Print

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

[ravaught]

I know that immigration has been discussed in other threads, but this is about one of the leading causes of runnaway immigration, Fortress Wealth. Basically, I would like to see a split between potential wealth, and fortress wealth. I.E. Even if you have mined out half of a mountain, you are never going to be able to trade raw boulders effectively because of the weight restrictions, so why count them towards fortress wealth. This would allow players To dig out their forts in the early game if they wish without having to worry about drawing too many immigrants before they are ready.

[NW_Kohaku]

Well, there are three problems with that...

First, the notion that boulders are not going to be tradable is false - I trade for stones all the time, since raw materials like hematite are cheaper than iron. 

Second, the materials that do have runaway values are the finished products, which tend to be much smaller.  Large Serrated Steel Discs are worth tens of thousands of times what a single stone is on a per-kilogram basis, as are masterwork prepared meals.  Even basic microcline mugs are worth thousands of times the stones they were carved from for their weight.

Third, measuring a cut-and-dried formula for how much something is tradable based solely upon its mass is the wrong sort of formula to use.  If something is large and heavy, but worth tremendous amounts of money in a trade, why not trade it?  If something is light but basically nobody wants it, why trade it? 

The more accurate formula for the third problem is to have a weight surcharge placed on any material you buy or sell.  Merchants pay less for and demand more in exchange for heavy objects that take up more of their cargo space. 

More generally, the problem is that we lack the basic mechanics of Microeconomics to actually properly value goods.  Anything that has been turned from a raw material into a finished product is worth 10 times as much, right off the bat, and that is multiplied by whole integers, as much as 12 times normal value, on top of that, based on quality.  That means I can purchase a granite boulder, turn it into a masterwork granite mug, and then sell it back for 119 times the value of the boulder I carved it from.  That's an absurd leap in value. 

In fact, you can mine out the whole mountain you are sitting on, and the ores you carve out won't produce nearly the value of the doors, floodgates, tables, chairs, beds, food and booze your dwarves will have made for themselves, not even trying to create goods for trade. 

The basic problem is that the entire scale for measurement is not just broken, but wholly nonexistent without the economy in place.  The only measurement that would be rational in the current environment would be to measure how many dwarves are in the fort now, how many have died (and how recently), and how generally happy they have been.  Product value just doesn't make sense, since there is no objective measuring what the numbers actually reflect in terms of the health of a fortress right now.

[ravaught]

If you did nothing but have 7 dwarves dig for 1 year your fortress wealth would skyrocket without you producing a single finished product. Because the current migration is based off of fortress weath, you would end up receiving a huge number of migrants in the first couple of waves.(I received 2, 18, 21,12 and I was not procuding anything except raw plump helmets and boulders.) That is the thrust of this suggestion.

I didn't say you couldn't trade boulders, I said not effectively. The weight/value ratio on raw stone is too skewed(i.e. The trader has a weight capacity so there is an effective low end limitation on the weight/value ratio), and changing the value even slightly has major echoes in the economy, which have agreed is completely broken.

The scaling/measurement/value of trade goods argument is something I agree with on, but not applicable to this suggestion.

This suggestion is merely saying that quarried stone should not be counted among fortress wealth, or if it is, it should be at a fraction of what the actual value of the raw material actually is to prevent massive amounts of immigrants coming in just because you have dug some. (3 z levels, 50x50 designations, none of them completed, no workshop production, over 50 Dwarves arriving)

[NW_Kohaku]

First off, you completely missed what this was about. If you did nothing but have 7 dwarves dig for 1 year your fortress wealth would skyrocket without you producing a single finished product. Because the current migration is based off of fortress weath, you would end up receiving a huge number of migrants in the first couple of waves.(I received 2, 18, 21,12 and I was not procuding anything.) That is the thrust of this suggestion.

I didn't say you couldn't trade boulders, I said not effectively. The weight/value ratio on raw stone is too skewed(i.e. The trader has a weight capacity so there is an effective low end limitation on the weight/value ratio), and changing the value even slightly has major echoes in the economy, which have agreed is completely broken.

The scaling/measurement argument is something I agree with out on, but not applicable to this suggestion.

This suggestion is merely saying that quarried stone should not be counted among fortress wealth, or if it is, it should be at a fraction of what the actual value of the raw material actually is to prevent massive amounts of immigrants coming in just because you have dug some. (3 z levels, 50x50 designations, none of them completed, no workshop production, over 50 Dwarves arriving)

On the contrary, I don't believe you fully grasp what your topic is about.  The problem you are trying to solve is not going to be solved by what you are discussing.

The first couple waves are static because they don't bother adjusting what you are going to get until the first trader comes and goes.  It makes absolutely no difference what you do, or if you do nothing at all, those migrant waves are going to be the same size on average. 

It's a (contentious) bug that the game doesn't even recognize population caps set in the d_init.txt file (you know, where you can turn other things, like weather and temperature off immediately) until the dwarven liason appears and leaves the map.  If you set your population cap to 1 before worldgen, you will still get those same migrants. 

