Print

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

[LegoLord]

I'm sorry, but I had the understanding that the goal of skill synergy was to reduce the number of skills?  Besides, it's not that you'd need two skills, just that the skills would overlap.  Just like someone who works with clay in real life would have little trouble moving over to another sculpture medium.

I'm also a little confused by your posts.  I'm not sure if it's the size or what, but reading over it I'm having trouble being sure what the fine details of what you're saying are.  All I can really tell is that you like the idea of have six metal working skills instead of four (just what does this really accomplish?), think that adding 50% isn't a big increase (many college professors dealing with such increases in class size would disagree with you, by the way, as would I), and that you don't like skill synergy.  The "why" is fuzzy for me.

[Hyndis]

Seems like adding complexity without really adding much to the game, aside from just making a bigger list of skills, and so you have more things to toggle on or off on each individual dwarf.

[Loyal]

Slippery Slop is the name of a logical fallacy, it's like saying "But that can't be right because Ad Hominem attack!",

A dangerous course, one that leads easily to catastrophe, as in He's on a slippery slope, compromising his values to please both the bosses and the union. This metaphoric expression alludes to traversing a slick hillside, in constant danger of falling. [Mid-1900s]

Yeah, no.

if my idea is a good thing compared to the present system then it should be evaluated on that merit, if too much of that good thing would be a bad thing then that's a reason not to over do something, not a reason to avoid it entirely as if their is no stopping something once started.

On the merit of what, precisely? All I see is unnecessary overspecialization.

This is ridiculous, the 'High Fantasy' genre is based in human history and Toady has explicit cut off date for what Technology is and isn't appropriate.  Dwarves are the most metallurgicaly gifted race so having more nuanced divisions of skill in metal working is one way to express that, non dwarves might lack certain skills making them unable to work the metal which is different from being unable to mine/smelt the metal.

The dwarves' penchant for metalworking is already expressed by having five skills dedicated to the working of a single material type, as well as being the only race capable of working steel (and, implicitly, HFSinite). "More nuanced divisions" are perfectly unnecessary.

Besides, I would argue that being so naturally gifted with metalworking would involve less specialization required. Every dwarf in this game clearly has an intrinsic knowledge of different metals, judging by their likes and that they know how to make various alloys. Additionally, they presumably have some knowledge of the differing properties of each, i.e. malleability and brittleness. Therefore it's not at all a far stretch to assume that once a dwarf knows how to work metal, he wouldn't have a great deal of difficulty adapting those techniques to harder or softer metals.

If the incresse in primary skills is kept to around 50% (1 additional skill for ever 2 current ones) it would hardly be noticeable as it would be moving from 50 to 75 (assuming changes only to the industrial profession skills and not combat skills or social skills) and their is no real difference between the cognitive juggling of 50 or 75 objects.  A Skill synergy system on the other hand would probably require around 100 skills or skill modifiers (one for every 'form' and one for every 'material') and require multiple objects to be combined to produce every desired result which is a lot of mental juggling.

50-ish primary skills are barely acceptable as is, and a not-insignificant percentage of them have no remarkable use to speak of. 75 primaries would be absolutely unacceptable and I don't know how you could possibly justify otherwise.

[Hyndis]

Yup.

Arguably you could compress a lot of skills.

For example, make a Farmer skill. Combines farming, plant processing, plant gathering, wood burning, cooking, brewing, soap making, butchery, tanning, etc. When you get an immigrant dwarf with the farming skills enabled, those are the skills he has. Most of these skills do not have skill modifiers. A good tanner will not produce more leather. A legendary tanner and a novice tanner product exactly the same result, and in the case where skill does matter, like farming, you probably won't really notice that much anyways. Yes, more food will be grown, but its already so easy to have every barrel in your fortress filled up with plump helmets that a bunch of novice farmers doesn't matter that much.

[Silverionmox]

There'll always be players who'd rather restrict the skills to Brewing, Fighting and Weaponcrafting, as well as people who won't say no to 15 skills to make alcohol, not including chemistry. It might be more fruitful to look for ways how to get a system that allows both simplicity and accuracy to be realized in different mods.

