Bay 12 Games Forum

Oh boy... I hate to say it, but these arguments are getting a tad out of hand.

I mean Kohaku, you have some kind of a point in your arguments but it seems you tend to harp on the same complaint over and over again.
By now, we know where you stand on these things and plenty of people seem to agree with certain points you make, but they seem not to agree with the way
you present them (or how often you present them). It seems like to me you tend to get too defensive about rather minute things, granted though I also notice certain people seem to try to provoke you (which succeeds a bit too easily).

You also point out that the vanguards might be causing problems with their dismissing certain questions, but I think people generally take their actions as antagonistic when they are on the receiving end (some of them are rude about it, which doesn't help matters; I have reframed from asking certain questions due to the possibility of it seeming like a "veiled suggestion," but usually in those cases it deals with a feature I assume Toady already has planned but hasn't yet implemented). But honestly, most are trying to help. A suggestion belongs in the suggestion forum, not to die but to grow. There it can be discussed, added to, brainstormed, and ironed out. Here... it will die. It will be lost among the tons of questions and answers and eventually be forgotten. As for suggestions not making in the game, this game is still a mere fledgling compared to the the game it will be someday. Suggestions will be added when the game is more stable. It will take time before Toady can incorporate others' ideas into his own. People already complain about feature creep with Toady adding ideas he was going to add eventually anyway, how about with feature creep from suggestions. But some features, like the tabs in the units screen were suggested by users. So it isn't like Toady doesn't listen, he just has a lot of other stuff to sort out first.

Aside from that, to people complaining about bugs. Remember that not all the bugs need fixing. Some need to be surgically removed like a dead liver and replaced with a functioning one. In the case of animal training for example, it wasn't a mere fix that needed some minor arbitrary recoding but an overhaul of something that was fundamentally broken. Another thing is some bugs, are there and might as well stay until an overhaul happens. For example, Toady mentioned pathing AI needs to be rewritten when moving fortress parts are added in. If he "fixes" pathing bugs now and later on has to overhaul the system anyway, what was gained? Another example with the interface, if he makes a new user interface what happens when it becomes obsolete and needs to be redone yet again (I'm not saying he shouldn't work on the interface at all, just pointing out that even if he does fix it up that it will have to be redone again eventually)? You could say these can be avoided by proper planning, but then again isn't complaining for him to do this stuff earlier than he intends to be breaking his plan anyway?

Finally, on the balance issue vs. bug argument I see balance issues as being bugs, but rather low priority ones. This is not because they aren't important, but because balancing issues need to be studied and tweaked multiple times before the proper balance is found. And balance issues tend to be not problems with the feature not working, just not working perfectly the way intended but functioning as expected.  Sometimes, like above, balancing certain things too early can be wasted time if a future feature upsets the balance anyway.

Altogether, I ain't exactly worried about the game being the perfect game at this point as some people seem to. I mean, the game is still in alpha. Even if you can argue that it is almost a full-fledged game the way it is, this doesn't change the fact the game is still infantile in its growth. I follow DF, not simply because of the gameplay or the community (even though those are major pluses), but because of the ambition behind the project as a whole. I'm here to watch it grow and see how it develops. In all truth, Toady is living my life long dream. He's designing something beyond application, simulation, and even game qualities. If and when he finishes this project calling it a game won't exactly be true, nor would simulation. It would be more like interactive artistic fiction. I would like to see what happens when this project finally reaches that state of existence. This isn't the only game that is reaching for new heights in these terms, but this is the one I decided to watch.

I do like the ideas of the DM being a Chief Medical Dwarf type noble, giving him priority over tougher training. As well as the idea about being able to write books that could improve training knowledge for creatures (which could then be traded to improve the knowledge on the civ level).

I thought of a lot of neat ways it could be used in conjunction with other systems, particularly metal smelting and forging as well as book writing and knowledge trade. Though the idea of civ knowledge effecting quality in the case of metal-smithing, makes me wonder if quality levels need to be redefined. The civ/fort knowledge could also be used as I mentioned earlier to establish a sort of culture between civs. If this ended up being the case the civ you pick as your home civ might become more important in the development of your fort. Farming could also use a similar knowledge-base for the different crops as well.