Behold ELDERMANOR! of Dwarf Fortress !

[Serafina]

Duckie is right - in nearly every game, the interface is designed last.

Why? Well, simple - its's no good designing an interface when you will have to add new features later on.

And this game is desinged by a single guy - big wonder there is no interface yet.

[Duckie]

Duckie is right - in nearly every game, the interface is designed last.

Although since Dwarf Fortress (since it isn't looking to turn a profit or even necessarily make money, that's just a happy accident along the way of 'make a game I want to make') is never done or 'released' like commercial games, he'll have to make the interface some time and then work around it. Personally I'm hoping to be supporting 'fix the interface at least somewhat' after this update and then when sieges and farming are fixed, but if it isn't I can deal. Unless it gets worse, which I can't see how it would.

[Stark]

Oh man. Not only are you wrong (and either stupid or deliberately misconstruing) but you're part of the problem. The interface can't 'get worse' because it hardly even exists.

Talking about 'finished' with regard to hobby developers is a waste of time, but as you know I was talking about featureset. This will never be finalised and polish will probably never happen, because there's always more develop-interesting but game-meaningless dhit to add. Since the game will never be more 'finished' than it is (ps unless you're a sophist it's pretty finished now, even if development hasn't stopped).

But all the defensiveness aside, Roguelikes have better interfaces than DF, and they're far dimpled games. The developer priority is in the 'implement stupid crap' area, and not the 'make game playable to anyone but my sycophants' area, so I'm not sure why the fanboys are even upset.

It's sad that someone would so stupid as to equate nerd forum pressure to 'hey how about you make an actual interface'. Remember, it's okay! There will be an interface ... When it's 'finished'. Until then it's wrong and mean to criticise the failure of the interface.

[Duckie]

It's sad that someone would so stupid as to equate nerd forum pressure to 'hey how about you make an actual interface'. Remember, it's okay! There will be an interface ... When it's 'finished'. Until then it's wrong and mean to criticise the failure of the interface.

Who's isn't criticising the failure of the interface? As far as I know I've never defended it, because it's a terrible (nonexistant) interface. As far as I know, though, the only one who is saying "Drop everything make an interface now because I think it needs one" is Stark, which might be the distinction you're trying to make.

But apparantly it's impossible to have an opinion like "I'd rather have the game have a poor interface and work full-steam ahead on actually making gameplay worthwhile". The only valid opinion is Stark's. If Stark thinks the interface is so poor that it overrides the need to actually make the rest of the game work, then Stark is correct and you're stupid and/or a sophist if you want things like enjoyable gameplay experience. Especially if you can tolerate the interface, because clearly every single person has the same ability to comprehend and deal with things- if Stark thinks the interface is impenetrable, then clearly anybody who is capable of penetrating the interface is just an anorak and nerd because they must have spent hours and hours getting the horrible interface to work, rather than, you know, figuring it out within about 30 minutes.

[Stark]

Build a better strawman!

Who's isn't criticising the failure of the interface? As far as I know I've never defended it, because it's a terrible (nonexistant) interface.

So we agree and you can shut the fuck up?

As far as I know, though, the only one who is saying "Drop everything make an interface now because I think it needs one" is Stark, which might be the distinction you're trying to make.

Oh I see you'd rather lie about what I'm saying because you don't like ME or HOW I SAID A MEAN THING.

But apparantly it's impossible to have an opinion like "I'd rather have the game have a poor interface and work full-steam ahead on actually making gameplay worthwhile".

You mean like how the game has been pretty mature with comlpex and inter-related, sophisticated mechanics from start to finish? Nah, do the interface later. HACK IN A NEW MENU OPTION AND THEN DON'T DOCUMENT IT LOL.

The only valid opinion is Stark's. If Stark thinks the interface is so poor that it overrides the need to actually make the rest of the game work, then Stark is correct and you're stupid and/or a sophist if you want things like enjoyable gameplay experience.

