Print

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

[NW_Kohaku]

Technically, dabbling is functionally meaningless skill.  It just means you have tried it once, but don't have a single real skill rank yet.  That just means that the first time you use the skill, it takes longer.  That basically only punishes the player on the starting seven, or the first wave of immigrants, when the game really should be easier than it is now, and is meaningless in the later game, when it really should be harder than it is.

What if we just did something slightly unrealistic, and said that failure at a task lets you reuse the ingredients?  Maybe there could be some sort of reclaimation process, like having to re-smelt the metal or something if it were metal, but some types of rarer materials could have a failure object that is created in a failed attempt, and you could reclaim the material with another operation if it were really something rare enough to care about?

[Stove]

About literacy: We have bookkeepers already.  That implies literacy.  Plus, every dwarf can do that, to the point where in 40d, it was a suggested way of training up certain dwarves by giving them a stint at bookkeeping, since all skills trained stats equally, and bookkeeping gained experience more rapidly than most.

It's well established that bookkeepers don't write anything down. They just memorize everything.
It would be nice to see record keeping revamped, though.

Crazy idea: There should be a way to turn adamantine into magical skill training. You build a shrine, order a dwarf to burn an adamantine wafer as a sacrifice to the dwarven gods of craft, and he gets high on the fumes and learns an advanced skill* that nobody else in the fortress has. This is a fallback option so that mature fortresses can fill in any advanced skills they're still missing. It's a meaningful cost because adamantine is non-renewable and hazardous to mine.

Most mature fortresses should be able to do that using the suggested methods, though.
But let's think of a scenario where a long-running fortress might not have access to a skill through the suggested sources. A fortress which is the last remaining dwarves of a dead civilization - that means no immigration, and no trading with the mountainhomes. Maybe it is also isolated from or at war with the other civilizations. Are the missing skills lost forever? No! There's already a system in the game that could bring these skills back: A dwarf can gain legendary skill by creating an artifact.
You wouldn't have very much control over this source of skill, but in such a rare and dire situation, you should be thankful it exists.

[Shades]

It seems the main issue that people have with this suggestion is that it brings about the possibility for a fortress to be screwed over in some way by the lack of a certain skill. It is this possibility which would give depth and meaning to the skills.
It means that if your fortress lacks skills in a certain industry, you might rely on trade caravans to obtain those goods. To a certain degree, this legitimizes the trade system.
If means that skilled dwarves are no longer expendable, and the loss of one may actually have an impact.
It means the skills you choose when embarking are actually important.
And when a skill is needed for a fortress, there would be ways to get that skill without making your dwarves figure it out on their own.

My main issue with it is that we'd be moving away from the current somewhat realistic system to a much less realistic skill-unlock system, and frankly I don't see the point. I'm all for making inferior products be signification less effective but being unable to build them just because your not a level 8 mason seems silly.

Although I admit to liking the effect of the bolded line. We could do with some way to achieve that.

[NW_Kohaku]

Well, the alternative to a "skill unlock" system is specific training in one particular application of a skill.

There are a few ways to have something like this:  When talking about tech trees, I remember a few talks ( http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=62629.msg1439024#msg1439024 ) about ways to have both "pre-requisite" tools for certain workshop tasks, as well as a broader "tech-tree" method of handling civs.

I also remember a long-running set of heated arguments (like http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=50872.msg1080407#msg1080407 although that was one of the tamer ones) involving various different flavors of splitting skills into separate smaller skills, so that "coopering" was separate from all the other carpentry skills, and that working with each kind of metal had different skills, which then had skill synergies, but was all hideously complicated and involved turning skills into a four-dimensional graph, and I argued against it on those grounds.  During these, however, it was discussed some ways for skilled dwarves to have "perks" of some kind or another, which would grant specific benefits when working with their preferred skills or materials or products.

In defense of the Andeerz "tech-tree" method, it's probably not the kind of tech-tree you are thinking of, but a tech-tree that involves proceedural worldgen time scales, and generally just makes fortresses in different worldgens have different options available to them, although he does want a few rare and exciting "breakthroughs" to be possible in your fort.

The building prerequisites, however, could be worked with in conjunction to having a "skill unlock" that might make more sense, however - In order to make platemail, you need specialized platemail-making tools in your workshop.  In order to build those, you might need a book ("baby's first custom-fitted armor"), or access to a person who has read the book or done the research or whatever and made some before.  It's only then that you can build the advanced/upgraded armorsmith that has the tools for more advanced armors.

