Print

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

[praguepride]

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.

It all makes perfect sense!

[NW_Kohaku]

Ahh... dragging myself back into this argument.

OK, since two pages have gone by since I last read any of this, forgive me if I don't drown everyone in massive cascades of quotes that only give me headaches trying to format.  I don't think too many of you will be offended by that...

G-Flex:

If I am repeating what I say, it's not because you haven't answered the questions I raise, it's because you haven't answered them to my satisfaction.  You're simply not convincing me this is something that would raise the enjoyment anyone gets out of the game.

You say that you want to make it so that nobody is forced to care.  (Keep in mind that you can't say "it just means you don't get bonuses", as that's a lie, not getting a reward is the same as being directly punished for all intents and purposes.)  If that is so, then it means that the system is ignorable, and many people on this thread have expressed that they would rather just ignore such a thing.

You say that the reason we should care is that it "individualizes" dwarves.  You say that measuring pupil sizes also individualize dwarves. 

Here's why those answers don't satisfy the question: How often do you really measure a person by their iris size?  Would you really consider two people unique and different if the only difference between those two people are slight differences in eye color or shape?  For that matter, what about if two carpenters were basically the same, except that one had made more beds?  These are just numbers, they aren't personality.  This is exactly why I say that this "individualism" can be matched with a simple scorecard of what dwarves have constructed - it holds the same exact data, with the same impact on how people play.

Rather than distinguishing dwaves by eye size or craft_barrel_count, there are about a hundred better ways to personalize dwarves.  As it already stands, the single most readily apparent difference between any one dwarf and another is already their skill/occupation.  (It is the sole determinate of the color they have, which is the way of distinguishing one from another without cursoring over them.)  Meanwhile, I am suggesting, as a potential alternative means of individualizing dwarves, that dwarves have preferred hobbies, sports, and means of decorating their homes, as well as potentially dividing them by social class.  (Happy, Neek?)

If the only reason we should be wanting to go through making a set of sub-skills is to differintiate dwarves, I don't see this as being a particularly good way of doing it.

If the reason we should be coming up with ways to differentiate dwarves is because that is the way that Toady wants to go (and isn't the purpose of a Suggestion box/thread to suggest doing things that people AREN'T thinking of doing?) then I would think that the sheer fact that, unlike, say, farming improvements, where people agree more complexity is welcome, but disagree on implimentation, the sheer contentiousness over the very notion that this skill system should exist at all, much less what it should look like, would send Toady onto other means of achieving his desired effect.



Silverionmox:

There is a reason why I am avoiding addressing your interface suggestion: It is ultimately not relevant to the main point that I am trying to make.  You seem to want to sell us on a system, and an interface.  You're trying to make a sales pitch on how easy-to-use your system will be, which tangentially intigrates a multi-layered skill system. 

The problem with this is we still aren't convinced that such a skill system is a good idea.  This is like trying to convince us to buy your particular jet ski because its maintainance is much more economical and requires less time when we, the customer, don't really think they want to go to the beach for at least the next few years.  You're missing the critical step that would make your interface matter.

You really seem to want to sell this interface, whether it has that skill system intigrated into it or not, so I think it would probably be best to just make your own suggestion thread about this, because it's obviously completely outside the bounds of what everyone else is describing in anything but maybe the "Total Interface Overhaul" thread or the like.  I know it's a little late to talk about the original intent of this thread, but this is nowhere even close.



BlckKnght:

(Sorry, I know that this first part doesn't really apply to what you said exactly, but it segues into something I feel needs more harping...)

There's a problem in dealing with something being "realistic" with skills.  That is, we're using experience points.  When was the last time that you declared that you would grind out math textbooks until you could see that you had "competent" in your algebra skill?  A skill system is always going to be abstracted no matter what people do, because it really can never perfectly match the true way that people learn.  It's just a matter of how abstracted it becomes.

If someone says that "realistic is better", it's valid to ask "why?"  There are often good answers to that why, but I'm not seeing one in this thread yet.

