Print

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

[tsen]

I like micromanaging my dwarves, but then most of my forts start with 7 and have a pop cap of 10-15 and rely on babies for more population. 8"}

[Silverionmox]

Yeah, something like "If making item X, prioritize so the job is given to the best dwarf at making item X who's available at the time". Of course, he'd still have to get better at it in the *first* place, but that might happen circumstantially.

Since under that rule just one dwarf would get all the work, that would improve rapidly.

Breaking it down to individual items might be a bit much, though. It depends on how much granularity we really need. I can see "wooden furniture vs. wooden containers vs. wooden weapons (etc.)" working fine without the need of separating skill for every single item, at least not in all cases. In terms of, say, weaponsmithing, the same might apply, with the specializations being broken down in terms of what skill is necessary to use the item (so you specialize in, say, swords, and not two-handed swords/shortswords/scimitars/etc.). It all depends on how much is really necessary, and how much it'll be to deal with.

It would have the advantage of making it possible to have characters in the game that are really good at just one thing. For example, a peasant born with a peculiar magical talent: he can cast "summon two-legged rhino lizard" very well, but has no magical capability otherwise. Or an idiot savant that excels at making teapots. Just teapots.

It's kind of odd how some skills already have more granularity than others. For instance, glassmaking is an EXTREMELY broad skill: The same skill applies to making absolutely anything possible out of glass, whereas with most other skills making similar objects, the skills are broken up a bit more.

Yeah, that's right. These choices have to be made, and we'll inevitably will want to adjust them later.

[NW_Kohaku]

It would have the advantage of making it possible to have characters in the game that are really good at just one thing. For example, a peasant born with a peculiar magical talent: he can cast "summon two-legged rhino lizard" very well, but has no magical capability otherwise. Or an idiot savant that excels at making teapots. Just teapots.

... This really isn't something I would find preferable

It's kind of odd how some skills already have more granularity than others. For instance, glassmaking is an EXTREMELY broad skill: The same skill applies to making absolutely anything possible out of glass, whereas with most other skills making similar objects, the skills are broken up a bit more.

Yeah, that's right. These choices have to be made, and we'll inevitably will want to adjust them later.

You know, there's a reason why "glassmaking" covers all the different things you can make with glass - glassmaking is basically about continually heating and shaping glass.  If you can handle shaping glass, it generally behaves the same no matter what shape you're putting it it, whether it's a mug or a bracelet or a sheet.

Likewise, carving a stone into a flat surface is the same skill whether it's for a door or a table.  Granted, it's a little unrealistic the way things work in DF where we have gears (and presumably hinges for doors) made of stone, or a table made of a single solid piece of stone, but it's all stone carving.

The reason that things like this Coopers suggestion were put up was because there actually IS a significant enough difference in the process that a reasonable argument could be made that it would warrant them being treated differently.

Regardless, better than a "realism" reason is a logical player interface reason for dividing up skills.  Like I was saying, especially in the other thread, it makes the most sense to just be able to group skills by what labors you are enabling, and labors by what workshops you want them to work in.

[Silverionmox]

It would have the advantage of making it possible to have characters in the game that are really good at just one thing. For example, a peasant born with a peculiar magical talent: he can cast "summon two-legged rhino lizard" very well, but has no magical capability otherwise. Or an idiot savant that excels at making teapots. Just teapots.

... This really isn't something I would find preferable

It's an opportunity for quirkiness, mostly interesting in adventure or legends mode. We'll see whether that makes it important enough to include.

[Pilsu]

I don't think you know how idiot savants work. That's just silly.

[Silverionmox]

I don't think you know how idiot savants work. That's just silly.

Usually, they don't. It's meant to be unusual. Whether coding time is worth it, we'll see. I think it might as well be done all the way, if it's done at all - it shouldn't make much difference in effort to code, whether it would eat up much fps, who knows?

Surely it's silly. We can't go hunting cyclopses all the time, can we?

[G-Flex]

Breaking it down to individual items might be a bit much, though. It depends on how much granularity we really need. I can see "wooden furniture vs. wooden containers vs. wooden weapons (etc.)" working fine without the need of separating skill for every single item, at least not in all cases. In terms of, say, weaponsmithing, the same might apply, with the specializations being broken down in terms of what skill is necessary to use the item (so you specialize in, say, swords, and not two-handed swords/shortswords/scimitars/etc.). It all depends on how much is really necessary, and how much it'll be to deal with.

It would have the advantage of making it possible to have characters in the game that are really good at just one thing. For example, a peasant born with a peculiar magical talent: he can cast "summon two-legged rhino lizard" very well, but has no magical capability otherwise. Or an idiot savant that excels at making teapots. Just teapots.

Well, that wouldn't be quite as possible in what I'm proposing, since the teapot guy would still gain proficiency in whatever else is similar to making teapots. But it's not like systems can't be supplemented by other systems; it makes sense, for instance, for someone to be better at making items that he has a personal preference for (same with materials), for instance.

[LegoLord]

Likewise, carving a stone into a flat surface is the same skill whether it's for a door or a table.  Granted, it's a little unrealistic the way things work in DF where we have gears (and presumably hinges for doors) made of stone, or a table made of a single solid piece of stone, but it's all stone carving.

I feel I need to point out one thing; gears don't have to be tiny little things with triangular "teeth."  Larger ones in older machines would often be pegs sticking out of a wheel - not an impossible task with stone by any means.  Hinges, I don't know about.  I'd guess they'd just be thick pegs of stone stuck in holes or something.  Plus, the "stone" item is an abstraction of a pile of pieces of stone leftover from mining, not a single piece of stone (having separate pieces would result in worse lag than now).

