Print

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

[Blah]

Written with Df2010 in mind.

- Beds should create a bedroom automatically when placed. Almost every single bed in a fort ends up as bedroom. Only some end up in a dormitory or barracks. As plus, have the default size of the bedroom be the same as the last defined bedroom. Barracks/dormitory overrule bedrooms in their designated area.

- Allow butchering of pets, with the downside of upsetting the owner.

- "Encrust specific item" and "Encrust items in specific stockpile" options at jeweler's workshop. Counterparts for bone/shell/metal/cloth/leather at the respective workshops. To encrust a specific item, position the cursor over it and confirm with Enter. If multiple items are on the same tile, confirming would expand a list to allow choosing one specific item.

- New building: axle wheel (I'm sure there is a proper term for it, but it escapes me at the moment). It can power machines connected to it when operated by dwarves or larger animals like horses. Simply put, there is no way to generate machine power in the underground (unless there's an underground river, which I've not seen yet in Df2010). Currently we have to dig up all the way to the surface for water wheels/windmills, or make perpetual motion devices which are basically an exploit.

[Felblood]

Written with Df2010 in mind.

- Beds should create a bedroom automatically when placed. Almost every single bed in a fort ends up as bedroom. Only some end up in a dormitory or barracks. As plus, have the default size of the bedroom be the same as the last defined bedroom. Barracks/dormitory overrule bedrooms in their designated area.

Barracks and dormitories are really handy for dealing with large groups of immigrants. --Or they would if the dwarves would sleep where we assigned them to. I think I saw a suggestion for an init toggle that makes it work that way, for players who don't use the other functions.

- Allow butchering of pets, with the downside of upsetting the owner.

The distinction between fortress goods and private property is only expected to get stronger, rather than weaker. The ability to seize private property of all kinds is a hotly debated issue.

- "Encrust specific item" and "Encrust items in specific stockpile" options at jeweler's workshop. Counterparts for bone/shell/metal/cloth/leather at the respective workshops. To encrust a specific item, position the cursor over it and confirm with Enter. If multiple items are on the same tile, confirming would expand a list to allow choosing one specific item.

There are a lot of these threads floating around, with a lot of different angles on how to solve the problem of getting custom/specific items made/enhanced.

- New building: axle wheel (I'm sure there is a proper term for it, but it escapes me at the moment). It can power machines connected to it when operated by dwarves or larger animals like horses. Simply put, there is no way to generate machine power in the underground (unless there's an underground river, which I've not seen yet in Df2010). Currently we have to dig up all the way to the surface for water wheels/windmills, or make perpetual motion devices which are basically an exploit.

Here. You'll enjoy reading this.

[j0nas]

- Allow butchering of pets, with the downside of upsetting the owner.

Yes, a thousand times yes!  I would also welcome the ability to make private property dumpable.  Those who consider this cheating should feel free to respect the rights of their dwarves without letting their choices inconvenience the rest of us.

[VDOgamez]

Well, honestly, the private property debate is still unsettled, and property rights are sometimes not respected by governments in real life, (Especially ones with corrupt, unqualified, self-appointed leaders who treat their empire like a plaything, like you.) so it shouldn't be too much of a stretch in DF. I think that as the dwarves' god-king, you should be able to decide whether your dwarven society is a capitalist condominium or a communist hive.

[Hummingbird]

Well, honestly, the private property debate is still unsettled, and property rights are sometimes not respected by governments in real life, (Especially ones with corrupt, unqualified, self-appointed leaders who treat their empire like a plaything, like you.) so it shouldn't be too much of a stretch in DF. I think that as the dwarves' god-king, you should be able to decide whether your dwarven society is a capitalist condominium or a communist hive.

Ideally, you'd be able to run your fort however way you want, but the reactions from your dwarves would depend on the ethics of the civilization that you are playing. (That requires ethics to differ at the civilization level, not at the racial level as it does at present.) It's left to decide whether dwarven societies will tend towards totalitarianism/communism or not, but there's no reason you shouldn't come across a very capitalistic, democratic civ once in a while. And if you seize private property in such a society, you better be prepared for the tantrum spirals…

[thvaz]

Good ideas.  What about these, expanding on your ideas:

                           * A bedroom should be created whenever an unnassigned bed was used by a dwarf, then creating a bedroom with the size of the room, owned by that dwarf.
                           * XXClothesXX would be throw away if the dwarf got a better equivalent one. These throw away items would be automatically set to dump.
                           * The butchering of pets should have a bad thought besides the one for the death of the pet, and maybe a grudge with the dwarf in charge.
                       
