Print

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

[daggaz]

As discussed more thoroughly in my previous thread "Game Balance", item production is far too high and economic considerations too loose, to pose any challenge in the current version of DF, thus reducing the fun.  I therefore propose the following suggestions regarding workshops and item production for your considerations:


1) Workshops would be assignable to one or more dwarves.  The assignment would be mutual.  An assigned workshop would not allow unassigned dwarves, and assigned dwarves would not work in an unassigned workshop of the same type. 

2) The player would select a desired quality level in the workshop menu for each item (default the last level chosen). 

3) Higher item quality would require more time to complete an item, and involve a higher risk of failure.  Failure would destroy the resource being used.

4) XP in the requisite skill would be gained upon item completion.  Failure would result in either zero XP, or less XP than the lowest item-level would gain that dwarf. 

5) XP earned would increase with increasing item quality and risk of failure, and increased skill would reduce time required for completion and risk of failure. 

6) Item quality would be more signicantly connected to value, with items of the lowest quality having a base-value close to worthless (with base-values being modified by external economic factors).

7) Ultimately, both the time to produce the highest quality items, and the time to level a dwarf to the highest skill ranks, would increase significantly for most workshops/professions.  This can be tweaked as needed to ensure gameflow, fun, and reduce tedium of grinding, but as it stands now all of this is too easy and presents no significant challenge to the player. 

[Encrtia]

1) Is an extra level of micro management really needed? Doesn't make sense why a colony would enforce that law.
2) Sounds cool.
3) Agreed with time if deliberately specified & at low experience (a master craftsdwarf will obviously produce faster & better than an amateur), but critical failures...? I want to say No... just because my painting of Mona Lisa turns out like Michael Jackson being electrocuted, doesn't mean it should disappear from existence. But since most of the time I don't even want sub-par Masterpiece goods... I'm okay with it.
4) Whatever. I don't get it, but I don't get many game mechanics. I learn just as much from my failures, if not more, than my successful experiences.
5) Sure.
6) Sure.
7) Sure to a degree, related to 3).

[daggaz]

The issue on 1) about extra micromanagement is dead on, it is probably the most significant design cost of such a change.  Is it justified?  I think so, but this solution may not be the only solution.  One could also keep both systems, such that unassigned workshops continue to allow dwarves to produce items of random quality.   Now players get the choice to try to fine tune their production if they desire.  You could also have a main-toggle to produce ALL items at a given quality, vastly reducing micromanagement (tho in essence the default choice I listed already does this). 

So ultimately, the only extra micromanagement would be a player choice.  Of course, if this is choice is encouraged (better skill gain if you optimize your selection) then yeah...  But again, I argue for reduce resource production, and this means not only items (reducing workplace interactions) but also dwarves (reducing workshops period).  Ultimately, I would aim for a large net reduction in management with these changes. 


Failure is in there because the game needs some more sinks (resource destruction), and risk in general.   Keep in mind, having more sinks means less items, which means improved FPS and less tedium involved with FPS management (which ideally should never be "part" of the game.  Also, with increased skill, you would have reduced risk of failure.   So if you want that Mona Lisa, practise until you are Leonardo and you will get it. 

[Shonai_Dweller]

"Failure" is a little too binary. A master swordssmith who "fails" to create a masterwork doesn't end up with unsable junk, just a sword of lower quality.

Having swords of negative quality caused by low quality smiths failures (more prone to wear, breakage and misses due to poor balance) would make more sense.

[daggaz]

That is a very good suggestion, perhaps hitting a level of skill midway gives you the opportunity to guarantee a low quality item on failure.  Or at least nearly guarantee, maybe a small chance should exist; a master smith can fuck it up pretty badly once every now and then.

If that skill level was reasonably close to professional, it would put extra weight on maxing out a crafting skill on embark. 

[daggaz]

With regards to mechanism, it would be amusing if they had a chance to fail with every use, requiring replacement and meaning the drawbridge didnt raise in time to block the goblin army, or the floodgate accidentally let a little bit of magma into your fort, or whatever. 

Would require diligent mechanics for the most important mechanisms (which would be fail proof or very very nearly so). 

In fact, hidden "failure" could be a universal, skill-based feature.  Your sword says masterwork, but its got a hidden flaw and breaks when you strike the goblin.  This could be on top of overt production failure, which would always result in an item of clearly inferior quality (or a lost resource). 

[Encrtia]

One could also keep both systems, such that unassigned workshops continue to allow dwarves to produce items of random quality.   Now players get the choice to try to fine tune their production if they desire.  You could also have a main-toggle to produce ALL items at a given quality, vastly reducing micromanagement (tho in essence the default choice I listed already does this). 

So ultimately, the only extra micromanagement would be a player choice.

Well this isn't going to fly with anyone. Any suggestion I like (or put forward) doesn't have any backing from other people & I like this compromise