[NW_Kohaku]

If this seems like the Coopers thread all over again, Loyal, it's because it starts with the same general concept (adding another skill or four to simulate some "historical accuracy" I.E. realism), which then gets hit on immediately by people with the same pet skill philosophies that they already developed in previous threads, leading to the same conflicts.  It's not just the same positions being argued, it's the same people arguing the same arguments at the same time. 

I honestly don't see a need for this at all, as I think that "realism" for "realism's" own sake is a waste of time at best.  (And that's quoted for the fact that such realism is only ever realistic according to one person's view of their one specialized field of expertise, regardless of how abstracted everything else is (such as, say, having fierce discussions over the geological processes in the mineral formation and exact chemical composition of a fictional metal made of magic which grows around a flaming pit of clowns), or how unrealistically broken it makes the rest of the game if one thing is "handled realistically" when the rest of the game is not.

However, since, apparently, people won't stop lobbying for this until they get it, and realize what a bad idea it is firsthand, I guess I can support the notion of Silverionmox's... but since something like this is likely to require the sorts of interfaces he's been suggesting to even be implimented in the first place, I seriously hope this whole notion of subskills just gets buried in the back of the "bloat" pile for years to come.

In summary, for my rebuttal, read here.

[Zalminen]

I think I agree with Silverionmox.

Back when I started playing DF, I was annoyed that there so many different skills but after playing a while I've grown to like it and have learned quite a bit as a result. 

One could easily argue for pretty much any specific boundary between simple and detailed skills and making it possible to choose your own level by init options or mods would probably be the best solution to this problem.

[zwei]

Again I am AGAINST skill synergy and don't believe for a second that my proposal 'entails' anything beyond what I described. You seem to be saying that synergy is "necessary" and then raising all kinds of objections to it or perhaps some specific form of it.  What kind of 'proper' skill synergy are you envisioning?  Most of the synergy systems I've heard of are based on material/form combination ware their is 'skill in material' and 'skill in form' with some kind of combination producing the final quality and both skills gaining experience each time something is crafted.  Would that not entail basically the division of metals I've proposed or would their simply be a single 'metal' skill which obliterates the distinction between working gold and steel?  The other synergy approach seems to be a more conservative kind of 'spill over' in which simply applies some additional experience points to skills in the same family when ever a skill is raised. 

My approach is to look at skill as neither as material knowledge or form knowledge, but as process knowledge.  Processes can work on a set of related materials to create a set of related forms.  Their can be overlap between the material and form sets of different skills but their is no real crossover between different processes and no synergy between skills only different ways to make the same thing.

You just do not understand me.

I first raise point that synergy would need to be introduced.

Then I describe how i see what you want sans synergies with poiting out where it falls short. If you think that I am describing your system + synergy, then you ought to rething that whole this-is-not-synergy position.

And problem is that would need another set of synergies to make it manageable and actually realistic (copper toy axe / iron battle axe example).

---

Last thing: don't be fooled into thinking that it will add personality to smiths. Goblin ore is available everywhere and pretty much everyone uses it to train. Local materials are rarely used to train (maybe inital batch of weak weapons) as iron is available everywhere and products are fairly usefull even from dabbling smith.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I'm sorry, but I had the understanding that the goal of skill synergy was to reduce the number of skills?  Besides, it's not that you'd need two skills, just that the skills would overlap.  Just like someone who works with clay in real life would have little trouble moving over to another sculpture medium.

I don't believe a skill synergy system as put forward by the people attempting to thread-jack me would be even result in a smaller number of skills.  If you have a skill synergy proposal make a new thread and show us a short list of skills that combine to create/do everything in the game.

'm also a little confused by your posts.  I'm not sure if it's the size or what, but reading over it I'm having trouble being sure what the fine details of what you're saying are.  All I can really tell is that you like the idea of have six metal working skills instead of four (just what does this really accomplish?), think that adding 50% isn't a big increase (many college professors dealing with such increases in class size would disagree with you, by the way, as would I), and that you don't like skill synergy.  The "why" is fuzzy for me.

