Print

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

[bombzero]

You know, all this talk of rubble has given me a great idea:

Know what else should be added to the game? Indefinitely growing hair. A dwarf's hair should continue to grow throughout their lifetime, becoming more and more of a hassle for the dwarf as time goes on. Eventually, they would begin to move slower and constantly fall over as a result of tripping on their beards. They would also work and fight slower and less effectively because of all the hair blocking their vision. The only way to rid them of the excess hair would be to build a barber shop, where the dwarves would all have to go for regular grooming/shaves/haircuts in order to remain their normal productive selves. Then the player would be forced to think of how to deal with of the massive amounts of hair lying around. You wouldn't really be able to do much with it, since it would be worthless and the dwarves would get unhappy thoughts from clothing made of their own hair.
This would make the game a lot more realistic, as hair does not simply start out at its full length from birth, while also adding more depth and challenge to the game as a whole by slowing everything down.

Hyperbole won't really help your case, it just makes you look stupid, and adds nothing to the discussion.

I'm deeply sorry, I really didn't mean to make myself look like a fool. From now on, I'll try to repeat the same goddamn arguments over and over so that I can look smart like the rest of you.

*high five*

[slink]

bombzero 10
NW_Kohaku 16
Askot Bokbondeler 7
slink 5

o-o

NW_Kohaku 2012

In this thread, I meant.  Sheesh.  *laughs*

[slink]

You know, all this talk of rubble has given me a great idea:

Know what else should be added to the game? Indefinitely growing hair. A dwarf's hair should continue to grow throughout their lifetime, becoming more and more of a hassle for the dwarf as time goes on. Eventually, they would begin to move slower and constantly fall over as a result of tripping on their beards. They would also work and fight slower and less effectively because of all the hair blocking their vision. The only way to rid them of the excess hair would be to build a barber shop, where the dwarves would all have to go for regular grooming/shaves/haircuts in order to remain their normal productive selves. Then the player would be forced to think of how to deal with of the massive amounts of hair lying around. You wouldn't really be able to do much with it, since it would be worthless and the dwarves would get unhappy thoughts from clothing made of their own hair.
This would make the game a lot more realistic, as hair does not simply start out at its full length from birth, while also adding more depth and challenge to the game as a whole by slowing everything down.

Hyperbole won't really help your case, it just makes you look stupid, and adds nothing to the discussion.

I'm deeply sorry, I really didn't mean to make myself look like a fool. From now on, I'll try to repeat the same goddamn arguments over and over so that I can look smart like the rest of you.

I thought it was both funny and topical.  I read it to my husband, who had been somewhat perforce following this discussion because his computer is right next to mine.  He laughed in appreciation.

I even considered adding a comment that we could have vermin infest uncleared piles of hair, causing diseases, but thought that might be inflammatory.  So I didn't post it.  Oops ...

[Askot Bokbondeler]

You know, all this talk of rubble has given me a great idea:

Know what else should be added to the game? Indefinitely growing hair. A dwarf's hair should continue to grow throughout their lifetime, becoming more and more of a hassle for the dwarf as time goes on. Eventually, they would begin to move slower and constantly fall over as a result of tripping on their beards. They would also work and fight slower and less effectively because of all the hair blocking their vision. The only way to rid them of the excess hair would be to build a barber shop, where the dwarves would all have to go for regular grooming/shaves/haircuts in order to remain their normal productive selves. Then the player would be forced to think of how to deal with of the massive amounts of hair lying around. You wouldn't really be able to do much with it, since it would be worthless and the dwarves would get unhappy thoughts from clothing made of their own hair.
This would make the game a lot more realistic, as hair does not simply start out at its full length from birth, while also adding more depth and challenge to the game as a whole by slowing everything down.

Hyperbole won't really help your case, it just makes you look stupid, and adds nothing to the discussion.

