Print

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

[ravaught]

Again, this is partially building on the volume/masshttp://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61215.0 post by NW_Kohaku. I know it has been discussed somewhat in other areas, but I wanted to get down into the nitty gritty of what is going on and try to work out some numbers. So, please, don't flame me for renewing an old discussion, I feel it is important enough to discuss in its own thread as I hope this will be a much more in depth discussion as to the implications of scaling.

One of the biggest idiosyncrasies of DF seems to be the way the game scales. I am not talking about visually, where the y axis is longer than the x, but in terms of the size of objects and their relative capacity. We have been working on the assumption that a tile is approx. 10'^3 or 3m^3 with the metric version seeming to be the strongest likelihood.

So before I start on making a bunch of wild assumptions and speculations, I would like to directly ask either Toady or Threetoe what the scale of a single tile is.

Issues:

The first issue that really stands out when you start looking at the scaling of DF is in the area of stockpiles. As it stands right now, working under the assumption of a 3m^3 tile, you can store:

• 1 x barrel
• 1 x pot
• 1 x bag
• 1 x piece of equipment
• 1 x unit of stone, wood, etc
• 1 x skein of thread
• etc, etc, etc

Items like bins, barrels, pots, chests, coffers, etc in general increase that by a multiple of 10, 20, or 100(seeds can be stored 10 to a bag, and 10 bags to a pot).

The issue here is that a seed is generally < 1cm^3. If a room is 27m^3(3m x 3m x 3m), you should be able to store 27,000,000 seeds in that volume of space. Even if we restrict it to only the base z level of the cube, you are still looking at 9,000,000 seeds, versus the current 100. Scalewise, this is about the equivalent of storing a pepsi bottle full of seeds in your bedroom with no other furnishings in the room.

The closer we examine the objects in DF, the more noticeable the scaling issue becomes. Plump helmets, and in fact all of the crops in the game, are the size of your bedroom, or at least takes up that much space both to grow and store. Yet, they can all be crammed in 10 to a pot.

Hopefully, I don't have to keep going with the idiosyncrasies to prove the point, they should be glaringly obvious.

So, how do we fix it?

My suggestion, and this is also slightly touched on in my suggestion on stone blocks, is to virtually split the room into 27 1m^3 volumes, and build off of that. I don't mean that Toady should try to code it that way, but simply for the purposes of determining volume and scaling it is a good number. Now, in this type of room, only the bottom 9 cubes are available as floor space. If a pot takes up 1m^3, then you would be able to store 9 pots per tile. Alternatively, if Toady declares that these pots are larger than 1m tall, they could take up the bottom 18 cubes, leaving 9 cubes of head room. Realistically, this would be enough space for large amphorae or pots to be placed with enough space to walk between each pot storing and retrieving items.


Problems this would fix:

A stockpile would no longer need to be disproportionately large compared to the materials it is storing. Items stored in particular stockpiles would be capable of much greater volume. In particular, gems, seeds, plants, drinks, pots, jugs, bags, etc.

On the Downside:

I think that because of the way the game is visually displayed, Toady has kind of worked himself into a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If he reworks storage space to be inclusive of volumes, then furniture and other objects are suddenly out of whack size wise. Eventually, if he decides to make this sim as realistic as possible, he is going to have to reduce the size scale of each tile, most likely to a 1m^3 volume, or perhaps 3m^ (1m x 1m x 3m). That is the only way he will be able to realistically portray volume and distance. The major hangup with this is representing objects that would be larger than 1m^3, but even that is a small issue considering that is already being done with workshops and such.

Problem B:

At embark a fortress of 1 square is 48 tiles on the x & y axis and 150+ on z, so a fortress of 4 squares has approx 1.38 million tiles. At 3m^3 per tile, you are talking about 3.726 BILLION cubic meters. To put this into easier to comprehend terms, 3.726 cubic kilometers. A city block is roughly 80 meters on a side, or about 9 tiles.

