My god, finally! I no longer must rip off the beards of my miners when they waste a entire vein of valuable, valuable silver!I htink THIS is going to echo about 90% of the statements in this thread.
I was gonna be grumpy but now that ore yields multiple boulders, everything's lovely~Actually, I think Toady said it was multiple bars per ore. And then again, there's no guarantee that it's 4 bars per ore, it could be 3 or something.
However, blocks now come multiple to a boulder so if you're using the stone for construction the effective drop rate will be closer to ~100%.
1. Save on hauling stone of out your excavations
2. 1/4 of the stone listed on the stock screen
3. Need less smelting jobs to get the same amount of ore.
Sounds good so far.
How will this affect adamantine and slade?
can you explain how? except for rock pots, there is not much that you actually NEED raw stone for
so make blocks. You'll get more blocks per rock. It'll even train your masons, and, imo, is more realisticcan you explain how? except for rock pots, there is not much that you actually NEED raw stone for
Building :/
so make blocks. You'll get more blocks per rock. It'll even train your masons, and, imo, is more realisticI use up a lot of stone. I already make everything out of blocks. My emphasis is on the building, not the digging, and "training my masons" is hardly a consolidation :|
so make blocks. You'll get more blocks per rock. It'll even train your masons, and, imo, is more realisticI use up a lot of stone. I already make everything out of blocks. My emphasis is on the building, not the digging, and "training my masons" is hardly a consolidation :|
How will this affect coal? If drop rates are slashed by 3/4 and bar yields are quadrupled for coal as well as ore, you will still generate more coke total since there will be major savings in coke during coking and smelting. Even if coal drop rates and coking equations are unaffected (e.g. still get 100% coal drop from a legendary miner and net two bars from bit. coal and 1 bar from lignite), there will still be a lower demand for coal due to more efficient smelting.No. There is still a demand for coke in steel production that which will not diminish unless the Toady One addresses this issue.
since it's just temporary I guess I can live with it until Toady figures out how to handle it all.
If you disregard magma smelting, coal usage will drop.
You want to smelt 20 copper bars? Now, you need 20 coal and 20 copper ore.
With the change, you will need 5 coal and 5 copper ore.
As for blocks, as soon as you can set the stone used by the workshop, it's going to be wonderful. (I know, it's possible already, with burrows and locked doors, but that's a bit toooo ... tedious.
Stockpiles can now be set to give items to multiple stockpiles. You can also set stockpiles to give to a workshop, in which case the workshop will only use items from its piles. You can use this to set specific materials for jobs in a roundabout way, for example, until we get around to doing that properly.Rejoice, for the Great Toady One has provided. All one needs is a dedicated stockpile, which I expect most to have anyways.
PS: I hadn't considered how the production of mechanisms might be affected by the new stone drop rate. Well, I suppose maybe we can mod in iron mechanisms somehow?Mod in? I thought they were already in the game? I haven't made metal mechanisms, but I've seen them listed as an option at the forge.
I wonder how this will affect my embark points.
Raw materials will become even more important than the finished product.
e.g.
one raw stone = 3 points = gives 4 blocks = .75 points per block
-> one block of stone = 5 points apiece
and
1-tin / 1-copper / 1 lumber = 23 points = gives 2 bronze bars = 11.5 points per bronze bar
-> 1 bronze bar = 25 points apiece
I guess the extra points will go into food, since dwarves will be too busy making blocks to farm/train/etc...
A better option is to put it into tetrahedrite and metalcrafting/smithing; two tetrahedrite (18 db) now becomes six billion bars (180 db)
so reading the last few pages it seems many people are detrimentally opposed to anything that makes resources actually take work to obtain, why?
if you say megaprojects, then how much of an accomplishment is it really if all it is is how much time you were willing to put in? currently there is no "wow he overcame alot of challenges" with megaprojects, just a "wow this dude has a lot of time", so we actually need more scarcity of resources to make the game decently difficult. for a community that preaches the value of difficulty, a lot of you seem to not want the game to be any harder (current page excluded it seems).
Dwarves are known for their natural stone working affinity, humans, not so much.
Honestly, most people don't even do real time-consuming projects because we honestly DON'T have much time to play. The longer it takes to set up a fort or complete a task, the less likely we'll ever enjoy it because we wouldn't be able to have fun or !!FUN!! within our timeframe/attention span. The game is reasonably paced right now and there's certainly difficulty for anyone not prepared to deal with the naturally occuring !!FUN!!, and unnatural difficulty can be applied through mods, but making resources more scarce doesn't really make things more difficult in the sense that you're in mortal danger, just more tedious and time-consuming. Less resources = less enjoyable and a longer wait for anything to happen, which sucks.
Of course, I am tackling the concept from the standpoint that I absolutely hate grindfest-type games that demand you waste time and energy on resource acquisition before blowing shit up/even encountering real problems, like being killed. I don't want resources to take more work to obtain as much as I want to take my massive hoard oflegosstone and make a castle of horrors of such ridiculous complexity that I forget how to operate it, then enjoy the brand-new combat AI that makes defeating a siege far more satisfying and more difficult. I do such sadistic things as throwing a half dozen legendary soldiers against a horde of giants, because that's both fun to watch and !!FUN!! when the tantrum spiral starts because Urist mcDead was married, had a dozen kids, and was friends with everyone else. Waiting for blocks to be ready for my megaproject? No. I've been happy with rough stone boulders because I like to start as soon as possible.
The problem with that is, what you're describing isn't a game at all - it's just a construction set.And yet I still fail to see how this is a problem...
I didn't actaully mean that there should be no resource acquisition, just that it shouldn't overshadow other gameplay elements, and that it isn't in itself really valuable or adding difficulty, only making things more tedious. I definitely want to see everything on the dev list happen, and I'm rather happy that certain parts of the industries are becoming more autonomous with the new hauling changes.
The problem with that is, what you're describing isn't a game at all - it's just a construction set.And yet I still fail to see how this is a problem...
If you want more difficulty, there's plenty of mods for that. I know *I'd* much rather spend more time on my military than spend more time hauling, because at least then there's the chance for Fun.
But that's part of the point - If the basics of your economy becomes less readily available, then everything "up the line" becomes more challenging, as well.
You can say you want to focus on your military, but without the economics of the military's upkeep, the military is a much shallower game. If you cannot outfit your military in all steel everything all the time, and have to try to make do with lesser materials, how do you react? Do you go for just a breastplate and a helmet and an axe and hope for the best? Or just a shield and sword and leather? Or do you make a few elite melee specialists and give the rest crossbows?