I'm deeply sorry, I really didn't mean to make myself look like a fool. From now on, I'll try to repeat the same goddamn arguments over and over so that I can look smart like the rest of you.

*high five*

i'm pretty sure i can report this kind of behaviour. i don't want to, but it's getting in the way of proper discussion. stop it

[King DZA]

Honestly, what is there left to discuss? Should we keep going just to see how many more times people can say, "I don't like rubble, it's unnecessary!" or "I do like rubble, it adds to the gameplay!"?

It really just seems like elaborate bickering at this point, and either way, I can tell you that it's going to be a frosty day in hell before everyone comes to an agreeable conclusion.

[bombzero]

alright fine.

however, NW, as i have said before, and seems I must say again as you dont seem to read my posts... at all...

rubble is fine, as long as it could say, be run through sluice boxes, made into roads, and used to make makeshift early barricades to protect your fort, when a physics system gets implemented it would be weight that has to be moved for the fortress to not crumble, for realism's sake it would have to have applications, never in history has any group simply dumped many metric tons of rock when they had the technology to get SOMETHING out of it, and in all honesty, like minecarts and steel making, this would probably be an area dwarves would be more advanced in then humans or elves.

so im not against adding it, im against adding it in a way that has no positives whatsoever, even after running it through a sluice box you would have to dispose of it, it wouldn't just poof away. but you could get something useful by taking a bit more time in processing it.

hell just adding sluicing alongside rubble would justify putting it in in the next few releases, as that could also expand into gold panning, rock crushing, and much more.

doing this would add DEPTH to the game, not trash.

Honestly, what is there left to discuss? Should we keep going just to see how many more times people can say, "I don't like rubble, it's unnecessary!" or "I do like rubble, it adds to the gameplay!"?

It really just seems like elaborate bickering at this point, and either way, I can tell you that it's going to be a frosty day in hell before everyone comes to an agreeable conclusion.

more posts like whats above this.

and seriously, many of us agree that rubble could add to the game, im just trying to say that it should either add depth or not be added.

[friendguy13]

I disagree with the idea the stone should be valuable.  These are dwarves who live underground all the time surrounded by stone all the time stone shortages should never ever ever be an issue only metals and ores should be facing that type of severe supply chain problems.

[NW_Kohaku]

As i have been trying to do with agreeing with the sluice box idea and challenging others to come up with similar things, however apparently according to some people, rubble should have no positive uses and just be annoying clutter that makes the game harder.

Yes.

Why are you so adamant in seeing that as a bad thing?  Why do you refuse to even consider the arguments I have made for this?

I am not ignoring your arguments, I am trying to show you why your assumption here should be questioned.

It does add depth for the need to remove if from play alone.

I'm deeply sorry, I really didn't mean to make myself look like a fool. From now on, I'll try to repeat the same goddamn arguments over and over so that I can look smart like the rest of you.

The difference between true, properly performed satire and what you did was that actual satire displays an understanding of the topic matter at the level of those who are proposing the argument you disagree with or a deeper one, and revealing through your arguments for that thing the flaws that the idea has.

What you showed in this, and your other past failed attempts at humor is that you simply can't be bothered to understand the arguments others have made.  You don't even realize how I already countered that argument, but that's beside the point, because the only point your post actually had was to show your disdain for other members of the forum and your belief in your own superiority because you can put on a hipster disinterest in others. 

Contrary to what you believe, anyone can throw down empty insults that something is "retarded", and as such it doesn't prove any intelligence on your part.  To be able to construct with argument, and build toward making a point, rather than dismissing the points of others in a manner that shows you didn't understand what they were saying in the first place, is a true show of intelligence.

Besides which, people have been arguing for dwarven haircuts in the suggestions forums in the past.  (Not me, but they have occurred.)

Which brings me to this...

I even considered adding a comment that we could have vermin infest uncleared piles of hair, causing diseases, but thought that might be inflammatory.  So I didn't post it.  Oops ...