The game is unplayable without hours of research. This is a simple fact, and your dislike of me is totally irrelevant. Yes, the game has both neat features and problems. The issue is that the zero interface makes this IRRELEVANT. Who cares how good the game is when YOU HAVE TO KEEP A WIKI PAGE OPEN TO EVEN PLAY IT? Your (hilarious) dislike of an internet text-line cannot change the fact that the interface sucks and you don't deny it; you're either butthurt or trolling. Luckily, I'm happy to cooperate!

Especially if you can tolerate the interface, because clearly every single person has the same ability to comprehend and deal with things- if Stark thinks the interface is impenetrable, then clearly anybody who is capable of penetrating the interface is just an anorak and nerd because they must have spent hours and hours getting the horrible interface to work, rather than, you know, figuring it out within about 30 minutes.

Tolerate = support. So long as his forums are full of people who ALREADY cracked the horrid interface and prefer development elsewhere, he will NEVER, EVER improve the interface. This is why those magic words - project management - are significant. Do you know what they mean? Or are you going to intentionally 'misinterpret' again to strawman me?

Oh, also, you hate me, great stuff. Go eat a dick.

Posting on a phone is sad because I missed serafina's piece of stupid. Yes, they design interfaces last; which is why alphas have interfaces and design documents specify interfaces. Turns out 'changing interface in light of testing/QA concerns' doesn't mean you didn't already 'design' it.

Of course, with a hobbyist with no plan, of COURSE it won't be designed till the end, because who knows when they'll need to implement sophisticated mechanics around light-scatter from different wall surfaces?

[Duckie]

Build a better strawman!

Oh, you're going to? Thank you, I'm glad I warrant it.

So we agree and you can shut the fuck up?

Sure, if all you meant was "Interface is horrible" and not "Everyone who likes this game is a retard and anyone who thinks the designer shouldn't drop everything and design an interface at this moment is too".

Oh I see you'd rather lie about what I'm saying because you don't like ME or HOW I SAID A MEAN THING.

I'd like to see evidence of me having some kind of vendetta against you. As far as I know you don't even warrent a blip on my radar, as I haven't a care who the fuck you are.

You mean like how the game has been pretty mature with comlpex and inter-related, sophisticated mechanics from start to finish? Nah, do the interface later. HACK IN A NEW MENU OPTION AND THEN DON'T DOCUMENT IT LOL.

I tried to decipher this... "english sentence" and got as far as "Game is fine- NEEDS INTERFACE", but I don't actually give a shit so I'll assume it's that. Apparantly Stark has never played Dwarf Fortress though because all he talks about is the lack of interface while the lack of relevant gameplay to go with the interface isn't mentioned upon. That's what needs fixing first.

The game is unplayable without hours of research.

Shit it turns out this entire time I haven't been playing dwarf fortress. [See below, it turns out I've been playing the korean bootleg 'dvvarf fotress' that doesn't need research or wiki]

This is a simple fact, and your dislike of me is totally irrelevant.

What's with the persecution issues? I don't dislike you. I just think you're wrong and an arrogant prick about it.

Yes, the game has both neat features and problems. The issue is that the zero interface makes this IRRELEVANT.

Because you say so?

Who cares how good the game is when YOU HAVE TO KEEP A WIKI PAGE OPEN TO EVEN PLAY IT?

Apparantly I do, and a lot of people do, because I've got 'fix interface' as 2nd on my wishlist. Also, I don't have to keep a wiki page open to play it. I do because I like to look at examples of fortresses to see whether someone has done something more efficiently like waterworks or workshop structuring. So apparantly I'm a figment of my own imagination lol. I'm glad it turns out I've been bullshitting as it turns out according to Stark I've done the impossible (played it without a wiki open), which by nature cannot occur. Therefore I must not know how to play.

Your (hilarious) dislike of an internet text-line cannot change the fact that the interface sucks and you don't deny it; you're either butthurt or trolling. Luckily, I'm happy to cooperate!

You're happy to cooperate with butthurt (persecution issues on 'oh noes someone disagrees they must not like me and have a vendetta!) and trolling? Thanks for admitting it.