But that's part of the point - If the basics of your economy becomes less readily available, then everything "up the line" becomes more challenging, as well.I'd say that I'd rather be working on how to deploy my well-equipped squads to best effect. Keeping them supplied is another matter, and while dealing with a lack of supplies certainly can be enjoyable, such a state of affairs should be the exception rather than the norm in my mind. Outside of deliberate scenarios (like turning down mineral frequency, or in a very young fort) lack of equipment should really only be a consequence of a failure to properly prepare (or when something really random happens).
You can say you want to focus on your military, but without the economics of the military's upkeep, the military is a much shallower game. If you cannot outfit your military in all steel everything all the time, and have to try to make do with lesser materials, how do you react? Do you go for just a breastplate and a helmet and an axe and hope for the best? Or just a shield and sword and leather? Or do you make a few elite melee specialists and give the rest crossbows?
If farming is more challenging, or mining is more challenging, and you can't assume you will always have free infinite resources for your every need up the line, and have to decide what functions of the fortress are most important to you, and where you will devote a limited set of resources, then the game as a whole becomes more challenging, the decisions more meaningful, and overall more fun.I would prefer then that the challenge came in the form of a cave-in or a crop blight. Because if the challenge is predictable and constant, all it means is a bit more hassle in setting up a new system to deal with it -after which the game is no more difficult than before.
I wouldn't mind if your ideas would be the default setting for the game, I'm fine with that.This isn't like a mainstream game where what you get is what you must conform to (and ok, this statement is easily shot down). DF lets you mod things to the point where you make the game conform to you, not the other way around. So...
But then I want some options next to the "Savegery"/"Size"/"Minerals" bars that also include "BarberShops" scale and "Difficult Mining" scale so I can de-activate those in my DF.
I'd say that I'd rather be working on how to deploy my well-equipped squads to best effect. Keeping them supplied is another matter, and while dealing with a lack of supplies certainly can be enjoyable, such a state of affairs should be the exception rather than the norm in my mind.Then make it so. This was exactly how I ran my version of DF: very easy to supply my military, lots of trash mobs to kill so my military is kept busy. It's how I discovered what I wanted out of crossbow squads.
I would prefer then that the challenge came in the form of a cave-in or a crop blight. Because if the challenge is predictable and constant, all it means is a bit more hassle in setting up a new system to deal with it -after which the game is no more difficult than before.Yes, that challenge will be in minecart accidents and incidents (the latter being things you couldn't have easily foreseen). Cave-ins can be prevented with careful attention - if you deem this to be unpredictable enough then minecart accidents will certainly be the non-constant challenge you seek. The game difficulty certainly won't be the same after it's set up.
I'm seeing a lot of "that's nice but it's not really what I want out of DF":I think part of what's bothering people is that the drop rate, and the material dropped, has never before been something we could control. Correct me if I am wrong on that. We can mod inclusions to be mined out and reactions for the materials once mined, but we cannot change what happens when the pick hits the rock. We have no gut feeling that this will change. Some are already viewing with mixed feelings the decrease in drop rate for ordinary rock. I don't want to open a discussion on that topic here, but it is in everyone's mind for better or for worse. The thought on top of that of a materially useless, purely obstructive, product dropping from mining is too much negative at one time. What we envision is that not only can we not get what we thought we were going to get when we mine a location, we also can't get anything done because of this rubbish appearing everywhere, and we have no faith that we will have control over that part of the game because we never have before.I wouldn't mind if your ideas would be the default setting for the game, I'm fine with that.This isn't like a mainstream game where what you get is what you must conform to (and ok, this statement is easily shot down). DF lets you mod things to the point where you make the game conform to you, not the other way around. So...
But then I want some options next to the "Savegery"/"Size"/"Minerals" bars that also include "BarberShops" scale and "Difficult Mining" scale so I can de-activate those in my DF.
Seems like a move it the right direction to me.Can we make green glass furniture that has a quality modifier?
As for furniture issues, two words...Green Glass.
Easier said than done. I don't want a cakewalk, nor do I want a grindfest.I'd say that I'd rather be working on how to deploy my well-equipped squads to best effect. Keeping them supplied is another matter, and while dealing with a lack of supplies certainly can be enjoyable, such a state of affairs should be the exception rather than the norm in my mind.Then make it so. This was exactly how I ran my version of DF: very easy to supply my military, lots of trash mobs to kill so my military is kept busy. It's how I discovered what I wanted out of crossbow squads.
I would prefer then that the challenge came in the form of a cave-in or a crop blight. Because if the challenge is predictable and constant, all it means is a bit more hassle in setting up a new system to deal with it -after which the game is no more difficult than before.
So I'm pretty biased towards that, and I'm still bitter that I've never found magma on any world. I've broken HFS twice but never found magma.You must have done so on the older versions then; with the current one, it's uncommon even to find adamantine before hitting the magma sea.
I'm not sure I especially like the change for several reasons:With a 5-ore cluster, you've got 23.7% chance of nothing.
1: A percentage chance--especially against the player's favor--makes it easy to get luck screwed at the worst possible times. Sure, if you are lucky and always hit a boulder 1/4 times you get the same amount of stone. Chances are, though, you might fail again and again and again and again and... get very little material. Likewise, you could get lucky (likely much rarer) and score lots of boulders. It leaves too much to chance.
2: Rare stone and ore might get really screwed over by the change, due to the above reason. Mine a cluster of 5 *insert rare stone/ore here* and roll within the 75% fail rate? Well, sorry, you're not getting anything. Tough luck with that Platinum cluster!
Other than that, it's a good idea as far as I can think of, I just do not trust the percentages at all.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong on anything I've said.
Also, partially ninja'd.
Gasses and ventilation, likewise, is a long-term dream of mine, which adds many of the same logistics challenges that minecarts will add, although we will probably need either some sort of pumping system, or else a oxygen-producing plant that must be farmed underground to make the system have more meaning than just digging some extra air tiles.
With a 5-ore cluster, you've got 23.7% chance of nothing.
Now, is that really a bad thing? It's not like you're potentially going to wait a long time before mining it anymore. If you were looking for such clusters, the randomness is just part of the luck of the draw, there could just as well not have been a platinum cluster there in the first place. If it was just something you found while digging out a hallway; then oh well, you weren't expecting it to begin with.
The thing is, however, if you manage it well, resource limitations should be a concern throughout all of your fortress's lifespan.Heh... In RTS's I always just built up my base until I ran out of resources; then I felt sad that I couldn't continue building.
