Metalcrafting continues to be useful when dealing with base metals, whose value increases greatly in alloys, and also has some value just for sheer variety's sake. But blacksmithing just gets hosed there; due to the fact that metal furniture takes up three times as many raw materials, you're unquestionably better off (at least in terms of total value) just carving furniture directly from all your malachite/sphalerite/etc. Admittedly metal has some furniture options not possible with stone, particularly barrels and bins, but this version seems to have higher potential availability of wood (at least on moderate or better trees) and less convenient/reliable access to massive amounts of base metals.
I can understand why there might be some value to working with ore-bearing stones in their raw state--I know rocks bearing samples of native copper and silver get used in jewelry sometimes (although I'm not really familiar with gold or platinum being used this way), same with malachite, hematite etc. But it seems to be pushing it to have most metals worth just as much raw as they are as refined metals, and it's downright absurd that the precious metals potentially lose value from being extracted in a smelter.
[ November 05, 2007: Message edited by: RPB ]
quote:
Originally posted by axus:
This ties in to the other threads about quantity of ore used per bar...
Like this one. Precious metals definetely need to be harder to find, or at least harder to find in quantity, that's what makes them precious.
quote:
Originally posted by Vanigo:
Or maybe increase the number of bars per ore when you smelt native metals?
Um, I think that's the opposite of what needs to happen.
Edit: Let me explain better. Instead of making making the ore produce more bars, let's change the ore so it contains less metal. That way it better reflects how ore is really found. Instead of having these "ore"s that are basically identical to pure metal and make several bars, make the ore contain only a little tiny bit of metal. It would take 10 ores to make one bar of pure metal.
Your solution works too, but still leaves huge amounts of metal everywhere. Sorry if that was unclear earlier.
[ November 06, 2007: Message edited by: Turgid Bolk ]
quote:
Originally posted by Turgid Bolk:
<STRONG>Um, I think that's the opposite of what needs to happen.
Edit: Let me explain better. Instead of making making the ore produce more bars, let's change the ore so it contains less metal. That way it better reflects how ore is really found. Instead of having these "ore"s that are basically identical to pure metal and make several bars, make the ore contain only a little tiny bit of metal. It would take 10 ores to make one bar of pure metal.
Your solution works too, but still leaves huge amounts of metal everywhere. Sorry if that was unclear earlier.
[ November 06, 2007: Message edited by: Turgid Bolk ]</STRONG>
The problem is that these two things solve completely different problems, and are mutually incompatable.
In DF, you can carve a block of stone from a vein of gold into a table worth 300* (base value). Alternately, you can take three blocks from the same vein, smelt them into gold bars, and use all three gold bars produced to forge a single solid gold table... which also is worth 300*. This is a problem. Smelting the rock down to pure gold actually reduces its effective value per unit volume. The simple solution, of course, is to cut the value of mineral stones to one-third or less their current value.
New problem: This works for precious metals, but try applying it to base metals such as copper. A table carved from pure malachite, or a stone containing native copper, is worth 20*. The same table forged from pure copper, requiring metal bars equal to three blocks of stone, would also be worth 20*. We could cut the value of the table carved from copper ore to 1/3 its present value... except that a basic rock table is worth 10*. So that would make copper ore worth less than plain rock (actually, in a sense the pure copper table is already worth less than the plain rock table since it already consumes three times as much raw material for a table that's only worth twice as much). Now hey, copper isn't tremendously valuable and it's not so horrible a stretch if you fudge the numbers a bit one way or another... but reducing the amount of metal you can smelt per unit of ore stretches things worse and worse.
Of course, even as I type this the actual solution to all these issues just smacked me in the face in its obviousness. Different ores absolutely NEED to produce metal at different rates! Base metals should potentially have higher bar production than at present: malachite, native copper ore, and pure copper should all be worth more per unit volume than basic rock, which would require either that copper ores produce more than 1 bar per unit ore or that metal objects required fewer bars than they currently do (either way, taking 1 unit of copper ore and smelting it should let you produce more copper goods than at present--unless their values are simply bumped upwards, but that would call for adjusting the values of everything that's worth more than copper too). However, there is absolutely no need for precious metal veins, particularly ultra-rare native platinum and aluminum, to have the same rate of production.
At the same time, of course, the value of precious metal ores in their raw form still needs to come down. That rocks containing nuggets of gold or platinum would be worth noticeably more than plain rocks, or rocks containing base metals, is sensible enough; that they're worth as much or potentially even more than pure solid metal (potentially WAY, WAY more, if those ores also produced less metal per unit consumed at the smelter) is absurd.