As for making the process of barrel-making more time consuming, I'm ambivalent.  I like the idea that the barrel-making process is split up into steps that more accurately reflect the actual process of making a barrel on its face.

I have misgivings, however, in that we would first need a way of making those metal hoops take less than a full bar, unless we are willing to really cut into our barrel-making capacity on some maps.  It also raises the problem of making anvils virtually impossible to leave behind on embark, which may upset other players.  This also makes the barrel-making process much more complex, and (given hauling times), likely take longer, as well.  Barrels are some of the most basic items, alongside bags, doors, or bins, of which you will want to churn out virtually infinite numbers to supply your fort.  Simple, building-block items should hopefully be kept more simple than more complex and sophisticated items, like full plate mail. Finally, in the way that barrels, and most objects in general, are made, this would have little apparent effect on the process (excepting the need to have a process for splitting wood, and needing to haul in those hoops).



Atanamis:

Sarcasm? On MY Internet?

As much as the conversation has drifted far, FAR away from the original intent of this thread, it is not my intent to say that less skills inherently mean better, either.  It is that we are dealing with an abstract system, and that skills should be kept to those which are meaningful (*caugh* lye maker *caugh*) and logical divisions of dwarven labor, which are reasonable facsimilies of division of labor and the result of training on the job.  Any extreme is absurd.

... Taking a look back, I don't think I ever actually weighed in on the original idea of coopers, since I arrived so late that it was already thoroughly derailed.

In essence, no, I don't think that coopers quite deserve an entirely seperate job JUST for barrels (or barrels and buckets), especially since people tend to move away from using wood, anyway, however I wouldn't be too terribly upset if you gave a good reason for more products to be put in under the same blanket skill, or even a seperate workshop.

That said, as long as barrels are an absolutely critical lynchpin of fortress sustainability, I would rather barrels not get too complicated.  As it stands, barrels are required for making alcohol, processing plants, storing seeds, crops, and generally are used in anything related to food or farms.  A lack of barrels can kill a fort, so it's not the sort of thing people can ignore, so care should be taken to ensure it can operate fairly well without player intervention.

(Although more complex barrels would make glazing earthware jugs more reasonable.)

[BlckKnght]

If someone says that "realistic is better", it's valid to ask "why?"  There are often good answers to that why, but I'm not seeing one in this thread yet.

Thanks for the well reasoned and generally non-flaming reply!  I've hacked out a few small quotes to reply to. Lets see if we can't get this thread back on track a bit.

In essence, no, I don't think that coopers quite deserve an entirely seperate job JUST for barrels (or barrels and buckets), especially since people tend to move away from using wood, anyway, however I wouldn't be too terribly upset if you gave a good reason for more products to be put in under the same blanket skill, or even a seperate workshop.

That said, as long as barrels are an absolutely critical lynchpin of fortress sustainability, I would rather barrels not get too complicated.  As it stands, barrels are required for making alcohol, processing plants, storing seeds, crops, and generally are used in anything related to food or farms.  A lack of barrels can kill a fort, so it's not the sort of thing people can ignore, so care should be taken to ensure it can operate fairly well without player intervention.

I agree with you that adding realism for realism's sake isn't the way to go.  I think what I really like about DF though is the game's willingness to deal with high complexity.  Why not have dozens of kinds of rock and wood?  Why not have three different iron ores?  The (excessive?) level of detail is a lot of the charm of the game.  DF may have ASCII graphics, but it's materials are more diverse than most AAA games where resources tend to be more like "wood", "stone" and "gold".

It is in that spirit that I think other bits of realistic detail -- like coopering being a fairly well separated branch of woodworking -- can add fun to the game.  Oops, you forgot to bring a supply of barrel hoops with you on embark.  I hope you can reuse the barrels you brought until the next caravan brings you an anvil! 

(Although more complex barrels would make glazing earthware jugs more reasonable.)

Yep, that's exactly the sort of thinking I like! 

I won't deny that adding complexity to the game can cause trouble.  I just feel confident that Toady One can make interface and automation improvements that can keep the micromanagement from getting out of control.  I just wrote a bit about this on the (similarly derailed) thread about dividing up forging based on temperature.