To give some more visualization of scale check out http://www.newyorktransportation.com/info/empirefact2.html. According to this, the Empire state building would be 125 tiles tall, with a base of approx 41 X 20 tiles. That is less than 1 square of embark, which can house a maximum of 250 dwarfs.

_{It has a total floor area of 2,768,591 sq ft (257,211 m2); the base of the Empire State Building is about 2 acres (8,094 m2). The building houses 1,000 businesses and has its own zip code, 10118. As of 2007, approximately 21,000 employees work in the building each day,}

This kind of scale is pure dwarfy madness when looking at the other features of the game. A brook, generally four tiles wide, would be 12 meters across and at least 6 meters deep, the same width and depth as a raging river in game.

Ultimately, knowing how many things correcting this would break, the best I can do is ask Toady what the scale is that he is using, and if there is any plan to try and make the world scaling and item scaling begin to line up. If the scaling issue is going to be fixed, IMHO it should be fixed sooner rather than later as the longer it waits the bigger the challenge of refactoring everything will be.

[thisisjimmy]

When designing a game, I think good gameplay should be prioritized over realism.  There are a few things that could be scaled better, but for the most part, an unrealistic scale is important to keep the game fun.

Would it really improve the game if you could store 9 million seeds per tile instead of 100? Or if you only needed a single bin to store all your gems? I think it would just make the game slightly easier without making it more fun.  The scale of storage should be balanced so it's not trivially easy, and not too tediously hard.

You might notice that time isn't to scale either.  It can take a dwarf days in game time to walk across your fortress.  But the game wouldn't be fun if time were to scale.  Either dwarves would zip around, too fast to even see them moving, or the game would have to be slowed down to the point of being unplayable.

Maybe you would find the scale more fitting if you imagine a tile is 1x1x3 meters.

According to this, the Empire state building would be 125 tiles tall, with a base of approx 41 X 20 tiles. That is less than 1 square of embark, which can house a maximum of 250 dwarfs.

You could carve about 4000 3x3 rooms in a fortress of that size.  But there's no way the game could handle 4000 dwarves on a present day computer.  This is a technical limitation, not a design flaw.

[sockless]

One can't help but think that the current tile system is flawed.

3mx3mx3m tiles are far too large, most things should then be only 1 tile (my bedroom is only 3x4 in real life).

One solution is to make all tiles 1x1x3 (3m high) (bugger I see someone just said that), and then make a lot of things multi tile (like beds etc). We would need to redo stairs and ramps, but that wouldn't be much of a problem, as we could then have ramps of different gradients, which would be able to be climbed by different things. To make up for all the current forms of transport being multi tile, we could then have ladders as a form of 1x1 vertical transport. Animals could also then be multi tile things as well.

One of the things with seeds is that it is assumed that [1] seed is actually more than 1 actual seed, since you generally store hundreds and thousands of seeds, since 16 seeds wouldn't feed 250 dwarves.

[antymattar]

I remember back before version 2010... the game just felt so... right. It was rather gamy and stuff.

[Vester]

TAPMA.

Tiles are potentially miles across.

Remember, this is the game where you can fit a thousand dragons on a single tile (as long as 999 of them are lying down).

[Forumite]

I donīt think itīs a problem of volume, but of order. Dwarves do not stockpile in a big pile, rather they put it neatly on the floor, easy to see and find, and if thereīs lots of it, they start using bins. Making a pile that optimally uses the space is reserved for dumping, when they donīt expect to ever want to retrieve the items afterwards.

[ravaught]

When designing a game, I think good gameplay should be prioritized over realism.  There are a few things that could be scaled better, but for the most part, an unrealistic scale is important to keep the game fun.

No doubt, and this is something that I am well aware of. However, and I can not stress this enough, DF is not just a game, it is a simulation. In fact, it blurs the line between rts and sim quite nicely. Simulations generally require realism, or at the very least some form of standardization, that is several orders of magnitude greater than that of a generic game. The problem is that DF goes to great lengths to promote realism in many of its details, and then completely skips them in others without so much as a nod.

