Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GoblinCookie]

Retire, wait two weeks, kill-self, wait two weeks, unretire, fix up damage caused by autonomous control (if your fortress isn't dead). It's hardly "invincible abilities". It's about the level of control  (and hassle) that other sandbox games such as Crusader Kings II give you unless you turn on the optional limits such as Ironman.

The idea of various forms of limitation on play is fine. It's your insistence that without limiting play by default the game is broken which some don't agree with and probably never will no matter how back and forth this discussion goes on.

The difference is that in Crusader Kings you are a certain perspective and expected to maintain that perspective.  In Dwarf Fortress however, flitting between characters is very much a legitimate and ordinary play-style. 

But yes, it is the we don't limit the ability of the player to take over characters on a whim, the game is very much broken because you have in effect no game balance.

[KittyTac]

Retire, wait two weeks, kill-self, wait two weeks, unretire, fix up damage caused by autonomous control (if your fortress isn't dead). It's hardly "invincible abilities". It's about the level of control  (and hassle) that other sandbox games such as Crusader Kings II give you unless you turn on the optional limits such as Ironman.

The idea of various forms of limitation on play is fine. It's your insistence that without limiting play by default the game is broken which some don't agree with and probably never will no matter how back and forth this discussion goes on.

The difference is that in Crusader Kings you are a certain perspective and expected to maintain that perspective.  In Dwarf Fortress however, flitting between characters is very much a legitimate and ordinary play-style. 

But yes, it is the we don't limit the ability of the player to take over characters on a whim, the game is very much broken because you have in effect no game balance.

Toady mostly ignores game balance. Prove me wrong.

[Cathar]

(pssst, you're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you)

[KittyTac]

(pssst, you're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you)

The only times I heard of Toady "balancing" the game are when the unbalanced thing is unrealistic, and realism just coincided with balance. E.g the thing where one fracture of a toe could knock an elephant unconscious.

[Cathar]

I have never seen an elephant with my own eyes so it proves it doesn't exist, it's an argument by ignorence and it doesn't substentiate your claim. If you don't know, it doesn't means it doesn't exist, it means you don't know.

Besides we're just one update downhill from a massive balance patch on the mood.

[KittyTac]

I have never seen an elephant with my own eyes so it proves it doesn't exist, it's an argument by ignorence and it doesn't substentiate your claim. If you don't know, it doesn't means it doesn't exist, it means you don't know.

Besides we're just one update downhill from a massive balance patch on the mood.

Look. I have studied FOTF replies. I know Toady's plans.

Also, what balance patch? The new mood system is merely more realistic. Balance wasn't intended.

[Cathar]

This is called hearsay. Your opinion on what happens on someone's else's mind cannot be used in an argument nor does it substentiate your claim.

[KittyTac]

This is called hearsay. Your opinion on what happens on someone's else's mind cannot be used in an argument nor does it substentiate your claim.

DF is first and foremost, a simulation. Balance is not needed in a simulation.

If you are so concerned with Toady's actual opinions, ask him on FOTF. I'd be interested to see his opinion on this.

[Cathar]

Does not follow. Just because it is unneeded doesn't means it is unintended.

If you can provide a direct quote within context from Toady where it is stated clearly that balance is not a concern, that would be enough for me.

Edit : I'm not asking Toady anything because it is not my role to go fishing for something to substantiate your claims. You're making the claim and the burden of proof is on you.

[KittyTac]

Does not follow. Just because it is unneeded doesn't means it is unintended.

If you can provide a direct quote within context from Toady where it is stated clearly that balance is not a concern, that would be enough for me.

Edit : I'm not asking Toady anything because it is not my role to go fishing for something to substantiate your claims. You're making the claim and the burden of proof is on you.

I couldn't find one. Yet I did not see anything about specifically balancing things. So Toady's opinion on this is indeterminable unless someone asks him. I'll do it.

[Cathar]

Toady mostly ignores game balance. Prove me wrong.

So Toady's opinion on this is indeterminable unless someone asks him.

Here you go

[KittyTac]

I propose that we put this argument on hold until Toady says something about game balance. It's his game after all, he knows what he wants in it.

[Cathar]

But of course. If you are right, then you are right. But you asked to be proven wrong and we agreed on a methodology to do so, I'm satisfied with that result

[IndigoFenix]

It sounds like he's considered both sides of the argument and intends to make it a worldgen parameter.

And the same thing goes for adventure mode, like starting as a guy - being able to assume control of any character in the universe - is something that's reasonable, especially if you've got the parameters set for it. It's one of those things where you'd want to set up parameters so you wouldn't be tempted. It's like 'allow control of any historical figure as an adventurer: yes', because if you put yes there if you're losing a war or something then you might be like 'well I want to play the enemy's general as my next adventurer' and then you could just go jump into a canyon or something. So to remove that kind of temptation ... There are a lot of people, more people than I expected so it kind of surprised me, on various aspects of the game have said 'Well I really want this to be an option that I have to set in advance so that I don't feel tempted to spoil things.' So having that as a world generation parameter works the best for that, but that'd be cool as well, just being able to play whoever you wanted. It goes in with those post version one arcs about being able to play a dragon, you know that kind of thing. So you could just assume control of a megabeast that already exists in the world and so on.

The only question is what the default would be.  Usually though, Toady seems to prefer making "restrictive" parameters the default and "free-play" ones secondary (examples: Show all caves, reveal all historical events, save after every season), so I would expect him to do the same here.

[KittyTac]

It sounds like he's considered both sides of the argument and intends to make it a worldgen parameter.

And the same thing goes for adventure mode, like starting as a guy - being able to assume control of any character in the universe - is something that's reasonable, especially if you've got the parameters set for it. It's one of those things where you'd want to set up parameters so you wouldn't be tempted. It's like 'allow control of any historical figure as an adventurer: yes', because if you put yes there if you're losing a war or something then you might be like 'well I want to play the enemy's general as my next adventurer' and then you could just go jump into a canyon or something. So to remove that kind of temptation ... There are a lot of people, more people than I expected so it kind of surprised me, on various aspects of the game have said 'Well I really want this to be an option that I have to set in advance so that I don't feel tempted to spoil things.' So having that as a world generation parameter works the best for that, but that'd be cool as well, just being able to play whoever you wanted. It goes in with those post version one arcs about being able to play a dragon, you know that kind of thing. So you could just assume control of a megabeast that already exists in the world and so on.

The only question is what the default would be.  Usually though, Toady seems to prefer making "restrictive" parameters the default and "free-play" ones secondary (examples: Show all caves, reveal all historical events, save after every season), so I would expect him to do the same here.

Waiting for an actual answer. What if he changed his mind? DFTalks were a while ago.