[NW_Kohaku]

Another thing I would like to avoid, however, is also the idea that lack of a single thing can crush a fortress...

In that high-temperature kiln thread, I have been heavily exploring the idea of making roundabout ways of producing the same or similar materials out of a larger variety of goods.

I remember seeing something in the Mods section where even processing basic iron would now take flux.  Such a mod would essentially make it FAR more difficult than it already is to play in a flux-less map.  Frankly, people already have a mentality of "Sand or GTFO" just because of glass mandates or moods.  This helps ensure "flux or GTFO"... plus many players have "Magma or GTFO".

I'd rather pull away from making increases in complexity or detail force every player to play in Dwarf Heaven.

Making coopering a detailed process? OK.  Essentially just throwing out another stumbling block that can kill a young fortress simply because it's "fun" to laugh at a mistake you only ever make once, not so much.

There comes a point that it becomes something like one of those old Sierra games where you can make the game unwinnable because of something that you couldn't possibly have known without either playing through (and losing) before, or just outright cheating... and then having the game berate you for "cheating", when it was the only way to play the game in the first place.

[Dvergar]

Frankly, people already have a mentality of "Sand or GTFO" just because of glass mandates or moods.  This helps ensure "flux or GTFO"... plus many players have "Magma or GTFO".

I have: terrifying, woodless, waterless, sandless, magmaless, trapless, marksdwarfless, and moatless or GTFO 

On topic though, I personally believe that maybe we are verging on the edge of splitting hairs by subdividing skills, but overall, in this kind of game, the bigger the better.  Increasing the number of skills/professions makes the game more complex and deep.  Plus dividing the skills along rational lines would make sense.  There is no reason to force the player to micromanage uneccisarily, which is where skill synergy comes in.

[praguepride]

You know what would make the game MORE deep? More z-levels


Pointless redundancy != depth

Needless complexity != depth

Complexity that actually adds to and improves gameplay = deep

[G-Flex]

You're simply not convincing me this is something that would raise the enjoyment anyone gets out of the game.

There have been at least a few people here (as well as certainly a few on the IRC channel, where I've talked about this) who already said they would. I just don't think you grasp why.

You say that you want to make it so that nobody is forced to care.  (Keep in mind that you can't say "it just means you don't get bonuses", as that's a lie, not getting a reward is the same as being directly punished for all intents and purposes.)  If that is so, then it means that the system is ignorable, and many people on this thread have expressed that they would rather just ignore such a thing.

I don't know what you mean by this. You aren't "forced to care" in the sense that the difference wouldn't be earth-shatteringly significant; that doesn't mean it wouldn't be significant.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "bonuses". Anything I've considered just has dwarves (and other intelligent creatures) specializing a bit more, or has more skills with greater links between them. This is no more about "bonuses" or "penalties" than the current skill system. It would work on similar principles; you do things, you get better at doing that thing. The difference is that the definition of "thing" is just a bit more granular. Yes, this makes it irritating if a dwarf who's made 1,000 cabinets but no coffers can't make a coffer to save his life, which is a drawback of having more granular skill sets in the first place. This is why people are suggesting hierarchical skills, or skill synergies; it would be more fair than the current system. It makes sense for someone to specialize in cabinets if he's worked on those more than anything else, but it also makes sense for that experience to go towards making similar things, like other furniture of that material. This, in concept, is more flexible than the system we have now, where skill levels never affect other skill levels no matter how related they could be said to be (spend your whole life in the current version of DF making metal furniture, toys, chains, weapons, jewelry, and studding objects with the stuff, and you still won't be any better at making armor out of it, which is silly; you should at least get some sort of head start).

The key is, when you have more-specific yet related skills, is to make sure that they affect each other in a reasonable sense (using one skill should help you out with another skill to some degree, depending on how similar the skillset is), while still allowing for enough specialization to be realistic and flesh out the skills a bit.

