Dwarf Fortress is getting the mother of all magic updates

Steam version is much worse than the fan UI options that were already available, sadly. Its also why I explain why DF really failed to take off after the Steam release. It's nowhere near the best, or even best looking, way to play the game.

Qud is a gem of a game, same publisher too! I get what you are saying, and it's use of ASCII plus ASCII-like graphics makes the experience a lot friendlier imo.

Thanks for this list!

I'm sure there is special handling for large sums... but six figures isn't it. Businesses routinely write checks for half a million dollars, two million dollars... it's perfectly normal to see such amounts within the banking world. There might be some extra scrutiny on the back end that you don't see, but since it's well within the realm of normal operations that the bank sees happen every day, it's nothing special.

Now, eight or nine figures, that's probably going to pass the threshold for special attention. As in, you might be required to go to the bank in person with photo ID in order to authorize the transaction, that sort of thing. But under 10 million U.S. dollars? Many businesses will handle those amounts monthly, and the bank is used to seeing them.

Banking regulation varies from country to country, where I'm from a regular personal account isn't usually allowed to directly transfer more than a few tens of thousands of dollars per month. Anything beyond that is handled by the bank itself. Business accounts work differently.

I'm certain receiving a lump six figure sum on my personal account would trigger a review, if only because the taxman wants to know about it.

Backend-wise, it's just different sets of flags. The infrastructure is the same.

In Spain, if you try to casually use your bank app to transfer a big amount, you hit a limit. If you need to do that, you can go to a bank office or do a phone call, tell them, and they will temporarily lift the limit, and then yes, you can just go to your regular everyday app and type the large amount and it will work. Doesn't it work like that where you are?

Reminds me of when a guy earned like a million off of cryptocurrency, but the cash was in a foreign account (the exchange, I presume). He couldn't just transfer it to his own account because the bank had issues with it. He opened a new account with another bank that had no issue accepting it, and transferred it from there to his main bank which suddenly also had no problem with it lol.

I think generally speaking, there's two systems; the one is a scam / self protection system that disallows large transfers but the user can disable it themselves, the other is something that works after the fact that looks for things like money laundering and tax evasion, but these processes run nightly, yearly, or maybe even once a year. I'm half expecting a tax bill for some unreported crypto assets abroad, half because it's only a few hundred worth.

What is it like when billionaires sell like $10 billion worth of shares? Do you need a special bank account to hold that much?

NoClip does a great job. I also recommend their Prey/Arcane documentary.

The free version got it's entire UI changed, matching the Steam version, just with ASCII graphics. Obviously you can still play old versions, but if you want to play with all the new features, you can't go full keyboard anymore.

I actually think this type of suggestion/thinking is not good for the game. the mystique of dwarf fortress is that it's a game that plays in your imagination, not on the screen. the point of the ascii visuals is to give a player enough context to understand the state of the world, but it's intentionally obtuse so fun arrises from your brain having to color in all the details. any suggestion that tries to add more polish to the graphics brings you farther away from where the fun lives

Does the non-steam version not receive the same gameplay updates? I had been under the impression that the only difference was the UI.

As soon as I bought Minecraft I opened the Wiki and used that to figure out how to craft stuff.

It was the first mainstream Wiki-based game. Now, every game does it that way.

You cannot be serious! That comparison is a joke. There's worlds between the complexity of Minecraft and DF.

Unlike dwarf fortress, minecraft is fun and engaging from minute zero, and exposes its systems to you naturally over time. Terrible comparison.

I think the old adage from film industry applies, in that you shouldn't underestimate your audience.

The tutorial is the wiki. I used to play Dwarf Fortress back in the 2008-2009 era, and I kept going back to the wiki when I needed to learn something. It was, and still is, comprehensive, containing not just a "getting started for beginners" tutorial page, but also a list of every building and workflow (from ore to metal to swords and armor, from seeds to plants to food and drink...). In-game tutorials are not the only way to learn about a game; a well-maintained wiki (that isn't on wikia, oops sorry they're called fandom dot com there days — but that's a whole other rant) is also an excellent resource. And certain types of games seem to lend themselves to having well-maintained wikis: Dwarf Fortress's wiki is perhaps the best I've ever seen, narrowly beating Minecraft's also-excellent wiki.

some people never developed theory of mind as children sadly

It’s the games job to create an on ramp to understanding. It’s not mine to spend 200 hours grasping every concept before I can play “the real game”, that’s just shitty game design.

They fixed all that. Go give the free version another try; it has the updated UI but not the new sprites so it feels a lot like playing the older versions of the game but with more polish.

