Print

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

[BlckKnght]

Here's what I don't get.  The suggestion is to add in something that adds a new layer of complexity to skills, but in a way that is subtle enough that people can just keep doing what they do now (i.e., set a dwarf to just do carpentry and leave it at that).  So what, precisely, is the point of it aside from eating up programming time?

I find myself pretty firmly in the more camp that says more complexity and realism is better. I understand that gameplay is critical to making the game fun, but a lot of the DF asthetic comes from the excessive amount of detail in the game (such as the number of different stones and types of wood).

I hope that as Toady One improves the interfaces, automation and overall speed of the game, he'll be able to add more items to the game to reflect the complex "reality" of a high-fantasy medieval society like the Dwarves have, without making the game harder for newbies (at least not harder than it already is).

The products that a cooper makes -- casks of various sizes (including barrels) and buckets -- all are constructed from staves and hoops. If the current game's hauling problems are resolved, I'd love for those to be separate items that would be made and used in the construction of a barrel.  So the construction of a barrel might work like this:

Tree => chopped down by a woodcutter => Logs
Log => cut at a sawmill or saw pit => many staves

(separately)
Mine wall => dug by miner => Ore
Ore => smelted at furnace => Metal Bars
Metal Bar => forged by smith => Barrel hoops

Staves + Hoop => constructed by cooper => Barrel or Bucket

Of course this series of "reactions" could be done by a carpenter rather than having a separate skill for coopers.  I don't have a strong opinion on adding the skill, or the need for skill synergies if we did.

[Hyndis]

Toady One can only program a finite amount of code.


What do you propose he cuts out of the game in order to put this into the game, a change that will have no noticeable gameplay effect?

Complex for complexity's sake and realism for realism's sake is bad game design. Everything put into a game or other program must have a purpose. Even the different types of wood and stone do have a purpose.

[Silverionmox]

Toady One can only program a finite amount of code.


What do you propose he cuts out of the game in order to put this into the game, a change that will have no noticeable gameplay effect?

Complex for complexity's sake and realism for realism's sake is bad game design. Everything put into a game or other program must have a purpose. Even the different types of wood and stone do have a purpose.

Leaving the skills as they are now is bad game design: a cumbersome list with no means of tweaking.
The different types of wood currently only matter for the preferences of dwarves, and yet there's nobody who complained about it as enforced micromanagement: because it can be ignored without grave consequences.

The following is a mockup how dividing skills in parts could work in practice:

The quality modifiers next to the skills indicate the average quality a dwarf produces, i.e. their skill level. Blue here is used as the colour to indicate that something is on, red forbidden. Dwarves would do any job that qualifies in all three columns.

[LegoLord]

Anyone have any ideas how the skills interface can be improved without increasing complexity?  'Cause it seems to me to make more sense to go in that direction, if at all possible.

[G-Flex]

a change that will have no noticeable gameplay effect

Complex for complexity's sake and realism for realism's sake is bad game design. Everything put into a game or other program must have a purpose. Even the different types of wood and stone do have a purpose.

You're sounding like you aren't even reading the posts that other people have written. These claims have been addressed multiple times, and it's not going to do anyone any good to continue to rehash the exact same points over and over just because people aren't bothering to attempt to understand them. People, including myself, have already stated what possible effects it could have, and what the purpose of them is. Saying it again won't help.

Anyone have any ideas how the skills interface can be improved without increasing complexity?  'Cause it seems to me to make more sense to go in that direction, if at all possible.

Easily. Right now, the skills are in a giant, haphazard list with absolutely no structure to it whatsoever. Simply grouping the skills in a reasonable fashion would help.

(picture)

I get what you're going for here, but not all processes make sense for all outputs or inputs, so a lot of the complexity there is just wasted; most combinations wind up being totally meaningless. There are also labors that don't have inputs, or don't have outputs, like, say, hunting. So basically, there's a lot of redundancy in that system, and the system still doesn't work for everything.

[Loyal]

I get what you're going for here, but not all processes make sense for all outputs or inputs, so a lot of the complexity there is just wasted; most combinations wind up being totally meaningless. There are also labors that don't have inputs, or don't have outputs, like, say, hunting. So basically, there's a lot of redundancy in that system, and the system still doesn't work for everything.

