Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6

Author Topic: Food need preferences now too strong  (Read 17840 times)

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Food need preferences now too strong
« Reply #60 on: April 18, 2016, 12:53:35 pm »

Waded through some of the Class Warfare stuff (which should probably be updated to match developments since).

Staged fortress progression, with attendant raising snobbery/refinement can be partially orthogonal to starting scenarios. Staged fortress progression ought to be optional to some extent, to allow players to focus on the part of DF they like, without always having to deal with faction management. Some starting scenarios may, in fact, include a limit to the "refinement" progression (again, options to modify the scenarios ought to allow that military outpost to actually evolve into a full blown all aspect metropolis, while the "raw" scenario focused on the military aspects, with everything else subservient to that. It ought to be possible to revise any such options later, to allow a player to change the fortress focus).

The needs rewrite so far has fallen short of the hopes of the Class Warfare texts, since dwarves still remain largely incapable of pursuing needs except in the crudest of fashions (Need eat - go eat; Need pray; go pray [when they're not spending a season in the tavern instead, and still have a badly unsatisfied need to pray when the R&R is up], but: Want nice food - huh? Me hungry; go eat closest food - Still want nice food; Want be with friends - huh? go random [non contact building] social activity; Want be with friends. Have no friend. Huh - Go pray; Want family - huh? Go random [non contact building] social activity). Thus, a second pass at needs is needed to get dorfs to pursue paths that can eventually lead to satisfaction of needs. The food ones ought to be reasonably straight forward to fix mechanically (look for liked food, rather than closest, looking at meal ingredients). An improved food desire logic should not make that fundamentally different.
A problem with the current need satisfaction is that trinkets don't wear, but amassing them does not seem to sate the need permanently (someone mentioned a dorf picking up a nice item, keeping it on, and seeming to remain satisfied, though). If you want a "challenge" luxuries need to be "consumed" so as not to build up a mountain of stuff that's lost its power (especially a trouble with current masterworks items, as disposal requires trade results in unhappiness).
Logged

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: Food need preferences now too strong
« Reply #61 on: April 18, 2016, 02:52:13 pm »

Yes, Class Warfare is due for another rewrite. As much as it might be intimidating to read those threads, trying to do a full rewrite takes even more momentum to plow through.  I actually have a half-written coinage thread I need to get out... But Class Warfare's at least an easier thing to rewrite than Agriculture.  (Which is why I've already rewritten it three times...)

In any event, Starting Scenarios are just that: Starting Scenarios.  They shouldn't necessarily bind a fortress once they grow from a mere good site to mine some extra iron to send back to the mountainhomes to a full-fledged metropolis in their own right if the player should grow their fortress that way. 

I'd also expect you could turn Class Warfare off in the same way you can set maximum population to lower than the required minimum dwarves it takes to trigger titans and forgotten beasts, or for that matter, turn off eating and drinking, but I'd have to suspect few people outside the newest of players looking for a "tutorial level" would do any of those since you are basically turning off major components of the game.  Part of what I intend with Class Warfare is for it to allow for more automation to allow the shifting of player focus from mere survival to internal politics, which in a more established fort would be more interesting than "keep killing the occasional threatening thing with your now-overpowered military and keep the food production industry from sputtering out" that survival alone would provide. It's meant to be a stepping-off point for things like "kingdom mode" or internal fortress intrigues, but also to make supplying desire for luxury goods or organizing social events a way to use the current game systems to provide an answer to new problems that challenge players when the old problems have become routine.

That said, starting scenarios would certainly push the sorts of "tiers" of status one way or another and heavily influence the sorts of dwarves who would migrate.  A fortress on the edge of enemy territory would likely involve plenty of military dwarves happy to get any warm meal that isn't a pile of reheated lard migrating in, while a caravan crossroads fortress would likely be far more likely to bring a gormet. (Sorry.)
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Food need preferences now too strong
« Reply #62 on: April 18, 2016, 03:55:50 pm »

You've corrected my mistakes far more than I've done yours, and if we can help educate each other it's beneficial.