FYI, the newer versions with their mouse-driven interface solve a lot of those issues. Dwarf Therapist (the RAM reading tool you were thinking of) isn't needed any more, because there are much better in-game tools for managing what kinds of work certain dwarves do. The new menu layouts are a lot more discoverable, allowing you to find most things with just a little bit of clicking around (and the descriptions of stuff are a lot better now, so no more googling "what the heck is a quern?"). I miss the old keyboard controls sometimes, but they're gradually adding them back in the form of shortcuts. DFHack is still around, and basically necessary for automating some of the more fiddly resource chains (stuff like, "request 50 trees get cut down out of this patch of forest if our number of logs gets below 200").

I hadn't played in like 10 years when I picked up the Steam release, and I found it pretty easy to get back into.

I would pose that's a matter of holding it wrong. Like, integrating generative AI as a prompt to an API endpoint exposed to the user is one of the worst, most naive and bland ways to use it as a game subsystem that I can think of.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of problems with trying to use generative AI as a subsystem for a game, problems which exist at a conceptual level. But all the games I've seen that integrate AI as a subsystem don't even come remotely close to hitting that ceiling. I think it's ultimately up to the fact that an interesting usage of generative AI requires a level of technical competency and theory that's well beyond that of the layman. The people making games that utilize AI generally seem to lack the chops to make a good game or do interesting things with AI. The people with the chops and manhours to make a good game with AI:

- Don't want the backlash of having a generative model in their game, because no matter the context that's a lot of very bad press for something that's very difficult and time consuming to implement.

- See the immediate problems and difficulty that arise from a decently integrated concept and execution, and even without the bad press, understand that the juice isn't worth the squeeze. That it's always going to be an immensely stupid gimmick in the end, one that's trying way too hard.

That won't stop us from having 10,000 pieces of shovelware getting churned out that have the worst, most uninspired integrations imaginable mind you. We clearly already have those. For those that could do something better with the tech, there's too many good reasons to not touch it.

> The point of DF, to a large extent, is precise control and detail.

I don't know, it's basically Minecraft with Lemmings. You control a lot, but at the end, the AI comparison might be somewhat apt - you tell the dwarves what to do, and they mostly do it. When they're not struck by a strange mood, or when they're not too depressed to work, or when they're not being eaten by a Forgotten Beast (beware its deadly dust!)

to each their own, but that is the least interesting part of DF for me.

I like the narrative element and enjoy delegating random shit and seeing what happens.

Ah I see, I misunderstood. I just tried the latest classic version and it was all mouse. I agree then that it's disappointing as someone who has played both versions

The free version is still being updated. Both the free version and the paid version are on v53.16:

https://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/ https://steamdb.info/app/975370/history/

I don’t think it has anything to do with their gaming specific capabilities, just their general philosophy matches poorly with the games industry.

Apple insist on having their own apis and they don’t maintain compatibility for older software for very long, these 2 facts explain things fine on their own. Game devs don’t want a major support burden, they’re happy to patch here and there but constant dropping of apis or even architectures is a lot to handle. The bigger impact is that macOS ends up with a lot less old games that still run, if you need a critical mass of games to become a gaming platform, that constant bleed of legacy games will always slow macOS down.

As for gaming specific features, Metal is a perfectly fine api whose only real problem is that it’s different from the other platforms. Maybe not the best, but certainly not terrible. They also have a really nice capability floor, it’s practical to make a modern game work on any Mac from the last X years (maybe the neo complicates that a bit).

There’s probably a few gaming specific capabilities they could improve on, mouse input especially, but that’s never been the real issue.

I know how to stream ty :)

And I do use that option, as i said, for games that you play in finite sessions and that have a beginning and an end.

Also as I said, I don't use it for forever games (mmos or endless simulators like DF) by choice. My playing pattern for those is not finite and relatively long sessions. I fire them for a short break, do something in them, close them and move along.

If you have to turn on a separate box for that half your short break is gone with booting and shutting down. And you may lose interest before the other box is finished booting.

Same for running games under crossover. Start crossover - SLOOOW. Wait for the game to start through the layers of emulation - SLOOW. It's fine if it's a weekend and I want to play say Dishonored [1] for a few hours. It's not fine if I want to spend 20 min improving a build in Minecraft and then go do irl stuff.

[1] Dishonored is an example of the type of game I'd jump through hoops to play. I've always streamed it actually. No idea how it runs in Crossover.

That's missing the point. There were official native MacOS builds and now there aren't.

Can't be too mad about it though, it was free back then too.

Programmers and artists at Kitfox helped, but no, 95% of the work on the UI was not outsourced. Perhaps if you add in all of the countless time spent drawing sprites for all of the creatures in the game.