You say that the reason we should care is that it "individualizes" dwarves.  You say that measuring pupil sizes also individualize dwarves.

I never mentioned pupil sizes; you did. Yes, it's one of the more mundane examples, but the amount of work that goes into including that level of detail is extremely small considering the rest of what Toady's been doing. I'm honestly not sure I remember pupil size specifically being in the new raws/descriptions, but hey, if you can correct me on that, go ahead.

Here's why those answers don't satisfy the question: How often do you really measure a person by their iris size?  Would you really consider two people unique and different if the only difference between those two people are slight differences in eye color or shape?

No, but that will never be the case. Many of the differences between individuals are composed of minute details. Things like how deeply-set someone's eyes are, or how thin their lips are, or how splayed-out their ears are never will be the aesthetic measure of a person when taken individually (unless maybe we're talking political cartoon caricatures), but the amalgamation of them does.

For that matter, what about if two carpenters were basically the same, except that one had made more beds?  These are just numbers, they aren't personality. This is exactly why I say that this "individualism" can be matched with a simple scorecard of what dwarves have constructed - it holds the same exact data, with the same impact on how people play.

Not necessarily, because a "scorecard" doesn't actually do anything. Telling the player "this dwarf has made a billion beds!" doesn't mean much if he's not actually any better at it. You're right that it's "just numbers", but this is a video game. Everything is numbers, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say by that. The point is that creatures being able to specialize in a relatively specific job is interesting, and there's no reason to assume that it would be completely inconsequential or force players to micromanage stuff more than they want to. A player could have a dwarf work exclusively on barrels his entire life and have some really damn good barrels at the expense of that dwarf doing other work quite as well, or he could have carpenters generalize more, such that he doesn't have to rely on individual specialists quite as much.

Also, there's the fact that some notion of interrelated skills (or the other things I mentioned above in this post, like skill hierarchies or what have you) is going to be necessary, because Toady keeps adding skills and certainly isn't going to stop now. There are several new military skills in the upcoming version, for instance, and there will obviously be more civilian skills in the future, considering that not all planned professions even exist yet, like teaching or playing an instrument.

I think one thing that's tripping you up here is that distinguishing barrel-makers from cabinet-makers is not a new concept, it's just an expansion of the current one. Dwarves are already "specialized"; they already have different skills at different levels. The point is to add granularity to the system (or otherwise handle a greater set of skills) that makes it work.

Rather than distinguishing dwaves by eye size or craft_barrel_count, there are about a hundred better ways to personalize dwarves.  As it already stands, the single most readily apparent difference between any one dwarf and another is already their skill/occupation.

This is only a very, very, very broad distinction. It's not individualization at all, it's just categorization. Individualization is when Urist is Urist and cannot be confused for Bomrek, not just when carpenters are carpenters and can't be confused for farmers.

(It is the sole determinate of the color they have, which is the way of distinguishing one from another without cursoring over them.)  Meanwhile, I am suggesting, as a potential alternative means of individualizing dwarves, that dwarves have preferred hobbies, sports, and means of decorating their homes, as well as potentially dividing them by social class.  (Happy, Neek?)

Those are good too, and there's no reason why those can't exist. However, individualization should apply to the skills a dwarf has, too; currently, in terms of skill, pretty much all Grand Master Masons are exactly the same. This simply isn't good enough for a fantasy world simulator, because we would never, ever have, say, a master swordsmith, because hey, he'd be just as good at making hammers and axes and flails and pikes. The concept of specialization occurs very often in fantasy fiction, especially with regards to characters who have supernatural or otherwise abnormally-high levels of skill. This is true of both military and civilian skills. Fantasy is full of people who are extraordinarily good at making or doing rather specific things.

If the only reason we should be wanting to go through making a set of sub-skills is to differentiate dwarves, I don't see this as being a particularly good way of doing it.