Note that I am not arguing against the concepts of gradual increase of internal politics, as I think that's an interesting approach. I'm just saying that just as we don't want to force everyone to trade, we shouldn't force everyone to manage whiny fops. When doing a mega project or examining the intricacies of !!SCIENCE!! X you may not want these annoying disturbances. There's also the "kill everything that moves" crowd (although I personally see little point in whacking things you've grown too powerful for, but I guess that's why these people want more powerful things to fight).

When it comes to starting scenarios, I know they're named as such for a reason, but I still think it could be a useful extension to also allow them to reduce the emphasis on starting and increasing the scenario one, as long as mid course corrections are available. Such an extension would probably not enter the card on the first scenario arc anyway.

And yes, a gourmet would be more likely to be found in a refined fortress than visiting a prison colony or military outpost, unless said character was also adventurous and basically just passing by in search of fabled double jointed giant bees knees and the lightning berries that should go with them out in the wild.
Logged

Dozebôm Lolumzalìs

  • Bay Watcher
  • what even is truth
    • View Profile
    • test
Re: Food need preferences now too strong
« Reply #63 on: April 18, 2016, 04:19:30 pm »

Part of DF's greatness is its sandboxness. If you restrict players mid game due to a choice they made at the beginning, you might as well watch a skilled AI play, because you have little to no choice øver what happens ïn thê gæm.
Logged
Quote from: King James Programming
...Simplification leaves us with the black extra-cosmic gulfs it throws open before our frenzied eyes...
Quote from: Salvané Descocrates
The only difference between me and a fool is that I know that I know only that I think, therefore I am.
Sigtext!

Bumber

  • Bay Watcher
  • REMOVE KOBOLD
    • View Profile
Re: Food need preferences now too strong
« Reply #64 on: April 18, 2016, 04:55:27 pm »

The game does not presently distinguish between luxuries and basic needs really; the luxury needs are really the distractions category in general.  If they do not get exotic foods your dwarves do not starve to death so there is no basic need here and the moment they get one item of the food they like their demands are full green for the time being.  The risk of the item being eaten by a dwarf that does not particularly demand it is there, but there are presumably a whole large range of other items for them to eat as well.
Luxuries are analogous to good thoughts (as I pointed out.) They are spontaneous things that you don't get penalized for not fulfilling. There exists a positive thought for eating your preferred food, and the corresponding negative thoughts are for not eating at all.

The problem is that there is also a need for this, tied to the IMMODERATION/SELF_CONTROL facet. This need is fulfilled by a "good meal", and for some reason defines that as "only my most favorite food". The dwarven ethics have [VALUE:SELF_CONTROL:0], so pretty much every dwarf in the fort has The dwarf creature has [PERSONALITY:IMMODERATION:0:55:100], so they have a slight bias towards this absurd need, which can only be fulfilled by a random single item type out of (at least) a hundred. None of the other needs give this much trouble.

Solution: Redefine "good meal" to also include high quality prepared meals. Anyone who wants to micromanage their dwarves' diets for happy thoughts can do that. (Stress needs to be fixed, but that's a different thread.)
« Last Edit: April 19, 2016, 10:46:14 am by Bumber »
Logged
Reading his name would trigger it. Thinking of him would trigger it. No other circumstances would trigger it- it was strictly related to the concept of Bill Clinton entering the conscious mind.

THE xTROLL FUR SOCKx RUSE WAS A........... DISTACTION        the carp HAVE the wagon

A wizard has turned you into a wagon. This was inevitable (Y/y)?

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: Food need preferences now too strong
« Reply #65 on: April 18, 2016, 06:30:19 pm »

Luxuries are analogous to good thoughts (as I pointed out.) They are spontaneous things that you don't get penalized for not fulfilling. There exists a positive thought for eating your preferred food, and the corresponding negative thoughts are for not eating at all.