Tolerate = support. So long as his forums are full of people who ALREADY cracked the horrid interface and prefer development elsewhere, he will NEVER, EVER improve the interface. This is why those magic words - project management - are significant.

So the current lack of interface is Adolf Hitler or something, to Godwin's Law it? If we make any concessions as to other aspects of the project, then horrible things will happen? I don't see why you're so adamant about this, unless you're just irritated because you want to play and it's thwarting you. I can't see any other reason for "Fixing real gameplay problems that people have been asking for fixes of for years is merely lending support to the interface!" unless you're misinterpreting "Fix a few gameplay problems, then improve interface" for your strawman of "Feature bloat and add every single idea ever, then interface last".

Do you know what they mean? Or are you going to intentionally 'misinterpret' again to strawman me?

Again as far as I'm concerned, the project is going along fine. I'll revise my opinion when (and probably when rather than if) it goes off the rails and starts adding shit like mine carts lol or trade guilds and such rather than fixing the problems inherent in the current gameplay and the interface.

Oh, also, you hate me, great stuff. Go eat a dick.

I'm sorry, have you got one on hand? I wasn't aware I had a vendetta against you, having as far as I know never talked to you before, so I'm fresh out of dicks at the moment.

[Stark]

Oh yeah, it's nothing personal right, that's just why you used my name like six times. HA!

Also hilarity re 'I'm not strawmanning you'

So the current lack of interface is Adolf Hitler or something, to Godwin's Law it? If we make any concessions as to other aspects of the project, then horrible things will happen?

YES THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID YOU HAVE GOT ME.

It's just sad that you're stupid/fannish/troll enough to think that my initial response to Vendetta (basically saying 'no, implementing xyz new stupid feature isn't more important than the interface) has made you so very angry. The interface sucks; the interface is very important. I'm sure there are hundreds of people like you who prefer to fight the interface to do things, but a crap interface makes the game crap despite it's quality in other areas, and you being hilariously furious doesn't change that. Next you'll say it's wrong to bag out Roguelikes for their arcane interfaces... which are STILL better than DF's.

But no, any such criticism is immediately strawmanned into 'omg whut about the fixes needed for yearzzzz'. Turns out my point was about project management, timeframes, milestones, that sort of thing; hobby development generally doesn't do this, which is the root of the situation. Sorry, do I understand it better than you?

[Duckie]

Oh yeah, it's nothing personal right, that's just why you used my name like six times. HA!

Apparantly you can't tell the difference between sarcasm at your own sense of importance and vendetta. Have you honestly never heard anyone use the rhetorical device of using a person's name in the 3rd person over and over to hammer home a point about what they think or believe?

Also hilarity re 'I'm not strawmanning you'

So the current lack of interface is Adolf Hitler or something, to Godwin's Law it? If we make any concessions as to other aspects of the project, then horrible things will happen?

YES THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID YOU HAVE GOT ME.

I'm glad you can recognize facetiousness too.

It's just sad that you're stupid/fannish/troll enough to think that my initial response to Vendetta (basically saying 'no, implementing xyz new stupid feature isn't more important than the interface) has made you so very angry.

Who's angry? I'd accuse you of projecting but that wouldn't apply unless you said "so very smug".

The interface sucks; the interface is very important. I'm sure there are hundreds of people like you who prefer to fight the interface to do things, but a crap interface makes the game crap despite it's quality in other areas, and you being hilariously furious doesn't change that. Next you'll say it's wrong to bag out Roguelikes for their arcane interfaces... which are STILL better than DF's.

Says who? I'm pretty sure you aren't the arbiter of crapness. Guess what Stark, a niche game in a niche genre has a niche audience and other people don't like it? holyshit. That's some strange and unprecedented stuff.

But no, any such criticism is immediately strawmanned into 'omg whut about the fixes needed for yearzzzz'. Turns out my point was about project management, timeframes, milestones, that sort of thing; hobby development generally doesn't do this, which is the root of the situation. Sorry, do I understand it better than you?