[ November 07, 2007: Message edited by: RPB ]
quote:
Originally posted by RPB in the other thread:
<STRONG>Ore does not "have" metal. Ore is ore. Metal is metal. The two are unrelated in DF, except in that the smelter can magically transform chunks of ore into metal bars.</STRONG>
We seem to have different definitions of ore. Here's the one I have (from my dictionary): "a metal-bearing mineral or rock, or a native metal, that can be mined at a profit." (It may be that DF is not trying to use this definition. Please correct me if this is the case.)
In other words, ore is rock that has bits of metal in it. So, to me, it makes sense that ore should be worth little more than rock, because it is mostly rock. I don't see how this conflicts with anything.
When you take that ore and extract the metal from the rock at a smelter, it's suddenly worth more. It takes a lot of raw ore to get enough metal to make a pure metal table, but that table will be worth quite a bit more. A table carved from malachite is currently worth 20*, but it should be worth the same as a regular rock table or just slightly more, and certainly not less (say, 10* or 11*). You said
quote:
Base metals should potentially have higher bar production than at present: malachite, native copper ore, and pure copper should all be worth more per unit volume than basic rock, which would require either that copper ores produce more than 1 bar per unit ore or that metal objects required fewer bars than they currently do...
but I disagree here. Pure copper is the only thing that should be more valuable than rock here. One unit of copper ore should not equal one bar of metal, it should take a few units of ore to make one bar. The problem I think you're pointing out is that it would take a ton of copper ore to make a single pure copper table, which is still only worth 20*. All that tells me is that tables are not a very worthwhile use for copper. Copper is not much more valuable than rock anyway. Making a pure gold table *would* be a worthwhile use for gold, though, because pure gold is worth very much more than rock and gold ore.
I do agree wholeheartedly that different ores should produce metal at different rates. I also agree that precious metal ore should not be worth as much as it is; in fact all ore should not be worth much.
Ok, bedtime for me. :D
[ November 07, 2007: Message edited by: Turgid Bolk ]
quote:
Originally posted by Turgid Bolk:
<STRONG>We seem to have different definitions of ore.</STRONG>
No. My definition of ore is identical to yours. Dwarf Fortress's definition is quite different, however, because Dwarf Fortress is an abstract computer simulation and it defines its objects in arbitrary ways that have no direct connection with reality or logic. I am still not entirely certain you are quite grasping this fact.
quote:
Originally posted by Turgid Bolk:
<STRONG>but I disagree here. Pure copper is the only thing that should be more valuable than rock here.</STRONG>
A lot of ore minerals make for awfully damn fancy rock, you know. They should be priced more in line with semiprecious stones than basic rock. Granted, even with compounds like hematite and malachite you are presumably not mining out 100% pure specimens, but I think it's a smaller stretch to round up than down.
quote:
Originally posted by Turgid Bolk:
<STRONG>One unit of copper ore should not equal one bar of metal, it should take a few units of ore to make one bar. The problem I think you're pointing out is that it would take a ton of copper ore to make a single pure copper table, which is still only worth 20*. All that tells me is that tables are not a very worthwhile use for copper. Copper is not much more valuable than rock anyway.</STRONG>
If it took more than one unit of copper ore, then there would rarely be anything ever that would be a worthwhile use for copper. At a ratio of 3+ ore : 1 bar, you have reached the point where copper would be less valuable than the rock chaff it's mined from. You could take 3 chunks of sandstone or granite and craft them into trade goods worth 3X or furniture worth 1X, or you could take 3 chunks of copper-bearing ore and smelt them into one bar which would net you trade goods worth 2X, or a one-third-part of furniture worth 0.67X. Copperworking would in all cases mean more labor for less value than basic stonecrafting. This is terrible from a game balance perspective and questionable from a realism one.
[ November 07, 2007: Message edited by: RPB ]
Rather than modifying the output rates, or changing one value and trying to shoehorn that value so it makes sense compared to others, it'd be simplier, and cleaner, to just change the modifiers in general.
So make refined metal, say, four or more times more valuble than their ore - atleast in most cases; some ore-bearing materials with independent value may have value disproportionate to their metal yeild.
At the low end, this creates a logical conflict with things like rock; the easy answer? Slightly increase the value of the cheaper metals so you can maintain the ratio without getting into fractions. However, this will create issues with the value of slightly more expensive metals, etc. The end result is to either slightly increase the value of all metals, or keep the high-ends more or less the same, and simply flatten the curve a little such that better metal doesn't provide quite so much a value advantage as it did.
Tho you could always increase the amount of stone needed to make some items so as to move it more in line with that of metal.
Now, some orces might actualy be valuable in it's own right. Hematite, and iron ore, looks great when polished. Oh hey, theres an idea, Polished stone blocks.