Would it really improve the game if you could store 9 million seeds per tile instead of 100? Or if you only needed a single bin to store all your gems? I think it would just make the game slightly easier without making it more fun.  The scale of storage should be balanced so it's not trivially easy, and not too tediously hard.

I wasn't suggesting that you should be able to store 9 million seeds on a single tile, was suggesting that you shouldn't need 243m^3 for a seed stockpile. More to the point, I used seeds as an example because they are the smallest item in the game and thus show the grossly disproportionate scaling system much more clearly. Secondly, if storage is what you are using to balance your sim, then you have issues anyway.

You might notice that time isn't to scale either.  It can take a dwarf days in game time to walk across your fortress.  But the game wouldn't be fun if time were to scale.  Either dwarves would zip around, too fast to even see them moving, or the game would have to be slowed down to the point of being unplayable.

I know the point you are trying to make, and to a certain extent, I agree. At the same time, I absolutely do not. First, if time scaled properly, yes, it would slow down/speed up certain aspects of the game IF the map is not scaled properly. That might not necessarily be a bad thing, though. There are multiple scaling issues in DF that could be addressed as part of a larger whole that would positively affect the game play, and quite possibly add a lot of depth and strategy to the game.

Scaling time and distance would make burrows more useful as a means of keeping your dwarfs in one part of your fortress instead of them hiking for days. It would make the decision to make that drawbridge from stone or wood more interesting. Right now, there is no question, you are going to make it out of stone because it takes the same amount of time and the wood is flammable. In general, it could be applied to the choice between making anything in stone, wood, or metal.

Game balance in a simulation is almost always reduced to time, so yes, time is critical to have scaled properly in order to create a fun and balanced playspace. Chopping 1 log = 1 Unit of time, while mining 1 unit of stone = 2 units of time. 1 unit of time = 10 dwarf currency, so stone is worth 20 dc while a log is worth 10 dc. Smoothing stone blocks takes 2 units of time, so a stone block is worth 40dc. Traveling 1 space takes .5 units of time, so travelling 10 spaces to get that log cost 5 units of time = 50 dc etc etc ... You balance a game like DF based on time. Absolutely every stat in the game can be reduced or equated to time. So, in short, your argument here is simply wrong in a major way.

Maybe you would find the scale more fitting if you imagine a tile is 1x1x3 meters.

I have no personal preference for what the scale is, as long as there is one and it is applied universally. Consistency is an important part of not breaking immersion, which is an important part of the fun factor in games.

According to this, the Empire state building would be 125 tiles tall, with a base of approx 41 X 20 tiles. That is less than 1 square of embark, which can house a maximum of 250 dwarfs.

You could carve about 4000 3x3 rooms in a fortress of that size.  But there's no way the game could handle 4000 dwarves on a present day computer.  This is a technical limitation, not a design flaw.
[/quote]

Wrong, it is still a design flaw. Yes, there are technical limitations involved, and not accounting for them in the balancing of your game is a design flaw. Aside from that, I was not suggesting that DF be able to handle 4k dwarfs. At its currently level of micromanagement that would be hell, not fun. I was simply illustrating that issues with scale in a manner that people can visualize, since a large majority of folks have no friggin' clue as to what 250m is.

[ravaught]

More on why scaling and balancing time and distance in DF is critical

Related Articles:
Time:http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/40d:Speed
Speed:http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/40d:Speed#Encumbrance
Value:http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Item_value
FPS: http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/FPS

Some basics to remember for balancing and scaling:
Action=Time
Time=Value
Action=Value
Healing=time
Healing=Value
Therefore Damage and Damage mitigation = Time = Value
Agility = Time
Skill Level = Time
Quality = Value therefore Quality = Time
Work = Time therefore A dwarfs lifespan = time = value
One step = Time = Value
Density = Time = Value

Anything... ANYTHING can be reduced to Time and Value

Let's start by getting some default values here. By default, FPS is set to 100, which roughly equivalent to 1 step for every 1/10th of a second. A dwarfs base movement rate is 900, which is equivalent to .9, or 1 step/tile/action every .9 seconds at the default framerate.