Certainly I'd agree with the fact that such things are needed, but I don't see the necessity of fixing the interface at this moment when there's other things (let us call them 'milestones') that need to be done first. If after fixing the things that need to be fixed he doesn't work on the interface or something else substantial, then it's a problem with his priorities.

Also, on a side note, I'd like to know how Stark knows I am furious. I have searched under my bed, in my closet, and behind my door and I do not see him, which leads me to wonder how he saw me throw this computer through a window. Does anyone know where he is? The nerve of someone. Arguing with me- on Stardestroyer.net! There's no way I could be anything other than furious.

[Stark]

Says who? I'm pretty sure you aren't the arbiter of crapness.

Are you saying interfaces aren't very important, or that Roguelikes aren't as bad? Protip? Roguelikes have a) manuals, b) consistency and c) clarity. If DF had that, it'd be a PLAYABLE interesting, sophisticated and inter-related game, instead of an interesting, sophisticated and inter-related game that people give up on in five minutes.

Guess what Stark, a niche game in a niche genre has a niche audience and other people don't like it? holyshit. That's some strange and unprecedented stuff.

You ARE trolling. More people would play the game if it wasn't so asinine and opaque. That is self-evident.

Certainly I'd agree with the fact that such things are needed, but I don't see the necessity of fixing the interface at this moment when there's other things (let us call them 'milestones') that need to be done first. If after fixing the things that need to be fixed he doesn't work on the interface or something else substantial, then it's a problem with his priorities.

You can't just invent a development structure around someone else's development in progress to make it look more organised! The fact that he's implementing ANYTHING NEW when the game has had problems for years already proves he's got problems - but he's a hobbyist, it's free etc so this isn't unexpected. What IS unexpected is people defending it or not understanding it. All kinds of OSS/free software suffers from this, given the lack of organisation, motivation, etc.

Also, on a side note, I'd like to know how Stark knows I am furious. I have searched under my bed, in my closet, and behind my door and I do not see him, which leads me to wonder how he saw me throw this computer through a window. Does anyone know where he is? The nerve of someone. Arguing with me- on Stardestroyer.net! There's no way I could be anything other than furious.

Ya-huh. Talk more about 'vendettas' and 'rhetorical devices'. I said a mean thing about your favourite game, and I'm sorry. I'm so, so sorry.

[Duckie]

Says who? I'm pretty sure you aren't the arbiter of crapness.

Are you saying interfaces aren't very important, or that Roguelikes aren't as bad? Protip? Roguelikes have a) manuals, b) consistency and c) clarity. If DF had that, it'd be a PLAYABLE interesting, sophisticated and inter-related game, instead of an interesting, sophisticated and inter-related game that people give up on in five minutes.

Protip: I'm not contradicting you that it would be better with a manual (although it has one, so a better one) and more consistent interface, I'm saying that it's still not a worthless game just because you dislike it. See, it turns out that just because you dislike something it doesn't automatically mean nobody else can like it.

Guess what Stark, a niche game in a niche genre has a niche audience and other people don't like it? holyshit. That's some strange and unprecedented stuff.

You ARE trolling. More people would play the game if it wasn't so asinine and opaque. That is self-evident.

Yeah, and that negates what I say... how? It turns out people can like something even if you don't, thus 'niche audience'. For some people the interface isn't as much a problem as it is to you. It turns out all games would have bigger audiences if they didn't have X problem, so therefore all games are crap?

Certainly I'd agree with the fact that such things are needed, but I don't see the necessity of fixing the interface at this moment when there's other things (let us call them 'milestones') that need to be done first. If after fixing the things that need to be fixed he doesn't work on the interface or something else substantial, then it's a problem with his priorities.

You can't just invent a development structure around someone else's development in progress to make it look more organised! The fact that he's implementing ANYTHING NEW when the game has had problems for years already proves he's got problems - but he's a hobbyist, it's free etc so this isn't unexpected. What IS unexpected is people defending it or not understanding it. All kinds of OSS/free software suffers from this, given the lack of organisation, motivation, etc.

