Print

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

[Silverionmox]

Praguepride's number one describes something far too extreme  (look at Teloft's post...) while his 3rd idea lists keeping the synergies simple, larger categories, and planning/development of a simple system for managing and displaying this information.

I've not seen a single objective measure to determine whether something is 'simple', and categorizing as well as UI improvements are always possible. It's a matter of opinion. I'll agree with anything as the vanilla standard though, as long as finer stuff can be modded in.

i think in any circumstance, breaking up synergies into individual objects is a bad thing, because of just how many stones, metals and trees there are.

Just like praguepride's #3, there can be categorial skills for eg. wood. There's no reason why that ought to make potential detail impossible.

Also, SO confusing to a newbie, wondering why his bowman who has been making crossbows from towercaps you brought on embark forever, suddenly isn't as good, just cause he is using the native trees.

I wouldn't call someone who notices that a newbie. Anyway, I agree that that is a subtle difference, and hence ought to get to determine a small part of the skill, or be absent in the vanilla. There's no reason why it shouldn't be possible to mod it in.

It would also screw over rare materials. or make players take the extra effort to specialize in a material if they want everything to be of good quality.

The player shouldn't take the higher quality levels for granted.
We'll be able to set the ease of learning for all skills sooner or later. Also, the detailed skills are intended to influence the end result by 10% or so. Enough to get an edge over the competition, not enough to make it indispensable.

Keeping the synergy groups simple seems to be use most user friendly way to go, even with an awesome interface a lot of sub levels of synergies will confuse people.

They wouldn't be displayed, normally; players shouldn't worry about the experience differences between tables and chairs. They should be able to see some difference between the output of a dwarf that has made chairs his whole life, and a cooper.

you can just collect more perks by continuing to have them work on their jobs.

That's the idea, I agree. The number-crunching is for behind the screens.

The aim of doing it with XP is to make it fluid, so you don't need to micromanage ("doesn't he have his perk yet?", but just can say: make chests for a year, and be assured he's better at making chests, before you allow him to use the special feathertree shipment you saved for extra light chests, for example.
Also, discrete yes/no features have to be assigned randomly/by chance at some point. That inconsistency might be confusing as well. (After three years of making chests, Urist gives in to his nagging wife, makes a cabinet, and instantly becomes an expert cabinetmaker!)

[praguepride]

The problem I have with Praguepride's idea is that you can only specialize in one thing.  (Yes, I know that is sort of a definition of specialization, but still...)

That is actually the strength of the system in my eyes. You see, most of the systems have no impact on the game. None. (no offense, I know people put a lot of time & energy into their ideas) but the issue is this: (a dwarf measurement unit is an arbitrary measurement. It could be time, # of items, whatever you want it to be that makes the example make sense in your mind.)

In the current system, it takes 100 DTU's to go from making no quality items to masterpiece items in any particular skill.

So to go from making normal beds to masterpiece barrels is 100 DTU's. To go from novice spears to masterwork hammers is 100 DTU's.


In the proposed systems of perks or subskills or whatever, it might add a little bit of time to go from an exeprt in one subskill to an expert in another subskill, but not much. Especially with all this talk of synergy this and carry over that. So let's say it takes 100 DTU's to go from no-quality beds to masterwork beds. Then you wnat to make a masterwork barrel. Well, it takes an additional 5 DTU's to get up to that level with all the cross-synergies and blah blah blah that would need whole wiki pages and huge charts to explain what goes where and would probably look like the flying spaghetti monster smacked into Microsoft Visio by the end. And all that extra work, effort, coding, tracking, and learning would result in a 5 DTU increase.

Whoopty f-ing doo. What a waste of time (in my mind) to bother tracking ALL that extra information just for a small % increase in time. That might end up translating into an extra season of work or a couple dozen extra items, but the point is that within a reasonable amount of time, you have a guy who can make masterwork beds and barrels. Just like you can in the current system. And because there's no cap there's no stopping you from maxing out every skill in a skill family (or getting every perk etc.)