No, no, they should get lice unless proper haircare stations are built, or at least combs.  Lice spread diseases that degrade dwarven health and productivity.

Lice are communicable, as well, and so lice spread becomes more of an epidemic as fortresses are more compact, causing greater need for hair care tools and workshops as the fortress grows in population.

Hair should be burnable and compostable, which would let it tie in nicely with the farming improvements.

Nobles demand highly trained stylists so that their beards can always be of immaculate trim, and will spend free time trying to decorate it more than others of lesser posts.

[bombzero]

I disagree with the idea the stone should be valuable.  These are dwarves who live underground all the time surrounded by stone all the time stone shortages should never ever ever be an issue only metals and ores should be facing that type of severe supply chain problems.

I solidly agree here, stone is abundant, face it.

however since ores are not as abundant, sluicing rubble from mining would be something dwarves would conceivably do, before packing the rubble into a storage area or something along those lines.

also NW, just for reference, you intend rubble as the rock that is not composing boulders right? as in there would be less rubble made when boulders are produced, and more when they are not?

[Manveru Taurënér]

I guess stuff like sluicing depends somewhat on how the rubble actually would be defined. Say you mine out a magnetite tile, would the rubble generated then be magnetite rubble or some generic rubble, as in the minerals in the tile that isn't ore? If it were just magnetite but in smaller parts not fit for crafting then it could still be smelted as usual. The same would go for flux stone rubble, the dwarves wouldn't throw away perfectly good flux just because it's not in larger parts that still would have to be crushed for use later on. Rubble from normal stone would be fairly useless in most situations, even though some of it could come in handy for filling up holes or for rough roads. Regardless I don't think rubble should be a very good resource. Hopefully it should shift from how it is now where stone is considered a nuisance with some limited use to having rubble fill that position and regular larger pieces of stone be valued higher and stored for crafting.

[Shadowkx]

I simply don't see the difference between increasing the time it takes to mine and adding rubble if rubble doesn't have an in-game function. If the time required to mine a square was increased to the amount of time it would take to mine + the amount of time taken to clear the rubble, it would be essentially the same.

There are three major differences between mining being slower and rubble:

1. The length of the hauling path increases the larger the mines themselves become.  This means the delay becomes greater the larger the mines become, making the game "easier" (or rather, one hauler can take away more rubble, requiring a smaller percentage of the available labor be used hauling) at first, and then gradually becoming greater as your mines increase in length.

2. It slows narrow/deep expansion more than it slows shallow/broad expansion.  That is, just digging a straight vertical central staircase straight down to the magma sea is going to take more time waiting for rubble to be cleared than trying to clear out a broad chamber, where a miner can go from area where rubble is cleared to the next area where rubble is cleared in mining. 

3. It provides a greater use for minecarts and gives a greater reward to players who use them to their fullest by letting them more greatly cut down on their labor needs for hauling by rewarding more efficient minecart tracks with faster mining and less dwarves needing to focus upon hauling as your fortress expands.

Adding in rubble doesn't make this process more or less complex, it just makes it slightly different. You already have to d-b-d a recently cleared room, so how is rubble different?

How would rubble be different from most other junk objects you need to clear away if this were fully implemented? Not much. 

The point is that not clearing rubble slows dwarves down, and so would having excessive amounts of any other junk that clogged a hallway.  Rubble would simply be junk that accumulates from mining and needs to be cleaned more regularly. 

The point of rubble is to give a reason for the logistical supply chains to dispose of that rubble, and that means having the penalties for ignoring rubble to force players to actually clean that up.  Otherwise, as thvaz said earlier in FotF, you can just (h)ide everything, and the mine carts have little meaning. 

The way the game is now, rubble would be basically equivalent to rough stone. In our history up until DF's technological cutoff, most masonry was with fieldstone or "rubble" masonry, which basically means uncut blocks, known in DF as rough stone.