And your understanding of “layering” is simply wrong. The _game_ is the same underneath the UI, aside from the new features that have been added and the bugs that have been fixed, but the UI was ripped out and rewritten. It could not be any other way. You are correct that the goal was not to eliminate keyboard–driven interfaces, but the rewrite did completely replace the entire UI with something new. And that new UI does not have the same structure as the old UI.

For example, in the old UI you used to have to first enter the “designations” menu and then choose “dig”. So digging had the keyboard shortcut ‘d d’. To place buildings you typed ‘d b’ to “designate buildings”, and to “designate stockpiles” was ‘d p’.

But now these three things are all at the top level of the menu, so simply typing ‘m’ for digging, ‘b’ for buildings, or ‘p’ for stockpiles is all you need to do. (Digging cannot be on ‘d’ because the view is now moved using the WASD keys.) There is no designate menu any more. The old keyboard shortcuts are simply meaningless.

If you prefer different keyboard shortcuts then you can customize them. One of the features of the rewritten UI is that there is also a new UI for customizing the key bindings.

The art was outsourced to pretty much one artist. Zach and Tarn implemented it.

The premium version of Dwarf Fortress made over $7.2 million in its first month alone.

Their donation revenue was alright for a pretty significant chunk of that time. For the first decade it was ~$5k/month, which jumped up to ~$10k/month for the second decade before the Steam release.

Toady wasn't exactly raking in the cash, but he didn't need another job.

it was ~10k per month if I remember correctly. They used to post monthly updates

Magicmaker is pretty solid.

Noita is the first that comes to mind.

Some others that I have in my library are magicraft, fictorum, and spell chain.

I'm messing around with these ideas myself, reminds me of the old days of crafting broken spells in morrowind.

O(n²) scaling is brutal. If n=100, then that is 100×100=10,000 mood checks. When n=101, that grows to 101² = 10201. 102² is 10404. You see how fast it is growing¹? Every person you add causes far more mood checks than the last person you added. There is nothing that computer science can do to reduce this growth. The whole study of computer science is the study of the limits of computing, and these are the limits. No amount of brain sweat can reduce the the rate at which the problem scales.

Of course we could redefine the problem; make each mood check simpler, for example. We could simply leave some of the current factors out of the calculation, so that the calculations are cheaper to do. For example we could make the mood check ignore consanguinity. A dwarf’s reaction would depend only on whether they saw a friend or not, but not on whether they saw a cousin or a sister. That will allow us to scale to higher population counts, but we still face the fact that there will be _some_ population limit.

Or we could reduce n somehow. For example, we could arbitrarily decide that some of the population doesn’t participate in line of sight checks. Maybe livestock are never checked at all, so the 50 cats don’t make n bigger. But then your cats won’t run away from zombie invaders, because they don’t check line of sight to see what is around them. Is that acceptable? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it’s disappointing to to the game designer but they go ahead with the change because the players will still have fun.

The third thing to do is to optimize the mood checks so that they use the processor more efficiently. This is hard but doable, and can be done without changing the problem. And in fact it has already been done, to one extent or another. But modern processors are actually pretty hard to optimize for, and all the low–hanging fruit has been picked. For example, I have a 16–core CPU, and until a few years ago the game could only use one of those cores to run the line of sight checks on. The other 15 would be idle. That obviously leaves a lot of performance on the table. Now that the game uses all 16 cores equally you’ll find that n has gone up quite a lot. But it didn’t go from 100 to 1600, it went from 100 to about 400. 100²=10,000 line of sight mood checks, and 400²=160,000 mood checks. But once spread over 16 cores that’s still 10,000 per core! So now it can do the line of sight mood checks for a population of 400 in the same time as it could do them for a population of 100, only a 4× improvement. And if your CPU only has 8 cores then the new limit for you is really a population of about 283, etc.

But there is still more processing power in our CPUs that is going untapped by DF, and language models are actually really good at making use of that power. A modern CPU can run SIMD, or Single Instruction Multiple Data, instructions that can operate on many values at once. It can multiply two numbers together, or it can multiply a vector of 4, 8, 16, or even 32 numbers together all at once. And multiplying the vectors takes the same amount of time as multiplying two ordinary numbers! All a language model is doing is repeated matrix multiplication, which boils down to multiplying lots of individual numbers together. An LLM is _only_ doing vector instructions on 32 half–width floats at a time, over and over again, but DF doesn’t have that luxury. Most of what DF does just cannot be done using vector math in any useful fashion. The graphics could be (sprite compositing), but DF sends all of the graphics over to the GPU instead. So LLMs are not an apples–to–apples comparison for Dwarf Fortress.