Ok, here I will go through the entire thread, and collect everything that has been said. I tried to sum up the post of each person and made a tl;dr version of them. Then I answer to it. After that comes my take on this little 2 week collection of replies.
dudlol:Likes it, different races are good, because of their different playstyle.
Thank you. I made sure that each included race plays completely different from dwarves, which means that 7 included races will give you 1 dwarves+extras and 6 total conversions. Good that this is being noticed.
Elephant Parade: High-magic doesnt fit DF.
I hear that a lot, which is the reason that magic and mage-castes are optional. Its a personal opinion, some people like it, others dislike it. Since all things magical can be removed in the launcher, this should be no issue. If I would remove high-magic in general, I would get requests to mod in high-magic, for those that like it.
Tryble: Knows old mod versions. Dislikes "random junk of stuff added by random person", explained by "I'm just the kind of guy who's naturally hostile to significant mods in general." Likes standardized materials.
Obviously Accelerated DF or Putnams Fantastic DF are more geared towards you. Otherwise I can say that I havent added random junk in a long time. The first year I did MDF, yes, because I was new. But since 2 years at least I do have a pretty clear system.
Paphi: Not a fan, dislikes standardized materials.
Standardized materials were one of the first features, aimed at user friendliness and FPS improvements. Its a very polarized topic, either people love it or hate it. Its not optional, because the materials themselves are the basis for most reactions, so rewriting this is rather complex. It can be done, but hasnt been requested often.
Vherid: Likes/Dislikes different versions of the mod, doesnt like new non-df lore additions, says mod is bloated. (too many features)
Here we start with the bloated/feature-creep point, as well as DF lore vs. Non-DF lore. Writing a major mod for any game makes it hard to stick to its limited source material. When you reach this limit, you can either stop, or add original content they invent themselves, or use already popular content that is well established, e.g. crossovers. I try to do all three. All vanilla content is still there, so the source lore still exists. Then I freely invent things myself, or import tropes from Bay12, Warhammer, Warcraft, Lord of the Rings, books and movies... a mod as large as MDF can not just be vanilla DF lore. It automatically developes its own lore. Liking or disliking this is of course a personal matter, although it surprises me to hear it from you vherid, since you wanted to write a egyptian civ for MDF, and usually work on First/Second Worldwar soviet-style themes and mods. Clearly not DF lore. That leads me to the assumption (please correct me if I am wrong) that you dont like adding new non-DF lore in itself, but that specific lore I chose (warhammer/lotr), instead of specific lore you like.
Urist Da Vinci: Dislikes dfhack dependancy, Mods that use launchers (any game, mainstream or indy), additions of non-df lore in terms of drow/dark elves.
I cant really say much about the dfhack dependancy, as it allows groundbreaking features. It would be insane not to use it. Surprised to hear that as a point from you, since you write custom scripts for dfhack yourself, and use it to improve vanilla (for example removing those blood/extract barrels from embark/caravans).
The launcher is the one feature that made the mod as popular as it is. I cant do anything about your personal dislike for included .exes, but without it, the mod wouldnt exist.
And again, non-DF lore, in that case drow. Some people like them, others dislike them... personally, I might merge them with elves, once a playable elf race is written, as a caste. They were introduced into the mod as a evil civ, when those were lacking. With Warlocks and Succubi (undeads and demons), they are no longer necessary.
weegth: Likes most additions, but the plethora of buildings, which add too many options. Would like the ability in the GUI to remove even more mod-features, to bring the mod closer to vanilla.
Bloat criticism #2. The rest connects to it, more GUI options to disable features obviously reduces bloat, and brings the mod closer to vanilla.
Nopenope: Likes lots of additions, dislikes new pets (too complicated to learn), directly mentioning Armok ingame, too many non-toady-one races, that seem superficial/similar. New metals, especially fantasy metals, likes realism more than gamey additions. Same for creatures, RL animals ok, fantastic/story monsters should be rare. Also dislikes standardized materials, because its too gamey, as well as bay12 lore in the game itself (like evil carps). Likes collection of all the dfhack scripts.