[G-Flex]

You know, there's a reason why "glassmaking" covers all the different things you can make with glass - glassmaking is basically about continually heating and shaping glass.  If you can handle shaping glass, it generally behaves the same no matter what shape you're putting it it, whether it's a mug or a bracelet or a sheet.

Likewise, carving a stone into a flat surface is the same skill whether it's for a door or a table.  Granted, it's a little unrealistic the way things work in DF where we have gears (and presumably hinges for doors) made of stone, or a table made of a single solid piece of stone, but it's all stone carving.

The reason that things like this Coopers suggestion were put up was because there actually IS a significant enough difference in the process that a reasonable argument could be made that it would warrant them being treated differently.

Yes, you're right as far as basic mechanical processes are concerned... well, somewhat. A lot more would go into making a table or a cabinet with swinging doors/drawers exactly the same way, and there are many different techniques for glass production, but you're right to say that the variation in manufacturing technique varies more or less depending on the profession/material.


However, that's not the only thing to consider, because that basic process is only part of what goes into being skilled at making a product; the other half is the actual design. Even if you're using the same basic mechanical processes to make a door as you are a chair or a table or a giant spiked ball, they're all designed for different purposes; what looks good or serves that purpose varies a lot between items. Even if you're using the same process/machine to make two different items, they're still designed much different in terms of aesthetics and function, and you can be better at designing one than the other. This is especially true for extremely high-grade craftsmanship/artistry.

[Lmaoboat]

I think skills in this game should be simple. The things that make this game great are the tons of open-ended interactions between game play elements, like fluids, mechanisms, and fortress design.   

[NW_Kohaku]

Yes, you're right as far as basic mechanical processes are concerned... well, somewhat. A lot more would go into making a table or a cabinet with swinging doors/drawers exactly the same way, and there are many different techniques for glass production, but you're right to say that the variation in manufacturing technique varies more or less depending on the profession/material.


However, that's not the only thing to consider, because that basic process is only part of what goes into being skilled at making a product; the other half is the actual design. Even if you're using the same basic mechanical processes to make a door as you are a chair or a table or a giant spiked ball, they're all designed for different purposes; what looks good or serves that purpose varies a lot between items. Even if you're using the same process/machine to make two different items, they're still designed much different in terms of aesthetics and function, and you can be better at designing one than the other. This is especially true for extremely high-grade craftsmanship/artistry.

Let me ask you this, then... Would you want a seperate experience point pool for sculptors (when statues work like engravings) or engravers for different shapes that the art can look like?

Sure, it's all just carving stone, but there's a large amount of difference between the aesthetics of capturing a dwarf's glorious beard in stone so that it catches the light just right, as compared to the menace of a goblin's snarl.  Let's not forget that waves or blazing suns or the like all require slightly different feels to get right.  After all, artists can wind up specializing in the way to capture the way that trees or mountains look, but still only be merely capable in making something look like a dwarf.

If you're capable of carving stone into a sturdy, smooth surface, and maybe throwing in a little decorations or aesthetics to make it look nice on a table, you can probably also do a door or a chair just as well.  Splitting hairs beyond that just isn't worth it.

[G-Flex]

If you're capable of carving stone into a sturdy, smooth surface, and maybe throwing in a little decorations or aesthetics to make it look nice on a table, you can probably also do a door or a chair just as well.  Splitting hairs beyond that just isn't worth it.

The design for those objects is very, very different. You don't use chairs, tables, cabinets and coffins for the same things, so even if you're making all of them by cutting wood and hammering it together (to use an arbitrary example), that doesn't mean that knowing what makes a good chair means you know what makes a good armoire.

Yeah, there's a relationship there, and the material-working processes themselves are the same (or at least very similar, in most cases); I'm just saying that there's more to it than that, because what makes a good chair a good chair (for instance) is irrespective of the material at hand in many ways and will not describe what makes a good <other item>. I'm not sure, however, that this is worth splitting hairs over, which is why I mentioned what I mentioned before, about possibly not breaking things down to the individual item except in specific circumstances (like a dwarf having a particular preference).


Regarding art, that gets more into a notion of styles, and different dwarves depicting different things in different ways, which goes far beyond practical considerations. The way you're describing things is more about differences in styles than about drawing different things; you're describing artwork that evokes different styles/emotions entirely. After all, if you felt like it, you could draw a goblin in a glorious, sympathetic manner or a dwarf in a menacing, snarling manner. It's less about knowing how to draw different objects (if you know how to draw a dwarf you'll know how to draw a goblin, assuming you know what the two look like, unless you're an artist of EXTREMELY specialized technical skill, and specialized in a really weird way), and more about knowing how to draw them to different effect.

Granted, there's some truth to what you say there anyhow, in that for vastly different things (landscapes vs. people, abstract shapes vs. historical events), you might be good at one and not at others. Of course, it's also possible to, say, draw a historical person in a really bizarre and abstract manner, too, so that only goes so far. The situation is weird with art, because damn near anything is possible, since the purpose is purely aesthetic and largely arbitrary. I'm honestly not sure how I'd handle specialization for that sort of thing.

[NW_Kohaku]

... I'm really, really tempted to believe you're doing this on purpose, but I'll just assume you aren't.

You seriously need to look up what the words "metaphor" and "satire" mean.

[G-Flex]

If it was satirical of what I was saying, then it was poor satire, as it doesn't really make a very good analogy (as I've just shown).

[praguepride]

... I'm really, really tempted to believe you're doing this on purpose, but I'll just assume you aren't.

You seriously need to look up what the words "metaphor" and "satire" mean.

He interprets everything very literally. Very literally!