Steam installeren
inloggen
|
taal
简体中文 (Chinees, vereenvoudigd)
繁體中文 (Chinees, traditioneel)
日本語 (Japans)
한국어 (Koreaans)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgaars)
Čeština (Tsjechisch)
Dansk (Deens)
Deutsch (Duits)
English (Engels)
Español-España (Spaans - Spanje)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spaans - Latijns-Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Grieks)
Français (Frans)
Italiano (Italiaans)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Hongaars)
Norsk (Noors)
Polski (Pools)
Português (Portugees - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Braziliaans-Portugees)
Română (Roemeens)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Fins)
Svenska (Zweeds)
Türkçe (Turks)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamees)
Українська (Oekraïens)
Een vertaalprobleem melden
De auteur van dit onderwerp heeft een bericht gemarkeerd als antwoord op zijn of haar vraag.
Regels en richtlijnen voor discussies
Dit bericht rapporteren
It's best to ignore the troll; they've been harassing these forums since before the steam release even happened.
fair enough
I can get a bit trollian at times, at least once a month anyway ;)
but this was a genuine question of which I am glad I asked.
Tho I think comparing Tarn and Putnam, to be similar to comparing apples and oranges.
It does make me wonder what these two could produce if given enough time...
For them it's a lifelong project. Sure, if they had a team working on it they could do a lot more work. But team mean concessions, spending more time managing people instead of coding and not all the code is yours. For reference, Putnam have been hired (so far) to focus on bug fixing and optimization (so no creative input I would imagine, which mean the game is still what they'd have done but less buggy).
So yes, I have my doubt. Also they are a known troll that was banned at least once for trolling.
wasn't Putnam hired not only because they had been working on mods for the game but also due to a message they sent asking for Tarn NOT to change the GDD in any way?
I thought they would eventually work on system design for new content together.
I agree they should keep it a tight group tho
https://youtu.be/lmqQNy_ZboY?si=ikbaFuwGHo-4C25N&t=1164
and watching what happens at 19:00 I though to myself "damn, they did add what I was asking for"
Was it so hard to admit the game needed combat animations? According to nearly 300 posts, yes, why are people like this?
At any rate it's not the most perfect animation ever, but it does it's job, and made the entire experience much, much better than it used to be.
Are these also visible on fortress mode now?
I don't care much for adventure
Maybe try to use the proper words ? It makes it easier for other to understand you.
The game don't need animations. Would it be better with them ? Sure.
Anyway, glad you admit it's necessary, after all, if it would make the game better, then it is, the fact that it doesn't have more of it, and, concluding, as you said, from your last post it's something that makes the game worse, then it counts as a flaw.
I don't see the point in arguing in favor of decreasing the game's quality and removing necessary features. I get it's the ego thing as you tried to defend an absurd position years ago, but that's no longer the topic, it's already done, what I was asking for was already partially implemented, and we're hoping more quality is added from further improvements, I was asking if fortress mode also made this change.
But I didn't ? I literally said it's not necessary. I said it would be nice but not necessary.
It's amazing how you still have this fascinating ability to read what you want, see what you want and twist reality and word in a way that suit your need. I still don't know if it's the regular troll/jester farming, or some uncanny ability you have.
I'm sure it could be modded or made, if the only thing preventing this game for greatness is an effect straigth from the 90's. Obviously it wouldn't be accurate at all, time flow differently in fortress vs adventure. Each "turn" is much longer in fortress, so NPC do several attack per turn, instead of 1-2 like in adventure.
For me personally, the vanilla version of the RimWorld game is simple/boring/fast.
"First for those saying RW is about small colonies I say it is if you want that but you can have larger colonies in RW than you can in DF. My largest colony was 435 pawns and there are videos on youtube of people with 1000 pawn colonies so you can be a small colony or a city it is up to you."
you have to use dev tools or mods to get 400 pawns its not really possible in basegame
it is intended to be a small colony simulator, the safe map sizes are optimized that way, the pawn selector ui can only handle 20 people before you have to turn it off, and the game chugs past 40, and the biggest thing about the game (its relationships and emotion management is completely irrelevant past 30 people
"Second for those saying DF battles are too big to animate I have had many battles in RW where I was attacked by 300+ raiders and adding in my 200+ colony pawns that put over 500 pawns on the screen and everyone was animated. The top of my screen was multiple rows of character faces and those faces updated as injuries occurred."