The new pets are actually a mod by wannabehero. He (and I too) felt that normal human RL animals dont fit dwarves that live under mountains, and Toady One hasnt quite finished a proper animal farming system (animals dont eat/drink, except grazers that need grass, but cant be fed indoors in a stable for example). The new pets are designed to be more subterrenean in nature. The vanilla pets, realistic farm animals, are part of the human civ, since RL animals domesticated by humans should also be that way in the game.
Armok is another Bay12 lore that I included into DF, I honestly havent seen anyone react upon it negatively, except in this thread. It never crossed my mind. Overall your feedback tells me that you want realism and simulation more than features aimed at game mechanics, like the bloodsteel or tears of armok. The standardized materials, again, are very polarized, hate it or love it, and were done for user friendliness, with shorter lists in menus and stockpiles and FPS improvements. Most mods are quite "gamey", but you might enjoy GavJ mods a lot, he is always very precise when it comes to pre-14th realism and only makes mods aimed at RL features, not game features.
Zanzetkuken The Great: Meta-discussion, dislikes dfhack dependancy and "one mod to rule them all"-effect.
Not much to say here, since there is no feedback about the mod itself.
InsanityIncarnate: Never played it, wont start because too many features look intimidating.
Bloat criticism #3. Or at least "mod too large".
Putnam: Mostly meta-discussion about "one mod to rule them all"-effect, community falsely accrediting me for included features written by other people, and (a wild guess by me) the unsorted state of the Raws themselves.
Again, not much to say at this point, as there wasnt much feedback about the mod itself. But I know that Putnam doesnt play it because its too game-oriented and not simulation-oriented. The raws I have cleaned up a lot since his last foray into them. They are still more convoluted than the raws of other mods though, partly because several authors add features and the launcher toggles with using extra metatags. And its size. ^^ But from all the people that criticise the side-effects of MDF, Putnam is the only person to actively do something to improve the situation, work on the Mod Starter Pack idea, posts on reddit about other mods, converts old mods to new version, to save them from becoming outdated... He should be an example to all the others that contributed to what I call meta-discussion, to all that heated discussion about one-mod-to-rule-them-all and other sideeffects. And while doing that, he still answers questions of MDF users, or works with/for me on custom scripts. I wish the modding community had more people like him.
Dwimenor: Lack of linux version, loads/saves a slower than vanilla, likes the launcher.
I sadly cant do much about Linux, I am not even sure of most utilities and dfhack scripts would work on it. I have never used it, but the community usually does linux ports on their own, which I link to from the main release thread. The loading/saving I explained earlier, its just that its more files that are saved into the save/region folders, but FPS are not affected by it.
thvaz: Purist that loves vanilla + ascii. Tried MDF, feels to gamey.
Nothing to say here, a clear statement. Also another nudge towards "please more simulation, not strategy game".
Getix Kain: Likes the mod, especially the launcher and the standardized materials.
Thank you. Even if that is not much for me to work with (
) it shows that its simple a matter of personal opinions to like or dislike standardized materials.
kingu: Posted helpful suggestions instead of pure likes/dislikes. Magic and fantasy metals should be removed from dwarves, workshops could be less, maybe by merging them, castes are neat, and manual should be more up to date.
Obviously a MDF player with knowledge of its features here.
Manual is alway a requested topic, although I always hope in vain that somehow people manage to get the MDF wiki in order. Its difficult as the author to know whats some people find easy to learn, while others find it hard. Bloat criticism #4.
KingofstarrySkies: Loves it.
NullForceOmega: Dislikes unfair combat additions like interactions/syndromes/fire-that-burns-surface. "The mining changes are agonizing", and too many workshops with unreasonable skills/mixes of features. Hates caste system, hates carp stuff that kills his fort. (bonus points for asking everyone to calm down at some point)
Bloat criticism #5. The rest I dont understand to be honest. The interaction based combat (magic) and fires are all parts of optional features. There are no mining changes, except the optional warpstone/coal dust. All new workshops are optional. Caste system is optional, as is the hidden fun stuff like the carp cult. The combat/fire point I understand, thats a matter of game balancing, but the rest are personal taste issues, and all of the ones you mention are optional, all of them can be removed with the click of a button. These should be a non-issue(?)
