Print

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

[Albedo]

(Posted this elsewhere, as a response to another topic - though it might be worth its own topic.)

I'm starting to believe that, on a game map (or perhaps a world "Region"), area blocks aren't actually, purely random as to what ore and gems they have.  Instead, nearby area blocks tend to mirror each other in terms of what ores and gems they have, or which are predominantly found.

So, let's say your map is 6x6, and has 5 layers of granite across the whole - 180 area blocks worth of granite layers.  By the raw's, you might expect to find all of the following, at least somewhere on your map:
    *  Native gold
    * Native silver
    * Horn silver
    * Galena
    * Cassiterite
    * Tetrahedrite
    * Bismuthinite

Plus a full spectrum of gems.

But that's rarely (never?) the case.

What seems to happen, is one ore or gem is dominant, and others lacking entirely.  If the map has cassiterite in more than one or two blocks, then get ready for lots of cassiterite, more than you'd ever want - and not as much of anything else.  On the other hand, if you've explored 20 blocks and found no tetrahedrite, then suck it up, this area just doesn't have tetrahedrite, or not very effin much, regardless of what you might expect from the stone layers.

Too many maps I've seen "GOLD!" and then on maps with the same layers... bupkiss, across 6x6 and many layers thick.  And if you find moss agate or pineapple opal or whatever, get ready for more - lots more, even if any/every other opal or agate sub-type "should" be there.  I think the game mechanism grabs a "seed", one favored ore and/or gem (or a few), and weights those over others for the area during world gen.  It's why some maps have rock crystals everywhere, and some have none.  Why some maps have no copper or iron, or coal, or bauxite, even when you'd expect them to (or hope). How civilizations differ, instead of being generic from an inevitable bell curve of minerals present in every block.

Not 100% sure of this theory, but it's growing the more maps I see.

Anyone else see this, or think this is an unjustified conclusion?  I'm not convinced one way or the other, so speak up either way, just looking for more input.

[Bricks]

Sounds like some serious testing has to be done before this is all confirmed, but it could very well be the case.  If it is true, I think it is cooler, but it also means we need a better way to analyze layers on embark.

[Holy Mittens]

I would agree that your comments mirror my observations as well. However, it really is all anecdotal with no real statistics backing it up.

[smjjames]

In other words, it seems to be mimicking real geological proccesses in which some ores are more common in one area, but scarce in others.

I haven't been real observant with this, but sometimes I see that an area can be pretty scarce in resources or scarce in some ore and sometimes you hit the motherlode.

Some while ago, I had a map that had limestone or chalk which had about 6 or more magnetite clusters in a dense narrow area over a few layers. Similar for gems, each area seems to have some particular 'species' (or a few 'species') of gem which are common, but rarer in other places even though its the same rock.

It's not confined to ores either, although microcline and orthoclase always seem to be hyperabundant or very abundant wherever they are found.

Edit: Also, since tetrahedrite is found in many different layer rocks (the most by far I think), there may always be a few somewhere.

EDIT!: I just realized of a way to analyze layers on embark. I've found that using visual fortress and the reveal tool reveals the entire thing and you can look at entire layers from a distance. Only problem though is that some rock types are hard to distingush from others.

[Albedo]

I would agree that your comments mirror my observations as well. However, it really is all anecdotal with no real statistics backing it up.

Right there with ya.  I'm worried that I'm projecting, seeing what I want to see - and possibly inviting same, from those (few) who've seen likewise. But if true, it would explain a lot of (repeatedly) observed quirks.

Meanwhile, this is how something might get started, if we can at least get an "anecdotal" consensus.  We'll see who else has what to say on the matter.

[smjjames]

Well, Microcline and Orthoclase seem to occupy almost every 48x48 region tile when they do show up. Sometimes they are slightly less common, but still abundant. Same is true for alunite.

On the scale of most common rocks/ores other than layer stones, Microcline and Orthclase are pretty much on the top of the list, or among the top 5.

[Albedo]

Those are all "other stones", found in large clusters mid-block - I'm mainly talking about veins (ores) and small clusters (gems & etc.).

[Skorpion]

This is definetly something I've seen. On many occasions.

However, you must remember that worlds in DF are generated realistically. Not to the point of slamming rocks together, but erosion and volcanoes and so forth are simulated.