this isn't a normal experience you are not the rule the average person playing isn't going past 40 pawns
"I had total control over all of my pawns and could easily send the ranged guys out to attack then as the enemy closed in I pulled them back and sent in the melee troops to engage the enemy while my ranged guys continued to fire from a safe distance. When it was over half of my map was covered in blood and bodies. Every injury on every one of my pawns was documented on their health tab like missing limbs, missing eyes, cuts, gunshots etc etc. and those injuries remained listed until they were healed or in the case of missing limbs they remained until I replaced the limbs."
you checked 200+ people for their injuries from their tabs? sure dude and again this isnt the average experience its very likely you used dev tools/mods to achieve this many pawns, because there is a soft limit on how many you can have
"All injuries affected how my pawns moved (slow if missing a leg or loss of accuracy if missing an eye) and during all of this the game did not lag or freeze and everything about the battle was well documented, it was even documented in the statue my artist made commemorating the battle and giving tribute to the ones who died in it and that day was marked as a holiday every year after that for future generations to pay respect to those who fought and died."
you're telling me youtubers with way better computers than you will talk about lag at 100 pawns, but you maintained 60 fps with no stutters or lag with 600+? you're either lying or have a computer from nasa
"There is a reason games like RW have a lot of players with well over 10,000 hours in the game. Even with all my hours in RW and me seeing everything in the game and all the DLC I still play it almost daily because it is fun and to me it looks nice. After an hour or maybe 2 in DF it gets boring to me and if I wanted to read tons of text I would just go buy a book not play a game that writes me a book and expects me to read every single line just to get an idea of what is happening in the game. RW has all that text too but I do not have to read it to know what is happening in the game. I have played RW games where I went the entire game and never once read the combat log but I still knew everything that happened in a fight because it was displayed on my screen in graphics and animations."
show a source about people with 10,000 hours, the amount of people who have that amount of hours in any game is very low
Honestly, this is an interesting topic, starting off, Dwarf Fortress is not a combat game, and it's more of a simulator than an actual game, what does that imply? Well, the goal of Dwarf Fortress is to be a life simulator, to simulate as many details and peculiarities as possible. An interesting example is that unlike Rimworld, where attackers are thrown at you according to your wealth and a semi-determined period of time, here combat can be as weak or intense as you allow. Your fort will be attacked depending on how coveted it is. If you install a public tavern, this can lead to your fort being recognized. Your dwarves talking about artifacts and riches in your fort, and this spreading to the outside world, can attract more intense attacks. As such, you have massive control. If you play carefully, you can have a really big fort that only receives small attacks, as well as having a small fort that really attracts big attacks. This game often works better when you play with a "roleplay" mentality than min-max, because yes, combat is broken and that is also my biggest complaint about the game, but for reasons different
while you give a strong emphasis to the graphics, my complaint is specifically about gameplay, the game really manages to convey what is happening in combat, but in a very old-fashioned way, but what really ruins the fun of combat is, for example, creating walls can stop entire invasions or just "lock the door". I would find the game much more interesting if the invaders could: an enemy goblin digging a tunnel to your fort to bypass traps and walls and cause a lot of problems in the process, it would be hell, but that would make it much more interesting and would break many "foolproof tactics" (which is my complaint, I hope there are no perfect forts here, everything is destined to fall eventually)
for now the only current solution to these issues of broken dwarf tricks is to not use them, which can be quite evasive for those who play with a more min-max mentality, maximizing killing efficiency is very much part of the rimworld mentality in fact and not doing so is at best a choice questionable design (although I understand that this is not intentional, the combat is really broken)
another issue is that the game becomes much more understandable when you consider that both classic dwarf and steam have been in beta for decades and continue to be so
most of the complaints come from unfinished features, I am aware that developers intend to update combat and even add siege weapons to attackers for example, one of the biggest mistakes here is treating dwarf as a complete and finished game, it is not and it is a shi?storm, but much of the fun experience for now is this perpetual chaos, but it is also a mistake to cling to chaos, the fact that dwarf fortress is a simulation game and not a combat game does not mean that combat should be neglected.
