoot lazers made of magic from the eyes ?
Yeah... You're going to want to ask Toady that one. :P
Post by: Muz on February 13, 2010, 05:30:23 am
Post by: Willfor on February 13, 2010, 12:33:21 pm
Quote
PowerGoal184, EYE LASERS., The treasure map you follow warns you to watch out for the eye beams of the guardian statue. You enter the chamber, and wrap a blindfold around the statues eyes. Sensing your intent, the statue's hands shoot beams of light into your eyes.
Post by: Hammurabi on March 05, 2010, 11:48:04 am
1. ASCII - I don't mind ASCII graphics in general. But I think DF is too detailed for ASCII. There are way too many different items that are displayed with the limited ASCII set, resulting in many non-obvious representations. This increases the learning curve. Something like the tiled graphics from 25 years ago would be a huge improvement (Ultima III-Ultima IV for example). I'm using the Mayday tileset now, but this wasn't obvious when I first started.
2. UI - The keys used to scroll a list vary. The keys used to select an area on the map vary. Make it so that a scrolling list takes up the whole box, not just the top third on 19" monitor. Just fix it so the UI is fairly consistent, don't wait for the Presentation Arc.
3. In-game help - I find it almost impossible to learn this game without consulting the Wiki for every new job/workshop/feature/etc. The game doesn't tell me what each workshop needs for input or what it makes as output, nor what skills are used. There are many items in the game that I don't know what they even mean, much less what they are used for in the game.
4. Game feedback - The game won't tell you why the dwarves are not doing what you want. For example, I bought some crossbows from the first caravan. After I equipped them, all my miners stopped digging. The game won't tell me what is wrong. I have to consult the wiki to figure out where I screwed up. I could never figure out how to reequip the mining picks, so I abandoned. In another fort, all my seeds were cooked instead of planted, I couldn't find where to control it. Without the wiki, I would have never guess to look under "Z-Status".
In general, I feel like I am spending too much time learning the quirks of the interface. It's obvious that the new features have been stitched on over the years. Still, DF is an incredible simulation.
Post by: MrWiggles on March 05, 2010, 07:39:15 pm
I'm an older gamer that has cut his teeth on games like Utopia (Intellivison), MULE, Populous, SimCity, Populous, Civilization, etc. I love sandbox, simulation, and/or god-games. I've been playing DF for about 3 weeks. It's an incredible game, very detailed. Yet it has some huge flaws that turn me off.This is something I've wonder myself. The game isnt constricted to the use of ascii tiles, it can use a unique tile for all items. I personally would be happy if he used foreign language character set ti supplement the ascii, to expand but keep the ascii feel.
1. ASCII - I don't mind ASCII graphics in general. But I think DF is too detailed for ASCII. There are way too many different items that are displayed with the limited ASCII set, resulting in many non-obvious representations. This increases the learning curve. Something like the tiled graphics from 25 years ago would be a huge improvement (Ultima III-Ultima IV for example). I'm using the Mayday tileset now, but this wasn't obvious when I first started.
Quote
3. In-game help - I find it almost impossible to learn this game without consulting the Wiki for every new job/workshop/feature/etc. The game doesn't tell me what each workshop needs for input or what it makes as output, nor what skills are used. There are many items in the game that I don't know what they even mean, much less what they are used for in the game.This has been suggested the most in this thread. Anything would help like hot link to the wiki that can have the URL updated from the RAWs.
Quote
4. Game feedback - The game won't tell you why the dwarves are not doing what you want. For example, I bought some crossbows from the first caravan. After I equipped them, all my miners stopped digging. The game won't tell me what is wrong. I have to consult the wiki to figure out where I screwed up. I could never figure out how to reequip the mining picks, so I abandoned. In another fort, all my seeds were cooked instead of planted, I couldn't find where to control it. Without the wiki, I would have never guess to look under "Z-Status".
This is interesting. I wonder how it would work. I dont think the game is aware of why something isn't working most of the time.
Post by: darkflagrance on March 06, 2010, 01:30:31 am
I've still never experienced a siege, because I get bored out of my mind trying to build furnished bedrooms for 100+ dwarves.
I don't know if I could play that way. If I were suffering from your predicament, I'd learn how to macro rooms or use Quickfort.
In any case, what I've done for my own game is give everyone a tiny but adequate room, and then modded in enemies up the wazoo so that the military portion of the game is heavily emphasized.
The tedium results from the desire to reach objectives that are meaningless except to the player.
Post by: Garrie on March 06, 2010, 01:45:53 am
The game doesn't know wahat you want to make happen. The only way it knows you didn't want the seeds cooked is by you turning the "cook (foo) seeds" off in the relevent option.Quote4. Game feedback - The game won't tell you why the dwarves are not doing what you want. For example, I bought some crossbows from the first caravan. After I equipped them, all my miners stopped digging. The game won't tell me what is wrong. I have to consult the wiki to figure out where I screwed up. I could never figure out how to reequip the mining picks, so I abandoned. In another fort, all my seeds were cooked instead of planted, I couldn't find where to control it. Without the wiki, I would have never guess to look under "Z-Status".
This is interesting. I wonder how it would work. I dont think the game is aware of why something isn't working most of the time.
I'm pretty sure if you play a tutorial or two (there are quite a few around) this issue is answered.
POSSIBLY, before release, some of the better tutorials & how-tos need to be incorporated. Until then, a static html page pointing to the forum, and some how-tos, would do. (even pointing to the wiki isn't reliable, it got moved not long ago).
Post by: MrWiggles on March 06, 2010, 03:27:50 am
The game doesn't know wahat you want to make happen. The only way it knows you didn't want the seeds cooked is by you turning the "cook (foo) seeds" off in the relevent option.Quote4. Game feedback - The game won't tell you why the dwarves are not doing what you want. For example, I bought some crossbows from the first caravan. After I equipped them, all my miners stopped digging. The game won't tell me what is wrong. I have to consult the wiki to figure out where I screwed up. I could never figure out how to reequip the mining picks, so I abandoned. In another fort, all my seeds were cooked instead of planted, I couldn't find where to control it. Without the wiki, I would have never guess to look under "Z-Status".
This is interesting. I wonder how it would work. I dont think the game is aware of why something isn't working most of the time.
I'm pretty sure if you play a tutorial or two (there are quite a few around) this issue is answered.
POSSIBLY, before release, some of the better tutorials & how-tos need to be incorporated. Until then, a static html page pointing to the forum, and some how-tos, would do. (even pointing to the wiki isn't reliable, it got moved not long ago).
Right, that why the relevant URL would need to be editable in the RAWS. This is something the community would probably take care of, without a moment thought. All toady would need to do is have a read me file or a link next to the down load that points to the thread with the updated RAW.
Post by: Hammurabi on March 06, 2010, 11:22:14 am
The game doesn't know wahat you want to make happen. The only way it knows you didn't want the seeds cooked is by you turning the "cook (foo) seeds" off in the relevent option.
I'm pretty sure if you play a tutorial or two (there are quite a few around) this issue is answered.
My suggestions is that the "relevant option" to control what items can be cooked is in the wrong place. Instead of being in "Z-status", it should be in the kitchen workshop menu (or accessible from both places). In general, all the related options for some function (like cooking) should be accessible from the same place.
Same for stone. I should be able to choose what types of stone to use for construction at the Mason's Workshop. If I were to build a wall, I get to choose the type of stone to use. When I place a door, table or chair, I get to choose the specific furniture item to use. When I build a door, table or chair, I don't get to choose. Why not? There are tricks to make them use a certain type of stone by controlling the stone in the nearest stockpile. But that type of micromanagement turns me off (which is what the thread is for).
Post by: zwei on March 07, 2010, 06:12:03 am
Quote4. Game feedback - The game won't tell you why the dwarves are not doing what you want. For example, I bought some crossbows from the first caravan. After I equipped them, all my miners stopped digging. The game won't tell me what is wrong. I have to consult the wiki to figure out where I screwed up. I could never figure out how to reequip the mining picks, so I abandoned. In another fort, all my seeds were cooked instead of planted, I couldn't find where to control it. Without the wiki, I would have never guess to look under "Z-Status".
This is interesting. I wonder how it would work. I dont think the game is aware of why something isn't working most of the time.
For those specific examples:
Choosing weapon type turns off mining labor (did you know that?), causing dwarf to drop his pick.
Miner needs to have his weapon set to unarmed and his mining skill re-enabled to get back to work. This is very-un obvious.
Game should at least tell you that it automatically turned off labor. Even better, game should let mining labor turned on and either disable soldiering setting for weapon or just handle weapon pickup and pick drop when miner is activated as you would expect.
As for seccond example, cooking has very bad defaults: Booze cooking is on by default (seriously, booze cooking on by default?) as well as seed cooking. Whioch means that by default, you end up cooking all your booze and seeds when using repeat orders, leading to thirsty/starved dwarves few months later.
Game should have reasonable safe defaults (seeds/booze set NOT to be cookable). Advanced player can then enable it if they need to, but since this setting is disastrous for beginner, it should not be on.
These two example are perfect: reasonable defaults for dangerous things, reasonable warnings for unexpected consequences.
The game doesn't know wahat you want to make happen. The only way it knows you didn't want the seeds cooked is by you turning the "cook (foo) seeds" off in the relevent option.
I'm pretty sure if you play a tutorial or two (there are quite a few around) this issue is answered.
My suggestions is that the "relevant option" to control what items can be cooked is in the wrong place. Instead of being in "Z-status", it should be in the kitchen workshop menu (or accessible from both places). In general, all the related options for some function (like cooking) should be accessible from the same place.
DUH, OF COURSE! This just makes ... sense.
Access animals menu from butchers shop
Access kitchen menu form kitchen
Access stocks menu from office
Access justice menu from jail
Access autolooming option from loom
Access using_dyed_cloth from clothiers shop
Access refuse gathering setting from refuse stockpile
It just ... makes damn sense ... Brilliant.
Post by: Fedor on March 07, 2010, 01:19:09 pm
My suggestions is that the "relevant option" to control what items can be cooked is in the wrong place. Instead of being in "Z-status", it should be in the kitchen workshop menu (or accessible from both places). In general, all the related options for some function (like cooking) should be accessible from the same place.Hear him, hear him. This is the kind of change that will make DF better!
Same for stone. I should be able to choose what types of stone to use for construction at the Mason's Workshop.
Post by: Protactinium on March 14, 2010, 03:01:38 pm
4. Game feedback - The game won't tell you why the dwarves are not doing what you want.
You, Hammurabi, have been one of the most constructive critics I've ever seen.
Wow, you're good.
Post by: Solarn on March 14, 2010, 06:26:08 pm
But then you'd have the problem that the kitchen workshop menu only contains instructions for that particular kitchen, so you'd have to manually set cooking options for every single kitchen you have.The game doesn't know wahat you want to make happen. The only way it knows you didn't want the seeds cooked is by you turning the "cook (foo) seeds" off in the relevent option.
I'm pretty sure if you play a tutorial or two (there are quite a few around) this issue is answered.
My suggestions is that the "relevant option" to control what items can be cooked is in the wrong place. Instead of being in "Z-status", it should be in the kitchen workshop menu (or accessible from both places). In general, all the related options for some function (like cooking) should be accessible from the same place.
DUH, OF COURSE! This just makes ... sense.
Access animals menu from butchers shop
Access kitchen menu form kitchen
Access stocks menu from office
Access justice menu from jail
Access autolooming option from loom
Access using_dyed_cloth from clothiers shop
Access refuse gathering setting from refuse stockpile
It just ... makes damn sense ... Brilliant.
Post by: Andir on March 15, 2010, 05:44:54 am
But then you'd have the problem that the kitchen workshop menu only contains instructions for that particular kitchen, so you'd have to manually set cooking options for every single kitchen you have.It's why I argued in having context sensitive menus. You select/click on something you get information regarding what that thing can do. You click on a dwarf and you can assign it a job, assign it to military duty (which should be a job, imho), or find out details. You click on a empty square tile and you are prompted with building, designating, inspecting, or mining.
Post by: Innominate on March 15, 2010, 06:31:52 am
B-b-but - a functional user interface just isn't dwarfy!But then you'd have the problem that the kitchen workshop menu only contains instructions for that particular kitchen, so you'd have to manually set cooking options for every single kitchen you have.It's why I argued in having context sensitive menus. You select/click on something you get information regarding what that thing can do. You click on a dwarf and you can assign it a job, assign it to military duty (which should be a job, imho), or find out details. You click on a empty square tile and you are prompted with building, designating, inspecting, or mining.
Seriously though, it seems like a good idea. It may happen when Toady gets around to improving the interface. The most likely reason it isn't implemented is that it requires "back-referencing"; that is, an action knows what it acts on, but a context-sensitive system also needs to know what actions can act on the context. Basically, you have to duplicate code at some point. It's not that much of a problem, but since DF's interface is in a perpetual state of flux it means Toady would have to change twice as much for every small change.
It'll happen one day, I hope.
Post by: Hammurabi on March 15, 2010, 08:53:44 am
But then you'd have the problem that the kitchen workshop menu only contains instructions for that particular kitchen, so you'd have to manually set cooking options for every single kitchen you have.
Is that a bad thing? The standard galley uses the plain ingredients, worked by chefs-in-training, producing food and alcohol for export. The dwarf's primary kitchen uses the best ingredients, worked only by the master chef, producing the highest quality stuff. Replace "kitchen" with other types of workshops. Manage the types of stones used by your legendary Mason directly, not by fiddling with stockpiles to make sure the stone you want the dwarf to use is the closest stone.
This is also newbie friendly. Someone learning the game won't have multiple workshops of the same type. So they only have to learn how to manage multiple kitchens once they have gone past the beginning of the game. The complexity of the game should grow as the game progresses.
Post by: Andir on March 15, 2010, 09:05:13 am
Erm... I'm a developer full time, and I can't imagine a point where you'd have back referencing or duplicate code unless you are using a horrifically bad data structure. There are ways to build your data objects to obtain a the locations/items/dwarfs without having to have two separate functions and interfaces for what I think you're talking about. (Having the kitchen menu assign certain foods to cook can update a permissions set for that type of food, but if you right clicked a food item and set it that would only update the one food item.) Also, setting up a B-tree like object data set could allow you to select all of a type of stone or just a particular subset or type. The code to update this is virtually generic to the point that it could be used for all interactions be it dwarf, food, kitchens, or what have you. A side effect of such a system is that it only deals with a small subset of data at a time so you don't have issues like the Stock menu selecting stone and having it iterate through all the different stone types. The parent type can add array/vector lengths of it's children together and they will do the same recursively through the tree. It shouldn't take minutes to get stone counts. Milliseconds could even be too long.B-b-but - a functional user interface just isn't dwarfy!But then you'd have the problem that the kitchen workshop menu only contains instructions for that particular kitchen, so you'd have to manually set cooking options for every single kitchen you have.It's why I argued in having context sensitive menus. You select/click on something you get information regarding what that thing can do. You click on a dwarf and you can assign it a job, assign it to military duty (which should be a job, imho), or find out details. You click on a empty square tile and you are prompted with building, designating, inspecting, or mining.
Seriously though, it seems like a good idea. It may happen when Toady gets around to improving the interface. The most likely reason it isn't implemented is that it requires "back-referencing"; that is, an action knows what it acts on, but a context-sensitive system also needs to know what actions can act on the context. Basically, you have to duplicate code at some point. It's not that much of a problem, but since DF's interface is in a perpetual state of flux it means Toady would have to change twice as much for every small change.
It'll happen one day, I hope.
Post by: Grendus on March 15, 2010, 12:08:32 pm
-Animals need to be grouped by species, then gender, with pets listed before strays.
-Armor should be sorted by size, then thickness, then material, then quality (so dwarf sized adamantine platemail comes before dwarf sized steel chainmail, which comes before dwarf sized leather cloaks, which comes before goblin sized iron chainmail etc) which sorts in descending order of size - with the exception that clothing and armor sized for whichever race the player is using is always listed first.
-Weapons should be sorted by associated skill, then material, then quality.
In general, the disorganized stocks menu hurts the endgame tremendously. Arranging things by size/type/material/quality would simplify a lot of the issues players run into trying to do large projects.
Being able to stack items with no quality would be nice too, or at least have shops like the still either discriminate among stack sizes and brew the largest ones or have a set size where they may gather five stacks of 1 food to brew. Right now I have to grow eating and brewing foods separately, otherwise I end up with a lot of Dwarven Ale (5) cluttering up my stockpiles. It would also make coins non-lethal to produce.
And of course, a link to the wiki in-game couldn't hurt. Maybe have that in the help files, a link to resources which points to the forums and wiki.
Edit: Personally, I don't think the games UI is that bad. What it mostly needs is a good walkthrough or some clarity. Once you understand it (dealing with things that already exist are "d"esignations, building things that don't exist is done with "c"onstruction) it makes a lot of sense. I think the tutorial, when it's written, will clear up a lot of those issues.
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 03, 2010, 10:42:05 am
My two cents: as much as I love the new changes, I hate the new military system... or at least the interface. The system might be good, but there's too many things I have to set up before I have a functional military. In the old version, one had only to click on a dwarf, recruit him, then set his weapon and armor. And that was it! Now there's too much hassle with squads, uniforms, and allowed equipment such as bolts. It took me a couple of hours before I realised I even have to allow bolts for my hunters!
This is something like a nightmare come true. I've written earlier in this thread (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=34311.msg1023015#msg1023015):
Quote
(...) Deeper level of detail should never hinder gameplay, never lead to much micromanagement, etc - and having to choose from hundreds of different stones/logs/blocks is just an example of bad implementation. Features like these should always be optional. (...)
The same goes for many features Toady adds. For example, the new military system sounds fascinating, the ability to set uniforms will surely be fun. But I'm afraid I'll have to set uniforms now, otherwise my soldiers won't wear anything. Actually, even the old military interface was a bit too detailed for my taste - I always wanted to be able just to "recruit a soldier and stop caring". You know... so he would select a weapon and gather the best equipment available by himself. The ability to create an army made only of buckler-wielding speardwarves was fun, but I didn't like that it was also obligatory.
As Dwarf Fortress gets more and more complex, it's quickly approaching a point where the micromanagement becomes unbearable. Some thought need to be given to better interface, or providing meaningful defaults that allow you eg. to set up a military or production with two clicks.
Post by: Urist McDepravity on April 03, 2010, 11:09:30 am
Post by: TarrVetus on April 03, 2010, 11:36:15 am
I think it's mentioning that we should always try to consider what the line is between making the interface easier to use, and changing the intent of certain functions. With whatever changes are to come (if ever), the end result should be that it's easier to do the same complex actions we do today, and not to remove the complex actions, entirely. Make the micromanagement easier--don't remove it.
While I am often left groaning over going through menus twelve steps deep just to get my dwarves to run where I need them to during a tense moment, I'd be disappointed if I lost the intricate functions when I need them, or just want something to play with.
I remember seeing in an interview with Toady that out of all the community modding, he only fears those that change the interface. The above is why. It can totally change the game.
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 03, 2010, 11:53:23 am
But, yeah, you're right. But I don't want to make the game less complex, just more intuitive - which don't have to be opposites.
Post by: Draco18s on April 03, 2010, 11:54:40 am
I have to agree here. This interface is nice for all-time military, but it is nightmare when i just need all nearby dwarfs kill some random creature. Drafting directly from [v] was great for that purpose.
I have to agree here as well. I had to look up on the wiki how to "kill this now!" and even then only the nearest dwarf attacked it. The other two bums, up by the wagon, didn't move.
Got fun later when a Giant Toad came out of the underground lake and started chewing on some guys (he killed everyone and left without a scratch).
Post by: Graebeard on April 03, 2010, 01:19:55 pm
As Dwarf Fortress gets more and more complex, it's quickly approaching a point where the micromanagement becomes unbearable. Some thought need to be given to better interface, or providing meaningful defaults that allow you eg. to set up a military or production with two clicks.
While I wholeheartedly agree with you that the defaults could be better in the new military system, I'm hesitant to say that the new interface is too complex.
I mean, the whole damn interface is "too complex," right? The only reason we might think otherwise is because of the (significant) amount of time we put in to learn everything when we got started. With the new interface we're just experiencing the frustration of learning the system again.
I expect that the complaints about the military and military interface will go down once people get used to the new system. In fact, it seems like the amount of micromanagement will go down once everyone masters it. The new system is more complex to st up, but with the monthly patrols, patrol points that can be hit by multiple squads, etc... it seems like once you set it up you can forget about it. I'm happy not to have to juggle 3 squads between training and active duty any more.
Post by: Urist McDepravity on April 03, 2010, 01:48:22 pm
In fact, it seems like the amount of micromanagement will go down once everyone masters it.Not in the case i specified above, when you need to draft non-militaries around some place. You now have to look-up them by name instead of hovering over them in v and just drafting. Plus you have to create these temporary squads to only disband them later.
Post by: zwei on April 03, 2010, 02:55:13 pm
As Dwarf Fortress gets more and more complex, it's quickly approaching a point where the micromanagement becomes unbearable. Some thought need to be given to better interface, or providing meaningful defaults that allow you eg. to set up a military or production with two clicks.I expect that the complaints about the military and military interface will go down once people get used to the new system. In fact, it seems like the amount of micromanagement will go down once everyone masters it. The new system is more complex to st up, but with the monthly patrols, patrol points that can be hit by multiple squads, etc... it seems like once you set it up you can forget about it. I'm happy not to have to juggle 3 squads between training and active duty any more.
It is just going to be replaced with different micromanagement.
And I have to say, worse kind of. Why? It is about timing. You have to do a lot fiddling when you set up squads.
Seriously, tutorials on how to set up small unit grew from one paragraph to several pages.
So you can read tutorial, right? Well, imagine you are newbie that barely knows how to assign labors that is being attacked. Drafting dwarves in older version to defend themselves is going to be trivially easy: go to m menu a alternate pressing 'a' and down arrow, or 'q'->'l'->'a' nearby dwarves. They swarn that kobbold and are done with it.
Now, what exactly do you do in current version? Game asks you do to a lot of choices: setup military commander noble (quatermaster as bonus), create squad, choose default profile for equipment, assign dwarves to squad. Now, go back to main screen and spress squad menu. select squad, activate it, give it kill order. Pray.
If you just want dwarves to stop fleeing and instead start attacking, you are in for some serious pain.
If you have mature fotress and know what you want from army then yeah, new interface rocks. But untill that, it is needlessly complicated.
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 03, 2010, 03:02:55 pm
Post by: Draco18s on April 03, 2010, 11:21:33 pm
Post by: Folly on April 05, 2010, 08:14:32 pm
Right now I station my dwarves in front of an incoming siege, they all go to the station then 3/4ths of them run back to change their clothes. Meanwhile the few who stayed to fight have either dropped all their weapons, or they have 10 steel battle axes in their bag and choose to use 1 wooden training axe to fight with.
The fact that marksdwarves are completely incapable of picking up ammo doesn't help.
Post by: Hangedman on April 05, 2010, 08:16:57 pm
Especially miners that idle for days on end in the meeting hall while my noble quarters remain undug and they are screaming down my ears.
Post by: James.Denholm on April 06, 2010, 12:11:42 am
Especially miners that idle for days on end in the meeting hall while my noble quarters remain undug and they are screaming down my ears.
But that's part of DF's realism!
Post by: Durin on April 07, 2010, 12:49:48 pm
I think they are trying to fix pathing, which in turn is causing pathing issues, and thus the aggravation of some already tedious AI where work is concerned. One hopes that too will be ironed out soon.
I get the idea that movement is happening in the correct direction. It just takes the patience of Job to hang in there, find something diverting to do to maintain interest in the meantime, and not let yourself get too negative about what is essentially the only hope on the web for a game like I'd REALLY like to play.
Post by: ManaUser on April 18, 2010, 02:52:47 pm
Post by: Vertigon on April 18, 2010, 03:00:14 pm
and having the genders be girl and (bag). Generally just having tiles that don't make any sense there. Also, having all punctuation as speckled patches because the ground is composed of it.
Post by: MrWiggles on April 18, 2010, 03:20:49 pm
Ugly blinking ramps. (Hatches too, for that matter.)I tend to hide the crap that blinks, myself.
Post by: PhoenicIan on April 18, 2010, 03:43:44 pm
Also, I'm hella bad at micromanagement, so I'm slower than hell at this game. And incredibly nervous that the first time anything Fun arrives, I'll be sans fortress before I know what happened.
(Maybe a recap/replay/end screen would be in order?)
Post by: Wh1tefang12 on April 18, 2010, 04:19:20 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on April 18, 2010, 06:36:49 pm
As a new player to DF, I have to say that the worst thing about it, what made it the hardest for me to even consider playing, and is still a daunting challenge, is the absolute "I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THE CHRIST I'M DOING" factor that permeates the game. I don't know what half the keys do, the Help option in game is...scant, at best, and my dwarves just seem to do whatever the hell they feel like, job or not.
Also, I'm hella bad at micromanagement, so I'm slower than hell at this game. And incredibly nervous that the first time anything Fun arrives, I'll be sans fortress before I know what happened.
(Maybe a recap/replay/end screen would be in order?)
I dont see a recap/replay type screen working out. There just to many way a fortress can end. It can probably spam you to death with Hows.
How many died in combat or drowned, but it wouldn't be able to offer a reason to why it happened.
Post by: nenjin on April 18, 2010, 06:58:03 pm
It's just periodically going back over the stuff you already know, until you're ready to try out other stuff, and slowly building up your knowledge every pass. Reading the wiki about specific topics obsessively is a good start too. I think I had to "play" 40 or so games before it all clicked and I really started playing. Just figuring out the keys that move the menus, versus the keys that moved the selectors...once I figured that out, everything else started to fall into place.
But I must have seriously put 50 hours into reading wikis and the in-game tutorial, and these boards, just to know enough to explore.
Post by: thvaz on April 18, 2010, 08:37:53 pm
What I absolutely HATE is having a fortress named Uristm(firefly)kot (bag)esh
and having the genders be girl and (bag). Generally just having tiles that don't make any sense there. Also, having all punctuation as speckled patches because the ground is composed of it.
Do you know this happens because of the tileset you are using, don't you? Please say you are joking, you can't be this thick.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 18, 2010, 09:32:29 pm
What I absolutely HATE is having a fortress named Uristm(firefly)kot (bag)esh
and having the genders be girl and (bag). Generally just having tiles that don't make any sense there. Also, having all punctuation as speckled patches because the ground is composed of it.
Do you know this happens because of the tileset you are using, don't you? Please say you are joking, you can't be this thick.
That doesn't mean it's not a legitimate problem. The current tileset system sucks.
Post by: Bobv2 on April 19, 2010, 02:30:12 am
The utility of the original ASCII graphics are big turn off. Don't get me wrong, I'm usually one of the first to jump on the game over graphics bandwagon, but they just don't do their job well enough at displaying the game. Things are hard to distinguish, especially dwarfs are hard to tell apart. I have a pretty tile set though that solves this problem. I do agree above that the tileset system could be better. Maybe make a system where tileset makers can "unbind" the male sign and bag graphic and make them into two different graphics.
Also, the lack of a scripted tutorial. I'm using the "complete and utter nooby tutorial" found here (http://afteractionreporter.com/2009/02/09/the-complete-and-utter-newby-tutorial-for-dwarf-fortress-part-1-wtf/). It does it's best, but it's hard to stay in sync with it. A scripted tutorial could show you how to deal with events better. Right now I have the problem of my dwarfs running off to the near by river to get a drink while I have 100+ (accessible because it goes down) drink. My only woodworker was killed by a pike. I now have about 30 idlers on average and I don't know if that's normal or if my fortress is behind.
Priority labor instead of it simply being on/off would be nice too. A dwarf would look for a jobs in the jobs queue that it's best at, and go from there. That way I don't have to turn hauling off on my farmers to get them to stop moving around random junk while I have 200+ seeds rotting away and empty farm plots, but then, I have to re-enable it when they are done if I want them to do stuff. Why not have it when they finish planting seeds, then look for hauling jobs? Same would go for workshops, the best available crew will be selected first, and that dwarf would drop whatever it's hauling (because hauling would be a low priority job for it) to go to make the thing. And maybe more management options like in the still an option like "call for a brewer when drink count is under X and make X units", which it would add brewing to the job list and brewers on a low priority job would come and do.
Meh, just my two cents.
Post by: DDR on April 19, 2010, 04:14:18 am
Now I'm just waiting for the nobles screen to be fixed. I prefer long-term forts. The new blood clean-up method is hilarious to wash away... just a couple screens of blood and sand.
Ah, I'm going off to make a fort which may be cleaned by opening a floodgate.
[update] "A floodgate has been destroyed." x2. Half my dwarves drowned, the other half went mad or starved.
Post by: DalGren on April 19, 2010, 04:51:53 am
I have followed DF mostly as a technical achievement -actually since Armok...it was wondrous but unplayable- and started playing/modding with the latest release.
To summarize, and knowing the shortcomings and in-progress cores, but referencing the current state:
Overall:
* Kicking a dead horse, the menus and such can get a facelift. But until everything is done, it's too much to ask.
* The ASCII interface is not too threatening for a veteran to roguelikes or games like ZZT and Megazeux, but even so the sheer variety makes impossible to tell what you are looking at "at a glance".
* Controls are strange. They don't resemble any other setting for any genre...it's pure original, but pure chaos.
* Everything sounds ugly. Descriptions are either too raw and no positive features are to be found.
Seriously how can we make elf jokes without them looking like damsels? No beauty is to be found, since the only traits are negative. This is fantasy medieval, it doesn't need to be so realistic about the old ages!
Dwarf mode:
To be honest, I barely touched this aspect of the game. (I know I am missing)
It is threatening in a way, the slow response and lack of information without reading or watching a tutorial, it requires a zen state of mind that, on its favor, makes it feel like embarking on a real adventure.
Adventure mode:
My real draw to the game, actually, but as many say, it's clearly alpha.
* Equipment management is bizarre and clearly a mere placeholder for the real thing. I completely understand it as coder (everyone does that), but, wow, it blows my mind.
* It makes CPUs explode. Although I understand this one well, too. To make it work well it has to work first.
The response lag is very high and chaotic (it has no rhythm so you are forced to key-wait-key).
* It gives way too many details. Wrestling is just incredibly difficult for example. Sure, it IS awesome to be able to throw someone from the back molar, using the right foot (or talon, I saw a harpy doing that to a goblin)...however, it makes "grab head with right hand" a 1000-entries long list. I guess this will be separated in submenus or something, so it doesn't worry me too much in regards of future development.
* Some descriptions should be dumbed down to avoid saturation. This is mostly about very verbose item names. Sure you need to tell apart items of similar materials (two leather items of the same class), but it can be improved.
* It's wondrous, but it feels too empty. The last version improves it a lot, but while you feel there IS activity -peasants move, monsters attack stuff and you find the mess during or after the action...there is life in the random world, but you can't do much about/with it (other than going medieval, solving quests, and exploring)
In a way there are games that are just that, but better looking, so it's a matter of time to see more stuff to do.
* Although it's on the core todo list, and related to the last point, there's little influence of the adventure in legends. That will change, so it's just a half-complaint.
* It was frustrating to see "strawberry bush" and being unable to pick the berries for later use. I could just set it on fire. It IS awesome but not the first thing you think about when seeing a bush with edible berries.
* Related to the last and possibly planned for the future, there's little to do in such a vast and complete world. Cooking, making potions, picking up herbs, building small structures even if laborious, digging, perhaps gambling, even setting up shops. Basically mixing some Dwarf Mode mechanics to be done as an adventurer and again, influencing the world further.
* Raising pets (as in war companions, food sources (keep your chicken around), or perhaps actual "pets" (within the limitations of the current AI, not asking for a pet sim...although Dwarf mode is a bit of a pet sim). For example getting a eagle egg protected by mommy eagle, and you hatch it and it's like a joined party member)...also further interaction with your companions, have them do stuff and help with battle and other feats like building or such. Make mercenaries that join you for money or goods...that kind of thing. More ways to make your own army to pierce the heavens. With horses, knights and racial stereotypes.
Right now your party is barely manageable, you just have them around or not, and can be killed without the played ever noticing or lost (like in some LP I am following where party members disappear into nowhere).
* Make your funds/value clearer. You don't really know how much things are worth, you don't know if the items you find are just junk or have significance. It seems only weapons and armor are worth something (might be true).
* Conversations mean nothing but quests and some minor background. More on that later.
* Combat is bugged but since it's probably being fixed as I write, not complaining.
* Cities and such work, but they are too crude. I prefer to spend more time at world generation and have villages with some roads and constructions, not random huts scattered around, but I am nitpicking now.
Modding and extending:
Despite my short time I already got to mod some stuff just for the kick of it. On its favor, despite bugged stuff and relative lack of documentation, it's very easy to mod stuff in. (stringdumps work but it's not pure detail)
* Conversation files are raw placeholders and you simply can't make much conversation with them.
* You simply can't make a "beautiful race". Like a nymph or such, they'd be subject to the description uglyfication since there aren't positive traits to mod with (as of now).
* It feels odd you can make a [MALE] [FEMALE] or genderless civilization prosper at all. Perhaps making races crossbreed or magically reproduce or randomly "evolve" from another creature, or simply spawn some every year...it'd be kind of awesome so you can get a tree city of harpies or demons gathering into some unholy city, or perhaps robots. Or like amazonesses, death by snu-snu and stuff. Can give a meaning to "baby snatching" races.
* Until more effects like magic or so are added, there's not much to do with attacks. Like a powerful wind creature like a bird or so launch a gust of strong wind at you and stuff. Right now it's just plain melee simpleness and some grabs.
* Nothing else not suggested yet.
All that said, I consider DF a masterpiece of "things a single game can do". It makes a whole world from the chewy core to the sky, and puts a respectable amount of work into it. Most things will be ironed out with time, but having a whole world to explore makes one wish more actions were available. I love/hate it soo much.
Post by: Andir on April 19, 2010, 05:08:59 am
* Related to the last and possibly planned for the future, there's little to do in such a vast and complete world. Cooking, making potions, picking up herbs, building small structures even if laborious, digging, perhaps gambling, even setting up shops. Basically mixing some Dwarf Mode mechanics to be done as an adventurer and again, influencing the world further.This is the main reason I'd kill to have a multiplayer version of DF... (YES, I know the arguments! The threads and threads of them! I'm just putting in my two cents in expanding this idea...) If you could imagine being able to build structures in adventure mode, that opens the game up to being able to build an entire fort with the help of your friends. You could technically do this entirely in adventure mode. As an alternative, have one person designate jobs (like a fort manager) and put nominal prices on their completion (with some sort of economy...) letting your friends complete them for money that could be used to buy things from the traveling vendors or nearby towns.
Post by: DalGren on April 19, 2010, 05:42:39 am
This is the main reason I'd kill to have a multiplayer version of DF... (YES, I know the arguments! The threads and threads of them! I'm just putting in my two cents in expanding this idea...) If you could imagine being able to build structures in adventure mode, that opens the game up to being able to build an entire fort with the help of your friends. You could technically do this entirely in adventure mode. As an alternative, have one person designate jobs (like a fort manager) and put nominal prices on their completion (with some sort of economy...) letting your friends complete them for money that could be used to buy things from the traveling vendors or nearby towns.What you propose sounds like a hybrid of dwarf and adventure mode if I got your idea right...can certainly be fun, but threads and threads...I personally prefer local gameplay, but I see your point :P
The idea I think of is much simpler, or it would need as many menus and tweaks as Dwarf Mode. Something simplified like "use wood to build wall" "use wood to build floor/door/stairs", or it will be a management nightmare, and perhaps simple orders like have my fisherdwarf friend(for hire?) go fish stuff and come back with food. More like simple orders and actions than designating areas, schedules, and such. As much a party menu like "you sent X to do Y on day Z: not returned/dead/etc".
Post by: bustok on April 19, 2010, 08:29:43 am
-Micromagement
Post by: Lemunde on April 19, 2010, 10:20:47 am
Ugly blinking ramps. (Hatches too, for that matter.)
Hatches don't blink any more. I've made several since the new version came out and I'm looking at one right now. Definitely NOT blinking.
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 19, 2010, 01:24:41 pm
DF Accelerator doesn't add a single frame, I guess because it's a pathfinding, not a graphical issue. I think I'll have to savescum and not release the HFS, which I don't want to... and which would mean I'd lose a great story about a heroic mason saving the fort in the last second (literally).
Post by: Footkerchief on April 19, 2010, 01:30:10 pm
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 19, 2010, 01:33:37 pm
It's true that once I open the bridge that's blocking them, the FPS shoots back up.
Post by: Pickled Tink on April 19, 2010, 01:41:22 pm
The problem is my FPS flatlined not long after I opened the HFS, which is a shame because I really would have liked to have seen how that trap worked against them.
Post by: Draco18s on April 19, 2010, 01:43:30 pm
Hmm... anything I can do about it?
It's true that once I open the bridge that's blocking them, the FPS shoots back up.
That's because they're no longer pathfind-spamming. They found a path and are following it. Set a guy to pull that lever on repeat. Eventually it'll smash some demons.
Post by: Cardinal on April 19, 2010, 02:16:30 pm
Some thought need to be given to better interface, or providing meaningful defaults that allow you eg. to set up a military or production with two clicks.
Very much so on the meaningful defaults bit. I like all the added complexity and I know that some of the problems with the military are a result of bugginess. But I shouldn't be required to go in and fiddle with a bunch of stuff just to activate somebody to throttle a kobold (not that I see kobolds anymore--poor guys are as rare as chupacabres, these days. I think all the titans and dragons and such think they taste like candy.). Same with plump helmets and booze defaulted to being cookable and other newbie-friendly defaults.
Post by: Draco18s on April 19, 2010, 02:30:33 pm
(not that I see kobolds anymore--poor guys are as rare as chupacabres, these days. I think all the titans and dragons and such think they taste like candy.)
They do. Ever tried charbroiled kobold? Delicacy!
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 19, 2010, 03:05:24 pm
Some thought need to be given to better interface, or providing meaningful defaults that allow you eg. to set up a military or production with two clicks.
Very much so on the meaningful defaults bit. I like all the added complexity and I know that some of the problems with the military are a result of bugginess. But I shouldn't be required to go in and fiddle with a bunch of stuff just to activate somebody to throttle a kobold (not that I see kobolds anymore--poor guys are as rare as chupacabres, these days. I think all the titans and dragons and such think they taste like candy.). Same with plump helmets and booze defaulted to being cookable and other newbie-friendly defaults.
I wanted to write a proper suggestion with mock-up interface pictures, but god knows when I get to it, so I'll just spam it here before I forget.
A meaningful default for military would be:
- Reverse the way recruitment works in the military screen. Instead of clicking on a position first, then choosing a dwarf, you would click on the dwarf first and put him in the squad second. Also, there's no reason why the player should be forced to choose the dwarf's number in the squad - just assign it automatically, please. Basically, bring back the old system for recruiting dwarves and arranging them to squads, it was better! (I know the new system of positions has advantages, and internally it would still work the new way. But that things work in some way internally doesn't mean they have to work the same way in the interface)
- You only have to click on dwarves you want to recruit, the squads get created automatically. Once a squad has 10 soldiers, another one gets created and the first soldier you click on becomes its leader. No extra effort needed.
- Along the same lines, the first dwarf you ever recruit becomes the militia commander. No extra screen or separate system needed (but allowed).
- Meaningful default: have two squads by default. Each odd dwarf goes to the first one, each even to the second one. Result: chaotic clicking on 10 dwarves would create two squads of 5 instead of one squad of 10. Because...
- Have the default squads alternate training and free time in a chessboard pattern. Each month, one squad trains and one has time off
- Which means the default schedule should be some "ideal mix" of training and free time, not only training. Also, default requirements should be... i don't know... 5 dwarves, not 10. (Better yet, have this value in percents, and by default set it to 50 %)
- Have some kind of default, automatic ammo assignment... the old system was good: "use wood/bone for training, metal for combat". Also, automatically assign ammo for hunters. The player should only see ammunition menu when he wants to change thing, it should be entirely possible not to ever use it, like in the old version.
(All of this is the default behaviour that happens when you click as little as possible. I don't want to take any functions away. Spending some more clicks would of course enable you to have one squad of 10 instead of two of 5, etc.)
AND
- Have all barracks by default allow everything (training, sleeping, equipment storage) for all squads! Player should only intervene when he want to turn things off, not on!
Result: you have a functional military, and the only thing you had to do was clicking ENTER on dwarves you wanted to recruit. Like in the old, good days.
------
Also a random suggestion: have all rooms, like dining rooms, barracks, zoos, statue gardens or even bedrooms work the same way as hospitals. Interface streamlining. Please, pretty please!
Post by: Halykan on April 19, 2010, 03:53:26 pm
I really have trouble visualizing Z-levels. I enjoy making complex, interesting fortresses with a lot of architecture to them, but this is the big stumbling block. Pulling off something like Moria isn't overly hard, but trying to make domes, or multi-Z-level sculptures of Armok (complete with adamantine fangs and magma pouring from the mouth) are considerably more challenging and a lot less satisfying simply because it's impossible to actually see them.
I know there's some efforts to add like an isometric view or whatever, but I do think that something like that would greatly enhance the long-term playability of the game. After all, I think this is one of the major reasons a lot of players aren't interested in megaprojects, which seem to me to be one of the handful of things to do once you've gotten good enough to make survival relatively trivial.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 19, 2010, 03:55:51 pm
Post by: Quantum Toast on April 19, 2010, 05:45:55 pm
Aren't they immune to atomsmashing anymore?Hmm... anything I can do about it?
It's true that once I open the bridge that's blocking them, the FPS shoots back up.
That's because they're no longer pathfind-spamming. They found a path and are following it. Set a guy to pull that lever on repeat. Eventually it'll smash some demons.
Post by: Andir on April 19, 2010, 06:19:12 pm
Only one way to find out!Aren't they immune to atomsmashing anymore?Hmm... anything I can do about it?
It's true that once I open the bridge that's blocking them, the FPS shoots back up.
That's because they're no longer pathfind-spamming. They found a path and are following it. Set a guy to pull that lever on repeat. Eventually it'll smash some demons.
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 19, 2010, 07:29:54 pm
Post by: SirHoneyBadger on April 21, 2010, 08:39:28 am
Post by: keratacon on April 21, 2010, 04:19:46 pm
The game needs an in-program way of loading a graphical tileset.
A pregen starting area so that people could write more reliable tutorials would be nice, but that's not necessary.
But I can tell you what I *don't* think the game needs: an isometric point of view. It would be a nice modification, but as much as people want it, I don't think it would actually get used that much. There are isometric mods for other roguelikes and they don't really get used, and Dwarf Fortress is a lot more complicated than most roguelikes.
It would work well for being outdoors, certainly, but for indoor and underground areas, you'd still have the problem of pressing < and > to strip off top layers until you can see the floor you're looking at, and even then that doesn't help with seeing past cave walls and closed doors and so on. Other games with a 3d perspective and a lot of visual obstacles solve this by looking through the objects in front of the main character, but in Dwarf Fortress there is no main character, you'd need to use a cursor of some sort to tell the game where you're looking in order for it to reveal space behind walls. I'm sure there's a way of doing it, but I don't think you'd gain any simplicity. It would be nice to be able to pause the game and look around a nice 3d view composed of good isometric tiles. I just don't think it would be very convenient to play with. Dwarf Fortress requires that you have access to a large amount of information in a small window, and anything that obscures areas that should be visible isn't going to add to game playability.
Post by: Footkerchief on April 21, 2010, 04:28:55 pm
It would work well for being outdoors, certainly, but for indoor and underground areas, you'd still have the problem of pressing < and > to strip off top layers until you can see the floor you're looking at, and even then that doesn't help with seeing past cave walls and closed doors and so on. Other games with a 3d perspective and a lot of visual obstacles solve this by looking through the objects in front of the main character, but in Dwarf Fortress there is no main character, you'd need to use a cursor of some sort to tell the game where you're looking in order for it to reveal space behind walls. I'm sure there's a way of doing it, but I don't think you'd gain any simplicity. It would be nice to be able to pause the game and look around a nice 3d view composed of good isometric tiles. I just don't think it would be very convenient to play with. Dwarf Fortress requires that you have access to a large amount of information in a small window, and anything that obscures areas that should be visible isn't going to add to game playability.
Irregular ceilings are very hard to handle in isometric, yeah. They also present major obstacles to multi-z-level top-down viewing, (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30114.0) but it's not quite as complicated.
Post by: Orkel on April 21, 2010, 04:30:18 pm
Currently, military and healthcare bugs. Can't and won't play until they are fixed (healthcare is for .04, I can only hope that military gets in .05)
Post by: zwei on April 22, 2010, 01:40:39 am
A pregen starting area so that people could write more reliable tutorials would be nice, but that's not necessary.
If you are making tutorial, you can simply pregen world, embark to some location suitable and zip game.
You want to do that for tutorial anyway because it allows you to put in tileset and fiddle with init (i.e. remove annoying fullscreen y/n dialog, turn on water level display, turn on autosaves, etc ...)
What tutorials desperatelly needs are mission "objectives" and "triggers". For example "tutorial noble" that would demand construction of carpenters workshop and 7 beds at begining, once he is satisfied he would mandate construction of tables and chairs... etc etc ...
Post by: Fetus4188 on April 22, 2010, 02:15:54 am
Some thought need to be given to better interface, or providing meaningful defaults that allow you eg. to set up a military or production with two clicks.
Very much so on the meaningful defaults bit. I like all the added complexity and I know that some of the problems with the military are a result of bugginess. But I shouldn't be required to go in and fiddle with a bunch of stuff just to activate somebody to throttle a kobold (not that I see kobolds anymore--poor guys are as rare as chupacabres, these days. I think all the titans and dragons and such think they taste like candy.). Same with plump helmets and booze defaulted to being cookable and other newbie-friendly defaults.
I wanted to write a proper suggestion with mock-up interface pictures, but god knows when I get to it, so I'll just spam it here before I forget.
A meaningful default for military would be:
- Reverse the way recruitment works in the military screen. Instead of clicking on a position first, then choosing a dwarf, you would click on the dwarf first and put him in the squad second. Also, there's no reason why the player should be forced to choose the dwarf's number in the squad - just assign it automatically, please. Basically, bring back the old system for recruiting dwarves and arranging them to squads, it was better! (I know the new system of positions has advantages, and internally it would still work the new way. But that things work in some way internally doesn't mean they have to work the same way in the interface)
- You only have to click on dwarves you want to recruit, the squads get created automatically. Once a squad has 10 soldiers, another one gets created and the first soldier you click on becomes its leader. No extra effort needed.
- Along the same lines, the first dwarf you ever recruit becomes the militia commander. No extra screen or separate system needed (but allowed).
- Meaningful default: have two squads by default. Each odd dwarf goes to the first one, each even to the second one. Result: chaotic clicking on 10 dwarves would create two squads of 5 instead of one squad of 10. Because...
- Have the default squads alternate training and free time in a chessboard pattern. Each month, one squad trains and one has time off
- Which means the default schedule should be some "ideal mix" of training and free time, not only training. Also, default requirements should be... i don't know... 5 dwarves, not 10. (Better yet, have this value in percents, and by default set it to 50 %)
- Have some kind of default, automatic ammo assignment... the old system was good: "use wood/bone for training, metal for combat". Also, automatically assign ammo for hunters. The player should only see ammunition menu when he wants to change thing, it should be entirely possible not to ever use it, like in the old version.
(All of this is the default behaviour that happens when you click as little as possible. I don't want to take any functions away. Spending some more clicks would of course enable you to have one squad of 10 instead of two of 5, etc.)
AND
- Have all barracks by default allow everything (training, sleeping, equipment storage) for all squads! Player should only intervene when he want to turn things off, not on!
Result: you have a functional military, and the only thing you had to do was clicking ENTER on dwarves you wanted to recruit. Like in the old, good days.
------
Also a random suggestion: have all rooms, like dining rooms, barracks, zoos, statue gardens or even bedrooms work the same way as hospitals. Interface streamlining. Please, pretty please!
Quoted for great justice.
It seems like many of the default behaviors in DF translate to "don't do anything," which is annoying. If I've taking the trouble to draft a dwarf it's because I want them to do something.
Post by: The Architect on April 22, 2010, 02:34:14 am
(reference to post about visualizing z-levels) It's a huge turnoff for me when I'm just trying to follow my dwarves through caverns or hilly aboveground terrain. I'm not the first to mention it, I know, but god what a hassle.
The whole military deal needs to be less scrolling through menus and more clicking. I'm sure it has been brought up before, but just allowing more mouse interaction would make the current interface MUCH less painful. Just clicking on jobs and items in menus rather than cumbersomely scrolling down to them repeatedly would be golden. This is the problem that Dwarf Therapist fixes for labor.
We the players/testers need a (perhaps Dwarf Therapist style) interface (easily distinguishable sections, subsections, items, and buttons) with mouse interactivity for menus from embark to military. For me it's not that I can't understand the military system, but that it's so cumbersome and wonky to fool with that I would rather turn off invasions and avoid (spoilers) to avoid messing with a fort's military until I absolutely must. Thus, I miss half of the game.