By default, wood items have a multiplier of 1, which is the same as common stone. Other stones, of varying degrees of rarity range from 1-250 value multiplier. In terms of overall value though, this makes no sense. It generally takes longer to harvest wood than it does for an equivalent amount of stone because wood is spaced further apart and generally requires a longer walking distance to reach and retrieve. Bear in mind that your dwarf slows down when hauling the log back to your stockpile, further reducing the value. Since it takes roughly the same amount of time to harvest, dependent on the skill level of the dwarf, stone actually has a higher default value simply due to the fact that it can be harvested faster. More to the point, the value of wood decreases over time as your dwarfs have to ranger further out to get wood.

Where does that leave us for balancing the game? One of a few things needs to happen. Stone cutting needs to be slowed down, not just for the sake of realism, but also because as it is, the value of stone is unbalanced compared to the time required to acquire it.

This also folds into the relative values of the different stones. If some stones have higher values than others, then they should require longer to harvest. This could be applied based on the Mass/Volume/Density scale discussed by Kohaku and others. Denser stone requires longer to harvest and/or work and thus has higher value.

How all of this relates to Scaling:

If one step = distance = time = value, then this gives us a basis for defining the amount of value that one space should be able to contain per the amount of value invested into it. For example:

1 tile has a default value of 1
1 log has a default value of 1
1 pot has a default value of 10
1 Bag has a default value of 1

So you could say that 1*1*10*(10*1)=100, and that this makes sense as the number of seeds that you can store in one square. But, lets poke some holes in that.

1 Farm Tile for 1 season requires 2 actions, one plant, one harvest + stockpiling(which we will ignore for the moment). So one farm time for one season has a value of 2 (1*1*2) if we give a season a default value of 1(which completely screws up all the other values because one season = x units of time = x value). So a pigtail has a value of 2, as one crop grown on one tile in one season. This then needs to be processed, so give it a multiplier of 2. Then it must be processed again to make cloth, so another multiplier of 2. Then it must be processed again to make a bag, so another multiplier of 2. So a bag should have a value of 2*2*2*2 = 16. So lets look at that seed storage example again. 1*1*10*(16*10)=100*160=16000

How does this simple seed bin affect the gameplay?

The two major ones are a) The number of immigrants you receive is dependent on the total accumulated value of your fortress and all of its possessions. and B) The number of enemy raids that you fall victim to is dependent on the total accumulated value of your fortress.

So, one tile in game terms does have value. One unit of distance does have value. If one unit of distance has value, then the scaling of that unit is important as it will affect multiple areas of game balance and game play in a cascading effect that has far reaching impact on the over all game. This is why in my post on cutting stone blocks during digs, and in this post, I make such an issue over the scale. Scaling is pretty darn important as is applied to game balancing in a game such as DF.

[thisisjimmy]

No doubt, and this is something that I am well aware of. However, and I can not stress this enough, DF is not just a game, it is a simulation. In fact, it blurs the line between rts and sim quite nicely. Simulations generally require realism, or at the very least some form of standardization, that is several orders of magnitude greater than that of a generic game. The problem is that DF goes to great lengths to promote realism in many of its details, and then completely skips them in others without so much as a nod.

DF is a simulation game, not a simulation.  The two have an entirely different purpose.  A simulator is a tool used by engineers, scientists, or others to make accurate predictions or tests.  An engineer can test a bridge in a simulator.  A simulation game, however, sacrifices realism in order to be fun. Having time and distance modeled to scale would not be fun.

I wasn't suggesting that you should be able to store 9 million seeds on a single tile, was suggesting that you shouldn't need 243m^3 for a seed stockpile. More to the point, I used seeds as an example because they are the smallest item in the game and thus show the grossly disproportionate scaling system much more clearly. Secondly, if storage is what you are using to balance your sim, then you have issues anyway.

You strongly implied a tile should be able to hold 9 million seeds.  So, tell me, if I designate one whole tile for storing seeds, how many seeds should it hold?
Also, you should absolutely balance storage.  Every game mechanic should be balanced.