Again, the purpose of rubble is not to have "uses" that are beneficial to the player - like sleeping, they are a problem to be overcome.  They exist to be a roadblock in the expansion of a fortress, not to be another resource that gives the player an even easier time of things.

1. This point makes it seem like you are against the hauling overhaul.  What is the difference between what we have in the current version versus having rubble?

2. How?  1 x 1 10 z levels down takes the same time to mine as horizontal 1x10 on the same z level.  As to how mine carts will work, i could just dig ramps to go down and have a long artificial hill.  I don't think dwarves get more tire going up hills. 

3.  I am not seeing how this is different then having the stone blocks that clutter up the place now?  Why not have those block slow down movement?  Same effect as rubble but starts working on the quantum piling issues.

This is a fantasy world simulation.  Simulations stripe away irrelevant details to let the simulation actually provide something of meaning.  Rubble would need to add something to the simulation or it ends up as digital rubble. I dislike the current change as it means save scumming is a much more desirable thing to do.  "Hhhhmmm I got 4 blocks of precious ore out of 16 squares mined.  I should be able to beat the averages so lets mine it again."  No you don't have to do that but the rewards of doing it has become very high. 

[slink]

No, no, they should get lice unless proper haircare stations are built, or at least combs.  Lice spread diseases that degrade dwarven health and productivity.

Lice are communicable, as well, and so lice spread becomes more of an epidemic as fortresses are more compact, causing greater need for hair care tools and workshops as the fortress grows in population.

I had in mind something more along the lines of small rodents making nests in the hair heaps, carrying a plague-like disease which can be passed by fleas.  This would break out in times of hardship when the Dwarves hunt vermin for food, causing high mortality amongst all except a few who have a concealed genetic trait to resist it.

[Sadrice]

A little less disdain from all sides of this argument would be nice.  NW Kohaku:  I agree with nearly all of your points, and I think they are good responses to the counterarguments, but they're pretty much the same arguments you started with, only slightly rephrased.  This is presumably because you have already discussed this a lot in other threads, and a change in emphasis might be helpful.

I support the addition of rubble because I think the player systems for dealing with it are interesting in and of themselves, regardless of whether it has a use.  This might lead to more interesting architecture, as a huge central strairwell probably would not be a very effective design for this.  There might be a separate surface connection with, say, a tailings heap below the dumping access on the side of a cliff.  If you have a river canyon, you could dump it in the middle to form a dam.  There might be separate hallways for rubble hauling, to keep it from clogging your main areas with wheelbarrow traffic.  As you get more comfortably established, those could be converted for minecart use.

These systems wouldn't actually be necessary, at least at first.  Toady seems to be leaning towards wheelbarrows as default hauling equipment.  There could be a default cleaning behavior, where the dwarves just pile it up around the entrance, making a little anthill.  During initial excavations, this would be adequate,  and you wouldn't have to designate any sort of rubble dumping zone.  If you are scaling up your mining operations, or happen to dislike the heap in front of your door, you could then set up a rubble dump, and use something like d b d (d b r?) to have your dwarves go put it somewhere else.

This would slow down mining, but wouldn't necessarily make it to tediously slow unless your haulers are all otherwise engaged (just disable other hauling jobs on a few stonehaulers to prevent this).  Default hauling speed/how many tiles of rubble fit in a barrow/cart could all be tweaked until it feels right.  It would only be frustrating and debilitating if it were implemented poorly, or you use idiotically inefficient designs while mining huge areas.  I think we can trust toady to do it right.

I think the worse thing that might happen is it being necessary to understand how it works to dig your first fortress, like if you have to specifically order it to be removed.  If there is sensible default behavior, a new player only has to understand d-click to start digging a fort, and they can become engaged in the game rather than ragequitting because no one will do anything. 

I have a few more ideas that I think might be relevant, but my thumbs are sore (damn phone).  Try not to be dicks and get the thread locked in the next few hours, mkay?