In games like, say, Supreme Commander, you have really only two resources, mass and energy, and energy is created through reactors you set up with mass, so mass is the real core resource. It's generated constantly, but the constant flow you get in is limited. Everything you try to build takes mass, but unlike most strategy games, you don't pay an up-front cost, it just takes, say, 10,000 mass total to build a thing, and a given worker can build 3 mass per second of materials, and you have an income of 120 mass per second. Once you have spent the total mass you need, you get your thing you were building. Dumping extra workers increases the rate you can spend your mass, but if you hit the maximum rate of mass income, it just slows all projects down equally.
As an RTS, of course, you're constantly building massive armies and throwing them at the enemy in massive hoards, so you need constant replacement units.
Rubble, I still believe, makes the whole thing slower, which in turn, means that you will try to stop and make the choice of mining those things that give you the most return for your time, rather than just strip-mining everything without a thought, and hence, is required to make the rest of this more interesting.
Gasses and ventilation, likewise, is a long-term dream of mine, which adds many of the same logistics challenges that minecarts will add, although we will probably need either some sort of pumping system, or else a oxygen-producing plant that must be farmed underground to make the system have more meaning than just digging some extra air tiles.
As I said in the other thread, something I'd hopefully like to see mining eventually become is something more akin to a board game where you would have a choice of drawing face-down cards from different decks that promise different things, or perhaps more like a game of minesweeper, where you have clues in the rock that tell you if you are getting close to certain types of minerals or perhaps dangerous events, and you have to make choices as to what you're going to risk mining into and for what potential goods.
My main concern is a potential shortage of building material in the colors of my choice. That's been partially addressed by getting more than one block per rock. I didn't usually build with blocks, but I don't mind doing so in the future. As an aside, I can't see how adding a step makes building faster, that is, using block instead of stones. But again, I don't mind that change. The part that has not been addressed, at least in my mind, is the potential loss of rare colors through probability. I enjoy using realgar for my shops, if it is on the site. If there is four-stone pocket of realgar, chances are high that I will only end up with one realgar stone. Shops are not built with blocks, so I can't get back the three lost stones for my buildings. Likewise furniture requires stones, and again the rarer colors could easily be in too short supply. I could mod around this by changing the colors of the available stones for every embark, in the raws for that save. It's a nuisance, but I can do it. Or, I can create stone at my smelter. This is much easier, but leaves me feeling vaguely dirty. Better dirty than unhappy, however. That's what playing a game is for, to be made happy, right? If I wanted to be made miserable I could go read the news headlines. Again.
Another solution that doesn't require skill based mining is paint. I'm assuming all you really care about is color, not the type of stone. If so, creating paint by crushing stones of the right color could serve to meet the same needs. A suitable materials-to-paint ratio would be needed of course. Say, 1 stone per 10 tiles painted? This also could be handled via the designation menu with an option to choose the color. As an upside you could then have whatever color you wanted AND still be able to engrave!
Hm, that seems more reasonable. If only it were that easy for the game to define an 'ore'; especially the modded-in kinds that don't use [ORE_METAL: ] or whatever that tag was... But then again, that's as simple as adding a [DROP_ALWAYS] tag.With a 5-ore cluster, you've got 23.7% chance of nothing.
Now, is that really a bad thing? It's not like you're potentially going to wait a long time before mining it anymore. If you were looking for such clusters, the randomness is just part of the luck of the draw, there could just as well not have been a platinum cluster there in the first place. If it was just something you found while digging out a hallway; then oh well, you weren't expecting it to begin with.
That's why I suggested the change to ore mining. Most of what we're using stone for is quarrying - and that's a real skill. But you don't quarry ore. You get the ore by brute force and crush it down. You can't fail to collect it no matter how bad you are at it. You can fail to recognize that there's iron in there, but I'm assuming we already know that we've hit magnetite. You can also fail to extract the metal from the ore, but that's not a failure of mining - it's a failure of smelting - so collect the ore at 100% and move that skill to the furnace operators - who are also skill-less.
And for the folks that are worried about running out of metal, my proposal would allow for non-vein ore to still be processed for metal. The yields would be low, and you'd have to trade out your usable stone for construction, but you'd get some fraction of a bar of metal out of every tile - if you're willing to spend the labor and provide the fuel to do it.
Paint would be a great solution, unless it required one bar of metal for every item painted in the color of the metal. In which case one might as well build with metal bars. Vegetable-based colors would also give me a reason to grow dye plants, which I don't do now. Dyeing cloth for ropes was useful to me when livestock could be kept tied and not starve to death. I sorted my breeding stock that way. Ropes are also good for representing the concept of woven carpets. Other than that, it is only for clothing. We can't see the clothing, so why bother with the complication of dyeing the cloth? I wouldn't even mind giving up some of the eggs, which we do eat in my fortresses. Lots and lots of eggs. Eggs are good for Dwarves ... or was that dogs? I forget. *grin*Another solution that doesn't require skill based mining is paint. I'm assuming all you really care about is color, not the type of stone. If so, creating paint by crushing stones of the right color could serve to meet the same needs. A suitable materials-to-paint ratio would be needed of course. Say, 1 stone per 10 tiles painted? This also could be handled via the designation menu with an option to choose the color. As an upside you could then have whatever color you wanted AND still be able to engrave!
Yeah, paint is the logical solution. I'd rather expand the plant dye spectrum and use that to produce paint. Paints used to be produced from raw eggs with dye added, which would give you something to do with the hundreds of eggs you can collect from a half dozen hens.
Beyond simple color painting, it'd also be cool to have a painter paint in an engraving or paint crafts to add value.
Still though, I don't care for the metagaming with the miners even with certain stone types, especially when it comes to ones you don't want. I just feel that any significant difference in drop rates between dabbling and legendary miners would still come with this.
Im slowly starting to like NW's conceptualization for the final game more and more.
Im slowly starting to like NW's conceptualization for the final game more and more.
With a 5-ore cluster, you've got 23.7% chance of nothing.You also have a getting 39.5% chance of getting 1 less stone than what you would have.