I'll agree there. I'm just merely saying that for the moment it's not a big deal because for once he's actually almost on the right track with fixing the problems that cropped up a year ago with the 3d move. I'll reserve criticism for when he goes on some wild goose chase like programming in arm hair rather than fixing things that need to be fixed, like medicine, the interface, or sieges.

Also, on a side note, I'd like to know how Stark knows I am furious. I have searched under my bed, in my closet, and behind my door and I do not see him, which leads me to wonder how he saw me throw this computer through a window. Does anyone know where he is? The nerve of someone. Arguing with me- on Stardestroyer.net! There's no way I could be anything other than furious.

Ya-huh. Talk more about 'vendettas' and 'rhetorical devices'. I said a mean thing about your favourite game, and I'm sorry. I'm so, so sorry.

You said something mean about Go? *gasp* You bastard!

No, more seriously, how do you know I'm furious? You dodged the question, and now I'm genuinely curious how you can miss tone in a sentence (which you apparantly dismiss with air quotes around the words rhetorical device) but can identify anger via the same text format. It's intriguing.

[Stark]

Protip: I'm not contradicting you that it would be better with a manual (although it has one, so a better one) and more consistent interface, I'm saying that it's still not a worthless game just because you dislike it. See, it turns out that just because you dislike something it doesn't automatically mean nobody else can like it.

Oh sorry, the strawman again? Since I never claimed it sucked 'just because dislike it', this doesn't really concern me.

Yeah, and that negates what I say... how? It turns out people can like something even if you don't, thus 'niche audience'. For some people the interface isn't as much a problem as it is to you. It turns out all games would have bigger audiences if they didn't have X problem, so therefore all games are crap?

Oh please, do try harder with the trolling. I said the game drives peopel off with it's shit interface; you said 'oh dear it's niche'. I simply reiterated that a better interface would allow more people to play (without having to jump through all the hoops, fight the controls, etc). Your sad strawman is just that; any claim that DF woudln't have a larger audience with an actual interface are obviously false, and this ridicuous 'OMG YOU CAN DEAL WITH IT' thing is a red herring.

I'll agree there. I'm just merely saying that for the moment it's not a big deal because for once he's actually almost on the right track with fixing the problems that cropped up a year ago with the 3d move. I'll reserve criticism for when he goes on some wild goose chase like programming in arm hair rather than fixing things that need to be fixed, like medicine, the interface, or sieges.

Does he have an actual roadmap, or is this just what you glean from the forums? If it's the latter, are you just hoping the interface gets fixed and meanwhile playing with the system you've already go used to? The fact that the core of the game is so good and interesting is why the interface is such a big deal - if ti was a shit interface on a shit boring game nobody would care. This is a shit interface that RUINS a good game.

You said something mean about Go? *gasp* You bastard!

No, more seriously, how do you know I'm furious? You dodged the question, and now I'm genuinely curious how you can miss tone in a sentence (which you apparantly dismiss with air quotes around the words rhetorical device) but can identify anger via the same text format. It's intriguing.

I'm not even sure what you're asking. The trolling part of your responses is typical Furious Fanboy stuff. The 'vendetta' (ps vendetta != doesn't like someone) stuff reinforces this.

[Duckie]

Protip: I'm not contradicting you that it would be better with a manual (although it has one, so a better one) and more consistent interface, I'm saying that it's still not a worthless game just because you dislike it. See, it turns out that just because you dislike something it doesn't automatically mean nobody else can like it.

Oh sorry, the strawman again? Since I never claimed it sucked 'just because dislike it', this doesn't really concern me.

Oh, I see. I mistook what "Worthless" and "Crap" meant. I figured it meant you said it was worthless and a crap game because the interface is bad, because, you know, that's what you said. Based on that I took the 2 opinions you gave "The game is worthless because the interface is impenetrable", "The game is crap because it has a crap interface", and the general fact "The interface is shitty" to mean "The game is crap and worthless because it has a bad interface", but that apparantly was wrong of me to assume- thinking that, I noted that people who aren't you like it in spite of the interface and thus it isn't necessarily crap to those people.

