Hacker News Reader

Comment by jokermatt999 | Hacker News Reader

If you're ever worried that a feature will be too complex to implement, take a look at the ridiculous number of things Dwarf Fortress keeps track of and simulates some time. The article briefly touches on it, but like any look at Dwarf Fortress, it bared dips its toes in the water. Just a quick list off the top of my head...

In world gen, it simulates geology and erosion, climate/biomes, growing civilizations, politics, war, trade, attacks by various "megabeast" creatures and their battles (in which injuries down to losing a tooth will be kept track of), migration and refuges as a result of war, (I believe) deforestation as a result of logging, and probably a lot more that I'm forgetting. That's just in world generation, before you're actually playing it.

Remember, what one person can program when they're truly dedicated is a pretty incredible feat.

View on HN

Dwarf Fortress has a level of micro-complexity that I wish Civilization had.

I think there is a niche -- albeit probably a very small one -- for more super-hardcore strategy games in a variety of settings and genres. Folks like me would love to play a game like Civilization and have incredibly rich, complicated diplomacy and trade and other issues that simulate, as closely as possible, real-world geopolitical issues. (In some ways, for instance, I'd love to be able to fight a cold war with an AI opponent, rather than an actual war).

While I have never played it, I have heard good things about the complexity of the Europa Universalis series. IF author Adam Cadre wrote a mini-review of it a few years ago:

http://adamcadre.ac/calendar/10898.html

Have also heard good things. Given that I keep hearing them, I think it's time I got off my butt and checked it out!

I can vouch for Crusader Kings, Hearts of Iron, and Victora (all from the same developer as Europa Universalis: Paradox Interactive) as having the kind of beyond-Civ levels of depth and complexity you're looking for. Each is tailored to it's own slice of history in a way that Civ by nature can't be.

Remember, what one person can program when they're truly dedicated is a pretty incredible feat.

And I wonder if the level of dedication he has demonstrated requires Asperger's. He has all of the classic symptoms, down to the the involuntary rocking. I've worked hard, and I've sacrificed a lot of my time to my work. But I'm not willing to sacrifice as much of my time as he has. And it's quite likely his life's work will be both larger in total and have more impact than mine.

That all leads me to my question, which is if his level of dedication requires Asperger's. Before people bring up people like Einstein and Feynman, consider that they had personal lives. They pursued personal lives.

The only thing he's missing out on is romance and sex. His occupation and lifestyle appears to satisfy all the other typical human needs. Taking a DSM perspective is not the most enlightening perspective.

The sex thing is a big problem.

In the past, great artists were able to find companionship and sex despite poverty and oddness. Why is it that hackers have such difficulty? If Richard Stallman's medium was anything other than computers he would have to fight off the women, but somehow hackers are girl-repellent despite being devoted artistic geniuses?

I don't think his devotion will last long or stay fresh unless he starts fulfilling sex and romance needs. Exposure like this NYT article should help, and also a rising income would help a lot. Then he still has to make time for women and he might find the intimacy too threatening.

Anyway for the sake of Dwarf Fortress and his art ambitions I hope he figures out a way to fulfill sex needs. Other than that I don't see anything unsustainable or obviously unhealthy about his lifestyle.

You've got it backwards. Women aren't scared of hackers, hackers are scared of women. This is a gross generalization, but it fits for the examples you mention. Yes, some nerds are completely unattractive and girl-repellent. But it doesn't take that much effort to become attractive, and a lot of hardcore computer guys are attracted to computers precisely because working with computers allows you to lead a solitary lifestyle with minimal social interaction.

I'm certain that there were people before that were as scared of social interaction as the biggest hardcore nerds today, but they weren't working in a technical profession. Working with technical things 50 years ago required interacting with other humans much more than computers do, because the machinery in question was physical and more distributed.

You're right. The issue is that for a woman to pick up one of these nerds she would have to be unusually aggressive in pursuing the nerd-genius and yet also unusually submissive since the nerd-genius (like any great artist) would have strange and demanding needs to which she would need to conform and satisfy.

She'd have to be Courney Love, and there aren't many of those. And shed have to somehow meet the nerd despite his reclusively.

The fear of girls is definitely what makes hacker geniuses more like monks than painters. I admire the crap out of great hackers but my sex needs come before my art.

  my sex needs come before my art

That's a good way to put it, that's how I feel as well ;) The monk analogy is really good; I'm guessing that monks were attracted to their lifestyle for the same reason the most introverted nerds are attracted to computers today.

Find a partner with equally strong passions.

I.e. he/she understands that you need your time to geek out on your stuff because he/she needs the same thing.

>The sex thing is a big problem.

Seriously? Not everyone in the world is a sex addict. He's living his own life. He'll look for what he needs when he needs it.

Everyone in the world has needs for sex and romance. Some people have their needs unfulfilled or repressed, and they suffer for it.

Sex is one of the most basic biological needs, and romantic intimacy (which is a part of good sex) is crucial for happiness, especially for a deeply social species like humans.

Don't you think you're simplifying it a bit? Some people get along fine without having sex, you seem to suggest that anyone who doesn't have sex is bound to be unhappy and lead a horrible life.

While for most people sex is important, I think you need to take a step back and look at how different people's needs can be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

NB. There's of course a gradient between complete asexuality and total 24/7 horniness. People are different.

You are making it sound it he CAN'T get girls. I m sure he can if he puts in the time. It is just not his priority right now. Time is limited. And he chose to devote his time to the game.

Errr, have you considered the possibility he doesn't have sex needs, or that his sex needs are not as much as a "normal" human, or that his needs can't be fulfilled by "normal" humans?

> And I wonder if the level of dedication he has demonstrated requires Asperger's.

People always jump to Asperger's the moment they hear this was all put together by one guy. It is as if they refuse to believe a normal person can have willpower enough to accomplish so much. It is simple: take a single step every day towards a single goal for several years.

Listen to his podcasts[1]. He is about as chill/normal/well-adjusted as people come.

[1] http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/df_talk.html

It's entirely possible, but the big three cues to me where his extreme social awkwardness, the rocking, and finally, his dedication to technical interests. The final one alone wouldn't make me think Asperger's. Even the first and the third wouldn't make me confident, but unconscious rocking is a symptom of autism in general.

I'm a big proponent of the idea that genius is more about raw effort over extended periods of time rather than innate intelligence. But perhaps some people are wired for that kind of dedication moreso than others.

I wonder how he manages to balance all these elements. Even in much simpler games balancing the strengths and weaknesses of all the actors can be very difficult. With so many interlocking factors it seems it would next to impossible to avoid inadvertently making one tactic or actor too powerful.

For example, in the early Civ games the optimal strategy was to just build up to chariot technology and then go 100% on the offensive.

The early civ games were susceptible to the mongol hord method, which the designer never considered.

There are a lot of releases, and fairly often; I've had versions go "out of date" on me within a week of its release. The forums are very active, and when they say something is unbalanced or broken, it tends to get fixed. Some things are not serious game-breakers, even if they are mildly broken (see: elephants in the versions that Boatmurdered used), and those tend to stay in until it becomes a pain to deal with.

Basically, it's just trial-and-error. But it makes for an interesting game, because you're never quite sure if everything will work as expected.

I wonder what techniques Tarn uses to manage that complexity. Does he write extremely clean code? Use test-driven development?

From what I've heard, not really. He tests a lot (he posts about it on the devlog), but I've heard he doesn't use version control even.

Supposedly his code is pretty rough. That would explain why development is slow and the game pretty bug-ridden.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com