Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Author Topic: Securing DF in case of unfortunate event?  (Read 8973 times)

catpaw

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Securing DF in case of unfortunate event?
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2014, 11:17:28 am »

Quote
so no murdering for the source code!
Presumably if you were willing to murder him for it, you'd also be willing to simply break into his house or whatever and steal it WITHOUT murdering anybody. 
Plus, even if you are a weird psychopath who sees the code as more valuable than a human life, you'd still have to realize that keeping him alive = more / better code in the future that you could steal again, etc. etc.

Had to think about this: http://xkcd.com/538/
Logged

thvaz

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Securing DF in case of unfortunate event?
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2014, 11:38:00 am »

If Toady were to die there would be no further development, as his entire playerbase would be killed, mummified and buried with him in a giant pyramid so that we may serve him in the afterlife.
Yet another lesson why you really should read the End User License Agreement that comes with your software.

Best response(s) ever.

Indeed. I laughed out loud here.
Logged

reality.auditor

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Securing DF in case of unfortunate event?
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2014, 05:33:54 pm »

Anyway, to my experiences in events like tis, the project at large is more likely to die. You cannot expect a coding community to start from zero to full should the event arise, such a thing needs years of caring to build up. Small fixes, chaotic add-ons, yes. But no more a dedicated project.
I respectfully disagree. (cut)
History of open-source games shows otherwise. Project like DF needs extremely dedicated person like Toady. No Toady, no project. At most, few years of small development, bugfixes, trying to make some things, sad agony when amount of interested people dries up and later death.

As others said, it makes sense to start new project. There is only one teensy weensy little detail left: find some new Toady-like extremely dedicated programmer. Good luck with that.
Logged
Are weapons like the least lethal thing in DF?

Yaur

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Securing DF in case of unfortunate event?
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2014, 07:53:03 pm »

Anyway, to my experiences in events like tis, the project at large is more likely to die. You cannot expect a coding community to start from zero to full should the event arise, such a thing needs years of caring to build up. Small fixes, chaotic add-ons, yes. But no more a dedicated project.
I respectfully disagree. (cut)
History of open-source games shows otherwise. Project like DF needs extremely dedicated person like Toady. No Toady, no project. At most, few years of small development, bugfixes, trying to make some things, sad agony when amount of interested people dries up and later death.

As others said, it makes sense to start new project. There is only one teensy weensy little detail left: find some new Toady-like extremely dedicated programmer. Good luck with that.
DCSS and liberal crime squad both seem to be doing alright, both adding new features on top of the previously abandoned projects.
Logged

sackhead

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Securing DF in case of unfortunate event?
« Reply #19 on: May 05, 2014, 09:22:50 pm »

As others said, it makes sense to start new project. There is only one teensy weensy little detail left: find some new Toady-like extremely dedicated programmer. Good luck with that.
We could just clone toady and in force his soul into the new body via some ancient dark ritual.

We could even use the pyramid for its intended purpose violating the most fundamental laws of nature and man
Logged

Putnam

  • Bay Watcher
  • DAT WIZARD
    • View Profile
Re: Securing DF in case of unfortunate event?
« Reply #20 on: May 05, 2014, 09:41:19 pm »

Anyway, to my experiences in events like tis, the project at large is more likely to die. You cannot expect a coding community to start from zero to full should the event arise, such a thing needs years of caring to build up. Small fixes, chaotic add-ons, yes. But no more a dedicated project.

I respectfully disagree. Dwarf Fortress is legendary; it has a dedicated community including accomplished programmers; Toady has laid out arcs of future development; and the game seems to be popular particularly among the kind of folks who could pick up the baton. If anything, I would expect too many dedicated projects to grow up, fragmenting the community. But after ten years, those would settle into a handful of DF variants which would be in it for the long haul.

I imagine that in the event DFHack would simply become DF.

Warmist

  • Bay Watcher
  • Master of unfinished jobs
    • View Profile
Re: Securing DF in case of unfortunate event?
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2014, 02:50:28 am »

Anyway, to my experiences in events like tis, the project at large is more likely to die. You cannot expect a coding community to start from zero to full should the event arise, such a thing needs years of caring to build up. Small fixes, chaotic add-ons, yes. But no more a dedicated project.

I respectfully disagree. Dwarf Fortress is legendary; it has a dedicated community including accomplished programmers; Toady has laid out arcs of future development; and the game seems to be popular particularly among the kind of folks who could pick up the baton. If anything, I would expect too many dedicated projects to grow up, fragmenting the community. But after ten years, those would settle into a handful of DF variants which would be in it for the long haul.

I imagine that in the event DFHack would simply become DF.
I imagine df and dfhack would merge into a huge monster that would be fueled by babies and pupies and souls of the damned. Though bugfixes would be guaranteed.

catpaw

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Securing DF in case of unfortunate event?
« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2014, 03:34:27 am »

Toady has laid out arcs of future development;

There are a few possibilities what exactly would become and determining which is the most likely is more due to personal experience.

However, one I can tell you for sure. No human will dedicate his or her life to follow the arc laid out by toady. Toadys arc dies with toady, thats for sure.

