March 6, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.12 has been released.
News: February 3, 2024: The February '24 Report is up.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
[ August 10, 2007: Message edited by: Lightman ]
If there were to be hospitals, I also don't think they should get too complicated. Maybe the noble idea would work. The Physician noble could allow dwarves to be designated medics. The Physician would demand 1 medic per X number of dwarves.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorjo MacGrymm of Clan MacGrymm:
<STRONG>Playing SMARTLY (as everyone seems to like to call it) means playing the game in such a way as to ENJOY it the most.</STRONG>
Precisely the idea. And, well, I, for one, chose to call it "playing smartly" 
Cheers, MacGrymm & Neonivek, for keeping in constructive mindsets. I hope nothing I wrote was misconstrued as being hostile, in any way.
I wanted to go back to the original topic:
Of course, there are already many mechanisms for difficulty in the game. It works, even though it requires players to manage so much themselves. So, I can understand people saying, "what's the point?" because the game is planned to change a lot and it's possible now (in a way). A quick fix could just as quickly be invalidated by the next version and they're concerned it's a waste of time.
However, as my first post suggested, I agree it would be possible, and probably beneficial, to set up some kind of quick-start interface that automates some starting conditions etc.
I wonder if this isn't something people could do as a third-party tool?
I wouldn't compare "Sim Ant" to "Halo 3" because they are vastly different games. Similarly, I think Fable is a poor choice to compare with DF.
I've tried to make my point clear and simple. I'll try one more time:
The "you-can-win secret" is no secret. That is my point - players can invent their own goals.
<STRONG>For these people obviously their Win Scenario is to have a established mountainhome but they are finding it too easy unless they play in their mind dumber.</STRONG>
Yes... and that comes back to my point: They can make challenges without being "dumb".
Cheers
[ May 23, 2008: Message edited by: Lightman ]
quote:
Originally posted by Neonivek:
<STRONG>
To my knowledge is has to do with the fact that for some people you always have to try your best.
---
Think of it this way... If you made your house on the side of a hill that had mudslides...
---
Lets take Fable...
</STRONG>
I appreciate what you are saying and I understand the basic gripe, but I still think it's approaching the game from the wrong perspective.
You can't compare a game like Fable to DF. Fable has a linear line of gameplay. You described it yourself: Fable is easy to win. You don't win DF. So, perhaps someone chooses a place in the world that makes it easy for them to survive. Fine. If they wanted a challenge, then they made a poor decision. "Playing smartly" means choosing a place that offers the right level of challenge.
Here is an analogy (that I already mentioned): compare this to a traditional role-playing game:
"A role-playing game has no winners, the main purpose of the game is to have fun playing it."
(Wikipedia)
In role-playing you can make up the rules yourself and people who participate in role-playing games generally have fun. The same applies to DF, except that there is a stricter world. It's not about crippling how well you play. It's about defining the game.
quote:
Originally posted by Dasleah:
<STRONG>How about this: the map generates a short list of the 'worst' (Savage, hot/freezing, no trade) and 'best' (Benign, lots of trees, no Goblins) sites for each biome and allows you to quick-select them. So you'd be able to select a Terrifying Saltwater Marsh quickly rather than having to search for one yourself.</STRONG>
That sounds like a reasonable suggestion.
I don't understand all this "playing dumb" talk, anyway. If you want to make things difficult or easy for yourself, isn't that playing smartly? If you want an exciting or insane challenge, you choose a tough place on the map... and maybe even impose certain restrictions on your play. That sounds like any good role-playing game to me - players decide a lot of the game. Why do we need the computer to give us a "hard" or "easy" start? This isn't Monopoly and nobody "wins".
If you understand and play the game, you know what to do to enjoy it. "Winning" is having fun. Most people seem to be doing that.
[ May 23, 2008: Message edited by: Lightman ]
[ November 23, 2007: Message edited by: Lightman ]
code:Dwarf Name Content Wounded Resting
Dwarf Name Happy Healthy
Dwarf Name Ecstatic Healthy
Dwarf Name Happy Healthy Thirsty
Dwarf Name Content Healthy
Dwarf Name Miserable Wounded Dehydrated Hungry
This could be provided by the expedition leader, if we need to give someone a job to compile this info.
[ November 23, 2007: Message edited by: Lightman ]
2. adventure mode: improved dwarven halls
to:
2. show lever connections
Thanks, zagibu!
quote:
Originally posted by zagibu:
<STRONG>
@ Lightman: Even if Toady doesn't want to implement it at the moment, why should that stop us from asking for it? Maybe he will change his mind if it is requested countless times. Or maybe he will get angry and stop listening to requests at all. I don't think so, though.
[ May 23, 2008: Message edited by: zagibu ]</STRONG>
That's fair, but if the author of the game has repeatedly denied the request and even asked people to stop requesting it, then it seems rather disrespectful (or at best, inconsiderate) to put it on a list like this. Especially, if this is meant to be a list that people expect Toady to consider.
quote:
Originally posted by Draco18s:
<STRONG>He's said "NO, QUIT ASKING!" repeatedly. In fact, he doesn't even read threads that ask for it anymore. I don't blame him. Multi-threading is not a simple opperation...</STRONG>
Thank you. That was exactly my point (though I didn't know about his repeated response).
So, why is that even on here?
I think we all would like to see the game run faster. However, multithreading is not a simple change, nor is it a step in optimising code. It has to be planned and implemented carefully, preferably from the beginning of development.
I happen to have a multi-core CPU, as many (most?) of us. Toady probably knows that and it seems logical that he would consider it, as far as it's feasible. The people asking for multithreading want it for one reason: to make the game faster. So, isn't that what we should be asking for? Better performance?
What this really comes down to, in my mind, is not a suggestion for the game. It's more a user problem report: "the game runs too slowly".
Maybe we should be asking Toady about this?