Gnomeknows: Likes it, posts good suggestions. Better manual. Less bloat. Less test-features/unfinished stuff. Likes most of all the new races, especially gnomes, automatons and machines, and world-interaction. (force event script)
Bloat Criticism #6. Makes a perfect point for dfhack inclusion, because all the advanced game mechanics rely on them. And again, the better manual.
Dyret: Dislikes mostly too many workshops and features.
Bloat criticism #7.
Splint: Likes the mod (doesnt specifically state it, but he does several story forts with the mod, so its pretty save to say that he does.) Posts long and detailed feedback about features. Manual could be better. Diseases are unfair/need rewrite. Likes alternative metals/bloodsteel etc. Loves standardized materials. Thinks succubi dont fit well, as does the hermit (changed his mind by now about the hermit), dislikes mentioning Armok ingame (too meta), likes optional Carp stuff, likes magic because it fits specific roles, dislikes trading nerf and too many workshops.
Manual again.
I could really need someone to just write down a list of things I should add. "A better manual" doesnt really give me an idea of what to add to make it better. If people could please specifically state "I am lacking information about X, and would like a table about Y", that would help so much. Not sure how much I should say here, since we talk often enough.
I fully agree on the disease part, they were working differently from what I expected, which is the reason they are disabled for now. Bloat criticism about too many workshops agaion, #8.
Button: Never played the mod, because he dislikes people talking about it and fantasy orcs, because its not DF-lore.
I think you should overthink your position. Its like saying that you dislike bicycles because some idiot on a bicycle cut you off.
The orcs are fully optional, yet again one click in the launcher and they dont exist.
Baffler: Likes (?) the mod, but also copies single features into vanilla to use. Better documention should be included into the mod.
Another point for the manual. As said above, more specific requests for topics to be included in the manual would help me more, but I rather do that in the MDF board, thats what its for.
PrimusRibbus: Loves Accelerated DF for standardization, but dislikes MDF for too much bloat and aimlessness. In his own words, short and precise: TL;DR: Technical masterpiece. Lots of bloat and feature creep.
Bloat criticism #9. I could say lots more, but I would repeat myself at this point.
Gojira1000: Likes it, but too much bloat.
Bloat criticism #10
sayke: Loves it, but seems to ignore obvious flaws of it. (Even I have to smirk when I read "bug-free")
We know each other well enough I'd say. Thanks for jumping in and answering questions, but maybe be less zealous in future.
Also, balanced and bugfree? Really?
Ant: Likes it, likes the launcher, because it allows him to disable features he personally doesnt like, e.g. warpstone or high magic.
Thank you so much for being an optimist. Most people that replied here said: "I dislike the mod because of X", while you say "I like the launcher, for disabling the X I dont want". Which is precisely the point of the launcher, to give people a bit of freedom of choice over the content.
Getix Kain: Would like single features as drag&drop for vanilla DF, e.g. a Mod Starter Pack that reverts back to vanilla, while adding minor mods.
This seems to me like a request for a more extensive launcher, that brings the mod closer to vanilla. Which has been stated by several people so far.
corrosivechains: Likes it, but feels it is getting bloated. Also a lot of Meta-discussion, like "There is always the problem that if someone refuses to let their work be absorbed by masterwork, or later decides they no longer want it packaged within masterwork, that this person will then be ridiculed and ostracized by the fans of masterwork because of it. "
Bloat criticism #11. I quoted that one line of yours, because it already happened, and no one ever mentioned anything about it in neither positive nor negative view. Vherid asked me to remove several of his tilesets and color schemes, and I did. No one minded. Usually the creators of content seem very happy when I ask if I can add it to Masterwork, because it brings their content to a vast number of people.
Wastedlabor: Dislikes it because it adds too many foreign additions, not strictly DF-lore stuff.
I spoke about it earlier, there is a limit to what can be done with df lore alone. But I might consider making dwarves closer to vanilla, and changing the GUI to allows bringing it down closer to vanilla DF.
Repseki: Likes the mod, the launcher and standardized materials especially. Likes the new races, but feels that it can get overwhelming, and that the launcher should be able to bring the mod closer to vanilla.
Again two points that were adressed by other before, too many features and that the GUI should have more options to remove unwanted content. This convinces me even me to work more on the GUI.
ibluminatus: Likes it, together with LNP, MDF was what brought him to DF.