I'd willingly submit to current z-level viewing for the next 5 years if it means a more workable interface (allowing Toady to add all of his features without making the game entirely unplayable). Because this is how I see it: As things become more complex, everything will tend to go the way of the military system. By which I mean it will become absolutely impenetrable to newbies, and nearly unworkable even for experienced players.
Post by: Tormodino on April 22, 2010, 10:02:36 am
I think there is a clear and present danger of bloat here.
That is really my only fear where DF is concerned.
More can sometimes be less.
Post by: Deathworks on April 22, 2010, 10:16:23 am
As far as I remember, ANSII would be the default graphics as they are actually a modified ASCII set/go beyond ASCII.
Personally, I think that the lack of in-game documentation as well as a really easy default scheme for setting things up is what stops people early on.
The User Interface is okay as it is in my eyes, as you default with an overview over the necessary keys.
The graphics also work very well, especially when people see them in the light of the background of the new homepage.
However, figuring out what you ought to do is a real pain, and having no real "official" (as in coming with the game) documentation that tells you just how things work is really confusing.
In addition, during the 3D versions, I have had the impression that the default settings really do not make very easy worlds which should be what players are introduced to.
Finally, while the bigger worlds are of course more interesting, using small worlds/smaller worlds as the default may also be something to consider to speed up things and not have people frustrated about the speed of the game. The nify features of the bigger worlds can be uncovered later, I think, when the player has grown used to the game and will design their worlds anyway.
Deathworks
Post by: silantrath on April 22, 2010, 10:49:53 am
What I'm trying to say is, I think a lot of things are over-rated. More than the general public realizes. It's our job as individuals and responsible play-testers to sift through threads like this, determine what the general public is begging for, reason why or why not those features would be good, and come up with some kind of logical argument in favor for or against these features, or even for some other thing that would solve the problem in a creative way that sets this game apart from all the others.
SO... I'm not gonna sift through +98 pages of repeated posts here, just cuz that would be unnecessary and I've seen the trends of complaints already. I'll just give you my little bit on what small bit I've seen and let someone else handle the rest.
I'll start with Amitabho's post, as it caught my interest. First off, while technically ANSII is correct, most people will just say ASCII. if you say ANSII, you sound like an elitist turd who thinks he knows everything. So remember; it's ASCII, not ANSII in your PANTSI. Second, you're thirteen. You need to realize the world doesn't revolve around your opinion, and if someone finds it more enjoyable to look at a 6x6 pixel comical representation of a dorf than a simple colored smiley, then that's their choice, freedom, and right, and it in no way makes them more shallow than you, in and of itself. Their motives for doing so MIGHT, but you can't read their minds so don't judge them on that preference alone.
I'm 19. I like the mayday tileset. I also like to play stock nethack, without any graphical additives. Knowing those things alone, would you say I'm a shallow, Halo fanboy, who only cares about graphics? Would you still say that, if I told you I was about to join the Air Force, go Special Forces, and never even see a computer game for up to nine months at a time?
I think I've made my point.
Now, my opinion is that it should be *much* easier to configure df, from editing the init.txt, to adding graphics packs, to even upgrading to a newer version. I don't much care for having to splice a new version into an already configured older version, realize I accidentally overwrote my init.txt, forgot to replace the raws folder in my save folder, and after I fix those, low and behold my plump helmets look like trees! (still don't understand that one.)
As far as interface goes, I'd like to see consolidation of options like the [k], [t], [v], and [q] menus. I had trouble starting out when I'd loo[k] at a workshop and not be able to see what my moody dorf already had.
For tutorials, I think an easy fix would be to choose a safe biome, embark, spend a year or two digging out and setting things up for a basic fortress(maybe turn off migrants), load the place up with notes("this is your sleeping quarters, make sure you have enough rooms for all your dwarfs! use [q] to set up bedrooms like these!" or "see how I channeled out this reservoir for my well?" or "make sure you embark with this stuff. Its called 'lignite,' and you use it at your foundry to make coal, so you can make metal stuff"). then save it, and bundle it with the game. Add some stuff in the help files pointing to it, and presto, you've got a tutorial. Also, the help files should be reorganized. I think windows help might even be better than that thing right now, and that's saying something.
Post by: TheCze on April 22, 2010, 11:15:47 am
I think if the game would come with a pregenerated map and some dwarfs already embarked would help many people to just download the game and start playing.
Just add some more notes for the most important stuff like explaining (d) (b) and (q) (maybe also (u) and (v) ) and give them a start direction like "build bedrooms for every dwarf".
Post by: Caesar on April 22, 2010, 11:16:01 am
I gotta say, I was in the same boat as Amitabho a few years ago. I hated Halo, just because it was such a fad. EVERYBODY loved it, so I just decided I hated it. These days, I can play it, and even have fun, but I don't drool over it like so many people do. If somebody says, "lets play Halo!" I'm much more likely to say "sure," "okay," or "naw," than "yeah!" or "dood, I was just thinking of plastering your brainz with a sniperz rifel!"...
What I'm trying to say is, I think a lot of things are over-rated. More than the general public realizes. It's our job as individuals and responsible play-testers to sift through threads like this, determine what the general public is begging for, reason why or why not those features would be good, and come up with some kind of logical argument in favor for or against these features, or even for some other thing that would solve the problem in a creative way that sets this game apart from all the others.
SO... I'm not gonna sift through +98 pages of repeated posts here, just cuz that would be unnecessary and I've seen the trends of complaints already. I'll just give you my little bit on what small bit I've seen and let someone else handle the rest.
I'll start with Amitabho's post, as it caught my interest. First off, while technically ANSII is correct, most people will just say ASCII. if you say ANSII, you sound like an elitist turd who thinks he knows everything. So remember; it's ASCII, not ANSII in your PANTSI. Second, you're thirteen. You need to realize the world doesn't revolve around your opinion, and if someone finds it more enjoyable to look at a 6x6 pixel comical representation of a dorf than a simple colored smiley, then that's their choice, freedom, and right, and it in no way makes them more shallow than you, in and of itself. Their motives for doing so MIGHT, but you can't read their minds so don't judge them on that preference alone.
I'm 19. I like the mayday tileset. I also like to play stock nethack, without any graphical additives. Knowing those things alone, would you say I'm a shallow, Halo fanboy, who only cares about graphics? Would you still say that, if I told you I was about to join the Air Force, go Special Forces, and never even see a computer game for up to nine months at a time?
I think I've made my point.
Now, my opinion is that it should be *much* easier to configure df, from editing the init.txt, to adding graphics packs, to even upgrading to a newer version. I don't much care for having to splice a new version into an already configured older version, realize I accidentally overwrote my init.txt, forgot to replace the raws folder in my save folder, and after I fix those, low and behold my plump helmets look like trees! (still don't understand that one.)
As far as interface goes, I'd like to see consolidation of options like the [k], [t], [v], and [q] menus. I had trouble starting out when I'd loo[k] at a workshop and not be able to see what my moody dorf already had.
For tutorials, I think an easy fix would be to choose a safe biome, embark, spend a year or two digging out and setting things up for a basic fortress(maybe turn off migrants), load the place up with notes("this is your sleeping quarters, make sure you have enough rooms for all your dwarfs! use [q] to set up bedrooms like these!" or "see how I channeled out this reservoir for my well?" or "make sure you embark with this stuff. Its called 'lignite,' and you use it at your foundry to make coal, so you can make metal stuff"). then save it, and bundle it with the game. Add some stuff in the help files pointing to it, and presto, you've got a tutorial. Also, the help files should be reorganized. I think windows help might even be better than that thing right now, and that's saying something.
You just said pretty much anything I was about to say, with the only thing I am sure of that wouldn't be the same in my post being that I'm not about to join the army, and that I am fifteen, not nineteen.
One of the funniest persons that I tried introducing to Dwarf Fortress was my father.
He's always telling us about how he used to play pong and how he loved and still loves games like that.
But, when I pointed at my screen, my Mayday dwarfs running around doing what they do, he backed away as if scared; "That looks ugly!".
Afterwards especially his expression made me laugh.
Post by: Draco18s on April 22, 2010, 11:50:37 am
You just said pretty much anything I was about to say, with the only thing I am sure of that wouldn't be the same in my post being that I'm not about to join the army, and that I am fifteen, not nineteen.
Man. Just wait 10 years. You'll find posts like this and go, "what an immature moron. Wait. That was me."
Post by: silantrath on April 22, 2010, 12:11:40 pm
And its the Air Force, not Army.
Please don't confuse the two. :P
I gotta say, I never had much trouble picking up DF. I was used to ASCII graphics from NetHack/ADOM, I find most rts games too simple/action based, and I knew full well that it would take some dedication and reading to learn an interface suitable for a game with so many features. Honestly, the hardest part is keeping track of my dwarfs' assigned jobs. If the [*u] menu could be switched between showing assigned jobs and most skilled jobs, or even both side by side, I wouldn't really have any problems. Maybe the [z] status screen could show assigned jobs+skill levels in those jobs+any notably high level skills (e.g. best glassmaker in this fort) that way you could open the [*u] menu, and rather than zooming to the [c]reature, then flipping between skills and jobs pages with several button presses each, not to mention remembering which dwarfs out of the 200 you've already looked at, you could just open the [*u]nit menu and hit [z], get all your info at a glance, then [space] back to the [*u]nit menu and keep going through the list. possibly even allow the player to turn jobs on/off from the [z] screen.
as a side, I'm glad to see so many young teens playing more mind-challenging games. I was homeschooled, but my local highschool has a ridiculous drop out rate(I think it was like 70% or so)... they diagnose every single white male with OCD just so they can get more money from the government, something about special needs costs. If all those kids learned the basics of DF they would breeze through school, and the world would have more competent record keepers/organizers as opposed to stark raving mad peasants.
edit: 'u' inside [] turns on underlining... changed all instances of that to [*u], hopefully the post makes more sense.
Post by: huhu on April 22, 2010, 04:17:38 pm
Post by: nil on April 22, 2010, 08:01:46 pm
The military-related bugs turn me off about DF the most. I know it's a test version, but I can't help playing, and I die a little inside each time my fort goes to boom because of a crash. Another fort I played for four years without enabling any squads, and that has been the only method that worked so far. I've been trying to think of the latest DF as a 'demo preview version' of sorts... Arg.People asked for a release as soon as possible and they that's what they got. But I'm with you--I haven't even made a real attempt at a fortress yet, I'm waiting for a few bugfixes and the d17 merge.
Post by: Nanban Jim on July 02, 2010, 01:17:30 am
More specifically, what problems did you have before learning the ropes of the game? We figure we are losing 90% of the players because of the UI and other barriers, and that doesn’t even count the ones scared away by the ASCII graphics. Now, this doesn’t mean we are about abandon the rest of the game to start the presentation arc. It is just as important to have endless monster attacks from the underground, and challenging sieges.
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen? Or maybe its finding the right tile sets and setting them up. We are hoping at some point to build easier commands and tutorials to help bring in more players. We have to identify the main culprits first. So what is frustrating you the most about Dwarf Fortress?
I just started playing 3 days ago. Let me start answering the question by positing a solution: Add to the distro a small saved game showing a basic fortress with the most necessary constructions for survival. In other words, a template I can work from. Failing that, a tutorial that does not assume I know how to do anything other than press exactly the keys I'm told. "Build a bed and place it" doesn't tell me squat. (I'll allow that it was fun to find out how to do that, but only because on that third embarking I'd had a string of successes figuring out how to do what the wiki tutorials were saying to do.)
So, what turns me off about DF? Lack of approachable documentation, be it Wiki, PDF, interactive like a saved game, or even a canonical set of YouTube videos. I understand it's very easy to become so familiar with a system that breaking it down into the basic steps is as difficult as figuring them out was. That's not the new player's problem.
So, would bundling a graphical tileset that doesn't have an anorexic font in it be helpful? Yeah, as much as I love MUXes and ADOM, it's nice to have at least Atari graphics. (Got to say, though, the use of ASCII graphics in this is nicely done and quite well thought out for all the variety of things it has to represent.)
Would fixing military stuff help make the game more approachable? Not in my experience. It's easy to avoid fights (or I've been insanely lucky).
Would basic descriptions of objects help? Sure, whether it's by pulling them off the wiki through a game-side client or clickable link in the game, in a manual, or as someone else said a Dwarfopedia...
Would starting off all 7 Dwarves with all jobs enabled help? Sure! Or, again, put this in documentation. Having to read between the lines in 3 different "tutorials" at the same time to figure this out is absurd.
So the final answer: A scripted tutorial, as has been suggested before, would really help. It needn't ruin the DF experience of learning by "funning" by giving everything away. Start with a default save game right after Embark, packaged with every distro. Show me how and where to build a sleeping area, carpenter's shop, mason's shop, kitchen, brewery (since these
And FFS could you just add in a damn "dig the whole fucking staircase from here down one level" command? Honestly, having these
In closing, you don't have to change the core gameplay mechanic of exploratory problem solving. Stop hiding behind "Losing is fun!" and just say the point is to learn by trial and error. Then introduce us to the general ruleset of the universe by example. As it stands, the game has no learning curve, just a sheer cliff face to ascend. If you want to appeal to people beyond those who see a sixty storey wall of glass and think "cool I want to climb that!", you've got to work on that initial learning curve. If the endgame needs work, that's a much smaller hindrance to initial attraction.
PS: Playing as humans or elves with their own preferences would be cool too. But seriously. Half a staircase, are you fucking kidding me? >:(
Post by: Cespinarve on July 02, 2010, 02:23:49 am
More specifically, what problems did you have before learning the ropes of the game? We figure we are losing 90% of the players because of the UI and other barriers, and that doesn’t even count the ones scared away by the ASCII graphics. Now, this doesn’t mean we are about abandon the rest of the game to start the presentation arc. It is just as important to have endless monster attacks from the underground, and challenging sieges.
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen? Or maybe its finding the right tile sets and setting them up. We are hoping at some point to build easier commands and tutorials to help bring in more players. We have to identify the main culprits first. So what is frustrating you the most about Dwarf Fortress?
I just started playing 3 days ago. Let me start answering the question by positing a solution: Add to the distro a small saved game showing a basic fortress with the most necessary constructions for survival. In other words, a template I can work from. Failing that, a tutorial that does not assume I know how to do anything other than press exactly the keys I'm told. "Build a bed and place it" doesn't tell me squat. (I'll allow that it was fun to find out how to do that, but only because on that third embarking I'd had a string of successes figuring out how to do what the wiki tutorials were saying to do.)
So, what turns me off about DF? Lack of approachable documentation, be it Wiki, PDF, interactive like a saved game, or even a canonical set of YouTube videos. I understand it's very easy to become so familiar with a system that breaking it down into the basic steps is as difficult as figuring them out was. That's not the new player's problem.
So, would bundling a graphical tileset that doesn't have an anorexic font in it be helpful? Yeah, as much as I love MUXes and ADOM, it's nice to have at least Atari graphics. (Got to say, though, the use of ASCII graphics in this is nicely done and quite well thought out for all the variety of things it has to represent.)
Would fixing military stuff help make the game more approachable? Not in my experience. It's easy to avoid fights (or I've been insanely lucky).
Would basic descriptions of objects help? Sure, whether it's by pulling them off the wiki through a game-side client or clickable link in the game, in a manual, or as someone else said a Dwarfopedia...
Would starting off all 7 Dwarves with all jobs enabled help? Sure! Or, again, put this in documentation. Having to read between the lines in 3 different "tutorials" at the same time to figure this out is absurd.
So the final answer: A scripted tutorial, as has been suggested before, would really help. It needn't ruin the DF experience of learning by "funning" by giving everything away. Start with a default save game right after Embark, packaged with every distro. Show me how and where to build a sleeping area, carpenter's shop, mason's shop, kitchen, brewery (since thesedumbass fucking alcoholic imbecilesDwarfs can't just drink water)... just the basics. Maybe even one trap. Just enough to teach the new player how to use most of the menus and the basic concepts.
And FFS could you just add in a damn "dig the whole fucking staircase from here down one level" command? Honestly, having thesedumbass fucking alcoholic imbecilesDwarfs dig HALF A DAMN STAIRCASE and then having to dig the other half? You may think it's clever and logical. The rest of the world doesn't.
In closing, you don't have to change the core gameplay mechanic of exploratory problem solving. Stop hiding behind "Losing is fun!" and just say the point is to learn by trial and error. Then introduce us to the general ruleset of the universe by example. As it stands, the game has no learning curve, just a sheer cliff face to ascend. If you want to appeal to people beyond those who see a sixty storey wall of glass and think "cool I want to climb that!", you've got to work on that initial learning curve. If the endgame needs work, that's a much smaller hindrance to initial attraction.
PS: Playing as humans or elves with their own preferences would be cool too. But seriously. Half a staircase, are you fucking kidding me? >:(
it wasn't until you mentioned it that I realized how much the staircases annoy me. Yeah. Or better yet, how about being able to designate on multiple Z levels. You know, select s down staircase, hit enter, bump down as many z-leves as you please, and then enter again. Simple
Post by: Kay12 on July 02, 2010, 04:30:04 am
As far as I remember, ANSII would be the default graphics as they are actually a modified ASCII set/go beyond ASCII.
DF uses Code Page 437 (CP437 for short) as the default graphics, to be precise.
To get the current version working, I'd need to tinker with several libraries. Normally I would bother, but I won't, since the current version has several bugs that I want fixed first. That's what's turning me off right now.
Post by: Xenoc on July 02, 2010, 05:24:35 am
Some excellent points raised though - particularly the default military options currently being off rather than on, and the various selection menus needing coalescing.
The one picked up on this page, however, that really stands some extra looking at is the embark screen problem. It is currently very difficult to understand to a new comer, and a simple key would help enormously. A bit more explanation of what the three windows are would also be a bonus. Even better would be a panel of 6 windows which gave you all the information you needed in one go, rather than having to tab-scroll through several pages, many of which are mostly displaying the same information. e.g.:
Top row
1. Regional overview
2. Local overview
3. Embark point selection (same as current default, i.e. vegetation, river channels etc)
Bottom row
4. Embark point elevation
5. Civilisations
6. Embark point summary data - rocktypes, river and volcano names etc
As far as gameplay goes there's a few things I might change:
Gather plants and cut down trees should be on by default. If you want to turn it off you can, but default to on. As a new player entering the world it's one more thing you really shouldn't have to worry about.
If a job gets cancelled because it's lacking a barrel or something, send an order to the job management page. That order has to be confirmed by you to go ahead, but if there's a lot of cancel spam it's easy to miss one. If I go to the job management page later and I can see that barrels are being requested, I can simply activate the order. Furthermore, rather than a job being cancelled due to a missing material, it should be suspended, and reactivated once the requirement is fulfilled. Saves endlessly going and turning workshops on and off for whatever reason.
The [escape] menu should have a help dialogue, all it needs to do is open a browser window pointed at the wiki. Another in-game link pointing at the forums would also be useful to the newcomer.
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 02, 2010, 06:33:52 am
Quote from: Nanban Jim
And FFS could you just add in a damn "dig the whole fucking staircase from here down one level" command? Honestly, having these dumbass fucking alcoholic imbeciles Dwarfs dig HALF A DAMN STAIRCASE and then having to dig the other half? You may think it's clever and logical. The rest of the world doesn't.
Is there even a single reason why stairs currently have two parts instead of just one? In other words, why not to have them the same beautifuly simple way as ramps?
OK, I know there's couple of reasons (to allow up/downs staircases, to allow pathing in all directions from the top level) but they're all technical and therefore can be changed or at least hidden. I don't think there's any gameplay reason to have stairs in two parts. And if you DO have them in two parts, there's no reason to designate both parts individually - a single designation could easily build the two-part staircases we have now without any internal change.
The way I see it, the options should be these:
- Dig up stairway
-----digs a complete stairway to the upper level
- Dig down stairway
-----digs a complete stairway to the lower level
- Dig up/down stairway (needs coming up with a clever solution, I'd suggest:)
-----if you designate just one square, it digs a complete stairway to both the upper and lower level... which currently is three parts (up stairs/up-down stairs/down stairs)... all of these in one designation
-----if you designate a longer vertical shaft of up/down staircased, the system is intelligent enough to build it correctly (eg. up stairs/up-down stairs/up-down stairs/up-down stairs/down stairs).
The current system feels it was designed to allow infinite up/down staircases, sacrificing simplicity of the simple ones in the process. Which, for me personally, feels like an exact opposite of what should have been done - have simple up or down staircases as thr default ones, and up/down as completely optional, more complicated ones(*). Not the other way around. And again we're talking meaningful defaults.
---
(*) Because infinite up/down staircases are stupid as hell. I mean... inuntuitive. Hard to imagine in real-life. Can someone explain me how is 3x3 shaft of up/down staircases supposed to look like? The fact that everyone uses such an alien, unrealistic thing just proves the system is badly designed (because the bad design encourages weird choices by making them optimal and most effective). If it was up to me, I would just get rid of them completely, and allow only the simple ones. If you wanted to have a staircase going both up and down, you would have to designate two stair tiles - an up staircase and a down staircase(**). Which may seem more complicated but is actually very intuitive and I bet no beginner would feel confused for a single second.
EDIT:
(**) Explanation: this sounds confusing. I meant, designation two one-part staircases next to each other on the same level, and they would automatically create access on both the upper and the lower level, as suggested. By designating two squares you would get (top view):
Upper level: . . . > . . .
Your level: . . .< > . .
Lower level: . . . .< . .
Post by: Kay12 on July 02, 2010, 06:44:06 am
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 02, 2010, 06:49:19 am
...I guess even now you could make a macro that creates the whole staircase in a single click, right? While macros aren't the ideal solution (this should be default in the game-menu, not hidden under macros), they just show it's easily possible to designate multiple squares in a single click.
Post by: Psieye on July 02, 2010, 08:25:26 am
But there's still a source of information overload not dealt with: the sheer level of detail. The average layman will not have a clue what the difference is between sedimentary and igneous rock, never mind "this here's Schist, that's Shale over there and we're standing on Diorite. We want Talc for these mechanisms and dolomite for steel production". So one idea I have is for that pre-generated already-embarked tutorial to have simplified raws just to ease players in even more. I dunno if this is unnecessary dumbing down or whether we want to reach out to people who need the game to be very dumbed down. I've got scholar's blood in me so sitting down and reading the wiki over a few days, memorising all sorts of trivia (values of gems) and experimenting with whatever isn't clear was second nature to me when I started. DF is simpler to understand than the stuff I work with in RL.
Post by: Jimmy on July 02, 2010, 08:30:50 am
Post by: Draco18s on July 02, 2010, 09:36:30 am
I think ramps are a better balanced gameplay element.
Despite the awful confusion that results from broken ramps because of their unintuitive connective structure?
inuntuitive
I wonder what this word means.
Post by: Kay12 on July 02, 2010, 11:03:00 am
ASCII graphics
Every time someone calls the default graphics ASCII, Random Number God kills someone's NetHack character.
Post by: Heavenfall on July 02, 2010, 11:07:03 am
Right now, I'm just waiting for the equipment and combat bugs to be fixed until I play again. Got a fortress prepared and everything. :)
Post by: Draco18s on July 02, 2010, 11:10:11 am
ASCII graphics
Every time someone calls the default graphics ASCII, Random Number God kills someone's NetHack character.
Of course, every time someone sneezes the RNG kills a NetHack* character, so...
*Or other NetHack derived game.
Post by: Kay12 on July 02, 2010, 11:19:33 am
I think ramps are a better balanced gameplay element.
Despite the awful confusion that results from broken ramps because of their unintuitive connective structure?
Yes. I too think they are confusing, but as a gameplay element, they are much better balanced than "HEY MY DORFS, THEY CAN FLY" stairs.
Post by: Draco18s on July 02, 2010, 12:30:14 pm
Yes. I too think they are confusing, but as a gameplay element, they are much better balanced than "HEY MY DORFS, THEY CAN FLY" stairs.
Or maybe a tile is bigger than you think it is, and can contain a flight of stairs.
Post by: Footkerchief on July 02, 2010, 12:38:09 pm
Post by: Kay12 on July 02, 2010, 12:46:54 pm
Flights of stairs which can be moved into from any direction with no impediments whatsoever.
This is exactly what I mean. Stairs are imbalanced, they make distances ridiculously short.
Post by: Nanban Jim on July 02, 2010, 01:32:04 pm
Tricky thing is, all posts in this thread are from players who overcame the hurdles and grasped Dwarf Fortress.
That's why I posted despite being exhausted, I've only got 3 days experience with DF and it's important to get feedback fresh.
I'm not saying simplifying the game or making the first part of the learning curve a bit shallower is a good thing. I'm just saying if you want to attract more, you need to lower the barriers to entry. If "you" want DF to be a niche game, guys, look, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Something hit me about 30 minutes ago though, one way to reduce a barrier to entry that I didn't see in the thread (granted, I skimmed every other page):
XBOX360/PS3 versions (Wii? iPhone?). Just having it available as a $1-$5 game or a freebie or something (though I think most of the services require some price as a quality control measure), with prepackaged tilesets that look nice. I'm not saying it would be easy (SDKs are available, though I doubt it would be as simple as 'Project->Build->XBOX360'), and it would take a revamp of the interface (though how many posts have said the interface needs to be rethought anyway?). But the barrier to entry of being Desktop-dependent in a tech culture that encompasses so many more platforms would be gone.
And that made me think of a--UGH!--Facebook version, but please don't do that. Retain some margin of dignity. ;)
Post by: Baughn on July 02, 2010, 01:48:25 pm
Not to mention that developers kits for pretty much all non-PC platforms (okay, Android is a nice exception) cost rather a lot. No. Not happening.
Post by: Heavenfall on July 02, 2010, 03:15:55 pm
Not that I'd be interested in that, nor think it's something that they should spend time developing.
Post by: Nanban Jim on July 02, 2010, 05:28:18 pm
Uh.. this is a game that will bring a modern desktop to its knees, and you want to run it on a cellphone?
I don't think you understand the power of Mac Fandom. It's not "slowdown," it's "time to think of your next move." ;)
OK honestly I thought the warnings about its CPU intensiveness were a holdover from the early 90's, like in MUSH/MUX server documentation.
Without a keyboard, too?
That's actually the best part. Limiting the inputs would require a rethink of the menu system. It might actually get organized according to user requirements.
Post by: Draco18s on July 03, 2010, 12:18:03 am
OK honestly I thought the warnings about its CPU intensiveness were a holdover from the early 90's, like in MUSH/MUX server documentation.
Lol, no. DF will make a 3 GHz machine cry.
Post by: Kay12 on July 03, 2010, 01:14:48 am
OK honestly I thought the warnings about its CPU intensiveness were a holdover from the early 90's, like in MUSH/MUX server documentation.
Lol, no. DF will make a 3 GHz machine cry.
Cry? My computer always makes this humming noise, except when I'm playing DF. When playing DF, it's all silent, possibly because it can't spare any extra energy for humming...
Post by: James.Denholm on July 03, 2010, 04:47:34 am
OK honestly I thought the warnings about its CPU intensiveness were a holdover from the early 90's, like in MUSH/MUX server documentation.
Lol, no. DF will make a 3 GHz machine cry.
Cry? My computer always makes this humming noise, except when I'm playing DF. When playing DF, it's all silent, possibly because it can't spare any extra energy for humming...
That silence isn't because it can't spare the energy - That silence is because your computer is in a state of complete and total awe.
Post by: Medicine Man on July 03, 2010, 05:14:48 am
More specifically, what problems did you have before learning the ropes of the game? We figure we are losing 90% of the players because of the UI and other barriers, and that doesn’t even count the ones scared away by the ASCII graphics. Now, this doesn’t mean we are about abandon the rest of the game to start the presentation arc. It is just as important to have endless monster attacks from the underground, and challenging sieges.I would say the ASCII graphics,the overall difficulty and the MAAASSSSSIVVVVVEEE learning curve.
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen? Or maybe its finding the right tile sets and setting them up. We are hoping at some point to build easier commands and tutorials to help bring in more players. We have to identify the main culprits first. So what is frustrating you the most about Dwarf Fortress?
Post by: Brzhk on July 03, 2010, 09:35:55 am
Then i falled back on melee weapons and discovered that training was actually not working either with melee weapons.
After two weeks of building towers & security designs (with lots of fun), i was just sad.
I'm currently waiting the version where all military bugs are corrected to start playing again, but it seems to be the most boring bug to correct as it takes a while to be corrected.
No provocation here, i'm a dev as well, and i know for sure debugging can be very boring.
Post by: Draco18s on July 03, 2010, 09:40:13 am
as of 31.08, not being able to have working military is my main problem. I have been doing enourmous fortifications and i was utterly disappointed to see that my dwarves refused to train / to fight correctly with ranged weapons.
Then i falled back on melee weapons and discovered that training was actually not working either with melee weapons.
...yeah...
All of my dwarves became legendary dodgers + novice [melee weapon user]. They got murdered.
Post by: Beeskee on July 03, 2010, 10:22:42 am
Post by: NewsMuffin on July 03, 2010, 01:24:18 pm
I don't think the ACII is that bad. I get by just fine without a graphics set. I don't mind having to loo[k] at creatures to know exactly what they are. If there are a few white 'g's far away from my fort, and it doesn't say 'A vile force of darkness' has arrived, it's a few groundhogs or mountain goats, not really a problem until they get close.
The learning curve, however, is huge. I made five or six forts until I got the hang of it. And no tutorial helped me. I got it all on my own because I'm a super genius. Probably.
Post by: nickbii on July 03, 2010, 05:05:07 pm
(*) Because infinite up/down staircases are stupid as hell. I mean... inuntuitive. Hard to imagine in real-life. Can someone explain me how is 3x3 shaft of up/down staircases supposed to look like? The fact that everyone uses such an alien, unrealistic thing just proves the system is badly designed (because the bad design encourages weird choices by making them optimal and most effective). If it was up to me, I would just get rid of them completely, and allow only the simple ones. If you wanted to have a staircase going both up and down, you would have to designate two stair tiles - an up staircase and a down staircase(**). Which may seem more complicated but is actually very intuitive and I bet no beginner would feel confused for a single second.I wouldn't say an infinite staircase is a "weird" choice. I imagine the 3x3 stairwells are a lot like the ones in a RL skyscraper. They don't function that way (they function more like 9 spiral staircases that happen to be right by each-other), but it's pretty much the only way to represent a big-ass skyscraper-style staircase in-game.
And if you think about it that's what dwarves would build in their fortress if they weren't imaginary. They need to get deep, fast, to get to metals, the most direct way to do that is dig straight down, they don't have elevators. Stairs make sense, it makes sense for them to be central, and it makes sense for the main stairways to be bigger then the others.
Ramps aren't actually less gamey then stairs. You can get on them from any direction, same as stairs. Going up one z-level on a ramp costs one movement point, same as stairs, so your dwarves are still flying, they're just flying diagonally.
Post by: antymattar on July 03, 2010, 05:21:58 pm
Post by: antymattar on July 03, 2010, 05:36:23 pm
Quote
AND THE TOAD "SAID LET THERE BE BEARDS", AND THERE WERE DWARFS. AND THE TOAD SAID "LET THEM DIG, DIG, DIG UNTIL THEY ARE SO FED UP THEY BECOME ADICTED TO DIGIN...AND BOOZE", AND HE ALSO SAID "LET THEM DIG BIG PITS THAT THEY CALL 'MOUNTAIN HAALS' AND LET THEM GET STUFF THAT SPAWNS BY ITS SELF WITH NO NEED FOR A WORKSHOP", AND THERE WAS ALL THIS SHIT. BUT THE TOE SAID "LET THERE BE NO POSSIBLE WAY FOR PEOPLE TO ADVANCE OTHER CIVILIZATIONS THAT ARE IMMORTAL AND GET ALL THE NEESARY RESOURCES GENERATED IN WORLD GEN BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LIMITED BRAIN SPAN THAT DISABLES THEM TO MAKE WORKSHOPS AND ACTU;Y NOW DIG BANYTHING BESIDES PITS", AND THE TOAD SAID "AND LET THERE BE BADASSES WHO BUILD THE CLOSEST THING TO SOMETHING RESEMBLING A FORTRESS, AND THEY SHAL BE CALLED GOBS AND HOBOS." AND THERE WERE... WTF?!!!
The history of lower earth:1:1: the toad and the hamster
I'm not trying to offend you, its just that those are the things that anoy me a LOT. I want to be able to make them make new types of cities. And I want them to be smart. oh and fix the quest part please. It anoys me, every time its some bronze golem. why cant they tell me to go and get then their grocery list or something?
Post by: Draco18s on July 03, 2010, 07:17:43 pm
The trick is to make the armor and weapons before the squad.
This is a problem. This "workaround" should not be necessary.
Post by: Murphy on July 03, 2010, 09:17:26 pm
I'm forced not to play a single world for too long, and this is what turns me off.
Post by: The Architect on July 03, 2010, 11:16:32 pm
#1: Learn to use backup saves. Not only is this an alpha game, but that's just common sense with any electronic media.
#2: Nemesis unit? Are you talking about a mod that corrupted the save files? That's hardly the fault of the developer.
#3: This is the wrong place for an unexplained, unqualified rant.
Anyway, #1 should be helpful to you. By doing one simple thing, you can continue playing the same persistent world. Toady has gone to extreme lengths rebuilding this program to ensure that the saves are continuously compatible from version to version, and he has succeeded. In fact, he spent the better part of a year making it possible to play a single world for as long as you want.
I think there are a hundred people ready to say the same thing once they read your post. I'm not saying this to be intentionally offensive, but it's inane to the point that I am truly stupefied.
Post by: Footkerchief on July 04, 2010, 12:07:18 am
#2: Nemesis unit? Are you talking about a mod that corrupted the save files? That's hardly the fault of the developer.
He's talking about this bug. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=1371) It was widely reported in prior versions. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?action=search2;params=eJwtzEEOwjAMRNGrRGxYs-l1Itce1CA3rpwUhJTD46Du_rzFkLypMmTcx2Pcxuqzlqi22Sez7YeiI2zSub7APVvV7yXmPUvxWILGl8RyKP7Hk0DOW2DFjlZaOmvpSY0kPako5Ad_wjPm) It's a severe bug that so far has proved difficult to track down. I thought everyone knew about it by now.
#3: This is the wrong place for an unexplained, unqualified rant.
Hopefully you now understand that this thread is a perfectly fine place for Murphy's post. As it was for this previous one. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=34311.msg885329;topicseen#msg885329)
I'm not saying this to be intentionally offensive,
Instead of making these disclaimers (which do nothing to defuse the situation), perhaps you could try to soften your tone and get all the facts before making snap judgments.
Post by: Toady One on July 04, 2010, 12:53:09 am
Post by: TheyTarget on July 04, 2010, 01:16:27 am
Post by: Solace on July 04, 2010, 01:22:31 am
However, after powering through there really isn't anything about this game I hate, but I guess I'll put down what stopped me from getting into this game (successfully) my first several attempts... actually, the whole world gen business. Basically I didn't know I had to make a world, then accept it and start over and choose a new place and then start in that place and do stuff. :P I sort of imagined that I was tossed into a wandering around game mode right after world gen, except for some strange reason I couldn't find who/what I was controlling or any actions I could do. XD
Post by: Brzhk on July 04, 2010, 01:29:49 am
I'm impressed. :)
(by what i've read so far, i'm not giving you another internet, it seems you got a internetsplosion already. I'll find something else.)
Post by: Medicine Man on July 04, 2010, 01:34:09 am
Oh and Toady for still reading i give you an in-i mean an elf head.
Post by: Aquillion on July 04, 2010, 10:02:31 am
Note that this will make your savefiles huge (100 MB or so huge; you may want to zip any backups you make manually.) However, it solved the problem for me.
Flights of stairs which can be moved into from any direction with no impediments whatsoever.I think they're meant to be spiral staircases. That's certainly how I picture any long stacked staircases I make.
Post by: The Architect on July 05, 2010, 12:37:14 am
As for staircases: the staircase may not occupy the entire tile. These things can be hard to fathom with an undefined spatial system. Then, again, we do have a convention widely used with staircases even today, known as "landings". Most of these things are easily explained with a little imagination, such as carrying along the extra equipment to exit a hole after digging it. The real puzzlers are where game mechanics such as the lack of in-between states and frame-by-frame movement conflict with the depiction of real events, such as digging a hole and instantly/fully leaving it before adjacent fluids can enter it.
Post by: Kalasen on July 05, 2010, 01:03:16 am
Second, the performance. Oh Armok, the FPS death. The biggest hitters seem to be pathfinding and item counts. Perhaps pathfinding can use a better algorithm, or otherwise be improved? Can items be handled more efficiently? Something more simple though, put in an options screen to change things in the init file. It'll appeal more to the less hardcore hacker types. Some preset options profiles that would do things like Weather: OFF automatically.
Third, and more of a personal thing than the others: it needs more difficulty in the latter tiers of experience. But I assume that will happen with things like the siege arc, so this is a much more backburner thing.
Those are the things that I think would improve the game the most and broaden its appeal. Again, I'm amazed. This is probably the greatest game ever made, and it's not even done yet. The only one to improve against now is yourself, so keep up the good work. Your fans regard you with awe because of it.
Post by: Draco18s on July 05, 2010, 10:09:43 am
The real puzzlers are where game mechanics such as the lack of in-between states and frame-by-frame movement conflict with the depiction of real events, such as digging a hole and instantly/fully leaving it before adjacent fluids can enter it.
Such is the flaw of a cellular automata system. Once you define your cell states it's very hard to have transitional states between them.
Post by: The Architect on July 05, 2010, 11:03:37 am
Post by: Murphy on July 06, 2010, 01:58:42 am
The matter is that in 40d the nemesis error was predictable. If a fortress lived long enough to receive a liaison or guild representative, after abandonment I always found this bug with adventurers. I learned to circumvent it by disabling all diplomats in humans and generating the world with as few dwarven civs as possible. Backing up saves did not help because they were being corrupted 95% of the time when I made even a single trade agreement.
Anyway, this is not the place to go into details, the only thing I want to say is that the crash was predictable, and avoidable. Now it isn't - the save doesn't get corrupted every time I make trade agreements, but instead it seems completely random. And even though I am able to revert to old saves, I still have to replay a few years of game time, and I also have to periodically savescum and abandon to see if the world got corrupted or not. Believe me, this is frustrating.
And yeah, I'm not whining. I still play the game and recognise it as one of the best among its kind. I wrote all this just because the thread asks about it, sort of. Thank you for your understanding.
Post by: Draco18s on July 06, 2010, 08:36:17 am
Post by: Murphy on July 06, 2010, 09:05:25 am
There's an entire topic about it in the bug reports forum, and it is stickied.
It is also on the bug tracker.
Post by: Draco18s on July 06, 2010, 09:39:13 am
It is reported.
There's an entire topic about it in the bug reports forum, and it is stickied.
It is also on the bug tracker.
Ah, good. I don't read the bug report forum anymore, and tend to only hit the bugtracker when I have something to report (which recently, has been "not at all" as I haven't been playing the game).
Post by: zwei on July 07, 2010, 01:07:20 am
I sent squad of 10 dwarves to kill single plain Lion. Eight of them engaged Lion and dodged from several zlevels cliff right into water. One of two survivors got Lion with clean beheading hit.
Having whole squad sent to kill lion eliminated by their ninja dodging skills and not by lion is just not right. Getting their guts ripped out by him, sure. It is quite schizo to have fight outcomes only in "smashed it to bloody bits with my axe" and "dodged and died." categories. I'll go as far ahead ad say this is not fun even if loosing is fun.
It kind of undoes all of the combat mechanics.
---
And then there is minor peve of how ineffective pathing is:
Code: [Select]
###
.[color=red]#[/color].
.#@
.#.
.#.
.#.
.#.
...
# is wall desigated to be dug or smoothet or engraved.
I would expect dwarf to move to this position ad to the work:
Code: [Select]
###
.[color=red]#[/color]@
.#.
.#.
.#.
.#.
.#.
...
But without fail, he would take long road and do this instead:
Code: [Select]
###
@[color=red]#[/color].
.#.
.#.
.#.
.#.
.#.
...
Silimar, i have this:
Code: [Select]
####
#+[color=red]+[/color]+
####
+ is constructed floor designated to be removed. Istead of dwarf working from this tile:
Code: [Select]
####
#+[color=red]+[/color]@
####
Which is shorter walk (not to mention not entraping walk), he decides to make two extra steps and work from here:
Code: [Select]
####
#@[color=red]+[/color].
####
This general tendency of ai to do everything from west and north first.
---
Oh, and shell moods.
Shell, which is:
* Not obtainable by trading.
* Only obtained by fishing, aparently exhaustible source with which decent fisherman immgirant is done with withing seasom.
* Decays just like vermin so if you manage to get supply, it will eventually be gone within few seasons
(Thak god for being able to mod other bodyparts to act like shell)
Post by: EvilCartyen on July 07, 2010, 05:14:08 am
Getting into the game, the Wiki was essential to me. I quickly realised that the in-game documentation was worth very little. Had the wiki been in the state it is now, with the new release, instead of being for 40d, I would probably not have continued playing. This is not a critique of the people updating the wiki, it is merely an explanation of the various times where I could quite easily have decided not to continue playing DF.
Now, after having played quite a bit, the major turn-off is the FPS-slowdown. I know I am not amongst those worst-off, but I have to be honest and say that that doesn't matter, when it's too slow for me to enjoy it anyway ;)
The second thing keeping me from playing the game at the moment, is probably the vision of what the game is going to be. When you dream about the finished product, the status-quo seems less interesting. I want my forts to be able to live on, and I want to play in a living, breathing world. Naturally, I know this will only come in time, but again I have to be honest, and say that the vision is quite a bit better than the current itiration ;)
Post by: Thief^ on July 07, 2010, 05:21:40 am
And then there is minor peve of how ineffective pathing is:I would assume that this is due to finding a free space adjacent to the destination object, then pathing to there, instead of doing a path-find to the destination itself and calling the pathfinding "done" at distance of 1 from the pathing destination instead of 0.
This general tendency of ai to do everything from west and north first.
It wouldn't be a hard thing for me to fix, and I hope toady could fix it based off my explanation too.
EDIT: I can provide a demo if needed.
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 07, 2010, 06:49:16 am
My 80 dwarves fort in 2010 runs at about 5 fps(*) which is enough for me to turn me off Dwarf Fortress completely.
(*) That's after I revealed all the levels and killed all the &s, which means there shouldn't be anyone walled off and spamming pathing requests.
Post by: Toybasher on July 07, 2010, 03:41:33 pm
Also the fact in adventure mode you cant apply medical attention at all, this is a pain when your adventurer suffers a broken arm and you cant splint or set it back into place and then your adventurer is down one arm, or an infection and theres nothing to do but wait for it to eventually kill you.
Post by: Bouchart on July 07, 2010, 09:30:21 pm
Post by: Brandon816 on July 08, 2010, 12:49:17 am
Post by: Petra on July 08, 2010, 12:01:06 pm
Right now, it's the military in 31.08. It got really complicated, really quickly. Everything else I can just deal with.
But the military... here's what I think could be done...
I liked the old way of doing military, minus the random armor and clothing issues. I like micromanaging my dwarves.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 08, 2010, 12:20:22 pm
Post by: fanatic on July 08, 2010, 01:01:31 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 08, 2010, 07:09:11 pm
Post by: Dreadbeard on July 08, 2010, 09:44:51 pm
For me, it's the UI. There's very little consistency and it's not intuitive in the least. I haven't even started looking at what i have to do to start a military in 2010.
Keep plugging away, it's a great game!
Post by: Josephus on July 08, 2010, 10:16:47 pm
I don't really like how siege weapons seem undeveloped. You can mod in new types of rock and metal to change what the ammo is made of, but you can't touch the actual siege weapons. And, the siege weapons themselves are kind of basic. There's a ballista and a catapult, and that's it. Don't you think by now the dwarves would've made a way to pump out oil, or some other flammable liquid, and have a giant, stationary flamethrower? Or a smaller version of the current ballista that fires smaller arrows in exchage for a higher refire rate? What about a catapult that takes heavier metal balls as ammunition?
I assume that when we can actually use siege weapons for, you know, sieges, Toady may expand possibilities.
Post by: Grendus on July 09, 2010, 02:52:03 pm
Meanwhile, if the military is buggy weapons are even buggier. Axes dominate everything, while almost nobody even bothers with hammers or maces because blunt weapons don't do lethal damage fast enough, and dwarves are not content to leave off killing a target after it's incapacitated (break both arms and a kneecap, that goblin's not going anywhere, no need to crush his internal organs to jelly when there are 45 more of em to take care of). Material here is even stranger, with platinum being the best blunt weapon material (if you're masochistic enough to try to use it) and making weapons out of adamantine is laughable because it's so lightweight. Wrestling is broken beyond repair, though that's more realistic, but being unable to train dodge skill because of no sparring makes training dwarves much much harder.
I understand that this is still alpha, so I'm not mad that the current version is buggy, but it does keep me from playing right now. Once the worst of these bugs is fixed, I'll probably pick the game up again. Until then, though, I'm just lurking on the forums.
Post by: Draco18s on July 09, 2010, 03:58:10 pm
For me, currently, it has to be the military. All the devlogs prior to 2010 talked about these awesome things, dwarves doing weapon demonstrations, individual and group drills, being able to actually make wooden weapons to spar with instead of using up precious silver, etc. On release, however, it was pitifully buggy.
+1 to this. I think this is the entire reason why I'm not playing DF these days.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 09, 2010, 05:00:47 pm
All that functionally exist, not not playable. However thats been changing steadily.
And there was no way to have better military with the old 40d set up.
Post by: neil_v on July 09, 2010, 05:25:51 pm
-The UI isn't as big a problem as people make it out to be. I agree its hard to learn without being shown, but it becomes instinctive quite quickly.
-The military is beyond my intellectual level. I should be able to just assign some dwarfs to the military, and by default they go train with whatever is available. The complicated military interface and functions shouldn't be changed, they should just have a very good default setting (like the miners for example. If I have a miner and a mining task, he does it, I don't have to f-around with his clothing and tools to get him to break stone) So that I can get a military up and running quick, and play with the features later.
-assign dwarf to military, dwarf grabs the best armor available by default, and wrestle or use a non-axe weapon by default (as not to take axes from woodcutters), then go and train at the nearest barracks till I tell him else wise via change of actions/scedules or force move/kill.
-hunters Im assuming are fixed, but they should be a simple military that requires any of the following: traps for small game, ranged for larger game or spears for larger game (and enemies, experienced hunters are proud and not quick to frighten).
-moods being challenging instead of impossible . If I have a turtle in my food storage, the dwarf should be able to take his shell at the cost of losing the food value. If the dwarf is asking for cloth, gems, and leather, and I have all of those, he shouldn't go insane in his workshop. If he wants bone, and my refuse pile is full of animal and goblin remains, he shouldn't go insane in his workshop
Those are the ONLY big problems my friends and I complain about. DF really is the best game ever. I hope some rich person gives you lots of money to sit around and make it better (with no strings ::)).
Post by: mnjiman on July 09, 2010, 05:35:52 pm
And yes, lack of magic stuff. Toady says he plans to put it in some time.. i just done want to wait for it!
Post by: Draco18s on July 09, 2010, 09:05:55 pm
It would have been shocking if it wasn't. He gave of clear warning that it was gonna to be buggy as all fuck.
While all true, it is keeping me from playing the game because it's very frustrating trying to set up a functioning military (and by functioning, I mean "performing at the same levels as 40d and prior").
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 09, 2010, 09:12:13 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on July 16, 2010, 08:49:27 am
There is no more natural rock or soil left, the "above ground", "inside", "dark" tags are never refreshed, there's clothing lying around that no one wears and that can't be re-used in any way...
And more generally speaking, FPS go to all hells because of random crap accumulating.
There should be some optional automatic functions that clean up (or have the dwarves clean up) clutter all over the map, not only what is relevant to their jobs or that which rots on the surface.
Post by: Andir on July 16, 2010, 10:39:28 am
Post by: Shrugging Khan on July 16, 2010, 10:44:06 am
Post by: fanatic on July 16, 2010, 10:47:53 am
Post by: Andir on July 16, 2010, 11:03:31 am
Yea, well, tell that to the dead goblins.There's an option to auto-claim dead creature drops... it triggers the idle dwarf to path to pick it up and they run out into battle like morons... but the option is there.
Post by: Draco18s on July 16, 2010, 11:11:31 am
You guys both know that dwarfs will put their clothes into cabinets in their rooms if you give them one?
Until it fills up with XXclothingXX. And then it gets strewn across the floor of their bedroom. And then when there's no more floorspace, it'll be back like they never had a cabinet in the first place.
Post by: zwei on July 16, 2010, 01:12:05 pm
You guys both know that dwarfs will put their clothes into cabinets in their rooms if you give them one?