So in the current model it takes 100 DTU's to go from novice in everything to legendary in everything. In the "subskill/perK' family it might total up to 150 DTU's or maybe even double the time to 200 DTU's....but big whoop. You can get to legendary within a year of solid work, so even doubling it would only slow down the player, not actually alter his game style. Oh, instead of 1 year of work, it takes 2 years PLUS a bunch of micromanaging to figure out what other skills for that dwarf to max out.

Meanwhile, think about how this would effect attribute growth? Suddenly you have 10x as many skills to game for your uber-stat dwarf? How about migrant skill selection. Migrants are pretty worthless in general now, but sometimes can be useful. But how about now instead of getting a generic weaponsmith (useful) you get someone who is trained in making hammers (not so useful). You'd increase the chances of getting "those damn worthless soap makers" in EVERY skill category, not just soap making, because every breakdown has a "runt" family that just isn't that damn useful.

Finally, what about the craft stations that can make a HUGE amount of goods. Look at all the possible products of stone or wood or bone and think "how confusing would this be to a newbie looking at this interface, where every skill explodes into dozens of subskills...that don't really do ANYTHING except extend the amount of time it takes to go from newb to legendary."

If all you want is to slowdown legendary gains, you can do that now, just 1/2 XP gain and you've gotten the same system without the micromanagement or the UI overhaul or the need to add tags and skills and synergies to everything.


With my system, it's beautifully simple:

• It covers realism. In order to get the finest works, workers have to specialize. And I mean "really" specialize instead of "fake" specialize where you can "specialize" in every single skill.
• It alters gameplay. You can no longer have one dwarf doing everything. If you want legendary level beds AND barrels, you'll have to train up two dwarves.
• It addresses the problems of mature forts being stock full of masterpiece EVERYTHINGs by making it harder for dwarves to produce multiple types of masterpiece items. To have masterpiece barrels, beds, bins, pipes, traps etc. you'll have to train up that many dwarves to specialize instead of having one dwarf do it all. Even if your system makes it harder, it doesn't make it that much harder for one dwarf to become legendary in everything.
• Easy on the mods. No need to add tons of tags or figure out how much synergy a wood instrument should carry over to a steel drum.
• Simple system. No need to explode out dozens upon dozens of new skill names or track synergies in a big spaghetti mess.

Finally, to address NK's complaint, this system wouldn't be stupid but it won't hold a player's hand if he does something bone-headed. I'm thinking it will be REALLY simple. It tracks # of items made. That is all. If you make 100 barrels and 50 beds when you level up, you become a barrel maker. Easy-peasy. If the player is desperate to create a legendary bed maker, then I don't have much sympathy about why he'd spend twice as much time having that guy make barrels. Player was stupid, he should be punished. The water/magma/gobbos flooding your base don't stop and ask if it's ok for them to kill all your dwarves first. They don't stop and wait for you to say "Ok, you can destroy all my hard work...now!"

It's part of the challenge and requires strategic thinking. The systems others have suggested offers no strategic value. It's just one more thing to track. I'm not saying my system is perfect (like I said, I'd rather keep things the wya they are) but at least it has some strategic value and possibly helps solve other problems as well, like end-game "it's too easy to produce a ton of masterpiece" issue, at least in a small way.

[Silverionmox]

You can get to legendary within a year of solid work [...]Suddenly you have 10x as many skills to game for your uber-stat dwarf?

And what makes you think that would stay that way? Skills and attributes will start rusting in the very next edition. Moreover, every system is in tourist mode right now (farming, migrants, GCS silk socks: everything is plentiful).

How about migrant skill selection. Migrants are pretty worthless in general now, but sometimes can be useful. But how about now instead of getting a generic weaponsmith (useful) you get someone who is trained in making hammers (not so useful). You'd increase the chances of getting "those damn worthless soap makers" in EVERY skill category, not just soap making, because every breakdown has a "runt" family that just isn't that damn useful.

Every breakdown still includes the general category. The skill number used for forging a hammer would be 40% metalworking, 10% metal specialist, 40% forging, 10% hammers.

Finally, what about the craft stations that can make a HUGE amount of goods. Look at all the possible products of stone or wood or bone and think "how confusing would this be to a newbie looking at this interface, where every skill explodes into dozens of subskills...that don't really do ANYTHING except extend the amount of time it takes to go from newb to legendary."

