Print

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

[scourge728]

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=171062.0

[Ninjabread]

Thanks scourge, I'd try to make a brief overview on what's been discussed on this thread so nobody has to go through this thread to be up to speed, but I'm obviously going to be quite biased, anyone else want to have a go at that?

Now, back to the actual topic of this thread. So far, suggestions are:

Friends arranging group meetups
Friendless folk looking for friends among their acquaintances
Sexually compatible acquaintances going on dates, with possible meal-sharing
Friends seeking other friends out for a chat without interrupting jobs
Increase interaction radius
Diversify table usage (add desks, altars, gaming tables, e.c.t.)
Sitting at adjacent tables forcing conversation
Non-dining rec room, for more personal interactions that are best kept away from the drunken revelry/violence of the tavern
Increased interaction between neighbours
Friends moving their bedrooms to be closer together
Rivals moving their bedrooms to be further away from each other

And of course, the heavily contested, thread derailing:
Low-privacy friends visiting each other's rooms

Did I miss anything?

[JezaGaia]

I completely agree with the recap I would love all those changes.
I would add some things regarding antisocial/asocial whatever non social you want to call it dwarves :p

First the dwarves that state they don't want friends/families shouldn't suffer from being away from such it's illogical but at the moment it's how it works. They don't make friends, they don't marry but they still have mood drops feeling lonely being away from family/friends for too long. They should only need to have a way to socialize but on a superficial level with acquitances.
Making friends or having a romantic relationship should give them a negative mood. If they socialized too much with someone and said someone decided they were friends/lovers and began to treat them as such by wanting to hang out and so on that should be an annoyance for them.
But on the other hand they should have a positive mood boost from having no friends and only acquaintances as long as they can socialize with them from time to time.

If a dwarf is private he should try to find isolated rooms, for example preferring an isolated bedroom rather than one in the middle of a row, trying to find isolated tables/chairs and so on.
That would encourage the building of single tables/chairs in small rooms attached to the main tavern, social dwarves would go for the communal table except if they're on a date or there is no room anywhere else to sit but the private/antisocial ones would prefer the isolated ones except again if they have no choice.
Same with living quarters design, it would encourage to try and have some rooms that are a bit distant from the others (say 3 or 4 paces from another room or main corridor)
And this could lead also to the need of some private chapels because the crowded temples would feel to crowded for some. But then those should have special mechanics, be a meeting zone attached to a specific temple so they can be used to pray him/her but have a flag that set them as private but not private to a specific dwarf just when they're in use by someone they're forbidden to any other except when invited.
But of course they could be also be affected to a specific dwarf like tombs and so on are and nobles might have need of their own private chapel ....


If a dwarf is private but not antisocial he should like to share said private rooms (dining/chapels and any other that could be invented) as described on the previous suggestions just not limited to romance.
If a dwarf is both private and antisocial he would definitively go for isolated and alone.

Something else that's bothering me are the military dwarves.
Even though they practice in very close range from one another in my actual fort (20 dwarves in a  4x4 room) they don't socialize with each other while doing so. That's ok for the ones being private/asocial but even social dwarves that are friends have the lonely being away from friends mood even tough they spend most of their time training near each other.
It might have to do with not sparring with each other anymore though on the other hand even just training, they could still chat a bit or if not  when they arrive/leave they could stand there a bit and chat. So training near each other should be considered some form of socialization by the game, maybe with a lower rate then proper social interaction in the tavern for example.

I don't have the same issue with praying not feeling social needs because it seems to be a very personal thing, they meditate or pray there is no priest and no service where they could share with the rest of the congregation so it's normal that it doesn't feel socialization needs.
 Although sometimes you see them playing/dancing in groups and that should count. But I haven't been able to determine if it does or not at the moment so it could be that it's already working.

[Ninjabread]

JezaGaia, I'd ask Starver about precise defining features of asociability, but I consider myself unsociable because I don't really care about social interaction, I can take it or leave it really, whereas the term antisocial sounds like a strong aversion to it.