Wolfius has a good point too. Just require more stone for stone items.
[ November 07, 2007: Message edited by: Sketchy ]
quote:
Originally posted by RPB:
No. My definition of ore is identical to yours. Dwarf Fortress's definition is quite different, however, because Dwarf Fortress is an abstract computer simulation and it defines its objects in arbitrary ways that have no direct connection with reality or logic. I am still not entirely certain you are quite grasping this fact.
I do understand that, but DF tries to model some aspects of reality, however loosely. That's why it has things like rock layers, malachite, and smelters, all of which are based on real-world counterparts. Malachite in the real world is mined from limestone, and becomes copper at a smelter. I would expect DF to follow through with this model as much as possible without becoming too boring. The fact that it should be changed to model this well is the whole point of the thread, I thought.
I hope it helps Toady out. In any case, I've contributed my idea.
To stay in topic, I would add that tinkering with raw mineral values may unbalance trading (if or when caravans are able to bring some ore). For me, a mix of the various options may be the best solution :
- One "ore" should yield 2-3 ingots (depending of the mineral, same as for lignite and bituminous coal)
- raw minerals should worth between 2/3 and 3/4 of the smelted metal
- reduce the ingot need of furniture/statues from 3 to 2
quote:
Originally posted by Turgid Bolk:
<STRONG>I do understand that, but DF tries to model some aspects of reality, however loosely. That's why it has things like rock layers, malachite, and smelters, all of which are based on real-world counterparts. Malachite in the real world is mined from limestone, and becomes copper at a smelter. I would expect DF to follow through with this model as much as possible without becoming too boring.</STRONG>
But the fact is that DF deviates from reality in quite unexpected ways, which you don't seem to be fully taking into account. Your suggestions are not bad, but DF as it is now cannot support them without some relatively sweeping changes which you haven't touched on.
quote:
Originally posted by Yag Alone:
<STRONG>- One "ore" should yield 2-3 ingots (depending of the mineral, same as for lignite and bituminous coal)
- raw minerals should worth between 2/3 and 3/4 of the smelted metal
- reduce the ingot need of furniture/statues from 3 to 2</STRONG>
These numbers sound OK to me as far as base metals go (copper, tin, lead, etc.) I still think that when it comes to nuggets of precious metals, though, things out to be more skewed: it should take a couple of stones' worth of nuggets to make 1 ingot of gold/platinum/aluminum, and the raw stone bearing those nuggets should be worth a quite small fraction of the smelted metal's value. Because really, under current mechanics platinum and native aluminum are available in absolutely obscene quantities. The amount of material you can get from a copper or iron vein right now is excessive, but not mind-bogglingly so. Since the game doesn't do a very good job of modeling truly large-scale mining operations, it's a reasonable concession to game balance to allow the dwarves' smaller-scale mining operations to output an overly generous quantity of base metal to work with. But the amount of platinum you can extract from a single vein is staggering. I imagine that a fortress with a map area of 5x5--call it about a square mile, and that's a high end esetimate--could, if it had abundant magnetite reserves to spawn platinum veins, conceivably produce more platinum than exist in the modern world's entire combined platinum stockpiles.
Actually the problem may not be that furniture/statues need so many units of metal, but that they need so few units of stone. Stone crafts do make a certain amount of sense with current values. It is entirely reasonable that you could take a big block of stone containing native copper/silver/gold nuggets, chip out the nuggets by hand, and work the resulting fairly pure metal into a couple of small trinkets without ever needing to smelt the raw ore into refined metal. Historically, a lot of cultures have done exactly that. Obviously such items need to be worth a little bit less than ones made from metal that's been purified and refined, but the game's current model is not entirely unreasonable here. It's the idea of "Native gold cabinets" where the game's sense of sanity goes boink. Maybe stone from veins of native metals should be flagged as being unusable for furniture? That would be a start, and would help solve a lot of headaches; native nuggets could keep a value close to pure metal (since the assumption would be that anything created from those veins is being made using the small bit of relatively pure metal anyhow), those minerals which have some decorative value (malachite, probably others as well) could be priced as the relatively valuable stone that they are, and those that aren't can have their prices cut to plain rock.
In fairness the idea of carving furniture from chunks of malachite is a bit of a stretch too; malachites large enough to carve dwarf-scale furniture do exist, but it's my understanding that those are very rare and exceptional specimens. It doesn't seem too crazy that you could conceivably mine out a cube of a reasonably rich vein of malachite and have enough malachite stone to cobble together a stone cabinet with presentable malachite veneers, or a malachite mosaic tabletop on a stone pedestal, or something else which could be reasonably modeled as a "malachite cabinet" or "malachite table".
[ November 07, 2007: Message edited by: RPB ]