Yeah, and that negates what I say... how? It turns out people can like something even if you don't, thus 'niche audience'. For some people the interface isn't as much a problem as it is to you. It turns out all games would have bigger audiences if they didn't have X problem, so therefore all games are crap?

Oh please, do try harder with the trolling. I said the game drives peopel off with it's shit interface; you said 'oh dear it's niche'. I simply reiterated that a better interface would allow more people to play (without having to jump through all the hoops, fight the controls, etc). Your sad strawman is just that; any claim that DF woudln't have a larger audience with an actual interface are obviously false, and this ridicuous 'OMG YOU CAN DEAL WITH IT' thing is a red herring.

Again, how does this negate what I just said last? It of course would have a better audience with a better interface. It turns out all games would have bigger audiences if they didn't have X problem. This does not necessarily make the fact that they have X problem cause the game to be completely worthless or shitty.

I'll agree there. I'm just merely saying that for the moment it's not a big deal because for once he's actually almost on the right track with fixing the problems that cropped up a year ago with the 3d move. I'll reserve criticism for when he goes on some wild goose chase like programming in arm hair rather than fixing things that need to be fixed, like medicine, the interface, or sieges.

Does he have an actual roadmap, or is this just what you glean from the forums? If it's the latter, are you just hoping the interface gets fixed and meanwhile playing with the system you've already go used to? The fact that the core of the game is so good and interesting is why the interface is such a big deal - if ti was a shit interface on a shit boring game nobody would care. This is a shit interface that RUINS a good game.

His road map is 'before the next update I'll do

• ', and generally posted every single time. This thread has the current version goals. Most of them are completely useless to fixing the game, but a lot of them- military AI not being so retarded as to be useless, alert status (although the interface for those is going to be horrific I'd wager), and to a lesser degree things like healing, champions, megabeasts not being so squishy, et cetera are sorely needed. And the current version update (which is taking/took forever due to some overhaul that had to be done at the start) supposedly segues into the arc wherein sieges stop becoming shit, which is important.
  
  It's all interspersed with useless crap like 'now hair colour is in the game!', but it's at least winding down the path towards the right idea on things besides the interface.
  

  You said something mean about Go? *gasp* You bastard!
  
  No, more seriously, how do you know I'm furious? You dodged the question, and now I'm genuinely curious how you can miss tone in a sentence (which you apparantly dismiss with air quotes around the words rhetorical device) but can identify anger via the same text format. It's intriguing.

  I'm not even sure what you're asking. The trolling part of your responses is typical Furious Fanboy stuff. The 'vendetta' (ps vendetta != doesn't like someone) stuff reinforces this.

  For the third time, how are you so certain I'm furious? That's my question. You seem to think Dwarf Fortress is my favorite game and that I'm livid you're saying something bad about it and that I'm crying, judging by your previous responses. I'm curious as to why, because that would imply you know something about me I don't.

[The Yosemite Bear]

*looks at the last page*
*hands Duckie a 100 ton Hammer*

It's fuckin Freeware beta you frakkin idjit Stark!

[Zixinus]

The actual interface itself would be somewhat tolerable if you wouldn't have to rely on some guy with medicore mic to tell you how to play something that needs tutorial levels and a fucking manual (preferably implanted into the game). For example, a helpful description of what every item is would alone massively improve playability.

And Stark has a point: most "gamers" consider people that can play and enjoy Dwarf Fortress to be some weird freak of nature. The learning curve isn't just huge: I think DF has the largest in entire VG history (for this decade anyway).

It may be freeware and it may still be in beta, but updating the interface definitely has priority over adding wrinkles and allowing some nobles to boast about where they were injured.