I'd say a constant mood debuff for antisocial folk just having friends is a bit harsh, but they could get thoughts like "Urist felt annoyed after being pestered by others" from having lots of unwanted conversations in a short span of time (e.g. an acquaintance tries to befriend them), and "Urist felt satisfied after some peace and quiet" if they've spent a long time without any conversations. Sounds weird that they're getting lonely while they have non-sociable, private personalities, but it's possible that they still value family and friends highly, every dwarven civ I've seen favours those values, personal values rarely stray too far from the civ's norm, and if you check in adventure mode character creation you'll see those values actually have associated needs.

Positive thoughts from personalised rooms for more private residents sounds like a good idea, though it'd probably take some work to balance, since communal dining room value usually shoots up to legendary levels fairly quick due to all the tables and chairs, possibly making bad thoughts from communal dining/good thoughts from private dining irrelevant. I'd also call a personal/private temple a shrine rather than a chapel, but that's probably just personal preference.

The military dwarf issue might be mitigated by an increased interaction radius, unless nobody engages in social interaction during jobs, and if that's the case that kinda has to change otherwise the 'chatting with friends without interrupting jobs' thing doesn't work.

[Starver]

JezaGaia, I'd ask Starver about precise defining features of asociability, but I consider myself unsociable because I don't really care about social interaction, I can take it or leave it really, whereas the term antisocial sounds like a strong aversion to it.

I wouldn't claim authority. But, in my mind:
Antisocial is being actively disruptive of society. As in...
Unsocial is just not participating much, but not avoiding it (except maybe notably abrupt when sprung upon).
Asocial is enjoying it more when keeping away from participation, maybe keeping deliberate distance.

(All of those are situational. I really like my 'me time', but I make deliberate exceptions (hi Bay12ers, you exceptions you! ...though it helps that practically none of you are actually popping up in person, mostly staying the other side of a wall of text) and there are socialisations that by precedent or necessity I can't/won't avoid and then my well-practiced mask gets deployed. It suffices, even though it can probably also be seen through by some people. In Dorf terms, happy thoughts to have fulfilled a task, yet slightly annoyed by being having to fulfill a task. But this aint about me.)

Checking online dictionaries, the latter two are often equated to the first, where they apply to a personality (e.g. "def2: causing annoyance and disapproval in others; antisocial. 'the unsocial behaviour of young teenagers' ") but I think I'd rather be prescriptivist in following the direction of how the prefixes are applied, to not just throw away perfectly good different terms on the same thing.

Naturally, this needs either tying into the current pantheon of psychologies available to dorfs or a dimension or so further extensions to that pantheon to accommodate these subtleties (I haven't fully studied what is there already) and then we can consider how this interacts with the concept of personal space, etc. There could well be a cloud of conflicts pulling and pushing in all kinds of directions, hoping leading to the best compromise sum-vector given the actually available options.

[JezaGaia]

JezaGaia, I'd ask Starver about precise defining features of asociability, but I consider myself unsociable because I don't really care about social interaction, I can take it or leave it really, whereas the term antisocial sounds like a strong aversion to it.

English not being my first or even second language that's way too in depth for me.

What I can say is that ingame some dwarves don't like to have friends but are not private meaning I suppose they don't mind crowds and interacting with a lot of people but they want them to remain simple acquaintances, have an emotional separation from them, not get invested in the relationship if you will.
And I would suppose those people might like to interact from time to time but on their terms and on a superficial manner only.
If someone was to try and crowd them get too close emotionally they wouldn't like that and that would bother them.

I'd say a constant mood debuff for antisocial folk just having friends is a bit harsh, but they could get thoughts like "Urist felt annoyed after being pestered by others" from having lots of unwanted conversations in a short span of time (e.g. an acquaintance tries to befriend them), and "Urist felt satisfied after some peace and quiet" if they've spent a long time without any conversations. Sounds weird that they're getting lonely while they have non-sociable, private personalities, but it's possible that they still value family and friends highly, every dwarven civ I've seen favours those values, personal values rarely stray too far from the civ's norm, and if you check in adventure mode character creation you'll see those values actually have associated needs.

I was referencing to having some sort of annoyance, the strength of it I leave to Toady to decide he knows how to balance his game I know too little to have an opinion on that

Positive thoughts from personalised rooms for more private residents sounds like a good idea, though it'd probably take some work to balance, since communal dining room value usually shoots up to legendary levels fairly quick due to all the tables and chairs, possibly making bad thoughts from communal dining/good thoughts from private dining irrelevant.