Could work if, instead of "input/process/output", you had "labor/material/object", where the content of the second and third columns dependent on the previous column's selection, if needed. So you could go for "Crafting/Wood/Mugs", or if Toady eventually allowed for it, "Stonecrafting/Obsidian/Toys" for instance. Some labors like Hunting wouldn't need a second or third column, and simply choosing "Hunting" in the first column would be sufficient.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I could certainly foresee telling my hunters what to hunt for to fill that second column.

[praguepride]

Actually, a complete tangent but I wouldn't be opposed to having a lumber workshop that refines chopped wood into lumber, similar to how stones can either be used as is or refined into stone blocks.

But back to this point: there is no point to this suggestion. I'll take a stab at repeating earlier arguements in a nicely formated post:

This suggestion results in either: superfluous code or forced annoying micromanagement


Forced Annoying Micromanagement: If this system is enforced, for example attributing HUGE penalties for going cross skills. Not just quality but actual penalties. Things like wasted resources, failure to produce a good, chance to blow up your workshop and/or injure your dwarf what will happen is that instead of just being able to broadly categorize 200 dwarves into X amount of jobs (X being masons, carpenters, weaponsmiths etc.) you will have to categorize 200 dwarves into X*Y jobs, Y being the # of "specializations". So instead of just having to deal with 40 carpenters, you have to deal with 10 barrel-makers, 10 furniture makers, 10 wooden block makers and 10 boat makers (you can fill these in with whatever kind of specializations you want).

So instead of just deciding to train a couple dwarves to be carpenters, you have to micromanage them to figure out what kind of carpenter they're going to be.

In a large fortress, if there isn't some huge outrageous penalty associated to this, people just aren't going to care.


Superfluous code: If the only downside is inferior qualities...I don't care, and I doubt most players will. When you're trying to juggle the macro tasks of resource collection, stomping bad guys, managing morale, managing nobles, mega-projects, I'm not going to care that the legendary barrel-maker dwarf is only making fine beds because I don't care about the quality of beds 99% of the time, I just need a bed to put in a dwarf's room so they can sleep.

If you make the arguement about "room quality" I'll respond that engraving & artifacts do far more then a masterpiece bed vs. a fine quality bed.

As for quality of barrels...it doesn't matter. Unless quality has more associated to it then just costs, I don't care about quality for 99% of what I do. The only in-game effect of quality that has any bearing on anything is quality of weapons & armor. That does have a noticable impact. Everything else... well I guess I'll just shove two statues into that nobles room instead of one because they're lower quality...big whoop!


Realism Factor: So, if the system doesn't force players to micromanage crafting jobs, and the actual impact is minimal to none, the ONLY reason to include this is because it makes things "more realistic". And we're not talking about realistic like how fluids should behave more appropriately for gravity, we're saying more realistic even though the end result is the same.

This exact same system could be emulated by just custom naming your dwarves "Cooper" or "Furniture Maker" and custom selecting workshops to only use certain dwarves. So the workshop you've dedicated to barrel making is only usable by coopers.

There you go, realism achieved with the exact same impact on the game and without Toady spending time from other more important tasks that actually impact gameplay, like magic, overland armies, and fixing the physics engine

[Silverionmox]

Micromanagement: It doesn't need to be forced, and I haven't seen anyone suggesting that either. People would have the option to specialize (or the option to make that impact more pronounced in the raws).

Superfluous code: Wasting coding time is an argument that could be used against every single suggestion ever made here, so how relevant is it? It's up to Toady to decide whether coding a specific version of it would take too much time (he included burrows on a whim in a few days, after all). That's why this is a suggestion forum.

Realism factor: The realism is not entirely in having dwarves named "cooper" etc., but in having their different past affects their current abilities. Likewise, restricting them to cooping only makes sense if that affects the quality of the output.

Let me field some counterpoints then:
- Player choice: subskills still allow people to use general categories, but broad skills don't allow meaningful specialization.

- Playing style: you may not care about quality, other people do. Let them have their fun.

- Something has to happen with skills, job permissions, material permissions, skill level display and job priorities. This is far from an otherwise useless expansion.

[G-Flex]

Forced Annoying Micromanagement: If this system is enforced, for example attributing HUGE penalties for going cross skills. Not just quality but actual penalties.

I certainly didn't suggest this, and it's definitely not necessary.

So instead of just having to deal with 40 carpenters, you have to deal with 10 barrel-makers, 10 furniture makers, 10 wooden block makers and 10 boat makers (you can fill these in with whatever kind of specializations you want).

