Print

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

[GavJ]

I was going to say that steel wasn't made till around the 1300s, but then I looked it up. Nooooooo, 4000 BC! That's insane! I never thought it would be THAT early!

The type that's that old is almost certainly accidental, due to iron ore with precisely the right type of inclusions in it for whatever method they were using, etc.

But yeah, even in Europe it was used much earlier than 1300 for specialty stuff. 1400s though is about when they started getting fairly serious about it though and actually making some new blast furnace advances and building them as commonplace and making more common things by default out of more affordable steels

Steel tech better than historical Europeans is fine for dwarves if you want, but aluminum in particular just seems silly to me, because it wouldn't have even been useful for much for them, and you need electricity to make it even remotely in any quantity, and dwarves as clever as they are don't have generators.

[Shadow Of Fate]

Steel tech better than historical Europeans is fine for dwarves if you want, but aluminum in particular just seems silly to me, because it wouldn't have even been useful for much for them, and you need electricity to make it even remotely in any quantity, and dwarves as clever as they are don't have generators.

But dwarfs can already mine it and refine pure aluminum. Alloys don't exactly seem like THAT much of a step up from what already exists in the game, do they?

[GavJ]

But dwarfs can already mine it and refine pure aluminum. Alloys don't exactly seem like THAT much of a step up from what already exists in the game, do they?

What exists in the game doesn't make sense either. Things that don't make sense in the game and don't even have a good reason for needing to exist should be removed, not doubled down on.

[Shadow Of Fate]

But dwarfs can already mine it and refine pure aluminum. Alloys don't exactly seem like THAT much of a step up from what already exists in the game, do they?

What exists in the game doesn't make sense either. Things that don't make sense in the game and don't even have a good reason for needing to exist should be removed, not doubled down on.

The world of Dwarf Fortress is sort of based on reality, but not really. The realism only goes so far. Dwarf Fortress will always have quirky things that make no sense like that. Artifacts are an example of this. It's part of the charm.

Right now, if I'm "lucky" enough to have aluminum on my map, I could make things out of solid aluminum. I could make say a table out of pure aluminum. I could make as many as I had aluminum to work with, despite not using any electricity or anything else. And yet, it is too much to put a bit of that pure aluminum in with some copper and make a bronze alloy out of it? Especially when other bronze alloys, such as bismuth bronze, already exist in the game? I don't know. I think you are hyper focusing on the realism aspect of this to the point where it no longer makes sense for Dwarf Fortress.

[GavJ]

Artifacts are very useful and significantly affect gameplay, from creating legendary skill dwarves to making unique items that can serve as monster decoys and impenetrable gates, etc. that make whole fort strategies possibel that aren't otherwise. Artifacts pay for their un-realism in meaningful fun and gameplay.

Aluminum does nothing, and its alloy would do pretty much nothing that isn't already covered. It doesn't pay for its un-realism, so it's a net detriment to the game.

If you want more metals, there are much better choices, like mercury and arsenic, which actually have other meaningful uses unlike aluminum (in industry and gadgets) AND are period-realistic, as well as not being in the game either.

[Chevaleresse]

So you're not saying you dislike the suggestion, you want aluminum gone entirely?

[Shadow Of Fate]

Artifacts are very useful and significantly affect gameplay, from creating legendary skill dwarves to making unique items that can serve as monster decoys and impenetrable gates, etc. that make whole fort strategies possibel that aren't otherwise. Artifacts pay for their un-realism in meaningful fun and gameplay.

Aluminum does nothing, and its alloy would do pretty much nothing that isn't already covered. It doesn't pay for its un-realism, so it's a net detriment to the game.

If you want more metals, there are much better choices, like mercury and arsenic, which actually have other meaningful uses unlike aluminum (in industry and gadgets) AND are period-realistic, as well as not being in the game either.

I'll admit artifacts are a special case. However, it was not meant as a straight comparison but as an example of how Dwarf Fortress doesn't always strictly follow the laws of physics. Another example would be the system that tracks every body component up to every last organ of creatures, real and imaginary. But that system, as complex as it is, is not often unrealistic. And despite having some basis in real world biology, it is also largely fictional. Quirky things such as having a dwarf live without a spine for months.

That's what I meant by quirky things that don't always make sense. Dwarf Fortress is full of crap like that. You going to undo everything you don't think "pays" for it's un-realism? How do you even quantify that in a game that has so many things which would qualify as not realistic? You going to go through everything like that you don't deem useful and declare it a "net detriment" to the game? Good luck!

My example of how the game handles metals like aluminum is a perfect example of unrealistic quirks. And aluminum is one of a bunch of metals that is handled that way. The way I see it, it is already hard coded into the game. Might as well make use of it instead of it just being a Platinum clone. A few alloys with it wouldn't be that much of a step up from what is already in the game. And it's "usefulness" would be plenty in things like a better bronze alloy. I think we should have a larger choice of alloys anyway.