Did you read the Opening post?  Did you read any of the Replies?  It sounds like you didn't because your not referencing anything but what was in my omnibus reply.  The basic premise of my idea is to divide metalworking skills by metal type rather then by the item type crafted with the exceptions of weapons and armor.  I don't see how that could be missed if you had done your required reading.

A dangerous course, one that leads easily to catastrophe, as in He's on a slippery slope, compromising his values to please both the bosses and the union. This metaphoric expression alludes to traversing a slick hillside, in constant danger of falling. [Mid-1900s]

Yeah, no.

Sorry but YES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Slippery%20slope
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

It's only not a Fallacy if you've established a chain of logical cause and effect which you manifestly did not do.  If you don't want more primary skills that's your opinion but saying that my proposal makes a large incresse in primary skills inevitable isn't substantiated.

On the merit of what, precisely? All I see is unnecessary overspecialization.

I stated more then once that the benefit is that you get closer to the common high-fantasy troupe of specific dwarven settlements having craftsmen with a particular excellence and expertise in a particular metal.  Often its stated their work is a desirable commodity through the world.  This adds character to a Fortress and encourages trade both imports and exports.  If you don't think that's a worthy goal then say so but don't pretend I haven't made an argument.

The dwarves' penchant for metalworking is already expressed by having five skills dedicated to the working of a single material type, as well as being the only race capable of working steel (and, implicitly, HFSinite). "More nuanced divisions" are perfectly unnecessary.

My whole point is that 'metal' should not be consider "a single material type", the game has a large number of 'elemental' metals and a huge array of alloys.  Lumping them all together is akin to having a profession called "Non metal Crafter" who makes everything out of glass, wood, bone and stone as if they were all interchangeable.

Besides, I would argue that being so naturally gifted with metalworking would involve less specialization required. Every dwarf in this game clearly has an intrinsic knowledge of different metals, judging by their likes and that they know how to make various alloys. Additionally, they presumably have some knowledge of the differing properties of each, i.e. malleability and brittleness. Therefore it's not at all a far stretch to assume that once a dwarf knows how to work metal, he wouldn't have a great deal of difficulty adapting those techniques to harder or softer metals.

Ridicules, more knowledge and sophistication ALWAYS results in more division of labor.  That's why their are hundred of types of medical specialists today compared to medieval society having only Surgeons, Dentists and Blood-letters.  Again if you don't want more skills that's one thing but don't made ridicules assertions in the guise of realism.

If this seems like the Coopers thread all over again, Loyal, it's because it starts with the same general concept (adding another skill or four to simulate some "historical accuracy" I.E. realism), which then gets hit on immediately by people with the same pet skill philosophies that they already developed in previous threads, leading to the same conflicts.  It's not just the same positions being argued, it's the same people arguing the same arguments at the same time.

Agreed, its quite sad really and I commented on it in that thread and it's playing out exactly the same here.  I've not gotten more then 2 or 3 responses that even remotly adressed the substance of what I proposed.  All the stuff about skill synergy has been pure thread-jacking.

However, since, apparently, people won't stop lobbying for this until they get it, and realize what a bad idea it is firsthand, I guess I can support the notion of Silverionmox's... but since something like this is likely to require the sorts of interfaces he's been suggesting to even be implimented in the first place, I seriously hope this whole notion of subskills just gets buried in the back of the "bloat" pile for years to come.

I hope it stays in the bloat pile forever.

[Impaler[WrG]]

You just do not understand me.

I first raise point that synergy would need to be introduced.

Then I describe how i see what you want sans synergies with poiting out where it falls short. If you think that I am describing your system + synergy, then you ought to rething that whole this-is-not-synergy position.

And problem is that would need another set of synergies to make it manageable and actually realistic (copper toy axe / iron battle axe example).