Well I don't know about that I have a legendary dining room and still have a dwarf that is private doesn't care for luxury doesn't handle stress well and a tendency towards getting depressed. He has only neutral thoughts about the legendary dinning room but a lot of negative thoughts about being forced to eat on a crowded table and is getting a very high stress level.
So I would think that it's not as simple as legendary > privacy.
Also while it still might be relevant in a young fort, once you have the means to make some gold tables and legendary engrave the walls/floors well I would suppose it's not too hard to have those small rooms luxurious enough to also get good thoughts.

I'd also call a personal/private temple a shrine rather than a chapel, but that's probably just personal preference.

As before English is not my first language, so as for the name I have no preference

The military dwarf issue might be mitigated by an increased interaction radius, unless nobody engages in social interaction during jobs, and if that's the case that kinda has to change otherwise the 'chatting with friends without interrupting jobs' thing doesn't work.

Agreed, my impression at the moment is that they don't engage in social interaction during jobs, because as I said the radius should not matter in such a small room. Many share the same square and still I don't see any interactions but I could be mistaken.

[Bumber]

Well I don't know about that I have a legendary dining room and still have a dwarf that is private doesn't care for luxury doesn't handle stress well and a tendency towards getting depressed. He has only neutral thoughts about the legendary dinning room but a lot of negative thoughts about being forced to eat on a crowded table and is getting a very high stress level.

Make sure there's only one chair next to each table. No dwarf likes to share table space, but they're stupid about avoiding it.

[GoblinCookie]

KittyTac, I'd argue that GC's realism applies only to plants, and that cavern critters couldn't maintain the size/fireyness/numbers they do now with such a low oxygen supply. Either you have (relatively) realistic flora and make cavern critters [NOBREATHE] and something to stop fire-composed creatures from just dying, or you could have (relatively) realistic fauna and have oxygen production sans-light, or caverns are going to need a total rework. Fire men in particular would likely be difficult to have in oxygen deprived caverns, given how deep you have to dig for them to appear.

GoblinCookie, firstly, default DF is fantastical. Even after the fantasticality slider is introduced, only the very bottom setting will be truly mundane. Not planning for the fantastical would be mindbogglingly short-sighted. Not to mention, that mechanic we're talking about? Bedroom visits? Works even when nothing fantastical is present, since a medieval subterranean fortress is pretty fantastical, and lighting/ventilating an above ground fortress is way less hassle, even in your scenario.

Secondly, multi-tile/level creatures will change architecture, not restrict it. Needing a wider/taller hallway isn't restricting, it just means you're gonna need a bigger boat. Only way you're gonna find it restricting is if a) if multi-tile/level doors aren't implemented at the same time, or b) if you have extravagantly large fortresses that take up the whole map both vertically and horizontally already. Besides, how often do you actually want big creatures inside your fortress? If they aren't grazers that should be in a pasture, they're usually trying to smash your dwarves into paste.

Underground structures do not scale well.  That is why we have say rabbit warrens but not elephant warrens.  If you have only a small tunnel, you do not need much in the way of structural supports to hold it up but the larger the tunnel the more prone it is to collapse.  I have no problem with us getting rid of fire men and the like, fiery creatures should not exist in caverns that are inhabited by other life forms; they should be consigned to live only in lifeless caverns, which should be common. 

Medieval dwarf fortress however are not fantastical.  There is no magic required to build such a thing, only an understanding of the same physical principles that allow for mines to be built that don't kill all their miners.  The reason such things do not exist is not because they are fantastical, but because they force an inhuman lifestyle on everyone inside them; that is to say they force everyone live and behave in a fashion that is alien to human society and nature.  Fortunately dwarves are not human, but you have to stop thinking of them as short humans in order for you to end up with dwarf fortresses. 

Finally, and this goes for everyone, this debate belongs in a thread of it's own. The subject of the debate is now completely unrelated to the subject of the thread, any vague relations to the thread have faded into obscurity. If someone wants to make a thread for this and link here that's fine, but this thread is about dwarven social interactions, not lighting and oxygen, or architectural freedom vs botanical realism

It does *not* belong in a thread of it's own.  That is because it is the primarily consideration for dwarven socializing, putting it in another topic is simply an exercise in hand-waving. 