Now, is that really a bad thing?Yes. Imagine what this is like: You defeat a boss in an RPG. He was extremely difficult to kill. You have five treasure chests, with only a 25% chance of anything being in each of them. The loot is always going to be good, so not getting anything would be really upsetting.
goin back on topic (mining rates) - would most (or all) of peoples problems disapear by changing it from 25% from RNG to a 1/4 'counter" (where the first stone/ore of each type mined drops, and every 4th after it (so thats 1st, 5th, 9th, 13th or 4x+1)) thus we get approximately 25% (slightly more, more noticeable with small numbers)Yeah, this could help, but it still doesn't feel completely... right.
each stone type has its own counter (only for stones that have been mined at least once to save on FPS?) so that you cant mine one ore and then 3 stone and maximise ore drops.
the question is, does everyone like randomness? i think most people actually would prefer it, but just putting out an alternativeI either like randomness or hate it, personally. This case, I don't like it since there's no way to influence it. Something like Civ4 where, while there might be luck screws in combat every once and a while, at least you can do some things to influence the chances. Here, you cannot influence the chances.
I'm not opposed to making mining take more thought, just more micro. I'd rather be contemplating the best return on in-game resources than on play time. If I wanted to do the latter I'd go play runescape or something. Rubble is not required to counter strip-mining, any form of hazard would be sufficient.Rubble, I still believe, makes the whole thing slower, which in turn, means that you will try to stop and make the choice of mining those things that give you the most return for your time, rather than just strip-mining everything without a thought, and hence, is required to make the rest of this more interesting.
Gasses and ventilation, likewise, is a long-term dream of mine, which adds many of the same logistics challenges that minecarts will add, although we will probably need either some sort of pumping system, or else a oxygen-producing plant that must be farmed underground to make the system have more meaning than just digging some extra air tiles.
As I said in the other thread, something I'd hopefully like to see mining eventually become is something more akin to a board game where you would have a choice of drawing face-down cards from different decks that promise different things, or perhaps more like a game of minesweeper, where you have clues in the rock that tell you if you are getting close to certain types of minerals or perhaps dangerous events, and you have to make choices as to what you're going to risk mining into and for what potential goods.
Then again, if we're going to that much trouble to make mining realistic, rubble would be little by comparison.
Besides, you really expect the players who think they're wasting their time hauling rubble to look for a better solution than "give up", whether that means ragequiting or just turning rubble off?
Well, I was aiming for a split-the-difference solution. Mining is ridiculously easy now. It seems improper that one dwarf with a copper pick should plow through stone faster than a fleet of TBMs. So not only do they go faster, but they also get better at it? Thats a lot of benefit for the skill compared to other activities. Generally the reverse happens - if you want to produce a really high quality item, you need the skill but it takes the same amount of time as a novice to make a lower-quality item. The skilled person can choose to speed up, but quality drops - so there's the ability to choose the outcome.I really hate to say this, but I think what I've been trying to say is that the speed of mining is really an acceptable break from reality for gameplay purposes. Sure, there's a lot of cool stuff that can be added, but it needs a good balance; such that we are unlikely to strike by committee.
[...]
And maybe that's another variable that should be in this - pick material and hardness of stone. We already fly through soil. Why not make copper picks slower than iron in turn slower than steel, and make mining in granite slower than sandstone slower than chalk? And then apply the above to that. Maybe the current legendary mining speed in stone is what you could do with a steel pick in chalk, but a steel pick in granite or obsidian is ~5x slower, and a copper pick in granite 3x slower than that.
I would argue your analogy isn't applicable, since you didn't have to spend a lot of effort to find the cluster. It'd be more like stumbling upon a random encounter consisting of five chests in a clearing. And exploratory mining would be compared to wandering around hoping for that particular encounter in this analogy.Now, is that really a bad thing?Yes. Imagine what this is like: You defeat a boss in an RPG. He was extremely difficult to kill. You have five treasure chests, with only a 25% chance of anything being in each of them. The loot is always going to be good, so not getting anything would be really upsetting.
Well, 23.7% chance is >1/5 people not getting anything. So they just fought the boss for no reason. That is a bad thing in my opinion. Especially if before, there was a guaranteed chance to always get stuff from the chests, but only a few bits of good stuff per each were allowed.
And as I showed above, on average (in chance) there was also a decrease in the amount of loot you could get. That's bad in my opinion.
I don't like how a master miner has the same chance to gather up something as a complete novice.Hmm... I'll go change that now, then.
There's no poll option that conveys my feelings, so I didn't vote.
Multiple blocks from a rock I do like, for example.
As for a decrease in amount, that's easily ratified with worldgen options/raw files.Both are workarounds, not solutions. And both don't work completely.
As for a decrease in amount, that's easily ratified with worldgen options/raw files. But on average you aren't getting less at all. With a 5-tile cluster, the expected value for the number of blocks is 5*.25 = 1.25 Multiply by 4 bars per block and you get an average of 5 bars per 5-tile cluster. And that's more than you were getting before, because even a legendary miner will occasionally miss one...Good point, but that's different from what I said.
And as I showed above, on average (in chance) there was also a decrease in the amount of loot you could get. That's bad in my opinion.
Essentially, your argument is about the variance. With the old system, the variance was practically nil. But under the new system, the variance is very high (3n to be precise). Still, the odds of you getting less are always balanced out by the odds of getting a lot more.As for a decrease in amount, that's easily ratified with worldgen options/raw files. But on average you aren't getting less at all. With a 5-tile cluster, the expected value for the number of blocks is 5*.25 = 1.25 Multiply by 4 bars per block and you get an average of 5 bars per 5-tile cluster. And that's more than you were getting before, because even a legendary miner will occasionally miss one...Good point, but that's different from what I said.QuoteAnd as I showed above, on average (in chance) there was also a decrease in the amount of loot you could get. That's bad in my opinion.
But I made a shoddy argument, so I drop the point of on average getting less. But I keep my argument of having a larger chance of getting less.
Players who played from 40d or before thought that 0.31 minerals were completely overabundant, and liked the return of limited minerals. Players who started at 0.31 were outraged that they lost access to absurd numbers of minerals and ores that outweighed the actual layer stone and some still choose those absurd high mineral frequency settings. Players since the change back to scarce minerals will just pick a median amount of minerals.
Still, the odds of you getting less are always balanced out by the odds of getting a lot more.Statistically, I agree completely. In general practice, I don't think I can ever agree with that kind of mindset for rare stuff. The chances of getting less are still quite high at 60%--too high for rare minerals (where each piece counts). For normal stone, I have no real problems with the new system at all. For rare minerals, if you miss your chance how many more chances are you going to get?
