Print

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

[Syraine]

Couldn't we have minerals that simply follow a certain criteria for an area, for instance "a hard, glassy material" or such, and have their properties listed by a Prospecting skill... based off elements, for instance graphite chains to make carbon.

In practice all simulations should be in systemics when practical; the whales irritate me as they have a hitpoint system, which is inconsistent with the lemurs.

[Max White]

RANDOMIZATION AND RAWS ARC
More things need to make it out to the raws, and when they arrive, there should be some ability to randomize what you get in play. Current raw objects such as creatures, entities, plants, metals or even stone should also be randomizable. This doesn't just include randomizing an existing entry, but, more importantly, the creation of entirely new objects. This behavior should be controlled by the world parameters so that you can run anything from a stock universe to a complete replacement of all existing raw objects. In worlds with random objects, the random objects need to be introduced to the player in such a way that familiarity can be gained (involving descriptions, back stories, etc.) so that it isn't just a mess of static with garbage names.

Toady is already planning to make a lot more things randomized. Metals and stone included.

[sockless]

I'm personally not a big fan of randomised minerals, since I like how you can learn about geology from DF (I've learned more about geology from DF than I have in high school).
I guess if you had it as an init option, then those who want it (like you) can have it, and those who don't want it don't have it.

[NW_Kohaku]

I would second sockless's sentiment.

I would actually argue for more focus on the actual process of geology, since having learned about it from DF.

Our magma flows could be rated as mafic to felsic magma, and we could let magma cool into more than just obsidian, but also stones from granite to gabbro (or basalt to rhyolite).  We could use dwarven engineering to alter the cooling rate of magma to create stratification of the minerals we will extract from the cooling rock.

[Max White]

Well I wouldn't mind randomised minerals. Makes me look for my flux a little more, but to each their own. Good thing toady plans to have this optional.

[Demicus]

I like both approaches in a way. I enjoy the geology aspect of DF, but I also like the idea of running across procedurally generated fictional materials. The procedural generation makes each material potentially something new and interesting. Sure you can rely on hematite to produce iron, but if you find a vein of Armokite that can be smelted directly into steel, well that could be rather interesting, especially if you also have some procedurally generated dangers in such materials, like a stone called Armokite in another world that vaporizes on contact with air, and the vapors carry a syndrome that causes lung rot.

[Thundercraft]

I'm personally not a big fan of randomised minerals, since I like how you can learn about geology from DF (I've learned more about geology from DF than I have in high school).
I guess if you had it as an init option, then those who want it (like you) can have it, and those who don't want it don't have it.

I agree with sockless 100 percent.

That said, it might be that Toady feels it's easier to create procedurally generated minerals instead of FIXING the current minerals.

By that, I mean the physical properties of many rocks and gems are way off (such as melting points, boiling points, relationships with other rocks and minerals, etc.).

Also, I think the gems could use some tweaking:

• Do we really need 27 different kinds of opal?! (Yes, I counted them.) What's worse is that most of these show up as either white or gray in-game...
• The fact that most stone is either white or gray is understandable, because that's realistic - the way it is on Earth. (Although, this is a fantasy game. And there is something to be said for taking a little creative license by intentionally leaving out some of the less colorful stones for the sake of keeping things interesting.) But what bothers me is that so many of the gems show up as white or various shades of gray. Gems should be attractive and gray... is not.
• Fortification agate is commonly found in many gorgeous colors, including red, orange, light blue, and blue-green (cyan). So why does it appear in-game as yet ANOTHER white gemstone?
• Tsavorite appears BROWN in-game. Yuck! But in real life it is a gorgeous "light to deep green". Why should BROWN gems have a material value of 30 ?
• Shouldn't Pink tourmaline appear pink instead of red?

Further, I think the Material Values could use some tweaking. For instance, it's rather boring that nearly all gems are worth either 2, 10, 20, 30, and so forth. It'd be more realistic if the numbers were not all rounded to the nearest 10th.

Finally, the Materials By Color chart does not list any bright green, teal, or magenta stones. Also, there's only one cyan (Microcline), one blue (Cobaltite), and one dark blue (Kimberlite) stone. This can make it difficult to color coordinate a fortress with local materials, esp. since the availability of stones is random and varies greatly.

Despite all those flaws I mentioned, I still much prefer the use of real minerals and gems, instead of random stuff that's made up. For one thing, it is quite possible to memorize some of the in-game properties of stones and gems in the current system. If it's randomly generated every time, doing that would be impossible. And I am convinced all those flaws I mentioned could be fixed with some TLC and patience, without even having to fabricate some imaginary minerals.

[IT 000]

I to agree with shoeless, I enjoy Dwarf Fortress because it has realistic aspects, Granted there needs to be different colors on a few items, but it's easily done by a  novice modder.

[Syraine]

Well, that sure got shouted down. I was actually thinking this whole grand thing involving atomic structure and that but, pff.

