Print

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

[Graknorke]

I see that you're largely arguing about how the game is too easy, and that players are sitting on a pile of steel and booze by the end of year three, but I must disagree with that.
I have been playing now since just after the release of 0.31, and I have never once seen magma. Neither have any of my fortresses ever produced a single bar of steel. The fortress either deals with copper (or bronze and iron IF they're lucky. A couple have got adamantine; in small amounts of course.) or dies. The same with magma. I don't use magma furnaces, I just cut more trees for charcoal. It has never been a goal of mine to reach the magma sea or to beat the HFS or to make a huge goblin processing machine. I am not directly against those things, they are extra parts to the big interconnecting systems of a fortress. At the same time, they are not neccessary to me to enjoy the fun.
To make it easier, I'm going to liken Dwarf Fortress to F1 racing.

Gamists are the people most dedicated to making their car run the fastest. They are determined to get every extra bit of power from the engine to the wheels and everything in-between that can make it go faster. However, they don't care how these things work, just that they do. They're more than happy to overlook something so long as it works.

There's simulationists, who want to be able to hand-tweak every aspect of their car, although maybe not to make it go faster; maybe it's just to have the pride of having done something a lot more difficult, or to have something set up in a way that they want it, even if it is impractical.

There's constructionists, who want their car to be something impressisve, even if not functional. They could very well tie a parade float on the back of their car, so long as it made it look better. They have little concern for the inner workings of the vehicle.

Then there's "observers", like myself. While not opposed to them, I don't play Dwarf Fortress to make the prettiest sculptures or the best warriors or the automatic-magma-flush-sewage system, I do it because I like to watch how things unfold, sometimes without my input. I might rip out a spark plug to see if it makes a noticable difference to engine noise, and maybe leave it even if I don't like it. It's different. I might deliberately get as little grip on the rear tires as possible just to see it spin out a few times. I do what I do because I like to see something dynamic play out in front of me.


I'm not saying that rubble would impede that, it would certainly add another level of change going on, and I like that. The only real problem I have with it is that it will pave the way for other, more complex hands-on systems that will require me to spend too much time with my head under the bonnet to actually see the wider effets of what I'm doing.

[Sadrice]

I have several issues with rubble being smeltable.  Firstly, most rock doesn't have extractable ore in it.  In df, there's pure rock and pure ore.  In real life, ore pretty much always has rock mixed in with it (called gangue) that needs to be extracted by grinding and then sluicing or something similar (or just picking it out by hand), and there's not usually a sharp boundary between ore an non ore.  Perhaps if pure ore veins had a fuzz of dilute ore in rock around it that could be used later, when you get around to building the equipment (perhaps a sluice box could be a building that works like a slow backwards pump, accepting water on the same z at one end and dumps it out at z - 1 at the other end...).

Also, which metal do you get from rubble?  The same as the nearest ore vein?  Iron every time?  Some people would like that, but I think that would be a stupid solution.

I like the minesweeper mining thing, but the hazards should be something you can deal with.  If you couldn't dig out the fortress you want because there's a patch of unstable rock where you want your dining room, it would be realistic but very frustrating, especially to the sandbox types.  One solution I would like is for multi z rooms with arched ceilings to be much more stable that wide rooms with flat ceilings.  Supports or some other way to shore up the ceiling would be nice.

[bluea]

I keep coming back to a cosmetic change that would seem to make the entire concept slightly more palatable strictly from a connotation perspective.

Use the word "Gravel" instead of "Rubble".

Then "the change" is "just" asking for multiple stones to drop per tile with a little gravel - and multiple stones per tile blocks movement. Where the gravel itself is more like a contaminant - something to be cleaned up for speedy movement and Legendary smooth engravings, etc.

Boulders for making walls in one step.
Stones for making 'rough stone' wall - with more than one stone.
Stones and boulders can also be carved into neat blocks.
Blocks for -fitted- (watertight) walls and for crafts.

Now add a rock crusher:
Fine gravel, sand, clay, further mineral extraction, etc.

Paved roads, gravel roads, "amalgam walls" and auto-amalgamation in dump zones for FPS.

This directly approaches the 'Supply Side' by changing walls and crafting - not actually having anything to do with "rubble" at all.

Both walls -and- crafting were solutions to "getting rid of the (*(*&(* stone" for me - being able to have a zone for amalgam creation is actually -eliminating- two steps if the hauling meets expectations.