 

[Blah]

Well, honestly, the private property debate is still unsettled, and property rights are sometimes not respected by governments in real life

You'd expect a fort to start butchering pets in desperate times rather than starving to death. Even at the risk of Urist McPetowner going berserk.

Barracks and dormitories are really handy for dealing with large groups of immigrants. --Or they would if the dwarves would sleep where we assigned them to. I think I saw a suggestion for an init toggle that makes it work that way, for players who don't use the other functions.

I was not suggesting to remove barracks or dormitories. My line of thought was this: my forts have a barracks/dormitory or two. I only need to place the beds and define a dormitory/barracks once. Then my forts thave 50+ individual bedrooms, and I have to define a bedroom for every single bed. That's a lot of keypresses. If somebody wanted to make dormitories for his entire fortress, this would not change anything for him because dormitories/barracks only need to be defined from one bed and encompass all other beds in their area. Thus it would be a good change for everyone if beds were bedrooms by default.

[Silverionmox]

I'd expect dwarves to hunt down and eat the pets of other dwarves

Concerning the beds, I'd rather move away from a furniture-centric room definition, but would rather base it on position. What should be set in the ini (or be persistent after you make in-game changes) is the default size (and default function) of the room, so you get for example a 5*6 room by default. With these two changes, you just need to press a key to define a room (a bedroom, if you're busy making bedrooms) and confirm just once normally. Two keypresses per bedroom isn't excessive.

[Felblood]

It looks like all the previous threads on this topic devolved into political blather, so let's use this thread to drag private property back onto the scene.

One way to allow the player to retain control, while giving dwarves private property would be to mimic the Eminent Domain system, here in America.

The system:
Urist McSkeezyDeveloper figures that his land would be more valuable if a road went through the space my house occupies.
He petitions the local government to seize my house (paying me a percentage of it's value) and pave over the top of it, pointing out how much more taxable income he would have if he had his road in place.
The local government weighs the pros (more money) against the cons (civil unrest and homelessness), and wisely decides to let me keep my house.

In respect to DF, you could have dwarves ask for things that belong to other dwarves(like pet when they are starving), and the player could be permitted to grant this request or deny it. Supposedly, Eminent Domain is a forced sale, so the player should have the option of paying the injured party part or all of the value of the item or animal (this is unlikely to appease someone who is attached to an item or pet).

Being able to forcibly buy out items, at a fraction of their value would be nice as well. If badly damaged clothing was valued realistically, you could even have an option to automatically buy rags, when their value falls below a certain point.

[Pilsu]

Yeah, let's leave eminent domain and other mush out of it when we're talking about dwarves leaving their old, frumpy shirts in the bridgeworks, risking hundreds of lives. As long as they are too damn stupid to disown their garbage and cats pick their own owners (seriously, Toady, you just bought a bleeping cat ), arbitrary seizure is a critical feature and dwarves don't get to complain about it. Council meetings should not be required to butcher someone's dog for meat during famine. Make the dwarf throw a couple month tantrum and form a grudge with the mayor, nobles, fortress guard, the butcher himself, I don't care.


On the plus side, animals brought along with immigrants are no longer anyone's pets. This is probably unintended but let's face it, as long as pets are handled this poorly, immigrants should not bring their own cattle. [PET] tag should not be required in addition to [COMMON_DOMESTIC]. I should be able to have cattle that can't be claimed as a companionship animal. In fact, the whole domestic tag thing needs a revamp anyway, it's probably the reason dwarves only have cows for now.

[Omath Erius]

It looks like all the previous threads on this topic devolved into political blather, so let's use this thread to drag private property back onto the scene.

One way to allow the player to retain control, while giving dwarves private property would be to mimic the Eminent Domain system, here in America.

The system:
Urist McSkeezyDeveloper figures that his land would be more valuable if a road went through the space my house occupies.
He petitions the local government to seize my house (paying me a percentage of it's value) and pave over the top of it, pointing out how much more taxable income he would have if he had his road in place.
The local government weighs the pros (more money) against the cons (civil unrest and homelessness), and wisely decides to let me keep my house.

