Print

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

[Skid]

This doesn't look like so bad an idea.  Remember that so long as you bring a skilled dwarf with you at the start of the fort you won't really have to encounter this at all.

[Footkerchief]

I like this idea, but it can't be applied uniformly to all items.  For example, once the game has a real food/cooking system, some types of food preparations (soups) should result in basically 0 failures even for a novice, while pies or whatever could be much more difficult.  Also, messed up food shouldn't turn into charcoal, it should just return xx raw items xx so dwarves won't eat them unless they're desperate.

[profit]

I forgot there was already a broken tag in the game.  Yes I agree, returning the XX Raw food item XX would be more ideal.

[Milskidasith]

Why not, instead of XX raw XX, XX Cooked XX? I mean, when you make a souffle, does it fall back into the ingrediants, or does it just fall and look ugly?

[Tormy]

This doesn't look like so bad an idea.  Remember that so long as you bring a skilled dwarf with you at the start of the fort you won't really have to encounter this at all.

The idea is not bad, but it makes no sense imo. DF tech level is very low. Some silly example: You spend a couple of hours watching a real swordcrafter as he is working on a sword. After that even you would be able to craft some shitty sword. Sure it wouldn't be a masterpiece, but you could kill with it. 

[Footkerchief]

Why not, instead of XX raw XX, XX Cooked XX? I mean, when you make a souffle, does it fall back into the ingrediants, or does it just fall and look ugly?

That is a good point and the idea of a burned souffle being XX worn XX is appealingly consistent with how the game currently models heat damage on items.  Hm, I guess I was thinking in terms of total failure to create the item, rather than failure to create a good item.  Maybe XX wear XX is a better solution than total failure for items made of stone/wood/metal/etc, too.

[Draco18s]

I THINK YOU ARE FUCKING INSANE!!!

He's talking about the LOWEST quality level, things made by DABBLERS.

[Milskidasith]

And 80% of the time by novices and a good deal of the time by most all dwarves you would bring on embark.

[i are not good with compu]

I THINK YOU ARE FUCKING INSANE!!!

He's talking about the LOWEST quality level, things made by DABBLERS.

Gotta agree at least a bit with Foa here.  More in-depth quality modifiers makes sense and maybe a small chance of complete failure, but wasting 2/3 of what you use doesn't make sense even at dabbling.

[Lazer Bomb]

75% chance of a failure
If it occurs using masonary, The rock is destroyed. What, just gone?

If it occurs with the kitchen, The Food is turned into a lump of charcoal.Dabblers have a 75% chance to turn soup ingredients into charcoal?
Just adds unfun-ness

If anything, dabblers should have about a 15% chance to completely mess up and make, for example, a broken rock mug, or a bed that is umcomfortable to sleep on (one of the legs could be too short). Novices could have about 5% chance, and from there on 0% chance.
Part of the fun of this game is, IMO, starting with bare minimums and being able to make an amazing fortress! This game does not need an extra way for beginners to lose horribly: running out of food is the worst loss, and turning your last tiny bit of food to a 75% chance of having your cook make it into charcoal would NOT be fun. No problem if his efforts results in a burnt meal, though.

[Nesoo]

I had been mulling over an idea similar to the OP, but I like the idea of (a chance of) creating worn items at low skill levels better. As I recall, refuse piles have options for the various things that can be made, so if your dabbling stonecrafter churns out an XXobsidian mugXX it could be carted off to the refuse pile or the garbage zone. And, as unpopular as this will be, I think that even Legendary+5's should still have a (minuscule) chance of creating one as well. After all, even the best can still screw up on occasion.

[profit]

Why not, instead of XX raw XX, XX Cooked XX? I mean, when you make a souffle, does it fall back into the ingrediants, or does it just fall and look ugly?

That is a good point and the idea of a burned souffle being XX worn XX is appealingly consistent with how the game currently models heat damage on items.  Hm, I guess I was thinking in terms of total failure to create the item, rather than failure to create a good item.  Maybe XX wear XX is a better solution than total failure for items made of stone/wood/metal/etc, too.

For non food items, I have never had them be required in any real way so I was thinking they could be destroyed in an abstract sort of way, some returning the materials used to make them, some not, and it would not affect the fortress in any real meaningful way.

This is just to kinda add realism as many crafters in this annoying "real life" thing we play often have learning periods where they make abject junk often.  while about maybe 5% ends up on a mothers display case, the other 95% ends up in a landfill or being recycled into new goods.  I decided that with the dwarves... 25% instead of 5% could be used.. because its a game.

Yeah so.. it takes 4 rocks to make your first table instead of  1 because you forgot to bring someone with masonry skill...  Oh noes...

This is just to add realism, and anyone who thinks it will add hardly any difficulty at all apparently has never played dwarf fortress.

Real difficulty is in handling these ways a fortress can die:
Dwarf friend death spirals
Farmers being killed and you didn't notice till all your food is gone
Flooding accidents

Never have I lost a fortress though to..  Dwarf did not have stone piccolo.

[Milskidasith]

Flooding accidents and civilian deaths? You think THOSE are the ways fortress's die?

[profit]

Obviously not an exhaustive list, but really... What would kill more noobs? one of those things  or the possibility of having to wait 10 seconds longer for a craftsman to grab a new stone block to make a granite crown.

[Qmarx]

Remember, a modifierless item is a barely adequate example of its kind.  Your table is a crudely smoothed piece of stone that hardly stays level.  It's usable, but only that.


Given that we're abstracting away the fact that you can make a wall or a flute out of the same amount of stone, I seen no reason to add an irritating "you fail in a manner that manages to somehow destroy all of this stone" possible outcome.  It's one of the things that really irritated me in Wurm Online, and I can't really see any purpose for it.  It can't be realism, since all stone crafts take the same weight of stone to make (if you really want to, you can pretend that smaller crafts take several failures to make), so any loss of stone due to failure falls far below the granularity of the current game system. 

It adds complication arbitrarily, will annoy new players without providing any additional challenge to old ones, is inconsistent with the current level of abstraction, and doesn't add any real gameplay value.