I've already stated why this is not necessary.

In a large fortress, if there isn't some huge outrageous penalty associated to this, people just aren't going to care.

Something doesn't have to huge gigantic, outstanding consequences in order for it to matter. Much of the game is composed of small things, not big things, and this will be more and more true as time goes on. This is true of plenty of emergent systems, like, say, real life. You don't need outrageous bullshit like "your dwarf BLOWS UP if he's not good enough at BARRELS" in order for this kind of stuff to matter.

Superfluous code: If the only downside is inferior qualities...I don't care, and I doubt most players will. When you're trying to juggle the macro tasks of resource collection, stomping bad guys, managing morale, managing nobles, mega-projects, I'm not going to care that the legendary barrel-maker dwarf is only making fine beds because I don't care about the quality of beds 99% of the time, I just need a bed to put in a dwarf's room so they can sleep.

If you make the arguement about "room quality" I'll respond that engraving & artifacts do far more then a masterpiece bed vs. a fine quality bed.

Room quality being too easy to achieve is a problem, not the way things should work. Besides, why are you handpicking your examples like that? Do you not care about the quality of, say, weapons either?

Plus, I've already made arguments against this line of thinking that I don't feel like reiterating, but here's the short version: A game meant to simulate fantasy worlds on DF's ideal level of detail requires micro-level detail about individual creatures and such, and there's more to the game than just Fortress Mode.

As for quality of barrels...it doesn't matter. Unless quality has more associated to it then just costs, I don't care about quality for 99% of what I do. The only in-game effect of quality that has any bearing on anything is quality of weapons & armor. That does have a noticable impact. Everything else... well I guess I'll just shove two statues into that nobles room instead of one because they're lower quality...big whoop!

What makes you think this should be the case, or always will be? Quality of all items should matter, so we should be thinking of this with that in mind. You might as well argue that quality of items in general shouldn't exist, because it doesn't matter enough at the moment. The fact is that it obviously should matter how well-made things in general are, and the fact that it doesn't is a problem to be solved. You can't judge the quality of a suggestion based on how the game currently works when the relevant factors of how it currently works are clearly flawed and desire fixing.

Do I have to point you to my previous posts? Again? This is the suggestions forum. We're pointing out things that we'd like to see in the game, and the reasons why. If these suggestions require something else in the game to be fixed, all that means is something else in the game needs fixing. In other words, you aren't pointing out something bad about the suggestion, you're just pointing out a different suggestion that would need to implemented alongside it, and which very likely will be at some point.

Realism Factor: So, if the system doesn't force players to micromanage crafting jobs, and the actual impact is minimal to none, the ONLY reason to include this is because it makes things "more realistic". And we're not talking about realistic like how fluids should behave more appropriately for gravity, we're saying more realistic even though the end result is the same.

No, we're not, because you're making a lot of god-awful assumptions that I've already argued against. The impact would be significant (especially in certain contexts), although not necessarily huge (they don't all need to be, and not every impact of a system should be huge in the first place, as I've stated). So no, the end result is not the same. Sorry.

This exact same system could be emulated by just custom naming your dwarves "Cooper" or "Furniture Maker" and custom selecting workshops to only use certain dwarves. So the workshop you've dedicated to barrel making is only usable by coopers.

No. Stop it. See what I've already stated. There would be an impact.


You're making a lot of tired arguments, again, without even taking into account what people have said before. Are you even trying to be reasonable here?

[praguepride]

Let me field some counterpoints then:
- Player choice: subskills still allow people to use general categories, but broad skills don't allow meaningful specialization.

- Playing style: you may not care about quality, other people do. Let them have their fun.

- Something has to happen with skills, job permissions, material permissions, skill level display and job priorities. This is far from an otherwise useless expansion.

My counter points to your counterpoints:
#1 - you're right. Your system would allow people to easily ignore it. Again I bring up the point of "if it's so easy to ignore, should it be in the game?"

#2 - again, if people want to spend their time micormanaging something that doesn't have an impact, I can't argue what is and isn't "fun" for them...

#3 - I agree. Skills need to be worked on. As I've said before though, this proposal of "subskills" is not the right way to approach it, in my mind. At the moment, I don't have a better idea nor have I read to many ideas about tackling skills that are on the right track. The current system may not be the best, but it might be the best that we can manage for awhile. Perhaps when other features open up new aspects of the game, skills can be re-addressed in a more meaningful way.

