Print

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

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Interesting. The color-coded marking for the command keys is a good idea (and you can use that to indicate the correct case, answering concerns by people, although that may harm uniformity).

However, I am not quite sure how to interpret your entries Room and Furniture under the build heading... Non-workshop rooms that are not stockpiles or zones are always furniture spawned, so building a room is not really a meaningful concept in Dwarf Fortress.

Personally, however, this re-organization of the overview you suggest would actually run against my own preferences. You see, I keep the overview visible, not so much for the rare command keys I forget (like the one for artifacts), but rather to keep the screen layout stable. I have found that the popping up of the window for the building/material selection annoys me a lot as it disrupts the calm of the screen. You know, at one moment, I have the whole screen or 2/3 of it in the world view, and the next, a third of the screen is jumped upon by the info window, which then disappears as abruptly as it appears (visually, mind you). I know I may be weird, but that jumping of the screen layout is really jarring for me, so I keep the overview visible at all times so that only the content of the window is replaced.

Deathworks

[Jiri Petru]

Nice to see you here, Deathworks. Thanks.

The menu popping won't be an issue. It would work the same way as ever. You could still leave it open all the time. Or do you mind that I moved it in the bottom instead of the right edge? That's a matter of personal preference and can be easily adjusted. Again, it wouln't have much of an effect on the overall reorganization.

However, I am not quite sure how to interpret your entries Room and Furniture under the build heading... Non-workshop rooms that are not stockpiles or zones are always furniture spawned, so building a room is not really a meaningful concept in Dwarf Fortress.

Exactly! And I suggest to say goodbye to the furniture spawning, because the game doesn't really need 4 different ways of representing/building stuff. If it can all be done the same way as hospitals now, why have it otherwise? It only server as another source of confusion.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

The essential point for the popping windows for me is that the overview (or menu as you call it) and the other info tables, like the material selector when you want to construct a road, occupy the same space on the screen, so there are no new windows that appear or disappear. As I see your design, I am not quite sure how you would fit the info tables into that space at the bottom - would you go for several columns?

I hope this makes my point somewhat clearer.

As for the room thingie, you are actually going very deep into the game mechanics there. Personally, I think that the furniture rooms are actually currently the best rooms in the game - they are easily resizable and they are intelligent in that they understand a room as a single area of unobstructed space. And just as a bonus, you can actually completely remove them, a grudge I hold against stockpiles (maybe it got fixed by now, but last time I checked, you can only reduce them to 0 tiles size, but the stockpile still exists).

Ah, and furniture rooms are also the easiest to design - dig out/construct the room they are to use, place a door in the entrance, then just declare the room and increase its size until it fills the entire space - presto!

:) :) :)

I guess this underscores the different perspectives people have on these things :)

Deathworks

[Jiri Petru]

The essential point for the popping windows for me is that the overview (or menu as you call it) and the other info tables, like the material selector when you want to construct a road, occupy the same space on the screen, so there are no new windows that appear or disappear. As I see your design, I am not quite sure how you would fit the info tables into that space at the bottom - would you go for several columns?

Yup, multiple columns is the way to go. You need to use the space somehow. Just keep in mind: important things on the left, unimportant stuff and unnecessary options on the far right.

But having the menu on the bottom isn't really a thing I'd dwell on. It can as easily be on the right. It's just that this look better. 

I hope this makes my point somewhat clearer.

As for the room thingie, you are actually going very deep into the game mechanics there. Personally, I think that the furniture rooms are actually currently the best rooms in the game - they are easily resizable and they are intelligent in that they understand a room as a single area of unobstructed space. (...)

You have a valid point. The issue here is not that this particular system is bad. The issue is that there are 4 separate systems where there should only be one. I remember how difficult it was to me to learn and remember all the different ways of building things. We need to choose just one and stick to it, even if it means losing a bit of control.

If people really have to have the flow-out-of-the-furniture stuff, it should be as a completely optional thing. But definitely not obligatory. The obligatory part should be one system for everything, and that's it. If the user want more precise control, he can go for other controls, but these should (a) stay uneccesary (b) be hidden somewhere in the corner of the interface to show they're just a bonus, not a must.

But I would still argue against keeping flow-of-the-furniture, even if it means losing a bit of control. You can achieve the same shape of the room by point and clicking so the loss is very minor and IMHO not worth having two systems to do the same thing. This is the general problem with more options and specific systems - the more you add, the more control the user has in little details, but also the more cluttered, confusing and harder to learn the interface is.

We have a nice children story here in Czech Republic about how a Doggy and a Kitty went to cook a cake. They decided to simply put everything they love in it to make sure it'll be great. The Doggy brought some bones and meat and strawberries and stuff, the Kitty brought dead mice and grass and I don't know what else. They added dough, put it in the oven, expecting concentrated awesomeness. Instead what they got was a disgusting mess.

Sometimes I fear Dwarf Fortress (and the interface in particular) is taking the Doggy&Kitty route.

[Hugna]

I just thunk.

Maybe Toady could add an ability to change the interface of the game. Basically this will allow players to add in their own custom interfaces. However, if it had to be coded, this might deal a spot-on hit. Perhaps an easy, yet workable involvement of text files, a readme, and images to contain the looks and everything for all interfaces. For example, one for the menu, another for... well you get it. Basically a customizable part of it all. But with how hard it might be to code it all in, it would be a good trial and error thing for people. After all, we got a lot of people working on things, right? So why not allow people to distribute their own interfaces?

In my honesty, i'd pick zwei's interface over the others. The organization with that one is wonderful, not to mention the transparent background.

