Print

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

[Mortal Kron]

My dwarves have too many friends,
Or they did any ways...

After a small band of goblins and 5 dwarves died, All 102 of their friends instantly became miserable, and their 5 lover go berserk and kill everyone! And the dwarves who they killed lovers go berserk kill everyone! And so on and so on. Everyone is throwing tantrums and destroying all my building and throwing rocks at every one.

Now their is only 3 dwarves left and they went mad and jumped off a cliff.

It's really depressing...

But before they killed themselves, all they did was talk and throw parties at the platinum table meeting hall. So much that 90% of the dwarves were not working and instead "attending party".

[Lyrax]

Those two problems are related.

Personally, I think that dwarves with lots of friends shouldn't grieve *quite* so... dramatically as those who have few friends.  That's just me, though.

[Zironic]

Save yourself the trouble, never designate tables or statues as meeting halls. TO MUCH PARTING!

[Hypcso]

I agree, I have a few dwarves ( Mostly children, who oddly seem to be bugged and have been children for atleast 15 years, AFTER migrating here ) who have atleast 40 friends, if two die and their bodies rot they will be instantly miserable.

[Derakon]

As a suggestion, make grief from lost friends inversely proportional to the number of friends. Thus, loners who lose one of their few friends will feel it badly, but those who have tons of friends barely notice when one of them bites it (or alternatively, have a network of friends to help them deal with their grief).

[Pickerel]

I like the proportion idea.  This allows for there to be a 'buffering' effect, this there becomes a benefit rather then a bane to having lots of friends, and mitigates the everyone going berserk thing...

So the loner may have one friend.  If this friend dies, instant madness.  But the chance of that friend dieing is 1/(total dwarves).
The socialite who has lots of friends instead has a chance of a friend dieing of Friends/(Total Dwarves) and could have a formula of, as an example, 2*Friends/(Total Dwarves) percent to insanity, so that half their friends must die before they actually go instantly and completely insane.  The chance of this is lower.  The other side of this coin is that, with friends dieing in smaller numbers, this dwarf will be more often less happy then the loner.  So many friends = a stable medium, while loner = an unstable mania: always happy, up until the end...

Also, a random question.  Do military dwarves gain friend-points (or what we shall call them) from serving together, patrolling together, ect?  I was speaking to the janitor today, and he was telling me about his war stories... surely relying on eachother and fighting side by side developes some powerful friendships, by his description...  Of course, were they to, there would be the problem of insanity when one's group members die, unless there's some sort of way to reduce the effects, like getting happy thoughts from enjoying slaughter to counter the effects of allies dieing at the same time.  It's a risky job ^.^

[Draco18s]

2*(Friends/total) or (2*friends)/total?

Order of Opperations, man.

[Cavalcadeofcats]

Draco, the two statements are exactly equivalent.

[Alfador]

quote:Originally posted by Cavalcadeofcats:
<STRONG>Draco, the two statements are exactly equivalent.</STRONG>

Yes, multiplication is associative, and since the division is the last part of the expression it's equivalent to multiplication by the reciprocal.  :cool:

[Keldor]

Besides, division has a lower order of operation than multiplication, so a/b*c is equivalent to a/(b*c) and NOT (a/b)*c.

[Derakon]

Er, division is multiplication, so all of this is meaningless anyway.

[N35t0r]

not exactly.

a/(b*c) equals a/b/c
a/(b/c) equals a/b*c

[Puzzlemaker]

I agree that more friends = less grieving.  I also think that based on their personality dwarves can have a max number of friends.

[Derakon]

quote:Originally posted by N35t0r:
<STRONG>not exactly.

a/(b*c) equals a/b/c
a/(b/c) equals a/b*c</STRONG>

a/(b*c) is a * 1/b * 1/c. a/(b/c) is a * 1/(b * 1/c). When I said that division is multiplication, I meant that division is multiplication by the reciprocal. I didn't mean you can just swap the symbols around or play with parentheses and expect the results to be constant.

[Draco18s]

quote:Originally posted by Cavalcadeofcats:
<STRONG>Draco, the two statements are exactly equivalent.</STRONG>

*Looks at it in daylight.*
Er, right. >.>
Brain stops working around 2am, I posted that sometime after 3.