Print

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

[Intrinsic]

BUG: If an animal is set as "Available" to be tamed ingame and then you set it to butcher it in DT then it is already treated as owned and so when it dies it gets put in the corpse stockpile and then given a tomb...it works fine if you butcher it from ingame. I'm guessing there is a flag that isn't being cleared which makes it get treated this way.

just to be sure, you mean 'Toggle pet availability' to available, and then slaughter?

Yep on the Status->Animals screen.

bah. i'm not sure what's going on then. i did some comparisons of the 'ready to slaughter' flag, setting it from DF and then from DT and it was identical. there must be something else happening 

just to make certain i'm following your actions: set animal to available, then set to slaughter in DT results in corpse stockpile->tomb right?

Yep correct.

[TerryDactyl]

Default everything. Across the board.

Attributes:1, Skills:1, Traits:1. The melee soldier role, as well, has weight:1 set to everything.

Are attributes, skills and traits each being compared against each other as averaged sums, or are all such values being considered individually?

It seems like traits are being weighed against attributes and against skills. Since there is only 1 trait and 6 attributes, I think that means that every one of those attributes is being considered only 1/6th as valuable as that 1 trait. I have not performed maths to confirm this notion.

it takes a weighted average of all attributes, all traits and all skills to get three total ratings. it then uses the global weights to take a weighted average of the 3 totals. finally it adjusts it with a cdf to acquire a rank relative to the population.

so in your example, the single trait is valued equally to all the attributes, and equally to any/all skills, as they're all set to 1.

Okay, we're on the same page. I don't think this is the right way to do it because it results in traits, skills and attributes being weighted differently depending on how many values belong to each category.

[King Mir]

Default everything. Across the board.

Attributes:1, Skills:1, Traits:1. The melee soldier role, as well, has weight:1 set to everything.

Are attributes, skills and traits each being compared against each other as averaged sums, or are all such values being considered individually?

It seems like traits are being weighed against attributes and against skills. Since there is only 1 trait and 6 attributes, I think that means that every one of those attributes is being considered only 1/6th as valuable as that 1 trait. I have not performed maths to confirm this notion.

it takes a weighted average of all attributes, all traits and all skills to get three total ratings. it then uses the global weights to take a weighted average of the 3 totals. finally it adjusts it with a cdf to acquire a rank relative to the population.

so in your example, the single trait is valued equally to all the attributes, and equally to any/all skills, as they're all set to 1.

Okay, we're on the same page. I don't think this is the right way to do it because it results in traits, skills and attributes being weighted differently depending on how many values belong to each category.

Individual attribute are weighted less, but attributes as a whole are weighed as the settings indicate. It's intuitive.

[TerryDactyl]

Individual attribute are weighted less, but attributes as a whole are weighed as the settings indicate. It's intuitive.

It isn't intuitive. For starters, I had no idea that the global settings existed. Secondly, it results in variable weights for every role depending on how many values exist in each field. Third, there is no indication the game evaluates skill, traits and attributes in this way. We have already established that this is what is going on with therapist, and that is what we are discussing. Welcome to the conversation. I wasn't talking to you. 

[King Mir]

That was rude. I was just pointing out, at the very least to splinterz, that I do find his way intuitive.

[splinterz]

first, there's plenty of documentation on the project home site about the roles and how they work. second, it's still a weighted average rating for the attributes, and while it may change per role, the end rating for each role is relative to the population. you can still tweak each role individually as you'd like or create custom roles.

third, the game doesn't provide you with any indication whatsoever on who may be best for a job, however we do know (see the wiki) that skills and attribute can affect jobs. we also know that some jobs may be affected in different ways by traits (ie. rage for military, compassion or whatever it is for doctors). it's still subjective, which is why all the different weights are there to allow players to decide what makes up a good rating.

you bring up an interesting point about taking each component and valuing them equally. i don't know if it's necessary, and i also don't know how much of an impact it would have on the rating without doing some testing. as they're ranked relative to each other at the last step, i don't think it's going to make a difference in the rankings.

finally, no offense, but if you don't want other people chiming in on a public forum perhaps private messages would be more suited to your needs. personally i like to hear that for some people the roles are intuitive and they've got no problems as much as i want to hear the concerns of people who think it's totally inaccurate.