The problem is that there is also a need for this, tied to the IMMODERATION/SELF_CONTROL facet. This need is fulfilled by a "good meal", and for some reason defines that as "only my most favorite food". The dwarven ethics have [VALUE:SELF_CONTROL:0], so pretty much every dwarf in the fort has this absurd need, which can only be fulfilled by a random single item type out of (at least) a hundred. None of the other needs give this much trouble.

Technically, values are cultural values, not necessarily drivers of personal behavior.  Also, 0 is "neutral", values go to -50 to +50, unlike personality traits, which go 0 to 100. 

The wiki says that the food demand is actually tied to just immoderation, which is unusually high in dwarves, and thus is the cause of it being very common for dwarves to need preferred foods.

Beyond that, luxury goods don't necessarily have to be tied to just having a happy thought, or at least, that happy thought being superfluous. Dwarves, especially some more entitled ones like nobles or other wealthy, high-status dwarves, can go bother other dwarves for things they need, making a nuisance of themselves until they get what they want.  To go back to the Sierra City-Building games, the upper classes were your taxation cash cows, but also the most demanding of citizens, and required far more entertainment, food variety, and services be provided.  If you tie some sort of carrot to keeping these nobles or guild masters or other elites happy, you can make supplying luxuries to them something rewarding in its own right.
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Food need preferences now too strong
« Reply #66 on: April 19, 2016, 03:33:49 am »

Part of DF's greatness is its sandboxness. If you restrict players mid game due to a choice they made at the beginning, you might as well watch a skilled AI play, because you have little to no choice øver what happens ïn thê gæm.
That's why I keep repeating that you should be able to change/remove any initial restrictions when you want to. The purpose should be to "restrict" the game to allow you to focus on what you want to do, not to force you down a railroad track. These kind of things already exist in DF in the form of turning off invasions, temperature calculations, and cave-ins, as well as invasion permission thresholds.
Logged

Bumber

  • Bay Watcher
  • REMOVE KOBOLD
    • View Profile
Re: Food need preferences now too strong
« Reply #67 on: April 19, 2016, 10:49:23 am »

Technically, values are cultural values, not necessarily drivers of personal behavior.  Also, 0 is "neutral", values go to -50 to +50, unlike personality traits, which go 0 to 100. 

The wiki says that the food demand is actually tied to just immoderation, which is unusually high in dwarves, and thus is the cause of it being very common for dwarves to need preferred foods.
Fixed. I didn't spot the personality tags in the creature raw, so I just assumed immoderation was defined as the inverse of self control, which it conflicts with. They still have a bias towards it, though not as extreme.
Logged
Reading his name would trigger it. Thinking of him would trigger it. No other circumstances would trigger it- it was strictly related to the concept of Bill Clinton entering the conscious mind.

THE xTROLL FUR SOCKx RUSE WAS A........... DISTACTION        the carp HAVE the wagon

A wizard has turned you into a wagon. This was inevitable (Y/y)?

mnjiman

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Food need preferences now too strong
« Reply #68 on: May 01, 2016, 03:03:12 pm »

Easy solution is two have two reaction too consuming food. One being in relation to the "quality of food overall" and the other being that they are "tired of the same bland food over and over again."

Right now the issue with cooking is that its way too easy to get a legendary cook going. Books are in the game, so they could help cooks learn if you can actively trade for books that deals with cooking.

I think it should take a few game years in fortress mode to at least reach grandmaster, not a single year.
Logged
I was thinking more along the lines of this legendary champion, all clad in dented and dinged up steel plate, his blood-drenched axe slung over his back, a notch in the handle for every enemy that saw the swing of that blade as the last sight they ever saw, a battered shield strapped over his arm... and a fluffy, pink stuffed hippo hidden discretely in his breastplate.