As for people who are talking about "make players get it through moods", we already have something similar to that - the anvil.  If you don't bring one, and don't buy one, then moods are your only recourse... how many people actually get anvils from moods?  I'd think being able to buy a book in caravans would be a far more reliable fallback, the way that players can generally be confident that at least one anvil is coming in within the first couple years.

[Stove]

My main issue with it is that we'd be moving away from the current somewhat realistic system to a much less realistic skill-unlock system, and frankly I don't see the point. I'm all for making inferior products be signification less effective but being unable to build them just because your not a level 8 mason seems silly.

Although I admit to liking the effect of the bolded line. We could do with some way to achieve that.

The current system isn't realistic, though. Not even somewhat. If someone doesn't know how to do something, they should have to learn how to do it. If the knowledge to perform a certain task doesn't exist in your fortress, then you should have to find a way to obtain that knowledge before the task becomes performable. "skill-unlock" is just a crude way of describing a system that would add realism and depth to the gameplay.

[Max White]

The current system isn't realistic, though. Not even somewhat. If someone doesn't know how to do something, they should have to learn how to do it. If the knowledge to perform a certain task doesn't exist in your fortress, then you should have to find a way to obtain that knowledge before the task becomes performable. "skill-unlock" is just a crude way of describing a system that would add realism and depth to the gameplay.

Why yes it is a crude way, and DF is like game dev porn, it holds itself to such great hights. There has already been suggestions to make products that are of negitive quality, therefor making them unusable and (And why am I the only one who thinks this is dwarfish) some activitys causing physical harm when done by somebody untrained. I guess dwarfs could even get negitive thoughts from 'doing work they are uncomfortable with', in the same way dwarfs can get good thoughts from work they are good at, so we can even do emotional harm.

We have much better ways to 'add realism and depth to the gameplay' without cheap level requirments.

[Shades]

The current system isn't realistic, though. Not even somewhat. If someone doesn't know how to do something, they should have to learn how to do it. If the knowledge to perform a certain task doesn't exist in your fortress, then you should have to find a way to obtain that knowledge before the task becomes performable. "skill-unlock" is just a crude way of describing a system that would add realism and depth to the gameplay.

I disagree, the current system, although not hugely realistic, is far more so than the skill unlock concept that people keep bringing up. Yes someone has to learn how to do something but people can learn by doing, there has yet to be a task suggested that this isn't true for. Remember we are not inventing only imitating here.

[Lord Shonus]

To be perfectly honest, it's much, much easier to manage to make something than people seem to think. I made a usable bow in my backyard when I was six, with no knowledge of them other than having seen them on TV. It was weak, and I never made any decent arrows, but it worked. Had I had an actual bow to copy, it would have been far better.

The point is, there's no invention in DF, and only the magic mechanisms are particulary complex. Not only that, but this isn't "21st century geek wants to make something that he's seen an a computer game and read up on in a book." This is "peasant is trying to make an item used every day that he as in all likelihood seen personally before coming to this fortress, or can ask someone to explain it in detail before he makes the attempt, using a process that he is exposed to every day."

[Unfrozen Caveman]

I would like to see skill levels become more important. I like the idea of inexperienced brewers making nasty booze, or a legendary weaponsmith making weapons that are more effective in combat.

It is certainly true in real life to this day that bladesmiths of varying skill levels produce knives and swords that vary respectively in quality. This was most true in medieval times, when the science wasn't understood and nobody had internet.

Still, I would had to see the game lose it's "learn anything by doing" aspect. I can deal with not being able to make or do certain things without a certain skill level, but there should still be something my useless peasant can do to learn the skill. I also think that catastrophic failure for insufficient skill levels is perfectly dwarfy.

The complexity of the crossbow has been mentioned as something that an unskilled dwarf would be completely unable to make, they are far more complex than a simple bow, but I think a dwarf with enough time and patience and a working crossbow to examine could make one that would work.

Dwarves are typically more mechanically inclined than the typical human, as I understand them.

[Lord Shonus]

Crossbows are not at all complex.

[ribosom]

I guess a crossbow can be quite complex when someone just hands you a log, a lump of ore, a pile of rocks, an anvil, a sack of charcoal and a bundle of hemp plants and says: "I command thee to make a crossbow!" 

