Print

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

[Zaik]

Why don't we just say use blocks if you've got them, don't if you don't?

Seems to settle the situation easily enough.

I Just set them(among other things) on repeat and build a ton of mason's/mechanic's shops to clean up all the loose useless stone over time rather than quantum stockpiling it, it's less work

[dogstile]

I don't know why there is an argument about this in the first place. Blocks are lighter and you build things noticeably faster with them if you have them at the site. What's the argument about?

[Dok Enkephalin]

If your stone, masons and workshop are sitting idle, then block-building is best for all the reasons already stated. Hauling time isn't an issue when most of your stone just needs to be cleared away quickly and the only other employment for them is rock crafts. I found that I rarely actually use those blocks, because there's almost always a ready supply of rocks within easy reach of my next construction, and value is rarely a concern.

[Internet Kraken]

2)  My dwarfs move significantly faster with blocks, don't know about yours.  Why don't you try it before dismissing it out of hand?

I have tried it before. This is why I don't think blocks are better. Even when I was designing forts to be as efficient as possible rather than fun, I never found blocks to be superior. And I haven't seen anything to prove that they are superior, this included. There are to many flaws involved in block production for me to rely on it constantly. Again, it's not horribly inefficient. A fort can still function perfectly fine with blocks rather than rough stone, and you will have the added bonus of higher value walls. But I have never found them to be more efficient. And even if they were, it relies on skilled masons pumping out blocks constantly. Masons are the second easiest dwarves to lose, next to haulers. So I would never want to have any part of my forts industry dependent upon skilled masons since they are likely to catch an arrow with their face.

[Emily]

Why don't we just say use blocks if you've got them, don't if you don't?

Seems to settle the situation easily enough.

Because that actually sort of misses the point.  Blocks aren't going to be better if you haven't designed your construction efforts to make use of them--largely because you're not going to have any.

Also I'm not entirely sure how a dedicated carver-mason is going to be easy to lose; you put your skilled masons in a burrow that stays deep in the fortress near your mining areas, not hauling on the surface where face-arrows tend to happen.  (You have a bunch of masons that do that, too, but they're not the skilled ones)

[Internet Kraken]

Why don't we just say use blocks if you've got them, don't if you don't?

Seems to settle the situation easily enough.

Because that actually sort of misses the point.  Blocks aren't going to be better if you haven't designed your construction efforts to make use of them--largely because you're not going to have any.

Also I'm not entirely sure how a dedicated carver-mason is going to be easy to lose; you put your skilled masons in a burrow that stays deep in the fortress near your mining areas, not hauling on the surface where face-arrows tend to happen.  (You have a bunch of masons that do that, too, but they're not the skilled ones)

Again, it has to do with the way my forts are designed. A more accurate example is a zombie manta ray crushing a mason in his sleep. So I suppose that is error on my part. It's also worth mentioning that my fort is constantly consuming stone, because I build it on top of the ocean. When I tried doing this with blocks, it didn't work nearly as well, even when I built them right next to the mines. So perhaps blocks work better on smaller scales, but when you are going to be constantly building raw stone will be more efficient.

[FleshForge]

I think proper efficiency is pretty hard to measure, especially when you have the blatant simplicity of just having a hundred dwarfs just DO IT and it gets done quickly with freshly dug raw stone compared to having a few skilled artisans carefully pick up each rock, lovingly chip it into a block, and oh-so-daintily place it into a bin, whereupon another dwarf gently cradles the bin, as if it were a tiny fragile baby, and carries it to another stockpile, and a third dwarf tenderly wiggles each perfect brick into just the right place.

[Urist Imiknorris]

You could make shittons of blocks if you drafted your entire population as masons.

[Reese]

2)  My dwarfs move significantly faster with blocks, don't know about yours.  Why don't you try it before dismissing it out of hand?

I have tried it before. This is why I don't think blocks are better. Even when I was designing forts to be as efficient as possible rather than fun, I never found blocks to be superior. And I haven't seen anything to prove that they are superior, this included. There are to many flaws involved in block production for me to rely on it constantly. Again, it's not horribly inefficient. A fort can still function perfectly fine with blocks rather than rough stone, and you will have the added bonus of higher value walls. But I have never found them to be more efficient. And even if they were, it relies on skilled masons pumping out blocks constantly. Masons are the second easiest dwarves to lose, next to haulers. So I would never want to have any part of my forts industry dependent upon skilled masons since they are likely to catch an arrow with their face.

you skilled mason can now be assigned to a burrow and never leave the safety of the fortress's inner chambers.

[FleshForge]

Re: having a hundred block-makers, that just makes measuring efficiency even more obscure though, since you have the time spent to build all the mason shops and even more time moving blocks from shop -> primary stockpile -> secondary stockpile, although done in "massive parallel".  Efficiency and effectiveness don't always coincide.

[melomel]

Why don't we just say use blocks if you've got them, don't if you don't?

What, and miss the opportunity to wage civil war over esoterica?

I think proper efficiency is pretty hard to measure, especially when you have the blatant simplicity of just having a hundred dwarfs just DO IT and it gets done quickly with freshly dug raw stone compared to having a few skilled artisans carefully pick up each rock, lovingly chip it into a block, and oh-so-daintily place it into a bin, whereupon another dwarf gently cradles the bin, as if it were a tiny fragile baby, and carries it to another stockpile, and a third dwarf tenderly wiggles each perfect brick into just the right place.

Snorf!

You're clearly in the wrong, though.    Masons have to be trained up using something, and making blocks saves you the effort of atom-smashing/dumping but then accidentally reclaiming those crappy -gneiss thrones-.

I also like abusing the z-stocks menu without throwing wrenches in my industries.

[FleshForge]

I hear what you're saying, but that again is a different matter - quality vs. efficiency.  The highest quality is rarely obtained by the most efficient means.  Note I'm not saying one thing is better than another, just that "efficiency" is going to be pretty subjective and very difficult to measure.

[Pan]

Masons are the second easiest dwarves to lose, next to haulers.

 No. It's woodcutters, wood haulers and herbalists.

[kopliu]

Don't forget the fisherdwarves.

[zilpin]

Hunters.
They always get eaten.
But they don't usually make friends, which is good.