Forced Annoying Micromanagement: If this system is enforced, for example attributing HUGE penalties for going cross skills. Not just quality but actual penalties.

I certainly didn't suggest this, and it's definitely not necessary.

Nobody said you did, but I was just pointing out what would happen if you did make the impact of subskills large enough to actually alter a player's style. It would be a nightmare as you pointed out. So the flipside of having it impact a player's playstyle is to not impact a player's playstyle. So just to clarify, you're proposing an idea that would have no real impact on play...

So instead of just having to deal with 40 carpenters, you have to deal with 10 barrel-makers, 10 furniture makers, 10 wooden block makers and 10 boat makers (you can fill these in with whatever kind of specializations you want).

I've already stated why this is not necessary.

So why do you feel the point of splitting this up into seperate responses instead of just logically grouping them together and responding in one section?

In a large fortress, if there isn't some huge outrageous penalty associated to this, people just aren't going to care.

Something doesn't have to huge gigantic, outstanding consequences in order for it to matter. Much of the game is composed of small things, not big things, and this will be more and more true as time goes on. This is true of plenty of emergent systems, like, say, real life. You don't need outrageous bullshit like "your dwarf BLOWS UP if he's not good enough at BARRELS" in order for this kind of stuff to matter.

But there needs to be an impact. If poorly skilled workers had a chance to NOT produce a good even though a resource was used, why is that so preposterous? Compared to the current system where the only main difference is cost multipliers, having a chance to waste resources is a pretty major change and would drastically alter player gameplay.

Superfluous code: If the only downside is inferior qualities...I don't care, and I doubt most players will. When you're trying to juggle the macro tasks of resource collection, stomping bad guys, managing morale, managing nobles, mega-projects, I'm not going to care that the legendary barrel-maker dwarf is only making fine beds because I don't care about the quality of beds 99% of the time, I just need a bed to put in a dwarf's room so they can sleep.

If you make the arguement about "room quality" I'll respond that engraving & artifacts do far more then a masterpiece bed vs. a fine quality bed.

Room quality being too easy to achieve is a problem, not the way things should work. Besides, why are you handpicking your examples like that? Do you not care about the quality of, say, weapons either?

Plus, I've already made arguments against this line of thinking that I don't feel like reiterating, but here's the short version: A game meant to simulate fantasy worlds on DF's ideal level of detail requires micro-level detail about individual creatures and such, and there's more to the game than just Fortress Mode.

So BEFORE skills can be addressed, you're saying that room quality needs to be altered? I was just using a simple example to explain my point. My point was that for most players, quality only comes into play in three things: combat, noble room requirements, trading.

This suggestion of woodwoorking and coopering does not involve combat. Wood isn't a valuable trade item, and noble room requirements for woodworking (i.e. a bed), there is little difference between a regular bed and a masterpiece bed compared to a high value object like a statue. Heck I think a bland stone statue has higher cost then a masterwork bed...

As for quality of barrels...it doesn't matter. Unless quality has more associated to it then just costs, I don't care about quality for 99% of what I do. The only in-game effect of quality that has any bearing on anything is quality of weapons & armor. That does have a noticable impact. Everything else... well I guess I'll just shove two statues into that nobles room instead of one because they're lower quality...big whoop!

What makes you think this should be the case, or always will be? Quality of all items should matter, so we should be thinking of this with that in mind. You might as well argue that quality of items in general shouldn't exist, because it doesn't matter enough at the moment. The fact is that it obviously should matter how well-made things in general are, and the fact that it doesn't is a problem to be solved. You can't judge the quality of a suggestion based on how the game currently works when the relevant factors of how it currently works are clearly flawed and desire fixing.

Blah blah blah more nit picking and odd groupings.

Let me sum up my points:

1) This system that is proposed is highly flawed.
2) I am not saying that the current skill system is THE END ALL BEST THAT THERE CAN EVER BE! I am saying that the system(s) proposed in this thread do not make sense.
3) You've mentioned several other items that need to be fixed. Things like Item Quality Impact, room requirements being too easy etc. etc. before your idea would have merit. So why don't you work on hammering out those issues first


I've been thinking about handling the "skills" issue and I think the main problem isn't the skills itself, but what the skills actually do. As mentioned, except in a few small areas (namely armor & weapons) item quality has no impact other then "value." Better quality doors aren't more durable or harder for thieves to bypass then inferior doors. Higher quality beds don't provide better sleep or healing then poor quality beds etc.

