Print

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

[NW_Kohaku]

All I really see is that people agree that they should be equally as good, if speedier...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Now, do some focused re-reading and tell me who, other than;

I'm not a fan either. 25% drop with 4x times as many bars sounds fine in theory, but I feel like the negative feeling of not getting 25% outweighs the positive feeling from getting more than 25%. Not only that, Miner skill levels are worthless now.

You know what would be great? If for each level of skill a Miner had, it tacked on X% additional chance to succesfully mine an ore. +1% seems a little low, because at Legendary+5 you'd still only have 45%. Maybe +2%? 65% sounds reasonable to me, especially given the whole 4 bars deal.

If that's not possible, then Toady needs to raise the flat ore drop rate to 50%, final answer.

is arguing that Legendary miners should be better at excavating valuable minerals from the earth they are supposedly "Legendary" at mining. Because I sure don't see much agreement on the subject even though that honestly is what makes sense.

To be clear: Economic rocks and non-ore stones should stay the same. Blocks fix the lack of building materials and rocks are a way to quickly make most other goods for a cheaper price since rock is abundant. It makes sense that these miners aren't trying their damnedest to keep these stones in tact, but why would any self respecting Dwarf treat a vein of Hemetite the same as diorite, or whatever? I tell you they wouldn't, and shouldn't.

That's funny, because I wrote one of those posts you are linking to, and I didn't say anything at all like what you are claiming.  Neither, does it seem to me, did the other two, although I doubt Girlinhat or Psieye really need someone else speaking for them.

My argument wasn't "Legendaries should be "worse" than dabbling miners", it was "making minerals more rare is not a bad thing". 

You're simply making an argument up where it doesn't exist out of your ass in order to vilify an opinion just because it happens not to be yours.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

That's funny, because I wrote one of those posts you are linking to, and I didn't say anything at all like what you are claiming.  Neither, does it seem to me, did the other two, although I doubt Girlinhat or Psieye really need someone else speaking for them.

My argument wasn't "Legendaries should be "worse" than dabbling miners", it was "making minerals more rare is not a bad thing". 

You're simply making an argument up where it doesn't exist out of your ass in order to vilify an opinion just because it happens not to be yours.

If the point of your post wasn't to argue that the base rate should stay the same, then I honestly don't even know why the posts exist, friend.

[NW_Kohaku]

If the point of your post wasn't to argue that the base rate should stay the same, then I honestly don't even know why the posts exist, friend.

Your statement was:

I sure think it's silly that you're all under the impression that a Legendary Miner should be less skilled at extracting valuable minerals than a novice.

You are trying to conflate "I don't think flat 25% drops, regardless of skill is a bad thing" with "Legendary Miner should be less skilled at extracting valuable minerals". 

These two things simply are not the same, no matter how emphatically you proclaim it to be.

[krenshala]

Has anyone verified whether or not skill affects mining speed still, or if material being dug out is the only factor?  If high skilled miners dig faster, they are still very valuable assets to any fortress (with the exception of the odd surface-dwelling wood-building challenge fortress, that is).

[Martin]

More skilled miners definitely dig faster.

[ydaraishy]

I have to say, I actually like the new drop rates.  I hated having all sorts of random stone clutter up every room and having half of my dwarves dump off stone instead of doing real work, or resorting to autodump.  Also, I never seem to have problems with not having enough stone or ore in the new version - it's slightly harder to get specifically-coloured furniture, for example, but even for that you can just mine extra stone along with ore.

That being said, I would like the stone drops rates to be moddable or otherwise changeable in future versions at least for ores/economical stones, since in some mods, scarce minerals in small clusters are very important.

[Girlinhat]

It's been historically modable.  Toady made minerals scarce, but then made it a worldgen option.  I figure that'll happen with drop rate as well.

[Keldane]

I admit, I was very much against the change prior to the release. After the release, it hasn't been bad, and I'm with those who want to see bolstered drop rates of rare minerals. A specific experience of not getting a single stone when digging out a 1x10 section gave me a bit of worry about that.

[Sadrice]

Has anyone actually confirmed all the complaints about platinum?  Because I have found a fair bit of aluminum, and it has 100% drop, and I think all other rare small cluster minerals do the same.

[Dorfimedes]

I don't know if I like the new rates, too.

25% drop rate x 4 bars/ore = same amount of bars (on average)

This is the main problem for me - you may get 25%, you may get more - but you may even get 1 platinum ore out of 100 squares.

The lowering of stone rates is ok for me - but ores should drop like in pre 34.08.

On the other hand, you could get 400, but such a result is equally improbable. I think it makes the extraction process less tedious and more engaging. I never liked micromanaging miners or hauling all that stone, so good riddance, I say. I love the solutions Toady comes up with sometimes. The powergamer in me will try to achieve the most optimal result when it comes to things like this even when the process is an arduous slog, so I'm glad that I've been relieved of that burden.