Unless you understand and attack that problem, then the rest of that won't matter at all.

Mined stones are basically worth 1 DB apiece.  They're worth more if they're an ore, but basically, gold nuggets aren't worth the value of a mid-quality microcline table.  Stones are an irrelevant aspect of fortress worth, as they are generally worth about 1/40th of the value of any other object in your fortress, and those prepared meals fetch values in the tens of thousands.

Likewise, you're still ignoring that many things can be as heavy as a boulder, but still be a valuable trading item (or not be), and not counting the value of a boulder as an arbitrary decision makes utterly no game-sense.  Why is a gold nugget boulder not worth anything when a microcline floodgate is so much more tradable? 

And really, must you drive immediately towards the exact same argument again as soon as anyone else comments on your thread?  It's a "derailment" if someone says anything but an agreement with you, no matter how much it cuts deeper into the core of the argument than you were doing?  It isn't "winning an argument" if you so immediately and repeatedly insult the intelligence of everyone who tries to talk to you that nobody wants to discuss anything with you anymore.  There's no point in even having a thread if you aren't going to listen to anyone else.

[ravaught]

I can read the Wiki too, you know. I know what it says. I know that the first years waves are hardcoded to be random between 2-10. I know that the economy is all sorts of messed up. I am not disagreeing with any of that. I am not disagreeing that we need to be able to better adjust the values. But, if you will stop for a moment and look at the data from a test game below, you will perhaps understand what I am referring to. 

Spoiler: Test Example (click to show/hide)

But, just for S&G, I started a brand new fort and did absolutely nothing but mine(two dwarfs). I traded no goods, made no food, brewed no drink, cut no blocks, farmed no land. Without doing anything other than mining, my fortress wealth at the end of the first year was:

Game 1: Starting Dwarves 7, imported Wealth 5k
wave1: Midsummer Dwarves 5, imported Wealth 8k Created Wealth 6290
Wave2: Autumn Dwarves 7, imported wealth 12k, Created Wealth 12100
Wave3: Spring Second Year 18, imported 32k, Created 31k.

That was doing NOTHING but mining. I didn't even trade anything. Even lost about half of the first two waves to madness and starvation.

I was going to run more tests to show the difference between a mining only and a full production fortress, but the results of the mining only were more than sufficient to prove my point.

On the first wealth based wave I recieved 18 dwarves. Now, because I did not create any wealth by any other means, this removes the vast majority of your arguments from the equation.

Spoiler: sidenotes (click to show/hide)

Stone is not worth 1db per piece. It is based off the value in the raw, and the default material value modifier is 2. Chalk, is worth 6, others are worth more or less. But the weight of 1 chalk block is 186r. In order to trade them effectively you must be able to remove 186r weight from the trader per piece of stone you trade(because the trader has a carrying capacity). That is not possible in any meaningful way. Your surcharge concept is good, but meaningless unless it respects to the Traders total carry capacity, which would be filled up immediately by boulders. This is a trading issue however, not a fortress wealth issue, which is why I avoided discussing your trade disputes.

Regardless of this, boulders are counted towards your fortress wealth whether you trade or not which is yet another reason why I avoided discussion about trading value mismatches.

Secondly, there was no intent to make a comparison between the relative value of boulders versus any manufactured good. So, while I understand that is an issue, it is a separate issue, and thus one I tried to avoid discussing in this thread.

Notice in my test I did not create any other trade items, yet another reason I avoided discussing your trade economics issue in this thread.

Population cap in general, is not the topic of this discussion. If your population is 14, and you receive 18 immigrants, you still have not reached your 70 or 200 dwarf limit, so it does not apply. That is why I did not discuss it in this thread.

So yes, all of your arguments regarding trade imbalances were quite intentionally ignored, because they had no relevance to this thread no matter whether they were correct or not. This thread was about disassociating boulders with the fortress wealth measurement to effectively reduce the rate at which immigrants arrive. Period.

With all due respect, don't talk to me about trade imbalances in this thread again. I have outlined extensively why this thread is not the place for that particular discussion.

This thread, and thus my arguments, are geared to a very specific issue, and a very specific problem that it creates. A player is not able to build and design their fortress gradually without getting huge influxes of migration, regardless of producing other goods. This test data shows very clearly, that the value of stone boulders being added to your fortress wealth has a significant impact on the migration waves. Yes, that effect is only triggered after the Liason, but it happens even if all you do is dig.

That means that if you build walls, prepare food, smooth stone, chop wood, farm fields or any other number of tasks, the problem will only get worse, but that does not negate the fact that the problem exists even without all of those other factors.

[loose nut]

There's also a huge difference when you mine your fort out of flux (or obsidian!) versus just dirt/regular stone. Carve through enough marble and you'll get multiple goblin ambushes on the fort's first anniversary.

A decent patch would make all the fort-value thresholds doubled.

[ravaught]

It is even worse if you are reclaiming a fort. Adjusting the thresholds would be one way of dealing with it, and it would probably be pretty effective. It would take care of the immigration and the attacks in one go, and should slow down fortress growth significantly. It would at least get a handle on the situation until a full on economic revamp could be done, as Kohaku suggested.