I try thinking of the fact that, no matter if one happens to get more or less than before, one spends a lot less of one's own personal time getting it.I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken where there's one platinum cluster there's usually more. But then that doesn't account for, say, modded-in metals that occur as single tiles, et cetera.Still, the odds of you getting less are always balanced out by the odds of getting a lot more.Statistically, I agree completely. In general practice, I don't think I can ever agree with that kind of mindset for rare stuff. The chances of getting less are still quite high at 60%--too high for rare minerals (where each piece counts). For normal stone, I have no real problems with the new system at all. For rare minerals, if you miss your chance how many more chances are you going to get?QuoteI try thinking of the fact that, no matter if one happens to get more or less than before, one spends a lot less of one's own personal time getting it.I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Didn't Toady say he didn't change the way ore is mined (aka ore still drops like it is now) but only changed how many bars you can get from 1 piece of ore?Right now, ore is just a form of stone that happens to be smeltable. This means the changes to mining stone apply to ore as well, i.e. it now drops 25% regardless of skill.
As for the latter part, I'm trying to say that while before you'd have to spend a lot of time in micro to make sure only your legendary miners dug into that platinum cluster, possibly even having to wait to train up a legendary miner, now there is little reason not to dig into a cluster as soon as you find it.Personally, before I actually start caring about rare minerals, all (usually 2) of my miners are very high in rank. I tend to like to go overboard with things before I should.
What I've been trying to say is that maybe you should give the randomness a shot. It might not be as bad as you expect, and if it is then we know Toady's not finished with mining yet.I've been messing around with randomness for a long time. There's this whole sub-sub forum called "Roll To Dodge" which has games with randomness down to the core which I frequent. And I've played plenty of Roguelikes and recently Civ4. Those are where I gained the pessimistic attitude. They all have quite a lot of randomness.
I played 40d and I certainly don't remember ever thinking 0.31 minerals were overabundant; especially since the default mineral scarcity is 2500 and 700-800 is what gives a 40d style embark. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the entire reason the mineral scarcity setting was added in the first place was that people overwhelmingly thought that minerals were far too uncommon and that the severe lack of them was crippling their ability to play the game in a way that they want. Not to mention that it was a fairly common complaint that it was easier to find adamantine than iron since you were now guaranteed to find it with the proper map settings while the latter cannot be said for iron.
Beyond that, the 40d spread was far superior not only in terms of the amount of minerals one could find but also the variety. As is, the tendency is still to wind up with a vast host of metals that are largely useless for military matters. I've had plenty of 0.31 forts where I could pave the surface of the entire planet with gold bars and probably three or four forts where I actually found iron.
I've been messing around with randomness for a long time. There's this whole sub-sub forum called "Roll To Dodge" which has games with randomness down to the core which I frequent. And I've played plenty of Roguelikes and recently Civ4. Those are where I gained the pessimistic attitude. They all have quite a lot of randomness.
Hopefully we will also see a return of area-based cave-ins that coincides with introducing real mining concepts like longwall and retreat mining.Not likely, given that open caverns would then collapse.
I concur.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I disagree....That's all you're going to say? Really? Not even why or what you disagree with?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I'd also disagree with how you classify card vs. dice-based randomness, as it seems to me that the distinction is in how well-done and balanced the randomness is, rather than a fundemental difference (as in sampling with or without replacement).
The difference here is in how the player gets the chance to react to the randomness and develop their strategy after the randomness has taken place.
There's a major difference in how satisfied players will feel about one type of randomness over the other - if the player feels that the other side just got lucky, they may feel cheated, or that their actions didn't matter (which is the prime complaint here, actually). If a player feels that they were simply outwitted when the other side played a better hand than they did, then they're more likely to be satisfied even with a loss.This is but one way of viewing things. Mine are closer to the opposite: I feel more as if my actions are futile when I've been dealt a bad hand, whereas win or lose I enjoy the thrill that comes with that one die roll that represents the culmination of all my efforts. I highly doubt I am the only one to have this view, just as I'm certain there are also people who enjoy and who loathe both kinds of chance in their games.
I'd suggest using a priori randomness and a posteriori randomness.
Typically in games, a posteriori randomness is high in balanced situations, and your goal as a player is to narrow those odds of failure as much as possible through skill trees, training, equipment, or strategy. It never goes to zero, but it can get sufficiently small.
One challenge I've found with the card games like Magic is that then are more likely to put the player in unwinnable situations. In D&D, you always have hope that you'll roll a string of 20s.
Getting the balance right is really difficult. With a purely deterministic system, if you don't have the cards, you might as well give up. In a purely random system, you're powerless to influence the results. The game needs to give you initial conditions that aren't so easy or hard that they predetermine the outcome no matter what decisions you make, allow you to tilt the odds through effort, but never fully eliminate the possibility of success or failure.
If you are in a nearly unwinnable situation in D&D, and you need something like 15 natural 20s in a row to survive an encounter, if you win, it was nothing but luck, and you'd know it. It means you failed as a player just as badly as if you'd lost fair and square. In fact, I'd rather lose at that point, generally. Worse, it means that the rounds you should have won you will occasionally lose through no bad decision of your own.And those moments, when you succeed (or fail!) despite all the odds, are what legends are made out of. They're always what sticks with you the longest, even when you've forgotten about everything else.
Granted, my own opinions on this matter are not universal - games like Candyland still exist for a reason, and some people prefer pure randomness with basically no skill that lets everybody win some of the time because they aren't looking for a challenge. (I'm looking at you, Mario Party...)What it seems to me is that you're having a hard time believing that there exists a rather large proportion of gamers who enjoy neither high strategy nor utter chance. Which is understandable; we all have trouble understanding how anyone could like what we don't. But take our word for it, it exists even if you can't see it.
Granted, my own opinions on this matter are not universal - games like Candyland still exist for a reason, and some people prefer pure randomness with basically no skill that lets everybody win some of the time because they aren't looking for a challenge. (I'm looking at you, Mario Party...)What it seems to me is that you're having a hard time believing that there exists a rather large proportion of gamers who enjoy neither high strategy nor utter chance. Which is understandable; we all have trouble understanding how anyone could like what we don't. But take our word for it, it exists even if you can't see it.
He didn't say you don't believe other people have other opinions. He said there are people whose opinions fall in between your own position and the often ridiculing position you ascribe to those who disagree with you. I have also been reading posts by you ascribing to me, not by name but by membership in categories which you have described, that assert opinions on my behalf which I do not hold.What part of "my own opinions are not universal" comes off as "I don't believe other people have different opinions"?Granted, my own opinions on this matter are not universal - games like Candyland still exist for a reason, and some people prefer pure randomness with basically no skill that lets everybody win some of the time because they aren't looking for a challenge. (I'm looking at you, Mario Party...)What it seems to me is that you're having a hard time believing that there exists a rather large proportion of gamers who enjoy neither high strategy nor utter chance. Which is understandable; we all have trouble understanding how anyone could like what we don't. But take our word for it, it exists even if you can't see it.