If someone else wants to dedicate a hugh effort into, you can be sure that will be to fuel his or her own ideas.
Logged

Dyret

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Securing DF in case of unfortunate event?
« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2014, 04:10:15 am »

However, one I can tell you for sure. No human will dedicate his or her life to follow the arc laid out by toady. Toadys arc dies with toady, thats for sure.

I know I would, though probably with different priorities.
Logged

GavJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Securing DF in case of unfortunate event?
« Reply #24 on: May 06, 2014, 04:19:15 am »

I don't know about TWENTY YEARS, but I for one would probably be willing to dedicate a good 5 years at least to this game if I were suddenly thrust into the helm.

Mainly because I think that's all it would take. I wouldn't give two hoots about 90% of the stuff in adventure mode, and would treat it only as a convenient sideboard tool for manipulating stuff between (in time and space) fortresses. Such as ferrying things around, or seeding characters to be a member of your fort. Thus, stuff like prison terms and reputations and dialogue and blah blah = totally unnecessary.

And fortress mode is significantly further along already. The arcs there are far more "doable" and IMO less controversial or things that most people would have a difference of opinion on, and could be themselves finished more rapidly.



Also, much of the charm of DF is after all hilarious random unpredictable destruction and violent capriciousness, which by its very nature is at odds with adventurer mode. Either you embrace that, and 99% of the time your adventurer is a bloody smear on the road within half an hour (frustrating / not that fun), or you fix it, and lose all the DF spirit, rendering you with just another not so exciting roguelike. Also not that fun, might as well go play Skyrim.  Seems lose-lose to me. Fortress is where it's at.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 04:24:38 am by GavJ »
Logged
Cauliflower Labs Geologically realistic world generator devblog

Dwarf fortress in 50 words: You start with seven alcoholic, manic-depressive dwarves. You build a fortress in the wilderness where EVERYTHING tries to kill you, including your own dwarves. Usually, your chief imports are immigrants, beer, and optimism. Your chief exports are misery, limestone violins, forest fires, elf tallow soap, and carved kitten bone.

reality.auditor

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Securing DF in case of unfortunate event?
« Reply #25 on: May 06, 2014, 04:19:48 am »

I imagine that in the event DFHack would simply become DF.
And Stonesense. They should be able to fully integrate it as UI before project "DF Open Source" burns out.
Logged
Are weapons like the least lethal thing in DF?

GavJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Securing DF in case of unfortunate event?
« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2014, 04:28:12 am »

Quote
And Stonesense. They should be able to fully integrate it as UI before project "DF Open Source" burns out.
Can't STAND stonesense. The ASCII graphics are far superior, IMO. They are as beautiful as your imagination.  Stonesense is as beuatiful as... I dunno... mediocre mid 90's industrially cranked out SNES games?

It's like taking Moby Dick or Hamlet, and adding LEGO dioramas. Blech.
Logged
Cauliflower Labs Geologically realistic world generator devblog

Dwarf fortress in 50 words: You start with seven alcoholic, manic-depressive dwarves. You build a fortress in the wilderness where EVERYTHING tries to kill you, including your own dwarves. Usually, your chief imports are immigrants, beer, and optimism. Your chief exports are misery, limestone violins, forest fires, elf tallow soap, and carved kitten bone.

catpaw

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Securing DF in case of unfortunate event?
« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2014, 04:42:34 am »

Speaking from watching software projects, most times, in the long run a projects that restart a code base from scratch more often than not pass by the originator. Especially if at has grown beyond a decade.

So if you are willing to dedicate yourself, there is nothing stopping you starting right now!
Logged

tahujdt

  • Bay Watcher
  • The token conservative
    • View Profile
Re: Securing DF in case of unfortunate event?
« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2014, 09:23:14 am »

It's like taking Moby Dick or Hamlet, and adding LEGO dioramas. Blech.
Lego dioramas are pretty original, IMO.
Logged
DFBT the Dwarf: The only community podcast for Dwarf Fortress!
Tahu-R-TOA-1, Troubleshooter
Quote
I suggest that we add a clause permitting the keelhauling of anyone who suggests a plan involving "zombify the crew".
Quote from: MNII
Friend Computer, can you repair the known universe, please?

mosshadow

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Securing DF in case of unfortunate event?
« Reply #29 on: May 06, 2014, 09:55:22 am »

Anyway, to my experiences in events like tis, the project at large is more likely to die. You cannot expect a coding community to start from zero to full should the event arise, such a thing needs years of caring to build up. Small fixes, chaotic add-ons, yes. But no more a dedicated project.
I respectfully disagree. (cut)
History of open-source games shows otherwise. Project like DF needs extremely dedicated person like Toady. No Toady, no project. At most, few years of small development, bugfixes, trying to make some things, sad agony when amount of interested people dries up and later death.

As others said, it makes sense to start new project. There is only one teensy weensy little detail left: find some new Toady-like extremely dedicated programmer. Good luck with that.


Freespace Open has been going for about a decade I think and has some pretty massive download rates.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5