Dozebôm Lolumzalìs

  • Bay Watcher
  • what even is truth
    • View Profile
    • test
Re: Food need preferences now too strong
« Reply #69 on: May 01, 2016, 03:51:29 pm »

Eye think that ewe arr confusing homophones.
Logged
Quote from: King James Programming
...Simplification leaves us with the black extra-cosmic gulfs it throws open before our frenzied eyes...
Quote from: Salvané Descocrates
The only difference between me and a fool is that I know that I know only that I think, therefore I am.
Sigtext!

GoblinCookie

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Food need preferences now too strong
« Reply #70 on: May 03, 2016, 01:56:13 pm »

Well, that argument relies upon a few massive assumptions that the rest of us haven't bought into, now doesn't it?

First, you're assuming that choices of what food you should make available to dwarves should be "difficult", by which is meant, "requiring lots of micromanagement". I do not think this adds anything of value to the game.  The only thing that should really be necessary is making sure that players don't just rely upon a single staple crop, and frankly, the agriculture rewrites can accomplish that on its own.  In light of how agriculture accomplishes far more while actually benefiting gameplay, I don't find this a worthwhile goal to pursue.

Second, you're assuming that trading for food is the only valid reason any fortress would ever trade, and therefore, without trading for food being mandated upon all fortresses, there would never be a reason to trade again.  This assumption overlooks the purpose of the caravan arc, and how we now have the likes of temples, taverns, and the like, as well as future starting scenarios which, as previously mentioned in this thread as well as elsewhere, should have a massive impact upon whether fortresses should even want to trade.  If enforcing trade is a goal, then Class Warfare has far better methods of doing so, as making actual luxury goods a focus of trade, rather than basic necessities not only makes far more sense, but also provides for more dynamic gameplay since it is, again, not just writing down a list of every animal meat you need to supply to avoid an arbitrary distraction penalty.

Remember that I am proposing that the available array of food demands that a dwarf can want be greatly reduced to within the range of foods that it's civilization and the immediate trade partners of that civilization, this means that the majority of individual demands of most dwarves should be meetable more easily since needs are restricted to the foodstuffs that are culturally available for a given civilization.  We do not have to invent an arbitrary luxury goods category in order to motivate commerce, we are not forcing people to trade but only making trading for food the only realistic way to get a wide variety of foodstuffs; nobody is suggesting that any fortress would automatically go up in flames because everybody did not get their favorite food. 

Luxury foods should ultimately be determined using the same economic script that determines the value of items dynamically, not simply arbitrarily added in as a category because we need to motivate people to trade, until a system of non-arbitrary value is introduced we should lay off concepts like luxury goods altogether.

Basically, you're proposing arbitrary food requirements as a bandaid over a problem that needs a far more holistic remedy than simply forcing arbitrary micromanagement of food can provide.  Using methods argued in Class Warfare, you solve the luxury problem, and provide a far better solution to this problem than mere food fussiness provides.

Third, you're assuming that the only way to make spices or the like valuable is to make them demanded by dwarves who have never tasted them... which incidentally directly contradicts that statement you made earlier that dwarves should only demand foods that are available to their civ.  Food or nutrition rewrites, as well as Class Warfare, can easily make spices valuable for social reasons, much like how Tea became a cultural mark of status more than a necessity in England, leading to its adoption. 

As long as people reject the assumptions your argument is based upon, and by inference, the goal you are attempting to achieve, nobody is going to agree with your conclusions.

I would rather you actually read what I was proposing carefully and did not read absurd contradictions into it; by available to the civilization I of course available through trade, in addition to the things the civilization imports.   >:(

The random needs are there but they are secret.  The dwarf actually does like the exotic foreign food but he does not know it but the moment he actually eats that food, at which point the demand for that foodstuff is activated permanently.  Since there are always culturally available foodstuffs on the likes list, the main problem of having dwarves unhappy due to not being able to consume unobtainable items goes away altogether without having to have a simplistic system that means that hardly any inter-regional trading in foodstuffs will occur since as soon as everyone has a food of every category then no further trade is needed. 