I know the point you are trying to make, and to a certain extent, I agree. At the same time, I absolutely do not. First, if time scaled properly, yes, it would slow down/speed up certain aspects of the game IF the map is not scaled properly. That might not necessarily be a bad thing, though. There are multiple scaling issues in DF that could be addressed as part of a larger whole that would positively affect the game play, and quite possibly add a lot of depth and strategy to the game.

There's no way DF could be fun with time modeled to scale.  Currently, days pass at a scale of 7200:1, meaning if you play for 24 hours, 7200 days will pass in game. If this scale was consistent with dwarf's movement speed, you would not be able to see them move. They could travel across the map and back in a fraction of a second.  If you modeled time at a scale of 10:1, you'd be able to see dwarves move, but you'd have to play for 67 hours for just one month to pass in game.

I have no personal preference for what the scale is, as long as there is one and it is applied universally. Consistency is an important part of not breaking immersion, which is an important part of the fun factor in games.

Then don't assume tiles are 3x3x3 meters.  Simply point out the inconsistency that an earring and a barrel take the same space.

Wrong, it is still a design flaw. Yes, there are technical limitations involved, and not accounting for them in the balancing of your game is a design flaw. Aside from that, I was not suggesting that DF be able to handle 4k dwarfs. At its currently level of micromanagement that would be hell, not fun. I was simply illustrating that issues with scale in a manner that people can visualize, since a large majority of folks have no friggin' clue as to what 250m is.

You don't propose a solution for your example.  In concrete terms, how would you fix this?  What scale would you use?

I don't find this to be a problem.  You can build huge fortresses that could house thousands of dwarves.  The game can only handle a few hundred dwarves.  Limiting the number of dwarves that migrate or are born seems like a fine solution to me.

Stone cutting needs to be slowed down

I agree.

[ravaught]

DF is a simulation game, not a simulation.  The two have an entirely different purpose.  A simulator is a tool used by engineers, scientists, or others to make accurate predictions or tests.  An engineer can test a bridge in a simulator.  A simulation game, however, sacrifices realism in order to be fun. Having time and distance modeled to scale would not be fun.

  I hadn't noticed.... I think I also pointed out that DF blurs the line between a RTS and a simulation. However, all smart-assness aside, Toady has gone through a lot of trouble to model much of the game realistically.

You strongly implied a tile should be able to hold 9 million seeds.  So, tell me, if I designate one whole tile for storing seeds, how many seeds should it hold?

Again, I was using the smallest item in the game to prove a point. Not a hard concept.

If it were up to me, it would be based on the number of tiles they would be able to plant, and the number of plants produced per tile of farmland. i.e. If 1 tile of farmland produces 5 plump helmets, then 10 seeds would be required per tile, and 1 bag would be able to hold enough for 1 5x5 plot. So, 10*25*10=2500 seeds in one pot. In order to keep it balanced, you would need to segregate seeds. Other seed storage would similarly be based on the number of plants per tile being produced. As a bonus, a higher farming skill could gradually reduce the number of seed that don't sprout so that eventually 1 pot could hold enough for two 5x5 farms of the same crop.

Also, you should absolutely balance storage.  Every game mechanic should be balanced.

I didn't say you should not balance storage, I said storage should not be the basis for your game balance. In a game of this type your balance points are universally time/money.

There's no way DF could be fun with time modeled to scale.  Currently, days pass at a scale of 7200:1, meaning if you play for 24 hours, 7200 days will pass in game. If this scale was consistent with dwarf's movement speed, you would not be able to see them move. They could travel across the map and back in a fraction of a second.  If you modeled time at a scale of 10:1, you'd be able to see dwarves move, but you'd have to play for 67 hours for just one month to pass in game.

Please do your research before posting stuff like this.The game is fundamentally turn based, with each turn taking 10 frames, and 100 frames passing per second at the default 100FPS. So in short, your whole argument is worthless as the length of a dwarf day is 100% dependent on your FPS. That being said, and so anyone reading this doesn't have to waste their time looking it up, here is the info from the wiki:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

<sub>Time is measured in unnamed units, which are commonly referred to as "time units" or "ticks." Time units are equal to different lengths of time, depending on the game mode.