Thank you, that is nice to hear.
Shizmoo: Likes it, because vanilla DF is too easy for him by now. Likes graphical additions a lot, as well as the large collection of utilities and scripts.
Thank you too.
Scruiser: Likes it, will wait for the 40.x conversion. Likes the launcher for disabling parts that he personally dont think fit into DF.
And again, thank you too, for saying "launcher good for removing parts", instead of "parts are bad". I think its very important to make this point clear. Many additions are a matter of taste, the mod cannot meet everyones taste, but the mod offer the solution by being customizeable.
smakemupagus: Mostly answered questions in the thread, certainly likes the mod, considering that he was the first other modder to specifically write content for it, his Orc Mode.
Hey smake, fancy seeing you here. No comments needed.
tootboot: Thinks its too overwhelming. Better solution to take 20% of best content, make smaller mod. (Masterwork Lite?)
I will put the overwhelming point towards bloat, #12 by now. Although the launcher could do what you suggest, removing the biggest part of the mod. I do have to admit that I thought about a smaller MDF version, something that is truly vanilla, but has completely independant modules that you can drop in.
GhostDwemer: Disliked older version, but loves newer version, but seen as "Steampunk DF", not "vanilla DF with extras"
I am curious what made you change your mind? Just the new outlook, to not try to see it as vanilla+ but instead as something new with its own lore?
Authority2: Never tried it, no likes or dislikes.
Ehm... thank you for your input, I guess. ^^
snelg: Likes it, especially launcher that can get rid of bloat. Feels its a bit bloated. Never tried different races.
Bloat criticism #13. I would like to ask you to try the other races at least. Humans should be easiest to get into, as well as Orcs.
The others are more difficult, but the other races are such a large part of the mod, it would be a shame not to have a look at least.
Paphi: "If such a huge amount of Masterwork is optional, why is it even all bundled together to begin with?" Dislikes it for mixing features from different authors, and being too large (?).
I honestly couldnt quite grasp your point. Sayke and smake answered most of your direct questions, but just for completions sake: Huge amounts of the mod are optional, because they are matters of personal taste. The optional features are not good or bad, and people keep the good and remove the bad, but instead they are features that someone might like or dislike, and people can only keep the ones they like. I could also split the mod into 7 mods (one for each race), but why should people download it 7 times, with all the extra utilities and fluff, if they can have it in one pack.
Eric Blank: Dislikes it, mostly for standardized materials, the launcher, the necessity of documentation, and the sheer amount of stuff. "How do you even keep mods from other modders that you include up to date and compatible?"
Another post that I dont quite understand myself. Saying that its too large for you is fine, but what could possibly be wrong about the launcher, or "the necessity of documentation" as you said? Is a mod that adds features that require a manual automatically a no-go zone for you?
Standardized materials are, yet again, a matter of taste. Sadly, its very difficult to make this point optional.
Vattic: Doesnt like it for its style (too gamey/fantasy, not enough simulation/realism I assume. He didnt post too many details), but takes parts if it for personal mods.
Fair enough.
Again, the conflict between adding features for realisms sake versus the adding features as pure game mechanics.
BillyJack: Likes the mod, but dislikes optional parts. Got quite involved into improving it with some Raw patches, but would rather see more stable, better documented updates, instead of new features.
Another point for the manual. ^^ Again, if specifics would be mentioned, I'd be happy to include them. Oh, btw, you said that previously the updates always introduced new features with potential bugs, and bugfixes. Currently thats not the case, I only add new races and bugfixes for the old ones. There are no new features for older races, they only get bugfixes and balancing since 10 versions or so.
lunaman22: Loves it. Loves vanilla more. Very down-to-the-point post.
Thank you, especially for showing that both can be played at the same time, and that its not a contest.
malvado: Likes it, especially the launcher. Would like more detailed tooltips about them.
This can be done and falls under improving the GUI.
AJC: Finds it funny (so I assume he likes it), no further feedback.
MDF you funny guy. I'll kill you last.
Talvieno: Doesnt play it, because its too big a change.
