Print

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

[bjlong]

That would explain why I couldn't get an argument out of your posts. >_>

[Random832]

The majority of people will say they are above average drivers.

This doesn't prove anything, since technically a majority can in fact be above average, if we suppose the existence of a small minority of _really bad_ drivers to drag the average down. This is why real statisticians use stuff like medians and quartiles and standard deviation and outliers.

Even if the average really does divide the population in half (it does on a normal distribution, or if we redefine "average" as the median rather than the conventional definition of the arithmetic mean), their assessment of themselves as above average could be in error for underestimating the average rather than for overestimating their own skill.

[Granite26]

The majority of people will say they are above average drivers.

This doesn't prove anything, since technically a majority can in fact be above average,

Or my favorite:  People define quality of driving to be what they're good at and thus, by definition everyone is above average.  (Personally I'm above average because I don't clog up the freeways by being timid or driving slow)

This also applies to any number of subjective comparisons.

[Random832]

Other than that, if the finer units are there to allow for crafting failure, then your novice runs to the stockpile and takes out 1 unit of stone (from a boulder which contains 64 units). He carves it into a ring, and then at some point screws it up and has to start over. So he has to run back to the stockpile and get another unit of stone.

How about he takes the whole boulder to the workshop, where it remains until all of it is consumed.

but failed stone isn't good for anything.

(Please don't say "making glass" unless you've at least seen glass being made some time in your life.)

Well, only a few kinds of stone (specifically, stuff like sandstone and granite that are mostly silica) could be used for that theoretically (it's uneconomical to do so in our world - and it _should be_ uneconomical to do so in the DF world too, and if it's not, it's broken, so there's no need to support it). Any stone that has a reaction class could still be used for the reaction. And for failed plain-old-ordinary-rock crafts? Concrete. Or, even without concrete, could be used as crushed stone aggregate for other purposes (filler in multi-tile walls, base course for roads, etc). Load it into catapults. Right now DF has no notion of crushed stone, and therefore no use for it. But that could be changed, and failed crafts could easily be tossed in with the rest of crushed stone.

[Felblood]

--but. but. What will we make our POWs do, if not crush rock for our roadmaking projects?

Once again, I'd like to see material waste handled more exactly, but the groundwork in not yet in place.

How about he takes the whole boulder to the workshop, where it remains until all of it is consumed.

I already said that, too, and it is the groundwork I'd like to see laid.

[LegoLord]

Let me clarify my previous post.  I have never failed horribly at any craft I have attempted.  Never.  I would remember.  Never have I made so bad a mistake that I had to restart with new material.  That is what I meant.  And I am no genius, nor am I a natural craftsman.

[Walker]

Say no to rng breakage.

It's really simple why.  The rng removes skill from gameplay.  Rngs are necessary for chance actions, which is why it is used.  In DF time is substituted for random chance in crafting.  In game terms this means that the player's skill at time management becomes important in difficult situations.

Obviously on an easy map with few or no hostiles, easy digging ground, no aquifer etc. it's largely irrelevant.  On a terrifying map with skeletal carps and elephants, aquifer and self imposed restrictions... that skill matters.  Managing, and micro-managing your dwarfs becomes very important.  Beyond the rng substitutes for skill issue there are other reasons from a game perspective not to include the rng in this aspect of DF - namely that it does not add any fun.  Random breakage for 90% of the game will be unimportant, but for those 10% of times when you have a fail that breaks in some way that can't be compensated for or be fixed and you have to abandon your vision and restart it will suck.  Rng do not teach anything, do not instill any value and do nothing to assist in the progress of the game.  It only adds the element of chance to actions that otherwise do not require it, or need it.  Removing skill, planning, anticipation from the game is removing fun. In the real world when we deal with creation failure in automated systems we simply order more of the object.  If there is a .1% failure rate in the production of widget A then for evey 1000 widgets you need you order 1001.  Yay... so helpful.  In game the only result would be even further redundancy in the systems, over orders, more unnecessary contingencies that will drain the player's time.  No progerss is made in telling the stories of your fort, no progress is made in having fun.


From a reality perspective Rng breakage is also dumb.  I don't roll a die every time I cook to see if it is busted.  And even when I screw up it's edible, just that I might not want to eat it, and probably edible if I turned it into a 'mystery meatloaf'... either way it is my choice.  Same goes for any creative activity I try, I'll succeed at my task... making the object.  Whether the object meets any criteria other than functional is of course up for debate.  Creating objects isn't a chance action, it's a function of (materials*skill*determination*talent*patience)/time available = product  (I'm sure that's an incomplete equation btw.)