[Chevaleresse]

Artifacts are very useful and significantly affect gameplay, from creating legendary skill dwarves to making unique items that can serve as monster decoys and impenetrable gates, etc. that make whole fort strategies possibel that aren't otherwise. Artifacts pay for their un-realism in meaningful fun and gameplay.

Aluminum does nothing, and its alloy would do pretty much nothing that isn't already covered. It doesn't pay for its un-realism, so it's a net detriment to the game.

If you want more metals, there are much better choices, like mercury and arsenic, which actually have other meaningful uses unlike aluminum (in industry and gadgets) AND are period-realistic, as well as not being in the game either.

To cite a previous example, black bronze:

1. It's not period-appropriate. The techniques used to make it were gone by 23 AD, well before where DF seems to be set.
2. It's useless. The value is the average of its components and it doesn't have any notable properties other than color.
3. The only unique property it has (being a specific color) is already covered by a variety of other alloys, notably rose gold.

[GavJ]

Another example would be the system that tracks every body component up to every last organ of creatures, real and imaginary. But that system, as complex as it is, is not often unrealistic.

If it's not even unrealistic, then it's not exactly a counterexample to "things have to pay for their lack of realism" ...

Quirky things such as having a dwarf live without a spine for months.

I very much doubt that dwarves living without spines is intended behavior, and I'm quite confident that if Toady were simply offered the option of having it in or out of the game without having to spend time finding the bug, he would choose to have it out, and have spineless vertebrates die nearly instantly.

How do you even quantify that in a game that has so many things which would qualify as not realistic?

Quantifying it is indeed often difficult, and sometimes must be left to the subjective opinions of the programmer.

However, in a situation like this, where the benefits are zilch, it's quite easy to quantify:
(zero practical benefit) - (ANY amount less realistic) - (additional points for having to /learn remember another ore) = negative change.

like a better bronze alloy.

AKA steel?

You might think "Oh but the more choices you have, the more likely you are to have the metals you need for something good!" but stop for a minute and think about whether that would actually make the game more fun?

Having steel-quality alloys on every map in some form or another would just make DF too easy and more repetitive. Why is this a benefit? It isn't, really.

[Chevaleresse]

An aluminum bronze probably wouldn't be superior to steel; in fact, it likely wouldn't be much better than existing bronze, especially given the lower density.

Also, native aluminum is in the game. How is that having to remember another ore? You talk about having steel-quality alloys on every map, but aluminum, much like in real life, is incredibly rare, most certainly rarer than the combination of flux, iron, and trees. The benefit is allowing the player more options. The bronze, like I already said, wouldn't even replace any existing metals. Bronze and silver are better for blunt weapons. Addy and steel would make better edged weapons. Aluminum is just another option. That's a practical benefit: variety. Returning once more to black bronze, all it adds is variety, yet you don't see people aggressively campaigning for it to not be in the game.

tl;dr all of your points are pretty much entirely invalid because aluminum is super-rare and wouldn't be superior to existing options anyway

[Shadow Of Fate]

Quirky things such as having a dwarf live without a spine for months.

I very much doubt that dwarves living without spines is intended behavior, and I'm quite confident that if Toady were simply offered the option of having it in or out of the game without having to spend time finding the bug, he would choose to have it out, and have spineless vertebrates die nearly instantly.

That's quite the hypothetical assumption. It was only an example so you kind of took it out of context. But as it has no direct relevance to this, I'll let it drop.

Another example would be the system that tracks every body component up to every last organ of creatures, real and imaginary. But that system, as complex as it is, is not often unrealistic.

If it's not even unrealistic, then it's not exactly a counterexample to "things have to pay for their lack of realism" ...

What are you talking about? First of all, that system isn't realistic at all. It just has some basis in realism. The spine was just one example. I don't think a night creature that doesn't need to breath, is considered non living, and can teleport like a bogeyman is realistic. I don't think giant flying versions of smaller creatures are realistic, due to things like the weight those giant proportions would create. My point was that realism is still highly limited in practice. Second, I'm not even sure how to quantify your idea of "paying for lack of realism." I still don't know how you determine that in a game with so many unrealistic aspects.

Edit:

Oh. On further review, I see I made a double negative their by mistake. I made a cross between "not often realistic" and "often unrealistic" and came up with that. Sorry for the confusion if that caused any.

How do you even quantify that in a game that has so many things which would qualify as not realistic?

Quantifying it is indeed often difficult, and sometimes must be left to the subjective opinions of the programmer.

However, in a situation like this, where the benefits are zilch, it's quite easy to quantify:
(zero practical benefit) - (ANY amount less realistic) = negative change.

In your opinion it has zero value. In mine it does not, which I'll get into greater detail for below. This view you are describing of Dwarf Fortress does not fit with the actual game anyway. As I already said, there are plenty of things that add no supposed value (although this is relative) yet are unrealistic. The example KingMurdoc had of Black Bronze is exactly the sort of thing that isolates your entire view on this from the actual game.

like a better bronze alloy.

AKA steel?