People do not just drink tea because of "social reasons making it valuable", some people just like tea.  Of course if they have never come across tea then they will not know about how they like it, hence will not be unhappy to be tea deprived.  However if somebody gets tea then they know they like it and hence they want more tea to be provided, this provided an opportunity for long-distance trade routes in foodstuffs such as existed in real-life.  The problem is how do we get our dwarves civilization to determine the list of culturally available foodstuffs to start with, given it includes things which are imported; but they will not be imported if there is no demand.

One answer might be this, we have creatures that are not completely devoid of curiosity try to consume new things and in fortress mode they would get a happy thought for doing so.  One way that something could become culturally established would be that if the AI worldgen brokers (secretly) like any of the stuff they would then introduce that as a culturally available food demand.  In fortress mode we just buy foreign stuff because eating new foodstuffs would give curious dwarves a happy thought, but if our broker likes a food not on the culturally available it becomes a culturally available food demand for the whole civilization.

Luxuries are analogous to good thoughts (as I pointed out.) They are spontaneous things that you don't get penalized for not fulfilling. There exists a positive thought for eating your preferred food, and the corresponding negative thoughts are for not eating at all.

The problem is that there is also a need for this, tied to the IMMODERATION/SELF_CONTROL facet. This need is fulfilled by a "good meal", and for some reason defines that as "only my most favorite food". The dwarven ethics have [VALUE:SELF_CONTROL:0], so pretty much every dwarf in the fort has The dwarf creature has [PERSONALITY:IMMODERATION:0:55:100], so they have a slight bias towards this absurd need, which can only be fulfilled by a random single item type out of (at least) a hundred. None of the other needs give this much trouble.

Solution: Redefine "good meal" to also include high quality prepared meals. Anyone who wants to micromanage their dwarves' diets for happy thoughts can do that. (Stress needs to be fixed, but that's a different thread.)

A need for some kind of prepared meals is far too easy to meet Bumber.  I think that should work is that dwarves should get a happy thought from good quality prepared meals and a bad thought from eating raw food, with the exception of fruits and nuts (aka seeds and leaves category).  No needs in the wider sense should be met save from eating foods with a liked intermediate, (like at present).
« Last Edit: May 03, 2016, 02:01:29 pm by GoblinCookie »
Logged

Bumber

  • Bay Watcher
  • REMOVE KOBOLD
    • View Profile
Re: Food need preferences now too strong
« Reply #71 on: May 03, 2016, 05:28:39 pm »

In fortress mode we just buy foreign stuff because eating new foodstuffs would give curious dwarves a happy thought, but if our broker likes a food not on the culturally available it becomes a culturally available food demand for the whole civilization.
Why would we buy new stuff if it activated permanent demands from our dwarves, for a one time thought? Best be careful who you appoint broker, then.

Luxuries are analogous to good thoughts (as I pointed out.) They are spontaneous things that you don't get penalized for not fulfilling. There exists a positive thought for eating your preferred food, and the corresponding negative thoughts are for not eating at all.

The problem is that there is also a need for this, tied to the IMMODERATION/SELF_CONTROL facet. This need is fulfilled by a "good meal", and for some reason defines that as "only my most favorite food". The dwarven ethics have [VALUE:SELF_CONTROL:0], so pretty much every dwarf in the fort has The dwarf creature has [PERSONALITY:IMMODERATION:0:55:100], so they have a slight bias towards this absurd need, which can only be fulfilled by a random single item type out of (at least) a hundred. None of the other needs give this much trouble.