[Footkerchief]

In DF time is substituted for random chance in crafting. 

Huh?  DF has tons of random chance in crafting.  Reactions have an explicit failure probability and quality of crafted items is also mildly randomized.

The player management aspect will not be fundamentally different -- it'll mainly give the player a stronger incentive to embark with skilled craftsdwarves.  Skill, planning, and anticipation won't be removed at all -- you'll need MORE of those skills, because you won't be able to train any ham-fisted peasant into a legendary stonecrafter in two months and start buying out caravans.

From a reality perspective Rng breakage is also dumb.  I don't roll a die every time I cook to see if it is busted.  And even when I screw up it's edible, just that I might not want to eat it, and probably edible if I turned it into a 'mystery meatloaf'... either way it is my choice.  Same goes for any creative activity I try, I'll succeed at my task... making the object.  Whether the object meets any criteria other than functional is of course up for debate.  Creating objects isn't a chance action, it's a function of (materials*skill*determination*talent*patience)/time available = product  (I'm sure that's an incomplete equation btw.)

I don't think you understand the point of randomization.  Not even you can cook the same meal exactly the same every time.  The real-life factors that cause the differences are often too small to account for, so that's where randomization comes in.  It's good that your meals always come out edible, but that's definitely not the case for many beginning cooks, especially those working with techniques like grilling which can and do produce inedible chunks of completely carbonized meat.

And if you think you can really succeed at "any creative activity," again, try carving a ring out of stone.  You will almost certainly fuck up and there will be no way to turn those two halves of vaguely annular stone back into something you can wear on your finger.

Stone is especially unforgiving, though.  I don't think anybody's saying all materials (or items) should have similar failure likelihoods -- metal and wood are both far less shatter-prone.  Conveniently, stone is the one material that really needs to break more often for sheer balance reasons, because players generally have an endless, easily abused supply of it, whereas wood and metal are harder to obtain.

It would be straightforward to add "crafting difficulty" tags to all materials and items (once all the items are in the raws, anyway).  This would ensure that wooden beds remain easy to make (nod to Pilsu), while wooden crafts and rock furniture are chancier, and rock crafts are truly difficult.

[Pilsu]

On the other hand, while forgiving, working metal is hard enough to require actual training before you do it to any real degree


Hmm, perhaps lump it all together. People under proficient have a chance to botch their work and individual items and materials have challenge ratings influencing said chance. Combine it with a tutelage system so dwarves don't learn hard professions from scratch and skill actually starts meaning something. Individual skills would need different settings though if we're going for realism. For instance, cooking is pretty basic so you could learn it slowly on your own or from a book beyond some point. Advanced foodstuffs like alcohol and flour would have higher failure chances in their item raws. Knitting you can learn purely from books and practice and can't really destroy materials. Carpentry you could learn on your own up to say, novice and need tutelage to get to proficient. There'd be no failure chance for the simple things whereas barrels are easy to botch, as reflected by the challenge rating of the barrels. Stonecrafting, gem cutting etc would need to be taught from the get go and if you embark with a novice stonecrafter, he'd be at a significant disadvantage due to the nature of his materials and requirement for fine work

The embark skill costs and caps would need to be rebalanced though, otherwise players are just about forced to specialize some professions while neglecting others totally


Anyone who wants their novice dwarf to do flawless work could then mod their raws for it

[Footkerchief]

Hmm, perhaps lump it all together. People under proficient have a chance to botch their work and individual items and materials have challenge ratings influencing said chance. Combine it with a tutelage system so dwarves don't learn hard professions from scratch and skill actually starts meaning something. Individual skills would need different settings though if we're going for realism. For instance, cooking is pretty basic so you could learn it slowly on your own or from a book beyond some point. Advanced foodstuffs like alcohol and flour would have higher failure chances in their item raws. Knitting you can learn purely from books and practice and can't really destroy materials. Carpentry you could learn on your own up to say, novice and need tutelage to get to proficient. There'd be no failure chance for the simple things whereas barrels are easy to botch, as reflected by the challenge rating of the barrels. Stonecrafting, gem cutting etc would need to be taught from the get go and if you embark with a novice stonecrafter, he'd be at a significant disadvantage due to the nature of his materials and requirement for fine work

The embark skill costs and caps would need to be rebalanced though, otherwise players are just about forced to specialize some professions while neglecting others totally


Anyone who wants their novice dwarf to do flawless work could then mod their raws for it

I agree with all of this.  Hardcoded items like barrels, beds, etc. would have to get moved to the raws, but that's overdue anyway.