They'll quickly learn not to explode the general categories until they're ready.

It covers realism. In order to get the finest works, workers have to specialize. And I mean "really" specialize instead of "fake" specialize where you can "specialize" in every single skill.

Skill rust towards the general skill level will prevent that. The XP would be divided proportionally and automatically between everything you let the dwarf do.

It alters gameplay. You can no longer have one dwarf doing everything. If you want legendary level beds AND barrels, you'll have to train up two dwarves.

Same. That was one of the starting goals, after all.

It addresses the problems of mature forts being stock full of masterpiece EVERYTHINGs by making it harder for dwarves to produce multiple types of masterpiece items. To have masterpiece barrels, beds, bins, pipes, traps etc. you'll have to train up that many dwarves to specialize instead of having one dwarf do it all. Even if your system makes it harder, it doesn't make it that much harder for one dwarf to become legendary in everything.

That's a function of the general speed of learning/skill gain rather than a matter of specialization. It's a pretty solid mechanic though. The thing I don't like about it is the arbitrary nature of specialization, provoking micromanagement - it's a bit like champions being locked into being guards in 40d - and the inflexibility. Dwarves should be able to learn new things, especially if circumstances force them to concentrate on it. For example, if a dwarf starts his career by making armor stands, but changes to making cabinets later, he still might become an armor stand expert while making cabinets, and being destined to make cabinets forever.

Easy on the mods. No need to add tons of tags or figure out how much synergy a wood instrument should carry over to a steel drum.

The material and items skills would be autogenerated from their respective raws, of course... Doing that manually is madness indeed!

Simple system. No need to explode out dozens upon dozens of new skill names or track synergies in a big spaghetti mess.

That's the reason of my preference for a rather small number of general component skills, that are combined into many others, with a small (though moddable) part for specialist subskills.

Finally, to address NK's complaint, this system wouldn't be stupid but it won't hold a player's hand if he does something bone-headed. I'm thinking it will be REALLY simple. It tracks # of items made. That is all. If you make 100 barrels and 50 beds when you level up, you become a barrel maker.

Heh. If item numbers are tracked, they might as well be tracked in the form of XP.

It's part of the challenge and requires strategic thinking. The systems others have suggested offers no strategic value. It's just one more thing to track.

I'd rather be annoyed by, indeed, having to track all the stuff a dwarf did in order to manage his specialization. A more flexible approach would still make a dwarf half as good in double the skillls, should he switch halfway.

A good suggestion, though I still miss a few things / get a few itches in it. We'll see what happens.

[praguepride]

A good suggestion, though I still miss a few things / get a few itches in it. We'll see what happens.

Agreed. My system does have numerous flaws in it, namely the ability for a player to easily track & predict specialization. I'd rather leave it player-hands-off (i.e. not prompting a player to pick) but there are definitely room(s) for improvement.

My point with the idea was more to illustrate a huge game impact, which I feel that if you're going to redesign something from the ground up, it should impact the gameplay in a significant way.

Plus, I think that the whole point of specialization is that it limits each dwarf to doing most things well, and only one specific thing extremely well.

[Silverionmox]

I'd rather leave it player-hands-off (i.e. not prompting a player to pick)

I agree, that's why I tried to consider the player's choice to be implied in job assignment.

Concerning specialization, it's possible to specialize in very small (eg. the Emperor Caracalla) as well as broader areas (eg. the Roman Empire).

One thing I thought of today: with composite skills, one could let an apprentice train by eg. making wooden sparring weapons. As soon as he has the hang of the proportions, sizes, shapes etc. he can start forging metal weapons without sucking like a noob.

[praguepride]

Concerning specialization, it's possible to specialize in very small (eg. the Emperor Caracalla) as well as broader areas (eg. the Roman Empire).

One thing I thought of today: with composite skills, one could let an apprentice train by eg. making wooden sparring weapons. As soon as he has the hang of the proportions, sizes, shapes etc. he can start forging metal weapons without sucking like a noob.