You might think "Oh but the more choices you have, the more likely you are to have the metals you need for something good!"

1) This is less likely than you might think. If you increase the odds of alternative metals for alloys, you simply decrease the odds of things like iron, and don't actually make it much easier to get. It can be done, but it is quite difficult to balance properly, and if you don't, you just end up where you started.

2) Even if you succeed in making it easier to get steel-like quality metal, why is that good for gameplay? Making steel-quality alloys nearly universally available every game just makes the game easier and less interesting. I've tried it. And so have you, probably. Have you ever played with mineral scarcity = 100 or something? It's super boring.

Thanks for trying to make a preemptive argument for me, but you left out a lot to the point where it wouldn't have even been my argument anymore. It just becomes a massive straw man.

First of all, the goal isn't for it to be exactly like steel. It would just be a stronger than regular bronze. Ideally, it would be either somewhat weaker or somewhat stronger than steel depending on what you made with it. Probably weaker. And the potential to get said alloy would be nowhere near as common as steel. Remember that aluminum is still quite rare. Making it somewhat more common than platinum wouldn't necessarily and arguably shouldn't change the fact that aluminum should still be quite rare. Even if you end up with no iron, there is no guarantee you would get both copper and aluminum on the map. Heck, you would probably be more likely not to get aluminum at all. Finally, having aluminum bronze would make a bronze alloy with increased value, which could also be quite useful.

So to summarize, you have a stronger version of bronze if you can manage to get both aluminum and bronze on the map, which is by no means a guarantee. This new bronze alloy has DIFFERENT properties from steel, but is stronger than bronze and iron. Might possibly be a bit stronger than regular steel, of which there should also be more alloys for, depending on what you make. But then again, probably not. This aluminum bronze would also be a kind with greatly increased value due to the aluminum. (Although, aluminum's value should still be dropped below platinum). So as you can see, more alloys gives us more options, as well as more of a flavor on what we want to do. And unlike black bronze, this would actually be somewhat useful in a practical sense.

[Shadow Of Fate]

Sorry for the double post. Thought I was editing... 

[GavJ]

You talk about having steel-quality alloys on every map, but aluminum, much like in real life, is incredibly rare, most certainly rarer than the combination of flux, iron, and trees.

"Nobody's ever going to use it" is not exactly a strong counterargument to "It's redundant and cluttery" ...

In fact, it makes the clutter even more annoying, because it's in my way making the scroll menu longer every game just as much as if aluminum were plentiful, but now I don't even hardly get to use it in exchange for my troubles. It's also going to have the tendency to make players think it's some awesome rare amazing alloy, and disappoint them hugely when they finally get it and it's some crappy bronze + 1.

Returning once more to black bronze, all it adds is variety, yet you don't see people aggressively campaigning for it to not be in the game.

Yes, black bronze is also annoying and cluttery for the same reasons. It is slightly better though due to not being unrealistic.

Anyway, nobody is "aggressively" campaigning for anything related to this stuff, because it's all minor details no matter what. But being a minor detail doesn't make that detail any better of a game design choice...

For example "Let's have Klingon spaceships in the game that shoot lasers and blow up your whole base in 20 frames! But they only show up in 0.001% of games! That means it's such a minor feature that any your complaints about its problems are invalid!" Doesn't really work like that. Every change should be more fun than not-that-change, no matter how minor.

The benefit is allowing the player more options.

Yes, but again, why does this make the game more fun? It certainly makes it EASIER. But why more fun? They are not the same thing.

I don't think a night creature that doesn't need to breath, is considered non living, and can teleport like a bogeyman is realistic. I don't think giant flying versions of smaller creatures are realistic, due to things like the weight those giant proportions would create.

Unlike an additional alloy that would almost never be used and would be pretty much exactly like alloys we already have, these examples add significant amounts of fun to the game. They add new challenges, force you to make more intricate, dwarfy traps, to consider your ceilings, to play the game more intelligently, etc. I.e. they pay something for their unrealism.

[cyberTripping]

Gav: Shit on everyone in the suggestions forum on a consistent basis

I for one enjoy the idea. I'd expect dwarves to have a variety of alloys to work with. Maybe menus should change to only show metal options that you have available to you, to dodge clutter?

[Chevaleresse]

I'm pretty sure I just explained why black bronze is equally unrealistic.

You refer to the UI getting cluttered. That's not a flaw with this suggestion; it's a UI flaw.

Pointing out the rarity wasn't a counterargument to "redundant and cluttery, it was a counterargument to it somehow magically replacing an overall superior metal and lowering the difficulty (which is a bloody stupid argument anyway; the decrease would be minor and situational).

If you can't see why adding variety and allowing the player to actually utilize resources is a good and fun thing then further discussion is pointless.

To cite another example similar to my suggestion: crystal glass. There are a lot of time-consuming steps to making it and rock crystal is fairly rare anyway. The payout is a material identical in every way except color and value to green glass. The only situation it is practical in is one where ores and magma-safe stones are mostly absent and you don't have sand. Yet it exists.