[greenskye]

I'm not saying that rubble would impede that, it would certainly add another level of change going on, and I like that. The only real problem I have with it is that it will pave the way for other, more complex hands-on systems that will require me to spend too much time with my head under the bonnet to actually see the wider effets of what I'm doing.

Personally I think rubble (and more systems like it), would improve the observer qualities of DF. Watching my miners dig out rooms is not very exciting right now. There is very little risk involved with mining. Without a place where things might go wrong, nothing interesting can happen. But if hauling slows down, or if cave-ins are a risk, or if a random gas pocket can be stumbled upon? That makes for interesting watching.

I would love for DF to scale with complexity. At the beginning with your starting 7, you should be in there mucking around with the systems. At dwarf 250 though? Most everything should be automated. Your interaction should be at a higher level. You shuoldn't be focusing so much on the minute details, but rather a more civilization-ish global view. This is when it gets truly interesting to watch.

I am fully in favor of more complex mining/farming/whatever IF they are able to be automated as your fortress grows.

[Graknorke]

I'm not saying that rubble would impede that, it would certainly add another level of change going on, and I like that. The only real problem I have with it is that it will pave the way for other, more complex hands-on systems that will require me to spend too much time with my head under the bonnet to actually see the wider effets of what I'm doing.

Personally I think rubble (and more systems like it), would improve the observer qualities of DF. Watching my miners dig out rooms is not very exciting right now. There is very little risk involved with mining. Without a place where things might go wrong, nothing interesting can happen. But if hauling slows down, or if cave-ins are a risk, or if a random gas pocket can be stumbled upon? That makes for interesting watching.

I would love for DF to scale with complexity. At the beginning with your starting 7, you should be in there mucking around with the systems. At dwarf 250 though? Most everything should be automated. Your interaction should be at a higher level. You shuoldn't be focusing so much on the minute details, but rather a more civilization-ish global view. This is when it gets truly interesting to watch.

I am fully in favor of more complex mining/farming/whatever IF they are able to be automated as your fortress grows.

I agree with your first point there, as well as the other things like sudden problems that I'd have to react to. Rubble as well is something that would become automated. In my opinion though, it's the other "realism" things mentioned in this thread like having to have gas lanterns with huge plumbing systems to have a functioning fortress. For one, it means that when I want to make a new dining room for example, I have to make sure there's a large space around it for plumbing space, then create the mechanics to regulate the flow etc, when really at a late game point I'd rather have things like that closer to automatic.
As well with that gas thing, is that having just gas seems somewhat arbitrary, why should it be the only solution to the problem? Why couldn't I have simple wood-burning fires to light up areas, or plant small plots of a light-emitting fungus? It's like the opposite of overlooking problems to make the game easier; it's overlooking possible solutions to make the game harder.

Just to make my opinion clear; I have no problem with rubble as long as it is implemented with a decently manageable system without the need for excessive micro. It's more the other things that it seems to be leading into, as well as the occasional overlooking of solutions that I have a problem with. On a rubble related note, why does the idea of allowing rubble to be compacted seem so looked down upon? Something like a compactor that was essentially a screw press for rubble and turned a certain amount into a block wouldn't be too bad. It would create basic building materials that can be reasonably stored, providing a solution to overground waste by opening up a new industrial process.

[Martin]

Also, which metal do you get from rubble?  The same as the nearest ore vein?  Iron every time?  Some people would like that, but I think that would be a stupid solution.

I had proposed a proportionate mix to whatever is in the biome layer - with the thinking as you note, that all stone contains at least some ore. Since furnaces accumulate fractions of bars during melting, this would simply feed into that system. If your biome layer has 61% copper, 32% gold, and 7% platinum ores, for each tile of rubble, you'd extract .05*.61 = .03 bar of copper, .015 bar of gold, and .003 bar of platinum. 30 tiles of rubble would gain you 1 copper bar. 60 would gain you 1 gold bar. 300 would gain you one platinum bar.


The extraction rate would be very low - to the point that most players wouldn't bother. But if you were willing to tap the magma, and devote the labor, and were perhaps otherwise desperate - it'd get you metal without having to hunt down the veins. It'd have value in the same way that you can now use teeth for something. Does anyone actually bother? I doubt it. But you can.