So in a sense, Toady could add this stuff into an init, so people can choose if they want to use a different interface. And maybe a way to allow multiple folders in just the interface folder. Basically like the save folder, where you can use multiple folders. Like you say which folder it's in, and it will automatically load it up. Like say you have one named InterfaceExample1, and InterfaceExample2 in the Interface, and want to pick one of them to use. You type in the init's correct spot as "InterfaceExample2", then it will load that interface. And maybe when you load up the game, there is an interface folder in called "Default", that will be used mainly for the normal style of play.

If there were interfaces, i would rather choose to use them, and.. i assume others would too..

[Jiri Petru]

I don't think it's feasible to maintain more than one interface but yeah, it would be nice.

The decision whether to have just one official interface or to open in for other to program their own interfaces, though, is on Toady One to make. I don't want to force him to do anything. This thread was meant as a repository of ideas and it doesn't really mater if it's Toady who uses them in the end or a team like Stonesense guys working on a (sanctioned) third party interface.

[Sizik]

And just as a bonus, you can actually completely remove them, a grudge I hold against stockpiles (maybe it got fixed by now, but last time I checked, you can only reduce them to 0 tiles size, but the stockpile still exists).

No, they are completely removed, just check the room list. The game just numbers the next stockpile after the last created stockpile. If you create stockpiles #1, #2, and #3, then delete #1, the next stockpile will be #4, since the highest number is #3. However, if you have stockpiles #1, #2, and #3, and delete #2 and #3, the next stockpile will be #2, since the highest number stockpile is #1.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

No, they are completely removed, just check the room list. The game just numbers the next stockpile after the last created stockpile. If you create stockpiles #1, #2, and #3, then delete #1, the next stockpile will be #4, since the highest number is #3. However, if you have stockpiles #1, #2, and #3, and delete #2 and #3, the next stockpile will be #2, since the highest number stockpile is #1.

Interesting. I will have to investigate that, as I am currently extremely careful with my stockpiles ensuring that I only create those that I really want to have in the system later on (so my temporary finished goods stockpile needed to get all those rock crafts for the first caravans into bins usually will be converted into a food stockpile later in the game and is set up among the other food stockpiles).

Thanks for that clarification.

Deathworks (who still thinks, though, that furniture rooms are easier to create :) :) :) )

[Jiri Petru]

Deathworks (who still thinks, though, that furniture rooms are easier to create )

They probably are. The problem here is:
1) You can't apply the same approach to everything else, say stockpiles or workshops.
2) While you can create a special system for every kind of "building" (stockpiles, workshops, rooms, zones...) that would be super powerful, you shouldn't. Having a unified system with a bit slower solution is better than having 5 different, ultra-fast ones.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

By the way, I prefer to have such overviews/large menus on the side (another bonus point for the current Dwarf Fortress in my eyes, when compared to other games). While a pull-down menu belongs at the top, I feel no such rule for the thing we are talking about here. And I always felt alienated by the tendency to make everything wider and lower.

I mean, it is nice to have a screen that is 20 x 1 in its dimensions when you have a side-scroller like Giana Sisters, but for a game that is played from "above", it doesn't make sense to favor one axis over the other. Thus, I always like it when such titles use a design that makes the screen closer to 1 x 1.

Deathworks

[Jiri Petru]

It's fun here with you, Deathworks.  (and just to be sure... I mean it well)

I don't care that much if it is on the bottom or on the right - I think you can easily take my categories and imagine them in a right side menu. I put in on the bottom only because intuition tells me it's nicer to have a rectangular view than a square one. It's the same thing like with photographies or paintings, I think. Not that it really matters.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Thank you for the kind words.

Just so there is no misunderstanding - I was actually replying to an older comment of you hinting at that possibility to move the menus to the right. And since I never responded to that, I decided to do so now and also bump this discussion in the process.

Deathworks

[Lord Shonus]

Deathworks (who still thinks, though, that furniture rooms are easier to create )

They probably are. The problem here is:
1) You can't apply the same approach to everything else, say stockpiles or workshops.
2) While you can create a special system for every kind of "building" (stockpiles, workshops, rooms, zones...) that would be super powerful, you shouldn't. Having a unified system with a bit slower solution is better than having 5 different, ultra-fast ones.

I disagree with your second point. Unification is NOT automatically better, and some of the biggest flaws in commercial games in my experience come from assuming that it is. (The best example I can think of off the top of my head is aircraft in the first Empire Earth game or in the first two Civilization games.)

[Draco18s]

I disagree with your second point. Unification is NOT automatically better, and some of the biggest flaws in commercial games in my experience come from assuming that it is. (The best example I can think of off the top of my head is aircraft in the first Empire Earth game or in the first two Civilization games.)

You're going to have to explain, as I never played any of those games.

[Lord Shonus]

Alright. In the first Empire Earth game (an RTS), you controlled aircraft the same way you controlled ground units, with the caveat that you first had to launch them from the airport. In actual play, this either resulted in you launching planes with a wide gap between them, making them more vulnerable to interceptors or flak, or in your strike circling the airport and burning fuel while you tried to get them all selected. EE2, while still imperfect, added a way to assign the planes individual missions in the airport, something you can only do for planes, making it far easier to launch a coordintaed strike.

In Civilization I and II (4x games), aircraft were controlled exactly like ground units, except that if they ran out of movement points without being in an airport or city, they exploded (fuel). This made it hard to attack targets at the far range of the aircraft, because a single mismove, easy to do in the somewhat primitive isometric of civ II, could result in your plane running out of fuel one square away from home, costing you a very expensive unit. Civ III replaced it with "missions", where you simply selected a mission and a target. If the target was in range, it would be carried out. Again, this was an interface added only for planes that was far better than the previous unified interface.