Print

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

[Deboche]

Your post made me think that we should be able to assign backpacks to non-military dwarves so they can carry food and drink and even - if feces were implemented - a bucket. It'd also be a boon for hauling, no more moving bins and barrels around.

[GoblinCookie]

In the quote I remember about this Toady said something along the lines of it could work, but he doesn't want to add any more breaks or actions to dwarves that get in the way of their work.  They already spend ages wandering off to eat, drink, sleep, party etc.

No, the dwarves work exceptionally hard and produce far too much wealth compared to what they consume to be in any way realistic. 

[Urist Tilaturist]

I honestly agree with GoblinCookie. Besides, dwarves could just excrete at the end of their eating and drinking sessions, making the breaks only very slightly longer.

[Symmetry]

I honestly agree with GoblinCookie. Besides, dwarves could just excrete at the end of their eating and drinking sessions, making the breaks only very slightly longer.

If you've never seen a miner walk to the other end of the map, hit a rock once, then walk back to drink, then walk out, hit it again, walk back to sleep, then..  well.  This was updated a bit recently but it's still easily possible for dwarves to spend more time walking than working.  For some jobs that's not a problem, for the trader or your only architect it can be a pain.

[Graknorke]

No, the dwarves work exceptionally hard and produce far too much wealth compared to what they consume to be in any way realistic.

Because everyone likes playing dirty peasant simulator 2020, where it takes decades to even consider getting above a purely agricultural settlement?

[Urist Tilaturist]

Since when have real forts had to produce all their own food? Caravans arrive frequently in DF. A mining settlement would be focused on, unsurprisingly, mining, and import most of its food. I would like to see forts become more specialised and possibly less self sufficient, like real cities were; the silk road ran from China to Europe so that people could get things that they could not make themselves, and I am not referring to the drugs market.

[Deboche]

No, the dwarves work exceptionally hard and produce far too much wealth compared to what they consume to be in any way realistic.

Because everyone likes playing dirty peasant simulator 2020, where it takes decades to even consider getting above a purely agricultural settlement?

No, because you can produce thousands of meals in a game year that buy out the entire caravan and feed your dwarves for years from very small fields.

[GoblinCookie]

If you've never seen a miner walk to the other end of the map, hit a rock once, then walk back to drink, then walk out, hit it again, walk back to sleep, then..  well.  This was updated a bit recently but it's still easily possible for dwarves to spend more time walking than working.  For some jobs that's not a problem, for the trader or your only architect it can be a pain.

That is both realistic and not a problem unless you only have one miner as well as being really in a hurry.

[Urist Tilaturist]

Personally I have never had problems digging big rooms even with only 2 starting miners. Symmetry must just have had very bad luck.

[Graknorke]

No, because you can produce thousands of meals in a game year that buy out the entire caravan and feed your dwarves for years from very small fields.

Yes that's the point. The alternative would be having a "realistic" game where you have fuck all progression in wealth, because real settlements don't go from frontier to capital within a lifetime unless there's some special reason like unusually high mineral wealth being discovered.

[Vattic]

In the quote I remember about this Toady said something along the lines of it could work, but he doesn't want to add any more breaks or actions to dwarves that get in the way of their work.  They already spend ages wandering off to eat, drink, sleep, party etc.

This does sound familiar.

No, because you can produce thousands of meals in a game year that buy out the entire caravan and feed your dwarves for years from very small fields.

Yes that's the point. The alternative would be having a "realistic" game where you have fuck all progression in wealth, because real settlements don't go from frontier to capital within a lifetime unless there's some special reason like unusually high mineral wealth being discovered.

To be fair Toady has said the farming, cooking, and trade are to be reworked and farming at least will eventually become more difficult. I doubt he intends you to be able to just buy everything using crazy valuable meals either.

I think dwarves could easily fit a bathroom break into their schedule. If they only went just after waking it would alleviate the time wasting greatly. It could even occur every so many "breaks" in the same way visits to the tavern / temples are going to work.

[Graknorke]

More difficult doesn't necessitate realistic though. I'm fine with those things being changed since as mentioned before, they are too easy. Realism would be tiresome though.

[Deboche]

More difficult doesn't necessitate realistic though. I'm fine with those things being changed since as mentioned before, they are too easy. Realism would be tiresome though.

That's good because no one said DF should be realistic, that would be nearly impossible.

Goblincookie said that dwarves work and produce way too much for the amount of time they have and products they consume. You took that to mean that DF would turn into a grindingly slow game if that was fixed.

[Vattic]

More difficult doesn't necessitate realistic though. I'm fine with those things being changed since as mentioned before, they are too easy. Realism would be tiresome though.

Yeah, but you said the alternative to how things are now is slow realism. I was just pointing out that even Toady sees the current systems as too easy and even too unrealistic in some instances (economy and cooking recipes). It's also worth noting that the non-fantasy features tend to lean on realism. Just look at the size of NPC farms which I suspect our own forts will have these off the map eventually (for feeding those that live out there at least). Even the 2D versions had more realism in farming than now in the shape of seasonal Nile-like floods from the underground river.

I don't think the game would suffer from slowing down the rate of settlement advancement. It would lend to the epic scale of the game. As you said a fort that hits plenty of native gold should become prosperous quickly, but otherwise it should be slower giving different forts more character. This mostly comes down to the economy being broken and maybe skill gain rates especially with artifacts being such a boost; I remember in one fort I had been slowly training a dwarf up to be my weaponsmith, but then a migrant had a mood, became legendary, and while cool it kind of ruined the sense of progression I had.

[Urist Tilaturist]

Yes that's the point. The alternative would be having a "realistic" game where you have fuck all progression in wealth, because real settlements don't go from frontier to capital within a lifetime unless there's some special reason like unusually high mineral wealth being discovered.

Like unusually high mineral wealth being discovered. Which is exactly what dwarves do, a lot. Settlements can grow very fast indeed - look at the wild west mineral rushes of the 1800s, or Australia during the same period. The game tells players to "strike the earth", and that is what they should do. I think that players who found settlements in areas without mineral wealth or strategic assets should be stuck with very low progression in wealth; it is just not a very good site. What should not happen is that settlements never, ever grow bigger, but that would not happen.

Dwarves produce too much, and reducing the amount they produce would not ruin the game.