---

Last thing: don't be fooled into thinking that it will add personality to smiths. Goblin ore is available everywhere and pretty much everyone uses it to train. Local materials are rarely used to train (maybe inital batch of weak weapons) as iron is available everywhere and products are fairly usefull even from dabbling smith.

I simply do not agree with you in the slightest, you say my proposal "falls short", falls short OF WHAT?  Apparently falls short of your preferred system of skill synergy that's what.  Your copper toy/Iron ax example is atrocious as well, their is virtually no similarity between those items what-so-ever and no justification that someone skilled at making one would be skilled at making the other.  You seem to be stuck on this notion that the shape of an ax is some kind of rare/secret/difficult piece of knowledge which it is not.  What your proposing is not realism but rather some cockamamy theory about the importance of form in crafting.

Also the "Goblinite the 4th Iron ore" is acknowledged to be a flaw by most people.  Mining is the more appropriate way for Dwarves to acquire their metal and under my proposal you can no longer pull off this kind of slight-of-hand, building skills under cheap/free materials and then using that skill on high value metal.  If anything your making my point for me that this exploit needs to end.

[Loyal]

It's only not a Fallacy if you've established a chain of logical cause and effect which you manifestly did not do.  If you don't want more primary skills that's your opinion but saying that my proposal makes a large incresse in primary skills inevitable isn't substantiated.

Okay:

If we split up metalsmithing into x-smithing * 4, much like if the Coopers thing is implemented (don't try to argue they're unrelated, they're the same damn topic with different subject matter and prooobably could do with a thread-merge), it will likely follow that more skills get needlessly split up, either for 'Historical Accuracy' or to keep things nice and uniform.

Masonry could be split into Furniture, Sculpting, and Brick-making/laying. Stone Detailing becomes Smoothing and Engraving. Wood- and Stone-crafting get split up to differentiate between whittling/chiseling and putting small pieces of wood/stone together to form crafts that way. I'm sure we could think of more.

Do you see what I mean and intend to argue the point as I intended, or are you going to keep crying "FALLACY" and jam your fingers in your ears?

I stated more then once that the benefit is that you get closer to the common high-fantasy troupe of specific dwarven settlements having craftsmen with a particular excellence and expertise in a particular metal.  Often its stated their work is a desirable commodity through the world.  This adds character to a Fortress and encourages trade both imports and exports.

So, "realism/historical accuracy for realism/historical accuracy's sake" is the sum of your argument? I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this then, because I certainly don't see the merit in that.

My whole point is that 'metal' should not be consider "a single material type", the game has a large number of 'elemental' metals and a huge array of alloys.  Lumping them all together is akin to having a profession called "Non metal Crafter" who makes everything out of glass, wood, bone and stone as if they were all interchangeable.

That's not remotely similar and you know it.

Ridicules, more knowledge and sophistication ALWAYS results in more division of labor.  That's why their are hundred of types of medical specialists today compared to medieval society having only Surgeons, Dentists and Blood-letters.  Again if you don't want more skills that's one thing but don't made ridicules assertions in the guise of realism.

You are the only one arguing for realism. You.

Also, division of labor is the practice of splitting up multiple tasks in the creation of a single object, such as having a multitude of laborers each creating different parts of a gun. The goal of division of labor is to have multiple workers that are easier to train and can be paid less than a single worker who does all of these things by himself, as well as speeding up the process by having all of the laborers ready to work their particular task as soon as the task needs doing.

Division of labor is not associated with the "knowledge" or "sophistication" of a craft, it is related to the total labor available, or the complexity of performing it. As you know, once you hit anywhere between 50-80 dwarves, depending on your playstyle, you quickly run out of non-hauling jobs for your dwarves, either because nothing more particularly needs to be produced, or because you do not have enough of an influx of materials to support additional jobs.

"Division of labor" as far as the process of (dwarven) metallurgy is concerned involves procuring metal ores from the earth, smelting it into usable metal bars, and then smithing it into objects. You may have already figured that I was talking of the already-existing Mining, Furnace Operating, and x-smithing, respectively.