Solution: Redefine "good meal" to also include high quality prepared meals. Anyone who wants to micromanage their dwarves' diets for happy thoughts can do that. (Stress needs to be fixed, but that's a different thread.)
A need for some kind of prepared meals is far too easy to meet Bumber.  I think that should work is that dwarves should get a happy thought from good quality prepared meals and a bad thought from eating raw food, with the exception of fruits and nuts (aka seeds and leaves category).  No needs in the wider sense should be met save from eating foods with a liked intermediate, (like at present).
For now, but agriculture will be reworked and recipes are coming eventually. Needs aren't supposed to be that difficult to meet. Pray to deity is as simple as building a temple. Drinking is as simple as having booze. There are ones just for talking to people or viewing art. IMO, we don't need an entire economy based upon a single need.
Logged
Reading his name would trigger it. Thinking of him would trigger it. No other circumstances would trigger it- it was strictly related to the concept of Bill Clinton entering the conscious mind.

THE xTROLL FUR SOCKx RUSE WAS A........... DISTACTION        the carp HAVE the wagon

A wizard has turned you into a wagon. This was inevitable (Y/y)?

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: Food need preferences now too strong
« Reply #72 on: May 03, 2016, 08:02:57 pm »

A need for some kind of prepared meals is far too easy to meet Bumber.  I think that should work is that dwarves should get a happy thought from good quality prepared meals and a bad thought from eating raw food, with the exception of fruits and nuts (aka seeds and leaves category).  No needs in the wider sense should be met save from eating foods with a liked intermediate, (like at present).
For now, but agriculture will be reworked and recipes are coming eventually. Needs aren't supposed to be that difficult to meet. Pray to deity is as simple as building a temple. Drinking is as simple as having booze. There are ones just for talking to people or viewing art. IMO, we don't need an entire economy based upon a single need.

Bumber is correct, there's no reason why needs should be absurdly difficult and micromanagement-heavy to fulfill.  They are needs, not wants.

Remember that I am proposing that the available array of food demands that a dwarf can want be greatly reduced to within the range of foods that it's civilization and the immediate trade partners of that civilization, this means that the majority of individual demands of most dwarves should be meetable more easily since needs are restricted to the foodstuffs that are culturally available for a given civilization.

Yay, you've reduced it from the completely unmanageable 1000 food types down to a "mere" functionally unmanageable 200 food types. 

Even if needs called for difficulty, and they don't, micromanagement isn't difficulty, it's just not fun. 

Why do you hate fun?

We do not have to invent an arbitrary luxury goods category in order to motivate commerce,

We already have arbitrary luxury goods.  I was talking about a system to actually give them a purpose.  A system that isn't based upon perverting the needs system for something it was never designed to handle, for reasons nobody but you seems to see.

I would rather you actually read what I was proposing carefully and did not read absurd contradictions into it; by available to the civilization I of course available through trade, in addition to the things the civilization imports.   >:(

Actually, I have read it, and understand it and its implications, apparently better than you do. (As does, seemingly everyone else in this thread.) That's why I'm stuck here having to repeatedly explain to you that you're trying to propose a solution to something that isn't a problem.

I would rather you actually read what you are proposing carefully and read the absurd contradictions in it.

The random needs are there but they are secret.

Once again, this is a terrible idea.

NEEDS SHOULD NOT BE SECRET.  They are needs.  They are things players have to provideYou should not make something the player has to do secret, and hide it from the player

If you want to have a want that is secret, that applies a bonus above and beyond what is needed, that would be one thing, but this is a need.  This is something you have to provide.

Need I remind you that trading isn't always possible?  Some forts go through long periods of sieges, even permanent ones, although this is due to bugs.  You're saying that players shouldn't have a choice, they have to import every single food that is tradable, all the time.  Doing that, even by your own standard, isn't "difficult", it's just "tedious" when it isn't "impossible".  In fact, "just take one of everything" takes even less thought and planning on the part of the player than trying to fill one of every "flavor category", which was what you were trying to oppose.