I'm saying it's a spectrum - some people play Candyland, some people play Chess, and a lot of people fall somewhere in between.The thing is, nobody plays Candyland. You're trumping up the one aspect that isn't in games you enjoy, and figure that it's the main attractor. But it isn't.
However, if you really do enjoy having the possibility that anything you do can be dashed at the last moment by a single bad die roll rather than a lack of skill on your part...Neither do I, but you keep on assuming I do just because I like some element of risk. The games I prefer can only be one or lost on a single die roll if good/poor maneuvering has lined it up that way; it takes nothing less than a string of incredible and nigh-miraculous rolls to overturn skillful play. Most games that I've seen are decided by the accumulation of smaller chance gains, the opportunities for which and impacts of are adjusted through skill.
I'm saying it's a spectrum - some people play Candyland, some people play Chess, and a lot of people fall somewhere in between.The thing is, nobody plays Candyland. You're trumping up the one aspect that isn't in games you enjoy, and figure that it's the main attractor. But it isn't.QuoteHowever, if you really do enjoy having the possibility that anything you do can be dashed at the last moment by a single bad die roll rather than a lack of skill on your part...Neither do I, but you keep on assuming I do just because I like some element of risk. The games I prefer can only be one or lost on a single die roll if good/poor maneuvering has lined it up that way; it takes nothing less than a string of incredible and nigh-miraculous rolls to overturn skillful play. Most games that I've seen are decided by the accumulation of smaller chance gains, the opportunities for which and impacts of are adjusted through skill.
The point is, the "somewhere in between" view which you seem to acknowledge only in passing is really where I and, I believe, most others on this forum reside. The way that you keep emphasizing the extreme seems to me as if you are using a strawman, although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't your intent.
The argument has gone on to the point where I'm not exactly sure what is being argued anymore.
It seems to me almost as if we're trying to argue what 'people' like: a futile pursuit if ever there was one.
Frankly, savescumming takes time and isn't very fun, anyway, so it sort of has its own incentives to not doing it built in
As far as I remember, aluminium was EXTREMELY valuable because of how hard it was to get it pure. Rich folks wold have special aluminium cutlery and dining sets to show off their wealth to visitors, because it was valuable.The thing is, that's only because the culture was enamored by it. So the demand was high and supply low, but in a medieval culture the demand will be much lower; if only because of the extreme improbability of a merchant ever having more than one potential buyer for the substance. It's a "Buyer's Market" at this point, which drives the price down even further.
Prettyness and utility aren't the only influences on value. Sometimes people want stuff just because it's hard to get.
Frankly, savescumming takes time and isn't very fun, anyway, so it sort of has its own incentives to not doing it built in
You got another reply from me for this statement :)
I savescummed like hell to get my current RabbitHut in a nice terrifying reanimating area.
And it sure was worth it, I'm enjoying the payoff every bit 8)
It's akin to how people used to play DnD OD&D / RedBox / etc ...
There were all sorts of rules for "weaponVSArmorType" and even the infamous "random h00ker chart" that were all official rules.
People ignored those rules in the official game, made it their own, and now there are many grognards who drone on about "how great the early DnD rules were"
Savescumming = houseruling :)
You will never stop people from doing it.
(as a side note, I only savescum to gen the world, haven't savescummed the actual huts)
As I recall, native alluminum does exist in certain rare circumstances, such as within certain volcanoes. Probably not really accesible though.Not to people, but to dwarves -- no problem.
The problem with a flat drop rate is that digging out a 10 by 10 hunk of marble and getting between 20 and 30 stones isn't a big deal but carefully digging out the few safe squares of candy on the edge of a tube and getting nothing is going to want to make me execute the miner way more then having an untrained fool waste a vein of silver ever did.That metal is currently 100% drop, specifically because of this.
Last I checked deep metal was a guaranteed 100% drop, and I doubt that changed unless Toady forgot something. All gems now drop 100% too, which I think is nice.
If anything though, 100% drop rates will be by tag as apposed to by cluster size, because I don't think the game remembers cluster associations after worldgen.
These are Dwarves we're talking about, the main things they have in abundance are foolishness, greed, enemies, stone, and metal.
Were it up to me, I'd increase the flat drop rate of stone by about 10-20%, and I'd increase the drop rate of ores dramatically, to something like 75-80%. I'd leave the "1 Ore Chunk=4 Bars" rule in effect, though. The idea being to make metalworking very lucrative and making the export of metal products into the staple go-to when it comes to trade.
I'm having a lot of difficulty understanding the complains in this thread, tbh. The new fort I started in 0.34.08 is extremely resource rich. Especially when combined with the hauling changes, my metal and stone industries are running faster and more productively than ever, and I no longer need to keep about half my fortress employed as haulers on endless garbage dumping duty.I'm pretty sure a decent amount of people were complaining about rare minerals being screwed over. Personally, I'm perfectly fine with common minerals and large clusters and veins having this change, as they'll likely not feel much, but rare small clusters and single tile ores have basically become a game of chance. Both because there's a significant chance of getting nothing, and the mode result is 1 metal less.
Also, sorry if this has been mentioned, but from what I can see in my game, platinum is a 100% drop.Can anyone confirm this?
These are Dwarves we're talking about, the main things they have in abundance are foolishness, greed, enemies, stone, and metal.
Were it up to me, I'd increase the flat drop rate of stone by about 10-20%, and I'd increase the drop rate of ores dramatically, to something like 75-80%. I'd leave the "1 Ore Chunk=4 Bars" rule in effect, though. The idea being to make metalworking very lucrative and making the export of metal products into the staple go-to when it comes to trade.
So you're saying...
"We always have more metal ore than we can do anything with," but also saying, "We should have three times as much metal ore as we already get."
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning, here.
These are Dwarves we're talking about, the main things they have in abundance are foolishness, greed, enemies, stone, and metal.
These are Dwarves we're talking about, the main things they have in abundance are foolishness, greed, enemies, stone, and metal.
Were it up to me, I'd increase the flat drop rate of stone by about 10-20%, and I'd increase the drop rate of ores dramatically, to something like 75-80%. I'd leave the "1 Ore Chunk=4 Bars" rule in effect, though. The idea being to make metalworking very lucrative and making the export of metal products into the staple go-to when it comes to trade.