Until it fills up with XXclothingXX. And then it gets strewn across the floor of their bedroom. And then when there's no more floorspace, it'll be back like they never had a cabinet in the first place.
Actually, there is simple way to get rid of excess clothing: Set up magma-safe statue in one tile room which will flood with magma temporarily when dwarf leaves it. Them mae statue into statue garden and assign it with dwarf that has clothing laying around.
Dwarf assigned to this room will eventually incinerate all his clothing (well, untill he gets magma safe object and puts it there).
Post by: Draco18s on July 16, 2010, 01:37:17 pm
Dwarf assigned to this room will eventually incinerate all his clothing (well, untill he gets magma safe object and puts it there).
Magma really does solve all problems!
Post by: neil_v on July 16, 2010, 02:31:24 pm
I know I stand alone on my opinion, but I really love this game (I haven't played for more than a couple of months so I haven't got sick of it yet or velocitized to the bugs, so this isn't an attack, just an opinion) .
Post by: Draco18s on July 16, 2010, 03:38:44 pm
It's funny how people are getting angry about dwarfs leaving clothes all over the place, but i'm sure if you look in your bedroom you might see some -fruit of the loom socks- lying about. Come on, there is a lot worse than clothing wrong with DF.
The clothes I leave laying all of my floor (also the blankets, old laptop's dead(?) power supply, the books, that box, the suitcase from my recent trip, and the other box) I don't mind.
My sister's dirty socks on the living room couch? You're damn right I mind.
Not to mention the pair under the kitchen counter, the pair on the stairs, the pair in the dining room, and the pair on the bathroom floor from when she took a shower (in my shower, none the less; she has her own she doesn't use because it's dirty).
Post by: neil_v on July 16, 2010, 03:53:20 pm
My sister's dirty socks on the living room couch? You're damn right I mind.:D LOL!... sucks... you should build more cabinets ( <- bad, and unnecessary joke)
Not to mention the pair under the kitchen counter, the pair on the stairs, the pair in the dining room, and the pair on the bathroom floor from when she took a shower (in my shower, none the less; she has her own she doesn't use because it's dirty).
Post by: Draco18s on July 16, 2010, 04:53:59 pm
:D LOL!... sucks... you should build more cabinets ( <- bad, and unnecessary joke)
No, she needs more Instruction about how to Clean up after herself.
Post by: Urist McDepravity on July 16, 2010, 06:59:39 pm
It's funny how people are getting angry about dwarfs leaving clothes all over the place, but i'm sure if you look in your bedroom you might see some -fruit of the loom socks- lying about.Actually I have to agree with previous posters that all these XXsocksXX all over the fort are VERY annoying. You know, some of us bother to get rid of all unused stone and smooth even stockpiles. Seeing clothes over statues in meeting room gives me moral trauma (not to mention that un-dumpable cloth makes it harder to manage goblin's cloth via stock manager)
Quote
I know I stand alone on my opinion, but I really love this gameThis is special no-loving thread. Posting criticism here does not mean we dont love the game :P
Post by: Andir on July 16, 2010, 09:47:36 pm
This is special no-loving thread. Posting criticism here does not mean we dont love the game :PI Think this is a major point. I haven't played the game in some time (months)... and maybe I'm a little drunk right now... but we keep coming back because it strikes a chord with us. It's very "real"... yet fun. There's another thread where I basically lambaste people for not reading, but that's half the battle and I think anyone that wants to appreciate the game understands that. Of course, I come off as an ass, but something inside just doesn't really care/concern about it.
(yes, I did look up lambaste on Google to make sure that's the right term. I basically made fun of the people not taking time to read about their problem and maybe it came across a little rude... but you need to have a little bit of humility to truly "get" the game.)
(sorry if sometime doesn't quite come come out "kosher" but I already gave my reasons...well, it's only one. Alcohol.)
Post by: Shrugging Khan on July 16, 2010, 10:12:31 pm
Point of the clothing debate is this: You have to balance automatisation and player responsibility in such a way as to make the game challenging, yet not tedious. If I have to track every single piece of stray clothing and get rid of it with some cumbersome workaround, all just to do some more to keep my FPS manageable, then that's on the tedious side of business.
Post by: neil_v on July 16, 2010, 11:04:18 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on July 17, 2010, 05:56:36 am
Post by: duckInferno on July 17, 2010, 06:51:11 am
- if I want to change like five useless dwarves to go and pick up stonecrafting, I need to press u, scroll to the dwarf, press c, press g to check their current skills, press p-l to go to the labour screen, scroll down, select crafts, scroll down, select stonecrafting, press esc..... repeat x5. If after pressing esc it returned to the units screen with the dwarf I just edited still selected, it'd be a lot faster. If I could use the mouse to select dwarves and labours... I wouldn't be complaining. If there was a separate labours screen with dwarves on one side, labour selection in the middle and current skill sets on the right side that could be used to quickly view or change labours, that would be /sexy/.
- more mouse useage in general, the d screen already makes wonderful use of it, let's see the q screen and p screen do that too!
- and yeah, graphics. seeing faded levels below your current position couldn't hurt, ala this vid (http://dwarffortress.com/2009/10/18/amazing-multi-level-view-conceptual-video/).
- fairly massive change: add a mode (maybe view-only, no editing in this mode) to see the world side-on. ;)
Post by: James.Denholm on July 17, 2010, 08:03:24 am
Actually, now that I think about it, there's somewhat of a simarity between the Dwarf Therapist interface and the medical summary screen...
Post by: thvaz on July 17, 2010, 08:06:41 am
My main grievance with DF is the fact that even limiting my fortress to 50 dwarves, in 5 game years I have around 40-50 fps. I would like to see some improvement in perfomance as soon as possible.
Post by: fanatic on July 17, 2010, 12:08:40 pm
I don't mind the UI, but of course I would like some improvement. It just isn't a priority to me.
My main grievance with DF is the fact that even limiting my fortress to 50 dwarves, in 5 game years I have around 40-50 fps. I would like to see some improvement in perfomance as soon as possible.
So true.
Recently switched from P4 to i7 and from 40d to 31.xx. All in all, FPS got worse. Sure i could set depth to 50 no caverns and such and tweak an extra 20FPS out of the init , but screw it. The heart's not at it. This is not what i expect from a good game. Mostly lurking the forums now. Until toady does something about this carp.
Post by: kilakan on August 06, 2010, 08:25:12 pm
Post by: nil on August 06, 2010, 09:08:04 pm
seriously does no one know how to turn grapical FPS down to 10-15, that bosts my FPS to atleast 100 on 200 dwarf forts, it's crazythere really needs to be a one-stop resource to let people know how to properly use the various display options.
Post by: Eugenitor on August 06, 2010, 10:01:41 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 06, 2010, 11:17:49 pm
The clothes griping is really part of a more general "the game just doesn't clean up after itself" gripe. Forgotten beast ichor stays in that water, doesn't flow, doesn't move. Broken bolts are absolutely everywhere on the surface now, and I can't even touch them. Nothing ever seems to go beyond "Partial skeleton" unless you toss it in the magma, the only truly effective garbage disposal solution.
Yeah I wouldn't mind some of it if it seemed more like part of the game.
I mean legends are full of creatures who left a pernament taint behind with their blood. (One dragon's blood would make any ground it landed on forever unable to support plants)
Post by: otze3000 on August 07, 2010, 09:02:25 am
Post by: Draco18s on August 07, 2010, 11:40:15 am
As for the clothes problem, if a dwarf has a bedroom assigned with cabinets in it they put the clothes in there.
Until they run out of cabinet space, then it litters the floor of their room (until they run out of space there too--they don't like dropping multiple items on the same tile).
Post by: kilakan on August 07, 2010, 11:45:43 am
easy fix, make more cabinates, I usually fill all the rooms anyways to get rid of stoneAs for the clothes problem, if a dwarf has a bedroom assigned with cabinets in it they put the clothes in there.
Until they run out of cabinet space, then it litters the floor of their room (until they run out of space there too--they don't like dropping multiple items on the same tile).
what bugs me about the new version is dwarves ability to track blood and forgotten beast toxin everywhere, I now have a fort of footless dwarves thanks to not having any shoes, and necrosis toxin tracked everywhere, there should be a way to get dwarves to dress up in chemical resistant clothing, lock off a section of the fort, and have them clean EVERYTHING even items....
Post by: Tormy on August 07, 2010, 12:00:31 pm
More specifically, what problems did you have before learning the ropes of the game? We figure we are losing 90% of the players because of the UI and other barriers, and that doesn’t even count the ones scared away by the ASCII graphics. Now, this doesn’t mean we are about abandon the rest of the game to start the presentation arc. It is just as important to have endless monster attacks from the underground, and challenging sieges.
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen? Or maybe its finding the right tile sets and setting them up. We are hoping at some point to build easier commands and tutorials to help bring in more players. We have to identify the main culprits first. So what is frustrating you the most about Dwarf Fortress?
Actually you've answered your own question TT, but we all know that these are the most problematic parts of the game since years. [bad UI / full gfx support is still not implemented yet / full mouse support is not implemented yet.]
Post by: Draco18s on August 07, 2010, 12:21:57 pm
easy fix, make more cabinates, I usually fill all the rooms anyways to get rid of stoneAs for the clothes problem, if a dwarf has a bedroom assigned with cabinets in it they put the clothes in there.
Until they run out of cabinet space, then it litters the floor of their room (until they run out of space there too--they don't like dropping multiple items on the same tile).
what bugs me about the new version is dwarves ability to track blood and forgotten beast toxin everywhere, I now have a fort of footless dwarves thanks to not having any shoes, and necrosis toxin tracked everywhere, there should be a way to get dwarves to dress up in chemical resistant clothing, lock off a section of the fort, and have them clean EVERYTHING even items....
How big are your dwarves rooms? Because I only give them 4 tiles of floor space: cabinet, chest, bed, door.
Post by: King of the Underworld on August 10, 2010, 09:20:35 pm
2. Being unable to use the mouse to designate tiles to mine and channel without having to mark the tiles one at time. If you could click and drag making the designation box like when using the keyboard it would have been much better.
3. The 2D view. If you could play from the Stonesense window it would have been awesome.
4. Lack of interaction between the settlements and with the world. All the races should have been in eternal dispute with each other. If I make a fortress near an human settlement I wanted to be able to help them grow by trading metals with them or eventually work in destroying them by sending raids. My stolen babies would increase the population of the goblins and thus, they would be able to slowly increase the number of goblins raiding my fortress or some elvish settlements. If I made a bridge between two places it would not just allow me to walk around them in adventure mode, but it would increase the trade and battles between anyone who are on the two sides.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 10, 2010, 09:31:40 pm
1. The limitation about maximum height and weight when building walls and floors (I like towers and castles and takes forever to make them because of the 10x10 maximum. To make a 50x50 floor I need to make 25 10x10 ones and this takes a lot of time).
This, most certainly.
I tend to have slow forts with plenty of dwarves and fluid effects and probably some animals running around. My forts go slow, but I make up for it by just letting the whole thing run in the background.
Having to come back every time I need to extend the wall just a bit further is quite vexing.
Post by: James.Denholm on August 10, 2010, 09:44:00 pm
If you could play from the Stonesense window it would have been awesome.
Toady One did not make Stonesense, does not develop Stonesene, and is not affiliated with Stonesense in any way, shape, or form.
I'm sorry, but that really, really needed to be said. There is way to much misunderstanding regarding Dwarf Fortress and all the third-party utilities.
Post by: Andir on August 10, 2010, 11:56:07 pm
I seriously don't see any misunderstandings... except maybe your post thinking that "King" assumes Stonesense is part of DF.If you could play from the Stonesense window it would have been awesome.
Toady One did not make Stonesense, does not develop Stonesene, and is not affiliated with Stonesense in any way, shape, or form.
I'm sorry, but that really, really needed to be said. There is way to much misunderstanding regarding Dwarf Fortress and all the third-party utilities.
Post by: James.Denholm on August 11, 2010, 12:25:04 am
Well, I am working on the "when you see one rabbit, there's a whole warren you can't see" theory, considering that the majority of people who download DF don't visit or post on the forums.I seriously don't see any misunderstandings... except maybe your post thinking that "King" assumes Stonesense is part of DF.If you could play from the Stonesense window it would have been awesome.
Toady One did not make Stonesense, does not develop Stonesene, and is not affiliated with Stonesense in any way, shape, or form.
I'm sorry, but that really, really needed to be said. There is way to much misunderstanding regarding Dwarf Fortress and all the third-party utilities.
Post by: Footkerchief on August 11, 2010, 04:11:59 am
Well, I am working on the "when you see one rabbit, there's a whole warren you can't see" theory, considering that the majority of people who download DF don't visit or post on the forums.
How about the "give people the benefit of the doubt" theory.
Post by: zwei on August 11, 2010, 04:37:59 am
Post by: Africa on August 11, 2010, 05:17:15 am
Post by: drayath on August 11, 2010, 06:58:32 am
2) Being unable to use the mouse to designate tiles to mine and channel without having to mark the tiles one at time. If you could click and drag making the designation box like when using the keyboard it would have been much better.
You can do this (well for designations if not for constructions). Left click marks the present tile, right click on one corner, right click again to opposite corner to mark entire box/line.
--
My peeve is that even with the restrictions of the current ui, why does it not give you the features it already has in all situations.
Zone/Stockpile/!CONSTUCTION of walls etc! marking with the mouse (similar to designations)
Sort by value, select by name on embark and on adding items to trade depot. But not when trading, or setting stockpile setting, or on stocks screen.
Few other minor bits a pieces, but irritating because the code is obviously already there.
And number 2, no way to disable "Digging disabled, damp stone detected" (can prevent pausing/alerts but not designation removal). Look I'm in charge Mr. Digger, you will channel out the ground under your feet and fall to your doom but won't dig out some perfectly safe stone under a river.
Post by: Andir on August 11, 2010, 07:15:43 am
Digging/Designating/etc. should be Templated in C++ and applied to all actions for consistency.
I'd even like to see workshops go the way of hospitals where you have to build a workbench to go in the shop and the shop could be designated in any shape or size.
Post by: King of the Underworld on August 11, 2010, 03:49:56 pm
Toady One did not make Stonesense, does not develop Stonesene, and is not affiliated with Stonesense in any way, shape, or form.
I'm sorry, but that really, really needed to be said. There is way to much misunderstanding regarding Dwarf Fortress and all the third-party utilities.
I know. But it would still be awesome if you have isometric graphics in the game.
Post by: nil on August 11, 2010, 07:44:29 pm
Post by: Vulcanius on August 12, 2010, 12:04:07 am
The insane processor requirements that mean most of my forts die FPS deaths as opposed to being taken down by in-game hazards
Heh, the old "But can it run Crysis?" meme should read Dwarf Fortress instead.
Post by: Darkmere on August 22, 2010, 01:42:03 am
The difficulty curve was pretty steep and I came in just as military and scheduling was busted. I figure out how to work around that as well.
What bugs me is the lack of optimization (or at the very least, as was pointed out a couple pages back, documentation on how to tweak performance yourself). After a certain point I realized that no matter how efficiently or cleanly I designed my fortress, eventually every single one would grind to a halt and get relegated to a (very expensive) background process. I decided to take a break when the idea of fans (moar fluid flow calculations!) was brought up before code optimization.
Post by: MaDeR Levap on August 22, 2010, 10:17:57 am
And yes, this rape your CPU. This is one of the bugs that should be fixed at first. Among other is, of course, hospital (do not diagnosis, suturing etc for no apparent reason) and military (cannot follow order for no apparent reason) woes.
Post by: Antsan on August 22, 2010, 10:30:35 am
Post by: Rollory on August 22, 2010, 01:57:20 pm
2) Bugfixing as opposed to new features. Civilians -> temporary military -> back to civilian DOES NOT WORK right. It should. It's the player's first experience with combat. Stop adding shiny crap and make the existing game work correctly before toying around with new features to add.
3) Reclaiming, or settling on a foreign city, turning supposedly hostile or at least independent creatures friendly. Nonsense. Totally kills what there is of a strategic layer right now. I want to be able to lose a fort to goblins, reclaim it, and have to fight my way in hall by bloody hall. Also reclaim shouldn't give you dwarves scaled to how many there were at the end, but how many there were at max. You can't (or at least shouldn't be able to) reclaim a huge fortress with 2 squads.
4) For newer players, more guidance as to what they are supposed to do beforehand. For example, some training scenarios where they learn to set up a field and plant it, or set up a workshop and build and place a bed, or dig out some stones from a cliffside.
I am still playing 40d because, in spite of the fact that my fort is currently at 2 FPS, it is a stable game and I can still find interesting challenges in it. 31 has problems that make it not nearly as fun.
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 22, 2010, 03:08:25 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on August 22, 2010, 03:23:50 pm
Most of the problems in the 31 series have been either fixed or greatly reduced.
There have been a lot of fixes, but it's far from "most." The military situation has improved a lot, but there are still lots of problems with equipment (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=535) and training. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=428)
Post by: jei on August 22, 2010, 06:02:22 pm
More specifically, what problems did you have before learning the ropes of the game?The User interface. Everything is EXTREMELY cumbersome and much work to begin with and people don't have the time to learn it since everything seems very counter-intuitive.
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen?
For one, a proper database & task manager. Select from DWARVES * with SKILL=marksdwarf ... and put them into one task and place. A simple table would be nice. Also selecting the squads, the squad orderings jump around a lot in different lists.
Selecting dorfs based on different criteria to order around....
Right now we have also the burrows and for example, I have a siege going on and dwarves running out of the fortress despite denials and burrow restrictions, because some ELF HORSE has lost it's cargo outside. I dunno what's in it, but it's apparently something that the dorfs want and don't care about any restrictions. "Stay Inside" was nice and simple to order, burrows = lots of useless work that does not lead to any saved dorf lives or obeyed orders/restrictions. In my case, all the forbid other death items was in place, yet it doesn't appear to forbid the items that were carried by the elves' horses. Only those carried by the elves themselves.
I would say main frustrating thing is inability to command the dorfs or order them in a way that you would know to be respected and obeyed in a timely manner. Jos priorities would be nice, if you could order some masonry work to be done ASAP and first chance anyone gets...
Challenging game can be made with other means than by extremely non-working order system and frustrating user interface.
Post by: derekiv on August 22, 2010, 06:04:41 pm
My computer is sad to run everything short of Crysis and DF runs okay on it, leading me to believe that midgame forts are on the same level as Crysis.The insane processor requirements that mean most of my forts die FPS deaths as opposed to being taken down by in-game hazards
Heh, the old "But can it run Crysis?" meme should read Dwarf Fortress instead.
(Then again, no dedicated graphics card might hurt the comparison)
Post by: jei on August 22, 2010, 06:06:27 pm
Toady One did not make Stonesense, does not develop Stonesene, and is not affiliated with Stonesense in any way, shape, or form.
I'm sorry, but that really, really needed to be said. There is way to much misunderstanding regarding Dwarf Fortress and all the third-party utilities.
I think Toady should learn to better delegate and share the workload. Make the big decisions and design interoperability but leave code implementation details to others and DELEGATE, delegate, delegate....
There should be more than enough volunteers around. Learn from Linus Torvalds a bit.
Post by: Josephus on August 22, 2010, 06:08:29 pm
Toady One did not make Stonesense, does not develop Stonesene, and is not affiliated with Stonesense in any way, shape, or form.
I'm sorry, but that really, really needed to be said. There is way to much misunderstanding regarding Dwarf Fortress and all the third-party utilities.
I know. But it would still be awesome if you have isometric graphics in the game.
Actually, it would. GearHead2, for example, has three different display modes. An ASCII, a 2D mode, and an Isometric view mode. So, there's precedent for a roguelike that can switch between all three.
Admittedly, it doesn't use OpenGl to render things that should be simple text, but ah well.
Post by: Zaik on August 22, 2010, 06:26:32 pm
I probably spent a week of on again off again attempts with it, having 10 man squads of dwarves getting maimed and killed by single ambushes of 4-6 because all their skills were dabbling because they won't train, or would wear 5 weapons and 3 shields and wrestle with everything, or even when they do train the skill gain is so minimal that it'd likely take 50 in game years for a dwarf to hit legendary with a combat skill.
After totally giving up on the military and just refusing to even touch it, i eventually managed to put together some strategies that would properly defend, at least against early sieges.
It was probably a month later i happened to come over to this forum to answer some question that i couldn't figure out with the wiki, and i happened to see the two methods more experienced people were using to train a military. Was only after that that it was even functional.
Even still, they're constantly equipping other people's stuff, equipping several weapons in the same hand(but using none of them), ignoring massive quality upgrades sometimes and other times running like a bat out of hell to go grab something that increases the quality by maybe 1 tops, only equipping one gauntlet or boot while leaving a bare or just clothed hand/foot. All of these problems *could* be solved by equipping specific gear on each individual dwarf, however there is no indication(and as far as i know, no way to indicate) as to what gear has already been equipped, and the list of gear seems to shuffle within it's quality in relation to...something...the dwarf's position, or what is/isn't equipped, or something? I don't know, but if you have, say...5 masterwork Battle axes, and 5 dwarves to equip them on, only two or three will actually end up with them, the others will have had theirs taken away and will have to pick from the 5 again with no indication which is which, and the list constantly shifts.
Soooo, long story short, either the miltary needs huge fixes, or at the very least minor fixes and a big flashing !!warning!! that it is for advanced players only.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 22, 2010, 07:25:58 pm
I think Toady should learn to better delegate and share the workload. Make the big decisions and design interoperability but leave code implementation details to others and DELEGATE, delegate, delegate....
There should be more than enough volunteers around. Learn from Linus Torvalds a bit.
You DO understand this is a game largely made by one person, and not something that he is just open sourcing to the public, or can call on people to be temporary volunteer employees on, correct?
It's not simply pride or ego if someone makes their living off of developing something, and doesn't want to open source the whole thing... and if Toady starts "delegating", there isn't any guarantee that the people he delegates to will not distribute source code, will continue to work well with others, will be able to produce quality code, and will not hamper the overall effort with miscommunications and disorganization... And then there's the entirely legitimate claim by Toady that he just prefers to work alone, so that he doesn't have to deal with problems like that.
Post by: James.Denholm on August 22, 2010, 07:45:54 pm
I think Toady should learn to better delegate and share the workload. Make the big decisions and design interoperability but leave code implementation details to others and DELEGATE, delegate, delegate....
There should be more than enough volunteers around. Learn from Linus Torvalds a bit.
What Kohaku said, but also:
It's... his. The Adam Team doesn't really want to work with anyone else on a major fashion - Toady's main joy in life, if I understand the man as well as I should, is the development of Dwarf Fortress. Well, maybe not his "main joy", but... yeah. Something like that.
This is not a normal software development system, gentlemen.
Post by: jei on August 24, 2010, 10:26:33 am
Actually, the only thing that keeps me from playing 24/7 is the lack of sieges and the updates.
Whenever I play, I think "Well, I shouldn't get to addicted or the update will just make me have to restart EVERYTHING." Which is an annoying habit because I really want to play but I get so immersed that I hate to have to get the newest version.
Second, I wish there were much more goblin sieges, and there was some way to increase their frequency from within the game, so I could start having 24/7 sieges once my fort's defences are all set up.
Besides those two problems, I fucking LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVEVOEOVOBUNRINGOHGODAOJSIAAUUUUGH Dwarf Fortress.
Well, I've been having 24/7 sieges and I can tell you that it gets very boring after a while. I wish there was more to the gameplay with other countries and nations. Like United Dwarves deciding to embargo US and stop our illegal Adamantine weapons productions and development, sending in the Giant Eagle bombers and weapons inspectors. And crusades to weed out the heretics. And a more XANTH-like quality to the game.
Post by: Djohaal on August 24, 2010, 10:28:44 am
Post by: zwei on August 24, 2010, 12:06:53 pm
I think Toady should learn to better delegate and share the workload. Make the big decisions and design interoperability but leave code implementation details to others and DELEGATE, delegate, delegate....
There should be more than enough volunteers around. Learn from Linus Torvalds a bit.
You DO understand this is a game largely made by one person, and not something that he is just open sourcing to the public, or can call on people to be temporary volunteer employees on, correct?
He might code alone and hide his sources, but community is well able to contribute in many, many other ways. And quite few people already do.
Post by: Double A on August 24, 2010, 12:52:25 pm
Post by: SirHoneyBadger on August 30, 2010, 10:55:54 am
Dwarf Fortress is, well, kind of his occupation. You go to the pharmacist if you need some medicine, and you go to ToadyOne if you need some Dwarf Fortress. There's not really another source. Sure, there's other medicine out there, but only the right kind is gonna make you well.
As for me, I really wish there was better mouse support. The lack of it makes it hard for me to play DF at work (yeah, I'm spoiled). Considering all the mouse detracters out there, I can't even be sure that I'll ever get it, even if ToadyOne's great grandchildren are still hacking away at DF in a hundred years.
Maybe that's the solution to the manpower problem. Maybe we need to hook Toady up with a babymama?
Post by: Footkerchief on August 30, 2010, 11:16:34 am
It's clunky, sure, but I don't think it'll stay that way, once Toady has the rest of the game where he wants it to be.
That's probably a pipe dream. The wrestling screen is critical for testing and debugging much of the new combat system, but that still didn't provide enough impetus for him to de-clunkify it. I see no reason to believe that UI will ever become anything but last priority. And UI will just get more discouraging to work on, the longer it's put off, since the amount of work will become more daunting. "Broken but good enough" seems to be DF's future.
Post by: nil on August 30, 2010, 11:31:40 am
On the other hand, Toady has talked of and demonstrated a willingness to be moved to action by the Eternal Suggestions voting, and "abstract the interface" is at 13 and rising (and three of the suggestions above it are already being worked on to at least some degree). I agree that Toady isn't likely to fix the interface himself, but I still have hope in his abstracting it and letting the userbase fix it for him at some point in the not-incredibly-distant-future.It's clunky, sure, but I don't think it'll stay that way, once Toady has the rest of the game where he wants it to be.
That's probably a pipe dream. The wrestling screen is critical for testing and debugging much of the new combat system, but that still didn't provide enough impetus for him to de-clunkify it. I see no reason to believe that UI will ever become anything but last priority. And UI will just get more discouraging to work on, the longer it's put off, since the amount of work will become more daunting. "Broken but good enough" seems to be DF's future.
Post by: The Architect on August 30, 2010, 11:38:35 am
I find the new combat and schedule control system to be a promising sign that he is indeed committed to making the UI more workable in the future, but a very discouraging sign that he's not very apt when it comes to implementing UI. He should ask the community for suggestions of what we would like to see when he is ready to update it.
Finally, the UI is what is preventing me from playing at the moment (along with a few bugs). I found the effort to reward ratio to be unsatisfying during my last project. I designated the poo out of some walls for long periods of time, and still found myself a short way along the path to completion. I have some suggestions for how to fix the building designation problem simply and permanently, but this is not the place.
Post by: nil on August 30, 2010, 11:46:00 am
I don't know; Toady did once say that he wants to have the majority of the features done before he addresses the UI. What I gathered from the rest of the statement was that he does not want to work up a UI, only to have it become obsolete (and thus amount to wasted time) when he adds more features.Well, this is why I have hope for abstraction; I'm no programmer but my thinking is that it should be possible to set up some sort of raw-like system that allows Toady to easily implement quick-and-dirty new interface features, which can then be refined by modders.
A look at this thread (and pretty much any one like it) shows that the vast majority of issues people have can be resolved down to just a few problems. Documentation is probably best handled by the community, and the end game problem is already partially solved + will get even more solved as the army arc continues. Improving the processing speed would probably be a nightmare, which leaves the interface as the "low-hanging fruit."
I mean, fuck, if the interface is bad enough to hold back a player as hardcore as you...
Post by: Footkerchief on August 30, 2010, 12:34:24 pm
On the other hand, Toady has talked of and demonstrated a willingness to be moved to action by the Eternal Suggestions voting, and "abstract the interface" is at 13 and rising (and three of the suggestions above it are already being worked on to at least some degree). I agree that Toady isn't likely to fix the interface himself, but I still have hope in his abstracting it and letting the userbase fix it for him at some point in the not-incredibly-distant-future.
He does pay attention to ESV, but he's not likely to do the "Abstract the interface" item. He's expressed a lot of misgivings about the idea:
Anyway, yes, this has been suggested before and Toady has made a couple direct responses. Any supporters of the idea should definitely read these:Spoiler: response (click to show/hide)Spoiler: followup (click to show/hide)
Also some earlier stuff:Spoiler: part 1 (click to show/hide)Spoiler: part 2 (click to show/hide)
. But I don't know if you see that as a relief.Post by: The Architect on August 30, 2010, 05:26:44 pm
This is Toady's project, of which he is very, very fond. It's his Opus. Anything that lessens his enjoyment or risks taking the project away from him so to speak (no longer being his project in all respects) is to be avoided. It's a very understandable point of view.
I personally think he has the right idea on this subject. I wish Toady had someone who was both close to him personally and as dedicated to the project as he is, who would be able to support him and help him at every step of the way. I think that such a close partner on the project (friend, wife, etc) would be fully qualified to take on a huge majority of the part of the work that he finds non-fulfilling without taking away any of the magical quality that his own masterpiece has for him. By that I mean sorting through endless repeating suggestions, messages, and forum topics. I know his brother is with him on this, but it seems from my limited point of view to be less of an all-in, "this is what I'm excited about and doing as the focus of my life right now" way.
So, Toady, on a less serious note, maybe you should go wife shopping ;)
Post by: Josephus on August 30, 2010, 05:32:18 pm
Post by: NerfJihad on August 31, 2010, 06:01:37 am
<_< on the offchance that I've missed a well-documented area of the game, I apologize and would like to state that I did indeed check the wiki before posting.
Kudos to Toady on this project, it's an incredible testament of coding prowess to brute-force a core-i7 (8 cores @ 2.0ghz) machine with 8gb of ram into a slow, wheezing demise due to the number of things running simultaneously. Adventurer mode is the only way I've managed to overload my machine. Then again, I wanted to play with actual rivers that were wide and deep and awesome to behold, so I made 'large regions' with 100's of z-levels of depth, so I guess i get what I pay for.
Post by: ungulateman on August 31, 2010, 06:49:18 am
Are called shots ala the wrestling menu too much to ask? If I want to just end things quickly with an enemy, I don't want to bash ribs and guts and fingers and eyes, lemme crush his head with the warhammer and call it good.
<_< on the offchance that I've missed a well-documented area of the game, I apologize and would like to state that I did indeed check the wiki before posting.
Kudos to Toady on this project, it's an incredible testament of coding prowess to brute-force a core-i7 (8 cores @ 2.0ghz) machine with 8gb of ram into a slow, wheezing demise due to the number of things running simultaneously. Adventurer mode is the only way I've managed to overload my machine. Then again, I wanted to play with actual rivers that were wide and deep and awesome to behold, so I made 'large regions' with 100's of z-levels of depth, so I guess i get what I pay for.
There's your problem. That's barely 25% stronger than my 5-year old laptop. DF cares about sheer processor strength as opposed to number of cores.
Post by: Thief^ on August 31, 2010, 06:53:11 am
Kudos to Toady on this project, it's an incredible testament of coding prowess to brute-force a core-i7 (8 cores @ 2.0ghz) machine with 8gb of ram into a slow, wheezing demise due to the number of things running simultaneously. Adventurer mode is the only way I've managed to overload my machine. Then again, I wanted to play with actual rivers that were wide and deep and awesome to behold, so I made 'large regions' with 100's of z-levels of depth, so I guess i get what I pay for.
There's your problem. That's barely 25% stronger than my 5-year old laptop. DF cares about sheer processor strength as opposed to number of cores.
Wrong. CPU speed stopped going up years ago, ~2.0-3.0GHz is normal. What's been going up is instruction processing efficiency, cache size, (integrated) memory controller speed and number of cores. The last doesn't affect DF, but the rest all do. His i7 will get much much much more performance in DF than your laptop.
Post by: SirHoneyBadger on August 31, 2010, 07:59:05 am
People, in my opinion, should probably give up on any big hopes of Bay12Games doing any significant outsourcing, or making DF an open source project. There isn't much incentive for either brother to ever do so, and doesn't seem to be any will or desire.
I don't see anything in those statements/follow-ups that precludes ToadyOne working on the interface, himself, at some point in the future, though... Infact, I recall him suggesting that if he ever needed a large increase in donations, that that's the first thing he'd be likely to turn to.
So I feel it's probably a matter of his priorities. Interface wouldn't be easy for him to do, and it's not his favorite thing, so it's low on the list right now.
Will it be the same situation 10 years down the road? How about 20? All we have are guesses, and I'm guessing that at some point, he might get the urge towards a more polished product, because that might be what gives him satisfaction, at that point in time.
Might.
It's his perogative, and that's ok, because having DF "under one roof" has so far resulted in a great game. In any case, a happy ToadyOne is better for everyone than an unhappy ToadyOne.
He hasn't shied away from grungework in the past or present, though, so if he ever decides that the time is right to improve the interface, I feel confident he wouldn't drag his feet. He also reads and replies to a significant amount of Forum posts, so he attaches enough importance to our opinions and sentiments to make himself aware of them. If he feels he isn't entirely up to a given task on his own, he knows that we exist as a source of inspiration.
For that matter, creating DF has to be a learning project. Might there someday conceivably appear a desire to take what he's learned and create a 3rd edition of Armok from the ground up? This scenario would then actually be simpler for Bay12Games to follow through with, than it might for another company, since there would be no question of legal rights or ownership of the title, and everything that falls under it.
Another point in the favor of keeping DF firmly and entirely in their hands.
Might not someone simply offer Toady a large chunk of cash, along with a request (as opposed to a demand) to improve any given aspect of the game? Without other strings attached, or undue arrogance on the part of the donator, such a thing might become a pretty powerful motivation, since it wouldn't threaten his ownership of the game, or ability to make choices about it, and it also wouldn't detract from the donations of others, or general opinion.
Has Toady ever suggested he was above
Toady's basically said that as long as he can earn a living at it, and as long as it's something he still wants to do, that he more or less intends to keep working on Dwarf Fortress, or atleast Bay12Games products, for the rest of his working life. Considering that he's a little younger than I am, and the nonphysical nature of the job, that could be a very long time.
Plenty of time for hope
Post by: MaDeR Levap on August 31, 2010, 08:47:56 am
Post by: Eugenitor on August 31, 2010, 10:23:23 am
Post by: ungulateman on August 31, 2010, 11:39:58 am
Kudos to Toady on this project, it's an incredible testament of coding prowess to brute-force a core-i7 (8 cores @ 2.0ghz) machine with 8gb of ram into a slow, wheezing demise due to the number of things running simultaneously. Adventurer mode is the only way I've managed to overload my machine. Then again, I wanted to play with actual rivers that were wide and deep and awesome to behold, so I made 'large regions' with 100's of z-levels of depth, so I guess i get what I pay for.
There's your problem. That's barely 25% stronger than my 5-year old laptop. DF cares about sheer processor strength as opposed to number of cores.
Wrong. CPU speed stopped going up years ago, ~2.0-3.0GHz is normal. What's been going up is instruction processing efficiency, cache size, (integrated) memory controller speed and number of cores. The last doesn't affect DF, but the rest all do. His i7 will get much much much more performance in DF than your laptop.
2GHz is still slow. Hell, the 'budget' CPU option in one of the computer magazines I read currently is a 2.9 GHz Tri-core, with overclocking recommended.
Sure, he'll perform better, but laptop architecture guarantees that regardless of power or efficiency.
Post by: Plague on September 01, 2010, 01:05:05 am
DF is of a game of economics, business and management than it is anything else. Unfortunately, the level of management stays the same throughout the entire game.
This is what I love about DF:
Arriving and staving off a dangerous wilderness with a handful of dwarves.
The militaristic and building aspects.
Constructing siege equipment, building huge magma chambers, reservoirs, establishing walls and moats and entryway defenses.
Repelling sieges, and being attacked by legendary creatures.
Expanding my fortress and creating new areas.
Designing my whole fortress and seeing it in action.
I do not love:
Having my time wasted by new migrants' problems.
Dwarfs not doing their jobs.
Jobs being overly complicated in their prerequisites and functions (you need a bag, which needs fibers, which needs X, which needs X, which needs X, etc).
Micro-managing individual dwarves' lives, down to what they own and what their taste in food is.
Finding that my fortress is always expanding to meet the needs of its own expansion.
Seeing my fortress doing nothing important.
To me, the whole problem is that you never stop establishing yourself. One would think that you would arrive, create what you need to survive, and then begin the slow process of unraveling a plan. Over time, you stop focusing on survival and micro-managing a small collection of dwarves to having large groups of dwarves that manage themselves, which you use to step up to the next tier of development. This does not happen. You are basically stuck in the same mode as you are upon your arrival, for the entire game.
This would be similar to a major business owner being required to oversee the day-to-day functions of every store he has across the country. You hire managers to perform these functions so that you can handle the next level of problems, which are often more complicated but not as intensive on minute details.
There is too much "depth" to DF created by adding superfluous details.
I want to be able to create a military force and journey to new lands and conquer evil goblin cities.
I do NOT want to see buildable toilets introduced, nor do I care what my 34th horse's thoughts on his favorite color happen to be.
DF is not streamlined, and its gameplay does not step up as you play. The things I WANT to do are impeded by an ever-piling list of things that someone else should be doing, and while I am capable of doing these things, I *do not want to.* That's why I don't bother playing.
As far as solutions, I have ideas, but that's not really the point of the thread, and that's not up to me anyway.
Post by: NerfJihad on September 01, 2010, 02:06:11 am
Kudos to Toady on this project, it's an incredible testament of coding prowess to brute-force a core-i7 (8 cores @ 2.0ghz) machine with 8gb of ram into a slow, wheezing demise due to the number of things running simultaneously. Adventurer mode is the only way I've managed to overload my machine. Then again, I wanted to play with actual rivers that were wide and deep and awesome to behold, so I made 'large regions' with 100's of z-levels of depth, so I guess i get what I pay for.
There's your problem. That's barely 25% stronger than my 5-year old laptop. DF cares about sheer processor strength as opposed to number of cores.
Wrong. CPU speed stopped going up years ago, ~2.0-3.0GHz is normal. What's been going up is instruction processing efficiency, cache size, (integrated) memory controller speed and number of cores. The last doesn't affect DF, but the rest all do. His i7 will get much much much more performance in DF than your laptop.
2GHz is still slow. Hell, the 'budget' CPU option in one of the computer magazines I read currently is a 2.9 GHz Tri-core, with overclocking recommended.
Sure, he'll perform better, but laptop architecture guarantees that regardless of power or efficiency.
I'm running this on a laptop, and honestly, I don't feel like OC'ing this until I can afford a new one. This is a brand new machine, with relatively top-of-the-line components. 2.0ghz in an 8-core laptop is impressive in nearly every sense of the word. (Multi-core capacity would be greatly appreciated in a future release, but iono how well that'll go over.) Overclocked and in a climate-controlled environment, I could squeeze a lot more out of this, but I'm running linux and don't feel the need to do more to my box than is necessary.
Actually, fsck 'relatively'. I'm running a beast of a computer, and my biggest gripe is that it takes more power to run this than it does to run Crysis.
Post by: Jayce on September 01, 2010, 02:19:23 am
Post by: The Architect on September 01, 2010, 03:15:55 am
summarized: never-ending micromanagement is not fun.
I can stand behind this 100%. I'd like to see improvements to the features that already exist, allowing them to be actually utilized. This is a thread for negativity, so keep in mind that I'm a huge fan of the Toad and his work while you read my complaints.
I advise skipping the examples unless you read the rest and think I'm exaggerating or over the line. If so, then come back and read them, and see if your opinion has wavered nearer to mine.
Spoiler: Examples (click to show/hide)
It's amazing to me to learn that a couple of days are all that is required to flesh out problematic features from annoyances to joys, yet this is never the priority. I understood the mentality of add-it-all-then-fix-it-later before, but now I see the truth: the features to be added are almost limitless, and we're approaching the point where the number of incompletely implemented features will make the game truly unplayable for even the most hard-core fans.
It passed that point already for me. If I can't get a leak stopped because no dwarves will take a job to disassemble a gear, and I can't tell if it is a bug or job problem because idle dwarves held up from work by the leak are constantly trying to throw parties, and I can't keep the fort under control because buggy programming causes children to walk around drowning themselves, and ...
then I have to sit back, take a moment, and think: this isn't a challenge; it's not a game; it's a debacle. It's more frustrating than work, which I actually enjoy. I used to enjoy DF, and I'd like to again. It's such a wonderful compilation of imagination and potential.
Anyway, if I ran DF it wouldn't be anything on the grand scale of Toady's imagination. Then, again, it would be highly playable. So I think the scale has just tipped a little too far the wrong way. I'd like Toady to take a little bit to catch up with himself, get the current features in order, then proceed with adding his new ideas. But we all know what gets him excited about the game, and it's implementing new ideas (not fixing the old ones!)
Post by: Urist McDepravity on September 01, 2010, 03:25:07 am
Anyway, if I ran DF it wouldn't be anything on the grand scale of Toady's imagination. Then, again, it would be highly playable.Making freeware game is usually perceived much more simplier than in fact it is.
So much more likely it would not exist at all rather than being 'highly playable'.
Post by: Josephus on September 01, 2010, 03:46:29 am
The creeping in of political correctness.
What do you mean?
Post by: Thief^ on September 01, 2010, 04:11:21 am
It's also an i7, which means that it can raise the cpu speed on a single core if you are only using the one. e.g. when playing DF.Kudos to Toady on this project, it's an incredible testament of coding prowess to brute-force a core-i7 (8 cores @ 2.0ghz) machine with 8gb of ram into a slow, wheezing demise due to the number of things running simultaneously. Adventurer mode is the only way I've managed to overload my machine. Then again, I wanted to play with actual rivers that were wide and deep and awesome to behold, so I made 'large regions' with 100's of z-levels of depth, so I guess i get what I pay for.
There's your problem. That's barely 25% stronger than my 5-year old laptop. DF cares about sheer processor strength as opposed to number of cores.
Wrong. CPU speed stopped going up years ago, ~2.0-3.0GHz is normal. What's been going up is instruction processing efficiency, cache size, (integrated) memory controller speed and number of cores. The last doesn't affect DF, but the rest all do. His i7 will get much much much more performance in DF than your laptop.
2GHz is still slow. Hell, the 'budget' CPU option in one of the computer magazines I read currently is a 2.9 GHz Tri-core, with overclocking recommended.
Sure, he'll perform better, but laptop architecture guarantees that regardless of power or efficiency.
I'm running this on a laptop, and honestly, I don't feel like OC'ing this until I can afford a new one. This is a brand new machine, with relatively top-of-the-line components. 2.0ghz in an 8-core laptop is impressive in nearly every sense of the word. (Multi-core capacity would be greatly appreciated in a future release, but iono how well that'll go over.) Overclocked and in a climate-controlled environment, I could squeeze a lot more out of this, but I'm running linux and don't feel the need to do more to my box than is necessary.
Actually, fsck 'relatively'. I'm running a beast of a computer, and my biggest gripe is that it takes more power to run this than it does to run Crysis.
If your cpu is the i7 I think it is, it will boost to up to 3.2GHz when only one core is in use, and up to 3.0 GHz when two are in use.
i7s are sweet cpus.
Post by: Antsan on September 01, 2010, 06:38:16 am
Quote
It would probably take about an hour to fix this.Yes, that's how bug tracking and programming works. "I'm going to rewrite a whole subsystem of my program, where I need to maintain a lot of functionality that is used at several different spots in the engine and introducing new functionality that I didn't even plan to be there before, so how long should this take, taking into account, I might introduce several really obscure bugs on the way? Oh well, an hour I guess."
Don't ever measure how long it could take to fix or implement something just by how complex the task seems to you. Even formalizing the ideas you've got can take a good slice of time.
Post by: Rumrusher on September 01, 2010, 10:48:50 am
oh well
the only major gripe I get from the game is the memory leaks that might suck up a good chuck of my small ram and the face I can't really copy and edit the title of a old save with out corrupting it which means I need to make separate folders for swapping saves. I play it as a rogue-like with exploring the game and seeing what new hidden stuff one can do.
still need to figure out how to non-lethal disband companions,
Post by: Draco18s on September 01, 2010, 11:00:26 am
Post by: Rumrusher on September 01, 2010, 12:22:21 pm
You realize that DF's memory usage isn't a memory leak, right? It's legitimately using all of it, unless you have a good indication as to why it shouldn't need it.okay then let me rephrase it
I hate it when dwarf fort takes a huge chunk some times and ends up crashing it self when it reaches my pc max commit charge limit. It's a small gripe and only happens during my testing the game hidden features for adventure mode.
Post by: nickbii on September 02, 2010, 10:10:47 pm
He doesn't want a rewrite. He wants Toady to display the genetic traits a breeder would be interested in.QuoteIt would probably take about an hour to fix this.Yes, that's how bug tracking and programming works. "I'm going to rewrite a whole subsystem of my program, where I need to maintain a lot of functionality that is used at several different spots in the engine and introducing new functionality that I didn't even plan to be there before, so how long should this take, taking into account, I might introduce several really obscure bugs on the way? Oh well, an hour I guess."
Don't ever measure how long it could take to fix or implement something just by how complex the task seems to you. Even formalizing the ideas you've got can take a good slice of time.
In other words he wants Toady to use the subroutine saying "the doggy has green eyes" to also say "the doggy's speed is 7, strength is 12, and toughness is 8." Or something like that. The data is he's talking about is presumably stored in the same spot as eye-color, which would make this a trivial change.
And I think we can all agree that a fortress dedicated to breeding gigantic War Eagles would be incredibly cool.
Nick
I doubt he'll make it, because he's got about a billion things on his to-do list, but this is a pretty good place to bring up the issue.
Post by: Vercingetorix on September 02, 2010, 11:52:01 pm
So, from my perspective this is the area that I'd like to see implemented first going forward. The new entity populations are a step in this direction because they'll make creating a real trade system easier; hell, right now I'd be happy just to have non-local populations continue to have children, age, and die.
Post by: zwei on September 03, 2010, 08:39:08 am
Damn Huge Lists of (random) Stuff from which i have to find something.
They are usually ordered in semirandom way (so making human&elves-corpse stockpile is real joy). Especially when it makes sense to be at least alphabetic, it is not.
They are rarely searchable and filterable (i would love to filter stocks menu the same way i can filter items in bring-to-depot dialog) so you have to find group of items you want to do something manually.
Well designed component reused all over df would go long way...
Post by: Brian on September 03, 2010, 10:00:37 am
Post by: Beeskee on September 03, 2010, 12:49:57 pm
Post by: Vercingetorix on September 03, 2010, 04:12:31 pm
Some of the long-standing bugs in the new version are starting to get to me. I have a fort that seems to have all of them at once. (Search for "Sealances" on DFFD) I was thinking about going back to the old version for a bit but I remember in that one it was nearly impossible to get metals other than from the goblin caravan.
Unless you're willing to really, really dig all over the place.
Post by: Beeskee on September 03, 2010, 05:27:08 pm
Just the process of digging out a small fort gives me tones of stone and ore of all different types.
Post by: Vercingetorix on September 03, 2010, 06:36:34 pm
Yeah.. heh. I haven't done any exploratory mining in the new version. I haven't had to.
Just the process of digging out a small fort gives me tones of stone and ore of all different types.
I specifically got dfhack for the auto-vein mining tool. I have no intention of using it on adamantine, at least for now...
EDIT: It isn't classified as a vein. Nvm.
Post by: Damn It on November 02, 2011, 06:57:59 pm
So it's been two years since I last tried to get into this game (my only other post was on this thread), and this time, within 2 days I had myself another Nemesis Load Error, which was the last straw during my previous attempt to romance this game. So with that (that wasn't the only issue I had, but it was the game breaker), I decided to put DF back on the shelf and go back to my other roguelikes until, I don't know, 2014?
I know this is a free game and any roguelike deserves due respect, but it is frustrating. I know this genre is right up my alley, and there's a big enough following of DF that I know logically that it cannot possibly be as buggy as I perceive it to be. That being said, my personal experience with DF wouldn't read too much differently than a story of one of my busted luck, drowning in a pool while someone else in the pool is biting his ankle, adventurers. I know I can create backups, but replaying the same stuff and achieving the same things over again, at least to me, is like getting my fingernails pulled and is against the whole purpose of playing a roguelike to begin with.
IMO the only thing that needs to be done with DF is bug fixes. Bug fixes first. I know that's not fun to do as a programmer, but no additional features of any kind are worth crap to me if I can't be confident that the universe is going to behave in a logical way, and most importantly is not going to crash to desktop or delete itself when I take my next step.
Post by: adecoy95 on November 02, 2011, 07:40:19 pm
http://df.magmawiki.com/images/6/65/Df-crops-diagram.png
Post by: tolkafox on November 02, 2011, 07:54:28 pm
It sounds like you most likely have a memory problem that's causing it to crash, either from not having enough memory available or enough memory allotted to one program. The solution to these is easy, more memory or change of memory preference. I know it can be frustrating to encounter problems, but if you aren't willing to solve them you'll just keep running into them.