What you are proposing is like saying that, to use D&D for an example, there will be a room in every dungeon that can only be opened by a single completely blindly randomly chosen item off the chart of stuff in the "equipment" section of the Player's Handbook.  There are no hints, no clever puzzle, just carry 7 tons of equipment with you at all times no matter where you go, and spend far less time actually adventuring or having fun since you're going to be forced to order minions and teamsters carrying all your bec de corbins and hide armors around. Because you think that's where the "challenge" of the game should come from.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 10:53:41 am by NW_Kohaku »
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare

Dozebôm Lolumzalìs

  • Bay Watcher
  • what even is truth
    • View Profile
    • test
Re: Food need preferences now too strong
« Reply #73 on: May 04, 2016, 08:32:30 am »

Let me reiterate -

The challenge of needs should be in-game. The player, under optimal conditions, should find it incredibly easy to meet needs - or maybe the dwarves would meet needs themselves without needing player input!

The main challenge is when sieges come and food variety decreases, or trade routes are cut off by marauders. Even so, it should only mildly decrease happiness, and this effect should vary by the dwarf. It should be one of many bad things that can happen from a siege or whatnot. It should be possible to live without trade, though it would be slightly harder.

Hiding needs accomplishes nothing but making it harder from the player's perspective, not in-game.
Logged
Quote from: King James Programming
...Simplification leaves us with the black extra-cosmic gulfs it throws open before our frenzied eyes...
Quote from: Salvané Descocrates
The only difference between me and a fool is that I know that I know only that I think, therefore I am.
Sigtext!

GoblinCookie

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Food need preferences now too strong
« Reply #74 on: May 08, 2016, 10:35:27 am »

Why would we buy new stuff if it activated permanent demands from our dwarves, for a one time thought? Best be careful who you appoint broker, then.

That is why it would probably be a good idea to introduce a happy thought for eating new food stuffs, buying/acquiring new types of food is a way to keep your dwarves happy without it being a need (since new food stuffs will of course run out).  Dwarves get a happy thought for eating foods which they have not eaten already, generated dwarves are assumed to have already eaten all the foods in the foods list of their own culture.  So you buy new types of foodstuff and your dwarves will get happy thoughts for eating a new food the first time, irrespective of whether they like that food type, as long as they do not have very low curiosity that is.

For now, but agriculture will be reworked and recipes are coming eventually. Needs aren't supposed to be that difficult to meet. Pray to deity is as simple as building a temple. Drinking is as simple as having booze. There are ones just for talking to people or viewing art. IMO, we don't need an entire economy based upon a single need.

The whole economy needs to exist, if everybody can be kept happy simply by being given any kind of prepared food then we will never see long distance trading in food ever realistically occurring.  Your solution means complete self-sufficiency in food is pretty much going to be the rule, if we were to add in recipes then the recipes will realistically be based upon the presently available foods to a given culture, so no trade there; if we make recipes require unavailable foods then we are back to where we started with unmeetable food needs.

Bumber is correct, there's no reason why needs should be absurdly difficult and micromanagement-heavy to fulfill.  They are needs, not wants.

If you are relying on micromanagement to meet your dwarves needs then you are simply not playing the game properly.  You buy everything that you do not produce yourself already or have a vast stockpile of and then a lot of dwarves are going to be happy; no need to go through every dwarves individual bio to figure out what every single dwarf needs; except at the beginning when your group is small enough to do this and you are also too poor to buy up the caravan.  You do not need to keep track of the individual food needs of all your dwarves any more than a grocery store needs to keep track of the food needs of it's individual customers; the trick is to maintain stocks and have as big a variety as possible. 

Yay, you've reduced it from the completely unmanageable 1000 food types down to a "mere" functionally unmanageable 200 food types. 

Even if needs called for difficulty, and they don't, micromanagement isn't difficulty, it's just not fun. 

Why do you hate fun?

The problem is not the number of food types, it is fact that not all food types are even obtainable; 200 or 1000 is irrelevant. 

We already have arbitrary luxury goods.  I was talking about a system to actually give them a purpose.  A system that isn't based upon perverting the needs system for something it was never designed to handle, for reasons nobody but you seems to see.

Having arbitrary luxury goods is simply not what we want to have.  We want what is a luxury to be determined dynamically by the world economy without us having to define in the raws what is considered a luxury.