[mdqp]

I think it's a good change, all in all. You don't have as many stones to clutter your fort, it makes your stone-based economy more balanced, and the drop rate of ore is balanced by gaining multiple bars when you smelt (yes, it gives it a random chance, but it's not that bad, although I personally think that a 50% rate for ores with 2 bars per smelting would be a little better, as it would consume more fuel if you haven't reached magma yet, and it makes it a little less random, I personally think that would be the best).

[NW_Kohaku]

I don't know if I like the new rates, too.

25% drop rate x 4 bars/ore = same amount of bars (on average)

This is the main problem for me - you may get 25%, you may get more - but you may even get 1 platinum ore out of 100 squares.

The lowering of stone rates is ok for me - but ores should drop like in pre 34.08.

On the other hand, you could get 400, but such a result is equally improbable. I think it makes the extraction process less tedious and more engaging. I never liked micromanaging miners or hauling all that stone, so good riddance, I say. I love the solutions Toady comes up with sometimes. The powergamer in me will try to achieve the most optimal result when it comes to things like this even when the process is an arduous slog, so I'm glad that I've been relieved of that burden.

Technically not.

The odds of getting a success are 25%, and failure is 75%, and "getting only 1" isn't the same as "not getting any", so technically the odds of "getting only 1" are significantly better than the odds of getting 400. 

However, I did the math on that "100 tiles without getting anything" idea, and the odds of it are somewhere around 30 trillion to one.  (The odds of only getting one are 133 times better than that, though, so it's only 225 billion to one now...)

For reference, that's in the same area of likelihood of getting struck by lightning on the same day you win the lottery.  (Assuming a lottery with odds around a million to one for one ticket to win.)  Yeah, it's hypothetically possible, but so laughably improbable that it shouldn't be taken seriously at all.

[Psieye]

That's funny, because I wrote one of those posts you are linking to, and I didn't say anything at all like what you are claiming.  Neither, does it seem to me, did the other two, although I doubt Girlinhat or Psieye really need someone else speaking for them.

My argument wasn't "Legendaries should be "worse" than dabbling miners", it was "making minerals more rare is not a bad thing". 

You're simply making an argument up where it doesn't exist out of your ass in order to vilify an opinion just because it happens not to be yours.

If the point of your post wasn't to argue that the base rate should stay the same, then I honestly don't even know why the posts exist, friend.

We were commenting on the attitudes to randomness, change and increased scarcity with regards to mining - a discussion of philosophy. You are focussed on "Legendaries should know to give careful attention to valueable ore". It is a valid stance to take with perfectly logical defences for it, but it is not exactly related to what Kohaku, I and Girlinhat were discussing. For example, if Toady had made it "novices get 25% drop rate in ore, legendaries push that rate to 50%" then our discussion would still have happened but you would be more satisfied as legendaries do indeed know to treat ore better than novices. Or perhaps you wanted legendaries to reach 80~90% in ore drop rate?

However, I did the math on that "100 tiles without getting anything" idea, and the odds of it are somewhere around 30 trillion to one.  (The odds of only getting one are 133 times better than that, though, so it's only 225 billion to one now...)

For reference, that's in the same area of likelihood of getting struck by lightning on the same day you win the lottery.  (Assuming a lottery with odds around a million to one for one ticket to win.)  Yeah, it's hypothetically possible, but so laughably improbable that it shouldn't be taken seriously at all.

For further reference (purely for fun), you are far more likely to have a champaign bottle spontaneously explode on you (growth of microscopic fracture). 30 trillion to 1 are odds approaching 'forbidden' things happening at the quantum scale, i.e. the probability for the laws of (classical) physics to be given a middle finger.

[Putnam]

Isn't 30 trillion to one, like, the chance of your entire body spontaneously turning into anti-matter or something?

[Dorfimedes]

snip

Aye, I thought somewhere in the back of my mind that the probabilities weren't identical but I couldn't be assed to do the math

My point being though, is that that the RNG will bless you just as soon as it will screw you over. That's part of the fun! And I think it works pretty well in this context. If you've heard of a strategy game called Wesnoth, that's an example of a game where an RNG doesn't work as well. One unlucky hit could lead to the loss of a unit you've invested a lot of time and resources into and will leave you at a HUGE disadvantage in later missions, possibly making the campaign you're playing unwinnable, so you're forced to start over entirely or savescum and feel dirty about it.

I'm not entirely sure where I was going with this, but if you understand probability then the droprates are effectively identical to those produced by a legendary miner, right off the bat when you embark. You'll never feel pressured to wait for your miners to level before digging out a nice vein of iron now, just pop a fuckin' furnace down, burn some trees and BAM MOTHERFUCKER IT'S ONLY THE FIRST YEAR AND I'M ALREADY MILITARIZED.