Two things: With my proposed system, it would address the first topic. Basically the more you specialize, the better you are within your specialty.

So a general dwarf sucks at woodworking. A dwarf then "specializes" in the broad area of "carpentry" and becomes a carpenter. That is a form of specialization. He can then stop there (if he never advances beyond Professional level) or continue on to specialize in barrelmaking.

The second thing is definitely a flaw in my system. I see your point and it would be nice to be able to train up apprentices, especially with valuable items like jewelry or metals, but then again it doesn't make sense. Crafting a spear from wood has little in common with forging a spear out of metal.

Perhaps this could be addressed by allowing workers to "train" at workshops, where they go about the motions of gaining XP but don't actually consume resources, or at least valuable ones. So making dummy spears wouldn't use up any iron (it can be assumed that he's crafting, melting it down again into bars, and crafting it again) but would still consume fuel etc.

Crafting dummy wooden or stone items might use up wood and stone, but at a reduced weight (and if possible would always pick the lowest value item for "training").

Next issue is skill degradation. That is another flaw with my system. As long as the barrelmaker makes ANYTHING in the carpentry family, his status is preserved across the level. However, if not making beds makes him poorer at making beds, then my system doesn't take that into account. As long as he's producing something wooden, he counts as using all the skills within the carpentry system. It's a definite flaw, but is it a game breaking one? is it worth trading it in for a crazy-complex system just to deal with skill degradation?

[ronnyfire]

Being only ably to specialize into one thing seems like it would work best if you had it set up so a legendary cooper could train new carpenters in basic carpentry, due to his professional level in carpenter, and once they reach professional, they could split off into another specialty. As a way to not make ridiculous amounts of materials be used to get two dwarves legendary.

Training could take increased amount of time, due to the dwarf being walked through everything and his work being inspected, but award more experience.

Just an idea =P

[NW_Kohaku]

Finally, to address NK's complaint, this system wouldn't be stupid but it won't hold a player's hand if he does something bone-headed. I'm thinking it will be REALLY simple. It tracks # of items made. That is all. If you make 100 barrels and 50 beds when you level up, you become a barrel maker. Easy-peasy. If the player is desperate to create a legendary bed maker, then I don't have much sympathy about why he'd spend twice as much time having that guy make barrels. Player was stupid, he should be punished. The water/magma/gobbos flooding your base don't stop and ask if it's ok for them to kill all your dwarves first. They don't stop and wait for you to say "Ok, you can destroy all my hard work...now!"

Remember when we were talking about how it would be bad if a sub-skill system was simply a bunch of data that didn't matter because it had no effect on the game, but that it would probably be worse if it forced players to micromanage their skill growth?

Well, this is one of those "force micromanagement" things - as you say yourself, the system is designed to punish a player who doesn't watch exactly what his wood-workers are making.

In fact, it's a very harsh punishment - you need hundreds, possibly even thousands of barrels and bins, but you only need a couple hundred beds over the course of your fortress's entire life.  This means you're practically guaranteed to have a legendary barrelmaker or binmaker unless you have two seperate carpenters, one who you very specifically train just for the sole purpose of making masterwork beds.

In fact, the most commonly produced wood items - barrels and bins - are the ones that really don't matter very much if they have quality or not.  Likewise, your masons are going to all be legendary doormakers or blockcarvers.

What about cooks?  Do they only learn how to create legendary quarrey bush leaf roasts?  What about the cook in my game, who was my initial Bookeeper, and hit legendary Clerk well before hitting legendary Cook?  Does she only get one specialization, even if it's in Bookkeeping?

[duckets]

Ok, here is my idea of what the new skill system should be like.

When you train a subskill, you gain some experience in the mainskill and very little experience in the other subskills.



Now mr helmut head can go make boots, but they aren't going to be the best boots.  However they aren't going to be crap either, as both his metalworking, armorsmithing, metal bootsmithing, AND material knowledge skills are all used to calculate the end product.  An alternative is that instead of being proficient in bootsmithing as a result of helmut smithing, he is dabbling.  The boots still won't be absolute crap though, and you will at least get superior boots with his dabbling bootsmithing skill.  Now if he went to go make a wooden bucket it could maybe even potentially kill him if you want to be that hardcore.