The thing that turns me off most about DF currently is the randomness of embarks. It just seems odd to me that my dwarves know that there's metal deep underground, but they fail to mention the large cluster of magnetite that makes up half of the surface.
Edit: Oh, and the children. They're so bloody useless, I don't want them farming because in 10 years I won't need farms anymore. Right now all they do is run around making parties and tripping over goblin ambushes. Why is a -40 year old dwarf considered an adult, anyways? My vision of an adult dwarf has been in his late 40's early 50's.
While I'm at it, parties. They don't contain food or drinks and I'm tired of the messages that remain me of such.
Wait, this is probably the biggest game killer for me: not being able to build walls on top of constructed floors. It makes above ground construction a pain.
Post by: Tryble on November 02, 2011, 08:06:55 pm
Luckily it finally clicked, and I stuck with it. But I spent way, way more time than I normally would accept just trying to figure out basic controls. If I hadn't plowed through it out of spite and stubbornness I'd have been another casualty to non-intuitive interfacing.
Spite and stubbornness: It does a dwarf (and DF player) good.
Post by: MantisMan on November 02, 2011, 10:03:52 pm
The only problems I'm dealing with nowadays is getting the game configured with a square ascii set everytime I get the new version.
I think a problem with many new players is that they expect this game to be one you can just jump into and instantly understand. If they can come in with the mentality that they should read about how to do things before they play the game, then there would be a much lower chance of them thinking the game is nothing more than an incomprehensible mess.
Whore out the wiki more, and tell new players to watch the lets play videos on youtube and use the start up guides to get them started rather than let them think that they don't need to learn how to play.
I have a friend who used to think that if a game didn't have ultra-modern high-end graphics, then the designers were being lazy and that it was a bad game. Trying to convince him that dwarf fortress can't really be done in 3d wasn't working. After he got into Minecraft, he at least conceded that a game doesn't need super high-end graphics to be good, but he still thinks that modern games have to be in 3d for them to be good. What I'm trying to say with this is that there are a lot of people who are too literal and set in their thinking for them to be able to like a game like DF. I guess that's not new information to anyone, but it seemed a relevant thing to mention.
Post by: shadus on November 03, 2011, 01:34:49 am
The other thing I feel is missing is a priority system for jobs. The military system isn't tremendously intuitive and the first raid can ruin your day if you're not prepared... if I had to have only two items it would be #1) Good in game management of Jobs #2) (for new people especially) A good tutorial system to at least introduce the basic concepts.
Also, as someone coming from other roguelikes for ah *considers the age that many years of playing games makes him* a lot of years, defaulting the multicharacter grass to off would make it easier for other roguelike players to accommodate, i know right off the rip I had serious issues because the grass overwhelmed and made it hard to figure what was happening for me.
Post by: Graebeard on November 03, 2011, 03:13:41 am
Post by: Ifeno on November 03, 2011, 06:42:25 am
Post by: Azated on November 03, 2011, 09:36:06 am
making an awesome fortress just to realize that the environment isn't evil enough and that it'll be too difficult to lose here...
Only in dwarf fortress is not losing a bad thing.
On topic: To be honest, the only thing that turns me off is the performance. It gets really irritating to have a fortress running at 20 frames when it could be at a few hundred (If you turn FPS limiting off in the settings). You can't do a damn thing about it either. No matter how many dwarves you splatter, no matter how many animals you butcher, no matter how many rocks you remove, after a certain point it's as slow as a wet week.
The best thing about DF for me is the difficulty. I really don't like games with scaling difficulty, like oblivion. Sure it was a fun game, but I like to walk into a cave thinking it's safe, then WHAM, a troll paints the wall with my brains.
To me, a game that is relatively as easy as when you begin is a little pointless. There should be places that are so easy you can do it blindfolded, then other areas that are so far out of your reach you don't even want to think about the various ways you'll be disemboweled should you venture there.
Epic necro is epic.
Post by: Protactinium on November 03, 2011, 11:14:35 am
I will agree that the number one turn-off on any long-running for is the performance drop. I've got a 150-dwarf fort of 11 years, and I run at 9 FPS with no fancy pumping or waterfalls going on. Half my dwarves are basically just hauling clothes to my magma chute. The only reason I do this in-game activity is for the game to perform better, in a strange twist.
I'm actually still actively having fun, but I know that in the past, all my lulls between gameplay have been from 2-FPS unplayable fortresses.
Post by: Andir on November 03, 2011, 12:29:43 pm
The only reason I do this in-game activity is for the game to perform better, in a strange twist.I wouldn't call it strange to maintain... If you don't take care of it all the time, it will catch up to you and it will be worse. Unfortunately, DF has a lot of maintenance that has to be performed on long running maps. As you keep adding more processes, more maintenance needs to be done.
Post by: Buttery_Mess on November 03, 2011, 12:53:34 pm
As long as a person is committed to learning how to play, this isn't a problem. The problem I'd imagine is that most people run DF for the first time, decide it's crap, then never try it again, because they didn't know that they had to spend hours learning to play in the first place.
More thorough tutorials would help, but it's hard to make a tutorial because there is no right way to play the game. I think that the main problem is that you get too many dwarfs showing up through immigration. It's a mad panic to get the fort set up for eighty dwarfs, at which time you'll get sieges and nobles. You have to do everything at once. It would be better if dwarfs only turned up when you needed them for a certain job. That would allow people to focus on accomodation first, then food source, then trade goods industry, then a metal industry, without having to panic and trying to set everything up at once. That way, new players would be able to focus on figuring out one thing at a time.
Post by: Andir on November 03, 2011, 04:21:08 pm
Post by: Telgin on November 03, 2011, 05:21:43 pm
The ASCII graphics weren't a turn off for me. In a way I actually prefer it since it makes the game almost like reading a book. The rest of the interface was a bit of a hurdle to overcome, but didn't put me off for long.
The learning curve was quite steep. The biggest problem I encountered here is the unbelievable amount of misinformation about the game that you can find if you go looking. Older versions and urban legends make it difficult to know for sure what you're doing is right. A built in tutorial or more comprehensive help system might be the way to go here.
A good example of what I mean here is that literally within 10 minutes of me playing the game for the first time, the first message it told me was "The billy goat (tame) has suffocated!"
I was completely mystified. I now know that this was because I pastured two goats in too small of a pasture and my nanny goat killed him, but I'm sure such a confusing scenario wouldn't encourage most people to keep playing.
The FPS death problem wasn't that big of a turn off for me. It isn't something a new player is likely to encounter soon, and so I learned to love the game before I ran into it.
Post by: medley on November 04, 2011, 07:19:03 pm
Another simple thing is the fact that I need to go to magmawiki for every new thing I run into. "you have struck [new rock]" id love to have an option that said "this is used for this and that". Its not fun when I have to make a 20 minute research to find out the difference between a vertical bar and a grate.
The other thing is when you cant figure out why in gods name are some dwarves doing something... like deciding to take a stroll in the park when i restrict them to a burrow in the middle of a siege. but i guess this stuff is more complicated and affected by the randmomness of the game
Post by: MrWiggles on November 04, 2011, 09:42:30 pm
Post by: zwei on November 05, 2011, 04:05:42 am
And then when you're looking at the stock screen, the lag that can happen when going over item list with lots of items in it. Its such as large deal, that I take that into account when I'm looking over the list.
Especially when you want to look at your metal bars ... as there is stone list right in front of it.
Post by: Iton Ibrukrithzam on November 05, 2011, 05:30:15 am
A) The Learning Curve. Some well-advertised tutorials would go a long way. Yeah, they have to be updated when the game updates(well, depending on the update, I think), but with updates as far apart as they are, that isn't so bad. Heck, Toady and Three-Toe could probably hold a tutorial contest, winner gets a picture or three-toe story(same as financial contributors) and people would do it.
B) The ASCII graphics. They hold a certain old school charm, and I get that 3d is out of the question. But there are some people, like myself, for whom ASCII only causes headaches. Without a graphic pack, I probably wouldn't have started. Several good packs exist, it's just a matter of letting people know about them.
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on November 05, 2011, 07:28:26 am
I'd say the biggest barriers to entry are:A. The required "You elf!" type of comment.
A) The Learning Curve. Some well-advertised tutorials would go a long way. Yeah, they have to be updated when the game updates(well, depending on the update, I think), but with updates as far apart as they are, that isn't so bad. Heck, Toady and Three-Toe could probably hold a tutorial contest, winner gets a picture or three-toe story(same as financial contributors) and people would do it.
B) The ASCII graphics. They hold a certain old school charm, and I get that 3d is out of the question. But there are some people, like myself, for whom ASCII only causes headaches. Without a graphic pack, I probably wouldn't have started. Several good packs exist, it's just a matter of letting people know about them.
B. Have you looked up, say, the Lazy Noob pack or the wiki entry (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Tutorials)? They'll help noobs, especially lazy ones, especially the first one.
C. Look up graphics packs. Or stay with, and learn. That's what I did, and now the only problems I have are occasionally mistaking a groundhog for a pikegoblin or something like that that's easily remedied by the k and/or v key.
Frankly, to any problem there is a simple, fun, Fun, and/or dwarfy solution that works well.
Sieges? Multiple--
Post by: Mickey Blue on November 05, 2011, 11:40:29 am
1) The UI: Its ridiculous, don't get me wrong once you get used to it you can speed through things quickly with hot keys but its a lot to get used to in an already complex game.
2) The graphics: These days I only use ASCII (or rather a tileset that is ASCII but squares it) but when I started it was like looking at a garble of random symbols and letters. Considering the already mentioned complex UI and the complexity of the game itself (didn't get farming right in your first year.. You probably died) it was hard to deal with.
My current things that bug me:
1) FPS of course: Granted these days I play the game on what may as well be considered 'hard mode'* and frequently die before FPS ever becomes a significant issue (plus I keep my base-FPS locked at 60, I Find that makes the game flow better for me and thus I won't notice any change in FPS until it slows enough to drop below that) however knowing that trying to make a long lasting fort is a lost cause does suck.
2) As others mentioned, the lists. While I've gotten over the UI the lists of things can be a pain to sort through. Names get cut off if they are too long, they are often not in any particular order, you cannot sort them or filter them or search them (with a few exceptions like in the managers table). There is so much I'd change with that (it would be nice, for example, if you could have a 'favorites' section where you could select specific things to be able to view quickly, like "drinks, food, wood, metal" or whatever so I don't have to check all the different sections when I want to know how much stock I have. That said alphabetizing the lists or better yet allowing you to filter or sort them would be good too, kind of like you can in the manager window (again).
3) More minor but not being able to choose specific materials to make certain things out of, like making a door or a floodgate out of a specific material without having to jump through hoops. You can do this with some things (like armor/weapons) I just wish you could do it with everything. I know its in the works though so that's good.
I am aware that the "FPS" issue runs deep, but to me (knowing nothing about programming) it wouldn't be that hard to take care of the other two and honestly that really were the only two notable things I could come up with. None of the above really put me off the game, but if I could pick two (realistic) things to change it would be the latter two.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 05, 2011, 08:20:08 pm
The infinite enemies who attack over and over and over and over until you finally lose, or until you wall yourself in and never come out again. The only way to stop them is to generate a world where they do not exist, or to use an adventurer or adventurers to wipe out their civilizations.
Unkillable forgotten beasts. Do these still appear or are they all HP based now? I quit playing while these were around, but they were only one of the reasons, and it's mainly the military and infinite enemies that are keeping me from coming back.
The inability to use wagons for caravans anymore (unless you build on an existing road?).
Post by: Squidpalace on November 05, 2011, 08:34:02 pm
The infinite enemies who attack over and over and over and over until you finally lose, or until you wall yourself in and never come out again. The only way to stop them is to generate a world where they do not exist, or to use an adventurer or adventurers to wipe out their civilizations.
Or set invaders to NO in the init. lol
Post by: Iton Ibrukrithzam on November 05, 2011, 09:52:11 pm
A. Hey, I play the game now. It was a tough learning curve, and my DF history is riddled with fort deaths as I learned each thing, though. I enjoyed it, personally, it can be fun to watch all Fun break loose, but not everyone enjoys losing because they couldn't figure out how to get farms working.I'd say the biggest barriers to entry are:A. The required "You elf!" type of comment.
A) The Learning Curve. Some well-advertised tutorials would go a long way. Yeah, they have to be updated when the game updates(well, depending on the update, I think), but with updates as far apart as they are, that isn't so bad. Heck, Toady and Three-Toe could probably hold a tutorial contest, winner gets a picture or three-toe story(same as financial contributors) and people would do it.
B) The ASCII graphics. They hold a certain old school charm, and I get that 3d is out of the question. But there are some people, like myself, for whom ASCII only causes headaches. Without a graphic pack, I probably wouldn't have started. Several good packs exist, it's just a matter of letting people know about them.
B. Have you looked up, say, the Lazy Noob pack or the wiki entry (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Tutorials)? They'll help noobs, especially lazy ones, especially the first one.
C. Look up graphics packs. Or stay with, and learn. That's what I did, and now the only problems I have are occasionally mistaking a groundhog for a pikegoblin or something like that that's easily remedied by the k and/or v key.
Frankly, to any problem there is a simple, fun, Fun, and/or dwarfy solution that works well.
Sieges? Multiple--
B&C. I have, actually. These utilities continue to help me to this day. I wasn't listing "Reasons I totally don't play DF, but still lurk the boards" I was listing things that made it harder for me to get into it and things I've seen be hard on friends as I try to get them into it.
Post by: Mickey Blue on November 05, 2011, 11:12:07 pm
The military. It used to be easy to put dwarves in the military, make squads, and move them around, and toggle their military-status on and off. Now it's overcomplicated and too much hassle.
I know the military is a big issue for lots of people but (and if you haven't played in a while as you indicate below) its pretty good now IMO. I use the military as my only line of defense (no walls, no traps, etc) and I find it far nicer to be able to have different squads with different specific equipment, etc. Much nicer (though to be fair more complex) than the previous version.
Quote
The infinite enemies who attack over and over and over and over until you finally lose, or until you wall yourself in and never come out again. The only way to stop them is to generate a world where they do not exist, or to use an adventurer or adventurers to wipe out their civilizations.
If you mean sieges you can turn those off in the raws, if you mean just general monsters I guess I must not notice them as much. Though I do play with huge amounts of enemies so to each their own.
Quote
Unkillable forgotten beasts. Do these still appear or are they all HP based now? I quit playing while these were around, but they were only one of the reasons, and it's mainly the military and infinite enemies that are keeping me from coming back.
Those are, so far as I know, gone. There are still very powerful ones (but then that's the point) but I'm pretty sure the invincible ones (usually made of some mineral) are gone. Really my beef with FBs are the super weak ones. I hate all the epicness of one showing up then some random dwarf punches it and it dies (usually the 'blob' ones, if anything you'd imagine they'd be harder cause they would be able to reform but it seems to treat them as a bubble that can be popped).
Quote
The inability to use wagons for caravans anymore (unless you build on an existing road?).
Not sure what exactly you mean by this one, there are still caravans and yes there are no wagons but I've never noticed a major issue as a result. Again though, to each their own.
Post by: Shadowlord on November 05, 2011, 11:31:24 pm
If you mean sieges you can turn those off in the raws, if you mean just general monsters I guess I must not notice them as much. Though I do play with huge amounts of enemies so to each their own.The problem with that was that it disabled all enemies entering the map, including kobolds, dragons, hydras, colossi, etc, although I don't know if it affects underground critters.
Good to hear.QuoteUnkillable forgotten beasts. Do these still appear or are they all HP based now? I quit playing while these were around, but they were only one of the reasons, and it's mainly the military and infinite enemies that are keeping me from coming back.
Those are, so far as I know, gone. There are still very powerful ones (but then that's the point) but I'm pretty sure the invincible ones (usually made of some mineral) are gone. Really my beef with FBs are the super weak ones. I hate all the epicness of one showing up then some random dwarf punches it and it dies (usually the 'blob' ones, if anything you'd imagine they'd be harder cause they would be able to reform but it seems to treat them as a bubble that can be popped).
Potential trade per year is way down due to the lack of wagons. That isn't a major problem for me, though the inability to have cities connect roads to you was an issue for certain other people.QuoteThe inability to use wagons for caravans anymore (unless you build on an existing road?).
Not sure what exactly you mean by this one, there are still caravans and yes there are no wagons but I've never noticed a major issue as a result. Again though, to each their own.
The RSI-inducing trade interface was an annoyance to me, to the point that I mostly stopped trading and started colonizing sites that had everything I needed.
Post by: Waparius on November 06, 2011, 12:19:47 am
Post by: zwei on November 06, 2011, 03:01:02 am
The infinite enemies who attack over and over and over and over until you finally lose, or until you wall yourself in and never come out again. The only way to stop them is to generate a world where they do not exist, or to use an adventurer or adventurers to wipe out their civilizations.
Or set invaders to NO in the init. lol
Well, that works, but people usually prefer lowered rate of invasions over no invasions at all.
When you get to the point where sieges arrive before you are done with cleanup from previous...
Post by: Squidpalace on November 06, 2011, 06:25:58 am
Well, that works, but people usually prefer lowered rate of invasions over no invasions at all.
When you get to the point where sieges arrive before you are done with cleanup from previous...
Turn on when you want a siege. Turn off when you don't want any. I know it's not as good as there being the exact right amount, but I find there are too few if anything, or that it is highly sporadic. Obviously Toady can't make it perfect for everyone.
Post by: Angel Of Death on November 06, 2011, 06:32:16 am
Post by: shadus on November 07, 2011, 12:53:21 am
I think that the main problem is that you get too many dwarfs showing up through immigration.f'ing migrant dwarves.
There ftfy.
Post by: Johuotar on November 07, 2011, 05:24:52 am
Post by: dr_random on November 07, 2011, 07:19:00 am
This is a issue in the trading dialogue, too. Finding particular objects is also tricky. I'd love to see some sorting being implemented.
Post by: Mickey Blue on November 07, 2011, 10:37:44 am
I do find it funny cause I was able to grasp the Z-Level deal pretty fast, however there are many who have problems with it.
Post by: Slappy Moose on November 07, 2011, 03:44:43 pm
Really the only thing that has ever made me stop playing is bugs: when my hospitals don't work and all my dwarves are stuck in bed, my military dwarves refuse to use bolts or adhere to their training/patrolling schedules, etc. Also nobles: I fucking hate dealing with their bullshit, and I really like having big forts so I have to deal with a lot of them.
Post by: Aspgren on November 07, 2011, 04:08:43 pm
Then I learned a little more about it and here I am. :)
Post by: moki on November 07, 2011, 04:40:36 pm
Bugs. That was what turned me off personally, anyway.
Features! Features! ;)
Yeah, some of those are pretty bad, but Toady's steadily working on the most pressing ones.
Personally, I found the difficulty of organizing all your dwarves when there are more than 20 very annoying. Then I found Dwarf Therapist and learned to love the game again.
The graphics or the lack thereof are scaring many new players, but after playing a while I found them the best solution for a game like this. Proper 3d graphics just wouldn't make sense, even if they were possible.
Post by: Alastar on November 07, 2011, 07:28:08 pm
A lot of information is annoying to access - filtering lists, e.g. ignoring ex-ceatures in the creature list, would be nice for a start.
I think ASCII graphics and throwback-to-the-80ies interface were the right choice... only the former sports the finest implementation I have ever seen with many pleasant details, and the latter appears quite rough.
Some of the outright bugs can be annoying, but others merely add to the charm and still others can be fun to struggle against. In general, the outright bugs bug me less than the sense I'm struggling against an interface that manages to be surprisingly powerful at other times.
Post by: Sutremaine on November 07, 2011, 08:21:04 pm
Potential trade per year is way down due to the lack of wagons.It's not. Pack animals have vastly increased carrying capacities since .31, so the weight of goods you get from an animal caravan now is roughly the same as the weight you'd get from an old wagon caravan.
Post by: Greiger on November 07, 2011, 09:51:45 pm
It annoys me to no end when I can't order soldiers to return to their position when they are chasing a fleeing enemy. I can see it making sense much of the time to not be able to. Soldiers with little sense of duty, who are prone to rage, lack self control, or just saw a good friend killed or seriously wounded by the fleeing enemy make fine candidates for ignoring such orders.
But when I lose two entire squads of highly trained soldiers to the man, that took years to train, because they abandoned their post to chase a goblin out the front gate of the fortress, into 3 squads of goblin archers(outnumbering them 2 to 1) on open terrain. I die a little inside. Perhaps the more duty bound dwarves should not pursue an opponent beyond a certain range from their station.
I build my defenses in such a way to minimize this behavior as much as I feel is currently possible under current mechanics, yet still they charge with no regard for anything at the first sight of goblin flesh. It is downright infuriating when you see a soldier you have lovingly trained for years begin chasing a fleeing opponent. From the moment you see that first wayward step in a direction they should not go, during the height of the siege, you know they are dead, and there is nothing you can do to prevent that outcome short of sending the rest of the squad to follow, which more often that not, just means you are ordering them to their deaths as well, or using a cheating utility to smite the seen goblin where they stand.
tl;dr Squad sees goblin, squad abandons post and charges to their doom chasing goblin. I would be fine with that if there was some way to stop them after they start the chase, or choose military dwarves that are less likely to excessively pursue.
Post by: MrWiggles on November 08, 2011, 12:40:19 am
Post by: Kogut on November 08, 2011, 09:55:26 am
Post by: rex mortis on November 08, 2011, 02:41:06 pm
Skill rust and attribute degradation made it intolerable. At least in 40d, barring injuries, my dwarves were always improving. If only they were smart enough to maintain their current level on their own but no.
Hard caps on attributes
No matter how unrealistic it may be, I like games where I can always keep improving. Now of course if it required specific deeds to pass certain thresholds, it would be perfectly fine. Such as magical or divine assistance to increase one's strength to levels which would be impossible unless one violates the laws of physics.
Post by: Sutremaine on November 08, 2011, 06:36:02 pm
I would be fine with that if there was some way to stop them after they start the chase, or choose military dwarves that are less likely to excessively pursue.You can stop them from chasing an opponent by deactivating them, which will revert them to their civilian 'headless chicken' behaviour. Reactivating them will either cause them to return to their previous position or send them chasing after the enemy again, in which case they'll need to be deactivated again. It's a lot of micromanagement and the dwarf might run off in a direction that sends them into another squad anyway, but it's marginally better than just watching.
How have you set your defences up? Open terrain can be made less open by building pillars in strategic places. As far as I know, ambushes and sieges spawn only around the middle third of the last month in the season, so as long as ambushes are cleared out in a timely fashion it's safe to go out a lot of the time.
Post by: crekit on November 08, 2011, 10:39:30 pm
Post by: nil on November 08, 2011, 11:01:23 pm
You can stop them from chasing an opponent by deactivating them, which will revert them to their civilian 'headless chicken' behaviour. Reactivating them will either cause them to return to their previous position or send them chasing after the enemy again, in which case they'll need to be deactivated again. It's a lot of micromanagement and the dwarf might run off in a direction that sends them into another squad anyway, but it's marginally better than just watching.All true, but also pointing to an underlying problem. The military system is awesome--powerful, detailed, versatile. The military interface, however, is in my opinion the worst part (by far) of the "generally bad" interface.
Post by: Kogut on November 09, 2011, 02:52:04 am
You can stop them from chasing an opponent by deactivating them, which will revert them to their civilian 'headless chicken' behaviour. Reactivating them will either cause them to return to their previous position or send them chasing after the enemy again, in which case they'll need to be deactivated again. It's a lot of micromanagement and the dwarf might run off in a direction that sends them into another squad anyway, but it's marginally better than just watching.Unfortunately there is a significant lag between deactivation and running away.
Post by: malvado on November 09, 2011, 07:18:41 am
It's really resource demanding from your part and it allways irritates me that :
*Certain body parts will never heal or get treated (stays in red forever and gets infections, such as ears for example).
*Doctor is too busy eating , drinking or attending an party to actually help that single and only dwarf he got in a whole year (doctors should rush to their patients and probably ignore hunger for a while).
*Doctors also helps out with the depot when trading even when you have removed all their other chores.
*Dwarfs can get hung up in eternal stasis field even though they are healthy (Resting even no wounds are on them anymore or can't be cured). Mayors wife was in "stasis" for 8 fricking years lol before I figured out the wound was not going to change or heal so I dissasembled the Traction device she was hung up on. She got married and pregnant almost instantanly with the mayor afterwards (might have been some weird dwarven mating ritual though).
Post by: sirinon on November 09, 2011, 08:25:35 pm
e.g once my for is set up and secure with a hardcore veteran military all I can really do from there out is coat everything
in gold and jewels.
I know toady is working on this though from his mod notes so its not that big of an issues :)
I dont really mind ASCII or graphics sets however I generally switch between std ASCII and phoebus, I like to be able to spot my king in a crowd.
As for FPS issues they kindof suck except I just got a brand new i7 w/8GB RAM and an NVidia GTX70i Gfx card ( I can play shogun 2 on high settings) so FPS is always at 100 regardless of size.
Post by: eggrock on November 10, 2011, 10:02:15 am
Some menu interfaces with long lists need a find feature like the job manager and [n]ew items in embark have.
Selecting units for the military is tedious, even with Dwarf Therapist. It would be sweet to have the ability to define criteria for a squad and have those units highlighted (and at the top of the list). For example, I want to create a unit composed of spear- and hammerwarves; highlighting/toplisting dorfs that have skill in either would go a long way to making my life easier, especially if I want to disband all the squads and reform them later. Building squads is probably the biggest turnoff I have in DF, and for that reason I tend to neglect the military.
Post by: Mr Frog on November 10, 2011, 12:42:21 pm
Some of the dwarves' methods of making decisions are rather counterintuitive. There are several processes where the item/job is selected based on which one was created first; the only place where this really makes sense is constructions, and even there it would make more sense for more-recently assigned tasks to be done first. Workshops should respect obstacles when selecting materials and miners should mine the closest spot available.
The new livestock system has its flaws (some animals being incapable of sustaining themselves, livestock constantly beating each other into the ground because they all attempt to graze from the same tile), but it's still new, so there'll probably be improvements down the line.
I'll agree that implementing the filter-on-string function in as many places as possible would make navigating menus 100% less annoying.
Also, FPS. I have no way of knowing how many things could be improved or how easy/possible each would be to, but every little bit would help.
One last thing, which is really more of a pet peeve than anything game-ruining: that bug where items pushed around by flows occasionally vanish into a pocket dimension. It just feels weird.
Post by: Draco18s on November 10, 2011, 01:22:57 pm
The new livestock system has its flaws (some animals being incapable of sustaining themselves, livestock constantly beating each other into the ground because they all attempt to graze from the same tile), but it's still new, so there'll probably be improvements down the line.
One of the things I think I'm going to do is multiply all the grazer values by 5ish. Which puts a cow in a 7x7 area by itself (which seams reasonable*) and an elephant can sustain itself in an 18x18 area.
*Given that maps themselves aren't very huge. Realistically speaking you need 2 to 6 acres per cow (an entire 4x4 embark is only 21 acres: that means a 4x4 embark would support only 3 to 10 cows!). An entire population of dwarves can be fed on a mere 5x10 plot of farmland, so I don't see why that same amount of land can only feed 1 cow or 4 gazelles.
Post by: eggrock on November 10, 2011, 06:04:58 pm
Also, FPS. I have no way of knowing how many things could be improved or how easy/possible each would be to, but every little bit would help.
Doors
- Forbid all
- Forbid dwarves
- Close tightly (forbid pets)
Post by: davros on November 11, 2011, 05:12:56 pm
Post by: Rockphed on November 12, 2011, 01:15:07 am
Some of the dwarves' methods of making decisions are rather counterintuitive. There are several processes where the item/job is selected based on which one was created first; the only place where this really makes sense is constructions, and even there it would make more sense for more-recently assigned tasks to be done first. Workshops should respect obstacles when selecting materials and miners should mine the closest spot available.
The miners and workshop things are accountable for, if annoying if you don't realize about them. On some level, it becomes a question of how much more processing power it would take to properly judge the best place to stand to mine a block of rock versus how much more effective it will be. Hopefully toady will find a really slick path-finding algorithm and be able to do things like compare which direction to mine from is closest or which rock is actually the fastest to get.
I could have sworn that constructions did work in reverse age order. I guess I need to go check.
Post by: Draco18s on November 12, 2011, 01:27:13 am
I could have sworn that constructions did work in reverse age order. I guess I need to go check.
Reverse age order is correct. First in, Last Out.
Post by: SebbyTheFreak on November 12, 2011, 11:24:05 am
However, everyone else hates the fact you can't navigate throught he menus with the mouse... well basically they'd wish you could play the game with the mouse only.
So yeah... the mouse is the biggest issue for all the people I know.
Post by: Eric Blank on November 12, 2011, 11:55:51 am
Fortunately for the community it's also filtered out most of the idiots.
The violence inherent to the game may be a turn off for a few people as well, but then again most people don't see it coming and once it begins they tend to just let it continue to it's full potential as if it's becoming normal to them.
Post by: Andir on November 12, 2011, 03:02:44 pm
Well, from all my friends, I'm the only one who have no real problems with the game since I love optimised controls and am used to using exclusively my keyboard thanks to alot of my childhood spent playing simulation games.The same thing occurs with games today, though it's called consolitis and from what I hear, Skyrim falls victim to this as well. There are well established controls for doing certain actions and DF violates some of those by making mouse interactions a total mess.
However, everyone else hates the fact you can't navigate throught he menus with the mouse... well basically they'd wish you could play the game with the mouse only.
So yeah... the mouse is the biggest issue for all the people I know.
Post by: Quarterblue on November 12, 2011, 09:39:56 pm
I would have to say that if the game cannot be played with ungodly 3d graphics and standardized controls, a huge portion of those 90% we're losing can just be lopped off and completely ignored.
Fortunately for the community it's also filtered out most of the idiots.
They will be added. In 2020. Not even joking. Also, people wishing to have 3d graphics in a game aren't idiots.
Post by: Squidpalace on November 12, 2011, 11:24:26 pm
They will be added. In 2020. Not even joking. Also, people wishing to have 3d graphics in a game aren't idiots.
Whether or not df will ever have 3d graphics is debated frequently. Most often the conclusion is that it is very low on the priority list, that's if it is even possible or desirable. Eric wasn't saying that people who want graphics are idiots, only that people who are able to enjoy df as it is are often not idiots.
Post by: Nivim on November 13, 2011, 06:54:03 am
Post by: Squidpalace on November 13, 2011, 07:03:48 am
I mentioned here (http://here)
Link goes to a holiday destination near Coffs Harbour.
Post by: Weaselcake on November 13, 2011, 07:08:28 am
Post by: Nivim on November 13, 2011, 07:15:05 am
I knew I was forgetting something; fixed this and the first.I mentioned here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=90149.msg2500127#msg2500127)Link goes to a holiday destination near Coffs Harbour.
Post by: hoveringdog on November 13, 2011, 02:12:40 pm
I hate how there's not enough chances for 'Fun' after you eventually master the game. The strongest defense can always defeat the strongest offense in this. I'd like to see deployable ladders (so sieging enemies can climb wall defenses), more enemies that can destroy constructions, and maybe enemies that can even 'dig' their way inside the fortress if there's no other way inside.
Yeah, this. I still very much enjoy the game, but it's too easy to create a prosperous, self-contained fortress while shutting out sieges with a simple drawbridge (or slaughtering the invaders wholesale by leading them single file like lemmings down a corridor of spinning blades). The main activity of the end game for me is now carving enough storage space and constructing enough containers to store a ridiculous wealth of food and crafts. Enemies that climbed, dug, destroyed walls, and avoided known traps would make for more interesting and challenging game play (as would siege engines that could actually target enemies, catapults capable of indirect fire and beating down walls, and enemies who could build siege engines in the field.)
Hopefully, the new vampire dwarves, at least, will mix things up a bit.
Post by: Kogut on November 13, 2011, 02:18:55 pm
Post by: QuakeIV on November 13, 2011, 06:28:22 pm
That gets old pretty fast, otherwise the game is fine imo.
Post by: Jiri Petru on November 14, 2011, 06:51:36 am
It has some great moments thanks to its depth... enough to make it worth playing. The problem is that these are bogged down in too much menial tasks that are no fun at all. Endless micromanagement just to keep your fortress running, spending hours in miles long lists and doing many more unfun tasks.
As more and more features get added, even more micromanagement is required to achieve the same things - an oft quoted example is the new military system. While it is true it adds new options, which is always good, is also requires the player to spend more time fiddling with menus than before. Which is just bad design. Dtto for healthcare, revamped materials and many more new features.
In short, the game needs to greatly improve its tedium/fun ratio by:
1) Sensible interface (!!!) that minimizes the number of tasks that need to be done regularly, and makes important tasks (ie. setting up a military) as quick and easy as possible.
2) Optional automation for the menial tasks that are no fun. For example all production should be automatized - I hate how I have to order new batches of socks all the time. A great example of automation are the new beehives.
As it stands, I am unable to play Dwarf Fortress for long before I get bored. I know there are fun events, monsters, sieges, accidents etc. waiting for me. I just don't have the will to slog through all the boring tasks to get to them any more.
Post by: zwei on November 14, 2011, 07:51:41 am
The game is tedious.
Yep, most foprtresses die of micromanagement for me too. After certain point, most of your gameplay is spent on maintenance "checklist":
Requeue brewing task on repeat
Requeue cooking task on repeat
Requeue other "on repeat, no brainer" tasks (dye thread or cloth, process plants, mill plants, sew cloth image ...)
Queue other maintenance stuff (soap production, some bars, barrels, bins, bolts, etc...)
Check bodypart stockpile and dump it to atom smasher/magma.
Mark plants to be gathered, trees to be cut.
Mark extra metal items to be melted.
Check mandates and queue production.
Trade with caravan - which consists of sifting through junk to find stuff you want (meltable objects on late game, plaster, etc ... ). Hammer new trade agreement which is nearly identical to your last one.
Deal with yet another siege - which means tons of hauling, corpse disposal, marking stuff to be melted and generally boring stuff.
Culling animal herds.
...
And THEN, there is "brand new game" tedium. Like making yet another plant stockpile which contains only brewable plants, another which contains only millable plants, setting some options (gather outside refuse, forbid on death, set drinks to be not cookable, reserve 5 barrels for brewing, set record keeping to maximum ...), making uniform(s) and layouting squads ...
Stuff that is pretty much the same for each and every bootup. And which makes you reconsider starting new fort.
Thank god for each automated task.
Post by: Footkerchief on November 14, 2011, 10:20:04 am
The game is tedious. Full stop.
It has some great moments thanks to its depth... enough to make it worth playing. The problem is that these are bogged down in too much menial tasks that are no fun at all. Endless micromanagement just to keep your fortress running, spending hours in miles long lists and doing many more unfun tasks.
As more and more features get added, even more micromanagement is required to achieve the same things - an oft quoted example is the new military system. While it is true it adds new options, which is always good, is also requires the player to spend more time fiddling with menus than before. Which is just bad design. Dtto for healthcare, revamped materials and many more new features.
In short, the game needs to greatly improve its tedium/fun ratio by:
1) Sensible interface (!!!) that minimizes the number of tasks that need to be done regularly, and makes important tasks (ie. setting up a military) as quick and easy as possible.
2) Optional automation for the menial tasks that are no fun. For example all production should be automatized - I hate how I have to order new batches of socks all the time. A great example of automation are the new beehives.
As it stands, I am unable to play Dwarf Fortress for long before I get bored. I know there are fun events, monsters, sieges, accidents etc. waiting for me. I just don't have the will to slog through all the boring tasks to get to them any more.
All true, and that's the main reason I play Adventure Mode.
Post by: zilpin on November 15, 2011, 11:09:17 am
#1. Bugs. Lots of them. Old, well documented, reproducible, game-killing bugs.
#2. Tedious Micromanagement, particularly stockpiles.
#3. Bugs.
That's it.
Post by: FritzPL on November 15, 2011, 04:16:43 pm
Do you have any idea why DF is 99.9% free of trolls?
cos' its hard as nails.
Trolls dont play game they dont understand. Troll schedule of de day:
1. Find a game main website
2. Download the game
3. M4K3 SUM AWSUM TROLLZ!!!!1!11
And that's it. DF is ASCII graphs in default, so they are discouraged. And they go find another game.
THIS is why this game should not be made any easier.
Or at least too easy.
Thank ye.
Fritz Sqvirrelvoiced sign out.
Post by: PlainTextMan on November 15, 2011, 06:10:10 pm
Aside from basic tutorials on what each menue does and how to dig and change z-levels, the / * - + <page up> and <page down> usage in the menues really bugs me. If the menues at least had a unified system for moving around and selecting things, it would be a major imporvement in my opinion.YES, especially to that last part.
Also, legendary thread, because ThreeToe posted in it.
Edit: Upgrading to full Unicode would be a good step in my opinion. It would allow for the game to retain its ASCII feel, but diversify what symbols represent what objects, allowing the creation of full graphical tilesets by the players, instead of forcing today to spend a few weeks on art projects.
Frankly, I think the ASCII is quite practical, and a nice feature for me. Of course, some things in the UI aren't communicating as clearly as they could (should!) eg. ambigious symbols, inability to descern my legendary spear from another steel spear on the ground etc. but overall it's more the UI navigation and generally incoherent interface that bothers me, even as an experienced player who by and large enjoys the game.
Even if tile sets worked and looked better, the game would still be massively complex and slow to learn. Ostensibly pictures of real-life-recognizable things like buckets and beds are easier to memorise than symbols, so I'm definitely not against that users should have the option of a nice working tile set. However as has been said by several people now:
In-game tutorials for the newbies, please! Not that the tutorials on the wiki are bad, just that they aren't always up to date, and that they are not immediately visible to dabblers who try out the game.
Extensive in-game tutorials should be difficult to create and maintain. Perhaps tutorial fort recordings or some things like that can be packaged with each release. These can then be maintained by the community, and/or kept simple enough for maintainance by Toady and Three Toe. Or perhaps an in-game link to an official wiki tutorial would suffice.
Post by: PlainTextMan on November 15, 2011, 06:13:07 pm
Do you have any idea why DF is 99.9% free of trolls?
cos' its hard as nails.
Trolls dont play game they dont understand. Troll schedule of de day:
1. Find a game main website
2. Download the game
3. M4K3 SUM AWSUM TROLLZ!!!!1!11
And that's it. DF is ASCII graphs in default, so they are discouraged. And they go find another game.
THIS is why this game should not be made any easier.
Or at least too easy.
I admit, the man has a bit of a point there.
Post by: geneisnotlame on November 15, 2011, 07:37:20 pm
Post by: Kogut on November 16, 2011, 03:48:57 am
Startgame may still be hard but it should not be a excuse to ignore obvious bugs/interface problems.Do you have any idea why DF is 99.9% free of trolls?
cos' its hard as nails.
Trolls dont play game they dont understand. Troll schedule of de day:
1. Find a game main website
2. Download the game
3. M4K3 SUM AWSUM TROLLZ!!!!1!11
And that's it. DF is ASCII graphs in default, so they are discouraged. And they go find another game.
THIS is why this game should not be made any easier.
Or at least too easy.
I admit, the man has a bit of a point there.
Post by: thvaz on November 16, 2011, 04:12:31 am
Startgame may still be hard but it should not be a excuse to ignore obvious bugs/interface problems.Do you have any idea why DF is 99.9% free of trolls?
cos' its hard as nails.
Trolls dont play game they dont understand. Troll schedule of de day:
1. Find a game main website
2. Download the game
3. M4K3 SUM AWSUM TROLLZ!!!!1!11
And that's it. DF is ASCII graphs in default, so they are discouraged. And they go find another game.
THIS is why this game should not be made any easier.
Or at least too easy.
I admit, the man has a bit of a point there.
Kogut, the Bugfixes apostle of Bay12forum. Every posts he makes he preaches about the evil of Bugs.
Post by: zwei on November 16, 2011, 06:18:13 am
I admit, the man has a bit of a point there.
How can he have point? That post is in typical troll format, ffs.
:bait bite:
Post by: Footkerchief on November 16, 2011, 10:43:25 am
Kogut, the Bugfixes apostle of Bay12forum. Every posts he makes he preaches about the evil of Bugs.
Complaining about bugs is legit.
Post by: Kogut on November 16, 2011, 10:45:19 am
Kogut, the Bugfixes apostle of Bay12forum. Every posts he makes he preaches about the evil of Bugs.Sigged.
Post by: NakedFury on November 16, 2011, 04:16:32 pm
What turns me off about DF is the interface.
Graphics = sort of fixed with the packs and stuff but the interface remains the same, its a turn offer for me. I still play the game but...its still there.
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on November 16, 2011, 04:26:33 pm
Not to mention the fact that people don't need to play the game in order to troll the community.I admit, the man has a bit of a point there.
How can he have point? That post is in typical troll format, ffs.
:bait bite:
Post by: Draco18s on November 16, 2011, 05:00:51 pm
Not to mention the fact that people don't need to play the game in order to troll the community.I admit, the man has a bit of a point there.
How can he have point? That post is in typical troll format, ffs.
:bait bite:
Heck, you don't even need to be trolling in order to troll (http://forum.kalypsomedia.com/showthread.php?tid=8453&pid=84425#pid84425).
Post by: Buttery_Mess on November 16, 2011, 08:15:18 pm
All true, but also pointing to an underlying problem. The military system is awesome--powerful, detailed, versatile. The military interface, however, is in my opinion the worst part (by far) of the "generally bad" interface.
This is very true. I love the military screen, although it would be nice to be able to sort through dwarves better and make use of all the space on a maximised window. However, for a game where there is so much micromanagement, there's very little useful micromanagement for coordinating military engagements. DF isn't Command & Conquer, but it would be nice if you could tell dwarves to hold ground, charge, retreat (in a specific direction or to a specific place) or skirmish on their own. As it is now, you can only tell them to hang about in a general area and hope they don't run off and do something stupid, or dither at the back of the battlements where they won't fire their crossbows at the enemy.
Post by: MrWiggles on November 16, 2011, 08:26:36 pm
All true, but also pointing to an underlying problem. The military system is awesome--powerful, detailed, versatile. The military interface, however, is in my opinion the worst part (by far) of the "generally bad" interface.
This is very true. I love the military screen, although it would be nice to be able to sort through dwarves better and make use of all the space on a maximised window. However, for a game where there is so much micromanagement, there's very little useful micromanagement for coordinating military engagements. DF isn't Command & Conquer, but it would be nice if you could tell dwarves to hold ground, charge, retreat (in a specific direction or to a specific place) or skirmish on their own. As it is now, you can only tell them to hang about in a general area and hope they don't run off and do something stupid, or dither at the back of the battlements where they won't fire their crossbows at the enemy.
All this stuff was suppose to be in the initial release for DF2010. But for time sake, it got cut, and looks like it'll be waiting until after the 10 or so short term caravan release.
Post by: Eктωρ on December 07, 2011, 07:31:46 pm
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 08, 2011, 08:53:31 am
For the most part, it means focusing on world-gen and adventurer mode. It's very improbable that the fortress mode will see any serious improvements in near future (the next couple of years). Sure, it will get new cool stuff added like new industries, monsters, inns etc. but that's mostly just things that will have been added for the sake of world simulation/adventurer mode and will carry over to fortress mode sort of by accident. But at this point, adding new stuff doesn't really make the game better. At the same time, none of the serious issues of the fortress mode are likely to be addressed.
Which is a shame, really, because fortress mode is what interests me about this game.
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 08, 2011, 09:17:52 am
It's still a game; it's just a simulation game. And the things that will make it a better simulation will also make it a better game. So worry not.
Post by: zwei on December 08, 2011, 09:21:09 am
It just occurred to me that Toady isn't probably interested in making a game any more. Now he's making a simulation. Which has some serious consequences in terms of playability, enjoyability, user-friendliness etc.
For the most part, it means focusing on world-gen and adventurer mode. It's very improbable that the fortress mode will see any serious improvements in near future (the next couple of years). Sure, it will get new cool stuff added like new industries, monsters, inns etc. but that's mostly just things that will have been added for the sake of world simulation/adventurer mode and will carry over to fortress mode sort of by accident. But at this point, adding new stuff doesn't really make the game better. At the same time, none of the serious issues of the fortress mode are likely to be addressed.
Which is a shame, really, because fortress mode is what interests me about this game.
On the other hand we got new type of sieges - necromancer one which has gameplay effect (proper enemy corpse handling)
We got vampires/werewolves as new element which can threaten even the safest fortresses from inside.
Small tweaks are there too (crime system).
I shall point out that theese changes are there because he needed to flesh out game part of DF more.
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 08, 2011, 09:27:35 am
Post by: Kogut on December 08, 2011, 11:05:30 am
Post by: peskyninja on December 08, 2011, 02:38:25 pm
Why this thread isn't sticked?
Post by: nil on December 09, 2011, 02:17:26 am
It just occurred to me that Toady isn't probably interested in making a game any more. Now he's making a simulation. Which has some serious consequences in terms of playability, enjoyability, user-friendliness etc.I agree with the things you usually say, but here I have to ask--you did just see the "trade interface" in the dev log? With any luck, Toady is working on the most tedious menu in the whole game as at this very moment!
For the most part, it means focusing on world-gen and adventurer mode. It's very improbable that the fortress mode will see any serious improvements in near future (the next couple of years). Sure, it will get new cool stuff added like new industries, monsters, inns etc. but that's mostly just things that will have been added for the sake of world simulation/adventurer mode and will carry over to fortress mode sort of by accident. But at this point, adding new stuff doesn't really make the game better. At the same time, none of the serious issues of the fortress mode are likely to be addressed.
Which is a shame, really, because fortress mode is what interests me about this game.
Post by: MrWiggles on December 09, 2011, 06:19:53 am
It just occurred to me that Toady isn't probably interested in making a game any more. Now he's making a simulation. Which has some serious consequences in terms of playability, enjoyability, user-friendliness etc.
For the most part, it means focusing on world-gen and adventurer mode. It's very improbable that the fortress mode will see any serious improvements in near future (the next couple of years). Sure, it will get new cool stuff added like new industries, monsters, inns etc. but that's mostly just things that will have been added for the sake of world simulation/adventurer mode and will carry over to fortress mode sort of by accident. But at this point, adding new stuff doesn't really make the game better. At the same time, none of the serious issues of the fortress mode are likely to be addressed.
Which is a shame, really, because fortress mode is what interests me about this game.
Adventure Mode has been langquishing for years really, as fas as active development went. 2011 and the later part of 2010 is the love its been needing for a while. Adventure Mode is suppose to be as verbose as Fortress Mode is, and in general any improvement in one will bleed into the other.
I suspect that getting World Gen stuff to happen actively during gameplay, is overall easier to deal with in Adventure Mode, due to its more sane passage of time, then with Fort Mode 72x faster time progression.
I agree with the things you usually say, but here I have to ask--you did just see the "trade interface" in the dev log? With any luck, Toady is working on the most tedious menu in the whole game as at this very moment!
Doubt it's for Fort Mode, and just for Adventure Mode. Fort Mode trading improvment isn't suppose to be due until release 6.
BUT as I was just saying, they tend to bleed into one another, so maybe we'll see something in Fort Mode.
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 09, 2011, 06:59:59 am
What I was trying to say is that the fortress mode currently has some huge issues. And I don't mean interface and controls, that's a whole different story, I mean things like micromanagement, illogical labour groupings and tedious labour management, frustrating job priorities, unbalanced happiness system, the horror named hauling, etc. etc. No need to name them, just read this thread. My point was that addressing issues like these would improve the game much more (in terms of effort/reward) than adding more and more new stuff.
(EDIT: And no, I'm not talking about bugs. I'm talking about bad design, unbalanced or unfinished features, chaotic implementation etc.)
I know Toady knows about these and will address them at some point in the future. What I was trying to say in the previous post was that I looked at present development goals and realised that none of these issues will be worked on in the following couple of years. That's why I said that Toady seems more interesting in making a simulation (ie. adding new stuff to make the simulation deeper) than a game (ie. focusing on how well the game plays now, how user friendly it is, removing tedious and unfun elements etc.).
That's frustrating for me as a fan. I haven't been able to enjoy the game really. I think I've played only three fortresses since 2008. The most fun part for me is participating in DF let's plays, but I can't really play the game myself for long. There's simply too many hurdles that make the game unfun for me. I'm patiently waiting for these to be addressed but it's not coming, and it seems it won't come. And no, a lack of vampires or bees is not what's keeping me from this game.
Post by: Lungfish on December 09, 2011, 07:34:10 am
Even the terribly mundane aspects, like the constant checklist of minor tasks, gives me a kind of zen-like focus, like trimming/maintaining a banzai tree. DwarfTherapist takes care of most of the mindbendingly difficult stuff like finding a dwarf who is already good at something to do that thing instead of picking one at random, or assigning an emergency task to a lot of dwarves at once.