In fortress mode, there are 1200 time units in a day; in adventurer mode, there are 86400 time units in a day. Thus, a dwarf in adventure mode is capable of moving, fighting, and interacting 72 times as fast as a dwarf in dwarf mode assuming the same statistics. Assuming 24 hours per day, 60 minutes per hour, and 60 seconds per minute, this means that a time unit lasts 1 second in adventurer mode and 1.2 minutes in fortress mode. Regardless of mode, there are 28 days in a month and 12 months in a year.

In fortress mode, there are 403200 time units every year. At 100 fps, it would take just over an hour in real-time to play through one year.

The amount of time it takes a creature to move, fight, or interact is directly proportional to its speed and inversely proportional to its agility and its strength. All creatures with default speed, regardless of their strength or agility, take between 5 and 16 time units per orthogonal tile traveled. Diagonal tile travel times are 362/256 times that amount, so they take between 8 and 23 time units for creatures with default speed. Median dwarves take approximately 10.5 time units and 14.9 time units to travel orthogonally or diagonally respectively. Triggered devices can be affected by delays of up to 100 time units; see lever.</sub>

Secondly, as you yourself pointed out, EVERY MECHANIC HAS TO BE BALANCED!! That obviously includes time and distance.

Then don't assume tiles are 3x3x3 meters.  Simply point out the inconsistency that an earring and a barrel take the same space.....You don't propose a solution for your example.  In concrete terms, how would you fix this?  What scale would you use?

First, in the OP I asked for the scale currently being used. Myself and others, like Kohaku, assume a 3m^3 because that seems to jive with other scales being applied throughout the game. It's not just a random assumption.

In concrete terms, how you fix it is to first define the scale!!

Not sure why that concept is so difficult. If a room is 3mx3mx3m, then that space has an inherent value. If you make that room 1mx1mx3m, then you change the value. You can not balance a game by imagining away the inconsistencies. If 1 pot is 1x1x1, how big is one bin? Since a bin has double the capacity, is it 1x1x2?  Is a door 1x1x3 since it won't fit in a bin? If so, that's a friggin' huge door. So if a bin is 1x1x2, why can't we store 2 pots inside of a bin? But we can store 20 shields in 1 bin. So that means we should be able to store 10 shields in 1 pot. How big is an empty bag? How big is a bag filled with seeds? Shouldn't a pot hold more empty bags than it will bags that are full of seeds? Are you starting to get the idea yet? It is important to define the space. Space has value. Time has value. Unless you want a game to get picked apart at the seems, you have to define these things and then make sure they are balanced within the game. Currently, they are not, which is why I posted the OP to begin with.

Also, just to drive the point home, this also roles into your combat code. What is the range of a catapult? A crossbow? A spear? A sword? If a room is 1x1x3, then only two creatures wrestling should occupy the same space. Sword fighting should require them in adjoining spaces, a spear would be a melee threat within two spaces. A crossbow would be able to threaten about 40 tiles effectively, and a catapult could threaten 200-300 tiles. How would that change if the area of a space was 3x3x3? Swords would only be useful in the same tile, spears in adjacent tiles, crossbows within 10-15 tiles, and catapults within <100 tiles. So, again, please explain to me why I should not be concerned with what the area of one tile is?


**I apologize for the tone of this post. It came out a bit snarkier then I intended. No offense meant to anyone**

[Putnam]

There's no way DF could be fun with time modeled to scale.  Currently, days pass at a scale of 7200:1, meaning if you play for 24 hours, 7200 days will pass in game. If this scale was consistent with dwarf's movement speed, you would not be able to see them move. They could travel across the map and back in a fraction of a second.  If you modeled time at a scale of 10:1, you'd be able to see dwarves move, but you'd have to play for 67 hours for just one month to pass in game.