[Starver]

(This is not a Dwarven Social Lives thing, just a titbit following on from there being no Elephant Burrows for general interest...)

https://www.earthtouchnews.com/discoveries/discoveries/these-giant-tunnels-in-south-america-arent-caves-theyre-prehistoric-burrows/

[scourge728]

I would assume their will be an option to turn off any sort of architectural limits caused by oxygen, and in highly fantastical worlds presumably wouldn't be an issue at all,

[Ninjabread]

GoblinCookie, yeah you might need to reinforce some walls and roofs for larger hallways, and make pillars in the larger rooms. I'm still not seeing any "architectural freedom nose-dive" as you put it, just some challenges to overcome.

Maybe fantastical was too strong of a word for a medieval subterranean fortress, since in and of itself it's not, however, the reason they don't exist in real life in the same way that they do in DF is actually much simpler than what you state. Humans need sunlight to produce vitamin D. A human who lived like a DF dwarf would get rickets, in fact, during the ice age, rickets was such a serious problem that it resulted in the evolution of pale skin, sacrificing some UV protection to get more vitamin D from sunlight, and that was just because days were short, nights were long, it was probably quite cloudy, and shelter + fire was warmer than sunlight. Presumably dwarves have some other means of keeping healthy bones.

I have never claimed that dwarves are just short humans. I do not consider dwarves to just be short humans. I'm well aware that dwarven society would be alien (and as I have mentioned, harmful) to humans. Please don't assume that I have made assumptions.

The one time you mentioned anything about dwarven socialising during that entire post was when you claimed this debate was still relevant to it. Nice. Let me list 3 reasons to put it in another thread:

1) People who just want to talk about dwarven socialisation, and have no interest in how ventilation or lighting are implemented, are more likely to not bother reading the thread because they aren't interested in the debate subject at all. This results in less people contributing, and more people making suggestions that have already been made, because they didn't want to check every post to see which ones weren't part of the debate.
2) People who have absolutely no interest in dwarven social lives but are very interested in lighting, ventilation, botanical realism, architectural freedom, the caverns, e.c.t. likely won't see the debate because of the thread name, and won't be able to contribute points that we may have overlooked.
3) Forum organisation. If every debate about subject x was met with a link to a thread about subject x, those debates would be better informed, wouldn't repeat the same points over and over on many different threads, and there would be a huge decrease in related thread derailment.

I'm surprised I had to explain this to you, you seem intelligent enough to be able to figure this out yourself. I'm not trying to avoid the debate, I'll gladly follow you to the new thread and it can continue there, I just want to keep the forum organised and user-friendly.

scourge, yeah I assume there'll be an init option to switch off light and gas simulation, just like temperature.

[Bumber]

Another reason:
4) http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=27009.0

If the creator of a thread gives appropriate additional guidelines for an individual thread, please try to respect them.  Threads often drift away from their opening themes here, and there isn't a strong sense of thread "ownership", so there's a gray area, but if a thread has been designed for a specific purpose, please try to adhere to that, especially if the creator urges you to do so.  Do not derail threads.

I have no problem with us getting rid of fire men and the like, fiery creatures should not exist in caverns that are inhabited by other life forms; they should be consigned to live only in lifeless caverns, which should be common.

Either fire men require oxygen or they don't. In a lifeless cavern they suffocate. In the other case, there is no problem of cohabitation with other creatures.

Medieval dwarf fortress however are not fantastical.  There is no magic required to build such a thing, only an understanding of the same physical principles that allow for mines to be built that don't kill all their miners.

On the scale of dwarf forts, you would need industrial air pumps. It's not doable with medieval tech.

[GoblinCookie]

GoblinCookie, yeah you might need to reinforce some walls and roofs for larger hallways, and make pillars in the larger rooms. I'm still not seeing any "architectural freedom nose-dive" as you put it, just some challenges to overcome.

Maybe fantastical was too strong of a word for a medieval subterranean fortress, since in and of itself it's not, however, the reason they don't exist in real life in the same way that they do in DF is actually much simpler than what you state. Humans need sunlight to produce vitamin D. A human who lived like a DF dwarf would get rickets, in fact, during the ice age, rickets was such a serious problem that it resulted in the evolution of pale skin, sacrificing some UV protection to get more vitamin D from sunlight, and that was just because days were short, nights were long, it was probably quite cloudy, and shelter + fire was warmer than sunlight. Presumably dwarves have some other means of keeping healthy bones.