Accidentally deleting a burrow, or the sheer monotony trading screen can be brutal, and wrapping my mind around the military system had me on a long hiatus... but when you look at all the stuff you have to do in order to make soap, some people get excited about learning it and some people don't, and that's just the way it is. Same goes for adventurer mode, I guess; I walked west for a long damn time, tried to kill some stuff but it ran too fast, couldn't really find any towns, and gave up. Not for everyone.
I did have the feeling that gameplay "ends" when you become a stable kingdom, which also put me on a long hiatus - but that's more an attitude thing, as you can always keep marching on toward mega-projects or conquering hell... though I usually just start over elsewhere in the world with the intention of maybe one day adventuring through my many ruins, and hoping to one day make the perfect fortress.
Tutorial 'scenarios' might have been good back in the day... But then again, that's what youtube is for.
Post by: zwei on December 09, 2011, 07:46:31 am
...
Problem is that most people here got used to those issues. Learned game with them. They are kinda hard to notice when you instinctivelly work around them.
I just wish *we* were given opportunity to do this ourselves - why aren't job priorities in outside config file? Why arent labors/skill rawed? Thought happiness values?
Post by: Kogut on December 09, 2011, 07:49:26 am
Post by: zwei on December 09, 2011, 09:36:07 am
I thoroughly hate inability to set job priorities. It requires day to code and test it (otherwise DF code is really strange and/or needs full rewrite), requested for years, fixes multiple problems (brokers, doctors, diplomats etc).
[PRIORITY:RESPONSIBILITY:TRADE:IMPORTANT]
[PRIORITY:RESPONSIBILITY:HEALTH_MANAGEMENT:CRITICAL]
[PRIORITY:REACTION:TAN_A_HIDE:CRITICAL]
[PRIORITY:REACTION:SCREW_PRESS:NORMAL]
[PRIORITY:JOB:ANIMAL_TRAINER:IDLE]
[PRIORITY:JOB:WOODCRAFTER:NORMAL]
[PRIORITY:HAULING:ITEM_TOY_PUZZLEBOX:IDLE]
[PRIORITY:HAULING:MARBLE:NORMAL]
[PRIORITY:HAULING:ADAMANTINE_WAFFRES:IMPORTANT]
Post by: Rafal99 on December 09, 2011, 09:56:40 am
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 09, 2011, 10:00:44 am
See?
I think he meant to set jobs priorities ingame for specific dwarves and not in raws.
This would be a micromanagement hell!
Moreover, I can imagine it would take quite some time to code, and I understand Toady doesn't want to sacrifice that much time. But simply just rethinking the current hard-coded system, rearranging some values here and there and perhaps adding a small feature or two to make it work better would suffice, and it would probably be much faster to code and maintain.
Dtto for the happiness system which doesn't really work well, unless you count "ecstatic all the time" as working well. It would take a day at most to rearrange the numbers for better balance. But I suppose Toady doesn't want to sacrifice a day because he's going to rewrite the whole system in four years anyway. :-\
Post by: murlocdummy on December 09, 2011, 02:22:49 pm
I thoroughly hate inability to set job priorities. It requires day to code and test it (otherwise DF code is really strange and/or needs full rewrite), requested for years, fixes multiple problems (brokers, doctors, diplomats etc).
[PRIORITY:RESPONSIBILITY:TRADE:IMPORTANT]
[PRIORITY:RESPONSIBILITY:HEALTH_MANAGEMENT:CRITICAL]
[PRIORITY:REACTION:TAN_A_HIDE:CRITICAL]
[PRIORITY:REACTION:SCREW_PRESS:NORMAL]
[PRIORITY:JOB:ANIMAL_TRAINER:IDLE]
[PRIORITY:JOB:WOODCRAFTER:NORMAL]
[PRIORITY:HAULING:ITEM_TOY_PUZZLEBOX:IDLE]
[PRIORITY:HAULING:MARBLE:NORMAL]
[PRIORITY:HAULING:ADAMANTINE_WAFFRES:IMPORTANT]
I searched through the raws and did not find any mention of anything like these entries. Are all these just suggestions as to what such a raw file would look like, or did you decompile one of the actual files?
Post by: Footkerchief on December 09, 2011, 02:30:03 pm
Post by: The13thRonin on December 09, 2011, 06:41:30 pm
For the people in this thread who mentioned growing tired of vanilla you could always consider getting a content mod. Mine which is linked in my sig adds over +500 pieces of vanilla-theme friendly content to the game and attempts to make some alterations to make the overall game more difficult.
Post by: Rockphed on December 09, 2011, 07:32:12 pm
I thoroughly hate inability to set job priorities. It requires day to code and test it (otherwise DF code is really strange and/or needs full rewrite), requested for years, fixes multiple problems (brokers, doctors, diplomats etc).
[PRIORITY:RESPONSIBILITY:TRADE:IMPORTANT]
[PRIORITY:RESPONSIBILITY:HEALTH_MANAGEMENT:CRITICAL]
[PRIORITY:REACTION:TAN_A_HIDE:CRITICAL]
[PRIORITY:REACTION:SCREW_PRESS:NORMAL]
[PRIORITY:JOB:ANIMAL_TRAINER:IDLE]
[PRIORITY:JOB:WOODCRAFTER:NORMAL]
[PRIORITY:HAULING:ITEM_TOY_PUZZLEBOX:IDLE]
[PRIORITY:HAULING:MARBLE:NORMAL]
[PRIORITY:HAULING:ADAMANTINE_WAFFRES:IMPORTANT]
If there isn't already a thread suggesting that, please make one. Getting job priorities where I can look at them, much less change which ones are at what level, would make life much easier. Also, that is a pretty slick system for expressing what jobs we are talking about.
Post by: Kogut on December 10, 2011, 08:41:40 am
Those raws were a mockup, not a copy-paste.Thanks, I wanted to kill myself with my keyboard as I failed to notice it. And - yes, I fought about global priorities.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/eternal_voting.php
"Job Priorities Toggle priorities for jobs either globally or per dwarf."
linking to
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=24022.0
EDIT: Mockup copied.
Post by: grimman007 on December 11, 2011, 02:07:32 pm
Also, no silver barbs. I want my black cape, dammit.
Post by: murlocdummy on December 11, 2011, 04:05:10 pm
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on December 11, 2011, 04:06:48 pm
Post by: Mr Frog on December 11, 2011, 09:11:05 pm
RRRRGARGLE. MURFLERRRGH YARGBERGUNK, WARRRNANARRGH.
Toady and Threetoe are the sole moderators of this forum. I think that implies that they at least glance at this thread on a regular basis, even if they don't see anything that needs a direct response.
Moving right along...
The latest Thing That Annoys Me is that I don't really feel compelled to explore the deeper cavern layers. While I often have a walled-off farm in the first level as a holdover from the days where mud was needed to farm, I don't feel like I have any incentive to explore any further into the first layer or to explore the deeper layers at all. I can get to the mineral deposits with creative mining, manually dig out and muddy a tree/shrub farm myself, and, though getting spider silk all but requires that you keep your fortress open to the caverns, I find that it's not valuable enough to justify leaving myself open to constant crundle/bugbat/GCS invasions.
This can be easily fixed by modding in valuable plants/silk/etc. that are exclusive to the deeper cavern layers, but I think there should be more support for this in vanilla DF.
Post by: Phmcw on December 12, 2011, 07:29:36 pm
The other major turnoff for me is the interface, as I love everything about the game. Dwarf manager has become a mandatory tool for me since I tried it, and there is a lot of other stuff that could be improved in similar ways.
Post by: kaenneth on December 12, 2011, 09:28:10 pm
Clock speed is getting harder and harder to increase, while Windows 8 supports 64 core systems...
The more non-thread safe core simulation code that's written before switching, the more likely it'll be a 'start from scratch' project.
Post by: MrWiggles on December 12, 2011, 09:32:16 pm
Love the game, but lack of multithreading will seal it's fate.
Clock speed is getting harder and harder to increase, while Windows 8 supports 64 core systems...
The more non-thread safe core simulation code that's written before switching, the more likely it'll be a 'start from scratch' project.
Its a start from scratch project already. Multi threading, isn't the magic solution that seems to be the popular idea. Maybe switching over to 64 bit, with the ability to use more memory for its processes would probably be more worthwhile.
Post by: Telgin on December 12, 2011, 11:57:15 pm
Love the game, but lack of multithreading will seal it's fate.
Clock speed is getting harder and harder to increase, while Windows 8 supports 64 core systems...
The more non-thread safe core simulation code that's written before switching, the more likely it'll be a 'start from scratch' project.
Its a start from scratch project already. Multi threading, isn't the magic solution that seems to be the popular idea. Maybe switching over to 64 bit, with the ability to use more memory for its processes would probably be more worthwhile.
Rebuilding for 64-bit is going to be a pretty large undertaking too. I'm pretty sure Toady would consider it lower priority than almost everything else right now, since as far as I understand it, memory limits only end up mattering in pretty rare circumstances (such as huge embarks or some world gens).
I agree with the premise though. If Toady had a decent plan on how to parallelize the code now, he should do it now instead of later. It will save work in the long run. The problem from what I hear though is that Toady doesn't have a clear plan on how this would even speed up the game. My understanding of multithreading tells me that it should be pretty easily applicable in principle to the way the game works, but I know absolutely nothing of its internals and so can't speak on the subject reliably like he can.
Post by: Kogut on December 13, 2011, 03:11:31 am
If Toady had a decent planI remember that Toady said that "real" multithreading is not planned.
Post by: zilpin on December 13, 2011, 11:51:17 am
...My understanding of multithreading tells me that it should be pretty easily applicable in principle to the way the game works, but I know absolutely nothing of its internals and so can't speak on the subject reliably like he can.
Multithreading is never pretty or easy in C/C++.
Even separating the pathfinding from the rendering from the user input results in unforeseen consequences.
Damnable race conditions always come up.
But have no fear, for one day The Almighty Toad shall write Slaves to Armok Chapter III ... in APL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_%28programming_language%29) ... and it shall be good and pure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purely_functional).
(he is a mathematician, after all)
Post by: Telgin on December 13, 2011, 01:41:57 pm
No, multithreading anything manually is an absolute pain even with what seems to be fairly trivial cases. I know. I've tried.
What I meant though is that supposedly Toady doesn't know of a good way to even apply multithreading to the game to make it faster, which seems strange to me. Maybe he's right, since I don't have the code, but it at least seems to me that the theory behind it shouldn't be hard to apply. Taking the game update step and letting two threads perform updates on half of the object set each, for example.
No, it's not literally that simple (or really even close), but multithreading seems like it should be blatantly applicable to it. I understand the issues with data dependencies between the threads (i.e. two dwarves decide to move onto the same spot from different threads, who gets there first?), but it's not an insurmountable problem.
Anyway, to get myself back on topic, I'll mention that one thing that sort of disappoints me about DF right now is the fact that I have a soldier with a rotten pancreas and she really couldn't care less. I'm very much looking forward to improvements in the way body parts are handled (these are coming, right?).
Post by: kaenneth on December 13, 2011, 03:08:13 pm
Say you have a list of objects that need something done to them.
So you divide up the list to hand out to other threads.
Problem 1) divvying up the list requires looping through the list and doing something to them... which is exactly the problem you were trying to solve.
Problem 2) if the something being done requires modifing the objects, threads running on different cores may continually cause cache invalidations, making it several time slower.
Problem 3) inserting/deleting from the list while iterating becomes near impossible (not a big problem for DF I think, as it builds up a history, without reusing entries), however there is always the chance that 2 threads will want to append an item at the same time. (I solve that in my code by having each thread fill a queue with pending inserts/deletes to be processed by the main thread at the end of each cycle... lame, but it works)
Best way (I think) around most of these problems is to have each thread 'own' some portion of the objects, instead of trying to maintain a single list that needs to be split and re-merged each frame. you still have to deal with cross-thread interactions, but that can be reduced by intelligent partitioning of the objects (like every few thousand frames assign all the objects on the left side of the map to thread a, and on the right to thread b.)
anyway, it's on my mind since I'm trying to work out a threaded simulation engine for my own project.
Post by: Andir on December 13, 2011, 04:47:05 pm
EX: Server needs group of elephants, spawn controller, wait for connection, send local data to client, wait for return information on what the elephants are doing with their turn. Let server resolve discrepancies [Elephant trampled dwarf, tell dwarf controller one died]. It could become a liability though if the client crashed. The elephants would have to be passed onto another client or would just vanish. They've done turn based clients like this for multi-player turn based games (MOO2?, GalCiv...) and adapting it to wait for responses from sub-clients is easy enough. You can even set timeouts to force split long running clients into more fine grained subsets. (That group of mobs is taking too long to path? Split into two processes dividing the creatures up. [though, it's probably a pathing issue because mob group controllers should have a local cache of paths...])
It would also make it trivial to add player clients where someone can connect to your base and walk around. (The server would only wait a set time for them so one client doesn't prevent the server from continuing. Only the "God Client" would be able to pause the simulation.)
Post by: Rockphed on December 13, 2011, 05:34:11 pm
Problem 1) divvying up the list requires looping through the list and doing something to them... which is exactly the problem you were trying to solve.
No it doesn't. Most lists are traversable in both directions, or are really easy to divide in half. With a binary search tree, you can just go down and spawn* a new thread to traverse each lower tree until you reach however many threads you need. With linked lists, you just need to be able to start at both ends and possibly in the middle, of course then you need to check which items have been done already. In short, how easy it is to divide a list in half, or thirds, or fourths, or 162nds depends on how the list is organized. If you need to traverse the entire list to divide it in half, you need a better list.
Not that I have any clue about HOW to multithread. My computer programming skills never got near there. But I suspect that the other problems are more relevant to the issue.
Post by: Jerg on December 13, 2011, 09:55:59 pm
Migrational waves are too frequent and with too many.
I don't mind ending up with very populous fortresses, but I'd like the game much more if each wave only has say 3 dwarves minimum and 8 dwarves maximum, and only occur once a year.
Post by: Areyar on December 14, 2011, 07:34:47 am
Only 1 thing turns me off about DF.'tis more a personal preference this. :)
Migrational waves are too frequent and with too many.
I don't mind ending up with very populous fortresses, but I'd like the game much more if each wave only has say 3 dwarves minimum and 8 dwarves maximum, and only occur once a year.
I think this can be partially attained by lowering the maximum allowed fortress population in the raws to below the current pop and increasing this to slightly above the current pop once every few years or so. The (last) migrant wave size does not get smaller IIRC, but at least you could manage the frequency of them occuring.
Post by: Telgin on December 14, 2011, 11:32:57 am
Funny thing is, I turned pop cap down, but I still received two migrant waves past the 50 mark. Presumably they were on the way already. Frustrating, that.
Then there's the fact that I get useless migrants. I have no intention of ever needing dyers in this fort. Yet, I have a grand master dyer and a proficient dyer. I can just repurpose them, but some control over the immigrating skills would be nice.
Of course, this has all been discussed at length in suggestion threads many times. I'd still like to see it someday though.
Post by: daggaz on December 14, 2011, 04:35:21 pm
1. ASCII (and im an old MUD player). Get an official tileset. Make it easy to change ingame (see minecraft) when people get that far.
2. UI. Needs mouse support. Menus need to be consistent and more clearly organised. They need to be more consolidated and easier to get thru.
3. World creation.. make more obvious toggles, like "volcanos" or "aquifiers". Aquifiers themselves are horrendous as they stand now, they spam the whole map and are a horrendous trouble to even experienced players, and you have to edit game files to fix them. I had to google to find out what "embark sites" really meant.
4. General unit oversight.. one of the most overwhelming things for new players is there is NO (obvious) way to quickly see how things are running.. you have the limited jobs menu, the messy units menu, and 3rd party dwarf the rapist, which in itself is a good start but not quite up to par. Just finding your guys on the map can be horrifying, especially if you are trying to dig thru the alerts menus.
5. Military. Sort out uniforms, training, and all the assorted bugs. Make it easier and more transparent/obvious how to control them. This is major.
6. General bugs and game balance. FPS issues and justice, for two big examples.
At this point, I would say it is a good time to stop pushing forward, take a big breath, and go back in to the core of the game and clean up shop. Streamline it, make it nice and im sorry to say, but more undwarfy. Leave the dwarfiness to the actual dwarves (which i wouldnt change for the world). If it doesnt get the knots and kinks out at this point, it probably never well, and you will end up with a bunch of wonderful ideas getting lost and broken on the tangled mess in the middle.
Post by: MrWiggles on December 14, 2011, 07:11:18 pm
Post by: Jerg on December 14, 2011, 08:09:28 pm
Only 1 thing turns me off about DF.'tis more a personal preference this. :)
Migrational waves are too frequent and with too many.
I don't mind ending up with very populous fortresses, but I'd like the game much more if each wave only has say 3 dwarves minimum and 8 dwarves maximum, and only occur once a year.
I think this can be partially attained by lowering the maximum allowed fortress population in the raws to below the current pop and increasing this to slightly above the current pop once every few years or so. The (last) migrant wave size does not get smaller IIRC, but at least you could manage the frequency of them occuring.
That's the thing though, I don't mind having no cap on the population max; in fact, I want it that way. Instead, it'd be awesome if there is an option to control approximately how large and how frequent migrant waves are.
Post by: zilpin on December 15, 2011, 11:07:31 am
That's the thing though, I don't mind having no cap on the population max; in fact, I want it that way. Instead, it'd be awesome if there is an option to control approximately how large and how frequent migrant waves are.
+1.
Even just a simple toggle to disable migrations, with no fine-grained control, would be nice.
Within 10 years, you could very well have a Lord of the Flies fortress. With a Pig Skull totem & all.
(I still prefer bugfixes be done first).
Post by: Kogut on December 15, 2011, 12:01:45 pm
Even just a simple toggle to disable migrations, with no fine-grained control, would be niceDone, and called population cap (except 2 forced waves).
Post by: zwei on December 15, 2011, 01:56:10 pm
Even just a simple toggle to disable migrations, with no fine-grained control, would be niceDone, and called population cap (except 2 forced waves).
Which is not really same thing that ingame option that would be:
a) Toogleable without restarting game
and
b) Savegame specific
Post by: KFK on December 15, 2011, 03:10:29 pm
At this point, I would say it is a good time to stop pushing forward, take a big breath, and go back in to the core of the game and clean up shop. Streamline it, make it nice and im sorry to say, but more undwarfy. Leave the dwarfiness to the actual dwarves (which i wouldnt change for the world). If it doesnt get the knots and kinks out at this point, it probably never well, and you will end up with a bunch of wonderful ideas getting lost and broken on the tangled mess in the middle.
And the longer it waits the harder it will be. Knowing that is probably what turns me off DF the most: the whole development focus strikes me as backwards.
Post by: Andir on December 15, 2011, 03:50:36 pm
Post by: Naros on December 15, 2011, 05:02:09 pm
If I set the pop limit to 30, I do not want immigrants to take me up to 55 pop, activating nobles and all that on top of giving me more dwarves than I like.
I can kill 'em off, sure, but the nobles and related features are there to stay.
Post by: Jerg on December 15, 2011, 10:29:53 pm
Even better, have it so that you can decide whether to let a whole wave in, to let a select few of the wave in, or reject the entire wave. But this would be very complex and consequential systems will need to be implemented alongside it to make it sensible (e.g. those let in might become sad that their companions weren't, those rejected could go rogue / go back to origin civilization and defame the player's fortress, etc).
Post by: jarodw on December 16, 2011, 03:53:09 am
Honestly keep it the same... attracting more people to this game would be a good thing, but to change it in favor of those less willing to learn the ropes now would break it for me! a good in game tutorial would help, maybe a small quest system pointing a potential player in the right direction of making a successful fortress, but none of that dumbing down thing I BEG YOU! also should you put such a tutorial in... make it have an ON/OFF switch.
people like myself, Captnduck, Nagidal146, TheZemalf, and other youtubers try to spread the good that is DF... I know I have hooked a few players for you and Tarn with my videos... captnduck hooked me... I say just give it time... If you build it, they will come :P
Post by: KFK on December 16, 2011, 10:16:26 am
There are a couple lines of though in development. One of them is pushing on with features and leaving optimization for later. It's usually sound, but I do believe there is room for some preemptive optimization.
I'm generally a "no code will be optimized before its time" kind of person, but there comes a point when you have to show some discipline and clean up what's there, even if there's a legitimate concern you'll have to rewrite it later anyway. It can make pushing forward easier at times when you have a tidier base to build from. I can't say for sure if DF has reached that point, but my gut says we're actually WAY passed it. I'd wager that DF2010 was the time to really take a hard look at what's already there.
The so called presentation arc is way more important than some people think. There are long term benefits to both the users AND development that are being overlooked.
the majority of gamers have been preconditioned as of late into angry bird simpletons...
Thank god for Jim Sterling
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4081-Angry-Birds-Is-Not-Sh-t
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5047-Hardcore-Hypocrisy
Post by: zilpin on December 16, 2011, 11:14:34 am
Key word being 'premature'.
Much of DF speed problem does not come from lack of optimization, but from overly entwined structures and naïve implementations.
That's not a matter of optimization, that's just a matter of good professional practice. But everyone fudges things for release, and players always push him to release more & bigger & sooner.
As for UI, I still think Toady is better off giving easier ways for external programs to be UI. StoneSense has come so far, and DF becomes unplayable without Therapist, but making a true UI is not feasible without Toady wanting it to happen.
We don't need an API, linked DLL. Plenty of games have a simple client-server design even for single player. He already separated interface commands & rendering from core logic, so all he need expose is just what's in his UI now. This would reap the greatest benefits for UI, and save Toady the most time. UI programming in C/C++ is really boring and tedious for a mathematician who groks three dimensional fractals (e.g. DF's mapgen).
Don't send Einstein to dig a trench in the mud; we'll gladly do it for him, if he only lent a shovel, point, and say 'over there'.
But I'd always prefer bugfixes before anything. You often find that bugs hurt performance, and clever optimization has a habit of introducing hard-to-find bugs, so you're always better debugging first.
Post by: [NO_THOUGHT] on December 16, 2011, 11:42:39 am
Designation is not very intuitive: 'd' 'enter' 'downarrow' 'rightarrow' 'enter', down, down, right, down... repeat forever... receive simple circle. PLEASE let us have some real designation tools. I know that dwarf fortress is tile based but behind those tiles is a mathematical simulation of legendary proportions! You're telling me the only way I can effect that simulation is through rectangles? Circles, outline shapes, polygons, lines, thickness, flows, ect. The dwarf fortress community is a legion of artists given an infinite canvas, and to paint they get a smooth wooden ball the size of their fist. Not surprisingly, the amazing simulation of Dwarf Fortress is enough to keep anyone hooked long enough to make that situation turn into something beautiful (read: Raynard Fractal rooms *drool*), but the things we could do with those tools! It's probably me being a spoil CAD brat, but spoiled I remain. Pardon how rant like that turned out.
No manual automation: As it stands, no fort can run for any period longer than a season without a spanner getting thrown into the works. Now unpredictable chaos is the charm of dwarf fortress, but there is a whole ton of predictable chaos that makes it hard for me to play long. Workshop queues being <10 places long and no numerical orders being the big one. You try and you try to make enough beds for everyone, but when a 20 migrant caravan comes you ask for 10, hope you will remember to make 10 more but then only remember to do so when the next caravan arrives. Then you're behind, the migrants get angry, throw tantrums, everyone loses. I could designate repeated beds, only to find 300 beds made, my wood stock destroyed, no trees left, and a migrant cap of 150.
Those are the three biggest things that make me stop playing forts after a while, but I always start again after a while because new forts don't need automation, designation planning is interesting (because I plan a lot), and the dingbats don't bug me as much. One day I'll try to get past all that to actually reach nobles, but that's for another day.
Post by: zwei on December 16, 2011, 01:00:16 pm
No manual automation: As it stands, no fort can run for any period longer than a season without a spanner getting thrown into the works. Now unpredictable chaos is the charm of dwarf fortress, but there is a whole ton of predictable chaos that makes it hard for me to play long. Workshop queues being <10 places long and no numerical orders being the big one. You try and you try to make enough beds for everyone, but when a 20 migrant caravan comes you ask for 10, hope you will remember to make 10 more but then only remember to do so when the next caravan arrives. Then you're behind, the migrants get angry, throw tantrums, everyone loses. I could designate repeated beds, only to find 300 beds made, my wood stock destroyed, no trees left, and a migrant cap of 150.
Try using manager (u-m) for larger batches of production.
It is actually a lot more comfortable than manually queuing items in workshops.
Problem is still there. With older fort, you get lots of industries going on which could theoretically easily be automated: for example, if Skull item appears in stockpile, i would like automated workshop order for making totem. If there is ore in ore stockpile, i would like smelt job queued.
One can set such things on repeat, but if raw materials run out, you have to set up production again ... and remember to check later to reqeue.
Not that some things work like this already (cloth production, tanning... ).
Post by: Phmcw on December 16, 2011, 01:06:02 pm
Post by: Starne on December 16, 2011, 03:49:11 pm
The UI. It's almost impenetrable. I've played DF off-and-on for about two years now, and I still barely understand some parts of it.
To lesser extent: Lack of Automation. Eg, 'If booze amount is less than X: Create y brewing jobs ' 'Notify if amount of stored food is less than x'
One of the biggest things in the automation department would be for the game to auto-task dwarves who've been idle for an extended period. Lot's of chopping or mining jobs piled up? That soaper who's been standing around the meeting hall for three months should try to find an axe or pick and go help out. Another thing here would be for dwarves to atleast try to defend themselves using whatever is at hand, instead of just mindlessly fleeing until they're killed, die of dehydration, or escape(could see unarmed civilian dwarves throwing rocks or using other improvised weapons)
Bit of a tangent off that: Have things like dwarves finding something to do instead of standing around, or defending themselves in a pinch be tied to their personality. A lazy dwarf might never bother to find something to do, a cowardly dwarf would attempt to hide or flee, rather than try to defend itself.
Of course, not done properly, implementing this sort of thing would just make the UI even more complex.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 16, 2011, 04:01:24 pm
Except when I run out of ideas.
But then I go on bay12...
And the !FUN! begins anew.
That would make a nice poem.
Post by: zwei on December 16, 2011, 04:47:31 pm
The more I know about it, the more I think that DF in not really multithreadable. So yeah, hope for faster processors.
Well, it is matter of outlook. You could get nice returns with "easy naive threading" that does not require synchronization or data locking. I am talking about lookups.
Each "tick" of gameplay several things happen that can happen concurently: Looking up suitable items for hauling/use and looking up patch for dwarf. Stuff that does not modify data which is thus safe for threading.
Game can spawn threads with this and wait for them to finish before continuting to next tick.
That is wishfull-thinking theory, of course.
Post by: blaize9 on December 17, 2011, 01:16:52 am
One of the things that slowed me down in the beginning was being confused by [v] and [k], and I think the fact that they're so easily confused yet are both very necessary is one of the biggest interface problems.I agree with this, they could just combine them into 1 letter.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 17, 2011, 02:39:10 pm
One of the things that slowed me down in the beginning was being confused by [v] and [k], and I think the fact that they're so easily confused yet are both very necessary is one of the biggest interface problems.I agree with this, they could just combine them into 1 letter.
NONONONONONONONONONONONONOOOOOO
TERRIBLE IDEA D:
Post by: Telgin on December 17, 2011, 02:53:20 pm
Post by: Rockphed on December 17, 2011, 10:46:37 pm
I constantly screw up q, v, k and sometimes the t command. They do need to stay separate though, since otherwise it takes away from controller screw and moves it into interface screw, hehe.
Well, if you could switch between 'k' and the other three and back easily, it would make it significantly easier to run forts. I honestly don't know how hard such would be.
Post by: Jerg on December 19, 2011, 12:35:24 am
Post by: Jiri Petru on December 20, 2011, 05:32:05 am
And it's not only selection, as we all know.
Post by: Telgin on December 20, 2011, 08:32:14 am
As the interface stands though, combining 'v' and 'q' might be doable. I'm so used to them being separate it would probably be jarring at first, but since I initially expected them to be the same command I'd probably relearn fairly quickly.
Post by: zilpin on December 20, 2011, 10:03:51 am
That would be easy to implement for k and v, since their interfaces have little in the way of commands, but for q it becomes problematic, since buildings can use whatever key they want for commands. Letting k and v switch to each other would be nice enough.
Post by: rephikul on December 22, 2011, 01:41:50 am
Post by: Kogut on December 22, 2011, 03:55:06 am
Post by: Fiskav on December 22, 2011, 05:23:57 am
Post by: MrWiggles on December 22, 2011, 04:29:37 pm
I'm basically providing the same answer as about 30% of the posts on this thread, but alas, I'll share my experience. When I first downloaded Dwarf Fortress (for Snow Leopard), I created a new world, having no knowledge of the game whatsoever. After seeing all the (what I thought were) strange green symbols and the basic font scheme, I quit the game and deleted it.
Now, I've upgraded to Lion, and when I downloaded Dwarf Fortress again, it wouldn't open! But I found a great thread in the Bay12 forums that gave me clear instructions on how to fix this problem. So, once again, I created a new world. However, this time I decided to watch a recent Dwarf Fortress LP beforehand! Now I'm fine with playing the game.
So my only real "turn-offs" was the UI.
Ascii isn't really the UI. Its an, well, art style. Like isometric, top down, side scrolling ect.
As for the Lion thing, that was partially annoying, though understandable. Its not like Toady got developer release of Lion, and we havent had a release since Lion.
Post by: Durin on January 09, 2012, 12:11:00 pm
Post by: Jiri Petru on January 10, 2012, 03:31:05 pm
Just because folks were talking about command shortcuts, I thought I would add that I am not sure there is even a mention of "u" anymore on the interface, but I find it exceedingly valuable.
Wait, what?
How in the world has nobody noticed this up until now?
(Because nobody uses the interface, that's why.)
Post by: Telgin on January 10, 2012, 03:39:30 pm
Not a turn off perse but this cause alot of eventual issues: DF is very hardcoded, forcing work on only only 2 developers. Do you know about this company called paradox interactive? Their games have open scripts and I can do everything. Create my own user interface, new units, new events, new unit interaction, new AI... everything. A good game is fun. A great game allow others to make good mods.
I would love to see a scripting interface for DF. I understand why Toady hasn't done it though: maintaining an API makes his development that much slower, and it would change so much between versions it could end up being a colossal waste of time.
Here's hoping that DF 1.0 has such an interface (presumably by then most internal things would be pretty solid in structure). Not holding my breath though. :)
Post by: Ripolix on January 10, 2012, 04:34:53 pm
I also dislike many parts of the interface espacially the military one.
Post by: htabdoolb on January 10, 2012, 07:47:08 pm
In the time it takes to haul one chunk of ore to the smelters, a reasonably skilled smithydwarf can churn out half a dozen or more metal items, each of which create their own hauling job. It seems bizarre to me that moving a stone just a few hundred feet, or even a few thousand feet, takes several times longer than smelting it down into metal and then making something from it.
Without DFHack's "autodump" and "autodump destroy" functions, the game would be much, much less appealing to me, to the point of being nearly unplayable.
Post by: Telgin on January 10, 2012, 07:50:23 pm
A mixed blessing perhaps, but at least it should make cleaning up after sieges easier.
Post by: htabdoolb on January 11, 2012, 03:29:42 am
Post by: MrWiggles on January 11, 2012, 07:24:45 am
Maybe we'll see it get some improvements when Fort Mode gets the new World Gen trading stuff. I think there's a defiant possibility that'll become relevant.
Post by: Pranz on January 11, 2012, 08:42:35 am
Post by: Buttery_Mess on January 12, 2012, 11:24:34 pm
When DF becomes near to being 'finished' that would be a better time to implement a streamlined UI. If Toady wanted to earn more money, he'd focus on attracting lots more users to his site, and focus on improving DF's user-friendliness. He doesn't seem to want to do that. We all like DF as it is, otherwise we wouldn't play it. So who really benefits from improving the UI now anyway? We're happy, Toady's happy, and non-dorfers are happy, because ignorance (of DF) is apparently bliss.
Believe me, when DF is finished in 2026 and people are playing it with their psychic probe interfaces and streamlined Web 5.0 graphics, we'll enjoy the smug satisfaction that we soldiered through with the confusing UI we have now, we few hypernerds dissecting the arcane glyphs and convoluted menus with gleeful abandon.
Post by: Reudh on January 12, 2012, 11:40:42 pm
They may for example, fix the bugs that DFhack fixes, and add special little 'debugger' tweaks. And incorporate mass designation of labors, etc... a la Dwarf Therapist.
What I would love is a WYSIWYG modding tool.
Similar to RPG Maker 95/2k/2k3's code snippet entry.
It would make for ease of access and less eye hurt from using Notepad all the time.
Post by: kcwong on January 13, 2012, 12:11:23 am
What I would love is a WYSIWYG modding tool.
Similar to RPG Maker 95/2k/2k3's code snippet entry.
It would make for ease of access and less eye hurt from using Notepad all the time.
Just use a more capable editor with syntax highlighting... simply choosing INI syntax should be a big improvement over Notepad.
Plus, there's already a syntax definition for Notepad++:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=28805.0
Post by: SauliusTheBlack on January 13, 2012, 05:21:06 am
The difficulty in creating and maintaining a decent army and stuf related to this:
- equipement(i mean, do you really need to make every single item yourself?)
- seeing which dwarf is suitable for what(maybe a in-game filter would be nice)
- at first: lack of tutorial
- later: lack of challenge. creating a fort is easy, and gets a tad boring after a while. Even though I haven't done any glass-making, pumpstacking, metalhandling, magmafun etc, basics are covered, and maintaining food and booze gets dull..
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on January 13, 2012, 01:31:20 pm
Part of the problem with opening DF up to allow the design of custom UI is that the game is constantly changing,So what? DFHack, Dwarf TheRapist and other thrid party tools must be updated every release anyway. Updating UI API, interface or whatever by thrid party developer is problem of this developer.
When DF becomes near to being 'finished'Who you are kidding? This will never happen.
So who really benefits from improving the UI now anyway?Everyone.
Believe me, when DF is finished in 2026Read from my lips: This. Will. Not. Happen.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 13, 2012, 01:37:42 pm
Believe me, when DF is finished in 2026Read from my lips: This. Will. Not. Happen.
I could see DF being 'finished' if Toady decided to work on a new game/version entirely.
Post by: tj333 on January 13, 2012, 02:30:44 pm
Letting k and v switch to each other would be nice enough.
Now that would be very nice, not having to exit a menu, start the new one, and refind what you were looking at.
Post by: YetAnotherStupidDorf on January 13, 2012, 05:03:34 pm
I could see DF being 'finished' if Toady decided to work on a new game/version entirely.I would not count is as finished, but abandoned. In fact, there are two possible scenarios:
- Abandoment - as described above.
- Ceasement - when Toady will be found dead by keyboard, hopefully from old age.
Post by: kaenneth on January 13, 2012, 06:39:07 pm
I could see DF being 'finished' if Toady decided to work on a new game/version entirely.I would not count is as finished, but abandoned. In fact, there are two possible scenarios:I claim DF will be never officialy finished.
- Abandoment - as described above.
- Ceasement - when Toady will be found dead by keyboard, hopefully from old age.
Perhaps Toadys children will one day hit 1.0...
Well, except for the fact that he's a work-at-home computer programmer with a cat.
so yeah, never happen.
Post by: Reudh on January 13, 2012, 06:42:56 pm
Post by: mikelon on January 13, 2012, 09:54:46 pm
Oh boy!Here comes another boatload of migrants with atleast half of them legendary in atleast one craft. Getting legendary or atleast above adequet in any profession dwarves should be rare. Wherein a hero in a craft appears 10 years in game or after you do certain things to impress them enough to show up like the current version of Kings showing up.
Post by: Rod on January 14, 2012, 01:24:27 am
Post by: weenog on May 28, 2012, 07:24:30 am
Style gripe: I don't like Good/Evil regions. It seems a poor fit in a game with little overt supernatural activity. It's also probably impossible to define good and evil in a way that seems reasonable to each player. Though, necromantic hellholes that bring the dead back for no clear reason are something of a fantasy staple. Maybe if they must exist, it would be better to revise to Beneficent/Baneful regions, try to bring their behavior in line with those terms, and drop the morality aspects completely.
Post by: Spinning Welshman on May 28, 2012, 08:19:54 am
Barrier to play: the help available is really weak and uninformative. Something more like man pages for a *nix program might be dense and cumbersome, but at least the user would have a better clue which end is up if they stuck with it.
Style gripe: I don't like Good/Evil regions. It seems a poor fit in a game with little overt supernatural activity. It's also probably impossible to define good and evil in a way that seems reasonable to each player. Though, necromantic hellholes that bring the dead back for no clear reason are something of a fantasy staple. Maybe if they must exist, it would be better to revise to Beneficent/Baneful regions, try to bring their behavior in line with those terms, and drop the morality aspects completely.
It was mentioned in a df talk I think that the current good/evil system will be replaced by a somewhat elemental "sphere" system, so instead of evil you could have a sphere of death, or undeath, and others, i'm not sure what sphere "good" things would go in, but i'm pretty sure toady did mention bringing a sphere system in.
Post by: Mrhappyface on May 28, 2012, 09:15:33 am
Post by: miauw62 on May 28, 2012, 09:48:37 am
"its gameplay is like exel!"
Post by: King Mir on May 28, 2012, 10:55:46 am
- Consistant key mapping, so the same keys map to the same object in all applicable menus.
- Consistant ability to scroll through menus. Some menus allow scrolling with /*-+, other's don't.
- Mouse navigate-able menus. If I see on the screen the command I want to execute, I should be able to click it, without having to figure out if I can scroll to it or which key to press.
- Manager screen as a top level menu.
- Consistant item grouping. Stockpiles use one set of item categories. The liaison uses another. Stocks use another. The embark screen uses another.
- Dwarf therapist integration. Or else official support of Dwarf therapist. This is an essential utility.
- Better notification of unhappiness, and the causes of it
- Better error messages generally.
- The 'q', 't', 'k', and 'v' top level options are closely related and should not be treated like menus. It should be strait forward to switch between these views.
- Linking stockpiles and hauling routes should be done the same way as linking things to levers.
- And more...
The short of it is, half the steep learning curve of DF is learning the interface, the other half figuring out the logistics of how to manage a fort. It should be all logistics, and no learning curve for the interface.
EDIT: added more items to the list.
Post by: Mr. Palau on May 28, 2012, 10:57:57 am
Someone in the other locked thread asked what's so wrong with the interface, so here's a list of a few things I want:I good deal with non-mouse navigatable menus, but +1 to everything else.
- Consistant key mapping, so the same keys map to the same object in all applicable menus.
- Consistant ability to scroll through menus. Some menus allow scrolling with /*-+, other's don't.
- Mouse navigate-able menus. If I see on the screen the command I want to execute, I should be able to click it, without having to figure out if I can scroll to it or which key to press.
- Manager screen as a top level menu.
- Consistant item grouping. Stockpiles use one set of item categories. The liaison uses another. Stocks use another. The embark screen uses another.
- Dwarf therapist integration. Or else official support of Dwarf therapist. This is an essential utility.
- Better notification of unhappiness, and the causes of it
- Better error messages generally.
- And more...
The short of it is, half the steep learning curve of DF is learning the interface, the other half figuring out the logistics of how to manage a fort. It should be all logistics, and no learning curve for the interface.
Post by: bombzero on May 28, 2012, 01:12:01 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on May 28, 2012, 01:17:18 pm
Post by: Jelle on May 28, 2012, 02:52:11 pm
Anyway
-Food is in sheer abundance, sustaining a populace is so trivial it's more of a chore to remember to keep a healthy stock of booze then managing resources. Egg and many meat sources feeding entire fortresses with no upkeep at all. Whoever heard of non grazing animals somehow surviving without food. Or farms smaller then the dining hall somehow filling said dining hall with abundance of crops.
-Immigration is a pain in the arse esepcially early on when population can triple in a single migrant wave. Obviously a small and modest outpost shouldn't attract everyone and their dog, should be a gradual buildup so the player can get to know the population instead of rrecieving a massive wave of faceless meatshields.
Also the complete lack of emigration. Whoever heard of immigration without emigration, that's just not possible. If things look so grim in the fortress why don't dwarves up and leave instead of awaiting their death or going insane.
-Complete lack of architecture as structural integrity is not an issue. I quite enjoy the challenge of designing according to what is and what is not possible. The thought of an entire mauntain resting on a support made of soap is a huge immersion breaker for me, and I really miss the challenge of designing a fortress. Walls being industructible annoys me as well, I'd love to make huge fortifications nigh impossible to breach, but then a single wall construction does the job just as well.
There you go more or less what I wanted to post earlier. Don't get me wrong I love dwarf fortress, but every game has its flaws, especially one in developement.
Post by: Mr. Palau on May 28, 2012, 03:02:24 pm
Ye shame that thread got locked, was just about to post to. I'll write down here some of the things that have always annoyed me about DF. Might have posted in this thread already, can't remember.+1 to all but the immigration complaint. Not that it is not a valid complaint, just that there are more pressing concerns.
Anyway
-Food is in sheer abundance, sustaining a populace is so trivial it's more of a chore to remember to keep a healthy stock of booze then managing resources. Egg and many meat sources feeding entire fortresses with no upkeep at all. Whoever heard of non grazing animals somehow surviving without food. Or farms smaller then the dining hall somehow filling said dining hall with abundance of crops.
-Immigration is a pain in the arse esepcially early on when population can triple in a single migrant wave. Obviously a small and modest outpost shouldn't attract everyone and their dog, should be a gradual buildup so the player can get to know the population instead of rrecieving a massive wave of faceless meatshields.
Also the complete lack of emigration. Whoever heard of immigration without emigration, that's just not possible. If things look so grim in the fortress why don't dwarves up and leave instead of awaiting their death or going insane.
-Complete lack of architecture as structural integrity is not an issue. I quite enjoy the challenge of designing according to what is and what is not possible. The thought of an entire mauntain resting on a support made of soap is a huge immersion breaker for me, and I really miss the challenge of designing a fortress. Walls being industructible annoys me as well, I'd love to make huge fortifications nigh impossible to breach, but then a single wall construction does the job just as well.
There you go more or less what I wanted to post earlier. Don't get me wrong I love dwarf fortress, but every game has its flaws, especially one in developement.
I would prefer if issues like these were fixed before the interface. Everyone here as already had to learn the interface, and once you know how to use it using it is not very hard.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 28, 2012, 03:04:36 pm
I wonder if Toady/Threetoe ever read it anymore, though...
Anyway, I can say this much about the game:
The greatest problem for a new player is the "Sandbox paralysis" problem - there are a hundred things to do, a maze of menus, but no clear idea of what is important.
A clear indication of what is important to the player (if nothing else, a "?" button based menu that says "what order of things should I do first?" would be a good idea) would be the first step. That is, dig a hole or build a wall to keep everyone safe, and start building a farm and some basic housing to start. Just cover enough to keep them from starving to death or dying to a badger infestation or the first goblins, and then let them figure the game out from there.
In terms of interface, by and large, the overwhelming problem that this game has is in two fronts:
First, this game's interface is designed from the perspective of what is easiest to code, not what is easiest for the player to grasp. Building and designations should be more "close" to one another in interface. Interface should be organized based upon function, rather than what they involve actually doing - putting workshops off of a given build key, and then a traffic management sub-menu instead of doors and floodgates and bridges all separate, and having a furniture direct placement sub-menu, for example. Players should get an idea that there is a menu for major terrain changes like mining and constructions, and then a totally separate menu for traffic flow or designations that relate to forbidding or ordering a tree chopped down. Putting "chop this tree down" in the same menu with "dig a stairwell here" in the same menu with "throw away this trash" but putting "build a new stairwell here" in a totally different menu is just confusing to new players.
Second, and far more important, is that information screens (which have no cursor memory, and take as much as minutes to scroll through sometimes) are often not on the same page as the decision screens, or even close to them. This is most unforgivable on the military screens - where I often have to take pen and paper notes on what dwarves I want to assign to what squads with what equipment, because the menu is SO utterly obtuse.
It should be an Interface mandate that ALL information that could be important in making a decision either be available to the player on that screen, or else be only a single button-press away, and if they press a button to go into a sub-menu or screen giving more detailed information, then the game should remember where they are on that list when they pull back out of the detail view. For a game where so much detail exists and can often be so important, there is no excuse for not helping the player to make informed decisions.
You also need to get over your allergies to charts/spreadsheets in general. The game needs more densely packed information, and using color-coded icons, like a blue/cyan/green/yellow/brown/red happy face icon next to names to indicate happiness problems from a units menu in order to give more compact information that is critical to fortress management in a single menu where players can check fortress status at a glance for major problems would do wonders, because if a player has to go digging through individual details pages of dwarves in menus with no cursor memory, let me tell you, players just won't do that - they'll fall off a cliff.
Losing is Fun only if you learn from it, and feel like it could have been avoided, and now they know what to do next time. Tantrum spirals that keep happening and people don't know why aren't fun. I don't have tantrum spirals, I keep my dwarves ecstatic at all times. But then, I would naturally make super-elaborate fortresses with all the amenities, anyway, as it's just my playstyle to pamper my dwarves for its own sake, and more importantly, I have Dwarf Therapist open at all times showing me at a glance what my status is.
Post by: guitarxe on May 28, 2012, 03:45:29 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 28, 2012, 03:59:52 pm
For me, it was the world gen/embark screen. Yes, starting the game and having absolutely no direction of what to do put me off DF for a while. I know lots of people are suggesting to have some kind of tutorial in the game, but why bother when there are already lots of absolutely wonderful tutorials out on the net? Wouldn't it be easier to link some of these tutorials from inside the game instead?
Well, I don't like those types of tutorials - they take too long, and walk you through by the hand. I loathe video tutorials, and non-interactive elements should never become part of games in any way that they can be removed (with the sole exception of where they are thematically appropriate, like finding old logbooks you can read through to find out what happened to a lost expedition or something - stopping to read is fine, then).
I basically learned the game off of embarking, pausing the game, looking at the menu, and going through the wiki for about three days until I understood what every button did at my own pace. Then I started playing. I didn't need multiple failed forts to learn, either - I just read up on what I needed to know from the wiki, and was cautious and went at my own pace, reading up on the things in the order of my own personal interest. (Whereas a YouTube video is linear and often much slower than my ability to read, and seeking around constantly is too cumbersome.)
Now, yes, I'm not everyone, but that's part of the point - you should be general in this, so that different styles aren't forced into something they don't like.
The thing is, all you really need is a fairly simple guideline of what is important, and what you are looking for, and some slight instruction (or link to the wiki) on the details, and let the players figure out the rest at their own pace.
Post by: Kwask on May 28, 2012, 04:18:12 pm
Post by: Mr. Palau on May 28, 2012, 04:26:58 pm
Probably my least favorite part of the game is the first year of a fort. After a point where I have made a couple dozen forts, I hate having to set it up from base zero. I wish i could just skip the initial fort setup and just get into the meat of the game.Turn up the FPS cap, it will make time fly by.
Post by: King Mir on May 28, 2012, 04:31:55 pm
Probably my least favorite part of the game is the first year of a fort. After a point where I have made a couple dozen forts, I hate having to set it up from base zero. I wish i could just skip the initial fort setup and just get into the meat of the game.I'd actually like the opposite -- make the late game more like the early game, with more explicit challenges to overcome.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 28, 2012, 05:22:08 pm
You really need to cut down on the rate at which players get slammed with information overload from all the dwarves, as well as slammed with the need to house all those dwarves and feed them and find jobs for them all.
The game just plain needs to cut the rate at which dwarves enter the fortress by a factor or 10 to 30 times. It should take 10-20 years to hit a full fort, not 2.
Of course, I am writing the whole Class Warfare suggestion thread on how to handle this topic...
Post by: runlvlzero on May 28, 2012, 07:32:59 pm
The core of a simulation is its rules, if DnD had a broken mechanic, a game master makes a house rule to fix or tweak it. Blizzard updates patch to make sword X not so unbalancing, etc... With good mechanics, procedural content can last forever =) Even with few features. Take a non-procedural game like Quake, the rules are predictable, and well thought out. The game is still played today and has a huge audience. Simplification is not what I am trying to illustrate though. I am also not talking about balance. Just consistency and accuracy. Or predictability. A dwarf with a weapon should not die to a fingernail with infinite lives that delivers head-shots through the eye-sockets with 100% accuracy. Unless that is the intention. It doesn't seem so, it seems like realism is :P *I think I should be clear to also say that, this type of thing should be able to happen, maybe 1% of the time, or it should have the same probabilities as lightening strikes or something* But when things break in this game, they tend to break in horrible freakish and insane ways ;D Wich is always fun the first time around, but the 4th, and 5th, not so much.
Fairness of the rules and game mechanics is probably a better term. Also the examples I used are just based off of what kind of bug would annoy me, no actual bug report going on here.
Post by: RanDomino on May 28, 2012, 08:02:56 pm
Post by: dei on May 28, 2012, 09:20:15 pm
I'm sorry if this post isn't very helpful.