My current fort is an immigrant only fort and is 40 years in. I've not smelted any ore and I've got at least 100 bars of every type of metal, and many thousands of bars of copper and iron - and thats after training up 2 legendary blacksmiths, weaponsmiths, and armorers, and outfitting the fortress with a fair amount of masterwork items of varying sorts. Buying it off of caravans and melting all of the goblinite produces a huge amount of stuff to work with. Now, you may not bother trying to do that without magma, but then you definitely wouldn't bother trying to smelt rubble without magma. And if you have magma, you'll just dump your rubble in the magma. I'm merely introducing an intermediate, where you could add labor to the assumed default condition (dump it in the magma) and get something small for the effort. And it is small - the better labor payoff is to make crafts or roasts, buy metal crafts and cages and large iron armor and melt it. So, its not even a more infinite source of metal as the trade depot. But if you're turtled up and sieged and you're desperate for some metal for bolts or armor, well, here's a desperate solution for you.

[mdqp]

To NW_Kohaku: Discussing is good (and even if it wasn't, it certainly doesn't do any harm), so no problem there. I am arguing the real usefulness of the rubble as a challenge, as in itself it doesn't sound that hard to overcome, nor that useful, nor that interesting (it's just hauling stuff you dig, if we consider the challenge as the main point of the whole thing). If we talk about a general change of the mining system, as you did while you talked about hurdles like possible hazardous gasses then, it's a completely different deal, maybe worth it. But as a single change, it doesn't sound particularly interesting or promising, at least to me.

There is also the fact that I doubt anyone could ever be able to reproduce a whole world with the infinite options it offers (rubble can be used for a lot of things, in real life, and you could even use it in traps to bury alive enemies, if you feel so inclined, but in a game? Even an ambitious one like this? There are limits), so discussing just about everything is possible, but there are priorities even in discussions, as we'll have to arbitrarily pick things from reality (unless you expect to cut the trees, work on the wood, buy or create the nails, create the glue, just to build a chair, that will fall apart in due time... That's "Reality Beta 0.3", not a game anymore, and I don't think that's going to happen... It would take more than Toady's lifetime, I think).

[NW_Kohaku]

I like the minesweeper mining thing, but the hazards should be something you can deal with.  If you couldn't dig out the fortress you want because there's a patch of unstable rock where you want your dining room, it would be realistic but very frustrating, especially to the sandbox types.  One solution I would like is for multi z rooms with arched ceilings to be much more stable that wide rooms with flat ceilings.  Supports or some other way to shore up the ceiling would be nice.

It doesn't have to be something that forever halts expansion.  It could be something manageable, but only if you handle it carefully, and know it is there.  Sort of like the old underground rivers in 40d or aquifers, where digging up might start flooding the whole fortress if you didn't know that aquifer was there. 

Pressurized magma or a gas pocket could be something you could tap and extract if you are careful and set up some manner of control system.  I actually suggested a while ago a special kind of designation for building a support into a wall as you mined it.  This would let you "mine out" a tile and replace it with a support/wall type of tile that could be hooked to a lever and released from a safe distance (unlike the way that we currently have to engrave a fortification into a magma pipe or sacrifice a miner to the HFS).  This would go a way to helping deal with explosive surprises. 

It's, again, just something that we can discuss how we would like the game in an optimal state since we have the luxury of tremendous amounts of time waiting for Toady to catch up to all the thing planned for the game already.

I agree with your first point there, as well as the other things like sudden problems that I'd have to react to. Rubble as well is something that would become automated. In my opinion though, it's the other "realism" things mentioned in this thread like having to have gas lanterns with huge plumbing systems to have a functioning fortress. For one, it means that when I want to make a new dining room for example, I have to make sure there's a large space around it for plumbing space, then create the mechanics to regulate the flow etc, when really at a late game point I'd rather have things like that closer to automatic.
As well with that gas thing, is that having just gas seems somewhat arbitrary, why should it be the only solution to the problem? Why couldn't I have simple wood-burning fires to light up areas, or plant small plots of a light-emitting fungus? It's like the opposite of overlooking problems to make the game easier; it's overlooking possible solutions to make the game harder.

You could also hand-fill your lanterns with oil made from vegetables, like the rock nut oil you get currently, and which Toady wanted to make as part of the lighting arc.

I didn't mean to present that as the only solution.  Just the most planning-intensive but labor-saving solution to the problem.  You could farm your light, you could make a complex gas pumping logistical challenge the solution to light, you could just have your oil presses working and have lamp-filler dwarves make some rounds to keep the lanterns filled, or you could import your light, or maybe some advanced alchemy can give you ever-glowing (or at least nearly so) crystals at some exorbitant cost.