[mickel]

With some materials, like clay, it's possible at some stages to recover a mistake and try again, but if you fail when firing the piece, well, you fail. The material is ruined beyond recovery. It's harder to fail beyond recovery with metal since it can usually be smelted back down to whatever you started with, but not always. And if we're talking gem or stone cutting, or wood carving, then you have one attempt and then the material is ruined.

I'd say with very few exceptions that the only way to not ruin materials when crafting is to not craft at all. It applies in the real world and it doesn't make sense to me to not have it apply in DF as well.

[LegoLord]

Walkers point was that rng item failure would just make things take longer and not really add anything to the game.  The rng for craft quality does add to the game, because the resulting item is still usable no matter what; it will only affect value, which is not really something easily planned.  At all.

In short, random failure removes our ability to plan effectively.

And again, any dwarf can make an item that works, not works well.

[Eagle]

Just a short condensation from what ive read so far and my personal ideas:

1. Workshops should have a setting for speed/quality of work

2. Raw material should have "units" in it, with different items consuming different amounts of "units"
2a. The amount of units in a rock/tree/whatever could be influenced by the miner/woodcutter/etc
2b. Workshops should show how many units are left in it, and dwarves should attempt to finish using all the units before getting new material
2c. Any spare units left that cant be used for finishing an object can be stored in a bin/stockpile, and then later grabbed to finish something else
2d. Horribly mismade items can be broken down into a few spare units, then being stored/used again

3. The original starting seven, in addition to the skills you allocate them, should be able to do any job at slightly below dabbling, thanks to the pre-expedition guides/tests/lessons. If a dwarf showed proficiency in those tests, it could give them a free dabbling skill, as well as being mentioned in their profile. "This dwarf shows aptitude for < PROFESSION>."

4. Refuse might be generated from the epic failures, such as the shattering of a gem, but it might still be usable. For example, if a gem shatters, it could still be used as decoration. "This item glitters with shards of < GEM>."

5. Rough buildings shouldn't have a failure chance. If you're just stacking some blocks and cementing them together, or just laying down some planks for a rough floor, then you shouldn't fail. This might come into play once enemies can smash through (currently invincible) constructed walls.

6. The POW idea is intriguing. If some sort of interaction system is implemented, then i see some intresting options becoming available.
6a. If you have POW's, say, goblins, then you can force them to use the horrible failures of your trainee stonecrafters, such as mugs and bowls.
6b. On the other hand, if they behaved, then you might assign them better quality items. This option would be in the main menu, possibly under "Orders -> Prisoner Treatment".
6c. A masons or carpenters workshop could be built in your prison, then you could order goblins to carve out stone or wood blocks, which would take no skill, since they're just sawing/cutting stuff into cubes. (I know this isnt true in real life, its not that easy to get a good block with little effort, but this is DF, and the "no fail" setting applied to building rough buildings and making blocks should help a bit in training dwarves).
6d. If you treat your prisoners well enough, they may be motivated to work better/faster, and may even become better stonecrafters/woodworkers, eventually churning out better quality items. By extension, if they learn the trade well enough, and you treat them good enough, they might defect and join you, adding to your skilled workforce.

7. All crafting trades should have a couple "no fail" crafts, in order to help train. Examples: beds(just making rough planks attached to a couple supports, prisoner quality, can be improved with cloth/leather covers), blocks of any type(as you're just cutting stuff into cubes, see 6c), making coal into coke(yes, i realize that this actually involves careful monitoring of temperatures, but again, see 6c.), etc.


I realize that some of these suggestions are impractical and unrealistic, but hey, if a video game was completely realistic, why would we need real life? Anyways, thank you for reading and considering my suggestions, and thank you for posting the ideas that i shamelessly ripped off. 

[LegoLord]

You have completely ignored the counter arguments for failures, Eagle.  Random epic fails would be very, very, annoying, nothing else. 

Me:  "Alright, almost got enough mechanisms for this project."
Game:  "Urist McMechanic has failed to craft a mechanism."
Me:  "!#@$!!!  Now he's going to do a hauling job! "

As you said, it is a game, not real life.  We do not need fake difficulty legitimized by reality.

Also, can you imagine what a headache it would be if you had to organize resources down to the last pebble's worth of stone?  I know I don't want to do that.  Not to mention the hell it would play with FPS.

[irmo]

Just a short condensation from what ive read so far and my personal ideas:

1. Workshops should have a setting for speed/quality of work

Fail.