Post by: bombzero on May 28, 2012, 11:14:21 pm
I haven't played Dwarf Fortress in a month or perhaps longer because I'm tired of how repetitive and overwhelming the game gets when there is no direction and everything comes at you at once. I have kept up with downloading the recent updates when my connection will let me do so, but I haven't touched them because I'm worried that I'll get overwhelmed all over again.I have to wonder, is it really complexity or lack of difficulty combined with complexity?
I'm sorry if this post isn't very helpful.
I think NW_Kohaku and several others all agree that Dwarf Fortress needs to be harder somehow, as right now there is no real difficulties in the game, its all just easy.
Post by: MrWiggles on May 28, 2012, 11:16:02 pm
Yea, but given enough time all games become easy. There has been folks here playing DF for years.I haven't played Dwarf Fortress in a month or perhaps longer because I'm tired of how repetitive and overwhelming the game gets when there is no direction and everything comes at you at once. I have kept up with downloading the recent updates when my connection will let me do so, but I haven't touched them because I'm worried that I'll get overwhelmed all over again.I have to wonder, is it really complexity or lack of difficulty combined with complexity?
I'm sorry if this post isn't very helpful.
I think NW_Kohaku and several others all agree that Dwarf Fortress needs to be harder somehow, as right now there is no real difficulties in the game, its all just easy.
Post by: Mr. Palau on May 29, 2012, 02:59:52 am
I had to play DF for months for it to become easy. I only had to play Fallout: New Vegas, for a week for the entire game to be easy. (then I got hardcore mode turn on, and that toke another week).Yea, but given enough time all games become easy. There has been folks here playing DF for years.I haven't played Dwarf Fortress in a month or perhaps longer because I'm tired of how repetitive and overwhelming the game gets when there is no direction and everything comes at you at once. I have kept up with downloading the recent updates when my connection will let me do so, but I haven't touched them because I'm worried that I'll get overwhelmed all over again.I have to wonder, is it really complexity or lack of difficulty combined with complexity?
I'm sorry if this post isn't very helpful.
I think NW_Kohaku and several others all agree that Dwarf Fortress needs to be harder somehow, as right now there is no real difficulties in the game, its all just easy.
Post by: Azated on May 29, 2012, 05:12:53 am
Yea, but given enough time all games become easy. There has been folks here playing DF for years.
I've been playing for almost two years and the game still surprises me. There's not many games you can say that about.
Post by: Draco18s on May 29, 2012, 08:41:30 am
Yea, but given enough time all games become easy. There has been folks here playing DF for years.
I've been playing for almost two years and the game still surprises me. There's not many games you can say that about.
I'm at that odd point in playing DF where getting a sustainable fort is easy and trivial, so I set out to do something more complex and forget about setting up a sustainable fort first.
More recently it's been "ooh, new features!" Your fort has succumbed to starvation.
Post by: Thorik on May 29, 2012, 09:48:05 am
Post by: Draco18s on May 29, 2012, 10:24:47 am
the only thing that turns me off besides bugs is the military screen. so complex :( I liked it better in 40d.
I liked the simplicity of the 40D version (especially the "you, being accosted by that groundhog, you're now a recruit" ability).
But I respect the power that the new screen gives us (even if I don't yet understand how to use it).
Post by: Thorik on May 29, 2012, 12:23:30 pm
Post by: NW_Kohaku on May 29, 2012, 12:39:39 pm
I just gave up on making uniforms and just equip each dwarf with specific armor pieces. I like that screen now :)
I do this, as well, but it still annoys me, because in order to actually do this, I have to use pen and paper to write down specific pieces of armor and weapons that aren't in use to assign to different dwarves.
This wouldn't be a problem if the information was available from the screen where you make the decision, which is one of those cardinal rules of making an interface that DF just doesn't follow, and is especially egregious in the case of the military screen, because there is nothing stopping you from assigning a weapon that is already equipped by another dwarf. (And worse, there is nothing indicating that the weapon is already equipped.)
Post by: MrWiggles on May 29, 2012, 03:34:33 pm
I just gave up on making uniforms and just equip each dwarf with specific armor pieces. I like that screen now :)
I do this, as well, but it still annoys me, because in order to actually do this, I have to use pen and paper to write down specific pieces of armor and weapons that aren't in use to assign to different dwarves.
This wouldn't be a problem if the information was available from the screen where you make the decision, which is one of those cardinal rules of making an interface that DF just doesn't follow, and is especially egregious in the case of the military screen, because there is nothing stopping you from assigning a weapon that is already equipped by another dwarf. (And worse, there is nothing indicating that the weapon is already equipped.)
Overall, I agree, but we never saw the Arsenal/Quartermaster Dwarf actually work. Maybe Toady was hoping for that Position to be the point of information of such things and workout such conflicts.
That would be inline, with other information you have with the game, that it's generated by the dorfs.
Post by: zwei on May 29, 2012, 03:45:05 pm
It is not targeted at hardcore "ima bettar that u!" competitive player, but rather at builders, designers and explorers.
If there is ever "campaign" mode, game should, of course offer apropriate challenge.
Bedides, right now, challenge is not mechanics, but user interface - once that is fixed, mechanics can be tuned and most inapropriate exploits fixed. But you need to make people stop battling UI before you can make then battle goblins.
Main problem with UIs is this: Sheer amount of stuff. And it gets worse with every release because new creatures are being added (trees, minerals, item types ...). This ever increases screen clutter. Golden medal goes to interface for bringing items to depot - it is the one part that handles required sorting and filtering well. Contrast with Grime medal for actual trade interface which has nothing of that sort, yet is closely related.
It is hard to find items and creatures.
Secondary problem is organization. Menus show their history of commands being added. New features are not incorporated to existing structure, but being added. Why is there z-animals menu when there is u-animals menu which can both be merged? both are very late adition or had recent makeover.
It is hard to find commands to do something with items and creatures you had trouble finding.
Tertiary problem are inconsistencies. Same actions often have different commands. Similar concepts completelly different implementations.
If you found what to do and how to do it, you can't apply that to ther parts of game.
I wonder why toady never simply took month or two to develop stable and robust widged library - "item list", "being list"
Post by: OMGTANGERINES on May 29, 2012, 03:54:49 pm
For new players, the WHAT THE FUCK DO I DO ARGH factor. Even if you manage to gen a world, the interface isn't conducive to learning. The fact that when I found the "?" menu it didn't tell me jack shit didn't help much either.
Everything else I like though.
Post by: Antioch on May 29, 2012, 04:27:09 pm
That, and immigrants not being useless.
Post by: chevil on May 29, 2012, 05:02:09 pm
Post by: Mr. Palau on May 29, 2012, 06:47:42 pm
I hate the moments where your military is equipped and training, you have food, booze, clothes, tradegoods and you have no good idea how to expand your fort. I usually just leave the game running and do something else til something interesting happens.Thats when you do a mega-project, or insure all of your citizens dien on only the finest foods, drink only the finest booze, and all of masterwork bedrooms. (the last bit will make the nobles mad so you should plan out some accidents in advance.)
First on my DF christmas list is a military overhaul. I want it to keep track of dwarves, their equipment and supplies, squads, their tactics. I want it to be modular, so I can see it for individual Dwarves and for the squad as a whole. I want a summary screen, which doesn't change anything but just lists everything from all the other screens.
Then the Military Equipment bug, as that is horrible. SO much unnecessary micro management. It is also just horriblly annoying when your star champion goes ino battle without wearing the proper armor and gets himself slaughtered.
Then Undead reanimating indefiniatly, which really just kills emersion after it is cut to pieces and still comes back.
Then the two AI bugs, the doctors not treating patients properally and the not cleaning up blood, leading to your entire fortress dying.
That would make DF perfect. I can't think of a feature I would want more than these bug fixes. Hell if DF added ten big features without fixing these it wouldn't be as good for me.
Post by: NTJedi on May 29, 2012, 06:59:01 pm
More specifically, what problems did you have before learning the ropes of the game? We figure we are losing 90% of the players because of the UI and other barriers, and that doesn’t even count the ones scared away by the ASCII graphics. Now, this doesn’t mean we are about abandon the rest of the game to start the presentation arc. It is just as important to have endless monster attacks from the underground, and challenging sieges.The lack of graphics is the number one reason most don't even try the game. The game doesn't need any fancy graphics.
Also... I believe if you provided a tutorial game with a fort prebuilt and all the shops prebuilt it would help provide players a safe healthy environment to learn while also discovering what's possible within the game. The player can then safely learn how to build an extra new shop/building of each type on their own and at their own game pace.
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen? Or maybe its finding the right tile sets and setting them up. We are hoping at some point to build easier commands and tutorials to help bring in more players. We have to identify the main culprits first. So what is frustrating you the most about Dwarf Fortress?I believe many gamers start leaving because time after time when 5 or so dwarf years pass a veteran player has created a successful stable fort and there's nothing left to challenge them except dying from the endless demon hordes behind the adamantine. If you play the game beyond 5 years you'll see the game needs more events and challenges during late game. To keep players addicted add late game content to challenge their forts such as natural disasters, assassins, global events, unique visitors, special buildings(schools), and more deadly sieges(armored_cyclops_army). Players will want to wait an experience those features because the first 5years usually has players busy with other game aspects.
If you're wondering what's frustrating from a technical aspect then that would be when the game starts dying from dropping FPS. Losing a fort to FPS after lots of love and effort was involved is a painful disaster.
Post by: Draco18s on May 29, 2012, 09:04:10 pm
Then Undead reanimating indefiniatly, which really just kills emersion after it is cut to pieces and still comes back.
Have you not seen Braindead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braindead_%28film%29)?
Post by: Reudh on May 29, 2012, 09:31:09 pm
Once you get an established fort, as it stands there is very little content.
Thief? Bang, captured.
Siege? Bang, nuked with MAGMA.
or in my case: Infernal Ash Instant-death cloud? Build a long tunnel that protects dwarves up almost to the map edge.
I can see it becoming more difficult when we get enemies with Diggers and Sappers, though.
The FPS issue I believe is the worst thing putting me off. I don't really want to make new forts if they're just going to decay into disuse because of massive item vectors and crazy happenins'. DFHack cleanmapall and cleanowned helps a lot, but I can't really play a fort once it gets to 20 fps. It takes years for a year to pass.
Post by: Mr. Palau on May 30, 2012, 02:32:20 pm
Wow, that mom was durable (... no double entendre intended)Then Undead reanimating indefiniatly, which really just kills emersion after it is cut to pieces and still comes back.
Have you not seen Braindead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braindead_%28film%29)?
Post by: Draco18s on May 30, 2012, 02:37:25 pm
Wow, that mom was durable (... no double entendre intended)Then Undead reanimating indefiniatly, which really just kills emersion after it is cut to pieces and still comes back.
Have you not seen Braindead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braindead_%28film%29)?
"I kick ass for the lord!" *Eaten by zombies*
Post by: oven_baked on May 31, 2012, 03:53:58 pm
Cliffs are the main offenders.
Post by: Draco18s on May 31, 2012, 03:56:35 pm
Cliffs are the main offenders.
Sheer cliffs are very very rare right now.
Post by: Kogut on June 01, 2012, 02:20:06 am
Wouldn't it be easier to link some of these tutorials from inside the game instead?
Wiki is linked.
Post by: zwei on June 01, 2012, 03:01:20 am
Wouldn't it be easier to link some of these tutorials from inside the game instead?
Wiki is linked.
I am just looking at "?" screen.
1) wiki link is not differentiated from rest of text, nor is it clickable or selectable with keyboard.
2) actual links are being selected by +/- keys, not tab and shift-tab, nor are they clickable.
That is ... just ... well ... why? Sigh.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on June 01, 2012, 10:18:48 am
No way to preview embarks, i've abandoned forts immediately due to terrain features not being there.
Cliffs are the main offenders.
You do realize that "previewing" an embark through any means more detailed than the current cliff indicator and possibly letting us see the layer stone types, (which, at least for the surface layer or stone, would really be appreciated, so we can at least tell whether it is igneous or sedimentary stone before we embark,) is impossible as there is no data that the game actually has until it generates that embark, right? Basically, a "preview" would be no different from embarking to get a look at the lay of the land and then force-quitting.
In fact, in older versions of the game, the murky pools would be in different places on the map based upon how large your embark area was, simply because the seed used to generate the landscape was being used at different times.
Post by: Telgin on June 01, 2012, 07:08:24 pm
Not a terribly high priority thing in my opinion, but it would be nice.
Post by: NW_Kohaku on June 01, 2012, 07:40:53 pm
Perhaps, but it wouldn't be a huge problem really. Having the option to generate the embark area and take a look before actually embarking there would be nice and not a real problem. The embark area would then be generated and so would need to be remembered / offloaded, so you might end up generating a lot of data that has to be saved, but I don't think it would be a show stopper, really. As you said, it's no different than embarking there and quitting. It would just take out a few steps of the process if you decided you didn't like the embark.
Not a terribly high priority thing in my opinion, but it would be nice.
What I mean is, it would take a significant amount of time to "preview". It can take several minutes, depending on the size of your embark to generate all that.
Post by: xRDVx on June 02, 2012, 09:09:25 am
More than anything, even beyond mouse support, first we need a resize-able UI that correctly uses all the screen space you're giving to it. Most of the time, I'm playing with the default custom ASCII set on the small resolution on a "big" window. Now, while looking at stuff in the map is fine that way, that I can't either split it and have a menu running below, or, well, that menus use all that space... it is honestly something that SHOULD be addressed.
Now, there is Dwarf Therapist. Some more tools like this wouldn't hurt. While they are 3rd party, they let you see the information in a quick way, even while your simulation is running. And, if you run a multi-screen set up, without EVER taking it from the foreground.
I honestly quite like the custom ASCII set. Better than looking at those dead green repetitive tiles with tiny dwarves that look damn strange. And it isn't even in isometric view!
Post by: The Merchant Of Menace on June 02, 2012, 09:20:44 am
But it would take those several minutes to embark there anyway, this is simply giving you a more convenient method of choosing a new site than the current method of force quitting.Perhaps, but it wouldn't be a huge problem really. Having the option to generate the embark area and take a look before actually embarking there would be nice and not a real problem. The embark area would then be generated and so would need to be remembered / offloaded, so you might end up generating a lot of data that has to be saved, but I don't think it would be a show stopper, really. As you said, it's no different than embarking there and quitting. It would just take out a few steps of the process if you decided you didn't like the embark.
Not a terribly high priority thing in my opinion, but it would be nice.
What I mean is, it would take a significant amount of time to "preview". It can take several minutes, depending on the size of your embark to generate all that.
I assume the general idea is:
Preview
*Site is generated*
C: Choose a new site
E: Embark here
Currently the method is
Choose site
*Site is generated*
"I dislike here"
Ctrl+Shift+escape
End Process Dwarfort.exe
*start Dwarf Fortress, wait to load*
Loop.
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 02, 2012, 11:05:27 am
So true.But it would take those several minutes to embark there anyway, this is simply giving you a more convenient method of choosing a new site than the current method of force quitting.Perhaps, but it wouldn't be a huge problem really. Having the option to generate the embark area and take a look before actually embarking there would be nice and not a real problem. The embark area would then be generated and so would need to be remembered / offloaded, so you might end up generating a lot of data that has to be saved, but I don't think it would be a show stopper, really. As you said, it's no different than embarking there and quitting. It would just take out a few steps of the process if you decided you didn't like the embark.
Not a terribly high priority thing in my opinion, but it would be nice.
What I mean is, it would take a significant amount of time to "preview". It can take several minutes, depending on the size of your embark to generate all that.
I assume the general idea is:
Preview
*Site is generated*
C: Choose a new site
E: Embark here
Currently the method is
Choose site
*Site is generated*
"I dislike here"
Ctrl+Shift+escape
End Process Dwarfort.exe
*start Dwarf Fortress, wait to load*
Loop.
Post by: Dorfimedes on June 02, 2012, 04:04:38 pm
There is so much good discussion in here that I don't know where to start, but I agree with nearly all of it and I hope the adams brothers still read the thread. I remember back when I browsed the forum there was talk that they would like to postpone any sort of interface redesign until the game was "finished" (hehe), but it would help to broaden the appeal of DF and secure the game's future by building a larger fanbase. Which is mostly a good thing. More fans means more donations, and a thriving community of people making mods and utilities such as Dwarf Therapist. Feature-oriented releases pander to the veteran players, but there is an upper ceiling to how large the community can grow when so few make it past the interface, and all but the most die-hard players will most likely not play the game forever even with new additions. An interface release would attract new players to make up for losses in our ranks.
Let me tell you. DF is not an obscure game. The amount of attention it has received on gaming sites, especially those covering indie games, is enormous. I estimate that there are people out there who were incredibly excited upon hearing of the game and wanted to try it only to be alienated by the interface in numbers equal or greater than the entire Bay12 community. They are a latent, untapped source of donations and support. DF has become infamous for its completely impenetrable interface, to the point where it almost embodies the game.
And what do you think will happen if the interface is finally brought to a state where it's actually intuitive? There will be coverage of it, and there will be renewed interest in the game. Think the DF 2010 craze, only bigger.
These new players will probably be content to wait for extra content as we have, because there's already quite a lot to do in the game. Just when you think you're getting bored of DF, you find something crazy you haven't tried before. I think most of them will be in it for the long haul.
This wouldn't be leaving out the veteran players either. Without the restraints of the current interface, you could do the stuff you want much easier and the game would play much more smoothly. Anything that makes your goals less of a pain-in-the-ass to achieve will make the game so much more enjoyable. We cannot underestimate the psychological effect of a growing fanbase either, I've quit games because the fanbase was dwindling is size and thinking about its future was too depressing. *cough*Tremulous (http://tremulous.net/)*cough*
Post by: i2amroy on June 03, 2012, 02:36:15 am
But it would take those several minutes to embark there anyway, this is simply giving you a more convenient method of choosing a new site than the current method of force quitting.My method of embarking actually looks more like this:
I assume the general idea is:
Preview
*Site is generated*
C: Choose a new site
E: Embark here
Currently the method is
Choose site
*Site is generated*
"I dislike here"
Ctrl+Shift+escape
End Process Dwarfort.exe
*start Dwarf Fortress, wait to load*
Loop.
Look at area
DFHack Prospect All
*decide whether or not to go there*
repeat until suitable area is found
embark
*site is generated*
Post by: RanDomino on June 03, 2012, 12:49:54 pm
Post by: Rafal99 on June 03, 2012, 04:01:34 pm
- built a track stop without track under it
- didn't set proper direction for route stops
Post by: RanDomino on June 03, 2012, 10:47:53 pm
Seems like either:did both :(
- built a track stop without track under it
- didn't set proper direction for route stops
Post by: NTJedi on June 03, 2012, 11:33:28 pm
Wow, this thread still exists?
The thread was created by one of the two developers... so yes it will exist significantly longer and have many more posts than 99.999% of threads generated by the community.
Post by: Socializator on June 04, 2012, 04:54:20 am
Let me tell you. DF is not an obscure game. The amount of attention it has received on gaming sites, especially those covering indie games, is enormous.
I so much agree with this. There is a huge wasted potential for much larger fanbase - and the reasons you have mentioned are all completely valid.
New player goes to official web, downloads a game, runs a game and closes the game forever.
One has to know the game a little bit in the first place before it is "playable" for newcomer. Therapist, tilests ... probably the very basics to catch a new guy. Now, if he was lucky then the orginal source already referenced those or perhaps even pointed him for LNP. Then all you need is a tutorial (fortunatelly there are plenty of those). There is awesome load of material which can halp the new players.
BUT
One of the problems I see is that it is not on official site. It is scattered all over the forums (not even stickied) and youtube and various sites. The only thing I found is a link to wiki in links senction. A seperate, more informative download page with more links and short explanations to already existing stuff seems like super easy thing to do and surely would help some. Not too much text, offering quick options etc. Something like "wtf, how do I start this?" page. I doubt that authors of those various packages would mind being linked from official site. Although surely this would need some regular maintaining from Toadys side. But still, it would be easier thing to do than things like presentation arc (not saying that it shouldnt be done, though!)
Just start with the low hanging fruits.
Post by: Mrhappyface on June 04, 2012, 06:03:05 am
Post by: zwei on June 04, 2012, 06:54:40 am
That brings up a good point. I know very few people that actually play "pure" DF. No mods, therapist, dfhack, tilesets, or raw editting.
One has to wonder how much "project DLC" would pay off.
"project DLC" meaning some kind of interface right inside DF that would handle downloads of mods and tilesets from community repository and their instalation. Not unlike DLCs in other games, except free.
Post by: Reudh on June 04, 2012, 07:15:55 am
Post by: randyshipp on June 06, 2012, 10:48:48 am
For me, this latest release illustrates what is, in my mind, the biggest roadblock the game throws up to new players when DF is played "out of the box." Labors are a pain to manage. It's not that it's super difficult to tell Urist McDigger that's he's responsible for Mining when those jobs show up. It's figuring out which of 95 dwarves is BEST suited to having that labor turned on. Or finding out quickly how many miners you already have. Basically, what it boils down to is that I think Dwarf Fortress is close to unplayable without Dwarf Therapist or something like it to help manage labors. And so I can't move my 34.07 fort to 34.11 until Dwarf Therapist is updated. I'd love to see a select few things that are currently add-ons (tileset/graphic packages and Dwarf Therapist) brought under Bay12's official development umbrella so that new releases are immediately ready to go with those (essential) add-ons.
Post by: Jelle on June 06, 2012, 11:20:51 am
I'd agree it's hard to figure out who one is to appoint for a job, but the actual management isn't undoable it just takes a bit of time.
Post by: randyshipp on June 06, 2012, 11:36:11 am
Not unplayable, I play just fine without.
I'd agree it's hard to figure out who one is to appoint for a job, but the actual management isn't undoable it just takes a bit of time.
Fair enough. I just don't want to spend that much more time on repetitive, back-and-forth checking of the labors of scores of dwarves. And, Armok forbid!, jotting down of notes so I don't lose track. It's the decision making that's interesting, not navigating the menus to make or implement the decisions.
Post by: Tyler6498 on June 06, 2012, 11:36:29 am
Post by: Viking on June 06, 2012, 08:33:53 pm
Bedides, right now, challenge is not mechanics, but user interface - once that is fixed, mechanics can be tuned and most inapropriate exploits fixed. But you need to make people stop battling UI before you can make then battle goblins.
Main problem with UIs is this: Sheer amount of stuff. And it gets worse with every release because new creatures are being added (trees, minerals, item types ...). This ever increases screen clutter. Golden medal goes to interface for bringing items to depot - it is the one part that handles required sorting and filtering well. Contrast with Grime medal for actual trade interface which has nothing of that sort, yet is closely related.
It is hard to find items and creatures.
Secondary problem is organization. Menus show their history of commands being added. New features are not incorporated to existing structure, but being added. Why is there z-animals menu when there is u-animals menu which can both be merged? both are very late adition or had recent makeover.
It is hard to find commands to do something with items and creatures you had trouble finding.
Tertiary problem are inconsistencies. Same actions often have different commands. Similar concepts completelly different implementations.
If you found what to do and how to do it, you can't apply that to ther parts of game.
I wonder why toady never simply took month or two to develop stable and robust widged library - "item list", "being list"
For me? The military screen. That thing is utterly ridiculous. The menu at my local chili joint makes more sense, and they had to actually hire someone to explain it as people came in.
For new players, the WHAT THE FUCK DO I DO ARGH factor. Even if you manage to gen a world, the interface isn't conducive to learning. The fact that when I found the "?" menu it didn't tell me jack shit didn't help much either.
Everything else I like though.
Both quoted for truth so to say. UI and unnecessary military complexity both are my biggest problems with the game which I also otherwise adore. I'd happily endure a few updates with no new features that resolved some issues and simplified managing the military screens.
Post by: Reudh on June 06, 2012, 08:39:16 pm
I had no issue with the military screen. It still is a little confusing as to who or what is selected, but for the most part it's quite easy.
Post by: NTJedi on June 06, 2012, 08:41:46 pm
Not unplayable, I play just fine without.Sometimes I will assign two dozen different dwarves for smoothing stone which takes 1minute within dwarf therapist because you sort, glance at dwarves names then some quick clicks then removing those two dozen so the two experts can perform engravings. I couldn't imagine all the time it would take for going thru all 150 dwarves inside dwarf fortress so only the two experts can perform engravings.
I'd agree it's hard to figure out who one is to appoint for a job, but the actual management isn't undoable it just takes a bit of time.
Post by: orius on June 07, 2012, 11:43:56 am
Graphics don't bother me too much nor do some of the sillier aspects (like building a magma cistern out of soap and ice).
Post by: reality.auditor on June 07, 2012, 12:18:15 pm
Post by: Taffer on June 07, 2012, 06:30:56 pm
Post by: Die Nacht on June 07, 2012, 10:55:53 pm
The idea that I won't be able to play this game to the fullest until I'm 40 makes me very sad. :(
Post by: dennislp3 on June 08, 2012, 01:21:01 am
On the topic? Some of the military and health care bugs irritate the hell out of me. I kinda wish Toady had a bug "limit" of some sort and would keep bugs under a certain level. That said I understand the need and focus of implementing new features before fixing a part of the machine that may get rewritten later. My only question is...how many years can we expect the game to be very bug ridden? Can we expect a full bug fix focused cycle within the next year or two to exclusively fix bugs until it truly is in a more polished Beta state? Am I going to have to wait 10 more years before the ecosystem of bugs is eradicated or shrunk to a reasonable level?
Post by: Thorik on June 08, 2012, 01:25:46 am
Post by: TheChosen on June 08, 2012, 08:17:37 am
Post by: Bulwersator on June 08, 2012, 12:05:33 pm
Aquifers. If I for some reason embark on map where's one and it prevents me from doing pretty much anything, then its a literal turn off.
You can mod them out.
Post by: Andir on June 08, 2012, 12:50:45 pm
Aquifers. If I for some reason embark on map where's one and it prevents me from doing pretty much anything, then its a literal turn off.
You can mod them out.
Quote
What turns you off about DF?Some things cannot be modded out with a simple toggle setting. =P
Post by: orius on June 08, 2012, 02:12:45 pm
I'm turned off by how you can't see stone layers anymore when looking at embarks. Also the bugs where flux doesn't display sometimes when it's there and sometimes when it's displayed it's just dang marble 100 z layers below :(
Add how the game apparently counts microcline/orthoclase/mica etc. as metals.
Post by: Taikand on June 08, 2012, 02:34:53 pm
Come on Toady, break some laws of science and make your game work faster than possible.
Post by: Draco18s on June 08, 2012, 02:38:19 pm
Aquifers. If I for some reason embark on map where's one and it prevents me from doing pretty much anything, then its a literal turn off.
You can mod them out.
Not to mention the countless ways to dig past them. Even by having nothing more than access to wood.
Post by: CodexDraco on June 08, 2012, 09:30:12 pm
Post by: Hanslanda on June 09, 2012, 01:34:48 am
What turns me off is that currently I have a superpowered doom fortress with a goblin grinder and mega-trapped drawbridge, and NO DAMN GOBLINS WILL COME. Can't there be some definitive way to make the bastards appear? Send them an envoy to insult the carp out of their mothers? Something other than a mod?
Also, underpowered carp. That is all.
Post by: Zale on June 09, 2012, 02:29:47 am
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 09, 2012, 08:50:16 am
Post by: nickbii on June 09, 2012, 09:24:01 am
On the topic? Some of the military and health care bugs irritate the hell out of me. I kinda wish Toady had a bug "limit" of some sort and would keep bugs under a certain level. That said I understand the need and focus of implementing new features before fixing a part of the machine that may get rewritten later. My only question is...how many years can we expect the game to be very bug ridden? Can we expect a full bug fix focused cycle within the next year or two to exclusively fix bugs until it truly is in a more polished Beta state? Am I going to have to wait 10 more years before the ecosystem of bugs is eradicated or shrunk to a reasonable level?Yes.
Toady loves adding things to the game. Thus we get Minecarts when there are still bugs with the military and health care.
He'll fix these bugs eventually, but in the mean-time he'll add a bunch more features which will add new bugs.
As for the point of this thread:
What really pisses me off about DF is trading. There's no way to just tell the game send every mug-like object to the Depot. There's no way to tell the game to send a bin with 7 Mugs and a Scepter to the depot, but leave the scepter in the stockpile, when your Mayor's banned the export of scepters. You've got to a) ignore the Mandate and pray you remember to sell everything but the god-damned scepter, b) hope the chump who hauls the bin to the Depot was not important, or c) stop using the bins that make running a fort that exports 500 mugs a season a viable option.
There's no way to tell which («Troll Fur Sock») is decorated with bone and which decorated with wood, so means you can't know which one will set off the Elves. Unless you go to the individual screens of every item of clothing dead gobboes drop.
There's no way to tell the game which items in a trader's list you're interested in, so you have to carefully read through the trader's list every time you do a trade, otherwise you might might buy the Echidna Blood barrel when you need Booze.
Important info about items is not easy to find. A cage with a tame roach in it looks just like an empty cage, so you just have to know that a certain proportion of your empty cage purchases are useless. If you're in a freezing Biome the same will apply to your barrel purchases, because a a Tower Cap Barrel with Frozen Echidna Blood in it is identified as Tower Cap Barrel.
You can view the contents of any of these items, but if you're a trading fort you're gonna do three or four trades per caravan, and you're gonna have 15-20 'empty' barrels and cages to view each time.
In general the biggest problem with DF is the interface. Building a simple tower requires all kinds of orders, placed in exactly the right order (or the corners won't be right), and when you're done you can only see one z-level at a time. My trading problems were caused by the interface. A lot of military problems would be easier to live with if Miners and Treecutters were noted as such in the interface, so you could tell not to make them soldiers. Getting consistent behavior across the interface would reduce the learning curve significantly.
Unfortunately interface work's the stuff Toady is most reluctant to do. He'll do bug-fixes, and add features, but he does not seem eager to go through all the numerous lists in DF and rationalize them. I can't say he's being irrational when he does this (it sounds like a lot of extremely unfun work), but I can always dream he'll do it eventually anyway.
Nick
Post by: MasterMorality on June 09, 2012, 10:52:39 am
yo can move with arrows for one, and plus/minus for another. It's frustrating for a long time.
Post by: Draco18s on June 09, 2012, 11:34:58 am
The fact that they keys are often completely unintuitive and switch from menu to menu.
yo can move with arrows for one, and plus/minus for another. It's frustrating for a long time.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
It's all entirely logical. Any screen where you can still see the map uses +/-, all others use arrow keys.
I believe there is one exception to this rule, but I do not recall it offhand.
Post by: dizzyelk on June 09, 2012, 01:49:00 pm
The fact that they keys are often completely unintuitive and switch from menu to menu.
yo can move with arrows for one, and plus/minus for another. It's frustrating for a long time.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
It's all entirely logical. Any screen where you can still see the map uses +/-, all others use arrow keys.
I believe there is one exception to this rule, but I do not recall it offhand.
This, its the one complaint I don't understand.
My biggest beef with the game is the lack of menus where you can type to search, like how you can with the embark screen. Granted, some more bug fixes would be great, as well as being able to see more than 1 z-level at a time, but that doesn't piss me off like having to scroll through long lists trying to find something specific.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on June 09, 2012, 01:52:38 pm
(being pedantic about stuff like that sucks)
Post by: TheChosen on June 09, 2012, 02:38:51 pm
Post by: Draco18s on June 09, 2012, 02:39:15 pm
The fact that they keys are often completely unintuitive and switch from menu to menu.
yo can move with arrows for one, and plus/minus for another. It's frustrating for a long time.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
It's all entirely logical. Any screen where you can still see the map uses +/-, all others use arrow keys.
I believe there is one exception to this rule, but I do not recall it offhand.
This, its the one complaint I don't understand.
My biggest beef with the game is the lack of menus where you can type to search, like how you can with the embark screen. Granted, some more bug fixes would be great, as well as being able to see more than 1 z-level at a time, but that doesn't piss me off like having to scroll through long lists trying to find something specific.
Oh I agree. The menus could definitely be better. But the scrolling is not illogical.
And I'd love a search in most of them.
Post by: orius on June 11, 2012, 09:38:04 am
The fact that they keys are often completely unintuitive and switch from menu to menu.
yo can move with arrows for one, and plus/minus for another. It's frustrating for a long time.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
It's all entirely logical. Any screen where you can still see the map uses +/-, all others use arrow keys.
I believe there is one exception to this rule, but I do not recall it offhand.
Ah, that's it! I knew it was something like that, but I couldn't quite figure it out. Yes it makes perfect sense, since if the map is on the screen, the arrow keys will scroll the map unless the map was locked somehow when a menu comues up (which would be inconvenient in its own way). But it's also not very intuitive, especially since the game switches between the two. There's also the inconvenience of the + key requiring the the use of Shift at least on certain types of keyboards. This can be adjusted through keybinds, but a new player won't know how to do that, and there are a very large number of keybind options as well.
Post by: Draco18s on June 11, 2012, 09:45:49 am
But it's also not very intuitive, especially since the game switches between the two.
Like I said, never said it couldn't be better, just that it was logical.
Quote
There's also the inconvenience of the + key requiring the the use of Shift at least on certain types of keyboards. This can be adjusted through keybinds, but a new player won't know how to do that, and there are a very large number of keybind options as well.
Different and unrelated issue, that while annoying, is solvable.
Post by: wuphonsreach on June 11, 2012, 03:58:43 pm
2. Bugs with existing functionality.
3. Inconsistency in the UI.
4. Bugs.
Post by: WJLIII3 on June 11, 2012, 07:11:43 pm
Not being able to engrave constructed walls. I've abandoned countless forts solely due to not finding a large enough area of the same stone type/colour to make an awesome engraved dining room out of :<
(being pedantic about stuff like that sucks)
Seconded.
Or...ten thousandth'd, whatever. Even if its only Constructed walls which are made of blocks. Or Constructed walls which are made of blocks which are first engraved, and then the overall construction has to be engraved again, but let it happen. Though I imagine its a problem with how constructions and terrain are different, etc, etc, requires major reprogramming, I'm sure.
Post by: noobnubcakes on June 18, 2012, 08:55:49 pm
area is in tiles.
Another is bugs that can easily end your fortress being fixed after ones like:
Potash Making/beekeeping/cheesemaking doesn't work.
For example 'the reclaim after sieges/ambushes causes goblins to be friendly' bug seems to not be fixed yet
and IIRC they become hostile when your fortress is attacked again.
Post by: zwei on June 19, 2012, 01:26:46 am
For example 'the reclaim after sieges/ambushes causes goblins to be friendly' bug seems to not be fixed yet
and IIRC they become hostile when your fortress is attacked again.
...
"Oh, hey there. What a surprise."
...
"I see, you want to rebuild this fortress. Would mind us hangig out here for some time? We like it here."
...
"Last attack? That must have been some other goblins. Look how harmless we are, standing next to your children, watching them play."
...
Post by: mutonizer on June 19, 2012, 03:15:08 am
To me, it's the same thing that happened with LEGOS in my early years: I used to spend HOURS building up stuff with random bricks and then play with them. Some friends only built what they were meant to build as shown on the boxes then moved on, and some people just didn't care and looked at LEGOs as stupid kiddy stuff.
Today, there are enough youtube tutorials, graphic tileset, wiki information and tools available now to not scare away people who are hooked, but I don't think anything can make it playable for the others.
The UI is great once you know what's there.
Keyboard hotkeys, once you known them, are the fastest man-machine interactions possible, WAY faster than using mouse, so that's a plus for me since I don't care much for user-friendly stuff because it's usually to slow for me.
All systems currently in place are working quite decently and there is an internal logic to it.
There is a macro system to allow for fast building designation and some tools with building blueprints if you want.
Not counting bugs, nothing really frustrates me, but the one thing I would like, though it's not really necessary, would be a revamp of the U list to allow for a fast job check and allocation, like Therapist. It's not needed since there's Therapist available but it'd be nice.
Other than that...just bug fixes, but that would require a feature freeze and I don't see that happening anytime soon :)
...oh yea, make ALL buildings/reactions/creatures into raws!! It makes no sense to me that all the default buildings/reactions are still hardcoded ;)
Post by: Bulwersator on June 19, 2012, 04:36:10 am
One thing that bugs me is that the ASCII is slightly taller than it is wide so I often mess when measuring how long a
area is in tiles.
You can change it in settings to square ones.
Post by: Jhu on July 10, 2012, 08:45:47 pm
4x4 embark without any freezing - 11 dwarves - 30 fps
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: noobnubcakes on July 10, 2012, 09:28:11 pm
You mean curses_square_16x16.png?One thing that bugs me is that the ASCII is slightly taller than it is wide so I often mess when measuring how long a
area is in tiles.
You can change it in settings to square ones.
That makes my eyes burn by looking at it.
Post by: DG on July 10, 2012, 10:24:41 pm
You mean curses_square_16x16.png?One thing that bugs me is that the ASCII is slightly taller than it is wide so I often mess when measuring how long a
area is in tiles.
You can change it in settings to square ones.
That makes my eyes burn by looking at it.
It took me a while to find a good square tileset in the vanilla style. It's 12x12 though so it may not suit you http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/User:Alloy
Post by: Urist_McArathos on July 10, 2012, 11:07:53 pm
2) Inability to retire a fortress and expand the kingdom with new fortresses, etc., or visit my old place as an adventurer. It's kind of frustrating to think that, after all the tremendous effort a fortress might put into becoming a grand place, I -have- to let it become a ruin to move on. It just adds to the feel of the whole world as slowly dying once you start play.
3) Diplomacy is pointless/nonexistent.
4) The inevitable FPS death the more you do and accomplish.
Really, I enjoy the game a lot, and the things that do bother me are, as far as I know, issues that will be resolved in due time. I like the complexity of the game and the emphasis on realism; it's nice that some things are glossed over (like not requiring you to make a hammer, tongs, basin, and racks before you can build a forge, just an anvil and assuming the little tools are handled elsewhere), but by and large I like that the game requires you to do more than just "Harvest Generic Resource A for Generic Item B".
Post by: OMGTANGERINES on July 11, 2012, 01:34:01 am
The fact that they keys are often completely unintuitive and switch from menu to menu.
yo can move with arrows for one, and plus/minus for another. It's frustrating for a long time.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
It's all entirely logical. Any screen where you can still see the map uses +/-, all others use arrow keys.
I believe there is one exception to this rule, but I do not recall it offhand.
This, its the one complaint I don't understand.
My biggest beef with the game is the lack of menus where you can type to search, like how you can with the embark screen. Granted, some more bug fixes would be great, as well as being able to see more than 1 z-level at a time, but that doesn't piss me off like having to scroll through long lists trying to find something specific.
Wait, THERE'S A SEARCH FUNCTION ON THE EMBARK SCREEN!?
Post by: Draco18s on July 11, 2012, 10:50:28 am
Wait, THERE'S A SEARCH FUNCTION ON THE EMBARK SCREEN!?
[f]ind.
Post by: Wellincolin on July 11, 2012, 11:06:18 am
The more you play and get almost soul-linked to it, to the point where you spend hours (sometimes nights) thinking on how to improve it, still you don't know if you'll ever be able to do so. Even relatively small fortresses are unbearable for some mid-spec computers.
Most people won't believe this can happen to an ASCII game.
Post by: Ai Shizuka on July 11, 2012, 11:31:06 am
and
the third and fourth migrant waves. A player should be happy when migrants come, but 50 migrants in a single wave are simply no fun, especially so when 25 of them are children because the child cap only counts for births in the fortress.
I know how the population cap works (liason checks the population and tell home, but two migrant tsunami are already on the way) and I hate it with a fiery passion.
I play with pop cap 60 and child cap 2:2.
In my last fortress I tried to produce as little wealth as possible, but the first two hardcoded waves put me at 21 dwarves, enough for strange moods.
Metalsmith gets a fey mood and makes a golden throne, worth 90k bucks.
Result: in 5 seasons I have a fortress with 50 children and 54 adults. 44 dwarves over my cap, and child cap completely destroyed because migrant children ignore it.
I do understand the logic behind these mechanics, but that single third wave is often enough to abandon a fortress, unless I am very happy with the site. Not because I can't house/feed them. I just HATE having to find something to do for 50 dwarves at the same time.
So I'd like to get some kind of input on the wave sizes AND their profession. The fuck am I supposed to do with 8 fisherworkers and 4 potash makers?
At the very minimum, I think the size of any migrant wave should be hard-capped at a customizable percentage of the current population.
Also, but this is a minor gripe, the entire clothing/equipping system. I can't point at a single, specific element of it. It's just overall very sloppy and cumbersome.
But it's a part of the game I'm willing to deal with, because the other stuff is so awesome.
Post by: Shadowclaimer on July 11, 2012, 12:18:13 pm
-FPS death is getting worse each update it seems, I have a top of the line computer but I can't play larger than default embark locations anymore at all or else they lag me out after a few migrant waves.
-On that subject, for the love of God please drastically reduce migrant waves. I don't remember them ever being this bad, but honestly you shouldn't be getting more than a handful of dwarves each wave, it'd greatly increase the playtime of the game when you have to wait longer to build up a larger fort, this recent game I went from 15 dwarves to over 100 in such a short window of time and it instantly made the game boring. (Birth rates are also way too high). Finding something to do for 100+ dwarves just instantly kills the game's fun factor and makes each dwarf soooo unpersonal.
-As Ai said, the equipment system has too much detail to me, as cool as it is, its also very very overwhelming with worthless items. I'd rather a Goblin drop his armor and weapon and that's it rather than every sock he had on.
-When I started originally my biggest issue was Stone, and its still an overhanging issue, I have too much of it and usually of colors I hate. Letting us designate at a workshop which TYPE of stone to use would go MILES towards making the game more accessible (IE: I only want Brown Tables, I set Mason Workshop to Mudstone, BAM!, I want to consume all of my Microcline, I just simply set my Crafts shop to it and bam!)
Post by: Robosaur on July 11, 2012, 01:56:06 pm
Post by: Moonshadow101 on July 11, 2012, 07:35:05 pm
- Ai's point about the "Third and Fourth Migrant Waves." They're incredibly depressing. After the first two, I usually have my farm going, two military dwarves sparring, crafts going... and then the population of the fort suddenly increases by a factor of about 2-5. It's a staggering number of Dwarves to dump on me at once. And by the time I get a handle on all of it... another equally oversized wave comes. The fact that 0.34 almost entirely robbed these migrants of real skills, instead giving them all 1-3 predictable skills almost always at "adequate" level, certainly doesn't help.
Post by: Gizogin on July 11, 2012, 08:58:59 pm
Post by: orius on July 11, 2012, 09:10:15 pm
-Package the game with a tileset, seriously I'd warrant to say 90% of your 90% you're turning away is solely the ASCII graphics. There's a difference between trying to maintain an image with the game and keep to its roots and denying players the choice without making them jump through hoops. Simply having Dwarf Fortress come in a graphical and non-graphical version would go MILES towards making it a more accessible game, I can seriously tell you straight up that 4/5 of my friends that don't play DF cite this as the reason.
You could steer new players towards the Lazy Newb Pack, it comes with some of the graphical sets and it can switch between sets easily.
Quote
-When I started originally my biggest issue was Stone, and its still an overhanging issue, I have too much of it and usually of colors I hate. Letting us designate at a workshop which TYPE of stone to use would go MILES towards making the game more accessible (IE: I only want Brown Tables, I set Mason Workshop to Mudstone, BAM!, I want to consume all of my Microcline, I just simply set my Crafts shop to it and bam!)
You can use DFHack to specify material types in jobs, particularly for stone.
Post by: njero on July 11, 2012, 09:24:25 pm
Does the new "give to workshop" for stockpiles not also address this?-When I started originally my biggest issue was Stone, and its still an overhanging issue, I have too much of it and usually of colors I hate. Letting us designate at a workshop which TYPE of stone to use would go MILES towards making the game more accessible (IE: I only want Brown Tables, I set Mason Workshop to Mudstone, BAM!, I want to consume all of my Microcline, I just simply set my Crafts shop to it and bam!)
You can use DFHack to specify material types in jobs, particularly for stone.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 12, 2012, 02:19:55 am
-Package the game with a tileset, seriously I'd warrant to say 90% of your 90% you're turning away is solely the ASCII graphics. There's a difference between trying to maintain an image with the game and keep to its roots and denying players the choice without making them jump through hoops. Simply having Dwarf Fortress come in a graphical and non-graphical version would go MILES towards making it a more accessible game, I can seriously tell you straight up that 4/5 of my friends that don't play DF cite this as the reason.
The ascii graphics aren't about 'maintaining an image'. Its about reducing workload. ToadOne and ThreeToe experience from their previous game, Slave to Armok, that adding graphics was really killing the games forward progress. So they went with Ascii to address this work load problem.
Post by: Reudh on July 12, 2012, 02:25:31 am
Post by: Bulwersator on July 12, 2012, 02:37:51 am
It is as simple as asking permission from the tileset makers to send them in. They're already incorporated into unofficial releases.And delay releases as you wait for new graphics?
Post by: Wimopy on July 12, 2012, 02:39:49 am
A tutorial on basic fort layout and how to recognise different veins and such would be nice, something that tells people what their first few steps should be when starting... dunno, haven't checked that part of the wiki for a long time, maybe I should learn how to play for real some time soon...
I personally haven't had FPS problems, I started with a 5+ yr old comp, so I'm used to small embarks, but it would be nice to allow yourself to have a lot of space to expand.. I know that's probably not something that's possible to be fixed, but people should be warned.
Quick edit: I love the ASCII graphics and never changed them, it's the only way I know what's what.
Post by: Urist_McArathos on July 12, 2012, 03:11:49 am
Does the new "give to workshop" for stockpiles not also address this?-When I started originally my biggest issue was Stone, and its still an overhanging issue, I have too much of it and usually of colors I hate. Letting us designate at a workshop which TYPE of stone to use would go MILES towards making the game more accessible (IE: I only want Brown Tables, I set Mason Workshop to Mudstone, BAM!, I want to consume all of my Microcline, I just simply set my Crafts shop to it and bam!)
You can use DFHack to specify material types in jobs, particularly for stone.
It does for me; a few minutes of setup work (literally, just a couple minutes with the wiki's Page on Stone (which sorts them by color in a table at the bottom) (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Stone), then use the "Give to Workshop" function on a custom stockpile. I have all grey tables and chairs in my dining room, white stone items in my barracks, and so on. I have a junk stone stockpile set to take all the stone that doesn't fit my preferred colors, and it's set to give to my mechanics and crafts shops to chew through unwanted stone as crafts, mugs, pots, and mechanisms.
It is as simple as asking permission from the tileset makers to send them in. They're already incorporated into unofficial releases.
Actually, as Bulwersator pointed out, it's as "simple" as giving an early release of the new version to a graphics pack creator and waiting for them (on a volunteer basis) to completely update for the new version, then cross-referencing it to make sure there are no glitches (since it would become a part of the "official" game, ToadyOne would have a responsibility to ensure it works as intended before it can be released). This of course doesn't address the issue of how to pick which graphics pack to use (even if you narrow it to the most popular, it's neck and neck between three or four).
For me, it's that the game is unfinished. I hate the idea of having to restart a fortress when a new version comes out, even though it's been good recently about backwards-compatibility.
This one actually hurts a lot; Toady has been GREAT about avoiding save-breaking changes recently, but it is frustrating even when there aren't save breaks. I remember when the new livestock system was implemented (can't remember the version, but I believe it introduced beekeeping and eggs), I had to gen a new world to use those features and new jobs, even though it wasn't required to use my old save (I just wouldn't have eggs or bees).
I find myself waiting until a round of bugfixing is completely over before genning a world, mainly in the hopes that Toady WILL take months or more to release another content update, so I don't feel like I'm abandoning a fort just after it got started to enjoy the latest content. There's really nothing that can be done about this, sadly. The game isn't done, the new content is pretty much always exciting, and the alternative is to wait two decades or so until 1.0 is released before downloading an update.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 12, 2012, 05:07:06 am
It is as simple as asking permission from the tileset makers to send them in. They're already incorporated into unofficial releases.Its as simple as ToadyOne not liking to work with anyone.
Post by: Shadowclaimer on July 12, 2012, 05:50:52 am
-Package the game with a tileset, seriously I'd warrant to say 90% of your 90% you're turning away is solely the ASCII graphics. There's a difference between trying to maintain an image with the game and keep to its roots and denying players the choice without making them jump through hoops. Simply having Dwarf Fortress come in a graphical and non-graphical version would go MILES towards making it a more accessible game, I can seriously tell you straight up that 4/5 of my friends that don't play DF cite this as the reason.
The ascii graphics aren't about 'maintaining an image'. Its about reducing workload. ToadOne and ThreeToe experience from their previous game, Slave to Armok, that adding graphics was really killing the games forward progress. So they went with Ascii to address this work load problem.
That's fine, they don't have to touch the graphics, there's plenty of people in this community who would gladly submit tilework for an update in a heartbeat.