The efficiency and accuracy of this system is entirely dependent on how much each skill factors into the production process, and I haven't quite worked that out yet.  I'm thinking each item could have externalized percentages on a per-item basis?  Or would this take too long to code?

[praguepride]

Remember when we were talking about how it would be bad if a sub-skill system was simply a bunch of data that didn't matter because it had no effect on the game, but that it would probably be worse if it forced players to micromanage their skill growth?

Well, this is one of those "force micromanagement" things - as you say yourself, the system is designed to punish a player who doesn't watch exactly what his wood-workers are making.

In fact, it's a very harsh punishment - you need hundreds, possibly even thousands of barrels and bins, but you only need a couple hundred beds over the course of your fortress's entire life.  This means you're practically guaranteed to have a legendary barrelmaker or binmaker unless you have two seperate carpenters, one who you very specifically train just for the sole purpose of making masterwork beds.

In fact, the most commonly produced wood items - barrels and bins - are the ones that really don't matter very much if they have quality or not.  Likewise, your masons are going to all be legendary doormakers or blockcarvers.

What about cooks?  Do they only learn how to create legendary quarrey bush leaf roasts?  What about the cook in my game, who was my initial Bookeeper, and hit legendary Clerk well before hitting legendary Cook?  Does she only get one specialization, even if it's in Bookkeeping?

As mentioned before, item quality needs to be fixed before any of this really matters. If masterwork barrels & bins can hold x2 or x3 as many objects, quality on a barrel/bin will suddenly be very important for efficiency purposes.

But you're right, you probably won't have any masterwork beds in your fort. Big flippin deal. Except for fluff/RP purposes, a masterwork bed vs. regular bed is something like a 40 dwarfbuck difference. Considering a decent statue gets you easily into the 1,000's of dwarfbucks, not to mention engravings & smoothing adds 1,000's of dwarfbucks in value, not having masterwork beds is not going to make or break you.

And I was thinking that the dwarf would get 1 specialty per general area, and perhaps with skill rusting could lose that specialty and gain a new one.

So you could have a legendary barrelmaker and a legendary swordsmith as the same dwarf. But that dwarf wouldn't also be a legendary binmaker and/or a legendary spearsmith. One specialty per general area is the limit.

Also, things like Bookkeeping wouldn't have specialities because there's nothing that the skill can be broken down into. Brewing could be split into the different brews (wine, whiskey, ale etc.). Cooking would just be broken down into the 3 levels (simple, medium, lavish) as I think that always produces the same output name. So a simple meal always produces a "stew", and a lavish always produces a roast. It wouldn't be material specific, that's just silly. Saying that you'd only specialize in quarry leaf roasts would be like saying you only specialize in Ashen Beds or Gabbro Doors or something equally silly.

Anyway, about your forced micromanagement...eh. Your dwarves will specialize in the items you most frequently have them make. Plain and simple. If you really need masterwork beds, i'd call that a non-normal game goal and thus the player would have internal reasons to micromanage. Same for the people who try and color coordinate their noble rooms or even regular rooms (rangers get green rooms, masons get white rooms, clothiers get blue rooms etc.). That's not a "normal" game play goal and so it's the additional challenge to the player to achieve.

So it would definitely be bragging rights to say that you've got a legendary dwarf in every single possible specialty. You have a legendary barrlemaker, binmaker, doormaker, tablemaker etc. etc. etc. You wouldn't need an insane amount of dwarves because your legendary barrlemaker could also be your doormaker etc. but it would require a lot of effort.

But the same could be said about current challenges. I'm sure it wasn't simple (from a user's effort perspective) to get a single dwarf to legendary in every single skill. Extreme micromanagement was probably required for that as well...

[duckets]

wall of text

And thats why my system works awesomely.  You don't have to micromanage like hell unless you really want a master helmet smith to make you masterwork helmets.  It gives some room for your jack-of-all-trades to get you off the ground and gives you reason to specialize at the same time.  And you can even make the system make sense if even the smallest things get externalized.