[Max White]

By Armoks great and bushy beard! Do we still jibber about the abilty of a dwarf to tan a hide! If this keeps up then by the booze I swear I shall tan your hide!


Ok, I have had my fun.

[Stove]

I disagree, the current system, although not hugely realistic, is far more so than the skill unlock concept that people keep bringing up.

The current system assumes either that everyone is born with all the knowledge they need to become legendary on their own, or that everyone is ingenious enough to figure it all out through trial and error. That is not realistic. That is the gap in realism that this idea seeks to fill.

 

Yes someone has to learn how to do something but people can learn by doing, there has yet to be a task suggested that this isn't true for. Remember we are not inventing only imitating here.

Firstly, keep in mind that the strict limitation is only meant to apply to those tasks for which it makes sense. It wouldn't affect all skills across the board.
Secondly, there have been such tasks brought up. Consider NW_Kohaku's mention of chemistry-related tasks.
Other tasks, which have been developed and refined through generations, may be doable (very poorly) without acquiring that knowledge, but only with some form of instruction would you learn how to do it well - unless you're an exceptional genius.
Another example that hasn't been mentioned yet: Building/designing a loom. If your fortress has no loom and nobody knows anything about weaving, assigning someone the Weaving labour and ordering a loom workshop to be constructed, you're going to need a source of knowledge to get it built unless you plan to reinvent the thing.

To be perfectly honest, it's much, much easier to manage to make something than people seem to think. I made a usable bow in my backyard when I was six, with no knowledge of them other than having seen them on TV. It was weak, and I never made any decent arrows, but it worked. Had I had an actual bow to copy, it would have been far better.

Bows are also very simple. I did the same thing when I was a kid. This isn't representative of all tasks in Dwarf Fortress. Also keep in mind you are probably smarter than the average person/dwarf if that's the kind of thing you did as a kid.
Now, if you continued to experiment with making bows, without any instruction or source of knowledge on making bows, would you eventually succeed at making bows equal in quality to the best bows of the middle ages? Unlikely. Apply this same thinking to things that are more complicated to make than bows, and the likeliness becomes even more remote. This remote possibility is pretty well covered by the possibility of making an artifact.
You [and, as I saw reading further, Unfrozen Caveman] do bring up another possible source of training: More clever dwarves might be able to learn a crafting-related skill through reverse-engineering from a crafted item, much like using a book.

The point is, there's no invention in DF, and only the magic mechanisms are particulary complex.

This isn't just about the physical complexity of a completed object. This is about the methods used to create things and perform tasks and the knowledge required to do so.

Still, I would had to see the game lose it's "learn anything by doing" aspect. I can deal with not being able to make or do certain things without a certain skill level, but there should still be something my useless peasant can do to learn the skill. 

Get training from another dwarf, learn from a book, or learn a skill that doesn't require training. This system really doesn't cause any problems there.

[SuicideJunkie]

Now, if you continued to experiment with making bows, without any instruction or source of knowledge on making bows, would you eventually succeed at making bows equal in quality to the best bows of the middle ages? Unlikely.

If you had as many man-hours as they cumulatively had, surely you could.
Problem is, you'll die of old age first.

What if:
1) Learning by doing is 10x slower than currently.
2) Teaching directly applies to skill, but also adds a tough form of rust ("inexperience") which balances off the skill gain.
3) Inexperience wears off much slower than rust, but is 10x faster than learning independently.
(Note: multiplier is arbitrary - pick a number that sounds good)

If you seal yourself off from the outside world, you could still get all the skills to max, but you'd have to pass down your knowledge from generation to generation, each one getting bit higher skill than their teachers before retiring to the classroom themselves.

Such knowledge passing and slow progress could even apply during worldgen, with weapons and armor improving over time despite occasional and significant setbacks when a master is killed in wars or raids.

[Max White]

We are not reinventing the bow, we are just copying what we already know to work. We are backwards engineering, rather then forwards engineering.

I wonder how long it took for first humans to think of the bow and make a working prototype, thousand of years? I could do it now. I wonder how long it took for them to figure out that a recurve shape works better, hundreds? I also know that now. And I don't even live in an age of bows and arrows, I live in an age of white powder and lead.

And tell me, how does a dwarf making a hundred stone tables know amy more about making a chair, then a dwarf who never made a chair before? The only differance is skill, not knoledge. The current system reflects that very well.