As I said, it is contradiction to human nature.

I have never claimed that dwarves are just short humans. I do not consider dwarves to just be short humans. I'm well aware that dwarven society would be alien (and as I have mentioned, harmful) to humans. Please don't assume that I have made assumptions.

The one time you mentioned anything about dwarven socialising during that entire post was when you claimed this debate was still relevant to it. Nice. Let me list 3 reasons to put it in another thread:

1) People who just want to talk about dwarven socialisation, and have no interest in how ventilation or lighting are implemented, are more likely to not bother reading the thread because they aren't interested in the debate subject at all. This results in less people contributing, and more people making suggestions that have already been made, because they didn't want to check every post to see which ones weren't part of the debate.
2) People who have absolutely no interest in dwarven social lives but are very interested in lighting, ventilation, botanical realism, architectural freedom, the caverns, e.c.t. likely won't see the debate because of the thread name, and won't be able to contribute points that we may have overlooked.
3) Forum organisation. If every debate about subject x was met with a link to a thread about subject x, those debates would be better informed, wouldn't repeat the same points over and over on many different threads, and there would be a huge decrease in related thread derailment.

I'm surprised I had to explain this to you, you seem intelligent enough to be able to figure this out yourself. I'm not trying to avoid the debate, I'll gladly follow you to the new thread and it can continue there, I just want to keep the forum organised and user-friendly.

scourge, yeah I assume there'll be an init option to switch off light and gas simulation, just like temperature.

I think I should move things along now, since the reference to oxygen and light was not off-topic, it was also never intended to totally dominate the discussion. 

One idea I came up with is having dwarves choose locations based upon the environmental conditions of a room.  As the game advances then, we can simply add more criteria for a suitable location.  At the moment the criteria is only space, a group that breaks off to socialise goes to a location that has 4 squares in it, per individual socialising.  So if we have two individuals, then they would 8 squares.  They could meet in a bedroom provided the bedroom is at least 3X3 in size. 

To refer to the question of vitamin D deficiency, humans will always choose to go to the surface in order to socialise, they will only operate like dwarves do if the surface is blocked off or the weather is bad.  Dwarves will go to the surface to socialise, if the surface is accessible and there are no suitable underground locations.

Either fire men require oxygen or they don't. In a lifeless cavern they suffocate. In the other case, there is no problem of cohabitation with other creatures.

Their fire consumes oxygen, whether they need oxygen to survive or not.

On the scale of dwarf forts, you would need industrial air pumps. It's not doable with medieval tech.

No, we only require a number of ventilation shafts and maybe a few mechanical fans.  The problem is only that the 'scale' is more limited than what we can build at the moment, while forces the dwarves closer together. 

[Bumber]

Their fire consumes oxygen, whether they need oxygen to survive or not.

I guess you could get a backdraft when you open the caverns?

[Ninjabread]

GoblinCookie, I had assumed the phrase 'human nature' meant natural behavioural tendencies, but I suppose biology is totally within the scope of the word nature, so fair enough

Yeah I know it started out totally related, an honest concern for compatibility with future features, but it did get to be a little much

That idea's pretty cool, I'm sure there are already some mechanics to do with dancing that could be configured to work for this too. Would certainly make the rec room more of a necessity if you didn't want all your dwarves rushing off to the surface to chat with a group of friends when you're in an evil or savage biome.

Not sure insistence on being outside to socialise works for simulating vitamin D deficiency, since not all humans need to socialise, and IRL we don't need to be outside for a chat, but going for a walk about outside with friends actually sounds like a nice social activity for residents who value nature and aren't cave adapted, though a park/nature reserve zone may be needed to avoid them wandering straight into large predators. I think humans, and maybe other surface-dwellers, could show the need for sunlight with a variant on the code for cave adaption (maybe call it cave sickness?), meaning it'd be a good idea to keep them closer to, or on the surface, though that may need some balancing to avoid confusing new players as their foreign residents all go pale and sickly.

Btw, sorry if I've been a bit snappy in previous posts, the pollen count has been, and still is, super high here, and I tend to get a bit grouchy when I can't breathe.