I just be so free and put this under bloat criticism #14, too overwhelming for new players.
burned: Mostly meta-discussion about bay12, Toady, donations, etc. Dislikes it, never played it. Mostly criticises personal things, not mod content. Direct question: "What is it that you are seeking here? Asking for feedback from people not interested in masterwork is sincerely not clear to me." and "Something seems wrong about holding a fundraiser for yourself for a mod for a game where the creator of that game lives off donations." (those stood out to me the most)
Wow man, you stepped on so many peoples toes and completely missed the point of the discussion. If it werent for your good articulation and proper grammar, I would have assumed you a troll. To directly answer some of your questions: I am seeking feedback by DF players that dont play the mod, which is vastly different from people that are not interested in the mod. The people might be interested, but turned off from it for a reason. You never tried it? Why? You tried it, didnt like it? Why? (its too large. its not my style. its too hard to learn. its too far removed from vanilla DF. These are a few I took from this thread.) The entire discussion about donations, devouring smaller mods, credits and inclusions by other authors what not the intention of this thread.
About the donations/fundraiser: The only person that has a say in the matter is Tarn Adams.
k33n: Dislikes classic fantasy tropes introduced by the mod. Also a lot of meta-discussion, mostly about including other peoples work and taking donations.
DF lore and non-df lore has been discussed above. Source materials have their limits.
sum1won: Would like a more stable version.
Bugfixing request, all right.
Devstorm: Downloaded it, couldnt get it to run, never played it. (I'll send you a PM, I want to know what happened)
Not much I can say here, since I have not much info.
macscarfe: Felt overwhelmed, but wants to give it another try.
I'll add this to bloat criticism #15.
thvaz: Mostly meta-discussion, dislikes the donation option and the inclusion on the DF wiki.
Again, the only person that has something to say about the donations is Tarn Adams. Everything else is inconcievable for me. About the wiki: I have absolutely no part in that, the creator and admin of the official DF wiki, locriani/briess approached me and asked if he can add this namespace to the wiki. All pages, links and content on the MDF wiki and the DF wiki that go towards MDF are done by the community and the wiki admins.
arbarbonif: Plays MDF dwarves, feels its somewhat bloated, never tried other races because of that bloat.
Bloat criticism #16. And please, please, have a look at the other races. You are missing out. I recommend humans, they have the best documentation and smallest building section, if it is the amount of features that turn you off.
mnjiman: Dislikes it a lot, mostly for option paralysis and pointless features. (Also dislikes how I do things(?)) "You have to ask yourself "What are your goals right now?" because honestly, I think your kidding yourself if you think what you are doing here is the right course of action. It really isn't. For now, IMO you should stop posting in this thread and let people just talk amongst themselves."
Bloat criticism #17. And criticism about this thread? To answer your question directly: My goal is to find out how to make the mod better. I usually ask in the MDF board, but obviously I only get feedback from players that already know the mod well. Here, I want to find out why people started playing the mod, but stopped. Could you please explain me why this isnt the right course of action, from your point of view? Because I opened the thread specifically stating that I will be back in 2 weeks and answer everything, which is exactly what I am doing now. See that top of the first post.
Sutremaine: Meta-discussion about "one mod to rule them all". Also dfhack dependancy and too many features/aimlessness.
Besides the other non-content mod stuff, I dont understand why using dfhack would be a negative point, and bloat criticism #18.
Legionaries: Tried it, found it too overwhelming, but liked sideeffects like being exposed to new features, mods in general and tilesets. Learned a bit of modding from it.
And bloat #19. But it had positive sideeffects.
fvanegdom: Likes it for the vast size/progression, would like to see waterpipes, only played dwarves so far.
Nice to see that you are not bored with dwarves yet, but if you want to see water pipes, you might want to have a look at Gnomes. IndigoFenix did an amazing job and used dfhack to create a drilling rig that automatically sucks liquids, and can be used for pipes, you can even drill straight down into the magma lake and run it through the pipe to the surface. The pop-ratio for guilds is a good suggestion, its currently that all guilds have the same ratio.
Thats it, every individual that posted here, with their opinion and my stake on it.
Now what I took from it:
I did not anticipate that people would start a rather philosophical discussion about sideeffects the mod has on the community, nor something that turns into an outright fight between different viewpoints, nor that the donations would be a focus. I just wanted to know which parts of the mod made a player stop playing it, or stopped him from starting to play it. I think that I reached that goal.