So as it stands, given the flawed environment around skills, I don't see skills as being broken...yet. When item quality has a higher impact then it currently does. When resource gathering is more engaging nad challenging then it already is. When the game actually makes it worth my time to worry about which dwarf is doing which task, THEN I'd agree that skills need to be changed. Hell, then this sub skill system might make more sense or an even better idea might become obvious.

But until then, as I said, this idea has little merit. I'm not saying you should never come up with another idea again, in fact I'm advocating the opposite. Go back to the drawing board and try again. Try tackling the problem from a different perspective.

I'd suggest looking at how the current skill system actually detracts from the gameplay. Don't throw around terms like "realism", look at the actual in-game effect of skills. The advantages of the current system has been addressed. Because item quality doesn't matter, it's very easy to just throw dwarves at jobs and get output.

So where is the current system lacking? Is it in logical groupings? (Like why is carpenter, mason, and other crafting skills abstracted to such a high degree and yet social skills are highly specialized?) Is it in UI (as mentioned before just logically grouping them on the list would make it easier to naviagte?

Or is it just in "the realism" aspect?

edit: Let me go further to expand upon why the system proposed is flawed:

1) Subskills are highly debatable. What was proposed has been either splitting up jobs by items (why is a cabinet different then a chest?) or by classical historical jobs (which are confusing and dependent by region and time period. People were making barrels long before specialized coopers became the only people who knew how to make barrels.

2) Synergies are debatable: Why would making a toy goblet allow you to make stone doors? The size and scale difference are HUGE. And synergy by item are again debatable. A stone cabinet and a wood cabinet deal with very different issues. I'd say telling an expert carpenter to make a stone cabinet would be just as effective as telling an untrained person to make a stone cabinet (as long as they know what a cabinet IS ).

[Atanamis]

I think we should just have a skill labeled "Morul" that let's you do ANYTHING, and is always at legendary status. That way, you never have to figure out where your weaponsmith is to make a weapon, or where your champion is to send him into battle. You can just pick any dwarf at random, and do whatever you want. This ridiculous level of "realism" where you have to find the right dwarf for a skill is a burden on players. There also should be a button that lets you kill anything at will, and another that lets you resurrect anything.

Having a dedicated cooper skill really doesn't seem like a bad idea. It is VERY EASY to max out skills in DF, to the point that Murul was able to reach legendary in every single skill (except lying). It would take a pretty low level of effort to have your carpenter (or soaper, if you prefer) learn a couple skill levels. If we were going to do this though, we'd need to model the skill as more than a single item role. Actual coopers made Today, coopers are often called "barrel makers," but a barrel is only one kind of cask, one made by what was known as a "tight cooper." Other casks included the firkin, kilderkin, hogshead, butt, rundlet, tierce, puncheon, and pipe. I think there is definitely no need to differentiate the types of cooper, but having different types of casks could be nice. It would definitely help if you could designate that food goes in "slack" containers while alcohol goes in "tight" ones.

I have a really hard time seeing how this would significantly complicate anyone's game, and if dissenters have that much trouble getting a dwarf to a competent level of skill in a readily practiced industry, they really should consider playing an easier game. That said, this is Toady's game, and it is his decision what goes in and what doesn't. You've expressed your disagreement now stop spamming the thread.

[praguepride]

On an unrelated note, I just realized something. Dwarves dont' build barrels, they build hollowed out stumps

A barrel requires some kind of hoop to hold it together. I think dwarves just cut a log, hollow it out, perhaps put some kind of substance inside to make it watertight, and then just cut a cap to fit on it. Definitely not the way a proper barrel should be built, but it'd explain why you can build a barrel without building hoops and other stuff.

If that's the case, if dwarves are making very crude levels of barrels, then that'd be an excellent reason why we don't need coopering as coopering has little if anything to do with creating a dwarf barrel. IF that's how they make barrels, of course.

[Hyndis]

Of course dwarves don't build barrels. They are just really huge mugs that contain booze.

Do you ever see a dwarf pick up a cup or goblet to drink the booze from? Nope! They just pick up that big honking huge thing of booze and drink straight from it.

[Atanamis]

And for dwarves, maybe that's all we need to have. I would think that humans and other races should have the ability to make true barrels though, perhaps with the requirement for hoops to be made first.