It's not. It's about differentiating them in specific ways. There are many facets to a character, and different ones require different things in order for them to be considered characteristics of an individual and not just broad traits. Yeah, it's great and adds a lot of individual personality if a dwarf enjoys certain materials, colors, decorations, hobbies, and has other behavioral inclinations and preferences, but something's off-kilter if the only way you can describe his skills is by saying "Master Armorsmith". The skills a dwarf has calls for individualization, too, regardless of what happens with the other aspects of his personality, especially considering how important those skills are in defining a character from a social standpoint; it's wonderful to have more trivial/personal aspects of the guy fleshed out, but that's not always what matters, and often isn't. If I'm an Adventure Mode character, it's much more interesting to trek 500 miles to find a man who can forge the greatest and most legendary spear in all the land, and less if I just find a "legendary weaponsmith" who can create any type of weapon he feels like at that same level of skill, for the same reason why this is so often the case in fiction.

If the reason we should be coming up with ways to differentiate dwarves is because that is the way that Toady wants to go (and isn't the purpose of a Suggestion box/thread to suggest doing things that people AREN'T thinking of doing?) then I would think that the sheer fact that, unlike, say, farming improvements, where people agree more complexity is welcome, but disagree on implimentation, the sheer contentiousness over the very notion that this skill system should exist at all, much less what it should look like, would send Toady onto other means of achieving his desired effect.

We're actually throwing a lot of ideas around regarding skills, and what is necessary for them, and possible ideas of how to implement those things. I believe I've already described WHY it's necessary to do something, if only due to the current and future inflation of the skill set dwarves possess (which isn't going to just go away), and I honestly don't think that anything I've proposed is that bad, if a bit vaguely explained.

Besides, a lot of things about this game are contentious, but popular opinion/controversy isn't always right. You're not the guy designing the game here, and neither am I; we don't always know what will or won't work, or else we'd be the ones doing the design here. The fact is that we cannot positively know how good/bad such general suggestions are relative to how well Toady could guess that, and so much of it is up to the specific implementation that making broad statements like "these ideas are all horrible" or "these ideas are all amazing" just isn't a good idea most of the time.

Besides, I've seen plenty of cases during development of this version where people have gotten rather antsy about what they consider things that were bad for development while obviously not knowing very much about the design goals of the game, and even then, people tend to overreact a lot to ideas regarding change, especially if it hits a hot-button issue for them. And even if you don't like an idea, nobody's going to like every single thing about Dwarf Fortress, and some people not liking a feature doesn't even mean it's a bad one. DF is a niche product and will probably remain that way. I'm not saying that more people liking an idea is bad, or that accessibility is a terrible thing; I'm just trying to be realistic in saying that Dwarf Fortress isn't for everyone and never will be, and that, as a result of this and its stated design goals, there are going to be ideas that help push the game towards its ideal state despite a significant percentage of people disliking it. If Toady listened and followed through every single time people clamored about what they didn't like, we sure as hell wouldn't have things like appearance modifiers in the next version, which I can bet you right now far fewer people will be complaining about once it's actually out; in fact, I've barely heard any complaints at all lately, mostly just when that stuff was first announced.

You also might have to consider that maybe you're not as good as Toady at designing his game. Hell, I'm not either. None of us are. There are going to be times where the community, to some significant degree, is simply mistaken about whether or not something would be a good idea, especially since fans/users/players tend to be a lot more short-sighted than the developer himself, especially since the vast, vast majority of them aren't developers, and none are the developer of this game. Yes, I'm including myself here; I could very well be wrong myself. Popularity of an idea is not a very good judge.

[NW_Kohaku]

You're simply not convincing me this is something that would raise the enjoyment anyone gets out of the game.

There have been at least a few people here (as well as certainly a few on the IRC channel, where I've talked about this) who already said they would. I just don't think you grasp why.

AHHHH, my mistake, here I thought I had a valid difference of opinion created by valuing different aspects of the game more highly than the ones that you value, and as such, our conflicting goals simply meant that we would not be able to agree on much of anything, since we will hardly be able to agree on a solution when we disagree on whether or not something is even a problem.

But the REAL problem was that I'm just too stupid to understand what you are saying, as I obviously must be playing for the exact same reasons you are, but just don't know it.