It would be nice to get a look at the actual numbers he is using. The only way to adjust the relative wealth at the moment is to change the default material values, but as I mentioned, that has some fairly significant repurcussions further down the line.

[GreatWyrmGold]

First off, ravaught, normal stone is worth 3 db/boulder, not 2.
Second off, why only stone? Wood is also 3 db/unit and a basic building unit. What about raw meat and fish, unused leather, and all of those other raw materials?
Third off, you can't say that NW_Kohaku's arguments are meaningless just because they miss the (narrow) point of your argument. If we solved the underlying problem that the AI can't really judge the worth of your fort, or even any individual item, then this would be fixed. In fact, this wouldn't really solve the problem--after all, a fort with a bunch of furniture and a bunch of rock to make more is a better fort than one with as much furniture and NO stone whatsoever.

[ravaught]

GreatWyrm, I didn't say stone was worth 2db, I said

Stone is not worth 1db per piece. It is based off the value in the raw, and the default material value modifier is 2. Chalk, is worth 6, others are worth more or less. But the weight of 1 chalk block is 186r. In order to trade them effectively you must be able to remove 186r weight from the trader per piece of stone you trade(because the trader has a carrying capacity). That is not possible in any meaningful way. Your surcharge concept is good, but meaningless unless it respects to the Traders total carry capacity, which would be filled up immediately by boulders. This is a trading issue however, not a fortress wealth issue, which is why I avoided discussing your trade disputes.

(Which I WAS incorrect on, granted. The default is 1, with many layer stones at 2 and ranging up to 3, minerals ranging from 3 to 40, and gems going even higher.) The db =  material value x item value x quality. 

The reason I limited it to stone is actually pretty simple, you can not dig without producing stone (unless you have soil tiles). You can choose not to chop trees, or gather fish, or not to slaughter animals to get leather. However, if you wish to play the game, it is nearly impossible to do without digging. Further, if your miner has any skill whatsoever he produces boulders on a nearly 1:1 ratio, so the simple act of trying to design your fortress layout generates, as opposed to actively trying to gather resources as in the examples you produced. More importantly, as I also mentioned, the attempt here was to decouple the boulders from fortress wealth, or at least to moderate their impact, and this would hold true regardless of whatever economic changes happened in the future to rebalance the economy. Kohaku comments, while correct(for the nth time) would NOT significantly reduce the impact of boulders on the fortress wealth because the default material values are a) NOT the major driving force behind the economic issues, and b) the player can choose not to create items and still play the game, but they can not effectively choose not to dig and still play the game.

Item_Values

Multiplier    Plant
x1   bloated tuber, hide root, kobold bulb, muck root, prickle berry, rat weed, sliver barb, whip vine
all trees and plant seeds
x2   blade weed, cave wheat, dimple cup, fisher berry, longland grass, pig tail, plump helmet, quarry bush, rope reed, sweet pod, wild strawberry
tuber beer (bloated tuber drink)

A player who made his dwarves drink water and eat uncooked plump helmets can control the wealth generated by them. Even if they brew drinks, as long as they keep it moderate they can control the  fortress wealth. Rawfish and unused body parts also all have material values between 1-3. This is also limited because a) they can be consumed, and b) they rot, neither of which applies to stone. What drives the economy crazy is the multipliers for the item type and quality. Boulders have a default value of 1 for type and quality, and as such can not be reduced further. Changing their material value WOULD lower their impact, but it would only serve to imbalance the overall economy even further. What I am trying to do is to separate the issue so that one can be worked on, tuned, and tweaked without affecting the other, and I think Loose Nut is on the right track.


Lastly, I didn't say Kohaku's comments meaningless, I said they were not directly applicable to this issue. In the quote above, I said that his surcharge suggestion would be meaningless unless it respected another mechanic. I even said it was a good suggestion. If you will look, I actually agreed with him(numerous times). I even agreed that Loose Nut's idea would serve as a decent patch until Kohaku's ideas could be implemented. However, and I stand by this, Kohaku's concerns with respect to the overall fortress economy do not directly impact the scope of this suggestion, which is ALL I said to begin with.







**edited for Typos**

[SuicideJunkie]

Doesn't digging also contribute to architecture value?

[ravaught]

I don't think it does. My architecture value was very low(like 100) at the end of that test. I think that was simply for a mason shop I right before abandoning the fort to check the value of a chalk block versus a chalk boulder.

[King Mir]

I'm with those who are saying that this is the wrong solution to the perceived problem.

A better fix is to decrease the migrant numbers by half for each wave.

[ravaught]

The number of migrants is a symptom of the problem. The wealth value is also a trigger for various other mechanics, like assaults on your fortress(another symptom), as was pointed out by Loose Nut. There are fairly low trigger values for the thieves and snatchers. I think the initial trigger for the thieves is 30k, but I am not entirely certain.  It would help slow the fortress congestion, but not solve the underlying issue.  I wish he WOULD cut it by half, though, or implement some of the other fixes suggested in the immigration thread.