Print

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

[jecowa]

When Shadowfury333 originally added that sentence, he linked "delicious" the the "value" article. For processed plants, it looks like underground plants have a higher multiplier than above ground plants.

[Shonai_Dweller]

When Shadowfury333 originally added that sentence, he linked "delicious" the the "value" article. For processed plants, it looks like underground plants have a higher multiplier than above ground plants.

So, dwarves get some kind of happy thought bonus to drinking expensive booze?

[Rekov]

Out of curiosity, what is the rationale when it comes to creating a new namespace vs. updating the old one? Are we just updating the most recent articles from here on out, and the versions for super old DF are legacy remnants?

[jecowa]

New namespace is when the community decides. I think traditionally it's when save files from the previous version don't work in the new version. I think the idea is that we can update the old ones to correct information on them, but it's kind of a pain to make edits to multiple versions of a page.

I think there's getting to be too many versions of articles. There's a bunch of articles that have hardly any changes between 0.28, 0.31, and 0.34. There's no reason to make a new copy of an article for something that had few or no changes to it between Dwarf Fortress versions.

[PatrikLundell]

When Shadowfury333 originally added that sentence, he linked "delicious" the the "value" article. For processed plants, it looks like underground plants have a higher multiplier than above ground plants.

So, dwarves get some kind of happy thought bonus to drinking expensive booze?

I 2010 they might have. I've seen it claimed that meal value affecting the amount of satisfaction a dorf gains from a meal, but only if it contains a favorite ingredient. If that's correct, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to guess the same might apply to booze (which would presumably result in Sunshine lovers being happier, or average, than Gutter Crouor lovers, but what about the weirdo water lovers? I don't think water has any value?).

[Shonai_Dweller]

When Shadowfury333 originally added that sentence, he linked "delicious" the the "value" article. For processed plants, it looks like underground plants have a higher multiplier than above ground plants.

So, dwarves get some kind of happy thought bonus to drinking expensive booze?

I 2010 they might have. I've seen it claimed that meal value affecting the amount of satisfaction a dorf gains from a meal, but only if it contains a favorite ingredient. If that's correct, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to guess the same might apply to booze (which would presumably result in Sunshine lovers being happier, or average, than Gutter Crouor lovers, but what about the weirdo water lovers? I don't think water has any value?).

Seems that "valuable" would be a more useful word. It does make a difference when people look it up. From "no point as plump helmet wine is just easier" to "wouldn't want to trade with this, but then, you wouldn't rely on booze for trade anyway".

But would need science, probably involving Dfhack extracted numbers to check how true it is, and I wouldn't wan t to change it without proof.

[feelotraveller]

When Shadowfury333 originally added that sentence, he linked "delicious" the the "value" article. For processed plants, it looks like underground plants have a higher multiplier than above ground plants.

So, dwarves get some kind of happy thought bonus to drinking expensive booze?

I 2010 they might have. I've seen it claimed that meal value affecting the amount of satisfaction a dorf gains from a meal, but only if it contains a favorite ingredient. If that's correct, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to guess the same might apply to booze (which would presumably result in Sunshine lovers being happier, or average, than Gutter Crouor lovers, but what about the weirdo water lovers? I don't think water has any value?).

Seems that "valuable" would be a more useful word. It does make a difference when people look it up. From "no point as plump helmet wine is just easier" to "wouldn't want to trade with this, but then, you wouldn't rely on booze for trade anyway".

But would need science, probably involving Dfhack extracted numbers to check how true it is, and I wouldn't wan t to change it without proof.

Science has been done a long time ago (for both food and alcohol).  The value of the alcohol stack the dwarf is drinking from determines the strength of the good thought they get, assuming they have a preference for it in the first place. Last time I checked it was still working that way, although I haven't bothered confirming for 47.xx. 

This information is already in the wiki here: http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Thought#Nourishment so rather than needing proof it needs disproving if you wish to change it.

[Shonai_Dweller]

When Shadowfury333 originally added that sentence, he linked "delicious" the the "value" article. For processed plants, it looks like underground plants have a higher multiplier than above ground plants.

So, dwarves get some kind of happy thought bonus to drinking expensive booze?

I 2010 they might have. I've seen it claimed that meal value affecting the amount of satisfaction a dorf gains from a meal, but only if it contains a favorite ingredient. If that's correct, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to guess the same might apply to booze (which would presumably result in Sunshine lovers being happier, or average, than Gutter Crouor lovers, but what about the weirdo water lovers? I don't think water has any value?).