[praguepride]

Same here. Because the system I'm hearing about either doesn't matter (because it doesn't do anything except add a bunch of screens in the background that don't show any information that I think is worth noting) or...yeah, that's about it.

So tell me, what would be "fun" about this system? And try and explain it without just saying it would be more realistic because realism does not automatically equal fun.

[G-Flex]

You're simply not convincing me this is something that would raise the enjoyment anyone gets out of the game.

There have been at least a few people here (as well as certainly a few on the IRC channel, where I've talked about this) who already said they would. I just don't think you grasp why.

AHHHH, my mistake, here I thought I had a valid difference of opinion created by valuing different aspects of the game more highly than the ones that you value, and as such, our conflicting goals simply meant that we would not be able to agree on much of anything, since we will hardly be able to agree on a solution when we disagree on whether or not something is even a problem.

But the REAL problem was that I'm just too stupid to understand what you are saying, as I obviously must be playing for the exact same reasons you are, but just don't know it.

What are you talking about? That's not what the point of my post was at all, in any way. You were saying that you weren't convinced ANYONE would get more enjoyment out of the game from this, and I was saying that there are in fact people who would. I wasn't saying that YOU would.

Same here. Because the system I'm hearing about either doesn't matter (because it doesn't do anything except add a bunch of screens in the background that don't show any information that I think is worth noting) or...yeah, that's about it.

So tell me, what would be "fun" about this system? And try and explain it without just saying it would be more realistic because realism does not automatically equal fun.

Read my post. No, seriously, do it, and actually respond to the points I made. I made a few about the actual value of the system and you aren't responding to any of them, you're just making the same assertions as before. I made a few fairly large points about why it would be valuable for the game in my last post here, and if you can't be bothered to actually respond to those as opposed to just reiterating your basic point, I don't know what to say. That's not how argument works, at all. You're asking me to say things that I've already said without responding to them.

[Dvergar]

Many of you oppose having skills subdivided without actually adding content, but here is why I am in favor.

Currently a dwarf's info-page is a list of his experience in all the seperate skills displayed in a psuedo-numerical fashion.  Now what if instead of having this complete glut of information, we instead had a dwarf's abilities defined by a description selected from a list based on his experience with individual tasks or groupings of workshop tasks.  The further subdivided each grouping of skills is the more unique and eloquently a dwarf will be defined.

Mind, this is different from the current 'profession' system because the raw data would be witheld from the user (at least by default/hidden away)

[praguepride]

You're simply not convincing me this is something that would raise the enjoyment anyone gets out of the game.

There have been at least a few people here (as well as certainly a few on the IRC channel, where I've talked about this) who already said they would. I just don't think you grasp why.

AHHHH, my mistake, here I thought I had a valid difference of opinion created by valuing different aspects of the game more highly than the ones that you value, and as such, our conflicting goals simply meant that we would not be able to agree on much of anything, since we will hardly be able to agree on a solution when we disagree on whether or not something is even a problem.

But the REAL problem was that I'm just too stupid to understand what you are saying, as I obviously must be playing for the exact same reasons you are, but just don't know it.

What are you talking about? That's not what the point of my post was at all, in any way. You were saying that you weren't convinced ANYONE would get more enjoyment out of the game from this, and I was saying that there are in fact people who would. I wasn't saying that YOU would.

Same here. Because the system I'm hearing about either doesn't matter (because it doesn't do anything except add a bunch of screens in the background that don't show any information that I think is worth noting) or...yeah, that's about it.

So tell me, what would be "fun" about this system? And try and explain it without just saying it would be more realistic because realism does not automatically equal fun.

Read my post. No, seriously, do it, and actually respond to the points I made. I made a few about the actual value of the system and you aren't responding to any of them, you're just making the same assertions as before. I made a few fairly large points about why it would be valuable for the game in my last post here, and if you can't be bothered to actually respond to those as opposed to just reiterating your basic point, I don't know what to say. That's not how argument works, at all. You're asking me to say things that I've already said without responding to them.