I was simply expressing that as part of a point in that we could have very complex interconnected logistics systems, and where each interconnected layer adds complexity to the other, as you have to plan each system while respecting the space the others will also need.


A little off-topic, but I actually think the people who like to observe are more in line with the simulationists - the ones who want to feel that they are seeing a real world working in front of their eyes. Maybe an observer is looking for more of a storytelling role in the game than the strict realism seeker, and there are some distinctions there, but there's some degree of overlap in what it is they want out of the game.

On a rubble related note, why does the idea of allowing rubble to be compacted seem so looked down upon? Something like a compactor that was essentially a screw press for rubble and turned a certain amount into a block wouldn't be too bad. It would create basic building materials that can be reasonably stored, providing a solution to overground waste by opening up a new industrial process.

I don't think compacting is a terrible idea in and of itself, if it isn't an easy solution to completely getting rid of limitless amounts of gravel/rubble.  I just don't want rubble to be capable of being vaporized very easily, or it completely loses the point it had in existing.

However, I don't think gravel can be compacted very easily, at least, without massive heavy grinder machines that seem technologically anachronistic.

[reality.auditor]

You're basically stating the assumption (that Toady will never delete data), and holding that up as proof of the assumption you are making to argue against what I have said (that the data will be deleted in order to make this system work).

For me, assumption that Toady will preserve as much possible data (useless or otherwise, in this context it does not matter) as he can is very, very believable. This is why I would be vary of anything that adds even more objects to game.

Yes, I agree that Toady should temper this. For example, I really do not need to know exact list of 50 various splatters of blood, pus and other unsightly substances from unlucky dwarves, animals and freak weather on goddamn single wall of decontaminator bath. At some point, it should mix all in one horrid slurry. Of course, it will be problematic due to syndromes and other possible effects. It would not be that bad if those substances would vanish after some time. But nooo... okay, I digressed.

Anyway, If you want to convince people that rubble is worth it, you must eliminate any possible micromanagement issues, including proper order of mining tiles by AI. I do not see anything like that any time soon. This is game where dorf on fire go to booze stockpile for drink like nothing happened.

[Buttery_Mess]

Word count of all NW_Kohaku's posts in this thread so far (not including quotes): 14524

Word count of Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury: 46118

31.4 % of a small classical novel.

This was within the space of four days. At that rate, NW_Kohaku could churn out a decent-sized novel at a one a month, instead of posting in the Bay12 forums, and still have the time to play Dwarf Fortress and go to work, raise family, or whatever else NW_Kohaku does.

Food for thought, NW_Kohaku. Food for thought.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

i find that somewhat disrespectful. how many of those words did you read? that's all that you could say about them? every one of them was pertinent to the thread, more than your post, so i'd say that if you're accusing him of writing too many words, you're still beating him by 88.

[bombzero]

NW_Kokaku wants his final idea for the game regardless of others opinions and intends to convert everyone else to his view and only his view, that will naturally draw some hostility.

Myself and several others have spent several pages trying to come to a halfway point, not eliminating his ideas, but compromising. He has not budged one inch.

so I must ask you how disrespectful one can really be to somebody who shows this behavior in every thread I have ever seen him post in?

[Sadrice]

Where did he demand anything of anyone?  He has merely put forth how he would like it.  There's no real debate to be had anyways, it's not like we can make a consensus decision.  Toady will make the game he wants to make.

[Buttery_Mess]

What? I was just pointing out that NW_Kohaku has posted a lot of words.

It would be more productive if Kohaku were to write a novel, instead of pissing his time away posting on a message board.

The income from the novels could be used to pay a programmer to write a new game exactly to Kohaku's specifications. Just sayin'.

[ZzarkLinux]

I think Toady et. al. are aware of our whole sensitivity to this thing, hence the Threetoe post today.
It has calmed me down a little (though I'm still not converted yet though )

Maybe some tiles can leave "a dusting of rubble" like mud, and you can't build a floor there or cave moss can't grow there
when rubble is present. Some dwarf with "Cleaning" labor activated (and not bugged) will come and sweep it up and make the rubble go poof.

The realism folks get more realism, and my early-fort plan in Terrifying biomes isn't affected.
Too much fun in Terrifying to worry about rubble