Actually, I have read it, and understand it and its implications, apparently better than you do. (As does, seemingly everyone else in this thread.) That's why I'm stuck here having to repeatedly explain to you that you're trying to propose a solution to something that isn't a problem.

I would rather you actually read what you are proposing carefully and read the absurd contradictions in it.

If a single person writes something that is full of obvious and absurd contradictions, then it is far more likely that the contradictions are due to your misunderstanding of what is being written than what the person writing is actually trying to convey; granted the writing may not have been written very well to start with. 

Once again, this is a terrible idea.

NEEDS SHOULD NOT BE SECRET.  They are needs.  They are things players have to provideYou should not make something the player has to do secret, and hide it from the player

If you want to have a want that is secret, that applies a bonus above and beyond what is needed, that would be one thing, but this is a need.  This is something you have to provide.

Need I remind you that trading isn't always possible?  Some forts go through long periods of sieges, even permanent ones, although this is due to bugs.  You're saying that players shouldn't have a choice, they have to import every single food that is tradable, all the time.  Doing that, even by your own standard, isn't "difficult", it's just "tedious" when it isn't "impossible".  In fact, "just take one of everything" takes even less thought and planning on the part of the player than trying to fill one of every "flavor category", which was what you were trying to oppose.

What you are proposing is like saying that, to use D&D for an example, there will be a room in every dungeon that can only be opened by a single completely blindly randomly chosen item off the chart of stuff in the "equipment" section of the Player's Handbook.  There are no hints, no clever puzzle, just carry 7 tons of equipment with you at all times no matter where you go, and spend far less time actually adventuring or having fun since you're going to be forced to order minions and teamsters carrying all your bec de corbins and hide armors around. Because you think that's where the "challenge" of the game should come from.

Okay, I see the problem here is I have been wroting needs when what I really meant is likes.  The needs are there as at present, certain dwarves have the NEED for fine meals which is met by being given a food with one of the ingredients that they LIKE.  What I am proposing is that we continue randomly determine the initial likes of a dwarf as at present, but compare the needs to a newly introduced list of culturally available foods which is separate from the random likes of a given dwarf; the same list can of course determine recipes, hence killing two birds with one stone. 

If a like appears on the culturally available list then nothing happens, things work at present.  If a like appears does not appear on the list then the initial randomly generated like is hidden and a new food like is chosen from the list, if possible from the same item category, so if you like one type of fish then the replacement will be a different type of fish.  If the dwarf should end up consuming their hidden like then it is revealed, both to the player and to the dwarf; so both can act accordingly, with the player knowing what foods to provide that dwarf and the dwarf now seeking that food out from the stockpiles. 

Revealing food needs is actually beneficial since the more likes are revealed the easier it is to meet the needs of the dwarf, since as the original replacement food like remains in play they now have more food likes, any of which will meet their singular food need; the more likes the dwarf has, the easier it is to meet their food need.  To add a food to the cultural food list so that it will be revealed in all dwarves automatically if it was randomly selected and new dwarves can select it as a replacement foodstuff for their randomly selected non-culturally available food like.  Again, it is beneficial (in the short-term) for the player to reveal food likes or add new culturally available foods because it means their dwarves end up with a greater number of food likes although this does not filter down to new generations of dwarves.

The more food likes there are, the easier the game is.  To sort the micromanagement out we increase the number of food likes per dwarf from 1-2 (at present) to say 2-8 (or such), this means that there will be fewer dwarves having unmet food needs using the scattershot approach which avoids micromanagement.  For the remainder the problem is basically one of interface, we give the player the ability to zero in on the few dwarves who have very unmet food needs so the player can manually sort the problem out.  Ideally most dwarves will be kept happy by the scattershot approach of buying up everything available that is not locally being produced, but the few can be zeroed in on by the player in order to make special arrangements to acquire at least one of the foods on the list with the traders or with the internal food producing dwarves to meet that demand.   
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6