And for those saying it would delay progress, its as simple as releasing what they need tiles for a week ahead of release and they'd be done by SOMEONE.
As for DFHack, that's awesome to know, but DFHack isn't part of the main game. (Although I'll use this feature now that I know it!)
The question was what turns players off the game, and truthfully that's a good start.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 12, 2012, 06:56:55 am
There still the issue of the fact that ToadyOne doesn't like working with other folks. He even stated that he doesnt like to program with his own brother.-Package the game with a tileset, seriously I'd warrant to say 90% of your 90% you're turning away is solely the ASCII graphics. There's a difference between trying to maintain an image with the game and keep to its roots and denying players the choice without making them jump through hoops. Simply having Dwarf Fortress come in a graphical and non-graphical version would go MILES towards making it a more accessible game, I can seriously tell you straight up that 4/5 of my friends that don't play DF cite this as the reason.
The ascii graphics aren't about 'maintaining an image'. Its about reducing workload. ToadOne and ThreeToe experience from their previous game, Slave to Armok, that adding graphics was really killing the games forward progress. So they went with Ascii to address this work load problem.
That's fine, they don't have to touch the graphics, there's plenty of people in this community who would gladly submit tilework for an update in a heartbeat.
And for those saying it would delay progress, its as simple as releasing what they need tiles for a week ahead of release and they'd be done by SOMEONE.
As for just tossing request into the wild, thats not a perfect solution. You'll probably get a mismash quilt thing going which will look cruddy and there issue of what to do with multiple submission for the same item and there the issue of what to do when there is no submission for the new item. There also the fact that ToadyOne & ThreeToe aren't a 100 percent transparent with their developments. They've been known to allow for surprises in new releases. So now you'll have these potencial surprises in this mishmash quilt of spirites that'll look really out of place being just Ascii.
None of these problems are impossible to solve, but they do make ToadyOne and ThreeToe having to with the community/someone for a release, which ToadyOne for sure doesn't like to do. That personal preference is paramount.
Whereas, how the current model works with tilesets being worked on autonomously seems to be pretty functional. ToadyOne doesn't have to rely on anyone else, and gets to work in his own time frame.
Post by: Shadowclaimer on July 12, 2012, 08:14:14 am
There still the issue of the fact that ToadyOne doesn't like working with other folks. He even stated that he doesnt like to program with his own brother.-Package the game with a tileset, seriously I'd warrant to say 90% of your 90% you're turning away is solely the ASCII graphics. There's a difference between trying to maintain an image with the game and keep to its roots and denying players the choice without making them jump through hoops. Simply having Dwarf Fortress come in a graphical and non-graphical version would go MILES towards making it a more accessible game, I can seriously tell you straight up that 4/5 of my friends that don't play DF cite this as the reason.
The ascii graphics aren't about 'maintaining an image'. Its about reducing workload. ToadOne and ThreeToe experience from their previous game, Slave to Armok, that adding graphics was really killing the games forward progress. So they went with Ascii to address this work load problem.
That's fine, they don't have to touch the graphics, there's plenty of people in this community who would gladly submit tilework for an update in a heartbeat.
And for those saying it would delay progress, its as simple as releasing what they need tiles for a week ahead of release and they'd be done by SOMEONE.
As for just tossing request into the wild, thats not a perfect solution. You'll probably get a mismash quilt thing going which will look cruddy and there issue of what to do with multiple submission for the same item and there the issue of what to do when there is no submission for the new item. There also the fact that ToadyOne & ThreeToe aren't a 100 percent transparent with their developments. They've been known to allow for surprises in new releases. So now you'll have these potencial surprises in this mishmash quilt of spirites that'll look really out of place being just Ascii.
None of these problems are impossible to solve, but they do make ToadyOne and ThreeToe having to with the community/someone for a release, which ToadyOne for sure doesn't like to do. That personal preference is paramount.
Whereas, how the current model works with tilesets being worked on autonomously seems to be pretty functional. ToadyOne doesn't have to rely on anyone else, and gets to work in his own time frame.
What I'm asking for is a dual release, IE: similar to how Mayday does his "DFG" Graphical release, simply have a series of graphical clients already pre-installed on the download page with DF. As it stands when me (and my brother) started, we both hand installed tilesets without knowing that they came in pre-packaged clients.
Would just make things easier on the newbies.
Post by: Draco18s on July 12, 2012, 08:51:48 am
What I'm asking for is a dual release, IE: similar to how Mayday does his "DFG" Graphical release, simply have a series of graphical clients already pre-installed on the download page with DF. As it stands when me (and my brother) started, we both hand installed tilesets without knowing that they came in pre-packaged clients.
Would just make things easier on the newbies.
What is so hard about "ToadyOne doesn't like working with other folks" do you not understand?
Post by: zwei on July 12, 2012, 08:54:29 am
He would release game as usual, but user would be able to get list of tilesets (and major mods) for his version, download them and install them with one keypress.
All that tileset/mod creator would have to do is to prepare package which is tagged with new DF version and upload it to repository.
Add star rating, "recomended" feature and you have really nice system in place.
Post by: Socializator on July 12, 2012, 08:57:41 am
It would go long way if toady simply included "mod manager" that takes stuff from community-operated repository.
He would release game as usual, but user would be able to get list of tilesets (and major mods) for his version, download them and install them with one keypress.
All that tileset/mod creator would have to do is to prepare package which is tagged with new DF version and upload it to repository.
Add star rating, "recomended" feature and you have really nice system in place.
Or even simpler - just have a separate download page with links to LNP, mods, Therapist, tilestests etc. .. instead of just direct download link. So the majority of new players would land on official page which shows easier paths. Now they have to search forums for a topic which isnt even stickied, ffs.
Post by: Don57 on November 05, 2012, 08:57:00 am
- Unsorted lists. Please at least sort things alphabetically!
- Poor stockpile settings. For example, it's very difficult to make a separate piles of magma-safe and non-magma-safe stone.
Post by: pisskop on November 05, 2012, 09:12:58 am
2) World not continuing to age as a whole after generation.
3) Inability to 'retire' a fort and see it grow as an ai settlement.
I would love to see an expanded simulation side of DF.
Post by: AutomataKittay on November 05, 2012, 09:24:31 am
Linked stockpiles not working very well on taking from workshop ( At least I've never gotten it to work with still output ).
Farms not being able to be assigned to specific dwarves.
Lack of decorative quality/type stockpile setting.
Cloth stockpile setting not behaving correctly, lack of dye setting.
Those's pretty minor, but it does makes major organized industrial management annoying, particularly for organizing cloth and dyed cloth output.
Post by: bombzero on November 05, 2012, 05:09:47 pm
2) World not continuing to age as a whole after generation.
3) Inability to 'retire' a fort and see it grow as an ai settlement.
You know these two points are actually Toady's primary goals for this development arc right?
Post by: reality.auditor on November 06, 2012, 06:51:24 am
And biggest problem with DF for me is utterly crappy user interface. It is worst abomination that I ever seen in game that still was worth playing despite UI.
Post by: pisskop on November 06, 2012, 08:08:09 am
I want them.... now... PLease?2) World not continuing to age as a whole after generation.
3) Inability to 'retire' a fort and see it grow as an ai settlement.
You know these two points are actually Toady's primary goals for this development arc right?
Post by: bombzero on November 06, 2012, 05:09:41 pm
Heh, I read your post and was like, "He's gonna be happy soon..."I want them.... now... PLease?2) World not continuing to age as a whole after generation.
3) Inability to 'retire' a fort and see it grow as an ai settlement.
You know these two points are actually Toady's primary goals for this development arc right?
Post by: katana on November 06, 2012, 06:12:14 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on November 06, 2012, 06:50:37 pm
My only real problem with dwarf fortress is the lack of a real living world. It's frozen in time the moment you start playing. Obviously, this is to change in future versions.
My Real Problem is the Thing thats Being Address?
why bring it up?
Post by: katana on November 06, 2012, 07:05:40 pm
My only real problem with dwarf fortress is the lack of a real living world. It's frozen in time the moment you start playing. Obviously, this is to change in future versions.
My Real Problem is the Thing thats Being Address?
why bring it up?
"What turns you off about..." is an idiom in English. Literally it means something like "What do you not like about..."
Post by: medinos on November 07, 2012, 02:25:22 am
Disabillty to scroll item lists from bottom to top because of MASSIVE amount of different animal bones to select at the bottom of the list. Why have they to be selectable for each existing animal kind? I doubt it is used.
And for the interface. Make buildings appear time after time in the list, maybe with a certain minimum population. The number of selectable buildings right from the start confuses. I never built a kiln or siege workshop for example because I ignored them from the beginning - there was too much. This would be improved by incremental unlocking (of course building locking should be able to be toggled)
Post by: Nanban Jim on November 15, 2012, 05:21:19 pm
More specifically, what problems did you have before learning the ropes of the game? We figure we are losing 90% of the players because of the UI and other barriers ...
What do you think is scaring people away? [...] We have to identify the main culprits first.
Checked back after 2 years. I still haven't learned the ropes. It's still the UI.
It's a UI written for those who already know how to use it, and no-one else.
Can it be learned? Obviously. But the question is what's scaring people away before learning the ropes. That's what's scaring people away, the UI.
Post by: kuki on November 15, 2012, 07:13:34 pm
Checked back after 2 years. I still haven't learned the ropes. It's still the UI.
It's a UI written for those who already know how to use it, and no-one else.
I agree with this.
I was completely unable to figure out DF the first three or four times I opened it, then I read the wiki for a few hours, then I was able to play. For general comparison, I can get comfortable in more or less any professional creative computer program without turning to the manual.
The DF UI does not take advantage of UI conventions, which means really the only ways to learn it are 1) look everything up or 2) try every menu option before you start trying to figure out what does what. People much prefer to learn fun computer programs by looking to familiar conventions for a few controls, then using those controls to do what they can, and figuring the rest out from context, building knowledge as they experiment.
If DF had, at the very very least, addressed the convention of using the mouse, arrow keys or WASD to look/move the cursor by telling me "Dwarf Fortress uses a split set of four controls instead of a standard cursor for viewing - experiment with the K, V, Q and T keys in conjunction with the arrow keys to see what's what!," I would have been able to figure out the rest, albeit slowly.
I did not read all 126 pages of this, forgive me if this territory has been covered.
Post by: Viking on November 15, 2012, 08:25:21 pm
That said I'm very eager to see the next update completed :)
Post by: Brynjólfur on November 16, 2012, 05:26:04 am
i love this game! It's 2 things that I have stumbled with though that I think would change a lot:
1) Better UI descriptions. Something similar to tooltips. Something that explains a feature as you are selecting. Maybe just a button you can press to get more info. It's not really the UI that's a bother...it's the uncertainty and the need to go to wiki's. It's fun to go to wiki's yes but it's unnecessary in the grand scheme of things. It interrupts the flow of the game, especially for newbies. That great feeling of managing a fortress doesn't come until 15-20 hours in at minimum....assuming you have the best resources at your disposal (I had the excellent book "How to play Dwarf Fortress".)
2) The military. 5 fortresses in and I'm still scratching my head. This is the single most difficult thing for me to grasp and in the end it comes down to the fact that you have to jump through too many hoops to get the military up and running....and also the military management just isn't fun....unlike like most other micromanagement in the game.
Post by: Flare on November 16, 2012, 05:33:38 am
Post by: Azated on November 16, 2012, 11:30:00 am
FPS death. Even if I feel like starting a new fortress in the middle of the game when the FPS wasn't as bad, experiencing the slow grind right before I abandon pretty much stops me from making a new fortress for a long while.
Agreed. I can manage to keep a pretty consistent 30-50 fps if I very carefully manage my fortress. And by very carefully, I mean looking though every single item list in the stocks menu and dumping/atom smashing anything I don't need at that exact moment.
Unfortunately, there's not much we can do to improve performance short of careful management, upgrading to supercomputer style CPU's, or giving toady about a decade to recode the game for multi-core support.
Post by: IronTomato on November 16, 2012, 11:40:26 am
multi-core support.UUUUGGHH
Post by: Lazerlatté on November 16, 2012, 01:42:22 pm
Post by: Andir on November 16, 2012, 01:51:29 pm
Post by: pisskop on November 16, 2012, 02:56:04 pm
Every time I ever played Adventure, I always died of hunger because I never could figure out what I was supposed to do to get food! Actually, the last time I tried playing I ended up venturing into a fort and getting stuck not able to move because I was hungry/passed out? I don't even remember.
Food is obtained (without a mod) by buying it at a townsted or butchering a large enough creature (small birds cannot be butchered). You may also find it irregularly in certain lairs.
Post by: Damiac on November 16, 2012, 03:55:14 pm
Now a job needs doing, ok... if there's an idler, he gets it, otherwise, maybe just at random.
That'll get jobs done, but it leads to constantly messing around with labors, which is terribly inefficient.
Then I got dwarf therapist. Thank goodness for dwarf therapist.
So now what turns me off? The knowledge that even with therapist, with every migrant wave after the first couple small ones, I'm gonna be spending 5-10 minutes (at least) re-organizing my labor force.
Recommendation: Please, for the love of Armok, give me smaller migrant waves! (like 2-8 migrants a season) I want to be happy to have more dwarves to work with, not annoyed because I have to spend more time paused doing labor re-assignment surgery.
And I'm the type who typically enjoys micromanaging things to that level. The typical newbie is probably much more annoyed than I am. And this is all with a 3rd party tool that is a million times better than the in game method of assigning labors.
Also, the fact that the game pauses every time I do anything. Can that be an option? Maybe I don't want to pause while I designate the next branch to mine.
Aside from that, lack of challenge after the initial rough start, and of course, FPS death, but I don't think there's a simple answer to that.
Post by: kuki on November 16, 2012, 06:04:20 pm
Please, for the love of Armok, give me smaller migrant waves! (like 2-8 migrants a season) I want to be happy to have more dwarves to work with, not annoyed because I have to spend more time paused doing labor re-assignment surgery.
Wait oh my god yes. If migrants could just be made into a valuable resource instead of a challengingly overabundant one, I probably wouldn't mind surgically reassigning them at all. I would love fields for "migrant wave size, small medium or large" and "huge second spring migration, on or off" in the init configs. Migrant waves already scale relative to your exports and things, right? So it could be an additional multiplier to the number of migrants, 0.5 if wave size is set to small, 0.75 if it's set to medium and 1.0 if it's set to large, or whatever other values make actual sense in gameplay terms. (I don't think we actually need *faster* growing fortresses as an option, or do we?)
Failing that, yes, just give me less migrants.
Post by: Scootagoose on November 16, 2012, 08:09:15 pm
Post by: Deathworks on November 17, 2012, 01:23:09 am
I agree wholeheartedly with Damiac and Kuki that the large and uncontrollable migrant waves are rather annoying. Wanting to do a slow-growth fortress with trade, the system does not allow me to stick to my initial 7 for a while, and if I allow migrants to come at a later point, I have to ready myself for an explosion in fortress population. That is really keeping me from enjoying the game to its most.
EDIT: Rereading the OP, I think that a lot of newbies would also appreciate to be able to start and work with a small, overviewable population, rather than having dozens of individuals all at once. It is just overwhelming if you want to look at each individual dwarf and at the same time learn the game.
Yours,
Deathworks
Post by: itisnotlogical on November 17, 2012, 01:48:37 am
I really like Adventure mode. The gameplay is complex enough to stand out, but not so complex that it feels weighed down by it. The controls make logical sense, too. (L)ooking at someone and checking their (d)escription lets you check their health status, for example.
Post by: Lomax on November 17, 2012, 08:12:29 am
Recommendation: Please, for the love of Armok, give me smaller migrant waves! (like 2-8 migrants a season) I want to be happy to have more dwarves to work with, not annoyed because I have to spend more time paused doing labor re-assignment surgery.This.
Also, the fact that the game pauses every time I do anything. Can that be an option? Maybe I don't want to pause while I designate the next branch to mine.And this.
Also, the fact that the cursor jumps to the center of the screen every time you switch from one tool to another. I "k" to see what something is and may then want to do "d" or "b" or something else to it, now I have to go upupupupuprightrightrightright again to get back to the spot I wanted to designate. Gets old fast.
Edit: Actually, come to think of it, why not always show information about what's under the cursor? The amount of information under "k" is quite small; it would easily fit somewhere on screen. The re-centering would still be annoying though; I often find that I have the wrong tool selected only _after_ I have moved the cursor into position.
Post by: petela on July 18, 2018, 10:48:36 pm
10 years old well known bugs never getting fixed.
Instead of adding new layers of grinding (ie: libraries), why don't we get militar equipment layering right? Or animal hair to finally get pull out of the loom, or strings and cloths used in medical care dot becoming unusable and unrecognizable to at least being able to dump them. Or maybe, preventing dwarves from hoarding unneeded clothing items, etc, etc, etc, etc....
Post by: KittyTac on July 18, 2018, 10:54:57 pm
Post by: mifki on July 18, 2018, 11:28:51 pm
Nice necro. Anyways, the magic update will make the game more challenging.
Yeah those times when ThreeToe was active on forums and there was no TWBT to make graphics not the first thing everyone mentions... :)
Post by: DG on July 19, 2018, 02:07:19 am
Nice necro. Anyways, the magic update will make the game more challenging.
I suggested it to him, he knows how old the thread is. If you have to comment on someone's concerns here you should make it more relevant.
Post by: HerbalistRanger on July 20, 2018, 08:28:54 pm
I am usually half way burned out before I strike the earth. Being able to save locations before embarking or being able to reroll the starting dwarves would save so much pain. Custom starting dwarves would be amazing. My fortresses are all or nothing with the start dwarves. I want ones I like and for them to survive.
edit- That's all I can think of. I am in love with this game. Only game I can play for more than few hours in years. Simpler marksdwarves would be good. I just don't mess with them. Equipping military is very frustrating. I spend way too much time trying to get my favorite dorfs to wear certain artifacts. Long saves along with losing dorfs to missions has been frustrating recently. Anxiety of waiting wondering if my favorite artifact raider will come back or have to load save.
Post by: pisskop on July 20, 2018, 09:26:45 pm
While I think customized S7 would be bad, I do think that paying points for 'more quality' in a dwarf or seven would be okay. More chances to roll a good one or paying for a reroll of a single stat that is poor. If people are going to keep force-quiting until the get what they want doing this ingame is hardly cheating.
Or maybe a system wherein you pick your desired classes (i.e. 1 lumberjack, 2 miners, 1 farmer, 1 mason, 1 crafter, 1 armorsmith) and the game gens characters who 'fit the bill' and then you proceed to point allocation. This model adds a step to embark but also makes it possible to simplify the above 'pay for rerolls', or even lets you command in-world dwarves instead of puffed-out-of-armok's-backdoor dwarves.
Post by: WordsandChaos on July 21, 2018, 06:42:07 am
I think the one major hurdle is that the game doesn't explain itself at all. I remember the first time I ever booted up the game I literally had no idea how to get anyone to do anything: you don't even realise that the dwarves are autonomous, and they don't really act like it until something pesters them. So you're looking at your guys waddle around a bit and then they die. And you've tried to get them to do something, but you can't select them and there's no explanation as to why. You've just got a big bar at the side that seems to be a series of buildings that you can't build because you don't have the resources and you seemingly can't get the resources.
I can't even remember if there's a standard loadout that you get if you don't start with a specific roles and equipment, and I can't remember if that's a thing you have to toggle on for each dwarf or there are some basics turned on by default. Then, assuming your dwarves have some jobs, there's no way you're going to notice the jobs toggle screen, the fact that you need to designate stockpiles to get your dwarves to bring the things back so they can use them, the nobility that is necessary to assign new jobs, the fact that you need a book keeper to know how much of a thing you have. Just that basic level set up chain is never outlined.
I'm not sure it's worth doing a full on tutorial for this game as it changes all the time. But a basic little sub-screen that runs you through the concepts of the game and some scenarios so you at least know roughly what the mindset of the game is. Get your dwarves to dig, setting up stockpiles and getting them to gather resources, how the jobs system works, etc. You can pretty much just bounce from one thing to the next as long as you know how the game thinks, but you need something to be able to intuit from first. I think the base level of unintuitiveness is more a sidestep from the expected frame of mind, rather than a complete alien concept. But people need to have a starting ground so they know what they should roughly be looking for, if you see what I mean.
Other concerns: Just some basic quality of life stuff: consistent keybinds, so moving through a series of menus doesn't inexplicably require three different sets of controls - that kind of thing.
For the entrenched players:
Some way of exporting and importing job orders. The automation was probably one of my absolute favourite things you guys have added in a while. The sheer time it can take to set things up in Dwarf Fortress will often just block my desire to actually start a new fort. I spend a little while looking for a spot, I do the setup, I then have to designate a half a dozen things and set up some stockpiles, farms etc, and then add ten plus rules for basic food, brewing furniture, etc. I think just being able to import a series of job rules would speed the launch a lot. I think most forts are going to start roughly the same per player, so you may as well skip the basic stuff and diverge from there, get to more of the guts of the game faster etc, than spending literally an hour or more before you're even able to unpause the game.
Position based rooms, and furniture designations. I know that there are mods for this, but it makes sense for it to be in the base game: Nobody wants to have to constantly assign new studies for their nobles every time one of them gets killed or goes crazy or whatever. Just let us designate X chair goes to the book keeper, or this room belongs to the hammerer, etc. Much in the way that basic unclaimed rooms work. That also just cuts down the tedium. If a player wants to reassign individuals to specific rooms they should be able to, but most of the time I'd assume we don't care that much. Book keeper dies? Next one is assigned and knows where their quarters are. Similarly, I don't want to replace every chair, table, and door individually because a troll didn't like it's beer. designate the tables, if one gets broken the game knows that a table should be in that square and another is chosen to replace it from the stockpiles. Cutting down the intrusive bits of tedious micromanagement could smooth the experience a lot more.
Post by: carewolf on July 24, 2018, 06:58:15 am
Also development doesn't seem to fix long standing bugs, which is annoying.
Post by: KittyTac on July 24, 2018, 07:18:29 am
It is too simple and primitive... I expected more.That is because:
a) DF should not be overestimated, you'll never be able to do everything.
b) It's literally less-than-half done.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on July 24, 2018, 03:49:21 pm
Post by: Edward_Tohr on July 25, 2018, 09:45:50 am
Wordsandchaos, dwarf fortress is very intrinsically not a game you can just hop into and expect to learn normally. It’s a game where you need to read at least the basics of how to play before trying to do so, and is very much not going to hold your hand through those confusing first hours.
Right. Which is exactly what their complaint was. Speaking of complaints...
Also development doesn't seem to fix long standing bugs, which is annoying.
Came here to post that myself. Military uniforms have been conflicting with mining/woodcutting/hunting for more than eight years now. Tame purring maggots have been unmilkable since they were first introduced in the 2D version. Some dwarf needs are impossible to fulfill, and the others are up to the whims of the AI. And sure, there's workarounds for some of those, but when the base gameplay involves more working around bugs than actual intended gameplay, that's a sign that a long bugfix session is in order.
It's to the point where I actively dislike hearing about new features. Woo, we'll be getting randomized creation myths. That sure does more to make the game playable and accessible than, say, allowing you to kill off lycanthropes who happen to have immigrated to your fort alone, so they have a young child off-map so you can't exile them. Or changing Adventure Mode so that step one isn't "Hope you spawned in a fort that actually does have an accessible entrance". More procgen creatures? Honestly, I'd prefer not having to deal with a tantrum spiral because my legendary immigrant hunter can't stand the outdoors, and is constantly seething with rage because he got rained on once a decade ago.
Also: the way people get dogpiled with the same "Oh, it's a pre-alpha, you can't expect an actually functional program!" or "Just study and memorize every single page on the wiki so you can learn how to do whichever basic necessary task you were having trouble with" whenever they insinuate that the game is anything less than utter perfection.
/rant
Post by: carewolf on July 27, 2018, 07:19:46 am
Nah. I think it is my fault for having played more Rimworld. I just expect to spend more time try to keep food fresh, or manage temperatures (though that should be simple most places under ground).It is too simple and primitive... I expected more.That is because:
a) DF should not be overestimated, you'll never be able to do everything.
b) It's literally less-than-half done.
Post by: recneps on July 31, 2018, 12:17:52 pm
It's fairly uneventful: Unless you actively mod in extra civs or make existing ones more hostile, or crowd the world to the point where it strains all believability in the fantasy world simulator, there's not much happening that you don't initiate. Sieges are kinda far between. Megabeast attacks are nice, but once again, they're kinda rare without you making your own alterations to the game. Hostile weather is cool, except the only real counter to it is "go inside," and that is a complete counter: essentially, you either succumb entirely to the evil weather, or it gives you no issues.
There's not much interaction with the outside world: really all you can do to affect the greater scheme of things is destroy places. This is less of an issue for me than the first, in part because I know development is actively working towards this.
Post by: grotball on July 31, 2018, 10:44:52 pm
*) Glacial development pace. I understand it's one coder and coding wasn't his former job, but even still. How many years has it been now, and the donations are easily a decent full time salary, so to trot out a few (to me, pretty lacklustre) features every few years, and leave existing, fairly game-breaking bugs scattered around, is annoying to me. Feels ... privileged, even if that's not the intention.
*) Non open source. More a peeve that I think it could be much better if other people were allowed to contribute. I don't personally think his vision is that spectacular that people need to sit back and watch for years while he realizes it. But, his call.
*) Finally, hearing random forumers and posters online when DF is mentioned wax lyrical about how it's 'the most complicated game ever!!!!' and 'truly anything is possible!!!!' etc etc. It doesn't strike me as anywhere near that level of praise, it's emergent properties are fairly rail-roaded. Maybe that will change but I get a bit sick of hearing that particular praise for some reason.
Post by: KittyTac on July 31, 2018, 10:59:52 pm
Personally, my turn off list with DF (but it's free, so, who really cares):The first complaint is because there's a lot going on under the hood, even if you don't really immediately notice it. There's a lot of little features with each update.
*) Glacial development pace. I understand it's one coder and coding wasn't his former job, but even still. How many years has it been now, and the donations are easily a decent full time salary, so to trot out a few (to me, pretty lacklustre) features every few years, and leave existing, fairly game-breaking bugs scattered around, is annoying to me. Feels ... privileged, even if that's not the intention.
*) Non open source. More a peeve that I think it could be much better if other people were allowed to contribute. I don't personally think his vision is that spectacular that people need to sit back and watch for years while he realizes it. But, his call.
*) Finally, hearing random forumers and posters online when DF is mentioned wax lyrical about how it's 'the most complicated game ever!!!!' and 'truly anything is possible!!!!' etc etc. It doesn't strike me as anywhere near that level of praise, it's emergent properties are fairly rail-roaded. Maybe that will change but I get a bit sick of hearing that particular praise for some reason.
The second is a matter of personal ethics. Toady is doing it because he can.
The third is caused by a sneakier form of memes. Extremely annoying, I agree. They usually shut up after being told to do so.
Post by: Cathar on August 02, 2018, 04:53:40 am
Bay12 has probably the most consumer friendly monetization model around so I'm not criticizing that too much, ut I never understood why anyone would pay for something they can get for free.
*) Non open source.
Dear god, thanks it's not open source. I saw what happened in open source competitors and I'd like none of that in my DF.
*) Finally, hearing random forumers and posters online when DF is mentioned wax lyrical about how it's 'the most complicated game ever!!!!' and 'truly anything is possible!!!!'
It's relative to other games. DF has limitations like everything else, just less than other games in its category. Also it's an old meme, which started when DF was actually hard as balls. Difficulty decreased with time as it should, as it is leaving a niche market for a more mainstream one. Its cool and normal.
But yeah, my one irk :
• It's hard to get into. I can play the game just fine and have a lot of fun with it, but trying to share it with friends is...really hard. They just can't get into it. Not sure there is a solution in the immediate future, but being unable to spread the love outside of the bay12 community irks me a bit.
Post by: KittyTac on August 02, 2018, 05:42:06 am
it is leaving a niche market for a more mainstream one. Its cool and normal.Nope! It's as niche as before, it's just that the niche is getting larger as the community grows. But it's still niche.
Post by: Cathar on August 02, 2018, 05:47:18 am
Post by: KittyTac on August 02, 2018, 06:00:56 am
The bigger the niche, the lesss it is niche tho. Like the cheese's hole paradoxIt still isn't mainstream. The game will become harder and more complex with the magic update, so that will put a stop to growth.
Post by: vassock on August 09, 2018, 12:02:06 am
Post by: Tinnucorch on August 10, 2018, 07:55:56 pm
For me first and foremost is the fear that some bug will break the experience for me. Recently it happened when my Dwarfs stopped gathering wood and apparently the cause was that I breached the caverns since the second I sealed them off they started gathering wood again.
Could you have had automatic web collecting enabled? Maybe your dwarves were'nt collecting wood because they were collecting the webs. It's a little anoying that it is the dafault option, at least for me (I always forget turning it off).
And I share your fear. I started playing DF when the most recent version was 0.42 and once I learned that the justice system didn't work I lost interest for a while. Now with 0.44 I'm in again, but I think "what if next release breaks something again?". I would like to think that a completely broken feature would draw Toady's attention to fix it but since how some of the best known bugs have been around for years... :-\
And that reminds me of something else: I was really into settling in a evil biome until I learned that most creatures there who are supposed to attack your dwarves won't do it beacause of a bug :(
I'm ok with the fact that there are a lot of placeholder mechanics and things waiting for developement, but for the broken ones just knowing that they will be replaced/overhauled/whatever in a (probably not near) future does not give much solace.
So, yeah, finding that something it's not gonna be that great not because the game is not that awesome (I do think it's awesome! :D) but because things don't work as they should be working at a given time is, for me, a very big turn off.
Post by: superbob on August 14, 2018, 06:03:09 pm
But that was back when I was relatively new to the game. Fast forward a few years, up to somewhere like 2016 since I haven't really played in a while, there were two major things that irked me as a more experienced player.
First, performance. I'd really like to be able to play on bigger embarks, there would be plenty of awesome things to do in a 16x16 embark with a 1000 dorfs, unfortunately the single-threaded nature of the game prohibits that. It also irks me how people pop up whenever that is mentioned claiming concurrency is super-near-impossible-hard or whatever. It really isn't, not 90% of the time anyways, with proper design and threading libraries it's only challenging if you're doing seriously advanced stuff, otherwise the reason it's hard is because you're doing it wrong. It would definitely require some serious design changes and would translate to a lot of work, but the sheer numbers required for larger embarks dictate the need for parallel processing.
Second thing is that once the initial learning curve has been defeated, the game becomes too easy, unless the player becomes careless or wants to mess it up on purpose. There's reanimating biomes, of course, but that essentially translates to more micromanagement and taking even longer to get anything done. Food production is too easy, wealth for trading is easy too once you know what to build, army training is mostly automatic and once setup will produce unstoppable killing machines in a few game years. Sieges can be defeated by traps or turtling. While this is fun for building megaprojects, it also means there's no real need for fancy setups in fortress mode, a tiny, perfectly mundane fort can easily be happy, rich, and self sufficient, with little effort it will withstand any siege and beat the circus. Once I realized the game is 90% self-indulgence it bothered me even more than the performance limited population and build area.
Post by: KittyTac on August 14, 2018, 10:00:09 pm
And DF is supposed to be a more-or-less simulation rather than a game. Challenge isn't strictly needed.
Post by: MrWiggles on August 15, 2018, 01:37:43 am
Post by: Saiko Kila on August 15, 2018, 05:14:19 am
Food production is too easy [...]
I think the reason it's too easy is it doesn't simulate many factors yet, present in real food production. Funny thing, showing how there is not much consistency with the development of food production, and that is not finished yet, is that the underground plants (growing in unchanging environment) are subject to seasonal limits, while aboveground plants (growing often in wildly changing environment) are not. So it's opposite what logic dictate it should be.
In a game based on earlier Dwarf Fortress, RimWorld, there are changing weather conditions, blights and similar events which will make otherwise similar experience quite different, and can destroy food production for people, or for animals. Also RW's plants are more varied in their requirements, forcing the player to make significant choices, something what real farmers often have to do.
So overall I think it is under development still, and hopefully will change.
One thing which makes me angry is that the useless things which are sold to the caravans are apparently tracked. Personally I think that they should be wiped, or mostly wiped, both for performance and for sanity.
Post by: KittyTac on August 15, 2018, 06:21:27 am
The economy arc will need tracking even useless items. What's the point of removing a system only to readd it later?Food production is too easy [...]
I think the reason it's too easy is it doesn't simulate many factors yet, present in real food production. Funny thing, showing how there is not much consistency with the development of food production, and that is not finished yet, is that the underground plants (growing in unchanging environment) are subject to seasonal limits, while aboveground plants (growing often in wildly changing environment) are not. So it's opposite what logic dictate it should be.
In a game based on earlier Dwarf Fortress, RimWorld, there are changing weather conditions, blights and similar events which will make otherwise similar experience quite different, and can destroy food production for people, or for animals. Also RW's plants are more varied in their requirements, forcing the player to make significant choices, something what real farmers often have to do.
So overall I think it is under development still, and hopefully will change.
One thing which makes me angry is that the useless things which are sold to the caravans are apparently tracked. Personally I think that they should be wiped, or mostly wiped, both for performance and for sanity.
ToadyOne when hes spoken about it, doesnt believe it will do much for the game.Well, it's Toady's game. He knows what's good for it.
Post by: Rockphed on August 15, 2018, 04:24:31 pm
ToadyOne when hes spoken about it, doesnt believe it will do much for the game.Well, it's Toady's game. He knows what's good for it.
I suspect that if Toady could split all the lists apart and process each in parallel that the game would experience less slowdown for having tons of objects. I also suspect that the basic loop of the game is a horrible spaghetti-code mess that he doesn't want to try to pick apart to make things parallel. I remember Toady once saying that he had an idea of how to do it, but it would take about a year of development and would add 0 features, which he doesn't want to do. Frankly, I don't blame him.
Post by: Saiko Kila on August 15, 2018, 04:54:48 pm
One thing which makes me angry is that the useless things which are sold to the caravans are apparently tracked. Personally I think that they should be wiped, or mostly wiped, both for performance and for sanity.The economy arc will need tracking even useless items. What's the point of removing a system only to readd it later?
Simple - to do it correctly. Economy was disabled because it was hopelessly broken. I doubt that tracking in current form will be still feasible for new economy. Actually, I'm sure it won't because of performance issues.
Also tracking thing like food stacks or arrows won't be really needed...
Post by: malvado on August 15, 2018, 05:35:02 pm
More specifically, what problems did you have before learning the ropes of the game? We figure we are losing 90% of the players because of the UI and other barriers, and that doesn’t even count the ones scared away by the ASCII graphics. Now, this doesn’t mean we are about abandon the rest of the game to start the presentation arc. It is just as important to have endless monster attacks from the underground, and challenging sieges.
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen? Or maybe its finding the right tile sets and setting them up. We are hoping at some point to build easier commands and tutorials to help bring in more players. We have to identify the main culprits first. So what is frustrating you the most about Dwarf Fortress?
My opinion :
1 : Performance issues, even with an ok 8 Core cpu you will get lower performance once the population and items reaches certain numbers. There's been improvements, but the added content and other things seems to also contribute again on lower performance.
2 : GUI , Personally I have problems with the ASCII interfase (graphics, how units looks etc etc ), mainly due to damage to parts of my brain so I need to have a more Graphical type of GUI and of course the visuals of the rest of the game.
3 : And to be honest it takes a bit too long between each updates, yes, a lot of good work is done, but when you are wandering around with a bug that stops your good experience you will just give up. If more time is spent on bug fixing making the game more playable between each release I'd bet more people would stay and donate.
So for me personally : Improve performance on all system and use the several cores of modern cpu's in a better way than just relying on 1 core, make the GUI and ingame graphics easier to choose and manage for new users and focus more on shorter time between releases and more bug fixing.
Post by: thvaz on August 15, 2018, 07:02:25 pm
Post by: KittyTac on August 15, 2018, 09:25:47 pm
1: Wait until Toady optimizes stuff. It won't involve multithreading, though, because it would soak up 2 years without new features.More specifically, what problems did you have before learning the ropes of the game? We figure we are losing 90% of the players because of the UI and other barriers, and that doesn’t even count the ones scared away by the ASCII graphics. Now, this doesn’t mean we are about abandon the rest of the game to start the presentation arc. It is just as important to have endless monster attacks from the underground, and challenging sieges.
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen? Or maybe its finding the right tile sets and setting them up. We are hoping at some point to build easier commands and tutorials to help bring in more players. We have to identify the main culprits first. So what is frustrating you the most about Dwarf Fortress?
My opinion :
1 : Performance issues, even with an ok 8 Core cpu you will get lower performance once the population and items reaches certain numbers. There's been improvements, but the added content and other things seems to also contribute again on lower performance.
2 : GUI , Personally I have problems with the ASCII interfase (graphics, how units looks etc etc ), mainly due to damage to parts of my brain so I need to have a more Graphical type of GUI and of course the visuals of the rest of the game.
3 : And to be honest it takes a bit too long between each updates, yes, a lot of good work is done, but when you are wandering around with a bug that stops your good experience you will just give up. If more time is spent on bug fixing making the game more playable between each release I'd bet more people would stay and donate.
So for me personally : Improve performance on all system and use the several cores of modern cpu's in a better way than just relying on 1 core, make the GUI and ingame graphics easier to choose and manage for new users and focus more on shorter time between releases and more bug fixing.
2: Get a graphics pack.
3: Not as important as new features, in both my and Toady's opinion.
The growing distance between the developers and the community, the lack of serious bugfixing in the latest updates and I am getting old.The modern DF design philosophy is "Features should be added as efficiently as possible. Community interaction and bugfixing are secondary."
I agree with it, actually.
Post by: malvado on August 16, 2018, 03:40:40 pm
1: Wait until Toady optimizes stuff. It won't involve multithreading, though, because it would soak up 2 years without new features.
2: Get a graphics pack.
3: Not as important as new features, in both my and Toady's opinion.
1 : Well, development can be speed up by actually getting help from other people who knows how to add multithreading to workloads as what you have in Dwarf Fortress, several areas could be done in separate cores, now I'm not an expert here but you could have one core that coordinates world events and temperature effects in the area, one core for handling calculations of certain effects like when units move around, attack, catapults throw things around, water flow , magma flow and so on. It needs to be coordinated yes, but I think ( again not from an expert in this tema) that it could help out in a few situations.
2 : Well, for someone experienced it's not "difficult" to add an graphics pack, but from those that pick up the game, tries it out for the first time and doesnt understand anything and just goes away its a big and important point in case Toady wants to maintain potential players and donators.
3 : Sure, new features are nice, but when the game goes to an halt on a system that picks up some of the bugs or the bugs are game breaking it means the people playing the game and possible donators for future development just goes away. Just check out new games, if they have many bugs people are more unlikely to want to pick them up and buy them...
I used to play this game quite a lot, started around 2009 and donated a few times ( would have done more donations if things actually where fixed on some areas and a few other reasons ) , but lately I've found the game to be less attractive since the same bugs are still there that broke part of my experience.
Post by: KittyTac on August 16, 2018, 10:15:39 pm
Toady is content with the current player count, it seems like. So no QoL features for now.
1: Wait until Toady optimizes stuff. It won't involve multithreading, though, because it would soak up 2 years without new features.
2: Get a graphics pack.
3: Not as important as new features, in both my and Toady's opinion.
1 : Well, development can be speed up by actually getting help from other people who knows how to add multithreading to workloads as what you have in Dwarf Fortress, several areas could be done in separate cores, now I'm not an expert here but you could have one core that coordinates world events and temperature effects in the area, one core for handling calculations of certain effects like when units move around, attack, catapults throw things around, water flow , magma flow and so on. It needs to be coordinated yes, but I think ( again not from an expert in this tema) that it could help out in a few situations.
2 : Well, for someone experienced it's not "difficult" to add an graphics pack, but from those that pick up the game, tries it out for the first time and doesnt understand anything and just goes away its a big and important point in case Toady wants to maintain potential players and donators.
3 : Sure, new features are nice, but when the game goes to an halt on a system that picks up some of the bugs or the bugs are game breaking it means the people playing the game and possible donators for future development just goes away. Just check out new games, if they have many bugs people are more unlikely to want to pick them up and buy them...
I used to play this game quite a lot, started around 2009 and donated a few times ( would have done more donations if things actually where fixed on some areas and a few other reasons ) , but lately I've found the game to be less attractive since the same bugs are still there that broke part of my experience.
The fact that the number of donations is slowly but steadily growing kind of disproves 3. The only thing that matters in DF gamedev is Toady's opinion. DF will always be niche and won't have many mainstream players.
Post by: Rockphed on August 17, 2018, 12:30:15 pm
As for "bringing in some experts", the difficult part of multithreading is not that you need to know how multithreading works, but that you need to know how the entire architecture of what you're attempting to design works, and how multithreading works, and how you can mesh the two together. It's either Toady adding it, or Toady spending 2 years teaching some coder every in-and-out of his code to then have that coder spend another 3 redesigning everything to make it work, with effectively no progress on the game itself in that time.
As I said at the bottom of the last page, "I also suspect that the basic loop of the game is a horrible spaghetti-code mess that he doesn't want to try to pick apart to make things parallel." My own experience with parallel processing is entirely offloading large, equivalent operations onto the GPU, which requires significantly more thought than just "make a function call". Okay, so it ultimately devolves into "make a function call", but there is significant data handling first and you need to make sure that all parallel options have accessed the data before you alter it, otherwise you end up with a random result. And that is for numerically identical things like blurring a photo. Dwarves aren't doing identical things on every tick, so you need more of a CPU model than a GPU model (i.e. you need to execute arbitrary code in parallel, rather than executing almost identical code with a couple branches)
Post by: nickbii on August 17, 2018, 08:14:56 pm
Multi-threading is a nightmare to add after the fact.ToadyOne when hes spoken about it, doesnt believe it will do much for the game.Well, it's Toady's game. He knows what's good for it.
I suspect that if Toady could split all the lists apart and process each in parallel that the game would experience less slowdown for having tons of objects. I also suspect that the basic loop of the game is a horrible spaghetti-code mess that he doesn't want to try to pick apart to make things parallel. I remember Toady once saying that he had an idea of how to do it, but it would take about a year of development and would add 0 features, which he doesn't want to do. Frankly, I don't blame him.
Let's say Processor Core 1 is doing something with a tree. Core 1 is doing temperature, and the tree's on fire. Processor core 2 is doing pathfinding for a dwarf who is trying to chop the tree down. If both threads are designed properly the dwarf will notice that the tree's on fire and run away. If they're wrong a variety of things could happen. The dwarf may chop down the tree, pick up the log, and walk back to the fort without anything getting set on fire. The Dwarf could get set on fire and not notice (because he's Core 2, and the fire is Core 1). The log may (or may not) be on fire. A lot of shit has to happen in the proper order for the right thing (ie: dwarf notices there's a fire and runs screaming BEFORE he touches the tree) in the right order, and the program was just not designed that way from the ground up.
That's why adding it at this late date would create a multi-year nightmare of re-coding. You just have to redesign literally everything about the game, with the help of someone way more advanced in CompSci than Toady. So Toady not only has to work with this guy, he has to take enough time out of coding new stuff to explain to this guy "that's why I put that code in that part of the game," then the guy has to say "if we move that to the temperature thread what will that break?" and Toady has to respond...
I suspect it would take a full year for Toady just to explain to the new guy how everything was put together, and then they'd have to redesign the code.
Besides, by the time the game's done they'll be at 8 GhZ and DDR7 RAM and a 400-dwarf fortress with an Obsidian generator will hit 100 FPS on a low-end system.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on August 17, 2018, 08:29:25 pm
Quote
That's why adding it at this late date would create a multi-year nightmare of re-coding. You just have to redesign literally everything about the game, with the help of someone way more advanced in CompSci than Toady. So Toady not only has to work with this guy, he has to take enough time out of coding new stuff to explain to this guy "that's why I put that code in that part of the game," then the guy has to say "if we move that to the temperature thread what will that break?" and Toady has to respond...Maybe you're right, and perhaps Toady told you personally, but you are aware that it's possible to learn how to make a multi-threaded program without a computer science degree, right? The guy's been programming (including experiments with multi-threading) for longer than half the forum has been alive.
Post by: nickbii on August 17, 2018, 09:37:36 pm
Multithreading is one of those things that is almost never in a self-taught programer's repertoire. If they do have it, and can do it well, I'd call them extremely advanced in their self-taught CompSci studies.QuoteThat's why adding it at this late date would create a multi-year nightmare of re-coding. You just have to redesign literally everything about the game, with the help of someone way more advanced in CompSci than Toady. So Toady not only has to work with this guy, he has to take enough time out of coding new stuff to explain to this guy "that's why I put that code in that part of the game," then the guy has to say "if we move that to the temperature thread what will that break?" and Toady has to respond...Maybe you're right, and perhaps Toady told you personally, but you are aware that it's possible to learn how to make a multi-threaded program without a computer science degree, right? The guy's been programming (including experiments with multi-threading) for longer than half the forum has been alive.
More importantly it's not currently in Toady's repertoire, so he'd have to teach it to himself.
And to do that he'd need to write a bunch of programs that use multithreading before trying it on DF, because applying multithreading to something as intricate as DF is not a begginer-level job, which adds time. And DF's gotta have a very complex codebase, so I suspect that if he left it for three months he'd forget where half the stuff was.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on August 18, 2018, 01:15:12 am
Well, OK. It seems reasonable to assume all of this is true. I do wonder how you know that none of the side projects Toady works on use multi-threading, but fair enough, no point pushing this point any more.Multithreading is one of those things that is almost never in a self-taught programer's repertoire. If they do have it, and can do it well, I'd call them extremely advanced in their self-taught CompSci studies.QuoteThat's why adding it at this late date would create a multi-year nightmare of re-coding. You just have to redesign literally everything about the game, with the help of someone way more advanced in CompSci than Toady. So Toady not only has to work with this guy, he has to take enough time out of coding new stuff to explain to this guy "that's why I put that code in that part of the game," then the guy has to say "if we move that to the temperature thread what will that break?" and Toady has to respond...Maybe you're right, and perhaps Toady told you personally, but you are aware that it's possible to learn how to make a multi-threaded program without a computer science degree, right? The guy's been programming (including experiments with multi-threading) for longer than half the forum has been alive.
More importantly it's not currently in Toady's repertoire, so he'd have to teach it to himself.
And to do that he'd need to write a bunch of programs that use multithreading before trying it on DF, because applying multithreading to something as intricate as DF is not a begginer-level job, which adds time. And DF's gotta have a very complex codebase, so I suspect that if he left it for three months he'd forget where half the stuff was.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on August 19, 2018, 12:26:30 am
Post by: MrWiggles on August 19, 2018, 12:55:40 am
Post by: Urlance Woolsbane on August 19, 2018, 02:31:13 am
2) Hardcoding: For all that DF can be modded, certain things are frustratingly inflexible. It's not just the procedural generation; for instance, you can make your own type of wizard, but it'll still need 40 animated cadavers to build a tower. You still embark with seven settlers and you're stuck with a selection of sites that are largely suited to the vanilla races. Try as you might to stamp out a certain feature, it'll conspire to wriggle it's way back in. Disabled a skill on your civ, did you? Surely that means that none of your citizens will have it, right? Riiiiiiiiiight? If only!
All this means that proper conversions are hard to come by. Dwarf fortress, for all its malleability, is locked into a generic fantasy archetype. Thankfully, Myths and Magic will address much of this, and in the meantime there's always DFHack.
Post by: Fleshbits on August 19, 2018, 06:17:16 pm
More specifically, what problems did you have before learning the ropes of the game? We figure we are losing 90% of the players because of the UI and other barriers, and that doesn’t even count the ones scared away by the ASCII graphics. Now, this doesn’t mean we are about abandon the rest of the game to start the presentation arc. It is just as important to have endless monster attacks from the underground, and challenging sieges.
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen? Or maybe its finding the right tile sets and setting them up. We are hoping at some point to build easier commands and tutorials to help bring in more players. We have to identify the main culprits first. So what is frustrating you the most about Dwarf Fortress?
I tried to get into the game 3 times in 2016. All 3 times I was very excited to watch my fortress progress until I got attacked. All 3 times I had star dwarves lost to being stuck in trees and then while being attacked, I had dwarves ignoring my orders and wandering off to their deaths by pathing past monsters. There was no way (and I even posted videos and asked here) to get my dwarves to safety. At that point, I deemed the game "buggy" and haven't returned until now to try again.
Post by: malvado on August 20, 2018, 06:21:02 am
Yes playability and performance is important for me, graphics and the way to use them just as well and I do think a lot of other people sees it that way as well, it's been at least the response I've gotten from several friends who I had recommended DF to.
Anyway I've got other things to spend my time on so a good bye to both DF and the community here.
Post by: KittyTac on August 20, 2018, 07:21:05 am
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on August 20, 2018, 08:28:00 am
The only purpose for this thread's existence is to be necroed every few years for an outpouring of toxicity that leads nowhere.