I agree with the author on some things, it would be cool for dwarf fortress to use professional tactics, but this should take into account the complexity of the game, if they do this it should only happen with more experienced dwarves (or at least with experienced commanders, thus simulating a veteran commander trying to organize a stupid militia and all the chaos in the process) this would be nice if it worked.
about the extreme emphasis on animation that the author gave, I don't know if people noticed but this game has missing sprites, the necromancer experiment have somewhat buggy sprites, this implies that even the steam version is at the very beginning even in sprites
if the game can't have complete static sprites, it's insane to expect animated sprites
I disagree with people who say that dwarfs don't need or can't have animation, they can and have a lot of potential for that, it doesn't need to be animation of every minute detail, but something more banal, if a dwarf loses his arm, you can take it off the sprite, I much prefer animations to be more utilitarian than representative, that is, if it shows "important" things, you don't need to animate a dwarf swinging his sword, I don't care, but I would like to hear about a dwarf sprite without a body part, because that is useful and doesn't seem ridiculously complex to do if you're going to animate with this mentality of focusing on "what It matters and not in details" because if you want minute details, you read the logs, that's what they are there for after all.
And I believe that Dwarf Fortress will have animations at some point or at least sprites that can be adapted to the scenario, but this has to be treated like a painting, the game is an art in itself, you have a sketch, you apply a coat of paint, then a second, a third, you polish and improve what already exists until it looks good.
I don't see Dwarf Fortress implementing animation right away, but slowly and continuously improving sprites
This game is known for having a continuous and insanely slow pace of doing things, I wouldn't expect anything different about the sprites, for them to improve over time.
From what I understand, there are 2 big groups in this thread
Old school Dwarf Fortress players, who are used to playing in a way that's heavily RP-oriented and getting around/tolerating the game's gross flaws
and new players who have come across how absurd Dwarf Fortress is (in both a good and bad sense) both for its lack of extremely basic features and for its extreme complexity while these features are missing. it seems that many people here have a strong winning mentality, in other words, what's the most efficient way to maintain a stable fort? And considering the amount of bugs... it can be quite easy, and that's disappointing for those who carry it.
I've said this before, but I'd rather say it again, this game is in near perpetual beta and it's a shi?storm, if you play with the idea of winning, this will be one of the worst games in the world due to the ridiculous amount of avoidable micro (DFhack was created by the community and exists to fix tons of missing mechanics in Dwarf Fortress) and debilitating bugs. On the other hand, the game is genuinely complex and rich in content, it's perfect for those who like RP. and that's what I'm seeing here, 2 groups with 2 very different mentalities killing each other over their differences
it's fun to see a tantrum spiral from both sides
but there's not much to say here, the game really has big flaws and the fact that the developer intends to fix them doesn't magically make them disappear
but the game wasn't made to be played with the intention of "winning" you'll get depressed if you play dwarf that way
many people love to compare rimworld and dwarf fortress, to be honest I think crusader kings 3 is much more comparable to dwarf fortress than rimworld
rimworld is about combat, you profit, improve and so on to receive swarms of unavoidable invaders and eventually create a ship to "win" the game
as for ck3 when it was released (and in fact it still has this problem) the game is extraordinarily easy, and much of its difficulty is not in mechanics but in screen and complexity (what makes dwarf fortress difficult is its complexity that is difficult to understand and its unintuitive screen, not necessarily mechanics, and in fact it's the opposite, as the game gives you a lot of control, it's quite easy to avoid total defeat, if you want combat you have to provoke it directly or indirectly and then it can be intense) however due to the nature of ck3 in focusing on the character instead of the nation, that is, your kingdom, the game ended up being very large "despite the lack of functional difficulty mechanics" with an RP community, being ideally the appropriate way to play ck3, if you play with the objective of winning, you'll quickly find yourself painting the map, on the other hand if you play in a more interpretive way, this lack of mechanics becomes much more tolerable, dwarf fortress suffers from a similar syndrome.
that is, mechanically rimworld is closer to dwarf fortress,
but in terms of mentality ck3 is closer to dwarf fortress.
however as humanity is a beautiful clusterf?ck, people from different groups quickly notice their differences and start fighting or trying to impose them... and thanks to this wonder we stopped at a topic that could have had an interesting discussion but now it's mainly a spiral of tantrums for no reason at all.
If I were to summarize the biggest complaint about Dwarf Fortress, it would be:
"Dwarf Fortress is an RP platform that tries to be a game, but it's much more of a simulation than a game.
You have fun dealing with the simulation part.