Telling your dwarves that "You're going to smith copper objects, you're going to smith iron objects, and you're going to smith gold" is pointless because, due to the nonfunctionality of the dwarven economy, division of labor is only helpful in terms of how long it takes to produce an object. Having one dwarf mine, smelt, and smith is inefficient as he'll be divided between all three tasks. Having one dwarf do each task results in goods being produced faster. Overshooting it by having a dwarf each for red-, black-, white-, and bright-smithing results in similar production times, but with two or three dwarves, at a time, spending most of their time doing nothing in particular.

Perhaps this model could change when the economy is fixed, but it's impossible to say how at this time.

[Andeerz]

My whole point is that 'metal' should not be consider "a single material type", the game has a large number of 'elemental' metals and a huge array of alloys.  Lumping them all together is akin to having a profession called "Non metal Crafter" who makes everything out of glass, wood, bone and stone as if they were all interchangeable.

That's not remotely similar and you know it.

How is it not remotely similar?  I don't know it.  Please, explain.

You are the only one arguing for realism. You.

I am also arguing for realism.  :3  Plus, even if he was the only one arguing for it, it doesn't make his opinions or statements any more or less right or wrong.  This part of your argument (saying that somehow because he's the only person saying something, it's somehow not a good argument for that reason) is an irritating and very dangerous argument to make.

Also, division of labor is the practice of splitting up multiple tasks in the creation of a single object, such as having a multitude of laborers each creating different parts of a gun. The goal of division of labor is to have multiple workers that are easier to train and can be paid less than a single worker who does all of these things by himself, as well as speeding up the process by having all of the laborers ready to work their particular task as soon as the task needs doing.

This is very relevant and enlightening (no sarcasm intended).  Thank you!

Division of labor is not associated with the "knowledge" or "sophistication" of a craft,

How so?

...it is related to the total labor available, or the complexity of performing it. As you know, once you hit anywhere between 50-80 dwarves, depending on your playstyle, you quickly run out of non-hauling jobs for your dwarves, either because nothing more particularly needs to be produced, or because you do not have enough of an influx of materials to support additional jobs.

"Division of labor" as far as the process of (dwarven) metallurgy is concerned involves procuring metal ores from the earth, smelting it into usable metal bars, and then smithing it into objects. You may have already figured that I was talking of the already-existing Mining, Furnace Operating, and x-smithing, respectively.

Telling your dwarves that "You're going to smith copper objects, you're going to smith iron objects, and you're going to smith gold" is pointless because, due to the nonfunctionality of the dwarven economy, division of labor is only helpful in terms of how long it takes to produce an object. Having one dwarf mine, smelt, and smith is inefficient as he'll be divided between all three tasks. Having one dwarf do each task results in goods being produced faster. Overshooting it by having a dwarf each for red-, black-, white-, and bright-smithing results in similar production times, but with two or three dwarves, at a time, spending most of their time doing nothing in particular.

Perhaps this model could change when the economy is fixed, but it's impossible to say how at this time.

Bingo!  Excellent points.  And I agree, except for saying "it's impossible to say how at this time".  If certain economic activities are better modeled (like masonry, pottery, metal working, ore extraction, and the like), these more realistic divisions of labor that you are arguing against would likely be needed for similar reasons they would be in real life.  Until the need for this realism is introduced in the game (which I hope it will be!), the addition of more realistic divisions of labor will not add much if anything and may in fact be a hindrance to gameplay.

Basically, I'm arguing FOR more realistic divisions of labor and skill synergy and the like.  BUT, they will not be useful or beneficial to the games until more realistic treatment of the economy and economic activities happens.

[BlckKnght]

Ridicules, more knowledge and sophistication ALWAYS results in more division of labor.  That's why their are hundred of types of medical specialists today compared to medieval society having only Surgeons, Dentists and Blood-letters.  Again if you don't want more skills that's one thing but don't made ridicules assertions in the guise of realism.

You are the only one arguing for realism. You.