Please do your research before posting stuff like this.The game is fundamentally turn based, with each turn taking 10 frames, and 100 frames passing per second at the default 100FPS. So in short, your whole argument is worthless as the length of a dwarf day is 100% dependent on your FPS. That being said, and so anyone reading this doesn't have to waste their time looking it up, here is the info from the wiki:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

<sub>Time is measured in unnamed units, which are commonly referred to as "time units" or "ticks." Time units are equal to different lengths of time, depending on the game mode.

In fortress mode, there are 1200 time units in a day; in adventurer mode, there are 86400 time units in a day. Thus, a dwarf in adventure mode is capable of moving, fighting, and interacting 72 times as fast as a dwarf in dwarf mode assuming the same statistics. Assuming 24 hours per day, 60 minutes per hour, and 60 seconds per minute, this means that a time unit lasts 1 second in adventurer mode and 1.2 minutes in fortress mode. Regardless of mode, there are 28 days in a month and 12 months in a year.

In fortress mode, there are 403200 time units every year. At 100 fps, it would take just over an hour in real-time to play through one year.

The amount of time it takes a creature to move, fight, or interact is directly proportional to its speed and inversely proportional to its agility and its strength. All creatures with default speed, regardless of their strength or agility, take between 5 and 16 time units per orthogonal tile traveled. Diagonal tile travel times are 362/256 times that amount, so they take between 8 and 23 time units for creatures with default speed. Median dwarves take approximately 10.5 time units and 14.9 time units to travel orthogonally or diagonally respectively. Triggered devices can be affected by delays of up to 100 time units; see lever.</sub>

No, each turn takes 1 frames.

[ravaught]

The average Dwarf, unmodified gets 1 action every 9 frames, with a possibility of having to wait one more frame. My mistake for using incorrect terminology.

1 turn = 1 frame,
9 turns = default action

http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Speed

[thisisjimmy]

Again, I was using the smallest item in the game to prove a point. Not a hard concept.

You're just being snide, not clever.  Everyone understands you're complaining that DF is not to scale.  But putting everything to scale would unbalance the gameplay.

So, 10*25*10=2500 seeds in one pot.

a) 2500 seeds of one type is more than anyone needs. You might as well make it unlimited.
b) Things still won't be to scale.  A pot that can only hold 2500 seeds might be about 14cm x 14cm x 14cm.  You'd be able to store 400 of these pots in 1 cubic meter, or about 54 if you couldn't stack them.  If a barrel is roughly 1 cubic meter, you would have to allocate 54 times as much storage space for a barrel as for a pot.  Otherwise, you have to break scale.

I didn't say you should not balance storage, I said storage should not be the basis for your game balance.

And I didn't say storage should be the basis of the game balance.  I said, "The scale of storage should be balanced so it's not trivially easy, and not too tediously hard."

Please do your research before posting stuff like this.The game is fundamentally turn based, with each turn taking 10 frames, and 100 frames passing per second at the default 100FPS. So in short, your whole argument is worthless as the length of a dwarf day is 100% dependent on your FPS.

My numbers are correct assuming the default framerate of 100 FPS.  The argument still holds for any framerate.  If time were to scale, either dwarves will move too fast to see, or it would take ages of playing for seasons to pass in game.


Basically, there's no way to define exact dimensions for everything so that everything makes physical sense and that game still remains fun. It's up to the game designers to choose values that maximize fun, not realism.

[ravaught]

I was going to write a long reply to this, but I'm tired and I'm not here to get into a pissing contest with thisisjimmy. The scaling needs to be fixed. In a lot of different areas. The best starting place for that, considering we already know the time scale, is for us to have a clearer understanding of what the actual size/distance scale is, and to re-balance items that need re-balancing accordingly. You can't do that with out the scale. It really is just that simple Jimmy. You can not balance without a scale.. imagine that. That is the entire reason I asked Toady and Threetoe if they would give us the scale in the OP. That way we have a basis for making solid accurate suggestions.

[thisisjimmy]

It seems you feel like I'm missing your point, while I feel you're missing mine. This isn't going anywhere, so no more replies from me on this post.