Print

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

[Fugue]

I'm pretty sure this is impossible.

Basically, a lot of stone is largely interchangeable right now. Kaolinite, Gabbro, Mica, Shale... The only real difference in gameplay terms is dwarven preferences. They don't have different values or uses. Reading up on the real world uses of a lot of these stones is pretty neat though. Mica is used to replace glass in high temp applications, and also used in greenhouses, presumably it is better at trapping heat than normal glass.

Would there be any way to reflect something like this in game terms, such as having mica walls or floors used for farm plots increasing yields?

Will the new version allow stuff like realgar poisioning vermin on contact and people who are overexposed to it?

I kind of assume Toady wants this stuff eventually, as I can't see a reason to code in so many different real world minerals and leave them without any in game differentiation. But I don't know what's possible.

Ideally I'd like specific reasons to use one stone over another for different uses, even if most of these can be ignored with little penalty.

[ZeroGravitas]

Are you playing on a monochrome monitor or something?

[Fugue]

If you're referring to the different colours stones have, that's not quite the in game difference I was thinking of. I'm talking applications. Sure, a cinnabar throne looks different to an alunite one, and one Urist McFarmer likes Cinnabar while Urist McMechanic likes Alunite, but that's pretty much where it ends.

In reality, Cinnabar is laced with mercury and rather poisonous, while Alunite was historically used for millstones due to its hardness.

In DF, none of that is appreciated. Cinnabar millstones are just as effective as Alunite ones, and mercury poisioning doesn't exist.

With the new version the whole poison thing might be able to be modded in in some respects, but making decisions on which stone to use for what has no practical effects in game.

[ZeroGravitas]

In reality, often different stones are used merely for aesthetic purposes. Granite versus marble, for example. To many people playing the game, aesthetics ARE an application.

And of course, in reality, there are no dwarves. So  I wouldn't get overly concerned about accurately modeling things like lead poisoning or mercury poisoning.  How do you know dwarves are even susceptible to those?  It's just as good arguing they are as they aren't.  Although I suppose humans using them would be in bad shape in the long run.

I certainly sympathize with what you are saying and in an ideal world, something would be done with this.   (Mercury being useful at an  alchemy lab  would certainly be fun).

Actually, when realistic trading routes and caravans are in the game eventually, there might be a real reason to trade certain types of stone and stone goods: they aren't available elsewhere, so other civs and sites are willing to pay a premium for stone they don't have.

[Fugue]

I don't really want to get into the "But they're dwarves, not humans!" argument. It just strikes me as funny that Toady went to the trouble to research geology to get a moderately realistic world gen happening. The stones appear in areas where they would naturally be found, close to stones which they are naturally found close to.

But then, I guess there's tons of different trees, too, and no real need for them either.

[Footkerchief]

So  I wouldn't get overly concerned about accurately modeling things like lead poisoning or mercury poisoning.  How do you know dwarves are even susceptible to those?  It's just as good arguing they are as they aren't.  Although I suppose humans using them would be in bad shape in the long run.

It's not about "accuracy" or "reality" per se, as the goal is to model a compelling fantasy world.  However, we don't have to argue about it in any case -- poisons and poison resistance will be in the raws next version, so we'll know what canonical dwarves are susceptible to, etc.

To address the OP's questions:

The mica greenhouse thing is definitely impossible right now, and will not be possible anytime soon, mainly because it requires implementation of a LOT of new stuff, such as the effects of light on crop yields.  Even the next version with its gigantic lists of material properties will probably not include opacity/transparency.

Contact poisons are slated for the next version, but the notion of "contact" will probably be a little restricted.  Standing in the same tile as a contact poison probably won't have any effect -- you'd have to get spattered or dusted with it.  Hmm, now the game just needs to make that happen more often.

edit: yeah, your thread inspired me: http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=30291.0

[ZeroGravitas]

I don't really want to get into the "But they're dwarves, not humans!" argument. It just strikes me as funny that Toady went to the trouble to research geology to get a moderately realistic world gen happening. The stones appear in areas where they would naturally be found, close to stones which they are naturally found close to.