Also, division of labor is the practice of splitting up multiple tasks in the creation of a single object, such as having a multitude of laborers each creating different parts of a gun. The goal of division of labor is to have multiple workers that are easier to train and can be paid less than a single worker who does all of these things by himself, as well as speeding up the process by having all of the laborers ready to work their particular task as soon as the task needs doing.

Loyal, I think you have one thing right, that most of the arguments going on in this thread are at their heart about the appropriate level of realism that should be in the game. I tend to think that more realism is better, but I can appreciate that you have concerns about the gameplay impact of proposed changes. Since nobody posting here has the power to make Toady One do our bidding, I don't think you should worry too much, as he's usually been open about seeking a balance between realism and simplicity.

That said, you're not accurately summarizing the Wikipedia page you linked in the quote above. While division of labor does get applied to assembly lines and similar splitting up of complex tasks, it also applies to specialization of skills within communities of different sizes. It's that sense that I think Impaler's idea should be though of. As a fortress gets more population, it makes sense for more of the dwarves to have narrowly specialized skills at which they are experts. Here's a quote from the article, attributed to Xenophon in the fourth century BC that makes just this point (emphasis added):

Just as the various trades are most highly developed in large cities, in the same way food at the palace is prepared in a far superior manner. In small towns the same man makes couches, doors, ploughs and tables, and often he even builds houses, and still he is thankful if only he can find enough work to support himself. And it is impossible for a man of many trades to do all of them well. In large cities, however, because many make demands on each trade, one alone is enough to support a man, and often less than one: for instance one man makes shoes for men, another for women, there are places even where one man earns a living just by mending shoes, another by cutting them out, another just by sewing the uppers together, while there is another who performs none of these operations but assembles the parts, Of necessity, he who pursues a very specialised task will do it best. (Book VIII, ch, ii, 4[]-6, cited in The Ancient Economy by M. I. Finley. Penguin books 1992, p 135.)

But, lets leave the question of how many skills there should be aside for now and presuppose a willingness to add a bit more complexity in exchange for more realism.

I think Impaler's idea has some close parallels in the the recent thread on porcelain and high-temperature kilns, as both discussed how there are several different ways of doing the same general thing (smithing or pottery) at different temperatures with different quality results. It would be interesting to work out what temperatures (and processes to achieve them) were required for all of the various metal smelting and forging tasks, glass making and blowing, and for ceramic firing and glazing. We could compile all that into a master list that Toady One can use to inform his game design choices going forward. Before I saw this thread I was thinking of positing something about that in my thread about tools. If there's interest I think I'll make a new thread for it instead.

Heating an object to a high temperatures in a controlled way is quite difficult, and it seems like a really good place for Toady to introduce a "tech curve" if he wants to. Smelting steel and firing porcelain are very challenging tasks that require significant infrastructure (a large supply of fuel (charcoal), availability of firebrick and other refractories, bellows, highly skilled operators, etc), so it would make sense for them to be impractical in a small, young fort.  Your first dwarves will instead start out drying mud-bricks in the sun and hammering out copper axeheads next to a campfire. As the fort grows, dwarves can begin using more challenging materials and techniques and gradually the full dwarven economy will build it self up.

[Hyndis]

But we have magma.

Furnaces and anvils fueled by rivers of magma as if out of Mordor.



It does not have to be realistic. Most of the fun and hilarious things in the game are far from realistic, but instead entirely because they are so absurdly unrealistic they are awesome.

See:

carp, tantrum spirals, HFS, dwarven "justice", dwarven physics, goblinite shipments, recursive artifacts, etc

[Silverionmox]

Mmm.. everything except the HFS and partially dwarven physics are on the bug list, you know. But that doesn't matter: anomalies are fun because they happen in an otherwise consistent and believable world. HFS would be Common Annoying Stuff if they were the rule rather than the exception (see also: tantrum spirals, dwarven justice, etc.). It's good to have a fortress chain react into death and destruction once in a while because someone's kitten was butchered, but not if it's guaranteed, and only if the normal situation is different.