This debate is seriously starting to bore me. Here's the summary:

G-Flex: Here's my idea.
Me: Ummm...doesn't sound like a good idea.
G-Flex: No, you just didn't read it.
Me: Ummm... I read it and it still doesn't sound like a good idea. Here's why (list of reasons)
G-Flex: No, those don't matter. You just aren't understanding me. Go back and read it again.
Me: Yeah... still doesn't sound like fun.
G-Flex: Well, you must not have read what I've written...


I'm done. I just can't get through to you the following bits of information:
1) I have read everything you have posted
2) The idea does not sound like fun.

[Hyndis]

This debate is seriously starting to bore me. Here's the summary:

G-Flex: Here's my idea.
Me: Ummm...doesn't sound like a good idea.
G-Flex: No, you just didn't read it.
Me: Ummm... I read it and it still doesn't sound like a good idea. Here's why (list of reasons)
G-Flex: No, those don't matter. You just aren't understanding me. Go back and read it again.
Me: Yeah... still doesn't sound like fun.
G-Flex: Well, you must not have read what I've written...


I'm done. I just can't get through to you the following bits of information:
1) I have read everything you have posted
2) The idea does not sound like fun.

/agree

I think the idea for skill diversification is extremely well thought out and developed. I just do not think it is fun, nor adds anything useful to the game. Its a waste of coding time that will either have no gameplay impact, or a negative gameplay impact. Thus, it is a bad idea and should not be implemented.

Thats the short and long of it.

If you have an idea not only do you have to have a well thought out idea, but it also has to be useful. If it is not useful it does not matter how well thought out it is. I'm sure the idea is very awesome, but if no one has any use for it or wants to use it, does it matter?

[G-Flex]

I'm done. I just can't get through to you the following bits of information:
1) I have read everything you have posted
2) The idea does not sound like fun.

The thing is you aren't actually telling me what you disagree with. Saying "I disagree" to a rather lengthy post doesn't tell me anything. It's completely nonproductive. If you were actually telling me what it is I'm saying that you disagree with, and why, then maybe we'd get somewhere. All you're doing is making assertions that I've already argued against, and then making those same assertions again without addressing why my points don't address them. And now you're turning the argument into some sort of strawman, as if that's going to help.

I've already explained several times what the value of that sort of system is, so asking "yeah, but what's the value in it?" again and again doesn't help. If you don't think what I'm saying clarifies it, then explain what bits need further clarification or attempt to debunk them, don't just ask the same question again and pretend that you've been doing something you haven't been.


I just don't understand why people are reiterating the same basic assertions of "It has to be useful"/"It'll just be wasted code"/"This will be harmful to the player" and so forth, when I've already specifically addressed all those points multiple times. Saying them again does not help. Saying why my points haven't addressed those concerns would.

[praguepride]

You mean here, where I put out the arguements against it in a clear and concise and organized manner?

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

Or pretty much any of NK's posts have been full of information. However, you seem to have an obsession with tautology.

Realism is fun because it's fun to be realistic seems to be the sum of your argument. We've spent literally pages trying to illustrate that just because something is "realistic" doesn't mean it's fun. Hence NK's pupil size example (which you seem to treat as a serious suggestion. It's not a suggestion, it's an example). Likewise you're debating NK's "scorecard" idea but it's not an idea of suggestion, it's basically a lampoon of your idea.

His/her point was that a scorecard system would have the same impact to the user. Your rebuttle is that a scorecard system isn't as well designed as your idea. Completely missing the point (unless NK's scorecard suggestion WAS a serious suggestion...  ).

So, without using the "it's fun because it's realistic" arguement explain how this would add to the game play, how this would deepen the game, how this would cause players to re-think their strategies and fix problems with the skill system that is currently implemented.

Short, simple bullet points would be far more effective then big walls of text because frankly at this point, it feels like I'm talking to a brick wall. You seem to feel the same way illustrating a HUGE gap in communication between us.

This is likely because of huge lengthy text bombs (like this one  ) instead of short, simple, easily readable ideas.