[Stark]

*looks at the last page*
*hands Duckie a 100 ton Hammer*

It's fuckin Freeware beta you frakkin idjit Stark!

are you stupid? Free things aren't immune to criticism. Free games have better ui - arguably less complex ones however. The ui sucks and that's a fact; this is amajor problem for the game

Which is apparently an opinion. duckie gets a proper response once I get to work.

[Stark]

Oh, I see. I mistook what "Worthless" and "Crap" meant. I figured it meant you said it was worthless and a crap game because the interface is bad, because, you know, that's what you said. Based on that I took the 2 opinions you gave "The game is worthless because the interface is impenetrable", "The game is crap because it has a crap interface", and the general fact "The interface is shitty" to mean "The game is crap and worthless because it has a bad interface", but that apparantly was wrong of me to assume- thinking that, I noted that people who aren't you like it in spite of the interface and thus it isn't necessarily crap to those people.

Jesus. I'm starting to think you ARE just stupid.

The UI is important because it's the INTERFACE between the USER and the GAME. Following me? If the interface sucks, the value of the game's OTHER features is FUCKING ZERO. All the injury modelling, weather modelling, world-map generating shit is totally WORTHLESS to those who can't penetrate the hopeless UI.

Moreover, this reply doesn't address your strawman, where you claim I said the game was crap simply because I don't like it. Troll, liar, idiot, pick one. Amusingly, I -DO- like the game (and can even sort-of play it). I'm just objective enough to recognise a horrible flaw, and the game is interesting enough underneath to make it worse.

Again, how does this negate what I just said last? It of course would have a better audience with a better interface. It turns out all games would have bigger audiences if they didn't have X problem. This does not necessarily make the fact that they have X problem cause the game to be completely worthless or shitty.

LOL, no, you thought it was a big joke to say it reaches a small audience because of it's niche nature. This is ONLY relevant at all if you're trying to dfend it's small audience, which is shrunk by the terrible interface.

So you're either off on a meaningless red herring or trolling.

His road map is 'before the next update I'll do

• ', and generally posted every single time. This thread has the current version goals. Most of them are completely useless to fixing the game, but a lot of them- military AI not being so retarded as to be useless, alert status (although the interface for those is going to be horrific I'd wager), and to a lesser degree things like healing, champions, megabeasts not being so squishy, et cetera are sorely needed. And the current version update (which is taking/took forever due to some overhaul that had to be done at the start) supposedly segues into the arc wherein sieges stop becoming shit, which is important.
  
  It's all interspersed with useless crap like 'now hair colour is in the game!', but it's at least winding down the path towards the right idea on things besides the interface.

So it's just made up as they go along, as I expected. Without a feature freeze they'll probably never catch up on the existing problems. This is literally first year software design. But he doesn't care, he's doing it for a laugh. Why are you defending it, again?

No, more seriously, how do you know I'm furious? You dodged the question, and now I'm genuinely curious how you can miss tone in a sentence (which you apparantly dismiss with air quotes around the words rhetorical device) but can identify anger via the same text format. It's intriguing.

I'm not even sure what you're asking. The trolling part of your responses is typical Furious Fanboy stuff. The 'vendetta' (ps vendetta != doesn't like someone) stuff reinforces this.

For the third time, how are you so certain I'm furious? That's my question. You seem to think Dwarf Fortress is my favorite game and that I'm livid you're saying something bad about it and that I'm crying, judging by your previous responses. I'm curious as to why, because that would imply you know something about me I don't.

Wow. Troll harder.

You said 'how do you know I'm angry'.

I replied with 'xyz suggests anger; your slippery slope from 'dont' like' to 'vendetta' for peanut gallery points reinforces this impression'.

Your reply? 'OMG U CUNT WHY DO YOU THINK I'M ANGRY I'M ASKING YOU AGAIN TELL ME HOW WHY'.

I wasn't sure if you were a butthurt fanboy; I'm still not really sure. You are a fucking idiot, that's for sure.

[Duckie]

Eh whatever, troll up threads about games you don't like all you want.

Put another notch on your scorecard, consider whatever it is you want out of this conceded. The UI is bad and that makes it a bad game and such. You're virile and masculine now because you won.