But it's complete crap when you treat it like a game."
This board has passionate players on it. Which is good, but many also seem incapable of viewing legitimate criticism as anything but a personal attack. It's weird but not limited to dwarf fortress. Dwarf Fortress has many problems that need work. That's just a fact.
I play and enjoy both games and I watch streams sometimes too. It's only ever Dwarf Fortress players and streamers that directly or indirectly will cast shade at Rimworld. It's not something I've ever seen go the other way. Rimworld sometimes acknowledges the existence of Dwarf Fortress because they're similar but I never see the same kind of knee-jerk animosity I constantly see from DF players and it's always the root of threads on these boards going 20 pages and 300 comments.
I've played both, and I admit that I've played more Rimworld than Dwarf Fortress, but I've never been able to buy the idea that Rimworld and DF are comparable. In terms of appearance, they're similar, some mechanics are similar, but that's all. I could spend the whole day listing differences, but what really matters is mentality. Rimworld can be played in a competitive-oriented way, min-max, trying to maximize your killing capacity, "all with a winning mentality."
The characters in Rimworld have personality and so on, but they're flat enough for you to just focus on stats and rarely anything else.
To have fun in DF you have to play with a completely different mindset, it's quite easy to "win" DF when you understand the mechanics, but the game is deep and winning is not the point here, as such the ideal is to play with a mindset that takes advantage of depth, a mindset more focused on the character or as I said above an RP mindset, it works much better here, you try to understand the character, what's happening and go deeper, and it turns out that much of the fun of DF comes from this and from the inherent chaos, both due to the bugs and the complexity.
But here comes the biggest mistake of this forum in my opinion, in terms of mentality, DF and Rimworld are effectively opposites, one you play very competitively, the other is more to enjoy and delve deeper, when people say that Rimworld and DF are comparable, this creates an expectation about both games, Rimworld players often enter DF expecting a challenging and brutal game, many times and I was one of those people, but the real challenge of DF is learning how the game works, from the moment you learn, you realize how much control you have, and if you go in with the mindset of winning, you quickly find yourself bored because you may have used a bug or some ♥♥♥♥ that made your fort immune to falling, maybe your fort falls due to some unexpected event but it will take so long that it is already boring enough for you to not want to play anymore.
On the other hand, something similar seems to happen with DF players about Rimworld, they go there expecting a game similar to DF and when they see it, it is an unavoidable and "planned" massacre compared to df
but both games are fun for very different reasons
it's a very bad comparison that people on the forum make, what these games have in common is their appearance and that's it.
but df is a problematic game in some aspects because it has extremes, in some parts of the game it is extremely good, like the depth act, but in others it is extremely bad the combat itself if you ignore the peculiarities is more boring than interesting.
It's just extremely bizarre how people on the forum behave. I personally prefer to play Rimworld over DF because it's "more integrated" with mechanics, but frankly, DF has more potential than Rimworld if it can apply what it intends to properly. If that's the case, my expectation is that you won't need to play with an x mentality to have fun. You have to ignore the crap or get around it and enjoy what you have. But I don't think it's going to be limited to that forever. For example, the idea of improving combat is to add enemy excavation, etc. This would improve the tension of the game related to combat thousands of times over and would finally break those annoying fail-safe tricks. For someone here who's more into the challenge of the game, it would be wonderful. Of course, there are other things to improve, like micro, DFhack solves some, but there are still several that are quite annoying. If the game could solve these 2 issues + fatal bugs, I would say that most of the "core" complaints would be dead
And if I'm not mistaken, df intends to improve combat before the magic update, if that's the case it would be quite encouraging
Some people complain about df's graphics, but that's the least of the problems, if I were to ask for something for graphics it would just be flexible sprites, changing the damage measurement or equipment you use (it already has this but it's only applied to the main species, the man-animals don't exist yet)
Apart from that, for me the lack of animation or things like that is an advantage, because I like to imagine, and imagining how combat is going is interesting. The only thing related to sprites is more intuitive sprites that better show the current scenario of the game and what is happening, this does not need animation or anything like that, I do not miss it and in fact I think it would be a problem if it had depending on how it was applied, for me each feature of the game added has to respect its complexity, if animation does it I have no problem with that, but I do not consider it something of emphasis or priority, for me the focus of the df has always been depth, if something improves that, even animation, you add it, if you do not, do not add it, end.