So you're saying...
"We always have more metal ore than we can do anything with," but also saying, "We should have three times as much metal ore as we already get."
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning, here.
Export (lots of)iron bolts to the Goblins and Elves, steel stuff to the Humans, precious metals and steel to the mountain homes. Later on, a steady stream of metal products going out to the sprawl around the fortress, equipment for the armies you're sending out, and tribute to the king. Stuff for the fortress itself to upgrade the trap system and to repair and replace all those damaged, broken, and worn-out things. Knick-knacks for your Dwarves when the economy returns. You also can't forget a steady trickle of gold, silver, and platinum for your hoard(Gotta draw those throngs of Goblins, Kobolds, Dragons, Giants and everything else in somehow).
Several ways to use metals in the game now, and even more later.
I know my opinion is obviously quite overwhelmingly crushed based on the vote,Don't be so pessimistic. ~20% are mixed or against. And 25% think it is better, but could easily be even better, which could be taken as "It's a step in the right direction, but there's some serious problems".
I will admit I like the blocks being more economical now. But as with ores, flux gets ruined now, and I have 3 or 4x as much wasted space because I had to needlessly mine that out with legendary miners just to get what i needed for a few steel spears and swords.Nah, I agree, we could use some tweaks in regards to flux since I think it's something Toady overlooked when the new version was put out. I think it should work sort of like blocks, you should be able to take a flux boulder to a workshop (mason's?) and make four flux bars out of it. Then you would get the proper numbers of flux from the stone and keeping stockpiles of the stuff wouldn't be so cumbersome, since bars stack and can be put in bins.
Wtf, are miners relegated to sightly less useless fish cleaners now?Well, despite the dwarvish bond with stone, I always thought of miners as being unskilled laborers anyhow since the task is pretty simple. All they're doing is smashing rock into rough shapes for the engravers to work with, who are probably tasked with all the fine details that make a great hall look so grand.
The rate at which you aquire ordinary metal has not changedActually, yes it has. It changed from a constant stream to a fluctuating bumpy ride, because you only have a 25% chance to get 4 blocks, meaning it won't be a linear line like it used to be.
the rate at which you aquire construction material is also not changed,I don't think anyone did complain much about this.
the rate at which you find rare metals is quadrupeled,Checking the other thread, hmm, indeed it seems my complains are now null and void.
Generally, if you have flux you have a lot of it, so this isn't really an issue.Unless you embark on a site with a few levels of Flux in the corner of the map with half of the layers covered with ore. :P
Oh come on, I will not accept "I forgot miners have picks, one of the deadliest weapons available" (I will accept "I did not know that"). Treating miners like the other drone job holders will result in extremely !!FUN!! tantrum spirals. If anything, from the perspective of training up a pick-equipped militia, this change makes it amazingly easy to train up legendary weapon users.Wtf, are miners relegated to sightly less useless fish cleaners now?Well, despite the dwarvish bond with stone, I always thought of miners as being unskilled laborers anyhow since the task is pretty simple. All they're doing is smashing rock into rough shapes for the engravers to work with, who are probably tasked with all the fine details that make a great hall look so grand.
Also, sorry if this has been mentioned, but from what I can see in my game, platinum is a 100% drop.Can anyone confirm this?
Yeah, but picks don't count as a weapon skill for intents of using them as soldiers. They get bad thoughts every time they're called up.Only while they don't have at least Novice in at least one martial skill. As soon as they get to Novice Dodging, or Novice Fighter, or whatever, they stop getting the bad thought when being called to active service. Same for recruits being put off duty. If they don't have at least one civilian skill at Novice or greater, they get the unhappy thought of being relieved from duty.
Easy enough. Let's say you got 8 out of 10 platinum. So P^ = .8Also, sorry if this has been mentioned, but from what I can see in my game, platinum is a 100% drop.Can anyone confirm this?
This could be luck, but here are the last two platinum clusters I've mined out in my current fort as of this point:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
There's a nugget or two missing from each one, but they weren't that recent and I've been refining platinum fairly heavily. I'll look for some other clusters and see if I'm just being weirdly lucky with the drops; I'm sure I remember them all dropping when they were mined, because I remember thinking "oh good, at least platinum still drops well". Someone needs to crack open Reveal and do some !!Science!!.
Easy enough. Let's say you got 8 out of 10 platinum. So P^ = .8Also, sorry if this has been mentioned, but from what I can see in my game, platinum is a 100% drop.Can anyone confirm this?
This could be luck, but here are the last two platinum clusters I've mined out in my current fort as of this point:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
There's a nugget or two missing from each one, but they weren't that recent and I've been refining platinum fairly heavily. I'll look for some other clusters and see if I'm just being weirdly lucky with the drops; I'm sure I remember them all dropping when they were mined, because I remember thinking "oh good, at least platinum still drops well". Someone needs to crack open Reveal and do some !!Science!!.
H0: p=.25 Ha: p>.25
*checks STAT 350 notes*
*crunches numbers*
*reads t-distribution table*
*reaches conclusion*
There actually is significant evidence that it might not be a coincidence. More research must be done.
EDIT:
The exact numbers would be very helpful. It would make a huge difference if it was 7/10, for instance.
Yea. I can collect all of the presents from Goblin christmas in a few days instead of years.
Honestly, most people don't even do real time-consuming projects because we honestly DON'T have much time to play. The longer it takes to set up a fort or complete a task, the less likely we'll ever enjoy it because we wouldn't be able to have fun or !!FUN!! within our timeframe/attention span. The game is reasonably paced right now and there's certainly difficulty for anyone not prepared to deal with the naturally occuring !!FUN!!, and unnatural difficulty can be applied through mods, but making resources more scarce doesn't really make things more difficult in the sense that you're in mortal danger, just more tedious and time-consuming. Less resources = less enjoyable and a longer wait for anything to happen, which sucks.
Of course, I am tackling the concept from the standpoint that I absolutely hate grindfest-type games that demand you waste time and energy on resource acquisition before blowing shit up/even encountering real problems, like being killed. I don't want resources to take more work to obtain as much as I want to take my massive hoard oflegosstone and make a castle of horrors of such ridiculous complexity that I forget how to operate it, then enjoy the brand-new combat AI that makes defeating a siege far more satisfying and more difficult. I do such sadistic things as throwing a half dozen legendary soldiers against a horde of giants, because that's both fun to watch and !!FUN!! when the tantrum spiral starts because Urist mcDead was married, had a dozen kids, and was friends with everyone else. Waiting for blocks to be ready for my megaproject? No. I've been happy with rough stone boulders because I like to start as soon as possible.