Okay? Are we done now? I've got better things to do than debate about whether or not a game's UI ruins it or not.

[Stark]

Eh whatever, troll up threads about games you don't like all you want.

Put another notch on your scorecard, consider whatever it is you want out of this conceded. The UI is bad and that makes it a bad game and such. You're virile and masculine now because you won.

Okay? Are we done now? I've got better things to do than debate about whether or not a game's UI ruins it or not.

Oh ho, a passive-aggressive faux-concession after busting out the strawmen!

Amusingly, you NEVER debated about whether a game's UI can ruin it or not. Since what got you upset was my reply to Vendetta about how UI improvement is more important than adding xyz feature, I'm not surprised.

It's sad you think it's about 'winning' and not facts and understanding. You even think I hate the game - proving you can't even read. Perhaps, since I don't like it, I have a 'vendetta' against it?

For the record, it's A SHAME that DF has such a horrid UI, because it's SO INTERESTING but so MASSIVELY IMPENETRABLE. The absurdity of people watching youtube tutorials just highlights how serious this problem is, and the better the game the more annoying the bad UI, because it hides and invalidates everything else.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Stark...

Stuff it,

I am sorry you don't like the game, or the UI, or the lack of it, but you know what? We don't care... When I downloaded this game, I worked out about 90% of the play in about an hour or so. IN about two days I had a sustainable fortress.

I don't care if you like the game or not, but its freaking Shareware, its one guy and some friends in a garage doing something for FUN. Not for business, not for marketing, not for sales, they are doing what THEY want, and hey if THEY want to focus on a dozen other things OTHER then the UI, so what?

\I dont often get into debates, and LORD knows I usually like to avoid the reign of terror you bring to most... But come on.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I remember having to code in my first games before I could play them. that I can actually understand and appreciate a roguelike interface just means I'm an old nerd.

[Stark]

Wow, thanks for posting a bunch of lies, ignorance and redundancy, buddy! I'm sure I haven't said 'but he's a hobbyist' at least three times!

The point - for cretins like you - isn't about the game itself (which you're so stupid you think I don't like, lolololol). It's about peolpe like Duckie getting all butthurt when you say the UI sucks. It does. The game would be better if it was improved. It's not MY fault the game is a disorganised hobby project with the worst UI of the 21st centure - but it's a fact that it drives people away, makes features inaccessible, generally sucks, etc. 'Doing it for fun' is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to statements of the quality of the software.

It amuses me that the stupid ascii display has been overhauled by all kinds of different mods, but the UI is apparently too core to change. This suggests that the disorganised develoment may have actually made it a serious bit of work to fix the UI - which highlights everything I've been saying, particlarly about planning. It woudln't be too surprisign, given the massive changes the game has gone through since it's modest inception.

I estimate it'll take 15s for an angry reply that totally ignores the content of this post to appear.

[Stark]

I remember having to code in my first games before I could play them. that I can actually understand and appreciate a roguelike interface just means I'm an old nerd.

Do keep up. I've already used Roguelikes as an example of free, hobby software with A BETTER INTERFACE THAN DF. Some of them (the more hackish ones) are pretty bad, but basic stuff like Angband are literally decades ahead of DF's kludgey mess.

[loomer]

Wait, people need to have the wiki open when they play? What the hell? I've only ever checked the wiki for details on metalsmithing and farming, and even then only a handful of times.

[Tanasinn]

Having the wiki at hand is useful when you're still new and trying to dig through the maze of menus or find out what a given rock layer might contain. It's not NECESSARY, but it's not much different than having a game manual on hand.

[Duckie]

Incidentally, Visualisation hacks have been getting a lot more sophisticated recently. 3 people's stuff from some new one called Visual Fortress.

Damn.
A Town.
From the Sky
From the Ground
Architecture
Desert

The first 2 pictures at minimum are worth a look.

Maybe someday someone will figure out how to combine LifeVis (a really primitive program that showed 3d output from DF and let you play thruogh that) and this thing.