Seems that "valuable" would be a more useful word. It does make a difference when people look it up. From "no point as plump helmet wine is just easier" to "wouldn't want to trade with this, but then, you wouldn't rely on booze for trade anyway".

But would need science, probably involving Dfhack extracted numbers to check how true it is, and I wouldn't wan t to change it without proof.

Science has been done a long time ago (for both food and alcohol).  The value of the alcohol stack the dwarf is drinking from determines the strength of the good thought they get, assuming they have a preference for it in the first place. Last time I checked it was still working that way, although I haven't bothered confirming for 47.xx. 

This information is already in the wiki here: http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Thought#Nourishment so rather than needing proof it needs disproving if you wish to change it.

Thank you. That is actually what I asked originally as the article doesn't actually link to this page and the value page doesn't mention it at all. It's just a random word "delicious"with a meaningless link to anyone without this knowledge.

[therahedwig]

Hey, guys, I am going a bit mad. The fuel and metal industry pages say that one wood results in one charcoal, but I thought that these numbers got changed with the release that gave us multi-tile trees? My fortress fell yesterday, and I kinda wanted to do adventurer now, so I am kinda hoping maybe someone with a working metal industry could double-check the numbers (the wood burning reaction is not in reaction_smelter.txt)?

https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Metal_industry
https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Fuel

For that matter, didn't the results from melting down ores also change?

(If you just put it in this thread I can change it, if the wiki software is too intimidating)

[pikachu17]

Don't know about melting down, but I'm pretty sure one log results in one charcoal.

[PatrikLundell]

Like pikachu17, I believe 1 log -> one charcoal (or ash), but I admit to never having verified it. When it comes to ores, I thought it was about 4 bars per ore, but there might be probabilities in there, at least when you can get mixed bars. I believe that in a time before (my) time mining resulted in one stone per tile which resulted in one bar per stone, but that was reduced to approximately one stone per 4 tiles (except candy, slade, and gems), with a corresponding increase in the ore yield.

And, yes, of course you've gone a bit unhinged: you're still hanging around this madhouse...

[therahedwig]

I guess I'll need to run a fort later. I just remember that one of the big reactions to the 3d trees was 'ye gods, so much wood', followed by 'ye gods, more blocks from a single rock and more iron from a single ore', and I thought charcoal from wood was among those things.

Yes, in 40d the likelyhood of a rock being produced was tied to your miner's skill level, to the point that a legendary miner would always 100% leave behind a rock (and thus a legendary miner was preferred for certain rare materials). That's become a flat percentage somewhere, actually let me check the release notes, .34.08, the minecart release, trees were after that. Given finding metals in 40d was near impossible, and in .31 metals were everywhere, it makes sense as a balance tweak.

[feelotraveller]

I can confirm from personal observation that one wood -> one charcoal (or one ash, alternatively).  Ores always produce 4 bars of their primary metal but there are certain that additionally have a percentage chance (per bar) of producing an extra bar of a different metal.  So, for example, tetrahedrite produces 4 copper bars but also 0-4 silver bars when smelted.  Galena is another that springs to mind...

[therahedwig]

Hm... I must have confused things then.

I've been poking all the pages related to religion today, among which assigning them all the religion category. Other things include a description of .47 religion forming, a shrine section under temple, and general trying to make sense of pilgrim, prophet, monk and priest (though this is a work in progress...). I also did some DFHack poking at the entities and updated the guild/guildhall pages accordingly (guilds are formed in craftmanship valuing civs, and always have 4 positions unless a fortmode guild).

I'm having some trouble with mercenary orders though, and made a thread for that in the adventurer mode forum.

I kinda want to put the bandits and criminal organizations into the criminal page, as there's two types of bandit groups(nomadic and the fort creating kind), and I think all of them are related to criminals. And after that there's merchant companies...

[PatrikLundell]

After having poked around sites, entities and their relations as DF structure research, I've found that nomads seem to get connections to sites, presumably for criminal activities, given their corruption induction, etc., and can have a large number of such connections.

Criminals seem to be more site based, but can operate over several sites as well (criminals, in particular, can be fully incorporated into other criminal organizations). I've also seen that site governments have had their fingers in the pie, with one or both criminal flags set in relations, but haven't examined what types of governments these are (it could be restricted to necros, for instance).