I am also surprised by how that feedback turned out. Whenever I ask on reddit or make polls on the MDF board, people vote for... MORE CONTENT. Its always among the top voted topics. More features, more additions... looking back at it now, it makes sense. People that are bored with vanilla DF, because they already know all its features, start to play mods. They play Masterwork for its extended features, and sooner or later also explore all the possibilities it has to offer, therefore they vote for even more. Even I myself started to think that Dwarf Mode is too full, about a year ago. Thats why I focussed on adding new races, which can run on completely different game mechanics, without influencing Dwarf Mode. But I made two mistakes: I did not clean up Dwarf Mode, and I did not ask new players. (actually I did whenever I found one, but its impossible to judge on polls who voted for what. Most players dont even vote, maybe 1-2% of the more active people vote. And these more active people know the mod better than the other 98%)
Dwarf Mode is so cluttered, because it is the first thing I wrote as a modder. It has all the features, because people request new features, and it was not designed with a clear aim.
However, the other races are. The problem with that is that new players start with the default Dwarf Mode, see a clusterfuck of features, and dont even try the additional races.
The other feedback I got here a lot is that its too large, too far away from vanilla, and that the GUI should offer more ways to get closer to vanilla content, and to remove mod-features you dont like. I dont think I can do a toggle for standardized materials, but I am certainly motivated now to add more to the GUI. Splinterz made an amazing addition to it with profiles, saveable settings. I can certainly include these profiles direclty with "hardcore mode", "all features active", "vanilla DF", "easy/medium/hard" and "25%/50%/75%-mod content" to ease new players into the mod. A "random" button would be immense fun, and specific profiles can be used for succession forts.
The manual was the last suggestion for content changes. I spend so much time on it, I might be predisposed to jump at people asking for a better one, it really is no fun to do for me. I would gladly accept any help I can get on it. A active wiki community would be best, but hasnt come to fruition.
The rest of the discussion, about taking-credit-for-other-peoples-work, taking-donations-in-toadys-yard and being-a-black-hole-of-mods: You guys have the audacity to challenge me on that? Are you out of your minds? The only people that have a valid reason to do so are the creators of the third party utilities, like Talvieno. People that write mods, like Smake or Putnam. And for the donations, Tarn Adams alone, which whom I probably spoke more to than any other person in this thread. I ask politely if I may include programs or mods or tilesets, or the creators come to me. The response has been positive in all cases, from "you may use anything I write." to "Its a privilege, thank you for considering it for MDF." People asking me if they may generate content specifically made for MDF. I asked the community "What do you think about a fundraiser?" and with overwhelming majority the people supported it. I offered Toady 50% of the donations, he would have none of it. The only reason he didnt want to be tied to someone financially (as seen in the quote posted somewhere in this thread) is for legal reasons. I offered to give 50% of it to charity, people said: I'd rather want you to have it, for your hard work. I literally lose money when I do these fundraisers, because working a month on DF for 750/1000$ is way below working a month for minimum wage in Germany. MDF stifflying other modders? Might be true, but it also empowers other modders. People learn how to mod from it. Its open source and every person can take parts of it and use them, privately or in a mod they release, freely. I go through the modding forum and specifically point people, that want to do a certain project, to raws or scripts that already exist, so they dont have to do the same work twice.
If you are a modder or author of a third-party program, feel free to say your piece. If you are Splinterz, who writes the Dwarf Therapist, if you are PeridexisErrant, who writes the Starter Pack, Deon who lost most of his players that migrated from Genesis to MDF, feel free. Putnam does it often enough, and I respect him for his position, and help as I can. But as someone standing on the sidelines, with no investement of his own, be it money, work or time, yelling "booo" for no other reason than that you can, is not acceptable, its downright childish.
tl;dr: Thanks for the feedback on the mod, I will unclutter Dwarf Mode, improve the GUI, make more things optional to bring the mod closer to vanilla, include profiles in the GUI that do so automatically, and try to motivate people to work on the wiki to bring you a better documentation.
I will leave this thread open and hope that any discussion springing from this stays objective and polite. If not, I'll close it.
Author
Topic: Masterwork Mod - Let me know what you think - Posted my conclusion (Read 15896 times)