Propose thread be locked.
Post by: pisskop on August 20, 2018, 08:56:08 am
Post by: Dyret on August 20, 2018, 02:20:16 pm
This thread really does bring all the mongs to the yard.
Post by: NEANDERTHAL on August 22, 2018, 06:41:42 am
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on August 22, 2018, 06:55:28 am
It's been said before, but I'll say it again: there needs to be less migrants. There is no reason anymore to have hardcoded migrant waves, and with populations balooning to ~60 dwarves from 12 in two years, plus visitors, it gets very hard to become attached to the dwarves, and pay attention to their personalities and thoughts. All that new work on dwarf focusing and happiness is for naught if the players can't focus enough attention/game resources on each dwarf to care. Having less dwarves would also make them more valuble from a gameplay perspective. DF is a game about making stories, but no good story can be seen/watched/enacted if your main characters get lost in a sea of faces.Fortress relationship with the outside world is the next arc after mythgen is done. That includes the reason for migration. Since it's already planned, a placeholder won't be replaced with another placeholder so in the meantime you'll have to use the workarounds.
Post by: carewolf on August 24, 2018, 05:44:04 am
Multithreading would cause an, at most, 10% increase in performance. Here's a solution for you: Don't do 16x16 embarks.Yeah, it seems to be limited by memory bandwidth. I recently double the memory in my machine (the CPU is quad-channel, and I only had two modules), and the speed of DF almost doubled confirming that it is not CPU limited but memory bandwidth limited.
And DF is supposed to be a more-or-less simulation rather than a game. Challenge isn't strictly needed.
Post by: Jack9 on August 31, 2018, 11:05:18 am
Dwarves are a hardy race, enamoured with alcohol, socks, cats, and geology.
They also, oddly, have evolved a society that loves weapons, accepts violence (the sheriff is a Hammerer), eschews bathing, and casually consumes raw animal meats (not that that's distinctive from other meats).
See a dismembered sentient creature's toe, they become horrified? How did Dwarven society even come into existence? It's thematically broken and the emotional stability of dwarves is so tenuous that it's not fun when your society falls apart for reasons that make no sense. This is why me and my GF quit. Might as well be playing Game of Life, it's about as fun.
Post by: Telgin on August 31, 2018, 11:26:44 am
Post by: Tinnucorch on August 31, 2018, 11:43:50 am
And in any case, it's still subject to changes.
Post by: pisskop on August 31, 2018, 01:14:04 pm
hello sieges my old friend . . .
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 31, 2018, 07:13:09 pm
Post by: KittyTac on August 31, 2018, 10:47:22 pm
40.11.That's an old version.
hello sieges my old friend . . .
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on August 31, 2018, 11:37:01 pm
Yeah. Not sure what this is referring to.40.11.That's an old version.
hello sieges my old friend . . .
Nostalgia for when the game had automatic sieges? That would be 34.11, I think.
Post by: RabblerouserGT on September 02, 2018, 06:21:13 am
Otherwise, I'm quite happy with how DF is rolling along.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on September 02, 2018, 06:36:21 am
I'd have to say it's less about the UI and more about how everyone makes excuses for it and denies that the UI could be more digestible, specifically the military screen.Do you have sources for that?
Can't think of anyone who's ever mentioned that the military screen doesn't need improvement.
You'll find that what a lot of people point out is that finalising the UI, when the game is only 40% complete is a waste of time. That's a valid point of view.
There's a tendancy for people to jump to defend things like the UI when other people post under the assumption that Dwarf Fortress is a finished game that Toady's just "wasting time" adding extra features to.
Post by: Robsoie on September 02, 2018, 06:47:12 am
Post by: Pvt. Pirate on September 04, 2018, 02:48:21 pm
same with some other smaller stuff. also it would be easier if the menu only appeared when using it and allowing mouseclicks there too.
having a more detailed info on the embark location selection screens would be great. i sometimes chose a location that looks promising and it is almost opposite to what i wanted (looking for a hillside to dig in and it turns out to be almost flat area or the other way around.)
Post by: KittyTac on September 04, 2018, 10:00:18 pm
the main problem is having stuff not using the same letters in the menues throughout ALL menues from the workshops the furniture is built in until placing them.You can press tab to see the elevation and slopes of areas.
same with some other smaller stuff. also it would be easier if the menu only appeared when using it and allowing mouseclicks there too.
having a more detailed info on the embark location selection screens would be great. i sometimes chose a location that looks promising and it is almost opposite to what i wanted (looking for a hillside to dig in and it turns out to be almost flat area or the other way around.)
Post by: Pvt. Pirate on September 05, 2018, 08:38:19 am
but not in which direction the slopes go. also those numbers refer to how they were in the first stages of worldgen - before erosion makes everything flat.the main problem is having stuff not using the same letters in the menues throughout ALL menues from the workshops the furniture is built in until placing them.You can press tab to see the elevation and slopes of areas.
same with some other smaller stuff. also it would be easier if the menu only appeared when using it and allowing mouseclicks there too.
having a more detailed info on the embark location selection screens would be great. i sometimes chose a location that looks promising and it is almost opposite to what i wanted (looking for a hillside to dig in and it turns out to be almost flat area or the other way around.)
Post by: IndigoFenix on September 05, 2018, 01:30:12 pm
Post by: nickbii on September 05, 2018, 11:56:04 pm
also it would be easier if the menu only appeared when using it and allowing mouseclicks there too.You can control when the menu appears.
DF defaults to a triple-paned screen, with the mini-mp on the left, menus in the middle, and the Z-level map on the right, but you can turn both the Z-level map and the menu off if you hit tab.
Mouse support would be nice, tho.
Post by: Pvt. Pirate on September 06, 2018, 10:02:37 am
well, that doesn't work too well with a 5:4 screen. i almost never use anything apart from the slender menu on the right, which then takes up 1/4 of the screen width.also it would be easier if the menu only appeared when using it and allowing mouseclicks there too.You can control when the menu appears.
DF defaults to a triple-paned screen, with the mini-mp on the left, menus in the middle, and the Z-level map on the right, but you can turn both the Z-level map and the menu off if you hit tab.
Mouse support would be nice, tho.
also streamlining constructions and buildings into ONE build menu, allowing to mass-deconstruct furniture and workshops the same way you have to use to deconstruct built walls and floors.
mining actions also working on constructed walls and floors. like where is the difference in making Fortificatiosn from a smoothed wall and a constructed wall? seriously.
Post by: Ghills on September 06, 2018, 12:48:11 pm
I'd have to say it's less about the UI and more about how everyone makes excuses for it and denies that the UI could be more digestible, specifically the military screen.Do you have sources for that?
Can't think of anyone who's ever mentioned that the military screen doesn't need improvement.
You'll find that what a lot of people point out is that finalising the UI, when the game is only 40% complete is a waste of time. That's a valid point of view.
There's a tendancy for people to jump to defend things like the UI when other people post under the assumption that Dwarf Fortress is a finished game that Toady's just "wasting time" adding extra features to.
I've personally seen people defend the AI as just fine, at least in reference to managing labors.
The thing about the DF UI is that players have to memorize a ton of different commands to be able to do even basic things. Especially in submenus. If the options were streamlined to be more predictable and the color scheme was changed to everything was more easily distinguishable I think that would help a lot. There's enough low-hanging fruit around for small improvements to make a big difference.
There's a counter-argument to the idea that fixing the UI is wasting time: replacing systems later is often a lot more work than doing them right the first time. The longer a fix is put off, the harder it will be to improve.
Post by: Xyon on September 06, 2018, 07:10:38 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on September 06, 2018, 07:25:08 pm
Well I feel like fortress mode really bogs down after 30 dwarfs with management of dwarfs requireing third party tools like dwarf therapist. And migrant waves happen either too often or are too largeMicromanagement of more than 30 dorfs requires tools maybe, but you don't actually need to do that. (I mean, some players need to micromanage of course, but there are other ways of playing the game).
Luckily even the devs say that the labour management system needs a complete overhaul (but with a different approach than the spreadsheet styles of Therapist/Manipulator etc).
Post by: KittyTac on September 06, 2018, 10:22:21 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on September 07, 2018, 03:55:35 am
I micromanaged 100 without DT. :PAnd some players are just crazy... :)
Post by: Fleeting Frames on September 07, 2018, 05:45:24 pm
Imagine you move into a new skyscraper with in-built tavern in bottom floor.
After walking in through the doors with images of antelopes, you're greeted by an interesting dwarf:
Wearing hemp sandals, worn blue pig tail socks, cow leather loincloth, flax tunic and blue pig tail cloak, this middle-aged bronze-skin has deigned to walk around with a mustache and minimal beard.
"Hello, new neighbour. May I show you around?" asks she.
"Indeed - please tell me about the spirit, families and cliques in the fortress. Any grudges I should look out for?" you reply.
"Well, going from your left, you see the founders along with some third wave people and a dancing ecru resident. The third wave ones are the ivory-skinned folk; all cousins to some degree."
You look, and see an ecletic and scarred group of bronze-skins wearing similar mismatch of fashion - the entertainer is even completely naked, but not minding any. Others have bare chest, or some parts covered by armour. Three of the founders wear their beard in four braids, and three of them are well-muscled, but one goes without mustache while another boasts pale head. The ivory-skinned dwarves have similar facial appearance, all have red hair and ochre eyes and they appear to be between ages 20 and 40. Many of them seem weathered by the sun.
Glancing further around you, you see that the mismatch continues - most boast a blue cloak to wear, and the most popular footwear choice seems to be sandals of various materials, mostly hemp, though shoes also make an appearance. Some go around in socks or even barefoot.
It seems the third wave cousins were unusual - two thirds of fortress has bronze skin, and third favors four-braided beards, though about tenth are completely bald - among them also an elderly pregnant lady clad in mailshirt. There are four further pregnant women - no, the last is rather a girl - in the fortress, three of them sporting a black mustache and dancing in a larger circle. The one with combed hair is giving youngest stink-eye.
As you complete turning your head to the right, you see two brown-haired dwarves with copper and bronze skin arguing in the library, and some even shouting angrily - and they all seem barely clothed, while the humans around them boast both clothes and tomes.
"Huh," you say, "I'm here for only ten seconds and I can already spy three grudges, including one between relatives."
"Indeed," your grudge agrees and points at one of the pregnant ladies in particular, "though there are more. Kivish there, for example, has grudges with three other working dwarves, and also the manager's pet cat. However, most people aren't here and thus don't meet each other." explains the guide.
"Who do meet together? The ones who arrived at same time?" you question.
"Only for the founders - others seem to know better the people they share their gods with, if they're not warriors or miners," your guide shares.
"Hm. So you get travellers often. Who is the most travelled person here, anyway?" you question.
"Depending on how you count, it's either Lolor there" - she points at a blind and bald dwarf with a blue jade mug in hand - " or old smith Dodók currently hundred flights down. Lolor joined the fort after touring dozen hillocks, six retreats and score goblin pits after the fort was founded. But the heavily-scarred Dodók was kidnapped as child twice, and then taken prisoner once he turned twelve. He moved from job to job in site to site, moving up from slave to informant to apprentice, before finally being reunited with his parents back in 73." your guide - who you now realize you don't know the name of - answers.
"Huh, is that unusual?"
"Dodók, yes. Lolor is followed by fourteen others boasting more than two dozens visits, but other dwarves have scarcely any."
"I now realize I don't recall your name, my guide. You've been telling me this about people for how long now?"
"Hello. As you can 'v'iew and 'z'ee, I am Rakust Tiristrakul, proficient bookbinder and dabbling architect with a gapped smile," she flashes her half-empty mouth, "and I've been talking with you for only a minute. Though you did spend fifteen seconds on looking around you." tells you Rakust, a blue smiley face.
"Strange. It feels like I've been noting down the clothing, appearance, personality, age, scars, relationships, clothing colour, previous history and visited sites and when they last met with their spouse for all my free time for four days now, and vast majority of dwarves aren't even in tavern," you wonder, "I couldn't possibly put faces and demeanor to names before next month comes."
"Nonsense - you wouldn't spend that long doing data entry and brute-force memorization. You'd just look 'does this smiley face does what I want'. "
"Yeah, I suppose so."
When everyone is a smiley face and you can more easily dig a moat than imagine someone's face, the fantasy the fantasy world simulator generates is usually going to be about architecture and maybe few caricatures noted for their profession, stress and maybe demands. Stories of fashion, separated families, simmering internal race war, inheritance drama or how on average new room compares to the mountainhome's are what we'd grasp in person in moments, but in-game have barriers barely shy of conquering hell.
Bilbo and Frodo could walk into our fort, carrying a different ring of power on each finger and boasting with tales of Shelob and their masters Gandalf and Sauron and tell tales of world's impending end, and we might only notice their woodcrafting and herbalism skills, then assign them to mining.
also streamlining constructions and buildings into ONE build menu, allowing to mass-deconstruct furniture and workshops the same way you have to use to deconstruct built walls and floors.This would, alongside engraving constructed walls and floors, would mechanically go very well alongside my in-progress priority script (that also handles do_now for non-workshop jobs).
But I am halted by the fact that then I don't know what to call it (and that I still have more of other priority-related stuff to implement) :P
Post by: psychohobbit1 on September 08, 2018, 02:31:31 am
Post by: dwarfhoplite on September 12, 2018, 07:05:43 am
Post by: KittyTac on September 12, 2018, 07:10:54 am
It is the slowing frame rate that is my biggest demotivator for not playing DF. I would like to build sprawling cities, even with reasonably low population, but the number of building blocks needed will kill the frame rate sooner than later. :(The game is not really built for making sprawling cities. You can't (and will never be able to) do everything in this game. It'll be more enjoyable if you keep that in mind.
Post by: rawrcakes on September 15, 2018, 01:08:42 pm
Post by: KittyTac on September 15, 2018, 11:00:18 pm
The lack of spacial realism, as in rooms needing Y-height and creatures taking more than one tile. I know, I know, the last at least will come eventually, but still.It's Z-height, not Y-height. Looks like you're a seasoned Minecraft player!
You would need Z-height in your rooms if you're playing a race of 10-meter-tall giants.
Post by: Adequate Swimmer on September 16, 2018, 08:59:18 am
The lack of spacial realism, as in rooms needing Y-height and creatures taking more than one tile. I know, I know, the last at least will come eventually, but still.
Wagons and trees already have multiple tiles, and wagons count as actual creatures.
Multi-tile dragons, serpents and tentacles could be rather trivial to add to the game. Anything else, months of work and hundreds of bugs. Also something like a swarm could be easily represented (eg composed of hundreds of actual bugs).
Post by: Fleeting Frames on September 16, 2018, 09:05:15 am
I accidentially reexperienced with proper mosquitos by adding the vermin to animal pops. Being so small, they're harder to kill than expected too.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 16, 2018, 09:21:56 am
Post by: KittyTac on September 16, 2018, 09:39:18 am
Toady wants individual tiles of multi-tile creatures to be damageable (and for non-square multi-tile creatures to be added), wagons are boring squares that can't be damaged normally.The lack of spacial realism, as in rooms needing Y-height and creatures taking more than one tile. I know, I know, the last at least will come eventually, but still.
Wagons and trees already have multiple tiles, and wagons count as actual creatures.
Multi-tile dragons, serpents and tentacles could be rather trivial to add to the game. Anything else, months of work and hundreds of bugs. Also something like a swarm could be easily represented (eg composed of hundreds of actual bugs).
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 16, 2018, 10:49:06 am
Post by: Fleeting Frames on September 16, 2018, 11:22:26 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 16, 2018, 11:40:53 am
Post by: Fleeting Frames on September 16, 2018, 12:34:08 pm
Post by: thefinn on September 16, 2018, 05:30:04 pm
Trying to get Large sized armor into a different stockpile as medium.
Trying to go through DFHACK to get *just* the right set of rules to stop a particular red line coming up in the log.
It's annoying as hell.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 17, 2018, 07:31:14 am
It's a bit opaque and obscure at times, but the job/stockpile system still has much power. And it grows by the version - workflow was practically added to the game! I use the manager to automate drink production, barrel production, clothing production, and produce orders larger than ten. If you've never used the manager for standing/conditional orders, I recommend it.
On magma wagons: pack animals can't be on a higher level than the wagons themselves? Why don't the pack animals halt and suffocate when they go up normal ramps? Come to think of it, how can they even move through the wall??
Post by: Pvt. Pirate on September 17, 2018, 09:06:57 am
Thefinn, have you tried using two workshops each linked to a different stockpile? Use one for only medium armor and the other for only large armor.linking workshops to stockpiles doesn't solve the problem with large equipment in a dwarven fort not being able to sort it to a different stockpile.
It's a bit opaque and obscure at times, but the job/stockpile system still has much power. And it grows by the version - workflow was practically added to the game! I use the manager to automate drink production, barrel production, clothing production, and produce orders larger than ten. If you've never used the manager for standing/conditional orders, I recommend it.
On magma wagons: pack animals can't be on a higher level than the wagons themselves? Why don't the pack animals halt and suffocate when they go up normal ramps? Come to think of it, how can they even move through the wall??
Post by: anewaname on September 17, 2018, 03:47:24 pm
Trying to get Large sized armor into a different stockpile as medium.Armor and Finished Good stockpiles have a 'u' "Usable/Unusable" setting that can be used to separate medium and large, armor or clothing. Toggle that.
Post by: Fleeting Frames on September 18, 2018, 04:12:57 am
|(https://i.imgur.com/xlG8Fnq.png)|
Post by: anewaname on September 18, 2018, 10:15:07 am
Could you please draw me a map to that? Can't see it.Just not possible, it doesn't exist... So, it is Armor and Weapon stockpiles that can use the Usable/Unusable flag to sort items by medium/large size and not Finished Goods.
|(https://i.imgur.com/xlG8Fnq.png)|
Post by: SpoCk0nd0pe on October 03, 2018, 09:04:05 am
Secondly some balance issues. How you could feed your entire population with just a couple of farm squares, how you could get a legendary weaponsmith in a few months while the rest of the world is stuck with items of mediocre quality.
Post by: zilpin on October 03, 2018, 04:40:14 pm
The outstanding nr 1 reason I stopped playing: Poor performance. Dying the fps death is the most unfun thing in DF. And there is no substantial improvement in sight as Toady doesn‘t even recognize the problem.
Secondly some balance issues. How you could feed your entire population with just a couple of farm squares, how you could get a legendary weaponsmith in a few months while the rest of the world is stuck with items of mediocre quality.
WARNING! THIS POST RATED 'D'!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Telgin on October 04, 2018, 09:03:20 am
It doesn't change the reality of FPS death, of course, but it's not like Toady doesn't care about game performance.
No arguments on the balance issues though, except that farming, too, is probably intended to be redone in a much more deep fashion in the future, which will very likely make it require a much more realistic amount of space.
Hmm, I guess that's kind of a running and general problem with DF: since everything is up for replacement or improvement in the future, parts tend to stay in a suboptimal state for years.
Post by: Oskar636PL on October 04, 2018, 11:56:38 am
Some menus you select with one keys and on other with others, sometimes you use the arrows to move and sometimes +-. I understand that the menu rework is the last thing on his list, but come ON! At least make the hardcoded keybindings consistent (by hardcoded I mean that one keybind is assigned to many menus so even rebinding doesn't work because you'll still need two different keys). I also despise the inconsistency with filtering. The general stock button needs at least filtering for categories of stuff, I hate going through all categories of items in the fortress just to see if I still have that one thing/book.
He really should do something about the books too, the books are really not worth the 1-2 minutes wait time on the world artifacts screen, and the worst part is sometimes a world will have like an artifact steel breastplate and that is just too goood to pass.
Post by: athenalras on October 07, 2018, 11:38:05 am
I know some people play fortress mode for the novelty of just creating some zany dwarf tricks but I tend to go for the sustainable route; something I can always just go back to and just enjoy the world simulation Toady created.
In a way, I appreciate the pseudo-god side of this game moreso than the way I can force creatures to interact with their environment via weather, temperature or just throwing them off some heights.
So yeah: the eventual FPS death is a huge bummer for me and the fact that Toady is just blowing up the game with more and more complex simulations makes me a bit sad since eventually, even the current "sustainable" route will eventually become like any other fortress that only lasts a few years and then grinds to a halt.
Post by: malvado on October 07, 2018, 04:00:29 pm
The eventual FPS death. There are some tricks to avoiding this but generally, it requires a small, efficient fortress. And even then, fps death is not guaranteed.
I know some people play fortress mode for the novelty of just creating some zany dwarf tricks but I tend to go for the sustainable route; something I can always just go back to and just enjoy the world simulation Toady created.
In a way, I appreciate the pseudo-god side of this game moreso than the way I can force creatures to interact with their environment via weather, temperature or just throwing them off some heights.
So yeah: the eventual FPS death is a huge bummer for me and the fact that Toady is just blowing up the game with more and more complex simulations makes me a bit sad since eventually, even the current "sustainable" route will eventually become like any other fortress that only lasts a few years and then grinds to a halt.
Thats basically why I would prefer Toady using a year or two or even more to do improvements in performance through using more cpu ( more cores, better ways of handling the current data, improvements to database handlings ) and even though I have heard it before here, I personally think its now the best way to continue making the game enjoyable for everyone.
Yes, the things Toady adds are really precious, there's a lot of good changes, but the game is also slowing down making it unplayable on some setups after you get past certain aspects of the game, like population count, size of embark + time passed , animals and so much more...
Personally I've more or less stopped spending time in this forum and stopped the game, but it's still something I care about and wishes that it could evolve into something even better for everyone...
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on October 07, 2018, 05:20:32 pm
Hasn't since the massive rewrite which switched on the world several years ago. If anything, despite all the additional mechanics added since then, it's faster. That's due to a few optimization tweaks Toady made despite more myths which say he doesn't do any.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on October 07, 2018, 05:28:47 pm
Also as Toady has said, hes not gonna take a sizeable time out to do performance things unless he really really has to for some reason. He has no interest in refactoring systems some of which he'll have to turn around and immediately rewrite again for the many huge content systems still to come.
Post by: malvado on October 07, 2018, 06:09:17 pm
Except that, no, the game isn't slowing down.
Hasn't since the massive rewrite which switched on the world several years ago. If anything, despite all the additional mechanics added since then, it's faster. That's due to a few optimization tweaks Toady made despite more myths which say he doesn't do any.
Well, in that case the game should be more playable here :
5 years ago : 150 dwarves , around 60 to 80 fps. More things that are being used such as lava power generators, lava pumps from 80 leves bellow and some other things while building more of the fortress.
1 Year ago : 150 dwarves , around 5 to 6 fps. Less things being done, no lava power generators, no lava pumps from 80 levels bellow active and so on.
Same cpu ( yes, getting an upgrade soon ) same memory 16Gb , same speeds. It's an FX 8350 bought in 2013.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on October 07, 2018, 06:22:18 pm
World activation was 2014...Except that, no, the game isn't slowing down.
Hasn't since the massive rewrite which switched on the world several years ago. If anything, despite all the additional mechanics added since then, it's faster. That's due to a few optimization tweaks Toady made despite more myths which say he doesn't do any.
Well, in that case the game should be more playable here :
5 years ago : 150 dwarves , around 60 to 80 fps. More things that are being used such as lava power generators, lava pumps from 80 leves bellow and some other things while building more of the fortress.
1 Year ago : 150 dwarves , around 5 to 6 fps. Less things being done, no lava power generators, no lava pumps from 80 levels bellow active and so on.
Same cpu ( yes, getting an upgrade soon ) same memory 16Gb , same speeds. It's an FX 8350 bought in 2013.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on October 08, 2018, 07:20:47 am
Post by: Telgin on October 08, 2018, 09:57:57 am
Post by: Saiko Kila on October 08, 2018, 11:27:57 am
Post by: malvado on October 08, 2018, 03:15:21 pm
I'm impressed at the thought of someone getting 80fps with 150 dwarves and an 80-level magma pump stack in a mature fort active in any version, especially on 2013 hardware that almost seems to beg belief
It was operated by filling a certain area 10 levels up with magma then taking that lava up another 10-20 levels ( can't recall exactly ). At the end I had the reservoir and defense ready and the magma pumps where deactivated.
If I recall exactly some versions later you would start seeing more fps fall by doing similar actions and in the end it started being less playable and fun even when reducing citizens, critters and micro managing paths , movements etc.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on October 09, 2018, 05:52:47 am
I'm impressed at the thought of someone getting 80fps with 150 dwarves and an 80-level magma pump stack in a mature fort active in any version, especially on 2013 hardware that almost seems to beg belief
It was operated by filling a certain area 10 levels up with magma then taking that lava up another 10-20 levels ( can't recall exactly ). At the end I had the reservoir and defense ready and the magma pumps where deactivated.
If I recall exactly some versions later you would start seeing more fps fall by doing similar actions and in the end it started being less playable and fun even when reducing citizens, critters and micro managing paths , movements etc.
Does your current machine still run pre-DF2014 builds as fast as it used to? I know I was surprised by the game getting slow very fast when I went back to a real old DF version
Post by: RenoFox on October 09, 2018, 07:02:22 am
For new players, a tutorial would be a must. There are thousands of people who find Dwarf Fortress intriguing but find the learning curve too daunting to get started.
In adventure mode my biggest problem is the lack of stuff to accomplish. All the best gear can simply be found for free from any random keep, spreading stories of your exploits only affects the number of followers, and even taking over keeps only results in a message and reverts out of your control as soon as you retire. It sounds like the next update is starting to change that in the better direction though.
Post by: KittyTac on October 09, 2018, 07:35:53 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 09, 2018, 11:45:20 am
Post by: KittyTac on October 09, 2018, 08:41:20 pm
Post by: malvado on October 12, 2018, 02:02:13 pm
I'm impressed at the thought of someone getting 80fps with 150 dwarves and an 80-level magma pump stack in a mature fort active in any version, especially on 2013 hardware that almost seems to beg belief
It was operated by filling a certain area 10 levels up with magma then taking that lava up another 10-20 levels ( can't recall exactly ). At the end I had the reservoir and defense ready and the magma pumps where deactivated.
If I recall exactly some versions later you would start seeing more fps fall by doing similar actions and in the end it started being less playable and fun even when reducing citizens, critters and micro managing paths , movements etc.
Does your current machine still run pre-DF2014 builds as fast as it used to? I know I was surprised by the game getting slow very fast when I went back to a real old DF version
Took me some time to get an old version up and running, but it seems so. Will have to play for a while to answer correctly, but right now with an increase in population to 88 and a lot of tasks going on the fps fall is still not even close to what happens in the same situation on newer versions.
Will let increase to 120 and see.
Post by: Robsoie on October 12, 2018, 05:52:43 pm
originally 34.11 had some very problematic bug (the temperature one (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=6012) that was leading to heavy fps problems) that were fixed with DF 2014 (and superior), but some genius coders fixed those bugs for 34.11 thanks to dfhack (the one i use with 34.11 is dfhack 0.34.11-r3 (https://github.com/DFHack/dfhack/releases/tag/0.34.11-r3) ) and Quiestus patches, the whole makes the game just run better.
And the bugfixed 34.11 allows me for the same type of fortress to play on a larger map (not the world map size, the map size on which you play with your fortress) for the same kind of fps i have with the latest version.
For those interested in still running good old 34.11 , there are some more point of interest :
There's the 34.11 patched version (with most Quiestus binpatches to fix some outstanding 34.11 bugs and features dfhack too) :
http://dffd.bay12games.com/file.php?id=7207
There's also the Modest mod that bring more bugfixes to 34.11
http://dffd.bay12games.com/file.php?id=6028
And a mix of Modest and Accelerated mods to benefit from the Modest mod bugfixes and the increase of fps due to the item simplification of Accelerated for 34.11
http://dffd.bay12games.com/file.php?id=7059
And while you're at it, load this fort that has 400 dwarves and still run at more than 180fps
http://dffd.bay12games.com/file.php?id=7750
Post by: Showbiz on October 16, 2018, 07:08:14 am
Post by: KittyTac on October 16, 2018, 07:19:22 am
Military is kinda a painIt's fiddly, but once you do it one time, you will learn how to do it.
Post by: Pvt. Pirate on October 16, 2018, 09:58:14 am
i can make squads, have them find weapons(+ammo) and armor and send them around.Military is kinda a painIt's fiddly, but once you do it one time, you will learn how to do it.
but i never got a working barracks, archery range or a schedule working, even when following the wiki guide by the word.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on October 16, 2018, 03:11:54 pm
The wiki is slightly more detailed than it needs to be due to the need for workarounds for bugs in the past. Barracks, archery, etc, Just Works these days.i can make squads, have them find weapons(+ammo) and armor and send them around.Military is kinda a painIt's fiddly, but once you do it one time, you will learn how to do it.
but i never got a working barracks, archery range or a schedule working, even when following the wiki guide by the word.
Post by: nickbii on October 16, 2018, 04:33:50 pm
I have never even tried a barracks where they sleep. I've set up an archery range or three, but I've never seen them use their archery range. They must do it sometimes otherwise nobody would be a Marksdwarf.i can make squads, have them find weapons(+ammo) and armor and send them around.Military is kinda a painIt's fiddly, but once you do it one time, you will learn how to do it.
but i never got a working barracks, archery range or a schedule working, even when following the wiki guide by the word.
But getting them to train at an armor stand is quite easy. Build the armor stand, use 'q' to make it a room and assign it a squad. Then his 's', and switch your chosen squad from inactive to training. Within a month or so everyone should switch from Farmer/peasant/whatever to Recruit/Wrestler/Axedwarf/whatever.
Archery is basically the same. But you have to tell them which direction to shoot their target.
Post by: Senator Jim Death on October 16, 2018, 06:09:21 pm
Do armor stands and weapon racks work for storage yet? I define barracks from items other than those two things because they were never used for storing stuff in older versions, and a barracks defined from a bed works the same way as one defined by a weapon rack. It's actually okay that they never worked: military dwarves can and should just carry their equipment all the time because trying to change it out is buggy and inefficient anyway. The whole "store the swords in the armory and have dwarves grab them for training or emergencies" system makes intuitive sense and feels good from a "roleplaying" perspective, so some new players are certain to try it. If they keep playing, they will eventually realize it's a pain to get to work right and isn't practical in emergencies since there's no penalty for a dwarf who just carries his weapons everywhere.
Then there're training weapons, which are actually harmful to use now that dwarves can get attached to items and sparring is pretty much totally safe.
Ammo is still buggy and inefficient. Bolts are available in the thousands and the one squad has 500 bolts reserved, with none reserved for hunters. I still have marksdwarves that don't shoot bolts reliably because they're on the ground in the stockpile rather than in their quivers.
The military is actually pretty reliable in these versions. But the UI is still clunky, dwarves still don't always equip properly, and new players aren't going to understand why things don't just work right. Sure, there are workarounds and other ways to do the things that need to be done to have a functional military. But it doesn't help the game's image to have obtuse or broken things running around in a system of such critical importance to a fort. Things like this are why people dismiss the game as buggy or unstable.
I guess my thing is that I don't care so much about all the old timers who are used to the DF way of doing things. I want DF to have a future, and so I want new players to be able to understand the way the game works, too.
Post by: KittyTac on October 16, 2018, 10:16:30 pm
Post by: Pvt. Pirate on October 17, 2018, 08:55:35 am
exactly my thoughts on that. from playing the adventuremode two times, i understood how complicated it is to equip dorfs, but why should that also apply to the dorfs running around in Fort mode?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
As i never got a real good mil running with barracks, I tend to just prepare for total lockdown for the case of any invaders showing up.
for gobbos, elves and humans, i got traps and an array of mean defences that don't even require any of my dorfs to go into melee.
Post by: sketchesofpayne on October 18, 2018, 01:53:23 am
Detailed Uniform:
- metal mail
- metal breastplate
- metal greaves
- metal gauntlets
- metal helm
- metal high boot
- cloth tunic
- cloth trousers
- cloth cloak
- cloth hood
- cloth socks
- leather gloves
- metal shield
- metal (weapon)
Now, a known bug is the military dwarves not replacing worn out parts of the uniform. So when I notice they're missing something or wearing worn out clothes I go in and switch their uniform to this one:
- cloth robe
- cloth shoe
- leather leggings
So three things not part of their regular uniform. So once they change clothes, I set them back to their regular uniform and they'll find fresh replacements for everything, and pick better quality armor if it's available. I also run a "drill" every so often where I activate the squad and station them somewhere. They'll spend some time gathering weapons and ammo if they don't already have them. That way when you actually need them they should be ready to go right away.
Post by: nezclaw on October 18, 2018, 01:49:59 pm
i've never been able to figure out how to send them on patrols. i also get annoyed sometimes when there's something that requires a lot of input/monitoring from you but you also need to be checking up on the rest of the fortress. although i kinda made that mess myself...The wiki is slightly more detailed than it needs to be due to the need for workarounds for bugs in the past. Barracks, archery, etc, Just Works these days.i can make squads, have them find weapons(+ammo) and armor and send them around.Military is kinda a painIt's fiddly, but once you do it one time, you will learn how to do it.
but i never got a working barracks, archery range or a schedule working, even when following the wiki guide by the word.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 19, 2018, 12:17:01 am
Also, there are ways to prevent fluid disasters. First, avoid scenarios that require you to pull the right lever at the right time or else your fortress floods. Automatic shutoffs can be created using pressure plates to detect when the fluid has reached the desired level. Locked hatches and doors can be used to seal off areas that might flood, so prudent placement of these can save a fortress. It can be useful to create a single lever room that is sealed from danger, including fluids. One way of protecting a lever room from fluids is to install a “U-trap”. If the only path into a room requires going up, then forcing the path through a diagonal gap at a point below the opening into the room will prevent the fluid from entering. This is because pressure cannot flow through diagonals. A simple and compact way of achieving this is to dig three tiles below a hallway, with one of them being only diagonally connected.
Code: (level below a hallway) [Select]
OOO
<_O
OO<Then wall off the upper hallway at a point between the two downstairs.
Post by: Atomisk on October 19, 2018, 05:20:02 am
Maybe it's uncanny valley for me in terms of how much my dwarves feel. The other day a dwarf walked up to my queen sitting on her throne, flashing red down arrow, and apparently, yelled and cried on her shoulder. Both events left my queen Empathetic and the other dwarf Relieved and I nearly let my coffee get cold thinking about trying to get the poor dwarf something to relax.
Post by: Bumber on October 20, 2018, 08:34:45 am
It can be useful to create a single lever room that is sealed from danger, including fluids. One way of protecting a lever room from fluids is to install a “U-trap”. If the only path into a room requires going up, then forcing the path through a diagonal gap at a point below the opening into the room will prevent the fluid from entering.It would be a moot point if nobody's there to pull the levers. I put my levers in the booze hall.
Post by: nezclaw on October 20, 2018, 02:07:45 pm
Patrols require setting up a route with Notes first.Ah, i did not know about the pressure plates. i did have a fluid disaster early on in my adventures and had to roll back my fortress after i did something really stupid with the river. ended up abandoning it anyway because goblins. fortunately my current fluid-based problem isn't going to spread to the whole fortress, the area that got flooded was the lowest part of that section of caves and i already had some water set up to do some obsidian casting nearby.
Also, there are ways to prevent fluid disasters. First, avoid scenarios that require you to pull the right lever at the right time or else your fortress floods. Automatic shutoffs can be created using pressure plates to detect when the fluid has reached the desired level. Locked hatches and doors can be used to seal off areas that might flood, so prudent placement of these can save a fortress. It can be useful to create a single lever room that is sealed from danger, including fluids. One way of protecting a lever room from fluids is to install a “U-trap”. If the only path into a room requires going up, then forcing the path through a diagonal gap at a point below the opening into the room will prevent the fluid from entering. This is because pressure cannot flow through diagonals. A simple and compact way of achieving this is to dig three tiles below a hallway, with one of them being only diagonally connected.Code: (level below a hallway) [Select]OOO
<_O
OO<
Then wall off the upper hallway at a point between the two downstairs.
[edit] it may end up being a moot point anyway, as there was a fire-breathing forgotten beast that completely torched the place, and my dwarves, and my stockpiles, and the floodgate that was supposed to hold back the water
Post by: JesterHell696 on October 20, 2018, 09:21:47 pm
There is a tutorial. It's called Dwarf Fortress Wiki.
Most people I know think that needing to use an external guide is insufficient to be called a tutorial and I tend to agree.
It's fiddly, but once you do it one time, you will learn how to do it.
I've learnt how to use the military but its still a pain/annoyance, its about QoL and the current system is usable but undesirable.
Post by: KittyTac on October 20, 2018, 09:27:36 pm
Looks like Toady doesn't, judging by his actions and the fact that the game points you to the wiki upon starting worldgen.There is a tutorial. It's called Dwarf Fortress Wiki.
Most people I know think that needing to use an external guide is insufficient to be called a tutorial and I tend to agree.
Post by: Draco18s on October 21, 2018, 11:15:16 am
Post by: Senator Jim Death on October 21, 2018, 03:51:25 pm
Something something Minecraft doesn't have a tutorial either (there's kind of one now with the achievements/advancements, but its not really the same thing).
Come on now. Minecraft isn't nearly as involved as DF.
DF's not really the kind of game that tutorials work well for, anyhow, beyond maybe something on how to pick an embark area and profile that won't screw a new player over. It's sorta intended that a new player will lose forts and learn from their mistakes. Mistakes because of things like fighting the UI are different from gameplay mistakes like not making enough booze or embarking in an evil region without really understanding what that means. That design decision is probably repellent to a lot of potential players, but with the wiki it can sorta be worked around in a lot of cases.
Things that don't work correctly or whose behaviors are not well explained (or studied and explained, I guess) are separate problems that both new and old players can run up against.
Post by: Bumber on October 22, 2018, 08:59:49 am
Those crafting recipes, though. The first time I played MC, it was in Alpha, and all I ended up doing was punching my way to bedrock. Didn't try playing again until it was in Beta and I had checked the wiki.Something something Minecraft doesn't have a tutorial either (there's kind of one now with the achievements/advancements, but its not really the same thing).Come on now. Minecraft isn't nearly as involved as DF.
Post by: Pvt. Pirate on October 22, 2018, 12:16:52 pm
DF's not really the kind of game that tutorials work well for, anyhow, beyond maybe something on how to pick an embark area and profile that won't screw a new player over. It's sorta intended that a new player will lose forts and learn from their mistakes. Mistakes because of things like fighting the UI are different from gameplay mistakes like not making enough booze or embarking in an evil region without really understanding what that means. That design decision is probably repellent to a lot of potential players, but with the wiki it can sorta be worked around in a lot of cases.THIS.
Things that don't work correctly or whose behaviors are not well explained (or studied and explained, I guess) are separate problems that both new and old players can run up against.
when starting, i read a lot in the wiki and even watched some LPs and without those LPs i wouldn't even have had the slightest idea what my mistakes would have been, because there's nothing wrong with assuming that things work similiar to eachother, but in DF they just simply don't.
if it weren't for the LPs, i would've had no idea that i even could put up a manager, trader, bookkeeper and that i would need them.
i would've been totally confused about why in half of all menues the cursor doesnt move, because i didn't know they suddenly need +- or wsad or uhmk or PgUp/PgDown without an apparant reason fo this strange behaviour.
or the strange Bin behaviours putting a fort to a halt.
failing because of such things is NOT creating a learning effect, but it creates a lot of frustration and it keeps people from enjoying even a defeat.
Losing is fun only if the rules of the game were clear and the player(s) had a (preferably fair) chance.
otherwise it is like not knowing that putting the 8 into the pocket ends a round of billiard with you losing, if done at the wrong moment and everyone claiming you just lost and taking your bet money, but noone explains the rules to you.
Post by: JesterHell696 on November 15, 2018, 05:43:49 am
Looks like Toady doesn't, judging by his actions and the fact that the game points you to the wiki upon starting worldgen.
My understanding is that Toady pointing to the wiki is a temp thing, as in its good enough for now and not a its good enough full stop kind of thing, after all the OP by ThreeToe says.
More specifically, what problems did you have before learning the ropes of the game? We figure we are losing 90% of the players because of the UI and other barriers, and that doesn’t even count the ones scared away by the ASCII graphics. Now, this doesn’t mean we are about abandon the rest of the game to start the presentation arc. It is just as important to have endless monster attacks from the underground, and challenging sieges.
What do you think is scaring people away? The building placement? Designations? The embark screen? Or maybe its finding the right tile sets and setting them up. We are hoping at some point to build easier commands and tutorials to help bring in more players. We have to identify the main culprits first. So what is frustrating you the most about Dwarf Fortress?
So saying "just use the wiki" in a thread that specifically asks people what problem do they think are turning people away from playing is counter productive, the point of this thread is to present problems that hinder new players from playing and the lack of a proper tutorial is one such problem and the wiki existing does not stop it from being a problem.
Post by: KittyTac on November 15, 2018, 06:33:35 am
Ask him on FOTF if it actually is.Looks like Toady doesn't, judging by his actions and the fact that the game points you to the wiki upon starting worldgen.
My understanding is that Toady pointing to the wiki is a temp thing, as in its good enough for now and not a its good enough full stop kind of thing, after all the OP by ThreeToe says.
Post by: Lestrage on November 27, 2018, 09:23:16 am
My first few goes on DF revolved around how to make or find a bucket and how to give this to the dorfs as I thought this was why they were starving.
I had no idea what to do and where to start. Or what even any of the visual stuff meant.
I'm still vague about stuff like minecarts and mechanics as I do not play often non-stop.
I think some explained-example-tutorials with diagrams might help. eg It details steps and diagrams to do a specific thing. - like all the steps needed to mine and channel below ground, or how to set up stairs, or steps to set up your basic military, or steps to making food and drinks, or examples of how to set up workshops and make items.
Post by: Mediterraneo on November 30, 2018, 03:22:58 am
I can often know the eye-color of a creature, just looking at it under its closed helm, but I cannot really say if it has an helm at all.
Also, I don't know if someone, or some procedurally generated monster is "enormous" as in 7 feet tall or 70.
I'd really like information on that, hovering or clicking on creatures
Post by: anewaname on November 30, 2018, 11:56:06 am
The single issue I still have on DF, which I didn't read here before is the lack of important information on the creatures.You can check inventory of creatures using 'v', But I have this consideration also. It would be excellent to have some idea of a creature's volume from viewing it, then you can guess how hard it might hit based on what material it is made of.
I can often know the eye-color of a creature, just looking at it under its closed helm, but I cannot really say if it has an helm at all.
Also, I don't know if someone, or some procedurally generated monster is "enormous" as in 7 feet tall or 70.
I'd really like information on that, hovering or clicking on creatures
Post by: Casany on November 30, 2018, 08:00:49 pm
I started playing DF a year ago. I’d watched some videos of Quill18 playing it but otherwise I had no clue what it really was and I did not have any idea how to work the UI. My first fort was where I learned how to use squads, designations and buildings. The second I got zoned and stockpiles, and finally I got the rest on my 3rd-5th forts. It really wasn’t that difficult for me to learn. All the hotkeys are there with name such as “Designations, Buildings, Squads, Military, Stockpiles, Zones.” Like it may not look great but as long as you know space pauses it’s easy to work it out.
At least that’s just my opinion on that issue.
My main problem, and something that has caused me to be very on again off again is optimization. I have a good PC, I always limit pop to 100, and I always move my view to undiscovered rocks when I’m not doing anything. And usually I don’t reveal caves until I have to. But I always die of FPS death by year 4 at the latest, and that’s caused me to not really want to invest time into these forts.
Post by: sketchesofpayne on December 01, 2018, 03:02:31 pm
My main problem, and something that has caused me to be very on again off again is optimization. I have a good PC, I always limit pop to 100, and I always move my view to undiscovered rocks when I’m not doing anything. And usually I don’t reveal caves until I have to. But I always die of FPS death by year 4 at the latest, and that’s caused me to not really want to invest time into these forts.What do you consider to be "FPS Death?" 20 FPS is quite playable and even 15 can work. For me sub-15 is where it becomes a problem. I recently played a 200 dwarf fort for twelve in-game years and it was pretty steady around 20 FPS. Animal pathing was the biggest drain on FPS. I solved this by putting all the non-grazers in cages and all the grazers on restraints.
Also, even if you have a "good PC," the main factor in Dwarf Fortress performance is your CPU's single-thread performance (https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html). (I have an Intel i7-3770K which is rated 2083 on the linked benchmark list.) Your video card makes little difference and I've never seen Dwarf Fortress use more than 3 gigs of RAM.
Post by: Robsoie on December 01, 2018, 09:27:28 pm
- smaller map size (default is 4x4 but you can still make decent enough fortress with 2x2 , and additionally it can be more challenging too as invaders are then more dangerous as they don't have to travel as long before reaching your walls)
- no more than 100 dwarves , apparently 100 is the minimum to have all the DF features according to wiki, but if you don't care about fortress evolving into a city or metropolis (that requires apparently 120 and 140 pop), 80 is even better.
- atom smasher (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Atom_smasher) (as simple as making a 3x3 raising bridge in a 3x3 room closed by a door and controlled by a lever) is a must to get rid of the thousand of useless objects (oh those very competent fisherdwarves and the tons of mussel shells garbage resulting and those gobs invasions meeting your competent dwarven warriors) that will soon be part of your fortress
- quantum stockpiles (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Quantum_stockpile) with a minecart stop are a must so when an ai needs an item, it's all in the same place so no pathfinding through the whole fort to get all the items it needs) , they're not as easy to setup as an atom smasher but once you have done them once or twice it's easy to redo them
- Setup large zone of traffic set to Restricted (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Traffic) where no dwarf has any business to go over the map, will spare pathfinding calculations.
also make sure there is no door with "Keep tightly closed" enabled to prevent animals to go through them, it's a great way to heavily destroy your framerate
Cut trees regularly, this to prevent dwarves to accidentally (often when they are in a fight against an opponent or running after an animal) climbing on top of a tree and staying there without knowing how to get back, they can hammer badly the framerate (especially if they're getting a mood or are part of a squad you sent to a raid)
Apparently playing on young world can help too due to the game having then less historical figure/items to keep track of
I've been able on an old potatoe to run a 20 years old fortress in one of the 44.xx releases without framerate dropping below 50 in those conditions.
Sure i would love to not be forced to use all those tricks and limiting then what can be done in DF in order to keep the game comfortably playable enough for me , but considering low fps means everything even the simplest of task takes forever to be done and make it so incredibly boring, those tricks are currently the only way i found to no stop playing the recent versions of DF as i didn't needed that much self imposed limitations in pre-DF2014.
Post by: sketchesofpayne on December 02, 2018, 03:17:09 am
but considering low fps means everything even the simplest of task takes forever to be done and make it so incredibly boring, those tricks are currently the only way i found to no stop playing the recent versions of DF as i didn't needed that much self imposed limitations in pre-DF2014.Whether my FPS is 60 or 15 doesn't matter so much to me because either way I always have netflix, youtube, or twitch going on my second monitor. I'm also usually combing through Legends Viewer or typing up a seasonal log entry on the fort's progress.
Also, newer versions of Dwarf Fortress run faster and more stable than older versions for me. A couple months ago I played a 40.24 fort and it didn't run as well as the 44.12 forts I've played since then.
Post by: Robsoie on December 02, 2018, 10:24:03 am
Post by: Draco18s on December 02, 2018, 04:43:59 pm
- smaller map size (default is 4x4 but you can still make decent enough fortress with 2x2 , and additionally it can be more challenging too as invaders are then more dangerous as they don't have to travel as long before reaching your walls)
1x1 embarks were also possible at one point, thought I've long since forgotten how.
I remember quite fondly the 1x1 volcano embark I did, where half my initial seven burned to death in mere moments.
Post by: sketchesofpayne on December 02, 2018, 07:09:14 pm
While it's true that the DF2014 performance has improved since the original 40.xx release , older versions than DF2014 (the 4x.xx serie are all part of DF2014 ) like 34.11 by example (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=34311.msg7870426#msg7870426) ran faster and so allowed for less tricks to be used to keep good enough fps.I will take your word for it. I haven't tried running new versions on an old machine, or old versions on my new machine.
1x1 embarks were also possible at one point,You can still do 1x1 embarks. One issue is that you can easily run out of metal ore or other resources if your fort lasts for many years. Also having enough trees for wood supply may be an issue.
Post by: Iduno on December 03, 2018, 04:59:26 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on December 03, 2018, 06:16:00 pm
Post by: FantasticDorf on December 06, 2018, 04:28:21 am
The ability to restart within the first year under the same place, saved embark settings and same set of dwarves would be ideal as a little bit of a time rewind, then any disaster afterwards can be written off as just playing the game and took in good stead.
I could otherwise make a save backup each time i embark but that'd be a lot of work each time.
Post by: feelotraveller on December 06, 2018, 08:35:54 pm
[INITIAL_SAVE:YES]
("Set this to YES if you want it to save the game when you start a new fortress.")
If using autobackup and you want to 'reload' simply rename the initial save by deleting the date appended to the filename. If autoback is not set to yes it will be necessary to rename the initial save before saving over it.
Problem solved. :)