[King DZA]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

As i have been trying to do with agreeing with the sluice box idea and challenging others to come up with similar things, however apparently according to some people, rubble should have no positive uses and just be annoying clutter that makes the game harder.

Yes.

Why are you so adamant in seeing that as a bad thing?  Why do you refuse to even consider the arguments I have made for this?

I am not ignoring your arguments, I am trying to show you why your assumption here should be questioned.

It does add depth for the need to remove if from play alone.

I'm deeply sorry, I really didn't mean to make myself look like a fool. From now on, I'll try to repeat the same goddamn arguments over and over so that I can look smart like the rest of you.

The difference between true, properly performed satire and what you did was that actual satire displays an understanding of the topic matter at the level of those who are proposing the argument you disagree with or a deeper one, and revealing through your arguments for that thing the flaws that the idea has.

What you showed in this, and your other past failed attempts at humor is that you simply can't be bothered to understand the arguments others have made.  You don't even realize how I already countered that argument, but that's beside the point, because the only point your post actually had was to show your disdain for other members of the forum and your belief in your own superiority because you can put on a hipster disinterest in others. 

Contrary to what you believe, anyone can throw down empty insults that something is "retarded", and as such it doesn't prove any intelligence on your part.  To be able to construct with argument, and build toward making a point, rather than dismissing the points of others in a manner that shows you didn't understand what they were saying in the first place, is a true show of intelligence.

Besides which, people have been arguing for dwarven haircuts in the suggestions forums in the past.  (Not me, but they have occurred.)

Which brings me to this...

I even considered adding a comment that we could have vermin infest uncleared piles of hair, causing diseases, but thought that might be inflammatory.  So I didn't post it.  Oops ...

No, no, they should get lice unless proper haircare stations are built, or at least combs.  Lice spread diseases that degrade dwarven health and productivity.

Lice are communicable, as well, and so lice spread becomes more of an epidemic as fortresses are more compact, causing greater need for hair care tools and workshops as the fortress grows in population.

Hair should be burnable and compostable, which would let it tie in nicely with the farming improvements.

Nobles demand highly trained stylists so that their beards can always be of immaculate trim, and will spend free time trying to decorate it more than others of lesser posts.

I made a hair joke, and you go on a rant about my poorly executed satire, failure at humor(which is subjective, by the way), disdain for other forum members, what I believe, and "hipster disinterest". Trust me, I don't feel the need to prove how intelligent/fucking awesome I am to anyone. Especially not here, where it would be very off-topic to this "discussion".

I'll ignore the fact that you seem to be taking this all a little personally, and just say that I actually don't think the idea is all that horrible. If done properly, I wouldn't mind it being put in the game. You are right about one thing though:

These repetitive arguments around the idea, I truly and honestly do not give a fuck about. That's why I am not trying to argue anything. But when I get replies directly to my posts, I feel somewhat obliged to respond.

To my knowledge, your stance is that you want rubble to be an added challenge/roadblock to the game, not a benefit to the player. If this is wrong, please go ahead and enlighten me. But perhaps this time without being so assuming.

[Camden1990]

@King DZA - Actually, what you said was pretty funny. I laughed and I applaud your satire!

@NW What I don't understand is why you seem to be against the rubble being useful?

I like the idea of rubble. I think slowing down mining, forcing more thought about architecture etc. is good!
But I also like the (realistic) idea that rubble can be used for something. And I can see the point about complexity being good for its own sake, but I don't find that idea alone appealing.
It will slow down the initial process and also slow down my ability to house my dwarves, possibly leading to their hilarious deaths.
This makes the game harder and adds an interesting spin if balanced right, but it really only adds difficulty and complexity. I don't buy into rubble for the sake of rubble adding any depth, so I'd like to see features around it.

Although the "there will be less junk" argument just isn't true. There will not be MORE, there will be at best the same, but it will just take longer to get all the junk. The point could be true if there were more features and uses for rubble though!