In respect to DF, you could have dwarves ask for things that belong to other dwarves(like pet when they are starving), and the player could be permitted to grant this request or deny it. Supposedly, Eminent Domain is a forced sale, so the player should have the option of paying the injured party part or all of the value of the item or animal (this is unlikely to appease someone who is attached to an item or pet).

Being able to forcibly buy out items, at a fraction of their value would be nice as well. If badly damaged clothing was valued realistically, you could even have an option to automatically buy rags, when their value falls below a certain point.

I see two problems with this:

1. It takes away the player's status as an omnipresent and intangible force in the fortress and sets him/her down as a physical, observable being. The dwarf in question is specifically asking something of you, the player. This could probably be fixed by having the dwarf ask his local mayor/baron/whatever, and letting him decide.

2. Before the economy sets in, there is no ownership to exchange, except for pets. Even when/if the economy does show up, the player never officially owns anything. The only way to give a dwarf the value of his pet would be to give him/her a different pet. Again, this might be fixable if the local leadership offers something of their own.

Maybe this could be another role of the Mayor/Baron/Whatever. If Urist McMayor has the "hates cats" trait, he'll spend his spare time buying up pet cats to send to the slaughter. That might be taking too much control away from the player, though.

[Felblood]

Pilsu, did you read the second half of my post?

I want the player, as the spirit of the community, to decide when eminent domain is invoked. Likewise, I proposed a system for automatically seizing and collecting rags and garbage.

You're interpreting my position in a way that is quite nearly the opposite of my intentions.

After meetings suck less it might be cool to have the relevant officials meet together, and then prompt the player for a ruling, but that might get tedious.

Another cool addition would be if city leaders also got negative thoughts for making tough choices. "Urist McMayor has been ecstatic lately. He has been troubled by the need to make pragmatic choices lately."

Of course, some leaders could order a million protesters shot in the streets and not lose any sleep over it.

[Blah]

Allright, this wasn't supposed to be a thread to discuss private property in depth.

It was about simple changes to improve DF. Stuff that is easy to implement and agreed on by most people. Coming up with small changes that lead to a comparatively large improvement of the game is best at this stage of the game because they lead to most improvement in shortest time. The large changes are for mods or later iterations.

[Lord Darkstar]

Player should be able to dump owned goods. Ordering an item dumped will have it taken to the closest active dump zone. If that zone isn't destructive (ie, not a magma zone), then the OWNER dwarf can reclaim the item if dwarf wishes. This lets players perform "beautification" and criticial maintenence (getting those items out of the way of critical tiles).

As for eminent domain--- I am fine with early fortresses being able to seize anything. The reason is that an early fortress is a communism pulling together to get the jobs done that need doing. The dwarves don't start getting paid for their work until the "economy" kicks in. So prior to the economy, the player can seize any item, and have it a generate bad thought in the owning dwarf (two or more for seized pets--- as the dwarf can keep missing the pet for a time following the loss of the pet.)

After the economy kicks in, any seized items should require the former owning dwarf to get paid AND generate the base level of bad thoughts with a extra penalty involved (ie, hating the fortress leadership), as dwarves who live in a "proper" fortress should be a lot less inclined to make sacrifices of their own goods "for the fortress", while dwarves in an early fortress understand that things are much harsher in a new or a small developing fortress, and occasionally, sacrifices for the good of the majority will be required.

[Pilsu]

Pilsu, did you read the second half of my post?

Eminent domain, even if I have direct control over it, is a pretty big bag of kittens and has rules and regulations relating to it, necessitating meetings and whatnot. I just want to dump old, smelly socks left in my cistern. Fancy stuff like compensation, bad thoughts etc can wait and takes a whole lot more thought and work put into it than allowing dwarves to dump owned items. If we half-ass it, we'd end up with tantrum spirals over old, ripped, discarded socks being burned. Dwarves going "waah waah, it was technically my property" and all that. It's a thread for simple suggestions, should keep it simple for now.

On second thought, dwarves being able to handle owned items would probably make the presence of a clothes stockpile cause dwarves to enthusiastically strip each other naked. That's probably the reason the socks are owned in the first place. Yeah, I suppose forcible removal of owned property is the simplest solution but anything else added on top of that should come later.