But then, I guess there's tons of different trees, too, and no real need for them either.

Well, theoretically those should have different material values and uses, too. Some should be better at  producing charcoal than others, for example.

So  I wouldn't get overly concerned about accurately modeling things like lead poisoning or mercury poisoning.  How do you know dwarves are even susceptible to those?  It's just as good arguing they are as they aren't.  Although I suppose humans using them would be in bad shape in the long run.

It's not about "accuracy" or "reality" per se, as the goal is to model a compelling fantasy world.  However, we don't have to argue about it in any case -- poisons and poison resistance will be in the raws next version, so we'll know what canonical dwarves are susceptible to, etc.

To address the OP's questions:

The mica greenhouse thing is definitely impossible right now, and will not be possible anytime soon, mainly because it requires implementation of a LOT of new stuff, such as the effects of light on crop yields.  Even the next version with its gigantic lists of material properties will probably not include opacity/transparency.

Contact poisons are slated for the next version, but the notion of "contact" will probably be a little restricted.  Standing in the same tile as a contact poison probably won't have any effect -- you'd have to get spattered or dusted with it.  Hmm, now the game just needs to make that happen more often.

Woah, slow down. You're  conflating two different kinds of "poison". Yes, "poison" will be modeled better. I don't think that's going to extend to something like heavy metal poisoning, which generally takes years and years to build up before it manifests symptoms.  If you ate bread baked  from  flour milled from a cinnabar millstone,  you would be fine. If you kept eating it for years, eventually you would not be fine.  If  you've ever had tuna (or any fish, really), you've ingested some mercury. You're basically talking about pollution, not "poison". 

If we're going to talk about modeling pollution, the first thing we need to talk about is  my legendary furnace operator who should have  developed lung cancer  a long time ago; the same is probably true of my miners. And where does  all the leftover slurry from smelting and forging go?

I agree that DF is about a "compelling fantasy  world". But I don't  think pollution is part of that world. Material values  and differences ARE a part  of that world: I  shouldn't be able  to build a  room out of soap and fill it with magma  forever. But really, do you want to deal with building an OSHA-approved fort? Because that's basically what this would require.

More importantly, there are an infinite number of things Toady can add and only finite time. I don't see this being a priority for a long time, if ever.

[Fugue]

I think you're taking this a little too far for the purposes of knocking the idea on the head. I simply think it's an interesting gameplay mechanic. Small bonus for using stones that naturally go with specific uses, and/or small penalties for using unsuitable materials.

Softer minerals won't make good millstones, and thus could take 5% longer to mill each item, whereas harder materials benefit 5%. Just an example. Simple, minor changes that yes, will require some work to implement, but the basis for the rules is already laid out in the facts about the minerals included in the game.

I'm not talking about making REALISM FTW! or anything. in 95% of cases adhering to the laws of reality does not equal fun. But basing games and game mechanics on the laws of reality leads to an intuitive gameplay experience, which can also be rather educating.

I could have simply assumed Toady made all these items up. But he didn't. He went to the trouble of researching and implementing systems based on real world information. I'm just throwing the idea of further steps out there, something that's likely planned anyway, but wondering if it's at all possible via mods right now. Seems not, but the idea holds, I believe.

[CobaltKobold]

I don't think any but the most obsessed would care o'er a 5% speed bonus/penalty for that sort of thing- but if mill products had a quality modifier, then a 5% bonus/penalty to quality chances...'course, that's another argument (☼tools☼ => more ☼products☼)

No, don't think presently possible. Let's not forget another poisonous metal, though: Cobalt!

"Fantastic verisimilitude"?

[woose1]

Heh... I can imagine Toady going crazy one day and declaring on his site that dwarf fort has "OMFG FTW REALISM LOLZ".

I would imagine our response would be to supply him with as much turtle shell and gems as we can.