[Sutremaine]

Would it be possible to have an arena mode, in which all creatures are read as though they're fortress mode dwarves?

Third, there is no indication the game evaluates skill, traits and attributes in this way.

Traits can make a difference to the quality of created goods. I once had a dwarf with a bunch of green mental stats step in as a mechanic, and he started producing high-quality mechanisms right away despite having no preferences for mechanisms or relevant stone types.

[TerryDactyl]

In-this-way meaning lumped in this fashion. I'm not arguing that traits influence certain elements of the game.

I felt it was rude that this fella comes in and completely invalidates the points I was making, despite my presenting evidence that one trait (or the lack thereof) influenced role score by a full 60 (!!!) points.

[expwnent]

Would it be possible to have a feature that exports all available dwarf information to a simple text file? I'd like to do some heredity science (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=111624.0) and I'm unfamiliar with the memory layout of dwarves.

I tried exporting grid views, but it seems to only export information about what property goes where in the Therapist GUI, not about the actual dwarves.

Never mind, DFHack does it.

[splinterz]

In-this-way meaning lumped in this fashion. I'm not arguing that traits influence certain elements of the game.

I felt it was rude that this fella comes in and completely invalidates the points I was making, despite my presenting evidence that one trait (or the lack thereof) influenced role score by a full 60 (!!!) points.

in your calm soldier role, you're excluding traits, so it's only taking into account skills and attributes, so this dwarf who receives a 91.83 rating, has great attributes and skills relative to the other dwarves.

the base melee role rates him at 31.76 because you've told it to value traits as being worth 1/3 of the rating. because he's got a very low trait rating, that 1/3 trait part of the rating isn't going to contribute very much. furthermore as the final ranking, once again, is relative to the population, with that low trait number, he's probably going to be ranked near the bottom.

valuing the trait the same as each individual attribute will most likely increase the 31.76 rating, but it will probably make no difference in his ranking relative to the others.

[King Mir]

In-this-way meaning lumped in this fashion. I'm not arguing that traits influence certain elements of the game.

I felt it was rude that this fella comes in and completely invalidates the points I was making, despite my presenting evidence that one trait (or the lack thereof) influenced role score by a full 60 (!!!) points.

I don't see the problem. Melee soldier is an unusual role because no melee soldier will use all of the skills listed under the role. So using it as a model for how other roles should behave is a bad idea. However, given this particular fact, having the 1 associated trait be 6 times more important than all the military skills makes sense, assuming that the relative importance of traits to skills should be 1 to 1 in the first place.

I quite simply find your point to be wrong. I suppose I could have elaborated more on why I found it wrong, but that would require anticipating your objections, and in this case I would not have properly. Please don't take offense to my brevity. And don't take offense in that I disagree with you.

EDIT:
It's also possible to add aspect group weights to to individual roles, like is done for Lawdwarf, and for this role it might be a good idea to do so. It might be better to split the role into 1 for each weapon type though.

[splinterz]

yeah i considered creating separate roles for each weapon type, but it adds a lot of extra roles.. maybe it would be better to create a special military roles tab...

[King Mir]

Yeah, you could add a separate tab for civilian, noble, and military roles. Then sort the civilian like the labor tab, the military roles like the military tab, and the nobles by the order they appear on the noble screen. It's an idea.

[khearn]

I wouldn't mind having the military roles on the military skills tab. There's plenty of room for them, and it would save having to switch between the tabs a lot. I've seriously considered making a custom tab to do so.

[splinterz]

hrmm what about leaving the generic melee/ranged military roles in the default roles tab, add individual weapon skill roles to the military tab, and put the noble roles first on the default tab, followed by the civilian roles?