The problem with that is, what you're describing isn't a game at all - it's just a construction set.
A construction set where you have infinite powers, and you just use the terrain as your canvas is fine and all, but it's not a game and it has no challenges.
The game that DF is moving towards and should be isn't something where you move blocks around for 20 hours before deleting the world and making another world again and starting over from scratch.
It should, instead, be a 300-hour project where you scratch your way up from meager beginnings to controlling a world-spanning empire, with every step along the way adding additional challenge and complexity until you are simultaniously juggling the military strategies of an army on the march, their logistical needs, the intra-court politics of your king and nobles, relations between the dwarves and their tigermen and antmen allies over the benefits of citizenry, maintaining farm production, keeping the citizens of your capital entertained with bread and circuses, keeping guild conflicts to a minimum, keeping the minecarts running on time, getting enough barrels made to keep booze production running, and making sure the mandates and moods get completed.
The tagline of the game is "Losing is Fun" because Toady wants us to keep coming back to the same fort and world with its ever-increasing depth and personality rather than just deleting the world and starting another random one every time you're done pushing around your lego megaprojects.
The construction set things will still be there, but there's so much more game to be added onto DF.
I know other people have raised these points but I still feel like chiming in. I like most of the changes, but the lowered drop rate means I can't build as many mechanisms and crafts (and I build a LOT of those), and my legendary miners are not really much better than novices. If you could make furniture/mechanisms/crafts out of blocks and if the manager would list options for metal mechanisms, it would be a non-issue.I think useable blocks is the next logical step I really hope toady comes around.
I've never had a problem with too much stone, but I use quantum stockpiles and atom-smashers to clear up clutter and I understand that some people prefer not to do that.
I like most of the changes, but the lowered drop rate means I can't build as many mechanisms and crafts (and I build a LOT of those)Do you make them because you enjoy using them as trade goods, or because it's a way of getting rid of the stone that you'd otherwise be atom-smashing?
Isn't difficult steel production a good thing? It is way to easy as it is now considering all the benefits you reap.
Wait what? Using blocks for smelting?
How would that make sense? Before one bar of steel would use a total of two ores and a flux and a charcoal.
With the changes, one ore should then produce two bars of steel, flux and fuel notwithstanding.
Assuming exactly 1/4 drops, for a 4 tile area, you would get the same amount.
Do you make them because you enjoy using them as trade goods, or because it's a way of getting rid of the stone that you'd otherwise be atom-smashing?
Mechanisms (and other things that need to be made from raw stone) are an interesting case. If you're making enough of them for the 1/4 drop rate to be an issue, then the labour and infrastructure you already had available for your mechanism-using megaproject can be briefly diverted into pump part production in order to set up an obsidian farm.
Do you make them because you enjoy using them as trade goods, or because it's a way of getting rid of the stone that you'd otherwise be atom-smashing?
Mechanisms (and other things that need to be made from raw stone) are an interesting case. If you're making enough of them for the 1/4 drop rate to be an issue, then the labour and infrastructure you already had available for your mechanism-using megaproject can be briefly diverted into pump part production in order to set up an obsidian farm.
I use crafts to level up my masons and as my primary trade goods. I tend to load caravans down with as much as they can possibly carry, both to make them happier (and thus bring me more stuff next time) and to inflate my fortress wealth to bring in more fun.
For mechanisms, grates, floodgates, statues, and other such things... well, I like to build excessive amounts of traps, bridges and waterways.
I don't think catapults can use blocks as ammo either. I know siege weapons are not very effective, but hopefully that will change in the future. Not sure about stone-fall traps.
Obsidian farming is what I will probably end up doing.
I wasn't aware that creating blocks gave you more building material. I was going to complain about the lack of boulders makes it harder to build walls but this does change things quite a bit. I did like the lack of stupid amounts of rock
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
One thing I've noticed, if you embark with nothing but a little food and the supplies for a metal industry on the wagon, you can have two guys in steel equipment using just what you brought with you. Before you'd have had to have used bronze to get a reasonable amount of metal for the standard number of embark points.It's good, isn't it? If you spend all your points on bronzemaking supplies, you can have a Legendary +5 Armoursmith before the first caravan leaves. And that's without melting down older pieces to reclaim metal for another dwarf to use in their training.
1 / 4 * 5 = 1.25
You'd have to be significantly unlucky to get less lignite now than you would have before.
Where are you getting that statistic, exactly? Because I'm definitely getting less lignite now than before.
When I was playing 34.7, I was managing to get almost all of the valuable ores out of veins whenever I mined with my miners minus maybe one or two stones. I updated to 34.11 and now I'm only getting a fourth of that. My metal and clay manufacturing industries have ground to a freaking halt.
Crafts train stonecrafting, not masonry. Metal crafts can easily susbstitude stone ones, especially if you just make a few high-quality gold ones (like it's good for anything else). The rest are totally valid though. Mechanisms and the like will need tweaking to make multiple from one boulder (I mean, it's meant to be about 10 metres cubed? You would have to be pretty inefficient to make ONE chair from that.).
Stone fall traps are moderately more effective with boulders being larger and/or denser now.
Eeyup. And web them if you can too. Stunned creatures always get hit on the head, and stone traps suddenly become extremely lethal one shot head smashers when their quarry is stuck.Stone fall traps are moderately more effective with boulders being larger and/or denser now.I wasn't sure if it actually calculated that. Does that mean denser stone does more damage? Is it worth keeping a stockpile of say, chert near my traps?
Eeyup. And web them if you can too. Stunned creatures always get hit on the head, and stone traps suddenly become extremely lethal one shot head smashers when their quarry is stuck.Stone fall traps are moderately more effective with boulders being larger and/or denser now.I wasn't sure if it actually calculated that. Does that mean denser stone does more damage? Is it worth keeping a stockpile of say, chert near my traps?
Heh, quarry.
Heh, quarry.Ten points.
Also, sorry if this has been mentioned, but from what I can see in my game, platinum is a 100% drop.Can anyone confirm this?
The RNG always gives you snake eyes.I like this quote, I'll have to drop it somewhere in my sigpost. You're part of Bay12 history. Again.
Also, sorry if this has been mentioned, but from what I can see in my game, platinum is a 100% drop.
Also steel furniture. Flaunt your wealth with steel cabinets!That's basically my plan. I've got 10 steel sarcophagi, 3 with dwarves in them. Once i get a few other things sorted i was planning more steel furniture.