[(name here)]

I've noticed similar, though i don't have much to go by.

[Albedo]

However, you must remember that worlds in DF are generated realistically.

Exactly - I'm not surprised (or, if so, pleasantly), but it's not as purely random as one* might at first assume.  And as the wiki might lead one to believe.

(like, oh, perhaps me, for instance.  )

[XSI]

I'm seeing from my own experiences that this seems to be true, certain kinds of ores/gems tend to be in the same area, and it is not at all spread out evenly. I think it's a good thing, but that might be because my 10x10 embarks tend to just have a lot of everything anyway, and I rarely even notice if one kind of ore isn't there a lot, while I can know where in the embark to dig for what ores after some exploration.

My experience shows that with a 10x10 embark, the south part(Or whatever other direction) seems to always have differences in ore frequency compared to the opposite part, some maps have it more then others.

[Grendus]

(Posted this elsewhere, as a response to another topic - though it might be worth its own topic.)

I'm starting to believe that, on a game map (or perhaps a world "Region"), area blocks aren't actually, purely random as to what ore and gems they have.  Instead, nearby area blocks tend to mirror each other in terms of what ores and gems they have, or which are predominantly found.

So, let's say your map is 6x6, and has 5 layers of granite across the whole - 180 area blocks worth of granite layers.  By the raw's, you might expect to find all of the following, at least somewhere on your map:
    *  Native gold
    * Native silver
    * Horn silver
    * Galena
    * Cassiterite
    * Tetrahedrite
    * Bismuthinite

Plus a full spectrum of gems.

But that's rarely (never?) the case.

What seems to happen, is one ore or gem is dominant, and others lacking entirely.  If the map has cassiterite in more than one or two blocks, then get ready for lots of cassiterite, more than you'd ever want - and not as much of anything else.  On the other hand, if you've explored 20 blocks and found no tetrahedrite, then suck it up, this area just doesn't have tetrahedrite, or not very effin much, regardless of what you might expect from the stone layers.

Too many maps I've seen "GOLD!" and then on maps with the same layers... bupkiss, across 6x6 and many layers thick.  And if you find moss agate or pineapple opal or whatever, get ready for more - lots more, even if any/every other opal or agate sub-type "should" be there.  I think the game mechanism grabs a "seed", one favored ore and/or gem (or a few), and weights those over others for the area during world gen.  It's why some maps have rock crystals everywhere, and some have none.  Why some maps have no copper or iron, or coal, or bauxite, even when you'd expect them to (or hope). How civilizations differ, instead of being generic from an inevitable bell curve of minerals present in every block.

Not 100% sure of this theory, but it's growing the more maps I see.

Anyone else see this, or think this is an unjustified conclusion?  I'm not convinced one way or the other, so speak up either way, just looking for more input.

.....

I thought that was either intended or well known. Otherwise we'd always be finding magnetite veins on flux maps, random chance says that at least one of those cluster stones would have to be magnetite unless the map was incapable of having that particular (godlike) metal.

I guess I always assumed this to be the case. Makes for some interesting maps, though it's frustrating when you run reveal and see that your map has bupkiss on iron and limited amounts of copper (though there's cassiterite coming out my friggin ears, looks like bronze armor and fine pewter trade goods).

[Bjiip]

More anecdotal stuff:

I recall reading somewhere that on generation the game picks 36 stone/gem types and then populates the rest of the world with them.  Microcline and certain gems that appear in all layers are heavily over-represented because they always have a changed to be picked, leaving things like rock crystal out in the cold.

For this reason, I'm thinking of doing some condensing for my next fortress- maybe removing a few unremarkable rocks, condensing gems down to 1 type of opal and 1 type of tourmaline, etc.

[DeathOfRats]

I think it's a good thing, but that might be because my 10x10 embarks tend to just have a lot of everything anyway,

my 10x10 embarks

 

Dude, what do you play DF on, a supercomputer?

[Neruz]

I think it's a good thing, but that might be because my 10x10 embarks tend to just have a lot of everything anyway,

my 10x10 embarks

 

Dude, what do you play DF on, a supercomputer?

A decent 3+ GHZ core can take a 10x10 embark in it's stride. If you're clever and have a Dual or more you can assign DF to an unused core and get maximum bang for your buck.