[Kogut]

You want to simulate minerals down to atomic structure?
It would:
- end with the same minerals as in real life
- would end a LOT of CPU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant

[NW_Kohaku]

Yes, if you made mafic lava that cools rapidly on the surface have realistic properties in a world that is still mostly composed of roughly the same minerals as Earth's, then at best, you have Basalt with a funny name.

I'm not trying to "shout down" randomized stones, but I rather enjoy the fact that I've learned things about real-life from playing this game, and I would like to keep those things that I genuinely learn as part of the game.  It's part of why I'm excited about the new pottery changes which seem to reflect what a forum-goer and profesional potter named Gazz had said in an old suggestion thread about pottery that I found extremely illuminating.  So now, we have porcelain that is technically not really "clay" but actually composed more of glass, which is why porcelain has semi-transparent properties.  (Although I doubt we'll get the high-temperature kiln that requires mechanical energy put into a fan to power it...)

If you want fantasy rocks, then I'm sure that if you play fortresses that are long-lived enough, you'll learn all about your fantasy rocks, too.  Still, there's no point to fantasy rocks if they aren't doing anything that real rocks would do.  You're just calling a rabbit a smeerp.

(Also, procedural generation would just produce a "custom raw" for data on those materials.  It would run once at worldgen, and then never again, and would just reference that custom raw the way that the real-world stones reference their raws.)

[Uristocrat]

I think it could be fun to have some random fantasy minerals in addition to the real world ones.  But I'd prefer to stick to well-known ones and procedurally generate the other stuff.

Even so, I suppose that someone, someday might fail a geology test because when asked to list alloys of copper, they listed "orichalcum" instead of brass, bronze or rose gold.

[Max White]

Why are we debating this?

RANDOMIZATION AND RAWS ARC
More things need to make it out to the raws, and when they arrive, there should be some ability to randomize what you get in play. Current raw objects such as creatures, entities, plants, metals or even stone should also be randomizable. This doesn't just include randomizing an existing entry, but, more importantly, the creation of entirely new objects. This behavior should be controlled by the world parameters so that you can run anything from a stock universe to a complete replacement of all existing raw objects. In worlds with random objects, the random objects need to be introduced to the player in such a way that familiarity can be gained (involving descriptions, back stories, etc.) so that it isn't just a mess of static with garbage names.

Toady has said that he want's world parameters to control this. So one day we can run it straight from the raws, 100% true to the raws, and not get aything random (For the sake of flavor mods I hope there is a setting for creatures too!) or we cn have crazy make up town where nothing is normal!

[Silverionmox]

Moderation is the key I think. Real minerals are consistent groups, well-documented, and are the resources for everything that can be done in the real world. Variety is also interesting, but if even 10% of the minerals is random, the average player will have trouble learning their names before they generate a new world with new minerals, let alone familiarize himself with their properties. 100% randomness is just meaningless gibberish. A house in the woods is interesting; a house in the city is just a house.

[Thundercraft]

RANDOMIZATION AND RAWS ARC
More things need to make it out to the raws, and when they arrive, there should be some ability to randomize what you get in play. Current raw objects such as creatures, entities, plants, metals or even stone should also be randomizable. This doesn't just include randomizing an existing entry, but, more importantly, the creation of entirely new objects. This behavior should be controlled by the world parameters so that you can run anything from a stock universe to a complete replacement of all existing raw objects. In worlds with random objects, the random objects need to be introduced to the player in such a way that familiarity can be gained (involving descriptions, back stories, etc.) so that it isn't just a mess of static with garbage names.

Are you certain that you're not misinterpreting or taking this out of context? The way I read the above is that Toady mentioned all those objects ("creatures, entities, plants, metals or even stone") as examples of things that could be made randomizable. And I see randomizable - able to be randomized - being used to say that he wants the ability to randomize such things. However, just re-coding DF to have that ability does not necessarily mean that he will choose to have 100% of every one of those things procedurally generated.

And even if your interpretation is correct and Toady has stated that he definitely plans to have all stones randomly generated, he still has the option to change his mind later if he so chooses. In fact, the feedback in this thread suggests that most fans would be opposed to the idea of having more than a few stones randomly generated. Such feedback could influence his plans.

Toady has said that he wants world parameters to control this. So one day we can run it straight from the raws, 100% true to the raws, and not get anything random...

So this would be similar to how we can re-create a world map using world seed parameters? This actually sounds pretty cool. I just hope the randomness is used with moderation and that it can be controlled via init settings.

Moderation is the key I think...
Variety is also interesting, but if even 10% of the minerals is random, the average player will have trouble learning their names before they generate a new world with new minerals, let alone familiarize himself with their properties. 100% randomness is just meaningless gibberish. A house in the woods is interesting; a house in the city is just a house.

Well put.